DOCSLIB.ORG

List of Scanned Specimens Per Species (N) and Their Collection Number, References for the Diet Are Indicated in the Last Column

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
List of Scanned Specimens Per Species (N) and Their Collection Number, References for the Diet Are Indicated in the Last Column Supplementary Material 1: List of scanned specimens per species (N) and their collection number, references for the diet are indicated in the last column. Prey shape is determined by the length/maximal cross-section of the prey: amphibians = bulky, generalist = bulky, fish: depend on the group/species. If several items are present in the diet, the favorite items are indicated by + or ++, and their shape define the “prey shape”. If no preference is noted, the shape of the prey item that requires the more extensive manipulation is considered. Specimen number and Species N Diet Shape References collection 0000.7200, MNHN 0000.5196, MNHN 0000.7201, MNHN Acrochordus granulatus 6 fish (gobiid) long (1–4) 0000.6155, MNHN 1900.0356, MNHN 1900.0357, MNHN 0000.3294, MNHN MS45, Anthony Herrel fish (+) (eels, catfish) Acrochordus javanicus 5 MS52, Anthony Herrel long (4–6) 0000.5370, MNHN amphibians 0000.1145, MNHN 1921.0391, MNHN 1916.0215A, MNHN fish (cyprinid) Afronatrix anoscopus 5 1960.0139, MNHN long (7–9) 1943.0079, MNHN amphibians (tadpoles ++) 1951.0008, MNHN 0000.4252, MNHN R3979, AMNH generalist Agkistrodon piscivorus 5 R46913, AMNH bulky (10–14) R50493, AMNH (40% fish) R64620, AMNH R23488, MCZ R23485, MCZ Aipysurus fuscus 5 R23483, MCZ fish (labrid and gobiid) long (15) R23482, MCZ R23481, MCZ 1990.4513, MNHN generalist fish ( 37% 1990.4507, MNHN Apogonidae, 17% Aipysurus laevis 5 1990.4514, MNHN Pempheridae) bulky (15–17) 1990.4515, MNHN mollusc (Limidae, 1999.6566, MNHN Pelecypod 0000.3519, MNHN amphibians 1946.0064, MNHN Atretium schistosum 5 0000.7000, MNHN fish bulky (18–20) 1999.8089, MNHN crab? 0000.7414, MNHN 229793, FMNH 229795, FMNH 198701, FMNH Bitia hydroides 7 229791, FMNH fish (gobiid) long (21–24) 211898, CAS 211899, CAS 211902, CAS 206912, FMNH 250116, FMNH 250118, FMNH crustaceans (shrimps, Cantoria violacea 7 bulky (21,25,26) 204970, CAS crabs) 204971, CAS 211909, CAS 1996.0258, MNHN 1900.0417, MNHN fish (21,25,27,2 Cerberus rynchops 5 1946.0078, MNHN long 8) 1946.0078A, MNHN crustaceans 1946.0077, MNHN 0000.3280, MNHN fish (eels) 2007.2452, MNHN Cylindrophis ruffus 5 0000.0440, MNHN snakes long (29–32) 0000.3281, MNHN caecilians 0000.6362, MNHN 1988.3768, MNHN 1970.0556, MNHN fish (elongated catfish, Subsessor bocourti 5 1970.0558, MNHN long (21,31,33) eels) 1970.0559, MNHN 1885.0333, MNHN 1911.0014, MNHN 1911.0015, MNHN fish (Carassius, Anabas, (21,25,34– Enhydris chinensis 5 0000.8777, MNHN Cyprinus) bulky 36) 0000.8778, MNHN amphibians (-) 1906.0217, MNHN 0000.3749, MNHN 0000.5567, MNHN fish (Rasbora, Chandidae, (21,25,33,3 Enhydris enhydris 5 1970.0544, MNHN bulky Trichopsis, Trichogaster) 7,38) 1970.0550, MNHN 0000.5528, MNHN 212348, FMNH 212362, FMNH Ephalophis greyae 5 212351, FMNH fish specialist (gobies) long (39,40) 212361, FMNH 212367, FMNH 1970.0564, MNHN 1970.0568, MNHN Erpeton tentaculatum 5 0000.5458, MNHN fish long (21,41) 0000.0924, MNHN 0000.0924A, MNHN 15426, FMNH fish (gobies) 15427, FMNH Erythrolamprus miliaris 5 15432, FMNH amphibians bulky (42) 15433, FMNH lizards (-) 217389, FMNH 0000.7190, MNHN generalist (fishes, frogs, 1996.7897, MNHN turtles, lizards, snakes, Eunectes murinus 5 1996.7898, MNHN bulky (42–44) caimans, birds, and 1994.1539, MNHN mammals) 1994.1538, MNHN 1903.0325, MNHN 0000.3397, MNHN Farancia erytrogramma 5 1991.1666, MNHN fish (eels) long (45–47) 0000.3396, MNHN R128620, AMNH 1974.1331, MNHN 1885.0128, MNHN 1892.0270, MNHN crustaceans (21,25,38,4 Fordonia leucobalia 6 bulky 1885.0545, MNHN (dismembered) 8–51) 217450, FMNH 218887, FMNH 1946.0079, MNHN 1946.0271, MNHN crustaceans (21,25,50– Gerarda prevostiana 4 bulky 204972, CAS (dismembered) 52) 211971, CAS 1996.6644, MNHN 1995.9679, MNHN fish (++) (siluriformes: Grayia ornata 5 1994.3383, MNHN Clarias, Parauchenolaglis) long (7) 1994.8079, MNHN amphibians 1995.9672, MNHN 1998.0603, MNHN amphibians (Xenopus 1995.3401, MNHN tropicalis ++, Ptychadena Grayia smithii 5 1996.6446, MNHN sp, tadpoles) bulky (9,53) 1994.3393, MNHN 1995.3406, MNHN fish (siluriforms, cichlids) 1996.6450, MNHN 1996.6451, MNHN fish Grayia tholloni 5 1988.2341, MNHN bulky (7) 1988.2345, MNHN amphibians 1994.8085, MNHN 0000.3609, MNHN tadpoles (++) amphibians 0000.1542, MNHN (42,44,54,5 Helicops angulatus 5 1997.2097, MNHN fish (Astyanax, Copella, long 5) 1997.2032, MNHN Gymnotus, 1997.2034, MNHN Apistogramma) 0000.5237, MNHN fish (+) (poeciliidae, Helicops carinicaudus 3 1887.0447, MNHN gobiidae) long (55,56) 87097, CAS amphibians 1970.0516, MNHN 1970.0518, MNHN fish (tilapia, lebistes, (21,24,57– Homalopsis buccata 5 1974.1333, MNHN mystus, eels…) bulky 59) 1970.0517, MNHN amphibians 1884.0123, MNHN R86165, AMNH R86166, AMNH Hydrelaps darwiniensis 5 R86167, AMNH small fish (gobiid) long (16,60,61) R86169, AMNH R86172, AMNH 1974.0854, MNHN fish 1889.0398, MNHN Hydrodynastes bicinctus 5 1902.0271, MNHN amphibians bulky (42) 0000.8665, MNHN crustaceans (shrimps) R88401, AMNH 1989.3093, MNHN 0000.A301, MNHN 0000.A302, MNHN fish Hydrodynastes gigas 6 bulky (42,62–64) 1997.2121, MNHN amphibians 1999.8322, MNHN 1997.2347, MNHN 0000.0851, MNHN 1977.0807, MNHN (1,15,16,39 Hydrophis ornatus 5 R66586, AMNH fish (Plotosida, Gobiidae) long ) R66588, AMNH R161770, AMNH 0000.5137, MNHN 1922.0005, MNHN (1,16,65,66 Hydrophis platurus 5 1922.0002, MNHN fish (Clupeidae) long ) 1994.0659, MNHN 1893.0064, MNHN 198586, FMNH 202102, FMNH (1,15,39,67 Hydrophis schistosus 5 202103, FMNH fish (mainly Ariidae) long ) 199488, FMNH 218842, FMNH 0000.4260A, MNHN 0000.4260, MNHN fish (+) (Ophichthidae) Hydrophis spiralis 5 0000.3988, MNHN long (68) 0000.7723, MNHN crustaceans R161772, AMNH 212320, FMNH fish (Opisthognathidae, Hydrophis stokesii 3 213063, FMNH long (15) Batrachoididae) 16774, CAS 1973.0296, MNHN 0000.3438, MNHN fish (+) (Synbranchidae, Hydrops triangularis 5 1978.2500, MNHN Gymnotidae) long (42,55,69) 1986.0565, MNHN amphibians 1989.3052, MNHN 0000.5180, MNHN 0000.7702, MNHN (1,15,70– Laticauda colubrina 5 0000.5881, MNHN fish (eels) long 74) 0000.5766, MNHN 0000.9053, MNHN R18223, AMNH frogs, tadpole Lycodonomorphus laevissimus 2 bulky (75) 156721, CAS fish (Tilapia) 205893, FMNH 205889, FMNH anurans (large tadpoles, Lycodonomorphus rufulus 5 0000.3377, MNHN frogs) bulky (76) 0000.1210, MNHN small fish 0000.0563, MNHN 1897.0006, MNHN 1989.3151, MNHN fish (eels) (42,44,54,7 Micrurus lemniscatus 5 0000.7658, MNHN long 7) 1996.7849, MNHN snakes, lizards (-) 0000.0201, MNHN 1996.7874, MNHN 1978.2312, MNHN Micrurus surinamensis 5 0000.3926, MNHN fish (eels, Gymnotus) long (42,44,78) 1873, Antoine Fouquet 1999.8313, MNHN R86236, AMNH R111790, AMNH fish (+) (gobiid) R111792, AMNH Myron richardsonii 7 R111793, AMNH nudibranch (-) long (15,25) 114105, CAS crabs (-) 135489, CAS 135491, CAS 1967.0455, MNHN 1899.0294, MNHN fish (+) (cichlids of lake Naja annulata 5 1892.0098, MNHN Tanganyika....) long (7) 1967.0452, MNHN amphibians 0000.8222, MNHN 1896.0518, MNHN 0000.6507A, MNHN frogs Natriciteres olivacea 5 1896.0520, MNHN bulky (8,79,80) 0000.6508, MNHN small fish 1994.8215, MNHN 2000.5145, MNHN fish (+) (Cyprinids: Gobio 1989.0698, MNHN gobio, Rhodeus sericeus, Natrix tessellata 5 0000.0641, MNHN Alburnus alburnus, and long (81,82) 1884.0155, MNHN Pseudorasbora parva) 0000.0642, MNHN amphibians 0000.0121, MNHN 0000.3482, MNHN fish (sunfish, bass) Nerodia cyclopion 5 1955.0058, MNHN bulky (83,84) R159217, AMNH amphibians R159218, AMNH R64408, AMNH R72686, AMNH fish (Cyprinidae, Nerodia harteri 5 R72690, AMNH long (83,85–88) Itcaluridae…) R85314, AMNH R162252, AMNH R172664, MCZ R172665, MCZ fish Opisthotropis lateralis 5 R175987, MCZ crustacean (freshwater long (89) R172654, MCZ shrimps) R172653, MCZ 1891.0077, MNHN 1891.0045, MNHN small fish 1891.0046, MNHN Psammodynastes pictus 6 anurans (-) long (59) 128402, FMNH 148906, FMNH crustaceans (prawn) 148926, FMNH 0000.3402, MNHN 0000.3401, MNHN fish (++) (Synbranchus) (42,54,55,6 Pseudoeryx plicatilis 5 0000.3401A, MNHN long 3,90,91) 1962.0423, MNHN amphibians 1978.2550, MNHN crustaceans (shrimps R35067, MCZ Macrobrachium) R140183, MCZ Pseudoferania polylepis 5 R129135, MCZ fish (Megalops, long (21,92) R141689, MCZ Eleotridae) 1937.0082, MNHN frogs (-) 29565, FMNH crayfish (+) (freshly moult 30428, FMNH crayfish) Regina grahami 5 7791, FMNH bulky (83,93) fish (-) 17033, FMNH 17609, FMNH amphibians (-) 3074, FMNH 35881, FMNH 3076, FMNH crayfish (freshly moult Regina septemvittata 6 bulky (94–96) 3077, FMNH crayfish) 35880, FMNH 0000.3492, MNHN 11047, FMNH 22591, FMNH Liodytes alleni 5 48360, FMNH crayfish (hard & soft shell) bulky (97–99) R159307, AMNH R170180, AMNH 0000.1101, MNHN R159322, AMNH (83,84,99,1 Liodytes rigida 5 R159323, AMNH crayfish (hard & soft shell) bulky 00) R160211, AMNH R162319, AMNH amphibians (cricket frog, 53688, FMNH tadpoles, salamander) 53693, FMNH Liodytes pygaea 5 53687, FMNH fish bulky (101) 53691, FMNH invertebrates (earthworms, 95347, FMNH leeches) 1902.0080, MNHN fish (50%, Misgurnus 1989.0215, MNHN anguillicaudatus, Channa Sinonatrix annularis 5 1989.0206, MNHN asiatica) long (102) 1999.9017, MNHN 1999.9016, MNHN anurans (Rana 50%) 1935.0449, MNHN fish (98%, Misgurnus 1935.0449A, MNHN anguillicaudatus, Channa Sinonatrix percarinata 5 1812.0321, MNHN asiatica) long (102) 2007.2443, MNHN 1812.0319, MNHN anurans (Rana 2%) R57421, AMNH R162404, AMNH amphibians (frog, toad, R162405, AMNH larvae, tadpoles, pacific (19,103– Thamnophis atratus 7 212664, CAS bulky giant salamander larvae) 108) 212709, CAS 212720, CAS fish 220684, CAS R57423, AMNH fish (salmonids) R66544, AMNH (103,108– Thamnophis couchii 5 R108191, AMNH amphibians (tadpoles, long 113) R108192, AMNH pacific giant salamander R108194, AMNH larvae) R64376, AMNH R64402, AMNH fish (green sunfish, (103,114– Thamnophis rufipunctatus 5 R68286, AMNH rainwbow trout) long 116) R85996, AMNH amphibians (-) R162440, AMNH 1991.1628, MNHN 0000.7323, MNHN fish 1991.1627, MNHN (31,35,117 Xenochrophis piscator 6 amphibians (toad, frog) bulky 1998.8543, MNHN –121) 1998.8553, MNHN rodents (-) R34085, AMNH References: 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Species Diversity of Snakes in Pachmarhi Biosphere Reserve
    & Herpeto gy lo lo gy o : h C it u n r r r e O Fellows, Entomol Ornithol Herpetol 2014, 4:1 n , t y R g e o l s o e Entomology, Ornithology & Herpetology: DOI: 10.4172/2161-0983.1000136 a m r o c t h n E ISSN: 2161-0983 Current Research ResearchCase Report Article OpenOpen Access Access Species Diversity of Snakes in Pachmarhi Biosphere Reserve Sandeep Fellows* Asst Conservator of forest, Madhya Pradesh Forest Department (Information Technology Wing), Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P) Abstract Madhya Pradesh (MP), the central Indian state is well-renowned for reptile fauna. In particular, Pachmarhi Biosphere Reserve (PBR) regions (Districts Hoshangabad, Betul and Chindwara) of MP comprises a vast range of reptiles, especially herpetofauna yet unexplored from the conservation point of view. Earlier inventory herpetofaunal study conducted in 2005 at MP and Chhattisgarh (CG) reported 6 snake families included 39 species. After this preliminary report, no literature existing regarding snake diversity of this region. This situation incited us to update the snake diversity of PBR regions. From 2010 to 2012, we conducted a detailed field study and recorded 31 species of 6 snake families (Boidae, Colubridae, Elapidae, Typhlopidea, Uropeltidae, and Viperidae) in Hoshanagbad District (Satpura Tiger Reserve) and PBR regions. Besides, we found the occurrence of Boiga forsteni and Coelognatus helena monticollaris (Colubridae), which was not previously reported in PBR region. Among the recorded, 9 species were Lower Risk – least concerned (LR-lc), 20 were of Lower Risk – near threatened (LR-nt), 1 is Endangered (EN) and 1 is vulnerable (VU) according to International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) status.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence of Lingual-Luring by an Aquatic Snake
    Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 34 No. 1 pp 67-74, 2000 Copyright 2000 Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Evidence of Lingual-luring by an Aquatic Snake HARTWELL H. WELSH, JR. AND AMY J. LIND Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 1700 Bayview Dr., Arcata, California 95521, USA. E-mail: hwelsh/[email protected] ABSTRACT.-We describe and quantify the components of an unusual snake behavior used to attract fish prey: lingual-luring. Our earlier research on the foraging behavior of the Pacific Coast aquatic garter snake (Thamnophis atratus) indicated that adults are active foragers, feeding primarily on aquatic Pacific giant salamanders (Dicamptodon tenebrosus) in streambed substrates. Juvenile snakes, however, use primarily ambush tactics to capture larval anurans and juvenile salmonids along stream margins, behaviors that include the lingual-luring described here. We found that lingual-luring differed from typical chemosensory tongue-flicking by the position of the snake, contact of the tongue with the water surface, and the length of time the tongue was extended. Luring snakes are in ambush position and extend and hold their tongues out rigid, with the tongue-tips quivering on the water surface, apparently mimicking insects in order to draw young fish within striking range. This behavior is a novel adaptation of the tongue-vomeronasal system by a visually-oriented predator. The luring of prey by snakes has been asso- luring function (Mushinsky, 1987; Ford and ciated primarily with the use of the tail, a be- Burghardt, 1993). However, Lillywhite and Hen- havior termed caudal luring (e.g., Neill, 1960; derson (1993) noted the occurrence of a pro- Greene and Campbell, 1972; Heatwole and Dav- longed extension of the tongue observed in vine ison, 1976; Jackson and Martin, 1980; Schuett et snakes (e.g., Kennedy, 1965; Henderson and al., 1984; Chizar et al., 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • ONEP V09.Pdf
    Compiled by Jarujin Nabhitabhata Tanya Chan-ard Yodchaiy Chuaynkern OEPP BIODIVERSITY SERIES volume nine OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND PLANNING MINISTRY OF SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT 60/1 SOI PIBULWATTANA VII, RAMA VI RD., BANGKOK 10400 THAILAND TEL. (662) 2797180, 2714232, 2797186-9 FAX. (662) 2713226 Office of Environmental Policy and Planning 2000 NOT FOR SALE NOT FOR SALE NOT FOR SALE Compiled by Jarujin Nabhitabhata Tanya Chan-ard Yodchaiy Chuaynkern Office of Environmental Policy and Planning 2000 First published : September 2000 by Office of Environmental Policy and Planning (OEPP), Thailand. ISBN : 974–87704–3–5 This publication is financially supported by OEPP and may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non–profit purposes without special permission from OEPP, providing that acknowledgment of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purposes. Citation : Nabhitabhata J., Chan ard T., Chuaynkern Y. 2000. Checklist of Amphibians and Reptiles in Thailand. Office of Environmental Policy and Planning, Bangkok, Thailand. Authors : Jarujin Nabhitabhata Tanya Chan–ard Yodchaiy Chuaynkern National Science Museum Available from : Biological Resources Section Natural Resources and Environmental Management Division Office of Environmental Policy and Planning Ministry of Science Technology and Environment 60/1 Rama VI Rd. Bangkok 10400 THAILAND Tel. (662) 271–3251, 279–7180, 271–4232–8 279–7186–9 ext 226, 227 Facsimile (662) 279–8088, 271–3251 Designed & Printed :Integrated Promotion Technology Co., Ltd. Tel. (662) 585–2076, 586–0837, 913–7761–2 Facsimile (662) 913–7763 2 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 4 Issue 1B
    Captive & Field Herpetology Volume 4 Issue 1 2020 Volume 4 Issue 1 2020 ISSN - 2515-5725 Published by Captive & Field Herpetology Captive & Field Herpetology Volume 4 Issue1 2020 The Captive and Field Herpetological journal is an open access peer-reviewed online journal which aims to better understand herpetology by publishing observational notes both in and ex-situ. Natural history notes, breeding observations, husbandry notes and literature reviews are all examples of the articles featured within C&F Herpetological journals. Each issue will feature literature or book reviews in an effort to resurface past literature and ignite new research ideas. For upcoming issues we are particularly interested in [but also accept other] articles demonstrating: • Conflict and interactions between herpetofauna and humans, specifically venomous snakes • Herpetofauna behaviour in human-disturbed habitats • Unusual behaviour of captive animals • Predator - prey interactions • Species range expansions • Species documented in new locations • Field reports • Literature reviews of books and scientific literature For submission guidelines visit: www.captiveandfieldherpetology.com Or contact us via: [email protected] Front cover image: Timon lepidus, Portugal 2019, John Benjamin Owens Captive & Field Herpetology Volume 4 Issue1 2020 Editorial Team Editor John Benjamin Owens Bangor University [email protected] [email protected] Reviewers Dr James Hicks Berkshire College of Agriculture [email protected] JP Dunbar
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Two Marine Organisms
    THE SINGAPORE BLUE PLAN 2018 EDITORS ZEEHAN JAAFAR DANWEI HUANG JANI THUAIBAH ISA TANZIL YAN XIANG OW NICHOLAS YAP PUBLISHED BY THE SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGY OCTOBER 2018 THE SINGAPORE BLUE PLAN 2018 PUBLISHER THE SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGY C/O NSSE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION 1 NANYANG WALK SINGAPORE 637616 CONTACT: [email protected] ISBN: 978-981-11-9018-6 COPYRIGHT © TEXT THE SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGY COPYRIGHT © PHOTOGRAPHS AND FIGURES BY ORINGAL CONTRIBUTORS AS CREDITED DATE OF PUBLICATION: OCTOBER 2018 EDITED BY: Z. JAAFAR, D. HUANG, J.T.I. TANZIL, Y.X. OW, AND N. YAP COVER DESIGN BY: ABIGAYLE NG THE SINGAPORE BLUE PLAN 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The editorial team owes a deep gratitude to all contributors of The Singapore Blue Plan 2018 who have tirelessly volunteered their expertise and effort into this document. We are fortunate to receive the guidance and mentorship of Professor Leo Tan, Professor Chou Loke Ming, Professor Peter Ng, and Mr Francis Lim throughout the planning and preparation stages of The Blue Plan 2018. We are indebted to Dr. Serena Teo, Ms Ria Tan and Dr Neo Mei Lin who have made edits that improved the earlier drafts of this document. We are grateful to contributors of photographs: Heng Pei Yan, the Comprehensive Marine Biodiversity Survey photography team, Ria Tan, Sudhanshi Jain, Randolph Quek, Theresa Su, Oh Ren Min, Neo Mei Lin, Abraham Matthew, Rene Ong, van Heurn FC, Lim Swee Cheng, Tran Anh Duc, and Zarina Zainul. We thank The Singapore Institute of Biology for publishing and printing the The Singapore Blue Plan 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article (PDF)
    OCCASIONAL PAPER NO 12S I f I I RECORDS OF THE ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 125 A POCKET BOOK OF THE AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OF THE CHILKA LAGOON, ORISSA By T. S. N. MURTHY Southern Regional Station, Zoological Survey of India, Madrar ~VIU Edited by the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta 1990 @ CDpy"g"t, Government IJ!r"dla, 199fJ Published: March, 1990 Price : Inland: Rs. Foreign: £ s Production: Publication Unit. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta Printed in India by A. Kt. Chatterjee at . Jnanoday. Press. SSS, Kabi Su1Canta Sarani. Calcutta 700 ,O~ and Published by th" 1)jrJOiot. Zoological Surfty of India. Calcutta RECORDS OF THE ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA Occasional Paper No. 125 1990 Pages 1-35 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 HIsTORY OF HERPETOLOGY OF THE CHllKA 1 Part I AMPHlTBANS 2 Part II REPTILEs S How TO. FIND AND OBSERVE AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES IN THE CHlLKA LAGOON ... 24 CHECKLIST ... 2S GLOSSARY tt. 29 SELCECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ••• 31 INDEX ••• 33 ACKNOWU:DG~ ,t. 34 Dedicated to the memory of Nelson Annandale who pioneered the faunistic investigations of the Chilka Lake PREFACE The interesting frogs and reptiles of the Chilka lagoon in the State of Orissa seem not to have been given the attention they deserve. This small booklet introduces the few amphibians and many reptiles found in the Chilka Lake, on its several islands and hills, and along the shoreline. Literally, thousands of tourists visit the Chilka Lake round the year. Groups of school boys and girls come here regularly. It is necessary to tell them about the fauna of the lagoon and the ways of its wild denizens.
    [Show full text]
  • Andhra Pradesh
    PROFILES OF SELECTED NATIONAL PARKS AND SANCTUARIES OF INDIA JULY 2002 EDITED BY SHEKHAR SINGH ARPAN SHARMA INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION NEW DELHI CONTENTS STATE NAME OF THE PA ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR CAMPBELL BAY NATIONAL PARK ISLANDS GALATHEA NATIONAL PARK MOUNT HARRIET NATIONAL PARK NORTH BUTTON ISLAND NATIONAL PARK MIDDLE BUTTON ISLAND NATIONAL PARK SOUTH BUTTON ISLAND NATIONAL PARK RANI JHANSI MARINE NATIONAL PARK WANDOOR MARINE NATIONAL PARK CUTHBERT BAY WILDLIFE SANCTUARY GALATHEA BAY WILDLIFE SANCTUARY INGLIS OR EAST ISLAND SANCTUARY INTERVIEW ISLAND SANCTUARY LOHABARRACK OR SALTWATER CROCODILE SANCTUARY ANDHRA PRADESH ETURUNAGARAM SANCTUARY KAWAL WILDLIFE SANCTUARY KINNERSANI SANCTUARY NAGARJUNASAGAR-SRISAILAM TIGER RESERVE PAKHAL SANCTUARY PAPIKONDA SANCTUARY PRANHITA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY ASSAM MANAS NATIONAL PARK GUJARAT BANSDA NATIONAL PARK PURNA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY HARYANA NAHAR SANCTUARY KALESAR SANCTUARY CHHICHHILA LAKE SANCTUARY ABUBSHEHAR SANCTUARY BIR BARA VAN JIND SANCTUARY BIR SHIKARGAH SANCTUARY HIMACHAL PRADESH PONG LAKE SANCTUARY RUPI BHABA SANCTUARY SANGLA SANCTUARY KERALA SILENT VALLEY NATIONAL PARK ARALAM SANCTUARY CHIMMONY SANCTUARY PARAMBIKULAM SANCTUARY PEECHI VAZHANI SANCTUARY THATTEKAD BIRD SANCTUARY WAYANAD WILDLIFE SANCTUARY MEGHALAYA BALPAKARAM NATIONAL PARK SIJU WILDLIFE SANCTUARY NOKREK NATIONAL PARK NONGKHYLLEM WILDLIFE SANCTUARY MIZORAM MURLEN NATIONAL PARK PHAWNGPUI (BLUE MOUNTAIN) NATIONAL 2 PARK DAMPA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY KHAWNGLUNG WILDLIFE SANCTUARY LENGTENG WILDLIFE SANCTUARY NGENGPUI WILDLIFE
    [Show full text]
  • Chec List Amphibians and Reptiles, Romblon Island
    Check List 8(3): 443-462, 2012 © 2012 Check List and Authors Chec List ISSN 1809-127X (available at www.checklist.org.br) Journal of species lists and distribution Amphibians and Reptiles, Romblon Island Group, central PECIES Philippines: Comprehensive herpetofaunal inventory S OF Cameron D. Siler 1*, John C. Swab 1, Carl H. Oliveros 1, Arvin C. Diesmos 2, Leonardo Averia 3, Angel C. ISTS L Alcala 3 and Rafe M. Brown 1 1 University of Kansas, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Biodiversity Institute, Lawrence, KS 66045-7561, USA. 2 Philippine National Museum, Zoology Division, Herpetology Section. Rizal Park, Burgos St., Manila, Philippines. 3 Silliman University Angelo King Center for Research and Environmental Management, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Philippines. * Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: We present results from several recent herpetological surveys in the Romblon Island Group (RIG), Romblon Province, central Philippines. Together with a summary of historical museum records, our data document the occurrence of 55 species of amphibians and reptiles in this small island group. Until the present effort, and despite past studies, observations of evolutionarily distinct amphibian species, including conspicuous, previously known, endemics like the forestherpetological frogs Platymantis diversity lawtoni of the RIGand P.and levigatus their biogeographical and two additional affinities suspected has undescribedremained poorly species understood. of Platymantis We . reportModerate on levels of reptile endemism prevail on these islands, including taxa like the karst forest gecko species Gekko romblon and the newly discovered species G. coi. Although relatively small and less diverse than the surrounding landmasses, the islands of Romblon Province contain remarkable levels of endemism when considered as percentage of the total fauna or per unit landmass area.
    [Show full text]
  • Acrochordus Javanicus) in KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA
    J. Vet. Malaysia (2016) 28 (1):20-26 Case Reports FATAL MELIOIDOSIS IN A CAPTIVE ELEPHANT TRUNK SNAKE (Acrochordus javanicus) IN KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA M. A. SADIQ1, 2, L. HASSAN1*, Z. ZAKARIA1, A.A. SAHAREE1 and Y. ABBA1,2 1Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, UPM Serdang, Selangor Darul Ehsan Malaysia 2Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Maiduguri, P.M.B 1069 Maiduguri, Borno State Nigeria SUMMARY An adult female Elephant Trunk Snake (Acrochordus javanicus) was reported to have been weak and inappetent for five days. The following morning the snake found dead, while in the process of shedding its skin. On post mortem examination, there were multiple circumscribed caseous nodules of various sizes distributed all over the liver, along the respiratory tract and on the lungs. Bacteriological analysis of the lungs and liver swab samples yielded Burkholderia pseudomallei, which was confirmed by PCR amplification of specific 16S rRNA. The condition was diagnosed as melioidosis and the organism was genotypically characterized as sequence type 51, a genotype that has been previously characterized in humans in Malaysia. Antibiotic susceptibility by both Disc diffusion or Kirby Bauer and E-test minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) showed that the organism exhibited susceptibility to meropenem, imipenem, ceftazidime, cotrimoxazole and co-amoxyclav; the antibiotics recommended in the treatment of melioidosis. Keywords: Melioidosis, Elephant Trunk Snake, Burkholderia pseudomallei, sequence type, pathology INTRODUCTION antibiotic treatments used to treat melioidosis: (a) the acute septicaemic phase of the disease or intensive phase, Melioidosis, a likely fatal infectious disease of both using the cephalosporin, ceftazidime and carbapenems, humans and animals is caused by an environmental (soil meropenem and imipenem and (b) the subsequent and water) dwelling saprophytic bacterium; Burkholderia eradication phase treatment using trimethoprim- pseudomallei (Inglis and Sousa, 2009; Currie et al., 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Snakes of South-East Asia Including Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Sumatra, Borneo, Java and Bali
    A Naturalist’s Guide to the SNAKES OF SOUTH-EAST ASIA including Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Sumatra, Borneo, Java and Bali Indraneil Das First published in the United Kingdom in 2012 by Beaufoy Books n n 11 Blenheim Court, 316 Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 7NS, England Contents www.johnbeaufoy.com 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Introduction 4 Copyright © 2012 John Beaufoy Publishing Limited Copyright in text © Indraneil Das Snake Topography 4 Copyright in photographs © [to come] Dealing with Snake Bites 6 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publishers. About this Book 7 ISBN [to come] Glossary 8 Edited, designed and typeset by D & N Publishing, Baydon, Wiltshire, UK Printed and bound [to come] Species Accounts and Photographs 11 Checklist of South-East Asian Snakes 141 Dedication Nothing would have happened without the support of the folks at home: my wife, Genevieve V.A. Gee, and son, Rahul Das. To them, I dedicate this book. Further Reading 154 Acknowledgements 155 Index 157 Edited and designed by D & N Publishing, Baydon, Wiltshire, UK Printed and bound in Malaysia by Times Offset (M) Sdn. Bhd. n Introduction n n Snake Topography n INTRODUCTION Snakes form one of the major components of vertebrate fauna of South-East Asia. They feature prominently in folklore, mythology and other belief systems of the indigenous people of the region, and are of ecological and conservation value, some species supporting significant (albeit often illegal) economic activities (primarily, the snake-skin trade, but also sale of meat and other body parts that purportedly have medicinal properties).
    [Show full text]
  • Borneo) in Two Different Ways
    Contributions to Zoology, 78 (4) 141-147 (2009) Estimating the snake species richness of the Santubong Peninsula (Borneo) in two different ways Johan van Rooijen1, 2, 3 1 Zoological Museum Amsterdam, Mauritskade 61, 1092 AD Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2 Tulpentuin 313, 2272 EH Voorburg, The Netherlands 3 E-mail: [email protected] Key words: Chao I estimator, negative exponential function, rarefaction curve, Santubong Peninsula Borneo, snakes, species richness, Weibull function Abstract stantial investments in terms of search effort. This is particularly true for snakes which are hard to find (e.g. The distribution of Borneo’s species across the island is far Lloyd et al., 1968; Inger and Colwell, 1977; Hofer and from well-known. This is particularly true for snakes which are hard to find. Given the current rate of habitat destruction and Bersier, 2001; Orlov et al., 2003). As a consequence, consequent need for conservation strategies, more information estimation techniques are of interest when the intend- is required as to the species composition and richness of spe- ed objective is to assess species richness, an elemen- cific areas of potential conservation priority. An example is the tary criterion conservationists may use when identify- Santubong Peninsula, Sarawak, Malaysia, part of which has re- ing priority areas. One such estimation technique con- cently been gazetted as a National Park. In this paper, the snake species richness of the Santubong Peninsula is estimated on the sists of extrapolating the species accumulation curve. basis of data obtained during 450 survey-hours. Thirty-two spe- Species accumulation curves are regularly applied in cies were recorded.
    [Show full text]
  • TRAPPING SUCCESS and POPULATION ANALYSIS of Siren Lacertina and Amphiuma Means
    TRAPPING SUCCESS AND POPULATION ANALYSIS OF Siren lacertina AND Amphiuma means By KRISTINA SORENSEN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my committee members Lora Smith, Franklin Percival, and Dick Franz for all their support and advice. The Department of Interior's Student Career Experience Program and the U.S. Geological Survey's Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative provided funding for this project. I thank those involved with these programs who have helped me over the last three years: David Trauger, Ken Dodd, Jamie Barichivich, Jennifer Staiger, Kevin Smith, and Steve Johnson. Numerous people helped with field work: Audrey Owens, Maya Zacharow, Chris Gregory, Matt Chopp, Amanda Rice, Paul Loud, Travis Tuten, Steve Johnson, and Jennifer Staiger, Lora Smith, and the UF Wildlife Field Techniques Courses of2001-2002. Paul Moler and John Jensen provided advice and shared their wealth of herpetological knowledge. I thank the staff of Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Steve Coates, manager of the Ordway Preserve, for their assistance on numerous occasions and for permission to conduct research on their property. Marinela Capanu of the IFAS Statistical Consulting Unit assisted with statistical analysis. Julien Martin, Bob Dorazio, Rob Bennets, and Cathy Langtimm provided advice on population analysis. I also thank the administrative staff of the Florida Caribbean Science Center and the Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. I am much indebted to all of these people, without whom this thesis would not have been possible.
    [Show full text]