Assessment Results
Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis
Skipper Frog, Skittering Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Dicroglossidae
Synonym(s):
Euphlyctis mudigere
Assessed for:
India
on:
26 Aug 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Chelmala Srinivasulu, S.R. Ganesh, Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Krishna K., Nikhil Dandekar, Pratyush P. Mohapatra, Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, Shauri Sulakhe and S.R. Chandramouli
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
21.85965799
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Listed in Gupta et al (2015) as a species for husbandry capacity-building at Arignar Anna Zoological Park, Vandalur, Chennai.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Least Concern (LC) | |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | No / unlikely | |
| 3 | Phylogenetic significance | The taxon’s Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED) score, as generated by the ZSL EDGE program. (These data are not editable by Assessors). | ED value 20 - 50 | |
| 4 | Protected habitat | Is a population of at least 50% of the individuals of the taxon included within a well-managed or reliably protected area or areas? | No / unlikely | This species was thought to range throughout much of South Asia, including southern Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh (Cox's Bazaar and Bandarban Districts - Mahony et al. 2009), India, Nepal and Pakistan. It is also present in southeastern Iran (this is the westernmost part of its range) and Bhutan (Wangyal 2013). Following genetic analysis, some subpopulations from India and all from Sri Lanka, previously thought to belong to this species, have now been assigned to Euphlyctis mudigere (Khajeh et al. 2014). Subba et al. (2016) consider its presence in Sikkim in India to be doubtful, due to being unable to record this species during field surveys and being unable to locate the voucher specimens within collections. This species is widespread in Peninsular India and extends northwards towards the Gangetic Plains (India RLA/CNA workshop, 2020). It is present from sea level to at least 2,500 m asl. |
| 5 | Habitat for reintroduction, conservation translocation or supplementation | Does enough well-managed and reliably protected habitat exist, either within or outside of currently protected areas that is suitable for conservation translocation, including population restoration or conservation introduction? | Yes / probably | |
| 6 | Previous reintroductions | Have reintroduction or translocation attempts been made in the past for this species? | No | |
| 7 | In situ conservation activities | Are any in situ conservation actions currently in place for this species? (Only required if a Red List Assessment has not been completed, or if new actions have been implemented since the last Red List Assessment. (Information from the Conservation Actions section of the Red List assessment should be reviewed and considered when answering this question.). | No / unlikely | There are no specific conservation measures in place for this species, it is very widespread and tolerant of a degree of habitat modification. In view of the species wide range it is presumed to occur in numerous protected areas. |
| 8 | In situ conservation activities | Are additional in situ conservation actions required to help conserve this species in the wild (e.g. habitat restoration and/or protection, control of invasive species, national legislation etc.)? | No / unlikely | |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | There is a need for monitoring the population status of this species given the threats of pollution, drought, and conversion of wetlands and agricultural habitat. Taxonomic research is also required. |
| 10 | Threat mitigation | Are the threats facing the taxon, including any new and emerging threats not considered in the IUCN Red List, potentially reversible? | Species does not require conservation action at this time | There are no major threats to this species as a whole. However it is locally threatened over parts of South Asia by pollution of aquatic habitats (generally through the use of agrochemicals), prolonged drought in arid areas, and the drainage (wetland reclamation) and desiccation of wetlands. A recent threat recorded in the Barak Valley region of Assam in India is the conversion of agricultural land to brick kilns (Dey 2015). The species is known to hide underground when water ponds dry up and they reappear after rains. It is tolerant to a degree of habitat modification. |
| 11 | Over-collection from the wild | Is the taxon suffering from collection within its natural range, either for food, for the pet trade or for any other reason, which threatens the species’ continued persistence in the wild? | No / unlikely | This species is collected for food in South India. Although this is not considered to be a major threat to the species, it could cause local declines. |
| 12 | Population recovery | Is the known population of this species in the wild large enough to recover naturally, without ex situ intervention if threats are mitigated? | Yes / probably | This species is very common in undeveloped areas. It is reported to be highly abundant at Kalpakkam Nuclear campus, in southern India (Ramesh et al. 2013). Surveys between 2009-2011 in West Bengal in India reported that it was seen frequently throughout the year with greater abundance in the rainy season (Pal et al. 2012). |
| 13 | Action plans | Does an Action Plan for the species already exist, or is one currently being developed? | No | |
| 14 | Biological distinctiveness | Does the taxon exhibit a distinctive reproductive mode, behaviour, aspect of morphology or physiology, within the Order to which it belongs (e.g. Anura, Passeriformes etc.)? | Aspect of biology shared with < 6 other species | Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis and Euphlyctis hexadactylus are two aquatic frog species that are well known for their unusual ability to skitter across the water. It has been the focus of several videos displaying this behavior (Karthikeyan Vasudevan pers. comm August 2020). |
| 15 | Cultural/socio-economic importance | Does the taxon have a special human cultural value (e.g. as a national or regional symbol, in a historic context, featuring in traditional stories) or economic value (e.g. food, traditional medicine, tourism) within its natural range or in a wider global context? | Yes | There is a historical document called Babur Nama (the memoirs of ?ahir-ud-Din Muhammad Babur, founder of the Mughal Empire), which talks about the call of this species coinciding with the monsoons (Karthikeyan Vasudevan pers. comm. August 2020). This species was widely used in laboratories in India, especially for dissection. |
| 16 | Scientific importance | Is the species vital to current or planned research other than species-specific ecology/biology/conservation within the Order to which it belongs (e.g. Anura, Passeriformes etc.) e.g. human medicine, climate change, environmental pollutants and conservation science? | No research dependent on this species | |
| 17 | Ex situ research | Does conserving this species (or closely related species) in situ depend upon research that can be most easily carried out ex situ? | No | |
| 18 | Ex situ conservation activities | Is any ex situ research or other ex situ conservation action currently in place for this species? (Information from the Conservation Actions section of the Red List assessment should be reviewed and considered when answering this question.) | No / unlikely | |
| 19 | Husbandry analog required | If an ex situ rescue program is recommended for this species, would an analog species be required to develop husbandry protocols first? | No / unlikely | |
| 20 | Husbandry analog | Do the biological and ecological attributes of this species make it suitable for developing husbandry regimes for more threatened related species? i.e. could this species be used in captivity to help to develop husbandry and breeding protocols which could be used for a similar, but more endangered species at a later stage? | Yes | Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis would make a good analog for Euphlyctis karaavali (Gururaja KV, pers. comm. August 2020). |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Maintained but no successful breeding | This has been maintained in zoos in India, but not very successfully to date. |
| 22 | Conservation education/ecotourism potential | Is the species especially diurnal, active or colourful, or is there an interesting or unusual aspect of its ecology that make it particularly suitable to be an educational ambassador for conservation of the species in the range country, either in zoos or aquariums or within ecotourism activities? | Yes | Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis and Euphlyctis hexadactylus are two aquatic frog species that are well known for their unusual ability to skitter across the water. It has been the focus of several videos displaying this behavior (Karthikeyan Vasudevan pers. comm August 2020). |
| 23 | Mandate | Is there an existing conservation mandate recommending the ex situ conservation of this taxon? | No | |
| 24 | Range State approval | If an ex situ initiative was proposed for this species, would it be supported (and approved) by the range State (either within the range State or out-of-country ex situ)? | Yes / probably | |
| 25 | Founder specimens | Are sufficient animals of the taxon available or potentially available (from wild or captive sources) to initiate an ex situ program, if one was recommended? | Yes / probably | |
| 26 | Taxonomic status | Has a complete taxonomic analysis of the species in the wild been carried out, to fully understand the functional unit you wish to conserve (i.e. have species limits been determined)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. This is a restricted concept of this species following the split of the broader concept into this and Euphlyctis mudigere (Khajeh et al. 2014) and E. kalasgramensis (Howlader et al. 2015). it is thought to be a species complex. |
Citation:
Chelmala Srinivasulu, S.R. Ganesh, Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Krishna K., Nikhil Dandekar, Pratyush P. Mohapatra, Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, Shauri Sulakhe and S.R. Chandramouli 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5488
Accessed 11 May 2024
