Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Recent Progress, Ongoing Challenges, and Future Directions

Luisa Madruga

The biodiversity of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea is valued internationally for its uniqueness and locally for its contribution to human welfare, but it is under growing anthropogenic pressure. We provide an overview of recent progress, ongoing challenges, and future directions for terrestrial and marine conservation. The islands were colonized in the late fifteenth century and have since relied heavily on international markets. Nevertheless, the livelihoods of many islanders depend directly on local natural resources, and growing human populations and economies are intensifying the use of these resources, including timber, land, and fisheries. Here we summarize conservation initiatives on the islands, including pivotal projects and achievements, as well as the rise of civil society and governmental engagement. We also review species and site-based conservation priorities and highlight the need for continuous updating based on ongoing research. Engagement in conservation has increased steadily in recent decades but not fast enough to counteract the growth of anthropogenic pressure on biodiversity. Fostering capacity building, environmental awareness, and research is thus urgent to ensure a thriving future for the islands, able to reconcile economic development and biodiversity conservation.

Luis M. P. Ceríaco · Ricardo F. de Lima Martim Melo · Rayna C. Bell Editors Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Science and Conservation Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Luis M. P. Ceríaco • Ricardo F. de Lima • Martim Melo • Rayna C. Bell Editors Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Science and Conservation Editors Luis M. P. Ceríaco Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto Porto, Portugal Martim Melo CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos InBIO Laboratório Associado Universidade do Porto Vairão, Portugal Ricardo F. de Lima Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c) Faculdade de Ciêncas, Universidade de Lisboa Lisbon, Portugal Rayna C. Bell Herpetology Department California Academy of Sciences San Francisco, CA, USA ISBN 978-3-031-06152-3 ISBN 978-3-031-06153-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0 (eBook) Associação BIOPOLIS Sponsoring Party Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources - Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology (CIBIO), University of Porto, Campus de Vairão, Vila do Conde, Portugal Represented by Nuno Miguel dos Santos Ferrand de Almeida (Director of CIBIO) © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2022. This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a speciﬁc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional afﬁliations. Front cover photo: ©Alexandre Vaz This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Foreword 1 The islands of São Tomé and Príncipe emerged from relatively ancient volcanic activity, dating back 30 million years. Due to their isolation from the African continent, the fauna and ﬂora are quite unique. The refuges that resulted from these volcanic phenomena gave rise to a high degree of endemic species, including bats, birds, reptiles, amphibians, butterﬂies, molluscs, as well as a great variety of ﬂora. The richness of the islands’ biodiversity is recognized by the scientiﬁc world, which considers the tropical forest of São Tomé and Príncipe as the second most important for the conservation of avifauna, among 75 African forests. Biological diversity in São Tomé and Príncipe is manifested not only in terms of species richness and endemism. Despite the country’s relatively small area, the diversity of its ecosystems is equally impressive, particularly in the forestry domain. The shade forests are particularly noteworthy as they house cocoa crops that support the national economy. Cocoa production requires the maintenance of forest cover to shade the plants, a practice that also helps to maintain high levels of forest biodiversity in producing countries. With a total land area of around 1000 km2, the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe are home to a great diversity of habitats ranging from savannas and mangroves in the coastal areas, to shade forests, low and medium altitude forests, and fog forests at altitudes of more than 2000 m. The forests are characterized by several endemic species, including the Giant Lobelia, Lobelia barnsii and many species of mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. The birds are truly exceptional with more than 28 species of endemic birds including Maroon Pigeons, Columba thomensis, the São Tomé Green-Pigeon, Treron sanctithomae, the Sao Tome Ibis, Bostrychia bocagei, and the famous Sao Tome Prinia, Prinia molleri. The Prinia is also present in urban areas of the country and greets the islands’ human inhabitants with its rhythmic wing ﬂaps in the morning. The Tinhosas islets, located 22 km from the island of Principe, are home to one of the largest colonies of seabirds in our African sub-region, which makes them the main nursery of seabirds in the Gulf of Guinea. This status, according to Birdlife International, makes them an area of worldwide importance for bird conservation. v vi Foreword 1 The extraordinary biodiversity of the islands contributed to the island of Príncipe becoming part of the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves in 2012. Throughout its existence, the population of São Tomé and Príncipe has been closely linked to the country’s biological resources, through agriculture, ﬁshing, harvesting, medicine, recreation, tourism, and also through cultural events. In recognition of the importance of biodiversity for the lives of the population, and that the issue of biodiversity conservation is a common concern for all of Humanity, the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe became a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity in June 1992, in Rio de Janeiro. States must assume the main responsibility in the search for feasible and effective conservation. After its ratiﬁcation, several steps were taken at the international level to obtain the necessary means to implement the recommendations contained in Article 6 of the Convention, namely in terms of the elaboration and implementation of national strategies, plans and programmes aiming at conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, as well as the integration of these same objectives in the speciﬁc framework of the different sectoral and intersectoral plans and programmes. The Biodiversity Action Plan of São Tomé and Príncipe aims for the local population to use natural resources in a way that contributes to poverty reduction and allows for sustainable socio-economic development. The present work “The Biodiversity of the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea” represents without a doubt, an important contribution to the knowledge of the rich biodiversity of São Tomé and Príncipe. Biodiversity is central to the current and future socio-economic development of the county, and there is a clear need to expand research that furthers knowledge of our biodiversity and identiﬁes solutions that lead to its sustainable use. I proudly provide a foreword to the present work, certain of its potential to encourage our national academia and inspire a new generation of researchers. President of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, Neves, São Tomé and Príncipe December 2021 Carlos Vila Nova Foreword 2 For more than 30 years, the EU and its partners have been supporting the preservation of biodiversity and fragile ecosystems in Central Africa, notably through the ECOFAC programme. ECOFAC was launched in 1993 with the objective to promote the conservation and rational use of Central Africa’s forest heritage, taking into account the socio-economic and environmental particularities of its landscapes. This programme follows the intentions expressed in the “Lomé III” Convention (8 December 1984), between the European Economic Community and the African, Caribbean, and Paciﬁc Group of States, aiming to strengthen cooperation for the economic, cultural, and social development of these States. In the Brazzaville Declaration of 31 May 1990, on the conservation and rational use of forest ecosystems in Central Africa, the representatives of seven countries submitted a request to the Commission, which was agreed on 26 October 1990. São Tomé and Príncipe has been beneﬁtting directly from the Programme since its inception. A great deal of knowledge has been gained over the last 30 years that has helped to shape the conservation sector in Central African countries. This knowledge has led to a better understanding of species diversity and ecosystems, the development of a sub-regional network of protected areas, and to valuable information for their effective management. The ECOFAC Programme has also played a pivotal role to build capacity and human capital in conservation in Central Africa. Over the course of these three decades, paradigms around protected areas have evolved. These areas were mainly oriented towards strict conservation in the beginning, but the approach is increasingly integrating the needs of human populations and the notion of landscape, establishing a new paradigm around “conservation for development”. Fundamental and applied conservation research continues to be an essential component of the management of protected areas and their surroundings. This work encompasses a wide range of themes, and increasingly integrates socio-economic and biological research. Understanding how ecosystems and species respond to human pressures is essential as human population growth accelerates. With continuous support from the European Union, the ECOFAC Programme is now in its sixth phase. This makes ECOFAC the oldest European programme in vii viii Foreword 2 Central Africa, a sign of the European Union’s lasting political commitment to the region, speciﬁcally regarding conservation. The general objective of the ECOFAC 6 Programme is to improve the governance of natural resources and the management of protected areas, to contribute to a green economy characterized by endogenous, sustainable, and inclusive economic development. As the implementing partner of the ECOFAC 6 component for the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, BirdLife International has been working closely with park management authorities, government ministries, and communities to promote research, empowerment, and the conservation of threatened and unique birds and their habitats. This book is an important step towards meeting these objectives, synthesizing centuries of research into a single volume that is freely accessible to researchers, educators, policy makers, and the public. The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea—Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón— are three small volcanic islands off the west coast of Central Africa. They are home to a remarkable number of unique species across the tree of life, including plants, mushrooms, spiders, butterﬂies, molluscs, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, inhabiting the forests that envelop the islands’ inactive volcanic slopes. The surrounding marine ecosystems are also teeming with life, hosting diverse communities that include sea turtles, sharks, cetaceans, reef ﬁshes, and marine invertebrates. The human populations on the islands are mostly concentrated along the coasts where they rely heavily on the balance of both terrestrial and marine environments. On a global scale, biological diversity is declining and the rate of species extinction is accelerating, threatening the ecological processes that sustain life on Earth. Unfortunately, the ecosystems of the oceanic islands in the Gulf of Guinea have not been spared from the negative impacts of human activity. Centuries of intensive monoculture have left a lasting imprint on the island landscapes, and the human population has grown quickly over the last 50 years, which has increased the pressure on already vulnerable ecosystems. It is now widely recognized that biodiversity conservation is a fundamental element of sustainable development, increasing resilience and reducing environmental vulnerability. The new European Green Deal adopted on 14 July 2021, identiﬁes environmental degradation as an existential threat to the world. To overcome these challenges, the European Green Deal is committed to intensify the integration of environmental and climate change objectives, in particular the biodiversity, forests, oceans, and soils, across all sectors of cooperation. It is in this context that the EU has been fomenting the NaturAfrica initiative, aiming to support biodiversity conservation in Africa through an innovative, people-centred approach. NaturAfrica is the successor of ECOFAC and it consists of identifying key landscapes for conservation and development where the EU will focus its support for job creation, improved security, and sustainable livelihoods, while preserving ecosystems and wildlife that are vital to all. This initiative will directly beneﬁt the island landscapes of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón. Moreover, the Global Gateway Strategy launched on 1 December 2021, stands for sustainable and trusted connections that work for people and the planet. It will help to tackle the most pressing global challenges, including ﬁghting climate change. Foreword 2 ix Global Gateway is a great start to lead on climate action with developing countries, tackling climate change with a closing window of opportunity against global warming, taking into account the needs of partner countries and ensuring lasting beneﬁts for local communities. This book is the ﬁrst synthesizing knowledge on the biodiversity of these islands. It is being published at a time when humanity is facing a serious ecological crisis due to the unprecedented collective impacts of human activities on nature, and the timely publication of this book will serve as an important resource to guide the next phase of biodiversity conservation of this unique archipelago. Thus, the information in this book is fundamental to guide development strategies for the islands. EU Ambassador in Gabon to São Tomé and Príncipe and ECCAS, Gabon, São Tomé and Príncipe H. E. Rosario Bento Pais Foreword 3 Ex Africa Semper Aliquid Novi Some two decades ago, I found myself on a small aircraft en route to the island of São Tomé. I had just attended a meeting of the World Wildlife Fund in Libreville, Gabon and was now headed to meet an old San Francisco family friend. Ned Seligman, a former Peace Corps volunteer (later Country Director) and fellow lover of Africa had moved to the island and founded a non-proﬁt organization called STeP UP that focused on education and health initiatives. He had been urging me to visit for some years. As a scientist with the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, I had by this time already travelled and worked in much of continental Africa, but I was unaware that one of the most meaningful and satisfying phases of my scientiﬁc career was about to begin; it would also be the last. It has been said that nothing compares with the thrill of discovery. In the academic and scientiﬁc world, this might be a single novel idea or a series of related discoveries leading to a new understanding of a more complex whole. The Gulf of Guinea Islands are teeming with unique species of plants, animals, and fungi whose diversity and biology have inspired centuries of research, but the islands also present a unique geological setting in which to understand broader questions about how biodiversity evolves and accumulates on oceanic islands. Very early discoveries of the unique species inhabiting Gulf of Guinea Islands collected by early explorers such as Greef, Newton, and Fea, mostly during the nineteenth century, were tantalizing to biologists of the time. However, after a fruitful initial period of biological discoveries, the islands remained overlooked by the large majority of the scientiﬁc community. More recently, the spectacular Gulf of Guinea Islands opened again to collaborative biological exploration. The early results of this long overdue exploration and analysis include numerous intriguing, fascinating discoveries, many of which are presented in this volume. While many of these results represent work by groups and individuals from scientiﬁc institutions in North America, Europe, and Brazil, they are most importantly the result of cooperation and efforts with the citizens and civic leaders of the xi xii Foreword 3 islands. The islands’ residents are the ultimate custodians of the biological wealth partially described herein. To that end, it must be mentioned that many of the results presented in this volume have already been and are still being transmitted directly to national and regional governmental entities. Past and ongoing efforts to spread environmental awareness to island residents of all ages and to inspire stewardship of the islands’ biological heritage are also described in this volume. The islands’ residents are the custodians of something unique and special to the rest of the world. It has been the honour of my career to play a small role in advancing this new phase of discovery and collaboration. SOMENTE AQUI! (ONLY HERE!) Curator Emeritus of the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA Robert C. Drewes, PhD Acknowledgements This book is born of the shared dream of a group of researchers, conservationists, and educators dedicated to the study and preservation of the biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. A total of 87 contributors based in institutions in Portugal (32), São Tomé and Príncipe (20), the United States of America (14), France (10), United Kingdom (9), South Africa (3), Belgium (2), Gabon (2), Spain (2), Germany (1), and the Netherlands (1) gave their time and dedication to put together the 26 chapters that comprise this book. The editors are deeply grateful for their contributions, which were critical for the success, quality, and comprehensiveness of this synthesis. This synthesis is a direct result of sustained efforts in biodiversity research, conservation, and outreach that have taken place in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea over the last two decades. This new wave of work was only possible thanks to the interest and full institutional and logistic support of the authorities of São Tomé and Príncipe and of Equatorial Guinea. In São Tomé and Príncipe, this includes foremost the Direcção Geral do Ambiente (Dept. of the Environment), the Direcção de Florestas e Biodiversidade (Forestry and Biodiversity Dept.), the Ôbo Natural Park (São Tomé, Príncipe), and the University of São Tomé e Príncipe. The Regional Government of Príncipe has also been an important partner. In Equatorial Guinea this work is consistently supported by UNGE (National University of Equatorial Guinea) and INDEFOR-AP (National Institute of Forests and Protected Areas). Non-governmental organizations and other partners have also provided key support, including Associação Monte Pico (São Tomé), Fundação Príncipe (Príncipe), the Portuguese School of São Tomé and Príncipe (São Tomé), and the Bioko Biodiversity Protection Program (Equatorial Guinea). Most advances in the knowledge of the biodiversity of this region were only made possible with vast amounts of ﬁeldwork, often in very challenging conditions. The success of this endeavour relied on the expertise, enthusiasm, and hard work of many ﬁeld assistants throughout the years. Many others have provided crucial help along the way for different projects. These are speciﬁcally acknowledged in the respective chapters. The quality of all chapters greatly improved with the input of numerous reviewers who provided important comments, corrections, and suggestions. The editors are xiii xiv Acknowledgements greatly indebted to Jason Ali, Aaron M. Bauer, Manuel Biscoito, David Blackburn, Bernard Bourles, Robert Cameron, Mariana Carvalho, Jacob Cooper, Sónia Ferreira, Betânia Ferreira-Airaud, José Manuel Grosso-Silva, Václav Gvoždík, Charles Haddad, Roy Halling, Brian Huntley, Peter J. Jones, David H. Kavanaugh, Pete Lowry, Gabriel Nève, Kevin Njabo, Francisco Roque de Oliveira, Michel Papazian, Alison Peel, Graham Pierce, Peter Ryan, Brígida Rocha Pinto, Diego SantiagoAlarcon, Andreas Schmitz, Artur Serrano, Dinarte Teixeira, Manjula Tiwari, JeanFrançois Trape, Cristiana Vieira, Sara Vieira, Caroline Weir, and Peter Wirtz. The editors are also indebted to the photographers who provided their spectacular photos to illustrate the different chapters of this book, and many other scientiﬁc and outreach projects over the last two decades. All of the photographs are credited and acknowledged in the respective chapters. Financial and logistic support was provided by CIBIO (Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, University of Porto)—through the UNESCO Chair “Life on Land” and the BIOPOLIS Association through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the Grant Agreement Number 857251, as well as by the Museu de História Natural e da Ciência (University of Porto). The Gulf of Guinea Research Program is a long-term partnership between SUPERNOVA Technologies and CIBIO through the programme BIOPOLIS. These acknowledgements are especially extended to the director of CIBIO and BIOPOLIS Nuno Ferrand de Almeida for his strong support to this project. We are especially grateful to the EU, the ECOFAC 6 Programme, and to Birdlife International for funding the production of the Portuguese version of this book. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal) provided structural funding to CIBIO (UIDB/50027/2021) and to cE3c (UID/BIA/00329/2021). Finally, we thank Harini Devi, Lars Koerner, and Parthiban Gujilan Kannan of Springer Nature (English Edition) and Jorge Reis-Sá of Arte e Ciência (Portuguese Edition), for their consistent and professional support throughout the project. Contents 1 Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: A Synthesis . . . Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Ricardo F. de Lima, Rayna C. Bell, and Martim Melo 1 2 Physical Geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Bruna S. Santos, Ricardo F. de Lima, Rayna C. Bell, Sietze J. Norder, and Martim Melo 13 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial Ecosystems in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gilles Dauby, Tariq Stévart, Patricia Barberá, Laura Benitez, Maria do Céu Madureira, Filipa C. Soares, Gaëlle Viennois, and Ricardo F. de Lima 4 5 Territory, Economy, and Demographic Growth in São Tomé and Príncipe: Anthropogenic Changes in Environment . . . . . . . . . . Xavier Muñoz-Torrent, Ngouabi Tiny da Trindade, and Signe Mikulane The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Bruna S. Santos, Soﬁa B. Viegas, Jorge Paiva, and Estrela Figueiredo 37 71 87 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Martim Melo, Luis M. P. Ceríaco, and Rayna C. Bell 7 Species Ecology in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Distribution, Habitat Preferences, Assemblages, and Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Filipa C. Soares, Joana M. Hancock, Jorge M. Palmeirim, Hugulay Albuquerque Maia, Tariq Stévart, and Ricardo F. de Lima xv xvi Contents 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Dennis E. Desjardin and Brian A. Perry 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past, Present and Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 César Garcia, Cecília Sérgio, and James R. Shevock 10 Diversity of the Vascular Plants of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Tariq Stévart, Gilles Dauby, Davy U. Ikabanga, Olivier Lachenaud, Patricia Barberá, Faustino de Oliveira, Laura Benitez, and Maria do Céu Madureira 11 A Checklist of the Arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (Excluding Ticks and Mites) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Sarah C. Crews and Lauren A. Esposito 12 The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón . . . . 295 Gabriel Nève, Patrick Bonneau, Alain Coache, Artur Serrano, and Gérard Filippi 13 Butterﬂies and Skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Luís F. Mendes and António Bivar-de-Sousa 14 Dragonﬂies and Damselﬂies (Odonata) of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Klaas-Douwe B. Dijkstra, Russell B. Tate, and Michel Papazian 15 Diversity and Distribution of the Arthropod Vectors of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 Claire Loiseau, Rafael Gutiérrez-López, Bruno Mathieu, Boris K. Makanga, Christophe Paupy, Nil Rahola, and Anthony J. Cornel 16 Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands . . . . . . 407 Martina Panisi, Ricardo F. de Lima, Jezreel do C. Lima, Yodiney dos Santos, Frazer Sinclair, Leonor Tavares, and David T. Holyoak 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 Luis M. da Costa, Hugulay Albuquerque Maia, and Armando J. Almeida 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . . . 479 Rayna C. Bell, Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Lauren A. Scheinberg, and Robert C. Drewes Contents xvii 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands . . . . 505 Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Mariana P. Marques, Rayna C. Bell, and Aaron M. Bauer 20 The Sea Turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 Betania Ferreira-Airaud, Vanessa Schmitt, Sara Vieira, Manuel Jorge de Carvalho do Rio, Elisio Neto, and Jaconias Pereira 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . 555 Martim Melo, Peter J. Jones, and Ricardo F. de Lima 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 Ana Rainho, Christoph F. J. Meyer, Sólveig Thorsteinsdóttir, Javier Juste, and Jorge M. Palmeirim 23 Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 Inês Carvalho, Andreia Pereira, Francisco Martinho, Nina Vieira, Cristina Brito, Márcio Guedes, and Bastien Loloum 24 Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Recent Progress, Ongoing Challenges, and Future Directions . . . . . 643 Ricardo F. de Lima, Jean-Baptiste Deffontaines, Luísa Madruga, Estrela Matilde, Ana Nuno, and Sara Vieira 25 Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe: The Challenges of Owning a Unique Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671 Roberta Ayres, José Carlos Aragão, Mariana Carvalho, Francisco Gouveia, Estrela Matilde, Martina Panisi, Jormicilesa Sacramento, and Vanessa Schmitt 26 A Thriving Future for the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands . . . . . . . 691 Rayna C. Bell, Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Ricardo F. de Lima, and Martim Melo Contributors Armando J. Almeida Centro de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente (MARE), Laboratório Marítimo da Guia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Cascais, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal José Carlos Aragão Projeto Escola +, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe Roberta Ayres Gulf of Guinea Project, Department of Herpetology, Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA Patricia Barberá Missouri Botanical Garden, Africa & Madagascar Department, St. Louis, MI, USA Aaron M. Bauer Department of Biology and Center for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Stewardship, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA Rayna C. Bell Department of Herpetology, Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA Laura Benitez Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Príncipe, São Tomé and Príncipe António Bívar-de-Sousa Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Sociedade Portuguesa de Entomologia, Lisbon, Portugal Patrick Bonneau OPIE-Provence-Alpes-du-Sud, Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Marseille, Marseille, France Cristina Brito CHAM – Centro de Humanidades, FCSH, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal xix xx Contributors Inês Carvalho IGC, Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Population and Conservation Genetics Group, Oeiras, Portugal APCM, Associação para as Ciências do Mar, Lisbon, Portugal Mariana Carvalho Tropical Biology Association, Cambridge, UK Luis M. P. Ceríaco Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Alain Coache Impasse de l’Artémise, La Brillanne, France Anthony J. Cornel Mosquito Control and Research Laboratory, Department of Entomology and Nematology, and Vector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, Davis, Parlier, CA, USA Sarah C. Crews Department of Entomology, Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA Luis M. da Costa Centro de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente (MARE), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Royal Museum for Central Africa (RMCA), Vertebrates Section, Ichthyology, Tervuren, Belgium Ngouabi Tiny da Trindade Instituto Nacional de Estatística de São Tomé e Príncipe, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe Gilles Dauby AMAP, botAnique et Modélisation de l’Architecture des Plantes et des végétations, Université Montpellier, CIRAD, CNRS, INRAE, IRD, Montpellier, France Ricardo F. de Lima Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciêncas, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Centre, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe Faustino de Oliveira Projeto TRI, Direção das Florestas e da Biodiversidade, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe Herbário Nacional de São Tomé e Príncipe (STPH), Centro de Investigação Agronómica e Tecnológica, Alto Potó, São Tomé and Príncipe Jean-Baptiste Deffontaines BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK Contributors xxi Dennis E. Desjardin Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA Klaas-Douwe B. Dijkstra Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands Manuel Jorge de Carvalho do Rio ONG MARAPA, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe Yodiney dos Santos Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Príncipe, São Tomé and Príncipe Robert C. Drewes Department of Herpetology, Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA Lauren A. Esposito Department of Entomology, Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA Betania Ferreira-Airaud Associação Programa Tatô, Barão de São João, Portugal Estrela Figueiredo Department of Botany, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha [Port Elizabeth], South Africa Gérard Filippi MICROLAND, Maison de la vie associative, Le Ligoures, Aix-enProvence, France César Garcia Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), CHANGE Associated Laboratory - Global Change and Sustainability Institute, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Francisco Gouveia Arribada Initiative, Cheshire, UK Márcio Guedes ONG MARAPA, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe Rafael Gutiérrez-López CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal Joana Madeira Hancock Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Centro de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente (MARE), ISPA, Instituto Universitário de Ciências Psicológicas, Sociais e da Vida, Lisbon, Portugal David T. Holyoak Quinta da Cachopa, Cabeçudo, Portugal Davy U. Ikabanga Missouri Botanical Garden, Africa & Madagascar Department, St. Louis, MI, USA Laboratoire d’Ecologie Végétale et de Biosystématique, Département de Biologie, Faculté des Sciences, Université des Sciences et Techniques de Masuku, Franceville, Gabon Peter J. Jones Chirnside, Scotland xxii Contributors Javier Juste Department of Evolutionary Biology, Estación Biológica de Doñana (CSIC), Seville, Spain CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain Olivier Lachenaud Meise Botanic Garden, Domein van Bouchout, Meise, Belgium Jezreel do C. Lima Associação Monte Pico, Monte Café, São Tomé and Príncipe Claire Loiseau CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal CEFE, Université de Montpellier, Centre National de la Recherche Scientiﬁque (CNRS), Montpellier, France Bastien Loloum ONG MARAPA, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe Luisa Madruga Fauna & Flora International, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, UK Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Príncipe, São Tomé and Príncipe Maria do Céu Madureira Centre for Functional Ecology, Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal Hugulay Albuquerque Maia Department of Natural Sciences, Life and Environment, Universidade de São Tomé e Príncipe, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe Boris K. Makanga Institut de Recherche en Écologie Tropicale/CENAREST, Libreville, Gabon Mariana P. Marques Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO, Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal Francisco Martinho APCM, Associação para as Ciências do Mar, Lisbon, Portugal Ecco Ocean, Lisbon, Portugal Bruno Mathieu Université de Strasbourg, DIHP, Strasbourg, France Estrela Matilde Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Príncipe, São Tomé and Príncipe Martim Melo Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal Contributors xxiii CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO, Vairão, Portugal FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa Luis F. Mendes Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal Christoph F. J. Meyer Environmental Research and Innovation Centre, School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Salford, UK Signe Mikulane Institute for Building Information Modeling, Interdisciplinary Institute of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodesy, Bochum University of Applied Sciences, Bochum, Germany Xavier Muñoz-Torrent Servei d’Estudis i Observatori de la Ciutat de Terrassa, Terrassa, Catalonia, Spain Associação Caué—Amigos de São Tomé e Príncipe, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain Elísio Neto ONG MARAPA, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe Gabriel Nève Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d’Ecologie (IMBE), Aix Marseille University, Centre National de la Recherche Scientiﬁque (CNRS), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Avignon University, Marseille, France Sietze J. Norder Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science Group, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands Ana Nuno Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences (CICS.NOVA), School of Social Sciences and Humanities, NOVA University Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Cornwall, UK Jorge Paiva Centre for Functional Ecology, Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal Jorge Manuel Palmeirim Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Martina Panisi Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Alisei Onlus NGO, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe xxiv Contributors Christophe Paupy MiVEGEC, Université de Montpellier, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Centre National de la Recherche Scientiﬁque (CNRS), Montpellier, France Andreia Pereira APCM, Associação para as Ciências do Mar, Lisbon, Portugal Instituto Dom Luiz, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Jaconias Pereira Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Príncipe, São Tomé and Príncipe Brian A. Perry Department of Biological Sciences, California State University East Bay, Hayward, CA, USA Nil Rahola MiVEGEC, Université de Montpellier, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Centre National de la Recherche Scientiﬁque (CNRS), Montpellier, France Ana Rainho Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Jormicilesa Sacramento Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Príncipe, São Tomé and Príncipe Bruna S. Santos CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO, Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal Lauren A. Scheinberg Department of Herpetology, Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA Vanessa Schmitt Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Príncipe, São Tomé and Príncipe Cecília Sérgio Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), CHANGE Associated Laboratory - Global Change and Sustainability Institute, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Artur Serrano Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Contributors xxv James R. Shevock Department of Botany, Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA Frazer Sinclair Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Príncipe, São Tomé and Príncipe Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK Filipa Coutinho Soares Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Tariq Stévart Missouri Botanical Garden, Africa & Madagascar Department, St. Louis, MI, USA Herbarium et Bibliothèque de Botanique africaine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium Meise Botanic Garden, Domein van Bouchout, Belgium Russell B. Tate HCV Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa Leonor Tavares Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Sólveig Thorsteinsdóttir Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Soﬁa B. Viegas Centro Interuniversitário de História das Ciências e da Tecnologia, Faculdade de Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal Nina Vieira APCM, Associação para as Ciências do Mar, Lisbon, Portugal CHAM, Centro de Humanidades, FCSH, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Sara Vieira Associação Programa Tatô, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe Gaëlle Viennois AMAP, botAnique et Modélisation de l’Architecture des Plantes et des végétations, Université Montpellier, CIRAD, CNRS, INRAE, IRD, Montpellier, France Chapter 1 Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: A Synthesis Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Ricardo F. de Lima, Rayna C. Bell, and Martim Melo Abstract The Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands (Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón) are among the most endemic-rich regions of the planet. Historical scientiﬁc studies of the islands’ unique biodiversity are scattered in a variety of publications, many of which are difﬁcult to access. More recently, there has been a growing interest in the islands, which is reﬂected in a burst of new studies, reports, and ongoing projects. L. M. P. Ceríaco (*) Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: lmceriaco@mhnc.up.pt R. F. de Lima Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Centre, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe R. C. Bell Department of Herpetology, Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA M. Melo Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, Vairão, Portugal © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_1 1 2 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Here we aim to provide an updated and comprehensive synthesis, covering all the key information and references on the biodiversity of these islands. The goal of the book is to be a comprehensive reference for students, researchers, and conservationists dedicated to the study and preservation of this unique biodiversity. It also intends to serve as a basis for local stakeholders to make informed decisions, namely regarding conservation actions. The book is divided into three main sections: (1) a general overview of the islands and their biodiversity, including aspects of natural and human history (six chapters); (2) detailed accounts on different taxonomic groups (16 chapters); and (3) the conservation, environmental education, and research challenges that lie ahead (three chapters). Keywords Biogeography · Conservation · Ecology · Endemics · History of science · Taxonomy Introduction É realmente notável a fauna da ilha de S. Tomé e mais notável é ainda a diferença que faz da sua irmã o Príncipe. No Príncipe os animais que se encontram são em grande parte do continente, enquanto que em S. Tome há uma forma especial com bastantes espécies que julgo serem privativas da ilha. A distancia que há entre as duas ilhas é apenas de 90 milhas mas o cabo submarino lançado tem 120 milhas devido às ondulações de terreno no fundo do mar. Com relação à Atlântida, não serão as ilhas do Golpho da Guiné e mesmo as Canarias, Cabo verde, Stª Helena, Assumpção etc, restos d’esse grande continente? The fauna of S. Tome Island is truly remarkable, and it is even more remarkable the difference to its sister island of Príncipe. The animals that are found in Príncipe are mostly from the continent, while in S. Tomé there is a special form with several species that I believe are private to the island. The distance between the two islands is only 90 miles but the submarine cable has 120 miles due to the ruggedness of the sea ﬂoor. Regarding Atlantis, aren’t the islands of the Gulf of Guinea, and even the Canaries, Cabo Verde, St. Helena, Ascension, etc., the remains of that large continent? Francisco Newton, letter from São Tomé Island 23 January 1887 The Portuguese explorer Francisco Newton was one of the ﬁrst naturalists to dedicate almost one decade to the study of the outstanding diversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. The collections he made, in what was largely unexplored territory for science, allowed the description of dozens of new species and began to reveal intriguing biogeographic patterns. Gazing at the species he was collecting, many of which would turn out to be endemic, the naturalist found them so spectacular that he dared to suggest the islands could be the remains of the mythical continent of Atlantis. While this suggestion lacks any scientiﬁc basis, it is a perfect example of the sense of awe that the biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands imparts to any naturalist who visits them. Although Newton’s “Atlantis hypothesis” did not gain traction, other comparisons between these islands and other iconic places around the world have since been proposed. A quick search about these islands on the Internet, newspapers, popular magazines, or tourism advertisements will likely ﬁnd them labeled as “a paradise on Earth” or “the Galapagos of Africa.” The Galapagos archipelago in the Paciﬁc Ocean is one of 1 Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: A Synthesis 3 the most famous group of islands for naturalists and wildlife enthusiasts, especially due to their role in British naturalist Charles Darwin’s (1809–1882) genesis of the theory of evolution through natural selection. The observation of the diverse environments, unique species, and incredible adaptations of the Galapagos fauna and ﬂora were fundamental to Darwin’s growing body of evidence, forever linking the Galapagos to the theory of evolution. Darwin never set foot in the Gulf of Guinea but the type of evidence he found in the Galapagos is also abundantly available in these oceanic islands. Thus, the label “the Galapagos of Africa” is certainly ﬁtting. Since their emergence millions of years ago, due to the activity of the Cameroon Volcanic Line, the islands of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón have been isolated from the African continent. Their prolonged isolation and complex geological history led to the evolution of unique species that sustain distinctive ecosystems. Humans arrived approximately 500 years ago, when Portuguese navigators found these uninhabited islands teeming with biodiversity. Since then, human impact on the islands has increased considerably, with lasting impacts to both the landscape and biodiversity. The human impact on the biota has been considerable, and a number of species and ecosystems are now threatened. The islands’ unique biodiversity has attracted several generations of researchers working in a wide diversity of taxonomic groups and biological topics. Biodiversity research in the region received a renewed focus when in June 1993 the Jersey Wildlife Preservation in Jersey (UK) organized a workshop on the biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea islands. The aim of this meeting was to synthesize the data available at the time, and led to the establishment of a network of experts: the Gulf of Guinea Conservation Group. Managed by Angus Gascoigne (1962–2012), a passionate British amateur naturalist who was living in São Tomé, it supported many scientiﬁc endeavors. The results of the meeting were published in a special edition of the journal Biodiversity and Conservation (Juste and Fa 1994). This issue became the major reference for the biodiversity of the islands for more than two decades, serving as the main source of data and theoretical support for the new generation of island biologists and conservationists, many of whom are contributors to this volume. On October 16, 2020, a virtual meeting brought together several dozen scientists, conservationists, educators, and local stakeholders, all with shared interests in the biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. This meeting aimed to set the foundation for the Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Center, a collaboration to satisfy the urgent needs of an ever-growing community to have an institution fully dedicated to the biodiversity of the islands. This new generation is dedicated to surveying the islands to document biodiversity, to understand and mitigate the current threats, and to raise local and global awareness for this unique natural heritage. This book aims to represent this new wave of research and to set the stage for the next phase of biodiversity research and conservation. 4 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Historical Biodiversity Syntheses Prior to the 1994 special issue of Biodiversity and Conservation (Jones 1994), efforts to synthesize knowledge on the biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea islands were few and far between. Many tended to be taxonomically and geographically focused. In the early twentieth century, the Portuguese zoologist José Vicente Barbosa du Bocage (1823–1907) was the ﬁrst to produce a synthesis on the land vertebrates of the Gulf of Guinea islands, based on the knowledge that had been amassed during the second half of the nineteenth century (Bocage 1903, 1905). According to him, the list of species for Príncipe included four mammals, 43 birds, ten reptiles, and two frogs, whereas that of São Tomé hosted 12 mammals, 64 birds, 11 reptiles, and ﬁve amphibians. For Annobón, the species list of Bocage (1903) recorded only two mammals, 14 birds, ﬁve reptiles, and no amphibians. Similar to Bocage’s checklists of vertebrate fauna, the British botanist Arthur Wallis Exell (1901–1993) was the ﬁrst to publish a checklist of the vascular ﬂora of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands (Exell 1944). He beneﬁted from the work of previous researchers, such as Júlio Henriques (1838–1928), former director of the herbarium of the University of Coimbra, providing an extensive series of publications (Exell 1956, 1958, 1959, 1963, 1973). By 1973 he had recorded 810 angiosperms for the islands (539 dicotyledons and 271 monocotyledons), of which 601 occurred on São Tomé, 314 on Príncipe, and 208 on Annobón (Exell 1973). Some taxonomic groups have received special attention in comparison to others. Birds, in particular, received regular syntheses through the years (Bocage 1889; Amadon 1953; Naurois 1994; Jones and Tye 2006; Lima and Melo 2021). While many syntheses have been taxonomically oriented (vertebrates, angiosperms), others have focused on single islands. The work of Júlio Henriques on the natural history and agriculture of São Tomé (Henriques 1917) is a perfect example: across almost 300 pages, this monographic work aimed to cover all the aspects of the natural history of the island, listing its fauna, ﬂora, geology, topography, agriculture, and even the organization of the local society. Other attempts to compile information on the biodiversity of the islands took place later on, including the bibliographic compilation of “pure and applied botany” of São Tomé and Príncipe by Fernandes (1982), and that on the fauna of the three oceanic islands by Gascoigne (1993, 1996). Continuously updating species lists is vital for reﬁning taxonomy, identifying knowledge gaps, recording changes in species composition, studying community ecology and biogeography, understanding ecosystem function, and supporting conservation decisions. Jones (1994) presented an updated overview of the number of vertebrate species and endemics on each island (Table 1.1). According to this compilation, the Príncipe species list of terrestrial vertebrates included four mammals, 35 birds, eight reptiles, and three frogs, that of São Tomé nine mammals, 49 birds, 14 reptiles, and six amphibians, and that of Annobón two mammals, nine birds, seven reptiles, and no amphibians (Table 1.1). Regarding plants, numbers would not be updated until the much more recent publication of bryophyte (Sérgio 1 Amphibia Reptilia Aves Mammalia All Island Príncipe São Tomé Annobón Total Príncipe São Tomé Annobón Total Príncipe São Tomé Annobón Total Príncipe São Tomé Annobón Total Príncipe São Tomé Annobón Total Previous Total 3 6 0 7 8 14 7 35 49 9 9 16 55 85 Current 3 6 0 9 14 12 8 28 32 50 11 66 12 17 4 19 61 85 23 122 Previous Current Single-island endemics 1 (33) 3 (100) 4 (67) 6 (100) 0 0 5 (71) 9 (100) 2 (25) 8 (57) 1 (7) 7 (58) 2 (29) 6 (75) 5 21 (75) 6 (17) 8 (25) 15 (31) 17 (34) 2 (22) 1 (9) 23 26 (39) 1 (11) 2 (17) 3 (19) 5 (29) 0 0 (0) 4 7 (37) 10 (18) 21 (34) 23 (27) 35 (41) 4 7 (30) 37 63 (52) Previous All endemics 3 (100) 6 (100) 0 7 (100) 7 (88) 6 (43) 3 (43) 10 11 (31) 20 (41) 3 (33) 28 1 (11) 3 (19) 0 4 22 (40) 35 (41) 6 49 Current 3 (100) 6 (100) 0 9 (100) 10 (71) 9 (75) 6 (75) 23 (82) 11 (34) 20 (40) 2 (18) 29 (44) 2 (17) 5 (29) 0 (0) 7 (37) 26 (43) 40 (47) 8 (35) 68 (56) Current Introduced 0 0 0 0 2 (14) 2 (17) 2 (25) 3 (11) 5 (16) 17 (34) 3 (27) 17 (26) 5 (42) 6 (35) 2 (50) 6 (32) 12 (20) 25 (29) 7 (30) 26 (21) Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: A Synthesis Table 1.1 Comparison between conﬁrmed extant resident terrestrial vertebrates since the previous synthesis (Jones 1994), considering all species, single-island endemics, and all endemics. The percentage of endemic species is shown in parenthesis. The number of species currently thought to be introduced is shown in the last column. A few cells are blank because those ﬁgures were not available in the previous synthesis 5 6 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. and Gargia 2011), fern and lycophyte (Figueiredo 2002; Klopper and Figueiredo 2013), and angiosperm checklists (Figueiredo et al. 2011). There are noticeable differences in the number of species and endemics for taxa that have multiple checklists, reﬂecting the development of knowledge of the islands’ biodiversity over the last century. New species continue to be added every year, even among the best studied groups, representing both species that are new to science and just newly recorded on the islands. Nevertheless, systematic and well-curated species checklists are still the exception for most taxa in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. For many groups, notably terrestrial and marine invertebrates, there are still no comprehensive species checklists, or they were ﬁrst published recently, highlighting how little is still known about the biodiversity of the islands (Lima 2016). A New Synthesis The outputs of the long history of research in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea are scattered in hundreds of publications—scientiﬁc papers, reports, and books. Most works published since the late eighteenth century to the present day are very speciﬁc, focusing on few taxa and on a single island, or even a single species and particular regions of an island. Publications are available in several different languages—Portuguese, Spanish, English, French, German, Italian, Latin, Russian—and formats—from books to peer-review scientiﬁc journals, theses, unpublished reports, and more recently also in non-printed media, such as online images, audio, and video. Access to many historical works has greatly improved in recent years, especially due to important online platforms, such as the Biodiversity Heritage Library (Gwinn and Constance 2009). However, this immense diversity of sources also makes it challenging to gain a complete and updated view on the biodiversity of these islands. Similarly, thousands of scientiﬁc specimens are held in natural history collections around the world, providing the baseline to our present knowledge and enabling exciting new ﬁndings and research. Many of these collections have not been included in recent studies and some have only recently been rehabilitated and once more made accessible to the scientiﬁc community (e.g., Monteiro et al. 2016; Ceríaco et al. 2021). For such a small area, the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands may be one of the most intensively studied parts of Africa (e.g., Droissart et al. 2018). However, most of the scientiﬁc output and associated data are not synthesized or readily available. This book attempts to compile the key information and references regarding the past and current knowledge on the biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. The goal is to be a comprehensive reference for students, researchers, and conservationists dedicated to the study and preservation of this unique biodiversity. It also intends to serve as a basis for local stakeholders to make informed decisions, namely regarding conservation actions. Above all, it is an act of celebration of the scientiﬁc achievements of several generations of biologists and conservationists, a 1 Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: A Synthesis 7 manifest in support of the astonishing biodiversity of these islands, and a plea for its conservation. Book Structure The book is divided into three main sections: (1) a general overview of the islands and their biodiversity, including aspects of natural and human history (six chapters); (2) detailed accounts on different taxonomic groups (16 chapters); and (3) the conservation, environmental education, and research challenges that lie ahead (three chapters). Section one starts with an outline of the physical geography, geological history, climate, and sea level evolution of the study area, providing also its political boundaries and administrative divisions (Chap. 2; Ceríaco et al. 2022a). This is followed by a revision of the classiﬁcation and cartography of the terrestrial ecosystems (Chap. 3; Dauby et al. 2022). Chapter 4 (Muñoz-Torrent et al. 2022) analyzes the ﬁve centuries of human presence on the better-known island of São Tomé, presenting demographic trends, cultural heritage, and how the history of the main economic activities has impacted biodiversity. Chapter 5 (Ceríaco et al. 2022b) reviews the history of scientiﬁc research, from mid-eighteenth century to the twenty-ﬁrst century. The fascinating evolutionary patterns that shaped the biodiversity of the “Galapagos of Africa” are presented in Chap. 6 (Melo et al. 2022a). In Chap. 7 (Soares et al. 2022), our current understanding of island species ecology is synthesized, including information about species distributions, habitat preferences, species assemblages, and the interactions that maintain functioning ecosystems. The second section constitutes the bulk of the book and corresponds to the taxonomic chapters. The level of detail varies between chapters, mostly reﬂecting disparities in knowledge across taxonomic groups. However, all chapters have a similar structure, including an introduction to the group, a brief review of the history of research on the islands, an account of the group’s diversity and endemism, an updated checklist, and a section on conservation. Most of these chapters also highlight important areas for future research. Chapter 8 (Desjardin and Perry 2022) reports 260 species of mushrooms and allies of the Agaricomycetes lineages of the Basidiomycota in São Tomé and Príncipe. These correspond to 109 genera, 51 families, and 13 orders, and given how little scientiﬁc attention this group has received, species richness will likely increase with future work. Chapter 9 (Garcia et al. 2022) provides a review of the bryophytes of São Tomé and Príncipe, based on historical herbarium data complemented by the results of recent ﬁeldwork. A preliminary list of 299 taxa (128 mosses, 171 liverworts and hornworts) is provided, and the authors note that several species likely remain undescribed or at least undocumented. Chapter 10 (Stévart et al. 2022) presents an updated checklist of vascular plants, combining data from historical material and bibliographic references with extensive new ﬁeld surveys conducted since 2017. The current number of vascular plants includes 8 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. 1285 taxa, with 164 endemics, of which at least 18 are new to science. A report on medicinal plants is also provided. Six chapters focus on invertebrate groups. Chapter 11 (Crews and Esposito 2022) explores the diverse and little-known arachnid fauna of São Tomé and Príncipe, which includes 266 recorded species of six different orders. Chapter 12 (Nève et al. 2022) provides a ﬁrst checklist for the beetles of the three oceanic islands, listing 403 species, of which 190 are endemic. The butterﬂies and skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) are reviewed in Chap. 13 (Mendes and Bivar-de-Sousa 2022), with 91 conﬁrmed taxa, and extensive discussion resolving previous doubtful records. Chapter 14 (Dijkstra and Tate 2022) notes the impoverished dragonﬂy and damselﬂy fauna of the islands, which includes only 22 conﬁrmed records and one endemic species, from Príncipe. Chapter 15 (Loiseau et al. 2022) reviews the arthropod species that can act as vectors of diseases. Given the particularity of this group, the structure of this chapter is slightly different but its scientiﬁc relevance is undisputable due to the public health implications. The chapter also provides important insights into species interactions, and underscores the possibility of new vector-borne diseases arriving on the islands. Chapter 16 (Panisi et al. 2022) deals with the 96 species of land gastropods, of which 62 are endemic, providing new insights on the ecology, biogeography, and conservation of these species, including the famous endemic giant land snail Archachatina bicarinata Bruguière, 1792. Regarding vertebrates, there are four taxonomic chapters for terrestrial groups and three for aquatic taxa. Chapter 17 (Costa et al. 2022) lists and discusses the more than 1000 species of ﬁshes that potentially occur in the fresh and marine waters of the islands. Chapter 18 (Bell et al. 2022) deals with amphibians, which include three species on Príncipe and six on São Tomé, all of which are endemic (Annobón has no amphibians). The chapter provides a detailed overview of species biology, ecology, and biogeography. Chapter 19 (Ceríaco et al. 2022c) presents the 29 species of established terrestrial reptiles, reporting also historical and recent records of vagrant, doubtful, or introduced species. The ﬁve species of sea turtles that occur on the islands are reviewed in Chap. 20 (Ferreira-Airaud et al. 2022). All sea turtles are threatened, and this chapter includes extensive discussion of conservation successes and challenges. Chapter 21 (Melo et al. 2022b) revises information on birds, one of the best-known and most charismatic taxa from the islands that includes at least 29 endemic species. It summarizes historical data and provides updated insights into a group that has been at the forefront of research and conservation. Chapter 22 (Rainho et al. 2022) revises information on the 19 species of non-domesticated resident land mammals, including 11 bats, seven endemic species, and six introduced species. Finally, Chap. 23 (Carvalho et al. 2022) draws on new data collected since 2002 to present the updated list of the 12 cetaceans conﬁrmed in the waters of the region, ﬁve of which are recent records. This chapter also provides a synthesis of the whaling history in the region. The ﬁnal section of the book focuses on the conservation, education, and future of research in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Chapter 24 (Lima et al. 2022) summarizes the state of conservation: from the cultural links to nature to the history of conservation initiatives. This chapter also lists priority species, sites, and actions. 1 Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: A Synthesis 9 Chapter 25 (Ayres et al. 2022) assesses recent strategies of formal and non-formal environmental education on São Tomé and Príncipe, which are vital to augment local capacity for conservation and scientiﬁc research. Chapter 26 (Bell et al. 2022) proposes a path toward biodiversity resilience for future naturalists, biologists, conservationists, and educators. Current Numbers, Current Biases Comparing the number of species presented in previous compilations, such as Bocage (1903, 1905) or Jones (1994), with those recorded in this book is not a straightforward task. The coverage of previous syntheses was taxonomically more limited than the present work, and methods for counting endemic and non-endemic species varied. In comparing the number of vertebrate species and endemics provided by Jones (1994) with those in the current synthesis, however, one major trend stands out—our improved understanding led to an increase in endemism across most taxa (Table 1.1). In many cases, this was due to recognizing that each island had a distinct endemic species, and that shared endemics are rare. While it is likely that these numbers change little for vertebrate groups, they will certainly keep changing for less studied taxa, such as fungi, plants, invertebrates, and marine vertebrates. There are several other biases in our knowledge of the biodiversity of these islands. Annobón is by far the least studied island. Most of the chapters focus on terrestrial habitats and species, and while several teams and projects are currently focusing on marine biodiversity and conservation, knowledge is still very limited. The study of marine biomes in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands is of critical importance, not only because the region is likely an important hotspot for marine biodiversity, but also because human residents depend heavily on marine resources. Another major gap is the limited number of ecological and natural history studies. While there is now a considerable amount of traditional and modern taxonomic research—describing, naming, and listing the several thousands of species known from the islands—there are very few studies on the ecology and natural history of these taxa. For most species, almost nothing is known besides the diagnosis and a few anecdotal pieces of information about its ecology. This lack of information hinders the development of effective conservation measures, which are increasingly necessary to ensure a thriving future for this unique archipelago. References Amadon D (1953) Avian systematics and evolution in the Gulf of Guinea. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 100:394–451 Ayres RGS, Aragão JCVC, Carvalho M et al (2022) Environmental education in São Tomé and Príncipe: the challenges of owning a unique biodiversity In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 671–690 10 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Bell RC, Ceríaco LMP, Scheinberg LA, Drewes RC (2022) The amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 479–504 Bocage JVB (1889) Aves da ilha de S. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes de Lisboa, Segunda Série 1:209–210 Bocage JVB (1903) Contribution à la faune des quatre îles du golfe de Guinée. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, Segunda Série 7:25–59 Bocage JVB (1905) Contribution à la Faune des quatre îles du golfe de Guinée (suite). Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, Segunda Série 7:65–96 Carvalho I, Pereira A, Martinho F et al (2022) Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 621–642 Ceríaco LMP, Parrinha D, Marques MP (2021) Saving collections: taxonomic revision of the herpetological collection of the Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisbon (Portugal) with a protocol to rescue abandoned collections. ZooKeys 1052:85–156 Ceríaco LMP, Santos BS, Lima RF et al (2022a) Physical geography of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 13–36 Ceríaco LMP, Santos BSS, Viegas S, Paiva J (2022b) The history of biological research in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 87–140 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP, Bell RC, Bauer AM (2022c) The terrestrial reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 505–534 Costa LM, Albuquerque H, Almeida AJ (2022) The ﬁshes of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 431–478 Crews SC, Esposito LA (2022) A checklist of the arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea island (excluding ticks and mites). In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 273–294 Dauby G, Stévart T, Barberá P et al (2022) Classiﬁcation, distribution and biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 37–70 Desjardin DE, Perry BA (2022) Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe – Basidiomycete mushrooms and allies. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 189–216 Dijkstra K-DB, Tate RB (2022) Dragonﬂies and damselﬂies (Odonata) of São Tomé, Príncipe, and Annobón. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 371–382 Droissart V, Dauby G, Hardy OJ et al (2018) Beyond trees: biogeographical regionalization of tropical Africa. Journal of Biogeography 45:1153–1167 Exell AW (1944) Catalogue of the vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Principe and Annobón). British Museum (Natural History), London, 428 pp Exell AW (1956) Supplement to the catalogue of vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Principe and Annobón). British Museum (Natural History), London, 58 pp Exell AW (1958) Progress accomplished in the study of the ﬂora of the islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Memórias da Sociedade Broteriana 13:19–21 Exell AW (1959) Additions to the ﬂora of S. Tome and Príncipe. Bulletin de l’Institut Français de l’Afrique Noire 21:439–476 Exell AW (1963) Angiosperms of the Cambridge Annobón Island expedition. Bulletin of the British Museum (Botany) 3(3):95–118 Exell AW (1973) Angiosperms of the islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Fernando Po, Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) 4(8):327–411 1 Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: A Synthesis 11 Fernandes A (1982) Bibliograﬁa mais relevante sobre botânica pura e aplicada referente aos países Africanos de expressão Portuguesa. Academia das Ciências de Lisboa, 281 pp Ferreira-Airaud B, Schmitt V, Vieira S et al (2022) The sea turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: diversity, distribution, and conservation status. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 535–554 Figueiredo E (2002) Pteridóﬁtos de São Tomé e Príncipe. Estudos, Ensaios e Documentos 162: 1–209 Figueiredo E, Paiva J, Stévart T, Oliveira F, Smith GD (2011) Annotated catalogue of the ﬂowering plants of São Tomé and Príncipe. Bothalia 41:41–82 Garcia C, Sérgio C, Shevock JR (2022) The bryophyte ﬂora of São Tomé and Príncipe archipelago (Gulf of Guinea), past, present and future. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 217–248 Gascoigne A (1993) A bibliography of the fauna of the islands of São Tomé e Príncipe and the island of Annobón (Gulf of Guinea). Arquipélago 11:91–105 Gascoigne A (1996) Additions to a bibliography of the fauna of São Tomé e Príncipe and the island of Annobón, Gulf of Guinea. Addendum. Arquipélago 14:95–103 Gwinn NE, Constance AR (2009) The biodiversity heritage library: sharing biodiversity with the world. IFLA Journal 35:25–34 Henriques JA (1917) A ilha de São Tomé sob o ponto de vista histórico-natural e agrícola. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 27:1–197 Jones PJ (1994) Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea: an overview. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 772–784 Jones PJ, Tye A (2006) The birds of São Tomé and Príncipe, with Annobón: islands of the Gulf of Guinea, vol 22. BOU checklist. British Ornithologists’ Union & British Ornithologists’ Club, Oxford Juste J, Fa JE (1994) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:757–758 Klopper RR, Figueiredo E (2013) Diversity of ferns and lycophytes in São Tomé and Príncipe: an updated checklist. Scripta Botanica Belgica 50:287–293 Lima RF (2016) Biodiversity conservation in São Tomé and Príncipe: an overview. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on island evolution, ecology and conservation. Angra do Heroísmo, Azores, Portugal, 18–22 July 2016 Lima RF, Melo M (2021) Revised bird checklist for the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands (Central Africa). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club 141:179–198 Lima RF, Deffontaines J-B, Madruga L, Matilde E, Nuno A, Vieira S (2022) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: recent progress, ongoing challenges, and future directions. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 643–670 Loiseau C, Gutiérrez-López R, Mathieu B et al (2022) Diversity and distribution of the arthropod vectors of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 383–405 Melo M, Ceríaco LMP, Bell RC (2022a) Biogeography and evolution in the oceanic islands of Gulf of Guinea. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 141–170 Melo M, Jones PJ, Lima RF (2022b) The avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 555–620 Mendes LF, Bivar-de-Sousa A (2022) Butterﬂies and skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. An updated checklist. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 349–370 Monteiro M, Reino L, Melo M et al (2016) The collection of birds from São Tomé and Príncipe at the Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical of the University of Lisbon (Portugal). ZooKeys 600:155–167 12 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Muñoz-Torrent X, Trindade NT, Mikulane S (2022) Territory, economy, and demographic growth in São Tomé and Príncipe: anthropogenic changes in the environment. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 71–86 Naurois R (1994) Les Oiseaux des Iles du Golfe de Guinée/As Aves das Ilhas do Golfo da Guiné. Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisboa Nève G, Bonneau P, Coache A et al (2022) The beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 295–348 Panisi M, Lima RF, Lima JC et al (2022) Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: an updated synthesis. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 407–430 Rainho A, Meyer CFJ, Thorsteinsdóttir S et al (2022) Current knowledge and conservation of the wild mammals of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 593–620 Sérgio C, Gargia C (2011) Bryophyte ﬂora of São Tomé e Príncipe archipelago (West Africa): annotated catalogue. Cryptogamie, Bryologie 32:145–196 Soares FC, Hancock JM, Palmeirim JM et al (2022) Species ecology in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: distribution, habitat preferences, assemblages, and interactions. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 171–188 Stévart T, Dauby G, Ikabanga DU et al (2022) Diversity of the vascular plants of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 249–272 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 2 Physical Geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Bruna S. Santos, Ricardo F. de Lima, Rayna C. Bell, Sietze J. Norder, and Martim Melo Abstract The Gulf of Guinea, in the Atlantic coast of Central Africa, has three oceanic islands that arose as part of the Cameroon Volcanic Line. From northeast to southwest these are Príncipe (139 km2), São Tomé (857 km2), and Annobón (17 km2). Although relatively close to the adjacent mainland, the islands have distinct climactic and geomorphologic characteristics, and have remained isolated throughout their geological history. Consequently, they have developed a unique biodiversity, rich in endemic species. We provide an integrated overview of the L. M. P. Ceríaco (*) Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: lmceriaco@mhnc.up.pt B. S. Santos Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, Vairão, Portugal R. F. de Lima Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Centre, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe R. C. Bell Department of Herpetology, Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_2 13 14 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. physical setting of the islands, including their geographic location, geological origin, topography, geology and soils, climate zones, and prevailing wind and ocean currents—key features that underlie the evolution of their biodiversity. Keywords Annobón · Geology · Ocean currents · São Tomé · Príncipe · Soils · Volcanism Introduction The Gulf of Guinea is a major topographical feature of western equatorial Africa that marks the distinctive shape of the continent on its Atlantic coast (Fig. 2.1). The Gulf of Guinea has three oceanic islands (Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón), one landbridge island (Bioko), and two seamounts, which together comprise the offshore part of the Cameroon Volcanic Line. The biodiversity of the oceanic islands is characterized by a small number of species but exceptional endemism (Jones 1994; Gascoigne 2004; Ceríaco et al. 2022). This chapter provides an introduction to the physical setting of the islands that created the conditions for the evolution of their unique biodiversity, including their geography and topography, geological history, geological substrates and soils, climate, and prevailing patterns of ocean sea currents. Some of the most complete sources of data for these topics are found in works published under the seal of the Portuguese scientiﬁc colonial institute—the Junta de Investigações do Ultramar—during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Of these sources, Lains e Silva (1958) provides key information on climate, soils, vegetation, and agricultural potential of São Tomé and Príncipe islands (see also Lains e Silva and Cardoso 1958). Building on earlier work, Tenreiro (1961) further addressed some of these topics for São Tomé Island. Cardoso and Garcia (1962) is a key reference for the soils of São Tomé and Príncipe—providing detailed maps of the soils of each island. Rodrigues (1974) synthesized the information on climate and soils presented by Lains e Silva (1958) and Cardoso and Garcia (1962). Jones et al. (1991) provide a S. J. Norder Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science Group, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands M. Melo Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, Vairão, Portugal FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa 2 Physical Geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 15 Fig. 2.1 Map of the Gulf of Guinea islands, western Central Africa. This system includes an ecological island (Mount Cameroon), a land-bridge island (Bioko), and the three oceanic islands, which are the focus of this book. Adapted from Jones and Tye (2006) 16 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. useful synthesis of background information available at the time. More recently, Diniz and Matos (2002) added to our understanding of the climate and soils of São Tomé and Príncipe islands, providing an updated and detailed map of the ecosystems and land-use types of the islands. A series of geological studies conducted by Munhá et al. (2002), Caldeira et al. (2003), Caldeira (2006), Munhá et al. (2006a, b, c, d, 2007), and Barfod and Fitton (2014) have provided important updates to our knowledge of the geology of São Tomé. Chou et al. (2020) provided the ﬁrst modern analysis of the climate of São Tomé and Príncipe, downscaling global projections of climate change to these islands. For Annobón, the information is scarcer with initial geological works by Schultze (1913), petrological studies by Fuster Casas (1954) and Cornen and Maury (1980), work on volcanic geochemistry by Liotard et al. (1982), and a review by De Castro and De la Calle (1985), with subsequent additions by Fa (1991) and Velayos et al. (2014). Besides these island speciﬁc studies, several reviews summarize the main geophysical characteristics of the Gulf of Guinea islands (e.g., Lee et al. 1994; Jones 1994; Jones and Tye 2006; Juste and Fa 1994; Schlüter 2008). Location, Extent, and Political Boundaries The Gulf of Guinea island system (sensu lato) includes the ecological or “sky” island of Mount Cameroon, the land-bridge island of Bioko, and the three oceanic islands of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón (Fig. 2.1). They are, from northeast to southwest: Mount Cameroon, with an approximate area of 1750 km2 (50 35 km), is an ecological island in the southwest province of the Republic of Cameroon. Mount Cameroon is the highest mountain in West Africa, with a peak elevation of 4095 m above sea level. Bioko Island is a land-bridge island with an area of 2027 km2 (roughly 35 km 72 km). Bioko sits upon the continental shelf 32 km from the coast of Cameroon from which it is presently separated by a sea 60 m deep. During recent glacial periods, however, Bioko experienced recurring cycles of isolation and connectivity (Ali 2018), and was most recently connected c. 11,000 years ago (Einsentraut 1965; Lambert and Chappel 2001). Rising to an impressive 3011 m above sea level, Pico Basilé is the highest point of the island and one of its main landmarks. The three oceanic islands that are the focus of this book have never been connected to the continent, and they are: Príncipe Island (Fig. 2.2(1)) with a total area of 139 km2 (c. 17 km 8 km) is located 210 km SSW of Bioko and 220 km west of continental Africa. The island has six main satellite islets: Pedra da Galé, Mosteiros, and Bom-Bom in the north, Caroço (also known as the Jockey’s Cap; Fig. 2.2(3)) in the southeast, and Tinhosa Grande and Tinhosa Pequena (Fig. 2.2(2)), which are about 20 km to the south. The highest point, Pico do Príncipe, is 942 m above sea level. 2 Physical Geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 17 Fig. 2.2 (1) Pico Agulhas, Príncipe Island; (2) Tinhosa islets; (3) Jockey Bonet; (4) Pico São Tomé, São Tomé Island; (5) Pico Cão Grande, São Tomé Island; (6) Rolas islet; (7) Lagoa Amélia, São Tomé Island; (8) Lake A Pot, Annobón Island. Photo credits: (1 and 8) Martim Melo, (2, 3, 5–7) Luis M. P. Ceríaco; (4) Ricardo Lima São Tomé Island with a total area of 857 km2 (47 km 28 km) lies 150 km SSW of Príncipe and 255 km west of Gabon. The island has several islets, of which Cabras to the north, Santana in the east, and Sete Pedras and Rolas (Fig. 2.2(6)) in the south 18 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Fig. 2.3 Administrative divisions of Príncipe (a), São Tomé (b), and Annobón (c) are the largest. The Equator passes through the center of Rolas Islet. The highest point, Pico de São Tomé (Fig. 2.2(4)), is 2024 m above sea level. Annobón Island has an area of 17 km2 (6 km 3 km) and is the smallest and remotest of the Gulf of Guinea islands. It sits 180 km to the SSW of São Tomé and is about 340 km from the continent. The highest peak is Santa Mina, which rises 610 m above sea level. Politically, the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands belong to two countries: the Democratic Republic of São Tomé e Príncipe and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea. São Tomé e Príncipe is a nation state made up of Príncipe and São Tomé islands and the surrounding islets. It was once a colonial province of Portugal, from which it gained independence in 1975. It is one of the smallest countries in the world, with an approximate area of 1001 km2. The country is internally organized into different levels of political and administrative divisions. São Tomé Island hosts the capital, the city of São Tomé, and is divided into six districts (Água Grande, Cantagalo, Caué, Lembá, Lobata, and Mé-Zóchi); Príncipe Island is an Autonomous Region, and is comprised of a single district, Pagué (Fig. 2.3). Annobón (formerly known as Pagalu; Fig. 2.3), the smallest and most southwestern of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, is one of eight provinces of Equatorial Guinea. This geographically disjunct country was a Spanish colony from 1778 to 1968. Equatorial Guinea is composed of a territory in continental Africa, Rio Muni, bordered by Cameroon to the north and Gabon in the east and south, the surroundings islets of Corisco, Elobey Chico, and Elobey Grande, the land-bridge island of Bioko (formerly known as Fernando Pó), where the country’s capital is (Malabo), and ﬁnally the small oceanic island of Annobón. Whereas the mainland territory and Bioko have a long history of human occupation, Annobón was not peopled at the time of its discovery by the Portuguese, in 1473. Geological History The Gulf of Guinea islands form the southern part of the Cameroon Volcanic Line, a 1000-km line of volcanoes that has been active since the Cenozoic, and that extends from the Mandara Mountains on the Nigeria-Cameroon border to Annobón Island 2 Physical Geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 19 Fig. 2.4 Topographic representation of the offshore section of the Cameroon Volcanic Line. Figure created with the rayshader R package (Morgan-Wall 2021) using GEBCO data (GEBCO Compilation Group 2021) (Burke 2001). This line runs in a NE-SW direction and includes four islands and two seamounts (Fig. 2.4). Onshore, there are four continental massifs (Mount Cameroon, Mount Manengouba, Mount Bambouto, and Mount Oku), all of which are in the Republic of Cameroon. Often, the Ngaoundéré and Biu swells, also in Cameroon, are considered part of the line, in which case the line becomes Y-shaped and 1600 km long (Fitton 1987; Lee et al. 1994; Fig. 2.5). Volcanic activity in the continental and oceanic sector has been more or less continuous since the Cretaceous (Fitton 1987; Lee et al. 1994; Burke 2001). There is no age progression in the line, except in the offshore section—with the oldest sub-aerial origins estimated at about 31 Ma for Príncipe, 15 Ma for São Tomé, and 6 Ma for Annobón (Lopes 2020). The age of the oldest lava ﬂows only provides estimates of the minimum age when each island was sub-aerial because older rocks may be buried under the most recent ones. For example, all the exposed lavas on Mount Cameroon are less than one million years old, but the mountain is built upon much older lava ﬂows (Fitton 1987). Furthermore, volcanic activity persisted until recently on all the islands, and is still ongoing in Mount Cameroon and to a lesser extent in Bioko. This dynamic aspect of the islands is well illustrated in São Tomé, where the oldest rocks, at about 15.7 Ma, are from the small Cabras Islet, while the surface rocks of more than half of the island, including its highest peak, date between 1.5 and 0.4 Ma (Caldeira et al. 2003; Barfod and Fitton 2014). Although still poorly understood, the volcanic history of the Gulf of Guinea islands has no doubt played a major role in the assembly of their current biological communities. For instance, landslides or lava ﬂows can split species ranges or cause extinctions, and distinct islands and islets may fuse and split over time (Milá et al. 2010; Gillespie and Roderick 2014; Ramalho et al. 2015). 20 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Fig. 2.5 The Cameroon line of volcanoes. Note the similarity in shape between the volcanic line (black) and the Benue Rift (grey). This was likely due to the rotation of the African plate c. 30–35 Ma that displaced the asthenospheric hot zone underlying the Benue Rift to its current position—resulting in a volcanic line without a rift and a rift without volcanoes, a unique feature on Earth. After decades of debate, the alignment of the volcanic centers is now thought to be controlled by the geometry of the northwest edge of the Congo Craton. Adapted from Lee et al. (1994) 2 Physical Geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 21 Quaternary Sea-Level Fluctuations Across the globe, glacial-interglacial sea-level ﬂuctuations have shaped insular biodiversity and diversiﬁcation by repeatedly connecting and isolating populations on coastal landmasses (e.g., Ali and Aitchison 2014; Rijsdijk et al. 2014; FernándezPalacios 2016; Weigelt et al. 2016; Norder et al. 2018, 2019). Ceríaco et al. (2020) modeled the area of the islands throughout the last glacial period to the present day and demonstrated that the Gulf of Guinea islands show marked changes in area in response to eustatic sea-level ﬂuctuations. During the exceptionally low sea level of the Last Glacial Maximum, as much as 134 m lower than present day (Lambeck et al. 2014), Bioko was connected to continental Africa, Annobón was ﬁve times its present size, Príncipe was about six times its present size, and São Tomé was approximately 50% larger than present day (Ceríaco et al. 2020; Fig. 2.6). Topography and Hydrography Due to recent volcanic activity, Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón are old islands that have the topography of young islands, including rugged mountains with steep slopes, deep valleys, volcanic chimneys, table mountains, and huge waterfalls (Figs. 2.7). The topography varies between islands. São Tomé is dominated by steep slopes and mountains across the majority of the island, with the exception of the ﬂatter areas in the northeast (Figs. 2.7e, f). The maximum elevation reaches 2024 m at Pico de São Tomé, and several other mountain and peaks areas in the center of the island are well above 1000 m (Figs. 2.2(5), 2.7e). Príncipe has a plateau in the north but is mountainous in the south, where several peaks rise above 500 m, including Pico do Príncipe at 942 m (Figs. 2.7b). Annobón is small and steep, except for a small portion in the north, where most of the human population resides. The elevation rises considerably in the center and south, reaching 613 m at Santa Mina (Fig. 2.7h). The available data on the terrestrial hydrography of the islands are limited. Both São Tomé and Príncipe are mostly covered by the hydrographic basin of a few large rivers in a dense network and also include several small coastal rivers (Fig. 2.7a, d). São Tomé Island has many small lagoons, estuaries, and mangroves, including the Malanza river estuary in the south, which forms the most extensive mangrove in the country. São Tomé also has a unique freshwater palustrine system in the crater of Lagoa Amélia (Fig. 2.2(7)), which is the source of the largest rivers in the north of the island (Fig. 2.7d). Annobón only has a few small streams, but Lago A Pot crater lake (Fig. 2.7g, shown in red; Fig. 2.2(8)) is a dominant feature of the island with a diameter of approximately 700 m at 150 m above sea level. 22 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. (a) (b) Fig. 2.6 Paleogeographic reconstructions of the Gulf of Guinea: (a) Area change curves of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón islands; (b) area of islands today (dark green), and extreme area at the last glacial maximum (LGM, approximately 21 ka; light green). Adapted from Ceríaco et al. (2020) 2 Physical Geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 23 Fig. 2.7 Overview of the hydrography and topography of (a, b, c) Príncipe, (d, e, f) São Tomé, and (g, h, i) Annobón. For each island, elevation is presented in meters above sea level and steepness in degrees. Main rivers and waterbodies: São Tomé Rivers (d): 1—Provaz; 2—Lembá; 3—Xufexufe; 4—Quija; 5—Mussacavú; 6—Pedras; 7—Gumbela; 8—Malanza; 9—Gogô; 10—Caué; 11— Martim Mendes; 12—Miranda Guedes; 13—João Nunes; 14—Ana Chaves; 15—Ió Grande; 16—Angobó; 17—Angra Toldo; 18—Pedra Furada; 19—Ribeira Afonso; 20—Abade; 22— Ouro. São Tomé Crater Lake: 21—Lagoa Amélia. Príncipe Rivers (a): 1—Ribeira Banzú; 2— Ribeira São Tomé; 3—Ribeira Porco; 4—Chibala; 6—Papagaio. Annobón (g) has no signiﬁcant rivers; the crater lake Lago A Pot is shown in red 24 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Geology and Soils The geology of São Tomé and Príncipe has been well studied since the early twentieth century. This is partly due to the importance of geology and soils for agriculture, which has been the major driver of the local economy for centuries (Lains e Silva 1958; Lains e Silva and Cardoso 1958; Rodrigues 1974). The ﬁrst overview of the geology of São Tomé Island was provided by Carvalho in Henriques (1917), followed by a more detailed study on the microscopic characteristics of its rocks (Carvalho 1921). Teixeira (1948–1949, 1949) provided a more complete overview of the geology of the islands, followed by a petrological work by Pereira (1943). The most extensive and complete contributions to the geology of the islands were provided by the Portuguese geologist João Manuel Cotelo Neiva (1917–2015), whose work was fundamental to understanding the geochemistry and geomorphology (Neiva 1946, 1954, 1955a, b, 1956a, b, c; Neiva and Pureza 1956; Neiva and Neves 1956). Assunção (1956, 1957) and Barros (1960) also contributed to our understanding of the geochemistry. In the twenty-ﬁrst century, new research on the geology of São Tomé (Munhá et al. 2002; Caldeira et al. 2003; Caldeira 2006) has resulted in updated geological maps (Munhá et al. 2006a, b, c, d, 2007). By contrast, the geology of Annobón has received far less attention. The ﬁrst information on its geological history and composition was provided by Schultze (1913), followed by studies by Tyrrell (1934), Fuster Casas (1954), Cornen and Maury (1980), and Liotard et al. (1982). More recently, De Castro and De la Calle (1985) and Fa (1991) provided an overview of the geology of Annobón. On Príncipe, basaltic rocks predominate in the north and phonolites and tephrites in the south, whereas São Tomé and Annobón are mostly built by basaltic lavas (Fig. 2.8). A more detailed description of the geology of the islands is provided by Schlüter (2008). Regarding the soils of Príncipe and São Tomé, Lains e Silva (1958) and Cardoso (1958) drafted the ﬁrst maps, with a more comprehensive map and revision by Cardoso and Garcia (1962). Other works were done by Pissarra and Rocha (1963) and Pissarra et al. (1965). The dominant soil types of Príncipe and São Tomé are highly weathered, such as Ferralsols and Lixisols (Lains e Silva 1958; Cardoso and Garcia 1962; Diniz and Matos 2002), which are typical of tropical climates. Vertisols are restricted to the dry north and northeast of São Tomé, while Lithosols can be found everywhere on the island, often associated with ridges, steep slopes, and cliffs near the coast (Diniz and Matos 2002). Fluvisols, as expected, are mostly associated with riparian areas. Very little is known about the soils of Annobón, other than that they are ultrabasic with low silica and high proportions of ferromagnesian elements (De Castro and De la Calle 1985; Fa 1991). The only reported fossils are from Príncipe and date to the Miocene (Teixeira 1949; Silva 1956a, b, 1958a, b; Serralheiro 1957). These include marine organisms such as gastropods, bivalve mollusks, coelenterates, echinoderms, and ﬁshes’ teeth, but also calcareous algae, radiolarians, and foraminifera. Modern foraminifera are known from both Príncipe and São Tomé beaches (Moura 1961). A palaeoecological study is currently taking place on Príncipe and São Tomé collecting data from 2 Physical Geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 25 Fig. 2.8 Geological overview of the islands of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón. Adapted with permission from Springer Nature Geological Atlas of Africa by Schlüter © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006 (2008) pollen, spores, charcoal, and sedimentology to reconstruct ecosystem changes associated with glacial cycles and the impacts of human activities (unpublished data by Alvaro Castilla-Beltrán). 26 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Fig. 2.9 Annual average temperature (in Celsius) for the islands of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón. Data obtained from the Global Solar Atlas 2.0, provided by the World Bank Group Climate The Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands have an oceanic equatorial climate. Mean temperatures are above 25 C at sea level but decrease with altitude (Fig. 2.9). The year is divided into rainy and dry seasons, which are determined by the Intertropical Convergence Zone, and by the interaction between the southern monsoon winds from the Atlantic Ocean and the northern dry harmattan winds from the Sahara. Seasons differ between the continental and the oceanic sectors. On Mount Cameroon and Bioko, the main dry season is from December to March, and a shorter dry season occurs from July to August (Juste and Fa 1994). In Príncipe and São Tomé, the long dry season, locally known as gravana, extends from June to mid-September, while a shorter dry season, the gravanito, lasts for a few weeks that may fall anywhere between mid-December and mid-March (Lains e Silva 1958). Annobón, south of the Equator, has a single extended dry season from mid-May to the end of October (Jones and Tye 2006). Due to their small area and heterogeneity, modern rainfall and climate measurements based on remote sensing likely do not accurately describe the climate of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón. To the best of our knowledge, until recently Annobón had no functional meteorological station, while there was only one on Príncipe and ﬁve on São Tomé, of which only one had been collecting long-term data systematically (Chou et al. 2020). This network was greatly improved over the last decade (https://www.thegef.org/project/strengthening-climate-information-andearly-warning-systems-sao-tome-and-Príncipe-climate), but detailed long-term information on the climate of the islands is still lacking. The topography of Príncipe and São Tomé islands is similar, resulting in a similar distribution of climatic zones (Diniz and Matos 2002). The high relief areas of the south and center intercept the predominant warm and moist south-westerly winds, creating a striking north–south divide in precipitation (the Foehn effect). The southern-facing regions are “Super Humid,” with annual precipitation above 2 Physical Geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 27 Fig. 2.10 Climatic zones for the islands of São Tomé (left) and Príncipe (right). Adapted from Diniz and Matos (2002) 3000 mm, and often much higher (c. 5000 mm on Príncipe, above 7000 mm on São Tomé—Diniz and Matos 2002), enhanced by extremely high humidity levels and low sun exposure (Fig. 2.10). The north, under the rain-shadow effect, has climatic belts associated with the decreasing levels of humidity with decreasing altitude. The higher slopes beneﬁt from the monsoon winds that pass over the peaks, and have precipitation levels between 1500 and 3000 mm, making the “Humid” belt (Fig. 2.10). Lower down, from the coast to about 400 to 550 m, moderate slopes (below 15%) receive between 1000 and 1500 mm of rain per year, making up the “Sub-Humid” belt, which has a well-deﬁned rainy season (Fig. 2.10). Finally, only on São Tomé, the littoral area in the ﬂatter N-NE platform, below 1000 m, has a “Semi-Arid” belt that has annual precipitation levels between 600 and 1000 mm (Fig. 2.10). This general zonation, with more humid climates in the south and drier climates in the north, also seems to apply to Annobón and to the continental islands. Annual precipitation on the southwestern slopes of Mount Cameroon may be over 10,000 mm, and between 1500 and 2000 mm in the northern slopes. In the south of Bioko Island, annual precipitation can be over 11,000 mm (Juste and Fa 1994) while the capital Malabo, in the north, receives <2000 mm/year. 28 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Wind and Ocean Currents Understanding the wind and ocean currents is fundamental to infer potential colonization pathways for island fauna and ﬂora. The prevailing winds in the Gulf of Guinea are the southwestern monsoon winds and the northern dry harmattan winds. The southwestern monsoon winds are unlikely to have dispersed colonizers from continental Africa but may have played a role in southwest-to-northeast dispersal between islands. During glacial cycles, the northern dry harmattan winds extended their inﬂuence southward, displacing the meteorological equator further south (Lézine et al. 1994), likely having a more important role in bringing colonizers to the island during those periods. Data on sea surface currents originate from a combination of historical ship drifts, hydrographical data, surface-drifting buoy trajectories, and Argo ﬂoats surface drifts (Richardson and Walsh 1986; Arnault 1987; Stramma and Schott 1999; Renner 2004; Lumpkin and Garzoli 2005; Ollitrault and Rannou 2013). The Gulf of Guinea is dominated by two currents (northward and eastward) that follow the shoreline. In the north, the eastward current, also known as Guinea Current (GC), moves west to east along the southern coast of West Africa, and, when reaching the Biafra Bay, converges with the northward current and becomes more diffuse, turning back westward around the Equator (Feiler 1988; Haft 1993; Dupont et al. 2000; Fig. 2.11). In the southeast, the northward current, known as the Benguela Current (BC), moves along the northern coast of South Africa, the coast of Namibia, and is diverted west to the Atlantic around the mouth of the Cunene River, the natural and political border between Namibia and Angola. It also feeds the South Equatorial Current (SEC), which represents the northern limb of the South Atlantic Ocean subtropical gyre (Philander 2001; Rodrigues et al. 2007). Moving north, the coast of Angola is dominated by two different currents, the Benguela Coastal Current (BCC), a cold and less-saline northward ﬂow, and the Angola Current (AC), a fast and narrow southward geostrophic ﬂow of warm and saline water found between the equatorial band and about 15 S. The intersection of these two currents, around 15 S, is known as the Angola Benguela Front (Hopkins et al. 2013; Lass and Mohrholz 2008, their Fig. 1; Houndegnotono et al. 2021, their Fig. 1b). The discharge of the Congo River, which extends offshore as the Congo River plume, is a thin layer (3 m thick at the river mouth) of fresher/lower salinity water. This freshwater plume is entrained mostly westward, through Ekman-driven circulation in which the wind deﬂects surface water to the left of its direction in the southern hemisphere. Ocean currents are important for understanding the biogeographic history of aquatic organisms and terrestrial organisms that disperse in water—such as some seed plants—but, in the Gulf of Guinea, they may also hold the key to understanding how many non-volant, non-swimming, or salt-intolerant species made their way to the islands (Melo et al. 2022). The prevailing hypothesis to explain the origin of such unlikely oceanic island taxa proposes that they came as passengers of natural rafts that drifted to the islands along “freshwater pathways” on the ocean surface (Measey et al. 2007). Such rafts would reach the islands along “freshwater pathways” created 2 Physical Geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 29 Fig. 2.11 Main ocean currents in the Gulf of Guinea. Angolan Current (AC), Benguela Current (AC), Benguela Coastal Current (BCC), Guinea Current (GC), and South Equatorial Current (SEC). Warm currents in red; cold currents in dark blue by the large input of freshwater plumes and precipitation into the Gulf of Guinea (Fig. 2.11; Dessier and Donguy 1994; Large and Yeager 2009; Hopkins et al. 2013; Berger et al. 2014). Because saltwater is denser than freshwater, during the rainy season the ocean surface in the Gulf of Guinea exhibits reduced salinity—a wellknown phenomenon by local ﬁshermen (Measey et al. 2007; Hopkins et al. 2013). These “freshwater pathways” would give the rafts some protection against saltwater as they cross the sea. The Gulf of Guinea receives the freshwater discharge of three major rivers that originate from different regions: the Niger in West Africa, the Congo in East-Central Africa, and the Ogooué in West-Central Africa (Fig. 2.12). The Congo River is only second to the Amazon in terms of discharge, having an average discharge of 40103 m3s 1 (Mahé and Olivry 1999), while the Niger River has about 7103 m3s 1 (Dai and Trenberth 2002). When reaching the ocean, these waters are directed toward the islands by the surface currents of the Atlantic Ocean. 30 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Fig. 2.12 Monthly average sea surface salinity for the months of February (left) and July (right) 2021. Values displayed with a range of 20 and 37 using the Practical Salinity Scale (PSS), roughly equivalent to parts per thousand of salt. Data from the Remote Sensing Systems SMAP Ocean Surface Salinities [Level 3 Monthly] Dataset, Version 4.0 validated release (Meissner et al. 2019) Although the mouth of the Ogooué River is the closest to the islands (approximately 250 km), the currents in the Gulf of Guinea direct the freshwater plumes from the Niger and Congo rivers toward the islands (Richardson and Walsh 1986), such that vegetation rafts originating in the more distant West and East African drainages may also reach the islands. Conclusions Despite their small area, the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea include a wealth of geological substrates and topographical features that underlie the development of diverse soils and micro-climates (Fig. 2.2). This diversity of geological features has been recognized by ten formations being proposed as geosites on São Tomé Island, which have a wide range of cultural, scientiﬁc, and scenic values (Henriques and Neto 2015). These landscapes have also promoted the appearance of distinct ecosystems (Dauby et al. 2022) and species (Melo et al. 2022). The location of the islands, at moderate distances from the mainland and at the crossroads of freshwater plumes from three large rivers, has likely further contributed toward the assembly of their rich biological communities. These rivers are thought to have been the source of natural rafts bringing species that would otherwise be unable to cross saltwater barriers. Acknowledgments The authors thank Jason Ali and Bernard Bourles for suggestions on the original draft of this manuscript, and Branca Moriés, from the library of the Museu de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, for her support with historical bibliography. Data for 2 Physical Geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 31 map of Fig. 2.9 were obtained from the “Global Solar Atlas 2.0,” a free, web-based application, developed and operated by the company Solargis s.r.o. on behalf of the World Bank Group, utilizing Solargis data, with funding provided by the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP). For additional information: https://globalsolaratlas.info. SMAP salinity data are produced by Remote Sensing Systems and sponsored by the NASA Ocean Salinity Science Team. They are available at www.remss.com. MM was supported via the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program under grant agreement 854248. “Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia” (Portugal) funded BSS (2021.06659.BD), cE3c (UID/BIA/00329/2021; to RFL), and (UIDB/50027/2021; to MM). SJN was supported by the European Research Council under the EU H2020 and Research and Innovation program (SAPPHIRE grant 818854). References Ali JR (2018) Islands as biological substrates: continental. Journal of Biogeography 45:1003–1018 Ali JR, Aitchison JC (2014) Exploring the combined role of eustasy and oceanic island subsidence in shaping biodiversity on the Galápagos. Journal of Biogeography 41:1227–1241 Arnault S (1987) Tropical Atlantic geostrophic currents and ship drifts. Journal of Geophysical Research 92:5076–5088 Assunção CFT (1956) Lavas feldspatóidicas de São Tomé. Conf Int Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª Sess 2:11–17 Assunção CFT (1957) Alguns aspectos de petrograﬁa da Ilha de S. Tomé. Garcia de Orta 5(3): 497–515 Barfod DN, Fitton JG (2014) Pleistocene volcanism on São Tomé, Gulf of Guinea, West Africa. Quaternary Geochronology 21:77–89 Barros LA (1960) A Ilha do Príncipe e a “linha dos Camarões” (Estudo Petrológico). Memórias da Junta de Investigação do Ultramar, Segunda Série 17:1–127 Berger H, Treguier AM, Perenne N, Talandier C (2014) Dynamical contribution to sea surface salinity variations in the eastern Gulf of Guinea based on numerical modelling. Climate Dynamics 43(11):3105–3122 Burke K (2001) Origin of the Cameroon line of volcano-capped swells. Journal of Geology 109: 349–362 Caldeira R (2006) Estudo petrológico e geoquímico dos xenólitos e das lavas da ilha de São Tomé (Arquipélago de São Tomé e Príncipe. PhD thesis, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, 322 pp Caldeira R, Madeira J, Munhá JM et al (2003) Caracterização das principais unidades vulcanoestratigráﬁcas da ilha de São Tomé, Golfo da Guiné. Ciências da Terra (UNL) n esp. V:A15– A18 Cardoso JC (1958) Os solos de São Tomé e Príncipe (Seu Estudo Preliminar). Revista do Café Português 5(17):9–44 Cardoso JC, Garcia JS (1962) Carta dos solos de São Tomé e Príncipe. Memórias da Junta de Investigação do Ultramar, Segunda Série 39:1–306 + 12 plates + 2 maps Carvalho AF (1921) Estudo microscópico de rochas da ilha de São Tomé. Memórias e Notícias Publicações do Museu e Laboratório Mineralógico e Geológico da Universidade de Coimbra e do Centro de Estudos Geológicos 1:9–25 Ceríaco LMP, Bernstein J, Sousa AC et al (2020) The reptiles of Tinhosa Grande islet (Gulf of Guinea): a taxonomic update and the role of Quaternary Sea level ﬂuctuations in their diversiﬁcation. African Journal of Herpetology 69(2):200–216 Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Bell RC, Melo M (2022) Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: a synthesis. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 1–12 32 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Chou SC, de Arruda LA, Gomes JL et al (2020) Downscaling projections of climate change in São Tomé and Príncipe Islands, Africa. Climate Dynamics 54:4021–4042 Cornen G, Maury RC (1980) Petrology of the volcanic island of Annobón, Gulf of Guinea. Marine Geology 36(1–4):253–267 Dai A, Trenberth KE (2002) Estimates of freshwater discharge from continents: latitudinal and seasonal variations. Journal of Hydrometeorology 3(6):660–687 Dauby G, Stévart T, Barberá P et al (2022) Classiﬁcation, distribution, and biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 37–70 De Castro ML, De la Calle ML (1985) Geografía de Guinea Ecuatorial. Secretaría General Técnica. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Madrid, 7 pp Dessier A, Donguy JR (1994) The sea surface salinity in the tropical Atlantic between 10 S and 30 N – seasonal and interannual variations (1977–1989). Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 41(1):81–100 Diniz AC, Matos GC (2002) Carta da zonagem agro-ecológica e da vegetação de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série Botânica 15(2):1–72 Dupont L, Schmüser A, Jahns S, Schneider R (2000) Marine-terrestrial interaction of climate changes is west equatorial Africa of the last 190,000 years. Palaeoecology of Africa 26:61–84 Einsentraut M (1965) Rassenbildung bei Säugetiernen und vogeln auf der Insel Fernando Poo. Zoologischer Anzeiger 174:37–53 Fa JE (1991) Conservación de los ecosistemas forestales de Guinea Ecuatorial. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge (UK), 221 pp Feiler A (1988) Die Säugetiere der Insel im Golf von Guinea und ihre Beziehungen zur Säugetierfauna des westafrikanischen Festlandes (Mammalia). Zoologische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 44(1):83–88 Fernández-Palacios JM (2016) Island biogeography: shaped by sea-level shifts. Nature 532(7597): 42–43 Fitton JG (1987) The Cameroon line, West Africa: a comparison between oceanic and continental alkaline volcanism. In: Fitton JG, Upton BGJ (eds) Alkaline igneous rocks. Geological Society Special Publication N 30, pp 273–291 Fuster Casas JM (1954) Estudio petrogenético de los volcanes del Golfo de Guinea. Instituto de Estudios Africanos, Madrid, p 152 Gascoigne A (2004) São Tomé, Príncipe, and Annobón moist lowland forests. In: Burgess N, D'Amico Hales J, Underwood E et al (eds) Terrestrial ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: a conservation assessment. Island Press, Washington, pp 236–238 GEBCO Compilation Group (2021) GEBCO 2021 grid. https://doi.org/10.5285/c6612cbe-50b30cff-e053-6c86abc09f8f Gillespie RG, Roderick GK (2014) Evolution: geology and climate drive diversiﬁcation. Nature 509:297–298 Haft (1993) Ein Beitrag zur Biologie der Echsen der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea), mit näherer Betrachtung zur Systematik von Leptosiaphos africana (Gray) (Reptilia: Sauria: Geckonidae et Scincidae). Faunistische Abhandlungen - Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1–16): 59–70 Henriques JA (1917) A Ilha de S. Tomé sob o ponto de vista histórico-natural e agrícola. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 27:1–197 Henriques MH, Neto K (2015) Geoheritage at the equator: selected geosites of São Tomé Island (Cameron Line, Central Africa). Sustainability 7:648–667 Hopkins J, Lucas M, Dufau C et al (2013) Detection and variability of the Congo River plume from satellite derived sea surface temperature, salinity, ocean colour and sea level. Remote Sensing of Environment 139:365–385 Houndegnotono OJ, Kolodziejczyk N, Maes C, Bourlès B, Da-Allada CY, Reul N (2021) Seasonal variability of freshwater plumes in the eastern Gulf of Guinea as inferred from satellite measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 126(5):e2020JC017041 2 Physical Geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 33 Jones PJ (1994) Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea: an overview. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 772–784 Jones PJ, Tye A (2006) The birds of São Tomé and Príncipe, with Annobón: islands of the Gulf of Guinea. BOU checklist, vol 22. British Ornithologists Union, Oxford (UK) Jones PJ, Burlison JP, Tye A (1991) Conservação dos ecossistemas ﬂorestais na República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. IUCN, Gland Cambridge (UK), 78 pp Juste BJ, Fa JE (1994) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea islands. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:757–758 Lains e Silva H (1958) São Tomé e Príncipe e a cultura do café. Memórias da Junta de Investigação do Ultramar, Segunda Série 1:I–XII + 1–499 + plates and maps Lains e Silva H, Cardoso JC (1958) Esboço da carta de aptidão agrícola de São Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 6(1):61–86 + four plates Lambeck K, Rouby H, Purcell A, Sun Y, Sambridge M (2014) Sea level and global ice volumes from the last glacial maximum to the Holocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111:15296–15303 Lambert K, Chappel J (2001) Sea level change through the last glacial cycle. Science 292:679–686 Large W, Yeager S (2009) The global climatology of an interannually varying air–sea ﬂux dataset. Climate Dynamics 33(2–3):341–364 Lass HU, Mohrholz V (2008) On the interaction between the subtropical gyre and the subtropical cell on the shelf of the SE Atlantic. Journal of Marine Systems 74(1–2):1–43 Lee D-C, Halliday AN, Fitton JG, Poli G (1994) Isotopic variations with distance and time in the volcanic islands of the Cameroon line: evidence for a mantle plume origin. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 123:119–138 Lézine A-M, Tastet J-P, Leroux M (1994) Evidence of atmospheric paleocirculation over the Gulf of Guinea since the last glacial maximum. Quaternary Research 41:390–395 Liotard JM, Dupuy C, Dostal J, Cornen G (1982) Geochemistry of the volcanic island of Annobón, Gulf of Guinea. Chemical Geology 35(1–2):115–128 Lopes JMR (2020) Geocronologia Ar-Ar e geoquímica isotópica de rochas das ilhas de Ano-Bom, São Tomé e Príncipe da linha vulcânica dos Camarões, PhD thesis, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 83 pp Lumpkin R, Garzoli SL (2005) Near-surface circulation in the tropical Atlantic Ocean. Deep-Sea Research Part I 52:495–517 Mahé G, Olivry JC (1999) Assessment of freshwater yields to the ocean along the intertropical Atlantic coast of Africa (1951–1989). Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences-Series IIA-Earth and Planetary Science 328(9):621–626 Measey GJ, Vences M, Drewes RC et al (2007) Freshwater paths into the ocean: molecular phylogeny of the frog Ptychadena newtoni gives insights into amphibian colonisation of oceanic islands. Journal of Biogeography 34:7–20 Meissner T, Wentz FJ, Manaster A, Lindsley R (2019) Remote sensing systems SMAP ocean surface salinities [Level 2C, Level 3 running 8-day, Level 3 monthly], version 4.0 validated release. Available via Remote Sensing Systems. www.remss.com/missions/smap. Accessed 7 Oct 2021 Melo M, Ceríaco LMP, Bell RC (2022) Biogeography and evolution in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 141–170 Milá B, Warren BH, Heeb P, Thébaud C (2010) The geographic scale of diversiﬁcation on islands: genetic and morphological divergence at a very small spatial scale in the Mascarene grey whiteeye (Aves: Zosterops borbonicus). BMC Evolutionary Biology 10:158 Morgan-Wall T (2021) Rayshader: create maps and visualize data in 2D and 3D. https://www. rayshader.com. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Moura AR (1961) Contribuição para o conhecimento dos foraminíferos das praias levantadas de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 9(4):751–758 34 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Munhá JM, Afonso RS, Caldeira R, Mata J (2002) Estudo Geologico Preliminar da Região Nordeste da ilha de São Tomé (folha n 2 - Ana Chaves). Garcia de Orta (Serie de Geologia) 18(1–2):1–8 Munhá JM, Caldeira R, Madeira J et al (2006a) Folha 1 (Ponta Figo) da Carta Geológica da ilha de São Tomé (Republica de São Tomé e Príncipe) na escala 1:25.000. Edição do Centro de Geologia do Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical (Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia), Ministério dos Recursos Naturais e Energia (República de São Tomé e Príncipe) e Instituto para a Cooperação do Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros (Governo da República Portuguesa) Munhá JM, Caldeira R, Madeira J et al (2006b) Folha 2 (S.Tomé) da Carta Geológica da ilha de São Tomé (Republica de São Tomé e Príncipe) na escala 1:25.000. Edição do Centro de Geologia do Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical (Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia), Ministério dos Recursos Naturais e Energia (República de São Tomé e Príncipe) e Instituto para a Cooperação do Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros (Governo da República Portuguesa) Munhá JM, Caldeira R, Madeira J et al (2006c) Folha 4 (Ribeira Afonso) da Carta Geológica da ilha de São Tomé (Republica de São Tomé e Príncipe) na escala 1:25.000. Edição do Centro de Geologia do Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical (Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia), Ministério dos Recursos Naturais e Energia (República de São Tomé e Príncipe) e Instituto para a Cooperação do Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros (Governo da República Portuguesa) Munhá JM, Caldeira R, Madeira J et al (2006d) Folha 5 (Ihéu das Rolas) da Carta Geológica da ilha de São Tomé (República de São Tomé e Príncipe) na escala 1:25.000. Edição do Centro de Geologia do Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical (Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia), Ministério dos Recursos Naturais e Energia (República de São Tomé e Príncipe) e Instituto para a Cooperação do Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros (Governo da República Portuguesa) Munhá J, Caldeira R, Madeira J, Mata J, Afonso R (2007) Geologia da ilha de São Tomé. Notícia explicativa da carta geológica na escala 1: 25000. Cooperação Portuguesa – Instituto Português de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento, Lisboa, 41 pp Neiva JMC (1946) Notas sobre o quimismo das formações eruptivas da ilha de São Tomé. Boletim da Sociedade Geológica de Portugal 5(3):151–158 Neiva JMC (1954) Quelques laves vacuolaires de l’ile de St. Tomé et de l’ilot de Rolas. Garcia de Orta 2(1):53–59 Neiva JMC (1955a) Phonolites de l’ile du Prince. Note préliminaire. Memórias e Notícias – Publicações do Museu e Laboratório Mineralógico e Geológico da Universidade de Coimbra e do Centro de Estudos Geológicos 38:46–52 Neiva JMC (1955b) Phonolites de l’ile du Prince. Garcia de Orta 3(4):505–515 Neiva JMC (1956a) Contribuição para o estudo geológico e geomorfológico da ilha de S. Tomé e dos ilhéus das rolas e das cabras. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais, 6ª Sessão 2:147–153 Neiva JMC (1956b) Contribuição para a geologia e geomorfologia da ilha do Príncipe. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais, 6ª Sessão 2:157–162 Neiva JMC (1956c) Contribuição para a petrograﬁa das ilhas de São Tomé e Príncipe e dos ilhéus das Rolas, das Cabras e Boné-de-Jockey. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais, 6ª Sessão 2:155 Neiva JMC, Neves JMC (1956) Laterites da ilha do Príncipe. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais, 6ª Sessão 2:169–176 Neiva JMC, Pureza FG (1956) Contribuição para o conhecimento das areias das praias das ilhas de São Tomé e Príncipe. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais, 6ª Sessão 2:163– 197 Norder SJ, Baumgartner JB, Borges PAV et al (2018) A global spatially explicit database of changes in island palaeo-area and archipelago conﬁguration during the late Quaternary. Global Ecology and Biogeography 27(5):500–505 Norder SJ, Proios K, Whittaker RJ et al (2019) Beyond the last glacial maximum: island endemism is best explained by long-lasting archipelago conﬁgurations. Global Ecology and Biogeography 28(2):184–197 2 Physical Geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 35 Ollitrault M, Rannou J-P (2013) ANDRO: an argo-based deep displacement dataset. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 30(4):759–788 Pereira JS (1943) Subsidios geológicos e petrológicos para o conhecimento da ilha de S. Tomé. Boletim da Sociedade Geológica de Portugal 3(3):125–144 Philander SG (2001) Atlantic Ocean equatorial currents. In: Steele JH (ed) Encyclopedia of ocean sciences. Academic Press, Oxford (UK), pp 188–191 Pissarra JB, Rocha AT (1963) Contribuição para o estudo mineralógico e da microfauna dos regossolos psamíticos calcários de São Tomé. Garcia de Orta 11(1):171–178 Pissarra JB, Cardoso JC, Garcia JS (1965) Mineralogia dos solos de São Tomé e Príncipe. Memórias da Junta de Investigação do Ultramar, Segunda Série 118:1–118 Ramalho RS, Winckler G, Madeira J et al (2015) Hazard potential of volcanic ﬂank collapses raised by new megatsunami evidence. Science Advances 1(9):e1500456 Renner S (2004) Plant dispersal across the tropical Atlantic by wind and sea currents. International Journal of Plant Sciences 165(4 Suppl):S23–S33 Richardson PL, Walsh D (1986) Mapping climatological seasonal variations of surface currents in the tropical Atlantic using ship drifts. Journal of Geophysical Research 91:10537–10550 Rijsdijk KF, Hengl T, Norder SJ et al (2014) Quantifying surface-area changes of volcanic islands driven by Pleistocene sea-level cycles: biogeographical implications for the Macaronesian archipelagos. Journal of Biogeography 41(7):1242–1254 Rodrigues FMC (1974) S. Tomé e Príncipe sob o ponto de vista agrícola. Junta de Investigações Cientíﬁcas do Ultramar, Estudo, Ensaios e Documentos 130:1–180 + 25 plates + maps (130-A) Rodrigues RR, Rothstein LM, Wimbush M (2007) Seasonal variability of the south equatorial current bifurcation in the Atlantic Ocean: a numerical study. American Metereological Society 37:16–30 Schlüter T (2008) Geological atlas of Africa. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, I–XI, 307 pp Schultze A (1913) Die insel Annobón im Golf von Guinea. Petermann’s Geographische Mitteilungen Jahrbuch 59:131–133 Serralheiro AR (1957) Novos elementos para o conhecimento da fauna fóssil do Miocénico da ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 5(2):287–296 Silva GH (1956a) O Miocénico da ilha do Príncipe. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais, 6ª Sessão 2:231–256 Silva GH (1956b) La fauna Miocène de l’ile du Prince. Memórias e Notícias – Publicaçães do Museu e Laboratório Mineralógico e Geológico da Universidade de Coimbra e do Centro de Estudos Geológicos 42:29–51 Silva GH (1958a) Nota sobre a microfauna do Miocénico marinho da ilha do Príncipe. Memórias e Notícias – Publicaçães do Museu e Laboratório Mineralógico e Geológico da Universidade de Coimbra e do Centro de Estudos Geológicos 45:56–60 Silva GH (1958b) Contribuição para o conhecimento da microfauna do Miocénico marinha da ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 6:507–510 Stramma L, Schott F (1999) The mean ﬂow ﬁeld of the tropical Atlantic Ocean. Deep-Sea Research Part II 46:279–303 Teixeira C (1948–1949) Notas sobre a geologia das ilhas de São Tomé e Príncipe. Estudos Coloniais 1(1):37–46 Teixeira C (1949) Geologia das ilhas de S. Tomé e do Príncipe e do território de S. João Baptista de Ajudá. Anais da Junta das Missões Geográﬁcas e de Investigações Coloniais 4(2):1–20 Tenreiro F (1961) A ilha de São Tomé. Memórias da Junta de Investigação do Ultramar, Segunda Série 24:1–289 + 73 plates Tyrrell GW (1934) Petrographical notes on rocks from the Gulf of Guinea. Geological Magazine 71(1):16–22 Velayos M, Barberá P, Cabezas FJ et al (2014) Checklist of the vascular plants of Annobón (Equatorial Guinea). Phytotaxa 171:1–78 Weigelt P, Steinbauer MJ, Cabral JS, Kreft H (2016) Late quaternary climate change shapes island biodiversity. Nature 532:99–102 36 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial Ecosystems in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Gilles Dauby, Tariq Stévart, Patricia Barberá, Laura Benitez, Maria do Céu Madureira, Filipa C. Soares, Gaëlle Viennois, and Ricardo F. de Lima Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_3]. G. Dauby (*) · G. Viennois AMAP, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, CNRS, INRAE, IRD, Montpellier, France e-mail: gilles.dauby@ird.fr T. Stévart Africa & Madagascar Department, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO, USA Herbarium et Bibliothèque de Botanique africaine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium Meise Botanic Garden, Meise, Belgium P. Barberá Africa & Madagascar Department, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO, USA L. Benitez Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Sao Tome and Principe M. do Céu Madureira Centre for Functional Ecology, Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal F. C. Soares Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal R. F. de Lima Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Centre, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_3 37 38 G. Dauby et al. Abstract The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea display a large diversity of environmental conditions and biological communities, whose interactions have contributed to the development of a great variety of ecosystems, from mangroves to montane grasslands. Human activities have extensively and profoundly altered many of these natural ecosystems over the past ﬁve centuries. We review key studies to propose an updated classiﬁcation map of terrestrial ecosystems, taking advantage of up-to-date spatial information on abiotic gradients and biological distributions. To guide future research and conservation programs, we highlight challenges and pending questions regarding our understanding of the structure, integrity, and dynamics of terrestrial ecosystems in these islands. Keywords Abiotic gradients · Biological communities · Introduced species · Novel ecosystems · Topography · Vegetation types Introduction The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (GGOI) comprise three islands: Príncipe, São Tomé (together forming the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe), and Annobón (part of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea). Despite their small size (c. 1000 km2), their combined human population is ca. 225,000 inhabitants (INEGE 2017; INESTP 2020), and they are also host to a rich endemic fauna and ﬂora (Jones 1994). The tropical humid climate, complex topography, altitudinal gradients, and isolation (distance to mainland from 220 to 350 km) are often invoked to explain the endemic-rich biodiversity of these islands (Jones 1994). The abiotic gradients generate a diversity of habitats with distinct biological communities, whose interactions contribute to the development of a great variety of natural ecosystems, from mangroves to montane grasslands (Monod 1960). Over the past ﬁve centuries, human activities have profoundly altered most of these natural ecosystems across large areas (Eyzaguirre 1986). Impacts have varied in intensity across time and space among the three islands, but agricultural land use in particular has intensiﬁed (Jones et al. 1991), which has likely facilitated the expansion of introduced species (e.g., Soares et al. 2020). The ﬁrst attempts to delineate the ecosystems of the GGOI date back to the ﬁrst half of the twentieth century, and aimed at documenting vegetation types (Henriques 1917; Chevalier 1938–1939; Exell 1944). These studies relied almost entirely on variations in vegetation physiognomy and on the degree of human interference. These authors paid particular attention to deﬁning altitudinal vegetation belts. Other studies tried to identify phytogeographical units based mostly on the co-distribution of plant species, but ended up having to rely heavily on abiotic proxies (Stévart 1998; Ogonovszky 2003). Phytogeographical units can be misleading for identifying ecosystems because biogeographical processes can lead to different species 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 39 assemblages in similar ecosystems. However, given the relatively small size of these islands, we can assume that the co-distributions of species within each island reﬂect environmental conditions and anthropogenic disturbances, while biogeographical processes, such as limited dispersal and speciation rates, are negligible. Recently, many large-scale studies have inferred the integrity, distribution, and dynamics of ecosystems, taking advantage of the increasing availability of remote sensing data (e.g., Hansen et al. 2013; Gosling et al. 2020; Vancutsem et al. 2021). Unfortunately, these products are of little relevance for the GGOI, due to their coarse resolution and unavailability of high-quality aerial images without atmospheric obstructions, such as haze and aerosols. In this chapter, we review the key studies that attempted to document the terrestrial ecosystems of the islands, and then propose an updated classiﬁcation, taking advantage of up-to-date spatial information on abiotic gradients and biological communities to map proposed vegetation types. Finally, to guide future research and conservation efforts, we identify several challenges and pending questions regarding our understanding of the structure, integrity, and dynamics of the terrestrial ecosystems in the GGOI. Ecological Setting and Previous Classiﬁcations São Tomé Island Abiotic Gradients Rainfall measurements using remote sensing lack the accuracy required for a small and heterogeneous area like São Tomé (Chou et al. 2020). Thus, our understanding of rainfall patterns must still rely on the rough isohyets drawn from 50-year-old observations (Bredero et al. 1977). These isohyets show that annual rainfall varies strongly across the island, ranging from <1000 mm in the northeast to more than 7000 mm in the southwest (Fig. 3.1). Four seasons are recognized: a humid season from mid-September to mid-December, a mild dry season from mid-December to mid-march (“gravanito”), a humid season from mid-March to June, and a prolonged dry season from July to mid-September (“gravana”). The rainfall pattern can be explained by the rugged topography and the resulting rain shadow (“foehn effect”; Ceríaco et al. 2022). Elevation reaches a maximum of 2024 m at Pico de São Tomé, to the northwest of the center of the island, which is surrounded by a multitude of smaller peaks, ridges, and steep slopes. Overall, the island is divided by a north–south ridge, extending from Pico de São Tomé to Cabumbé, which separates the island into a wetter west ﬂank and a drier east ﬂank. Apart from the northeast and a few ﬂat areas and gentle slopes in the south and southeast, the topography of most of the island is complex and dominated by steep ridges and mountains (Fig. 3.1). 40 G. Dauby et al. Fig. 3.1 Main physico-climatic gradients on São Tomé Island. Sources of data can be found on https://github.com/gdauby/stpa_ecosystems_review 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 41 Cloud cover inﬂuences biological processes and species distribution (Wilson and Jetz 2016). On São Tomé, according to remotely sensed data, the mean monthly cloud cover ranges from 70% in the extreme north to nearly permanent in the western highlands (Fig. 3.1). Rainfall and cloud cover do not fully coincide, although together they typify the constant high moisture on the west side of the island. Persistent cloud cover coincides with altitudes between 500 and 1500 m on the west ﬂank, and above 1000 m on the south and east ﬂanks as a result of the foehn effect. Intra-annual cloud cover varies little, but reﬂects the stronger seasonality in the north (Fig. 3.1). São Tomé soils have been studied and mapped, and their properties are conditioned by topography and climate that often vary at ﬁne scales (Cardoso and Garcia 1962). The most frequent soil types are highly weathered, such as Ferralsols and Lixisols, characteristic of tropical climates. Vertisols, Lithosols, and Fluvisols are noteworthy because they interact with vegetation. Vertisols are heavy clay soils frequently associated with grasslands and forests that develop deep wide cracks when dry, making them difﬁcult to use for agriculture (Kovda 2020). This soil type is restricted to the dry north and northeast (Fig. 3.1). Lithosols are thin soils that have very little organic matter, and can be found everywhere on the island, often associated with ridges, steep slopes, and cliffs near the coast (Diniz and Matos 2002). Fluvisols, derived from alluvial deposits, are nutrient-rich, often associated with large riverbanks, and can be ﬂooded or have weak drainage (IUSS Working Group WRB 2015). Human Disturbance Around three-quarters of the native vegetation of São Tomé has been lost, most of which was converted into large plantations (Fig. 3.2a; Soares et al. 2020). This transformation started in the late ﬁfteenth century when humans began colonizing the island, clearing large extents of forest mostly in the dry northern coastal areas to establish sugarcane plantations (Eyzaguirre 1986). In the early sixteenth century, the island became a top producer of sugar globally, developing a cash crop economy that collapsed later that century (Garﬁeld 1979), slowing down the deforestation rate. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the island became an important slave trading post and the traditional “gleba” agroforestry system (based on tree and root crops grown in dense mixed stands with minimal tillage) expanded (Eyzaguirre 1986). In the nineteenth century, the deforestation rate increased and expanded further inland and upland, giving way to intensive plantations dedicated mostly to coffee and cacao, but also to oil palm, coconut, quinine, and cinnamon. This period saw the spread of shade plantations that can be deﬁned as plantations where a canopy is maintained above crops (typically cacao or coffee). The canopy is often composed of introduced tree species (typically of the Erythrina genus). Deforestation in São Tomé reached its peak early in the twentieth century, when the island became the world’s largest producer of cacao. For various reasons, this system became economically unsustainable and during the late 1930s many 42 G. Dauby et al. Fig. 3.2 (a) Degraded or transformed land cover on São Tomé. Note that the “open vegetation” category includes both agricultural lands and savanna-like vegetation (Adapted from Soares et al. 2020). (b) Annual ﬁre frequency (data for the last 10 years). The inset barplot shows the distribution of ﬁres along the year 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 43 Table 3.1 Total area and relative importance of transformed or degraded land cover in each island (Calculated from Norder et al. 2020; Soares et al. 2020; Frazer Sinclair and Yodiney dos Santos, unpublished data). Note that the open vegetation category also includes naturally open vegetation type Land cover Open vegetation Urban areas Industrial palm plantations Roads/paths network Secondary forest Shade forest Annobón 2.8 km2 (13.4%) 1.8 km2 (8.5%) – – – – São Tomé 92.5 km2 (10.9%) 23.3 km2 (2.7%) 23.4 km2 (2.7%) 17.8 km2 (2.1%) 240.6 km2 (28.2%) 218.6 km2 (25.6%) Príncipe 6.6 km2 (4.8%) 1.9 km2 (1.4%) – 2.9 km2 (2.1%) 37.4 km2 (26.8%) 41.3 km2 (29.6%) plantations were abandoned, creating large extents of secondary forests in the higher altitudes, while the ﬂatter lowland remained as plantations. Following independence in 1975, and especially after land privatization in the early 1990s, logging and residential areas expanded signiﬁcantly, especially in the shade plantations. Meanwhile, swidden agriculture emerged to satisfy local food needs, producing horticultural crops such as potatoes, maize, cabbage, beans, and carrots (Eyzaguirre 1986). Strong demographic growth led to an increase in timber consumption (the main building material in the country), resulting in increasing pressure on forest resources (Salgueiro and Carvalho 2001). More recently, agro-industrial concessions to foreign companies have reconverted large areas of secondary forest to export crop plantations, such as oil palm, cacao, and coffee (Oyono et al. 2014). This complex history led to the patchwork of land uses that characterizes the landscape on São Tomé (Fig. 3.2a, Table 3.1; Soares et al. 2020). Native forests (ca. 26.4% of the island) are mostly found in the rugged wetter areas at the center and southwest. Around these are mostly secondary forests (ca. 30.5%), resulting from agricultural abandonment, notably more widespread in the south. Agroforests (ca. 28.5%), comprising the traditional “glebas” but also more intensive shade plantations of cacao and coffee, are dominant in the northeast and in the south along the coast. The remainder of the island is characterized by non-forested land uses (ca. 14.5%), including urban areas and anthropogenic savannas in the northern coast and horticultural areas at higher altitudes. Terrain ruggedness predominantly shapes the extent of remaining native vegetation cover, suggesting that topography constrains human occupation across the island (Norder et al. 2020). Anthropogenic impacts have been felt mostly in the ﬂat lowlands of the drier north, where ﬁre maintains large extents of open vegetation, even though other areas are not spared. At higher altitudes, for instance, the distinct climate and fertile soil has promoted agricultural expansion of crops like quina, arabica coffee, cinnamon, and annuals, especially in the ﬂatter areas around Monte Café. Besides land-use change, human disturbance is also felt through more subtle modiﬁcations, namely through the exploitation of forest resources and the facilitation of introduced species. Logging (Espírito et al. 2020), hunting (Carvalho 2015), silviculture, and the gathering of other forest products such medicinal plants 44 G. Dauby et al. (Madureira et al. 2008) are known to have impacts on the vegetation and overall functioning of forest ecosystems. Being at the crossroads of the Atlantic slave trade, having fertile soils and diverse ecological conditions, São Tomé was often used as an agricultural experimental ground, receiving crops from all over the world (Ferrão 2005), as well as many other species of ﬂora (Figueiredo et al. 2011) and fauna (Dutton 1994). Agriculture greatly changed the ecology of the island, creating the conditions for many introduced species to expand across the island (Soares et al. 2020) that sometimes also became invasive in native undisturbed forests (Lima et al. 2014; Panisi 2017; De Menezes and Pagad 2020). Previous Vegetation and Phytogeographical Classiﬁcation Previous works aimed to document vegetation types focused mostly on its physiognomy, the intensity and nature of anthropic impacts, and the use of abiotic gradients as proxies, such as altitude and precipitation (Table 3.2). Chevalier (1938–1939) was the ﬁrst to mention different vegetation types. However, it was Exell (1944) who proposed a delimitation and detailed description of several vegetation types. Exell recognized mangroves and coastal dunes as distinct and narrowly distributed vegetation types, and used three altitudinal belts to distinguish the remaining vegetation: low-altitude (mostly degraded) forests (up to 700 or 900 m), montane rainforests (between 800 and 1400 m), and mist forests (above 1400 m; Fig. 3.3). Silva (1958) distinguished “primary” from “secondary” vegetation, and “climatedriven” from “edaphic-driven” vegetation, including summit shrubland and dry northern savannas in the latter (Fig. 3.3c). This approach also acknowledged the crucial role of human activities in transforming the landscapes of São Tomé. Table 3.2 Key references proposing spatial delimitations of the islands in ecological, ecosystems, or phytogeographical units References Mildbraed (1922) Exell (1944) Silva (1958) Monod (1960) Peris (1962) Stévart (1998) Diniz and Matos (2002) Island(s) Annobón São Tomé and Príncipe São Tomé and Príncipe São Tomé and Príncipe Annobón São Tomé and Príncipe São Tomé and Príncipe Content Five vegetation types Elevational belt Criteria Flora and vegetation physiognomy, elevation Abiotic gradients Map of vegetation units Documentation of vegetation type Six vegetation types Elevation and land use Map of vegetation units Map of agroecological entities Elevation, presence of endemic plant species Flora and vegetation physiognomy, elevation, agricultural activities Elevation, annual rainfall, presence of orchids species Field observations, topography, edaphic properties, elevation 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 45 Fig. 3.3 Previous delimitations of vegetation types or phytogeographical territories on São Tomé Island. (a) According to Monod (1960) and Exell (1944); (b) According to Stévart (1998); (c) According to Silva (1958); (d) According to Diniz and Matos (2002). For the Diniz and Matos (2002) map, only the main regions are shown Monod (1960) was especially interested in the altitudinal variation of vegetation. He extended previous classiﬁcations (Fig. 3.3a), highlighting the uniqueness of the high-altitude shrublands distributed in several small patches above 1900 m, which hosts some emblematic endemic plant species, such as Erica thomensis (Henriq) Dorr & E.G.H. Oliv. 1999 and Lobelia barnsii Exell 1944. Stévart (1998) proposed a phytogeographical classiﬁcation based on the distribution of orchid species and their auto-ecology (Fig. 3.3b). He was the ﬁrst author to explicitly consider the rainfall pattern distinguishing the dry north and the wet south of the island, following the 3000 mm annual rainfall isohyet. He suggested that the area around Lagoa Amélia could be a distinct vegetation type. Stévart (1998) also pointed out that several ridges at lower elevation (below 800 m) in the southeast had a unique assemblage of orchid species. The ﬂoristic distinction of those ridges could 46 G. Dauby et al. be driven by the combination of topographic position and high precipitation, although data were very limited at the time. Diniz and Matos (2002) provided a detailed map of 109 agro-ecological units distributed in two main regions (Fig. 3.3d). Although their primary goal was to assess the potential of each unit for agricultural production, they also provide detailed descriptions of vegetation and ﬂora in each unit. The northern region broadly corresponds to the area with <2000 mm of annual rainfall, and is divided into three sub-regions; the littoral plain with a semi-arid climate, the transition area with a sub-humid climate, elevations between 300 and 550 m with slopes that do not exceed 15%, and the mountainous more humid area. The southern region is described as more homogenous, being characterized by the steep transition between the central mountainous highland and the littoral band, composed of ridges and deep valleys. Príncipe Island Abiotic Gradients The mainland of Príncipe Island has a maximum length of 18.5 km (north to south) and 11 km in its maximum width (east to west), with an area of approximately 139 km2. It is located 220 km off the West African coast and 146 km north of São Tomé (Diniz and Matos 2002; Dallimer and Melo 2010). The north of the island is relatively ﬂat, whereas the south-center has the largest elevated area (>500 m), including Pico do Príncipe that reaches 942 m, and multiple peaks surrounded by steep slopes and ridges (Fig. 3.4). Just like São Tomé, our knowledge of rainfall patterns still relies on rough isohyets drawn several decades ago. Annual rainfall ranges from more than 4000 mm in the southeast to <2000 mm in the northeast, which is a remarkable contrast in such a small area. Cloud cover follows broadly the same pattern as annual rainfall, highlighting the elevated and rugged area around the Pico Príncipe (Diniz and Matos 2002). Four seasons are also recognized for Príncipe, following the same patterns found in São Tomé. Soils have been studied and mapped (Diniz and Matos 2002). Bedrocks are predominantly volcanic, mostly in the north, while Phonolite rocks are more common in the south. As on São Tomé, the most frequent soils are highly weathered such as Ferralsols and Lixisols (Cardoso and Garcia 1962). Human Disturbance The history of land occupation on Príncipe is broadly similar to that of São Tomé. However, contrary to São Tomé, no large areas are regularly burned. A peculiarity in the history of Príncipe is the intense deforestation campaign that took place between 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . Fig. 3.4 Main physico-climatic gradients in Príncipe Island 47 48 G. Dauby et al. 1911 and 1916 to eradicate the tsetse ﬂy vector of sleeping sickness (da Costa et al. 1916): The steps taken (. . .) consisted principally in the clearing away of herbaceous and bushy vegetation, in the opening out to the sun’s rays of the margins of watercourses and swamps, straightening out and leveling the banks and the beds of these, draining and ﬁlling swamps, and forest fellings on a large scale. More than 15 km2 of native forests in the northern part of the island were deforested (11% of the island), while many plantations were also being abandoned (da Costa et al. 1916; da Silva 2019). Nearly all lowland forests in Príncipe have been disturbed by human activity (Fig. 3.5), creating a mosaic of native and secondary forest, as well as active and abandoned agricultural lands (Dallimer et al. 2012). Most of the remaining native vegetation occurs at mid and high elevation and is included in the Príncipe Natural Park, a protected area created in 2006 that covers around 21% of Príncipe, mostly in the south (Ministry of Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Environment 2016). Fig. 3.5 Degraded or transformed land cover in Príncipe (Adapted from Frazer Sinclair and Yodiney dos Santos, unpublished data). Note that the “open vegetation” category includes both agricultural lands and savanna-like vegetation but also potentially natural edaphic open vegetation 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 49 The whole island was declared a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve by 2012 (UNESCO 2021). Previous Vegetation and Phytogeographical Classiﬁcation The distribution of forests on Príncipe was ﬁrst depicted in a land cover map (IGC 1964) based on aerial photos and ground surveys. This map delimited the island according to land use in several categories, as natural forests or abandoned plantations, cacao plantations, coffee plantations, oil palm plantations, coconut plantations, agriculture, gardens, vegetable gardens or orchards, bush, undergrowth, or grasslands. The native vegetation of Príncipe is similar to that of São Tomé, with plant families Rubiaceae, Euphorbiaceae, and Orchidaceae dominant (Figueiredo et al. 2011). It includes mangroves, but not savannas. Submontane forest is recorded only on the summit, at Pico do Príncipe, though Exell (1944) claimed that the composition of the vegetation at higher altitudes on Príncipe (namely Pico Papagaio; 680 m and Pico do Príncipe; 948 m) resembled that of lowland rainforest on São Tomé. Diniz and Matos (2002) relied on climate, topography, and soil types to identify 28 agro-ecological units, which they described and delimited in detail. The vegetation is characterized by forests, ranging from primary (“obô”) to secondary formations (“capoeira”) and to strongly anthropized environments, including diverse types of plantations such as shaded cacao or coconut monocultures. Forest tree communities were recently studied across the island, documenting ﬂoristic differentiation across north-south and altitudinal gradients (Fauna and Flora International 2018). These patterns were driven, at least partly, by a decrease in the relative abundance and diversity of tree species in secondary forests, highlighting the inﬂuence of past disturbances on forest tree composition. Annobón Island Abiotic Gradients Of the three Gulf of Guinea Islands, Annobón is the smallest (17 km2) and farthest from the mainland, located 360 km west of Gabon and 190 km southwest of São Tomé. Despite the small size, its geography is diverse. There is a 700 m wide crater at 150 m elevation, occupied by Lake A Pot, which has several adventitious cones, including the 400 m wide crater of Punta Manjob in the SE, the Quioveo and Santa Mina mountains, and northeast-southwest corridor that links the bays of San Pedro and Santa Cruz to the Anganchi river (Fig. 3.6). Santa Mina is the highest elevation at 613 m. Annobón has an average temperature of 26 C with little annual variation. Rainfall is primarily affected by the oceanic winds that cause a pronounced dry 50 G. Dauby et al. season from May to October, while the rest of the year is wet (Juste and Fa 1994). No accurate rainfall data is available, but maximum precipitation is around 3000 mm (Juste and Fa 1994; Velayos et al. 2014). Remotely sensed data suggests that intraannual variability in cloud cover is less pronounced than on Príncipe or São Tomé, even though there is still a north-south humidity gradient, ranging from <70% in the north to almost 90% in the south (Fig. 3.6). The soils of Annobón have not been thoroughly studied and mapped. However, they are ultrabasic and have the same volcanic origin as those of Bioko with lower silica and higher proportions of ferromagnesian elements (De Castro and De la Calle 1985). Human Disturbance Humans have modiﬁed most of the vegetation on Annobón (Fig. 3.7), except for the high peaks of Santa Mina and Quioveo. San Antonio de Palé or “Ambo,” located in the extreme north of the island, is the only permanent town. Most subsistence farms are on the fertile plains around the town, producing yuca (Manihot esculenta Crantz 1766), banana, and malanga (Xanthosoma violaceum Schott 1853). However, these small-scale plantations (“ﬁncas”) can now be found everywhere on the island, even in steep slopes (Velayos et al. 2014), and their encroachment in the montane forests of Quioveo and Santa Mina is set to cause irreversible damage. Other villages are temporarily occupied during the dry season or holiday months. More recently, the expansion of the airport and seaport must have had considerable environmental impacts. Previous Vegetation and Phytogeographical Classiﬁcation Only two studies attempted to delineate and document vegetation on Annobón. The ﬁrst (Mildbraed 1922) proposed ﬁve vegetation types: (1) coastal “Sandstrand,” (2) “Vorland,” a savanna-like forest mixed with plantations, (3) “Buschwald,” oil palm artisanal plantations mixed with others tree species, (4) lowland dry forest, “Trockener Wald,” and (5) “Nebelwald,” a cloud forest found mostly above 500 m that is rich in orchid and fern species, including tree ferns Alsophila spp. The second study (Peris 1962) proposed six vegetation types: (1) coastal, subdivided into rocky and sandy shores, (2) open vegetation strongly transformed by human activities, which was divided into herbaceous savanna-like vegetation, large-leaved savanna-like vegetation, cassava plantation, and shrubland, (3) dry forest, equivalent mostly to “trockener Wald,” (4) wet forest, also included in “trockener Wald” but distinguished by the presence of Olea welwitschii Gilg & G. Schellenb. 1913, (5) Hymenophyllum spp. cloud forest in the peaks of Santa Mina and Quioveo (see Fig. 3.8), and (6) tree fern areas in the summit of Santa Mina. 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 51 Fig. 3.6 Main physico-climatic gradients in Annobón island. The dark gray polygon represents the crater lake A Pot 52 G. Dauby et al. Fig. 3.7 (a) Degraded or transformed land cover on Annobón (Adapted from Norder et al. 2020). Note that the “open vegetation” category includes both agricultural lands and savanna-like vegetation but also naturally open vegetation type. (b) Annual ﬁre frequency (data for the last 20 years). Inset barplot shows the distribution of these ﬁres during the year 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 53 Fig. 3.8 Examples of terrestrial ecosystem types from the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. From top left to bottom right: (1) Mesic old-growth lowland rainforest in southwest São Tomé, where upper strata is dominated by Uapaca vanhouttei Pax 1908; (2) Vegetation on the Pico Pequeno characterized by small trees and shrub and the largest known population of Erica thomensis (Henriq.) Dorr & E.G.H. Oliv. 1999, endemic to this area; (3) typical mangrove with Rhizophora L. 1753 stilt roots in São Tomé; (4) the mosaic of lowland deciduous forest and savanna in the north of São Tomé; (5) lowland semi-deciduous forest in the background and savanna in the forefront, in Annobón; (6) rainforest in Annobón on the Quioveo peak above 500 m. According to the new classiﬁcation, it is lowland rainforest, but the abundance of ferns and epiphyte suggests it is instead submontane rainforest similar to what can be found above 800 m in São Tomé; (7) Lowland 54 G. Dauby et al. Classiﬁcation Synthesis Ecosystems are by deﬁnition open, dynamic, and scale-dependent, emerging from the interactions between organisms and the physical environment. Assuming that classiﬁcations are necessarily a simpliﬁcation of reality, it makes sense to use variations in environmental conditions and biological communities to classify terrestrial ecosystems. Our goal here is to provide an updated classiﬁcation, based on previous attempts and current knowledge, offering baselines for management and future scientiﬁc research on the dynamics of biodiversity. Methodology Spatial Information We compiled previous classiﬁcations (Table 3.2) and mapped key ones, using QGIS (QGIS Development Team 2021) and R (R Core Team 2021) for georeferencing and analyzing spatial data. We retrieved several spatial features from Open Street Map (OSM) database using “osmdata” R package (Padgham et al. 2017) and other freely available shapeﬁles (see https://github.com/gdauby/stpa_ecosystems_review for further details on codes and data sources). Synthetic Classiﬁcation Mapping We ﬁrst considered abiotic gradients that drive potential natural ecosystems (e.g., temperature, rainfall, topography), and then vegetation types or proxies of anthropogenic impacts (e.g., secondary vegetation, shade tree plantation, ﬁre frequency, urban area). This approach requires deﬁning thresholds for characterizing ecosystems for continuous abiotic gradients, and acquiring spatial information on the distribution, nature, and intensity of human impacts. Thus, one map presents “potential natural ecosystems,” which can be discussed in terms of potential vegetation types. A second map presents the developmental stages, resulting from natural or anthropogenic land-use changes. To analyze the relative importance of developmental stages in each ecosystem, we estimated the total area and proportion of each stage in each potential natural ecosystem. Spatial analyses were conducted in R using the packages “sf” (Pebesma 2018), “cleangeo” (Blondel 2019), and “sp” (Bivand et al. 2013) (see R codes here: https://github.com/gdauby/stpa_ecosystems_review). Fig. 3.8 (continued) moist forest from the north of Príncipe, partly secondarized as indicated by the presence of Elaeis guineensis Jacq. 1763; (8) Lowland wet forest from the south of Príncipe. Photo credits: (1) G. Dauby, (2) D. U. Ikabanga, (3) Paula Chainho, (4) R. F. de Lima, (5,6) P. Barbéra, (7) L. Benitez, (8) T. Stévart 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 55 Annobón was excluded from this analysis because rainfall data was missing, but we still discuss similarities with the other islands. Mapping Non-Forested Areas To evaluate developmental stages of terrestrial ecosystems on Príncipe and São Tomé, an important ﬁrst step was to identify forested and non-forested areas. To do so, we uploaded very high-resolution satellite images (sentinel-2) (https://peps.cnes. fr/rocket/) from the long dry season to minimize cloud cover. Then, we used eCognition software (Trimble Inc.) to segment spectrally homogeneous non-forest polygons based on thresholding normalized difference vegetation index. The resulting polygons were manually checked using Google Earth and added to a vector layer, which was combined with the land cover types retrieved from OSM, namely polygons identiﬁed as “scrub” and various built categories (residential, commercial). We also selected the “roads” tag polylines to be converted into polygons by adding a 10 m buffer. The ﬁnal shapeﬁles distinguished non-forested “urban areas,” “roads and path network,” and “any other non-forested areas,” which included agricultural land, deforested wastelands, but also naturally open vegetation types that could not be distinguished at ﬁne scale. High-quality satellite images were not available for Annobón, so we used the OSM shapeﬁle to extract buildings and forest polygons. The “buildings” shapeﬁle was edited based on Google Earth, and a 100 m buffer was added to identify areas impacted by urban activities. Ecosystem Delimitations The methodology is based on principles from the Ecosystemology approach recently proposed by Senterre et al. (2021). We deﬁned regional-scale ecosystems based on relevant available abiotic gradients, namely altitude, precipitation, distance to coast, and cloud frequency. Within each of these units, we identiﬁed the distribution and extent of stand-scale units using abiotic gradients at a ﬁner scale, such as topography, and soil features including humidity and salinity (Table 3.3). Thresholds were set based on the literature and on personal experiences and observations of the authors. Regional- and stand-scale ecosystems were listed, and their features discussed. In parallel, we gathered spatial information on the distribution of human impacts on São Tomé and Príncipe (Fig. 3.2; Table 3.2), which were not included in the classiﬁcation process, but were overlaid over the regional-scale units (Supp. Mat.). We estimated that secondary forests and shade plantations together cover over half of São Tomé and of Príncipe (28 and 27%, and 26 and 30%, respectively), while native vegetation covers around one-third or less (27 and 35%, respectively). Similar information was not available for Annobón, but recent observations suggest that native vegetation is mostly restricted to the highest peaks. 56 G. Dauby et al. Table 3.3 Total area and relative importance of each stand-scale ecosystem deﬁned for São Tomé and Príncipe Ecosystem type Montane forests Mesic On steep slope On ridge Montane low forest, grasslands, and shrublands Submontane rainforest Mesic In valley On ridge On steep slope Lowland deciduous forests and woodlands Mesic On Vertisols In valleys On steep slope On Fluvisols Lowland moist and wet rainforests Mesic On ridge On steep slope In valleys On Fluvisols Coastal ecosystems Undifferentiated shores Mangroves Sandy shores Palustrine areas São Tomé 7.9 km2 (0.9%) 3.3 km2 (0.4%) 3.1 km2 (0.4%) 1.5 km2 (0.2%) 0.7 km2 (0.1%) 80.1 km2 (9.4%) 39.9 km2 (4.7%) 4.5 km2 (0.5%) 7.8 km2 (0.9%) 28 km2 (3.3%) 344.2 km2 (40.4%) 248.6 km2 (29.2%) 51.4 km2 (6%) 10.4 km2 (1.2%) 21.6 km2 (2.5%) 12.1 km2 (1.4%) 459.7 km2 (54%) 329.6 km2 (38.7%) 30.7 km2 (3.6%) 63.6 km2 (7.5%) 24.2 km2 (2.8%) 11.6 km2 (1.4%) 10.4 km2 (1.2%) 9.2 km2 (1.1%) 0.9 km2 (0.1%) 0.3 km2 (< 0.1%) 0.1 km2 (< 0.1%) Príncipe – – – – – 0.8 km2 (0.6%) 0.2 km2 (0.1%) 0.04 km2 (0%) 0.1 km2 (0.1%) 0.5 km2 (0.3%) 43.4 km2 (31.1%) 43.1 km2 (30.9%) – 0.1 km2 (0.1%) 0.2 km2 (0.1%) – 92.2 km2 (66.2%) 74.3 km2 (53.3%) 4.8 km2 (3.4%) 9.3 km2 (6.7%) 3.8 km2 (2.8%) – 2.6 km2 (1.9%) 2.1 km2 (1.5%) 0.02 km2 (< 0.1%) 0.4 km2 (0.3%) 0.1 km2 (< 0.1%) All classiﬁcations produced in this chapter and associated resources are accessible online (https://github.com/gdauby/stpa_ecosystems_review). Coastal Ecosystems The coasts of São Tomé, Príncipe, and Annobón are approximately 204, 100, and 35 km long respectively, and include mangroves, other palustrine areas, sandy coasts, and cliffs. At the interface between terrestrial, freshwater, and marine realms, mangroves are the most distinctive coastal ecosystems on the islands (Herrero-Barrencua et al. 2017; Afonso 2019). On São Tomé, at least 14 mangroves areas persist (Fig. 3.8). Malanza and São João dos Angolares are the largest, and Malanza and Praia das 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 57 Conchas are the only ones within a protected area. In Príncipe, mangroves persist at Praia Caixão, Praia Grande, and Praia Salgada. Even though there is no estimate of the lost mangrove area, past distribution was certainly wider, especially in the north of São Tomé (Herrero-Barrencua et al. 2017). Mangroves are absent on Annobón (Juste and Fa 1994). Other estuarine ecosystems often occupy similar conditions surrounding mangroves, some of which might have resulted from mangrove degradation on São Tomé. Sandy coasts are sparsely distributed across the three islands and host distinct psammophile communities. Cliffs are frequent but their distribution and associated biota are poorly characterized. In the south of São Tomé, dense populations of Pandanus thomensis Henriq. 1887 frequently colonize them. Given its distinct edaphic properties, this ecosystem might be less impacted by human activities than others, but its vulnerability to invasive species remains unknown. At least 15% of the coast of São Tomé and 12% of that of Príncipe have been strongly impacted and transformed into urban areas or roads. More than 50% of coastal ecosystems on São Tomé and 13% in Príncipe are covered by, or are next to secondary forests or shade plantations (Supp. Mat.). Non-coastal Wetlands Non-coastal wetlands include all habitats that are seasonally or permanently inundated by freshwater. We distinguished riverine forests, waterfalls, lowland swamp, and montane swamps. Riverine forests can be deﬁned as areas that are inﬂuenced by river soaking and ﬂooding. Their distribution, extent, and associated biological communities are poorly characterized in the GGOI. Their width is expected to be small, considering most valleys are narrow, but this inﬂuence can be larger, particularly in ﬂatter areas. Waterfalls display speciﬁc geomorphic and micro-habitats features with strong but very localized, environmental heterogeneity and originality (Clayton and Pearson 2016). They also act as natural barriers, dividing streams and their associated biotas into distinct populations. Their biota characteristics and ecosystem functions have rarely been investigated in tropical regions, but some studies have highlighted their ecological and conservation signiﬁcance (Baker et al. 2017). The distribution and ecological characteristics of waterfalls in the GGOI are not well known and deserve further attention, especially since they may be threatened by dams in the near future. Lowland swamps are infrequent and small on São Tomé but seem to be somewhat more widespread in the northern plateau of Príncipe. This situation contrasts with continental central Africa, where swamp forests are frequent and harbor speciﬁc biological communities (e.g., Boupoya et al. 2017), but almost nothing is known about swamp forests in the GGOI. We do know, however, that large areas of Príncipe’s swamps were drained during the tsetse eradication campaign in the early twentieth century (da Costa et al. 1916). 58 G. Dauby et al. The only signiﬁcant example of a montane swamp is the Lagoa Amélia, at c. 1400 m on São Tomé. Floristically, there is no evidence that this area has a distinct assemblage, but it represents a unique combination of environmental conditions in the GGOI, being a super humid, high-altitude swamp. Inland Uplands Inland uplands represent almost the entirety of the GGOI. In São Tomé and Príncipe, we divided them ﬁrst by elevation, by thresholds at 800 m, 1400 m, and 1800 m, and then by the 2000 mm annual rainfall threshold. This allowed us to distinguish (1) lowland deciduous forests, (2) lowland moist and wet forests, (3) submontane rainforests, (4) montane forests, and (5) montane shrublands and grasslands. For each of these, we identiﬁed abiotic factors that may exacerbate or mitigate the local inﬂuence of temperature or water availability relative to the mesic environment. Namely, we considered speciﬁc soil types, slopes with steep gradients, and speciﬁc topographic categories, such as valleys and ridges. Steep slopes (> 30 ) are likely to have superﬁcial soils (Lithosols), increased susceptibility to erosion (landslides), and distinct micro-climate due to stronger (or weaker) insolation, depending on the aspect (Chapin III et al. 2011). They are also less directly threatened by anthropogenic activities. Lowland Deciduous Forests Occurring up to 800 m of elevation and registering <2000 mm of rainfall annually, these ecosystems are mostly found on the ﬂat or gentle slopes of northern São Tomé. Given the limited rainfall, lower cloud frequency, and higher temperatures, water availability is probably the main limiting factor for vegetation growth. Vegetation composition and physiognomy also support the local inﬂuence of edaphic or topographical features. As such, we distinguished (1) forests on ﬂat terrain and Fluvisols, (2) forests on ﬂat terrain and Vertisols, (3) forests in valleys, and (4) forests on steep slopes. Almost none of this native forest vegetation remains, but we can assume the vegetation type in mesic conditions should have been a (semi)-deciduous or dry forest. Fluvisols occur along large rivers on ﬂat terrain, and are usually susceptible to occasional ﬂooding. Native vegetation must have been moist semi-deciduous forest with higher frequency of species tolerant to poorly drained soils. This is the most disturbed ecosystem on São Tomé; ca. 23% are covered by roads and urban areas, and more than 30% by open agricultural land (Supp. Mat.). Fluvisols are infrequent on Príncipe (Diniz and Matos 2002). Forest on ﬂat terrain and Vertisols is only found on São Tomé, where it corresponds mostly to savanna-like vegetation. Soil moisture on Vertisols is highly variable, leaving plants vulnerable to drought. However, it is noteworthy that there are no indications that these savannas existed when human colonization started on 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 59 São Tomé, 500 years ago. It has been proposed that any such areas originally covered by the dry forest were lost to ﬁres and sugarcane plantations (Diniz and Matos 2002). Later on, sugarcane production was mostly abandoned, but forests could not reestablish due to changes in soil properties and to regular ﬁres during the dry season (Fig. 3.2). Nowadays, more than half of this area has open vegetation, mainly savanna-like but also agricultural lands, and around 15% has been converted to urban areas or to roads. Several plant communities occur in this mosaic of forest and savannas, where the landscape is locally dominated by the African baobab Adansonia digitata L. 1759. This complex mosaic might present some similarities with the north of Annobón, nowadays mostly occupied by urban areas. In large and narrow valleys, particularly in the extreme north of São Tomé, water is less limited thanks to run-off from the central highlands. Floristic composition (Diniz and Matos 2002, personal observations) suggests that this speciﬁc topography holds distinct plant communities. This stand-scale ecosystem may also be signiﬁcant for conservation as it might host the last remnant of lowland moist forests in the north of São Tomé, as almost all of these have been converted to shade cacao plantations, urban areas, and roads. The forests surrounding the large valleys of São Tomé occur on the steep slopes, occupying a signiﬁcant area (Table 3.3) that is less directly impacted by human activities, although most of these are nevertheless secondary forests. Lowland Moist and Wet Rainforests This regional-scale ecosystem includes all areas up to 800 m of elevation and above 2000 mm of annual rainfall, which are less limited by water availability due to lower seasonality. We considered topographic and soil features to distinguish forests (1) in valleys, (2) on ridges, (3) on steep slopes, and (4) on Fluvisols. Natural vegetation in mesic conditions is undoubtedly rainforest that still occupies most of São Tomé and Príncipe, even if most is secondary. On São Tomé, industrial palm plantations occupy more than 5% of this ecosystem. Overall, we estimate that native forests persist in <40% of its original area. Forests in valleys occupy 4% of this region-scale ecosystem in Príncipe and 5% in São Tomé. Forests on ridges have limited extent both on Príncipe and São Tomé but also seem to have been less impacted, due to their lower accessibility and reduced potential for agriculture. The biological communities here are poorly known. It has been suggested that lowland peaks, such as the Pico Maria Fernandes on São Tomé and Morro Fundão on Príncipe, host distinct plant assemblages that are more closely related to submontane vegetation than to surrounding lowland forests (Stévart 1998; Ogonovszky 2003). Biota and physico-climatic similarities of lowland ridges between the GGOI are likely and should be assessed. Indeed, these speciﬁc habitats are covered by low and open vegetation, close to those occurring on mainland inselbergs. However, the proximity to the ocean should increase moisture even 60 G. Dauby et al. during dry seasons, allowing for the development of a distinct vegetation type in these rocky places. Forests on steep slopes occupy a signiﬁcant extent and also seem to have been less impacted than other forest types due to their lower accessibility and potential for agriculture. Forests on Fluvisols have only been identiﬁed in the large watersheds of Iô Grande and Xufe-Xufe on São Tomé. These correspond to ﬂat lowland areas near the coast and that have thus been strongly impacted by human activities, namely by agricultural development. Submontane Rainforest Submontane rainforests include areas between 800 and 1400 m, and apart from mesic conditions, we distinguished forests (1) on ridges, (2) on steep slopes, and (3) in valleys. On São Tomé, we estimated that 9% of the potential area for submontane rainforest is currently non-forested, most of which is agricultural, while 15% is secondary forest and 2.5% shade forest. The extent on Príncipe is very limited (Table 3.3) but has been spared from human activities. A small portion of this territory (>5%) appears to be non-forested, probably due to natural treeless Lithosols. Annobón has no area above 800 m and thus submontane rainforests may not occur there (but see discussion). Forests on ridges are often characterized by the endemic gymnosperm Afrocarpus mannii (Hook.) C.N. Page 1989. They represent nearly 10% of submontane forests on São Tomé, while forests on steep slopes represent almost 35%. Both these forest types are likely to be spared from direct human disturbances, even though natural disturbances, such as landslides, are probably frequent. Montane Forests The area between 1400 and 1800 m is restricted to São Tomé and includes mainly montane rainforests. This ecosystem is almost intact, although introduced plant species can be locally abundant (e.g., tree species Cinchona spp. L. 1753). We distinguished (1) forests on ridges, (2) forests on slopes and plateau, and (3) montane grasslands. Montane forests on ridges occupy nearly 20% of this region and are similar to submontane ridge forests, as indicated by the sun-loving tree Afrocarpus mannii, but also by herbs such as Begonia thomeana C. DC. 1892 and Mapania ferruginea Ridl. 1887. Forests on slopes and plateaus remain poorly documented because of their limited accessibility, even though they represent nearly half of this region. Both submontane and montane forests are characterized by forest species like Palisota pedicellata K. Schum. 1897, Homalium henriquesii Gilg ex Engl. 1921 Tabernaemontana stenosiphon Stapf 1895, and Craterispermum cerinanthum Hiern 1877 (formerly C. montanum Hiern 1877 but considered as synonym by 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 61 Taedoumg (2020)). However, certain montane forest species, such as Symphonia globulifera L. f. 1782, can also be found on ridges at lower elevations, indicating that the transition between submontane and montane forest depends on the local topography, a topic that surely deserves attention in future studies. The physiognomy and the ﬂoristic composition of the montane grassland have been relatively well described, but its precise extent is unknown. Montane Low Forest, Grasslands, and Shrublands We consider this ecosystem above 1800 m as distinct from the Montane Forests because of its speciﬁc physiognomy characterized by the frequency of shrubby vegetation and smaller trees on ridges. Grass mat is also abundant along the ridges, but these grasslands can also be observed at lower altitude along ridges. The presence of plant taxa such as Erica, Lobelia, and the tree Balthasaria mannii (Oliv.) Verdc. 1969 makes this ecosystem as the most distinct in the GGOI, showing afﬁnities to biological assemblages observed in other mountains ranges, such as on Bioko and in East Africa (Monod 1960). In addition to its unique species assemblage, the upper montane area of São Tomé also seems to display distinct abiotic properties. The “prevalent mist” of the “mist rainforests” is impressive but might be less important for the development of this speciﬁc community than the superﬁcial soils (Exell 1944). Indeed, as Monod (1960) described, the area above 1800 m is often above the clouds and therefore tends to be relatively dry (especially during the dry season), while the montane and submontane forests at lower altitude remain wetter thanks to the nearly permanent mist (Fig. 3.1). Monod (1960) even noticed (in August, hence at the end of the dry season) that the vegetation was dry enough to be vulnerable to ﬁres. Besides ecotourism activity (which may bring seeds of invasive species, foster clearings along ridges, and provoke accidental ﬁres during the dry season), this ecosystem has been mostly spared from direct human degradation. However, it may very well be one of the most threatened, considering its narrow distribution (ca. 0.66 km2), the impact of climate change, and the spread of invasive species, in particular Cinchona spp. trees. This genus has been considered among the most invasive in many tropical islands (Jäger 2015), and especially in naturally treeless environments (Jäger et al. 2007). We do not know if these taxa are replacing native plant populations, but it is the dominant species (mono-dominant locally) along several ridges. This may be the consequence of vegetation clearings in the past and Cinchona plantings (Monod 1960). 62 G. Dauby et al. Discussion Deﬁning ecosystems as discrete units is a simpliﬁcation (Boitani et al. 2015) but can be useful to facilitate our understanding of a complex reality (Senterre et al. 2021). While the delineation of some ecosystems is straightforward, it is often not the case because transitions are usually not abrupt (Exell 1944; Monod 1960). The classiﬁcation we propose tries to improve on existing classiﬁcations based on the best available data, to provide better baselines for management, and for testing hypotheses regarding biodiversity dynamics. This synthetic classiﬁcation is thus likely to evolve as more data become available, namely regarding the distribution of ecosystems, and speciﬁcally of vegetation types on different islands. For future reference, all maps and spatial information are available on an open-access portal (https:// github.com/gdauby/stpa_ecosystems_review). Below, we point out several pending questions and challenges that became apparent during this exercise and that could help guide future research on the terrestrial ecosystems of the GGOI. Is It Still Valid to Deﬁne Ecosystems Based on Altitude? Most changes in large units of natural vegetation in the GGOI, and in the distribution of species, appear to be associated with altitude, explaining why the ﬁrst naturalists (Exell 1944; Monod 1960) focused on the inﬂuence of this environmental gradient on biological communities. Altitude (i.e., a proxy for temperature pattern) interacts with topography and rainfall, creating micro-environmental conditions that can affect vegetation at a ﬁne scale, and that remain poorly understood due to their subtle variations and complex effects on the distribution and abundance of species. Moreover, the intensity of anthropogenic disturbances interacts with this natural complexity, further complicating our understanding of ecosystem dynamics. As an example, these disturbances (and deforestation in particular) are typically more intense in the lowlands, where several populations of native species might have already been extirpated. In this scenario, their current distributions are artiﬁcially correlated with altitude, misguiding our understanding of the ecology of those species. Even if altitude is still the best available proxy for delimiting large natural vegetation types, it may be hard to understand, or even misleading when trying to infer drivers of species distribution. For example, if those drivers are linked to precipitation or moisture, (sub)montane species may persist as satellite populations at lower altitudes where micro-habitats are sufﬁciently humid, such as deep valleys or riverine areas. Setting a threshold of 800 m for submontane forest, as we did, means this forest type does not occur on Annobón where the maximal altitude is 600 m. However, the description of the ﬂoristic and physiognomic features of the forest above 500 m (Peris 1962) does suggest some similarities with submontane 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 63 forests found on São Tomé. If conﬁrmed, this would suggest that humidity matters more than altitude for deﬁning submontane forest. Comprehensive surveys of biota and physical features are still required across the islands to improve our understanding of the distribution of vegetation types and underlying environmental drivers. What Is the Extent of Novel Ecosystems? All three islands have high proportions of introduced species, whose frequency and abundance vary between ecosystems. Increasing proportions of introduced species can lead to changes in ecosystem functioning (Wardle et al. 2011). These taxonomic and functional turnovers can lead to the development of “novel” ecosystems resulting from human intervention; i.e., the ecosystem becomes self-sustaining in an alternative stable state (Hobbs et al. 2009; Morse et al. 2014). Applying these concepts for characterizing altered ecosystems is key for conservation and management, especially in oceanic islands where ecosystems are more prone to the threats posed by introduced species (Sax and Gaines 2008; Morse et al. 2014). Novel ecosystems, such as secondary vegetation and plantations, cover most of the GGOI and are far from homogenous, presenting a wide variety of species assemblages. The functioning of these new assemblages, whether they differ from that of native ecosystems and affect ecosystem services, remains to be investigated. Which Factors Drive the Establishment of Novel Ecosystems? The development of novel ecosystems results from the expansion of introduced species, which often but not always results from anthropogenic land-use changes (Morse et al. 2014). Novel ecosystems in the GGOI, and their accompanying introduced species, are probably more widespread in active and abandoned lowland agricultural areas, where historical land-use changes have been more signiﬁcant (Muñoz-Torrent et al. 2022). This has already been shown for GGOI birds (Soares et al. 2020), and mollusk species assemblages (Panisi et al. 2022), for which invasion success is highest in the lowland areas. Nevertheless, although less abundant and diverse than in the lowlands, introduced species also occur in highland ecosystems where native vegetation largely dominates. Similar patterns are expected for other groups, such as plants. For example, species of Cinchona can be locally dominant in lower strata of montane and submontane forests, where it was planted for bark production (Chevalier 1938–1939). Populations of this species persist in old-growth forests, but it is unknown if they are spreading and replacing native species. In Estação Sousa on São Tomé, few individuals persist (unpublished results) in an area that was a plantation over 100 years ago (Chevalier 1938–1939). It is crucial to assess the vulnerability of highland ecosystems to introduced species, 64 G. Dauby et al. since these endemic-rich and diverse ecosystems have so far been the least impacted by human activities (Muñoz-Torrent et al. 2022). How to Prioritize Conservation Efforts? An understanding of the distribution of endemic and threatened species across ecosystems is necessary for allocating conservation efforts. Unfortunately, this information remains insufﬁcient for several areas and clades (Stévart et al. 2022; Nève et al. 2022). Available data suggest that endemism tends to be higher in submontane and montane ecosystems (Stévart et al. 2022). On the other hand, lowland ecosystems are the most impacted and are often undersampled. For example, the extreme north of São Tomé hosts a complex mosaic of forest and savannas that is probably the best example of a novel ecosystem in the GGOI. Most scientists have focused on endemic-rich ecosystems, which at least partly explains why ﬂora and fauna in the extreme north remain undersampled (Stévart et al. 2022). However, recent ﬁeldwork (unpublished results) has led to the identiﬁcation of some endemic plants, including two putative new species, suggesting that native biodiversity persists in these ecosystems. These discoveries highlight the importance of these areas for conservation, emphasizing the urgent need for further studies in novel ecosystems, particularly since native populations persisting in these areas may be some of the most vulnerable to extinction. How to Improve Ecosystem Monitoring Through Space and Time? Efﬁcient ecosystem monitoring cannot rely solely on ﬁeld observations, as these demand too many resources. The use of remote sensing data can help extend current assessments, in particular to document vegetation features and dynamics, but so far, these have been limited by their coarse resolution, which are not appropriate to study the complex landscapes of the GGOI. The availability of spectroscopic data and analytical tools is constantly improving and, in combination with in situ observations, might enable meaningful ecosystem monitoring in the near future (CavenderBares et al. 2020). For example, hyperspectral images could help characterize the dynamics of introduced plant species and thus infer the distribution of novel ecosystems. 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 65 The Need for a Uniﬁed Classiﬁcation of Ecosystems for Central Africa Island ecosystems are ideal natural experiments to test hypotheses regarding the links between biodiversity and ecosystem properties (Pimm 1984). To investigate these hypotheses, it is useful to deﬁne ecosystem units that are transferable across regions. In practice, such classiﬁcation is challenging because there is no clear deﬁnition on how ecosystems should be identiﬁed (but see Senterre et al. 2021), despite international initiatives such as the Red List of Ecosystems (Keith et al. 2013). We support the development of an ecosystem classiﬁcation that can be shared between the GGOI and continental Africa, as it would allow comparative studies that could greatly improve our understanding of regional biogeography and patterns of species diversity. Conclusions The three GGOI present similar humidity gradients, increasing from the northeast to the southwest due to the rugged topography and resulting foehn effect. These gradients, along with altitude and anthropogenic disturbance, can be used to identify distinct ecosystems and their distributions, and help to explain differences between islands. The high concentration of biotic and abiotic complexity in these small island territories creates unique combinations of features that shape ecosystem properties, making them ideal for studying the dynamics of tropical ecosystems. However, much of what is known about the GGOI is based mostly on São Tomé: by far the best known but also the most diverse island. Overcoming existing knowledge gaps will require multidisciplinary, collaborative frameworks and research agendas, which in turn rely on long-term observatories and capacity building. We hope that the synthetic ecosystem classiﬁcation we have presented in this chapter, together with all the underlying resources that we have made available, will foster the future research needed for a better understanding and conservation of the tropical ecosystems of the GGOI. Acknowledgments This work has been supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Funding, joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the European Union, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, and the World Bank, through the project CEPF-104130. RFL and FCS were funded by the Portuguese Government through “Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia” (FCT/MCTES – UID/BIA/00329/2021 and PD/BD/ 140832/2018). Data collection in Príncipe was supported by the Global Trees Campaign through multiple grants. Some map contains data © OpenStreetMap contributors, www.openstreetmap.org/ copyright. GD thanks Robin Pouteau for fruitful discussion on several ideas presented in this chapter. We thank Tania Bird for revising the language. GD, TS, MCM and LB thank local teams for their support on ﬁeld work and data collection (ST: Angela Lima, António Camuenha, Dilson M. Deus, Estevão Soares, Lewis Eduardo, Pascoal Sousa; P: Davide Dias, Jeremias Prazeres, Osvaldo Lima). 66 G. Dauby et al. References Afonso FMG (2019) A importância dos mangais de São Tomé: perceções e serviços ecosistémicos. MSc thesis, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon Baker K, Chadwick MA, Wahab RA, Kahar R (2017) Benthic community structure and ecosystem functions in above- and below-waterfall pools in Borneo. Hydrobiologia 787:307–322 Bivand RS, Pebesma EJ, Gómez-Rubio V (2013) Applied spatial data analysis with R. UseR! Series, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, xviii+405 pp Blondel E (2019) Cleangeo: cleaning geometries from spatial objects (version R package version 0.2–3). Available via R project. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package¼cleangeo. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Boitani L, Mace GM, Rondinini C (2015) Challenging the scientiﬁc foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. Conservation Letters 8:125–131 Boupoya A, Bidault E, Stévart T (2017) La végétation du bas Ogooué. In: Vande weghe JP, Stévart T (eds) Le delta de l’Ogooué. Agence Nationale des Parcs Nationaux, Libreville, pp 172–197 Bredero JT, Heemskerk W, Toxopeus H (1977) Agriculture and livestock production in São Tomé and Príncipe (West Africa). Unpublished report. Foundation for Agricultural Plant Breeding, Wageningen, 43 pp Cardoso JC, Garcia JAS (1962) Carta dos solos de São Tomé e Príncipe. Memórias da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar 39(2). Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisbon, 306 pp Carvalho MB (2015) Hunting and conservation of forest pigeons in São Tomé (West Africa). PhD thesis, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon Cavender-Bares J, Gamon JA, Townsend PA (2020) Remote sensing of plant biodiversity. Springer Nature, Cham, 581 pp Ceríaco LMP, Santos BS, Lima RF et al (2022) Physical geography of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, pp 13–36 Chapin SF III, Matson PA, Vitousek P (2011) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer, New York Chevalier A (1938–1939) La vegetation de l'île de San-Thomé. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana, 2ª Série 13:101–116 Chou SC, de Arruda LA, Gomes JL et al (2020) Downscaling projections of climate change in São Tomé and Príncipe Islands, Africa. Climate Dynamics 54:4021–4042 Clayton PD, Pearson RG (2016) Harsh habitats? Waterfalls and their faunal dynamics in tropical Australia. Hydrobiologia 775:123–137 da Costa BF, Sant’Anna JF, dos Santos AC, de Araujo Alvares MG (1916) Sleeping sickness: a record of four years’ war against it in Príncipe, Portuguese West Africa. Pub. for the Centro Colonial, Lisbon, by Ballière, Tindall and Cox, London da Silva ELFM (2019) Tropical medicine behind cocoa slavery: a campaign to eradicate sleeping sickness in the Portuguese colony of Príncipe Island, 1911-1914. Bulletin for Spanish and Portuguese Historical Studies 44:28 Dallimer M, Melo M (2010) Rapid decline of the endemic giant land snail Archachatina bicarinata on the island of Príncipe, Gulf of Guinea. Oryx 44:213–218 Dallimer M, Parnell M, Bicknell JE, Melo M (2012) The importance of novel and agricultural habitats for the avifauna of an oceanic island. Journal for Nature Conservation 20:191–199 De Castro ML, De la Calle ML (1985) Geograﬁa de Guinea Ecuatorial. Edit: Ministerio de Educación Y Ciencia, Espana. ISBN: 84-505-2665-5 De Menezes J, Pagad S (2020) Global register of introduced and invasive species - São Tomé and Príncipe. Version 1.2. Invasive Species Specialist Group ISSG. GBIF.org. Accessed 31 May 2021 Diniz AC, Matos GC (2002) Carta da zonagem agro-ecológica e da vegetação de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série Botânica 15(2):1–72 Dutton J (1994) Introduced mammals in São Tomé and Príncipe: possible threats to biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:927–938 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 67 Espírito ADA, António MDR, da Mata AT, Lima RF (2020) Toward sustainable logging in São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe - ﬁnal report. Conservation Leadership Programme, São Tomé Exell AW (1944) Catalogue of the vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Príncipe and Annobón). British Museum (Natural History), London, 428 pp Eyzaguirre PB (1986) Small farmers and estates in São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. PhD thesis, Yale University, New Haven Fauna & Flora International (2018) Príncipe Island botanical sampling follow up work report. Fauna & Flora International, Santo António Ferrão JEM (2005) A aventura das plantas e os descobrimentos portugueses. Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos Descobrimentos Portugueses & Fundação Berardo, Lisboa Figueiredo E, Paiva J, Stévart T, Oliveira F, Smith GF (2011) Annotated catalogue of the ﬂowering plants of São Tomé and Príncipe. Bothalia 41:41–82 Garﬁeld R (1979) A history of Sao Tome Island, 1470–1665. PhD thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston Gosling J, Jones MI, Arnell A et al (2020) A global mapping template for natural and modiﬁed habitat across terrestrial earth. Biological Conservation 250:108674 Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R et al (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342:850–853 Henriques JA (1917) A ilha de S. Tomé sob o ponto de vista histórico-natural e agrícola. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 27:1–197 Herrero-Barrencua A, Haroun R, Abreu AD (2017) Caracterización preliminar de los manglares de la Isla de Príncipe (São Tomé e Príncipe). IU-ECOAQUA, Universidad Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, 70 pp Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Harris JA (2009) Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:599–605 Instituto Geográﬁco e Cadastral (IGC) (1964) Carta do Príncipe. Levantamento aerofotogramétrico. 1/25 000. Ministério do Ultramar, Lisboa Instituto Nacional de Estadística de Guinea Ecuatorial (INEGE) (2017) Censo de población 2015 – República de Guinea Ecuatorial. INEGE, Malabo Instituto Nacional de Estatística de São Tomé e Príncipe (INESTP) (2020) Projecção a nível distrital 2012–2020. Available via INEST. https://ine.st/index.php/component/phocadownload/ﬁle/270projeccao-a-nivel-distrital-2012-2020. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 IUSS Working Group WRB (2015) World reference base for soil resources 2014, update 2015. International soil classiﬁcation system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources Reports No. 106. FAO, Rome Jäger H (2015) Biology and impacts of Paciﬁc island invasive species. 11. Cinchona pubescens (Red Quinine Tree) (Rubiaceae). Paciﬁc Science 69:133–153 Jäger H, Tye A, Kowarik I (2007) Tree invasion in naturally treeless environments: impacts of quinine (Cinchona pubescens) trees on native vegetation in Galápagos. Biological Conservation 140:297–307 Jones PJ (1994) Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea: an overview. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 772–784 Jones PJ, Burlison JP, Tye A (1991) Conservação dos ecossistemas ﬂorestais na República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland Juste J, Fa JE (1994) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea islands: taking stock and preparing action. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:759–771 Keith DA, Rodríguez JP, Rodríguez-Clark KM et al (2013) Scientiﬁc foundations for an IUCN red list of ecosystems. PLoS One 8(5):e62111 Kovda I (2020) Vertisols: Extreme features and extreme environment. Geoderma Regional 22: e00312 68 G. Dauby et al. Lima RF, Viegas L, Solé N et al (2014) Can management improve the value of shade plantations for the endemic species of São Tomé Island? Biotropica 46(2):238–247 Madureira MC, Paiva J, Fernandes AF et al (2008) Estudo etnofarmacológico de plantas medicinais de S.Tomé e Príncipe. Ministério da Saúde de São Tomé e Príncipe, São Tomé, 217 pp Mildbraed J (1922) Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Zweiten Deutschen Zentral-Afrika-Expedition 1910–1911 unter Führung Adolf Friedrichs, Herzogs zu Mecklenburg. Band II – Botanik. Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. J. Mildbraed. Verlag von Klinkhardt & Biermann, Leipzig, 202 pp Ministry of Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Environment (2016) National biodiversity strategy and action plan 2015–2020 (NBSAP II). Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. Available via CBD. https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/st/st-nbsap-v2-en.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Monod T (1960) Notes botaniques sur les îles de São Tomé et de Príncipe. Bulletin de l’Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire, Série A, Sciences Naturelles 22(1):19–83 Morse NB, Pellissier PA, Cianciola EN et al (2014) Novel ecosystems in the Anthropocene: a revision of the novel ecosystem concept for pragmatic applications. Ecology and Society 19(2): 12 Muñoz-Torrent X, Trindade NT, Mikulane S (2022) Territory, Economy, and demographic growth in São Tomé and Príncipe: anthropogenic impacts in environment. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 71–86 Nève G, Bonneau P, Coache A et al (2022) The beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 295–348 Norder SJ, de Lima RF, de Nascimento L et al (2020) Global change in microcosms: environmental and societal predictors of land cover change on the Atlantic Ocean Islands. Anthropocene 30: 100242 Ogonovszky M (2003) Endémisme et phytogéographie des plantes de São Tomé et Príncipe. MSc thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels Oyono PR, Morelli TL, Sayer J et al (2014) Allocation and use of forest land: current trends, issues and perspectives. In: de Wasseige C, Flynn J, Louppe D, HiolHiol F, Mayaux P (eds) The forests of the Congo Basin - state of the forest 2013. Weyrich, Neufchâteau, pp 215–240 Padgham M, Lovelace R, Salmon M, Rudis B (2017) Osmdata. Journal of Open Source Software 2(14):305 Panisi M (2017) Biological invasion and the conservation of endemic island species: São Tomé Archachatina giant snails (Pulmonata: Achatinidade). MSc thesis, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon Panisi M, Lima RF, Lima JC et al (2022) Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 407–430 Pebesma EJ (2018) Simple features for R: standardized support for spatial vector data. The R Journal 10(1):439–446 Peris SV (1962) La isla de Annobon. Archivos del Instituto de Estudios Africanos 57:2–35 Pimm SL (1984) The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307:321–326 QGIS Development Team (2021) QGIS geographic information system. Open source Geospatial Foundation project. http://qgis.osgeo.org. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 R Core Team (2021) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Salgueiro A, Carvalho S (2001) Proposta de Plano Nacional de Desenvolvimento Florestal 2003–2007. ECOFAC/AGRECO/CIRAD Forêt, São Tomé Sax DF, Gaines SD (2008) Species invasions and extinction: the future of native biodiversity on islands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(Supplement 1):11490–11497 Senterre B, Lowry PP, Bidault E, Stévart T (2021) Ecosystemology: a new approach toward a taxonomy of ecosystems. Ecological Complexity 47(septembre):100945 3 Classiﬁcation, Distribution, and Biodiversity of Terrestrial. . . 69 Silva HL (1958) São Tomé e Príncipe e a cultura do café. Mémorias da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, 2a sér.,1, Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisboa, 499 pp Soares FC, Panisi M, Sampaio H et al (2020) Land-use intensiﬁcation promotes non-native species in a tropical island bird assemblage. Animal Conservation 23:573–584 Stévart T (1998) Étude sur les orchidées de São Tomé et Príncipe. MSc thesis, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels Stévart T, Dauby G, Ikabanga DU et al (2022) The vascular plants of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 249–272 Taedoumg H (2020) Taxonomie du genre Craterispermum Benth. (Gentianales – Rubiaceae) en Afrique continentale. ABC Taxa 20:1–169 UNESCO (2021) Biosphere reserves. Island of Principe biosphere reserve, Sao Tome and Principe. https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/africa/island-of-principe. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Vancutsem C, Achard F, Pekel J-F et al (2021) Long-term (1990–2019) monitoring of forest cover changes in the humid tropics. Science Advances 7(10):eabe1603 Velayos M, Barberá P, Cabezas FJ, Estrella M, Fero M, Aedo C (2014) Checklist of the vascular plants of Annobón (Equatorial Guinea). Phytotaxa 171:1–78 Wardle DA, Bardgett RD, Callaway RM, Van der Putten WH (2011) Terrestrial ecosystem responses to species gains and losses. Science 332:1273–1277 Wilson AM, Jetz W (2016) Remotely sensed high-resolution global cloud dynamics for predicting ecosystem and biodiversity distributions. PLoS Biology 14(3):e1002415 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 4 Territory, Economy, and Demographic Growth in São Tomé and Príncipe: Anthropogenic Changes in Environment Xavier Muñoz-Torrent, Ngouabi Tiny da Trindade, and Signe Mikulane Abstract Nearly ﬁve centuries of human presence on the islands of the Gulf of Guinea have considerably marked the landscape with the replacement of natural habitats by roças (plantations) and other settlements, the introduction of numerous exotic plant and animal species, and the exploitation of resources needed for urban construction and daily life of the growing human population. Exponential population growth and, consequently, the urban sprawl are resulting in deforestation, illegal beach sand mining, exhaustion of natural resources, expansion of non-endemic species, and extermination of the endemic ones, thus causing immense resource exploitation and rapid environmental deterioration. The absence of an effective territorial planning ampliﬁes the island’s vulnerability and increases the fragility of the ecosystems, posing clear threats to the islands’ unique biodiversity. Keywords São Tomé and Príncipe · Biodiversity · Demographic growth · Economy · Environmental impact · Insularity · Environment-society interactions Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: A Biological Laboratory of Landscape Alteration In the context of the European expansion, African islands in the Atlantic were prime spaces for experimentation of new agricultural species (Ferrão 2005). Since the early period of the European Age of Expansion, and especially for the Portuguese X. Muñoz-Torrent (*) Servei d’Estudis i Observatori de la Ciutat de Terrassa, Terrassa, Catalonia, Spain Associação Caué—Amigos de São Tomé e Príncipe, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain e-mail: xavier.munoz@saotomeprincipe.eu N. T. da Trindade Instituto Nacional de Estatística de São Tomé e Príncipe, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe S. Mikulane BIM Institut (Interdisziplinäres Institut der Fachbereiche Architektur, Bau- und Umweltingenieurwesen und Geodäsie), Hochschule Bochum, Bochum, Germany © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_4 71 72 X. Muñoz-Torrent et al. Colonial Empire, these islands became biological laboratories for the acclimatization of different economically interesting plants and animals from Europe and Africa, and even later from South and Central America and Asia. Initially, the most basic need for maritime expansions was the creation of safe ports for transoceanic trips, where horticultural commodities could restock the ships. The Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands served as a strategic base for the European colonial enterprise, especially because the islands of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón were uninhabited (e.g., Seibert 2004). Here, we describe the history of the relationships between the human societies that inhabited these islands and their surrounding environment, with a focus on the island of São Tomé from which the most information is available. According to the existing historiography, Portuguese navigators were the ﬁrst humans to reach and colonize the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. São Tomé and Príncipe islands were discovered by the Portuguese navigators João de Santarém and Pêro Escobar on December 21, 1470, and January 17, 1471, respectively. The island of Annobón was discovered on January 1, 1473, by the Portuguese navigator Fernão do Pó who was attempting to ﬁnd the maritime route to India. After a previous failed colonization attempt, in 1486 the Portuguese military leader Álvaro de Caminha became the third “donatário” (governor) of São Tomé and promoted the ﬁrst successful colonization of São Tomé, establishing a small village in the area around Ana Chaves Bay, in the north-eastern part of the island (Seibert 2015). The original settlers included Europeans consisting of volunteers, exiles, and a group of Jewish children, as well as Africans, most of whom were enslaved (Seibert 2015). The island of Príncipe would only start to become populated in the early sixteenth century (Seibert 2015), and Annobón decades later, in 1592. From these initial settlements until the mid-nineteenth century, the main economic activities of the islands were linked to the slave trade, in which the islands functioned as an important entrepôt for the transatlantic trade (especially until the mid-seventeenth century). The islands were also transformed by extensive sugarcane monoculture plantations (mainly throughout the sixteenth century), especially in the northeast of São Tomé (Seibert 2015). By the mid-sixteenth century, the island of São Tomé was the world’s main producer of sugar, but the development of sugarcane cultivation in Brazil led to the collapse of São Tomé’s plantations by the beginning of the seventeenth century (Seibert 2015). Revolts by enslaved Africans also contributed to this decline, such as those led by the iconic King Amador in 1595 that devastated a considerable number of sugar mills (Seibert 2015). With the end of the large sugarcane plantations, the islands’ economy was reduced to the production of supplies to be sold to the ships that docked there. Many of these were linked to the slave trade, which was limited in 1836 and completely banned with the abolition of slavery in São Tomé and Príncipe in 1875, when enslaved plantation workers transitioned to a subsistence wage labor model (Seibert 2015). Despite the impact of sugar mills on the local landscape, the human population during this early period was considerably low, with a total of 12,672 people on the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe in 1758, of which only 53 were white Europeans (Seibert 2015). From the second half of the nineteenth century onward, the islands would witness the rapid expansion of coffee and cocoa crops, which came to 4 Territory, Economy, and Demographic Growth in São Tomé and Príncipe:. . . 73 Fig. 4.1 Evolution of land occupation in São Tomé Island from the late sixteenth century (left: 1 Obô—forests, 2 sugarcane plantations and ﬁelds, 3 coconut palm and banana, 4 factories and sugar mills, 5 wetlands) to 1957 (right: 1 cocoa, 2 coffee, 3 oleaginous trees, 4 quinines, 5 quintal cultures, family horticulture, 6 Obô—forests). The diminishing cover of the Obô (dark gray area) is evident. Tenreiro (1961) dominate the economy and landscape through the establishment of dozens of roças (plantations and their dependencies; Seibert 2015). According to available historical data, cocoa plantations in 1913 occupied about three-fourths of the surface of São Tomé and Príncipe islands, a proportion that would gradually start to decline after the First World War, due to the infestation of cocoa trees by pests, soil erosion, and expansion of cocoa cultivation in other regions (Seibert 2015). This decrease in cocoa cultivation was such that by the time São Tomé and Príncipe became independent in 1975, the total planted area was only one-fourth of the country’s territory (Seibert 2015). Nearly ﬁve centuries of human presence on the islands have considerably marked the landscape with the replacement of natural habitats by roças, the introduction of numerous exotic plant and animal species, and the exploitation of resources needed for urban construction and daily life of the growing human population. Similar to other Atlantic islands off the coast of Africa, the recent ecological and landscape history of Sao Tomé and Príncipe is strongly linked to the growth of human activity, including the degradation of native ecosystems and the establishment of alien species. This process was strongly associated with cycles of agricultural development, initially the production of sugarcane, and then coffee and cocoa (Eyzaguirre 1986—Fig. 4.1). Cocoa in particular was decisive for the economic development of the islands, with regressive stages leading to the generation of 74 X. Muñoz-Torrent et al. secondary forest, or scrub, which emerged mainly as a result of agricultural abandonment. More recently, ecosystems continue to be altered, namely by the installation of extensive areas of oil palm monoculture (Oyono et al. 2014). By the end of the 1950s, the geographer Francisco Tenreiro noted that the original forests of São Tomé were no longer found below 1400 m altitude and thus that only 1/140 of the total land on the island was covered by the original vegetation. He denounced that “by clearing the woods, degrading spontaneous formations, even replacing them entirely with new formations, men almost completely transformed the primitive physiognomy of the island” (Tenreiro, 1961; Fig. 4.2). These dramatic changes had pronounced impacts on the islands’ biological diversity, adding several alien species (Muñoz-Torrent 2013) and likely eradicating many natives ones. Landscape transformations were associated with the process of developing human settlements, such as the drainage of swamps, the creation of dams and canalization of river courses, the construction of buildings and roads (especially on the coastal fringes), and overexploitation of natural resources, both on land and at sea. Some species were directly targeted for extirpation, such as attempts to eradicate species that transmit diseases like the tsetse ﬂy (Costa 1913) and more modern attempts to eliminate malaria. These eradication campaigns employed methods including deforestation, draining swamps, and harsh chemicals that likely contributed to signiﬁcant ecological loss. Thus, the presence of humans on the islands from the early colonization to the present day has dramatically shaped the landscape and ecosystem ecology. In São Tome, Tenreiro compared landscape units to reconstruct the changes that occurred throughout the island’s colonization history: from the closed forest of the Obô (Creole term referring to the original forest, called Obô jiji when it is dense and impenetrable) to the sugarcane ﬁelds (which emerged in the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries), passing through secondary forests and plantations of cocoa, coffee, oilseeds, and bananas (which emerged from the nineteenth century onward). The intensive agricultural use resulted in the gradual impoverishment of soils, giving rise to a savanna area in the north of São Tomé that is dotted with palm groves, riparian forests, and micondos (local name given to baobab trees) (Fig. 4.2—Diniz and Matos 2002; Figueiredo et al. 2011). Despite these landscape alterations, the ﬁrst impression of those arriving to the Gulf of Guinea islands is lush rainforest, which in some places reaches the coastline giving the landscape an appearance of dense and untouched forest, almost limitless (Fig. 4.2a). That ﬁrst impression gives contemporary visitors the idea that they are in front of the original landscape of the Obô, never altered. The reality, however, is that plant diversity across the landscape varies not only as a function of climate, relief, and soils, but also as a function of the history of human occupation and, in particular, of the different plantation regimes that existed on the islands. These islands clearly illustrate the consequences of an incessant landscape modiﬁcation: how demographic expansion and economies based on intensive cash crop monocultures and forest cultures impact the climate, environment, and biodiversity. Thus, addressing contemporary environmental challenges must account for the reality that the landscape is fundamentally different than it was 500 years ago and the biological 4 Territory, Economy, and Demographic Growth in São Tomé and Príncipe:. . . 75 Fig. 4.2 The different processes that modiﬁed the São Tomé landscape, from the original humid jungles to drier savannahs with micondós (baobabs) and palm groves. Top: the mountainous and more humid regions that preserve dense forests (photo © Rogério Nave—2003). Middle: the most intense deforestation in the coastal and drier areas of the island, which reached its ﬁrst peak between the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. In the photo, corn plantation ﬁelds among coconut palm groves (photo © Orlando Ribeiro—1955). Bottom: drier area of the northern parts of the island, which currently presents a very modiﬁed vegetation, as is the case of the humanmade savannahs (photo © Thomas Schenk—2007) communities now include many introduced species that have since become acclimated. Furthermore, even for those with a deep understanding of landscape richness and biological diversity, the impression of leaﬁness, of dense forest which is stubbornly resisting to humanization, induces a misleading perception about the islands’ dimensions, making them bigger than they really are. Therefore, when addressing 76 X. Muñoz-Torrent et al. environmental issues, both the original vegetal landscape, that most Santomean people never stepped on, and also the current landscape constituted mainly of non-native species must be taken into account. In other words, when we are talking about ecosystems and biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Ocean Islands, biological and landscape evolution has to be regarded in a wider sense, considering also the adaptation of introduced species and not only the endemic ones, although, in any case, the latter are those which distinguish the islands’ ecologic richness. Despite the intense landscape transformation experienced since the ﬁrst human settlements, the diversity of both plant and animal species that can only be found on these islands is extraordinary. The latest report on the biodiversity of São Tomé and Príncipe states that 15% of the vascular plant species catalogued on the islands are endemic, while 57% of birds in São Tomé and 54% in Príncipe, 44% of reptiles, and 100% of amphibians are also endemic (MIRNASTP 2016). However, many of the species presently found on the islands were introduced, constituting an important source of products that make up the traditional basic diet of the population, as well as their housing (wood) and energy source (ﬁrewood and charcoal). Likewise, agricultural crops are non-native and are a key driver of the national economy, both in terms of the domestic and export markets (Oliveira 1993). This is especially important considering the exponential growth of the population in recent decades and also the projected growth for the decades to come, which, following the improvement in living standards, will certainly continue to intensify territorial uses and result in further landscape changes. Future risks include further deforestation due to increased demand for building materials and agricultural production, and depletion of ﬁsheries and other natural resources. Accelerated growth, which is often poorly planned and rarely monitored, constitutes a real—and in some cases already imminent—threat to the islands’ extraordinary biological richness and the people who rely on the ecosystem services they provide. Demographic Growth, Territory, and Urban Sprawl Until the 1960s, 32% of the up to 65,000 inhabitants of São Tomé and Príncipe lived in the Mé-Zóchi district (in the center of the island), where many of the most populated agricultural ﬁelds were concentrated (INESTP 2012a). From 1970 onward, the distribution of the population began to change, with the district of Água Grande becoming the most populous. This is where the capital city, São Tomé, is located, and this change in distribution clearly reﬂects the decline in the plantation economy and the trend toward urbanization. There was also an inversion in the structure of the resident population, which became female-biased. This phenomenon was due to the reduction of men brought to work in the ﬁelds and emigration of men searching for better working and living conditions abroad. Meanwhile, with the proclamation of independence in 1975, thousands of people left the country, including many of the most educated and prominent members of society. At the same time, many of those who had left in search of better 4 Territory, Economy, and Demographic Growth in São Tomé and Príncipe:. . . 77 Fig. 4.3 Human population growth in São Tomé and Príncipe (source: INESTP 2012a) opportunities abroad began to return to São Tomé and Príncipe due to the war in Angola. Comparing immigration and emigration around the time of independence, it appears the population grew, and became more concentrated around the capital city and other urban centers. Data from the last Portuguese census, in 1970, and from the ﬁrst censuses of independent São Tomé and Príncipe illustrate these changes (Fig. 4.3). Between 1976 and 1991, the colonial infrastructure was largely intact and in full operation, and the majority of the population remained in the rural areas, where the roças constituted authentic autonomous villages. Drops in production from former plantations, associated with the depletion of trees and production resources, together with increased competition and lower prices on the international cacao market, resulted in a collapse of the economic structure. Many of the agricultural companies that had become nationalized after the independence were privatized again, but most of them failed and became abandoned, intensifying the regression of intensive crops and the expansion of capoeira areas (scrubs, shrubby habitat). In 1981, the general population and housing census reported 96,566 inhabitants in the country, representing an increase of 30.8% compared to 1970. In the following decade, this rate of growth dropped to 20.6%, to reach a resident population of 116,504 inhabitants in 1991. It was during this period that the rural exodus toward the urban centers of the country further intensiﬁed, in particular to the outskirts of the city of São Tomé, resulting from the agrarian reform ﬁnanced by the World Bank (INESTP 2012a). Between 1992 and 2020, there were two censuses, one in 2001 and the other in 2012 (INESTP 2012a). Between 1991 and 2012, the population increased by 53.41%, to 178,739 people, an increase of 62,235 inhabitants in just 21 years and almost double the population at independence. The average annual growth rate between 2001 and 2012 was 2.45%. At the district level, this index reveals that Lembá had the highest growth rate (2.96%), followed by Água Grande (2.74%), while the lowest was Caué (0.86%). These values illustrate the trend toward 78 X. Muñoz-Torrent et al. Fig. 4.4 Distribution of São Tomé and Príncipe population in each district (2012 and projections for 2035) (Source: INESTP 2012a) population concentration around urban areas, especially around the São Tomé-Trindade axis, as seen in recent studies. Average growth rates make it possible to carry out population projections to better understand demographic dynamics and design a more realistic territorial planning. Between 2012 and 2015, the annual population growth was 2.03%, and between 2012 and 2025, annual population growth is projected to be 2.08%, and 2.01% from 2025 to 2035. Consequently, population growth is projected to be approximately 26% between 2012 and 2035, which would place the total population at 284,293 inhabitants by 2035 (INESTP 2012c). The demographic increases have taken place mainly in the suburbs of urban areas. In the 1990s, the number of agricultural workers, most of them residing in farmland and other rural areas, decreased from 14,500 to 8860 (INESTP 2012b). This trend was likely in response to the agrarian reform promoted and ﬁnanced by the World Bank, which encouraged the government to dismantle large plots of land. These were divided into small parcels and distributed among 8735 former agricultural workers, under a usufruct regime (Oliveira 1993). The implementation of this policy had perverse effects on urban centers, namely in conditioning the capacity and sustainability of the country’s current structures and basic services, increasing its population density, and clearly unbalancing the distribution of the population across the national territory (Seibert 2015). However, this trend is expected to be attenuated in the near future: if in 2012 67% of the population lived in urban areas, in 2035 it is estimated that it will reach only 70% (INESTP 2012c). The rural exodus reached its greatest extent in 1991 with the land reform, but it did not stop and has only decreased in intensity. The extreme poverty of rural areas was the main reason for this exodus, forcing populations to move in search of better living conditions, which resulted in the saturation of urban areas. It is estimated that 38.9% of the population will reside in the district of Água Grande by 2035, where the capital is located, and that by then its population will exceed 100,000 inhabitants (INESTP 2012a— Fig. 4.4). The rapid emergence of high population densities concentrated around a 4 Territory, Economy, and Demographic Growth in São Tomé and Príncipe:. . . 79 few urban areas has created several environmental problems, with clear implications for human well-being, such as intense road trafﬁc and high concentrations of noise, light, and chemical pollution, as well as a deregulation of urban expansion and exploitation of resources, with far broader environmental implications. Several indicators already point to a “demographic transition” (see Thompson 1929) in São Tomé and Príncipe. The large difference between high birth rates and low mortality rates provides a marked growth, which explains the observed rapid demographic expansion. On the other hand, the exacerbated increase in urban development, the widespread use of contraceptive methods, the evident appearance of women in the formal employment market, the costs associated with educating children, the improvement in the level of education, and the increase in family planning point to a reduction in the birth rate, which will soon approach the death rate and lead to the stabilization of the population. Other demographic indicators reveal these same trends: the average age of the population will go from 19 years old in 2012 to 26 years old in 2035 and the time needed for the population to double will go from 35 to 38 years. In any case, despite the trend of the main demographic indicators, the population of São Tomé will maintain a high population growth rate, and it is estimated that it will reach a synthetic fertility rate of 2.01 in 2030. The districts of Água Grande, Mé-Zóchi, and Lobata, in the north of the island of São Tomé, have three-fourths of the national population, despite corresponding to less than one-fourth of the country’s area (INESTP 2012a). The highest density in 2012 was in the district of Água Grande, with 4209 inhab./km2 in 16.5 km2. At the opposite extreme, was the district of Caué, with 23 inhab./km2 in 267 km2, illustrating the great territorial imbalance in terms of population distribution, which also affects the available services and the type of economic activity in each region. Since 2001, the entire district of Água Grande has been considered urban, which homogenizes the analyses referring to the capital, although it is clear that some regions within this district maintain elements of rurality. In the 2012 census, population distribution was georeferenced for the ﬁrst time, which will constitute an important tool for understanding its evolution (Fig. 4.5). The urban expansion is very evident, using as main axes the national roads that leave the capital, connecting it with residential neighborhoods in Trindade to the west, in Santana to the south, and several villages in the north, toward Guadalupe. This trend is particularly evident along national road 3, from the neighborhood of Madredeus and industrial areas in Água Grande to the village of Trindade and beyond in the district of Mé-Zóchi, which effectively constitute an urban continuum. This expansion entails an increasing urban sprawl, the impacts of which are especially signiﬁcant because the Santomean residential tradition is not compact, consisting mainly of detached single-family houses built of wood on family plots, known as quintais. Between 2012 and 2035, the rural population is expected to continue to decline, in contrast to urban population growth. Underlying these trends is an increase in the territory’s vulnerability, especially given the scarcity of effective regulatory instruments that control urban expansion and the use of natural resources. In other words, the population is becoming even more urban, reaching 70% of the total population in 2020, which will especially affect the forecast of needs for basic services and 80 (a) X. Muñoz-Torrent et al. (b) (c) Fig. 4.5 (a) Population density derived from the 2012 census, (b) road density, and (c) landscape vulnerability based on a multifactorial analysis of São Tomé Island in Mikulane (2019). The coloration for all three graphs represents linear standardization mobility, which will be greater. At the same time, this presupposes, following the traditional settlement and housing model, a clear tendency to occupy more territory: the city of São Tomé, which had an orthogonal plan of origin, will tend to grow sharply, irregularly, and haphazardly rather than a compact model in line with sustainable urbanism. However, the National Plan for Spatial Planning PNOT, currently under preparation (MIRNASTP 2020a), may be an important guide to improve territorial management, as long as they are able to support regulated and enforceable public policies in planning and controlling growth in urban and suburban areas, which take into account the demographic and occupation dynamics of the territory that we have just described. Culture and the Concepts of Obô and Omali: When Conservation Collides with Development Anthropogenic pressure on the environment should not only be measured in terms of demographic expansion and the occupation of space, but also in terms of income levels, traditional uses, and the population’s perception of the ecological wealth of the islands (Boya-Busquet 2008a, b, Mikulane 2019). Furthermore, the same anthropic pressure must be contextualized in the awareness of the pernicious impact of uncontrolled growth in demographic terms, and in terms of an economy that does not respect the environment and instead follows the trends of a globalized capitalist system. This is increasingly the reality on these islands, where the extreme poverty of most families, an unstable economy, low wages, low saving capacity, etc., are all at play. These constraints mean that even in the most urban environments, traditional 4 Territory, Economy, and Demographic Growth in São Tomé and Príncipe:. . . 81 cultures persist with basic livelihoods that are largely supported by agriculture and the extraction of resources from the natural environment. The Obô still provides wood for construction and to make canoes, furniture and other utensils, ﬁrewood and charcoal for cooking, fruits, condiments, medicinal herbs, and sources of animal protein. Omali (sea) provides ﬁsh and shellﬁsh, vital protein sources on the islands, as well as sand for construction. The highly informal and poorly quantiﬁed domestic market largely depends on these predominantly extractive activities. For example, it was estimated that in 2014 alone, São Tomé and Príncipe bakeries consumed around 5000 tons of ﬁrewood, mostly obtained from illegal harvesting in national forests (MOPIRNASTP 2019). As an illustrative example of a prevailing mentality among islanders, the following testimony of a resident from Porto-Real, Príncipe, states: “Here [in Príncipe] there are no jobs, but there is moandim (a local tree) in the woods to make charcoal. Coal is easy money. If you take it to the market, it is sold straight away. If you cut a bunch of bananas, where do you sell them? With a sack of charcoal, I haven’t even arrived in the city yet and I’m already doing business” (Temudo 2008). In other words, the forest is a sure source of income for families, frequently used by many of the island’s inhabitants. Consequently, Obô and the Omali are seen by most islanders as an inexhaustible source of easily accessible resources, unlike plantations that are largely operated by the state or large agricultural companies, or existing jobs in the city, often with uncertain proﬁt or low pay. It is the combination of a deﬁcient family economy with abundant natural resources that reinforces the inhabitants’ direct dependence on natural resource extraction. This relationship was once more respectful and balanced, forming part of the animist beliefs themselves. For example, it was customary for ﬁshermen to ask Mother Nature’s permission in advance and the tree’s forgiveness, before cutting it to make a canoe (Torres 2005). Currently, strong social changes, largely due to increased contact with the outside world, but also due to population growth itself, put at risk not only nature but also cultural identity. This interdependence between society and nature creates a certain perception of citizenship, which plays a crucial role in the conservation of ecosystems (Boya-Busquet 2008a). The dense forests, in addition to being a source of resources, are also an unknown, dark, hidden, changing space for many islanders. This is where witches and sorcerers live, where outlaws hide, where the fearsome cobra-preta dwells (endemic to São Tomé), and where there is danger of illness or death. It is also in the depths of the forest that the spirits of the deceased live and are invoked, where uncertainty and fear are generated. It is wild place that at the same time imposes and deserves respect and challenges men to dominate it, as it is the antithesis of the civilized, the known, the controlled, which all originated from the devastation of this dark place. This feeling is also experienced in other cultures, at other times and under different circumstances (e.g., Urteaga González 1987). For instance, in school surveys (Boya-Busquet 2008a), drawings express the prejudice about the unknown space of forests, streams, and seas, and in which there is a clear ladder of values—evolving from the forest to the roça and to the city, as an evolution from a wild place to a civilized one. In any case, the same representations demonstrate the perception of the existence within the 82 X. Muñoz-Torrent et al. Obô jiji, of an indomitable, still virgin place, where it is possible to ﬁnd spirits, from which new knowledge, certain remedies, occult magic or the power of healers can be found. There is, therefore, a great contradiction that can be explained by the generational shift (or disinterest) in relation to ancient beliefs and by the relativization of the importance of animism for the conservation of Nature. In essence, the impenetrable Obô is a place to respect, so perhaps it is not strange to think that the majority of the modest population considers the Obô (and the Omali as well) as a kind of “open bar,” “an immense and inexhaustible cornucopia” (Valverde 2000), a place to civilize and explore. As such, it is difﬁcult to think of valuing biodiversity if it is not recognized as a shared and ﬁnite heritage, which if it disappears as a result of economic development will take with it a large part of the unique identity of the peoples of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. The strongly impregnated idea that natural resources are inﬁnite and for the enjoyment and beneﬁt of the immediate needs of its inhabitants, associated with rapid demographic growth, the exchange of habits and social references, and the liberalization of access to land, have caused the destruction of natural resources to accelerate in recent decades, making it urgent to apply a strict policy of conservation and modiﬁcation of territorial planning standards. A multifactorial analysis of the elements that are affecting the ecosystems of the island of São Tomé revealed that more than two-thirds of the island have a high degree of landscape vulnerability (Fig. 4.5—Mikulane 2019). This approach reveals the long-evident trend of degradation (Tenreiro 1961), even in areas protected by law. The awareness of the unique value of the forests, rivers, beaches, and seas of these islands by its inhabitants is relatively new, and becoming more widespread since the beginning of the twenty-ﬁrst century. This transition was largely externally inspired, stemming from international programs such as ECOFAC (Albuquerque and Carvalho 2015), but is currently reﬂected in several national strategic documents (e.g., MIRNASTP 2016, MIRNASTP 2020a, b), which identify the values to be protected in coastal and marine ecosystems, inland waters, forestry, and agrarian ecosystems, and from which the establishment of the Obô Natural Park was derived (DGA 2006a, b). Despite clearly pointing out threats and challenges, awareness programs on these values have not been satisfactorily established or implemented, starting with the low presence of this topic in school curricula (Carvalho et al. 2010). Despite legal regulations and strategies created to promote responsible environmental management, poor enforcement results in widespread transgressions in illegal activities such as systematic cutting of trees in protected areas without authorization (Espírito et al. 2020), indiscriminate extraction of sand from beaches, poaching of protected species, or ﬁshing with prohibited gear. Awareness of the value of biodiversity as a shared heritage remains poorly rooted, or is outweighed by necessity, and the debate about its importance continues to have little practical effect. Agricultural and urban land use are also often at odds with environmental protections. In addition to the expansion and intensiﬁcation of small-scale agriculture carried out mainly by small owners, there are strong pressures inﬂicted by large concessions (Oyono et al. 2014). This is true both on the part of agricultural 4 Territory, Economy, and Demographic Growth in São Tomé and Príncipe:. . . 83 corporations, which work to recover and intensify plantations, and on the part of urban interests, sometimes linked to tourism, which have even intruded into protected areas. As already denounced long ago (Tenreiro 1961), the development of intensive agriculture, concerned with above all proﬁt and export, has been at the expense of natural ecosystems. In addition to the direct impacts of agriculture, the impact of improving the network of roads and other infrastructures has also resulted in further land use intensiﬁcation. All these elements of modernization will continue to require more land; for example, continued horizontal expansion of single-family homes at the current urban growth rate is unsustainable. Deforestation means not only an abrupt landscape change in the context of the islands, but also a change in climate regimes, with implications for the islands’ ecology (Henriques 1917). These changes can be especially notable in terms of rainfall and, therefore, water supply. In this context, it is evident that it is difﬁcult to strike a balance between conservation and development. As such, in the medium and long term, the prospect of retaining functional ecosystems on the islands is sobering. With the continued decline of local biological diversity, and, in particular, of endemic species, the islands’ ecosystems will likely become increasingly fragile. On the island of Príncipe, low demographic pressure and lower accessibility, associated with a more pro-conservationist policy, provide some hope for the preservation of its biodiversity and landscape integrity. The island was declared a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in 2012 (UNESCO 2013), which is paired with a tourism model that leverages the unique landscape and cultural heritage. These circumstances have also attracted the interest of scientists and conservationists, leading to the description of new endemic species and the implementation of several successful conservation programs (e.g., Fundação Príncipe 2021). This approach seems to have inﬂuenced a more positive perception of biodiversity and stronger enforcement of environmental regulations, halting the trend of environmental degradation. These changes end up beneﬁting an economic model that centers nature conservation, although perhaps the beneﬁts for the local population are less clear: so far, this theory has not been associated with changes in population demography or urban planning. One important consequence, however, is growing social inequalities created by strong foreign investment that has led to an increase in prices on the island. In addition, the small size of Príncipe means the species on this island are much more vulnerable to anthropogenic pressure, as they have much smaller distributions. As a consequence of all of this, the ﬁrst draft of the PNOT (MIRNASTP 2020a) outlines a more solid basis for the delimitation of uses in the territory and the urban expansion model. These include strict safeguarding of natural habitats and ensuring the balance of biophysical systems, and the sustainability of hydrological cycles, both those that constitute a forest or ﬁsh reserve and their buffer zones and agricultural regime zones. This document highlights a chapter on establishing the planning model that adopts the culture of territorial management, and a second chapter on measures to protect the environmental and cultural system. Proposed measures include the promotion of institutional and population awareness to preserve and enhance the notable natural and cultural elements, and the establishment of a 84 X. Muñoz-Torrent et al. national policy for the environment, nature conservation, and protection of biodiversity, very much in line with correcting the effects of uncontrolled growth described above. It is therefore an encouraging instrument, or at the very least a basic statement of good intentions. The Limits of Environmental Change: A Dystopian Panorama? Given the current moment of social and economic development, the outlook for biodiversity conservation in the islands of the Gulf of Guinea is not very optimistic. In particular, the exponential growth of the population and, consequently, the increasing pressure exerted on natural resources suggest the future scenario will be one of rapid environmental degradation, with the ultimate outcome being the general depletion of the territory, deforestation, disappearance of beaches, the gradual erosion of ecosystems, and disappearance of endemic species, but also threats to the persistence of the allochthonous richness already adapted to the territory. Is it possible to put limits on this Malthusian drama in these jewels of the Atlantic? Is it really impossible to think of an economic development that is not based on the exhaustion of territory? Will the islands’ unique biological diversity persist? There is still time to promote effective territorial planning, to which must be added demographic containment, and the implementation of a rigorous environmental policy, based on good management of uses, but also on awareness and, primarily, on basic education. There is great difﬁculty in reconciling the management of resources recommended by specialists with local practices, needs, and interests, and even private or corporate ones. In this sense, there is still a lot of work to be done, and it will be a great challenge to overthrow many of the vested interests. Keeping up with the current pace, the current landscape of the islands may become unrecognizable in a short time. To curb the prospects created by the current development path and avoid the most devastating environmental scenarios, it is necessary to increase social and economic equity, allowing access to sufﬁcient income to help change the population model and demographic and social growth. The ultimate goal is a shift in mentality that positively inﬂuences the valorization of the islands’ unique biodiversity as a common heritage, which is in fact the clearest pillar for a differentiated and long-term sustainable economic and social development model. References Albuquerque C, Carvalho A (2015) Relatório da Avaliação da versão de 2009 dos Planos de Manejo e de Gestão dos Parques Naturais de STP. ECOFAC V, São Tomé, São Tomé, 50 p Boya-Busquet M (2008a) Rapport à la nature et stratégies intégrées de conservation et développement. Le cas de São Tomé et Principe. Tese de doutoramento. Universidade de Montréal, Montréal 4 Territory, Economy, and Demographic Growth in São Tomé and Príncipe:. . . 85 Boya-Busquet M (2008b) Integrar conservación y desarrollo? Uso y representaciones sociales de la naturaleza en el Parque Natural Obô de São Tomé y Príncipe. In: Beltrán O, Pascual J (eds) Patrimonialización de la Naturaleza. El marco social de las políticas ambientales. Ankulegi, San Sebastián, pp 97–113 Carvalho M, Loloum B, Aguiar E et al (2010) Ecologia, Ambiente e Educação Ambiental em São Tomé e Príncipe. MARAPA/ CTA, São Tomé Costa BFB (1913) Rapport—Travaux sur la maladie du sommeil. L’assainissement, la statistique, les services hospitaliers et la brigade ofﬁcielle à l’ile du Prince. Lisbon Diniz AC, Matos GC (2002) Carta da Zonagem Agro-Ecologica e da Vegetação de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série Botânica 15(2):1–72 Direção-Geral do Ambiente (DGA) (2006a) Lei do Parque Natural do Obô de São Tomé (Lei n.6/ 2006). Ministério dos Recursos Naturais e Ambiente, São Tomé Direção-Geral do Ambiente (DGA) (2006b) Lei do Parque Natural do Obô do Príncipe (Lei n.7/ 2006). Ministério dos Recursos Naturais e Ambiente, São Tomé Espírito ADA, António MMDR, Mata AD, Veríssimo D, Lima RF (2020) Toward sustainable logging in São Tomé, São Tomé and príncipe—ﬁnal report. Conservation Leadership Programme, São Tomé, 18 p Eyzaguirre PB (1986) Small farmers and estates in São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Tese de Doutoramento. Universidade de Yale, New Haven Ferrão JEM (2005) A aventura das plantas e os descobrimentos portugueses. Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos Descobrimentos Portugueses & Fundação Berardo, Lisboa Figueiredo E, Paiva J, Stévart T, Oliveira F, Smith GF (2011) Annotated catalogue of the ﬂowering plants of São Tomé and Príncipe. Bothalia 41:41–82 Fundação Príncipe (2021) Fundação Príncipe. Available via https://fundacaoprincipe.org. Accessed 19 Sept 2021 Henriques JA (1917) A Ilha de S. Tomé sob o ponto de vista historico-natural e agricola. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 27:1–197 Instituto Nacional de Estatística de São Tomé e Príncipe (INESTP) (2012a) Dinâmica natural da população em São Tomé e Príncipe. São Tomé Instituto Nacional de Estatística de São Tomé e Príncipe (INESTP) (2012b) Estrutura da população de São Tomé e Príncipe. São Tomé Instituto Nacional de Estatística de São Tomé e Príncipe (INESTP) (2012c) Projeções demográﬁcas de São Tomé e Príncipe no Horizonte 2035, São Tomé Mikulane S (2019) Degradationsrisiken tropischer Waldökosysteme—Multifaktorielle Fernerkundungs- und GIS-basierte Modellierung der Landschaftsvulnerabilität. Umgesetzt am Fallbeispiel von São Tomé. Tese de doutoramento. Universidade Ruprecht-Karls, Heidelberg Ministério das Infraestruturas, Recursos Naturais e Ambiente de São Tomé e Príncipe (MIRNASTP) (2016). Estratégia nacional e plano de ação da biodiversidade 2015–2020 (NBSAP II). São Tomé Ministério das Infraestruturas, Recursos Naturais e Ambiente de São Tomé e Príncipe (MIRNASTP) (2020a) Plano nacional de ordenamento do território de São Tomé e Príncipe. Proposta do Plano, Programa de ação. São Tomé Ministério das Infraestruturas, Recursos Naturais e Ambiente de São Tomé e Príncipe (MIRNASTP) (2020b) Plano nacional de ordenamento do território de São Tomé e Príncipe. Relatório (Análise SWOT e potencialidades). São Tomé Ministério das Obras Públicas, Infraestruturas, Recursos Naturais e Ambiente de São Tomé e Príncipe (MOPIRNASTP) (2019) Terceira Comunicação Nacional Sobre as Mudanças Climáticas. São Tomé Muñoz-Torrent X (2013) Engenhos, roças e mato. Ecologia e câmbio climático na geograﬁa de Francisco Tenreiro. In: Brito B, Fernandes A, Castro A et al (eds) Alterações climáticas e as suas repercussões sócio-ambientais. Nerea Investiga, Aveiro, pp 50–65 86 X. Muñoz-Torrent et al. Oliveira JEDC (1993) A economia de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Instituto para a Cooperação Económica & Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisboa Oyono PR et al. (2014) Allocation and use of forest land: current trends, issues and perspectives. In: Wassinger CDE, Flynn J, Louppe D, Hiol FH, Mayaux P (eds) The forests of the Congo Basin—state of the forests 2013. Observatoire des Fôrets d'Afrique centrale of the Comission des Fôrets d'Afrique centrale and Congo Basin Forest Partnership, Weyrich, pp 215–240 Seibert G (2004) Os angolares da Ilha de São Tomé: Náufragos, autóctones ou quilombolas? Textos de História 12:43–64 Seibert G (2015) Colonialismo em São Tomé e Príncipe: hierarquização, classiﬁcação e segregação da vida social. Anuário Antropológico 2:99–120 Temudo MP (2008) De serviçal a camponês. A persistência das desigualdades sociais em São Tomé e Príncipe. Lusotopie 15:71–93 Tenreiro F (1961) A ilha de São Tomé. Junta de Investigações de Ultramar, Lisboa Thompson WS (1929) Population. American Journal of Sociology 34:959–975 Torres Â (2005) Mionga ki ôbo: Mar e selva. LX Filmes, Lisboa United Nations Educational, Scientiﬁc and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2013) Ecological sciences for sustainable development. Biosphere reserves: the island of Príncipe Available via http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biospherereserves/africa/sao-tome-and-principe/the-island-of-principe. Accessed 19 Apr 2021 Urteaga González L (1987) La tierra esquilmada. Las ideas sobre la conservación de la naturaleza en la cultura española del siglo XVIII. Ediciones El Serbal, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientíﬁcas, Barcelona Valverde P (2000) Máscara, mato e morte em São Tomé. Celta, Lisboa Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Bruna S. Santos, Soﬁa B. Viegas, Jorge Paiva, and Estrela Figueiredo Abstract The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón) have been the focus of biological research for over two hundred years. Following small surveys that generated modest collections in the eighteenth and early mid-nineteenth century, European institutions commissioned several exploratory missions to the region that resulted in the ﬁrst major catalogues of its biodiversity. The following century brought a new wave of research investment, mostly driven by the colonial interests. After the independence of both Equatorial Guinea L. M. P. Ceríaco (*) Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO, Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: lmceriaco@mhnc.up.pt B. S. Santos CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO, Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal S. B. Viegas Centro Interuniversitário de História das Ciências e da Tecnologia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal J. Paiva Centre for Functional Ecology, Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal E. Figueiredo Department of Botany, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha [Port Elizabeth], South Africa © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_5 87 88 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. and São Tomé and Príncipe, novel research trends focusing on conservation aspects of biodiversity research emerged. Here we present a chronological review of the zoological and botanical expeditions to the region, commenting on their major results, collectors, and the naturalists who studied them. Keywords Expeditions · Herbaria · History of science · Natural history collections · Taxonomy Introduction From the beginning, humans have tried to understand, classify, and master the biodiversity that surrounds them. Through time, and across different civilizations and cultural groups, different approaches and classiﬁcation schemes have been proposed to try to classify the natural world. Despite many attempts, the creation of a natural, objective, and replicable system to classify nature was only achieved in the mid-eighteenth century, with the seminal works of the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778). The works of Linnaeus are universally recognized as marking the birth of modern natural history and all its resulting subdisciplines (biology, ecology, etc.). As supporting evidence for its foundational importance in the current international zoological and botanical codes of nomenclature, valid scientiﬁc names are those starting in the 1750s, following the works of Linnaeus. For zoological nomenclature, the ﬁxed starting point is 1758 (ICZN 1999), which corresponds to the publication of the tenth edition of Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae (Linnaeus 1758). For botanical nomenclature, this point is only ﬁve years before, in 1753 (Turland et al. 2018), corresponding to the publication of the ﬁrst edition of Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum (Linnaeus 1753). Although this renders all the previous works invalid, from the narrow point of view of biological nomenclature, this does not mean that earlier work does not provide important information and insights regarding the natural world. In addition, many important contributions to scientiﬁc knowledge throughout history (and today) are made outside of the formal scientiﬁc literature. For the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, the reports made by some of the earliest Portuguese navigators in the late ﬁfteenth and early sixteenth centuries are teeming with information about the nature of these islands and the surrounding sea. This is the case of the report produced by the Portuguese navigator Gonçalo Pires (dates of birth and death unknown), transcribed by Valentim Fernandes (ca. 1450–1519) and subsequently published by Baião (1940), in which the author describes the geography, fauna, and ﬂora of the three oceanic islands in considerable detail. This chapter aims to provide a general overview of more than two centuries of scientiﬁc research on the biodiversity of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Due to the impossibility of providing a fully detailed account on the life and work of every naturalist or explorer that worked on the biodiversity of these islands, some of which would be sufﬁciently rich and detailed to write an entire chapter or book about, this text intends to be mostly a commented guide to the available publications. In a way, it is an updated and commented version of the important bibliographic compilations provided by Exell et al. (1952), Fernandes (1982) and Figueiredo 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 89 (1994a) for plants and by Gascoigne (1993, 1996) for animals, but it also aims to present the major research trends regarding biodiversity of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea across time. Despite the historical importance of older records, such as those of Gonçalo Pires, we do not include them here and focus solely on works published after the Linnean revolution, as the latter ones are those more readily accessible to the present-day researcher and student. Eighteenth Century to Mid-Nineteenth Century Formal zoological research in the Gulf of Guinea did not begin until the latter half of the nineteenth century, although in the late eighteenth century and earlier decades of the nineteenth century small collections made their way into Europe. Naturalists like the Danish zoologist Otto Friedrich Müller (1730–1784), the Dutch merchant and entomologist Pieter Cramer (1721–1776), and the French zoologist Jean Guillaume Bruguiére (1749–1798) studied them and described the ﬁrst known species of insects and molluscs from the islands (Müller 1774; Cramer 1775/76; Bruguière 1792). Most notably, the French Naval ofﬁcer Sander Rang (1793–1844) docked the naval brig La Champenoise in Príncipe for a month, where he collected terrestrial molluscs, which he later described (Rang 1831). During these early days of the modern era, much of the collecting and research was conducted in a framework of private collections and a dilettante approach to science, but these ﬁrst records can be seen as the beginning of taxonomic research in the region. The oldest record of plants collected from the Gulf of Guinea Islands dates from 1787 and was collected by the French naturalist Ambroise Marie François Joseph Palisot de Beauvois (1752–1820), during his stay in Príncipe Island while he was ill (Exell 1944). Out of the four species he collected, Asplenium emarginatum, Aeschynomene indica, Tristemma hirtum, and Agrostis tropica, the last has never been collected again on Príncipe and no other specimen is known (Figueiredo et al. 2011). After Beauvois’ initial study, botanical specimens were only collected again in the Gulf of Guinea during the nineteenth century. The Scotsman George Don (1798–1856) spent three weeks collecting plants in São Tomé (15 May to 11 June 1822). All the sailors who accompanied him ashore died from a tropical disease after leaving the island (Exell 1944). It was a good collection for the time, with about twenty species new to science, some of which have not been found again in São Tomé (Figueiredo et al. 2011). These “missing” species may in part be because some of them, such as Cichorium intybus and Pluchea sagittalis (Epaltes brasiliensis), were alien weeds (from Europe and South America, respectively) that did not become established (Exell 1944) or were, perhaps, misidentiﬁed. Later, Andrew Beveridge Curror (1811–1844), a British naval surgeon and naturalist, visited Annobón between 1839 and 1843, where he reportedly collected two species of plants, Begonia annobonensis and Vernonia amygdalina (Exell 1944). Figueiredo and Smith (2020a) cite the holotype of Begonia annobonensis [Curror 9 (K000242508), Annobón 1841]. At Herb. K there is also a herbarium 90 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. sheet with several specimens of Vernonia amygdalina from Annobón, two of which were collected by Burton (Oct. 1863) and one by Curror (Curror 8, 1841). It is likely that Curror made more collections in Annobón. Curror died of “remittent fever”, during his last expedition (in 1844), off the coast of Gabon (Figueiredo and Smith 2020a). Curror also travelled to the island of Príncipe on four different occasions during 1839 (Figueiredo and Smith 2020a). Even though none of Curror’s collections at Herb. K are labelled as originating from Príncipe, one of his collections is, without a doubt, from that island, consisting of the fern Alsophila camerooniana var. currorii, which is endemic to Príncipe (Figueiredo and Smith 2020a). Near the end of this period, Désiré Edélestan Stanislas Aimé Jardin (1822–1896), a clerk in the service to the French Navy, collected plants in Tropical West Africa between 1845 and 1848 and visited Príncipe. Amongst the plants (about 50 species) he mentioned from this island (Jardin 1850/51), he refers one Combretum without the speciﬁc name. Exell (1944), who did not see the collection, referred to it as Combretum platypterum, which has not been found again in Príncipe. This information was given to him by Georges Le Testu (Exell 1944), who, at Exell’s request, had searched the Jardin collection, then held at Herb. CN and later transferred to the Herb. P. The only species of Combretum recorded in Príncipe is Combretum paniculatum (Figueiredo et al. 2011). Mid-Nineteenth Century to Early Twentieth Century From the mid-nineteenth century forward, a wave of interest in African territories prompted several European institutions into commissioning naturalist expeditions to the continent. The need to catalogue the colonial possessions, together with the broader interest to uncover the planet’s biodiversity, led to the ﬂourishing of taxonomy. Most of the publications and research outputs of this time came in the form of species descriptions, checklists, and catalogues. The ﬁrst publication was that of the Swedish mycologist Elias M. Fries (1794–1878), who was the ﬁrst naturalist to report fungi from São Tomé (Fries 1851), namely six Agaricomycetes species collected by Krebs (no additional collector information). This publication is of special relevance not only as the ﬁrst published account of fungi of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, but also as the ﬁrst major bibliographical record to feature a report on the biodiversity of the region following the investment boom in the continent. In 1853, while en route to a botanical expedition to Angola, the Austrian botanist Friedrich Welwitsch (1806–1872) collected specimens on the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe, doing the same seven years later upon returning from the trip (Figueiredo and Smith 2020b). He visited Príncipe between 15 and 22 September 1853. Almost all the species he collected were new records for the island, except the fern Alsophila camerooniana var. currorii found years before by Curror in 1839 and those species collected by Jardin. On 23 September of the same year, he paid a short visit to São Tomé. In December 1860, on the return trip from Angola to Lisbon, 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 91 Welwitsch stayed in São Tomé for some days and amassed a very good collection of plants, with interesting new records and new species, some of which he described (Exell 1944). The mollusc specimens collected by Welwitsch on the islands were studied and published by Morelet (1868), and later mentioned in Crosse’s (1868) compilation of known land molluscs from São Tomé. Pierre Marie Arthur Morelet (1809–1892) was a renowned French naturalist specializing in molluscs, whereas Joseph Charles Hippolyte Crosse was a French conchologist, co-editor of the publication Journal de Conchyliologie. Additional malacological fauna collections resulting from expeditions into the area undertaken by various naturalists were studied by Morelet (1848, 1858, 1860, 1873). During the seven years between Welwitsch’s two visits to these islands (i.e. between 1853 and 1860) only the Scottish gardener Charles Barter (1821–1859), collector on William Baikie’s second Niger Expedition (1857–1863), visited Príncipe. In 1858, he made a small but important botanical collection, primarily comprised of orchids (Exell 1944; Figueiredo and Smith 2020b). He caught dysentery and died on 15 July 1859 at Rabba, Nigeria. Barter was replaced on this expedition by Gustav Mann (1835–1916), a German botanist, who collected a great number of plants during the three years he participated in the expedition (1859–1862). In August 1861, Mann collected across a large area of São Tomé and reached Pico de São Tomé, discovering several new species and various interesting plants that would be studied by Hooker (1863, 1864). Later, Mann collected on Príncipe (22 September–26 October 1861), again uncovering new species and novelties for the ﬂora of the island (Exell 1944). A few years later, Richard Francis Burton (1821–1890), who served as the British Consul in Bioko from 1861 to 1864, visited Annobón (October 1863) on his way back to Bioko from the Niger–Congo rivers expedition (August–October 1863) and made a small collection, currently held at Herb. K (Burton 1876). In 1865, the German explorer Heinrich Wolfgang Ludwig Dohrn (1838–1913) spent six months in Príncipe, where he collected birds, reptiles, and snails. The results were later published by him and by other specialists (Dohrn 1866a, b, c; Keulemans 1866; Heynemann 1868; Peters 1868). Subsequently, the German zoologist Richard Greeff visited São Tomé and Rolas Islet between 1879 and 1880, where he collected extensively and obtained important specimens that contributed to the description of a considerable number of new species by him and others (Peters 1881; Greeff 1882a, b, c, d, 1884, 1886; Bocage 1886a; Koch 1886; Krauss 1890). In 1871, the Portuguese naturalist Félix António Brito Capello (1828–1879) published the ﬁrst list of ﬁshes from the Portuguese islands of Madeira and Azores, with the inclusion of ﬁshes from its overseas possessions Angola, Cabo Verde, Mozambique, and São Tomé and Príncipe (Brito Capello 1871). After his death, António Roberto Pereira Guimarães continued Capello’s analysis of the material extant in the Lisbon Museum and published two additional papers on the topic (Guimarães 1882, 1884). In 1885, Adolfo Frederico Moller (1842–1920; Fig. 5.1), chief gardener of the Botanical Garden of the University of Coimbra, was sent by the institution to collect natural history specimens in São Tomé. Despite it being a short four-month 92 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Fig. 5.1 Portraits of Adolfo Moller (left) and Júlio Henriques (right). Moller’s portrait from Henrique Eusébio Moller private family álbum, adapted from Gouveia (2014). Henriques’ portrait reproduced with the permission of the Botanical Archive—Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Portugal (PT-UC-FCT-DCV-ABUC-S2.13) exploratory stint (23 May–25 September), Moller found time to teach Francisco Quintas (dates of birth and death unknown), the son of a Portuguese owner of coffee and cocoa plantations, how to continue his botanical collection (Gouveia 2014; Figueiredo and Smith 2019). Quintas travelled and made remarkable collections in the west and south of São Tomé between 1885 and 1889 and also in Príncipe between January and March 1889 (Figueiredo and Smith 2019). Bedriaga (amphibians and reptiles: Bedriaga 1892, 1893a, b), Bocage (amphibians and reptiles: Bocage 1893b), Moller (sponges: Moller 1894, studied by Weltner in Berlin), Nobre (land molluscs: Nobre 1886b, 1894), Osório (ﬁsh: Osório 1891a), Verhoeff (Chilopoda and Diplopoda: 1892, 1893), and Vieira (insects, spiders, and birds: Vieira 1886, 1887a, b, 1894) published the majority of the zoological results from the expedition. The botanical material was deposited at the Herb. COI and studied by the botanist Júlio Augusto Henriques (1838–1928; Fig. 5.1) for his publications on the ﬂora of São Tomé and Príncipe. Francisco Newton (1864–1909; Fig. 5.2), working for the Natural History Museum of Lisbon, fruitfully explored the Gulf of Guinea for a decade between 1885 and 1895 (Santos and Ceríaco 2021). The collections amassed by Newton during that period proved crucial in the ﬁrst extensive faunal catalogues and the description of new species from the region, resulting in numerous works. Of special 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 93 Fig. 5.2 Portrait of Francisco Newton and a watercolour he painted of a Leptopelis palmatus from Príncipe Island. Source: Arquivo Histórico do Museu Bocage importance were those published by José Vicente Barbosa du Bocage (1823–1907), director of the zoological section of the Natural History Museum of Lisbon. Bocage provided the ﬁrst comprehensive checklists of the islands’ vertebrate fauna, as well as the description of several species new to science, including amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Bocage 1886a, b, c, 1887a, b, c, 1888a, b, c, d, 1889a, b, c, 1891a, b, c, 1893a, b, c, 1895a, b, c, d, e, 1896, 1903, 1905). The butterﬂies collected by Newton were studied and published by Emily Mary Sharpe (1893), while the land molluscs were studied by Arruda Furtado (Furtado 1888), Girard (1893a, b, 1894, 1895), and Augusto Nobre (Nobre 1886a, 1887, 1909). Balthazar Osório studied both crustaceans and ﬁshes (Osório 1887, 1888, 1889 1890, 1891a, b, 1892a, b, 1893, 1895a, b, c, d, e), Júlio Bettencourt Ferreira was responsible for the reptiles (Ferreira 1897, 1902), and the birds were studied by David Armitage Bannerman (1931), José Augusto de Sousa (1887, 1888) and Richard Bowdler Sharpe (1892). While Newton’s zoological collections were sent to Lisbon, his botanical specimens were sent to the University of Coimbra where they were studied by Júlio Henriques. An extensive collection of letters from Newton to Bocage and Osório is still extant in the collections of the Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Lisbon, and are being processed for a future publication (Ceríaco and Santos, in prep.). Despite the few publications on the islands’ botany published in the previous decades, the research programme established by Henriques can be considered the birth of systematic botanical studies in the islands. The ﬁrst contact Henriques had 94 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. with the ﬂora of São Tomé was through a few specimens collected by Newton in 1881 (Henriques 1884a; Figueiredo et al. 2019a). After the return of Moller from São Tomé, Henriques highlighted future plans for the study of the collections from the island (Henriques 1895). For the ﬁrst instalment of what Henriques would call “Flora de S. Thomé” (Henriques 1886), he invited other specialists to identify and describe the collections in his possession (i.e. those from Newton, Moller, and Quintas). Henriques (1886) had the contributions of Charles Fuller Baker (ferns: in Henriques 1886, pp. 149–158 + 2 plates), Carl Muller (mosses: in Henriques 1886, pp. 159–169), Franz Stephani (liverworts: in Henriques 1886, pp. 170–184 + 3 plates), Heinrich Georg Winter (fungi: in Henriques 1886, pp. 185–204 + 3 plates), William Nylander (lichens: in Henriques 1886, pp. 205–217), and C. Agardh, O. Nordstedt, F. Hauck, and Charles Flahault (algae: in Henriques 1886, pp. 217–221). This series of publications continued in the following years. In 1887, Henriques coordinated two additional papers, one based on Newton’s collections (among other collectors that were active in the African mainland; Henriques 1887a), and another based on the collections of Welwitsch, Moller, and Quintas (Henriques 1887b). For the latter, Henriques collaborated with foreign botanists such as Ernst Haeckel (grasses), Henry N. Ridley (sedges and orchids), the Count Solms-Laubach (Pandanus), and Cornelis A. Backer who made general reviews and corrections to the manuscript. For the paper on Newton’s collections, Henriques (1887a) had once again contributions of Franz Stephani (liverworts: in Henriques 1887a, pp. 224–225) and William Nylander (lichens: in Henriques 1887a, pp. 221–222). Other contributions were published in 1889 by Henriques (1889a, b). Following the strategy used in the 1886 instalment, besides his own contributions and identiﬁcations, Henriques sent material to other European botanists, who subsequently provided the results of their observations. Henriques (1889b) had the collaboration of Karl August Otto Hoffmann (Capparidaceae: in Henriques 1889b, p. 224; Lithrarieae in Henriques 1889b, p. 229), Célestin A. Cogniaux (Melastomataceae: in Henriques 1889a, p. 226; Cucurbitaceae: in Henriques 1889b, p. 227), and Robert Allen Rolfe (Orchideae: in Henriques 1889b, pp. 236–238). In the same year, Augusto Nobre was able to study some fresh material of Afrocarpus mannii collected by Moller in Lagoa Amélia and sent to him by Henriques (Nobre 1889). This was the second study on this endemic and enigmatic conifer. Roumeguère (1889), Saccardo and Berlese (1889), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1889), and Bresadola (1890, 1891) studied and described several species of fungi from the collections sent to them by Henriques. The bryophytes collected by Quintas were studied, described, and published by Brotherus (1890). Based on new material sent to Henriques by Quintas, Henriques (1891) published a further article with the contributions of Hoffmann (Crassulaceae: in Henriques 1891, p. 135) and Rolfe (Orchideae: in Henriques 1891, pp. 137–143). Henriques’ last contribution to the ﬂora of São Tomé in the nineteenth century (Henriques 1892) stretched for about 160 pages and covered several families of plants. It included several contributions: Cogniaux (Melastomataceae: in Henriques 1892, pp. 118–119; Cucurbitaceae: in Henriques 1892, pp. 119–122), Casimir de Candolle 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 95 (Begoniaceae: in Henriques 1892, pp. 122–124); Piperaceae: in Henriques 1892, pp. 152–155), Adolf Engler (Anacardiaceae: in Henriques 1892, p. 110), Gustav Lindau (Acanthaceae: in Henriques 1892, pp. 145–148), Ferdinand A. Pax (Euphorbiaceae: in Henriques 1892, pp. 156–161), Jules E. Planchon (Ampelideae: in Henriques 1892, pp. 108–109), and Karl M. Schumann (Rubiaceae: in Henriques 1892, pp. 126–134). Sobrinho (1953a) refers some plants from Príncipe Island collected by Jacinto Augusto de Souza Junior in February 1880. These collections were not included in the revisions of Henriques. Efforts to identify this collector have yielded no results besides his name and herbaria where his collections are deposited: Herb. COI and LISU (Exell 1962, Liberato 1994). One of the most enigmatic results of Souza Junior works in São Tomé and Principe is the description of the species Justicia thomensis by Landau (Holotype at COI: COI00005706), a species of Acanthaceae that has never been collected again since its original description, raising questions if the specimens were in fact collected in the islands, or if the species may have become extinct (Figueiredo et al. 2011). Portuguese museums also received several small collections of zoological specimens from the Gulf of Guinea, mostly collected and offered by Portuguese military personnel deployed in the area, studied by various specialists (Bocage 1880a, b, 1887d; Nobre 1891, 1894, 1901; Osório 1887; Santos 1882). The English diatomist John Rattray (1858–1900) participated in the Buccaneer steamship 1885–1888 expedition that combined plans to conduct sound operations and lay a telegraph line along the West African coast (Bencker 1930; Figueiredo et al. 2019b) with the collection of biological specimens. A brief stop during early 1886 in the Gulf of Guinea resulted in a small zoological collection, the results of which were later published by Hoyle (1887), Scott (1893), and Stebbing (1895), and botanical collections. Leonardo Fea (1852–1903), an experienced Italian naturalist, explored the Gulf of Guinea from 1901 to 1902 under the sponsorship of the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale of Genoa (Fea 1902). This was his last expedition before passing away in 1903. His results were studied in the following years by Boulenger (reptiles: 1905, 1906), Breuning (insects: 1955, 1956), Germain (molluscs: 1912a, b, 1915, 1916), Grifﬁni (Orthoptera: 1905), Kerremans (Buprestidae: 1905), Lewis (Histeridae: 1905), Lesne (1905), Martin (Odonata: 1908), Salvadori (birds: 1903a, b, c), Silvestri (Thysanura: 1908), and Simon (Arachnids: 1907). During the second half of the nineteenth century, besides the taxonomically oriented works, several authors focused on the agricultural capacities and potential of São Tomé (Castro 1867; Henriques 1884, 1898; Nogueira 1885; Moller 1899). This resulted in the publication of several works related to coffee (Almeida 1858; Carvalho 1858; Castro 1857–1858), cinchona (Henriques 1876, 1878, 1880a, b, 1882), fruits (Almeida 1865), and timbers (Castro 1894). These topics, especially those related to coffee, would be explored in much more detail in the following decades. Plant uses and vernacular names were addressed by Almada Negreiros (1895, 1901) in publications that are arguably the ﬁrst on ethnography of São Tomé. 96 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Early Twentieth Century to the Independence of Equatorial Guinea (1968) and São Tomé and Príncipe (1975) The taxonomic cataloguing efforts of the nineteenth century carried on into the ﬁrst decades of the twentieth century. Some new research trends started to emerge, becoming quite prevalent in the mid-twentieth century and until the independence of the two colonies. These trends were mostly dedicated to what was known as “colonial sciences”—research dedicated to the improvement of the colonial enterprise in its different activities (but especially agriculture), as well the well-being of the colonists and native populations. Therefore, studies dedicated to economic entomology, ﬁsheries, and parasites became the dominant focus. Traditional taxonomic work also continued on several groups. The botanical collections amassed during the mid-nineteenth century contributed to increased botanical interest in the islands of the Gulf of Guinea. To continue his studies of the ﬂora of São Tomé, Júlio Henriques in 1903 at the age of 65, fulﬁlled his dream of travelling to São Tomé. Henriques travelled through a large part of the island, but the weather conditions prevented him from ascending to the Pico. From his trip to São Tomé and the consolidation of his already vast knowledge of the island he published one of his most iconic monographs entitled “A ilha de S. Tomé sob o ponto de vista histórico-natural e agrícola” [The Island of S. Tomé from the historical-natural and agricultural point of view] (Henriques 1900, 1917). The study of the material collected in the previous century continued (e.g. Hariot 1908, with a revision of the algae collected by Moller and Quintas). Exell (1944) gave a comprehensive account of botanical collecting in São Tomé, Príncipe, and Annobón, naming all collectors recorded up to that date. In the account he mentioned a “valuable collection” made by the Portuguese engineer “I. Campos” in 1907 on São Tomé, mostly deposited at Herb. COI. It included specimens of Adinandra manni re-collected on Pico de São Tomé, and three specimens which were described in Exell (1944) as three species new to science: Urophyllum camposii, Lachnopylis thomensis, and Peddiea thomensis. According to the data on the label of the specimens the collector is E. Campos. This is likely Ezequiel de Campos (1874–1965), an engineer who worked in São Tomé and Príncipe from 1899 (Campos 1920). He was later a professor and a member of Parliament in Lisbon. Much later, in 1954, Campos became the chief of Missão Cientíﬁca de São Tomé (see below). Among the most relevant collections referred by Exell (1962) is the one made by Auguste Chevalier (1873–1956), a French explorer and botanist who visited São Tomé and made collections from August to October 1905. Chevalier made over 700 collections (Chevalier 1914) in São Tomé that are deposited in the Herb. P, COI, K, and LY (Exell 1962, Liberato 1994). In 1909, the agronomist José Joaquim de Almeida (1862–1933), the ﬁrst director of the Colonial Garden in Lisbon, made a study visit to São Tomé, collecting some plants that he later deposited in Herb. COI and LISJC (meanwhile integrated into LISC) (Exell et al. 1952, Liberato 1994). An extensive botanical collection from Annobón was made by the German botanist Johannes Gottfried Wilhelm Mildbraed (1879–1954) under the auspices 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 97 of the Deutsche Zentral Afrika-Expedition (1910–1911) in 1911, including 32 pteridophyte species. Mildbraed spent over a month on the island of Annobón from 5 September to 13 October 1911 collecting almost everything that was in ﬂower or in fruit at the time. His collection was mainly kept at Berlin (Herb. B) but unfortunately, it was almost completely destroyed during the allied bombings of Berlin in World War II. Nevertheless, there are duplicates of Mildbraed’s collections at Herb. HBG, K, and BM. Mildbraed published his results (Mildbraed 1922) which were later reviewed by Exell (1944, 1963). A new array of zoologists visited the islands in the following years. French zoologist Charles Gravier (1865–1938) was entrusted to lead a scientiﬁc mission to São Tomé (C.C.A.M. 1938), with several papers resulting from his collections (Polychaeta: Billard 1907; molluscs: Germain 1908; corals: Gravier 1906, 1907a, b, 1909, 1910; bivalves: Lamy 1907). The British Lieutenant of the Riﬂe Brigade, Boyd Alexander (1873–1910), was a renowned explorer and ornithologist who journeyed through the Gulf of Guinea in 1909 accompanied by his faithful Portuguese colleague José Lopes (Bannerman 1914). Alexander’s bird collections were subsequently studied and published by Bannerman (1914, 1915a, b). Additionally, mollusc specimens were sent to the British Museum around the same time, collected by amateurs working in the Gulf of Guinea and later studied by Tomlin and Shackleford (1912, 1913a, b, 1914/15, 1915), and Tomlin (1923). Seabra (1922) studied the insects collected by Sousa da Câmara (1871–1955) in São Tomé, on behalf of the Instituto Superior de Agronomia in Lisbon, and sent some material to be studied in the Imperial Bureau of Entomology. This material was reviewed a year later by Herbert Campion (1923). While on leave in Europe, the Trinidadian entomologist Frederick William Urich (1870–1937) carried out a short expedition to São Tomé in 1920, in which he rediscovered a parasitic dipteran species in its original bat host (Urich et al. 1922). The English explorer Thomas Alexander Barns (1881–1930) collected on behalf of the amateur entomologist James John Joicey (1870–1932) in the region of the Gulf of Guinea during the end of 1925 and 1926, on what was his third and last expedition (Talbot 1932). The results of this expedition were published by Joicey and Talbot (1926, 1927), Prout (1927a, b) and Riley (1928). José Correia (1881–1954; Fig. 5.3) and Virginia Correia (1900–1987), a husband-and-wife team of collectors, explored the Gulf of Guinea during 1928 and 1929 on a trip funded by S. Brinckerhoff Thorne, trustee of the American Museum of Natural History. Amadon (1953) published the ornithological results of their expedition. From October 1932 to March 1933, the entomologist Willie Horace Thomas Tams (1891–1980) and the acclaimed botanist Arthur Wallis Exell (1901–1993) conducted a scientiﬁc mission to the Gulf of Guinea on behalf of the British Museum, sponsored by the Percy Sladen Memorial Fund and Godman Trusts Fund (Tams 1934). The zoological specimens collected in this expedition were examined and published by several authors (Diptera: Edwards 1934; Collembola: Maldwyn-Davis 1935; Microlepidoptera: Meyrick 1934; Odonata: Longﬁeld 1936). During the four-month long British Museum expedition, Exell made extensive botanical collections in São Tomé (mostly in the mountains), Príncipe, Bioko 98 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Fig. 5.3 The Portuguese naturalist José Correia, during his bird-collecting mission to the Gulf of Guinea (1928–1929). Courtesy of the Ornithological Archives of the American Museum of Natural History (Moka region), and Annobón. Exell deposited his specimens at Herb. BM and sent duplicates to Herb. COI and BR (Exell 1962); his collections include bryophytes, algae, lichenes, and fungi (Exell 1944). Resulting from this collecting trip, Exell published a catalogue of the vascular plants of the three islands (Exell 1944), in which 75 new names were published (36 being for new species) and several new records noted (Figueiredo et al. 2011). In the following years, Exell published a supplement to the catalogue (Exell 1956), and a checklist of the angiosperms for the four islands in the Gulf of Guinea (Exell 1973a). Although he visited and collected on the four islands, Exell made use of earlier collections when compiling the plant catalogues of these islands, namely from Herb. COI where he spent some time in 1934 (Figueiredo et al. 2018; Fig. 5.4). In addition to having intensively and extensively collected and studied the botany of the islands of the Gulf of Guinea, while using the existing collections in comparative studies with his own specimens, 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 99 Fig. 5.4 From left to the right (including background), the botanists Luis Grandvaux Barbosa, Maria Leonor Gonçalves, Arthur Exell, Mildred Exell, Abílio Fernandes, Rosette Fernandes, and A. V. Bogdan in the Botanical Garden of Coimbra, September 1960 Exell was responsible for reviewing and re-organizing many of the pre-existing collections, such as that of Herb. COI (Exell 1944, 1962; Figueiredo and Smith 2019). For the supplement of the catalogue, Exell (1956) studied some old collections that had not been examined previously or that he reassessed, and some recent ones. A substantial collection made by Newton in 1893 in Annobón is included in this supplement. The recent material consists mostly of the collections made by Espírito Santo (see below) in São Tomé. A few specimens collected by the agronomist Branquinho de Oliveira (1904–1983) and E. Noronha in 1951 in São Tomé (listed by Sobrinho 1953b), likely en route, were also included, consisting mostly of weeds and aliens. Exell was one of the most proliﬁc ﬁgures when it came to the cataloguing of the ﬂora of the islands of the Gulf of Guinea. From 1944 to 1973, he produced a dozen publications, some of which became classic references (Exell 1944, 1952, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1973a, b; Exell et al. 1952; Exell and Rozeira 1958). Like Henriques, Exell also received the contributions of numerous botanists who identiﬁed the collections: 16 botanists were acknowledged in Exell (1944) and 100 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. 21 botanists in Exell (1973b). Arthur Hugh Garﬁt Alston (1902–1958) who authored the treatment of the pteridophytes (Alston 1944) in Exell’s Catalogue (1944) also contributed with the pteridophytes for the Supplement (Alston 1956) and for two additional articles (Alston 1958, 1959). The algae of São Tomé and Príncipe, that had not been revised since 1908, were ﬁnally treated by Rodrigues (1960). Other plant collectors in the ﬁrst half of the twentieth century were the Swiss botanist John Gossweiler (1873–1952), who collected in Príncipe during stopovers of his numerous trips between Angola and Portugal, in 1913, 1914, and 1938 (Liberato 1994), and the American botanist David H. Linder (1899–1846) on an expedition by Harvard University from 1926 to 1927, the specimens of which are deposited in Herb. GH (Exell 1944, Liberato 1994). On the zoological side, an ornithological team from Oxford University went on a short visit to São Tomé and Príncipe between September and October of 1949, providing additional notes about several species, in the ﬁrst major contribution on the subject since the works of José Correia (Snow 1950). In the second half of the twentieth century, the 1959 Peris-Álvarez Expedition to Annobón (Alvarado and Álvarez 1964), headed by entomologist Salvador V. Peris (1922–2007) and Julio Álvarez Sanchez, although short in duration, was fruitful in advancing knowledge regarding the fauna of the area (Anthribidae: Hoffman 1959; Nematoda: Gadea 1960a, b; Gastropoda: Ortiz de Zárate and Álvarez 1960; Collembola: Selga 1960, 1962; ﬁshes: Lozano Cabo 1961; Rodentia: Peris SJ 1991; Muscidae: Peris SV 1961, 1963; Odonata: Sart 1962; Orthoptera: Llorente 1968; Oribatida: Pérez-Iñigo 1969, 1982, 1983, 1984). Commissioned by the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Miami, a team of scientists lead by Gilbert L. Voss (1918–1989), Frederick M. Bayer (1921–2007), and C. Richard Robins (1928–2020) conducted a deep-sea biological investigation to the Gulf of Guinea aboard the R/V Pillsbury between 1964 and 1965 (Voss 1966). In subsequent years, despite difﬁculties caused by the loss of manuscripts to a ﬁre in December 1967, the results were eventually published (Echinoidea: Chesher 1966; shrimp: Holthuis 1966; Opisthobranchia: Marcus and Marcus 1966; birds: Robins 1966b, 1970; ﬁshes: Courtenay 1970, Gibbs and Staiger 1970, Robins 1966a, 1970, Robins and Nielsen 1970, Emery 1970, Fraser and Robins 1970, Iwamoto 1970; Decapoda: Holthuis and Manning 1970; Foraminifera: Adegoke et al. 1971; Brachiopoda: Cooper 1975; Stomatopoda: Manning 1970). The French research vessel “Calypso” undertook a short exploratory stint to the Gulf of Guinea in 1956, with a multitude of new publications resulting from the material collected (Pycnogonida: Fage 1959; Polychaeta: Fauvel and Rullier 1959; molluscs: Franc 1959; Chaetognatha: Furnestin 1959; Porifera: Levi 1959; Annelida: Wesenburg-Lund 1959; Foraminifera: Mangin 1959; Crustacea: Forest 1959, 1966, Stubbings 1961, Crosnier and Forest 1966, Forest and Guinot 1966, Manning 1973, de Saint Laurent and Le Loeuff 1979; Octocorallia: Tixier-Durivault 1961; ﬁshes: Arnoult 1966; Amphipoda: Mateus and Mateus 1986). As part of a Calypso expedition, Rose and Denizot made several botanical collections in São Tomé and Príncipe, including living material; herbarium specimens were deposited at Herb. P (Figueiredo 1998; Figueiredo et al. 2009). 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 101 The French National Museum of Natural History in Paris commissioned several excursions throughout the twentieth century to the Gulf of Guinea region, also resulting in many new studies (Diptera: Alexander 1957; amphibians and reptiles: Angel 1920; Tenebrionidae: Ardoin 1958; Coleoptera: Basilewsky 1957, 1958; Orthoptera: Chopard 1958; Osoriinae: Fagel 1958; Lepidoptera: Herbulot 1958; Dermaptera: Hincks 1958; Orthoptera: Kraus 1960; Trichoptera: Marlier 1959; insects: Viette 1956, 1957, 1958; Coleoptera: Villiers 1957). After the creation of the Institut fondamental d’Afrique noire [Fundamental Institute of Black Africa] (IFAN) by the French naturalist Théodore Monod (1902–2000), its academic journal published several papers regarding the Gulf of Guinea (Anthocleista: Monod 1957; bryophytes: Potier de la Varde 1959; Annelida: Rullier 1965; ﬁsh: Blanc et al. 1968; Lepidoptera: Darge 1970; insects: Kumar 1975; Decapoda: Monod 1975). In 1936, in an effort to better understand the biological richness of its overseas colonies, Portugal launched a scientiﬁc project for their study, Junta das Missões Geográﬁcas e de Investigações Coloniais (later renamed Junta de Investigação do Ultramar and later still Junta de Investigações Cientíﬁcas do Ultramar) (Marques et al. 2018). The zoologist Fernando Frade [Viegas da Costa] (1898–1983; Fig. 5.5) was in charge of the Centro de Zoologia de Lisboa, the zoological division under the Fig. 5.5 A party of the participants of Missão Cientíﬁca de São Tomé e Principe, in 1954 in São Tomé, including the zoologist Fernando Frade (1), Isolina Campos (2) accompanying the husband Ezequiel de Campos (3), and “Jaime” (4). Courtesy of the Herb. PO, Museu de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade do Porto 102 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Junta. During the 1950s and 1960s, several zoological expeditions were commissioned by the institution and from these expeditions important publications were produced by an extended network of researchers up to present day (insects: Bacelar 1948, 1950, 1956a, b, Castel-Branco 1955a, b, 1956a, b, c, 1958a, b, c, 1963a, b, c, 1964, 1965, 1969, 1970a, 1972, Alves 1956a, b, 1965, Castel-Branco and Alves 1957, 1958, Tendeiro 1956a, b, c, d, 1957, Tordo 1956, 1969, 1974, Schmidt 1967a, b, Fernandes 1974; Diptera: Dias 1955, Azevedo et al. 1956, 1961, 1962, Gandara 1956, Pinhão and Mourão 1961; birds, insects, and mammals: Frade 1955a, 1956; ﬁshes: Frade and Correia da Costa 1956, Correia da Costa 1959, Alves and Castel-Branco 1962, Almeida and Alves 2019; Copepoda: Marques 1956, 1960, 1965, 1975; diseases: Mourão 1964; Miocene fauna: Silva GH 1956a, b, 1958a, b, Serralheiro 1957; amphibians and reptiles: Manaças 1958, 1973; Foraminifera: Reis Moura 1961; Hymenoptera: Diniz 1964; Arachnida: Cabral and Carmona 1968/69, Dias 1958, 1988; Aphidoidea: Ilharco and Van Harten 1975, Van Harten 1976; birds: Frade 1959, Frade and Santos 1977; Gastropoda: Simões 1989; Chiroptera: Lopes and Crawford-Cabral 1992). From 1954 to 1955, Frade and Armando Castel-Branco (1909–1977) conducted an expedition to the archipelago of São Tomé and Príncipe (Frade 1955b). This expedition was part of the so-called Missão Cientíﬁca de São Tomé e Principe. The mission was conceived in 1954, comprising multiple scientiﬁc subjects and had the speciﬁc aim of providing data to the International West African Conference (Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais—C.I.A.O.) held in 1956 in São Tomé. It was created by the Junta, with the objective of studying various aspects of natural history, ethno-sociology, and economics of São Tomé and Príncipe (Vieira and Viegas 2019). In 1956, C.I.A.O. started to work under the aegis of C.C.T.A./ C.S.A. (Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara/ Scientiﬁc Council for Africa South of the Sahara), international organizations aiming to promote the application of science to the resolution of African problems and that included several African and European countries (Anonymous 1956). This mission was led by the previously mentioned Ezequiel de Campos. Campos, already in his 80s, returned to São Tomé and Príncipe (Fig. 5.5), where he had begun his professional activities. He collected new data, which together with his previous knowledge of the islands resulted in important works about changes in the environment, ecological disturbances, and landscape changes that he had observed over the preceding decades (Campos 1956a, b, 1958). The botanist Arnaldo Rozeira (1912–1984)—born in São Tomé and raised in Portugal (Porto)—professor at the University of Porto, joined the Missão Cientíﬁca de São Tomé e Principe, as Mission Assistant and Chief of the Brigada de Sociologia Botânica [Botanical Sociology Brigade]. During his participation in this mission Rozeira visited São Tomé and Príncipe at least three times, in 1954, 1957, and 1958. In 1957, the Portuguese botanist Jorge Martins d’Alte (1912–death unknown) accompanied the botanical expedition, making botanical collections (Costa 2020). As a result of this mission a great diversity of material was collected and deposited in Herb. PO. It comprised vascular plants (including pteridophytes), bryophytes, lichens, algae, and a wood collection (Vieira and Viegas 2019). The 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 103 singularity of these collections lies in the fact that Rozeira carried out the ﬁrst botanical collections on Pico do Príncipe, the highest mountain on the island which had scarcely been accessed in earlier times. Furthermore, it was during these expeditions that species collected by Barter were re-collected for the ﬁrst time. The African botanical collections at Herb. PO were only recently subject to an inventory (Costa 2020), but some of these have been cited in previous works, namely by Exell and Rozeira (1958; which included one species new to science and new records for the islands, with pteridophytes identiﬁed by Alston), Rozeira (1958), Barros-Ferreira (1963, 1965,1968a, b, Begoniaceae, Malvaceae, Melastomataceae; including a new species of Tristemma), and Sampaio (1958, 1962, cyanophytes). The Portuguese collector and naturalist Joaquim Sampaio (1899–1981) again published about cyanophytes (Sampaio 1963), but this time on specimens collected by Joaquim R. dos Santos Júnior (1901–1990) from Príncipe (specimens at Herb. PO). During the C.I.A.O. in 1956, several authors who had been working on the islands of the Gulf of Guinea presented communications dedicated to botanical topics (Campos 1956b; Almeida and Morais 1958a, b, c; Boughey 1958). Both the French naturalist Théodore Monod (1902–2000) and the English botanist Charles Aubrey Thorold (1906–1998) visited São Tomé and Príncipe during C.I.A.O. and made botanical collections (specimens at Herb. BM and COI; Exell 1962, Liberato 1994). The pteridophytes were studied by Alston (1959), with several new records being added to the ﬂora of the islands (Figueiredo 1998). Exell (1959) published the novelties for the Flora, referring to Monod’s material as “excellent collections”. Exell (1959) referred to collections from Espírito Santo (see below). The majority of the bryophytes collected by Monod and Thorold constituted the basis for the publication by Robert André Léopold Potier de la Varde (1878–1961) (1959). It was Monod (1960) who established and proposed the most commonly used classiﬁcation of São Tomé vegetation, based on species composition (Figueiredo et al. 2011). Between 1956 and 1973, the Santomean Joaquim Viegas da Graça Espírito Santo (1901–unknown) made numerous botanical collections in São Tomé and Príncipe (Espírito Santo 1970, 1974), with duplicates at Herb. COI, LISC, BM, and K, including endemic plants (Figueiredo 1994c). In 1968, he was appointed by the Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuária de S. Tomé to undertake botanical prospecting, a task he executed for six months (Exell et al. 1952, Figueiredo 1994c, d, Liberato 1994). In 1956, Helder Lains e Silva (1921–1984) and José Carvalho (dates of birth and death unknown) also made a considerable collection in São Tomé and Príncipe. The list of their collections was published by Silva HL (1958b). These collections were made under the auspices of the Junta de Exportação do Café and are housed at Herb. LISC (Exell, 1962, Silva HL 1958b, Sobrinho 1959, Liberato 1994). Thomas Christopher Wrigley (1935–) and Fenella Ann Melville (later Mrs. Wrigley) (1936–), both English botanists, participated in a joint Spanish-British expedition to Bioko and Annobón in July and August 1959, together with Julio Álvarez (dates of birth and death unknown), a Spanish zoologist. It was the most 104 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. signiﬁcant biological expedition to Annobón since that of Mildbraed in 1911. They collected 316 specimens which are at Herb. K, with duplicates at Herb. BM, BR, MPU, and MA. This collection was identiﬁed and published by Exell (1963). Although Exell identiﬁed the majority of the collection, the pteridophytes had not been studied until recently (Figueiredo et al. 2009). These collections were kept at Herb. BM but had not been incorporated into the main collection (Figueiredo et al. 2009). The French botanist Bernard Marie Descoings (1931–2018) collected in Annobón from 24 February to 3 March 1964, as part of an expedition with several researchers. There are 233 specimens of his collections deposited at Herb. MPU, including 56 pteridophytes (Figueiredo et al. 2009; Velayos et al. 2014). In cooperation with the Junta, the Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário de São Tomé e Príncipe (established in 1964) carried out studies regarding the fauna of the islands, with special relevance to the Entomologists’ meeting in São Tomé and Príncipe in August of 1967 (Quinta 1967; Carvalho 1968). The results of those missions were published in the journal with the same name as the initiative (e.g., Castel-Branco 1967a, b, c, d, e, f, 1970b, 1971; Ferreira 1967a, b, c, d, 1968, 1969, 1971; Quinta 1967). René de Naurois (1906–2006), a World War II veteran and catholic priest turned ornithologist, authored dozens of papers and books regarding the birds of the coast of West Africa and its offshore islands. From the early 1970s to the late 1990s, Naurois thoroughly studied the ornithological fauna of the Gulf of Guinea and published the results of his research (Naurois 1972a, b, 1973a, b, 1975a, b, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983a, b, 1984a, b, c, d, 1985a, b, 1987a, b, c, 1988a, b, 1994; Naurois and Antunes 1973; Naurois and Wolters 1975; Fry and Naurois 1984), which culminated with the “Les oiseaux des îles du Golfe de Guinée: São Tomé, Prince et Annobon” published in 1994. On behalf of the zoologist Henri Heim de Balsac (1889–1979), Naurois also collected shrew specimens, in addition to his work with birds (Heim de Balsac and Hutterer 1982). Up until 1974, several more incursions to the Gulf of Guinea were commissioned, with the extent of their collections resulting in important publications from various taxonomic groups. Aurélio Basilio conducted an expedition to Annobón in 1957 (Basilio 1957) and some years later, in 1961, C.H. Fry did the same (Fry 1961). The entomologist Jacques O. Derron, with the Brigada, spent three years (1972–1975) studying the insects associated with cacao plantations in São Tomé, from which stemmed several publications (Fursch 1974; Badonnel 1976; Wirth and Derron 1976). On the years leading up to the independence of the country, many of the collections in herbaria were revisited and studied by other researchers, or compared to new material, resulting in new publications often focusing on a particular group, family, genus, or even a species (e.g. Calvoa robusta: Cogniaux 1908/09; Fungi: Henriques 1922; Câmara and Luz 1938; botanic collections: Romariz 1952; vascular plants: Sobrinho 1952; Hepaticae: Arnell 1956; Algae: Rodrigues 1960; marine algae: Steentoft 1967; Achyranthes: Cavaco 1968; Loranthaceae: Balle 1964; 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 105 Nicandra, Physalis, and Withania: Fernandes 1969; Erythrina: Bocquet and Derron 1976; Uvaria: Paiva 1978/79). In 1972, Maria Cândida Liberato (1944–) and Espírito Santo began taxonomic revisions of families of the ﬂora of the islands with the objective of producing a Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Liberato and Espírito Santo 1972–1982). The project was never completed, and only a few families were published (Papilionaceae, Mimosaceae, Caesalpiniaceae, Connaraceae, Rosaceae: Liberato 1972, 1973, 1976, 1980a, b, 1982; Aquifoliaceae, Alangiaceae: Espírito Santo 1973a, b). The common names of the plants of this archipelago were not neglected, being the subject of multiple publications (Rozeira 1958; Silva HL 1959a; Espírito Santo 1969a). These approaches were often included in studies dedicated to the use of plants for medicinal purposes. Several works and research were dedicated to pharmacology/pharmacognosy and uses of medicinal plants across this period (Alves and Prista 1958, 1959, 1960; Prista and Alves 1958, 1959; Prista et al. 1960; Alves et al. 1961, 1962; Alves et al. 1960; Espírito Santo 1969b). In geographical and economic studies undertaken on these islands, it was common to include an analysis of vegetation, ecology, landscape change, and productive aptitude, providing data on vegetation cover and habitats (Chevalier 1906, 1910, 1938/39; Campos 1920, 1956a, 1958; Tenreiro 1961; Rodrigues 1971; White 1983/ 84). Throughout the twentieth century, there were several studies and reviews of applied botany, namely with an agronomic perspective, addressing topics such as agricultural suitability, crops and associated problems (e.g. Câmara and Coutinho 1923; Cortesão 1956/57; Silva HL 1958a, 1959b; Ascenso 1964; Mariano 1966; Espírito Santo 1973c; Rodrigues 1974), with a special focus on cocoa, coffee, and quinine crops (e.g. cocoa: Cortesão 1921; Thorold 1955, 1959; Silva HL 1960; Ascenso 1963, 1965; quinine: Costa 1941, 1944; coffee: Silva HL 1958b; coffee and cocoa: Vieira da Silva 1960). The First Decades of Independence Following independence from Portuguese rule in 1975, São Tomé and Príncipe was engulfed in a wave of political unrest that hindered the possibility of new biological missions in the area (Jones 1994). Although the taxonomic enterprise continued, the 1970s saw the birth of the modern nature conservation movement and the raise of public and scientiﬁc concerns regarding human impacts on the natural world. This has led to an almost radical change of interests in the research community, who became much more dedicated to the conservation aspects of biodiversity research, which in the Gulf of Guinea archipelago translated to the study of the ecology and conservation status of vertebrates. In 1984, a team of zoologists from the Zoology and Anthropology Sections of the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon led by entomologist Luis Mendes (1946–) conducted a one-month zoological expedition to São Tomé (Mendes et al. 1988). The resulting publications were published by himself and other authors 106 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. (Diptera: Grácio 1988, 1999; insects: Mendes 1988a, b, c; Mendes et al. 1988; Drosophilidae: Rocha Pité 1993; Culicidae: Ramos and Capela 1988, Ramos et al. 1989, 1994; Ribeiro 1993, Ramos et al. 1994; Serrano et al. 1995; Ribeiro et al. 1998). Most of the vertebrates collected were not studied until very recently (see Ceríaco et al. 2022). From 1987 onwards, the International Council for Bird Preservation (ICPB) sponsored several projects for the study of endemic birds of São Tomé and Príncipe (Jones and Tye 1987, 1988; Burlinson and Jones 1988), one of them in cooperation with the University of East Anglia (UEA) (Atkinson et al. 1991, 1994), as well as the creation of a conservation educational programme with the support of the European Economic Community (Harrison and Steel 1989). With the information Atkinson and colleagues were able to gather in the UEA expedition, Dave E. Sargent travelled with other birders in 1989 and 1991, publishing the results of their observations (Sargent et al. 1992; Sargent 1994), which included the rediscovery of the São Tome Grosbeak Crithagra concolor, 101 years after the previous record. After a one-week trip to São Tomé, Eccles (1988) published the results of his ornithological observations, highlighting the rediscovery of São Tome Short-tail Motacilla bocagii. A short research stint to Annobón was conducted by Michael J. S. Harrison in March 1989, as a part of a larger mission to São Tomé and Príncipe sponsored by ICPB. The visit resulted in an updated bird checklist of some parts of the island (Harrison 1990). The Polish entomologist Tomasz W. Pyrcz conducted two small expeditions in 1989 (January–March) and 1990 (July–September) to São Tomé and Príncipe aiming to create the ﬁrst checklist for the butterﬂy species in the archipelago, which resulted in three publications (Pyrcz 1991, 1992a, b). In cooperation with the Natural History Museum (NHM), the entomologist Janusz Wojtusiak (1942–2012) was entrusted to lead a project to identify and catalogue the macrolepidoptera species of São Tomé extant at the NHM as well as those collected in September of 1990 in a small trip to the island (Honey and Wojtusiak 1994; Wojtusiak and Pyrcz 1995; Wojtusiak 1996a, b, c). Other entomological expeditions to the region resulted in the description of new species and contributed to the growth of knowledge regarding the entomofauna of the Gulf of Guinea (Pinhey 1974; Villiers 1976; Darge 1991; Allard 1990; Herbulot 1991a, b; Antoine 1992; Basquin 1992; Bomans 1992; Canu 1994). In the late 80s and early 90s, teams of Spanish researchers began working in the Gulf of Guinea, some of them under the Spanish programme “Research and Nature Conservation Programme in Equatorial Guinea” (Castroviejo et al. 1994b). Those expeditions led to several publications on insects (Viejo 1984, 1990), mammals (Juste and Ibañez 1993a, b, c, 1994), molluscs (Fernandes and Rolan 1989, 1992; Kosuge and Fernandes 1989; Gofas and Fernandes 1991; Rolan and Fernandes 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995; Rubio and Rolan 1990; Rolan and Templado 1993; Rolan 1996), and sea turtles (Castroviejo et al. 1994a). Funded by Cooperación Española and led by the Associación Amigos de Doñana, a Spanish expedition including the botanist Manuel Fidalgo de Carvalho (dates of birth and death unknown) visited the island of Annobón. Between September and October of 1987, Carvalho collected 113 specimens, now deposited 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 107 at Herb. MA (Figueiredo et al. 2009; Velayos et al. 2014). In August 1986, in an expedition to São Tomé organized by the Secció de Petits Països del CIDOB, Neus Gabaldá Casado (dates of birth and date unknown) and Núria García Jacas (1961–) collected specimens of 114 taxa, including pteridophytes; the specimens are deposited at Herb. COI and BC (Gabaldá and Jacas 1988). Herpetological expeditions to São Tomé and Príncipe from 1989 and 1991 led by Catherine Loumont (1942–) resulted in reviews of the amphibians and reptiles of these islands (Loumont 1992; Schätti and Loumont 1992). Previously, Ronald Nussbaum (1942–) and Michael Pfrender (1960–) had collected herpetological specimens during June and July of 1988, with a particular special focus on caecilians. Those collections are currently extant in the University of Michigan’s Museum of Zoology. In the spring of 1991, a team of researchers from the University of Dresden (Germany) conducted an exploratory mission to the Gulf of Guinea, with numerous publications resulting (amphibians, reptiles and arachnids: Haft 1992, 1993a, b; amphibians and reptiles: Schatti and Loumont 1992; amphibians and arachnids: Fahr 1993a, b; Feiler 1993; mammals: Feiler et al. 1993, Dutton and Haft 1996; Cnidaria: Kock 1993; Phthiraptera: Mey 1993; birds: Feiler and Nadler 1992, Nadler 1993; Nadler and Feiler 1993; reptiles: Nill 1993; Gastropoda: Schniebs 1993; Lepidoptera: Schutz 1993; Myriapoda: Spelda 1993; Teleostei: Zarske 1993; amphibians: Haft and Franzen 1996). Previously, Feiler and Günther had travelled to the region and published several papers regarding the mammals of the Gulf of Guinea (Feiler 1984, 1988; Günther and Feiler 1985). Although the ichthyofauna of the islands is quite diverse, after the pioneering work of Balthazar Osório there was a lack of further studies. Russian expeditions in 1983 and 1986 (Domanevskaya 1987, 1988) provided additional information on the biodiversity and were followed by Project d’Évaluation des Ressources Halieutiques, which resulted in important publications for improved baseline knowledge (Worms 1996a, b; D’Almeida 1996; Afonso et al. 1999). The work of the English zoologist Angus Robin Gascoigne (1962–2012), who lived in São Tomé for many years (Melo 2012), greatly contributed to the knowledge of the molluscan fauna and other aspects of the biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea (Gascoigne 1993, 1994a, b, c 1995a, b). He also collected plants that were deposited at Herb. LISC and co-authored some papers on ﬂora (Figueiredo and Gascoigne 2001; Figueiredo et al. 2009). A collaboration between the European Community conservation programme for the forest ecosystems of central Africa (ECOFAC) and the U.S. Peace Corps originated the ﬁrst major survey on the sea turtles of the Gulf of Guinea (1994–1996), which resulted in baseline information to move towards conservation programmes (Graff 1996; Rosseel 1997). The ECOFAC programme is associated with generating interest in the ﬂora of these islands among the Belgium academic community, which resulted in numerous collections made and the description of new species (e.g. La Croix and Brune 1997; Cribb et al. 1999; Stévart and Geerinck 2000; Joffroy 2001). 108 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Continuing the dynamics implemented by the ECOFAC programme on São Tomé, further botanical inventories took place in the 1990s, notably those carried out by the botanist Jean Lejoly (1945–) and his students between 1994 and 1998, and by the Angolan agronomist Gilberto Cardoso de Matos (1935–) from 1994 to 1999. These collections are deposited at Herb. BRLU and LISC. Some duplicates are also deposited at Herb. STPH (Figueiredo et al. 2011). Matos was one of the main collectors active in São Tomé and Príncipe in the 1990s, amassing ca. 3000 specimens during several expeditions. He often collected with Kathleen Van Essche (ﬂ. 1991–2001). Matos also produced agro-ecological and vegetation maps for São Tomé and Príncipe with the agronomist Alberto Castanheira Diniz (1923–2008) (Diniz and Matos 2002a, b). Some collecting initiatives focused on orchids were developed by Belgian botanist Tariq Stévart (1974–). With the collaboration of Faustino de Oliveira (1963–) he carried out a systematic survey of the island throughout 1998, after two preliminary missions. On the island of Príncipe, three surveys were organized with the aim of carrying out botanical inventories in the southwestern parts of the island. The results were published in several papers and a guide to orchids of São Tomé and Príncipe (Stévart et al. 2000; Stévart and Oliveira 2000). The botanist Jorge Paiva (1933–) who undertook over 20 collecting expeditions to São Tomé and Príncipe deposited his collections at Herb. COI. Many of his botanical surveys and collections took place within the scope of diverse projects. For instance, between 1989 and 1993, he collaborated on a project funded by the European Communities Commission regarding the impact of coffee nematodes in the different cultivars (Abrantes 1993). Additionally, there are collections made in the 1990s by many others, such as the Santomeans Sabino Pires Carvalho (1959–) and Oliveira, at Herb. BRLU and LISC, Estrela Figueiredo (1963–; collected from 1993 to 2002) at Herb. K and LISC, Gascoigne (collected in 1999) at Herb LISC, Maria Fernanda Pinto Basto (1938–; collected in 1990) at Herb. LISC, and Maria do Céu Madureira (1961–) and Ana Paula Martins (1962–) at Herb. COI. Most collections made in the 1990s were deposited at Herb. BRLU, COI, and LISC. By the end of the twentieth century, a series of taxonomic revisions of the ﬂora of the islands was initiated with the publication of a catalogue of pteridophytes (Figueiredo 1998) and several revisions produced for Equatorial Guinea (e.g. Fernández Casas 1992, Hepper 1992, Morales 1992, Leeuwenberg 1992). These revisions would later give rise to the Flora de Guinea Ecuatorial. In 1993, an ethnopharmacological study was initiated in São Tomé and Príncipe in collaboration with the Ministry of Health of the country (Madureira 2006, 2012; Madureira et al. 2008; Martins 2002). This study involved a survey of species and had the collaboration of Paiva for the identiﬁcation of the plant collections. Further projects of applied botany ensued, including the doctoral project of Cristina Galhano (1969–) (Galhano 2006) during which collections were made by Paiva in 1996. In Bom Sucesso Botanical Garden (São Tomé), a tribute is paid to many of the botanists mentioned here, who developed work on the ﬂora of the arquipelago (Fig. 5.6). 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 109 Fig. 5.6 Commemorative plate on the botanists who studied São Tomé and Príncipe ﬂora, funded by ECOFAC and placed in the Bom Sucesso Botanical Garden. Photo credits: Luis Ceríaco In December 1994, the journal Biodiversity and Conservation published a special issue dedicated exclusively to the review of old and new data regarding the Gulf of Guinea’s species richness and endemism (Juste and Fa 1994). This publication was based on works presented at the workshop “Biodiversity and Conservation of the Gulf of Guinea Islands”, held in June 1993 at the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust (Butnyski and Koster 1994; Castelo 1994; Castroviejo et al. 1994a, b; Colell et al. 1994; Del Val Pérez et al. 1994; Dutton 1994; Gascoigne 1994c; Jones 1994; Juste and Fa 1994; Juste and Ibañez 1994; Peet and Atkinson 1994; Schaaf 1994; Figueiredo 1994b; Sequeira 1994). In the 1990s, environmental awareness initiatives stimulated the emergence of publications dedicated to biodiversity conservation, such as the book Conservação dos ecossistemas ﬂorestais na República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe (Jones et al. 1991). Figueiredo (1997) produced a preliminary assessment of the conservation status of 38 trees of São Tomé and Príncipe in a report for the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (Oldﬁeld et al. 1998). Following the work of Espírito Santo (1969a, b) and Silva HL (1959a), the medicinal uses and the common names of plants continued to be studied and compiled (Sequeira 1994). Studies of agronomic content were also continued, 110 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. some directed to particular products (seeds: Ferrão 1979, Ferrão and Ferrão 1984; plant uses: Roseira 1984; woods: Freitas 1987). Twenty-First Century: A New Generation of Researchers Taxonomic research initiated in the previous century continued well into the twentyﬁrst century, with several revisions and checklists being published. The ﬂora of Annobón was treated in a series of checklists of the ﬂora of Equatorial Guinea (e.g. Fero et al. 2003; Parmentier and Geerinck 2003; Cabezas et al. 2004) and in the volumes of Flora de Guinea Ecuatorial, an on-going project with the ﬁrst volume being issued in 2008 (Velayos et al. 2008). Regarding São Tomé and Príncipe, several papers on pteridophytes (Figueiredo 2001, 2002; Figueiredo and Gascoigne 2001; Figueiredo and Roux 2008; Figueiredo et al. 2009) and a checklist of the pteridophytes and lycophytes (Klopper and Figueiredo 2013) were published. A new catalogue of the ﬂora of São Tomé and Príncipe that updated the over 35-years-old checklist produced by Exell (1973b) was ﬁnally published (Figueiredo et al. 2011). In the same year a catalogue of the bryophytes was also published (Sérgio and Garcia 2011). The Rubiaceae, one of the dominant families of the ﬂora, was treated in a series of revisions (Alves et al. 2005; Figueiredo 2005; Davies and Figueiredo 2007). Applied botany studies integrated into environmental protection strategies also continued (e.g. Martins 2002; Madureira 2006; Madureira et al. 2008). At the dawn of the new century, a new wave of biodiversity researchers hit the islands. Furthering knowledge gathered by the previous generations, this new generation has not only continued to contribute to cataloguing the still undocumented and undescribed fauna and ﬂora of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, but also implemented new techniques, methodologies, and approaches. Other topics, such as biodiversity conservation, ethnobiology, ecosystem health, and ecology have experienced a considerable growth. This research has been conducted by an increasingly diverse group of international and national researchers and is mostly covered in the subsequent chapters of the volume. Nevertheless, some aspects of this new wave of research need to be highlighted here—both because they represent an important turning point on the study and preservation of the local biodiversity, but also due to the dimension and intensity of some of these activities. One fundamental difference in the research carried out in the twenty-ﬁrst century is the use of molecular methods to study the taxonomy, phylogenety, and biogeography of the biodiversity of the islands. While this has not yet been applied to all taxonomic groups, the use of molecular methods has been widely applied to the study of the island’s herpetofauna (Bell et al. 2022; Ceríaco et al. 2022), birds (Melo et al. 2022) and, to a lesser extent, plants (Plana et al. 2004; Soares et al. 2010). The growing importance of ecological and conservation studies has also marked the research landscape in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, with dozens of works and theses produced on the topic, especially at the University of Lisbon (see Lima et al. 2022, Soares et al. 2022), but also the seminal works on marine turtles 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 111 (see Ferreira-Airaud et al. 2022), plants (see Stevart et al. 2022), and even land molluscs (see Panisi et al. 2022). Finally, a revival of ﬁeld expeditions to further catalogue the diversity and distribution of islands’ species has resulted in important modern collections, many of which have not yet been fully studied. Of critical importance is the programme led by the California Academy of Sciences (CAS), whose activities started in 2001. This programme, led by Robert “Bob” Drewes, has conducted over a dozen expeditions to the islands and involved researchers from across the world with expertise in a wide array of taxonomic groups. A considerable part of the recently produced knowledge on the archipelago’s biodiversity stems from this programme. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Branca Moriés, librarian of the Museu de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, for her support with historical bibliography, Cristiana Vieira, Curator of the Herbarium of the Museu de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade do Porto, for her support in accessing documentation and data, and Ana Rita Simões, Martin Xanthos, and Nicholas Hind, from Kew Gardens, for providing information. The authors are also indebted to Aaron M. Bauer for a revision that greatly improved the original manuscript. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portugal) funded BSS (2021.06659.BD) and SBV (2017.128574.BD). References Abrantes IMO (1993) Nemátodes do cafeeiro na República de São Tomé e Príncipe e selecção de cultivares resistentes. In: 1ªs Jornadas sobre a agricultura de São Tomé e Príncipe: 9–11 de Dezembro de 1993, pp 131–141 Adegoke OS, Dessauvagie TFJ, Kogbe CA (1971) Planktonic foraminifera in Gulf of Guinea sediments. Micropaleontology 17(2):197–213 Afonso P, Porteiro F, Santos RS, Barreiros JP, Worms J, Wirtz P (1999) Coastal marine ﬁshes of São Tomé Island (Gulf of Guinea). Arquipélago Life and Marine Sciences 17A:65–92 Alexander CP (1957) Mission du Muséum National dans les îles du golfe de Guinée. Entomologie. IV. Crane-ﬂies from the Gulf of Guinea (Dipt.Tipulidae). Revue Française d’Entomologie 24: 255–263 Allard V (1990) Description d’une nouvelle Cetoine de l’île du Prince: Pseudoheterophana canui nov. gen., nov. sp. (Col., Cetoiniidae, Cetoniini, Heterophanina). Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Nat 68:22 Almada Negreiros J (1895) História ethnographica da ilha de S.Thomé. Antiga Casa Bertrand – José Bastos, Lisboa, vii + 369 pp Almada Negreiros J (1901) L’île de SanThomé. Augustin Challamel, Paris Almeida JMS (1858) O cacau. Bolletim Ofﬁcial de São Tomé e Príncipe, n 17 de 20 de janeiro, n 18 de 6 de fevereiro, n 19 de 13 de fevereiro e n 20 de 20 de fevereiro Almeida JMS (1865) Fruta-pão. Bolletim Ofﬁcial de São Tomé e Príncipe, n 13 de 1 de Abril Almeida AJ, Alves MJ (2019) Fishes of São Tomé – results of the expeditions of Fernando Frade (1954) and Fernando Correia da Costa (1955). Cybium 43(3):265–273 Almeida CM, Morais AM (1958a) A evolução das produções de cacau nas ilhas de S. Tomé e Príncipe – Estudo comparativo com outras regiões do globo. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, S.Tomé, Comunicações 3:25–32 112 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Almeida CM, Morais AM (1958b) O ciclo vegetativo do cacaueiro nas suas relações com algumas determinantes do meio aéreo. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, S.Tomé, Comunicações 3:45–52 Almeida CM, Morais AM (1958c) O condicionalismo ecológico da ilha de S. Tomé nas suas relações com a cauicultura. Conf Int Afr Ocidentais 6ª Sessão S.Tomé Comun 3:53–58 Alston AHG (1944) In: Exell A (ed) Catalogue of the vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Principe and Annobón), vol Pteridophyta. British Museum (Natural History), London, pp 57–99 Alston AHG (1956) Pteridophyta. In: Exell A (ed) Supplement to the catalogue of the vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Principe and Annobon). British Museum, London, pp 7–9 Alston AHG (1958) Pteridophyta. In: Exell AW, Rozeira A (1958) Aditamento à ﬂora de S. Tomé e do Príncipe. In: Anonymous. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, S Tomé, Comunicações 3:77–91 Alston AHG (1959) Pteridophyta. In: Exell AW (1959) Additions to the ﬂora of S. Tomé and Príncipe. Bulletin de l'Institut Française d’Afrique Noire, sér A 21(2):439–476 Alvarado R, Álvarez J (1964) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Álvarez a la isla de Annobón. Boletín de la Real Sociedad Española de Historia natural, Seccion Biologica 6:265–282 Alves MLG (1956a) Entomofauna da Guiné Portuguesa e das ilhas de São Tomé e Príncipe. II. Coleopteros. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, São Tomé, Comunicações 4:11–22 Alves MLG (1956b) Entomofauna da Guiné Portuguesa e das ilhas de São Tomé e Príncipe. Contribuição para o seu conhecimento – Coleopteros (Lucanidae, Scarabaeidae, Cicindelidae, Buprestidae). Boletim Cultural da Guiné Portuguesa 11(44):87 Alves MLG (1965) Passaladeos (Ins. Col.) da Africa Portuguesa. Garcia de Orta 13(2):167–172 Alves MLG, Castel-Branco AJF (1962) Uma espécie nova de coccinela entomofaga da ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 10(4):643–646 Alves AC, Prista LN (1958) Rauwolﬁa vomitoria Afz. de S. Tomé – Contribuição para o seu estudo botânico e químico. Garcia de Orta 6(4):689–696 Alves AC, Prista LN (1959) Estudo farmacognósico de cascas de Cinnamomum cassia (Nees) Nees ex Blume de S.Tomé. Garcia de Orta 7(2):325–330 Alves AC, Prista LN (1960) Sobre o Lonchocarpus sericeus H. B. et K. colhido em S.Tomé. Garcia de Orta 8:837–846 Alves AC, Prista LN, Sousa AF (1960) Contribuição para o estudo das Dioscoreáceas das nossas províncias ultramarinas. I. – Dioscorea dumetorum Pax de S. Tomé. Garcia de Orta 8:821–835 Alves AC, Prista LN, Ferreira M (1961) Sobre um glicoalcalóide isolado de Solanum wrightii (Solanum grandiﬂorum auct. Pl. Non Ruiz et Pavon). Garcia de Orta 9:713–720 Alves AC, Prista LN, Ferreira M (1962) Algumas características de um alcalóide isolado em Cimbopogon citratus (D.C.) Stapf. Garcia de Orta 10:103–109 Alves R, Figueiredo E, Davis AP (2005) Taxonomy and conservation of the genus Psychotria in S. Tomé e Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 147:469–481 Amadon D (1953) Avian systematics and evolution in the Gulf of Guinea – the J.G. Correia collection. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 100(3):393–452 Angel MF (1920) Sur un collection de reptiles et de batraciens de l'Ile de San Thomé et de l'Ile du Prince et description d'une espèce nouvelle du genre Typhlops. Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle 26:197–199 Anonymous (1956) Organization framework. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, São Tomé, I Antoine P (1992) Quelques especes nouvelles ou peu connues de la famille des Cetoniidae – 3. (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Nat 75–76:6–20 Ardoin P (1958) Mission du Muséum dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée. Entomologie IX. Coleoptera Tenebrionidae. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 63(5–6):129–136 Arnell S (1956) Hepaticae collected by K. Byström in Fernando poo and Annobon, West Africa, 1953. SvenskBot Tidskr 50(4):527–534 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 113 Arnoult J (1966) Campagne de la “Calypso” dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annobón (1956). 15. Poissons teleosteens (première partie). Annales d’Institut Océanographique 44:1–12 Ascenso JC (1963) Inheritance and relationships among growth characters of young cacao seedlings. [Estudos, ensaios e documentos 105]. Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisboa, p 89 Ascenso JC (1964) As cultivares de bananeira de S. Tomé. Garcia de Orta 12(2):251–260 Ascenso JC (1965) Selecção e melhoramento do cacaueiro em S. Tomé e Prícipe. Garcia de Orta 13(2):305–316 Atkinson P, Peet N, Alexander J (1991) The status and conservation of the endemic bird species of São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Bird Conservation International 1(3):255–282 Atkinson PW, Dutton JS, Peet, NB, Sequeira VAS (1994) A study of the birds, small mammals, turtles and medicinal plants of São Tomé and Príncipe. Birdlife International Study Report N 56, 106 pp Azevedo JF, Mourão MC, Salazar JMC (1956) Noticia sobre a tse-tse da ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta. Série Zoológica 4(4):507–522 Azevedo JF, Mourão MC, Salazar JMC (1961) O reaparecimento da Glossina palpalis palpalis da ilha do Príncipe. [Estudos, Ensaios e Documentos 89]. Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisboa, 227 pp Azevedo JF, Mourão MC, Salazar JMC (1962) A erradicação da Glossina palpalis palpalis da ilha do Príncipe (1956–1958). [Estudos, Ensaios e Documentos 91]. Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisboa, 181 pp Bacelar A (1948) Lepidopteros de Africa, principalmente das colónias portuguesas. Arquivos do Museu Bocage 19:165–207 Bacelar A (1950) Notas acerca dos aracnídeos do Ultramar Português. Colóquios. Junta da Investigação das Colónias 17:1–24 Bacelar A (1956a) Alguns aracnídeos das ilhas de São Tomé e do Príncipe – I: Notas sobre Hysterocrates da Ilha de São Tomé. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, São Tomé, Comunicações 4:37–46 Bacelar A (1956b) Entomofauna da Guiné Portuguesa e das ilhas de São Tomé e Príncipe – V. Lepidoptera (Rhopalocera). Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, São Tomé, Comunicações 4:47–60 Badonnel A (1976) Une nouvelle espèce du genre Amphibsocus de l’île de São Tomé (Psocoptera: Amphisocidae). Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft 49(3–4): 277–280 Baião A (1940) O manuscrito “Valentim Fernandes”. Academia Portuguesa de História, Lisboa, 240 pp Balle S (1964) Les loranthacées d’Afrique portugaise. I. Guinée et San Tomé. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 2ª Série 38:9–79 Bannerman DA (1914) Report on the birds collected by the late Mr. Boyd Alexander (Riﬂe Brigade) during his last expedition to Africa. – part I. The birds of Prince’s Island. Ibis 56(4): 596–631 Bannerman DA (1915a) Report on the birds collected by the late Mr. Boyd Alexander (Riﬂe Brigade) during his last expedition to Africa. – part II. The birds of St. Thomas’ Island. Ibis 57(1):89–121 Bannerman DA (1915b) Report on the birds collected by the late Mr. Boyd Alexander (Riﬂe Brigade) during his last expedition to Africa. – part III. The birds of Annobon Island. Ibis 57(2): 227–234 Bannerman DA (1931) The maroon pigeon of São Thomé. Ibis 73(4):652–654 Barros-Ferreira JHP (1963) Contribuição para o estudo das malváceas de São Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 11(1):27–55 Barros-Ferreira JHP (1965) Contribuição para o estudo das begoniáceas de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 13(4):525–544 114 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Barros-Ferreira JHP (1968a) Contribuição para o estudo das Melastomataceae de São Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 16(1):69–86 Barros-Ferreira JHP (1968b) Um Tristemma novo para a Ciência, o Tristemma thomensis sp. nov. Garcia de Orta 16(1):63–68 Basilewsky P (1957) Coleoptéres Carabidae africains nouveaux VIII. Revue de Zoologie et du Botanique africaines 56:33–40 Basilewsky P (1958) Mission du Muséum dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée. Entomologie VII. Coleoptera Carabidae. Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France 63(3–4):96–98 Basilio A (1957) Caza y Pesca en Annobon. Instituto de Estudios Africanos, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientíﬁcas, Madrid, 98 pp Basquin P (1992) Contribution à la connaisance des Sphinx de l’île de São Tomé (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae). Description d’une nouvelle espèce. Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Nat 75–76: 46–49 Bedriaga J (1892) Note sur les amphibiens et reptiles recueilles par M. Adolphe Moller aux îles de la Guinée. O Instituto 39(12):901–907 Bedriaga J (1893a) Remarques supplementaires sur les amphibiens et reptiles du Portugal et de l'Ile de St.Thomé. O Instituto 44(4):286–291 Bedriaga J (1893b) Mammiferos, aves e reptis da ilha de Anno-Bom. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Serie 3(9):44–45 Bell RC, Ceríaco LMP, Scheinberg LA, Drewes RC (2022) The amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 479–504 Bencker H (1930) The bathymetric soundings of the oceans. Hydrographic Review 7(2):64–97 Billard A (1907) Hydroides recoltes par M. Ch. Gravier a 1'île de San Thomé. Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle 13:274–275 Blanc M, Cadenat J, Stauch A (1968) Contribution a l’étude de l’ichtyofaune de l’île Annobón. Bulletin de l’Institut Français de l’Afrique Noire 30A(1):238–256 Bocage JVB (1880a) Subsídios para a fauna das possessões portuguesas da Africa Occidental. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 7(26):85–96 Bocage JVB (1880b) Aves de Bolama e da Ilha do Príncipe. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 8(29):71–72 Bocage JVB (1886a) Reptis e Amphibios de S. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11(42):65–70 Bocage JVB (1886b) Reptiles et Batraciens nouveaux de l’Ile de St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11(42):71–75 Bocage JVB (1886c) Note additionelle dur les reptiles de St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11(42):103–104 Bocage JVB (1887a) Mélanges Erpétologiques. Reptiles de l’île du Prince. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11(44):198–201 Bocage JVB (1887b) Oiseaux noveaux de l'Ile St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11(44):250–253 Bocage JVB (1887c) Sur un mammifère nouveau de l'Ile St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11(44):212–213 Bocage JVB (1887d) Aditamento à fauna ornitológica de S. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 12(46):81–83 Bocage JVB (1888a) Note sur la «Phaeospiza thomensis». Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11(44):192 Bocage JVB (1888b) Oiseaux noveaux de l'Ile S.t Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11(44):229–232 Bocage JVB (1888c) Sur quelques oiseaux nouveaux de l’île de St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 12(48):211–215 Bocage JVB (1888d) Sur un oiseaux nouveau de la famile “Fringillidae”. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 12(47):148–150 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 115 Bocage JVB (1889a) Sur deux espèces ajoulter à la faune ornithologique de St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 1(2):142–144 Bocage JVB (1889b) Chiroptères de l’Ile de St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 1(3):197–199 Bocage JVB (1889c) Aves da ilha de S. Tomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 1:209–210 Bocage JVB (1891a) Oiseaux de l'Ile St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 2(6):77–87 Bocage JVB (1891b) Sur une varietè de Phyllorinha commersoni de l’île de St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 2(6):88 Bocage JVB (1891c) Aves do Dahomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 2:185 Bocage JVB (1893a) Note sur deux oiseaux nouveaux de l'Ile Anno-Bom. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 3(9):17–18 Bocage JVB (1893b) Mammiferos, Aves e Reptis da Ilha de Anno-Bom. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 3(9):44–45 Bocage JVB (1893c) Diagnoses de deux nouveuax reptiles de l'Ile de Anno-Bom. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 3(9):47–48 Bocage JVB (1895a) Sur un batracien nouveau de Fernão do Pó. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Serie 4(12):270–272 Bocage JVB (1895b) Subsidios para a Fauna da Ilha de Fernão do Pó. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 4(13):1–15 Bocage JVB (1895c) Reptiles et batraciens nouveaux ou peu connus de Fernão do Pó. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Serie 4(13):16–20. + I plate Bocage JVB (1895d) A doninha da ilha de S. Tomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 4(13):24–27 Bocage JVB (1895e) Ainda a doninha da ilha de S. Tomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 4(13):48–50 Bocage JVB (1896) Réptis de algumas possessões portuguezas d'Africa que existem no Museu de Lisboa. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Serie 4(13):65–104. + II plates Bocage JVB (1903) Contribution à la faune des quatre îles du Golfe de Guinée. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Serie 7(15):25–59 Bocage JVB (1905) Contribution à la faune des quatre îles du Golfe de Guinée. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Serie 7(16):65–96 Bocquet G, Derron JO (1976) Les Erythrina de la République de São Tomé et Príncipe. Berichte der Schweizerischen Botanischen Gesellschaft 85(4):298–305 Bomans HE (1992) Les coleoptères Lucanidae de l’îles Príncipe. Lambillionea 92(3):251–254 Boughey AS (1958) The plant colonisation of the islands in the Gulf of Guinea. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, S.Tomé, Comunicações 3:69–76 Boulenger GA (1905) [1906] Report on the batrachians collected by the late L. Fea in West Africa. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 3(2):157–172 Boulenger GA (1906) Report on the reptiles collected by the late L. Fea in West Africa. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 3(2):196–216 Bresadola G (1890) Fungi Kamerunenses. Bulletin de la Société Mycologique de France 6(1): 32–49 Bresadola G (1891) Contributions à la ﬂore mycologiques de l’île de S. Tomé. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 9:38–44 Bresadola G, Roumeguère C (1889) Nouvelles contributions à la ﬂore mycologique des îles de S. Tomé et du Prince. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 7:159–177 Breuning S (1955) Lamiaires nouveaux de la collection du Museo Civico di Storia Naturale – Genova (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria 68:40–44 116 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Breuning S (1956) Longicornes nouveaux de la collection du Museo Civico di Storia Naturale – Genova (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria 68:244–258 Brito Capello F (1871) Primeira lista dos peixes da Madeira, Açores e das possessões Portuguezas d’Africa, que existem no Museu de Lisboa. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 3(11):194–202 Brotherus VF (1890) Musci novi insularum Guineensium. Boletim da Sociedade Broteria 8:173– 180 Bruguière JG (1792) Bulimus bicarinatus. Encyclopédie Méthodique: Histoire Naturelle des Vers (1789–1792) 1(102):359 Burlinson JP, Jones PJ (1988) A report on the forest resources and their present utilization in the Democratic Republic of São Tomé & Príncipe. International Council for Bird Preservation Burton RF (1876) Two trips to Gorilla Land and the Cataracts of the Congo, vol 2. Sampson Low, Marston, Low and Searle, London Butynski TM, Koster SH (1994) Distribution and conservation status of primates in Bioko island, Equatorial Guinea. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):893–909 C.C.A.M. (1938) Prof. Charles Gravier. Nature 141:66 Cabezas F, Aedo C, Velayos M (2004) Checklist of the Cyperaceae of equatorial Guinea. Belgian Journal of Botany137(1):3–26 Cabral RVG, Carmona MM (1968/69) Aceria guerreronis Keifer (Acarina: Eriophyidae), uma espécie nova para S.Tomé e Príncipe. Portugaliae Acta Biológica 10A:353–358 Câmara MS, Coutinho MP (1923) O presente e o futuro das plantações em S. Tomé e Príncipe. Imprensa da Universidade, Coimbra Câmara MS, da Luz CG (1938) Some fungi from the Atlantic and the Portuguese colonies. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 13:95–99 Campion H (1923) Notes on dragonﬂies from the Old World islands of San Tomé, Rodriguez, Cocos-Keeling and Loo Choo. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 9(11):22–27 Campos E (1920) A revalorização agrícola da ilha de S. Tomé. Tipograﬁa Minerva, Vila Nova de Famalicão Campos E (1956a) Modiﬁcação do ambiente das ilhas de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Boletim da Sociedade de Geograﬁa Lisboa 74(4–6):141–150 Campos E (1956b) Perturbação do meio ecológico das ilhas de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Anonymous. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, São Tomé, Comunicações 2: 47–54 Campos E (1958) Mudança na paisagem das ilhas de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série Zoológia 6(2):263–282 Canu JG (1994) Souvenirs entomologiques d’Afrique et des îles voisines. Lambillionea 94(3): 311–320 Carvalho JV (1858) Cultura do café. Bolletim Ofﬁcial de São Tomé e Príncipe, n 19 de 13 de Fevereiro, n 23 de 13 de Março Carvalho JP (1968) Notas sobre a reunião de entomologistas realizada em São Tomé e Príncipe de 8 a 22 de Agosto de 1967. Instituto de Investigação Agronómica de Nova Lisboa, Série Técnica n 1 Castel-Branco AFJ (1955a) Missão Cientíﬁca de S. Tomé. Relatório acerca de trabalhos de luta biológica a S. Tomé e Príncipe, 15 pp Castel-Branco AFJ (1955b) Relatório acerca da cochonilha dos coqueiros (Aspidiotus destructor) na ilha do Príncipe. Missão Cientíﬁca a S. Tomé, 12 pp Castel-Branco AFJ (1956a) Acerca da cochonilha dos coqueiros (Aspidiotus destructor) na ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série Zoológia 4(2):225–238 Castel-Branco AFJ (1956b) Ensaio de luta biológica contra a cochonilha do coqueiro na ilha do Príncipe. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, S. Tomé, Comunicações 4:77–78 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 117 Castel-Branco AFJ (1956c) Entomofauna da Guiné Portuguesa e São Tomé e Príncipe. Contribuição para o seu conhecimento. Hemipteros e Himenopteros. Boletim Cultural da Guiné Portuguesa 11(44):67–85 Castel-Branco AFJ (1958a) Entomofauna da Guiné Portuguesa e das ilhas de São Tomé e Príncipe. I. Hemipteros (Coccideos e Psilideos) e Himenopteros. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, S.Tomé, Comunicações 4:79–89 Castel-Branco AFJ (1958b) Lutte biologique contre Aspidiotus destructor sign. A l’île Príncipe (Afrique-Occidentale Portugaise). Revue de Pathologie Végétale et d’Enthomologie Agricole de France 37(4):235–239 Castel-Branco AFJ (1958c) Estudos acerca da biologia de Icerya purchasi. Relatório. Deslocação a S. Tomé de 17 de Abril a 8 de Junho de 1958. Centro de Zoologia Castel-Branco AJF (1963a) Entomofauna de S. Tomé (Insectos do cacaueiro). [Estudos, Ensaios e Documentos, 107]. Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisboa, 94 pp Castel-Branco AJF (1963b) Aspidotius destructor Sign. e outros cochonilhas do coqueiro (Cocos nucifera L.) e da palmeira do óleo (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) nas ilhas de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Memórias da Junta de Investigaçóes do Ultramar 2ª Série 43:129–175 Castel-Branco AJF (1963c) Uma cochonilha nova para a fauna de S.Tomé: Asterolecanium pustulans Cockerell. Garcia de Orta 11(2):253–256 Castel-Branco AJF (1964) Uma nova cochonilha da ilha do Príncipe (Asterolecanium pustulans Ckll, var. nov. princeps). Garcia de Orta 12(4):627–631 Castel-Branco AJF (1965) Pachymerus lacerdae Chevr. – Espécie nova (Ins.Col.Bruchidae) para a fauna de S.Tomé. Garcia de Orta 13(2):179–184 Castel-Branco AFJ (1967a) Asterolecanium sp. Cochonilha de cacaueiro. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário S.Tomé 1(1):56–59 Castel-Branco AJF (1967b) A “Molestia dos Cocos” em S.Tomé. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário S.Tomé 1(3):24–42 Castel-Branco AJF (1967c) Insectos do cacaueiro. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário S.Tomé 1(12):33–35 Castel-Branco AJF (1967d) Panorama geral da entomologia em São Tomé e Príncipe. Comunicação a Reunião de Entomologistas realizada em São Tomé e Príncipe de 8 a 22 de Agosto de 1967. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-pecuário, S.Tomé, 18 pp Castel-Branco AJF (1967e) Os Oryctes em São Tomé. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento AgroPecuário S.Tomé 1(4):45–52 Castel-Branco AJF (1967f) Lepidóptero da família Gracilariidae. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário S.Tomé 3(12):29–31 Castel-Branco AJF (1969) A broca do café em S. Tomé (Stephanodres hampei Ferr.). Garcia de Orta 17(1):97–106 Castel-Branco AJF (1970a) Cochonilhas de S.Tomé e Principe Asterolecanium pustulans (Cockerell) e A. pustulans princeps nov.var. (Hem. Homoptera). Eos Revista Española de Entomologia 46:27–36 Castel-Branco AJF (1970b) Campanha de possível irradicação da lagarta das folhas da Erithrina (Agathodes thomensis Castel-Branco). Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário S.Tomé 4(15):51–58 Castel-Branco AJF (1971) Doenças dos insectos. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário S. Tomé 5(19):29–33 Castel-Branco AJF (1972) Luta biológica contra Aspidiotus destructor Sign. na ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série de Zoologia 1(1):17–36 Castel-Branco AJF, Alves MLG (1957) Contribuição para o melhor conhecimento do genero Dysdercus: Guiné Portuguesa e ilhas de São Tomé e do Príncipe. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª Sessão, S.Tomé, Comunicações 4:91–102 Castel-Branco AJF, Alves MLG (1958) Contribuição para o melhor conhecimento do genero Dysdercus na Guiné Portuguesa e em São Tomé e Príncipe. Boletim Cultural da Guiné Portuguesa 11(45):21–37 118 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Castelo R (1994) Biogeographical considerations of ﬁsh diversity in Bioko. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):808–827 Castro O (1857–1858) Sobre as possibilidades da cultura do café. Bolletim Ofﬁcial de São Tomé e Príncipe, n , n 12 de 26 de Dezembro de 1857; n 14 de 9 de Janeiro de 1858 Castro D (1867) Guia do agricultor da ilha de S. Tomé, accomodado ao Continente da África ocidental e oriental. Imprensa de Joaquim Germano de Souza Neves, Lisboa, 80 pp Castro JF (1894) Estudo sobre as madeiras de construcção da ilha de S. Thomé. Typographia Burocratica, Tavira, 31pp Castroviejo J, Juste J, Val JP, Castelo R, Gil R (1994a) Diversity and status of sea turtle species in the Gulf of Guinea islands. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):836–838 Castroviejo J, Justeb J, Castelo R, Del Val Pérez J (1994b) The Spanish co-operation programme in Equatorial Guinea: a ten-year review of research and nature conservation in Bioko. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):951–961 Cavaco A (1968) Les Achyranthes (Amaranthaceae) du continente africain et des îles adjacentes. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 32:301–327 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP, Bell RC, Bauer AM (2022) The terrestrial reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 505–534 Chesher RH (1966) The R/V Pillsbury Deep Sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 10. Report on the echinoidea collected by R/V Pillsbury in the Gulf of Guinea. In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (part 1). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 209–223 Chevalier A (1906) L'île de San-Thomé. La Geographie 13(4):257–274 Chevalier A (1910) L’île de San Thomé. O Ocidente 33(1130):106 Chevalier A (1914) Sudania: Enumeration des plantes recoltees en Afrique tropicale et equatoriale par M. Aug. Chevalier de 1905 a 1907. Tome II. N 12001–20214. Paris Chevalier A (1938/39) La vegetation de l'île de San-Thomé. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana, 2ª Série 13:101–116 Chopard L (1958) Mission du Muséum dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée. Entomologie VI. Orthoptéroïdes. Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France 63(3–4):73–85 Cogniaux A (1908/09) Calvoa robusta n. sp. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 24:240–241 Colell M, Maté C, Fa JE (1994) Hunting among Moka Bubis in Bioko: dynamics of faunal exploitation at the village level. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):939–950 Cooper GA (1975) Brachiopods from West African waters with examples of collateral evolution. Journal of Paleontology 49(5):911–927 Correia da Costa F (1959) Estudos de pescas em S. Tomé e Príncipe, vol 8, Mem Junta Investig Ultramar Estudos Zool 2ª Sér edn, pp 215–271 Cortesão AFZ (1921) Culture du cacaoyer (La crise agricole actuelle de La Colonie Portugaise de S. Tomé e Principe). Congrès International d’Agriculture Tropicale, London, Juin 1921. Ministère des Colonies, Lisbon Cortesão M (1956/57) Culturas tropicais – plantas oleaginosas. Livraria Clássica Editora, Lisbon Costa AF (1941) Do valor alcalóidico das quinas de S. Tomé. Notícias Farmacêuticas 7:173–189 Costa AF (1944) O Problema das Quinas. Biblioteca Cosmos, Lisbon Costa ARC (2020) Coleções Botânicas das ilhas de São Tomé e Príncipe no Herbário PO do Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto: desvendar dados cientíﬁcos e históricos a partir de espécimes de herbário. MSc thesis. Faculty of Sciences of the University of Porto, Porto, 100 pp Courtenay WR Jr (1970) The R/V Pillsbury deep sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 14. Soapﬁshes of the genus Rypticus from Fernando Poo. In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (Part 2). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 276–280 Cramer P (1775/76) De Uitlandsche Kapellee voorkomende in de drie waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en America. Amst Utrecht 1:16 + 155 pp + 96 pl 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 119 Cribb PJ, La Croix I, Stevart T (1999) A new Polystachya (Orchidaceae) from São Tomé. Kew Bulletin 54:999–1001 Crosnier A, Forest J (1966) Campagne de la “Calypso” dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annóbon (1956) et campagne aux îles du Cap Vert. 19. Crustaces decápodes: Alpheidae. Annales d’Institut Océanographique 44(7):119–314 Crosse H (1868) Faunule malacologique terrestre de l'île San-Thome. Journal de Conchliologie 8(3):125–135 D’Almeida A, Aníbal O, Bandeira AB, Costa G, Teixeira M, Worms J (1996) La péche artisanale à São Tomé – Resultats de trois annèes de recherche. 1993–1995. PERH – Rapport scientiﬁque iv + 38 pp Darge P (1970) Lépidoptères Attacidae et Sphingidae de l’îles de São Tomé. Bulletin de l’I.F.A.N. 23A(2):495–500 Darge P (1991) Lépidoptères Sphingidae des îles du Golfe de Guinée. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de Mulhouse Octobre-Decembre:62–64 Davis AP, Figueiredo E (2007) A checklist of the Rubiaceae (coffee family) of Bioko and Annobon (Equatorial Guinea, Gulf of Guinea). Systematics and Biodiversity 5(2):159–186 de Saint LM, Le Loeuff P (1979) Campagnes de la Calypso au large des cotes atlantiques Africaines (1956 et 1959) (suite). 22. Crustacés Décapodes Thalassinidea. 1. Upogebiidae et Callianassidae. Résultats Scientiﬁques des Campagnes de la Calypso. Résultats scientiﬁques des campagnes de la Calypso 11:29–101 Del Val Pérez J, Fa JE, Castroviejo J, Purroy FJ (1994) Species richness and endemism of birds in Bioko. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):868–892 Dias JATS (1955) Uma nova espécie de Tabanideo (Diptera, Tabanidae) para a fauna da ilha de S. Tomé. Memórias e Estudos, Museu Zoologico da Universidade de Coimbra 233:11 Dias JATS (1958) Notas sobre a ixodofauna da Ilha de S.Tomé. Boletim da Sociedade de Estúdios (da Colónia) de Moçambique 26(110):159–165 Dias JATS (1988) (1989) Nova contribuição para o conhecimento da Ixodofauna (Acarina, Ixodoidea) da República de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série de Zoologia 15(1):35–40 Diniz MA (1964) Himenópteros da África portuguesa. 1. Esfecídeos de Cabo Verde, Guiné e São Tomé. Garcia de Orta 12:223–240 Diniz AC, Matos GC (2002a) Carta de zonagem agro-ecológica e da vegetação de S. Tomé e Príncipe: 1- Ilha de S. Tomé. Garcia de Orta, Série de Botânica 15(2):1–45 Diniz AC, Matos GC (2002b) Carta de zonagem agro-ecológica e da vegetação de S. Tomé e Príncipe: 1- Ilha de Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série de Botânica 15(2):47–72 Dohrn H (1866a) Die Binnenconchylien von Ilha do Principe. Malakozoologische Blätter 13:116– 136 Dohrn H (1866b) Eine neue Nanina aus Westafrika. Malakozoologische Blätter 13:114–115 Dohrn H (1866c) Synopsis of the birds of Ilha do Príncipe, with some remarks on their habitats and the description of new species. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1866:324–332 Domanevskaya MV (1987) On the existence of island populations of Sparidae in the Gulf of Guinea. Vopr Ikhtiol 27(5):863–866 Domanevskaya MV (1988) Existence of local populations of the family Sparidae in the Gulf of Guinea. Journal of Ichthyology 28(1):105–109 Dutton J (1994) Introduced mammals in São Tomé and Príncipe: possible threats to biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):927–938 Dutton J, Haft J (1996) Distribution, ecology and status of an endemic shrew, Crocidura thomensis, from São Tomé. Oryx 30(3):195–201 Eccles SD (1988) The birds of São Tomé – record of a visit. April 1987, with notes on the rediscovery of Bocage’s Longbill. Malimbus 10:207–217 Edwards FW (1934) XXIX. – the Percy Sladen and Godman trusts expedition to the islands in the Gulf of Guinea, October 1932–March 1933. – II. Diptera Nematocera. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 14(81):321–336 120 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Emery AR (1970) The R/V Pillsbury Deep Sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 17. Microspathodon frontatus, a new species of pomacentrid ﬁsh from the islands in the Gulf of Guinea. In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (part 2). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 294–301 Espírito Santo J (1969a) Nomes crioulos e vernáculos de algumas plantas de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Boletim Cultural da Guiné Portuguesa 24(93):193–211 Espírito Santo J (1969b) Algumas plantas medicinais e venenosas de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Boletim Cultural da Guiné Portuguesa 24(96):917–940 Espírito Santo J (1970) Aditamento à ﬂora de S. Tomé. Boletim Cultural da Guiné Portuguesa 25: 498–511 Espírito Santo J (1973a) Flora de S. Tomé e Príncipe - Aquifoliaceae. Jardim e Museu Agrícola do Ultramar, Lisboa, 4 pp Espírito Santo J (1973b) Flora de S. Tomé e Príncipe - Alangiaceae. Jardim e Museu Agrícola do Ultramar, Lisboa, 4 pp Espírito Santo J (1973c) Pastagens naturais da região savánica de Sao Tomé. Boletim Informativo da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário 25–26:43–49 Espírito Santo J (1974) Prospecção botânica de São Tomé e Príncipe (segunda parte). Boletim Informativo da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário 29:13–32 Exell AW (1944) Catalogue of the vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Príncipe and Annobon). British Museum (Natural History), London, xi + 428 pp Exell AW (1952) The vegetation of the islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Lejeunia 16:57–66 Exell AW (1956) Supplement to the catalogue of the vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Principe and Annobón). British Museum (Natural History), London, 54 pp Exell AW (1958) Progress accomplished in the study of the ﬂora of the islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Memorias da Sociedade Broteriana 13:19–21 Exell AW (1959) Additions to the ﬂora of S. Tomé and Principe. Bulletin de l’Institut FranÓaise d’Afrique Noire, Sér. A 21(2):439–476 Exell AW (1962) Botanical collecting on the islands of the Gulf of Guinea. In: Fernandes A (ed) IVe Reunion Plenaire de l’AETFAT, Lisboa-Coimbra, 1960, Comptes Rendus. Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisboa, pp 95–102 Exell AW (1963) Angiosperms of the Cambridge Annobon Island expedition. Bulletin of the British Museum (Nat. Hist) Bot 3(3):93–118 Exell AW (1968) Príncipe, S. Tomé and Annobon. Acta Phytogeographica Suecica 54:132–134 Exell AW (1973a) Angiosperms of the islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Fernando Poo, Príncipe, S. Tomé and Annobón). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Botany 4(8):327–411 Exell AW (1973b) Relações ﬂorísticas entre as ilhas do Golfo da Guiné e destas com o continente africano. Garcia de Orta, série Botânica 1(1–2):3–10 Exell AW, Rozeira A (1958) Aditamento à ﬂora de S. Tomé e do Príncipe. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, S. Tomé, Comunicações 3:77–91 Exell AW, Fernandes A, Mendonça FA (1952) Colectores botânicos da África portuguesa. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana, Série 2 26:213–220 Fage L (1959) Campagne de la “Calypso” 1956 dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annobon. 9. Pycnogonides. Annales d’Institut Océanographique 37:235–239 Fagel C (1958) Mission du Muséum national dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée. Entomologie. V. Sur quelques Osoriinae du golfe de Guinée (Col. Staphylinidae). Revue française d’Entomologie 24:26 Fahr J (1993a) Ein Beitrag zur Biologie der Amphibien der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea) (Amphibia). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1): 75–84 Fahr J (1993b) Einige Beobachtungen zur Brutpﬂege bei Hysterocrates scepticus Pocock auf der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea) (Arachnida: Araneae: Theraphosidae). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):113–114 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 121 Fauvel P, Rullier F (1959) Campagne 1956 dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annobón. 6. Annelides polychetes. Annales d’Institut Océanographique 37:143–205 Fea L (1902) S.Thomé. Recordi ed impressioni. Bollettino della Società Geograﬁca Italiana Fasc. I:22 Feiler A (1984) Über die Säugetiere der Insel São Tomé (Mammalia). Zoologische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 40:75–78 Feiler A (1988) Die Säugetiere der Insel im Golf von Guinea und ihre Beziehungen zur Säugetierfauna des westafrikennischen Festlandes (Mammalia). Zoologische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 44(1):83–88 Feiler A (1993) Zur zoologischen Erforschungsgeschichte der Inseln São Tomé (Golf von Guinea). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):17–19 Feiler A, Nadler T (1992) Über evolutive Bezeichungen zwischen der Brillenvogel der Gattung Speirops (Aves, Zosteropidae) von West-Kamerun und den Inseln im Golf von Guinea. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 43(3):423–432 Feiler A, Haft J, Widmann P (1993) Beobachtungen und Unterschungen an Säugetieren der Insel São Thomé (Golf von Guinea) (Mammalia). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):21–35 Fernandes R (1969) Os géneros Nicandra Adans., Physalis L. e Withania Pauq. no ultramar português. Garcia de Orta 17(3):275–288 Fernandes IM (1974) Estudo de algumas cochonilhas de São Tomé. Garcia de Orta, Série Zoológica 3(1):1–3 Fernandes A (1982) Bibliograﬁa mais relevante sobre botânica pura e aplicada referente aos países Africanos de expressão Portuguesa. Acad Ciênc Lisb, 281 pp Fernandes F, Rolan E (1989) Nuevo género y nuevas especies de la família Buccinidae Raﬁnesque, 1815 (Mollusca, Neogastropoda) de la isla de São Tomé. Bollettino Malacologico 25:341–348 Fernandes F, Rolan E (1992) The Marginellidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda) of Príncipe Island (República de São Tomé e Príncipe). Journal of Conchology 34(2):85–91 Fernández Casas J (1992) Ad Guineae Aequatorialis ﬂoram texendam inventa varia. Fontqueria 33: 33–82 Fero M, Cabezas F, Aedo C, Velayos M (2003) Check-list of the Piperaceae of Equatorial Guinea. Anales Jardín Botánico de Madrid 60(1):45–50 Ferrão JEM (1979) Flora de S. Tomé e Príncipe – Ácidos gordos e proteínas de algumas sementes. [Estudos, Ensaios e Documentos 132]. Junta de Investigaçôes Cientíﬁcas do Ultramar, Lisboa, 185 pp Ferrão JEM, Ferrão AMBC (1984) Contribuição para o estudo da semente de purgueira Jatropha curcas L. de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, série de Estudos Agronómicos II(1,2):23–32 Ferreira JB (1897) Sobre um “Hemidactylus” novo da ilha de Anno Bom. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 4(16):249–251 Ferreira JB (1902) Lista dos réptis e batrachios da colecção do Sr. Newton. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, 2ª Série 6:231–234 Ferreira MAV (1967a) Algumas pragas identiﬁcadas no cacau em São Tomé. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário, S. Tomé 1(1):51–55 Ferreira MAV (1967b) Luta contra os insectos. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário, S. Tomé 1(2):96–72 Ferreira MAV (1967c) Contribuição para o conhecimento da entomofauna da Estação Agrária de São Tomé. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário, S. Tomé 1(3):55–57 Ferreira MAV (1967d) Espécies de Oryctes existentes em São Tomé. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário, S. Tomé 1(4):53–56 Ferreira MAV (1968) Insectos do caféeiro em São Tomé. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento AgroPecuário, S. Tomé 2(7):45–49 Ferreira MAV (1969) Algumas considerações sobre luta integrada. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário, S. Tomé 5(18):83–86 122 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Ferreira MAV (1971) Luta contra os insectos. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário, S. Tomé 1(1):51–55 Ferreira-Airaud B, Schmitt V, Vieira S et al (2022) The sea turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: diversity, distribution, and conservation status. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 535–554 Figueiredo E (1994a) Contributions towards a botanical literature for the islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Fontqueria 39:1–8 Figueiredo E (1994b) Diversity and endemism of angiosperms in the Gulf of Guinea islands. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:785–793 Figueiredo E (1994c) Little known endemics collected by J. Espirito Santo in S. Tomé. Garcia de Orta, Série Botânica 12(1–2):121–124 Figueiredo E (1994d) New records for the ﬂora of S. Tomé and Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série Botânica 12(1–2):125–126 Figueiredo E (1997) Trees of S. Tomé and Príncipe. Typescript, 7 pp Figueiredo E (1998) The pteridophytes of São Tomé and Principe (Gulf of Guinea). Bulletin Natural History Museum (Bot) 28(1):41–66 Figueiredo E (2001) New ﬁndings of pteridophytes from the mountain rainforests of São Tomé and Príncipe. Fern Gazette 16(4):191–193 Figueiredo E (2002) Pteridóﬁtos de São Tomé e Príncipe. [Estudos, ensaios e documentos 162]. Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisboa, 209 pp Figueiredo E (2005) The Rubiaceae of São Tomé e Príncipe: taxonomy and conservation. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 149:85–114 Figueiredo E, Gascoigne A (2001) Conservation of pteridophytes in São Tomé e Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea). Biodiversity and Conservation 10:45–68 Figueiredo E, Roux JP (2008) The distribution and conservation of the lowland pteridophytes on the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea: Africa). In: Verma SC, Khullar SP, Cheema HK (eds) Perspectives in pteridophytes. Bishen Singh Mahendra pal Singh, Dehradun, pp 155–163 Figueiredo E, Smith GF (2019) The type status of collections made by Adolfo Moller and Francisco Quintas in the ﬂoras of São Tomé and Príncipe. Phytotaxa 425(2):87–95 Figueiredo E, Smith GF (2020a) Andrew Beveridge Curror (1811–1844): collecting natural history specimens while preventing the slave trade along the west coast of Africa. Phytotaxa 436(2): 141–156 Figueiredo E, Smith GF (2020b) Friedrich Welwitsch and his contributions to the exploration and study of the ﬂora of São Tomé and Príncipe, Gulf of Guinea, with typiﬁcation of three names described from his collections. Phytotaxa 459(3):227–234 Figueiredo E, Gascoigne A, Roux JP (2009) New records of pteridophytes from Annobon for the Flora of Equatorial Guinea. Bothalia 39(2):213–216 Figueiredo E, Paiva J, Stévart T, Oliveira F, Smith GF (2011) Annotated catalogue of the ﬂowering plants of São Tomé and Príncipe. Bothalia 41(1):41–82 Figueiredo E, Silva V, Coutinho A, Smith GF (2018) Twentieth century vascular plant taxonomy in Portugal. Willdenowia 48:303–330 Figueiredo E, Smith GF, Ceríaco LMP (2019a) The vascular plant collections of Francisco Newton (1864–1909) in Angola. Phytotaxa 413(3):207–224 Figueiredo E, Williams D, Smith GF (2019b) The identity of John Rattray, diatomist and collector on the Buccaneer expedition (1885–1886) to West Africa. Phytotaxa 408(4):296–300 Forest J (1959) Campagne de la “Calypso” dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annobón (1956). Resultats scientiﬁques de la campagne de la Calypso 5, 36 pp Forest J (1966) Campagne de la “Calypso” dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annóbon (1956) et campagne aux îles du Cap Vert. 17. Crustaces decápodes: Pagurides. Annales d’Institut Océanographique 44(7):125–172 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 123 Forest J, Guinot D (1966) Campagne de la “Calypso” dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annóbon (1956) et campagne aux îles du Cap Vert. 16. Crustaces decápodes: Brachyoures. Annales d’Institut Océanographique 44(7):23–124 Frade F (1955a) Thunnidae et Cybiidae de São Tomé et Príncipe. Annales Biologique. Conseil Permanent International pour l’Exploration de la Mer 12:218–219 Frade F (1955b) Missão cientíﬁca de São Tomé. Relatório dos Trabalhos de Prospecção realizados na Província de São Tomé e Príncipe pela Secção Zoológica da Missão. Centro de Zoologia da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisbon, 19 pp Frade F (1956) Aves e mamíferos das ilhas de São Tomé e do Príncipe – notas de sistemática e de protecção à fauna. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais, S. Tomé, Communicações 4:137–149 Frade F (1959) New records of non-resident birds and notes on some resident ones in São Tomé and Príncipe islands. Proceedings of the Pan-African Ornithological Congress, Ostrich Supplement 3:317–320 Frade F, Correia da Costa F (1956) Investigação sobre os peixes de superfície e a pesca nas ilhas de São Tomé e do Príncipe. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais, S. Tomé, Communicações 4:152–175 Frade F, Santos JV (1977) Aves de São Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série de Zoologia 6:3–18 Franc A (1959) Campagne de la “Calypso” dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annóbon (1956). X. Mollusques pelagiques. Annales d’Institut Océanographique 37(4): 241–244 Fraser TH, Robins CR (1970) The R/V Pillsbury Deep Sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 18. A new Atlantic genus of cardinal ﬁshes with comments on some species from the Gulf of Guinea. In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (part 2). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 302–315 Freitas MCPG (1987) Madeiras de S. Tomé – Características anatómicas e físicas. Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisboa, 119 pp Fries EM (1851) Novarum symbolarum mycologicarum mantissa. In: Fries EM (ed) Novae symbolae mycologicae: in peregrinis terris a botanicis danicis collectae. Excudit C.A. Lefﬂer Reg. Acad. Typographus, pp 225–231 Fry CH (1961) Notes on the birds of Annobon and other islands in the Gulf of Guinea. Ibis 103a:267–276 Fry CH, Naurois R (1984) Corythornis systematics and character release in the Gulf of Guinea islands. In: Ledger J (ed) Proceedings of the ﬁfth pan-African ornithological congress (held at Lilongwe, Malawi in 1980). Southern African Ornithological Society on behalf of the organizing committee of the Fifth PAOC, Johannesburg, pp 47–61 Furnestin ML (1959) Campagne 1956 dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annobón. 8. Chaetognatges. Annales d’Institut Océanographique 37:219–233 Fursch H (1974) Die Coccinelliden von São Tomé (Col.). Mitteilungen der Münchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft 64:13–39 Furtado A (1888) Sur le Buliminus exaratus, Müller. Journal de Conchyliologie Series 3 36:1–9 Gabaldá Сasado N, Garcia Jacas N (1988) Aportación a la ﬂora vascular de Sao Tomé. Collectanea botanica (Barcelona) 17(2):259–271 Gadea E (1960a) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Álvarez a la isla de Annobon (Golfo de Guinea). III. Nematodos libres terrestres. Publicationes del Instituto de Biología Aplicada 32: 205–218 Gadea E (1960b) Nota sobre algunos nematodos muscicolas de los territorios del Golfo de Guinea. Miscelanea Zoologica 1(3):1–8 Galhano CIC (2006) Efeitos de plantas aráceas (Colocasia esculenta e Xanthosoma sagittifolim) sobre nemátodes-das-galhas-radiculares (Meloidogyne javanica e M. megadora). PhD thesis, University of Coimbra, Coimbra Gandara AF (1956) Subsídio para o estudo dos “Culicidae” (Diptera) de S.Tomé e Príncipe. Anais do Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical 31:419–428 124 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Gascoigne A (1993) A bibliography of the fauna of the islands of São Tomé e Príncipe and the island of Annobon (Gulf of Guinea). Arquipélago Life and Marine Sciences 11A:91–105 Gascoigne A (1994a) The dispersal of terrestrial gastropod species in the Gulf of Guinea. Journal of Conchology 35:1–7 Gascoigne A (1994b) Land snails of the Gulf of Guinea islands. Tentacle 3:4–5 Gascoigne A (1994c) The biogeography of land snails in the islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):794–807 Gascoigne A (1995a) A Lista Vermelha de Animais Ameaçados de São Tomé e Príncipe. ECOFAC Composante de São Tomé e Príncipe, 15 pp Gascoigne A (1995b) Ils en bavent – Les escagots des îles du Golfe de Guinée. Conopée – Bulletin trimestriel sur l’Environment en Afrique Centrale 5:7–8 Gascoigne A (1996) Additions to a bibliography of the fauna of São Tomé e Príncipe and the island of Annobón, Gulf of Guinea. Addendum. Arquipélago Life and Marine Sciences 14A:95–103 Germain L (1908) Mollusques terrestres recuellis par M.Ch.Gravier a l'île San Thomé (1906). Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle 14:55–62 Germain L (1912a) Descriptions de mollusques nouveaux de l'Ile du Prince (Golfe de Guinée) et de 1'Afrique occidentale. Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle Paris 18:318–324 Germain L (1912b) Mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles recueillis par M. L. Fea pendant son voyage à la Guinée portugaise et à l'île du Prince. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Serie 3 5(45):335–399 Germain L (1915) Mollusques nouveaux des îles du Golfe de Guinée. Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle 21(7):283–290 Germain L (1916) Étude sur les mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles recueillis par L. Fea pendant son voyage en Afrique Occidentale et aux îles du Golfe de Guinée. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Dorio Serie 3 7(47):150–337 Gibbs RH Jr, Staiger JC (1970) The R/V Pillsbury deep sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 20. Eastern tropical atlantic ﬂyingﬁshes of the genus Cypselurus (Exocoetidae). In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (Part 2). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 432–466 Girard AA (1893a) Révision de la faune malacologique des Iles St. Thomé et du Prince. I.– Mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 3(9):28–42 Girard AA (1893b) Révision de la faune malacologique des Iles St. Thomé et du Prince. I.– Mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles (suite). Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 3(10):95–114 Girard AA (1894) Mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles d l’île d’Anno Bom (Golfe de Guiné). Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 3(11):198–208 Girard AA (1895) Sur le “Thyrophorella thomensis”, Greeff – Gasteropode Terrestre muni d’un faux opercule à chamière. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 4(13): 28–32 Gofas S, Fernandes F (1991) The marginellids of São Tomé, West Africa. Journal of Conchology 33(1):1–30 Gouveia AC (2014) Do nome à imagem: percursos de uma planta tropical de São Tomé numa fotograﬁa do ﬁnal do século XIX. In: Vicente FL (ed) O império da visão: fotograﬁa no contexto colonial português (1860–1960). Edições 70, Lisboa, pp 183–194 Grácio AJS (1988) Blackﬂies (Diptera: Simuliidae) from São Tomé e Príncipe. 1. São Tomé island. In: Anonymous. Primeiras Jornadas Internacionais de Medicina Tropical (Abstracts), pp 88 Grácio AJS (1999) Blackﬂies (Diptera:Simuliidae) from São Tomé e Príncipe 1. São Tomé island. Acta Parasitológica Portuguesa 2:3–11 Graff D (1996) Sea turtle nesting and utilization survey in São Tomé. Marine Turtle Newsletter 75: 8–12 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 125 Gravier CJ (1906) Sur les formations corallienes de l'île San Thomé (golfe de Guinée). Bulletin du Muséumn National d’Histoire Naturelle 12(7):543–547 Gravier CJ (1907a) Rapport sur une mission scientiﬁque à l'île de St.Thomé, Golfe de Guinée. Nouvelles Archives des Missions Scientiﬁques 15(2):61–70 Gravier CJ (1907b) Observations biologiques sur la larve d’un papillon (Zeurzera sp.?) qui ataque les cacaoyers à S. Thomé. Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle 13(2):139–141 Gravier CJ (1909) Sur l’habitat et le polymorphisme du Siderastrea radians. Bulletin de Muséum Nationale d’Histoire Naturelle 15:365–368 Gravier CJ (1910) Madreporaires des îles San Thome et du Prince (Golfe de Guinée). Annales de l’Institut Oceanographique 1(2):1–27 Greeff R (1882a) Über einen neuen Süsswasserﬁsch der Insel S. Thomé. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft zur Beförderung der gesammten Naturwissenschaften zu Marburg 1882:37–40 Greeff R (1882b) Echinodermen, beobachtet auf einer Reise nach der Guinea-Insel São Thomé. Zoologischer Anzeiger 5(105):114–120 Greeff R (1882c) Über die Landschneckenfauna der Inseln São Thomé. Zoologischer Anzeiger 5(122):516–521 Greeff R (1882d) Die Land- und Süsswasserkrebse der Inseln S.Thomé und Rolas. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft zur Beförderung der gesammten Naturwissenschaften zu Marburg 1882:25–37 Greeff R (1884) Ueber die Fauna der Guinea-Inseln S. Thomé und Rolas. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft zur Beförderung der gesammten Naturwissenschaften zu Marburg 1884(2):41–80 Greeff R (1886) Ueber westafrikanische Stylasteriden. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft zur Beförderung der gesammten Naturwissenschaften zu Marburg 1886:11–21 Grifﬁni A (1905) Ortotteri raccolti da Leonardo Fea nell’Africa Occidentale. I. Hetrodidi, Conocefalidi, Meconemidi, Pseudoﬁllidi, Mecopodidi e Fanerotteridi. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Serie 3 2(42):358–397 Guimarães ARP (1882) Lista dos peixes da Ilha da Madeira, Açores e possessões Portuguezas d’Africa que existem no Museu de Lisboa (Supplemento). Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 9(32):30–39 Guimarães ARP (1884) Lista dos peixes da Ilha da Madeira, Açores e possessões Portuguezas d’Africa que existem no Museu de Lisboa (Segundo Supplemento). Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 10(37):11–28 Günther R, Feiler A (1985) Die Vögel der Insel Sao Tomé. Mitteilungen aus dem zoologischen Museum Berlin, Supplement Annalen für Ornithologie 61(9):3–28 Haft J (1992) Bemerkungen zu den Blindwühlen der Gattung Schistometopum von São Tomé (Gymnophona, Caeciliidae). Bonner zoologische Beiträge 43(3):477–479 Haft J (1993a) Ein Beitrag zur Biologie der Echsen der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea), mit näherer Betrachtung zur Systematik von Leptodiaphos africana (Gray) (Reptilia: Sauria: Geckonida et Scincidae). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):59–70 Haft J (1993b) Bemerkungen zu Vorkommen und Fortpﬂanzung der grossen São Tomé Volgelspinne Hysterocrates scepticus Pocock (Arachnidae: Araneae: Theraphosidae). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):111–112 Haft J, Franzen M (1996) Freilandbeobachtungen, Verhalten und Nachzucht der Säo TomeBlindwühle Schistometopum thomense (Bocage, 1873). Herpetofauna 18(105):5–11 Hariot P (1908) Les algues de St. Thomé. Journal de botanique 2e ser 1:161–164 Harrison MJS (1990) A recent survey of the birds of Pagalu (Annobón). Malimbus 11(2):135–142 Harrison MJS, Steele P (1989) ICBP/EEC Forest conservation Mission to São Tomé & Príncipe January–March 1989: report on the conservation education and training. Internacional Council for Bird Preservation, 13 pp Heim de Balsac H, Hutterer R (1982) Les Soricidae (Mammifères Insectivores) des îles du Golfe du Guinée: faits nouveaus et problèmes biogeographiques. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 33(2–4): 133–150 Henriques JA (1876) A cultura das plantas que dão quina nas possessões Portuguezas. O Instituto 22(10):184–190 126 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Henriques JA (1878) A cultura das quinas na Africa Portugueza. Jornal de Horticultura Pratica 9(3): 45–47 Henriques JA (1880a) Instrucções practicas para a cultura das plantas que dão a quina. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, 53 pp Henriques JA (1880b) A sementeira da Cinchona. Jornal de Horticultura Pratica 11(6):134–137 Henriques JA (1882) A propósito da cultura das plantas que dão a quina. Jornal de Horticultura Pratica 13(2):26–27 Henriques JA (1884) Instrucções practicas para culturas coloniaes. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, 124 pp Henriques JA (1884a) Contribuição para o estudo da ﬂora d’algumas possessões Portuguezas. I. Plantas colhidas por F. Newton na Africa occidental. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 3:129–140 Henriques JA (1886) Contribuições para o estudo da ﬂora d’Africa. Flora de S. Thomé. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 4:129–221 Henriques JA (1887a) Contribuições para o estudo da ﬂora d’Africa. Catalogo da ﬂora da ilha de S. Thomé. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 5:196–222 + 4 pls Henriques JA (1887b) Contribuições para o estudo da ﬂora da costa ocidental d’Africa. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 5:223–232 + 3 pls Henriques JA (1889a) Contribuições para o conhecimento da ﬂora d’Africa. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 7:223 Henriques JA (1889b) Catalogo das plantas da Africa Portugueza colhidas por M. R. Carvalho (Zambezia); J. Cardoso (C. Verde); F. Newton (Ajudá e Angola); F. Quintas (Príncipe); J. Anchieta (Quindumbo); D. Maria J. Chaves (Congo); padre J. M. Antunes (Huíla). Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 7:224–240 Henriques JA (1891) Catalogo de plantas da Africa Portugueza colhidas por Cappello e Ivens (Angola); F. Quintas (Ilha do Principe e S. Thomé). Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 9:135–143 Henriques JA (1892) Contribuição para o estudo da ﬂora d’Africa. Catalogo da ﬂora da Ilha de S. Thomé. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 10:9–165 Henriques JA (1895) Explorações botânicas nas possessões portuguezas. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 3:232–236 Henriques JA (1898) Agricultura Colonial. Revista Portugueza Colonial e Marítima 15(88): 151–156 Henriques JA (1900) Contribuição para a ﬂora africana. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 17:42–88 Henriques JA (1917) A ilha de S. Tomé sob o ponto de vista histórico-natural e agrícola. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 27:1–197 Henriques JA (1922) Fungos da África ocidental (Nota introdutória ao artigo “Mycetes aliquod ex Insula St. Thome a P. A. Seabra lecti a Cl. P. A. Saccardo (I-II), et ex Angola a Cl. Ab. Bresadola (12–13) et C. G. Lloyd (24–26) determinati”). Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 1:138 Hepper N (1992) Scrophulariaceae Solanaceaeque Guineae Aequatorialis nonnullae. Fontqueria 33: 29–32 Herbulot C (1958) Mission du Muséum dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée. Entomologie VIII. Lepidoptera Geometridae. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 63(3–4):100–109 Herbulot C (1991a) Lépidopetères Géométrides récoltés dans l’île de Principe par le Dr. J. G. Canu. Nouvelele Revue Entomologique 8(2):203–209 Herbulot C (1991b) Un nouveau Racotis africain (Lepidoptera Geometridae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de Mulhouse 1:16 Heynemann FD (1868) Die Nacktschnecken von der Prinzeninsel. Malakozoologische Blätter 15: 32–39 Hincks WD (1958) Mission du Muséum dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée. Entomologie X. Dermaptères. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 63(7–8):185–186 Hoffman A (1959) Description de deux Anthribides nouveaux nuisibles au Caféier. Journal d’Agriculture Traditionnelle et de Botanique Appliquée 6(7):340–343 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 127 Holthuis LB (1966) The R/V Pillsbury Deep Sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 11. The freshwater shrimps of the island of Annobón, West Africa. In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (part 1). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 224–239 Holthuis LB, Manning RB (1970) The R/V Pillsbury Deep Sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 12. The Porcellanidae, Hippidae, and Albuneidae (Crustacea, Decapoda). In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (part 2). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 281–284 Honey MR, Wojtusiak J (1994) A new species of Apospasta sensu latu from São Tomé (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: Hadeninae). Tropical Lepidoptera 5(2):105–107 Hooker JD (1863) Enumeration of the mountain ﬂowering plants and ferns collected by M. Gustav Mann, government botanist, during his various ascents of the Cameroons Mountains, of Clarence Peak, Fernando Po, and of the Peak of San Thomé. In: Burton RF (ed) Abeokuta and the Cameroons mountains, an exploration, vol vol 2. Tinsley Brothers, London, pp 270–277 Hooker JD (1864) On the plants of the temperate regions of the Cameroons mountains and islands in the Bight of Benin; collected by Mr. Gustav Mann, government botanist. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Botany 7:171–240 Hoyle WE (1887) List of shells collected by John Rattray on the west coast of Africa and the adjacent islands. Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh 9:337–341 ICZN (1999) International code of zoological nomenclature, 4th edn. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, xxix + pp 306 Ilharco FA, Van Harten A (1975) Nota acerca de alguns aﬁdeos da ilha de S.Tomé (Homoptera, Aphidoidea). Agronomia Lusitania 36(3):325–327 Iwamoto T (1970) The R/V Pillsbury Deep Sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 19. Macrourid ﬁshes of the Gulf of Guinea. In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (part 2). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 302–315 Jardin E (1850/51) Herborisations sur la cote occidentale d'Afrique pendant, les années 1845–46– 47–48. Publisher unknown, Paris, 19 pp [Reprinted from Nouvelles Annales de la marine et des colonies July 1850 and May 1851] Joffroy G (2001) Sabicea thomensis, une Rubiaceae nouvelle de la République démocratique de São Tomé et Príncipe. Acta Botanica Gallica 148:103–107 Joicey JJ, Talbot G (1926) New forms of Lepidoptera from the Island of São Tomé, West Africa. The Entomologist 59:220–226 Joicey JJ, Talbot G (1927) Four new butterﬂies from the island of Príncipe. The Entomologist 60: 12–14 Jones PJ (1994) Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea: an overview. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 772–784 Jones PJ, Tye A (1987) The status of the endemic avifauna of São Tomé and Príncipe. ICBP study report. I.C.B.P., Cambridge Jones PJ, Tye A (1988) A survey of the avifauna of São Tomé e Príncipe. International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) study report N 24, 64 pp Jones PJ, Burlinson JP, Tye A (1991) Conservação dos ecossistemas ﬂorestais na República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. União Internacional para a Conservação da Natureza (UICN/IUCN), 78 pp Juste JB, Fa JE (1994) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea: taking stock and preparing action. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:759–771 Juste JB, Ibañez C (1993a) Geographical variation and taxonomy of Rousettus aegyptiacus (Mammalia: Megachiroptera) in the islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 107:117–129 Juste JB, Ibañez C (1993b) An asymmetric dental formula in a mammal, the São Tomé Island fruit bat Myonycetris brachycephala (Mammalia: Megachiroptera). Canadian Journal of Zoology 71(1):221–224 128 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Juste JB, Ibañez C (1993c) A new Tadarida of the subgenus Chaerephon (Chiroptera: Molossidae) from São Tomé island, Gulf of Guinea (West Africa). Journal of Mammalogy 74(4):901–907 Juste JB, Ibañez C (1994) Bats of the Gulf of Guinea islands: faunal composition and origins. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):837–850 Kerremans CH (1905) Buprestides recueillis par Mr. L. Fea dans l’Afrique Occidentale. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Serie 3 42:406–411 Keulemans JG (1866) Opmerkinger over de vogels van de Kaap-verdische eilanden en van Prinseiland (Ilha do Principe) in de Bogt van Guinea gelegen. Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor de Dierkunde 1866:363–401 Klopper RR, Figueiredo E (2013) Diversity of ferns and lycophytes in São Tomé and Príncipe: an updated checklist. Scripta Botanica Belgica 50:287–293 Koch WV (1886) Über die von Herrn Prof. Dr. Greeff im Golf von Guinea gesammelten Anthozoen. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doctorwürde bei der philosophischen Fakultät der Rhein. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn, Bonn, i-iv + 1–36 pp, pls 1–5 Kock D (1993) Die Fledermaus-Fliegen der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea): Taxonomie, Wirtsbindung und Zoogeographie (Insecta: Diptera: Nycteribiidae et Streblidae). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):89–97 Kosuge S, Fernandes F (1989) Descriptions of two new species of the genera Ocinebrina and Coralliophila from São Tomé Island, west Africa with some discussion on Purpura giton (Gastropoda: Muricidae and Coralliophilidae). Bulletin of the Institute of Malacology 2(8): 132–136 Kraus O (1960) Mission du Muséum dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée. Araneae von der Insel São Thomé, West Afrika (Arach.). Revue Française d’Entomologie 27:92–100 Krauss HA (1890) Beitrag zur Kenntniss westafrikanischer Orthopteren. 2. Orthopteren der GuineaInseln São Thomé und Rolas gesammelt von Richard Greeff. Zoologische Jarbücher 5:647–668 Kumar R (1975) A review of the cockroaches of West Africa and the Congo Basin (Dictyoptera: Blattaria). Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Afrique Noire 37(1):27–121 La Croix IF, Brune A (1997) Orchids of São Tomé and Principe. In: Pereira CEB (ed) Proceedings of the 15th World Orchid Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 1996, pp 302–307 Lamy E (1907) Liste des coquilles maritimes recueilles par Mr. Ch. Gravier a l’île de S.Thomé. Bulletin du Muséum Nationale d’Histoire Naturelle 13:145–154 Leeuwenberg AJM (1992) Apocynaceae Guineae Aequatorialis nonnullae. Fontqueria 40:1–18 Lesne P (1905) Viaggio di Leonardo Fea nell’Africa Occidentale. Bostrychidae. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Serie 3 42:412–417 Levi C (1959) Campagne 1956 dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annobon. 5. Spongiaires. Annales d’Institut Océanographique 37(4):115–141 Lewis GFLS (1905) Viaggio di Leonardo Fea nell’Africa Occidentale. Histeridae. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Serie 3 42:398–405 Liberato MC (1972) Flora de S. Tomé e Principe – Papilionaceae. Jardim e Museu Agrícola do Ultramar, Lisboa, 90 pp Liberato MC (1973) Flora de S. Tomé e Principe – Mimosaceae. Jardim e Museu Agrícola do Ultramar, Lisboa, 29 pp Liberato MC (1976) Flora de S. Tomé e Príncipe - Caesalpiniaceae. Jardim e Museu Agrícola do Ultramar, Junta de Investigações Cientíﬁcas do Ultramar, Lisboa, 31 pp Liberato MC (1980a) Flora de S. Tomé e Principe - Connaraceae. Jardim e Museu Agrícola do Ultramar, Junta de Investigações Cientíﬁcas do Ultramar, 15 pp Liberato MC (1980b) Flora de S. Tomé e Principe - Rosaceae. Jardim e Museu Agrícola do Ultramar, Junta de Investigações Cientíﬁcas do Ultramar, 15 pp Liberato MC (1982) Flora de S. Tomé e Principe - Dichapetalaceae. Jardim e Museu Agrícola do Ultramar, Junta de Investigações Cientíﬁcas do Ultramar, 9 pp Liberato MC (1994) Explorações botânicas nos países africanos de língua oﬁcial portuguesa. Garcia de Orta série Botânica 12(1–2):15–38 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 129 Liberato MC, Espírito Santo J (1972–1982) Flora de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Ministério do Ultramar, Jardim e Museu Agrícola do Ultramar, Lisboa Lima RF, Deffontaines J-B, Madruga L, Matilde E, Nuno A, Vieira S (2022) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: recent progress, ongoing challenges, and future directions. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 643–670 Linnaeus C (1753) Species plantarum: exhibentes plantas rite cógnitas, ad genera relatas, cum differentiis speciﬁcis, nomibus trivialibus, synonymis selectis, locis natalibus, secundum systema sexuale digestas. Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm Linnaeus C (1758) Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm Llorente V (1968) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Alvarez a la isla de Annobón: Mantodea, Tettigonoidea y Acridoidea I. (Orthoptera). Eos: Revista Española de Entomologiá 43(3–4): 591–622 Longﬁeld C (1936) Studies on African Odonata, with synonymy, and descriptions of new species and subspecies. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 85(20):467–498 Lopes FJ, Crawford-Cabral J (1992) Catálogo dos Chiroptera em coleção no Centro de Zoologia. Garcia de Orta, Série Zoológica 17(1–2):1–20 Loumont C (1992) Les amphibien de São Tomé et Príncipe: revisions systematiques, cris nuptiaux et caryotypes. Alytes 10:37–62 Lozano Cabo F (1961) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Alvarez a la isla de Annobón, 1959. 3. Nota sobre algunos peces marinos procedenis de la Isla de Annobón. Boletín de la Real Sociedad Espanõla de Historia Natural, Seccion Biológica 59:137–152 Madureira MC (2006) Etnofarmacologia e Estudo de Espécies com Actividade Biológica da Flora de S. Tomé e Príncipe. PhD thesis, University of Coimbra, Coimbra Madureira MC (2012) Plantas Medicinais e Medicina Tradicional de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Actas do Colóquio Internacional São Tomé e Príncipe numa perspectiva interdisciplinar, diacrónica e sincrónica. Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL) - Centro de Estudos Africanos e Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical (IICT), Lisboa, pp 433–453 Madureira MC, Paiva JA, Fernandes AF et al (2008) Estudo Etnofarmacológico de Plantas Medicinais de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Ministério da Saúde STP e Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisboa Maldwyn Davis W (1935) X.–The Percy Sladen and Godman Trusts expedition to the islands of the Gulf of Guinea, October 1932–March 1933. – IV. Collembola. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 15(85):146–150 Manaças S (1958) Anfíbios e Répteis das ilhas de São Tomé e do Príncipe e do Ilhéo das Rolas. In: Anonymous (ed) Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais, vol IV. Junta Investigação do Ultramar, Lisboa, pp 179–192 Manaças S (1973) Alguns dos anfíbios e répteis da província de S. Tomé e Príncipe. In: Anonymous (ed) Livro de Homenagem ao Prof. Fernando Frade. Junta Investigação do Ultramar, Lisboa, pp 219–230 Mangin M (1959) Resultats scientiﬁques des campagnes de la “Calypso”. XVII. Campagne de la “Calypso” dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annóbon (1956). IV. Foraminifères. Annales d’Institut Océanographique 37(4):91–114 Manning RB (1970) The R/V Pillsbury Deep Sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 13. The stomatopod crustacea. In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (part 2). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 256–275 Manning RB (1973) Campagne de la “Calypso” dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annobon (1956), et campagne aux îles du Cap Vert (1959). 21. Stomatopod Crustacea. Annales de l’Institut Océanographique 49(10):1–22 Marcus E, Marcus E (1966) The R/V Pillsbury Deep Sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 9. Opisthobranchs from tropical West Africa. In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins 130 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (part 1). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 152–208 Mariano DB (1966) Potencialidades bananícola da ilha de S. Tomé. Garcia de Orta 14(4):579–588 Marlier G (1959) Mission du Muséum dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée. Entomologie XII. Trichoptères de São Tomé. Revue Française d’Entomologie 26:108–120 Marques E (1956) Copepodes marinhos da ilha de São Tomé. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, São Tomé, Comunicações 4:193–203 Marques E (1960) Diagnose de Lernanthropus delamorei n.sp., copepode parasita do peixe Seriola lalandi Val. Garcia de Orta 8(1):39–46 Marques E (1965) Copepodes parasitas de peixes marinhos de S.Tomé. Garcia de Orta 13(2): 185–192 Marques E (1975) Copepodes marinhos das águas de S.Tomé e Príncipe. In: Anonymous (ed) Livro da homenagem do Prof. Fernando Frade. Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisboa Marques MP, Ceríaco LMP, Blackburn DC, Bauer AM (2018) Diversity and distribution of the amphibians and terrestrial reptiles of Angola – atlas of historical and bibliographic records (1840–2017). Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences Series 4 65(supplement 2): 1–501 Martin R (1908) Voyage de Leonardo Fea dans l’Afrique Occidentale. Odonates. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Dorio 3(43):649–667 Martins APR (2002). Etnofarmacologia e Óleos Essenciais de Plantas Medicinais de S. Tomé e Príncipe. PhD thesis, University of Coimbra, Coimbra Mateus A, Mateus E (1986) Campagne de la “Calypso” dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annobon (1956). Amphipodes recoltes à bord de la “Calypso”. Anais da Faculdade de Ciências do Porto 66(1):125–223 Melo M (2012) A biodiversidade de São Tomé e Príncipe ﬁcou mais pobre. Available via Téla Non. https://www.telanon.info/sociedade/2012/05/04/10321/a-biodiversidade-de-sao-tome-eprincipe-ﬁcou-mais-pobre/. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Melo M, Jones PJ, Lima RF (2022) The avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 555–592 Mendes LF (1988a) Sobre a fauna terrestre e ribeirinha da República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. Tisanuros de São Tomé. 1. Luratea aequatorialis gen, n, sp. N. (Zygentoma, Ateluridae) da região de Lagoa Amélia. Arq Mus Bocage Nova Sér Volume especial:25–36 Mendes LF (1988b) Sobre a fauna terrestre e ribeirinha da República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. Tisanuros de São Tomé. 2. Santhomesiella thomensis gen, n,, sp. N. (Zygentoma, Ateluridae) da região de Lagoa Amélia. Arq Mus Bocage Nova Sér Volume especial:37–48 Mendes LF (1988c) Sobre a fauna terrestre e ribeirinha da República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. Tisanuros de São Tomé. 3. Novos dados sobre os Ateluridae e Nicolettidae de São Tomé. Arq Mus Bocage Nova Sér Volume especial:49–68 Mendes LF, Rocha Pité MT, Capela RA, Serrano ARM, Soares AA (1988) Sobre a fauna terrestre e ribeirinha da República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. A missão zoológica do Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia da Faculdade de Ciências de Lisboa e do Museu Nacional de História Natural (Museu Bocage) à República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe (13/6 –7–7–84). Nota preliminar. Arq Mus Bocage Nova Sér Volume especial:1–16 Mey E (1993) Cuculoecus africanus n. sp. – ein neur ischnozerer Kuckucksfederling von der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea) (Insecta: Phthiraptera). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):103–110 Meyrick E (1934) XL.–The Percy Sladen and Godman trusts expedition to the islands in the Gulf of Guinea, October 1932–March 1933. – III. Micro-Lepidoptera. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 14(82):401–411 Mildbraed J (1922) Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Zweiten Deutschen Zentral-Afrika-Expedition 1910–1911 unter Führung Adolf Friedrichs, Herzogs zu Mecklenburg. Band II – Botanik. Herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. J. Mildbraed. Verlag von Klinkhardt & Biermann, Leipzig, 202 pp 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 131 Moller AF (1894) Esponjas de S.Thomé. Annaes das Sciencias Naturaes 1:202–203 Moller AF (1899) Bemerkungen über Nutzpﬂanzen der Capverdischen Inseln und Principe. Tropenpﬂanzer 3:603–604 Monod T (1957) Sur un Anthocleista nouveau de São Tomé et de Principe. Bulletin de l’Institut Française d’Afrique Noire, Sér A 19(2):347–354 Monod T (1960) Notes botaniques sur les îles de Säo Tomé. Bulletin de l’Institut FranÓaise d’Afrique Noire, Sér A 22(1):19–83 Monod T (1975) Sur un Gecarcinus (Decapoda: Brachyura) de São Tomé. Bulletin de l’Institut Française de l’Afrique Noire 37(1):15–26 Morales R (1992) Lamiaceae Guineae Aequatorialis nonnullae. Fontqueria 36:287–291 Morelet A (1848) Testacea quædam Africæ occidentalis terrestria et ﬂuviatilia. Revue Zoologique, par La Société Cuvierienne 11:351–355 Morelet A (1858) Séries conchyliologiques comprenant l'énumération de mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles recueillis pendant le cours de différents voyages, ainsi que la description de plusieurs espèces nouvelles. Klincksieck Paris 1:1–34 Morelet A (1860) Descriptions de nouvelles espèces de l'Afrique occidentale, rapportées par M. le capitaine Vignon. Journal de Conchyliologie 8(2):189–191 Morelet A (1868) Voyage du Dr. F. Welwitsch, exécuté par ordre du gouvernment portugais dans les royaumes d’Angola et de Benguela (Afrique equinoxiale). – Mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles. J–B Baillière et ﬁls, Paris Morelet A (1873) Novitates conchyliologicae in itinere per Africam aequinoctialiem a cl. Marche et de Compiègne collectae. Journal de Conchyliologie 21(4):329–332 Mourão MC (1964) Relatório da missão de estudo e combate de endemias de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Anais do Instituto de Medicina Tropical 21:501–539 Müller OF (1774) Vermivm terrestrium et ﬂuviatilium, seu animalium, infusoriorum, helminthicorum, et testaceorum, non marinorum, succincta historia. Volumen alterum. Heineck & Faber, Havniæ & Lipsiæ, xxxvi:214+10 Nadler T (1993) Beiträge zur Avifauna der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea) (Aves). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):37–58 Nadler T, Feiler A (1993) Allgemeiner Bericht über eine Studienreise nach der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):1–4 Naurois R (1972a) Avifaune terrestre et de rivages. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário, S. Tomé 6(23):29–42 Naurois R (1972b) Noms portugais et noms indigènes des oiseaux de São Tomé and Príncipe. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário, S. Tomé 6(23):43–46 Naurois R (1973a) L’avifaune marine des îles de São Tomé et de Príncipe. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário, S. Tomé 7(27):33–43 Naurois R (1973b) Les ibis des îles de S. Tomé et du Prince: leur place dans le groupe des Bostrychia (¼Lampribis). Arquivos do Museu Bocage 2ª Série 4(5):157–173 Naurois R (1975a) Les Carduelinae des îles de S. Tomé at Príncipe (Golfe de Guinée). Ardeola 21: 903–931 Naurois R (1975b) Le “Scops” de l’Ile de São Tomé Otus hartlaubi (Giebel). Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 26:319–355 Naurois R (1979) The emerald cuckoo of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands (Gulf of Guinea). Ostrich 50:88–93 Naurois R (1980) Le statut de Halcyon malimbias dryas Hartlaub (Ile du Prince, Golfe de Guinée). Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’Afrique Noire 42A:608–618 Naurois R (1981) Les Phasianidae de l’île de São Tomé. Cyanopica 2:1–8 Naurois R (1982) Une enigme ornithologique: Amaurocichla bocagii Sharpe 1892 (Ilha de São Tomé, Golfe de Guinée). Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’Afrique Noire 44A:13–25 Naurois R (1983a) Les oiseaux reproducteurs des îles de São Tomé et Príncipe: liste systematique commentée et indications zoogeographiques. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 34(1–3):129–148 132 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Naurois R (1983b) Falconidae. Psittacidae et Strigiformes des îles de São Tomé et Príncipe (Golfe de Guinée). Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 34(4):429–451 Naurois R (1984a) La moucherolle endemique de l’île de São Tomé Terpsiphone atrochalybeia (Thomson 1842). Alauda 52:191–206 Naurois R (1984b) Le loriot endemique de l’île de São Tomé (Golfe de Guinée) Oriolus crassirostris (Hartlaub). Cyanopica 3:121–134 Naurois R (1984c) Prinia molleri Bocage, 1887, endemique de l’île de São Tomé. Rivista Italiana del Ornitologia 54:191–206 Naurois R (1984d) Les Turdus des îles de São Tomé et Príncipe: T. o. Olivaceofuscus et T. olivaceofuscus xanthorhynchus Salvadori (Aves, Turdinae). Revue de Zoologie Africaine 98:403–423 Naurois R (1985a) Chaetura (Rhaphidura) thomensis Hartert, 1900 – endemique des îles de São Tomé et Príncipe (Golfe de Guinée). Alauda 53(3):209–222 Naurois R (1985b) Une enigme ornithologique: Amaurocichla bocagii Sharpe 1892. Bulletin de l’Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire 44:200–212 Naurois R (1987a) Les Rallidae des îles de São Tomé et du Prince (Golfe de Guinée). Cyanopica 4(1):5–26 Naurois R (1987b) Notes on the Dicrurus m. modestus (Hartlaub) and remarks on the Modestus and Adsimilus group of drongos. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 38(2):87–93 Naurois R (1987c) Phalacrocoracidae et Ardeidae dans les îles de São Tomé et du Prince (Golfe de Guinée). Cyanopica 4(1):27–54 Naurois R (1988a) Les Columbidae des îles de S. Tomé et Princípe (Ire partie). Cyanopica 4(2): 217–242 Naurois R (1988b) Note sur la Pie-Grieche Lanius newtoni (Bocage 1891) endemique de l’île de São Tomé (Golfe de Guinée). Cyanopica 4:252–259 Naurois R (1994) Les oiseaux des îles du Golfe de Guinée (São Tomé, Prince et Annobon)/As aves das ilhas do Golfo da Guiné (São Tomé, Príncipe e Ano Bom). Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisboa, xxiv + 208 pp + 24 pls Naurois R, Antunes LJC (1973) Repartição geográﬁca das espécies ornitológicas endémicas de São Tomé e Príncipe. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário, S. Tomé 7(27):17–31 Naurois R, Wolters HE (1975) The afﬁnities of the São Tomé weaver Textor grandis (Gray, 1844). Bulletin of the British Ornithology Club 95:122–126 Nill T (1993) Dier Schlangen der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea) (Reptilia: Serpentes). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):71–73 Nobre A (1886a) Noticia sobre as conchas terrestres e ﬂuviaes recolhidas por F. Newton nas possessões portuguesas da Africa Occidental. O Instituto 33(7):399–403 Nobre A (1886b) Exploração cientiﬁca da ilha de S.Tomé. Conchas terrestres e marinhas recolhidas pelo Sr. Adolpho Moller na ilha de S.Tomé em 1885. Boletim da Sociedade de Geographia 4: 213–227 Nobre A (1887) Remarques sur la faune malacologique de marine des possessions portugaises de l'Afrique Occidentale. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 12(46):107–120 Nobre A (1889) Recherches histológiques sur le Podocarpus mannii. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 7:115–126 Nobre A (1891) Contribuições para a fauna malacológica da ilha de S.Tomé. O Instituto 38(10–12): 756–764, 830–836, 928–935 Nobre A (1894) Sur la faune malacologique de marine des possessions portugiases de l’Afrique Occidental. O Instituto 1:91–94 Nobre A (1901) Contribuições para a fauna malacológica das possessões portuguesas da Africa Occidental. Annaes de Sciencias Naturaes 7:1–108 Nobre A (1909) Materiaux pour l'étude de la faune malacologique des possessions portugaises de 1'Afrique Occidental. Boletim da Sociedade Portuguesa de Sciencias Naturais Suplemento 3(2): 1–108 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 133 Nogueira AF (1885) A ilha de S. Tomé sob o ponto de vista da sua exploração agrícola. Boletim da Sociedade de Geograﬁa de Lisboa Série 5ª 7:401 Oldﬁeld S, Lusty C, MacKinven A (1998) The world list of threatened trees. World Conservation Press, Cambridge Ortiz de Zárate A, Álvarez J (1960) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Álvarez a la isla de Annobón (Guinea Española). 1. Los Gastropodas Terrestres. Boletín de la Real Sociedad Espanõla de Historia Natural, Seccion Biológica 58:87–103 Osório B (1887) Liste des crustaces des possessions portugaises d’Afrique occidentale dans les collections du Muséum d’Histoire de Lisbonne. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11(44):220–231 Osório B (1888) Liste des crustaces des possessions portugaises d’Afrique occidentale dans les collections du Muséum d’Histoire de Lisbonne. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 12(47):186–191 Osório B (1889) Nouvelle contribution pour la connaissance de la faune carcinologique des îles Saint Thomé et du Prince. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª serie 2(2):129–139 Osório B (1890) Note sur quelques espèces de crustacés des iles S. Thomé, du Prince et ilheo das Rolas. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 2(5):45–49 Osório B (1891a) Estudos icthyológicos acerca da fauna dos domínios portugueses da Africa, 3ª nota: Peixes marítimos das ilhas de S.Thomé, do Príncipe e do ilhéo das Rolas. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 2(6):97–139 Osório B (1891b) Note sur quelques espèces de crustaces de l’île Saint Thomé, ilot das Rolas et Angola. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 2(6):140–146 Osório B (1892a) Nova contribuição para a fauna carcionológica da ilha de S.Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 2(7):199–204 Osório B (1892b) Estudos icthyológicos acerca da fauna dos domínios portugueses da Africa, 3ª nota: Peixes marítimos das ilhas de S.Thomé, do Príncipe e do ilhéo das Rolas. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª serie 2(7):205–209 Osório B (1893) Estudos icthyológicos ácerca da fauna dos domínios portugueses da Africa, 3ª nota: Peixes maritimos das ilhas de S.Thomé, do Principe e do ilheo das Rolas. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 3(11):136–140 Osório B (1895a) Peixes da Ilha d’Anno Bom. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 3(12):243–247 Osório B (1895b) Crustáceos da Ilha d’Anno Bom. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 3(12):248–250 Osório B (1895c) Crustáceos da Ilha do Principe. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 3(12):251 Osório B (1895d) Peixes de Dahomey. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 3(12):252–253 Osório B (1895e) Les poissons d’eau douce des îles du Golfe de Guinée. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 4(13):185–207 Paiva JA (1978/79) O género Uvaria L. em S. Tomé. Garcia de Orta, Série Botânica 4(1):7–8 Panisi M, Lima RF, Lima JC et al (2022) Terrestrial mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 407–430 Parmentier I, Geerinck D (2003) Check list of the Melastomataceae of Equatorial Guinea. Anales JardÚn Botánico de Madrid 60(2):331–346 Peet NB, Atkinson PW (1994) The biodiversity and conservation of the birds of São Tomé and Príncipe. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):851–867 Pérez-Íñigo C (1969) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Alvarez a la isla de Annobón: (13) Oribatid mites (1" series) (Acari, Oribatei). Eos: Revista Española de Entomología 44(1–4):405–423 Pérez-Íñigo C (1982) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Alvarez a la isla de Annobón: (13) Oribatid mites (2ª series). Eos: Revista Española de Entomología 57(1–4):201–212 134 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Pérez-Íñigo C (1983) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Alvarez a la isla de Annobón: (13) Oribatid mites (3rd part). Eos: Revista Española de Entomología 58(1–4):223–236 Pérez-Íñigo C (1984) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Alvarez a la isla de Annobón: (13) Oribatid mites (4th series). Eos: Revista Española de Entomología 59(1–4):193–205 Peris SV (1961) La isla de Annobon. Archivos del Instituto de Estudios Africanos 57:2–35 Peris SV (1963) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Alvarez a la isla de Annobón (Guinea Equatorial) 7. Muscidae. Boletin de la Real Sociedad Española de Historia Natural, Sección Biologica 61:101–121 Peris SJ (1991) Zur Kenntnis der Hausmäuse der Insel Annobon, Aquatorial-Guinea. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 42(3–4):271–273 Peters WCH (1868) Über eine neue Nagergattung, Chiropodomys penicullatus, sowie über einige neue oder weniger bekannte Amphibien und Fische. Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1868:448–461 Peters WCH (1881) Eine neue Gattung von Geckonen, Scalabotes thomensis, welche Hr. Professor Dr. Greeff in Marburg auf der westafrikaninchen Insel St. Thomé entdeckt hat, und über die Stellung von Elaps sundevallii Smith, eine von Wahlberg im Kafferlande gefundene Art von Schlangen. Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1880(10):795–798 Pinhão RC, Mourão M (1961) Contribuição para o estudo dos Culicidae (Diptera) da ilha do Príncipe. Anais do Instituto de Medicina Tropical 18(1–2):29–33 Pinhey E (1974) Odonata of the northwest Cameroons and particularly of the islands stretching southwards from the Guinea Gulf. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 52:179–212 Plana V, Gascoigne A, Forrest LL, Harris D, Pennington RT (2004) Pleistocene and pre-pleistocene Begonia speciation in Africa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:449–461 Potier de la Varde R (1959) Contribution à la ﬂore bryologique des îles São Tomé et Principe. Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’Afrique Noire A 21(4):1205–1210 Prista LN, Alves AC (1958) Contribuição para o estudo químico do lenho de Artocarpus integrifolia. Garcia de Orta 6:679–681 Prista LN, Alves AC (1959) Nota acerca dos taninos em Psidium guyava L. Garcia de Orta 7(1): 97–100 Prista LN, Alves AC, Araújo MF (1960) Pesquisa de alantoína em algumas plantas de S. Tomé usadas no tratamento de feridas. Garcia de Orta 8(2):327–331 Prout LB (1927a) A list of Geometridae (Lep.Het.) known to occur in the island of São Tomé, with descriptions of some new species collected by Mr. T.A. Barns. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 75:187–200 Prout LB (1927b) A list of Noctuidae with descriptions of new forms collected in the island of São Tomé by Mr. T.A. Barns. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 75:201–232 Pyrcz TW (1991) Account of two expeditions to São Tomé and Principe islands, January – March & July – September 1990 including a description of new subspecies of Acraea pharsalus Ward and Bematistes alcinoe Felder. Lambillionea 91(4):362–374 Pyrcz TW (1992a) Provisional check-list of the butterﬂies of São Tomé and Principe islands. Lambillionea 92(1):48–52 Pyrcz TW (1992b) Rain forests of São Tomé and Príncipe: butterﬂies and conservation. Tropical Lepidoptera 3(2):95–100 Quinta RQ (1967) Relatório acerca da Reunião de Entomologistas realizada em São Tomé e Príncipe de 8 a 22 de Agosto de 1967. Brigada de Fomento Agro-pecuário, S. Tomé, 18 pp Ramos HC, Capela RA (1988) On the terrestrial and riverine fauna of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. – II. Description of the fourth instar larva and pupa of Uranotaenia (Pseudoﬁcalbia) micromelas Edwards, 1934 (Diptera, Culicidae). Arquivos do Museu Bocage Nova Série, Volume Especial:17–24 Ramos HC, Ribeiro H, Pires CA, Capela RA (1989) Os mosquitos (Diptera, Culicidae) da Ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série de Zoologia 16(1–2):163–170 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 135 Ramos HC, Capela RA, Ribeiro H (1994) Description of Aedes (Aedimorphus) gandarai, a new species from the island of São Tomé, with keys to all known species of the Tarsalis group (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito Systematics 26:97–104 Rang S (1831) Descriptions des coquilles terrestres recueillis pendant un voyage à la côte occidentale d’Afrique et au Brésil. Annales Sciences Naturelles 24:1–63 Reis MA (1961) Contribuição para o conhecimento dos foraminíferos das praias levantadas de São Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 9(4):751–758 Ribeiro H (1993) On the terrestrial and riverine fauna of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. VII – description of Toxorhynchiles capelai sp. nov. (Diptera, Culicidae). Garcia de Orta Série de Zoologia 19:135–138 Ribeiro H, Ramos HC, Capela RA, Pires CA (1998) Os mosquitos (Diptera: Culicidae) da Ilha de São Tomé. Garcia de Orta Série de Zoologia 22:1–20 Riley ND (1928) A list of the Hesperiidae collected in the island of St.Thomé by T.A. Barns. The Entomologist 61:54–65 Robins CR (1966a) The R/V Pillsbury deep sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 6. Microdesmus aethiopicus at Fernando Poo. In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (Part 1). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 125–127 Robins CR (1966b) The R/V Pillsbury Deep Sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 7. Observations on the seabirds of Annobon and other parts of the Gulf of Guinea. In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (part 1). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 128–133 Robins CR (1970) The R/V Pillsbury Deep Sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 15. A new goby form Annobon Island, Gulf of Guinea. In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (part 2). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 281–284 Robins CR, Nielsen JG (1970) The R/V Pillsbury deep sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 16. Snyderidia bothrops, a new tropical amphiatlantic species (Pisces, Carapidae). In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (Part 2). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 285–293 Rocha Pité MT (1993) A preliminar survey of Drosophilidae of São Tomé island. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 29(3):269–280 Rodrigues JEM (1960) Revisão das Algas de S. Tomé e Príncipe do herbário do Instituto Botânico de Coimbra – I. Phaeophyta. Garcia de Orta 8(1):583–595 Rodrigues FMC (1971) O ôbô da ilha do Principe. Boletim Informativo da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário 20:43–51 Rodrigues FMC (1974) S. Tomé e Príncipe sob o ponto de vista agrícola. Estudos, Ensaios e Documentos/Junta de Investigações do Ultramar 130:1–180 Rolan E (1996) Marinee molluscs of Principe. Gulf of Guinea Conservation Newsletter 6:2–3 Rolan E, Fernandes F (1990) Coralliophila adansoni (Kosuge and Fernandes, 1989): new name for Ocinebrina adansoni. Bolettino Malacologico 26(5–9):143–144 Rolan E, Fernandes F (1991) Muricopsis (Risomurex) (Gastropoda, Muricidae) de las islas de São Tomé y Príncipe (Golfo de Guinea, Africa Occidental). Apex 6(1):11–20 Rolan E, Fernandes F (1992) Aportaciones al conocimiento de la família Turridae Swainson, 1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) en las islas de São Tomé y Príncipe (Golfo de Guinea). Nova Acta Cientiﬁca Compostelana (Bioloxia) 3:135–143 Rolan E, Fernandes F (1995) Aprocechamiento del carbonato cálcico por una especie endémica de la isla de Príncipe. Noticiario SEM 23:30–31 Rolan E, Templado J (1993) Una especie nueva del género Topidorissoia (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Barleeidae) para la costa oesteafricana. Bolettino Malacologico 29:237–242 Romariz C (1952) Colecções botânicas do Instituto Botânico de Lisboa – Herbários do Ultramar português. Boletim da Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciências Naturais 4(1):57–73 136 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Roseira LL (1984) Plantas úteis da ﬂora de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Serviços Gráﬁcos da Liga dos Combatentes, Lisboa Rosseel J (1997) Tortues Marines: Un Programme de Protection à São Tomé. Canopéé 9:4 Roumeguère C (1889) Fungi selecti exsiccate. Centurie LI. Revue de Mycologique, Toulouse 11(44):193–201 Rozeira A (1958) Nomes populares de algumas plantas das ilhas de S. Tomé e do Príncipe – Origem e signiﬁcado. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª Sessão, S. Tomé, Comunicações 3:169–173 Rubio F, Rolan E (1990) Aportaciones a los conocimientos sobre micomoluscos de Africa occidental. 2. Archaeogastropoda de São Tomé y Príncipe. Iberus 9(1–2):209–219 Rullier F (1965) Quelques Annelides Polychetes pelagiques d’Anno-Bon (golfe de Guinée). Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Afrique Noire 27(A):866–875 Saccardo PA, Berlese AN (1889) Mycetes aliquot Guineensis a clar. Moller et F. Newton lecti in ins. S. Thomae et Principis. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 7:110–114 Salvadori (1903a) Contribuzioni alla ornitologia della isole del Golfo di Guinea. 1. Uccelli dell'isola del Príncipe. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 2(53):1–16 Salvadori (1903b) Contribuzioni alla ornitologia della isole del Golfo di Guinea. 1. Uccelli dell'isola di San Thomé. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 2(53):17–45 Salvadori (1903c) Contribuzioni alla ornitologia della isole del Golfo di Guinea. 1. Uccelli di AnnoBom e di Fernando Po. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 3:93–98 Sampaio J (1958) Cianóﬁtas de S. Tomé e Príncipe. [Estudos, ensaios e documentos 47]. Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisboa, 80 pp Sampaio J (1962) Cianóﬁtas de S. Tomé e Príncipe (2ªsérie). In: Estudos cientíﬁcos, oferecidos em homenagem ao Prof. Doutor J. Carrington da Costa. Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, pp 243–259 Sampaio J (1963) Cianóﬁtas de S. Tomé e Príncipe (3ª série). [Estudos, ensaios e documentos 108]. Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisboa, 52 pp Santos FM (1882) Les myriapodes d’Afrique dans le Muséum de Lisbonne. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 8(31):177–196 Santos BS, Ceríaco LMP (2021) Francisco Newton’s zoological expedition to Angola (1903–1906): review of a forgotten expedition. Bibliotheca Herpetologica 15(5):31–45 Sargent DE (1994) Recent ornithological observations from São Tomé and Príncipe islands. Bulletin of the African Bird Club 1:96–102 Sargent DE, Gullick T, Turner DA, Sinclair JC (1992) The rediscovery of the São Tomé grosbeak Neospiza concolor in South-Western São Tomé. Bird Conservation International 2(2):157–159 Sart AC (1962) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Álvarez a la isla de Annobón (Golfo de Guinea). 11. Odonata. Boletin de la Real Sociedad Espaþola de Historia Natural 60:35–54 Schaaf CD (1994) The role of zoological parks in biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea islands. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):962–968 Schätti B, Loumont C (1992) Ein Beitrag zur Herpetofauna von São Tomé (Golf von Guinea) (Amphibia et Reptilia). Zoologische Abhandlungen. Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde in Dresden 47:22–36 Schmidt AT (1967a) Entomological note I – a fruit ﬂy attacking coffee cherries in São Tomé. Garcia de Orta 15(3):329–331 Schmidt AT (1967b) O gorgulho da bananeira em São Tomé. Garcia de Orta 15(3):343–350 Schniebs K (1993) Einige Meeresgastropoden von der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea) (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia, Heterobranchia et Opisthobranchia). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):119–126 Schutz P (1993) Vorläuﬁge Artenliste der Schwärmer der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):99–102 Scott T (1893) I. Report on Entomostraca from the Gulf of Guinea, collected by John Rattray, B.Sc. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 2nd Series Zoology 6(1):1–161 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 137 Seabra AF (1922) Insectes de S.Tomé provenant de la mission d’étude du professeur Sousa da Camara en 1920. Anais do Instituto de Agronomia, separata Selga D (1960) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Alvarez a Annobón. II. Dos especies nuevas de Isotómidos (Collembola) de la isla de Annobón. Publicaciones del Instituto de BiologÚa Aplicada 31:93–100 Selga D (1962) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Alvarez a la isla de Annobón (Golfo de Guinea). V. Colembolos. Publicaciones del Instituto de BiologÚa Aplicada 33:17–31 Sequeira V (1994) Medicinal plants and conservation in São Tomé. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:910–926 Sérgio C, Garcia C (2011) Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé e Príncipe archipelago (West Africa): annotated catalogue. Cryptogamie Bryologie 32(2):145–196 Serralheiro AR (1957) Novos elementos para o conhecimento da fauna fóssil do Miocenico da ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 5:287–296 Serrano ARM (1995) Coléoptères Caraboidea de l’Île de São Tomé (golfe de Guinée). Faunistique et description d’espèces nouvelles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie (N.S.) 12(4):281–296 Sharpe RB (1892) Descriptions of some new species of timeliine birds from West Africa. Proc Zool Soc:227–228 + I plate Sharpe EM (1893) Descriptions of new species of butterﬂies from the island of St.Thomé, West Africa. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 1893:553–558 Silva GH (1956a) La faune Miocene de l’Ile du Prince. Memórias e Notícias, Museu Mineralógico e Geológico da Universidade de Coimbra 42:29–53 Silva GH (1956b) O Miocenico da ilha do Príncipe. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª Sessão, S. Tomé, Comunicações 2:231–269 Silva GH (1958a) Nota sobre a microfauna do Miocenio marinho da ilha do Príncipe. Memórias e Notícias, Museu Mineralógico e Geológico da Universidade de Coimbra 45:56–60 Silva GH (1958b) Contribuição para o conhecimento da microfauna do Miocenio marinho da Ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 6(3):507–510 Silva HL (1958a) Esboço da carta de aptidão agrícola de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 6(1): 61–86 Silva HL (1958b) S. Tomé e Príncipe e a cultura do café. Memórias da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, 2ª Série 1:1–450 Silva HL (1959a) Nomes vulgares de algumas plantas de S. Tomé e Príncipe (com notas sobre a origem e a utilidade das plantas). Garcia da Orta 7(2):293–323 Silva HL (1959b) Estado actual da carta ecológica de S. Tomé e Príncipe (nova contribuição) – Esboço da carta da vegetação da vegetação natural e esboço da carta de aptidão cacauícula. In: Anonymous. 7ª Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais, Accra, Comunicações Silva HL (1960) Esboço da carta de aptidão cacauícola de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 8(1): 201–207 Silvestri F (1908) Tisanuri raccolti da L. Fea alla isole del Capo Verde, alla Guinea Portoghese e alla S. Thomé, Príncipe e Fernando Poo. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Serie 3 4(44):133–187 Simões M (1989) (1992) Contribuição para o estudo dos gastropodes de agua doce das ilhas de S. Tomé e do Príncipe (Golfo da Guiné). Garcia de Orta, Série de Zoologia 16(1–2):105–110 Simon E (1907) Arachnides recuellis par L.Fea sur la côte occidentale d’Afrique. 1 partie. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Serie 3 3(43):218–323 Snow DW (1950) The birds of São Tomé and Príncipe in the Gulf of Guinea. Ibis 92(4):579–595 Soares M, Cotrim H, Figueiredo E (2010) Phylogenetic origin of Impatiens (Balsaminaceae) of São Tomé e Príncipe. In: van der Burgt X, van der Maesen J, Onana J-M (eds) Systematics and conservation of African plants. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp 81–90 Soares FC, Hancock JM, Palmeirim JM et al (2022) Species ecology in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: distribution, habitat preferences, assemblages and interactions. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 171–188 138 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Sobrinho LG (1952) Vascular plants from S. Tomé. Portugaliae Acta Biologica (B) 3:392–401 Sobrinho LG (1953a) Vascular plants from Ano Bom and Príncipe islands collected by F. Newton and J. de Souza Junior. Portugaliae Acta Biológica, Série B, Sistemática, Ecologia, Biogeograﬁa e Paleontologia 4(1):177–190 Sobrinho LG (1953b) Vascular plants from S. Tomé collected by B. d'Oliveira and E. A. Noronha. Portugaliae Acta Biológica, Série B, Sistemática, Ecologia, Biogeograﬁa e Paleontologia 3(3/4): 392–401 Sobrinho LG (1959) Nótulas para o conhecimento da ﬂora de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 7(1):89–95 Sousa JA (1887) Aves da Ilha do Principe, colligidos pelo Sr. Francisco Newton. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 12(45):42–44 Sousa JA (1888) Enumeração das aves conhecidas da ilha de S.Thomé seguida da lista das que existem d'esta ilha no Museu de Lisboa. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 12(47):151–159 Spelda J (1993) Bearbeitung der im Frühjahr 1991 auf der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea) gesammelten Hundert- und Tausendfüssler (Myriapoda: Chilopoda et Diplopoda). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):115–117 Stebbing TRR (1895) Descriptions of nine new species of amphipodous crustaceans from the tropical Atlantic. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London 13(10):349–371 Steentoft M (1967) A revision of the marine algae of S. Tomé e Príncipe. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 60:99–146 Stévart T, Geerinck D (2000) Quatre nouveaux taxons d'Orchidaceae des genres Liparis, Bulbophyllum, Polystachya et Calanthe découverts à São-Tomé et Príncipe. Systematics and Geography of Plants 70:141–148 Stévart T, Oliveira F (2000) Guide des orchidées de São Tomé et Príncipe ¼ Guia dos orchídeas de São Tomé e Príncipe. ECOFAC, São Tomé Stévart T, Geerinck D, Lejoly J (2000) Liste des Orchidaceae de Sao-Tomé et Principe. Acta Botanica Gallica 147(2):165–172 Stévart T, Dauby G, Ikabanga DU et al (2022) Diversity of the vascular plants of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 249–272 Stubbings HG (1961) Resultats scientiﬁques des campagnes de la “Calypso”. XVII. Campagne de la “Calypso” dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé, Annobón (1956). II. Cirripedia. Annales d’Institut Océanographique 39:179–192 Talbot G (1932) Obituary. Thomas Alexander Barns. The Bulletin of the Hill Museum: A Magazine of Lepidoptera iv:145–153 Tams WHT (1934) XIX. – the Percy Sladen and Godman Trusts expedition to the islands in the Gulf of Guinea, October 1932–March 1933. – I. Introduction. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 14(80):213–219 Tendeiro J (1956a) Entomofauna da Guiné Portuguesa e da Província de S. Tomé e Príncipe. IV – Malofagos. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª Sessão, S. Tomé, Comunicações 4:235–244 Tendeiro J (1956b) Ixodideos encontrados na Província de São Tomé e Príncipe. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª Sessão, S. Tomé, Comunicações 4:245–249 Tendeiro J (1956c) Notícia sobre a tse-tse da ilha do Príncipe. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª Sessão, S. Tomé, Comunicações 4:251–252 Tendeiro J (1956d) Nota prévia sobre o novo aparecimento de uma tse-tse, Glossina palpalis palpalis Robineau-Desvoidy, na ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série Zoológica 4(1):47–48 Tendeiro J (1957) Ixodideos encontrados em S. Tomé e Príncipe. Boletim cultural da Guiné Portuguesa 12(45):39–46 Tenreiro F (1961) A ilha de São Tomé. Memorias da Junta de Investigates do Ultramar 2ª Série 24: 1–289 Thorold CA (1955) Observations on Theobroma cacao in Fernando poo. Journal of Ecology 43(1): 219–225 5 The History of Biological Research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 139 Thorold CA (1959) Observations on the epiphytes of Theobroma cacao in S. Tomé and Principe. 7e Conference Internationale des Africanistes de l'Ouest, Accra, 9 pp Tixier-Durivault A (1961) Resultats scientiﬁques des Campagnes de la Calypso. XVII. Campagne de la Calypso dans le golfe de Guinee et aux iles de Principe, São Tomé, Annobón (1956). 14. Les Octocoralliaires du Golfe de Guinee et des Iles de Cap-Vert (Alcyonacea, Pennatulacea). Annales de l’Institut Oceanographique 39:237–262 Tomlin JRB (1923) The marine Mollusca of S. Thomé III. Journal of Conchology 17:87–94 Tomlin JRB, Shackleford LJ (1912) Description of two new species of Marginella from San Thomé island. Journal of Conchology 13:319–320 Tomlin JRB, Shackleford LJ (1913a) Description of two new species of Marginella from San Thomé island. Journal of Conchology 14:11 Tomlin JRB, Shackleford LJ (1913b) Description of two new species of Marginella and Mucronalia from San Thomé island. Journal of Conchology 14:43 Tomlin JRB, Shackleford LJ (1914/15) The marine Mollusca of São Thomé. I. Journal of Conchology 14(239–256):267–276 Tomlin JRB, Shackleford LJ (1915) The marine Mollusca of S. Thomé II. J Conchol 14:307–309 Tordo GC (1956) Entomofauna da Guiné Portuguesa e das ilhas de São Tomé e do Príncipe. III – Coleópteros e Hemípteros. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª Sessão, S. Tomé, Comunicações 4:257–264 Tordo GC (1969) Entomofauna da ilha de S. Tomé (contribuição para o seu conhecimento) – Uma nova espécie do género Cethera (Hem.Reduviidae). Garcia de Orta 17(1):71–74 Tordo GC (1974) Entomofauna de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Contribuição para o seu conhecimento. Coleopteros-Cerambicideos. Memórias da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar 58(2):235–248 Turland NJ, Wiersema JH, Barrie FR, Greuter W, Hawksworth DL, Herendeen PS et al (eds) (2018) International code of nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen code) adopted by the nineteenth international botanical congress Shenzhen, China, July 2017. Koeltz Botanical Books, Glashütten Urich FW, Scott H, Waterson J (1922) Note on the dipterous bat-parasite Cyclopodia greeﬁ Karsch, and on a new species of hymenopterous (chalcid) paraside bred from it. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 32:417–477 Van Harten A (1976) Further notes on the aphid fauna of São Tomé (Homoptera, Aphidoidea). Agronomia Lusitania 37(2):163–165 Velayos M, Aedo C, Cabeza F, de la Estrella M (2008) Flora de Guinea Ecuatorial, vol I. Real Jardín Botánico, Madrid Velayos M, Barberá P, Cabezas FJ, Estrella M, Fero M, Aedo C (2014) Checklist of the vascular plants of Annobón (Equatorial Guinea). Phytotaxa 171(1):001–078 Verhoeff C (1892) Bearbeitung der von A. F. Moller auf der Insel S. Thomé gesammelten Chilopoden und Diploden. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 37:193–202 Verhoeff C (1893) Contribuitions à l’étude des chilopodes et diplopodes de l’île S.Thomé. O Instituto 40(1):33–34 Vieira AXL (1886) Noticia ácerca dos productos zoologicos trazidos da Ilha de S. Thomé para o Muzeu Zoologico da Universidade de Coimbra, pelo sr. Adolpho F. Moller, em 1885. O Instituto 34(5):235–241 Vieira AXL (1887a) Insectos da Ilha de S. Thomé. O Instituto 34(9):460–462 Vieira AXL (1887b) Aves da Ilha de S. Thomé. O Instituto 34(11):562–565 Vieira AXL (1894) Aranhas da Ilha de São Thomé. O Instituto 41(6):403–404 Vieira da Silva JB (1960) Contribution for the study of root system development in coffee tree and cacao tree in some soils of S. Tomé. Garcia de Orta 8(3):703–735 Vieira C, Viegas S (2019) Os Herbários como recursos educativos dinâmicos e interdisciplinares. História da Ciência e Ensino – Construindo Interfaces 20(especial):638–656 Viejo JL (1984) Contribución al conocimiento de las mariposas del Golfo de Guinea. Eos: Revista Española de Entomologia 60:335–369 Viejo JL (1990) Consideraciones biogeograﬁcas sobre las mariposas de las islas del Golfo de Guinea (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterologia 18(71):239–251 140 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Viette P (1956) Mission entomologique dans les îles du golfe de Guinée (Príncipe. São Tomé, Annobón). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 61(9–10):200–208 Viette P (1957) Mission du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle dans les îles du golfe de Guinée. Entomologie. II. Pyrales nouvelles (Lépidoptères). Revue Française d’Entomologie 24:91–104 Viette P (1958) Mission au Muséum dans les îles du golfe de Guinée. Entomologie: XI. Planipennia Mantispidae. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 63(9–10):216–218 Villiers A (1957) Mission du Muséum dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée. Entomologie III. Coleoptera Cerambycidae. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 62(5–6):147–149 Villiers A (1976) Descriptions, localisations et synonymies d’hemiptères Reduviidae du Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale. Revue de Zoologie Africaine 90(1):162–176 Voss GL (1966) The R/V Pillsbury Deep-Sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964–65. 1. Narrative of the cruises. In: Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (eds) Studies in tropical oceanography 4 (part 1). University of Miami, Institute of Marine Science, Miami, pp 1–60 Wesenburg-Lund E (1959) Campagne 1956 dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Príncipe, São Tomé et Annóbon. 7. Sipunculoidea et Echiuroidea. Annales d’Institut Océanographique 37:207–217 White F (1983/84) Afromontane elements in the ﬂora of S. Tomé: variation and taxonomy of some «nomads» and «transgressors». Garcia de Orta, Série Botânica 6(1/2):187–202 Wirth WW, Derron JO (1976) New species and records of biting midges (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) associated with cacao in São Tomé, West Africa. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft 49(3–4):229–237 Wojtusiak J (1996a) The check-list of the Noctuidae moths of the São Tomé and Príncipe islands in the Gulf of Guinea, with notes on their geographical distribution. Part I. Noctuinae, Heliothinae, Hadeninae, Acronictinae, Amphipyrinae. Lambillionea 96(2):278–282 Wojtusiak J (1996b) The check-list of the Noctuidae Moths of the São Tomé and Principe Islands in the Gulf of Guinea, with notes on their geographical distribution. Part II. Acontiinae, Euteliinae, Stictopterinae, Sarrothripinae, Chloephorinae, Plusiinae. Lambillionea 96(3):536–541 Wojtusiak J (1996c) The check-list of the Noctuidae Moths of the São Tomé and Principe Islands in the Gulf of Guinea, with notes on their geographical distribution. Part III. Catocalinae, Ophiderinae, Hypeninae, Hypenodinae. Lambillionea 96(4):683–693 Wojtusiak J, Pyrcz T (1995) Observations on the postembryonic development and comments on the systematic status of the butterﬂy Kamilla cymodoce Cramer, 1777 (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Lambillionea 95(1):116–120 Worms J (1996a) Les poisson côtiers de São Tomé: abondance et diversité. Canopee 5:11 Worms J (1996b) From subsistence to commerce: ﬁsheries in São Tomé e Príncipe. Gulf of Guinea Conservation Newsletter 6:3–4 Zarske A (1993) Notizen zur Ichthyofauna der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea) (Teleostei). Faunistische Abhandlungen – Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19(1):85–88 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea Martim Melo, Luis M. P. Ceríaco, and Rayna C. Bell Abstract As with most archipelagos, geography played a central role in the assembly and evolution of the endemic-rich biological communities of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. The islands are located at moderate distances from the species-rich African continent that surrounds them to the east and north. This proximity facilitated colonization by many branches of the tree of life, but gene ﬂow between the islands and continent was low enough that many lineages evolved in isolation once they reached the archipelago, resulting in many endemic species. Furthermore, several of the island taxa belong to groups typically considered to be “poor dispersers” across sea barriers, which strongly supports a role for natural rafts in seeding the islands. Oceanic currents, including the freshwater pathways that extend from large river drainages into the Gulf of Guinea during the rainy season, also support this hypothesis. The distances between the islands are equivalent to those between the islands and the continent such that inter-island dispersal events appear M. Melo (*) Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO, Vairão, Portugal FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa L. M. P. Ceríaco Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO, Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal R. C. Bell Department of Herpetology,, Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_6 141 142 M. Melo et al. to be relatively rare and thus few taxa are shared between them. Still, the islands present multiple cases of secondary contact leading to hybridization and genetic introgression between closely related lineages—providing several models to study the role and consequences of gene ﬂow in evolution. Most taxa for which molecular estimates of divergence time have been derived are much younger than the ages of the islands. This pattern is consistent with high species turnover, likely resulting from a combination of small island sizes, proximity to the African continent and a long history of intense volcanic activity. The Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands provide multiple examples of classical adaptations to island life (the “island syndrome”), including giants and dwarves, ornament and color loss, among others. In addition, emerging studies of birds are highlighting the importance of competition regimes in driving phenotypic change—with examples of both character release (low interspeciﬁc competition) and character displacement (inter-speciﬁc competition upon secondary contact). Collectively, the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands offer unique opportunities to study adaptation and speciation in a range of taxa and contexts. Keywords Adaptation · Biogeography · Endemism · Gene ﬂow · Island syndrome · Speciation Introduction Islands, and oceanic islands in particular, have always occupied a special place in human imagination (cf. Schalansky 2010). Their isolation and well-deﬁned borders make them worlds apart, microcosms often populated by unique and peculiar creatures. For the naturalist, oceanic islands are one of the most fruitful settings for the study of evolutionary and ecological processes, including adaptation, speciation, and community assembly (Losos and Ricklefs 2009; Whittaker et al. 2017). Charles Darwin hinted at islands serving as “natural laboratories” in his account of the Beagle expedition, after having visited the Galapagos in September 1835 (Darwin 1845: 377–378). It was Alfred Russel Wallace, however, who put it clearly in his fundamental work aptly named Island Life under the section Importance of Islands in the Study of the Distribution of Organisms (Wallace 1880: 234): In islands we have the facts of distribution often presented to us in their simplest forms, along with others which become gradually more and more complex; and we are therefore able to proceed step by step in the solution of the problems they present. (. . .) [W]hen we have mastered the difﬁculties presented by the peculiarities of island life we shall ﬁnd it comparatively easy to deal with the more complex and less clearly deﬁned problems of continental distribution. The depiction of islands as natural laboratories arises from their inherent simplicity (systems with well-deﬁned boundaries, generally small, and with a depauperate biota), together with being striking centers of evolutionary change and diversiﬁcation by virtue of their isolation and speciﬁc environmental constraints (Wallace 1880; Carlquist 1965; Grant 1998a; Emerson 2002; Losos and Ricklefs 2009; Whittaker et al. 2017). Both these characteristics are particularly evident in the spectacular radiations of the most isolated island systems, as illustrated by the 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 143 Hawaiian Drosophila in which up to 1000 species may have evolved from just one or two species (Carson and Kaneshiro 1976; Kaneshiro et al. 1995). Correspondingly, much progress on the study of evolution on islands has stemmed from remote islands such as the Hawaiian archipelago (Wagner and Funk 1995; Craddock 2000) and the Galápagos (Grant and Grant 2008). More recently, it has become clear that island systems closer to continents have the potential to signiﬁcantly advance our understanding of the processes driving diversiﬁcation. As one approaches the mainland, the complexity of island systems increases as dispersal and gene ﬂow between the mainland and the island populations become more frequent (cf. Fig. 1.1 in Whittaker 1998). “Intermediate island systems” are those archipelagos that lie between remote islands systems, virtually independent from the mainland, and systems so close to the mainland that speciation in situ is not possible (Melo 2007; Ricklefs and Bermingham 2007). Intermediate island systems are promising natural laboratories as they may provide a simple setting to investigate the role of gene ﬂow in evolution, which remains a question of fundamental importance in evolutionary biology (Dowling and Secor 1997; Seehausen 2004; Pinho and Hey 2010; Feder et al. 2012; Abbott et al. 2013; Buerkle 2014; Arnold 2015; Taylor and Larson 2019; Matute and Cooper 2021). In addition, the faunas of intermediate island systems are typically derived from several distinct families (independent replicates for evolutionary studies), rather than being dominated by a few species-rich genera that have adaptively radiated. Consequently, patterns of community assembly in such archipelagos are likely more similar to those of continents than are those of more isolated archipelagos where most of the diversity is derived from a few extensive radiations (Melo 2007; Ricklefs and Bermingham 2007). Here we provide an overview of the biogeography and evolution of the biota of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón), highlighting their potential to advance our understanding of the processes generating diversity: from population divergence to speciation to community assembly. In addition, this setting provides several excellent models to study the role of gene ﬂow with respect to the evolution of divergent phenotypes and patterns of genomewide differentiation. Readers will likely notice that this overview is limited and biased towards terrestrial vertebrates. For other taxonomic groups, the diversity of the islands is still incompletely documented and described (Ceríaco et al. 2022a), and thus building the essential foundation for future hypothesis-driven studies is still a work in progress for these other taxa. A brief overview of marine biogeography in the Gulf of Guinea is described in Costa et al. (2022). Biogeography The Importance of Geography The updated checklists for terrestrial groups in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (reference list in Ceríaco et al. 2022a) reveal a few principal patterns: 144 M. Melo et al. (1) high levels of endemism; (2) wide representation across the tree of life; (3) in situ radiations are rare and result in few species; and (4) the biological communities of each island are largely unique, with few endemics shared between them. With the exception of the Odonata (dragonﬂies and damselﬂies), which have relatively low species diversity in the Gulf of Guinea and just one endemic species (Dijkstra and Tate 2022), the three islands have some of the highest concentrations of endemic species in the world for several groups, including mosquitoes (Loiseau et al. 2019), amphibians (Bell et al. 2022), terrestrial reptiles (Ceríaco et al. 2022b), and birds (Melo et al. 2022). These patterns are particularly remarkable in relation to the small size of these islands (just over 1000 km2 combined) and are likely a consequence of their favorable geographic setting. Just in the Right Place: Close, But Not Too Close, to a Large and Species-Rich Continent The diversity of unique genera and families in the archipelago across taxonomic groups from fungi to frogs is indicative of a large number of colonizations from the mainland. High levels of endemism, once again across many taxonomic groups, indicate that many of these island colonizers have subsequently diverged from their mainland counterparts. The islands are therefore close enough to the continent to receive a diverse array of mainland dispersers but far enough away for these to diverge once they arrive to the islands. These are two deﬁning traits of intermediate island systems: the likelihood of colonizations is higher than on remote systems and the conditions for population divergence are preserved (Melo 2007; Ricklefs and Bermingham 2007). For groups such as birds, where the concentration of island endemics is the highest in the world (Melo et al. 2022), it is as if the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea are located at the perfect distance from the mainland to optimize the balance between colonization (as a source of new lineages) and isolation (reduced gene ﬂow to allow for genetic differentiation). Such an optimal distance will likely vary among taxonomic groups according to their dispersal potential. The adjacent African continent also hosts the species-rich Congolian rainforests and the Guinean Forests of the West Africa biodiversity hotspot (IUCN 2015), which surround the islands to the east and north, respectively. Thus, the islands are proximal to extensive coastlines of a large and biodiverse landmass. Being situated adjacent to a large landmass is the most important predictor of global plant species diversity on islands (Weigelt and Kreft 2013). In addition, the islands and much of the adjacent mainland share similar habitats (notably rainforest), which increases the chance of successful establishment following sweepstakes dispersal events (Weigelt and Kreft 2013). 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 145 Colonization Outweighs In Situ Diversiﬁcation as a Source of New Species Diversity Independent colonizations from the mainland, rather than in situ diversiﬁcation, is the dominant process by which species diversity accumulated in the archipelago (Box 6.1). For example, the 29 endemic bird species present on the three oceanic islands derive from 20 to 22 separate colonizations from the mainland, and only three are shared between islands (Melo et al. 2022). Of the 164 endemic vascular plant taxa of the Gulf of Guinea islands only a small subset is shared between more than one island, and an even more diminutive number is shared with Bioko (Figueiredo 1994; Stévart et al. 2022). Likewise, all nine amphibian species are endemic to a single island, and ﬁve are the sole representative of their family on their respective island (Bell et al. 2022). Dispersal between islands, and subsequent isolation, has also been a source of further endemic species in some vertebrate groups including Hyperolius reed frogs (Bell et al. 2015a, b), Hemidactylus geckos (Miller et al. 2012), Trachylepis skinks (Ceríaco et al. 2016), Boaedon house snakes (Ceríaco et al. 2021) and birds, of which the ﬁve-species radiation of Zosterops white-eyes is the best example (Melo et al. 2011, 2022). However, for most organisms, each island is closer to an independent unit rather than part of a tight-knit archipelago. The extensive evolutionary radiations described from remote archipelagos are facilitated by inter-island dispersal events within the archipelago followed by divergent adaptation to ﬁll open ecological niches (Schluter 2000; Gillespie et al. 2020). In the case of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, the dearth of adaptive radiation may be a consequence of low inter-island colonization (due to the large distances that separate them), limited opportunities to adapt to novel ecological space (due to the high phylogenetic and ecological diversity of colonizers from the mainland; Schluter 2000; Ricklefs and Bermingham 2007; Rundell and Price 2009; Gillespie et al. 2020), and reduced dispersal ability of island species (Box 6.2). Box 6.1 Speciation on Oceanic Islands The most detailed model of how populations diversify on oceanic islands was proposed more than 100 years ago by the British naturalist Robert C. L. Perkins (Grant 2000, 2001). His “archipelago radiation model” (Perkins 1913) was derived from his work on the radiation of Hawaiian honeycreepers (Aves: Fringillidae; Perkins 1901), and subsequently strengthened with his studies of other Hawaiian vertebrates (Perkins 1903) and insects (Perkins 1913). In Perkin’s archipelago radiation model (Panel 3 of ﬁgure below), speciation is initiated by population subdivision (isolation: allopatry), which leads to selection-driven divergence, potentially aided by random factors (the concept of drift had not yet been formulated). In a second stage, populations diverging in isolation may meet on the same island (secondary contact: sympatry). They may either interbreed, obscuring the divergence and merging (continued) 146 M. Melo et al. Box 6.1 (continued) into a single population once more, or they may co-exist as increasingly distinct entities even if some interbreeding occurs. In this case, competition between the two populations will lead to further divergence resulting in ecological character displacement. In other words, the most similar individuals of each species suffer the strongest competition, such that extreme phenotypes are favored by selection and intermediate phenotypes are selected against (Brown and Wilson 1956; Grant 1972). Two things are surprising regarding this model: (1) how complete and speciﬁc it is and (2) how it was forgotten by most evolutionary biologists in the ensuing decades (Grant 2000, 2001). The deep insights of Perkins, including the central role of competition in driving phenotypic divergence, are particularly impressive considering that his archipelago radiation model is very similar to the “ecological speciation model” proposed in the twenty-ﬁrst century (Rundle and Nosil 2005; Nosil 2012). Pathways for speciation in oceanic archipelagos—using the Gulf of Guinea as an example. In this schematic, the single endemic species on Annobón has always arisen by allospeciation In many archipelagos, speciation is achieved by divergence in isolation (allospeciation: Mayr and Diamond 2001), the ﬁrst step of the radiation model (Panels 1 and 2 of ﬁgure above). This may even be the case for most archipelagos, as recently conﬁrmed for birds in a global analysis of diversiﬁcation on islands (Valente et al. 2020). It may also be deemed the most passive, or trivial, speciation mode as permanently isolated populations will always follow distinct evolutionary paths. Phenotypic diversiﬁcation is often limited in this setting, especially when the mainland and island provide similar habitats. At the other extreme, populations may diverge and speciate fully in sympatry (Panel 4 of ﬁgure above; sympatric speciation). This mechanism is not included in Perkins’ model and although much work has been devoted to demonstrating speciation without any sort of geographic isolation, it has been extremely difﬁcult to ﬁnd convincing cases in nature (Coyne and Orr 2004; (continued) 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 147 Box 6.1 (continued) Coyne 2007; Bolnick and FitzPatrick 2007). Often, even the best candidates have experienced an initial period of isolation—even a short one—just as in the archipelago radiation model (Feder et al. 2003; Martin et al. 2015a). The composition of the community across an archipelago can reveal which of the above scenarios played a major role in the origin of endemic species. For instance, the number of families represents the minimum number of colonizations from the mainland, whereas single representatives from mainland groups provide unambiguous cases of allospeciation. The presence of sympatric congeneric endemic species in an archipelago indicates the groups where molecular-based studies are needed, as such species could be the result of any of the speciation modes. There are several such instances in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands that have not yet been investigated with molecular data including among several groups of plants (Garcia and Shevock 2022; Stévart et al. 2022), mollusks (Panisi et al. 2022), mushrooms (Desjardin and Perry 2022), arachnids (Crews and Esposito 2022), and insects Mendes and Bivarde-Sousa 2022; Nève et al. 2022). An important limitation of molecular studies, however, is that they cannot account for the possibility that undetected extinctions have removed the true sister species of extant species. In the volcanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, no suitable fossil ground has yet been found and hence the extent to which extinctions may confound our inferences of speciation mode is unknown. Getting There: Modes of Active and Passive Dispersal Although the location of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea is favorable to colonization from the continent, it is still a considerable distance to travel for many organisms. The task is made easier for active ﬂyers, such as birds, bats, or large insects. For organisms that disperse passively in the air—the aerial plankton—the dominant wind currents determine the most likely sources of colonizers. In the Gulf of Guinea, these are the southwestern monsoon winds, responsible for the high precipitation that sustains the rainforests, and the northern dry harmattan winds (Ceríaco et al. 2022c). It is the meeting of these two air masses that determines the position of the meteorological equator. The southwestern winds are unlikely to have dispersed colonizers from continental Africa but may have promoted inter-island dispersal from the southwest to the northeast (i.e., Annobón to São Tomé to Príncipe). Passive wind-dispersing organisms are therefore more likely to have originated from West Africa, to the north of the archipelago, and this is indeed the case for angiosperms (Exell 1973) and Simuliidae black-ﬂies (Mustapha et al. 2006). Dispersal via the northern harmattan winds is likely to have been more prominent during glacial cycles, when they displaced the meteorological equator further south (Lézine et al. 1994) and thus extending further into the Gulf. These hypotheses 148 M. Melo et al. regarding both the direction, timing, and periodicity of colonization for winddispersed taxa can be tested with molecular phylogenetic analyses. Ocean currents determine the most likely sources of aquatic organisms and of terrestrial organisms that disperse in water, including some seed plants and marine ﬁshes that became secondarily adapted to the freshwater bodies of the islands (Costa et al. 2022). These currents have also likely played a major role in facilitating the arrival of many non-volant, non-swimming, and salt-intolerant animals via passive dispersal on ﬂoating vegetation rafts (e.g., Ali and Fritz 2021). These include all amphibians (Bell et al. 2022), several fossorial reptiles (Ceríaco et al. 2022b), and the two species of endemic shrews (Rainho et al. 2022). Likewise, plants with low dispersal ability also likely reached the islands via rafting, for instance, the unusual plant Sciaphila ledermannii, a mycoheterotroph that obtains its nutrients by a symbiotic relationship with fungi and lacks obvious structures for either wind or animal dispersal of its seeds (Daniel 2010). Other species that likely reached the islands in this way include species pairs with tight ecological associations unlikely to be maintained by independent dispersal events, such as the hypothesized simultaneous colonization of São Tomé by the sheet-web tarantula Allothele and its kleptoparasitic spider Isela (Charles Griswold, pers. comm.). Several factors come together in the Gulf of Guinea to support the rafting hypothesis (Measey et al. 2007; Ceríaco et al. 2022c). First, three large rivers (from north to south: Niger, Ogooué, and Congo) drain into the Gulf of Guinea in the vicinity of the islands. These rivers are among the largest in the world with exceptional freshwater discharge during the rainy season. Second, tropical Africa receives very high precipitation levels during the rainy season that can lead to occasional downfalls of river margins, resulting in rafts of vegetation and soil—a necessary requisite for different groups of animals and plants, such as fossorial amphibians and reptiles that made it to the islands (Bell et al. 2022; Ceríaco et al. 2022b). During the rainy season, high freshwater discharge leads to a large outﬂow of the rivers into the sea, creating extensive freshwater plumes that create a superﬁcial low-salinity layer in the sea (Richardson and Walsh 1986; Jourdin et al. 2006), and protect the rafts from the intrusion of saltwater. Finally, the dominant ocean currents in the Gulf of Guinea direct the freshwater plumes of the Niger and Congo rivers towards the islands. In summary, the ocean currents together with the top layer of freshwater create “freshwater paths” that carry ﬂoating natural rafts from West and Central African river drainages towards the islands (Measey et al. 2007). The dispersal histories of island species can be inferred using molecular data to build phylogenies and identify the most closely related species or populations on the continent. For instance, a phylogeographic approach revealed that the Gray Parrot Psittacus erithacus ﬁrst reached Príncipe Island from West Africa (c. 1 Ma ago), and that in contemporary times new colonizers arrived from Central African populations (Melo and O'Ryan 2007). By contrast, phylogenetic studies of the endemic São Tomé caecilians suggest they are the product of a single dispersal event (c. 1 Ma ago) from East Africa (Loader et al. 2007). Likewise, the House Snakes Boaedon are the product of a single dispersal event to the archipelago from Southern Africa (Ceríaco et al. 2021). The rare instances of inter-island dispersal can be a bit more challenging 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 149 to decipher from molecular data (e.g., Melo et al. 2011). Such studies will typically require population-level genetic sampling to estimate patterns of genetic diversity for each island (e.g., Bell et al. 2015b; Weinell et al. 2019) with the assumption that each successive colonization event from the source population represents a bottleneck, leading to sequential reductions in genetic diversity along the island chain (Clegg et al. 2002). Thus far, such biogeographic studies have primarily been conducted for many of the islands’ amphibians, reptiles, and birds with results supporting instances of dispersal from West, Central, East, and Southern Africa, as well as some cases of inter-island dispersal (Bell et al. 2022; Ceríaco et al. 2022b; Melo et al. 2022). As more phylogenetic and population genetic studies become available from a greater diversity of taxa, we will start to gain a better understanding of the dominant continent-to-island and inter-island dispersal pathways and likely mechanisms. The Temporal Setting The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea originated from the activity of the Cameroon Volcanic Line, which began c. 30 my ago (Burke 2001). As such they are a relatively old island system, with the age of Príncipe estimated at 31 Ma, São Tomé at 15 Ma, and Annobón at 6 Ma (Ceríaco et al. 2022c). For comparison, the ages of the islands of the Hawaiian archipelago range from 5 to 0.5 Ma (Carson and Clague 1995) and the Galapagos from less than 0.5 to 3 Ma (Harpp and Geist 2018). Thus, in theory, the islands of the Gulf of Guinea have had extensive evolutionary time to accumulate species diversity and endemism. The tempo at which species richness has accrued, however, may have been inﬂuenced by many global climatic factors (e.g., changes in sea level and exposed coastline of the African continent), as well as local geological factors (e.g., devastating volcanic eruptions). As the fossil record in the region is poor, molecular clock approaches can be employed to estimate divergence times between the island endemics and their closest mainland relatives. In turn, these dated phylogenies can be used to infer the corresponding colonization time frame for a given lineage (Fig. 6.1) and reconstruct the timeline of community assembly. The currently available divergence dating studies suggest that the old age of the islands has not necessarily translated to an abundance of very old lineages. In plants, although afromontane paleo-endemics are present, these co-exist with a large assemblage of neo-endemics (Figueiredo 1994). Likewise, for other groups, most molecular estimates of divergence times indicate that many endemics are much younger than the ages of the islands. For example, from 22 divergence time estimates for endemic birds, 18 occurred within the last 2 Ma, 3 within the last 3–5 Ma, and the oldest dates to 8 Ma (Table 24.1 in Melo et al. 2022). The endemic fruit ﬂy Drosophila santomea (Llopart et al. 2002; Turissini and Matute 2017), caecilians (Loader et al. 2007), and shrews (Nicolas et al. 2019) also represent recent colonization and speciation events within the last 2 Ma, while inferred colonization dates for reed frogs (Bell et al. 2015a), the ridged frog Ptychadena newtoni (Zimkus et al. 150 M. Melo et al. Fig. 6.1 The colonization date of an archipelago lies between the time of most ancient common ancestor (MACA) and the time of most recent common ancestor (MRCA). Time of MACA assumes that the appearance of the insular lineages was simultaneous with colonization. Time of MRCA does not take into account post-colonization demographic effects on genetic diversity. Even if the true MACA and/or MRCA went extinct (or were not sampled) they would be located within this interval. Adapted from Vences (2005) and Hayward and Stone (2006) 2017), and skink Trachylepis thomensis (Weinell et al. 2019), date to the LateMiocene. Although divergence estimates are not yet available for many groups on the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, the emerging pattern supports high species turnover. This turnover likely arises as a product of the small size of the islands, moderate distances to the continental pool of new potential dispersers, and the intense recent volcanism of the islands. Small island size is associated with high extinction rates (MacArthur and Wilson 1967). Proximity to the mainland increases colonization rates, in particular for more mobile organisms, such as birds, which is expected to favor taxon cycle dynamics. According to the taxon cycle hypothesis, successful colonizers tend to be generalists that will outcompete specialized endemics, but these generalists then evolve into endemic specialists that will themselves be outcompeted when new generalists reach the island (Wilson 1961; Ricklefs and Bermingham 1999, 2002). In the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, the community assembly of avian blood parasites is concordant with the taxon cycle hypothesis (Loiseau et al. 2017). This is particularly interesting as the co-evolutionary arms race between pathogens and their hosts has been proposed as a factor that could be driving taxon cycle patterns in the macro-fauna (Ricklefs and Bermingham 1999, 2002; Ricklefs et al. 2016). It is unclear whether such a pattern is present in other taxonomic groups in the Gulf of Guinea. 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 151 Volcanism in the continental and oceanic sector of the Cameroon Volcanic Line has been contemporaneous and more or less continuous since the Cretaceous (Fitton 1987; Lee et al. 1994; Burke 2001). Volcanic activity persisted until recently on the islands (0.1 Ma: Lee et al. 1994; 0.036 Ma: Barfod and Fitton 2014—see also Ceríaco et al. 2022c) and is still present for Mount Cameroon, and to a lesser extent, Bioko. Only faint signatures of volcanic activity remain on São Tomé in the form of hot springs (Henriques and Neto 2015), but the intensity of recent volcanic activity is still clearly visible in the orography, which is marked by high mountains and steep slopes, characteristic of young islands. For example, the peak of São Tomé, rising at 2024 m, was formed 1.5 Ma together with most of the central mountain massif of the island (Caldeira et al. 2003). These major volcanic events have likely driven species to extinction on multiple occasions, contributing to accelerating species turnover. Volcanic eruptions could also contribute to diversiﬁcation and speciation, however, by dividing the ranges of previously panmictic populations with lava ﬂows. The distributions of the two endemic sister caecilian lineages—Schistometopum ephele and S. thomense on São Tomé align with this hypothesis (Stoelting et al. 2014, O’Connell et al. 2021), as do patterns of genetic variation in the skink Trachylepis thomensis (Jesus et al. 2005). The prevalence of species derived from recent speciation events attests to the Gulf of Guinea islands being diversiﬁcation centers rather than simple “museums” where continental species found refuge from habitat changes associated with glacial cycles. Yet, the presence of species whose arrivals date to earlier times of island formation, and of Afromontane paleo-endemic plants in particular, supports the hypothesis that the islands offered a stable climatic environment during glacial cycles (Plana et al. 2004). As more dated phylogenetic studies become available from a greater diversity of taxa, we will start to gain a better understanding of the tempo of island colonization and in situ diversiﬁcation. Hybridization and Speciation in the Gulf of Guinea The role of hybridization in evolution, and in speciation in particular, remains one of the most fundamental questions in evolutionary biology (Abbott et al. 2013; Seehausen et al. 2014; Taylor and Larson 2019). The consequences of hybridization between two lineages range from the extinction of one lineage (via the fusion of the two) to the origin of a new “hybrid” lineage. In between these extremes, hybridization can lead to different levels of genetic introgression across species boundaries, with the potential of accelerating, rather than hindering, the evolutionary process (Anderson and Stebbins 1954; Arnold and Emms 1998). In intermediate island systems, such as the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, a mainland lineage may colonize the islands more than once and at different points in time. Such cases are likely to lead to hybridization between the diverging island and mainland lineages. These rare and episodic hybridization events provide clear-cut models to study the consequences of hybridization in lineage divergence and speciation. In the 152 M. Melo et al. oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, several examples of hybridization between species have been detected. Interestingly, several of these cases were only detected with molecular data, suggesting that several other cases are likely to be uncovered with the increasing use of genetic data in the region. Here we highlight some of the better studied examples. The Drosophila santomea x D. yakuba Hybrid Zones The genus Drosophila, with c. 1500 species, includes the most widely used model organism for the study of genetics, D. melanogaster. Interestingly, up until the discovery and description of the endemic species from São Tomé, D. santomea (Lachaise et al. 2000), stable hybrid zones within the genus were unknown. The description of this hybrid zone in Drosophila quickly led to the search, and discovery, of others such as on the island of Bioko (Cooper et al. 2018) and the Seychelles (Matute and Ayroles 2014). On São Tomé, the island endemic co-occurs with its sister species, the widespread Sub-Saharan D. yakuba. The endemic species is mostly restricted to mist forest at higher elevations, whereas the cosmopolitan species prefers more open habitats at lower elevations. Although the two species diverged between c. 400,000 (Llopart et al. 2002) and 1 million years ago (Turissini and Matute 2017), hybridization occurs at a rate of about 1% where their ranges meet, at intermediate elevations (Lachaise et al. 2000; Llopart et al. 2005a). This hybrid zone became an important model for research on the genetic basis of phenotypic differences (Llopart et al. 2002); the evolution of reproductive barriers (Coyne et al. 2002; Moehring et al. 2006a, b; Turissini et al. 2015); the impacts of introgression on the genome, including the replacement of the mitochondrial DNA of D. santomea by that of D. yakuba (Llopart et al. 2005a; Turissini et al. 2015); and, more generally, on the role of hybridization and introgression in speciation (Turissini and Matute 2017; Matute et al. 2020). The hybrid zone is unusual in that a population of hybrid males is restricted to the higher elevations of São Tomé, away from the ranges of both parental species (Llopart et al. 2005b). The origins of this hybrid male population are still unclear. The Hyperolius thomensis x H. molleri Hybrid Zone Two endemic species of reed frogs occur on São Tomé—H. thomensis mostly restricted to the native closedcanopy forests, and H. molleri associated with more open habitats, including human modiﬁed ones (Bell et al. 2015b, 2022). Although closely related (c. 0.5–1.5 Ma; Bell et al. 2015a), they are clearly phenotypically distinct species differing in size, coloration, advertisement call, and reproductive biology (Drewes and Wilkinson 2004; Gilbert and Bell 2018; Bell and Irian 2019). In spite of this, hybridization occurs where the two species meet at the interface of closed-canopy forest and more open habitats, resulting in a mosaic hybrid zone (Bell et al. 2015b; Bell and Irian 2019). This hybrid zone is ripe for investigations of the genetic basis of phenotypic differences, reproductive barriers, the scale and pattern of introgression across species boundaries, and the impact of gene ﬂow on genome architecture and phenotypic evolution. Although the geographic and temporal extent of hybridization between these species is incompletely understood, recent evidence suggests that hybridization may be a direct result of human-driven habitat changes, and of 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 153 deforestation in particular (Bell and Irian 2019). The hybrid zone of the two Drosophila species from São Tomé also coincides with the transition from agricultural areas to native forest habitats, and therefore may also be a result of changes in habitat structure (Lachaise et al. 2000). Mitochondrial Introgression in Parrots and Pigeons Mitochondrial data used to infer phylogenetic and phylogeographic relationships of most endemic bird species in the archipelago (Melo 2007; Melo et al. 2022) uncovered several instances of mitochondrial introgression (Box 21.1 in Melo et al. 2022): (1) the Gray Parrot Psittacus erithacus, where a distinct Príncipe lineage hybridized with recent arrivals from the mainland (Melo and O'Ryan 2007); (2) the Lemon Dove Columba larvata, where, as with the parrot, a distinct island lineage was recently joined by a new wave of mainland colonizers (Hugo Pereira and Martim Melo, unpublished data); (3) from the Sao Tome Green-Pigeon Treron sanctithomae to the Príncipe subspecies of the African Green-Pigeon Treron calvus virescens (Pereira 2013). These are all species with strong ﬂying abilities—making them typical oceanic island colonizers—and as such, secondary contact and inter-island dispersal events are not surprising. Genomic studies are required to better understand the extent of introgression derived from interbreeding between the diverging lineages. The Saga of the Canaries Crithagra concolor x C. rufobrunnea The islands of Príncipe and São Tomé host two endemic canaries (Fringillidae: Crithagra). The Principe Seedeater C. rufobrunnea is present on Príncipe, Boné de Jóquei Islet (c. 2.5 km from Príncipe), and São Tomé. Gene ﬂow between the three allopatric populations is reduced and phenotypic differentiation has evolved, justifying their current treatment as three distinct subspecies (Melo 2007). The Sao Tome Grosbeak C. concolor is restricted to the primary forests of São Tomé, where it is the rarest or, at least, the most difﬁcult bird species to ﬁnd. The São Tomé population of the Principe Seedeater occurs across the entire island, from primary forest to urban areas—whenever trees are present. The phenotype of the grosbeak has often misled taxonomists, who episodically considered it to be a weaver (Ploceidae; cf. Melo et al. 2022). More recently, molecular evidence conﬁrmed not only that it is a Crithagra canary, but that it is sister to the Principe Seedeater (Melo et al. 2017). The surprising twist to this story is that molecular data, from multiple loci (2 mitochondrial markers, 33 nuclear introns and exons, 34 microsatellites, and c. 10,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms—SNPs) consistently indicated that the São Tomé population of the seedeater is more closely related to the grosbeak than to its conspeciﬁc allopatric populations on Príncipe and Boné de Jóquei Islet (Melo 2007; Stervander 2009, 2015). The paraphyly of the seedeater was concordant with the grosbeak and seedeater having speciated in sympatry on São Tomé—a very unlikely scenario for birds, with the only another potential case described in the Nesospiza buntings (Thraupidae) from the Tristan da Cunha archipelago (Ryan et al. 2007). Clariﬁcation of this pattern was only possible using a large-scale genomic approach (Stervander 2015; Stervander et al. 2022). Mapping of over 130,000 SNPs across the genome revealed that the “sympatric speciation pattern” was the consequence of an extensive degree of genetic introgression between the two species. For the subset of 154 M. Melo et al. Fig. 6.2 Genomic patterns of differentiation and introgression between the Sao Tome Grosbeak and the Principe Seedeater, exempliﬁed by data from chromosome 14. Three classes of phylogenetic signatures are distributed across the genome: Chromosomal segments that are phylogenetically inconclusive are gray (“inconclusive”; 89.1% of all segments across the genome that were assigned a local phylogeny); Segments representing a preserved phylogenetic signal (not introgressed during secondary contact of the grosbeak and seedeater on São Tomé), where the three seedeater populations are sister taxa and form a distinct lineage from the grosbeak, are blue (“preserved” 4.6%); Segments representing introgression from the grosbeak to the São Tomé population of Príncipe seedeater are red (“introgressed”; 6.3%). The latter suggest the sympatric populations of the grosbeak and the seedeater on São Tomé are sister taxa, and divergent from the other seedeater populations. Example topologies representative of each of the three genomic classes are drawn in corresponding colors, with the three seedeater populations abbreviated as ST (São Tomé; orange font; sympatric with the grosbeak), P (Príncipe; purple), and B (Boné de Jóquei; green). Figure from Stervander et al. (2022) phylogenetically informative SNPs, more SNPs supported the sympatric speciation pattern (“introgressed markers”) than allopatric speciation (i.e., where the three seedeater populations make a monophyletic group, sister to the grosbeak; “preserved markers”; Fig. 6.2). Many of the SNPs supporting allopatric speciation were associated with coding regions, including those harboring genes underlying bill size and shape, suggesting a strong role for natural selection against hybrids with intermediate bills (Stervander 2015; Stervander et al. 2022). Evolution on Islands The “Island Syndrome” Island organisms often capture the imagination of scientists and non-scientists alike, as “museums of curiosities.” They are lands of “dragons” (Komodo dragon Varanus komodoensis) and of other fantastical creatures such as the Dodo Raphus cucullatus (Hume 2012), a giant ﬂightless pigeon encountered by Alice in her adventures in wonderland (Carroll 1865). Naturalists noticed early on that organisms on islands 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 155 across the world appear to have shared suites of unusual characteristics (Darwin 1859; Wallace 1880; Carlquist 1965; Grant 1998b; Whittaker 1998). These common evolutionary paths have been described for many traits and grouped under the “island syndrome” umbrella (Grant 1998b; Losos and Ricklefs 2009; Burns 2019; Baeckens and Van Damme 2020). Such island syndrome traits include: 1. increased longevity and lower fecundity (e.g., Adler and Levins 1994; Covas 2012; Novosolov et al. 2013); 2. wider ecological niches (Grant 1965a, 1998b; Blondel 2000; Covas 2016; Scott et al. 2003; Amorim et al. 2017); 3. small species becoming larger and large species becoming smaller (Grant 1965a; Lomolino 2005; Clegg 2010; Lomolino et al. 2013; Novosolov et al. 2013; Biddick et al. 2019; Benítez-López et al. 2021); 4. species becoming more sedentary, with the evolution of ﬂightlessness in animals (Diamond 1981; Wright et al. 2016; Leihy and Chown 2020) and the transition away from wind-dispersal in plants (Cody and Overton 1996; Kavanagh and Burns 2014); 5. animals becoming less territorial, allowing them to live in higher densities (density compensation: MacArthur et al. 1972), which is also likely associated with the evolution of increased “tameness” on islands; 6. birds losing colorful ornaments (Grant 1965b; Doutrelant et al. 2016). Most of the hypotheses proposed to explain the convergent evolution of a wide suite of traits on oceanic islands are linked to the deﬁning abiotic factors of oceanic islands: isolation, small size, and a stable and mild climate associated with the buffer inﬂuence of the sea (Grant 1998a, b; Whittaker 1998; Blondel 2000; Covas 2016; Baeckens and Van Damme 2020). Isolation and small size underlie the deﬁning biotic feature of oceanic islands: lower species richness relative to mainland areas of equivalent size (MacArthur and Wilson 1967). This depauperate biota translates to lower levels of inter-speciﬁc competition which contributes to ecological release (Herrmann et al. 2020). Lower species richness also translates to fewer predators and parasites, allowing species to evolve in ways that are generally not possible on the mainland—including growing towards their metabolic optimum size or losing dispersal abilities. The Gulf of Guinea islands present several potential cases of the island syndrome across different groups, albeit studies on this subject have focused primarily on birds (Box 6.2). Gigantism is the most striking, with examples found in plants, amphibians, reptiles, and birds, and dwarﬁsm in the only endemic bird descending from a large continental species, the Sao Tome Ibis Bostrychia bocagei. Many of the island syndromes can only be identiﬁed once the island endemics are placed in the evolutionary context of the continental lineage they arose from. For instance, the endemic giant lobelia, Lobelia barnsii, found near the peak of São Tomé, is most likely part of the monophyletic clade that groups all giant Lobelia of the world (Antonelli 2008, 2009: L. barnsii not included in the analyses) and, if so, the large size of the island endemic will reﬂect shared history rather than convergent evolution towards island gigantism. By contrast, the Principe Giant Tree Frog Leptopelis 156 M. Melo et al. palmatus does not appear to be closely related to the largest continental species in the genus and may therefore represent a true case of island gigantism (Jaynes et al. 2021). The house snakes, Boaedon bedriagae from São Tomé and B. mendesi from Príncipe, may also be island giants as they are considerably larger than their mainland relatives in the B. capensis complex in southern Africa (Ceríaco et al. 2021). Within an archipelago, selective pressures of the island condition may be stronger in smaller islands. This likely applies to the gigantism and tameness of the Tinhosa Grande islet population of Trachylepis adamastor. Recently described as a unique species due to its large size and dark coloration (Ceríaco 2015), molecular data indicate that the populations on Tinhosas and Príncipe are not genetically differentiated (Ceríaco et al. 2016, 2020). Such rapid phenotypic changes have been observed in just a few generations in other island lizards (e.g., Amorim et al. 2017). Likewise, out of the three populations of the endemic Principe Seedeater (São Tomé, Príncipe, Boné de Jóquei Islet), it is the birds from the small 40 ha islet that have evolved by far the largest body mass and bill and have lost more of their ﬂying abilities (sedentariness) and anti-predator behavior (tameness) (Box 6.3). Box 6.2 The Island Syndrome in the Birds of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Wider niches: Bird song is a trait directly linked to ﬁtness for its role in mate attraction and territory defense (Collins 2004). Hence, song is a signal under strong selection for efﬁcient transmission. In species-rich communities, competition for acoustic space is expected to be high—as overlap of different songs masks the signals and impairs the efﬁcacy of their transmission (Wollerman and Wiley 2002). Thus, mainland species tend to partition the acoustic space into narrow temporal and spatial (frequency bandwidth) windows to minimize interference (Planqué and Slabbekoorn 2008; Weir et al. 2012). By contrast, the acoustic space of species-poor islands is predicted to be less saturated. Comparisons of bird communities of São Tomé and Cameroon revealed that the species-poor island communities live in an acoustic environment with less acoustic interference (both from birds and insects) than those on the mainland, that island species spend more time vocalizing alone, and that acoustic overlap is lower (Robert et al. 2019, 2021). This lower competition for acoustic space translates into the songs of island species occupying a broader frequency bandwidth than the songs of their mainland counterparts (Robert et al. 2021)—a pattern that is consistent with the character release hypothesis predicted from the lower levels of inter-speciﬁc competition (Grant 1972; Herrmann et al. 2020). Island rule: The trends of body size evolution in the endemic birds of the Gulf of Guinea ﬁt the predictions of the island rule very closely. Most small and medium birds increased in size, with three “island giants” including the world’s largest sunbird (Sao Tome Sunbird Dreptes thomensis), weaver (Giant Weaver Ploceus grandis), and canary (Sao Tome Grosbeak Crithagra (continued) 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 157 Box 6.2 (continued) rufobrunnea). The few exceptions where small birds decreased slightly in size occur in those species that co-exist with a congeneric species and, therefore, represent the few cases in which inter-speciﬁc competition is present and character displacement may be at play (see main text and Fig. 6.3). The exceptions to this rule appear to be limited to the Sao Tome ParadiseFlycatcher Terpsiphone atrochalybeia and the Sao Tome Short-tail Motacilla bocagii, which are smaller than their mainland relatives but do not have any close relatives on the island. By contrast, the only endemic derived from a group of large birds, the Sao Tome Ibis Bostrychia bocagei, is the smallest representative of its group and one of the smallest ibises in the world. Dispersal loss: Darwin hypothesized that sedentariness on islands evolves because dispersing individuals are unlikely to return (Darwin 1859). Under this hypothesis, the smaller the island, the stronger the selection favoring individuals that do not disperse. One study investigated the evolution of ﬂying potential among populations of the endemic Principe Seedeater Crithagra rufobrunnea in the early stages of divergence. This species occurs in three allopatric populations: Príncipe, Boné de Jóquei Islet (c. 2.5 km off Príncipe), and São Tomé. Gene ﬂow between the three populations is very restricted and phenotypic differentiation is signiﬁcant (Melo 2007). The population on the smallest island (the 40 ha Boné de Jóquei Islet) had the lowest ﬂying potential, as inferred from its small wing length: body mass ratio (Melo 2007; Box 6.3). Color loss: The loss of coloration, color patches, and even sexual dimorphism in island birds has long attracted the attention of ornithologists (Grant 1965b). This pattern is consistent across distinct taxonomic groups and island systems (Doutrelant et al. 2016). A trend for increased melanism has also been suggested for island birds (Uy and Vargas-Castro 2015)—and for reptiles (Novosolov et al. 2013)—but has not yet been as extensively studied. As with the island rule, color loss is on full display in the endemic birds of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Lipochromes (yellow and green pigments) present in mainland relatives have mostly been lost in the island endemics: Sao Tome Oriole Oriolus crassirostris, the ﬁve white-eye species (Zosterops sp.; Melo et al. 2011), the Sao Tome Sunbird, and the Principe Sunbird Anabathmis hartlaubi (Newton’s Sunbird A. newtonii being the exception). Additionally, the male of the Sao Tome Paradise-Flycatcher is entirely black, and melanin predominates in the plumage of the Principe Seedeater and the endemic São Tomé subspecies of the Western Barn Owl Tyto alba thomensis. Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain the loss of color in island birds including that (1) species-poor communities may relax the need for elaborate signals used in species recognition (Martin et al. 2010, 2015a, b); (2) long-lived species have higher levels of parental care, which is associated with lower investment in sexual signals (Covas 2012); (3) sexual selection is (continued) 158 M. Melo et al. Box 6.2 (continued) relaxed as a consequence of both the reduced genetic diversity (Frankham 1997) and higher relatedness within island populations (Grifﬁth 2000). Most work on the Gulf of Guinea islands has focused on the hypothesis that colors in birds are honest signals of immune condition as they often depend on the acquisition of carotenoids from the diet, which are also essential co-adjuvants of the immune system (Hamilton and Zuk 1982). From a pathogen perspective, islands are thought to be more benign environments because the decrease in species richness is expected to also extend to parasites. If this expectation is correct, the inter-individual variation in health condition on islands should be very narrow, and hence color would no longer hold information regarding individual condition. A survey of avian blood parasites indicated that parasite diversity and prevalence is lower on Príncipe and São Tomé relative to the adjacent mainland (Loiseau et al. 2017). Proxies of acquired immune function were lower on islands (Lobato et al. 2017), and genes from the Major Histocompatibility Complex (also involved in acquired immunity) were found to be under relaxed selection (Barthe et al. 2022), consistent with low exposure to pathogens. Other important genetic components of the immune system, however, were impacted by small population sizes and drift rather than by relaxed selection (Barthe et al. 2022). Demonstrating a direct link between the reduction in parasites and color loss in the avian community is more challenging. Although many of the island endemics have lost coloration and many of the more recent arrivals have not, the birds of Príncipe and São Tomé do not provide enough data points along the gradient of time since colonization to conclusively support the Hamilton and Zuk hypothesis. Box 6.3 Evolution on an Island of an Island Boné de Jóquei Islet (1) is only about 600 x 900 m and lies c. 2.5 km off the southeast coast of Príncipe (2), from which it has been separated since the last glaciation, c. 10,000 years ago. It holds an endemic subspecies of the Principe Seedeater Crithagra rufobrunnea fradei (3), which occurs at very high densities (4). Two other subspecies occur on Príncipe and on São Tomé Islands, respectively. The birds from Boné have the smallest wing relatively to their mass, indicating the loss of dispersal ability. They have evolved a high degree of tameness, reﬂecting evolution in a predator-free environment. They have stouter bills, which have likely evolved due to the reliance of their diet on the resources provided by the oil palm Elaeis guineensis, which constitutes the dominant vegetation. They feed both on the pollen of the male inﬂorescences (continued) 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 159 Box 6.3 (continued) (5) and on the fruit (6, 7). The oil palms of Boné produce giant fruits, which appear to have no parallel worldwide—and are not found on neighboring Príncipe, where both species also co-occur. The large fruits may have co-evolved as a defense against the strong predation pressure exerted by the seedeater, or as an adaptation against dispersal. (6) Large fruits from Boné oil palms in comparison with typical fruits; 15 cm ruler shown. Photo credits: Martim Melo. Inter-Speciﬁc Competition Accelerates Phenotypic Evolution Low levels of inter-speciﬁc competition characterize species-poor island assemblages, resulting in high levels of intra-speciﬁc competition. Both factors likely contribute to the evolution of many traits associated with the island syndrome. Research on bird speciation in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Melo 160 M. Melo et al. 2007; Melo et al. 2022), however, reveals an important role for rare cases of interspeciﬁc competition that occur when closely related lineages meet on the same island (see also: Grant 1965c)—an event that may be not so infrequent in intermediate island systems. Molecular phylogenies have shown that in most cases the most phenotypically divergent species are those that (1) evolved in sympatry with a close relative (both evolutionarily and ecologically) and (2) represent the most recent speciation events, instead of deriving from the oldest colonization events as previously assumed (Melo et al. 2022). For example, the two most phenotypically “aberrant” white-eyes, the Principe Speirops Zosterops leucophaeus and the São Tomé Speirops Z. lugubris, are sister species derived from the most recent speciation events in the Gulf of Guinea white-eye radiation (Box 21.2 in Melo et al. 2022). Furthermore, in this radiation, when two species meet it is the newcomer that changes the most (Melo et al. 2011), in a process of asymmetrical character displacement that had been predicted by theory (Doebeli and Dieckmann 2000), and conﬁrmed in the radiation of Darwin’s ﬁnches (Petren et al. 2005). The evolution of true giants among the Gulf of Guinea island birds seems to have resulted from the sequential effects of character release (Herrmann et al. 2020) and character displacement (Brown and Wilson 1956; Grant 1972). The three giant birds (weaver, sunbird, canary) all evolved in sympatry with a closely related lineage (the sister lineage in the case of the canary). This suggests the following history for the evolution of gigantism in the Gulf of Guinea birds, as previously suggested by Amadon (1953): (1) a colonizer arrives to an island; (2) with no direct competitors it evolves towards a generalist diet (character release), which in birds is associated with an increase in bill size and, correspondingly, body size (Grant 1965a; Blondel 2000); (3) a related lineage colonizes the island and inter-speciﬁc competition ensues; (4) for co-existence to be possible, selection drives a reduction in competition through character displacement, (5) the larger species evolves to become even larger. Morphometrics of the ﬁve-species radiation of the white-eyes of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea is strongly suggestive of character displacement as a driver of phenotypic differentiation, although in this case the larger species evolved from the secondary arrivals (Fig. 6.3). Collectively, these studies point to the importance of inter-speciﬁc competition in driving and accelerating phenotypic divergence in island birds, and even in the speciation process. Concluding Remarks The Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands are an exciting example of an intermediate island system, such that they are close enough to the continent to receive a diverse array of mainland dispersers but far enough away for these to diverge once they arrive to the islands. Thus, the archipelago holds great potential for testing classic hypotheses of island biogeography by providing a wide array of independent evolutionary replicates, something that is missing from more remote archipelagos dominated by few 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 161 Fig. 6.3 Evidence for character displacement? Morphometrics of the white-eyes (Zosteropidae) of the Gulf of Guinea, including the ﬁve-species radiation of the oceanic islands and the three species radiation of Bioko and Mount Cameroon. White-eyes generally occur as single allopatric species, but in the Gulf of Guinea there are four instances of co-occurrence of two species. On Annobón there is only one species, which has evolved a larger size than its mainland counterpart (broken line) in accordance with the island rule. In all other cases, where two species meet in sympatry, the secondary arrival (red) increased signiﬁcantly in size, while the ﬁrst colonizers (green) did not change much or decreased in size relative to their closest mainland relatives (depicted, approximately, by the broken line). In addition, the secondary arrivals evolved strikingly different colors from those of the typical white-eye template (Box 21.2 in Melo et al. 2022). These patterns of phenotypic divergence in this group support the process of asymmetric character displacement. The large phenotypic differences of the secondary arrivals led them to be originally placed in a separate genus, Speirops 162 M. Melo et al. lineages, and for investigating the role of gene ﬂow in speciation and diversiﬁcation. Likewise, the archipelago presents the opportunity to disentangle mechanisms of community assembly in a setting that is intermediate between the complex communities of continents, with high phylogenetic diversity, and the simple communities of more isolated archipelagos, in which most of the diversity is derived from a few extensive radiations. Finally, the archipelago’s endemics exhibit many of the unusual phenotypes that have long captured the attention of scientists and non-scientists, alike. As taxonomic and systematic research advances for the archipelago’s lesser known groups, hypothesis-driven studies investigating speciation and phenotypic evolution will be possible in a more representative subset of the remarkable diversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Acknowledgments MM was supported via the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 854248. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal) provided structural funding to CIBIO (UIDB/50027/2021). We thank the editor Ricardo F. de Lima for his helpful comments and suggestions. References Abbott R, Albach D, Ansell S et al (2013) Hybridization and speciation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 26(2):229–246 Adler GH, Levins R (1994) The island syndrome in rodent populations. The Quarterly Review of Biology 69:473–490 Ali JR, Fritz U (2021) Origins of Galápagos’ land-locked vertebrates: what, whence, when, how? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 134(2):261–284 Amadon D (1953) Avian systematics and evolution in the Gulf of Guinea. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 100(3):394–451 Amorim ME, Schoener TW, Santoro GRCC, Lins ACR, Piovia-Scott J, Brandão RA (2017) Lizards on newly created islands independently and rapidly adapt in morphology and diet. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(33):8812–8816 Anderson E, Stebbins GL (1954) Hybridization as an evolutionary stimulus. Evolution 8(4): 378–388 Antonelli A (2008) Higher level phylogeny and evolutionary trends in Campanulaceae subfam. Lobelioideae: molecular signal overshadows morphology. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 46(1):1–18 Antonelli A (2009) Have giant lobelias evolved several times independently? Life form shifts and historical biogeography of the cosmopolitan and highly diverse subfamily Lobelioideae (Campanulaceae). BMC Biology 7(1):82 Arnold ML (2015) Divergence with genetic exchange. Oxford University Press, Oxford Arnold ML, Emms SK (1998) Paradigm lost: natural hybridization and evolutionary innovations. In: Howard DJ, Berlocher SH (eds) Endless forms: species and speciation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 379–389 Baeckens S, Van Damme R (2020) The island syndrome. Current Biology 30:R338–R339 Barfod DN, Fitton JG (2014) Pleistocene volcanism on São Tomé, Gulf of Guinea, West Africa. Quaternary Geochronology 21:77–89 Barthe M, Doutrelant C, Covas R et al. (2022) Evolution of immune genes in island birds: reduction in population sizes can explain island syndrome. bioRxiv:2021.2011.2021.469450. https://doi. org/10.1101/2021.11.21.469450 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 163 Bell RC, Irian CG (2019) Phenotypic and genetic divergence in reed frogs across a mosaic hybrid zone on São Tomé island. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 128(3):672–680 Bell RC, Drewes RC, Channing A et al (2015a) Overseas dispersal of Hyperolius reed frogs from Central Africa to the oceanic islands of São Tomé and Príncipe. Journal of Biogeography 42:65–75 Bell RC, Drewes RC, Zamudio KR (2015b) Reed frog diversiﬁcation in the Gulf of Guinea: overseas dispersal, the progression rule, and in situ speciation. Evolution 69:904–915 Bell RC, Ceríaco LMP, Scheinberg LA, Drewes RC (2022) The amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 479–504 Benítez-López A, Santini L, Gallego-Zamorano J et al (2021) The island rule explains consistent patterns of body size evolution in terrestrial vertebrates. Nature Ecology and Evolution 5(6): 768–786 Biddick M, Hendriks A, Burns KC (2019) Plants obey (and disobey) the island rule. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(36):17632 Blondel J (2000) Evolution and ecology of birds on islands: trends and prospects. Vie et Milieu 50: 205–220 Bolnick DI, Fitzpatrick BM (2007) Sympatric speciation: models and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 38:459–487 Brown WLJ, Wilson EO (1956) Character displacement. Systematic Zoology 5:49–64 Buerkle CA (2014) Gene ﬂow, hybridization, and speciation. In: Losos JB (ed) The Princeton guide to evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton Burke K (2001) Origin of the Cameroon line of volcano-capped swells. Journal of Geology 109: 349–362 Burns KC (2019) Evolution in isolation: the search for an island syndrome in plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Caldeira R, Madeira J, Munhá JM et al (2003) Caracterização das principais unidades vulcanoestratigráﬁcas da ilha de São Tomé, Golfo da Guiné. Ciências da Terra (UNL) n esp. V:A15– A18 Carlquist S (1965) Island life: a natural history of the islands of the world. The Natural History Press, New York Carroll L (1865) Alice's adventures in wonderland. Macmillan, London Carson HL, Clague DA (1995) Geology and biogeography of the Hawaiian islands. In: Wagner WL, Funk VA (eds) Hawaiian biogeography: evolution on a hot spot archipelago. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 14–29 Carson HL, Kaneshiro KY (1976) Drosophila of Hawaii: systematics and ecological genetics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 7:311–345 Ceríaco LMP (2015) Lost in the middle of the sea, found in the back of the shelf: a new giant species of Trachylepis (Squamata: Scincidae) from Tinhosa Grande islet, Gulf of Guinea. Zootaxa 3973(3):511–527 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP, Bauer AM (2016) A review of the genus Trachylepis (Sauria: Scincidae) from the Gulf of Guinea, with descriptions of two new species in the Trachylepis maculilabris (Gray, 1845) species complex. Zootaxa 4109(3):284–314 Ceríaco LMP, Bernstein SAC et al (2020) The reptiles of Tinhosa Grande islet (Gulf of Guinea): a taxonomic update and the role of Quaternary Sea level ﬂuctuations in their diversiﬁcation. African Journal of Herpetology 69(2):200–2016 Ceríaco LMP, Arellano AL, Jadin R et al (2021) Taxonomic revision of the jita snakes (Lamprophiidae: Boaedon) from São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea), with the description of a new species. African Journal of Herpetology 70(1):1–31 Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Bell RC, Melo M (2022a) Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: a synthesis. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 1–12 164 M. Melo et al. Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP, Bell RC, Bauer AM (2022b) The terrestrial reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 505–534 Ceríaco LMP, Santos BS, Lima RF, Bell RC, Norder S, Melo M (2022c) Physical geography of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 13–36 Clegg SM (2010) Evolutionary changes following island colonization in birds: empirical insights into the roles of microevolutionary processes. In: Losos JB, Ricklefs RE (eds) The theory of island biogeography revisited. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 293–325 Clegg SM, Degnan SM, Kikkawa J, Moritz C, Estoup A, Owens IPF (2002) Genetic consequences of sequential founder events by an island-colonizing bird. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:8127–8132 Cody ML, Overton JM (1996) Short-term evolution of reduced seed dispersal in island plant populations. Journal of Ecology 84:53–61 Collins S (2004) Vocal ﬁghting and ﬂirting: the functions of birdsong. In: Marler P, Slabbekoorn H (eds) Nature's music: the science of birdsong. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, pp 39–79 Cooper BS, Sedghifar A, Nash WT, Comeault AA, Matute DR (2018) A maladaptive combination of traits contributes to the maintenance of a Drosophila hybrid zone. Current Biology 28(18): 2940–2947 Costa LM, Maia HA, Almeida AJ (2022) The ﬁshes of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 431–478 Covas R (2012) Evolution of reproductive life histories in island birds worldwide. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 279:1531–1537 Covas R (2016) Life history evolution in island populations of birds. In: Kilman R (ed) Encyclopedia of evolutionary biology. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 352–358 Coyne JA (2007) Sympatric speciation. Current Biology 17(18):R787–R788 Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer, Sunderland Coyne JA, Kim SY, Chang AS, Lachaise D, Elwyn S (2002) Sexual isolation between two sibling species with overlapping ranges: Drosophila santomea and Drosophila yakuba. Evolution 56(12):2424–2434 Craddock EM (2000) Speciation processes in the adaptive radiation of Hawaiian plants and animals. Evolutionary Biology 31:1–53 Crews SC, Esposito LA (2022) A checklist of the arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea islands (excluding ticks and mites). In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 273–294 Daniel TF (2010) Sciaphila ledermannii (Triuridaceae), a biogeographically signiﬁcant holosaprophyte newly reported from Príncipe in the Gulf of Guinea. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 61(7):617 Darwin C (1845) In: Fitz Roy RN (ed) Journal of researches into the natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle round the world, under the command of Capt, 2nd edn. John Murray, London Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection. John Murray, London Desjardin DE, Perry BA (2022) Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands—basidiomycete mushrooms and allies. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 189–216 Diamond JM (1981) Flightlessness and fear of ﬂying in island species. Nature 293(5833):507–508 Dijkstra K-DB, Tate RB (2022) Dragonﬂies and damselﬂies (Odonata) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 371–382 Doebeli M, Dieckmann U (2000) Evolutionary branching and sympatric speciation caused by different types of ecological interactions. American Naturalist 156:S77–S101 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 165 Doutrelant C, Paquet M, Renoult JP, Grégoire A, Crochet P-A, Covas R (2016) Worldwide patterns of bird colouration on islands. Ecology Letters 19(5):537–545 Dowling TE, Secor CL (1997) The role of hybridization and introgression in the diversiﬁcation of animals. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:593–619 Drewes RC, Wilkinson JA (2004) The California Academy of Sciences Gulf of Guinea expedition (2001) I. The taxonomic status of the genus Nesionixalus Perret, 1976 (Anura: Hyperoliidae), treefrogs of São Tomé and Príncipe, with comments on the genus Hyperolius. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 55:395–407 Emerson BC (2002) Evolution on oceanic islands: molecular phylogenetic approaches to understanding pattern and process. Molecular Ecology 11:951–966 Exell AW (1973) Angiosperms of the islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Fernando Pó, Príncipe, S. Tomé and Annobón). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Botany 4:325–411 Feder JL, Berlocher SH, Roethele JB et al (2003) Allopatric genetic origins for sympatric host-plant shifts and race formation in Rhagoletis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 10314–10319 Feder JL, Egan SP, Nosil P (2012) The genomics of speciation-with-gene-ﬂow. Trends in Genetics 28(7):342–350 Figueiredo E (1994) Diversity and endemism of angiosperms in the Gulf of Guinea islands. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:785–793 Fitton JG (1987) The Cameroon line, West Africa: a comparison between oceanic and continental alkaline volcanism. In: Fitton JG, Upton BGJ (eds) Alkaline Igneous Rocks, Geological Society Special Publication No 30. Blackwell Scientiﬁc Publications, London, pp 273–291 Frankham R (1997) Do island populations have less genetic variation than mainland populations? Heredity 78:311–327 Garcia CSC, Shevock JR (2022) The bryophyte ﬂora of São Tomé and Príncipe archipelago (Gulf of Guinea): past, present and future. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 217–248 Gilbert CM, Bell RC (2018) Evolution of advertisement calls in an island radiation of African reed frogs. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 123(1):1–11 Gillespie RG, Bennett GM, De Meester L et al. (2020) Comparing adaptive radiations across space, time, and taxa. Journal of Heredity 111(1):1–20 Grant PR (1965a) The adaptive signiﬁcance of some size trends is island birds. Evolution 19:355– 367 Grant PR (1965b) Plumage and the evolution of birds on islands. Systematic Zoology 14:47–52 Grant PR (1965c) Ecological compatibility of bird species on islands. American Naturalist 100(914):451–462 Grant PR (1972) Convergent and divergent character displacement. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 4(1):39–68 Grant PR (1998a) Evolution on islands. Oxford University Press, Oxford Grant PR (1998b) Patterns on islands and microevolution. In: Grant PR (ed) Evolution on islands. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–17 Grant PR (2000) R.C.L. Perkins and evolutionary radiations on islands. Oikos 89:195–201 Grant PR (2001) Reconstructing the evolution of birds on islands: 100 years of research. Oikos 92: 385–403 Grant PR, Grant BR (2008) How and why species multiply: the radiation of Darwin's Finches. Princeton University Press, Princeton Grifﬁth SC (2000) High ﬁdelity on islands: a comparative study of extrapair paternity in passerine birds. Behavioral Ecology 11(3):265–273 Hamilton WD, Zuk KM (1982) Heritable true ﬁtness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387 Harpp KS, Geist DJ (2018) The evolution of Galápagos volcanoes: an alternative perspective. Frontiers in Earth Science 6:50 166 M. Melo et al. Hayward A, Stone GN (2006) Comparative phylogeography across two trophic levels: the oak gall wasp Andricus kollari and its chalcid parasitoid Megastigmus stigmatizans. Molecular Ecology 15(2):479–480 Henriques MH, Neto K (2015) Geoheritage at the equator: selected geosites of São Tomé island (Cameron line, Central Africa). Sustainability 7:48–667 Herrmann NC, Stroud JT, Losos JB (2020) The evolution of 'ecological release' into the 21st century. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 36:206–215 Hume JP (2012) The dodo: from extinction to the fossil record. Geol Today 28:147–151 International Union for Conservation of Nature (2015) Ecosystem proﬁle: Guinean forests of West Africa biodiversity hotspot. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Arlington Jaynes KE, Myers EA, Drewes RC, Bell RC (2021) New evidence for distinctiveness of the islandendemic Príncipe giant tree frog (Arthroleptidae: Leptopelis palmatus). Herptological Journal 31:162–169 Jesus J, Harris DJ, Brehm A (2005) Phylogeography of Mabuya maculilabris (Reptilia) from São Tomé island (Gulf of Guinea) inferred from mtDNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37:503–510 Jourdin F, Froidefond JM, Loyer S et al (2006) Measuring upper ocean turbidity off Congo and Gabon coasts. Proceedings of Caracterisation du Milieu Marin 6:16–19 Kaneshiro KY, Gillepsie RG, Carson HL (1995) Chromosomes and male genitalia of Hawaiian Drosophila: tools for interpreting phylogeny and geography. In: Wagner WL, Funk VA (eds) Hawaiian biogeography: evolution on a hot spot archipelago. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 57–71 Kavanagh PH, Burns KC (2014) The repeated evolution of large seeds on islands. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281(1786):20140675 Lachaise D, Harry M, Solignac M, Lemeunier F, Bénassi V, Cariou ML (2000) Evolutionary novelties in islands: Drosophila santomea, a new melanogaster sister species from São Tomé. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 267(1452): 1487–1495 Lee D-C, Halliday AN, Fitton JG, Poli G (1994) Isotopic variations with distance and time in the volcanic islands of the Cameroon line: evidence for a mantle plume origin. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 123:119–138 Leihy RI, Chown SL (2020) Wind plays a major but not exclusive role in the prevalence of insect ﬂight loss on remote islands. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 287(1940):20202121 Lézine A-M, Tastet J-P, Leroux M (1994) Evidence of atmospheric paleocirculation over the Gulf of Guinea since the last glacial maximum. Quaternary Research 41:390–395 Llopart A, Elwyn S, Lachaise D, Coyne AJ (2002) Genetics of a difference in pigmentation between Drosophila yakuba and Drosophila santomea. Evolution 56(11):2262–2277 Llopart A, Lachaise D, Coyne JA (2005a) Multilocus analysis of introgression between two sympatric sister species of drosophila: Drosophila yakuba and D. santomea. Genetics 171(1): 197 Llopart A, Lachaise D, Coyne AJ (2005b) An anomalous hybrid zone in Drosophila. Evolution 59(12):2602–2607 Loader SP, Pisani D, Cotton JA, Gower DJ, Day JJ, Wilkinson M (2007) Relative time scales reveal multiple origins of parallel disjunct distributions of African caecilian amphibians. Biology Letters 3(5):505–508 Lobato E, Doutrelant C, Melo M, Reis S, Covas R (2017) Insularity effects on bird immune parameters: a comparison between island and mainland populations in West Africa. Ecology and Evolution 7:3645–3656 Loiseau C, Melo M, Lobato E et al (2017) Insularity effects on the assemblage of the blood parasite community of the birds from the Gulf of Guinea. Journal of Biogeography 44(11):2607–2617 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 167 Loiseau C, Melo M, Lee Y et al (2019) High endemism of mosquitoes on São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: evaluating the general dynamic model in a worldwide island comparison. Insect Conservation and Diversity 12:69–79 Lomolino MV (2005) Body size evolution in insular vertebrates: generality of the island rule. Journal of Biogeography 32(10):1683–1699 Lomolino MV, Geer AA, Lyras GA, Palombo MR, Sax DF, Rozzi R (2013) Of mice and mammoths: generality and antiquity of the island rule. Journal of Biogeography 40(8): 1427–1439 Losos JB, Ricklefs RE (2009) Adaptation and diversiﬁcation on islands. Nature 457:830–836 MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton MacArthur RH, Diamond JM, Karr JR (1972) Density compensation in island faunas. Ecology 53: 330–342 Martin PR, Montgomerie R, Lougheed SC (2010) Rapid sympatry explains greater color pattern divergence in high latitude birds. Evolution 64(2):336–347 Martin CH, Cutler JS, Friel JP, Touokong CD, Coop G, Wainwright PC (2015a) Complex histories of repeated gene ﬂow in Cameroon crater lake cichlids cast doubt on one of the clearest examples of sympatric speciation. Evolution 69:1406–1422 Martin PR, Montgomerie R, Lougheed SC (2015b) Color patterns of closely related bird species are more divergent at intermediate levels of breeding-range sympatry. The American Naturalist 185(4):443–451 Matute DR, Ayroles JF (2014) Hybridization occurs between Drosophila simulans and D. sechellia in the Seychelles archipelago. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 27:1057–1068 Matute DR, Cooper BS (2021) Comparative studies on speciation: 30 years since Coyne and Orr. Evolution 75(4):764–778 Matute DR, Comeault AA, Earley E et al (2020) Rapid and predictable evolution of admixed populations between two Drosophila species pairs. Genetics 214(1):211 Mayr E, Diamond JM (2001) The birds of northern Melanesia: speciation, ecology, and biogeography. Oxford University Press, Oxford Measey GJ, Vences M, Drewes RC, Chiari Y, Melo M, Bourles B (2007) Freshwater paths into the ocean: molecular phylogeny of the frog Ptychadena newtoni gives insights into amphibian colonisation of oceanic islands. Journal of Biogeography 34:7–20 Melo M (2007) Bird speciation in the Gulf of Guinea. PhD thesis. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh Melo M, O'Ryan C (2007) Genetic differentiation between Príncipe island and mainland populations of the grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus), and implications for conservation. Molecular Ecology 16:1673–1685 Melo M, Warren BH, Jones PJ (2011) Rapid parallel evolution of aberrant traits in the diversiﬁcation of the Gulf of Guinea white-eyes (Aves, Zosteropidae). Molecular Ecology 20:4953–4967 Melo M, Stervander M, Hansson B, Jones PJ (2017) The endangered São Tomé grosbeak Neospiza concolor is the world's largest canary. Ibis 159:673–679 Melo M, Jones PJ, Lima RF (2022) The avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 555–592 Mendes LF, Bivar-de-Sousa A (2022) Butterﬂies and skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. An updated checklist. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 349–370 Miller EC, Sellas AB, Drewes RC (2012) A new species of Hemidactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Príncipe island, Gulf of Guinea, West Africa with comments on the African–Atlantic clade of Hemidactylus geckos. African Journal of Herpetology 61(1):40–57 Moehring AJ, Llopart A, Elwyn S, Coyne JA, Mackay TFC (2006a) The genetic basis of prezygotic reproductive isolation between Drosophila santomea and D. yakuba due to mating preference. Genetics 173(1):215–223 168 M. Melo et al. Moehring AJ, Llopart A, Elwyn S, Coyne JA, Mackay TFC (2006b) The genetic basis of postzygotic reproductive isolation between Drosophila santomea and D. yakuba due to hybrid male sterility. Genetics 173(1):225–233 Mustapha M, McCall PJ, Cheke RA, Post RJ (2006) The blackﬂies (Diptera: Simuliidae) of Bioko (Republic of Equatorial Guinea) and the Gulf of Guinea with a description of the larvae of the ‘Pomeroy’ form of Simulium cervicornutum. Systematic Entomology 31:611–620 Nève G, Bonneau P, Coache A, Serrano A, Filippi G (2022) The beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 295–348 Nicolas V, Jacquet F, Hutterer R et al (2019) Multilocus phylogeny of the Crocidura poensis species complex (Mammalia, Eulipotyphla): inﬂuences of the palaeoclimate on its diversiﬁcation and evolution. Journal of Biogeography 46(5):871–873 Nosil P (2012) Ecological speciation. In: Oxford series in ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford Novosolov M, Raia P, Meiri S (2013) The island syndrome in lizards. Global Ecology and Biogeography 22:184–191 O’Connell KA, Prates I, Scheinberg LA, Mulder KP, Bell RC (2021) Speciation and secondary contact in a fossorial island endemic, the São Tomé caecilian. Molecular Ecology 30:2859–2871 Panisi M, Lima RF, Lima JC et al (2022) Terrestrial mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham Pereira H (2013) Conservation genetics of the endemic pigeons of São Tomé and Príncipe. MSc thesis. Universidade do Porto, Porto Perkins RCL (1901) An introduction to the study of the Drepanidae, a family of birds peculiar to the Hawaiian islands. Ibis 1(8):562–585 Perkins RCL (1903) Vertebrata. In: Sharp D (ed) Fauna Hawaiiensis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 365–466 Perkins RCL (1913) Introduction. In: Sharp D (ed) Fauna Hawaiiensis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp xv–ccxxviii Petren K, Grant PR, Grant BR, Keller LF (2005) Comparative landscape genetics and the adaptive radiation of Darwin's ﬁnches: the role of peripheral isolation. Molecular Ecology 14:2943–2957 Pinho C, Hey J (2010) Divergence with gene ﬂow: models and data. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 41:215–230 Plana V, Gascoigne A, Forrest LL, Harris D, Pennington RT (2004) Pleistocene and pre-Pleistocene Begonia speciation in Africa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:449–461 Planqué R, Slabbekoorn H (2008) Spectral overlap in songs and temporal avoidance in a Peruvian bird assemblage. Ethology 114(3):262–271 Rainho A, Meyer CFJ, Thorsteinsdóttir S, Juste J, Palmeirim JM (2022) Current knowledge and conservation of the wild mammals of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 593–620 Richardson PL, Walsh D (1986) Mapping climatological seasonal variations of surface currents in the tropical Atlantic using ship drifts. Journal of Geophysical Research 91:10537–10550 Ricklefs RE, Bermingham E (1999) Taxon cycles in the lesser Antillean avifauna. Ostrich 70:49–59 Ricklefs RE, Bermingham E (2002) The concept of the taxon cycle in biogeography. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11:353–361 Ricklefs RE, Bermingham E (2007) The causes of evolutionary radiations in archipelagoes: passerine birds in the Lesser Antilles. American Naturalist 169:285–297 Ricklefs RE, Soares L, Ellis VA, Latta SC (2016) Haemosporidian parasites and avian host population abundance in the Lesser Antilles. Journal of Biogeography 43:1277–1286 Robert A, Lengagne T, Melo M et al (2019) The theory of island biogeography and soundscapes: species diversity and the organization of acoustic communities. Journal of Biogeography 46: 1901–1911 6 Biogeography and Evolution in the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea 169 Robert A, Melo M, Lengagne T, Julien S, Gomez D, Doutrelant C (2021) Patterns of bird song evolution on islands support the character release hypothesis in tropical but not in temperate latitudes. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 34:1580–1591 Rundell RJ, Price TD (2009) Adaptive radiation, nonadaptive radiation, ecological speciation and nonecological speciation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:394–399 Rundle HD, Nosil P (2005) Ecological speciation. Ecology Letters 8:336–352 Ryan PG, Bloomer P, Moloney CL, Grant TJ, Delport W (2007) Ecological speciation in South Atlantic island ﬁnches. Science 315:1420–1423 Schalansky J (2010) Atlas of remote islands: ﬁfty islands I have never visited and never will. Penguin Books, London Schluter D (2000) The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford University Press, Oxford Scott SN, Clegg SM, Blomberg SP, Kikkawa J, Ian PFO (2003) Morphological shifts in islanddwelling birds: the roles of generalist foraging and niche expansion. Evolution 57(9): 2147–2156 Seehausen O (2004) Hybridization and adaptive radiation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(4): 198–207 Seehausen O, Butlin RK, Keller I et al (2014) Genomics and the origin of species. Nature Reviews Genetics 15(3):176–192 Stervander M (2009) Tracking genetic divergence in Gulf of Guinea ﬁnches - strong support for sympatric speciation. MSc Thesis. Lund University, Lund Stervander M (2015) On speciation in birds—genomic signatures across space and time. PhD thesis. University of Lund, Lund Stervander M, Melo M, Jones PJ, Hansson B (2022) Genomic signatures of isolation, hybridization, and selection during speciation of island ﬁnches. bioRxiv:2022.2001.2005.474904. https://doi. org/10.1101/2022.01.05.474904 Stévart T, Dauby G, Ikabanga DU et al (2022) Diversity of the vascular plants of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 249–272 Stoelting RE, Measey GJ, Drewes RC (2014) Population genetics of the São Tomé Caecilian (Gymnophiona: Dermophiidae: Schistometopum thomense) reveals strong geographic structuring. PLoS One 9(8):e104628 Taylor SA, Larson EL (2019) Insights from genomes into the evolutionary importance and prevalence of hybridization in nature. Nature Ecology and Evolution 3(2):170–177 Turissini DA, Matute DR (2017) Fine scale mapping of genomic introgressions within the Drosophila yakuba clade. PLoS Genetics 13(9):e1006971 Turissini DA, Liu G, David JR, Matute DR (2015) The evolution of reproductive isolation in the Drosophila yakuba complex of species. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 28:557–575 Uy JAC, Vargas-Castro LE (2015) Island size predicts the frequency of melanic birds in the colorpolymorphic ﬂycatcher Monarcha castaneiventris of the Solomon Islands. The Auk 132(4): 787–794 Valente L, Phillimore AB, Melo M et al (2020) A simple dynamic model explains the diversity of island birds worldwide. Nature 579(7797):92–96 Vences M (2005) Madagascar as a model region for the study of tempo and pattern in adaptive radiations. In: Huber BA, Sinclair BJ, Lampe K-H (eds) African biodiversity: molecules, organisms, ecosystems. Springer, New York Wagner WL, Funk VA (eds) (1995) Hawaiian biogeography: evolution on a hot spot archipelago. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington Wallace AR (1880) Island life: or, the phenomena and causes of insular faunas and ﬂoras, including a revision and attempted solution of the problem of geological climates. Macmillan, London Weigelt P, Kreft H (2013) Quantifying island isolation—insights from global patterns of insular plant species richness. Ecography 36:417–419 170 M. Melo et al. Weinell JL, Branch WR, Colston TJ et al (2019) A species-level phylogeny of Trachylepis (Scincidae: Mabuyinae) provides insight into their reproductive mode evolution. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 136:183–195 Weir JT, Wheatcroft DJ, Price TD (2012) The role of ecological constraint in driving the evolution of avian song frequency across a latitudinal gradient. Evolution 66(9):2773–2783 Whittaker RJ (1998) Island biogeography: ecology, evolution, and conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford Whittaker RJ, Fernández-Palacios JM, Matthews TJ, Borregaard MK, Triantis KA (2017) Island biogeography: taking the long view of nature’s laboratories. Science 357(6354):eaam8326 Wilson EO (1961) The nature of the taxon cycle in the Melanesian ant fauna. The American Naturalist 95(882):169–193 Wollerman L, Wiley HR (2002) Possibilities for error during communication by neotropical frogs in a complex acoustic environment. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 52(6):465–473 Wright NA, Steadman DW, Witt CC (2016) Predictable evolution toward ﬂightlessness in volant island birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(17):4765 Zimkus BM, Lawson LP, Barej MF et al (2017) Leapfrogging into new territory: how Mascarene ridged frogs diversiﬁed across Africa and Madagascar to maintain their ecological niche. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 106:254–269 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 7 Species Ecology in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Distribution, Habitat Preferences, Assemblages, and Interactions Filipa C. Soares, Joana M. Hancock, Jorge M. Palmeirim, Hugulay Albuquerque Maia, Tariq Stévart, and Ricardo F. de Lima Abstract The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón) are an exceptional centre of endemism for ﬂora and fauna. Remarkable progress has been made in biological research during the last few decades: from species being described and reported for the ﬁrst time, to general patterns of specieshabitat associations found across terrestrial, coastal, and marine taxa. Despite this increase in knowledge, key aspects of Gulf of Guinea species ecology remain poorly F. C. Soares (*) · J. M. Palmeirim Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal J. M. Hancock Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal MARE, Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, ISPA, Instituto Universitário de Ciências Psicológicas, Sociais e da Vida, Lisbon, Portugal H. A. Maia Departamento de Ciências Naturais, da Vida e do Ambiente, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologias, Universidade de São Tomé e Príncipe, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe T. Stévart Africa and Madagascar Department, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO, USA Herbarium et Bibliothèque de Botanique Africaine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium Meise Botanic Garden, Meise, Belgium R. F. de Lima Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Centre, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_7 171 172 F. C. Soares et al. understood. This chapter reviews existing knowledge on the biodiversity of the islands, focusing on species distributions, population abundance estimates, traits, habitat associations and interactions. To promote these islands as ecological models, and to ensure the future of their endemic-rich biodiversity, it is essential to overcome current knowledge gaps and reduce existing taxonomic, spatial, and temporal biases in the information available. Therefore, future studies should favour systematic island-wide surveys and prioritize understudied areas and taxonomic groups. Moreover, long-term monitoring studies are urgently needed to assess biodiversity trends and to advise conservation actions. The future of ecological research and conservation of the unique biodiversity of these islands must increasingly rely on the development of local biodiversity-focused scientiﬁc expertise, through outreach, capacity building, and advanced training, paired with international collaborations and the development of local organizations. Keywords Annobón · Conservation · Exotic species · Príncipe · São Tomé · Seasonality Introduction The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón) have long been recognized for the high levels of endemism of their ﬂora and fauna (Jones 1994). This in itself makes them an important model of ecological research, but studying ecology in these unique islands may also provide invaluable insights into evolutionary and ecological processes, since islands can be used as natural experiments to extrapolate to wider scales (Whittaker et al. 2017). The description of the biodiversity in the archipelago began in the late eighteenth century and was intensiﬁed during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Ceríaco et al. 2022b). Since then, the islands have captured the imagination and efforts of biologists, prompting scientiﬁc studies across multiple disciplines, many of which aim to clarify different aspects of ecology (e.g., Lima 2016), such as species distributions and habitat associations. Up to the 1990s, virtually all zoological publications focused on taxonomy (Gascoigne 1993), and this is still mostly the case for plants (Stévart et al. 2022) and most invertebrates. Despite an increase in ecological research over the last few decades, key aspects of the ecology of species occurring in the Gulf of Guinea islands remain poorly documented, such as the inﬂuence community diversity and composition has on ecosystem processes. Progress is often halted by major knowledge gaps in areas fundamental to ecology, such as taxonomy. This has been the case for most invertebrates, as unresolved taxonomy halts progress in other areas of research. Take the example of terrestrial molluscs, in which an updated taxonomy opened the doors for several ecological studies (Panisi et al. 2022). Here, we review existing information on the ecology of species from the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Speciﬁcally, we address current knowledge on species distributions, population abundance, traits, habitat associations and interactions. We 7 Species Ecology in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Distribution,. . . 173 also provide key references for each island and taxonomic group and identify current knowledge gaps to direct future research. Distribution Information on the distributions of species on the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea has been an important feature of initial studies. Some are even associated with the ﬁrst descriptions of the islands themselves: a report of São Tomé in 1506, made by the Portuguese navigator Gonçalo Pires and written by Valentim Fernandes, describes an abundance of kites and the occurrence of a crocodilian that has since been extirpated from the island (Monod et al. 1951). However, much of the data on species distributions available today is still limited to the brief reports included in species descriptions (e.g. Ceríaco et al. 2015), species catalogues (e.g. Stévart and de Oliveira 2000; Csuzdi 2005; Sérgio and Garcia 2011; Mendes and Bivar-de-Sousa 2012), or studies focusing on various aspects of their biology (e.g. Drewes and Stoelting 2004). These are usually based on opportunistic observations, rather than on systematic surveys of the islands, and often only mention the islands where the species occur. When such studies provide details on the distribution of a given species, they tend to be biased towards well preserved accessible sites (Atkinson et al. 1991, Stévart et al. 2022). Few studies have compiled geographically explicit information on species locations. Some exceptions include pteridophytes (Figueiredo 2002), endemic plants (Joffroy 2000; Stévart et al. 2022), land snails (Holyoak et al. 2020), and birds (Jones and Tye 2006). In some cases, information and even maps are shown, but details on how these were obtained are missing, as is the case for amphibians and reptiles (Pollo 2017) and threatened endemic birds (IUCN 2020a). Even fewer species assemblages have been systematically surveyed across any of the islands. Some exceptions include plants (Fundação Príncipe 2019; Stévart et al. 2022), terrestrial snails (Tavares 2020), benthic reefs and ﬁshes (Maia et al. 2018b), sea turtles (Ribeiro 2018; Hancock 2019), birds (Fundação Príncipe 2019; Soares et al. 2020), and bats (Rainho et al. 2010). Bird surveys informed some of the ﬁrst island-wide assessments of the distribution of community traits, such as species richness, composition, and structure (e.g. Lima et al. 2013; Soares 2017; Fig. 7.1). Documenting plant species assemblages to classify vegetation is ongoing (Dauby et al. 2022), although the main gradients have been described (Monod 1960; Stévart 1998; Ogonovszky 2003). The scarcity of historical records hampers the detection and quantiﬁcation of temporal changes in the distribution of species on the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. However, sometimes even sporadic records allow assessing trends, such as the retraction of native species and the expansion of introduced species. For instance, localities linked to herbarium samples have provided convincing evidence for the disappearance of many plant species from large portions of the north of São Tomé and Príncipe, such as Aerangis ﬂexuosa (Ridl.) Schltr, 1887. Interviews in rural and 174 F. C. Soares et al. Fig. 7.1 Maps showing the distribution of (a) non-native bird species richness, (b) proportion of native bird species (Soares et al. 2020), and (c) compositional dissimilarity (Soares 2017). There was a clear opposing pattern in the distribution of non-native species richness and proportion of native species: non-native bird species thrive particularly well in land use types most inﬂuenced by humans (a), whereas native bird species dominate the best-preserved forests (b). Species composition largely coincides with the distinct land use types (c) coastal communities suggest distribution areas for populations of giant land snails (Panisi 2017) and ﬁshes (Maia et al. 2018a) have shifted. Historical distribution data reveal strong declines in the ranges of the endemic Obô Giant Land Snail Archachatina bicarinata (Bruguière, 1792) (Dallimer and Melo 2010), of the endemic São Tomé Shrew Crocidura thomensis (Bocage, 1887) (Lima et al. 2016), and of the number of beaches where sea turtles nest on São Tomé (Graff 1996; Ribeiro 2018). The number of recorded extinctions and extirpations is very small, with the only documented cases being an unknown species of crocodile on São Tomé (Ceríaco et al. 2018), an endemic subspecies of Olive Ibis on Príncipe (Lima and Melo 2021), and two orchid species (IUCN 2020). However, as for most other oceanic islands, vegetation clearance and the introduction of species are likely to have caused extinctions and extirpations before taxonomic studies started, and those may remain unknown, especially considering the poor fossil or subfossil record of the islands. Population Estimates To date, there has not been an attempt to estimate plant population sizes. The ﬁrst attempts to characterize plant species abundance on Príncipe provided valuable information on population dynamics of threatened species (Benitez et al. 2018). This study also revealed a higher abundance of species than previously thought, with high levels of regeneration for Grossera elongata Hutch, 1944, Santiria balsamifera 7 Species Ecology in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Distribution,. . . 175 Oliv., 1886, and Mesogyne henriquesii Engl., 1894, and a lack of regeneration for Strephonema sp. nov. and Carapa gogo A. Chev. ex Kenfack, 2011. The scarcity of quantitative surveys has resulted in very few reliable population size estimates for animal species. These include estimates made for birds (Dallimer and King 2007; Dallimer et al. 2009, 2010, 2012; Fundação Príncipe 2019), particularly for species of conservation concern, such as the Critically Endangered Dwarf Olive Ibis Bostrychia bocagei (Chapin, 1923) (Azevedo 2015), all pigeon species on São Tomé (Carvalho 2014), the Endangered Grey Parrot Psittacus sp. on Príncipe (Valle 2015), and the undescribed Príncipe Scops-Owl Otus sp. (Freitas 2019). Recent studies have also attempted to estimate population sizes for the Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766) (Hancock 2019) and the Obô Giant Land Snail (Panisi 2017; Fundação Príncipe 2019), both on Príncipe and on São Tomé. On land, the difﬁcult terrain and dense vegetation have greatly hampered the use of methods to account for detectability, such as distance sampling (but see: Dallimer and King 2007). In marine ecosystems abundances are even harder to sample, partly because many of the important species in these environments are migratory and have complex life cycles. The very few long-term population studies that have been conducted include attempts to determine population trends of reef ﬁshes, sea turtles, seabirds, and the Grey Parrot on Príncipe. The study of reef ﬁsh on São Tomé revealed worrisome declines (Maia et al. 2018b). Underwater visual census and photo-quadrats across six sites around São Tomé allowed researchers to explore the relative importance of exposure, depth, and topographic complexity as drivers of ﬁsh and benthic reef communities. Species richness, abundance, and biomass of reef ﬁsh were higher in deeper sites, which suffer less inﬂuence from human activities and are under the direct inﬂuence of a constant thermocline resulting from the intrusion of cold waters from the Benguela current. Breeding female sea turtles have been monitored on Príncipe and São Tomé since the early 1990s (Ribeiro 2018; Hancock 2019). However, incomplete temporal and spatial coverage has led to high levels of uncertainty and hindered the quantiﬁcation of critical parameters to estimate abundances. Recent advances in population modelling are overcoming this problem (Hancock et al. 2019), and standardized surveys carried out on both islands since 2012 will allow even more accurate estimates in the future. Techniques such as genetic analyses have also been used to estimate operational sex-ratios and assess population changes over time, such as reductions in effective population sizes in the Olive Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829), and migration rates in the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1758) (Hancock et al. 2019). Local seabird colonies are the most important in the tropical Eastern Atlantic (BirdLife International 2020), primarily due to the large breeding colonies on the Tinhosas islets (Monteiro et al. 1997; Valle et al. 2016; Bollen et al. 2018; Lima and Martins 2020). These small islets (<25 ha) host around 140,000 breeding pairs of Sooty Tern Onychoprion fuscatus (Linnaeus, 1766), 10,000 pairs of Brown Noddy Anous stolidus (Linnaeus, 1758), and important breeding populations of Black Noddy Anous minutus Boie, 1844, and Brown Booby Sula leucogaster (Boddaert, 176 F. C. Soares et al. 1783). Large population decreases have been reported for these colonies, but it is not yet clear whether these represent real declines or natural variations between years. Breeding and non-breeding seabird population sizes were ﬁrst assessed in 1997, for most islets and small islands around Príncipe and São Tomé (Monteiro et al. 1997). More recently, the Tinhosas have been monitored quarterly to reﬁne population estimates and trends, and to gain a better understanding of the breeding seasonality of these species (Valle et al. 2016; Bollen et al. 2018; Lima and Martins 2020). Finally, the population of Grey Parrot on Príncipe has so far been the only one targeted by a population viability analysis (Valle 2015). Counts suggest that the species has recovered since the 2005 trade ban, now numbering around 8000 individuals, and that adult survivorship is critical to ensure population persistence, since the species can sustain relatively high levels of chick harvesting. Species Traits From early on, researchers showed an interest in describing the temporal trends in the evolution and selection of species traits (Hortal et al. 2015). Many initial descriptions of biodiversity provided the ﬁrst data on species traits that are vital for ecological studies. Biological collections, in particular, play a fundamental role in enriching trait databases, and can even lead to unexpected discoveries. In the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, morphological analyses of more than 2500 plant specimens collected in 2019 and 2020 have yielded many new species, while rediscovering rare species and ﬁnding new records for the islands (Stévart et al. 2022). Despite strong research effort in the 2000s (Figueiredo et al. 2011), ongoing studies on orchids are still leading to the description of new species, especially for the genus Tridactyle. Moreover, museum specimens allow the quantiﬁcation of traits and trait variability, which are key to understanding the ecological function of species (e.g., Heleno et al. 2021). These collections are particularly relevant for species that might be harder to ﬁnd and offer a historical reference that allows an assessment of temporal changes in traits, an aspect that remains poorly explored in these and other islands. Species traits can be measured not only on museum specimens but also in the ﬁeld, on living specimens that are not collected. This has begun to be carried out extensively in plants, but the amount of information available varies greatly between islands and speciﬁc groups (Exell 1944; Figueiredo et al. 2011; Sérgio and Garcia 2011; Klopper and Figueiredo 2013; Velayos et al. 2014), and, overall, information about plant traits remains scarce. This is not surprising considering that much of the plant taxonomy remains unresolved, and many species are still being reported and described as new to the islands (Benitez et al. 2018; Stévart et al. 2022). Ongoing work focused on threatened plant species has been collecting important information on species traits (Stévart et al. 2019). A new checklist of land snails of São Tomé and Príncipe provided some information on these species’ traits (Holyoak et al. 2020). Despite limitations, both on the 7 Species Ecology in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Distribution,. . . 177 types of the traits characterized and on the number of species that have been assessed (Tavares 2020), this remains one of the few studies providing species traits for invertebrate taxa. Sea turtle and bird traits have been studied much more extensively on the islands. The long-term monitoring of sea turtles in Príncipe and São Tomé since the 1990s collected data on female size that captured both spatial and temporal variation (Ribeiro 2018; Hancock 2019). Bird banding activities on the islands, although sporadic, have allowed collecting trait data, mostly on activity, morphometric measurements, and coloration, which have improved our understanding of sexual dimorphism, spatial trait variability, and daily and annual life cycles (King and Dallimer 2003; Madeira 2018). High endemism rates and island syndromes hinder the use of the increasingly available global trait databases to assess species traits for island species, which have to be gathered locally (e.g., Covas 2016). In addition, behavioural, physiological, and life-history traits are often less easily recorded than morphological traits and remain an important knowledge gap (Hortal et al. 2015). Finally, to interpret current ecosystems under the lens of long-term ecology it is also vital to understand which species are native (Nogué et al. 2017). Habitat Associations Until recently, local information on species-habitat associations was very scarce (e.g., Exell 1944; de Naurois 1994), but the situation has greatly improved since the 1990s. Some of the ﬁrst studies from this period reported associations between species occurrence and local environmental variables, producing brief descriptions of habitat preferences (e.g., Atkinson et al. 1991; Joffroy 2000; Jones and Tye 2006). This was followed by more detailed and accurate descriptions for the best-studied groups, such as mammals (e.g., Dutton and Haft 1996) and birds (e.g., Dallimer and King 2007). In recent years, a few studies have used geographically explicit information on environmental variables to model the distribution of terrestrial snails and birds on Príncipe (Fundação Príncipe 2019; Rebelo 2020) and on São Tomé (Lima et al. 2017; Panisi 2017; Soares 2017). Some of these studies have also assessed how local variables, often related to the vegetation, affect the distribution of species and species assemblages at smaller scales. Most of these have focused on vertebrates, such as amphibians (e.g., Strauß et al. 2018) and birds (e.g., Lima et al. 2013; Carvalho et al. 2015; Margarido 2015; Lewis et al. 2018; Alves 2019; Freitas 2019), but also on land snails (Panisi 2017; Rebelo 2020; Tavares 2020). Native species, and especially endemic and threatened species, tend to be strongly associated with ecosystems that have been less disturbed by human activities. This pattern is common to terrestrial, coastal, and marine realms, and to distinct groups, including birds (Lima et al. 2013; Soares et al. 2020), tree frogs (Strauß et al. 2018), 178 F. C. Soares et al. sea turtles (Hancock 2019), land snails (Panisi 2017; Tavares 2020), and even earthworms (Csuzdi 2005) in the Gulf of Guinea. In terrestrial groups, species distributions are strongly determined by land use, which in turn has been shaped mostly by topography (Jones et al. 1991; Norder et al. 2020). The best-preserved native forests, on which most native species depend, tend to persist in rainy, remote, and rugged areas (e.g., Soares et al. 2020). However, some native species, and even a few endemics, managed to adapt to novel ecosystems created by humans, including some birds (Dallimer et al. 2009; Lima et al. 2013; Carvalho 2014; Alves 2019), mammals (Rainho et al. 2010), frogs (Strauß et al. 2018), and land snails (Tavares 2020). Among novel ecosystems, those that maintain dense tree cover and mimic the structure of the native vegetation seem to be preferred by native species (Jones and Tye 2006; Lima et al. 2014). These include secondary forests, which result from vegetation regrowth after logging and agricultural abandonment, and agroforest systems, such as coffee and cocoa shade plantations, which integrate trees and agricultural crops (Jones et al. 1991; Oyono et al. 2014; Dauby et al. 2022). Unfortunately, it is also clear that many taxa do not cope well in these novel ecosystems (e.g., Fundação Príncipe 2019; Soares et al. 2020). In contrast with native terrestrial species, introduced species tend to be associated with more intensive land uses, many of which are located in the drier lowlands (Jones et al. 1991). On São Tomé, introduced birds are mainly small granivore species that rely on anthropogenic land uses (Soares et al. 2020), while introduced mammals seem to be less restricted to these environments (Dutton 1994). Altitude might be less relevant to explain the distribution of mobile terrestrial organisms with broad ecological niches, such as most birds (e.g., Soares et al. 2020; but see: Dallimer et al. 2009; Lima et al. 2017), but it is crucial for other groups, such as snails (Tavares 2020), and notably plants (Exell 1944; Monod 1960; Stévart et al. 2022). Since plants are key components of terrestrial ecosystems, altitude has thus fundamental implications for how ecosystems are distributed across the islands (Dauby et al. 2022). In reef ecosystems, depth and wave exposure appear to be the most important factors to explain changes in ﬁsh diversity (Tuya et al. 2018) and in the composition of ﬁsh and benthic communities (Morais and Maia 2017; Maia et al. 2018b). For highly mobile marine megafauna, such as sea turtles and cetaceans, species distributions vary among groups and appear to be related mostly to ecosystem type, food availability, depth, and sea surface temperature. For example, species of cetaceans that are quite similar, such as the Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stenella attenuata (Gray, 1846), and the Common Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821), show clearly distinct habitat preferences related with bathymetry (Picanço et al. 2009). In the case of sea turtles, the habitat associations are strongly related to life stage. Juvenile Green and Hawksbills sea turtles feed on seagrasses or algal beds and coral and/or rocky reefs respectively, all year long (Monzón-Argüello et al. 2011; Ferreira et al. 2018; Hancock et al. 2018). By contrast, most adult turtles are found in coastal waters only during the reproductive season and are seldom observed feeding. The northern beaches of São Tomé are dominated by the Olive Ridley, which is extremely rare in the south of the island and on the island of Príncipe 7 Species Ecology in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Distribution,. . . 179 (Hancock et al. 2015). On the other hand, the Green Turtle is clearly the dominant nesting sea turtle species on Príncipe, and on the eastern and southern shores of São Tomé. This is linked to the preference of Green Turtle for narrow and steeper beaches associated with strong erosive processes, while Olive Ridley prefers unobstructed access to wide beaches with gentle slopes. The Hawksbill Turtle typically prefers small, protected beaches composed mainly of coralline sand and surrounded by vegetation, hence occurring mostly on the Rolas Islet off São Tomé, and along the northern coast of Príncipe (Hancock 2019). Species Interactions Interactions between species are often complex, but they are the structure that supports biodiversity, and thus their study is fundamental to understand ecosystem functioning (Thébault and Fontaine 2010). Since they rely on detailed knowledge of basic aspects of the ecology of species and are often difﬁcult to quantify, few species interactions have been studied in-depth on these islands, and the information available in the literature is often still limited to brief descriptions (e.g., Jones and Tye 2006; Wirtz and d’Udekem d’Acoz 2008; Vasco-Rodrigues et al. 2017). We drafted a qualitative vertebrate food web for terrestrial ecosystems in São Tomé and Príncipe, distinguishing native and non-native species (Fig. 7.2). This was based solely on information on trophic interactions described for the islands for introduced mammals (Dutton 1994), birds (Jones and Tye 2006), bats (Rainho et al. 2010), shrews (Ceríaco et al. 2015; Lima et al. 2016), amphibians and reptiles (Ceríaco et al. 2018), the undescribed Príncipe Scops-Owl (Freitas 2019), and on more generic sources for other species (IUCN 2020). Nevertheless, even this simplistic approach, which excludes humans from the equation, illustrates major disruptions of trophic interactions by non-native species. Beyond the obvious changes in the topography of trophic interactions, the impact of introduced species is further heightened by their distinctive traits (Capellini et al. 2015). This food web provides a starting point for studies to deepen our understanding of trophic linkages and how they may be disrupted by introduced species. A more quantitative, community-level approach enabled building a multi-guild seed dispersal network for São Tomé (Heleno et al. 2021). This showed that non-native species can disrupt this important component of ecosystem functioning, especially large mammals, which are seldom native on oceanic islands. Other quantitative studies at the community level have assessed how reef microhabitats mediate ﬁsh agonistic interactions (Canterle et al. 2020), and how land use and host species inﬂuence richness, prevalence, and co-infection patterns of haemosporidian bird parasites (Reis et al. 2021). A quantitative, species-speciﬁc study used stable isotopes to reveal that juvenile São Tomé Green Turtles adapt their diet preferences to the available food sources and, in contrast with expectations, are not strict herbivores (Hancock et al. 2018). Further quantitative studies at the community and species level across terrestrial and marine ecosystems are sorely needed. 180 F. C. Soares et al. Fig. 7.2 Generalized São Tomé and Príncipe terrestrial vertebrate food web. Each icon represents a group of native or non-native species in the same trophic level. Arrows signal energy transfers through trophic interactions. Green symbolizes native species and interactions, red symbolizes non-native ones and grey symbolizes non-vertebrate components of the food web, namely plants and invertebrates. Native herbivores include fruit bats, pigeons, and parrots, while non-native include several ungulates, Rock Pigeon Columba livia J.F. Gmelin, 1789, and Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis (Linnaeus, 1766). Native omnivores include several species of pigeons and perching bird species, while non-native include rodents, Mona Monkey Cercopithecus mona (Schreber, 1775), African Civet Civettictis civetta (Schreber, 1776), Pig Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758, fowls, and other bird species. Native insectivores include amphibians, geckos, skinks, shrews, bats, and a few bird species, while non-native include geckos, skinks; the Palm Swift Cypsiurus parvus (M.H.K.Lichtenstein, 1823), an insectivore that colonized the islands recently. Native carnivores include Dwarf Olive Ibis Bostrychia bocagei (Chapin, 1923), owls, and Black Kite Milvus migrans (Boddaert, 1783), while Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis (Linnaeus, 1758) is the only non-native carnivore bird. Snakes are the only native vertivores, while Cat Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758, Dog Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758, and Least Weasel Mustela nivalis Linnaeus, 1766 are all non-native vertivores. Humans have been omitted from the ﬁgure, but they participate in all trophic levels that are represented. Decomposers have also been omitted 7 Species Ecology in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Distribution,. . . 181 Concluding Remarks Species are still being described from the Gulf of Guinea on a regular basis (Lima 2016), clearly showing that much taxonomic work is still needed to understand the biodiversity of these islands. In recent years, careful reviews combined with intensive island surveys and advances in molecular analyses have led to the description of several new endemic species. Terrestrial vertebrates are certainly the best-studied taxa, but since 2000 two amphibians (Uyeda et al. 2007; Bell 2016), six reptiles (Ceríaco et al. 2022a), and one mammal species (Ceríaco et al. 2015) have been newly described as endemic to the islands. Many widespread species have also been reported for the ﬁrst time, including plants (Stévart et al. 2019), land snails (Holyoak et al. 2020), ﬁshes (Costa et al. 2022), and birds (Lima and Melo 2021). A few have also regained species status (e.g., Melo et al. 2010), while many others remain undescribed, even among plants (e.g. Stévart et al. 2022), land mammals (Rainho et al. 2022), and birds (Melo et al. 2022). This incomplete knowledge is a serious handicap to develop a more in-depth understanding of the ecology of the islands. Furthermore, ecological studies have been biased towards certain groups, such as terrestrial vertebrates, and notably birds. This bias occurs because the taxonomy of these groups is mostly resolved, both locally (Jones and Tye 2006) and globally (Billerman et al. 2020). Such studies have been particularly relevant for the recognition of the biological importance of these islands at the global scale (e.g. Le Saout et al. 2013). Conversely, very few ecological studies have been dedicated to invertebrate groups, exceptions including very recent research on land snails (Panisi et al. 2022) and mosquitoes (Reis et al. 2021). Biases persist even within taxonomic groups, since studies tend to focus on conspicuous and easily detectable species. Even among birds, the existence of the Príncipe Scops-Owl was only conﬁrmed in 2016 (Verbelen et al. 2016), and the taxonomy of the Gulf of Guinea Storm Petrel remains uncertain (Flood et al. 2019). Although often rarer and harder to ﬁnd, threatened and endemic species are targeted by more studies than expected (Lima et al. 2011), because they tend to be the focus of conservation studies (e.g., Lima et al. 2017). There are also important spatial research biases, within and across the islands. The most evident is the scarcity of studies on Annobón, the smallest and least accessible of the main islands. Within Príncipe and São Tomé, the most remote areas have also been less surveyed. Marine species are often less known, simply because they are more challenging to study. This is especially true for those living away from the coast and at greater depths. Finally, there are also multiple temporal biases. Certain groups tend to be studied primarily during certain seasons, as it is the case for plants (e.g., Benitez et al. 2018) and sea turtles (Ribeiro 2018; Hancock 2019), which are mostly monitored during the breeding season. Out of convenience, many other taxa tend to be studied during the dry seasons, such as birds (Lima et al. 2017), even though this is not their breeding season (Madeira 2018). These biases may ultimately constrain the broader 182 F. C. Soares et al. understanding of the ecology of the islands and a conscious effort to study species throughout the year would help alleviate this bias. Relatively few studies have addressed community ecology, focusing instead on individual species, even when multiple species are included in the same study. In some cases, this has resulted from methodological limitations to gather comparable data from multiple species simultaneously. Nevertheless, in recent years, there have been several community ecology studies, including birds (Lima 2012; Soares et al. 2020), land snails (Tavares 2020), plants (Fundação Príncipe 2019), and bird–plant interactions (Heleno et al. 2021). To promote these islands as models for understanding ecological processes, it is necessary to overcome knowledge gaps and research biases, which generate uncertainty and limit extrapolation to broader contexts. To do so, future studies should include systematic island-wide surveys, or prioritize understudied areas, such as Annobón, less accessible areas within the islands, and marine environments. Likewise, research must focus on understudied taxonomic groups, such as invertebrates. For most of these groups many fundamental ecological aspects, such as distribution and environmental associations, remain fully unknown. Furthermore, studies at the community level and focusing on species interactions are needed to understand the functioning of ecosystems and ultimately help protect the unique biodiversity of these islands. To ensure the future of the endemic-rich biodiversity of these islands, it is evident that protecting remaining natural ecosystems and preventing the degradation of human-modiﬁed ecosystems, such as secondary forests, are key priorities. Additionally, the over-exploitation of native species and the introduction and spread of non-native species must be curbed, and conservation strategies need to be continuously reﬁned and implemented. These include Red Listing (IUCN 2020), speciesspeciﬁc action plans for threatened species (e.g., Ndang’ang’a et al. 2014a, b; Panisi et al. 2020; Fundação Príncipe 2021), the expansion of the existing network of protected areas (BirdLife International 2020), and their management plans. Longterm monitoring studies are urgently needed to assess biodiversity trends, promptly identify declines, and inform conservation actions. Finally, it is crucial to raise public awareness about the unique biodiversity of these islands, both internationally and locally. Local biodiversity education has greatly improved in recent years (Ayres et al. 2022), but the development of local scientiﬁc expertise through outreach, capacity building, and advanced training is still lacking and should be promoted through international collaborations. Acknowledgments The Portuguese Government, through “Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia” (FCT/MCTES), supported RFL, JMH, and FCS by providing structural funds to cE3c (UID/BIA/00329/2021), and JMH and FCS by funding their PhD grants ((PD/BD/52599/ 2014 and PD/BD/140832/2018, respectively). TS’s work in São Tomé and Príncipe is supported through the “Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF)” which is a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the European Union, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, and the World Bank. We thank the reviewers Peter Jones and Mariana Carvalho for their helpful comments and suggestions that improved the chapter. 7 Species Ecology in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Distribution,. . . 183 References Alves J (2019) Taxonomia, ecologia e conservação da Coruja de São Tomé (Tyto alba thomensis). MSc thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Atkinson PW, Peet NB, Alexander J (1991) The status and conservation of the endemic bird species of São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Bird Conservation International 1:255–282 Ayres RGS, Aragão JCVC, Carvalho M et al (2022) Environmental education in São Tomé and Príncipe: the challenges of owning a unique biodiversity. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 671–690 Azevedo F (2015) How many dwarf olive ibises Bostrychia bocagei are there in São Tomé? Use of distance sampling and plot sampling to estimate the population of a critically endangered endemic bird. MSc thesis. University of Evora, Evora Bell RC (2016) A new species of Hyperolius (Amphibia: Hyperoliidae) from Príncipe Island, Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. Herpetologica 72:343–351 Benitez L, Stévart T, Madureira MC, Dias D (2018) Príncipe Island botanical sampling follow up work. Technical Report—Príncipe Trust, Santo António, 55 p Billerman SM, Keeney BK, Rodewald PG, Schulenberg TS (2020) Birds of the world. Available via Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/home. Accessed 9 Sept 2020 BirdLife International (2020) The world database of key biodiversity areas. Available via Key Biodiversity Areas Partnership: BirdLife International, IUCN, Amphibian Survival Alliance, Conservation International, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Global Environment Facility, Global Wildlife Conservation, NatureServe, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife Conservation Society. http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org. Accessed 9 Sept 2020 Bollen A, Matilde E, Barros E (2018) An updated assessment of the seabird populations breeding at Príncipe and Tinhosas. Ostrich 89:47–58 Canterle AM, Nunes LT, Fontoura L, Maia HA, Floeter SF (2020) Reef microhabitats mediate ﬁsh feeding intensity and agonistic interactions at Príncipe Island biosphere reserve, tropical eastern Atlantic. Marine Ecology 41:e12609 Capellini I, Baker J, Allen WL, Street SE, Venditti C (2015) The role of life history traits in mammalian in mammalian invasion success. Ecology Letters 18:1099–1107 Carvalho M (2014) Hunting and conservation of forest pigeons in São Tomé. PhD thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Carvalho M, Fa JE, Rego FC, Lima RF, Santos G, Palmeirim JM (2015) Factors inﬂuencing the distribution and abundance of endemic pigeons on São Tomé Island (Gulf of Guinea). Bird Conservation International 25:71–86 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP, Jacquet F et al (2015) Description of a new endemic species of shrew (Mammalia, Soricomorpha) from Príncipe Island (Gulf of Guinea). Mammalia 79:325–341 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP, Bauer AM (2018) Miscellanea Herpetologica Sanctithomae, with a provisional checklist of the terrestrial herpetofauna of São Tomé, Príncipe and Annobon islands. Zootaxa 4387:91–108 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP, Bell RC, Bauer AM (2022a) The terrestrial reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 505–534 Ceríaco LMP, Santos BSS, Viegas S, Paiva J, Figueiredo E (2022b) The history of biological research in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 87–140 Costa LM da Maia HA, Almeida AJ (2022) The ﬁshes of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell R (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 431–478 Covas R (2016) Life-history evolution in island populations of birds. In: Kliman RM (ed) Encyclopedia of evolutionary biology. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 352–358 184 F. C. Soares et al. Csuzdi C (2005) Earthworms (Annelida: Oligochaeta) of São Tomé. Journal of Natural History 39: 3039–3058 Dallimer M, King T (2007) Habitat preferences of the forest birds on the island of Príncipe, Gulf of Guinea. African Journal of Ecology 46:258–266 Dallimer M, Melo M (2010) Rapid decline of the endemic giant land snail Archachatina bicarinata on the island of Príncipe, Gulf of Guinea. Oryx 44:213–218 Dallimer M, King T, Atkinson RJ (2009) Pervasive threats within a protected area: conserving the endemic birds of São Tomé, West Africa. Animal Conservation 12:209–219 Dallimer M, Melo M, Collar NJ, Jones PJ (2010) The Príncipe Thrush Turdus xanthorhynchus: a newly split, ‘Critically Endangered’, forest ﬂagship species. Bird Conservation International 20: 375–381 Dallimer M, Parnell M, Bicknell JE, Melo M (2012) The importance of novel and agricultural habitats for the avifauna of an oceanic island. Journal for Nature Conservation 20:191–199 Dauby G, Stévart T, Barberá P et al (2022) Classiﬁcation, distribution, and biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 37–70 de Naurois R (1994) Les oiseaux des îles du Golfe de Guinée: São Tomé, Prince et Annobón. Instituto Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisbon. 207 p Drewes RC, Stoelting RE (2004) The California Academy of Sciences Gulf of Guinea Expedition (2001) II Additions and corrections to our knowledge of the endemic amphibians of São Tome and Príncipe. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 55:573–587 Dutton JS (1994) Introduced mammals in São Tomé and Príncipe: possible threats to biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:927–938 Dutton JS, Haft J (1996) Distribution, ecology and status of an endemic shrew, Crocidura thomensis, from São Tomé. Oryx 30:195–201 Exell AW (1944) Catalogue of the vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Principe and Annobon). British Museum (Natural History), London, 428 p Ferreira RL, Ceia FR, Borges TC, Ramos JA, Bolten AB (2018) Foraging niche segregation between juvenile and adult hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) at Príncipe Island, West Africa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 498:1–7 Figueiredo E (2002) Pteridóﬁtos de São Tomé e Príncipe. Estudos, Ensaios e Documentos 162. Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisboa, 209 p Figueiredo E, Paiva J, Stévart T, Oliveira F, Smith GF (2011) Annotated catalogue of the ﬂowering plants of São Tomé and Príncipe. Bothalia 41:41–82 Flood RL, Lima RF, Melo M, Verbelen P, Wagstaff WH (2019) What is known about the enigmatic Gulf of Guinea band-rumped storm petrels Hydrobates cf. castro? Bulletin of the British Ornithologists Club 139:173–186 Freitas B (2019) The mystery Scops owl of Príncipe Island: combining evidence for a species description and assessment of its conservation status. MSc thesis. University of Porto, Porto Fundação Príncipe (2019) Understanding the remarkable biodiversity of Príncipe Island. Scientiﬁc report—Fundação Príncipe, Príncipe, 33 p Fundação Príncipe (2021) Single species action plan for the conservation of the Príncipe Thrush, 2020–2024. Fundação Príncipe, Santo António Gascoigne A (1993) A bibliography of the fauna of the islands of São Tomé e Príncipe and the island of Annobón (Gulf of Guinea). Arquipélago, Life and Marine Sciences 11:91–105 Graff D (1996) Sea turtle nesting and utilization survey in São Tomé. Marine Turtle Newsletter 75: 8–12 Hancock JM (2019) The sea turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: Ecology, genetics and current status of distinct species nesting on an oceanic archipelago. PhD thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Hancock JM, Carvalho H, Loloum B, Lima H, Oliveira L (2015) Review of Olive Ridley nesting in São Tomé and Príncipe Islands, West Africa, with a new nesting occurrence in Príncipe Island. African Turtle Newsletter 3:34–39 Hancock JM, Vieira S, Jimenez V, Carvalho Rio J, Rebelo R (2018) Stable isotopes reveal dietary differences and site ﬁdelity in juvenile green turtles foraging around São Tomé Island, West Central Africa. Marine Ecology Progress Series 600:165–177 7 Species Ecology in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Distribution,. . . 185 Hancock J, Vieira S, Lima H et al (2019) Overcoming ﬁeld monitoring restraints in estimating marine turtle internesting period by modelling individual nesting behaviour using capture-markrecapture data. Ecological Modelling 402:76–84 Heleno RB, Mendes F, Coelho AP et al (2021) The upsizing of the São Tomé seed dispersal network by introduced animals. Available via Oikos https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.08279. Accessed 29 Sept 2021 Holyoak DT, Holyoak GA, Lima RF, Panisi M, Sinclair F (2020) A checklist of the land Mollusca (Gastropoda) of the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe, with new records and descriptions of new taxa. Iberus 38:219–319 Hortal J, de Bello F, Diniz-Filho JAF, Lewinsohn TM, Lobo JM, Ladle RJ (2015) Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 46:523–549 IUCN (2020) The IUCN red list of threatened species: version 2020–2. Available via International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 2 Oct 2020 Joffroy G (2000) Etude des plantes endémiques de São Tomé et Príncipe. BSc thesis. Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels Jones PJ (1994) Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea: an overview. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 772–784 Jones PJ, Tye A (2006) The birds of São Tomé and Príncipe, with Annobón: islands of the Gulf of Guinea. British Ornithologists’ Union, Oxford Jones PJ, Burlison JP, Tye A (1991) Conservação dos ecossistemas ﬂorestais na República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. UICN, Gland and Cambridge, 78 p King T, Dallimer M (2003) Daily activity, moult and morphometrics of the birds of São Tomé and Príncipe. Bulletin of the African Bird Club 10:84–93 Klopper RR, Figueiredo E (2013) Diversity of ferns and lycophytes in São Tomé and príncipe: an updated checklist. Scripta Botanica Belgica 50:287–293 Le Saout S, Hoffmann M, Shi Y et al (2013) Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation. Science 342:803–805 Lewis TC, Melo M, Lima RF, Bremner-Harrison S (2018) Habitat associations of the critically endangered São Tomé Fiscal Lanius newtoni: comparing standard and playback-conﬁrmed point counts. African Journal of Ecology 56:404–408 Lima RF (2012) Land-use management and the conservation of endemic species in São Tomé Island. PhD thesis. University of Lancaster, Lancaster Lima RF (2016) Biodiversity conservation in São Tomé and Príncipe: an overview. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on island evolution, ecology and conservation. Angra do Heroísmo, Azores, Portugal, 18–22 July 2016 Lima RF, Martins M (2020) International waterbird census São Tomé and Príncipe—2020. Centro de Biodiversidade do Golfo da Guiné, São Tomé, 11 p Lima RF, Melo M (2021) Revised bird checklist for the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club 141:179–198 Lima RF, Bird JP, Barlow J (2011) Research effort allocation and the conservation of restrictedrange island bird species. Biological Conservation 144:627–632 Lima RF, Dallimer M, Atkinson PW, Barlow J (2013) Biodiversity and land-use change: understanding the complex responses of an endemic-rich bird assemblage. Diversity and Distributions 19:411–422 Lima RF, Viegas L, Solé N et al (2014) Can management improve the value of shade plantations for the endemic species of São Tomé Island? Biotropica 46:238–247 Lima RF, Maloney E, Simison WB, Drewes R (2016) Reassessing the conservation status of the shrew Crocidura thomensis, endemic to São Tomé Island. Oryx 50:360–363 Lima RF, Sampaio H, Dunn JC et al (2017) Distribution and habitat associations of the critically endangered bird species of São Tomé Island (Gulf of Guinea). Bird Conservation International 27:455–469 Madeira B (2018) Sexual dimorphism and reproductive phenology of common birds in São Tomé Island: conservation implications. MSc thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon 186 F. C. Soares et al. Maia HA, Moraise RA, Siqueirae AC, Hanazakia N, Floeter SR, Bender MG (2018a) Shifting baselines among traditional ﬁshers in São Tomé and Príncipe islands, Gulf of Guinea. Ocean and Coastal Management 154:133–142 Maia HA, Morais RA, Quimbayo JP et al (2018b) Spatial patterns and drivers of ﬁsh and benthic reef communities at São Tomé Island, tropical eastern Atlantic. Marine Ecology 39:e12520 Margarido N (2015) Habitat selection by the dwarf olive ibis Bostrychia bocagei, a critically endangered bird endemic to São Tomé. MSc thesis. University of Evora, Evora Melo M, Bowie RCK, Voelker G, Dallimer M, Collar NJ, Jones PJ (2010) Multiple lines of evidence support the recognition of a very rare bird species: the Príncipe Thrush. Journal of Zoology 282:120–129 Melo M, Jones PJ, Lima RF (2022) The avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 555–592 Mendes LF, Bivar-de-Sousa A (2012) New account on the butterﬂies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) of São Tomé e Príncipe. Boletín de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa 51:157–186 Monod T (1960) Notes botaniques sur les îles de Sao Tomé et Príncipe. Bulletin de l'Institut Française d'Afrique Noire 22:19–83 Monod T, Teixeira da Mota A, Mauny R (1951) Description de la côte occidentale d'Afrique (Senegal au Cap de Monte, Archipels). Centro de Estudos da Guiné Portuguesa, Bissau, 223 pp Monteiro LR, Covas R, Melo MP et al (1997) Seabirds of São Tomé e Príncipe: the taxonomic status of the storm petrel Oceanodroma castro and conservation of the whole community. Unpublished report Monzón-Argüello C, Loureiro NS, Delgado C et al (2011) Príncipe Island hawksbills: genetic isolation of an eastern Atlantic stock. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 407: 345–354 Morais RA, Maia HA (2017) Lush underwater forests in mesophotic reefs of the Gulf of Guinea. Coral Reefs 36:95 Ndang’ang’a PK, Melo M, Lima RF et al (2014a) Single species action plan for the conservation of the Príncipe Thrush Turdus xanthorhynchus 2014–2018. BirdLife International, São Tomé. 15 p Ndang’ang’a PK, Ward-Francis A, Costa L et al (2014b) International action plan for conservation of critically endangered birds on São Tomé 2014–2018. BirdLife International, São Tomé. 30 p Nogué S, de Nascimento L, Froyd CA et al (2017) Island biodiversity conservation needs palaeoecology. Nature, Ecology and Evolution 1:181 Norder SJ, Lima RF, de Nascimento L et al (2020) Global change in microcosms: environmental and societal predictors of land cover change on the Atlantic Ocean islands. Anthropocene 30: 100242 Ogonovszky M (2003) Endémisme et phytogéographie des plantes de São Tomé et Príncipe. BSc thesis. Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels Oyono PR, Morelli TL, Sayer J et al (2014) Allocation and use of forest land: current trends, issues and perspectives. In: de Wasseige C, Flynn J, Louppe D, HiolHiol F, Mayaux P (eds) The forests of the Congo Basin—state of the forest 2013. Weyrich, Neufchâteau, pp 215–240 Panisi M (2017) Biological invasion and the conservation of endemic island species: São Tomé Archachatina giant snails (Pulmonata: Achatinidae). MSc thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Panisi M, Sinclair F, Santos Y (2020). Single species action plan for the conservation of the Obô Giant Snail Archachatina bicarinata, 2021–2025. IUCN SSC Mid-Atlantic Island Invertebrate Specialist Group, 22 p Panisi M, Lima RF, Lima JC et al (2022) Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: an updated synthesis. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 407–430 Picanço C, Carvalho I, Brito C (2009) Occurrence and distribution of cetaceans in São Tomé and Príncipe tropical archipelago and their relation to environmental variables. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 89:1071–1076 Pollo CJ (2017) Guide of amphibians and reptiles of São Tomé and Príncipe. Available via Smashwords. https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/795532. Accessed 29 Oct 2021 7 Species Ecology in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Distribution,. . . 187 Rainho A, Meyer CFJ, Thorsteinsdóttir S, Justino J, Samba S, Palmeirim JM (2010) Distribuição, estatuto e conservação dos morcegos de São Tomé. Technical Report—Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, 49 p Rainho A, Meyer CFJ, Thorsteinsdóttir S et al (2022) Current knowledge and conservation of wild mammals of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 593–620 Rebelo G (2020) Habitat and population estimates of Príncipe ﬂagship species: Príncipe thrush Turdus xanthorhynchus, and Obô giant snail Archachatina bicarinata. MSc thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Reis S, Melo M, Covas R et al (2021) Inﬂuence of land use and host species on parasite richness, prevalence and co-infection patterns. International Journal for Parasitology 51:83–94 Ribeiro I (2018) Alterações dos parâmetros biométricos e reprodutores das tartarugas marinhas de São Tomé nas últimas duas décadas. MSc thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Sérgio C, Garcia C (2011) Bryophyte ﬂora of São Tomé e Príncipe Archipelago (West Africa): annotated catalogue. Cryptogamie, Bryologie 32:145–196 Soares FC (2017) Modelling the distribution of São Tomé bird species: ecological determinants and conservation prioritization. MSc thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Soares FC, Panisi M, Sampaio H et al (2020) Land-use intensiﬁcation promotes non-native species in a tropical island bird assemblage. Animal Conservation 23:573–584 Stévart T (1998) Etude sur les orchidées de Sao-Tomé et Príncipe. BSc thesis. Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels Stévart T, de Oliveira F (eds) (2000) Guide des orchidées de São Tomé et Príncipe. ECOFAC, São Tomé Stévart T, Madureira MC, Benitez L, Dauby G (2019) Threatened plants of São Tomé & Príncipe— Plantas ameaçadas de São Tomé & Príncipe. Available via Tropicos. http://legacy.tropicos.org/ Project/Threatened_Plants_STP. Accessed 9 Sept 2020 Stévart T, Dauby G, Ikabanga DU et al (2022) Diversity of the vascular plants of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 249–272 Strauß L, Lima RF, Riesbeck F, Rodel MO (2018) São Tomé Island endemic treefrogs (Hyperolius spp.) and land-use intensiﬁcation: a tale of hope and caution. Tropical Conservation Science 11: 1–14 Tavares LB (2020) Humanização da paisagem e moluscos terrestres: efeitos opostos sobre comunidades de espécies endémicas e não endémicas na ilha de São Tomé. MSc thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Thébault E, Fontaine C (2010) Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science 329:853–856 Tuya F, Herrero-Barrencua A, Bosch NE, Abreu AD, Haroun R (2018) Reef ﬁsh at a remote tropical island (Príncipe Island, Gulf of Guinea): disentangling taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity patterns with depth. Marine and Freshwater Research 69:395–402 Uyeda JC, Drewes RC, Zimkus BM (2007) The California Academy of Sciences Gulf of Guinea expeditions (2001, 2006) VI. A new species of Phrynobatrachus from the Gulf of Guinea islands and a reanalysis of Phrynobatrachus dispar and P. feae (Anura: Phrynobatrachidae). Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 58:367–385 Valle S (2015) Population viability and conservation of grey parrots Psittacus erithacus on the island of Príncipe, Gulf of Guinea. PhD thesis. Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester Valle S, Barros N, Ramírez I, Wanless R (2016) Population estimates of the breeding birds of the Tinhosas islands (Gulf of Guinea), the only major seabird colony of the eastern tropical Atlantic. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 87:209–215 Vasco-Rodrigues N, Fontes J, Bertoncini AA (2017) Cleaning interactions of ﬁshes at São Tomé Island, West Africa. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 58:347–352 188 F. C. Soares et al. Velayos M, Barberá P, Cabezas FJ, de la Estrella M, Fero M, Aedo C (2014) Checklist of the vascular plants of Annobón (Equatorial Guinea). Phytotaxa 171:1–78 Verbelen P, Melo M, Sangster G, Spina F (2016) A 90-year-old mystery solved: a potentially new species of owl from Príncipe. Oryx 50:581 Whittaker RJ, Fernández-Palacios JM, Matthews TJ, Borregaard MK, Triantis KA (2017) Island biogeography: taking the long view of nature’s laboratories. Science 357:eaam8326 Wirtz P, d’Udekem d’Acoz C (2008) Crustaceans associated with Cnidaria, Bivalvia, Echinoidea and Pisces at São Tomé and Príncipe islands. Arquipélago, Life and Marine Sciences 25:63–69 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies Dennis E. Desjardin and Brian A. Perry Abstract Mushrooms and allies belong to the Agaricomycetes lineage of Basidiomycota. A total of 260 species, belonging in 109 genera, 51 families and 13 orders have been reported from São Tomé and Príncipe between 1851 and 2020, of which 66 were described as new species. They range in body forms from agarics and boletes to polyporoid, clavarioid, coralloid, thelephoroid, stereoid, corticioid, hydnoid, cantherelloid, gasteroid, and jelly fungi. The vast majority are saprotrophs, a small number are plant pathogens, and a rare few may be ectomycorrhizal. Sixty species, 23%, can be classiﬁed putative endemics. The current state of knowledge of the Agaricomycetes from the nation is based on fewer than ten expeditions in the past 170 years and represents only a snapshot of the actual diversity that is likely present. Keywords Agaricomycetes · Fungal diversity · Mycota · Taxonomy Introduction This chapter constitutes a preliminary accounting of the mushrooms and allied taxa (Fungi, Basidiomycota) that occur in the West African island nation São Tomé and Príncipe (ST&P). Herein, we treat only organisms currently recognized as belonging to the Agaricomycetes lineage, comprising most mushroom-forming taxa. These charismatic megafungi are recognized easily in the ﬁeld although understudied in tropical Africa. The names associated with each species are based historically on morphological features of their sexual reproductive structures, i.e., the mushrooms, supplemented now with molecular sequence data. D. E. Desjardin (*) Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA e-mail: ded@sfsu.edu B. A. Perry Department of Biological Sciences, California State University East Bay, Hayward, CA, USA © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_8 189 190 D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry The Agaricomycetes comprises organisms commonly called gilled fungi (agarics), boletes, polypores, club and coral fungi, thelephoroid and stereoid fungi, corticioid fungi (resupinates), tooth fungi, cantherelloid fungi, gasteroid fungi (puffballs, stinkhorns, bird’s nest fungi, earthstars) and jelly fungi. They form sexual reproductive structures (basidiomes) large enough to be observed with the naked eye and broadly deﬁned as mushrooms (¼ macrofungi). Their vegetative, mycelial stage serves numerous ecological roles as saprotrophs, mixotrophs, pathogens, endophytes, and mycorrhizae, and aids in soil generation, erosion control, bioﬁltration, nutrient retention and other important bioprocesses. Their sporulating stage, beyond functioning as the dispersal and reproductive phase, serves as a food source for myriad organisms. Many lineages produce basidiomes harvested by indigenous cultures in West Africa (e.g., chanterelles, boletes, oyster mushrooms, wood ears, etc.) and used for food, medicine, textile dyeing, a source of income and other sociological aspects (entheogens) (Osarenkhoe et al. 2014). Although the mycota of the region is diverse and abundant, only limited research has been published on the fungi of ST&P, primarily because few mycologists have visited the islands. Several expeditions in the late nineteenth century, a single excursion in the twentieth century, and several in the twenty-ﬁrst century constitute the total acquisitions upon which our current knowledge of the diversity of Agaricomycetes from ST&P is based. History of Agaricomycetes Research The ﬁrst published account of Agaricomycetes from São Tomé was a report by Elias M. Fries (1851) of six species collected by Krebs (no further collector information was provided) in a paper entitled Novarum Symbolarum Mycologicarum Mantissa. Four of these were described as new species, viz., Agaricus papularis Fr., A. macromastes Fr., Panus troglodytes Fr., and Lentinus ﬂaccidus Fr., the ﬁrst three of which have not been treated since, and their taxonomic placement is uncertain. This was followed by a more substantive contribution from G. Winter (1886) based on his study of specimens collected from São Tomé in 1885 by A. Moller, Inspector of the Botanical Garden of Coimbra, and Francisco A. Dias Quintas and F. Newton, Portuguese botanists. Winter’s (1886) paper was an accounting of 100 species of Fungi as part of the Flora de S. Thomé, Contribuições para o Estudo da Flora d’Africa, compiled by J. Henriques (1886). Of these, 29 represented species of Basidiomycota; none were new species. Roumeguère (1889) examined a number of the fungal specimens collected from São Tomé by Moller, Quintas and Newton and reported four species of Basidiomycota, of which one, Stereum amphirhytes Sacc. & Berl. was reported as new (published again that same year by Saccardo and Berlese). The species has not been treated since. Saccardo and Berlese (1889) also studied some Moller and Newton specimens from ST&P and reported 13 species of Basidiomycota, of which six represented new species. In a paper on Fungi from Cameroon, Bresadola (1890) reported three 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies 191 species of Polyporus from São Tomé, including one new species, P. squamulosus Bres. The most signiﬁcant early accounting of Fungi from ST&P were the papers by Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) and Bresadola (1891), which comprised a re-examination of the material reported by Winter (1886) and inclusion of additional taxa from specimens not treated by Winter. Collectively, these two papers reported 83 species of Basidiomycota from ST&P, of which 9 were new taxa. The specimens reported from ST&P between 1886 and 1891, representing 113 species, were deposited in the Herbarium of the Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum BerlinDahlem (B), but unfortunately were destroyed in a ﬁre in 1943, making taxonomic conﬁrmation now impossible. Consequently, the taxonomic placement of the new species is uncertain, and the occurrence on ST&P of many of the other species reported, which were based primarily on European epithets, is questionable. During the twentieth century, the only signiﬁcant contribution to our knowledge of Fungi from ST&P was that of António Xavier Pereira Coutinho, Professor of Horticulture at the Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa. Coutinho (1925) reported 74 Basidiomycota and two Ascomycota from São Tomé, based on material collected in 1920 by his son Martinho de França Pereira Coutinho, and Professor Manuel de Sousa da Câmara, Head of Section and Director, respectively, of the Laboratory of Plant Pathology at the same Institute. Eighty-two percent of the species were collected at Água-Izé. Ten of the Basidiomycota represented new species. Contemporary treatments of Agaricomycetes from ST&P based on newly collected specimens and molecular systematic approaches did not begin until the early twenty-ﬁrst century. In 2001, Dr. Robert C. Drewes, Curator of Herpetology at the California Academy of Sciences, led a multidisciplinary research expedition to ST&P, the beginning of two decades of intensive exploration of the islands to document their biodiversity (Drewes 2002). In April 2006 (2 weeks) Desjardin, and in April 2008 (3 weeks), Desjardin and Perry conducted extensive ﬁeldwork on ST&P, documenting the diversity of macrofungi (ﬂeshy Agaricomycetes, excluding polypores and corticioid fungi). To honor Robert Drewes, who has dedicated more than 40 years of his life to research in Africa, and who introduced us to the island nation, we described Phallus drewesii Desjardin & B.A. Perry (Phallaceae, Fig. 8.1– 5) in our premier paper (Desjardin and Perry 2009). Subsequently, partial results of these expeditions were published in nine additional papers (Desjardin and Perry 2015a, b, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020; Desjardin et al. 2017; Cooper et al. 2018; Grace et al. 2019), reporting 126 species of Agaricomycetes, including 36 new species. This research is ongoing—78 additional specimens, representing approx. 50 species, await publication. Several other researchers have documented macrofungi from the region over the past decade. Decock (2011) described Truncospora oboensis Decock (Polyporaceae, Fig. 8.1–4) and Coltricia oboensis Decock (2013) (Hymenochaetaceae) as new from material collected from high elevation cloud forests on São Tomé. Degreef et al. (2013) reported two rare Phallaceae, Blumenavia angolensis (Welw. & Curr.) Dring and Mutinus zenkeri (Henn.) E. Fisch., from São Tomé. Most of the species included in these contemporary publications are 192 D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry Fig. 8.1 Representative Agaricomycetes from São Tomé and Príncipe: (1) Marasmius laranja (Agaricales); (2) Gymnopus rodhallii (Agaricales); (3) Cyathus poeppigii (Agaricales); (4) Truncospora oboensis (Polyporales); (5) Phallus drewesii (Phallales); (6) Geastrum schweinitzii (Geastrales); (7) Scytinopogon havencampii (Trechisporales); (8) Aphelaria subglobispora (Cantharellales). Scale bar ¼ 10 mm. Photo credits: (1–3, 5, 6, 8) B. Perry, (4) C. Decock (7) W. Eckerman 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies 193 represented by single or very few specimens, although the specimens are deposited in herbaria and accessible for future studies. Diversity and Endemism Our knowledge of the diversity of fungi globally is incomplete due to their unique biology (cryptic mycelium producing often inconspicuous, short-lived sporulating structures upon which their names are based) and difﬁculty in identiﬁcation (Willis 2018). In ST&P, documentation of the diversity of Agaricomycetes is rather depauperate as a direct result of limited ﬁeldwork conducted there to date. Fungal species reported prior to 1925 is a reﬂection of the peregrinations of itinerant botanists, not the result of a concerted effort to document the fungi from the region. Their serendipitous encounters with mushrooms produced exsiccati that were often squashed between paper and blotters in plant presses and dried amongst the plant specimens that were the focus of early expeditions. Subsequent research in the twentieth century (Coutinho 1925) produced better quality specimens, but as with earlier expeditions, focused primarily on easily collected and preserved polypores and allies. It was not until the twenty-ﬁrst century that a concerted effort was made to document the Agaricomycetes from the nation, supported by well documented fungarium specimens and molecular data (research of Desjardin, Perry and colleagues). Combining the unsubstantiated early reports with new vouchered reports, we account for 260 species of Agaricomycetes from ST&P, representing 109 genera, 51 families and 13 orders (Appendix). It is difﬁcult to compare these numbers with those of Agaricomycetes recorded from neighboring countries of West Africa (Piepenbring et al. 2020). We recognize that what we are presenting herein is only a snapshot of the actual mushroom diversity from the islands. More effort needs to be focused on documenting the polypores and similar taxa with persistent basidiomes whose early reports are not vouchered, and continued work on taxa with ﬂeshy, putrescent basidiomes in understudied lineages. Determining the distribution status of fungi is fraught with difﬁculties. Many areas of the world have not been explored for fungi, and documentation from tropical Africa is especially limited. It is premature to state unequivocally that any species is “endemic” until we have more data on the diversity of fungi from understudied areas. For this treatise, if a species was described as new from São Tomé or Príncipe and it has not yet been reported from elsewhere, we recognize the taxon as a putative endemic and annotate as such in the Appendix. Under this scenario, 66 new species have been described from material collected on ST&P, of which six species have been reported as occurring elsewhere. Hence, 60 species can be considered as putative endemics, or a 23% level of endemism in the Agaricomycetes from ST&P. Species reports, where identiﬁcation was based on molecular phylogenetic data, indicate that ST&P mushrooms or their closest relatives occur in neighboring West and Central African countries (Cameroon, Sierra Leone, DR Congo), other parts of 194 D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry continental Africa and Madagascar, South East and South-Central Asia, and tropical America (pers. obs.). No attempt was made to rate species as resident, migrant, vagrant or introduced as such categorizations would be only speculative. We recognize that the mushrooms commonly collected in habitats dominated by introduced plants, such as coastal cacao-banana groves, coffee plantations and other agricultural sites, most likely represent introduced species, however, we have not annotated them as such. Interestingly, a number of the species that we encountered in human-altered lowland habitats, either also occur in or have their closest known relatives in the Caribbean region. This could indicate unidirectional or bidirectional introduction of fungal species associated with aspects of the slave or agricultural trade. Ecology and Conservation The macrofungi of ST&P are primarily saprotrophic, decomposing leaf litter and woody substrates. A number of species may be pathogens, associated with root or heart rot of woody plants (e.g., Bjerkandera, Fomes), while a rare few are biotroph associates of mosses (Cotylidia). The ectomycorrhizal status of ST&P fungi is unknown, but we suspect that there are very few because of the paucity of ectotrophic host plant genera. A cross-reference of the annotated list of Angiosperms for ST&P (Figueiredo et al. 2011) with a list of global ectotrophic host plant genera (Brundrett 2009), yielded only six potential ectotrophic host plant genera in ST&P, viz., Casuarina (Casuarinaceae), Lonchocarpus and Acacia (Fabaceae), Eucalyptus and Melaleuca (Myrtaceae), and Manilkara (Sapotaceae), which include only ten local species. Of these ten, six are introduced species, and only four may represent native species, viz., Lonchocarpus sericeus (Poir.) Kunth, Acacia kamerunensis Gand., Acacia pentagona (Schumach.) Hook. and Manilkara obovata (Sabine & G. Don) J.H. Hemsl. Whether these potential plant host species are ectotrophic has not been determined. Mushrooms and allies require adequate moisture and appropriate nutritional substrates for survival. Many species, whether saprotrophic, pathogenic, or mycorrhizal, are host speciﬁc (at various levels of speciﬁcity). When their habitats change due to changes in water availability (rain, humidity), anthropogenic disturbance, or an alteration in plant community structure, the abundance and diversity of fungi changes as well. Conservation efforts focused on fungi are in their infancy globally. Of the 135,000 species of fungi described to date (Kirk 2019), as noted by Piepenbring et al. (2020), only 91 have been evaluated for the global Red List established by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). None of the species reported from ST&P are included in the list. 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies 195 Agaricomycetes of São Tomé and Príncipe An accounting of the history and diversity of ST&P mushrooms in each order is presented below, organized in accordance with the phylogenetic tree of Agaricomycetes adapted from Varga et al. (2019) (Fig. 8.2). Order Agaricales Approximately half of the known Agaricomycetes from ST&P belong to the Agaricales, this accounting primarily the result of recent research published by Desjardin and Perry. To date, 133 species of Agaricales have been reported from ST&P, belonging to 46 genera in 24 families. This order is comprised mainly of Fig. 8.2 Phylogenetic tree of Agaricomycetes adapted from Varga et al. (2019). Orders containing taxa reported from São Tomé and Príncipe are in bold 196 D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry gilled mushrooms, i.e., basidiomes with the hymenium (spore-producing tissue) located on radiating plate-like structures (gills ¼ lamellae) suspended under a cap (pileus), and together typically elevated by a stem (stipe). A few families in the order contain species with clavarioid (club-shaped), coralloid (branched, coral-shaped), gasteroid (enclosed, puffball-like) or corticioid (crust-like, with smooth, resupinate hymenophores) basidiomes. These mushrooms are typically putrescent, lasting from only a few hours to a few days, then wither and disappear. They form only after abundant moisture is available, usually during the wet season, and encountering them is often serendipitous. To obtain quality specimens for study and determination, basidiomes must be collected fresh, their taxonomically important features documented, and then dried immediately for long-term preservation. This procedure presents many difﬁculties in understudied tropical habitats and most likely accounts for the limited number of early reports. Between 1851 and 1891, only 19 species of Agaricales were reported from ST&P, four of which were new species, and two of the latter remain incertae sedis (Fries 1851; Winter 1886; Roumeguère 1889; Saccardo and Berlese 1889; Bresadola and Roumeguère 1890; Bresadola 1891). Coutinho (1925) reported 17 gilled mushroom species from São Tomé, of which six were new species and two of these are currently of unknown taxonomic placement. Most of the known Agaricales from ST&P were reported by Desjardin, Perry and colleagues, viz., 101 species of which 32 were new to science. They provided comprehensive coverage of clavarioid and gasteroid species in the Clavariaceae, Lycoperdaceae and Nidulariaceae (Desjardin and Perry 2015b), dark-spored species in the Bolbitiaceae, Crepidotaceae, Hymenogastraceae, Psathyrellaceae and Strophariaceae (Desjardin and Perry 2016), gymnopoid species in the Agaricaceae, Catathelasmataceae, Hydropoid clade, Hygrophoraceae, Marasmiaceae, Mycenaceae, Omphalotaceae, Physalacriaceae and Tricholomataceae (Desjardin and Perry 2017, Desjardin et al. 2017), species of Pluteus of Pluteaceae (Desjardin and Perry 2018), mycenoid species in the Hydropoid clade and Mycenaceae (Cooper et al. 2018), marasmioid species in the Marasmiaceae (Grace et al. 2019), and hygrophoroid species in the Hygrophoraceae (Desjardin and Perry 2020). Additional specimens collected during the 2008 expedition await diagnosis. Order Boletales Most members of order Boletales are ectomycorrhizal and require speciﬁc plant hosts to support their mutualistic symbiosis. As noted in the section on ecology, few ectotrophic plant species occur on ST&P, and accordingly, ectomycorrhizal Agaricomycetes are rare. Most Boletales form putrescent basidiomes with a thick ﬂeshy cap supporting a tubular hymenophore with the hymenium lining the inside of the vertically oriented tubes, and all elevated on a stipe—a body form known as a bolete. A few lineages form gasteroid basidiomes, while others form corticioid (crust-like, resupinate with smooth or wrinkled hymenophore) basidiomes. Only a single species of Boletales has been reported from Príncipe, the gasteroid 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies 197 Scleroderma dictyosporum Pat. (Sclerodermataceae) (Desjardin and Perry 2015b). We are aware of several boletes that occur on São Tomé, although ofﬁcial reports have not yet been published. Desjardin and Perry (unpubl.) have collected a single specimen of a Tylopilus sp. (deposited in SFSU) and have seen photographs of a probable Phlebopus sp. (no specimens retained). Whether these taxa are ectomycorrhizal or saprotrophic is currently unknown. Order Stereopsidales Members of order Stereopsidales form corticioid or thelephoroid (tough, with a smooth or wrinkled hymenophore) basidiomes. Only a single species from the order, the thelephoroid Stereopsis radicans (Berk.) D.A. Reid (Stereopsidaceae) has been reported, apparently collected twice on São Tomé, once on wood by F. Quintas in 1885 (Bresadola and Roumeguère 1890), and once on soil in 1920 (Coutinho 1925). Order Polyporales The ﬁrst fungi collected and repeatedly reported from West African countries were mostly polypores, belonging mainly to the Polyporales and Hymenochaetales (Piepenbring et al. 2020). This is because of their persistent basidiomes, which may be encountered throughout the year when ﬂeshy species are not apparent, and due to the ease of collecting, drying and transporting specimens. Basidiomes are typically tough and woody, with a tubular hymenophore, lack a stem, and grow on woody substrates as saprotrophs or pathogens. Seventy-one species of order Polyporales have been documented from ST&P; 55 of these were reported prior to 1925, of which six represented new species, viz., Daedalea newtonii Bres. & Roum. (Fomitopsidaceae), Tyromyces squamulosus (Bres.) Ryvarden (Incrustoporiaceae), and Favolus jacobeus Sacc. & Berl., Polyporus torquescens Sacc. & Berl. and Trametes discolor Sacc. & Berl. (Polyporaceae) (Saccardo and Berlese 1889; Bresadola 1890; Bresadola and Roumeguère 1890). Stereum pulchellum Sacc. & Berl. was described as new from Príncipe, but is currently accepted as a synonym of Podoscypha involuta (Klotsch ex Fr.) Imazeki (Podoscyphaceae). Apparently, the specimen vouchers of these 55 species were destroyed in the 1943 ﬁre at the Berlin Herbarium. Coutinho (1925) added another 16 species to the list, including two new species, Fomes ferrugineobrunneus Cout. and Lentinus thomensis Cout. (Polyporaceae). Since then, only a single species of Polyporales has been reported from São Tomé, the new species Truncospora oboensis Decock (Polyporaceae, Fig. 8.1–4) (Decock 2011). Although many species of polypores were observed on ST&P during the expeditions by Desjardin and Perry (in 2006 and 2008), this fungal group was not the focus of their research and no specimens were collected. Future 198 D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry research should focus on documenting order Polyporales from ST&P, to verify early reports with vouchered material and to clarify polypore diversity for the region. Order Thelephorales Members of this order form tough, stipitate basidiomes with a smooth hymenophore (thelephoroid) and stipitate or sessile basidiomes with a toothed hymenophore (hydnoid). Only a single species has been reported from São Tomé, the new sessile hydnoid taxon Phaeodon thomensis Cout. (Bankeraceae) (Coutinho 1925). The species is known from a single collection made in 1920 and has not been reported since from West Africa. Order Russulales Species of order Russulales are quite common and abundant in Africa. They develop basidiomes with a great variety of body forms, from gilled and poroid to hydnoid, corticioid, clavarioid and coralloid. Many are ectomycorrhizal, while others are saprotrophs or plant pathogens. Unfortunately, the speciose ectomycorrhizal genera Russula and Lactarius, so common in the miombo woodlands of Western Africa, are lacking in ST&P because of the near absence of ectotrophic host plants. Only 14 species of Russulales have been documented from ST&P, all but one species reported before 1925 (Winter 1886; Saccardo and Berlese 1889; Bresadola and Roumeguère 1890). Most of these represent saprotrophic or pathogenic taxa with corticioid or stereoid (sessile, with a cap and smooth hymenophore) basidiomes in the Hericiaceae, Peniophoraceae and Stereaceae, although two Lentinellus species are gilled fungi in Auriscalpiaceae. Only two species were described as new from São Tomé, the corticioid Scytinostroma quintasianum (Bres. & Roum.) Nakasone (Peniophoraceae), named after the early Portuguese collector F. Quintas (Bresadola and Roumeguère 1890), and the stereoid Stereum amphirhytes Sacc. & Berl. (Stereaceae) (Saccardo and Berlese 1889). Order Hymenochaetales Similar to the Polyporales, the ST&P representatives of order Hymenochaetales form primarily persistent basidiomes with tubular hymenophore and saprotrophic or pathogenic ecology (Hymenochataceae), but the order also contains an unusual lineage with small, ﬂeshy basidiomes with gilled or smooth hymenophore (Rickenellaceae) that are associated with mosses. Twelve species have been documented from São Tomé, ten of which were reported prior to 1925 (Winter 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies 199 1886; Roumeguère 1889; Bresadola and Roumeguère 1890), whose material has been lost, although four of these species were recollected and reported again by Coutinho (1925). Two lignicolous species were described as new, Polystictus albocinereus Cout. (Coutinho 1925) and Coltricia oboensis Decock (Hymenochaetaceae) (Decock 2013). This is another group that needs attention from contemporary researchers. Order Phallales The Phallales constitute the “stinkhorns,” a lineage of bizarrely-shaped mushrooms with a dispersal strategy symbiotic with insects. All basidiomes are initially globose or egg-shaped with the hymenophore enclosed (gasteroid), and as they mature, the outer peridium layer ruptures, and the inner sporulating structure erupts into a plethora of shapes, allowing for common names like octopus stinkhorn, basket stinkhorn, Devil’s horn, etc. The spores are produced in a gelatinous, putrid-scented mass on the elevated structure. The often carrion-like odor attracts insects, primarily ﬂies, who lay their eggs in the stinkhorn to provide a food source for their larvae, and the adults also consume the spores which pass through their digestive system and when defecated, aid in stinkhorn dispersal. Six species belonging to the Phallaceae have been documented from ST&P. The ﬁrst reported was a new species, Clathrus parvulus Bres. & Roum., a very small (<20 mm diam), reddish basket stinkhorn that has not been reported since ﬁrst discovery (Bresadola and Roumeguère 1890). The remaining ﬁve species are recent reports (Degreef et al. 2013; Desjardin and Perry 2015b), including a new species, Phallus drewesii (Fig. 8.1–5). Order Gomphales Three families comprise the order Gomphales, but only members of the Gomphaceae have been reported from ST&P. The family contains species with funnel-shaped basidiomes with wrinkled to venous or gilled hymenophore (cantharelloid) and coralloid basidiomes. Only a single genus of coralloid species has been reported from São Tomé, representing three species of Ramaria. Two represent new species described in 1890 that have not been recollected, viz., Ramaria henriquesii (Bres. & Roum.) Corner (ut Clavaria), and Ramaria mollerianum (Bres. & Roum.) Corner (ut Lachnocladium) (Bresadola and Roumeguère 1890), both named after the early Portuguese botanists who conducted ﬁeldwork on São Tomé. The genus Ramaria is ectomycorrhizal in other parts of the world, but the nutritional status of the São Tomé species is unknown. 200 D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry Order Geastrales The order Geastrales, with the single family Geastraceae, are commonly known as the “Earthstars.” The basidiomes, initially fully enclosed (gasteroid), rupture, and the outer layers split and fold back into ray-shaped arms (star-like), exposing the interior puffball, which opens by a central apical pore to passively release the internal spores. Three species of Geastrum were recently reported from ST&P (Desjardin and Perry 2015b), the most unusual being Geastrum schweinitzii (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Zeller (Fig. 8.1–6), which forms very small earthstar basidiomes that arise from a thick membranous sheet of mycelium (subiculum) that covers the substrate. Order Trechisporales Members of this order form corticioid basidiomes (type genus Trechispora) or coralloid basidiomes (Scytinopogon). Only a single species from the group has been recently reported, the new species Scytinopogon havencampii Desjardin & B.A. Perry (Fig. 8.1–7), described from material collected on Príncipe (Desjardin and Perry 2015a). Although it grows from the soil, we suspect that it is a saprotroph. The genus Scytinopogon with coralloid basidiomes was recently accepted as a synonym of Trechispora, a genus composed primarily of corticioid species, based on multi-gene analyses (Meiras-Ottoni et al. 2021). Order Auriculariales The “jelly fungi” is a heterogeneous assemblage of fungi representing numerous lineages, wherein the basidiomes are rubbery-gelatinous and hydrophilic/hygroscopic. Order Auriculariales comprises a number of families, several of which contain species that form such basidiomes. Members of the Auriculariaceae often form lignicolous, ear-shaped basidiomes that are commonly known as “wood ear” mushrooms, which are edible and both wild-harvested and artiﬁcially cultivated. Three species of Auricularia were documented early from São Tomé (Winter 1886; Bresadola and Roumeguère 1890; Bresadola 1891) and reported again by Coutinho (1925) from additional specimens. We have no information on whether local cultures consume these commonly encountered mushrooms. Order Cantharellales Basidiome morphology is quite variable in order Cantharellales, and includes clavarioid, coralloid, cantharelloid (funnel-shaped with decurrent gills or veins), 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies 201 and hydnoid body forms. Three species, one from each of three families (Aphelariaceae, Cantharellaceae, Hydnaceae), have been reported from ST&P. The earliest report was for Craterellus crispus (Bull.) Berk. (Bresadola 1891), accepted now as a synonym of Pseudocraterellus undulatus (Pers.) Rauschert. This species is considered ectomycorrhizal, and given the paucity of ectotrophic plant species on São Tomé, we question the original identiﬁcation by Bresadola (1891). The two additional reports of Cantharellales are from recently collected specimens, viz., Aphelaria subglobispora P. Roberts (Fig. 8.1–8) and Clavulina vanderystii (Bres.) Corner (Desjardin and Perry 2015b). Summary and Future Research Although the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands of São Tomé (13+ my) and Príncipe (31+ my) are volcanic in origin and have never been part of or connected by a land bridge to continental Africa (Lee et al. 1994), they are rich in Agaricomycetes diversity. The fungal species or their ancestors reached the islands by wind, avian or human-mediated dispersal, or on ﬂotsam. Only a handful of expeditions have been conducted since 1851, which produced specimens of Agaricomycetes that allowed documentation of mushroom diversity from the islands. To date, 260 species, belonging in 109 genera, 51 families and 13 orders have been reported from ST&P, providing only a snapshot of the estimated actual diversity of this important fungal group. Twenty-three percent of these may represent endemic species. Reported taxa represent myriad body forms, from agarics and boletes, to polypores, club and coral fungi, thelephoroid, stereoid, corticioid, hydnoid and cantherelloid fungi, puffballs, stinkhorns, bird’s nest fungi, earthstars, and jelly fungi. Nearly half (113 spp.) of the recorded 260 species are known only from published reports, as their vouchered specimens were destroyed during World War II, and hence the accuracy of their determinations is questionable. The majority of reported species are saprotrophic, functioning as important litter and wood decomposers, while a number are plant pathogens and a rare few are putatively ectotrophic. The islands provide a wide variety of native and human-disturbed habitats that undoubtedly house hidden Agaricomycetes diversity. Future research should focus on recollecting the lineages containing unvouchered species reports (polypores, thelephoroid, stereoid, corticioid fungi), on identifying available specimens belonging to difﬁcult taxonomic groups (e.g., lepiotoid, entolomatoid, hemimycenoid taxa), and on further intensive ﬁeldwork conducted monthly in undisturbed native forests. Our knowledge of the mushrooms and allies from ST&P is in its infancy, and additional ﬁeld and lab work will surely yield surprises, new distribution records and new taxa. 202 D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry Acknowledgments We thank Dr. Robert C. Drewes (California Academy of Sciences) who continues to initiate, coordinate and lead multi-organism biotic surveys on São Tomé and Príncipe; Eng. Arlindo de Ceita Carvalho, Director General of the Ministry of Environment, Victor Bonﬁm, Salvador Sousa Pontes and Danilo Barbero for permission to collect and export specimens for study. We are indebted to Société de Conservation et Développement for logistics and housing support, especially the wonderful staff of Omali Lodge and Bom Bom Island. We are grateful for the support and cooperation of Bastien Loloumb of Zuntabawe and Faustino Oliveira, former Director of the botanical garden at Bom Sucesso. We were assisted in the ﬁeld by José Ramos Maria Vital Pires on Príncipe and by Quintino Quade Cabral, Martinho Nascimento and José Clara on São Tomé. For continuing support, we are most grateful to Ned Seligman, Quintino Quade Cabral and Roberta dos Santos of STePUP. We are grateful to the College of Science and Engineering at San Francisco State University for partial funding to support travel to São Tomé and Príncipe, and to the G. Lindsay Field Research Fund of the California Academy of Sciences (CAS) for ﬁnancially supporting the expedition in 2006 and the Hagey Research Venture Fund (CAS) in 2008. We thank Cony Decock and Wes Eckerman for the use of their photos of Truncospora oboensis and Scytinopogon havencampii, respectively. Lastly, we are especially grateful to Roderick C.M. Hall, Coleman P. Burke and William K. Bowes Jr. whose generous philanthropy has supported our research on São Tomé and Príncipe. Appendix List of Agaricomycetes reported from Príncipe (P) and São Tomé (ST). Author abbreviations and nomenclature are according to Index Fungorum (www. indexfungorum.org). Phylogenetic placement and synonymy are based on current literature, or as reported in Species Fungorum (www.speciesfungorum.org) and Mycobank (www.mycobank.org). E—putative endemic Currently accepted name ORDER AGARICALES Agaricaceae Agaricus subﬂabellatus Cout. Agaricus sylvaticus Schaeff. Phellorinia herculeana (Pers.) Kreisel Ripartitella brasiliensis (Speg.) Singer Tulostoma mollerianum Bres. & Roum. Bolbitiaceae Conocybe zeylanica (Petch) Boedijn Catathelasmataceae Callistosporium cystidiatum (T.J. Baroni, Lodge & D.L. Lindner) Vizzini, Consiglio & M. Marchetti Callistosporium elegans Desjardin & B.A. Perry Callistosporium praemultifolium (Murrill) Vizzini, Consiglio & M. Marchetti Name reported in literature Citation P Agaricus subﬂabellatus Cout. Psalliota sylvatica (Schaeff.) P. Kumm. Phellorinia delestrei (Durieu & Mont.) E. Fisch. Ripartitella brasiliensis (Speg.) Singer Tylostoma mollerianum Bres. & Roum. Coutinho (1925) Coutinho (1925) E X Coutinho (1925) X Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) E Conocybe zeylanica (Petch) Boedijn Desjardin and Perry (2016) X Pleurocollybia cystidiata T.J. Baroni, Lodge & D.L. Lindner Callistosporium elegans Desjardin & B.A. Perry Pleurocollybia praemultifolia (Murrill) Singer Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Desjardin and Perry (2017) E Desjardin and Perry (2017) ST X (continued) 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies Currently accepted name Clavariaceae Clavaria phoenicea Zoll. & Moritzi Clavulinopsis amoena (Zoll. & Moritzi) Corner Crepidotaceae Crepidotus hemiphlebius (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Murrill Crepidotus kangoliformis Desjardin & B.A. Perry Crepidotus nephrodes (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Sacc. Simocybe centunculus (Fr.) P. Karst. Cyphellaceae Chondrostereum purpureum (Pers.) Pouzar Entolomataceae Entoloma mammosum (L.) Hesler Entoloma papillatum (Bres.) Dennis Hydropoid Clade Clitocybula intervenosa A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Hydropus globosporus A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Hydropus murinus A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Trogia anthidepas (Berk. & Broome) Corner Trogia aff. brevipes Corner Trogia buccinalis (Mont.) Pat. Trogia delicata Corner Trogia aff. furcata Corner Trogia infundibuliformis Berk. & Broome Hygrophoraceae Arrhenia cystidiata Desjardin & B.A. Perry Cuphophyllus laranja Desjardin & B.A. Perry Cuphophyllus pratensis (Fr.) Bon Hygrocybe macambrarensis Desjardin & B.A. Perry Hygrocybe aff. miniata (Fr.) P. Kumm. Hygrocybe sp. Hymenogastraceae Galerina makereriensis Pegler 203 Name reported in literature Citation P Clavaria phoenicea Zoll. & Moritzi Clavulinopsis amoena (Zoll. & Moritzi) Corner Desjardin and Perry (2015b) Desjardin and Perry (2015b) X Agaricus hemiphlebius Berk. & M.A. Curtis Crepidotus kangoliformis Desjardin & B.A. Perry Crepidotus nephrodes (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Sacc. Simocybe centunculus (Fr.) P. Karst. Coutinho (1925) X Desjardin and Perry (2016) E Desjardin and Perry (2016) X Stereum purpureum Pers. Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) X Hyporrhodius mammosus (L.) J. Schröt. Nolanea papillata Bres. Coutinho (1925) X Bresadola (1891) X Clitocybula intervenosa A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Hydropus globosporus A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Hydropus murinus A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Trogia anthidepas (Berk. & Broome) Corner Trogia aff. brevipes Corner Cantharellus buccinalis Mont. Trogia delicata Corner Trogia aff. furcata Corner Trogia infundibuliformis Berk. & Broome Cooper et al. (2018) E Cooper et al. (2018) E Cooper et al. (2018) E Arrhenia cystidiata Desjardin & B.A. Perry Cuphophyllus laranja Desjardin & B.A. Perry Cuphophyllus pratensis (Fr.) Bon Hygrocybe macambrarensis Desjardin & B.A. Perry Hygrocybe aff. miniata (Fr.) P. Kumm. Hygrocybe sp. Desjardin and Perry (2017) E Desjardin and Perry (2020) E Galerina makereriensis Pegler ST X Desjardin and Perry (2016) Desjardin and Perry (2017) Desjardin and Perry (2017) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Cooper et al. (2018) Desjardin and Perry (2017) Desjardin and Perry (2017) Desjardin and Perry (2020) X X X X X X X X Desjardin and Perry (2020) E Desjardin and Perry (2020) X Desjardin and Perry (2020) X Desjardin and Perry (2016) X (continued) 204 D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry Currently accepted name Name reported in literature Citation Galerina physospora Singer Gymnopilus aculeatus (Bres. & Roum.) Singer Galerina physospora Singer Pholiota aculeata Bres. & Roum. X E Gymnopilus aureobrunneus (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Murrill Naucoria aureobrunnea (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Cout. Gymnopilus aureobrunneus (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Murrill Naucoria delipis (Berk. & Broome) Cout. Gymnopilus purpureosquamulosus Høiland Naucoria brevipes Cout. Naucoria chrysotricha (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Cout. Naucoria fusco-olivacea Bres. & Roum. Naucoria papularis (Fr.) Sacc. Desjardin and Perry (2016) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Coutinho (1925) Desjardin and Perry (2016) X Coutinho (1925) X Gymnopilus delipis (Berk. & Broome) Singer Gymnopilus purpureosquamulosus Høiland Naucoria brevipes Cout. Naucoria chrysotricha (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Cout. Naucoria fusco-olivacea Bres. & Roum. Naucoria papularis (Fr.) Sacc. P Desjardin and Perry (2016) X X E X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Coutinho (1925) E Coutinho (1925)–doubtful (see Desjardin and Perry (2016)) Coutinho (1925)–doubtful (see Desjardin and Perry (2016)) E X Inocybe hystrix (Fr.) P. Karst. Inocybe reticulata Cout. Inocybe reticulata Cout. Lycoperdaceae Lycoperdon molle Pers. Lycoperdon molle Pers. Desjardin and Perry (2015b) X Campanella buettneri Henn. Campanella burkei Desjardin & B.A. Perry Lactocollybia variicystis D.A. Reid & Eicker Marasmius albisubiculosus C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius aff. apatelius Singer Collybia collina (Scop.) P. Kumm. Marasmius colorimarginatus Antonín Marasmius corrugatiformis Singer Marasmius diversus C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius elaeocephaliformis C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius elaeocephalus Singer Desjardin et al. (2017) Desjardin and Perry (2017) X E Marasmius aff. apatelius Singer Marasmius collinus (Scop.) P. Kumm. Marasmius colorimarginatus Antonín Marasmius corrugatiformis Singer Marasmius diversus C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius elaeocephaliformis C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius elaeocephalus Singer X Coutinho (1925) Coutinho (1925) Inocybaceae Inocybe hystrix (Fr.) P. Karst. Marasmiaceae Campanella buettneri Henn. Campanella burkei Desjardin & B.A. Perry Lactocollybia variicystis D.A. Reid & Eicker Marasmius albisubiculosus C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry ST E Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Grace et al. (2019) E Grace et al. (2019) X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Grace et al. (2019) X X Grace et al. (2019) X Grace et al. (2019) E Grace et al. (2019) E Grace et al. (2019) X (continued) 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies Currently accepted name Name reported in literature Citation Marasmius grandisetulosus Singer Marasmius grandisetulosus Singer Marasmius aff. guyanensis Mont. Marasmius haediniformis Singer Marasmius laranja C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius leptocephalus C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius aff. megistus Singer Marasmius nodulocystis Pegler Marasmius palmivorus Sharples Marasmius paratrichotus C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius rotalis Berk. & Broome Marasmius segregatus C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius subarborescens Singer Marasmius subruforotula Singer Marasmius suthepensis Wannathes, Desjardin & Lumyong Marasmius tenuisetulosus (Singer) Singer Grace et al. (2019) Marasmius aff. guyanensis Mont. Marasmius haediniformis Singer Marasmius laranja C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius leptocephalus C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius aff. megistus Singer Marasmius nodulocystis Pegler Marasmius palmivorus Sharples Marasmius paratrichotus C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius rotalis Berk. & Broome Marasmius segregatus C.L. Grace, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius subarborescens Singer Marasmius subruforotula Singer Marasmius suthepensis Wannathes, Desjardin & Lumyong Marasmius tenuisetulosus (Singer) Singer Mycenaceae Favolaschia auriscalpium (Mont.) Henn. Filoboletus pallescens (Boedijn) Maas Geest. Heimiomyces tenuipes (Schwein.) Singer Mycena alphitophora (Berk.) Sacc. Mycena antennae A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Mycena breviseta Höhnel Mycena brunneoviolacea A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Mycena aff. discobasis Métrod Mycena discogena Singer Mycena galopus (Pers.) P. Kumm. Laschia auriscalpium Mont. Filoboletus pallescens (Boedijn) Maas Geest. Heimiomyces tenuipes (Schwein.) Singer Mycena alphitophora (Berk.) Sacc. Mycena antennae A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Mycena breviseta Höhnel Mycena brunneoviolacea A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Mycena aff. discobasis Métrod Mycena discogena Singer Mycena galopus (Pers.) P. Kumm. 205 P ST X Grace et al. (2019) X Grace et al. (2019) X Grace et al. (2019) E Grace et al. (2019) E Grace et al. (2019) X Grace et al. (2019) X X Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Grace et al. (2019) X Grace et al. (2019) X Grace et al. (2019) E Grace et al. (2019) X Grace et al. (2019) X Grace et al. (2019) X Grace et al. (2019) X Winter (1886), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Cooper et al. (2018) X X Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Cooper et al. (2018) X Cooper et al. (2018) E Cooper et al. (2018) Cooper et al. (2018) X E Cooper et al. (2018) Cooper et al. (2018) Cooper et al. (2018) X X X (continued) 206 D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry Currently accepted name Name reported in literature Citation Mycena aff. holoporphyra (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Singer Mycena lamprospora (Corner) E. Horak Mycena aff. holoporphyra (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Singer Mycena lamprospora (Corner) E. Horak Mycena lasiopus Maas Geest. & de Meijer Mycena longinqua A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Mycena oboensis A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Mycena phaeonox A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Agaricus roseus Schaeff. Mycena solis A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Mycena tintinnabulum (Paulet) Quél. Cooper et al. (2018) Mycena lasiopus Maas Geest. & de Meijer Mycena longinqua A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Mycena oboensis A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Mycena phaeonox A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Mycena rosea Gramberg Mycena solis A.C. Cooper, Desjardin & B.A. Perry Mycena tintinnabulum (Paulet) Quél. Nidulariaceae Cyathus limbatus Tul. & C. Tul. Cyathus poeppigii Tul. & C. Tul. Omphalotaceae Gymnopus billbowesii Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus aff. brunneigracilis (Corner) A.W. Wilson & Desjardin Gymnopus cervinus (Henn.) Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus gibbosus (Corner) A.W. Wilson, Desjardin & E. Horak Gymnopus hirtelloides Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus hirtellus (Berk. & Broome) Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus irresolutus Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus melanopus A.W. Wilson, Desjardin & E. Horak Gymnopus mustachius Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus ocellus Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus ocior (Pers.) Antonín & Noordel. Gymnopus pleurocystidiatus Desjardin & B.A. Perry P ST X Cooper et al. (2018) X Cooper et al. (2018) X Cooper et al. (2018) E X Cooper et al. (2018) E Cooper et al. (2018) E Coutinho (1925) Cooper et al. (2018) X E Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) X Cyathus limbatus Tul. & C. Tul. Cyathus poeppigii Tul. & C. Tul. Desjardin and Perry (2015b) Desjardin and Perry (2015b) X Gymnopus billbowesii Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus aff. brunneigracilis (Corner) A.W. Wilson & Desjardin Gymnopus cervinus (Henn.) Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus gibbosus (Corner) A.W. Wilson, Desjardin & E. Horak Gymnopus hirtelloides Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus hirtellus (Berk. & Broome) Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus irresolutus Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus melanopus A.W. Wilson, Desjardin & E. Horak Gymnopus mustachius Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus ocellus Desjardin & B.A. Perry Agaricus xanthopus Fr. Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Gymnopus pleurocystidiatus Desjardin & B.A. Perry X Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Desjardin and Perry (2017) X X Desjardin and Perry (2017) E Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Desjardin and Perry (2017) E Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Desjardin and Perry (2017) E Desjardin and Perry (2017) E Coutinho (1925) X Desjardin and Perry (2017) E (continued) 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies 207 Currently accepted name Name reported in literature Citation Gymnopus aff. polygrammus (Mont.) J.L. Mata Gymnopus quercophilus (Pouzar) Antonín & Noordel. Gymnopus rodhallii Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus ugandensis (Pegler) Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus aff. polygrammus (Mont.) J.L. Mata Marasmius splachnoides (Hornem.) Fr. Gymnopus rodhallii Desjardin & B.A. Perry Gymnopus ugandensis (Pegler) Desjardin & B.A. Perry Marasmius amadelphus (Bull.) Fr. Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Marasmiellus ramealis (Bull.) Singer Mycetinis ignobilis (Berk. & Broome) Desjardin & B.A. Perry Setulipes aﬁbulatus Antonín Physalacriaceae Cyptotrama asprata (Berk.) Redhead & Ginns Pleurotaceae Pleurotus tuber-regium (Fr.) Singer Pluteaceae Pluteus albidus Beeli Pluteus albostipitatus (Dennis) Singer Pluteus chrysaegis (Berk. & Broome) Petch Pluteus hirtellus Desjardin & B.A. Perry Pluteus losulus Justo Pluteus thomensis Desjardin & B.A. Perry Psathyrellaceae Candolleomyces albipes (Murrill) Wächter & A. Melzer Candolleomyces cacao (Desjardin & B.A. Perry) Wächter & A. Melzer Coprinellus aureogranulatus (Uljé & Aptroot) Redhead, Vilgalys & Moncalvo Coprinellus disseminatus (Pers.) J.E. Lange Coprinopsis afronivea Desjardin & B.A. Perry Coprinopsis cinerea (Schaeff.) Redhead, Vilgalys & Moncalvo Mycetinis ignobilis (Berk. & Broome) Desjardin & B.A. Perry Setulipes aﬁbulatus Antonín P E ST E Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Desjardin and Perry (2017) X X X Cyptotrama asprata (Berk.) Redhead & Ginns Desjardin and Perry (2017) Lentinus tuber-regium (Fr.) Fr. Lentinus descendens Afzel ex Fr. Coutinho (1925) X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) X Pluteus albidus Beeli Pluteus albostipitatus (Dennis) Singer Pluteus chrysaegis (Berk. & Broome) Petch Pluteus hirtellus Desjardin & B.A. Perry Pluteus losulus Justo Pluteus thomensis Desjardin & B.A. Perry Desjardin and Perry (2018) Desjardin and Perry (2018) X X Desjardin and Perry (2018) X Desjardin and Perry (2018) E Psathyrella albipes (Murrill) A.H. Sm. Psathyrella cacao Desjardin & B.A. Perry Coprinellus aureogranulatus (Uljé & Aptroot) Redhead, Vilgalys & Moncalvo Coprinellus disseminatus (Pers.) J.E. Lange Coprinarius disseminatus (Pers.) P. Kumm. Psathyrella disseminata (Pers.) Quél. Coprinopsis afronivea Desjardin & B.A. Perry Coprinus cinereus (Schaeff.) Gray Desjardin and Perry (2016) X Desjardin and Perry (2016) E Desjardin and Perry (2016) X Desjardin and Perry (2016) X Coutinho (1925) X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Desjardin and Perry (2016) X Saccardo and Berlese (1889) X Desjardin and Perry (2018) Desjardin and Perry (2018) X X E E (continued) 208 D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry Currently accepted name Name reported in literature Citation Psathyrella oboensis Desjardin & B.A. Perry Pterulaceae Pterulicium xylogenum (Berk. & Broome) Corner Schizophyllaceae Schizophyllum commune Fr. Psathyrella oboensis Desjardin & B.A. Perry Desjardin and Perry (2016) E Pterula subaquatica Bres. & Roum. Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) X Schizophyllum commune Fr. Schizophyllum commune var. multiﬁdum (Batsch) Cooke Schizophyllum alneum (L.) J. Schröt. Winter (1886) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Coutinho (1925) X X X Deconica overeemii (E. Horak & Desjardin) Desjardin & B.A. Perry Deconica protea (Kalchbr.) Desjardin & B.A. Perry Hypholoma aff. subviride (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Dennis Desjardin and Perry (2016) X Desjardin and Perry (2016) X Desjardin and Perry (2016) X Tricholomopsis aurea (Beeli) Desjardin & B.A. Perry Desjardin and Perry (2017) X Scleroderma dictyosporum Pat. Desjardin and Perry (2015b) ORDER STEREOPSIDALES Stereopsidaceae Stereopsis radicans (Berk.) D.A. Reid Thelephora radicans Berk. Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) X ORDER POLYPORALES Cerrenaceae Cerrena hydnoides (Sw.) Zmitr. Trametes hydnoides (Sw.) Fr. Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) X Trametes sepium Berk. Daedalea newtonii Bres. & Roum. Coutinho (1925) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Strophariaceae Deconica overeemii (E. Horak & Desjardin) Desjardin & B.A. Perry Deconica protea (Kalchbr.) Desjardin & B.A. Perry Hypholoma aff. subviride (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Dennis Tricholomataceae s.l. Tricholomopsis aurea (Beeli) Desjardin & B.A. Perry ORDER BOLETALES Sclerodermataceae Scleroderma dictyosporum Pat. Fomitopsidaceae Antrodia albida (Fr.) Donk Daedalea newtonii Bres. & Roum. Daedalea quercina (L.) Pers. Daedalea quercina (L.) Pers. Ranadivia modesta (Kunze ex Fr.) Zmitr. Polyporus atypus Lév. Incrustoporiaceae Tyromyces albogilvus (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Murrill Tyromyces squamulosus (Bres.) Ryvarden Irpicaceae Flavodon ﬂavus (Klotzsch) Ryvarden Polyporus albogilvus Berk. & M.A. Curtis Polyporus squamosus Bres. Winter (1886), Coutinho (1925) Bresadola (1890) Irpex ﬂavus Klotzsch Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) P ST X E X E X X X E X (continued) 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies 209 Currently accepted name Name reported in literature Citation Meripilaceae Rigidoporus lineatus (Pers.) Ryvarden Polyporus zonalis Berk. Rigidoporus microporus (Sw.) Overeem Polyporus auberianus Mont. Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Winter (1886), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Meruliaceae Steccherinum rawakense (Pers.) Banker Hydnum rawakense Pers. Saccardo and Berlese (1889) X Polyporus adusta (Willd.) Fr. Polyporus imberbis (Bull.) Fr. Stereum spadiceum var. venosum Quél. Corticium caeruleum (Schrad. ex Lam.) Fr. Bresadola (1890) Bresadola (1890) X X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) X Stereum involutum Klotzsch ex Fr. Stereum pulchellum Sacc. & Berl. Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Saccardo and Berlese (1889) Lentinus sprucei (Berk.) Cout. Panus sprucei Berk. Coutinho (1925) X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Coutinho (1925) X Phanerochaetaceae Bjerkandera adusta (Pers.) P. Karst. Bjerkandera fumosa (Pers.) P. Karst. Porostereum spadiceum (Pers.) Hjortstam & Ryvarden Terana caerulea (Schrad. ex Lam.) Kuntze Podoscyphaceae Podoscypha involuta (Klotzsch ex Fr.) Imazeki Polyporaceae Asterotus dealbatus (Berk.) Singer Coriolopsis badia (Berk.) Murrill Trametes badia Berk. Coriolopsis occidentalis (Klotzsch) Murrill Coriolus sprucei (Berk.) G. Cunn. Earliella scabrosa (Pers.) Gilb. & Ryvarden Polystictus occidentalis (Klotzsch) Sacc. Trametes sprucei Berk. Trametes sanguinea (Klotzsch) Pat. Daedalea sanguinea Klotzsch Favolus multiplex Lév. Favolus grammocephalus (Berk.) Imazeki Favolus jacobeus Sacc. & Berl. Favolus platyporus Berk. & M.A. Curtis Favolus tenuiculus P. Beauv. Fomes amboinensis (Lam.) Cooke Polyporus grammocephalus Berk. Favolus jacobeus Sacc. & Berl. Favolus platyporus Berk. & M.A. Curtis Favolus tesselatus Mont. Hexagonia tenuicola (P. Beauv.) Favolus brasiliensis (Fr.) Fr. Fomes amboinensis (Lam.) Cooke P ST X X X X X X X Coutinho (1925) Coutinho (1925) X X Winter (1886) X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Winter (1886) X Saccardo and Berlese (1889), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Coutinho (1925) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola (1891) Coutinho (1925) X E E X X X X X (continued) 210 D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry Currently accepted name Name reported in literature Citation Fomes ferrugineobrunneus Cout. Fomes ferrugineobrunneus Cout. Ganoderma fulvellum Bres. Coutinho (1925) E Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Winter (1886) X Fomes fulvellus (Bres.) Sacc. Funalia caperata (Berk.) Zmitr. & Malysheva Ganoderma amboinense (Lam.) Pat. Ganoderma applanatum (Pers.) Pat. Ganoderma australe (Fr.) Pat. Ganoderma lucidum (Curtis) P. Karst. Ganoderma multiplicatum (Mont.) Pat. Ganoderma ochrolaccatum (Mont.) Pat. Ganoderma oerstedii (Fr.) Torrend Hexagonia cucullata (Mont.) Murrill Polyporus caperatus Berk. Ganoderma amboinense (Lam.) Pat. Fomes applanatus (Pers.) Fr. Ganoderma australe (Fr.) Pat. Polyporus australis Fr. Ganoderma lucidum (Curtis) P. Karst. Fomes lucidus (Curtis) Sacc. Polyporus lucidus (Curtis) Fr. Ganoderma multiplicatum (Mont.) Pat. Fomes multiplicatus (Mont.) Sacc. Ganoderma ochrolaccatum (Mont.) Pat. Fomes ochrolaccatus (Mont.) Pat. Fomes oerstedii (Fr.) Cooke Favolus cucullatus Mont. Hexagonia purpurascens (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Murrill Leiotrametes menziesii (Berk.) Welti & Courtec. Favolus purpurascens Berk. & M.A. Curtis Polystictus kurzianus Cooke Lentinus striatulus Lév. Lentinus thomensis Cout. Lentinus villosus Klotzsch Lentinus ﬂaccidus Fr. Lentinus thomensis Cout. Lentinus villosus Klotzsch Lenzites applanatus (Klotzsch) Fr. Lenzites applanatus (Klotzsch) Fr. Lenzites asperus (Klotzsch) Fr. Lenzites asperus (Klotzsch) Fr. Lenzites deplanatus Fr. Lenzites repandus Fr. Lenzites deplanatus Fr. Lenzites repandus Fr. Lopharia cinerascens (Schwein.) G. Cunn. Microporus afﬁnis (Blume & T. Nees) Kuntze Lopharia lirellosa Kalchbr. & MacOwen Polystictus afﬁnis (Blume & T. Nees) Fr. Polyporus ﬂabelliformis Klotzsch Polystictus ﬂabelliformis Fr. P ST X X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Coutinho (1925) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Winter (1886) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Coutinho (1925) Winter (1886) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Coutinho (1925) X X X X X X X X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Coutinho (1925) X Coutinho (1925) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Winter (1886) X X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Fries (1851) Coutinho (1925) Winter (1886), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Winter (1886), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Winter (1886) Winter (1886), Coutinho (1925) Coutinho (1925) X X X X X E X X X X X X Roumeguère (1889) X Winter (1886) X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) X (continued) 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies Currently accepted name Microporus xanthopus (Fr.) Kuntze Panus neostrigosus Drechsler-Santos & Wartchow Perenniporia ohiensis (Berk.) Ryvarden Polyporus amboinensis Fr. Polyporus dictyopus Mont. Polyporus philippinensis Berk. Polyporus rugulosus Lév. Polyporus torquescens Sacc. & Berl. Polyporus venezuelae Berk. & M.A. Curtis ex Cooke Pseudofavolus polygrammus (Mont.) G. Cunn. Pycnoporus sanguineus (L.) Murrill Szczepkamyces campestris (Quél.) Zmitr. Name reported in literature Citation P Polystictus carneoniger (Berk. ex Cooke) Cooke Polystictus xanthopus (Fr.) Fr. Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Saccardo and Berlese (1889), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Coutinho (1925) Winter (1886) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Coutinho (1925) X Lentinus strigosus Fr. Trametes ohiensis Berk. Polyporus amboinensis Fr. Polyporus dictyopus Mont. Favolus philippinensis (Berk.) Sacc. Polyporus rugulosus Lév. Polyporus torquescens Sacc. & Berl. Polyporus venezuelae Berk. & M.A. Curtis ex Cooke Hexagonia polygramma (Mont.) Fr. Polystictus sanguineus (L.) G. Mey. Trametes campestris Quél. Trametes cubensis (Mont.) Sacc. Trametes cubensis (Mont.) Sacc. Trametes discolor Sacc. & Berl. Trametes discolor Sacc. & Berl. Trametes gibbosa (Pers.) Fr. Polystictus hirsutus (Wulfen) Fr. Trametes gibbosa (Pers.) Fr. Trametes hirsuta (Wulfen) Lloyd Trametes meyenii (Klotzsch) Lloyd Trametes pubescens (Schumach.) Pilát Daedalea ochracea Kalchbr. Polystictus velutinus (Pers.) Sacc. Trametes strumosa (Fr.) Zmitr., Wasser & Ezhov Trametes versicolor (L.) Lloyd Polyporus strumosus Fr. Trametes villosa (Sw.) Kreisel Truncospora oboensis Decock Polystictus pinsitus (Fr.) Fr. Truncospora oboensis Decock Xenasmataceae Xenasmatella vaga (Fr.) Stalpers ORDER THELEPHORALES Bankeraceae Phaeodon thomensis Cout. ORDER RUSSULALES 211 Polysticus versicolor (L.) Fr. ST X X X X X X X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Saccardo and Berlese (1889) Winter (1886) X Winter (1886) X Coutinho (1925) X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Saccardo and Berlese (1889) Coutinho (1925) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Coutinho (1925) Saccardo and Berlese (1889), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Coutinho (1925) X E X E X X X X X X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Fries (1851) Decock (2011) X E Phlebia vaga Fr. Coutinho (1925) X Phaeodon thomensis Cout. Coutinho (1925) E (continued) 212 Currently accepted name Auriscalpiaceae Lentinellus cochleatus (Pers.) P. Karst Lentinellus ﬂabelliformis (Bolton) S. Ito Hericiaceae Laxitextum bicolor (Pers.) Lentz Peniophoraceae Scytinostroma duriusculum (Berk. & Broome) Donk Scytinostroma quintasianum (Bres. & Roum.) Nakasone Stereaceae Stereum amphirhytes Sacc. & Berl. Stereum bellum (Kunze) Sacc. Stereum hirsutum (Willd.) Pers. Stereum kalchbrenneri Sacc. D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry Name reported in literature Citation Lentinus cochleatus var. occidentalis (Pers.) Fr. Lentinus ﬂabelliformis (Bolton) Fr. Fries (1851) X Coutinho (1925) X Stereum bicolor (Pers.) Fr. Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) X Stereum duriusculum Berk. & Broome Corticium quintasianum Bres. & Roum. Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) X Stereum amphirhytes Sacc. & Berl. Saccardo and Berlese (1889), Roumeguère (1889) Winter (1886), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Saccardo and Berlese (1889), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Winter (1886), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Winter (1886), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Winter (1886) Winter (1886), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Stereum bellum (Kunze) Sacc. Stereum hirsutum (Willd.) Pers. Stereum kalchbrenneri Sacc. Stereum lobatum (Kunze ex Fr.) Fr. Stereum lobatum (Kunze ex Fr.) Fr. Stereum obliquum Mont. & Berk. Stereum obliquum Mont. & Berk. Stereum fasciatum (Schwein.) Fr. Stereum ostrea (Blume & T. Nees) Fr. Stereum versicolor (Sw.) Fr. Xylobolus subpileatus (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Boidin ORDER HYMENOCHAETALES Hymenochaetaceae Coltricia oboensis Decock Fuscoporia ferruginosa (Schrad.) Murrill Stereum versicolor (Sw.) Fr. Stereum subpileatum Berk. & M.A. Curtis Coltricia oboensis Decock Poria ferruginosa (Schrad.) P. Karst. Fuscoporia senex (Nees & Mont.) Gohb.Nejh. Fomes senex (Nees & Mont.) Cooke Hydnoporia tabacina (Sowerby) Spirin, Miettinen & K.H. Larss. Hymenochaete damicornis (Link) Lév. Hymenochaete tabacina (Sowerby) Lév. Hymenochaete damicornis (Link) Lév. Hymenochaete tenuissima Berk. Polystictus sideroides (Lév.) Cooke Polyporus gilvus (Schwein.) Fr. Hymenochaete tenuissima Berk. Inonotus sideroides (Lév.) Ryvarden Phellinus gilvus (Schwein.) Pat. Decock (2013) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Coutinho (1925) Roumeguère (1889), Saccardo and Berlese P ST E E X X X X X X X X X E X X X X X X X (continued) 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies Currently accepted name Name reported in literature Polyporus gilvus var. scruposus (Fr.) Henn. Polyporus scruposus Fr. Polyporus scruposus var. isidioides (Berk.) Cooke Polyporus licnoides Mont. Phellinus igniarius (L.) Quél. Polyporus igniarius (L.) Fr. Fomes igniarius (L.) Fr. Phylloporia pectinata (Klotzsch) Ryvarden Fomes pectinatus (Klotzsch) Gillet Polystictus albidocinereus Cout. Polystictus albidocinereus Cout. Polyporus russogramme Berk. Polystictus russogramme (Berk.) Cooke Rickenellaceae Cotylidia aurantiaca (Pat.) A.L. Welden Thelephora aurantiaca Pers. Thelephora afﬁnis Berk. & M.A. Curtis ORDER PHALLALES Phallaceae Blumenavia angolensis (Welw. & Curr.) Dring Clathrus parvulus Bres. & Roum. Mutinus bambusinus (Zoll.) E. Fisch. Mutinus zenkeri (Henn.) E. Fisch. Phallus drewesii Desjardin & B.A. Perry Blumenavia angolensis (Welw. & Curr.) Dring Clathrus parvulus Bres. & Roum. Mutinus bambusinus (Zoll.) E. Fisch. Mutinus zenkeri (Henn.) E. Fisch. 213 Citation P (1889), Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Winter (1886) Winter (1886) ST X X X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Winter (1886) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890), Coutinho (1925) Coutinho (1925) X X X X E Winter (1886) X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Winter (1886) X X Degreef et al. (2013), Desjardin and Perry (2015b) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Desjardin and Perry (2015b) Degreef et al. (2013), Desjardin and Perry (2015b) Desjardin and Perry (2009) Phallus indusiatus Vent. Phallus drewesii Desjardin & B.A. Perry Phallus indusiatus Vent. ORDER GOMPHALES Gomphaceae Ramaria henriquesii (Bres. & Roum.) Corner Ramaria molleariana (Bres. & Roum.) Corner Ramaria polypus Corner Clavaria henriquesii Bres. & Roum. Lachnocladium mollerianum Bres. & Roum. Ramaria polypus Corner Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Desjardin and Perry (2015b) ORDER GEASTRALES Geastraceae Geastrum ﬁmbriatum Fr. Geastrum ﬁmbriatum Fr. Desjardin and Perry (2015b) Desjardin and Perry (2015b) X E X X X E X X X X X (continued) 214 D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry Currently accepted name Name reported in literature Citation P ST Geastrum schweinitzii (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Zeller Geastrum velutinum Morgan Geastrum schweinitzii (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Zeller Geastrum velutinum Morgan Desjardin and Perry (2015b) Desjardin and Perry (2015b) X X Scytinopogon havencampii Desjardin & B.A. Perry Desjardin and Perry (2015a) E Auricularia auricula-judae (Bull.) Quél. Hirneola auricula-judae (Bull.) Berk. Laschia tremellosa Fr. Auricularia fuscosuccinea (Mont.) Henn. Hirneola fuscosuccinea (Mont.) Sacc. Auricularia polytricha (Mont.) Sacc. Hirneola polytricha (Mont.) Fr. Coutinho (1925) X Bresadola (1891) X Winter (1886) Coutinho (1925) X X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) Coutinho (1925) X Bresadola and Roumeguère (1890) X ORDER TRECHISPORALES Hydnodontaceae Trechispora havencampii (Desjardin & B.A. Perry) Meiras-Ottoni & Gibertoni ORDER AURICULARIALES Auriculariaceae Auricularia auricula-judae (Bull.) Quél. Auricularia fuscosuccinea (Mont.) Henn. Auricularia nigricans (Sw.) Birkebak, Looney & Sánchez-García ORDER CANTHARELLALES Aphelariaceae Aphelaria subglobispora P. Roberts Cantharellaceae Pseudocraterellus undulatus (Pers.) Rauschert Hydnaceae Clavulina vanderystii (Bres.) Corner Aphelaria subglobispora P. Roberts Desjardin and Perry (2015b) Craterellus crispus (Bull.) Berk. Bresadola (1891) Clavulina vanderystii (Bres.) Corner INCERTAE SEDIS—insufﬁcient data, problematic nomenclature Agaricus (Collybia) diffractus Cout. nom. Competing epithet; not illeg. treated since publication Agaricus (Galera) macromastes Fr. Not treated since publication Agaricus (Mycena) rufescens Cout. nom. illeg. Agaricus (Naucoria) papularis Fr. Competing epithet; not treated since publication Not treated since publication Panus troglodytes Fr. Polystictus afﬁnis var. cyathoidea Sacc. & Berl. Not treated since publication Not treated since publication Polystictus mollerianus Sacc., Berl. & Roum. Not treated since publication Desjardin and Perry (2015b) X X X X X Coutinho (1925) E Fries (1851) (see Desjardin and Perry (2016)) Coutinho (1925) (see Cooper et al. (2018)) Fries (1851) (see Desjardin and Perry (2016)) Fries (1851) Saccardo and Berlese (1889), Roumeguère (1889) Saccardo and Berlese (1889) E E E E E E 8 Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycete Mushrooms and Allies 215 References Bresadola G (1890) Fungi Kamerunenses. Bulletin de la Société Mycologique de France 6(1): 32–49 Bresadola G (1891) Contributions a la ﬂore mycologique de l’ile de St. Thomé. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 9:38–44 Bresadola G, Roumeguère C (1890) Nouvelles contributions à la ﬂore mycologique des iles SaintThomé et des Princes, recuilles par MM. Ad, F. Moller, F. Quintas, et F. Newton. Revue de Mycologique, Toulouse 12(45):25–40 Brundrett MC (2009) Mycorrhizal associations and other means of nutrition of vascular plants: understanding the global diversity of host plants by resolving conﬂicting information and developing reliable means of diagnosis. Plant and Soil 320:37–77 Cooper AC, Desjardin DE, Perry BA (2018) The genus Mycena (Basidiomycota, Agaricales, Mycenaceae) and allied genera from republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Phytotaxa 383(1):1–47 Coutinho AXP (1925) Florae mycologicae insulae St. Thomae. Anais do Instituto Superior de Agronomia da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa 2:1–26 Decock C (2011) Studies in Perenniporia s.l. (Polyporaceae): African taxa VII. Truncospora oboensis sp. nov., an undescribed species from high elevation cloud forest of São Tomé. Cryptogamie Mycologie 32(4):383–390 Decock C (2013) Coltricia oboensis sp. nov. from the high elevation cloud forest of São Tomé. Cryptogamie Mycologie 34(2):175–181 Degreef J, Amalﬁ M, Decock C, Demoulin V (2013) Two rare Phallales recorded from São Tomé. Cryptogamie Mycologie 34(1):3–13 Desjardin DE, Perry BA (2009) A new species of Phallus from São Tomé, Africa. Mycologia 101(4):543–545 Desjardin DE, Perry BA (2015a) A new species of Scytinopogon from the island of Príncipe, Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Mycosphere 6(4):433–440 Desjardin DE, Perry BA (2015b) Clavarioid fungi and Gasteromycetes from Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Mycosphere 6(4):515–531 Desjardin DE, Perry BA (2016) Dark-spored species of Agaricineae from Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Mycosphere 7(3):359–391 Desjardin DE, Perry BA (2017) The gymnopoid fungi (Basidiomycota, Agaricales) from the Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Mycosphere 8(9):1317–1391 Desjardin DE, Perry BA (2018) The genus Pluteus (Basidiomycota, Agaricales, Pluteaceae) from Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Mycosphere 9(3):598–617 Desjardin DE, Perry BA (2020) The hygrophoroid fungi (Basidiomycota, Agaricales, Hygrophoraceae) from Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Current Research in Environmental and Applied Mycology 10(1):186–197 Desjardin DE, Perry BA, Shay JE, Newman DS, Randrianjohany E (2017) Type species of Tetrapyrgos and Campanella (Basidiomycota, Agaricales) are redescribed and epitypiﬁed. Mycosphere 8(8):977–985 Drewes RC (2002) Islands at the center of the world. California Wild 55(2):8–19 Figueiredo E, Paiva J, Stévart T, Oliveira F, Smith FG (2011) Annotated catalogue of the ﬂowering plants of São Tomé and Príncipe. Bothalia 41(1):41–82 Fries E (1851) Novarum symbolarum mycologicarum mantissa. Nova Acta Regiae Societas Scientiarum Upsaliensis 3(1):225–231 Grace CL, Desjardin DE, Perry BA, Shay JE (2019) The genus Marasmius (Basidiomycota, Agaricales, Marasmiaceae) from Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Phytotaxa 414(2):55–104 Henriques J (1886) Flora de S. Thomé—Contribuições para o estudo da ﬂora d’África. Boletim da Societade Broteriana 4:129–254 216 D. E. Desjardin and B. A. Perry Kirk P (2019) Catalogue of life. Available via http://www.catalogueoﬂife.org. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Lee D-C, Halliday AN, Fitton JG, Poli G (1994) Isotopic variations with distance and time in the volcanic islands of the Cameroon line: evidence for a mantle plume. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 123:119–138 Meiras-Ottoni A, Larsson K-L, Gilbertoni TB (2021) Additions to Trechispora and the status of Scytinopogon (Trechisporales, Basidiomycota). Mycological Progress 20:203–222 Osarenkhoe OO, John OA, Theophilus DA (2014) Ethnomycological conspectus of West African mushrooms: an awareness document. Advances in Microbiology 4:39–54 Piepenbring M, Marciá-Vicente JG, Codija JEI, Glatthorn C, Kirk P, Meswaet Y, Minter D, Olou BA, Reschke K, Schmidt M, Yorou NS (2020) Mapping mycological ignorance—checklists and diversity patterns of fungi known for West Africa. IMA Fungus 11:13 Roumeguère C (1889) Fungi selecti exsiccate. Centurie LI Revue de Mycologique, Toulouse 11(44):193–201 Saccardo PA, Berlese AN (1889) Mycetes aliquot Guinnenses. Boletim da Societade Broteriana 7: 110–114 Varga T, Krizsan K, Foldi C et al (2019) Megaphylogeny resolves global patterns of mushroom diversiﬁcation. Nature Ecology and Evolution 3:668–678 Willis KJ (ed) (2018) State of the world’s fungi 2018. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Winter G (1886) Flora de S. Thomé—Fungi. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 4:185–204 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past, Present and Future César Garcia, Cecília Sérgio, and James R. Shevock Abstract This chapter aims to present a review of the knowledge of the bryological ﬂora for the São Tomé and Príncipe Islands (Gulf of Guinea). An updated catalogue is presented, as well as a brief overview of the ﬁrst expeditions conducted by the University of Coimbra. The labels of the historical herbarium collections and correspondence were analyzed, which provides an important source of data contributing toward research in taxonomy and conservation of these oceanic islands. Since 2007, exploratory ﬁeldwork was carried out in different habitats of this archipelago along an altitudinal gradient, aiming to improve the knowledge of the ecology and distribution patterns of its bryophyte ﬂora. A total of 304 taxa of bryophytes (133 mosses, 164 liverworts and seven hornworts) are currently reported, of which 21 are endemic to São Tomé and Príncipe and 144 species are shared endemics with the African continent. Several vouchers, especially in the herbaria of the University of Lisbon and of the California Academy of Sciences, are still under study and will likely provide further insights and new discoveries. Keywords Africa · Biodiversity · Bryophytes · Conservation · Expeditions · Herbaria Introduction Bryophytes are a group of land plants that includes mosses, liverworts, and hornworts, and with over 20,000 described species, they are the second most speciose group of higher plants, after angiosperms (Patiño and Vanderpoorten 2018; Song C. Garcia (*) · C. Sérgio Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), CHANGE Associated Laboratory - Global Change and Sustainability Institute, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: cgarcia@fc.ul.pt J. R. Shevock California Academy of Sciences, Department of Botany, San Francisco, USA © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_9 217 218 C. Garcia et al. et al. 2021). Bryophytes are a common component of tropical forests and provide important ecosystem functions. In tropical regions during rainstorms numerous bryophyte species can quickly absorb (and retain) many times their dry weight in water. The absorbed water is then slowly released over time back into the environment, thereby reducing the erosive effects of heavy rain and allowing other plants and animals to beneﬁt from the rain and the humid environment for a longer period (Pócs 1982). Bryophytes are widely distributed in terrestrial ecosystems (St Martin and Mallik 2017), and islands provide an exceptional natural laboratory for ecological and evolutionary research in this group of terrestrial plants that is often poorly studied. Oceanic tropical islands usually host amazing bryophyte diversity, including endemic species, especially in the montane forests favoured by ideal climatic conditions, such as frequent rainfall and permanent fog (Ah-Peng et al. 2012). The ﬁrst known bryophyte collections of São Tomé and Príncipe were made by Friedrich Welwitsch (1806–1872) in 1853 and 1860, as part of the expeditions supported by the Portuguese government to Angola (Dolezal 1974), followed by Charles Barter (1821–1859) and Gustav Mann (1836–1916), botanists with special interest in vascular ﬂora (Sérgio and Garcia 2011). One of the greatest Portuguese mentors of Botany in Africa was Júlio Augusto Henriques (1838–1928) and he outlined a plan for studying the ﬂora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Coutinho 1929–30). Throughout his life, Henriques remained deeply invested in understanding the botanical diversity of the archipelago, which motivated his tireless research as professor and director of the Botanical Garden of the University of Coimbra for more than 50 years. His initial interest in the botanical study of São Tomé and Príncipe was likely related to cultivation of the Cinchona tree (Chinchona spp.) and other medicinal plants at the Coimbra Botanical Garden (Perpétuo et al. 2012). At the age of 65, Henriques led an expedition to the island of São Tomé to study the island’s ﬂora, departing from Lisbon on June 23, 1903. The research based on this visit culminated in an important publication (Henriques 1917). During his stay in the archipelago, Henriques was received by the owners of many farms (roças), taking notes and obtaining important data on the natural history of the island. Fernandes (1980, 1986) noted that when Henriques planned the study of the ﬂora of São Tomé and Príncipe in the 1880s, he implemented a set of measures that proved to be extremely important for the enrichment of the University of Coimbra herbarium (currently, Herbário do Instituto Botânico de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal - COI). First, he promoted and intensiﬁed the development of the Coimbra herbarium and trained qualiﬁed botany specialists. It was to this end that he appointed Adolpho Frederico Möller (1842–1920), a renowned collector of ﬂora in Portugal and later in São Tomé and Príncipe (four months in 1885), and in turn Francisco Joaquim Dias Quintas (1864–1909) in botanical ﬁeld studies in São Tomé and Príncipe. Second, Henriques sent material collected on these expeditions to the greatest bryologists at the time. Their results were published in the “Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana”, a scientiﬁc journal dedicated to Botany and co-published by the University of Coimbra and the Broterian Society (Sociedade Broteriana). 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . 219 Herbarium Specimens and Associated Documentation Numerous naturalists passing through or purposefully visiting São Tomé and Príncipe gathered biological collections, some of which were then published in different scientiﬁc outlets. The Austrian naturalist and explorer Friedrich Welwitsch visited São Tomé in 1853 and 1860, during stopovers at the beginning and end of his botanical survey of Angola (Sérgio and Garcia 2011). The major scientiﬁc expeditions during the nineteenth century were performed by Adolpho Möller in 1885 (Henriques 1917; Sérgio and Garcia 2011), Francisco Quintas from 1888 to 1889, and Francisco Newton (1864–1909) between 1885 and 1895 (Sérgio and Garcia 2011). Casual collections were made by different naturalists, for example, the French botanist Auguste Jean Baptiste Chevalier (1873–1956) in 1905 (Exell 1944). In all these ﬁeld studies, botanical collections were organized, and duplicates were distributed to different herbaria. These included COI, and the herbaria of the Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal (LISU), of the Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom (BM), of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris, France (PC), of the Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical - ULisboa (LISC), and of the Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève, Geneve Switzerland (G), and the Brotherus Herbarium (H-BR) of the Finnish Museum of Natural History University of Helsinki, Finland (H) (Herbaria acronyms according to Thiers 2016). The original herbarium collections, details presented in ﬁeld notes, draft descriptions of species, and the extensive correspondence between the collectors and the specialists that studied the biological material are a valuable source of data and a base for modern studies regarding São Tomé and Príncipe ﬂora. Presently, COI and LISU herbaria hold most of the bryophyte specimens cited in the bibliography for São Tomé and Príncipe, corresponding mostly to the collections of Friedrich Welwitsch, Möller, Quintas and Newton, in addition to the smaller collections of Júlio Henriques. However, duplicates of these collections are also found in other European herbaria (Sérgio and Garcia 2011). The bryological collections resulting from the expeditions organized by Júlio Henriques were studied by several experts. The liverworts were sent to Franz Stephani (1842–1927) between 1886 and 1913. The mosses were ﬁrst sent to Carl Müller (1818–1889) in Halle (between 1885 and 1887) and later to Viktor Ferdinand Brotherus (1849–1929) in Helsinki (between 1889 and 1904). The letters that Henriques sent to Stephani and Brotherus (Biblioteca Digital de Botânica da Universidade de Coimbra 2021) list all the specimens exchanged. Thus, specimens originating from these collections were progressively divvied up and disseminated by several international herbaria at the discretion of the authors who studied them. In this study, by cross-checking the LISU database referring to the aforementioned studied herbaria, we were able to conﬁrm where the reference material and most of the respective nomenclatural types are currently located (Sérgio and Garcia 2011). Additionally, we also gathered and compared all available information on 220 C. Garcia et al. Fig. 9.1 Two specimens (1, 2) of Bryum coronatum Schwägr., corresponding to the same Welwitsch specimen (n 126, Insula de S. Thomé loco called Monte Caffé) collected in December 1860, and (3, 4) Sendtnera mollis Steph. Typus, Slopes of Pico de São Tomé, 1500-2100 m, 1885, Adolpho Möller 23. (1) At BM herbarium with “Inter Angolense” labels, with original iconography; (2) At LISU herbarium without iconography but with a handwritten label by Welwitsch; (3) At COI herbarium with the Möller label; (4) At BM herbarium (BM000745048) of Stephani’s herbarium and handwritten data by the same author where the voucher specimens from São Tomé and Príncipe are currently housed (e.g., Figs. 9.1 and 9.2). Most of the material of each specimen in the COI herbarium is abundant and generally corresponds to isotypes found also in BM, G, H or PC. The labels in COI are generally not the original and must have been written by Möller or Quintas (Fig. 9.2), who organized the collections, with many duplicates sent to other herbaria. Arthur Wallis Exell (1901–1993) ﬁrst landed on São Tomé Island in October 1932 to initiate a botanical expedition of the islands of the Gulf of Guinea (e.g., Fig. 9.3.1–2). He visited the four principal islands (São Tomé, Príncipe, Bioko 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . 221 Fig. 9.2 Brotherus specimen identiﬁcations. Two specimens of Ectropothecium drepanophyllum corresponding to the same specimen from Quintas, n 23: (1) Holotypus in H herbarium (H-BR1415–022) with Brotherus handwriting; (2) Isotypus in COI herbarium with a handwritten label from Quintas and Annobón), and the results of this expedition were published in 1944, in the Catalogue of the Vascular Plants of São Tomé (Exell 1944). There are also numerous other specimens with labels based on the printed text of the work published by Carl Müller (1886a), such as the mosses collected by Adolpho Frederico Möller in 1885 and published in the Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana. We also veriﬁed the presence of specimens with original handwritten labels by Stephani and Brotherus in COI herbarium collections (Fig. 9.3.3–4), although some labels have two handwritings with the numbering of localities corresponding to Adolpho Möller manuscripts and the identiﬁcations handwritten by Stephani (Figs. 9.3.3–4 and 9.4) or Carl Müller. The historical specimens from São Tomé and Príncipe archived in the Stephani collection in the herbarium of Genève (G) (Geissler 1982) have duplicates at COI. However, some taxa collected by Newton and Quintas were not returned to Coimbra, at least those studied after 1900. These correspond to the specimen references indicated in the most recent volumes of the Index Hepaticarum (Stephani 1901–1906, 1905–1909, 1909–1912, 1912–1917, 1917–1925). Likewise, there are a considerable number of specimens collected during Júlio Henriques career in the herbarium of Paris (PC), either included in the collections of Jules Cardot (1860–1934), Ferdinand Renauld (1837–1910) or Robert Potier de La Varde (1878–1961), that are often cited in revisionary studies of bryophyte genera. 222 C. Garcia et al. Fig. 9.3 Arthur Exell (1, 2) and Francisco Quintas specimens (3, 4). (1) Octoblepharum albidum, Esperança, circa 350 ft., 1932, Exell 675 in the herbarium of Coimbra (COI); (2) Hygrolejeunea pulcherrima, Santa Maria, circa 4200 ft., 1932, Exell 197 in the London (BM) collections; (3) Isotypus of Metzgeria thomeensis (BM); (4) The same material in COI, isotypes. Both labels (3, 4) correspond to Stephani’s manuscripts At the Helsinki herbarium (H), a signiﬁcant part of material from São Tomé was found in the Brotherus (H–BR) collections, particularly type specimens collected in this archipelago (Sérgio and Garcia 2011), corresponding almost exclusively to Quintas and Möller collections. However, some of the specimens originally studied by Brotherus are now at BM, PC or COI herbaria and were not found at H herbarium (e.g., Leucobryum homalophyllum Broth.). It should be noted that, contrary to Stephani, Brotherus returned all the material he studied to Coimbra, mostly with handwritten labels. 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . 223 Fig. 9.4 (1) Original description of Lejeunea ramosissima Steph. included in the archives of the Botanical Institute of Coimbra Library as part of the letter dated 25 February 1886, and (2) Iconography of several species, including L. ramosissima Steph. (33 and 34) and Sendtneria mollis Steph. (22 and 23) by Stephani (1886) Historical Correspondence The correspondence between naturalists who studied bryophyte specimens collected by Möller, Quintas and Newton, is largely housed in the archives of the University of Coimbra at present. The documentation referring to Welwitsch’s correspondence, currently in Lisbon at the Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência (MUHNAC) of the University of Lisbon, does not provide any mention of bryophytes, despite the existence of bryophyte herbarium specimens of Welwitsch’s expeditions in LISU herbarium (MUHNAC). Among this documentation are lists of the identiﬁed species and, in some cases, the original descriptions of species are also included. Although it was not possible to study all Júlio Henriques’ correspondence in some foreign institutions (except for the one in the library of the University of Helsinki and in the Botanical Garden of Geneva), we analyzed the correspondence exchanged between him and several specialists that is ﬁled at the University of Coimbra (Biblioteca Digital de Botânica da Universidade de Coimbra). Some important parts of this correspondence are transcribed below. 224 C. Garcia et al. Correspondence from Júlio Henriques to Franz Stephani Henriques’ ﬁrst letter referring sending material to Stephani, was on 8 January 1885. The ﬁrst publication of Stephani concerning the liverworts of São Tomé (Stephani 1886) refers to the A. Moller 1885 collections, so the specimen identiﬁcations must have been rather hasty. It describes 19 new species, in addition to other taxa, such as those already described by Mitten from the Cameroon Mountains (Mitten 1863) (e.g., Radula bipinnata Mitt.). Among the ﬁrst records for São Tomé and Príncipe there was, for example, Lejeunea ramosissima Steph. (Fig. 9.4), Plagiochila integerrima Steph., Sendtnera mollis Steph. and Anthoceros pinnatus Steph., all currently still considered as distinct species with valid names. In the letter of 25 February 1886, Stephani sent along a list referencing the ﬁgures with the iconographies that were included in the same publication of Stephani (1886). Correspondence from Júlio Henriques to Carl Müller The correspondence sent by C. Müller from Halle to Henriques is very sparse and consists only of four letters between 1885 and 1887. C. Müller’s second letter, dated 21 March 1886 (UC Digitalis 2021), is the most important as it includes a list of about 50 taxa, corresponding to the identiﬁcation of the specimens cited in Müller (1886a, b). These specimens include more than 25 new species, some of them still recognized as species, as in the case of Funaria acicularis Müll.Hal and Leucobryum leucophanoides Müll.Hal. Correspondence from Júlio Henriques to Viktor Ferdinand Brotherus Sérgio and Garcia (2011) analyzed much of the correspondence between Henriques and Brotherus. Henriques’ ﬁrst letter dated 31 January 1889, refers to sending (on 24 January 1889) a package including mosses from São Tomé to Copenhagen and then to Helsinki. The exchange of bryological material continued and Henriques must have sent a second package that also included material from Portugal. In Brotherus’s letter to Coimbra, sent on 19 August 1889, he states “J’ai reçu en bon état, il ya quelque jours, la quaisse avec des mousses du Portugal et j’irais à leurs déterminations et révision aussitôt qu’il me sera possible. Les mousses de l’île S. Thomé de votre second envoi j’ai déjà examinés et vous communique le nom des espèces. Sont-elles aussi recueillies par M. Quintas”? [“I received in good condition, a few days ago, the case with mosses from Portugal and I will make their identiﬁcations and revision as soon as possible. The mosses of the island S. Thomé of your second shipment I have already examined and communicated to 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . 225 you the names of the species. Were they also collected by Mr. Quintas”?] (UC Digitalis 2021).The reprints referenced in these letters correspond to the 1890 article, published in the “Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana” (Brotherus 1890), where 29 new species are described, some still considered valid species, including several endemics, such as Leucobryum homalophyllum Broth. and Ectropothecium drepanophyllum Broth (Fig. 9.2). Correspondence from Júlio Henriques to Francisco Quintas Although there are no extant records of correspondence from Möller to Henriques, a set of letters from Quintas sent from São Tomé to Henriques in Coimbra are still extant (Biblioteca Digital de Botânica da Universidade de Coimbra 2021). From most of this correspondence, it is evident that Quintas kept Henriques apprised of his research and situation on the island, attaching lists of the material he sent to Coimbra. Although there is no speciﬁc numbering for the bryophyte specimens, there were indications of the boxes that contained cryptogams. For instance, the attachment to the letter issued on 21 July 1888 (UC Digitalis 2021). In that same letter, he also mentioned that mushroom specimens were listed separately. There are many bryophyte specimens collected by Quintas, which correspond to about 70 different bryophyte taxa, some of them corresponding to new species, such as Plagiochila ﬂabellata Steph., P. amplifolia Steph. Among the liverworts and numerous species of mosses (ca. 31) described as new by Brotherus in 1890, we have the examples of Pilotrichella calomicra Broth., Porotrichum quintasii Broth., P. caudatum Broth., Trichosteleum dicranelloides Broth., among other new taxa. Correspondence from Francisco Newton to Júlio Henriques Some correspondence between Henriques and Newton is available in the historical archives of MUHNAC, but none of these letters has any reference to bryophytes. In Coimbra University, there is a letter sent by Newton to Henriques about his 1885 upcoming mission to Africa. Based on this letter, dated 23 August 1885, Newton makes Henriques aware of certain material from Angola (UC Digitalis 2021). He also conﬁrms in that letter that he proposed to make a stop at Príncipe Island and then São Tomé. Ultimately, Newton arrived in São Tomé on 24 September 1885 (Guedes 2021). Strangely, most of the bryophyte material collected by Newton and found in the different herbaria (BM, FH, G, JE and M herbaria) corresponds to specimens collected in 1887 on Príncipe and only a few are indicated to be from São Tomé. In fact, in the different publications concerning Newton, specimens correspond to Príncipe Island, excluding two references corresponding to São Tomé, in Angolares (Stephani 1888a, b). It is also interesting to note that the bryophyte specimens 226 C. Garcia et al. collected on Príncipe Island were only shipped in September of 1885 (Newton 1885), after this letter, but Newton should have sent more material later. Apparently, Newton did not organize the numbering of his bryophyte specimens and the labels are very uninformative. The numbering of specimens was made when the plants arrived in Coimbra. However, it should be noted that based on Newton’s collections, some liverwort species were described by Stephani (1888a, b), as Microlejeunea africana Steph., Lejeunea newtonii Steph. (now included in Cheilolejeunea newtonii Steph. ex Schiffn.), Plagiochila thomeensis Steph. (currently a synonym for Plagiochila terebrans Nees et Mont. ex Lindenb); Cheilolejeunea principensis Steph. (synonymized to Cheilolejeunea serpentina (Mitt.) Mizut.), and Lophocolea newtonii Steph. (synonymized to Lophocolea martiana Nees). Historical Collecting Localities Based on the data associated with the aforementioned collections, the location (exact or approximate) of the historical collecting activities by the ﬁrst naturalists dedicated to the study of bryophytes in São Tomé Island was georeferenced (Fig. 9.5), and used as a starting point for the most recent ﬁeldwork performed by the authors. Exell’s 1944 plant catalogue (Exell 1944) includes all the species known at the time and new reports of some taxa for the islands (Figueiredo 1994, 2005; Figueiredo and Gascoigne 2001), including diverse bryophytes. He was based in Vanhulst (Macambrará), in the Roça Zampalma and collected most of the bryophyte material in this region. This bryophyte collection was the basis for two publications, in which about 40 taxa of liverworts and mosses are listed (Exell 1944). Most of Exell’s specimens are stored in BM, except for some specimens that are kept at COI. After the Exell expedition, other collections were obtained in 1956 by the French naturalist Théodore Monod (1902–2000) and C. A. Thorold (1906–1998) in São Tomé and Príncipe, mainly in Pico de Príncipe, during the “6th Conférence lnternationale des Africanistes de I’Ouest” (Monod 1960). Most of this material is hosted in PC and was the basis of the publication of Potier de la Varde (1959). Arnaldo Roseira also collected in the islands between 1954 and 1958, corresponding to 79 specimens of three taxa in the PO herbarium (Universidade do Porto) (Costa 2020). Recent Studies Since the middle of the twentieth century and after the works of Exell, the study of bryophytes of São Tomé and Príncipe came to a halt. Only more recently has a new effort emerged through the project Bryotome (Sérgio and Garcia 2011). During this project, the ﬁrst author carried out ﬁeldwork in São Tomé and Príncipe in 2007 and 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . 227 Fig. 9.5 Historical collecting localities of naturalists who collected bryophytes specimens on São Tomé Island from the mid-nineteenth century to mid-twentieth century: (1) Auguste Jean Baptiste Chevalier (1873–1956), (2) Arthur Wallis Exell (1901–1993), (3) Gustav Mann (1836–1916), (4) Adolpho Frederico Möller (1842–1920), (5) Théodore Monod (1902–2000), (6) Francisco Newton (1864–1909), (7) Francisco Joaquim Dias Quintas (1864–1909), (8) Charles Aubrey Thorold (1906–1998), (9) Friedrich Welwitsch (1806–1872) 228 C. Garcia et al. Fig. 9.6 Study localities in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2016 for the enrichment of the University of Lisbon (LISU) and the California Academy of Science (CAS) herbaria 2008, collecting about 6000 specimens at various altitudes, including Pico de São Tomé. This project enabled the study of herbarium specimens, georeferencing historical specimens, planning new ﬁeldwork more effectively, and studying different substrates (epiphytic, epiphyllous, rupicolous, terricolous and humicolous) to better determine speciﬁc microhabitats of species across the islands. In 2010, 2013 and 2016, expeditions sponsored by the California Academy of Sciences were carried out (Fig. 9.6). During these new expeditions, several species were discovered, including new records for the archipelago and the African continent, as well as species new to science (Figs. 9.7 and 9.8). One of the new species discovered was particularly interesting: Dendroceros paivae is distinct from most other species of the genus in its ecology, gametophyte, and sporophyte characters, resembling only the Bornean D. foliicola J. Haseg. In comparison to the type material of D. foliicola, D. paivae has a narrower sporophyte diameter. The thallus of D. paivae does not form rosettes, the cuticle is weakly papillose, and apices are plane to undulate, while D. foliicola forms rosette-like patches with strong crispate margins, even at branches apices, and the cuticle is slightly papillose (Garcia et al. 2012). 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . 229 Fig. 9.7 Liverworts and hornworts from São Tomé and Príncipe: (1, 2) Dendroceros paivae C.A. Garcia, Sérgio & J. C. Villarreal. (hornworts) at the type locality (LISU 237201) (Garcia et al. 2012); (3, 4) Megaceros ﬂagellaris (Mitt,) Steph. (hornworts) growing on a tree trunk in the ﬁrst known locality in São Tomé and Príncipe and the second one reported for the African Continent (LISU 237200); (5) Anthoceros pinnatus Steph. (hornworts); (6) Phaeoceros carolinianus (Michx.) Prosk. (hornworts); (7) Colura sp. (liverworts); (8) Cyathodium cavernarum Kunze (liverworts) 230 C. Garcia et al. Fig. 9.8 Liverworts and mosses from São Tomé and Príncipe. (1) Marchantia pappeana Lehm. subsp. pappeana (liverworts). (2), Plicanthus hirtellus (F. Weber) R.M. Schust. (liverworts). (3), Calymperes lonchophyllum Schwägr. (mosses). (4), Octoblepharum albidum Hedw. (mosses). (5), Orthostichella sp. (mosses). (6), Trematodon longicollis Michx. (mosses). (7), Macromitrium sulcatum var. sulcatum (Hook.) Brid. (mosses). (8), Calymperes palisotii Schwägr. (mosses) 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . 231 Diversity, Composition and Endemism In recent years, several papers resulting from these last expeditions have been published. These included the study of secondary metabolism compounds (Figueiredo et al. 2010) and the description of new species and new genera of bryophytes (Enroth and Shevock 2011; Müller et al. 2011; Garcia and Sérgio 2012a, b, c, d, e; Shevock et al. 2013; Pócs et al. 2015; Sollman et al. 2016; Enroth and Shevock 2017a, b; Müller and Shevock 2018; Müller et al. 2019). These works allowed revising the number of species and endemics for each island individually and for the two islands combined (Table 9.1 and Appendix). One hundred and forty-four species of bryophytes occurring on the islands are currently considered endemic to Africa, 21 of which are endemic to the archipelago, including seven liverworts or hornworts and 14 mosses. One of these species is the hornwort Dendroceros paivae C.A. Garcia, Sérgio & J. C. Villarreal. (hornworts), endemic to São Tomé Island (Garcia et al. 2012) and found only in a single location, in a very restricted area. The known bryophyte species diversity of the islands has increased markedly as specimens of various families are critically examined. For example, prior to ﬁeldwork by the authors, only three species of the moss genus Fissidens (Fissidentaceae) were reported (O’Shea 2006). Now, Fissidens Hedw. is the most species-rich bryophyte genus in the archipelago with 24 known species (Shevock et al. 2013). The liverwort genera, Lejeunea Lib. and Plagiochila (Dumort.) Dumort. are also quite diverse with 19 and 18 species respectively (Müller et al. 2011; Pócs et al. 2015). A similar story of species additions for the islands was provided in a recent study of the moss families Neckeraceae (Enroth and Shevock 2011, 2017a, b) and Table 9.1 Bryophyte species diversity and endemism for each island individually and for the two islands combined Príncipe São Tomé P&ST MARCHANTIOPHYTA and ANTHOCEROTOPHYTA Liverworts and hornworts Total species/taxa 108 138 171 Island endemism 4 4 7 African endemism 52 65 80 DIVISION BRYOPHYTA Mosses Total species/taxa 41 114 133 Island endemism 1 13 14 African endemism 16 59 64 TOTAL BRYOPHYTES Liverworts, hornworts and mosses Total species/taxa 149 252 304 Island endemism 5 17 21 African endemism 68 124 144 Liverworts and hornworts, according to Wigginton (2018), and mosses, according to O’Shea (2006) 232 C. Garcia et al. Pottiaceae (Sollman et al. 2016). Ongoing work on the moss family Calymperaceae also has discovered several new species for these islands. We anticipate species additions for these islands will continue for many years to come. Most studies were carried out on existing trails to reach higher areas, and several regions have not yet been surveyed (Figs. 9.5 and 9.6) due to the difﬁcult terrain. Additional species will likely be documented and discovered as more remote cloud forest environments can be systematically surveyed. Our updated summary for the bryoﬂora of the islands reveals the documented diversity has increased signiﬁcantly since the last reports of the mosses (O’Shea 2006) and of the liverworts and hornworts (Wigginton 2018). Thus, the 304 bryophytes documented for the archipelago at this time are likely a vast underestimate of the true diversity (Appendix). The species catalogue of the bryophyte ﬂora of the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe presented in this work (Appendix) is based on all known published literature. All the literature on bryophytes of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands was surveyed, including liverworts, hornworts, and mosses. The delimitation of families follows the latest version of the Checklist of sub-Saharan Africa of Wigginton (2018) for liverworts and hornworts and O’Shea (2006) for mosses. Taxa are presented in alphabetical order of all the accepted names (including subspecies and varieties). Taxa with synonymies (homotypic and heterotypic synonyms) whose type locality corresponds to São Tomé and Príncipe are designated in a second column with respective authors and the year of publication for São Tomé and Príncipe. The most accurate information about the original description, as well as the relevant synonyms, were considered with general taxonomic criteria. The present table includes only records published up until June 2020 (unpublished data of the authors, including new species and localities, are not included). The catalogue is not a taxonomic document, and no new taxonomic nor nomenclatural acts are published here. Synopses of families and genera are placed alphabetically within each order. Final Remarks The known bryoﬂora of São Tomé and Príncipe includes at least 304 species. Based on our ongoing studies and the number of specimens still awaiting critical study, this number will increase in the coming years as the diversity of this group becomes more comprehensively documented. The apparently low number of known species may be explained by the logistical and practical difﬁculties of carrying out ﬁeldwork in dense forests and in areas of rough terrain, a reality that affects most of the scientists working in the region. Bryophytes are also generally very small plants, and many species occur in small populations. Therefore, during ﬁeldwork some species can easily be overlooked or may occupy exceedingly specialized microhabitats that are difﬁcult to ﬁnd (e.g., ﬁne twigs in the tree canopy). Further difﬁculty originates from the fact that the taxonomy of different bryophyte families is not well developed in the tropics, and world experts in bryophyte taxonomy are also starting to become 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . 233 scarce, especially those dedicated to the study of tropical species. Many bryophyte species reported from Africa are known only from type specimens or based on a handful of collections. Almost 45 bryophyte taxa reported for São Tomé and Príncipe have not been resampled since the nineteenth century. For a large number of bryophyte species, the ecology and habitat speciﬁcity are not well known or not known at all, and also the distribution patterns, elevational range, and abundance for most species remain to be determined. The threats affecting forest habitats in São Tomé and Príncipe, such as habitat destruction or competition by invasive species, may affect the survival of bryophytes. One major threat to biodiversity conservation in the archipelago, particularly to the cryptogamic communities, forest structure, and habitat diversity along the altitudinal gradients is deforestation, especially that associated with the plantations of oil palm Elaeis guineesis Jacq. In the Emolve region (southern region of São Tomé), there is a monoculture of more than 600 ha of oil palm that is expected to continue growing, which would result in a signiﬁcant loss in biodiversity (bryophytes and other taxonomic groups), especially to forests at lower elevations. By contrast, ancestral roças (old colonial farms), with Cofeea spp. and Theobroma cacao L. plantations, seem to preserve a high diversity of bryophyte species, mainly epiphytic taxa. New bryological studies are urgently needed, especially in areas that have never been surveyed. Together with the recently collected material that is currently being studied by the coauthors and other colleagues, these new surveys will continue to increase our knowledge of distributions, species diversity and the particularities of bryophyte endemism in the country. A more comprehensive and updated species list will be essential to inform a future IUCN Red List assessment of bryophytes from São Tomé and Príncipe and to designate priority areas for conservation. Acknowledgments The present study was partly supported by “Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia” (POCTI/AFR/58699/2004 and SFRH/BPD/22304/2005) and by California Academy of Sciences Gulf of Guinea Funds (the expedition of 2016 performed by the ﬁrst author and all those carried out by the last author). We are grateful to the curators of the following herbaria for kindly allowing us to study in situ the plant material and for the loan of specimens, including types: BM, G, H; PC, NICH and VIT. The authors are grateful to the são-tomenses, Eng. Salvador Pontes, Aurélio Espirito-Santo ({), Francisco Alamô, Estevão Soares, Mr. Lagoas ({), Sátiro Raúl José da Costa, Ostelino Conceição Rocha (Balú) e Júlio da Conceição Rocha for their help during the ﬁeldwork. Thanks also to expedition photographer Andrew Stanbridge. 234 C. Garcia et al. Appendix Updated catalogue of bryophytes from São Tomé and Príncipe Islands. A: African endemics. E: Island endemism. Synonyms (basionyms) based in São Tomé and Príncipe collections Taxon species/subspecies/variety DIVISIONS Marchantiophyta and Anthocerotophyta Liverworts and Hornworts Acrolejeunea emergens (Mitt.) Steph. var. emergens Aneura pinguis (L.) Dumort. sens. lat. Aneura latissima Spruce Anthoceros pinnatus Steph. Bazzania decrescens subsp. molleri (Steph.) E.W.Jones Bazzania nitida (F.Weber) Grolle Brachiolejeunea laxifolia (Taylor) Schiffn. Calypogeia ﬁssa (L.) Raddi Calypogeia peruviana Nees et Mont. Caudalejeunea africana (Steph.) Schiffn. Caudalejeunea dusenii Steph. Caudalejeunea hanningtonii (Mitt.) Schiffn. Caudalejeunea lehmanniana (Gottsche) A.Evans Ceratolejeunea cornuta (Lindenb.) Steph. Ceratolejeunea ﬂoribunda Steph. Cheilolejeunea intertexta (Lindenb.) Steph. Cheilolejeunea montagnei (Gottsche) R.M.Schust. Cheilolejeunea rigidula (Nees ex Mont.) R.M.Schust. Cheilolejeunea surrepens (Mitt.) E. W.Jones Anthoceros pinnatus Steph. 1886 Mastigobryum molleri Steph. 1886 P ST X X X X X X X A X X X 2015/ 2011 1956/ 1886 1888/ 2011 1886 2015/ 1886 2011 1912 X X 1970 1976 X X 2011 A A A 2015 2000/ 2000 2015 X E 1960/ 2015 1913 X 2015/ 1893 1863 Brachiolejeunea thomeensis Steph. 1912 X X Ceratolejeunea ﬂoribunda Steph. 2013 1913 Cheilolejeunea newtonii Steph. ex Schiffn. 1893 Euosmolejeunea thomeensis Steph. 1914 Cheilolejeunea principensis Steph. ex Paris 1888 Year of ﬁrst ref. P/ST X X 1888 X 2015 (continued) 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . Taxon species/subspecies/variety Cheilolejeunea trifaria (Reinw. et al.) Mizut. Chiloscyphus difformis (Nees) J.J. Engel et R.M.Schust. Cololejeunea africana (Steph.) R. M.Schust. Cololejeunea cuneifolia Steph. Cololejeunea iradieri Infante et Heras Cololejeunea lanceolata E.W.Jones Cololejeunea leloutrei (E.W.Jones) R.M.Schust. Cololejeunea mocambiquensis S. W.Arnell Cololejeunea obliqua (Nees et Mont.) Schiffn. Cololejeunea obtusifolia (E.W. Jones) Tixier Cololejeunea papilliloba Steph. Cololejeunea platyneura (Spruce) A.Evans Cololejeunea pusilla Steph. Cololejeunea zenkeri (Steph.) E.W. Jones Colura calderae Pócs Colura digitalis (Mitt.) Steph. Synonyms (basionyms) based in São Tomé and Príncipe collections Lejeunea grandistipula Steph. 1886 Lophocolea molleri Steph. 1886 Physocolea africana Steph. 1915 X Year of ﬁrst ref. P/ST 2015/ 1886 1886 A 1916 A 2015 2015 A 2015 1960 ST X A A A Cololejeunea crenatiﬂora Steph. 1891 X 2015 X A X X 2011/ 1891 2015 2015 2015 A A A A A A A X A A X E E Lophocolea devexa Mitt. 1863 X X Lophocolea newtonii Steph. 1907 X X 2015 2000/ 2015 2011 1958/ 1953 2015 2015 2015/ 1958 2015/ 2011 2015/ 1863 1953 X X A E 1952 1863 2010 2012 Colura hattoriana Pócs Colura obesa Jovet-Ast Colura tenuicornis (A.Evans) Steph. Colura thomeensis Pócs Conoscyphus trapezioides (Sande Lac.) Schiffn. Cryptolophocolea martiana (Nees) L.Söderstr., Crand.-Stotl. et Stotler subsp. martiana Cyathodium cavernarum Kunze Dendroceros crispatus Nees Dendroceros herasii M.Infante Dendroceros paivae C.Garcia, Sérgio & J.C. Villarreal P X 235 (continued) 236 Taxon species/subspecies/variety Dibrachiella africana (Steph.) X.Q. Shi, R.L.Zhu et Gradst. Dibrachiella autoica (Vanden Berghen) X.Q.Shi, R.L.Zhu et Gradst. Diplasiolejeunea cavifolia Steph. Drepanolejeunea capulata (Taylor) Steph. Drepanolejeunea cultrella (Mitt.) Steph. Drepanolejeunea physifolia (Gottsche) Pearson Dumortiera hirsuta (Sw.) Nees Folioceros incurvus (Steph.) D.C. Bharadwaj Fossombronia indica Steph. Fossombronia sp. Frullania angulata Mitt. var. angulata Frullania apicalis Mitt. Frullania apiculata (Reinw. et al.) Nees Frullania caffraria Steph. C. Garcia et al. Synonyms (basionyms) based in São Tomé and Príncipe collections Frullania purpurea Steph. Frullania rio-janeirensis (Raddi) Ångstr. Frullania serrata Gottsche var. serrata Frullania spongiosa Steph. Fuscocephaloziopsis connivens subsp. ﬁssa (Steph.) Váňa et L. Soderstr. Herbertus dicranus (Taylor ex Gottsche, Lindenb. et Nees) Trevis. ST A Lejeunea cavifolia Steph. 1886 Drepanolejeunea molleri Steph. 1913 Prionolejeunea ﬁssistipula Steph. 1913 2015 X A 1886 2011 A A A A X X A A 2015/ 1913 1960/ 1913 1960/ 1886 1888/ 1889 2019 2011 1863 X X Frullania angulata Mitt. 1863; F. subatrata Steph. 1911; F. cordifolia Steph. 1911 Frullania laceriloba Steph. 1911 A A X 2015/ 1911 2011 X 1894 X A X X X X X X X 1886 1886/ 1863 1910 2015/ 2004 1976 1976/ 1891 1886 Frullania molleri Steph. 1894 (Probably synonym) Frullania diptera (Lehm.) Drège Frullania ericoides (Nees) Mont. Frullania obscura (Sw.) Mont. Frullania obscurifolia Mitt. P A Frullania thomeensis Steph. 1910 Frullania africana Steph. 1891 A X Sendtnera mollis Steph. 1886 Year of ﬁrst ref. P/ST 2000 X X X X X X 2011/ 2011 1988/ 1988 2011/ 1886 (continued) 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . Taxon species/subspecies/variety Heteroscyphus dubius (Gottsche) Schiffn. Heteroscyphus spectabilis (Steph.) Schiffn. Synonyms (basionyms) based in São Tomé and Príncipe collections 237 Year of ﬁrst ref. P/ST 1888 P X ST A A 2015/ 1886 Lejeunea abyssinica (Gola) Cufod. A A Lejeunea acuta Mitt. A A Lejeunea anisophylla Mont. X X 2015/ 2015 2019/ 1960 2011/ 2011 2015 2011 2011 2015 1888/ 1960 1896 Isotachis perfoliata Steph. 1886 Chiloscyphus thomeensis Steph. 1893 nom. nud.? Lejeunea brenanii E.W.Jones Lejeunea cf. obtusata Gottsche Lejeunea conformis Nees et Mont. Lejeunea eckloniana Lindenb. Lejeunea ﬂava (Sw.) Nees Lejeunea grossecristata (Steph.) E. W.Jones Lejeunea helenae Pearson Lejeunea ibadana A.J.Harr. et E.W. Jones Lejeunea jungneri (Steph.) Steph. Lejeunea lyratiﬂora Steph. Lejeunea papilionacea Prantl Lejeunea phyllobola Nees et Mont. Lejeunea pulchriﬂora (Pearson) G.E. Lee, Bechteler, Pócs, SchäfVerw. & Heinrichs Lejeunea ramosissima Steph. A X A X X X A Hygrolejeunea grossecristata Steph. 1896; Taxilejeunea longirostris Steph. 1914 X A A A A X X X Lejeunea ramosissima Steph. 1886 X X Lejeunea setacea (Steph.) Steph. A A Lejeunea tuberculosa Steph. Lepidozia succida Mitt. X A A Lepidozia ubangiensis Steph. Leptolejeunea astroidea (Mitt.) Steph. Leptolejeunea epiphylla (Mitt.) Steph. Leptolejeunea maculata (Mitt.) Schiffn. A A A X X X X Leptolejeunea quintasii Steph. 1891 Lejeunea thomeensis Steph. 1886; Drepanolejeunea gomphiae Steph. 1913 2015 2015/ 2015 1901 2015 2011 2011 2015 1996/ 1886 1969/ 1969 2011 2011/ 1891 2015 2015 2015/ 1891 2015/ 1886 (continued) 238 Taxon species/subspecies/variety Lopholejeunea nigricans (Lindenb.) Schiffn. Lopholejeunea subfusca (Nees) Schiffn. Marchantia debilis Goebel Marchantia pappeana Lehm. subsp. pappeana Marchesinia excavata (Mitt.) Schiffn. Marchesinia principensis Frank Müll. et Shevock Mastigophora diclados (Brid. ex F. Weber) Nees Megaceros ﬂagellaris (Mitt.) Steph. Metalejeunea cucullata (Reinw. et al.) Grolle Metzgeria furcata (L.) Dumort. Metzgeria leptoneura Spruce Metzgeria lindbergii Schuffn. Microlejeunea africana Steph. Microlejeunea ankasica E.W. Jones Microlejeunea kamerunensis Steph. Neurolejeunea breutelii (Gottsche) A.Evans var. africana Pócs Notoscyphus lutescens (Lehm. et Lindenb.) Mitt. Odontolejeunea lunulata (F.Weber) Schiffn. Pallavicinia lyellii (Hook.) Carruth. Phaeoceros carolinianus (Michx.) Prosk. Plagiochila barteri Mitt. Plagiochila barteri var. valida (Steph.) Vanden Berghen Plagiochila brunneola Steph. Plagiochila divergens var. capensis (Steph.) E.W. Jones Plagiochila ﬂabellata Steph. Plagiochila fusifera Taylor C. Garcia et al. Synonyms (basionyms) based in São Tomé and Príncipe collections A A Year of ﬁrst ref. P/ST 2011/ 2011 2015/ 2011 2011 1886 A 1886 P X ST X X X Marchantia planiloba Steph. 1886 Homalolejeunea henriquesii Steph. 1888 A X 2018 X X X Metzgeria thomeensis Steph. 1891 X X Metzgeria recurva Steph. 1886 X X X A A A A A A Microlejeunea africana Steph. 1888 Microlejeunea cochlarifolia Steph 1888 (probably synonymy) E Odontolejeunea thomeensis Steph. 1912 Pallavicinia pilifera Steph. 1891 Plagiochila triangularis Steph. 1886; P. quintasii Steph. 1904 Plagiochila ﬂabellata Steph. 1886; P. molleri Steph. 1886 Plagiochila amplifolia Steph. 1901 2015 X 2004/ 1912 1891 2011 A A A A A X A 2004/ 1891 2004/ 1886 2015 1888/ 1891 2015 1990/ 1888 2015 X X X Plagiochila brunneola Steph. 1904 2015/ 1886 2012 2015 A X 1962/ 1886 1981/ 1981 1904 1962 2011/ 1886 1901 (continued) 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . Taxon species/subspecies/variety Plagiochila gibbiﬂora Steph. Plagiochila heterostipa Steph. Plagiochila integerrima Steph. Synonyms (basionyms) based in São Tomé and Príncipe collections Plagiochila gibbiﬂora Steph. 1904 P 239 ST E A X X A A Plagiochila moenkemeyeri Steph. A A Plagiochila neckeroidea Mitt. A A Plagiochila pectinata Willd. ex Lindenb. Plagiochila pinniﬂora Steph. Plagiochila praemorsa Steph. A A X A X A A A A Plagiochila loloensis Steph. Plagiochila integerrima Steph. 1886 Plagiochila rotundifolia Steph. 1904 Plagiochila cacuminis Steph. 1918 Plagiochila sarmentosa (Lehm. et Lindenb.) Lindenb. Plagiochila strictifolia Steph. Requires conﬁrmation Plagiochila terebrans Nees et Mont. ex Lindenb. Pleurozia gigantea (F.Weber) Lindb. Plicanthus hirtellus (F.Weber) R.M. Schust. Porella abyssinica var. hoehnelii (Steph.) Pócs. Porella subdentata (Mitt.) E.W. Jones var. subdentata Porella subdentata var. camerunensis E.W.Jones Prionolejeunea grata (Gottsche) Schiffn. Prionolejeunea principensis Vanden Berghen Radula ankeﬁnensis Gottsche ex Steph. Radula appressa Mitt. Plagiochila thomeensis Steph. 1886 Radula boryana (F.Weber) Mont. Radula ﬂaccida Lindenb. et Gottsche Madotheca thomeensis Steph. 1910 A X 1962/ 1962 2011/ 1886 1863 X 1886 A 2011 A 1963/ 1910 2011 A X X 1960/ 1960 1960 A A A A X X X X 2011/ 2015 1910/ 1886 1996/ 1863 1939/ 1939 E Radula angustata Steph. 1886; R. molleri Steph. 1910 Radula tamariscina Mitt. 1863; R. bipinnata Mitt. 1863 Year of ﬁrst ref. P/ST 1904 2015 2011/ 1886 2011/ 1904 2011/ 1960 2011/ 1904 2011/ 1960 2011 1888/ 1918 (continued) 240 Taxon species/subspecies/variety Radula fulvifolia (Hook.f. et Taylor) Gottsche et al. Radula stenocalyx Mont. Riccardia amazonica (Spruce) Schiffn. ex Gradst. et Hekking Riccardia erosa (Steph.) E.W.Jones Riccardia limbata (Steph.) E.W. Jones Riccardia longispica (Steph.) Pearson Riccia congoana Steph. Riccia discolor Lehm. et Lindenb. Riccia lanceolata Steph. Riccia moenkemeyeri Steph. Riccia stricta (Lindenb.) Perold Schiffneriolejeunea occulta (Steph.) Gradst. Schiffneriolejeunea pappeana (Nees) Gradst. var. pappeana Schiffneriolejeunea polycarpa (Nees) Gradst. Solenostoma borgenii (Gottsche ex Pearson) Steph. Solenostoma dusenii (Steph.) Váňa, Hentschel et Heinrichs. Spruceanthus abbreviatus (Mitt.) X. Q.Shi, R.L.Zhu et Gradst. Spruceanthus ﬂoreus (Mitt.) Sukkharak et Gradst. Stictolejeunea balfourii (Mitt.) E. W.Jones Symphyogyna podophylla (Thunb.) Mont. et Nees Syzygiella manca (Mont.) Steph. Telaranea coactilis (Spruce) J.J. Engel et G.L.Merr. Telaranea nematodes (Gottsche ex Austin) M.Howe Thysananthus auriculatus (Wilson) Sukkharak et Gradst. var. auriculatus C. Garcia et al. Ptychocoleus quintasii Steph. 1912 A Year of ﬁrst ref. P/ST 2001/ 2011 2015/ 1910 2015/ 2011 2011/ 1891 2011/ 1891 2015/ 2011 2012 2015 2015 2012 2012 2015/ 2011 1912 Phragmicoma amplectens Steph. 1886 ¼ P. molleri Steph. 1886 X 1886 A 1974 X X 2019/ 1974 2015 A 1891 X 2015 Synonyms (basionyms) based in São Tomé and Príncipe collections P X ST X X X X X Aneura erosa Steph. 1891 A A Aneura reticulata Steph. 1891 A A A A X X A A X Jungermannia geminiﬂolia Mitt. 1863 Lepidozia quintasii Steph. 1922 X A X A X 2011 X 1863 X 2011 X 1922 X 2011/ 1949 (continued) 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . Taxon species/subspecies/variety Thysananthus humilis (Gottsche) Sukkharak et Gradst. Thysananthus nigrus (Steph.) Sukkharak et Gradst. Thysananthus turgidus (Steph.) Sukkharak et Gradst. DIVISION Bryophyta Mosses Afrothamnium stipitatum (Mitt.) Enroth Anoectangium aestivum (Hedw.) Mitt. Anoectangium stracheyanum Mitt. Barbula cf. seramensis H.Akiyama Brachymenium leptophyllum (Bruch & Schimp. ex Müll.Hal.) Bruch & Schimp. ex A.Jaeger Brachymenium nepalense Hook. Brachymenium subuliferum (Mitt.) A.Jaeger Brachymitrion moritzianum (Müll. Hal.) A.K.Kop. Bryum apiculatum Schwägr. Bryum argenteum Hedw. var. argenteum Bryum coronatum Schwägr. Bryum huillense Welw. & Duby Bryum thomeanum P. de la Varde Caduciella mariei (Besch.) Enroth Callicostella brevipes (Broth.) Broth. Callicostella chionophylla (Müll. Hal.) Broth. Callicostella ﬁssidentella (Besch.) Kindb. Callicostella perpapillata Broth. & P.de la Varde Callicostella salaziae (Besch.) Broth. Calymperes afzelii Sw. Calymperes lonchophyllum subsp. saxatile (Müll. Hal. ex Besch.) S.R. Edwards Synonyms (basionyms) based in São Tomé and Príncipe collections 241 P X ST X Mastigolejeunea nigra Steph. 1891 A X Mastigolejeunea turgida Steph. A X Bryum subuliferum Mitt. 1863; Bryum molleri Müll.Hal. 1886 Orthodon thomeanus Broth. 1890; Tayloria thomeana Broth. 1903 Bryum areoblastum Müll.Hal. 1886 Bryum squarripilum Müll.Hal. 1886 Bryum erythrostegum Müll.Hal. 1886 Bryum quintasii Broth.1890 Bryum thomeanum P.de la Varde 1959 X 1982 X 2016 X X X 2016 2016 1972 X A 1972 1863 X 1890 X 1886 X 1886 X 1886 X E 1890 1959 A 2017 1952 E 1886 A 1890/ 1890 1944 A 1890 X 1863 1944 X Hookeria chionophylla Müll.Hal. 1886 Hookeria thomeana Broth. 1890 A X Hookeria quintasi Broth. 1890 Calymperes quintasi Broth. 1890 A Year of ﬁrst ref. P/ST 2014/ 1888 2015/ 1891 1983/ 1917 (continued) 242 Taxon species/subspecies/variety Calymperes palisotii Schwägr. Calymperes pintasii Müll.Hal. ex Besch. Calymperes tenerum Müll.Hal. Calyptothecium acutifolium var. breviusculum (Müll.Hal. ex Dusén) Argent Campylopus ﬂexuosus (Hedw.) Brid var. ﬂexuosus. Campylopus savannarum (Müll. Hal.) Mitt. Chionoloma bombayense (Müll. Hal.) P. Sollman Cyclodictyon ﬁlicuspis P.de la Varde Cyclodictyon laetevirens (Hook. & Taylor) Mitt. Deslooveria quintasii (Broth.) Enroth Deslooveria saotomensis (Enroth & Shevock) Enroth Dicranella falcularia Müll.Hal. ex Dusén Ectropothecium brevifalcatum (Müll.Hal.) Kindb. Ectropothecium diffusum (Mitt.) A. Jaeger Ectropothecium drepanophyllum Broth. Fissidens asplenioides Hedw. Fissidens borgenii Hampe C. Garcia et al. Synonyms (basionyms) based in São Tomé and Príncipe collections P X ST A Calymperes principis Broth. 1890 X Campylopus quintasii Broth. 1890 Dicranum divaricatum Mitt. 1863; Campylopus erythrocaulon Broth. 1890 X X A 1890/ 1959 2011 X 1890 X 1890/ 1863 X 2016 X 1944 X 1944 Porotrichum quintasii Broth. 1890 A 1890 Porotrichum saotomense Enroth and Shevock (2011) E 2011 A Hypnum brevifalcatum Müll.Hal. 1886 Stereodon diffusus Mitt. 1863 1944 A A E 1890 A X X X X 2013 2013/ 2013 2013/ 2013 2013/ 2013 2013 2013 2013/ 2013 2013/ 2013 1890/ 1890 Ectropothecium drepanophyllum Broth. 1890 X X A X A A Fissidens ﬂaccidus Mitt. X X A A Fissidens subglaucissimus Broth. 1890 1888 1863 Fissidens crispulus Brid. var. crispulus Fissidens crispulus var. robinsonii (Broth.) Z. Iwats.& Z.-H. Li Fissidens crispus Mont. Fissidens darntyi Schimp. Fissidens enervis Sim Fissidens glaucissimus Welw. & Duby Year of ﬁrst ref. P/ST 1987 1896 (continued) 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . Taxon species/subspecies/variety Fissidens intramarginatus (Hampe) A.Jaeger Fissidens metzgeria (Müll.Hal.) Broth. Fissidens microcarpus Mitt. Fissidens ovatus Brid. Fissidens pallidinervis Mitt. Fissidens palmatus Hedw Fissidens pellucidus Hornsch. Synonyms (basionyms) based in São Tomé and Príncipe collections P 243 ST X Year of ﬁrst ref. P/ST 2013 A 2013 A A X X X X Fissidens porrectus Mitt. A A Fissidens punctulatus Sande Lac. Fissidens ramulosus Mitt. A X A A A Fissidens sciophyllus Mitt. Fissidens serratus Müll.Hal. var. serratus Fissidens submarginatus Bruch Fissidens usambaricus Broth. Fissidens zollingeri Mont. Floribundaria ﬂoribunda (Dozy & Molk.) M.Fleisch. Floribundaria vaginans (Welw. & Duby) Broth. Funaria acicularis Müll.Hal. Funaria hygrometrica Hedw. var. hygrometrica Gymnostomiella erosula (Müll.Hal. ex Dusén) Arts Gymnostomiella vernicosa (Hook.) M.Fleisch. Hydrogonium consanguineum (Thwaites & Mitt.) Hilp. Hydrogonium orientale (F. Weber) Kucera Hymenostylium recurvirostrum (Hedw.) Dixon var. recurvirostrum Hyophila involuta (Hook.) A.Jaeger Hypopterygium tamarisci (Sw. ex Sw.) Brid. ex Müll.Hal. Isopterygium nanoglobum (Müll. Hal.) Paris Fissidens purpureocaulis Müll. Hal. 1900 X X A X 2013 2013 2013 2011 A 1886 E X 1886 1901 A 2016 X 2016 X 2016/ 2016 2016/ 1987? 2016 X Papillaria patentissima Müll.Hal. 1886 Funaria acicularis Müll.Hal. 1886 X X X Hypopterygium brevifolium Broth. 1890 Hypnum nanoglobum Müll.Hal. 1886 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013/ 2013 2013/ 2013 1890 2013/ 2013 2013/ 2013 2013 X X X X E 2016/ 2016 1997/ 1863 1886 (continued) 244 Taxon species/subspecies/variety Lepidopilum lastii Mitt. Lepidopilum niveum (Müll.Hal.) Kindb. Leptodontium viticulosoides (P. Beauv.) Wijk & Margad. var. viticulosoides Leucobryum fouta-djalloni Paris & Cardot Leucobryum homalophyllum Broth. Leucobryum leucophanoides Müll. Hal. Leucoloma gracilescens Broth. Leucoloma secundifolium Mitt. Leucomium strumosum (Hornsch.) Mitt. Leucophanes molleri Müll.Hal. Leucophanes unguiculatum Mitt. Lopidium struthiopteris (Brid.) M. Fleisch. Macromitrium sulcatum (Hook.) Brid. var. sulcatum Mesonodon ﬂavescens (Hook.) W.R. Buck Mittenothamnium leptoreptans (Broth.) Cardot Neckeromnion lepineanum (Mont.) S.Olsson, Enroth, Huttunen & D. Quandt Neckeropsis disticha (Hedw.) Kindb. Octoblepharum albidum Hedw. Orthostichella rigida (Müll. Hal.) B.H.Allen & Magill Orthostichella versicolor (Müll. Hal.) B.H. Allen & W.R. Buck Orthostichidium involutifolium subsp. thomeanum (Broth.) Argent Orthostichidium involutifolium (Mitt.) Broth. subsp. involutifolium. C. Garcia et al. Synonyms (basionyms) based in São Tomé and Príncipe collections P Hookeria niveum Müll.Hal. 1886 Leucobryum homolophyllum Broth. 1890 Leucobryum leucophanoides Müll. Hal. 1886 Leucoloma gracilescens Broth. 1890 Leucoloma secundifolium Mitt.1863 Leucophanes molleri Müll.Hal. 1886 Leucophanes unguiculatum Mitt.1863 Hypopterygium subtrichocladum Broth. 1890 Macromitrium undatifolium Müll. Hal. 1886 ST A A Year of ﬁrst ref. P/ST 1944 1886 X 2016 A 1959 E 1890 E 1886 A 1890 A 1863 X 1944 X 1886 A 1863 X X X X 1890/ 1997 1917/ 1886 2011 E 1890 X X 2017/ 2017 X X X X X 2011/ 1993 1944/ 1959 1886 X 1886 A 1996/ 1890 A 1959 X Microthamnium leptoreptans Broth. 1890 Pilotrichella leptoclada Müll.Hal. 1886; P. calomicra Broth. 1890 Pilotrichella inﬂatifolia Müll.Hal. 1886 Hildebrandtiella thomeana Broth.1890; Orthostichidium thomeanum (Broth.) Broth. 1906 A (continued) 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . Taxon species/subspecies/variety Philonotis nanothecia (Müll.Hal.) Kindb. Philonotis trichodonta (Müll.Hal.) Kindb. Pinnatella minuta (Mitt.) Broth. Pinnatidendron piniforme (Brid.) Enroth Plagiomnium rhynchophorum (Hook.) T.J.Kop. var. rhynchophorum. Pogonatum gracilifolium Besch. Pogonatum usambaricum (Broth.) Paris Pyrrhobryum spiniforme (Hedw.) Mitt. Racopilum orthocarpioides Broth. Racopilum thomeanum Broth. Radulina borbonica (Bél.) W.R. Buck Rhacopilopsis trinitensis (Müll. Hal.) E.Britton ex Dixon Rhizofabronia persoonii (Schwägr.) M.Fleisch var. persoonii. Rhynchostegium hopfferi (Welw. & Duby) A.Gepp Scabrellifolium elongatum (Welw. & Duby) Enroth Scabrellifolium substriatum (Hampe) Enroth Sematophyllum amblystegiocarpum (Müll.Hal.) Broth. Splachnobryum obtusum (Brid.) Müll.Hal. Symphyodon pygmaeus (Broth.) S. He & Snider Syrrhopodon gardneri (Hook.) Schwägr. Syrrhopodon lamprocarpus Mitt. Tayloria solitaria (Hedw.) T.J.Kop. & W.Weber Synonyms (basionyms) based in São Tomé and Príncipe collections Bartramia nanothecia Müll.Hal. 1886 Bartramia trichodonta Müll.Hal. 1886 Hypnum africanum Welw. & Duby 1872 245 ST A Year of ﬁrst ref. P/ST 1886 E 1886 X X X X 1917/ 1872 2011/ 2011 1944 P X Polytrichum rubentiviride Müll. Hal. 1886; P. molleri Müll.Hal. 1886 Racopilum orthocarpioides Broth. 1890 Rhacopilum thomeanum Broth. 1890 Trichosteleum subpycnocylindricum Broth. 1890 Microthamnium subelegentulum Broth. 1890 Hypnum hopfferi Welw. & Duby 1872 Hypnum molleri Müll.Hal. 1886 Porotrichum caudatum Broth. 1890 Hypnum amblystegiocarpum Müll. Hal. 1886 Syrrhopodon quintasii Broth. 1890 A A 1944/ 1886 A 1989 X 1886 A 1890 A 1890 X 1890 X 1890 A 1863 E 1872 A 1886 X 1890 E 1886 X 2016 X 2011 X 1890 A A 1886 1972 (continued) 246 Taxon species/subspecies/variety Thamnobryum corticola (Kindb.) De Sloover Thuidium involvens subsp. thomeanum (Broth.) Touw Trachypodopsis serrulata (P. Beauv.) M.Fleisch. var. serrulata Trachypus bicolor var. viridulus (Mitt.) Zanten Trematodon divaricatus Bruch Trematodon longicollis Michx. Trichosteleum dicranelloides Broth. Vesicularia glaucula (Broth.) Broth. Vesicularia scaturigina (Brid.) Broth. Vesicularia strephomischos (Welw. & Duby) Broth. Wijkia monodii (P.de la Varde) H. Akiyama Wijkia trichocoleoides (Müll.Hal.) H.A.Crum C. Garcia et al. ST A Year of ﬁrst ref. P/ST 1902 Thuidium thomeanum Broth. 1890 A 1890 Trachypodopsis quintasiana Broth. 1909 Papillaria molleri Müll.Hal. 1886 A 1909 X 1886 A 1886 X 1886 A 1890 A 1890 A 1863 A 1872 E 1959 A 1886 Synonyms (basionyms) based in São Tomé and Príncipe collections Trematodon ﬂexifolius Müll.Hal. 1886?? Trematodon ﬂexifolius Müll.Hal. 1886 Trichosteleum dicranelloides Broth. 1890 Ectropothecium glauculum Broth. 1890 Hypnum strephomischos Welw. & Duby 1872 Gollania monodii P.de la Varde 1959 Hypnum trichocoleoides Müll.Hal. 1886 P References Ah-Peng C, Wilding N, Kluge J et al. (2012) Bryophyte diversity and range size distribution along two altitudinal gradients: continent vs. Island. Acta Oecologica-International Journal of Ecology 42:58–65 Biblioteca Digital da Universidade de Coimbra (2021) Biblioteca digital da Universidade de Coimbra. Available via Universidade de Coimbra. http://bibdigital.bot.uc.pt. Accessed 31 Oct 2021 Brotherus VF (1890) Musci Novi Insularum Guineensium. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 8: 173–190 Costa ARC (2020) Coleções botânicas das ilhas de São Tomé e Príncipe no herbário PO do Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto: desvendar dados cientíﬁcos e históricos a partir de espécimes de herbário. MSc Thesis. Universidade do Porto, Porto, p 100 Coutinho AXP (1929–30) Dr. Júlio Augusto Henriques. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 6:1–5 Dolezal H (1974) Friedrich Welwitsch. Vida e obra, Junta de Investigações Cientíﬁcas do Ultramar, Lisboa, p 249 Enroth J, Shevock JR (2011) Porotrichum saotomense sp. nov. (Neckeraceae) and other additions to the moss ﬂora of São Tomé & Príncipe, gulf of Guinea, West Africa. Tropical Bryology 33:6–11 9 The Bryophyte Flora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): Past,. . . 247 Enroth J, Shevock JR (2017a) New national and regional bryophyte records. Caduciella mariei (Besch.) Enroth (republic of São Tomé & Príncipe). Journal of Bryology 39(4):371 Enroth J, Shevock JR (2017b) New national and regional bryophyte records. Neckeromnion lepineanum (Mont.) S. Olsson, Enroth, Huttunen & D. Quandt (republic of São Tomé & Príncipe). J Bryol 39(4):375 Exell A (1944) Catalogue of the vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Principe and Annobon). British Museum (Natural History), London Fernandes A (1980) Cem anos de vida da Sociedade Broteriana. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 54:I–XXXIV Fernandes A (1986) História da botânica em Portugal até ﬁnais do século XIX. In: Peixoto JP, Gonçalves JV, Marques de Almeida AA et al. História e desenvolvimento da ciência em Portugal – II Volume. Barbosa & Xavier, Braga, pp 851–916 Figueiredo E (1994) Diversity and endemism of angiosperms in the Gulf of Guinea islands. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:785–793 Figueiredo E (2005) The Rubiaceae of São Tomé e Príncipe: taxonomy and conservation. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 149:85–114 Figueiredo E, Gascoigne A (2001) Conservation of pteridophytes in São Tomé and Príncipe (gulf of Guinea). Biodiversity and Conservation 10:45–68 Figueiredo AC, Garcia C, Sim-Sim M, Sérgio C, Pedro LG, Barroso JG (2010) Volatiles from Plicanthus hirtellus (F. Weber) R.M. Schust. And Radula boryana (F. Weber) Nees (Hepaticae) grown in São Tomé e Príncipe archipelago. Flavour and Fragrance Journal 25(4):219–222 Garcia CA, Sérgio C (2012a) New national and regional bryophyte records. Riccia congoana: São Tomé and Príncipe. Journal of Bryology 34(1):48 Garcia CA, Sérgio C (2012b) New national and regional bryophyte records. Folioceros incurvus: príncipe. Journal of Bryology 34(1):46 Garcia CA, Sérgio C (2012c) New national and regional bryophyte records. Riccia moenkemeyeri: São Tomé and Príncipe. Journal of Bryology 34(1):48 Garcia CA, Sérgio C (2012d) New national and regional bryophyte records. Phaeoceros carolinianus: São Tomé. Journal of Bryology 34(1):48 Garcia CA, Sérgio C (2012e) New national and regional bryophyte records, 30. 13. Riccia stricta: São Tomé and Príncipe. Journal of Bryology 34(1):48–49 Garcia C, Sérgio C, Villarreal JC, Sim-Sim M, Lara F (2012) The hornworts Dendroceros Nees and Megaceros Campb. In São Tomé e Príncipe (Africa, gulf of Guinea) with the description of Dendroceros paivae sp. nov. Cryptogamie, Bryologie 33(1):3–21 Geissler P (1982) Bibliographical notes on Franz Stephani and his Geneva collections. Candollea 37:203–217 Guedes ME (2021) Francisco Newton. Cartas da Nova Atlântida. Available via TriploV. https:// www.triplov.com/newton/. Accessed 31 Oct 2021 Henriques J (1917) A Ilha de São Tomé sob o ponto de vista histórico-natural e agrícola. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 27:1–197 Mitten W (1863) On the Musci and Hepaticae from the Cameroons Mountains and from the river Niger. Journal and Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Botany 7:147–169 Monod T (1960) Notes botaniques sur les îles de São Tomé et de Príncipe. Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’Afrique Noire 22A(1):19–83 Müller C (1886a) Catálogo das plantas de São Tomé. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 4:159–169 Müller C (1886b) Bryologia insulae S. Thome Africae occid tropicae. Flora 69(18):275–286 Müller F, Shevock JR (2018) Marchesinia principensis (Marchantiophyta, Lejeuneaceae), a new liverwort species from príncipe, West Africa. Phytotaxa 338(2):202–208 Müller F, Pócs T, Shevock JR (2011) Additions to the liverwort and hornwort ﬂora of São Tomé and Príncipe. Tropical Bryology 33:19–22 Müller F, Lautenschläger T, Shevock JR (2019) Additions to the bryophyte ﬂoras of Angola and São Tomé & Príncipe. Acta Musei Silesiae, Scientiae Naturales 68(1–2):143–150 O'Shea BJ (2006) Checklist of the mosses of sub-Saharan Africa. Tropical Bryology Research Reports 6:1–252 Patiño J, Vanderpoorten A (2018) Bryophyte biogeography. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 37: 175–209 248 C. Garcia et al. Perpétuo NC, Gonçalves M, Pais de Sousa J, Gouveia AC (2012) O contributo de Júlio Henriques para o conhecimento da diversidade vegetal de São Tomé e Príncipe. Actas do Colóquio Internacional São Tomé e Príncipe numa perspectiva interdisciplinar, diacrónica e sincrónica. Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL) - Centro de Estudos Africanos e Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical (IICT), Lisboa, pp 611–631 Pócs T (1982) Tropical forest bryophytes. In: Smith AJE (ed) Bryophyte ecology. Chapman & Hall, London and New York, pp 59–104 Pócs T, Müller F, Shevock JR (2015) Additions to the liverwort and hornwort ﬂora of São Tomé and Príncipe II, with Neurolejeunea, a genus new to Africa. Herzogia 28(1):50–69 Potier de La Varde R (1959) Contribution à la ﬂore bryologique des îles São Tomé et Principe. Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d'Afrique Noire 21A(4):1205–1210 Sérgio C, Garcia C (2011) Bryophyte ﬂora of São Tomé e Príncipe archipelago (West Africa): annotated catalogue. Cryptogamie, Bryologie 32(2):145–196 Shevock JR, Pursell R, Garcia C, Bruggeman-Nannenga M, Sérgio C (2013) The genus Fissidens in the republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, gulf of Guinea, West Africa. Journal of Bryology 35(3): 197–205 Sollman P, Shevock JR, Garcia CA (2016) Mosses in the family Pottiaceae newly reported for the republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Cryptogamie, Bryologie 37(4):455–461 Song XT, Fang WZ, Chi XL, Shao XM, Wang QG (2021) Geographic pattern of bryophyte species richness in China: the inﬂuence of environment and evolutionary history. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9:680318 St Martin P, Mallik AU (2017) The status of non-vascular plants in trait-based ecosystem function studies. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 27:1–8 Stephani F (1886) Flora de S. Thomé Hepaticae. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 4:170–184 Stephani F (1888a) Hepaticae africanae. Hedwigia 27:59–63 Stephani F (1888b) Hepaticae africanae. Hedwigia 27:106–113 Stephani F (1901–1906) Species hepaticarum 2:1–615. Genève et Bale, Georg et Cie, Lyon Stephani F (1905–1909) Species hepaticarum 3:1–693. Genève et Bale, Georg et Cie, Lyon Stephani F (1909–1912) Species hepaticarum 4:1–824. Genève et bale, Georg et Cie, Lyon Stephani F (1912–1917) Species hepaticarum 5:1–1044. Genève et bale, Georg et Cie, Lyon Stephani F (1917–1925) Species hepaticarum 6:1–763. Jent, S.A., Genève Thiers B (2016) Index herbariorum: a global directory of public herbaria and associated staff. Available via New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium. http://sweetgum.nybg.org/ science/ih/. Accessed 20 Nov 2021 UC Digitalis (2021) UC digitalis. Available via Universidade de Coimbra. https://digitalis-dsp. uc.pt. Accessed 31 Oct 2021 Wigginton MJ (2018) Checklist and distribution of the liverworts and hornworts of sub-Saharan Africa, including the east African Islands. Tropical Bryology Research Reports 9:1–138 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 10 Diversity of the Vascular Plants of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Tariq Stévart, Gilles Dauby, Davy U. Ikabanga, Olivier Lachenaud, Patricia Barberá, Faustino de Oliveira, Laura Benitez, and Maria do Céu Madureira T. Stévart (*) Missouri Botanical Garden, Africa and Madagascar Department, St. Louis, USA Herbarium et Bibliothèque de Botanique africaine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium Meise Botanic Garden, Meise, Belgium e-mail: tariq.stevart@mobot.org G. Dauby AMAP, botAnique et Modélisation de l’Architecture des Plantes et des végétations, Université Montpellier, CIRAD, CNRS, INRAE, IRD, Montpellier, France D. U. Ikabanga Missouri Botanical Garden, Africa and Madagascar Department, St. Louis, USA Laboratoire d’Ecologie Végétale et de Biosystématique, Département de Biologie, Faculté des Sciences, Université des Sciences et Techniques de Masuku, Franceville, Gabon O. Lachenaud Herbarium et Bibliothèque de Botanique africaine, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium Meise Botanic Garden, Meise, Belgium P. Barberá Missouri Botanical Garden, Africa and Madagascar Department, St. Louis, USA F. de Oliveira Direção das Florestas e da Biodiversidade, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe Herbário Nacional de São Tomé e Príncipe (STPH), Centro de Investigação Agronómica e Tecnológica, Alto Potó, Sao Tome and Principe L. Benitez Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Sao Tome and Principe M. do Céu Madureira Centre for Functional Ecology, Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_10 249 250 T. Stévart et al. Abstract Despite a long history of botanical collecting in the three oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, no recent studies have documented ﬂoristic patterns. This chapter summarizes information on the vascular plants of the islands, including inventories conducted on Príncipe and São Tomé since 2017, as well as two recent expeditions to Annobón. An updated database of the vascular ﬂora was compiled, which includes 14,376 records representing 1285 species and infraspeciﬁc taxa (1028 native). Príncipe has 445 species and infraspeciﬁc taxa (394 native), São Tomé has 1044 (842 native), and Annobón has 344 (274 native). Recent inventory work has generated collections of more than 90% of the endemic woody species. Several very rare taxa were rediscovered, including Balthasaria mannii (Oliv.) Verdc., 1969 (Pentaphylacaceae) and Psychotria exellii R. Alves, Figueiredo and A.P. Davis, 2005 (Rubiaceae), neither of which had been seen for more than 50 years. At least 17 species new to science were also discovered on Príncipe and São Tomé. Of the 1028 indigenous taxa, 164 (16%) are currently considered endemic to the islands. Of the 285 species evaluated according to the IUCN Red List criteria, 2 (0.7%) were Data Deﬁcient, 226 (79.3%) Least Concern or Near Threatened, 55 (19.3%) threatened (including 3 Critically Endangered, 21 Endangered, and 31 Vulnerable), and 2 (0.7%) Extinct. On São Tomé and Príncipe, 325 plant species are used in traditional medicine, 37 of which are endemic. These results should be used to identify new priority sites for conservation, including on Annobón, where priority sites are less well deﬁned. Keywords Collecting effort · Endemism · Flora · IUCN red list · Species richness Despite a long history of collecting in the three oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón), no recent studies have documented their ﬂoristic patterns. In this chapter, we synthesize current knowledge on their diversity of vascular plants: (1) brieﬂy reviewing the history of botanical exploration, (2) documenting the spatial distribution of sampling, species richness, and endemism within and between the islands, (3) reviewing risk of extinction assessments for plant species, using the IUCN Red List criteria, and (4) providing an account of plants used in traditional medicine in São Tomé and Príncipe. Sampling Efforts Through Time São Tomé Despite the relatively small area occupied by São Tomé and Príncipe compared to other African countries, their ﬂora has been the subject of many publications (Figueiredo 1994b; Figueiredo et al. 2011; Droissart et al. 2018). The ﬁrst comprehensive studies of the ﬂora of São Tomé and Príncipe, primarily focused on São Tomé, were undertaken by Júlio Henriques from the University of Coimbra (e.g., 10 Diversity of the Vascular Plants of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 251 Fig. 10.1 Collecting effort in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, showing numbers of species and records accumulated through time. Insert ﬁgure shows the number of species newly recorded per year. Specimens were excluded if they had an estimated georeferencing precision greater than or equal to 4 km. A total of 2600 records were excluded because they lacked information on the year of collection Henriques 1892, 1917), who worked on the collections made during the 1880s by Francisco Newton, Adolfo Moller and Francisco Quintas (Figueiredo and Smith 2019; Ceríaco et al. 2022). In 1932–1933, Arthur Wallis Exell visited the three islands, collecting extensively and publishing the seminal catalogue of vascular plants (Exell 1944), in which many new species were described and several new records noted. Exell subsequently published a few additional papers (e.g., Exell 1956, 1959; Exell and Rozeira 1958), and ﬁnally produced a preliminary checklist of the Angiosperms of the islands (Exell 1973). Fieldwork largely stopped for the next 20 years, followed by an extensive period of collecting (Fig. 10.1), supported for the ﬁrst 10 years by the ECOFAC project, which was funded by the European Commission. The Bom Sucesso Botanical Garden and the National Herbarium (STPH) were established on São Tomé during this period, and a few papers were published on the ﬂora of the islands (e.g., Stévart et al. 2000; Stévart and Oliveira 2000; Stévart and Cribb 2004). In 2011, a new checklist was published, providing a good synthesis of the history of botanical studies, and the current state of knowledge of the ﬂora with citations of herbarium specimens (Figueiredo et al. 2011). A signiﬁcant collecting effort since 2016 justiﬁes a new synthesis on the diversity of vascular plants of these islands (Fig. 10.1). 252 T. Stévart et al. Príncipe The history of ﬂoristic surveys on Príncipe is largely similar to that of São Tomé. During the nineteenth and twentieth century, Príncipe was visited by several collectors during expeditions to São Tomé or Annobón (Exell 1944; Figueiredo 1994a; Figueiredo and Smith 2019, 2020; Ceríaco et al. 2022). The ﬂora of Príncipe was included in several checklists and publications (Exell 1944, 1956, 1959, 1973; Exell and Rozeira 1958; Figueiredo et al. 2011). A few collecting expeditions were conducted in the late 1990s with support from the ECOFAC project, followed by sporadic collections during the subsequent 20 years. In 2016, a project aiming to describe the tree diversity of Príncipe was initiated, which included exhaustive collecting, especially in the southern part of the island, and the production of the ﬁrst forest classiﬁcation ever proposed for Príncipe (Benitez et al. 2018). This initiative also supported the creation of an unofﬁcial herbarium at the Príncipe Natural Park headquarters, built local botanical capacity, conducted Red List assessments, and made ﬂoristic data available online (Tropicos 2021). Annobón An account of the history of botanical studies on Annobón was presented in its most recent checklist (Velayos et al. 2013a). The oldest collections from the island are probably those made during the nineteenth century by the British botanists Andrew B. Curror (1839–1843) and Richard Burton (1861–1864). The ﬁrst study speciﬁcally dealing with the ﬂora of Annobón was published by the German botanist Johannes Mildbraed from the Botanical Garden of Berlin, based on his collection made in 1911 (Mildbraed 1937) during the 1910–1911 Deutsche Zentral-Afrika-Expedition. As mentioned above, Exell also published on its ﬂora (Exell 1944, 1956, 1963, 1973), including ca. 40 specimens he collected in 1933. Luís G. Sobrinho studied the material collected by Francisco Newton between November 1892 and January 1893 (Sobrinho 1953). Finally, in 2010 and 2011, botanists of the Real Jardín Botánico Madrid and the Universidad Nacional de Guinea Ecuatorial collected exhaustively on the island, subsequently publishing an updated catalogue of the plants of Annobón with citations of herbarium specimens (Velayos et al. 2013a). Spatial Distribution of Collecting Effort The Database Recent data on the ﬂora of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón were included in an updated version of the RAINBIO database (Dauby et al. 2016). The quality and 10 Diversity of the Vascular Plants of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 253 accuracy of georeferencing of all specimen records were assessed ﬁrst by verifying whether they fell within the limits of the islands and, if not, at what distance from the coast, using the CoordinateCleaner R package (Zizka et al. 2019). When errors or inaccuracies were detected, or when coordinates were entirely missing, georeferencing was corrected or added manually using the locality information indicated on specimen labels. A scale from one to nine was used to indicate the precision of the georeferencing of each record, assigned based on label coordinates, either manually or automatically (Dauby et al. 2016). When the elevation was provided on the specimen label, it was recorded in the database, otherwise it was retrieved from an elevation raster based on the geo-coordinates. The resulting database includes 14,376 records, among which 12,077 represent collections identiﬁed to the species level, and 12,790 are georeferenced, constituting the largest and most comprehensive dataset ever compiled for the islands. Collecting Effort Collecting effort is highly heterogeneous on all islands (Fig. 10.2). In Príncipe, most ﬁeldwork has been concentrated at higher elevations, centered on Pico Papagaio and near Pico do Príncipe. The same is true for São Tomé, where they are concentrated around Pico de São Tomé and between Bom Sucesso and Lagoa Amélia. In Annobón, they have focused around Lake Apot, but also on the coast near Punta Yalba. All of these locations but the last are at higher altitudes and harbor relatively intact vegetation (Dauby et al. 2022). When standardized by area (Fig. 10.3), highlands clearly appear as the most intensely collected, while the lowlands and the rugged central portions of the islands are the most under-collected (Fig. 10.2). This pattern of collection suggests that botanists tend to conduct ﬁeldwork in accessible areas that have less impacted vegetation, while more heavily impacted areas at lower elevations or very remote locations remain undersampled. Species richness has a bimodal distribution with respect to elevation gradient on São Tomé. It should be stated that this decrease is only due to the fact that elevated areas are much less extensive. In fact, when you look at areas of comparable size (Fig. 10.2) the diversity is higher in elevated areas. Species richness is, however, also well correlated with sampling effort, so it is not clear to what extent these patterns are biased by sampling. The second explanation is obviously the correct one: 1100–1200 m is the area where lowland and montane species overlap, hence the higher diversity. On Príncipe, Pico de Príncipe was relatively less well collected than Pico Papagaio because it is less accessible, the trail being uncovered by the ﬁrst modern ﬁeld surveys during the ECOFAC project in the 1990s (Baillie 1999). The southern part of the island was poorly collected until recently because it is usually accessed by boat. The recent ﬁeld expedition conducted as part of the Global Tree Campaign allowed surveying the ﬂora around Rio Porco, where the last remaining example of original littoral forest can be found on the islands (Benitez et al. 2018). 254 T. Stévart et al. Fig. 10.2 Maps of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón, showing the number of specimens, number of species, and proportion of endemic species per 1 km-sided hexagon. The proportion of endemic species is only shown in hexagons with at least 25 specimen records for Annobón and 20 elsewhere. Specimens whose estimated georeferencing precision is greater than 4 km were excluded. The red outline demarks the boundaries of Natural Parks On São Tomé, some lowland areas have been relatively well explored, namely around São Miguel, São João dos Angolares, and the mouths of Xufe-Xufe or Iô Grande River. These have been less sampled than the highlands, thus remaining 10 Diversity of the Vascular Plants of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 255 Fig. 10.3 (a, c, e) Number of species and (b, d, f) sampling effort relative to area along 100 m elevational bands for (a, b) São Tomé, (c, d) Príncipe and (e, f) Annobón. Sampling effort was obtained from specimen density per unit of area, and numbers indicate the area covered by each elevational band in km2. The color scale represents the proportion of endemic species. Specimens whose estimated georeferencing precision is greater than 4 km were excluded. When available, elevation was retrieved from the specimen label, otherwise it was estimated from the elevation raster based on coordinates overall poorly sampled given their much larger area (Fig. 10.3). Observed species richness on São Tomé (Fig. 10.2b) is particularly high around the Pico de São Tomé, Lagoa Amélia, and Bom Sucesso, but is also highly correlated with specimen density 256 T. Stévart et al. (Pearson correlation R ¼ 0.94) and is therefore certainly underestimated in most other parts of the island. On Annobón, the number of species per 1 km-sided hexagons is also correlated with collecting effort (Fig. 10.2g–h), but the proportion of endemic plants is higher in the elevated area of the island (Figs. 10.2i and 10.3). Floristic Diversity The numbers of vascular plant taxa recorded from São Tomé and Príncipe were indicated in the most recent checklist (Figueiredo et al. 2011): 135 families (of which 29 are introduced), 624 genera (172 introduced), and 1104 species (301 introduced), along with 12 infraspeciﬁc taxa, including 119 endemic taxa (107 species and 12 infraspeciﬁc taxa). However, these ﬁgures only concern São Tomé and Príncipe, and extensive inventories have since been conducted on Príncipe (Benitez et al. 2018) and on São Tomé (Flora Ameaçada 2021). An updated calculation indicates that 1285 species and infraspeciﬁc taxa (1028 native) are known to occur on the three islands (Table 10.1). Príncipe has 445 species and infraspeciﬁc taxa (394 native), São Tomé has 1044 (842 native), and Annobón has 344 (274 native). Príncipe has the highest proportion of native ﬂora (88.5%), followed by São Tomé (80.7%), while Annobón has the lowest (79.7%). The three most species-rich families are Orchidaceae (163 taxa), Rubiaceae (94 taxa), and Fabaceae (86 taxa); however, many of the Fabaceae are not native (Table 10.2). Euphorbiaceae s.l., as previously delimited, was one of the most speciose families, but its members have recently been divided among Euphorbiaceae s.str. (44 taxa) and Phyllanthaceae (27 taxa). The genera with the most species and infraspeciﬁc taxa are Asplenium L. (28), Bulbophyllum Thouars (27), and Polystachya Hook. (26) (Table 10.3), all of which are wind-dispersed. Table 10.1 Family, genus, species, and infraspeciﬁc taxon richness on each of the three oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea Families Genera Species and infraspeciﬁc taxa richness (SR) SR native % of the ﬂora which is native Individuals Príncipe 94 264 445 394 88.5 1876 São Tomé 143 561 1044 842 80.7 8182 Annobón 90 241 344 274 79.7 773 Total 155 627 1285 1028 80.0 11,388 The number of native species or infraspeciﬁc taxa is given as well as the native proportion of each island’s ﬂora 10 Diversity of the Vascular Plants of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 257 Table 10.2 The most species-rich families on the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea Orchidaceae Rubiaceae Fabaceae Poaceae Euphorbiaceae Cyperaceae Asteraceae Aspleniaceae Phyllanthaceae Malvaceae SR 163 94 86 46 44 34 31 28 27 26 Príncipe 85 46 14 4 14 8 2 14 14 1 São Tomé 125 73 70 40 32 25 28 25 20 21 Annobón 25 18 38 24 12 14 9 5 6 12 Grand total 235 137 122 68 58 47 39 44 40 34 Numbers indicate speciﬁc and infraspeciﬁc taxon richness (SR) for all islands taken together and for each individual island. The grand total represents the total number of species-presences recorded across the islands Table 10.3 The most species-rich genera on the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea Asplenium Bulbophyllum Polystachya Cyperus Psychotria Ipomoea Begonia Ficus Pteris Desmodium SR 28 27 26 22 13 12 11 11 11 10 Príncipe 14 14 12 2 4 2 5 3 7 1 São Tomé 25 20 21 16 12 8 10 10 9 9 Annobón 5 4 6 11 2 4 2 3 1 9 Grand total 44 38 39 29 18 14 17 16 17 19 Numbers indicate speciﬁc and infraspeciﬁc taxon richness (SR) for all islands taken together and for each individual island. The grand total represents the total number of species-presences recorded across the islands Main Findings of the Botanical Expeditions on São Tomé and Príncipe, 2019–2020 To improve the documentation of the current ﬂoristic diversity of São Tomé and to identify conservation priorities, several botanical expeditions were undertaken between 2019 and 2021 (Flora Ameaçada 2021). Various localities across the island were visited, from the dry North to the wet South, and from the coast to the summit of the Pico de São Tomé at 2024 m, covering most vegetation types. More than 90% of the endemic woody species were seen during this ﬁeldwork. Some very rare species were rediscovered, including Balthasaria mannii (Oliv.) Verdc., 1969 (Pentaphylacaceae) (Fig. 10.4.2–4), and Psychotria exellii R. Alves, Figueiredo and A.P. Davis, 2005 (Rubiaceae), both restricted to near the summit of the Pico 258 T. Stévart et al. Fig. 10.4 Species endemic to São Tomé and Príncipe: (1) Santiria balsamifera Oliv., 1887 (Burseraceae); (2–4) Balthasaria mannii (Oliv.) Verdc., 1969 (Theaceae); (5) Cleistanthus sp. nov. (Euphorbiaceae); (6) Impatiens manteroana Exell, 1944 (Balsaminaceae). Photos credits: (1, 6) Tariq Stévart, (3–5) Olivier Lachenaud, (2) Gilles Dauby 10 Diversity of the Vascular Plants of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 259 de São Tomé and not seen for more than 50 years. Even more interesting is the ﬁnding of at least 17 species new to science—a number likely to increase as the ongoing identiﬁcation of specimens continues. The most remarkable of these is a new species of Cleistanthus Hook. f. ex Planch., 1848 (Phyllanthaceae) (Fig. 10.4.5), which is the dominant tree of dry forest remnants in the North of the island. Several earlier collections of this species are deposited in herbaria, but they had not yet been identiﬁed. Although locally abundant, the new species of Cleistanthus is highly threatened by wood exploitation and charcoal production, and its habitat is in need of protection. In addition, 42 species represent new country records for São Tomé and Príncipe, most of which are widespread on the mainland. One of them, Phyllocosmus sessiliﬂorus Oliv., 1868 (Ixonanthaceae), is the ﬁrst record of its family from the islands. Other species previously known from the country are new island records, namely ﬁve for São Tomé and 26 for Príncipe. Complementing the efforts undertaken since 2016 to understand tree diversity in the southern forests of Príncipe (Benitez et al. 2018), since 2019, several botanical expeditions have focused on the drier North (Flora Ameaçada 2021). This work included areas of secondary or presumably degraded forest, extending from coastal and lowland forests to the northern plateau of the island, but also involved collecting in areas in the south that had not been assessed during previous years, such as the summit of Pico do Príncipe (947 m). These inventories resulted in the discovery of eight species new to science, six of which are only known from Príncipe. Endemism The ﬂora of the Gulf of Guinea Islands comprises approximately 1700 indigenous species of angiosperms (Figueiredo 1994b), and is well known for its high level of endemism. Bioko is a continental island, while Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón are oceanic, never having been connected to the mainland or to one another. It is therefore not surprising that Bioko has a more speciose ﬂora (1558 species, Velayos et al. 2013b), but exhibits much lower levels of endemism (3.6% according to Exell 1973). Of the 1028 indigenous species and infraspeciﬁc taxa documented from Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón, approximately 164 are endemic (Table 10.4, Figs. 10.4, 10.5, 10.6 and 10.7), yielding a rate of endemism of about 16%. Estimates for endemism on Príncipe have varied signiﬁcantly over the years, from 12.7% (Exell 1944), to 9.9% (Exell 1973), and to the current 14.7% for vascular plants (Table 10.4). Calculations of endemism in São Tomé have decreased from 19.4% (Exell 1944) to 15.4% (Exell 1973) and the current 14.5% (Table 10.4). On Annobón, they are estimated to be at 6.9% (Table 10.4). The families with the largest numbers of endemic taxa are Orchidaceae (30), Rubiaceae (29), and Euphorbiaceae s.str. (15) (Table 10.5). The genera Polystachya (Orchidaceae), Begonia L., 1753 (Begoniaceae) and Psychotria L., 1759 (Rubiaceae) have the largest numbers of endemic species (Table 10.6). Some 260 T. Stévart et al. Table 10.4 Plant endemism in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (including 17 putative new species) Single-island endemic species Shared endemics between islands Total endemics Indigenous species Endemic rate (3 islands) Endemic rate (strict) Príncipe 28 30 58 394 14.7 7.6 São Tomé 90 32 122 842 14.5 3.8 Annobón 14 5 19 274 6.9 1.8 Total 132 32 164 1028 16.0 3.1 emblematic endemic species are the gigantic species Begonia baccata Hook.f., 1866 and Begonia crateris Exell, 1944, which can reach a height of 4 m. Afrocarpus mannii (Hook.) C.N. Page, 1988 (Podocarpaceae), the only native gymnosperm, is endemic to São Tomé and is widely grown in many botanic gardens around the world. The proportion of endemic species tends to increase with elevation with an endemic rate between 20 and 25% in the highlands of the three islands (Fig. 10.3). Conservation From 1998 to 2020, risk of extinction assessments were performed for 285 native and introduced plant species from Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón Islands (IUCN 2021). These taxa belonged to 207 genera and 86 families, and over 13% are endemic to São Tomé and Príncipe. Cyperus L., 1753 (Cyperaceae) is the bestrepresented genus, with twelve species assessed; the remaining genera are represented by between one and four species each. Seven families have more than ten species assessed: Orchidaceae (34.9% of all species assessed), Fabaceae (29.1%), Cyperaceae (24.4%), Rubiaceae (23.3%), Euphorbiaceae (17.4%), Apocynaceae and Phyllanthaceae (11.6% each). Thirty-two assessments were made in 1998 and 62 more were done between 2000 and 2017. The number of species assessed has more than doubled between 2018 and 2020 (Fig. 10.8). Of the 285 species evaluated to date, 0.7% are Data Deﬁcient, 19.3% are threatened (3 Critically Endangered, 21 Endangered, and 31 Vulnerable), and 78.3% are Least Concern or Near Threatened. Two Orchidaceae species (Angraecopsis dolabriformis (Rolfe) Schltr., 1918 and Angraecum astroarche Ridl., 1887) are considered Extinct (Simo et al. 2018a, b), since they were not recorded after intensive surveys in the locations where they had previously been documented. The number of species assessed as threatened per year has decreased over time, even though the total number of assessments performed each year has increased: 22 of 32 species were assessed as threatened in 1998, compared to just 21 of 191 assessments done over the last three years (Fig. 10.7; Table 10.7). This is partly due to numerous recent assessments on widespread non-threatened tree species (e.g., Symphonia globulifera L. f., 1782, Xylopia aethiopica (Dunal) A. Rich., 1845, Cola digitata W. Mast., 10 Diversity of the Vascular Plants of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 261 Fig. 10.5 Species endemic to São Tomé and Príncipe: (1) Carapa gogo A. Chev. ex Kenfack, 2011 (Meliaceae); (2–3) Palisota pedicellata K.Schum., 1897 (Commelinaceae); (4) Polystachya expansa Ridl., 1887 (Orchidaceae); (5) Pandanus thomensis Henriq., 1887 (Pandanaceae); (6–7) Lobelia barnsii Exell, 1944 (Campanulaceae); (8–9) Impatiens buccinalis Hook.f., 1864 (Balsaminaceae). Photo credits: (all, except 6) Tariq Stévart, (6) Gilles Dauby 262 T. Stévart et al. Fig. 10.6 Species endemic to São Tomé and Príncipe: (1) Thunbergianthus quintasii Engl., 1897 (Scrophulariaceae); (2) Costus giganteus Welw. ex Ridl., 1887 (Costaceae); (3) Rhipidoglossum pendulum (la Croix & P.J.Cribb) Farminhão & Stévart, 2018 (Orchidaceae); (4) Dicranolepis thomensis Engl. & Gilg, 1894 (Thymelaeaceae); (5) Tabernaemontana stenosiphon Stapf, 1895 (Apocynaceae); (6) Leea tinctoria Lindl. ex Baker, 1868 (Leeaceae); (7) Elatostema thomense Henriq., 1892 (Urticaceae); (8) Begonia crateris Exell, 1944 (Begoniaceae); (9) Erica thomensis (Henriq.) Dorr & E.G.H.Oliv., 1999 (Ericaceae). Photo credits: (all, except 8) Tariq Stévart, (8) Olivier Lachenaud 10 Diversity of the Vascular Plants of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 263 Fig. 10.7 Species endemic to São Tomé and Príncipe: (1) Erica thomensis (Henriq.) Dorr & E.G. H.Oliv., 1999 (Ericaceae); (2) Chytranthus mannii Hook.f., 1867 (Sapindaceae); (3) Strephonema sp. nov. (Combretaceae). Photo credits: (1) Davy Ikabanga, (2) Laura Benitez, (3) Tariq Stévart 1868, and Santiria trimera (Oliv.) Aubrév., 1948) (Fig. 10.4.1). Some species require better knowledge before they can be assessed (e.g., Santiria trimera) or are outside of their native range (Coffea arabica L., 1753), and therefore their presence 264 Table 10.5 The ten families with the largest number of endemic species and infraspeciﬁc taxa on the three oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea T. Stévart et al. Family Orchidaceae Rubiaceae Euphorbiaceae Begoniaceae Melastomataceae Sapotaceae Violaceae Acanthaceae Aspleniaceae Balsaminaceae Príncipe 10 10 6 2 2 1 1 1 São Tomé 22 21 11 5 5 2 3 3 2 2 Annobón 2 3 2 2 1 Total 30 27 15 6 6 4 4 3 3 3 Numbers indicate speciﬁc and infraspeciﬁc taxon richness (SR) Table 10.6 The ten genera with the largest number of endemic species and infraspeciﬁc taxa on the three oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea Genus Polystachya Psychotria Begonia Diaphananthe Rinorea Tristemma Asplenium Cassipourea Chassalia Dryopteris Príncipe 4 2 2 1 1 1 2 São Tomé 5 8 4 2 3 3 2 1 2 2 Annobón 1 1 1 1 1 Total 8 8 6 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 Numbers indicate speciﬁc and infraspeciﬁc taxon richness (SR) on these islands is irrelevant for Red Listing, and they were not included in this analysis. For example, a recent taxonomic revision of Santiria Blume, 1850, in Africa revealed that a threatened species (S. balsamifera Oliv., 1886) occurs on São Tomé and Príncipe (Ikabanga et al. 2019). Additional efforts will be needed to assess other endemic and range-restricted species to enable a more accurate assessment of the true proportion of threatened plant species on the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Recent Red List activities and ﬁeld expeditions have shown that the ﬂora of São Tomé and PrÚncipe is highly threatened, in addition to historical threats that have ceased, such as large-scale plantations that profoundly changed the natural vegetation of the two islands (Muñoz-Torrent et al. 2022). On Príncipe, current threats are relatively limited and not clearly deﬁned, but certainly include the development of infrastructure for tourism (Lima et al. 2022), whose impact on the ﬂora remains to be quantiﬁed. The development of human activities adds pressure on the remaining forests in the north, which are already threatened by small-scale agriculture, charcoal production, ﬁrewood collection, and logging (D’Avis 2022). The collection and use of medicinal plants are also subjecting some species to the risk of local extinction. Diversity of the Vascular Plants of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 265 90 100 % 80 90 % 70 80 % 70 % 60 60 % 50 50 % 40 40 % 30 30 % 20 20 % 10 10 % 0 Cumulative frequency Number of assessments 10 0% 1998 2000 2004 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Years Number of assessments Cumulative frequency Fig. 10.8 Progress of the number of risk of extinction assessments made for species occurring on Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón islands from 1998 to 2020 Table 10.7 Number of threatened species recorded on Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón islands from 1998 to 2020 Threatened species CR EN Years 1998 0 1 2000 1 0 2004 0 2 2013 0 1 2014 0 1 2018 2 9 2019 0 1 2020 0 6 Total threatened species VU 21 0 4 1 3 0 1 1 Total 22 1 6 2 4 11 2 7 55 Indeed, most of the plants harvested by traditional healers and by commercial sellers who collect medicinal plants for alcoholic beverages come from forests, and very few plants are cultivated for medicinal purposes. On São Tomé, threats include local logging around the parks, and the widespread presence of invasive species (Lima et al. 2022). These threats do not affect most species directly, but they impact the quality of their habitat. The most severe current threats on São Tomé are, however, the presence of an oil palm plantation in the southwest of the island, and charcoal production is also an important threat, especially in the north (Oyono et al. 2014). These activities have expanded in recent years and directly impact populations of plant species. On Annobón, plants occurring in almost all parts of the island are threatened by small-scale agriculture. The dry northern part of the island, from the sea to Lake Apot, is particularly heavily impacted by agriculture, urbanization, and infrastructure construction (Norder et al. 2020). 266 T. Stévart et al. The Medicinal Plants of São Tomé and Príncipe Many medicinal plants have been used for centuries on São Tomé and Príncipe and are often the only available therapeutic agents. Until the end of the twentieth century, uses were not well documented, and few ethnopharmacological studies had been conducted on the medicinal plants used by the population of the two islands. Between 1993 and 2001, an exhaustive collection of the medicinal ﬂora was conducted to record ethnomedical information from the most renowned local traditional healers. More than 350 taxa were identiﬁed, for which voucher specimens were deposited at the University of Coimbra herbarium (COI), and more than 1000 traditional preparation procedures and their respective uses were recorded (Madureira et al. 2003). Exhaustive bibliographic research was also conducted, resulting in a monograph for each species containing traditional uses and scientiﬁc data (Madureira et al. 2003; Madureira 2006, 2010). These investigations show a strong correlation between the traditional use of most medicinal plants and their proven pharmacological activity, demonstrating that many of them have a recognized efﬁcacy: e.g., Spermacoce verticillata L., 1753, Desmodium adscendens (Sw.) DC., 1825, Dracaena arborea (Willd.) Link, 1821, Phyllanthus amarus Schumach. & Thonn., 1827, Phyllanthus urinaria L., 1753, Piper capense L.ﬁl., 1781, Scoparia dulcis L. 1753 (Madureira 2006, 2008), along with Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A. Gray, 1883, an introduced species that has antimalarial activity and could be a very interesting alternative to commercially available antimalarials (Madureira 2010). An analysis of the composition of essential oils from eighteen species widely used in traditional medicine for the treatment of infections was carried out, and the preliminary study of the antibacterial and antifungal activities of these essential oils proved their activity, highlighting the oils of Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf, 1906, Ocimum gratissimum l., 1753, Santiria balsamifera and Zingiber ofﬁcinale Roscoe, 1807, which showed the best activities (Martins 2002). Some of these medicinal plants have been studied for their antiviral properties (Phyllanthus amarus, Scoparia dulcis, Momordica charantia L., 1753, and Margaritaria discoidea (Baill.) G.L. Webster, 1967). Other species have shown some promising results regarding their antitumor activity, such as Desmodium adscendens, Piper capense, and Momordica charantia (Madureira 2008), and more recently the identiﬁcation of natural compounds from Voacanga africana Stapf, 1894, that show multiple biological activities of interest for Alzheimer’s disease (Currais et al. 2014). The families with the largest numbers of species used for medicinal purposes are Euphorbiaceae (13 species), Asteraceae (12), Rubiaceae (11), Moraceae (10), Malvaceae (9), Rutaceae (8), and Apocynaceae (7). The fact that many families (57) and genera (134) are represented on the list of medicinal species illustrates the high level of knowledge of the ﬂora among traditional healers, and it is possible to infer that there are a great variety of chemical structures and pharmacological activities among the medicinal plants collected in the region. 10 Diversity of the Vascular Plants of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 267 The traditional uses of the medicinal plants are highly diverse: analgesic, antiinﬂammatory or anti-rheumatic action represent the main group of traditional records (218), followed by diseases of the digestive system (204); diseases related to the respiratory system represent the third group with 179 traditional records; genitourinary system (134); skin diseases (97); traditional medicines for the treatment of febrile conditions (38) and malaria (23); diseases of the cardiovascular system (43); 14 preparations for the treatment and control of diabetes, and 16 indications for diseases of the central nervous system. Finally, on São Tomé and Príncipe, many medicinal plants are also used for food, representing about 15.0% of the total species collected for medicinal purposes (Madureira 2012). Among the 350 medicinal species used, 37 are endemic to the islands of the Gulf of Guinea (e.g., Tabernaemontana stenosiphon, Begonia baccata, Croton stellulifer Hutch. 1944, Hernandia beninensis Welw. ex Henriq., 1892, Staudtia pterocarpa Warb., 1897, Pandanus thomensis Henriq., 1887, Afrocarpus mannii, Chytranthus mannii Hook.f., 1867, and Costus giganteus Welw. ex Ridley, 1887), which indicates an evident dynamism of the local traditional medicine, with traditional healers maintaining and perfecting their traditional therapeutic wisdom, and taking advantage of the native available resources of São Tomé and Príncipe. Improving Local Botanical Practices and Knowledge The literature review for this chapter revealed a heavy reliance on a few key publications for the identiﬁcation of medicinal plant species based on local vernacular names (Rozeira 1958; Roseira 1984; Figueiredo 2002; Figueiredo et al. 2011), the majority of which lack the citation of voucher specimens. Vernacular names are important for identiﬁcation of plants locally, but to be reliable and of use for scientiﬁc studies, they must be unambiguously linked to scientiﬁc names, which requires the collection and storage of voucher specimens. This need is particularly pressing considering that local names vary from region to region, sometimes multiple species having the same name, or multiple names referring to a single species (e.g., Figueiredo et al. 2011). This is especially true in the case of medicinal plant parts that are sold in the markets, for which accurate identiﬁcation to species is even more difﬁcult, but also for ecological studies such as tree inventories, which have so far mostly used local names (e.g., Salgueiro and Carvalho 2001). Basic botanical skills are also largely lacking, especially with respect to plant taxonomy and botanical nomenclature. The correct botanical name of an individual plant, linked to a voucher specimen, is the sine qua non of phytomedical research. Without the unique taxonomic identiﬁer, research cannot accurately be linked to the existing literature. This uncertainty, thus obstructs the accuracy and reproducibility of results—a cornerstone of science. It is therefore vital to increase local scientiﬁc literacy, and continue training local botanists with different skills, from ﬁeld identiﬁcation, to the management of herbarium specimens, and more advanced scientiﬁc capacities to ensure increased local autonomy for research and conservation. To 268 T. Stévart et al. overcome these handicaps, the publication of a practical ﬁeld guide to facilitate plant identiﬁcation and stimulate the interest for botany is highly recommended. Concluding Remarks Signiﬁcant collecting effort, especially since 2016, has created a huge updated wealth of information for the islands, which is readily available online (Tropicos 2021). Nevertheless, this information is still being compiled and will require extensive taxonomic work and numerous publications until it can produce an updated vascular plant checklist for the islands. The same is true for Red List assessments, many of which seem to be focusing on species that are widespread, while endemic and range-restricted species that are more likely to be threatened remain unassessed. This calls for a major, consolidated focus on conservation assessments, which are currently being conducted through several mostly uncoordinated projects. The results of this work could and should then be used to identify new priority sites for conservation (D’Avis 2022; Lima et al. 2022), including on Annobón, where priority sites are less well deﬁned. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the European Union, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan and the World Bank, through the project CEPF-104130. Data collection on Príncipe was conducted by Fauna & Flora International, Fundação Príncipe, the Missouri Botanical Garden, and the University of Coimbra, supported by the Global Tree Campaign through multiple grants. We are also grateful to Ricardo F. de Lima, Roy Gereau, and Porter P. Lowry II for editing the manuscript and for their constructive comments and suggestions. References Baillie J (1999) One month in the forest of Príncipe. Available via Gulf of Guinea Conservation Group. http://www.ggcg.st/jon/Príncipe.htm. Accessed 22 Mar 2006 Benitez L, Stévart T, Madureira MC et al. (2018) Príncipe Island botanical sampling follow up work – global tree campaign phase 2. Unpublished project report Ceríaco LMP, Santos BSS, Viegas S, Paiva J, Figueiredo E (2022) The history of biological research in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: LMP C, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 87–140 Currais A, Chiruta C, Goujon-Svrzic M et al (2014) Screening and identiﬁcation of neuroprotective compounds relevant to Alzheimer’s disease from medicinal plants of S. Tomé e Príncipe. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 155:830–840 Dauby G, Stévart T, Barberá P et al (2022) Classiﬁcation, distribution and biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: LMP C, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 37–70 10 Diversity of the Vascular Plants of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 269 Dauby G, Zaiss R, Blach-Overgaard A et al (2016) RAINBIO: a mega-database of tropical African vascular plants distributions. PhytoKeys 74:1–18 D’Avis KV (2022) Spatial conservation prioritization on the endemic-rich island of Príncipe. MSc Thesis, University of Lisbon, Lisbon Droissart V, Dauby G, Hardy OJ et al (2018) Beyond trees: biogeographical regionalization of tropical Africa. Journal of Biogeography 45:1153–1167 Exell AW (1944) Catalogue of the vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Principe and Annobon). British museum (natural history), London, p 428 Exell AW (1956) Supplement of the catalogue of the vascular Plant of S. Tomé (with Principe and Annobón). British museum (natural history), London, p 58 Exell AW (1959) Additions to the Flora of S. Tomé and Príncipe. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Afrique Noire, Série A 21:439–476 Exell AW (1963) Angiosperms of the Cambridge Annobon Island expedition. Bull Brit Mus (Nat Hist) Bot 3(3):93–118 Exell AW (1973) Angiosperms of the islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Fernando Po, Príncipe, S. Tomé and Annobón). Bull Brit Mus (Nat Hist) Bot 4:325–411 Exell AW, Rozeira A (1958) Aditamento à ﬂora de S. Tomé e do Príncipe. In: Anonymous. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, S. Tomé, Comunicações 3: 77–91 Figueiredo E (1994a) Contributions towards a botanical literature for the islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Fontqueria 39:1–8 Figueiredo E (1994b) Diversity and endemism of angiosperms in the Gulf of Guinea islands. Biodivers Conserv 3(9):785–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129658 Figueiredo E (2002) Nomes vulgares da ﬂora de São Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série Botânica 15:109–139 Figueiredo E, Smith FS (2019) The type status of collections made by Adolfo Moller and Francisco Quintas in the ﬂoras of São Tomé and Príncipe. Phytotaxa 425:2 Figueiredo E, Smith FS (2020) Friedrich Welwitsch and his contributions to the exploration and study of the ﬂora of São Tomé and Príncipe, gulf of Guinea, with typiﬁcation of three names described from his collections. Phytotaxa 459:227–234 Figueiredo E, Paiva J, Stévart T, Oliveira F, Smith GF (2011) Annotated catalogue of the ﬂowering plants of São Tomé and Príncipe. Bothalia 41:41–82 Flora Ameaçada (2021) The threatened ﬂora of São Tomé e Príncipe. Available via Flora Ameaçada. https://cepf-stp-threat-ﬂora.netlify.app/. Accessed 26 Oct 2021 Henriques JA (1892) Contribuição para o estudo da Flora d’Africa. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 10:97–165 Henriques JA (1917) A Ilha de S. Tomé sob o ponto de vista histórico-natural e agrícola. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 27:1–197 Ikabanga DU, Kofﬁ KG, Onana JM et al (2019) Révision taxonomique du genre Santiria (Burseraceae) en Afrique tropicale. Candollea 74:115–130 IUCN (2021) The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2021-2. Available via IUCN. https:// www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 26 Oct 2021 Lima RF, Deffontaines J-B, Madruga L et al (2022) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: recent progress, ongoing challenges, and future directions. In: LMP C, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 643–670 Madureira MC (2006) Etnofarmacologia e estudo de espécies com actividade biológica da ﬂora de S. Tomé e Príncipe. PhD thesis. Coimbra University, Coimbra Madureira MC (2008) Estudo etnofarmacológico de plantas medicinais de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Ministério da Saúde de São Tomé e Príncipe, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, São Tomé, p 208 270 T. Stévart et al. Madureira MC (2010) Antimalarial drug development research and the ancient knowledge of traditional medicines in S. Tomé e Príncipe islands. In: Pochettino ML, Ladio AH, Arenas PM (eds) Tradiciones y transformaciones en Etnobotánica – traditions and transformations in ethnobotany. CYTED, San Salvador de Jujuy, pp 256–264 Madureira MC (2012) Plantas medicinais e medicina tradicional de São Tomé e Príncipe. In: Roque AC, Seibert G, Marques VR (coords) Actas do colóquio internacional São Tomé e Príncipe numa perspectiva interdisciplinar, diacrónica e sincrónica. Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Centro de Estudos Africanos, Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisbon, pp 433–453 Madureira MC, Martins AP, Paiva J, Proença da Cunha A (2003) Medicinal plants and traditional medicine in the Gulf of Guinea – S. Tomé and Príncipe islands. In: Singh VK, Govil JN, Hashmi S, Singh G (eds) Recent Progress in medicinal plants, volume 7 – Ethnomedicine and Pharmacognosy part II. Sci Tech Publishing, New Delhi, pp 361–381 Martins AP (2002) Etnofarmacologia e óleos essenciais de plantas medicinais de S. Tomé e Príncipe. PhD thesis. Coimbra University, Coimbra Mildbraed J (1937) Neue Arten von der Insel Annobón. Notizblatt des Botanischen Gartens und Museums zu Berlin–Dahlem 13:697–705 Muñoz-Torrent X, Trindade NT, Mikulane S (2022) Territory, economy, and demographic growth in São Tomé and Príncipe: anthropogenic changes in environment. In: LMP C, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Springer, Cham, pp 71–86 Norder SJ, Lima RF, Nascimento L et al (2020) Global change in microcosms: environmental and societal predictors of land cover change on the Atlantic Ocean islands. Anthropocene 30:100242 Oyono PR, Morelli TL, Sayer J et al (2014) Allocation and use of forest land: current trends, issues and perspectives. In: Wassinger C, Flynn J, Louppe D, Hiol FH, Mayaux P (eds) The forests of the Congo Basin – state of the forests 2013. Observatoire des Fôrets d'Afrique centrale of the Comission des Fôrets d'Afrique centrale and Congo Basin Forest Partnership, Weyrich, pp 215–240 Rozeira A (1958) Nomes populares de algumas plantas das ilhas de S. Tomé e do Príncipe – Origem e signiﬁcado. In: Anonymous. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª sessão, S. Tomé, Comunicações 3:169–173 Roseira LL (1984) Plantas úteis da ﬂora de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Serviços Gráﬁcos da Liga dos Combatentes, Lisboa Salgueiro A, Carvalho S (2001) Proposta de Plano Nacional de Desenvolvimento Florestal 2003–2007. ECOFAC/AGRECO/CIRAD Forêt, São Tomé Simo M, Stévart T, Droissart V (2018a) Angraecopsis dolabriformis. Available via the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-1.RLTS. T87583558A87739847.en. Accessed 26 Jan 2021 Simo M, Stévart T, Droissart V (2018b) Angraecum astroarche. Available via the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-1.RLTS. T87583728A87739867.en. Accessed 26 Jan 2021 Sobrinho LG (1953) Vascular plants from Ano Bom and Príncipe islands collected by F. Newton and J. de Souza junior. Portugaliae Acta Biológica, série B: Sistemática, Ecologia, Biogeograﬁa e Paleontologia 1:177–190 Stévart T, Cribb PJ (2004) New species and records of Orchidaceae from São Tomé and Príncipe. Kew Bulletin 59:77–86 Stévart T, Oliveira F (2000) Guide des orchidées de São Tomé et Príncipe / Guia das orquídeas de São Tomé e Príncipe. ECOFAC, São Tomé, p 258 Stévart T, Geerinck D, Lejoly J (2000) Liste des Orchidaceae de São-Tomé et Príncipe. Acta Botanica Gallica 147:165–172 10 Diversity of the Vascular Plants of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 271 Tropicos (2021). Tropicos.org v3.3.1. Missouri Botanical Garden. Available via Tropicos. https:// tropicos.org. Accessed 25 Oct 2021 Velayos M, Barberá P, Cabezas FJ et al (2013a) Checklist of the vascular plants of Annobón (Equatorial Guinea). Phytotaxa 171(1):1–78 Velayos M, Cabezas FJ, Barberá P et al (2013b) Preliminary checklist of vascular plants of Bioko Island (Equatorial Guinea). Botanica Complutensis 37:109–133 Zizka A, Silvestro D, Andermann T et al (2019) CoordinateCleaner: standardized cleaning of occurrence records from biological collection databases. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10:744–751 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 11 A Checklist of the Arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (Excluding Ticks and Mites) Sarah C. Crews and Lauren A. Esposito Abstract While historic efforts to document the arachnofauna of the Gulf of Guinea islands have primarily been the result of fortuitous collecting by non-specialists, recent efforts have been made to provide a more thorough documentation using systematic, targeted collecting methods. Results from those preliminary efforts indicate that the current formal scientiﬁc knowledge of the fauna is signiﬁcantly underreported. Here, we present the ﬁrst checklist of all arachnid species, excluding mites and ticks, for the Gulf of Guinea islands. We hope that this will serve as a guide to begin the immense work of documenting the true diversity represented in this unique archipelago. Keywords Diversity · Scorpion · Spider · Survey Introduction This chapter provides a preliminary account of the arachnids that occur on the islands of Bioko, Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón. We treat our assessment as preliminary because to comprehensively determine which arachnids inhabit a place, systematic, multi-year, seasonal surveys are critical. For many arachnid species, the annual lifecycle is temporal, often with adult males and females more common at particular times of the year (Cardoso et al. 2009). Standardized collecting methods have been proposed for arachnids, which allow for a more effective estimate of species richness when collecting efforts are limited (e.g., Malumbres-Olarte et al. 2016). To date, however, this type of surveying for arachnids has not been undertaken on any of the Gulf of Guinea islands. In fact, nearly all of the historical collectors of arachnids in the region, including West and Central Africa, collected them opportunistically while making general collections of ﬂora and fauna or targeting other organisms. The lack of methodical collecting across much of the S. C. Crews · L. A. Esposito (*) Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, USA e-mail: lesposito@calacademy.org © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_11 273 274 S. C. Crews and L. A. Esposito African continent and the monumental work needed for subsequent taxonomic investigation also hinders our ability to discern whether species recorded from the islands are endemic or are also present on the mainland. Consequently, our current knowledge of the arachnid fauna of the islands is far from complete given the few historical or contemporary surveys dedicated to documenting arachnid diversity and minimal taxonomic study of most major groups. Here we summarize what is (and likely is not) known about the arachnid diversity of the Gulf of Guinea archipelago in the hopes that it will inspire and guide future research on this understudied group. Arachnids are a diverse and ancient group (>430 my old) of primarily terrestrial arthropods. There are 11 extant orders, all of which are known from mainland Africa, with 8 known from the Gulf of Guinea islands. While Acari, or ticks and mites, are present, we do not discuss them here. They are typically treated separately in arachnid faunal overviews and surveys because, although they are arachnids, they are extremely diverse and even more poorly known than other arachnids. Their life histories and habits differ greatly from the other arachnids in that many are plant or animal parasites or live in soil. There are three orders of arachnids that have not yet been found on the Gulf of Guinea islands, although they are known from the adjacent mainland. One of these orders is the Palpigradi, or microwhip scorpions, which are very small, pale, eyeless animals that live interstitially in leaf litter, caves, or cracks deep in the ground. They are found worldwide, but due to their cryptic habits and small size, fewer than 100 species have been described (Harvey 2013a). The other two orders, however, are not minute. These are the Solifugae, or sun spiders, and the Thelyphonida, or whip scorpions. The former consists of about 1000 species that are primarily found in dry habitats, while the latter has only about 100 species described from a wide variety of tropical and sub-tropical ecosystems (Harvey 2013e; Murienne et al. 2013). Although they are not small, whip scorpions are burrowers, thus not easily detected, and there is only a single species known from Africa (Huff and Prendini 2009). Below, we discuss the seven other orders: Amblypygi or whip spiders, Opiliones or harvestmen, Pseudoscorpiones or pseudoscorpions, Ricinulei or hooded tickspiders, Schizomida or short-tailed whip scorpions, Scorpiones or scorpions, and include a focused discussion of the most diverse group, the Araneae or spiders. A Brief History of Arachnological Research In the 1700s and 1800s, most arachnid collecting in the Gulf of Guinea was done by naturalists making general collections of extant ﬂora and fauna as well as fossils. The specimens were then sold or donated to European museums, where they were divvied up and given to experts on the various groups, who then described new species and/or published a species list. Ferdinand Karsch (1884) was likely the ﬁrst arachnologist to focus speciﬁcally on arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea islands. He received the specimens for his study from Professor Richard Greeff of Marburg, who had lived on São Tomé and Príncipe islands for several months in 1879–1880. 11 A Checklist of the Arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (Excluding. . . 275 Greeff made some of the ﬁrst maps of the islands and collected everything from crinoids (echinoderms) to sipunculids (peanut worms) to geckos and published his results in 1884. Other authors published smaller works on the island fauna, including Vieira (1893) and Pocock (1900), the latter of whom described some theraphosid spiders that had been purchased by trustees of the British Museum. Leonardo Fea from the Museum of Natural History in Genoa, Italy made trips to Asia and Africa in the late 1800s to the early 1900s, spending 1900–1902 on São Tomé and Príncipe, Bioko, and Annobón, and 1902 in Cameroon and the French Congo (now the Republic of Congo, Gabon, and Central African Republic). Although primarily collecting specimens for his malacological and geological research, he also collected several arachnids. These specimens eventually made their way to perhaps the most proliﬁc arachnologist of all time, Eugene Simon from the Natural History Museum in Paris. In the early 1900s, Simon began describing and cataloging a large collection that comprises the most comprehensive arachnid publications of the region (1907, 1909–1910), where he included a brief tribute to Fea who had died in 1904. Following Simon’s work, there were a number of important publications in the 1900s. Hansen (1921) described harvestmen and other small arachnid groups primarily from the Fea collection. Roewer later described many of the harvestmen from Fea’s collection in a series of papers (1927, 1942, 1949). Additional research was conducted by Amélia Bacelar (1956), the ﬁrst woman to formally study Gulf of Guinea arachnids, and also by Otto Kraus (1960). The latter was on an expedition to the “Gulf of Guinee” led by Herrn P. Viette on the Calypso (The Calypso was owned by Jacques Cousteau, purchased in 1950, so he also was likely on this trip, but there is no mention of him speciﬁcally). Prieto more recently published on the harvestmen of Bioko and Annobón (Prieto 1999). In 1998, arachnologist Darrell Ubick of the California Academy of Sciences (CAS) visited Bioko. Ubick’s 1998 collection from Bioko was the ﬁrst targeted collection of arachnids in the region, resulting in over 5000 specimens that are deposited at CAS. A preliminary report published on the material identiﬁed 372 morphospecies, with 9 families and 5 genera otherwise undocumented from the region (Griswold et al. 1999). A series of trips to São Tomé and Príncipe have been made by other CAS arachnologists, including Charles Griswold and Joel Ledford in 2001, Tamas Szűts in 2013, and Lauren Esposito in 2016, and will likely yield undescribed species. Arachnids of the Gulf of Guinea Islands Here we have compiled a list of spider, scorpion, whip spider, harvestmen, hooded tickspider, pseudoscorpion, and short-tailed whipscorpion species from the Gulf of Guinea islands based on the published works mentioned above, community science observations documented using iNaturalist (iNaturalist 2021), the World Spider Catalog (WSC 2021), and the Western Australian Museum catalogs for the smaller arachnid groups (Harvey 2013a, b, c, d, e, f). The majority of specimens mentioned 276 S. C. Crews and L. A. Esposito or described in publications are singletons—single individuals from unique localities. However, there are many caveats. For example, in Simon’s papers, specimens are listed as being from speciﬁc localities (i.e., a particular island), whereas in the WSC, the available information is provided at the country level without further speciﬁcity, with Bioko often included only as Guinea. Two of the species described from Fea’s material were not associated with any locality data beyond the region as a whole; consequently, due to the large geographic scope of his surveys, they could have originated from any of the islands and/or the mainland. Given the paucity of data from the region, we chose to err on the side of inclusion for compiling a list of arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In particular, we include taxa reported from the land-bridge island in the archipelago, Bioko, because species reported from this island may also occur on the oceanic islands. We have also analyzed publication information to assess the quantity of research conducted on arachnid fauna of the area as a way of beginning a conversation on the remaining work required before major evolutionary questions (i.e., biogeography) can be addressed within these diverse lineages. Order Amblypygi The amblypygids or whip spiders are a modestly diverse group of predatory arachnids with approximately 150 extant species found in tropical and sub-tropical regions around the world (Harvey 2013f). All amblypygids lack silk glands and are not venomous. Their ﬁrst pair of legs are highly modiﬁed sensory organs that give the appearance of antennae or whips, and their chelicerae are modiﬁed into raptorial claw-like structures (Fig. 11.1). Amblypygids are often found in leaf litter and caves, and all species are nocturnal. Four species in two genera (Charinus, Damon) are known from the Gulf of Guinea islands, three of which (all Damon) are conﬁrmed to also occur in continental Africa (Appendix) (Harms 2018). Order Araneae The Araneae or spiders are the most diverse arachnid group, with nearly 50,000 described species (WSC 2021). Spiders have chelicerae with fangs, and most species use these to inject venom into their prey, which range from insects to other spiders and small vertebrates (Fig. 11.1). Although the venom of some species can be dangerous to humans, most species do not pose a risk. Spiders also have spinnerets that extrude silk, which is used to build webs for prey capture, make retreats and egg sacs, for mating purposes, as well as dispersal via ballooning. A total of 213 spider species have been recorded from the Gulf of Guinea islands, encompassing 48 families and 136 genera (Appendix). The most speciose spider families from the islands are Araneidae (40 species), Salticidae (33), Tetragnathidae 11 A Checklist of the Arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (Excluding. . . 277 Fig. 11.1 Representative Arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea islands: (1) Hysterocrates sp. (spider); (2) Gasteracantha thomasinsulae (spider); (3) Assamiidae (harvestman); (4) Damon medius (whip spider); (5) Nilus sp. (spider) predating on frog; (6) pseudoscorpion; (7) Pandinus imperator (scorpion); (8) Ricinoides sp. (hooded tickspider). Photo credits: (1) Guy Tansley, (2) Brian Simison, (3, 6) Gonzalo Giribet, (4) John Sullivan, (5) Andrew Stanbridge, (7) Nik Borrow, (8) Beat Akeret 278 S. C. Crews and L. A. Esposito (15), and Lycosidae (12). All other families have fewer than ten recorded species, which likely reﬂects poor collecting of several groups, including good dispersers or those with cryptic ecologies. Singleton families (families from which only a single species is known) make up 35% of the familial diversity on the islands. Several dozen species were described based on material collected from the oceanic islands in the archipelago and are not known to occur in continental Africa, suggesting they may be island endemics. Order Opiliones The Opiliones are commonly referred to as harvestmen and contain over 6500 described species distributed worldwide. Although they appear superﬁcially similar to spiders (Araneae), they are not closely related and do not possess venom glands (Fig. 11.1). They also do not have silk glands and thus do not build webs. Collectively, 34 species in 7 families are known from the Gulf of Guinea islands, 10 of which are conﬁrmed to also occur in continental Africa (Appendix). Order Pseudoscorpionida Pseudoscorpionida, commonly known as pseudoscorpions, are small arachnids, typically around 3 mm in length, with pincer-like pedipalps similar to those of scorpions (Fig. 11.1); however, unlike scorpions, some pseudoscorpions deliver venom with their pedipalps rather than a stinger on a tail, which they lack. This group includes over 3300 described species that occur in many kinds of environments, but they are often overlooked due to their size (Harvey 2013b). Pseudoscorpions spin silk from a specialized gland in their jaws to produce a cocoon. Thirteen species in four families are known from the Gulf of Guinea islands, eight of which are conﬁrmed to also occur in continental Africa (Appendix). Order Ricinulei The Ricinulei are commonly known as hooded tickspiders but are not true spiders (Fig. 11.1). This group is not very diverse, with ~75 extant species described from tropical Africa and the Neotropics (Harvey 2013c). One species, Ricinoides crassipalpe, is documented from Bioko Island, and it is also found in continental Africa (Appendix). It is unclear whether any representatives of this enigmatic order occur on the oceanic islands in the Gulf of Guinea. 11 A Checklist of the Arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (Excluding. . . 279 Order Scorpiones The Scorpiones, commonly known as scorpions, are easily recognized by their grasping pincers and curved, segmented tail with a stinger (Fig. 11.1). This group includes over 2500 described species that can be found in a variety of habitats around the globe (Fet et al. 2000). Because their exoskeletons contain ﬂuorescent compounds, scorpions glow under ultraviolet light, facilitating detection at night. Although all scorpions produce venom, most species do not pose a risk to humans. Three species in two families are known from the Gulf of Guinea islands (Appendix), all of which are also found in continental Africa. The only species known from an oceanic island in the archipelago is Isometrus maculatus, which is introduced on São Tomé (see below). Order Schizomida The Schizomida, commonly known as short-tailed whipscorpions, superﬁcially resemble true scorpions but have a short tail that lacks a stinger, and their ﬁrst pair of legs is antenniform. This group includes over 230 described species that can be found in tropical and sub-tropical habitats worldwide, with a few species occupying temperate habitats (Harvey 2013d). Only one species is known from the Gulf of Guinea islands, Schizomus parvus, which is documented from both São Tomé and Bioko islands (Appendix). Diversity, Endemism, and Introduced Species Based on the current literature, araneids are the most species-rich arachnid group in the Gulf of Guinea. Araneidae are the most diverse spider lineage on many tropical islands (e.g., Caribbean: Crews et al. 2015; Crews and Yang 2016), though some studies of tropical island spider diversity have found higher numbers of salticid species (Caribbean: Crews et al. 2019; Southeast Asia: Ponce et al. 2021). Salticids and some araneids (e.g., Gasteracantha, nephilines) are diurnal, the latter often with large aerial webs that would be more obvious to a non-spider specialist, whereas many of the other families have species that are nocturnal or that do not build aerial webs. Thus, for the Gulf of Guinea, it is difﬁcult to know whether the large number of salticid and araneid species reported is due to a collecting artifact (i.e., non-targeted collecting) or if it is representative of the true diversity. For instance, sub-tropical island surveys employing standardized collecting have reported the highest species diversity of small and cryptic linyphiid spiders, underscoring the limitations of extrapolating from opportunistic sampling efforts (Macaronesia: Malumbres-Olarte et al. 2016, 2020). Likewise, although crab spiders (Thomisidae) 280 S. C. Crews and L. A. Esposito and lynx spiders (Oxyopidae) are diurnal, they are generally cryptic or ground-living and easily overlooked. Targeted collecting methods to comprehensively survey arachnid diversity include vegetation beating, leaf litter sifting combined with malaise or Winkler traps, visual night searching for nocturnal arachnids using white and ultraviolet light, turning rocks and logs, and pitfall traps. Of particular note in the Gulf of Guinea archipelago is the high diversity of tetragnathid species, likely owing to their relatively good dispersal ability and the extremely high humidity and abundance of freshwater on the islands, and mygalomorph families (Barychelidae, Cyrtaucheniidae, Ischnothelidae, Migidae, Theraphosidae). A preliminary report on a targeted spider collection on Bioko identiﬁed 81 theridiid morphospecies, 45 salticid morphospecies, 39 araneid morphospecies, and 32 linyphiid morphospecies. This far exceeds the 8, 14, 25, and 5 species, respectively, that have been formally documented from the island (Griswold et al. 1999). The total number of spider species on each island is somewhat unclear because the literature and WSC often provide the country or general region rather than a speciﬁc island. What we do know is that São Tomé and Príncipe together have 130 recorded species, and that 33 (33%) of the 101 species that have speciﬁc locality data are from Príncipe and 51 (50%) from São Tomé. Ten species are known from Annobón and 91 from Bioko. Of the 211 species documented from the archipelago, 113 also occur on the mainland. The remaining ~100 species may be endemic to one or more of the islands, but more comprehensive sampling of continental diversity is needed to conﬁrm their endemic status. Based on the available records, however, Príncipe has 20 endemic species in 13 families (17 genera), and 61% of the families and 82% of the genera are represented from singletons. São Tomé has 23 endemic species (only slightly more than Príncipe based on the depauperate data) in 9 families and 13 genera, and 69% of the families and 82% of the genera are singletons. Bioko has 27 endemic species in 16 families and 27 genera, with 69% of families and 93% of genera represented by singletons. Annobón has two endemic species recorded: Thoriosa taurina (Simon 1909) (Ctenidae) and Hogna furva cingulipes (Simon 1909) (Lycosidae). We can also examine the arachnid fauna of each island for instances of multiple closely related endemic species, which may point to within-island species radiations and provide further evidence that the taxa are indeed island and/or archipelago endemics. The only (non-introduced) genera shared between São Tomé, Príncipe, and Bioko are Castianeira (Corinnidae) (São Tomé and Bioko), Mallinella (Zodariidae) (Príncipe and Bioko), and Tetragnatha and Leucauge (Tetragnathidae) (São Tomé, Príncipe and Bioko). Genera with multiple species on a single island occur in the salticids Maltecora (2 in Príncipe, 1 on São Tomé) and Belippo (3 on São Tomé), and the theraphosid Hysterocrates (3 on São Tomé, 1 on Bioko). A number of (likely) introduced species are also documented in the literature, many of them cosmopolitan or cosmotropical, and almost all are associated with human construction or agriculture (indicated in Appendix). Most of the introduced species 11 A Checklist of the Arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (Excluding. . . 281 were collected from multiple localities, and some mentions date back to at least the 1800s, indicating that the introductions are not recent. What We Know of the Arachnid Fauna, and Likely Do Not To gauge the level of scientiﬁc activity on the Gulf of Guinea arachnid taxa through time, we used publication data and taxonomic changes as a proxy (i.e., the number of years from original description that a species has been idle). Because spiders are the most speciose arachnid group present on the islands, our conclusions are drawn from spider-speciﬁc taxonomic data. The average number of years since a species had been studied was 83.4, with the most recent being within the past year (Araneus apricus (Karsch 1884), Peplometus biscutellatus (Simon 1887)) (DippenaarSchoeman et al. 2020; Wesołowska et al. 2020). The two species with the longest period of inactivity (137 years) were both described by Karsch (1884): Singa concinna (Araneidae), described from an immature specimen but still considered valid, and Philodromus morsus (Philodromidae). At least 55 (of 210) species are only known from the original description (26.2%), with 22 (10.5%) having been mentioned in publications from the past 10 years, 70 (33.3%) in the past 50 years, and 88 (41.9%) in more than 50 years. The majority of species (58%) are known from both sexes, which is surprisingly high and could be explained by some of the most proliﬁc collectors having spent long periods of time on the islands. The remaining species (41.3%) are known only from female (31.9%), immature (1.4%), or male specimens (8.1%). These differences are likely because males are often only active for part of the year. Although our knowledge is incomplete, there are some interesting emerging patterns for arachnid diversity on the Gulf of Guinea islands. For one, three orders of arachnids appear to be entirely missing from the fauna, though all are present on the mainland: Thelyphonida (whip scorpions), Palpigradi (micro whip scorpions), and Solifugae (wind scorpions). Two additional orders are apparently absent from the oceanic islands: Ricinulei (hooded tickspiders) and Scorpiones (aside from an introduced species). The absence of some of these groups is unexpected for islands of this size and age (scorpions, whip scorpions), while the absence of others may be attributable to a gap in collecting effort (e.g., microwhip scorpions). A thorough understanding of arachnids on the Gulf of Guinea islands is still severely lacking. The majority of species descriptions were made in the ﬁrst half of the twentieth century, there have been very few collections made by arachnologists, and none made using standardized methods of collection that would allow for a better assessment of the proportion of described versus undescribed fauna (Cardoso et al. 2009). Additionally, nearly all of the arachnid research to date has focused on alpha taxonomy and has not included the use of any modern tools or technologies to expedite the rate of discovery and description (i.e., molecular methods). Taxonomic training programs for local naturalists or students and partnerships with global experts would likely go a long way in closing this knowledge gap. 282 S. C. Crews and L. A. Esposito Appendix Checklist of the arachnids of the Gulf of Guinea: including the three oceanic islands, the land-bridge island (Bioko), and the adjacent mainland SPECIES ORDER AMBLYPYGI Family Charinidae Charinus africanus Hansen 1921 Family Phrynichidae Damon johnstonii (Pocock 1894) Damon medius (Herbst 1797) Damon tibialis (Simon 1876) ORDER ARANEAE Family Agelenidae* Agelenidae sp. Family Anapidae* Anapidae sp. Family Araneidae Aetrocantha falkensteini Karsch 1879 Agalenatea redii (Scopoli 1763) Araneus aethiopissa Simon 1907 Araneus apricus (Karsch 1884) Araneus catospilotus Simon 1907 Araneus cereolus (Simon 1886) Araneus principis Simon 1907 Aranoethra cambridgei (Butler 1873) Argiope ﬂavipalpis (Lucas 1858) Argiope lobata (Pallas 1772) Argiope trifasciata (Forsskål 1775) Caerostris sexcuspidata (Fabricius 1793) Cyclosa circumlucens Simon 1907 Cyclosa formosa Karsch 1879 Cyrtarachne bigibbosa Simon 1907 Cyrtarachne nodosa Thorell 1899 Cyrtophora citricola (Forsskål 1775) Gasteracantha curvispina (Guérin 1837) Gasteracantha sanguinolenta C.L. Koch 1844 Gasteracantha thomasinsulae Archer 1951 Megaraneus gabonensis (Lucas 1858) Metepeira labyrinthea (Hentz 1847) Neoscona chiarinii (Pavesi 1883) Neoscona moreli (Vinson 1863) Neoscona novella (Simon 1907) SEX A ST P X STP B MA X X X X X X X * * MF MF MF F F MF F MF MF MF MF MF F F F F X I X X X X E X X X X X I X X X X X I MF MF F MF MF MF MF F X I X I X X X I X ? ? X X ? X X I X X X X X X X I X X X X X X X X X X E X X I X X (continued) 11 A Checklist of the Arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (Excluding. . . SPECIES Neoscona penicillipes (Karsch 1879) Neoscona ruﬁpalpis (Lucas 1858) Neoscona simoni Grasshoff 1986 Neoscona subfusca C.L. Koch 1837 Nephila constricta Karsch 1879 Nephilingis cruentata (Fabricius 1775) Pararaneus perforatus (Thorell 1899) Poltys caelatus Simon 1907 Poltys fornicatus Simon 1907 Pseudartonis semicoccinea Simon 1907 Singa concinna Karsch 1884 Singafrotypa acanthopus (Simon 1907) Trichonephila clavipes (Linnaeus 1767) Trichonephila fenestrata venusta (Blackwall 1865) Trichonephila turneri (Blackwall 1833) Family Barychelidae Cyphonisia manicata Simon 1907 Cyphonisia nesiotes Simon 1907 Cyphonisia obesa Simon 1889 Family Cheiracanthiidae Cheiracanthium furculatum Karsch 1879 Cheiracanthium joculare Simon 1909 Family Clubionidae Clubionidae sp. Clubiona haplotarsa Simon 1909 Family Corinnidae Castianeira formosula Simon 1909 Castianeira thomensis Simon 1909 Creugas gulosus Thorell 1878 Procopius ensifer Simon 1909 Procopius gentilis Simon 1909 Procopius granulosus Simon 1903 Procopius laticeps Simon 1909 Pseudocorinna septemaculeata Simon 1909 Pseudocorinna ubicki Jocqué and Bosselaers 2011 Family Ctenidae Africactenus fernandensis (Simon 1909) Anahita mamma Karsch 1884 Ctenus potteri Simon 1901 Ctenus capulinus (Karsch 1879) Thoriosa fulvastra Simon 1909 Thoriosa spadicea (Simon 1909) Thoriosa spinivulva (Simon 1909) SEX MF MF F MF MF MF MF F F F Imm. MF MF MF MF A ST P X STP X X I I X X X X E E X X X X X E 283 B X X I X X ? X X I X X Imm. MF MF X X MA X X X I X X X X X I X X X E MF F E X X X X X * M M MF MF F MF F F F MF F MF F MF F F MF E X E I X I E X X X E X E X X X X X X X X X X E X E X X X X X (continued) 284 SPECIES Thoriosa taurina (Simon 1909) Family Cyatholipidae Buibui kankamelos Griswold 2001 Wanzia fako Griswold 1998 Family Cyrtaucheniidae Acontius humiliceps (Simon 1907) Family Deinopidae Deinopis anchietae Brito Capello 1867 Family Dictynidae Dictynidae sp. Anaxibia difﬁcilis (Kraus 1960) Family Dipluridae* Dipluridae sp. Family Gnaphosidae Gnaphosidae sp. Aphantaulax ensifera Simon 1907 Echemus lacertosus Simon 1907 Poecilochroa haplostyla Simon 1907 Family Hahniidae Hahnia eidmanni (Roewer 1942) Family Hersiliidae Hersilia occidentalis Simon 1907 Family Ischnothelidae Lathrothele catamita (Simon 1907) Family Linyphiidae Afroneta sp. Araeoncus femineus (Roewer 1942) Hypomma clypeatum Roewer 1942 Linyphia karschi Roewer 1942 Mecynidis sp. Microlinyphia sp. Family Liocranidae* Hortipes sp. Family Lycosidae Arctosa bacchabunda (Karsch 1884) Alopecosa sublimbata Roewer 1960 Edenticosa edentula (Simon 1909) Geolycosa minor (Simon 1909) Hogna ferox (Lucas 1838) Hogna furva (Thorell 1899) Hogna furva cingulipes (Simon 1909) Hogna karschi (Roewer 1951) Hogna principum (Simon 1909) S. C. Crews and L. A. Esposito SEX MF A E ST P STP B MA MF MF X X X X F E MF X M E X X * * * MF F MF E E E X X X F E MF X F X ? X E * E E F F MF E * * * F MF F F MF MF F F MF E E E E I X I X E E X X (continued) 11 A Checklist of the Arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (Excluding. . . SPECIES Hogna thetis (Simon 1909) Loculla rauca Simon 1909 Loculla rauca minor Simon 1909 Family Migidae Moggridgea anactenidia Griswold 1987 Moggridgea occidua Simon 1907 Family Mimetidae Mimetidae sp. Anansi insidiator (Thorell 1899) Kratochvilia pulvinata (Simon 1907) Family Miturgidae* Miturgidae sp. Family Mysmenidae* Mysmenidae sp. Family Nesticidae Nesticidae sp. Nesticus inconcinnus Simon 1907 Family Ochyroceratidae* Ochyroceratidae sp. Family Oonopidae Triaeris equestris Simon 1907 Xestaspis parmata Thorell 1890 Xestaspis sertata Simon 1907 Family Oxyopidae Oxyopes brachiatus Simon 1909 Oxyopes campestratus Simon 1909 Oxyopes obscurifrons Simon 1909 Family Palpimanidae Palpimanus hesperius Simon 1907 Sarascelis luteipes Simon 1887 Scelidocteus baccatus Simon 1907 Scelidocteus pachypus Simon 1907 Family Philodromidae Philodromus morsus Karsch 1884 Philodromus albofrenatus Simon 1907 Family Pholcidae Artema atlanta Walckenaer 1837 Leptopholcus obo Huber 2011 Leptopholcus tipula (Simon 1907) Pholcus batepa Huber 2011 Pholcus circularis Kraus 1960 Pholcus moca Huber 2011 Smeringopina fon Huber 2013 SEX F F F A ST P E STP X X X E X E X X E E F 285 B MA * X * MF F E X * * * F E X F F MF MF MF MF F F MF F MF * E I X I E X E X X E X E X X X X F F X MF MF MF MF MF MF MF I E X X X X ? X ? X X E X X X X X E E X (continued) 286 SPECIES Smeringopus principe Huber 2012 Smeringopus thomensis Simon 1907 Family Pisauridae Dolomedes fernandensis Simon 1909 Nilus curtus O. Pickard-Cambridge 1876 Tetragonophthalma vulpina (Simon 1898) Family Salticidae Baryphas eupogon Simon 1902 Belippo anguina Simon 1909 Belippo calcarata (Roewer 1942) Belippo nexilis (Simon 1909) Belippo viettei (Kraus 1960) Bokokius penicillatus Roewer 1942 Cosmophasis tricincta Simon 1909 Heliophanus congolensis Giltay 1935 Holcolaetis vellerea Simon 1909 Hyllus holochalceus Simon 1909 Hyllus leucomelas (Lucas 1858) Maltecora chrysochlora Simon 1909 Maltecora divina Simon 1909 Maltecora janthina Simon 1909 Menemerus bivittatus (Dufour 1831) Myrmarachne confusa Wanless 1978 Myrmarachne eidmanni Roewer 1942 Myrmarachne hesperia (Simon 1887) Myrmarachne nigeriensis Wanless 1978 Natta horizontalis Karsch 1879 Nigorella albimana (Simon 1902) Pachyballus ﬂavipes Simon 1909 Peplometus biscutellatus (Simon 1887) Plexippus paykulli (Audouin 1826) Pochyta insulana Simon 1909 Portia africana (Simon 1886) Thiratoscirtus capito Simon 1903 Thyene hesperia (Simon 1909) Thyene ocellata (Thorell 1899) Thyene sexplagiata (Simon 1909) Thyenillus fernandensis Simon 1909 Tomomingi silvae Szűts & Scharff 2009 Viciria scintillans Simon 1909 Family Scytodidae Scytodes longipes Lucas 1844 Scytodes punctipes Simon 1907 S. C. Crews and L. A. Esposito SEX MF MF A MF MF P STP E X X X X X E E X X E E X E E F MF MF M F MF MF M M MF MF MF M MF M M MF MF M M MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF F MF M MF ST B E ? X MA X X X E E X X X X E E E X X X X X X X I X X X X X X X E X X X X X E X I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X E E X X X X E X X E X I X I (continued) 11 A Checklist of the Arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (Excluding. . . SPECIES Scytodes velutina Heineken & Lowe 1832 Family Segestriidae Ariadna laeta Thorell 1899 Ariadna rapinatrix Thorell 1899 Family Selenopidae Selenops intricatus Simon 1910 Selenops radiatus Latreille 1819 Family Sparassidae Barylestis insularis Simon 1909 Heteropoda venatoria (Linnaeus 1767) Thelcticopis scaura (Simon 1909) Thelcticopis truculenta Karsch 1884 Family Symphytognathidae* Symphytognathidae sp. Family Telemidae* Telemidae sp. Family Tetragnathidae Dolichognatha petiti (Simon 1884) Leucauge argenteanigra (Karsch 1884) Leucauge cabindae (Brito Capello 1866) Leucauge isabela Roewer 1942 Leucauge nigrocincta Simon 1903 Leucauge opiparis Simon 1907 Leucauge thomeensis Kraus 1960 Leucauge undulata (Vinson 1863) Leucauge ungulata (Karsch 1879) Mecynometa argyrosticta Simon 1907 Tetragnatha clavigera Simon 1887 Tetragnatha ﬁlum Simon 1907 Tetragnatha hastula Simon 1907 Tetragnatha macrops Simon 1907 Tylorida seriata Thorell 1899 Family Theraphosidae Hysterocrates apostolicus Pocock 1900 Hysterocrates didymus Pocock 1900 Hysterocrates ederi Charpentier 1995 Hysterocrates greefﬁ (Karsch 1884) Hysterocrates scepticus Pocock 1900 Phoneyusa manicata Simon 1907 Phoneyusa principium Simon 1907 Family Theridiidae Achaearanea sp. Argyrodes argyrodes (Walckenaer 1841) SEX MF A ST X F F MF MF 287 P STP X B X MA X X X E ? ? X X I F MF F MF E I X X X I E E * F MF F F M MF MF M MF MF F MF MF MF F F MF F MF MF F MF F MF * X X E X X E E X X X X X X X X X X X E E X X X E X X X E X X X X X X X X X X X X X E E E E X X X X X * X X (continued) 288 SPECIES Argyrodes zonatus (Walckenaer 1841) Latrodectus hesperus Chamberlin & Ivie 1935 Nesticodes ruﬁpes (Lucas 1836) Rhomphaea nasica (Simon 1873) Steatoda carbonaria (Simon 1907) Steatoda rubrocalceolata (Simon 1907) Theridion derhami Simon 1895 Theridion eugeni Roewer 1942 Theridion fernandense Simon 1907 Tidarren scenicum (Thorell 1899) Family Theridiosomatidae Theridiosomatidae sp. Wendilgarda atricolor (Simon 1907) Family Thomisidae Ansiea tuckeri thomensis (Bacelar 1958) Borboropactus noditarsis (Simon 1903) Diaea puncta Karsch 1884 Holopelus albibarbis Simon 1895 Runcinia tropica Simon 1907 Stiphropus dentifrons Simon 1895 Synema jaspideum Simon 1907 Thomisops sulcatus Simon 1895 Thomisus tripunctatus Lucas 1858 Tmarus cancellatus Thorell 1899 Family Trachelidae Orthobula sp. Simon, 1897 Family Udubidae Raecius asper (Thorell 1899) Family Uloboridae Uloboridae sp. Zosis geniculata (Olivier 1789) Family Zodariidae Mallinella leonardi (Simon 1907) Mallinella octosignata (Simon 1903) Mallinella submonticola (Van Hove & Bosmans 1984) Systenoplacis septemguttatus Simon 1907 ORDER OPILIONES Family Assamiidae Bueana quadridentata Prieto 1999 nomen nudem? Cerea feai Roewer 1927 Chilon horridus (Roewer 1912) Chilon robustus Sørensen 1896 Eupodauchenius luteocruciatus (Loman 1910) S. C. Crews and L. A. Esposito SEX MF F MF MF MF F F MF F F A ST X P I I X X STP X I I I X B X X E X E E X MA X I I X X X * F M Imm. MF MF MF F M MF MF M MF E X E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X E MF * MF MF F MF MF I I E I X E X X X E X X X X X X X X (continued) 11 A Checklist of the Arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (Excluding. . . SPECIES Euselenca feai Roewer 1927 Henriquea spinigera Roewer 1927 Izea pectinata Roewer 1927 Musola longipes Roewer 1927 Palmanella tigrina Roewer 1927 Selencasta minuscula (Roewer 1927) Selencula ﬁlipes (Roewer 1927) Thomecola quadrispina (Roewer 1927) Family Biantidae Biantomma nigrospinosum Roewer 1942 Lacurbs fernandopoensis Prieto 1999 nomen nudem Lacurbs nigrimana Roewer 1912 Metabiantes insulanus (Roewer 1949) Metabiantes pumilio Roewer 1927 Family Ogoveidae Ogovea nasuta Hansen 1921 Family Neogoveidae Paragovia sironoides Hansen 1921 Family Phalangiidae Dacnopilio insularis Hansen 1921 Megistobunus longipes Hansen 1921 Family Pyramidopidae Conomma annobonum Roewer 1949 Conomma feae Roewer 1927 Conomma fortis Loman 1902 Conomma minima Roewer 1912 Conomma oedipus Roewer 1949 Conomma principeum Roewer 1949 Conomma sorianoi Prieto 1999 nomen nudem Opconomma hirsuta Roewer 1927 Pyramidops albimana Roewer 1927 Pyramidops biseriata Roewer 1949 Pyramidops raptator (Sørensen 1896) Family Samoidae Microconomma armatipes Roewer 1915 ORDER PSEUDOSCORPIONIDA Family Atemnidae Cyclatemnus equestroides (Ellingsen 1906) Micratemnus pusillus (Ellingsen 1906) Parachernes cocophilus (Simon 1901) Paratemnoides pallidus (Balzan 1892) Tamenus camerunensis (Tullgren 1901) Tamenus insularis Beier 1932 SEX A ST P STP 289 B X MA X E E E E E E E E E X X E E X E E E E E E X X X X X E X X E E E X X X X E E X X X X X X X ? X X E X X (continued) 290 SPECIES Titanatemnus sjoestedti (Tullgren 1901) Titanatemnus thomeensis (Ellingsen 1906) Family Olpiidae Minniza vermis Simon 1881 Family Tridenchthoniidae Ditha (Paraditha) sinuata (Tullgren 1901) Tridenchthonius addititius Hoff 1950 Family Withiidae Stenowithius angulatus (Ellingsen 1906) Withius simoni (Balzan 1892) ORDER RICINULEI Family Ricinoididae Ricinoides crassipalpe (Hansen and Sørensen 1904) ORDER SCORPIONES Family Buthidae Isometrus maculatus (De Geer 1778) Family Scorpionidae Opisthacanthus lecomtei (Lucas 1858) Pandinus dictator (Pocock 1888) ORDER SCHIZOMIDA Family Hubbardiidae Schizomus parvus (Hansen 1921) S. C. Crews and L. A. Esposito SEX A ST P STP B X MA X E ? X X X X E X I X X X X X I I X X X X X X A: Annobón - ST: São Tomé - P: Príncipe - STP: locality given as “São Tomé and Príncipe” - B: Bioko - MA: Mainland Africa. X: present; I: introduced; E: endemic: ? the literature is unclear; *: a morphospecies has been reported (Griswold et al. 1999). The sex of the collected or photographed specimens is given (F: female; M: male) References Bacelar A (1956) Alguns aracnídeos das ilhas de São Tomé e do Príncipe – I: Notas sobre Hysterocrates da ilha de São Tomé. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 6ª Sessão, S. Tomé, Comunicações 4:37–46 Cardoso P, Crespo LC, Carvalho R, Ruﬁno AC, Henriques SS (2009) Ad-hoc vs. standardized and optimized arthropod diversity sampling. Diversity 1:36–51 Crews S, Yang A (2016) Notes on the spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) of the Turks and Caicos Islands, British West Indies. Caribbean Journal of Science 49:83–90 Crews SC, Esposito LA, Cala-Riquelme F (2015) The arachnids of Hellshire Hill, Jamaica. Caribbean Naturalist 28:1–14 Crews S, Debrot A, Hoorn G, Galvis W, Esposito L (2019) The arachnids (Arachnida) of Aruba, Bonaire, and Curaçao. Caribbean Journal of Science 49:125–140 Dippenaar-Schoeman AS, Foord SH, Haddad CR (2020) Notes on the orb-web spider Araneus apricus (Karsch, 1884) in South Africa (Araneae: Araneidae). Sansa News 36 (Supplement):12–14 11 A Checklist of the Arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (Excluding. . . 291 Fet V, Sissom WD, Lowe G, Braunwalder ME (2000) Catalog of the scorpions of the world 1758–1998. The New York Entomological Society, New York, p 690 Griswold CE, Ubick D, Kavanaugh D (1999) Arthropod surveys on Bioko, Equatorial Guinea. In: O’Keefe K, Stauffer D, Vindum JV et al (eds) Biotic surveys of Bioko and Rio muni, Equatorial Guinea. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC, pp 63–114 Hansen HJ (1921) The Pedipalpi, Ricinulei, and Opiliones (exc. op. Laniatores) collected by Mr. Leonardo Fea in tropical West Africa and adjacent islands. In: Hansen HJ (ed) Studies on Arthropoda 1. Glydendalske Boghandel, Copenhagen, pp 5–55. + 4 pl Harms D (2018) A new species of Charinus (Amblypygi: Charinidae) from Ghana, with notes on west African whip spiders. Evolutionary Systematics 2:45–53 Harvey MS (2013a) Palpigrades of the world, version 1.0. Available via Western Australian Museum, Perth. http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/catalogues/palpigrades. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Harvey MS (2013b) Pseudoscorpions of the world, version 3.0. Available via Western Australian Museum, Perth. http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/catalogues/pseudoscorpions. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Harvey MS (2013c) Ricinuleids of the world, version 1.0. Available via Western Australian Museum, Perth. http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/catalogues/ricinuleids. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Harvey MS (2013d) Schizomids of the world, version 1.0. Available via Western Australian Museum, Perth. http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/catalogues/schizomids. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Harvey MS (2013e) Solifuges of the world, version 1.0. Available via Western Australian Museum, Perth. http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/catalogues/solifuges. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Harvey MS (2013f) Whip spiders of the world, version 1.0. Available via Western Australian Museum, Perth. http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/catalogues/whip-spiders. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Huff JC, Prendini L (2009) On the African whip-scorpion, Etienneus africanus (Hentschel, 1899) (Telyphonida: Telyphonidae), with a redescription based on new material from Guinea-Bissau and Senegal. American Museum Novitates 3658:1–16 iNaturalist (2021) iNaturalist. Available via iNaturalist. www.inaturalist.org. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Karsch F (1884) Arachnoidea. In: Greeff R (ed) Die Fauna der Guinea-Inseln S.-Thomé und Rolas. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft zur Beförderung der Gesamten Naturwissenschaften zu Marburg 2:60–68, 79 Kraus O (1960) Mission du Muséum dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée. Araneae von der Insel São Thomé, West-Afrika (Arach.). Revue Française d’Entomologie 27:92–100 Malumbres-Olarte J, Scharff N, Pape T, Coddington JA, Cardoso P (2016) Gauging megadiversity with optimized and standardized sampling protocols: a case for tropical forest spiders. Ecology and Evolution 7:494–506 Malumbres-Olarte J, Boieiro M, Cardoso P et al (2020) Standardised inventories of spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) of Macaronesia II: the native forests and dry habitats of Madeira archipelago (Madeira and Porto Santo islands). Biodiversity Data Journal 8:e47502 Murienne J, Benavides LR, Prendini L, Hormiga G, Giribet G (2013) Forest refugia in Western and Central Africa as ‘museums’ of Mesozoic biodiversity. Biology Letters 9:20120932 Pocock RI (1900) Some new African theraphosoid spiders in the British museum. Annals of the Magazine of Natural History 6:489–494 Ponce P, Loria S, Ubick D, Esposito LA (2021) Checklist of spiders, scorpions and Amblypigi (Arachnida) of Penang Hill. In: Ruppert N, Lowman M, Nor SAM (eds) The biodiversity of Penang Hill. Findings of the Penang Hill bioblitz 2017. The Habitat Foundation, Pulau Pinang, pp 121–128 Prieto CE (1999) ‘Nuevos’ Opiliones (Arachnida) de la isla de Bioko, Guinea Ecuatorial. Boletín de la Asociación Española de Entomologia 23:71–72 Roewer CF (1927) Cyphophthalmi, Phalangodidae, Assamidae. Weitere Weberknechte I. Abhandlungen herausgegeben vom Naturwissenschaftlichen Verein zu Bremen 26:261– 402. + 1 pl 292 S. C. Crews and L. A. Esposito Roewer CF (1942) Opiliones, Pedipalpi und Araneae von Fernando Poo. 21. Beitrag zu den wissenschaftlichen Ergebnissen der Westafrika Expedition Eidmann 1939/40. Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Kolonial- und Übersee-Museum Bremen 3:244–258. + pl 19 Roewer CF (1949) Über Phalangodiden I. (Subfam. Phalangodinae, Tricommatinae, Samoinae.) Weitere Weberknechte XIII. Senckenbergiana 30:11–61. +14 pl Simon E (1907) Arachnides recueillis par L. Fea sur la côte occidentale d’Afrique. 1re partie. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 3:218–323 Simon E (1909–1910) Arachnides recueillis par L. Fea sur la côte occidentale d’Afrique. 2e partie. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 44:335–449 Vieira AXL (1893) Aranhas de S. Tomé examinadas e determinadas pelo Prof. Bertkau O Instituto, Coimbra 41(5):403–404 Wesołowska W, Azarkina GN, Wiśniewski K (2020) A revision of Pachyballus Simon, 1900 and Peplometus Simon, 1900 (Araneae, Salticidae, Ballini) with descriptions of new species. ZooKeys 944:47–98 World Spider Catalog (2021) World spider catalog. Version 22.5. Available via Natural History Museum Bern. http://wsc.nmbe.ch. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Further Reading Alderweireldt M (1996) A taxonomic revision of the genus Ocyale Audouin, 1826 in Africa (Araneae: Lycosidae). Journal of Natural History 30:1349–1365 Benoit PLG (1976) Etudes sur les Ctenidae africains (Araneae) II. Les genres Thoriosa Simon et Trogloctenus Lessert. Revue Zoologique Africaine 90:221–227 Berland L (1917) Description de quelques especes nouvelles d’aviculariides africaines (Araneae, Aviculariidae). Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris 23:466–481 Coddington J (1986) The genera of the spider family Theridiosomatidae. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 422:1–96 Haddad C, Bosselaers J (2010) A revision of the genus Medmassa Simon, 1887 (Araneae: Corinnidae) in the Afrotropical region. Zootaxa 2361:1–12 Haddad CR (2012) A revision of the Afrotropical spider genus Cambalida Simon, 1909 (Araneae, Corinnidae). ZooKeys 234:67–119 Jäeger P, Kunz D (2005) An illustrated key to genera of African huntsman spiders (Arachnida, Araneae, Sparassidae). Senckenbergiana Biologica 85:163–213 Jocqué R, Bosselaers J (2011) Revision of Pseudocorinna Simon and a new related genus (Araneae: Corinnidae): two more examples of spider templates with a large range of complexity in the genitalia. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 162:271–350 Nentwig W, Blick T, Gloor D, Jäeger P, Kropf C (2020) How to deal with destroyed type material? The case of Embrik Strand (Arachnida: Araneae). Arachnologische Mitteilungen 59:22–29 Pérez Delval J (2001) Bibliografía de fauna de Guinea Ecuatorial (1831–2000). Manuales Técnicos de Museología 12. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientíﬁcas, Madrid, p 112 Prendini L (2004) On the scorpions of Gabon and neighboring countries, with a reassessment of the synonyms attributed to Babycurus buettneri Karsch and a redescription of Babycurus melanicus Kovařík. California Academy of Sciences Memoir 28:235–267 Santos R, Prieto CE (2010) Los Assamiidae (Opiliones: Assamiidae) de Río Muni (Guinea Ecuatorial), con la descripción de ocho nuevas especies. Revista de Biología Tropical 58: 203–243 11 A Checklist of the Arachnids from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (Excluding. . . 293 Sharma P, Prieto CE, Giribet G (2011) A new family of Laniatores (Arachnida:Opiliones) from the Afrotropics. Invertebrate Systematics 25:143–154 Simon E (1902) Description d’arachnides nouveaux de la famille des Salticidae (Attidae) (suite). Annales e la Société Entomologique de Belgique 46(24–56):363–406 Stareçga W (1984) Revision der Phalangiidae (Opiliones). III. Die afrikanischen Gattungen der Phalangiinae, nebst Katalog aller afrikanischen Arten der Familie. Annales Zoologici Warszawa 38:1–79 Stareçga W (1992) An annotated check-list of Afrotropical harvestmen, excluding the Phalangiidae (Opiliones). Annals of the Natal Museum 33:271–336 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 12 The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Gabriel Nève, Patrick Bonneau, Alain Coache, Artur Serrano, and Gérard Filippi Abstract The known beetle fauna of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón amounts to 403 species and subspecies, of which 190 (47%) are endemic. The most diverse families of beetles are the Cerambycidae (61 species), the Tenebrionidae (57 species), the Carabidae (45 species), the Scarabaeidae (34 species), and the Coccinellidae (31 species). Most records come from São Tomé, with 297 species. In comparison, Príncipe, with 151 recorded species, and especially Annobón, with 16 recorded species, still require extensive faunistic investigations. The families Staphylinidae and Curculionidae probably hold numerous undescribed species and should be the focus of future research. Most of the endemic species live in forests. Therefore, the continued conservation of large forest areas on the islands is key to the long-term survival of their unique beetle fauna. As elsewhere, the beetle fauna will likely suffer from the effects of climatic change, and high-altitude species are likely to be the most severely affected. Keywords Biodiversity · Checklist · Coleoptera · Conservation · Endemism · Gulf of Guinea G. Nève (*) Aix Marseille Université, Avignon Université, CNRS, IRD, IMBE, Marseille, France e-mail: gabriel.neve@imbe.fr P. Bonneau OPIE, Ofﬁce Pour les Insectes et leur Environnement de Provence-Alpes-du-Sud, Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Marseille, Marseille, France A. Coache Impasse de l’Artémise, La Brillanne, France A. Serrano cE3c, Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal G. Filippi MICROLAND, Maison de la vie associative, Aix-en-Provence, France © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_12 295 296 G. Nève et al. Introduction The islands of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón, in the equatorial Atlantic ocean, have a volcanic origin and have never been connected to the African continent (Fitton and Dunlop 1985). Their isolation led to the evolution of numerous endemic species, but also to a fauna that is less diverse than that of continental Africa, lacking many continental species that were unable to cross the stretch of Atlantic ocean isolating the islands. Before human colonization, which started in the late ﬁfteenth century, the islands were almost entirely covered by forests (Jones et al. 1991). Entomological research in the islands started in the beginning of the nineteenth century, with the ﬁrst descriptions of endemic species by Hope (1833) and Klug (1835). The fauna was subsequently investigated by entomologists from various European countries who later published their ﬁndings in journals from their respective countries, making it difﬁcult to produce a synthesis. The main additions to the knowledge of the local beetle fauna came in waves (Fig. 12.1). Karsch (1881) mentioned 53 species, including 21 he described as new to science. The Italian explorer and zoologist Leonardo Fea (1852–1903) collected extensively on São Tomé and Príncipe in 1900–1901, and 12 beetle species from the archipelago still bear his name, such as Pseudammus feae (Fig. 12.2.3). The French entomologist Léon Fairmaire (1820–1906) published revisions of the fauna of São Tomé (1891, 1892, 1902). The Portuguese botanist Júlio Augusto Henriques (1838–1928) published an important geographical description of São Tomé (1917) that included a list of all species then known to the island, unfortunately mentioning several species based on dubious identiﬁcation or with erroneous names. Later publications were usually focused on a single family, such as Tenebrionidae (Gebien 1921, 1942) and Coccinellidae (Fürsch 1974). Castel-Branco (1963) studied the insects feeding Fig. 12.1 Number of named beetle species added per decade to the fauna of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón 12 The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón 297 Fig. 12.2 Photos of charismatic beetle fauna from the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Cerambycidae: (1–2) Macrotoma hayesii; (3) Pseudammus feae; (4) Acutandra delahayi; (5) Sternotomis ducalis; (6) Sternotomis rufozonata. Brentidae: (7) Cerobates sennae. Mordellidae: (8) Ophthalmoglipa horaki. Dynastinae: (9) Rhizoplatys cedrici (insert: genitalia). Photo credits: (1, 3–5, 7–9) Patrick Bonneau, (2) Gabriel Nève, (6) Artur Serrano 298 G. Nève et al. on Theobroma cacao, and listed a series of predators, including several labybirds (Coccinellidae). Several expeditions to the islands were completed in the 1900s. Sousa da Camara visited São Tomé in 1920 (Seabra 1922); Fernando Frade (Missão Cientíﬁca a São Tomé) visited São Tomé in November and December 1954 (Gomes Alves 1956); Pierre Viette, from the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris) visited the three islands in June and July 1956 (Viette 1956); and Guy Schmitz from the Royal Museum of Central Africa (Tervuren, Belgium) visited São Tomé in October and November 1973 (Basilewsky 1975). A zoological mission by entomologists and ornithologists from the Faculdade de Ciências and Museu Nacional de História Natural (Lisboa) took place in São Tomé and Príncipe in June and July 1984 (Mendes et al. 1988; Rocha Pité 1993; Serrano 1995; Zuzarte and Serrano 1996a). Charles E. Griswold and Joel M. Ledford from the California Academy of Sciences visited São Tomé and Príncipe in 2001 (Kavanaugh 2005), Clive R. Turner and Tõnis Tasane from the African Natural History Research Trust (Herefordshire, England) and the Natural History Museum (London) visited São Tomé in 2016 (Darby 2020). Several other entomologists visited the islands since 1980, and published descriptions of their ﬁndings, notably Jean-Guy Canu from Príncipe between 1989 and 1991 (Allard 1990; Antoine 1992) and Norbert Delahaye between 2013 and 2016 (Delahaye and Camiade 2016). The French NGO Microland also visited São Tomé in February and October 2019, the latter expedition including a week on Príncipe, and whose results on Coleoptera are published here for the ﬁrst time. The local Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário, and later the Centro de Investigação Agronómica e Tecnológica de São Tomé e Príncipe (CIAT-STP) commissioned numerous entomological studies, mostly related to agriculture (Fürsch 1974). CIAT-STP holds a collection of insects mainly obtained between the 1950s and 1975, when the former Portuguese colony gained independence. Otherwise, specimens from São Tomé and Príncipe are now deposited in several European and American institutions, as well as in numerous private collections. The aim of this chapter is to compile a list of all Coleoptera species known from the islands of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón. For this, we relied on indexes of entomological publications, and, for Cerambycidae, on the TITAN database (Tavakilian and Chevillotte 2020). Drawing from published material and our experience on the islands, we analyze this list highlighting the distinctiveness of the beetle fauna, possible threats, and main gaps in knowledge. Coleoptera families followed recent publications (Bouchard et al. 2011; López-López and Vogler 2017), and species nomenclature followed recent revisions (Appendix). Nomenclature for Carabidae follows Lorenz (2005). 12 The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón 299 Diversity of the Beetle Fauna The fauna that we ﬁnd today in the archipelago is the result of successive colonization and extinction events throughout geological time. Colonization can be active, in which ﬂight has a dominant role, or passive, such as on ﬂoating rafts, or carried by other animals or by air currents. Extinction can be derived from natural physical mechanisms, such as catastrophic volcanism, or by ecological processes, such as predation and competition between species, and in more recent history by anthropogenic actions, such as the destruction of habitats. In the last 500 years, since the Portuguese ﬁrst arrived on these islands, we cannot neglect the accidental introduction of exotic species through human activity, namely on the ballast of boats, through the introduction of plant species of agricultural interest, or on imported goods. The beetle fauna of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón currently includes 403 species and subspecies (Appendix), which is certainly an underestimate of the richness of the local fauna. A total of 297 species are known from São Tomé, while only half of this number (151) has been listed for Príncipe, which most likely remains understudied. For example, 20 species of Curculionidae are known from São Tomé, but only 1 from Príncipe and 1 from Annobón. Only 16 Coleoptera species have been reported for the latter island, which is clearly in need of further investigations. The most diverse families of beetles on Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón are the Cerambycidae (61 species), the Tenebrionidae (57 species), the Carabidae (45 species), the Scarabaeidae (34 species), and the Coccinellidae (31 species) (Fig. 12.3). The Cerambycidae, Carabidae, and Scarabaeidae have been actively studied by numerous collectors over several decades and there are recent syntheses by Serrano (1995, 2008, 2010), and Zuzarte and Serrano (1996b), while the Tenebrionidae have been the subject of an in-depth study by Gebien (1921, 1942), and the Coccinellidae by Fürsch (1974). The high number of Coccinellidae, 31 species, 8% of the known beetles on the islands, is probably the result of two factors: (1) the family has been the subject of a systematic study on the archipelago, and (2) their ﬂight ability facilitates colonization from continental Africa, compared to other beetle families (half of the species known on the islands also occur on the African mainland). The Staphylinidae has only 11 species recorded on the islands, accounting to less than 3% of their known beetle fauna, but are likely more diverse than the current estimates. For instance, Réunion, a partly forested equatorial island in the Indian ocean, has 206 species listed, which amounts to one-ﬁfth of the local beetle fauna, about half of which are endemic (Gomy et al. 2016; Fig. 12.3). Two species of Dytiscidae are known from São Tomé, which is most certainly an underestimate since this family has not been the subject of a specialized study. Again, for comparison, this group is represented by 19 species on Réunion Island. Since Gebien (1921, 1942) listed 46 species of Tenebrionidae, only seven were added by Ardoin (1958, 1962) and Robiche (2000), plus two linked with imported goods (Luna de Carvalho 1984) and one newly found on São Tomé in 2019 (Laurent Soldati, pers. comm.). 300 G. Nève et al. Fig. 12.3 Left: Distribution of known species of beetles from São Tomé, Príncipe, and Annobón, with the proportion in each family; families with less than six species are grouped as “Others.” Right: distribution of species known on Réunion Island among the same families (Gomy et al. 2016). Note the differences in scale between the two graphs 12 The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón 301 Distinctiveness of the Beetle Fauna Out of 403 species recorded, 190 (47%) are known only from these islands and are therefore considered endemic (Table 12.1). The Cerambycidae has 40 endemic species, the highest number of all beetle families, followed by the Tenebrionidae (32) and the Carabidae (24). Lycidae (2 species) is the only family that is fully composed of endemic species on the islands. The families that have the highest numbers of endemic species, Tenebrionidae and Cerambycidae, occur mainly in forests (Barclay 2006; Rejzek 2006), which remain abundant on the islands. The endemicity of several species has been recognized in their names; 16 species bear the adjective thomensis, saotomense or one of their derivatives, 7 bear the adjective principis, principensis or principiensis, and 3 bear the adjective annobonae. The genus Saotomia was given to an endemic species of weevil (Curculionidae), and the adjective amadori was recently given to a ground beetle (Carabidae) to honor Rei Amador, a hero in São Tomé history. Knowledge Gaps The assignment of species to a particular island is sometimes problematic. For example, Karsch (1882) described Apogonia insulana based on a specimen collected by Erdmann in Príncipe. Kolbe (1899) doubted the locality and suggested it came from the coast of Guinea. This uncertainty could only be solved when the species was rediscovered on Príncipe in 2019 (Patrick Bonneau and Marc Lacroix, unpublished; Fig. 12.4.1). In addition, some species mentioned in old references were likely based on misidentiﬁcations (Table 12.2). The compilation of all Coleoptera species listed for the islands by various authors over two centuries also led to numerous synonymies, some of which remain unresolved, as no systematic revision has been done. This is the case of Grammopyga marginicollis, described as endemic for São Tomé, but which may be a synonym of G. cincticollis, mentioned for Príncipe and widely distributed in Africa. Biphilidae, Limnichidae, and Ptilodactylidae are known to occur on the islands but the material has not yet been identiﬁed at the species level (Appendix). Other poorly known families are also likely present, such as Scydmaenidae. In total, 37 families of beetles are known from Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón whereas 70 are known from Réunion Island, which is larger (2511 km2) but also far more distant from continents (Gomy et al. 2016). The known beetle fauna of Reunion Island holds 1128 species, of which 428 (38%) are endemic (Gomy et al. 2016). Thus, there seems to be a gap in the knowledge of the Gulf of Guinea beetle families that are studied by few entomologists. Focused research by specialist entomologists, training local scientists, and conducting comprehensive surveys with multiple trapping methods will be necessary to close this gap. For instance, 302 G. Nève et al. Table 12.1 Number of known named Coleoptera species in each family for the islands of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón (All: All species; END: Endemics) Family Anthribidae Biphyllidae Bostrichidae Brentidae Buprestidae Carabidae Cerambycidae Chrysomelidae Cicindelidae Ciidae Cleridae Coccinellidae Curculionidae Dryophthoridae Dytiscidae Elateridae Endomychidae Gyrinidae Histeridae Hybosoridae Hydrophilidae Laemophloeidae Limnichidae Lucanidae Lycidae Lymexylidae Mordellidae Mycteridae Nitidulidae Oedemeridae Passalidae Ptiliidae Ptilodactylidae Ptinidae Scarabaeidae Silvanidae Staphylinidae Tenebrionidae Trogossitidae Zopheridae TOTAL Príncipe All END São Tomé ALL END Annobón All END Total All END 7 0 4 10 2 19 18 19 2 0 0 6 1 0 2 2 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 0 0 24 0 2 151 7 ? 5 7 4 32 45 16 2 1 1 27 20 4 1 8 1 1 8 1 3 7 ? 4 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 ? 2 20 3 11 37 3 1 297 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 16 9 ? 8 11 5 45 61 28 3 1 1 31 21 4 2 9 1 1 9 1 6 7 ? 9 2 1 3 1 3 3 2 2 ? 2 34 3 11 57 3 3 403 6 ? 1 2 1 24 40 11 0 0 0 16 11 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 2 0 ? 5 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 ? 0 20 0 3 32 1 0 190 5 0 1 1 1 10 9 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 11 0 0 65 5 ? 0 2 0 14 27 7 0 0 0 14 10 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 ? 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 ? 0 12 0 3 21 1 0 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 9 Doubtful species and genera with unnamed species (Chrysomelidae: Longitarsus sp. and Manioba sp. and Curculionidae: Sternuchopsis sp.) are not listed. Families with unnamed species are indicated by ‘?’ Subfamily Brachininae Carabidae Harpalinae Carabidae Lebiinae Cerambycidae Cerambycinae Philematium festivum (Fabricius, 1775) Lamiinae Ceroplesis bicincta (Fabricius, 1798) Parandrinae Acutandra gabonica Parandra gabonica (Thompson, 1858) Thompson, 1857 Cicindelinae Habrodera nidula (Dejean, 1825) Coccinellinae Cheilomenes lunata (Fabricius, 1775) Dytiscinae Hydaticus capricula Anlar. Cerambycidae Cerambycidae Cicindelidae Coccinellidae Dytiscidae Lymexylidae Scarabaeidae Species Synonyms Pheropsophus angolensis (Erichson, 1843) Selenophorus atratus Klug, Progonochaetus caffer (Boheman, 1848) 1862 Pentagonica conradti Kolbe, 1898 Atractocerinae Atractocerus brasiliensis Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau & Audinet-Serville, 1825 Dynastinae Oryctes obuncus Karsch Revision reference Present revision Henriques 1917 Present revision Straneo, 1945 Straneo’s specimen could Serrano, 1995 not be assigned unambiguously to this species Henriques, 1917 Probable confusion with Present Philematium greefﬁ revision Henriques, 1917 Unconﬁrmed record Present revision Hintz, 1919; Villiers, Probable confusion with Bouyer other Acutandra species et al. (2012) 1957 Unconﬁrmed record Present Henriques, 1917 revision Henriques 1917; Seabra Probable confusion with Fürsch, 1922; Castel-Branco 1963 C. sulphurea 1974 Henriques, 1917 No other reference to this Nilsson & Hájek, 2018 name found. Nomen nudum. Seabra, 1922 Probable confusion with Present Atractocerus brevicornis revision References Henriques, 1917 Comment Probable confusion with Pheropsophus amadori Unconﬁrmed record Henriques, 1917 No other reference to this Endrődi, name found. Nomen 1985 nudum. 303 (continued) The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Family Carabidae 12 Table 12.2 List of species mentioned in old references that were most likely mistakenly reported for the islands Family Scarabaeidae Tenebrionidae Tenebrionidae Subfamily Dynastinae Species Synonyms Temnorhynchus coronatus Temnorhynchus diana diana (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805) Tenebrioninae Gonocephalum aequale Opatrum aequale (Erichson, 1843) Tenebrioninae Gonocephalum granicolle Gebien, 1920 304 Table 12.2 (continued) References Henriques, 1917 Comment Probable confusion with T. tridentatus Henriques, 1917 Dubious record Gebien, 1942 Dubious record Revision reference Present revision Iwan et al., 2010 Iwan et al., 2010 G. Nève et al. 12 The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón 305 we are currently working on the description of new species of Curculionidae from São Tomé, and a revision of this family on the islands will probably yield several new species. The Hydrophilidae, quite common in forest pools probably include more than the six currently recognized species, and a revision of these would likely reveal local endemism, as has been shown recently in the Neotropics (Smith and Short 2020). Soil Coleoptera The soil fauna includes both endogean and epigean Coleoptera. The former spend all or most of their life cycle within the soil, are not very conspicuous and in most cases are poorly or almost entirely unknown due to their small size (mainly <2 mm) and secretive way of life. Epigean beetles live on the ground, and are active mainly by night or at twilight, while during the day they rest or hide in the litter, under rocks and logs, sometimes burying themselves in the soil. The endogean beetles of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón, are completely unknown to science, hence the absence of records of Scydmaenidae and Pselaphiinae. We do not know of any research directed to their collection and study on the islands. Most epigean beetles are predators such as Cicindelidae (e.g., Myriochila melancholica), some ground Carabidae (e.g., Notiobia sanctithomae and Scarites fatuus) and Staphylinidae. Many epigean beetles are saprophagous, such as Tenebrionidae, or leaf litter dwellers (e.g., Curculionidae: Titilayo spp.). On the other hand, the dung beetle fauna of the islands includes only four Onthophagini species despite being extremely biodiverse in the continent. Other groups that have not yet been reported from the islands include carrion (Silphidae), hide (Dermestidae), and skin (Trogidae) beetles, as well as some families that have representatives that typically occur on the ground (e.g., Cucujidae, Cryptophagidae, Latridiidae, Mycetophagidae, etc.). Considering that this fauna is closely associated with substrate, vegetation cover, and abiotic factors, such as humidity and temperature, we foresee that this group contains an enormous component of undocumented diversity in these islands. Epiphytic Coleoptera The aerial parts of plants constitute an enormous spatial matrix, varying through time in their different components (stems, leaves, inﬂorescences, and fruits). A high percentage of the known beetles, both larval and adult, are phytophagous in the broad sense of the term. Since São Tomé and Príncipe maintain almost 30% of the original forest cover (Jones et al. 1991), it is not surprising that they host a rich and diverse fauna of Coleoptera associated with the vegetation, including the 306 G. Nève et al. subterranean and the aerial parts of plants. Most Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae species are phytophagous, sometimes having numerous species within a genus, probably linked to different host species, as in the case of the six species of Aspidomorpha (Curculionidae) recently recorded on Príncipe (Coache and Rainon 2020). Nitidulidae (Carpophilus spp.) and Bruchinae species are found in abundance on ﬂowers and mainly on fruits. Plant saps attract a multiplicity of species belonging to different families, such as adults of Lucanidae (e.g., Prosopocoilus downesi, Figs. 12.4.5–6), Cetoniinae (e.g., Chlorocala viridicyanea, Pachnoda spp.) and Cerambycidae (e.g., Macrotoma hayesii, Sternotomis spp.). Finally, some species are predators of other insects dwelling on vegetation, of which the Coccinellidae are the best known and richest family in São Tomé and Príncipe. Coleoptera Associated with Decaying Wood Woodborer Coleoptera larvae and adults that live within the wood (xylophages) or under bark (subcortical) can be predators, saprophagous or even phytophagous species that seek refuge there. These are surely one of the most diverse and abundant ecological Coleoptera groups in São Tomé and Príncipe, as almost all Coleoptera families present species in these biotopes. Woodborer larvae include numerous species of Anthribidae, Bostrichidae, Brentidae, Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Curculionidae, Elateridae, Lucanidae, Scarabaeidae, Tenebrionidae, among others. Adult beetles found in this habitat encompass most of the endemic Carabidae (e.g., Metagonum insulanum, Pseudobatenus straneoi, Abacetus spp., Camptogenys trisetosa), as well as Histeridae, Laemophloeidae (e.g., Cryptolestes spp., Placonotus spp.) and Staphylinidae (e.g., Afrosorius spp.). It is sometimes possible to ﬁnd numerous species of most families mentioned above side-by-side in the same tree trunk. Freshwater Coleoptera São Tomé and Príncipe exhibit a wide range of freshwater biotopes, including streams, rivulets, lagoons, pools, and phytotelmata, which are habitat to several families of beetles (e.g., Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Hygrobiidae, Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae and Hydraenidae). So far, only a few species of Gyrinidae, Dytiscidae, and Hydrophilidae have been recorded from Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón, but considering the abundance of freshwater biotopes on the islands, many more likely remain to be discovered. 12 The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón 307 Coleoptera of Agricultural Importance A few beetle species are known to be of agricultural importance, either as pests of cultivated species, or as predators of pests. Lamprocopa occidentalis (Chrysomelidae), which we documented in 2019 on both São Tomé and Príncipe, is known as a serious pest on several cultivated Cucurbitacae (Adja et al. 2014). Some species were deliberately introduced for the control of aphids and other insects that are detrimental to agriculture. Among these, the Coccinellidae Rodolia cardinalis was introduced by Castel-Branco (1963) speciﬁcally to control the aphid Toxoptera aurantii (Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841), which feeds on Theobroma cacao, and seems now to have been extirpated. Other introduced pest predators became established, such as Cryptognatha nodiceps, which feeds on the Cottony Cushion Scale Icerya puchasi Makell, 1878 (Hemiptera) (Fürsch 1974). Remarkably, the endemic ladybird species Chilocorus pilosus, Nephus derroni, and N. theobromae were also found on cultivated plants, notably Coffea arabica, Theobroma cacao and Cocos nucifera (Fürsch 1974). This must be the result of local adaptations of either the ladybird species or of their prey, since the host plants are introduced to cultivated plants. The natural habitat and feeding habits of these species are not known. Some Charismatic Species The Príncipe endemic Macrotoma hayesii (Figs. 12.2.1–2) is the largest Cerambycidae species in Africa (up to 12 cm), occurring in forests, where Pentaclethra macrophylla has been described as its host plant (Tordo 1956). Macrotoma hayesi is always rare, and the size of its imago, the adult life stage of beetles, suggests a life cycle lasting several years. Its conservation requires maintaining old growth forests with decaying trees in the Príncipe Natural Park, including Azeitona. Another Cerambycidae, Ceratocentrus oremansi, reported in 1998 (Delahaye and Camiade 2016), is much smaller (3.2 to 5.5 cm) and has been found in several forest areas on São Tomé Island. The Lucanidae fauna of São Tomé and Príncipe is well known and includes nine species and subspecies. Prosopocoilus antilopus has a distinct endemic subspecies on each oceanic island: P. antilopus insulanus on São Tomé, P. antilopus beisa on Príncipe and P. antilopus amicorum on Annobón. Eight additional subspecies have been described from Senegal to the Democratic Republic of Congo (Bartolozzi and Werner 2004). Prosopocoilus downesii is known from São Tomé, Príncipe and Bioko. Specimens of Prosopocoilus, especially males, are known to vary in size (Fig. 12.4), depending on larval growth conditions (Bartolozzi and Werner 2004), with large males sometimes having proportionally long mandibles, as in the case of “mesodonte” P. antilopus males (Gomes Alves 1956). 308 G. Nève et al. Fig. 12.4 Photos of charismatic beetle fauna from the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (cont.). Scarabaeidae: (1) Apogonia insulana; (2) Apogonia tomeensis (insert: genitalia); (3) Apogonia decellei; (4) Clastocnemis quadrimaculatus oremansi. Lucanidae: (5) Prosopocoilus downesi (left: female, right: male, mesodonte form); (6) Prosopocoilus downesi (male, prosodonte form); (7) Prosopocoilus antilopus insulanus; (8) Figulus decipiens. Photo credits: (1–5, 7–8) Patrick Bonneau, (6) Gabriel Nève 12 The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón 309 The Cetoniinae Uloptera canui (Scarabaeidae) is a typical example of a remarkable species that has a restricted distribution. It was described in 1992 based on a few specimens from two areas in Príncipe at ca. 500 m altitude: Pico Mesa and Pico Dois Irmãos. Given the peculiar ecological conditions of these locations, it is unlikely that the species occurs at lower altitudes. Of the other 12 Cetoniinae species known from São Tomé and Príncipe, 8 are endemic, either at the species or sub-speciﬁc level (Table 12.1). Their poor ability to ﬂy long distances likely explains why there are so few species on the islands. One of these, the São Tomé endemic Stenosternus costatus, is thought to be the result of an ancient colonization from the Neotropics, since it is the only African species of the tribe Orphnini (Orphninae, Scarabaeidae – Frolov 2013). Carabidae are generally predators of smaller insects and other arthropods, and sometimes of mollusks. Forty-ﬁve species are known from São Tomé and Príncipe. The genus Pseudobatenus illustrates an interesting biogeography, since it is only represented by the São Tomé endemic Pseudobatenus straneoi and two other species, P. camerunicus (Burgeon, 1942) and P. longicollis Basilewsky, 1951, which are restricted to Mt. Cameroon (Basilewsky 1975). These three species are most likely altitudinal relicts of a widespread ancestral species. The Cerambycidae Bangalaia thomensis has a similar distribution, being found only on São Tomé and in Cameroon, although it occurs at low altitudes (Lepesme and Breuning 1956). Concluding Remarks Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón host 403 named species and subspecies of beetles, plus an unknown number of undescribed species. Many of these species are endemic and very little is known about them. For instance, several endemics, such as Nesopatrum josephii (Tenebrionidae) and Panoptes convexus (Curculionidae), were described from Ilhéu das Rolas by Karsch (1881), and there are no records from São Tomé Island itself. Given the development of touristic infrastructure and overall environmental degradation on Ilhéu das Rolas, it is not known if these species persist. An improved knowledge of the fauna of the archipelago would require a variety of sampling techniques deployed in a wide range of habitats, including some low-cost canopy trapping (Bar-Ness et al. 2011). The main task, however, would be identiﬁcation, which would require engaging specialists of the various families. The establishment of a local reference collection would be an important asset to train and raise awareness of the beetle fauna. The long-term conservation of the beetle fauna, as for most of the endemic terrestrial fauna of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón relies on effective conservation of native forests. These still cover about 30% of the islands, an unusually high percentage that is linked to the rugged topography (Norder et al. 2020). The capture 310 G. Nève et al. and export of beetles should also be controlled, namely of endemic species that might be particularly vulnerable, such as the endemic as Macrotoma hayesii (Fig. 12.2.1–2), which occurs at low densities. This and several other endemic beetle species, such Rhizoplatys canui and Figulus decipiens (Figs. 12.4.4 and 12.4.8) are emblematic and could serve as ﬂagship species for the conservation of their habitats, especially old growth forests, where standing dead old trees are key habitat for the larvae. Visits to the forests and producing conservation educational material using beetle fauna may play an important role in educating the public about the uniqueness and exceptional biodiversity of the islands. Acknowledgments We thank the authorities of the Príncipe Natural Park for their help in the ﬁeld and sampling permit. The Centro de Investigação Agronómica e Tecnológica de São Tomé e Príncipe (CIAT-STP) authorized the export of specimens (permit N 011/2019). Laurent Soldati, Marc Lacroix, and Yves Gomy identiﬁed specimens of Tenebrionidae, Melolonthinae, and Histeridae, respectively. Roberto Poggi, Honorary Curator of Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “Giacomo Doria” in Genoa (Italy), offered many works based on Leonardo Fea’s expeditions. Comments from Dave Kavanaugh greatly improved this chapter. Supplementary Material A full text format of Appendix and Table 12.2, with references to the occurrence of all species in Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón, together with the main synonyms is available on https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.5151308. Appendix Appendix List of Coleoptera taxa known from the islands of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón. “Microland” refers to species added to the known São Tomé and Príncipe fauna during our two expeditions in February and October 2019. E: endemic species, I: introduced species, R: resident on the islands, *: species recorded during the 2019 Microland expeditions (ML) Litocerus Schönherr, 1833 Phloeobius Schönherr, 1823 Xylinada Berthold, 1827 Subfamily Choraginae Kirby, 1819 Araecerus Schönherr, 1823 P Acorynus benitensis Jordan, 1903 Apateni benina Jordan, 1920 Cenchromorphus fulvum Jordan, 1903 Gynandrocerus thomensis Jordan, 1911 Litocerus beninus Jordan, 1920 Phloeobius hypoxanthus Jordan, 1911 Xylinada princeps Jordan, 1920 Xylinada thomasius Jordan, 1911 R E Araecerus fasciculatus (Degeer, 1775) R ST A Reference ML E R Jordan, 1920 Jordan, 1920 Jordan, 1920 E E Jordan, 1911 E E E E Jordan, 1920 Jordan, 1911 E Jordan, 1920 Jordan, 1911 R Jordan, 1920 R? Microland * R R R Microland Lesne, 1906 Lesne, 1906 Lesne, 1906 Lesne, 1906 * E Synonyms The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Gynandrocerus Lacordaire, 1866 Species 12 Higher taxonomy Family Anthribidae Billberg, 1820 Subfamily Anthribinae Billberg, 1820 Acorynus Schönherr 1833 Apatenia Pascoe 1859 Cenchromorphus Fairmaire, 1893 Derographium fulvum Xylinades princeps Xylinades thomasius Family Biphyllidae Le Conte, 1861 Unidentiﬁed species Family Bostrichidae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Apatinae Jacquelin du Val, 1861 Apate Fabricius, 1775 Apate cephalotes (Olivier, 1790) Apate degener Murray, 1867 Apate monachus Fabricius, 1775 Apate terebrans (Pallas, 1772) Phonapate discreta Lesne, 1906 Phonapate Lesne, 1895 R R E R Phonapate frontalis * (continued) 311 Species ST A R R R ML Lesne, 1906 Luna de Carvalho, 1984 Calabresi, 1920 * R R Calabresi, 1920 Calabresi, 1920 * E Calabresi, 1920 R Calabresi, 1920 * R Calabresi, 1920 * R R R R E E Damoiseau, 1963 Karsch, 1881 R R Calabresi 1920 R Synonyms Lesne, 1906 R R Reference Calabresi, 1920 Mygaleicus vittipennis; Mygaleicus vittipennis nitida Ceocephalus georgei * G. Nève et al. Bostrychoplites cornutus (Olivier, 1790) Xylionulus Lesne, 1901 Xylionulus transvena (Lesne,1900) Subfamily Dinoderinae C.G. Thomson, 1863 Rhyzopertha Stephens, 1830 Rhyzopertha dominica (Fabricius, 1792) Family Brentidae Billberg, 1820 Subfamily Brentinae Billberg, 1820 Adidactus Senna, 1894 Adidactus striolatus (Fairmaire, 1897) Cerobates Schönherr, 1840 Cerobates sennae Calabresi, 1920 Cerobates sulcatus sulcirostris Thomson, 1858 Eumecopodus Calabresi, 1920 Eumecopodus fuliginosus Calabresi, 1920 Gynandrorhynchus Lacordaire, 1866 Gynandrorynchus vittipennis (Fåhraeus, 1871) Microtrachelizus Senna, 1893 Microtrachelizus aethiopicus Calabresi, 1920 Orphanobrentus Damoiseau, 1962 Orphanobrentus picipes (Olivier, 1791) Pseudomygaleicus de Muizon, 1960 Pseudomygaleicus georgei (Karsch, 1881) Rhinopteryx Lacordaire, 1865 Rhinopteryx foveipennis (J.Thomson, 1858) Spatherhinus longiceps Kolbe, Spatherhinus Power, 1879 1888 P 312 Higher taxonomy Subfamily Bostrichinae Latreille, 1802 Bostrychoplites Lesne, 1899 Megactenodes Kerremans, 1893 R Agrilus feae Kerremans, 1906 E Chrysobothris dorsata (Fabricius, 1787) Megactenodes westermanni (Gory et Laporte, 1838) R Family Carabidae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Brachininae Bonelli, 1810 Brachinulus Basilewsky, 1958 Pheropsophus Solier, 1833 Subfamily Harpalinae Bonelli, 1810 Idiomela Tschitscherine, 1900 Notiobia Perty, 1830 R Parataenia chrysochlora (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805) R Brachinulus viettei Basilewsky, 1958 Pheropsophus (Stenaptinus) amadori Lassalle & Roux, 2021 Pheropsophus (Stenaptinus) fastigiatus (Linnaeus, 1764) E Idiomelas (Egaploa) crenulatus (Dejean, 1829) Notiobia (Diatypus) sanctithomae (Serrano, 1995) Calabresi, 1920 Usambius conradti Kerremans, 1906 R Subfamily Chrysochroinae Laporte, 1835 Lampetis Dejean, 1833 Lampetis zona (Thomson, 1858) Parataenia Kerremans, 1892 R The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Subfamily Buprestinae Leach, 1815 Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 Usambius advena (Pascoe, 1866) 12 Usambius Kolbe, 1892 Family Buprestidae Leach, 1815 Subfamily Agrilinae Laporte, 1835 Agrilus Curtis, 1825 R E R R E Kerremans, 1906 Kerremans, 1906 Kerremans, 1914 Kerremans, 1906 Damarsila zona Basilewsky, 1958 Lassalle & Roux, 2021 Basilewsky, 1975 Basilewsky, 1975 Serrano, 1995 Egaploa crenulata 313 (continued) Siopelus Murray, 1859 Stenolophus Dejean, 1821 Subfamily Lebiinae Bonelli, 1810 Anaulacus W.S. MacLeay, 1825 Calleida Latreille, 1824 Dromius Bonelli, 1810 Pentagonica Schmidt-Göbel, 1846 Perigona Laporte de Castenau, 1835 P Anaulacus (Microus) mocqueryzi (Chaudoir, 1878) Calleida (Stenocallida) ruﬁcollis (Fabricius, 1801) Dromius (Klepterus) basilewskyi (Serrano, 1995) Pentagonica boavistensis Serrano, 1995 Pentagonica nigritula Straneo, 1943 Perigona (Euripogena) congoana Burgeon, 1935 Perigona (Perigona) pallida Laporte, 1835 Perigona (Perigona) parallela Chaudoir, 1878 Perigona (Perigona) principensis Serrano, 2008 Perigona (Trechicus) nigriceps (Dejean, 1831) Perigona (Trechicus) schmitzi (Basilewsky, 1989) R ST R R R A Reference Basilewsky, 1975 Basilewsky, 1975 Basilewsky, 1975 R Serrano, 1995 R Serrano, 1995 E Serrano, 1995 E Serrano, 1995 E Straneo, 1943 R Basilewsky, 1989 Basilewsky, 1975 Basilewsky, 1989 Serrano, 2008 R R R E R R Basilewsky, 1975 Basilewsky, 1989 ML Synonyms Dichaetochilus planicollis Aulacoryssus pulchellus Stenolophus scapulare Microus mocqueryzi Trechicus nigriceps Trechicus schmitzi G. Nève et al. Species Progonochaetus (Progonochaetus) planicollis (Putzeys, 1882) Siopelus (Pseudosiopelus) pulchellus (Dejean, 1829) Stenolophus (Egadroma) scapularis (Dejean, 1831) 314 Higher taxonomy Progonochaetus G. Müller, 1938 Subfamily Panagaeinae Bonelli, 1810 Euschizomerus Chaudoir, 1850 Microcosmodes Strand, 1936 Subfamily Paussinae Latreille, 1807 Carabidomemnus Kolbe, 1924 Sphaerostylus Chaudoir, 1848 Subfamily Platyninae Bonelli, 1810 Euplynes Schmidt-Gobel, 1846 Metagonum Jeannel, 1948 Pseudobatenus Basilewsky, 1951 Straneoa Basilewsky, 1953 Chlaenius (Lissauchenius) assecla Laferté-Senectere, 1851 Melanchiton laevisulcis Straneo, 1950 R Euschizomerus buquetii Chaudoir, 1850 Microschemus vicinus (Murray, 1857) R Carabidomemnus (Carabidomemnus) feae (Gestro, 1902) Sphaerostylus (Afrozaena) feai (Basilewsky, 1949) Sphaerostylus (Afrozaena) insularis (Basilewsky, 1949) E Euplynes brunneus Straneo, 1943 Metagonum insulanum Basilewsky, 1948 Pseudobatenus straneoi Basilewsky, 1957 Straneoa collatata (Karsch, 1881) E Straneoa seligmani Kavanaugh, 2005 R R Basilewsky, 1975 Basilewsky, 1975 R Serrano, 1995 R Basilewsky, 1975 Melanchiton laeviscus Microcosmodes vicinus Gestro, 1902 E E E E E E Basilewsky, 1949 Basilewsky, 1949 Straneo, 1943 Basilewsky, 1948 Basilewsky, 1957 Karsch, 1881 Pseudozaena insularis Euplynes bruneus The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Melanchiton Andrewes, 1940 12 Subfamily Licininae Bonelli, 1810 Chlaenius Bonelli, 1810 Zargus collatatus; Platynus opacipennis; Straneoa opacipennis Kavanaugh, 2005 315 (continued) Caelostomus MacLeay, 1825 Camptogenys Tschitscherine, 1899 Dromistomus Jeannel, 1948 Monodryxus Straneo, 1941–1942 Morion Latreille, 1810 Pachyroxochus Straneo, 1941–1942 Platyxythrius Straneo, 1941–1942 Subfamily Scaritinae Bonelli, 1810 Dyschirius Bonneli, 1810 Scarites Fabricius, 1775 P Abacetus amplithorax Straneo, 1940 Abacetus feai Straneo, 1940 Caelostomus (Caelostomus) striatocollis (Dejean, 1831) Caelostomus (Drimostomellus) punctifrons (Chaudoir, 1850) Camptogenys trisetosa (Serrano, 1995) Dromistomus complanatus levistriatus (Straneo, 1941–1942) Monodryxus crassus (Straneo, 1941–1942) Morion guineensis Imhoff, 1843 E Pachyroxochus subquadratus Straneo, 1941–1942 Platyxythrius insularis Straneo, 1956 ST R E E E R R E E Dyschirius (Dyschiriodes) zanzibaricus palmeni Kult, 1954 Scarites fatuus Karsch, 1881 Scarites feanus Bänninger, 1937 E Tachyta subvirens Chaudoir, 1878 R Reference ML Synonyms Straneo, 1940 E R R A R E Straneo, 1940 Straneo, 1941– 1942 Basilewsky, 1975 Serrano, 1995 Straneo, 1941– 1942 Straneo, 1941– 1942 Henriques, 1917 Straneo, 1941– 1942 Straneo, 1941– 1942 Basilewsky, 1975 Karsch, 1881 Bänninger, 1937 Serrano, 2008 * Drimostomellus punctifrons * Caelostomus (Camptogenys) trisetosus Caelostomus complanatus var. levistriatus Morion guineense Platyxythrius laevicollis Dyschirius palmeni G. Nève et al. Subfamily Trechinae Bonelli, 1810 Tachyta Kirby, 1837 Species 316 Higher taxonomy Subfamily Pterostichinae Bonelli, 1810 Abacetus Dejean, 1828 Diaspila Jordan, 1903 Neoplocaederus Sama, 1991 Philematium Thomson, 1864 Philomeces Kolbe, 1893 Phrosyne Murray 1870 Xylotrechus Chevrolat, 1860 Xystrocera Audinet-Serville, 1834 Subfamily Lamiinae Latreille, 1825 Acmocera Dejean, 1835 Chromalizus (Callichromalizus) fragrans aldbaueri Delahaye & Juhel, 2018 Chromalizus (Chromalizus) rhodoscelis (Jordan, 1903) Diaspila periscelis Jordan, 1903 Neoplocaederus fucatus (Thomson, 1858) Philematium greefﬁ Karsch, 1881 Philomeces thomensis (Aurivillius, 1910) Phrosyne brevicornis (Fabricius, 1775) Xylotrechus aedon Jordan, 1903 Xystrocera interrupta Jordan, 1903 Xystrocera nigrita AudinetServille, 1834 I I E I I E R Zuzarte & Serrano, 1996 Aurivillius, 1910 Henriques, 1917 Delahaye & Juhel, 2018 E Jordan, 1903 R R Jordan, 1903 Villiers, 1957 E E Karsch, 1881 Aurivillius, 1910 Henriques, 1917 Jordan, 1903 Jordan, 1903 Zuzarte & Serrano, 1996 R E R R R Acmocera insularis Breuning, 1940 Acmocera lutosa Jordan, 1903 E E Henriques, 1917 Breuning, 1940 Jordan, 1903 * Callichroma festivum Cloniophorus rhodoscelis; Callichroma rhodoscelis * Euporus brevicornis * Hystrocera interrupta Achmocera anthriboides 317 Acmocera conjux Thomson, 1858 * The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Chromalizus Schmidt, 1922 12 Family Cerambycidae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Cerambycinae Latreille, 1802 Achryson Audinet-Serville, 1833 Achryson surinamum (Linnaeus, 1767) Calanthemis Thomson, 1864 Calanthemis thomensis Aurivillius, 1910 Chlorida Miers, 1880 Chlorida festiva (Linnaeus, 1758) (continued) Ancylonotus Dejean, 1835 Bangalaia Duvivier, 1890 Coptops Serville, 1835 Eunidia Erichson, 1843 Frea Thomson, 1858 Glenea Newman, 1842 Insulochamus Dillon & Dillon, 1961 Jordanoleiopus Lepesme & Breuning, 1955 Monochamus Dejean, 1821 Species Acridoschema thomense Jordan, 1903 Ancylonotus tribulus (Fabricius, 1775) Bangalaia thomensis Breuning, 1947 Coptops aediﬁcator (Fabricius, 1793) Coptops annobonae Aurivillius, 1910 Coptops hypocrita Lameere, 1892 ST E A Synonyms Acridoschema thomensis Jordan, 1903 R Breuning, 1947 R Jordan, 1903 Coptops fusca; Lamia fusca Aurivillius, 1910 Aurivillius, 1910 Breuning, 1970 Lepesme, 1948 Jordan, 1903 Breuning, 1958 Aurivillius, 1928 Jordan, 1903 Pterolophia annobonae R E R E E E E E R ML R E R Reference Jordan, 1903 Monochamus thomensis Breuning, 1955 Jordan, 1903 R E E Hintz, 1919 Breuning, 1956 E Fairmaire, 1892 Monohommus rubigineus G. Nève et al. Eunidia thomensis Breuning, 1970 Frea maculicornis Thomson, 1858 Frea puncticollis Jordan, 1903 Glenea thomensis Breuning, 1958 Insulochamus annobonae (Aurivillius, 1928) Insulochamus thomensis (Jordan, 1903) Jordanoleiopus (Polymitoleiopus) feai Breuning, 1955 Monochamus (Ethiopiochamus) ruspator (Fabricius, 1781) Monochamus nubilosus Hintz, 1919 Monochamus principis Breuning, 1956 Monochamus rubiginosus Teocchi, Sudre & Jiroux, 2014 P 318 Higher taxonomy Acridoschema Thomson, 1858 Protonarthron Thomson, 1858 Pseudhammus Kolbe, 1894 Pterolophia Newman, 1842 Ropica Pascoe, 1858 Steirastoma Lepeletier & AudinetServille, 1830 Sternotomis Percheron, 1836 Villiers, 1957 Villiers, 1957 Phryneta vietti E Jordan, 1903 Pachystola trituberculata thomensis E Breuning, 1936 R Jordan, 1903 E Aurivillius, 1910 Aurivillius, 1910 E E E Zuzarte & Serrano, 1996 Zuzarte & Serrano, 1996 Aurivillius, 1910 Breuning, 1943 E Breuning, 1938 E I Breuning, 1970 Zuzarte & Serrano, 1996 Fairmaire, 1902 E E E R R Henriques, 1917 Plectonarthron microps * * * Pseudolemur rufozonata * Ultiolemur ducalis 319 Sternotomis (Pseudolemur) rufozonata Fairmaire, 1902 Sternotomis (Ultiolemur) ducalis (Klug, 1835) I E The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Prosopocera Dejean, 1835 Phryneta verrucosa (Drury, 1773) Phrynetopsis thomensis principis Breuning, 1952 Phrynetopsis thomensis thomensis (Jordan, 1903) Prosopocera (Alphitopola) insularis Breuning, 1936 Protonarthron microps (Jordan, 1903) Pseudhammus (Litigiosus) feae Aurivillius, 1910 Pterolophia (Annobonaepraonetha) annobonae Aurivillius, 1910 Pterolophia (Insularepraonetha) ferrugineotincta Aurivillius, 1926 Pterolophia (Insularepraonetha) insularis Breuning, 1938 Pterolophia (Principipraonetha) principis Aurivillius, 1910 Pterolophia (Principipraonetha) pseudoprincipis Breuning, 1943 Pterolophia (Pterolophia) thomensis Breuning, 1938 Ropica thomensis Breuning, 1970 Steirastoma stellio Pascoe, 1866 12 Phryneta Dejean, 1835 Phrynetopsis Kolbe, 1894 (continued) Subfamily Parandrinae Blanchard, 1845 Acutandra Santos-Silva, 2002 Subfamily Prioninae Latreille, 1802 Ceratocentrus Aurivillius, 1903 Macrotoma Audinet-Serville, 1832 Mallodon Lacordaire, 1869 Sarothrogastra Karsch, 1881 Acutandra barclayi Bouyer, Drumont & Santos-Silva, 2012 Acutandra dasilvai Bouyer, Drumont & Santos-Silva, 2012 Acutandra delahayei Bouyer, Drumont & Santos-Silva, 2012 Acutandra oremansi Bouyer, Drumont & Santos-Silva, 2012 Ceratocentrus oremansi Delahaye & Camiade, 2016 Ceratocentrus principiensis (Nýlander, 2000) Macrotoma hayesii Hope, 1833 Macrotoma palmata (Fabricius, 1793) Mallodon downesii Hope, 1843 Sarothrogastra edulis (Karsch, 1881) Sarothrogastra feai (Lameere, 1912) Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius, 1775) P ST R A E Bouyer et al., 2012 Bouyer et al., 2012 Bouyer et al., 2012 Bouyer et al., 2012 E E E E E R ML Synonyms * Villiers, 1957 E E R Reference Lepesme & Breuning, 1950 Acanthophorus spinicornis Nýlander, 2000 Tordo, 1956 Tordo, 1956 * R R E Fairmaire, 1891 Karsch, 1881 * E I Telotoma hayesi Macrotoma edulis Lameere, 1912 Luna de Carvalho, 1984 G. Nève et al. Family Chrysomelidae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Bruchinae Latreille, 1802 Callosobruchus Pic, 1902 Species Tragocephala guerinii White, 1856 320 Higher taxonomy Tragocephala Dejean, 1835 Subfamily Cassidinae Chapuis, 1875 Aspidomorpha Hope, 1840 Chiridopsis Spaeth, 1922 Laccoptera Boheman, 1855 Subfamily Criocerinae Latreille, 1804 Hatita Fairmaire, 1891 Lema Fabricius, 1798 Subfamily Eumolpinae Hope, 1840 Afroeurydemus Selman, 1965 Cheiridella Jacoby, 1904 Aspidimorpha (Afroaspidimorpha) nigromaculata (Herbst, 1799) Aspidimorpha (Aspidimorpha) isparetta Boheman, 1854 Aspidimorpha (Aspidimorpha) obovata (Klug, 1835) Aspidimorpha (Aspidimorpha) quinquefasciata (Fabricius, 1801) Aspidimorpha (Aspidimorpha) submutata Weise, 1899 Aspidimorpha (Aspidocassis) conﬁnis (Klug, 1835) Chiridopsis aubei (Boheman, 1855) Laccoptera (Orphodella) corrugata (Sahlberg, 1823) I I R R Coache & Rainon, 2020 Coache & Rainon, 2020 Coache & Rainon, 2020 Henriques, 1917 Coache & Rainon, 2020 Coache & Rainon, 2020 Coache & Rainon, 2020 Microland E R Fairmaire, 1891 Jordan, 1903 E E Berlioz, 1919 E E Zoia, 2017 R R R R R R R Hatita limbatella Fairmaire, 1891 Lema rubricollis Klug, 1835 Afroeurydemus variicolor (Berlioz, 1919) Cheiridella principis Zoia, 2017 Castel-Branco, 1966 Luna de Carvalho, 1984 Pachymerus lacerdae The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Zabrotes Horn, 1885 Pachymerus nucleorum (Fabricius, 1792) Zabrotes subfasciatus (Boheman, 1833) 12 Pachymerus Thunberg, 1805 * * Laccoptera corrugata * 321 (continued) Rhembastus Harold, 1877 Subfamily Galerucinae Latreille, 1802 Lamprocopa Hincks, 1949 Longitarsus Latreille, 1829 Manobia Jacoby, 1885 Nisotra Baly, 1864 Notomela Jacoby, 1899 Subfamily Hispinae Gyllenhal, 1813 Dactylispa Weise, 1897 Platypria Guérin-Méneville, 1840 Lamprocopa delata (Erichson, 1843) Lamprocopa occidentalis Weise, 1895 Longitarsus sp. Manobia sp. Nisotra theobromae Laboissière, 1920 Notomela joliveti Biondi & D’Alessandro, 2015 Dactylispa aculeata (Klug, 1835) Dactylispa cavicollis Gestro, 1905 Dactylispa incredula Gestro, 1905 Dactylispa nigricornis Gestro, 1905 Platypria (Dichirispa) paucispinosa Gestro, 1905 Thomispa feae (Gestro, 1906) P E R ST E A Reference Zoia, 2017 Zoia, 2017 ML Synonyms Zoia, 2017 R Jordan, 1903 R R Microland * E R? R? E Microland Microland Laboissière, 1920 Biondi & D’Alessandro, 2015 * * * E R E E Gestro, 1905 Gestro, 1905 Gestro, 1905 Gestro, 1905 R R Gestro, 1905 E E Gestro, 1905 E Anlacophora delata; Aulacophora delata Platypria feae * Trichispa feae G. Nève et al. Thomispa Würmli, 1975 Species Paraivongius (Micromenius) sp. Paraivongius (Paraivongius) inexspectatus Zoia, 2017 Rhembastus piceus Zoia, 2017 322 Higher taxonomy Paraivongius Pic, 1936 Myriochila Motschulsky, 1862 Cylindera (Ifasina) octoguttata (Fabricius, 1787) Lophyra neglecta (Dejean, 1825) R Myriochila melancholica (Fabricius, 1798) R Serrano, 2008 R R Gomes Alves, 1956 Jordan, 1903 Xylographus nitidissimus Pic, 1916 R Pic 1916 Necrobia ruﬁpes (De Geer, 1775) I Luna de Carvalho, 1984 Family Coccinellidae Latreille, 1807 Subfamily Chilocorinae Mulsant, 1846 Chilocorus Leach, 1815 Chilocorus cacti (Linnaeus, 1767) R Chilocorus pilosus Sicard, 1920 Endochilus plagiatus Sicard, 1920 Endochilus styx Sicard, 1911 Exochomus ﬂavipes (Thunberg, 1781) Exochomus nigrifrons Gerstäcker, 1871 E E R Castel-Branco, 1963 Sicard, 1920 Sicard, 1920 Sicard, 1911 Sicard, 1920 R Fürsch, 1974 R Henriques, 1917 Endochilus Weise, 1898 Exochomus Redtenbacher, 1843 Subfamily Coccinellinae Latreille, 1807 Cheilomenes Mulsant, 1850 Cheilomenes sulphurea (Olivier, 1791) E R Myriochile melancholica; Cicindela melancholica Exochomus nigromaculatus insulicola Brumus nigrifrons (continued) 323 Family Ciidae Leach, 1819 Subfamily Ciinae Leach, 1819 Xylographus Melli‚, 1849 Family Cleridae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Korynetinae Laporte, 1836 Necrobia Olivier, 1800 Lophyra discoidea The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Lophyra Motschulsky, 1861 12 Family Cicindelidae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Cicindelinae W. Horn, 1926 Cylindera Westwood, 1831 Micraspis Chevrolat in Dejean, 1836 Species Coccinella intermedia (Crotch, 1874) Micraspis striata (Fabricius, 1792) Oenopia Mulsant, 1850 Oenopia doderoi (Sicard, 1911) E Hounkpati et al., 2020 Sicard, 1911 Thea Mulsant, 1846 Subfamily Epilachninae Mulsant, 1846 Chnootriba Dejean, 1835 Thea moniqueae Fürsch, 1974 E Fürsch, 1974 Chnootriba elaterii (Rossi, 1794) R Hounkpati et al., 2020 Aulis nigricordis Fürsch, 1974 E Fürsch, 1974 Scymnomorphus minuta Fürsch, 1974 Scymnomorphus principiensis Gomes Alves & Castel-Branco, 1962 E Fürsch, 1974 Subfamily Exoplectrinae Crotch, 1874 Aulis Mulsant, 1850 Subfamily Microweiseinae Leng, 1920 Scymnomorphus Weise, 1897 Subfamily Ortaliinae Mulsant, 1850 Rodolia Mulsant, 1850 Nephus Mulsant, 1846 ST E R E A Reference Gordon, 1987 Synonyms Alesia striata Coccinella doderoi; Synharmonia doderoi Sukunahikona minuta Gomes Alves & Castel-Branco, 1962 Rodolia cardinalis (Mulsant, 1850) I Rodolia seabrai Sicard, 1920 Rodolia vulpina Fürsch, 1974 E E Castel-Branco, 1963 Sicard, 1920 Fürsch, 1974 E E Castel-Branco, 1963 Fürsch, 1974 Fürsch, 1974 Cryptognatha nodiceps Marschall, 1912 Nephus derroni Fürsch, 1974 Nephus theobromae Fürsch, 1974 ML I G. Nève et al. Subfamily Scymninae Mulsant, 1846 Cryptognatha Mulsant, 1850 P 324 Higher taxonomy Coccinella Linnaeus, 1758 Scymnus oblongoides Fürsch, 1974 Scymnus scapuliferus Mulsant, 1850 Scymnus senegalensis Mader, 1955 Stethorus Weise, 1885 Subfamily Sticholotidinae Weise, 1901 Pharoscymnus Bedel, 1906 R R R R Family Curculionidae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Conoderinae Schönherr, 1833 Panoptes Gerstaecker, 1860 Panoptes convexus Karsch, 1881 Subfamily Cryptorhynchinae Schönherr, 1825 Cyamobolus Schönherr, 1837 Cyamobolus greefﬁ Karsch, 1881 Mechistocerus Fauvel, 1862 Mechistocerus nubeculosus Fairmaire, 1891 Subfamily Entiminae Schönherr, 1823 Phyllobius Germar, 1824 Phyllobius verruculatus Karsch, 1881 R Gomes Alves, 1973 Fürsch, 1974 E Fürsch, 1974 E Karsch, 1881 E R Karsch, 1881 Fairmaire, 1891 E Karsch, 1881 E R R Stethorus chazeaui Fürsch, 1974 Pharoscymnus exiguus Weise, 1913 Pharoscymnus tetrastictus Sicard, 1930 Pharoscymnus tomeensis Fürsch, 1974 E Fürsch 1974 Fürsch, 1974 Hounkpati et al., 2020 Fürsch, 1974 Gomes Alves, 1973 Hounkpati et al., 2020 Fürsch, 1974 R The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Platynaspis capicola Crotch, 1874 Scymnus levaillanti Mulsant, 1850 Scymnus nubilus Mulsant, 1850 12 Platynaspis Redtenbacher, 1843 Scymnus Cuvier, 1816 Scymnus canariensis Cyanobulus greefﬁ Mecictocerus nubeculosus (continued) 325 Subfamily Molytinae Schönherr, 1823 Aethiopacorep Voisin, 1992 Sternuchopsis Heller, 1917 Titilayo Cristóvão & Lyal, 2018 Subfamily Platypodinae Shuckard, 1839 Chaetastus Nunberg 1953 Costaroplatus Nunberg, 1963 Doliopygus Browne, 1962 P Aethiopacorep africanus (Hustache, 1932) Sternuchopsis sp. Titilayo barclayi Cristóvão & Lyal, 2018 Titilayo perrinae Cristóvão & Lyal, 2018 Titilayo saotomense Cristóvão & Lyal, 2018 Titilayo turneri Cristóvão & Lyal, 2018 ST E R? E E E E Chaetastus tuberculatus (Chapuis, 1865) R Costaroplatus pernix (Schedl, 1941) Doliopygus erichsoni (Chapuis, 1865) E Doliopygus ibex Schedl, 1941 E Periommatus excisus Strohmeyer, 1912 R R R A Reference Borovec & Anderson, 2021 E Cristóvão & Lyal, 2018 Microland Cristóvão & Lyal, 2018 Cristóvão & Lyal, 2018 Cristóvão & Lyal, 2018 Cristóvão & Lyal, 2018 Beaver & Löyttyniemi, 1985 Wood & Bright, 1992 Beaver & Löyttyniemi, 1985 Wood & Bright, 1992 Wood & Bright, 1992 ML Synonyms * Platyscapus pernix Crossotarsus erichsoni G. Nève et al. Periommatus Chapuis, 1866 Species Saotomia tuberculata Borovec & Anderson, 2021 326 Higher taxonomy Saotomia Borovec & Anderson, 2021 Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864 I Platypus intermedius (Schedl, 1937) Platypus parallelus (Fabricius, 1801) R Stenoplatypus intermedius R I Medler, 1980 Kaden, 1930 Hylesinopsis dubius Stephanoderes hampei I Luna de Carvalho 1984 R Jordan, 1903 I Luna de Carvalho, 1984 R Microland R Henriques, 1917 I Hapalogenius dubius Eggers, 1920 Hypothenemus hampei (Ferrari, 1867) Xyleborus ferrugineus (Fabricius, 1801) Family Dryophthoridae Schönherr, 1825 Subfamily Dryophthorinae Schönherr, 1825 Cosmopolites Chevrolat, 1885 Cosmopolites sordidus (Germar, 1824) Sitophilus Schönherr, 1838 Sitophilus oryzae (Linnaeus, 1763) Subfamily Rhynchophorinae Schönherr, 1833 Metamasius Horn, 1873 Metamasius hemipterus Linnaeus, 1758 Temnoschoita Chevrolat, 1885 Temnoschoita quadrimaculata Csiki, E., 1936 Family Dytiscidae Leach, 1815 Subfamily Copelatinae Van den Branden, 1885 Copelatus Erichson, 1832 Copelatus pallidus Régimbart, 1895 Wood & Bright, 1992 Wood & Bright, 1992 Wood & Bright, 1992 R Régimbart, 1904 Sphenophorus sordidus; Sphenophorus striatus * The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Subfamily Scolytinae Latreille, 1804 Hapalogenius Hagedorn, 1912 Hypothenemus Westwood, 1836 Platypus hintzi Schaufuss, 1897 12 Platypus Herbst, 1793 * (continued) 327 Family Elateridae Leach, 1815 Subfamily Agrypninae Candèze, 1857 Calais Laporte de Castelnau, 1836 Elasmosomus Schwarz, 1903 Species P ST Cybister (Melanectes) vulneratus Klug, 1834 R R Jordan, 1903 E Karsch, 1881 E Girard, 2017 Calais controversa (Karsch, 1881) E R Reference Girard, 2017 ML Synonyms Trogus binotatus; Melanectes vulneratus; Cybister binotatus * Ctenicera controversa; Alaus chalcolepidinus * Lanelater substriatus R Girard, 2017 R Fairmaire, 1891 E Fairmaire, 1891 E Fairmaire, 1891 E Girard, 2017 E Karsch, 1881 * R Microland * Psephus athoides G. Nève et al. Elasmosomus mocquerysi (Fleutiaux, 1902) Lanelater Arnett, 1952 Lanelater glabratus (Gyllenhall, 1817) Subfamily Denticollinae Stein & Weise, 1877 Melanoxanthus Dejean, 1833 Melanoxanthus inaequalis Candèze, 1881 Subfamily Elaterinae Leach, 1815 Propsephus Hyslop, 1921 Propsephus athoides (Candèze, 1881) Propsephus campyloides (Candèze, 1897) Propsephus melanotoides (Fairmaire, 1891) Propsephus scitulus Schwarz, 1909 Subfamily Lissominae Laporte, 1835 Lissomus Dalman, 1824 Lissomus francisci Karsch, 1881 Family Endomychidae Leach, 1815 Subfamily Lycoperdininae Bromhead, 1838 Ancylopus Costa, 1854 Ancylopus meridionalis Stroheker, 1962 A 328 Higher taxonomy Subfamily Dytiscinae Leach, 1815 Cybister Curtis, 1827 Subfamily Histerinae Gyllenhal, 1808 Apobletes Marseul, 1861 Corticalinus Gomy, 2004 Hololepta Paykull, 1811 Pachycraerus Marseul, 1854 Platylister Lewis, 1892 Teretrius Erichson, 1834 Family Hybosoridae Erichson, 1847 Subfamily Hybosorinae Erichson, 1847 Hybosorus MacLeay, 1819 Family Hydrophilidae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Sphaeridiinae Latreille, 1802 Coelostoma Brullé, 1835 Orectogyrus (Lobogyrus) lionotus Régimbart, 1884 R Régimbart, 1904 Platylomalus digitatus (Wollaston, 1867) Platylomalus longicornis (Lewis, 1906) R Gomy, 2004 E E Lewis, 1906 E R R Lewis, 1906 Gomy, 2004 R R R Lewis, 1900 Lewis, 1900 * R R Gomy, 2004 * R R Gomy, 2004 * R Lewis, 1900 R Kuijten, 1983 Apobletes macer (Lewis, 1906) Corticalinus minusculus (Schmidt, 1893) Hololepta syntexis Lewis, 1900 Pachycraerus chlorites Lewis, 1900 Pachycraerus cyanescens Erichson, 1834 Platylister (Ricinodendrus) foliaceus (Paykull, 1811) Teretrius braganzae Lewis, 1900 Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 R Platysoma macer Régimbart, 1907 (continued) 329 Coelostoma ruﬁtarse (Boheman, 1851) The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Family Histeridae Gyllenhal, 1808 Subfamily Dendrophilinae Reitter, 1909 Platylomalus Cooman, 1948 12 Family Gyrinidae Latreille, 1810 Subfamily Gyrininae Latreille, 1810 Orectogyrus Régimbart, 1884 Megasternini Mulsant, 1844 Pachysternum Motschulsky, 1863 Pelosoma Mulsant, 1844 Species Dactylosternum abdominale (Fabricius, 1792) Dactylosternum intermedium Régimbart, 1907 Dactylosternum profundum Régimbart, 1907 Unidentiﬁed species Pachysternum capense (Mulsant, 1844) Pelosoma buccalis (Régimbart, 1907) ST R R E R R? R E R I I R R I R R? A Reference Régimbart, 1907 Régimbart, 1907 Régimbart, 1907 Microland Régimbart, 1907 Régimbart, 1907 ML * Lefkovitch, 1962 Luna de Carvalho, 1984 Luna de Carvalho, 1984 Lefkovitch, 1962 Lefkovitch, 1962 Luna de Carvalho, 1984 Lefkovitch, 1962 Microland Synonyms * G. Nève et al. Family Laemophloeidae Ganglbauer, 1899 Subfamily Laemophloeinae Ganglbauer, 1899 Cryptolestes Ganglbauer, 1899 Cryptolestes atulus Lefkovitch, 1962 Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens, 1831) Cryptolestes pusillus (Schönherr, 1817) Placonotus Mac Leay, 1871 Placonotus bolivari (Grouvelle, 1905) Placonotus politissimus (Wollaston, 1867) Placonotus testaceus (Fabricius, 1787) Xylolestes Lefkovitch, 1962 Xylolestes unicolor (Grouvelle, 1908 Family Limnichidae Erichson, 1846 Unidentiﬁed species P 330 Higher taxonomy Dactylosternum Wollaston, 1854 12 Figulus anthracinus Klug, 1832 Figulus decipiens Albers, 1884 Nigidius bubalus (Swederus, 1787) Nigidius endroedi Gomes Alves, 1973 Prosopocoilus Westwood, 1845 Prosopocoilus antilopus amicorum Matsumoto, 2019 Prosopocoilus antilopus beisa Kriesche, 1919 Prosopocoilus antilopus insulanus Kriesche, 1919 Prosopocoilus downesii savagei (Hope, 1835) Prosopocoilus senegalensis (Klug, 1835) Family Lycidae Laporte de Castelnau, 1838 Subfamily Lycinae Laporte, 1836 Flagrax Kasantsev, 1992 Flagrax bifoveolatus Pic, 1924 Stadenus Waterhouse, 1879 Stadenus auberti sensifulvus Fairmaire, 1891 Family Lymexylidae Fleming, 1821 Subfamily Atractocerinae Laporte, 1840 Atractocerus Palisot de Beauvoir, 1801 Atractocerus brevicornis (Linnaeus, 1766) R E Nigidius MacLeay, 1819 R E E E R Grifﬁni, 1906 Gomes Alves, 1973 Klug, 1835 Gomes Alves, 1973 Matsumoto, 2019 Grifﬁni, 1906 * Figulus sublaevis Figulus sublaevis decipiens Nigidius auriculatus Prosopocoelus antilopus E Fairmaire, 1891 * Prosopocoelus antilopus R Grifﬁni, 1906 * Metopodontus downesii R Bartolozzi & Werner, 2004 E Pic, 1926 Fairmaire, 1891 R Jordan, 1903 E * The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Family Lucanidae Latreille, 1804 Subfamily Lucaninae Latreille, 1804 Figulus MacLeay, 1819 Stadenus semiﬂavus; Stadenus auberti semufulvus (continued) 331 Atractocerus africanus; Atractocerus frontalis; Atractocerus brevicornis africanus Ophthalmoglipa Franciscolo, 1952 Species Glipostena nemoralis Franciscolo, 1962 Ophthalmoglipa horaki Ruzzier, 2015 Ophthalmoglipa leblanci Ruzzier, 2015 Family Mycteridae Oken, 1843 Subfamily Hemipeplinae Lacordaire, 1854 Hemipeplus Latreille, 1825 Hemipeplus africanus Grouvelle, 1915 Family Nitidulidae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Carpophilinae Erichson, 1842 Carpophilus Stephens, 1830 Carpophilus dimidiatus (Fabricius, 1792) Carpophilus hemipterus (Linnaeus, 1758) Subfamily Epuraeinae Kirejtshuk, 1986 Epurea Erichson, 1845 Epureae ocularis Fairmaire, 1849 Family Oedemeridae Latreille, 1810 Subfamily Oedemerinae Latreille, 1810 Alloxanthoides Svihla, 1985 Alloxanthoides lateritincta (Pic, 1920) Monosigynes Vazquez, 2004 Ditylomorphula bicolorites (Pic, 1922) Monosigynes semipiceus (Karsch, 1881) ST R E A Reference ML Microland * Ruzzier, 2015 * E Ruzzier, 2015 R Microland I Luna de Carvalho, 1984 Luna de Carvalho, 1984 I R Microland R E Serrano unpublished data Pic, 1922 E Karsch, 1881 Synonyms * * Epureae (Haptoncus) ocularis Danerces semipicea G. Nève et al. Ditylomorphula Svihla, 1985 P 332 Higher taxonomy Family Mordellidae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Mordellinae Latreille, 1802 Glipostena Ermisch, 1941 Didymus laevis (Klug, 1835) E Pentalobus barbatus (Fabricius, 1801) Family Ptiliidae Heer, 1843 Subfamily Acrotrichinae Reitter, 1909 Acrotrichis Motschulsky, 1848 R Gomes Alves, 1965 Jordan, 1903 R Darby, 2020 R Darby, 2020 R? Microland I Luna de Carvalho, 1984 I Luna de Carvalho, 1984 R Paulian, 1941 * Pselaphus barbatus * Odontaeus pallens Janson, 1907 R R Jordan, 1903 (continued) 333 Acrotrichis (Ctenopteryx) discoloroides Johnson, 1969 Acrotrichis tersa Johnson, 1969 Family Ptilodactylidae Laporte de Castelnau, 1836 Unidentiﬁed species Family Ptinidae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Anobiinae Fleming, 1821 Stegobium paniceum (Linnaeus, Stegobium Motschulsky, 1860 1758) Subfamily Xyletininae Gistel, 1848 Lasioderma serricorne (Fabricius, Lasioderma Stephens, 1835 1792) Family Scarabaeidae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Bolboceratinae Mulsant, 1842 Bolbocaffer Vulcano,Martinez & Pereira Bolbocaffer pallens (Kolbe, 1835) 1969 Subfamily Cetoniinae Leach, 1815 Chlorocala Kirby, 1828 Chlorocala viridicyanea (Palisot de Beauvois, 1821) Diplognata Gory & Percheron, 1833 Diplognata (Diplognatha) gagates Forster, 1771 E The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Pentalobus Kaup, 1868 12 Family Passalidae Leach, 1815 Subfamily Passalinae Leach, 1815 Didymus Hincks, 1933 Leucocelis Burmeister, 1842 Pachnoda Burmeister, 1842 Phaneresthes Kraatz, 1894 Pseudoheterophana Allard, 1990 Pseudotephraea Kraatz, 1882 Uloptera Burmeister, 1842 Subfamily Dynastinae MacLeay, 1819 Cyphonistes Burmeister, 1847 Oryctes Hellwig, 1798 Species Dischista rufa (De Geer, 1778) Grammopyga cincticollis (Hope, 1842) Grammopyga marginicollis (Moser, 1904) Leucocelis feana Janson, 1907 Pachnoda canui Rigout & Allard, 1992 Pachnoda prasina Karsch, 1881 Phaneresthes ﬂavosignata (Moser, 1904) Pseudoheterophana canui Allard, 1990 Pseudotephraea ancilla ancilla (Harold, 1879) Pseudotephraea ancilla canui Antoine, 1992 Uloptera canui Antoine, 1992 ST R R A Reference Jordan, 1903 Janson, 1907 E Moser, 1904 E Janson, 1907 Rigout & Allard, 1992 Karsch, 1881 Moser, 1904 E E E E ML Synonyms Pachnoda rufa; Cetonia rufa Cetonia prasina Allard, 1990 E Harold, 1879 E Jordan, 1903 E Antoine, 1992 E R E I Tephraea ancilla Karsch, 1881 Vesco et al., 1999 Fairmaire, 1891 Vargas Ferreira, 1967 G. Nève et al. Cyphonistes camurus Karsch, 1881 Oryctes (Rykanes) capucinus Arrow, 1937 Oryctes (Rykanes) latecavatus Fairmaire, 1891 Oryctes (Rykanoryctes) monoceros Olivier, 1789 P 334 Higher taxonomy Dischista Burmeister, 1842 Grammopyga Kolbe, 1895 Subfamily Melolonthinae MacLeay, 1819 Apogonia Kirby, 1819 Apogonia decellei Lacroix, 2008 Apogonia insulana Karsch, 1882 Apogonia tomeensis Lacroix, 2008 Subfamily Orphninae Erichson, 1847 Stenosternus costatus Karsch, 1881 Stenosternus Karsch, 1881 Subfamily Scarabaeinae Latreille, 1802 Onthophagus Latreille, 1802 Onthophagus (Onthophagus) sellatus Klug, 1845 Onthophagus (Trichonthophagus) juvencus Klug, 1835 Paraphytus Harold, 1877 Paraphytus africanus Boucomont, 1923 Phalops ﬁmbriatus (Klug, 1835) Phalops Erichson, 1848 Proagoderus Lansberge, 1883 Proagoderus laticollis Klug, 1835 E E R R Krell, 1994 E E Lacroix, 2008 Karsch, 1882 Lacroix, 2008 E Karsch, 1881 R d’Orbigny, 1905 d’Orbigny, 1905 Paulian, 1949 E R R R R R Dechambre, 1983 Dechambre, 1983 Henriques, 1917 R The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 Rhizoplatys canui Dechambre, 1983 Rhizoplatys mucronatus cedrici Dechambre, 1983 Temnorhynchus (Temnorhynchus) coronatus diana (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805) Temnorrhynchus (Temnorhynchus) tridentatus Lansberge, 1886 12 Rhizoplatys Westwood, 1842 * Temnorhynchus diana * * * Mecistoceros costatus * d’Orbigny, 1913 d’Orbigny, 1913 (continued) 335 Comythovalgus Kolbe, 1884 Cryptodontus Burmeiester, 1847 Family Silvanidae Kirby, 1837 Subfamily Silvaninae Kirby, 1837 Ahasverus Gozis, 1881 Cryptamorpha Wollaston, 1854 Oryzaephilus Ganglbauer, 1899 Family Staphylinidae Lameere, 1900 Subfamily Osoriinae Erichson, 1839 Afrosorius Fagel, 1958 Clastocnemis quadrimaculatus oremansi Antoine, 2005 Clastocnemis quadrimaculatus principis Antoine, 2005 Comythovalgus aemulus Kolbe, 1897 Cryptodontus latreilleanus desaegeri Burgeon, 1946 P ST E E A Reference ML Antoine, 2005 * Synonyms Antoine, 2005 R Janson, 1907 E Henriques, 1917 Ahasverus advena (Waltl, 1834) I Cryptamorpha sp. Oryzaephilus mercator (Fauvel, 1889) Oryzaephilus surinamensis (Linnaeus, 1758) R? I Luna de Carvalho, 1984 Microland Luna de Carvalho, 1984 Luna de Carvalho, 1984 Afrosorius assiniensis (Fauvel, 1903) Afrosorius curtipennis Fagel, 1958 Afrosorius strigifrons (Kolbe, 1889) Afrosorius viettei Fagel, 1958 Nacaeus aethiops (Eppelsheim, 1895) R Ferreira, 2014 E R Fagel, 1958 Ferreira, 2014 E R Fagel, 1958 Fauvel, 1903 I * * G. Nève et al. Nacaeus Blackwelder, 1942 Species 336 Higher taxonomy Subfamily Trichiinae Fleming, 1821 Clastocnemis Burmeister & Schaum, 1840 Paederus angusticeps Bernhauer, 1915 Rugilus rubelloides (Fagel, 1951) Tracypum vietteanum Fagel, 1977 Philonthus longicornis Stephens, 1832 Philonthus peregrinus Fauvel, 1866 Subfamily Tachyporinae MacLeay, 1825 Tachinomorphus Kraatz, 1859 Tachinomorphus africanus (Eppelsheim, 1895) Family Tenebrionidae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Diaperinae Latreille, 1802 Ceropria Laporte & Brullé, 1831 Ceropria anthracina Quedenfeldt, 1885 Ceropria romandi Laporte & Brullé, 1831 Gnathidium Gebien, 1920 Gnathidium cephalotes Gebien, 1921 Hypophloeus Fabricius, 1790 Hypophloeus insularis Gebien, 1921 Hypophloeus piceus Gebien, 1921 Hypophloeus sternalis Gebien, 1914 Ischnarthron Gebien, 1920 Ischnarthron longipes Gebien, 1921 R Fagel, 1966 R E Fagel, 1953 Fagel, 1977 R Ferreira, 2014 R Ferreira, 2014 R Fauvel, 1903 R Gebien, 1921 Stilicus rubelloides R Gebien, 1921 E Gebien, 1921 R Gebien, 1942 Corticeus insularis E Gebien, 1921 Gebien, 1914 Corticeus sternalis E Gebien, 1921 E E The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Rugilus Leach, 1819 Tracypum Fagel, 1977 Subfamily Staphylininae, Latreille, 1802 Philonthus Stephens, 1826 12 Subfamily Paederinae Fleming, 1821 Paederus Fabricius, 1775 337 (continued) Platydema Laporte de Castelnau & Brullé, 1831 Stomylus Fåhraeus, 1870 Species Microcrypticus scriptipennis (Fairmaire, 1875) Platydema capucinum Gebien, 1921 Stomylus maculosus (Thomson, 1858) ST R A E Reference Gebien, 1942 Synonyms Gebien, 1921 R Gebien, 1942 R E Microland Fairmaire, 1891 * * E Jordan, 1903 * Prioscelis serrata haesitans E Ardoin, 1958 * Eremobates crux Eremobates metallicus E R R R R Gebien, 1921 E E Gebien, 1942 Ardoin,1958 E Gebien, 1921 E Karsch, 1881 E ML R Pselaphidion macularium; Pselaphidion maculosum; Platydema maculosum Ardoin, 1958 Gebien, 1942 * G. Nève et al. Subfamily Lagriinae Latreille, 1825 (1820) Luprops chalceus Gebien, 1921 Luprops Hope, 1833 Physolagria Fairmaire, 1891 Physolagria molleri Fairmaire, 1891 Prioscelis Hope, 1840 Prioscelis haesitans Kolbe, 1903 Subfamily Phrenapatinae Solier, 1834 Afrotagalus Gebien, 1942 Afrotagalus viettei Ardoin, 1958 Subfamily Stenochiinae Kirby, 1837 Alcyonotus Pascoe, 1882 Alcyonotus insularis Ardoin, 1958 Derosphaerus Thomson, 1858 Derosphaerus globicollis Thomson, 1858 Derosphaerus morosus (Motschulsky, 1872) Eremobatodes Gebien, 1943 Eremobatodes crux (Gebien, 1921) Eremobatodes metallicus (Ardoin, 1958) Menephilus carbonatus Gebien, Menephilus Mulsant, 1854 1921 Menephilus conquinatus Karsch, 1881 P 338 Higher taxonomy Microcrypticus Gebien, 1921 Gebien, 1921 E Gebien, 1921 E E Karsch, 1881 Ardoin, 1962 E Karsch, 1881 E * Derosphaerus justi Derosphaerus marquesii Gebien, 1921 E Gebien, 1921 E Ardoin, 1958 E * Robiche, 2000 E Gebien, 1921 I Luna de Carvalho, 1984 Gebien, 1942 R E E E R R * R Gebien, 1921 Gebien, 1921 Gebien, 1921 Jordan, 1903 Gebien, 1921 * * Toxicum taurus; Cryphaeus aries (continued) 339 Subfamily Tenebrioninae Latreille, 1802 Alphitobius Stephens, 1829 Alphitobius laevigatus (Fabricius, 1781) Alphitobius viator Mulsant & Godart, 1868 Amenophis Thomson, 1858 Amenophis insularis Gebien, 1921 Amenophis minor Gebien, 1921 Amenophis striata Gebien, 1921 Cryphaeus Klug, 1833 Cryphaeus taurus (Fabricius, 1801) Diaclina Jacquelin du Val, 1861 Diaclina parallela (Thomson, 1858) E The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Strongylium Ditmar, 1809 Nesosphaerotus aeneus Gebien, 1921 Nesosphaerotus egena Gebien, 1921 Nesosphaerotus justi Karsch, 1881 Nesosphaerotus kulzeri Ardoin, 1962 Nesosphaerotus marquesi Karsch, 1881 Nesosphaerotus simplicifrons Gebien, 1921 Nesosphaerotus striatipennis Gebien, 1921 Nesosphaerotus viettei Ardoin, 1958 Strongylium camiadei Robiche, 2000 Strongylium feai Gebien, 1921 12 Nesosphaerotus Gebien, 1921 Hoplonyx Thomson, 1858 Megacantha Westwood, 1843 Nesopatrum Gebien, 1921 Palorus Mulsant, 1854 Peltoides Laporte de Castelnau, 1832 Tenebrio Linnaeus, 1758 Tribolium Macleay 1825 P ST R A R R E R E R Synonyms Gonocephalum granicolle Opatrum calcaripes Gebien, 1921 Gebien, 1921 Gebien, 1942 Gebien, 1921 Gebien, 1921 E Karsch, 1881 Opatrinus josephi R R Gebien, 1921 Gebien, 1921 Platyotus carinicollis R Gebien, 1921 R Gebien, 1921 E I R E E R ML Karsch, 1881 R R Reference Gebien, 1921 Robiche, 2009 Luna de Carvalho, 1984 Gebien, 1921 Gebien, 1942 Karsch, 1881 Gebien, 1921 Tenebrioloma semicostata * G. Nève et al. Uloma Dejean, 1821 Species Gonocephalum angolense subtilistriatum Kolbe, 1887 Gonocephalum calcaripes (Karsch, 1881) Gonocephalum feae Gebien, 1921 Gonocephalum prolixum (Erichson, 1843) Gonocephalum simplex (Fabricius, 1801) Hoplonyx insularis Gebien, 1921 Megacantha dentata (Fabricius, 1801) Nesopatrum josephii (Karsch, 1881) Palorus carinicollis Gebien, 1921 Palorus subdepressus (Wollaston, 1864) Peltoides senegalensis Laporte de Castelnau, 1832 Tenebrio (Afrotenebrio) guineensis Imhoff, 1843 Tenebrio legalli Robiche, 2009 Tribolium castaneum (Herbst, 1797) Tribolium semicostata Gebien, 1921 Uloma collaris Gebien, 1921 Uloma costae Karsch, 1881 Uloma laesicollis Thomson, 1858 340 Higher taxonomy Gonocephalum Solier, 1834 Tenebroides Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783 Family Zopheridae Solier, 1834 Subfamily Colydiinae Billberg, 1820 Bitoma Herbst, 1793 Mecedanum Erichson, 1845 Microprius Fairmaire, 1868 R Temnocheila patricioi (Karsch, 1881) Tenebroides maroccanus Reitter, 1884 Tenebroides mauritanicus (Linnaeus, 1758) Bitoma siccana (Pascoe, 1863) Mecedanum auberti (Fairmaire, 1882) Microprius rufulus (Motschulsky, 1863) Gebien, 1921 Opatrinus atratus; Opatrinus opacus E Karsch, 1881 Trogossita patricioi; Trogosita patricioi I Luna de Carvalho, 1984 Luna de Carvalho, 1984 I R R R Pope, 1961 Serrano, unpublished data Pope, 1961 Bitoma lyctiformis Microprius confusus The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón Family Trogossitidae Latreille, 1802 Subfamily Trogossitinae Latreille, 1802 Temnoscheila Westwood, 1830 Zidalus latipes (Sahlberg, 1823) 12 Zidalus Mulsant & Rey, 1852 341 342 G. Nève et al. References Adja NA, Danho M, Alabi TAF et al (2014) Entomofauna associated with African oleaginous cucurbits (Lagenaria siceraria Molina (Standl.1930) and Citrullus lanatus thumb (Matsum & Nakai 1916)) and impact of pests on production. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 50:301–310 Allard V (1990) Description d’une nouvelle cétoine de l’île du Prince: Pseudoheterophana canui nov.gen., nov.sp. (Col., Cetoniidae, Cetoniini, Heterophanina). Bulletin de la Société Sciences Nat 68:22–23 Antoine P (1992) Quelques espèces nouvelles ou peu connues de la famille des Cetoniidae - III. (Coleoptera, Scarabeoidea). Bulletin de la Société Sciences Nat 75–76:6–20 Ardoin P (1958) Mission du Muséum dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée. Entomologie: IX Coleoptera Tenebrionidae. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 63:129–136 Ardoin P (1962) Tenebrionides africains et malgaches nouveaux et notes synonymiques [Col.]. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 67:58–79 Barclay MVL (2006) Tenebrionoidea. In: Cooter J, Barclay MVL (eds) A Coleopterist’s handbook, 4th edn. The Amateur Entomologist, Orpington, pp 113–120 Bar-Ness YD, McQuillan PB, Whitman M, Junker RR, Cracknell M, Barrows A (2011) Sampling forest canopy arthropod biodiversity with three novel minimal-cost trap designs. Australian Journal of Entomology 51:12–21 Bartolozzi L, Werner H (2004) Illustrated catalogue of the Lucanidae from Africa and Madagascar. Taita Publishers, Hradex Králové, p 189 Basilewsky P (1975) Coléoptères Carabidae recueillis par M. G. Schmitz dans l’île de São Tomé (Ocean Atlantique). Bulletin et Annales de la Société Royale Belge d’Entomologie 111:289– 294 Bouchard P, Bousquet Y, Davies A et al (2011) Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta). ZooKeys 88:1–972 Bouyer T, Drumont A, Santos-Silva A (2012) Revision of African Parandrinae (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Insecta Mundi 241:1–85 Castel-Branco AJF (1963) Entomofauna de São Tomé (Insectos cacaueiro). Estudos, Ensaios e Documentos 107:11–94 Coache A, Rainon B (2020) Contribution à la connaissance des Cassidinae du Bénin (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). Faunitaxys 8(11):1–53 Darby M (2020) New species and records of Ptiliidae (Coleoptera) from Africa in the collection of the Natural History Museum, London. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine 156:29–47 Seabra AF de (1922) Insectes de S. Tomé provenant de la mission d’étude du Professeur Sousa da Camara en 1920. Anais do Instituto de Agronomia, Coimbra Separata, 27–45 Delahaye N, Camiade D (2016) Un Acanthophorini nouveau de São Tomé (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Prioninae). Faunitaxys 4:1–4 Endrődi S (1985) The Dynastinae of the world, series entomologica. Springer, Dordrecht Fairmaire L (1891) Contributions à l’étude de la faune entomologique de S. Thomé. O Instituto Segunda Serie: Jornal Scientiﬁco e Litterario 39:112–116 Fairmaire L (1892) Contributions à l’étude de la faune entomologique de S. Thomé. O Instituto Segunda Serie: Jornal Scientiﬁco e Litterario 39:640–641 Fairmaire L (1902) Coléoptères nouveaux de San-Thomé et du Benguéla. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 7:134–136 Fitton JG, Dunlop HM (1985) The Cameroon line, West Africa, and its bearing on the origin of oceanic and continental alkali basalt. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 72:23–38 Frolov A (2013) Stenosternus Karsch, a possible link between Neotropical and Afrotropical Orphninae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). ZooKeys 335:33–46 Fürsch H (1974) Die Coccinelliden von São Tomé (Col.). Mitteilungen der Münchener Entomologischen Gesellschaft 64:13–39 Gebien H (1921) Die Tenebrioniden Westafrikas. Archiv für Naturgeschichte 86:1–256 12 The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón 343 Gebien H (1942) Die Tenebrioniden der Guinea-Inseln. 20. Beitrag zu den wissenschaftlichen Ergebnissen der Forschungsreise H Eidmann nach Spanisch-Guinea 1939 bis 1940. Zoologischer Anzeiger 138:106–126 Gomes Alves ML (1956) Entomofauna da Guiné portuguesa e S. Tomé e Príncipe (Contribuiçao para o seu conhecimento) coleópteros (Lucanidae, Scarabaeidae, Cicindelidae, Buprestidae). Boletim Cultural da Guiné Portuguesa XI:87–105 Gomy Y, Lemagnen R, Poussereau J (eds) (2016) Les coléoptères de l’île de La Réunion. Orphie, Saint Denis Henriques JA (1917) A ilha de S. Tomé sob o ponto de vista histórico-natural e agrícola. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 27:1–211 Hintz E (1919) Cerambyciden. In: Friedrichs A (ed) Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der zweiten deutschen Zentral-Afrika-Expedition, 1910–1911. Klinkhardt & Biermann, Leipzig, pp 599–638 Hope FW (1833) On the characters of several new genera and species of coleopterous insects. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1:61–64 Iwan D, Ferrer J, Raś M (2010) Catalogue of the world Gonocephalum Solier, 1834 (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae, Opatrini). Part 1. List of the species and subspecies. Annales Zoologici (Warszawa) 60(2):245–304 Jones PJ, Burlison JP, Tye A (1991) Conservação dos ecossistemas ﬂorestais na República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland & Cambridge (United Kingdom), p 78 Karsch F (1881) Über von Herrn Professor R. Greeff auf den Guninea-Inseln gesammelte Coleopteren. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 20:55–62 Karsch F (1882) Neue Apogonien des Berliner Museums (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 26:121–123 Kavanaugh DH (2005) A new species of the endemic genus Straneoa Basilewsky, 1953, from São Tomé (Insecta: Coleoptera: Carabidae: Platynini). Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 56:275–283 Klug F (1835) V. Insekten. In: Erman A (ed) Reise um die Erde durch Nord-Asien und die beiden Oceane in den Jahren 1828–30. Naturhistorischer Atlas, Berlin, pp 27–50 Kolbe HJ (1899) Ueber neue oder wenig bekannte Arten der Melolonthiden-Gattung Apogonia aus Afrika. Entomologische Nachrichten 25:39–60 Lepesme P, Breuning S (1956) Les Sternotomini de l’Ouest africain. Longicornia (Paris) 3:269–347 López-López A, Vogler AP (2017) The mitogenome phylogeny of Adephaga (Coleoptera). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 114:166–174 Lorenz W (2005) Systematic list of extant ground beetles of the world (Insecta coleopteran Geadephaga: Trachypachidae, and Carabidae incl. Paussinae, Cicindelinae, Rhysodinae). Second edition. Published by the author, Tutzing, 530 pp Luna de Carvalho E (1984) Guia prático para a identiﬁcação de alguns insectos de armazéns e produtos armazenados (3ª parte). Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisboa, p 124 Mendes, LFM, Rocha Pité T, Capela RA, Serrano ARM, Soares AA (1988) Sobre a fauna terrestre e ribeirinha da República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. A missão zoológica do Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia da Faculdade de Ciências de Lisboa e do Museu Nacional de História Natural (Museu Bocage) à República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe (13–VI/7–VII–1984). Nota preliminar. Arquivos do Museu Bocage Volume Especial:1–16 Nilsson AN, Hájek J (2018) A world catalogue of the family Dytiscidae, or the diving beetles (Coleoptera, Adephaga) Version 1.I.2018. Available via www.waterbeetles.eu. Accessed 21 Oct 2021. Norder SJ, Lima RF, de Nascimento L et al (2020) Global change in microcosms: environmental and societal predictors of land cover change on the Atlantic Ocean islands. Anthropocene 30: 100242 Rejzek M (2006) Cerambycidae. In: Cooter J, Barclay MVL (eds) A Coleopterist’s handbook, 4th edn. The Amateur Entomologist, Orpington, pp 121–142 344 G. Nève et al. Robiche G (2000) Contribution à l’étude de la biodiversité des ténébrions des îles de São Tomé et Príncipe (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae). Lambillionea 100:479–483 Rocha Pité MT (1993) A preliminary survey of Drosophilidae of São Tomé Island. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 29(3):269–280 Serrano ARM (1995) Coléoptères Caraboidea de l’île de São Tomé (Golfe de Guinée), Faunistique et description d’espèces nouvelles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie 12(4):281–296 Serrano ARM (2008) A new species of the genus Perigona Castelnau, 1835 and new records of tiger and ground beetles for S. Tomé e Príncipe islands (Coleoptera: Caraboidea, Cicindelidae, Carabidae). Lambillionea 108:323–328 Serrano ARM (2010) A new species of the genus Perigona Castelnau, 1835 and new records of tiger and ground beetles for S. Tome e Príncipe islands (Coleoptera: Caraboidea, Cicindelidae, Carabidae) addendum. Lambillionea 110:136 Smith RR, Short AEZ (2020) Review of the genus Chasmogenus sharp, 1882 of northeastern South America with an emphasis on Venezuela, Suriname, and Guyana (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae, Acidocerinae). ZooKeys 934:25–79 Tavakilian GL, Chevillotte H (2020) Base de données Titan sur les cérambycidés ou longicornes. Available via http://titan.gbif.fr/index.html. Accessed 8 Oct 2020 Tordo GC (1956) Entomofauna da Guiné Portuguesa e S. Tomé e Príncipe (Contribuição para o seu conhecimento): Coleópteros e hemípteros. Boletim Cultural da Guiné Portuguesa XI 44:107– 120 Viette P (1956) Mission entomologique dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée (Príncipe, São Tomé, Annobón). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 61:200–208 Villiers A (1957) Mission du Muséum dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée, Entomologie: III Coleoptera Cerambycidae. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 62:147–149 Zuzarte AJGS, Serrano ARM (1996a) Sobre a fauna terrestre e ribeirinha da República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. Cerambicídeos (Coleoptera Cerambycidae) da ilha de São Tomé. Boletim da Sociedade Portuguesa de Entomologia 163:173–184 Zuzarte AJGS, Serrano ARM (1996b) Contribuição para o conhecimento dos cerambicídeos (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) da Guiné-Bissau e de São Tomé e Príncipe. Boletim da Sociedade Portuguesa de Entomologia 165:201–210 Further Reading cited in Appendix Antoine P (2005) A propos de Clastocnemis quadrimaculatus (Afzelius, 1817) (Coleoptera, Cetoniidae, Trechiinae). Entomologia Africana 10(1):2–7 Aurivillius C (1910) Neue oder wenig bekannte Coleoptera Longicornia II. Arkiv för Zoologi (Uppsala & Stockholm) 7:143–186 Aurivillius C (1928) Neue Cerambyciden aus dem Somalilande und Abessinien in Museo Civico di Storia Naturale in Genova. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria, Genova 52:473–486 Bänninger M (1937) Zwei neue afrikanische Scarites-Arten (Col.). Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 59:476–479 Basilewsky P (1949) Carabidae africains nouveaux des Musées de Gênes et de Milan. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 64:1–11 Basilewsky P (1953) Un genre nouveau d’anchoménien de l’île de San Thomé. Bulletin et Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique 89(11–12):272–277 Basilewsky P (1957) Coléoptères Carabidae africains nouveaux VIII. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines 56(1–2):33–40 12 The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón 345 Basilewsky P (1958) Mission du Muséum dans les îles du Golfe de Guinée. Entomologie: VII Coleoptera Carabidae. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 63:96–98 Basilewsky P (1989) Revision of African Perigonini (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Revue de Zoologie Africaine 103:413–452 Beaver R, Löyttyniemi K (1985) The platypodid ambrosia beetles of Zambia (Coleoptera: Platypodidae). Revue de Zoologie Africaine 99:113–134 Berlioz J (1919) Description d’une espèce nouvelle d’eumolpide (Col. Chrysomel.) nuisible aux cacaoyers de l’île San Thomé. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 1919:88–89 Biondi M, D’Alessandro P (2015) Revision of the Afrotropical genus Notomela Jacoby, 1899 with description of N. joliveti sp. n. from Príncipe Island (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae, Alticini). ZooKeys 547:63–74 Bomans HE (1992) Les coléoptères Lucanidae de l’île Príncipe (78è contribution à l’étude des coléoptères lucanides). Lambillionea 92:251–254 Borovec R, Anderson R (2021) Saotomia tuberculata, a new genus and species of Peritelini (Coleoptera; Curculionidae; Entiminae) from São Tomé, West Africa. Zootaxa 4966:571–577 Bremer HJ, Lillig M (2014) World catalogue of Amarygmini, Rhysopaussini and Falsocossyphini (Coleoptera; Tenebrionidae). Mitteilungen der Münchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft 104 (Suppl):3–176 Breuning S (1935) Études sur les lamiaires (Coléop. Cerambycidæ). Deuxième Tribu: Sternotomini Thomson. Novitates Entomologicæ Supplément 3:99–156 Breuning S (1936) Études sur les lamiaires (Coléop. Cerambycidæ). Troisième Tribu: Prosopocerini Thomson. Novitates Entomologicæ Supplément 3:157–230 Breuning S (1938) Novae species Cerambycidarum VI. In: Festschrift zum 60. geburtstage von Professor Dr. Embrik Strand. Riga, pp 180–392. Breuning S (1940) Novae species Cerambycidarum IX. Folia Zoologica et Hydrobiologica, Riga 10:115–214 Breuning S (1943) Novae species Cerambycidarum XII. Folia Zoologica et Hydrobiologica, Riga 12:12–66 Breuning S (1947) Nouvelles formes de longicornes du Musée de Stockholm. Arkiv för Zoologi, Uppsala 39A:1–68 Breuning S (1955) Lamiaires nouveaux de la collection du Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Genova (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 68: 40–44 Breuning S (1956) Longicornes nouveaux de la collection du Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Genova (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 68: 244–258 Breuning S (1958) Revision der Gattung Glenea Newm. (Col. Ceramb.) (3. Fortsetzung und Schluß). Entomologische Arbeiten aus dem Museum G Frey 9:804–907 Breuning S (1970) Nouveaux Lamiaires africains [Col. Cerambycidae] des collections du Muséum de Paris. Bulletin de l’Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire, Dakar, Série A 32:718–759 Calabresi E (1920) Brentidi raccolti da Leonardo Fea nell’Africa occidentale. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Series 3 9(49):16–45 Castel-Branco AJF (1965) A broca do café em S. Tomé (Stephanoderes hampei Ferrari). Garcia de Orta 17(1):97–106 Castel-Branco AJF (1966) Pachymerus lacerdae Chevrolat, espécie nova (Ins. Col. Bruchidae) para a fauna da ilha de S. Tomé. Garcia de Orta 13(2):179–184 Cristóvão J, Lyal C (2018) Anchonini in Africa: New species and genus conﬁrming a Transatlantic distribution (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Molytinae). Diversity 10:82 Damoiseau (1963) Nouveaux Brentidae (Coleoptera) du Musée de Gênes. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 73:109–120 Dechambre R-P (1983) Contribution à l’étude du peuplement des iles du Golfe de Guinée. Coléoptères Dynastidae Phileurinae de l’ile Príncipe. Revue Française d’Entomologie 5:110– 112 346 G. Nève et al. Delahaye N, Juhel P (2018) Description d’une nouvelle sous-espèce de Callichromatini de São Tomé (Cerambycidae, Cerambycinae, Callichromatini). Les Cahiers Magellanes 31:59–62 d’Orbigny H (1905) Onthophagides provenant du voyage de M. L. Fea dans l’Afrique occidentale. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, Series 3 1(41):417–448 d’Orbigny H (1913) Synopsis des onthophagides d’Afrique. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 82:1–742 Fagel G (1953) Contribution à la connaissance des Staphylinidae. XXV - Essai de classiﬁcation des Stilicus africains. Bulletin et Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique 89(11–12): 282–299 Fagel G (1958) Sur quelques Osoriinae du Golfe de Guinée. Revue Française d’Entomologie 25: 26–32 Fagel G (1966) Contribution à la connaissance des Staphylinidae XCV. Les Paederus ethiopiens. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines 73:255–272 Fagel G (1977) Contribution à l’étude des Coléoptères Staphylinidae. Révision des Cryptobiina africains. Annales du Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale Tervuren Série 8. Sciences Zoologiques 219:1–110 Fauvel A (1903) Staphylinidae recueillis au Cameroun par le Dr. Yngve Sjöstedt. Arkiv för Zoologi 1:235–244 Ferreira RN (2014) New records of Staphylinidae (Coleoptera) from São Tomé and Príncipe (Western Africa). Arquivos Entomoloxicos 10:93–96 Frolov AV, Akhmetova LA (2015) Rediscovery of the enigmatic Stenosternus costatus Karsch (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Orphninae) from São Tomé Island. Zootaxa 4007:440–444 Gebien H (1914) Tenebrionidae. In: Friedrichs A (ed) Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der zweiten deutschen Zentral-Afrika-Expedition, 1910–1911. Klinkhardt & Biermann, Leipzig, pp 42–62 Gestro R (1902) Contribuzioni allo studio dei Paussidi. Bollettino della Società Entomologica Italiana 34:33–36 Gestro R (1905) Material per lo studio delle Hispidae. XXIX. Viaggio di Leonardo Fea nell’Africa Occidentale. Hispidae. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Séries 3(42): 501–557 Girard C (2017) Catalogue commenté des Coléoptères Elateridae d’Afrique subsaharienne (Cardiophorinae exclus). Mémoires de la Société Entomologique de France 10:1–403 Gomes Alves ML (1965) Passalídeos (Ins. Col.) da África portuguesa. Garcia de Orta 13(2): 167–172 Gomes Alves ML (1973) Contribuição para o conhecimento dos Coccinelídeos (Ins. Col.) do Ultramar Português. Memórias da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, 2ª Série 58: 45–97. Gomes Alves ML, Castel-Branco A (1962) Una espécie nova de Coccinela entomófaga da ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta 10:643–646 Gomy Y (2004) Contribution à la connaissance des Histeridae corticoles de l’île de São Tomé (Insecta, Coleoptera). Il Naturalista Valtellinese - Atti del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Morbegno 15:21–27 Gordon RD (1987) A catalogue of the Crotch collection of Coccinellidae (Coleoptera). Occasional Papers on Systematic Entomology 3:1–46 Grifﬁni A (1906) Lucanidi raccolti da Leonardo Fea nell’Africa Occidentale. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Série 3 2(42):135–148 Harold E (1879) I. Bericht über die von Herren A. v. Homeyer und P. Pogge in Angola und im Lunda-Reiche gesammelten Coleopteren. Coleopterologische Hefte 16:1–224 Hounkpati K, McHugh J, Niang AA, Goergen G (2020) Documenting museum records of West African Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) in Benin and Senegal. Biodiversity Data Journal 8:e47340 Janson OE (1907) List of the Cetoniidae collected by the late Leonardo Fea in West Africa. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Series 3 3(43):326–338 Jordan K (1903) Some new Cerambycidae collected by Albert Mocquerys on the island of St. Thomé, Gulf of Guinea, West Africa. Novitates Zoologicae 10:192–196 12 The Beetles (Coleoptera) of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón 347 Jordan K (1911) Some new Anthribidae from the island of St. Thomé, bay of Benin. Novitates Zoologicae 18:90–91 Jordan K (1920) Anthribidae collected by Signor L. Fea on the islands of Fernando Po, S. Thomé and Príncipe. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Series 3 9(49):46–56 Kaden O (1930) Relatório Anual de 1929, Seccão de Fitopatologia. Direcção dos Serviços de Agricultura, Imprensa Nacional, São Tomé e Príncipe, p 56 Kerremans C (1906) Buprestides recueillis par Mr. L. Fea dans l’Afrique occidentale. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Series 3 2(42):406–411 Kerremans C (1914) Monographie des buprestides. J. Janssens, Brussels Krell F-T (1994) Phylogenetisch-systematische Revision des Genus Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea: Melolonthidae: Dynastinae: Pentodontini) 2. Teil: Bestimmungstabelle, Katalog, Bibliographie, Gazetteer und Material-Listen. Beiträge zur Entomologie 44(1):83–155 Kuijten PJ (1983) Revision of the genus Hybosorus Macleay (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Hybosorinae). Zoologische Verhandelingen 203:3–49 Laboissière MV (1920) Description d’une espèce nouvelle de Nisotra (Halticini) de l’île de San Thomé [Col. Chrysomelidae]. Bulletin du Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle 23:31–32 Lacroix M (2008) Contribution à la connaissance des Melolonthinae africains, I. Nouveaux genres et nouvelles espèces du complexe Apogonia Kirby, 1819 (Coleoptera, Melolonthidae). Coléoptères 14:67–98 Lameere AAL (1912) Révision des prionides.Vingt-deuxième mémoire - Addenda et corrigenda. Mémoires de la Société Entomologique de Belgique 21:113–188 Lassalle B, Roux P (2021) Contribution à la connaissance des Pheropsophus Solier, 1833 africains (Coleoptera, Caraboidea, Brachinidae). Faunitaxys 9(2):1–12 Lefkovitch LP (1962) A revision of African Laemophloeinae (Coleoptera: Cucujidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Entomology 12(4):167–245 Lepesme P (1948) Longicornes de Boukoko. Agronomie Tropicale 3:282–286 Lepesme P, Breuning S (1950) Les Tragocephalini de l’Ouest africain. Longicornia (Paris) 1:423– 506 Lesne P (1906) Viaggio di Leonardo Fea nell’Africa occidentale. Bostrychidae. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Series 3 2(42):412–417 Lewis G (1900) On new species of Histeridae and notices of others. Ann Mag Nat Hist Séries 7 6: 265–290 Lewis G (1906) Viaggio di Leonardo Fea nell’Africa occidentale (Histeridae). Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Series 3 2(42):398–405 Matsumoto K (2019) Description of a new subspecies of Prosopocoilus antilopus (Swederus, 1787) (Coleoptera: Lucanidae) from Annobón island, Gulf of Guinea. Zootaxa 4559:581–586 Medler JT (1980) Insects of Nigeria. Checklist and bibliography. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 30:1–919 Moser J (1904) Neue afrikanische Cetoniden-Arten. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift 48:59–70 Nýlander U (2000) Description of a new species of the genus Acanthophorus Serville, 1832 (subg. Ceratocentrus Aurivillius, 1903) from Príncipe Isl. African region. (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Prioninae). Lambillionea 100:614–616 Paulian R (1941) Coprophaga africana: Deuxième note. Revision des Bolboceras africains. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines 35:1–71 Paulian R (1949) Les scarabéides africains du genre Paraphytus Harold [Col.]. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 54:117–119 Pic M (1916) Notes et descriptions abrégées diverses. Mélanges Exotico-entomologiques 17:1–31 Pic M (1922) Nouveautés diverses. Mélanges Exotico-entomologiques 35:1–32 Pic M (1926) Études sur les lycides. I. Lycides récoltés par L. Fea à Fernando Poo et îles avoisinantes. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 52:116–129 Pope RD (1961) Exploration du Parc National de la Garamba. Mission H. de Saeger. 25: Colydiidae (Coleoptera Clavicornia). Institut des Parcs Nationaux du Congo Belge, Brussels, p 115 348 G. Nève et al. Régimbart M (1904) Dytiscidae et Gyrinidae recueillis par Mr. L. Fea en Afrique occidentale. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Series 3 1(41):65–68 Régimbart M (1907) Hydrophilides provenant du voyage de M. L. Fea dans l’Afrique Occidentale. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Series 3 3(43):46–62 Rigout J, Allard V (1992) Cetoniini 2. Les coléoptères du monde, Sciences Nat, Compiègne, p 100 Ruzzier E (2015) Taxonomic considerations on the genus Ophthalmoglipa Franciscolo, 1952 (Coleoptera: Mordellidae) with description of two new species. Zootaxa 4059:364–370 Schmidt M (1922) Die afrikanischen Callichrominen (Col. Ceramb.) nach systematischen, phylogenetischen und geographischen Gesichtspunkten. Archiv für Naturgeschichte, Berlin 88(6):61–232 Sicard A (1911) Descriptions d’espèces et variétés nouvelles de coccinellides du Musée Civique de Gênes rapportées de l’Afrique occidentale par M. L. Fea. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Series 3 5(45):282–292 Sicard A (1920) Descriptions d’espèces et variétés nouvelles de coccinellides de São Tomé. Bulletin de la Société Portugaise des Sciences Naturelles 8:211–214 Straneo SL (1940) Nuovi Abacetus dell’Africa Occidentale raccolti da L. Fea. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria 60:438–444 Straneo SL (1941–1942) Revisione dei Caelostomini africani (Coleopt Carabid.). Memorie della Societá Entomologica Italiana 20–21:21–164. Straneo SL (1943) Su alcuni carabidi del Museo Civico di Genova raccolti in Africa Occidentale da L. Fea. Nota I. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria 62:55–61 Vargas Ferreira MA (1967) Os Oryctes em São Tomé. Boletim Informativo, Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário, São Tomé e Príncipe 1:53–56 Vesco JP, Guilbot R, Lachaume G (1999) Étude sur la possibilité d’implanter un élevage de papillons économiquement rentable sur l’île de São Tomé et un manuel simple d’élevage des lépidoptères. Groupement Agreco G.E.I.E. – BDPA-SCETAGRI-SECA-CIRAD Forêt, São Tomé, p 15. Wood SL, Bright DE Jr (1992) Subfamily Platypodinae. Great Basin Naturalist. Memoirs 13(11): 1113–1240 Zoia S (2017) The Eumolpinae of São Thomé, Príncipe & Bioko islands from the collections of the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “G Doria”, Genoa. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “G Doria” 110:325–398 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 13 Butterﬂies and Skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Luís F. Mendes and António Bivar-de-Sousa Abstract The three Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón, have always remained isolated from the African continent and correspond to the westernmost peaks of the Cameroon Volcanic Line, while the island of Bioko, part of the same ridge, was connected to the mainland during glaciations. Despite the small area of the oceanic islands, their relief and remoteness have enabled the evolution of remarkable ecological and biological diversity. Concerning diurnal Lepidoptera, 91 species and subspecies are known from the oceanic islands: 46 from Príncipe, 64 from São Tomé, and 8 from Annobón; and 35 are endemic: 17 to Príncipe, 23 to São Tomé, and only 5 shared among islands. Further species have been reported in error, either due to misidentiﬁcation or to mislabelling. A revised checklist of the species and subspecies of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands Papilionoidea is presented as is a summary of their taxonomy, distribution, and ecology. Keywords Africa · Conservation · Ecology · Endemism · Taxonomy L. F. Mendes (*) Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal e-mail: luisfmendes@edu.ulisboa.pt A. Bivar-de-Sousa Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Sociedade Portuguesa de Entomologia, Lisbon, Portugal © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_13 349 350 L. F. Mendes and A. Bivar-de-Sousa Introduction The Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands (GGOI), Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón (¼Pagalu), represent the Cameroon Volcanic Line’s westernmost peaks; they have never been connected to one another nor to the mainland. Bioko (¼Fernando Poo), on the other hand, is a continental island that was connected to mainland Africa during glaciations, most recently, ca. 11,000 years (Lambert and Chappel 2001). Annobón is part of Equatorial Guinea, and with ca. 17 km2, it is located ca. 180 km SSW from São Tomé and 340 km W from Gabon (Jones and Tye 2006). The maximum altitude of this small island is ca. 600 m (Quioveo peak) and its biodiversity (Exell 1944, 1956, 1973; Heras et al. 2002), Papilionoidea included, is much lower than that of the other GGOI. Príncipe is the smaller of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé e Príncipe main islands. With ca. 140 km2, it is ca. 210 km SSW off Bioko and 140 km NNE of ST with a maximum altitude ca. 935 m (Pico Príncipe). It was, however, much larger historically and extended to the SSW (Jones and Tye 2006), including the plantless Tinhosas Islets. The Tinhosas are currently a breeding colony of sea birds, a Ramsar site, from which no Papilionoidea are known. São Tomé is ca. 860 km2, and lies almost 150 km SW of Príncipe, 180 km NNE of Annobón and ca. 255 NW of Gabon, with a maximum altitude (Pico São Tomé) ca. 2024 m. the Equator crosses Rolas Islet, which is just South of São Tomé. The predominant natural ecosystem type of the GGOI was described as rainforest (Exell 1944, 1973) or tropical moist broadleaf forest (Gascoigne 2004), which is stratiﬁed into lowland (0–800 m), montane (800–1400 m), and mist forest (1400–2024 m), the last category being absent from Príncipe. In Annobón the three types appear compressed in its small altitudinal range as in the lower São Tomé southern peaks (Ogonovszky 2003). Due to rain shadow, NW São Tomé has a dry forest, which is rich in endemic butterﬂy species. In relation to diurnal Lepidoptera, the skippers (Hesperiidae) were formerly placed in the superfamily Hesperioidea, independent from the butterﬂies, but Heikkilä et al. (2012), supported by morphological and genetic data, demonstrated that they are part of the same evolutionary group, the superfamily Papilionoidea. Their diversity and endemism in São Tomé and Príncipe has been the focus of several notable studies (Pyrcz 1992a; Mendes and Bivar-de-Sousa 2012a) and a further contribution is currently in preparation (Mendes et al. in prep.). Here we provide an updated checklist of the Papilionoidea of the GGOI and review previously incorrectly cited taxa. The Papilionoidea of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Data Sources The ﬁrst references to the Papilionoidea of Annobón were given by Aurivillius (1910), who reported Borbo fatuellus (sub Baoris), and Kheil (1910) who noted Leptotes pirithous (sub Syntarucus), A. zetes (as monotypic) and Telchinia pharsalus 13 Butterﬂies and Skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf. . . 351 (sub Acraea). Aurivillius (1928) and Bacelar (1948) recorded Euchrysops osiris (sub Cupido). D’Abrera (1980) described Acraea zetes annobona (type locality), which also occurs in São Tomé and Príncipe, being endemic to the three islands. Viejo (1984) added Melanitis leda, Danaus chrysippus, Hypolimnas misippus and Telchinia pharsalus (sub Acraea) to the list of species of these islands but some of the samples were reported only from “Spanish Guinea”. Olano and Marcos (1993) report the species assigned by Viejo (1984) but consider D. chrysippus as restricted to Rio Muni and Bioko while Euchrysops osiris is assigned to the mainland only. Acraea zetes annobona is not recognized by Olano and Marcos (1993) despite Annobón being its type locality. These authors also question the presence in the islands of Sevenia boisduvalli insularis (today considered a São Tomé endemic) and of Dixeia piscicollis reported by D’Abrera (1980) from Equatorial Guinea but later considered as a São Tomé endemic (D’Abrera 1997). These are the only data known on the Papilionoidea of the most remote and less diverse GGOI. An even lower diversity is known from the remote Saint Helena that, while not part of the Cameroon Volcanic Line, lies eastwards of the Mid-Atlantic chain (Ashmole and Ashmole 2000): Lampides boeticus, Danaus chrysippus, Vanessa cardui and Hypolimnas misippus, all widely ranged migratory species. The scientiﬁc knowledge of butterﬂy and skipper diversity of the GGOI has increased intermittently since Cramer (1775–1776). It (almost) stabilized during the eighteenth century (1850–1870) but suddenly increased from the turn of the nineteenth until the twentieth century with the contributions of Aurivillius, Joicey and Talbot, Sharpe and Snellen. After another hiatus, several additional phases of discovery followed, ﬁrstly due to the work of Amélia Bacelar (Bacelar 1948, 1958) in the mid-twentieth century, and then, toward the end of the century the contributions of Libert (2004, 2011), Pyrcz (1991a–c) and our work in São Tomé and Príncipe (Mendes et al. 1988, 2018; Mendes and Bivar-de-Sousa 2006, 2012a, b). Some large collections, which are mostly currently housed in the Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência (MUHNAC), in Lisbon, Portugal, were studied by Mendes and Bivar-de-Sousa 2006, 2012a, b; Mendes et al. 2018, but the revised checklist (Appendix) takes into account bibliographic records that have been reviewed and conﬁrmed by newly collected data. The bibliographic data considered for assembling this checklist originated from the following references: Cramer (1775–76—who reports the ﬁrst species for São Tomé and for the GGOI: Acraea medea), Snellen (1873), Sharpe (1893), Holland (1896), Aurivillius (1898, 1910), Rothschild and Jordan (1900), Eltringham (1912), Le Cerf (1924), Joicey and Talbot (1926, 1927), Hawker-Smith (1928), Riley (1928), Evans (1937), Bacelar (1948), Someren (1971a, b, 1972, 1974, 1975), Pinhey (1972), D’Abrera (1980, 1997, 2004, 2009), Plantrou (1983), Hancock (1984), Henning (1988), Pyrcz (1991a, b, c, 1992a, b), Canu (1994), Wojtusiak and Pyrcz (1995, 1997), Pierre et al. (2002), Hecq (2003a, b), Turlin (2005a, b, 2007a, b, c), Anonymous (2007), Bonﬁm and Carvalho (2009), Koçak and Kemal (2009), Williams (2008, 2015), Velzen et al. 352 L. F. Mendes and A. Bivar-de-Sousa (2009), Libert (2011), Oremans (2012), Pierre and Bernaud (2013, 2014), Collins and Larsen (2013), Wikipedia (2014), Collins (2015) and Awanao et al. (2018). Specimens deposited in the Museu Bocage (MB), a precursor institution of present-day MUHNAC, were also partially studied by the authors. However, all of MB specimens were destroyed in the ﬁre that engulfed the collections, library, and associated structures on March 28, 1978. Among the destroyed collections were Sharpe (1893) São Tomé type specimens, as had been recorded by Fernandes (1958), the holotype of Pyrrhiades bocagei (sub Rhopalocampta), three specimens of Leptotes sanctithomae (as Catochrysops sancti-thomae), comprising holotype and allotype, as well as the holotypes of Acraea niobe, Telchinia insularis (sub Acraea) and Telchinia newtoni (sub Acraea). Most of the information concerning newly identiﬁed and re-examined specimens is based on the analysis of specimens from São Tomé and Príncipe collected by the zoological expeditions held in 1954–1955 by the Centro de Zoologia (CZ) of the Junta de Investigações do Ultramar and a mission to São Tomé Island in 1984 by MB and the Faculty of Sciences of the Lisbon University (Mendes et al. 1988). These studies were followed by Mendes and Bivar-de-Sousa (2006, 2012a, b) and Mendes et al. (2018) contributions, all based on newly collected specimens between 2004 and 2019. Some of these specimens were collected during a 2015 California Academy of Sciences funded expedition, to which the senior author was invited by Dr. Robert (Bob) Drewes to participate. Some other material was studied, namely that available in the collections of the Centro de Investigação Agronómica e Tecnológica de São Tomé e Príncipe (CIAT) in Potó, São Tomé Island. This collection was established by members of the CZ before the country gained independence in 1975. Data available from the private collections of the second co-author of this study, as well as those of António Figueira (1924–2017; now housed in the collections of the Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal) and Carlos da Silva were also used. Information from local collaborators, especially those of Rato Cabinda, are also included in this revised checklist. Incorrectly Recorded Taxa Despite most of the known references being scientiﬁcally trustworthy, several reported taxa are based on misidentiﬁed or mislabelled specimens of species and subspecies that are mostly typical from savanna and Sahel-biotopes (see Appendix): Hesperiidae Sarangesa phidyle, Spialia diomus, S. spio, Gomalia elma, Borbo gemella and Pelopidas mathias were recorded for the islands but do not occur there (Appendix). Evans (1937) and Chiba (2009) consider Coeliades hanno as present in São Tomé, but the only brown Coeliades conﬁrmed in São Tomé and Príncipe is the morphologically similar C. forestan. 13 Butterﬂies and Skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf. . . 353 Papilionidae Papilio dardanus sulfurea is a Bioko endemic whose type locality was wrongly considered to be Príncipe (Palisot de Beauvois 1805–1821). Its occurrence on Príncipe Island was also recorded by Canu (1994) and by Koçak and Kemal (2009—sub princeps), but all the recent authors consider it a Bioko endemic. Graphium angolanus baronis, G. latreillianus theorini and G. ridleyanus, which are large and unmistakable taxa occurring in continental Africa have also been recorded from São Tomé based on some specimens in the collections of the Natural History Museum (NHM) of London (Smith and Vane-Wright 2001); however, the location of these specimens is likely mislabelled, as no other records of these taxa exist for the island. Pieridae Larsen (2005) considers Colotis doubledayi, noted for instance by Ackery et al. (1995) and D’Abrera (1997) as occurring in São Tomé, as a misidentiﬁcation. Berger (1981) is the only record of Belenois gidica for São Tomé. The single reference of Appias phaola to the island of São Tomé (Bacelar 1948) refers to three males and one female that were subsequently destroyed during the MB ﬁre. These likely represented records of A. epaphia aequatorialis, later described from the island (Mendes and Bivar-de-Sousa 2006). Leptosia medusa, reported also by Bacelar (1948, four males, one female) from São Tomé corresponds to a misidentiﬁed L. alcesta (Mendes and Bivar-de-Sousa 2012a, b). All the São Tomé records of species of the genus Mylothris, except those of M. rembina, are putative misidentiﬁcations and were partially rectiﬁed: M. asphodelus by Bacelar (1948); M. bernice by Sharpe (1893); M. nubila by Schultze (1917); M. poppea by Viejo (1984); M. rhodope and M. spica by Berger (1979); and M. sulphurea by Pyrcz (1992a, who stresses the muddled knowledge of the genus in São Tomé). Lycaenidae Hypolycaena philippus, Anthene amarah, Azanus moriqua, Azanus ubaldus, Leptotes brevidentatus, L. jeannelli, and Zizula hylax were recorded for the islands but do not occur there (Appendix). Liptena evanescens f. xanthis reported by Stempffer et al. (1974) from São Tomé either represents a mislabeled specimen or a locally extirpated population. Libert (2004) reports the presence of Hypomyrina fournieri either in São Tomé or in Príncipe (material not seen, occurrence not mapped), but the species is not mentioned as occurring in the GGOI by Ackery et al. (1995) nor by D’Abrera (2009). Sharpe (1893) reports Rubropelates aruma in São Tomé, but this record may represent a non-established population or a misidentiﬁed specimen of Deudorix lorisona. In addition, Sharpe (1893) registers Leptotes pulchra in São Tomé but does not consider the quite common L. pirithous. Nymphalidae Bicyclus dorothea concolor, B. funebris and B. martius sanaos were recorded for the islands but do not occur there (Appendix). Furthermore, B. italus was mapped in São Tomé by Condamin (1973), but all these records may have been based on a misidentiﬁed B. medontias, a similar forest species whose presence on the island was unknown until recently (Larsen 2005). Precis hierta, Precis orithya, Salamis anacardii (currently a species of Protogoniomorpha), Byblia ilithyia and Hamanumida daedalus are certainly not present in São Tomé and Príncipe. Neptis serena is listed by Koçak and Kemal (2009) for São Tomé and Príncipe, but these 354 L. F. Mendes and A. Bivar-de-Sousa authors do not report the endemic Neptis larseni from Príncipe; indeed, N. serena is only assigned to Príncipe when that endemic was described (Wojtusiak and Pyrcz 1997). Pyrcz (1992a) reports an undetermined red Cymothoe that Canu (1994) assigned to São Tomé, but was unable to ﬁnd the specimens later; several species of the C. sangaris group are known from Central and West Africa and thus this information is insufﬁcient to consider its presence in the GGOI. The same must be stated about the references of several “acraea” species (currently Acraea and Telchinia) reported by Bacelar (1958), Mendes and Bivar-de-Sousa (2012a, b), Pierre and Bernaud (1999, 2009a, b), Pierre et al. (2002), Pyrcz (1992a), Snellen (1873) and Viejo (1984), namely Acraea pseudegina, Telchinia e. encedon, T. esebria, T. pentapolis, and T. vesperalis. Telchinia jodutta was reported from São Tomé and Príncipe by several authors—ﬁrst reference by Aurivillius (1910)— though Oremans (2012) describes its insular vicariant, A. severina, with one subspecies in São Tomé and another in Príncipe. Bacelar (1958) refers A. eponina latifasciata but she did not have access to new specimens, while Pyrcz (1992a) questioned its presence in São Tomé and Príncipe and Pierre et al. (2002) did not report the species as occurring in the GGOI despite its huge African range. Bacelar (1948) reports Acraea monteironis from São Tomé based upon one male whose identiﬁcation we could not conﬁrm—if the specimen was in MB it was certainly destroyed in 1978; this species, described from Angola, was never recorded again from the island. Viejo (1984), based in Bacelar (1948), was the only subsequent author who considers Acraea monteironis to occur in São Tomé, without providing further comments. According to Bacelar (1948), the reference of Aurivillius (1928, Figs, 57d–e) of an A. esebria form shall represent T. severina instead, a taxon that has been until recently considered a synonym of T. esebria (Eltringham 1912; Ackery et al. 1995; Williams 2008; Pierre and Bernaud 2014). This is, however, certainly not true in the GGOI—it may, indeed, belong to T. s. severina synonymy in the case of its reference to São Tomé. Reports of Phalanta phalantha aethiopica in the GGOI must represent the morphologically similar forest dweller P. eurytis, known from Príncipe, São Tomé, and Rio Muni (Viejo 1984). Composition, Diversity, and Endemism of the GGOI Papilionoidea Isolation, geological age, area, catching-area, relief, climate, and diversity of biotopes are fundamental to the potential biodiversity and endemism of an island (Whittaker et al. 2017). Among the families of Papilionoidea known in Sub-Saharan Africa, only Riodinidae has not been recorded in the GGOI. Most of the subfamilies assigned from the region occur both in Príncipe and in São Tomé (the scant diversity of Annobón was already discussed). The currently known number of species (in parentheses) per family and respective subfamily is as follows: Hesperiidae (nine): Coeliadinae (two), Pyrginae (one), and Hesperiinae (six); 13 Butterﬂies and Skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf. . . 355 Papilionidae (four): Papilioninae (four); Pieridae (12): Coliadinae (ﬁve) and Pierinae (seven); Lycaenidae (21): Miletinae (one), Aphnaeinae (ﬁve) and Polyomatinae (15); and Nymphalidae (45): Libytheinae (one), Danainae (one), Satyrinae (two), Charaxinae (eight), Nymphalinae (10), Cyrestinae (one), Biblidinae (two), Limenetidinae (four) and Heliconiinae (16). There are no Papilionoidea genera that are endemic from the GGOI. The Nymphalidae is the most diverse family (ca. 45% of the Papilionoidea) and the Heliconiinae (ca. 35%) its most diverse subfamily. According to Gascoigne (1995), the Lepidoptera endemicity for São Tomé is 38.3% (47 taxa: 11 endemic species, 7 endemic subspecies) and 21.4% for Príncipe (42 taxa: six endemic species, three endemic subspecies). These estimates, based on Pyrcz (1991a, b), did not include the Hesperiidae, lumped the São Tomé and Príncipe species of the genus Neptis to a single species (N. eltringhami), and considered Leptotes terrenus and Chilades sanctithomae as independent taxa. Currently, based on the specimens we have examined and bibliographic references, 91 species and subspecies are considered to occur in the GGOI: 46 are known for Príncipe, 64 (though three in need of revision) for São Tomé, and eight for Annobón (Appendix). All the taxa known for Annobón also occur in São Tomé and Príncipe, with the exception of Telchinia pharsalus, identiﬁed as T. p. carmen, but putatively referring to a still undescribed Annobón subspecies (Kheil 1910; Viejo 1984). The subspecies Acraea zetes annobona is the single taxon that is endemic to the three islands. The species that occur both in São Tomé and Príncipe are mostly those with the largest distributions. Regarding endemics (Fig. 13.1), 17 taxa are endemic for Príncipe (almost 37%), 23 for São Tomé (ca. 36%), and ﬁve are endemic to more than one island. These estimates approach those of Pyrcz (1991a, b), especially after considering that he did not consider skippers. Conservation Modiﬁcations of the natural environment associated with human expansion and climatic change have impacted the diversity of butterﬂies and skippers around the globe. Activities with detrimental impacts range from deforestation, ﬁres, charcoal production, introduction of invasive weeds or of animal pests, use of chemicals, water, air and soil pollution, expanse of cultivated ﬁelds and of monocultures (agriculture or forestry) and human expansion in its strict sense. The considerable taxonomic knowledge and data available for lepidopteran distributions and ecological requirements make them important indicators for environmental change and for monitoring the health of ecosystems (Parmesan 2019). In the GGOI, population sizes of species with high sensitivity to ecological changes may be important to monitor, especially under current climate change. Some of the GGOI species are very common while others seem to be restricted to 356 L. F. Mendes and A. Bivar-de-Sousa Fig. 13.1 Some endemic Papilionoidea of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. R: recto (dorsal), V: verso (ventral): (1) Pyrrhiades bocagei, ♂R; (2) Ibid, V. (3.) Papilio nerminae, ♂R; (4) Graphium leonidas santamarthae, ♂R; (5) Dixeia piscicollis, ♂R; (6) Deudorix (Virachola) odana chalybeate, ♂R; (7) Charaxes antiques, ♂R; (8) Ibid, V; (9) Pseudacraea gamae, ♀R; (10) Acraea zetes annobona, ♂R; (11) Ibid, V; (12) Acraea medea, ♂R; (13) Ibid, V. Photo credits: (1–3, 5, 10–13) António Bivar-de-Sousa and Luís Mendes, (4, 6–9) Carlos da Silva. Photos not to scale 13 Butterﬂies and Skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf. . . 357 small areas or associated to speciﬁc biotopes (Mendes et al. in prep.). As noted elsewhere, most of these more rare and poorly distributed taxa are endemics and strictly associated with natural biotopes, although some exceptions are remarkable: we frequently found images of the São Tomé endemic Acraea niobe pollinating cultivated introduced coffee plants Coffea sp. (Rubiaceae) or, as ﬁrstly noted Pierre et al. (2002), feeding on the nectar of the introduced Mexican sunﬂower, Tithonia diversifolia (Asteraceae). These observations suggest that some endemic species may be resilient to some ecological changes. The observation that some species are known from only a small number of individuals may be the consequence of two fundamental and unrelated mechanisms. First, some species are considered rare when they occur in quite localized areas, they ﬂy during a short period, or they are restricted to particular biotopes, and thus challenging to locate. However, these species with patchy distributions may be geographically widespread and common in other parts of their range. Second, insect abundance is known to ﬂuctuate from year to year according to annual ecological conditions and in the GGOI some areas are quite complicated to access. Thus, temporal and geographic biases in survey effort may partly explain why some taxa appear to be rare. However, some species may be considered threatened because they are truly rare and at real risk of extirpation or extinction due to environmental pressures. We note that these concepts apply to both endemic and non-endemic species. One good example of a rare endemic species is Dixeia piscicollis, which is restricted to the São Tomé dry forest and known from a small number of specimens. However, at the end of the dry season, locally known as gravana, it may be quite abundant, even becoming the dominant or the only butterﬂy in the area—although it is restricted to this area. Some endemic Charaxes restricted to the São Tomé or Príncipe highland forests also ﬁt this description. Likewise, the insular subspecies of Graphium leonidas are both rare and limited to precise biotopes and seem to ﬂy during a short period only. A certain number of threatened species in São Tomé and Príncipe were reported by Gascoigne (1995). However, this list included taxa that even if rare, may not be threatened, as is the case of Pyrrhiades bocagei (sub Coeliades) which is noted as vulnerable, and despite being present on both islands, is reported only for São Tomé. Both Graphium leonidas subspecies are listed as endangered; Leptotes terrenus and Chilades sanctithomae, Pseudacraea gamae are “undetermined,” while Epamera bellina maris and Charaxes defulvata are said to be extinct, despite Pyrcz (1992a) recording live specimens of both. The threatened community of Lagoa Azul in São Tomé is discussed, with special attention on Coeliades bocagei, the “endemic Charaxes” (species not discriminated), and Neptis eltringhami that occur there. Dixeia piscicollis was also considered to be threatened though it is common along the northwestern dry forest. The statuses of species considered endemic or almost endemic are in dire need of new data to update assessments, as several of them may be threatened or even extinct. This is the case for Andronymus thomasi, treated as a subspecies from 358 L. F. Mendes and A. Bivar-de-Sousa Andronymus neander by Gascoigne (1995) and possibly others. Iolaus bellina maris and Charaxes defulvata if not extinct, likely occur only in very small numbers. Potential Future Discoveries and Research Given the current knowledge of the GGOI Papilionoidea, the intermittent increase in the number of recognized species over time, and the considerable bias of knowledge toward São Tomé and Príncipe when compared with Annobón, several areas of future research are needed. Fieldwork in Annobón is essential, as the known taxonomic diversity is likely incomplete. São Tomé and Príncipe have been more extensively surveyed, but large areas of their most pristine forest, where endemics are expected to have evolved, have been little explored due to the difﬁcult access, high rainfall, and dense vegetation. As such, new species for the islands (and even for science) are expected to be found, and populations of some of the species considered as (almost) extinct may be rediscovered. Information on the range and abundance of each species is essential to establish their conservation status. This is especially urgent for the rare island endemics. Although some information already exists about the activity periods of caterpillars and imagoes, more data are needed to allow the implementation of effective protection measures. For instance, the morphology of the caterpillar life stage is unknown for most of the tropical species, particularly the endemics. Likewise, knowledge of caterpillar host-plants is also incomplete. In the non-endemic taxa, the caterpillar food-plants may be different from those of populations in mainland Africa, while for some of the insular endemics they simply remain unknown. Genetic studies on GGOI Papilionoidea are virtually inexistent. They are fundamental to taxonomical and phylogeographic studies and are key to investigating the biogeographic history of this unique island fauna. 13 Butterﬂies and Skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf. . . 359 Appendix Commented checklist of Papilionoidea recorded from the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Names of the 91 species and subspecies considered correctly assigned to Príncipe (P), São Tomé (ST) and Annobón (A) are numbered. Taxa considered incorrectly assigned to the GGOI, as justiﬁed in the text, are not numbered. K&K (2009): Koçak and Kemal; M&BS: Mendes and Bivar-de-Sousa. Endemic taxa (E), if shared by P and ST and/or A, respectively as E-1, E-2 and E-3 according to their topotypical island. Samples examined by the authors are marked in the SS column (studied specimens) with a ●; 17 species are known only from reliable bibliographic references. Preferred habitats (H): A—Humid lowland forest; B—Humid highland forest; C—Dry forest, forest margins, and somewhat degraded biotopes; D—Several types of forest; U—Ubiquitous or almost ubiquitous; ?—Doubtful Families and species/subspecies Fam. HESPERIIDAE 1. Pyrrhiades bocagei (Sharpe, 1893) First reference SS P ST Sharpe (1893) ● E D 2. Coeliades forestan (Stoll, 1784) Sharpe (1893) ● X E2 X Coeliades hanno (Plötz, 1879) 3. Tagiades ﬂesus (Fabricius, 1871) Riley (1928) Sharpe (1893) ● X X A, C Sarangesa phydile (Walker, 1870) Spialia diomus (Hopffer, 1855) Spialia spio (Linnaeus, 1764) Gomalia elma (Trimen, 1862) 4. Andronymus thomasi Riley, 1928 K&K (2009) K& K (2009) K&K (2009) K&K (2009) Riley (1928) ● E A 5. Artitropa principetome Collins and Larsen 2013 Pelopidas mathias (Fabricius, 1798) 6. Borbo borbonica (Boisduval, 1833) (Collins and Larsen 2013) K&K (2009) Aurivillius (1910) Riley (1928) Aurivillius (1910) K&K (2009) Sharpe (1893) E2 E C 7. Borbo detecta (Trimen, 1893) 8. Borbo f. fatuellus (Hopffer, 1855) Borbo gemella (Mabille, 1884) 9. Afrogegenes letterstedti (Wallengren, 1857) Fam. PAPILIONIDAE 10. Papilio nerminae Koçak, 1983 Papilio dardanus sulfurea Palisot de Beauvois 1806 Sharpe (1893) E1 A H C, D A ● X X ● ● X X X X ● X X C E A, B ● X C C Palisot de Beauvois (1806) (continued) 360 Families and species/subspecies 11. Papilio d. demodocus Esper, 1798 Graphium angolanus baronis (Ungemach, 1932) Graphium latreillianus theorini (Aurivillius, 1831) 12. Graphium leonidas santamarthae Joicey and Talbot, 1927 13. Graphium leonidas thomasius Le Cerf 1924 Graphium ridleyanus (White, 1843) Fam. PIERIDAE 14. Catopsilia ﬂorella (Faricius, 1775) 15. Eurema b. brigitta (Stoll, 1780) 16. Eurema hecabe solifera (Butler, 1875) 17. Eurema ﬂoricola leonis (Butler, 1886) 18. Eurema senegalensis (Boisuval, 1836) Colotis doubledayi (Hopffer, 1872) Belenois gidica Godart, 1819 19. Belenois c. creona (Stoll, 1780) 20. Dixeia piscicollis Pinhey, 1972 21. Appias epaphia aequatorialis Mendes & Bivar-de-Sousa, 2006 22. Appias epaphia piresi Mendes & Bivar-deSousa, 2006 Appias phaola (Doubleday, 1847) 23. Leptosia a. alcesta (Stoll, 1781) Leptosia medusa (Cramer, 1777) 24. Leptosia n. nupta (Butler, 1873) Mylothris asphodelus Butler, 1888 Mylothris bernice (Hewitson, 1862) Mylothris nubila (Möschler, 1884) Mylothris popea (Cramer, 1777) 25. Mylothris rembina (Plötz, 1880) Mylothris rhodope (Fabricius, 1775) Mylothris spica (Möschler, 1884) Mylothris sulphurea (Aurivillius, 1895) L. F. Mendes and A. Bivar-de-Sousa First reference Snellen (1873) Smith and Vane-Wright (2001) Smith and Vane-Wright (2001) Joicey and Talbot, (1927) Le Cerf (1924) SS ● P X ● E ST X E ● A H U A, C A, C Smith and Vane-Wright (2001) Bacelar (1958) K&K (2009) Snellen (1882) Snellen (1882) Sharpe (1893) Ackery et al. (1995) Berger (1981) M&BS (2012) Pinhey (1972) M&BS (2006) ● ● ● M&BS (2006) ● E C Bacelar (1948) Snellen (1873) Bacelar (1948) Sharpe (1873) ● X A ● X X A, B ● X X A Bacelar (1948) Sharpe (1893) Schutze (1917) Viejo (1984) Schutze (1917) Berger (1979) K&K (2009) K&K (2009) ● ● ● ● ● X X X X X X U C C D A X E E C C C X X (continued) 13 Butterﬂies and Skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf. . . Families and species/subspecies Fam. LYCAENIDAE 26. Spalgis l. lemolea Druce, 1890 Liptena evanescens xanthis (Holland, 1890) 27. Iolaus (Epamera) bellina maris (Riley, 1928) Hypomyrina fournieri Gabriel, 1939 Hypolycaena phillippus (Fabricius, 1793) 28. Deudorix (Virachola) l. lorisona (Hewitson, 1862) 29. Deudorix (Virachola) a. antalus (Hopffer, 1855) 30. Deudorix (Virachola) caliginosa Lathy,1903 31. Deudorix (Virachola) odana chalybeata (Joicey and Talbot, 1926) Rubropelates a. aruma (Hewitson, 1873) Anthene amarah (Guérin-Méneville,1849) 32. Anthene l. lunulata (Trimen, 1894) 361 First reference SS P Pyrcz (1992) ● X Stempffer (1974) Riley (1928) Libert (2004) K&K (2009) Hawker-Smith (1928) Pyrcz (1992) Libert (2004) Joicey and Talbot (1926) Sharpe (1893) K&K (2009) Viejo (1984) ST E A? ● X X? A ● X X C ● E X E2 C? A ● X X? X A, B A, B C Pyrcz (1992) ● X 34. Pseudonacaduba s. sichela (Wallengren, 1857) 35. Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus, 1767) 36. Cacyreus lingeus (Stoll, 1782) Mendes et al. (ad.Prep.) Bacelar (1958) Joicey and Talbot (1926) Kheil (1910) ● X ● ● X X X X ● X X ● E Leptotes brevidentatus (Tite, 1958) Leptotes jeanneli (Stempffer, 1935) Leptotes pulchra (Murray, 1874) 38. Leptotes pyrczi Libert, 2011 39. Leptotes sanctithomae Sharpe, 1893 (= L. terrenus (Joicey and Talbot, 1926)) 40. Zizeeria knysna (Trimen, 1862) K&K (2009) K&K (2009) Sharpe (1893) Libert (2011) Sharpe (1893) 41. Zizina otis antanossa (Mabille, 1877) Joicey and Talbot (1926) Pyrcz (1992) Zizula hylax (Fabricius, 1775) 42. Azanus mirzá (Plötz, 1880) K&K (2009) Pyrcz (1992) Azanus moriqua (Wallengren, 1857) Azanus ubaldus (Stoll, 1782) 43. Eicochrysops hippocrates (Fabricius, 1793) 44. Euchrysops malathana (Boisduval, 1833) K&K (2009) K&K (2009) Pyrcz (1992) Aurivillius (1928) H A, C 33. Anthene prínceps (Butler, 1876) 37. Leptotes p. pirithous (Linnaeus, 1767) A E ● X X ● X X ● ● ● X X X D A, C C, D A B? A, C A, C X C, D X X D C, D (continued) 362 Families and species/subspecies 45. Euchrysops cf. osiris (Hopffer, 1855) L. F. Mendes and A. Bivar-de-Sousa First reference Aurivillius (1928) K& K (2009) SS ● Sharpe (1893) ● X X 48. Danaus c. chrysippus (Linnaeus, 1758) 49. Melanitis leda (Linnaeus, 1758) Snellen (1873) Sharpe (1893) ● ● X X X X Bicyclus dorothea concolor Condamin and Fox, 1964 Bicyclus funebris (Guérin-Méneville, 1844) Condamin and Fox (1964) Condamin (1973) Condamin (1973) Larsen (2005) Condamin (1973) Aurivillius (1910) Joicey and Talbot (1926) Plantrou (1983) 46. Chilades trochylus (Freyer, 1844) Fam. NYMPHALIDAE 47. Libythea l. labdaca Westwood, 1851 Bicyclus italus (Hewitson, 1865) 50. Bicyclus medontias (Hewitson, 1873) Bicyclus martius sanaos (Hewitson, 1866) 51. Bicyclus vulgaris (Butler, 1868) 52. Charaxes defulvata (Joicey and Talbot, 1926) 53. Charaxes c. candiope (Godart, 1824) 54. Charaxes thomasius Staudinger, 1886 62. Precis s. sinuta Plötz, 1880 Staudinger (1886) Aurivillius (1910) as C. lucretius Staudinger (1892) Joicey and Talbot (1926) Joicey and Talbot (1927) Staudinger (1886) Pyrcz (1992) K&K (2009) K&K (2009) Aurivillius (1910) Sharpe (1893) 63. Hypolimnas a. anthedon (Doubleday, 1845) Sharpe (1893) 55. Charaxes lemosi (Joicey and Talbot, 1927) 56. Charaxes odysseus Staudinger 1892 57. Charaxes antiquus Joicey and Talbot 1926 58. Charaxes barnsi Joicey and Talbot, 1927 59. Charaxes monteiri Staudinger 1886 60. Vanessa cardui (Linnaeus, 1758) Precis hierta crebrene (Trimen, 1870) Precis orythia madagascariensis (Guenée, 1865) 61. Precis pelarga (Fabricius, 1775) P X ST X? X ● X ● X X X X H C, D D A, C U C, D B? C E A? X A, C B E ● ● A X E B E E E A?, B B A E B ● X X C ● X X B, C C, D C, D X ● ● X X (continued) 13 Butterﬂies and Skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf. . . Families and species/subspecies 64. Hypolimnas misippus (Linnaeus, 1764) 65. Hypolimnas m. monteironis (Druce, 1874) 66. Hypolimnas salmacis thomensis Aurivillius, 1910 Protogoniomorpha anacardi (Linnaeus, 1758) 67. Junonia cymodoce lugens (Schultze, 1912) 68. Junonia o. oenone (Linnaeus, 1758) 69. Junonia t. terea (Drury, 1773) 70. Cyrestis c. camillus (Fabricius, 1781) Byblia ilithyia (Drury, 1773) 71. Sevenia amulia principensis Mendes & Bivar-de-Sousa, 2018 n.stat. 72. Sevenia boisduvali insularis (Joicey & Talbot 1926) 73. Pseudacraea gamae Neptis serena Overlaet, 1955 74. Neptis eltringhami Joicey and Talbot 1926 75. Neptis larseni Wojtuziak and Pyrcz, 1997 76. Cymothoe caenis (Drury, 1773) Cymothoe sp. (“sangaris-group”) Hamanumida daedalus (Fabricius, 1775) 77. Acraea n. neobule Doubleday, 1847 78. Acraea q. quirina (Fabricius, 1781) First reference Snellen (1873) Pyrcz (1992) as H. salmacis Aurivillius (1910) K&K (2009) Bacelar (1958) Bacelar (1958) Aurivillius (1910) Bacelar (1958) K&K (2009) Bacelar (1958)—no ssp Sharpe (1893) Joicey and Talbo (1926) K&K (2009) Joicey and Talbot (1926) Pyrcz (1991) as N. eltringhami van Velzen et al. (2009) Pyrcz (1992)— after Canu K&K (2009) K&K (2009) 80. Acraea e. egina (Cramer, 1775) Aurivillius (1910) Snellen (1873)—no ssp M&BS (2012) 81. Acraea medea (Craner, 1775) SS ● ● 363 P X X ST X E ● ● ● X X ● X ● X ● E E A E ● A? E A, C A? X X ● X X ● E E ● X Cramer (1775) ● E 82. Acraea niobe Sharpe, 1893 Sharpe (1893) ● Acraea pseudegina Westwood, 1852 83. Acraea alcinoe racaji Pyrcz, 1991 Pyrcz (1992) Snellen (1873) as A. esebria Pierre (1985) Snellen (1873) 84. Telchinia alciope (Hewitson, 1852) Telchinia esebria (Hewitson, 1861) A, B B E ● E E X H C A, B A, B A C, D A, B A X ● 79. Acraea zetes annobona D’Abrera, 1980 A X X C, D A E3 A, C A, B A, B A, B A, B A (continued) 364 Families and species/subspecies Telchinia encedon (Linnaeus, 1758) 85. Telchinia insularis (Sharpe 1893) Telchinia j. jodutta (Fabricius, 1793) 86. Telchinia lycoa (Godart, 1819) Telchinia p. pentapolis (Ward, 1871) 87. Telchinia pharsalus carmen (Pyrcz, 1991) Telchinia serena (Fabricius, 1775) 88. Telchinia severina severina (Ouremans, 2012) 89. Telchinia severina terreirovelhoensis (Ouremans, 2012) Telchinia vesperalis (Grose-Smith, 1890) 90. Telchinia newtoni (Sharpe 1893) Acraea monteironis Butler, 1874 91. Phalanta e. eurytis (Doubleday, 1847) Phalanta phalantha (Drury, 1773) L. F. Mendes and A. Bivar-de-Sousa First reference K&K (2009) Sharpe (1893) Aurivillius (1910) Aurivillius (1910) Pierre and Bernaud (1999) Aurivillius (1910)—no ssp Snellen (1873) as A. manjaca Berger (1986) as A. jodutta Aurivillius (1910) as A. jodutta Pyrcz (1992) Sharpe (1893) Bacelar (1958) Pyrcz (1992) K&K (2009) SS P A E ● ● X ● E H A A, C X? E ● ● ST E A, B A, B A, B E ● X X A References Ackery PR, Smith CR, Vane-Wright RI (1995) Carcasson’s African butterﬂies. An annotated atalogue of the Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea of the Afrotropical region. Commonwealth Scientiﬁc and Industrial Research Organisation, Victoria, pp i–xii. + 803 Anonymous (2007) National report on the status of biodiversity in S. Tomé and Príncipe. Ministry for Natural Resources and the Environment – Directorate General for Environment, República Democrática de S. Tomé e Príncipe, p 109 Ashmole P, Ashmole M (2000) St Helena and W Ascension islands: a natural history. A. Nelson, England, p 475 Aurivillius C (1898) Rhopalocera Aethiopica. Die Tagfalter des äthiopischen Faunengebietes. Eine systematisch -geographische Studie. Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlinge 31(5):11–561 Aurivillius C (1910) Schmeterlinge gesammelt in Westafrika von Leonardo Fea in den Jahren 1897–1902. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova (Ser 3) 4:494–530 Aurivillius C (1928) Les macrolépidoptères de la faune ethiopiènne. 13. (Diurnes ethiopiens). In: Seitz A (ed) Les macrolépidoptères du Globe. Fritz Lehmann/E. Le Moult, Stuttgart and Paris, p 615. + 80 pl Awanao K, Ozawa H, Yago M, Nishino Y (2018) Catalogue of the Shingeru Eda insect collection, the university museum, the University of Tokyo. Part I. Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera. Available via the University of Tokyo. http://umdb.um.u-tokyo.ac.jp/DDoubutu/eda/en/index.php. Accessed 1 June 2018 Bacelar A (1948) Lepidópteros de África principalmente das colónias portuguesas (Colecção do Museu Bocage). Arquivos do Museu Bocage 19:165–207 13 Butterﬂies and Skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf. . . 365 Bacelar A (1958) Entomofauna da Guiné Portuguesa e das ilhas de S. Tomé e do Príncipe. V. Lepidoptera (Rhopalocera). Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais 4:47–60 Berger LA (1979) Espèces peu connues et description de deux nouvelles sous-espèces de Mylothris (Lepidoptera Pieridae). Revue de Zoologie Africaine 93(1):1–9 Berger LA (1981) Les papillons du Zaïre. Présidence de la République, Kinshasa, p 543 Bonﬁm F, Carvalho S (2009) Fourth national report on the biodiversity. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment – directorate general of the environment, República Democrática de S. Tomé e Príncipe, p 93 Canu JG (1994) Souvenirs entomologiques d’Afrique et des iles voisines (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera). Lambillionea 94(3):311–320 Chiba H (2009) A revision of the subfamily Coeliadinae (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Bulletin of the Kitakyushu Museum of Natural History and Human History (A - Natural History) 7:1–102 Collins S (2015) Part 43. The ABRI collection II. Unusual butterﬂies. In: Bauer E, Franckenbach T (eds) Butterﬂies of the world. Goecke & Evers, Keltem, p 4. + 32 pl Collins SC, Larsen TB (2013) A new species in the Afrotropical genus Artitropa from São Tomé and Príncipe (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae: Hesperiinae (incerta sedis)). Metamorphosis 24:20–24 Condamin M (1973) Monographie du genre Bicyclus (Lepidoptera Satyridae). Mémoires de l’Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire 88:1–324 Cramer P (1775–76) De uitlandsche kapellee voorkomende in de drie waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en America. S. J. Baalde and Barthelemy Wild, Amsterdam and Utrecht, i–xxx. + 155 pp + 96 pl D’Abrera B (1980) Butterﬂies of the Afrotropical region. Lansdowne Publ., Melbourne, i–xx + 593 pp D’Abrera B (1997) Butterﬂies of the Afrotropical region. Part I. Papilionidae, Pieride, Acraeidae, Danaidae & Satyridae. New and Revised Edition. Hill House Publ., Melbourne, i-xxiv + 1–257 pp D’Abrera B (2004) Butterﬂies of the Afrotropical region. Part II. Nymphalidae, Libytheidae. New and Revised Edition. Hill House Publ., Melbourne, pp i–xli. + 258–530 D’Abrera B (2009) Butterﬂies of the Afrotropical region. Part III. Lycaenidae, Riodinidae. New and Revised Edition. Hill House Publ, Melbourne, pp i–xxvi. + 531–876 Palisot de Beauvois AMFJ (1805–21) Insectes recueillis en Afrique et en Amérique, dans les royaumes d'Oware et de Benin, a Saint-Domingue et dans les Etats-Unis, pendant les années 1786–1797. Levrault, Schoell et Cie, Paris, 276. + 90 pl Eltringham H (1912) A monograph of the African species of the genus Acraea fab., with a supplement on those of the oriental region. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 1912:1–413 Evans WH (1937) A catalogue of the African Hesperiidae indicating the classiﬁcation and nomenclature adopted in the British museum. British museum, natural history, London, p 212 + 30 pl Exell AW (1944) Catalogue of the vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Principe and Annobon). British museum (natural history), London, p 428 Exell AW (1956) Supplement to the catalogue of the vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Principe and Annobón). British museum (natural history), London, p 58 Exell AW (1973) Angiosperms of the islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Fernando Pó, Príncipe, S. Tomé and Annobón). Bulletin of the British museum (natural history). Botany 4:325–411 Fernandes JA (1958) Tipos entomológicos do Museu Bocage. Lista dos tipos das colecções entomológicas do Museu e Laboratório Zoológico e Antropológico da Faculdade de Ciências de Lisboa (1ª nota). Revista Portuguesa de Zoologia e Biologia Geral 1(4):293–302 Gascoigne A (1995) A Lista Vermelha de Animais Ameaçados de São Tomé e Príncipe. ECOFAC (Conservation et Utilisation Rattionelle des Ecosystèmes Forestiers en Afrique Centrale) – Componente de São Tomé e Príncipe, São Tomé, p 15 Gascoigne A (2004) São Tomé, Príncipe, and Annobón Moist Lowland Forests. In: Burgess N, Hales JDA, Underwoof E et al (eds) Terrestrial ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: a conservation assessment. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 236–238 366 L. F. Mendes and A. Bivar-de-Sousa Hancock DL (1984) The Princeps nireus group of swallowtails (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Systematics, phylogeny and biogeography. Arnoldia Zimbabwe 9(12):181–215 Hawker-Smith W (1928) New forms of Lycaenidae in the Musée du Congo Belge at Tervueren. Revue de Zoologie et Botanique Africaine 16(2):214–216 Hecq J (2003a) Part 16. Nymphalidae VII. Pseudacraea. In: Bauer E, Franckebach T (eds) Butterﬂies of the world. Goecke & Evers, Keltem, pp 1–3. + 12 pl Hecq J (2003b) Le genre Pseudacraea Westwood, 1850. Nymphalidae, Limenitinae, Limenitini. Supplement 7. In: Bauer E, Franckebach T (eds) Butterﬂies of the world. Goecke & Evers, Keltem, pp 1–12 Heikkilä M, Kaila L, Mutanen M et al (2012) Cretaceous origin and repeated tertiary diversiﬁcation of the redeﬁned butterﬂies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 279:1093–1099 Henning SF (1988) The Charaxinae butterﬂies of Africa. Aloe Books, Frandsen, p 457 Heras P, Infante M, Ondó CO et al (2002) Vegetacíon de la isla de Annobón (República de Guinea Ecuatorial). Estudios del Museo de Ciencias Naturales de Álava 17:115–123 Holland WJ (1896) A preliminary revision and synonymic catalogue of the Hesperiidae of Africa and adjacent islands, with description of some apparently new species. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 207 pp + pl I–V Joicey JT, Talbot G (1926) New forms of Lepidoptera from the island of São Tomé, West Africa. The Entomologist 59:220–226 Joicey JT, Talbot G (1927) Four new butterﬂies from the island of St. Príncipe. The Entomologist 60:12–16 Jones PJ, Tye A (2006) The birds of São Tomé and Príncipe, with Annobón: islands of the Gulf of Guinea. British Ornithologists Union, Oxford (United Kingdom), p 172 Kheil NM (1910) Catálogo sistemático de la fauna de las posesiones españolas del Golfo de Guinea (Lepidópteros). Memorias de la Sociedad Española de Historia Natural 1:545–549 Koçak AÖ, Kemal M (2009) Third report on the temporary results of the lepidopteran list of Africa continent based upon the info-system of the Cesa. Cesa Publications on African Lepidoptera (Royal Museum for Central Africa) 25:1–2810 Lambert K, Chappel J (2001) Sea level change through the last glacial cycle. Science 292:679–686 Larsen TB (2005) Butterﬂies of West Africa. Text volume. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, p 595 Le Cerf F (1924) Lépidoptères nouveaux de la collection du Muséum (Rhopalocera). Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle 30:137–139 Libert M (2004) Révision des Deudorix africains (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Ed. Lambillionea, Tervuren, p 201. + 16 pl Libert M (2011) Note sur le genre Leptotes Scudder, 1876 (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Lambillionea 111:53–66 Mendes LF, Bivar-de-Sousa A (2006) Notes and descriptions of Afrotropical Appias butterﬂies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Boletín de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa 39:151–160 Mendes LF, Bivar-de-Sousa A (2012a) Riqueza de espécies e endemicidade das borboletas diurnas (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) em São Tomé e Príncipe. Actas do Colóquio Internacional São Tomé e Príncipe numa perspectiva interdisciplinar, diacrónica e sincrónica. Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Centro de Estudos Africanos, Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisbon, pp 653–663 Mendes LF, Bivar-de-Sousa A (2012b) New account on the butterﬂies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) from São Tomé e Príncipe. Boletín de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa 51:157–186 Mendes LF, Rocha-Pité MT, Serrano ARM et al. (1988) Sobre a fauna terrestre e ribeirinha da República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. A Missão Zoológica do Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia da Faculdade de Ciências de Lisboa e do Museu Nacional de História Natural (Museu Bocage) à República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe (13/VI–7/VII/1984). Nota preliminar. Arquivos do Museu Bocage Volume especial:1–16 Mendes LF, Bivar-de-Sousa A, Vasconcelos S (2018) New data on the butterﬂies of São Tomé e Príncipe: description of a new subspecies from Príncipe, notes, and reference to two faunistic novelties from São Tomé (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea). Shilap 46(181):65–74 13 Butterﬂies and Skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf. . . 367 Mendes LF, Bivar-de-Sousa A, Melo M et al (in prep.) Butterﬂies and skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of São Tomé e Príncipe/Borboletas diurnas (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) de São Tomé e Príncipe. Arte e Ciência, Porto Ogonovszky M (2003) Endémisme et phytogéographie des plantes de São Tomé et Príncipe. Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, p 100. + 127 pp annexes Olano I, Marcos JM (1993) Lepidópteros Papilionoidea de Guinea Ecuatorial y sus islas. Estudios del Museo de Ciencias Naturales de Álava 8:137–169 Oremans P (2012) Contribution à l’étude de la biodiversité des îles du Golfe de Guinée: description d’une nouvelle espèce et d’une nouvelle sous-espèce de Sao Tome et Principe (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Saturnafrica 11:21–23 Parmesan C (2019) Chapter 24. Butterﬂies as bioindicators for climate change effects. In: Boggs CL, Watt WB, Ehrlich PR (eds) Butterﬂies: ecology and evolution taking ﬂight. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 541–560 Pierre J, Bernaud D (1999) Révision de la super-espèce Acraea (pentapolis): A. (p.) polis n. sp. et premiers états de A. (pentapolis) et A. vesperalis (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 104(1):5–14 Pierre J, Bernaud D (2009a) Part 31. Nymphalidae XVI. Acraea subgenus Actinote. In: Bauer E, Franckenbach T (eds) Butterﬂies of the world. Goecke & Evers, Keltem, p 5. + 19 pl Pierre J, Bernaud D (2009b) Supplement 16. Les Acraeinae Fabricius, 1807 de l’Ancien Monde (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Le genre Acraea Fabricius, 180, sous-genre Actinote. In: Bauer E, Franckenbach T (eds) Butterﬂies of the world. Goecke & Evers, Keltem, p 19 Pierre J, Bernaud D (2013) Part 39. Nymphalidae XXIII. Acraea subgenus Acraea. In: Bauer E, Franckenbach T (eds) Butterﬂies of the world. Goecke & Evers, Keltem, p 8. + 28 pl Pierre J, Bernaud D (2014) Supplement 24. Le genre Acraea Fabricius, 1807: Liste systématique, synonymique et liste des noms infrasubspéciﬁques. In: Bauer E, Franckenbach T (eds) Butterﬂies of the world. Goecke & Evers, Keltem, p 30 Pierre J, Bernaud D, Oremans P (2002) Les Acraea de São Tomé (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 107(3):285–294 Pinhey E (1972) A new species of Dixeia Talbot (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Arnoldia 5(25):1–5 Plantrou J (1983) Systématique, biogéographie et évolution des Charaxes africains (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Publications du Laboratoire de Zoologie de l’École Normale Supérieure 25: 1–457 Pyrcz T (1991a) Account on two expeditions to Sao Tome and Principe islands January-March 1989 and July-September 1990 including a description of new subspecies of Acraea pharsalus Ward and Bematites alcinoe Felder. Lambillionea 91(4):362–367 Pyrcz T (1991b) Description of a new subspecies of Acraea pharsalus Ward from Príncipe Island (Lepidoptera, Acraeidae). Lambillionea 91(4):368–370 Pyrcz T (1991c) Description of a new subspecies of Bematites alcinoe Felder from Príncipe Island (Lepidoptera, Acraeidae). Lambillionea 91(4):370–374 Pyrcz T (1992a) Provisional check-list of the butterﬂies of São Tomé and Príncipe islands. Lambillionea 92(1):46–52 Pyrcz T (1992b) Rain forests of São Tomé e Príncipe: butterﬂies and conservation. Tropical Lepidoptera 3(2):95–100 Riley ND (1928) A list of Hesperiidae collected in the island of St. Thome by T. A. Barnes. The Entomologist 61:54–65 Rothschild A, Jordan K (1900) A monograph of Charaxes and allied Prionopterous genera. Novitates Zoologicae 7:281–524 Schultze A (1917) Lepidoptera. Teil I. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der zweiten deutschen Zentral-Afrika-Expedition, 1910–1911, unter Führung Adolf Friedrichs. Klinkhardt & Biermann, Leipzig, pp 511–596. + 3 pl Sharpe E (1893) Description of new species of butterﬂies from the island of St. Thomas, West Africa. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1893:553–558 368 L. F. Mendes and A. Bivar-de-Sousa Smith CR, Vane-Wright RI (2001) A review of the Afrotropical species of the genus Graphium (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera: Papilionidae). Bulletin of the Natural History Museum of London (Entomology) 70(2):503–719 Snellen PCT (1873) Lepidoptera van het Prinzen eiland (Ilha-do-Príncipe). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 16:71–74 Someren VGL (1971a) Revisional notes on African Charaxes. Part VI. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) 25(5):197–250 Someren VGL (1971b) Revisional notes on African Charaxes. Part VII. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) 26(4):181–226 Someren VGL (1972) Revisional notes on African Charaxes. Part VIII. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) 27(4):215–264 Someren VGL (1974) Revisional notes on African Charaxes. Part X. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) 29(8):415–487 Someren VGL (1975) Revisional notes on African Charaxes, Palla and Euxanthe. Part X. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) 32(3):65–136 Stempffer H, Bennett NH, May SJ (1974) A revision of some groups of Liptena Westwood (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) 13:107–181 Turlin B (2005a) Part 22. Nymphalidae X.Charaxes I. In: Bauer E, Franckenbach T (eds) Butterﬂies of the world. Goecke & Evers, Keltem, p 7. + 35 pl Turlin B (2005b) Supplement 10. Les Charaxes de la faune afrotropicale. Partie I. Nymphalidae: Charaxinae: Charaxini. In: Bauer E, Franckenbach T (eds) Butterﬂies of the world. Goecke & Evers, Keltem, p 11 Turlin B (2007a) Part 25. Nymphalidae XII. Charaxes II. In: Bauer E, Franckenbach T (eds) Butterﬂies of the world. Goecke & Evers, Keltem, p 8. + 23 pl Turlin B (2007b) Supplement 12. Les Charaxes de la faune afrotropicale. Partie II. Nymphalidae: Charaxinae: Charaxini. In: Bauer E, Franckenbach T (eds) Butterﬂies of the world. Goecke & Evers, Keltem, p 8 Turlin B (2007c) Part 28. Nymphalidae XII. Charaxes III. In: Bauer E, Franckenbach T (eds) Butterﬂies of the world. Goecke & Evers, Keltem, p 8. + 32 pl Velzen R, Larsen TB, Bakker FT (2009) A new hidden species of the Cymothoe caenis -complex (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) from Western Africa. Zootaxa 2197:53–63 Viejo JL (1984) Contribución al conocimiento de las mariposas del Golfo de Guinea. Eos 60:335– 369 Whittaker RJ, Fernández-Palacios JM, Matthews TJ, Borregaard MK, Triantis KA (2017) Island biogeography: taking the long view of nature’s laboratories. Science 357(6354):eaam8326 Wikipedia (2014) List of butterﬂies of São Tomé and Príncipe. Available via Wikipedia. https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_butterﬂies_of_S%C3%A3o_Tom%C3%A9_and_Pr%C3% ADncipe. Accessed 31 Aug 2015 Williams MC (2008) Butterﬂies and skippers of the Afrotropical region (Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea). An encyclopedia. 7th edition. Available via https://atelim.com/butterﬂies-andskippers-of-the-afrotropical-region.html. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Williams MC (2015) Classiﬁcation of the Afrotropical butterﬂies to generic level. Metamorphosis 26:102–108 Wojtusiak J, Pyrcz TW (1995) Observations on the postembryonic development and comments on the systematic status of the butterﬂy Kamilla cymodoce Cramer, 1777 (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Lambillionea 95(2):116–120 Wojtusiak J, Pyrcz TW (1997) Taxonomy of three butterﬂy species from the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe in the Gulf of Guinea: Neptis larseni n. sp., Charaxes thomasius n. stat., Papilio furvus n. stat. (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Lambillionea 97(1):53–63 13 Butterﬂies and Skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the Gulf. . . 369 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 14 Dragonﬂies and Damselﬂies (Odonata) of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón Klaas-Douwe B. Dijkstra, Russell B. Tate, and Michel Papazian Abstract The dragonﬂy and damselﬂy (Odonata) fauna of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea is impoverished, even compared to other Afrotropical archipelagoes, with a combined total of 22 species recorded with certainty on São Tomé, Príncipe, and Annobón. Trithemis nigra Longﬁeld, 1936 from Príncipe is the only known endemic, although two reported but unidentiﬁed species may still prove to be endemic too. Most recorded species occur widely across and beyond Africa, and 27 equally widespread species are listed as potential additions. Several hypotheses for the fauna’s impoverishment are brieﬂy discussed. Keywords Biogeography · Diversity · Gulf of Guinea · Oceanic islands · Odonata Research History The Odonata of the Gulf of Guinea have been poorly studied, even if the ﬁrst records were provided a century ago (Martin 1908; Campion 1923). The ﬁrst endemic taxon was described almost as long ago but remains the only one (Longﬁeld 1936). Pinhey (1974) was the only specialist ever to visit, being on São Tomé for 2 weeks in April and May 1971. His review remains the main resource on all the islands’ faunas, only overlooking the material from Annobón treated by Compte Sart (1962). Just four species were added to the list for the three islands combined since Pinhey’s visit half a century ago, all very recently. K.-D. B. Dijkstra (*) Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands e-mail: kd.dijkstra@naturalis.nl R. B. Tate HCV Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa M. Papazian OPIE-Provence-Alpes-du-Sud, Muséum d’Histoire naturelle de Marseille, Marseille, France © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_14 371 372 K.-D. B. Dijkstra et al. Species Diversity Twenty-two species are known from the islands, of which 19 were recorded from São Tomé, 9 from Príncipe, and 7 from Annobón (Table 14.1). The speciﬁc identity of two species, however, is uncertain. These and two other species of interest are discussed below. Gynacantha sp. — Pinhey (1974) saw a species of this genus or the similar Heliaeschna on São Tomé on four occasions, but these eluded capture. Two observers made sightings there since (see Table 14.1), suggesting the taxon is not rare. Both genera breed in shaded temporary pools. Adults are active at dusk, lurking in dense vegetation at daytime, making them challenging to ﬁnd and catch. Pinhey (1974) remarked that “forest species of these genera on an isolated island might be expected to be distinctive.” While the Comoros, Seychelles and Mascarene archipelagos indeed have endemic Gynacantha species, these belong to the bispina-group that is absent on the western side of Africa (Dijkstra 2005). Twelve species occur on the continent nearest to São Tomé, any of which might be present on the Gulf of Guinea islands (Dijkstra 2016). Indeed, a female caught there by Gérard Filippi in March 2022 probably pertains to G. cylindrata Karsch, 1891. That species is widespread in western and central Africa. Females are hard to separate from those of G. vesiculata Karsch, 1891 (ranges are similar), so conﬁrmation is desirable. Orthetrum brachiale (Palisot de Beauvois, 1817) — This species and O. stemmale (Burmeister, 1839) were confused for 140 years (Pinhey 1979). Both occur widely on the tropical African mainland, while O. stemmale also extends to the nearby islands of Madagascar, the Mascarenes, and Seychelles in a variety of potential but unresolved taxa (see Table 14.2). While the latter’s presence in the Gulf of Guinea may thus seem likelier, both the material of Pinhey (1974, 1979) and Papazian et al. (2020) included O. brachiale only. Specimens in the Natural History Museum (London) and photographic records seen by the ﬁrst author also agree with that species. Loureiro and Pontes (2013) reported O. stemmale from Príncipe without further comment, and Papazian et al. (2022) from São Tomé based on female specimens not assignable to other Orthetrum species found. Thus, while its presence seems very likely, conﬁrmation with male specimens is required given the long history of taxonomic confusion. Trithemis nigra Longﬁeld, 1936 (Fig. 14.1) — Longﬁeld (1936) described this as a subspecies of the Denim Dropwing T. donaldsoni (Calvert, 1899) based on two males, collected on Príncipe on 7 December 1932 and 1 January 1933. Pinhey (1970) raised the taxon to species level, which by morphology is nearest the Halfshade Dropwing T. aconita Lieftinck, 1969 and Congo Dropwing T. congolica Pinhey, 1970 (Damm et al. 2010). Alain Gauthier (pers. comm.) found T. nigra to be common in 1990. Indeed, it was found at 6 of 15 sites surveyed on the island’s eastern half in 2011 (Loureiro and Pontes 2013): all streams that were partly sunny and partly shaded by forest or shrubs. The species was not seen at fully shaded or seasonal streams, nor at standing or brackish water. While the limited distribution is below thresholds for Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List of English name Sahel Wisp Ceriagrion glabrum (Burmeister, 1839) Common Citril Ischnura senegalensis (Rambur, 1842) Tropical Bluetail Anax ephippiger (Burmeister, 1839) Anax imperator Leach in Brewster, 1815 Gynacantha sp. Vagrant Emperor Blue Emperor Chalcostephia ﬂavifrons Kirby, 1889 Duskhawker species Inspector Príncipe Series collected 28–29 October 2019 near Santo António (Papazian et al. 2020). First reported by Martin (1908); conﬁrmed by Loureiro and Pontes (2013), Papazian et al. (2020) and photographic records. Surprisingly no records yet. Surprisingly no records yet. Surprisingly no records yet. São Tomé Both sexes photographed on 3 January 2022 near Neves by Ernst Klimsa. A female photographed on 23 August 2005 in São Tomé town by Phil Benstead was probably this species too. First reported by Campion (1923); conﬁrmed by Pinhey (1974). Annobón Found at several sites in October 2021 (Papazian et al. 2022) and photographed on 1 January 2022 near Neves by Ernst Klimsa. Not recorded since Pinhey (1974). First reported by Martin (1908); conﬁrmed by Compte Sart (1962). First recorded by Pinhey (1974); conﬁrmed by Papazian and Filippi (2019). First reported by Martin (1908); conﬁrmed by Compte Sart (1962). Seen by Pinhey (1974) in 1971, by Alain Gauthier in 1991, and by Russell Tate in 2020. See main text on female caught in March 2022. Both sexes photographed on 13– 15 January 2022 at Praja Inhame by Ernst Klimsa. Dragonﬂies and Damselﬂies (Odonata) of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón Scientiﬁc name Agriocnemis zeraﬁca Le Roi, 1915 14 Table 14.1 Review of Odonata species recorded from the Gulf of Guinea Islands (continued) 373 Scientiﬁc name Crocothemis erythraea (Brullé, 1832) Crocothemis sanguinolenta (Burmeister, 1839) Diplacodes lefebvrii (Rambur, 1842) Orthetrum africanum (Selys, 1887) Orthetrum brachiale (Palisot de Beauvois, 1817) English name Broad Scarlet 374 Table 14.1 (continued) Príncipe Surprisingly no records yet. São Tomé First reported by Longﬁeld (1936); conﬁrmed by Pinhey (1974) and photographic records. Not recorded since Pinhey (1974). Surprisingly no records yet. First reported by Campion (1923); conﬁrmed by Pinhey (1974). First recorded by Pinhey (1974); conﬁrmed by photographic records. Little Scarlet Black Percher Elongate Skimmer Banded Skimmer First reported by Longﬁeld (1936); conﬁrmed by Loureiro and Pontes (2013) and photographic records. Pinhey (1974) reported O. brachiale kalai; conﬁrmed as O. brachiale by Pinhey (1979), Loureiro and Pontes (2013), and Papazian et al. (2020). First reported as O. stemmale capense by Longﬁeld (1936); conﬁrmed by Pinhey (1974) and Papazian et al. (2020). Julia Skimmer Palpopleura lucia (Drury, 1773) Lucia Widow First reported by Longﬁeld (1936); conﬁrmed by Pinhey (1974), Loureiro and Pontes (2013), Papazian et al. (2020), and photographic records. Pantala ﬂavescens (Fabricius, 1798) Wandering Glider First reported by Martin (1908); conﬁrmed by Loureiro and Pontes (2013) and Papazian et al. (2020). First reported and illustrated quite accurately by Compte Sart (1962); additional record provided by Pinhey (1974). Only reported by Martin (1908). K.-D. B. Dijkstra et al. Orthetrum julia Kirby, 1900 First reported by Longﬁeld (1936); conﬁrmed by Pinhey (1974, 1979), Papazian et al. (2020), and photographic records. First reported by Campion (1923) and, as O. stemmale capense, by Longﬁeld (1936); conﬁrmed by Pinhey (1974), Papazian et al. (2020), and photographic records. First reported by Martin (1908), Campion (1923) and Longﬁeld (1936); conﬁrmed by Pinhey (1974), Papazian et al. (2020), and photographic records. First reported by Campion (1923); conﬁrmed by Pinhey (1974) and Papazian et al. (2020). Annobón 14 Veiled Flutterer Tholymis tillarga (Fabricius, 1798) Tramea basilaris (Palisot de Beauvois, 1817) Tramea limbata (Desjardins, 1835) Trithemis nigra Longﬁeld, 1936 Twister Surprisingly no records yet. Male photographed on 24 January 2019 near Praia Jalé close to the island’s southern tip by Anja Cervencl. Also photographed on 29 December 2021 at Praia Vanha (Papazian et al. 2022). Not recorded since Pinhey (1974). Keyhole Glider Surprisingly no records yet. Not recorded since Pinhey (1974). Only reported by Martin (1908). Ferruginous Glider Príncipe Dropwing Found at two sites in October 2021 (Papazian et al. 2022). Described by Longﬁeld (1936). Status studied by Loureiro and Pontes (2013). Surprisingly no records yet. Only reported by Compte Sart (1962). Zygonyx sp. near ﬂavicosta (Sjöstedt, 1900) Near Ensign Cascader Zygonyx torridus (Kirby, 1889) Ringed Cascader Female reported as Pseudomacromia sp. by Longﬁeld (1936) was identiﬁed by Pinhey (1975) as this species. Female collected on 6 February 2019 at Monte Café (Papazian and Filippi 2019). Photographic records were taken from iNaturalist.org and Observation.org, and received directly from Ernst Klimsa Dragonﬂies and Damselﬂies (Odonata) of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón Rhyothemis notata (Fabricius, 1787) 375 Table 14.2 Occurrence of Odonata species, that are widespread in western and central Africa, in Atlantic and Indian Ocean islands but that so far have not been recorded from the Gulf of Guinea islands (Martens et al. 2013; Van Damme et al. 2020; Dijkstra and Cohen 2021) CV Com Mad * Mas • • • * • • • • S&A * Soc • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • * • • • • • • * • • * • • • Taxa that differ somewhat morphologically on these islands are marked with an asterisk. CV Cape Verde, Com Comoros, Mad Madagascar, Mas Mascarenes, S&A Seychelles and Aldabra, Soc Socotra K.-D. B. Dijkstra et al. English name Ochre Spreadwing Pallid Spreadwing Little Wisp Blue-green Sprite Cherry-eye Sprite Western Orange Emperor Black Emperor Common Hooktail Pygmy Basker Southern Banded Groundling Rock Scarlet Barbet Percher Bottletail Epaulet Skimmer Spectacled Skimmer Bold Skimmer Long Skimmer Banded Duskdarter Phantom Flutterer Red-veined Darter Black-splashed Elf Violet Dropwing Red-veined Dropwing Silhouette Dropwing Orange-winged Dropwing Red Basker Blue Basker 376 Scientiﬁc name Lestes ochraceus Selys, 1862 Lestes pallidus Rambur, 1842 Agriocnemis exilis Selys, 1872 Pseudagrion glaucescens Selys, 1876 Pseudagrion sublacteum (Karsch, 1893) Anax rutherfordi McLachlan, 1883 Anax tristis Hagen, 1867 Paragomphus genei (Selys, 1841) Aethriamanta rezia Kirby, 1889 Brachythemis leucosticta (Burmeister, 1839) Crocothemis divisa Karsch, 1898 Diplacodes luminans (Karsch, 1893) Olpogastra lugubris (Karsch, 1895) Orthetrum chrysostigma (Burmeister, 1839) Orthetrum icteromelas Ris, 1910 Orthetrum stemmale (Burmeister, 1839) Orthetrum trinacria (Selys, 1841) Parazyxomma ﬂavicans (Martin, 1908) Rhyothemis semihyalina (Desjardins, 1835) Sympetrum fonscolombii (Selys, 1840) Tetrathemis polleni (Selys, 1869) Trithemis annulata (Palisot de Beauvois, 1807) Trithemis arteriosa (Burmeister, 1839) Trithemis hecate Ris, 1912 Trithemis kirbyi Selys, 1891 Urothemis assignata (Selys, 1872) Urothemis edwardsii (Selys in Lucas, 1849) 14 Dragonﬂies and Damselﬂies (Odonata) of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón 377 Fig. 14.1 Trithemis nigra or Príncipe Dropwing, the only endemic odonate known from the islands. Photo credits: Nuno de Santos Loureiro Threatened Species, the survey identiﬁed no threats and therefore T. nigra is now listed as Near Threatened (IUCN 2021). Zygonyx sp. — Species of this genus favour water with a strong current. Pinhey (1974) did not see “any Zygonyx near any of the waterfalls and swift-ﬂowing streams” on São Tomé, although the well-dispersing Z. torridus (Kirby, 1889) was recently recorded (Papazian and Filippi 2019). Pinhey (1975) examined the unidentiﬁed female reported from Annobón by Longﬁeld (1936), stating that “it appears to be ﬂavicosta.” The species Z. ﬂavicosta (Sjöstedt, 1900) is widespread in western and central Africa and cannot be confused with Z. torridus, although other continental species are similar. The Seychelles, Comoros and Madagascar all have endemic Zygonyx species; thus, the presence of an endemic species on such a distant island as Annobón cannot be ruled out. A Poor Fauna? Considering how much suitable freshwater is present (Fig. 14.2), the 22 species known from all islands combined, and 19 from the largest and best-known island of São Tomé, seem exceptionally few. The Comoros, which geographically and ecologically are perhaps the most comparable island group, harbour 39 species in total, 378 K.-D. B. Dijkstra et al. Fig. 14.2 Tributary of the Rio Capitango, one of many forested streams on São Tomé. These seem perfect for endemic odonates, but none are known. Photo credits: Russell B. Tate with 36 on the oldest and best-studied island of Mayotte. The Mascarenes and Seychelles (excluding Aldabra) are twice as far from the mainland, but have 29 and 19 conﬁrmed species, respectively, while Mauritius and La Réunion each harbour 23 species (Dijkstra and Cohen 2021). Sixteen species have been reported from the Cape Verde islands, the only other major Afrotropical archipelago in the Atlantic Ocean (Martens et al. 2013). Although that is even fewer than in the Gulf of Guinea, those islands are also more isolated and substantially drier. Comparing the species tallies of just a few archipelagos with very different sizes, histories, habitats, and degrees of isolation is problematic, however. Looking at the species themselves may therefore be more informative: 16 of the 22 recorded in the Gulf of Guinea are widespread across Africa, with most species’ ranges including the other archipelagos mentioned (and parts of Eurasia) as well. Twenty-seven additional species are found both on the adjacent continent and on these other islands, but have yet to be found on São Tomé, Príncipe, or Annobón (Table 14.2): probably at least ten of the more widespread ones are likely present in the Gulf of Guinea islands, pushing the total species diversity over 30. Range-restricted species, too, are unexpectedly scarce. Pinhey (1974) noted that “compared to other orders, particularly Lepidoptera, rich in species or subspecies only known from these islands, the few endemics are remarkable for their paucity.” While a quarter of the Comoro, Mascarene, and Seychelles species are conﬁned to 14 Dragonﬂies and Damselﬂies (Odonata) of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón 379 their archipelagos (Dijkstra and Cohen 2021), Trithemis nigra from Príncipe is the only known endemic (Fig. 14.1). São Tomé is six times larger and twice as high but has no endemic Odonata. Socotra is larger but lies in a very dry corner of Africa (isolation is similar) and yet has similar numbers: 22 species including a single endemic (Van Damme et al. 2020). Furthermore, the mainland nearest Socotra has less than 50 species, whereas the Gulf of Guinea lies at the heart of the Afrotropics’ foremost centre of odonate diversity: well over 200 species are present in the hotspot centred on the Cameroon highlands (Clausnitzer et al. 2012). While the islands have been poorly researched, their low species numbers can probably not be ascribed only to that. The wet climate with often rainy and cloudy weather may certainly impede the activity of adult odonates and indeed of odonatologists: Pinhey (1974) found that the hot humidity made it “almost unbearable in April to scramble up the mountain after about 9 a.m.” However, most widespread species are conspicuous provided it is warm enough. Sampling of ﬁve permanent forest streams in the south of São Tomé by the second author in September 2020, moreover, produced larvae of Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera, but no Odonata (Fig. 14.2) suggesting very low densities. Perhaps the impoverishment on the islands in the Gulf of Guinea can be attributed to the same factors as the diversity on the continent around it. Odonate diversity and endemism is greatest at streams and other permanent waters, especially in areas with forest and varied relief such as in Lower Guinea (Clausnitzer et al. 2012). This is because species in stable habitats do not have to be good dispersers and can thus more easily become isolated and highly adapted to their speciﬁc environment. Species in seasonal habitats, by contrast, must be relatively tolerant and dispersive to survive (Dijkstra et al. 2014). While very few of over 200 species found across from São Tomé, Príncipe, and Annobón may be capable of crossing over and colonising the islands, all of the less than 50 across from Socotra have to be. Orthetrum africanum (Selys, 1887), Rhyothemis notata (Fabricius, 1787), and Gynacantha cylindrata/vesiculata (see above) are the only species on São Tomé and Príncipe that are conﬁned to Africa’s wetter and more forested west and centre, but favour rather open or temporary habitats and thus occur widely across equatorial Africa. Agriocnemis zeraﬁca Le Roi, 1915 has a similar but more northerly range, being common at seasonal habitats across the Sahel but patchy in the rainforest to the south. The islands’ only endemic ﬁts the same pattern as those three species: the ancestors of the basitincta-group of species, to which T. nigra belongs, were inferred to prefer open standing water (Damm et al. 2010). The group ﬁrst invaded ﬂowing waters and then those with shade. The continental sister-species of T. nigra take an intermediate position in this transition, favouring more open and temporary sites in forests, such as ﬂood pools near rivers. This capacity to penetrate the rainforest matrix and adapt to peripheral habitats likely allowed for the colonisation of Príncipe. This dispersal event was estimated to have occurred less than 3 million years ago (Damm et al. 2010). Other factors may also have contributed to the poor odonate fauna in the Gulf of Guinea, such as habitat alteration by humans or volcanism, but these would seem 380 K.-D. B. Dijkstra et al. unlikely to have impacted these insects speciﬁcally to the exclusion of other groups. The composition of the freshwater communities, however, may also be especially unsuited to Odonata. The second author noted unusually high densities of crustaceans and Sicydium gobies in his samples, likely caused by the absence of large ﬁsh predators. Although this is highly speculative, their abundance might in turn have led to rates of predation and/or competition that affect odonate larvae disproportionately. Conclusions We consider it unlikely (but not impossible) that prolonged ﬁeldwork by a specialist may upend the current impression of a poor and unexceptional odonate fauna on São Tomé, Príncipe, and Annobón. Nonetheless, additional widespread Afrotropical species are expected, especially on Annobón, while the identities of the Gynacantha species on São Tomé and Zygonyx on Annobón remain to be clariﬁed. Future work should focus on larvae, as sampling this life stage is less affected by wet weather, but also because their ecology might hold the key to the islands’ impoverished fauna. References Campion H (1923) Notes on dragonﬂies from the old-world islands of San Tomé, Rodriguez, Cocos-keeling and loo Choo. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 9(11):22–27 Clausnitzer V, Dijkstra K-DB, Koch R et al (2012) Focus on African freshwaters: hotspots of dragonﬂy diversity and conservation concern. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 129–134 Compte Sart A (1962) Resultados de la expedición Peris-Alvarez a la isla de Annobón. 11. Odonata. Boletín de la Real Sociedad Española de Historia Natural (B) 60:35–54 Damm S, Dijkstra K-DB, Hadrys H (2010) Red drifters and dark residents: the phylogeny and ecology of a Plio-Pleistocene dragonﬂy radiation reﬂects Africa’s changing environment (Odonata, Libellulidae, Trithemis). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 54:870–882 Dijkstra K-DB (2005) Taxonomy and identiﬁcation of the continental African Gynacantha and Heliaeschna (Odonata: Aeshnidae). International Journal of Odonatology 8:1–33 Dijkstra K-DB (2016) African dragonﬂies and damselﬂies online. Available via http://addo.adu.org. za/. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Dijkstra K-DB, Cohen C (2021) Dragonﬂies and damselﬂies of Madagascar and the Western Indian Ocean islands. Fondation Vahatra, Antananarivo Dijkstra K-DB, Monaghan MT, Pauls SU (2014) Freshwater biodiversity and aquatic insect diversiﬁcation. Annual Review of Entomology 59:143–163 IUCN (2021) The IUCN red list of threatened species: version 2020–2. Available via International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 22 Oct 2021 Longﬁeld C (1936) Studies on African Odonata, with synonymy, and descriptions of new species and subspecies. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 85(20):467–498 Loureiro NS, Pontes L (2013) The Trithemis nigra (Odonata: Libellulidae) of Príncipe Island, gulf of Guinea. African Journal of Ecology 51:180–183 14 Dragonﬂies and Damselﬂies (Odonata) of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón 381 Martens A, de Santos LN, Hazevoet CJ (2013) Dragonﬂies (Insecta, Odonata) collected in the Cape Verde Islands, 1960-1989, including records of two taxa new to the archipelago. Zool Caboverd 4:1–7 Martin R (1908) Voyage de Leonarda Fea dans l’Afrique Occidentale, Odonates. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturali Giacomo Doria, Genova 3(43):649–667 Papazian M, Filippi G (2019) Contribution à la connaissance des Odonates de l’archipel de São Tomé-et-Príncipe 1. Présence de Zygonyx torridus (Kirby, 1889) (Odonata Libellulidae). L’Entomologiste 75(5):265–267 Papazian M, Bonneau P, Filippi G, Nève G (2020) Contribution à la connaissance des Odonates de l’archipel de Sāo Tomé-et-Príncipe 2. Présence d’Agriocnemis zeraﬁca Le Roi, 1915 (Odonata Coenagrionidae). L’Entomologiste 76(2):69–73 Papazian M, Filippi G, Coache A, Deffontaines J-B (2022) Contribution à la connaissance des Odonates de l'archipel de Sāo Tomé-et-Principe 3. Présence d’Ischnura senegalensis (Rambur, 1842), de Tramea limbata (Desjardins, 1835) et de Rhyothemis notata (Fabricius, 1787) (Odonata Coenagrionidae, Libellulidae). L’Entomologiste 78 (in press) Pinhey E (1970) Monographic study of the genus Trithemis Brauer (Odonata: Libellulidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa 11:1–159 Pinhey E (1974) Odonata of the northwest Cameroons and particularly of the islands stretching southwards from the Guinea gulf. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 25(1–3):179–212 Pinhey E (1975) A collection of Odonata from Angola. Arnoldia 7(23):1–16 Pinhey E (1979) The status of a few well-known African anisopterous dragonﬂies (Odonata). Arnoldia 8(36):1–7 Van Damme K, Vahalík P, Ketelaar R et al (2020) Dragonﬂies of Dragon’s blood island: atlas of the Odonata of the Socotra archipelago (Yemen). Rendiconti Lincei Scienze Fisiche e Naturali 31: 571–605 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 15 Diversity and Distribution of the Arthropod Vectors of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Claire Loiseau, Rafael Gutiérrez-López, Bruno Mathieu, Boris K. Makanga, Christophe Paupy, Nil Rahola, and Anthony J. Cornel Abstract The known arthropod vector species on the Gulf of Guinea islands belong to orders Diptera and Ixodida. Among the Diptera, the family Culicidae (mosquitoes) has the most species, 34 (6 endemic), Ceratopogonidae has 13 (all in the genus Culicoides), Tabanidae has 6, and Simuliidae has 3 (1 endemic). Ixodida has only 4 species. Most vector species and associated diseases are shared with mainland Africa. Some of these include (1) the human malaria vector Anopheles coluzzii, (2) yellow fever and dengue vector Aedes aegypti, and (3) the spotted fever group rickettsiae and Q fever vector Amblyomma spp. However, there is a considerable lack of information on the natural cycles of many vector-borne diseases that might C. Loiseau (*) CIBIO-InBIO, Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, InBIO Associate Laboratory, Vairão, Portugal CEFE, Centre d’Écologie Fonctionnelle et Évolutive, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France e-mail: claire.loiseau@cibio.up.pt R. Gutiérrez-López CIBIO-InBIO, Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, InBIO Associate Laboratory, Vairão, Portugal B. Mathieu Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France B. K. Makanga Institut de Recherche en Écologie Tropicale, CENAREST, Centre National de la Recherche Scientiﬁque et Technologique, Libreville, Gabon C. Paupy · N. Rahola MIVEGEC, Maladies Infectieuses et Vecteurs: Écologie, Génétique, Évolution et Contrôle, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France A. J. Cornel Mosquito Control and Research Laboratory, Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, USA Vector Genetics Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, Davis, USA © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_15 383 384 C. Loiseau et al. impact local fauna, for which there may be some endemic pathogen lineages. Increased trade by air and sea should compel authorities to remain vigilant, to keep unwanted vectors and diseases at bay. Entomological diversity data remains scarce for Annobón and for the forested interior of the islands, where future sampling efforts may uncover new endemic species. Keywords Biting midges · Diptera · Flies · Infectious diseases · Mosquitoes · Ticks Introduction The discipline of medical entomology originated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Service 1978), when P. Manson and R. Ross discovered the obligatory development of speciﬁc life stages of the human pathogenic ﬁlarial, Wuchereria bancrofti Cobbold, 1877, and avian malaria Plasmodium parasite in the mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Ross 1911). This discipline aims at studying insects and other arthropods that affect the health of humans, domestic animals, and wildlife (hereafter called vectors). Vector biology can be subdivided into medical (emphasis on human), veterinary (domestic animals), and wildlife disciplines (Edman 2009). However, these are often intertwined, since many vectors transmit infectious agents that cause similar diseases in both humans and animals (zoonoses). A large diversity of pathogens is transmitted by hematophagous arthropods (insects or ticks), including ﬁlariae (i.e., worms), protozoa (e.g., malaria), bacteria, and viruses (e.g., dengue, yellow fever, or Zika). Of all the arthropods, the Order Diptera contains the most species that transmit pathogens to humans and wildlife, including one of the most studied families, the Culicidae (mosquitoes). Recent mosquito surveys on Comoros (Mayotte Island: Le Goff et al. 2014), Seychelles (Le Goff et al. 2012), and Mariana Islands (Guam: Rueda et al. 2011) reveal high numbers of species but few single-island endemics. By contrast, São Tomé and Príncipe harbor six endemic mosquito species (Ramos et al. 1994; Ribeiro et al. 1998; Loiseau et al. 2019) and this high level of mosquito endemism (23%) is especially unusual considering the proximity of the islands to the mainland. In comparison, the Galapagos, Hawaii, and Canary archipelagoes do not harbor endemic mosquito species (Baez 1987; Carles-Tolra 2002; Bataille et al. 2009), while the Azores and Madeira have only one each (Ribeiro and Ramos 1999). Other Dipteran families containing disease vector species, such as Simuliidae and Ceratopogonidae, have been less studied on the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, probably due to their lower diversity and lesser medical importance. In this chapter, we present an overview of the known biodiversity of arthropod vectors and their associated diseases on the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. We describe the microhabitats of Culicidae and Simuliidae species and propose future directions that might help in documenting and describing new vector species from the archipelago. 15 Diversity and Distribution of the Arthropod Vectors of the Gulf of. . . 385 Diversity, Endemism, and Disease Ecology All vector species on the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands are Diptera or Ixodida arthropods. Class Insecta Order Diptera The order Diptera is composed of two suborders, Nematocera and Brachycera (Pape et al. 2011). More than 150,000 species have been described, including numerous hematophagous insects able to transmit infectious diseases. Diptera species known as vectors in the Gulf of Guinea islands belong to ﬁve families. Suborder Nematocera Family Culicidae Globally, Culicidae includes 3578 mosquito species and subspecies, in 42 genera (Walter Reed Biosystematics Unit 2001). Seven hundred and ninety-ﬁve species are known to occur in the Afrotropics (i.e., 22% of the mosquito diversity; Rueda 2008). Culicidae is one of the most studied Diptera families, both worldwide and in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Hence, for this group, we detail relevant expeditions, from the early twentieth century, which relied mostly on collecting immature stages, to more recent collections, which used both immature and adult decoy trapping. Early Expeditions (1932–1964) Published records dating back from the Percy Sladen and Godman Trust expeditions in 1932 and 1933 (Edwards 1934) recorded ﬁve species on São Tomé (Anopheles gambiae Giles, 1902, Uranotenia micromelas Edwards 1934, Aedes nigricephalus Theobald, 1901; Culex fatigans Wiedemann, 1828 and Culex tamsi Edwards, 1934) and two on Príncipe (Aedes aegypti Linnaeus, 1762 and Eretmapodites chrysogaster Graham, 1909). Two species described from material collected on this expedition, U. micromelas and Cx. tamsi, are still considered endemic to São Tomé and Príncipe. Based on samples collected during expeditions between 1952 and 1955, 15 additional species were reported for São Tomé and Príncipe (Gãndara 1956). During the program to eradicate tsetse ﬂies on Príncipe (see section on Tabanidae), nine species of mosquito were found, four of which were new to the islands, including Aedes (Aedimorphus) larvae that were not identiﬁed to species (Pinhão and Mourão 1961). A few years later, an intensive survey of mosquito larvae at 386 C. Loiseau et al. 14 sites on São Tomé (Mourão 1964) collected ﬁve additional species (Uranotaenia balfouri Theobald, 1904, Aedes metallicus Edwards, 1912, Aedes circumluteolus Theobald, 1908, Toxorhynchites brevipalpis Theobald, 1901 and Culiseta fraseri Edwards, 1914). Further Expeditions in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century An updated list of Príncipe Island mosquito species, based on specimens collected during an expedition in 1986, added seven species (Ae. nigricephalus, Culex antennatus Becker, 1903, C. decens Theobald, 1901, C. nebulosus Theobald, 1901, C. quinquefasciatus Say, 1826, U. micromelas and U. principensis da Cunha Ramos, 1993) to the seven previously recorded (Ramos et al. 1989). Then, two new species were described: Toxorhynchites capelai Ribeiro, 1991 (Ribeiro 1993), and Aedes (Aedimorphus) gandarai Ramos, Capela and Ribeiro, 1994 (Ramos et al. 1994). A few years later, the list of mosquito species increased to 14 on Príncipe and 26 on São Tomé (Ribeiro et al. 1998), including 6 São Tomé endemics, and 1 endemic to both islands (Appendix). The genus Culex is represented by the most species, 14, followed by Aedes, with 6. On São Tomé and Príncipe Islands, the only current known vector of human malaria is Anopheles coluzzii Coetzee and Wilkerson 2013, previously known as An. gambiae M form. An. coluzzii is abundant in urban and village settings in coastal areas on both islands. The lower abundance and the possible absence of An. coluzzii inland and at elevations above 200 m (Pinto et al. 2000a, b), despite an abundance of semi-permanent pools for immature development, is likely due to much lower human population densities in these areas. After intensive indoor residual spraying campaigns, which started in 2005, the overall prevalence of malaria in children under 9 years old was reduced from 30.5% to 8.3% after the ﬁrst round, and to 2.1% after the second (Tseng et al. 2008; Teklehaimanot et al. 2009). Prevalence has remained low (~1%; Chen et al. 2019), but active surveillance and mosquito control to prevent malaria outbreaks is ongoing (Lee et al. 2010). The only other Anopheles species present on São Tomé, but not on Príncipe, is An. coustani Laveran, 1900; however, its role as a secondary malaria vector is not known. Lymphatic ﬁlariasis, a human parasitic infection, is caused by nematodes (Wuchereria bancrofti Cobbold, 1887, Brugia malayi Brug, 1927 and B. timori Partono, 1977), which are transmitted through the bite of infected Ae., Cx., An. and Mansonia mosquitoes (Chandy et al. 2011). The last report of the presence of W. bancrofti on São Tomé dates from 1956 and on Príncipe from 1958 (Fraga de Azevedo et al. 1960). The insecticide spraying that led to the eradication of Glossina palpalis palpalis Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 on Príncipe (see below), probably also impacted mosquito populations, which likely led to eliminating lymphatic ﬁlariae on that island (Fraga de Azevedo et al. 1960). Further surveillance might be needed as positive serological tests for lymphatic ﬁlariasis have been reported on São Tomé in recent years (Fan et al. 2013; WHO 2019). 15 Diversity and Distribution of the Arthropod Vectors of the Gulf of. . . 387 Recent Surveys (Within First Quarter of the Twenty-First Century) Collections performed by the authors on São Tomé and Príncipe in 2016, 2017, and 2019 added four species to the documented diversity (Ae. albopictus Skuse, 1894, Ae. tarsalis Edwards, 1927, U. bilineata Theobald, 1909, and U. connali Edwards, 1912). These surveys were primarily focused on collecting mosquito vectors known to transmit wildlife pathogens, especially to birds. At least eight genera of mosquitoes (Aedes, Aedeomyia, Anopheles, Culex, Coquillettidia, Culiseta, Mansonia, and Uranotaenia) can transmit avian malaria (Valkiūnas 2004). Avian malaria has had devastating effects on the endemic bird populations of Hawaii (Fonseca et al. 2000), demonstrating the pernicious nature of introduced diseases on isolated animal populations. São Tomé and Príncipe birds are not heavily infected with Plasmodium, exhibiting an average prevalence of around 12% (Reis et al. 2021); however, the birds appear to be carrying Plasmodium lineages that originate from the mainland, particularly in lowland bird populations (Reis et al. 2021). Numerous mosquito species may be vectors of avian malaria in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, but their vector competence has not yet been assessed and will be an important future research direction for monitoring the population health of the endemic avifauna. The highly anthropophilic Ae. albopictus (invasive tiger mosquito), likely introduced to the Gulf of Guinea during the last 10 years, is now very widespread on both islands and is of considerable human biting nuisance (Reis et al. 2017; Loiseau et al. 2019). Along with Ae. aegypti, Ae. albopictus is considered an urban cycle vector (Kamgang et al. 2019b) of Yellow Fever, Dengue, Zika and Chikungunya viruses, which actively circulate in neighboring African mainland countries (Paupy et al. 2010; Braack et al. 2018; Kamgang et al. 2019a). Periodic outbreaks of Yellow Fever occur in neighboring mainland countries, namely in Cameroon, Gabon, and Angola (Chippaux and Chippaux 2018). One study estimated that currently there are between 51,000 and 380,000 severe cases of yellow fever annually in Africa, resulting in an estimated 19,000–180,000 deaths (Garske et al. 2014). Dengue virus strains, in the same Flavivirus genus as Yellow Fever virus (Daep et al. 2014), are now probably one of the most important arboviruses, since globally they infect over 100 million people annually, resulting in an estimated 500,000 severe Dengue cases (WHO 2014). A serological survey on pregnant women has actually demonstrated the circulation of this virus on the islands (Yen et al. 2016). No major outbreak of Dengue has been recorded on the islands until a recent one in São Tomé in 2022. In addition, nine resident mosquito species found in São Tomé and Príncipe (Ribeiro et al. 1998) are known as vectors of numerous other arboviruses (e.g., Alphavirus, Flavivirus, or Phlebovirus) in the Afrotropics. Currently, both Anophelinae and Culicinae subfamilies are present in the Gulf of Guinea islands, as well as the only Culicidae genus that is endemic to Africa, Eretmapodites Theobald, 1901. There are 35 resident Culicidae species: 31 on São Tomé and 15 on Príncipe (Appendix). To our knowledge Ae. indet (Pinhão and Mourão 1961) has not been collected in the last 70 years, and its current presence on the islands is questionable. We have not included An. funestus s.l. Giles, 1900, An. paludis Theobald, 1901, and An. pharoensis Theobald, 1901 (Mesquita 1946, 1952) 388 C. Loiseau et al. in the current list of species, because malaria control campaigns in the 1980s are thought to have eradicated them (Pinto et al. 2000a). The only publication on the mosquitoes of Annobón was about malaria transmission and genetic population structure of An. coluzzii in Equatorial Guinea (Moreno et al. 2007). Family Simuliidae Among the 2200 species of black ﬂies described around the world, 214 are present in the Afrotropical region (Currie and Adler 2008), including many that transmit pathogens that affect humans (e.g., ﬁlarial disease onchocerciasis; Crosskey 1990), poultry (Alder and McCreadie 2019), and wild birds (Valkiūnas et al. 2004). Onchocerciasis (river blindness) is limited to sub-Saharan Africa and is widely known in southern Cameroon and on Bioko Island, where it is transmitted by species of the complex Simulium damnosum Theobald, 1903 (Post et al. 2003). Currently, this vector species does not occur on the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands (Mustapha et al. 2004), and no cases of Onchocerciasis have been reported. The avian parasites Leucocytozoon, closely related to avian malaria, are present, especially in highland and forest birds of São Tomé and Príncipe (Reis et al. 2021). However, the vector competence of black ﬂy species for Leucocytozoon spp. remains unknown on the islands. Black ﬂies were ﬁrst documented at one site on São Tomé in 1988 (Grácio 1988). Extensive sampling of 71 sites on São Tomé reported the presence of two species: Simulium (Pomeroyellum) alcocki Pomeroy, 1922, and S. (Anasolen) dentulosum Roubard, 1915, the latter being the most abundant (Grácio 1999). In 1998, the São Tomé endemic S. (Pomeroyellum) santomi Mustapha, 2004 was added to the list (Mustapha et al. 2004). On Príncipe, only S. dentulosum is conﬁrmed. No effort has been made to sample black ﬂies on São Tomé or Príncipe during the last 20 years, and it has been suggested that they are absent from Annobón (Mustapha et al. 2004). Family Ceratopogonidae This family of biting midges includes 6206 species in 112 genera and has a diverse fossil record (around 300 species; Borkent and Dominiak 2020). Many species of Ceratopoginidae are important pollinators, and only four genera are known to have species that feed on blood of vertebrates, including humans (Borkent 2004): Austroconops Wirth and Lee, 1958, Culicoides Latreille, 1809, Forcipomyia (subgenus Lasiohelea) Meigen, 1818 and Leptoconops Skuse, 1889. Austroconops is the only genus that is not known to play a role in pathogen transmission, while Culicoides is the most important in this regard (Borkent 2004). Culicoides includes 1347 described species, and the assessment of this diversity has received much attention in Africa because of their status as vectors of human ﬁlarial nematodes (Agbolade et al. 2006), and of several viruses responsible for animal diseases, such as Bluetongue (Mellor 1990) and African Horse Sickness (Mellor et al. 2000; Mellor 15 Diversity and Distribution of the Arthropod Vectors of the Gulf of. . . 389 and Hamblin 2004). Culicoides are also known vectors of avian malaria-like parasites of the genera Haemoproteus (Parahaemoproteus) and Leucocytozoon (Caulleryi) (Valkiūnas 2004). On São Tomé, approximately 20% of the birds are infected with these parasites, with a higher prevalence in shaded plantations (Reis et al. 2021). Among the species of Culicoides, several can transmit Haemoproteus, but vector competence of Culicoides species remains unknown. The ﬁrst four species of Culicoides recorded on São Tomé were collected during the Percy Sladen and Godman Trust expeditions in the 1930s (Edwards 1934), and identiﬁed as C. austeni Carter, Ingram and Macﬁe, 1920, C. distinctipennis Austen, 1912, C. citroneus Carter, Ingram and Macﬁe, 1920 and C. grahamii Austen, 1909. A three-year study of insects in cocoa plantations identiﬁed 25 species of Ceratopogonidae, including only one Culicoides species: C. imicola Kieffer, 1913 (Wirth and Derren 1976). This ﬁfth species recorded on the island is a known primary vector of Bluetongue and African Horse Sickness viruses, largely distributed in Africa, Asia, and Europe (Guichard et al. 2014). C. distinctipennis, C. milnei Austen, 1909 and C. imicola were later mentioned as present on São Tomé (Glick 1990), the latter being the sixth Culicoides species recorded on the island. Since the mid-1970s, there has been no evaluation of the diversity of Culicoides on São Tomé and Príncipe Islands, and the number of species is thus likely underestimated. There are 156 species formally described in the Afrotropical region (Labuschagne 2016), including high diversities on neighboring mainland African countries, such as Nigeria (Dipeolu 1976) and Cameroon (Callot et al. 1965; Wanji et al. 2019). Gabon is an exception since only six species have been described so far, probably due to very few studies carried out in that country (Delécolle et al. 2013; Augot et al. 2017). In 2019, nine species of Culicoides were found in the southeast of São Tomé, along transects from the center of an oil palm plantation to the native forest. While morphological and molecular investigations are ongoing, it is likely that seven species will be added to the records for the island (Appendix). From the four species ﬁrst recorded for the island (Edwards 1934), only C. citroneus and C. distinctipennis were found recently. Surprisingly, no endemic Culicoides species have been found yet. Considering sampling bias in these islands, it is likely that future studies in different habitat types, especially deeper in the native forest, or in coffee and cocoa plantations, will reveal the presence of endemic Culicoides species. Future surveys will most certainly also increase the number of Culicoides species on Príncipe and Annobón, as well as clarify their ecology. Suborder Brachycera Family Tabanidae Worldwide, there are currently close to 4400 species and subspecies, and 144 genera of Tabanidae described (Mullens 2019). Tabanid ﬂies of the genera Tabanus, Chrysops, and Hybomitra, commonly known as horseﬂies and deerﬂies, are of economic, medical, and veterinary importance (Nevill et al. 1994). However, they 390 C. Loiseau et al. tend to be less studied than other Dipteran families (Baldacchino et al. 2014). Tabanid ﬂies serve as biological vectors (pathogens replicate and develop within the ﬂy), and as mechanical vectors (pathogens are transmitted without ampliﬁcation and development within the ﬂy via contaminated blood on mouthparts) of several wildlife and livestock pathogens, such as Trypanosoma spp. (Nevill et al. 1994), Babesia spp., and Theileria spp. (Taioe et al. 2017), ﬁlarial nematodes, and numerous viruses and bacteria (Baldacchino et al. 2014). In forested Central Africa, tabanid ﬂies of the genus Chrysops also infect humans with Loa loa Cobbold, 1864, which causes African eye worm (Mullens 2019). This pathogen has not been reported in São Tomé and Príncipe. Six species in the genus Tabanus have been recorded on São Tomé and Príncipe: T. biguttatus Wiedemann, 1830; T. congoiensis Ricardo, 1908; T. obscurefumatus Surcouf, 1906; T. taeniola, Palisot de Beauvois, 1806; T. principis Bequaert, 1930 (Bequaert 1930) and T. monocallosus (Travassos Santos Dias 1955), the last two being endemic to the Gulf of Guinea islands. No new tabanid ﬂies have been recorded on the archipelago in recent years. Family Glossinidae Glossinidae includes the single genus Glossina with 23 species, 6 of which are further divided into 14 subspecies, all but one found in Africa (Krinsky 2019). The genus is divided into three groups based on their ecological preferences: the savannah ﬂies (subgenus Morsitans), the forest ﬂies (subgenus Fusca), and the riverine ﬂies (subgenus Palpalis). Species found in sub-Saharan Africa are vectors of the Trypanosoma parasites that cause sleeping sickness in humans (Welburn et al. 2001) and trypanosomosis in livestock (Meyer et al. 2016) and can have severe impacts on domestic cattle production (De Geier et al. 2020). The ﬁrst known introduction of the tsetse ﬂy, G. p. palpalis, occurred on Príncipe Island in 1825 (Fraga de Azevedo et al. 1956). At the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century, it became a signiﬁcant health issue for cocoa plantation workers and local inhabitants, forcing important prophylactic measures between 1911 and 1914, which included hunting for ﬂies, swamp drainage, clearance of vegetation and slaughter of wild pigs, stray dogs, and civets (Bruto da Costa 1913). The prevalence of Trypanosoma dropped dramatically (Bruto da Costa 1913), and in 1914 the tsetse ﬂy was considered eradicated in Príncipe (Figueiredo Moura da Silva 2019). In 1956, entomologists rediscovered large numbers of tsetse ﬂy on Príncipe (Tendeiro 1956) and suggested it had been reintroduced from Bioko Island. Although no cases of trypanosomiasis were found in humans, animals or in the tsetse ﬂies, important measures were applied again to eradicate the tsetse ﬂies, including trapping ﬂies, insecticide spraying, clearing of vegetation, and killing of wild pigs, monkeys, and dogs (Fraga de Azevedo et al. 1956). Eradication was effective by July 1958. 15 Diversity and Distribution of the Arthropod Vectors of the Gulf of. . . 391 Order Siphonaptera Two ﬂea species, Ctenocephalides felis Bouché, 1935 (cat ﬂea; Family Pulicidae) and Tunga penetrans Linnaeus, 1758 (chigoe ﬂea; Family Tungidae), occur in São Tomé and Príncipe. A high percentage of dogs seem to have cat ﬂeas infected with Rickettsia felis, an emerging human pathogen often causing febrile illness, while just over 3% of humans had antibodies against this bacterium (Tsai et al. 2020). Class Arachnida Order Ixodida The Ixodida contains three families: Ixodidae, Argasidae, and Nuttalliellidae (Nicholson et al. 2019). The Ixodidae or hard-bodied ticks include 15 genera and 707 species, while the Argasidae or soft-bodied ticks contain about 190 species, and the Nuttalliellidae only one species. Worldwide, they are the most important disease vectors in the veterinary ﬁeld and are second only to mosquitoes in public health importance (Nicholson et al. 2019). Ticks are ectoparasites that blood-feed on mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, but unlike the short blood-feeding periods (at most a few minutes) of Diptera, hard-bodied ticks attach and stay on their hosts for several days. They are implicated in the transmission of numerous infectious diseases caused by pathogens, such as bacteria (e.g., Rickettsia, Borrelia, Coxiella; Parola et al. 2013), viruses (e.g., Crimean–Congo hemorrhagic fever virus, Tickborne encephalitis virus; Hoogstraal 1979) and protozoa (e.g., Babesia; Nelder et al. 2016). Family Ixodidae Four species of hard-bodied ticks have been recorded through the years from São Tomé and Príncipe. Amblyomma astrion Dönitz, 1909 and A. splendidum Giebel, 1877, were collected on São Tomé, and A. splendidum on Príncipe (Tendeiro 1957). Subsequently, Rhipicephalus decolaratus (Koch, 1844) was collected on both islands (Travassos Santos Dias 1988). In the early 1980s, numerous adult cow and calf deaths on São Tomé were attributed to neurological complications, likely caused by heartwater, a tick-borne rickettsial disease of domestic and wild ruminants transmitted by A. astrion (Uilenberg et al. 1982). In 2016, A. variegatum Fabricius, 1794, was collected from cattle in the Agua Grande district on São Tomé (Hsi et al. 2020). A serological survey demonstrated the presence of Spotted fever group rickettsiae and Q fever (Coxiella burnetti) antibodies in people, which could explain continued reports of febrile illness in São Tomé human residents not due to malaria (Hsi et al. 2020). 392 C. Loiseau et al. Family Argasidae To date, Ornithodoros capensis Neumann, 1901 is the only soft tick species reported for the islands (Travassos 1988). It is an ectoparasite of seabirds in the tropics and subtropics, and was collected in the nests of Brown Noddy Anous stolidus (Linnaeus, 1758), Black Noddy A. minutus (Boie 1844), and Sooty Tern Onychoprion fuscatus (Linnaeus, 1766), during an expedition to Tinhosas (small islets south of Príncipe) in 1970 (Travessos 1988). A recent census of seabird nests on these islets did not report ectoparasites (Valle et al. 2016; Bollen et al. 2018), but they may not have explicitly searched for them. Distribution, Biology, and Habitat Speciﬁcity In this section, we describe the habitat types and preferred environmental conditions of Culicidae and Simuliidae species, based on the observations of AJC and on the literature (Mourão 1964; Grácio 1999). Mosquito Habitat and Distribution on São Tomé and Príncipe Anthropophilic Mosquitoes Mosquito species that regularly blood-feed on humans include disease vector species – Ae. aegypti (Fig. 15.1.1), Ae. albopictus (Fig. 15.1.2), An. coluzzii (Fig. 15.1.5), Cx. quinquefasciatus, and Ae. circumlutelous – and species not implicated as disease vectors – Ae. nigricephalus and E. chrysogaster (Fig. 15.1.3). Immatures of An. coluzzii, vectors of malaria, are found mostly on the coast. They develop in direct contact with clear or eutrophic groundwater, in swamps, and in temporary pools, such as in roadside ditches, depressions in pathways, and between households (Fig. 15.2.1). Blood index values and low sporozoite rates in An. coluzzii sampled in 1997 and 1998 on São Tomé (Sousa et al. 2001) indicate that they are meso-endemic, feeding predominantly on dogs, followed by humans, and then pigs. In recent collections by AJC, An. coluzzii were also attracted to chicken. Cx. quinquefasciatus (Cx. fatigans in Mourão 1964), a vector of ﬁlarial nematodes, is very common in urban areas. It bites humans at night inside homes, and often rests indoors or underneath houses along with Anopheles mosquitoes. They represent the majority of mosquitoes in the city of São Tomé (Mourão 1964). Immatures of Cx. quinquefasciatus are often found in very high numbers in unmaintained sewage systems and in artiﬁcial containers, such as barrels, gutters, tubs, or vats of water. Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus, vectors of numerous viruses, primarily bite humans during the day. They have spread worldwide and become cosmopolitan 15 Diversity and Distribution of the Arthropod Vectors of the Gulf of. . . 393 Fig. 15.1 Pictures of mosquito species: (1) Aedes albopictus (female); (2) Aedes aegypti (female); (3) Eretmapodites chrysogaster (female); (4) Toxorhynchites brevipalpis (male); (5) Anopheles coluzzii (female). Photo credits; Nil Rahola (Paupy et al. 2009; Brown et al. 2011; Kraemer et al. 2019). Historically, they both laid eggs in tree cavities (e.g., Erythrina sp., Chlorophora sp.), but now they are considered container-breeding mosquitoes, as immatures often develop in discarded plastics, tires, and other rubbish that hold water, and in unused cisterns. Still, both species lay eggs in the abundant supply of tree cavities, as well as in fallen banana leaves, in São Tomé and Príncipe. In the past, Ae. aegypti was the most collected species (Mourão 1964), but its abundance seems to have decreased since Ae. albopictus became established in São Tomé and Príncipe (Reis et al. 2017), as in other parts of the world (Bargielowski and Lounibos 2016). The distribution of Ae. aegypti has now contracted into small enclaves, mostly at higher elevations on São Tomé, and is rarely collected on Príncipe. 394 C. Loiseau et al. Fig. 15.2 Examples of microhabitat of Culicidae: (1) Typical roadside ditch located on Príncipe with large numbers of Anopheles coluzzii larvae. Arrow points to fourth instar larva; (2) Typical slow-moving river edge on Príncipe supporting large numbers of Uranotaenia micomelas and Culex decens larvae; (3) Preferred daytime resting location for Cx. cinerellus, Cx. nebulosus and multiple Uranotaenia species in crab holes in road embankment in Alto Douro, São Tomé. Arrows point to Culex mosquitoes; (4) Cx. cambournaci larvae in water-ﬁlled Heliconia rostrata ﬂower in Botanical gardens on São Tomé. Arrow points to larvae. Photo credits: Anthony Cornel Ae. circumluteolus is localized and infrequently captured (human-biting at Mucumbli, São Tomé), and represents the only typical ﬂoodwater Aedes species on São Tomé, even though immatures have been found in ground pools and in artiﬁcial containers (Mourão 1964). This species is a known vector of signiﬁcant arboviruses, such as Rift Valley Fever, Wesselsbron, Bunyamwera, and Pongola viruses in Africa (Braack et al. 2018). Finally, E. chrysogaster, another pernicious daytime human blood-feeding mosquito, lays eggs opportunistically in trash, but mostly in natural containers, such as plant leaf axils, especially in fallen banana and palm leaves, or cocoa and coconut 15 Diversity and Distribution of the Arthropod Vectors of the Gulf of. . . 395 shells. This species is present everywhere on the islands but is not known to transmit diseases in São Tomé and Príncipe. Opportunistic Mosquitoes Ae. nigricephalus, an opportunistic blood feeder, bites humans during the day and does not disperse far from brackish water estuaries and mangroves, where immatures develop in crab holes. Cx. cinerellus Edwards, 1922 is also specialized to develop in brackish water crab holes (Hopkins 1952). Immatures of other abundant mosquito species, which are more likely to feed on birds, and only seldom feed on humans, such as Cx. decens, Cx. antennatus, and Lutzia tigripes (de Grandpré & de Charmoy, 1901) also occur in temporary water bodies. Cx. decens can be abundant on São Tomé (Mourão 1964), and its larvae were frequently found in artiﬁcial containers. On Príncipe, large numbers of larvae were found along slow-moving rivers (Fig. 15.2.2). Immatures of other species that seldom bite humans (e.g., Ae. tarsalis, Ae. gandarai, Culex macﬁei Edwards, 1923, Cx. nebulosus) and nectar feeders (Toxorhynchites capelai and T. brevipalpis; Fig. 15.1.4), develop in tree holes and less so in banana or plant leaf axils. Rotting coconut fruits serve as signiﬁcant sites for the development of Cx. (Culiciomyia) nebulosus, while adults primarily rest in crab holes (Fig. 15.2.3). Interestingly, immatures of Cx. cambournaci Hamon & Gandara, 1955 are often found in large numbers in the ﬂowers of Heliconia species, which have been introduced from the neotropics as ornamentals (Fig. 15.2.4). The immatures of other species including Cx. annulioris Theobald, 1901, Cx. invidiosus Theobald, 1901, Cx. thalassius Theobald, 1903, Cx. tamsi, Culiseta fraseri, L. tigripes, Ur. capelai, Ur. principensis, Ur. balfouri Theobald, 1904, Ur. bilineata and Ur. connali are typically found in river seepages, and rocky and thickly vegetated vernal pools. All these opportunistic mosquitoes are potential vectors of avian Plasmodium. Black Fly Habitat and Distribution on São Tomé Immature Simuliidae ﬁlter-feed in ﬂowing waterways. Stream size, water velocity, and seston load are important factors that inﬂuence the distribution of black-ﬂy species (Palmer and Craig 2000; Adler and McCreadie 2019). Interestingly, S. alcocki and S. dentulosum are not concomitant on São Tomé (Grácio 1999), S. alcocki is restricted to the northern interior part of the island, while S. dentulosum was more widespread. Their niches tend to show ecological allopatry with S. dentulosum found in rivers from sea level to 400 m, while S. alcocki occurs from 200 to 900 m above sea level. S. alcocki immatures tend to be restricted to the ﬁrst 10 cm of the water column, whereas S. dentulosum are found anywhere from close to the surface to 50 cm below the surface. Finally, S. dentulosum seems to 396 C. Loiseau et al. prefer streams or rivers with weak water ﬂow (78 cm/s, 87% of oxygen on average), contrary to S. alcocki which prefers faster water ﬂow (122 cm/s, 98% of oxygen on average; Grácio 1999). Re-sampling the same sites would be ideal to evaluate if the habitat and microhabitat speciﬁcity of these two species have changed over time. We suspect S. alcocki as the main vector of Leucocytozoon spp. in birds, since both vectors and parasites are found in greater abundance at higher elevations. Directions for Future Disease Insect Vector Research Sampling Effort in Diverse Habitats and Speciﬁc Vector Families Among all expeditions and surveys that aimed to collect vectors, we discern two major sampling paucities. First, the forested interior of São Tomé, in the Obô Natural Park, and the forested south of Príncipe are poorly studied. The main reason is probably accessibility, since reaching remote native forest requires long walks and camping. While mosquitoes have been quite well sampled along the entire coast, and also in some parts of the interior of the islands, other families such as Ceratopogonidae or Tabanidae have been sampled in few sites, and do not include all habitat types found on the islands. Second, Annobón has been poorly sampled for all groups. Although the island is small (17 km2) and more isolated, we estimate that some of its arthropod vectors are not yet described. We believe that the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands are still full of surprises and that all three islands have the potential to hold undescribed arthropod vectors. Surprisingly, there are no records of louse ﬂies (family Hippoboscidae) and sand ﬂies (family Psychodidae, subfamily Phlebotominae) on the islands. Louse ﬂies, also known as bird ﬂies, ﬂat ﬂies, or ked ﬂies (Reeves and Lloyd 2019), are vectors of Haemoproteus parasites in Columbidae birds (Valkiūnas 2004), which have been detected in the blood of Columba larvata and C. malherbii, both on São Tomé and Príncipe (Loiseau et al. 2017; Reis et al. 2021). Thus, the presence of louse ﬂies on São Tomé and Príncipe islands is highly suspected, even though no record has been published yet. Collection of louse ﬂies can only be done on live birds, or by checking livestock coats. It is also somewhat surprising that no sand ﬂy species have been found on any of the islands, although no surveys have speciﬁcally searched for them. Surveys should be done preferentially during the rainy season since these insects are highly seasonal, with abundance peaks during or right after rain (Munstermann 2019). Leishmania parasites, transmitted by sand ﬂies, are present in Central Africa (Alvar et al. 2012) but have never been reported on the islands, supporting the hypothesis that these vectors might be absent. 15 Diversity and Distribution of the Arthropod Vectors of the Gulf of. . . 397 New Complementary Tools to Evaluate Vector Diversity Skilled entomologists can identify species morphologically, if they have access to updated descriptions and identiﬁcation keys (Hajibabaei et al. 2007). Distinguishing characters, especially subjective ones that are used in identiﬁcation keys, at the different stages (i.e., eggs, larvae, and adult specimens) are perceptively difﬁcult for non-experts, particularly in the tropics where the diversity is often high and many species are similar. Recent developments in molecular identiﬁcation techniques, coupled with reduced sequencing costs can help overcome these identiﬁcation difﬁculties, and even reveal cryptic biodiversity. Identiﬁcation of species using metabarcoding approaches on environmental DNA (eDNA) (Boerlijst et al. 2019; Krol et al. 2019) and on bulk samples (Batovska et al. 2018) is an appealing option, but it is worth noting that sequences belonging to unknown taxa are still a common problem in eDNA barcoding. Surveys of mosquito diversity using these techniques require a sound reference database, which in turn demands a considerable amount of a priori taxonomic work. This can be achieved by sequencing samples from the ﬁeld and from natural history museums that have been identiﬁed by experienced entomologists. Because dipping methods traditionally used to survey larvae may not always reﬂect adult diversity found with traps, determining and comparing species diversity across different types of samples (water, soil, or bulk samples) using metabarcoding might be a useful complementary approach. eDNA and bulk sample metabarcoding also show a high potential to become helpful monitoring tools to evaluate changes in relative abundance and species diversity in relation to habitat change and to detect invasive vector species in routine surveys. In addition, novel trap designs as well as visual and chemical lures to attract insects, including vector species, are always under development and may also increase surveillance and biodiversity determinations. Acknowledgments We sincerely thank Branca Maria do Nascimento Rolão Moriés for searching for old journals and articles in the historical archive center at the University of Lisbon. We thank Diego Santiago-Alarcon and Kevin Njabo for their comments and suggestions that enhanced the clarity of our chapter. This work is funded by National Funds through FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology under the IF/00744/2014/CP1256/CT0001 Exploratory Research Project (CL) and the PTDC/BIA-EVL/29390/2017 DEEP Research Project (CL). Appendix List of the arthropod vectors of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands of Príncipe (P) and São Tomé (ST). Entomological data are almost non-existent for Annobón. Beside the record of Anopheles coluzzii on Annobón, and the absence of Simuliidae, we cannot state if C. Loiseau et al. 398 other vector species are present or absent. Status of each species was deﬁned as resident (R), endemic (E), introduced (I), or no data (?) Higher Taxonomy ORDER DIPTERA Family Culicidae Anopheles Meigen, 1818 Subgenus/Group Species Anopheles Cellia Aedes Meigen, 1818 Aedimorphus Anopheles coustani Laveran, 1900 Anopheles coluzzii (Anopheles gambiae M form) Coetzee & Wilkerson, 2013 Aedes nigricephalus Theobald, 1901 Aedes sp. indet Aedes tarsalis Edwards, 1927 Aedes gandarai Ramos, Capela & Ribeiro, 1994 Aedes circumluteolus Theobald, 1908 Aedes aegypti Linnaeus, 1762 Aedes albopictus Skuse, 1894 Culex annulioris Theobald, 1901 Culex antennatus Becker, 1903 Culex decens Theobald, 1901 Culex invidiosus Theobald, 1901 Culex quinquefasciatus Say, 1826 Culex tamsi Edwards, 1934 Culex thalassius Theobald, 1903 Culex cambournaci Hamon & Gãndara, 1955 Culex cinerellus Edwards, 1922 Culex macﬁei Edwards, 1923 Culex nebulosus Theobald, 1901 Culex inconspicuosus Theobald, 1908 Culex rima Theobald, 1901 Culex micolo Ribeiro, Cunha Ramos & Capela, 1998 Culiseta fraseri Edwards, 1914 Eretmapodites chrysogaster Graham, 1909 Lutzia tigripes De Grandpré & De Charmoy, 1900 Toxorhynchites capelai Ribeiro, 1993 Toxorhynchites brevipalpis conradti Gruenberg, 1907 Uranotaenia capelai Ramos, 1993 Uranotaenia micromelas Edwards, 1934 Uranotaenia principensis Ramos, 1993 Uranotaenia balfouri Theobald, 1904 Uranotaenia bilineata Theobald, 1909 Uranotaenia connali Edwards, 1912 Catageomyia Polyleptiomyia Neomelaniconion Stegomyia Culex Linnaeus 1758 Culex Culiciomyia Eumelanomyia Culiseta Felt, 1904 Eretmapodites Theobald, 1901 Lutzia Theobald, 1903 Toxorhynchites Theobald, 1901 Metalutzia Uranotaenia Lynch Arribálzaga, 1891 Pseudoﬁcalbia Theomyia Afrorhynchus Uranotaenia P ST R R R R E R R E R I R R R R R I R R R R R E R E R R R R R R E R R R R R E R E E E E R R R (continued) 15 Diversity and Distribution of the Arthropod Vectors of the Gulf of. . . Higher Taxonomy Family Simuliidae Simulium Latreille, 1802 Subgenus/Group Species Pomeroyellum Simulium alcocki Pomeroy, 1922 Simulium santomi Mustapha, 2004 Simulium dentulosum Roubard, 1915 Anasolen Family Ceratopogonidae Culicoides Latreille, – 1809 Subgenus Avaritia Subgenus Meijerehelea Subgenus Remmia Group Milnei Group Neavei Group Nigripennis Family Tabanidae Tabanus Linnaeus 1758 Group Tabanini ORDER IXODIDA Family Ixodidae Amblyomma Koch, 1844 Family Argasidae Ornithodoros Koch, 1837 Subgenus Alectorobius a Found on Tinhosas Islands 399 P ST R R E R Culicoides citroneus Carter, Ingrain et Macﬁe, 1920 Culicoides grahamii Austen, 1909 ? R ? R Culicoides imicola Kieffer, 1913 Culicoides trifasciellus Goetghebuer, 1935 Culicoides distinctipennis Austen, 1912 ? ? ? R R R Culicoides enderleini Cornet & Brunhes, 1994 Culicoides austeni Carter, Ingram and Macﬁe, 1920 Culicoides hortensis Khamala, 1991 Culicoides krameri Clastrier, 1958 Culicoides milnei Austen, 1909 Culicoides quinquelineatus Goetghebuer, 1934 Culicoides neavei Austen, 1912 Culicoides sp. ? R ? R ? ? ? ? R R R R ? ? R R Tabanus biguttatus Wiedemann, 1830 Tabanus congoiensis Ricardo, 1908 Tabanus obscurefumatus Surcouf, 1906 Tabanus taeniola, Palisot de Beauvois, 1806 Tabanus principis Bequaert, 1930 Tabanus monocallosus Travassos Dias, 1955 R R R R E E Amblyomma astrion Dönitz, 1909 Amblyomma splendidum Giebel, 1877 Amblyomma variegatum Fabricius, 1794 R Ornithodoros capensis Neumann, 1901 * R R R 400 C. Loiseau et al. References Adler PH, McCreadie JW (2019) Black ﬂies (Simuliidae). In: Mullen GR, Durden LA (eds) Medical and veterinary entomology, 3rd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 237–258 Agbolade OM, Akinboye DO, Olateju TM et al (2006) Biting of anthropophilic Culicoides fulvithorax (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae), a vector of Mansonella perstans in Nigeria. Korean Journal of Parasitology 44:67–72 Alvar J, Vélez ID, Bern C et al (2012) Leishmaniasis worldwide and global estimates of its incidence. PLoS One 7:e35671 Augot D, Mathieu B, Hadj-Henni L et al (2017) Molecular phylogeny of 42 species of Culicoides (Diptera, Ceratopogonidae) from three continents. Parasite 24:23 Baez M (1987) Atlas preliminar de los mosquitos de las islas Canarias (Diptera, Culicidae). Vieraea 17:193–202 Baldacchino F, Desquesnes M, Mihok S, Foil LD, Duvallet G, Jittapalapong S (2014) Tabanids: neglected subjects of research, but important vectors of diseases. Infection, Genetic and Evolution 28:596–615 Bargielowski IE, Lounibos LP (2016) Satyrization and satyrization-resistance in competitive displacements of invasive mosquito species. Insect Science 23:162–174 Bataille A, Cunningham AA, Cedeno V et al (2009) Evidence for regular ongoing introductions of mosquito disease vectors into the Galapagos Islands. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:3769–3775 Batovska J, Lynch SE, Cogan NOI et al (2018) Effective mosquito and arbovirus surveillance using metabarcoding. Molecular Ecology Resources 18:32–40 Bequaert J (1930) Tabanidae. In: Report of the Harvard-African expedition upon the African Republic of Liberia and the Belgian Congo. Entomology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 858–971 Boerlijst SP, Trimbos KB, Van der Beek JG, Dijkstra KDB, Van der Hoorn BB, Schrama M (2019) Field evaluation of DNA based biodiversity monitoring of Caribbean mosquitoes. Frontier in Ecology and Evolution 7:240 Bollen A, Matilde E, Barros N (2018) An updated assessment of the seabird populations breeding at Príncipe and Tinhosas. Ostrich 89:47–58 Borkent A (2004) 10. The biting midges, the Ceratopogonidae (Diptera). In: Marquardt WC (ed) Biology of disease vectors, 2nd edn. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, pp 113–126 Borkent A, Dominiak P (2020) Catalog of the biting midges of the world (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). Zootaxa 4787:1–377 Braack L, Gouveia de Almeida AP, Cornel AJ et al (2018) Mosquito-borne arboviruses of African origin: review of key viruses and vectors. Parasites and Vectors 11:29 Brown JE, McBride CS, Johnson P et al (2011) Worldwide patterns of genetic differentiation imply multiple ‘domestications’ of Aedes aegypti, a major vector of human diseases. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 278:2446–2454 Bruto da Costa BF (1913) Travaux sur la maladie du sommeil. L’assainissement, la statistique, les services hospitaliers et la brigade ofﬁcielle à l’ile du Prince. A Editora Limitada, Lisbon, p 69 Callot J, Kremer M, Mouchet J, Bach A (1965) Contribution à 1’étude de ceratopogonidés (Diptera) de Kumba (Cameroun). Description de C. kumbaensis n. sp. Bulletin de la Société de Pathologie Exotique 58:536–548 Carles-Tolra M (2002) Catálogo de los díptera de España, Portugal y Andorra (Insecta). Monograﬁas Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa 8:1–323 Chandy A, Thakur AS, Singh MP, Manigauha A (2011) A review of neglected tropical diseases: ﬁlariasis. Asian Paciﬁc Journal of Tropical Medicine 4:581–586 Chen Y, Lien J, Tseng L et al (2019) Effects of indoor residual spraying and outdoor larval control on Anopheles coluzzii from São Tomé and Príncipe, two islands with pre-eliminated malaria. Malaria Journal 18:405 15 Diversity and Distribution of the Arthropod Vectors of the Gulf of. . . 401 Chippaux J-P, Chippaux A (2018) Yellow fever in Africa and the Americas: a historical and epidemiological perspective. Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases 24:20 Crosskey RW (1990) The natural history of blackﬂies. London and John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, p 711 Currie DC, Adler PH (2008) Global diversity of black ﬂies (Diptera: Simuliidae) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595:469–475 Daep CA, Muñoz-Jordán JL, Eugenin EA (2014) Flaviviruses, an expanding threat in public health: focus on dengue, West Nile, and Japanese encephalitis virus. Journal of Neurovirology 20:539– 560 De Geier J, Cecchi G, Paone M, Dede P, Zhao WN (2020) The continental atlas of tsetse and African animal trypanosomosis in Nigeria. Acta Tropica 204:105328 Delécolle J-C, Paupy C, Rahola N, Mathieu B (2013) Description morphologique et moléculaire d’une nouvelle espèce de Culicoides (Avaritia) du Gabon (Diptera, Ceratopogonidae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 118:513–519 Dipeolu O (1976) Species distribution and abundance of Culicoides Latreille (Diptera, Ceratopogonidae) in Nigeria. Bulletin of Entomological Research 66:685–693 Edman JD (2009) Medical entomology. In: Resh VH, Cardé RT (eds) Encyclopedia of insects, 2nd edn. Academic Press, London, Oxford, Boston, New York and San Diego, pp 614–618 Edwards FW (1934) The Percy Sladen and godman trusts expedition to the islands in the Gulf of Guinea, October 1932 – March 1933. II Diptera Nematocera. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History 10:321–336 Fan CK, Chang YT, Hsu CH et al (2013) Lymphatic elephantiasis in one neglected African country – Democratic Republic of São Tomé e Príncipe. Tropical Medicine and Surgery 1:108 Figueiredo Moura da Silva EL (2019) Tropical medicine behind cocoa slavery: a campaign to eradicate sleeping sickness in the Portuguese colony of Príncipe Island, 1911–1914. Bulletin for Spanish and Portuguese Historical Studies 44:28 Fonseca DM, Lapointe DA, Fleischer RC (2000) Bottlenecks and multiple introductions: population genetics of the vector of avian malaria in Hawaii. Molecular Ecology 9:1803–1814 Fraga de Azevedo J, Silva Tendeiro JL, Almeida F (1956) Notícia sobre a tsé-tsé da ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta Série de Zoologia 4:507–522 Fraga de Azevedo J, Costa Mourão M, Castro Salazar JM, Tendeiro J, Almeida Franco LT (1960) As ﬁlaríases na ilha do Príncipe (1958). Anais do Instituto de Medicina Tropical 17:621–639 Gãndara A (1956) Subsídio para o estudo dos culicídeos (Diptera) de São Tomé e Príncipe. Anais do Instituto de Medicina Tropical 13:419–428 Garske T, Van Kerkhove MD, Yactayo S et al (2014) Yellow fever in Africa: estimating the burden of disease and impact of mass vaccination from outbreak and serological data. PLoS Med 11: e1001638 Glick JI (1990) Culicoides biting midges (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) of Kenya. Journal of Medical Entomology 27:85–195 Grácio AJS (1988) Blackﬂies (Diptera: Simuliidae) from São Tomé e Príncipe. 1. São Tomé Island. In: Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical. Primeiras Jornadas Internacionais de Medicina Tropical (Abstracts). Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical, Lisbon, p 88 Grácio AJS (1999) Blackﬂies (Diptera:Simuliidae) from São Tomé e Príncipe 1. São Tomé Island. Acta Parasitológica Portuguesa 2:3–11 Guichard S, Guis H, Tran A, Garros C, Balenghien T, Kriticos DJ (2014) Worldwide niche and future potential distribution of Culicoides imicola, a major vector of bluetongue and African horse sickness viruses. PLoS One 9:e112491 Hajibabaei M, Singer GAC, Hebert PDN, Hickey DA (2007) DNA barcoding: how it complements taxonomy, molecular phylogenetics, and population genetics. Trends in Genetics 23:167–172 Hoogstraal H (1979) Review article: the epidemiology of tick-borne Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Journal of Medical Entomology 15:307–417 402 C. Loiseau et al. Hopkins GHE (1952) Mosquitoes of the Ethiopian region. I. Larval bionomics of mosquitoes and taxonomy of culicine larvae. British Museum, Natural History, London, viii + 355 p Hsi T-E, Hsiao S-W, Minahan NT et al (2020) Seroepidemiological and molecular investigation of spotted fever group rickettsiae and Coxiella burnetii in São Tomé Island: a one health approach. Transboundary and Emerging Disease 67:36–43 Kamgang B, Vazeille M, Tedjou AN et al (2019a) Risk of dengue in Central Africa: vector competence studies with Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) populations and dengue 2 virus. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 13:e0007985 Kamgang B, Vazeille M, Yougang AP et al (2019b) Potential of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) to transmit yellow fever virus in urban areas in Central Africa. Emerging Microbes and Infections 8:1636–1641 Kraemer MUG, Reiner RC Jr, Brady OJ et al (2019) Past and future spread of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Nature Microbiology 4:854–863 Krinsky WL (2019) Tsetse ﬂies (Glossinidae). In: Mullen GR, Durden LA (eds) Medical and veterinary entomology, 3rd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 369–382 Krol L, Van der Hoorn B, Gorsich EE, Trimbos K, Bodegom PM, Schrama M (2019) How does eDNA compare to traditional trapping? Detecting mosquito communities in south-African freshwater ponds. Front Ecol Evol 7:260 Labuschagne K (2016) The Culicoides Latreille (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) species of South Africa. PhD Thesis. University of Pretoria, Pretoria Le Goff G, Bousses P, Julienne S et al (2012) The mosquitoes (Diptera: Culidae) of Seychelles: taxonomy, ecology, vectorial importance, and identiﬁcation keys. Parasites and Vectors 5:207 Le Goff G, Goodman SM, Elguero E, Robert V (2014) Survey of the mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of Mayotte. PLoS One 9:e100696 Lee PW, Liu CT, Rosario VE et al (2010) Potential threat of malaria epidemics in a low transmission area, as exempliﬁed by São Tomé and Príncipe. Malaria Journal 9:264 Loiseau C, Melo M, Lobato E et al (2017) Insularity effects on the assemblage of the blood parasite community of the birds from the Gulf of Guinea. Journal of Biogeography 44:2607–2617 Loiseau C, Melo M, Lee Y et al (2019) High endemism of mosquitoes on São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: evaluating the general dynamic model in a worldwide island comparison. Insect Conservation and Diversity 12:69–79 Mellor PS (1990) The replication of bluetongue virus in Culicoides vectors. In: Roy P, Gorman BM (eds) Bluetongue viruses. Current topics in microbiology and immunology, vol 162. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg Mellor PS, Hamblin C (2004) African horse sickness. Veterinary Research 35:445–466 Mellor PS, Boorman J, Baylis M (2000) Culicoides biting midges: their role as arbovirus vectors. Annual Review of Entomology 45:307–340 Mesquita VHB (1946) Contribuição para o estudo do sezonismo em S. Tomé. Boletim Geral das Colónias 12:13–51 Mesquita VHB (1952) Some notes about malaria in St. Thomas islands. Boletim Geral do Ultramar 27:39–52 Meyer A, Holt HR, Selby R, Guitian J (2016) Past and ongoing tsetse and animal trypanosomiasis control operations in ﬁve African countries: a systematic review. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 10:e0005247 Moreno M, Salgueiro P, Vicente JL et al (2007) Genetic population structure of Anopheles gambiae in Equatorial Guinea. Malaria Journal 6:137 Mourão MC (1964) Relatório da missão de estudo e combate de endemias de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Anais do Instituto de Medicina Tropical 21:501–539 Mullens BA (2019) Horse ﬂies and deer ﬂies (Tabanidae). In: Mullen GR, Durden LA (eds) Medical and veterinary entomology, 3rd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 327–343 Munstermann LE (2019) Phlebotomine sand ﬂies and moth ﬂies (Psychodidae). In: Mullen GR, Durden LA (eds) Medical and veterinary entomology, 3rd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 191–211 15 Diversity and Distribution of the Arthropod Vectors of the Gulf of. . . 403 Mustapha M, Jarvis W, Post RJ (2004) The Simuliidae (Diptera) of the republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, including the description of a new species. African Invertebrates 45:143–155 Nelder MP, Russel CB, Sheehan NJ et al (2016) Human pathogens associated with the blacklegged tick Ixodes scapularis: a systematic review. Parasites and Vectors 9:265 Nevill EM, Stuckenberg BR, Phelps RJ (1994) Vectors: Tabanidae. In: Coetzer JAW, Thomson GR, Tustin RC (eds) Infectious diseases of livestock: with special reference to southern Africa. Oxford University Press, Cape Town and New York, pp 62–67 Nicholson WL, Sonnenshine DE, Noden BH, Brown RN (2019) Ticks (Ixodida). In: Mullen GR, Durden LA (eds) Medical and veterinary entomology, 3rd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 603–672 Palmer RW, Craig DA (2000) An ecological classiﬁcation of primary labral fans of ﬁlter-feeding black ﬂy (Diptera: Simuliidae) larvae. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:199–218 Pape T, Blagoderov V, Mostovski MB (2011) Order Diptera Linnaeus, 1758. Zootaxa 3148:222– 229 Parola P, Paddock CD, Socolovschi C (2013) Update on tick-borne rickettsioses around the world: a geographic approach. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 26:657–702 Paupy C, Delatte H, Bagny L, Corbel V, Fontenille D (2009) Aedes albopictus, an arbovirus vector: from the darkness to the light. Microbes and Infection 11:1177–1185 Paupy C, Ollomo B, Kamgang B et al (2010) Comparative role of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti in the emergence of dengue and chikungunya in Central Africa. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 10:259–266 Pinhão RC, Mourão MC (1961) Contribuição para o estudo dos Culicidae (Diptera) da ilha do Príncipe. Anais do Instituto de Medicina Tropical 18:29–33 Pinto J, Sousa CA, Gil V et al (2000a) Mixed-species malaria infections in the human population of São Tomé island, West Africa. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 94:256–257 Pinto J, Sousa CA, Gil V et al (2000b) Malaria in São Tomé and Príncipe: parasite prevalences and vector densities. Acta Tropica 76:185–193 Post RJ, Flook PK, Millest AL et al (2003) Cytotaxonomy, morphology and molecular systematics of the Bioko form of Simulium yahense (Diptera: Simuliidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 93:145–157 Ramos HC, Ribeiro H, Pires CA, Capela RA (1989) Os mosquitos (Diptera, Culicidae) da ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta Série de Zoologia 16:163–170 Ramos HC, Capela RA, Ribeiro H (1994) Description of Aedes (Aedimorphus) gandarai, a new species from the island of São Tomé, with keys to all known species of the Tarsalis group (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito Systematics 26:97–104 Reeves WK, Lloyd JE (2019) Louse ﬂies, keds, and bat ﬂies (Hippoboscoidea). In: Mullen GR, Durden LA (eds) Medical and veterinary entomology, 3rd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 421–438 Reis S, Cornel AJ, Melo M, Pereira H, Loiseau C (2017) First record of Aedes albopictus (Skuse 1894) on São Tomé Island. Acta Tropica 171:86–89 Reis S, Melo M, Covas R et al (2021) Inﬂuence of land use and host species on parasite richness, prevalence and co-infection patterns. International Journal of Parasitology 51:83–94 Ribeiro H (1993) On the terrestrial and riverine fauna of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. VII – description of Toxorhynchiles capelai sp. nov. (Diptera, Culicidae). Garcia de Orta Série de Zoologia 19:135–138 Ribeiro H, Ramos HC (1999) Identiﬁcation keys of the mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of continental Portugal, Azores and Madeira. European Mosquito Bulletin 3:1–11 Ribeiro H, Ramos HC, Capela RA, Pires CA (1998) Os mosquitos (Diptera: Culicidae) da Ilha de São Tomé. Garcia de Orta Série de Zoologia 22:1–20 Ross R (1911) The prevention of malaria. John Murray, London Rueda LM (2008) Global diversity of mosquitoes (Insecta: Diptera: Culicidae) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595:477–487 404 C. Loiseau et al. Rueda LM, Pecor JE, Reeves WK et al. (2011, Jul–Sep) Mosquitoes of Guam and the Northern Marianas: distribution, checklists, and notes on mosquito-borne pathogens. U.S. Army Medical Department Journal Jul–Sep:17–28 https://doi.org/10.21236/ada550625 Service MW (1978) Review article: a short history of early medical entomology. Journal of Medical Entomology 14:603–626 Sousa CA, Pinto J, Almeida PG, Ferreira CA, Rosa VE, Charlwood JD (2001) Dogs as a favored host choice of Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto (Diptera: Culicidae) of São Tomé, West Africa. Journal of Medical Entomology 38:122–125 Taioe MO, Motloang MY, Namangala B et al (2017) Characterization of tabanid ﬂies (Diptera: Tabanidae) in South Africa and Zambia and detection of protozoan parasites they are harbouring. Parasitology 144:1162–1178 Teklehaimanot HD, Teklehaimanot A, Kiszewski A, Rampao HS, Sachs JD (2009) Malaria in São Tomé and Príncipe: on the brink of elimination after three years of effective antimalarial measures. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 80:133–140 Tendeiro J (1956) Nota prévia sobre o novo aparecimento de uma tsé-tsé, Glossina palpalis palpalis Robineau-Desvoidy, na ilha do Príncipe. Garcia de Orta Série de Zoologia 4:47–48 Tendeiro J (1957) Ixodídeos encontrados em S. Tomé e Príncipe. Boletim Cultural da Guiné Portuguesa 12:39–46 Travassos Santos Dias JA (1955) Uma nova espécie de tabanídea (Diptera, Tabanidae) para a fauna da ilha de S. Tomé. Memórias e Estudos do Museu Zoológico da Universidade de Coimbra 233: 2–7 Travassos Santos Dias JA (1988) Nova contribuição para o conhecimento da ixodofauna (Acarina, Ixodoidea) da República Democrática de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta Série de Zoologia 15:35–40 Tsai K-H, Yen T-Y, Wu W-J, Carvalho R, Raoult D, Fournier P-E (2020) Investigation of Ctenocephalides felis on domestic dogs and Rickettsia felis infection in the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. Zoonoses Public Health 67:884–894 Tseng LF, Chang WC, Ferreira MC et al (2008) Rapid control of malaria by means of indoor residual spraying of alphacypermethrin in the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 78:248–250 Uilenberg G, Corten JJFM, Dwinger RH (1982) Heartwater (Cowdria ruminantium infection) on São Tomé. Veterinary Quarterly 4:106–107 Valkiūnas G (2004) Avian malaria parasites and other Haemosporidia. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 932 Valle S, Barros N, Ramírez I, Wanless RM (2016) Population estimates of the breeding birds of the Tinhosas islands (gulf of Guinea), the only major seabird colony of the eastern tropical Atlantic. Ostrich 87:209–215 Walter Reed Biosystematics Unit (2001) Systematic catalog of Culicidae. Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC Wanji S, Tayong DB, Ebai R et al (2019) Update on the biology and ecology of Culicoides species in the south-west region of Cameroon with implications on the transmission of Mansonella perstans. Parasite and Vectors 12:166 Welburn SC, Fèvre EM, Coleman PG, Odiit M, Maudlin I (2001) Sleeping sickness: a tale of two diseases. Trends in Parasitology 17:19–24 WHO (2014) A global brief on vector-borne diseases. WHO Press, Geneva WHO (2019) Mapping of lymphatic ﬁlariasis at site level. Available via Health ministries & ESPEN partnership. https://espen.afro.who.int/countries/sao-tome-Príncipe. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Wirth EW, Derren JO (1976) New species and records of biting midges (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) associated with cacao in São Tomé, West Africa. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft 49:229–237 Yen T-Y, Trovoada dos Santos J, Tseng L-F et al (2016) Seroprevalence of antibodies against dengue virus among pregnant women in the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. Acta Tropica 155:58–62 15 Diversity and Distribution of the Arthropod Vectors of the Gulf of. . . 405 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 16 Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Martina Panisi, Ricardo F. de Lima, Jezreel do C. Lima, Yodiney dos Santos, Frazer Sinclair, Leonor Tavares, and David T. Holyoak Abstract The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea are known for their remarkable endemic species richness, and the terrestrial Mollusca group is particularly distinctive. This chapter summarizes the exploration and diversity of this group, discussing biogeography, evolution, ecology, and conservation to identify persisting knowledge gaps. Terrestrial malacological studies in the Gulf of Guinea islands started at the end of the eighteenth century but have been intermittent. Recent systematic surveys have continued to ﬁnd novelties, and the most recent revision lists 96 species, of which 62 are endemic: Príncipe has 40 terrestrial (60% single-island endemic) and M. Panisi (*) Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal R. F. de Lima Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Centre, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe J. d. C. Lima Gulf of Guinea, Biodiversity Centre, Monte Café, Sao Tome and Principe Y. dos Santos Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Sao Tome and Principe F. Sinclair Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Sao Tome and Principe Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK L. Tavares Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal D. T. Holyoak Quinta da Cachopa, Cabeçudo, Portugal © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_16 407 408 M. Panisi et al. ﬁve seashore species, São Tomé has 52 terrestrial (50% single-island endemic) and seven seashore species, Annobón has 14 terrestrial species (50% single-island endemic), 3 species are endemic to Príncipe and São Tomé, and 2 are endemic to the three islands. The islands were colonized by diverse “clades” arriving from continental Africa, which is consistent with biogeographical patterns from other taxonomic groups. However, in line with Mollusca dispersal limitations, inter-island colonization seems to be less frequent, while there are multiple cases of speciation within the same island. The land snail assemblage on São Tomé seems to be strongly structured by land-use type: endemics being associated mostly with forest and non-endemics to anthropogenically modiﬁed environments. Only 13 species have been recorded across the altitudinal range of São Tomé, suggesting altitude is also essential to determining species distribution. Habitat loss and introduced species are important threats, but so far, only the endemic Archachatina bicarinata has been listed as threatened. Despite recent progress, further studies are still needed to better understand this unique fauna and inform conservation strategies. Keywords Africa · Checklist · Conservation · Endemism · Malacofauna · Taxonomy Introduction This chapter reviews what is known of the terrestrial Mollusca (Gastropoda) of the three oceanic islands in the Gulf of Guinea, located close to the Equator, off the Atlantic coast of central Africa: Príncipe, São Tomé (together constituting the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe - STP), and Annobón (part of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea). Bioko (also part of Equatorial Guinea) is a continental island, and thus it has not been included. The few Mollusca living in freshwater habitats on STP (Brown 1991; Simões 1992) are not covered, whereas seashore species are brieﬂy considered. Taxonomy and nomenclature follow a recent checklist for STP (Holyoak et al. 2020) and a similar revised list for Annobón (Appendix). All three islands arose during the Tertiary, forming part of the extensive Cameroon Line of volcanos. The maximum age ranges from approximately 15 Ma on São Tomé and 6 Ma on Annobón to 31 Ma on Príncipe. The latter is also the only island without signs of active volcanism in the last 3 Ma (Fitton and Dunlop 1985). They all retain large proportions of rugged topography, reaching maximum altitudes of 2024 m on São Tomé, 948 m on Príncipe, and 598 m on Annobón. They are formed mainly of igneous rocks and have relatively small areas of uplifted conglomerates, sandstones, and shales. The presence of large areas of volcanic bedrock and the absence of uplifted limestone produced calcium-poor soils that limit the abundance of land snails. It is also unsurprising that fossil terrestrial Mollusca are unknown, considering the scarcity of subaerial calcareous sediments. The islands rise from oceanic depths, and thus, unlike Bioko, they have never been joined to continental Africa. When ocean levels were lower, during some 16 Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 409 periods of the Pleistocene, the islands would have had larger land areas than at present, with maxima estimated as 144 km2 for Annobón (now 17 km2), 1480 km2 for São Tomé (now 857 km2), and 1179 km2 for Príncipe (now 139 km2). Nevertheless, their remoteness from the continent was not signiﬁcantly reduced (Jones and Tye 2006; Norder et al. 2018) and colonization by land mollusks clearly involved long-distance overseas dispersal. When human colonization began in the late ﬁfteenth century, the islands were almost entirely covered by tropical rainforest, associated with hot equatorial climates and rainfall occurring throughout the year in most areas (Loboch 1962; Bredero et al. 1977). The native lowland forests are ﬂoristically distinct from montane and mist forest occurring at higher altitudes (Exell 1944). Much of the lowland forest has been replaced by cultivation, notably for sugar cane in the sixteenth century and coffee and cocoa during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Exell 1944). Therefore, it is quite likely that native land mollusk species became extinct and that alien species arrived before the ﬁrst thorough scientiﬁc assessments of the islands’ malacofauna took place. Moreover, the islands hold a remarkable number of introduced plants (Figueiredo et al. 2011) and mammal species (Dutton 1994), partly due to being regularly visited by ships involved in the Atlantic triangular trade (Eyzaguirre 1986). A few large land-snail shells from the islands reached Europe in the 1700s, resulting in the naming of Atopocochlis exaratus (Fig. 16.1.6), Columna columna (Müller 1774), and Archachatina bicarinata (Bruguiére 1792—Fig. 16.1.5). However, the ﬁrst detailed study of the land Mollusca of the region was made by Rang (1831), a commander in the French navy who stayed on Príncipe for a month, allowing him to make careful descriptions of living snails and their habitats, as well as collecting specimens. Soon afterward, Morelet (e.g., 1848, 1858, 1860, 1868, 1873) named and described specimens brought back to Europe from Príncipe and São Tomé by voyagers, including Dr. Friedrich Welwitsch. Dr. Dohrn spent 6 months on Príncipe in 1865 with John Keulemans, collecting birds and snails, which he later described (Dohrn 1866a). Dohrn also named the original material of (Apothapsia) thomensis (Fig. 16.1.4) from São Tomé (Dohrn 1866b). Dohrn’s slug specimens were studied by Heynemann (1868). Unfortunately, Dohrn’s main collection was destroyed during the bombing of the Szczecin museum, Poland (Dance 1986). Greeff (1882) named and described specimens collected during thorough ﬁeldwork on both Príncipe and São Tomé in 1879–1880, including Thyrophorella thomensis (Fig. 16.1c) and Pyrgina umbilicata as new species in new genera and (Aporachis) dohrni and (A.) hispida as new species. Nobre (1886, 1891, 1894) reported on collections made on São Tomé by Adolpho Möller and capitão Castro. Francisco Newton was employed to collect on all three islands: from November 19, 1892, to early January 1893, he made the ﬁrst detailed collections on Annobón, covering birds, mollusks, and more. Girard (1893a, b, 1894, 1895) named and described his land mollusk collections, including most Annobón endemics. Unfortunately, part of Girard’s work on Annobón remained unpublished, including Figs. 1–11 (1894) and the newly discovered Dendrolimax newtoni (Ortiz de Zaráte 410 M. Panisi et al. Fig. 16.1 Photographs of some living terrestrial Mollusca of Príncipe and São Tomé: (1) Pseudoveronicella thomensis, ca 30 mm, endemic to São Tomé; (2) Pseudoveronicella forcarti, ca 25 mm, endemic to Príncipe; (3) Thyrophorella thomensis, shell breadth ca 9 mm, endemic to São Tomé; (4) Apothapsia thomensis, shell breadth ca 12 mm, endemic to São Tomé; (5) Archachatina bicarinata, shell length ca 155 mm, endemic to Príncipe and São Tomé; (6) Atopocochlis exaratus, juvenile and adult, shell lengths ca 25 and 45 mm, endemic to São Tomé; (7) Archachatina marginata, shell length ca 105 mm, introduced on Príncipe and São Tomé; (8) Limicolaria ﬂammea, shell length ca 22 mm, introduced on São Tomé. Photo credits: (1, 3) David Holyoak, (2) Frazer Sinclair and Fundação Príncipe, (4–8) Vasco Pissarra and Forest Giants Project. Not all the species represented in the ﬁgure were photographed in their natural habitat 16 Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 411 and Alvarez 1960) was left as a nomen nudum. Girard’s specimens and probably many from Nobre were lost in the ﬁre of March 1978, at the National Museum of Natural History in Lisbon (now integrated in the National Museum of Natural History and Science—MUHNAC). Crosse (1868, 1888a, b) wrote on the land mollusk faunas of STP, adding little that was really new, apart from some detailed descriptions and occasional interpretation of problems. Germain, based at the Paris Museum, wrote a series of detailed and often wellillustrated papers on the mollusks of west and central Africa, including the Gulf of Guinea islands. He examined collections by Charles Gravier from São Tomé (Germain 1908), and by Leonardo Fea, made available by the Genoa Museum (Príncipe: Germain 1912a, b, 1915; Annobón: Germain 1916). The proportion of undescribed species he found was low compared to that in earlier accounts. After a long gap in the publication of new work, Ortiz de Zaráte and Alvarez (1960) described the results of the Peris-Alvarez Expedition to Annobón, including several new records and the valid naming of Dendrolimax newtoni. Gascoigne (1994a, b) lived on São Tomé for many years, publishing several molluscan faunistic accounts, including new records, and donated specimens he collected to the Natural History Museum of London (NHMUK). We began studying the land mollusks of the islands during a visit to São Tomé in December 2013, which resulted in a review of the taxonomy of Rhysotina (Holyoak and Holyoak 2016). Subsequent work included the study of Archachatina on São Tomé (Panisi 2017) and Príncipe (Fundação Príncipe 2019). In November and December 2018, an expedition team made large selective collections of specimens and contributed to the publication of an annotated checklist that named 13 hitherto undescribed species and 6 new genera and gave 11 other new island distributional records (Holyoak et al. 2020). An expedition team in October and November 2019 studied the distribution and habitat associations of the species occurring on São Tomé. There is ongoing work on systematics, ecology and conservation of land mollusks on both islands (Fundação Príncipe 2019; Panisi et al. 2020; Tavares 2021). Since the systematics of land Mollusca has been reviewed in detail very recently, this chapter will summarize malacological exploration and existing diversity, discussing zoogeography, evolution, ecology, and conservation to identify some of the persisting knowledge gaps. Species Diversity General Patterns The list of terrestrial mollusks for the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea will surely change with future research, including new records and a better understanding of species relationships and endemism. Nevertheless, a fully satisfactory taxonomy must await improved knowledge of the malacofauna of continental Africa. 412 M. Panisi et al. Table 16.1 Numbers of species of terrestrial mollusks known to occur in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands (Holyoak et al. 2020—Appendix) Príncipe São Tomé Annobón Total Single-island endemics 24 (60%) 26 (50%) Shared endemics 5 (13%) 5 (10%) Native 9 (22%) 15 (28%) Introduced 2 (5%) 6 (12%) Total terrestrial 40 52 Seashore 5 7 7 (50%) 57 (66%) 2 (14%) 5 (6%) 4 (29%) 18 (20%) 1 (7%) 7 (8%) 14 87 0 9 Percentages were calculated excluding seashore species since these have very distinct ecology and life-histories Currently, the malacofauna for the islands includes 9 seashore and 87 strictly land species (Appendix and Table 16.1). Seashore species belong to Truncatellidae, Assimineidae, Ellobiidae, and Onchidiidae, and occur solely on upper levels of marine beaches. Little is known about this group in the region, but all species are assumed to be native. Only ﬁve taxa have been identiﬁed to the species level, and there are no records of seashore species from Annobón. The number of accepted species in this group will likely change with further work, especially considering that they have received little sampling effort. Land species comprise 5 Cyclophoridae or Maizaniidae, 4 Veronicellidae, 31 Achatinidae, 1 Micractaeonidae, 16 Streptaxidae, 1 Punctidae, 1 Charopidae, 1 Succineidae, 2 Cerastidae, 2 Gastrocoptidae, 1 Truncatellinidae, 2 Valloniidae, 1 Agriolimacidae, 2 Euconulidae, 2 Helicarionidae, 14 Urocyclidae, and 1 Helicidae. All have an external shell, apart from all 4 Veronicellidae, all 3 Dendrolimax (Urocyclidae) and Deroceras laeve (Agriolimacidae). The islands hold high proportions of endemic taxa: 57 (66%) species are considered single-island endemics, and 5 (6%) shared endemics (Table 16.1). Endemic species comprise all 5 Cyclophoridae or Maizaniidae, 2 Veronicellidae (Pseudoveronicella thomensis from São Tomé and P. forcarti from Príncipe—Fig. 16.1.1–2), 23 Achatinidae, 14 Streptaxidae, 2 Gastrocoptidae, 1 Truncatellinidae, 1 Euconulidae, and 12 Urocyclidae. Compared to the African mainland taxa, endemic Achatinidae include a disproportionately high number of species with sinistral shells, namely A. bicarinata, all three Columna species and Thyrophorella thomensis. No family is recognized as endemic to the islands since Thyrophorella was shown to be a close relative of Pyrgina and placed within Achatinidae, subfamily Thyrophorellinae (Fontanilla et al. 2017). Rhysotininae is still regarded as an endemic subfamily, with molecular support (Holyoak and Holyoak 2016). Currently, 14 genera are considered endemic to the islands, holding 24 species (Holyoak et al. 2020). These include distinctive taxa that are likely to be genuinely endemic, such as Columna, Thyrophorella, and Rhysotina, and the pairs of genera Bocageia and Petriola, and Pyrgina and Thomea. Both these pairs are distinctive, but each pair might be reduced to a single genus. Newly named genera containing only endemic species (Aporachis, Apothapsia, Principicochlea, Thomithapsia, and Thomitrochoidea), as well as the endemic Sphinctostrema (Girard 1894), and the 16 Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 413 São Tomé endemic Thomeomaizania, are less likely to be truly endemic. The same may be true for near-endemic Atopocochlis, which currently holds only two species: A. exaratus endemic to São Tomé and A. auripigmentum endemic to Bioko (Wronski et al. 2014). On the other hand, the Príncipe endemic Cyathopoma inexspectata might warrant having its own genus (Holyoak et al. 2020). Land snails and slugs include seven introduced species, ﬁve recently reported as new records for the area (Holyoak et al. 2020). Furthermore, it is unclear if the widespread Striosubulina striatella, originally described from Príncipe, is native or introduced on the islands. Other non-endemic species are considered native by default, but they might have been introduced before the ﬁrst extensive malacological assessments of the islands. Islands Accounts Príncipe has 5 seashore species and 40 terrestrial species, including 1 Cyclophoridae or Maizaniidae (recently described), 3 Veronicellidae, 17 Achatinidae, 9 Streptaxidae, 1 Succinidae, 2 Cerastidae, 1 Euconulidae, and 6 Urocyclidae (Appendix). The island has 24 endemic species, plus 3 shared with São Tomé (A. bicarinata, Opeas pauper, and Streptostele moreletiana) and 2 shared with both São Tomé and Annobón (O. dohrni and O. greefﬁ). Of all endemic species, 8 (1 Cyclophoridae or Maizaniidae, 1 Veronicellidae, 3 Achatinidae, and 3 Urocyclidae) are the sole representatives of their genus on the island. Other genera are represented by multiple species: Principitrochoidea (Urocyclidae) has 2 islandendemic species, Columna and Subulina (both Achatinidae) have 3, Opeas (Achatinidae) and Gulella (Streptaxidae) have 4 and Streptostele (Streptaxidae) has 5. Archachatina marginata (Fig. 16.1.7) and Laevicaulis alte are the only conﬁrmed introduced species, and their presence was only reported recently (Holyoak et al. 2020). São Tomé has 7 seashore species and 52 terrestrial species, comprising 4 Cyclophoridae or Maizaniidae, 3 Veronicellidae, 21 Achatinidae, 1 Micractaeonidae, 2 Streptaxidae, 1 Punctidae, 1 Charopidae, 1 Succineidae, 2 Cerastidae, 1 Gastrocoptidae, 1 Truncatellinidae, 2 Valloniidae, 1 Agriolimacidae, 2 Euconulidae, 2 Helicarionidae, 6 Urocyclidae, and 1 Helicidae (Appendix). The island has 26 endemic species, plus 5 shared with at least one other nearby oceanic island. Of all endemic species, 16 are the sole representatives of their genus on the island (spread across 8 families). Other genera are represented by multiple species: Thomeaonaizania (Cyclophoridae or Maizaniidae), Aporachis (Achatinidae), and Apothapsia (Helicarionidae) have 2 island-endemic species, and Petriola, Opeas (both Achatinidae) and Rhysotina (Urocyclidae) have 3. A. marginata is known to have been introduced on São Tomé by the mid-twentieth century (Gascoigne 1994a), but it is now widespread (Panisi 2017) and an important source of protein for people (Carvalho et al. 2015). Recently, 5 other introduced mollusks have been reported for the island, many of which already seem to be relatively widespread, others at least locally abundant (Holyoak et al. 2020). 414 M. Panisi et al. Annobón has the least scientiﬁcally documented malacofauna of the oceanic Gulf of Guinea islands, since it is seldom visited by researchers. It is likely that further visits will substantially increase the species list. Currently, it is known to host 14 terrestrial mollusks, comprising 4 Achatinidae, 6 Streptaxidae, 1 Succineidae, 1 Gastrocoptidae, and 2 Urocyclide (Appendix). The island has 7 endemic species, plus 2 that are shared with São Tomé and Príncipe. Of all endemic species, Gastrocopta (Gastrocoptidae) and Dendrolimax (Urocyclidae) are represented by a single species. By contrast, Opeas (Achatinidae) and Sphinctostrema (Streptaxidae) are represented by 2, and Gulella (Streptaxidae) by 3. Allopeas gracile is the only introduced species conﬁrmed on Annobón, despite an unsubstantiated record of a large species of Achatinidae being used locally for food, which is likely to correspond to the invasive A. marginata (Brendan Sloan, pers. comm.). An imbalance in the taxonomic composition between the faunas of the different islands is immediately apparent. São Tomé has very few Streptaxidae (2 species), and these are uncommon and inconspicuous elements in snail faunas on that island. By contrast, Príncipe has 9 streptaxid species, and Annobón has 6, and the family is conspicuous and common in both of those faunas. Since these streptaxids are all carnivorous, this leads to odd faunal assemblages, at least on Príncipe, where the commonest snails in ground-litter of native forests at some sites are all predators, albeit presumably eating mostly non-molluscan invertebrates. The few carnivorous land snail species on São Tomé might be partly explained by a conspicuous presence of land ﬂatworms, which presumably originated from a single radiation (Matthias Neumann, pers. comm.). At least 3 out of the 5 recently described endemic Othelosoma species were seen feeding on land snails (Neumann 2016), and it is known that several species remain undescribed (Matthias Neumann, pers. comm.). Conversely, geoplanids do not seem to occur or are certainly much less conspicuous on Príncipe (Matthias Neumann, pers. comm.), which might have inﬂuenced the differences in composition of land snail faunas on the two islands. Future studies are needed to test this hypothesis. Other taxonomic imbalance results from the presence of Rhysotina and Petriola (each genus with 3 species) only on São Tomé, whereas Príncipe alone has the genus Principitrochoidea (3 species). These taxonomic imbalances between islands likely result in part from in situ speciation in several of the genera as well as differing outcomes from chance colonization by ancestral species from different families present on the African mainland. Similar unbalanced patterns occur on other oceanic archipelagoes. For instance, the Canary Islands have many endemic Enidae, while the Madeiran Islands have no representatives of the family but instead have endemic radiations of Clausiliidae (lacking in Canary Islands) and numerous endemic Ferussaciidae (present only marginally in Canary Islands) (Bank et al. 2002). Chance events in early colonization and establishment success likewise appear to be the best explanations for the taxonomic imbalance of the snail faunas of those archipelagos, rather than any differences in island environments or faunas of their continental source areas. 16 Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 415 Biogeographical Considerations São Tomé is much larger than Príncipe, but is only marginally more species-rich, both in total numbers of species and endemics. This might be explained by the two islands having similar sizes during glaciation peaks and Príncipe being much older (Fernández-Palacios et al. 2016). Considering its small size, Annobón is also remarkably rich, especially in endemic species, which might be explained by the combination of old age and larger area during the glaciations. Many endemic species seem to have resulted from independent colonization events, based on the observation that there are many genera represented by single island endemics. Taking into consideration that the distance between islands is similar to the distance to the continent, most dispersal events likely occurred directly from the mainland rather than between islands. This pattern of independent colonization is further supported by the distinctiveness of the faunas of each island and by the small number of “shared endemic” species. On that basis, it has been questioned if A. bicarinata is truly endemic to both Príncipe and São Tomé, or if it might have been introduced to one of the islands (Gascoigne 1994b; Panisi et al. 2020), especially considering that it would have been challenging for such a large snail to disperse naturally between islands. It has been reported as an important food source since the end of the nineteenth century (Moller 1894), providing a reason for intentional introduction on one of the islands, which could be clariﬁed using molecular techniques (Panisi et al. 2020). Large endemic land snails are usually absent or rare on oceanic islands. Although large endemic snails are prominent in the faunas of some of the largest islands such as Madagascar and Sri Lanka, those are better interpreted biogeographically as remnants of fragmented continental faunas. Among the few examples on truly oceanic islands, the large Pseudocampylaea lowii (A. Férussac, 1835) of Porto Santo (Madeiran Islands) is related to the considerably smaller endemic P. portosanctana (G.B. Sowerby I, 1824) of the same island, and both can be regarded as products of the large in situ radiation of smaller Geomitridae since the late Tertiary on the Madeiran Islands (D. Holyoak, unpublished). The massive A. bicarinata endemic on the Gulf of Guinea islands, by contrast, is most certainly derived from large congeneric relatives in continental Africa. Other large Achatinidae of the islands also have their apparent afﬁnities with relatively largeshelled continental genera of the family. Thus, the overseas dispersal of large-shelled progenitors to the island species may have been enabled by the location of the Gulf of Guinea islands within an embayment of the coast of central Africa into which large rivers ﬂow. Zoogeographers have postulated that “rafts” of ﬂoating debris have occasionally reached the islands, presumably accounting for the endemic frogs and caecilians on the islands (Measey et al. 2007). This hypothesis could also explain the colonization of the islands by large-bodied land snails, and presumably also Pseudoveronicella and Dendrolimax slugs. Despite frequent colonization being vital to explain the origin of many endemics, there is strong evidence that others evolved from speciation in situ, namely the Columna and Streptostele species of Príncipe and the Petriola and Rhysotina of São 416 M. Panisi et al. Tomé. Molecular studies of better-known taxa, such as birds, amphibians, and reptiles, have revealed that independent colonization events from the continent might be the dominant pattern to explain the origin of endemic species in the archipelago (Ceríaco et al. 2017; Valente et al. 2020). Nevertheless, radiations across islands also occur (Melo et al. 2011; Bell et al. 2015) and as more molecular studies become available, our understanding of the dominant patterns may change. Habitat Associations Recent surveys carried out on Príncipe and São Tomé have enhanced our understanding of the terrestrial Mollusca and their habitats (Appendix). These surveys consisted of a series of observations in a range of diverse molluscan habitats (Fundação Príncipe 2019; Holyoak et al. 2020) and an additional stratiﬁed survey across three different regions and four land-use types on São Tomé (Tavares 2021). No recent surveys have taken place on Annobón, and the data available on the terrestrial Mollusca of this island consists of a few records with scant information on the habitat of each species. On São Tomé, the presence and abundance of 33 non-seashore species were analyzed across four land-use categories (Tavares 2021), reﬂecting a gradient of increasing forest degradation: native forest, secondary forest, shade plantations, and non-forested areas. Non-forested areas have lower local species richness (alpha diversity) than shade plantation and secondary forest, while native forests have intermediate values. However, due to lower distinctiveness between sites (beta diversity), shade plantations have the lowest overall species richness (Appendix). Secondary forest and shade plantation show a higher average abundance than native forest and non-forested areas. According to the general patterns of richness and abundance, endemic species tend to be associated with forests, while non-endemics tend to be associated with degraded areas. Most species on São Tomé occur in more than one land-use type. Only the endemic O. pauper, the native Pseudopeas crossei, and the introduced Limicolaria ﬂammea (Fig. 16.1.8) and L. alte were found exclusively in non-forested areas. Twenty-one species were found only in forested areas, 18 of which were only in forests (i.e., not in shade plantantions). Ten of them occur both in secondary or native forest, half of these being endemic, all achatinids: A. bicarinata, both Aporachis species, P. umbilicata and Thomea newtoni. Five species were recorded only in secondary forest: Gastrocopta nobrei, Truncatellina thomensis, Pupisoma dioscoricola, Afroditropis molleri and Maizania furadana. Two species were recorded exclusively in native forest, both single-island endemics: Nothapalus solitarius and Thomeomaizania gascoignei. Thirteen species were recorded in all the four land-use types, including two introduced species, A. marginata and Deroceras laeve, and eight endemic species: all three Petriola species, both Apothapsia species, Dendrolimax greefﬁ and all three Rhysotina species. Most of these are widespread and abundant across habitats, as with Apothapsia thomensis, which is probably the most common land snail in wooded habitats on the island, and 16 Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 417 the introduced A. marginata, which is widespread across degraded habitats and very abundant in shade plantations and secondary forest (Panisi 2017). Concerning altitude, 13 species were recorded across a wide altitudinal range (Appendix), from lowland (below 800 m a.s.l) to mist forests (above 1400 m a.s.l., Exell 1944). Nine species were found exclusively in lowland, 8 exclusively in montane regions (between 800 and 1400 m a.s.l.), 15 in both lowland and montane regions, and 3 in montane and mist forests. Introduced species occur mainly at lower altitudes, while endemic species richness persists across all altitudes. Thirty-seven species occur in the lowlands, including 5 introduced and 23 endemic (62% endemic). In montane regions, 39 species were recorded, including 4 introduced and 25 endemic (64%). Mist forests hold 16 species, the lowest species richness, but they have only one introduced species, Deroceras laeve, and 13 endemics, the highest proportion across altitudinal zones (81%). São Tomé land snails and slugs are associated with a variety of strata (Appendix). Most species live mainly on or near the ground, namely on leaf-litter, among tree buttress roots, beneath fallen wood, under rocks, or on shell debris. Live snails often congregate on anvils of the São Tomé Thrush Turdus olivaceofuscus (Jones and Tye 2006), searching for calcium (Holyoak et al. 2020). Few species are found on leaves, exceptions include A. thomensis, P. thomensis, and A. exaratus. Some species are found in waterfall spray-zones, such as the endemic A. hispida, both Pupisoma species and other small native species. On Príncipe, recent mollusk sampling has been less extensive and less systematic than on São Tomé, including ca 30 locations selected ad hoc across a range of habitat types (Fundação Príncipe 2019; Holyoak et al. 2020). Surveys between 2012 and 2020 have conﬁrmed the continued presence of 30 out of the 40 non-seashore species known from Príncipe. Additional attention has been given to A. bicarinata, with over 100 records made between 2018 and 2020, and an ongoing monitoring and ecological study on both islands (Fauna & Flora International and Fundação Príncipe 2019; Fundação Príncipe 2019; Panisi et al. 2020). Although the sampling effort is more limited on Príncipe, some patterns of habitat association appear broadly similar to those described for São Tomé. Sites at the transition between forested land-use types seem to hold high species richness, and non-native species seem to prefer disturbed areas, while the endemics prefer forests. At higher altitudes, species richness is low, but the proportion of endemics is high. This includes the recently described Principicochlea tenuitesta, which is known only from the vicinities of the highest point of the island, Pico Príncipe (Fundação Príncipe 2019; Holyoak et al. 2020). Most species documented on Príncipe were found within leaf litter on the ground. Tree canopies were not sampled, although fallen shells have been collected from the ground. Sieving of leaf litter was only attempted for a small subset of sampling locations but revealed distinct species and may yield interesting further novelties (Holyoak et al. 2020). Live specimens, particularly those of Gulella crystallum, are often apparent in shell debris at Blue-breasted Kingﬁsher Halcyon malimbica anvils and empty A. bicarinata shells. Several species were conspicuous on understorey foliage, especially in some higher altitude sites where the endemic P. forcati and P. tenuitesta are locally abundant (Appendix). 418 M. Panisi et al. The low densities of forest-ﬂoor snail faunas recorded on both islands, and especially on Príncipe, deserve future studies but might be linked to calcium shortages in the topsoil and leaf litter (Juřičková et al. 2008). This would explain the high concentrations of land snails at the anvil sites of the São Tomé Thrush and Blue-breasted Kingﬁsher. Conservation Habitat loss and introduced species seem to be key threats to native land snails and slugs on the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, as is the case for most animal taxa on oceanic islands (IUCN 2020), and notably for island snail species (Chiba and Cowie 2016). Habitat loss on these islands is strongly linked to agricultural expansion and intensiﬁcation, including horticulture and forest gardens to supply the local markets, and export cash crops, such as cocoa, oil palm, and coffee. Additional factors linked to habitat loss include increased use of ﬁre, logging, mining, infrastructure development to support urban and tourism expansion, livestock and expanding silviculture, with products such as oil palm wine and medicinal plants (Oyono et al. 2014). The effect of introduced species on the native malacofauna of these islands is less well understood, but the introduction of many mammal (Dutton 1994) and plant species (Figueiredo et al. 2011) might have detrimental impacts on the general grounds that they affect ecosystem functioning. For instance, feral pigs and cows feed on understorey plants and revolve the soil, disturbing key forest habitat for some native land snail and slug species that evolved in the absence of large terrestrial animals. Introduced species might also have direct effects through predation or competition (Panisi 2017). Most introduced mollusks seem to avoid forests, where most native species occur. It is nevertheless hard to assess the effect of introduced mollusks, since it might be minimal if they have distinct habitats (Tavares 2021— Appendix), or not so minimal if they are excluding native species from the more degraded ecosystems. The fast expansion of the introduced A. marginata seems to be linked to the decline of A. bicarinata, through a process that remains poorly understood but might involve direct competition and introduced diseases (Panisi and de Lima 2022). Additionally, A. bicarinata is the only native land snail species that might be affected by overexploitation, as it is collected for food and traditional medicine. Despite a steep population decline on both islands (Dallimer and Melo 2010; Panisi 2017), overexploitation continues to be an issue due to the higher commercial value of each snail individual when compared to the widespread and abundant A. marginata, but it is currently more recognized by people than the endemic species (Panisi et al. 2022a). The malacofauna might also be affected by pollution, given the widespread use of pesticides to prevent malaria. Agricultural chemicals might also be a problem in São Tomé, but less so in Príncipe, where the import of agricultural chemicals is limited (Ministry of Public Works, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Environment 2019). Finally, climate change is also a potential threat, especially as many of the 16 Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 419 endemic mollusk species have restricted altitudinal ranges and speciﬁc habitat associations (Holyoak et al. 2020—Appendix). Considering that at least some of these threats might affect whole populations, either quickly in the near future or more pervasively in the longer term, many of the mollusks endemic to Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón might go extinct due to anthropogenic factors, even if speciﬁc conservation measures are implemented. This has been the case in many other oceanic islands across the globe (Chiba and Cowie 2016), and notably in the Paciﬁc (Lydeard et al. 2004). Therefore, it is vital that we act quickly to protect these species. Protecting the remaining native forest and additional vital habitats for native fauna is the single most important measure to secure the future of these species. In this regard, all three islands have signiﬁcant proportions of their territory dedicated to biodiversity conservation (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2020), which are predicted to expand soon (BirdLife 2019), even though enforcement of existing protected areas remains weak (Lima et al. 2017). Additionally, it is also vital to improve our understanding of more pervasive threats, such as invasive species and climate change, and our knowledge of the ecology of native mollusk species, which will be key to design species-speciﬁc conservation measures. Despite the remarkable number of endemic species, many remain notoriously scarce in collections (Holyoak et al. 2020; Tavares 2021), and A.bicarinata is the only endemic species listed as threatened for the islands (IUCN 2020). It is currently classiﬁed as Vulnerable, although an updated assessment might result in uplisting to Endangered (Panisi et al. 2022b). T. thomensis, P. umbilicata, and T. newtoni have also been assessed but were all classiﬁed as Data Deﬁcient (IUCN 2020). All these species were assessed in 1996, and an update is certainly in order, considering that recent surveys have greatly improved our knowledge on the taxonomy, ecology, and threats to these species. Even if most species are to remain “Data Deﬁcient,” the information available to support classiﬁcation has greatly improved, which might improve recognition of the importance of the malacofauna of these islands, and help identify the species that are at greater risk of extinction. Concluding Remarks Recent surveys (Holyoak et al. 2020) have added 13 newly described species, 6 microgastropods and 6 introduced species to the STP list of terrestrial mollusks. They have also enabled conﬁrmation of old records, such as the continued presence of Gulella joubini on Príncipe, which was hitherto known only from its 1912 holotype. Five of the recently named species are known from unique specimens. Two undescribed forms that will be new to Príncipe require the collection of complete adult specimens. Based on these considerations, future research will undoubtedly yield novelties and should focus on overlooked parts of the indigenous fauna, namely microgastropods, Annobón, and undersampled regions and habitats, especially those that are less accessible. 420 M. Panisi et al. Almost all taxonomy on the land Mollusca of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea is based on conventional comparative studies of shell form, sometimes supplemented by genital anatomy. As a result, problems of species identiﬁcation and delimitation have been frequent. Some persist due to insufﬁcient information on nominal species from the African continent, where mollusk collections are often even sparser than from these islands. DNA sequence data are often valuable to elucidate molluscan phylogenies. For instance, genetic data have led to the inclusion of the formerly recognized family Subulinidae in the broadly deﬁned Achatinidae (Fontanilla et al. 2017). However, DNA sequencing has not yet been widely used on species from tropical Africa, where it would surely help clarify the phylogenetic and biogeographical relationships of this rich and complex malacofauna. Future research should also focus on the ecology of endemic species, which will be vital to support conservation initiatives. The ongoing decline and current scarcity of charismatic big species, such as A. bicarinata on São Tomé and Príncipe and the genus Columna on Príncipe are starting to be recognized as conservation priorities. For example, A. bicarinata has been widely used as a ﬂagship for the protection of the unique malacofauna of São Tomé and Príncipe, and even for the conservation of their endemic-rich forests (Panisi et al. 2020; Panisi et al. 2022b). Still, information on many other endemic species remains scant. The unique malacofauna of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón has been little studied for decades, but we hope that recent ﬁndings will promote a new wave of curiosity about this exceptional diversity and that it is translated into practical measures for the protection of the endemic species and their habitats. Acknowledgments Fieldwork on Príncipe was led by Fundação Príncipe in partnership with the Regional Government and the Parque Natural do Príncipe. Participants included Ayres Pedronho, Aramis Andrade, Emanuel Bettencourt, and Davide Dias, through Fundação Príncipe’s project Understanding the Remarkable Biodiversity of Príncipe Island –funded by the French Facility for Global Environment with co-funding from Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF-103778), Flora & Fauna International, and HBD Príncipe. Fiedwork on Sao Tome was supported under the umbrella of the Forest Giants Project by grants of the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund (190521916), the National Geographic Society (EC-368E-18) and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (109607) to Alisei Onlus NGO, in partnership with STP Direção das Florestas e da Biodiversidade. Participants included Gabriel Oquiongo from Associação Monte Pico and Vasco Pissarra from MARE. We also want to thank BirdLife International which provided logistic support in STP through funding from ECOFAC6 and Rainforest Trust (4875). The Portuguese Government through the “Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia” (FCT/MCTES) funded MP’s PhD (PD/BD/ 140814/2018), and cE3c (UID/BIA/00329/2021). The University of São Tomé and Príncipe was the host institution for MP in STP. A special thanks to Professor Jorge Palmeirim for supervising MP and LT. Permits to collect and export specimens were provided by Eng. Arlindo de Carvalho and Eng. Lourenço de Jesus, former and current Directors of STP Direção Geral do Ambiente. Finally, we want to acknowledge Dinarte Teixeira and Robert Cameron for their valuable reviews. 16 Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 421 Appendix Checklist of terrestrial and seashore Mollusca species recorded from the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands Higher Taxonomy Species P ST A IUCN Altitude (m) Family Cyclophoridae J.E. Gray, 1847 or Maizaniidae Tielecke, 1940 molleri (Nobre, E NE 860–885 Afroditropis Bequaert & Clench, 1886) 1936 E NE 216 Cyathopoma W. & inexspectata H. Blanford, 1861 G. Holyoak & D. Holyoak, 2020 E NE 240 Maizania furadana Bourguignat, 1889 G. Holyoak & D. Holyoak, 2020 E NE 1300–1416 gascoignei Thomeomaizania Bequaert & Clench, G. Holyoak & D. Holyoak, 1936 2020 E NE 96–1415 vandellii (Nobre, 1886) Family Truncatellidae J.E. Gray, 1840 Truncatella Risso, clathrus N NE 2 1826 R.T. Lowe, 1832 rostrata Gould, N NE 1847 Family Assimineidae H. Adams & A. Adams, 1856 Assiminea sp. NE N N J. Fleming, 1828 Family Ellobiidae L. Pfeiffer, 1854 Melampus Montﬂavus (Gmelin, NE N N fort, 1810 1791) NE N N pusillus (Gmelin, 1791) 2 sp. N NE Pedipes afer (Gmelin, N NE A. Férussac, 1821 1791) 2 sp. N NE Family Onchidiidae Raﬁnesque, 1815 sp. N NE Onchidella J.E. Gray, 1850 Family Veronicellidae J.E. Gray, 1840 24–1159 NE I I Laevicaulis alte Simroth, 1919 (A. Férussac, 1822) 353–906 Pseudoveronicella E NE forcarti Germain, 1908 D. Holyoak, G. Holyoak & F. Sinclair, 2020 NE N N liberiana 22–1028 (Gould, 1850) Strata NF SF SP NN 0 + 0 0 L 1 0 0 0 P, L, R 0 2 0 0 P, L 2 0 0 0 L, R, S 1 2 0 1 L, H 0 0 0 + H 0 0 0 + H 0 0 0 + H 0 0 0 + H 0 0 0 + H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + H 0 0 0 + H 0 0 0 + L, S 0 + 0 1 P 2 0 0 0 P, L, R, S 0 1 4 2 (continued) 422 Higher Taxonomy M. Panisi et al. Species thomensis (Girard, 1893) Family Achatinidae Swainson, 1840 bicarinata Archachatina (Bruguière, Albers, 1850 1792) marginata (Swainson, 1821) exaratus Atopocochlis (O.F. Müller, Crosse & Fischer, 1774) 1888 Columna Perry, columna 1811 (O.F. Müller, 1774) hainesi L. Pfeiffer, 1856 leai Tryon, 1866 Lignus J.E. Gray, alabaster (Rang, 1831) 1834 Limicolaria ﬂammea Schumacher, 1817 (O.F. Müller, 1774) Ischnoglessula fuscidula Pilsbry, 1919 (Morelet, 1858) Striosubulina striatella (Rang, 1831) Thiele, 1933 Subulina Beck, feai Germain, 1837 1912 moreleti Girard, 1893 newtoni Girard, 1893 sp. Cecilioides A. Férussac, 1814 Aporachis dohrni (Greeff, D. Holyoak, 2020 1882) hispida (Greeff, 1882) Bocageia Girard, lotophaga 1893 (Morelet, 1848) Nothapalus von solitarius Martens, 1897 G. Holyoak & D. Holyoak, 2020 Petriola Dall, 1905 clavus (L. Pfeiffer, 1864) marmorea (Reeve, 1850) monticola (Morelet, 1866) Pyrgina Greeff, umbilicata 1882 Greeff, 1882 IUCN Altitude (m) Strata NF SF SP NN E NE 160–1418 P, L, W 1 3 1 0 E E VU 43–1266 L, W, R 2 1 0 0 I I NE 6–1327 L, W, R, S 3 5 5 3 E NE 101–928 P + 1 1 0 E NE 255–386 1 0 0 0 E NE E E NE NE 58 24–386 0 + 0 + + + 0 0 I NE 69–500 L, R, S 0 0 0 1 N N NE N N 6–1490 L, W, R, S 2 5 5 5 P ST A N NE P E NE E NE 194–860 + + 0 0 E NE 281–860 + 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 + 1 0 0 + 0 0 0 N NE E NE 959–1490 E NE 885–1416 E P, L, R R, F NE E NE 1300 E NE 124–1490 L, W, R, S 5 4 3 2 E NE 160–1490 3 4 3 1 E NE 236–1477 3 3 1 1 E DD 160–1418 L, W, R, S L, R, S L, W, R 3 3 0 0 (continued) 16 Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Higher Taxonomy Species newtoni Girard, 1893 gracile (T. Hutton, 1834) Opeas Albers, dohrni (Girard, 1850 1893) greefﬁ (Girard, 1893) hannense (Rang, 1831) pauper (Dohrn, 1866) subpauper Germain, 1912 Pseudopeas crossei (Girard, S. Putzeys, 1899 1893) thomensis Thyrophorella Greeff, 1882 Girard, 1895 Family Micractaeonidae Schileyko, 1999 Micractaeon koptawelilense Verdcourt, 1993 (Germain, 1934) Family Streptaxidae Gray, 1860 Gulella L. Pfeiffer, azeitonae D. Holyoak, 1856 G. Holyoak & F. Sinclair, 2020 crystallum (Morelet, 1848) girardi (Kobelt, 1904) insularis (Girard, 1894) joubini (Germain, 1912) nemoralis (Germain, 1915) sorghum (Morelet, 1848) annobonensis Sphinctostrema (Girard, 1894) Girard, 1894 bocagei (Girard, 1894) Streptostele Dohrn, abbreviata 1866 D. Holyoak, G. Holyoak & F. Sinclair, 2020 fastigiata (Morelet, 1848) folini (Morelet, 1858) truncata Germain, 1915 Streptostele (?) feai Germain, Dohrn, 1866 1912 P Thomea Girard, 1893 Allopeas H. B. Baker, 1935 ST A E 423 IUCN Altitude (m) Strata NF SF SP NN DD 181–1418 L 1 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 I NE E E E NE E E E NE 240 N NE 12–678 R 0 + 0 1 E NE 74 R 0 0 0 1 + 0 0 + E E N NE N NE 240–1114 E DD 323–1490 P, L, S 3 1 0 1 N NE 885–1290 L, R, F + 2 0 0 E NE 194 0 + 0 0 E NE 51–860 + + + 0 353–372 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 E NE E NE E NE E E NE NE E NE E NE E NE 414 E NE 24–860 L 2 2 2 0 E NE 24–194 L 2 2 2 0 N E NE NE (continued) 424 Higher Taxonomy M. Panisi et al. Species P moreletiana E (Dohrn, 1866) Tomostele Ancey, musaecola 1885 (Morelet, 1860) Family Punctidae Morse, 1864 Punctum Morse, camerunense de 1864 Winter, 2017 Family Charopidae Hutton, 1884 Trachycystis iredalei Preston, Pilsbry, 1893 1912 Family Succineidae Beck, 1837 N Quickia Odhner, concisa (Morelet, 1848) 1950 Family Cerastidae Wenz, 1923 N burnayi (Dohrn, Gittenedouardia 1866) Bank & Menkhorst, 2008 N eminula (Morelet, 1848) Family Gastrocoptidae Pilsbry, 1918 Gastrocopta Wolannobonensis laston, 1878 (Girard, 1894) nobrei (Girard, 1893) Family Truncatellinidae Steenberg, 1925 Truncatellina thomensis R.T. Lowe, 1852 D. Holyoak & G. Holyoak, 2020 Family Valloniidae Morse, 1864 Pupisoma dioscoricola Stoliczka, 1873 (C.B. Adams, 1845) harpula (Reinhardt, 1886) Family Agriolimacidae H.Wagner, 1935 Deroceras laeve Raﬁnesque, 1820 (O.F. Müller, 1774) Family Euconulidae H.B. Baker, 1928 roseus Afroconulus Van D. Holyoak & Mol & van G. Holyoak, Bruggen, 1971 2020 Afropunctum seminium N F. Haas, 1934 (Morelet, 1873) Family Helicarionidae Bourguignat, 1877 moreleti Apothapsia (Germain, 1915) D. Holyoak & G. Holyoak, 2020 thomensis (Dohrn, 1866) Family Urocyclidae Simroth, 1889 greefﬁ Simroth, Dendrolimax 1889 Heynemann, 1868 ST A IUCN Altitude (m) Strata NF SF SP NN R 0 + 0 1 E NE I NE 74–181 N NE 1254–1292 + + 0 0 N NE 1257–1288 + + 0 0 NE 6–678 P, L 0 + 1 1 N NE 5–398 P + + 1 0 N NE 24–1477 P, L 1 1 1 1 L, W 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 N N E NE E NE 6–126 E NE 1254–1292 N NE 197–1292 R, F 0 + 0 0 N NE 885–1292 R, F + + 0 0 I LC 254–1402 P, L, R, S 1 1 1 2 E NE 530–1353 P 0 1 0 1 N NE 236–1400 P, R, F 2 2 0 0 E NE 22–1244 P, L 1 1 1 1 E NE 6–1402 P, L, W, R 5 5 5 4 E NE 22–1343 P, L + 1 1 1 (continued) 16 Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Strata NF SF SP NN NE 220–498 P + 0 0 0 L, W, R, S L, R 4 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 heynemanni Heynemann, 1868 newtoni A. Ortiz de Zaráte & Alvarez, 1960 hepatizon (Gould, 1845) sublaevis G. Holyoak & D. Holyoak, 2016 welwitschi (Morelet, 1866) dumeticola (Dohrn, 1866) E E? NE tenuitesta D. Holyoak, G. Holyoak & F. Sinclair, 2020 aglypta (Dohrn, Principitrochoidea 1866) D. Holyoak & G. Holyoak, 2020 convexa G. Holyoak, D. Holyoak & F. Sinclair, 2020 folini (Morelet, 1848) Thomithapsia bomsucessica G. Holyoak & D. Holyoak & D. Holyoak, G. Holyoak, 2020 2020 trindadensis Thomitrochoidea D. Holyoak & D. Holyoak & G. Holyoak, G. Holyoak, 2020 2020 Trochozonites adansoniae Pfeffer, 1883 (Morelet, 1848) Family Helicidae Raﬁnesque, 1815 Cornu Born, 1778 aspersum (O.F. Müller, 1774) E Africarion Godwin-Austen, 1883 Principicochlea D. Holyoak & G. Holyoak, 2020 A Altitude (m) P Rhysotina Ancey, 1887 ST IUCN Species Higher Taxonomy E 425 NE E NE 153–1477 E NE 22–1199 E NE 54–1323 L, W, R, S P 3 3 3 3 NE 860 P + 0 0 0 E NE 193–344 L + + 0 0 E NE 24–375 P + + 0 + N NE 24–216 L + + 0 + E NE 418–1300 L, W + 1 0 + E NE 22–900 P + 1 1 0 821–1150 P 0 0 1 2 N I NE LC Species are listed as endemic (E), presumed autochthonous or native non-endemics (N) or introduced (I) in the island (s) where they occur: Príncipe (P), São Tome (ST), and Annobón (A). See taxonomic comments in Holyoak et al. (2020). Global conservation status is reported according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Not Evaluated (NE), Data Deﬁcient (DD), Vulnerable (VU), or Least Concern (LC). When available, habitat associations are provided, namely: altitudinal ranges, strata where live specimens were collected [Live plant (P); Plant litter (L); Dead wood (W); Rocks (R); Bare soil (S); Seashore (H); Waterfall spray-zone (F)], and relative abundance [Uncertain (+); No records (0); Rare (1); Not common, but locally abundant (2); Common (3); Abundant (4); Very abundant (5)] for each land-use category [Native forest (NF); Secondary forest (SF); Shade plantation (SP); Non-forested areas (NN)] 426 M. Panisi et al. References Bank RA, Groh K, Ripken TEJ (2002) Catalogue and bibliography of the non-marine Mollusca of Macaronesia. In: Falkner M, Groh K, Speight MCD (eds) Collectanea malacologica, festschrift für Gerhard Falkner. ConchBooks, Hackenheim, pp 89–235 Bell RC, Drewes RC, Zamudio KR (2015) Reed frog diversiﬁcation in the Gulf of Guinea: overseas dispersal, the progression rule, and in situ speciation. Evolution 69(4):904–915 BirdLife (2019) São Tomé’s buffer zone hotspot: a unique landscape for people and nature – project factsheet. Available via BirdLife Data Zone. https://www.birdlife.org/sites/default/ﬁles/ attachments/sao_tome_rft_project.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2020 Bredero JT, Heemskerk W, Toxopeus H (1977) Agriculture and livestock production in São Tomé and Príncipe (West Africa). Foundation for Agricultural Plant Breeding, Wageningen Brown DS (1991) Freshwater snails of São Tomé, with special reference to Bulinus forskalii (Ehrenberg), host of Schistosoma intercalatum. Hydrobiologia 209:141–153 Bruguière M (1792) Encyclopédie méthodique: Histoire naturelle des vers. Panckoucke, Montpellier Carvalho M, Rego F, Palmeirim JM et al (2015) Wild meat consumption on São Tomé Island, West Africa: implications for conservation and local livelihoods. Ecology and Society 20(3):27 Ceríaco LM, Marques MP, Schmitz A et al (2017) The “cobra-preta” of São Tomé island, gulf of Guinea, is a new species of Naja Laurenti, 1768 (Squamata: Elapidae). Zootaxa 4324(1): 121–141 Chiba S, Cowie RH (2016) Evolution and extinction of land snails on oceanic islands. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 47(1):123–141 Crosse H (1868) Faunule malacologique terrestre de l’île San-Thome. Journal de Conchyliologie 8(3):125–135 Crosse H (1888a) Nouveau catalogue des mollusques terrestres de l’ile de San-Thomé. Journal de Conchyliologie 28(1):13–30 Crosse H (1888b) Faune malacologique terrestre et ﬂuviatile de l’île du Prince (Côte occidentale d’Afrique). Journal de Conchyliologie 28(3):296–305 Dallimer M, Melo M (2010) Rapid decline of the endemic giant land snail Archachatina bicarinata on the island of Príncipe, Gulf of Guinea. Oryx 44:213–218 Dance SP (1986) A history of shell collecting. E.J. Brill – Dr. W Backhuys, Leiden Dohrn H (1866a) Die Binnenconchylien von Ilha do Príncipe. Malakozoologische Blätter 13:116– 136 Dohrn H (1866b) Eine neue Nanina aus Westafrika. Malakozoologische Blätter 13:114–115 Dutton J (1994) Introduced mammals in São Tomé and Príncipe: possible threats to biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:927–938 Exell AW (1944) Catalogue of the vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Principe and Annobon). British Museum (Natural History), London Eyzaguirre PB (1986) Small farmers and estates in São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. PhD Thesis. Yale University, Yale Fauna & Flora International, Fundação Príncipe (2019) Príncipe thrush and Obô snail monitoring protocol. Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge Fernández-Palacios JM, Rijsdijk KF, Norder SJ et al (2016) Towards a glacial-sensitive model of island biogeography. Global Ecology and Biogeography 25:817–830 Figueiredo E, Paiva J, Stévart T et al (2011) Annotated catalogue of the ﬂowering plants of São Tomé and Príncipe. Bothalia 41:41–82 Fitton JG, Dunlop HM (1985) The Cameroon line, West Africa, and its bearing on the origin of oceanic and continental alkali basalt. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 72:23–38 Fontanilla IK, Naggs F, Wade CM (2017) Molecular phylogeny of the Achatinoidea (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 114:382–385 Fundação Príncipe (2019) Understanding the remarkable biodiversity of Príncipe Island. Fundação Príncipe, Santo António 16 Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 427 Gascoigne A (1994a) The dispersal of terrestrial gastropod-species in the Gulf of Guinea. Journal of Conchology 35:l–7 Gascoigne A (1994b) The biogeography of land snails in the islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):794–807 Germain L (1908) Mollusques terrestres recueillis par M. Ch. Gravier à l’île San Thomé (1906). Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histore Naturelle, Paris 14:55–62 Germain L (1912a) Descriptions de mollusques nouveaux de l’Ile du Prince (Golfe de Guinée) et de l’Afrique occidentale. Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histore Naturelle, Paris 18(5):318–324 Germain L (1912b) Mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles recueillis par M. L. Fea pendant son voyage à la Guinée et à l’ile du Prince. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 5(3): 335–399 Germain L (1915) Contributions à la faune malacologique de l’Afrique équatoriale. XLI. Mollusques nouveaux des îles du Golfe de Guinée. Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris 21(7):283–290 Germain L (1916) Etude sur les mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles recueillis par L. Fea pendant son voyage en Afrique occidentale et aux Iles du Golfe de Guinée. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria 47(7):150–336 Girard AA (1893a) Révision de la faune malacologique des îles St. Thomé et du Prince. I.– Mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, Lisboa 3(9):28–42 Girard AA (1893b) Révision de la faune malacologique des îles St. Thomé et du Prince. I.– Mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles (suite). Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, Lisboa 3(10):95–114 Girard AA (1894) Mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles de l’île d’Anno-bom (Golfe de Guiné). Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, Lisboa 3(11):198–208 Girard AA (1895) Sur le “Thyrophorella thomensis”, Greeff. Gastéropode terrestre muni d’un faux opercule à charnier. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, Lisboa 4(13):28–33 Greeff R (1882) Über die Landschneckenfauna der Insel São Thomé. Zoologischer Anzeiger 5: 516–521 Heynemann FD (1868) Die Nacktschnecken von der Prinzeninsel. Malakozoologische Blätter 15: 32–39 Holyoak DT, Holyoak GA (2016) Revision of Rhysotina (Gastropoda: Urocyclidae) land-snails endemic to the west African island of São Tomé. Journal of Conchology 42(3):59–72 Holyoak DT, Holyoak GA, Lima RF et al (2020) A checklist of the land Mollusca (Gastropoda) of the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe, with new records and descriptions of new taxa. Iberus 38(2):219–319 IUCN (2020) The IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version 2020–1. Available via International Union for the Conservation of nature. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 27 May 2020 Jones P, Tye A (2006) The birds of São Tomé and Príncipe, with Annobón islands of the Gulf of Guinea. British Ornithologists’ Union and British Ornithologists’ Club, Oxford (United Kingdom), xix + 172 pp Juřičková L, Horsák M, Cameron R et al (2008) Land snail distribution patterns within a site: the role of different calcium sources. Eur J Soil Biol 44(2):172–179 Lima RF, Sampaio H, Dunn JC et al (2017) Distribution and habitat associations of the critically endangered bird species of São Tomé Island (gulf of Guinea). Bird Conservation International 27:455–469 Loboch MZ (1962) Noticia de Annobón (Su geografía, história y costumbres). Papeleria Madrileña Mayor, Madrid Lydeard C, Cowie RH, Ponder WF et al (2004) The global decline of nonmarine mollusks. Bioscience 54(4):321–330 428 M. Panisi et al. Measey JG, Vences M, Drewes RC et al (2007) Freshwater paths across the ocean: molecular phylogeny of the frog Ptychadena newtoni gives insights into amphibian colonization of oceanic islands. J Biogeogr 34(1):7–20 Melo M, Warren BH, Jones PJ (2011) Rapid parallel evolution of aberrant traits in the diversiﬁcation of the Gulf of Guinea whiteeyes (Aves, Zosteropidae). Mol Ecol 20(23):4953–4967 Ministry of Public Works, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Environment (2019) CBD 6th National Biodiversity Report. Available via Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www. cbd.int/doc/nr/nr-06/st-nr-06-en.pdf. Accessed 28 September 2020 Moller A (1894) Achatina bicarinata. Annaes de Sciencias Naturaes 1(4):203 Morelet A (1848) Testacea quædam Africæ occidentalis terrestria et ﬂuviatilia. Revue Zoologique, par La Société Cuvierienne 11:351–355 Morelet A (1858) Séries conchyliologiques comprenant l’énumération de mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles recueillis pendant le cours de différents voyages, ainsi que la description de plusieurs espèces nouvelles. Klincksieck, Paris 1:1–34 Morelet A (1860) Descriptions de nouvelles espèces de l’Afrique occidentale, rapportées par M. le capitaine Vignon. Journal de Conchyliologie 8(2):189–191 Morelet A (1868) Voyage du Dr Friederich Welwitsch dans les Royaumes d’Angola et de Benguella. Mollusques terrestres et ﬂuviatiles. J–B Baillière et ﬁls, Paris Morelet A (1873) Novitates conchyliologicae in itinere per Africam aequinoctialiem a Cl. Marche et de Compiègne collectae. Journal de Conchyliologie 21(4):329–332 Müller OF (1774) Vermivm terrestrium et ﬂuviatilium, seu animalium, infusoriorum, helminthicorum, et testaceorum, non marinorum, succincta historia. Havniæ, Lipsiæ, apud Heineck et Heineck, xxxvi:214+10 Neumann M (2016) The ﬁrst data on land ﬂatworms from São Tomé island (Platyhelminthes, Tricladida, Terricola). MSc thesis. University of Kassel, Kassel Nobre A (1886) Conchas terrestres e marinhas recolhidas pelo Sr. Adolpho Moller na ilha de S. Thomé em 1885 Boletim da Sociedade Geographia de Lisboa 4(6):1–15 Nobre A (1891) Contribuições para a fauna malacológica da ilha de S. Thomé (Continuado). O Instituto, Coimbra 38(2):928–935 Nobre A (1894) Sur la faune malacologique des îles de S. Thomé et de Madère. Ile de S. Thomé Annaes de Sciencias Naturaes 1:91–94 Norder SJ, Baumgartner JB, Borges PA et al (2018) A global spatially explicit database of changes in island palaeo-area and archipelago conﬁguration during the late quaternary. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 27(5):500–505 Ortiz de Zaráte A, Alvarez J (1960) Resultados de la expedición Peris–Alvarez a la isla de Annobón (Guinea Española). 1. Los Gastropodos Terrestres. Boletin de la Real Sociedad Española de História Natural Seccion Biologica 58:87–103 Oyono PR, Morelli TL, Sayer T et al (2014) Allocation and use of forest land: current trends, issues and perspectives. In: de Wassinger C, Flynn J, Louppe D, Hiol FH, Mayaux P (eds) The forests of the Congo Basin – state of the forests 2013. Observatoire des Fôrets d’Afrique centrale of the Comission des Fôrets d’Afrique centrale and Congo Basin Forest Partnership, Weyrich, pp 215–240 Panisi M (2017) Biological invasion and the conservation of endemic island species: São Tomé Archachatina giant land snails (Pulmonata: Achatinidae). MSc Thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Panisi M, de Lima RF (2022) Disease implicated in decline of the threatened Obô giant land snail Archachatina bicarinata in São Tomé and Príncipe. Tentacle 30:19 Panisi M, Sinclair F, Santos Y (2020) Single species action plan for the conservation of the Obô Giant snail Archachatina bicarinata, 2021–2025. Available via IUCN SSC Mid–Atlantic Island Invertebrate Specialist Group. http://www.maiisg.com/fotos/publicacoes/1605113542.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2021 16 Terrestrial Mollusca of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 429 Panisi M, Pissarra V, Oquiongo G, Palmeirim JM, Faustino de Lima R, Nuno A (2022a) An endemic-rich island through the eyes of children: wildlife identiﬁcation and conservation preferences in São Tomé (Gulf of Guinea). Conservation Science and Practice e12630 Panisi M, Sinclair F, de Lima RF, Bird T (2022b, Assessment submitted) Archachatina bicarinata. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Rang S (1831) Description des coquilles terrestres recueillies pendant un voyage à la côte occidentale d’Afrique, et au Brèsil. Ann Sci Nat 24:5–63 Simões M (1992) Contribuição para o estudo dos gastrópodes de água doce das ilhas de S. Tomé e do Príncipe (Golfo da Guiné). Garcia de Orta, Série de Zoologia 16(1–2):105–110 Tavares LB (2021) Humanização da paisagem e moluscos terrestres: efeitos opostos sobre comunidades de espécies endémicas e não endémicas na ilha de São Tomé. MSc Thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon UNEP–WCMC, IUCN (2020) Protected planet: the world database on protected areas (WDPA). Available via www.protectedplanet.net. Accessed 27 May 2020 Valente L, Phillimore AB, Melo M et al (2020) A simple dynamic model explains the diversity of island birds worldwide. Nature 579(7797):92–96 Wronski T, Gilbert K, Long E, Michá B, Quinn R, Hausdorf B (2014) Species richness and metacommunity structure of land snails along an altitudinal gradient on Bioko Island, Equatorial Guinea. J Molluscan Stud 80(2):161–168 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Luis M. da Costa, Hugulay Albuquerque Maia, and Armando J. Almeida Abstract This chapter reviews the current knowledge of the marine (including deep-sea species) and freshwater ﬁshes of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Some biogeographic and conservation considerations are also presented. A total of 1045 species are likely present in the region, including 107 Elasmobranchii (37 conﬁrmed, 65 potential, and 5 erroneous), one conﬁrmed Holocephali, and 937 Actinopteri species (515 conﬁrmed, 385 potential, 32 erroneous, and 5 questionable). Most of the coastal species are shared with the surrounding African continental shelf, while several species are amphi-Atlantic (present in both sides of the Atlantic Ocean), and some species have sister-species in the western Atlantic. A total of 15 species are endemic to the region, and 2 are introduced. Further studies are still needed to better understand the ichthyofauna of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands and help policymakers better deﬁne conservation and protection plans. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_17]. L. M. da Costa (*) MARE, Centro de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), MUHNAC, Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Royal Museum for Central Africa (RMCA), Vertebrates Section, Ichthyology, Tervuren, Belgium H. A. Maia Departamento de Ciências Naturais, da Vida e do Ambiente, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologias, Universidade de São Tomé e Príncipe, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe A. J. Almeida MARE, Centro de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente, Laboratório Marítimo da Guia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Cascais, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_17 431 432 L. M. da Costa et al. Keywords Checklist · Conservation · Eastern Atlantic · Freshwater · Marine · Taxonomy Introduction The Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands (GGOI), Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón, are oceanic islands located in the Tropical Eastern Atlantic. The GGOI are part of the Cameroon Volcanic Line, an intraplate basalt in the ocean-continent boundary region, ranging over 1600 km (Burke 2001; Elsheikh et al. 2014; Belay et al. 2019). All three GGOI are ideally located for ﬁsh diversity: close enough to the African continent to host typical shelf region ﬁsh species, but also with a narrow platform separated by seas with over 1500 m depth that provide coastal habitat to several ﬁshes. In addition, several currents contribute to coastal upwelling (Bakun 1978; Djakouré et al. 2017) and biological productivity (Binet 1997; Ukwe et al. 2006) for highly migratory offshore and deep-sea ﬁsh species. The GGOI are at the crossroads of three major currents: one incoming (from west to east), the Guinea Current (GC), and two outgoing (from east to west), the South Equatorial Current (SEC) and the Gabon-Congo Undercurrent (Djakouré et al. 2014). The GC, sourcing from the combination of the North Equatorial Countercurrent and the Canary Current, ﬂows east along the western coast of Africa (from Sierra Leone to Nigeria) with slight seasonal ﬂow variations in direction and velocity, salinity, and sea-surface temperature (Richardson and Reverdin 1987; Odekunle and Eludoyin 2008; Djakouré et al. 2014, 2017). The northern part of the SEC borders the GC and ﬂows westward. The Equatorial Undercurrent (EUC) also ﬂows eastward below the SEC (Djakouré et al. 2014; Herbert et al. 2016; Houndegnonto et al. 2021; see also Ceríaco et al. 2022a). A Guinea Undercurrent (GUC) is also present, ﬂowing eastward, in deeper water along the coast. The GGOI are inﬂuenced by all these currents in the “southern alternance region,” dominated by strong seasonal contrasts and with inﬂuxes of equatorial upwelling (Le Lœuff and Cosel 1998). Water salinity, temperature, and turbidity are also inﬂuenced by major freshwater river discharges (Congo and Niger basins) and resulting plumes (Alory et al. 2021; Houndegnonto et al. 2021; Ceríaco et al. 2022a). The combination of these characteristics, along with the upwelling and high biological productivity, contribute to the occurrence of a spectacular ﬁsh diversity. The marine ichthyofauna of the Gulf of Guinea, including the continental shelf, continental islands (Bioko), and oceanic islands, presents a remarkable level of endemism (approximately 20%), but many species are still poorly known and studied (Jones 1994). The endemism of reef ﬁsh species reaches about 65% in some of these areas, indicating their high degree of isolation (Jones 1994). By contrast, only three freshwater ﬁsh species (all non-indigenous) are recorded for the islands of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón, all showing tolerance to salinity and capable of dispersal among the oceanic islands (Jones 1994). The GGOI are part of the Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem (GCLME), extending from Guinea Bissau to Angola (to the northern seasonal limit of the Benguela Current) and 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 433 covering 16 countries’ Exclusive Economic Zones (Ukwe et al. 2006). Because of its bathymetry, chemistry, hydrography, and trophodynamics, the GCLME is among the most productive coastal and offshore waters in the world with rich ﬁshery resources, an important reservoir of marine biological diversity, and excellent potential for tourism (Ukwe et al. 2003). Most of the ﬁsh species recorded from the GGOI are also present in other parts of the Gulf of Guinea, with few species endemic to the islands, and several species with amphi-Atlantic or circum-global distributions. As of 2019, a total of 268 coastal ﬁsh species have been recorded in the GGOI (see “Species Diversity” section) with about 12% of the species (28) reported as endemic to the Gulf of Guinea, and a few of these only observed in São Tomé and Príncipe, such as Clepticus africanus Heiser, Moura and Robertson, 2000, and Scorpaena annobonae Eschmeyer, 1969 (Wirtz et al. 2007; Wirtz 2017). This low level of endemism is likely a consequence of the vagility of marine ﬁshes as zooplankton and the proximity of the islands to the African continent (Krakstad et al. 2010). The current chapter presents a brief overview of the marine and freshwater ecosystems present in the GGOI, the current knowledge of marine and freshwater ﬁsh species, biogeography and evolution, and ﬁnally conservation. An updated taxonomic checklist of marine (coastal, offshore, and deep-water) and freshwater species is presented, with revised inventories for coastal and reef ﬁsh species. Brief History of Ichthyology Research In 1871, the Portuguese naturalist Félix António Brito Capello (1828–1879) published the ﬁrst list of ﬁshes accessioned at the Lisbon Museum collection. This list, in three parts, includes specimens from the Portuguese islands of Madeira and Azores, and from its overseas territories, including São Tomé and Príncipe (Capello 1871a, b, 1872). After his death, António Roberto Pereira Guimarães (?–1889?) continued Capello’s analysis of the material housed at the Lisbon Museum and published two additional papers on the topic (Guimarães 1882, 1884). Later, the Portuguese zoologist Balthazar Osório (1855–1926) presented the ﬁrst list focusing on ﬁsh species from São Tomé and Príncipe, mostly based on the specimens collected by the Portuguese naturalists Adolfo Möller (1842–1920) and Francisco Newton (1864–1909) (Osório 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895a, 1898, 1906), and from Annobón (Osório 1895b), with several descriptions of species and original information. After a gap of about ﬁve decades, Frade (1955) and Frade and Correia da Costa (1956, 1957) reported new records based on pelagic ﬁsheries species (see also Almeida and Alves 2019). Later, from 1961 to 1987, several international scientiﬁc expeditions provided complementary information (Arnoult et al. 1966; Bayer et al. 1966; Blanc et al. 1968; Iwamoto 1970; see Afonso et al. 1999 and Ceríaco et al. 2022b for a detailed bibliography), with rare studies reporting new records (Thys van den Audenaerde and Tortonese 1974). Only during the late 434 L. M. da Costa et al. twentieth and early twenty-ﬁrst centuries, several publications focused on São Tomé or Príncipe and published new species description and records (e.g., Afonso et al. 1999; Wirtz et al. 2007; Rocha et al. 2012; Almeida and Alves 2017, 2019; Iwamoto and Wirtz 2018). Complementarily, several reports and guides estimating species occurrence around the Gulf of Guinea Islands were published by FAO and others (e.g., Allen 1985; Carpenter and De Angelis 2016a–c; Almeida and Biscoito 2019; Sutton et al. 2020). Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems A marine ecosystem can be deﬁned as the geographic area (of any size), comprised of communities of organisms and their environment, where biological and energy interactions are greater within than with adjacent ecosystems (Zhao and Costello 2020). This biological system is characterized by two factors: the biotic (e.g., plants, animals, microbes) and abiotic (e.g., sunlight, oxygen, dissolved nutrients, depth, temperature). These components inﬂuence the dynamics of natural communities at different spatial scales, from global to local. Marine ecosystems of the GGOI are underwater equivalent of tropical forests. Both natural systems are complex and three-dimensional. Furthermore, they have an impressive variety of habitats from the intertidal zone to the abyssal region (Laborel 1974). The three oceanic islands (Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón) that make up this system have different geological ages and the steep underwater relief results in a relatively small, shallow platform (Cowburn 2018; Maia et al. 2018a). The underwater areas of the island seascapes are mainly dominated by volcanic rocky reefs with limited coral growth (Laborel 1974; Quimbayo et al. 2019). Ecological studies carried out in recent years have described a variety of marine habitats. For example, on Príncipe Island, Cowburn (2018) mapped four subtidal habitats and four coastal habitats along the island. In addition, a recent study investigated the role of four different reef microhabitats in shaping biological interactions of ﬁshes (Canterle et al. 2020). Regarding São Tomé Island, the scenario is very similar to that of Príncipe. Maia et al. (2018a) characterized reef environments on this island based on the composition of the benthic community and found a diversity of habitats between the ranges of 10–30 m deep, including a new habitat in the deep reef north of the island (Morais and Maia 2017). Major Aquatic Ecosystems in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Estuaries (Fig. 17.1, 1): An estuary is a coastal zone sheltered from extreme weather where oceans meet rivers, and nutrients and salts from the ocean mix with those from the river (Cameron and Pritchard 1963). As a result, estuaries are among the most 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 435 Fig. 17.1 Gulf of Guinea oceanic island aquatic ecosystems: (1) Estuary; (2) Mangrove forest; (3– 5) Coral reefs; (6) Coral reefs and seagrass; (7) Open and deep-sea ocean; (8) River. Photo credits: (1, 6–8) Hugulay Albuquerque Maia, (2) Luis MP Ceríaco, (3–5) Luiz Rocha productive places on Earth and support many life forms. Because they are located where rivers join the ocean, estuaries have traditionally supported many human communities and activities like ﬁshing, shipping, and transportation. Some of the 436 L. M. da Costa et al. larger rivers ﬂowing from the islands form brackish lagoons, usually bounded at the seaward edge by sand banks that only submerge during the highest tides (Cowburn 2018). These lagoons appear to be an important habitat for some resident ﬁsh species (e.g., Periophthalmus barbarus (Linnaeus, 1766)) and a nursery area for reef ﬁsh species (e.g., Lutjanus agennes Bleeker, 1863; Caranx hippos (Linnaeus, 1766)), crustaceans, molluscs, and other marine life, probably due to the concentration of nutrients in these areas. Mangrove Forests (Fig. 17.1, 2): Mangroves are considered blue carbon ecosystems because they are more efﬁcient at absorbing and storing large amounts of carbon compared to terrestrial ecosystems (Mcleod et al. 2011). Until 2010 this habitat was mentioned in the literature as present only on the island of São Tomé (Spalding et al. 2010) but more recently, small extensions on Príncipe Island have been identiﬁed. Haroun et al. (2018) provided updated information about the ﬂora and fauna, and environmental, conservation and management issues related to mangroves present along the coasts of these islands. Coral Reefs (Fig. 17.1, 3–6): Despite crystal-clear waters and optimum temperature for coral development, the GGOI do not present a homogeneous matrix of coral reefs, but instead exhibit more complex microhabitats spread in their rocky and biogenic reefs (Maia et al. 2018a). These habitats are composed of some key benthic organisms, including epilithic algal matrix, calcareous algae, coralline algae (that form small ~5 cm diameter globular structures over mobile substrates), macroalgae, hard corals, sponges, zoanthids and gorgonians (Laborel 1974; Maia et al. 2018a). Rocky reefs and solid shores occur where the volcanic basalt bedrock is exposed (Cowburn 2018). The seagrass Halodule wrightii Ascherson, 1868 was found along the coast of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands (Alexandre et al. 2017). No data are available for Annobón Island. Open and Deep-Sea Ocean (Fig. 17.1, 7): Open ocean ecosystems vary widely as the depth of the ocean changes. At the surface of the ocean (the euphotic zone), the ecosystem receives plenty of light and oxygen and thus is fairly warm and supports many photosynthetic organisms. Many of the organisms that we associate with marine ecosystems, such as whales, dolphins, cephalopods, and sharks, live in the open ocean. As the depth of the ocean increases, it gets darker, colder, and less oxygen is available. Organisms living in deep-sea ecosystems within the dysphotic and aphotic zones have unusual adaptations that help them survive in these challenging environments. Some organisms have extremely large mouths that allow them to catch whatever nutrients fall from shallower ocean depths. Others get their energy via the chemosynthesis of chemicals from hydrothermal vents. Although the underwater geomorphology of the GGOI is known, it is thought that they harbor some of the least known tropical reefs in the world. Underwater forests in mesophotic reefs are known from the northwest of São Tomé Island (Morais and Maia 2017) that are dominated by black corals between 30 and 50 m depth. Streams and Rivers (Fig. 17.1, 8): The hydrographic structure of the GGOI is radial, from the central mountains to the shore, resulting in numerous streams and small rivers (up to 27 km length) (e.g., in São Tomé: Ió Grande, Caué, Mussacavu, Quija, Rio do Ouro, Contador; in Príncipe: Rio Papagaio; in Annobón: A Bobo; see 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 437 Ceríaco et al. 2022a) or crater-lakes (e.g., in São Tomé: Lagoa Amélia; in Annobón: Lago A Pot). The river network is well distributed around the islands, entering the sea by creating small estuarine habitats (12 mangroves in São Tomé and 3 in Príncipe) or small waterfalls or cascades. Several small inland lagoons are also distributed over the islands. These habitats host the ﬁshes Eleotris vittata Duméril, 1861, Sicydium bustamantei Greeff, 1884, and Aplocheilichthys spilauchen (Duméril, 1861). Several aquatic invertebrates also inhabit freshwater habitats, including GGOI endemics such as the snail Neritina manoeli (Dohrn, 1866), or the crabs Potamonautes principe Cumberlidge, Clark and Baillie, 2002, Potamonautes saotome Cumberlidge and Daniels, 2018, and Potamonautes margaritarius (Milne-Edwards, 1869) (Cumberlidge et al. 2002; Allen et al. 2011; Cumberlidge and Daniels 2018). Species Diversity To compile an updated taxonomic checklist of the marine (coastal, offshore, and deep-water) and freshwater ﬁsh species occurring in the GGOI, we reviewed the bibliography. This included historical and recent inventories and taxonomic studies (Osório 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895a, b, 1898, 1906, 1917; Fowler 1936a, b; Frade 1955; Frade and Correia da Costa 1956, 1957; Arnoult et al. 1966; Bayer et al. 1966; Blanc et al. 1968; Thys van den Audenaerde and Tortonese 1974; Afonso et al. 1999; Pezold et al. 2006; Fricke 2007; Wirtz et al. 2007; Kovačić and Schliewen 2008; Schliewen and Kovačić 2008; Rocha et al. 2012; Félix et al. 2016; Reiner and Wirtz 2016; Vasco-Rodrigues et al. 2016; Wirtz and Iwamoto 2016; Almeida and Alves 2017, 2019; Fricke and Wirtz 2017; Tuya et al. 2017; Wirtz 2017; Iwamoto and Wirtz 2018) as well as general reports and species revisions on the ichthyofauna of the eastern Atlantic Ocean (Compagno 1984a, b, 2001; Allen 1985; Nakamura 1985; Whitehead 1985; Whitehead et al. 1988; Carpenter and Allen 1989; Heemstra and Randall 1993; Nakamura and Parin 1993; Nielsen et al. 1999; Krakstad et al. 2010; Ebert 2015; Carpenter and De Angelis 2016a–c; Last et al. 2016; Vasco-Rodrigues et al. 2018; Parenti and Randall 2020; Sutton et al. 2020). These later sources allowed us to include deep-sea ﬁshes (mostly Holocephali and Elasmobranchii) and large pelagic species that likely occur in waters around the GGOI. In addition, we also compiled a list of species that may occur in the waters of the GGOI, based on known occurrences in the Gulf of Guinea. Therefore, we searched for voucher records in databases listing international natural history museum specimens (e.g., FishNet2 2021; Froese and Pauly 2021; GBIF 2021; iDigBio 2021; OBIS 2021) or other published references. Classiﬁcation, authority and date follow Fricke et al. (2021), and family arrangement follows Van der Laan et al. (2014). We also list several questionable and erroneous records, which were veriﬁed by us against specimens in natural history museum collections or published data. Common names are mostly those adopted by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the 438 L. M. da Costa et al. United Nations (Carpenter and De Angelis 2016a–c), FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2021) or provided by the original species descriptions. The compiled full list contains 1045 species (Appendix). Of these, 553 species are conﬁrmed to occur in the GGOI, including 515 Actinopteri distributed in 39 orders (141 families), 37 Elasmobranchii in six orders (17 families), and one Holocephali. The 450 potentially occurring species consist of 385 Actinopteri (30 orders, 109 families) and 65 Elasmobranchii (10 orders, 28 families). Additionally, 32 Actinopteri and ﬁve Elasmobranchii previously reported for these islands are here considered as erroneous and ﬁve records of Actinopteri are questionable. Focusing exclusively on the 553 conﬁrmed species, Elasmobranchii (elasmobranchs: sharks, rays, skates, and wedgeﬁshes) accounts for 6.7% (37 species) of the diversity, Holocephali (chimaeras) for 0.2% (one species), and Actinopteri (Actinopterygians: bony or ray-ﬁnned ﬁshes) for 93.1% (515 species). A total of 46 orders and 159 families were recorded, with the richest families being Gobiidae (25 species), Carangidae (23), Serranidae (22), Stomiidae (19), and Myctophidae (18—Table 17.1). Elasmobranchii Among the Elasmobranchii, 37 species of sharks and batoid ﬁshes (wedgeﬁshes and rays) are conﬁrmed to occur in the GGOI. Sharks, belonging to three orders (Carcharhiniformes, Lamniformes, Orectolobiformes), account for 45.9% (17 species), while rays, belonging to two orders (Myliobatiformes, Torpediniformes), account for 51.4% (19 species) of Elasmobranchii diversity. Wedgeﬁshes, order Rhinopristiformes are represented by a single species (2.7%). The most speciose orders are Myliobatiformes, with 17 species (46%), followed by Carcharhiniformes with 12 species (32.4%). A total of 17 families are listed, with Carcharhinidae, Dasyatidae, and Mobulidae presenting the highest number of species, with 21.6% (8), 18.9% (7), and 10.8% (4), respectively. The ﬁrst record of African wedgeﬁsh, Rhynchobatus luebberti Ehrenbaum, 1915, for São Tomé (Reiner and Wirtz 2016) deserves a special highlight. This species is Critically Endangered (CR—Kyne and Jabado 2019), and has a limited Eastern Tropical Atlantic range distribution, from Mauritania to Congo (Carpenter and De Angelis 2016a). The Scalloped hammerhead shark, Sphyrna lewini (Grifﬁth and Smith, 1834), and Sand tiger shark, Carcharias taurus Raﬁnesque, 1810, records from the GGOI (with the exception of Annobón) are also noteworthy as both species are also assessed as CR (Rigby et al. 2021). The iconic Whale shark, Rhincodon typus Smith, 1828, assessed as Endangered (EN—Pierce and Norman 2016), was observed in 2015 around São Tomé and the Gulf of Guinea (Vasco-Rodrigues et al. 2016). The species presents a circumtropical distribution with high suitability habitat in the eastern Atlantic (around Gabon, Congo, and Equatorial Guinea) (Sequeira et al. 2014). Recently, a shark specimen captured by locals had several features attributable to Tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier (Péron and Lesueur, 1822), a Near 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 439 Table 17.1 Classiﬁcation and diversity of the conﬁrmed Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands ﬁsh fauna. Taxonomic arrangement follows Van der Laan et al. (2014) Class Elasmobranchii Holocephali Actinopteri Order Orectolobiformes Lamniformes Carcharhiniformes Torpediniformes Rhinopristiformes Myliobatiformes Chimaeriformes Elopiformes Albuliformes Notacanthiformes Anguilliformes Saccopharyngiformes Clupeiformes Alepocephaliformes Siluriformes Argentiniformes Stomiiformes Aulopiformes Myctophiformes Lampriformes Zeiformes Stylephoriformes Gadiformes Polymixiiformes Beryciformes Holocentriformes Ophidiiformes Scombriformes Syngnathiformes Kurtiformes Gobiiformes Carangiformes Cichliformes Atheriniformes Cyprinodontiformes Beloniformes Mugiliformes Gobiesociformes Blenniiformes Acanthuriformes Lophiiformes Tetraodontiformes Families 2 3 4 1 1 6 1 2 1 1 11 1 2 2 1 4 4 8 1 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 3 8 6 1 3 13 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 7 4 5 Genera 2 3 8 2 1 11 1 2 1 2 34 1 4 3 1 8 25 12 13 1 1 1 8 1 5 3 9 23 10 3 20 36 1 1 1 12 3 2 6 11 7 12 Species 2 3 12 2 1 17 1 3 1 3 43 1 6 3 1 8 41 15 18 1 1 1 11 1 5 3 9 26 11 4 31 62 1 1 1 18 5 2 8 12 10 24 (continued) 440 L. M. da Costa et al. Table 17.1 (continued) Class Order Centrarchiformes Acropomatiformes Perciformes *sedis mutabilis* Perciformes Families 2 3 12 13 Genera 2 3 39 31 Species 5 4 69 50 Threatened species (NT—Ferreira and Simpfendorfer 2019). Despite the low resolution of the available image (see Fig. 17.2, 1), this is the ﬁrst observation conﬁrming the occurrence of this species around São Tomé, but the species had already been reported from Príncipe (Carpenter and de Angelis 2016a). In a recent study, Bernard et al. (2021) conﬁrmed that Tiger shark populations from the Atlantic Ocean are genetically distinct from the Indo-Paciﬁc Ocean populations showing that these long-distance dispersing populations are not interbreeding. Holocephali The sole Holocephali (Chimaeriformes, Rhinochimaeridae), the Sickleﬁn Chimaera, Neoharriotta pinnata (Schnakenbeck, 1931), accounts for 0.2% of the conﬁrmed species in the region and is considered a Near Threatened species. The Sickleﬁn Chimaera is known in the eastern Atlantic Ocean off the west African coast from Western Sahara to Namibia, including the Gulf of Guinea islands. The species is found at the edge of the shelf in depths ranging from 200 to 600 m (Carpenter and De Angelis 2016a). Actinopteri The Actinopteri is the most diverse ﬁsh class, with 515 conﬁrmed species for the GGOI. A total of 141 families were recorded, with Gobiidae being the richest with 4.8% of the species (25), followed by Carangidae with 4.5% (23), Serranidae with 4.3% (22), Stomiidae with 3.7% (19), Myctophidae with 3.5% (18), Sparidae with 2.9% (15), and Haemulidae, Muraenidae, and Ophichthidae with 2.1% (11) each. All 132 remaining families are represented by fewer than ten species and account for the remaining 70% of the species. To be as exhaustive as possible, the current checklist integrates potential deep-sea and large migrant pelagic ﬁsh species based on several guides and reports. Due to the deep water around all three GGOI, several species (e.g., Opisthoproctus soleatus Vaillant, 1888; Scopelosaurus argenteus (Maul, 1954)) were collected by offshore scientiﬁc surveys or accidentally by industrial ﬁshing vessels. In addition, several deep-sea ﬁsh species are already reported in the 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 441 Fig. 17.2 Gulf of Guinea oceanic island ﬁshes: (1) Tiger Shark Galeocerdo cuvier (Péron and Lesueur, 1822); (2) Atlantic Mudskipper Periophthalmus barbarus (Linnaeus, 1766); (3) São Tomé Clingﬁsh Apletodon wirtzi Fricke, 2007; (4) Island Cowﬁsh (juvenile) Acanthostracion notacanthus (Bleeker, 1863); (5) Small Goby Bathygobius burtoni (O’Shaughnessy, 1875); (6) Small Goby Gobius aff. rubropunctatus Delais, 1951; (7) Margintail Paraconger caudilimbatus (Poey, 1867); (8) African Speckled Scorpionﬁsh Scorpaenodes africanus Pfaff, 1933. Photo credits: (1) Ivete Carneiro, (2) Luis MP Ceríaco, (3–8) João Luiz Gasparini literature for the GGOI (e.g., Cyclothone spp., Ichthyococcus ovatus (Cocco, 1838), Vinciguerria nimbaria (Jordan and Williams, 1895)). The Actinopteri ﬁshes present a high variety of shapes, distributions, and behaviors. The extraordinary and unusual looking Atlantic mudskipper, P. barbarus, occurring along the West African coast, from Morocco to Angola and several offshore islands, is also present in the GGOI (Fig. 17.2, 2). Of special interest are: the São Tomé clingﬁsh, Apletodon wirtzi Fricke, 2007, endemic to the GGOI and currently only known from its type locality, Bombom Islet, north of Príncipe Island 442 L. M. da Costa et al. (Fricke 2007; Fig. 17.2, 3); the Island cowﬁsh, Acanthostracion notacanthus (Bleeker, 1863), which has a restricted distribution around several islands (São Tomé, Príncipe, Saint Helena, Ascension, and Azores) and two African coastal locations (Ghana and Angola) (Fig. 17.2, 4); one small goby, Bathygobius burtoni (O’Shaughnessy, 1875), an Endangered species and Gulf of Guinea endemic (Ghana to Cameroon, Bioko Island), which is conﬁrmed from São Tomé and Príncipe islands (Carpenter et al. 2015—Fig. 17.2, 5); another small goby, Gobius aff. rubropunctatus Delais, 1951, from São Tomé and Príncipe islands that is a putative undescribed species (Wirtz et al. 2007—Fig. 17.2, 6); the Margintail, Paraconger caudilimbatus (Poey, 1867), an amphi-Atlantic species, only reported from São Tomé Island in the eastern Atlantic (Wirtz et al. 2007—Fig. 17.2, 7); and the African speckled scorpionﬁsh, Scorpaenodes africanus Pfaff, 1933, with a fragmented distribution including Senegal, São Tomé, and Annobón (Eschmeyer 1969— Fig. 17.2, 8). The American whitespotted ﬁleﬁsh, Cantherhines macrocerus (Hollard, 1853), a typical western Atlantic species, also occurs in the eastern Atlantic Ocean. The species is suspected to have been transported to the Gulf of Guinea by oil platforms coming from Brazil or the Caribbean (Herrero-Barrencua et al. 2019). Nonetheless, natural dispersal observed in a western Atlantic congener (Cantherhines pullus (Ranzani, 1842)) into the Gulf of Guinea (Afonso et al. 1999) suggests a similar scenario for C. macrocerus is possible (Herrero-Barrencua et al. 2019). Two introduced freshwater species have been reported for the islands: the Mozambique tilapia, Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters, 1852), in São Tomé (Félix et al. 2016), and the Banded lampeye, A. spilauchen, in Príncipe (Cravo 2021). Both introduction dates are not determined, but the Mozambique tilapia is already widespread throughout the island (Félix et al. 2016). Compared to the most recent studies regarding the ﬁshes of the GGOI (Wirtz 2017; Iwamoto and Wirtz 2018), the present work includes several unique and new records: Cichlidae—O. mossambicus, introduced species; Exocoetidae— Hirundichthys afﬁnis (Günther, 1866), new record for São Tomé; Gempylidae— Nealotus tripes Johnson, 1865; Monacanthidae—C. macrocerus; Polymixiidae— Polymixia nobilis Lowe, 1836; Serranidae—Anthias cyprinoides (Katayama & Amaoka, 1986), Serranus accraensis (Norman, 1931), Serranus drewesi Iwamoto, 2018, Serranus heterurus (Cadenat, 1937); Sparidae—Spicara melanurus (Valenciennes, 1830); and Stomiidae—Bathophilus nigerrimus Giglioli, 1882 (Krakstad et al. 2010; Félix et al. 2016; Almeida and Alves 2017, 2019; Iwamoto and Wirtz 2018; Vasco-Rodrigues et al. 2018; Herrero-Barrencua et al. 2019; Parenti and Randall 2020; Cravo 2021). Gobioides cf. africanus (Giltay, 1935), Gobiidae, reported by Cravo (2021) needs conﬁrmation. 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 443 Biogeography and Evolution of Fishes in Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Oceanic island ecosystems in the Tropical Eastern Atlantic (TEA) include the Cape Verde archipelago and the islands of the Gulf of Guinea: Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón (Floeter et al. 2008). Despite its relatively old age, São Tomé has low marine endemism (e.g., 3% for ﬁshes; Hachich et al. 2015) due to high oceanographic connectivity to the African coast (Wirtz 2003; Floeter et al. 2008). On the other hand, the regional endemism level of the TEA is high (30%; Floeter et al. 2008), a phenomenon presumably due to the geographic isolation of the TEA from the other Atlantic reef areas (e.g., ~3500 km from the Brazil and ~8696 km from the Caribbean; Floeter et al. 2008), as well as a history of recurrent isolation and connectivity with the Indo-Paciﬁc at an evolutionary timescale (Cowman et al. 2017). Indeed, several species show a trans-Atlantic distribution (amphi-Atlantic) with most of the species belonging to families of pelagic-spawners with long pelagic larval durations (e.g., Muraenidae, Serranidae), but also smaller-sized genera (e.g., Abudefduf taurus; Müller and Troschel, 1848) and Centropyge aurantonotus Burgess, 1974—Floeter et al. 2008). Entire families are composed of amphi-Atlantic species (e.g., Diodontidae, Holocentridae, Priacanthidae, Synodontidae). In addition to the Benguela Current that limits the movements of tropical species from the Indian Ocean, cold waters from the northeastern Atlantic also limit the geographic range of tropical species (Floeter et al. 2008; Almada et al. 2013). Thus, the TEA and the southwestern Indian Ocean only share about 15 species (e.g., Lithognathus mormyrus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Gnatholepis thompsoni Jordan, 1904) or genera (e.g., Prionurus and Plectorhynchus—Rocha et al. 2005; Wirtz et al. 2007; Floeter et al. 2008). Since the waters of the Gulf of Guinea have received limited scientiﬁc attention, with Annobón the least studied area of the GGOI (Osório 1895b; Blanc et al. 1968), the marine organisms desperately require further study (Floeter et al. 2008). Recent works dealing with the biogeography and evolution of some reef ﬁsh families include representatives from this region, as in the case of the genus Clepticus (Labridae). This recent study revealed that C. africanus, an endemic species from the Gulf of Guinea, is genetically closer to Clepticus brasiliensis Heiser, Moura and Robertson, 2000, from the Brazilian coast, than to the Caribbean Clepticus parrae (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) (Beldade et al. 2009). The biogeographic afﬁnities of other endemics in the archipelago are largely unknown. With 268 coastal ﬁsh species in the GGOI, the diversity is high when compared to other Atlantic islands (e.g., 140 coastal ﬁsh species from Saint Helena, 170 species from Azores, or 226 species from Madeira—Table 17.2). This is mostly due to the location of the GGOI, closer to the African shelf and surrounded by a vortex created by all the currents crossing the area. However, the total number is low when compared to the Cape Verde (325 costal ﬁsh species) and Canary (330) islands, probably a sampling artifact due to the dearth of surveys around the GGOI. 444 L. M. da Costa et al. Table 17.2 Coastal ﬁsh species richness, number of endemics and % endemism of Atlantic islands Islands Ascension Cape Verde Coastal ﬁsh species % N Total endemics Endemism 173 11 10.2 325 19 8.4 Saint Helena Saint Peter and Saint Paul’s archipelago Madeira Canary Azores 140 117 10 5 12.3 7.7 226 330 170 0 NA NA 0 NA NA São Tomé and Príncipe 268 7 3.0 References Wirtz et al. (2014) Wirtz et al. (2013); Freitas et al. (2018) Brown et al. (2019) Vaske et al. (2008) Wirtz et al. (2008) Brito et al. (2002) Santos et al. (1997); Afonso et al. (2013) Wirtz et al. (2007); Wirtz (2017) Marine ﬁsh species are moving, and tropicalization is one of the observed processes in some eastern Atlantic islands where several TEA species are expanding their ranges (e.g., Muraena melanotis (Kaup, 1859), Holacanthus africanus Cadenat, 1951, and Cirrhitus atlanticus Osório, 1893—Brito et al. 2005; Falcón et al. 2018). We also highlight the occurrence of Epinephelus fasciatus (Forsskål, 1775), an Indo-Paciﬁc species, potentially introduced by ballast water or in association with oil platforms (Brito et al. 2005; Falcón et al. 2018). Rocha et al. (2005) and conﬁrmed recent connections in several taxa during warm interglacial periods (Peeters et al. 2004), such as the genus Gnatholepis that invaded the Atlantic from the Indian Ocean. Currently, the Agulhas Current in extreme conditions can force any tropical invaders from the Indian Ocean to move to the Atlantic Ocean through the ‘Agulhas leakage’ that forms water rings at the Agulhas retroﬂection (Lutjeharms and Van Ballegooyen 1988; Gordon 2003; Lutjeharms 2006; Beal et al. 2011). Invading ﬁsh species are likely moving with these rings through the Western Atlantic and South-central Atlantic before ending up in the TEA, rather than moving north with the Benguela Current, which is probably more lethal to tropical ﬁsh species (Rocha et al. 2005). Some ﬁsh species have highly skewed distributions, with 84 genera occurring in the eastern Atlantic, but not in the western Atlantic (e.g., Thorogobius, Wheelerigobius—Floeter et al. 2008; Cowman et al. 2017). Other genera are amphi-Atlantic, but much more diverse in the eastern Atlantic (e.g., Diplodus, Scartella—Cowman et al. 2017) or with sister-species in the western Atlantic (e.g., Hypleurochilus aequipinnis (Günther, 1861)—Wirtz et al. 2007). Finally, several eastern Atlantic genera occur in the Indo-Paciﬁc, but are not present in the western Atlantic (e.g., Coris, Lethrinus—Cowman et al. 2017). Cowman et al. (2017) observed that the Gulf of Guinea ﬁsh species assemblages are distinctive within the east Atlantic cluster (Cape Verde, Gulf of Guinea West, and Sahelian Upwelling). 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 445 Conservation The GGOI, together with Cape Verde, have been considered important global hotspots for marine conservation (Roberts et al. 2002), with high levels of endemism (~30%, Floeter et al. 2008). Several factors likely contribute to this designation including: 1. The geographic location and connectivity with tropical western Atlantic via the Equatorial Counter Current (Wirtz et al. 2007; Floeter et al. 2008; HerreroBarrencua et al. 2019). 2. The moderate isolation from the Continental slope (Floeter et al. 2008; Hachich et al. 2015; Cowman et al. 2017; Quimbayo et al. 2019). 3. The Benguela Current working as a shield and limiting Indian Ocean tropical ﬁsh species from moving northward (Floeter et al. 2008). 4. The northeastern Atlantic cold waters limiting the northern range of tropical ﬁsh species (Floeter et al. 2008; Almada et al. 2013). 5. The lowest ﬁsh biomass and highest density in reef assemblage (Quimbayo et al. 2019). With 27 ﬁsh species reported, plus two uncertain identiﬁcations (Gobioides cf. africanus and Citharus cf. linguatula (Linnaeus, 1758)—Cravo 2021), mangroves and seagrasses are also essential habitats to the ﬁsh diversity by providing ﬁsheries production (Félix et al. 2016; Alexandre et al. 2017; Cravo 2021). Globally, mangroves are highly impacted by deforestation for onshore aquaculture (for ﬁsh and shellﬁsh production), agriculture, and urban development (FAO 2007; Friess et al. 2019; Goldberg et al. 2020). With at least 35% of world area lost, mangroves, or inter-tidal forest communities, are one of the major tropical environments threatened by agriculture, overharvesting, changing hydrology, pollution, and coastal erosion (Valiela et al. 2001). Otero-Ferrer et al. (2020) emphasized that at the island scale, the protection of ﬁsh assemblages needs to consider the interconnected habitat network by including the seascapes boundaries where fundamental ecological functions might also occur. The GGOI exhibit lower biomass despite higher primary productivity, an unexpected observation likely caused by intense ﬁshing activities (Maia et al. 2018a; Quimbayo et al. 2019). In 2000, Annobón Island and the surrounding waters were designated as a Marine Nature Reserve at National level, limiting ﬁshing to traditional subsistence practices and scientiﬁc research (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021). In 2006, the São Tomé Obô and Príncipe Obô Natural Parks were established, covering 262 km2 and 45 km2 in the respectively islands (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021). The natural park in São Tomé covers three out of 12 mangroves, including Malanza, by far the largest of such ecosystems in the GGOI (Afonso 2019). The natural park in Príncipe included a marine portion on the southwestern coast. Since 2012, the Ramsar site of Tinhosas islets (covering Tinhosa Grande, Tinhosa Pequena and Tinhosinha, south of Príncipe) and the island of Príncipe are a UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021). 446 L. M. da Costa et al. Regarding ﬁshing activities, Equatorial Guinea and São Tomé and Príncipe are part of the Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) with the purpose of promoting the sustainable utilization of all living marine resources within the delimited area by proper management and development of the ﬁsheries and ﬁshing operations. Fisheries catches include small-scale artisanal, subsistence (ﬁshing operations in remote communities with no access to market to supplement family needs, and portion taken home for consumption from artisanal catch), and foreign industrial (dominated by ﬂeets from the European Union, Japan, Taiwan, and China) catches (Belhabib 2015; Maia et al. 2018b). Nevertheless, only limited data from ﬁsheries surveys are reported (Belhabib 2015). Increasing numbers of ﬁshers, destructive blast ﬁshing practices, and pollution from industrial ﬁshing vessels (oil-spills) are the main causes of negative ﬁsh catch changes over time (Maia et al. 2018b). The low biomass of medium and large ﬁsh species reﬂects the longterm ﬁshing pressure on São Tomé Island, as does deeper reef habitats having higher species richness, abundance, and biomass (Maia et al. 2018a). Within Elasmobranchii, 27 (73%) out of 37 species are considered threatened (Vulnerable—VU, Endangered—EN or Critically Endangered—CR) and one species (2.7%) is Data Deﬁcient (DD), following IUCN categories (Appendix). Few countries impose catch limits and overﬁshing is a main threat to oceanic sharks, as are the loss and degradation of habitat and climate change (Pacoureau et al. 2021). Regarding Actinopteri, 19 (3.7%) out of 515 species are considered threatened (VU or EN) and 47 species (9.1%) are DD. Fifteen species are reported as endemic to the GGOI, of which seven are Gobiidae (small species with limited dispersive abilities) and four are freshwater/brackish species (Appendix). Annobón Island is the least studied of the GGOI with very few scientiﬁc surveys (Osório 1895b; Blanc et al. 1968). Nevertheless, and as expected, about 75% of its ichthyofauna is shared with the African coast. From the remaining species, some are endemic to Annobón Island (S. annobonae), only present around the GGOI (Eleotris annobonensis Blanc, Cadenat and Stauch, 1968), common to other islands system (Rypticus saponaceus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801)), or amphi-Atlantic (Uroconger syringinus Ginsburg, 1954). Therefore, the establishment of a network of Marine Protected Area in the GGOI is fundamental to reduce further negative impacts on the reef by commercial ﬁsheries and to secure their sustainability. Concluding Remarks The present checklist includes coastal, deep-sea, pelagic marine and freshwater ﬁsh species. Nevertheless, further surveys are still needed. These future surveys and research projects should combine traditional and new approaches (e.g., environmental DNA) to understand and highlight the occurrence of discrete (pelagic) species, but also to better deﬁne the distribution of endemic species around all three GGOI. Annobón Island should be a region of primary focus because it is the least studied. Moreover, the creation of one or more Marine Protected Areas in co-management 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 447 with ﬁsheries will be fundamental to protect the unique GGOI ﬁsh biodiversity hotspot, not only for the endemic species, but also to maintain sustainable ﬁsheries. Acknowledgments We are very grateful to João Luiz Gasparini who kindly allowed the use of his photos obtained through National Geographic Society, California Academy of Sciences, Roça Belo Monte Plantation Hotel and The Rufford Foundation projects. We also thank Luiz Rocha, California Academy of Sciences, for the use of his photos of coral reefs, Luis MP Ceríaco for the use of his photos of mangroves and Periophthalmus barbarus, and Ivete Carneiro for the use of her photo of Galeocerdo cuvier. We would like to thank Peter Wirtz and Manuel Biscoito who kindly reviewed this manuscript and made fruitful contributions. Appendix Checklist of marine and freshwater ﬁsh species reported from the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Príncipe (P), São Tomé (S), Annobón (A). A complete checklist including conﬁrmed, potential, erroneous and questionable marine and freshwater ﬁsh species reported from the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, together with common names, voucher numbers of museum specimens, and additional notes is available at [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_17] X, present; I, introduced; #, museum voucher specimen(s); E, endemic. IUCN Red List category: not evaluated (NE), data deﬁcient (DD), least concern (LC), near threatened (NT), vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN), and critically endangered (CR). Taxa arranged according to Van der Laan et al. (2014). References: (1) Collette and Nauen (1983); (2) Allen (1985); (3) Nakamura (1985); (4) Whitehead (1985); (5) Whitehead et al. (1988); (6) Carpenter and Allen (1989); (7) Cohen et al. (1990); (8) Heemstra and Randall (1993); (9) Nakamura and Parin (1993); (10) Compagno (1984a); (11) Compagno (1984b); (12) Afonso et al. (1999); (13) Nielsen et al. (1999); (14) Compagno (2001); (15) Kotlyar (2004); (16) Pezold et al. (2006); (17) Fricke (2007); (18) Wirtz et al. (2007); (19) Kovačić and Schliewen (2008); (20) Krakstad et al. (2010); (21) Kotlyar 2011; (22) Schliewen (2011); (23) Rocha et al. (2012); (24) Ebert (2015); (25) Carpenter and De Angelis (2016a); (26) Carpenter and De Angelis (2016b); (27) Carpenter and De Angelis (2016c); (28) Félix et al. (2016); (29) Last et al. (2016); (30) Reiner and Wirtz (2016); (31) Vasco-Rodrigues et al. (2016); (32) Wirtz and Iwamoto (2016); (33) Almeida and Alves (2017); (34) Fricke and Wirtz (2017); (35) Tuya et al. (2017); (36) Wirtz (2017); (37) Yokota and Carvalho (2017); (38) Haroun et al. (2018); (39) Iwamoto and Wirtz (2018); (40) Vasco-Rodrigues et al. (2018); (41) Almeida and Biscoito (2019); (42) Almeida and Alves (2019); (43) HerreroBarrencua et al. (2019); (44) Reiner (2019); (45) Parenti and Randall (2020); (46) Sutton et al. (2020); (47) Cravo (2021) 448 Higher taxonomy L. M. da Costa et al. Species P S A IUCN Reference ? X ? EN 25, 31, 40 ? X ? VU 10, 12, 18 X X ? CR 14 X X ? LC 14, 24 X X X EN 14, 25 X ? ? DD 25 X X X EN 11, 25 X X X VU 25 # # X VU 11, 25 ? X ? LC 11, 12, 18, 25 ? # ? VU 11, 25 X X ? NT 25 X ? ? VU 11, 25 X X X X X X NT VU 11, 12, 18, 25 11, 12, 18, 25 ? X ? CR 12 X ? ? VU 11, 25 ? X ? LC 12, 25, 29 ? X ? VU 12, 25, 29 ? X ? CR 30 X X X VU 25, 29 X X X X ? X VU NT 29 25 Class Elasmobranchii Order Orectolobiformes Family Rhincodon typus Smith, 1828 Rhincodontidae Family Ginglymostoma cirratum Ginglymostomatidae (Bonnaterre, 1788) Order Lamniformes Family Carchariidae Family Pseudocarchariidae Family Lamnidae Carcharias taurus Raﬁnesque, 1810 Pseudocarcharias kamoharai (Matsubara, 1936) Isurus oxyrinchus Raﬁnesque, 1810 Order Carcharhiniformes Family Scyliorhinus cervigoni Maurin Scyliorhinidae and Bonnet, 1970 Family Paragaleus pectoralis (Garman, Hemigaleidae 1906) Family Carcharhinus brevipinna (Müller Carcharhinidae and Henle, 1839) Carcharhinus falciformis (Bibron in Müller and Henle, 1839) Carcharhinus galapagensis (Snodgrass and Heller, 1905) Carcharhinus limbatus (Valenciennes in Müller and Henle, 1839) Galeocerdo cuvier (Péron and Lesueur, 1822) Negaprion brevirostris (Poey, 1868) Prionace glauca (Linnaeus, 1758) Rhizoprionodon acutus (Rüppell, 1837) Family Sphyrna lewini (Grifﬁth and Sphyrnidae Smith, 1834) Sphyrna zygaena (Linnaeus, 1758) Order Torpediniformes Family Tetronarce nobiliana (Bonaparte, Torpedinidae 1835) Torpedo torpedo (Linnaeus, 1758) Order Rhinopristiformes Rhynchobatus luebberti Family Rhinidae Ehrenbaum, 1915 Order Myliobatiformes Family Zanobatus schoenleinii (Müller Zanobatidae and Henle, 1841) Family Bathytoshia lata (Garman, 1880) Dasyatidae Dasyatis marmorata (Steindachner, 1892) (continued) 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Higher taxonomy 449 Species P S A IUCN Dasyatis pastinaca (Linnaeus, 1758) Fontitrygon margarita (Günther, 1870) Fontitrygon margaritella (Compagno and Roberts, 1984) Pteroplatytrygon violacea (Bonaparte, 1832) Taeniurops grabatus (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1817) Gymnura altavela (Linnaeus, 1758) Gymnura sereti Yokota and Carvalho, 2017 Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen, 1790) Aetomylaeus bovinus (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1817) Myliobatis aquila (Linnaeus, 1758) Mobula birostris (Walbaum, 1792) Mobula hypostoma (Bancroft, 1831) Mobula tarapacana (Philippi, 1892) Mobula thurstoni (Lloyd, 1908) X X ? VU 40 X X X VU 25, 29 X X X NT 25, 29 X X X LC 25, 29 X X X NT 18, 25, 29 X X X EN 25, 29 ? # ? EN 37 X X X EN 25, 29 X X X CR 25 X X X CR 25, 29 X X X EN 25, 29 X X X EN 25, 29 ? X ? EN 31, 40 ? X ? EN 31, 40 X X X NT 25 Family Megalopidae Elops lacerta Valenciennes, 1847 Elops senegalensis Regan, 1909 Megalops atlanticus Valenciennes, 1847 X ? X X # # X ? X LC DD VU 26 12, 26, 28 26, 28, 47 Order Albuliformes Family Albulidae Albula goreensis Valenciennes, 1847 ? # ? NE 18, 42 X # X X X X LC LC 26 26 X X X LC 26 E E E LC 26 X X X NE 26 Family Gymnuridae Family Aetobatidae Family Myliobatidae Family Mobulidae Reference Class Chondrichthyes | subclass Holocephali Order Chimaeriformes Family Neoharriotta pinnata Rhinochimaeridae (Schnakenbeck, 1931) Class Actinopterygii | subclass Actinopteri Order Elopiformes Family Elopidae Order Notacanthiformes Family Aldrovandia oleosa Sulak, 1977 Halosauridae Halosaurus attenuatus Garman, 1899 Halosaurus ovenii Johnson, 1864 Order Anguilliformes Family Panturichthys longus Heterenchelyidae (Ehrenbaum, 1915) Pythonichthys macrurus (Regan, 1912) (continued) 450 Higher taxonomy Family Chlopsidae Family Myrocongridae Family Muraenidae Family Synaphobranchidae Family Ophichthidae Family Congridae L. M. da Costa et al. Species P S A IUCN Pythonichthys microphthalmus (Regan, 1912) Chlopsis olokun (Robins and Robins, 1966) Myroconger compressus Günther, 1870 Anarchias longicauda (Peters, 1877) Anarchias similis (Lea, 1913) Channomuraena vittata (Richardson, 1845) Echidna peli (Kaup, 1856) Enchelycore nigricans (Bonnaterre, 1788) Gymnothorax afer Bloch, 1795 Gymnothorax mareei Poll, 1953 Gymnothorax vicinus (Castelnau, 1855) Muraena melanotis (Kaup, 1859) Muraena robusta Osório, 1911 Uropterygius wheeleri Blache, 1967 Histiobranchus bathybius (Günther, 1877) Brachysomophis atlanticus Blache and Saldanha, 1972 Callechelys guineensis (Osório, 1893) Dalophis boulengeri (Blache, Cadenat and Stauch, 1970) Dalophis cephalopeltis (Bleeker, 1863) Echelus myrus (Linnaeus, 1758) Myrichthys pardalis (Valenciennes, 1839) Myrophis plumbeus (Cope, 1871) Ophichthus ophis (Linnaeus, 1758) Ophichthus rufus (Raﬁnesque, 1810) Ophisurus serpens (Linnaeus, 1758) Pisodonophis semicinctus (Richardson, 1848) Ariosoma balearicum (Delaroche, 1809) Bathycongrus bertini (Poll, 1953) Bathyuroconger vicinus (Vaillant, 1888) Heteroconger longissimus Günther, 1870 Paraconger caudilimbatus (Poey, 1867) Paraconger notialis Kanazawa, 1961 X X X NE Reference 26 X X X LC 26 X # ? DD 26, 42 X X X LC 26 ? ? ? X # X LC LC 26 12, 26, 40 # ? X X # # LC LC 18, 26, 40 12, 26, 40 X # X X X X X X # LC LC LC 12, 26 12, 26 26, 40 # X X X X X # X X LC LC LC 12, 20, 25, 35, 40 12, 26, 40 26, 31 # ? ? DD 26 # ? ? LC 26 ? X ? LC 26, 30 # ? ? LC 18, 26 ? # ? LC 26, 28 ? X X # ? X LC LC 20 12, 26, 35, 40 # ? ? X ? ? LC LC 26 20, 26 # ? ? LC 18 X X X LC 26 ? X ? LC X # # LC 26 X X X X X X LC LC 26 26 X X ? LC 18, 35 ? X ? LC 18 X X X LC 26 (continued) 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Higher taxonomy 451 Species P S A IUCN Uroconger syringinus Ginsburg, 1954 Xenomystax congroides Smith and Kanazawa, 1989 Cynoponticus ferox Costa, 1846 X # # LC 26 X X X LC 26 X X X LC 26 Avocettina infans (Günther, 1878) Nemichthys curvirostris (Strömman, 1896) Nemichthys scolopaceus Richardson, 1848 Serrivomer beanii Gill and Ryder, 1883 Hoplunnis punctata Regan, 1915 X ? # X X ? LC LC 46 20, 26 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 X # X LC 26 X X X LC 26 Order Saccopharyngiformes Family Eurypharynx pelecanoides Eurypharyngidae Vaillant, 1882 ? # ? LC 26, 46 Order Clupeiformes Family Clupeidae ? # ? LC 18, 47 ? ? ? # # ? LC LC 26 12, 20, 42 ? # ? VU 20, 42 # X # X ? X DD LC 4, 18, 42 5, 26 ? # ? LC 26, 46 X # X ? X ? LC LC 26 46 X # X LC 26 ? # ? LC 26 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 46 ? # # LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 Family Muraenesocidae Family Nemichthyidae Family Serrivomeridae Family Nettastomatidae Nettastoma melanura Raﬁnesque, 1810 Family Engraulidae Ethmalosa ﬁmbriata (Bowdich, 1825) Pellonula vorax Günther, 1868 Sardinella aurita Valenciennes, 1847 Sardinella maderensis (Lowe, 1838) Sardinella rouxi (Poll, 1953) Engraulis encrasicolus (Linnaeus, 1758) Order Alepocephaliformes Family Photostylus pycnopterus Beebe, Alepocephalidae 1933 Family Holtbyrnia macrops Maul, 1957 Platytroctidae Searsia koefoedi Parr, 1937 Order Siluriformes Family Ariidae Carlarius parkii (Günther, 1864) Order Argentiniformes Family Glossanodon polli Cohen, 1958 Argentinidae Family Microstoma microstoma (Risso, Microstomatidae 1810) Xenophthalmichthys danae Regan, 1925 Family Bathylagichthys greyae (Cohen, Bathylagidae 1958) Bathylagoides argyrogaster (Norman, 1930) Family Monacoa grimaldii (Zugmayer, Opisthoproctidae 1911) Reference (continued) 452 Higher taxonomy Order Stomiiformes Family Gonostomatidae Family Sternoptychidae Family Phosichthyidae Family Stomiidae L. M. da Costa et al. Species P S A IUCN Opisthoproctus soleatus Vaillant, 1888 Winteria telescopa Brauer, 1901 # # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 # # ? LC 26, 46 ? # # LC 26 ? # # LC 26 ? ? # # # # LC LC 26, 46 26 ? ? # # ? ? LC LC 26 26, 46 # ? ? DD 26, 46 # # ? LC 26, 46 # # # LC 26, 46 ? # # LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 # # ? LC 46 ? # # # ? # LC LC 26, 46 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # # LC 26, 46 # ? ? LC 26, 46 ? ? # ? # # LC LC 26, 46 26 # # # LC 26, 46 # ? ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26 ? # ? LC 26, 46 Bonapartia pedaliota Goode and Bean, 1896 Cyclothone acclinidens Garman, 1899 Cyclothone braueri Jespersen and Tåning, 1926 Cyclothone livida Brauer, 1902 Cyclothone microdon (Günther, 1878) Diplophos taenia Günther, 1873 Gonostoma atlanticum Norman, 1930 Manducus maderensis (Johnson, 1890) Sigmops elongatus (Günther, 1878) Argyropelecus afﬁnis Garman, 1899 Argyropelecus gigas Norman, 1930 Argyropelecus olfersii (Cuvier, 1829) Argyropelecus sladeni Regan, 1908 Maurolicus muelleri (Gmelin, 1789) Polyipnus polli Schultz, 1961 Sternoptyx diaphana Hermann, 1781 Sternoptyx pseudobscura Baird, 1971 Valenciennellus tripunctulatus (Esmark, 1871) Ichthyococcus ovatus (Cocco, 1838) Pollichthys mauli (Poll, 1953) Vinciguerria attenuata (Cocco, 1838) Vinciguerria nimbaria (Jordan and Williams, 1895) Aristostomias grimaldii Zugmayer, 1913 Aristostomias xenostoma Regan and Trewavas, 1930 Astronesthes caulophorus Regan and Trewavas, 1929 Astronesthes niger Richardson, 1845 Astronesthes richardsoni (Poey, 1852) Reference (continued) 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Higher taxonomy Order Aulopiformes Family Aulopidae Family Ipnopidae Family Scopelarchidae Family Notosudidae Family Synodontidae Family Paralepididae 453 Species P S A IUCN Borostomias elucens (Brauer, 1906) Chauliodus sloani Bloch and Schneider, 1801 Eustomias melanonema Regan and Trewavas, 1930 Eustomias monoclonoides Clarke, 1999 Eustomias monoclonus Regan and Trewavas, 1930 Leptostomias gracilis Regan and Trewavas, 1930 Malacosteus niger Ayres, 1848 Neonesthes capensis (Gilchrist and von Bonde, 1924) Pachystomias microdon (Günther, 1878) Photostomias atrox (Alcock, 1890) Photostomias guernei Collett, 1889 Stomias afﬁnis Günther, 1887 Stomias boa (Risso, 1810) Stomias longibarbatus (Brauer, 1902) ? # ? LC Reference 26, 46 # # # LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? ? # LC 26 # ? ? LC 46 ? ? # # ? ? LC LC 26, 46 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # # LC 26, 46 ? ? ? # # # ? ? ? LC LC LC 26, 46 26 26, 46 Aulopus cadenati Poll, 1953 X X X LC 26 Bathypterois phenax Parr, 1928 # ? ? LC 26 Scopelarchoides danae Johnson, 1974 Scopelarchus analis (Brauer, 1902) Scopelarchus michaelsarsi Koefoed, 1955 Scopelosaurus argenteus (Maul, 1954) Scopelosaurus lepidus (Krefft and Maul, 1955) Scopelosaurus smithii Bean, 1925 Saurida brasiliensis Norman, 1935 Saurida parri Norman, 1935 Synodus intermedius (Spix and Agassiz, 1829) Synodus synodus (Linnaeus, 1758) Trachinocephalus myops (Forster, 1801) Lestrolepis intermedia (Poey, 1868) Paralepis elongata (Brauer, 1906) # # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 # ? ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 # # Err ? LC LC 26, 46 ? # Err ? LC LC 20 12, 18 # # ? LC 12, 26, 40, 42 # # X LC 12, 20, 26 # # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 (continued) 454 L. M. da Costa et al. Higher taxonomy Species P S A IUCN Family Evermannellidae Family Omosudidae Odontostomops normalops (Parr, 1928) Omosudis lowii Günther, 1887 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 # # # LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC ? # ? LC ? # # LC 26, 46 ? ? ? # # # ? ? ? LC LC LC 26 26, 46 26, 46 ? # # LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? ? # # # ? LC LC 26, 46 26, 46 ? # # LC 26, 46 Order Lampriformes Family Eumecichthys ﬁski (Günther, Lophotidae 1890) ? # ? LC 20, 26, 46 Order Polymixiiformes Family Polymixia nobilis Lowe, 1836 Polymixiidae ? # ? LC 33, 42 # ? ? DD 20 # # ? LC 26, 46 Order Myctophiformes Family Benthosema suborbitale (Gilbert, Myctophidae 1913) Bolinichthys photothorax (Parr, 1928) Centrobranchus nigroocellatus (Günther, 1873) Ceratoscopelus warmingii (Lütken, 1892) Dasyscopelus asper (Richardson, 1845) Diaphus holti Tåning, 1918 Diaphus luetkeni (Brauer, 1904) Diaphus vanhoeffeni (Brauer, 1906) Diogenichthys atlanticus (Tåning, 1928) Hygophum macrochir (Günther, 1864) Hygophum reinhardtii (Lütken, 1892) Lampanyctus alatus Goode and Bean, 1896 Lampanyctus isaacsi Wisner, 1974 Lepidophanes guentheri (Goode and Bean, 1896) Lobianchia doﬂeini (Zugmayer, 1911) Myctophum afﬁne (Lütken, 1892) Myctophum nitidulum Garman, 1899 Notolychnus valdiviae (Brauer, 1904) Order Zeiformes Family Zeidae Zeus faber Linnaeus, 1758 Order Stylephoriformes Family Stylephorus chordatus Shaw, Stylephoridae 1791 Reference (continued) 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Higher taxonomy Order Gadiformes Family Bregmacerotidae Family Melanonidae Family Moridae Family Bathygadidae Family Macrouridae Order Beryciformes Family Berycidae Family Melamphaidae Family Cetomimidae 455 Species P S A IUCN Bregmaceros atlanticus Goode and Bean, 1886 Melanonus zugmayeri Norman, 1930 Gadella imberbis (Vaillant, 1888) Laemonema laureysi Poll, 1953 Physiculus cyanostrophus Anderson and Tweddle, 2002 Physiculus huloti Poll, 1953 Bathygadus macrops Goode and Bean, 1885 Bathygadus melanobranchus Vaillant, 1888 Coelorinchus geronimo Marshall and Iwamoto, 1973 Malacocephalus laevis (Lowe, 1843) Malacocephalus occidentalis Goode and Bean, 1885 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? # # LC 26, 46 X X ? # X # X X ? LC LC LC 20, 26 7, 26 20 ? X # X ? X LC LC 26 7, 26 X X X LC 7, 26 X X X LC 26 X X X LC 7, 26 X X X LC 7, 26 Beryx decadactylus Cuvier, 1829 ? X ? LC 31, 40 Melamphaes eulepis Ebeling, 1962 Poromitra megalops (Lütken, 1878) Scopelogadus mizolepis (Günther, 1878) Cetostoma regani Zugmayer, 1914 ? # ? LC 15, 46 ? X ? DD 15, 26 ? # ? LC 15, 26, 46 ? # ? DD # # # LC 12, 26, 35, 40, 42 # X # # # # LC LC 12, 26, 35, 40, 42 12, 35, 40 # ? ? LC 26 # X ? X ? X LC LC 13, 26 13, 20, 26 ? # ? DD ? ? # LC 13, 26 # ? ? # # # ? ? ? LC LC LC 20, 26 26 13, 18, 26 Order Holocentriformes Family Holocentrus adscensionis Holocentridae (Osbeck, 1765) Myripristis jacobus Cuvier, 1829 Sargocentron hastatum (Cuvier, 1829) Order Ophidiiformes Family Acanthonus armatus Günther, Ophidiidae 1878 Bassozetus normalis Gill, 1883 Brotula barbata (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) Ophidion saldanhai Matallanas and Brito, 1999 Spectrunculus grandis (Günther, 1877) Family Carapus acus (Brünnich, 1768) Carapidae Echiodon dentatus (Cuvier, 1829) Family Grammonus longhursti (Cohen, Bythitidae 1964) Reference (continued) 456 Higher taxonomy L. M. da Costa et al. Species P S A IUCN Parabrotula plagiophthalma Zugmayer, 1911 ? # ? LC 27 # # ? LC 20, 27, 46 # # X ? ? ? LC LC 27 20 X X X VU 27, 40 ? ? ? # # # ? ? ? LC LC LC 27, 46 27 27, 46 ? X ? LC 1, 12, 27, 40 ? # # # ? X LC LC 1, 12, 27, 40 1, 12, 20, 40 ? X ? LC 1, 12, 27, 35, 40 X ? X # # # X ? X LC LC LC 1, 27 42 1, 12, 27, 42 ? X ? NT 1, 12, 27 ? # X ? ? ? VU LC 1, 12, 27, 40, 46 46 ? # ? DD 27, 46 # ? ? DD 27, 46 # # # LC 46 ? # ? LC 27, 46 # # # ? # # # ? ? LC LC LC 9, 27 9, 27, 42, 46 9, 20, 27, 46 X # # LC 9, 20, 27, 46 X X X LC 9, 27 # # X LC 12, 20, 25, 40 ? X ? LC 12, 27, 35, 40 X # # VU 12, 20, 27, 35, 40, 42 X # X LC 18, 27 Order Scombriformes Family Cubiceps pauciradiatus Günther, Nomeidae 1872 Nomeus gronovii (Gmelin, 1789) Family Ariomma bondi Fowler, 1930 Ariommatidae Family Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus, Pomatomidae 1766) Family Chiasmodon niger Johnson, 1864 Chiasmodontidae Kali kerberti (Weber, 1913) Pseudoscopelus altipinnis Parr, 1933 Family Acanthocybium solandri (Cuvier, Scombridae 1832) Auxis thazard (Lacépède, 1800) Euthynnus alletteratus (Raﬁnesque, 1810) Katsuwonus pelamis (Linnaeus, 1758) Sarda sarda (Bloch, 1793) Scomber colias Gmelin, 1789 Scomberomorus tritor (Cuvier, 1832) Thunnus albacares (Bonnaterre, 1788) Thunnus obesus (Lowe, 1839) Family Paracaristius aquilus Stevenson Caristiidae and Kenaley, 2011 Paracaristius nudarcus Stevenson and Kenaley, 2011 Platyberyx andriashevi (Kukuev, Parin and Trunov, 2012) Platyberyx opalescens Zugmayer, 1911 Family Taractichthys longipinnis (Lowe, Bramidae 1843) Family Gempylus serpens Cuvier, 1829 Gempylidae Nealotus tripes Johnson, 1865 Nesiarchus nasutus Johnson, 1862 Promethichthys prometheus (Cuvier, 1832) Ruvettus pretiosus Cocco, 1833 Order Syngnathiformes Family Dactylopterus volitans (Linnaeus, Dactylopteridae 1758) Family Mullidae Mulloidichthys martinicus (Cuvier, 1829) Pseudupeneus prayensis (Cuvier, 1829) Family Callionymus bairdi Jordan, 1888 Callionymidae Reference (continued) 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Higher taxonomy Family Aulostomidae Family Fistulariidae Family Syngnathidae Order Kurtiformes Family Apogonidae Order Gobiiformes Family Eleotridae Family Gobiidae 457 Species P S A IUCN Synchiropus phaeton (Günther, 1861) Aulostomus strigosus Wheeler, 1955 Fistularia petimba Lacépède, 1803 Fistularia tabacaria Linnaeus, 1758 Enneacampus kaupi (Bleeker, 1863) Hippocampus algiricus Kaup, 1856 Microphis aculeatus (Kaup, 1856) X X X LC 27 X # X LC 12, 20, 25, 40 # # X LC 20 X # X LC 12, 26, 40 ? X ? LC 36 # # ? VU 18, 40 # # ? DD 18, 28, 47 Apogon imberbis (Linnaeus, 1758) Apogon pseudomaculatus Longley, 1932 Paroncheilus afﬁnis (Poey, 1875) Phaeoptyx pigmentaria (Poey, 1860) # # # LC 12, 18, 27, 35, 40 ? # ? LC 18, 35, 40 X X # X X # LC LC 18, 27, 35 18, 27, 40 X # X LC 22, 27, 28 X X X LC E# E# E# DD ? ? # NE # ? # E# X E LC VU 27 22, 28 X # X LC 22, 27, 28, 42 # # ? EN 12, 22, 27, 28, 40 X X # LC 22, 27 # # # LC 22, 27 X # # VU 18, 22, 27 X X X LC 22, 27, 30 E E# ? VU 18, 22, 27 ? # ? LC 12, 40 X X X LC 22, 27 X X X X X X LC LC 22, 27 22, 27 Bostrychus africanus (Steindachner, 1879) Dormitator lebretonis (Steindachner, 1870) Eleotris annobonensis Blanc, Cadenat and Stauch, 1968 Eleotris feai Thys van den Audenaerde and Tortonese, 1974 Eleotris vittata Duméril, 1861 Awaous bustamantei (Greeff, 1882) Awaous lateristriga (Duméril, 1861) Bathygobius burtoni (O’Shaughnessy, 1875) Bathygobius casamancus (Rochebrune, 1880) Bathygobius soporator (Valenciennes, 1837) Corcyrogobius lubbocki Miller, 1988 Ctenogobius lepturus (Pfaff, 1933) Didogobius amicuscaridis Schliewen and Kovačić, 2008 Gnatholepis thompsoni Jordan, 1904 Gobioides africanus (Giltay, 1935) Gobioides sagitta (Günther, 1862) Gobionellus occidentalis (Boulenger, 1909) Reference 18, 27, 28 (continued) 458 L. M. da Costa et al. Higher taxonomy Species P S A IUCN # # ? LC 18, 22 X X X LC 22, 27 X # # LC 18 ? E# ? VU 18, 19, 22, 27, 40 # # # LC 18 # # X LC 18, 22, 27 X # X LC 22, 27, 28, 47 E# E# E# LC 16, 18, 22, 27 E# E# E# DD 16, 18, 22, 27 ? E# ? NE X # # LC 18, 22, 27, 40 E# E# ? LC 12, 18, 22, 40 ? X ? LC 22 Family Oxudercidae Gobius aff. rubropunctatus Delais, 1951 Gobius senegambiensis Metzelaar, 1919 Gorogobius nigricinctus (Delais, 1951) Gorogobius stevcici Kovačić and Schliewen, 2008 Nematogobius brachynemus Pfaff, 1933 Nematogobius maindroni (Sauvage, 1880) Porogobius schlegelii (Günther, 1861) Sicydium breviﬁle Ogilvie-Grant, 1884 Sicydium bustamantei Greeff, 1884 Thorogobius laureatus Sauberer, Iwamoto and Ahnelt, 2018 Wheelerigobius maltzani (Steindachner, 1881) Wheelerigobius wirtzi Miller, 1988 Yongeichthys thomasi (Boulenger, 1916) Periophthalmus barbarus (Linnaeus, 1766) # # X LC 27, 28, 47 X X X X X X LC LC 27 12, 27, 35, 40 X # X LC 18, 20, 27 X # X LC 12, 20, 27, 42 # # # NT 12, 20, 27, 28, 42 X X X VU 27 X X X LC 27 X ? ? DD 20 ? # ? LC 20 X X X LC 20, 27 X # X LC 20, 27 ? ? ? ? ? # # X # # ? # ? # ? DD LC LC DD 12, 20, 27, 42 12, 27, 40 20, 27 44 Order Carangiformes Family Sphyraena afra Peters, 1844 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda (Edwards, 1771) Sphyraena guachancho Cuvier, 1829 Sphyraena sphyraena (Linnaeus, 1758) Family Galeoides decadactylus (Bloch, Polynemidae 1795) Pentanemus quinquarius (Linnaeus, 1758) Polydactylus quadriﬁlis (Cuvier, 1829) Family Psettodes belcheri Bennett, 1831 Psettodidae Family Citharus linguatula (Linnaeus, Citharidae 1758) Family Syacium guineense (Bleeker, Cyclopsettidae 1862) Family Arnoglossus imperialis Bothidae (Raﬁnesque, 1810) Arnoglossus sp. Bleeker, 1862 Bothus guibei Stauch, 1966 Bothus lunatus (Linnaeus, 1758) Bothus podas (Delaroche, 1809) Chascanopsetta lugubris Alcock, 1894 Reference (continued) 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Higher taxonomy Family Paralichthyidae Family Soleidae Family Cynoglossidae Family Istiophoridae Family Carangidae 459 Species P S A IUCN Monolene microstoma Cadenat, 1937 Citharichthys stampﬂii (Steindachner, 1894) Dagetichthys lusitanicus (de Brito Capello, 1868) Dicologlossa cuneata (Moreau, 1881) Heteromycteris proboscideus (Chabanaud, 1925) Microchirus boscanion (Chabanaud, 1926) Microchirus frechkopi Chabanaud, 1952 Microchirus hexophthalmus (Bennett, 1831) Microchirus wittei Chabanaud, 1950 Pegusa lascaris (Risso, 1810) Pegusa triophthalma (Bleeker, 1863) Cynoglossus browni Chabanaud, 1949 Cynoglossus cadenati Chabanaud, 1947 Cynoglossus canariensis Steindachner, 1882 Cynoglossus monodi Chabanaud, 1949 Cynoglossus senegalensis (Kaup, 1858) Istiophorus albicans (Latreille, 1804) Istiophorus platypterus (Shaw, 1792) Makaira nigricans Lacépède, 1802 Alectis alexandrina (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1817) Alectis ciliaris (Bloch, 1787) Caranx bartholomaei Cuvier, 1833 Caranx crysos (Mitchill, 1815) Caranx ﬁscheri Smith-Vaniz and Carpenter, 2007 Caranx hippos (Linnaeus, 1766) Caranx latus Agassiz, 1831 Caranx lugubris Poey, 1860 Caranx rhonchus Geoffroy SaintHilaire, 1817 Chloroscombrus chrysurus (Linnaeus, 1766) Decapterus macarellus (Cuvier, 1833) Decapterus punctatus (Cuvier, 1829) X X X LC Reference 27 ? # ? LC 44 X X X DD 27 ? # ? LC 18 X # X DD 27 X X X DD 27 ? # ? DD 20 ? # ? LC 20 X # X LC 27 X X # X X X LC DD 27 27 ? # ? DD 44 # ? ? DD ? # ? NT 44 ? # ? NT 18 ? # ? NT 12 ? X ? NE 3, 12, 40 ? # ? LC 27 ? X ? VU 3, 31, 40 X X X LC 1, 27, 35 X X X X X ? LC LC 27 18, 20, 40 X X # # # X LC LC 12, 20, 40, 42 18 X # X ? # # X X X X ? ? LC LC LC LC 12, 18, 35, 40 18, 27, 40 18, 27, 40 X # X LC 27 X # X LC 12, 20, 27, 42 X # X LC 12, 20, 27, 40 (continued) 460 Higher taxonomy L. M. da Costa et al. Species P S A IUCN Elagatis bipinnulata (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825) Hemicaranx bicolor (Günther, 1860) Lichia amia (Linnaeus, 1758) Pseudocaranx dentex (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) Selar crumenophthalmus (Bloch, 1793) Selene dorsalis (Gill, 1863) Seriola carpenteri Mather, 1971 Seriola rivoliana Valenciennes, 1833 Trachinotus goreensis Cuvier, 1832 Trachinotus ovatus (Linnaeus, 1758) Uraspis secunda (Poey, 1860) Echeneis naucrates Linnaeus, 1758 Remora brachyptera (Lowe, 1839) Remora remora (Linnaeus, 1758) Coryphaena equiselis Linnaeus, 1758 Coryphaena hippurus Linnaeus, 1758 X # X LC 12, 27, 35, 40, 42 X X X LC 27 X X X X X X LC LC 27 27 X # # LC 12, 20, 42 X X X # X X X X ? LC LC LC 12, 20, 27, 42 20, 27 18, 20, 27, 40 ? X ? LC X # # LC 12, 27, 35, 42 X X X X X ? LC LC 12, 20, 27 27, 40 # X ? LC 12, 27 ? ? # X ? ? LC LC 27 12, 27 ? # ? LC 31, 40 ? I ? LC 28 Order Atheriniformes Family Atherina lopeziana Rossignol and Atherinidae Blache, 1961 X X X DD 26 Order Cyprinodontiformes Family Aplocheilichthys spilauchen Procatopodidae (Duméril, 1861) I ? ? LC 47 Order Beloniformes Family Belonidae X X X LC 12, 26 X X X LC 26 X X X LC 12, 18 X X X LC 26 X # X LC 12, 42 # # X LC 12, 26 Family Echeneidae Family Coryphaenidae Order Cichliformes Family Cichlidae Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters, 1852) Ablennes hians (Valenciennes, 1846) Platybelone argalus (Lesueur, 1821) Platybelone argalus annobonensis Collette and Parin, 1970 Strongylura senegalensis (Valenciennes, 1846) Tylosurus acus rafale Collette and Parin, 1970 Tylosurus crocodilus (Péron and Lesueur, 1821) Reference (continued) 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 461 Higher taxonomy Species P S A IUCN Family Hemiramphidae Hemiramphus balao Lesueur, 1821 Hemiramphus brasiliensis (Linnaeus, 1758) Hyporhamphus picarti (Valenciennes, 1847) Cheilopogon cyanopterus (Valenciennes, 1847) Cheilopogon melanurus (Valenciennes, 1847) Cheilopogon milleri (Gibbs and Staiger, 1970) Cheilopogon pinnatibarbatus (Bennett, 1831) Exocoetus obtusirostris Günther, 1866 Exocoetus volitans Linnaeus, 1758 Fodiator acutus (Valenciennes, 1847) Hirundichthys afﬁnis (Günther, 1866) Prognichthys gibbifrons (Valenciennes, 1847) X # # LC 12, 26, 42 X X X LC 26 X X X LC 26 X # # LC 20, 26 ? X ? LC 12 # X X LC 26 X X X LC ? # ? LC # X ? LC ? X ? LC X # # LC X # X LC ? X ? DD ? X ? NE 30 X # ? X # # X ? ? LC LC DD 26 18, 42, 47 18, 26, 28, 47 E# ? E# E# ? ? LC NE 17, 18, 27, 40 34 # # # LC 12, 27 ? X # LC 12, 27 ? X # LC 12, 40 ? ? X LC 27 # # ? LC 18 ? # ? LC 12, 40 # # # LC 12, 40 ? # # LC 12 Family Exocoetidae Order Mugiliformes Family Mugilidae Chelon dumerili (Steindachner, 1870) Chelon richardsonii (Smith, 1846) Mugil cephalus Linnaeus, 1758 Mugil curema Valenciennes, 1836 Parachelon grandisquamis (Valenciennes, 1836) Order Gobiesociformes Family Apletodon wirtzi Fricke, 2007 Gobiesocidae Lecanogaster gorgoniphila Fricke and Wirtz, 2017 Order Bleniiformes Family Labrisomidae Family Blenniidae Labrisomus nuchipinnis (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824) Entomacrodus cadenati Springer, 1967 Hypleurochilus aequipinnis (Günther, 1861) Hypleurochilus langi (Fowler, 1923) Hypleurochilus pseudoaequipinnis Bath, 1994 Microlipophrys velifer (Norman, 1935) Ophioblennius atlanticus (Valenciennes, 1836) Scartella cristata (Linnaeus, 1758) Reference 20, 26 (continued) 462 Higher taxonomy L. M. da Costa et al. Species Order Acanthuriformes Family Lobotes surinamensis (Bloch, Lobotidae 1790) Family Centropyge aurantonotus BurPomacanthidae gess, 1974 Holacanthus africanus Cadenat, 1951 Family Drepane africana Osório, 1892 Drepaneidae Family Chaetodon hoeﬂeri Steindachner, Chaetodontidae 1881 Chaetodon robustus Günther, 1860 Prognathodes marcellae (Poll, 1950) Family Chaetodipterus lippei Ephippidae Steindachner, 1895 Ephippus goreensis Cuvier, 1831 Family Acanthurus monroviae Acanthuridae Steindachner, 1876 Prionurus biafraensis (Blache and Rossignol, 1962) Family Antigonia capros Lowe, 1843 Antigoniidae Order Lophiiformes Family Antennariidae Family Oneirodidae Family Ceratiidae Family Linophrynidae Antennarius multiocellatus (Valenciennes, 1837) Antennarius pardalis (Valenciennes, 1837) Antennarius striatus (Shaw, 1794) Histrio histrio (Linnaeus, 1758) Lophodolos acanthognathus Regan, 1925 Oneirodes anisacanthus (Regan, 1925) Oneirodes carlsbergi (Regan and Trewavas, 1932) Ceratias uranoscopus Murray, 1877 Cryptopsaras couesii Gill, 1883 Linophryne arborifera Regan, 1925 Order Tetraodontiformes Chilomycterus mauretanicus Family Diodontidae (Le Danois, 1954) Chilomycterus reticulatus (Linnaeus, 1758) Diodon holocanthus Linnaeus, 1758 Diodon hystrix Linnaeus, 1758 P S A IUCN Reference ? # ? LC 12, 27 ? # ? LC 18, 40 # X ? LC 12, 27, 40 X X ? LC 12, 18, 20, 27, 42 ? # # LC 20, 27 ? # ? LC 12, 18, 40, 42 ? # ? LC 18, 20, 27, 40 ? X ? LC 30 ? X X X ? # LC LC 12, 20, 27, 40 12, 18, 20, 27, 35 E E# E LC 12, 18, 27, 35 ? # ? LC 27 ? # ? LC 18 # # ? LC 18, 20, 26 ? ? ? # # # ? ? ? LC LC LC 26 26 26 ? # ? DD 26 ? # ? LC 26 ? # ? LC 26, 46 ? ? # # ? ? LC LC 20 26 # X X LC 20, 27 ? X # LC 12, 40 # X # LC 12, 20 ? X ? LC 12 (continued) 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Higher taxonomy Species Family Tetraodontidae Canthigaster rostrata (Bloch, 1786) Canthigaster supramacula Moura and Castro, 2002 Lagocephalus laevigatus (Linnaeus, 1766) Lagocephalus lagocephalus (Linnaeus, 1758) Sphoeroides marmoratus (Lowe, 1838) Sphoeroides pachygaster (Müller and Troschel, 1848) Acanthostracion guineense (Bleeker, 1865) Acanthostracion notacanthus (Bleeker, 1863) Aluterus heudelotii Hollard, 1855 Aluterus monoceros (Linnaeus, 1758) Aluterus schoepﬁi (Walbaum, 1792) Aluterus scriptus (Osbeck, 1765) Cantherhines macrocerus (Hollard, 1853) Cantherhines pullus (Ranzani, 1842) Stephanolepis hispida (Linnaeus, 1766) Balistes capriscus Gmelin, 1789 Balistes punctatus Gmelin, 1789 Balistes vetula Linnaeus, 1758 Canthidermis maculata (Bloch, 1786) Canthidermis sufﬂamen (Mitchill, 1815) Melichthys niger (Bloch, 1786) Family Ostraciidae Family Monacanthidae Family Balistidae Order Centrarchiformes Family Kyphosus bigibbus Lacépède, Kyphosidae 1801 Kyphosus incisor (Cuvier, 1831) Kyphosus sectatrix (Linnaeus, 1758) Kyphosus vaigiensis (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825) Family Cirrhitus atlanticus Osório, 1893 Cirrhitidae Order Acropomatiformes Family Synagrops bellus (Goode and Synagropidae Bean, 1896) Family Epigonus constanciae (Giglioli, Epigonidae 1880) Epigonus denticulatus Dieuzeide, 1950 Family Howella sherborni (Norman, Howellidae 1930) 463 P S # Err # # X A IUCN Reference LC 20 ? LC 18, 35, 40 # X LC 12, 20, 27 X X # LC 20, 27 X X X LC 12, 27, 35, 40 # X X LC 20, 27 X X X LC 20, 27 # X ? DD 1, 39 # X X X ? X LC LC 30 20 X X X LC 27 X X # ? X ? LC LC 12, 27, 35, 40 43 X X # LC 12, 27, 35, 40 # X # LC # # X X # # X # # X X X VU VU NT LC 12, 20, 27, 35, 40 12, 20, 27, 35, 40 27 27 X X ? LC 12, 35, 40 X X X LC 27, 35, 40 X X X LC 27 X ? # # X ? NE LC 12, 28 42 X X X LC # # X LC 12, 27, 35, 40 ? # ? LC 20 ? # ? LC 18 ? # ? LC # # ? NE 46 (continued) 464 Higher taxonomy L. M. da Costa et al. Species Order Perciformes *sedis mutabilis* Family Alphestes afer (Bloch, 1793) Serranidae Anthias anthias (Linnaeus, 1758) Anthias cyprinoides (Katayama and Amaoka, 1986) Cephalopholis nigri (Günther, 1859) Cephalopholis taeniops (Valenciennes, 1828) Epinephelus adscensionis (Osbeck, 1765) Epinephelus aeneus (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1817) Epinephelus costae (Steindachner, 1878) Epinephelus goreensis (Valenciennes, 1830) Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834) Hyporthodus haifensis (Ben-Tuvia, 1953) Liopropoma emanueli Wirtz and Schliewen, 2012 Liopropoma n.sp. Paranthias furcifer (Valenciennes, 1828) Pseudogramma guineensis (Norman, 1935) Rypticus saponaceus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) Rypticus subbifrenatus Gill, 1861 Serranus accraensis (Norman, 1931) Serranus cabrilla (Linnaeus, 1758) Serranus drewesi Iwamoto, 2018 Serranus heterurus (Cadenat, 1937) Serranus pulcher Wirtz and Iwamoto, 2016 Family Heteropriacanthus cruentatus Priacanthidae (Lacépède, 1801) Priacanthus arenatus Cuvier, 1829 Branchiostegus semifasciatus (Norman, 1931) Family Erythrocles monodi Poll and Emmelichthyidae Cadenat, 1954 Family Apsilus fuscus Valenciennes, 1830 Lutjanidae Lutjanus agennes Bleeker, 1863 Lutjanus dentatus (Duméril, 1861) Lutjanus endecacanthus Bleeker, 1863 P S A IUCN Reference ? # ? X # ? ? X X LC LC DD 18, 27, 36, 40, 45 12, 20 45 # # ? LC 8, 12, 27, 35, 40, 42 # # # LC 8, 12, 27, 35, 40, 42, 45 # # # LC 12, 40, 42, 45 X X X NT 12, 20, 27, 35 X X X DD 27 X # X NT 12, 20, 27, 40 ? # ? VU 27, 42 X X X LC 27 ? X ? NE 31, 40 X # X # ? # LC 18 8, 12, 20, 27, 40, 42 X # # LC 18, 27, 45 X # # LC 12, 18, 20, 27, 35, 40, 42 # X X # # ? LC LC 18, 27, 45 20, 39, 45 # # ? LC 27, 39, 42 ? ? E# # ? # DD LC 39, 45 39, 45 E# E# ? LC 18, 32, 40, 45 X X # LC 12, 35, 40 # # X LC 20 ? X ? LC 12 ? # ? LC 12, 42 X # X LC 2, 12, 20, 27, 40 X # # # X X DD DD 27, 28, 40, 47 2, 27, 40, 42 # # X DD 2, 18, 27, 28, 42 (continued) 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Higher taxonomy Family Gerreidae Family Haemulidae Family Sparidae 465 Species P S A IUCN Lutjanus fulgens (Valenciennes, 1830) Lutjanus goreensis (Valenciennes, 1830) Lutjanus griseus (Linnaeus, 1758) Eucinostomus melanopterus (Bleeker, 1863) Gerres nigri Günther, 1859 Brachydeuterus auritus (Valenciennes, 1832) Parakuhlia macrophthalmus (Osório, 1893) Parapristipoma humile (Bowdich, 1825) Parapristipoma octolineatum (Valenciennes, 1833) Plectorhinchus macrolepis (Boulenger, 1899) Plectorhinchus mediterraneus (Guichenot, 1850) Pomadasys incisus (Bowdich, 1825) Pomadasys jubelini (Cuvier, 1830) Pomadasys perotaei (Cuvier, 1830) Pomadasys rogerii (Cuvier, 1830) Pomadasys suillus (Valenciennes, 1833) Boops boops (Linnaeus, 1758) Dentex canariensis Steindachner, 1881 Dentex congoensis Poll, 1954 Dentex gibbosus (Raﬁnesque, 1810) Dentex macrophthalmus (Bloch, 1791) Lithognathus mormyrus (Linnaeus, 1758) Oblada melanura (Linnaeus, 1758) Pagellus bellottii Steindachner, 1882 Pagrus africanus Akazaki, 1962 Pagrus auriga Valenciennes, 1843 Pagrus caeruleostictus (Valenciennes, 1830) Pagrus pagrus (Linnaeus, 1758) Spicara alta (Osório, 1917) Spicara melanurus (Valenciennes, 1830) Spicara nigricauda (Norman, 1931) X # X LC Reference 2, 12, 20, 27, 40, 42 # # X DD 12, 20, 27, 28, 40, 47 ? X ? # # # LC LC 12, 27, 28, 42, 47 X X X # X X LC NT 27 18, 20, 27 X # X DD 12, 27, 40 X X X LC 27 X X X LC 27 X # X LC 27, 28 X X X LC 27 X # # LC 20, 27, 40, 42 X # X LC 28 ? X # LC X # # X X ? LC NE 12, 20 X # Err X LC LC 12, 20, 27, 35, 40, 42 20 # X # X X X LC LC 12, 20, 27, 42 27 X X X LC 27 X X X LC 27 X X X LC 27, 35 X # X LC 12, 20, 27, 42 X X X X X X LC LC 27 27 X # X LC 12, 20, 27, 42 ? X X X X X ? X X LC LC LC 27 27, 40 X # ? LC 12 (continued) 466 L. M. da Costa et al. Higher taxonomy Family Lethrinidae Family Sciaenidae Family Monodactylidae Family Cepolidae Order Perciformes Family Pomacentridae Family Labridae Family Scaridae Species P S A IUCN Spondyliosoma cantharus (Linnaeus, 1758) Lethrinus atlanticus Valenciennes, 1830 Pseudotolithus senegalensis (Valenciennes, 1833) Pseudotolithus senegallus (Cuvier, 1830) Umbrina canariensis Valenciennes, 1843 Umbrina cirrosa (Linnaeus, 1758) Monodactylus sebae (Cuvier, 1829) Cepola pauciradiata Cadenat, 1950 X X X LC Reference 27 # # # LC 6, 12, 20, 27, 40, 42 ? # ? EN 18, 20 ? # ? VU 18, 42 ? X # LC 20 ? X ? VU 18 X # X LC 18, 27, 28 X # X DD 27 Abudefduf hoeﬂeri (Steindachner, 1881) Abudefduf saxatilis (Linnaeus, 1758) Abudefduf taurus (Müller and Troschel, 1848) Azurina multilineata (Guichenot, 1853) Chromis cadenati Whitley, 1951 Chromis limbata (Valenciennes, 1833) Microspathodon frontatus Emery, 1970 Stegastes imbricatus Jenyns, 1840 Acantholabrus palloni (Risso, 1810) Bodianus pulchellus (Poey, 1860) Bodianus speciosus (Bowdich, 1825) Clepticus africanus Heiser, Moura and Robertson, 2000 Coris atlantica Günther, 1862 Doratonotus megalepis Günther, 1862 Thalassoma newtoni (Osório, 1891) Xyrichtys novacula (Linnaeus, 1758) Xyrichtys sanctaehelenae (Günther, 1868) Nicholsina collettei Schultz, 1968 Nicholsina usta (Valenciennes, 1840) Scarus hoeﬂeri (Steindachner, 1881) Sparisoma choati Rocha, Brito and Robertson, 2012 X # ? DD 27, 35, 40, 42 X # X LC 12, 27, 35, 40, 42 ? # # LC 18 # X ? LC 12, 27, 35, 40 ? ? X X ? ? LC LC 31, 40 31, 40 X # # LC 12, 27, 35, 40, 42 # X # X # X LC LC 12 18, 27 ? X # X ? X LC DD 12, 18, 40, 42 12, 20 ? E# ? DD 18, 35 X X X X ? ? LC LC 12, 35, 40 27 X # ? LC 18, 27 # # X LC 12, 20, 27, 35, 40 ? # ? LC 18 X ? X # X ? LC LC 18, 27 18 # # X LC 12, 27, 35, 40 X # X NE 18, 23, 27, 35 (continued) 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 467 Higher taxonomy Species P S A IUCN Family Ammodytidae Family Trachinidae Gymnammodytes capensis (Barnard, 1927) Trachinus armatus Bleeker, 1861 Trachinus lineolatus Fischer, 1885 Trachinus radiatus Cuvier, 1829 Uranoscopus albesca Regan, 1915 Uranoscopus cadenati Poll, 1959 Uranoscopus polli Cadenat, 1951 Bembrops greyae Poll, 1959 ? X ? LC X ? # X ? ? LC LC 20 26 X X ? X ? X LC LC 20 27 X # ? X X # X X ? LC LC LC 27 12, 20, 27 27, 44 Helicolenus dactylopterus (Delaroche, 1809) Ectreposebastes imus Garman, 1899 Setarches guentheri Johnson, 1862 Pontinus accraensis Norman, 1935 Pontinus kuhlii (Bowdich, 1825) Scorpaena angolensis Norman, 1935 Scorpaena annobonae Eschmeyer, 1969 Scorpaena elongata Cadenat, 1943 Scorpaena laevis Troschel, 1866 Scorpaena normani Cadenat, 1943 Scorpaena stephanica Cadenat, 1943 Scorpaenodes africanus Pfaff, 1933 Chelidonichthys gabonensis (Poll and Roux, 1955) Chelidonichthys lastoviza (Bonnaterre, 1788) Lepidotrigla cadmani Regan, 1915 Lepidotrigla carolae Richards, 1968 Peristedion cataphractum (Linnaeus, 1758) Solitas gruveli (Pellegrin, 1905) X X X LC 26 X X # LC 26 X X X LC 26 X # X LC 18, 26 ? X # X ? X DD LC 12, 26 26 ? ? # DD X X X LC 26 X X # X # X LC LC 12, 20, 26 26 X X X LC 26 ? # # DD 18, 26 ? # ? LC 20 X ? ? LC 20 # # X LC 26 X # X LC 20, 26 X X X LC 26 X # X LC 20, 26 Family Uranoscopidae Family Bembropidae Family Sebastidae Family Setarchidae Family Scorpaenidae Family Triglidae Family Peristediidae Family Platycephalidae Reference 468 L. M. da Costa et al. References Afonso F (2019) A importância dos mangais de São Tomé: perceções e serviços ecossistémicos. MSc Thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon, 94 pp Afonso P, Porteiro FM, Santos RS, Barreiros JP, Worms J, Wirtz P (1999) Coastal marine ﬁshes of São Tomé Island (Gulf of Guinea). Arquipélago. Life and Marine Sciences 17A:65–92 Afonso P, Porteiro FM, Fontes J et al (2013) New and rare coastal ﬁshes in the Azores islands: occasional events or tropicalization process? Journal of Fish Biology 83(2):272–294 Alexandre A, Silva J, Ferreira R, Paulo D, Serrão EA, Santos R (2017) First description of seagrass distribution and abundance in São Tomé and Príncipe. Aquatic Botany 142:48–52 Allen GR (1985) FAO species catalogue. Vol. 6. Snappers of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of lutjanid species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Rome, 208 pp Allen DJ, Brooks EGE, Darwall WRT (2011) The status and distribution of freshwater biodiversity in central Africa. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 126 pp Almada VC, Toledo JF, Brito A et al (2013) Complex origins of the Lusitania biogeographic province and northeastern Atlantic ﬁshes. Frontiers of Biogeography 5(1):20–28 Almeida AJ, Alves MJ (2017) First record of Polymixia nobilis Lowe, 1836 (Polymixiidae) for Eastern Central Atlantic, São Tomé Island. Cybium 41(3):293–294 Almeida AJ, Alves MJ (2019) Fishes of São Tomé—results of the expeditions of Fernando Frade (1954) and Fernando Correia da Costa (1955). Cybium 43(3):265–273 Almeida AJ, Biscoito M (2019) Chaves para a identiﬁcação dos peixes do Oceano Atlântico oriental, Mar Mediterâneo e Mar Negro. I. Myxini; Petromyzontida; Chondrichthyes. Boletim do Museu de História Natural do Funchal, Suplemento n 15. Câmara Municipal do Funchal, Funchal, 195 pp Alory G, Da-Allada CY, Djakouré S, Dadou I, Jouanno J, Loemba DP (2021) Coastal upwelling limitation by onshore geostrophic ﬂow in the Gulf of Guinea around the Niger River plume. Frontiers in Marine Science 7:607216 Arnoult J, D’Aubenton F, Bauchot ML, Blanc M (1966) Poissons téléostéens (première partie). In: Campagne de la Calypso dans le Golfe de Guinée et aux îles Principe, São Tomé et Annobon (1956). Annales de l’Institut Océanographique Monaco NS 44:1–22 Bakun A (1978) Guinea Current upwelling. Nature 271:147–150 Bayer FM, Voss GL, Robins CR (1966) The R/V Pillsbury deep-sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964-1965. Studies in Tropical Oceanography No. 4 (Part 1), Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami, Parker Printing, Coral Gables, 239 pp Beal L, De Ruijter W, Biastoch A, Zahn R, SCOR/WCRP/IAPSO Working Group 136 (2011) On the role of the Agulhas system in ocean circulation and climate. Nature 472:429–436 Belay IG, Tanaka R, Kitagawa H, Kobayashi K, Nakamura E (2019) Origin of ocean island basalts in the West African passive margin without mantle plume involvement. Nature Communications 10:3022 Beldade R, Heiser JB, Robertson DR, Gasparini JL, Floeter SR, Bernardi G (2009) Historical biogeography and speciation in the Creole wrasses (Labridae, Clepticus). Marine Biology 156: 679–687 Belhabib D (2015) Fisheries of Sao Tome and Principe, a catch reconstruction (1950-2010). Working Paper Series #2015-67. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 13 pp Bernard AM, Finnegan KA, Bitar PP, Stanhope MJ, Shivji MS (2021) Genomic assessment of global population structure in a highly migratory and habitat versatile apex predator, the Tiger Shark (Galeocerdo cuvier). Journal of Heredity 112(6):497–507 Binet D (1997) Climate and pelagic ﬁsheries in the Canary and Guinea currents 1964-1993: the role of trade winds and the Southern Oscillation. Oceanologia Acta 20:177–190 Blanc M, Cadenat J, Stauch A (1968) Contribution à l’étude de l’ichtyofaune de l’île Annobón. Bulletin de l’Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire (Serie A) Sciences Naturelles 30(1):238–256 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 469 Brito A, Pascual P, Falcón JM, Sancho A, González G (2002) Peces de las islas Canarias. Catálogo comentado e ilustrado. Francisco Lemus Editor, La Laguna, 419 pp Brito A, Falcón JM, Herrera R (2005) About the recent tropicalisation of the littoral ichthyofauna of the Canary Islands and its relationship with environmental changes and human activities. Vieraea 33:515–525 Brown J, Beard A, Clingham E, Fricke R, Henry L, Wirtz P (2019) The ﬁshes of St Helena Island, central Atlantic Ocean—new records and an annotated check-list. Zootaxa 4543(2):151–194 Burke K (2001) Origin of the Cameroon Line of Volcano-capped swells. The Journal of Geology 109(3):349–362 Cameron WM, Pritchard DW (1963) Estuaries. In: Hill MN (ed) The seas, ideas and observations on progress in the study of the seas, vol 2. Wiley Interscience, New York, pp 306–324 Canterle AM, Nunes LT, Fontoura L, Maia HA, Floeter SR (2020) Reef microhabitats mediate ﬁsh feeding intensity and agonistic interactions at Príncipe Island Biosphere Reserve, Tropical Eastern Atlantic. Marine Ecology 41(5):e12609 Capello FB (1871a) Primeira lista dos peixes da Ilha da Madeira, Açores e das possessões portuguezas d’Africa, que existem no museu de Lisboa. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 3(11):194–202 Capello FB (1871b) Primeira lista dos peixes da Ilha da Madeira, Açores e das possessões portuguezas d’Africa, que existem no museu de Lisboa. (Continuação). Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 3(12):280–282 Capello FB (1872) Primeira lista dos peixes da Ilha da Madeira, Açores, e das possessões portuguezas d’Africa, que existem no museu de Lisboa (Continuação). Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 4(13):83–88 Carpenter KE, Allen GR (1989) FAO species catalogue. Vol. 9. Emperor ﬁshes and large-eye breams of the world (family Lethrinidae). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of lethrinid species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Rome, 118 pp Carpenter KE, De Angelis N (2016a) The living marine resources of the Eastern Central Atlantic. Volume 2: Bivalves, gastropods, hagﬁshes, sharks, batoid ﬁshes, and chimaeras. FAO Species Identiﬁcation Guide for Fishery Purposes, Rome, pp 665–1509 Carpenter KE, De Angelis N (2016b) The living marine resources of the Eastern Central Atlantic. Volume 3: Bony ﬁshes part 1 (Elopiformes to Scorpaeniformes). FAO Species Identiﬁcation Guide for Fishery Purposes, Rome, pp 1511–2342 Carpenter KE, De Angelis N (2016c) The living marine resources of the Eastern Central Atlantic. Volume 4: Bony ﬁshes part 2 (Perciformes to Tetradontiformes). FAO Species Identiﬁcation Guide for Fishery Purposes, Rome, pp 2343–3124 Carpenter KE, Smith-Vaniz WF, de Bruyne G, de Morais L (2015) Bathygobius burtoni Available via The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4. RLTS.T2621A21912374.en. Accessed 15 Aug 2021 Ceríaco LMP, Santos BS, Lima RF et al (2022a) Physical geography of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 13–36 Ceríaco LMP, Santos BSS, Viegas S, Paiva J, Figueiredo E (2022b) The history of biological research in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 87–140 Cohen DM, Inada T, Iwamoto T, Scialabba N (1990) FAO species catalogue. Vol. 10. Gadiform ﬁshes of the world (Order Gadiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of cods, hakes, grenadiers and other gadiform ﬁshes known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Rome, 442 pp Collette BB, Nauen CE (1983) FAO species catalogue. Vol. 2. Scombrids of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of tunas, mackerels, bonitos and related species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Rome, 137 pp 470 L. M. da Costa et al. Compagno LJV (1984a) FAO species catalogue. Vol. 4. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of sharks species known to date. Part 1. Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Rome, pp 1–249 Compagno LJV (1984b) FAO species catalogue. Vol. 4. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of sharks species known to date. Part 2. Carcharhiniformes. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Rome, pp 251–655 Compagno LJV (2001) Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Volume 2. Bullhead, mackerel and carpet sharks (Heterodontiformes, Lamniformes and Orectolobiformes). FAO Species Catalogue for Fishery Purposes, Rome, 269 pp Cowburn B (2018) Marine Habitats of Príncipe, Eastern Tropical Atlantic—description and map. Available via the Omali Vida Nón project. https://omaliprincipeen.weebly.com/resources.html. Accessed 15 Aug 2021 Cowman PF, Parravicini V, Kulbicki M, Floeter SR (2017) The biogeography of tropical reef ﬁshes: endemism and provinciality through time: reef ﬁsh endemism and provinciality. Biological Reviews 92(4):2112–2130 Cravo M (2021) Fish assemblages at Praia Salgada mangrove, Príncipe Island (Gulf of Guinea). MSc Thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon, 49 pp Cumberlidge N, Daniels SR (2018) A new species of Potamonautes from São Tomé Island, Central Africa, with redescriptions of P. margaritarius (A. Milne-Edwards, 1869) from São Tomé, and P. principe Cumberlidge, Clark and Baillie, 2002, from Príncipe (Decapoda: Potamonautidae). Contributions to Zoology 87(4):287–303 Cumberlidge N, Clark PF, Baillie J (2002) A new species of freshwater crab (Brachyura, Potamoidea, Potamonautidae) from Príncipe, Gulf of Guinea, Central Africa. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum Zoology 68(01):13–18 Djakouré S, Penven P, Bourlès B, Veitch J, Koné V (2014) Coastally trapped eddies in the north of the Gulf of Guinea. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 119(10):6805–6819 Djakouré S, Penven P, Bourlès B, Koné V, Veitch J (2017) Respective roles of the Guinea Current and local winds on the coastal upwelling in the northern Gulf of Guinea. Journal of Physical Oceanography 47:1367–1387 Ebert DA (2015) Deep-sea cartilaginous ﬁshes of the Southeastern Atlantic Ocean. FAO Species Catalogue for Fishery Purposes, Rome, 251 pp Elsheikh AA, Gao SS, Liu KH (2014) Formation of the Cameroon Volcanic Line by lithospheric basal erosion: insight from mantle seismic anisotropy. Journal of African Earth Sciences 100: 96–108 Eschmeyer WN (1969) A systematic review of the scorpionﬁshes of the Atlantic Ocean (Pisces: Scorpaenidae). Occasional Papers California Academy of Sciences 79:1–143 Falcón JM, Brito A, Herrera R et al (2018) New records of tropical littoral ﬁshes from the Canary Islands as a result of two driving forces: natural expansion and introduction by oil platforms. Revista de la Academia Canaria de Ciencias 30:39–56 FAO (2007) The world’s mangroves 1980-2005. FAO Forestry Paper 153. FAO, Rome, 77 pp Félix PM, Chainho P, Lima RF et al (2016) Mangrove ﬁshes of São Tomé Island (Gulf of Guinea): new occurrences and habitat usage. Marine and Freshwater Research 68:123–130 Ferreira LC, Simpfendorfer C (2019) Galeocerdo cuvier. Available via the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-1.RLTS. T39378A2913541.en. Accessed 15 Aug 2021 FishNet2 (2021) Multiple provider institutions. Available via FishNet2. http://ﬁshnet2.net. Accessed 15 Aug 2021 Floeter SR, Rocha LA, Robertson DR et al (2008) Atlantic reef ﬁsh biogeography and evolution. Journal of Biogeography 35(1):22–47 Fowler HW (1936a) The marine ﬁshes of West Africa based on the collection of the American Museum Congo expedition, 1909-1915. Part I. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 70:1–605 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 471 Fowler HW (1936b) The marine ﬁshes of West Africa based on the collection of the American Museum Congo expedition, 1909-1915. Part II. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 70:607–1493 Frade F (1955) Missão cientíﬁca de São Tomé. Relatório dos trabalhos de prospecção realizados na província de São Tomé e Príncipe pela secção zoológica da missão. Centro de Zoologia da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisbon, 19 pp Frade F, Correia da Costa F (1956) Investigações sobre os peixes de superfície e a pesca nas ilhas de São Tomé e do Príncipe. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais, 6ª sessão. São Tomé, Communicações 4:152–175 Frade F, Correia da Costa F (1957) Thunnidae et Cybiidae de S. Tomé et Príncipe Annales Biologiques. Conseil Permanent International pour l’Exploration de la Mer 12:218–219 Freitas R, Falcón JM, González JA et al (2018) New and conﬁrmed records of ﬁshes from the Cabo Verde archipelago based on photographic and genetic data. Arquipélago. Life and Marine Sciences 35:67–83 Fricke R (2007) A new species of the clingﬁsh genus Apletodon (Teleostei: Gobiesocidae) from São Tomé and Principe, Eastern Central Atlantic. Ichthyological Research 54:68–73 Fricke R, Wirtz P (2017) Lecanogaster gorgoniphila, a new species of clingﬁsh (Teleostei: Gobiesocidae) from São Tomé and Principe, Eastern Atlantic Ocean. Arquipélago. Life and Marine Sciences 35:1–10 Fricke R, Eschmeyer WN, Van der Laan R (eds) (2021) Eschmeyer’s catalog of ﬁshes: genera, species, references. Available via http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/ catalog/ﬁshcatmain.asp. Accessed 5 Oct 2021 Friess DA, Rogers K, Lovelock CE et al (2019) The state of the world’s mangrove forests: past, present, and future. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44:89–115 Froese R, Pauly D (eds) (2021) FishBase. Available via www.ﬁshbase.org. Accessed 1 June 2021 GBIF (2021) Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Available via https://www.gbif.org. Accessed 15 Aug 2021 Goldberg L, Lagomasino D, Thomas N, Fatoyinbo T (2020) Global declines in human-driven mangrove loss. Global Change Biology 26(10):5844–5855 Gordon AL (2003) The brawniest retroﬂection. Nature 421:904–905 Guimarães ARP (1882) Lista dos peixes da Ilha da Madeira, Açores e das possessões portuguezas d’Africa, que existem no museu de Lisboa (Supplemento). Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 9(32):30–39 Guimarães ARP (1884) Lista dos peixes da Ilha da Madeira, Açores e das possessões portuguezas d’Africa, que existem no Museu de Lisboa (Segundo Supplemento). Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 10(37):11–28 Hachich NF, Bonsall MB, Arraut EM, Barneche DR, Lewinsohn TM, Floeter SR (2015) Island biogeography: patterns of marine shallow-water organisms in the Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Biogeography 45:1871–1882 Haroun R, Herrero-Barrencua A, Abreu AD (2018) Mangrove habitats in São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea, Africa): conservation and management status. In: Makowski C, Finkl C (eds) Threats to mangrove forests. Coastal Research Library, vol 25. Springer, Cham, pp 589–605 Heemstra PC, Randall JE (1993) FAO species catalogue. Vol. 16. Groupers of the world (Family Serranidae, Subfamily Epinephelinae). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the grouper, rockcod, hind, coral grouper and lyretail species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Rome, 382 pp Herbert G, Bourlès B, Penven P, Grelet J (2016) New insights on the upper layer circulation north of the Gulf of Guinea. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 121(9):6793–6815 Herrero-Barrencua A, Jaber JR, Abreu AD, Haroun R, Castro JJ (2019) On the presence of Cantherhines macrocerus (Hollard, 1853) in the Principe Island (Gulf of Guinea). Cahiers de Biologia Marine 60:289–292 472 L. M. da Costa et al. Houndegnonto OJ, Kolodziejczyk N, Maes C, Bourlès B, Da-Allada CY, Reul N (2021) Seasonal variability of freshwater plumes in the eastern Gulf of Guinea as inferred from satellite measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 126(5):e2020JC017041 iDigBio (2021) Integrated digitized biocollections. Available via https://www.idigbio.org/portal/ search. Accessed 15 Aug 2021 Iwamoto T (1970) Macrourid ﬁshes of the Gulf of Guinea. The R/V Pillsbury deep-sea biological expedition to the Gulf of Guinea, 1964-65. Studies in Tropical Oceanography (Miami) 4(2): 316–431 Iwamoto T, Wirtz P (2018) A synopsis of the Eastern and Central Atlantic Combers of the Genus Serranus (Teleostei: Scorpaeniformes: Serranidae). Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, Series 4 65(1):1–39 Jones PJ (1994) Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea: an overview. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 772–784 Kotlyar AN (2004) Family Melamphaidae Gill 1893—bigscales. California Academy of Sciences Annotated Checklists of Fishes 29:1–11 Kotlyar AN (2011) Revision of Genus Melamphaes (Melamphaidae). II. Multi-Raker Species: M. polylepis, M. falsidicus sp. nova, M. pachystomus sp. nova, M. macrocephalus, M. leprus. Journal of Ichthyology 51(8):569–580 Kovačić M, Schliewen UK (2008) A new species of Gorogobius (Perciformes: Gobiidae) from São Tomé Island. Zootaxa 1686:29–36 Krakstad J, Alvheim O, Lopes JDS, Iwamoto T (2010) Surveys of the ﬁsh resources of São Tomé & Príncipe. Survey of the demersal resources 10 May–20 May 2010. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, 66 pp Kyne PM, Jabado RW (2019) Rhynchobatus luebberti. Available via the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-2.RLTS. T60180A124448712.en. Accessed 15 Aug 2021 Laborel J (1974) West African reef corals, an hypothesis on their origin. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Coral Reefs, volume 1. Great Barrier Reef Committee, Brisbane, pp 425–443 Last PR, White WT, Carvalho MR, Séret B, Stehmann MFW, Naylor GJP (eds) (2016) Rays of the world. CSIRO, Comstock, Clayton, 790 pp Le Lœuff P, Cosel R (1998) Biodiversity patterns of the marine benthic fauna on the Atlantic coast of tropical Africa in relation to hydroclimatic conditions and paleogeographic events. Acta Oecologia 19(3):309–321 Lutjeharms JRE (2006) The Agulhas Current. Springer, Berlin, 329 pp Lutjeharms JRE, Van Ballegooyen RC (1988) The retroﬂection of the Agulhas Current. Journal of Physical Oceanography 18(11):1570–1583 Maia HA, Morais RA, Quimbayo JP et al (2018a) Spatial patterns and drivers of ﬁsh and benthic reef communities at São Tomé Island, Tropical Eastern Atlantic. Marine Ecology 39(6):e12520 Maia HA, Morais RA, Siqueira AC, Hanazaki N, Floeter SR, Bender MG (2018b) Shifting baselines among traditional ﬁshers in São Tomé and Príncipe islands, Gulf of Guinea. Ocean and Coastal Management 154:133–142 Mcleod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S et al (2011) A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9(10):552–560 Morais RA, Maia HA (2017) Lush underwater forests in mesophotic reefs of the Gulf of Guinea. Coral Reefs 36:95 Nakamura I (1985) FAO species catalogue. Vol. 5. Billﬁshes of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of marlins, sailﬁshes, spearﬁshes and swordﬁshes known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Rome, 65 pp Nakamura I, Parin NV (1993) FAO species catalogue. Vol. 15. Snake mackerels and cutlassﬁshes of the world (Families Gempylidae and Trichiuridae). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the snake mackerels, snoeks, escolars, gemﬁshes, sackﬁshes, domine, oilﬁsh, cutlassﬁshes, 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 473 scabbardﬁshes, hairtails, and frostﬁshes known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Rome, 136 pp Nielsen JG, Cohen DM, Markle DF, Robins CR (1999) FAO species catalogue. Vol. 18. Ophidiiforms ﬁshes of the world (Order Ophidiiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of pearlﬁshes, cusk-eels, brotulas and other ophidiiform ﬁshes known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Rome, 178 pp OBIS (2021) Ocean Biodiversity Information System. Available via the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. https://mapper.obis.org. Accessed 15 Aug 2021 Odekunle TO, Eludoyin AO (2008) Sea surface temperature patterns in the Gulf of Guinea: their implications for the spatio-temporal variability of precipitation in West Africa. International Journal of Climatology 28(11):1507–1517 Osório B (1891) Estudos ichtyologicos ácerca da fauna dos dominios portuguezes na Africa, 3ª nota: Peixes maritimos das ilhas de S. Thomé, do Principe e ilheo das Rolas. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 2(6):97–139 Osório B (1892) Estudos ichtyologicos acerca da fauna dos dominios portuguezes na Africa, 3ª nota: Peixes maritimos das ilhas de S. Thomé, do Princípe e ilheo das Rolas. (continuação). Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 2(7):205–209 Osório B (1893) Estudos ichtyologicos ácerca da fauna dos dominios portuguezes da Africa, 3ª nota: Peixes maritimos das ilhas de S. Thomé, do Principe e ilheo das Rolas. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 3(10):136–140 Osório B (1894) Estudos ichtyologicos ácerca da fauna dos dominios portuguezes da Africa, 3ª nota: Peixes maritimos das ilhas de S. Thomé, do Principe e ilheo das Rolas. (continuação). Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 3(11):173–182 Osório B (1895a) Les poissons d’eau douce des iles du Golfe de Guinée. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 4(13):59–64 Osório B (1895b) Peixes da ilha d’Anno Bom. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 3(12):243–240 Osório B (1898) Da distribuição geographica dos peixes e crustaceos colhidos nas possessões portuguezas d’Africa occidental e existentes no Museu Nacional de Lisboa. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2ª Série 5(19):185–202 Osório B (1906) Indicações de algumas espécies que devem ser acrescentadas à fauna ichtyológica da ilha de S. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes. 2ª Série 7(27): 156–158 Osório B (1917) Nota sôbre algumas espécies de peixes que vivem no Atlântico ocidental. Arquivo da Universidade de Lisboa 4:103–131 Otero-Ferrer F, Tuya F, Bosch Guerra NE, Herrero-Barrencua A, Abreu AD, Haroun R (2020) Composition, structure and diversity of ﬁsh assemblages across seascape types at Príncipe, an understudied tropical island in the Gulf of Guinea (Eastern Atlantic Ocean). African Journal of Marine Science 42(4):381–391 Pacoureau N, Rigby CL, Kyne PM et al (2021) Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 589:567–571 Parenti P, Randall JE (2020) An annotated checklist of the ﬁshes of the family Serranidae of the world with description of two new related families of ﬁshes. FishTaxa 5(1):1–170 Peeters FJC, Acheson R, Brummer GJA et al (2004) Vigorous exchange between the Indian and Atlantic oceans at the end of the past ﬁve glacial periods. Nature 430:661–665 Pezold F, Iwamoto T, Harrison IJ (2006) The California Academy of Sciences Gulf of Guinea Expedition (2001) V. Multivariate analysis of sicydiines of São Tomé & Príncipe with redescription of Sicydium breviﬁle and S. bustamantei (Teleostei: Gobiidae) and a key to West African sicydiines. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 57(34):965–980 Pierce SJ, Norman B (2016) Rhincodon typus. Available via the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T19488A2365291.en. Accessed 15 Aug 2021 474 L. M. da Costa et al. Quimbayo JP, Dias MS, Kulbicki M et al (2019) Determinants of reef ﬁsh assemblages in tropical oceanic islands. Ecography 42(1):77–87 Reiner F (2019) Peixes do arquipélago de São Tomé e Príncipe—Golfo da Guiné (Oceano Atlântico Oriental). Projecto Delﬁm—Centro Português de Estudo dos Mamíferos Marinhos, Lisbon, 332 pp Reiner F, Wirtz P (2016) Five new records of coastal ﬁshes from São Tome Island. Revista de la Academia Canaria de Ciencias 28:127–131 Richardson PL, Reverdin G (1987) Seasonal cycle of velocity in the Atlantic North Equatorial Countercurrent as measured by surface drifters, current meters, and ship drifts. Journal of Geophysical Research 92:3691–3708 Rigby CL, Carlson J, Derrick D, Dicken M, Pacoureau N, Simpfendorfer C (2021) Carcharias taurus. Available via the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021. https://doi.org/10.2305/ IUCN.UK.2021-2.RLTS.T3854A2876505.en. Accessed 15 Aug 2021 Roberts CM, McClean CJ, Veron JEN et al (2002) Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science 295:1280–1284 Rocha LA, Robertson DR, Rocha CR, Tassell JL, Craig MT, Bowen BW (2005) Recent invasion of the tropical Atlantic by an Indo-Paciﬁc coral reef ﬁsh. Molecular Ecology 14(13):3921–3928 Rocha LA, Brito A, Robertson DR (2012) Sparisoma choati, a new species of parrotﬁsh (Labridae: Scarinae) from the tropical eastern Atlantic. Zootaxa 3152:61–67 Santos RS, Porteiro FM, Barreiros JP (1997) Marine ﬁshes of the Azores: annotated check-list and bibliography. Arquipélago. Life and Marine Sciences. Supplement 1:1–241 Schliewen UK (2011) Diversity and distribution of marine, euryhaline and amphidromous gobies from western, central and southern Africa. In: Patzner RA, Van Tassell JL, Kovačić M, Kapoor BG (eds) The biology of gobies. CRC and Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, pp 207–234 Schliewen UK, Kovačić M (2008) Didogobius amicuscaridis spec. nov. and D. wirtzi spec. nov., two new species of symbiotic gobiid ﬁsh from São Tomé and Cape Verde Islands. Spixiana 31: 247–261 Sequeira AMM, Mellin C, Fordham DA, Meekan MG, Bradshaw CJA (2014) Predicting current and future global distributions of whale sharks. Global Change Biology 20(3):778–789 Spalding M, Kainuma M, Collins L (2010) World atlas of mangroves. Earthscan, London, 319 pp Sutton TT, Hulley PA, Wienerroither R, Zaera-Perez D, Paxton JR (2020) Identiﬁcation guide to the mesopelagic ﬁshes of the central and south east Atlantic Ocean. FAO Species Identiﬁcation Guide for Fishery Purposes, Rome, 327 pp Thys van den Audenaerde DFE, Tortonese E (1974) Description of a new Eleotris from Annobón Island (Pisces, Gobiidae). Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria 80:157– 161 Tuya F, Herrero-Barrencua A, Bosch NE, Abreu AD, Haroun R (2017) Reef ﬁsh at a remote tropical island (Principe Island, Gulf of Guinea): disentangling taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity patterns with depth. Marine and Freshwater Research 69:395–402 Ukwe CN, Ibe CA, Alo BI, Yumkella KK (2003) Achieving a paradigm shift in environmental and living resources management in the Gulf of Guinea: the large marine ecosystem approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin 47(1–6):219–225 Ukwe CN, Ibe CA, Sherman K (2006) A sixteen-country mobilization for sustainable ﬁsheries in the Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem. Ocean and Coastal Management 49(7–8): 385–412 UNEP-WCMC, IUCN (2021) World Database of Protected Areas. Available via Protected Planet. www.protectedplanet.net. Accessed 1 Oct 2021 Valiela I, Bowen JL, York JK (2001) Mangrove forests: one of the world’s threatened major tropical environments. BioScience 5(10):807–815 Van der Laan R, Eschmeyer WN, Fricke R (2014) Family-group names of recent ﬁshes. Zootaxa Monograph 3882(1):1–230 Vasco-Rodrigues N, Fontes J, Bertoncini AA (2016) Ten new records of marine ﬁshes for São Tomé, West Africa. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria 46:123–129 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 475 Vasco-Rodrigues N, Bertoncini A, Fontes J (2018) Peixes marinhos costeiros de São Tomé e Príncipe (Coastal marine ﬁshes of São Tomé and Príncipe). Flying Sharks, Lisbon, 123 pp Vaske TJ, Lima KL, Ribeiro ACB, Lessa RP (2008) Record of the St. Helena deepwater scorpionﬁsh, Pontinus nigropunctatus (Günther) (Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae) in the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago, Brazil. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences 3: 46–48 Whitehead PJP (1985) FAO species catalog. Volume 7: Clupeoid ﬁshes of the world (suborder Clupeoidei). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the herrings, sardines, pilchards, sprats, shads, anchovies and wolf-herrings. Part 1—Chirocentridae, Clupeidae and Pristigasteridae. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, No. 125, Rome, pp 1–303 Whitehead PJP, Nelson GJ, Wongratana T (1988) FAO species catalog. Volume 7: Clupeoid ﬁshes of the world (suborder Clupeoidei). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the herrings, sardines, pilchards, sprats, shads, anchovies and wolf-herrings. Part 2—Engraulididae. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, No. 125, Rome, pp 305–579 Wirtz P (2003) New records of marine invertebrates from São Tomé Island (Gulf of Guinea). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 83:735–736 Wirtz P (2017) New records of marine ﬁsh species from São Tomé Island (Eastern Atlantic). Bulletin of Fish Biology 17(1–2):79–81 Wirtz P, Iwamoto T (2016) A new species of Serranus from São Tomé and Príncipe, Eastern Atlantic (Pisces Teleostei, Serranidae). Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences Series 4(63):191–200 Wirtz P, Ferreira CEL, Floeter SR et al (2007) Coastal ﬁshes of São Tomé and Príncipe islands, Gulf of Guinea (Eastern Atlantic Ocean)—an update. Zootaxa 1523:1–48 Wirtz P, Fricke R, Biscoito MJ (2008) The coastal ﬁshes of Madeira Island—new records and an annotated check-list. Zootaxa 1715(1):1–26 Wirtz P, Brito A, Falcón JM et al (2013) The coastal ﬁshes of the Cape Verde Islands—new records and an annotated check-list. Spixiana 36:113–142 Wirtz P, Bingeman J, Bingeman J, Frick R, Hook TJ, Young J (2014) The ﬁshes of Ascension Island, central Atlantic Ocean—new records and an annotated checklist. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 97:783–798 Yokota L, Carvalho MR (2017) Taxonomic and morphological revision of butterﬂy rays of Gymnura micrura (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) species complex, with the description of two new species (Myliobatiformes: Gymnuridae). Zootaxa 4332(1):1–74 Zhao Q, Costello MJ (2020) Marine ecosystems of the world. In: Encyclopedia of the world’s biomes, vol 4, pp 514–517 Further Reading Anderson WD Jr (2018) Annotated checklist of anthiadine ﬁshes (Percoidei: Serranidae). Zootaxa 4475(1):1–62 Anderson WD Jr, Heemstra PC (2012) Review of Atlantic and eastern Paciﬁc Anthiine ﬁshes (Teleostei: Perciformes: Serranidae), with descriptions of two new genera. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 102(2):1–173 Anderson ME, Leslie RW (2001) Review of the deep-sea anglerﬁshes (Lophiiformes: Ceratioidei) of southern Africa. Ichthyological Bulletin of the J. L. B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology 70:1–32 Blache J, Saldanha L (1972) Contribution à la connaissance des poissons Anguilliformes de la côte occidentale d’Afrique. 12e note: les genres Pisodonophis, Ophichthus, Brachysomophis et Ophisurus (Fam. des Ophichthidae). Bulletin de l’Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire (Serie A) Sciences Naturelles 34(1):127–159 476 L. M. da Costa et al. Bowen BW, Karl SA, Pfeiler E (2008) Resolving evolutionary lineages and taxonomy of boneﬁshes (Albula spp.). In: Ault JS (ed) Biology and management of the world tarpon and boneﬁsh ﬁsheries. CRC, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, pp 147–154 Bradbury MG (1999) A review of the ﬁsh genus Dibranchus, with descriptions of new species and a new genus, Solocisquama (Lophiiformes: Ogcocephalidae). Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 15(5):259–310 Brauer A (1906) Die Tiefsee-Fische. I. Systematischer Teil. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition auf dem Dampfer “Valdivia” 1898-1899 15:1–432 Caruso JH (1989) Systematics and distribution of Atlantic chaunacid anglerﬁshes (Pisces: Lophiiformes). Copeia 1:153–165 Craig MT, Bartsch P, Wirtz P, Heemstra PC (2006) Redescription and validation of Alphestes afer as an amphi-Atlantic grouper species (Perciformes: Serranidae). Cybium 30(4):327–331 Das MK, Nelson JS (1996) Revision of the percophid genus Bembrops (Actinopterygii: Perciformes). Bulletin of Marine Science 59(1):9–44 Ebeling AW (1962) Melamphaidae I. Systematics and zoogeography of the species in the bathypelagic ﬁsh genus Melamphaes Günther. Dana Report 58:1–164 Edwards AJ (1986) A new damselﬁsh, Chromis lubbocki (Teleostei: Pomacentridae) from the Cape Verde archipelago, with notes on other eastern Atlantic pomacentrids. Zoologische Mededelingen (Leiden) 60(12):181–207 Eschmeyer WN (1965) Western Atlantic scorpionﬁshes of the genus Scorpaena, including four new species. Bulletin of Marine Science 15(1):84–164 Faria VV, McDavitt MT, Charvet P, Wiley TR, Simpfendorfer CA, Naylor GJP (2013) Species delineation and global population structure of Critically Endangered sawﬁshes (Pristidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 167(1):136–164 Fricke R, Mahaﬁna J, Behivoke F, Jaonalison H, Léopold M, Ponton D (2018) Annotated checklist of the ﬁshes of Madagascar, southwestern Indian Ocean, with 158 new records. FishTaxa 3(1): 1–432 Hanel R, John H-C (2014) A revised checklist of Cape Verde Islands sea ﬁshes. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 31(1):135–169 Heiser JB, Moura RL, Robertson DR (2000) Two new species of creole wrasse (Labridae: Clepticus) from opposite sides of the Atlantic. aqua. Journal of Ichthyology and Aquatic Biology 4(2):67–76 Infante C, Blanco E, Zuasti E, Crespo A, Manchado M (2007) Phylogenetic differentiation between Atlantic Scomber colias and Paciﬁc Scomber japonicus based on nuclear DNA sequences. Genetica 130:1–8 Katayama M, Amaoka K (1986) Two new anthiine ﬁshes from the eastern tropical Atlantic. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology 33(3):213–222 Knudsen SW, Clements KD (2013) Revision of the family Kyphosidae (Teleostei: Perciformes). Zootaxa 3751(1):1–101 Kotlyar AN (2004) Revision of the genus Scopeloberyx (Melamphaidae). Part 1. Multi-raker species of the group S. robustus. Journal of Ichthyology 44(8):537–554 Kotlyar AN (2005) A revision of the genus Scopeloberyx (Melamphaidae). Part 3. Species of the group S. opisthopterus. Journal of Ichthyology 45(1):16–27 Kotlyar AN (2010) Revision of the genus Poromitra (Melamphaidae): Part 6. Species of the P. megalops group. Journal of Ichthyology 50(3):231–245 Kotlyar AN (2015) Revision of the genus Melamphaes (Melamphaidae): 2. Oligo-Raker species: M. longivelis Parr, M. inconspicuus sp. n., M. kobylyanskyi sp. n. Journal of Ichthyology 55(3): 311–318 Kotlyar AN (2016a) Revision of the genus Melamphaes (Melamphaidae): 5. Oligo-raker species: M. indicus, M. eurous, and M. typhlops. Journal of Ichthyology 56(1):19–30 Kotlyar AN (2016b) Revision of the genus Melamphaes (Melamphaidae): 6. Oligo-raker species: M. papavereus, M. simus, M. hubbsi. Journal of Ichthyology 56(3):325–335 17 The Fishes of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 477 Last PR, Séret B (2016) A new Eastern Central Atlantic skate Raja parva sp. nov. (Rajoidei: Rajidae) belonging to the Raja miraletus species complex. Zootaxa 4147(4):477–489 Last PR, Naylor GJP, Manjaji-Matsumoto BM (2016) A revised classiﬁcation of the family Dasyatidae (Chondrichthyes: Myliobatiformes) based on new morphological and molecular insights. Zootaxa 4139(3):345–368 Lévêque C, Paugy D, Teugels GG (eds) (1990) Faune des poissons d’eaux douces et saumâtres de l’Afrique de l’Ouest—Tome 1/The fresh and brackish water ﬁshes of West Africa—Volume 1. Collection Faune tropicale no. XXVIII. MRAC (Tervuren) and ORSTOM, Paris, 384 pp Longhurst AR (1962) A review of the oceanography of the Gulf of Guinea. Bulletin de l’Institut Francaise d’Afrique Noire 24(3):633–663 Lourie S (2016) Seahorses. A life-size guide to every species. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 160 pp McCosker JE, Hibino Y (2015) A review of the ﬁnless snake eels of the genus Apterichtus (Anguilliformes: Ophichthidae), with the description of ﬁve new species. Zootaxa 3941(1): 49–78 Melo MRS (2009) Revision of the genus Chiasmodon (Acanthomorpha: Chiasmodontidae), with the description of two new species. Copeia 2009(3):583–608 Miller PJ (1988) New species of Corcyrogobius, Thorogobius and Wheelerigobius from west Africa (Teleostei: Gobiidae). Journal of Natural History 22(5):1245–1262 Miller PJ (1998) The West African species of Eleotris and their systematic afﬁnities (Teleostei: Gobioidei). Journal of Natural History 32:273–296 Parenti P (2019a) An annotated checklist of the ﬁshes of the family Haemulidae (Teleostei: Perciformes). Iranian Journal of Ichthyology 6(3):150–196 Parenti P (2019b) An annotated checklist of the ﬁshes of the family Sparidae. FishTaxa 4(2):47–98 Parenti P (2020) An annotated checklist of ﬁshes of the family Sciaenidae. Journal of Animal Diversity 2(1):1–92 Petean FF, Naylor GJP, Lima SMQ (2020) Integrative taxonomy identiﬁes a new stingray species of the genus Hypanus Raﬁnesque, 1818 (Dasyatidae, Myliobatiformes) from the Tropical Southwestern Atlantic. Journal of Fish Biology 97(4):1120–1142 Pezold F, Cage B (2002) A review of the spinycheek sleepers, genus Eleotris (Teleostei: Eleotridae), of the Western Hemisphere, with comparisons to the West African species. Tulane Studies in Zoology and Botany 31(2):19–63 Pietsch TW (2009) Oceanic anglerﬁshes. Extraordinary diversity in the deep sea. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 1–557 Porriños G, Madruga L, Graça M, Santos A, Nazaré L, Guedes M (2019) Setting a baseline for marine ﬁsh biodiversity in São Tomé and Príncipe using Baited Remote Underwater Video. Available via http://www.gporrinos.com/uploads/1/0/8/7/108752045/baf-bruv-en_bruv-sur veys_blue-action-project_stp.pdf. Accessed 15 Aug 2021 Poulsen JY (2015) A new species of pencil smelt Nansenia boreacrassicauda (Microstomatidae, Argentiniformes) from the North Atlantic Ocean. Zootaxa 4020(3):517–532 Prokoﬁev AM, Kukuev EI (2006) Preliminary review of linebellies of the genus Pseudoscopelus from the Atlantic Ocean, with remarks on the species composition of the genus in the world’s fauna (Perciformes: Chiasmodontidae): II. Journal of Ichthyology 46(3):212–233 Quéro J-C, Hureau J-C, Karrer C, Post A, Saldanha L (1990) Check-list of the ﬁshes of the eastern tropical Atlantic. CLOFETA. UNESCO, Paris, pp 1–1492 Robertson DR, Karg F, Leao de Moura R, Victor BC, Bernardi G (2006) Mechanisms of speciation and faunal enrichment in Atlantic parrotﬁshes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 40(3): 795–807 Sales JBL, Oliveira CN, dos Santos WCR et al (2019) Phylogeography of eagle rays of the genus Aetobatus: Aetobatus narinari is restricted to the continental western Atlantic Ocean. Hydrobiologia 836:169–183 Sauberer M, Iwamoto T, Ahnelt H (2018) Two new deep-water species of the genus Thorogobius (Teleostei: Gobiidae) from the upper continental slope of the Eastern Central Atlantic. Zootaxa 4429(2):357–371 478 L. M. da Costa et al. Séret B (2016) Zanobatus maculatus, a new species of panray from the Gulf of Guinea, Eastern Central Atlantic (Elasmobranchii: Batoidea: Zanobatidae). Zootaxa 4161(4):509–522 Smith-Vaniz WF, Carpenter KE (2007) Review of the crevalle jacks, Caranx hippos complex (Teleostei: Carangidae), with a description of a new species from West Africa. Fishery Bulletin 105(2):207–233 Stevenson DE (2011) Kenaley CP (2011) Revision of the maneﬁsh genus Paracaristius (Teleostei: Percomorpha: Caristiidae), with descriptions of a new genus and three new species. Copeia 3: 385–399 Weigmann S (2016) Annotated checklist of the living sharks, batoids and chimaeras (Chondrichthyes) of the world, with a focus on biogeographical diversity. Journal of Fish Biology 88(3):837–1037 White W, Corrigan S, Yang L et al (2018) Phylogeny of the manta and devilrays (Chondrichthyes: Mobulidae), with an updated taxonomic arrangement for the family. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 182:50–75 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Rayna C. Bell, Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Lauren A. Scheinberg, and Robert C. Drewes Abstract This chapter reviews the diversity, evolutionary relationships, ecology, and conservation of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands’ endemic caecilian and anuran fauna. A total of nine amphibian species (representing ﬁve families) are known from São Tomé and Príncipe islands, all of which are endemic. No amphibians have been reported from Annobón. Taxonomic research on this group of animals began in the second half of the nineteenth century with subsequent reﬁnement following the advent of molecular techniques. The presence of several amphibians from distinct evolutionary lineages is unexpected for oceanic islands and has motivated several biogeographic studies to reconstruct the evolutionary histories of these enigmatic species. Yet, the continental source for many of the islands’ amphibians remains unknown. The amphibians of São Tomé and Príncipe also exhibit intriguing phenotypic diversity for addressing long-standing hypotheses in evolutionary biology, including body size evolution and gigantism on islands, intraspeciﬁc variation and interspeciﬁc divergence in coloration, and reproductive and dietary niche partitioning. Recent studies have conﬁrmed the presence of the fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in amphibian communities on both São Tomé and Príncipe, but it is unclear whether this pathogen is negatively impacting local populations. Most of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic island endemic amphibians are incredibly abundant and widespread, occurring in primary forest, secondary forest, and agricultural habitats across the islands. Three anuran species R. C. Bell (*) · L. A. Scheinberg · R. C. Drewes Department of Herpetology, Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA e-mail: rbell@calacademy.org L. M. P. Ceríaco Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO, Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_18 479 480 R. C. Bell et al. (Hyperolius thomensis, Leptopelis palmatus, Ptychadena newtoni) have more limited distributions and/or more specialized ecologies; consequently, additional landuse change poses a threat to the long-term persistence of these taxa. Keywords Anura · Gymnophiona · Hybridization · Endemism · Taxonomy · Conservation Introduction Island faunas have inspired evolutionary biologists for centuries, and the enigmatic history of insular amphibians is particularly captivating. Amphibians are considered poor dispersers across saltwater barriers and are thus naturally absent from most oceanic islands (Darwin 1859; Vitt and Caldwell 2014). Yet overseas dispersal and in situ diversiﬁcation have contributed to the accumulation of a surprisingly diverse amphibian fauna in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, which are located 250–300 km from the western coast of Central Africa. The presence of a combined nine amphibian species on São Tomé and Príncipe islands, all of which are endemic, presents an intriguing biogeographic anomaly within which to explore the potential pathways and timing of overseas dispersal events. In addition, some lineages have further diversiﬁed within and between islands in the archipelago, presenting the opportunity to investigate the tempo and mechanisms underlying in situ diversiﬁcation. This chapter presents an updated taxonomic overview of the amphibians on São Tomé and Príncipe islands (no amphibians occur on Annobón), highlighting the biogeographic patterns, organismal biology, and conservation threats for each species. The amphibian fauna of Bioko Island, a land-bridge island that is part of the Gulf of Guinea archipelago, is entirely distinct from that of the oceanic islands in the archipelago (see Sánchez-Vialas et al. 2020). We also provide a brief history of the research on amphibians in the archipelago and highlight important avenues for future work. History of Amphibian Research The history of amphibian research in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands is closely linked to the history of reptile research, as most authors have worked with both groups. Ceríaco et al. (2022) provide a comprehensive summary of the herpetological surveys and studies carried out on the islands. Hence, we focus on the primarily amphibian-focused studies and refer to Ceríaco et al. (2022) for more general studies. The ﬁrst herpetological studies in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands were based on opportunistic collections by European medical staff and colonial ofﬁcers who visited or worked in the region. The ﬁrst published record of an amphibian from São Tomé dates to 1868, when the German zoologist Wilhelm C. H. Peters (1815–1883) 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 481 described the Príncipe Giant Tree Frog Hylambates (currently Leptopelis) palmatus based on three female specimens (holotype ZMB 6067) collected by German explorer Heinrich Wolfgang Ludwig Dhorn (1838–1913) on Príncipe (Peters 1868). In 1870, Peters described the Príncipe Puddle Frog Arthroleptis dispar (later transferred to Phrynobatrachus by Laurent 1941) based on a single specimen from Príncipe (holotype ZMB 6133; Peters 1870), also collected by Dhorn. In 1873, the Portuguese zoologist José Vicente Barboza du Bocage (1823–1907), director of the National Museum of Lisbon (also known as Museu Bocage, now Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Lisbon, Portugal; MUHNAC), described the São Tomé caecilian Siphonops (currently Schistometopum) thomense based on two preserved specimens donated to the museum by Pedro Carlos de Aguiar Craveiro Lopes (1834–?), Portuguese governor of São Tomé and Príncipe at the time (Bocage 1873). In 1874, Peters described Siphonops brevirostris based on a single specimen with imprecise locality information (“Westküste Afrikas [Guinea]”) that he acquired from an animal dealer (Peters 1874). The type locality for S. brevirostris has since been restricted to Ilhéu das Rolas (Gorham 1962), but the justiﬁcation for this restriction is doubtful (Nussbaum and Pfrender 1998). This specimen is extant at the Museum für Naturkunde (Berlin, Germany; ZMB) and Nussbaum and Pfrender (1998) indicate the holotype is ZMB 4911 rather than ZMB 4711 as reported in the description. In his major revision of caecilians, Peters subsequently placed both S. thomense and S. brevirostris in the primarily neotropical genus Dermophis based on a combination of shared morphological features (Peters 1879). Upon examining specimens of S. thomense, Peters later determined that his S. brevirostris was the same as Bocage’s S. thomense (Peters 1880), and this synonymy continues to be recognized by most authors. Finally, Parker (1941) placed the species in the genus Schistometopum where it remains today. The German zoologist Richard Greeff (1829–1892) explored São Tomé and Ilhéu das Rolas (a small islet ~2 km off the southern tip of São Tomé) from 1879 to 1880 and provided one of the ﬁrst reports of its herpetofauna (Greeff 1884a). Greeff was particularly interested in São Tomé caecilians and published a brief study on their biology (Greeff 1884b). Greeff’s specimens are still extant in the collections of the Museum für Naturkunde (Berlin, Germany; ZMB), Zoologische Staatssammlung München (München, Germany; ZSM), and Zoologisches Museum Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany; ZMH). In 1885, the Botanical Gardens of the University of Coimbra sent their chief gardener Adolfo Frederico Möller (1842–1920) to São Tomé to explore and collect natural history specimens for the Botanical Gardens and the university museum. Most of the zoological specimens collected by Möller were sent to the University of Coimbra (now part of the Museu da Ciência da Universidade de Coimbra; Coimbra, Portugal; MCUC) and Vieira (1886) published a brief inventory of these specimens. Almost all of this material was examined and identiﬁed by José Vicente Barbosa du Bocage and is still extant in the collections of MCUC (Themido 1941; LMPC pers. obs.). Some amphibian and reptile specimens, however, were likely sent by Möller to the Russian zoologist Jacques von Bedriaga (1854–1906) who was a scholar at the University of Coimbra. Bedriaga published a thorough revision of the amphibians 482 R. C. Bell et al. and reptiles of São Tomé (Bedriaga 1892), where he described Moller’s Reed Frog, Rappia (currently Hyperolius) molleri, endemic to São Tomé (Bedriaga 1892). There are no further records of the specimens sent by Möller to Bedriaga, and they are presumably lost; however, one syntype of H. molleri is extant at the Natural History Museum (London, UK; NHMUK). Also in 1885, Francisco Xavier Oakley de Aguiar Newton (1864–1909) was hired by the Museu Bocage to conduct zoological surveys in the Gulf of Guinea. From 1885 to 1895, Newton explored all the Gulf of Guinea islands, as well as Benin, and his specimens were ultimately deposited in the Museu Bocage. The amphibians were studied by Barbosa du Bocage and based on this collection, he described the São Tomé Giant Reed frog Hyperolius thomensis and Newton’s Grassland frog Rana (currently Ptychadena) newtoni, both from São Tomé (Bocage 1886). Unfortunately, the entirety of Newton’s collections was lost in the ﬁre that destroyed the Museu Bocage in 1978. The Italian explorer Leonardo Fea (1852–1903) explored the four principal islands of the Gulf of Guinea from 1901 to 1902 under the sponsorship of the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale of Genoa (currently known as Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “Giacomo Doria;” Genoa, Italy; MSNG). Fea’s collections were initially studied by George Albert Boulenger (1858–1937; Boulenger 1906) and are still extant in the MSNG with a small subset in the Natural History Museum of London (NHMUK). Based on material Fea collected on Príncipe, Boulenger (1906) described Phrynobatrachus feae, which was later placed in synonymy with P. dispar by Schätti and Loumont (1992). During the 1950s and 1960s, the Portuguese Zoology Center of the Overseas Research Committee (Centro de Zoologia da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar; Lisbon, Portugal; CZL) conducted zoological surveys on São Tomé and Príncipe. Several herpetological specimens were collected by different researchers associated with the colonial enterprise over the course of multiple scientiﬁc surveys. The material collected during these surveys was studied by the Portuguese herpetologist Sara Maria Bárbara Marques Manaças (1896–?), resulting in two publications (Manaças 1958, 1973). Most of the specimens were housed in the collections of the Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical (Lisbon, Portugal; IICT), but in 2016 they were incorporated into the MUHNAC collections. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, several authors used existing specimens in various collections for taxonomic revisions of different genera. For instance, the Swiss herpetologist Jean-Luc Perret (b. 1925) reviewed the taxonomic position and status of São Tomé and Príncipe anurans (Perret 1962, 1966, 1973, 1976, 1988). Perret placed both reed frog species in a new genus Nesionixalus based on several shared morphological features (Perret 1976); however, subsequent morphological and genetic analyses have found strong support for both species belonging to the genus Hyperolius (Drewes 1984; Drewes and Wilkinson 2004; Portik et al. 2019). The North American herpetologist Edward Harrison Taylor (1889–1978) described Schistometopum ephele based on material collected from São Tomé by the Leonardo Fea Expedition and deposited in the MSNG (MSNG 8773; Taylor 1965). 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 483 Following the independence of São Tomé and Príncipe from Portugal in 1975, several teams undertook expeditions to the islands to document biodiversity. In 1984 a team from the zoology and anthropology department of the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon and the Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal, led by Luis Mendes (b. 1946), conducted a 1-month zoological expedition to São Tomé (Mendes et al. 1988). Although the expedition did not have a dedicated herpetologist, some amphibian specimens were collected, and these are extant in MUHNAC collections. Ronald Nussbaum (b. 1942) from the University of Michigan and Michael Pfrender (b. 1960) visited the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe in 1988 and placed S. ephele in synonymy with S. thomense (Nussbaum and Pfrender 1998). The specimens they collected are in the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (Ann Arbor, United States of America; UMMZ). From 1989 to 1991, expeditions to São Tomé and Príncipe led by Catherine Loumont (b. 1942), Tillman Nill (dates unknown) Jakob Fahr (dates unknown) and Jan Haft (b. 1967), resulted in reviews of the herpetofauna of these islands, including important natural history data on amphibians (Loumont 1992; Schätti and Loumont 1992; Fahr 1993; Haft and Franzen 1996). Some of these specimens are housed in the ZMB and the collections of the Musée d’Histoire Naturelle de la Ville de Genéve, Switzerland (MHNG). The beginning of the twenty-ﬁrst century marked a new period for the study of the amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Robert C. Drewes (b. 1942), herpetology curator of the California Academy of Sciences (San Francisco, United States of America; CAS), and his team have made 12 expeditions to the islands since 2001. The amphibian collections resulting from these expeditions are deposited at CAS and are currently the largest in the world (Table 18.1). Drewes and his colleagues have published several studies, including the description of the São Tomé Puddle Frog, Phrynobatrachus leveleve (Uyeda et al. 2007), taxonomic reviews and updates (Drewes and Stoelting 2004; Drewes and Wilkinson 2004), biogeographic history (Measey et al. 2007), and population genetics (Stoelting et al. 2014). During this same period, John Measey (b. 1968) and colleagues conducted evolutionary, ecological, and biomechanics studies of the São Tomé caecilian, making important contributions to our understanding of these secretive animals (Delêtre and Measey 2004; Measey and Herrel 2006; Measey and Van Dongen 2006; Wollenberg and Measey 2009; Herrel and Measey 2010, 2012). More recently, Rayna C. Bell (b. 1985), herpetology curator of the CAS, has contributed studies on the biogeographic and evolutionary history of Hyperolius (Bell et al. 2015a, b, 2017), hybridization of H. molleri and H. thomensis on São Tomé (Bell et al. 2015b; Bell and Irian 2019), the description of H. drewesi, endemic to Príncipe, and the evolutionary history of the São Tomé caecilians (O’Connell et al. 2021). As the type material of H. thomensis was lost in the 1978 ﬁre at the Museu Bocage in Lisbon, Portugal (Drewes and Wilkinson 2004), and the original type localities of H. thomensis and H. molleri were vague and may have included individuals with hybrid ancestry, Bell (2016) designated neotypes for both H. thomensis and H. molleri. Bell participated in several expeditions led by Drewes, and most of the specimens are at CAS with a smaller subset at the Smithsonian Institution’s National R. C. Bell et al. 484 Table 18.1 Natural history institutions housing type specimens and signiﬁcant collections of amphibians from the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Total number of specimen records includes tadpole lots and clutches of eggs. Acronyms follow Sabaj (2020) Collection CAS—California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, USA UMMZ—University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA MHNG—Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de la Ville de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland MSNG—Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “Giacomo Doria,” Genova, Italy MUHNAC/IICT—Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência/Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisbon, Portugal NHMUK—Natural History Museum, London, UK USNM—National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, District of Columbia, USA NMP-P6V—National Museum in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic ZMB—Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany FMNH—Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, USA ZSM—Zoologische Staatssammlung München, München MCUC—Museu da Ciência da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal ZMH—Zoologisches Museum Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany São Tomé 793 Príncipe 320 Type specimens 4 Total 1113 757 16 – 773 583 39 – 622 68 55 22 123 68 43 – 111 60 29 13 35 – 75 64 19 – – 19 17 14 3 – – 20 14 8 – – 8 7 – – 7 4 – – 4 2 3 Museum of Natural History (Washington DC, United States of America; USNM). Since 2013, a team from MUHNAC led by Luis M. P. Ceríaco (b. 1987) completed four herpetological surveys in São Tomé and Príncipe. A few amphibian specimens were collected and are now housed in MUHNAC. Diversity and Endemism Although the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe have never been physically connected to the African continent, they host a remarkable nine endemic species of amphibians, each of which is restricted to just one of the islands (Table 18.2, Fig. 18.1). We provide a brief summary of the taxonomic status of each species, its biogeographic history (when known), and notes on distribution, ecology, and behavior. 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 485 Table 18.2 List of amphibians from Príncipe and São Tomé islands (no amphibians are known from Annobón) Higher taxonomy Order Gymnophiona Family Dermophiidae Schistometopum Parker 1941 Order Anura Family Arthroleptidae Leptopelis Günther 1859 “1858” Family Hyperoliidae Hyperolius Rapp, 1842 Species/subspecies P Schistometopum thomense (Bocage 1873) Schistometopum ephele (Taylor 1965) Leptopelis palmatus (Peters 1868) E Hyperolius drewesi Bell 2016 Hyperolius molleri (Bedriaga 1892) Hyperolius thomensis Bocage 1886 E Family Phrynobatrachidae Phrynobatrachus Phrynobatrachus dispar (Peters, 1870) Günther, 1862 Phrynobatrachus leveleve Uyeda, Drewes & Zimkus 2007 Family Ptychadenidae Ptychadena Boulenger Ptychadena newtoni (Bocage 1886) 1917 ST IUCN E E LC EN E E LC EN E LC LC E EN E E, endemic. IUCN Red List Categories (IUCN 2021): LC, least concern; VU, vulnerable; EN, Endangered Gymnophiona Caecilian diversity in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands includes two endemic species (family Dermophiidae) that are distributed across São Tomé Island, even though caecilians were reported from Príncipe Island in error (Taylor 1968). The presence of these enigmatic and secretive amphibians on an oceanic island is especially captivating given their presumed low vagility and dispersal potential (Taylor 1968). Caecilians are not the only fossorial vertebrates that have reached the archipelago, however, as there are also several endemic fossorial squamates on both São Tomé and Príncipe (Ceríaco et al. 2022). This high level of endemic diversity among vertebrates with low dispersal potential provides strong support for the overseas rafting hypothesis proposed by Measey et al. (2007) and described in further detail in Melo et al. (2022). Family Dermophiidae The São Tomé caecilian S. thomense was initially described by Bocage (1873), and though he did not observe the species in life, he noted the two preserved specimens were uniform light yellow and olive in coloration, respectively. Unfortunately, a ﬁre 486 R. C. Bell et al. Fig. 18.1 Gulf of Guinea oceanic island amphibians: (1) São Tomé caecilians, Schistometopum thomense (top) and Schistometopum ephele (bottom), from São Tomé Island; (2) Príncipe Giant Tree Frog, Leptopelis palmatus, from Príncipe Island; (3) Drewes’ Reed Frog, Hyperolius drewesi, from Príncipe Island; (4) Moller’s Reed Frog, Hyperolius molleri, from São Tomé Island; (5) São Tomé Giant Reed Frog, Hyperolius thomensis, from São Tomé Island; (6) Leveleve Puddle Frog, Phrynobatrachus leveleve, from São Tomé Island; (7) Príncipe Puddle Frog, Phrynobatrachus dispar, from Príncipe Island; (8) Newton’s Grass Frog, Ptychadena newtoni, from São Tomé Island. Photo credits: Andrew Stanbridge 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 487 at the Lisbon Museum in 1978 destroyed this material and reports of a possible extant syntype at the Berlin Museum (ZMB 8738) are doubtful because the size of the specimen does not match Bocage’s description (Nussbaum and Pfrender 1998). Several decades later, Taylor described S. ephele and recognized S. ephele as distinct from S. thomense based on its smaller, pointier head and prominent brown ﬂecking pattern (Taylor 1965). The provenance of this material is reported as “Agua Izé, 400–700 m, Ilha São Thomé,” a locality that is likely between Agua Izé (a coastal community on the eastern side of the island) and the community of Java that is directly inland of Agua Izé at ~600 m elevation (pers comm G. Doria, MSNG). In the description, Taylor also noted that two other individuals under this number were uniform yellow (unﬂecked) and thus referred to S. thomense. Nussbaum and Pfrender (1998) quantiﬁed coloration, morphometric, and meristic variation of Schistometopum specimens collected from ten sites across São Tomé (including Ilhéu das Rolas). Although they found strong separation in a multivariate comparison of northern and southern populations, Nussbaum and Pfrender (1998) interpreted this variation as a phenotypic cline in a widespread species, placing S. ephele in synonymy with S. thomense. Stoelting et al. (2014) revisited this hypothesis with mtDNA (16s and ND4) sequence data and sampling from more than 20 sites across the island. These authors found deep genetic divergence between lineages that they proposed may correspond to S. thomense and S. ephele; however, the distributions of these mtDNA lineages overlapped in the center of the island. Consequently, Stoelting et al. (2014) proposed that the lineages diverged in allopatry but refrained from making taxonomic recommendations solely based on these maternally inherited loci. A more recent study examining genome-wide variation found strong support for distinct lineages corresponding to S. thomense and S. ephele, and inferred a history of divergence in allopatry with a narrow hybrid zone where the ranges presently overlap in the center of São Tomé Island (O’Connell et al. 2021). Based on this evolutionary history, and the revised interpretation of the apparent phenotypic cline in the Nussbaum and Pfrender (1998) study, O’Connell et al. (2021) removed S. ephele from synonymy with S. thomense. The only other species in the genus Schistometopum is the East African S. gregorii, which presents an intriguing biogeographic scenario for the island endemic species (Wilkinson et al. 2003; San Mauro et al. 2014). Depending on the method and/or mutation rate used, estimates for divergence between S. thomense and S. gregorii based on mtDNA loci range from 0.6 to 3.2 Myr (Loader et al. 2007), indicating that dispersal to São Tomé occurred relatively recently in the islands’ 13 Myr history. Using genome-wide markers, divergence between S. thomense and S. ephele on São Tomé was estimated at 281–326 kya with secondary contact between the lineages occurring ~100 kya (O’Connell et al. 2021), highlighting that São Tomé is accumulating endemic diversity via both overseas dispersal and in situ diversiﬁcation even in the more recent period of its long geologic history. On São Tomé, caecilians occur in a wide variety of habitats ranging from sea level to over 1400 m elevation, including agricultural ﬁelds, modiﬁed landscapes, and the ~2 km2 islet Ilhéu das Rolas (Bocage 1886; Loumont 1992; Fahr 1993; Haft and Franzen 1996; Nussbaum and Pfrender 1998; Drewes and Stoelting 2004; Measey and Van 488 R. C. Bell et al. Dongen 2006; Stoelting et al. 2014). Due to this broad distribution and high abundance (estimated density 0.3 per m2; Measey 2006), caecilians are well known to São Toméans, who refer to them as “Cobra-bobô” (i.e., yellow snake). At collection sites with harder, mineral soils, animals may be found under leaf litter or rotten logs, whereas at sites with softer soils, including agricultural ﬁelds, animals are found within the soil (Haft 1992; Haft and Franzen 1996; Delêtre and Measey 2004). Likewise, in drier habitats, caecilians occur deeper in the soil (Nussbaum and Pfrender 1998) whereas, after heavy rains and in the evening, they can be observed moving aboveground (Fahr 1993; Haft and Franzen 1996). Correspondingly, laboratory studies quantifying the behavior and biomechanics of burrowing in São Tomé caecilians indicated that they did not construct tunnels in soils with high compaction and that even intermediate levels of soil compaction can deter or prevent burrowing (Ducey et al. 1993). In addition, in laboratory settings, caecilians opted to use existing tunnels rather than construct new ones (Ducey et al. 1993). These behaviors are consistent with the more terminal mouth position of São Tomé caecilians relative to the subterminal (countersunk lower jaw) mouths of caecilians that are dedicated burrowers (Sherratt et al. 2014). Like all caecilians, São Tomé caecilians show skin-vertebral independence and use internal and wholebody concertina locomotion while burrowing or moving through narrow tunnels (Herrel and Measey 2010). When moving across high friction substrates (i.e., a moist towel) São Tomé caecilians switch to lateral undulating locomotion (Herrel and Measey 2010). An extensive survey of caecilian body size variation across São Tomé found that individuals at higher elevation sites (where soil temperatures are cooler) were longer and heavier than individuals at lower elevations (Measey and Van Dongen 2006). This trend has been noted in many endothermic vertebrates with the explanation that larger body sizes result in lower heat loss via larger surface-areato-volume ratios (Bergmann 1847); however, the potential mechanisms to explain this pattern in an ectotherm are less clear. São Tomé caecilians are sexually dimorphic in head size (but not in body size), which could indicate ecological divergence between the sexes (e.g., differences in diet; Nussbaum and Pfrender 1998) or antagonistic behaviors among males (Delêtre and Measey 2004). Delêtre and Measey (2004) tested this ﬁrst hypothesis with a diet study of males, females, and juveniles from both natural forest and agricultural sites. Earthworms (including epigeic [surface-active] and endogeic [deeper soil-dwelling] species) accounted for over 98% of identiﬁed prey items, with the remaining contents comprising centipedes, ants, mites, and unidentiﬁed larvae (Delêtre and Measey 2004). Counter to expectations, the authors did not ﬁnd signiﬁcant differences in prey mass or prey size between the sexes (though prey size did correlate with gape diameter among females), suggesting that larger head size in males is not related to capturing larger prey. A subsequent study of caecilian diets reexamined the Delêtre and Measey (2004) earthworm morphospecies dataset and found that adults fed on both epigeic and endogeic earthworms in equal proportions, whereas juveniles appeared to only feed on endogeic species (Jones et al. 2006). Future research investigating the extent of dietary specialization in São Tomé caecilians (across habitats and throughout the year) as well as potential ontogenetic shifts in diet will 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 489 provide important insight into the role caecilians play in mediating population dynamics of soil ecosystem engineers (earthworms, termites and ants) and soil ecology more broadly (Lavelle et al. 1997; Jones et al. 2006). Observations in captivity suggest that São Tomé caecilians are predominantly nocturnal, sit-and-wait predators, extending their heads beyond their burrows and waiting for prey to come within reach (Haft and Franzen 1996; Hofer 1998). To our knowledge, predation behaviors in ﬁeld settings have not yet been documented in the scientiﬁc literature; however, in laboratory settings São Tomé caecilians feeding on earthworms exerted strong bite forces and used long-axis body rotations to subdue and shred their prey (Measey and Herrel 2006; Herrel and Measey 2012). Laboratory measurements of resting metabolism and aerobic capacity of São Tomé caecilians indicated they have very low resting metabolic rates with a high capacity for aerobic metabolism that is consistent with a largely sedentary, sit-and-wait predatory lifestyle (Smits and Flanagin 1994). The same study also revealed surprisingly high cutaneous gas exchange in caecilians despite their thickened skin, suggesting that cutaneous respiration is likely sufﬁcient to support resting metabolic rates (Smits and Flanagin 1994). Based on the current understanding of reproductive biology in caecilians, all species have internal fertilization via an intromittent organ formed by an eversible portion of the male’s cloaca (the phallodaeum) that may vary in shape and ornamentation among species (Gower and Wilkinson 2002). The phallodaeum of São Tomé caecilians is quite similar to that of S. gregorii from Tanzania, but Tanzanian and Kenyan S. gregorii differ from one another, and these populations have previously been hypothesized to be distinct species (Taylor 1968; Gower and Wilkinson 2002). A better understanding of intraspeciﬁc and interspeciﬁc variation in phallodaeum morphology would provide deeper insights as to the potential significance of this trait in reproductive isolation. Several authors have noted bite marks on the heads of male and female São Tomé caecilians from both ﬁeld-caught and laboratory individuals (e.g., Nussbaum and Pfrender 1998; Teodecki et al. 1998). Biting among conspeciﬁc males in territorial disputes and males biting females during copulation have been proposed as alternative hypotheses for larger head size in males (Delêtre and Measey 2004). The role of biting in communication and/or sexual selection in São Tomé caecilians would be a compelling future avenue of behavioral research in these curious organisms. Viviparity has evolved independently in several lineages of caecilians, including the family Dermophiidae, which are all viviparous (Gower et al. 2008; San Mauro et al. 2014). Observations of São Tomé caecilians in captivity suggest clutch sizes typically range from 2 to 7 young that are fully formed at birth with no signs of gill scars (Nussbaum and Pfrender 1998). The energetic demands of reproduction are likely high as young caecilians are born at up to 50% the length of their mothers (Wake 1977; Nussbaum and Pfrender 1998), and females reproduce biennially (Teodecki et al. 1998). In addition, developing fetuses have specialized dentition with which to scrape the epithelium of the oviduct and stimulate the secretion of nutrient-rich “uterine milk” from their mothers during gestation (Parker 1956; Parker and Dunn 1964; Wake 1977). Captive-born young reached adult size after 2 years 490 R. C. Bell et al. (Haft and Franzen 1996), and the adult coloration and pattern were present at birth (Nussbaum and Pfrender 1998). It is tempting to consider that the prominent yellow coloration of São Tomé caecilians may be aposematic, and a study of yellow coloration across all caecilians indicates that this conspicuous coloration has evolved multiple times in species that are surface-active (Wollenberg and Measey 2009). Anecdotal evidence suggests São Tomé caecilians are distasteful (Hofer 1998; Teodecki et al. 1998); however, their chemical defenses have not yet been characterized. Likewise, the dominant predators of São Tomé caecilians are also unknown; consequently, much additional foundational research is needed to understand whether this yellow coloration is cryptic or aposematic. While a role in intraspeciﬁc communication and/or sexual selection is also a possible explanation for this bright coloration, São Tomé caecilians likely have poor eyesight (Mohun et al. 2010) and like all caecilians are considered to rely primarily on olfactory cues to sense their environments (Himstedt and Simon 1995). Anura Anuran diversity in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands includes seven endemic species from four families: Arthroleptidae, Hyperoliidae, Phrynobatrachidae, and Ptychadenidae (Table 18.2). Family Arthroleptidae The Príncipe Giant Tree Frog Leptopelis palmatus has historically been confused with another large-bodied species from continental Africa, L. rufus, with several authors placing L. rufus in synonymy with L. palmatus (Anderson 1909; Parker 1936; Witte 1941; Perret 1962). Throughout this period of nearly a century of taxonomic confusion, L. palmatus was reported from Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea (including Bioko Island), Gabon, and Nigeria (Boulenger 1882; Mocquard 1902; Boulenger 1906; Nieden 1910; Ahl 1931; Schiøtz 1963; Mertens 1965). Perret (1973) resurrected L. rufus after comparing a large series of males and females with the sole female holotype of L. palmatus available for study and clariﬁed that L. palmatus was an insular species. Upon this close examination, Perret (1973) conﬁrmed that the two species differed in tympanum size and several additional morphological features, concluding that the two species may not even be closely related. Male specimens were ﬁnally collected and formally described following an expedition to the islands in 2002 (Drewes and Stoelting 2004). Loumont (1992) characterized the karyotype of this species, reporting 24 chromosomes. The phylogenetic relationships within the African genus Leptopelis are poorly understood, and consequently, the biogeographic history of L. palmatus remains unclear. Previous studies have hypothesized that L. palmatus is closely related to a group of large-bodied species in West and Central Africa (L. macrotis, L. millsoni, 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 491 and L. rufus) based on a combination of mtDNA and morphological data (Idris 2004). A more recent mtDNA phylogeny with expanded taxonomic sampling does not support this relationship (Jaynes et al. 2021), and a more robust phylogenetic inference is sorely needed. The distribution of L. palmatus ranges from sea level to over 600 m elevation on Príncipe, primarily in forested habitats (Loumont 1992; Drewes and Stoelting 2004). Males and females can be observed at night perched one meter or higher off the ground on branches or leaves, especially near small ﬂowing streams (Loumont 1992; Drewes and Stoelting 2004; RCB and LAS pers. obs). By contrast, large females have been encountered on or near the ground both in the evening and during the day (Drewes and Stoelting 2004; RCB and LAS pers obs). Although males lack vocal sacs (Drewes and Stoelting 2004), they produce advertisement calls at breeding sites (characterized in Jaynes et al. 2021). Both male and female dorsal coloration is variable, ranging from dark green/black with or without small white spots to bright green and even bright yellow (Manaças 1958; Loumont 1992; Drewes and Stoelting 2004; Jaynes et al. 2021). It does not appear that this variation is sexually dimorphic or related to ontogeny, as has been described in many species of the African genus Hyperolius (Schiøtz 1967; Portik et al. 2019). Manaças (1958) reported Orthoptera (crickets), Blattodea (cockroaches and termites), and Coleoptera (beetles) in the stomach contents of specimens they examined. Sexual size dimorphism is quite pronounced in L. palmatus, with male snout– vent length less than half that of females (Drewes and Stoelting 2004). In addition, the largest measured female was 110 mm snout–vent length (Loumont 1992), which remains the largest reported size of any female specimen in the entire genus Leptopelis by more than 20 mm (Channing and Rödel 2019). Despite these large adult body sizes, post-metamorphic individuals are quite small (10–11 mm; Drewes and Stoelting 2004). This combination of extreme sexual size dimorphism and exceptionally large body size in females may indicate selection for increased fecundity (e.g., Darwin 1874). Unfortunately, the reproductive biology of L. palmatus is entirely unknown. Other species in the genus Leptopelis bury their eggs in humid soil from which larvae hatch and complete their development within streams or ponds (Portik and Blackburn 2016). One species, L. brevirostris, is thought to reproduce by direct development because females produce large eggs that are buried far from water (Perret 1966; Amiet and Schiøtz 1974; Schiøtz 1999). Documenting this important aspect of its biology will be critical to understanding the habitats L. palmatus relies upon throughout its lifecycle. Family Hyperoliidae Three species of reed frogs in the genus Hyperolius are endemic to the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe: the São Tomé Giant Reed Frog Hyperolius thomensis and Moller’s Reed Frog H. molleri (both endemic to São Tomé), and H. drewesi (endemic to Príncipe). Prior to the recognition of H. drewesi as a distinct species, H. molleri was reported from both São Tomé and Príncipe islands (Loumont 1992; 492 R. C. Bell et al. Fahr 1993; Drewes and Wilkinson 2004). Loumont (1992) characterized the karyotypes of H. thomensis and H. molleri (sensu stricto), reporting 24 chromosomes. Phylogenetic analyses indicate that the three island species form a monophyletic group and are part of the H. cinnamomeoventris species complex (Drewes and Wilkinson 2004; Schick et al. 2010; Bell et al. 2015a, 2017; Portik et al. 2019). Within the H. cinnamomeoventris species complex, the island endemics are most closely related to H. olivaceus, a species distributed throughout the Lower Guinean forests of Gabon and the Republic of Congo (Bell et al. 2017). The distribution of H. olivaceus encompasses the Ogooué River and the mouth of the Congo River, suggesting that either river drainage could have served as a source for a vegetation raft that ferried reed frogs to the archipelago. Divergence time estimates indicate the island endemics and H. olivaceus shared a most recent common ancestor in the LateMiocene to Pliocene (Bell et al. 2015a, 2017; Portik et al. 2019). The island endemics, however, shared a most recent common ancestor within the last 1.7–0.5 Ma, with divergence between H. molleri and H. drewesi estimated at 1.1 Ma to 270 ka (Bell et al. 2015a). As with the São Tomé caecilians, the timing of colonization and in situ diversiﬁcation of the reed frogs are quite recent in the islands’ long geological histories. The pattern of divergence among the three species is consistent with a single dispersal event to the islands and suggests that reed frogs ﬁrst colonized São Tomé Island, diversiﬁed in situ, and then dispersed to Príncipe Island (Bell et al. 2015a, b). The pattern of lower genetic diversity in H. drewesi relative to H. molleri is also consistent with this colonization history (Bell et al. 2015b). Although it appears that dispersal between São Tomé and Príncipe occurred at some point in the past, analyses of mtDNA and genome-wide variation indicated that gene ﬂow between the islands is not ongoing (Bell et al. 2015b). H. thomensis inhabits closed-canopy, primary forest habitats from 300 to 1300 m elevation, which are primarily on the wetter southern half of São Tomé (Loumont 1992; Drewes and Stoelting 2004; Gilbert and Bell 2018; Bell and Irian 2019). By contrast, H. molleri occurs in a wide range of habitats across the island from sea level to ~1400 m elevation, including swampy areas in the drier habitats on the northern side of São Tomé, agricultural areas, secondary and primary forests (Loumont 1992; Fahr 1993; Bell et al. 2015b; Gilbert and Bell 2018; Bell and Irian 2019). H. drewesi is ecologically similar to H. molleri, occurring in a wide range of habitats across Príncipe Island from sea level to ~600 m elevation (Loumont 1992; Drewes and Stoelting 2004; Bell 2016). Observations in the ﬁeld and in captivity suggest that all three species are primarily nocturnal (Fahr 1993); however, like most anurans, these species are primarily observed during their reproductive periods, and thus less is known about their activities during other times of day or throughout the rest of the year. The forest specialist H. thomensis differs from the other two species in its reproductive biology. First, males of H. thomensis produce advertisement calls from high up in the canopy (from 1 to >5 m), whereas males of H. molleri and H. drewesi call from perches 30–200 cm above ground on leaves and thin branches overhanging slow-moving streams and pools of standing water (Fahr 1993; Gilbert and Bell 2018). Furthermore, the abundance of individuals at breeding sites varies 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 493 between species, with only a single to several H. thomensis calling at a given site versus upwards of 50 individuals of H. molleri congregating along a 15 m long stretch of stream (Fahr 1993; Gilbert and Bell 2018). These differences in calling site and breeding aggregation size may be associated with the specialized microhabitats H. thomensis select to deposit their eggs. While H. molleri and H. drewesi deposit their egg masses on leaves overhanging water (Fahr 1993; Drewes and Stoelting 2004; Bell 2016), which is the typical reproductive mode for Hyperolius (Portik and Blackburn 2016), H. thomensis deposit their eggs on the walls of water-ﬁlled cavities in trees, rotting logs, and bamboo (Drewes and Stoelting 2004; Gilbert and Bell 2018). These specialized breeding microhabitats are the only standing water available for anuran reproduction in some landscapes and may provide shelter to vulnerable eggs and larvae from potential predators (Drewes and Stoelting 2004; Lehtinen et al. 2004); however, they also present some unique challenges (lower dissolved oxygen, lower nutrient availability; Guimarães-Souza et al. 2006; Ferreira et al. 2019). Large egg size (2–2.5 mm; Perret 1976) and small clutch size in H. thomensis (20–40; Drewes and Stoelting 2004) relative to most species of Hyperolius (Channing and Rödel 2019) may be adaptations to the specialized reproduction in this species. All three Hyperolius endemic to São Tomé and Príncipe are sexually dimorphic in size, with females displaying larger body sizes than males (Bell 2016; Bell and Irian 2019). The forest specialist H. thomensis is also substantially larger than H. molleri, H. drewesi, and H. olivaceus and is among the largest of the ~150 described species in the genus (Portik et al. 2020). The selective mechanisms underlying body size evolution in Hyperolius and in anurans more broadly are still poorly understood (Womack and Bell 2020); consequently, investigating ecological differences among these closely related species may provide some important insights. For instance, although both H. thomensis and H. molleri are insectivorous (Perret 1976), they may consume different sizes or types of prey, as demonstrated in other sympatric reed frog species that differ in body size (Luiselli et al. 2004). Males of all three species possess dorsal epidermal asperities (ﬁne projections from the skin; Perret 1988), which are pigmented in H. thomensis and H. molleri but not in H. drewesi (Bell 2016). The potential functions of these sexually dimorphic features, which are also present in several continental species of Hyperolius, are poorly understood. Although the island reed frogs do not exhibit sexual dichromatism, as exhibited by a large proportion of the genus Hyperolius (Portik et al. 2019), H. molleri and H. drewesi exhibit differences in juvenile and adult coloration (Schiøtz 1967) with metamorphic and juvenile individuals of both species displaying light brown coloration with thin, white dorsolateral lines (Loumont 1992; Fahr 1993; Bell 2016). In addition, H. thomensis exhibit bright orange and black ventral coloration that is often associated with aposematism and chemical defense in amphibians (e.g., Kang et al. 2017), but this hypothesis has not yet been tested in H. thomensis. A handful of colorful Hyperolius from Cameroon was screened for defensive alkaloids, and none were found (Portik et al. 2015). Similar to L. palmatus, H. thomensis also exhibit extensive variation in dorsal coloration ranging from dark 494 R. C. Bell et al. or bright green to turquoise to golden with dark spots, whereas both H. molleri and H. drewesi are consistently bright green (RCB and LAS pers. obs). Despite differences in body size, coloration, and breeding biology, H. thomensis and H. molleri hybridize where their ranges are sympatric (Bell et al. 2015b). Males of the two species produce advertisement calls that differ in dominant frequency, and these differences are strongly correlated with body size (Gilbert and Bell 2018). Correspondingly, hybrid males are intermediate in body size and produce advertisement calls with intermediate peak frequencies (Gilbert and Bell 2018). Variation in both size and ventral coloration among hybrid frogs overlaps with that of H. molleri (Bell and Irian 2019); consequently, hybrids cannot reliably be identiﬁed without genetic analysis. Several sites with high proportions of hybrid individuals are at the boundary of primary forest and agricultural development, where breeding frogs congregate around artiﬁcial bodies of water (e.g., cisterns; Bell and Irian 2019). Hybrids can also be found at the crater lake Lagoa Amélia, which is within 1 km of the forest edge (Bell and Irian 2019). Although adult H. thomensis can be found in anthropogenically modiﬁed habitats and reproduce at these sites (Strauss et al. 2018), these environments may be population sinks if larvae and juveniles experience lower survival than in forested sites. In addition, the geographic extent of hybridization between H. thomensis and H. molleri across the island is unknown as are the potential consequences of hybridization, both of which warrant further attention. Family Phrynobatrachidae Two species of puddle frogs in the genus Phrynobatrachus are endemic to São Tomé and Príncipe: P. dispar on Príncipe and P. leveleve on São Tomé and Ilhéu das Rolas. Prior to the recognition of P. dispar and P. leveleve as a distinct species, P. dispar was reported from both Príncipe and São Tomé (including Ilhéu das Rolas; Boulenger 1906; Loumont 1992; Fahr 1993; Drewes and Stoelting 2004). Loumont (1992) characterized the karyotypes of Phrynobatrachus on both São Tomé and Príncipe, reporting 16 chromosomes. Unlike the island endemic reed frogs, phylogenetic analyses of the genus Phrynobatrachus indicate that divergence between P. dispar on Príncipe and P. leveleve on São Tomé is not recent (Uyeda et al. 2007; Zimkus et al. 2010). Genetic divergence at mtDNA (cytochrome b) between the two is ~19% (Uyeda et al. 2007), and the island endemics form a monophyletic group with P. mababiensis (Zimkus et al. 2010), a southern African species that ranges from Angola to Tanzania and Mozambique (Channing and Rödel 2019). This pattern suggests that Phrynobatrachus may have colonized the archipelago twice, though estimates of continental species diversity and phylogenetic relationships in this genus are still in a state of ﬂux. Genetic diversity within species on each island (based on mtDNA) is quite low, further supporting the existence of only a single species on each island and Schätti and Loumont’s (1992) proposed synonymy of Boulenger’s P. feae (Uyeda et al. 2007). 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 495 Puddle frogs are abundant and widespread on both islands (and on Ilhéu das Rolas), occurring from sea level to ~1400 m on São Tomé and from sea level to ~950 m on Príncipe in primary forest, secondary forest, agricultural ﬁelds and residential areas (Loumont 1992; Fahr 1993; Drewes and Stoelting 2004; Uyeda et al. 2007). They can be found perched low to the ground in grasses or shrubs, in crevices, and on the ground, especially near small bodies of water (Loumont 1992; Fahr 1993). Like many species of Phrynobatrachus, P. dispar and P. leveleve are active during the day and at night but are most often encountered at twilight (Fahr 1993). Both species use a wide range of water bodies for reproduction, including small temporary puddles at higher elevations (Fahr 1993), which P. leveleve sometimes share with Ptychadena newtoni (Drewes and Stoelting 2004). On Príncipe, P. dispar shares breeding sites with H. drewesi and heterospeciﬁc amplexus between the species has been observed (Bell and Scheinberg 2016). Relatively small clutch size (15–30 eggs) and rapid larval development (14–20 days) suggest the puddle frogs’ reproductive biology is well suited for breeding in ephemeral puddles, which may enable P. dispar and P. leveleve to occupy higher elevations than the other island endemic anurans (Fahr 1993). Male advertisement calls have been described, however, these studies were conducted prior to two species being recognized, and the calls likely correspond only to P. leveleve (Loumont 1992; Fahr 1993). Likewise, Fahr (1993) reports that adults in captivity live up to 2 years, but it is not clear whether these observations correspond to P. dispar or to P. leveleve or both. Like many frogs, P. dispar and P. leveleve exhibit sexual size dimorphism with females being slightly larger than males (Uyeda et al. 2007). These diminutive frogs fall within the typical size range of Phrynobatrachus on the continent (Channing and Rödel 2019); however, similar to the São Tomé caecilians, patterns of intraspeciﬁc body size variation on each island are consistent with Bergmann’s Rule with larger individuals occupying higher elevations (Uyeda et al. 2007). Males of both species have dorsal epidermal asperities, and these are also present in females of P. dispar but apparently absent in female P. leveleve (Uyeda et al. 2007). Both species are also highly variable in coloration but are generally of various shades and patterns of brown (Uyeda et al. 2007). Family Ptychadenidae Newton’s Grassland Frog P. newtoni is endemic to São Tomé, but like many of the Gulf of Guinea amphibians, this species has a convoluted taxonomic history. First, P. newtoni was placed in synonymy of P. oxyrhynchus by Andersson (1937), and then in synonymy of P. mascareniensis by Guibé and Lamotte (1957). Perret (1976) removed P. newtoni from synonymy with P. mascareniensis and noted that although the species resembled P. oxyrhynchus, it was likely unique given the high level of endemism on the Gulf of Guinea islands. A phylogenetic study of mitochondrial DNA indicated that P. newtoni was indeed unique and that it was part of the P. mascareniensis species complex (Measey et al. 2007). Loumont (1992) characterized the karyotype of P. newtoni, reporting 24 chromosomes. 496 R. C. Bell et al. The P. mascareniensis complex consists of a dozen named and candidate taxa with a distribution that covers much of continental Africa, Madagascar, the Seychelles, and the Mascarenes (Zimkus et al. 2017). Within the P. mascareniensis species complex, P. newtoni appears to be most closely related to the Nile Grass frog, P. nilotica, which occurs along the Nile Basin and into eastern Africa (Zimkus et al. 2017). This relationship is somewhat surprising considering that lineages within the P. mascareniensis complex occur throughout West and Central Africa, and are much more proximate to the Gulf of Guinea. Previous authors have interpreted this pattern as evidence for rafting along the Congo River drainage as a dispersal route to the islands (Measey et al. 2007). Divergence time estimates suggest P. newtoni and P. nilotica shared a most recent common ancestor in the Mid- to Late-Miocene (Zimkus et al. 2017); however, a more robust phylogeny of the P. mascareniensis species complex will provide a better understanding of the evolutionary history of P. newtoni. On São Tomé, P. newtoni occurs in lower elevation habitats (sea level to ~600 m) including plains, agricultural ﬁelds, and around human-built structures (Loumont 1992; Fahr 1993; Drewes and Stoelting 2004). Most of the remaining habitat at these lower elevations is heavily impacted by human activities, and thus while P. newtoni appears to be somewhat resilient to these landscape changes, there is some concern that very little of its original habitat remains (Fahr 1993; Drewes and Stoelting 2004). Not much is known of the biology of P. newtoni. Throughout its distribution, P. newtoni occurs with both H. molleri and P. leveleve, and the three species may use the same temporary water bodies for reproduction (Fahr 1993; Drewes and Stoelting 2004). As with most anurans, this species is sexually size-dimorphic and is the largest species in the genus Ptychadena with females reaching up to 76 mm snout– vent length (Loumont 1992; Channing and Rödel 2019). Its advertisement call is described (Loumont 1992; Fahr 1993) and it is mostly a nocturnal species but can be found during the day if it is raining (Fahr 1993). Like most Ptychadena, P. newtoni is primarily a ground-dwelling species and is a very accomplished jumper (Fahr 1993). As documented in P. mascareniensis on Madagascar (Tolojanahary et al. 2011), the diet of P. newtoni likely consists primarily of arthropods. Conservation Most of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic island endemic amphibians are incredibly abundant and widespread, occurring in primary forest, secondary forest, and agricultural habitats across the islands (e.g., S. ephele, S. thomense, H. molleri, H. drewesi, P. dispar, P. leveleve). By contrast, H. thomensis, L. palmatus and P. newtoni appear to have more specialized habitat requirements, and these habitats are under considerable anthropogenic pressure. Consequently, these species are considered Endangered according to the most recent IUCN assessments (Table 18.2; IUCN 2021). In the case of H. thomensis and L. palmatus, these species appear to prefer closed-canopy forest habitats and have more specialized 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 497 reproduction; thus, they may be more susceptible to deforestation. For H. thomensis in particular, deforestation may directly limit the availability of suitable breeding sites as cavities that collect water typically occur in large mature trees. Furthermore, if deforestation is associated with hybridization between H. thomensis and H. molleri (as suggested in Bell and Irian 2019), the rarer H. thomensis may be at risk of extinction by hybridization (Rhymer and Simberloff 1996). In the case of P. newtoni, although this species occurs around the São Tomé capital and other heavily modiﬁed landscapes (e.g., the Agripalma oil palm plantation), very little of its original habitat remains unchanged and the impacts of land use on recruitment and adult survival are unknown. Although the São Tomé caecilian also appears quite resilient to land-use change, reports that it may be extirpated from the heavily developed Ilhéu das Rolas are concerning (Loumont 1992). The amphibian chytrid fungal pathogen, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), is implicated in the declines and extinctions of amphibians across the globe (Scheele et al. 2019). Although the pathogen has been documented in many species across the Afrotropics, our understanding of how this pathogen impacts Afrotropical anuran diversity lags far behind that of other regions (Zimkus et al. 2020). Surveys of freshly sampled and historical specimens conﬁrmed that the pathogen is present on both São Tomé and Príncipe (Hydeman et al. 2013, 2017). The earliest infections date from the oldest specimens screened to date (2001), indicating that the pathogen has been present on the islands for at least 20 years (Hydeman et al. 2017). All of the endemic species have tested positive for Bd (including the caecilians), and genomic sequencing of the positive samples indicates that the more virulent Bd-GPL strain occurs on the islands (Byrne et al. 2019). No symptomatic individuals have been reported; however, we recommend careful monitoring of this emergent pathogen. Future Research The biogeographic history of the amphibian fauna of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands is emerging as our understanding of evolutionary relationships within African genera continues to improve. Robust phylogenies of Leptopelis and Phrynobatrachus, and better resolution within the Ptychadena mascareniensis species complex, will ﬁll important gaps in our understanding of how and when representatives of these genera reached the islands. The ecology and behavior of all the island species are incompletely understood, including basic aspects of reproductive biology (e.g., L. palmatus) and dependence on particular habitats (e.g., P. newtoni, H. thomensis), which are likely important considerations for effective conservation management. Like most vertebrates, São Tomé and Príncipe’s amphibians also serve as hosts for many parasites, including the fungal pathogen Bd and a recently described nematode (Meteterakis saotomensis; Junker et al. 2015), but the diversity of this microfauna and potential impacts on the amphibian hosts are poorly known. For instance, a recent study identiﬁed cryptic infection of P. leveleve (misidentiﬁed as P. dispar in the study) tadpoles by Perkinsea protists (Chambouvet 498 R. C. Bell et al. et al. 2015) that have caused mass mortality events in the United States (Davis et al. 2007). Further studies investigating the prevalence of this parasite in the tadpoles of the other endemics and whether it is associated with tadpole mortality are sorely needed. Beyond these more practical avenues for future research, the amphibians of São Tomé and Príncipe also exhibit intriguing phenotypic diversity for addressing long-standing hypotheses in evolutionary biology, including body size evolution and gigantism on islands (e.g., H. thomensis, L. palmatus, P. newtoni), intraspeciﬁc variation and interspeciﬁc divergence in coloration, and reproductive and dietary niche partitioning. Acknowledgments We thank Eng. Arlindo de Ceita Carvalho, Director General of the Ministry of Environment, Daniel Pontes, Director of the Príncipe Obo National Park, and the former President of Príncipe Autonomous Region, Dr. José Cassandra, for permission to collect and export specimens for study. We were assisted in the ﬁeld by Pedro Ceríaco, Ostelino da Conceição Rocha, Ana Carolina Sousa, Pedro Dias, Lauren Esposito, Maria Jerónimo, Mariana Pimentel Marques, Brian Simison, Felipe Spina, and Andrew Stanbridge. Expeditions to São Tomé and Príncipe by RCD, LAS and RCB were supported by donations from many generous friends and colleagues to the California Academy of Sciences Gulf of Guinea Fund. We are grateful to the curators and collection managers Giuliano Doria, Andreas Schmitz, Frank Tillack, Jakob Hallermann, and Patrick Campbell of the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “Giacomo Doria” (Genoa, Italy), the Musée d’Histoire Naturelle de la Ville de Genéve (Genéve, Switzerland), the Museum für Naturkunde (Berlin, Germany) Zoologisches Museum (Hamburg, Germany), and the Natural History Museum (London, UK), respectively, for allowing access and providing information about the collections in their care. We thank David Blackburn, John Boyette, Vaclav Gvozdík, Kevin Mulder, Kyle O’Connell, Ivan Prates, Rachel Quock, Ryan Schott and Mike Yuan for discussion and feedback to improve this manuscript. References Ahl E (1931) Anura III, Polypedatidae. Das Tierreich 55:1–477 Amiet J-L, Schiøtz A (1974) Voix d’amphibiens camerounais III. Hyperoliinae: genre Leptopelis. Annales de la Faculté des Sciences du Cameroun 17:131–163 Andersson LG (1937) Reptiles and batrachians collected in the Gambia by Gustav Svensson and Birger Rudebeck (Swedish Expedition 1931). Arkiv för Zoologi Stockholm 29(16):1–28 Bedriaga J (1892) Notes sur les amphibiens et reptiles recueillis par M. Adolphe F. Moller aus îles de la Guinée. O Instituto Coimbra Série 2 39:642–648 Bell RC (2016) A new species of Hyperolius (Amphibia: Hyperoliidae) from Príncipe Island, Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. Herpetologica 72:353–351 Bell RC, Irian CG (2019) Phenotypic and genetic divergence in reed frogs across a mosaic hybrid zone on São Tomé Island. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 128:672–680 Bell RC, Scheinberg LA (2016) Hyperolius molleri (Moller’s reed frog) and Phrynobatrachus dispar (Peters’ river frog). Heterospeciﬁc amplexus. Herpetological Review 47(2016):109 Bell RC, Drewes RC, Channing A et al (2015a) Overseas dispersal of Hyperolius reed frogs from Central Africa to the oceanic islands of São Tomé and Príncipe. Journal of Biogeography 42:65– 75 Bell RC, Drewes RC, Zamudio KR (2015b) Reed frog diversiﬁcation in the Gulf of Guinea: overseas dispersal, the progression rule, and in situ speciation. Evolution 69:904–915 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 499 Bell RC, Parra JL, Badjedjea G et al (2017) Idiosyncratic responses to climate-driven forest fragmentation and marine incursions in reed frogs from Central Africa and the Gulf of Guinea Islands. Molecular Ecology 26(19):5223–5244 Bergmann C (1847) Über die Verhältnisse der Wärmeökonomie der Thiere zu ihrer Grösse. Göttinger Studien, Munich. 116 pp Bocage JVB (1873) Mélanges erpétologiques. II. Sur quelques reptiles et batraciens nouveaux, rares ou peu connus d’Afrique occidentale. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 4:209–227 Bocage JVB (1886) Reptis e amphibios de S. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11:65–75 Boulenger GA (1882) Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia s. Ecaudata in the collection of the British Museum. Taylor and Francis, London, 503 pp Boulenger GA (1906) Report on the batrachians collected by the late L. Fea in West Africa. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova Series 3 2:157–172 Byrne AQ, Vredenburg VT, Martel A et al (2019) Cryptic diversity of a widespread global pathogen reveals expanded threats to amphibian conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(41):20382–20387 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP, Bell RC, Bauer AM (2022) The terrestrial reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 505–534 Chambouvet A, Gower DJ, Jirků M et al (2015) Cryptic infection of a broad taxonomic and geographic diversity of tadpoles by Perkinsea protists. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(34):E4743–E4751 Channing A, Rödel M-O (2019) Field guide to the frogs and other amphibians of Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town Darwin C (1859) On the origins of species by means of natural selection. Murray, London Darwin C (1874) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex, 2nd edn. Appleton, New York Davis AK, Yabsley MJ, Keel MK, Maerz JC (2007) Discovery of a novel alveolate pathogen affecting Southern Leopard frogs in Georgia: description of the disease and host effects. EcoHealth 4:310–317 Delêtre M, Measey GJ (2004) Sexual selection vs ecological causation in a sexually dimorphic caecilian, Schistometopum thomense (Amphibia Gymnophiona Caeciliidae). Ethology Ecology and Evolution 16(3):243–253 Drewes RC (1984) A phylogenetic analysis of the Hyperoliidae (Anura): treefrogs of Africa, Madagascar and the Seychelles islands. Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Sciences 139:1–70 Drewes RC, Stoelting RE (2004) The California Academy of Sciences Gulf of Guinea Expedition (2001) II. Additions and corrections to our knowledge of the endemic amphibians of São Tomé and Príncipe. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 55:573–587 Drewes RC, Wilkinson JA (2004) Gulf of Guinea Expedition (2001) I. The taxonomic status of the genus Nesionixalus Perret, 1976 (Anura: Hyperoliidae), treefrogs of São Tomé and Príncipe, with comments on the genus Hyperolius. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 55:395–407 Ducey PK, Formanowicz DR, Boyet L et al (1993) Experimental examination of burrowing behavior in caecilians (Amphibia: Gynmophiona): effects of soil compaction on burrowing ability of four species. Herpetologica 49(4):450–457 Fahr J (1993) Ein Beitrag zur Biologie der Amphibien der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea) (Amphibia). Faunistische Abhandlungen (Dresden) 19(1–16):75–84 Ferreira RB, Mônico AT, Zocca CZ et al (2019) Uncovering the natural history of the bromeligenous frog Crossodactylodes izecksohni (Leptodactylidae, Paratelmatobiinae). South American Journal of Herpetology 14:136–145 Gilbert CM, Bell RC (2018) Evolution of advertisement calls in an island radiation of African reed frogs. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 123:1–11 500 R. C. Bell et al. Gorham SW (1962) Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Gymnophiona Das Tierreich 78: 1–25 Gower DJ, Wilkinson M (2002) Phallus morphology in caecilians (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) and its systematic utility. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London (Zoology) 68(2): 143–154 Gower DJ, Giri V, Dharne MS, Shouche YS (2008) Frequency of independent origins of viviparity among caecilians (Gymnophiona): evidence from the ﬁrst “live-bearing” Asian amphibian. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21:1220–1226 Greeff R (1884a) Ueber die Fauna der Guinea-Inseln S. Thomé und Rolas. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft zur Beförderung der gesammten Naturwissenschaften zu Marburg 2:41–80 Greeff R (1884b) Über Siphonops thomensis Barboza du Bocage. Beitrag zur Kenntniss der Coecilien (Gymnophionen). Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft zur Beförderung der gesammten Naturwissenschaften zu Marburg 1:15–40 Guibé J, Lamotte M (1957) Révision systématique des Ptychadena (Batraciens, anoures ranidés) d’Afrique occidentale. Bulletin de l’Institut Française d’Afrique Noire. Série A, Sciences Naturelles 19:937–1003 Guimarães-Souza BA, Mendes GB, Bento L et al (2006) Limnological parameters in the water accumulated in tropical bromeliads. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia 18:47–53 Haft J (1992) Bemerkungen zu den Blindwühlen der Gattung Schistometopum von São Tomé (Gymnophiona, Caeciliidae). Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 43:477–479 Haft J, Franzen M (1996) Freilandbeobachtungen, Verhalten und Nachzucht der São Tomé-Blindwühle Schistometopum thomense (Bocage, 1873). Herpetofauna 18(105):5–11 Herrel A, Measey GJ (2010) The kinematics of locomotion in caecilians: effects of substrate and body shape. Journal of Experimental Zoology 313:301–309 Herrel A, Measey GJ (2012) Feeding underground: kinematics of feeding in caecilians. Journal of Experimental Zoology 317:533–539 Himstedt W, Simon D (1995) Sensory basis of foraging behaviour in caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). Herpetological Journal 5:266–270 Hofer D (1998) Blindwühlen im Freiland und in Gefangenschaft. Beobachtungen aus 20-jähriger Amateurforschung (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). Herpetozoa 11:37–46 Hydeman ME, Bell RC, Drewes ZKR (2013) Amphibian chytrid fungus conﬁrmed in endemic frogs and caecilians on the island of São Tomé, Africa. Herpetological Review 44:254–257 Hydeman ME, Longo AV, Velo-Antón G, Rodriguez D, Zamudio KR, Bell RC (2017) Prevalence and genetic diversity of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in central African island and continental amphibian communities. Ecology and Evolution 7:7729–7738 Idris ON (2004) Taxonomy, phylogeny, and biogeography of the African treefrog species of the genus Leptopelis (Hyperoliidae). PhD thesis. The University of Texas, Arlington IUCN (2021) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Version 2020-2. Available via International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 22 Oct 2021 Jaynes KE, Myers EA, Drewes RC, Bell RC (2021) New evidence for distinctiveness of the islandendemic Príncipe Giant Tree Frog, (Arthroleptidae: Leptopelis palmatus). Herpetological Journal 31(3):162–169 Jones DT, Loader SP, Gower DJ (2006) Trophic ecology of East African caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona), and their impact on forest soil invertebrates. Journal of Zoology 269:117–126 Junker K, Mariaux J, Measy GJ, Mutafchiev Y (2015) Meteterakis saotomensis n. sp. (Nematoda: Heterakidae) from Schistometopum thomense (Bocage) (Gymnophiona: Dermophiidae) on São Tomé island. Systematic Parasitology 92:131–139 Kang C, Sherratt TN, Kim YE et al (2017) Differential predation drives the geographical divergence in multiple traits in aposematic frogs. Behavioral Ecology 28:1122–1130 Laurent RF (1941) Contribution à l’ostéologie et à la systematique des ranides africains. Deuxième note. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines 34:192–234 Lavelle P, Bignell D, Lepage M et al (1997) Soil function in a changing world: the role of invertebrate ecosystem engineers. European Journal of Soil Biology 33:159–193 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 501 Lehtinen RM, Lannoo MJ, Wassersug RJ (2004) Phytotelm-breeding anurans: past, present and future research. In: Lehtinen RM (ed) Ecology and evolution of phytotelm-breeding anurans, vol 193. Miscellaneous publications. Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, pp 1–9 Loader SP, Pisani D, Cotton JA, Gower DJ, Day JJ, Wilkinson M (2007) Relative time scales reveal multiple origins of parallel disjunct distributions of African caecilian amphibians. Biology Letters 3(5):505–508 Loumont C (1992) Les amphibiens de São Tomé et Príncipe: Révision systématique, cris nuptiaux et caryotypes. Alytes 10:37–62 Luiselli L, Bikikoro L, Odegbune E et al (2004) Feeding relationships between sympatric Afrotropical tree frogs (genus Hyperolius): the effects of predator body size and season. Animal Biology 54:293–302 Manaças S (1958) Anfíbios e répteis das ilhas de São Tomé e do Príncipe e do Ilhéo das Rolas. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais, 6ª Sessão, S. Tomé, Comunicações 4: 179–192 Manaças S (1973) Alguns dos anfíbios e répteis da província de S. Tomé e Príncipe. In: Livro de Homenagem ao Prof. Fernando Frade. Junta Investigação do Ultramar, Lisbon, pp 219–230 Measey GJ (2006) Surveying biodiversity of soil herpetofauna: towards a standard quantitative methodology. European Journal of Soil Biology 42:S103–S110 Measey GJ, Herrel A (2006) Rotational feeding in caecilians: putting a spin on the evolution of cranial design. Biology Letters 2:485–487 Measey GJ, Van Dongen S (2006) Bergmann’s rule and the terrestrial caecilian Schistometopum thomense (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Caeciliidae). Evolutionary Ecology Research 8:1049– 1059 Measey GJ, Vences M, Drewes RC, Chiari Y, Melo M, Bourles B (2007) Freshwater paths across the ocean: molecular phylogeny of the frog Ptychadena newtoni gives insights into amphibian colonization of oceanic islands. Journal of Biogeography 34:7–20 Melo M, Ceríaco LMP, Bell RC (2022) Biogeography and evolution in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 141–170 Mertens R (1965) Die Amphibien von Fernando Poo. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 16(1965): 14–29 Mocquard F (1902) Sur des reptiles et batraciens de l’Afrique orientale anglaise, du Gabon et de la Guinée française (région de Kouroussa). Bulletin du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris 8: 404–417 Mohun SM, Davies WL, Bowmaker JK et al (2010) Identiﬁcation and characterization of visual pigments in caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona), an order of limbless vertebrates with rudimentary eyes. Journal of Experimental Biology 213(20):3586–3592 Nieden F (1910) Die Reptilien (ausser den Schlangen) und Amphibien. R. Friedländer & Sohn, Berlin, 74 pp Nussbaum RA, Pfrender ME (1998) Revision of the African caecilian genus Schistometopum Parker (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Caeciliidae), vol 187. Miscellaneous publications. Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, pp 1–32 O’Connell KA, Prates I, Scheinberg LA, Mulder KP, Bell RC (2021) Speciation and secondary contact in a fossorial island endemic, the São Tomé caecilian. Molecular Ecology 30:2859–2871 Parker HW (1936) The amphibians of the Mamfe Division, Cameroons.—I. Zoogeography and systematics. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 106(1):135–163 Parker HW (1941) The caecilians of the Seychelles. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History 7(37):1–17 Parker HW (1956) Viviparous caecilians and amphibian phylogeny. Nature 178(4527):250–252 Parker HW, Dunn ER (1964) Dentitional metamorphosis in the Amphibia. Copeia 1964(1):75–86 Perret J-L (1962) Révision des types de Leptopelis et note sur quelques Hyperolius (Amphibia Salientia) de la région camerounaise, conservés au Museum de Berlin. Revue Zoologique Botanique Africaine 65:235–246 502 R. C. Bell et al. Perret J-L (1966) Les amphibiens du Cameroun. Zoologische Jahrbücher. Abteilung für Systematik, Geographie und Biologie der Tiere 8:289–464 Perret J-L (1973) Leptopelis palmatus et Leptopelis rufus (Amphibia Salientia), deux espèces distinctes. Annales del al Faculté des Sciences du Yaoundé 15-16:81–90 Perret J-L (1976) Révision des amphibiens africains et principalement des types, conservés au Musée Bocage de Lisbonne. Arquivos do Museu Bocage Série 2(6):15–34 Perret J-L (1988) Sur quelques genres d’Hyperoliidae (Anura) restés en question. Bulletin de la Société Neuchâteloise des Sciences Naturelles 111:35–48 Peters WCH (1868) Über eine neue Nagergattung, Chiropodomys penicillatus, so wie über einige neue oder weniger bekannte Amphibien und Fische. Monatsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin, pp 448–460 Peters WCH (1870) Eine Mittheilung über neue Amphibien (Hemidactylus, Urosaura, Tropdolepisma, Geophis, Uriechis, Scaphiophis, Hoplocephalus, Rana, Entomoglossus, Cystignathus, Hylodes, Arthroleptis, Phyllobates, Cophomantis) des Königlich-Zoologischen Museums. Monatsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin, pp 641–652 Peters WCH (1874) Über neue Amphibien (Gymnopis, Siphonops, Polypedates, Rhacophorus, Hyla, Clyclodus, Euprepes, Clemmys). Monatsbericht der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin, pp 616–624 Peters WCH (1879) Über die Eintheilung der Caecilien und insbesondere über die Gattungen Rhinatrema und Gymnopis. Monatsbericht der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin, pp 924–943 Peters WCH (1880) Über neue oder weniger bekannte Amphibien des Berliner Zoologischen Museums (Leposoma dispar, Monopeltis (Phractogonus) jugularis, Typhlops depressus, Leptocalamus trilineatus, Xenodon punctatus, Elapomorphus erythronotus, Hylomantis fallax). Monatsbericht der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin, pp 217–224 Portik DM, Blackburn DC (2016) The evolution of reproductive diversity in Afrobatrachia: a phylogenetic comparative analysis of an extensive radiation of African frogs. Evolution 70(9): 2017–2032 Portik DM, Scheinberg LA, Blackburn DC, Saporito RA (2015) Lack of defensive alkaloids in the integumentary tissue of four brilliantly colored African reed frog species (Hyperoliidae: Hyperolius). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 10(3):833–838 Portik DM, Bell RC, Blackburn DC et al (2019) Sexual dichromatism drives diversiﬁcation within a major radiation of African amphibians. Systematic Biology 68(6):859–875 Portik DM, Blackburn DC, McGuire JA (2020) Macroevolutionary patterns of sexual size dimorphism among African tree frogs (Family: Hyperoliidae). Journal of Heredity 111(4):379–391 Rhymer JM, Simberloff D (1996) Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27:83–109 Sabaj M (2020) Codes for natural history collections in ichthyology and herpetology. Copeia 108: 593–669 Sánchez-Vialas A, Calvo-Revuelta M, Castroviejo-Fisher S, De la Riva I (2020) Synopsis of the amphibians of Equatorial Guinea based upon the authors’ ﬁeld work and Spanish natural history collections. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 66(8):137–230 San Mauro D, Gower DJ, Müller H et al (2014) Life-history evolution and mitogenomic phylogeny of caecilian amphibians. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 73:177–189 Schätti B, Loumont C (1992) Ein Beitrag zur Herpetofauna von São Tomé (Golf von Guinea) (Amphibia et Reptilia). Zoologische Abhandlungen. Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 47:22–36 Scheele BC, Pasmans F, Skerratt LF et al (2019) Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science 363(6434):1459–1463 Schick S, Kielgast J, Roedder D et al (2010) New species of reed frog from the Congo basin with discussion of paraphyly in Cinnamon-belly reed frogs. Zootaxa 2501(1):23–36 18 The Amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 503 Schiøtz A (1963) The amphibians of Nigeria. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening i Kjøbenhavn 125:1–92 Schiøtz A (1967) The treefrogs (Rhacophoridae) of West Africa. Spolia Zoologica Musei Hauniensis 25:1–346 Schiøtz A (1999) Treefrogs of Africa. Edition Chimaira, Franfurt Sherratt E, Gower DJ, Klingenberg CP, Wilkinson M (2014) Evolution of cranial shape in caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). Evolutionary Biology 41:528–545 Smits AW, Flanagin JI (1994) Bimodal respiration in aquatic and terrestrial apodan amphibians. American Zoologist 34:247–263 Stoelting RE, Measey GJ, Drewes RC (2014) Population genetics of the São Tomé caecilian (Gymnophiona: Dermophiidae: Schistometopum thomense) reveals strong geographic structuring. PLoS One 9(8):e104628 Strauss L, Lima RF, Riesbeck F, Rödel M-O (2018) São Tomé Island endemic treefrogs (Hyperolius spp.) and land-use intensiﬁcation: a tale of hope and caution. Tropical Conservation Science 11:1940082918776434 Taylor EH (1965) New Asiatic and African caecilians with redescriptions of certain other species. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 46:253–302 Taylor EH (1968) The caecilians of the world: a taxonomic review. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence Teodecki EE, Brodie ED Jr, Formanowicz DR, Nussbaum RA (1998) Head dimorphism and burrowing speed in the African caecilian Schistometopum thomense. Herpetologica 54(2): 154–160 Tolojanahary NL, Fatroandrianjaﬁnonjasolomiovazo N, Rasoamampionona R, Vieites DR, Vences M (2011) Diet of the Mascarene grass frog, Ptychadena mascareniensis, in Madagascar. Malagasy Nature 5:68–74 Uyeda JC, Drewes RC, Zimkus BM (2007) The California Academy of Sciences Gulf of Guinea Expeditions (2001, 2006) VI. A new species of Phrynobatrachus from the Gulf of Guinea Islands and a reanalysis of Phrynobatrachus dispar and P. feae (Anura: Phrynobatrachidae). Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 58(18):367–385 Vitt LJ, Caldwell JP (2014) Biogeography and phylogeography. In: Vitt LJ, Caldwell JP (eds) Herpetology: an introductory biology of amphibians and reptiles. Academic, London, pp 381–406 Wake MH (1977) Fetal maintenance and its evolutionary signiﬁcance in the Amphibia: Gymnophiona. Journal of Herpetology 11(4):379–386 Wilkinson M, Loader SP, Gower DJ, Sheps JA, Cohen BL (2003) Phylogenetic relationships of African caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona): insights from mitochondrial rRNA gene sequences. African Journal of Herpetology 52:83–92 Witte GF (1941) Exploration du Parc National Albert, batraciens et reptiles. Institut des Parcs Nationaux du Congo Belge 33:1–261 Wollenberg KC, Measey GJ (2009) Why colour in subterranean vertebrates? Exploring the evolution of colour patterns in caecilian amphibians. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22: 1046–1056 Womack MC, Bell RC (2020) Two-hundred million years of anuran body-size evolution in relation to geography, ecology and life history. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 33(10):1417–1432 Zimkus BM, Rödel M-O, Hillers A (2010) Complex patterns of continental speciation: molecular phylogenetics and biogeography of sub-Saharan puddle frogs (Phrynobatrachus). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 55:883–900 Zimkus BM, Lawson LP, Barej MF et al (2017) Leapfrogging into new territory: how Mascarene ridged frogs diversiﬁed across Africa and Madagascar to maintain their ecological niche. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 106:254–269 Zimkus BM, Baláž V, Belasen AM et al (2020) Chytrid pathogen (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in African amphibians: a continental analysis of occurrences and modeling of its potential distribution. Herpetologica 76(2):201–215 504 R. C. Bell et al. Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Mariana P. Marques, Rayna C. Bell, and Aaron M. Bauer Abstract This chapter reviews current knowledge on the diversity of terrestrial reptiles in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands and provides a brief history of research on this group of animals. A total of 29 species of terrestrial reptiles (representing 14 genera and seven families) are resident on the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, of which 22 species are endemic. Taxonomic work on these animals began in the second half of the nineteenth century, with more recent updates following the advent of molecular techniques and more comprehensive sampling. Although nearly complete, the taxonomic inventory of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic island terrestrial L. M. P. Ceríaco (*) Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO, Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: lmceriaco@mhnc.up.pt M. P. Marques Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal Present Address: BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO, Vairão, Portugal R. C. Bell Department of Herpetology, Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA A. M. Bauer Department of Biology and Center for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Stewardship, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_19 505 506 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. reptiles is still ongoing, and further studies on the natural history, ecology, and conservation of these animals are urgently needed. Keywords Conservation · Endemism · Herpetofauna · Introduced species · Taxonomy Introduction Across the world, islands harbor a rich diversity of reptile species, many of them endemic. In contrast to other groups of non-volant terrestrial vertebrates such as small mammals and amphibians, reptiles are successful dispersers across marine barriers due to their ecology and physiology, which enable them to endure longdistance rafting events (Vitt and Caldwell 2004). Some island reptiles, such as the Galapagos tortoises and marine iguanas, rank amongst the most iconic species in the world. These species are especially famous for providing Charles Darwin (1809–1882) with the inspiration for his theory of evolution by natural selection. Island reptiles have since become important models for the study of evolution and adaptation in insular environments. For instance, the anoles (Squamata: Dactyloidea) of the West Indies and lacertids (Squamata: Lacertidae) of the Mediterranean islands are now classic systems for evolutionary and ecological studies (e.g., Corti et al. 2006; Losos 2009). In the eastern Atlantic, reptiles of the Madeira, Cabo Verde and the Gulf of Guinea oceanic archipelagos have been the subject of phylogenetic and biogeographic studies (e.g., Jesus et al. 2003, 2005a–c, 2006, 2007, 2009; Vasconcelos et al. 2010), recent descriptions of cryptic diversity (e.g., Miller et al. 2012; Ceríaco 2015; Ceríaco et al. 2016, 2017, 2021a; Soares et al. 2018), as well as ecological studies (e.g., Lopes et al. 2019). With approximately 30 species and exceptional endemism, the Gulf of Guinea archipelago is a hotspot for reptile diversity, especially when considering the small land area of the islands. Here we present an updated taxonomic overview of the terrestrial reptiles of these islands and surrounding islets, highlighting diversity, endemism, biogeographic patterns and conservation. Marine turtles are the only non-terrestrial reptiles occurring in these islands and are covered in Ferreira-Airaud et al. (2022). We also provide a brief history of the research on reptiles in the archipelago and highlight important avenues for future work. History of Reptile Research The ﬁrst record of a reptile from the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands was the description of Mocoa (currently Panaspis) africana by Gray (1845). There are no data regarding the collector or precise locality of collection, but the type locality has since been restricted to Príncipe Island (Soares et al. 2018). Some decades later, the curator of the Zoological Museum of Berlin, Wilhelm Peters (1815–1883), described Typhlops (Ophthamidion) [currently Afrotyphlops] elegans based on specimens collected by 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 507 the German explorer Heinrich Wolfgang Ludwig Dhorn (1838–1913) on Príncipe (Peters 1868). Subsequently, the German zoologist Richard Greeff (1829–1892) explored São Tomé and Rolas islet from 1879 to 1880 and provided one of the ﬁrst reports of their herpetofauna (Greeff 1884). Based on specimens collected by Greeff, two species of reptile were described: Scalabotes (now Lygodactylus) thomensis by Peters (1881) and Hemidactylus greefﬁi by Bocage (1886a). Some of Greeff’s specimens are still extant in the collections of the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin (ZMB) and Zoologisches Museum Hamburg (ZMH). Following Greeff’s surveys, two Portuguese museums funded expeditions to the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In 1885, the Botanical Gardens of the University of Coimbra sent their chief gardener Adolfo Frederico Möller (1842–1920) to São Tomé to explore and collect natural history specimens for the Botanical Gardens and the university museum. Most of the zoological specimens collected by Möller were sent to the Zoological Museum of the University of Coimbra (ZMUC, now part of the Museu da Ciência da Universidade de Coimbra—MCUC), and a brief inventory of these specimens was published by Vieira (1886). Almost all of this material was examined and identiﬁed by the Portuguese zoologist José Vicente Barbosa du Bocage (1823–1907) and is still extant in the collections of MCUC (Themido 1941; LMPC pers. obs.). Some amphibian and reptile specimens, however, were likely sent by Möller to the Russian zoologist Jacques von Bedriaga (1854–1906) who was a correspondent scholar with the University of Coimbra. Bedriaga published a thorough revision of the amphibians and reptiles of São Tomé and described a new subspecies of gecko, Hemidactylus mabouia var. molleri (currently a synonym of H. longicephalus, see below), in honor of Adolfo Möller and provided a detailed description of a specimen of Dendroaspis jamesonii from the island (Bedriaga 1892, 1893a–c). Bedriaga’s publications triggered criticism from Bocage (1892a–c, 1893), who cast doubts on the identity of Hemidactylus mabouia var. molleri (Bocage 1892a) and the Dendroaspis (Bocage 1892c). These disagreements have since been addressed in Ceríaco and Marques (2012) and Ceríaco et al. (2018). There are no further records of the specimens sent by Möller to Bedriaga and they are presumably lost. Also in 1885, Francisco Xavier Oakley de Aguiar Newton (1864–1909), commonly known as Francisco Newton, was hired by the National Museum of Lisbon to conduct zoological surveys in the Gulf of Guinea. From 1885 to 1895, Newton explored all the Gulf of Guinea islands, as well as Benin, and his specimens were ultimately deposited in the Zoological Section of the National Museum of Lisbon. This material was studied by Barbosa du Bocage, director of the museum, and Júlio Guilherme Bethencourt Ferreira (1866–1948), Bocage’s pupil. Based on Newton’s collections Bocage described four species of reptile from the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: Feylinia polylepis, Mabuia [¼ currently Trachylepis] ozorii, Typhlops [¼ currently Letheobia] newtoni, and Philothamnus girardi. Also based on these collections, Bocage provided important revisionary works on the fauna of these islands (Bocage 1886a–c, 1873, 1887, 1890, 1892a–c, 1893, 1895, 1903, 1905), and Ferreira (1897) described Hemidactylus newtoni from Annobón. The entirety of Newton’s collections was unfortunately lost in the ﬁre that destroyed the Museu Bocage, Lisbon, in 1978. 508 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Following Newton’s steps, the Italian explorer Leonardo Fea (1852–1903) explored the four principal islands of the Gulf of Guinea from 1901 to 1902 under the sponsorship of the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale of Genoa, Italy (currently known as Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “Giacomo Doria;” MSNG). Fea’s collections, which are still extant in the MSNG with a small subset in the Natural History Museum of London (BMNH), were initially studied by George Albert Boulenger (1858–1937). Based on these collections, Boulenger (1906) described four new taxa: Hemidactylus aporus from Annobón, Typhlops [currently Letheobia] feae from São Tomé, Boodon [¼Boaedon] bedriagae, from both São Tomé and Príncipe, and Gastropyxis [currently Hapsidophrys] principis from Príncipe. Some of these specimens were revisited by Lilia Capocaccia in a revision of certain snake genera (Capocaccia 1961a) and the type catalog of the MSNG (Capocaccia 1961b). A small collection of reptiles from São Tomé and Príncipe, collected by Henri Navel (1878–1963) in 1920, was subsequently studied by the French herpetologist Fernand Angel (1881–1950), who described Typhlops naveli (currently considered as a junior synonym of Letheobia newtoni; ﬁde Roux-Estève 1974) from Príncipe (Angel 1920). An additional contribution to the knowledge of São Tomé snakes was provided by the curator of the American Museum of Natural History, Charles M. Bogert (1908–1992), who used specimens collected by the Portuguese explorer José G. Correia (1881–1954) to review the identity of the São Tomé Jitas (Boaedon; Bogert 1940). During the 1950s and 1960s the Portuguese Centro de Zoologia da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar (CZL) conducted zoological surveys on São Tomé and Príncipe. The ﬁrst mission, conducted by the Portuguese zoologist Fernando Frade Viegas da Costa (1898–1983; commonly referred to simply as Fernando Frade), lasted from September 10 to December 26, 1954. Between 1966 and 1967, several herpetological specimens were collected by different researchers associated with the colonial enterprise over the course of multiple scientiﬁc surveys. The material collected during these surveys was studied by the Portuguese herpetologist Sara Maria Bárbara Marques Manaças (1896–death date unknown), resulting in two publications (Manaças 1958, 1973). Most of the specimens were housed in the collections of the Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical (IICT), in Lisbon, Portugal, but in 2016 they were incorporated into the collections of the Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência (MUHNAC), of the University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. A total of 157 reptile specimens from these expeditions are still extant in these collections (Ceríaco and Marques 2018; Ceríaco et al. 2021b). Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, several authors used existing specimens in various collections for taxonomic revisions of different genera, resulting in important contributions to the knowledge of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands taxa. For instance, the French herpetologist Georges Pasteur (1930–2015) used specimens of the Fea collections in the BMNH to revise the Lygodactylus of these islands (Pasteur 1962), leading to the description of two subspecies of L. thomensis: L. thomensis delicatus from Príncipe, and L. thomensis wermuthi from Annobón. The Swiss herpetologist Jean-Luc Perret (1925–) used specimens from the CZL and Fea collections in the BMNH for his major revision of the genus Panaspis (Perret 1972). Subsequently, the Romanian herpetologist Ion Eduard Fuhn (1916–1987) 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 509 used specimens from Fea collections housed in the BMNH to describe Panaspis annobonensis from Annobón and review the Panaspis of São Tomé and Príncipe, at the time both considered P. africana (Fuhn 1972). Following the independence of Equatorial Guinea (from Spain in 1968) and São Tomé and Príncipe (from Portugal in 1975), several teams undertook expeditions to the islands to further expand knowledge on their herpetological diversity. In 1984 a team from the zoology and anthropology department of the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon and the Museu Nacional de História Natural (Museu Bocage), Lisbon, led by Luis Mendes (1946–), conducted a 1 month (June 13 to July 7) zoological expedition to São Tomé (Mendes et al. 1988). Although the expedition did not have a dedicated herpetologist, some reptile specimens were collected, and these are still extant in MUHNAC collections (Ceríaco and Marques 2019). Ronald Nussbaum (1942–) from the University of Michigan and Michael Prfender (1960–) visited the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe in June and July of 1988. While mainly focused on the study of amphibians, especially the São Tomé endemic caecilian Schistometopum thomense (Bocage, 1873), Nussbaum and Pfrender also collected several reptile specimens, of which 333 are still in the collections of the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (UMMZ; see University of Michigan Museum of Zoology 2020). These specimens have not been included in any publication or study, although they represent the third largest reptile collection from São Tomé and Príncipe in any museum and are an important source of data on the geographical distributions of many species. From 1989 to 1991 expeditions to São Tomé and Príncipe led by Catherine Loumont (1942–), Tillman Nill (date of birth unknown), Jakob Fahr (1966–) and Jan Haft (1967–), resulted in reviews of the herpetofauna of these islands (Schätti and Loumont 1992; Nill 1993; Haft 1993). Some of these specimens are housed in the ZMB and the collections of the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de la Ville de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland (Andreas Schmitz pers. comm.) A major contribution to our understanding of the herpetofauna of the three oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea was provided by José Jesus (1967–) from the University of Madeira, Funchal, Portugal, who dedicated part of his Ph.D. thesis to study the phylogeny and phylogeography of the islands’ reptiles, providing molecular data for many of the taxa. Jesus and his team visited Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón in the summer of 2002, and based on the specimens and tissues collected, provided the ﬁrst molecular phylogenetic and phylogeographic context for the species of the genus Trachylepis (Jesus et al. 2005a, b), Hemidactylus (Jesus et al. 2005c), Lygodactylus (Jesus et al. 2006), Panaspis (Jesus et al. 2007) and Philothamnus (Jesus et al. 2009) occurring in these islands. Jesus et al. (2003) also provided an updated checklist of the reptiles of Annobón, in which they noted the ﬁrst records of Tropical House Gecko, Hemidactylus mabouia, and the invasive Flowerpot snake, Indotyphlops braminus on the island. The specimens collected by Jesus and his team were primarily deposited in the collections of the University of Madeira, with smaller subsets in MUHNAC and the California Academy of Sciences (CAS), San Francisco. 510 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Table 19.1 Main natural history institutions housing reptile specimens from the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Acronyms follow Sabaj (2020) Collection CAS: California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, United States of America MUHNAC/IICT: Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência/Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisbon, Portugal UMMZ: University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, United States of America MHNG: Muséum d’Histoire naturelle de la Ville de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland MSNG: Museo Civico di Storia Naturale ‘Giacomo Doria’, Genova, Italy MHNCUP: Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal MNHN: Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France NHM: Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom ZMH: Zoologisches Museum Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany SNM: Natural History Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark MCZ: Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States of America a São Tomé 228 Príncipe 219 Annobón 8 Type specimens 24 Total 455 108 239 14 26 361 122 210 – – 332 136 – – 7 136 43 49 9 5 101 22 18 – 13 5 2 6 7 3 15a 8 1 1 1 10 10 – – – 10 1 4 1 – 6 – 40 – 18 Probably more At about the same time, in 2001, the CAS led by herpetology curator Robert “Bob” C. Drewes (1942–), began what would become known as the CAS Gulf of Guinea Expeditions. This project, which has made a total of 12 expeditions to the islands as of 2020, is still ongoing and has been one of the most comprehensive efforts to study the biodiversity of São Tomé and Príncipe islands since Francisco Newton’s expedition in the nineteenth century. Due to Drewes’ herpetological background, the project has always had a strong emphasis on the study of the amphibians and reptiles of these islands (see Bell et al. 2022). The reptile collections resulting from these expeditions are currently the largest in the world (Table 19.1), with a total of 449 specimens (Scheinberg and Fong 2019). One important taxonomic contribution from these expeditions was the description of the Príncipe Gecko, Hemidactylus principensis Miller, Sellas and Drewes, 2012, the ﬁrst endemic reptile described from the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands since 1972 (Miller et al. 2012). 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 511 Finally, since 2013, a team from MUHNAC led by Luis M. P. Ceríaco (1987–) started herpetological surveys in São Tomé and Príncipe. A total of four expeditions (two in 2013, one in 2015, one in 2016) to Príncipe and São Tomé islands, as well as to Tinhosa Grande islet, were conducted by the team, which resulted in the collection of 155 reptile specimens, currently housed in MUHNAC collections (Ceríaco and Marques 2019). Combined with the specimens collected by Mendes et al. (1988) and those originally from IICT (Ceríaco and Marques 2018), MUHNAC collections hold a total of 354 specimens of São Tomé and Príncipe reptiles and are the second largest in the world. Building on the knowledge amassed through newly collected specimens, the available Portuguese and North American collections, as well as the molecular baseline provided by the Jesus et al. studies, Ceríaco and team have contributed to the taxonomic revision of most of the reptile groups occurring on the islands. This led to the description of: three species of skinks of the genus Trachylepis (Ceríaco 2015; Ceríaco et al. 2016)—Trachyelpis adamastor Ceríaco, 2015, Trachylepis thomensis Ceríaco, Marques and Bauer, 2016, and Trachylepis principensis Ceríaco, Marques and Bauer, 2016, endemic to Tinhosa Grande islet, São Tomé, and Príncipe, respectively; a new species of Cobra (Ceríaco et al. 2017)—Naja (Boulengerina) peroescobari Ceríaco, Marques, Schmitz and Bauer, 2017; a new species of the genus Panaspis, endemic to São Tomé (Soares et al. 2018)—Panaspis thomensis Ceríaco, Soares, Marques et al., 2018; and a new species of lamprophid snake of the genus Boaedon (Ceríaco et al. 2021a)—Boaedon mendesi Ceríaco, Arellano, Jadin et al., 2021. In 2018 Ceríaco’s team moved to the Museu de História Natural e da Ciência of the University of Porto (MHNCUP) and new ﬁeld work has been carried out since then. Diversity and Endemism At present, a total of 29 reptile species have been reported as resident from the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Table 19.2). Of these, 22 are endemic to one or two islands, three are presumed invasive/introduced species, and one corresponds to questionable records of a putative species of mamba. An additional species is considered vagrant to São Tomé. We discuss the taxonomic status and biology of each species in more detail below. Crocodilians There are currently no established crocodilian populations inhabiting the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Historical records dating back to the ﬁrst decades of Portuguese presence suggest that a species of Crocodylus occurred on São Tomé. A report from the Portuguese navigator Gonçalo Pires (birth and death dates unknown), transcribed by Valentim Fernandes (ca. 1450–1519) and subsequently 512 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Table 19.2 List of terrestrial reptiles from Príncipe (P), São Tomé (ST) and Annobón (A) islands Higher taxonomy Order Crocodylia Family Crocodylidae Crocodylus Laurenti, 1768 Order Testudines Family Pelomedusidae Pelusios Wagler, 1830 Order Squamata Family Gekkonidae Hemidactylus Goldfuss, 1820 Lygodactylus Gray, 1864 Family Scincidae Feylinia Gray, 1845 Panaspis Cope, 1868 Trachylepys Fitzinger, 1843 Family Typhlopidae Afrotyphlops Broadley and Wallach, 2009 Letheobia Cope, 1869 Indotyphlops Hedges, Marion, Lipp, Marin and Vidal, 2014 Family Lamprophiidae Boaedon Duméril, Bibron and Duméril, 1854 Species/subspecies P Crocodylus niloticus Laurenti, 1768 Pelusios castaneus (Schweigger, 1812) Hemidactylus aporus Boulenger, 1906 Hemidactylus greefﬁi Bocage, 1886 Hemidactylus mabouia (Moreau de Jonnés, 1818) Hemidactylus longicephalus Bocage, 1873 Hemidactylus principensis Miller, Sellas and Drewes, 2012 Hemidactylus newtoni Ferreira, 1897 Lygodactylus delicatus Pasteur, 1962 Lygodactylus thomensis (Peters, 1881) Lygodactylus wermuthi Pasteur, 1962 A IUCN V X X I E I I I LC E? I NT E E E E E E Afrotyphlops elegans (Peters, 1868) E Letheobia newtoni (Bocage, 1890) Letheobia feae (Boulenger, 1906) Indotyphlops braminus (Daudin, 1803) E E DD LC LC LC LC LC LC E E DD LCa LC LC E LC E X E LC E E I E E DD NT LC LC E Feylinia polylepis Bocage, 1887 Panaspis africana (Gray, 1845) Panaspis thomensis Ceríaco et al. 2016 Panaspis annobonensis (Fuhn, 1972) Trachylepis adamastor Ceríaco, 2015 Trachylepis afﬁnis (Gray, 1838) Trachylepis thomensis Ceríaco, Marques and Bauer, 2016 Trachylepis ozorii (Bocage, 1893) Boaedon bedriagae Boulenger, 1906 Boaedon mendesi Ceríaco et al. 2021 ST DD DD LC LC NE (continued) 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 513 Table 19.2 (continued) Higher taxonomy Family Colubridae Philothamnus Smith, 1847 Hapsidophrys Fischer, 1856 Family Elapidae Naja Laurenti, 1768 Dendroaspis Schlegel, 1848 Species/subspecies Philothamnus thomensis Bocage, 1882 Philothamnus girardi Bocage, 1893 Hapsidophrys principis (Boulenger, 1906) Naja (Boulengerina) peroescobari Ceríaco, Marques, Schmitz and Bauer, 2017 Dendroaspis cf. jamesoni (Trail, 1843) P ST A E LC E E IUCN LC LC E EN ? LC Status in each island: E, endemic; I, introduced; V, vagrant; X, resident; ?, uncertain. IUCN Red List Categories: DD, data deﬁcient; LC, least concern; NE, not evaluated; NT, near threatened; EN, endangered a As T. principensis published by several authors (Henriques 1917; Baião 1940; Ceríaco et al. 2018) mentions the following: There were many lizards of about twelve cubits [approximately 540 cm], but now there are few. They eat men and women, cows and bulls and all types of animals. These lizards don’t exit the water, as their tails stay always inside freshwater, and any animal that he captures he takes into the water and in the water he kills it, and it rears up on his tail achieving the size of a man. The current captain, Fernã do Mello, has a very big and fearful lizard contained in a pond, and above this pond he mounted a scaffold to allow its observation. This lizard used to move from the river to the pond several times a month. And he caused a lot of damage to the men and animals, and 1 day, a small and despicable man who observed the lizard for some time, once he found it in the pond and with his hoe he cut the lizard’s limbs and closed the pond so he couldn’t ever escape and went to tell this to the captain. [LMP Ceríaco’s translation from the archaic Portuguese original] In a subsequent passage of the text, the authors refer to the “very big lizards, that now fear the men.” [author’s translation from the archaic Portuguese original]. Due to the perceived danger that the São Tomé crocodiles posed to the Portuguese settlers, it is fair to assume that the population was completely extirpated. As no archeological remains of these animals are known, the taxonomic identity of this historical São Tomé crocodilian cannot be determined but is likely that they were either an insular population of Crocodylus niloticus Laurenti, 1768, or C. suchus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1807. However, the presence of crocodiles in the islands may be more common than the available data suggest. In early April 2021, a live crocodile appeared on Roça Colónia Açoreana beach, in the southeastern part of São Tomé Island (Fig. 19.1, 1). Other records of a large lizard seen in the Angra Toldo region, and said to be a crocodile, had previously surfaced on social media, but these records have never been conﬁrmed. The animal from Colónia Açoreana was a female Crocodylus 514 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Fig. 19.1 Crocodile from Colónia Açoreana beach, São Tomé Island: (1) Live photo of the animal on 4 April 2021; (2) Skin of the specimen in the biology laboratory of the Portuguese School of São Tomé; (3, 4) Specimen after being shot. Photo credits: (1) Maria Branco, (2) Luis M. P. Ceríaco, (3, 4) Unknown 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 515 niloticus, of approximately two meters total length, which was observed and photographed for several weeks on the beach. Due to the safety concerns it presented, the animal was killed by the authorities at the end of the month (Fig. 19.1, 3–4). The specimen’s head and skin were prepared by two of the authors (LMPC and MPM) and deposited in the biology laboratory of the Portuguese School of São Tomé and Príncipe (Fig. 19.1, 2). Molecular studies are underway to identify the source population of the animal in continental Africa. At about the same time of the appearance of the crocodile in Colónia Açoreana, two Angolan ﬁshermen in a castaway boat that had drifted from the Angolan coast near the mouth of Congo River were rescued near São Tomé by the local authorities. The Gulf of Guinea sea currents and the considerable ﬂow of the Congo River at that time due to heavy rains on the continent may help to explain both of these arrivals. Terrapins Family Pelomedusidae Only one species of terrapin occurs in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, the West Africa mud turtle, Pelusios castaneus (Schweigger, 1812) (Fig. 19.2, 1). The species has mostly been recorded from São Tomé, where it is locally known as “Bencú” and is used by Santomeans in the local gastronomy. Recent sightings in Príncipe suggest that the species also occurs on the island, but currently, there are still no available specimens in public collections to permit a clearer and detailed assessment of its taxonomic status. The species has a considerable distribution through West and Central Africa, extending from Senegal to northern Angola (Bour et al. 2016; Rhodin et al. 2017). Fritz et al. (2010) presented evidence from three mitochondrial and three nuclear loci that the population from São Tomé is closely related to populations from Ivory Coast and represents a recent colonization. A subsequent study by Kindler et al. (2016) using the same loci but with additional geographic sampling uncovered several geographically distinct clades across the distribution of P. castaneus, with the São Tomé population nested within a West African clade along with specimens from Ivory Coast and Nigeria. Despite not being a common species, P. castaneus has been reported from the island since the 1880s (Greeff 1884; Bocage 1886a, 1889) and was more recently found in Oque d’el Rei, Água Grande District (February 2013, specimens deposited in the collections of MUHNAC). Data on the distribution, abundance, ecology, and natural history of this species in São Tomé are still very limited, although it is expected that the species inhabits rivers, streams and temporary water bodies as it does throughout its range in continental Africa (Bour et al. 2016). As the phylogenetic studies indicate, a possible human-mediated introduction of P. castaneus to São Tomé cannot be rejected, but further research is needed to clarify the evolutionary history of this population. 516 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Fig. 19.2 Gulf of Guinea oceanic island reptiles: (1) West African mud turtle, Pelusios castaneus, from São Tomé Island; (2) Príncipe Gecko, Hemidactylus principensis, from Príncipe Island; (3) Manyscale Feylinia, Feylinia polylepis, from Príncipe Island; (4) Adamastor Skink, Trachylepis thomensis, from São Tomé Island; (5) Elegant Worm Snake, locally known as Cobra-bobô, Afrotyphlops elegans, from Príncipe Island; (6) Mendes’ House Snake, locally known as Jita, Boaedon mendesi, from Príncipe Island; (7) Príncipe Emerald Snake, locally known as Suá-suá, Hapsidophrys principis, from Príncipe Island; (8) São Tomé Cobra, locally known as Cobra-preta, Naja peroescobari, from São Tomé Island. Photo credits: (1–8) Luis M. P. Ceríaco 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 517 Squamata Squamate diversity in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands includes 28 species from two families of lizards—Gekkonidae, Scincidae—and four families of snakes— Typholpidae, Lamprophiidae, Colubridae and Elapidae. All species are endemic to the islands, except for one native skink (family Scincidae), two introduced geckos (family Gekkonidae), one introduced snake (family Typholopidae), and one gecko (family Gekkonidae) and one snake (family Elapidae) that are based on doubtful or problematic records that require further investigation. Family Gekkonidae The geckos of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands belong to two different genera: the Dwarf Geckos of the genus Lygodactylus Gray, 1864, and the Tropical House Geckos of the genus Hemidactylus Goldfuss, 1820. Each island is represented by its own endemic form of Lygodactylus: the Príncipe Dwarf Gecko, L. delicatus Pasteur, 1962, the São Tomé Dwarf Gecko, L. thomensis (Peters, 1881), and the Annobón Dwarf Gecko, L. wermuthi Pasteur, 1962. Following the initial description of L. thomensis by Peters (1881), several authors considered the populations on all three islands as conspeciﬁc (e.g., Bocage 1886a, 1892b, 1893, 1903, 1905; Boulenger 1885, 1906; Sternfeld 1917; Loveridge 1947). Pasteur (1962) reviewed the group and described delicatus and wermuthi as subspecies of thomensis based on morphological and coloration differences. With the exception of Manaças (1958), subsequent authors followed the Pasteur (1962) taxonomy (Schätti and Loumont 1992; Haft 1993). Jesus et al. (2006) were the ﬁrst to provide molecular data for these island taxa and found the level of divergence in 12S and 16S mitochondrial genes was within the level of divergence observed between other species within the genus. With this combination of phenotypic and genetic distinctiveness, and their allopatric distributions, Ceríaco et al. (2018) considered each island population as a valid species. Data on the distribution, abundance, ecology, and natural history of the three species are limited. Lygodactylus thomensis and L. delicatus are commonly observed in human settlements, especially on walls, fences and other structures (Manaças 1958, LMPC pers. obs.); however, Jesus et al. (2003) noted that L. wermuthi has only been found in forested areas. Manaças (1958) recorded specimens of ﬂies (Diptera) in the stomach contents of L. delicatus. The taxonomy of the genus Hemidactylus is considerably more complex. A total of six species are currently recorded for the islands. Four of these are endemic to the islands: the Príncipe Gecko, Hemidactylus principensis Miller, Sellas and Drewes, 2012, endemic to Príncipe and Tinhosa Grande islet (Fig. 19.2, 2); Greeff’s Gecko, H. greefﬁi Bocage, 1866, endemic to São Tomé and Rolas islet; Newton’s Gecko, H. newtoni Ferreira, 1897, endemic to Annobón; and the Annobón Gecko, H. aporus Boulenger, 1906. The remaining two species are most likely human introductions— the Long-Headed Tropical Gecko, H. longicephalus, Bocage, 1873, occurring on 518 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. São Tomé and Príncipe, the Tropical House Gecko, H. mabouia (Moreau de Jonnès, 1818), occurring on all three islands and Rolas. Príncipe and São Tomé islands, as well as the surrounding islets of Tinhosa Grande and Rolas, respectively, host an endemic lineage of the genus Hemidactylus comprising H. principensis and H. greefﬁi (Bauer et al. 2010; Miller et al. 2012; Ceríaco et al. 2020a). These two species exhibit a clear synapomorphic character that differentiates them from all other African species of Hemidactylus: the absence of the terminal phalanx and claw of the ﬁrst digit (thumb) of the manus (Bocage 1886a, 1905; Boulenger 1906; Loveridge 1947; Haft 1993; Miller et al. 2012). Both species are members of the African-Atlantic clade, a group mainly comprising Angolan and Western African species that are closely related to Brazilian species such as H. brasilianus Amaral, 1935 (Ceríaco et al. 2020a). While H. greefﬁi was described in the 1880s by Bocage (1886a), H. principensis was only recently described by Miller et al. (2012) on the basis of genetic divergence and several morphological differences, including iris coloration and body size. The unidentiﬁed Hemidactylus from Tinhosa Grande reported by Ceríaco (2015) was shown, through the use of molecular data, to be conspeciﬁc with H. principensis from Príncipe Island (Ceríaco et al. 2020b). The known distribution of both species is very limited (Greeff 1884; Bocage 1886a, 1905; Boulenger 1906; Manaças 1958; Schätti and Loumont 1992; Haft 1993; Miller et al. 2012). Both species appear to be less abundant in more developed areas and preferring less disturbed habitats (LMPC pers. obs.); however, they are able to colonize and thrive in both forested and more xeric areas, as in the case of the Tinhosa Grande islet population. The Annobón endemics, H. newtoni and H. aporus, have a more convoluted taxonomic history. H. newtoni was described by Ferreira (1897) based on a series of seven specimens collected by Francisco Newton in 1893: one adult male, ﬁve adult females and one juvenile. These same specimens were previously examined by Bocage (1893), who tentatively identiﬁed them as H. mabouia, noting, however, that they differed from H. mabouia in being “smaller and having relatively larger and closer dorsal tubercles.” Ferreira (1897) considered the dorsal patterns of transverse “W” shaped markings extending from the neck to the insertion of the tail, the number and disposition of the dorsal tubercles, and the “very long and ﬂattened digits, with strong claws and enlarged proximally, with larger and more numerous number of subdigital lamellae [7–8 in the ﬁrst ﬁnger, 11–12 in the fourth toe]” as diagnostic characters for H. newtoni. Bocage (1903) provided a French translation of the original Ferreira (1897) description in Portuguese. Surprisingly, neither Ferreira (1897) nor Bocage (1903) provided data on the number of preanal or femoral pores of the male specimen. Loveridge (1947) interpreted this omission as a complete lack of preanal or femoral pores in the male syntype, which would thus resemble the other putative endemic species, H. aporus (see below). Loveridge noted that “if correctly counted, the greater number of subdigital scansors of H. newtoni, approaching those of H. echinus O’Shaughnessy, 1875, afford good grounds for separation.” The type series of H. newtoni was lost in the ﬁre that destroyed the collections of Museu Bocage (Lisbon) in 1978. Jesus collected new material in the early 2000s and provided the ﬁrst molecular data for H. newtoni 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 519 (Jesus et al. 2005c), noting that it was sister to “an individual from an undescribed form from São Tomé,” recently identiﬁed as H. longicephalus by LMPC (pers. obs.). Further studies are needed to better understand the phylogenetic placement of H. newtoni among its African congeners and begin to understand its evolutionary history, as well as its natural history, distribution and ecology. The second Annobón endemic, H. aporus, was described by Boulenger (1906) based on several specimens, including males and females, collected by Fea. According to the author, the species is very similar to H. bocagii [¼H. longicephalus], but differs by having the dorsal tubercles “larger, closer together, forming 16–20 more regular longitudinal series” and lacking precloacal or femoral pores in males (present in H. longicephalus; see Ceríaco et al. 2020a, b). The species differs from H. newtoni in the number of subdigital lamellae (“5 lamellae under the inner digit, 7 under the third and fourth” in H. aporus ﬁde Boulenger (1906) versus “7–8 in the ﬁrst ﬁnger, 11–12 in the fourth toe” in H. newtoni ﬁde Ferreira (1897)). Loveridge (1947) considered the species valid, noting that the absence of pores in the males distinguishes aporus from all other West African species with the exception of sympatric H. newtoni [if this is indeed true], from which it differs in “possessing fewer subdigital scansors, 7 (instead of 11–12) under the fourth toe, and 16–20 (instead of irregularly disposed) dorsal tubercles.” The species has not been collected since its original description over a century ago, and our current knowledge is limited to the very brief, original description (Meiri et al. 2017). The type series is still extant in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “Giacomo Doria,” Genoa, Italy (Giulliano Doria pers. comm.). While the available evidence supports the identity of H. newtoni as a valid species, the status of H. aporus requires further research. The presence of Hemidactylus longicephalus, a coastal species endemic to western Angola and southwestern Democratic Republic of the Congo, was ﬁrst noted in São Tomé when Bedriaga (1892) misidentiﬁed the specimens at his disposal as a new subspecies of H. mabouia, which he named as H. mabouia var. molleri. The convoluted history of this putative taxon was brieﬂy discussed by Ceríaco and Marques (2012) and Ceríaco et al. (2018). Ceríaco et al. (2020a) deﬁnitively synonymized molleri with longicephalus, a hypothesis already put forward by Loveridge (1947). In addition to the records from São Tomé provided by Bedriaga (1892), Bocage (1903; as H. bocagii, a junior synonym of longicephalus) and Manaças (1958) provided records from Príncipe, and Carranza and Arnold (2006) and Ceríaco et al. (2020a) provided additional records of the species for São Tomé. Jesus et al. (2005c) noted the presence of a putative new species of Hemidactylus from São Tomé, which was later conﬁrmed to be conspeciﬁc with longicephalus (LMPC pers. obs.) Both morphological and molecular data provided by Ceríaco et al. (2020a), unambiguously identify the São Tomé and Príncipe populations as conspeciﬁc with the Angolan form. Consequently, the authors concluded that the species naturally colonized the islands relatively recently or were introduced to the islands through human activities, as São Tomé, Príncipe and Angola were Portuguese colonies, and the islands were an important stopover for ships departing from Angola to the Americas and Europe (Ceríaco et al. 2020a). Due to the limited 520 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. number of collected specimens, not much is known about the ecology and distribution of this species on the islands, but in Angola, it tends to be found in coastal lowland areas or in human settlements (Ceríaco et al. 2020a). Finally, H. mabouia is one of the most widespread and ubiquitous species of gecko in the world, native to Central and Western Africa but introduced to North, Central and South America, as well as the Caribbean (Kraus 2009; Agarwal et al. 2021). There are historical and modern records of this species on the three islands (e.g., Greeff 1884; Bocage 1886c, 1889, 1892a, 1905; Vieira 1886; Bedriaga 1892; Boulenger 1906; Manaças 1958, 1973; Schätti and Loumont 1992; Haft 1993; Hofer 2002; Jesus et al. 2003, 2005c; Miller et al. 2012; Ceríaco et al. 2018, 2020a). Jesus et al. (2005c) and Ceríaco et al. (2020a) provided molecular evidence indicating that the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands populations are almost indistinguishable from the continental populations of the species, suggesting a recent arrival/introduction to the archipelago. The species is very common in human settlements and is often observed on houses and other buildings at night. Family Scincidae The skinks occurring on the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands belong to three different genera: the feylinias of the genus Feylinia Gray, 1845, leaf-litter skinks (also known as snake-eyed skinks) of the genus Panaspis Cope, 1868, and the common skinks of the genus Trachylepis Fitzinger, 1843. The fossorial and limbless Many-scaled Feylinia, Feylinia polylepis Bocage, 1887 is endemic to Príncipe (Fig. 19.2, 3). Described by Bocage (1887) as a subspecies of Feylinia currori Gray, 1845, the species has been recorded on the island by several authors (Bocage 1903; Boulenger 1906; Angel 1920; Manaças 1958, 1973; Brygoo and Roux-Estève 1983; Hofer 2002; Ceríaco et al. 2018; Soares et al. 2018). Due to its secretive lifestyle, this species is still poorly known in terms of its ecology, natural history, and phylogenetic position, although, as noted by Brygoo and Roux-Estève (1983), its taxonomic validity is unquestionable. The species is morphologically most similar to Feylinia currori, but the lack of molecular data for most of the representatives of the genus limits any attempt to understand its phylogenetic placement. The feylinia is very common and is found under leaf-litter, logs, or rocks. The taxonomic history of leaf-litter skinks, genus Panaspis, of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands is quite complex. All authors who have dealt with this species during the nineteenth and the ﬁrst half of the twentieth century considered that populations on the three islands were conspeciﬁc (e.g., Greeff 1884; Bocage 1886a, 1889, 1903, 1905; Bedriaga 1892; Boulenger 1906; Manaças 1958), bearing the speciﬁc epithet africana (or aftricanum, depending on the genus they were placed in by the different authors—see Soares et al. 2018). The species was originally described as Mocoa africana by Gray (1845). Although Gray (1845) did not provide a precise type locality, the type specimen is unambiguously identiﬁable as originating from Príncipe (Soares et al. 2018). Subsequently, Fuhn (1972) revised the Gulf of Guinea Panaspis, leading to the description of the Annobón population as P. africana 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 521 annobonensis. Perret (1973) considered annobonensis as a full species, a decision that would later be supported using molecular data (three mitochondrial and one nuclear locus) by Jesus et al. (2007) and Medina et al. (2016). A more recent taxonomic revision by Soares et al. (2018) led to the description of a third species—Panaspis thomensis Ceríaco, Soares, Marques et al., 2018, endemic to São Tomé. The three species form a clade within the genus Panaspis along with P. cabindae (Bocage, 1866) from Angola (Medina et al. 2016; Soares et al. 2018). Panaspis africana, P. annobonensis, and P. thomensis are some of the most conspicuous reptiles on their respective islands. They are typically encountered in forested areas in leaf-litter, and even in gardens in more urban areas (Jesus et al. 2003; Soares et al. 2018). Similar to the Leaf-litter skinks, the common skinks of the genus Trachylepis are also among the most conspicuous lizards on these islands. Four species occur in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: Trachylepis adamastor Ceríaco, 2015, endemic to Príncipe and Tinhosa Grande islet; T. thomensis Ceríaco, Marques and Bauer, 2016, endemic to São Tomé and surrounding islets (Fig. 19.2, 4); T. ozorii (Bocage, 1893), endemic to Annobón; and T. afﬁnis (Gray, 1838) on Príncipe. Originally described in the late nineteenth century by Bocage (1893), the taxonomy and nomenclatural history of T. ozorii have always been stable (see Ceríaco et al. 2016). Based on mitochondrial sequence data, Jesus et al. (2005a) concluded that T. ozorii was not closely related to any of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic island Trachylepis. This result was conﬁrmed by Ceríaco et al. (2016) and Weinell et al. (2019), the latter demonstrating that T. ozorii is sister to the Western African species Trachylepis polytropis (Boulenger, 1903) and represents a distinct dispersal event to the archipelago. Jesus et al. (2003) noted that the species was widespread across the island, but was not usually found in wet or shaded areas. The taxonomy of T. adamastor and T. thomensis is somewhat more muddled than that of the Annobón congener. For a long time, both the Príncipe and São Tomé populations were considered conspeciﬁc to the T. maculilabris (Gray, 1845) species complex (see Ceríaco et al. 2016), a widespread species in West and Central Africa, long known to harbor cryptic diversity (Mausfeld-Lafdhiya et al. 2004). Jesus et al. (2005a) were the ﬁrst to show, based on molecular data (three mitochondrial loci), that the populations from Príncipe and São Tomé were not conspeciﬁc. As a ﬁrst step to clarify the taxonomy of the group, Ceríaco (2015) described T. adamastor from Tinhosa Grand islet. The available specimens had been preserved in formalin, and therefore, no molecular data were available for comparison with the other island populations. Consequently, the species was described solely based on its striking size and coloration differences relative to the other island’s specimens. Ceríaco et al. (2016) later described two additional species based on a combination of morphological and genetic data: T. principensis from Príncipe and T. thomensis from São Tomé. In a species-level phylogeny of the genus, Weinell et al. (2019) conﬁrmed the distinctiveness of the Príncipe and São Tomé populations and noted that the species were not each other’s closest relatives—the Príncipe lineage (incorrectly labeled by Weinell et al. (2019) as T. thomensis) is sister to T. maculilabris, while the São Tomé population (incorrectly labeled by Weinell et al. (2019) as T. principensis) is sister to 522 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. the Indian Ocean endemic Trachylepis comorensis (Peters, 1854), which occurs in Comoros, Madagascar and coastal Mozambique. Both Ceríaco et al. (2016) and Weinell et al. (2019) lacked molecular data for T. adamastor and were unable to assess its taxonomic position in the context of a molecular phylogeny. Ceríaco et al. (2020b) provided the ﬁrst molecular data for T. adamastor, showing that it is actually conspeciﬁc to T. principensis, rendering T. principensis as a junior synonym of T. adamastor. Trachylepis thomensis is commonly found in forested areas and in human settlements, showing an almost exclusively terrestrial lifestyle. By contrast, T. adamastor is more abundant in less populated areas, ranging from forested habitats to the open, rocky habitats of the Tinhosa Grande islet. Trachylepis adamastor is commonly found basking on trees (Ceríaco et al. 2016). More recently the population size and diet of the Tinhosa Grande population of T. adamastor was reviewed by Sousa et al. (2022). The presence of T. afﬁnis, a complex of species occurring from Senegal to Angola, on São Tomé and Príncipe has been interpreted differently by several authors. In particular, Fischer (1886) described Euprepes cupreus from São Tomé, and this taxon is currently considered a junior synonym of T. afﬁnis (Ceríaco et al. 2016, 2018). To date, Fischer’s (1886) record remains the only available record of this species on São Tomé. By contrast, several authors reported the species from Príncipe under a variety of names—Mabuya raddoni (Angel 1920; Manaças 1958, Hofer 2002), Mabuya blanlingii [sic] (Manaças 1958) and Mabuya/Trachylepis afﬁnis (Hallermann 1998; Jesus et al. 2005a; Ceríaco et al. 2016, 2018). These are all currently synonyms of T. afﬁnis, according to Ceríaco et al. (2016), based on the molecular similarity between Principe and other continental populations. The species likely represents a recent arrival to the island, and further data are needed to assess if a São Tomé population is extant. In Príncipe, the species is mostly found in the vicinity of human settlements, especially around Santo António city. Family Typhlopidae Considering the diminutive size and isolation of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, the diversity of typhlopid snakes is remarkable. At least four species from three different genera—Afrotyphlops Broadley and Wallach, 2009, Letheobia Cope, 1868, and Indotyphlops Hedges, Marion, Lipp, Marin and Vidal, 2014—occur on the islands. The genus Afrotyphlops is represented by the Príncipe endemic Afrotyphlops elegans (Peters, 1868), locally known as “Cobra-bobô” (Fig. 19.2, 5), which is the same name used on São Tomé to refer to the endemic caecilians of the genus Schistometopum Parker, 1941 (Bell et al. 2022). Not much is known about the ecology of this fossorial species, however, in multi-locus and morphological phylogenetic analyses of typhlopid snakes, Kornilios et al. (2013) and Hedges et al. (2014) showed that it is closely related to the Central African Afrotyphlops angolensis (Bocage, 1866). 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 523 Two species of Letheobia are currently recognized and both occur on Príncipe and São Tomé: Letheobia newtoni (Bocage, 1890) and Letheobia feae (Boulenger, 1906). Both species were originally described from São Tomé (Bocage 1890; Boulenger 1906), and recent molecular data indicate the species are distinct and form a monophyletic group with Letheobia simoni (Boettger, 1879) and L. episcopus (Frazen and Wallach, 2002), from Israel and Turkey, respectively (Kornilios et al. 2013; Hedges et al. 2014). This intriguing biogeographic pattern may be an artifact of our current poor knowledge of the taxonomic diversity and distribution of the species of genus Letheobia. Two other forms were described from Príncipe: Boulenger (1906) described Typhlops [¼Letheobia] principis and Angel (1920) described Typhlops [¼Letheobia] naveli. Both of these species were later synonymized with L. feae and L. newtoni, respectively, by Roux-Estève (1974). No molecular data exist for the Príncipe populations, and thus their taxonomic relationships with the São Tomé forms have not been fully ascertained. Given the patterns of speciation in the archipelago and the morphological conservatism of these snakes, the possibility that the Príncipe forms represent valid species should be investigated. Due to their mostly fossorial lifestyles, almost nothing is known about the ecology and distribution of either species. Finally, Jesus et al. (2003) reported the presence of Indotyphlops (as Ramphotyphlops) braminus (Daudin, 1802) on Annobón. These small, fossorial snakes are an invasive species originally from Southern Asia and have been introduced to islands across the globe (Wallach 2009). Family Lamprophiidae Two species of lamprophid snakes occur in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: Boaedon bedriagae Boulenger, 1906, endemic to São Tomé, and B. mendesi, endemic to Príncipe (Fig. 19.2, 6). The two taxa were considered conspeciﬁc by most authors over the last century but were recently split into distinct species by Ceríaco et al. (2021a). The species are sister taxa and are closely related to the southern African B. capensis Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854 species complex, contrary to the historical assignment to either the Boaedon lineatus Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854 or Boaedon fuliginosus (Boie, 1827) species complexes from Western and Central Africa (Ceríaco et al. 2021a). Locally known as “Jita,” these species rank amongst the most well-known species on the islands, where the locals recognize them as harmless. Both species are quite common and are often found in both pristine habitats and agricultural areas (Ceríaco et al. 2021a). Both species can be observed perched in trees or in vegetation and are often observed at reed frog (Hyperolius spp.) breeding sites, suggesting anurans may be an important part of their diet (RCB, LMPC pers. obs.). 524 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Family Colubridae The colubrids of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands belong to two different genera: the arboreal emerald snakes, genus Hapsidophrys Fischer, 1856, represented by the Príncipe endemic Hapsidophrys principis (Boulenger, 1906), locally known as Suá-suá (Fig. 19.2, 7), and the arboreal green snakes of the genus Philothamnus (Smith, 1847), represented by the São Tomé endemic, Philothamnus thomensis Bocage, 1882, also locally known as Suá-suá, and the Annobón endemic Philothamnus girardi Bocage, 1893. The Príncipe Suá-suá, H. principis was described in the early twentieth century by Boulenger (1906), although older records exist from the late nineteenth century, as Gastropyxis (¼ Hapsidophrys) smaragdina (Bocage 1887, 1903). The species is relatively poorly studied, but Jesus et al. (2009) provided a phylogeny based on two mtDNA loci supporting H. principis as a distinct evolutionary lineage sister to H. smaragdina from Gabon. Hapsidophrys principis is an arboreal species, mostly found in forested areas (LMPC pers. obs.). Regarding the two species of Philothamnus, recent molecular revisions by Engelbrecht et al. (2019) provided some insights regarding their taxonomic validity and placement within the genus. With a molecular dataset of three mtDNA and two nuDNA loci, Engelbrecht et al. (2019) found that the island species form a strongly supported clade with West-Central African congener P. dorsalis (Bocage, 1866). Species delimitation analyses with this same dataset found moderate support for P. thomensis as a distinct evolutionary lineage but no support for P. girardi as a distinct lineage (Engelbrecht et al. 2019). Given the geographic isolation of P. girardi on Annobón, morphological differences noted by Bocage (1893), and the relatively modest molecular dataset and geographic sampling in Engelbrecht et al. (2019), we conservatively maintain P. girardi as a valid species. Philothamnus thomensis is considered a forest specialist but can also be found in shade-plantation habitats and gardens (RCB, pers. obs.), while Jesus et al. (2003) noted that P. girardi is widespread on Annobón, mainly in large open spaces with shrubs and grasses, outside of the main village. Family Elapidae Only one species of elapid snake is conﬁrmed for the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: the São Tomé endemic Naja (Boulengerina) peroescobari Ceríaco, Marques, Schmitz and Bauer, 2017, locally known as “Cobra-preta” (Fig. 19.2, 8). It is the only venomous species of snake in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, and human fatalities can occur even if rare (Ceríaco et al. 2017). As a large and conspicuous snake, it was one of the ﬁrst reported species of reptiles for São Tomé. The species was historically identiﬁed as Naja melanoleuca Matschie, 1893, a widely distributed Central African species (Ceríaco et al. 2016). Until recently, it was assumed that Portuguese settlers introduced Cobra-preta to control rodent pests that afﬂicted 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 525 agricultural crops. However, historical, morphological and molecular evidence reject this hypothesis (Ceríaco et al. 2017; Wüster et al. 2018) and instead indicate that the Cobra-preta is distinct from N. melanoleuca and is endemic to São Tomé. The Cobra-preta is classiﬁed as Endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN 2021), and is the only threatened terrestrial reptile from the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. The Cobra-preta is mostly seen in forested and shady habitats across the southern half of the island and is apparently absent in the northeast regions. It is commonly seen basking on roads during the day (Ceríaco et al. 2017). The invasive Least weasel, Mustela nivalis Linnaeus, 1766, and Black rat, Rattus rattus Linnaeus, 1758, have been reported as prey items of the species (Ceríaco et al. 2017). There are unconﬁrmed records of a second species of elapid snake on São Tomé: a green Mamba of the genus Dendroaspis. The evidence regarding the presence of this snake on São Tomé was summarized in Ceríaco et al. (2018). Three experienced herpetologists reported a species of mamba from the island: Dendroaspis jamesoni by Jan (1857, 1858, 1859, 1863), Jan and Sordelli (1870) and Fischer (1856, 1885) and Dendroaspis angusticeps by Bedriaga (1893a). Fischer (1856) even provided a drawing of the specimen from “Insel St. Thomé (West-Africa)” (Fig. 19.3). Unfortunately, none of the specimens examined by the three different authors is still extant. The specimen examined by Jan (1857, 1858, 1859, 1863) was destroyed during the Allied bombing of Milan, Italy, during the World War II. Fischer’s (1885) specimen likely suffered the same fate when the ZMH collections were damaged during WWII. The specimens sent by Adolfo Möller to Bedriaga and used by the latter to describe his specimen of Dendroaspis angusticeps (Bedriaga 1893a) are also currently unaccounted for. Lacking the original specimens and without any recent record of the species, there are signiﬁcant doubts regarding these accounts, and several authors have recognized this mystery (Schätti and Loumont 1992; Nill 1993; Ceríaco et al. 2018). Either the historical records are simply cases of mistaken identity and/or poor locality data, or there is an elusive species of green Mamba on São Tomé that has evaded researchers for more than a century. Conservation Although no studies have yet been conducted to speciﬁcally assess the threats faced by the reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, it is likely that these are similar to the threats faced by their continental African counterparts. Habitat degradation and destruction caused by land-use change, climate change, non-native species, and direct persecution (especially in the case of snakes) can have seriously detrimental effects on local populations of reptiles. Given their abundance and mostly generalist ecology, as well protected habitats in the Obô Natural Parks on São Tomé and Príncipe, most species of reptiles from the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands are not currently considered threatened (IUCN 2021; Table 19.2). The endemic geckos H. greefﬁi and H. principensis, however, are considered Near Threatened, and 526 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Fig. 19.3 Fischer’s (1856) plate of “Dendroaspis Jamesonii Schlegel” from “Insel St. Thomé (WestAfrica)” their apparently low abundance and the potential for competition with introduced congeners H. mabouia and H. longicephalus may have negative impacts on their populations. Many species, including Hemidactylus aporus, H. newtoni, Panaspis annobonensis, Letheobia newtoni and L. feae are classiﬁed as Data Deﬁcient due to insufﬁcient population and distribution data and lingering taxonomic uncertainty. Currently, only Naja (Boulengerina) peroescobari is considered threatened, as Endangered. This classiﬁcation is due to its endemic status and threats associated with both direct persecution and indirect death by car trafﬁc. More detailed studies are needed to uncover potential risks caused by land-use change, one of the main and more prevalent threats to reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, as well as local strategies to mitigate persecution, especially in the case of the Cobra-preta. 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 527 In recent years several reports on social media have depicted non-native species occurring on São Tomé Island. For instance, a dead specimen of an adult Orton’s Boa Constrictor (Boa constrictor ortonii Cope, 1877), a subspecies endemic to Peru, South America, was found in the vicinity of São Tomé airport in August 2018. These animals are not easily transported by accident, and its presence on the island is likely due to intentional importation. Boas are listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and thus importation to the country should be registered. Consulting the CITES Trade Database (UNEP–WCMC and CITES 2021), there are no records of any live specimen of reptile being legally imported to the country since 1975. Thus, illegal trade may be operational in the country, which could constitute a major threat to the native biodiversity. In March 2020, an adult female of agama, Agama sp. was found basking on the walls of a building in downtown Santo António city, Príncipe. The specimen was collected and euthanized and deposited at the facilities of Príncipe Trust Foundation in Santo António (Frazer Sinclair, pers. comm.). The specimen was collected at a construction site with raw materials imported from the African mainland, suggesting this individual was a stowaway. To our knowledge, no other specimens have been observed on the island. Some species of the genus Agama are usually human commensals and have already been introduced to the Cape Verde islands (Vasconcelos et al. 2014). Research is underway to identify the source population of this sole agama female specimen. Future Research Despite over a century of research, the taxonomy and diversity of terrestrial reptiles from the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands are still incompletely documented. Taxonomic revisionary studies are sorely needed for some groups (as noted above), and the presence of the São Tomé Green Mamba remains an intriguing mystery. In addition, the biogeographic history of most lineages is poorly understood in part because the taxonomy of continental species is still in ﬂux. Other than some anecdotal data presented in taxonomic reviews (e.g., Ceríaco et al. 2016, 2017), there are few studies focused on the ecology, natural history, and conservation of species. Furthermore, in contrast to the comprehensive assessments that have been conducted for other groups, notably birds (Melo et al. 2022), no studies exist on the impacts of invasive species or land use for terrestrial reptiles (Soares et al. 2022). Another important topic that needs further attention is the venom composition, medical signiﬁcance and social impact of N. peroescobari snakebite. Finally, Pacheco et al. (2020) report considerable Haemocystidium parasite diversity in reptiles, and although this study did not include samples from any Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands taxa, the topic presents an exciting opportunity to investigate parasite-host interactions in an insular community. 528 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Acknowledgments We thank Eng. Arlindo de Ceita Carvalho and Eng. Lourenço Monteiro de Jesus, respectively former and current Directors General of the Ministry of Environment, Daniel Pontes, Director of the Príncipe Obô Natural Park, and the former President of Príncipe Autonomous Region, Dr. José Cassandra, for permission to collect and export specimens for study. An important acknowledgment to the Portuguese School of São Tomé, namely to its director Manuela Costeira and professors Carlos Gomes, António Almeida, Pedro Lorena and Sandra Ferreira, for their support in the study of the crocodile carcass. We were assisted in the ﬁeld by Ostelino da Conceição Rocha, Pedro Ceríaco, Ana Carolina Sousa, Pedro Dias, Robert C. Drewes, Lauren Esposito, Maria Jerónimo, Lauren Scheinberg, Felipe Spina, and Andrew Stanbridge. We also thank Rachel Crosby, former director of Príncipe Trust for support during our ﬁeld trips to Tinhosa Grande Islet. We are grateful to the curators and collection managers Giuliano Doria, Andreas Schmitz, Frank Tillack, Jakob Hallermann, and Lauren Scheinberg of the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “Giacomo Doria” (Genoa, Italy), the Musée d’Histoire Naturelle de la Ville de Genéve (Geneva, Switzerland), the Museum für Naturkunde (Berlin, Germany) and Zoologisches Museum (Hamburg, Germany), and the California Academy of Sciences (San Francisco, USA), respectively, for allowing access and providing information about the collections in their care. We thank Maria Branco for use of her photos of and Crocodylus niloticus. During the course of this work, Mariana P. Marques was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (SFRH/BD/129924/2017) and is now funded by NORTE-01-0246-FEDER-000063, supported by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Jean-François Trape and Andreas Schmitz are thanked for their comments and insights on previous versions of this manuscript. References Agarwal I, Ceríaco LMP, Metallinou M et al (2021) How the African house gecko (Hemidactylus mabouia) conquered the world. Royal Society Open Science 8:210749 Angel MF (1920) Sur une collection de reptiles et de batraciens de l’Ile de San Thomé et de l’Ile du Prince et description d’une espèce nouvelle du genre Typhlops. Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle 26:197–199 Baião A (1940) O manuscrito “Valentim Fernandes”. Academia Portuguesa de História, Lisboa, 240 pp Bauer AM, Jackman TR, Greenbaum E et al (2010) South Asia supports a major endemic radiation of Hemidactylus geckos. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 57(1):343–352 Bedriaga J (1892) Note sur les amphibiens et reptiles recueillis par M. Adolphe Moller aux îles de la Guinée. O Instituto 39:498–507; 642–648; 736–742; 814–820; 901–907 Bedriaga J (1893a) Note sur les Amphibiens et Reptiles recueillis par M. Adolphe Moller aux îles de la Guinée. O Instituto 40:299–303; 432–440 Bedriaga J (1893b) Remarques supplémentaires sur les amphibiens et reptiles du Portugal et de d’Ile de St. Thomé. II. Additions à ma notice sur les amphibiens et reptiles de d’Ile de St. Thomé. O Instituto 41:286–291 Bedriaga J (1893c) Réponse a M. J. V. Barboza du Bocage. O Instituto 41:346–348 Bell RC, Ceríaco LMP, Scheinberg LA, Drewes RC (2022) The amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, de Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 479–504 Bocage JVB (1873) Mélanges erpetologiques. II. Sur quelques reptiles et batraciens nouveaux, rares ou peu connus d’Afrique occidentale. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 4:209–227 Bocage JVB (1886a) Reptis e amphibios de S. Thomé. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11(42):65–70 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 529 Bocage JVB (1886b) Reptiles et batraciens nouveaux de l’île de S. Thomé. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11(42):71–75 Bocage JVB (1886c) Note additionelle sur les reptiles de S. Thomé. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11(42):103–104 Bocage JVB (1887) Mélanges erpétologiques. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes. Segunda Série 2(44):177–211 Bocage JVB (1889) Breves considerações sobre a fauna de S. Thomé. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes Segunda Série 1(1):33–36 Bocage JVB (1890) Sur une espèce nouvelle à ajouter à la faune erpètologique de St. Thomé et Rolas. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes. Segunda Série 2(2):61–62 Bocage JVB (1892a) Sur le “Hemidactylus mabouia”, var. “molleri”, Bedriaga, de St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, Segunda Série 7:221 Bocage JVB (1892b) Bibliographie—Notice sur les amphibiens et reptiles recueillis par M.A.F. Moller aux îles de la Guinée—par le Dr. J. Bedriaga. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes. Segunda Série 7:229–232 Bocage JVB (1892c) Note sur le “Dendraspis” de l’Ile St. Thomé. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes. Segunda Série 7:265–267 Bocage JVB (1893) Bibliographie. J. de Bedriaga - Remarques supplémentaires sur les amphibiens et les reptiles du Portugal et de l’île de St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, Segunda Série 10:140–141 Bocage JVB (1895) Subsidios para a fauna da ilha de Fernão do Pó—Vertebrados Terrestres. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes Segunda Série 4(13):1–15 Bocage JVB (1903) Contribution à la Faune des quatre îles du golfe de Guinée. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes. Segunda Série 7:25–59 Bocage JVB (1905) Contribution à la Faune des quatre îles du golfe de Guinée (suite). Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes. Segunda Série 7:65–96 Bogert CM (1940) Herpetological results of the Vernay Angola Expedition. I. Snakes, including an arrangement of the African Colubridae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 77:1–107 Boulenger GA (1885) Catalogue of the lizards in the British Museum (Natural History) I. Geckonidae, Eublepharidae, Uroplatidae, Pygopodidae, Agamidae. Trustees of the British Museum, London, 450 pp Boulenger GA (1906) Report on the reptiles collected by the late L. Fea in West Africa. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 3(2):196–216 Bour R, Luiselli L, Petrozzi F et al (2016) Pelusios castaneus (Schweigger 1812)—West African Mud Turtle, Swamp Terrapin. In: Rhodin AGJ, Pritchard PCH, van Dijk PP et al (eds) Conservation biology of freshwater turtles and tortoises: a compilation project of the IUCN/ SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monograph 5(9): 0 95.1–11 Brygoo ER, Roux-Estève R (1983) Feylinia, genre de lézards africains de la famile des Scincidae, sousfamile des Feyliniinae. Bulletin du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris 4(5):307–341 Capocaccia L (1961a) Contributo allo studio dei serpenti delle isole del Golfo di Guinea. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “Giacomo Doria” 72:285–309 Capocaccia L (1961b) Catalogo dei tipi di rettili del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “Giacomo Doria” 72:86–111 Carranza S, Arnold EN (2006) Systematics, biogeography, and evolution of Hemidactylus geckos (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) elucidated using mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol 38(2006):531–545 Ceríaco LMP (2015) Lost in the middle of the sea, found in the back of the shelf: A new giant species of Trachylepis (Squamata: Scincidae) from Tinhosa Grande islet, Gulf of Guinea. Zootaxa 3973(3):511–527 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP (2012) A brief correction to the recently erected nominal taxon Hyla molleri Bedriaga, 1890, with some historical remarks. Alytes 28(3–4):168–171 530 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP (2018) São Tomé and Príncipe Herpetological Collection—IICT. Version 1.3. Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical. Available via www.GBIF.org occurrence dataset. https://doi.org/10.15468/vr54b1. Accessed 22 May 2020 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP (2019) Reptilia collection of the Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. National Museum of Natural History and Science, University of Lisbon. Available via www.GBIF.org occurrence dataset. https://doi. org/10.15468/2ukmcs. Accessed 22 May 2020 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP, Bauer AM (2016) A review of the genus Trachylepis (Sauria: Scincidae) from the Gulf of Guinea, with descriptions of two new species in the Trachylepis maculilabris (Gray, 1845) species complex. Zootaxa 4109(3):284–314 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP, Schmitz A et al (2017) The “Cobra-preta” of São Tomé Island, Gulf of Guinea, is a new species of Naja Laurenti, 1768 (Squamata: Elapidae). Zootaxa 4324(1): 121–141 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP, Bauer AM (2018) Miscellanea Herpetologica Sanctithomae, with a provisional checklist of the terrestrial herpetofauna of São Tomé, Príncipe and Annobón islands. Zootaxa 4387(1):91–108 Ceríaco LMP, Agarwal I, Marques MP et al (2020a) A review of the genus Hemidactylus Goldfuss, 1820 (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Angola, with the description of two new species. Zootaxa 4746(1):1–71 Ceríaco LMP, Bernstein J, Sousa AC et al (2020b) The reptiles of Tinhosa Grande islet (Gulf of Guinea): A taxonomic update and the role of Quaternary sea level ﬂuctuations in their diversiﬁcation. African Journal of Herpetology 69(2):200–2016 Ceríaco LMP, Arellano AL, Jadin R et al (2021a) Taxonomic revision of the Jita snakes (Lamprophiidae: Boaedon) from São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea), with the description of a new species. African Journal of Herpetology 70(1):1–31 Ceríaco LMP, Parrinha D, Marques MP (2021b) Saving collections: taxonomic revision of the herpetological collection of the Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisbon (Portugal) with a protocol to rescue abandoned collections. ZooKeys 1052:85–156 Corti C, Lo Cascio P, Biaggini M (2006) Mainland and insular lacertid lizards: A Mediterranean perspective. Firenze University Press, Firenze, 224 pp Engelbrecht HM, Branch WR, Greenbaum E et al (2019) Diversifying into the branches: Species boundaries in African green and bush snakes, Philothamnus (Serpentes: Colubridae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 130:357–365 Ferreira JB (1897) Sobre um “Hemidactylus” novo da ilha de Anno Bom. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes. Segunda Série 4(16):249–251 Ferreira-Airaud B, Schmitt V, Vieira S et al (2022) The sea turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: diversity, distribution and conservation status. In: Ceríaco LMP, de Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 535–554 Fischer JG (1856) Neue Schlangen des Hamburgischen Naturhistorischen Museums. Abhandlungen und Verhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg 3(4): 79–116 Fischer JG (1885) Ichthyologische und herpetologische Bemerkungen. Jahrbuch der Hamburgischen Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten 2:82–121 Fischer JG (1886) Über zwei neue Eidechsen des naturhistorischen Museums zu Hamburg. Jahrbuch der Hamburgischen Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten 3:1–7 Fritz U, Branch WR, Hofmeyr MD et al (2010) Molecular phylogeny of African hinged and helmeted terrapins (Testudines: Pelomedusidae: Pelusios and Pelomedusa). Zoologica Scripta 40(2):115–125 Fuhn IE (1972) Révision du phylum forestier du genre Panaspis Cope (Reptilia, Scincidae, Lygosominae). Revue Roumaine de Biologie Série de Zoologie 17(4):257–272 Gray JE (1845) Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the collection of the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum, London, XXVII + 289 pp 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 531 Greeff R (1884) Ueber die Fauna der Guinea-Inseln S. Thomé und Rolas. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft zur Beförderung der gesammten Naturwissenschaften zu Marburg 1884(2):41–80 Haft J (1993) Ein Beitrag zur Biologie der Echsen der Insel Sao Tome (Golf von Guinea), mit näherer Betrachtung zur Systematik von Leptosiaphos africana (Gray) (Reptilia: Sauria: Geckonidae et Scincidae). Faunistische Abhandlungen 19(1–16):59–70 Hallermann J (1998) Annotated catalogue of the type specimens of the herpetological collection in the Zoological Museum of the University of Hamburg. Mitteilungen aus dem Hamburgischen Zoologischen Museum und Institut 95:197–223 Hedges SB, Marion AB, Lipp KM et al (2014) A taxonomic framework for typhlopid snakes from the Caribbean and other regions (Reptilia: Squamata). Caribbean Herpetology 49:1–61 Henriques JA (1917) A ilha de São Tomé sob o ponto de vista histórico-natural e agrícola. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 27:1–197 Hofer D (2002) The São Tomé and Principe Handbook. D. Hofer, Bern, 152 pp IUCN (2021) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Version 2020-1. Available via International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 11 Apr 2021 Jan G (1857) Cenni sul Museo Civico di Milano: ed indice sistematico dei rettili ed anﬁbi esposti nel medesimo. L. di Giacomo Priola, Milano, 61 pp Jan G (1858) Plan d’une iconographie descriptive des ophidiens, et description sommaire de nouvelles espèces de serpents. Revue et Magazine de Zoologie Pure et Appliquée. Deuxième Série 10(12):514–527 Jan G (1859) Prodrome d’une iconographie descriptive des ophidiens et description sommaire de nouvelles espèces de serpents venimeux. Imprimerie de Mme Ve Bouchard-Huzard, Paris, 32 pp Jan G (1863) Elenco sistematico degli oﬁdi descritti e disegnati per l’iconogragia generale. Tipograﬁa di A. Lombardi, Milano, 143 pp Jan G, Sordelli F (1870) Iconographie générale des ophidiens. Tome troisième (livraison 36). George Jan and Ferdinand Sordelli, Milan, 120 pp Jesus J, Brehm A, Harris J (2003) The herpetofauna of Annobón island, Gulf of Guinea, West Africa. Herpetological Bulletin 86:20–22 Jesus J, Harris DJ, Brehm A (2005a) Relationships of scincid lizards (Mabuya spp.) from the islands of the Gulf of Guinea based on mtDNA sequence data. Amphibia–Reptilia 26:467–473 Jesus J, Harris DJ, Brehm A (2005b) Phylogeography of Mabuya maculilabris (Reptilia) from São Tomé Island (Gulf of Guinea) inferred from mtDNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37:503–510 Jesus J, Brehm A, Harris DJ (2005c) Phylogenetic relationships of Hemidactylus geckos from the Gulf of Guinea islands: Patterns of natural colonization’s and anthropogenic introductions estimated from mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34(3):480–485 Jesus J, Brehm A, Harris DJ (2006) Phylogenetic relationships of Lygodactylus geckos from the Gulf of Guinea islands: Rapid rates of mitochondrial DNA sequence evolution? Herpetological Journal 19:291–295 Jesus J, Harris DJ, Brehm A (2007) Relationships of Afroablepharus Greer, 1974 skinks from the Gulf of Guinea islands based on mitochondrial and nuclear DNA: Patterns of colonization and comments on taxonomy. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 45:904–914 Jesus J, Nagy ZT, Branch WR et al (2009) Phylogenetic relationships of African green snakes (genus Philothamnus and Hapsidophrys) from São Tomé, Príncipe and Annobón islands based on mtDNA sequences, and comments on their colonization and taxonomy. Herpetological Journal 19:41–48 Kindler C, Moosing M, Branch WR et al (2016) Comparative phylogeographies of six species of hinged terrapins (Pelusios spp.) reveal discordant patterns and unexpected differentiation in the P. castaneus/P. chapini complex and P. rhodesianus. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 117(2):305–321 532 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Kornilios P, Giokas S, Lymberakis P, Sindaco R (2013) Phylogenetic position, origin and biogeography of Palearctic and Socotran blind-snakes (Serpentes: Typhlopidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 68(1):35–41 Kraus F (2009) Alien reptiles and amphibians. A scientiﬁc compendium and analysis. Springer, Dordrecht, 591 pp Lopes RJ, Pinho CJ, Santos B et al (2019) Intricate trophic links between threatened vertebrates conﬁned to a small island in the Atlantic Ocean. Ecology and Evolution 9:4994–5002 Losos JB (2009) Lizards in an evolutionary tree. Ecology and adaptative radiation of Anoles. University of California Press, Berkeley, 528 pp Loveridge A (1947) Revision of the African lizards of the family Gekkonidae. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 98:1–469 + 1–7 pls Manaças S (1958) Anfíbios e répteis das ilhas de São Tomé e do Príncipe e do Ilhéo das Rolas. Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais, 6ª Sessão, Comunicações 4:179–192 Manaças S (1973) Alguns dos anfíbios e répteis da província de S. Tomé e Príncipe. In: Anonymous. Livro de Homenagem ao Prof. Fernando Frade. Junta Investigação do Ultramar, Lisboa, pp 219–230 Mausfeld-Lafdhiya P, Schmitz A, Ineich I et al (2004) Genetic variation in two African Euprepis species (Reptilia, Scincidae), based on maximum-likelihood and Bayesian analyses: Taxonomic and biogeographic conclusions. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 52(1/2):159–177 Medina MF, Bauer AM, Branch WR et al (2016) Molecular phylogeny of Panaspis and Afroablepharus skinks (Squamata: Scincidae) in the savannas of sub-Saharan Africa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 100:409–423 Meiri S, Bauer AM, Allison A et al (2017) Extinct, obscure or imaginary: The lizard species with the smallest ranges. Diversity and Distributions 24(2):262–273 Melo M, Jones PJ, de Lima RF (2022) The avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, de Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 555–592 Mendes LF, Rocha MT, Pité MT et al (1988) Sobre a fauna terrestre e ribeirinha da República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. A Missão Zoológica do Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia da Faculdade de Ciências de Lisboa e do Museu Nacional de História Natural (Museu Bocage) à República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe (13-VI/7-VII-1984). Nota preliminar. Arquivos do Museu Bocage (volume especial) 1:1–16 Miller EC, Sellas AB, Drewes RC (2012) A new species of Hemidactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Príncipe Island, Gulf of Guinea, West Africa with comments on the African–Atlantic clade of Hemidactylus geckos. African Journal of Herpetology 61(1):40–57 Nill T (1993) Die Schlangen der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea). Faunistische Abhandlungen 191(7):71–73 Pacheco MA, Ceríaco LMP, Matta NE, Vargas-Ramírez M, Bauer AM, Escalante AA (2020) A phylogenetic study of Haemocystidium parasites and other Haemosporida using complete mitochondrial genomes sequences. Infection, Genetics and Evolution 85:104576 Pasteur G (1962) Notes préliminaires sur les Lygodactyles (Gekkonidés). II. Diagnose de quelques Lygodactylus d’Afrique. Bulletin l’Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire 24:606–641 Perret J-L (1973) Contribution à l’étude des Panaspis (Reptilia, Scincidae) d’Africa occidentale avec la description de deux espèces nouvelles. Revue Suisse de Zoologie 80(2):595–630 Peters WCH (1868) Über eine neue Nagergattung, Chiropodomys penicullatus, sowie über einige neue oder weniger bekannte Amphibien und Fische. Monatsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1868:448–461 Peters WCH (1881) Eine neue Gattung von Geckonen, Scalabotes thomensis, welche Hr. Professor Dr. Greeff in Marburg auf der westafrikaninchen Insel St. Thomé entdeckt hat, und über die Stellung von Elaps sundevallii Smith, eine von Wahlberg im Kafferlande gefundene Art von Schlangen. Monatsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1880(10):795–798 19 The Terrestrial Reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 533 Rhodin AGJ, Iverson JB, Bour R et al (2017) Turtles of the world. Annotated checklists and atlas of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status (8th ed.). In: Rhodin AGJ, Iverson JB, Dijk PP et al (eds) Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs 7:1–292 Roux-Estève R (1974) Révision systématique des Typhlopidae d’Afrique. Reptilia. Serpentes. Mémoires du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (Série A) 87:1–313 Sabaj M (2020) Codes for natural history collections in ichthyology and herpetology. Copeia 108: 593–669 Schätti B, Loumont C (1992) Ein Beitrag zur Herpetofauna von São Tomé (Golf von Guinea) (Amphibia et Reptilia). Zoologische Abhandlungen, Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 47(1):23–36 Scheinberg L, Fong J (2019) CAS Herpetology (HERP). Version 33.15. California Academy of Sciences. Available via www.GBIF.org occurrence dataset. https://doi.org/10.15468/bvoyqy. Accessed 22 May 2020 Soares LB, Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP et al (2018) Review of the leaf-litter skinks (Scincidae: Panaspis) from the Gulf of Guinea Islands, with the description of a new species. African Journal of Herpetology 67(1):132–159 Soares FC, Hancock JM, Palmeirim JM et al (2022) Species ecology in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: distribution, habitat preferences, assemblages and interactions. In: Ceríaco LMP, de Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 171–188 Sousa ACA, Marques MP, Ceríaco LMP (2022) Population size and diet of the Adamastor skink, Trachylepis adamastor (Squamata: Scincidae) in Tinhosa Grande islet, São Tomé and Principe. Gulf Guinea, Herpetology Notes 15:553–557 Sternfeld R (1917) Reptilia und Amphibia. In: Schubotz H (ed) Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Zweiten Deutschen Zentral-Afrika-Expedition, 1910–1911 unter Führung Adolph Friedrichs, Herzog zu Mecklenburg. Leipzig: Klinkhardt & Biermann, [Band] 1. Zoologie, Lieferung 11 (S):407–510 Themido AA (1941) Répteis e batráquios das colónias portuguesas. Memórias e Estudos do Museu Zoológico da Universidade de Coimbra 119:1–31 UNEP–WCMC (2021) CITES Trade Database. Version 20211 Available via https://trade.cites.org/. 1 Feb 2021 University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (2020) University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Division of Reptiles & Amphibians. Version 7.19. Available via www.GBIF.org occurrence dataset. https://doi.org/10.15468/g3bard. Accessed 22 May 2020 Vasconcelos R, Carranza S, Harris DJ (2010) Insight into an island radiation: The Tarentola geckos of the Cape Verde archipelago. Journal of Biogeography 37:1047–1060 Vasconcelos R, Lopes E, Martins BH (2014) Agama agama: a charter tourist in the Cape Verde Islands? African Journal of Herpetology 63(1):34–46 Vieira L (1886) Noticia ácerca dos productos zoologicos trazidos da ilha de S. Thomé para o Muzeu Zoologico da Universidade de Coimbra pelo Sr. Adolpho F. Moller, em 1885. O Instituto 34: 235–241 Vitt LJ, Caldwell JP (2004) Herpetology: An introductory biology of amphibians and reptiles, 4th edn. Academic Press, San Diego, 776 pp Wallach V (2009) Ramphotyphlops braminus (Daudin): A synopsis of morphology, taxonomy, nomenclature distribution (Serpentes: Typhlopidae). Hamadryad 34:34–61 Weinell JL, Branch WR, Colston TJ et al (2019) A species-level phylogeny of Trachylepis (Scincidae: Mabuyinae) provides insight into their reproductive mode evolution. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 136:183–195 Wüster W, Chirio L, Trape J-F et al (2018) Integration of nuclear and mitochondrial gene sequences and morphology reveals unexpected diversity in the Forest Cobra (Naja melanoleuca) species complex in Central and West Africa (Serpentes: Elapidae). Zootaxa 4455(1):68–98 534 L. M. P. Ceríaco et al. Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 20 The Sea Turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status Betania Ferreira-Airaud, Vanessa Schmitt, Sara Vieira, Manuel Jorge de Carvalho do Rio, Elisio Neto, and Jaconias Pereira Abstract The unique islands of São Tomé and Príncipe harbor ﬁve of the seven existent sea turtle species, and offer optimal conditions for these threatened species both on the beaches and on the foraging sites at sea. These populations might have been exploited since the sixteenth century and are still being harvested. In the past decade, our knowledge of these populations has greatly improved, highlighting their regional and global importance. Several conservation initiatives have also prioritized their protection. This chapter reviews our knowledge on the diversity, distribution, and conservation status of sea turtles in São Tomé and Príncipe, providing a brief history of conservation actions from the past 20 years and presenting ongoing research and conservation initiatives. Keywords Caretta caretta · Chelonia mydas · Conservation · Dermochelys coriacea · Eretmochelys imbricata · Lepidochelys olivacea Introduction Sea turtles have been traveling the oceans for millions of years and with an incredible resilience have survived to the present day. This is probably why they are much appreciated and arouse so much interest in the general public and scientists, alike. Turtles belong to the most ancient line of living reptiles, ﬁrst appearing more than B. Ferreira-Airaud (*) Associação Programa Tatô, Barão de São João, Portugal e-mail: betaniaferreira@programatato.pt V. Schmitt · J. Pereira Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Sao Tome and Principe S. Vieira Associação Programa Tatô, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe M. J. d. C. d. Rio · E. Neto ONG MARAPA, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_20 535 536 B. Ferreira-Airaud et al. 200 million years ago, in the late Triassic. But it was probably around some 110 million years ago, in the Jurassic, during the reign of dinosaurs, that turtles entered the sea and shared the ocean with several other air-breathing reptiles, such as ichthyosaurus and plesiosaurus. While the end of the Cretaceous was the scene of the mass extinction of large reptiles that dominated the earth, sea turtle lineages persisted until the present day (Lutz and Musick 1997; Motani 2009). These large marine reptiles are well adapted to life in the ocean, performing vast migrations between foraging and nesting areas that can be thousands of kilometers apart, and inhabiting a variety of neritic and pelagic habitats of tropical and subtropical waters globally (Carr 1982). The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, particularly São Tomé and Príncipe, harbor important breeding and foraging grounds for sea turtles. Sea turtle nesting grounds on Annobón, the smallest island in the Gulf of Guinea, are limited with only a few suitable beaches available, although important foraging grounds might exist (Castroviejo et al. 1994; Fretey 2001). It was only in the 1990s that the presence of ﬁve sea turtle species in São Tomé and Príncipe was conﬁrmed (Fig. 20.1): the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1758), the Olive Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829), the Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766), the Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli, 1761), and the Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758). Research in the past decade has greatly improved our knowledge of these populations, highlighting their regional and global importance. Simultaneously, there have also been signiﬁcant efforts towards their protection. Since data regarding sea turtles in Annobón is scarce and that there are no conservation initiatives targeting these species on that island, this chapter will focus on Príncipe and São Tomé. History of Sea Turtle Conservation in São Tomé and Príncipe The ﬁrst references to sea turtles in São Tomé and Príncipe date back to 1883. At this time, sea turtles were described as being common and were exploited by local communities, with carapaces used in the manufacture of jewelry and other ornamental items (Greeff 1884; Bocage 1903). The ﬁrst sea turtle surveys of the Atlantic coast of Africa started as early as 1957 (Carr 2002), but it was only between 1985 and 1994 that the ﬁrst attempts were made to describe the status of sea turtles in São Tomé and Príncipe (Stuart and Adams 1990; Schneider 1992; Atkinson et al. 1994; Castroviejo et al. 1994; Graff 1996). Between 1994 and 1996, a more comprehensive survey was initiated on São Tomé Island thanks to a collaboration between ECOFAC (European Commission Program for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Forest Ecosystems in Central Africa) and the U. S. Peace Corps. This survey conﬁrmed the sea turtle species occurring in São Tomé and Príncipe, identiﬁed the main nesting beaches, assessed the impact of harvesting by the local communities (Graff 1996) and resulted in the baseline information being used to implement a monitoring and protection program 20 The Sea Turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: Diversity, Distribution,. . . 537 Fig. 20.1 Sea turtles of the Gulf of Guinea islands: (1) Female Green Turtle Chelonia mydas; (2) Green Turtle hatchlings; (3) Female Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea; (4) Leatherback Turtle hatchlings; (5) Female Olive Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea; (6) Juvenile Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata; (7) Male Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta; (8) Mating Green Turtles. Photo credits: (1) Maria Branco | Programa Tatô, (2, 4, 7) Ana Besugo, (3) Ivana Tacikova, (5) Joana Meneses, (6) Victor Jimenez | Programa Tatô, (8) Lara Baptista | Fundação Príncipe 538 B. Ferreira-Airaud et al. on the main nesting beaches (Graff 1996; Rosseel 1997). This project gave rise to Programa Tatô (Tatô refers to the Olive Ridley Turtle in the local language) in 1998. Led by ECOFAC until 2001, it included the monitoring of the main nesting beaches, training of local community members as beach rangers and the construction of hatcheries (Dontaine and Neves 1999; Fretey and Dontaine 2001; Formia et al. 2003). In 2002, MARAPA (Mar, Ambiente e Pesca Artesanal), a national NGO created in 1999, took responsibility for Programa Tatô’s conservation activities. This program survived until 2008 under the jurisdiction of the Central Africa Protected Areas Network (RAPAC) in partnership with the regional network PROTOMAC (Protection Tortues Marines Afrique Centrale), when it suddenly collapsed. Since then, several groups have kept sea turtle conservation efforts going on both islands. In Príncipe, the Center for the Biodiversity Conservation of Príncipe Island (CBioP), an international research center under the responsibility of the University of Algarve’s CCMar—Ocean Sciences Center in Portugal and the Regional Government of Príncipe, started Programa Sada (Sada refers to the Hawksbill Turtle in the local language) in 2009. The program aims to ensure sea turtle protection and conservation actions in partnership with the regional government and local communities of Príncipe, and focuses on the populations of the Critically Endangered Hawksbill Turtle. In 2010, the Government of the Autonomous Region of Príncipe approved the creation of the Sea Turtle Commission (Comissão Tartaruga Marinha) by the Natural Park of Príncipe, with the main goal of promoting and reinforcing sea turtle protection and their sustainable use on Príncipe. In 2012, the Natural Park of Príncipe joined efforts with Here Be Dragons Príncipe (HBD, a tourism investment company established in 2010 for the sustainable development of Príncipe Island) and the Association for the Research, Protection, and Conservation of Sea Turtles in Lusophone Countries (ATM, a Portuguese NGO) to develop a comprehensive sea turtle monitoring and protection program on Príncipe Island. After two extremely successful seasons in Príncipe, ATM in 2014 combined efforts with the NGO MARAPA on São Tomé and their partnership reinitiated Programa Tatô. This resulted in the growth of Programa Tatô’s team. In 2018, Programa Tatô was no longer just a MARAPA project. The coordination team, with the support and encouragement of its technical and ﬁnancial partners, decided to give more autonomy and sustainability to this program and created an International NGO, Association Programa Tatô—the original name, which was well known to all local communities, national authorities, civil society as well as international partners, was preserved. Meanwhile, on Príncipe, with the transition of ATM to São Tomé Island in 2014, Protetuga Project was created and managed by Fundação Príncipe (FP), a national NGO, established to support environmental and social actions by the HBD group with funding from the South African private-investor and businessman Mark Shuttleworth. At the end of 2016, due to budget cuts from the main donor, FP started to work with its regional, national, and international partners to become independent. Today, FP is independent and has a strategic plan focused on the conservation of biodiversity and the social and economic development of the 20 The Sea Turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: Diversity, Distribution,. . . 539 communities on the island, with more than 15 different donors and projects directed at marine and terrestrial conservation. Regarding Annobón, although classiﬁed as a Nature Reserve since 2000, there is no information or knowledge of any sea turtle conservation efforts on the island. Species and Status The modern marine turtles are placed in two families and are the only living members of what had been a large and diverse fauna: the family Dermochelyidae, which consists of a single species, the Leatherback Turtle, and the family Cheloniidae, which comprises six species of hard-shelled sea turtles: the Loggerhead Turtle, the Green Turtle, the Hawksbill Turtle, the Olive Ridley Turtle, the Kemp’s Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys kempii Garman 1880, and the Flatback Turtle Natator depressus (Garman, 1880). Five of the seven modern species are found in São Tomé and Príncipe, all of which are listed as threatened (IUCN 2021): the Olive Ridley, the Leatherback and the Loggerhead Turtles as Vulnerable, the Green Turtle as Endangered), and the Hawksbill Turtle as Critically Endangered. All of these ﬁve species nest on the beaches of the islands, except for the Loggerhead, which is occasionally found at sea (unpublished data). The Green Turtle is the most common sea turtle in the archipelago, nesting on virtually all sandy beaches of both islands (unpublished data). This nesting population exhibits relatively high levels of genetic diversity and distinctiveness, representing an important genetic pool in the region (Hancock 2019). The Olive Ridley Turtle is the second most numerous species on São Tomé, while only sporadic nesting occurs on Príncipe (unpublished data). These islands harbor one of the last remaining Hawksbill Turtle nesting aggregations in the region, which have a unique genetic haplotype and low genetic variability (Monzón-Argüello et al. 2011) and are one of the 11 most threatened sea turtle populations in the world (Wallace et al. 2011), emphasizing the high degree of isolation and vulnerability of this population. The Leatherback Turtle is the least abundant nesting species in the archipelago (unpublished data). Distribution and Habitat São Tomé and Príncipe are unique islands with clear warm oceanic waters surrounded by shallow rocky reefs sparsely colonized by hard and soft corals, vast beds of rhodoliths, and great diversity of macroalgae and seagrass meadows, which are more common in São Tomé. Coastlines change from an extensive shallow shelf and low wave exposure in the northern coasts to short and deeper shores more exposed to waves in the southern coasts of both islands. Freshwater enters the sea from small streams and rivers, forming small estuarine habitats in a few areas with 540 B. Ferreira-Airaud et al. mangroves bordering some of the river mouths (Bollen 2017; Cowburn 2018; Airaud et al. 2020; Ferreira-Airaud et al. 2021). São Tomé has a diversity of beaches ranging from golden yellow sand to dark gray sandy or rocky stretches and varying between 0.17 and 2.11 km in length. Coastal vegetation is shaped by a wide range of precipitation and relatively homogeneous temperature (daily average of 27 C): coastal meadows and a savanna-type ecosystem can be found on the northern coast, where rainfall is less than 700 mm a year, while in the south yearly rainfalls over 7000 mm feed luscious rainforests (Ceríaco et al. 2022; Dauby et al. 2022). Mangroves can be found on sheltered coasts along this gradient. Príncipe displays a luxurious green wilderness with a magniﬁcent topography of volcanic landscapes. The forest is omnipresent and, in most places, falls directly into the ocean from high cliffs with several narrow beaches up to 1.4 km in length ranging from white, golden to black sand or rocky stretches. This exceptional environment offers optimal conditions for colonization by sea turtles, both on the nesting beaches and on foraging sites at sea. Nesting Beaches Sea turtle nesting occurs on almost all the sandy beaches of both islands that offer suitable conditions for nesting, even though distribution and density vary between species. The nesting season on both islands coincides with the rainy season, which runs from October to May, providing suitable conditions for nesting and incubation. In São Tomé, nesting occurs on the northern, eastern, and southern coasts (Fig. 20.2). The northern and eastern coastal areas host large human settlements, whereas the southern (particularly southwestern) beaches are relatively remote. The lack, or very low prevalence, of nesting on the western coast of São Tomé is likely due to the rocky beaches characterizing this stretch of coast. In Príncipe, nesting occurs mainly on the northern and southeastern beaches (Fig. 20.3). Most of the southern beaches are particularly remote with almost no human settlements. In Annobón, nesting is limited due to the availability of only a few suitable beaches (Castroviejo et al. 1994), this oceanic island. Green Turtle The Green Turtle is the most common species in the archipelago. Its nesting has been conﬁrmed on virtually all sandy beaches of both islands, ranging from 49 to 1177 nests per year on São Tomé and from 287 to 2050 nests per year on Príncipe (from data collected by our team between 2014 and 2020). Data collected since 2014 conﬁrm what was observed during the initial surveys in the 1990s, namely that Green turtles on São Tomé nest mainly in the south, with Praia Jalé being the preferred beach (70% of the total nesting by the species), followed by Praia Grande, both in the region of Porto Alegre, in the Caué district (Fig. 20.2a). This area is characterized by high rainfall, dense tree cover, beaches with steeper slopes and high wave exposure. On Príncipe, green turtles nest mainly in Praia Grande do Norte 20 The Sea Turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: Diversity, Distribution,. . . 541 Fig. 20.2 Distribution of the average number of nests per species in São Tomé, from 2017 to 2020: (a) Green Turtle Chelonia mydas; (b) Olive Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea; (c) Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata; and (d) Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Fig. 20.3 Distribution of the average number of nests per species in Príncipe, from 2017 to 2020: (a) Green Turtle Chelonia mydas; (b) Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata; and (c) Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea 542 B. Ferreira-Airaud et al. in the northern part of the island and in Praia Infante in the south (Fig. 20.3a). Green turtle nesting occurs year-round (except June), with a nesting peak in December and January. Olive Ridley Turtle Major nesting grounds of Olive Ridley Turtles in West Africa are in Angola and Gabon (Metcalfe et al. 2015; Morais and Tiwari 2022). Nevertheless, this is the second most numerous species on São Tomé, ranging from 326 to 683 nests per year between 2014 and 2020 (unpublished data). On Príncipe only two nesting observations were recorded on Praia Macaco in 2012, and on Praia Grande do Norte in 2018. This species nests year-round (except June), with a nesting peak in November and December. Olive Ridley Turtles seem to prefer the northern area of São Tomé from Praia Juventude to Praia das Conchas, adjacent to the ﬁshing communities of Micoló, Fernão Dias, and Morro Peixe, where 90% of the nesting occurs (Fig. 20.2b). This area is characterized by lower rainfall, gentle sloping beaches, an extensive shallow shelf and low wave exposure shores. The northern part of São Tomé is also notable for the presence of seagrass meadows, an ecologically valuable marine habitat and feeding grounds for the Green Turtle. Hawksbill Turtle The Hawksbill Turtle is the most threatened turtle species on São Tomé and Príncipe and, nowadays, its distribution is less extensive due to the indiscriminate harvesting for its meat and shell (Fretey et al. 2000). Nevertheless, the number of nests appears to be increasing slightly, ranging from 13 to 246 nests per year on São Tomé and from 43 to 118 nests per year on Príncipe (unpublished data collected between 2014 and 2020). Most of its nesting (60%) on São Tomé occurs on Rolas Islet, south of São Tomé, highlighting the importance of this islet as a priority site for the conservation of this Critically Endangered species (Fig. 20.2c). On Príncipe, the preferred beaches are Praia Infante in the south and Praia Grande do Norte in the north (Fig. 20.3b). Hawksbill nesting occurs from August to April with a nesting peak in December and January. Like Green Turtles, Hawksbill Turtles seem to prefer beaches characterized by dense tree cover, steeper slopes, high wave exposure and high rainfall. Leatherback Turtle One of the major nesting grounds for Leatherback Turtles is in Gabon, approximately 300 km from São Tomé and Príncipe, with as many as 36,185–126,480 nests, and 5865–20,499 breeding females per year (Witt et al. 2009). In São Tomé and Príncipe, it is the least abundant nesting species with 15–155 nests per year in São Tomé and 3–44 nests per year in Príncipe, (unpublished data collected between 2014 and 2020). Nesting occurs from September to March with a nesting peak in December. Although this species has a more heterogeneous distribution, there is a certain preference for the southeastern beaches on São Tomé (Fig. 20.2d) and the northern and eastern beaches on Príncipe (Fig. 20.3c). Loggerhead Turtle Extensive surveys in the eastern Atlantic suggest that the only signiﬁcant nesting aggregation is in Cabo Verde (Fretey 2001; Ehrhart et al. 2003; Marco et al. 2012). Historically, in São Tomé and Príncipe there have been only a couple of observations of Loggerhead Turtle nesting on São Tomé, but there is no evidence that this species has ever nested frequently on the islands (Fretey 2001). 20 The Sea Turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: Diversity, Distribution,. . . 543 Since 2014, only one nesting event (82 cm CCL—curved carapace length) has been registered on São Tomé, in January 2017 at Praia Inhame in the south of the island (Porto Alegre region; our data). In addition to these isolated events, Loggerhead Turtles are occasionally observed at sea (our data). Foraging Grounds After hatchlings emerge from the nest and make it safely to the sea, they swim in a frenzy to reach the open ocean. The “lost years” characterize this lesser-known period when young sea turtles stay away from coastal areas until they become juveniles. Foraging habitats vary among species (Musick and Limpus 1997). All species occurring in São Tomé and Príncipe are found foraging year-round in coastal waters. Green Turtle Local ﬁshermen have indicated several foraging or aggregation sites of Green Turtles around both Príncipe and São Tomé, which have been conﬁrmed through in-water surveys developed by the sea turtle conservation programs (our data). Both islands host two distinct immature groups of foraging green turtles: small immature, likely to have recruited recently from the oceanic to the neritic zone, and larger immatures that explore the local resources for extended periods. On São Tomé, Green Turtle immatures hand-captured at sea since 2014 during Programa Tatô in-water surveys ranged from 34 to 45 cm CCL (Curve Carapace Length; Hancock et al. 2018), which is consistent with historical records from the 1990s of small immatures ranging from 33 to 45 cm CCL (Fretey and Dontaine 2001). This is within the expected size range at recruitment for post-pelagic turtles of this species (Musick and Limpus 1997) but slightly smaller than other locations in the Atlantic (Reisser et al. 2013) and Paciﬁc (Arthur et al. 2008). Small immature Green Turtles are more commonly found in a foraging ground identiﬁed in the south of São Tomé; it is possible that the rocky substrate of southern São Tomé is well suited for omnivores because it is rich in macroalgae and benthic invertebrates and provides more resting or hiding sites for the smallest individuals than the exposed seagrass beds located in the north foraging ground. Large immatures range from 45 to 75 cm CCL, since the minimum size observed in nesting females on São Tomé ranges between 72 and 75 cm CCL. These large immatures are more often found feeding upon green algae and seagrasses in the northern foraging ground, where there are large seagrass meadows. On Príncipe, the recruitment size for small immatures is lower than on São Tomé, with the smallest individual observed having 28 cm CCL; large immatures on Príncipe have a maximum CCL over 70 cm. Individuals are observed, mainly in rocky reefs covered with macroalgae all around Príncipe, but to date the main green turtle foraging grounds on Príncipe have not been identiﬁed. Analysis of stomach contents of stranded immature green turtles revealed that these animals feed on several algae species present on rocky reefs around the island. Transmitters with 544 B. Ferreira-Airaud et al. cameras placed on adult females nesting in Praia Grande do Norte, north of Príncipe, in 2018, conﬁrmed that these females feed on algae during the inter-nesting period in the bays near the nesting beach. These foraging sites clearly indicate that these islands are important recruitment and development habitats for immature Green Turtles in the region, and that after reaching maturity, adults move to other foraging sites in the region. Ongoing satellite telemetry studies will reﬁne our understanding of adult foraging grounds and migration routes. Olive Ridley Turtle Globally, Olive Ridley Turtles may use a wide range of foraging habitats, primarily neritic in relatively shallow benthic waters or sometimes in major estuaries as recorded in Australia (Whiting et al. 2007), Oman (Rees et al. 2012), French Guiana (Plot et al. 2015), and Brazil (Santos et al. 2019). They are also known to feed in oceanic deep waters, as seen in Costa Rica (Plotkin 2010), India (Ram et al. 2009), Gabon and Angola (Maxwell et al. 2011). The foraging behavior of Olive Ridley Turtles in São Tomé and Príncipe is largely unknown, with only a few observations in the past few years during in-water surveys. However, recent incidental ﬁshery bycatch records, beach strandings, and ﬁshermen testimonials revealed that the coastal waters of both islands may host important foraging areas for both adults and immatures throughout the year. Small immatures were observed on a few occasions at both islands. The smallest were registered in 2014 on São Tomé with a CCL of 20 cm, and in 2015 on Príncipe with a CCL of 18.8 cm; others individuals within the same size range have been observed since then. According to a local ﬁsherman, they can be seen feeding on eggs of ﬂying ﬁsh (Exocoetus spp.) that breed on the southwest coast of São Tomé from June to August. Hawksbill Turtle As with Green Turtles, shallow waters of both islands host yearround Hawksbill Turtle foraging aggregations of small and large immatures, and of mature males and females in rocky reef and coralline algae (rhodolith) habitats. On São Tomé, the main foraging grounds are in the south, at Rolas Islet, and on the northwest coast, adjacent to Neves and Santa Catarina. On Príncipe, most of the rocky reefs are used by the species, where it can ﬁnd a variety of suitable food items, such as rhodoliths and macroalgae, hard and soft corals and other invertebrates. While immature Hawksbill Turtles found in shallow waters are assumed to be residents for certain periods, ongoing satellite telemetry studies on nesting females have revealed that most of the adults migate from nesting to foraging grounds, adults may. On São Tomé, the smallest Hawksbill Turtle hand-captured at sea was 30 cm CCL, while the minimum size observed for nesting females was 55 cm CCL on São Tomé. On Príncipe, the smallest immature had 26.5 cm CCL (Ferreira et al. 2018). Leatherback Turtle Leatherbacks are the most pelagic sea turtle species, spending much of their life in the open sea, but foraging over continental shelves where environmental conditions favor the presence of gelatinous zooplankton, their favorite prey (Dodge et al. 2014). 20 The Sea Turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: Diversity, Distribution,. . . 545 In São Tomé and Príncipe there are no recent records of Leatherbacks foraging in the coastal waters, besides sightings and bycatch by local ﬁshermen during the nesting season. Older records mention three immatures in Príncipe, ranging from 17 to 21 cm CCL, and a of 14 cm CCL one on São Tomé (Fretey et al. 1999). However, since there are no recent records of small immatures, these are thought to be occasional, even though there has been no concerted effort to record immatures of this species. Loggerhead Turtle In São Tomé and Príncipe, sporadic observations at sea of adult loggerheads have been recorded over the years during in-water surveys (Ferreira et al. 2015), from local ﬁshermen and in incidental ﬁshery bycatch reports. The most recent record was in 2020, when one was captured with two adult Olive Ridley Turtles, in a bottom gill net around the coast of Príncipe. Main Threats for the Survival of Sea Turtles Sea turtles were once very abundant, but today all seven sea turtle species are threatened at a global scale (IUCN 2021). Unquestionably, human interference throughout the past centuries is the cause of their decline (Lutcavage et al. 1997). Today most of the threats affecting sea turtles in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea are not exclusive to this part of the world, although cumulative impacts make their conservation particularly challenging. Historical records reveal that sea turtles were once abundant in São Tomé and Príncipe (Matos 1916) and might have been heavily exploited for their meat and shells since the sixteenth century, when São Tomé and Príncipe were ﬁrst inhabited (Greeff 1884; Parsons 1962; Parsons 1972). The Portuguese transported hundreds of sea turtles on caravels to feed their crews (Fretey et al. 2000; Loureiro and Torrão 2008) and carapaces and scales were delivered to royal and noble families that collected tortoiseshell jewelry and art objects (Orey 1995). Parsons (1962) indicated that a tortoiseshell industry existed on the islands and supported a domestic trade. Later on, there was also a trading network with Angola, where tortoiseshell products were made into souvenirs (Brongersma 1982; Stuart and Adams 1990; Carr and Carr 1991). The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) came into effect in 1975, to protect plant and animal species from unsustainable levels of international commercial trade, but it was only ratiﬁed by São Tomé and Príncipe in 2001 (de Lima et al. 2022). Angola ratiﬁed CITES only in 2013, and local artisans of São Tomé and Príncipe report that the occasional clandestine trading of turtle shells still persists. In the 1990s, 43 artisans working with turtle scutes, known as “tartarugueiros,” were identiﬁed (35 in São Tomé and 8 in Príncipe), and an inventory of the scutes and manufactured objects that they possessed weighed 225 kg and 45 kg, respectively, for an estimated value of around 30,000 Euros (Fretey et al. 2000). In 2002/ 2003, with funds from European Union, all stocks of scutes and manufactured 546 B. Ferreira-Airaud et al. objects were bought from the artisans and donated to the National Museum of São Tomé and Príncipe, and recently destroyed. Until this period, the use of the Hawksbill Turtle shell for the manufacture of handicrafts and jewelry was the greatest driver of the indiscriminate harvest and decline of this species. Today it is still common to ﬁnd turtle jewelry being sold in some shops in São Tomé, mostly to uninformed tourists. In the 1990s, almost every sea turtle found at the beach or sea was killed for its meat or shell (Fretey 1998), and despite many conservation efforts over the past few decades, turtles are still killed for their meat and eggs in São Tomé and Príncipe. At sea, adult sea turtles were indiscriminately captured using hooks, harpoons, and gillnets set in front of the main nesting beaches (Castroviejo et al. 1994). Fresh or salted turtle meat was until very recently part of certain traditional menus in São Tomé and Príncipe, and the shell was very often used in the preparation of these dishes as well as for traditional medicinal or as an aphrodisiac (Fretey 1998). However, the use of these animals in traditional ceremonies is not as common as in other West African countries (Barbosa and Regalla 2016). Up until 2016, it was still possible to buy sea turtle meat in the local markets. The most expensive was Green Turtle meat, which sold for 50–100 dobras (2–4 euros) for approximately 300 g, while the least expensive was the Olive Ridley, which sold for around 300 dobras (12 euros) per turtle. Although these practices have decreased drastically in both islands, they still represent a threat to sea turtles in some communities. Finally, a variety of domestic animals and natural predators, including crabs, rats, dogs, and pigs, also depredate sea turtle eggs and hatchlings. Approximately 60% of the sea turtle nests in São Tomé must be transferred to protected hatcheries to prevent nest predation. In addition to direct exploitation, sea turtles are affected by several indirect threats in São Tomé and Príncipe. Commercial ﬁsheries (many from east Asian countries) operating in the Gulf of Guinea are thought to incidentally capture many sea turtles, mainly Olive Ridley and Leatherback Turtles (Huang 2015). Small-scale ﬁshing activity in both São Tomé and Príncipe represents a major source of income for coastal communities who have few economic resources and opportunities, and the unintentional take in a major threat to sea turtles, particularly longline (vertical and horizontal), demersal gillnet, surface driftnet and purse seine (pers. obs.). However, little is known about the impacts of these artisanal ﬁsheries on sea turtles and other marine resources in São Tomé and Príncipe. The Gulf of Guinea is also the focus of extensive and rapidly increasing oil exploitation activities. Vast oil reserves have been discovered in the last decade, in areas that host important sea turtle habitats. Drilling activities by large international oil corporations, associated with pollution and habitat destruction, are threats that have been increasing and are expected to continue increasing in the region, soon expanding to São Tomé and Príncipe (de Lima et al. 2022). With a human population estimated to have just surpassed the 200,000 mark, and to be growing at 1.5% each year (Central Intelligence Agency 2021), construction around São Tomé is increasing fast, namely for the tourism sector. The increase in tourism will bring, along with its beneﬁts, some environmental challenges, such as 20 The Sea Turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: Diversity, Distribution,. . . 547 the increase in disturbance of nesting beaches, the need of sand for construction, and the increase in artiﬁcial lights by the coast. Despite a national ban of sand mining activities on beaches since 1999 (Decreto-Lei n 35/99) and recently updated (Law n. 9/2020, from 22 of September), sand continues to be extracted, namely from sea turtle nesting beaches, where the effects of sand removal is accelerating erosion, causing the disappearance of several nesting beaches, and exacerbating the consequences of sea level rise due to climate change. Around urban areas on both islands, most sewage is discharged untreated into the sea. The most extreme national example may be seen in São Tomé city, where the Água Grande river regularly pumps a combination of untreated sewage and petrochemical waste (from the city’s electric generators) directly into the sea at Ana Chaves Bay. In Príncipe, dead stranded turtles found on the beach have been analyzed by Fundação Príncipe to understand whether there is a relationship with the increased presence of waste in the sea and these events. Preliminary analyses show that young and adult turtles (mostly Green Turtles) feed on various solid residues, mostly plastic. In addition to the increasingly presence of this type of waste in the intestinal tract of these animals, it is common to see immature Green Turtles with ﬁbropapillomatosis, a disease that results in the production of tumors, both external and internal, which are benign but may obstruct crucial functions, such as swimming, feeding, sight, and buoyancy, and may lead to death (Herbst 1994). A strong link between this disease and the environmental health of the coastal habitats is already known (Santos et al. 2010; Santos et al. 2011). The ﬁrst records of this disease in turtles in Príncipe date from 2009 (Loureiro and Matos 2009). Turtles are also particularly vulnerable to a variety of environmental conditions, such as higher water temperature, pollutants, and marine biotoxins, all of which can weaken their immune functions, making them more susceptible to a wide range of pathogens. Sea turtles are often considered sentinels of ecosystem health and in fact, it has been suggested that ﬁbropapillomatosis could serve as an effective tool to monitor ecosystem health in near-shore marine habitats (Aguirre and Lutz 2004). Conservation Since the initiation of conservation activities in the country in 1998, one of the ﬁrst strategies was to work with the government to implement a National Law to protect these threatened species in São Tomé and Príncipe. In 2001, the ﬁrst draft of the decree was proposed to the national government, but it was only in 2014 that the national law protecting sea turtles and criminalizing the consumptive use of sea turtles and their by-products was adopted in São Tomé and Príncipe (Decreto-Lei n 8/2014). Remarkably, 5 years before the national law was ofﬁcialized, the regional government of Príncipe, which has administrative autonomy, implemented a law to protect sea turtles on the island (Decreto-Lei n 03/2009), which may have encouraged the national government to take action. However, as in many developing nations around the world, enforcement of environmental laws is still challenging, 548 B. Ferreira-Airaud et al. since relevant institutions often lack the technical capability and means to effectively implement the legislation. Since the adoption of the sea turtle national law in 2014, there have been virtually no penalties or sanctions against sea turtle hunters or traders in São Tomé. As for Príncipe, only two cases were penalized with the payment of a ﬁne and some other cases were included in the social assistance program. In this social assistance program, violators of the sea turtle protection law are required to perform social services for the regional government and for the Fundação Príncipe sea turtle conservation program, including a mandatory participation in awareness-raising activities in their own community. This initiative has been an opportunity to involve and promote a change in the mentality of those who violate the law protecting sea turtles. Before the creation of these domestic laws, São Tomé and Príncipe ratiﬁed several international conventions that support in-situ conservation actions (de Lima et al. 2022). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was ratiﬁed in 1999, followed by the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals and CITES in 2001, and by the Abidjan Convention (United Nations Environment Program) in 2002. Although these laws were approved and several conventions were ratiﬁed, legal protection of sea turtles does not automatically translate into realistic changes felt on a daily basis. In fact, one of the biggest challenges to sea turtle conservation in developing countries, such as São Tomé and Príncipe, is changing the habits of coastal communities for whom sea turtles are an important source of subsistence and income and are essential for survival. So, as with many other conservation programs worldwide (e.g., Marcovaldi et al. 2005), a consistent and long-lasting conservation program that integrates and generates direct and indirect socio-economic beneﬁts for local communities is essential to prevent sea turtle extinction. Today, Programa Tatô in São Tomé, and Fundação Príncipe in Príncipe are the key drivers of sea turtle conservation and research in the country. Both conservation programs are based on the key principle that the participation and engagement of local communities are essential for a successful conservation program. On São Tomé, more than 80 people are involved in the conservation activities of Programa Tatô (90% of whom are nationals) and include members from the local communities, young professionals, and 51 rangers responsible for monitoring and protecting foraging grounds and 77 out of the 107 breeding beaches. On Príncipe, Fundação Príncipe, has a team of around 62 people (91% of whom are nationals) developing marine and terrestrial conservation projects, including 32 rangers, who monitor and protect foraging grounds and 36 out of the 50 beaches. On São Tomé, Programa Tatô initiated a conversion process in 2016, to identify and develop alternative livelihoods for the women who were trading sea turtle products at the main national market, giving rise to a productive group of 17 women willing to transition towards a new livelihood, independent of the sale of sea turtle meat and eggs. Currently, these women produce handicrafts, including school uniforms, reusable masks, and menstrual pads. The program includes continuous follow-up, ensuring the consolidation of this group and their economic 20 The Sea Turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: Diversity, Distribution,. . . 549 sustainability, thus promoting a long-term behavioral change and the recovery of sea turtle populations in São Tomé and Príncipe (Vieira et al. 2017). We note, however, that the monitoring of beaches and foraging grounds and the direct involvement of a small percentage of the country’s inhabitants is not enough to improve the conservation status of sea turtles. Besides direct employment by creating new jobs for research, internships, ecotourism guides and production of handicrafts, both organizations also develop active and innovative environmental education and public awareness campaigns. In São Tomé, these campaigns were developed after a study to estimate the prevalence of consumption, preference, and availability of sea turtle meat and eggs, and make use of trusted inﬂuencers and communication channels. This study helped develop a structured and rigorous approach using behavioral insights to guide behavior change efforts (Veríssimo et al. 2020; Thomas-Walters et al. 2020). Communication, education, and awareness proved to be fundamental strategies not only because they create a better relationship and trust between conservation organizations and communities, but also because they contribute to the development of environmental awareness about the ecological and socio-economic value of sea turtles and about the beneﬁts of their conservation. Awareness efforts involve a variety of initiatives, including educational school programs, sports activities, theater, radio and TV programs and soap operas, beach and ocean clean-ups, and ﬁshing sector awareness activities, among others. Considering the challenges that sea turtle conservation faces nowadays, both Programa Tatô and Fundação Príncipe have adopted an integrated approach, which is essential to improve the protection and sustainable management of key sea turtle habitats, while developing a community-based marine conservation program that combines research, ecological monitoring, protection of critical sites, environmental education, advocacy, community-based ecotourism, reconversion of former poachers and traders, and development of alternative livelihoods. Thus, these programs have been addressing the diverse and complex challenges of sea turtle conservation, increasing our knowledge of all the sea turtle species that occur on and around both islands, and improving the relationship between sea turtles and diverse stakeholders from small-scale ﬁshing communities to national politicians. Although human threats are still a reality, levels of sea turtle harvest have decreased considerably, and the number of sea turtles recorded on the nesting beaches appears to be increasing (Thomas-Walters et al. 2020). Today sea turtle conservation in São Tomé and Príncipe has an increasing and wider public appreciation, support, and understanding, which provide an opportunity for local stewardship, changing attitudes towards sea turtles and other living marine resources, and preparing future generation to be more aware of environmental topics. Although research is underway on both islands to better understand the reproductive ecology, spatial and temporal movements, the foraging grounds, and the impacts of anthropogenic threats, it is essential to increase our scientiﬁc knowledge for adequate and effective sea turtle conservation guidance, so that critical habitats may be protected using evidence-based conservation priorities and strategies. Major challenges for the future include obtaining resources to maintain the levels of 550 B. Ferreira-Airaud et al. operation developed to date, to continue to support and improve the self-sufﬁciency of former sea turtle hunters and traders, and to promote greater self-sufﬁciency of both conservation programs. Nevertheless, the commitment of Programa Tatô and Fundação Príncipe will remain focused on the coastal communities, who are the true motivation for and the main component of any marine conservation program. Acknowledgments A special thanks to Manjula Tiwari, Frederic Airaud, Estrela Matilde and the editors for their reviews and comments, and to Jacques Fretey for all the historical information that was essential for this chapter. We would like to thank all the people involved in sea turtle research and conservation over the past two decades. We are grateful to the work, dedication, and collaboration of all the sectors of society: ﬁshermen and women traders and their families and communities, national authorities, young professionals, technical staff of Marapa, Programa Tatô and Fundação Príncipe, researchers, and all the national and international partner organizations and funders committed and dedicated to sea turtle conservation. We would also like to thank the indispensable support of the National and Príncipe Regional Governments. We are also grateful for the hard work of all Programa Tatô and Fundação Príncipe staff and for the crucial support of local coastal communities involved in the activities of both conservation programs. References Aguirre AA, Lutz P (2004) Marine turtles as sentinels of ecosystem health: is ﬁbropapillomatosis an indicator? EcoHealth 1:275–283 Airaud F, Vieira S, Henriques NS, Ferreira-Airaud B (2020) Relatório de realização do mapeamento submarino do distrito de Caué, São Tomé, São Tomé e Príncipe. Programa Tatô, Oikos—Cooperação e Desenvolvimento, Fauna & Flora International, São Tomé, 13 pp Arthur K, Boyle M, Limpus C (2008) Ontogenetic changes in diet and habitat use in green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) life history. Marine Ecology Progress Series 362:303–311 Atkinson PW, Dutton JS, Peet NB et al (1994) A study of the birds, small mammals, turtles and medicinal plants of São Tomé with notes on Príncipe. Birdlife, Cambridge, UK, 106 pp Barbosa C, Regalla A (2016) Community involvement in the monitoring of marine turtles in Guinea Bissau. African Sea Turtle Newsletter 5:7–9 Bocage JVB (1903) Contribution à la faune des quatre îles du Golfe de Guinée. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, Segunda Série 7:25–59 Bollen A (2017) Compilation marine work, marine and coastal Species and ecosystems of Príncipe. Fauna & Flora International, Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, 26 pp Brongersma L (1982) Marine turtles of the Eastern Atlantic Ocean. In: Bjorndal KA (ed) Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 407–416 Carr A (1982) Notes on the behavioral ecology of sea turtles. In: Bjorndal KA (ed) Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 19–26 Carr A (2002) Notes on the zoogeography of the Atlantic sea turtles of the genus Lepidochelys. Revista de Biologia Tropical 50(2):717–733 Carr T, Carr N (1991) Survey of the sea turtles of Angola. Biological Conservation 58(1):19–29 Castroviejo J, Juste J, Pérez J et al (1994) Diversity and status of sea turtle species in the Gulf of Guinea islands. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:828–836 Central Intelligence Agency (2021) São Tomé and Príncipe. Available via World Factbook. https:// www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/sao-tome-and-Príncipe/. Accessed 14 Sept 2021 Ceríaco LMP, Santos BS, Lima RF et al (2022) Physical geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 13–36 20 The Sea Turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: Diversity, Distribution,. . . 551 Cowburn B (2018) Marine habitats of Príncipe, Eastern Tropical Atlantic—description and map. Príncipe Trust, Santo António, 18 pp Dodge KL, Galuardi B, Miller TJ, Lutcavage ME (2014) Leatherback turtle movements, dive behavior, and habitat characteristics in ecoregions of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. PLoS One 9(3):e91726 Dontaine J-F, Neves O (1999) Le projet Tato à Sao Tomé. Canopée Supplément Ndiva 13:1–4 Ehrhart L, Bagley D, Redfoot W (2003) Loggerhead turtles in the Atlantic Ocean: geographic distribution, abundance and population status. In: Bolten AB, Witheringtin BE (eds) Loggerhead sea turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington, DC, pp 157–174 Ferreira R, Prazeres I, Silva M et al (2015) Sea turtle snorkeling survey at Príncipe Island, West Africa. In: Kaska Y, Sönmez B, Türkecan O, Sezgin Ç (eds) Proceedings of the 35th annual symposium on sea turtle biology and conservation. MACART Press, Dalaman, Sarigerme, Dalyan (Ortaca), Muğla, 250 pp Ferreira RL, Ceia FR, Borges TC et al (2018) Foraging niche segregation between juvenile and adult hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) at Príncipe Island, West Africa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 498:1–7 Ferreira-Airaud B, Vieira S, Henriques NS, Airaud F (2021) Relatório de realização do mapeamento submarino do distrito de Lobata, São Tomé. São Tomé e Príncipe, Programa Tatô and Marapa, São Tomé, 7 pp Formia A, Tiwari M, Fretey J, Billes A (2003) Sea turtle conservation along the Atlantic Coast of Africa. Marine Turtle Newsletter 100:33–37 Fretey J (1998) Statut des tortues marines en Afrique de l’Ouest. 2. São Tomé et Príncipe, Evaluation de la situation et recommandations. UICN, ECOFAC, Délégation Comission Européenne, Libreville, 34 pp Fretey J (2001) Biogeography and conservation of marine turtles of the Atlantic coast of Africa. UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, 429 pp Fretey J, Dontaine J-F (2001) Proposition de plan national d’action de conservation des tortues marines dans la République Démocratique de São Tomé et Príncipe. Projeto Tato et Kudu, São Tomé, 75 pp Fretey J, Dontaine J-F, Neves O (1999) São Tomé et Príncipe: Zone de croissance pour les tortuesluth? Canopée 15:1–2 Fretey J, Dontaine J-F, Billes A (2000) Artisans de l’écaille à São Tomé et Príncipe: Tentative de reconversion. Canopée 16:3–4 Dauby G, Stévart T, Barberá P et al (2022) Classiﬁcation, distribution, and biodiversity of Terrestrial ecosystems in the gulf of guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, de Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 37–70 Graff D (1996) Sea turtle nesting and utilization survey in São Tomé. Marine Turtle Newsletter 75: 8–12 Greeff R (1884) Ueber die Fauna der Guinea-Inseln S. Thomé und Rolas. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft zur Beförderung der gesammten Naturwissenschaften zu Marburg 1884(2):41–80 Hancock J (2019) The sea turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: ecology, genetics and current status of distinct species nesting on an oceanic archipelago. PhD Thesis. University of Lisbon and University of Porto, 150 pp Hancock JM, Vieira S, Jimenez V et al (2018) Stable isotopes reveal dietary differences and site ﬁdelity in juvenile green turtles foraging around São Tomé Island, West Central Africa. Marine Ecology Progress Series 600:165–177 Herbst LH (1994) Fibropapillomatosis of marine turtles. Annual Review of Fish Diseases 4:389–425 Huang H-W (2015) Conservation hotspots for the turtles on the high seas of the Atlantic Ocean. PLoS One 10:e0133614 IUCN (2021) The IUCN red list of threatened species: version 2020-2. Available via International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 2 Oct 2021 552 B. Ferreira-Airaud et al. Lima RF, Deffontaines J-B, Madruga L, Matilde E, Nuno A, Vieira S (2022) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: recent progress, ongoing challenges, and future directions. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 643–670 Loureiro N, Matos D (2009) Presence of ﬁbropapillomatosis in green turtles Chelonia mydas at Príncipe Island in the Gulf of Guinea. Arquipelago - Life and Marine Sciences 26:79–83 Loureiro N, Torrão M (2008) Homens e tartarugas marinhas—Seis séculos de história e histórias nas ilhas de Cabo Verde. Anais de História de Além-Mar 9:37–78 Lutcavage M, Plotkin P, Witherington B, Lutz P (1997) Human impacts on sea turtle survival. In: Lutz P, Musick J (eds) The biology of sea turtles. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 387–409 Lutz P, Musick J (1997) The biology of sea turtles. CRC, Boca Raton Marco A, Abella E, Liria Loza A et al (2012) Abundance and exploitation of loggerhead turtles nesting in Boa Vista island, Cape Verde: the only substantial rookery in the eastern Atlantic. Animal Conservation 15:351–360 Marcovaldi M, Patiri J, Thome J (2005) Projeto Tamar-Ibama: twenty-ﬁve years protecting Brazilian sea turtles through a community-based conservation programme. Maritime Studies 3–4(1–2):39–62 Matos RJC (1916) Corograﬁa histórica das ilhas de S. Tome e Príncipe, Ano Bom e Fernando Po. Imprensa Nacional, Lisboa, 128 pp Maxwell SM, Breed GA, Nickel BA et al (2011) Using satellite tracking to optimize protection of long-lived marine species: Olive Ridley sea turtle conservation in central Africa. PLoS One 6(5):e19905 Metcalfe K, Agamboué PD, Augowet E et al (2015) Going the extra mile: ground-based monitoring of Olive Ridley turtles reveals Gabon hosts the largest rookery in the Atlantic. Biological Conservation 190:14–22 Monzón-Argüello C, Loureiro NS, Delgado C et al (2011) Príncipe island hawksbills: genetic isolation of an eastern Atlantic stock. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 407: 345–354 Morais M, Tiwari M (2022) Surveys of the Angolan coast uncover the largest Olive Ridley nesting population in the Atlantic and non-arribada population globally. Oryx, 1–9. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S003060532100065X Motani R (2009) The evolution of marine reptiles. Evolution: Education and Outreach 2:224–235 Musick J, Limpus C (1997) Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles. In: Lutz P, Musick J (eds) The biology of sea turtles. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 137–163 Orey L (1995) Cinco Séculos de Joalharia. Instituto Português de Museus, Lisboa, 128 pp Parsons J (1962) The green turtle and man. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, I–X + 126 pp Parsons JJ (1972) The hawksbill turtle and the tortoise shell trade. In: Mouton G (ed) Études de Géographie Tropicale Offertes à Pierre Gourou. De Gruyter Mouton, Paris, pp 45–60 Plot V, Thoisy B, Georges J (2015) Dispersal and dive patterns during the post-nesting migration of Olive Ridley turtles from French Guiana. Endangered Species Research 26(3):221–234 Plotkin PT (2010) Nomadic behaviour of the highly migratory Olive Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea in the eastern tropical Paciﬁc Ocean. Endangered Species Research 13(1):33–40 Ram PS, Rao SA, Sadhuram Y (2009) Drifting and meandering of Olive Ridley sea turtles in the Bay of Bengal: role of oceanic Rossby waves. Marine Geodesy 32(4):372–378 Rees A, Al-Kiyumi A, Broderick AC et al (2012) Conservation related insights into the behaviour of the Olive Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea nesting in Oman. Marine Ecology Progress Series 450:195–205 Reisser J, Proietti M, Sazima I et al (2013) Feeding ecology of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) at rocky reefs in western South Atlantic. Marine Biology 160:3169–3179 Rosseel J (1997) Tortues marines: Un programme de protection à São Tomé. Canopée 9:4–4 Santos R, Martins AS, Torezani E et al (2010) Relationship between ﬁbropapillomatosis and environmental quality: a case study with Chelonia mydas off Brazil. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 89(1):87–95 20 The Sea Turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: Diversity, Distribution,. . . 553 Santos RG, Martins AS, Farias JN et al (2011) Coastal habitat degradation and green sea turtle diets in Southeastern Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62(6):1297–1302 Santos E, Silva A, Sforza R et al (2019) Olive Ridley inter-nesting and post-nesting movements along the Brazilian coast and Atlantic Ocean. Endangered Species Research 40:149–162 Schneider W (1992) Guide de terrain des ressources marines commerciales du Golfe de Guinée. FAO, Rome, 268 pp Stuart SN, Adams RJ (1990) Biodiversity in Sub-Saharan Africa and its islands. Conservation, management, and sustainable use. IUCN, Gland, 243 pp Thomas-Walters L, Vieira S, Jiménez V et al (2020) Challenges in the impact evaluation of behaviour change interventions: the case of sea turtle meat and eggs in São Tomé. People and Nature 2(4):913–922 Veríssimo D, Vieira S, Monteiro D et al (2020) Audience research as a cornerstone of demand management interventions for illegal wildlife products: demarketing sea turtle meat and eggs. Conservation Science and Practice 2(3):e164 Vieira S, Ferreira B, Jimenez V et al (2017) Seeking a better future for women traders and sea turtles in São Tomé and Príncipe. African Sea Turtle Newsletter 8:33–35 Wallace BP, DiMatteo AD, Bolten AB et al (2011) Global conservation priorities for marine turtles. PLoS One 6(9):e24510 Whiting SD, Long JL, Coyne M (2007) Migration routes and foraging behaviour of Olive Ridley turtles Lepidochelys olivacea in northern Australia. Endangered Species Research 3(1):1–9 Witt MJ, Baert B, Broderick AC et al (2009) Aerial surveying of the world’s largest leatherback turtle rookery: a more effective methodology for large-scale monitoring. Biological Conservation 142(8):1719–1727 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Martim Melo, Peter J. Jones, and Ricardo F. de Lima Abstract Although birds have always been one of the best-known taxa on the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, our understanding of their ecology and evolution has increased substantially in the last two decades. Intensive ﬁeld-based surveys have allowed the ﬁrst detailed island-wide distribution maps for most species and a much better grasp of habitat associations, highlighting the importance of native forests for many of the endemic birds. Molecular data have provided important insights into evolutionary history, leading to an extensive revision of the taxonomy of the islands’ endemic avifauna. Most speciation events are much more recent than the age of the islands, indicating a high species turn-over that is likely explained by the islands’ history of intense volcanic activity and their moderate distances to the mainland. These islands have the highest accumulation of endemic bird species for small oceanic islands: at least 29 endemic species occur in three islands with a total area of just over 1000 km2. This may be explained by their particular geographic location: offshore from a species-rich continent at distances that allowed the colonization and evolution in isolation of many distinct lineages. All these contributions are now M. Melo (*) Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, CIBIO, Vairão, Portugal FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa P. J. Jones Chirnside, Scotland R. F. de Lima Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Centre, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_21 555 556 M. Melo et al. being used to ensure bird conservation, through updated species conservation status and species action plans for the most threatened species, and also to promote the conservation of the native forests on which most of the endemic birds depend. Keywords Biodiversity · Birds · Conservation · Endemism · Radiation · Speciation Birds are one of the animal groups with which people are most familiar. This is especially true in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea where the avifauna has a prominent position in popular culture. The islands’ birds have also been a preferential target of scientiﬁc investigation since the colonial period, in part due to the exceptionally high number of endemic species. This richness has played an important role in bringing global attention to the unique biota of these islands. The state of ornithological knowledge on these islands was summarized at the start of the present century (Jones and Tye 2006), but since then a wealth of new information has been gathered by an increasing number of studies. Here we provide an updated overview of the diversity, ecology, and evolution of this remarkable avifauna. We follow the taxonomy and nomenclature of Clements et al. (2021), which is identical to the most recent checklist of the birds of the region (de Lima and Melo 2021). Taxonomic authorities are presented in the checklist (Appendix). History of Ornithological Research The avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea islands was little known before the nineteenth century. These relatively isolated oceanic islands were logistically difﬁcult to access, with rugged, inhospitable interiors, so that progress was slow and sporadic, with decades-long gaps between collections. By the end of the nineteenth century, the avifauna was well documented, although important collections made at various times in the twentieth century further contributed to recognizing the importance of the islands’ unusually high endemism. Throughout this period, it became clear that several endemic taxa were extremely rare and their forest habitats vulnerable to development, prompting conservation concerns in recent decades. Easier access to the islands and better logistical support have made it possible to run longer-term research and conservation projects, and the advent of modern molecular phylogenetics has enabled signiﬁcant insights into the evolutionary history of the endemic bird community. Apart from a few specimens collected earlier, the avifauna remained little known until the 1840s, when the islands were used as a base for the British Expedition to the River Niger. Expedition members collected several new species on São Tomé and Annobón but visited Príncipe only brieﬂy and did not collect any birds there (Allen and Thomson 1848). Considerable confusion surrounded the provenance and identity of these specimens, however, due in part to the repeated loading and unloading 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 557 of cargoes between ships and between islands. Other misidentiﬁcations resulted simply because African bird taxonomy was then in its infancy. The most important early collections on Príncipe and São Tomé were made between 1847 and 1850 for the museums of Hamburg and Bremen by Carl Weiss, most of whose specimens were described in Hamburg by Gustav Hartlaub (1850, 1857), but confusion surrounded many Príncipe specimens that were wrongly ascribed to the African continent. These confusions were eventually resolved with the help of Heinrich Dohrn and John Gerrard Keulemans, whose collections on Príncipe between April and September 1865 were complemented by the ﬁeld notes of Keulemans that proved to be a valuable source of information (Dohrn 1866; Keulemans 1866). In 1885, Adolpho Frederico Moller obtained some birds from São Tomé while collecting plants for the Coimbra Botanic Gardens (Vieira 1887). Between 1885 and 1895, Francisco Newton assembled a comprehensive collection from all three islands for the Lisbon Museum, which were described in a long series of papers by José du Bocage (Bocage 1867, 1879, 1887a, b, 1888a–c, 1889a–c, 1891, 1893a, b, 1903, 1904). Newton was also a keen observer whose descriptions of behavior and ecology were partially published by Bocage as ancillary information. However, the original letters that Newton wrote to Bocage to accompany his specimens and almost all the specimens themselves were destroyed in the disastrous 1978 ﬁre in the Museu Bocage in Lisbon. By the end of the nineteenth century, most landbird species had been described but an important collection was made for the museum at Genoa by Leonardo Fea between 1899 and 1901 (Salvadori 1903a–c). Two signiﬁcant collections were made in the early decades of the twentieth century. Boyd Alexander visited the main islands in 1909 collecting for the British Museum (Bannerman 1914, 1915a, b) and José Correia and his wife Virginia collected on Príncipe and São Tomé for the American Museum of Natural History in 1928–29 (Correia 1928–29; Amadon 1953). Both Alexander and the Correias kept extensive ﬁeld notes on the distribution and status of the endemic bird species they collected at a time when agricultural exploitation of the islands was at its peak and some species had evidently become very rare. Correia’s valuable and entertaining diary (1928–29) remains unpublished, but his collection allowed Amadon (1953) to produce an important synthesis on the avian zoogeography of the Gulf of Guinea islands. The next ornithological survey of Príncipe and São Tomé took place in 1949, when an Oxford University team published the ﬁrst detailed ﬁeld notes for most of the endemic birds (Snow 1950). Annobón has always been difﬁcult to access because of its remoteness, so there was an even longer gap between Alexander’s 1909 expedition and subsequent visits by Aurélio Basilio in 1955 (Basilio 1957) and Hilary Fry in 1959 (Fry 1961). A Portuguese scientiﬁc mission to Príncipe and São Tomé in 1954 collected birds and assessed the status of those that might require protection under colonial law (Frade 1958, 1959; Frade and Santos 1977). René de Naurois visited the islands several times in 1963 and 1970–73, publishing extensively on the ecology and systematics of most indigenous species, including all the endemic birds (Naurois 558 M. Melo et al. 1972a, b, 1973a, b, 1975a, b, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983a, b, 1984a–d, 1985, 1987a–c, 1988a–c; Naurois and Castro Antunes 1973; Naurois and Wolters 1975). He also wrote the ﬁrst book to deal exclusively with the birds of all three oceanic Gulf of Guinea islands (Naurois 1994). In June 1983, ornithologists from the Dresden Museum visited São Tomé (Günther and Feiler 1985) and again in March-April 1991, the second time as part of a multi-disciplinary expedition (Nadler 1993). Annobón belatedly received further attention with visits by Mike Harrison (1990) and Jaime Pérez del Val (2001). In 1996–97 an expedition by the University of the Azores conducted the ﬁrst detailed study dedicated to seabirds (Monteiro et al. 1997). The Red Data Book for African birds considered seven endemic bird species of these islands to be threatened (Collar and Stuart 1985), highlighting the fact that four single-island endemics on São Tomé had not been seen for over 50 years and were possibly extinct. This publication prompted conservation initiatives by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN—Jones and Tye 1988; Burlison and Jones 1988) and by the European Union. The latter acted mostly through ECOFAC, a program sponsored by the European Union promoting the conservation and sustainable use of forest ecosystems in Central Africa (Anon. 1994) that published the ﬁrst ﬁeld guide to the birds of São Tomé and Príncipe (Christy and Clarke 1998). Increased attention led to the rediscovery of all four “missing” bird species: São Tomé Short-tail Motacilla bocagii in 1987 (Eccles 1988), Sao Tome Ibis Bostrychia bocagei, Newton’s Fiscal Lanius newtoni in 1990 (Atkinson et al. 1994), and São Tomé Grosbeak Crithagra concolor in 1991, more than a century after it had last been seen (Sergeant et al. 1992). On Príncipe, the rare endemic Príncipe Thrush Turdus xanthorhynchus was rediscovered in 1996, after more than 50 years (Christy and Gascoigne 1996). The number of ornithological studies has greatly increased since the turn of the twenty-ﬁrst century, leading to numerous taxonomic changes and a much better understanding of this unique avifauna (Jones and Tye 2006; Melo 2007; de Lima and Melo 2021). However, there is still much to be discovered as exempliﬁed by the existence of the Príncipe Scops-Owl, which was only conﬁrmed in 2016, 90 years after Correia collected information from local people on its putative occurrence (Verbelen et al. 2016). Species Diversity and Distribution General Patterns According to the latest assessment (de Lima and Melo 2021), the avifauna of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea comprises 146 conﬁrmed species (Appendix). These include 66 resident species, which contain a remarkably high number of endemics: 29 (44%) species and 16 (24%) subspecies (Table 21.1). Seventeen species (26%) are possibly non-native, six are breeding migrant species (all of 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 559 Table 21.1 Numbers of bird species known from the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands (de Lima and Melo 2021: Appendix). Percentages of endemics and possibly non-native species were calculated for the number of residents. One endemic species, the Príncipe Seedeater Crithagra rufobrunnea, has three endemic subspecies, which were not added to the tally of endemic subspecies Island Príncipe São Tomé Annobón TOTAL Residents Singleisland Total endemics 32 8 (25%) 50 17 (34%) Shared endemics 3 (9%) 3 (6%) Endemic subspecies 9 (28%) 7 (14%) Possibly non-native 5 (16%) 17 (34%) Non-resident NonBreeding breeding seabirds migrants 5 3 3 4 11 66 1 (9%) 3 (5%) 3 (27%) 16 (24%) 3 (27%) 17 (26%) 4 6 1 (9%) 26 (39%) 1 4 which are seabirds), four are regular non-breeding migrants, and 62 are vagrants. Eight species are of uncertain status, including ﬁve that may breed in the archipelago and three that have been recorded on the islands in the past. Additionally, the occurrence of 51 species remains unconﬁrmed, being based solely on uncorroborated observations (de Lima and Melo 2021). The most outstanding feature of the resident bird assemblage is the high level of endemism (Fig. 21.1). Almost all endemic species are single-island endemics, except for the Sao Tome Pigeon Columba malherbii, which occurs on all three islands, and the Sao Tome Spinetail Zoonavena thomensis and Príncipe Seedeater Crithagra rufobrunnea, both of which occur on Príncipe and São Tomé (Table 21.2). Endemic subspecies are also mostly restricted to a single island with two exceptions. The Little Swift Apus afﬁnis bannermani occurs on Príncipe and São Tomé and is also considered the taxon present on the neighboring land-bridge island Bioko. Likewise, the African Emerald Cuckoo Chrysococcyx cupreus insularum is considered the taxon present on all three oceanic islands in the archipelago (Table 21.3, Box 21.1). Another deﬁning feature is the unusually high phylogenetic diversity of these oceanic islands, with resident birds representing 28 families (Appendix). Non-endemic native resident species include a large proportion of aquatic species, including three Ardeidae, one Phalacrocoracidae, and one Rallidae. They also include single representatives of Accipitridae, Psittacidae, Sturnidae, Nectariniidae, and Estrildidae. Possibly non-native species include ﬁve Ploceidae, three Phasianidae, three Estrildidae, two Columbidae, and single representatives of Apodidae, Psittacidae, Viduidae, and Fringillidae. Breeding migrants include six seabird species: four Laridae, one Phaethontidae, and one Sulidae. Apart from the White-tailed Tropicbird Phaethon lepturus, which can breed in tree cavities and cliffs on the main islands, these species breed on bare offshore islets, such as Boné de Jóquei, Tinhosas (both near Príncipe), Sete Pedras, Rolas (both near São Tomé) and Tortuga (near Annobón). There are surprisingly few regular non-breeding migrants: three coastal waders (Scolopacidae) and the Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica (Hirundinidae). This contrasts with the large number of occasional migrants, comprising 62 species belonging to 27 families (Appendix), 560 M. Melo et al. Fig. 21.1 Some of the endemic birds of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, including four Critically Endangered species (1–4), an undescribed species that was only conﬁrmed for the ﬁrst time in 2016 (8), two giants (3, 7) and a dwarf (1), and two phenotypically “aberrant” species (5, 6): (1) São Tomé Ibis Bostrychia bocagei; (2) Newton’s Fiscal Lanius newtoni; (3) São Tomé Grosbeak Crithagra concolor; (4) Príncipe Thrush Turdus xanthorhynchus; (5) Dohrn’s ThrushBabbler Sylvia dohrni; (6) São Tomé Short-tail Motacilla bocagii; (7) São Tomé Sunbird Dreptes thomensis; (8) Príncipe Scops-Owl Otus sp. nov. Photo credits: (1, 2, 4, 5) Lars Petersson, (3, 8) Martim Melo, (6, 7) Paul van Giersbergen 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 561 Table 21.2 Endemic bird species of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: Príncipe (P), São Tomé (ST), and Annobón (A), with their respective IUCN Red List category (IUCN 2021). Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Clements et al. (2021) Species Order Columbiformes Family Columbidae Columba thomensis Columba malherbii Treron sanctithomae Order Caprimulgiformes Family Apodidae Zoonavena thomensis Order Pelecaniformes Family Threskiornithidae Bostrychia bocagei Order Strigiformes Family Strigidae Otus sp. nov. Otus hartlaubi Order Passeriformes Family Oriolidae Oriolus crassirostris Family Monarchidae Terpsiphone atrochalybeia Family Laniidae Lanius newtoni Family Cisticolidae Prinia molleri Family Sylviidae Sylvia dohrni Family Zosteropidae Zosterops ﬁcedulinus Zosterops griseovirescens Zosterops feae Zosterops lugubris Zosterops leucophaeus Family Sturnidae Lamprotornis ornatus Family Turdidae Turdus xanthorhynchus Turdus olivaceofuscus Family Nectariniidae Anabathmis hartlaubii Anabathmis newtonii Dreptes thomensis Common name P ST A IUCN Maroon Pigeon São Tomé Pigeon São Tomé Green-Pigeon • • • • • EN NT EN São Tomé Spinetail • • LC • CR • NEa VU São Tomé Oriole • VU São Tomé Paradise-Flycatcher • LC Newton’s Fiscal • CR São Tomé Prinia • LC São Tomé Ibis Príncipe Scops-Owl São Tomé Scops-Owl • Dohrn’s Thrush-Babbler • LC Príncipe White-eye Annobón White-eye São Tomé White-eye Black-capped Speirops Príncipe Speirops • • EN VU NT LC LC Príncipe Starling • LC Príncipe Thrush São Tomé Thrush • Príncipe Sunbird Newton’s Sunbird São Tomé Sunbird • • • • • CR LC • • LC LC VU (continued) 562 M. Melo et al. Table 21.2 (continued) Species Family Ploceidae Ploceus princeps Ploceus grandis Ploceus sanctithomae Familiy Motacillidae Motacilla bocagii Familiy Fringillidae Crithagra rufobrunneab Crithagra concolor Common name P Príncipe Golden-Weaver Giant Weaver São Tomé Weaver • São Tomé Short-tail Príncipe Seedeater São Tomé Grosbeak • ST A IUCN • • NT VU VU • VU • • LC CR IUCN Red List categories: LC, least concern; NT, near threatened; VU, vulnerable; EN, endangered; CR, critically endangered; NE, not evaluated a Recently discovered and still being described. Field data suggest it might classify as CR (Freitas 2019) b Crithagra rufobrunnea is represented by three endemic subspecies (Table 21.3) mostly shorebirds and passerines, whose number will continue to grow as currently uncorroborated records are conﬁrmed. These patterns reinforce the hypothesis that migrants, whether Afrotropical or Palearctic, do not regularly cross the open sea of the Gulf of Guinea (Jones and Tye 2006). Island Accounts Príncipe has 88 conﬁrmed species (Table 21.1, Appendix), including 32 resident species, of which 8 are single-island endemics and 3 are shared endemics with the neighboring islands (Tables 21.1 and 21.2). Príncipe also holds 9 (28%) endemic subspecies from species occurring on the mainland, together with two endemic subspecies of the endemic Príncipe Seedeater (Table 21.2). Five species (16%) are possibly non-native: two Columbidae, two Estrildidae, and one Apodidae. Príncipe, and especially its surrounding islets, holds breeding colonies of all seabird species that reproduce in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, except Bridled Tern Onychoprion anaethetus. Tinhosas islets are remarkable for their seabird colonies, which hold around 200,000 breeding pairs of Sooty Tern O. fuscatus, accounting for 1% of the global population of this species and meeting the criteria for Important Bird Area (Valle et al. 2016). Both Tinhosas and Boné de Jóquei also hold important but declining breeding colonies of Brown Booby Sula leucogaster. São Tomé has 96 conﬁrmed species (Table 21.1, Appendix), including 50 resident species, of which 17 (34%) are single-island endemics and 3 (6%) are endemics shared with the nearby islands (Tables 21.1 and 21.2). This island also holds seven (14%) endemic subspecies of species that occur in continental Africa, together with one endemic subspecies of the endemic Príncipe Seedeater (Tables 21.1 and 21.3). Seventeen species (34%) are possibly non-native: ﬁve Ploceidae, three Estrildidae, 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 563 Table 21.3 Endemic bird subspecies of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: Príncipe (P), São Tomé (ST), and Annobón (A). Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Clements et al. (2021); taxonomic authorities given in Appendix. Notes link to taxonomic comments in Box 21.1 Species Order Galliformes Family Phasianidae Coturnix delegorguei histrionica Order Columbiformes Family Columbidae Columba larvata principalis Columba larvata simplex Treron calvus virescens Order Cuculiformes Family Cuculidae Chrysococcyx cupreus insularum Order Caprimulgiformes Family Apodidae Apus afﬁnis bannermani Order Pelecaniformes Family Threskiornithidae Bostrychia olivacea rothschildi Order Strigiformes Family Tytonidae Tyto alba thomensis Family Strigidae Otus senegalensis feae Order Coraciiformes Family Alcedinidae Corythornis cristatus thomensis Corythornis cristatus nais Halcyon malimbica dryas Order Psittaciiformes Family Psittacidae Psittacus erithacus princeps Order Passeriformes Family Dicruridae Dicrurus modestus modestus Family Monarchidae Terpsiphone ruﬁventer smithii Family Sturnidae Onychognathus fulgidus fulgidus Familiy Fringillidaea Crithagra rufobrunnea rufobrunnea Common name P Harlequin Quail Lemon Dove ST A • 1 • 2 2 3 • African Green-Pigeon • Emerald Cuckoo • • Little Swift • • Olive Ibis • Barn Owl • 4 5 6 7 • African Scops-Owl • Malachite Kingﬁsher Notes 8 Blue-breasted Kingﬁsher • • 9 9 10 Gray Parrot • 11 Velvet-mantled Drongo • 12 • Black-headed ParadiseFlycatcher • Chestnut-winged Starling Príncipe Seedeater • 13 14 • (continued) 564 M. Melo et al. Table 21.3 (continued) Species Crithagra rufobrunnea thomensis Crithagra rufobrunnea fradei a Common name P ST • A Notes •b Crithagra rufobrunnea is an endemic species of Príncipe and São Tomé Endemic to the 3 ha islet of Boné de Jóquei, c. 3 km off Príncipe b two Phasianidae, two Columbidae, two Psittacidae, and single representatives of Apodidae, Viduidae, and Fringillidae. São Tomé and its surrounding islets, notably Sete Pedras and Rolas, hold breeding colonies of three seabird species: Brown Noddy Anous stolidus, White-tailed Tropicbird, and Brown Booby. Annobón has 30 conﬁrmed species (Table 21.1, Appendix), including 11 resident species, of which one is a single-island endemic and one is an endemic shared with São Tomé and Príncipe (Tables 21.1 and 21.2). It has three endemic subspecies, two of which are treated as full species by some authors (Table 21.3, Box 21.1), three native non-endemic species (Cuculidae, Rallidae, and Ardeidae), and three possibly non-native species (two phasianids and one estrildid). Seabird colonies include Brown Noddy, Black Noddy Anous minutus, Bridled Tern, and White-tailed Tropicbird. Box 21.1: Comments on Taxonomic Uncertainties The numbers link to the species in Table 21.3. Taxonomic authorities given in Appendix 1. Coturnix delegorguei histrionica. Endemic subspecies from São Tomé whose validity should be re-appraised combining multiple lines of evidence, including molecular data. 2. The systematic position of the Lemon Dove has never been satisfactorily resolved. Currently treated as Columba larvata, it was, for a long time, placed in its own genus, Aploplelia. Its current placement within Columba remains uncertain (Pereira 2013): it groups together with the Bronzenaped Pigeon superspecies (C. malherbii, C. delegorguei, C. iriditorques) within a larger clade encompassing the Old-World Columba and most Streptopelia species, but the exact afﬁnities with these two genera remain unresolved. The plumage of Columba larvata provides little phylogenetic information as it varies widely, both between and within populations, and it may also change with age (Amadon 1953; Serle 1959). As such, it is imperative to conduct a full taxonomic revision supported by extensive molecular sampling (Baptista et al. 2020), where many of the current arrangements are unlikely to prevail. The subspecies from São Tomé have been treated by some authorities as a distinct species, but evidence supporting it is anecdotal (Baptista et al. 2020). Molecular (continued) 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 565 Box 21.1 (continued) evidence for the São Tomé and Príncipe populations detected large differentiation in mitochondrial haplotypes, suggesting at least two colonization events from the mainland (Pereira and Melo, unpublished results). The same data also showed that these populations are closely related to those from southern Cameroon but very distinct from those from Malawi (up to 3.2 my divergence), suggesting that there may be multiple distinct species on the mainland. No molecular data are available for the Annobón population, which is currently placed under C. l. inornata, occurring from Sierra Leone to Gabon. 3. Treron calvus has 15 recognized subspecies, many of which might not be valid (Hoyo et al. 2020). Molecular data placed the endemic Príncipe subspecies, T. c. virescens, together with birds from Bioko, currently treated as an endemic subspecies, T. c. poensis, and revealed two cases (in 14) of mitochondrial introgression from T. sanctithomae, endemic from São Tomé, into the Príncipe population (Pereira 2013). 4. Chrysococcyx cupreus insularum. Endemic subspecies of the three Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, although most authorities treat or recommend treating C. cupreus as a monotypic species (HBW and BirdLife International 2020; Clements et al. 2021; Gill et al. 2021). 5. Apus afﬁnis bannermani is a subspecies considered to be restricted to the Gulf of Guinea islands of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Bioko (Clements et al. 2021; Gill et al. 2021)—so not strictly speaking an endemic of the oceanic islands. The validity of this subspecies should be re-appraised as it has been considered indistinguishable from the neighboring mainland population (Amadon 1953). 6. Bostrychia olivacea rothschildi. Molecular studies on museum specimens are required to determine if this extinct endemic subspecies from Príncipe is valid, and whether it was more closely related to the São Tomé B. bocagei or to the mainland species B. olivacea. 7. Tyto alba thomensis. Recent molecular evidence suggested that this phenotypically distinct taxon, restricted to São Tomé, may constitute a separate species (Uva et al. 2018; Alves 2019). 8. Otus senegalensis feae. A recent assessment, using multiple lines of evidence but no molecular data, considered the scops-owl from Annobón as a valid endemic species, Otus feae (Collar and Boesman 2020). Both molecular data and phenotypic data (Freitas 2019) place it well within the intra-speciﬁc variation of Otus senegalensis, which indicates a recent colonization. The Annobón population is now very likely isolated from O. senegalensis, which is absent from the neighboring mainland. A deep phylogeographic study of O. senegalensis sensu lato is needed to understand its evolutionary history and clarify the taxonomic status of the (continued) 566 M. Melo et al. Box 21.1 (continued) Annobón population. In any case, several authorities already recognize it as a valid endemic species (e.g., HBW and BirdLife International 2020; Gill et al. 2021). 9. Corythornis cristatus thomensis and Corythornis cristatus nais are endemic subspecies from São Tomé and from Príncipe, respectively. Genetically they fall well within the nominate subspecies: mitochondrial divergences from samples from Malawi were only 0.3% for C. c. thomensis and 0.9% for C. c. nais, and divergence between the two island lineages is 0.8% (Melo and Fuchs 2008). The two subspecies have phenotypic differences: C. c. nais being intermediate between C. cristatus and C. leucogaster, while C. c. thomensis has darker plumage than mainland birds, especially the juveniles (Christy and Clarke 1998). It is possible that these populations represent recent and distinct colonization events that are now evolving in isolation. They are treated as separate endemic species by BirdLife International (HBW and BirdLife International 2020). 10. Halcyon malimbica dryas. Endemic subspecies from Príncipe, whose likely validity should nevertheless be conﬁrmed using multiple lines of evidence, including molecular data. 11. Psittacus erithacus princeps. Mitochondrial data inferred a relatively simple, albeit curious, history for the gray parrots from Príncipe (Melo and O’Ryan 2007), which created the only real taxonomic conundrum for the avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. This population is the result of two colonization events: one that occurred up to 1.4 mya and a contemporary one. The ﬁrst colonization came from the mainland stock that evolved into P. timneh, whereas the recent colonization came from P. erithacus. We cannot exclude that the latter was an accidental introduction linked to the Portuguese trade of this species from Angola to Europe, which used to be done by boats that made a stopover in Príncipe (Melo and O’Ryan 2007). Most of the Príncipe birds (75%) have the Príncipe mitochondrial lineage, even though morphologically they are closer to P. erithacus. We still do not know the overall impact on the genome of the mixing of the two lineages. The International Ornithological Council opted to use the genetic evidence to treat the Príncipe population as a subspecies of P. timneh (Gill et al. 2021), while other authorities have kept the original treatment (HBW and BirdLife International 2020; Clements et al. 2021). We consider this to be an open issue that can only be sorted out with an extensive genetic investigation. 12. Dicrurus modestus modestus. The drongo present on Príncipe has been treated for a long time as an endemic species, although its taxonomic status was always considered unclear (Jones and Tye 2006). A recent (continued) 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 567 Box 21.1 (continued) molecular study on the D. adsimilis complex returned a new taxonomic arrangement for the group, in which the Príncipe population is conspeciﬁc with the populations occurring in the forests of the Lower Congo Forest Block, despite clear differences in bill and tail size (Fuchs et al. 2018). 13. Terpsiphone ruﬁventer smithii. The population of T. ruﬁventer from Annobón was, until recently, often treated as a separate species, and still is by some authors (Gill et al. 2021). As it is unlikely that there is regular gene ﬂow with the neighboring mainland populations, this population is likely on an independent evolutionary trajectory. 14. Onychognathus fulgidus fulgidus. The nominate subspecies of this large forest starling was described from São Tomé, to which it is endemic. The birds on São Tomé are larger, more robust, and more vocal than those occurring on the African mainland (Amadon 1953; Christy and Clarke 1998), warranting molecular research to determine if it may constitute a distinct species. Habitat Associations The aquatic avifauna of the islands is species-poor but occupies a wide variety of ecological niches (Lima et al. 2021). Regularly breeding seabirds include two noddies, two terns, one tropicbird, and one booby, all of which breed in different sets of offshore islets (Monteiro et al. 1997; Jones and Tye 2006—Appendix), where they have distinct nesting microhabitats (Leventis and Olmos 2009; Valle et al. 2016; Bollen et al. 2018). The White-tailed Tropicbird also breeds on cliffs and trees on the main islands, and a putatively distinct form of the Band-rumped Storm-Petrel Hydrobates castro is thought to breed within burrows on the ground in São Tomé’s native forests (Flood et al. 2019). The resident Black Kite Milvus migrans parasitus is also commonly found foraging at sea. Other resident aquatic bird species include predominantly coastal species that also occur along larger rivers, such as Western Reef-Heron Egretta gularis and Long-tailed Cormorant Microcarbo africanus. Predominantly freshwater species also occur along the coast and in brackish waters, such as Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus and Striated Heron Butorides striata. The islands receive remarkably few non-breeding aquatic species as regular visitors, most of which occur on the coast or along the lower reaches of rivers and streams. The lagoons on the northern coast of São Tomé and the bay of Santo António on Príncipe are the main localities where vagrant aquatic birds have been recorded (Jones and Tye 2006; de Lima et al. 2021). Until the 1990s, assessments of the distributions and habitat associations of the terrestrial birds of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea were mostly based on non-systematic observations (Jones and Tye 2006) and focused on understanding the 568 M. Melo et al. links between endemic species and land-use types to evaluate conservation status (Jones and Tye 1988; Atkinson et al. 1991; Peet and Atkinson 1994). Knowledge greatly improved following systematic surveys on both Príncipe (Baillie 2001; Dallimer and King 2008; Dallimer et al. 2012; Fundação Príncipe 2019) and São Tomé (Dallimer et al. 2009; de Lima et al. 2013, 2014; Soares 2017; Soares et al. 2020). These studies have shown that native species, including endemics, dominate the avifauna across the islands, while non-natives tend to be restricted to degraded environments, such as plantations and notably, to non-forested areas. A few of the endemics are more sensitive to anthropogenic inﬂuence and are currently restricted to the best-preserved forests. The Giant Weaver Ploceus grandis on São Tomé and the Príncipe Golden-Weaver P. princeps seem to be the only endemic species that are clearly more abundant outside forests, even though the Sao Tome Pigeon, the Sao Tome White-eye Zosterops feae and a few of the endemic subspecies are also frequently encountered outside native forest. As in other tropical forests (e.g., Newbold et al. 2013), species sensitive to forest degradation tend to be larger, and insectivorous or frugivorous, while non-natives are mostly small and granivorous. Other environmental factors are often correlated with land use, making it hard to disentangle their effect on bird assemblages but, overall, the highest proportions of endemics are found in remote steep areas at higher altitudes and with higher rainfall. Annobón is seldom visited by ornithologists, and thus the ecology of its avifauna remains the most incompletely documented (Sloan 2017). Several studies have focused on the habitat associations of the islands’ Critically Endangered species: Sao Tome Ibis (Margarido 2015; de Lima et al. 2017), Newton’s Fiscal (Maia and Alberto 2009; Lewis et al. 2018), Príncipe Thrush (Dallimer et al. 2010; Rebelo 2021), and Sao Tome Grosbeak (Solé et al. 2012), as well as the Príncipe Scops-Owl, which has also been proposed to qualify as Critically Endangered (Freitas 2019). Other studies have addressed the habitat associations of the Gray Parrot Psittacus erithacus on Príncipe (Valle et al. 2017), the Annobón population of the African Scops-Owl Otus senegalensis feae (Rodriguez-Prieto et al. 2014), the distinctive São Tomé subspecies of Barn Owl Tyto alba thomensis (Alves 2019), and the endemic pigeons of São Tomé (Carvalho et al. 2014). In addition to providing an understanding of distribution and ecology, these studies have also helped in estimating population sizes (i.e., Azevedo 2015) and informing conservation strategies (BirdLife International 2014a, b; Fundação Príncipe et al. 2021). The Endemic Birds How Many Endemics? Endemism in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea is restricted to resident landbirds (Jones and Tye 2006; de Lima and Melo 2021), although the still undescribed local population of the Band-rumped Storm-Petrel may represent an 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 569 exception (Flood et al. 2019). Out of the 66 resident landbird species of the three islands, 17 are possibly non-native (de Lima and Melo 2021), and of the remaining 49 conﬁrmed extant natives, 90% are endemic at the species or subspecies level (Tables 21.2, 21.3, and 21.4, Appendix). The exact number of endemic species varies according to different authorities (Hoyo 2020), with the most recent assessments recognizing 32 (HBW and BirdLife International 2021), 31 (Gill et al. 2021), and 29 species (Clements et al. 2021; de Lima and Melo 2021). These discrepancies Table 21.4 Divergence time estimates, in million years (Ma), between endemic birds of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea and their closest mainland relative(s); square brackets indicate clades. These estimates are illustrative only as they were derived from different markers and used different rates and estimation methods. When available, 95% conﬁdence intervals are shown. Note that the ages of the oldest known sub-aerial rocks are 31 Ma for Príncipe, 15 Ma for São Tomé and 6 Ma for Annobón (Ceríaco et al. 2022) Island taxa Columba thomensis Columba malherbii Treron sanctithomae Tyto alba thomensis Otus sp. nov Otus hartlaubi Oriolus crassirostris Terpsiphone atrochalybeia Lanius newtoni Sylvia dohrni Zosterops ﬁcedulinus Zosterops griseovirescens Zosterops feae Zosterops lugubris Zosterops leucophaeus Turdus xanthorhynchus Turdus olivaceofuscus Ploceus sanctithomae Ploceus grandis Motacilla bocagii Crithagra rufobrunnea Mainland sister taxa Columba arquatrix [Columba iriditorques | C. delegorguei] Treron calvus all other taxa under Tyto alba [Otus hartlaubi | O. senegalensis] Otus senegalensis Oriolus brachyrhynchus laetiora Terpsiphone corvina or T. mutata comorensis Lanius mackinnoni [Sylvia abyssinica | S. atriceps | S. galinieri | S. nigricapillus] Large clade including mainland taxa and the Indian Ocean maderaspatanus clade Turdus pelios [Ploceus bicolor – Anaplectes (¼ Ploceus) rubriceps] Ploceus weynsi [Motacilla clara | M. capensis] Crithagra striolata and other African taxa Divergence time (Ma) 1.5 (1.0–2.1) 1.3 (0.6–2.1) 2.0 (1.9–2.6) c. 1.8 0.9 (0.7–1.1) Reference Pereira (2013) Pereira (2013) c. 1.7b Pereira (2013) Uva et al. (2018) Melo et al. (unpublished data) Melo et al. (unpublished data) Jønsson et al. (2019) c. 1.4c Bristol et al. (2013) 2.1 (0.9–3.7) c. 8.1d Fuchs et al. (2011) Cai et al. (2019) 0.9 (0.7–1.1) Melo and O’Ryan (2007) c. 4e c. 5f c. 1.2–1.4g Batista et al. (2020) Melo et al. (2010) De Silva et al. (2019) c. 1.6–1.8h 3.3 (2.2–4.6) 1.7 (1.0–2.3)i De Silva et al. (2019) Alström et al. (2015) Melo et al. (2017) 0.8 (0.6–1.0) (continued) 570 M. Melo et al. Table 21.4 (continued) Island taxa Crithagra concolor Mainland sister taxa [C. citrinelloides | C. mozambica | C. leucopygia] Divergence time (Ma) 0.6 (0.4–0.8)j Reference Melo et al. (2017) a Genetic divergence from other O. brachyrhynchus taxa, and sister species relationship with O. crassirostris, may warrant treatment as separate species O. laetior (Jønsson et al. 2019) b Divergence time estimate read from chronogram (Supplementary Fig. S4: Jønsson et al. 2019) c Divergence time estimate read from chronogram (Fig. 3: Bristol et al. 2013) d Divergence time estimate read from chronogram (Fig. 3a: Cai et al. 2019) e Divergence time estimated from large scale genomic data and fossil calibrations f Divergence time estimated from cytochrome b data using Weir and Schluter’s (2008) rate. Estimates from ND2 and ND3 using Lerner’s et al. (2011) rates returned estimates of c. 2 mya (not shown) g Divergence time estimated from uncorrected pairwise distances estimated from partial COI sequences (298 and 100 bp) from De Silva et al. (2019) using Weir and Schluter’s (2008) rate h Divergence time estimated from uncorrected pairwise distances estimated from partial sequences of ND2 (543 bp) and COI (298 bp) from De Silva et al. (2019) using Weir and Schluter’s (2008) rate i Divergence time estimated from cytochrome b data using Weir and Schluter’s (2008) rate j Divergence time estimated from mitochondrial (ND2, ND3) and nuclear (GAPDH, MYO2, ODC) DNA using Lerner’s et al. (2011) rates. These very recent estimates may be driven by the behavior of the ND2 in recent times (i.e., closer to the tips of the trees) are restricted to recent speciation events, in which some authors treat sister taxa as species, while others treat them as subspecies (Box 21.1). Such divergent taxonomic treatments are to be expected considering that speciation is a continuous process, and authorities agree that there is a total of 45 distinct evolutionary lineages (endemic species and subspecies, including the Príncipe Scops-Owl). Here we follow a conservative approach, where recent divergence events are treated as subspecies until further evidence emerges, resulting in a total of 29 endemic species (Tables 21.1 and 21.2) and 16 endemic subspecies (Tables 21.1 and 21.3). Additionally, the endemic Príncipe Seedeater has diverged into three single-island endemic subspecies: the nominate restricted to Príncipe, another to Boné de Jóquei (islet c. 3 km offshore from Príncipe), and the third to São Tomé (Table 21.3), a taxonomic arrangement supported by molecular data (Melo 2007). Bird Endemism of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands in Perspective Although conﬁned to a land area of just over 1000 km2, the 29 endemic species of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón represent 60% of the endemic bird species of the vast Guinean Forests of West Africa biodiversity hotspot (area: 621,705 km2; IUCN 2015). It is not surprising for oceanic islands to be centers of endemism, but it is still instructive to compare the bird endemism levels of the Gulf of Guinea islands with those found elsewhere. The Galapagos have 22 endemic landbirds in 13 islands 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 571 Fig. 21.2 The number of endemic bird species in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea has no equivalent worldwide. Left—number of endemic bird species in relation to island area for all the small oceanic islands of the world that have at least one endemic species; data from Coyne and Price (2000). Right—adaptation of Figure 1 from Mayr’s (1965) global analysis of species turnover on islands (percentage of bird endemism in relation to island area), where three island categories were deﬁned: A—solitary, well-isolated islands; B—single islands near continents or large archipelagos; C—islands in the Gulf of Guinea. In both cases, the Gulf of Guinea islands follow a distinct trajectory, characterized by a much higher number of endemics than expected from their area alone totaling some 8000 km2, whereas the six largest Hawaiian Islands have 30 extant endemic species and 19 documented extinct endemics in over 16,000 km2 (Stattersﬁeld et al. 1998). The high level of bird endemism within the relatively restricted area of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands has no parallel, with the islands following a very distinct trajectory to the global pattern (Mayr 1965; Fig. 21.2). In a survey of the 45 small islands (<10,000 km2) that have at least one endemic species, the mean number of endemic species is 2 and the mode is a single species (Coyne and Price 2000). By comparison, São Tomé, 857 km2, has 17 single-island endemic species and Príncipe, 139 km2, has eight, plus three additional shared endemic species. A recent worldwide analysis of bird communities on oceanic islands further identiﬁed Príncipe and São Tomé as the only group of islands where the number of species, colonizations, and within-archipelago speciation all exceeded the predictions of the global model (Valente et al. 2020). Why So Many Endemic Birds? The 29 endemic species of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea belong to 20 distinct evolutionary lineages from 16 families. This means that the current diversity of the endemics required at least 20 independent colonization events from the mainland. Hence, the impressive level of bird endemism is spread across independent phylogenetic lineages rather than being concentrated within speciesrich genera from just a few colonizations, such as in the well-known adaptive 572 M. Melo et al. radiations that have occurred in other archipelagos. In the Galapagos, six colonizations gave rise to the 22 extant endemic species, dominated by the radiation of Darwin’s ﬁnches (Grant and Grant 2008), and in the Hawaiian archipelago, six colonizations diversiﬁed into more than 40 endemic species, dominated by the Hawaiian honeycreepers (Pratt 2005). The factor underlying these distinct patterns is geography. These two archipelagos are much farther from the mainland than the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea constitute an ‘intermediate island system’ (Melo 2007; Ricklefs and Bermingham 2007), whose biogeographical characteristics lie between very isolated and virtually independent systems, and those so close to the mainland that their diversity patterns are determined mostly by ecological factors. In addition, the diverse and species-rich ecosystems of West Africa and the Congo Basin to the north and east, respectively, provide ample sources for potential colonization to the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. This “surrounding landmass proportion” is not only very large, but it consists mostly of habitats that are similar to those of the islands themselves—the two most important parameters associated with an increased likelihood of successful colonization (Weigelt and Kreft 2013). The linear arrangement of the Gulf of Guinea islands and the relatively large distances between them, which are similar to their distances from the African continent, appear to have favored independent colonizations from the mainland relative to dispersal between islands. Colonization by so many mainland species is expected to increase inter-speciﬁc competition, reducing the chances for adaptive radiation (Schluter 2000; Ricklefs and Bermingham 2007). Nevertheless, white-eyes (Zosteropidae) represent a ﬁve-species radiation in these islands (Melo et al. 2011— Box 21.2). Other instances of inter-island dispersal events leading to speciation include the Giant and Príncipe Golden weavers (Valente et al. 2020), and the Príncipe Sunbird Anabathmis hartlaubi and the Sao Tome Sunbird Dreptes thomensis (Rauri Bowie, unpublished data: sister species relationship supported by mitochondrial and nuclear markers.; MM and Luís Valente, unpublished data: sister species relationship supported by mitochondrial sequence data). Inter-island dispersal has also resulted in the differentiation of the Príncipe Seedeater into three subspecies (Jones and Tye 2006; Melo 2007). The distinct species of green-pigeons (Pereira 2013), scops-owls (Freitas 2019), thrushes (Melo et al. 2010), and Crithagra canaries (Melo et al. 2017) present on different islands may have been derived either from independent colonizations from the African continent or from inter-island dispersal. The same applies to the island subspecies of the Lemon Dove Columba larvata (Pereira 2013), and the Malachite Kingﬁsher (Melo and Fuchs 2008). Although the proximity to a species-rich continent does increase the chances of successful colonizations, it also increases the probability that gene ﬂow between island and mainland populations is maintained at levels that will prevent population divergence and eventual speciation. Hence, the most likely reason that the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea support the highest concentration of endemic birds worldwide is their unique geographic location: they are close enough to the African 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 573 continent to be colonized by a diverse array of species, but far enough to allow successful immigrants to evolve in isolation. In summary, bird speciation in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea has in most cases occurred by independent divergence in allopatry (allospeciation: Mayr and Diamond 2001), when an immigrant population from the mainland reached one island and evolved there in isolation. This is the overwhelmingly dominant route for bird speciation on islands (Ricklefs and Bermingham 2007; Valente et al. 2020) and for birds in general (Price 2008). In addition, molecular data have now revealed previously unrecognized radiations on the islands, most remarkably among the white-eyes (Box 21.2). Although comprising only ﬁve species, this radiation may be the third largest globally for birds inhabiting small oceanic islands, and further stands out by having the fastest speciation rates recorded in birds and one of the highest in vertebrates (Appendix 5 in Melo et al. 2011). Box 21.2: The Radiation of the White-Eyes (Zosteropidae) of the Oceanic Islands of the Gulf of Guinea The spectacular radiations of the Hawaiian honeycreepers (Pratt 2005) and of the Galapagos ﬁnches (Grant and Grant 2008) could mislead us into believing that radiations are a common diversiﬁcation process for birds on small oceanic islands—when they are in fact a very rare exception (Valente et al. 2020). The next largest oceanic island bird radiation worldwide is found in the Gulf of Guinea, where the ﬁve white-eyes species descend from a single ancestor that reached the islands within the last 0.7–1.1 my (Melo et al. 2011). Although modest in size, the white eye radiation boasts one of the fastest rates of speciation ever documented in vertebrates (Melo et al. 2011). The radiation itself is a textbook example of the “archipelago radiation model” developed originally for island birds (Lack 1947; Grant 2001; Petren et al. 2005), which is also in agreement with current views of the speciation process (Rundle and Nosil 2005; Nosil 2012), where inter-speciﬁc competition is the engine of phenotypic diversiﬁcation (numbers refer to photos below): (I) Descendants of the original colonization (6: mainland relative), islandhop and diverge in isolation (1, 3, 5). (II) Presumably because they occupy similar habitats, phenotypic changes are not pronounced—as illustrated by the Príncipe and São Tomé whiteeyes (1, 3), which are indistinguishable in the ﬁeld (Hering et al. 2018). (III) Inter-island dispersal events bring diverging populations together, setting the stage for inter-speciﬁc competition. (IV) The pressure of resource competition is felt more strongly in the outnumbered new arrivals. These undergo the most phenotypic change and at very fast rates. The most aberrant species of the group (2, 4) represent the most recent speciation events: they may have diverged from one another less than 0.3 mya and from a typical white-eye less than 0.5 (continued) 574 M. Melo et al. Box 21.2 (continued) mya—a timeframe typical of intra-speciﬁc but not inter-speciﬁc divergence in birds (Melo et al. 2011). This process of asymmetric divergence driven by resource competition has been predicted by theory (Doebeli and Dieckmann 2000) and is now empirically supported by the radiation of Darwin’s ﬁnches (Petren et al. 2005) and of the Gulf of Guinea whiteeyes. (1) Príncipe White-eye Zosterops ﬁcedulinus. (2) Príncipe Speirops Z. leucophaeus. (3) São Tomé White-eye Z. feae. (4) Black-capped Speirops Z. lugubris (São Tomé). (5) Annobón White-eye Zosterops griseovirescens. (6) Northern Yellow White-eye Z. senegalensis, the closest mainland relative with the typical white-eye phenotype. Photo credits: (1–4) Lars Petersson, (5) Martim Melo, (6) Jake Selby 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 575 Systematics of the Endemic Birds: New Insights from Molecular Data The taxonomy and systematics of the endemic birds of the Gulf of Guinea were mostly addressed by Amadon (1953) and Naurois (1994) and later summarized by Jones and Tye (2006). Evolutionary inferences were still then dependent on phenotypic data, and particularly on morphological traits, which are often adaptive and can quickly lose their phylogenetic signal. This issue is particularly problematic in birds (Bock 1967; Hafner et al. 1984) and on oceanic islands, where both rapid phenotypic evolution (Millien 2006; Melo et al. 2011; Garcia-Porta et al. 2016; Sendell-Price et al. 2020) and phenotypic convergence (Fleischer et al. 2008; Covas 2016; Benítez-López et al. 2021) are common. Molecular phylogenies are expected to constitute better hypotheses of evolutionary history than phenotype-based phylogenies, as they use genetic markers that are mostly independent from phenotypic traits, and not under direct selection (Bromham et al. 2002; Davies and Savolainen 2006). The most important insight brought by molecular phylogenies was that most bird speciation events in the Gulf of Guinea islands are recent, having occurred since the late Pliocene (2.5 Ma—Table 21.4). The exceptions so far are the Príncipe and São Tomé thrushes and the Sao Tome Short-tail, which may have speciated in the mid-Pliocene (c. 3.5–4.0 Ma), and Dohrn’s Thrush-Babbler Sylvia dohrni, which may date back to the Miocene (c. 8 Ma—Table 21.4). Even without estimates of speciation times for some of the endemics, it is safe to conclude that the present species are all much more recent than the emergence of the islands they inhabit, which range from 31 to 6 Ma (Ceríaco et al. 2022). This pattern indicates that the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea constitute a speciation center rather than a stable refuge for species that went extinct on the mainland. The absence of old species is nevertheless surprising and could be due to the recent and intense volcanic history of the islands (Lee et al. 1994; Barfod and Fitton 2014; Ceríaco et al. 2022). The patterns of genetic variation of the lizard Trachylepis thomensis within São Tomé have been linked to the impact of volcanic activity, with the extent of this variation being much lower than expected from the age of the island (Jesus et al. 2005). Likewise, volcanic activity on São Tomé has been linked to the evolutionary history of two sister caecilian lineages—Schistometopum ephele and S. thomense (O’Connell et al. 2021). In the absence of (sub)fossil evidence, it is not known if cycles of sea-level rise during post-glacial periods may have caused extinctions (Jones and Tye 2006; Ceríaco et al. 2022). Príncipe is likely to have been the most affected, having lost almost 90% of its land area as recently as 12,000 years ago (Norder et al. 2018). Likewise, during glacial periods Annobón was eight times larger, whereas the size of São Tomé did not change greatly. In any case, the relatively small sizes of the islands and their proximity to the mainland might make them susceptible to more rapid species turnover, which may further help explain the young age of most endemic bird species. 576 M. Melo et al. The main taxonomic consequence of the fast rates of phenotypic divergence inferred from molecular phylogenies is that all the endemic genera have been found invalid. This includes the Dohrn’s Thrush-Babbler and the Sao Tome Shorttail, formerly placed in the monotypic genera Horizorhinus and Amaurocichla, respectively, whose peculiar traits obscured to which families they belonged (i.e., classiﬁed as incertae sedis). Dohrn’s Thrush-Babbler, from Príncipe, is sister to a clade including the African Hill Babbler Sylvia abyssinica, an Afromontane forest species present also in the neighboring land-bridge island Bioko and Mount Cameroon (Voelker et al. 2009). In the case of the Sao Tome Short-tail, several of its traits, such as nine primaries (albeit a vestigial tenth primary is present) and ten rectrices with a protruding shaft, led to the suggestion that it could share an ancestor with the South-American Furnariidae (Naurois 1982). In actuality, it represents a recent speciation event from continental Africa, derived from the same ancestor as the Mountain Wagtail Motacilla clara, with which it shares the ecological niche of forest streams, and the Cape Wagtail M. capensis (Alström et al. 2015). The São Tomé Grosbeak, a Crithagra canary (Fringillidae) sister to the co-occurring Príncipe Seedeater (Moreau 1962; Melo et al. 2017), was originally placed in the monotypic genus Neospiza, and was often classiﬁed as a weaver (Ploceidae) (e.g., Bocage 1888b—he later placed it in Fringillidae: Bocage 1904; Sclater 1924; Bannerman 1953; Moreau 1962). The Sao Tome Weaver Ploceus sanctithomae, formerly in the endemic monotypic genus Thomasophantes (Amadon 1953; Moreau 1960; Naurois 1994), is now considered sister to the clade including the Forest Weaver Ploceus bicolor and the Red-headed Weaver Anaplectes rubriceps (Anaplectes being invalid as well; De Silva et al. 2019). The Sao Tome Sunbird is currently still classiﬁed under the only remaining endemic genus, Dreptes, which is known to be invalid, since the species is sister to the Príncipe Sunbird (genus Anabathmis) (Rauri Bowie, pers comm.; MM and Luís Valente, unpublished data). Finally, the genus Speirops, endemic to the Gulf of Guinea, is also no longer considered valid (Melo et al. 2011). It used to group four species of “aberrant” white-eyes (Zosteropidae): Black-capped Speirops Zosterops lugubris (São Tomé), Príncipe Speirops Z. leucophaeus, Bioko Speirops Z. brunneus, and Cameroon Speirops Z. melanocephalus (Mount Cameroon). However, molecular data show that the four species are not monophyletic and that the “aberrant” characters are the result of fast phenotypic divergence. On the oceanic islands, aberrant species represent the most recent speciation events (Box 21.2; Melo et al. 2011), rather than being derived from the oldest colonizations as previously assumed (Amadon 1953; Moreau 1957). Conservation The importance of the islands for conservation was ﬁrst noted when the southwestern forests of São Tomé were identiﬁed as the second most important for bird conservation in Africa (Collar and Stuart 1988). As a result, an IUCN-funded 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 577 mission surveyed plants and vertebrates of São Tomé and Príncipe conﬁrming the high endemism and the global importance of the biological diversity of the oceanic islands (Jones and Tye 1988; Jones et al. 1991; Jones 1994). For birds, each of the oceanic islands is listed by BirdLife International as an independent Endemic Bird Area (Stattersﬁeld et al. 1998; BirdLife International 2021a). More recently, the moist lowland forests of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón were identiﬁed as the third most important in the world for the conservation of forest birds (Buchanan et al. 2011), and the endemic birds were the main factor for the protected areas of São Tomé and Príncipe combined to be considered globally as the 17th most important protected area for the conservation of threatened species (Le Saout et al. 2013). Some of the endemic birds were already extremely rare early in the twentieth century and remain at high risk, but only the Príncipe subspecies of the Olive Ibis Bostrychia olivacea rothschildi became extinct (de Lima and Melo 2021). The most recent assessment listed 14 threatened bird taxa for the islands (IUCN 2021): ﬁve Critically Endangered, including the Annobón Scops-Owl Otus feae—which we treat as a subspecies of O. senegalensis following Clements et al. (2021); four Endangered, including the Gray Parrot, which is common on Príncipe and the only non-endemic threatened bird on the islands (Valle et al. 2021); and ﬁve Vulnerable (Tables 21.2 and 21.3). The number of threatened taxa has increased since 2000, when only nine were listed: three Critically Endangered (the Annobón Scops-Owl and the Príncipe Thrush were not recognized as species by IUCN), none Endangered (the Maroon Pigeon Columba thomensis was Vulnerable, the Príncipe and São Tomé white-eyes were treated as conspeciﬁc and Vulnerable, and the Sao Tome Green-Pigeon Treron sanctithomae and the Gray Parrot were Least Concern), and six were Vulnerable (including the Principe and Sao Tome white-eyes treated as the same taxon). Most of these changes have been due to improved knowledge and not necessarily to a deterioration of the situation of the species, despite indications that conditions might be worsening for several taxa (IUCN 2021). The conservation status of each bird species is reviewed every year (BirdLife International 2021b) and thus further changes are expected. Other taxa await assessment, namely all endemic subspecies and putative new species, many of which are likely to be threatened. These include the Boné de Jóquei Islet subspecies of the Principe Seedeater Crithagra rufobrunnea fradei, which has a highly restricted range (Melo 2007), the elusive Gulf of Guinea Band-rumped Storm-Petrel (Flood et al. 2019), and the Príncipe Scops-Owl, which is still being described but will likely classify as Critically Endangered (Freitas 2019). Habitat loss, overexploitation, and introduced species are key threats to native birds both globally (IUCN 2021) and in the Gulf of Guinea. Given the habitat associations described in the previous section, forest loss and degradation are the main threats to the birds on these islands (e.g., Dallimer et al. 2012; Soares et al. 2020). Most of this habitat loss can be attributed to agricultural expansion and intensiﬁcation (Oyono et al. 2014), both to supply the local markets (notably 578 M. Melo et al. horticulture) and to produce export cash crops (e.g., cocoa, palm oil, and coffee). Logging, ﬁre, mining, infrastructure development, urban and tourism expansion, livestock, and silviculture (e.g., oil palm wine and medicinal plants) also contribute to habitat loss. To halt ongoing habitat loss, it is vital to ensure the effective implementation of existing protected areas, and their possible expansion, since some important forests are not yet formally protected (BirdLife International 2020; de Lima et al. 2022). Furthermore, environmentally friendly practices should be promoted in extractive and agricultural activities to ensure that complex vegetation structures are not lost and that introduced species are kept under control (de Lima et al. 2014; Carvalho 2015). Most bird species are hunted, but the effects of direct exploitation are more noticeable on larger species (de Lima et al. 2013), such as the Sao Tome Ibis (Sampaio et al. 2016; de Lima et al. 2017), pigeons (Palmeirim et al. 2013; Carvalho 2015; Fundação Príncipe 2019) and the Brown Booby (Bollen et al. 2018). The diffuse nature of hunting coupled with the rugged terrain makes it extremely difﬁcult to enforce existing laws that regulate this activity (Albuquerque and Carvalho 2015a, b; de Lima et al. 2022). Given that bird hunting is mostly a cultural, commercial, and recreational activity that contributes little to protein intake, diverting hunting efforts to instead control populations of introduced mammals could have a dual positive effect on bird conservation (Carvalho 2015). Introduced bird species are thought to be strongly associated with land-use intensiﬁcation, having little or no impact on the native avifauna (Soares et al. 2020). On the other hand, the effects of introduced mammals (Dutton 1994) and plants (Figueiredo et al. 2011) have long been identiﬁed as potential threats, even though their impacts remain poorly understood (BirdLife International 2014a, b; Fundação Príncipe et al. 2021). Feral pigs and cows feed on understory plants and turn over the soil, disturbing key forest habitats that evolved in the absence of large terrestrial mammals. Rats Rattus sp. and Mona Monkeys Cercopithecus mona are likely to have direct effects through nest predation (Guedes et al. 2021). Introduced mammal and plant species also have the potential to change forest structure in the long term, namely through the disruption of seed dispersal and other processes linked to forest regeneration (Heleno et al. 2021). Other factors, such as pollution and climate change have also been identiﬁed as potential threats to the endemic-rich avifauna of these islands (IUCN 2021). For example, the intensive use of insecticides was claimed to be responsible for a severe population crash of the Sao Tome Paradise Flycatcher Terpsiphone atrochalybeia in the 1970s (Naurois 1984a). Because most threats to biodiversity act synergistically and often occur as a result of habitat loss, protecting the remaining native forest is the single most important measure to secure the future of these species (de Lima 2012). Fortunately, all the islands have signiﬁcant proportions of their territory already dedicated to biodiversity conservation (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021), and the protected area network is soon expected to expand to cover additional important habitats (BirdLife 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 579 International 2020; de Lima et al. 2022). However, weak enforcement of environmental legislation remains a major concern (de Lima et al. 2017). Improving our knowledge of species ecology and of pervasive threats, such as hunting, invasive species, and climate change, will also be key to designing effective species-speciﬁc conservation measures. In this regard, conservation priorities in São Tomé and Príncipe have been identiﬁed through extended discussions, both for protected areas (Albuquerque and Carvalho 2015a, b) and for all Critically Endangered bird species (BirdLife International 2014a, b; Fundação Príncipe et al. 2021). Despite not being entirely fulﬁlled, these have been extremely useful in guiding conservation action, and continued revision will be essential. The success of ongoing conservation efforts ultimately relies on engaging the inhabitants of the islands, a process that is still in its infancy (de Lima et al. 2022). In this regard, birds are also being used to raise awareness locally and globally for the value of the unique biodiversity of the islands (e.g., Rebelo 2021; Ayres et al. 2022). Concluding Remarks The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea constitute an outstanding example of an intermediate island system for birds, whose geographical location and rich rainforests maximize the accumulation of bird endemism. As such, they offer a valuable suite of phylogenetically independent replicates for testing hypotheses about evolutionary processes in speciation and adaptation. Knowledge gaps persist regarding Annobón and the status of some species, including potential undescribed endemics, past extinctions, and the origins of putative non-native species. Birds are still the best-known taxon in the archipelago, however, making them ideal exemplars that can guide future work on other groups. Our knowledge of environmental constraints and the history of human occupation of these islands also make them excellent models for understanding ecological processes and testing conservation strategies that can be used in a wider context, for instance in other small forested islands. Acknowledgments MM was supported via the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement 854248. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal) provided structural funding to CIBIO (UIDB/50027/2021: to MM) and to cE3c (UID/BIA/00329/2021: to RFL). We thank Lars Petersson, Jake Selby, and Paul van Giersbergen for permission to use their excellent photos. We thank the reviewers Peter Ryan, Jacob Cooper, and the editor Rayna Bell for their helpful comments and suggestions. 580 M. Melo et al. Appendix Checklist of bird species on the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, excluding vagrant and unconﬁrmed species (de Lima and Melo 2021). Islands: P, Príncipe; S, São Tomé; A, Annobón. Status: E, endemic species; I, probably non-native; R, native non-endemic resident; S, endemic subspecies; X, extinct; B, breeding migrant; M, non-breeding migrant; ?, uncertain. Subspecies are only identiﬁed when they are endemic. Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Clements et al. (2021) Higher taxonomy Order Galliformes Family Numididae Numida Linnaeus, 1764 Family Phasianidae Coturnix Garsault, 1764 Pternistis Wagler, 1832 Gallus Brisson, 1760 Order Columbiformes Family Columbidae Columba Linnaeus, 1758 Streptopelia Bonaparte, 1855 Treron Vieillot, 1816 Order Cuculiformes Family Cuculidae Chrysococcyx Boie, F., 1826 Order Caprimulgiformes Family Apodidae Zoonavena Mathews, 1918 Apus Scopoli, 1777 Cypsiurus Lesson, R., 1843 Order Gruiformes Family Rallidae Paragallinula Sangster, Garcia-R & Trewick, 2015 Species/subspecies S A N. meleagris (Linnaeus, 1758) I I C. delegorguei histrionica (Hartlaub, 1849) P. afer (Müller, PLS, 1776) G. gallus (Linnaeus, 1758) S C. livia Gmelin, 1789 C. thomensis Bocage, 1888 C. malherbii Verreaux & Verreaux, 1851 C. larvata inornata (Reichenow, 1892) C. l. principalis (Hartlaub, 1866) C. l. simplex (Hartlaub, 1849) S. senegalensis (Linnaeus, 1766) T. sanctithomae (Gmelin, 1789) T. calvus virescens Amadon, 1953 P I I I E I E E E S E E I E I S C. cupreus insularum Moreau & Chapin, 1951 S S Zoonavena thomensis (Hartert, 1900) A. afﬁnis bannermani Hartert, 1928 C. parvus (Lichtenstein, 1823) E E S I S I P. angulata (Sundevall, 1851) ? ? S (continued) 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Higher taxonomy Gallinula Brisson, 1760 Order Charadriiformes Family Scolopacidae Numenius Brisson, 1760 Actitis Illiger, 1811 Tringa Linnaeus, 1758 Family Laridae Anous Stephens, 1826 Onychoprion Wagler, 1832 Order Phaethontiformes Family Phaethontidae Phaethon Linnaeus, 1758 Order Procellariiformes Family Oceanitidae Hydrobates Boie, F., 1822 Order Suliformes Family Sulidae Sula Brisson, 1760 Family Phalacrocoracidae Microcarbo Bonaparte, 1856 Order Pelecaniformes Family Ardeidae Egretta T. Forster, 1817 Bubulcus Bonaparte, 1855 Butorides Blyth, 1852 Family Threskiornithidae Bostrychia G. R. Gray, 1847 Order Accipitriformes Family Accipitridae Milvus Lacépède, 1799 Order Strigiformes Family Tytonidae Tyto Billberg, 1828 Family Strigidae Otus Pennant, 1769 581 Species/subspecies G. chloropus (Linnaeus, 1758) P R S R A R N. phaeopus (Linnaeus, 1758) A. hypoleucos (Linnaeus, 1758) T. nebularia (Gunnerus, 1767) M M M M M M M A. stolidus (Linnaeus, 1758) A. minutus Boie, F., 1844 O. fuscatus (Linnaeus, 1766) O. anaethetus (Scopoli, 1786) B B B ? B ? ? ? B B ? B P. lepturus Daudin, 1802 P. aethereus Linnaeus, 1758 B ? B B H. cf. castro (Harcourt, 1851) S. leucogaster (Boddaert, 1783) ? B Microcarbo africanus (Gmelin, J. F., 1789) B ? R E. gularis (Bosc, 1792) B. ibis (Linnaeus, 1758) B. striata (Linnaeus, 1758) R R R B. olivacea rothschildi (Bannerman, 1919) B. bocagei Chapin, 1923 X M. migrans (Boddaert, 1783) R R R R R E R T. alba thomensis (Hartlaub, 1852) S O. hartlaubi (Giebel, 1849) O. senegalensis feae (Salvadori, 1903) Otus sp. nov. E S E (continued) 582 M. Melo et al. Higher taxonomy Order Coraciiformes Family Alcedinidae Corythornis Kaup, 1848 Halcyon Swainson, 1821 Ceryle F. Boie, 1828 Order Psittaciformes Family Psittaculidae Agapornis Selby, 1836 Family Psittacidae Psittacus Linnaeus, 1758 Order Passeriformes Family Oriolidae Oriolus Linnaeus, 1766 Family Dicruridae Dicrurus Vieillot, 1816 Family Monarchidae Terpsiphone Gloger, 1827 Family Laniidae Lanius Linnaeus, 1758 Family Cisticolidae Prinia Horsﬁeld, 1821 Family Hirundinidae Hirundo Linnaeus, 1758 Family Sylvidae Sylvia Scopoli, 1769 Family Zosteropidae Zosterops Vigors & Horsﬁeld, 1827 Family Sturnidae Onychognathus Hartlaub, 1849 Lamprotornis Temminck, 1820 Family Turdidae Turdus Linnaeus, 1758 Species/subspecies C. cristatus thomensis (Salvadori, 1902) C. cristatus nais (Kaup, 1848) H. malimbica dryas Hartlaub, 1854 C. rudis (Linnaeus, 1758) P S S S S ? A. pullarius (Linnaeus, 1758) P. erithacus princeps Alexander, 1909 I S I O. crassirostris Hartlaub, 1857 D. modestus modestus Hartlaub, 1849 E S T. atrochalybeia (Thomson, 1842) T. ruﬁventer smithii (Fraser, 1843) E L. newtoni Bocage, 1891 E P. molleri Bocage, 1887 E H. rustica (Linnaeus, 1758) M S S. dohrni (Hartlaub, 1866) E Z. ﬁcedulinus Hartlaub, 1866 Z. griseovirescens Bocage, 1893 Z. feae Salvadori, 1901 Z. lugubris (Hartlaub, 1848) Z. leucophaeus (Hartlaub, 1857) E O. fulgidus fulgidus (Hartlaub, 1849) L. splendidus (Vieillot, 1822) L. ornatus (Daudin, 1800) T. xanthorhynchus Salvadori, 1901 T. olivaceofuscus Hartlaub, 1852 A E E E E S R E E E (continued) 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Higher taxonomy Family Nectariniidae Anabathmis Reichenow, 1905 Dreptes Illiger, 1811 Cyanomitra Reichenbach, 1853 Family Ploceidae Ploceus Cuvier, 1816 Quelea Reichenbach, 1850 Euplectes Swainson, 1829 Family Estrildidae Nigrita Strickland, 1843 Estrilda Swainson, 1827 Uraeginthus Cabanis, 1851 Spermestes Swainson, 1837 Family Viduidae Vidua Cuvier, 1816 Family Motacillidae Motacilla Linnaeus, 1758 Family Fringillidae Crithagra Swainson, 1827 a 583 Species/subspecies P A. hartlaubii (Hartlaub, 1857) A. newtonii (Bocage, 1887) D. thomensis (Bocage, 1889) C. olivacea (Smith, 1840) E S E E R P. princeps (Bonaparte, 1851) P. velatus Vieillot, 1819 P. cucullatus (Müller, 1766) P. grandis (G. R. Gray, 1844) P. sanctithomae (Hartlaub, 1848) Q. erythrops (Hartlaub, 1848) E. hordeaceus (Linnaeus, 1758) E. aureus (Gmelin, 1789) E. albonotatus (Cassin, 1848) E N. bicolor (Hartlaub, 1844) E. astrild (Linnaeus, 1758) U. angolensis (Linnaeus, 1758) S. cucullata (Swainson, 1837) R I I I E E ? I I I I I I I V. macroura (Pallas, 1764) I Motacilla bocagii (Sharpe, 1892) E C. mozambica (Müller, 1776) C. rufobrunneaa (Gray, 1862) C. concolor (Bocage, 1888) A I I E E C. rufobrunnea is represented by three endemic subspecies (Table 21.3) References Albuquerque C, Carvalho A (2015a) 2015-2016 Plano de manejo. Parque Natural do Príncipe. RAPAC, ECOFAC V, São Tomé Albuquerque C, Carvalho A (2015b) 2015-2016 Plano de manejo 2015/2020. Parque Natural Obô de São Tomé Obô Natural Park. RAPAC, ECOFAC V, São Tomé Allen W, Thomson T (1848) A narrative of the expedition sent by Her Majesty’s Government to the River Niger in 1841 under the command of Captain H.D. Trotter. Richard Bentley, London Alström P, Jønsson KA, Fjeldså J et al (2015) Dramatic niche shifts and morphological change in two insular bird species. Royal Society Open Science 2:140364 Alves JM (2019) Taxonomia, ecologia e conservação da coruja-das-torres de São Tomé (Tyto alba thomensis). MSc Thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon 584 M. Melo et al. Amadon D (1953) Avian systematics and evolution in the Gulf of Guinea. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 100:394–451 Anon. (1994) Tour d’horizon: le programme ECOFAC. Canopée 1:2–3 Atkinson P, Peet N, Alexander J (1991) The status and conservation of the endemic bird species of São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Bird Conservation International 1:255–282 Atkinson PW, Dutton JS, Peet NB, Sequeira V (1994) A study of the birds, small mammals, turtles and medicinal plants of São Tomé with notes on Príncipe. Study Report 56. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK Ayres R, Aragão JC, Carvalho M et al (2022) Environmental education in São Tomé and Príncipe: The challenges of owning a unique biodiversity. In: Bell RC, de Lima RF, Melo M, Ceríaco L (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 671–690 Azevedo FP (2015) How many dwarf olive ibises Bostrychia bocagei are there in São Tomé? Use of distance sampling and plot sampling to estimate the population of a Critically Endangered endemic bird. MSc thesis. University of Évora, Évora Baillie JEM (2001) Persistence and vulnerability of island endemic birds. PhD thesis. University of London, London Bannerman DA (1914) Report on the birds collected by the late Mr. Boyd Alexander (Riﬂe Brigade) during his last expedition to Africa. Part I. The birds of Prince’s Island. Ibis 2(10): 596–631 Bannerman DA (1915a) Report on the birds collected by the late Mr. Boyd Alexander (Riﬂe Brigade) on his last expedition to Africa. Part II. The birds of St. Thomas’ Island. Ibis 3(10): 89–121 Bannerman DA (1915b) Report on the birds collected by the late Mr. Boyd Alexander (Riﬂe Brigade) during his last expedition to Africa. Part III. The birds of Annobón Island. Ibis 3(10): 227–234 Bannerman DA (1953) The birds of West and Equatorial Africa. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh Baptista LF, Trail PW, Horblit HM, Kirwan GM, Garcia EFJ (2020) Lemon Dove (Columba larvata), version 1.0. In: Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J, Christie DA, Juana E (eds) Birds of the world. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca Barfod DN, Fitton JG (2014) Pleistocene volcanism on São Tomé, Gulf of Guinea, West Africa. Quaternary Geochronology 21:77–89 Basilio A (1957) Caza y pesca en Annobón. Aves de la isla. La pesca de la ballena. Instituto de Estudios Africanos, Madrid Batista R, Olsson U, Andermann T et al (2020) Phylogenomics and biogeography of the world’s thrushes (Aves, Turdus): new evidence for a more parsimonious evolutionary history. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 287:20192400 Benítez-López A, Santini L, Gallego-Zamorano J et al (2021) The island rule explains consistent patterns of body size evolution in terrestrial vertebrates. Nature Ecology and Evolution 5:768– 786 BirdLife International (2014a) International Species Action Plan for the conservation of Critically Endangered birds on São Tomé 2014-2018. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK BirdLife International (2014b) Single Species Action Plan for the conservation of the Príncipe Thrush Turdus xanthorhynchus: 2014-2018. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK BirdLife International (2020) Áreas de Alto Valor de Conservação em São Tomé e Príncipe: Uma breve revisão. ECOFAC VI, São Tomé BirdLife International (2021a) Endemic bird areas. Available via BirdLife International. http:// datazone.birdlife.org/eba. Accessed 16 Oct 2021 BirdLife International (2021b) Globally threatened bird forums. Available via BirdLife International. https://globally-threatened-bird-forums.birdlife.org. Accessed 20 Apr 2021 Bocage JVB (1867) Aves das possessões portuguezas da Africa occidental que existem no Museu de Lisboa. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 1(2):129–153 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 585 Bocage JVB (1879) Subsídios para a fauna das possessões portuguezas d’África occidental. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes de Lisboa 7(26):85–96 Bocage JVB (1887a) Oiseaux nouveaux de l’île St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes de Lisboa 11(44):250–253 Bocage JVB (1887b) Lista das aves de S. Thomé colligidas pelo sr. Moller em 1885. O Instituto, Coimbra Série 2 34:562–565 Bocage JVB (1888a) Oiseaux nouveaux de l’île St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 12(48):229–232 Bocage JVB (1888b) Sur un oiseau nouveau de St. Thomé de la famille Fringillidae. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 12(47):148–150 Bocage JVB (1888c) Sur quelques oiseaux de l’île St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 12(48):211–215 Bocage JVB (1889a) Breves considerações sobre a fauna de S. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes Série 2 1(1):33–36 Bocage JVB (1889b) Sur deux espèces à ajoutter [sic] à la faune ornithologique de St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes Série 2 1(2):142–144 Bocage JVB (1889c) Aves da ilha de S. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes Série 2 1(3):209–210 Bocage JVB (1891) Oiseaux de l’île St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes Série 2 2(6):77–87 Bocage JVB (1893a) Note sur deux oiseaux nouveaux de l’île Anno-Bom. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes Série 2 3:17–18 Bocage JVB (1893b) Mammiferos, aves e reptis da ilha de Anno-Bom. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes Série 2 3(9):43–46 Bocage JVB (1903) Contribution à la faune des quatre îles du Golfe de Guinée. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes Série 2 7(25):25–59 Bocage JVB (1904) Contribution à la faune des quatre îles du Golfe de Guinée. IV. Île de St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes Série 2 7(26):65–96 Bock WJ (1967) The use of adaptive characters in avian classiﬁcation. In: Snow DW (ed) Proceedings of the XIV international ornithological congress. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp 61–74 Bollen A, Matilde E, Barros N (2018) An updated assessment of the seabird populations breeding at Príncipe and Tinhosas. Ostrich 89:47–58 Bristol RM, Fabre P-H, Irestedt M et al (2013) Molecular phylogeny of the Indian Ocean Terpsiphone paradise ﬂycatchers: Undetected evolutionary diversity revealed amongst island populations. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 67:336–347 Bromham L, Woolﬁt M, Lee MSY, Rambaut A (2002) Testing the relationship between morphological and molecular rates of change along phylogenies. Evolution 56:1921–1930 Buchanan GM, Donald PF, Butchart SHM (2011) Identifying priority areas for conservation: A global assessment for forest-dependent birds. PLoS One 6:e29080 Burlison J, Jones PJ (1988) A report on the forestry resources of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé & Príncipe. IUCN, Gland Cai T, Cibois A, Alström P et al (2019) Near-complete phylogeny and taxonomic revision of the world’s babblers (Aves: Passeriformes). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 130:346–356 Carvalho M (2015) Hunting and conservation of forest pigeons in São Tomé. PhD thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Carvalho M, Fa JE, Rego FC et al (2014) Factors inﬂuencing the distribution and abundance of endemic pigeons on São Tomé Island (Gulf of Guinea). Bird Conservation International 25:71– 86 Ceríaco L, Santos BS, Lima RF, Bell RC, Norder SJ, Melo M (2022) Physical geography of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. In: Ceríaco L, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 13–36 Christy P, Clarke WV (1998) Guide des oiseaux de São Tomé e Príncipe. ECOFAC, São Tomé 586 M. Melo et al. Christy P, Gascoigne A (1996) Principe Thrush rediscovered after more than 50 years. Gulf of Guinea Conservation Newsletter 4:2–3 Clements JF, Schulenberg TS, Iliff MJ et al (2021) The eBird/Clements checklist of birds of the world: v2021. Available via the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. https://www.birds.cornell.edu/ clementschecklist/download. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Collar NJ, Boesman P (2020) The taxonomic status of Annobón Scops Owl Otus feae and Arabian Scops Owl O. pamelae. Bulletin of the African Bird Club 27:159–167 Collar NJ, Stuart SN (1985) Threatened birds of Africa and related islands. International Council for Bird Preservation and International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Cambridge, UK Collar N, Stuart SN (1988) Key forests for threatened birds in Africa. ICBP Monograph 3. International Council for Bird Preservation & IUCN, The World Conservation Union, Cambridge, UK Correia JG (1928–29) The abits of ceveral birds of San Thome and Principe Is. [sic] Unpublished typescript. Ornithological Archives, American Museum of Natural History, New York Covas R (2016) Life history evolution in island populations of birds. In: Kilman R (ed) Encyclopedia of evolutionary biology. Academic Press, Oxford, UK, pp 352–358 Coyne JA, Price TD (2000) Little evidence for sympatric speciation in island birds. Evolution 54: 2166–2171 Dallimer M, King T (2008) Habitat preferences of the forest birds on the island of Príncipe, Gulf of Guinea. African Journal of Ecology 46:258–266 Dallimer M, King T, Atkinson RJ (2009) Pervasive threats within a protected area: Conserving the endemic birds of São Tomé, West Africa. Animal Conservation 12:209–219 Dallimer M, Melo M, Collar NJ, Jones PJ (2010) The Príncipe thrush Turdus xanthorhynchus: A newly split, critically endangered, forest ﬂagship species. Bird Conservation International 20: 375–381 Dallimer M, Parnell M, Bicknell JE, Melo M (2012) The importance of novel and agricultural habitats for the avifauna of an oceanic island. Journal for Nature Conservation 20:191–199 Davies TJ, Savolainen V (2006) Neutral theory, phylogenies and the relationship between phenotypic change and evolutionary rates. Evolution 60:476–483 De Silva TN, Peterson AT, Perktas U (2019) An extensive molecular phylogeny of weaverbirds (Aves: Ploceidae) unveils broad nonmonophyly of traditional genera and new relationships. The Auk 136:ukz041 Doebeli M, Dieckmann U (2000) Evolutionary branching and sympatric speciation caused by different types of ecological interactions. American Naturalist 156:S77–S101 Dohrn H (1866) Synopsis of the birds of ilha do Principe, with some remarks on their habits and descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the Scientiﬁc Meetings of the Zoological Society of London 34(1):324–332 Dutton J (1994) Introduced mammals in São Tomé and Príncipe: Possible threats to biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:927–938 Eccles SD (1988) The birds of São Tomé—record of a visit, April 1987 with notes on the rediscovery of Bocage’s Longbill. Malimbus 10:207–217 Figueiredo E, Paiva J, Stévart T, Oliveira F, Smith GF (2011) Annotated catalogue of the ﬂowering plants of São Tomé and Príncipe. Bothalia 41:41–82 Fleischer RC, James HF, Olson SL (2008) Convergent evolution of Hawaiian and Australo-Paciﬁc honeyeaters from distant songbird ancestors. Current Biology 18:1927–1931 Flood R, Lima RF, Melo M, Verbelen P, Wagstaff W (2019) What is known about the enigmatic Gulf of Guinea band-rumped storm-petrels (Hydrobates cf. castro)? Bull Br Ornithol Club 139:173–186 Frade F (1958) Aves e mamíferos das ilhas de São Tomé e do Príncipe—Notas de sistemática e de protecção à fauna. Conferência Internacional de Africanistas Ocidentais, 6ª Sessão, Comunicações 4:137–149 Frade F (1959) New records of non-resident birds, and notes on some resident ones, in São Tomé and Príncipe islands. In: Proceedings of the 1st international Pan-African Ornithological Congress. Ostrich Supplement, pp 317–320 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 587 Frade F, Santos JV (1977) Aves de São Tomé e Príncipe (colecção do Centro de Zoologia). Garcia de Orta, Série de Zoologia 6:3–18 Freitas B (2019) The mystery Scops owl of Príncipe Island: Combining evidence for a species description and assessment of its conservation status. MSc Thesis. University of Porto, Porto Fry CH (1961) Notes on the birds of Annobón and other islands in the Gulf of Guinea. Ibis 103a:267–276 Fuchs J, Crowe TM, Bowie RCK (2011) Phylogeography of the ﬁscal shrike (Lanius collaris): a novel pattern of genetic structure across the arid zones and savannas of Africa. Journal of Biogeography 38:2210–2222 Fuchs J, De Swardt DH, Oatley G, Fjeldså J, Bowie RCK (2018) Habitat-driven diversiﬁcation, hybridization and cryptic diversity in the Fork-tailed Drongo (Passeriformes: Dicruridae: Dicrurus adsimilis). Zoologica Scripta 47:266–284 Fundação Príncipe (2019) Understanding the remarkable biodiversity of Príncipe Island—Scientiﬁc Report. Fundação Príncipe, Santo António Fundação Príncipe, Fauna & Flora International, SPEA, BirdLife International (2021) Segundo Plano de Ação para a conservação do Tordo-do-Príncipe Turdus xanthorhynchus 2021-2025. Fundação Príncipe, Fauna & Flora International, SPEA, BirdLife International, Santo António do Príncipe Garcia-Porta J, Šmíd J, Sol D, Fasola M, Carranza S (2016) Testing the island effect on phenotypic diversiﬁcation: Insights from the Hemidactylus geckos of the Socotra archipelago. Scientiﬁc Reports 6:23729 Gill F, Donsker D, Rasmussen P (2021) IOC World Bird List (v11.1). Available via https://www. worldbirdnames.org/. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Grant PR (2001) Reconstructing the evolution of birds on islands: 100 years of research. Oikos 92: 385–403 Grant PR, Grant BR (2008) How and why species multiply: The radiation of Darwin’s ﬁnches. Princeton University Press, Princeton Guedes P, Santos Y, Lima RF, Bird TLF (2021) Introduced Mona monkey is a key threat to the critically endangered Príncipe thrush. Oryx 55:809 Günther R, Feiler A (1985) Die Vögel der Insel São Tomé. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin. Supplement Annalen für Ornithologie 61(9):3–28 Hafner MS, Remsen JV Jr, Laynon SM (1984) Birds versus mammal morphological differentiation. Evolution 38:1154–1156 Harrison MJS (1990) A recent survey of the birds of Pagalu (Annobón). Malimbus 11:135–143 Hartlaub G (1850) Beitrag zur Ornithologie Westafrica’s. Verzeichniss der öffentlichen und PrivatVorlesungen. Hamburger Akademisches Gymnasium, Hamburg Hartlaub G (1857) System der Ornithologie Westafrica’s. Shünemann, Bremen HBW and BirdLife International (2021) Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International digital checklist of the birds of the world. Version 5. Available via BirdLife International. http://datazone.birdlife.org/userﬁles/ﬁle/Species/Taxonomy/HBW-BirdLife_ Checklist_v5_Dec20.zip. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Heleno RB, Mendes F, Coelho AP et al (2021) The upsizing of the São Tomé seed dispersal network by introduced animals. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.08279 Hering J, Hering H, Lima R, Melo M (2018) Little-known African bird: Príncipe White-eye Zosterops ﬁcedulinus—a rare island endemic. Bull Afr Bird Club 25:75–78 Hoyo J (2020) All the birds of the world. Lynx Edicíons, Barcelona Hoyo J, Baptista LF, Collar N et al (2020) African Green-Pigeon (Treron calvus), version 1.0. In: Billerman SM, Keeney BK, Rodewald PG, Schulenberg TS (eds) Birds of the world. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca IUCN (2015) Ecosystem proﬁle: Guinean Forests of West Africa biodiversity hotspot. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Arlington IUCN (2021) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Version 2020-1. Available via International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 11 Apr 2021 588 M. Melo et al. Jesus J, Harris DJ, Brehm A (2005) Phylogeography of Mabuya maculilabris (Reptilia) from São Tomé Island (Gulf of Guinea) inferred from mtDNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37:503–510 Jones PJ (1994) Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea: An overview. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 772–784 Jones PJ, Tye A (1988) A survey of the avifauna of São Tomé and Príncipe. Study Report 24. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, UK Jones PJ, Tye A (2006) The Birds of São Tomé and Príncipe, with Annobón: Islands of the Gulf of Guinea. BOU Checklist No. 22. British Ornithologists’ Union & British Ornithologists’ Club, Oxford, UK Jones PJ, Burlinson JP, Tye A (1991) Conservação dos ecossistemas ﬂorestais na República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. IUCN, Gland Jønsson KA, Blom MPK, Marki PZ et al (2019) Complete subspecies-level phylogeny of the Oriolidae (Aves: Passeriformes): Out of Australasia and return. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 137:200–209 Keulemans JG (1866) Opmerkingen over de vogels van de Kaap-Verdische eilanden en van PrinsEiland in de Bogt van Guinea gelegen. Nederlandsch Tijdschrift Voor De Dierkunde 3:374–401 Lack D (1947) Darwin’s Finches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Lee D-C, Halliday AN, Fitton JG, Poli G (1994) Isotopic variations with distance and time in the volcanic islands of the Cameroon line: Evidence for a mantle plume origin. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 123:119–138 Lerner HRL, Meyer M, James HF, Hofreiter M, Fleischer RC (2011) Multilocus resolution of phylogeny and timescale in the extant adaptive radiation of Hawaiian Honeycreepers. Current Biology 21:1838–1844 Le Saout S, Hoffmann M, Shi Y et al (2013) Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation. Science 342:803–805 Leventis AP, Olmos F (2009) As aves de São Tomé e Príncipe: um guia fotográﬁco / The birds of São Tomé and Príncipe: a photoguide. Aves e Foto Editora, São Paulo Lewis TC, Melo M, Lima RF, Bremner-Harrison S (2018) Habitat associations of the critically endangered São Tomé ﬁscal Lanius newtoni: comparing standard and playback-conﬁrmed point counts. Afr J Ecol 56:404–408 Lima RF (2012) Land-use management and the conservation of endemic species in São Tomé Island. PhD Thesis. University of Lancaster, Lancaster Lima RF, Melo M (2021) Revised bird checklist for the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands (Central Africa). Bull Br Ornithol Club 141:179–198 Lima RF, Dallimer M, Atkinson PW, Barlow J (2013) Biodiversity and land-use change: understanding the complex responses of an endemic-rich bird assemblage. Divers Distrib 19:411–422 Lima RF, Viegas L, Solé N et al (2014) Can management improve the value of shade plantations for the endemic species of São Tomé Island? Biotropica 46:238–247 Lima RF, Sampaio H, Dunn JC et al (2017) Distribution and habitat associations of the critically endangered bird species of São Tomé Island (Gulf of Guinea). Bird Conserv Int 27:455–469 Lima RF, Martins M, Rocha N, Santos Y (2021) Country report: international Waterbird Census (IWC) January 2021 count in São Tomé and Príncipe. Gulf of Guinea Bodiversity Center, BirdLife International, Fauna & Flora International, Fundação Príncipe, São Tomé Lima RF, Deffontaines J-B, Madruga L, Matilde E, Nuno A, Vieira S (2022) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: recent progress, ongoing challenges, and future directions. In: Ceríaco L, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 643–670 Maia HA, Alberto AC (2009) The occurrence of São Tomé short-tail Amaurocichla bocagii and Newton’s ﬁscal Lanius newtoni in the montane forests of São Tomé. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club 129:213–216 Margarido NCI (2015) Habitat selection by the Dwarf Olive Ibis Bostrychia bocagei, a critically endangered bird endemic to São Tomé Island. MSc Thesis. University of Évora, Évora 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 589 Mayr E (1965) Avifauna: Turnover on islands. Science 150:1587–1588 Mayr E, Diamond JM (2001) The birds of northern Melanesia: Speciation, ecology, and biogeography. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Melo M (2007) Bird speciation in the Gulf of Guinea. PhD thesis. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh Melo M, Fuchs J (2008) Phylogenetic relationships of the Gulf of Guinea Alcedo kingﬁshers. Ibis 150:633–639 Melo M, O’Ryan C (2007) Genetic differentiation between Príncipe Island and mainland populations of the grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus), and implications for conservation. Molecular Ecology 16: 1673–1685 Melo M, Bowie RCK, Voelker G et al (2010) Multiple lines of evidence support the recognition of a very rare bird species: The Príncipe thrush. Journal of Zoology 282:120–129 Melo M, Warren BH, Jones PJ (2011) Rapid parallel evolution of aberrant traits in the diversiﬁcation of the Gulf of Guinea white-eyes (Aves, Zosteropidae). Molecular Ecology 20:4953–4967 Melo M, Stervander M, Hansson B, Jones PJ (2017) The endangered São Tomé Grosbeak Neospiza concolor is the world’s largest canary. Ibis 159:673–679 Millien V (2006) Morphological evolution is accelerated among island mammals. PLoS Biology 4: e321 Monteiro LR, Covas R, Melo M et al (1997) Seabirds of São Tomé e Príncipe. Unpublished report. University of the Azores, BirdLife International, Horta and Cambridge, UK Moreau RE (1957) Variation in the western Zosteropidae (Aves). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology 4:309–433 Moreau RE (1960) Conspectus and classiﬁcation of the ploceine weaver-birds. Ibis 102:298–321 Moreau RE (1962) Ploceinae. In: Mayr E, Paynter RA (eds) Peter’s check-list of the birds of the world, vol 15. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, MA, p 32 Nadler T (1993) Beiträge zur Avifauna der Insel São Tomé (Golf von Guinea). Faunistische Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 19:37–58 Naurois R (1972a) Avifaune terrestre et de rivages. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário de São Tomé e Príncipe 6(23):29–42 Naurois R (1972b) Noms portugais et noms indigènes des oiseaux de São Tomé et Príncipe. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário de São Tomé e Príncipe 6(23):43–46 Naurois R (1973a) L’avifaune marine des îles de São Tomé et de Principe. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário de São Tomé e Príncipe 7(27):33–43 Naurois R (1973b) Les ibis des îles de S. Tomé et du Prince: Leur place dans le groupe des Bostrychia (¼Lampribis). Arquivos do Museu Bocage 4(2):157–173 Naurois R (1975a) Les Carduelinae des îles de São Tomé et Principe (Golfe de Guinée). Ardeola 21: 903–931 Naurois R (1975b) Le “Scops” de l’île de São Tomé Otus hartlaubi (Giebel). Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 26:319–355 Naurois R (1979) The Emerald Cuckoo of São Tomé and Príncipe islands (Gulf of Guinea). Ostrich 50:88–93 Naurois R (1980) Le statut de Halcyon malimbicus dryas Hartlaub (Île du Prince, Golfe de Guinée). Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Afrique Noire 42A:608–618 Naurois R (1981) Les Phasianidae de l’île de São Tomé. Cyanopica 2:29–36 Naurois R (1982) Une énigme ornithologique: Amaurocichla bocagii Sharpe, 1982. Bulletin de l’Institut Français de l’Afrique Noire 44A:200–212 Naurois R (1983a) Les oiseaux reproducteurs des îles de São Tomé et Principe: Liste systématique commentée et indications zoogéographiques. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 34:129–148 Naurois R (1983b) Falconidae, Psittacidae et Strigiformes des îles de São Tomé et Principe. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 34:429–451 Naurois R (1984a) Les Turdus des îles de São Tomé et Principe: T. o. olivaceofuscus (Hartlaub) et T. olivaceofuscus xanthorhynchus Salvadori (Aves Turdinae). Revue de Zoologie Africaine 98: 403–423 590 M. Melo et al. Naurois R (1984b) La moucherolle endémique de l’île de São Tomé, Terpsiphone atrochalybeia (Thomson 1842). Alauda 52:31–44 Naurois R (1984c) Prinia molleri Bocage, 1887, endémique de l’île de São Tomé. Rivista Italiana di Ornitologia 54:191–206 Naurois R (1984d) Le loriot endémique de l’île de São Tomé (Golfe de Guinée) Oriolus crassirostris (Hartlaub). Cyanopica 3:121–134 Naurois R (1985) Chaetura (Rhaphidura) thomensis Hartert 1900 endémique des îles de São Tomé et Príncipe (Golfe de Guinée). Alauda 53:209–222 Naurois R (1987a) Les Rallidae des îles de São Tomé et du Prince (Golfe de Guinée). Cyanopica 4: 5–26 Naurois R (1987b) Phalacrocoracidae et Ardeidae dans les îles de São Tomé et du Prince (Golfe de Guinée). Cyanopica 4:27–54 Naurois R (1987c) Notes on Dicrurus m. modestus (Hartlaub) and remarks on the modestus and adsimilis groups of drongos. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 38:87–93 Naurois R (1988a) Neospiza concolor (Bocage, 1888): Endémique de l’île de São Tomé (Golfe de Guinée). Bollettino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali (Torino) 6:321–339 Naurois R (1988b) Les Columbidae des îles de S. Tomé et Príncipe. Cyanopica 4:217–242 Naurois R (1988c) Note sur la pie-grièche Lanius newtoni (Bocage 1891), endémique de l’île de São Tomé (Golfe de Guinée). Cyanopica 4:251–259 Naurois R (1994) Les Oiseaux des Iles du Golfe de Guinée / As Aves das Ilhas do Golfo da Guiné. Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisboa Naurois R, Castro Antunes LJ (1973) Repartição geográﬁca das espécies ornitológicas endémicas de São Tomé e Príncipe. Boletim da Brigada de Fomento Agro-Pecuário de São Tomé e Príncipe 7(27):17–31 Naurois R, Wolters HE (1975) The afﬁnities of the São Tomé Weaver Textor grandis (Gray, 1844). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club 95:122–126 Newbold T, Scharlemann JPW, Butchart SHM et al (2013) Ecological traits affect the response of tropical forest bird species to land-use intensity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280:20122131 Norder SJ, Baumgartner JB, Borges PAV et al (2018) A global spatially explicit database of changes in island palaeo-area and archipelago conﬁguration during the late Quaternary. Global Ecology and Biogeography 27:500–505 Nosil P (2012) Ecological speciation. Oxford series in ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK O’Connell KA, Prates I, Scheinberg LA, Mulder KP, Bell RC (2021) Speciation and secondary contact in a fossorial island endemic, the São Tomé caecilian. Molecular Ecology 30:2859–2871 Oyono PR, Morelli TL, Sayer J et al (2014) Allocation and use of forest land: current trends, issues and perspectives. In: Wassinger C, Flynn J, Louppe D, Hiol FH, Mayaux P (eds) The forests of the Congo Basin—state of the forests 2013. Observatoire des Fôrets d’Afrique Centrale of the Comission des Fôrets d’Afrique Centrale and Congo Basin Forest Partnership, Weyrich, pp 215–240 Palmeirim J, Meyer C, Costa AF et al (2013) Endemic pigeons of São Tomé: Developing sciencebased conservation and sustainable use of African forest pigeons. University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Centro de Biologia Ambiental Peet NB, Atkinson P (1994) The biodiversity and conservation of the birds of São Tomé and Príncipe. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:851–867 Pereira H (2013) Conservation genetics of the endemic pigeons of São Tomé and Príncipe. MSc Thesis. University of Porto, Porto Pérez del Val J (2001) A survey of birds of Annobón Island, Equatorial Guinea: Preliminary report. Bulletin of the African Bird Club 8:54 Petren K, Grant PR, Grant BR, Keller LF (2005) Comparative landscape genetics and the adaptive radiation of Darwin’s ﬁnches: The role of peripheral isolation. Molecular Ecology 14:2943– 2957 21 The Avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 591 Pratt HD (2005) The Hawaiian honeycreepers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Price T (2008) Speciation in birds. Roberts and Company, Greenwood Village Rebelo GRV (2021) Habitat and population estimates of Príncipe ﬂagship species: Príncipe Thrush Turdus xanthorhynchus, and Obô Giant Snail Archachatina bicarinata. MSc thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Ricklefs RE, Bermingham E (2007) The causes of evolutionary radiations in archipelagoes: Passerine birds in the Lesser Antilles. American Naturalist 169:285–297 Rodriguez-Prieto I, Osa-Akara LB, Ondo-Nguema E, Sima T, Abeso E (2014) Status of the Annobón Scops Owl: Report version 1.1. Universidad Nacional de Guinea Ecuatorial, Malabo Rundle HD, Nosil P (2005) Ecological speciation. Ecology Letters 8:336–352 Salvadori T (1903a) Contribuzioni alla ornithologia delle isole del Golfo di Guinea. I. Uccelli dell’isola de Principe. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino Series 2 53:1–16 Salvadori T (1903b) Contribuzione alla ornitologia delle isole del Golfo di Guinea II: Uccelli di San Thomé. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino Series 2 53:17–45 Salvadori T (1903c) Contribuzioni alla ornithologia delle isole del Golfo di Guinea. III. Uccelli di Anno-Bom e di Fernando Po. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino Series 2 53:93–125 Sampaio HAL, de Lima RF, Ward-Francis A, Havery SJ (2016) Hunters and the Critically Endangered Dwarf Olive Ibis, endemic to São Tomé. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK Schluter D (2000) The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Sclater WL (1924) Systema Avium Ethiopicarum: A systematic list of the birds of the Ethiopian region. Part 1. British Ornithologists Union, Tring Sendell-Price AT, Ruegg KC, Clegg SM (2020) Rapid morphological divergence following a human-mediated introduction: The role of drift and directional selection. Heredity 124:535–549 Sergeant DE, Gullick T, Turner DA, Sinclair JCI (1992) The rediscovery of the São Tomé Grosbeak Neospiza concolor in south-western São Tomé. Bird Conservation International 2:157–159 Serle W (1959) The West African races of the Lemon-Dove Aplopelia larvata (Temm. and Knip). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club 79:38–41 Sloan B (2017) Bird records from Annobón, Equatorial Guinea, October 2016, including the ﬁrst Squacco Heron Ardeola ralloides. Bulletin of the African Bird Club 24:209–212 Snow DW (1950) The birds of São Tomé and Principe in the Gulf of Guinea. Ibis 92:579–558 Soares FM (2017) Modelling the distribution of São Tomé bird species: Ecological determinants and conservation prioritization. MSc thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Soares FC, Panisi M, Sampaio H et al (2020) Land-use intensiﬁcation promotes non-native species in a tropical island bird assemblage. Animal Conservation 23:573–584 Solé N, Alberto A, Samba S, Santana A, Lima RF (2012) New hope for the critically endangered São Tomé Grosbeak Neospiza concolor, and an alert to protect Obô Natural Park surroundings. Ostrich 83:161–164 Stattersﬁeld AJ, Crosby MJ, Long AJ, Wedge DC (1998) Endemic bird areas of the world: Priorities for biodiversity conservation. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK UNEP–WCMC, IUCN (2021) Protected planet: the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Available via www.protectedplanet.net. Accessed 4 May 2021 Uva V, Päckert M, Cibois A, Fumagalli L, Roulin A (2018) Comprehensive molecular phylogeny of barn owls and relatives (Family: Tytonidae), and their six major Pleistocene radiations. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 125:127–137 Valente L, Phillimore AB, Melo M et al (2020) A simple dynamic model explains the diversity of island birds worldwide. Nature 579:92–96 Valle S, Barros N, Ramírez I, Wanless RM (2016) Population estimates of the breeding birds of the Tinhosas islands (Gulf of Guinea), the only major seabird colony of the eastern tropical Atlantic. Ostrich 87:209–215 Valle S, Collar N, Harris W, Marsden S (2017) Spatial and seasonal variation in abundance within an insular grey parrot population. African Journal of Ecology 55:433–442 592 M. Melo et al. Valle S, Collar NJ, Melo M, Marsden SJ (2021) What can the abundance of Grey Parrots on Príncipe Island tell us about large parrot conservation? Journal of Tropical Ecology 36:293–297 Verbelen P, Melo M, Sangster G, Spina F (2016) A 90-year-old mystery solved: A potentially new species of owl from Príncipe. Oryx 50:581 Vieira L (1887) Aves da ilha de S. Thomé. O Instituto, Coimbra Série 2 34:562–565 Voelker G, Melo M, Bowie RCK (2009) A Gulf of Guinea island endemic is a member of a Mediterranean-centred bird genus. Ibis 151:180–183 Weigelt P, Kreft H (2013) Quantifying island isolation—insights from global patterns of insular plant species richness. Ecography 36:417–419 Weir JT, Schluter D (2008) Calibrating the avian molecular clock. Molecular Ecology 17:2321– 2328 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Ana Rainho, Christoph F. J. Meyer, Sólveig Thorsteinsdóttir, Javier Juste, and Jorge M. Palmeirim Abstract Oceanic islands are usually difﬁcult for mammals to colonize; consequently, the native mammal fauna is typically species-poor, often consisting of just a few species of bats. The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea are no exception to this pattern. Still, the known mammal richness is relatively high for the small size of the islands. Out of a total of 13 native species, including 11 bats and 2 shrews, at least 7 species and 3 subspecies are single-island endemics. In addition to native species, at least 6 other wild mammals have been introduced to the islands purposely or accidentally by humans. Some of these are among the world’s most notorious invasive species and cause damage to native species, ecosystems, and humans. Predation by exotic species can threaten native island mammals, which are especially sensitive due to their small populations and limited ranges. These impacts are likely worsened by other threats, such as forest degradation and climate change, and a general lack of knowledge about the natural history of most species also hampers the implementation of conservation measures. Therefore, fostering further research on the endemic-rich mammal fauna of these islands is vital to ensure their persistence. A. Rainho (*) · S. Thorsteinsdóttir · J. M. Palmeirim Center for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: amrainho@fc.ul.pt C. F. J. Meyer Environmental Research and Innovation Centre, School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Salford, UK J. Juste Department of Evolutionary Biology, Estación Biológica de Doñana (CSIC), Seville, Spain CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_22 593 594 A. Rainho et al. Keywords Annobón · Introduced species · Islands · Mammals · Príncipe · São Tomé Introduction Large expanses of ocean are often extreme barriers to mammal dispersal, and even some bat species are known to be reluctant to ﬂy over open bodies of water (Castella et al. 2000). Therefore, it is not surprising that oceanic islands typically host a small number of native mammals, usually only a few species of bats (Whittaker and Fernández-Palacios 2007). How non-ﬂying mammals overcome this obstacle to naturally reach oceanic islands is a controversial topic. The most frequent explanation, natural rafting, makes assumptions that sometimes seem impossible to meet, particularly in the case of small animals with high metabolic rates and freshwater requirements (Ali and Vences 2019; Mazza et al. 2019). In addition, as humans colonized oceanic islands, they usually brought with them a large number of mammal species, which often came to exceed the number of native mammals (Tennyson 2010). As a result of this process, humans have caused the extinction of several mammals native to oceanic islands and also biotic homogenization (Longman et al. 2018). The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea are an excellent example of these processes of natural and human-mediated colonization. Considering the small size of the islands, they host a surprisingly large number of mammal species. Of the 19 known wild species (Appendix), 13 are native and, of these, at least 7 species and 3 subspecies are single-island endemics. Most endemic and native species are bats (Juste and Ibáñez 1994a; Rainho et al. 2010), but there are also two endemic shrews (Bocage 1887; Ceríaco et al. 2015). Their presence on oceanic islands at such a long distance from the mainland is still puzzling (Heim de Balsac and Hutterer 1982; Ceríaco et al. 2015). Even with the potential ability to use torpor in situations of food scarcity (McKechnie and Mzilikazi 2011), shrews would have had substantial limitations to obtain freshwater during the long dispersal trip to the islands. Furthermore, the number of reproducing individuals reaching the islands would be expected to be far too small to sustain a viable population. The remaining six species of mammals were introduced by humans (Dutton 1994), either purposely or accidentally. Two of these, the house mouse Mus musculus Linnaeus 1758 and the ship rat Rattus rattus (Linnaeus, 1758), are among the 100 worst invasive species globally, due to the impacts they cause on ecosystems when they are introduced (Lowe et al. 2000). Thus, their abundance on the Gulf of Guinea islands is concerning for the native ﬂora and fauna. Although there are also domestic and feral mammals on these islands, such as dogs, cats, pigs, goats, cows, horses, and others that might have arrived at the islands more recently, these species will not be addressed in detail in this chapter. Knowledge is the basis of conservation, and this chapter aims to compile the information available to date on the species of wild mammals that occur on the 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf. . . 595 islands of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón. Threats to endemic and native species and knowledge gaps will also be discussed. A Brief History of Mammal Research Records of the presence of mammals on the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea date to the ﬁrst manuscripts of the ﬁrst Portuguese travelers to these islands. An example of this is the excerpt presented by Sousa (1888) of a manuscript entitled “Da viagem de dom Francisco d’Almeyda primeiro visorey da Índia” [The journey of Dom Francisco d’Almeyda, India’s ﬁrst viceroy] dated ca. 1505. In this text, it is mentioned that “n’esta ilha ha gatos d’algalia que criam que fugiram aos armadores que trouxerom da terra ﬁrme” [on this island there are breeding civets that ﬂed from the shipowners who brought them from the mainland] conﬁrming the presence of the African civet Civettictis civetta (Schreber, 1776) in São Tomé already at the beginning of the sixteenth century. More systematic surveys of mammals began much later. During the nineteenth century, Richard Greeff visited São Tomé and Rolas Islet between 1879 and 1880. Although this expedition did not focus on mammals, it conﬁrmed the presence of two bat species Cynonycteris stramineus—currently Eidolon helvum (Kerr, 1792)— and Phyllorhina caffra—currently Hipposideros ruber (Noack, 1893). Greeff also conﬁrmed the presence of the least weasel Mustela nivalis Linnaeus 1766 in São Tomé, based on a specimen found in the digestive tract of a cobra-preta Naja (Boulengerina) peroescobari Ceríaco et al. 2017 (Greeff 1884; Bocage 1905). These observations were further conﬁrmed by A. F. Nogueira who also listed monkeys, bats, civets, weasels, and many rats in São Tomé (Nogueira 1885). In 1885, a botanical survey of São Tomé led by Adolpho F. Möller was commissioned by the Botanical Gardens of the University of Coimbra. Although focusing on botanical matters, some animal specimens were also collected. A list published by L. Vieira (1886) included mona monkey Cercopithecus mona (Schreber, 1774), Viverra civetta (currently C. civetta), Cynonycteris stramineus (currently E. helvum), Phyllorhina caffra (currently H. ruber), Mus ducomanus (currently Rattus norvegicus (Berkenhout, 1769)), Mus rattus (currently Rattus rattus), and Mus musculus. Between 1885 and 1895, Francisco Newton was hired by the National Museum of Lisbon to conduct a zoological survey in the Gulf of Guinea. This survey included all the Gulf of Guinea islands, being the ﬁrst known zoological survey in Annobón (Peris 1961). The mammal specimens were studied by J. V. Barbosa du Bocage, at the time director and curator of Zoology at the National Museum of Lisbon, resulting in several papers describing new species for the islands (see Bocage 1905). Such was the case of the São Tomé shrew Crocidura thomensis (Bocage, 1887), Newton’s long-ﬁngered bat Miniopterus newtoni Bocage 1889, the São Tomé horseshoe bat Phyllorhina (Commersoni) thomensis (currently Macronycteris thomensis (Bocage, 596 A. Rainho et al. 1891)) and the São Tomé collared fruit bat Cynonycteris brachycephala (currently Myonycteris brachycephala (Bocage, 1889)). In 1954, a scientiﬁc expedition to São Tomé was undertaken by researchers from the Centro de Zoologia da Junta de Investigação do Ultramar. A report lists the bat specimens collected during this expedition (Lopes and Crawford-Cabral 1992), deposited in the collection of the Portuguese Institute of Scientiﬁc and Tropical Research. In 1955, Father Aurelio Basilio remained in Annobón for 3 months, reporting the presence of R. norvegicus for the ﬁrst time on this island (Peris 1961). During the 1970s, the French zoologist Henri Heim de Balsac took advantage of the presence of Father René de Naurois on the islands and asked him to collect pellets of Barn owl Tyto alba (Scopoli, 1769) during his ornithological surveys. Heim de Balsac believed that this would be an easy way to identify the spectrum of micromammals present on the island. Despite the high number of pellets collected, the diet of the barn owl proved to be composed essentially of ship rats R. rattus, and other than those, only one bird and one house mouse were found. Further efforts were made, and ﬁnally, some shrews were captured in São Tomé by R. Naurois, and in Príncipe by R. Naurois and Daniel Nunez, conﬁrming the presence of Crocidura thomensis in São Tomé and identifying the species present in Príncipe as C. poensis (Fraser, 1843) (Heim de Balsac and Hutterer 1982). This mammal family was further reviewed by John Dutton and Jan Haft, based on the results of three expeditions, two German and one British, that visited São Tomé between 1989 and 1991 (Atkinson et al. 1994; Dutton and Haft 1996). During the early 1990s, bats were the focus of Spanish investigators who started working in this region. This team made a massive contribution to the knowledge of this group, publishing several papers focusing on bat taxonomy (Juste and Ibáñez 1992, 1993b; Juste et al. 2007), morphology, and genetics (Juste and Ibáñez 1993a; Juste et al. 1996, 2000) and even echolocation (Guillén et al. 2001). They also described one new species, the São Tomé free-tailed bat Chaerephon tomensis (Juste and Ibáñez, 1993) and discovered the presence of an undescribed pipistrelle of the genus Pseudoromicia Monadjem et al. 2020 in Príncipe (Juste and Ibáñez 1993c, 1994a). During the ﬁrst decade of the twentieth century, bats were again the focus of research on the islands. In 2002, a study of the abundance of E. helvum in Príncipe was carried out by a team of English researchers (Dallimer et al. 2006). In 2010, a team from the University of Lisbon studied the status and distribution of bats on São Tomé (Rainho et al. 2010), adding a new species for São Tomé, the tricolored mouse-eared bat Myotis cf. tricolor (Temminck, 1832). In 2012, Peel and colleagues published a study on the persistence of several viruses on the isolated population of E. helvum in Annobón (Peel et al. 2012). Among the studies published recently, it is worth highlighting the reviews on the species of Crocidura in São Tomé (de Lima et al. 2016) and Príncipe (Ceríaco et al. 2015), the latter describing the shrew of Príncipe as Crocidura ﬁngui Ceríaco et al. 2015, and demonstrating that it is endemic to the island. Ecological studies have also included information on the mammals of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea; for example, studies on the hunting of wild species in São Tomé (Carvalho et al. 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf. . . 597 2015a, b; Hayman and Peel 2016), and the study of seed dispersal networks on this island (Mendes 2017; Coelho 2018; Heleno et al. 2021). Studies of broader geographical scope also addressed some mammal species from the Gulf of Guinea islands. This is the case of the work by Peel and colleagues (e.g., Shi et al. 2014; Peel et al. 2016, 2017), who studied ecology, traits, genetics, and possible zoonosis associated with E. helvum, and hypothesized on colonization and movements of this species between the islands. Rodrigues and colleagues (2017) have investigated the origin and process of invasion of the least weasel on the Atlantic islands, including São Tomé. Finally, a recent expedition was carried out in 2019 by a team from the University of Lisbon on the bats of Príncipe Island (JMP and ST, pers. obs). Their main results are included in the following sections of this chapter. Current State of Knowledge Order Primates Family Cercopithecidae Only one species of non-human primate occurs on the islands. The mona monkey was introduced in São Tomé and Príncipe 150–500 years ago (Glenn and Bensen 2013). The reason for its introduction is not fully known, but it is possible that it was used as food by enslaved plantation workers or, more likely, sailors and slavers kept them as pets (Denham and Denham 1987). The mona monkey was also introduced on the Caribbean island of Grenada, with animals originating from São Tomé and Príncipe (Glenn and Bensen 2013). No reference was found to the historical or contemporary presence of monkeys in Annobón. The mona monkey is a forest species native to West Africa. Once common across its native range, it has become rare and even extirpated in some areas due to habitat loss and over-hunting by humans (Goodwin et al. 2020). Where it is still common, its densities vary between 15 and 49 ind/km2 (Glenn et al. 2014). It is common on the islands, with estimates of 19 ind/km2 in São Tomé and 21 ind/km2 in Príncipe (Glenn 1998; Glenn et al. 2014), even though it is also hunted for human consumption on both islands (Carvalho et al. 2015a). The mona monkey is considered a generalist because it uses various types of forest, has a very diverse diet, and has been successful in colonizing forests outside its native range (Glenn et al. 2014). In Príncipe, this species seems to be particularly abundant in the transition zones between the forest and the agricultural areas where food is plentiful (JMP pers. obs. and Filipa Soares pers. comm.). It mainly feeds on fruits and arthropods but also eats leaves, ﬂowers, small lizards, and bird eggs and chicks (Glennet al. 2014). Mona monkeys are among the introduced species that may affect the seed dispersal networks on São Tomé because they favor plant species with large fruits and seeds (Heleno et al. 2021). They are often regarded as agricultural pests. Dutton (1994) mentioned that they can impact forest regeneration, and Carvalho et al. (2015a) 598 A. Rainho et al. suggested that monkeys can potentially become signiﬁcant predators of small vertebrates, particularly of endemic birds that have low resilience and small populations. Their predation of bird nests has recently been conﬁrmed (Guedes et al. 2021), but further work is required to determine the impacts on bird populations. Order Rodentia Family Muridae São Tomé and Príncipe support populations of all three introduced murid rodents in Africa: the ship rat, the brown rat, and the house mouse. Both the house mouse and the brown rat occur and are abundant also on Annobón (Bocage 1893; Peris 1961; Jones and Tye 2005; Fry 2008; Martim Melo pers. comm.). These commensal species may have reached the islands as stowaways in boats arriving from Europe. The ship rat and the house mouse are likely to have been accidentally introduced with the arrival of Portuguese ships to the islands during the ﬁfteenth century. According to Dutton (1994), the brown rat only reached the islands during the eighteenth century, when it became abundant in the ports of western Europe (Atkinson 1985). Given their invasive character, even in mainland Africa (Denys et al. 2009; Dalecky et al. 2015), these three species are likely to occur across the three islands and to be most abundant in anthropogenically-modiﬁed environments. Atkinson (1994) conﬁrmed the presence of all three rodents around villages in São Tomé and referred to the occurrence of rats at the margins of the primary forest and in the secondary forest along the Quija River. They also highlighted the capture of several young brown rats in Lagoa Amélia and Morro Esperança (Atkinson et al. 1994). A recent pilot study was performed in São Tomé, conﬁrming the presence and high abundance of ship rats throughout the island, while recording only one brown rat in the capital city (Ward-Francis et al. 2017). Ship rats seem to be abundant in Príncipe (Fundação Príncipe 2019, Martim Melo pers. comm.), where the presence of brown rats has recently been conﬁrmed in the south of the island (JMP and ST pers. obs.). These species can also be a problem to the human inhabitants of the islands. For instance, in 2004, the farmers of Annobón faced huge crop damages caused by an overabundance of rats on the island (Martim Melo pers. comm.). Other Species In 2019, a non-identiﬁed rodent was observed and photographed at Lagoa Amélia on São Tomé island (Fig. 22.1, 1; Leonel Viegas and Francisco Alamô pers. comm.). The overall external morphology of the observed individual (reddish fur, long snout, black dorsal stripe, long tail) suggests it may belong to the sub-Saharan genus 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf. . . 599 Fig. 22.1 Some of the poorly known mammal species of the islands of the Gulf of Guinea: (1) Small rodent probably belonging to the genus Dendromus; (2) Hypsignathus monstrosus; (3) Myotis cf. tricolor; (4) Pseudoromicia sp., a novel species occurring in Príncipe; (5) Crocidura thomensis; (6) Myonycteris brachycephala; (7) Miniopterus newtoni; (8) Civettictis civetta. Photo credits: (1) Leonel Viegas, (3, 7) Ana Rainho, (4) Jorge Palmeirim and Sólveig Thorsteinsdóttir, (5) Ricardo de Lima, (6) Javier Juste, (2, 8) unknown photographer 600 A. Rainho et al. Dendromus Smith, 1829 (Family Nesomydae). This is a tentative identiﬁcation, by no means conclusive, particularly taking into consideration the confusion that still prevails in the ﬁeld of African rodent taxonomy and the frequent lack of external morphological characters separating taxa (Monadjem et al. 2015). Further research is necessary to clarify the identity, distribution, and natural history of this species. Order Eulipotyphla Family Soricidae Two species of shrew are known to occur on the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea: the São Tomé white-toothed shrew Crocidura thomensis (Fig. 22.1, 5) endemic to São Tomé, and the Príncipe White-Toothed Shrew Crocidura ﬁngui endemic to Príncipe (Heim de Balsac and Hutterer 1982; Dutton and Haft 1996; Ceríaco et al. 2015; de Lima et al. 2016). No shrews have been found on Annobón (Heim de Balsac and Hutterer 1982). Crocidura thomensis was described by Bocage (1887) based on a specimen captured by Francisco Newton in 1886 at Roça Minho. A few years later, it was also captured by Newton and António Lobo de Almada Negreiros at Santa Maria and another unknown location (Bocage 1905). By the end of the twentieth century, the species had been recorded from fewer than ten locations (Dutton and Haft 1996). Recent data suggest, however, that it may not be as rare as initially suspected. Without directed sampling effort, this species was recorded 23 times in 15 new locations in recent years (de Lima et al. 2016). It seems to be widely distributed, occurring from near sea level to high mountainous areas (Fig. 22.2), inhabiting humid areas across a variety of habitats ranging from mist forests to lowland plantations (Dutton and Haft 1996; de Lima et al. 2016). The use of humid habitats may result from the higher availability of arthropod prey (Dutton and Haft 1996; de Lima et al. 2016). Crocidura thomensis is listed as Endangered in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Kennerley 2016). This status is due to its reduced extent of occurrence and the continuing decline in the extent and quality of the available habitat. Other possible threats are predation by introduced species, use of pesticides, and agricultural intensiﬁcation (Dutton and Haft 1996; de Lima et al. 2016). If conﬁrmed, the dependence on humid habitats may make this species vulnerable to climate change (de Lima et al. 2016). The taxonomic status of the shrew species occurring in Príncipe has undergone several changes since its ﬁrst records. It was ﬁrst identiﬁed as C. thomensis by Bocage (1887) based on a specimen captured by F. Newton at Oquê Nazareth in 1894. A century later, Heim de Balsac and Hutterer (1982) identiﬁed the species as C. poensis, a species also occurring in West Africa, based on 12 new specimens (plus 4 young) captured on the island by R. de Naurois and Daniel Nunez. Four other individuals were captured in 2013 (Ceríaco et al. 2015). The morphological and molecular analysis of these latter specimens led Ceríaco et al. (2015) to conclude that 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf. . . 601 Fig. 22.2 Locations where different wild mammal species were recorded on the island of São Tomé. Sources: Lopes and Crawford-Cabral (1992), Juste and Ibáñez (1994a), Rainho et al. (2010), de Lima et al. (2016), Peel et al. (2017), and ACR (2020) 602 A. Rainho et al. Fig. 22.3 Locations where different wild mammal species were recorded on the islands of Príncipe and Annobón. Sources: Lopes and Crawford-Cabral (1992), Juste and Ibáñez (1994a), Ceríaco et al. (2015), Peel et al. (2017), ACR (2020), Juste (2020), and JMP and ST (pers. obs.) this is indeed a distinct species, endemic to Príncipe, that they named C. ﬁngui. Based on molecular clock estimates, this island endemic diverged from the CentralEast African lineage of C. poensis ~1.0–1.2 Ma (Nicolas et al. 2019). The distribution of C. ﬁngui has not been studied, but so far, it has only been recorded in the northern part of the island (Fig. 22.3). It seems to be versatile in terms of habitat, occurring both near human settlements and in forest (Ceríaco et al. 2015). Due to the lack of knowledge about the distribution of this species, its ecological requirements, 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf. . . 603 and potential threats, it is listed as Data Deﬁcient in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Ceríaco et al. 2019). Order Chiroptera Family Pteropodidae Three species of fruit bats occur in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. In 2019, photos of a fourth species, a male hammer-headed bat Hypsignathus monstrosus H. Allen, 1862, allegedly captured in the town of São Tomé, appeared on social media (Fig. 22.1, 2). Since we have not been able to collect more information, we refrain from commenting on this observation. The conspicuous and noisy African straw-colored fruit bat, Eidolon helvum, is the largest bat and probably one of the most abundant native mammals on the islands. Dallimer et al. (2006) estimated the density of this species on Príncipe at between 82 and 111 ind/km2. Peel et al. (2017) produced a slightly higher estimate for Príncipe at between 156 and 159 ind/km2 and estimated a density between 94 and 176 ind/km2 for Annobón. All estimates show that this species reaches densities similar to those found in mainland Africa (Dallimer et al. 2006). Eidolon helvum is commonly seen ﬂying with slow strokes high above the canopy in forests, plantations, and even city gardens and orchards, foraging on native and planted fruits (all authors, pers. obs.). Eidolon helvum is migratory on the African mainland, where it is considered monotypic despite its broad distribution (O’Toole 2019). Conversely, all three island populations are considered non-migratory (Juste et al. 2000; Peel et al. 2016, 2017). The populations of E. helvum from São Tomé, Príncipe, and Annobón show genetic differentiation in a clear geographic pattern (Peel et al. 2013). Genetic and demographic analyses provide evidence that E. helvum of Príncipe and São Tomé are broadly part of the same genetic population cluster, though dispersal between the islands is rare (Juste et al. 2000; Peel et al. 2013). By contrast, the Annobón population is recognized as a taxonomically distinct entity (E. helvum annobonense Juste et al. 2000). It exhibits island dwarﬁsm, with individuals being signiﬁcantly smaller than those of the other two islands (Juste et al. 2000; Peel et al. 2016, 2017). Despite its high density on the Gulf of Guinea islands, E. helvum was classiﬁed as Vulnerable on São Tomé because of its reduced range and habitat degradation (Rainho et al. 2010). Moreover, it is hunted in large numbers on São Tomé (Carvalho et al. 2015b; Hayman and Peel 2016; Peel et al. 2017) and on Príncipe (Hayman and Peel 2016, JMP and ST pers. obs.). Hayman and Peel (2016) quantiﬁed the effects of hunting on the demographic structure of the population on São Tomé but did not ﬁnd detrimental impacts on Príncipe. Increased hunting pressure may result in the unsustainable exploitation of this species, a problem compounded by the frequent disturbance of its colonies (Rainho et al. 2010; Peel et al. 2017). Globally, E. helvum is Near Threatened on the IUCN Red List due to a signiﬁcant decline of its 604 A. Rainho et al. population and over-harvesting, making this species close to qualifying for Vulnerable status (Cooper-Bohannon et al. 2020). The Egyptian rousette, Rousettus aegyptiacus (Geoffroy, 1810), is found on Príncipe and São Tomé islands (Figs. 22.2 and 22.3). The genus Rousettus Gray 1821 is unique among Old World fruit bats for its echolocation capacity (Holland et al. 2004; Table 22.1), allowing roosting in total darkness in caves and buildings. The populations on Príncipe and São Tomé are clearly differentiated morphologically and genetically from other African forms and recognized as endemic at subspecies rank (Juste and Ibáñez 1993b). These two subspecies represent classic examples of island dwarﬁsm in the case of R. aegyptiacus princeps Juste and Ibáñez 1993 on Príncipe and gigantism by R. aegyptiacus tomensis Juste and Ibáñez 1993 on São Tomé (Juste and Ibáñez 1993b; Juste et al. 1996). Still, both forms share features (like their massive dentition) that point to a common evolutionary history (Juste and Ibáñez 1993b). Rousettus aegyptiacus is a cave-dwelling species that forages in multiple habitats on the islands, feeding on native and cultivated fruits (Rainho et al. 2010). On São Tomé, it was observed sharing a roost with H. ruber and M. newtoni in a large marine cave (Rainho et al. 2010). On Príncipe, a small colony was found roosting in a cliff in Pico Papagaio (Juste 1990). Rousettus a. tomensis is listed as Vulnerable because of its small range and projected habitat degradation (Rainho et al. 2010). Although harvested for human consumption, it remains relatively common on both Príncipe and São Tomé (Rainho et al. 2010; JMP and ST pers. obs). However, an increase in harvesting, aggravated by the disturbance of the colonies in their roosts, may become a threat (Rainho et al. 2010). A third fruit bat species, the São Tomé collared fruit bat Myonycteris brachycephala (Fig. 22.1, 6) is only found on São Tomé (Fig. 22.2). This endemic species is unique in having lost a lower incisor, hence displaying the only asymmetrical dental formula known in any mammal (Juste and Ibáñez 1993a). It is very elusive, and despite netting efforts, it is only known from two localities beyond the type locality (Cascata, São Tomé), both in a rugged landscape, one (Morro Palmira) in montane forest and the other (Belavista) in lowland cocoa plantations (Juste and Ibáñez 1994a). It is considered Endangered (Juste 2016). Family Hipposideridae The family Hipposideridae comprises many insectivorous species spread throughout the Old World tropics, all featuring a highly complex leaf-nose. The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea host two species: Hipposideros ruber and Macronycteris thomensis. The latter is endemic to São Tomé and was described by Bocage (1891) based on specimens from Ribeira Peixe and Roça Saudade. It is a large microbat (forearm (FA) ~85 mm, weight ~56 g) and is part of a group of leaf-nosed bat species that were recently moved from the genus Hipposideros to Macronycteris (Foley et al. 2017). Very little is known about the biology of this species; however, it is presumably somewhat similar to that of M. gigas (Wagner, 1845), a close relative present on Bioko (Juste and Ibáñez 1994a) and the adjacent mainland (Happold 22 Species Rousettus aegyptiacus Hipposideros ruber Macronycteris thomensis Myotis cf. tricolor Miniopterus newtoni Taphozous mauritianus Chaerephon pumilus Chaerephon sp. Fmin (kHz) 9.3 2.4 4.1–11.9 139.7 0.2 139.3–139.8 66.0 0.8 64.3–66.8 39.3 2.0 36.6–41.6 50.3 1.3 47.8–52.2 24.2 0.7 23.4–25.2 24.9 2.7 19.8–29.4 21.0 1.1 19.0–22.4 Fmax (kHz) 110.5 48.0 44.0–150.0 141.5 0.4 140.8–141.9 68.0 1.0 66.8–70.2 117.3 3.3 112.0–120.8 101.7 16.7 69.6–119.0 31.9 0.6 31.4–32.5 36.0 8.7 24.7–51.5 23.0 1.1 20.4–25.5 FmaxE (kHz) – 140.9 0.3 140.4–141.1 67.2 0.4 66.4–68.0 78.4 2.1 76.4–81.8 55.9 2.7 53.2–61.0 28.3 0.2 28.1–28.4 28.4 2.3 23.4–31.5 22.1 1.0 19.9–24.1 Duration (ms) 0.33 0.12 0.2–0.5 5.9 0.2 5.7–6.1 20.7 4.0 15.6–28.6 1.84 0.1 1.74–1.92 4.8 2.1 2.3–7.8 14.8 1.7 12.8–16.8 13.6 3.0 8.1–18.6 16.3 1.7 12.7–19.9 Interval (ms) 122.5 28.7 81.7–165.0 14.1 4.2 10.4–22.1 66.8 17.4 43.2–106.4 82.7 16.2 58.4–102.6 61.4 23.6 31.8–105.7 77.4 6.4 70.7–86.4 258.4 156.5 62.8–472.0 350.7 97.2 137.0–558.5 N 8 6 10 5 14 5 32 26 Values indicate mean, standard deviation and range of observed values. Fmin, minimum pulse frequency; Fmax, maximum pulse frequency; FmaxE, maximum energy frequency. Note that the values indicated for Chaerephon sp. may refer to Chaerephon pumilus or another species of the same genus (e.g., Ch. tomensis) Adapted from Rainho et al. (2010) Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf. . . Table 22.1 Characteristics of the echolocation calls of different bat species present in São Tomé 605 606 A. Rainho et al. 2013a; Foley et al. 2017). Macronycteris thomensis looks like a dwarf form of M. gigas. A colony of several hundred individuals was found in an underground roost, and a single individual was observed roosting under the leaves of a palm tree. It is common throughout the island but much less so than H. ruber (Rainho et al. 2010). Hipposideros ruber is a small leaf-nosed bat (FA ~50 mm, weight ~11 g) with two very distinct color forms: dull brown and orange. The species is part of a species complex present across much of Africa (Patterson et al. 2019) and is common throughout Príncipe and São Tomé. On both islands, the species is mostly associated with primary and secondary forests, but it is also present in other ecosystems. On São Tomé, it seems to be somewhat less common in the dryer northeast of the island than in the well-forested and humid center and south (Rainho et al. 2010). It uses a wide variety of roost types and has been found in caves and abandoned buildings on Príncipe (JMP and ST pers. obs.). On São Tomé, in addition to these types of roosts, it uses artiﬁcial tunnels (Rainho et al. 2010). On the mainland, it is known to also roost in tree hollows (Happold 2013b) and likely does so on the islands as well. Hipposideros ruber has very broad wings and highly maneuverable ﬂight, capable of foraging by hawking and gleaning in cluttered forest habitats (Happold 2013b). Both foraging behaviors have been observed on the islands. Its diet has not been studied on São Tomé or Príncipe, but on the mainland, it feeds on a variety of insects, including beetles, moths, dipterans, and isopterans (Happold 2013b). An unusual feature of the population of H. ruber on São Tomé is its daytime ﬂying habits. Although most of its activity takes place during the night, it is common to ﬁnd this bat ﬂying and foraging in the forest during the day (Russo et al. 2011). São Tomé and Príncipe populations produce constant frequency (CF) calls that are typical for the family and include two harmonics, where the second and higher-pitched one is the information carrier (Guillén et al. 2001). The resting frequency is the same as that reported for bats from the mainland and averaged 136.6 and 136.1 kHz for females and 139.7 and 136.7 kHz for males on São Tomé and Príncipe, respectively (Guillén et al. 2001). Although H. ruber is classiﬁed as Least Concern globally (Monadjem et al. 2017), it was considered Near Threatened in São Tomé due to the probable decline in the number of individuals and colonies resulting from the reduction of roost availability (Rainho et al. 2010). Family Emballonuridae The Mauritian Tomb bat Taphozous mauritianus (Geoffroy Saint-Hilarie, 1818) is the only emballonurid species known to be present on the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. This species, originally described from the island of Mauritius, is quite common across sub-Saharan Africa (Bonaccorso 2019). As an open-space forager, T. mauritianus is quite good at colonizing islands (Bonaccorso 2019). In mainland Africa, its diet consists of aerial insects such as Lepidoptera, Isoptera, and Coleoptera (Dengis 1996 and references therein). It typically roosts at the base of the crown of leaves in coconut trees. It was found at several sites along the northern 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf. . . 607 coast of São Tomé (Fig. 22.2) and is presumably common across other coastal areas of the island (Juste and Ibáñez 1994a). It has not been collected on Príncipe, but its presence there has recently been conﬁrmed acoustically (JMP and ST pers. obs.; Fig. 22.3) Finally, T. mauritianus seems to be very rare on Annobón (Fig. 22.3), where a single specimen was found dead and is now housed at the Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC) collections in Seville (Juste 2020). In São Tomé, it was classiﬁed as Endangered, given its reduced area of occupancy, the number of known locations, and projected decline in habitat quality (Rainho et al. 2010). Family Molossidae Two species of molossids occur on the islands and both are insectivorous, the São Tomé free-tailed bat Chaerephon tomensis endemic to São Tomé (Juste and Ibáñez 1993c), and the little free-tailed bat Chaerephon pumilus (Cretzschmar, 1826), which is found on both São Tomé and Príncipe (JMP and ST pers. obs.). The latter is an abundant habitat generalist, widely distributed across Africa and the islands around the continent and is currently classiﬁed as Least Concern (Bouchard 1998; Mickleburgh et al. 2019). By contrast, C. tomensis is classiﬁed as Endangered, reﬂecting its small extent of occurrence and likely decreasing population trend as a result of habitat loss associated with coastal development and land conversion for agricultural use, and possibly competition with its much more abundant congener (Monadjem et al. 2019). During recent island-wide surveys, Rainho et al. (2010) captured several dozen individuals of C. pumilus on São Tomé, in shade cocoa plantations, coconut groves and at roosts (Fig. 22.2). On Príncipe, JMP and ST (pers. obs.) captured it at a roost in the roof of a house near Porto Real and recorded its calls at several locations in the NE of the island (Fig. 22.3). By contrast, C. tomensis seems to be so rare that recent extensive trapping efforts have failed to document it. The only records to date are the type series of three specimens captured in two lowland localities, in a coastal lagoon at Praia das Conchas in the drier northern area of São Tomé and at the mouth of a river in cocoa plantations in Água Izé (Juste and Ibáñez 1993c). Acoustic sampling further conﬁrmed the ubiquitous presence of C. pumilus on São Tomé (Table 22.1). In addition, these data revealed that Chaerephon emits vocalizations that fall into two distinct groups that differ in a number of call characteristics (Table 22.1). The ﬁrst can unequivocally be assigned to C. pumilus (FmaxE 28 kHz), while the second group (FmaxE 22 kHz) could potentially correspond to C. tomensis (Rainho et al. 2010), thus offering a glimmer of hope that this species still occurs on the island. 608 A. Rainho et al. Family Vespertilionidae In São Tomé and Príncipe, this large family of insectivorous bats is represented by one species on each island. On São Tomé, recent surveys led to the detection of a species of mouse-eared bat, Myotis Kaup, 1829 (Rainho et al. 2010). While its general morphology suggests the species is a tricolored mouse-eared bat (Fig. 22.1, 3), M. cf. tricolor, genetic and morphological comparisons, as well as its echolocation calls (Table 22.1), indicate differentiation from mainland specimens (authors’ unpublished data). An integrative taxonomic assessment is underway to establish its phylogenetic placement with respect to other Afrotropical Myotis. Rainho et al. (2010) captured several individuals in a single roost in a coastal cave at Ponta Figo, south of Neves, comprised of several dozen individuals of M. cf. tricolor and several thousand M. newtoni (described below). No other roosts of the species were found, the species has not been captured elsewhere on the island, and has merely been recorded acoustically at one other location (Bom Sucesso, Fig. 22.2) attesting to its overall rarity (Rainho et al. 2010). The island of Príncipe is home to a very small pipistrelle bat that is considered an endemic form for the island (Fig. 22.1, 4). Although ﬁrst reported over 30 years ago (Juste 1990; Juste and Ibáñez 1994b), its formal description is still pending, and its phylogenetic placement in one of the most entangled African bat groups requires clariﬁcation. Its general dark brown morphology, baculum characteristics, and genetic comparisons indicate that the pipistrelle belongs to the Neoromicia group (JJ pers. obs.) and possibly to the recently described genus Pseudoromicia (Monadjem et al. 2020). The species is abundant and ecologically eclectic, having been captured or recorded in urban, agricultural, and forest areas (JMP and ST pers. obs.). As is the case for other bat species, the distribution map suggests that the species is more common in the northern part of Príncipe (Fig. 22.3), but this is mostly a result of biased sampling due to difﬁculty accessing the southern part of the island. Family Miniopteridae Only one species of this family occurs on the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands, Miniopterus newtoni. It has only been recorded on São Tomé (Fig. 22.2), and was ﬁrst reported for the island and described as a new species by Bocage (1889, 1903). The original material used by Bocage was lost in a ﬁre in Lisbon, and Juste and Ibáñez (1992) provided a neotype from Santa Catarina. These authors distinguished the species morphologically from the mainland western (occidentalis) and eastern (minor) little Miniopterus forms, all considered subspecies of M. minor Peters, 1867. A subsequent genetic assessment conﬁrmed the speciﬁc rank of this endemic (Juste et al. 2007). The species seems relatively common across São Tomé (Juste and Ibáñez 1994a; Rainho et al. 2010) and was found in modiﬁed habitats (e.g., foraging around streetlamps in urban areas) as well as in primary lowland forests, from sea 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf. . . 609 level up to 1300 m in Morro Palmira (Juste 1990). It appears to roost strictly in caves, water mines, and tunnels. It can form colonies of thousands of individuals, often with other species. Miniopterus newtoni emits low duty cycle frequency-modulated echolocation calls with maximum energy of around 56 kHz (Table 22.1). It was locally considered Near Threatened due to a probable decline in the number of individuals and locations because of the destruction and/or disturbance of underground roosts (Rainho et al. 2010). However, it is listed as Data Deﬁcient in the IUCN Red List (Juste 2019). Order Carnivora Family Mustelidae One of the wild carnivores present on São Tomé is the least weasel (Bocage 1895; Dutton 1994). To the best of our knowledge, this species was not reported for Príncipe or Annobón. Although the Portuguese were most likely responsible for the introduction of the least weasel on São Tomé, genetic analyses by Rodrigues et al. (2017) revealed that the animals that occur on this island do not appear to be closely related to mainland Portugal populations. Instead, they are identical to those from the Azores (a Portuguese volcanic archipelago in the mid-Atlantic), which, in turn, are thought to have been introduced from the Balearic Islands in the Mediterranean. Morphological similarity between individuals of São Tomé and the Azores had already been highlighted by Bocage (1895), and Barrett-Hamilton (1904) mentioned that the animals of São Tomé might have been imported from the Azores. There is little information about the abundance and distribution of the least weasel on São Tomé and Príncipe. Atkinson et al. (1994) observed weasels both at Fernão Dias and Ribeira Peixe. The least weasel feeds mainly on rodents, both in its native and introduced range, but can also consume birds and their eggs, small reptiles, and invertebrates, particularly if the rodent population declines or if an easy predation opportunity arises (Shefﬁeld and King 1994 and references therein; King et al. 2001). According to Dutton (1994), the abundance of rodents on the islands may reduce the impact of weasels on other animal groups. However, shrews are frequently part of the weasel’s diet and the endemic shrews might thus be vulnerable to its presence (Shefﬁeld and King 1994). Family Viverridae The African civet (Fig. 22.1, 8) is endemic to sub-Saharan Africa, occurring between latitudes 15 N and around 29 S (Ray 2013). It is naturally present on Zanzibar but absent from other offshore African islands (Ray 2013). It is likely that the Portuguese introduced the African civet to both São Tomé and Príncipe (Bocage 1905; Dutton 1994; Fundação Príncipe 2019), not only for the control of rodents but also for the 610 A. Rainho et al. exploitation of its musk (Frade 1958). No reference was found to the presence of this species on Annobón. The African civet is a solitary, silent species that is active only at night. Thus it is not easy to observe, and information on its distribution and abundance is scarce. Atkinson et al. (1994) observed a fresh civet hole in a secondary forest between Santo António and São Miguel, and JJ (pers. obs.) recorded this species near São Tomé and at Cantagalo, Monte Belo, Monte Café, and Praia das Conchas in the early 1990s. During the last decade, the species has been observed across São Tomé, from the savannas in Morro Peixe to Monte Café and Monte Carmo, and from the road to the native forest (Ricardo de Lima pers. comm.). In Príncipe, it was camera-trapped at Morro Leste (Fundação Príncipe 2019). In mainland Africa, this species does not usually dwell in primary forests, but will use this habitat if accessible by logging roads (Ray and Sunquist 2001). African civets are omnivorous and opportunistic, feeding mainly on fruit, arthropods, mammals, and, less frequently, on birds and reptiles (Ray 2013 and references therein). The African civet is not a good climber or digger (Ray 2013), so tree-dwelling species should be relatively safe from civet predation (Dutton 1994). The potential impact on native ground-dwelling fauna is not known. Conservation The long-term isolation of Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón allowed the differentiation of insular populations, resulting in a very high level of endemism and an exceptional mammal conservation value. The taxonomy of these mammals is still in ﬂux but of the 13 native species currently recognized, 7–9 are endemic species, and 3–4 are endemic subspecies, with no endemism shared between islands (Appendix). Most of these native and endemic species are bats (Appendix), though Príncipe and São Tomé each have an endemic species of shrew, and São Tomé may have a yet undescribed rodent. All the remaining mammals were introduced by humans. Little is known about the threats faced by these species, although they should all be considered somewhat fragile due to their very small ranges (Le Breton et al. 2019). In particular, further deforestation and forest degradation would likely result in a potentially threatening situation for several mammal species. All the endemics likely evolved in humid forest, and several species show some level of association to this habitat (e.g., Ch. tomensis, E. helvum annobonense and H. ruber). Although much of the forest on the three islands has, at some point in the past, been converted to plantation agriculture or profoundly altered, there are still areas of relatively undisturbed habitat in rugged parts of the islands (Jones and Tye 2005; de Lima et al. 2022). The remaining primary forest is mostly in protected areas and, along with complementary areas of secondary forest, is likely to provide suitable habitat to maintain populations of all native mammals. The area of native forest on Annobón is very small, but the only mammal that is endemic to this island, the subspecies E. helvum annobonense, also uses secondary habitats (JJ pers. obs.). 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf. . . 611 Hunting of E. helvum and R. aegyptiacus for food is common on São Tomé (Carvalho et al. 2015b; Peel et al. 2017) and on Príncipe (Peel et al. 2017; JMP and ST pers. obs.). Still, both species remain quite numerous, presumably because these frugivorous species take advantage of the increase in fruit resources due to agriculture. The endemic M. brachycephala, however, is quite rare and it may be caught in traps set up to capture the two more abundant species, so hunting is a potentially signiﬁcant threat to this species. Some carnivorous mammals, both wild and domestic, have been introduced in São Tomé, all of which are also widespread in Príncipe, except for the least weasel. Although the impact of these species on the native wildlife has not yet been studied, they are all known to consume small mammals, so they are potential predators of the native shrews. Rats prey on smaller mammals and may thus also prey on both shrew species and potentially bats (Racey and Entwistle 2003). Because so little is known about the real impact of the various potential threats to native mammals on these islands, it is not possible to formulate very speciﬁc conservation recommendations. However, it is evident that the protection of forest is essential. The expansion of conservation management to areas of well-preserved secondary forest and increased surveillance and enforcement are necessary to ensure the continuity of the forests on the islands and all the biodiversity they sustain. Integrated management actions directed at the control of exotic predators are also urgently needed, within the forest but also in anthropogenic systems (Courchamp et al. 2003). Alien invasions are recognized as a signiﬁcant cause of species endangerment and extinction, and the rodents present on the islands are among the most damaging invasive alien species (Lowe et al. 2000). Their devastating effects on natural systems, particularly on islands, and impacts on human activities and health have been thoroughly documented around the globe (Dutton 1994; Drake and Hunt 2009; Harris 2009; Russell et al. 2017). In the case of bats, cave-dwelling species are always of particular concern, because the availability of suitable underground roosts is limited and the concentration of bats in these roosts exposes them to additional risks. Five cave-dwelling bat species are known to occur on São Tomé, two of which have populations also on Príncipe. It is thus essential to take measures to ensure that these roosts are adequately identiﬁed and protected. The importance of each roost should be evaluated, using criteria based on the number of individuals and number of species using the site and their conservation status. High-ranking roosts should be identiﬁed, regularly monitored, and human access physically limited if necessary (Rainho et al. 2010). Frugivorous bat species are considered pests by many farmers because they consume planted fruits. In extreme damage and food-loss situations, the use of wildlifefriendly exclusion nets to protect individual trees or fruits may be licensed and supported (Tollington et al. 2019). However, this conﬂict should be managed with care and in partnership with farmers. Educational outreach about the value of biodiversity is needed to provide citizens with a better understanding of the importance of their local mammal species. In the case of bats, for instance, highlighting their importance in seed dispersal and in the control of insects that are agricultural pests as well as vectors of diseases. Finally, it 612 A. Rainho et al. is important to highlight the need to carry out more research on which to base the conservation of the endemic-rich mammalian fauna of the islands. Challenges and Future Research Although recent efforts have advanced our understanding of the mammal fauna and in particular the bat fauna of São Tomé and Príncipe (Rainho et al. 2010), the preceding sections clearly highlight that our knowledge is fragmented, and important gaps remain to be addressed in future research. Detailed taxonomic assessments that integrate multiple lines of evidence based on craniometric, morphological, genetic, and (for bats) acoustic data are needed to resolve the identity and taxonomic relationships of several species, speciﬁcally M. cf. tricolor in São Tomé, Pseudoromicia sp. in Príncipe and of the putative Dendromus species recently discovered in São Tomé. At least 7 of the 19 wild mammal species occur only on one of the Gulf of Guinea islands, including 3 Endangered and 2 Data Deﬁcient species (Appendix). The longterm conservation of this large number of single-island endemics, such as the bats Ch. tomensis and M. brachycephala or the shrews C. ﬁngui and Cr. thomensis, constitutes a fundamental challenge. In this regard, further detailed surveys of the islands are needed, to gather reliable data to assess the ecology, distribution, threats, and current status of populations. In particular, Annobón should be targeted since it has not been surveyed for decades. Ideally, such surveys should be conducted at regular intervals to be able to monitor population trends (Meyer et al. 2010) and to trigger appropriate management interventions if needed. Such detailed surveys are also urgently needed to ﬁll important knowledge gaps concerning basic biology and ecological requirements—information that is scant or lacking for many species (e.g., Ch. tomensis, M. thomensis, M. newtoni). Finally, further ﬁeld surveys are needed to assess the population status of the invasive species, particularly the murid rodents, and to quantify their impact on the Gulf of Guinea island ecosystems. Acknowledgments We are most grateful to Ricardo de Lima for supplying the geographical data on Cr. thomensis distribution in São Tomé and providing a photo, relevant papers and reports. We also thank Leonel Viegas for sharing his photo and Kristofer Helgen (Australian Museum Research Institute) for the suggested identiﬁcation of Dendromus sp. Alison Peel and Luís Ceríaco provided valuable comments on an early version of the text. Finally, we are grateful to Filipa Soares and Martim Melo for providing information concerning introduced mammals in Príncipe and Annobón. 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf. . . 613 Appendix List of the wild terrestrial mammals of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Occurrence status per island: E, endemic; R, resident; I, introduced; ?, uncertain. IUCN Red List category: NE, not evaluated; DD, data deﬁcient; LC, least concern; NT, near threatened; VU, vulnerable; EN, endangered; CR, critically endangered Higher taxonomy Order Primates Family Cercopithecidae Cercopithecus Linnaeus, 1758 Order Rodentia Family Muridae Mus Linnaeus, 1758 Rattus Fischer, 1803 Order Eulipotyphla Family Soricidae Crocidura Wagler, 1832 Order Chiroptera Family Pteropodidae Eidolon Raﬁnesque, 1815 Rousettus Gray, 1821 Myonycteris Matschie, 1899 Family Hipposideridae Macronycteris Gray, 1866 Hipposideros Gray, 1831 Family Emballonuridae Taphozous É. Geoffroy, 1818 Species/subspecies P ST Cercopithecus mona (Schreber, 1775) I I Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758 Rattus rattus (Linnaeus, 1758) Rattus norvegicus (Berkenhout, 1769) I I I I I I Crocidura ﬁngui Ceríaco et al 2015 Crocidura thomensis (Bocage, 1887) E Eidolon helvum (Kerr, 1792) E. helvum annobonense Juste et al., 2000 Rousettus aegyptiacus (É. Geoffroy, 1810) R. aegyptiacus tomensis Juste and Ibáñez, 1993 R. aegyptiacus princeps Juste and Ibáñez, 1993 Myonycteris brachycephala (Bocage, 1889) R Macronycteris thomensis (Bocage, 1891) Hipposideros ruber (Noack, 1893) Taphozous mauritianus É. Geoffroy, 1818 A IUCN NT I ? I LC LC LC DD EN E R NT E NT E E E EN E LC R R LC R R R LC (continued) 614 Higher taxonomy Family Molossidae Chaerephon Dobson, 1874 Family Vespertilionidae Myotis Kaup, 1829 Pseudoromicia Monadjem et al., 2020 Family Miniopteridae Miniopterus Bonaparte, 1837 Order Carnivora Family Mustelidae Mustela Linnaeus, 1758 Family Viverridae Civettictis Pocock, 1915 A. Rainho et al. Species/subspecies P ST Chaerephon pumilus (Cretzschmar, 1826) Chaerephon tomensis (Juste and Ibáñez, 1993) R R LC E EN Myotis cf. tricolor (Temminck, 1832) Pseudoromicia sp. A IUCN R E NE Miniopterus newtonii Bocage, 1889 E DD Mustela nivalis Linnaeus, 1766 I LC I LC Civettictis civetta (Schreber, 1776) I References ACR (2020) African Chiroptera Report 2020. AfricanBats NPC, Pretoria i–xviii + 8542 pp Ali JR, Vences M (2019) Mammals and long-distance over-water colonization: The case for rafting dispersal; the case against phantom causeways. Journal of Biogeography 46(11):2632–2636 Atkinson IAE (1985) The spread of commensal species of Rattus to oceanic islands and their effects on island avifaunas. In: Moores PJ (ed) Conservation of island birds, vol 3. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, pp 35–81 Atkinson PW, Dutton JS, Peet N, Sequeira V (1994) A study of the birds, small mammals, turtles and medicinal plants of São Tomé with notes on Príncipe, vol 56. Birdlife International, Cambridge, UK Barrett-Hamilton GEH (1904) XXXVIII.—Note on an undescribed weasel from the atlas mountains, and on the occurrence of a weasel in the Azores. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 13(76):323–325 Bocage JVB (1887) Sur un mammifère nouveau de l’île de St. Thomé, Sorex (Crocidura) thomensis. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11:212–213 Bocage JVB (1889) Chiropteres de I’ile St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2:197–199 Bocage JVB (1891) Sur une variété de “Phyllorhina commersoni” de l’ile St. Thomé. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes (2ª Série) 2(6):88 Bocage JVB (1893) Mammiferos, aves e reptis da ilha de Anno-bom. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes (2ª Série) 11(3):43–46 Bocage JVB (1895) A doninha da ilha de S. Tomé. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes (2ª Série) 4:24–27 Bocage JVB (1903) Contribution à la faune des quatre iles du Golfe de Guinée. I. Ille de Fernao do Po. II. Ille de Príncipe. III. Ille de Annobón. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 2:25–59 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf. . . 615 Bocage JVB (1905) Contribution à la faune des quatre îles du golfe de Guinée (suite). I. Ile de Fernão do Pó. II. Ile du Prince. III. Ille de Anno Bom. IV. Ile de St. Thomé. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes (2ª Série) 726:25–96 Bonaccorso FJ (2019) Taphozous mauritianus. In: Wilson D, Mittermeirer RA (eds) Bats. Handbook of the mammals of the world. Editorial Lynx, Barcelona, pp 351–352 Bouchard S (1998) Chaerephon pumilus. Mammalian Species 574:1–6 Carvalho M, Palmeirim JM, Rego FC et al (2015a) What motivates hunters to target exotic or endemic species on the island of São Tomé, Gulf of Guinea? Oryx 49(2):278–286 Carvalho M, Rego F, Palmeirim JM, Fa JE (2015b) Wild meat consumption on São Tomé Island, West Africa implications for conservation and local livelihoods. Ecology and Society 20(3):27 Castella V, Ruedi M, Excofﬁer L et al (2000) Is the Gibraltar Strait a barrier to gene ﬂow for the bat Myotis myotis (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae)? Molecular Ecology 9(11):1761–1772 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP, Jacquet F et al (2015) Description of a new endemic species of shrew (Mammalia, Soricomorpha) from Principe Island (Gulf of Guinea). Mammalia 79(3):325. https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2014-0056 Ceríaco LM, Marques MP, Schmitz A, Bauer AM (2017) The “cobra-preta” of São Tomé Island, Gulf of Guinea, is a new species of Naja Laurenti, 1768 (Squamata: Elapidae). Zootaxa 4324(1): 121–141 Ceríaco L, Dando T, Kennerley R (2019) Crocidura ﬁngui. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T111739377A111739380. Accessed 6 Sept 2020 Coelho A (2018) Seed dispersal by birds: Implications for forest conservation. Report for the African Bird Club. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Cooper-Bohannon R, Mickleburgh S, Hutson AM et al (2020) Eidolon helvum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T7084A22028026. Accessed 1 Dec 2020 Courchamp F, Chapuis J-L, Pascal M (2003) Mammal invaders on islands: impact, control and control impact. Biological Reviews 78(3):347–383 Dalecky A, Bâ K, Piry S et al (2015) Range expansion of the invasive house mouse Mus musculus domesticus in Senegal, West Africa: a synthesis of trapping data over three decades, 1983–2014. Mammal Review 45(3):176–190 Dallimer M, King T, Cope D, Jiana MB (2006) Estimation of population density of Eidolon helvum on the island of Príncipe, Gulf of Guinea. Mammalia 70(1–2):48–51 Dengis CA (1996) Taphozous mauritianus. Mammalian Species 522:1–5 Denham WW, Denham W (1987) West Indian green monkeys: Problems in historical biogeography. Karger Basel, Basel Denys C, Lalis A, Aniskin V et al (2009) New data on the taxonomy and distribution of Rodentia (Mammalia) from the western and coastal regions of Guinea West Africa. Italian Journal of Zoology 76(1):111–128 Drake DR, Hunt TL (2009) Invasive rodents on islands: Integrating historical and contemporary ecology. Biological Invasions 11(7):1483–1487 Dutton J (1994) Introduced mammals in São Tomé and Príncipe: Possible threats to biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):927–938 Dutton J, Haft J (1996) Distribution, ecology and status of an endemic shrew, Crocidura thomensis, from São Tomé. Oryx 30(3):195–201 Foley NM, Goodman SM, Whelan CV, Puechmaille SJ, Teeling E (2017) Towards navigating the Minotaur’s labyrinth: Cryptic diversity and taxonomic revision within the speciose genus Hipposideros (Hipposideridae). Acta Chiropterologica 19(1):1–18 Frade F (1958) Aves e mamíferos da ilhas de São Tomé e do Príncipe—Notas de sistemática e de protecção à fauna. In: Conferência Internacional dos Africanistas Ocidentais Comunicações Zoologia e Biologia Animal IV, pp 137–150 Fry C (2008) Notes on the birds of Annobón and other islands in the Gulf of Guinea. Ibis 103a:267–276 616 A. Rainho et al. Fundação Príncipe (2019) Understanding the remarkable biodiversity of Príncipe island—scientiﬁc report. Fundação Príncipe, Santo António Glenn ME (1998) Population density of Cercopithecus mona on the Caribbean island of Grenada. Folia Primatologica 67:167–171 Glenn ME, Bensen KJ (2013) The mona monkeys of Grenada, São Tomé and Príncipe: Long-term persistence of a guenon in permanent fragments and implications for the survival of forest primates in protected areas. In: Marsh LK, Chapman CA (eds) Primates in fragments: complexity and resilience. Springer, New York, pp 413–422 Glenn ME, Bensen KJ, Goodwin RM (2014) Cercopithecus mona—Mona monkey. In: Butynski TM, Kingdon J, Kalina J (eds) Mammals of Africa, vol II: Primates. Bloomsbury, London, pp 322–324 Goodwin RM, Segniagbeto G, Nobimè G, Imong I (2020) Cercopithecus mona. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T4222A17946672. Accessed 06 Sept 2020 Greeff R (1884) Ueber die Fauna der Guinea-Inseln S. Thomé und Rolas. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft zur Beförderung der gesammten Naturwissenschaften zu Marburg 2:41–80 Guedes P, Santos Y, de Lima RF, Bird TLF (2021) Introduced mona monkey is a key threat to the Critically Endangered Príncipe thrush. Oryx 55:809 Guillén A, Juste J, Ibáñez C (2001) Variation in the frequency of the echolocation calls of Hipposideros ruber in the Gulf of Guinea: An exploration of the adaptive meaning of the constant frequency value in rhinolophoid CF bats. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 13(1):70–80 Happold M (2013a) Hipposideros gigas Giant leaf-nosed bats. In: Happold M, Happold DCD (eds) Mammals of Africa, vol IV. Bloomsbury, London, pp 385–387 Happold M (2013b) Hipposideros ruber Noack’s leaf-nosed bat. In: Happold M, Happold DCD (eds) Mammals of Africa, vol IV. Bloomsbury, London, pp 393–395 Harris DB (2009) Review of negative effects of introduced rodents on small mammals on islands. Biological Invasions 11(7):1611–1630 Hayman DTS, Peel AJ (2016) Can survival analyses detect hunting pressure in a highly connected species? Lessons from straw-coloured fruit bats. Biological Conservation 200:131–139 Heim de Balsac HH, Hutterer R (1982) Les soricidae (Mammiferes Insectivores) des iles du Golfe de Guinee: Faits nouveaux et problemes biogeographiques. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 33: 133–150 Heleno RB, Mendes F, Coelho AP et al (2021) The upsizing of the São Tomé seed dispersal network by introduced animals. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.08279 Holland RA, Waters DA, Rayner JMV (2004) Echolocation signal structure in the Megachiropteran bat Rousettus aegyptiacus Geoffroy 1810. Journal of Experimental Biology 207(25):4361 Jones P, Tye A (2005) The birds of Príncipe, São Tomé and Annobón. An annotated checklist. British Ornithologists’ Union, London Juste J (1990) Sistemática de los murciélagos de las islas oceánicas del golfo de Guinea. PhD Thesis. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago Juste J (2016) Myonycteris brachycephala. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e. T14097A22046657. Accessed 2 Nov 2020 Juste J (2019) Miniopterus newtoni. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e. T67362271A22018113. Accessed 13 Oct 2020 Juste J (2020) Estación Biológica de Doñana—CSIC, Mammal Collection. Biological Station of Doñana (CSIC). Occurrence dataset. Available via https://doi.org/10.15468/fwrsxr. Accessed 3 Feb 2021 Juste J, Ibáñez C (1992) Taxonomic review of Miniopterus minor Peters, 1867 (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from western central Africa. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge 43:355–365 Juste J, Ibáñez C (1993a) An asymmetric dental formula in a mammal, the São Tomé island fruit bat Myonycteris brachycephala (Mammalia, Megachiroptera). Canadian Journal of Zoology 71: 221–224 Juste J, Ibáñez C (1993b) Geographic variation and taxonomy of Rousettus aegyptiacus (Mammalia: Megachiroptera) in the islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 107(2):117–129 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf. . . 617 Juste J, Ibáñez C (1993c) A new Tadarida of the subgenus Chaerephon (Chiroptera: Molossidae) from São Tomé island, Gulf of Guinea (West Africa). Journal of Mammalogy 74(4):901–907 Juste J, Ibáñez C (1994a) Bats of the Gulf of Guinea islands: Faunal composition and origins. Biodiversity and Conservation 3(9):837–850 Juste J, Ibáñez C (1994b) Contribution to the knowledge of the bat fauna of Bioko island, Equatorial Guinea (Central Africa). Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 59:274–281 Juste J, Machordom A, Ibáñez C (1996) Allozyme variation of the Egyptian Rousette (Rousettus egyptiacus; Chiroptera Pteropodidae) in the Gulf of Guinea (West-Central Africa). Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 24(6):499–508 Juste J, Ibáñez C, Machordom A (2000) Morphological and allozyme variation of Eidolon helvum (Mammalia : Megachiroptera) in the islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 71(2):359–378 Juste J, Ferrández A, Fa JE, Maseﬁeld W, Ibáñez C (2007) Taxonomy of little bent-winged bats (Miniopterus, Miniopteridae) from the African islands of São Tomé, Grand Comoro and Madagascar, based on mtDNA. Acta Chiropterologica 9(1):27–37 Kennerley R (2016) Crocidura thomensis (errata version published in 2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:e.T5594A115076316 King C, Grifﬁths K, Murphy E (2001) Advances in New Zealand mammalogy 1990–2000: Stoat and weasel. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 31(1):165–183 Le Breton TD, Zimmer HC, Gallagher RV et al (2019) Using IUCN criteria to perform rapid assessments of at-risk taxa. Biodiversity and Conservation 28(4):863–883 Lima RF, Maloney E, Simison WB, Drewes R (2016) Reassessing the conservation status of the shrew Crocidura thomensis, endemic to São Tomé Island. Oryx 50(2):360–363 Lima RF, Deffontaines J-B, Madruga L, Matilde E, Nuno A, Vieira S (2022) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: recent progress, ongoing challenges, and future directions. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 643–670 Longman EK, Rosenblad K, Sax DF (2018) Extreme homogenization: The past, present and future of mammal assemblages on islands. Global Ecology and Biogeography 27(1):77–95 Lopes F, Crawford-Cabral J (1992) Catálogo dos Chiroptera em colecção no Centro de Zoologia. Garcia de Orta (Zool) 17(1-2):1–20 Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2000) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database. Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), Aukland Mazza PPA, Buccianti A, Savorelli A (2019) Grasping at straws: A re-evaluation of sweepstakes colonisation of islands by mammals. Biological Reviews 94(4):1364–1380 McKechnie AE, Mzilikazi N (2011) Heterothermy in Afrotropical mammals and birds: A review. Integrative and Comparative Biology 51(3):349–363 Mendes FDS (2017) The impact of introduced animals and plants on São Tomé seed-dispersal network. Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra Meyer CFJ, Aguiar LMS, Aguirre LF et al (2010) Long-term monitoring of tropical bats for anthropogenic impact assessment: Gauging the statistical power to detect population change. Biological Conservation 143(11):2797–2807 Mickleburgh S, Hutson AM, Racey PA et al (2019) Chaerephon pumilus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019:e.T67362271A22018113. Accessed 13 Oct 2020 Monadjem A, Taylor PJ, Denys C, Cotterill FP (2015) Rodents of sub-Saharan Africa: A biogeographic and taxonomic synthesis. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, Berlin Monadjem A, Fahr J, Hutson AM, Mickleburgh S, Bergmans W (2017) Hipposideros ruber. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017:eT10157A22102440. Accessed 29 Mar 2021 Monadjem A, Mickleburgh S, Hutson AM, Bergmans W, Juste J (2019) Chaerephon tomensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019:e.T67362271A22018113. Accessed 13 Oct 2020 618 A. Rainho et al. Monadjem A, Demos TC, Dalton DL et al (2020) A revision of pipistrelle-like bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in East Africa with the description of new genera and species. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 191(4):1114–1146 Nicolas V, Jacquet F, Hutterer R et al (2019) Multilocus phylogeny of the Crocidura poensis species complex (Mammalia, Eulipotyphla): Inﬂuences of the palaeoclimate on its diversiﬁcation and evolution. Journal of Biogeography 46(5):871–883 Nogueira AF (1885) A ilha de S. Tomé sob o ponto de vista da sua exploração agrícola, vol 57. Imprensa Nacional, Lisboa O’Toole B (2019) Eidolon helvum. Handbook of the mammals of the world: bats. Editorial Lynx, Barcelona Patterson BD, Webala PW, Kerbis Peterhans JC et al (2019) Genetic variation and relationships among Afrotropical species of Myotis (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Journal of Mammalogy 100(4):1130–1143 Peel AJ, Baker KS, Crameri G et al (2012) Henipavirus neutralising antibodies in an isolated island population of African Fruit Bats. PLoS One 7(1):e30346 Peel AJ, Sargan DR, Baker KS et al (2013) Continent-wide panmixia of an African fruit bat facilitates transmission of potentially zoonotic viruses. Nature Communications 4(1):2770 Peel AJ, Baker KS, Hayman DTS et al (2016) Bat trait, genetic and pathogen data from large-scale investigations of African fruit bats, Eidolon helvum. Scientiﬁc Data 3(1):160049 Peel AJ, Wood JLN, Baker KS et al (2017) How does Africa’s most hunted bat vary across the continent? Population traits of the straw-coloured fruit bat (Eidolon helvum) and its interactions with humans. Acta Chiropterologica 19(1):77–92 Peris S (1961) La isla de Annobón. Archivos del Instituto de Estudios Africanos 57:27–51 Racey PA, Entwistle AC (2003) Conservation ecology of bats. In: Kunz TH, Fenton MB (eds) Bat ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 680–743 Rainho A, Meyer CFJ, Thorsteinsdottir S et al (2010) Distribuição, estatuto e conservação dos morcegos de São Tomé. Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon Ray JC (2013) Civettictis civetta African civet. In: Kingdon J, Hoffmann M (eds) Mammals of Africa: Volume V: Carnivores, Pangolins, equids and rhinoceroses. Bloomsbury, London, pp 255–259 Ray J, Sunquist M (2001) Trophic relations in a community of African rainforest carnivores. Oecologia 127(3):395–408 Rodrigues M, Bos AR, Schembri PJ et al (2017) Origin and introduction history of the least weasel (Mustela nivalis) on Mediterranean and Atlantic islands inferred from genetic data. Biological Invasions 19(1):399–421 Russell JC, Meyer J-Y, Holmes ND, Pagad S (2017) Invasive alien species on islands: Impacts, distribution, interactions and management. Environmental Conservation 44(4):359–370 Russo D, Maglio G, Rainho A, Meyer CF, Palmeirim JM (2011) Out of the dark: Diurnal activity in the bat Hipposideros ruber on São Tomé island (West Africa). Mammalian Biology 76(6): 701–708 Shefﬁeld SR, King CM (1994) Mustela nivalis. Mammalian Species 454:1–10 Shi JJ, Chan LM, Peel AJ et al (2014) A deep divergence time between sister species of Eidolon (Pteropodidae) with evidence for widespread panmixia. Acta Chiropterologica 16(2):279–292 Sousa JA (1888) Enumeração das aves conhecidas da ilha de S. Thomé seguida da lista das que existem d’esta ilha no Museu de Lisboa. Jornal das Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 47:151–159 Tennyson AJ (2010) The origin and history of New Zealand’s terrestrial vertebrates. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34(1):6 22 Current Knowledge and Conservation of the Wild Mammals of the Gulf. . . 619 Tollington S, Kareemun Z, Augustin A et al (2019) Quantifying the damage caused by fruit bats to backyard lychee trees in Mauritius and evaluating the beneﬁts of protective netting. PLoS One 14(8):e0220955 Vieira L (1886) Noticia ácerca dos productos zoologicos trazidos da ilha de S. Thomé para o Muzeu Zoologico da Universidade de Coimbra pelo Sr. Adolpho F. Moller, em 1885. O Instituto: Jornal Scientiﬁco e Litterário 34:235–241 Ward-Francis A, de Lima RF, Sampaio H, Buchanan G (2017) Reducing the extinction risk of the three Critically Endangered birds of São Tomé. Final project report. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK Whittaker RJ, Fernández-Palacios JM (2007) Island biogeography: Ecology, evolution, and conservation, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 23 Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe Inês Carvalho, Andreia Pereira, Francisco Martinho, Nina Vieira, Cristina Brito, Márcio Guedes, and Bastien Loloum Abstract The Gulf of Guinea is a marine biodiversity hotspot, but cetacean fauna in these waters is poorly studied and our knowledge is documented mostly from opportunistic (sightings and strandings) and whaling data. This chapter presents a short review of historical whaling in the Gulf of Guinea and an update of cetacean biodiversity in the waters of São Tomé and Príncipe. Observations since 2002 have conﬁrmed the presence of 12 species of cetaceans, 5 of them new to the region (Striped Dolphin, Rough-toothed Dolphin, Risso’s Dolphin, Pygmy Killer Whale, and Dwarf Sperm Whale). The archipelago seems to be an important area for cetaceans, with some species (Bottlenose Dolphin and Pantropical Spotted Dolphin) being present throughout the year. The volcanic origin of the archipelago produces great depths very close to the coast, which may favor the approach of pelagic species I. Carvalho (*) Population and Conservation Genetics Group, Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal APCM, Associação para as Ciências do Mar, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: icarvalho@igc.gulbenkian.pt A. Pereira APCM, Associação para as Ciências do Mar, Lisbon, Portugal Instituto Dom Luiz, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal F. Martinho APCM, Associação para as Ciências do Mar, Lisbon, Portugal Ecco Ocean, Benﬁca, Portugal N. Vieira APCM, Associação para as Ciências do Mar, Lisbon, Portugal CHAM, Centro de Humanidades, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal C. Brito CHAM, Centro de Humanidades, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal M. Guedes · B. Loloum ONG MARAPA, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_23 621 622 I. Carvalho et al. like Sperm Whales, Killer Whales, and Short-ﬁnned Pilot Whales. Bays and shallow waters may also serve as protection or rest areas for particular groups, like mother and calf pairs of Humpback Whales. Major anthropogenic threats to cetaceans in São Tomé and Príncipe include habitat degradation due to overﬁshing, ﬁsheries interactions, possibly some occasionally directed takes and, more recently, oil and gas prospecting. Consistent and dedicated research to inform national legislation, together with increasing environmental awareness and local engagement, would help to identify effective cetacean conservation strategies in the archipelago. Keywords Conservation · Dolphins · Gulf of Guinea · Whales · Whaling Introduction Top predators, such as cetaceans, are known to seek and associate with predictable regions of high biological activity (“hotspots”). Oceanic islands are topographic features that result in localized upwellings, eddies, and convergence zones, which in turn may cause enhanced primary productivities that promote biomass accumulation and congregate biodiversity in their vicinity (Doty and Oguri 1956; Caldeira et al. 2002; Palacios 2002). The Gulf of Guinea is a globally important region that hosts high concentrations of rare, range-restricted, and threatened marine species, such as sea turtles, elasmobranchs, and marine mammals (Weir 2010; Lucifora et al. 2011; Selig et al. 2014; Polidoro et al. 2017) and is considered a marine biodiversity hotspot (Roberts et al. 2002). The waters of the Gulf of Guinea support key life-history stages for several cetacean species (Jefferson et al. 1997; Weir 2010, 2011). However, the cetacean fauna along the west coast of Africa, as well as of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, is incompletely described and, despite historical information and verbal descriptions of great diversity, there is relatively little scientiﬁc information about the ecology of species from this group occurring in the region (Hoyt 2005; Weir 2010). The nation of São Tomé and Príncipe is composed of two main islands and several small islands and islets. Due to their volcanic origin, the islands display high relief and the littoral surrounding fringe is very narrow with depths of around 200 m close to the shore (Afonso et al. 1999). The country has an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of almost 165,000 km2, and a strong dependence on ﬁshing; however, knowledge related to its marine fauna is limited, and only a few studies have been conducted in recent years (e.g., Afonso et al. 1999; Maia et al. 2018; Hancock et al. 2019; Quimbayo et al. 2019). This chapter provides a brief summary of historical whaling activity in the Gulf of Guinea region, an updated review of the occurrence of cetaceans in the waters of São Tomé and Príncipe (no studies available for Annobón), and a brief history of cetacean research in the archipelago. It also identiﬁes priorities for future research and conservation of cetaceans in the region. 23 Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe 623 Cetacean Occurrences Based on Historical Whaling Data Background on Historical Whaling in the Gulf of Guinea Early written references to cetaceans in the Gulf of Guinea include observations of “big ﬁshes such as porpoises” (Dias 1934 in Brito 2009) and “many whales, large and small, that it is a wonderful thing to say” (Anonymous 1812). As with other Atlantic islands and the coast of the African mainland, cetaceans stranded on the shore were probably used by local people and settlers, who consumed the meat and transformed blubber into fuel (Brito et al. 2017; Vieira 2020). By the second half of the eighteenth century, the Governor of São Tomé and Príncipe reported the presence of English vessels hunting whales around Cap Lopez (Gabon) and Fernando Po (Bioko) Island (Ferreira 1773). Those operations followed “American whaling” techniques, which included the persecution of animals from open boats and hand harpooning (Macy 1835; Townsend 1935). Humpback Whales Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski, 1781) were one of the main targets along equatorial West Africa, due to their seasonal migratory movements, preference for coastal waters during migration and breeding, and slower swimming speed compared with other baleen whales (Townsend 1935; Tønnessen and Johnsen 1982). The combination of these factors made this species an easy target for coastal whaling globally during the nineteenth century (Reeves and Smith 2006), including in the waters of São Tomé and Príncipe, for instance during the voyage of the Vessel Admiral Blake. The Vessel arrived at São Tomé on June 22, 1869, and anchored on Príncipe Island on June 24, 1869. The crew went on “bay whaling” until the end of August hunting humpback cow and calf pairs (Anonymous 1869–70). Starting in the mid-1800s, whaling became dramatically more effective due to several innovations, including explosive harpoons and modern steam-driven whaling boats (Tønnessen and Johnsen 1982; Clapham and Baker 2002). This allowed the capture of previously unattainable fast-swimming species, especially Balaenoptera whales including Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus (Linnaeus, 1758), Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis (Lesson, 1828), Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni (Anderson, 1879), and Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus, 1758). In the early twentieth century, engine-powered Norwegian ﬂoating factories (moored near shore or working in the open sea) accompanied by ﬂeets of catcher boats with deck-mounted harpoons began operations in the Gulf of Guinea. During this time whaling went through periods of expansion and crisis (Rocha et al. 2015). Despite the breaks in whaling activity resulting from World Wars I and II, after years of intense captures, the following seasons were signiﬁcantly less successful. Pelagic and coastal whaling operations were conducted from Cap Lopez (Gabon) in 1912 and took place in 1912–1914, 1922–1926, 1930, 1934–1937, 1949–1952, and 1959. Whaling operations took place mostly between the end of June and November, with a peak in July/August (Budker and Collingon 1952), corresponding to the breeding period of Humpback Whales, the main target of the catch. Bryde’s, Sei, Sperm 624 I. Carvalho et al. Physeter macrocephalus (Linnaeus, 1758) and Fin whales were also taken (Budker 1953; Tønnessen and Johnsen 1982). During the whaling seasons, high ﬂuctuation of total catches, with a substantial decline not only in numbers but in the mean length of the individuals caught indicated the depletion of the Humpback Whale stock (Budker and Collignon 1952; Budker 1953). In the late 1960s, overexploitation was notorious, and almost every whale stock was depleted or had already collapsed. The International Whaling Commission (IWC), an intergovernmental organization established in 1946 to provide conservation of whale stocks and management of the whaling industry, began to impose restrictions on whale catches. Restrictions for Blue and Humpback whales were imposed in the 1960s, Sei and Fin whales in the 1970s, and in 1986 the moratorium went into effect with zero catch quota for both pelagic and coastal whaling (Clapham and Baker 2002). In the 1970s, illegal captures, mostly of Bryde’s and Sei whales, continued by the catcher/factory vessel Run/Sierra in the Gulf of Guinea (Tønnessen and Johnsen 1982; Best 2001). In addition to commercial whaling, an aboriginal whaling operation in Annobón has been reported since the late nineteenth century (Doce 1932, 1951; Aguilar 1985), and with recent evidence of continuing until today (Collins et al. 2019; Fielding and Barrientos 2021). The Annobonese retained the skills and practices of hunting whales from their experience on foreign whaling vessels, and the activity was integrated into local culture. Small rowing boats with two rowers and one harpooner were used in July and August, targeting coastal Humpback Whales, mainly calves (Aguilar 1985). However, the status of this hunt is uncertain and more information is needed. Industrial Whaling in São Tomé and Príncipe First attempts to promote modern whaling in São Tomé using a factory-ship and catchers date to the 1930s (Henriques 2016) but not much is known from that period. From 1945, the company Grémio dos Armadores da Pesca da Baleia of Lisbon, regulated the activity in mainland Portuguese waters and overseas (Henriques 2016). There are some references on whaling operations off São Tomé and Príncipe in the 1940s. Tenreiro (1961) mentioned that local ﬁshermen and Norwegian companies established on São Tomé hunted Sperm Whales and sharks. He notes that 1946 was an excellent year when they caught 100 cetaceans, which generated 1079 tons of oil, produced in the factory in the town of Neves (Fig. 23.1, 1). In 1951, a decree granted a Norwegian company the right to hunt whales in the archipelago for a period of 10 years, with one of several conditions being the distribution of whale meat to the local population (Henriques 2016). The operation was supported by the modern factory in Praia Rosema (Neves), in the northeast of São Tomé Island (Figueiredo 1960; Henriques 2016). Among the workforce were local people, Portuguese, and foreigners (Boletim Semanal 1951). The factory operated between July and October of 1951, processing an average of seven animals per day, with a 23 Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe 625 Fig. 23.1 Whaling industry on São Tomé: (1) Whaling factory at Praia Rosema (Neves, São Tomé; Tenreiro 1961); (2–5) Remains of the whaling factory in 2005. Photo credits: (2–5) Inês Carvalho total of 714 animals: 336 Bryde’s Whales, 323 Humpback Whales, 53 Sperm Whales, and 2 Fin Whales (Figueiredo 1960). The Humpback Whales killed in the waters of São Tome and Príncipe belong to the Gabon stock that by 1951 the IWC had already identiﬁed as being depleted. 626 I. Carvalho et al. Nevertheless, at the time, Portugal was not a member of the IWC (joining only in 2002) and despite the criticism, whaling was allowed in STP waters (Budker and Collignon 1952). However, with increasing international criticism, the competition with French enterprises in the Gulf waters, and the low number of captures, the factory closed in that same year (Budker and Collignon 1952; Henriques 2016). Its remains are still part of the São Tomé seascape (Figs. 23.1, 2–5). Historical Catches of Cetaceans in the Gulf of Guinea Region Whaling data provides valuable information on species identiﬁcation, distribution, migration, life history, and population status of whale stocks around the world (e.g., Townsend 1935; Josephson et al. 2008; Gregr 2011; Smith et al. 2012). To gather information on the occurrence and distribution of cetacean species in the eastern Gulf of Guinea area during the whaling period, two databases were used. The ﬁrst was the American Offshore Whaling Logbook database (Lund et al. 2021), which includes information from 1381 logbooks from American offshore whaling voyages (1784–1920) extracted from original whaling logbooks from three different sources: Matthew Maury (1850s), Townsend (1930s), and the Census of Marine Life project (Barnard et al. 2002). The second database was the IWC compilation of worldwide whale catches since 1900 (Allison 2016a, b). The IWC data is continually updated (Allison and Smith 2004) and consequently, the total number of catches reported has changed over time (e.g., Findlay 2000; Best 2001; Weir 2010). Whaling records and species identiﬁcations were accepted as published, despite the likely misidentiﬁcation between Sei Whale and Bryde’s Whale in the whaling statistics (Best 2001). Prior to 1960, whalers could not reliably distinguish between the two species (Best 2001; Weir 2010). This led to records of “Sei Whales” along the coast of West Africa likely being misidentiﬁed Bryde’s Whales; thus, records of the two species were merged. Since several cetacean catches are represented by the same geographic positions, the data were separated into two seasons for better visualization (Fig. 23.2): June to October, representing the breeding season for Humpback Whales; and November to May. Humpback Whale was the main target species of whaling in the Gulf of Guinea region with more than 10,000 animals captured mostly near the coast of Gabon and around Príncipe Island between June and October (Fig. 23.2, top). Bryde’s/Sei Whales were caught throughout the year, mainly off the southern coast of Gabon, the offshore waters off the west coast of São Tome, and between the islands of São Tomé and Annobón (Fig. 23.2). Sperm and Fin Whale catches were more infrequent and spread in offshore waters across the entire region, while catches of other cetacean species were rare (Fig. 23.2). 23 Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe 627 Fig. 23.2 Distribution of whale catch positions around the Gulf of Guinea Islands. Data from American Offshore Whaling Logbook database (https://whalinghistory.org/av/logs/aowl/) and IWC database (Allison et al 2016b), representing N ¼ 11845 catches (10553 Humpback whales; 1010 Bryde’s/Sei whales; 261 Sperm whales; 15 Fin whales; 2 Pilot whales; 1 Blue whale; 1 Right whale 628 I. Carvalho et al. Recent Data from Fieldwork on São Tomé and Príncipe There is limited information about the spatial and temporal patterns of the distribution and abundance of cetaceans in the Gulf of Guinea, and most of the available information is based on whaling data (e.g., Townsend 1935; Budker and Collignon 1952), reports on strandings, by-catch data, and some dedicated cetacean research (e.g., Walsh et al. 2001; Van Waerebeek et al. 2009; Segniagbeto and Van Waerebeek 2010; Weir et al. 2010; Weir 2011; Sohou et al. 2013; Rosenbaum et al. 2014; Escalle et al. 2015; De Boer et al. 2016; Collins et al. 2019; Trew et al. 2019). In 2002, the ﬁrst ﬁeld study dedicated to cetaceans of São Tomé Island started with the objective of collecting baseline data on the occurrence of cetaceans in these waters. The ﬁeldwork of this project was based at Rolas Islet, and the boat surveys in 2002 and 2003 were conducted in the south region of São Tomé. Data on occurrence, movements, seasonality, and behavior (including acoustic behavior) of several species were collected and analyzed (Picanço et al. 2009). In 2004, a PhD focusing on the population structure of the Humpback Whale on the West African coast was initiated, in collaboration with the Wildlife Conservation Society and the American Museum of Natural History. Fieldwork was conducted between 2004 and 2006 in São Tomé waters to collect data on the occurrence, distribution, behavior, and genetics of humpback whales (Carvalho et al. 2011, 2014; Carvalho 2012; Kershaw et al. 2017). In 2012, a partnership between the NGOs MARAPA (São Tomé) and Associação para as Ciências do Mar (APCM; Portugal) started the project “Operação Tunhã.” The aim of the project was to establish a program to collect systematic baseline data on cetaceans in São Tomé, to assess the local capacity to develop a sustainable whale watching activity, and at the same time to raise awareness among stakeholders on local cetacean conservation. In Príncipe Island, data collection about cetaceans has been more limited. Some sighting and stranding records have been collected intermittently over the years by Fundação Príncipe (Vanessa Schmitt pers. comm.). In 2020, between August and November, a ﬁeld survey was carried out in the archipelago’s waters to collect visual and acoustic data on cetaceans, for the South Atlantic Cetacean project by the Edmaktub Association (Sesani et al. 2020). Fig. 23.2 (continued) (Eubalaena australis Desmoulins, 1822); 1 Minke whales; 1 Killer whale). Top map-whaling catches between June-October, Bottom map-whaling catches between November-May. The symbol ○ (on top map in red) represents the records without speciﬁc geographic coordinates provided by IWC. Blue, Right and several Humpback whale catches were recorded with this point, which indicates that they were caught in the area but there was no speciﬁc location 23 Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe 629 Fig. 23.3 Cetacean sightings and strandings in São Tomé Island recorded from 2002 to 2006 and from 2012 to 2015 (N ¼ 215; Picanço et al. 2009; Carvalho et al. 2014; Collins et al. 2019; Associação para as Ciências do Mar, Portugal unpublished data) Cetacean Species Recorded in São Tomé and Príncipe Waters To date, the presence of 12 cetacean species has been conﬁrmed (Fig. 23.3, Appendix), based on data collected by the authors during 2002–2006 and 2012–2015 around São Tomé Island. Five of those species were only conﬁrmed recently by the authors: Striped Dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba (Meyen, 1833), Rough-toothed Dolphin Steno bredanensis (Lesson, 1828), Risso’s Dolphin Grampus griseus (G. Cuvier, 1812), Pygmy Killer Whale Feresa attenuata (Gray, 1874), and Dwarf Sperm Whale Kogia sima (Owen, 1866). Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whales (Fig. 23.4, 1) in the Southern Hemisphere migrate between summer feeding areas in the nutrient-rich waters of the Southern Ocean and winter breeding areas in tropical waters (Townsend 1935). The Gulf of Guinea region is known as a breeding area for the Humpback Whale B stock (IWC 2001). Catch histories and recent genetic data suggest that this stock may be sub-structured (Findlay 2000; Carvalho et al. 2014) with some temporal and spatial segregation; Humpback Whales use two different migration corridors and different feeding areas, in South Africa and Antarctica (Barendse et al. 2011; Rosenbaum et al. 2014; Carvalho et al. 2014). Between 2002 and 2014, 74 sightings of Humpback Whales were collected around São Tomé waters (Carvalho et al. 2011; APCM unpublished data). In 2020, 63 sightings were collected mostly around Príncipe Island (Sesani et al. 2020). The sightings were collected between July and late 630 I. Carvalho et al. Fig. 23.4 Cetacean species photographed in São Tomé waters: (1) Humpback Whale; (2) Bottlenose Dolphin; (3) Pantropical Spotted Dolphin; (4) Rough-toothed Dolphin; (5) Killer Whale; (6) Pygmy Killer Whale; (7) Short-ﬁnned Pilot Whale; (8) Sperm Whale. Photo credits: (1) Maria Pimentel, (2, 5, 7) Inês Carvalho, (3) Cristina Picanço, (4, 6, 8) Bastien Loloum 23 Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe 631 November. São Tomé appears to be used primarily by mother/calf pairs, as a calving, nursing, and resting area. This is suggested by the high frequency of observed groups with a calf present (more than 70%) and long occupancy of several weeks in the area by these groups (Carvalho et al. 2011; Sesani et al. 2020). Female Humpback Whales with calves prefer shallow waters (Ersts and Rosenbaum 2003), being sighted mostly around Rolas Islet (sometimes very close to the shore), near São Tomé city (northeast), and around Príncipe Island (Picanço et al. 2009; Carvalho et al. 2011; Sesani et al. 2020). Physeter macrocephalus The Sperm Whale (Fig. 23.4, 8) is a cosmopolitan species but shows differential sex-and age-related distributions. Females and immature individuals inhabit primarily warm waters in tropical to subtropical areas (Whitehead 2002). As males get older, they disperse from these warmer areas to higher latitudes (Whitehead 2002). There are three stranding records of Sperm Whales in São Tomé (2002, 2010 and 2013; Fig. 23.4) and one in Príncipe in 2014 (Collins et al. 2019). Two sightings of single animals were recorded off the north coast of São Tomé Island, one reported in 2005, at 1500 m depth (Picanço et al. 2009), and another one in 2013 at 980 m depth (APCM unpublished data). These records suggest the occurrence of the expected “nursery groups,” as young calves were recorded from strandings and immature animals and adults were recorded from sightings. Sesani et al. (2020) described a sighting of two individuals in 2020, 80 km off the east coast of São Tomé Island at 2500 m depth, with no information on age and sex. Kogia spp. Two Kogia species are currently recognized: the Dwarf Sperm Whale (Kogia sima) and the Pygmy Sperm Whale Kogia breviceps (de Blainville, 1838) (Rice 1998). Both occur in deep temperate and tropical waters worldwide, with overlapping distributions, and they are very difﬁcult to distinguish. The Dwarf Sperm Whale is smaller and has a more prominent dorsal ﬁn, whereas the Pygmy Sperm Whale is slightly larger and has a smaller and rounded dorsal ﬁn. There were two conﬁrmed records of the Dwarf Sperm Whale off São Tomé, one sighting in February 2012, off the northwest coast, at around 150 m depth, and one a by-catch record in the southern region in February of 2014 (APCM unpublished data). Four additional sightings of Kogia spp. were recorded off the north region of São Tomé Island, two in March and April of 2012 and two in January of 2014 (APCM unpublished data), but the species could not be fully conﬁrmed. Orcinus orca (Linnaeus, 1758) The Killer Whale (Fig. 23.4, 5) is distributed across oceans (Rice 1998), but reports are less common in tropical waters (Weir et al. 2010). Six sightings were reported around São Tomé (Picanço et al. 2009; Weir et al. 2010): one in November, four in December, and one in January. Four of the six sightings occurred around Rolas Islet, in the south, and the remaining on the east and northwest coasts (Fig. 23.4). Four sightings occurred in shelf edge habitat (270–790 m), one in shallow waters (55 m) and another one in deep-water (1200 m; Weir et al. 2010). The average group size was estimated at six animals and included adults and calves. Weir et al. (2010) photo-identiﬁed 13 animals. Two animals were ﬁrst photo-identiﬁed together in 2002, and then in 2004; one of these 632 I. Carvalho et al. individuals was also photographed in 2003. The four sightings during December 2002 were the result of repeated encounters on successive dates with a single group of Killer Whales. A predation event was observed off São Tomé during January 2003, when an adult–calf pair of killer whales was observed feeding on an Ocean Sunﬁsh Mola mola (Linnaeus, 1758) at the surface (Weir et al. 2010). Repeated sightings of the same group of killer whales around São Tomé suggested the regular use of that area (at least seasonally) by a particular group of animals. In 2020, there were two recorded sightings off western São Tomé, one individual in October and two individuals in November (Sesani et al. 2020). The three individuals were photoidentiﬁed, but there was no cross-checking with photographs from previous years. Steno bredanensis The Rough-toothed Dolphin (Fig. 23.4, 4) inhabits primarily warm oceanic waters worldwide (Rice 1998). Four sightings of this species were recorded, off the north coast of São Tomé Island, in August and September of 2012 and within the 200 m bathymetry. Three of the sightings comprised average groups of eight individuals, all adults. The fourth sighting was a larger group of around 20 adults and juveniles sighted together with a group of 8–10 Pygmy Killer Whales, at around 2 km from the coast and depths under 100 m (APCM unpublished data). In October of 2008, there was one offshore sighting of a group of 35 individuals, west of São Tomé at 3271 m depth (Weir 2011). Grampus griseus The Risso’s Dolphin inhabits temperate and tropical waters worldwide and generally prefers deeper offshore waters, especially close to the continental shelf edge and slope (Jefferson et al. 2008). One individual was stranded on the north coast of São Tomé (Fig. 23.3) in February 2015 (Collins et al. 2019). Pseudorca crassidens (Owen, 1846) The False Killer Whale inhabits primarily tropical to subtropical waters, and sometimes also occurs in warm temperate waters (Rice 1998). The ﬁrst record of this species was a sighting of 6–8 adult animals engaged in feeding activities (some animals had ﬁsh in their mouths) off the north coast of São Tomé Island in April 2012 (APCM unpublished data). The two subsequent records, in 2013 and 2014, came from strandings in the same coastal region (Collins et al. 2019). The most recent sightings were recorded in 2020, one south of Rolas Islet (on São Tomé) and another on the southwestern coast of Príncipe (Sesani et al. 2020). The estimated group size of these sightings was 30 and 20 individuals, respectively. The group observed off Príncipe was composed of adults and calves (Sesani et al. 2020). All the sightings of this species were within the 250 m bathymetry. Feresa attenuata The Pygmy Killer Whale (Fig. 23.4, 6) occurs mainly in deep warm tropical waters (Rice 1998). Off the north of São Tomé Island, two groups of eight (in August) and 12 animals (in December) were recorded in 2012 (APCM unpublished data). The eight Pygmy Killer Whales were sighted together with rough-toothed dolphins at less than 100 m depth. The other 12 animals were sighted around 450 m deep. Globicephala macrorhynchus (Gray, 1846) There are two species of pilot whales: the Short-ﬁnned Pilot Whale (Fig. 23.4, 7), which is mostly found in tropical waters, 23 Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe 633 and the Long-ﬁnned Pilot Whale, Globicephala melas (Traill, 1809), which inhabits colder waters. Picanço et al. (2009) reported a sighting in January 2003 of around 20 pilot whales as Long-ﬁnned Pilot Whales, mixed with Bottlenose Dolphins, off the southeast coast of São Tomé, over the shelf edge (975 m). During this sighting, eleven individuals were identiﬁed by photographs of the dorsal ﬁns. The second sighting of pilot whales was recorded in February 2012, a group of eight Shortﬁnned Pilot whales, including calves, traveling off the east coast of São Tomé (APCM unpubl. data). Photographs conﬁrmed that both sightings refer to Shortﬁnned Pilot Whales and that the most conspicuous individual identiﬁed in 2003 was re-sighted after 9 years, suggesting long-term site ﬁdelity that could also apply to other individuals of the group. Stenella attenuata (Gray, 1846) The Pantropical Spotted Dolphin (Fig. 23.4, 3) occurs in tropical and subtropical waters (Rice 1998). This species is one of the most frequently observed cetaceans in São Tomé, and it is present throughout the year. Since 2002, a total of 37 sightings have been recorded off São Tomé Island; 14 sightings recorded by Picanço et al. (2009) and 23 afterward. Most sightings were recorded over the slope (400–2000 m) to the north of São Tomé (APCM unpublished data). More recently, this species was also recorded around Príncipe, with ﬁve sightings (Sesani et al. 2020). The Pantropical Spotted Dolphin can form large groups, ranging from a few animals to several hundred animals. The majority of the sightings were groups of more than 100 animals. In 2012, one animal died from by-catch in the south of São Tomé (Collins et al. 2019). Stenella coeruleoalba The Striped Dolphin is a mostly oceanic species and occurs in deep warm temperate, subtropical, and tropical waters worldwide (Rice 1998). There was a single record of one stranded individual in March 2012, off the east coast of São Tomé (Collins et al. 2019). Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821) The Common Bottlenose Dolphin (Fig. 23.4, 2) is a cosmopolitan species with a worldwide distribution in tropical and temperate regions (Rice 1998). It is the most commonly sighted small cetacean species around São Tomé and occurs regularly throughout the year (Pereira et al. 2013). The average group size for this species was estimated at 45 individuals. Calves and juveniles were sighted regularly with adults. Pereira et al. (2013) photo-identiﬁed 140 individuals during sightings from 2002 to 2006 and 2012 around São Tomé. The sightings occurred mainly around Rolas Islet and to the northeast of São Tomé (adjacent to São Tomé city), sometimes very close to shore. Most sightings around São Tomé were recorded below the 200 m bathymetry. Some of the individuals identiﬁed showed a degree of site ﬁdelity (Pereira et al. 2013). Eight individuals recorded from 2002 to 2006 were resighted in 2012, and one of them was sighted in every survey year. On several occasions, Bottlenose Dolphins were sighted in mixed groups with other species, such as Sperm Whales (on two occasions), Pantropical Spotted Dolphins, and Short-ﬁnned Pilot Whales. In 2020, there were ﬁve sightings of this species along the northeastern coast of São Tomé, around the 250 m bathymetric, but none around Príncipe (Sesani et al. 2020). 634 I. Carvalho et al. Threats, Conservation Needs, and Future Research The Gulf of Guinea is one of the 18 global hotspots for marine biodiversity conservation (Roberts et al. 2002). Globally, it is also one of the fastest developing marine regions, and a highly productive ecosystem, that includes some of the most productive coastal and offshore ﬁsheries (Aryeetey 2002). This region also has substantial oil and gas reserves. Marine species are therefore subject to a range of pressures, such as incidental capture (by-catch) in ﬁsheries, overﬁshing of their prey, direct catch (meat and other products), as well as habitat loss and pollution, namely linked to intense deep-water oil and gas exploration (Weir and Pierce 2013; Escalle et al. 2015). The expansion of offshore hydrocarbon extraction activity has been a concern for the populations using the waters of central Africa and the eastern Gulf of Guinea (Findlay et al. 2006). Seismic surveys use high-amplitude sound sources, that can have negative impacts on acoustically-sensitive animals such as cetaceans, which can result in changes in habitat use, including spatial avoidance (Weir 2008; Kavanagh et al. 2019), and behavioral changes (Cerchio et al. 2014; Dunlop et al. 2017). In recent years, several seismic surveys have been conducted in the EEZ of São Tomé and Príncipe for future oil exploration (e.g., Anonymous 2018). Although there was no assessment of the impact seismic surveying had on cetaceans in the area, it is most likely that such extended surveys resulted in some degree of responses by the animals. In São Tomé and Príncipe, ﬁshing provides more than 80% of the animal protein consumed by the population (Maia et al. 2018). From 1955 to 2010, the number of artisanal ﬁshers in the archipelago increased by about 116%, from 1127 to 2428 (Maia et al. 2018). Moreover, catches by national semi-industrial ﬁshing and foreign industrial ﬁshing (by the European Union, Japan, and China) have continued to increase during recent decades (Carneiro 2011; EU 2019), despite a reduced capacity for monitoring, control, and surveillance by national authorities (Belhabib 2015). Maia et al. (2018) suggested a potential decline in the catch trends (mainly coastal) in São Tomé and Príncipe’s artisanal ﬁsheries. Declining catches and increasing ﬁshing efforts can lead ﬁshermen to expand their ﬁshing grounds further offshore, use destructive ﬁshing practices (such as explosives and grenades), use illegal gillnets, and sometimes target different species (Santos 2017). Most sightings of cetaceans in northern and southern São Tomé coincide with areas of intense artisanal ﬁsheries. Episodes of cetacean by-catch (Collins et al. 2019) and direct hunting of cetaceans (APCM unpublished data) have been described in recent years. Fishermen themselves recognize that the problem of overexploitation of marine resources should be addressed through the creation of marine reserves (Maia et al. 2018). So far, São Tomé and Príncipe has not created any marine protected areas (MPAs), but presently efforts are being made by local and international NGOs together with the government to propose a network of co-managed coastal MPAs (de Lima et al. 2022). Wellmanaged MPAs have been reported to lead to increases in marine biodiversity, abundance, and biomass (Ballantine 2014; Grorud-Colvert et al. 2021), beneﬁt ﬁsheries (Harrison et al. 2012), and improve the local economy. 23 Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe 635 In 2018, at the 67th IWC meeting, several countries from the Gulf of Guinea (São Tomé and Príncipe included) voted, along with whaling nations, to re-establish appropriate catch limits for some stocks/species, and voted against the proposal to create a Whale Sanctuary in the South Atlantic (IWC 2018). Cetaceans in the waters of São Tomé and Príncipe have no speciﬁc legal protection, although there are laws regarding general aspects of environmental protection (Brito et al. 2010; DecreeLaw N 11/1999—Fauna and Flora conservation and protected areas; Decree-Law N 6/2014—Marine turtles protection and Decree-Law N 22/XI/5a/2021—new ﬁsheries law mentions the creation of protected areas for cetaceans in important regions for migration and/or feeding). There is a clear need for action at national and regional levels to quantify the impact of human activities (especially by-catch and direct take) and to implement legislation and measures for the protection of cetaceans. Cetacean research in the Gulf of Guinea has focused mostly around São Tomé waters and in coastal areas, with some research on Príncipe and none at all on Annobón. Broadening the survey area to include the islands of Príncipe and Annobón, and covering a wider temporal window, may provide important information on the level of population structure, habitat use, and seasonal dynamics of several cetacean species. In addition, extending the survey area to offshore waters will provide new information on the more oceanic species (Bryde’s and Sperm Whales, for example) that are present in other regions of the Gulf of Guinea, and are expected to occur around the archipelago. Establishing the year-round monitoring of species composition, distribution, and abundance as well as identifying critical habitats for cetacean survival and its overlap with human activities (specially by-catch and direct takes) should be a priority for future research. This is especially important since whale catches and recent sightings indicate that the region may be important for several cetacean species (Picanço et al. 2009; Carvalho et al. 2011). For the implementation of long-term population monitoring, it will be essential to promote greater conservation efforts by involving local biologists and NGO technicians in training programs that include species identiﬁcation, photography techniques, and collection of samples from stranded animals. Moreover, it is crucial to engage with the local population and ﬁsheries communities by developing conservation campaigns and targeting different stakeholders. By allying consistent research and local awareness it will be possible to better understand and protect the cetaceans of this region. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the following people and institutions: the Government of São Tomé and Príncipe for permission to conduct the studies, especially the former GeneralDirector for the Environment, Arlindo Carvalho. Vanessa Schmitt and Estrela Matilde from Fundação Príncipe provided valuable information for Príncipe. Tim Collins and Howard Rosenbaum, from the Wildlife Conservation Society, offered logistic and scientiﬁc support. Herbert Maia, Cristina Picanço, Maria Pimentel, Carlos Carvalho, João Mendes, and Hipólito Lima were invaluable in the ﬁeld, as was the logistic support from the NGO MARAPA. We acknowledge funding from: Rolas Island Resort, EU ECOFAC program, Wildlife Conservation Society, PPL crowdfunding, French Facility for Global Environment (FFEM)—IUCN. IC was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, FCT (SFRH/BD/18049/2004, SFRH/BPD/ 636 I. Carvalho et al. 97566/2013, and IGC-DL57NT-32). AP was supported by FCT (UIDB/50019/2020 – IDL) and the project AWARENESS (PTDC/BIA-BMA/30514/2017). NV was supported by CHAM (NOVA FCSH / UAc), through the strategic project sponsored by FCT (UIDB/04666/2020). We would like to thank Graham John Pierce and Caroline Weir for their helpful comments and suggestions, which signiﬁcantly improved this manuscript. Appendix Cetacean species conﬁrmed for São Tomé and Príncipe. IUCN conservation status (IUCN 2021): data deﬁcient (DD); least concern (LC); near threatened (NT); vulnerable (VU) Higher taxonomy Family Balaenopteridae Megaptera Gray, 1846 Family Physeteridae Physeter Linnaeus, 1758 Family Kogiidae Kogia Gray, 1846 Family Delphinidae Orcinus Fitzinger, 1860 Steno Gray, 1846 Grampus Gray, 1828 Pseudorca Reinhardt, 1862 Feresa Gray, 1870 Globicephala Lesson, 1828 Tursiops Gervais, 1855 Stenella Gray, 1866 Species English name IUCN Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski, 1781) Humpback Whale LC Physeter macrocephalus (Linnaeus, 1758) Sperm Whale VU Kogia sima (Owen, 1866) Dwarf Sperm Whale LC Orcinus orca (Linnaeus, 1758) Steno bredanensis (Lesson, 1828) Grampus griseus (Cuvier, 1812) Pseudorca crassidens (Owen, 1846) Feresa attenuata (Gray, 1874) Globicephala macrorhynchus (Gray, 1846) Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821) Stenella attenuata (Gray, 1846) Stenella coeruleoalba (Meyen, 1833) Killer Whale DD Rough-toothed Dolphin LC Risso’s Dolphin LC False Killer Whale NT Pygmy Killer Whale LC Short-ﬁnned Pilot Whale LC Common Bottlenose Dolphin Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Striped Dolphin LC LC LC 23 Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe 637 References Afonso P, Porteiro FM, Santos RS, Barreiros JP, Worms J, Wirtz P (1999) Coastal marine ﬁshes of São Tome Island (Gulf of Guinea). Arquipélago. Life and Marine Sciences 17A:65–92 Aguilar A (1985) Aboriginal whaling off Pagalu (Equatorial Guinea). Reports of the International Whaling Commission 35:385–386 Allison C (2016a) IWC summary catch database. Version 6.1. International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, UK Allison C (2016b) IWC individual catch database Version 6.1. International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, UK Allison C, Smith TD (2004) Progress on the construction of a comprehensive database of twentieth century whaling catches. Paper SC/56/O27. International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, UK Anonymous (1812) Navegação de Lisboa á ilha de S. Thomé escrita por hum piloto portuguez (1551–1552?). In: Anonymous. Collecção de notícias para a história e geograﬁa das nações ultramarinas, que vivem nos dominios Portuguezes, ou lhes são vizinhas (vol II, N. I, II and III). Academia Real das Sciencias, Lisbon Anonymous (1869–70) Logbook of the Admiral Blake (Schooner) out of Marion, MA, mastered by Arthur H. Hammond, on a whaling voyage between 1869 and 1870. Available via the Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/logbookofadmiral00admi_0/page/n5/mode/2up. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Anonymous (2018) Resumo não técnico do Estudo de Impacto Ambiental, Social e Saúde (ESHIA) para um programa de perfuração exploratória e de avaliação no Bloco 6. São Tomé e Príncipe, Environmental Resources Management Iberia SA, São Tomé, 21 pp Aryeetey E (2002) Socio-economic aspects of artisanal marine ﬁsheries management in West Africa. In: McGlade M, Cury P, Koranteng K et al (eds) Large marine ecosystems, vol 11. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 323–344 Ballantine B (2014) Fifty years on: lessons from marine reserves in New Zealand and principles for a worldwide network. Biological Conservation 176:297–307 Barendse J, Best PB, Thornton M et al (2011) Transit station or destination? Attendance patterns, movements, and abundance estimate of humpback whales off west South Africa from photographic and genotypic matching. African Journal of Marine Science 33:353–373 Barnard MG, Ascroft N, Nicholls JH (2002) History of marine animal populations database. Available via Census of Marine Line. http://www.coml.org/history-marine-animalpopulations-hmap. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Belhabib D (2015) Fisheries of São Tomé and Príncipe, a catch reconstruction (1950-2010). Fisheries Centre Working Paper. Working Paper #2015 – 6786. University of British Columbia, Vancouver Best P (2001) Distribution and population separation of Bryde’s Whales, Balaenoptera edeni, off South Africa. Marine Ecology Progress Series 220:277–289 Boletim Semanal (1951) Banco Nacional Ultramarino. Serviços Económicos 148:7–8 Brito C (2009) Os mamíferos marinhos nas viagens marítimas pelo Atlântico entre os séculos XV e XVIII. A evolução da ciência e do conhecimento. PhD thesis. Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon Brito C, Picanço C, Carvalho I (2010) Small cetaceans off São Tomé (São Tomé and Príncipe, Gulf of Guinea, West Africa): species, sightings and abundance, local human activities and conservation. Scientiﬁc Committee Document SC/62/SM8. International Whaling Commission, Agadir Brito C, Vieira N, Jordão V, Teixeira A (2017) Digging into our whaling past: addressing the Portuguese inﬂuence in the early modern exploitation of whales in the Atlantic. In: Melo CJ, Vaz E, Pinto LMC (eds) Environmental history in the making. Volume II: acting. Springer, Cham, pp 33–47 638 I. Carvalho et al. Budker P (1953) Les campagnes baleinières 1949-1952 au Gabon (note préliminaire). Mammalia 17(3):129–148 Budker P, Collignon J (1952) Trois campagnes baleinières au Gabon: 1949–1950–1951. Bulletin de l’Institut d’Etudes Centrafricaines 3:75–100 Caldeira RMA, Groom S, Miller P et al (2002) Sea surface signatures of the island mass effect phenomena around Madeira Island, Northeast Atlantic. Remote Sensing of Environment 80: 336–360 Carneiro G (2011) They come, they ﬁsh, and they go: EC ﬁsheries agreements with Cape Verde and São Tomé e Príncipe. Marine Fisheries Review 73:1–25 Carvalho I (2012) Population structure of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in west coast of Africa. PhD thesis. Algarve University, Faro Carvalho I, Brito C, Santos ME et al (2011) Waters of São Tomé: a calving ground for West African humpback whales? African Journal of Marine Science 33:91–97 Carvalho I, Loo J, Collins T et al (2014) Does temporal and spatial segregation explain the complex population structure of humpback whales on the coast of West Africa? Marine Biology 161(4): 805–819 Cerchio S, Strindberg S, Collins T et al (2014) Seismic surveys negatively affect humpback whale singing activity off northern Angola. PLoS One 9:e86464 Clapham PJ, Baker CS (2002) Modern whaling. In: Perrin WF, Würsig B, Thewissen JGM (eds) Encyclopedia of marine mammals. Academic, New York, pp 1328–1332 Collins T, Van Waerebeek K, Carvalho I et al (2019) An assessment of cetacean bycatches, strandings and other mortalities from Central Africa, including evidence of use by people. Scientiﬁc Committee Document SC/68A/SM/05. International Whaling Commission, Nairobi De Boer MN, Saulino JT, Van Waerebeek K et al (2016) Under pressure: Cetaceans and ﬁsheries co-occurrence off the coasts of Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire (Gulf of Guinea). Frontiers in Marine Science 3:178 Dias G de S (1934) As Relações de Angola (Primórdios da Ocupação Portuguesa), pertencentes ao Cartório do Colégio dos Padres da Companhia, de Luanda, e transcritas do códice existente na Biblioteca Nacional de Paris (nº 8 do Fundo Português). Imprensa da Universidade, Coimbra Doce E (1932) La Pesca de la ballena en la isla de Annobón. La Guinea Spañola 746 Doce E (1951) La Pesca de la ballena. La Guinea Spañola 1346 Doty MS, Oguri M (1956) The island mass effect. ICES Journal of Marine Science 22:33–37 Dunlop R, Noad M, McCauley R et al (2017) The behavioural response of migrating humpback whales to a full seismic airgun array. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences 284:20171901 Ersts PJ, Rosenbaum HC (2003) Habitat preference reﬂects social organization of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) on a wintering ground. Journal of Zoology 260:337–345 Escalle L, Capietto A, Chavance P et al (2015) Cetaceans and tuna purse seine ﬁsheries in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans: interactions but few mortalities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 522:255–268 EU (2019) Protocol on the implementation of the ﬁsheries partnership agreement between the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe and the European Community. Document 22019A1227 (01). Ofﬁcial Journal of the European Union 333:3–30 Ferreira VG (1773) Ofício do capitão-mor [governador] das ilhas de São Tomé e Príncipe, Vicente Gomes Ferreira, ao [secretário de estado da Marinha e Ultramar, Martinho de Melo e Castro], sobre as corvetas inglesas que desde Novembro navegavam entre Cabo de Lopo Gonçalves e Fernando Pó na pesca à baleia; dando conta que as corvetas não foram ao Príncipe, mas pediram franquia em São Tomé. Available via Arquivo Histórico Ultramarino. https://digitarq.ahu. arquivos.pt/details?id¼1187707. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Fielding R, Barrientos C (2021) History of whaling in Annobón, Equatorial Guinea, and new evidence of its continued occurrence. Journal of Cetacean Research Management 22:29–37 Figueiredo JM (1960) Pescarias de baleias nas províncias africanas portuguesas. Boletim de Pesca 66:29–37 23 Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe 639 Findlay KP (2000) A review of humpback whale caches by modern whaling operations in the Southern Hemisphere. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 47:411–420 Findlay KP, Collins T, Rosenbaum HC (2006) Environmental impact assessment and mitigation of marine hydrocarbon exploration and production in the Republic of Gabon. Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx Gregr EJ (2011) Insights into North Paciﬁc right whale Eubalaena japonica habitat from historic whaling records. Endangered Species Research 15:223–239 Grorud-Colvert K, Sullivan-Stack J, Roberts C et al (2021) The MPA guide: a framework to achieve global goals for the ocean. Science 373:eabf0861 Hancock JM, Vieira S, Taraveira L et al (2019) Genetic characterization of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) from São Tomé and Príncipe: insights on species recruitment and dispersal in the Gulf of Guinea. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 518:151181 Harrison HB, Williamson DH, Evans RD et al (2012) Larval export from marine reserves and the recruitment beneﬁt for ﬁsh and ﬁsheries. Current Biology 22:1023–1028 Henriques F (2016) A baleação e o Estado Novo. Industrialização e organização corporativa (19371958). Secretaria Regional de Educação e Cultura, Ponta Delgada Hoyt E (2005) Marine protected areas for whales, dolphins and porpoises: a world handbook for cetacean habitat conservation. Earthscan, London IWC (2001) Report of the Scientiﬁc Committee. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3: 26–27 IWC (2018) Chair’s report of the 67th meeting of the International Whaling Commission. International Whaling Commission, Florianópolos, 46 pp Jefferson TA, Curry BE, Leatherwood S et al (1997) Dolphins and porpoises of West Africa: a review of records (Cetacea: Delphinidae, Phocoenidae). Mammalia 61:87–108 Jefferson TA, Webber MA, Pitman RL (2008) Marine mammals of the world: a comprehensive guide to their identiﬁcation. Academic, London, 592 pp Josephson E, Smith TD, Reeves RR (2008) Historical distribution of right whales in the North Paciﬁc. Fish and Fisheries 9:155–168 Kavanagh AS, Nykänen M, Hunt W et al (2019) Seismic surveys reduce cetacean sightings across a large marine ecosystem. Scientiﬁc Reports 9:19164 Kershaw F, Carvalho I, Loo J et al (2017) Multiple processes drive genetic structure of humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) populations across spatial scales. Molecular Ecology 26:977– 994 Lima RF, Deffontaines J-B, Madruga L, Matilde E, Nuno A, Vieira S (2022) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: recent progress, ongoing challenges, and future directions. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 643–670 Lucifora LO, García VB, Worm B (2011) Global diversity hotspots and conservation priorities for sharks. PLoS One 6(5):e19356 Lund JN, Josephson EA, Reeves RR, Smith TD (2021) American offshore whaling voyages: a database. Available via Mystic Seaport Museum, Inc and New Bedford Whaling Museum. https://whalinghistory.org/av/logs/aowl/. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Macy O (1835) The history of Nantucket. Hilliard, Gray, Boston Maia HA, Morais RA, Siqueira AC et al (2018) Shifting baselines among traditional ﬁshers in São Tomé and Príncipe Islands, Gulf of Guinea. Ocean and Coastal Management 154:133–142 Palacios DM (2002) Factors inﬂuencing the island-mass effect of the Galápagos archipelago. Geophysical Research Letters 29:2134–2138 Pereira A, Martinho F, Brito C et al (2013) Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in São Tomé (São Tomé and Príncipe)—relative abundance, site ﬁdelity and social structure. African Journal of Marine Science 35:501–510 Picanço C, Carvalho I, Brito C (2009) Occurrence and distribution of cetaceans in São Tomé and Príncipe tropical archipelago and their relation to environmental variables. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 89:1071–1076 640 I. Carvalho et al. Polidoro BA, Ralph GM, Strongin K et al (2017) The status of marine biodiversity in the Eastern Central Atlantic (West and Central Africa). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 27:1021–1034 Quimbayo JP, Dias MS, Kulbicki M et al (2019) Determinants of reef ﬁsh assemblages in tropical oceanic islands. Ecography 42:77–87 Reeves RR, Smith TD (2006) A taxonomy of world whaling: operations and eras. In: Estees JA, Demaster DP, Doak DF, Williams TM, Brownell RL Jr (eds) Whales, whaling, and ocean ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley Rice DW (1998) Marine mammals of the world: systematics and distribution. Special Publication number 4, Society for Marine Mammalogy. Allen Press, Lawrence Roberts CM, McClean CJ, Veron JE et al (2002) Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science 295:1280–1284 Rocha RC, Clapham PJ, Ivashchenko YV (2015) Emptying the oceans: a summary of industrial whaling catches in the 20th century. Marine Fisheries Review 76(4):37–48 Rosenbaum HC, Maxwell S, Kershaw F et al (2014) Long range movement of humpback whales and their overlap with anthropogenic activity in the South Atlantic Ocean. Conservation Biology 28:604–615 Santos A (2017) Caracterização das pescarias ativas na zona sul de São Tomé. Relatório do projeto Kike da Mungu. MARAPA, DP, FAPP, São Tomé Segniagbeto G, Van Waerebeek K (2010) A note on the occurrence and status of cetaceans in Togo. In: Scientiﬁc Committee Document SC/62/SM11. International Whaling Commission, Agadir Selig ER, Turner WR, Troëng S et al (2014) Global priorities for marine biodiversity conservation. PLoS One 9(1):e82898 Sesani V, Righi T, Degollada E (2020) Sacet Project: the Gulf of Guinea expedition 2020— Research report of EDMAKTUB’s sacet project in the waters of São Tomé & Príncipe. EDMAKTUB, Barcelona, 22 pp Smith TD, Randall RR, Josephson EA et al (2012) Spatial and seasonal distribution of American whaling and whales in the age of sail. PLoS One 7(4):e34905 Sohou Z, Dossou-Bodjrenou J, Tchibozo S et al (2013) Biodiversity and status of cetaceans in Benin, West Africa: an initial assessment. West African Journal of Applied Ecology 21:121– 134 Tenreiro F (1961) A ilha de São Tomé. Memórias da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, 2ª Série 24:1–289 Tønnessen JN, Johnsen AO (1982) The history of modern whaling. University of California Press, Berkeley Townsend CH (1935) The distribution of certain whales as shown by logbook records of American whaleships. Zoologica 19(1):1–50 Trew BT, Grantham HS, Barrientos C et al (2019) Using cumulative impact mapping to prioritize marine conservation efforts in Equatorial Guinea. Frontiers in Marine Science 6:17 Van Waerebeek K, Ofori-Danson PK, Debrah J (2009) The cetaceans of Ghana: a validated faunal checklist. West African Journal of Applied Ecology 15:61–90 Vieira N (2020) A taxonomia da baleação portuguesa entre os séculos XV e XVIII: Uma história atlântica do mar, das baleias e das pessoas. PhD thesis. Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon Walsh P, Fay M, Gulick S et al (2001) Humpback whale activity near Cap Lopez, Gabon. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2:63–67 Weir CR (2008) Short-ﬁnned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) respond to an airgun ramp-up procedure off Gabon. Aquatic Mammals 34:349–354 Weir CR (2010) A review of cetacean occurrence in West African waters from the Gulf of Guinea to Angola. Mammal Review 40:2–39 23 Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe 641 Weir CR (2011) Distribution and seasonality of cetaceans in tropical waters between Angola and the Gulf of Guinea. African Journal of Marine Science 33:1–15 Weir CR, Pierce GJ (2013) A review of the human activities impacting cetaceans in the eastern tropical Atlantic. Mammal Review 43:258–274 Weir CR, Collins T, Carvalho I et al (2010) Killer whales (Orcinus orca) in Angolan and Gulf of Guinea waters, tropical West Africa. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 90:1601–1611 Whitehead H (2002) Estimates of the current global population size and historical trajectory for sperm whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series 242:295–304 Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 24 Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Recent Progress, Ongoing Challenges, and Future Directions Ricardo F. de Lima, Jean-Baptiste Deffontaines, Luísa Madruga, Estrela Matilde, Ana Nuno, and Sara Vieira Abstract The biodiversity of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea is valued internationally for its uniqueness and locally for its contribution to human welfare, but it is under growing anthropogenic pressure. We provide an overview of recent progress, ongoing challenges, and future directions for terrestrial and marine conservation. The islands were colonized in the late ﬁfteenth century and have since relied heavily on international markets. Nevertheless, the livelihoods of many islanders depend directly on local natural resources, and growing human populations R. F. de Lima (*) Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Centre, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe J.-B. Deffontaines Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Centre, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK L. Madruga Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Sao Tome and Principe E. Matilde Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Sao Tome and Principe A. Nuno Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences (CICS.NOVA), School of Social Sciences and Humanities, NOVA University Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK S. Vieira Center of Marine Sciences (CCMAR), University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal Associação Programa Tatô, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_24 643 644 R. F. de Lima et al. and economies are intensifying the use of these resources, including timber, land, and ﬁsheries. Here we summarize conservation initiatives on the islands, including pivotal projects and achievements, as well as the rise of civil society and governmental engagement. We also review species and site-based conservation priorities and highlight the need for continuous updating based on ongoing research. Engagement in conservation has increased steadily in recent decades but not fast enough to counteract the growth of anthropogenic pressure on biodiversity. Fostering capacity building, environmental awareness, and research is thus urgent to ensure a thriving future for the islands, able to reconcile economic development and biodiversity conservation. Keywords Endemics · Nature–human interactions · Prioritization · Protected areas · Research · Threatened species Introduction The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón) are widely recognized as global priorities for biodiversity conservation. Considering their small size, they have exceptionally high numbers of endemic and threatened species (Jones 1994). They are part of the “Guinean Forests of West Africa” biodiversity hotspot (Myers et al. 2000) and of the “Cameroon-Guinea” Centre of Plant Diversity (WWF and IUCN 1994). These islands also retain a high proportion of natural vegetation cover (WWF 2019) compared to other oceanic islands (e.g., Norder et al. 2020), having relatively large extents of well-preserved native vegetation across lowland, montane, and mist forests (Exell 1944). Among the islands, mist forests are exclusive to São Tomé and hold especially high numbers of endemic and threatened plant species (Dauby et al. 2022; Stévart et al. 2022). Being mountainous, the islands function as ecological and evolutionary refugia, offering a wide variety of stable environments whose climates are buffered by the ocean (Ceríaco et al. 2022a). Príncipe and São Tomé also have a few mangrove areas, which despite their small size provide important ecosystem services (Afonso et al. 2021; Cravo 2021). The islands are situated within one of the 18 global hotspots for marine conservation (Roberts et al. 2002) and the most important marine biodiversity hotspot of the “West African Coast” (Polidoro et al. 2017), which connects the eastern and western Atlantic marine faunas (Wirtz et al. 2007). Their marine environments include areas that are key for the life cycles of seabirds, marine megafauna (cetaceans, sea turtles, rays, and sharks), and large, commercially valuable, pelagic, migratory ﬁsh species. Here, we provide an overview of terrestrial and marine conservation in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. We start by describing the links between biodiversity and livelihoods on the islands, focusing on the direct dependence of people on natural resources, and on their unsustainable use, to understand current threats to biodiversity. Then, we provide a brief history of conservation initiatives on the islands, summarizing the history of conservation movements and providing an overview of species conservation statuses and of sites prioritized for conservation. 24 Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands:. . . 645 Finally, we highlight important lessons and ongoing challenges to deﬁne priorities for the future of conservation on these unique islands. People and Biodiversity: Close Together on Small Islands The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea are thought to have been uninhabited until Portuguese sailors reached São Tomé on 21 December 1471, Príncipe on 17 January 1472, and Annobón on 1 January 1473 (Seibert 2016). European colonization of the islands started during the ﬁfteenth century and focused on the slave trade and on exploiting cash crops, such as sugar cane, coffee, and cocoa (Eyzaguirre 1986). The peoples of the islands thus derive mostly from a mixture of African and European settlers (Hagemeijer and Rocha 2019; Almeida et al. 2021). The relatively recent colonization and economic reliance on intensive agriculture are reﬂected in the somewhat superﬁcial connection to local nature when compared to other African cultures, and instead bear stronger similarity with other colonial-based cultures, such as those of many Caribbean islands (Eyzaguirre 1986). A connection with nature is nevertheless embedded in the traditions of islanders, namely in the cuisine (Gonçalves et al. 2014), medicine (Roseira 1984; Madureira et al. 2008), beliefs, and worldviews (Valverde 2000). The human population is unevenly split between islands: Príncipe is 139 km2 and has 8778 inhabitants (65/km2), São Tomé is 857 km2 and has 201,462 inhabitants (235/km2—INESTP 2019), and Annobón is 17 km2 and has 5314 inhabitants (313/km2—INEGE 2018). The rugged terrain of the islands has meant that, up until today, most people live by the coast (Norder et al. 2020), beneﬁting from resources provided by both the ocean and the forest (e.g., Torres 2005; Pereira 2021). In addition, human activities are concentrated in the drier and ﬂatter coasts in the north of the islands, whereas the mountainous south and center are still dominated by rainforest (Jones and Tye 2006). These contrasting landscapes provide ecosystem services that are key for human wellbeing in the islands, and that islanders recognize as essential: forests are important for pure air, water, foraged foods, medicinal plants, and tourism, while plantations are key for agriculture, livestock, and fruits (BirdLife International 2021a). The economy of Annobón is mostly focused on services and relies on national income resulting from oil revenues (INEGE 2018), while that of Príncipe and São Tomé is heavily dependent on foreign aid and on export crops (INESTP 2019). All islands are heavily reliant on imports, even though internal markets and the subsistence of most islanders are strongly based on agriculture and other activities on the primary sector. Fisheries (Dias 2013), fuelwood and charcoal (Nuno 2021), and timber (do Espírito et al. 2020) are essential to meet basic needs, and thus natural resources are viewed as a primary source of protein, energy, and shelter that also create diverse job opportunities. Some natural resources might play a small role in subsistence overall, such as hunting (Carvalho et al. 2015a) and medicinal plants (Madureira et al. 2008), but their signiﬁcance should not be overlooked, even if it is 646 R. F. de Lima et al. predominantly cultural. Economic and cultural importance ascribed to introduced species, some of which are invasive, also has relevant implications for conservation. For instance, the West African giant land snail, Archachatina marginata (Swainson, 1821), is an important source of protein and income, particularly among vulnerable social groups (Pereira 2021). More broadly, there is also a greater awareness of the economic beneﬁts and uses of introduced species than of the endemic-rich native biodiversity, which might hinder willingness to adopt conservation measures (Carvalho et al. 2015b; Panisi et al. 2022). Having an economy largely based on cash crops has been, and still is, the deﬁning factor for the extent and severity of anthropogenic impacts on the environment. Historically, deforestation and other key components of human impacts on the islands have been decoupled from population size (Norder et al. 2020). This is because human populations on the islands are heavily reliant on external markets, producing agricultural goods to export and then importing much of what is consumed on the islands (Eyzaguirre 1986). Nevertheless, both the economy and the human population have been rapidly growing in recent times. These increases are most notable in São Tomé, which has rapidly been growing since the 2000s (MuñozTorrent et al. 2022) when malaria infections were greatly reduced (Lee et al. 2010). The impacts of this growth are noticeable in the depletion of many natural resources (Fig. 24.1), including timber (do Espírito et al. 2020), land conversion to agriculture (de Lima 2012; Soares 2017), quarry species (Carvalho 2015), and ﬁsheries (Belhabib 2015; Maia et al. 2018; Nuno et al. 2021). The underlying effects of less direct anthropogenic impacts, such as introduced species and climate change remain largely unstudied (but see Brito 2013; Heleno et al. 2022). Major threats to the conservation of terrestrial biodiversity identiﬁed by local stakeholders include tree logging, land-use changes derived mostly from agricultural pressure, hunting and collection of threatened and endemic species, invasive introduced species, and the development of macroprojects (BirdLife International 2019). These threats strongly coincide with those that had already been identiﬁed for the islands (Jones et al. 1991; Oyono et al. 2014; Ndang’ang’a et al. 2014a, b), and largely match the most salient factors threatening species globally: habitat loss and degradation; overexploitation; invasive species; pollution, and global climate change (Vié et al. 2009). Less is known about threats in marine environments. The overexploitation of ﬁsheries is certainly relevant: the Marine Trophic Index in São Tomé and Príncipe scored 14.5 in a 0–100 range (Wendling et al. 2020), indicating that species higher in the food web might have been ﬁshed out and that ﬁshing is now targeting lower trophic levels. Fisheries in São Tomé and Príncipe consist of small-scale activities focused on the territorial sea, and of European-dominated industrial ﬂeets that extract most of the volume of ﬁsh removed from the Exclusive Economic Zone (Porriños 2021). The evaluation of ﬁsh stocks and the control of ﬁshing have been almost inexistent, even though ﬁshing agreements with the European Union represent 40% of the non-ﬁscal revenues of the country and are meant to promote sustainable ﬁshing (FAO 2019). Increased pressure on marine resources is leading to the use of destructive practices that maximize catch in the short-term, but that 24 Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands:. . . 647 Fig. 24.1 Examples of threats to the endemic-rich biodiversity of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea: (1) Fire and agriculture shape the landscape in the driest portions of northern São Tomé; (2, 3) Small plots of horticulture around Bom Sucesso threaten the endemic-rich montane forests of São Tomé, encroaching on São Tomé Obô Natural Park; (4) Illegal selective logging is widespread on São Tomé; (5) Several introduced species, such as the Mona Monkey Cercopithecus mona (Schreber, 1774) threaten ecosystem function; (6) Charcoal production is widespread but particularly intensive in the drier north of São Tomé; (7) Hunting threatens several endemic birds, such as the Endangered Sao Tome green-pigeon Treron sanctithomae (Gmelin, 1789); (8) Longline ﬁshing (baited hooks linked to short lines attached to a long main line) is a damaging practice that destroys the ocean ﬂoor and results in bycatch and discarded ﬁshing gear. Photo credits: (1–3, 6) JeanBaptiste Deffontaines, (4, 5) Ricardo F. de Lima, (7) Ricardo Rocha, (8) Luísa Madruga 648 R. F. de Lima et al. threaten biodiversity, the livelihoods of coastal communities, and food security on the islands in the long term. The exploration of mineral resources in the oceans is increasingly a threat since large deposits of petroleum were found offshore in the 1990s. These are yet to be extracted but are already boosting the economy of the island (Frynas et al. 2003). Finally, there is also evidence that the waters around Annobón have been used to dump large quantities of toxic waste and that these activities have affected its marine life (Wood 2004). Conservation Initiatives Early in the twentieth century, several authors expressed concerns about the environmental implications of deforestation linked to the expansion of cocoa plantations on the islands, mentioning several actions to ensure the future of remaining forests, such as the protection of mountaintops (e.g., Campos 1908; Henriques 1917). These might be the ﬁrst conservation safeguards known to take place on the islands. However, the collapse of the economy based on export crops (Eyzaguirre 1986), the focus of colonial scientiﬁc research on agricultural production, the poor local capacity and, later on, political instability linked to the post-independence period (Cruz 2014) meant that, for many decades biodiversity research was fairly limited (Ceríaco et al. 2022b). Only in the late 1980s, the ﬁrst initiatives based on modern principles of conservation (Soulé 1985) started taking shape, following a few successful expeditions to the islands (Jones and Tye 1988; Jones et al. 1991; Atkinson et al. 1991). In 1993, a workshop took place in Jersey (United Kingdom), bringing together several scientists to assess knowledge on the biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea islands (including Bioko) and deﬁne priorities for future research and conservation action (Juste and Fa 1994). The Gulf of Guinea Conservation Group emerged from this meeting and was the umbrella under which many scientists visited the islands over the next two decades, in great part thanks to the efforts of Angus Gascoigne, who resided in São Tomé and facilitated links to local institutions (Melo 2012). Also, in 1993, the European Commission started funding the ECOFAC program, aiming to promote the conservation and sustainable use of forest ecosystems in central Africa (Table 24.1). Besides promoting numerous studies, ECOFAC was fundamental to many of the conservation efforts that have since taken place in São Tomé and Príncipe (Fig. 24.2), such as the establishment of terrestrial protected areas and other environmental legislation, the creation of the Bom Sucesso Botanical Garden and São Tomé and Príncipe National Herbarium (STPH; NYBG 2021), and the training of many islanders and foreigners that still work toward conservation on the islands. The Global Environment Facility has been another key source of funding for conservation on the islands over the last two decades (Table 24.1). More recently, other sources of funding, such as the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF 2021) or the Rufford Small Grants for Nature Conservation (The Rufford Foundation 2021) have allowed smaller projects to develop important Period Funding 1992–1997 783 k€ + Technical Assistance (European Commission) ECOFAC.2—Establish the management structure of the Obô Natural Park 1997–2001 645 k€ + Technical Assistance (European Commission) Programa Tatô 1998– ongoing GEF-2—Biodiversity Strategy, Action Plan and First National Report and Clearing House Mechanism 2000–2005 163 k$ (through The World Bank) Department for the Environment ECOFAC.3—Development of tourist activities and support for the promotion of sites 2001–2005 600 k€ + Technical Assistance (European Commission) + 250 k€ (AFD) AGRECO + SECA + CIRAD Forêt Currently c. 250 k€/year (USFWS + Oceanário de Lisboa + Tusk Conservation + FFEM + private sector) Implementation AGRECO + CIRAD Forêt Description Preparatory work for the designation of a protected area; research program—inventory & management-oriented, and evaluation of the area. Protected Area Management AGRECO + BDPAPlan & Management StrucSCETAGRI + SECA + ture, including research & CIRAD Forêt + FFI ecological monitoring, and institutional support to the forest Associação Programa Tatô + Sea turtle conservation program in São Tomé Island MARAPA (1998–2002: ECOFAC; 2002–2017: MARAPA) Source Muriel Vives (pers. comm.) Muriel Vives (pers. comm.) Betânia FerreiraAiraud (pers. comm.); Associação Programa Tatô (2021) GEF (2021) (continued) 649 Enable the Government of São Tomé and Príncipe to develop a biodiversity strategy in compliance with CBD and to identify priority actions for biodiversity conservation and management Development of ecotourism Muriel Vives (pers. activities. Support to the Obô comm.) Natural Park. Botanical Garden. Scientiﬁc research for the conservation of marine turtles, gray parrots. Conservation measures to limit charcoal, sand extraction, etc. Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands:. . . Project ECOFAC.1—Support the creation of the Obô Natural Park 24 Table 24.1 Key conservation projects in São Tomé and Príncipe. The details of equivalent programs that have focused on Annobón are not known 650 Table 24.1 (continued) Project ECOFAC.4—São Tomé and Príncipe Obô Natural parks Period Funding 2007–2010 595 k€ (European Commission) Implementation BRL Ingenieurie + GFA Consulting Group + DFS GEF-5—Integrated ecosystem approach to biodiversity mainstreaming and conservation in the Buffer Zones 2011–2017 2.4 M$ (through IFAD) Directorate of Environment + Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development ECOFAC.5—Strengthen eco-tourism around São Tomé Obô Natural Park 2012–2015 200 k€ (European Commission) ONG Alisei + MARAPA Protetuga Currently c. 150 k€ / year (OAK Foundation, Kosmos, HBD, Rufford, USFWS, YWPF, CEPF) 2016–2019 295 k£ (Darwin Initiative) Fundação Príncipe University of Exeter + Fundação Príncipe Improved food security, increased gender equality, and poverty reduction in coastal communities in Príncipe, through a socialecological approach to enhance marine resource management and diversify livelihood opportunities Source David Bruguière (pers. comm.) GEF (2021) Bastien Loloum (pers. comm.) Estrela Matilde (pers. comm.); Fundação Príncipe (2021a) Darwin Initiative (2021); Fundação Príncipe (2021d) R. F. de Lima et al. Omali Vida Nón 1—Improving Marine Biodiversity and Livelihood of coastal communities in Príncipe 2015– ongoing Description Natural Parks (São Tomé Obô natural Park, Príncipe Natural Park), and respective buffer zones management Rehabilitate degraded ecosystems in STP to provide ecosystem services and habitat for endemic species of ﬂora and fauna of global importance Strengthen the co-management of the conservation systems of the Obô Natural Park and its periphery, particularly around the Malanza and Jalé mangroves Sea turtle conservation program in Príncipe Island Blue Action Fund— Establishing a network of marine protected areas across São Tomé and Príncipe through a co-management approach Taking action for Príncipe’s threatened trees Action for sustainable landscape management in São Tomé and Príncipe Contribute to sustainable ﬁsheries, conservation of marine biodiversity, and food security for the Santomean population Natural Parks (São Tomé 2018–2022 2 M€ (European BirdLife International + Obô natural Park, Príncipe Commission) Oikos + RSPB + SPEA+ Natural Park), and respective Plataforma de Turismo buffer zones, through landResponsável e Sustentável scape approaches 2018–2023 2.59 M€ (Blue Action Fund + Fauna & Flora International Support the designation of Arcadia Fund) + Oikos + Fundação Príncipe the ﬁrst co-managed Marine Protected Areas across São + MARAPA Tomé and Príncipe 2019–2022 104 K£ (Global Trees Campaign) 2021–2024 2.32 M€ (European Union) Oikos + MARAPA Missouri Botanical Garden, Herbarium of Université Libre de Bruxelles, University of Coimbra, FFI, Fundação Príncipe, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement Oikos + BirdLife International + Zatona-ADIL Oikos and MARAPA (2021) EC (2021); ECOFAC6 (2021) BAF (2018); Fundação Príncipe (2021d); Oikos and MARAPA (2021) Generate data and build local Estrela Matilde (pers. comm.) capacity for research and conservation through ﬁeld surveys, monitoring and threat assessment for three threatened tree species EU (2021) Improve the use of natural resources through integrated landscape management, for sustainable access to food, wealth, and the preservation of the Obô Natural Park and São Tomé High Conservation Value forests 651 (continued) Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands:. . . ECOFAC.6—São Tomé and Príncipe Obô Natural Parks 2017–2020 581 k€ (European Union + Instituto Camões) 24 Kike da Mungu 1—Sustainable co-management of ﬁsheries in the south of São Tomé Island 652 Table 24.1 (continued) Project GEF-6—Enhancing Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Land and Natural Resource Management Period Funding 2021–2025 4.28 M$ (through UNDP) Implementation General Directorate for the Environment GEF-7—Improving biodiversity mainstreaming in the agro-forestry and ﬁshery sectors in São Tomé and Príncipe Concept approved Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Rural Development 3.55 M$ (through IFAD) Description Source Safeguard globally signiﬁGEF (2021) cant terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems services by strengthening national capacities and frameworks for biodiversity and natural resource management (. . .) Mainstream biodiversity con- GEF (2021) servation (. . .) to minimize the negative impacts of the agro-forestry and ﬁshery sector development while enhancing the contribution of ecosystem services to livelihoods in São Tomé and Príncipe R. F. de Lima et al. 24 Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands:. . . 653 Fig. 24.2 Examples of conservation initiatives that have been taking place in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea: (1) Sign marking the boundary of the São Tomé Obô Natural Park; (2) Small trees being distributed in a school in the buffer zone of the São Tomé Obô Natural Park; (3) An Obô guardian surveying the forests of São Tomé; (4) The orchidarium at the Bom Sucesso Botanical Garden in São Tomé; (5) Sea turtle hatcheries are used to protect nests at risk from feral animal predation, poaching and beach erosion in São Tomé and Príncipe; (6) Inspection of illegal logging activities in a forest in Príncipe; (7) Freshwater macroinvertebrates surveys in Rio Papagaio, Príncipe; (8) Young parabotanist surveying tree diversity in Príncipe. Photo credits: (1) Ricardo F. de Lima, (2) Raphaela Nazaré, (3, 4, 6) Jean-Baptiste Deffontaines, (5) Maria Branco, (7, 8) Vasco Pissarra | Fundação Príncipe 654 R. F. de Lima et al. complementary tools for conservation. Previous phases of ECOFAC have also covered Equatorial Guinea, where it coincided with the EU-funded project of Conservation and Rational Use of Forest Ecosystems (Conservación y Utilización Racional de los Ecosistemas Forestales—CUREF 1996–2001), aiming to describe ecosystems, to promote sustainable use of natural resources, and to create a network of protected areas (García and Eneme 1997, Angela Formia pers. comm.). However, it is unclear how these have contributed to creating the Annobón Nature Reserve or any other conservation initiative on the island. Since 2016, there has been a noticeable and much needed increased investment in coastal and marine conservation, focusing on sustainable ﬁsheries through engagement with coastal ﬁshing communities (Table 24.1), namely through the Omali vida nón project in Príncipe (Nuno 2019; FFI et al. 2021; Fundação Príncipe 2021d), and the Kike da mungu project in São Tomé (Oikos and MARAPA 2021). Building on these, since late 2018, Fauna & Flora International, in close collaboration with the government authorities, has partnered with Fundação Príncipe, Oikos, and MARAPA to establish a network of co-managed marine protected areas across São Tomé and Príncipe (BAF 2018). There have been signiﬁcant efforts for the conservation of sea turtles on both of these islands (Associação Programa Tatô 2021; Fundação Príncipe 2021a; Ferreira-Airaud et al. 2022). There has also been some research on cetaceans in São Tomé (MARAPA 2021b), and in June 2021 a project has been approved to study the little known but highly threatened shark populations of São Tomé and Príncipe (NGANDU 2021). Parallel to increased funding, civil society awareness toward conservation has also greatly increased over the past few decades, which is clearly reﬂected in the number and impact of local environmental non-governmental organizations (Ayres et al. 2022). MARAPA has been active in marine conservation initiatives for São Tomé Island, promoting sustainable ﬁsheries and environmental education since its creation in 1999 (MARAPA 2021a). Associação Monte Pico emerged in 2006 from a group of Santomeans trained by ECOFAC; it has been working for sustainable ecotourism and rurality, and supporting scientiﬁc research and the management of protected areas (Associação Monte Pico 2021). Founded in 2015, Fundação Príncipe focuses on marine and terrestrial biodiversity conservation and the socio-economic development of Príncipe Island, in close partnership with regional authorities and communities (Fundação Príncipe 2021b). Since 2017, Rede.Bio has brought together seven environmental NGOs from São Tomé and Príncipe to promote integrated and sustainable development based on the protection and valorization of the natural heritage of the country, namely by reinforcing the participation of civil society in environmental governance (Rede.Bio 2021). Most recently, on October 16, 2020, the Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Center had its inaugural meeting, bringing together national and international scientists and conservationists in an initiative that aims to facilitate research, education, and conservation of the unique diversity of the plants and animals of the islands (GGBC 2021). Several international environmental organizations have also increased their presence in São Tomé and Príncipe. BirdLife International has had a long-term interest in these islands and has been increasing its presence especially since 2012, working 24 Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands:. . . 655 with park authorities and other governmental institutions, and with communities to promote research, conservation, and empowerment. In 2018, BirdLife opened an ofﬁce in country (BirdLife International 2021d). Fauna & Flora International has been working closely with Fundação Príncipe since its inception in 2015, to build conservation capacity, conduct research, raise environmental awareness, and diversify the livelihoods of communities on Príncipe (FFI 2021). Oikos—Cooperação e Desenvolvimento has had a growing presence in São Tomé and Príncipe since 2015, working toward the rational use of natural resources and enhanced livelihood in communities (Oikos 2021). In 2018, the international NGO Associação Programa Tatô was created to continue the work on marine conservation focusing on sea turtles that had been initiated by ECOFAC and MARAPA on São Tomé (Associação Programa Tatô 2021). Little is known about conservation initiatives on Annobón, besides a few small conservation projects led by the national NGO Amigos de Natureleza y Desarollo de Guinea Ecuatorial (ANDEGE). Over the last few decades, the São Tomé and Príncipe and Equatorial Guinea governments have also shown a strong national and international commitment to developing policies aiming to ensure the conservation of biodiversity (Appendix). In São Tomé and Príncipe, environmental responsibilities are split between the General Directorate for the Environment (part of the Ministry of Infrastructures, Natural Resources and Environment), the Fisheries Directorate, and the Forest and Biodiversity Directorate (both part of the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development). Príncipe is an autonomous region that has its own Regional Government, where environmental responsibilities are also split but following a distinct organization. This complex administrative structure, which often changes when a new government takes power, hinders progress and post-project sustainability of conservation initiatives. In Equatorial Guinea, the National Institute for Forestry Development and Protected Areas Management (INDEFOR-AP) from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests has developed a national network of protected areas and is responsible for environmental and wildlife conservation but little is known about the local government structure in the province of Annobón. Threatened Species The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea hold several hundred endemic species, a number that will certainly increase as new endemics are still being described every year, even among the best-known taxonomic groups (de Lima 2016). Many of the endemic species are at risk of extinction and only terrestrial vertebrate species have been thoroughly evaluated (IUCN 2021). Out of 67 endemic species of terrestrial vertebrates, 58 have been assessed, and 18 are threatened. These include 11 birds (Melo et al. 2022), three mammals (Rainho et al. 2022), one reptile (Ceríaco et al. 2022c), and three amphibians (Bell et al. 2022). Of these species, four are Critically Endangered, ten are Endangered, and four are Vulnerable. Among terrestrial 656 R. F. de Lima et al. vertebrates, there are also seven Data Deﬁcient, seven Near Threatened, and nine species that are not recognized or have not been assessed. Finally, both Príncipe and São Tomé have populations of the non-endemic Endangered Gray Parrot Erithacus psittacus Linnaeus, 1758. Scientiﬁc research in coastal and marine environments is still scarce and mostly dedicated to studies of ichthyofauna. Fishes are the only non-terrestrial vertebrate group with endemic species (but see Flood et al. 2019). Out of 15 endemic species (Costa et al. 2022), only eight have been assessed (IUCN 2021): three Vulnerable and ﬁve Data Deﬁcient. There are also large numbers of non-endemic ﬁsh species that are threatened including 6 Critically Endangered (all cartilaginous ﬁshes), 15 Endangered (only two bony ﬁshes), and 28 Vulnerable species (of which 16 are bony ﬁshes). Additionally, 58 species are Data Deﬁcient (all bony ﬁshes) and nine are Near Threatened (including three cartilaginous ﬁshes). The remaining threatened marine vertebrates are the Critically Endangered Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766), the Endangered Green Turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1758), the Vulnerable Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758, and three Vulnerable sea turtle species (Ferreira-Airaud et al. 2022). Additionally, there are also the Data Deﬁcient Killer Whale Orcinus orca (Linnaeus, 1758), the Near Threatened False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens (Owen, 1846), and ten Least Concern cetacean species (Carvalho et al. 2022). Very few endemic terrestrial invertebrates have been assessed by the IUCN: four mollusks, two crabs, one butterﬂy, and one dragonﬂy species, of which half are Data Deﬁcient, two Near Threatened, one Least Concern, and only the Vulnerable Búziod’Obô Archachatina bicarinata (Bruguiere, 1792) is classiﬁed as threatened. Among the endemic marine invertebrates, only 23 species of mollusks have been assessed, all of which are Data Deﬁcient, apart from the Vulnerable Haliotis geigeri Owen, 2014. Among plants, 272 species have been assessed (IUCN 2021) out of a total that should exceed 1700 species (Garcia et al. 2022; Stévart et al. 2022). Out of almost 200 endemic plant species, only 49 have been assessed. These include two Extinct, two Critically Endangered, 14 Endangered, 22 Vulnerable, and 7 Near Threatened. Additionally, there are seven Endangered, 11 Vulnerable, 6 Near Threatened, and 1 Data Deﬁcient plant species that are not endemic. Considering ongoing work, especially focusing on describing and red-listing seed plant species (Fundação Príncipe et al. 2021), it is evident that these numbers will greatly increase soon (Stévart et al. 2022). The situation is even more dire when it comes to fungi, a group for which Red List evaluations are scarce, with none of the species of the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea assessed so far (Desjardin and Perry 2022). In 2004, amphibians, mammals, and birds were fully assessed for the ﬁrst time (IUCN 2021). At that point, there were 38 recognized endemic species in these taxonomic groups, of which there were 14 threatened species (ﬁve Critically Endangered, three Endangered, and six Vulnerable), compared to the current 17 threatened species (four Critically Endangered, nine Endangered, and four Vulnerable) out of 45 recognized endemics. These trends reﬂect mostly an improvement of knowledge, showing that even among some of the best-studied groups there have been major 24 Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands:. . . 657 changes not only in the Red List status but also in taxonomy. The high numbers of species that are still being described, that have not yet been assessed, or that remain Data Deﬁcient attest to the urgent need for future work in the region. There has been an attempt to list species at the national level in São Tomé and Príncipe (Gascoigne 1995), but in recent years all assessments have been directly linked to the IUCN Red List because most species of interest are endemic, and therefore national assessments are also global. In addition to the IUCN Red List, there are other tools to deﬁne priorities for species conservation. The EDGE of Existence is an example that combines the IUCN Red List status with the amount of unique evolutionary history represented by species of terrestrial vertebrates, cartilaginous ﬁshes, and corals (EDGE 2021). This program has identiﬁed 31 species on the islands, including 16 cartilaginous ﬁshes, one amphibian, three sea turtles, one cetacean, and ten birds as high priority. The Critically Endangered Dwarf Olive Ibis Bostrychia bocagei (Chapin, 1923), and the Endangered Newton’s Grassland Frog Ptychadena newtoni (Bocage, 1886) ranked the highest among terrestrial species, while the Critically Endangered Hawksbill Turtle and the Endangered Whale Shark Rhincodon typus Smith, 1828 ranked the highest in the ocean. After identifying priority species for conservation, it is also essential to deﬁne strategies for conservation action. In these islands, so far only the Critically Endangered birds (Ndang’ang’a et al. 2014a, b—currently under review, Fundação Príncipe 2021c) and the Vulnerable Búzio-d’Obô (Panisi et al. 2020) have Species Action Plans dedicated to deﬁning priority activities for conservation, further highlighting the long road ahead toward deﬁning conservation priorities and implementing effective conservation action. Site-Based Conservation Several assessments have identiﬁed areas of global conservation relevance in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea (Fig. 24.3). The islands include three Alliance for Zero Extinction sites: “Príncipe Forests” (5712 ha), “Sao Tome Uplands” (28,660 ha), and “São Tomé Lowland Forests” (21,833 ha—AZE 2019). These largely coincide with Key Biodiversity Areas (“Príncipe Forests”: 5708 ha; “São Tomé Montane and Cloud-forests”: 4839 ha; and “São Tomé Lowland Forests”: 21,832 ha—currently under review), of which there are ﬁve more on the islands: “Annobón” (2891 ha), “Tinhosas Islands” (18 ha), “São Tomé Northern Savannas” (526 ha), “Parque Natural Obô de São Tomé e Zona Tampão” (45,132 ha), and “Zona Ecológica dos Mangais do Rio Malanza” (231 ha—BirdLife International 2021c). The Tinhosas are a Ramsar site, due to their important seabird colony, as is the whole island of Annobón and surrounding waters (230 km2), mostly due to the threatened species and ecological assemblages it supports (Ramsar 2021). As part of the “Congolian Coastal Forests,” the “São Tomé, Príncipe and Annobón moist lowland forests” (WWF 2019) are listed as Critical or Endangered Terrestrial 658 R. F. de Lima et al. Fig. 24.3 Map of sites prioritized for conservation in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea: (1) Príncipe Biosphere Reserve (UNESCO 2021); (2) São Tomé Key Biodiversity Areas (BirdLife International 2021c); (3) São Tomé Obô Natural Park, buffer zone and preliminary High Conservation Value areas (BirdLife International et al. 2020; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021); (4) Annobón Nature Reserve (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021). The nuclear terrestrial area of the Príncipe Biosphere Reserve corresponds to the Príncipe Natural Park, and the buffer corresponds to the buffer of the Natural Park. To the southwest of Príncipe Island, the marine protected areas demarcated around the Tinhosas Islets are a Ramsar site and a Key Biodiversity Area. The boundaries of the São Tomé lowland forests Key Biodiversity Area are not aligned with the contour of the island and will be revised in the ongoing national reassessment of Key Biodiversity Areas Ecoregions of the World (Olson and Dinerstein 2002) and have been identiﬁed among the most important ecoregion for the conservation of forest-dependent birds worldwide (Buchanan et al. 2011). Due to the unique assemblage of bird species, each of the main islands is a separate Endemic Bird Area, and they rank on the three highest priority categories of this assessment: São Tomé is critical, Príncipe is urgent, and Annobón is high (Stattersﬁeld et al. 1998; BirdLife International 24 Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands:. . . 659 2021b). Since 2012, Príncipe has been recognized as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve that includes the Tinhosas, all other islets around the main island, and 576 km2 of surrounding marine environment (UNESCO 2021). As a result of its rich and productive marine life, the region has three Ecologically or Biologically Signiﬁcant Marine Areas: “Tinhosas Islands,” “Lagoa Azul and Praia das Conchas,” and the “Equatorial Tuna Production Zone” (CBD 2021). At the national level, each island has one protected area: the Annobón Natural Reserve, created in 2000 includes the whole island and surrounding marine environments (230 km2), the São Tomé Obô Natural Park (252 km2), and the Príncipe Obô Natural Park (45 km2), both created in 2006, the latter also including a strip of coastal ecosystems (Fig. 24.3, Appendix—UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021). The last two cover the wettest and most rugged portions of each island, where the bestpreserved forests remain and are critical for the survival of many endemic species, especially the most threatened (e.g., de Lima et al. 2017; Soares 2017; Fundação Príncipe 2019; Soares et al. 2022). Taken together, they were assessed as the 32nd most important protected area in the world for the conservation of mammals, birds, and amphibians, the 17th if only threatened species are considered, and the 2nd ex aequo if only threatened bird species are counted (Le Saout et al. 2013). Unfortunately, despite having management plans (Albuquerque and Carvalho 2015a–d— currently under review) and receiving signiﬁcant funding (Table 24.1), the effective implementation and success of both parks is lacking, largely due to a lack of stable and reliable sources of funding (BirdLife International 2019). A sustainable ﬁnance plan for protected areas and biodiversity is currently assessing best-revenue options, while several initiatives are already promoting implementation (Natural Strategies 2021). In São Tomé and Príncipe, the ﬁrst efforts to create marine protected areas are only now taking place (Table 24.1—FFI et al. 2021). There have been several national initiatives in recent years aimed at identifying additional areas that are relevant for conservation, beyond the strict concept of protected areas (Fig. 24.3). The laws that created both Obô Natural Parks (Appendix) envisaged the existence of a buffer zone, which would extend at least 250 m around the park boundaries, whenever possible, to work as a transition zone that would minimize the impact of human activities in the core protection area. These buffer zones are widely recognized and have received international funding (Table 24.1), but their boundaries and regulations were never clearly deﬁned, and seem to have limited success at minimizing human impacts (Ward-Francis et al. 2017). Since 2018, BirdLife International has been leading the identiﬁcation of High Conservation Values areas in São Tomé terrestrial and coastal ecosystems (BirdLife International et al. 2020), an initiative that is now being extended to Príncipe (D’Avis 2022). Since 2016, the Ministry of Infrastructures, Environment and Natural Resources of São Tomé and Príncipe, funded by the African Development Fund (Table 24.1) has been working on a national land planning initiative, which has identiﬁed large extents around the protected areas on each island as Conservation Areas (MIRNASTP 2021). 660 R. F. de Lima et al. These initiatives should be continuously revised, since current knowledge on the distribution of biodiversity is still limited (Dauby et al. 2022; Soares et al. 2022). Ideally, these should be mostly based on the prioritization of ecosystem types to ensure that the best-preserved and most unique components of biodiversity are maintained. So far, the typiﬁcation of ecosystems on the islands is not yet well established (Dauby et al. 2022). Areas at higher altitudes harbor endemic-rich and threatened ecosystems, even though biased sampling has limited our understanding of patterns along the altitudinal gradient (Stévart et al. 2022). The characterization and distribution of spatially restricted ecosystems, such as wetlands and coastal or rupicolous forests, constitutes a particularly pertinent challenge, since these hold speciﬁc plant associations (Diniz and Matos 2002; Dauby et al. 2022) and have unique ecologies that ensure key ecosystem services (e.g., Afonso et al. 2021) and thus deserve targeted conservation action. The peculiar palustrine system of Lagoa Amélia in São Tomé is one such example, holding several species that have highly restricted ranges (e.g., Stévart and Oliveira 2000) and the source of the springs that feed all main rivers in the north of the island. In this regard, the newly developed IUCN Red List for Ecosystems (Keith et al. 2015) might prove an invaluable tool. Concluding Remarks Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón are widely recognized as global priorities for biodiversity conservation, mostly due to their extraordinary number of endemic species. The value of their biodiversity is also promptly acknowledged by the islanders for the valuable services they provide and is engrained in the local culture. Nevertheless, the fast-growing population and economy, heavily reliant on the exploitation of natural resources, are threatening the long-term persistence of this precious natural heritage. Knowledge, awareness, attitudes, and investment in the conservation of the endemic-rich biodiversity of the islands have improved in recent decades but not fast enough to counteract the growth of anthropogenic pressure on natural resources. Remoteness and insularity, a colonial past and conﬂicting land tenure structures since independence, inadequate legal frameworks, weak institutional capacity to monitor and enforce laws, social inequity, and poor governance, all contribute to the environmental deregulation that threatens the biodiversity of the islands. While natural resources, like forests and ﬁsheries are state-controlled in theory, high rates of non-compliance mean that these are de facto open access. Although our knowledge of the biodiversity of the islands is still very incomplete, key priorities for conservation are mostly clear and should be the focus of future conservation activities. The exceptions are marine environments and Annobón, where biodiversity remains particularly understudied. Current knowledge must be used to expand the network of protected areas in marine and terrestrial environments, and to ensure effective protection of the best-preserved and keystone ecosystems. 24 Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands:. . . 661 Likewise, management mechanisms that enhance the role of biodiversity for development, for instance through ecotourism, sustainable extraction of forest products, or payment for ecosystem services should be implemented. More broadly, biodiversity-friendly practices and alternative livelihoods should be mainstreamed into the economic and social development of communities to reduce pressure on natural resources by maintaining diverse agroforests, promoting sustainable levels of resource exploitation (e.g., ﬁsheries, hunting, or timber logging), or even enhancing the biodiversity value of sites through business-based restoration mechanisms. More speciﬁc activities might also be necessary and highly beneﬁcial for sensitive species or ecosystems, as is the case of restoring degraded wetlands, protecting sea turtle breeding sites, controlling invasive species, or even promoting conservation ex situ of highly threatened species. There have also been an increasing number of initiatives aiming to improve environmental awareness on the islands (Ayres et al. 2022), which is vital to boost public support and locally-led initiatives, ultimately contributing toward more robust conservation. In addition, making biodiversity information more accessible (e.g., GBIF 2021) will strengthen local capacity and engagement in conservation. All these actions would beneﬁt from continued research, but enough is already known to make biodiversity conservation a political priority and to improve conservation management. The success of conservation on the islands will ultimately rely on public support, therefore it is pivotal to continue listening, informing, training, and engaging island inhabitants and institutions, to ensure that conservation projects are inclusive. Much has already been done in this regard, and conservation initiatives are increasingly moving toward integrating local needs and sensibilities, particularly through enhanced investment in in-country leadership for successful conservation. Nevertheless, there is still a difﬁcult road ahead, as it is not always straightforward to balance biodiversity conservation with human needs to ﬁnd truly sustainable development models. Reaching economic development and conservation goals must center on empowerment and equity, while considering trade-offs in a transparent and participatory approach. Only by promoting the involvement of diverse stakeholders working toward a shared vision, and through the co-development of integrative strategies, will we be able to ensure a thriving future for the unique biodiversity and human inhabitants of the islands. Acknowledgments We want to thank Bastien Loloum, Betânia Ferreira-Airaud, David Bruguière and Muriel Vives for sharing information used to create Table 24.1, and Angela Formia for sharing information on Annobón. RFL beneﬁtted from cE3c structural funding by the Portuguese Government through “Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia” (FCT/MCTES – UID/BIA/00329/2021), who also supported SV with a PhD grant (SFRH/BD/05970/2020). AN acknowledges the support of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement SocioEcoFrontiers No. 843865. 662 R. F. de Lima et al. Appendix: International Agreements and National Legislation and Strategies Relevant to Biodiversity Conservation International agreements adhered to by the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe (STP) and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (EG): • Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992 – STP; 2000 – EG) • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1992 – EG; 2001 – STP) • Convention to Combat Desertiﬁcation (1994 – EG; 1995 – STP) • Convention on Biological Diversity (1995 – EG; 1998 – STP) • Kyoto Protocol (2000 – EG; 2008 – STP) • Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (2001 – STP; 2010 – EG) • Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (2003 – EG; 2006 – STP) • Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (2006 – STP; 2010 – EG) • Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (2016—STP) • Nagoya Protocol on Access and Beneﬁt Sharing (2017 – STP) Biodiversity conservation legislation—STP (Carvalho and Baía 2012): Law 10/99 – Basic Law for the Environment Law 11/99—Conservation of Fauna, Flora and Protected Areas Decree-Law 37/99—Environmental Impact Assessment Process Law 5/01—Forests Law 9/11—Fisheries and Fishery Resources (currently under revision) Law 6/06—São Tomé Obô Natural Park Law 7/06—Príncipe Obô Natural Park Regional Decree 3/09—Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles Decree Law 6/14—Capture and commercialization of sea turtles and their products • Decree Law 1/16—Hunting regulation • • • • • • • • • Biodiversity conservation legislation—EG (Osono et al. 2015): • • • • • • • • Law 8/88—Wild Fauna, Hunting, and Protected Areas Law 1/97—Forest Use and Management Law 1/00—Taxation on timber exports Law 4/00—Protected Areas Law 7/03—Environment Law 10/03—Fishing Law 3/07—Water and Coasts Law 4/09—Land tenure 24 Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands:. . . 663 • Decree Law 130/04—Fishing • Decree Law 171/05—Biodiversity Conservation National Strategy and Action Plan • Decree Law 172/05—Trade of wild threatened species of ﬂora and fauna • Decree Law 173/05—Environmental inspection • Decree Law 61/07—Timber exportation • Decree Law 72/07—Primate hunting, selling, consumption, and ownership • Decree 60/02—National Institute for Forest Development and Management of the National Protected Area Network National strategies for biodiversity conservation—STP: • National Environmental Plan for Sustainable Development (RDSTP 1998) • Strategic Plan for Tourism Development (UNDP 2001) • National Forest Development Plan (Salgueiro and Carvalho 2001; Carvalho et al. 2017) • National Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation (NAPA 2006) • Fisheries Master Plan (MAPDRSTP 2010) • Strategy and National Action Plan for Developing the Sector of Non-Timber Forest Products (Bonﬁm et al. 2016) • Multisectoral Investment Plan to Integrate Climate Change Resilience and the Risk of Catastrophes in Coastal Management (Carrasco et al. 2017) • National Land Use Plan (MIRNASTP 2021) • Sustainable Development Plan for the Autonomous Region of Príncipe: Príncipe 2030 (UNDP 2019) • National Plan for Forest and Landscape Restoration (António et al. 2021) National strategies for biodiversity conservation—EG (Osono et al. 2015): • • • • • • • • • • 2020 National Plan for Economic and Social Development National Plan for Environmental Management Biodiversity Conservation National Strategy and Action Plan National Land Use Plan National Protected Area Network National Forest Policy Plan National Climate Change Adaptation Plan National Action Plan for Coastal and Marine Ecosystems National Hydrological Plan National Education Plan References Afonso F, Félix PM, Chainho P et al (2021) Assessing ecosystem services in mangroves: Insights from São Tomé Island (Central Africa). Frontiers in Environmental Science 9:501673 Albuquerque C, Carvalho A (2015a) Plano de gestão 2015/2016 do Parque Natural Obô de São Tomé. RAPAC, ECOFAC V, São Tomé, 57 pp 664 R. F. de Lima et al. Albuquerque C, Carvalho A (2015b) Plano de gestão 2015/2016 do Parque Natural do Príncipe. RAPAC, ECOFAC V, São Tomé, 48 pp Albuquerque C, Carvalho A (2015c) Plano de manejo 2015/2020 do Parque Natural Obô de São Tomé. RAPAC, ECOFAC V, São Tomé, 106 pp Albuquerque C, Carvalho A (2015d) Plano de manejo 2015/2020 do Parque Natural do Príncipe. RAPAC, ECOFAC V, São Tomé, 73 pp Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) (2019) Alliance for Zero Extinction. Available via: https:// zeroextinction.org/. Accessed 29 Oct 2021 Almeida J, Fehn A-M, Ferreira M et al (2021) The genes of freedom: Genome-wide insights into marronage, admixture and ethnogenesis in the Gulf of Guinea. Genes 12:833 António M, Mata A, Cruz R (2021) Plano nacional de restauração ﬂorestal e paisagística—Uma avaliação de oportunidades de restauração. Direção das Florestas e da Biodiversidade, São Tomé Associação Monte Pico (2021) Associação Monte Pico. Available via http://montepico.blogspot. com/. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Associação Programa Tatô (2021) Associação Programa Tatô. Available via https://www. programatato.org/. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Atkinson PW, Peet NB, Alexander J (1991) The status and conservation of the endemic bird species of São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Bird Conservation International 1:255–282 Ayres RGS, Aragão JCVC, Carvalho M et al (2022) Environmental education in São Tomé and Príncipe: the challenges of owning a unique biodiversity. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 671–690 Belhabib D (2015) Fisheries of Sao Tome and Principe, a catch reconstruction 1950-2010. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 13 pp Bell RC, Ceríaco LMP, Scheinberg LA, Drewes RC (2022) The amphibians of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp. 479–504 BirdLife International (2019) Biodiversity and ecosystems in São Tomé and Príncipe. A short review. BirdLife International, São Tomé, 105 pp BirdLife International (2021a) Avaliação rápida dos serviços ecossistémicos fornecidos pelos parques naturais de São Tomé e Príncipe e respetivas zonas tampão. ECOFAC6, São Tomé BirdLife International (2021b) Endemic bird areas. Available via http://datazone.birdlife.org/eba. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 BirdLife International (2021c) The world database of key biodiversity areas. Available via Key Biodiversity Areas Partnership: BirdLife International, IUCN, Amphibian Survival Alliance, Conservation International, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Global Environment Facility, Global Wildlife Conservation, NatureServe, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife Conservation Society. http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org. Accessed 29 Sept 2021 BirdLife International (2021d) São Tomé & Príncipe strategic plan, 2021–2030. BirdLife International, São Tomé, 110 pp BirdLife International, Direção-Geral do Ambiente, Associação Programa Tatô, cE3c (2020) Áreas de alto valor de conservação em São Tomé e Príncipe—Uma breve revisão. BirdLife International, São Tomé, 23 pp Blue Action Fund (BAF) (2018) Grant fact sheet. Establishing a network of marine protected areas across São Tomé and Príncipe through a co-management approach. Available via Blue Action https://www.blueactionfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Factsheet_FFI.pdf. Fund. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Bonﬁm F, Castro A, Diogo O (2016) Estratégia e plano de acção nacional para o desenvolvimento do sector dos produtos ﬂorestais não lenhosos (PFNL). Ministério da Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural, São Tomé 24 Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands:. . . 665 Brito BR (2013) Alterações climáticas e suas repercussões sócio-ambientais. Associação Internacional de Investigadores em Educação Ambiental, Aveiro Buchanan GM, Donald PF, Butchart SHM (2011) Identifying priority areas for conservation: a global assessment for forest-dependent birds. PLoS One 6:e29080 Campos E (1908) A ilha de S.Tomé. Sociedade de Geograﬁa de Lisboa, Lisboa Carrasco N, Costa HP, Séca RM (2017) Plano multissectorial de investimentos de São Tomé e Príncipe. Integrar a resiliência às alterações climáticas e o risco de catástrofes na gestão da zona costeira. Banco Internacional para Reconstrução e Desenvolvimento, Associação Internacional para o Desenvolvimento, and Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, Washington, DC, 171 pp Carvalho M (2015) Hunting and conservation of forest pigeons in São Tomé. PhD Thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Carvalho LLR, Baía OT (2012) Legislação ambiental de São Tomé e Príncipe. Available via https:// chm.cbd.int/api/v2013/documents/7A589779-9AEE-D35A-2169-2D5886F70A72/attach Accessed ments/LEGISLACAO-AMBIENTAL-DE-SAO-TOME-E-PRINCIPE.pdf. 12 Oct 2021 Carvalho M, Rego F, Palmeirim J, Fa JE (2015a) Wild meat consumption on São Tomé Island, West Africa: Implications for conservation and local livelihoods. Ecology and Society 20:27 Carvalho M, Palmeirim JM, Rego F, Solé N, Santana A, Fa JE (2015b) What motivates hunters to target exotic or endemic species on the island of São Tomé, Gulf of Guinea? Oryx 49:278–286 Carvalho SP, Mata AT, António M (2017) Plano nacional de desenvolvimento ﬂorestal. Proposta. Direção das Florestas e da Biodiversidade, São Tomé Carvalho I, Pereira A, Martinho F et al (2022) Cetaceans of São Tomé and Príncipe. In: Ceríaco LMP, de Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 621–642 CBD (2021) Ecologically or biologically signiﬁcant marine areas. Available via https://www.cbd. int/ebsa/. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 CEPF (2021) Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Sao Tome and Principe projects Available via https://www.cepf.net/grants/grantee-projects?f[]¼ﬁeld_hotspot:14&f[]¼ﬁeld_countries:1112. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Ceríaco LMP, Santos BS, Lima RF et al (2022a) Physical geography of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 13–36 Ceríaco LMP, Santos BSS, Viegas S, Paiva J (2022b) The history of biological research in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 87–140 Ceríaco LMP, Marques MP, Bell RC, Bauer AM (2022c) The terrestrial reptiles of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 505–534 Costa LM, Maia HA, Almeida AJ (2022) The ﬁshes of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 431–478 Cravo MM (2021) Fish assemblages at Praia Salgada mangrove, Príncipe Island (Gulf of Guinea). MSc Thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Cruz GSPV (2014) A democracia em S. Tomé e Príncipe, instabilidade política e as sucessivas quedas dos governos. MSc thesis. ISCTE—Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisbon Darwin Initiative (2021) Darwin Initiative. Omali Vida Nón. Available via https://www. darwininitiative.org.uk/project/DAR23012. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Dauby G, Stérvart T, Barberá P et al (2022) Classiﬁcation, distribution, and biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 37–70 666 R. F. de Lima et al. D’Avis KV (2022) Spatial conservation prioritization on the endemic-rich island of Príncipe. MSc Internship report. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Desjardin DE, Perry BA (2022) Fungi of São Tomé and Príncipe Islands: Basidiomycte mushrooms and allies. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 189–216 Dias AMP (2013) De piroga não se pesca ao largo! Acordo de parceria no domínio das pescas entre a União Europeia e a República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe: Quais os benefícios para a pesca artesanal santomense?. MSc Thesis. ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisbon Diniz AC, Matos GC (2002) Carta da zonagem agro-ecológica e da vegetação de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Garcia de Orta, Série Botânica 15:1–72 Espírito ADA, António MDR, Mata AT, Lima RF (2020) Toward sustainable logging in São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe—Final Report. Conservation Leadership Programme, São Tomé, p 16 ECOFAC6 (2021) Programme ECOFAC6. Available via https://www.ecofac6.eu/fr. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 EDGE (2021) Evolutionarily distinct globally endangered. Available via https://www. edgeofexistence.org/. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 European Commission (EC) (2021) ECOFAC6—Preserving biodiversity and fragile ecosystems in Central Africa. Available via https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/programmes/ ecofac6_en. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 European Union (EU) (2021) 11e FED—Action pour la gestion durable des paysages à São Tomé e Príncipe—2020. Available via https://www.welcomeurope.com/calls-projects/11e-fed-actionpour-la-gestion-durable-des-paysages-a-sao-tome-e-principe-2020/. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Exell AW (1944) Catalogue of the vascular plants of S. Tomé (with Príncipe and Annobón). British Museum, London, 428 pp Eyzaguirre PB (1986) Small farmers and estates in São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. PhD Thesis. Yale University, New Haven FAO (2019) Estudo do sector dos produtos do mar em São Tomé e Príncipe: Descrição qualitativa/ quantitativa das cadeias de abastecimento e de valor. FAO, São Tomé, 74 pp Fauna & Flora International (2021) Fauna & Flora International. Sao Tome and Principe. Available via https://www.fauna-ﬂora.org/countries/sao-tome-principe. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Fauna & Flora International, Fundação Príncipe, Oikos et al (2021) Omali Vida Nón. Available via https://omaliprincipeen.weebly.com/. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Ferreira-Airaud B, Schmitt V, Vieira S et al (2022) The sea turtles of São Tomé and Príncipe: diversity, distribution and conservation status. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 535–554 Flood RL, Lima RF, Melo M, Verbelen P, Wagstaff WH (2019b) What is known about the enigmatic Gulf of Guinea band-rumped storm petrels Hydrobates cf. castro? Bull Br Ornithol Club 139:173–186 Frynas JG, Wood G, Oliveira RMSS (2003) Business and politics in São Tomé e Príncipe: From cocoa monoculture to petro-state. African Affairs 10:51–80 Fundação Príncipe (2019) Understanding the remarkable biodiversity of Príncipe Island. Scientiﬁc Report. Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, 33 pp Fundação Príncipe (2021a) Fundação Príncipe. Projeto Protetuga. Available via https:// fundacaoprincipe.org/projetos/conservacao-marinha/protetuga. Accessed 12 Nov 2021 Fundação Príncipe (2021b) Fundação Príncipe. Available via https://fundacaoprincipe.org/. Accessed 12 Nov 2021 Fundação Príncipe (2021c) Single species action plan for the conservation of the Principe Thrush, 2020-2024. Fundação Príncipe, Santo António Fundação Príncipe (2021d) Projecto Omali Vida Nón. Available via https://fundacaoprincipe.org/ projetos/conservacao-marinha/omali-vida-non. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Fundação Príncipe, Missouri Botanical Garden, University of Coimbra (2021) Flora Ameaçada. Available via https://cepf-stp-threat-ﬂora.netlify.app/. Accessed 12 Nov 2021 24 Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands:. . . 667 García JE, Eneme F (1997) Diagnóstico de las áreas críticas para la conservación. Componente unidades de conservación. CUREF, Bata, 88 pp Garcia C, Sérgio C, Shevock JR (2022) The bryophyte ﬂora of São Tomé and Príncipe (Gulf of Guinea): past, present and future. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 217–248 Gascoigne A (1995) The red data list of threatened animals of São Tomé e Príncipe. ECOFAC– Composante de STP, São Tomé, 15 pp Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (2021) Unlocking data on plant biodiversity for decision-making in São Tomé and Príncipe. Available via https://www.gbif.org/project/BIDAF2020-127-INS/unlocking-data-on-plant-biodiversity-for-decision-making-in-sao-tome-andprincipe. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Global Environment Facility (GEF) (2021) Global Environment Facility projects. Available via https://www.thegef.org/projects. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Gonçalves I, de Lima CD, Brito P (2014) Sabores da nossa terra. N’ga cumé quá téla non. ONG Alisei STP, São Tomé, 198 pp Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Center (GGBC) (2021) Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Center. Available via https://gulfofguineabiodiversity.org/. Accessed 17 Oct 2021 Hagemeijer T, Rocha J (2019) Creole languages and genes: The case of São Tomé and Príncipe. Faits de Langues 49:167–182 Heleno RB, Mendes F, Coelho AP et al (2022) The upsizing of the São Tomé seed dispersal network by introduced animals. Oikos. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.08279 Henriques JA (1917) A ilha de São Tomé sob o ponto de vista histórico-natural e agrícola. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 27:1–197 INEGE (2018) Resultados preliminares del IV censo de población 2015. INEGE, Malabo, 16 pp INESTP (2019) Projecção a nível distrital 2012-2020. Available via INESTP. https://ine.st/index. Accessed php/component/phocadownload/ﬁle/270-projeccao-a-nivel-distrital-2012-2020. 22 Oct 2021 IUCN (2021) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Version 2020-2. Available via International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 22 Oct 2021 Jones PJ (1994) Biodiversity in the Gulf of Guinea: An overview. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 772–784 Jones PJ, Tye A (1988) A survey of the avifauna of São Tomé and Príncipe. Study Report 24. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, UK Jones PJ, Tye A (2006) The birds of São Tomé and Príncipe, with Annobón: Islands of the Gulf of Guinea. British Ornithologists’ Union, Oxford Jones PJ, Burlison JP, Tye A (1991) Conservação dos ecossistemas ﬂorestais na República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. UICN, Gland, Cambridge, UK, 78 pp Juste JB, Fa JE (1994) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea islands: taking stock and preparing action. Biodivers Conserv 3:759–771 Keith DA, Rodríguez JP, Brooks TM et al (2015) The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: Motivations, challenges and applications. Conservation Letters 8:214–226 Lee PW, Liu CT, do Rosario VE et al (2010) Potential threat of malaria epidemics in a low transmission area, as exempliﬁed by São Tomé and Príncipe. Malaria Journal 9:264 Le Saout S, Hoffmann M, Shi Y et al (2013) Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation. Science 342:803–805 Lima RF (2012) Land-use management and the conservation of endemic species in the island of São Tomé. PhD thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster Lima RF (2016) Biodiversity conservation in São Tomé and Príncipe: an overview. In: Gabriel R, Elias RB, Amorim IR, Borges PAV (eds) Conference program and abstracts of the 2nd International Conference on Island Evolution, Ecology and Conservation: Island Biology 2016, 18–22 July 2016, Angra do Heroísmo, Azores, Portugal, 18–22 July 2016. Arquipélago Life Mar Sci Suppl 9:136 668 R. F. de Lima et al. Lima RF, Sampaio H, Dunn JC et al (2017) Distribution and habitat associations of the critically endangered bird species of São Tomé Island (Gulf of Guinea). Bird Conserv Int 27:455–469 Madureira MCTMB, Paiva J, Fernandes AF et al (2008) Estudo etnofarmacológico de plantas medicinais de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Ministério da Saúde de S. Tomé e Príncipe, São Tomé, 217 pp Maia HA, Morais RA, Siqueira AC, Hanazaki N, Floeter SR, Bender MG (2018) Shifting baselines among traditional ﬁshers in São Tomé and Príncipe islands, Gulf of Guinea. Ocean and Coastal Management 154:133–142 MAPDRSTP (2010) Plano diretor das pescas. Ministério da Agricultura, Pesca e Desenvolvimento Rural, São Tomé MARAPA (2021a) MARAPA—Mar, Ambiente e Pesca Artesanal. Available via https://sites. google.com/site/marapastp/. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 MARAPA (2021b) Operação Tunhã. Available via https://sites.google.com/site/operacaotunha/ home. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Melo M (2012) A biodiversidade de São Tomé e Príncipe ﬁcou mais pobre. Téla Nón May 4, 2012. https://www.telanon.info/sociedade/2012/05/04/10321/a-biodiversidade-de-sao-tome-eprincipe-ﬁcou-mais-pobre/ Melo M, Jones PJ, Lima RF (2022) The avifauna of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell R (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 555–592 MIRNASTP (2021) Plano Nacional de Ordenamento de Território. São Tomé e Príncipe. Available via http://pnot.gov.st/. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Muñoz-Torrent X, Trindade NT, Mikulane S (2022) Territory, economy, and demographic growth in São Tomé and Príncipe: anthropogenic changes in environment. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 71–86 Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspot for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858 NAPA (2006) Plano de acção cacional para adaptação as mudanças climáticas. Ministério de Recursos Naturais e Ambiente, São Tomé, 76 pp Natural Strategies (2021) Sustainable ﬁnance plan for biodiversity and protected areas in São Tomé and Príncipe. BirdLife International, ECOFAC6, São Tomé Ndang’ang’a PK, Ward-Francis A, Costa L et al (2014a) International action plan for conservation of Critically Endangered birds on São Tomé. 2014-2018. BirdLife International, São Tomé, 30 pp Ndang’ang’a PK, Melo M, Lima RF et al (2014b) Single species action plan for the conservation of the Príncipe thrush Turdus xanthorhynchus. 2014–2018. BirdLife Int, São Tomé, p 15 NGANDU (2021) NGANDU—The importance of shark populations and sustainable ocean use for human well-being in Cape Verde and São Tomé and Príncipe, West Africa. Available via http:// www.ruirosalab.com/ngandu.html. Accessed 16 Nov 2021 Norder SJ, Lima RF, Nascimento L et al (2020) Global change in microcosms: environmental and societal predictors of land cover change on the Atlantic Ocean Islands. Anthropocene 30:100242 Nuno A (2019) Omali vida nón—Summary of project activities and preliminary results. University of Exeter, Exeter, 24 pp Nuno A (2021) Caracterização da cadeia de valor do carvão vegetal em São Tomé e Príncipe e avaliação de riscos de deslocamento económico no âmbito de iniciativas relacionadas com sustentabilidade ﬂorestal. PNUD, DGASTP, Birdlife International, São Tomé, 93 pp Nuno A, Matos L, Metcalfe K, Godley BJ, Broderick AC (2021) Perceived inﬂuence over marine conservation: Determinants and implications of empowerment. Conservation Letters 14:e12790 NYBG (2021) Index Herbariorum. STPH. Herbário Nacional of São Tomé e Príncipe. Available via http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/ih/herbarium-details/?irn ¼150668. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 24 Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands:. . . 669 Oikos (2021) Oikos—Cooperação e Desenvolvimento. São Tomé e Príncipe. Available via https:// www.oikos.pt/pt/onde-estamos/sao-tome-e-principe. Accessed 12 Oct 2021. Oikos and MARAPA (2021) Kike da mungu. Cogestão sustentável de pescas no sul da ilha de São Tomé. Available via https://kikedamungu.weebly.com/. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Olson DM, Dinerstein E (2002) The Global 200: Priority ecoregions for global conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 89:199–224 Osono SFE, Ondó AM, Núñez PF (2015) Estrategia nacional y plan de acción para la conservación de la diversidad biológica. Dirección General Medio Ambiente, Ministerio de Pesca y Medio Ambiente, Malabo Oyono PR, Morelli TL, Sayer J et al (2014) Allocation and use of forest land: Current trends, issues and perspectives. In: Wasseige C, Flynn J, Louppe D, HiolHiol F, Mayaux P (eds) The forests of the Congo Basin—State of the forest 2013. Weyrich, Neufchâteau, pp 215–240 Panisi M, Sinclair F, Santos Y (2020) Single species action plan for the conservation of the Obô Giant Snail Archachatina bicarinata, 2021-2025. IUCN SSC Mid-Atlantic Island Invertebrate Specialist Group, São Tomé, 22 pp Panisi M, Pissarra V, Oquiongo G, Palmeirim JM, Lima RF, Nuno A (2022) An endemic-rich island through the eyes of children: wildlife identiﬁcation and conservation preferences in São Tomé (gulf of Guinea). Conserv Sci Pract. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12630 Pereira ARC (2021) The socio-economic importance of the invasive West African Giant Land Snail (Archachatina marginata) in São Tomé Island. MSc Thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Polidoro BA, Ralph GM, Strongin K et al (2017) The status of marine biodiversity in the Eastern Central Atlantic (West and Central Africa). Aquatic Conservation. Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 27:1021–1034 Porriños G (2021) Characterisation of artisanal ﬁsheries in São Tomé and Príncipe through participatory, smartphone-based landing surveys. Project report. Available via http://www. gporrinos.com/resources.html. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Rainho A, Meyer CFJ, Thorsteinsdóttir S et al (2022) Current knowledge and conservation of the wild mammals of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 593–620 Ramsar (2021) Ramsar Sites Information Service. Ilots Tinhosas. Available via https://rsis.ramsar. org/ris/1632?language¼en. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 RDSTP (1998) Plano acional do ambiente para o desenvolvimento durável (1998-2008). Governo de São Tomé e Príncipe, São Tomé Rede.Bio (2021) Rede.Bio. Available via https://redebiostp.weebly.com/. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Roberts CM, McClean CJ, Veron JEN et al (2002) Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science 295:1280–1284 Roseira LL (1984) Plantas úteis da ﬂora de S. Tomé e Príncipe. Medicinais, industriais e ornamentais. Serviços Gráﬁcos da Liga dos Combatentes, Lisboa 100 p Rufford Foundation (2021) The Rufford Foundation. São Tomé and Príncipe. Available via https:// Accessed www.rufford.org/projects/?continent¼africa&q¼sao+tome&sort_by¼-created. 12 Oct 2021 Salgueiro A, Carvalho S (2001) Proposta de plano nacional de desenvolvimento ﬂorestal 2003-2007. ECOFAC, AGRECO, CIRAD Forêt, São Tomé Seibert G (2016) São Tomé e Príncipe 1975-2015: Política e economia numa antiga colônia de plantação. Estudos Ibero-Americanos 42:987–1012 Soares FC (2017) Modelling the distribution of São Tomé bird species: Ecological determinants and conservation prioritization. MSc Thesis. University of Lisbon, Lisbon Soares FC, Hancock JM, Palmeirim JM et al (2022) Species ecology in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: distribution, habitat preferences, assemblages and interactions. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 171–188 Soulé ME (1985) What is conservation biology? BioScience 35:727–734 670 R. F. de Lima et al. Stattersﬁeld AJ, Crosby MJ, Long AJ, Wedge DC (1998) Endemic bird areas of the world: priorities for biodiversity conservation. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK Stévart T, Oliveira F (2000) Guide des orchidées de São Tomé et Príncipe. ECOFAC, São Tomé Stévart T, Dauby G, Ikabanga DU et al (2022) Diversity of the vascular plants of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: science and conservation. Springer, Cham, pp 249–272 Torres Â (2005) Mionga ki ôbo: Mar e selva. LX Filmes, Lisboa UNDP (2001) Plano estratégico para o desenvolvimento do turismo em São Tomé e Príncipe. PNUD, Madrid UNDP (2019) Príncipe 2030. Sustainable Development Plan for the Autonomous Region of Príncipe. Available via https://en.principe2030.com/. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2021) Protected planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM). Available at: www.protectedplanet.net. Accessed 16 Oct 2021 UNESCO (2021) Biosphere reserves. Island of Principe Biosphere Reserve, Sao Tome and Príncipe. Available via https://en.unesco.org/biosphere/africa/island-of-principe. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 Valverde P (2000) Máscara, mato e morte em São Tomé. Celta, Lisboa Vié J-C, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN (2009) Wildlife in a changing world—an analysis of the 2008 IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN, Gland, 180 pp Ward-Francis A, Lima RF, Sampaio H, Buchanan G (2017) Reducing the extinction risk of the three critically endangered birds of São Tomé. Final project report. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK Wendling ZA, Emerson JW, Sherbinin A et al (2020) 2020 environmental performance index. Available via Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. https://epi.yale.edu/epiresults/2020/country/stp. Accessed 21 Oct 2021 Wirtz P, Ferreira CEL, Floeter SR et al (2007) Coastal ﬁshes of São Tomé and Príncipe islands, Gulf of Guinea (eastern Atlantic Ocean)—an update. Zootaxa 1523:1–48 Wood (2004) Business and politics in a criminal state: The case of Equatorial Guinea. African Affairs 103:547–567 WWF (2019) Ecoregions. Islands of São Tomé and Príncipe of the coast of Equatorial Guinea. Availabe via https://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/at0127. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 WWF and IUCN (1994) Centres of plant diversity: A guide and strategy for their conservation. Volume 1: Europe, Africa, South West Asia and the Middle East. IUCN, Gland Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 25 Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe: The Challenges of Owning a Unique Biodiversity Roberta Ayres, José Carlos Aragão, Mariana Carvalho, Francisco Gouveia, Estrela Matilde, Martina Panisi, Jormicilesa Sacramento, and Vanessa Schmitt Abstract The islands of São Tomé and Príncipe host extraordinary biodiversity that evolved over millions of years without human presence. In the ﬁfteenth century, the colonization of the islands created a society of migrants, associated with extensive land-use change and generally low knowledge and stewardship of autochthonous biodiversity. Formal education became widely accessible after the country’s independence but the curriculum has never been aligned with the natural heritage of the islands. Informal environmental education started in the 1990s alongside the pioneer conservation initiatives involving the scientiﬁc community. In the last decade, these efforts have multiplied, in line with the need to engage and involve local actors to promote stewardship and ensure the success of conservation efforts. Some changes were made recently at a formal level with the inclusion of environmental education R. Ayres (*) Gulf of Guinea Project, Department of Herpetology, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA e-mail: rayres26@gmail.com J. C. Aragão Projeto Escola +, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe M. Carvalho Tropical Biology Association, Cambridge, UK F. Gouveia Arribada Initiative, Cheshire, UK E. Matilde · J. Sacramento · V. Schmitt Fundação Príncipe, Santo António, Príncipe Island, Sao Tome and Principe M. Panisi Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Alisei Onlus NGO, São Tomé, Sao Tome and Principe © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_25 671 672 R. Ayres et al. curricula and new manuals. In addition, several initiatives and improvements are being developed in the private education sector. However, limited access to resources for educators reduces motivation and capacity to implement longer-term improvements. Most environmental education activities are still promoted by NGOs and mainly focus on endemic or threatened species and target school-age audiences. Other initiatives focusing on speciﬁc demographic groups have provided interesting results but are more intermittent and their impacts have largely not yet been evaluated. Improving formal assessments for current and future projects to assess impacts and reﬁne future approaches will be essential moving forward. In addition, ensuring the involvement of local actors, coordination between different initiatives, and the use of diversiﬁed approaches will ensure that environmental education engages the widest possible audiences. Keywords Civil society · Environmental education curriculum · Formal education · Gulf of Guinea · Informal education · Oceanic islands Brief Historical Background of Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe How the Landscape and History Shaped Environmental Education Príncipe, São Tomé, and Annobón are remote oceanic islands with a unique and understudied biodiversity, which evolved over millions of years without human interaction. We were unable to ﬁnd information about local perspectives on environmental education for Annobón and thus, here we will solely focus on São Tomé and Príncipe. When the Portuguese discovered São Tomé and Príncipe in 1470, the islands were uninhabited. The human population of the islands was mostly brought from other parts of Africa, and, to a lesser extent, from Europe, in two main colonization periods. The ﬁrst was associated with the slave trade and the second with contracted labor for the coffee and cocoa plantations (Seibert 2015). The islands have a history of extensive plantation agriculture that is closely related to the degradation of vast areas of forest in São Tomé and Príncipe and possibly with the extinction of endemic species before they were formally described to science. Early scientiﬁc studies to describe the biodiversity of São Tomé and Príncipe were conducted by European naturalists during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Ceríaco et al. 2022). The natural ecosystems of the islands, nowadays recognized for the uniqueness of their species, were poorly known and of little use for the newly established human population. The local plants and animals were unfamiliar and few edible plants and animals from the native forest were known or used (e.g., Seibert 2015). Thus, landuse change was promoted with the introduction of species and the conversion of the native ecosystems to agricultural land with introduced plants and animals that could be exploited. Some of the native ecosystems endured, due to their remoteness and 25 Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe: The Challenges of. . . 673 difﬁculty of access, and the biodiversity within remained largely unknown to most people living on the islands. Santomeans had limited access to primary education before independence and opportunities were divided between a nearly-formal setting in the plantations, which provided basic education to the workers’ children, and an informal setting called “bush school” (“escola do mato”), which took place in villages without any ofﬁcial context or support (Amado 2018). Secondary school only appeared in the mid twentieth century, ﬁrst with a private status and later open to the wider public, but still restricted to just one school. Education was fully structured according to the norms of the hierarchical and centralized colonial administrative model. It was designed to impose civilizational standards and the European culture on students, disregarding and discriminating against the “sons of the land” and their culture (Amado 2021). From Independence to Strategic Environmental Education Options After centuries of colonialism, São Tomé and Príncipe achieved independence on July 12, 1975, inheriting an educational system marked by low literacy, only one post-primary school, and the absence of professional education (Barreto 2012). During the ﬁrst phase of the post-independence period, called “First Republic” (also known as “Single Party Period”), from 1975 to 1990, the government made education a priority with mass literacy one of its main objectives (Cardoso 2004). In the year of independence, the illiteracy rate was 80%. Fifteen years later, it fell to 30% (MECF 2012). Today, São Tomé and Príncipe report that 92.8% (2018) of the population over 15 years old is literate, representing the best index among African countries in which Portuguese is the ofﬁcial language (UNESCO 2021). Despite important progress, illiteracy remains a problem, especially in some areas of the country, such as the southern and northern regions of São Tomé Island, affecting mostly the female portion of the rural population. The Santomean government has set the goal of eradicating illiteracy by 2022 (MECF 2012). The democratic reforms and the opening of the country in the late 1980s marked the start of the “Second Republic” (“Multiparty Democracy”), bringing important interventions with the aim to establish a better framework for education. The institution of democracy gradually created opportunities for the national curriculum to become more open to incorporate the pedagogical innovations and guidelines coming from international organizations such as UNESCO, UNICEF, and UNDP (MEC 2002). In 1986, an educational reform began in the country with support from the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (Portugal) and the World Bank, focusing on the production and editing of textbooks for the ﬁrst 6 years of basic education. However, the program never reached its ﬁnal objectives, and only a few manuals were 674 R. Ayres et al. produced. These manuals were used for over 20 years without being updated (MeiaOnça 2013). The country has always been concerned with the quality of its educational system (Cotrim 2019). All the reforms sought to accompany changes in Santomean society and keep pace with the rest of the world, but the educational system was not ready for the new challenges facing the country (Cardoso 2004). The Basic Law of the Education System (Law 2/2003) introduced only two signiﬁcant changes: an increase in compulsory schooling from 4 to 6 years and the inclusion of the 12th grade (MECJD 2006). Despite many attempts to develop a national curriculum adapted to the context and needs of the country, it was not until the last decade that the sciences received more attention. Today the curriculum is still insufﬁciently adapted to its audience and fails to reﬂect the natural heritage of the islands. Nevertheless, the environmental education needs of the country were widely recognized and highlighted by the scientiﬁc and conservation communities, with strong and signiﬁcant efforts starting in the 1990s. In 1992, São Tomé and Príncipe received assistance from the EU’s European Development Fund in support of the Forestry Commission’s efforts to prevent harvesting in primary forests and to promote efforts to educate the public about forest conservation. Under the ECOFAC Programme, an EU-funded regional program for the conservation and rational use of forest ecosystems in Central Africa, this work is still ongoing on the islands and lead to the establishment of the protected areas network of São Tomé and Príncipe. This network covers roughly one-third of the islands and culminated with the creation of two Natural Parks in 2006 (Lima et al. 2022). Meanwhile, an Action Statement on biodiversity conservation in the four Gulf of Guinea islands arose from a workshop held in 1993. This document reviewed the state of the main habitats on all the islands, current threats, and existing institutions and management actions taken so far (Juste and Fa 1994). This work led to the formation of an international group of scientists and a special issue of the journal Biodiversity and Conservation (vol 3, 1994). These events were key for synthesizing biodiversity knowledge and conservation actions for the islands, and also for igniting local actions to engage Santomeans in protecting their natural heritage. The ﬁrst environmental education activities emerged with ECOFAC around sea turtles (with Programa Tatô, still active as an independent NGO since 2018) and gray parrots. These were some of the better-known species at the time, highly pressured by the capture of individuals and eggs for food, trade, and crafts (AGRECO – SECA – CIRAD 2005). As the scientiﬁc knowledge of other groups and species increased and diversiﬁed, the need to involve the local population in environmental initiatives grew and has been a strong driver for most of the ongoing programs. The islands’ potential for ecotourism has also been an important driver for the expansion of environmental outreach activities to reach the whole population and foreign visitors. 25 Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe: The Challenges of. . . 675 The Current State of Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe Formal Education: Environmental Education in Public and Private Schools The public school system on São Tomé and Príncipe had the subject of Environmental Education (EE) formally introduced in 2010, but only to the eighth grade curriculum (Barreto 2012). Most private schools use EE in their lessons, formally or informally, linked to their internal curricula or to international curricula, such as the EE benchmarks provided by the Portuguese Ministry of Education. Public Schools Before 2010, environmental education content could be found in the Natural Science manuals but was not considered a priority. With the educational reform in the country, teachers of basic education inserted themes related to environmental education, namely on how to protect the environment from pollution or on how to conserve the fauna and ﬂora, through the subjects of “Physical and Social Environment” for classes from the ﬁrst cycle. Classes from the second cycle worked by the “Student Manual” in the science module, in which information and /or small themes were adjusted to include environmental education. In 2010, the NGO MARAPA (Mar, Ambiente e Pesca Artesanal), CTA (Centro Técnico de Cooperação Agrícola e Rural), and ACP-EU (African, Caribbean and Paciﬁc Group of States-European Union) sponsored the publication of the manual “Ecologia, Ambiente e Educação Ambiental em São Tomé e Príncipe” (“Ecology, Environment and Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe”) to be used by teachers of the ﬁfth and sixth grade (Carvalho et al. 2010). The manual includes simple environmental education modules together with different practical activities and teaching tools to be used by teachers of all subjects. Teachers from across the country were trained but there was no formal assessment of the program’s efﬁcacy or impact. The manual was then used to support the elaboration of the EE curriculum for the eighth grade (under Projeto Escola+) when, after 2010, EE as a subject was inserted as part of a separate enrichment to the curriculum. Three different areas were introduced in high schools in both São Tomé and Príncipe: “Environmental Education” was introduced to eighth grade students, incorporating group work and other interactive activities to the lectures; “Health Education” to the seventh grade; and “Civic Training” for ninth graders. The curriculum content was developed by a select group of secondary school teachers under the supervision of the Secondary Education Directorate. The educators from Projeto Escola+, coordinated by the Instituto Marquês de Valle Flôr, supported by several European partnerships, and approved by the Ministry of 676 R. Ayres et al. Education and Culture, made the school manuals available along with a series of structured training events held to promote the development of key stakeholders in the second cycle educational network (Barreto 2012). After publication, the manual was made available for teachers to use in the classroom, along with regular training offered on how to integrate the manual into the environmental education curriculum by the First Cycle Board. The curriculum was not widely adopted by teachers but achieved greater use on the island of São Tomé and was included sporadically in classes on Príncipe. In 2014, following the inclusion of environmental education in the school curriculum, along with a dedicated teacher’s manual, actions were focused on the eighth grade students. This resulted in the production of a new EE student manual (Eloy et al. 2014). This material was intended to alert and prepare young people to the worsening environmental situation in the country, and to the need to promote sustainable economic development while preserving the islands’ biodiversity. Due to various limitations after its publication, very few people knew about the existence of this material, including teachers and students in São Tomé and Príncipe. Private Schools Based on a sample (n ¼ 5) of private schools (pre-k to 12 grade) interviewed in São Tomé in 2020 and 2021, environmental education (EE) is part of the curriculum but it is not adapted to the context of the islands and does not use examples of the local biodiversity and habitats. Four schools used the curriculum published by the Portuguese Ministry of Education: Referencial de Educação Ambiental para a Sustentabilidade (Environmental Education Benchmark for Sustainability). Some schools teach about the history and geography of São Tomé and Príncipe ﬁrst and then proceed with the Portuguese curriculum. Only one school incorporated a few EE topics related to the islands with the support of local NGOs. Príncipe recently opened its ﬁrst private pre-k school on the island. The school integrates EE activities such as Earth Day, but EE is not yet connected to a formal curriculum. The EE topics taught by the private schools depend on how closely they follow the Portuguese benchmarks, covering preschool to secondary level, to develop lessons and activities that aim to contribute directly to the personal and social development of their students. The ninth grade of a particular school we interviewed added “environmental sustainability,” which incorporates ﬁrst-hand experiences. For instance, in one of their modules students go into the ﬁeld to test water quality, using knowledge acquired in the classroom to interpret their results and reach conclusions. Another school took a step further and incorporated EE (using a mix of both Santomean and Portuguese concepts) into their mission statement, consequently linking all their curricular activities toward raising children’s awareness about the importance of protecting and appreciating the natural world. Children as early as 25 Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe: The Challenges of. . . 677 12 months old have exposure to activities both in and outside of the classroom, with the purpose of promoting values and actions that can later result in the development of environmental stewardship in São Tomé and Príncipe. This particular school uses beach cleanup as its “beacon activity” to introduce the issue of trash pollution, which chronically impacts the islands’ local beaches and city centers. Their aim is to reinforce the notion that children can be an important part of the solution and they also play an active role in teaching behavioral changes to family members and civil society. Informal Education: Past and Ongoing Efforts The basis for informal environmental education in São Tomé and Príncipe has been built upon the recent scientiﬁc work on the species-rich and under-explored biodiversity of the islands. A project by Veríssimo et al. (2012) aimed to understand the knowledge and attitudes of key stakeholders toward biodiversity, sustainability, and natural resource management, revealed that there is still the need to improve engagement and communication with local actors. International institutions and researchers need to invest time and resources to develop effective ways to better communicate their scientiﬁc ﬁndings through environmental education. Nevertheless, major efforts on EE have been made to raise awareness about the conservation of these unique islands over the past 23 years, with several national and international projects being held in the country that reach local residents and tourists alike (Table 25.1). The lack of a centralized database to track records of early EE programs in São Tomé and Príncipe makes it difﬁcult to assemble a complete assessment of the diversity of the project aims, target populations (TP), and outputs, but there has clearly been increased investment in long-term projects over the last decade (Fig. 25.1). Based on four “one-off” and 11 currently “ongoing” informal EE projects, ﬁve take place on both islands, ﬁve exclusively in São Tomé, and ﬁve exclusively in Príncipe, although collaborations are frequent between organizations from both islands. The establishment of a larger number of NGOs in the country contributed to the increase in longevity of the programs, funding, and creation of training and employment opportunities for members of the civil society. The main topic covered is biodiversity conservation, especially focusing on the valorization of threatened species and ecosystems. Projects address a wide range of taxa and ecosystems, although some focus on a speciﬁc taxon (e.g., marine turtles, bees, and terrestrial mollusks) or topics (e.g., recycling and illegal hunting). Twelve projects target schools and local communities, but the target audience can be project speciﬁc, depending on the main aims (e.g., ﬁshermen and ﬁshmongers for marine ecosystem conservation or hunters for terrestrial ecosystem conservation). Projects Arribada Club: Arribada initiative | Fundação Príncipe Period 2017 – present Place P BirdLife International Partners Programme: RSPB | SPEA 2015–2017 | (under ECOFAC 6 as of 2018) 2016–2019 ST Bumbu D’Iê: Terrestrial Conservation Programme | Fundação Príncipe Main theme STEM | biodiversity | endemic species | conservation technology | conservation | protection Biodiversity | endemic species | conservation not hunting | protection Target population Primary school P Bees | biodiversity | ecology | conservation | protection | sustainable business practices | income-generating activity Primary school | community | general public | NGO agent Community | community leader | NGO agent | Nat’l park staff Hunter | primary school | community | community leader | general public | eco guide March–June 2010 STP Biodiversity | endemic species | conservation | ownership ECOFAC 6 (Obô Ôvyô Campaign): BirdLife International | Oikos 2018 – present STP Environmental Education Manual: MARAPA | CTA | ACP-EU Forest Giants: Alisei Onlus NGO | FCUL August 2010–June 2011 2018 – present STP Biodiversity | endemic species | conservation | protection | sustainable business practices | effective land management | protected areas | National Parks | natural heritage | ecotourism Biodiversity | ecology | conservation | environmental education principles & didactic tools Terrestrial mollusks | biodiversity | endemic species | conservation | protection | ecology | snail husbandry ST STP Teacher | community | NGO agent | nature Club Teacher | primary school | community | general public | NGO agent | eco guide Methodology After-school program | lecture | multimedia communication | hands-on activity Outreach | training | hands-on activity Product development and distribution | outreach | lecture | training | workshop | multimedia communication | ﬁeld trip | hands-on activity Outreach | training | multimedia communication | hands-on activity Outreach | training | workshop | multimedia communication | ﬁeld trip | hands-on activity Product development and distribution | training | meeting | hands-on activity Outreach | lecture | training | workshop | meeting | multimedia communication | ﬁeld trip | hands-on activity R. Ayres et al. ECOFAC 4: PNOST | Zuntabawê Hunter 678 Table 25.1 Summary of environmental education projects in São Tomé (ST), Príncipe (P) and both in São Tomé and Príncipe (STP) Missão Dimix Association 2017 – present Omali Vida Nón 1 & 2: University of Exeter, UK | FP | DRAPP | DGP | Principe Island UNESCO Biosphere Reserve | FFI | Oikos | MARAPA Phase 1 July 2016– March 2019 Phase 2 2018 – present 2018 – present Príncipe Thrush: Terrestrial Conservation Programme | Fundação Príncipe Programa Tatô: ECOFAC (1998–2002); MARAPA (2002–2018); Associação Programa Tatô (2018 – present) Protetuga: Fundação Príncipe Biodiversity | endemic species | conservation | protection | ownership | stewardship Teacher | primary school | community | general public ST Arts | biodiversity | marine life | conservation | protection | stewardship Primary school | secondary school P STP Phase 1 | better Management of Marine Resources | sustainable practices Phase 2 | creation of marine protected areas | conservation | protection Principe thrush | ecology | population size & distribution | conservation | protection Sea turtles | conservation | protection | biodiversity | marine life | ownership | stewardship | income-generating activities Fisherman | ﬁshmonger | community P 1998 – present ST 2015 – present P Fisherman | ﬁshmonger | kindergarten | primary school | secondary school | community | general public | eco guides | tourists | NGO agents | government Kindergarten | primary school | secondary school | community | general public | NGO agent | eco guide | tourist | government Outreach | lecture | multimedia communication | hands-on activity Product development and distribution | outreach | lecture | workshop | training | meetings | multimedia communication | exhibition | guided Tours | museum interpretive activities | ﬁeld trip | theater play production | museum | hands-on activity | Outreach | lecture | training | meeting | multimedia communication | guided Tours | museum interpretative activity | museum | ﬁeld trip | hands-on activity (continued) 679 Sea turtles | biodiversity | marine life | conservation | protection | ownership | stewardship | income-generating activity Primary school | community | general public | NGO agent Product development and distribution | outreach | training | workshop | multimedia communication | hands-on activity After-school program | lecture | multimedia communication | exhibition | ﬁeld trip | handson activity Outreach | multimedia communication Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe: The Challenges of. . . 2010 – present 25 Gulf of Guinea: California Academy of Sciences 680 Table 25.1 (continued) Projects RaizArte: BLI support Period 2019 – present Place ST Water & Recycling: Fundação Príncipe 2013–2015 P Main theme Performing arts | biodiversity | endemic species | ecology | nature themes | conservation | protection | ownership | stewardship Plastic bottle recycling | reusable water bottle | water ﬁlling station | waste management | stewardship Target population Secondary school | general public Methodology After-school program | lecture | training | multimedia communication | theater play production | hands-on activity Primary school | community | general public | tourist Outreach | hands-on activity ACP-EU: African, Caribbean and Paciﬁc Group of States-European Union – BLI: BirdLife International, UK – CTA: Technical Centre for Agriculture and Rural Cooperation, European Union – DGP: Direcção Geral das Pescas, STP – DRAPP: Direcção Regional da Agricultura, Pesca e Pecuária, STP – FCUL: Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal – FFI: Fauna & Flora International, UK – FP: Fundação Príncipe, STP – MARAPA: Mar, Ambiente e Pesca Artesanal, STP – PNOST: Parque Natural Obo de São Tomé – RSPB: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, UK – SPEA: Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves, Portugal R. Ayres et al. 25 Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe: The Challenges of. . . 681 Approaches to Informal Environmental Education Outreach in primary public schools is the preferred method used by the informal EE programs, possibly due to the fact that primary school students have very little exposure to environmental sciences. Informal EE projects are addressing some of the existing gaps by using a variety of hands-on methodologies and approaches within or outside the classroom. In 2011, the California Academy of Sciences pioneered a large-scale education effort based on scientiﬁc research to raise awareness about the islands’ unique biodiversity in both São Tomé and Príncipe (Drewes 2012). The Gulf of Guinea Project uses a unique approach for content assimilation, following the same cohort of students from third to ﬁfth grades, aiming to promote knowledge and stewardship about biodiversity in students’ own “backyard.” The project distributes to each student and their teachers captivating take-home educational materials after every lesson (Fig. 25.1 (6)), using the main message: “Only Here! São Tomé and Príncipe, Our Special Islands, and Nowhere else in the World!” The opportunities for meaningful learning outside of the classroom in the public school system are almost non-existent on the islands and 20% of the EE projects are organized as after-school programs to address this limitation. The Protetuga Project in Príncipe, for example, incorporates their turtle conservation program through the Zero Capture campaign into the school calendar, creating the unique opportunity to organize ﬁeld trips to their Kaxí Tetuga Museum at Praia Grande, where students visit a biodiversity museum and participate in the release of turtle hatchlings into the ocean amongst other educational activities (Fig. 25.1 (7)). The Arribada Club, in Príncipe, introduces primary school students to computers and conservation technology, such as GPS trackers and audio recording devices (Fig. 25.1 (1)). The Forest Giants Project creates debates with students and rural communities to raise awareness about biodiversity conservation, using the story of the rapid decline of the threatened Obô Giant Snail Archachatina bicarinata and provides hands-on teaching and training opportunities for learning about local species and for interacting with the Obô Giant Snail at the Botanical Garden of Bom Sucesso, São Tomé (Fig. 25.1 (5)). Other projects create awareness using visual or performing arts. Missão Dimix Association organizes student art exhibitions made with recycled materials showcasing their focus on marine life conservation, in addition to their regular after-school programs and camps. RaizArte works with teenagers on playwriting, stage design, and performing art techniques using biodiversity, conservation, and other nature-related themes (e.g., the Se o Obô Falasse theater play addresses species conservation in São Tomé and Príncipe; Fig. 25.1 (8)). Programa Tatô develops an array of educational printed materials, such as the story book A viagem da visitante mais antiga de São Tomé e Príncipe (The journey of the oldest visitor of São Tomé and Príncipe), the activity book Livro de atividades para os dias de chuva (Activity book for rainy days), and an annual booklet Ngê di Omali (Sea people), which is distributed to primary schools with a different theme every year. The peer teaching and learning experiences, along with facilitated themed discussions and activities, can create paths to promote a sense of ownership and 682 R. Ayres et al. Fig. 25.1 Examples of environmental education projects in São Tomé and Príncipe: (1) Arribada Club Project computer science class, Príncipe; (2) ECOFAC 4 “Net of Life” activity in Claudino Faro rural community, São Tomé; (3) ECOFAC-6 plant nursery activity with students at Diogo Vaz primary school, São Tomé; (4) Bumbu D’Iê classroom program about bee conservation, Príncipe; (5) Forest Giants Project lesson to primary school students about terrestrial biodiversity conservation and the decline of the Obô Giant Snail Archachatina bicarinata, São Tomé; (6) Gulf of Guinea Project primary school outreach program “Our Special Birds” about the endemic species of birds from São Tomé and Príncipe, São Tomé; (7) Protetuga Project hatchling release activity with school 25 Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe: The Challenges of. . . 683 valorization of the natural resources. Projects that work with speciﬁc audiences (e.g., ﬁshermen, ﬁshmongers, hunters, loggers, National Park staff, school teachers, and students that live in the vicinity of protected areas) used “train the trainer” methods to capacitate community leaders to conduct training sessions with their own communities using a variety of hands-on activities and facilitation tools (e.g., photo montage, ﬁlms, role play, games, sports championships, cooking competitions, fairs). This method is proven to be efﬁcient to raise environmental awareness and well accepted among communities. In a pilot study in the scope of ECOFAC 4 (Fig. 25.1 (2)), focusing on communities around São Tomé Obô Natural Park, the “train the trainer” method was shown to be a potentially strong tool to develop and promote increased knowledge toward endemic biodiversity and nature conservation. In 2018, the ECOFAC 6 project investment is working in the buffer zones of the natural parks of both São Tomé and Príncipe, developing training to promote sustainable use of natural resources for income-generating activities, imperative to generate real results toward the conservation and valorization of natural heritage, biodiversity, and ecosystems (Fig. 25.1 (3)). The Omali Vida Nón project works with the government and coastal communities to create a network of marine protected areas across both islands through a co-management approach. It aims to create awareness and promote the adoption of alternative sustainable methods as a way of balancing human impact with the subsistence living of the communities. Likewise, to promote sustainable honey practices, the Bumbu D’Iê project provided training to beekeepers for an alternative model of honey production that does not involve bee-burning in the forest, combined with EE hands-on activities (Fig. 25.1 (4)). Multimedia communication is used by nine of the projects to reach wider and more diverse audiences, which is frequently ampliﬁed by content productions on TV, radio, and social media. Even some of the most rural parts of the islands have radios and television sets (plugged-in to generators) available at home or at the local kiosk. Community members tend to congregate in such venues, to socialize and watch TV or listen to the radio at the end of the workday, in the evenings, and especially over the weekends. The Programa Tatô, for example, uses local media celebrities on educational radio soap operas on São Tomé to raise awareness about their sea turtle conservation program. Fauna and Flora International (2019) concluded that the use of posters and radio was an efﬁcient and cost-effective method to reach and engage large numbers of people. The report cautioned, however, that a high level of engagement does not necessarily translate into effective dissemination of the underlying message. ⁄ Fig. 25.1 (continued) children at Praia Grande, Príncipe; (8) RaizArte “Se o Ôbo Falasse” play written, directed, and performed by high school students, São Tomé. Photo credits: (1, 4, 7) Fundação Príncipe, (2) Mariana Carvalho, (3) Raphaela Nazaré, (5) Vasco Pissarra, (6) Andrew Stanbridge, (8) BirdLife International 684 R. Ayres et al. Evaluation of Projects Evaluation is a very important tool to determine what works well and what could be improved; however, only six of the EE projects (40%) have an evaluation tool in place. This makes it difﬁcult to measure the real impact of the programs, which may compromise reporting to stakeholders and limit funding opportunities relative to projects that use quantitative data to assess impact. EE projects that use evaluation tools commonly use questionnaires with adults, and drawings, games, or simple question-answer sheets with children, to evaluate knowledge gain and understanding of the concepts being taught. Oral interviews are commonly used to obtain direct feedback from stakeholders such as governmental authorities, teachers, school administrators, and students. ECOFAC 6 is the ﬁrst project to use a more comprehensive method of evaluation, deﬁning project indicators (e.g., days of training vs. number of people trained, number of people trained in green economy and entrepreneurship, number of followers on social media, number of students involved in awareness activities, and percentage of people with correct understanding of basic environmental concepts) to determine success. Programa Tatô has made big strides toward evaluating the impact of their conservation marketing campaign Tataluga – Mém di Omali on the consumption of sea turtle meat and eggs in São Tomé (Thomas-Walters et al. 2020). A recent study on the use of children’s drawings to evaluate the impacts of environmental education activities (Sinclair 2020), carried out by researchers at the University of Exeter (UK) in partnership with the Protetuga project by Fundação Príncipe, provided useful insights to inform efforts for sea turtle conservation on the island. The study demonstrated that using drawings as a tool for assessing levels of knowledge about the biodiversity of Príncipe and evaluating change in children’s knowledge over time can be useful to inform interventions, is highly engaging, and has low-cost implementation on-the-ground. This assessment method demonstrated that Protetuga’s EE activities over 4 years resulted in increased knowledge of conservation issues and solutions among children. These ﬁndings are particularly promising, as they validate some of the progress undertaken through informal education efforts in the past years and provide valuable guidance for future monitoring and recognition of the EE projects. Challenges and Lessons Learned One of the biggest challenges concerning formal education in the public system is the fact that EE is only part of the eighth grade curriculum, and not present in any other grade. Thus, much of EE falls under informal education, which is not offered systematically and is not connected to formal education. Furthermore, teachers are not motivated to embrace EE in and outside the classroom, due to the lack of a support system, namely proper training and resources to promote extracurricular 25 Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe: The Challenges of. . . 685 activities. Such challenges become a serious roadblock toward making any substantial advances. More than 60% of the local teachers from ﬁrst to sixth grade have no formal educational training (MECCC 2016), and the required qualiﬁcations for ﬁlling teacher vacancies in primary and secondary education in the country are low. For example, it is possible for someone who has just ﬁnished high school to start teaching eighth grade students. This is the result of a fast-growing society built on a job market with very limited options for young people entering the workforce or pursuing a university degree. The University of São Tomé was formally founded only in 2014, after many years of existence as several different independent educational institutions. Other international universities, like the University of Évora or the Lusíada University (both from Portugal), have a branch on São Tomé, offering higher education courses. However, the tuition is typically far beyond the ﬁnancial means of the target demographic, contributing to the scarcity of professionals with formal academic training. Individuals that obtain a college degree in another country rarely return to São Tomé and Príncipe due to the low salaries and scarce job opportunities. In some cases, teachers also hold appointments in other governmental departments and teaching is a second job, which means that their availability and engagement in the teaching role may be low. Institutions like the World Bank occasionally ﬁnance and provide teacher-training opportunities led by the local government in partnership with different Portuguese institutions, or private sectors. However, these opportunities are rare and generally cover small groups or a small percentage of teachers in the country. For Príncipe residents, the conditions are even more challenging, as only recently (2012/2013) was it made possible for students to ﬁnish high school on the island. Up to a few years ago, students from Príncipe had to attend high school in São Tomé, resulting in a high percentage of youths without a high school degree. On the other hand, even with the governmental “isolation allowance” (ﬁnancial incentive), Príncipe still struggles to ﬁnd teachers willing to move to the island due to the high cost of living and isolation. In March of 2021, we interviewed 10 primary and secondary school teachers from Príncipe and six from São Tomé, all working in the public system, to learn about their perception regarding their job experience satisfaction and knowledge about local biodiversity. The results showed that 56% have chosen this profession because they enjoy teaching and 37% due to a lack of options. When asked about the availability of opportunities and the kind of limitations they are confronted with regarding career advancement, they shared their concerns about the limitations imposed on career advancement, which are linked to the lack of the schools’ basic needs (e.g., electricity, water, sewage, and nutritious meals), and the absence of a recognition system for different teaching categories, with salary compensation dependent on the amount of training. Teachers interviewed in São Tomé did not receive any speciﬁc training on local biodiversity or environmental issues, but in Príncipe only one said that he had not received some type of training, either through other teachers, universities, or NGOs. Only one teacher in Príncipe and one in São Tomé stated that before becoming a teacher they did not have any knowledge about 686 R. Ayres et al. the importance of biodiversity and other issues related to the protection of the environment in São Tomé and Príncipe. All teachers we interviewed recognize the importance of the environmental issues on the islands and emphasize the role of biodiversity in maintaining the health of ecosystems. As in the public school system, opportunities for private school teacher training on EE adapted speciﬁcally to the local context are very rare. Only one of the private schools we interviewed invested time and resources to keep their teachers connected to the subject by either bringing professionals from different areas of environmental sciences or organizing ﬁeld trips to different NGOs. Overall, the support system to either train teachers, or to facilitate access to EE materials pertaining to the local fauna and ﬂora is underdeveloped, but it exists. Willing teachers can work with informal environmental educators, biologists, technicians or NGOs to complement and explore different local EE topics. Various EE projects have observed that the schools in the capital of São Tomé have higher student and teacher engagement during program delivery than in rural areas. Schools situated in very remote areas not only have lower engagement but also have difﬁculty in understanding basic concepts and the overall message of the content. It is also in these rural communities that children most often have to support their household with domestic tasks, making it very hard for them to be available for activities outside the school period. In addition, conditions in rural schools such as an excessive number of students per classroom, no electricity, and malnutrition, can make learning more difﬁcult. The socio-economic situation on the islands clearly reﬂects the degree of knowledge and understanding of the communities about the importance of their unique biodiversity. It is extremely difﬁcult to convey nature conservation messages when the basic needs of the local communities are not met. A recent study was conducted with 361 students from both rural and urban primary schools in São Tomé to assess children’s knowledge of local biodiversity (Panisi et al. 2022). It showed that students’ wildlife knowledge improved among the male student population of impoverished rural schools, and that threatened endemic species were less often recognized than non-native species. Students in São Tomé preferred to protect species according to their attractiveness or proﬁtability (e.g., species that can be eaten or sold). These ﬁndings reveal existing disparities in children’s knowledge about biodiversity among genders, economic backgrounds, and reasons to protect wildlife. A lack of targeted and well-planned EE actions can result in the progressive extinction of knowledge about the unique fauna and ﬂora of the island by the younger generation, especially in more urbanized areas (Soga et al. 2018). Despite the fact that different generations have the opportunity to experience EE through programs and activities, in many cases, ownership or follow-up is still missing. This could be the result of poor planning (e.g., time constraints, budget, personnel), type of language used (e.g., low involvement of local educators to ensure educational tools are locally adapted), and insufﬁcient long-term engagement to create continuity. The very few existing published reports from past efforts are not comprehensive enough to prevent repeating the same errors, which may deter further development of EE in the country. Until today, the majority of EE actions happening 25 Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe: The Challenges of. . . 687 on São Tomé and Príncipe have been conducted informally and under the responsibility and leadership of international NGOs, with engagement of local civil society. In recent years, EE has been growing and progressively led by national organizations, with several recognized Santomean educators who keep their engagement with the dissemination of conservation messages throughout the years in different projects and in their own communities and networks. During 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic was a global challenge, and education was one of the sectors that suffered the most. In the majority of developed countries, the online system was a solution to keep children and youth engaged, while in non-developed countries, where access to electricity and the internet is limited, this global crisis resulted in a complete stop of the education process. The limits to social gatherings and the lack of virtual platforms also impaired projects working with communities or other target groups. Consequently, all formal and informal EE programs and activities also came to a halt in both São Tomé and Príncipe. In 2021, the EE activities (formal and informal) are slowly starting as schools are back in session and meeting restrictions are starting to be lifted. Looking into the Future There are many political, economic, and social challenges on São Tomé and Príncipe that directly impact the general quality of the education system. Consequently, the subject of EE, including the focus on the importance of the islands’ local biodiversity, is less of a priority to the country. In today’s world, issues related to the environment and education are more relevant than ever. Scientiﬁc knowledge of the endemic and unique biodiversity of the islands has signiﬁcantly increased in the last few decades, and the national policies are starting to see biodiversity as a development tool through tourism. Príncipe has been at the forefront of creating a model for sustainable development, with the island being recognized as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in 2012 and the development of the Plan for Sustainable Development “Príncipe 2030.” São Tomé seems eager to follow these steps with work being done to achieve UNESCO Biosphere Reserve status as well. However, this fragile and recent understanding of the importance of the local biodiversity is not yet evident in the education system. Without the support and leadership of non-governmental national and international organizations, the local knowledge of the environmental relevance of São Tomé and Príncipe would be still precarious. Teachers’ feedback indicated that a national education reform paired with a dedicated budget is imperative to increase and sustain the investment on training local teachers, improving schools’ basic conditions, and promoting the inclusion of EE in all grades of the public system. EE has to be seen as a priority, and integrating children with an environmental agenda is an investment in creating future adults engaged with the conservation of the country’s natural resources. In parallel with the 688 R. Ayres et al. integration of the EE curriculum in all grades of public education, the private education system should enhance the use of their resources, and dedicate a budget to strengthen the efforts made to promote more EE activities. Integration of local partners and stakeholders and the use of materials with messages and content tailored to the local reality are also key elements to the future of EE on the islands. Going forward, it is highly recommended that all organizations promoting EE (public, private, informal) in the country monitor and evaluate their activities, and commit to share their results to ensure the growth and advancement of EE on São Tomé and Príncipe. The development of an evaluation protocol to be used nationally could be of great beneﬁt to accomplish such an important task. Additionally, a potential development of an online database of EE initiatives in the country could serve as an important learning tool for anyone planning or currently working in the country, and promote exchanges with other regions or educators. There are few meaningful opportunities for teachers, students, and civil society to engage and network with local and international professionals in the ﬁeld of EE, as most of the communication and materials are done in languages other than Portuguese. In the last decade, the islands have hosted several events related to environmental education in Lusophone countries. These conferences and meetings, although limited in time, represent opportunities to exchange and develop ideas, establish collaborations and keep people inspired and motivated by EE. It is evident that there is an urgent need to create a strong and well-deﬁned joint strategy with local governmental support between public, private, formal, and informal educational institutions, to ensure a successful integration of EE on São Tomé and Príncipe, and to generate positive, long-lasting results on the islands’ biodiversity conservation. Education is the most effective way to achieve greater public support and establish solid goals to preserve the fragile and threatened biodiversity of these islands. This is urgent to ensure the future of both people and biodiversity. Past EE efforts left a legacy in transmitting knowledge, motivating and training people, and developing valuable materials that are currently addressing critical environmental issues. Present and future EE efforts will inspire and engage the next generation of national leaders to take a more critical and active role in shaping the future of the unique biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. Acknowledgments First, many thanks are due to those that gave their time to read and edit our chapter. This chapter was made possible by the contributions from all the amazing professionals that work on São Tomé and Príncipe leading projects dedicated to the protection and conservation of the islands’ unique biodiversity. As such, they also carry on the important mission of educating the future generations of environmental stewards, and awakening in each individual the responsibility to live in a sustainable way. Thank you to all the school principals, teachers, and other professionals in the ﬁeld of education that contributed with invaluable data collected via a series of in-person, virtual, and email interviews. We are also indebted to the national and regional governmental entities of both São Tomé and Príncipe for their continuous support. Finally, we thank the institutional support linked to all the authors involved in this chapter, including Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT/MCTES–PD/BD/140814/2018 and UID/BIA/00329/2021—to Martina Panisi). 25 Environmental Education in São Tomé and Príncipe: The Challenges of. . . 689 References AGRECO – SECA – CIRAD (2005) ECOFAC III rapport ﬁnal. Octobre 2002- Décembre 2005. ECOFAC, São Tomé Amado LN (2018) História da educação no arquipélago de São Tomé e Príncipe. O ensino primário: Da escola pública à “escola do mato”. Edições Colibri, Lisbon Amado LN (2021) História da educação no arquipélago de São Tomé e Príncipe. O ensino secundário. Edições Colibri, Lisbon Barreto A (2012) A reforma do ensino secundário em São Tomé e Príncipe. Apresentação do projeto Escola +. Actas do Colóquio Internacional São Tomé e Príncipe numa perspectiva interdisciplinar, diacrónica e sincrónica. Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL) – Centro de Estudos Africanos, Instituto de Investigação Cientíﬁca Tropical, Lisbon Cardoso MM (2004) Educação/Formação/Investigação em São Tomé e Príncipe – Será uma aposta do país no caminho para o desenvolvimento? VII Congresso Luso-Afro-Brasileiro de Ciências Sociais. Coimbra, 16–18 de Setembro 2004. Centro de Estudo Sociais, Faculdade de Economia, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra Carvalho M, Loloum B, Aguiar E, et al. (2010) Ecologia, ambiente e educação ambiental em São Tomé e Príncipe. MARAPA/CTA, São Tomé Ceríaco LMP, Santos BSS, Viegas S, Paiva J (2022) The history of biological research in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 87–140 Cotrim AJA (2019) Avaliação externa de escolas em São Tomé e Príncipe: Construindo um percurso. MSc thesis. Universidade de Évora, Évora Drewes RC (2012) Gulf of Guinea expeditions: history, scientiﬁc and educational goals. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco Eloy A, Brito BR, Gomes CC et al (2014) Manual de educação ambiental. São Tomé e Príncipe: Ecossistemas, impactes ambientais e gestão responsável dos recursos naturais. 1a Edição. São Tomé and Príncipe Fauna and Flora International (2019) Awareness assessment report. Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge Juste JB, Fa JE (1994) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea islands: taking stock and preparing action. Biodiversity Conservation 3:759–771 Lima RF, Deffontaines J-B, Madruga L, Matilde E, Nuno A, Vieira S (2022) Biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands: recent progress, ongoing challenges, and future directions. In: Ceríaco LMP, Lima RF, Melo M, Bell RC (eds) Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands. Springer, Cham, pp 643–670 MEC, Ministério de Educação e Cultura (2002) Educação para Todos – EPT. Plano nacional de acção 2002–2015 (Validado em 2002 e revisto em 2006). República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe MECCC, Ministério de Educação, Cultura, Ciências e Comunicação. DGPIE- DEP (2016) Boletim estatístico 2015–2016. Available via Instituto Nacional de Estatística. https://www.ine.st/index. php/informacoes-estatisticas/educacao. Accessed 12 Oct 2021 MECF, Ministério da Educação, Cultura e Formação (2012) Carta de política educativa São Tomé e Príncipe (Visão 2022). República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe MECJD, Ministério da Educação, Cultura, Juventude e Desporto (2006) Estratégia para a educação e a formação 2007–2017. Revisão Nov. 2006. República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe Meia-Onça SMM (2013) O ensino secundário em São Tomé e Príncipe e os contributos do projeto Escola +. MSc thesis. Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Lisbon Panisi M, Pissarra V, Oquiongo G, Palmeirim JM, Lima RF, Nuno A (2022) An endemic-rich island through the eyes of children: wildlife recognition and conservation preferences in São Tomé (Gulf of Guinea). Conservation Science and Practice Seibert G (2015) Colonialismo em São Tomé e Príncipe: Hierarquização, classiﬁcação e segregação da vida social. Anuário Antropológico 40:99–120 690 R. Ayres et al. Sinclair S (2020) Sea turtle conservation in a species-rich nation: using children’s drawings to evaluate the impacts of a sea turtle conservation education programme in Príncipe, West Africa. MSc thesis. University of Exeter, Penryn, 62 p Soga M, Yamanoi T, Tsuchiya K, Koyanagi TF, Kanai T (2018) What are the drivers of and barriers to children’s direct experiences of nature? Landscape and Urban Planning 180:114–120 Thomas-Walters L, Vieira S, Jiménez V et al (2020) Challenges in the impact evaluation of behaviour change interventions: the case of sea turtle meat and eggs in São Tomé. People and Nature 2:913–922 UNESCO (2021) São Tomé and Príncipe. Available via http://uis.unesco.org/country/ST. Accessed 6 May 2021 Veríssimo D, Oquiongo GS, Viegas L, Lima RF (2012) Environmental education activities in São Tomé island, São Tomé and Príncipe. GRIN Publishing GmbH, Munich Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Chapter 26 A Thriving Future for the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands Rayna C. Bell, Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Ricardo F. de Lima, and Martim Melo Abstract The oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea hold extraordinary levels of endemism across many taxonomic groups. Biodiversity surveys are still uncovering species new to science, and much work remains to be done on the evolution, ecology, and conservation of this unique biological heritage. The next 10 years will be crucial to ﬁnd and implement development strategies that can respond to the needs of the islands’ inhabitants while sustaining the biodiversity and R. C. Bell (*) Department of Herpetology, Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA e-mail: rbell@calacademy.org L. M. P. Ceríaco Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, Vairão, Portugal Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal R. F. de Lima Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Gulf of Guinea Biodiversity Centre, São Tomé, São Tomé and Príncipe M. Melo Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vairão, Portugal BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Planning, Vairão, Portugal FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa © The Author(s) 2022 L. M. Pires Ceríaco et al. (eds.), Biodiversity of the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06153-0_26 691 692 R. C. Bell et al. ecosystem functions on which they depend. We outline seven priority areas that need to be addressed on the path for a thriving future for both people and biodiversity. Keywords Biodiversity databases · Capacity · Exploration · Natural history collections · Outreach · Small islands developing states · Sustainable development Earth’s islands collectively hold the greatest concentration of biodiversity that exists on our planet. Although islands have long served as important models for understanding the ecology and evolution of biodiversity, islands have also been recognized as epicenters of extinction with approximately 75% of all recent bird, reptile, amphibian, and mammal extinctions occurring on islands. Much of the remaining global island diversity is threatened, with up to 85% of remaining reptile, amphibian, and mammal species, along with nearly half of island birds, at risk of extinction today. Similar ﬁgures are expected for other taxonomic groups, for which global assessments are currently missing. This biodiversity crisis is particularly notable on tropical oceanic islands, where species evolved in stable and isolated conditions and are especially vulnerable to the fast pace of ongoing environmental change. As extinctions multiply, island ecosystems begin to crumble and further cascades of species extinction will follow. As a result, the human inhabitants who depend on these ecosystems will lose their livelihoods and ways of life. At the same time, because island ecosystems are relatively simple, they also offer an opportunity to understand how to stop this crisis, and to alter the course of our relationship with biodiversity. This edited volume provides an important summary of over 200 years of biological research on the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea, highlighting the archipelago’s extraordinary endemism across the tree of life. Much of this diversity is still being formally described to science, and the conservation status of most endemic species has not yet been formally assessed. Likewise, our understanding of species natural history, interactions among species, and characteristics of the islands’ diverse ecosystems is still woefully incomplete. Importantly, these gaps in knowledge hinder our ability to halt biodiversity loss on the islands and to secure a thriving future for the islands’ human inhabitants. In support of the United Nations Small Island Developing States commitment to reach sustainable development, the following activities should be a top priority for the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea over the next 10 years: • Field surveys and taxonomic research that target speciﬁc taxonomic and geographic gaps in knowledge. Key knowledge gaps are discussed in more detail in each of the taxonomic chapters, but we also note that for some branches of the tree of life, the current state of knowledge for the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea is so sparse that we could not provide a chapter and/or checklist for that particular group. This includes algae, lichens, and several groups of terrestrial (e.g., annelids, bees, ﬂies) and aquatic invertebrates (e.g., crustaceans, corals, echinoderms, sponges). For much of the archipelago’s biodiversity, this work will 26 • • • • • A Thriving Future for the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands 693 also necessitate a better understanding of regional species diversity and evolutionary relationships. Molecular techniques will continue to prove an invaluable tool for advancing taxonomy and systematics in these lesser known groups. Mobilizing existing natural history collections and their data to democratize knowledge and expedite biodiversity research. Biodiversity surveys over the last two centuries have resulted in extensive natural history collections that document the diversity and distribution of the archipelago’s terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Most of these collections are housed in Europe and the USA, and many have not yet been curated, georeferenced, digitized, and made available to the local or global research community. This critical work must continue and take advantage of the growing availability and accessibility of online platforms for collections data. Integrating data from targeted ﬁeld surveys and existing collections to map species distributions. The distributions of most species in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea are unknown, which limits our inference of species richness and endemism across the islands’ ecosystems. Existing natural history collections already hold much of this information, and future surveys should be designed to ﬁll conspicuous gaps in knowledge. These spatial data can be combined with maps of current protected areas and estimates of future climate and land-use change to inform sustainable development and conservation planning that centers biodiversity resilience. Promoting the islands as models for ecological studies. Biodiversity is dynamic and relies on complex interactions at multiple levels of organization that are challenging to study. As the species and ecosystems of the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands become more completely documented, hypothesis-driven studies to promote a deeper understanding of their ecology are becoming possible. Although few such studies have been conducted, it is already clear that the islands are valuable mesocosms to test and develop advanced ecological theories, including population dynamics, community ecology, species interactions, ecosystem resilience, and the impact of human activities on biodiversity. Bolstering local taxonomic expertise and resources for biological research. An increasing number of Santomean and Equatoguinean researchers are contributing to biodiversity science, but this community is still small and largely under resourced. Local institutions, including universities, herbaria, botanical gardens, and libraries, need an inﬂux of funding and training to support the growth in taxonomic expertise and leadership that is essential for islanders to direct the next phase of biodiversity research and environmental stewardship. Augmenting resources for island residents of all ages to learn about their local biodiversity. Effective biodiversity conservation requires a well-informed and engaged local community. Currently, science literacy in the Gulf of Guinea oceanic islands is limited and formal curricula do not feature the islands’ unique biological heritage. Developing widely available, accessible references and environmental learning opportunities for those with less scientiﬁc training will be vital to stimulate environmental stewardship and to recruit more local naturalists. These resources can also serve to advertise the islands as a destination for 694 R. C. Bell et al. sustainable tourism. The contents of this book can serve as a baseline reference for updating school and university science curricula to focus on local biodiversity, ecosystems, and environmental stewardship. Likewise, this book can serve as a reference for developing taxon-focused ﬁeld guides with illustrations, distribution maps, natural history accounts, identiﬁcation keys, and interactive tools. Finally, featuring local biodiversity in community spaces through art, music, and theatrical performances can further extend the reach of biodiversity knowledge and stewardship. The next 10 years will be critical to set the stage for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in the oceanic islands of the Gulf of Guinea. Building on a foundation of more than two centuries of biodiversity science, robust commitments from local leadership, and strong cross-sector partnerships, this unique archipelago is well situated to change course from cascades of species extinction towards a thriving future for biodiversity. Most powerfully of all, the islands can teach us how to assess and support healthy ecosystem function and scale these approaches to Earth’s larger systems. Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Recent Progress, Ongoing Challenges, and Future Directions

Biodiversity Conservation in the Gulf of Guinea Oceanic Islands: Recent Progress, Ongoing Challenges, and Future Directions

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS