Assessment Results
Minervarya brevipalmata
Pegu Wart Frog, Peters' Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Dicroglossidae
Synonym(s):
Rana brevipalmata, Zakerana brevipalmata, Fejervarya brevipalmata
Assessed for:
India
on:
09 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Gururaja K.V., Keerthi Krutha and Nikhil Modak
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
18.8323707
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 | |
| 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 thought to be endemic to the Western Ghats mountain range in India. Specimens referable to the type description have been located in Wayanad (Kerala). There is a need to confirm the identity of all populations (e.g., those from Maharashtra; Biju et al. in prep.) (Nikhil Modak and Gururaja KV, pers. comm. October 2020). It occurs in montane forests of the Western Ghats states of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, in South India (Subramanian et al. 2013). It is present in the protected area of Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary (Srinivas and Bhupathy 2013). It has been recorded between 400-1,250 m asl. |
| 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? | ||
| 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 protected by national legislation. It is present in the protected area of Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary (Srinivas and Bhupathy 2013). |
| 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 | |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Further survey work and research are needed, in particular to determine taxonomy, geographic range, habitat occupancy, population size, threats, ecology and life history (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 | The threats to these species are unknown (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? | Unknown | |
| 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 | This is a locally uncommon species. If the populations do belong to this species: Boulenger (1920) reported 7 specimens from Niligiris, Malabar and, Devicolum and Piermud in Travancore, while Pillai (1980) 19 specimens from Muthanga, Chedleth, Anamalai, and Valparai (Dinesh et al. 2017). Vyas (2012) could not locate any individuals during a total of 50 field days carried out from November 2006 to December 2007 in Shoolpaneswr Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat, India, where it was previously recorded (Sabnis and Amin 1992). It is considered common in Agumbe Rainforest Research Station (Purushotham and Tapley 2011). |
| 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? | 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 but may be a species complex. When the first assessment for this species was published (in 2004) it was under the generic name Fejervarya. In 2009, the species was transferred it to the genus Zakerana. Zakerana is now recognised as a junior synonym of Fejervarya (Dinesh et al. 2015), hence the species has been returned to the genus Fejervarya. This is not a reassessment of the status of this species; instead it is an updated version of the original assessment to reflect this taxonomic change. Further research on taxonomy is recommended for this taxon (Dinesh et al. 2017).This species was described based on a single "purchased specimen" from "Pegu", Myanmar (Peters 1871). Boulenger (1920) expressed doubts regarding its type locality. The population of Wayanad matches the type description, and presumably the type specimen is from the Western Ghats and not from Myanmar. |
Citation:
Gururaja K.V., Keerthi Krutha and Nikhil Modak 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Minervarya brevipalmata, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5560
Accessed 05 Feb 2025
