Assessment Results
Ichthyophis sendenyu
Sendenyu Striped Ichthyophis
Order:
Gymnophiona
Family:
Ichthyophiidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
24 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Dave Gower and Ramachandran Kotharambath
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
23.55855885
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
| 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? | Unknown | |
| 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 previously only known only from its type locality, Dhyütere (782 m asl), New Sendenyu village, Tseminyu sub-division, Kohima District, state of Nagaland, northeast India (Kamei et al. 2009). An additional record was reported by Ohler et al. (2018) from Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh State. An additional record has been reported from Mizoram, Northeast India (Malsawmhriatzuali et al. 2020). It is possible that the species may occur more widely (S.D. Biju and R.G. Kamei pers comm. February 2012). It is not known to occur in any protected areas (S.D. Biju and R.G. Kamei pers. comm. February 2012). Its elevation has been reported from between 520 and 3,000 m asl (Ohler et al. 2018) . |
| 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? | Unknown | |
| 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 | It is not known to occur in any protected areas and there are no conservation actions currently known for this species (S.D. Biju and R.G. Kamei pers. comm. February 2012). |
| 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 | Raising awareness and educating the local population that caecilians are harmless would be very helpful in assisting the persistence of this and other caecilians (S.D. Biju and R.G. Kamei pers. comm. February 2012). |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | More information is needed on this species' distribution, population status, natural history and threats, and in general more field surveys and research on the caecilian fauna of northeast India would be advisable (S.D. Biju and R.G. Kamei pers. comm. February 2012). |
| 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 | The type series was found in a banana plantation on the edge of a paddy field, near a secondary forest (Kamei et al. 2009), which suggests that this species may be able to tolerate a degree of habitat disturbance. Jhum cultivation (rice, vegetables, etc.) and the widespread practice of subsistence farming leading to forest clearance and subsequent habitat fragmentation and destruction may pose a potential threat to this species (S.D. Biju and R.G. Kamei pers. comm. February 2012). A lack of awareness among locals that caecilians are harmless (there is a widespread belief that caecilians are venomous) may constitute an indirect threat to the species (S.D. Biju and R.G. Kamei pers. comm. February 2012). |
| 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 type series comprises five specimens, all collected on the same day (Kamei et al. 2009). It has been found to be relatively abundant (S.D. Biju and R.G. Kamei pers. comm. February 2012). It was last observed in 2007 (S.D. Biju and R.G. Kamei pers. comm. February 2012). No additional records are available, although additional surveys have yielded other ichthyophiids that could potentially belong to this species. This, however, requires further confirmation (S.D. Biju and R.G. Kamei pers. comm. February 2012). See sis for shortened version |
| 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 | |
| 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? | Yes | Raising awareness and educating the local population that caecilians are harmless would be very helpful in assisting the persistence of this and other caecilians (S.D. Biju and R.G. Kamei pers. comm. February 2012). |
| 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 |
Citation:
Dave Gower and Ramachandran Kotharambath 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Ichthyophis sendenyu, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5454
Accessed 23 Jan 2025
