Assessment Results
Gegeneophis carnosus
Blind Caecilian, Periah Peak Caecilian
Order:
Gymnophiona
Family:
Indotyphlidae
Synonym(s):
Epicrium carnosum
Assessed for:
India
on:
01 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Varad Bhagwan Giri, Venu Govindappa, Dave Gower and Ramachandran Kotharambath
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
28.09287622
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Listed in Gupta et al (2015) as a species for husbandry capacity-building at: Pilikula Biological Park, Mangalore.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Data Deficient (DD) | |
| 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? | Unknown | This species is only known with certainty from the type locality, Periya Peak, at 800 m asl in Wynad District, Kerala State, India. More recently, the species has been reported from estate plantations at about 1,525 m asl near Mercera town, Karnataka State, India (Venu and Venkatachalaiah 2006). Records from southern Kerala are erroneous, and refer to Gegeneophis ramaswamii. It has been reported from Basarekattae, Koppa Taluk, Chickmagalur District in Karnataka State (Bhatta et al. 2011), although this requires confirmation (Ramachandran Kotharambath, Dave Gower and Varad Bhagwan Giri, pers. comm. September 2020). It was recently reported from Cariappa Biodiversity Park (Malathesh et al. 2002), though this requires confirmation. Further specimens attributed to this species have been recorded from Kudremukh National Park, Karnataka. |
| 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.). | Unknown | It was recently reported from Cariappa Biodiversity Park (Malathesh et al. 2002), though this requires confirmation. Further specimens attributed to this species have been recorded from Kudremukh National Park, Karnataka. |
| 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.)? | Unknown | |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | This species is in need of taxonomic review (M. Wilkinson pers. comm.). Further research is also required on its distribution, population, ecology and threats (India RLA/CNA workshop, 2020). |
| 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 unknown | This species has been found in plantations of coffee, pepper, banana and cardamom. The threats to this species are generally not well known. It has been suggested that it is threatened by a decrease in habitat availability and quality through conversion of land to agricultural use, including pesticide use (potentially), harvesting of timber and wood for subsistence use, mining, urbanization, and collection of non-woody forest materials. However, in view of its adaptability to some secondary habitats, it is not clear that these threats are significant. |
| 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 | |
| 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 | The population status of this species is unknown. |
| 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 | In the past, some people considered this to be a snake, and they are sometimes killed because of this (Ramachandran Kotharambath and David Gower pers. comm. September 2020). After recent newspaper articles about the species this misconception has been predominantly addressed (Varad Bhagwan Giri pers. comm. September 2020). |
| 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? | Unknown | |
| 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 | |
| 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 | |
| 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. |
| 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)? | Yes | This is a valid species (Varad Bhagwan Giri, pers. comm. September 2020) although not well characterised (Dave Gower, pers. comm. September 2020). Many literature reports in fact refer to Gegeneophis ramaswamii. Karyological data suggest that this species shares similarities in chromosome and karyotype morphology, for the most part, with Gegeneophis krishni (Venu and Venkatachalaiah 2006). |
Citation:
Varad Bhagwan Giri, Venu Govindappa, Dave Gower and Ramachandran Kotharambath 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Gegeneophis carnosus, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5427
Accessed 02 Feb 2025
