Assessment Results
Philautus microdiscus
Kobo Bubble-nest Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Rhacophorus microdiscus
Assessed for:
India
on:
17 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, Dr. Tutul Bortamuli, Kaushik Deuti, H.T. Lalremsanga, Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, Mohini Mohan Borah, Jayaditya Purkayastha and Jayanta Roy
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
18.39846223
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? | Unknown | It is unknown if the species still exists. The the type locality and surrounding area was surveyed in 2001 but the species was not found (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). |
| 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? | No / unlikely | This species is known only from the Abor Hills in the state of Arunachal Pradesh in India. The exact area within the Arbor Hills is not known, and so attempts to map its distribution can only be considered as approximate. According to Saikia and Sinha (2017), the type locality of this taxon is Kobo, in the state of Assam, India, at approximately 122 m asl. This species might occur more widely, and it is likely to have a very restricted range, but surveys have not yet been carried out (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). The confluence of Siang-Dibang and Brahmaputra is a potential area where this species may be occurring (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). This is a lowland species present below 122 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? | Yes / probably | There is about 1,000 sq km suitable habitat around the type locality (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). |
| 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 present in protected areas (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2020), although there are two protected ares, Dibrusaikhowa National Park (Assam) to the south, and D'Ering Wildlife Sanctuary, in Arunachal, to the north of the type locality (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 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 | Protection of the river and island habitat, removal of cattle from the type locality (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | |
| 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 | The type locality has changed complete since the original specimen was collected, due to cattle grazing and small-scale cattle ranching on the island, and transformation of the forest to grassland due to the river activity and movement of sand in the Siang River onto the island (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). These remain major threats to the species (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, 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? | Unknown | Its population status is unknown, and there have been no records since it was first described. The the type locality and surrounding area was surveyed in 2001 but the species was not found (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 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? | 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 | This would be a good species to tell the story about the habitat modifications and whether the species still exists or not (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 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? | 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:
Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, Dr. Tutul Bortamuli, Kaushik Deuti, H.T. Lalremsanga, Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, Mohini Mohan Borah, Jayaditya Purkayastha and Jayanta Roy 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Philautus microdiscus, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5636
Accessed 14 Apr 2025
