Taxonomic and
scientific inaccuracies in a consultancy report on biodiversity: a cautionary
note
MohomedM. Bahir 1 & DineshE. Gabadage 2
1,2 TaprobanicaNature Conservation Society, 146, Kendalanda, Homagama, Sri Lanka
Email: goodwillserve@gmail.com 1
Date of online publication 26
June 2009
ISSN 0974-7907 (online) |
0974-7893 (print)
Editor: Indraneil Das
Manuscript details:
Ms # o2123
Received 23 January 2009
Final received 09 May 2009
Finally accepted 04 June 2009
Citation: Bahir, M.M. & D.E. Gabadage(2009). Taxonomic and scientific inaccuracies in a consultancy report on
biodiversity: a cautionary note. Journal of Threatened Taxa1(6): 317-322.
Copyright: © M.M. Bahir & D.E. Gabadage2009. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 UnportedLicense. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article
in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by
providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Author Details: Mohomed M. Bahir, the
coordinator of the Taprobanica Nature Conservation
Society is a conservation research biologist working on freshwater crab and
reptile taxonomy. Also, he has been working on amphibian life histories. Dinesh E. Gabadage, the secretary of the TaprobanicaNature Conservation Society is a conservation field biologist working on Sri
Lankan herpetofauna and promoting conservation
awareness of the value of biodiversity among Sri Lankan community.
Author contributions: Both authors
have equally contributed to this study and in writing the paper.
Acknowledgements: We thank an
anonymous reviewer for improving the manuscript. We thank Prof. Colin P. Groves
(Australian National University) for being a critical reviewer of this
manuscript. We also thank anonymous reviewers for their comments and our
colleagues for encouraging this work.
Abstract: The
island of Sri Lanka has a heritage of astonishing biodiversity of which
comparatively little remains, restricted to small forest islands. Conservation efforts have been aided by many
high-quality publications, while on the other hand inaccurate reports can
present obstacles to effective efforts. Here we discuss inaccuracies in a report prepared for the Department of
Wildlife Conservation of Sri Lanka and the Ministry of Environment and Natural
Resources, from which it is apparent that the consultants dominating
conservation science do not appreciate the necessity of identifying species
accurately, citing appropriate references, or updating their knowledge of
current nomenclature and distribution of taxa.
Conservation is an important national and international issue, and it is incumbent
upon educators, conservation managers, legal advisors, funding agencies,
officials and policy makers to work along with research scientists to ensure
that inaccurate information does not endanger efforts to safeguard Sri Lanka’s
remaining endangered biodiversity treasures. Towards this end, procedures for the conduct of conservation studies
should be revised to incorporate input from researchers familiar with current
knowledge and methods.
Keywords: Inaccuracies,
Taxonomy, Biodiversity Hotspots, Conservation Science, Consultancy, Ritigala Strict Nature Reserve, Sri Lanka
Introduction
Biodiversity conservation must
proceed in the face of a host of threats and challenges, including
deforestation (Brook et al. 2003), rapid climate change (Harvellet al. 2002; Alford et al. 2007; Rosa et al. 2007), invasive alien
species (Elton 1958), pollution (MacNeely 1992), fire
(Swinbanks, 1997; Batuwita& Bahir 2005), soil erosion (Hewawasamet al. 2003), agro-chemical use (Pethiyagoda 1994;
Hayes et al. 2002), infectious disease (Dazak et al.2000; Pounds et al. 2006) and the lack of systematic or scientific
understanding (Pethiyagoda 2007; Bahir2009; Bahir & Gabadage2009). Biodiversity hotspots have been identified to prioritize conservation
efforts (Stattersfield et al. 1998; Myers et al.
2000; Meegaskumbura et al. 2002; Mittermeier et al. 2004), with one of the most prominent
and populous being the Western Ghats - Sri Lanka biodiversity region (Cincotta et al. 2000; Myers et al. 2000; Mittermeier et al. 2004). This region is divided in to
several eco-regions (Wickramanayake et al.2002), each unique in species diversity and endemism (Myers et al. 2000; Bossuyt et al. 2004, 2005; Helgen& Groves 2005); for example molecular phylogeneticstudies indicate that Sri Lanka has long maintained a fauna distinct from that
of mainland India (Bossuyt et al. 2004). While we may
lack the taxonomic knowledge and expertise to effectively describe the Earth’s
remaining biodiversity (Wilson 2005), it is important to conservation efforts
that we make every effort possible to understand exactly what it is we are
trying to protect (Evenhuis 2007).
The Sri Lanka Department of
Wildlife Conservation has made reasonable progress towards identifying species
diversity in selected protected areas, especially national parks and nature
reserves. Biodiversity surveys,
exploration, collection, documentation and reporting of existing diversity of
populations and habitats (Pethiyagoda 2005; Evenhuis 2007) are all essential to effective conservation
efforts (it is especially important to assess conservation status at species
level, IUCN 2001; IUCN 2007). While the
Department lacks conservation scientists and researchers, it has sought
scientific input from outside (DWC 1997, 2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d,
2008), for example conservation managers have consulted experts to document the
diversity in key areas in order to prioritize conservation efforts (DWC 2007d,
2008).
Obviously, if it is to guide
effective conservation management, expert information must be relevant, timely,
comprehensive and accurate. It is also
reasonable to expect that consultancy services which are well remunerated for
their efforts (eg. DWC 2005; 2007a; 2007b; 2007c;
2007d; 2008) should produce work of a high standard, free of gross errors and
inaccuracies. Unfortunately, we have
observed that these standards and expectations are not met by a recent consultancy
report published to popularize conservation in RitigalaStrict Nature Reserve (DWC 2008): “Consultancy Services Report, Biodiversity
baseline survey: Ritigala Strict Natural Reserve”
(funded by the Department of Wildlife Conservation through Asian Development
Bank loan number 1767-SRI (SF)).
In this article we highlight the
serious errors and inaccuracies contained in DWC (2008), many of which
perpetuate taxonomic inaccuracies that have recently been corrected in the
scientific literature (Pethiyagoda 2007; Bahir 2009; Bahir & Gabadage 2009). These deficiencies demonstrate how important it is for biodiversity
consultants to be cognizant of current scientific literature, nomenclature and
species identification. Otherwise,
biodiversity surveys and other expert inputs will simply result in a waste of
funds in the production of information that likely to be of little help in the
conservation of our remaining biodiversity.
Inaccuracies
in Biodiversity Baseline Survey: Ritigala Strict
Natural Reserve
1. Errors in references and
citations: The
report refers to a widely recognized work on Sri Lankan flora (Dassanayake & Fosberg1980-1991; Dassanayake et al. 1994-1995; Dassanayake & Clayton 1996-2000), but it is not listed
under References. Rather than individually cite the contributions of several authors
concerning the fauna of Sri Lanka and the status of taxonomy, research and
conservation, the contents of the compilation edited by Bambaradeniyaare simply referenced as Bambaradeniya (ed.)
2006. This neglects the input of
researchers who contributed the findings of years of work to a national program
to prioritize conservation, organized by the Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources together with IUCN. The editor of a compilation (in this caseBambaradeniya) is not the person responsible for the
research, findings and opinions of its contributors. Only some of the articles from that document
were relevant to the groups studied in the survey, which included fresh water
fish (Amarasinghe et al. 2006; Pethiyagoda2006), amphibians (Pethiyagoda et al. 2006); reptiles
(de Silva 2006), birds (Kotagama et al. 2006; Warakagoda & Sirivardana2006) and mammals (Miththapala 2006; Weerakoon & Goonatilake 2006;Wijesinghe 2006).
2. Errors in presenting data and
nomenclature:The report states that “The Eastern drainage supports the endemics Chela laubuca, Esomus thermoicos, Puntius amphibious and Puntius ticto”. Actually, species previously recognized
as Chela Hamilton, 1822 from Sri Lanka are now
recognized as belonging to the genus Laubuca (Pethiyagoda et al. 2008). Laubuca laubuca (Hamilton 1882) was described from Bengal, but
recent research shows that in Sri Lanka the genus has four endemic species (Pethiyagoda 2008). Species around Ritigala Strict Nature Reserve
should be identified accurately; perhaps the species recorded by the
consultants is Laubuca lankensis(Deraniyagala 1960). Puntius amphibious (Valenciennes, in Cuvier & Valenciennes1842) is probably an extinct species described from Mumbai, India, and there
only two specimens of this species are extant- MNHN 73 (Silva et al.
2008). Fish identified previously from
Sri Lanka as P. amphibius (Pethiyagoda1991), are now recognized as an endemic species, P. kamalika(Silva et al. 2008), which is restricted to the wet zone. The consultants in DWC (2008) probably
identified a juvenile P. dorsalis (Jerdon, 1849), juvenile P. sarana(Hamilton 1822) or some other cyprinid fish as Puntiusamphibious.
P. ticto (Hamilton,
1822) was described from Bengal. Deraniyagala (1956)
gave a name to the P. ticto like fish in Sri
Lanka, describing it as P. ticto melanomaculatus. At present P. ticto melanomaculatus is not recognized as a valid taxon (Pethiyagoda 1991). Recent molecular investigations show marked
differences between P. ticto and P. melanomaculatus (Meegaskumburaet al. 2008).
The report says of the freshwater
fish diversity of Ritigala: “Five species are
endemic, representing 11% of the 44 species endemic to Sri Lanka”. In reality,
as of the end of August 2008, 35 species were endemic to Sri Lanka (Pethiyagoda 1991, 1998; Pethiyagoda& Kottelat 2005; Meegaskumburaet al. 2008; Pethiyagoda et al. 2008; Silva et al.
2008). It is evident, as demonstrated (Bossuyt et al. 2004) on the evidence of two invertebrate
and four vertebrate groups, that the biotic interchange is more limited than
has been assumed, and that Sri Lanka has maintained a fauna that is largely
distinct from the mainland. Many species of animals will probably turn out to
be endemic after taxonomic comparisons, as has been shown recently (Groves
& Meijaard 2005; Pethiyagoda& Kottelat 2005). Nonetheless, there is a danger of listing species as endemic without
evidence (Pethiyagoda 2006; Goonetileke2007). In “Freshwater fishes of Sri
Lanka”, the author unwittingly published statements of Pethiyagoda(see Goonetileke 2007), without knowing the
seriousness of taxonomic issues. It is rather unfortunate that the consultants
did not preserve any voucher specimens of freshwater fish in their survey, so
the identity of their species can not be confirmed. To obtain collection
permission from the Department of Wildlife Conservation is difficult for bona
fide scientists (Pethiyagoda et al. 2007), but
unfortunately conservationists in many cases get permission to collect
specimens in their studies without any taxonomists to identify them accurately
(DWC 2007d, 2008). Consultants actually misused their opportunity of preserving
voucher specimens though they had permission to make collections (DWC
2008). Current procedures for systematics and conservation science by the authorities in
Sri Lanka should be improved or reassessed up to international standards of
taxonomy and conservation science.
The authors of the consultancy
report, in table 3.2 under the category herpetofauna,
give the total voucher specimens collected as three, and the total voucher
specimens identified as 11 and two unidentified (DWC 2008). But in Annex 3, they provide the information
for 13 specimens as collected. As over
30 consultants worked on the project, this is a regrettable situation.
DWC, 2008 records three species
of Agamid lizards, namely Otocyptis nigristigma Bahir &
Silva, 2005, Calotes ceylonensis Müller, 1887 and Calotes liolepis Boulenger,
1885. They state: “Interestingly, the
endemic and vulnerable whistling lizard is normally not recorded elsewhere in
the Dry Zone”. However, Bahir & Maduwage (2005) recordedCalotes liolepisfrom 22 localities within Sri Lanka, and four of those are from the dry zone
including Ritigala Strict Nature Reserve; their
records were confirmed by preserved specimens. The consultants of DWC (2008) are clearly not familiar with the recent
literature and the recorded distributions of the species that they study. It
might have been interesting and important to point out in the report that the type
locality of Otocryptis nigristigmais actually Ritigala Strict Nature Reserve itself (Bahir & Silva 2005). The report records Cyrtodactylus fraenatus(Günther 1864) from Ritigala,
but the species in Ritigala is actually a species new
to science and will be described in the near future. Recent studies on Sri Lankan Cyrtodactylus Gray 1827 uncovered five new species,
each restricted to a small range (Batuwita & Bahir 2005).
DWC, 2008 records Cnemaspis jerdonii(Theobald 1868) from RitigalaStrict Nature Reserve. Actually C. jerdonii was described from India (Theobald1868) and is known only from two poorly-preserved specimens (Manamendra-Arachchi et al. 2007). Ferguson (1887),
described a species from Kandy Hills as Gymnodactylus scalpensis. Recent research results have shown it
as a valid species of Cnemaspis, C. scalpensis, which is endemic to hills around Kandy (Manamendra-Arachchi et al. 2007). Given this history, the
species reported from Ritigala by the consultants
perhaps represents a further undescribed species.
The consultants recorded the
endemic Sri Lankan hanging parrot (Loriculus beryllinus), but they did not mention that it is
endemic (DWC 2008). A recent publication
on birds recognized three species of corvids from Sri
Lanka (Rasmussen & Anderton 2005), but in the
consultancy report it states that there are 13 species of corvidbirds in Ritigala Strict Nature Reserve. It appears to us that the authors are
depending on previous publications and not familiar with recent research
findings. The consultants recorded two bird species, Tephrodornis pondicerianus (Gmelin1789) (Common Woodshrike) and Mirafra assamica Horsfield 1840
(Bengal Bushlark), from Ritigala,
but Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) clearly state
that these two birds are not yet recorded in Sri Lanka; it is not clear on what
evidence this consultancy work extends the distribution of these two species to
Sri Lanka.
The consultants record 17 species
of amphibians in their study, but their nomenclature is woefully out of
date. Recently Frost et al. (2006)
reviewed the nomenclature of amphibians on a global scale; this is available
freely online (Frost et al. 2006; Frost el al. 2009). Despite this, the
consultants overlooked the description of the new genus DuttaphrynusFrost et al. 2006 and the evidence of the validity of Hylarana. Bufo melanostictus Schneider, 1799 and Rana gracilis Gravenhorst,
1829 should be referred as Duttaphrynus melanostictus and Hylarana gracilis, respectively. It is unexpected that an amphibian specialist
group representative in the IUCN Species Survival Commission also worked as a
consultant in DWC (2008), yet still did not take account of these advances.
Conclusion
Among the books and research
papers not cited by the consultants in their final refined assessment of the
diversity in Ritigala Strict Nature Reserve are the
following: (Legge 1880; Deraniyagala1953, 1956, 1960; Taylor 1953; de Silva 1980; Phillips 1980-1984; Senanayake & Moyle 1982; de Silva 1990; Sibley &
Monroe 1990; Pethiyagoda 1991, 1994, 1998; Kotagama & Fernando 1994; Manamendra-Arachchi& Liyanage 1994; Bandara& Mahatantila 1996; Das 1996; Dutta& Manamendra-Arachchi 1996; Priyadharshana& Fernando 1996; Henry 1998; Harrison 1999; Kluge, 2001; Meegaskumbura et al. 2002; Bossuytet al. 2004, 2005; Stuart et al. 2004; Bahir& Maduwage 2005; Bahir& Silva 2005; Bahir & Surasinghe2005; Batuwita & Bahir2005; Groves & Meijaard 2005; Helgen& Groves 2005; Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda 2005; Frost et al. 2006; Manamendra-Arachchiet al. 2007; Pethiyagoda et al. 2008; Silva et
al. 2008). None of these sources
are cited or referred in the final report, which we find puzzling. Reading the report, is not clear how the
consultants identified the species concerned; these references, and others not
mentioned here, should have been listed, in particular because they did in fact
cite several in the text which nonetheless did not appear in the References Cited
list. We ask following questions: Is
this because the consultants are not aware of these relevant publications?
Answer: No, because some of those publications are already referred by them in
DWC (2007b). We believe the final report
also should have provided all relevant references to enable readers to
understand the project and its context. Are the consultants themselves active researchers and/or scientists?
Have they published research papers in international journals in their
respected fields? How are consultants chosen, and what is the policy behind the
appointment of consultants in any given program?
We assume that popular
conservationists are dominating the field of biodiversity science in Sri Lanka,
and that this is perhaps true for many other biodiversity hotspots as well. However, taxonomists with
specialist knowledge of the groups being investigated must always be part of
area assessments, especially within biodiversity hotspots. Taxonomists are responsible for laying the
foundations of conservation science (Evenhuis 2007),
and when starting conservation projects the description of species should be
considered. This consultancy report is a sobering example for biodiversity
surveys in the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot. In our opinion,
the procedures for the appointment of consultants to conduct such studies
should be revised, and genuine researchers should get the opportunity to
contribute to the conservation of the country’s vanishing biodiversity
heritage. While it is true that some
scientists have argued that the only value of type specimens is scientific (Pethiyagoda et al. 2007), we would like to argue that they
also have heritage value.
We request that authors of
educational materials (e.g. journalists, authors of school text books and field
guides) and students, conservation managers, policy makers and conservation
scientists, read and refer to consultancy reports with a critical eye, and not
blindly accept them as some kind of “gold standard”. When taxonomists and other researchers offer
their data to produce reports or chapters of conservation-oriented
publications, there is a responsibility for publishers and responsible
authorities to take their contributions seriously. To take only the most
glaring example, the editor of a multi-authored compilation (e.g., Bambaradeniya 2006) must not be the one to receive the
citations; he or she presumably has a hand in choosing the authors of the
various contributions, but beyond that he/she is in no way responsible for what
they write. It is mandatory for amateur
naturalists, taxonomists, conservation scientists, conservation managers,
government officials, legal advisors, policy makers and politicians to pay
serious attention to solving matters of this nature, especially on a
consultancy level. Otherwise,
conservation science and biodiversity research in Sri Lanka will perish. This is an issue to be argued nationally and
internationally; in Sri Lanka, a unique jewel of biodiversity, much of what
comparatively little remains is now trapped in small forest islands at the
mercy of the success of conservation efforts. It is incumbent upon conservation managers, funding agencies and policy
makers to work along with research scientists to safeguard the island’s
vanishing natural heritage.
References
Alford, R.A., K.S. Bradfield & S.J.
Richards (2007). Global warming and amphibian losses: the proximate
cause of frog decline? Nature 447: E3-E4.
Amarasinghe,
U.S., R.R.R.A. Shirantha & M.J.S. Wijeyaratne (2006). Some aspects of ecology of endemic fresh water fishes of Sri Lanka,
pp. 113–124. In: Bambaradeniya C. (ed.), Fauna
of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation. The World
Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka and Government of Sri Lanka, viii+308pp .
Bahir, M.M. (2009). Some taxonomic inaccuracies in conservation publications. Current
Science 96 (5): 631–632.
Bahir,
M.M. & K.P. Maduwage (2005). Calotes desilvai, a
new agamid lizard from Morningside Forest, Sri Lanka. In: D. C. J Yeo, P. K. L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda(eds.), Contributions to biodiversity exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The
Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 381–392.
Bahir, M.M. & A.
Silva (2005). Otocryptis nigristigma,
a new species of agamid lizard from Sri Lanka. In: Yeo,
D.C.J., P.K.L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda (eds.),
Contributions to biodiversity exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The
Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 393–406.
Bahir,
M.M. & T.A. Surasinghe (2005). Conservation
assessment of the Sri Lankan Agamidae (Reptilia: Sauria). In: D.CJ. Yeo, P.K.L. Ng
& R. Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to
biodiversity exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles
Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 407–412.
Bahir,
M.M & D.E. Gabadage (in press). Taxonomic
errors and inaccuracies in Sri Lankan Red List: a cautionary note. Journal of Threatened Taxa.
Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. (ed.)
(2006). The fauna of Sri Lanka: status of taxonomy. researchand conservation. The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka &
Government of Sri Lanka, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 308pp.
Bandara,
N.M.S.A. & K.C.P. Mahatantila (1996). A survey of medicinal plants in Ritigalaand its surrounding plain. Sri Lanka Forester 22: 3–21.
Batuwita, S. & M.M. Bahir (2005). Description of five new species of Cyrtodactylus (Reptelia:Gekkonidae) from Sri Lanka. In: Yeo,
D.C.J., P.K.L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda (eds.). Contributions to biodiversity
exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of
Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 351–380.
Bossuyt, F., M. Meegaskumbura, N. Beenaerts, D.J.
Gower, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Roelants,
A. Mannaert, M. Wilkinson, M.M. Bahir,
K. Manamendra-Arachchi, P.K.L. Ng, C. J. Schneider,
O.V. Oommen & M.C. Milinkovitch(2004). Local endemism within the Western Ghats–Sri Lanka
Biodiversity Hotspot. Science 306: 479–481.
Bossuyt, F., M. Meegaskumbura, N. Beenaerts, D.J.
Gower, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Roelants,
A. Mannaert, M. Wilkinson, M.M. Bahir,
K. Manamendra-Arachchi, P.K.L. Ng, C. J. Schneider,
O. van Oomen & M.C. Milinkovitch(2005). Biodiversity in Sri Lanka and Western Ghats. Science308: 199.
Brook,
B.W., N.S. Sodhi. & P.K.L. Ng
(2003).Catastrophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore. Nature 424:
420–423.
Cincotta,
R.P., J. Wisnewski, & R. Engelman(2000). Human populations in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature404: 990–992.
Das, I. (1996). Biogeography of the
reptiles of South Asia. Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar,
Florida. 87pp.
Dassanayake,
M.D., & F.R. Fosberg, (eds.) (1980–1991). A revised
handbook to the flora of Ceylon. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New
Delhi. vol. I vii+508; vol. II. vii+511pp; vol. III. vii+499pp;
vol. IV. vii+532pp; vol. V. vii+476; vol. VI. vii+424pp vol. VII. Vii+439pp.
Dassanayake, M.D., F.R. Fosberg, & W.D. Clayton (eds.) (1994-1995). A
Revised Handbook to the Flora of Ceylon. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.,
New Delhi. vol. VIII. v+458; vol.
IX. v+482pp.
Dassanayake, M.D. &
W.D. Clayton (eds.) (1996-2000). A Revised Handbook
to the Flora of Ceylon. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi. vol. X. viii+426pp; vol. XI. 420pp; vol.
XII. 390pp; vol. XIII. 284pp;
vol. XIV. v+307.
Daszak, P., A.A. Cunningham & A.D. Hyatt (2000). Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife threats to biodiversity
and human health. Science 287: 443–449.
Deraniyagala,
P.E.P. (1953). A Colored Atlas of Some Vertebrates from
Ceylon. Vol. 2. Ceylon
National Museums, Colombo, 101pp.
Deraniyagala,
P.E.P. (1956). Two new sub species and one new species of cyprinoid fishes from Ceylon. Proceedings of the
12th Annual Session of the Ceylon
Association for the Advancement of Science 1: 34–35.
Deraniyagala, P.E.P. (1960). A new subspecies of fish Chela labuca from Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica 29: 17.
de Silva, A.
(1990). Colour guide to the snakes of Sri Lanka.R & A Publishing Ltd., Portishead,
England, 130pp.
de Silva, A.
(2006). Current status of reptiles of Sri Lanka. Fauna of Sri
Lanka: 134–163. In: Bambaradeniya C. (ed.), Fauna
of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation. The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka and Government of
Sri Lanka. 308pp.
de Silva, P.H.D.H.
(1980). Snake fauna of Sri Lanka, with special reference to skull,
dentition and venom in snakes. National Museum,
Colombo, xi+472pp.
DWC (1997). Resources
inventory of Ritigala Strict Natural Reserve. Volume I. The global Environment Facility
Project, UNDP and Department of Wildlife Conservation Project, Department of
Wildlife Conservation, Colombo, 147pp.
DWC (2005). Ritigala Strict Nature Reserve and very important proposed
Yan Oya National Park: Management Plan. Final Draft. Protected Area Management and Wildlife
Conservation Project, Department of Wildlife Conservation, Colombo, 113pp.
DWC (2007a). Biodiversity
Baseline Survey: Field Manual. Consultancy Service Report prepared by M.J.B.
Green, (ed.), S.M.D.A.U. De Alwis, P.N. Dayawansa, R. How, U.K. G.K. Padmalal, S. De Silva, B.M.P. Singhakumara,
D. Weerakoon, M.R. Wijesinghe& W.B. Yapa, ARD Inc in association with Infotech IDEAS and GREENTECH Consultants. Sri Lanka
Protected Areas Management and Wildlife Conservation Project (PAM &
WCP/CONSULT/02/BDBS), Department of Wildlife Conservation, Ministry of
Environment and Natural resources, Colombo, 43pp.
DWC (2007b). Biodiversity
Information Management System: Users Guide. Consultancy Services Report
prepared by S. De Silva, ARD Inc in association with InfotechIDEAS and GREENTECH consultants, Sri Lanka Protected Area Management and
Wildlife Conservation Project (PAM & WCP/CONSULT/02/BDBS), Department of
Wildlife Conservation, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Colombo,
16pp.
DWC (2007c). Biodiversity
Information Management System: Technical DesighnGuide. Consultancy Services Report prepare by S. De Silva, ARD Inc in
association with Infotech IDEAS and GREENTECH
Consultants. Sri Lanka Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation Project
(PAM & WCP/CONSULT/02/BDBS), Department of Wildlife Conservation, Ministry
of Environment and Natural Resources, Colombo, 9pp.
DWC (2007d). Biodiversity
Baseline Survey: Ritigala Strict Natural Reserve.
Consultancy services report prepared by M.J.B. Green (ed.), S.M.D.A.U.De Alwis, P.N. Dayawansa, R. How, B.M.P. Singhakumara,
D. Weerakoon, M.R. Wijesinghe& W. B.Yapa, ARD Inc. in association with Infotech IDEAS and GRENTECH Consultants. Sri Lanka
protected areas management and Wildlife Conservation Project
(PAM&WCP/CONSULT/02,BDBS), Department of Wildlife
Conservation, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Colombo, 41pp.
DWC (2008). Biodiversity
Baseline Survey: Ritigala Strict Natural Reserve. Revised version. Consultancy services report prepare by
M.J.B. Green (ed.), S.M.D.A.U. De Alwis, P.N. Dayawansa, R. How, B.M.P. Singhakumara,
D. Weerakoon, M.R. Wijesinghe& W.B. Yapa, InfotechIDEAS in associan with GRENTECH Consultants. Sri
Lanka protected areas management and Wildlife Conservation Project (PAM &
WCP/CONSULT/02,BDBS), Department of Wildlife
Conservation, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Colombo, 46pp.
Dutta, S.K. & K. Manamendra-Arachchi(1996). The Amphibian Fauna of Sri Lanka.Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka, Colombo, 232pp.
Elton,
C.S. (1958). The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants.London, Methuen, 181pp.
Evenhuis, N.L. (2007). Helping solve the “Other” taxonomic impediment: completing the
eight steps to total enlightenment and taxonomic nirvana. Zootaxa 1407: 3–12.
Ferguson, W. (1887). Reptile fauna of Ceylon. Letter on a collection sent to the
Colombo Museum. Herbert, Ceylon. Government Press, Ceylon, 12–13.
Frost,
D.R., T. Grant, J. Faivovich, R.H. Bain, A. Haas,
C.F.B. Haddad, R.O. de Sá, A. Channing, M. Wilkinson,
S.C. Donnellan, C.J. Raxworthy,
J.A. Campbell, B.L. Blotto, P. Moler, R.C. Drewes, R.A. Nussbaum, J.D. Lynch, D.M. Green, & W.C.
Wheeler (2006). The Amphibian Tree of Life. Bulletin of the
American Museum of Natural History 297: 1–370.
Frost,
D.R. (2009). Amphibian
Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 5.3 (12 February, 2009). Electronic Database accessible at
http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/American Museum of Natural
History, New York, USA.
Goonatilake, S. de A.
(2007). Freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka. Biodiversity Secretariat & Ministry
of Environment & Natural Resources, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 134pp.
Groves,
C.P. & E. Meijaard (2005). Interspecificvariation in Moshiola, the Indian chevrotain. In: Yeo, D.C.J., P.K.L. Ng &
R. Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to biodiversity
exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of
Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 351–380.
Harrison,
J. (1999). A field guide to the birds of Sri Lanka. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 219pp.
Harvell, C.W., C.E.
Mitchell, J.R. Ward, S. Altizer, A.P. Dobson, R.S. Ostfeld & M.D. Samuel (2002). Climate warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Science 296: 2158–2162.
Hayes, T., K. Haston,
M. Tsui, A. Hoang, C. Haeffele& A. Vonk (2002). Feminization of male frogs in the wild. Nature 419:
895–896.
Helgen, K.M. &
C.P. Groves (2005). Biodiversity in Sri Lanka and Western Ghats. Science308: 199.
Henry,
G.M. (1998). A guide to the birds of Sri Lanka. Third Edition: revised and enlarged
by T.W. Hoffmann, D. Warakagoda & U. Ekanayake. Oxford University Press,
London & K.V.G. de Silva & Sons, Kandy, 488pp.
Hewawasam,
T., F. von Blanckenburg, M. Schaller & P. Kubik (2003). Increase of human over natural erosion
rates in tropical highlands constrained by cosmogenicnuclides. Geology 31: 597–600.
IUCN (International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) (2001). IUCN Red List,
categories and criteria: version 3.1. IUCN Species Servival Commission. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. ii+30pp.
IUCN Sri Lanka & the Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources. (2007). The Red List of threatened fauna and flora of
Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka,
xiii+148pp.
Kluge, A.G. (2001). Gekkotan lizard
taxonomy. Hamadryad 26: 1–209.
Kotagama. S.W. & P.
Fernando. (1994). A field
guide to the birds of Sri Lanka. Wildlife
Heritage Trust. Colombo, 224pp.
Kotagama, S.W., R.I. de Silva, A.S. Wijesinghe& V. Abeyagunawardane (2006). Avifaunal list of Sri Lanka pp. 164–203. In: Bambaradeniya, C. (ed.). Fauna
of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation. The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka and Government of
Sri Lanka, viii+308pp.
Legge, W.V. (1880). A History of
the Birds of Ceylon (1983 edition) in 4 Vols. Thisara Prakashakayo Ltd., Dehiwala,
Sri Lanka, 1882pp.
Manamendra-Arachchi,
K. & S. Liyanage (1994). Conservation of the agamid lizards of Sri Lanka with illustrations
of the extant species. Journal of the South Asian Natural History1: 77–96.
Manamendra-Arachchi,
K. & R. Pethiyagoda (2005).The Sri Lankan shrub-frogs of the genus Philautus Gistel, 1848 (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae), with description of 27 new species. In: Yeo, D.C.J., P.K.L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda(eds.), Contributions to biodiversity exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The
Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 163–303.
Manamendra-Arachchi, K., S. Batuwita & R. Pethiyagoda (2007). A
taxonomic revision of the Sri Lankan day-geckos (Reptilia:Gekkonidae: Cnemaspis),
with description of new species from Sri Lanka and Southern India. Zeylanica 7(1): 9–122.
McNeely, J.A. 1992. The sinking ark:
pollution and the worldwide loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity &
Conservation 1: 2–18.
Meegaskumbura, M., F. Bossuyt, R. Pethiyagoda,
K. Manamendra-Arachchi, M. Bahir,
M. Milinkovitch & C. Schneider (2002). Sri Lanka: an
amphibian hotspot. Science 298: 379.
Meegaskumbura,
M., A. Silva, K. Maduwage & R. Pethiyagoda (2008). Puntius reval, a new
barb from Sri Lanka (Teleostei: Cyprinidae).Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 19:
141–152.
Miththapala,
S. (2006). The ecology of the wild cats of Sri Lanka, pp 235–256.In: Bambaradeniya C. (ed.), Fauna of Sri Lanka:
Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation. The World
Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka and Government of Sri Lanka, viii+308pp.
Mittermeier, R.A., P.R. Gil, M. Hoffman, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C.G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux &
G.A.B. da Fonseca(2004). Hotspots revisited: earth’s biologically richest and most
threatened terrestrial ecoregions. CEMEX, Mexico City and Conservation International, Washington, D.C.
392pp.
Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier,
G.A.B. da Fonseca & J. Kent (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature403: 853–857.
Pethiyagoda, R. (1991). Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage
Trust, Colombo, xiii+362pp.
Pethiyagoda, R. (1994). Threats to the indigenous freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka and
remarks on their conservation. Hydrobiologia285(1-3): 189–201.
Pethiyagoda, R. (1998). Ours to
Protect Sri Lanka’s Biodiversity Heritage. Wildlife Heritage Trust,
Colombo, 156pp.
Pethiyagoda, R. (2005). Exploring Sri Lanka’s biodiversity. In: Yeo,
D.C.J., P.K.L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda (eds.),
Contributions to biodiversity exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The
Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 1–4.
Pethiyagoda, R. (2006). Conservation of
Sri Lankan Freshwater Fishes, pp. 103–112. In: BambaradeniyaC. (ed.), Fauna of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation.The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka and
Government of Sri Lanka, viii+308pp.
Pethiyagoda, R. (2007). The ‘New
species syndrome’ in Sri Lankan herpetology: a cautionary note. Zeylanica 7(1): 1–7.
Pethiyagoda, R.
& M. Kottelat (2005). A revision of
the barbs of the Puntius filamentosus group (Teleostei:Cyprenidae) of Southern India and Sri Lanka. In: Yeo, D.C.J., P.K.L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda(eds.), Contributions to biodiversity exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The
Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 127–144.
Pethiyagoda,
R., K. Manamendra-Arachchi, M.M. Bahir& M. Meegaskumbura (2006). Sri Lankan
Amphibians: Diversity, uniqueness and conservation, pp. 125–133. In: Bambaradeniya C. (ed.). Fauna
of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation. The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka and Government of
Sri Lanka, viii+308pp.
Pethiyagoda,
R., N. Gunatilleke, M. de
Silva, S. Kotagama, S. Gunatilleke,
P. de Silva, M. Meegaskumbura, P. Fernando, S. Ratnayeke, J. Jayewardene, D. Raheem,
S. Benjamin & A. Ilangakoon (2007). Science and
biodiversity: the predicament of Sri Lanka. Current Science 92(4): 426–427.
Pethiyagoda,
R., M. Kottelat, A. Silva, K. Maduwage& M. Meegaskumbura (2008). A review of Laubuca in Sri Lanka, with description of three new species
(Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 19(1):
7–26.
Phillips,
W.W.A. (1980–1984). Manual of the
mammals of Sri Lanka, 2nd revised edition
in 3 Vols.Wildlife and Nature Protection Society, Colombo, Sri Lanka. vol.
I. xxix+116pp; vol.II. xi+117–267pp; III xiv+268–389pp.
Pounds,
A.J., M.R. Bastamante, L.A. Coloma, J.A. Consuegra, M.P.L. Fogden, P.N.
Foster, E. La Marca, K.L. Masters, A. Merno-Viteri, R. Puschendorf,
S.R. Ron, G.A. Sanchez-Azofeifa, C.J. Still & B.E. Young (2006). Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by
global warming. Nature 439: 161–167.
Priyadarshana,
T.G.M. & S.S. Fernando (1996). Biological
Exploration of Ritigala Strict Nature Reserve.News Letter of Young Zoologists Association of Sri Lanka 4: 5–8.
Rasmussen, P.C. & J.C. Anderton (2005). The Birds of South Asia:The Ripley Guide, Smithsonian Institution and Lynx Editions, Washington D.C. in
2 Vols. Vol. I 378pp & vol. II 683pp.
Rosa, I.D., F. Simonselli,
A. Fagotti, & R. Pascoline(2007).The proximate cause of frog decline?. Nature 447:
E4–E5.
Senanayake, F.R. &
P.B. Moyle (1982).Conservation of fresh water fishes of Sri Lanka. Biological Conservation22: 181–195.
Sibley,
C.G. & B.L. Monroe (1990). Distribution and
Taxonomy of the Birds of the world. Yale
University Press, New Haven & London, 1111pp.
Silva, A., MaduwageK. & R. Pethiyagoda (2008). Puntius kamalika, a
new species of barb from Sri Lanka (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Zootaxa 1824:
55–64.
Stattersfield,
A.J., M.J. Crosby, A.J. Long & D.C. Wege (1998). Endemic Bird
Areas of the World: priorities for biodiversity conservation. BirdLifeInternational, No. 7. Cambridge, 846pp.
Stuart,
S., J.S. Chanson, N.A. Cox, B.E. Young, A.S.L. Rodrigues,
D.L. Fischman & R.W. Waller (2004). Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306: 1783–1786.
Swinbanks, D. (1997). Forest fires
cause pollution crisis in Asia. Nature 389: 321.
Taylor, E.H. (1953). A
review of the lizards of Ceylon. University of Kansas Science
Bulletin 35: 1536–1537.
Theobald, W. (1868). Catalogue of reptiles
in the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Journal
of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, (Extra number 88) 37: 1–88.
Warakagoda, D. & U. Sirivardana (2006). Status of waterfowl
in Sri Lanka, pp. 104–215. In: BambaradeniyaC. (ed.). Fauna of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy,
Research and Conservation. The World Conservation Union,
Colombo, Sri Lanka and Government of Sri Lanka. viii+308pp.
Weerakoon,
D.K. & W.L.D.P.T.S. de Goonatilake (2006). Taxonomic status of the mammals of Sri Lanka, pp. 216–231.In: Bambaradeniya C. (ed.). Fauna
of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation. The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka and Government of
Sri Lanka. Viii+308pp.
Wikramanayake, E.D., E. Dinnerstein, C.J. Loucks, D.M.
Olson, J. Morrison, J. Lamoreux, M. McKnight & P.Hedao (2002). Terrestrial Ecoregionsof the Indo-Pacific: A Conservation Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC. Vol. 1,
643pp.
Wijesinghe, M.R. (2006). Ecological traits of endemic small mammals of rain forests of Sri
Lanka, and their implications for conservation, pp. 132–234. In: Bambaradeniya C. (ed.). Fauna
of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation. The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka and Government of
Sri Lanka, viii+308pp.
Wilson,
E.O. (2005). Systematics and future of Biology. Proceedings of National Academy
of Sciences USA 102: 6520–6521.