Assessment Results
Rhombophryne serratopalpebrosa
Guibe's Digging Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Microhylidae
Synonym(s):
Plethodontohyla serratopalpebrosa
Assessed for:
Madagascar
on:
06 May 2015
by:
Mark D. Scherz
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Madagascar
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
22.26224057
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
No photographs of the true R. serratopalpebrosa are currently known.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Endangered (EN) | Currently R. serratopalpebrosa is known from just one specimen (the holotype). Several herpetological expeditions to Marojejy, the type locality, have failed to collect additional specimens unambiguously belonging to this species. The genus Rhombophryne has many micro-endemic species, and it is likely that R. serratopalpebrosa is micro-endemic to Marojejy. It is therefore considered as Vulnerable, in line with other species micro-endemic to this massif. Additional fieldwork is needed to create a more detailed assessment. Changed from VU to EN by D. Edmonds based on current IUCN Red List website September 2019 |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | No / unlikely | There is no reason to suspect extinction, as the type habitat remains well forested and is protected. However, no specimens of this species have been confirmed since the 1970s. More microhylid-focussed fieldwork to Marojejy is required to find more specimens of this species. |
| 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? | Yes / probably | The Marojejy Massif is a national park, and is well protected. Recent political instability led to an increase in illegal logging within the park, but this was targeted at precious woods, and is unlikely to cause large-scale habitat collapse. |
| 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 | The Marojejy Massif is well-forested, and translocation within the reserve would theoretically be possible. |
| 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.). | ||
| 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.)? | Yes / probably | Improved management of Marojejy National Park |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Taxonomy, distribution, population size and trends |
| 10 | Threat mitigation | Are the threats facing the taxon, including any new and emerging threats not considered in the IUCN Red List, potentially reversible? | Threats are likely to be reversible in time frame to prevent further decline / extinction | Improved policing of the Marojejy National Park would improve threat mitigation potential. |
| 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 | As far as is known, this species is not collected for any reason. |
| 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? | Unknown | As this species is known from a single specimen, it is at present impossible to assess its population size and recovery potential. |
| 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.)? | No aspect of biology known to be exceptional | |
| 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? | No | |
| 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 | More data is needed from in situ research in order to assess ex situ possibilities. |
| 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? | No | A more abundant and better known member of this group, such a Rhombophryne coronata, would make a more suitable model. |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Not held in captivity 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? | No | |
| 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 | The Sahonagasy Action Plan is ratified by the Malagasy government and states support for ex situ initiatives for all amphibian species in Madagascar. |
| 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? | Unknown | Research into availability of founders needs to be prioritised. Probably, but current population sizes are unknown. |
| 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)? | Unknown | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. Taxonomic work is under way for this species and the group to which it belongs. Close examination, including micro-CT and genetic data, has revealed that no specimens currently known from outside Marojejy belong to this species. Specimens from Besariaka, Anjanaharibe-Sud, and Ambolokopatrika constitute a new species, and a further new species is known from Sorata (all in description by Scherz et al.). Two related species are also known from Tsaratanana. In Marojejy, as far as is known only one related species, R. vaventy, is present. Confusion of these two species is not likely, as R. vaventy is considerably larger, and differs in several aspects of its morphology. However, more sampling from across northern Madagascar's forested massifs is required to satisfactorily resolve the taxonomy of R. serratopalpebrosa. For priming literature, see Scherz et al. 2014 3860(6):547. |
Citation:
Mark D. Scherz. 2015. Conservation Needs Assessment for Rhombophryne serratopalpebrosa, Madagascar.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/2429
Accessed 31 Jan 2025
