S. Afe. J. Zool. 1995. 30(3) 115

Distribution and protection of endemic or threatened rodents, lagomorphs and macrosceledids in South Africa

D.N. Mugo and A.T. Lombard' Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town. Private Bag Rondebosch, 7700 Republic of South Africa

G.N. Bronner Department of Mammals, Transvaal Museum, P.O. Box 413, Pretoria, 0001 Republic of South Africa C,M. Gelderblom and GA Benn Percy FitzPatrick Institute

Receil'ed J(; February 1995: aCn'l'tcd 4 May /9Q5

Distribution patterns and protection status of endemic or threatened Lagomorpha. Macroscelidea, and Rodentia were analysed using museum point locality data and a geographic information system (GIS). The study area comprised the greater South Africa (including Lesotho and Swaziland). Species richness of the target species is highest in the south-western parts of the country, and hotspots of endemism cOincide with those of species rich­ ness. However, Red Data Book species hotspots are confined to the north-eastern parts of the country. One species richness hotspot in the Succulent Karoo contains no existing reserves, whereas all Red Data Book spe­ cies hotspots are protected. In general, all target species are well protected within existing reserves, but those found in the Succulent and Nama-Karoo, especially the Namaqua dune molerat (Bathyergus janetta) , the river­ ine rabbit (Buno/agus monticu/aris), Brants' whistling rat (Parotomys brantsit) , and the pygmy rock mouse (Petro­ myscus collinus) , are threatened by a paucity of reserves in these biomes. A heuristic reserve selection algorithm was used to identify a more representative reserve system for the protection of all target species. Ten representative reserves were identified, six of which already contain existing reserves. An analysis of biome specificity of all species revealed that Myomyscus verreauxii is endemic to the fynbos, Bathyergus janetta to the Succulent Karoo, Ze/otomys woosnami to the arid savanna, and Steatomys parvus to the savanna woodlands. No species are endemic to the Nama-Karoo or grasslands, although several species do show strong prefer­ ences for these habitats. It is recommended that hotspots. representative reserves, and species that are cur­ rently not protected, be awarded more protection. and that existing reserves which coincide with hotspots and representative reserves be managed for their mammal fauna. It is also recommended that the Red Data Book

. status of four species, and six subspecies, should be changed. ) 9 0

0 Verspreidingspatrone en beskermingstatu5 van endemiese of bedreigde Lagomorpha, Macroscelidea, en 2 Rodentia is geanaliseer met behulp van museumpunt-liggingsdata en 'n geografiese informasiesisteem (GIS). d e Die studiegebied het die groter Suid-Afrika (insluitend Lesotho en Swaziland) ingeslui!. Die spesierykheid van t a teikenspesies was die hoogste in die suidwestelike gedeeltes van die land. Die brandpunte van endemisme het d

( met die van spesierykheid oorvleuel. Die brandpunte van Rooi Data-boekspesies is egter beperk tot die noord­ r oostelike gedeeltes van die land. Een spesierykheidbrandpunt, in die Sukkulente Karoo, bevat geen bewarings­ e h gebiede nie, terwyl al die brandpunte vir Rooi Data-boekspesies bewaar word. In die algemeen word aile teiken­ s i l spesies goed beskerm in bewaringsgebiede, maar die wat in die Sukkulente en Nama-Karoo aangetref word, in b besonder die Namakwa-duinmol (Bathyergus janetta), die oewerkonyn (Buno/agus monticu/aris), Brants se fluit­ u P

rot (Parotomys brantsil), en die dwergklipmuis (Petromyscus collin us) word deur 'n gebrek aan bewaarde e gebiede in hierdie biome bedreig. 'n Proefondervindelike seleksieprosedure vir bewaringsgebiede is gebruik om h t

'n meer verteenwoordigende bewaringsgebiedsisteem vir die beskerming van al die teikenspesies te identifi· y

b seer. Tien verteenwoordigende bewaringsgebiede is ge'identifiseer, waarvan ses reeds bestaande bewarings·

d gebiede inslui!. 'n Ontleding van die bioomspesifisiteit van al die spesies het aangetoon dat Myomyscus e t verreauxii endemies is aan die fynbos, Bathyergus janetta aan die Sukkulente Karoo, Ze/otomys woosnaml aan n die dorre savanna en Steatomys parvus aan die savannabosland. Geen spesie is endemies aan die Nama· a r Karoa of die grasland nie, alhoewel verskeie spesies sterk voorkeur verleen aan hierdie habitats. Daar word g

e aanbeveel dat aan brandpunte, verteenwoordigende bewaringsgebiede. en spesies wat op die oomblik c onbeskermd is, groter beskerming toegeken word. en dat bestaande bewaringsgebiede wat met brandpunte en n e verteenwoordigende bewaringsgebiede saamval vir hulle soogdierlauna bestuur word. Daar word oak aan· c i l

beveel dat die Rooi Data·boekstatus van vier spesies en ses subspesies, verander moet word. r e d *To whom correspondence should be addressed n u y a

w The present system of puhlicly owned protected areas (= groups; and the protection of historical uses (such as hunting). e t to In South Africa, existing reserves are heavi1y hiased towards a reserves) in South Africa is not the result of a national plan G

conserve all aspects of biodiversity, but of historical ad hoc areas with large mammal faunas, mainly because of their t e IlOc n decisions (Siegfried 1989). Pressey (1994) lists the reasons tourism and hunting appeal. The ad designation of i b for ad hoc designation of reserves as: the relative lack of reserves has two main disadvantages. First. it tends to exclude a S value of selected sites for profitable exploitation by humans; certain species, communities or ecosystems (Pressey 1994). y b impressive scenery; recreation potential; influence of lobby Second, it makes the establishment of representative reserves d e c u d o r p e R 116 S. Afr. Tydskr. Dierk. 1995, 30(3)

more expensive, thus reducing the likelihood of their cstab~ cies is listed as endangered (Bunolagus monticularis), two are Iishment (Pressey & Tully 1994). vulnerable, five are rare, six are indeterminate, and II are not It is often assumed that reserves designated to protect large listed (see Table I). mammal faunas will also provide adequate protection for With 29 families, 443 genera, and about 2021 species (Wil­ small mammals and other faunas. However, the validity of son & Reeder 1993), rodents form the largest mammalian this assumption has not been adequately tested. Gclderblom order. However, many questions regarding their taxonomy (1993) used range maps to test the effectiveness of the Current still remain unanswered (De Graaff 1981). Rodents are found reserve system in protecting small endemic mammal taxa in in most types of habitat owing to their wide-ranging adapta­ South Africa. She concluded that the existing reserve system tions. They occur in all zoogeographic regions except the does not adequately protect all the small mammals, and that Antarctic and some oceanic islands (De Graaff 1981). The this may have contributed towards the high proportion of order Macroscelidea comprises the elephant shrews, with four threatened species within this group. Tn addition, Siegfried & genera represented by 15 living species distributed in Brown (1992) used a reserve selection algorithm to assess the Morocco, Algeria, and Africa south of the Sahara (Wilson & effectiveness of the current reserve system in conserving bio­ Reeder 1993). They arc partly diurnal, and inhabit open diversity. They found that the existing arrangement of plains, savannas, brushlands, or forests. The order Lagomor­ reserves, particularly in the north-eastern and eastern parts of pha includes rabbits (Leporidae) and pikas (Ochotonidae) and the country, corresponds closely to an ideal configuration that comprises 13 genera, represented by 80 species (Wilson & would maximize the protection of resident, breeding, terres­ Reeder 1993). They have a world-wide distribution, and trial mammalian species. However, they also showed that it occupy terrestrial habitats from the Arctic to the tropics. does not adequately protect endemic mammal species. Another way to assess the effectiveness of current reserves Methods in protecting small mammals is to perform a gap analysis Species distribution data (Scott, Davis, Csuti, Noss, Butterfield, Groves, Anderson, Digital data were received from the following Museum col­ Caicco, D'Erchia, Edwards, Ulliman & Wright 1993; Lom­ lections: South African Museum, Transvaal Museum, Durban bard, August & Siegfried 1992). In this study, gap analysis is Natural Science Museum, Natal Museum, and the National used in a restricted sense to refer only to the taxa under inves­ Museum in Bloemfontein. Analogue data were obtained from tigation. We used a geographic information system (GIS) to the Carnegie Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian identify hotspots, i.e. centres of total, endemic, or Red Data Institution in the USA. All data from museums were supplied Book (RDB, Smithers 1986) species richness. These hotspots in digital format at a quarter-degree square scale (QDS = 15' x arc then compared with the existing reserve system. Priority 15'). QDS codes were those defined by the government .

) areas for conservation outside of the existing system are iden­

9 printer for 1:50 000 maps (e.g. 33 I 9AC). Once all data had

0 tified, and suggestions arc made as to how the present system

0 been collated, they were screened for errors. Particular atten­

2 may be improved upon to include taxa at risk. Hotspots, how­ tion was paid to locality errors and possible mis-identification d ever, do not usually represent all species within a taxon (Lom­ e

t errors, especially with respect to earlier specimens. Corrected

a bard 1995b). Thus, in addition to a gap analysis, we used a data were then formalled for GIS input. Data from the Smith­ d

( heuristic reserve selection algorithm to identify a more repre­

r sonian Institution and the Carnegie Museum were converted

e sentative system of reserves.

h into digital format after confirming locality records in the s

i The main difference between this study and recent work on l gazelleer (Skead 1973). The data from museums were supple­ b the endemic mammals (Gelderblom 1993), and all South u mented with information from the following literature

P African terrestrial mammals (Siegfried & Brown 1992), is sources: Dean (1978); Duthie, Skinner & Robinson (1989); e that point data, rather than range maps, are used. This allows h Lynch (1983,1989,1994); Lynch & Watson (1992); Rauten­ t one to identify important areas at a much finer scale. These y bach (1982); Taylor, Richardson, Meester & Wingate (1994); b

areas can then be surveyed at minimal cost to verify the pres­ and Bronner (1990). d

e ence of species. t Museum records were used for the following reasons: (i) n a museums provide the most convenient sources of data; (ii) the r

g Target species

target taxa arc not easily observed in the field; and, (iii) e c Endemic or threatened small mammals of the orders Roden­ museum records are more reliable in terms of taxonomic n e tia, Macroscelidea, and Lagomorpha were selected for two identification, thus minimizing the potential for error. The c i l

reasons: (i) fairly reliable distribution data exist; and, (ii) the size of the mapping unit used in mapping species can have r e other small mammals i.e. orders Chiroptera and Insectivora, significant consequences in prioritizing areas for conservation d n have been dealt with by Gelderblom, Bronner, Lombard & (Stoms 1994: Pressey & Logan 1994). Owing to the mixed u

y Taylor (1995). scales of the data provided by museums (some data were a Within the three orders under investigation, there are eight point localities, and others were at a QDS scale), all data were w e t species of Macroscelidea, seven species of Lagomorpha converted to QDSs to facilitate analyses at one scale only. a & G (Skinner Smithers 1990), and 73 species of Rodentia (De The number of data points obtained from the various t

e Graaff 1981) in southern Africa. In this paper, we examine sources was as follows: Transvaal Museum - 1240 records; n i two macroscelidids, two lagomorphs and 21 rodents. Of South African Museum - 295 records; Durban and Natal b a these, 16 are endemic to South Africa, two are southern Afri­ Museums - 157 records; Carnegie Museum and Smithso­ S can suo-region endemics, and seven are not endemic to South nian Institution - 129 records; National Museum in Bloem­ y b Africa or the sub-region. In terms of the RDB status, one spe- fontein - 115 records; and literature sources yielded 228 d e c u d o r p e R S. Mr. J. Zoo!. 1995, 30(3) 117

Table 1 List of species investigated known ranges. These records were returned to the source --=---~--- museums for verification, and records that could not be veri­ ~Endemic hRcd Data fied were excluded from the analyses. Specil.. :s status Rook status

AerluJfnys );rt.l!lfi SA Hotspots BUlhverKus janelw. SA R Four types of hotspots were identified: species richness, 8ulhyerNIIs slIilluJ SA which refers to al\ the species considered here; endemic spe­ BWJ()laKl/~ tno1Jli(."ufal'is SA E cies richness, which refers to all species endemic to the CricelIJmy.f ~Ulfnbil1lws R greater South Africa; RDB species richness, which includes Dusymys incrHntu.f all those species listed in the Red Data Book (Smithers 1986); Dendmmlls nrikcle and hotspots of species that are both endemic and listed in the RDB. Hotspots were defined as the top 2% of all QDSs con­ Elephunlllius edwardii SA taining data. GcorychuJ cape!l~is SA Grammum.)!s cometes Representative reserves Graphiurus ()(:ularis SA R A heuristic reserve selection algorithm (Rebelo & Siegfried M.)'umY.H:IIS verrC£luxii SA 1992) was applied to the species distribution database, in Myslmmys albinwdalus SA v order to identify a set of reserves (QDSs) in which each spe­ Otomys kamensi,f' SA cies would be represented at least once. Here, the term 'repre­ O/om)'s Iwninalils SA sentative reserve' is used rather than the more commonly

O/omys S/IIKKeifi SA used 'optimal reserve'. Underhill (1994) stated that heuristic reserve selection algorithms were suboptimal and suggested OIOJ1lYS uni.wlcallH SA that linear programming techniques should be used to provide ParaXf'TUS pallia/lis v optimal solutions to reserve selection problems. However, Paf{)rom,)'J bran/sii SA Pressey, Possingham & Margules (in press) demonstrate that PelrodromuJ felradw:lyluJ R heuristic algorithms have practical advantages over linear Permmy.Ru5 cullin us SR programming and suboptimality is not necessarily undesira­ Pnmo/aKlis crassicauda/us SA ble for many real-world conservation problems.

Stelllomys parvu,f Gap analysis . Tale/'(~ afi'a SA )

9 The hotspots of species richness, endemic species and RDB 0 Zelll/omys wousnami SR R 0 species were compared with existing reserves. This compari­ 2

a SA = South African endemic; SR = southern African sub-region

d son was then repeated for representative reserves. This

e endemic t allowed the identification of areas that are important for the a hE = Endangered; V = Vulnerable; R = Rare; I = Indctcnninate d species under investigation, but are not protected. In addition, (

r ~ Taylor, Meestt!r & Kearney (1993) the species distribution data layer was compared with the e h

s existing reserves. This facilitated the identification of species i l that are currently not protected. b records. All data points were combined into a final species u

P presence-only dataset, at a QDS scale.

e Biome specificity h t

y Analyses Jacobs's modifIcation of Ivlef's index (Jacobs 1974) was used b Spatial analyses were performed using a GIS (PC ARC/INFO to test the degree of specificity of each species within the d e t 3.4D+, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands. modified biomes described previously. The value of the index n ranges from -I, indicating avoidance, to + 1, indicating ende­ a California). The 'overlay' functions available in ARC/INFO are r

g mism.

very useful for combining spatial data layers, e.g. species dis­ e c tributions. reserves, and biomes. The index: n e The QDS reserve database described by Lombard (1995a) c i l

was used for all analyses. The boundary reserve database r Ei = (Pi + Q,) - 2P,Q, e (Lombard 1995a) was used only for graphic display in Figure d n 4. The biomes defined by Rutherford & Westfall (1986) were where Pi = NJNr u used for graphic display in Figures 1-3. These biomes were y Qi = A, / A, a modified by G.N. Bronner, the only major change being the w Nr = ~NI,.j e

t splitting of the savanna biome into arid and woodland savan­ J a Ar = ~Ai ... nas. The calculation of the biome specificity index in Table 5 G

Ni is the abundance of the i'" species in habitat x (i.e. the t is based on the modified biomes. e number of records of species i in habitat x) n

i Maps of all species distributions were generated, and com­ b Nr is the total number of records for species i

a pared with the range maps in Skinner & Smithers (I990), De

S Ai is the area of habitat x Graaff (1981), and regional texts, where available. This facili­ y

b A, is the total area of all habitats.

tated the identification of those records that fell outside of d e c u d o r p e R 118 S. Mr. Tydskr. Dierk. 1995,30(3)

Results fynhos and Succulent Karoo biomes, with three in the north­ eastern savannas, one in the alpine grasslands, and one in Hotspots Kalahari Gemsbok National Park. All of these reserves fall The areas of highest species richness are found in the south­ within, or near, existing reserves (Table 2), with the exception western part of the country, within the fynhos and Succulent of the most western reserve (QDS 2916BB), which is approx­ Karoa biomes (Figure 1). The region of convergence between imately 75 km south of Richtersveld National Park. the fynbos and Succulent Karoa is particularly important. The Figure 4 shows how the RR are situated in relation to pattern of endemic species richness is very similar to that of hotspots. Only three of the ten RR overlap with hotspots, one total species richness, and the five endemic hotspots coincide is adjacent to a hotspot, and the remaining six are situated far with total species hotspots (thus no figure is presented). RDB from hotspots. richness is confined to the savanna biome, in Northern Trans­ vaal and northern Kwazulu-Natal (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows Species in reserves the species richness of QDSs that contain species that are both endemic and have RDB status. The two QDSs with two Tables 3 and 4 show the possible occurrences of species species' records each arc 3119BD and 3123CA, which both within existing reserves. The occurrences are possible, as contain records for Grant's rock mouse (Aethomys granti) and opposed to definite, owing to the QDS scale of the species the riverine rabbit (Bunolagus monticularis), The riverine distribution and the reserve databases. Although a species record and a reserve may fall in the same QDS, this docs not rabbit, however, has not been seen in the area recently, and guarantee that the species actually occurs in the reserve. For may no longer be present. example, data in Table 3 indicate that the rat Otomys s[oggetti Table 2 and Figure 4 show the results of a comparison may occur in 13 Natal Parks Board reserves, particularly the between species richness hotspots, RDB hotspots, and exist­ proclaimed components of the Natal Drakensberg Park. ing reserves. All of the five species richness hotspots fall Rowe-Rowe & Meester (1982) ohserve that 0. s[ogetti is con­ within or near existing reserves, and all three of the RDB fined to the alpine belt above the escarpment, and very little hotspots contain existing reserves. of this area falls within the reserve boundaries. The data shown in Tables 3 and 4 may thus provide an over-optimistic Representative reserves picture for some species. Ten QDSs were selected as representative reserves (RR) for It is evident from Table 3 that reserves managed by local the protection of all species under investigation (Figure 4). authorities may contain 20 of the 25 target species, National Five occur in the south-western part of the country, within the Parks may contain 16 species, followed by reserves managed . ) 9 0 0 2 ~ --:j d "--··i--....c·'l',~·" e t J " a d /~ F ( I I C~ . IJ r /) l e 1 - 2 h --.J s i l b u f I~' --"" P e h t • y b

n d • e t n a r g e c n e c i l r e d n u y a w e t a G t e n i b a S Figure 1 Patlems of species richness of endemic or threatened rodents. lagomorphs and macrosceledids in greater South Africa. Black y b

squares are hotspots, and the key represents numbers of species. d e c u d o r p e R S. Afr. 1. Zool. 1995,30(3) 119

" .-.:l Ill!' \ • 2 ,~.\, , ~, r I 3 Oil, ~I r J

u "'1.:: [] ~l~ ,.~l

LT--1 ".J - I c,

Figure 2 Patterns of species richness of rodents. lagomorphs and ffi

a \ d ( r e h s i l b u c c:: _"L, __ P e h

t 2 y b

d • e t

n [J a

r J" g

e UI c n e o c i l '. [J 0 r e d n u y a w e t a G t e n i b a S Figure 3 Distribution of rodents, iagomorphs and mac.:rosceledids that are hoth endemic. and listed in the Red Data Book, in greater South y b

Africa. The key represents numbers of species. d e c u d o r p e R 120 S. Mr. Tydskr. Dicrk. 1995,30(3)

Table 2 Comparison of species richness hotspots (HS), by the National Defence Force. which may contain 15 spe­ Red Data Book hotspots (ROB HS), and representative cies. Reserves of Western Cape Nature Conservation and reserves (RR), with existing reserves Natal Parks Board, as well as the state forests, may contain between 13 and 10 species. HS Existing reserve(s) within HS The total number of reserves in which a species could pos­ 3219AC Cederberg Wilderness Area, ·wee, 64400 ha sibly occur is shown in the right hand column of Table 4 (this 3219CA Cederberg Wilderness Area, wee, 64400 ha is the sum of all reserves for a particular species shown in

3319AC Hawequas Slalc Forc_~(, wee. 64634 ha Tablc 3). This number often exceeds the total number of Voelvlei Tortoise Reserve, wee, 130 ha records for a particular species, owing to the fact that the scale of a species record is a QDS, and anyone QDS may WilLenberg Slale Forest, wee, 1670 ha contain several reserves. 3418AB Cape of Good Hope NalUre Reserve, LA, 7675 ha Table 4 shows that all the records of four species may fall Table Mountain Nature Reserve, LA, 2904 ha within existing reserves, however, two species have less than 20% of their records in reserves, viz the riverine rabbit HS Nearest exisling rcscrvc(s) to HS (Bunolagus monticulari.'1) and Brants' whistling rat (Paroto­ 3118DC Cederherg Wilderness Area, wee, 64400 ha (diagonally mys brants;;). The Namaqua dune molerat (8athyergus jan­ adjacent at 321888) etta) and the pygmy rock mouse (Petromyscus collin us) have Ramskop Nature Reserve, LA, 54 ha (diagonally adjacent at no records in reserves, These four species all occur in the 321~BB) Succulent and Nama-Karoo. All other species have between 25-86% of their records in reserve-containing QDSs. RDH HS Existing reservc(s) within RDB HS ------2330CC Funic 8mha Dam Nature Reserve, LA, 2850 ha Biome specificity Nmakgowa Forest (N. Transvaal), 1255 ha Table 5 shows Ihe results of the computation of the biome Wolkherg Wildcmcs.~ Area, NTE, 22009 ha specificity index for each species within the six biomes 263200 Maputaland Coastal Forest Reserve, KWA, 27185 ha defined by G.N. Bronner. The only species endemic to Ihe 2732BC Lake Sibaya Game Rescrve. KWA, 940 ha fynbos is M)'omyscus verreauxii, but Bathyergus suillus, Mabaso Tribal Gamc Re"erve, KWA, 2337 ha Elephantulus edwardii, Georychus capensi.'1, Graphiurus ocu­ laris, Otomys karoensis, atomys larninatus and Tatera afra Mangu7.c Forest Reserve, KWA, 441 ha have a strong preference for this biome (E, > 0,70; Table 5). Maputaland Coastal Forest Reserve, KWA. 27185 ha Bathyergusjanetta is endemic to the Succulent Karoo, and, .

) S( Lucia Marinc Re~ervc, NAT, 44280 ha although Petromyscus collin us is shown to be endemic to this 9

0 biome (Table 5), this conclusion can not be based on the sin­ 0 RR Exi~ting re~erve(s) ...... ithin RR 2

------gle data point available for this species (Table 4). Otom),s uni· d 2330CC Fanie Botha Dam Nature Reserve, LA. 2850 ha e sulcatus and Parotomys brantsii show a strong preference for t a Nmakgowa Forest (N. Transvaal), 1255 ha the Succulent Karoo (E, > 0,75; Table 5). No species is d (

Wolkberg Wllderne~s Area, NTE, 22009 ha endemic to the Nama·Karoo, but Aethomys granti and r e Bunolagus monticulari.'1 show a very strong preference for it h 2520CA Kalahari Gemsbok Natiunal Park, NPB. 959103 ha s i (E, > 0,78; Table 5). The grassland biome has no endemic l 26320D Maputaland Coastal Forest Reserve, KWA, 27185 ha b species, but Mystromys albicaudatus and Otomys sloggetti u 2828DD Royal Natal National Park. NAT, 8094 ha P show a strong preference for it (E, > 0,79; Table 5). The arid e Stafford's Hill Bird Sanctuary, LA, 25 ha h savanna contains one endemic species, Zelotomys woosnami, t

y 31198D Akkerdam Nature Reserve, LA, 2301 ha and Steatomys parvus is endemic to the savanna woodlands. b Three other species show a strong preference for savanna

d 3219AC Cederberg Wildemess Area, WCe, 64400 ha e woodlands, viz Cricetomys gambianus. Paraxerus palliatus t n RR Nearest existing resep,.·e(s) to RR and Petrodromus tetradactylus (E, > 0,9; Table 5). a r g

2530CA Dingwell Military Area, NDF, 244 ha (adjacent at 2530AD) e

c Discussion ~ooitgedacht Dam Na(urc Rescrvc, ETC, 3370 ha (adjacent at n e 2530CC) c Spatial trends in endemism and RDB richness among the tar­ i l get taxa analysed here do not coincide. Endemism is concen­ r Vcrlorcn Vallci Nature Reserve. ETC, 6022 ha (adjacent at e trated in the fynbos, and to a lesser extent, the Karoo biomes d 2530AC) n of the south-west. Conversely. ROB richness is confined u 291688 Richtersvcld National Park, NPB, 162445 ha (3 QDSs away at

y 2816BD&2817CAI mainly to the savanna and adjacent grasslands along the a Drakensberg escarpment in north-eastern South Africa, with w 2917DD Goegap Na(Ure Reserve, NCC, 14864 ha (adjacent at 2917D8) e t hotspots in northern Kwazulu-Natal as well as the Tzaneen a 3218DB Cederberg Wildemess Area, WCe, 64400 ha (adjacent at

G district of Northern Transvaal. Areas of high endemism in the 3219AC & 3219CA) t

e fynbos and Karoo biomes are characterized by only interme­ n Groot Wintcrhock Wilderne.ss Area. WCC, 19200 ha (adjacent at i diate RDB richness. b 32 I 9CCI a That endemism is concentrated in the south-western S Kalaba.skraal Nature Reserve, LA. 35 ha (adjacent at 3218DA) y regions of South Africa has been noted also by range map b * See footnotc in Table J for cxplanation of reserve authority codes studies on carnivores (Turpie & Crowe 1994). all endemic d e c u d o r p e R S. Afr. J. Zool. 1995. 30(3) 121

D Representative Reserves Red Data Book Hotspots

Species Richness Hotspots ... ,' .Q • ~ '" o ~\. -'­.. -,

'. {\ :.

" / d

o

Figure 4 The coincidence of total species hotspots, Red Data Book species hotspots, and representative rcser.'cs. . ) 9

0 mammals (Gelderblom & Bronner 1995), and South African coincide with areas of high endemism in the Nama-Karoo, 0 2

mammals in general (Siegfried & Brown 1992). More accu­ and at the junction of the Nama- and Succulent Karoo biomes d e rate point-data analyses support these conclusions with in the south-western parts of the country (Figure 3). The t a respect to the Insectivora, Chiroptera, and Carnivora (Gelder­ apparent disparity between patterns of endemi~m and RDB d ( blom el al. 1995). Current explanations for this phenomenon richness is, therefore, an artefact of a bias towards subtropical r e invoke the isolation of this region at the end of the African subtraction syndrome species in the Red Oata Book. Indeed, h s i of the 16 endemic species examined, only four are included in l continent; the remarkable floristic diversity of the Cape Mac­ b & IUCN categories of threat (Smithers 1986). This is of con­ u chia floral kingdom (Cowling, Gibbs Russell, Hoffman P

Hilton-Taylor 1989); and the existence of the Cape fold cern, since South Africa is the most important centre of ende­ e h mountains, which may have facilitated speciation and acted as mism in the southern African subregion (Gelderblom & Bron­ t

y refugia during periods of climatic change (Coe & Skinner ner 1995). b

d 1993; Sprugel 1991). Threatened,species hotspots coincide e t with areas of highest overall mammalian species richness in Priority areas for conservation n a South Africa (Siegfried & Brown 1992). This, to a large r Hotspots are important areas for conservation, since they indi­ g

degree, reflects the presence of tropical species whose ranges

e cate areas where environmental conditions favour high spe­ c intrude only marginally into the northern savannas of South

n cies packing and richness (Lombard 1995a). In the present e c Africa. Termed the subtropical subtraction syndrome, this study, all five of the species richness and endemism hotspots i l phenomenon is observed to a greater or lesser degree in all r in the south-western Cape fall in fynbos, and coincide with, e vertebrates, and is particularly evident in bats (Gelderblom el d or lie adjacent to, existing reserves. The extensive Cederberg n at. 1995). Examples of such species in the current study arc Wilderness Area is an important reserve that includes two u

y Petrodromus tetradactylus. Paraxerus palliatus and Criceto­ hotspots, and is adjacent to another one. Similarly, the three a mys gambianus, taxa that Smithers (1986) included in IUCN w ROB hotspots fall in QOSs containing several reserves, and e t Vulnerable or Rare categories on account of their limited dis­ two (263200 and 2732BC) fall in coastal forest and thorn­ a

G tributions in South Africa. Another four species (Dasymys veld (Acocks 1988), protected by the Maputaland Coastal t e incomtus, Dendromus nyikae, Grammomys cometes and Forest Reserve, as well as several other reserves (Table 2). n i Slealomys parvus) included in the Indeterminate category The other ROB hotspot at 2330CC includes two vegetation b a also have most of their range outside South Africa. types (iowveld sour bush veld and NE mountain sourveld; S

y If only endemic species are considered, threatened species Acocks 1988) that are protected by the large Wolkberg Wil­ b derness Area (22009 hal, and two smaller reserves. In spatial d richness falls mainly outside of savanna, and the two hotspots e c u d o r p e R 122 S. Afr. Tydskr. Dierk. 1995.30(3)

Table 3 The possible occurrence of species in existing reserves *Reserve authority

Species CIS ECC ETC KAN KWA LA LNP NAT NBG Nee NDr NPA NHB NTE NWC ors PWV SF SNT TRA wee Aethomys gmnti Bl1thyerJ:us ja.nella Bathyerxus suillus 21 2 7 3 5 27 Bunu[axus monticuiuri.\" 2 Cricetomys Kamhianus ] 2

Dasymys incomfUs 3 3 3 6 26 2 2 5 8 9 4

[)endromu.~ nyik.ae 2 Elephuntulu.\· edwardii II 2 5 28

Georychus capen.~is 2 27 3 4 4 12 22

Gramm()my,~ cornell'S II 2

Gmphiuru.\· ()("uiuri.\" 9 3 II Myomyscus \-'erreauxii 3 3 6 7

Mysrmmys I1lhi('aud/Jlu.~ 3 6 30 15 6 4 7 2 4 8 Otomys kamensis 7 14 4 2 I] Otomys lumina/us 4 15 2 5 2 6

Oromys s[olUfetti ] 13 Otomys unisulcatus II II 3 10 II Paraxerus pallimus 6 9 Parotomys hrwusii 4 2 7 Petrvdromus tetmdactylus 7 10 3 Petmmyscus collinus Prvnulugus (Tuuit'uudutU5 2 3 32 2 3 .

) Steutomys purvus 4 3 9

0 Tateru afm 21 ] 6 2 23 0 2

Zel()tumy.~ w()u.mtlmi 2 d e t * CIS = Ciskei; DWA = Dept. Water Affairs & Forestry; ECC = Eastern Cape Nature Conservation; ETC = Ea.~tern Transvaal Nature Conservation; KAN = a KaNgwane; KWA = Kwazulu; LA = Local Authority; LNP -= Lesotho National Parks; NAT = Natal Parks Board; NBG = National Botanical Garden; NeC = d ( Northern Cape Nature Conservation; NDF National Defence Force; NPA = Natal Provincial Administration; NPB = National Parks Board; NTE =Northern r e Transvaal Environment & Tourism; NWC = North West Nature Conservation; OFS = OFS Nature Conservation; PWV = PWV Nature Conservation; SF = State h s i Forest; SNT = Swaziland National Trust Commission; TRA = Transkei; Wec = Western Cape Nature Conservation, These codes refer to the authorities in l b charge of the reserves at the time the re.'erve database was compiled, ie. prior 10 the April 1994 elections and the resulting changes in authority names. u P e h t

terms, therefore, hotspots of endemism and RDB richness Reserve. Another RR, at 2828DD, includes existing reserves y b among the taxa analysed appear to be adequately protected by that accommodate two endemic species, of which one (Mys­ d

e the existing reserve system. tromys alhicaudatus) is listed in the Red Data Book. The con­ t n Conserving hotspots, however, does not ensure that all spe­ figuration of the existing reserve system in north-eastern a r cies, especially those that are rare or have restricted distribu­ South Africa thus corresponds closely to an ideal arrange­ g

e tions, are adequately protected. Hotspots are often arbitrarily ment that would maximize the protection of threatened taxa, c

n especially species listed as a result of the subtropical subtrac­

e defined, and usually include only a percentage of the lotal c

i lion syndrome. Siegfried & Brown (1992) reached a similar l species in an analysis (Lombard 1995b). For example. the dis­

r conclusion with reference to all mammalian species. e tribution of the rare Namaqua dune molerat B. janetta does d The other RR located in grassland of the Eastern Transvaal

n not coincide with any of the endemic or RDB hotspots identi­

u near Belfast (2530CA), however, conlains Iwo endemic spe­ fied here. To ensure that each species is protected at least y cies (C. capellsis and P. crassicaudatus), and does not coin­ a once, it is necessary to consider not only hotspots, hut also w cide with any existing reserves, although it is adjacent to two e areas highlighted using other criteria, such as the iterative t a reserve selection algorithm we used to identify RR. large reserves (Verloren Valei and Nooilgedacht Dam) that G

conserve the same high veld habitat (Acocks' veld Iype 57). t Of the four RR that occur in savanna and grasslands of e Augmentation of the reserve system in this district is impera­ n i norlh-eastern South Africa. two (233OCC and 2632DD) coin­

b tive to conserve the type locality of the molerat subspecies C. a cide with RDB hotspots, contain only non-endemic species

S c. yatesi. We also recommend that management of the exist­

y and coincide with existing reserves, notably the Wolkberg ing reserves in the Belfast district be adapted to ensure that b Wildernesss Area and Ihe Maputaland Coastal Forest

d the habitats of C. c. yatesi and P. crassicaudatus are optimally e c u d o r p e R S. AfT. J. Zool. 1995,30(3) 123

Table 4 Possible overlap of species distributions with three of the species examined here: Graphiurus oell/aris, Oto­ existing reserves mys unijulcatus and Petromyscus collin us. It may also contain Bathyergus janetta (1. Jarvis, pers. comm). Petromyscus colli­ aNo of % of nus occurs widely in Namibia, but is represented in Lillie records r~curds No_ of In existing in ~xisting "Total No. Namaqualand by the endemic subspecies P. c. barbouri, Species records reserves reserve", of reserves which docs not occur in any existing reserve. We thus recom­

Aethomy.f Kranli 11 3 27 4 mend that intensive surveys be carried out at Goegap to estab­ lish if this taxon occurs there, and if so. that management be Balhwrxus jUfll'fta 5 0 0 0 adapted to maximally protect its preferred Iithophilic habitat. B(JthverxuJ .millu.\' 31 24 77 65 If this species docs not occur at Goegap, the augmentation of Burw{aKlis rnolitICulari.\" 17 2 12 2 this reserve with suitable areas in the QDS 2917DD must be Cricetomys Kamvianw: 6 4 67 7 considered a conservation priority. Perhaps the most urgent Dasymys incom(us 41 31 76 73 priority, in terms of supplementing the existing reserve sys­ to DendmmrH nvikue 2 2 100 4 tem, is conserve the RR located at 291688. There arc cur­ rently no reserves in this QDS, which contains three endemic Elephun(u{",\' edll"(1rdii 39 24 62 49 species (Parotomys hrantsii, Otomys unisulcatus, and Bathy­ Ge{Jrychus ('apcns; f 3 I 23 74 75 ergus janetta). Two of these three endemics may be relatively Grmnmomy.f [ometes 6 6 100 16 well protected by Ihe existing reserve system (Table 4), but Gmphiurus oculan'_f 15 10 67 25 the Namaqua mokrat B. jafietta is not (although it may occur Myomy.\'Cus l'erreauxii 6 6 100 19 in the Goegap Nature Reserve). Dc Graaff (1974) also con­ cluded that B. Janella was not found in any of South Africa's MystrlJmr.f ulbi(-(Judatus 92 38 41 89 National Parks. This species has a very restricted distribution Otomys kamensi.f 27 18 67 43 limited to the northern Namaqualand coastal plain, and is not Ou/m}'s laminatu.f 19 16 84 38 known to occur in the mountainous Richtersveld National O(omys s!oKKetti 40 10 25 18 Park, which is the nearest existing reserve. Establishment of a O/omY.f WI/.fUl('mlis 94 34 36 50 reserve on the Namaqualand coastal plain will ensure that this

Paru.xeru.\" pallia/u.f 7 6 86 15 species is protected; and will also enhance the protection sta­ tus of Brant's whistling rat (which has only 19% of existing Pam/(lmys branr.fli 58 II 19 15 records within reserves; Table 4), as well as two golden mole Petmdmmus lelmdm'tyius 14 12 86 21 species not adequalely protected at presenl (Gelderblom et al. Petmmyscu.f ('()llinus 0 0 0 . 1995). )

9 PnmuluKus (,ntssi('tJudtJlu.f 35 23 66 49 It musl be noted Ihal all RR should be surveyed for the 0

0 Stearomys pun;us 4 3 75 7 presence of viable populations of the species thay are chosen 2

d Tatem a(ra 28 22 79 58 to represent, before any decisions are made regarding reserve e t proclamation or management. a Zelotomy.\" wo()snami J 3 100 3 d (

a Number of records which fall in QDSs which contain existing reserves. r

e Priority taxa of conservation concern

h h Total number of reserves overlapping with the QDSs in ol s i Endemic species l b u Of the 16 endemic species considered, nine have at least 62(}t

P sustained.

e of their records falling in reserve-containing QDSs. These

h Of the six RR located in the drier western and south-west­ t species are probably not at risk, providing their habitats are

y ern parts of South Africa, only one (3219AC) corresponds to being suitably managed. Included in this group is the specta­ b an endemism hotspot, and another (3119BD) to a hotspot of d cled dormouse Graphiurus ocularis, which Smilhers (1986) e t endemic RDB richness. Three of the RR (2520CA, 3218DB afforded rare status. Considering its wide distribution, com­ n a and 3219AC) coincide with extensive rcserves (>60000 hal. mon occurrence in reserves, and the lack of evidence showing r g

The RR loealed at 3119BD was chosen to protecttwo species: any decline in numbers or range, we recommend that the sta­ e c the riverine rabbit (8. monticularis) and Grant's rock mouse tus of this taxon be changed to Out of Danger. n e (Aethomys granti.). The small Akkerdam Nature Reserve c Although the Cape molerat Georychus capensis may occur i l (2301 hal falls wilhin this QDS, but the riverine rabbit is not in as many as 75 reserves, most of these arc located in the r e present within the reserve, and its presence within the QDS southern parts of the country where the nominotypical sub­ d n needs confirmation. If the rabbit no longer occurs in this species occurs. The subspecies G. c. yatesi, however, is u QDS, it can be replaced by the other endemic RDB hots pol, y restricted to the eastern Transvaal high veld, and occurs in a 3123CA, which also has locality data for both Ihe riverine only one municipal reserve (Ermelo district). As this taxon w e t rabbit and Grant's rock mouse. As riverine rabbits have home differs substantially from nominotypical G. capensis allo­ a ranges of 12-20 ha, and very specialized habitat requirements

G zymically, and also in mtDNA sequence (HoneycuU, t (Duthie 1989), it is imperative that any remaining suitable e Edwards, Nelson & Nevo 1987: Nevo, Ben-Shlomo, Beiles. n i habitat within their present ranges be properly managed. Jarvis & Hickman 1987), it must be considered a unique gen­ b a Neither of the other two western RR identified coincide otype worthy of at least Rare status. S

y with existing reserves. The RR at 2917DD, however, is adja­ A further five species (Aethomys granti, Otomys sloggetti, b cent to the Goegap Nature Reserve (Table 2), and contains 0. unisulcatus, Mystromys albicaudatus and Parotomys d e c u d o r p e R 124 S. Afr. Tydskr. Dierk. 1995,30(3)

Table 5 Biome specificity of species, as incidated by the Table 5 Biome specificity of species, as incidated by the index E, (- 1 indicates avoidance, + 1 indicates ende­ index E; (- 1 indicates avoidance, + 1 indicates ende­ mism, see methods for details) mism, see methods for details) (Continued) No_ of No. of Riomc Species records E, Biome Species records E, ------'------Fynbos Aethl/tr/vJ }:ranti 0,22 Grassland Paraxeru.s palliatu.s -0,41

Fynbos BlJthyer~uJ JuilluJ 26 O,Y8 Grassland Parrltomys brunts;; -0,92

Fynbos Dusymys tlll·rltn/UJ 2 -0.11 Grassland Petmdromus tetradauylus 2 -0,41

Fynbos ElepJwmulus edwlJrdi; 17 0,85 Grassland Pmnrl{agu.~ crauicauda/u.s 23 0,66

Fynbos GerlryrJiUJ ('llreflsi,~ 22 0.Y5 Arid savanna Mystmmys albicaudatus 2 -0,74 Fynbos Graphiurus o(u/aris B O,BY Arid savanna Olumys un;,\'ulclltus 2 -0,74

Fynbos .Al1yr1l7IvSCUS wrreulLtii 6 1,00 Arid savanna Pam/rlmy~' brantsi; Y 0,11 Fynbos My.f/nlmr.\' atbicaudarus 3 -0,31 Arid savanna Ze{rl/r/mys w(J(),wlUmi 3 1,00 Fynbo

Fynbos O((lmy-~ laminalus 5 0,70 Savanna woodland Dwymy.f incomlus 23 0,66 Fynbos Olomy.I' unl.fukalu,\' 12 0,39 Savanna woodland Dendramus nyikae O,5Y

Fynbos Pamr(Jmys brant.~ii 3 -O,OB Savanna woodland Elephantulus edwardii -0,82

Fynbos Talc nl (~rrll 22 0,97 Savanna woodland (;erJrychu.f cl1pemis 3 -0,42 Succulent Karoo AelJlIlInn /:ranti 2 O,4Y Savanna woodland Grammomys C(Jmeles 3 O,5Y

Succulent Karoo Balhycr~u.\' janella 5 1.00 Savanna woodland My.anlmys alhir'auda/us 5 -0,64 Succulent Karoa ButhverRu.\' suirru.\' 5 0,43 Savanna woodland Otomy.f K.ilroensi.\' 2 -0,53 Succulent Knroo Bunrlla/:us monticulans 3 0,47 Savanna woodland Olomy.f lamilw/u.f 5 0,16 Succulent Karoa Elephantulus edwardii II 0,67 Savanna woodland Otr/my.i unl:iu/r:a/us 7 -0,53 Succulent Karao Ge(Jrychus cupen.I'i.\' 2 -0,05 Savanna woodland Paraxerus pallialu 6 O,Y2

Succulent Karoo Gmphiuru,~ (Jcuiuri.s 4 0,65 Savanna woodland Petmdmrnus tetmdact}'/u.~ 12 o,n Succulent Kama Mvslmmys albicaudalus 2 -055 Savanna woodland PronrllaKus crassicauda/u.l' II 0,28 .

) Succulent Karoo Olllmys kumemis -0,33 Savanna woodland S/eat(Jmy.~ pan'us 4 1.00 9

0 Succulent Karoo O{(Jmy.~ unLfulcalu.\' 33 0,75 0 2 Succulent Karoo Parut(}mY5 hnJnlsii 23 0,79 d brantsii) may have < 50% of their records within reserves. Of e t Succulent Kama Pelroml'scu.\' Clillinus 1,00

a these. however, only Aelhomys granti occurs in less than 10 d Succulent Karoo Talem afm 6 0,56 (

reserve· containing QDSs, and is worthy of special concern. r e Nruna-Karoo AethomYf Rmn/i B o,n This species has a limited distribution in the southern-central h s

i Nama-Karoo Bunrllaxus mrmtir'u/aris 14 0,87 parts of South Africa, and shows a strong preference for l b Nama-KarOl> f.-!epJw,ntu/u,\' edwardii B -0,13 Nama-Karoo (Table 5), which is under-represented in the u

P existing reserve system (Siegfried & Brown 1992), It thus sat­ Nama-Karoa Gmphiurus (leu/urjs 3 -0.14 e isfies the criteria pertaining to the Rare RDB category (Smith­ h

t Nama-Karoo M.I:flmmy.f albi{ UUdlllUJ 9 -0•. '51 ers 1986: p. 6). The white-tailed mouse Mystromys albicau­ y

b Nama-Karoa (J/rlmys kamensis O,7Y datus, which Smithers (1986) included in the Vulnerable cate­ d Nama-Karao (J/(Imys sl(JX}ieui e 3 -0,61 gory on the grounds of habitat loss to agricultural develop­ t n Nama-Karoo Ormnys ufllsulclltus 36 0,30 ment, may occur in 38 reserve-containing QDSs. This a r

g Nama-Kama Pam/llmy.I' branlxii 22 0,29 suggests that its preferred habitats, at least in the savanna e c Nama-Karoa Pmn(Jlagus cra.uicuudaru,I' -0,84 region, are adequately conserved. and thus that this taxon n

e deserves no more than Rare status. -0,33 c Gr.lss1and CrtcelOmy.I' gambianus i l Dasymy.f in('(Jmtus The endemic molerat Bathyerxus janella occurs only on r Grassland 16 0,23 e the Namaqualand coastal plain, an area not adequately pro­ d Grassland Dendmmus nyikal' 0,43 n tected by current reserves. Since its range is very restricted, u

Grassland Elephanlulus cdwardli 2 -0,76

y and its habitat is being degraded by diamond mining opera­ a Gra

b Gra..;siand O/omy.\' lamimllU,l' Y O,3Y a concur with Smithers (1986) that it should be afforded Endan­ S

Gra... sland 37 0,94 y gered status, b Gra.'\siand Otomys uni,mlca/us 4 -0,80

d Finally, we recommend that the endemic subspecies Petro- e c u d o r p e R S. Afr. 1. Zoo!. 1995, 30(3) 125

myscus collitlus harbouri, which is not protected by the exist­ local populations represent phenotypes or genotypes not pro­ ing reserve system, but may be more widespread than current tccted elsewhere. We thus recommend that its Red Data Book data indicate, should be afforded Rare status. status be changed to Out of Danger. The status of the two Paraxerus palliatus subspecies in NOIl-elldemirs South Africa is also uncertain. These subspecies are repre­ Given that the nine non-endemic species examined here occur sented by relict populations in forests that were once probably at the extremes of their ranges in South Africa, the ROB connected by a larger forest that extended northwards to join hotspots in the north-eastern savanna and grassland may not up with the habitat of P. p. SpOIISUS. Whether or not these rel­ serve as areas for protecting them optimally. Centres of high ict populations represent distinct phenotypes or genotypes is species richness that occur near the centre of a vegetation lype unclear, since too many subspecies are recognized (Meester, are more effective for conservation, since they are more likely Rautenbaeh, Dippenaar & Baker 1986). It is unlikely that P. p. to coincide with areas in which the ranges of many species IOllgellsis and P. p. ornatus in Zululand represent different overlap (Gelderblom e/ al. 1995). species, as suggested by Viljoen (1980). Although the known Although the species is the most practical, measurable unit demes are small and isolated, there is no evidence suggesting of biological diversity, biodiversity embraces many different a decline in their numbers, and both occur in existing reserves levels, from genes to species to ecosystems (Hockey, Lom­ that arc managed specifically to protect their habitat. There is, bard & Siegfried 1994). Affording subtropical subtradion therefore, no reason to believe that the causal factors that have zone species RDB protection status might thus be justified if led to the contraction of their range are stili operating. Fol­ it can be demonstrated that local populations represent dis­ lowing the definition of Smithers (1986: p. 6), we recommend tinct subspecies characterized by unique genotypes or pheno­ that their Red Data Book status be changed from Vulnerable types not protected outside South Africa. to Rare. Unfortunately, the statuses of some local taxa are too dubi­ The four-toed elephant shrew is represented by two subspe­ ous to assess whether they fulfil this criterion. This applies cies in South Africa, P. t. beirae and P. t. warren;, These taxa particularly to the dendromurines. which are in need of revi­ have very restricted ranges within the country, which fall sion (De Graaff 1981). Thus, the local subspecies Delldromus mainly within reserves. Both subspecies extend into southern flyikae IOflgic:audatus and Steatnmys parvus tmlgensis must Mozambique, but the possibility exists that populations there remain in the Indeterminate category until their taxonomy has may have been severely impacted by disturbances associated been clarified. Although Steatomys parvus tongensis ranges with the protracted civil war in this region. Until such time as into southern Mozambique, the status of local populations, and the extent of suitable habitat remaining after the civil war it is demonstrated that these subspecies are adequately pro­ .

) tected in Mozambique, we recommend that their Red Data

9 that has ravaged this country's environment, need to be estab­

0 Book status be maintained as Rare,

0 lished before its protection status can be objectively assessed. 2 Of the murine non-endemics, Grammomys cometes com­ Woosnam's desert rat Zelotomys woosnami is known in d e t etes and Dasymys iflcomtus i1U:omtus are widespread outside South Africa exclusively from reserves, particularly Kalahari a d southern Africa. However, recent studies have shown that Gemsbok National Park. This species does not, therefore, (

r both display karyotypic variation, and may include a complex appear to be at risk, although it does have a very restricted e h of distinct taxa (Gordon 1991; Taylor et al. 1994). Although distribution. We consequently recommend that its status be s i l both may live in close proximity to man, providing their pre­ changed to Out of Danger. b u ferred habitats (indigenous forests and wellands, respectively) P

e arc not degraded, their provisional relegation to the Indeter­ Acknowledgments h t minate category is warranted. The same treatment might be

y We thank Ms D.R. Drinkrow for the data from the South Afri­

b applied to Dasymys illcomtus capensis. However, this subspe­ can Museum, Dr P. Taylor for data from the Durban and Natal d cies is separated from D. i. incomtus by a wide hiatus in the e Museums, and J.P, Ekstcen for data from the National t eastern Cape. and has a restricted range in the south-western n Museum in Bloemfontein. Thanks are also due to Dr D. a

r Cape. As it is known from only two, widely-separated popu­

g Schlitter (Carnegie Museum) and Dr M. Carleton (Smithso­ lations, only one of which is protected (3319AC; Table 2); e c and is at risk from desiccation and drainage of wetlands nian Institution) for providing their data. The biome data were n e supplied by the National Botanical Institute. We thank Dr T. c (Davis 1962), we recommend that the status of D. i. capens;s i l should be elevated from Indeterminate to Rare. Rebelo of the National Botanical Institute for the use of the r e reserve selection algorithm. The QDS reserve database was

d The giant rat is represented in South Africa by only one n subspecies, Cricetomys gambianus ansorgei. which is compiled by 1. Hurford of the FitzPatrick Institute and u updated by 1. Harrison of the Avian Demography Unit, UCT. y restricted to forests and tropical woodlands in the northern a Financial support was provided by the Foundation for

w Transvaal and northern Kwazulu-Natal. Although its range e t within South Africa is small, the local populations occur Research Development and the Department of Environmental a Affairs and Tourism. This study was undertaken by D.N.

G largely within proclaimed reserves, and the subspecies has a t Mugo in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the M.Sc. e wide extralimital distribution extending to Angola and Kenya. n i Evidence suggests that their numbers may have increased in in Conservation Biology, FitzPatrick Institute, 1994. The b a recent years, since giant rats tlourish in orchards and vegeta­ Kenya Wildlife Service is thanked for allowing D.N. Mugo S

y ble gardens adjacent to their forest habitat. There is not, there­ study leave and the World Bank is thanked for further finan­ b fore, any reason to believe that C. g. ansorgei is at risk, or that cial support. d e c u d o r p e R 126 S. Afc. Tydskr. Dierk, 1995,30(3)

References HICKMAN, G.c. 1987. Allozyme differentiation and systematks of (he endemic subterranean mole rats of Africa (Rodentia, ACOCKS. I.P.H. 1988. Veld types of South Africa. 3rd Edition. Bathyergidae). Bioehem. Syst. Eco. 15: 489-502. Mem. Bar. Sun', S. Afr. 57: 1-146, PRESSEY, R.L. 1994. Ad hoc reservations: forward or backward BRONNER, G.N. 1990. New distribution records for four mammal steps in developing representative reserve systems? Consen'. Bioi. species, with notes on their taxonomy and ecology. 8: 662-668. Koedoe 33: 1-7, PRESSEY, R.L. & LOGAN, V,S, 1994, The level of geographical COE, M.J. & SKINNER, J.D. 1993. Connections, disjunctions and subdivision and its effect on assessments of reserve coverage: a endemism in the eastern and southern Africa mammal faunas. review of regional studies. Consen'. Bioi. 8: 1037-1046. Trans, Roy. Soc. S, Afr, 48: 233·254. PRESSEY, R.L & TULLY, S.L 1994, The cost of od hoc COWLING. RM .. GIBBS RUSSELL. G,E .. HOfFMAN, M.T. & reservation: A case study in western New South Wales. Aust. J. HILTON· TAYLOR. C. 1989. patterns of plant species diversity in Hcol. 19: 375-384, southern AfriCCL In: Biotic Diversity in Southern Africa. (Ed.) BJ. PRESSEY, R.L.. POSSINGHAM. H,P. & MARGULES. e.R, In Huntley. pp. 19--46. Oxford University Press. Cape Town. press. Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: when dues it DAVIS, O.H.S. 1962. DisLributions of SOUl hem African Mundae. maLler and how much? Bioi. Consen'. with notes on some of their fossil antecedents. Ann. Cape Provo RAUTENBACH, 1.L. 1982. Mammals of the Transvaal. Heoplan Mus, 2: 56-76, Monogr. I: 1-2 J I. Pretoria. DE GRAAFF, G. 1974. Notes on the occurrence of rodents in South REBELO, A,G, & SIEGFRIED. W.R, 1992, Where should nature African National Parks. Koedoe 17: 173-183. reserves be located in the Cape floristic region, South Africa'? DE GRAAFF, G. 19RI. The rodents of southern Africa. Models for the spatial configuration of a reserve network aimed at Butterworths. Pretoria. maximising the protection of floral diversity. Consen·. Bioi. 6: DEAN. W.J. 1978. Conservation of the white rat in South Africa. 233-252. Bioi. ConselV. 13: 133-140. ROWE·ROWE, D,T & MEESTER, I. 1982, Habitat preference and DUTHIE, A.G. 1989. The ecology of the riverine rabbit Bunolagus abundance relations of small mammals in the Natal Drakensberg. monticularis. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis. University of Pretoria. S. Afr. j. Zool. 17: 202-209. DUTHIE, A.G., SKINNER. lD. & ROBINSON, T.J, 1989. The RUTHERFORD. M,e. & WESTFALL. R.H. 1986. Biomes of distribution and status of the riverine rahbit. Buno/agus southern Africa - an objective categorization. Mem. Bot. Sun'. S. momicularis. Bioi. Consen:.47: 195-202. Afr. No, 54: 1-98, GELDERBLOM. CM. 1993. Conservation status of small endemic scan: lM .. DAVIS. EW.. CSUTI. B" NOSS, R., mammals of South Africa, with emphasis on the subterranean BUTfERFIELD. B., GROVES, C,' ANDERSON, H" CAICCO, families. Unpublished M.Sc., University of Cape Town. S,. D'ERCHIA, E, EDWARDS, Te.. ULLIMAN, 1. & WRIGHT, GELDERBLOM. e.M. & BRONNER. G.N. 1995. Patterns of R.G. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of distribution and current protection status of the endemic mammals biological diversity. Wildl. Monogr. 123: 1-41. in South Africa. S. Afr. j, Zool, 30: 127-135, SIEGFRIED, W,R. 1989. Preservation of species in southern African GELDERBLOM, e.M,. BRONNER, G,N., LOMBARD, A,T, & nature reserves. In: Biotic Diversity in southern Africa. (Ed.) B.I. TAYLOR, P.J. 1995. Patterns of distribution and current protection Huntley. pp. 186-201. Oxford University Press, Cape Town, . ) status of the Carnivora. Chiroptera and Insectivora in South

9 SIEGFRIED, WR & BROWN, e.A, 1992. The distribution and

0 Africa. S, Afr. j, Zool. 30: 103-114. protection of mammals endemic to southern Africa. S, Afr, 1. 0

2 GORDON, D.H. 1991. Chromosomal variation in the water rat

Wilell, Res, 22: 11-16. d IJasymys incomtus (Rodentia: Muridae). 1. Mamm. 72: 411--414. SKEAD, C.J. 1973. Zoo-Historical Gazetteer. Ann. Cape Provo Mus. e t HOCKEY, PAR., LOMBARD. A,T & SIEGFRIED. WR. 1994, Nat. Hisl. 10: 1- 259, a d South Africa's commitment to preserving biodiversity: can we see SKINNER. lD. & SMITHERS, RH.N. 1990, The mammals of the (

r the wood for the trees? S. Afr. 1. Sci. 90: 105-107. Southern Africa subregion. Pretoria University Press, Pretoria. e HONEYCUTT, R.L., EDWARDS, S.v, NELSON, K, & NEVO, E, h SMITHERS, R.H.N. 1986. South African Red Data Rook­ s i 1987. Mitochondrial DNA variation and the phylogeny of African l Terrestrial Mammals. South African National Scientific b mole rats (Rodentia: Hathyergidae). Syst. Zool. 36: 280-292. Programmes Report No. 125. u JACOBS, J. 1974. Quantitative measurement of food selection. P SPRUGEL, D.G, 1991. Dbturbance, equilibrium and environmental

e Decologio 14: 413-417. variability: what is 'natural' vegetation in a changing h t LOMBARD. AT. 1995a. Introduction to an evaluation of the

environment? Bioi. Consen'. 5H; I-I H. y protection status of South Africa\ vertebrate~. S. Afr. J. Zool. 30: STOMS, D.M. 1994. Scale dependence of ~pecies richness maps. b 63-70, Professional Geographer 46: 346-358. d e

t LOMBARD, A,T I 995b. The problems with mUlti-species TAYLOR, Pl, MEESTER, I, & KEARNEY. T 1993. The n conservation: do hotspots. ideal reserve~ and existing reserves taxonomic '\talus of Saunders' vlei rat Otomys saundersiae a r coincide? S, Afr. j, Zool. 30: 145-163. Roberts (Rodentia: Muridae: Otomyinae). J. Afr. Zool. 107: g

e LOMBARD, A,T., AUGUST, p,y' & SIEGFRIED, W,R 1992, A 571-576, c proposed Geographic Information System for assessing the & n TAYLOR.Pl, RICHARDSON, E.J" MEESTER, J. WINGATE, e optimal dispersion of protected areas in South Africa. S. Afr. 1. Sci. c L. 1994. New distribution records for six small mammal species in i l

88: 136-140, Natal. with notes on their taxonomy and ecology. Durban Mus. r e LYNCH, e.D. 1983, The mammals of the Orange Free State. Mem. Novitat. 19: 59-66. d Nas. Mus. Bloemfontein IH: 1-2IH. TURPIE, l.K. & CROWE. TM. 1994, Patterns of distribution. n u

LYNCH, e.D. 1989. The mammals of the north-eastern Cape, Mem. diversity and endemism of larger African mammals. S. Afr. 1. y Nas. Mus. Bloemfontein 25: 1-116. Zool, 29: 19-32. a

w LYNCH, C.D. 1994. The mammals of Lcsotho. Navors. Nas. Mus. UNDERHILL, L.G. 1994. Optimal and suboptimal reserve selection e t Bloemfontein 10: 177-241. algorithms. Bioi. Consen'. 70: 85-87. a LYNCH, e.D, & WATSON, I,P, 1992, The distribution and ecology VILJOEN, S. 1980. A comparative study on the biology of two G

t of Oromys sloggetti (Mammalia: Rodentia) with notes on its subspecies of tree squirrels, Paraxerus I'alliatus tongensis e

n taxonomy. Navors. Nas. Mus. Bloemfontein x: 141-158. Roberts. and Paraxerus I'alliatus ornatus (Gray. 1864) in i

b MEESTER, I" RAUTENIlACH, I.L. DIPPENAAR, N.!. & Zululand. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Pretoria. a BAKER, C.M. 1986. Classification of <;outhern African mammals. WILSON, D.E. & REEDER, D,M. 1993, Mammal species of the S

y Transvaal Mus. Monogr. No.5. world, 2nd Edition. Smithsunian InMitution Press, Washington b

NEVO, E., BEN·SHLOMO, R., BElLES, A" IARVIS, I,U,M, & De. d e c u d o r p e R