This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library] On: 30 January 2012, At: 18:07 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK New Zealand Journal of Zoology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnzz20 Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2009 RA Hitchmough a , JM Hoare a , H Jamieson a , D Newman a , MD Tocher a , PJ Anderson b , M Lettink c & AH Whitaker d a Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand b North Shore City Council, Takapuna, North Shore City, New Zealand c Little River, New Zealand d Orinoco, Motueka, New Zealand Available online: 15 Sep 2010 To cite this article: RA Hitchmough, JM Hoare, H Jamieson, D Newman, MD Tocher, PJ Anderson, M Lettink & AH Whitaker (2010): Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2009, New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 37:3, 203-224 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03014223.2010.496487 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. New Zealand Journal of Zoology Vol. 37, No. 3, September 2010, 203 Á224 Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2009 RA Hitchmough a*, JM Hoare a, H Jamieson a, D Newman a, MD Tocher a, PJ Anderson b, M Lettink c and AH Whitaker d aDepartment of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand; bNorth Shore City Council, Takapuna, North Shore City, New Zealand; cLittle River, New Zealand; dOrinoco, Motueka, New Zealand (Received 16 March 2010; final version received 19 May 2010 ) The threat status of New Zealand’s reptiles was re-evaluated, using revised New Zealand Threat Classification System criteria. The resulting list included 109 known taxa and undescribed entities *an increase of 11 since the 2005 listing. Two species were listed as Extinct; 17 taxa were listed as Threatened, including six as Nationally Critical, three as Nationally Endangered, and eight as Nationally Vulnerable; 51 taxa were listed as At Risk, including 10 Naturally Uncommon, 11 Relict, 3 Recovering, and 27 Declining; eight taxa were listed as Data Deficient; five visiting marine species were listed as Vagrant, and two as Migrant; 23 taxa were considered Not Threatened; and there was one Introduced and Naturalised species. The six taxa assessed as being at greatest risk of extinction (Nationally Critical) were all South Island skinks. Five taxa had improved in threat status since 2005 as a result of conservation management action. Two taxa had worsened in threat status due to potential threats from rabbit-driven predator irruptions plus the new threat of dairy conversion destroying habitat. The threat status of a further 24 taxa changed as a result of improved knowledge or a change in the criteria and/or categories since 2005. Keywords: Caretta ; Chelonia ; conservation status; Dermochelys ; Eretmochelys ; Hoplodactylus ; Lampropholis ; Laticauda ; Lepidochelys ; Naultinus ; New Zealand; Oligosoma ; Pelamis ; reptiles; Sphenodon ; threat classification Introduction protection to species via amendments to the A system for assessing the threat status of New Schedules to the New Zealand Wildlife Act Zealand’s flora and fauna (the New Zealand (1955). The classification of taxa according to Threat Classification System *NZTCS) was the risk of extinction they face allows work and resources to be directed to those species that Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 18:07 30 January 2012 first published in 2002 (Molloy et al. 2002). Hitchmough (2002) applied that system across need them most *although threat status is only a range of New Zealand taxa, and presented a one of several criteria used in this prioritisation threat classification list. That list was updated (Joseph et al. 2008). The published lists also in 2005 (Hitchmough et al. 2007), resulting in form a basis for national outcome monitoring to changes in the threat status of some taxa and measure the impact the New Zealand Depart- the addition of others to the list. ment of Conservation (DOC) and other agen- NZTCS listing has no direct or automatic cies and community groups have through their impact on the legal status or resourcing of work management of natural heritage (Department of on threatened species. However, it provides vital Conservation 2009). Changes in numbers of information for processes such as applying legal taxa in the various categories are reported *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] ISSN 0301-4223 print/ISSN 1175-8821 online # 2010 The Royal Society of New Zealand DOI: 10.1080/03014223.2010.496487 http://www.informaworld.com 204 RA Hitchmough et al. nationally and internationally (e.g. Convention The list under consideration included both on Biodiversity) as an indicator of the success or endemic and non-endemic taxa; where a non- failure of threatened species management. endemic taxon was listed, only the New Zealand In 2007, the NZTCS was reviewed, resulting population was assessed. Both taxonomically in a new manual for classifying New Zealand’s determinate and indeterminate taxa were plant, animal and fungal taxa according to assessed *taxonomically determinate taxa are their threat of extinction (Townsend et al. those that are legitimately and effectively pub- 2008). The fundamental approach remained lished according to the criteria of the Inter- unchanged from Molloy et al. (2002), but national Code of Zoological Nomenclature changes were made to some of the categories (http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp) and gener- and criteria, as well as to the recommended ally accepted by relevant experts as distinct, process. As part of the implementation of while taxonomically indeterminate taxa are this revised system, we re-evaluated the threat either legitimately and effectively publish- status of New Zealand reptiles in 2009. This ed but not generally accepted as distinct, or follows parallel evaluations of the vascular plant are entities yet to be furnished with a formal flora (de Lange et al. 2009) and the bird fauna name (Townsend et al. 2008). In this paper, we (Miskelly et al. 2008). This paper reports the use ‘taxa’ collectively to cover both groups. results of our assessments. Taxa are listed in Table 1. We incorporated information from the pub- lic and a broader pool of experts not directly Methods involved in the listing process. A call for submis- An up-to-date taxonomic list of New Zealand sions on the reptile threat status re-evaluation reptiles was compiled using: (1) the recent was made via the New Zealand Department systematic revision of the New Zealand of Conservation website (http://www.doc.govt. skinks by Chapple and colleagues (Chapple & nz/getting-involved/consultations/closed/new- Patterson 2007; Greaves et al. 2007, 2008; Bell listing-of-threatened-status-of-new-zealand- & Patterson 2008; Chapple et al. 2008a, b, c, reptiles-and-amphibians/) in November 2008 2009; Hare et al. 2008; Liggins et al. 2008a, and through the Society for Research on Amphi- b; D Chapple pers. comm.; G Patterson bians and Reptiles in New Zealand (SRARNZ). pers. comm.); (2) unpublished results of R Submissions closed on 28 February 2009. Hitchmough and the thesis of Nielsen (2008) Reptile experts selected in consultation with for geckos; (3) the review of tuatara genetics SRARNZ were invited to be part of an expert and systematics by Hay et al. (2010) (which panel to undertake the re-evaluation process. reduced tuatara to a single species); and (4) the The role of the expert panel members (the Downloaded by [University of Auckland Library] at 18:07 30 January 2012 list of marine reptiles published by Gill (1997), authors of this paper) was to provide knowledge with the addition of one more recently de- on their particular field of expertise at the threat scribed sea snake species with a specimen classification list meeting, to answer queries on recorded from New Zealand (Heatwole et al. listing decisions reached, and to consult with 2005). We used the suggested common names peers to bring as much information as possible of Jewell (2008) for some recently discovered or to the meeting (Townsend et al. 2008). recently distinguished species that did not The panel met on 23 Á24 April 2009 and already have appropriate and well-established placed taxa into threat categories (Fig. 1) based common names, but we did not change well- on the criteria provided by Townsend et al. established common names. We followed (2008). This process was guided by submissions Chapple & Hitchmough (2009) in rejecting received, panel knowledge, and reference to any of Jewell’s suggested taxonomic changes recent publications relating to taxonomic and that were at variance with strong genetic data. population status. Where there was doubt over Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2009 205 Table 1 Threat rankings for reptiles. The following is a list of all reptile taxa we assessed according to Townsend et al. (2008). Taxa are grouped by threat category, then alphabetically by scientific name. For those non-endemic species that are threatened internationally, the IUCN category is listed alongside the NZTCS listing. See Townsend et al.