magazine of zoo outreach organization

Date of Publication: 26 October 2016

Vol. XXXI, No. 10, October 2016 ISSN 0971-6378 (Print); 0973-2543 (Online)

Magazine of Zoo Outreach Organization

Teacher Training Workshop of Lower Dibang Valley Cluster, Assam-Arunachal Pradesh landscape, Pp. 28-29

Magazine of Zoo Outreach OrganizationVol. XXXI, No. 10, October 2016 ISSN 0971-6378 (Print); 0973-2543 (Online)

Caring for Wildlife - The World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Strategy, Chapter 4: Exhibit Design, Pp. 1-3

A review of the faunal diversity of the Fergusson College campus, Pune, India, A.N. Nerlekar, A.M. Warudkar, G.G. Gowande, S.S. Salve, A. Raut, S.R. Patankar

and S.B. Nalavade, Pp. 4-25

Announcement: We have moved...., P. 25

Education reports, Pp. 26-27

Teacher Training Workshop of Lower Dibang Valley Cluster, Assam-Arunachal Pradesh landscape, Shah Nawaz Jelil, Dipika Parbo and Neeharika Gogoi, Pp. 28-29

Sadness as founder of Twycross Zoo dies, P. 30

ZOOLEX: Zoo Nuremberg, Dolphin Lagoon, Pp. 31-36

Announcement: Educational Excellence Awards to Higher Education Institutions in India 2016, P. 36

Announcement: International ZOO Design Conference, Wroclaw, Poland, 5-7 April 2017, Back cover

Contents

ZOOLEX: Zoo Nuremberg, Dolphin Lagoon, Pp. 31-36

Wildlife Week 1-7 October 2016 in Bundelkhand Region, India, Pp. 26-27

ZOO’s PRINT, Volume XXXI, Number 10, October 2016 1

RECOMMENDATIONSTo realise our commitment to high animal welfare standards, the World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Strategy calls on member organisations to:1. Define environmental characteristics that support species-specific good animal welfare and include these as primary criteria of all exhibit design and upgrades; ensure species-appropriate features based on up-to-date, science-based advice.2. Seek to ensure that the animals’ physical and behavioural needs are met. Provide environmental challenges that encourage curiosity and engagement, as well as choice of access to natural elements, including seasonal changes. Also accommodatethe changing needs of an animal or group of animals over time.3. Ensure that exhibits allow opportunities for separation of animals as required for animal welfare management.4. Ensure that staff members can safely and easily engage in maintenance, care and training to enable animals to lead rich and fulfilling lives without unduestress or injury.5. Institute monitoring to assess the quality of exhibit design. Find creative solutions and share them with others.6. Explain animal welfare on exhibits and provide visitors with information about personal actions they can take to improve the welfare of animals anywhere.7. Consider the provision of features that allow the animals’ continuous species appropriate multiple choices or control over their environment.

INTRODUCTIONThe quality of life of any animal is determined by a series of variables, including genetics, previous experiences, the overall quality of the environment and the opportunity to exercise choice in seeking comfort, sustenance and social engagement. Although animals have no control over their genetic makeup and the overall quality of the environment, an individual in the wild or in a zoo or an aquarium can exercise a degree of control over its well-being by choosing to move from place to place in search of different behavioural opportunities, social choices and an ability to express personal preferences.

On any one day, an animal might find itself being more or less comfortable, more or less hungry, or under stress from a variety of external factors. An important aim of exhibit design is to provide animals with opportunities to keep mentally, emotionally and physically fit through dealing with such daily stressors and availing themselves of opportunities to have positive experiences.

Historically, zoos and aquariums have specialised in bringing animals into a human-regulated environment where care-giving was substituted for the animal’s ‘free-will’ or wild state. While many of these animals seem content and outlive their wild counterparts, longevity is not necessarily an indicator of animal welfare. As zoos and aquariums better understand the species and animals for whichthey care, exhibit design must incorporate whole-of-life needs, expand space allocations, provide a variety of environmental enrichment features and increase opportunities for appropriate social interactions with other animals.

THE ROLE AND STYLE OF EXHIBIT DESIGNIn modern zoos and aquariums, exhibit design takes on two important roles. First, to create a flexible framework where animals have enough space and opportunities for challenge and choice within their own behavioural repertoire, and where staff members are always safe in the proximity of animals and haveoptions to challenge and support the animals’ predilections. Second, to design a ‘stage set’ that supports visitors’ opportunities for intuitive environmental learning—where visitors’ emotional and intellectual needs are satisfied by understandinghow the setting and situation allow the animals to thrive, as well as what the visitors might do to support animal welfare.

There are two main approaches to the style of exhibit design, namely landscape immersion and abstract ecology. The landscape immersion style incorporatesnatural and sometimes cultural components of the animals’ native land. Both the natural and cultural components transcend the exhibit barriers in each direction, placing visitors in a shared setting with the animals. Landscape immersion is a form of ‘naturalistic’ or ‘soft’ architecture. This style of exhibit design facilitates intuitive environment learning.

The abstract ecology style uses abstracted elements of the animals’ native habitat. Examples include a climbing structure instead of a living forest for brachiating primates, or a geometric concrete formation to represent icebergs in an arctic species exhibit. This style of exhibit design is referred to as ‘mechanistic’ or ‘hard’ architecture. Abstract ecology

Caring for Wildlife - The World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare StrategyChapter 4: Exhibit DesignOur commitment is to have exhibits that provide opportunities to meet animals’ physical and behavioural needs

Citation: Mellor, D. J., Hunt, S. & Gusset, M. (eds) (2015) Caring for Wildlife: The World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Strategy. Gland: WAZA Executive Office, 87 pp.

© 2015 World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.(See: http://www.waza.org/en/site/conservation/animal-welfare-1439197763).

http://www.waza.org/en/site/conservation/animal-welfare-1439197763





can be more economical, thus saving money for enhancing other animal welfare features.

Neither one of these approaches to the styling of exhibits is inherently better for animals than the other. A beautifully designed canyon with a backdrop of trees may convince visitors that they are in the native environment, but it may not be beneficial to animals unless it offers a variety of conditions and activities appropriate to the resident species. Conversely, a jungle gym may be very excitingfor gibbons even though it does not visually evoke a natural forest. Regardless of style, it is the species-specific environmental enrichment features, theamount of choice and stimuli, and the ability of the animal to engage in natural behaviours that matter.

EXHIBIT DESIGNS AND ANIMAL WELFAREHow can we design spaces that enhance the fitness, health and welfare of their inhabitants?

Appropriate species selection is one of the first principles of exhibit design. Species should be naturally comfortable in the zoo’s or aquarium’s climate or kept comfortable through artificial environments (see Chapter 5). Physical and landscape characteristics and limitations of space also play a role in determining which species are appropriate. Animals found together naturally in the wild can benefit from mixed-species exhibits and

inter-species behaviours can be displayed that would otherwise not be performed in single specieshabitats. However, consideration needs to be given to the species and individuals involved, as some mixed-species exhibits can lead to overaggressivebehaviour, injuries and death, if not managed correctly.

Exhibits should always be designed in a manner that not only considers safety of staff and visitors, but also provides a space where the animal feels safe. Successful exhibit design starts with a thorough understanding of each species’ behaviouralrepertoire over its lifespan (birth, development, maturity, geriatrics and death), and the ways it makes use of its natural landscape. This is a collaborative effort and should involve biologists, animal welfare scientists, animal keepers and researchers who study wildlife in their natural habitats (see case study 4.1). Evidence-based design (EBD) can provide valuable information about what has worked in the past and post-occupancy evaluation (POE) techniques can be used to monitor the effectiveness of the exhibit design.The scale and scope of an exhibit habitat should accommodate each species’ range of needs and behaviours. For some species, three-dimensional space will be an absolute priority and essential to achieving positive welfare states, while

Case study 4.1:Gorilla habitat design innovations

The Gorilla Rainforest habitat at Dublin Zoo, opened in 2011, is unique in the way it matches respect of existing landscape and the behavioural history of western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), and successfully recreates the character of their home place. The habitat consists of a large natural swamp; a total of 6,000 m2 of undulating topography gives the gorillas several diverse habitats resembling the grassland, forest and river matrix of their ancestral home. The habitat design was guided by behavioural studies of gorillas in the wild. Visitors explore this tropical biome along a continuous boardwalk. They traverse cascading streams and enjoy views of close and remote landscape and sky, and distant views across a lake to other animal habitats. Visitors come upon formal viewing areas, a play area, an overnight camp and educational opportunities. Discovering and observing the gorillas

requires patience, but even if the gorillas choose to avoid detection, the walk itself is an enjoyable experience, with opportunities to observe a troop of red-capped mangabeys (Cercocebus torquatus) sharing the habitat with the gorillas, as well as local wildlife.

- Dublin Zoo, Ireland, Western lowland gorilla


for others appropriate social structures will be a priority. Knowing specific species requirements is essential for effective animal welfare exhibit design.

For example, consider how animals use all three dimensions of their natural space, imagine the day-to-day details of their lives and look at their availablechoices for light and noise levels as well as temperature range. Provide access to natural light. Design for the provision of environmental enrichment

and challenge to support animals’ opportunities for self-motivated choice.

Animals should be able to form natural groups (see case study 4.2). Prepare for breeding events and to separate animals for welfare reasons. A complementary off-exhibit area or a second exhibit may be needed. Off-exhibit areas, althoughout of sight of visitors, should be built around specific animals’ needs just as exhibits are. Both exhibit and off-exhibit areas should provide safe, easy andflexible options for staff members to engage in maintenance, care, training and observation. Rotating animals on exhibit and to off-exhibit areas may provide additional positive stimuli.

Ideally, staff members should be able to change environmental enrichments and engage in other daily tasks without interfering in the animals’ natural behaviours, both to prevent disturbance and to avoid conditioning that leads them to become dependent on human intervention. Thus, design should enable use of flexible systems for placing environmental enrichment to allow for daily variety and challenge. It should also incorporate appropriate management and care devices, such as scales, squeezes and capture chutes, so that animals, regardless of their size and complexity, may more easily accept non-invasive medical procedures through positive reinforcement training.

Retreat areas should be incorporated into exhibits, so that animals, if they choose, can escape from public view. From an educational perspective, explainingthe welfare features of exhibits helps visitors to better understand animals’ needs. Studies show that animals’ need for occasional privacy is recognisedby educated visitors who then do not expect to see every animal at every visit. Such explanation can inspire connection and can motivate visitors totake an interest in the welfare of animals in zoos and aquariums as well as their conservation in the wild.

CONCLUSIONA well-designed zoo or aquarium space, along with attentive animal management, can do much to enhance the fitness, health and welfare of its inhabitants. Providing choice within an exhibit and ensuring areas for rest and retreat from visitors can make a notable difference to an animal’s welfare. Equally, it can provide opportunities to observe animals as fully sentient individuals whilst they engage in a rich variety of choices and a complex repertoire of behaviours that reflect their own curiosity and individual use of their habitat.

Zoos and aquariums should strive for best practice, lead by example and encourage new ways of thinking about and designing for animal welfare. The solutions do not have to be expensive, but good outcomes require thoughtful, thorough and bold effort.

Case study 4.2:Advance in animal management style propels advance in exhibit design

Apenheul Primate Park, opened in 1971, pioneered free-range exhibits for primates via experimenting with fences, electrified bridges and social learning ofprimates. In the first free-range area, which occupies approximately 1 ha of forested area, more than 100 black-capped squirrel monkeys (Saimiri boliviensis)roam in the trees and among visitors. The space given to the animals allows them to form rewarding social groups. The holding rooms provide flexibility for the group members to position themselves within the group: each of the eight holding rooms features at least three exits, with each exit leading through an intersection to multiple other rooms. The building has wall rather than floor heating, the target temperature being 25 °C for the wall and 20 °C for the air. An animal that needs to be kept in the isolation room due to injury or illness is always accompanied by a companion selected by the animal keepers based on their knowledge of the group.

- Apenheul Primate Park, The Netherlands, Black-capped squirrel monkeys


AbstractThis study attempt to document the past and present faunal diversity of Fergusson College campus in Pune from 2011 to 2014. Four vertebrate classes (Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, Mammalia) and two invertebrate classes (Arachnida: Araneae and Lepidoptera: Papilionoideae) were investigated. Our effort resulted in the documentation of 90 spider (28 families), 93 butterfly (8 families), 5 amphibian (3 families), 26 reptile (9 families), 137 bird (52 families) and 19 mammal (13 families) species. A decreasing trend in terms of species richness was observed for most faunal groups over years caused primarily due to habitat degradation.

IntroductionIt is now, a well-established fact that biodiversity or ‘the variability of life’ (Savard et al. 2000) is being eroded on a global scale due to various anthropogenic activities (Magurran 2004; Pereira et al. 2010). Criteria such as species richness, representation and rarity form an important component in assigning biodiversity value to a terrestrial site which in turn provides a scientifically defensible framework for conservation (Regan et al. 2007).

Increasing urbanization is one of the key reasons for declining biodiversity in the form of alteration of habitats and fragmentation of natural vegetation (Tratalos et al. 2007). With the increase in global urban population, urban ecosystems have emerged as a subject of much research in recent years due to the ecosystem services provided by them (Savard et al. 2000). Biodiversity data is crucial for conservation (Gardner et al. 2008) and thus it is necessary to first understand the existing diversity in order to monitor and maximize it.

Pune city in western Maharashtra is the eighth largest metropolis in India and encompasses numerous educational and research institutes, the campuses of which house significant biodiversity. Several studies focussing on diversity of specific taxa in and around the city have been conducted till date (Underwood 1948; Vartak 1958; Chopra 1964b; Tikader 1963b; Goel 1976; Paranjape & Mulherkar 1979; Nalavade 1999; Thakur & Gour-Broome 2000-01; Yardi & Korad 2000-01; Pachpor et al. 2000-01; Padhye et al. 2002; Korad & Yardi 2004a; Sondhi 2006; Gole 2007). A broad city-level assessment (Dixit et al. 2000-01) does not provide adequate locality specific details which could be useful for undertaking regional conservation measures. Fragmentary studies on

some taxa are also available from one such educational institute: The Fergusson College campus, but a unified and updated faunal diversity report of the campus was not available till date.

Hence, we undertook the task of assessing and reviewing the faunal diversity of the Fergusson college campus. Our aim was to evaluate the past, present and probable species richness, ecological notes and threats for the taxa.

Study AreaThe Fergusson College with its 109 acre campus is located centrally in the Pune city in the state of Maharashtra, India (18°31′17.75″ N; 73°50′20.17″ E). The main campus consists of century old gothic-styled buildings and can be considered as a well-wooded urban ecosystem. The campus supports a rich diversity of plants including several rare as well as notable exotic as well as native species (Vartak 1958; Nerlekar et al. 2016).

The Fergusson hill was connected to the larger Vetal hill complex until the Senapati Bapat road was constructed in the 1960’s which resulted in the fragmentation of the native habitat hindering animal movement (Nalavade 2001). Thus, when the hill was a part of the larger Vetal-hill complex, it supported an array of wildlife. The original vegetation type in the area was Tropical southern dry mixed deciduous (Type 5A/C3) as classified by Champion & Seth (1968). The underlying rock in the entire study area is basalt.

MethodsBoth direct and indirect methods were employed to understand the diversity of selected taxa (spiders, butterflies, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals) within the campus. Indirect methods included extensive literature surveys along with contacting selected ex-students of the college those who were/are involved in allied research activities.

In general, for all taxa those have been actively assessed, the authors carried out intensive surveys as a team during regular intervals per month from June 2011 to June 2014. For the first two academic years (2011-2013), the surveys were carried out in

A review of the faunal diversity of the Fergusson College campus, Pune, India A.N. Nerlekar1, A.M. Warudkar2, G.G. Gowande3, S.S. Salve4, A. Raut5, S.R. Patankar6 and S.B. Nalavade7

1,5Department of Botany, 2-4Graduate student, Department of Zoology, 6Graduate student, Department of Microbiology, 7Head, Department of Geography, Fergusson College, Pune. Email: [email protected] (corresponding author)

mailto:[email protected]



an opportunistic manner but covered all the seasons and habitats with a total effort of approximately 600+ hours. During 2013-2014, a typical field work session lasted for 4 hours on an average and was conducted for 6 days a week (thus total effort= 288 hrs). During some of these field work sessions,

experts of respective taxa (acknowledged) were also invited to confirm the identification.

Details of taxa-specific methodology, relevant literature review and the field guides used for identification are provided in the respective sections. Although quantitative demographic data could be collected only for selected taxa due to logistical constraints, qualitative ecological notes have been provided for most of the taxa examined.

Fig 1. Composition of major classes analysed. Four vertebrate classes and two invertebrate classes are represented. Data for order lepidoptera is partly after Kumar (1984).

Fig 2. Composition of dominant families of spiders recorded till date. (Families with 3 or more species included in graph)

Fig 3. Species and family-wise composition of the butterfly families. Data for all species recorded till date from campus has been analysed (93 species). Recent nomenclature changes have been followed for merging families as per Kunte et al. (2015)

Fig 4. Species richness of the reptilian families recorded from the campus

Fig 5. Representation of the most species- rich families of birds (those including 4 or more species have been shown here)

Fig 6. Species and family-wise composition of the mammalian orders recorded


Results Within the four vertebrate taxa examined for diversity, birds showed maximum richness followed by reptiles, mammals and lastly amphibians. Invertebrates including spiders and butterflies also revealed a significant diversity (Fig 1). Taxa specific results are discussed in the respective sections. It is clear from the literature survey that relatively more literature is available about avifauna in the campus as compared to other taxa.

Araneae Significant literature is available on diversity and distribution of spiders in Pune city. Studies like Tikader 1962a; 1963a; 1974; 1980; Tikader & Malhotra 1980; Tikader & Bal 1981 deal with the araneae of the Pune region indirectly and works including Tikader 1962b; 1962c; 1963b; 1963c; 1963d; 1965; 1966a; 1966b; 1975; Tikader & Malhotra 1976; Tikader 1977; 1980a,b; Tikader & Bal 1981; Tikader 1981 deal with the same directly.In the recent past Kelkar et al. (2006) studied the diversity of spiders in Fergusson campus, in which a total of 72 species were recorded. Warudkar (2013) recorded opportunistic behavioural observation of Argiope sp. regarding stabiliementa pattern. Apart from this no spider specific survey has been carried out in the campus.

Field guides used include Sebastian and Peter (2009), Jocqué and Dippenaar-Schoeman (2006). In the enumeration, all the names, families were checked using (World Spider Catlogue 2016). Taxa that were identified only till genus level by Kelkar et al. (2006), and cases in which the current survey yielded more than one species for that genus, such morphospecies are excluded.

In the campus, till date total 90 species belonging to 71 genera and 28 families have been reported with the family Araneidae occupying a dominant position (Fig. 2, Table 1). Out of these, 36 species have not been recorded by Kelkar et al. (2006), where as 33 species have not been recorded in the present study but have been recorded only by Kelkar et al. (2006). A total of 21 species are common in both surveys. Thus a total of 57 species belonging to 46 genera and 21 families have occurred in the present field survey.

A locally uncommon spider Loxosceles rufescencs Dufour, 1820 was occasionally encountered under the stones on hill side area in the campus. Also a member of Trapdoor spider family Sason cinctipes (=S. robustum) has been recorded only once by Kelkar et al. (2006) and has not been found since then. The ant mimicking Myrmarachne sp. was occasionally found in silken retreats on the ventral sides of leaves of Agave sp. A single immature specimen of Giant Wood Spider Nephila sp. was recorded only once from the surroundings of

Mathematics Department. A white-kneed hackle web spider Zosis geniculatus is found seasonally inside a green house (currently not in use) in the vicinity of Mathematics Department.

Butterfly diversity Efforts to document the butterfly fauna of Pune district are sporadic and restricted to a particular urban area or a forested region (Kunte 2000-01, Rane & Ranade 2003; Padhye et al. 2006, Sharma 2009, Nimbalkar et al. 2011, Chandekar et al. 2014). A compiled inventory for Lepidopterans (Papilionoidea) for the district is not available. Kunte (2000-01) reported a total of 104 butterfly species from a mosaic of habitats from Pune city. The paucity of literature pertaining to moth diversity from the city and surrounding areas leaves the inventory of lepidopterans incomplete.

The only available comprehensive checklist of the butterflies from the Fergusson Campus was compiled by Kumar (1984) which included 90 species belonging to 8 families. Warudkar & Patankar (2013) provided brief remarks about the taxa in the campus. Rest reports like Chhaya et al. (2012) record presence of species indirectly from the campus. In the current attempt, periodic observations were carried out during each season in the study tenure and Kehimkar (2008) was referred to for field identification which was further scrutinized and updated following recent nomenclature as per Kunte et al. (2015).

Till date, 93 species, 53 genera belonging to 8 families (according to recent classification, the families have been reduced to 6) have been reported so far from the campus (Fig. 3). In the current survey alone, 43 species belonging to 33 genera and 6 families and one super-family: Papilionoidea were recorded from the campus (Table 2). Only three species namely Blue Oak Leaf Kallima horsfieldi Kollar, 1844, Common Bush Brown Mycalesis perseus Fabricius, 1775 and Common Jay Graphium doson Felder & Felder, 1864 were reported as additions to the checklist by Kumar (1984), but 47 species were not recorded currently and solely reported by Kumar (1984).

The presence of Lantana camara and Plumbago zeylanica bushes in the campus has proven to be of great advantage for some butterflies in terms of nectar. Whereas, activities such as burning leaf litter and lopping of host plants seem to have affected the buttefly diversity negatively.

Amphibian diversityThe amphibian diversity of Pune district was documented by Ghate & Padhye (1996), Padhye & Mahabaleshwarkar (2000-01), Padhye et al. (2002), with special reference to the status of amphibians in


Table 1: Spiders recorded till date from the campus. *Reference of past record from Fergusson campus: 1Kelkar et al. (2006)

Sr. no

Family/Scientific name *Ref. Current status and Remarks

Sub Order: MygalomorphaeSub Order: MygalomorphaeSub Order: MygalomorphaeSub Order: MygalomorphaeBarychelidae

1 Sason cinctipes (Pocock, 1892) (= S. robustum (O.P.-Cambridge, 1883)

1 Not recorded.

Sub Order: AraneomorphaeSub Order: AraneomorphaeSub Order: AraneomorphaeSub Order: AraneomorphaeAraneidae

2 Araneus mitificus Simon, 1886 1 Present, common. Recorded from Pune (Tikader 1963; Tikader & Bal 1981).

3 Argiope aemula Walckenaer, 1841 Present occasionally on hill side in early winter. Recorded from Pune (Pocock 1900).

4 Argiope anasuja Thorell, 1887 1 Present. Documented by Warudkar 2013.5 Argiope pulchella Thorell, 1881 Present. Found on hill and in gardens in herbs. Occasional.6 Cyclosa bifida Doleschall, 1859 1 Not recorded.7 Cyclosa confraga Thorell, 1892 1 Not recorded. Recorded from Pune by Tikader 1963b.8 Cyclosa hexatuberculata Tikader, 1982 Present, common. 9 Cyclosa insulana Costa, 1834 1 Not recorded.10 Cyclosa neilensis Tikader, 1977 1 Not recorded. 11 Cyclosa spirifera Simon, 1889 Present, common. Seen on hill-top.12 Cyrtophora beccarii Thorell, 1878 1 Not recorded. 13 Cyrtophora cicatrosa Stoliczka, 1869 1 Not recorded. Recorded from Pune by Tikader 1963b.14 Cyrtophora citricola Forsskål, 1775 1 Present, common. Recorded from Pune by Tikader 1963b.15 Eriovixia poonaensis Tikader & Bal, 1981 Present, common. Recorded from Pune by Tikader & Bal

1981.16 Eriovixia excelsus Simon, 1889 Present.17 Neoscona bengalensis Tikader & Bal, 1981 Present.18 Neoscona mukerjei Tikader, 1980 1 Present, common. 19 Neoscona theisi Walckenaer, 1841 Present. Found in all the gardens.20 Neoscona vigilans Blackwall, 1865 Present. Recorded only once in Botanical garden.21 Zygeilla sp. 1 Not recorded.

Clubionidae22 Clubiona sp. 1 Present, common. Found retreating in curled leaves.

Corinnidae23 Castianeira sp. 1 Present, common. Found under the stones in the gardens.

Eresidae24 Stegodyphus sarasinorum Karsch, 1892 1 Present. Recorded from hill only.

Eutichuridae25 Cheiracanthium melanostomum Thorell,

18951 Present, common. Found in curled leaf retreat.

Gnaphosidae26 Drassodes sp. Present, common. Found under stones everywhere.

Hersiliidae27 Hersilia savignyi Lucas, 1836 1 Present. Found on the rough tree bark. Recorded from Pune

by Tikader 1963b and Pocock 1900.Linyphiidae

28 Neriene sp. Present, common.Lycosidae

29 Hippasa sp. 1 Present. Builds funnel shaped webs in the grasses. Occasionally found in the bamboo garden.

30 Lycosa sp. 1 Present, common. Burrows are found in the open land.31 Pardosa pseudoannulata Bösenberg &

Strand, 19061 Not recorded.

Nephilidae32 Nephila sp. Present. Recorded only once.

Oecobiidae33 Oecobius putus O. P.-Cambridge, 1876 1 Not recorded. Recorded from Pune by Tikader 1962c.34 Uroctea sp. Present. Seen under stones on hill. Recorded from Pune by

Pocock 1900.Oxyopidae

35 Oxyopes rufisternis Pocock, 1901 1 Not recorded. 36 Oxyopes birmanicus Thorell, 1887 Present, common.37 Oxyopes kohaensis Bodkhe & Vankhede,

2012Present.

38 Oxyopes bharatae Gajbe, 1999 Present. 39 Peucetia viridana Stoliczka, 1869 1 Not recorded.


Sr. no


Philodromidae40 Philodromus bhagirathai Tikader, 1966 1 Not recorded.41 Thanatus ketani Bhandari & Gajbe, 2001 Present.

Pholcidae42 Artema atlanta Walckenaer, 1837 1 Not recorded. Recorded from Pune by Pocock 1900; Tikader

1963.43 Crossopriza lyoni Blackwall, 1867 1 Present, common. Recorded from Pune by Tikader 1963b.44 Pholcus phalangioides Fuesslin, 1775 1 Not recorded.45 Physocyclus globosus Taczanowski, 1874 1 Not recorded.46 Smeringopus elongatus Vinson, 1863 (= S.

pallidus Blackwall, 1858)1 Present, common.

Pisauridae47 Perenethis sindica Simon, 1897 (= P. indica

Pocock, 1900)1 Not recorded. Recorded from Pune by Pocock 1900.

48 Pisaura sp. 1 Not recorded.49 Thalassius phipsoni F.O.P.-Cambridge, 1898

(= Nilus phipsoni F.O.P.-Cambridge, 1898)1 Not recorded.

Psechridae50 Psechrus alticeps Pocock, 1899 (= P. torvus

O. P.-Cambridge, 1869)1 Not recorded.

Salticidae51 Carrhotus viduus C.L. Koch, 1846 Present.52 Chrysilla macrops Simon, 1901 (= Phintella

macrops Simon, 1901)1 Not recorded.

53 Cyrba ocellata Kroneberg, 1875 Present. 54 Harmochirus sp. Present. Found in tree barks and under stones.55 Hasarius adansoni Audouin, 1826 1 Present, common. Found under stones.56 Hyllus semicupreus Simon, 1885 Present, common. Found all over.57 Marpissa mandalii Tikader, 1974 (= Plexippus

paykulli Audouin, 1826)1 Not recorded. Recorded from Pune by Tikader 1974.

58 Menemerus bivittatus Dufour, 1831 1 Present, common. Seen on stone walls.59 Myrmarachne sp. 1 Present. Present on leaves.60 Phidippus sp. 1 Not recorded.61 Phintella vittata C.L. Koch, 1846 1 Present, common. Seen in gardens.62 Plexippus petersi Karsch, 1878 1 Not recorded.63 Rhene sp. Present.64 Telamonia dimidiata Simon, 1899 1 Present, common.

Scytodidae65 Scytodes pallida Doleschall, 1859 Present, common.66 Scytodes thoracica Latreille, 1802 Present. Recorded from Pune by Tikader 1963b.

Sicariidae67 Loxosceles rufescencs Dufour, 1820 Present, common. Seen on hill under the stones.

Sparassidae68 Heteropoda venatoria Linnaeus, 1767 1 Not recorded.69 Heteropoda sp. Present, common. Seen on tree barks and walls all over the

campus.70 Thelcticopis sp. 1 Not recorded.

Tetragnathidae71 Eucta javana (= Tetragnatha javana Thorell,

1890)1 Not recorded.

72 Leucauge decorata Blackwall, 1864 Present, common. Seen on hill.73 Tetragnatha mandibulata Walckenaer, 1841 1 Not recorded. Recorded from Pune by Tikader 1963b

Theridiidae74 Argyrodes argentatus O.P.-Cambridge, 1880 1 Not recorded.75 Argyrodes fissifrons O.P.-Cambridge, 1869 1 Not recorded.76 Chrysso sp Present, rare.77 Latrodectus hasseltii Thorell, 1870 1 Not recorded. Recorded from Pune by Pocock 1900.78 Parasteatoda mundula L. Koch, 1872 Present, common. Seen all over.

Theridiidae79 Steatoda sp. Present. Found under stones.80 Theridion sp. Present.

Thomisidae81 Misumena chrysanthemi Sebastian & Peter,

2009Present. Seen on Flowers.

82 Oxytate virens Thorell, 1891 Present, common. Found in dry leaf-litter.83 Runcinia sp. Present, common. 84 Thomisus sp. 1 Present, common. Seen on flowers.85 Xysticus kashidi Tikader, 1963 1 Not recorded.


and around Pune city. They listed 31 species distributed into 5 families from the district, out of the 43 species reported from the state, while 14 species belonging to 4 families were reported from the city and the outskirts adding 3 and 6 more species to the lists provided by Yazdani & Mahabal (1976) and Paranjape & Mulherkar (1979) respectively. Paranjape & Mulherkar (1979) mention Fergusson College campus as one of the collection localities for their work and fragmentary species records like Padhye et al. (2002) are available for the amphibians of the study area.

For the field documentation of amphibians of Fergusson College campus, standard literature (Daniel 2002; Daniels 2005) was referred to for on field identification. This led to the documentation of 5 anuran species belonging to 3 families (Table 3). The non-functional reservoirs in the botanical garden might have been important breeding places for species like Hoplobatrachus tigerinus (Daudin, 1802), Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis (Schneider, 1799), Euphlyctis hexadactylus (Lesson, 1834) and Sphaerotheca breviceps (Schneider, 1799). The unwarranted large-scale collection of the Indian Bull Frog Hoplobatrachus tigerinus has severely affected their population inside the campus. In Pune district, barring another location in the outskirts of the city, Duttaphrynus stomaticus (Lutken 1862) has been reported only from the Fergusson College campus (Padhye et al. 2002).

The probable reasons for the limited amphibian diversity inside the campus could be urbanization, loss of habitat and loss of breeding grounds. Barring the two small seasonal artificial puddles which the common Indian toads use for breeding purposes, there are no perennial water bodies inside the campus which can serve as potential breeding grounds for amphibians.

Reptilian diversity Attempts at documenting the reptiles in Pune city date back to the pre-independence period. Underwood (1948) surveyed the Pashan region of Pune city, and reported 26 reptilian species, including 12 snake species. Wadadekar (1999) gives a preliminary account of snakes found in the Pune University campus. Chopra (1964a) listed 12 species of lizards belonging to 6 families. Khaire & Khaire

(1985) documented 23 snake species, belonging to 6 families from the city and outskirts, almost twice the number of the species listed by Underwood (1948). Ghatpande et al. (1990) and Khaire & Khaire (1993) added a total of 5 species in subsequent years. A latest list was provided by Thakur and Gour-Broome (2000-01), which comprised of 52 species that included 32 snake species, adding 4 new species to the earlier lists of snakes of the city. Several other opportunistic records are available with respect to Pune (such as Khaire & Khaire 1993 and Bauer et al. 2005).

The available knowledge about the herpetofaunal diversity within the Fergusson College campus is restricted to fragmentary records, some of which are cited above. Standard literature like Daniel (2002), Smith (1935; 1943) was consulted for field identification. Whitaker & Captain (2008) was consulted specifically for snakes. The scientific names, synonyms, taxonomical revisions were checked using Uetz & Hosek (2014) and corrected further with recent references.

This resulted in the documentation of 26 reptilian species: 12 belonging to the suborder Sauria represented by 5 families; and the remaining 14 belonging to the suborder Serpentes, represented by 4 families (Table 4). Within sub-order Sauria, family gekkonidae showed highest species richness, while Colubridae was the most species rich family among the sub-order serpents (Fig. 4). More than half of the species found in the city have been reported from the campus. Among the 26 species documented in the present study 14 species are not assessed for the IUCN threat status, 11 species are Least Concern, 1 species Platyceps gracilis (Gunther, 1862) is Data Deficient (IUCN 2014). Out of the total species, 6 are endemic to India (Table 4).

Population of Ptyas mucosa Linnaeus, 1758, one of the most common snakes found in the campus, has suffered due to the large scale unwarranted collection of this species for museum specimens in the past by the zoology department. The slender racer Coluber gracilis (Zambre pers. comm.) and the Beddome’s lacertid Ophisops beddomei (Jerdon, 1870) were reported previously from the hill (Chopra 1964a), but were not seen during the surveys. Hemidactylus gracilis, which has been documented from the nearby

Sr. no


Titanoecidae86 Pandava laminata Thorell, 1878 Present, common.

Uloboridae87 Uloborus krishnae Tikader, 1970 Present, common.88 Uloborus sp. 1 Present, occasional.89 Zosis geniculata Olivier, 1789 1 Present, common.

Zodariidae90 Lutica deccanensis Tikader & Malhotra, 1976 1 Not recorded. Recorded from Pune (Tikader 1981; Tikader &

Malhotra 1976)


hill of the city, it was not observed in the present survey.

A small population of Cnemaspis cf. mysoriensis Jerdon 1853 exists in the campus. The individuals were seen to prefer damp walls, and were restricted to specific well-wooded spaces in the campus. A

voucher specimen (BNHS 2414) has been deposited at the Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. This genus was not reported earlier from the Pune city limits and the possibility of it being introduced cannot be ruled out. In that case, the present observation also highlights the ability of these geckos to naturalize in urban environments.

Sr. no.

Family/Scientific name Common name *Ref. Present record

Papilionidae1 Graphium agamemnon Linnaeus, 1758 Tailed jay 1, 2 Common.2 Graphium doson Felder & Felder, 1864 Common jay 23 Pachliopta aristolochiae Fabricius, 1775 Common rose 2 Common.4 Papilio demoleus Linnaeus, 1758 Northern lime swallowtail 1, 2 Common.5 Papilio polymnestor Cramer, 1775 Indian blue mormon 1, 2 Reported from Pune City

(Kunte, 2000-01).6 Papilio polytes Linnaeus, 1758 Common mormon 1, 2 Common.

Pieridae7 Appias indra Moore, 1857 Plain puffin 1 Reported from Pune City

(Kunte, 2000-01).8 Catopsilia pomona Fabricius, 1775 Common/ Lemon emigrant 1 Common.9 Catopsilia pyranthe Linnaeus, 1758 Mottled emigrant 1 Common.10 Cepora nerissa Fabricius, 1775 Common gull 1 Common.11 Delias eucharis Drury, 1773 Indian jezebel 1 Common.12 Eurema blanda Boisduval, 1836 Three spot grass yellow 1 Common.13 Eurema hecabe Linnaeus, 1758 Common grass yellow 1 Common.14 Eurema laeta Boisduval, 1836 Spotless grass yellow 1 Common.15 Leptosia nina Fabricius, 1793 Psyche 1, 2 Common.16 Pareronia hippia Fabricius, 1787 Indian wanderer 1 Common.

Nymphalidae17 Acraea terpsicore Linnaeus, 1758 Tawny coster 2 Common.18 Ariadne Merione Cramer, 1777 Common castor 1 Common.19 Charaxes solon Fabricius, 1793 Black rajah 120 Danaus chrysippus Linneaus, 1758 Plain tiger 1 Common.21 Danaus genutia Cramer, 1779 Striped tiger 1, 222 Euploea core Cramer, 1780 Indian common crow 1 Common.23 Euthalia aconthea Cramer, 1777 Baron 1, 2 Common.24 Hypolimnas bolina Linnaeus, 1758 Great eggfly 1 Common.25 Hypolimnas missipus Linnaeus, 1764 Danaid eggfly 1, 2 Common.26 Junonia lemonias Linnaeus, 1758 Lemon pansy 1, 2 Common.27 Junonia orithya Linnaeus, 1758 Blue pansy 128 Kallima horsfieldii Kollar, 1844 Sahyadri blue oakleaf Reported from Pune City

(Kunte, 2000-01).29 Melanitis leda Linnaeus, 1758 Common evening brown 1, 2 Common30 Mycalesis perseus Fabricius, 1775 Common bush brown Reported from Pune City

(Kunte, 2000-01).31 Neptis hylas Linnaeus, 1758 Common sailer 1 Common.32 Parantica aglea Stoll, 1782 Glassy tiger 1, 2 Common.33 Tirumala limniace, Cramer, 1775 Blue tiger 1, 2 Common.

Lycaenidae34 Castalius rosimon Fabricius, 1775 Common pierrot 1, 2 Common.35 Chilades lajus Stoll, 1780 Lime blue 1 Common.36 Chilades pandava Horsfield, 1829 Plains cupid 1, 2 Common.37 Euchrysops cnejus Fabricius, 1798 Gram blue 1, 2 Common.38 Jamides celeno Cramer, 1775 Common cerulean 1 Common.39 Lampides boeticus Linnaeus, 1767 Pea blue 1, 3 Common.40 Leptotes plinius Fabricius, 1793 Zebra blue 1 Common.41 Prosotas nora Felder, 1860 Common lineblue 2 Common.42 Talicada nyseus Guérin-Méneville, 1843 Red pierrot 1, 2 Common.

Hesperiidae43 Udaspes folus Cramer, 1775 Grass demon 1 Common.

Table 2: Butterfly diversity recorded only in the present survey. (Remaining data from Kumar (1984) has not been reproduced). *Reference of past record from Fergusson campus: 1Kumar (1984), 2Warudkar & Patankar (2013), 3Chhaya et al. (2012)


Avifaunal diversityPune and its environs have been a magnet for ornithologists and numerous records of avifaunal diversity are available from the region owing to its rich birdlife (Betham 1899; 1902a; 1902b; Trevenen 1922; Suter 1950; Abdulali 1961; Stairmand 1971; Goel 1976; Gole 1977; Khanna 1977; Gole 1980; Mundkur 1981; Bapat 1982; Mundkur 1983; Gole 1984; Mundkur 1984a,b,c; Singh 1984; Gole 1985; Mundkur 1986; Ara 1987; Mahabal & Lamba 1987; Ingalhalikar et al. 1988; Wadadekar 2000; Sondhi 2006; Gole 2007; Ingalhallikar et al. 2000-01; Ghaskadbi 2010). Ingalhallikar et al. (2000-01) enumerate 332 species in the vicinity on Pune and Prasad (2003) provide exhaustive records around the city.

Avifaunal studies specific to the Fergusson College campus (Nilakanta 1965; Nalavade 1999; 2001; 2012) also indicate a reasonable diversity at least in the past. Two of the authors (AN & GG) investigated the diet and ethogram of the Spotted owlet in the campus (Nerlekar et al. 2014a,b). Kamath (2004) and Raut et al. (2012) undertook extensive field surveys and recorded several uncommon species, though some of the data generated remained unpublished until now. The campus was also considered a sector for the latest Pune bird count (The Ecological Society 2010) and regular transects were walked since 2007 by Rangers Eco club. The college is registered as a hotspot on ebird, also participated in the annual national Campus Bird Count 2015 conducted as a sub-event under the Great Backyard Bird Count (GBBC).

Typical field visits included spending about 3 hours during dawn or dusk in different areas. Opportunistic sightings by past students/ birders were also taken into consideration. Ali (2002) and Grimmett et al. (1998) were referred for field identification and names (both, scientific and common) were standardized using Birdlife International (2014). The analysis has been performed on the total number of birds recorded till date from the campus and not on the current findings alone.

A total of 137 bird species belonging to 102 genera and 52 families representing 18 orders have been reported from the college campus till date, out of these, 53 species were recorded only in the past, 71 species were recorded in the past as well as during the current survey, while 13 species were recorded only during the current survey and through Ebird (2016). Thus, a total of 84 birds were recorded in the current effort (Table 5). In the Campus Bird count 2015, The Fergusson College campus ranked third in the country in terms of both, species (62) and effort (181 checklists) (Bird count India 2016). The total species recorded in the campus through

ebird can by viewed at http://ebird.org/ebird/hotspot/L3148022.

Family Accipitridae was the most species rich family (10 species), while the Family Muscicapidae was represented by 8 species (Fig 5). Fergusson College campus is home to 115 resident species, while 22 species are migrants. Of the total number of species recorded, 132 species belong to Least Concern category, 3 species (painted stork, red-headed falcon and laggar falcon) are Near Threatened, Egyptian vulture is Endangered and red-headed vulture is Critically Endangered and is possibly extinct from the Western parts of the state (Bird Life International 2014). Two species rock bush-quail and grey junglefowl are Endemic to India. Insectivorous birds are the most dominant (45), followed by omnivores (44) and carnivores (29), while frugivores are represented by 9 species, granivores by 7, nectarinivores by 2 and vegetarians by 1 (Indian spot-billed duck).

A comparison of the current species richness (84 species) to that of Nalavade (1999) (90 species) indicates a decline of over 6 birds observed over years. Flocks of chestnut-tailed starling along with several other species were found to feed on the silk-cotton trees (Bombax ceiba L.) during the flowering season. It was observed that the little swifts nested either in association with the roosts of Egyptian free-tailed bats or individually in pipes. The black kites and the jungle Crow, and shikra were observed to feed on Egyptian free- tailed bats and Schneider’s leaf- nosed bats respectively.

Loss of suitable habitat can be considered as the sole major threat that the avifauna today faces in the campus as rightly pointed out by Nalavade (2001). Depleting grasslands seem to have greatly affected quails and francolins and the yellow-wattled lapwings. Aquatic birds have more or less disappeared after the canal stopped functioning in the 1970s. Barn owls have been rescued a couple of times from the Geology Department and their numbers also have reduced.

Mammalian diversityThe mammalian diversity recorded in the campus till date is represented by 7 orders and 19 species (Fig 6). Most number of species belongs to the order chiroptera followed by rodentia (Table 6).

Order Artiodactyla The four-horned antelope Tetracerus quadricornis de Blainville, 1816, a typical inhabitant of the dry deciduous biotope was occasionally found on the hill in the 1960’s (Nalavade 2000-01). Poaching, hunting, habitat loss and feral dogs have exterminated the population from the study area.

http://ebird.org/ebird/hotspot/L3148022





Order CarnivoraAbout a decade ago, the common palm civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus Pallas, 1777 was known to have been occasional in the city and has been recorded in the study area in the past (Nalavade 2000-01). A couple of opportunistic direct sightings (Nalavade 2012; T. Simlai, pers. comm.) have also been reported in the recent past from the Amphitheatre and Geology Departments in the campus. After the renovation of old wooden ledges, it is unlikely that this species still exists in the campus. Scavengers like the striped hyaena Hyaena hyaena Linnaeus, 1758 have been recorded on the neighbouring Vetal hill (Nalavade 2000-01) and also on the Fergusson hill (Nalavade 2001) when the aforementioned hills were connected. Currently, only the Vetal hill complex supports a meagre declining population of this species.

The grey mongoose Herpestes edwardsii E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1818 is fairly common in the campus and is seen to find refuge in old pipes behind the mathematics department and boys hostel. It has been sighted about 20 times in the past two years.

Order Chiroptera The bat fauna in and around Pune city has been fairly explored (Yardi & Korad 2000-01; Korad & Yardi 2001; Korad & Yardi 2002a; Korad & Yardi 2004a,b; Korad 2009; Korad et al. 2010). Within Maharashtra, Korad (2014) reports maximum species richness (54%) from Pune division. Yardi & Korad (2000-01) recorded the presence of 24 bat species in the Pune city region. The chiropteran diversity within Fergusson college campus is represented only through few studies such as Korad & Yardi (2001), Korad & Yardi (2004a, b) and Nalavade (2012).Field identification was carried out referring Bates & Harrison (1997), Prater (2005) and Menon (2014). Colony counts were undertaken following the ‘direct roost count’ and ‘nightly dispersal counts’ methods described by Kunz et al. (1996). Total effort was 120 hrs (3 hrs per day per species and four such species

monitored in consecutive 10 days for each). Eight species of bats (two Megachiroptera and six Microchiroptera) belonging to four families have been identified in the current survey and past records. All eight species are ‘Least Concern’ Molur et al. (2002) and one (Hipposideros speoris Schneider 1800) is endemic to the Indian subcontinent. All species are resident except Pteropus giganteus Brunnich, 1782 which is observed to use the campus only as a foraging ground. A summary of the diversity of species has been provided in Table 6. Population data of the four resident species has been provided in Table 7. From the preliminary demographic data of four resident bats (Table 7), it is clear that H. speoris is the most abundant bat followed by Pipistrellus ceylonicus Kelaart, 1852, Tadarida aegyptiaca E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1818 and Cynopterus sphinx Vahl, 1797. A recent exploration by one of the authors (AW) at the Chaturshingi hill colony (Korad & Yardi 2002a) revealed a decreasing population trend in the H.speoris colony, hence it is probable that the F.C. campus is now housing the only remaining large colony of this species in the city. Two additional species, Pipistrellus coromandra Gray, 1838 and Falsistrellus affinis Dobson, 1871 could also possibly be present (V.S. Korad pers. comm.), but were not located in the current survey.

Some of these species of bats are prone to multiple threats and potential dangers in the campus. Almost all the known colonies of T. aegyptiaca and P. ceylonicus are located in the slit behind notice boards, wooden ledges or tree hollows. Thus removal of these boards, renovation and replacement of old structures constitute the key threats for these species (Gaikwad et al. 2012). H. speoris use the defunct water reservoir on the hill as a roosting site hence the destruction of this structure can have a negative impact on the population of this endemic species. Protection of old structures (Refer Korad & Yardi 2002b) and creating awareness through local

Sr. no.

Family/Scientific name Common name *Ref. Current status and Remarks

Bufonidae1 Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Schneider

1799)Common Indian toad

- Present, common. Seen commonly in monsoons, and rarely even in dry seasons.

2 Duttaphrynus stomaticus (Lutken 1862) Marbled toad 1 Not recorded.Dicroglossidae

3 Hoplobatrachus tigerinus (Daudin 1802) Indian bull frog - Present. Seen during and after rains in monsoon.

4 Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis (Schneider, 1799) Skipper frog - Present. In the abandoned quarry on the hill.

Ranidae5 Hylarana malabarica (Tschudi, 1838) Fungoid frog - Not recorded. Used to be seen on the

hill (Nalavade pers comm.).

Table 3: List of Amphibians occurring within the college campus. Common names as per Daniels (2005) and classification as per IUCN (2014). *Reference of past record from Fergusson campus: 1Padhye et al. (2002)


public- participatory activities (similar to Yardi & Korad 2003) would ensure their long term survival. Counts were taken for 10 consecutive days in March 2014 for each species. Some of the colonies marked as individual colonies could also be sub-colonies that

constitute a larger colony and are considered distinct purely for the monitoring convenience.

Order LagomorphaThe Indian hare Lepus nigricollis F. Cuvier, 1823 was frequently sighted in the past on the Fergusson hill

Sr. no.

Family/Scientific name Common name *Ref. Present record

Gekkonidae1 Hemidactylus cf. murrayi Gleadow, 1887 Murray’s house gecko 1, 2 Present, common. Considered as

H. brookii in earlier works.2 Hemidactylus flaviviridis Rüppell, 1835 Northern house gecko Present, common. 3 Hemidactylus leschenaultii Duméril &

Bibron, 1836Common bark gecko Present. Found specifically on the

fissured barks of trees.4 Hemidactylus frenatus Schlegel, 1836 Southern house gecko 2 Not recorded.5 Hemidactylus maculutus Duméril & Bibron,

1836Rock gecko 2 Not recorded. Endemic to India

(Uetz & Hosek 2014). Doubtful record.

6 Cnemaspis cf. mysoriensis Jerdon, 1853 Dwarf gecko Present. New record. Possibly introduced. Endemic to India (IUCN 2014).

Agamidae7 Calotes versicolor (Daudin, 1802) Common garden calotes 1, 2 Present, common. 8 Sitana laticeps Deepak & Giri, 2016 Broad headed fan-throated

Lizard2 Earlier identified as Sitana

ponticeriana. Currently absent.Scincidae

9 Eutropis carinata (Schneider, 1801) Keeled grass skink 1 Present. 10 Lygosoma lineata (Gray, 1839) Lined supple skink Present. Found once near staff

quarters. Endemic to India (Uetz & Hosek 2014).

Lacertidae11 Ophisops beddomei (Jerdon, 1870) - 3 Not recorded. Endemic to India

(Uetz & Hosek 2014). Varanidae

12 Varanus bengalensis (Daudin, 1802) Bengal monitor 4 Not recorded. Typhlopidae

13 Indotyphlops braminus (Daudin, 1803) Brahminy worm snake 1, 2 Present, Common. Prefers moist microhabitats, under tiles, rocks.

14 Grypotyphlops acutus (Duméril & Bibron, 1844)

Beaked worm snake 1 Present. Endemic to India (Whitaker & Captain 2008).

Colubridae15 Ahaetulla nasuta (Bonnaterre, 1790) Green vine snake 5 Not recorded. Released on hill.

Survival doubtful.16 Coluber gracilis (Günther, 1862) Slender racer 1, 6 Not recorded. Endemic to India

(Whitaker & Captain 2008).17 Coelognathus helena (Daudin, 1803) Common trinket snake 1 Present.18 Lycodon aulicus (Linneaus, 1758) Common wolf snake 1, 2 Present.19 Oligodon arnensis (Shaw, 1802) Common kukri snake 1 Not recorded. 20 Ptyas mucosa (Linnaeus, 1758) Indian rat snake 1, 2 Present. 21 Amphiesma stolatum (Linnaeus, 1758) Buff-striped keelback 1 Not recorded. 22 Macropisthodon plumbicolor (Cantor, 1839) Green keelback 1 Present, common. Common in

gutters in the post monsoon period.

23 Xenochrophis piscator (Schneider, 1799) Checkered keelback 1 Not recorded. Might be present when the canal was active and the reservoirs were functional.

Elapidae24 Bungarus caeruleus (Schneider, 1801) Common krait 5 Present.25 Naja naja (Linnaeus, 1758) Spectacled cobra 2 Not recorded.

Viperidae26 Echis carinatus (Schneider, 1801) Saw-scaled viper 4 Not recorded. Earlier reported

from the hill.

Table 4: Checklist of Reptiles of Fergusson College. *Reference of past record from Fergusson campus: 1Thakur & Gour-Broome (2000-01), 2Nalavade (2012), 3Chopra (1964b), 4Nalavade (2000-01), 5Nalavade pers. comm., 6Zambre pers. comm.,


Sr. No


Phalacrocoracidae1 Phalacrocorax fuscicolis

Stephens, 1826Indian cormorant 1 Present, common.

Ardeidae

2 Ardea cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 Grey heron 1 Present.3 Bubulcus ibis (Linnaeus,

1758)Cattle egret 1, 2, 3 Present, common.

4 Ardeola grayii (Sykes, 1832) Indian pond-heron 1, 3 Present. Botanical garden.5 Nycticorax nycticorax

Linnaeus, 1758)Black-crowned night-heron

1, 2 Not recorded.

Ciconiidae6 Mycteria leucocephala

(Pennant, 1769)Painted stork 1 Not recorded. Near Threatened (Birdlife

International, 2014).7 Anastomus oscitans

(Boddaert, 1783)Asian openbill 1 Not recorded.

8 Ciconia episcopus (Boddaert, 1783)

Asian woollyneck 1 Present. Vulnerable (Birdlife International, 2014).

Anatidae9 Anas poecilorhyncha Forster,

1781Indian spot-billed duck 1 Not recorded.

Accipitridae10 Pernis ptilorhynchus

(Temminck, 1821)Oriental honey-buzzard 1 Present.

11 Elanus caeruleus (Desfontaines, 1789)

Black-shouldered kite 1, 2, 4 Present on hill. Nested in trees near Amphitheatre (Nalavade 2012).

12 Milvus migrans (Boddaert, 1783)

Black kite 1, 2, 3, 5 Present, common.

13 Neophron percnopterus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Egyptian vulture 5, (not specified species) 1

Not recorded currently. Endangered (Birdlife International, 2014).A pair regularly used to perch on main building/ library. Sometimes seen soaring (Kamath 2004).

14 Sarcogyps calvus (Scopoli, 1786)

Red-headed vulture 5 (not specified species), 1

Not recorded currently. Critically Endangered, possibly locally extinct (Birdlife International, 2014). Once seen soaring on campus. Ambiguous record (Kamath 2004).

15 Circaetus gallicus (Gmelin, 1788)

Short-toed snake-eagle 1 Not recorded.

16 Accipiter badius (Gmelin, 1788)

Shikra 1, 2, 3, 5 Present, common.

17 Butastur teesa (Franklin, 1831)

White-eyed buzzard 1 Not recorded.

18 Aquila rapax (Temminck, 1828)

Tawny eagle 1 Not recorded.

19 Aquila fasciata (Vieillot, 1822) Bonelli's eagle 1 Present on nearby hills, sometimes soars over the college campus.

Falconidae20 Falco tinnunculus Linnaeus,

1758Common kestrel 1, 2, 5 Present.

21 Falco chicquera Daudin, 1800 Red-headed falcon 1 Not recorded. Near Threatened (Birdlife International, 2014).

22 Falco jugger J.E. Gray, 1834 Laggar falcon 2, 6 Not recorded. Near Threatened (Birdlife International, 2014). A pair nested in rock quarry till 1985 (Nalavade 2001).

23 Falco peregrinus Tunstall, 1771

Peregrine falcon 1 Not recorded

Phasianidae24 Francolinus pictus (Jardine &

Selby, 1828)Painted francolin 1, 6 Not recorded. Was found on the hill

(Nalavade 2001).25 Francolinus pondicerianus

(Gmelin, 1789)Grey francolin 1, 2, 6 Not recorded. Was found on the hill

(Nalavade 2001).

Table 5: Avifaunal diversity from the Fergusson Campus. Only those species recorded exclusively through the GBBC initiative have been provided with the reference Ebird (2016). *Reference of past record from Fergusson campus: 1Kamath (2004), 2Nalavade (1999), 3Raut et al. (2012), 4Nalavade (2012), 5Nilakantha (1965), 6Nalavade (2001), 7Nerlekar et al. (2014a,b), 8Ebird (2016)


Sr. No


Phasianidae26 Coturnix coromandelica

(Gmelin, 1789)Rain quail 2 Not recorded.

27 Perdicula argoondah (Sykes, 1832)

Rock bush-quail 2, 6 Not recorded. Endemic to India. Was found on the hill (Nalavade 2001).

28 Gallus sonneratii Temminck, 1813

Grey junglefowl 1 Not recorded, doubtful record. Endemic to India (Birdlife International 2014).

29 Pavo cristatus Linnaeus, 1758 Indian peafowl 2, 6 Not recorded currently. Was found on the hill and once at ‘Kimaya’ (Nalavade 1999).

Turnicidae30 Turnix suscitator (Gmelin,

1789)Barred buttonquail 1, 6 Not recorded. Hunting has led to

population decline (Nalavade 2001).Rallidae

31 Amaurornis phoenicurus (Pennant, 1769)

White-breasted waterhen

1, 2 Was seen in the abandoned quarry. Not recorded.

Charadriidae32 Vanellus malarbaricus

(Boddaert, 1783)Yellow-wattled lapwing 1, 2 Not recorded.

33 Vanellus indicus (Boddaert, 1783)

Red-wattled lapwing 1, 2, 3 Present, common.

Scolopacidae34 Actitis hypoleucos Linnaeus,

1758Common sandpiper 2 Not recorded. Used to be regular when

the canal was functional (Nalavade 1999). Columbidae

35 Columba liva Gmelin, 1789 Blue rock pigeon 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Present, common. Nesting in rafter and wind holes of Amphitheatre (Nalavade 2012).

36 Spilopelia senegalensis (Linnaeus, 1766)

Laughing dove 1, 2, 3, 4 Present, common. Nesting in Amphitheatre (Nalavade 2012).

37 Spilopelia suratensis (Gmelin, 1789)

Western spotted dove 1, 3 Present, occasional.

38 Treron phoenicopterus (Latham, 1790)

Yellow-footed green-pigeon

2 Not recorded.

Psittacidae39 Loriculus vernalis (Sparrman,

1787)Vernal hanging-parrot 2 Not recorded. One straggler bird

reported.40 Psittacula eupatria (Linnaeus,

1766)Alexandrine parakeet 2, 3, 5 Present, common. Most probably escaped

cage birds (Nalavade pers. comm.).41 Psittacula krameri (Scopoli,

1769)Rose-ringed Parakeet 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Present, common. Nesting in holes below

ceiling of Amphitheatre (Nalavade 2012).42 Psittacula cyanocephala

(Linnaeus, 1766)Plum-headed parakeet 1, 2, 5 Present.

Cuculidae43 Clamator jacobinus (Boddaert,

1783)Pied crested cuckoo 1, 2 Not recorded. Was occasional on the hill.

44 Hierococcyx varius (Vahl, 1797)

Common hawk-cuckoo 1, 2, 5 Present.

45 Cacomantis passerinus (Vahl, 1797)

Grey-bellied cuckoo 1, 2 Not recorded. Used to be heard on the hill.

46 Eudynamys scolopaceus(Linnaeus, 1758)

Western koel 1, 2, 3, 5 Present, common.

47 Centropus sinensis (Stephens, 1815)

Greater coucal 1, 2, 3, 5 Present, common.

Tytonidae48 Tyto alba (Scopoli, 1769) Barn owl 2, 3, 4 Present. Nesting in Amphitheatre

(Nalavade 2012).Strigidae

49 Bubo bengalensis (Franklin, 1831)

Rock eagle owl 2 Not recorded.

50 Athene brama (Temminck, 1821)

Spotted owlet 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 Present, common. (Nerlekar et al. 2014a).

Caprimulgidae51 Caprimulgus asiaticus Latham,

1790Common Indian nightjar 2 Not recorded.

Apodidae52 Apus affinis (Gray, 1830) Little swift 2, 3, 4, 5 Present, common. Nesting in

Amphitheatre veranda (Nalavade 2012).


Sr. No


Apodidae53 Cypsiurus balasiensis (Gray,

1829)Asian palm-swift 8 Present, first time seen in February 2016.

Alcedinidae54 Alcedo atthis (Linnaeus,

1758)Common kingfisher 2 Not recorded currently. Used to be regular

when the canal was functional (Nalavade 1999).

55 Halcyon smyrnensis (Linnaeus, 1758)

White-breasted kingfisher 1, 2, 3, 5 Present.

Meropidae

56 Merops orientalis Latham, 1802

Asian green bee-eater 1, 2, 3, 5 Present, common. Use wires for perching.

Coraciidae

57 Coracias benghalensis (Linnaeus, 1758)

Indian roller 2, 5 Not recorded.

Upupidae

58 Upupa epops Linnaeus, 1758 Common hoopoe 2, 5 Present.

Bucerotidae

59 Ocyceros birostris (Scopoli, 1786)

Indian grey hornbill 1, 2, 3 Present, common.

Megalaimidae

60 Psilopogon haemacephalus (P.L.S Muller, 1776)

Coppersmith barbet 1, 2, 3, 5 Present, common.

Picidae61 Jynx torquilla Linnaeus, 1758 Eurasian wryneck 2 Not recorded.

62 Leiopicus mahrattensis (Latham, 1801)

Yellow-crowned woodpecker

1, 2, 5 Not recorded.

Pittidae63 Pitta brachyura (Linnaeus,

1766)Indian pitta 1, 2 Not recorded currently. Seen at Shirole

bunglow (2013). Straggler, Injured, rescued. (Kamath 2004).

Alaudidae64 Mirafra erythroptera Blyth,

1845Indian lark 1 Not recorded.

65 Eremopterix griseus (Scopoli, 1786)

Ashy-crowned sparrow-lark

1, 2, 5 Not recorded.

66 Ammomanes phoenicura (Franklin, 1831)

Rufous-tailed lark 1 Not recorded.

Hirundinidae67 Hirundo concolor Sykes, 1832 Dusky Crag-martin 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Present, common. Nesting in

Amphitheatre (Nalavade 2012). Nests currently on Life- sciences building.

68 Hirundo smithii Leach, 1818 Wire-tailed swallow 2, 5 Absent.69 Hirundo rustica Linnaeus,

1758Barn swallow 8 Nearly 20 individuals observed on 15th

November 2015.70 Hirundo daurica Linnaeus,

1771Red-rumped swallow 1, 2, 5 Not recorded. Was seen around the hill.

Motacillidae71 Anthus hodgsoni Richmond,

1907Olive-backed pipit 8 Present.

72 Anthus rufulus Vieillot, 1818 Paddyfield pipit 1, 2 Present.73 Anthus trivialis (Linnaues,

1758)Tree pipit 8 Present, common.

74 Motacilla flava Linnaeus, 1758 Yellow wagtail 2 Present.75 Motacilla cinerea Tunstall,

1771Grey wagtail Present, seen at the Botanical garden

pond.76 Motacilla madaraspatensis

Gmelin, 1789White browed- wagtail Present. Rare on hill and campus.

Campephagidae77 Coracina melanoptera (Rupell,

1839)Black-headed cuckooshrike

1 Not recorded.

78 Pericrocotus cinnamomeus (Linnaeus, 1766)

Small minivet 1, 2, 3 Present, common.


Sr. No


Campephagidae79 Pericrocotus erythropygius

(Jerdon, 1840)White-bellied minivet 2, 3 Present.

80 Tephrodornis pondicerianus (Gmelin, 1789)

Common woodshrike 1 Not recorded.

Pycnonotidae81 Pycnonotus jocosus

(Linnaeus, 1758)Red-whiskered bulbul 1, 2, 3 Present, common.

82 Pycnonotus cafer (Linnaeus, 1766)

Red-Vented bulbul 1, 2, 3, 5 Present, common.

Aegithinidae83 Aegithina tiphia (Linnaeus,

1758)Common Iora 1, 2, 3 Present, common.

Laniidae84 Lanius vittatus

Vallenciennes, 1826Bay-backed shrike 3 Present.

85 Lanius schach Linnaues, 1758

Long-tailed shrike 1, 2, 5 Present. Use wires for perching (Nilakantha 1965).

Timaliidae86 Pomatorhinus horsfieldii

Sykes, 1832Indian-scimitar babbler 1 Not recorded. Doubtful record.

87 Dumetia hyperythra (Franklin, 1831)

Tawny-bellied babbler 1 Not recorded.

88 Turdoides malcolmi (Sykes, 1832)

Large Grey babbler 1 Not recorded.

89 Turdoides striata (Dumont, 1823)

Jungle babbler 5 Present, common. Seen on hill and Botanical garden.

Cisticolidae90 Prinia hodgsonii Blyth, 1844 Grey-breasted Prinia 1, 2 Present, common.91 Prinia sylvatica Jerdon,

1840Jungle prinia 1 Not recorded.

92 Prinia socialis Sykes, 1832 Ashy prinia 2, 3, 5 Present, common.93 Prinia inornata Sykes, 1832 Plain prinia 1 Present, common.

Sylviidae94 Acrocephalus dumetorum

Blyth, 1849Blyth’s reed-warbler 8 Present.

95 Hippolais caligata (Lichtenstein, 1823)

Booted warbler 8 Present.

96 Orthotomus sutorius (Pennant, 1769)

Common tailorbird 2, 3, 5 Present, common.

97 Phylloscopus collybita (Vieillot, 1817)

Common chiffchaff 8 Present, first reported in February 2016.

98 Phylloscopus griseolus Blyth, 1847

Sulphur-bellied warbler 8 Present.

99 Phylloscopus trochiloides (Sundevall, 1837)

Greenish warbler 2, 3 Present, common.

100 Sylvia curruca (Linnaeus, 1758)

Lesser whitethroat 2 Not recorded.

Muscicapidae101 Monticola solitarius

(Linnaeus, 1758)Blue rock-thrush 2, 5 Present. Observed hunting a skink sp.

(Nilakantha 1965). 102 Copsychus saularis

(Linnaeus, 1758)Oriental magpie-robin 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Present, common. Nesting in

Amphitheatre (Nalavade 2012).103 Copsychus malabaricus

(Scopoli, 1786)White-rumped shama 5 Not recorded currently. Two males once

seen fighting. (Nilakantha 1965). Doubtful record.

104 Saxicoloides fulicatus (Linnaeus, 1766)

Indian robin 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Present, common. Attempted nesting in Amphitheatre (Nalavade 2012).

105 Phoenicurus ochruros (Gmelin, 1774)

Black redstart 2, 5 Present.

106 Saxicola caprata (Linnaeus, 1766)

Pied bushchat 1, 2 Present, common.

107 Ficedula parva (Bechstein, 1792)

Red-breasted flycatcher 2, 3 Present, common.

Muscicapidae108 Cyornis tickelliae Blyth,

1843Tickell's blue-flycatcher 1 Present, common.


Sr. No


Monarchidae109 Terpsiphone paradisi

(Linnaeus, 1758)Asian paradise flycatcher 1, 2 Present.

110 Hypothymis azurea (Boddaert, 1783)

Black-naped monarch 1 Not recorded. Doubtful record.

Rhipiduridae111 Rhipidura albicollis

(Vieillot, 1818)White-thoated fantail 1, 2, 3 Present, common.

Paridae112 Parus major Linnaeus,

1758Great tit 1, 2, 3 Present, common.

Dicaeidae113 Dicaeum agile (Tickell,

1833)Thick-billed flowerpecker 3 Present, common.

114 Dicaeum erythrorhynchos (Latham, 1790)

Pale-billed flowerpecker 1, 2, 3 Present, common.

Nectariniidae115 Nectarinia zeylonica

(Linnaeus, 1766)Purple-rumped sunbird 1, 2, 3 Present, common.

116 Nectarinia asiatica (Latham, 1790)

Purple sunbird 1, 2, 3, 5 Present, common.

Zosteropidae117 Zosterops palpebrosus

(Temminck, 1824)Oriental white eye 1, 2, 3 Present, common.

Emberizidae118 Melophus lathami (Gray,

1831)Crested bunting 1 Not recorded.

Fringiliidae119 Carpodacus erythrinus

(Pallas, 1770)Common rosefinch 2 Not recorded.

Estrildidae120 Amandava amandava

(Linnaeus, 1758)Red avadavat 8 Present near the base of the hill and

on the ground.121 Lonchura malabarica

(Linnaeus, 1758)White-throated munia 1, 2, 5 Present. Seen on the hill.

122 Lonchura punctulata (Linnaeus, 1758)

Scaly-breasted munia 2 Present, common. Seen on the hill.

Passeridae123 Passer domesticus

(Linnaeus, 1758)House sparrow 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Present. Nested in Amphitheatre

(Nalavade 2012). 124 Petronia xanthocollis

(Burton, 1838)Chestnut-shouldered petronia 2 Not recorded.

Ploceidae125 Ploceus philippinus

(Linnaeus, 1766)Baya weaver 1, 2 Present.

Sturnidae126 Sturnus

pagodarum(Gmelin, 1789)

Brahminy starling 2, 3, 4, 5 Present, common. Nesting in Amphitheatre (Nalavade 2012).

127 Sturnus roseus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Rosy starling 2 Not recorded.

128 Sturnus malabaricus (Gmelin, 1789)

Chestnut- tailed starling Present. Seen around the Botanical garden.

129 Acridotheres tristis (Linnaeus, 1766)

Common myna 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Present, common. Nesting in gaps between roof and wall of Amphitheatre (Nalavade 2012).

130 Acridotheres fuscus (Wagler, 1827)

Jungle myna 1, 2, 3, 4 Present, common. Nesting in Amphitheatre (Nalavade 2012).

Oriolidae131 Oriolus oriolus Linnaeus,

1758Eurasian golden oriole 1, 2, 3 Present.

Dicruridae132 Dicrurus macrocercus

Vieillot, 1817Black drongo 1, 2, 3, 5 Present. Uses wires for perch

(Nilakantha 1965). 133 Dicrurus caerulescens

Linnaeus, 1758White-bellied drongo 2 Not recorded. One straggler bird

reported.Dicruridae

134 Dicrurus leucophaeus Vieillot, 1817

Ashy drongo Present. Seen on the hill and around Kimaya.


(Nalavade 2000-01) but hunting and mortality due to feral dogs has greatly reduced the population. Though a population is still present on the neighbouring Vetal hills, the Fergusson hill has been geographically isolated after construction of the S.B. road thus restricting their movement (Nalavade 2000-01). No sightings of this species have occurred in the recent years and it is feared to have been locally extirpated.

Order PrimatesA single species-The South Western Langur Semnopithecus hypoleucos Blyth, 1841 (following Brandon-Jones 2009, Pradhan & Talmale 2012 and Nag et al. 2014) was occasionally seen in on about 5 instances during the study period. No resident population of the Langur is present in the study area and stray individuals are attracted to the campus probably due to its rich vegetation. Order RodentiaA majority of the rodents were recorded opportunistically during the study period. Few species were recorded indirectly through pellets during a study on diet of spotted owlet (Nerlekar et al. 2014a) in the campus. Talmale & Pradhan (2009) was referred for identification of mammal remains found in owl pellets. Menon (2014) was used for the rest mammals. Four species belonging to two families were identified from the campus.

Order SoricomorphaOnly a single species- Suncus murinus Linnaeus, 1766 was reported through direct observation as well as from owl pellets of spotted and barn owls [identified using Talmale & Pradhan (2009)] and by Nalavade (2012).

Miscellaneous TaxaOrder ColeopteraAspidomorpha milliaris was collected from the campus by Thorat et al. (2012). Beetles of family scarabaeidae were reported by Nerlekar et al. (2014a). This order was not actively investigated for its diversity in the current survey due to logistical constraints. Order HymenopteraA few hymenopterans including wasps (Vespa sp.) and ants (Campanotus sp.) were reported by

Nerlekar et al. (2014a) in the diet of the spotted owlet. Nalavade (2012) also mention a few like rock bee Apis dorsata Fabricius, 1793. This order was not actively investigated for its diversity in the current survey due to logistical constraints.

Order MantodeaMantidae members were reported by Nalavade (2012) as well as in the current survey.

Order NeuropteraAntlions or larvae of insects belonging to the family Myrmeleontidae were observed by us at places with loose soil including the hill, parking and around Amphitheatre. Also reported by Nalavade (2012).

Further, members of orders like Homoptera, Blattodea, Scolopendromorpha, Orthoptera, Isoptera were reported by Nerlekar et al. (2014a) as owlet prey.

Discussion and ConclusionThe rich faunal diversity in the campus can be attributed to the array of habitats, both macro and micro (such as natural scrub vegetation, exotic planted woodland, old wooden ledges, crevices of old buildings, defunct reservoirs, water pools, leaf litter, etc) that are present currently. It is clear from the results that for most of the taxa, the richness over time has declined. The threats for individual taxa are highlighted in the respective section, but from our preliminary observations we presume that activities like changing land-use in form of constructions around the hills, habitat degradation in form of littering, fires and removal of herbaceous and arboreal vegetation pose a great threat to the fauna. This institute is one of the very few campuses in the city which has a tremendous potential for sustaining diversity and hence ensuring protection of this diversity should be given priority. Activities like conducting field (outdoor) practicals, regular awareness drives in the campus might also serve the cause of conservation of the campus fauna. Such urban green spaces can provide multiple ecosystem services and sometimes in peri-urban ecosystems, the species richness can be greater than the original ecosystem that has been replaced (Dearborn & Kark 2010). As seen from the results, such green campuses can also support a minor percentage of endemic/threatened/locally rare

Sr. No


Corvidae135 Dendrocitta vagabunda

(Latham, 1790)Rufous treepie 1 Not recorded.

136 Corvus splendens Vieillot, 1817

House crow 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Present, common. Nested in trees near Amphitheatre (Nalavade 2012).

137 Corvus levaillantii Lesson, 1831

Jungle crow 1, 2, 3, 5 Present, common.


Sr. No

Family/Scientific name Common name *Past Lit. Current status and Remarks

Order ArtiodactylaOrder ArtiodactylaOrder ArtiodactylaOrder ArtiodactylaOrder ArtiodactylaBovidae

1 Tetracerus quadricornis de Blainville, 1816

Four- horned antelope Past records (1, 2)

Not recorded. Completely exterminated from the area. Vulnerable (IUCN 2014).

Order CarnivoraOrder CarnivoraOrder CarnivoraOrder CarnivoraOrder CarnivoraViverridae

2 Paradoxurus hermaphroditus Pallas, 1777

Common palm civet 1, 2, 3 No recent sightings after Nalavade (2012).

Herpestidae3 Herpestes edwardsii E. Geoffroy Saint-

Hilaire, 1818Grey mongoose 1 Common, breeding population observed.

Hyaenidae4 Hyaena hyaena Linnaeus, 1758 Striped hyaena 1 Not recorded. Past records till 1970,

population exterminated.Order ChiropteraOrder ChiropteraOrder ChiropteraOrder ChiropteraOrder Chiroptera

Pteropodidae5 Pteropus giganteus Brunnich, 1782 Indian flying fox Present, common. Recorded from Pune by

Yardi & Korad 2000-01; Korad 2014.6 Cynopterus sphinx Vahl, 1797 Greater short- nosed

fruit batPresent & common. Recorded from Pune by Yardi & Korad 2000-01; Korad 2014). Visitor and colonies.

Molossidae7 Tadarida aegyptiaca E. Geoffroy Saint-

Hilaire, 1818Egyptian free- tailed bat

4 Present & common. Use notice boards and wooden ledges for roosting. Colonies seen.

Hipposideridae8 Hipposideros speoris Schneider, 1800 Schneider’s leaf- nosed

batPresent & common. Endemic (Menon 2014). Recorded on the nearby Chaturshingi hill by Korad & Yardi 2002a in the city. Colonies seen.

Vespertilionidae9 Pipistrellus ceylonicus Kelaart, 1852 Kelaart’s pipistrelle 3 Present & common. Use boards & tree

hollows as roosts. Recorded from Pune by Yardi & Korad 2000-01; Korad 2014. Colonies and visitors seen.

10 Pipistrellus javanicus (Gray, 1838 Javan pipistrelle 5, 6 Not encountered at present. About 20 individuals were occupying the gaps between metallic name-plates and walls (Korad & Yardi 2004a).

11 Pipistrellus kuhlii (Kuhl, 1817) Kuhl’s pipistrelle 6, 7 Not recorded.12 Pipistrellus savii (Bonaparte, 1837)

[=Hypsugo savii (Bonaparte, 1837)]Savi’s pipistrelle 6, 7 Not recorded.

Order LagomorphaOrder LagomorphaOrder LagomorphaOrder LagomorphaOrder LagomorphaLeporidae

13 Lepus nigricollis F. Cuvier, 1823 Indian hare Past records (1, 2)

Not recorded. Completely wiped out from the area.

Order PrimatesOrder PrimatesOrder PrimatesOrder PrimatesOrder PrimatesCercopithecidae

14 Semnopithecus hypoleucos Blyth, 1841 South- western langur Present, rare. Stray population. Vulnerable (IUCN 2014).

Order RodentiaOrder RodentiaOrder RodentiaOrder RodentiaOrder RodentiaSciuridae

15 Funambulus pennantii Wroughton, 1905

Five-striped palm squirrel

3 Present, commonly found in the campus.

Muridae16 Mus sp. Mouse 8 Present. Found in owlet pellets.17 Bandicota indica Bechstein, 1800 Large bandicoot rat Present, common. Found dead several times

in the campus18 Rattus rattus Linnaeus, 1758 House rat 3 Present, common. A couple of direct

sightings.Order SoricomorphaOrder SoricomorphaOrder SoricomorphaOrder SoricomorphaOrder Soricomorpha

Soricidae19 Suncus murinus Linnaeus, 1766 House shrew 3, 8 Present, common. Sighted directly. Also

found in owlet pellets.

Table 6: Summary of mammalian fauna in Fergusson College campus (orders arranged alphabetically). *Reference of past record from Fergusson campus: 1Nalavade 2000-01, 2Nalavade 2001, 3Nalavade (2012), 4Korad & Yardi (2001), 5Korad & Yardi (2004a), 6Editor-Director (2012), 7Korad & Yardi (2004b), 8Nerlekar et al. (2014a)


species and thus can also serve as centres for conservation. The present paper provides a baseline document (in terms of presence or absence) for monitoring future changes and also for allied ecological research.

Apart from the obvious disadvantages, urbanization and urban ecosystems can be also viewed from a different perspective: studying these ecosystems can aid in developing a more ecologically informed audience and thus eventually serving conservation by effecting conservation policies (McKinney 2002). First hand outdoor experience about biodiversity is also necessary for its protection and unfortunately, there has been little emphasis on the urban landscape (Dearborn & Kark 2010). Further, educational institutes that have life sciences departments can provide a hands-on practical training platform to the students by constructing such a campus biodiversity database (Dangerfield & Pik 1999) and involve students in protecting the campus diversity (Hongyan 2003). Due to its manifold advantages, replicating such biodiversity studies in other institutes should be given adequate priority. Acknowledgements We wish to thank Pratik Joshi, Rohan Kamath, Neha Mujumdar, Kruti Chhaya and Manali Dani for contributing valuable unpublished data during this compilation. Thanks are also due to Dr. Girish Jathar, Dr. V.S. Korad, Dr. S.S. Talmale, Girish Punjabi, Nachiket Kelkar, Dr. D.B. Bastawade, Trishant Simlai, Aamod Zambre, Sairandhri Lapalikar and Parul

Chopra for providing valuable suggestions and inputs on the manuscript. Thanks are also due to Vedant Thite, Zeeshan Mirza and Anand Deshpande for accompanying us on field for validation on selected species. We extend our deepest gratitude towards Dr. R.G. Pardeshi, (Principal, Fergusson College, Pune) and Mrs. S.S. Kate and Dr. K.D. Pendharkar (Heads, Department of Botany and Zoology respectively) for their encouragement in the present work. This project was also partially funded by the CPE grants awarded to the Botany and Zoology departments of this college.

ReferencesWe are well aware of the fact that some of the references including articles published in the Fergusson College Magazine may not be indexed sources as they are for private circulation and constitute grey literature. Nonetheless, the data published in these sources was valuable and thus necessary to cite. The authors possess digitized versions of all the references cited and may be contacted for the same in case of any ambiguity.

Abdulali, H. (1961). Occurrence of the Black- necked Grebe, Podiceps caspicus (Hablizl) near Poona, Maharashtra. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 58(1): 276-277.Ali, S. (2002). The Book of Indian Birds. Bombay Natural History Society and Oxford University Press: ivii + 326pp.Ara, J. (1987). Birds seen at the Mula-Mutha sanctuary, Poona. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 27(9&10): 10-11.Bapat, A. (1982). Reef Herons in Poona. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 22(3-4): 18-19.

Colony no. (marked on map)

Tadarida aegyptiaca(mean bats/site+ Std. dev.)Direct roost count

Colony name

Pipistrellus ceylonicus(bats/site) Night dispersal count

Colony name

Cynopterus sphinx(bats/site). Direct roost count

Colony name

Hipposideros speoris(mean bats/site+ Std. dev.) Night dispersal count

Colony name

1 5.4+ 2.06 Geology 05* NCC board 10* Main building roof

641.2+ 34.34 Hill tank

2 13.8+ 5.80 Chemistry 11* Ritha hollow 02* Main building corners

3 0.7+ 0.82 Physics 40** Boys hostel3,4

02* Maths garden

4 0.4+ 0.51 Hostel 1 02* A7 slit5 01+ 1.49 Hostel 2 06* Statistics

board6 2.4+ 1.64 Hostel 3 15** Boys hostel 2

7 7.4+ 1.42 Life sciences

Mean bats/day at all sites

31.1 79.0*** 14.0 641.2

Table 7: Demographic data of four resident bat species in the campus

* Counts resulted in constant values for all 10 days. **Approximate value based on opportunistic observations for 3 days due to logistical constraints. ***Approximate value due to approximate value of colony number 3.


Bates, P.J.J. & D.L. Harrison (1997). Bats of the Indian subcontinent. Harrison Zoological Museum Publication, England: 258pp.Bauer, A.M., V. Giri, S. Kehimkar & I. Agarwal (2005). Notes on Hemidactylus gracilis Blanford 1870, a poorly known Indian gecko. Gecko 4(2): 2-7.Betham, R.M. (1899). Occassional notes on the Birds nesting in the neighbourhood of Poona. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 12 (4): 778-782.Betham, R.M. (1902a). Nesting of the Coot Fulica atra at Poona. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 14(1): 176-177.Betham, R.M. (1902b). Occurrence of the Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta near Poona. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 14(2): 386.BirdLife International (2014). IUCN Red List for Birds. <http://www.birdlife.org/>. Accessed on 17 October 2014. Bird count India (2016). <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wLc7kQ7P1X_R3n6gp2QPUf3mG6RpWDnMZYLq-KEM4GM/edit#slide=id.p33> Accessed on 12th February 2016. Brandon-Jones, D. (2004). A taxonomic revision of the langurs and leaf monkeys (Primates: Colobinae) of South Asia. Zoos’ print journal 19(8): 1552-1594.Champion, H.G. & S.K. Seth. (1968). A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India. Government of India publication, Delhi, 404 pp. Chandekar, S.K., R.K. Nimbalkar & A.A. Kuvalekar (2014). The seasonal patterns in the abundance of butterflies, their biotopes and nectar food plants from Maval Tahsil, Pune district, Maharashtra, India. International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences 4(1): 50-64.Chhaya, K., N. Mujumdar, P. Mhaske & A. Patwardhan (2012). A new larval host record for the Pea Blue butterfly Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) from Pune, Maharashtra, India. Bugs R ALL-Newsletter of the Invertebrate Conservation & Information Network of South Asia 19: 6-9.Chopra, R.N. (1964a). Early recognition of sex in the juvenile forms of Sitana ponticeriana Cuvier. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 61(1): 694-696.Chopra, R.N. (1964b). Notes on some Lizards of Poona. Journal of the University of Poona: Science and Technology Section 28: 39-42.Dangerfield, J.M. & A.J. Pik (1999). The educational value of an all taxa biodiversity inventory. Journal of Biological Education 33(2): 76-83. Daniel, J.C. (2002). The Book of Indian Reptiles and Amphibians. Oxford University Press, Oxford, vi +236pp.Daniels, R.J.R. (2005). Amphibians of Peninsular India. Universities Press, Hyderabad, 268 pp.Das, I. (1997). Checklist of the reptiles of India with English common names. Hamadryad 22(1): 32-45.Dearborn, D.C. & S. Kark. (2010). Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conservation biology 24(2): 432-440.Dixit, A., S. Nalavade & U. Ghate (2000-01). Pune Urban Biodiversity: A case of millennium ecosystem assessment. Journal of Ecological Society 13/14: 8-13.Ebird (2016). Fergusson College campus hotspot http://ebird.org/ebird/hotspot/L3148022. Accessed on 18th February 2016. Editor-Director (2012). Fauna of Maharashtra, State Fauna Series, 20 (Part-l). Published by the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 480 pp.

Gaikwad, M.C., S.S. Narwade, K.M. Fartade, & V.S. Korad (2012). A review of the distribution of bats in South-Western region of Deccan, Maharashtra-India and conservation recommendations. Taprobanica 4: 27-36.Gardner, T.A., Jos Barlow, Ivanei S. Araujo, Teresa Cristina Ávila-Pires, Alexandre B. Bonaldo, Joana E. Costa, Maria Cristina Esposito, Leandro V. Ferreira, Joseph Hawes, Malva I. M. Hernandez, Marinus S. Hoogmoed, Rafael N. Leite, Nancy F. Lo-Man-Hung, Jay R. Malcolm, Marlucia B. Martins, Luiz A. M. Mestre, Ronildon Miranda-Santos, William L. Overal, Luke Parry, Sandra L. Peters, Marco Antônio Ribeiro-Junior, Maria N. F. Da Silva, Catarina Da Silva Motta, Carlos A. Pere (2008). The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests. Ecology letters 11(2): 139-150.Ghaskadbi, P. (2010). Sighting of Blue-throated Flycatcher Cyornis rubeculoides in Pune, India. Indian BIRDS 6(6): 174A.Ghate, H.V. & A.D. Padhye (1996). Impact of Urbanization on amphibians of Pune. Zoos Print 11 (5): 14 - 16.Ghatpande, S.K., S. Joshi & A. Khaire (1990). Additional Information on the Ophiological Fauna of Pune Region. Herpeton 3: 1-2.Goel, S.C. (1976). The birds of the campus of Poona University. Journal of the University of Poona (Science & Technology) 48: 109-118.Gole, P. (1977). Demoiselle Cranes near Poona. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 73(2): 391-392. Gole, P. (1980). A March bird count in Poona. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 77(1): 49-55.Gole, P. (1984). Birds of the Pune region. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 24(1-2): 7-9.Gole, P. (1985). Birds of a polluted river. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 81(3): 613-625.Gole, P. (2007). Our avian citizens in Pune and other cities pp 21-29. In: India through its birds. Futehally, Zafar (ed.) Dronequill publishers, Bangalore. 214pp.Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp & T. Inskipp (1998). Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press, Delhi: 888pp.Hongyan, L. (2003). Bamboo sprouts after the rain: The history of university student environmental associations in China. China Environment Series (6): 55-65.Ingalhalikar, S., T. Mundkur & T. Gole (1988). The Goshawk, Accipiter gentilis (Linne) in Poona, Maharashtra. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 84(2): 434-435. Ingalhalikar, S., R. Purandare, S. Nalavade, & S. Dhole (2000-01). Avifauna around Pune. Journal of Ecological Society 13&14, 59-70.IUCN (2014). IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2014. 1. http://www.iucnredlist.org/ Accessed on 3rd July 2014.Jocqué, R. & A.S. Dippenaar-Schoeman (2006). Spider Families of the World. Royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren (Belgium)Kamath (2004). Birds of Fergusson college campus. Checklist number S17110919. Available online at http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S17110919 Kehimkar, I. (2008). The Book of Indian Butterflies. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. xvi +497pp.Kelkar, N., H. Pethe & T. Dixit. (2006). Spiders of Fergusson College Campus, Pune. Fergusson College Magazine (97): 35-37.

http://www.birdlife.org/

http://www.birdlife.org/

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wLc7kQ7P1X_R3n6gp2QPUf3mG6RpWDnMZYLq-KEM4GM/edit#slide=id.p33












http://www.iucnredlist.org/

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S17110919





Khaire, A. & N. Khaire (1985). A list of Snakes in the Neighbourhood of Poona, Maharashtra with some observations. Geobios New Reports 4(2): 112-114.Khaire, A. & N. Khaire (1993). Occurrence of Brown Whip Snake Ahaetulla pulverulenta (Dumeril & Bibron) in Pune, India. The Snake 25: 147-148.Khanna, L. (1977). The Kashmir Roller Coracias garrulous semenowi near Poona. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 17(2): 10.Korad, V.S. (2009). Diversity of Bat Species in Western Ghats around Pune District. Proceedings of the UGC-sponsored National Conference “Climate change and challenges in Biodiversity Conservation held at the Fergusson College, Pune”: 69-77.Korad, V.S. (2014). Studies on diversity, distribution, and conservation of the bat fauna in Maharashtra state, India. Taprobanica 6(1): 32-45.Korad, V.S. & K.D. Yardi (2001). Notes on free- tailed bats from Pune city. Bat- Net- Chiroptera Conservation and Information Network of South Asia Newsletter 2: 11-12.Korad, V.S. & K.D. Yardi (2002a). About the cave bat Hipposideros speoris (Chiroptera: Hipposideridae) from Pune city (Maharashtra state, India). Bat- Net- Chiroptera Conservation and Information Network of South Asia Newsletter 3(1): 5-6.Korad, V.S. & K.D. Yardi (2002b). True conservators of bats. Bat- Net- Chiroptera Conservation and Information Network of South Asia Newsletter 3(2): 15-16..Korad, V.S. & K.D. Yardi (2004a). Ecological study and faunistic survey of bats from Pune Corporation limits, Maharashtra State, India. Records of Zoological Survey of India, 102(1-2): 115-136.Korad, V.S. & K.D. Yardi (2004b). New records of bats from Central Western India. Records of Zoological Survey of India, 103(1-2): 171-177.Korad, V.S., M.C. Gaikwad & A.L. Koratkar (2010). Studies on diversity, distribution and habitat preference of bat species in Pune District, Maharashtra. Records of Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper No. 311: 1-52.Kumar, N. (1984). A Checklist of the butterflies of Fergusson College. Fergusson College Magazine 75: 14-17.Kunte, K. (2000-01). Butterfly diversity of Pune city along the human impact gradient. Journal of Ecological Society 13/14: 40-45.Kunte, K., P. Roy, S. Kalesh and U. Kodandaramaiah (eds.) (2015). Butterflies of India, v. 2.10. Indian Foundation for Butterflies. http://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/home Accessed on 27th January 2015.Kunz, T.H., D.W. Thomas, G.C. Richards, C.R. Tidemann, E.D. Pierson & P.A. Racey (1996). Observational techniques for bats pp 105-114. In: Wilson, D. E. (Editor). Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity, Standard Methods for Mammals. Smithsonian Press, California: 409pp.Magurran, A.E. (2004). Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell publishing company, Australia. viii+ 256 pp.Mahabal, A. & B.S. Lamba (1987). On the birds of Poona and vicinity. Records of Zoological Survey of India, Occasional paper 94: 1-115.McKinney, M.L. (2002). Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation The impacts of urbanization on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. BioScience 52(10): 883-890.

Menon, V. (2014). Indian Mammals a field guide. Hachette book publishing, India: 527pp.Molur, S., G. Marimuthu, C. Srinivasulu, S. Mistry, A.M. Hutson, P.J.J. Bates, S. Walker, K. Padma Priya & A.R. Binu Priya (eds) (2002). Status of South Asian Chiroptera: Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (C.A.M.P) Workshop Report. Zoo Outreach Organization, CBSG South Asia and WILD, Coimbatore, India: 320 pp.Mundkur, T. (1981). Pashan lake and new addition to the birds of Poona. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 21(7): 12-13.Mundkur, T. (1983). Birding in Pune. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 23(7-8): 5-11.Mundkur, T. (1984a). Occurrence of lesser Flamingo Pheniconaias minor (Geoffroy) in Poona, Maharashtra. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 81(2): 468.Mundkur, T. (1984b). Spoonbills in the Poona district. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 24(5-6): 6-7.Mundkur, T. (1984c). Painted Sandgrouse at Katraj ghat, Pune. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 24(5-6): 17.Mundkur, T. (1986). Yellow Bittern nesting, a new record for Poona. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 82(3): 653-654.Nag, C., P.K. Karanth & K.V. Gururaja (2014). Delineating Ecological Boundaries of Hanuman Langur Species Complex in Peninsular India Using MaxEnt Modeling Approach. PLoS ONE 9(2): e87804. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087804Nalavade, S.B. (1999). Birdwatching in and around the Fergusson College campus. Fergusson College Magazine (91): 11-13.Nalavade, S.B. (2000-01). Retreating wild mammals of Pune urban area. Journal of Ecological Society 13/14: 74-80. Nalavade, S.B. (2001). Changing ecology of the Fergusson College hill. Fergusson College Magazine (93): 25-26.Nalavade, S.B. (2012). The Amphitheatre alive. Fergusson College Magazine 103: 11-12.Nerlekar A.N., G.G. Gowande & P.S. Joshi (2014a). Diet of the Spotted Owlet Athene brama in an urban landscape. Indian BIRDS 9(2): 45-48.Nerlekar, A.N., G.G. Gowande & P.S. Joshi (2014b). Behavioural ethogram of Spotted Owlet Athene brama (Temminck, 1821). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 111(3): 172-179.Nerlekar, A.N., S.A. Lapalikar, A.A. Onkar, S.L. Laware & M.C. Mahajan (2016). Flora of Fergusson College campus, Pune, India: monitoring changes over half a century. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(2): 8452-8487Nilakanta, S.V. (1965). Fergusson Hill. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 5(5): 4-6.Nimbalkar, R.K., S.K. Chandekar & S.P. Khunte (2011). Butterfly diversity in relation to nectar food plants from Bhor Tahsil, Pune District, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(3): 1601-1609.Pachpor, T., Y. Ghodke & A.D. Padhye (2000-2001). Ant Genera Distribution Across Habitats of Pune City. Journal of Ecological Society 13/14: 37-39Padhye, A.D. & M. Mahabaleshwarkar (2000-2001). Amphibian Species Decline in Pune City. Journal of Ecological Society 13/14: 52-54.Padhye, A.D., M. Mahabaleshwarkar & H.V. Ghate (2002). An overview of amphibian fauna of Pune District with special reference to their status in and around Pune city. Zoos’ Print Journal 17(4): 757-763.

http://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/home





Padhye, A.D., N. Dahanukar, M. Paingankar, M. Deshpande & D. Deshpande (2006). Season and landscape wise distribution of butterflies in Tamhini, Northern Western Ghats, India. Zoos’ Print Journal 21(3): 2175-2181.Paranjape, S.Y. & L. Mulherkar (1979). On the survey of amphibian fauna in and around Pune. Journal of University of Poona, Science & Technology 52: 423-434. Pereira, H.M., P.W. Leadley, V. Proença, R. Alkemade, J.P. Scharlemann, J.F. Fernandez-Manjarrés, M.B. Araújo, P. Balvanera, R. Biggs, W.W. Cheung, L. Chini, H.D. Cooper, E.L. Gilman, S. Guénette, G.C. Hurtt, H.P. Huntington, G.M. Mace, T. Oberdorff, C. Revenga, P. Rodrigues, R.J. Scholes, U.R. Sumaila & M. Walpole (2010). Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330(6010): 1496-1501.Pocock, R.I. (1900). The Fauna of British India, Including Ceylon and Burma. Arachnida. Taylor and Francis, London 1-272.Prasad, A. (2003). Annoted checklist of the Birds of Western Maharashtra. Buceros 8(2&3): 1-174.Prater, S.H. (2005). The book of Indian animals. Bombay Natural History Society & Oxford University Press, Mumbai, India: xxii+316pp.Pradhan, M.S. & S.S. Talmale (2012). Mammalia. In: Kunte, B.G. (Editor). Gazetteer of India, Maharashtra State Gazetteers, General Series: Fauna, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata 20 (Part 1): 21-145.Rane, N.S. & S.P. Ranade (2003). Butterflies of Tamhini- Dongarwadi area, Mulshi, Maharashtra. Zoos’ Print Journal 19(3): 1411-1413.Raut, A., S. Salve, K.D. Pendharkar & S. Nalavade (2012). Study on the birds and their habitat of the Fergusson College campus and hill side. Proceedings of ‘UGC sponsored National Conference on Biodiversity Monitoring & Research: Current Practices & Future needs’. Organized by department of Zoology, Fergusson College, Pune. 179- 183.Regan, H.M., F.W. Davis, S.J. Andelman, A. Widyanata & M. Freese. (2007). Comprehensive criteria for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning. Biodiversity and Conservation 16(9): 2715-2728.Savard, J. P. L., P. Clergeau & G. Mennechez. (2000). Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and urban planning 48(3): 131-142.Sebastian P.A. & K.V. Peter (2009). Spiders Of India. Universities Press (India) Private Limited 2009, India. Sharma, R.M. (2009). Insecta: Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera. Fauna of Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary, Zoological Survey of India, Conservation Area Series 42: 257-262.Singh, D.F. (1984). The avifauna of two water bodies near Pune. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 24(7&8): 9-10.Smith, M.A. (1935). The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol. II Sauria. Taylor and Francis, London, 440pp+1 plate.Smith, M.A. (1943). The Fauna of British India Ceylon and Burma including the whole of the Indo-Chinese sub-region. Vol. III. Serpentes. Taylor and Francis, London, 583pp+1 map.Sondhi, A. (2006). Birds of Pune. Kalpavriksh, Pune. 138pp. Stairmand, D.A. (1971). Some common birds in the Koregaon Park area, Poona. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 11(12): 8-10.

Suter, M. (1950). The occurrence of Wood Snipe (Gallinago nemoricola Hogs.) near Poona. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 49(1): 123.Talmale, S.S. & M.S. Pradhan (2009). Identification of some small mammal species through Owl Pellet Analysis. Records of the Zoological Survey of India. Occasional paper no. 294: 1-44. (Published by Director, ZSI, Kolkata).Thakur, S. & V. Gour-Broome (2000-2001). Reptiles of Pune Urban Area: Increase or Decline? Journal of Ecological Society 13/14: 55-58. The Ecological Society (2010). Report of the Bird Count, Pune, June 2010. The Ecological Society, Pune. 11pp. Thorat, S., S. Chakraborti & M. Modak (2012). Isolation and Characterization of gut bacteria from Aspidomorpha milliaris. World Journal of Environmental Biosciences 2(1): 13-20.Tikader, B.K. (1962a). Studies on some Indian spiders (Araneae: Arachnida). Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology 44(300): 561-584.Tikader, B.K. (1962b). On some new species of spiders of the genus Tibellus (Family: Thomisidae) from India. Journal of the University of Poona: Science Section 22: 133-37.Tikader, B.K. (1962c). Studies on some spiders of the genus Oecobius (Family: Oecobidae) from India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 59: 682-685.Tikader, B.K. (1963a). Studies on interesting south Indian crab-spiders (Family: Thomisidae). In Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences-Section B 58(5): 249-262.Tikader, B.K. (1963b). Studies on some spider fauna of Maharashtra and Mysore States, Part I. Journal of the University of Poona: Science Section 42: 29-54.Tikader, B.K. (1963c). On two new species of spiders of the genera Pasilobus Simon and Cladomelea Simon of the family Argiopidae from India. In Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences-Section B 57(2): 96-98.Tikader, B.K. (1963d). On some new species of spiders of the genus Argyrodes simon (Family: Theridiidae) from India. In Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences-Section B 57(2): 99-105.Tikader, B.K. (1965). On some new species of spiders of the family Thomisidae from India. In Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences-Section B 61(5): 277-289.Tikader, B.K. (1966a). On some new species of spiders of the genus Philodromus Walck.(family: Thomisidae) from India. In Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 177(1): 35-44.Tikader, B.K. (1966b). Studies on some spiders of the genus Dictyna (Family: Dictynidae) from India. In Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 177(1): 45-53.Tikader, B.K. (1974). Studies on some jumping spiders of the genus Marpissa from India (Family- Salticidae). In Proceedings of Indian Academy of Sciences-Section B 79(5): 204-215.Tikader, B.K. (1975). Some jumping spiders of the genus Zygoballus from India (Family: Salticidae). In Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Science-Section B 81: 150-153.Tikader, B.K. (1977). Description of two new species of jumping-spider of the genus Rhene (Family: Salticidae) from India. In Proceedings of Indian Academy of Sciences-Section B 85(5): 274-277.Tikader, B.K. (1980a). Description of a new species of spider of the genus Neoscona (Family: Araneidae) from India and some observations on intraspecific colour variation. In Proceedings of Indian Academy of Sciences (Animal Sciences) 89(3): 247-252.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Pereira%20HM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Pereira%20HM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Leadley%20PW%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Leadley%20PW%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Proen%C3%A7a%20V%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Proen%C3%A7a%20V%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Alkemade%20R%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Alkemade%20R%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Scharlemann%20JP%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Scharlemann%20JP%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Fernandez-Manjarr%C3%A9s%20JF%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Fernandez-Manjarr%C3%A9s%20JF%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Ara%C3%BAjo%20MB%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Ara%C3%BAjo%20MB%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Balvanera%20P%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Balvanera%20P%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Biggs%20R%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Biggs%20R%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Cheung%20WW%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Cheung%20WW%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Chini%20L%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Chini%20L%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Cooper%20HD%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Cooper%20HD%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Gilman%20EL%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Gilman%20EL%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Gu%C3%A9nette%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Gu%C3%A9nette%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Hurtt%20GC%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Hurtt%20GC%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Huntington%20HP%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282




https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Mace%20GM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Mace%20GM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Oberdorff%20T%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Oberdorff%20T%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Revenga%20C%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Revenga%20C%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Rodrigues%20P%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Rodrigues%20P%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Scholes%20RJ%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Scholes%20RJ%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Sumaila%20UR%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Sumaila%20UR%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Walpole%20M%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Walpole%20M%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20978282


Tikader B.K. (1980b). Studies on spiders of the genus Zygiella Cambridge from India (Araneae: Araneidae). In Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences (Animal Sciences) 89(3): 247-252.Tikader, B.K. (1981). Studies on spiders of the genus Lutica Marx (Family-Zodariidae) from India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 78: 139-142.Tikader, B.K. (1982). The Fauna of India. Spiders: Araneae. 2. Zoological Survey of India 1-536.Tikader, B.K. & A. Bal (1981). Studies on some orb-weaving spiders of the genera Neoscona Simon and Araneus Clerk of the family (Araneidae: Argiopidae) from India. Records of the Zoological Survey of India Occasional Paper 24: 1-60.Tikader, B.K. & M.S. Malhotra (1976). A new species of spider of the genus Lutica (Family: Zodariidae) from India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 72(3): 794-796.Tikader, B.K. & M.S. Malhotra. (1980). The Fauna of India. Spiders: Araneae. 1. Zoological Survey of India 1-447.Tratalos, J., R.A. Fuller, P.H. Warren, R.G. Davies & K. J. Gaston. (2007). Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landscape and urban planning 83(4): 308-317.Trevenen, W.B. (1922). Shikar near and around Poona. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 28(4):1075-1081.Uetz, P. & J. Hosek (eds.) (2014). The Reptile Database, http://www.reptile-database.org. On-line version dated 8 Jan 2014.

Underwood, G. (1948). Notes on Poona Reptiles. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 47(4): 627-632.Vartak, V.D. (1958). The flora of the Fergusson College campus, Poona dist. Fergusson College Magazine 50(2): 7–11. Wadadekar, Y. (1999). Snakes of Pune University Campus. http://www.ncra.tifr.res.in:8081/~yogesh/wildlife/snake.shtml. Accessed on 15th November 2014. Wadadekar, Y. (2000). Birds of the University of Pune. http://userpages.umbc.edu/~sjoshi1/mirror/revbird.html. Accessed on 15th November 2014.Warudkar A. (2013). Individual Male Argiope sp. (Audouin, 1826) Shows Replacement Between Two Types of Stabilimenta. Indian Journal of Arachnology 2(2): 39-41.Warudkar, A. & S. Patankar. (2013). Butterflies in Fergusson College. Fergusson College Magazine 104: 3-4.Whitaker, R. & A. Captain (2008). Snakes of India. The Field Guide. Draco Books, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu, xiv+385pp.World Spider Catalogue (2016). World Spider Catalog. Natural History Museum Bern, online at http://wsc.nmbe.ch, version 17.0, accessed on 28th January 2016.Yardi, K.D. & V.S. Korad (2000-01). Bat fauna of Pune city. Journal of Ecological Society 13/14: 71-73.Yardi, K.D. & V.S. Korad (2003). Bat walks as bat awareness media. Bat- Net- Chiroptera Conservation and Information Network of South Asia Newsletter 4(1): 21.Yazdani, G.M. & A. Mahabal (1976). Amphibians of Poona. Newsletter of the Zoological Survey of India 2: 138-139.

Announcement

We have moved ….Our New Address Is: Zoo Outreach Organization (ZOO) / Wildlife Information & Liaison Development (WILD) Society12, Thiruvannamalai Nagar, Saravanampatti – Kalapatti Road, Saravanampatti, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641 035, India

Ph: +91 422 2665298, 2665450, 2665101, Fax: +91 422 2665472 (Our telephone numbers remain unchanged but will only be activated next month)Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Temporary contact numbers:+9677822997 (Sanjay Molur); +9344830425 (Daniel); +984222774 (Marimuthu); +9363104324 (Administration); +7092407494 (for JoTT)

www.zooreach.org, www.zoosprint.org, www.southasiantaxa.org, www.pterocount.org, www.southasianprimatenetwork.org, www.threatenedtaxa.org

http://www.reptile-database.org

http://www.reptile-database.org

http://www.ncra.tifr.res.in:8081/~yogesh/wildlife/snake.shtml




http://userpages.umbc.edu/~sjoshi1/mirror/revbird.html

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~sjoshi1/mirror/revbird.html

http://wsc.nmbe.ch

http://wsc.nmbe.ch





http://www.zooreach.org/

http://www.zooreach.org/

http://www.zoosprint.org/

http://www.zoosprint.org/

http://www.southasiantaxa.org/

http://www.southasiantaxa.org/

http://www.pterocount.org/

http://www.pterocount.org/

http://www.southasianprimatenetwork.org/

http://www.southasianprimatenetwork.org/

http://www.threatenedtaxa.org/

http://www.threatenedtaxa.org/


Wildlife week celebration in Bunelkhand Region, IndiaWildlife week (1-7 October) was first started in the year 1952 by Indian Board for Wildlife with the great vision of saving the life of the Indian animals by taking some critical steps. It involves planning to save extinction of any animal species of India and to create awareness as well as the consciousness of people towards the wildlife protection. Every year several conferences, awareness programmes, public meetings, workshops are held to celebrate this mega event.

Schools and institutions create wildlife awareness for their students through the wildlife related movie screening, essay and painting competitions, debate and many more. But these get confined to urban regions and people more close to natural biodiversity are left unaware. The focus of Indian Biodiversity

Conservation Society (IBCS) are the rural regions that are more close to wildlife. The schools in rural region were involved in wildlife week celebration. The school with no facility of electricity and projectors were shown wildlife clips in groups of 15 students during the entire week. The children learnt a lot and had a wonderful experience of wildlife around them. Simple art competitions were organized for them with the motive to make them ponder and reflect on the vast diversity around them. The topics were selected according to class groups and they wrote short poems and painted on their favourite tree, flower or

animal. The students planted native flowering plants in their school campus. Plantation in every event is the motto of IBCS. As a token of appreciation books on State Animals of India, State Birds of India, State Flowers of India and State Trees of India were given. The IBCS team gave them important information about the State Symbols (flower, tree, bird, animal and fish) of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Principal and teachers (Shri Virendra Sharma, Jyoti Kushwaha, Devendra Kumar, Anamika, Gulzari Kushwaha, Sumita Kamal, Sachin K Maheshwari, Sahib Singh, Ram Kishan Ahirwar, Rohit Yadav, Neha Shukla and Priyadarshani) of various schools agreed to become a part of Prakriti Rakshak Programmme (Nature Custodian Programme) started by Indian Biodiversity Conservation Society during the wildlife week 2016. The programme involves all year round activities for the students of schools and colleges to play their role in nature conservation. Volunteers (Saleem, Abhishek, Shivam, Daya Sagar, Aman, Ayush, Asif) interacted with the students and explained them the contents of flyers and pamphlets. Besides this the press media co-operated and helped in spreading the message to wider audience. Submitted by Sonika Kushwaha, Indian Biodiversity Conservation Society. Email: [email protected]

Workshop on International Vulture Awareness Day at Kota, RajasthanA one-day workshop was held on 3 September 2016 in order to observe IVAD and it was organised by Society for Conservation of Historical and Environmental Resources (SCHER) in collaboration with MB PG College and Zoo Outreach Organization, Coimbatore. The workshop divided into two sessions viz., classroom and field visit. The classroom session was held at the college and for field visit the students were taken to Gapernath Valley for vulture sightings to highlight them about vulture conservation and awareness among youngsters.

Head of the Department, Department of Botany, inaugurated the event and Chandra Mohan Nagar welcomed the participants. Kiran Choudhary spoke about vulture conservation. Kiran said that once vultures were very common in our area but now the

Education reports

Students being updated about State Bird of Uttar Pradesh-Sarus Crane

A student drawing and writing poem on her favourite bird

Volunteer distributing awareness material to students




population of vulture has declined due to habitat loss, usage of veterinary medicine diclofenac and its effect and environmental pressure etc.

The second author gave more information related to vultures. He said that vultures provide a range of ecological, economic and cultural services. Vultures are the only documented obligate scavengers and they are uniquely adapted to a scavenging lifestyle. Vultures are the major scavenger in India; they play an important role in keeping the environment clean by scavenging on animal carcasses, municipal dumps and thus checking the outbreaks of endemic diseases. Vultures are classified in two groups as Old World and New World vultures. All over the world there are 23 species of vultures, of these nine species are found in India. Out of nine vulture species, six has been facing problem of existence and therefore declared as Threatened. Of these, three species are endemic to south Asia viz., the White-backed vulture, Long-billed vulture and Slender-billed vulture are at high risk of global extinction and are listed as Critically Endangered because of rapid population decline in the Subcontinent. Slender-billed Vulture is the most Critically Endangered vulture in the world. In Rajasthan seven species of vultures are found viz. Long-billed vulture, White-backed vulture, Red headed vulture/ King Vulture, Egyptian vulture, Himalayan griffon, Eurasian griffon and Cinereous vulture.

The first author, the organiser of the programme talked about vulture distribution in Rajasthan, seven species found in Kota district. He also shared his vulture research in Kota, district. He described main factors responsible for the vulture population decline such as poisoning, habitat loss, pesticide intoxication, calcium deficiency, infectious disease or a viral disease. Finally he made the students to understand that if vultures extinct from the world then many diseases affect human health. The Chambal valley consider as largest breeding colony of Long-billed vulture of South-East Asia. So organisers chosen Chambal valley for filed visit. During the filed visit total 19 vulture were sighted at Gapernath valley, out of which 17 were Long-billed and 2 vulture were Egyptian.

The students were explained about Zoo Outreach Organisation’s vulture education kits. Then drawing competition was conducted. Fifty-six students of UG and PG and three staff of college and five members of SCHER, Kota participated in the lecture and field session. So overall 64 people involved in this awareness workshop. Organisers select from ZOO’s

vulture flash cards the seven species of vultures are found in Kota were photocopied and given to the students for colouring. The drawing made by students was very beautiful and three best drawings were chosen and winners awarded with prizes.

A short open Quiz was conducted by the organisers after the drawing competition in the field. In the open Quiz basic questions were asked to participants. Thanks a lot for Zoo Outreach Organization, Coimbatore for providing vulture education kit soft copies and MB PG College for support. Submitted by Hari Mohan Meena, Krishnendra Singh Nama

and Kiran Choudhary. Email: [email protected]

Long-billed vulture sighting

Drawing competition

Winner of the drawing competition




As part of the Conservation of Eastern Hoolock Gibbon in Assam-Arunachal Pradesh landscape through education-awareness & community conservation practices (CHGAAP) project, an initiative to protect and conserve the Eastern Hoolock gibbon (Hoolock leuconedys), a two day teachers training cum awareness workshop was organized by ENVIRON in partnership with Aitijya, SSA, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Environment and Forest, Govt. of AP & KICES (Kera - A Initiative for Cultural and Ecological Security) a local Roing based NGO at Mishmi Hill Camp, Lower Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh.

The training programme was organized on 15 and 16th September, 2016 with the support of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The formal inauguration meeting was attended by Ego Doye, DDSE (LDV District), Obang Langkam, BEO, Roing, Jibi Pulu (President KICES) and Mite Lingi, Vice-Chairman, KICES). Ego Doye spoke about the ecological importance of conserving Hoolock gibbon and emphasized on the vital role that can be played by the teachers in this regard. He said that the teachers are the future builders of the nation; they are the best carriers of conservation message to students, in particular and the society as a whole. He also lauded the efforts of ENVIRON in this regard. A total of 32 teachers participated in the training programme, which included both government and private schools of Lower Dibang Valley district.

Langkam talked briefly on the traditional beliefs and taboos that the Idu-Mishmi and Adi tribes possess regarding Hoolock gibbon. Jibi Pulu as a local partner/organizer of the event formally welcomed all the participants to the programme.

Lingi of KICES in his speech praised ENVIRON and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the specially tailored training targeting the teacher community, as they can play a crucial role to achieve long term conservation of Gibbon and its habitat.

The two day training programme involved three technical sessions viz., (i) Education and outreach programme: Concept and implementation (ii) Developing education material/effective means of awareness and (iii) Best practices of training. These technical sessions were interspersed with energizers, various team building and interactive activities and brief presentations.

Kuladip Sarma, Principal Investigator of the CHGAAP Project started the technical programme with a brief presentation on the introduction of the Eastern Hoolock gibbon which included its ecological and conservation importance. The first technical session on the ‘Education and outreach programme: Concept and implementation’ was conducted by Mr. Kamal

Teachers Training Workshop of Lower Dibang Valley Cluster, Assam-Arunachal Pradesh landscapeShah Nawaz Jelil1, Dipika Parbo2 and Neeharika Gogoi3

1-3Volunteer, CHGAAP Project, ENVIRON, Hatigaon, Guwahati, Assam. Email: [email protected]

Education and outreach session

The young and passionate Team ENVIRON

Presentation on Hoolock Gibbon




Narjinary, followed by the second session on ‘Developing education material/effective means of awareness’ which was conducted jointly by Narjinary and Sarma. The first day of the programme was concluded with ‘day recap’ segment conducted by Shah Nawaz and Sarma.

The second day of the training programme began with an interactive session and a team building activity conducted by the volunteers Shah Nawaz, Neeharika and Dipika. It was then followed by an extensive presentation on ‘Primate Distribution and Conservation Importance’ by Bidyut Sarania who has been working on Primates in Arunachal Pradesh as part of his Doctoral research. The presentation brought to light all the nine species of primates present in Arunachal Pradesh. In this session, teachers were also involved in an environmental game where they formed groups to name and identify different primate species of the region, followed by a talk by Sarma on the project activities carried out as part of the CHGAAP project along with its aims and importance. Post-lunch presentation was conducted by Anjan Sangma on the handling and rescue of wildlife species. He primarily stressed on

the dos and don’ts during an animal/wildlife encounter. The final technical session was conducted by Sarma on the best practices of training students and raising awareness among young minds. It included the distribution of various training manuals among the teacher participants and explanation of various methods of training for school students.

Participating teachers ponder actively in this session by coming up with innovative ideas, which can be used to spread the message of conservation among students. These ideas/various techniques were finally handed to the organizing team. In his concluding remarks, Sarma reiterated that this was only the first section of the CHGAAP activities and that this training session would be followed up by school visits later on which would include conducting follow up assessment activities among students to assess whether the conservation message delivered through this teachers training programme actually reached the young minds or not.

An interactive part of the last technical session was that the teachers were provided with map of the Lower Dibang Valley and were advised to identify their school locations in the maps. After this, the teachers were divided into four groups based on their locations of their school. This grouping exercise will act to the benefit of the CHGAAP project during the follow up on the schools.

The two-day programme was successfully concluded with a brief valedictory function and Sarma in his concluding remarks thanked all the teachers on behalf of ENVIRON for their active involvement. He also praised the generous support extended by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Education Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh along with all the collaborating agencies.

Certificate received with Hoolock posture

Workshop participants


One half of the partnership who created Twycross Zoo, has died. Nathalie Evans, who along with her lifetime business partner, Mollie Badham, founded the Leicestershire zoo, died on September 9, aged 98.

A spokesman for Twycross Zoo said: "Natalie will be sadly missed throughout the zoo world and by all those who were fortunate enough to count her as a friend."

Sarah Nathalie Evans, who was known as Nathalie, discovered her love for animals breeding dachshunds before eventually selling them worldwide. This experience led her to finance her next business venture, a pet shop in Sutton Coldfield.

The rival pet shop in the town was run by Molly Badham, and it was in the window of Nathalie's shop in 1949 that Molly saw her first monkey. The encounter lead to a unique partnership between Molly and Nathalie and their joint and enduring passion with primates began, and legendary association was born.

After the two joined forces, they quickly became well known in veterinary circles for taking in any unwanted animals, from a circus lion with bow legs to an otter injured in a fight.

In 1954 Nathalie and Molly moved to a bungalow, with a one-acre garden, at Hints, near Tamworth. Here the collection of animals blossomed and with the help of Nathalie's brother Henry, they opened Hints Zoological Gardens to the public, firstly at weekends, but soon, due to public demand, expanding to four days a week. The income from ticket sales helped to maintain the costly menagerie.

By 1962, Nathalie and Molly had outgrown the small Hints Zoo site and purchased a red-brick Victorian house with 12 acres of land. This was to become Twycross Zoo. Farm buildings and stables were converted to form animal enclosures and over the years they bought adjoining fields to expand the zoo's footprint and cottages to house the keepers.

In 1972, to ensure the future of a rapidly expanding collection, Nathalie and Molly transferred all the assets of the business into a charitable trust - the East Midlands Zoological Society.

Nathalie was a founder member of the National Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland and a member of the International Union of Directors of Zoological Gardens. Nathalie co-wrote two books, Chimps with Everything (1979) and Molly's Zoo (2000).

She retired at the age of 86 from full-time work at Twycross Zoo, leaving behind a legacy and financial platform from which a new generation of conservationists continue a remarkable woman's lifetime's work.

Source: http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/sadness-as-founder-of-twycross-zoo-dies/story-29737869-detail/story.html

Sadness as founder of Twycross Zoo dies

Ms Evans is pictured on the left with Ms Badham on the right in the 1980s. Picture supplied by Twycross Zoo

http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/sadness-as-founder-of-twycross-zoo-dies/story-29737869-detail/story.html





LOCATIONAm Tiergarten 30, 90480 Nürnberg, GermanyPhone: +49-911-54546Fax: +49-(0)911-5454-802URL: http://www.tiergarten.nuernberg.de

DESCRIPTIONKeeping marine mammals has a long tradition at Nuremberg Zoo. The old dophinarium that had opened in 1971 was no longer adequate for keeping and presenting dolphins after 40 years of operation with only minor improvements. The reconstruction of the first open-air exhibit for dolphins in Germany intended to create optimal conditions for keeping and breeding dolphins on a long-term basis. The visitors now can better experience the dolphins through large underwater windows.

As Nuremberg zoo is planned as a landscape zoo: all enclosures are integrated in the zoo’s quarries of characteristic red sandstone and the oak forest. The complex of basins and the visitor area including the stands are structured by rocks from local quarries and retaining walls of matching artificial rockwork. The islands for the trainers are made of artificial rock. They are planted and decorated with natural stones. A large mound hides the technical building. Underwater, the visible parts of the basin walls were covered with artificial rockwork.

SIZEThe total area of 23,000 m² includes the manatee house.Dolphin Lagoon: Basin 1: 274.8m²; 1.078m³; depth 4m

Zoo NurembergDolphin LagoonJonas Homburg (author for ZooLex)Monika Fiby (editor for ZooLex)Dag Encke (editor for Zoo Nuremberg)http://www.zoolex.org/zoolexcgi/view.py?id=1638

Family Species Common Name Capacity

Delphinidae Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin 10 + offspring

Otariidae Zalophus californianus Californian sea lion 10 + offspring

ANIMALS

Dolphins. ©Tiergarten Nürnberg, 2012

Air dome: During winter, an air dome covers basin 1 and basin 6. ©Jonas Homburg, 2016

http://www.zoolex.org/zoolexcgi/linkjump.py?link=http://www.tiergarten.nuernberg.de&name=Zoo%20Nuremberg




http://www.zoolex.org/zoolexcgi/view.py?id=829





Basin 2/3: 668.5m²; 3,316.6m²; depth 5-7m Basin 4: 313.5m²; 363.7m³; depth 0.5-1.5m Basin 5: 86.3m²; 214.8m³; depth 2.5m Basin 6: 200.7m²; 486.8m³; depth 2.5m

The overall water surface is 1445.2m² for the dolphins. Additionally, there is approximately 600m²

of land around the basins and on the trainers’ islands that, with the exception of the planted areas, are accessible to the sea lions.

The “Blue Saloon” is about 500m².The landscaped stands cover an area of about 2400m².

Old Dolphinarium:Presentation basin: 176.2m²; 718.0m³; depth 3.95-4.4m Round basin: 113.0m²; 469.0m³; depth 4.25m The visitor area in the dolphinarium is about 600m². COSTS: € 31,000,000. The costs include the Dolphin Lagoon, as well as the neighbouring manatee house, as they were built at the same time and have technical equipment in common.

Space allocation in square meters:use indoorsindoors outdoorsoutdoors total

exhibituse

accessible total accessible totaltotal exhibit

animals 289 1,445 2,100 2,400visitors 1,100 2,900 4,000others 2,600total 9,000

OPENING DATE : 31 July 2011

DESIGNBeginning: Autumn 2005• Concept and Zoodesign: wild-design Martin Schuchert • Landscape architecture: Adler & Olesch Landschaftsarchitekten GmbH, Nuremberg • Building engineering: AUSHOCH GmbH, Lorenz Ocklenburg Schaffner Wilhelm, Nuremberg • Statics: Trafektum GbR, Ludwig Viezens & Martin Pudelko, Nuremberg • Heating, ventilation, sanitary: INH - Ingenieurbüro für neuzeitliche Haustechnik, Führt • Water technology: Ingenieurbüro Sixt, Heiß & Partner GbR, Markt Schwaben • Electrical engineering: PfK Ansbach GmbH, Ansbach • Thermic building physics, acoustic protection, room acoustics: Ingenieurbüro Sorge, Nuremberg • Energy efficiency: KEM - Kommunales Energie-Management der Stadt Nürnberg, Nuremberg

CONSTRUCTIONBeginning: September 2008• Acrylic glass: Nippura Co. Ltd., Sanuki/Japan • Concrete work: Wolff & Müller Regionalbau GmbH & Co.KG, Nuremberg • Membrane roof: Vector Foiltec GmbH, Bremen • Regulation and switching technoloy: Kieback & Peter GmbH & Co.KG, Nuremberg

View overlooking the Lagoon: Basin 2/3 spreads out along the stand, basin 4 in the background. ©Monika Fiby, 2015

Site Plan: Down basin 2/3, on the right basin 1, up left basin 4, centrally basin 5 and up right basin 6. ©Tiergarten Nürnberg, 2016

Underwater view. ©Jonas Homburg, 2016


• High voltage current and electrical building: WTB Elektro GmbH, Stadt Mansfeld • Horticulture and landscaping: Biedenbacher GmbH, Schwabach

PLANTSHalophilic plants like sea buckthorn and tamarisk grow in the areas exposed to direct-spray water. These plants were chosen for having small leaves in order to avoid risks in case of being swallowed by dolphins or sea lions. Basin 1 and 6 are surrounded by beach grass on the sandy ground. Fast-growing birch and poplar were planted in the areas of the embankment behind the stands to shade them. The plant material at the technical building mimics the native plants found at the Monkey Mountain which is located opposite the exhibit. The remaining plants were selected to create visual interest such as the ironwood tree that provides autumn colours at the entrance to the Lagoon.

FEATURES DEDICATED TO ANIMALSAltogether, five basins comprising 5,450 cubic meters of water with depths varying between 0.5 and 7

Round basin: The round basin of the old dolphinarium has a lift floor. ©Jonas Homburg, 2016

Basin 1 and basin 6: In the front the mother-and-calf basin, behind it the shifting basin. ©Monika Fiby, 2015

Turnable column “Sea habitats”. ©Jonas Homburg, 2016

Sea lion basin with birth pens: Two shallow bays can be separated by mobile fences from the basin in the front, if necessary. ©Jonas Homburg, 2016

Information panels in the ‘Blue Saloon’: Here the work of Yaqu Pacha is presented. ©Jonas Homburg, 2016


meters are available for the dolphins and sea lions. The arrangement of the basins allows the animals to swim different routes.

Basin 1 which is used by dolphin mothers and their calves is hourglass-shaped with smooth walls and no sharp or overhanging edges. In the case of two simultaneous births, the basin can be centrally divided. Basin 6 is located adjacent to basin 1 and is also connected to the round basin of the old dolphinarium. To ease shifting of the animals between the dophinarium and the Lagoon basins, basin 6 is rectangular with a level floor and a depth of only 2.5 meters. If necessary, movable partitions can be installed in this basin. A floor lift was added to the round basin so that dolphins, and particularly the young animals, can be examined and treated without stress to the animals and with minimal danger to the keepers. For this reason, the basin

also serves as a birthing basin. Basin 5 is specifically for the sea lions and includes separate pens for births. Under normal conditions, the dolphins can also use this basin. If it is used as a sea lion retreat, the animals still have access to the other basins of the Lagoon by crossing the islands. Here on the islands, the sea lions find rest stations made of natural sandstone. Basin 4 has three areas with varying depths of 0.5m, 1m and 1.5m to provide shallow water access to both animal species. Basin 2/3 which is the largest basin has eyelets in the floor so that it may be subdivided by nets as needed.

Thanks to this partition of the Lagoon, a subdominant dolphin male does not need to be separated from the group during a female’s rutting season because the bull independently temporarily goes to a different basin during the day and returns when rutting is over.

During winter, basin 1 and 6 are heated and covered by an air dome so the animals can use these two new basins in addition to the old dophinarium.

Water from 400 jets can be blown through a band of natural rocks generating a curtain of bubbles as well as a stronger current. This enrichment technique is used once a day. Fire hoses are installed on the floor of basin 2/3 that are kept afloat with cork float balls. Particularly the sea lions like to play with these hoses. FEATURES DEDICATED TO KEEPERSThe keepers move around the basins on the rock islands and on wooden bridges. All separation panels are put in manually. The largest, 4m wide slide is operated by a hoist.

View into the air dome. ©Jonas Homburg, 2016

Dolphin presentation: Presentations take place in the Lagoon up to four times a day. ©Tiergarten Nürnberg, 2011

Fire hoses: The hoses are kept up in the water by cork float balls. ©Monika Fiby, 2015


A scale for weight control of the animals is located at the main basin.

The fish kitchen, the freezer, the defrost room, the drying room, the changing rooms, the restrooms and the staffroom are located next to the basin with

visual access to the animals. A small laboratory is available where keepers can manually verify the digitally recorded water parameters. Short circulatory paths for staff were an important design consideration.

FEATURES DEDICATED TO VISITORSAt first, the visitors can look at the animals from above basin 4 by approaching a 1.2m fence with stainless steel mesh. The railings in front of the basin are 1.2m high so that stroller and wheelchair users can look in from below the top rail.The “Blue Salon” offers underwater viewing into the main basin through a 12.8 x 3,5m glass panel, where dolphins and sea lions can be observed swimming. The “Blue Salon” is also used for evening events with up to 300 persons.

The large landscape stands adjacent to basin 1 and 2/3 provide seating for 660 visitors and about 600 standing places. From the top of the stands, the visitor can see the entire Lagoon. At the lower level, visitors can approach the basins and have a barrier-free view at several locations where the only separation from the animals appears to be a “driftwood pile” made from locust stems.

The lagoon as well as the old dolphinarium are used for dolphin therapy. The interaction between the dolphins and the children can take place in different areas, depending on the situation. The indoor basin has about 700 seats. INTERPRETATIONDepending on the season and the number of visitors, educational programs about the dolphins and sea lions take place up to four times a day. Among the topics presented in five rotating programs are the dolphins’ anatomical adaptions, their aquatic way of life and the practice of keeping dolphins in captivity.Large panels and several turntable columns outdoors as well as in the Blue Saloon inform the visitors about the dolphins’ biology, the threats to the world’s oceans, and Nuremberg Zoo’s engagement to protect wild marine mammals. One station of the zoo’s bionics educational trail is located in the Blue Saloon and presents the function of the dolphin's sonar system.

Dolphin and visitor. ©Tiergarten Nürnberg, 2011

‘Blue Saloon’: The ‘Blue Saloon’ has underwater viewing for the dolphins as well as the manatees. ©Monika Fiby, 2015

View into basin 2/3: At the front there are rocks that can be rinsed through by water for cleaning. ©Jonas Homburg, 2016

Scale. ©Jonas Homburg, 2016


MANAGEMENTAll basins can be separated by net panels as well as water-tight thermo-slides. The basin system allows to separately house and shift various groups of dolphins and sea lions, if needed. During winter, the dolphins have access to the outdoor basins when temperatures are above -5°C. RESEARCHThe dolphins are involved in mirror experiments, studies on their electric perception and research on bioacoustics and ethology. Nutritional and hormone physiological research and veterinary analyses are also carried out. CONSERVATIONNuremberg Zoo supports the Society for Protection of South American Marine Mammals Yaqu Pacha.

Signs and presentations are meant to sensitize visitors to the threats to the oceans. Visitors can find practical advice about how to contribute to the protection of the seas.

The new water processing system achieves a recovery rate of 90% by an ultra-filtration technique that saves power when pumping freshwater. Water used for backflushing the filters is collected in rinsing water tanks, sent through the ultra-filtration system where it is disinfected, and then fed back into the pools. The ultra-filter must also be backflushed. First, this water is collected in a sewage tank which allows the sludge to settle out. Then the surface water is ultra-filtered again and the sludge press dried in a membrane press. The material from the press is disposed of properly. This technique has lowered salt use for the entire Lagoon when compared with the old dolphinarium. Electrical use for the pumps was also minimized because water is gravity fed through half of the water circulation.

Heat production is the result of a three-step process with solar water heaters, a block-type thermal power station and two gas holders. The basin heating is especially efficient through heat exchangers.

Trainers’ islands: The keepers move between the basins on the rock islands and on wooden bridges. ©Monika Fiby, 2015

Stands. ©Monika Fiby, 2015

Announcement

Educational Excellence Awards to Higher Education Institutions in India 2016

PEARL Foundation is organizing National Conference on “SMART SUMMIT – 2016” during December, 2016 at Madurai, Tamil Nadu. In the eve of this conference, PEARL Foundation presenting the Educational Excellence Awards in the field of Science, agriculture, etc., in recognition of their contributions in education and excellence which is intended to produce a significant positive impact in the society and in turn contribute to the well-being of our fellow citizens. For more information please check http://pearlfoundation.in/

http://pearlfoundation.in/

http://pearlfoundation.in/

Publication Information

ZOO’s PRINT, ISSN 0973-2543Published at: CoimbatoreOwner: Zoo Outreach Organisation, 12, Thiruvannamalai Nagar, Saravanampatti - Kalapatti Road, Saravanampatti, CBE 35

Editor: Sally R. WalkerAssociate Editors: R.V. Sanjay Molur and Daniel B. AyyachamyManaging Editor: Latha G. RavikumarEditorial Assistant: R. Marimuthu

Zoo Outreach Organisation Trust Committee and Sr. Staff Managing Trustee: Sally R. WalkerChairman Trustee: R. NandiniExecutive Director Trustee: R.V. Sanjay MolurFinance Director Trustee: Latha G. RavikumarScientist: B.A. DanielResearcher: R. MarimuthuOther staff: B. Ravichandran, R. Pravin Kumar, K. Geetha, S. Radhika, Arul Jagadish, K. Raveendran, S. Sarojamma

ZOOs’ PRINT magazine is informal and newsy as opposed to a scientific publication. ZOOS’ PRINT magazine sometimes includes semi-scientific and technical articles which are reviewed only for factual errors, not peer-reviewed.

Address Zoo Outreach Organisation Post Box 5912, 12, Thiruvannamalai Nagar, Saravanampatti - Kalapatti Road, Saravanampatti, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641 035, IndiaPhone: +91 422 2665298Fax: +91 422 2665472E-mail: [email protected]: www.zooreach.org, www.zoosprint.org

ZOO’s PRINT Publication Guidelines

We welcome articles from the conservation community of all SAARC countries, including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and other tropical countries if relevant to SAARC countries’ problems and potential.

Type — Articles of semi-scientific or technical nature. News, notes, announcements of interest to conservation community and personal opinion pieces.

Feature articles — articles of a conjectural nature — opinions, theoretical, subjective.

Case reports: case studies or notes, short factual reports and descriptions.

News and announcements — short items of news or announcements of interest to zoo and wildlife community

Cartoons, puzzles, crossword and stories

Subject matter: Captive breeding, (wild) animal husbandry and management, wildlife management, field notes, conservation biology, population dynamics, population genetics, conservation education and interpretation, wild animal welfare, conservation of flora, natural history and history of zoos. Articles on rare breeds of domestic animals are also considered.

Source: Zoos, breeding facilities, holding facilities, rescue centres, research institutes, wildlife departments, wildlife protected areas, bioparks, conservation centres, botanic gardens, museums, universities, etc. Individuals interested in conservation with information and opinions to share can submit articles ZOOS’ PRINT magazine.

Manuscript requirementsArticles should by typed into a Word format and emailed to [email protected]. Avoid indents, all caps or any other fancy typesetting. You may send photos, illustrations, tables.

Articles which should contain citations should follow this guideline: a bibliography organized alphabetically and containing all details referred in the following style: surname, initial(s), year, title of the article, name of journal, volume, number, pages.

Editorial detailsArticles will be edited without consultation unless previously requested by the authors in writing. Authors should inform editors if the article has been published or submitted elsewhere for publication.

Magazine of Zoo Outreach Organization



http://www.zooreach.org

http://www.zooreach.org

http://www.zoosprint.org

http://www.zoosprint.org

Announcement

International ZOO Design Conference, Wroclaw, Poland, 5-7 April 2017In the names of Wroclaw Zoo and ZooLex Zoo Design Organization we extend an invitation to participate in the International Zoo Design Conference that will take place in Wroclaw, Poland, from 4th to 7th April 2017.

The theme of the conference is "Animal welfare through built-in enrichment".

We are suggesting several topics, but appreciate as well other topics relating to the theme of the conference. Speakers are invited to present best practice examples and visions for the future.

The suggested topics are as follows:

Substrates:(underground, drainage, access for exchange indoors and outdoors)- deep mulch: case studies of new and renovated exhibits for various species- examples of various substrates in one exhibit

Built-in Enrichment for special needs:- nocturnal and crepuscular animals: indoor and outdoor- aquaria- solitary animals: examples- attracting free-range animals: case studies- competing species in mixed species exhibits: best practice examples- walk-through exhibits: getting visitors close without risk, what when it is closed?

Design with plants as built-in enrichment:- Plants beyond decoration: examples of food, nesting, screening, shading- Green walls: suitable types for indoors and outdoors- Climbing structures: experiences with life trees and changeable structures- Tree protection aesthetical and functional: examples for hoofstock, monkeys, aviaries- Keeping trees alive during construction, droughts and storms

Designing for fresh browse:- Growing browse in and around exhibits- How to present browse species-specifically and attractively for visitors

Facilities for introducing and separating individuals:- bachelor groups: best practices for various species- large breeding groups- mixing species: monitoring and capturing- large exhibits, aviaries, aquaria- release to the wild

Working with external experts:(local architects, zoo designers, consultants etc.):- success stories from the clients' view and from the contractors' viewwrap-up: best practice for small, big, private, public institutions

This conference will be an opportunity to shape the future of zoo design, share expertise and network. For more information and for registration please visit www.zoodesignconference.com

For further information, please send your inquiry to [email protected] or [email protected]

http://www.zoodesignconference.com/

http://www.zoodesignconference.com/





magazine of zoo outreach organization

Documents