Assessment Results
Micrixalus herrei
Kallar Dancing Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Micrixalidae
Synonym(s):
Micrixalus fuscus
Assessed for:
India
on:
23 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Sandeep Das, Madhushri Mudke, S.R. Ganesh, S.R. Chandramouli and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
23.8216461
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.] | Endangered (EN) | |
| 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 dancing frog occurs in the Western Ghats states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu in India, south of the Shencottah Gap (Biju et al. 2014.) In Kerala State, it has been recorded from the Thiruvananthapuram district at Attayar in Agasthyamala Hills, Chathankod, Chathankod-Bonnacaud and Kallar in Ponmudi, and Kollam district at Kovachal in Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary. In Tamil Nadu State, it was found in Kanyakumari district at Puthericharium, and Tirunelveli district at Puthericharium in Shencottah (Biju et al. 2014). It is present in the protected areas Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary and Kalakkad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Agasthyavanam Biosphere Reserve, Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary, Peppara Wildlife Sanctuary, Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary, Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary and Ponmudi Hill Station. It ranges between 116 and 816 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 | Kalakkad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Agasthyavanam Biosphere Reserve, Neyyar, Peppara, Shendurney, and Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuaries, Shendurney Sanctuary. |
| 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 a number of 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.)? | Yes / probably | Recommended conservation measures include improved habitat protection. |
| 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 life history and the effects of climate change and Bd. There is a need for monitoring population and habitat trends (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. September 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 unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | This species has been recorded in marginal forest areas, secondary forest near plantations. It is unlikely to tolerate a lot of habitat disturbance or loss (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. September 2020). It is a stream-dwelling species which needs clean running water. There is continuing loss of the habitat of this species largely caused by the conversion of land for agricultural use (tea, coffee and cardamom). Water abstraction and diversion for the irrigation systems for these plantations is also a major threat, along with agrochemical pollution from pesticide use (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. September 2020). Climate change is a potential future threat which may result in changes in monsoon season which is likely to affect its breeding activity (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. September 2020). Bd has been confirmed in nearby areas to this species range, and in other members of the genus, but further studies are required to see whether this is a threat to this species (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. September 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 | It is considered relatively abundant at all the collection localities (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? | Yes / probably | Micrixalus nelliyampathi or M. fuscus would probably be the better potential husbandry analogs for all Micrixalus spp. (Sandeep Das and (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. October 2020), if needed, although M. niluvasei could also be used as it is one of the more commonly encountered Micrixalus species (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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 | This is one of the dancing frog species, which have a unique habit of waving their feet to attract females during the breeding season, or for defense (Madhushri Mudke, 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 | Removed from the synonymy of Micrixalus fuscus (Biju et al., 2014). |
Citation:
Sandeep Das, Madhushri Mudke, S.R. Ganesh, S.R. Chandramouli and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Micrixalus herrei, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5528
Accessed 30 Apr 2025
