DOCSLIB.ORG

Red List Criteria & the Criteria Summary Sheet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Red List Criteria & the Criteria Summary Sheet Red List Criteria & the Criteria Summary Sheet The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ 1 Red List Criteria Rabb’s Fringe-limbed Treefrog Photo © Brad Wilson Ecnomiohyla rabborum Category: Critically Endangered CR A2ace;B1ab(iii) Criteria & subcriteria Species that are assessed as threatened are assigned a code that includes: • The Red List Category – remember, the threatened categories are Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable; and • Red List Criteria. An example of an assessment code is shown on the screen: the abbreviation on the left indicates the category [CLICK] (in this case, Critically Endangered), and the letters and numbers on the right summarize the criteria and subcriteria that the species meets for that category [CLICK]. The assessment code quickly summarizes the situation for the species. In the example shown, an experienced Assessor would understand that this species is Critically Endangered because it has undergone a reduction of at least 80% over the last 10 years or 3 generations; and because its extent of occurrence is less than 100 km², it is severely fragmented or occurs in just 1 location, and there is continuing decline in habitat area or quality. 2 Red List Criteria Nature of the Criteria CRITERIA THREATENED Population CATEGORIES A reduction Restricted B geographic range Critically Endangered (CR) Small population Quantitative C size & decline thresholds Endangered (EN) Very small or Vulnerable (VU) D restricted population E Quantitative analysis • There are five Red List Criteria (A-E). • Each criterion is based on a different issue related to extinction risk. • Each criterion has a set of quantitative thresholds that determine which (if any) of the threatened categories a species qualifies for. • If none of the thresholds are met then the Assessor must decide which of the other Red List Categories is appropriate for that species (is it already EX or EW; or does it nearly meet the conditions for a threatened category is therefore NT; or is its current extinction risk relatively low and qualifies for LC; or is the available information insufficient to list it under any category except DD). • The criteria are independent of each other (i.e., meeting the thresholds under criterion B does not mean that the rules for criterion E are also true for the taxon). 3 Red List Criteria Why use multiple criteria? Not all of the criteria will be suitable for all taxa. • All taxa being assessed must be evaluated against all five criteria. • Meeting any one of the EN B1ab(iii,iv); VU A2cd criteria qualifies a taxon C2a(i) for listing at that level of threat • All criteria met at the ✓ highest level of threat ✓ should be listed. ✓ ? There are five Red List criteria available. However, not all of them will be suitable for all taxa, because not all taxa have the same level or type of information available for them. [CLICK] However, it is important to consider all of the available data against all five criteria. It might not be immediately obvious to you that the data you have available can actually tell you enough to apply more than one criterion. [CLICK] So, if you assess a species against criterion A and it meets the thresholds for Vulnerable, you may decide to list it as Vulnerable under criterion A and just move on to assessing the next species. However, if you take just a bit more time to consider the other Red List Criteria, [CLICK] you may well find that the species also qualifies for a higher category under one or more of the other criteria (in the example shown, the species also qualifies for EN under criterion B). If the other criteria are not considered, then this higher listing will be missed. [TRAINER’S NOTE: in the slide, the tick means the species meets the thresholds for that criterion (the colour of the tick indicates which category it qualifies for under that criterion), the cross means the species does not meet the thresholds for that criterion, and the question mark means there are insufficient data available to be able to tell whether the species meets the criterion thresholds or not]. [CLICK] Species do not need to meet all five criteria to qualify as threatened, but they must meet all the conditions for at least one criterion. [CLICK] If more than one criterion applies for a category, all the applicable criteria for that 4 category must be given in the assessment. In the example shown, the species meets the EN thresholds for criteria B and C, so those two criteria should be listed in the final assessment. Although the species also meets the VU threshold under criterion A, the higher category takes priority, so only the criteria for that higher category should appear in the final assessment. 4 • For the following workshop sessions, you will be using the Criteria Summary Sheet (as well as the Red List Categories & Criteria and the User Guidelines documents). • The Criteria Summary Sheet is included within the Red List Categories & Criteria booklet. • At the top of the sheet the three threatened categories appear: CR, EN and VU. • Read down the sheet to see details for each criterion in separate sections. • Read across the sheet to see the thresholds for the threatened categories in the columns directly below each category. 5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rapid Pace of Species Extinctions Mounts to a 'Crisis'
    Rapid Pace of Species Extinctions Mounts to a 'Crisis' GLAND, Switzerland, November 3, 2009 (ENS) - Nearly one-third of all known species of plants and animals are threatened with extinction, finds the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, IUCN, in the most recent update of its authoritative Red List of Threatened Species� issued today. The updated assessment shows that 17,291 species out of the 47,677 assessed species are threatened with extinction. "The scientific evidence of a serious extinction crisis is mounting," warns Jane Smart, director of IUCN's Biodiversity Conservation Group. The IUCN finds that 21 percent of all known mammals, 30 percent of all known amphibians, 12 percent of all known birds, and 28 percent of reptiles, 37 percent of freshwater fishes, 70 percent of plants, 35 percent of invertebrates assessed so far are at risk. "This year's IUCN Red List makes for sobering reading," says Craig Hilton-Taylor, manager of the IUCN Red List Unit. "These results are just the tip of the iceberg. We have only managed to assess 47,663 species so far; there are many more millions out there which could be under serious threat." "We do, however, know from experience that conservation action works so let's not wait until it's too late and start saving our species now," urged Hilton- Taylor. Threatened by climate change, the hooded grebe, Podiceps gallardoi, of Argentina, was "January sees the launch of the International Year of uplisted from Near Threatened to Biodiversity, said Smart. "The latest analysis of the Endangered in 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • BOA5.1-2 Frog Biology, Taxonomy and Biodiversity
    The Biology of Amphibians Agnes Scott College Mark Mandica Executive Director The Amphibian Foundation [email protected] 678 379 TOAD (8623) Phyllomedusidae: Agalychnis annae 5.1-2: Frog Biology, Taxonomy & Biodiversity Part 2, Neobatrachia Hylidae: Dendropsophus ebraccatus CLassification of Order: Anura † Triadobatrachus Ascaphidae Leiopelmatidae Bombinatoridae Alytidae (Discoglossidae) Pipidae Rhynophrynidae Scaphiopopidae Pelodytidae Megophryidae Pelobatidae Heleophrynidae Nasikabatrachidae Sooglossidae Calyptocephalellidae Myobatrachidae Alsodidae Batrachylidae Bufonidae Ceratophryidae Cycloramphidae Hemiphractidae Hylodidae Leptodactylidae Odontophrynidae Rhinodermatidae Telmatobiidae Allophrynidae Centrolenidae Hylidae Dendrobatidae Brachycephalidae Ceuthomantidae Craugastoridae Eleutherodactylidae Strabomantidae Arthroleptidae Hyperoliidae Breviceptidae Hemisotidae Microhylidae Ceratobatrachidae Conrauidae Micrixalidae Nyctibatrachidae Petropedetidae Phrynobatrachidae Ptychadenidae Ranidae Ranixalidae Dicroglossidae Pyxicephalidae Rhacophoridae Mantellidae A B † 3 † † † Actinopterygian Coelacanth, Tetrapodomorpha †Amniota *Gerobatrachus (Ray-fin Fishes) Lungfish (stem-tetrapods) (Reptiles, Mammals)Lepospondyls † (’frogomander’) Eocaecilia GymnophionaKaraurus Caudata Triadobatrachus 2 Anura Sub Orders Super Families (including Apoda Urodela Prosalirus †) 1 Archaeobatrachia A Hyloidea 2 Mesobatrachia B Ranoidea 1 Anura Salientia 3 Neobatrachia Batrachia Lissamphibia *Gerobatrachus may be the sister taxon Salientia Temnospondyls
    [Show full text]
  • PARCC Project Training Manual Module 3. the IUCN Red List Of
    Communication Strategy (PARCC Activity 4.2) Ver. 1. Protected Areas Resilient to Climate Change, PARCC West Africa 2015 PARCC Project Training Manual Module 3. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species ENGLISH IUCN 2015 PARCC Training Manual. Module 3. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organisation. The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years, combining scientific research with practical policy advice. PARCC Project Training Manual, prepared by UNEP-WCMC and all PARCC project technical partners (Met Office Hadley centre, IUCN Species Programme, BirdLife International, Durham University, and DICE University of Kent), with funding from Global Environment Facility (GEF) via UNEP. Copyright: 2015. United Nations Environment Programme. Reproduction: This publication may be reproduced for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission, provided acknowledgement to the source is made. Reuse of any figures is subject to permission from the original rights holders. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose without permission in writing from UNEP. Applications for permission, with a statement of purpose and extent of reproduction, should be sent to the Director, DCPI, UNEP, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya. Disclaimer: The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP, contributory organisations or editors. The designations employed and the presentations of material in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or contributory organisations, editors or publishers concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries or the designation of its name, frontiers or boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetics, Classification, and Biogeography of the Treefrogs (Amphibia: Anura: Arboranae)
    Zootaxa 4104 (1): 001–109 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Monograph ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2016 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4104.1.1 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D598E724-C9E4-4BBA-B25D-511300A47B1D ZOOTAXA 4104 Phylogenetics, classification, and biogeography of the treefrogs (Amphibia: Anura: Arboranae) WILLIAM E. DUELLMAN1,3, ANGELA B. MARION2 & S. BLAIR HEDGES2 1Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas, 1345 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7593, USA 2Center for Biodiversity, Temple University, 1925 N 12th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122-1601, USA 3Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Magnolia Press Auckland, New Zealand Accepted by M. Vences: 27 Oct. 2015; published: 19 Apr. 2016 WILLIAM E. DUELLMAN, ANGELA B. MARION & S. BLAIR HEDGES Phylogenetics, Classification, and Biogeography of the Treefrogs (Amphibia: Anura: Arboranae) (Zootaxa 4104) 109 pp.; 30 cm. 19 April 2016 ISBN 978-1-77557-937-3 (paperback) ISBN 978-1-77557-938-0 (Online edition) FIRST PUBLISHED IN 2016 BY Magnolia Press P.O. Box 41-383 Auckland 1346 New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] http://www.mapress.com/j/zt © 2016 Magnolia Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, transmitted or disseminated, in any form, or by any means, without prior written permission from the publisher, to whom all requests to reproduce copyright material should be directed in writing. This authorization does not extend to any other kind of copying, by any means, in any form, and for any purpose other than private research use.
    [Show full text]
  • De-Extinction
    G C A T T A C G G C A T genes Review De-Extinction Ben Jacob Novak 1,2,3 1 Revive & Restore, Sausalito, CA 94965, USA; [email protected]; Tel.: +1-415-289-1000 2 Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia 3 Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Newcomb, Victoria 3220, Australia Received: 26 September 2018; Accepted: 7 November 2018; Published: 13 November 2018 Abstract: De-extinction projects for species such as the woolly mammoth and passenger pigeon have greatly stimulated public and scientific interest, producing a large body of literature and much debate. To date, there has been little consistency in descriptions of de-extinction technologies and purposes. In 2016, a special committee of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published a set of guidelines for de-extinction practice, establishing the first detailed description of de-extinction; yet incoherencies in published literature persist. There are even several problems with the IUCN definition. Here I present a comprehensive definition of de-extinction practice and rationale that expounds and reconciles the biological and ecological inconsistencies in the IUCN definition. This new definition brings together the practices of reintroduction and ecological replacement with de-extinction efforts that employ breeding strategies to recover unique extinct phenotypes into a single “de-extinction” discipline. An accurate understanding of de-extinction and biotechnology segregates the restoration of certain species into a new classification of endangerment, removing them from the purview of de-extinction and into the arena of species’ recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 9: Possibly Extinct and Possibly Extinct in the Wild Species
    IUCN Red List version 2020-1: Table 9 Last Updated: 19 March 2020 Table 9: Possibly Extinct and Possibly Extinct in the Wild Species The number of recent extinctions documented by the Extinct (EX) and Extinct in the Wild (EW) categories on The IUCN Red List is likely to be a significant underestimate, even for well-known taxa such as birds. The tags 'Possibly Extinct' and 'Possibly Extinct in the Wild' have therefore been developed to identify those Critically Endangered species that are, on the balance of evidence, likely to be extinct (or extinct in the wild). These species cannot be listed as EX or EW until their extinction can be confirmed (i.e., until adequate surveys have been carried out and have failed to record the species and local or unconfirmed reports have been investigated and discounted). All 'Possibly Extinct' and 'Possibly Extinct in the Wild' species on the current IUCN Red List are listed in the table below, along the year each assessment was carried out and, where available, the date each species was last recorded in the wild. Where the last record is an unconfirmed report, last recorded date is noted as "possibly". The figures presented in Table 9 are for species only; all subspecies, varieties and subpopulations flagged as 'Possibly Extinct' (PE) or 'Possibly Extinct in the Wild' (PEW) are excluded from the table. The IUCN Red List website also allows users to search for assessments flagged as PE and PEW (using the check boxes at the bottom of the Advanced search options). Please note that the results of that search includes all taxa (i.e., all species, subspecies, varieities and subpopulations that are flagged as PE or PEW).
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Newsletternumber 40, September 2017 Amphibian Ark Number 40 Keeping Threatened Amphibian Species Afloat September 2017
    AArk Newsletter NewsletterNumber 40, September 2017 amphibian ark Number 40 Keeping threatened amphibian species afloat September 2017 Partnerships: Working ® together to save amphibians In this issue... The Mountain Chicken Recovery Programme.. 2 Check out our Amphibian Ark t-shirts, hoodies and sweatshirts!................................................ 3 Second call for Amphibian Ark Seed Grant applications....................................................... 4 Amphibian program implementation tool now available in Portuguese .................................... 4 Project Lemur Frog final report, July 2017 ....... 5 In Memoriam, George B Rabb ......................... 7 Guatemalan Amphibian Biology, Management and Conservation Training Course ................... 8 A cooperative strategy between Cali Zoo, Zurich Zoo and Wildlife Conservation Society for the conservation of Colombian amphibians............ 9 Amphibian Advocates - Chris Michaels .......... 12 Amphibian Advocates - Federico Kacoliris ..... 13 Droughts, floods and froglets in between: a troublesome first half of 2017 in Mitsinjo’s conservation breeding center in Madagascar .................................................... 14 Recent animal husbandry documents on the AArk web site.................................................. 14 Partnership as a management tool: maximizing conservation efforts for Chilean amphibians ..................................................... 15 Saint Louis Zoo’s WildCare Institute’s Ecuadorian Collaboration ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • Despite Extensive Herpetofaunal Studies in the Small Mesoamerican Country of Costa Rica for Well Over a Century, Important Discoveries Still Await
    Despite extensive herpetofaunal studies in the small Mesoamerican country of Costa Rica for well over a century, important discoveries still await. The recently described species of fringe-limbed treefrog, Ecnomiohyla bailarina, which was known only from the holotype collected in the Darién region of extreme eastern Panama, has been discovered at a second site approximately 750 terrestrial kilometers to the northwest in the southeastern Caribbean foothills of Costa Rica. ' © Brian Kubicki 75 www.mesoamericanherpetology.com www.eaglemountainpublishing.com Discovery of the Golden-eyed Fringe-limbed Treefrog, Ecnomiohyla bailarina (Anura: Hylidae), in the Caribbean foothills of southeastern Costa Rica BRIAN KUBICKI1 AND STANLEY SALAZAR2 1Costa Rican Amphibian Research Center, Guayacán, Provincia de Limón, Costa Rica. E-mail: [email protected] (Corresponding author) 2Veragua Rainforest, Research & Adventure Park, Provincia de Limón, Costa Rica. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT: We report on the discovery of three specimens of the recently described fringe-limbed treefrog, Ecnomiohyla bailarina, from the southeastern Caribbean foothills of Costa Rica; previously, this species was known only from the male holotype collected in the Darién region of extreme eastern Panama. The discovery of E. bailarina in Costa Rica represents a new country record and extends the species’ known range approximately 750 terrestrial kilometers to the northwest. Additionally, we present a detailed mor- phological description of the three Costa Rican specimens,
    [Show full text]
  • Related Extinctions of Panamanian Amphibians Through Captive Breeding Programs B
    Animal Conservation. Print ISSN 1367-9430 Evaluating the probability of avoiding disease-related extinctions of Panamanian amphibians through captive breeding programs B. Gratwicke1, H. Ross2, A. Batista3, G. Chaves4, A. J. Crawford5,6,7, L. Elizondo8, A. Estrada9, M. Evans10, D. Garelle11, J. Guerrel12, A. Hertz3,13, M. Hughey9, C. A. Jaramillo6,7,14,15, B. Klocke16, M. Mandica17, D. Medina9, C. L. Richards-Zawacki6,18, M. J. Ryan19, A. Sosa-Bartuano20, J. Voyles21, B. Walker15, D. C. Woodhams6,22 &R.Ibanez~ 7,12,23 1 Center for Species Survival, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, USA 2 Panama Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Project, El Valle Amphibian Conservation Center, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama, Republic of Panama 3 Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany 4 Escuela de Biologıa, Universidad de Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa Rica 5 Department of Biological Sciences, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia 6 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama, Republic of Panama 7Cırculo Herpetologico de Panama, Panama, Republic of Panama 8 Programa de Maestrıa en Ciencias Biologicas, Universidad de Panama, Panama, Republic of Panama 9 Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA 10 Reptile Discovery Center, Smithsonian’s National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, USA 11 Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, Colorado Springs, CO, USA 12 Panama Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Project, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute,
    [Show full text]
  • Using a Portable Reader for Non-Invasive Detection of PIT-Tagged Skinks Under Coverboards
    SSAR OFFICERS (2011) HERPETOLOGICAL REVIEW President JOSEPH R. MENDELSON, III Zoo Atlanta THE QUARTERLY NEws-JourNAL OF THE e-mail: [email protected] SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES President-elect ROBERT D. ALDRIDGE Saint Louis University Editor Section Editors Herpetoculture ROBERT W. HANSEN Book Reviews BRAD LOCK e-mail: [email protected] 16333 Deer Path Lane AARON M. BAUER Zoo Atlanta, USA Clovis, California 93619-9735 USA Villanova University, USA e-mail: [email protected] Secretary e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] MARION R. PREEST WULF SCHLEIP The Claremont Colleges Associate Editors Current Research Meckenheim, Germany e-mail: [email protected] MICHAEL F. BENARD JOSHUA M. HALE e-mail: [email protected] Case Western Reserve University, USA Museum Victoria, Australia Treasurer e-mail: [email protected] Natural History Notes KIRSTEN E. NICHOLSON JESSE L. BRUNNER JAMES H. HARDING Central Michigan University Washington State University, USA BEN LOWE Michigan State University, USA e-mail: [email protected] University of Minnesota, USA e-mail: [email protected] FÉLIX B. Cruz e-mail: [email protected] INIBIOMA, Río Negro, Argentina CHARLES W. PAINTER Publications Secretary Conservation New Mexico Department of BRECK BARTHOLOMEW ROBERT E. ESPINOZA Priya Nanjappa Game and Fish, USA Salt Lake City, Utah California State University, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] Northridge, USA USA e-mail: [email protected] JACKSON D. SHEDD Immediate Past President MICHAEL S. GRACE TNC Dye Creek Preserve, BRIAN CROTHER Florida Institute of Technology, USA Geographic Distribution California, USA Southeastern Louisiana University INDRANEIL DAS e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] KERRY GRIFFIS-KYLE Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia Texas Tech University, USA e-mail: [email protected] JOHN D.
    [Show full text]
  • Batrachochytrium Dendrobatidis Global Invasive Species Database
    FULL ACCOUNT FOR: Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis System: Undefined Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Fungi Chytridiomycota Chytridiomycetes Chytridiales Common name chytrid frog fungi (English), Chytrid-Pilz (German), chytridiomycosis (English), frog chytrid fungus (English) Synonym Similar species Summary Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis is a non-hyphal parasitic chytrid fungus that has been associated with population declines in endemic amphibian species in upland montane rain forests in Australia and Panama. It causes cutaneous mycosis (fungal infection of the skin), or more specifically chytridiomycosis, in wild and captive amphibians. First described in 1998, the fungus is the only chytrid known to parasitise vertebrates. B. dendrobatidis can remain viable in the environment (especially aquatic environments) for weeks on its own, and may persist in latent infections. view this species on IUCN Red List Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) 2021. Species profile Batrachochytrium Pag. 1 dendrobatidis. Available from: http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=123 [Accessed 06 October 2021] FULL ACCOUNT FOR: Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Species Description Fungal Morphology: Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis is a zoosporic chytrid fungus that causes chytridiomycosis (a fungal infection of the skin) in amphibians and grows solely within keratinised cells. Diagnosis is by identification of characteristic intracellular flask-shaped sporangia (spore containing bodies) and septate thalli. The fungus grows in the superficial keratinised layers of the epidermis (known as the stratum corneum and stratum granulosum). The normal thickness of the stratum corneum is between 2µm to 5µm, but a heavy infection by the chytrid parasite may cause it to thicken to up to 60 µm. The fungus also infects the mouthparts of tadpoles (which are keratinised) but does not infect the epidermis of tadpoles (which lacks keratin).
    [Show full text]
  • The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ 2009 Update
    The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ 2009 update Amphibian Facts © Brad Wilson Rabb’s Fringe-limbed Treefrog Total species assessed in = 6,285 (up by 25 since last year – but note that there have been taxonomic changes since last year, which will affect the figures) Total EX or EW = 39 (1%) [EX = 37; EW = 2] Total threatened = 1,895 (30%) [CR = 484; EN = 754; VU = 657] Total NT = 382 (6%) Total DD = 1,597 (25%) Total LC = 2,372 (38%) THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™ Kihansi Spray Toad (Nectophrynoides asperginis) - EW This toad was described in 1999, and in last year’s Red List it was assessed as Critically Endangered, although it was acknowledged that the species may already have disappeared from the wild. This year it is formally declared Extinct in the Wild. The species was only known from the Kihansi Falls, in the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania, where it was formerly abundant, with a population of around 17,000 animals. The population showed natural fluctuations in size: it was at a high in May 1999, dropping to lower numbers in the course of 2001 and 2002, and at a high again in June 2003 when the total population was estimated at 20,989 individuals. However, since then the population has gone into steep decline, and by mid-January 2004, only three toads could be found, with just two males heard calling. There were a few records of calling animals during the rest of 2004, and an unconfirmed report from May 2005, but there have been no records of the species since then despite surveys.
    [Show full text]