Assessment Results
Indosylvirana intermedia
Rao's Intermediate Golden-backed Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ranidae
Synonym(s):
Hylarana intermedia
Assessed for:
India
on:
14 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
S.R. Ganesh, Sandeep Das and S.R. Chandramouli
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
20.33316844
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.] | Least Concern (LC) | Listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, and its presumed large population. |
| 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? | Yes / probably | This golden-backed frog occurs north of the Palghat Gap in the Western Ghats states of Karnataka and Kerala, India (Biju et al. 2014). In Karnataka State, it has been recorded from Hassan district in Sakleshpur, Kodagu district in Thalakaveri, Bhagamandala, Madikeri and Wattakolli, from Dakshin Kannada district in lowland areas of Adyar, Mangalore, and from Shimoga district in Kachigebailu and Jog falls (Biju et al. 2014), and Agumbe (Kamath and Sreekar 2016). In Kerala State, it is present in the Wayanad district in Kalpetta, and Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary and Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020) and in the Kozhikode district in Kakkayam, Calicut (Biju et al. 2014). It occurs in Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary, Alarm Wildlife Sanctuary and Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary (S.R. Ganesh, Sandeep Das and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 2020). It is present in the protected areas of Talakaveri Sanctuary, Brahamagiri National Park, Bhadra Tiger Reserve, Kudremukh National Park and Someshwara Wildlife Reserve (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 2020). It ranges between 8 and 1,183 m asl (Biju et al. 2014). |
| 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 | This golden-backed frog occurs north of the Palghat Gap in the Western Ghats states of Karnataka and Kerala, India (Biju et al. 2014). In Karnataka State, it has been recorded from Hassan district in Sakleshpur, Kodagu district in Thalakaveri, Bhagamandala, Madikeri and Wattakolli, from Dakshin Kannada district in lowland areas of Adyar, Mangalore, and from Shimoga district in Kachigebailu and Jog falls (Biju et al. 2014), and Agumbe (Kamath and Sreekar 2016). In Kerala State, it is present in the Wayanad district in Kalpetta, and in the Kozhikode district in Kakkayam, Calicut (Biju et al. 2014). It ranges between 8 and 1,183 m asl (Biju et al. 2014). |
| 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.). | Yes / probably | It is present in the protected areas of Talakaveri Sanctuary and Western Ghats World Heritage Site (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2020). It also occurs in Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary, Alarm Wildlife Sanctuary and Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary (S.R. Ganesh, Sandeep Das and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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 | Better water and habitat protection are required. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Research on conservation needs (Biju et al. 2014), ecology (Kamath and Sreekar 2016), and the effects of Bd is recommended for this taxon. Population monitoring 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 is effectively protected | More than 50% of the population occurs in protected areas (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). The use of pesticides and fertilisers could be a threat to the species and deformities have been observed in adult specimens (S.R. Ganesh, pers. comm. October 2020). They have been observed in the edge of rice paddies and may be somewhat adaptable. Road mortality could be a minor threat (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). |
| 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? | Yes / probably | This taxon is considered common (Kamath and Sreekar 2016, India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). |
| 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? | 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 | Would make a suitable husbandry analog for other Indosylvirana species (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 2020) |
| 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 | Could be used to highlight regionally endemic amphibians in areas without montane amphibians (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 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)? | Yes | I. intermedia was removed from synonymy with I. temporalis by Biju et al. 2014. |
Citation:
S.R. Ganesh, Sandeep Das and S.R. Chandramouli 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Indosylvirana intermedia, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5474
Accessed 28 Apr 2025
