published bywildlife.gov.my/images/stories/penerbitan/lain_lain/redlist final.pdf · global iucn...
TRANSCRIPT
Published by: DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND NATIONAL PARKS PENINSULAR MALAYSIA (DWNP),
2010
i
Published by: Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP), Peninsular Malaysia
Edition: First edition December 2009
Available from: Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP), Peninsular MalaysiaKM. 10 Jalan Cheras56100 Kuala LumpurMalaysiaTelephone : + 603-9086 6800Fax : +603-9075 2873Website : www.wildlife.gov.my
ISBN 978-967-5557-06-4
Copyright by DWNP. All right reserved.No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any meansexcept for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, withoutpermission in writing from the publisher.
To quote:DWNP, 2010, Red list Of Mammals For Peninsular Malaysia.Department of Wildlife and National Parks Peninsular Malaysia
ii
Malaysia is one of the strongholds for biodiversity as it is blessed with huge
number of flora and fauna species which is recognized by the world as one of
the 12 mega-diversity countries. However, the status of knowledge regarding
our biodiversity species ranges from some being well documented while many
with sketchy information. To undertake the assessment, the government had
decided to coordinate according to groups of species and on a regional basis.
As an inaugural attempt, the DWNP decided to take the lead in coordinating the
assessment for mammals of Peninsular Malaysia.
We are thankful that at global level, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) has
undertaken the assessment on a regular basis and laid down some broad
criteria to determine the status. Malaysia being a member of IUCN and a mega
biodiversity country has also adopted the IUCN criteria in determining the
status of our mammal species within the country.
Being an inaugural attempt, the assessment may not be perfect. The
imperfection is not due to the lack of expertise in carrying out the assessment
but rather due to the obvious gaps in information for various species. However,
in the juncture I would like to place on record the invaluable contribution by
our experts especially Dr. Lim Boo Liat, in providing the data, compiling and
carrying out the analysis based on the standard criteria to determine the status
of 222 species of mammals found in Peninsular Malaysia. It is the government’s
hope that following this assessment researcher will hence take proactive steps
to minimize the information gap by increasing the efforts in the field while the
relevant agencies strengthen their conservation efforts by reprioritizing the
allocation of the limited resources to manage species that have been considered
threatened within the Peninsular.
The Red List of Mammals in Peninsular Malaysia is a dynamic document as
it will be reviewed periodically as more information is made available while
human induced factors through conservation or exploitation efforts affect the
population of the species. Through such periodic assessment, we too could
evaluate ourselves in conserving our biodiversity resources. Once again my
sincere thanks to all agencies, institutions and individuals who have contributed
in producing this inaugural edition.
Thank you.
Dato’ Abd. Rasid bin SamsudinDirector GeneralDepartment of Wildlife and National Parks(DWNP), Peninsular Malaysia
Dato’ Abd. Rasid bin Samsudin
Director GeneralDepartment of Wildlife
and National Parks(DWNP),
Peninsular Malaysia
iii
Acknowledgements
This inaugural edition of the Red list of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia was made possible due to the efforts of many experts within the country. The Mammal Working Group appreciates the support given by Dato’ Abd. Rasid Samsudin, the Director General of DWNP in providing the needed leadership and resources to produce this edition. Special mention for DWNP officers, especially Hjh. Siti Hawa Yatim, Hj. Mohd. Nawayai Yasak, Dr. Sivananthan T. Elagupillay, Dennis Ten Choon Yung, Rahmah Ilias, Fauzul Azim Zainal Abidin, Khairul Nizam Kamaruddin and Nor Azinizi Azimat for the tireless effort in coordinating and compiling field data from DWNP and other sources which formed the basis of mammals redlist.
Greatest appreciation for the following experts who provided the analytical expertise and knowledge to draft this edition: Dr. Lim Boo Liat, Tunku Mohd Nazim Yaacob, Prof. Mohd Tajuddin Abdullah, Prof. Yong Hoi Sen, Prof. Rosli Hashim, Peter Malim, Oswald Braken Tisen and Ahmad Zafir Abdul Wahab.
Last but not least a special word of thanks to Universiti Malaya (UM), Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) and World Wide Fund for Nature Malaysia (WWF-M) for their review of the drafts.Photos credit was also directed to Cosmas Ngau (DWNP), Zaharil Dzulkafly (DWNP), Ahmad Zafir Abdul Wahab [World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-M)], Shariff Mohamed [World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-M)], Johor National Park Corporation (JNPC), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS-M), Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia (JPSM) and Panthera Foudation.
iv
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Objective 2
3.0 Methodology 2
3.1 Data on species distribution 2
3.2 Mapping the extent of occurrence (EOO) 3
3.3 A model for area of occupancy (AOO) 3
4.0 The results 4
4.1 The findings of the Assessment 4
4.2 Summary of the results 4
4.2.1 Extinct (EX) 5
4.2.2 Critical (CR) 5
4.2.3 Endangered (EN) 5
4.2.4 Vulnerable (VU) 7
4.2.5 Near threatened (NT) 8
4.3 Comparison with to IUCN 2009 assessment and the Peninsular Malaysia Redlist 2009
assessment by the experts working group 9
4.4 Other information derived from the results 10
4.4.1 Distribution of threatened species 10
4.4.2 Administration of habitat of threatened species 11
List of TablesTable 1: Summary of results for species classed as extinct 5
Table 2: Summary of results for species classed as critically endangered 5
Table 3: Summary of results for species classed as endangered 6
Table 4: Summary of results for species classed as vulnerable 8
Table 5: Summary of results for species classed as near threatened 9
Table 6: Comparison with IUCN red list 2009 Assessment with Peninsular Malaysia Redlist 2009 10
Table 7: Current Area of occupation (AOO) for threatened species in size (hectares) by type of
administrating agency 12
List of AppendixsAppendix I - Building the model of ecological types 15
Appendix II - IUCN Red list of Threatened Species 27
Appendix III - Threat Status for Mammals in Peninsular Malaysia 59
Appendix IV - Selected Images of Totally Protected Species (Mammals) 137
under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
Appendix V - List of Totally Protected Species (Mammals)under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 147
Contents
v
1.0 Introduction
This assessment has been undertaken to review and update of the conservation status of mammals in Peninsular Malaysia. The position taken has been that:
The conservation status of all the mammal species in the Peninsular Malaysia need to be assessed according to a common set of criteria rather than to focus on those species selected by interests;
Because of insufficient field data on populations, a standard method was needed to model the changes for species populations through changes in their available habitats and thus monitor population trends; and
The assessment has to be made without consideration for the current capacity for a management response.
The need for a national red data list for fauna arose from the deliberations of the Biodiversity Fauna Technical Committee (BFTC) in 2006. This recommendation was accepted by the Biodiversity Committee, cleared by Secretary General, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) and since then an expert group from the Mammal Sub-Committee, under the Biodiversity Fauna Technical Committee has review a proposed list for mammal species and their habitat model for the Peninsular by deploying the categories and criteria from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species to make an initial expert assessment of their status. The model was developed with thematic map information that allowed a more detailed habitat map to be made for each species and an estimate for the rate of habitat change over the last 30 years. Additionally, this also has allowed the assessment done for each species equally by proposing a list of species currently in most need of conservation management. The assessment categorizes the status of species ranging from extinct, extinct in the wild, critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, near threatened, least concern, data deficient and not evaluated. We have used the global IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria version 3.1 to make an assessment for the 222 species on our current list for the Peninsular Malaysia.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species has assessed 68 species of the 222 we have listed for Peninsular Malaysia. Of these, seven (7) are considered to be endangered and 10 vulnerable. Of the 222 species assessed in the assessment, one (1) has been classed as critically endangered, 26 have been classed as endangered and 22 as vulnerable. And this is probably an underestimate since we have not used population data and estimates on all species facing selective conservation pressures such as poaching, habitat fragmentation and commercial exploitation.
The output of the assessment is the baseline information on species, a measure of their habitat and its rate of change over time, current population distribution maps and the findings from applying the red list criteria.
1
A key for protection status under the domestic law has been deliberately omitted since a new wildlife legislation is expected to be passed in the late part of 2010. The lists under the proposed new law, the wildlife conservation act have not been finalized.
2.0 Objective
The objective of the assessment was to make a systematic assessment of the conservation status of mammals in Peninsular Malaysia based on a common and acceptable criterion.
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Data on species distribution.
The assessment was done based on IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria version 3.1. Among the criteria used were extent of occurrence (EOO), area of occurrence (AOO) and population size. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used in this assessment. To provide the initial assessment, a qualitative approach was undertaken in 2007 with the formation of a group of mammal experts. This expert group assessed the level of threat and conservation status for the mammal species found in the Peninsular Malaysia.
Following this qualitative assessment, a quantitative assessment was undertaken to provide a more robust conservation status of the mammal species found in Peninsular. To undertake this quantitative measure, two criteria were used namely EOO and AOO. The EOO criterion the extent of the original habitat that was available for the concerned species. To get this measure, a model of the original ecology of the Peninsular Malaysia was developed (Appendix I). This original ecological habitat could then be compared with subsequent land use models of 1980, 1990 and 2000 to indicate the rate of change of the habitat for the concerned species.
As for the AOO measure, the thematic maps (land use including forest cover) and topology were provided by Department of Agricultural (DOA), Malaysian Geospatial Data Infrastructure (MacGDI), and Department of Survey and Mapping Malaysia (JUPEM). Using this methodology, AOOs were calculated for the years 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.
In addition to the EOO and AOO measures, there were population measure for selected species such as the Sumatran rhinoceros, elephant and tiger.
To map the present species range or AOO, field data was used that would indicate the presence of a species in a particular area. The main sources for data were from the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP), mainly large mammal records. As for small mammals, the main data source was from Dr. Lim Boo Liat, a prominent biologist with over 200 publications. Additional data were from Non Government Organizations and Universities.
Since this data came as point locations or named areas, it was normalized on the administrative district within the states. The data that contributed in determining the AOO included:
2
A key for protection status under the domestic law has been deliberately omitted since a new wildlife legislation is expected to be passed in the late part of 2010. The lists under the proposed new law, the wildlife conservation act have not been finalized.
2.0 Objective
The objective of the assessment was to make a systematic assessment of the conservation status of mammals in Peninsular Malaysia based on a common and acceptable criterion.
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Data on species distribution.
The assessment was done based on IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria version 3.1. Among the criteria used were extent of occurrence (EOO), area of occurrence (AOO) and population size. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used in this assessment. To provide the initial assessment, a qualitative approach was undertaken in 2007 with the formation of a group of mammal experts. This expert group assessed the level of threat and conservation status for the mammal species found in the Peninsular Malaysia.
Following this qualitative assessment, a quantitative assessment was undertaken to provide a more robust conservation status of the mammal species found in Peninsular. To undertake this quantitative measure, two criteria were used namely EOO and AOO. The EOO criterion the extent of the original habitat that was available for the concerned species. To get this measure, a model of the original ecology of the Peninsular Malaysia was developed (Appendix I). This original ecological habitat could then be compared with subsequent land use models of 1980, 1990 and 2000 to indicate the rate of change of the habitat for the concerned species.
As for the AOO measure, the thematic maps (land use including forest cover) and topology were provided by Department of Agricultural (DOA), Malaysian Geospatial Data Infrastructure (MacGDI), and Department of Survey and Mapping Malaysia (JUPEM). Using this methodology, AOOs were calculated for the years 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.
In addition to the EOO and AOO measures, there were population measure for selected species such as the Sumatran rhinoceros, elephant and tiger.
To map the present species range or AOO, field data was used that would indicate the presence of a species in a particular area. The main sources for data were from the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP), mainly large mammal records. As for small mammals, the main data source was from Dr. Lim Boo Liat, a prominent biologist with over 200 publications. Additional data were from Non Government Organizations and Universities.
Since this data came as point locations or named areas, it was normalized on the administrative district within the states. The data that contributed in determining the AOO included:
data from general camera trapping exercises, biodiversity inventories and surveys undertaken by the DWNP and others over broad areas of the Peninsular;
human-wildlife conflict reports made to state Department Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) offices; and
site specific studies by field workers interested in specific taxa groups such as bats and shrews.
The constraints of this assessment are:
the limited and incomplete data on populations and distribution; the challenge in coordinating the diverse stakeholders involved in collecting data; and non-standard manner in data collection and storing.
3.2 Mapping the extent of occurrence (EOO).
Map was developed on the range of each species based on the administrative districts where they had been recorded. This map would be equivalent to the extent of occurrence (EOO) used by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Appendix II). Under IUCN guidelines, EOO mapping is made by drawing the point location for each record of occurrence, and then joining up the outside points into a polygon. A species known from only three (3) points would have a triangular EOO, one (1) with four (4) points would have an EOO with four (4) sides, etc. and those known from two (2) locations or less would have no measurable EOO area. The assumption then is that each species would have an even chance of being found in suitable habitat throughout the EOO area.
However, the results from field investigations suggest that this assumption may not be true. Wildlife species can be distributed into three (3) classes: having a broad distribution where they are expected to be found throughout the EOO; having a restricted distribution where they may be restricted to ‘clusters’ within the EOO; and having a spotted distribution where they have very limited local distributions. Therefore, instead of using a nationwide or statewide distribution, we have opted to use the smallest unit (administrative districts) to demarcate the EOO.
3.3 A model for area of occupancy (AOO).
Land use changes in the past have altered the ecology of the Peninsular. To examine the trends for the habitats and AOO, the AOO model for each species was compared to forestry and land use maps of year 1980, 1990 and 2000. This allowed us to map and measure the extent of available habitat for each species at those dates and the rate of change in habitat availability between those dates. Since it was assumed that species densities have remained constant in
3
their habitats, it was argued that any decline in available habitat would have a proportional effect on species population.
Assessment was further refined for selected species for which population estimates were available for the whole Peninsular Malaysia. Only five (5) species have been assessed for the Peninsular using the population estimates: Sumatran rhinoceros, Elephant, Tapir, Malayan tiger and Gaur.
4.0 The results
4.1 The findings of the Assessment.
The assessment of the threat status for mammals in Peninsular Malaysia is made using data up to the year 2000 (Appendix III). The next review will make use of data from the period 2000 to 2010. The results give the assessments made for criteria ‘A’ to ‘D’ only, as criteria ‘E’ was not used and the current IUCN assessment category and the protection given in Peninsular Malaysia under the schedules of Protection of Wildlife Act, 1972 (Appendix IV and V). The results summarized in Appendix III are given as: extinct (EX), under critical threat (CR), endangered (EN), vulnerable (VU) and under near threatened (NT).
4.2 Summary of the results.
The results are given below with notes on the information displayed in Appendix III. Of the 222 species listed for Peninsular Malaysia reviewed in this 2009 assessment:
3 were classes as extinct (EX), 1 as critically endangered (CR), 26 as endangered (EN), 22 as vulnerable (VU), 13 as near threatened (NT), and the remaining 156 as being of least concern (LC).
4.2.1 Extinct (EX). For the three (3) species that are considered extinct, there have been no records of sightings in the Peninsular for more than 50 years. These were the Indian grey mongoose, Javan rhinoceros and Banteng. These species continue to be protected under the Protection of Wildlife Act, 1972 (PWA) in Peninsular Malaysia.
4
their habitats, it was argued that any decline in available habitat would have a proportional effect on species population.
Assessment was further refined for selected species for which population estimates were available for the whole Peninsular Malaysia. Only five (5) species have been assessed for the Peninsular using the population estimates: Sumatran rhinoceros, Elephant, Tapir, Malayan tiger and Gaur.
4.0 The results
4.1 The findings of the Assessment.
The assessment of the threat status for mammals in Peninsular Malaysia is made using data up to the year 2000 (Appendix III). The next review will make use of data from the period 2000 to 2010. The results give the assessments made for criteria ‘A’ to ‘D’ only, as criteria ‘E’ was not used and the current IUCN assessment category and the protection given in Peninsular Malaysia under the schedules of Protection of Wildlife Act, 1972 (Appendix IV and V). The results summarized in Appendix III are given as: extinct (EX), under critical threat (CR), endangered (EN), vulnerable (VU) and under near threatened (NT).
4.2 Summary of the results.
The results are given below with notes on the information displayed in Appendix III. Of the 222 species listed for Peninsular Malaysia reviewed in this 2009 assessment:
3 were classes as extinct (EX), 1 as critically endangered (CR), 26 as endangered (EN), 22 as vulnerable (VU), 13 as near threatened (NT), and the remaining 156 as being of least concern (LC).
4.2.1 Extinct (EX). For the three (3) species that are considered extinct, there have been no records of sightings in the Peninsular for more than 50 years. These were the Indian grey mongoose, Javan rhinoceros and Banteng. These species continue to be protected under the Protection of Wildlife Act, 1972 (PWA) in Peninsular Malaysia.
Table 1: Summary of results for species classed as extinct.
Family Genus Species Common name
Criteria A
Criteria B
Criteria C
Criteria D
IUCN 2009 Assessment
PWA schedule
Herpestidae Herpestes edwardsi Indian grey mongoose EX EX EX EX 1.052
Rhinocerotidae Rhinoceros sondaicus Javan rhinoceros EX EX EX EX CR C2a(i) 1.001
Bovidae Bos javanicus Banteng EX EX EX EX EN A2cd+3cd+4cd 1.004
4.2.2 Critical (CR). Only one (1) species, the Sumatran rhinoceros is currently considered to be under critical threat. It is experiencing continual decline, and since year 2000 after the period of this assessment, it is believed to have been exterminated by commercially driven hunting pressure from the area once occupied in the southern part of its range.
Table 2: Summary of results for species classed as critically endangered.
Family Genus Species Common name
Criteria A
Criteria B
Criteria C
Criteria D
IUCN 2009 Assessment
PWA schedule
Rhinocerotidae Dicerorhinus sumatrensis Sumatran Rhinoceros LC CR
C2a(i) CR A2abd; C1+2a(i) 1.002
4.2.3 Endangered (EN). When using information from map models on species distribution and change in available habitat space, only 26 species were found to meet the Red list criteria B for endangered because they were either limited by a current area of occupancy of less than 500 km² which was continuing to decline, or the area occupied by the species had declined by more than 50% over the previous 10 years with a corresponding decline assumed in the population that was supported. The Expert Group considered that the Otter civet, Leopard and Malayan tiger were also endangered. Though the area occupied by these three (3) species was greater than 500 km² and had not significantly declined, the data from recent field work suggested that populations were continuing to decline sufficiently to be considered to be endangered.
Of the 30 species considered to be endangered, only nine (9) are protected under the PWA. The unprotected species included: shrews, the smaller bats and the rat species.
5
Table 3: Summary of results for species classed as endangered.
Family Genus Species Common name Criteria
A Criteria
B Criteria
C Criteria
D IUCN
PWA schedule 2009
Assessment
Soricidae Crocidura Negligens Grey shrew EN
B2ab(ii,iii)
Pteropodidae Megaerops wetmorei Wetmore's tailess fruit bat EN A4c
EN B2ab(ii,
iii)
Pteropodidae Pteropus hypomelanus Small flying fox EN
B2ab(ii,iii)
2.2.015
Pteropodidae Rousettus leschenaulti EN
B2ab(ii,iii)
Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus convexus Convex horseshoe bat
EN B2ab(ii,
iii) DD
Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus marshalli Marshall's horseshoe bat EN A4c
EN B2ab(ii,
iii)
Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus shameli Shamel's horseshoe bat EN A4c
EN B2ab(ii,
iii)
Hipposideridae Aselliscus stoliczkanus Trident horshoe bat
EN B2ab(ii,
iii)
Hipposideridae Coelops frithii East asian tailess bat
EN B1ab(ii,iii);B2ab(ii,ii)
Hipposideridae Hipposideros dyacorum Dayak
roundleaf horseshoe bat
EN A4c EN
B2ab(ii,iii)
Hipposideridae Hipposideros lekaguli Lekagul's roundleaf
horshoe bat
EN B2ab(ii,
iii)
Hipposideridae Hipposideros nequam Malayan roundleaf
horshoe bat
EN B1ab(ii,
iii); B2ab(ii,
iii)
Hipposideridae Hipposideros orbiculus Roundleaf horseshoe bat
EN B2ab(ii,
iii)
Hipposideridae Hipposideros pomona Roundleaf horseshoe bat
EN B2ab(ii,
iii)
Vespertilionidae Arielulus circumdatus Black-gilded pipistrelle
EN B2ab(ii,
iii)
Vespertilionidae Hesperoptenus doriae Doria's false serotine
EN B2ab(ii,
iii)
Cercopithecidae Macaca arctoides Stump-tailed macaque EN A4c
EN B2ab(ii,
iii) 2.3.162
Mustelidae Lutra lutra Common otter EN
B2ab(ii,iii)
1.038
6
Viverridae Cynogale bennettii Otter civet EN A4c LC 1.017
Viverridae Viverra megaspila Large spotted civet
EN B2ab(ii,
iii) 1.046
Herpestidae Herpestes urva Crab-eating mongoose EN A4c
EN B2ab(ii,
ii) 2.3.099
Felidae Panthera pardus Leopard EN A4d LC 1.044
Felidae Panthera tigris Malayan tiger EN A2ad LC EN
A2bcd_4bcd;C1+2a(i)
1.035
Pteromyidae Petinomys genibarbis Whiskered flying squirrel
EN B2ab(ii,
iii) VU
A2c+A3c+a4c 1.026
Muridae Berlymys bowersii Bower's rat EN
B2ab(ii,iii)
Muridae Leopoldamys edwardsi Mountain giant rat
EN B2ab(ii,
iii)
4.2.4 Vulnerable (VU). Using the information from the map models, 16 species were found to be vulnerable using the Red list criteria B. The vulnerable species list was expanded with a further seven (7) species to 23 by the Expert Group. The provisional 16 species were classed as vulnerable because either the area each species currently occupied was less than 2,000 km² and continued to be in decline, or had declined by more than 30% over the previous 10 years, with an assumed a proportional decline with the population that was supported. The additional seven (7) species identified by the Expert Group were found to have adequate area of occupation, but since they were targeted by hunting or collecting activities, they were considered to be vulnerable. These were Scaly anteater, Moonrat, Grey fruitbat, Malayan sun bear, Asian elephant, Sambar deer and Gaur.
Only seven (7) of the 30 vulnerable species currently have any protection under the PWA. Again this included the bats, as well as the species newly described for the Peninsular.
7
Table 4: Summary of results for species classed as vulnerable.
Family Genus Species Common name Criteria A Criteria B Criteria C
Criteria D
IUCN 2009 Assessment
PWA schedule
Manidae Manis javanica Scaly anteater VU A4cd LC 1.008
Erinaceidae Echinosorex gymnurus Moonrat, gymnure VU A4e LC
Talpidae Euroscaptor malayana Malayan mole VU B2ab(ii,iii)
Soricidiae Chimarrogale hantu Malayan water shrew VU
B2ab(ii,iii)
Tupaiidae Ptilocercus lowii Pen-tailed treeshrew VU
B2ab(ii,iii) 2.3.237
Tupaiidae Tupaia minor Lesser treeshrew VU A4c VU B2ab(iii) 2.3.241
Pteropodidae Aethalops alecto Grey fruit bat VU A2c LC
Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus chiewkweeae Chiewkwee's horseshoe bat VU
B2ab(ii,iii)
Hipposideridae Hipposideros doriae Lawa'sroundleaf horseshoe bat VU
B2ab(ii,iii)
Vespertilionidae Arielulus societatis Benompipistrelle VU B2ab(ii,iii)
Vespertilionidae Hesperoptenus blandfordi Lesser false serotine VU
B2ab(ii,iii) LC
Vespertilionidae Kerivoula intermedia Small woolly bat VU B2ab(ii,iii)
Vespertilionidae Kerivoula picta Painted bat VU B2ab(ii,iii)
Vespertilionidae Myotis hermani Herman's bat VU B2ab(ii,iii)
Vespertilionidae Phoniscus atrox Groove-toothed bat VU
B2ab(ii,iii)
Vespertilionidae Phoniscus jagorii Frosted groove-toothed bat VU
B2ab(ii,iii)
Cercopithecidae Presbytis siamensis Black-thighed leaf monkey VU
B2ab(ii,iii)
Ursidae Helarctos malayanus Malayan sun bear VU A2d LC 1.043
Felidae Prionailurus viverrinus Fishing cat VU A4c VU B2ab(ii,iii) EN A2cd+4cd
Elephantidae Elephas maximus Asian elephant VU A4cd LC EN A2c 2.1.001
Cervidae Rusa unicolor Sambar deer LC VU C1 2.2.001
Bovidae Bos gaurus Gaur VU A2ad LC VU
A2cd+3cd+4cd
1.06
4.2.5 Near threatened (NT). The provisional assessment made using only map models of habitat were not used to identify species experiencing near threatened. There were 14 species were considered by the Expert Group to be near threatened. All these species were understood to have an adequate area of occupation, but recent field data records suggest that they are becoming less frequently encountered.
All the species classed as near threatened, were protected under the PWA.
8
Table 5: Summary of results for species classed as near threatened.
Family Genus Species Common name Criteria A
Criteria B
Criteria C
Criteria D
IUCN 2009 Assessment
PWA schedule
Hylobatidae Symphalangus syndactylus Siamang NT LC 1.005
Canidae Cuon alpinus Red dog, Dhole NT LC 1.009
Mustelidae Martes flavigula Yellow-throated marten
LC NT LC 1.019
Mustelidae Mustela nudipes Malayan weasel LC NT LC 1.02
Viverridae Prionodon linsang Banded linsang LC NT LC 1.014
Viverridae Viverra zibetha Large indian civet LC NT 1.045
Viverridae Viverricula malaccensis, indica
Little civet LC NT 1.049
Felidae Neofelis nebulosa Clouded leopard NT LC VU C1+2a(i) 1.01
Felidae Prionailurus planiceps Flat-headed cat NT LC EN C1+2a(i) 1.012
Tapiridae Tapirus indicus Malayan tapir NT LC 1.003
Suidae Sus barbatus Bearded pig NT LC 2.2.006
Cervidae Muntiacus muntjac Barking deer NT LC 2.2.002
Bovidae Capricornis sumatraensis Serow NT LC 1.022
4.3 Comparison with to IUCN 2009 assessment and the Peninsular Malaysia Redlist 2009 assessment by the experts working group.
The IUCN redlist assessment for 2009 has reviewed 68 of the 222 mammal species listed for Peninsular Malaysia and found one (1) of the species to be critically endangered (CR), eight (8) endangered (EN) and eight (8) vulnerable (VU) with one (1) near threatened (NT), 25 of least concern (LC), and the remaining three (3) to be data deficient (DD). In comparison, when the same criteria for AOO were applied to the measured 2010 map model of the Peninsular, three (3) species were assessed as locally extinct, one (1) species as critically endangered (CR), 26 as endangered, 22 as being vulnerable and 13 as near threatened (NT) with the remaining 156 as being of least concern. A summary of this comparison is given in Table 6.
9
Table 6: Comparison with IUCN red list 2009 Assessment with Peninsular Malaysia Red list 2009
IUCN Red list 2009 Peninsular Malaysia Red list 2009 EX CR EN VU NT LC
EX - 3 - - - - -
CR 1 - 1 - - - -
EN 8 - - 26 - - -
VU 8 - - - 22 - -
NT 1 - - - - 14 -
LC 25 - - - - - 16
DD 3 - - - - - -
Not assessed - - - - - - -
Sub total - 3 1 26 22 14 166 Total 68 222
4.4 Other information derived from the results.
4.4.1 Distribution of threatened species. One of the outcomes of mapping the model distribution of species was that it was possible to count the number of species that occupy any specific area and the map of mammal species richness. It is also possible to identify which areas contain the highest counts of threatened species. Map 1 shows the counts of the number of threatened species in Peninsular Malaysia whose distribution overlaps. The distribution is normalized by districts. The highest count for threatened species with overlapping distribution in any district is 11. The districts with the highest counts are in the lowland areas in Taman Negara and the forest areas of the northern states. Other lowland areas with a high count are at Krau area in Pahang and the Endau-Rompin forest areas. Highland and peat swamp areas are recorded as having the lowest numbers of threatened species.
The results suggest that the least developed areas of the Peninsular contain the highest counts of threatened species. But they could also reflect the relative effort put into field investigation. The recently isolated Krau Wildlife Reserve and surrounding forest reserves, appears to have a higher count of threatened species than many of the surrounding areas connected to the central forest area probably because of the greater effort put into field work in the Krau area.
10
Table 6: Comparison with IUCN red list 2009 Assessment with Peninsular Malaysia Red list 2009
IUCN Red list 2009 Peninsular Malaysia Red list 2009 EX CR EN VU NT LC
EX - 3 - - - - -
CR 1 - 1 - - - -
EN 8 - - 26 - - -
VU 8 - - - 22 - -
NT 1 - - - - 14 -
LC 25 - - - - - 16
DD 3 - - - - - -
Not assessed - - - - - - -
Sub total - 3 1 26 22 14 166 Total 68 222
4.4 Other information derived from the results.
4.4.1 Distribution of threatened species. One of the outcomes of mapping the model distribution of species was that it was possible to count the number of species that occupy any specific area and the map of mammal species richness. It is also possible to identify which areas contain the highest counts of threatened species. Map 1 shows the counts of the number of threatened species in Peninsular Malaysia whose distribution overlaps. The distribution is normalized by districts. The highest count for threatened species with overlapping distribution in any district is 11. The districts with the highest counts are in the lowland areas in Taman Negara and the forest areas of the northern states. Other lowland areas with a high count are at Krau area in Pahang and the Endau-Rompin forest areas. Highland and peat swamp areas are recorded as having the lowest numbers of threatened species.
The results suggest that the least developed areas of the Peninsular contain the highest counts of threatened species. But they could also reflect the relative effort put into field investigation. The recently isolated Krau Wildlife Reserve and surrounding forest reserves, appears to have a higher count of threatened species than many of the surrounding areas connected to the central forest area probably because of the greater effort put into field work in the Krau area.
Map 1: Distribution of threatened species.
4.4.2 Administration of habitat of threatened species. It was not intended to make management recommendations in this exercise, but discussion during the Expert Meetings, has invariably commented on conservation management issues. By overlying land use maps in maps of the areas occupied by threatened species, it is possible to see which agency has responsibility over the areas occupied by each species. Table 7 lists each threatened species and gives the extent of the habitat in three (3) classes of land management and administration. These are:
Alienated land or state land where the managing entity is either an individual or commercial company and state land which is under the administration of the state.
State forest land under the management control of the state forest departments. ‘Protected Area’ (PA) under the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) or a
state park authority.
11
Table 7: Current Area of occupation (AOO) for threatened species in size (hectares) by type of administrating agency.
Genus Species Alienated or state
land
State forest under the
SFD
PA under
the DWNP or state
parks
Alienated or state
land
State forest
under the SFD
PA under the
DWNP or state parks
Critical
Dicerorhinus sumatrensis 599,701 2,563,955 773,553 15.07% 65.48% 19.44% Endangered
Crocidura negligens - - 12,035 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Megaerops wetmorei 1,479 7,212 - 17.02% 82.98% 0.00% Pteropus hypomelanus - - 11,774 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Rousettus leschenaulti 4,529 11,441 198 26.16% 72.69% 1.14% Rhinolophus convexus 12,584 21,952 - 35.11% 64.89% 0.00% Rhinolophus marshalli 2,406 3,638 2,512 27.66% 43.46% 28.87% Rhinolophus shameli 2,431 4,158 4,286 22.06% 39.04% 38.90% Aselliscus stoliczkanus 1,070 363 1,139 41.62% 14.10% 44.29% Coelops frithii 4,861 23,197 198 16.43% 82.90% 0.67% Hipposideros dyacorum 2,406 3,638 2,512 27.66% 43.46% 28.87% Hipposideros lekaguli 2,431 4,158 4,286 22.06% 39.04% 38.90% Hipposideros nequam 1,172 3,529 - 24.51% 75.49% 0.00% Hipposideros orbiculus 339 13,709 - 2.38% 97.62% 0.00% Hipposideros pomona 2,431 4,158 4,286 22.06% 39.04% 38.90% Arielulus circumdatus 12,584 21,952 - 35.11% 64.89% 0.00% Hesperoptenus doriae 339 13,863 - 2.35% 97.65% 0.00% Macaca arctoides 2,406 3,638 2,512 27.66% 43.46% 28.87% Lutra lutra 1,370 17,885 38 7.10% 92.70% 0.20% Cynogale bennettii 70,298 476,558 181,187 9.65% 65.46% 24.88% Viverra megaspila 1,306 778 1,125 40.69% 24.26% 35.05% Herpestes urva 2,406 3,638 2,512 27.66% 43.46% 28.87% Panthera pardus 1,163,818 3,970,222 850,526 19.22% 66.73% 14.05% Panthera tigris 1,102,828 3,635,290 850,526 19.49% 65.47% 15.03% Petinomys genibarbis 5,599 11,804 1,337 28.16% 65.11% 6.72% Berlymys bowersii 4,489 31,962 87 12.29% 87.48% 0.24% Leopoldamys edwardsi 2,383 20,346 8,845 7.53% 64.53% 27.94%
12
Table 7: Current Area of occupation (AOO) for threatened species in size (hectares) by type of administrating agency.
Genus Species Alienated or state
land
State forest under the
SFD
PA under
the DWNP or state
parks
Alienated or state
land
State forest
under the SFD
PA under the
DWNP or state parks
Critical
Dicerorhinus sumatrensis 599,701 2,563,955 773,553 15.07% 65.48% 19.44% Endangered
Crocidura negligens - - 12,035 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Megaerops wetmorei 1,479 7,212 - 17.02% 82.98% 0.00% Pteropus hypomelanus - - 11,774 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Rousettus leschenaulti 4,529 11,441 198 26.16% 72.69% 1.14% Rhinolophus convexus 12,584 21,952 - 35.11% 64.89% 0.00% Rhinolophus marshalli 2,406 3,638 2,512 27.66% 43.46% 28.87% Rhinolophus shameli 2,431 4,158 4,286 22.06% 39.04% 38.90% Aselliscus stoliczkanus 1,070 363 1,139 41.62% 14.10% 44.29% Coelops frithii 4,861 23,197 198 16.43% 82.90% 0.67% Hipposideros dyacorum 2,406 3,638 2,512 27.66% 43.46% 28.87% Hipposideros lekaguli 2,431 4,158 4,286 22.06% 39.04% 38.90% Hipposideros nequam 1,172 3,529 - 24.51% 75.49% 0.00% Hipposideros orbiculus 339 13,709 - 2.38% 97.62% 0.00% Hipposideros pomona 2,431 4,158 4,286 22.06% 39.04% 38.90% Arielulus circumdatus 12,584 21,952 - 35.11% 64.89% 0.00% Hesperoptenus doriae 339 13,863 - 2.35% 97.65% 0.00% Macaca arctoides 2,406 3,638 2,512 27.66% 43.46% 28.87% Lutra lutra 1,370 17,885 38 7.10% 92.70% 0.20% Cynogale bennettii 70,298 476,558 181,187 9.65% 65.46% 24.88% Viverra megaspila 1,306 778 1,125 40.69% 24.26% 35.05% Herpestes urva 2,406 3,638 2,512 27.66% 43.46% 28.87% Panthera pardus 1,163,818 3,970,222 850,526 19.22% 66.73% 14.05% Panthera tigris 1,102,828 3,635,290 850,526 19.49% 65.47% 15.03% Petinomys genibarbis 5,599 11,804 1,337 28.16% 65.11% 6.72% Berlymys bowersii 4,489 31,962 87 12.29% 87.48% 0.24% Leopoldamys edwardsi 2,383 20,346 8,845 7.53% 64.53% 27.94%
Genus Species Alienated or state
land
State forest under the
SFD
PA under
the DWNP or state
parks
Alienated or state
land
State forest
under the SFD
PA under the
DWNP or state parks
Manis javanica 973,163 3,648,603 836,839 17.61% 67.25% 15.14% Echinosorex gymnurus 747,372 2,591,284 758,557 18.11% 63.50% 18.39%
Euroscaptor micrura 24,439 31,077 - 43.34% 56.66% 0.00%
Chimarrogale hantu 26,311 96,949 - 21.16% 78.84% 0.00% Ptilocercus lowii 9,427 120,664 - 7.22% 92.78% 0.00% Tupaia minor 23,306 154,229 - 13.09% 86.91% 0.00% Aethalops alecto 15,001 76,236 2,419 15.78% 81.67% 2.55% Rhinolophus chiewkweeae 18,856 70,637 12,498 17.42% 71.04% 11.54% Hipposideros doriae 6,227 98,020 - 5.97% 94.03% 0.00% Arielulus societatis 1,063 55,585 8,131 1.63% 85.91% 12.46% Hesperoptenus blandfordi 1,192 95,075 17,987 1.03% 83.35% 15.61% Kerivoula intermedia 8,897 44,535 53,754 8.19% 42.34% 49.47% Kerivoula picta 6,149 83,091 44 6.85% 93.10% 0.05% Myotis hermani 13,111 47,708 3,794 20.14% 74.04% 5.83% Phoniscus atrox 8,894 44,513 49,127 8.55% 44.22% 47.23% Phoniscus jagorii 8,897 44,535 53,754 8.19% 42.34% 49.47% Presbytis siamensis 21,821 78,199 - 21.56% 78.44% 0.00% Helarctos malayanus 1,017,819 3,440,916 836,989 19.00% 65.38% 15.62% Prionailurus viverrinus 13,549 33,227 17,493 21.08% 51.70% 27.22% Elephas maximus 816,551 3,197,576 846,935 16.60% 66.18% 17.22% Cervus unicolor 869,144 3,541,542 838,267 16.38% 67.83% 15.79% Bos gaurus 597,306 3,047,704 778,182 13.36% 69.25% 17.40%
From Table 7, it can be seen that the single species under critical threat, Sumatran Rhinoceros, has 19.44% of its area of occupation within a protected area and managed either by federal or state authorities for conservation.
Among the endangered species, though two (2) have all their area of occupation within PAs, 11 have less than 10% of their area of occupation in PAs, six (6) are only found outside PAs and 15 have more than 50% of their area of occupation in state forest reserves. Endangered species such as Wetmore’s tailless fruit bat, the Convex horseshoe bat, Malayan roundleaf horseshoe bat, Hipposideros orbiculus, Black-gilded pipistrelle and Doria's false serotine appear to be both without any legal protection for their species and protection for their areas of occupation.
For the vulnerable species, there are also six (6) species found only outside PAs and 19 of the 23 have more than 50% if their area of occupation in state forest reserves. And at least four (4) species have neither protection under the PWA 1972 nor their habitat protected within a PA.
13
This underlines:
the potential role of the state forest departments and other agencies that control land, to contribute to the conservation management of threatened species, especially those species of limited range, and the high conservation value (HCV) of the areas occupied by these species; and
the consideration that land use planners could give to the habitats of threatened species, especially those areas where there is a high count of threatened species.
14
APPENDIX IBuilding the model of ecological types
Appendix 1 Building the model of ecological types.
1. A series of models were built that have used thematic map data and expert to model the relative threat to species survival (Map 1). The first step was to build a model and map of the ecological types in the Peninsular and compare the state of those areas today with their optimum before human significant human disturbance. This was then generalized to fit with a model of species habitats and so create a map for original and remaining habitats. Our building a model for species populations according to their distribution and abundance in their habitats, the species population model was created that could compare populations today with that at their optimum.
2. Building the original ecology model.
Assumption: Model ecological types can be created from geographical surrogates.
In an earlier exercise, a model was created of the ‘original ecology of the Peninsular’. This was for a time before humans had made significant disturbance to structure of the ecosystem. The baseline for the original ecology model is set at about 5,000 years before present. After this date it is assumed human capacity to drain swamps or clear forest, etc. increased.
The model created ecological types as surrogates for the range of qualitative descriptions used to describe species habitats and distribution. Geographical indicators were chosen for which map information was available in the public domain. These were digitized and a map built for the ecological model to identify the location and measure the area of different ecological types (Map 2). Depending on the area of interest field workers may feel some of the ecological types created may appear redundant – ultrabasic hill forest?, and some too crude – lowland forest on neutral soils! Alternative and more useful ecological models can be built later; the present exercise was limited by the map information available in the public domain that we could use as indicators for the whole of the Peninsular1. Where model ecotypes are redundant for species habitats and distribution use, they have been generalized. Too crude ecotypes will have to be refined later. We then compared this ‘original ecological model’ (base) map with a map showing the extent of forest clearance and disturbance in 1992 then, and still the most up-to-date information available in the public domain (Map 3). The next question to ask was: what lived in those ecological types and what effect has land development and forest disturbance had on the viability of their habitat and populations?
1 Better map data and up-to-date satellite data exists, but not in the public domain.
17
170000
170000
220000
220000
270000
270000
320000
320000
370000
370000
420000
420000
470000
470000
520000
520000
570000
570000
620000
620000
670000
670000
100 00
0
1000
00
150 00
0
1500
00
200 00
0
2000
00
250 00
0
2500
00
300 00
0
3000
00
350 00
0
3500
00
400 00
0
4000
00
450 00
0
4500
00
500 00
0
5000
00
550 00
0
5500
00
600 00
0
6000
00
650 00
0
6500
00
700 00
0
7000
00
750 00
0
7500
00
Legendmodel ecological types
lowland forest
lowland quartz
lowland sandstone
lowland limestone forest
lowland ultrabasic forest
riverine
peat swamps
alluvial lowland forests
mangrove
BRIS forest
hill dipterocarp
hill quartz forest
hill sandstones
hill limestone forest
hill ultrabasic forest
upper dipterocarp
upper dipt quartz
upper dipt sandstones
upper dipt limestone
oak-laurel
oak-laurel quartz
oak-laurel sandstone
montane forest
montane quartz
montane sandstone
Map 2. A map of an ‘Original Ecology Model’ of Peninsular Malaysia before extensive human disturbance & clearance
18
220000
220000
270000
270000
320000
320000
370000
370000
420000
420000
470000
470000
520000
520000
570000
570000
620000
620000
670000
670000
100 00
0
1000
00
150 00
0
1500
00
200 00
0
2000
00
250 00
0
2500
00
300 00
0
3000
00
350 00
0
3500
00
400 00
0
4000
00
450 00
0
4500
00
500 00
0
5000
00
550 00
0
5500
00
600 00
0
6000
00
650 00
0
6500
00
700 00
0
7000
00
750 00
0
7500
00
800 00
0
8000
00
By 1992, most of the alluvial lowland areas that could be drained had been cleared and converted to agriculture and settlements. The largest natural areas were around hill areas in the northern half of the Peninsular and the swampy areas to the east.
Map 3. Model of remaining ‘Original’ Ecology in Peninsular Malaysia in 1992.
19
The table below describes the standards used in the model and illustrates possible ecological
types that could be identified by those standards. Standard: Ecological types.
INDICATORS FROM THE MODEL ECOLOGICAL TYPES
‘REAL WORLD AREAS’ WHICH HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CONTAIN THE HABITAT OF WILDLIFE SPECIES.
Lowland forest (on well drained, neutral mineral soils)
Any dry forest area below 300 m (<1000ft) with neutral soils unless otherwise qualified. Rolling country, well drained sedentary soils.
Oth
er l
owla
nd a
reas
qua
lifie
d by
so
il ty
pes
and
hyd
rolo
gy Riverine Any area with river deposited soils over any parent
rock material. These could be Holocene or from earlier periods. Some flooding. From Gapis belts to marine alluvium below.
Marine alluvial soils Holocene alluvium developed behind mangroves as Pleistocene rose. Generally nutrient-rich ‘much’ soils, some flooding. Also topogeneous swamp areas.
BRIS Sand ridges along beaches with intervening swamps, and strand forest.
Peat Any areas which had deep organic peat soils. These could overlay areas of marine sands or clay.
Mangrove Accreting shores and estuaries with self-regenerating mangrove forests.
Hill dipterocarp forest Any dry forest from 300 to 740m (1000-2500ft) on any soil type. Ridges, slopes and valley bottoms.
Upper dipterocarp forest Any forest from 740 to 1200m (2500-3500ft) on any soil. Ridges, slopes and valley bottoms.
Oak-laurel forest Any forest from 1200 – 1500 (3500- 5000ft) on any soil. Ridges, slopes and valley bottoms.
Montane forest Any forest area above 1500m (>5000ft). Ridges, slopes and valley bottoms with thin peat soils.
Standard: Geological qualifiers that could influence ecological community.
Geologic material ‘Real world’ ecological types which have the potential to contain the habitat of wildlife species.
Quartz Areas over quartz – usually ridges such as at Klang Gates. Thin soils – fire risk, thin peat.
Sandstone Any area over sandstone with sedentary soils. Generally acidic soils with pole forests.
Limestone Any areas over limestone – karst and cave areas in with towers to eroded plains.
Ultrabasic Any area over ultrabasic rocks.
20
Where these geologic qualifiers would have an influence on sedentary soils, they are used to qualify the model ecological type – lowland quartz. But where they have been covered by allochthonous soils – marine alluvium, etc., they are ignored and only the soil considered as having a relevant effect on the model ecological type.
For most species, their notes on distribution place them into elevation bands or particular
thematic areas – caves, peat swamps, etc., thus cave dependent species are mapped as restricted to limestone areas and peat swamp species in peat swamps. Where species cover lowland areas in general, such soil and geological qualifiers are redundant.
3.0 Fitting species habitats into the model ecology types.
Assumption:
Species habitats could be fitted within the model ecological types and would change proportionately with changes in the model ecological type.
The ecological types above, are used as indicator to model what we understand to be species habitats. Rather than try to map the known distributions of the few species known, we chose to fit general habitat descriptions into our ecological model. This may not have been an entirely comfortable fit for all species but it treats all species equally. (The areas of discomfort can flagged and revisited later - aquatic and river dependent species especially).
Standard: Disturbance. Using landuse and forest resource maps of the Peninsular from 1992, we could map which areas
of original ecology that were: still in their original state or at least in a late succession state; logged or disturbed, but undergoing succession back to something structurally similar to their original; cleared and were no longer in their original state or maintained in a state of arrested or deflected succession. These are discussed in the box below.
Ecological model class Tolerance and restrictions for species distribution Original forest – mature forest
Primary: tall forest or other areas unaltered or disturbed by human activity. Original plant community structurally intact and original ecological assumed to be functioning. Now mostly in old Protected Areas.
Logged forest – undergoing successional change
Secondary: areas with historic disturbance, but local ecological structure mostly intact and considered able to self-regenerate characteristic plant community of the original forest. Production forest in State Forest Reserves and state forest land.
Altered – either deflected or arrested succession.
Areas that have been cleared of original vegetation, possibly drained and cut and maintained with an alternative plant cover. Plantations, orchards, urban areas, degraded mine tailings, lalang, resam, bamboo, etc.
a. Linking species populations to model habitats
21
3.1 Using ecological types and habitats to quantify relative population changes.
Assumption:
species populations will change proportionately with changes in habitat; and relative species populations in the same habitats can be differentiated by models for
distribution and abundance. Each species was given a standard set of ecological notes that qualified distribution and abundance with parameters that could be matched to the ecological types of the map model shown in Map 2 and 3 above. It was recognised that the actual habitat of each species may not have perfectly matched the ecological types of the model, but the match was assumed to be adequate for assessment needs. It was assumed that the change in the extent of ecological types between the base map 5,000 years before present (YBP) and the current map dated 1992 would be proportionate with the change in species habitat. The model used the product of habitat-distribution-abundance-body mass as an indicator for a species population change standard.
3.2. Relative distribution.
From changes in the extent model ecological types, we can model the relative change in a species habitat and population. The actual area is not relevant, just the proportion of change. But where two or more species have the same relative model habitat and population change, we cannot see which species would have greater or lesser absolute numbers. It is not possible for use to model absolute numbers, but we can rank species into those which would be more or less numerous. With such information, we have an idea of which species has the lesser numbers and thus be closer to critical non-self sustaining population levels. Distribution is seldom uniform. We know some animals are hard to find and some are very common. But there are also examples of animals being absent in some potential habitat areas, but locally common in others. The models have two (2) separate components to qualify population:
Relative distribution – where species are found; and Abundance – how frequently we expect to meet them once we have found where they
are.
The model allowed us to map and measure the potential extent of habitat of a species. But not all species occupy their full potential range. Even without stress imposed by human activities, species distribution is affected by competition for resources by other species –camera trapping and systematic rentis surveys suggests leopards avoid areas occupied by tiger, or other factors. For this exercise we have used expert opinion based on field experience to quantify wildlife species distribution2.
2 This task was undertaken as an ‘expert opinion’ exercise by Dr. Lim Boo Liat based on his extensive personal field experience. The exercise should be periodically updated, perhaps using a larger expert opinion group using alternative stakeholder derived systematic framework for evaluation.
22
Working with a scale of about 1:250,000 – the peninsular would appear as a map about 2 m long, the distribution of each species was described in one of the following distribution classes:
Distribution class Benchmarks Widely distributed (WD) Expected to be found in 50% of its potential habitat range Restricted distribution (R) Expected to be found between 5 and 50% of its potential
habitat range. Spottedly distributed (SD) Expected to be found in less than 5% of its habitat range.
In each case, the factors that control actual distribution within the model habitat are not
considered.
3.3 Relative abundance. Some species are seldom found, but when they are, they can be in large numbers –examples
include bat species or some species in the northern region or some species on islands. Again we have used expert opinion to assign each species into one of three relative abundance classes. These are:
Abundance class Benchmarks - guidelines Very common (VC) Expected to be recorded in > 10% of trap/survey effort unit
(trap nights, rentis walks, etc.). Common (C) Expected to be recorded 1 to 10% of trap/survey effort
units. Rare (Ra) Expected to be recorded in less than 1% of trap/survey
effort units. The measure is based on experience from small mammal trapping, but can be used as a
guideline for field investigators working with other taxa surveyed with different techniques that record or capture specimens at different rates3.
In the results that follow, we have combined distribution and abundance into a single score for
each species. This allows the model to differentiate threat between species that have otherwise experienced the same population changes. This score has been multiplied with the percentage change for population to create a population-distribution-abundance score where the lowest values indicate the species that have experienced the most severe population declines.
3.4 Relative population densities. Scale is important for animals, with larger species needing larger habitats areas than smaller
species. The model assumes that each species has a similar biomass per unit area. This can be restated as for the same habitat area, there would be fewer large animals than small animals. In reality this may not necessarily be always true, even for closely related species or species that
3 Ideally we would be able to normalize recording frequencies of different survey tools. At the present normalizing is based on expert opinion. Future discussion may result in a more objective process.
23
share similar positions in a trophic ecology model. We consider the factor useful, but recognise that it could be revisited and improved in a later model.
The model adjusts the population-distribution-abundance scores by multiplying with the factors below. These factors are assigned according to the band for the mass into which the adult of the species is assumed to fit. These are: 1) >105 gms, x 1 2) 104-105;gms, x 2 3) 103-104;gms, x 3 4) 102 - 103 gms, x 4 and 5) <102 gms. x 5. The outcome can be called a (cumbersome) population-distribution-abundance-density value. The significance is that species numbers do not decline to zero as habitat is reduced to zero, but will collapse when populations reach a critical size. Up to this point the model has only considered ranking score for population sizes. In the real world, when absolute population number get too small, stochastic or random events can have disastrous impacts on small populations but no significant effect on a larger one. We do not known that the critical population size would be for any species. All we can be certain about is that the larger species with their fewer numbers are expected to be more close to critical population size than smaller, but more numerous species.
3.5 Species richness and biodiversity.
Assumption: A single biodiversity dimension is sufficient to indicate effects from habitat and
population changes.
Until now we have only considered species under threat of extinction. Each species has been assumed to have equal value, so our focus has been on loss of species richness. How would that affect biodiversity?.
In this part of the model we are concerned with amphibian, reptile and mammal species. Rather than to incorporate a factor for the functional roles each species plays in community ecology as a measure for biodiversity at the species level, the model uses a simpler surrogate at the genetic level. Instead of trying to create a factor for genotypes and alleles, the model has used the level of taxonomic representation as a simpler indicator to measure an indicator for genetic diversity. The model assumes that those taxa that are the sole representatives of their genus, have a greater genetic diversity value than those from genera with two or more species. And so on for family and orders.
4.0 Overview of methods and model output.
The methods chosen used basic ecological theories to build the ecology model GIS tools to build the maps and map information available in the public domain. Species information came from published sources, private communications and expert opinion.
24
What we have attempted can be seen as either a model based on habitats, ranks species according to their threat for extinction and then incorporates a factor for the severity of extinction or it builds a model that links habitats to species to biodiversity. Either way, it is just a model that applies the same standards to each species so that they can be evaluated according to a common basis for their conservation management needs. The output can then be used to identify gaps in current conservation management effort and identify priority species on which management effort should be focused.
25
APPENDIX IIIUCN Red list of Threatened Species
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria are intended to be an easily andwidely understood system for classifying species at high risk of global extinction.The general aim of the system is to provide an explicit, objective framework forthe classification of the broadest range of species according to their extinctionrisk. However, while the Red List may focus attention on those taxa at the highestrisk, it is not the sole means of setting priorities for conservation measures fortheir protection.
Extensive consultation and testing in the development of the system stronglysuggest that it is robust across most organisms. However, it should be noted thatalthough the system places species into the threatened categories with a highdegree of consistency, the criteria do not take into account the life histories ofevery species. Hence, in certain individual cases, the risk of extinction may beunder- or over-estimated.
2. Before 1994 the more subjective threatened species categories used in IUCNRed Data Books and Red Lists had been in place, with some modification, foralmost 30 years. Although the need to revise the categories had long beenrecognized (Fitter and Fitter 1987), the current phase of development only beganin 1989 following a request from the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC)Steering Committee to develop a more objective approach. The IUCN Counciladopted the new Red List system in 1994.
The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria have several specific aims:• to provide a system that can be applied consistently by different people;• to improve objectivity by providing users with clear guidance on how to
evaluate different factors which affect the risk of extinction;• to provide a system which will facilitate comparisons across widely different
taxa;• to give people using threatened species lists a better understanding of how
individual species were classified.
3. Since their adoption by IUCN Council in 1994, the IUCN Red List Categorieshave become widely recognized internationally, and they are now used in a rangeof publications and listings produced by IUCN, as well as by numerousgovernmental and non-governmental organizations. Such broad and extensiveuse revealed the need for a number of improvements, and SSC was mandated by
29
the 1996 World Conservation Congress (WCC Res. 1.4) to conduct a review ofthe system (IUCN 1996). This document presents the revisions accepted by theIUCN Council.
The proposals presented in this document result from a continuing process ofdrafting, consultation and validation. The production of a large number of draftproposals has led to some confusion, especially as each draft has been used forclassifying some set of species for conservation purposes. To clarify matters, andto open the way for modifications as and when they become necessary, a systemfor version numbering has been adopted as follows:
Version 1.0: Mace and Lande (1991)The first paper discussing a new basis for the categories, and presentingnumerical criteria especially relevant for large vertebrates.
Version 2.0: Mace et al. (1992)A major revision of Version 1.0, including numerical criteria appropriate toall organisms and introducing the non-threatened categories.
Version 2.1: IUCN (1993)Following an extensive consultation process within SSC, a number of changeswere made to the details of the criteria, and fuller explanation of basicprinciples was included. A more explicit structure clarified the significance ofthe non-threatened categories.
Version 2.2: Mace and Stuart (1994)Following further comments received and additional validation exercises,some minor changes to the criteria were made. In addition, the Susceptiblecategory present in Versions 2.0 and 2.1 was subsumed into the Vulnerablecategory. A precautionary application of the system was emphasised.
Version 2.3: IUCN (1994)IUCN Council adopted this version, which incorporated changes as a resultof comments from IUCN members, in December 1994. The initial version ofthis document was published without the necessary bibliographic details,such as date of publication and ISBN number, but these were included in thesubsequent reprints in 1998 and 1999. This version was used for the 1996IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals (Baillie and Groombridge 1996), TheWorld List of Threatened Trees (Oldfield et al. 1998) and the 2000 IUCN RedList of Threatened Species (Hilton-Taylor 2000).
30
Version 3.0: IUCN/SSC Criteria Review Working Group (1999)Following comments received, a series of workshops were convened to lookat the IUCN Red List Criteria following which, changes were proposedaffecting the criteria, the definitions of some key terms and the handling ofuncertainty.
Version 3.1: IUCN (2001)The IUCN Council adopted this latest version, which incorporated changesas a result of comments from the IUCN and SSC memberships and from afinal meeting of the Criteria Review Working Group, in February 2000.
All new assessments from January 2001 should use the latest adopted version andcite the year of publication and version number.
4. In the rest of this document, the proposed system is outlined in severalsections. Section II, the Preamble, presents basic information about the contextand structure of the system, and the procedures that are to be followed inapplying the criteria to species. Section III provides definitions of key terms used.Section IV presents the categories, while Section V details the quantitativecriteria used for classification within the threatened categories. Annex I providesguidance on how to deal with uncertainty when applying the criteria; Annex IIsuggests a standard format for citing the Red List Categories and Criteria; andAnnex III outlines the documentation requirements for taxa to be included onIUCN’s global Red Lists. It is important for the effective functioning of thesystem that all sections are read and understood to ensure that the definitions andrules are followed. (Note: Annexes I, II and III will be updated on a regular basis.)
31
II. PREAMBLE
The information in this section is intended to direct and facilitate the use andinterpretation of the categories (Critically Endangered, Endangered, etc.), criteria(A to E), and subcriteria (1, 2, etc.; a, b, etc.; i, ii, etc.).
1. Taxonomic level and scope of the categorization processThe criteria can be applied to any taxonomic unit at or below the species level.In the following information, definitions and criteria the term ‘taxon’ is usedfor convenience, and may represent species or lower taxonomic levels, includingforms that are not yet formally described. There is sufficient range amongthe different criteria to enable the appropriate listing of taxa from thecomplete taxonomic spectrum, with the exception of micro-organisms. Thecriteria may also be applied within any specified geographical or politicalarea, although in such cases special notice should be taken of point 14.In presenting the results of applying the criteria, the taxonomic unit andarea under consideration should be specified in accordance with thedocumentation guidelines (see Annex 3). The categorization process shouldonly be applied to wild populations inside their natural range, and topopulations resulting from benign introductions. The latter are defined in theIUCN Guidelines for Re-introductions (IUCN 1998) as ‘...an attempt to establisha species, for the purpose of conservation, outside its recorded distribution, butwithin an appropriate habitat and eco-geographical area. This is a feasibleconservation tool only when there is no remaining area left within a species’historic range’.
2. Nature of the categoriesExtinction is a chance process. Thus, a listing in a higher extinction risk categoryimplies a higher expectation of extinction, and over the time-frames specifiedmore taxa listed in a higher category are expected to go extinct than those in alower one (without effective conservation action). However, the persistence ofsome taxa in high-risk categories does not necessarily mean their initial assessmentwas inaccurate.
All taxa listed as Critically Endangered qualify for Vulnerable and Endangered,and all listed as Endangered qualify for Vulnerable. Together these categoriesare described as ‘threatened’. The threatened categories form a part of theoverall scheme. It will be possible to place all taxa into one of the categories (seeFigure 1).
32
3. Role of the different criteriaFor listing as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable there is a rangeof quantitative criteria; meeting any one of these criteria qualifies a taxon forlisting at that level of threat. Each taxon should be evaluated against all thecriteria. Even though some criteria will be inappropriate for certain taxa (sometaxa will never qualify under these however close to extinction they come), thereshould be criteria appropriate for assessing threat levels for any taxon. Therelevant factor is whether any one criterion is met, not whether all are appropriateor all are met. Because it will never be clear in advance which criteria areappropriate for a particular taxon, each taxon should be evaluated against all thecriteria, and all criteria met at the highest threat category must be listed.
4. Derivation of quantitative criteriaThe different criteria (A–E) are derived from a wide review aimed at detectingrisk factors across the broad range of organisms and the diverse life histories theyexhibit. The quantitative values presented in the various criteria associated withthreatened categories were developed through wide consultation, and they are setat what are generally judged to be appropriate levels, even if no formal justificationfor these values exists. The levels for different criteria within categories were setindependently but against a common standard. Broad consistency between themwas sought.
Figure 1. Structure of the categories.
33
5. Conservation actions in the listing processThe criteria for the threatened categories are to be applied to a taxon whateverthe level of conservation action affecting it. It is important to emphasise here thata taxon may require conservation action even if it is not listed as threatened.Conservation actions which may benefit the taxon are included as part of thedocumentation requirements (see Annex 3).
6. Data quality and the importance of inference and projectionThe criteria are clearly quantitative in nature. However, the absence of high-quality data should not deter attempts at applying the criteria, as methodsinvolving estimation, inference and projection are emphasised as being acceptablethroughout. Inference and projection may be based on extrapolation of currentor potential threats into the future (including their rate of change), or of factorsrelated to population abundance or distribution (including dependence on othertaxa), so long as these can reasonably be supported. Suspected or inferredpatterns in the recent past, present or near future can be based on any of a seriesof related factors, and these factors should be specified as part of thedocumentation.
Taxa at risk from threats posed by future events of low probability but withsevere consequences (catastrophes) should be identified by the criteria (e.g. smalldistributions, few locations). Some threats need to be identified particularlyearly, and appropriate actions taken, because their effects are irreversible ornearly so (e.g., pathogens, invasive organisms, hybridization).
7. Problems of scaleClassification based on the sizes of geographic ranges or the patterns of habitatoccupancy is complicated by problems of spatial scale. The finer the scale atwhich the distributions or habitats of taxa are mapped, the smaller the area willbe that they are found to occupy, and the less likely it will be that rangeestimates (at least for ‘area of occupancy’: see Definitions, point 10) exceed thethresholds specified in the criteria. Mapping at finer scales reveals more areas inwhich the taxon is unrecorded. Conversely, coarse-scale mapping reveals fewerunoccupied areas, resulting in range estimates that are more likely to exceed thethresholds for the threatened categories. The choice of scale at which range isestimated may thus, itself, influence the outcome of Red List assessments andcould be a source of inconsistency and bias. It is impossible to provide any strictbut general rules for mapping taxa or habitats; the most appropriate scale willdepend on the taxon in question, and the origin and comprehensiveness of thedistribution data.
34
8. UncertaintyThe data used to evaluate taxa against the criteria are often estimated withconsiderable uncertainty. Such uncertainty can arise from any one or all of thefollowing three factors: natural variation, vagueness in the terms and definitionsused, and measurement error. The way in which this uncertainty is handled canhave a strong influence on the results of an evaluation. Details of methodsrecommended for handling uncertainty are included in Annex 1, and assessorsare encouraged to read and follow these principles.
In general, when uncertainty leads to wide variation in the results of assessments,the range of possible outcomes should be specified. A single category must bechosen and the basis for the decision should be documented; it should be bothprecautionary and credible.
When data are very uncertain, the category of ‘Data Deficient’ may be assigned.However, in this case the assessor must provide documentation showing that thiscategory has been assigned because data are inadequate to determine a threatcategory. It is important to recognize that taxa that are poorly known can oftenbe assigned a threat category on the basis of background information concerningthe deterioration of their habitat and/or other causal factors; therefore the liberaluse of ‘Data Deficient’ is discouraged.
9. Implications of listingListing in the categories of Not Evaluated and Data Deficient indicates that noassessment of extinction risk has been made, though for different reasons. Untilsuch time as an assessment is made, taxa listed in these categories should not betreated as if they were non-threatened. It may be appropriate (especially for DataDeficient forms) to give them the same degree of attention as threatened taxa, atleast until their status can be assessed.
10. DocumentationAll assessments should be documented. Threatened classifications should statethe criteria and subcriteria that were met. No assessment can be accepted for theIUCN Red List as valid unless at least one criterion is given. If more than onecriterion or subcriterion is met, then each should be listed. If a re-evaluationindicates that the documented criterion is no longer met, this should notresult in automatic reassignment to a lower category of threat (downlisting).Instead, the taxon should be re-evaluated against all the criteria to clarify itsstatus. The factors responsible for qualifying the taxon against the criteria,especially where inference and projection are used, should be documented
35
(see Annexes 2 and 3). The documentation requirements for other categories arealso specified in Annex 3.
11. Threats and prioritiesThe category of threat is not necessarily sufficient to determine priorities forconservation action. The category of threat simply provides an assessment of theextinction risk under current circumstances, whereas a system for assessingpriorities for action will include numerous other factors concerning conservationaction such as costs, logistics, chances of success, and other biologicalcharacteristics of the subject.
12. Re-evaluationRe-evaluation of taxa against the criteria should be carried out at appropriateintervals. This is especially important for taxa listed under Near Threatened,Data Deficient and for threatened taxa whose status is known or suspected to bedeteriorating.
13. Transfer between categoriesThe following rules govern the movement of taxa between categories:A. A taxon may be moved from a category of higher threat to a category of lower
threat if none of the criteria of the higher category has been met for five yearsor more.
B. If the original classification is found to have been erroneous, the taxon maybe transferred to the appropriate category or removed from the threatenedcategories altogether, without delay (but see Point 10 above).
C. Transfer from categories of lower to higher risk should be made withoutdelay.
14. Use at regional levelThe IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria were designed for global taxonassessments. However, many people are interested in applying them to subsets ofglobal data, especially at regional, national or local levels. To do this it isimportant to refer to guidelines prepared by the IUCN/SSC Regional ApplicationsWorking Group (e.g., Gärdenfors et al. 2001). When applied at national orregional levels it must be recognized that a global category may not be the sameas a national or regional category for a particular taxon. For example, taxaclassified as Least Concern globally might be Critically Endangered within aparticular region where numbers are very small or declining, perhaps onlybecause they are at the margins of their global range. Conversely, taxa classifiedas Vulnerable on the basis of their global declines in numbers or range might be
36
Least Concern within a particular region where their populations are stable. Itis also important to note that taxa endemic to regions or nations will be assessedglobally in any regional or national applications of the criteria, and in these casesgreat care must be taken to check that an assessment has not already beenundertaken by a Red List Authority (RLA), and that the categorization is agreedwith the relevant RLA (e.g., an SSC Specialist Group known to cover the taxon).
37
III. DEFINITIONS
1. Population and Population Size (Criteria A, C and D)The term ‘population’ is used in a specific sense in the Red List Criteria that isdifferent to its common biological usage. Population is here defined as the totalnumber of individuals of the taxon. For functional reasons, primarily owing todifferences between life forms, population size is measured as numbers of matureindividuals only. In the case of taxa obligately dependent on other taxa for all orpart of their life cycles, biologically appropriate values for the host taxon shouldbe used.
2. Subpopulations (Criteria B and C)Subpopulations are defined as geographically or otherwise distinct groups in thepopulation between which there is little demographic or genetic exchange(typically one successful migrant individual or gamete per year or less).
3. Mature individuals (Criteria A, B, C and D)The number of mature individuals is the number of individuals known, estimatedor inferred to be capable of reproduction. When estimating this quantity, thefollowing points should be borne in mind:• Mature individuals that will never produce new recruits should not be
counted (e.g. densities are too low for fertilization).• In the case of populations with biased adult or breeding sex ratios, it is
appropriate to use lower estimates for the number of mature individuals,which take this into account.
• Where the population size fluctuates, use a lower estimate. In most cases thiswill be much less than the mean.
• Reproducing units within a clone should be counted as individuals, exceptwhere such units are unable to survive alone (e.g. corals).
• In the case of taxa that naturally lose all or a subset of mature individuals atsome point in their life cycle, the estimate should be made at the appropriatetime, when mature individuals are available for breeding.
• Re-introduced individuals must have produced viable offspring before theyare counted as mature individuals.
4. Generation (Criteria A, C and E)Generation length is the average age of parents of the current cohort (i.e. newbornindividuals in the population). Generation length therefore reflects the turnoverrate of breeding individuals in a population. Generation length is greater than the
38
age at first breeding and less than the age of the oldest breeding individual, exceptin taxa that breed only once. Where generation length varies under threat, themore natural, i.e. pre-disturbance, generation length should be used.
5. Reduction (Criterion A)A reduction is a decline in the number of mature individuals of at least the amount(%) stated under the criterion over the time period (years) specified, although thedecline need not be continuing. A reduction should not be interpreted as part ofa fluctuation unless there is good evidence for this. The downward phase of afluctuation will not normally count as a reduction.
6. Continuing decline (Criteria B and C)A continuing decline is a recent, current or projected future decline (which maybe smooth, irregular or sporadic) which is liable to continue unless remedialmeasures are taken. Fluctuations will not normally count as continuing declines,but an observed decline should not be considered as a fluctuation unless there isevidence for this.
7. Extreme fluctuations (Criteria B and C)Extreme fluctuations can be said to occur in a number of taxa when populationsize or distribution area varies widely, rapidly and frequently, typically with avariation greater than one order of magnitude (i.e. a tenfold increase or decrease).
8. Severely fragmented (Criterion B)The phrase ‘severely fragmented’ refers to the situation in which increasedextinction risk to the taxon results from the fact that most of its individuals arefound in small and relatively isolated subpopulations (in certain circumstancesthis may be inferred from habitat information). These small subpopulations maygo extinct, with a reduced probability of recolonization.
9. Extent of occurrence (Criteria A and B)Extent of occurrence is defined as the area contained within the shortestcontinuous imaginary boundary which can be drawn to encompass all theknown, inferred or projected sites of present occurrence of a taxon, excludingcases of vagrancy (see Figure 2). This measure may exclude discontinuities ordisjunctions within the overall distributions of taxa (e.g. large areas of obviouslyunsuitable habitat) (but see ‘area of occupancy’, point 10 below). Extent ofoccurrence can often be measured by a minimum convex polygon (the smallestpolygon in which no internal angle exceeds 180 degrees and which contains all thesites of occurrence).
39
Figure 2. Two examplesof the distinctionbetween extent ofoccurrence and areaof occupancy.(A) is the spatialdistribution of known,inferred or projectedsites of presentoccurrence.(B) shows onepossible boundary tothe extent ofoccurrence, which isthe measured areawithin this boundary.(C) shows onemeasure of area ofoccupancy which canbe achieved by thesum of the occupiedgrid squares.
10. Area of occupancy (Criteria A, B and D)Area of occupancy is defined as the area within its ‘extent of occurrence’ (seepoint 9 above) which is occupied by a taxon, excluding cases of vagrancy. Themeasure reflects the fact that a taxon will not usually occur throughout the areaof its extent of occurrence, which may contain unsuitable or unoccupied habitats.In some cases (e.g. irreplaceable colonial nesting sites, crucial feeding sites formigratory taxa) the area of occupancy is the smallest area essential at any stageto the survival of existing populations of a taxon. The size of the area ofoccupancy will be a function of the scale at which it is measured, and should beat a scale appropriate to relevant biological aspects of the taxon, the nature of
40
threats and the available data (see point 7 in the Preamble). To avoid inconsistenciesand bias in assessments caused by estimating area of occupancy at differentscales, it may be necessary to standardize estimates by applying a scale-correctionfactor. It is difficult to give strict guidance on how standardization should bedone because different types of taxa have different scale-area relationships.
11. Location (Criteria B and D)The term ‘location’ defines a geographically or ecologically distinct area in whicha single threatening event can rapidly affect all individuals of the taxon present.The size of the location depends on the area covered by the threatening event andmay include part of one or many subpopulations. Where a taxon is affected bymore than one threatening event, location should be defined by considering themost serious plausible threat.
12. Quantitative analysis (Criterion E)A quantitative analysis is defined here as any form of analysis which estimates theextinction probability of a taxon based on known life history, habitat requirements,threats and any specified management options. Population viability analysis(PVA) is one such technique. Quantitative analyses should make full use of allrelevant available data. In a situation in which there is limited information, suchdata as are available can be used to provide an estimate of extinction risk (forinstance, estimating the impact of stochastic events on habitat). In presenting theresults of quantitative analyses, the assumptions (which must be appropriate anddefensible), the data used and the uncertainty in the data or quantitative modelmust be documented.
41
IV. THE CATEGORIES 1
A representation of the relationships between the categories is shown inFigure 1.
EXTINCT (EX)A taxon is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual hasdied. A taxon is presumed Extinct when exhaustive surveys in known and/orexpected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual), throughoutits historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over atime frame appropriate to the taxon’s life cycle and life form.
EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW)A taxon is Extinct in the Wild when it is known only to survive in cultivation, incaptivity or as a naturalized population (or populations) well outside the pastrange. A taxon is presumed Extinct in the Wild when exhaustive surveys inknown and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual),throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys shouldbe over a time frame appropriate to the taxon’s life cycle and life form.
CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR)A taxon is Critically Endangered when the best available evidence indicates thatit meets any of the criteria A to E for Critically Endangered (see Section V), andit is therefore considered to be facing an extremely high risk of extinction in thewild.
ENDANGERED (EN)A taxon is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meetsany of the criteria A to E for Endangered (see Section V), and it is thereforeconsidered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild.
VULNERABLE (VU)A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets anyof the criteria A to E for Vulnerable (see Section V), and it is therefore consideredto be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild.
1 Note: As in previous IUCN categories, the abbreviation of each category (in parenthesis) follows theEnglish denominations when translated into other languages (see Annex 2).
42
NEAR THREATENED (NT)A taxon is Near Threatened when it has been evaluated against the criteria butdoes not qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable now, butis close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the nearfuture.
LEAST CONCERN (LC)A taxon is Least Concern when it has been evaluated against the criteria and doesnot qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or NearThreatened. Widespread and abundant taxa are included in this category.
DATA DEFICIENT (DD)A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct,or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/orpopulation status. A taxon in this category may be well studied, and its biologywell known, but appropriate data on abundance and/or distribution are lacking.Data Deficient is therefore not a category of threat. Listing of taxa in thiscategory indicates that more information is required and acknowledges thepossibility that future research will show that threatened classification isappropriate. It is important to make positive use of whatever data are available.In many cases great care should be exercised in choosing between DD and athreatened status. If the range of a taxon is suspected to be relatively circumscribed,and a considerable period of time has elapsed since the last record of the taxon,threatened status may well be justified.
NOT EVALUATED (NE)A taxon is Not Evaluated when it is has not yet been evaluated against the criteria.
43
V. THE CRITERIA FOR CRITICALLY ENDANGERED,ENDANGERED AND VULNERABLE
CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR)A taxon is Critically Endangered when the best available evidence indicates thatit meets any of the following criteria (A to E), and it is therefore considered to befacing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild:
A. Reduction in population size based on any of the following:
1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reductionof ≥90% over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer,where the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understoodAND ceased, based on (and specifying) any of the following:(a) direct observation(b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of
habitat(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation(e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants,
competitors or parasites.
2. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reductionof ≥80% over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer,where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not beunderstood OR may not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a)to (e) under A1.
3. A population size reduction of ≥80%, projected or suspected to be metwithin the next 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer (upto a maximum of 100 years), based on (and specifying) any of (b) to (e)under A1.
4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population sizereduction of ≥80% over any 10 year or three generation period, whicheveris longer (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future), where the timeperiod must include both the past and the future, and where the reductionor its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may notbe reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
44
B. Geographic range in the form of either B1 (extent of occurrence) OR B2 (areaof occupancy) OR both:
1. Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 100 km2, and estimatesindicating at least two of a–c:
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at only a single location.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of thefollowing:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat(iv) number of locations or subpopulations(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) number of locations or subpopulations(iv) number of mature individuals.
2. Area of occupancy estimated to be less than 10 km2, and estimatesindicating at least two of a–c:
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at only a single location.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of thefollowing:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat(iv) number of locations or subpopulations(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) number of locations or subpopulations(iv) number of mature individuals.
45
C. Population size estimated to number fewer than 250 mature individuals andeither:
1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 25% within three years or onegeneration, whichever is longer, (up to a maximum of 100 years in thefuture) OR
2. A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers ofmature individuals AND at least one of the following (a–b):
a. Population structure in the form of one of the following:(i) no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 50 mature
individuals, OR(ii) at least 90% of mature individuals in one subpopulation.
b. Extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals.
D. Population size estimated to number fewer than 50 mature individuals.
E. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is atleast 50% within 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer (up toa maximum of 100 years).
ENDANGERED (EN)A taxon is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meetsany of the following criteria (A to E), and it is therefore considered to be facinga very high risk of extinction in the wild:
A. Reduction in population size based on any of the following:
1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population sizereduction of ≥70% over the last 10 years or three generations, whicheveris the longer, where the causes of the reduction are clearly reversibleAND understood AND ceased, based on (and specifying) any of thefollowing:(a) direct observation(b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of
habitat(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation
46
(e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants,competitors or parasites.
2. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reductionof ≥50% over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer,where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not beunderstood OR may not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a)to (e) under A1.
3. A population size reduction of ≥50%, projected or suspected to be met withinthe next 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to amaximum of 100 years), based on (and specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1.
4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population sizereduction of ≥50% over any 10 year or three generation period, whicheveris longer (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future), where the time periodmust include both the past and the future, and where the reduction or itscauses may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not bereversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
B. Geographic range in the form of either B1 (extent of occurrence) OR B2 (areaof occupancy) OR both:
1. Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 5000 km2, and estimatesindicating at least two of a–c:
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than five locations.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat(iv) number of locations or subpopulations(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) number of locations or subpopulations(iv) number of mature individuals.
47
2. Area of occupancy estimated to be less than 500 km2, and estimatesindicating at least two of a–c:
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than five locations.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat(iv) number of locations or subpopulations(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) number of locations or subpopulations(iv) number of mature individuals.
C. Population size estimated to number fewer than 2500 mature individuals andeither:
1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 20% within five years or twogenerations, whichever is longer, (up to a maximum of 100 years in thefuture) OR
2. A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers ofmature individuals AND at least one of the following (a–b):
a. Population structure in the form of one of the following:(i) no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 250 mature
individuals, OR(ii) at least 95% of mature individuals in one subpopulation.
b. Extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals.
D. Population size estimated to number fewer than 250 mature individuals.
E. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is atleast 20% within 20 years or five generations, whichever is the longer (up toa maximum of 100 years).
48
VULNERABLE (VU)A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets anyof the following criteria (A to E), and it is therefore considered to be facing a highrisk of extinction in the wild:
A. Reduction in population size based on any of the following:
1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reductionof ≥50% over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer,where the causes of the reduction are: clearly reversible AND understoodAND ceased, based on (and specifying) any of the following:(a) direct observation(b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of
habitat(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation(e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants,
competitors or parasites.
2. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction of≥30% over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, wherethe reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understoodOR may not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
3. A population size reduction of ≥30%, projected or suspected to be met withinthe next 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to amaximum of 100 years), based on (and specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1.
4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population sizereduction of ≥30% over any 10 year or three generation period, whicheveris longer (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future), where the time periodmust include both the past and the future, and where the reduction or itscauses may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not bereversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
B. Geographic range in the form of either B1 (extent of occurrence) OR B2 (areaof occupancy) OR both:
1. Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 20,000 km2, and estimatesindicating at least two of a–c:
49
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than 10 locations.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of thefollowing:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat(iv) number of locations or subpopulations(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) number of locations or subpopulations(iv) number of mature individuals.
2. Area of occupancy estimated to be less than 2000 km2, and estimatesindicating at least two of a–c:
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than 10 locations.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat(iv) number of locations or subpopulations(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) number of locations or subpopulations(iv) number of mature individuals.
C. Population size estimated to number fewer than 10,000 mature individualsand either:
1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 10% within 10 years or threegenerations, whichever is longer, (up to a maximum of 100 years in thefuture) OR
50
2. A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers ofmature individuals AND at least one of the following (a–b):
a. Population structure in the form of one of the following:(i) no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 1000 mature
individuals, OR(ii) all mature individuals are in one subpopulation.
b. Extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals.
D. Population very small or restricted in the form of either of the following:
1. Population size estimated to number fewer than 1000 mature individuals.
2. Population with a very restricted area of occupancy (typically less than20 km2) or number of locations (typically five or fewer) such that it is proneto the effects of human activities or stochastic events within a very shorttime period in an uncertain future, and is thus capable of becomingCritically Endangered or even Extinct in a very short time period.
E. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is atleast 10% within 100 years.
51
Annex 1: Uncertainty
The Red List Criteria should be applied to a taxon based on the availableevidence concerning its numbers, trend and distribution. In cases where there areevident threats to a taxon through, for example, deterioration of its only knownhabitat, a threatened listing may be justified, even though there may be littledirect information on the biological status of the taxon itself. In all theseinstances there are uncertainties associated with the available information andhow it was obtained. These uncertainties may be categorized as natural variability,semantic uncertainty and measurement error (Akçakaya et al. 2000). This sectionprovides guidance on how to recognize and deal with these uncertainties whenusing the criteria.
Natural variability results from the fact that species’ life histories and theenvironments in which they live change over time and space. The effect of thisvariation on the criteria is limited, because each parameter refers to a specific timeor spatial scale. Semantic uncertainty arises from vagueness in the definition ofterms or lack of consistency in different assessors’ usage of them. Despiteattempts to make the definitions of the terms used in the criteria exact, in somecases this is not possible without the loss of generality. Measurement error isoften the largest source of uncertainty; it arises from the lack of precise informationabout the parameters used in the criteria. This may be due to inaccuracies inestimating the values or a lack of knowledge. Measurement error may be reducedor eliminated by acquiring additional data. For further details, see Akçakaya etal. (2000) and Burgman et al. (1999).
One of the simplest ways to represent uncertainty is to specify a best estimate anda range of plausible values. The best estimate itself might be a range, but in anycase the best estimate should always be included in the range of plausible values.When data are very uncertain, the range for the best estimate might be the rangeof plausible values. There are various methods that can be used to establish theplausible range. It may be based on confidence intervals, the opinion of a singleexpert, or the consensus opinion of a group of experts. Whichever method is usedshould be stated and justified in the documentation.
When interpreting and using uncertain data, attitudes toward risk and uncertaintymay play an important role. Attitudes have two components. First, assessorsneed to consider whether they will include the full range of plausible values inassessments, or whether they will exclude extreme values from consideration
52
(known as dispute tolerance). An assessor with a low dispute tolerance wouldinclude all values, thereby increasing the uncertainty, whereas an assessor witha high dispute tolerance would exclude extremes, reducing the uncertainty.Second, assessors need to consider whether they have a precautionary orevidentiary attitude to risk (known as risk tolerance). A precautionary attitudewill classify a taxon as threatened unless it is certain that it is not threatened,whereas an evidentiary attitude will classify a taxon as threatened only whenthere is strong evidence to support a threatened classification. Assessors shouldresist an evidentiary attitude and adopt a precautionary but realistic attitude touncertainty when applying the criteria, for example, by using plausible lowerbounds, rather than best estimates, in determining population size, especially ifit is fluctuating. All attitudes should be explicitly documented.
An assessment using a point estimate (i.e. single numerical value) will lead to asingle Red List Category. However, when a plausible range for each parameteris used to evaluate the criteria, a range of categories may be obtained, reflectingthe uncertainties in the data. A single category, based on a specific attitude touncertainty, should always be listed along with the criteria met, while the rangeof plausible categories should be indicated in the documentation (see Annex 3).
Where data are so uncertain that any category is plausible, the category of ‘DataDeficient’ should be assigned. However, it is important to recognize that thiscategory indicates that the data are inadequate to determine the degree of threatfaced by a taxon, not necessarily that the taxon is poorly known or indeed notthreatened. Although Data Deficient is not a threatened category, it indicates aneed to obtain more information on a taxon to determine the appropriate listing;moreover, it requires documentation with whatever available informationthere is.
53
Annex 2: Citation of the IUCN Red List Categoriesand Criteria
In order to promote the use of a standard format for citing the Red ListCategories and Criteria the following forms of citation are recommended:1. The Red List Category may be written out in full or abbreviated as follows
(when translated into other languages, the abbreviations should follow theEnglish denominations):
Extinct, EX Near Threatened, NTExtinct in the Wild, EW Least Concern, LCCritically Endangered, CR Data Deficient, DDEndangered, EN Not Evaluated, NEVulnerable, VU
2. Under Section V (the criteria for Critically Endangered, Endangered andVulnerable) there is a hierarchical alphanumeric numbering system of criteriaand subcriteria. These criteria and subcriteria (all three levels) form anintegral part of the Red List assessment and all those that result in theassignment of a threatened category must be specified after the Category.Under the criteria A to C and D under Vulnerable, the first level of thehierarchy is indicated by the use of numbers (1–4) and if more than one is met,they are separated by means of the ‘+’ symbol. The second level is indicatedby the use of the lower-case alphabet characters (a–e). These are listed withoutany punctuation. A third level of the hierarchy under Criteria B and Cinvolves the use of lower case roman numerals (i–v). These are placed inparentheses (with no space between the preceding alphabet character andstart of the parenthesis) and separated by the use of commas if more than oneis listed. Where more than one criterion is met, they should be separated bysemicolons. The following are examples of such usage:
EX CR A1cd VU A2c+3cEN B1ac(i,ii,iii) EN A2c; D VU D1+2CR A2c+3c; B1ab(iii) CR D VU D2EN B2ab(i,ii,iii) VU C2a(ii)EN A1c; B1ab(iii); C2a(i) EN B2b(iii)c(ii)EN B1ab(i,ii,v)c(iii,iv)+2b(i)c(ii,v) VU B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii)EN A2abc+3bc+4abc; B1b(iii,iv,v)c(ii,iii,iv)+2b(iii,iv,v)c(ii,iii,iv)
54
Annex 3: Documentation Requirements for TaxaIncluded on the IUCN Red List
The following is the minimum set of information, which should accompany everyassessment submitted for incorporation into the IUCN Red List of ThreatenedSpecies™:• Scientific name including authority details• English common name/s and any other widely used common names (specify
the language of each name supplied)• Red List Category and Criteria• Countries of occurrence (including country subdivisions for large nations,
e.g. states within the USA, and overseas territories, e.g. islands far from themainland country)
• For marine species, the Fisheries Areas in which they occur should berecorded (see http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sis/faomap.htm for the FisheriesAreas as delimited by FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations)
• For inland water species, the names of the river systems, lakes, etc. to whichthey are confined
• A map showing the geographic distribution (extent of occurrence)• A rationale for the listing (including any numerical data, inferences or
uncertainty that relate to the criteria and their thresholds)• Current population trends (increasing, decreasing, stable or unknown)• Habitat preferences (using a modified version of the Global Land Cover
Characterization (GLCC) classification which is available electronicallyfrom http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sis/authority.htm or on request [email protected])
• Major threats (indicating past, current and future threats using a standardclassification which is available from the SSC web site or e-mail address asshown above)
• Conservation measures, (indicating both current and proposed measuresusing a standard classification which is available from the SSC web site or e-mail address as shown above)
• Information on any changes in the Red List status of the taxon, and why thestatus has changed
• Data sources (cited in full; including unpublished sources and personalcommunications)
• Name/s and contact details of the assessor/s• Before inclusion on the IUCN Red List, all assessments will be evaluated by
55
at least two members of a Red List Authority. The Red List Authority isappointed by the Chair of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and isusually a sub-group of a Specialist Group. The names of the evaluators willappear with each assessment.
In addition to the minimum documentation, the following information shouldalso be supplied where appropriate:• If a quantitative analysis is used for the assessment (i.e. Criterion E), the data,
assumptions and structural equations (e.g., in the case of a PopulationViability Analysis) should be included as part of the documentation.
• For Extinct or Extinct in the Wild taxa, extra documentation is requiredindicating the effective date of extinction, possible causes of the extinctionand the details of surveys which have been conducted to search for the taxon.
• For taxa listed as Near Threatened, the rationale for listing should include adiscussion of the criteria that are nearly met or the reasons for highlightingthe taxon (e.g., they are dependent on ongoing conservation measures).
• For taxa listed as Data Deficient, the documentation should include whatlittle information is available.
Assessments may be made using version 2.0 of the software package RAMAS®
Red List (Akçakaya and Ferson 2001). This program assigns taxa to Red ListCategories according to the rules of the IUCN Red List Criteria and has theadvantage of being able to explicitly handle uncertainty in the data. The softwarecaptures most of the information required for the documentation above, but insome cases the information will be reported differently. The following pointsshould be noted:• If RAMAS® Red List is used to obtain a listing, this should be stated.• Uncertain values should be entered into the program as a best estimate and
a plausible range, or as an interval (see the RAMAS® Red List manual or helpfiles for further details).
• The settings for attitude towards risk and uncertainty (i.e. dispute tolerance,risk tolerance and burden of proof) are all pre-set at a mid-point. If any ofthese settings are changed this should be documented and fully justified,especially if a less precautionary position is adopted.
• Depending on the uncertainties, the resulting classification can be a singlecategory and/or a range of plausible categories. In such instances, thefollowing approach should be adopted (the program will usually indicate thisautomatically in the Results window):– If the range of plausible categories extends across two or more of the
threatened categories (e.g. Critically Endangered to Vulnerable) and no
56
preferred category is indicated, the precautionary approach is to take thehighest category shown, i.e. CR in the above example. In such cases, therange of plausible categories should be documented under the rationaleincluding a note that a precautionary approach was followed in order todistinguish it from the situation in the next point. The following notationhas been suggested e.g. CR* (CR–VU).
– If a range of plausible categories is given and a preferred category isindicated, the rationale should indicate the range of plausible categoriesmet e.g. EN (CR–VU).
• The program specifies the criteria that contributed to the listing (see Statuswindow). However, when data are uncertain, the listing criteria areapproximate, and in some cases may not be determined at all. In such cases,the assessors should use the Text results to determine or verify the criteria andsub-criteria met. Listing criteria derived in this way must be clearly indicatedin the rationale (refer to the RAMAS® Red List Help menu for furtherguidance on this issue).
• If the preferred category is indicated as Least Concern, but the plausible rangeextends into the threatened categories, a listing of ‘Near Threatened’ (NT)should be used. The criteria, which triggered the extension into the threatenedrange, should be recorded under the rationale.
• Any assessments made using this software must be submitted with theRAMAS® Red List input files (i.e. the *.RED files).
New global assessments or reassessments of taxa currently on the IUCN Red List,may be submitted to the IUCN/SSC Red List Programme Officer for incorporation(subject to peer review) in a future edition of the IUCN Red List of ThreatenedSpecies™. Submissions from within the SSC network should preferably be madeusing the Species Information Service (SIS) database. Other submissions may besubmitted electronically; these should preferably be as files produced usingRAMAS® Red List or any of the programs in Microsoft Office 97 (or earlierversions) e.g. Word, Excel or Access. Submissions should be sent to:IUCN/SSC Red List Programme, IUCN/SSC UK Office, 219c HuntingdonRoad, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, United Kingdom. Fax: +44 (0)1223-277845;Email: [email protected].
For further clarification or information about the IUCN Red List Criteria,documentation requirements (including the standards used) or submission ofassessments, please contact the IUCN/SSC Red List Programme Officer at theaddress shown above.
57
References
Akçakaya, H.R. and Ferson, S. 2001. RAMAS® Red List: Threatened SpeciesClassifications under Uncertainty. Version 2.0. Applied Biomathematics, NewYork.
Akçakaya, H.R., Ferson, S., Burgman, M.A., Keith, D.A., Mace, G.M. and Todd,C.A. 2000. Making consistent IUCN classifications under uncertainty. ConservationBiology 14: 1001–1013.
Baillie, J. and Groombridge, B. (eds). 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of ThreatenedAnimals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Burgman, M.A., Keith, D.A. and Walshe, T.V. 1999. Uncertainty in comparativerisk analysis of threatened Australian plant species. Risk Analysis 19: 585–598.
Fitter, R. and Fitter, M. (eds). 1987. The Road to Extinction. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.
Gärdenfors, U., Hilton-Taylor, C., Mace, G. and Rodríguez, J.P. 2001. Theapplication of IUCN Red List Criteria at regional levels. Conservation Biology15: 1206–1212.
Hilton-Taylor, C. (compiler). 2000. 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
IUCN. 1993. Draft IUCN Red List Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.IUCN. 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival
Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.IUCN. 1996. Resolution 1.4. Species Survival Commission. Resolutions and
Recommendations, pp. 7–8. World Conservation Congress, 13–23 October 1996,Montreal, Canada. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN. 1998. Guidelines for Re-introductions. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
IUCN/SSC Criteria Review Working Group. 1999. IUCN Red List Criteria reviewprovisional report: draft of the proposed changes and recommendations. Species31–32: 43–57.
Mace, G.M., Collar, N., Cooke, J., Gaston, K.J., Ginsberg, J.R., Leader-Williams,N., Maunder, M. and Milner-Gulland, E.J. 1992. The development of new criteriafor listing species on the IUCN Red List. Species 19: 16–22.
Mace, G.M. and Lande, R. 1991. Assessing extinction threats: toward a re-evaluationof IUCN threatened species categories. Conservation Biology 5: 148–157.
Mace, G.M. and Stuart, S.N. 1994. Draft IUCN Red List Categories, Version 2.2.Species 21–22: 13–24.
Oldfield, S., Lusty, C. and MacKinven, A. 1998. The World List of ThreatenedTrees. World Conservation Press, Cambridge.
58
Threat Status for Mammals in Peninsular MalaysiaAPPENDIX III
The information displayed below for each species below contains the following :
1) family – as used by G.B.Corbet and J.E.Hill, in The Mammals of the Indomalayan Region – a systematic review 1992.
2) genus – updated using published information from the above.
3) species – updated using published information from the above.
4) common name – based on the English common name as used by Lord Medway in The Wild Mammals of Malaya 1969 with additions from more recent publications.
5) bahasa name – as used by the Jabatan PERHILITAN
6) code - an internal tool for sorting database records; ignore.
7) Regional distribution - a map of the regional distribution compiled from Corbet & Hill, as well as the work of Boonsong Lekagul & Jeffery A. McNeely in Mammals of Thailand 1977; A.P.M. Van der Zoon in Mammals of Indonesia 1979. These maps are equivalent to the historical EOO for the species.
8) distribution in Peninsular Malaysia – the map of the extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupation (AOO) for each species. This has been built by normalizing the point locations of each field record by administrative districts and which is then used to identify the EOO – the current range, and then by identifying suitable habitat with the range, the AOO. For generalist species, the EOO is the same as the AOO (see Tupia glis). For species with narrow habitat demands, the AOO is smaller than EOO, either because of natural ecological variability, or habitat change by human activities. For the species that are affected by ecological change, the AOO has been declining the extent of habitat clearance is shown at four intervals: the ‘original extent’ prior to 1970, 1970-1980, 1980-1990, and 1990-2000 (see Balionycteris maculata).
9) Review 2009 (area in ha.) – gives the area of the EOO and AOO using the 2009 assessment model shown in 8). It should be noted that areas are given in hectares. IUCN quotes EOO and AOO areas as sq. km. To convert hectares to sq.km., divide by 100.
10) EOO – the total historical extent of occurrence or range, in hectares, based on the area of the districts in Peninsular Malaysia where the species has been recorded.
11) AOO 80 –the extent of available habitat within the EOO that existed at the end of 1980. It is assumed that habitat quality is uniform and species density consistent over the whole habitat. Area in hectares.
12) AOO 90 - the extent of available habitat within the EOO that existed at the end of 1990. It is assumed that habitat quality is uniform and species density consistent over the whole habitat. Area in hectares.
13) AOO 00 - the extent of available habitat within the EOO that existed at the end of 2000. It is assumed that habitat quality is uniform and species density consistent over the whole habitat. Area in hectares.
14) % decade change – this gives the changes in the extent of available habitat as a percentage of the area at the start of the 10 year period from 1980 to 1990, and from 1990 to 2000. Using Tupaia minor as an example; at the end of 1990, the AOO was 224,280 ha. By 2000 the AOO had fallen to 168,005 ha. the change in percentage (AOO00-AOO90/AOO90*100=) -25.09%.
15) The assessment published by the IUCN for 2009.
16) Output review 2007 – the output of the assessment by the Expert Group using IUCN Red list criteria by the ad-hoc group at Bkt. Lanchang in 2007.
17) Output review 2010 – the output from this exercise using the AOO areas and % decade change in 11) to 14) above, and the review by the Expert Group at Paya Indah Wetlands in January 2010.
18) criteria A – red list criteria for change in population size.
19) criteria B – red list criteria for change in the geographic range of the EOO or AOO of the species
20) criteria C – red list criteria for population size estimates and population trends
61
2)genus
Manis4)common name
Scaly anteater5)malay name:
Tenggiling8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: VU A1bd18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 10,365,85611)AOO 80: 10,303,84712)AOO 90: 10,303,84713)AOO 00: 10,303,847
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20101
7)regional distribution:
1
16)Output review 2009:
VU A4cdLC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.008
1) family:
Manidae3)species:
javanica
2)genus
Echinosorex4)common name
Moonrat, gymnure5)malay name:
Tikus ambang bulan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 6,558,68011)AOO 80: 6,558,68012)AOO 90: 6,558,68013)AOO 00: 6,558,680
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20201
7)regional distribution:
2
16)Output review 2009:
VU A4eLC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Erinaceidae3)species:
gymnurus
2)genus
Hylomys4)common name
Lesser gymnure5)malay name:
Tikus babi8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 2,040,63511)AOO 80: 628,49912)AOO 90: 620,04213)AOO 00: 614,973
14)% decade change
1.35%0.82%
6)code: 20201
7)regional distribution:
3
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Erinaceidae3)species:
suillus
62
2)genus
Euroscaptor4)common name
Malayan mole5)malay name:
Cencurut hutan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 68,15411)AOO 80: 56,34312)AOO 90: 56,33113)AOO 00: 56,163
14)% decade change
0.02%0.30%
6)code: 20202
7)regional distribution:
4
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Talpidae3)species:
micrura
2)genus
Chimarrogale4)common name
Malayan water shrew5)malay name:
Cencurut air8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 296,54311)AOO 80: 125,23912)AOO 90: 124,77613)AOO 00: 124,011
14)% decade change
0.37%0.61%
6)code: 20203
7)regional distribution:
5
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Soricidiae3)species:
hantu
2)genus
Crocidura4)common name
White toothed shrew5)malay name:
Cencurut hutan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,113,62411)AOO 80: 862,50612)AOO 90: 768,17713)AOO 00: 700,756
14)% decade change
10.94%8.87%
6)code: 20203
7)regional distribution:
8
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Soricidae3)species:
fulginosa
63
2)genus
Crocidura4)common name
Malay shrew5)malay name:
Cencurut gunung8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B EN B1+2 c(?)&?19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 6,444,69811)AOO 80: 6,444,69812)AOO 90: 6,444,69813)AOO 00: 6,444,698
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20203
7)regional distribution:
9
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Soricidae3)species:
malayana
2)genus
Crocidura4)common name
Sunder shrew5)malay name:
Cencurut8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 473,76611)AOO 80: 209,25012)AOO 90: 205,07813)AOO 00: 203,986
14)% decade change
1.99%0.53%
6)code: 20203
7)regional distribution:
10
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Soricidae3)species:
monticola
2)genus
Crocidura4)common name
Grey shrew5)malay name:
Cencurut kelabu8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,49711)AOO 80: 13,14412)AOO 90: 12,93813)AOO 00: 12,035
14)% decade change
1.57%6.98%
6)code: 20203
7)regional distribution:
11
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Soricidae3)species:
negligens
64
2)genus
Suncus4)common name
Savi's Pygmy shrew5)malay name:
Cencurut terkecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 4,525,41211)AOO 80: 3,304,16912)AOO 90: 2,864,94913)AOO 00: 2,533,292
14)% decade change
13.29%11.58%
6)code: 20203
7)regional distribution:
13
16)Output review 2009:
LC
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Soricidae3)species:
etruscus
2)genus
Suncus4)common name
House shrew5)malay name:
Cencurut rumah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 4,434,02012)AOO 90: 5,940,11413)AOO 00: 6,927,751
14)% decade change
33.97%16.63%
6)code: 20203
7)regional distribution:
14
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Soricidae3)species:
murinus
2)genus
Ptilocercus4)common name
Pen tailed treeshrew5)malay name:
Tupai akar malam8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B EN B c(i)&?19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 238,90611)AOO 80: 184,64812)AOO 90: 165,10413)AOO 00: 130,449
14)% decade change
10.58%20.99%
6)code: 20301
7)regional distribution:
16
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.3.237
1) family:
Tupaiidae3)species:
lowii
65
2)genus
Tupaia4)common name
Common treeshrew5)malay name:
Tupai muncung besar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 13,211,67312)AOO 90: 13,211,67313)AOO 00: 13,211,673
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20301
7)regional distribution:
18
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Tupaiidae3)species:
glis
2)genus
Tupaia4)common name
Lesser treeshrew5)malay name:
8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 636,99511)AOO 80: 323,46412)AOO 90: 224,28013)AOO 00: 168,006
14)% decade change
30.66%25.09%
6)code: 20301
7)regional distribution:
20
16)Output review 2009:
VU A4cVU B2ab(iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.3.241
1) family:
Tupaiidae3)species:
minor
2)genus
Cyanocephalus4)common name
Flying lemur5)malay name:
Kubung8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 8,711,16511)AOO 80: 8,665,02612)AOO 90: 8,665,02613)AOO 00: 8,665,026
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20401
7)regional distribution:
24
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.034
1) family:
Cynocephalidae3)species:
variegatus
66
2)genus
Aethalops4)common name
Grey fruit bat5)malay name:
Cecadu bukit8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,850,22711)AOO 80: 95,27712)AOO 90: 95,17913)AOO 00: 94,382
14)% decade change
0.10%0.84%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
25
16)Output review 2009:
VU A2cLC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
alecto
2)genus
Balionycteris4)common name
Spotted winged fruit bat5)malay name:
Cecadu sayap beritik8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
26
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
maculata
2)genus
Chironax4)common name
Black capped fruit bat5)malay name:
Cecadu kepala hitam8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
27
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
melanocephalus
67
2)genus
Cynopterus4)common name
Lesser dog faced fruit bat5)malay name:
Cecadu pisang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 13,181,64212)AOO 90: 13,181,64213)AOO 00: 13,181,642
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
28
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
brachyotis
2)genus
Cynopterus4)common name
Horsefields fruit bat5)malay name:
Cecadu pisang besar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 13,181,64212)AOO 90: 13,181,64213)AOO 00: 13,181,642
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
29
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
horsefieldii
2)genus
Cynopterus4)common name
Short nosed fruit bat5)malay name:
Cecadu siam8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 791,62111)AOO 80: 791,62112)AOO 90: 791,62113)AOO 00: 791,621
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
30
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
sphinx
68
2)genus
Dyacopterus4)common name
Dayak fruit bat5)malay name:
Cecadu dayak8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 2,650,24411)AOO 80: 2,182,19512)AOO 90: 1,981,59613)AOO 00: 1,775,963
14)% decade change
9.19%10.38%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
31
16)Output review 2009:
NTLC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
spadiceus
2)genus
Eonycteris4)common name
Cave fruit bat5)malay name:
Cecadu gua8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
33
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
spelaea
2)genus
Macroglossus4)common name
Common long tongued fruit bat5)malay name:
Cecadu madu bakau8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 10,371,32012)AOO 90: 10,371,32013)AOO 00: 10,371,320
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
34
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
minimus
69
2)genus
Macroglossus4)common name
Hill long tongued fruit bat5)malay name:
Cecadu madu bukit8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
35
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
sobrinus
2)genus
Megaerops4)common name
Tailess fruit bat5)malay name:
Cecadu tiada berekor8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
36
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
ecaudatus
2)genus
Megaerops4)common name
Wetmore's tailess fruit bat5)malay name:
Cecadu8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 148,24911)AOO 80: 65,46012)AOO 90: 16,67013)AOO 00: 8,691
14)% decade change
74.53%47.86%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
37
16)Output review 2009:
EN A4cEN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
wetmorei
70
2)genus
Penthetor4)common name
Dusky fruit bat5)malay name:
Cecadu hitam padar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
38
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
lucasi
2)genus
Pteropus4)common name
Small flying fox5)malay name:
Kluang kecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B2 ab(iv)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 15,22511)AOO 80: 14,96312)AOO 90: 12,67613)AOO 00: 11,774
14)% decade change
15.28%7.12%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
39
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.015
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
hypomelanus
2)genus
Pteropus4)common name
Large flying fox5)malay name:
Kluang besar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ab(iv)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 6,784,10611)AOO 80: 6,784,10612)AOO 90: 6,784,10613)AOO 00: 6,784,106
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
40
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.014
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
vampyrus
71
2)genus
Rousettus4)common name
Geoffroy's rousete5)malay name:
Cecadu besar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 2,043,70711)AOO 80: 1,683,98912)AOO 90: 1,476,99313)AOO 00: 1,272,982
14)% decade change
12.29%13.81%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
41
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
amplexicaudatus
2)genus
Rousettus4)common name 5)malay name:
Cecadu8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 62,82011)AOO 80: 21,79312)AOO 90: 19,47913)AOO 00: 17,308
14)% decade change
10.62%11.15%
6)code: 20501
7)regional distribution:
42
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Pteropodidae3)species:
leschenaulti
2)genus
Emballonura4)common name
Lesser sheath tailed bat5)malay name:
Kelawar teng teng8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20503
7)regional distribution:
45
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Emballonuridae3)species:
monticola
72
2)genus
Taphozous4)common name
Long winged tomb bat5)malay name:
Kelawar kepak panjang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 6,080,87011)AOO 80: 4,625,78212)AOO 90: 4,625,78213)AOO 00: 4,625,782
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20503
7)regional distribution:
46
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Emballonuridae3)species:
longimanus
2)genus
Taphozous4)common name
Black bearded tomb bat5)malay name:
Kelawar dagu hitam8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 13,148,39712)AOO 90: 13,148,39713)AOO 00: 13,148,397
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20503
7)regional distribution:
47
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Emballonuridae3)species:
melanopogon
2)genus
Taphozous4)common name
Pouch bearing bat5)malay name:
Kelawar dada putih8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,529,48812)AOO 90: 7,023,52813)AOO 00: 6,036,271
14)% decade change
17.66%14.06%
6)code: 20503
7)regional distribution:
48
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Emballonuridae3)species:
saccolaimus
73
2)genus
Nycteris4)common name
Hollow face bat5)malay name:
Kelawar muka lekok8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,181,64211)AOO 80: 13,148,39712)AOO 90: 13,148,39713)AOO 00: 13,148,397
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20505
7)regional distribution:
49
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Nycteridae3)species:
tragata
2)genus
Megaderma4)common name
Greater false vampire bat5)malay name:
Kelawar buas8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 3,452,21111)AOO 80: 2,934,34912)AOO 90: 2,673,80713)AOO 00: 2,430,533
14)% decade change
8.88%9.10%
6)code: 20506
7)regional distribution:
50
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Megadermatidae3)species:
lyra
2)genus
Megaderma4)common name
Lesser false vampire bat5)malay name:
Kelawar telinga lebar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20506
7)regional distribution:
51
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Megadermatidae3)species:
spasma
74
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Acuminate horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam kenarong8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 979,02011)AOO 80: 829,32112)AOO 90: 786,48313)AOO 00: 760,813
14)% decade change
5.17%3.26%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
52
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
acuminiatus
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Intermediate horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam hutan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,62111)AOO 80: 8,529,48812)AOO 90: 7,023,52813)AOO 00: 6,036,271
14)% decade change
17.66%14.06%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
53
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
affinis
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Bornean horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO:
11)AOO 80:
12)AOO 90:
13)AOO 00:
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
55
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
borneensis
75
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Chiewkwee's horseshose bat5)malay name:
Kelawar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 597,32011)AOO 80: 208,90212)AOO 90: 158,99113)AOO 00: 108,040
14)% decade change
23.89%32.05%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
56
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
chiewkweeae
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Croslet horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam berpalang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 516,82211)AOO 80: 306,81012)AOO 90: 252,19113)AOO 00: 216,717
14)% decade change
17.80%14.07%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
57
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
coelophyllus
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Convex horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 68,15411)AOO 80: 36,22112)AOO 90: 36,20713)AOO 00: 35,586
14)% decade change
0.04%1.72%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
58
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009: DD
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
convexus
76
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Grossy horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam bulu kilat8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
60
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
lepidus
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Wooly horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam terbesar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
61
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
luctus
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Big eared horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam telinga panjang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 624,65411)AOO 80: 458,06512)AOO 90: 386,03613)AOO 00: 349,319
14)% decade change
15.72%9.51%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
62
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
macrotis
77
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
North malayan horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam utara8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,592,51111)AOO 80: 716,18112)AOO 90: 706,46513)AOO 00: 700,831
14)% decade change
1.36%0.80%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
63
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
malayanus
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Marshall's horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 82,17611)AOO 80: 23,56412)AOO 90: 9,74813)AOO 00: 8,699
14)% decade change
58.63%10.76%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
64
16)Output review 2009:
EN A4cEN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
marshalli
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Least horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam terkecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 2,863,37611)AOO 80: 1,179,11912)AOO 90: 956,69413)AOO 00: 749,802
14)% decade change
18.86%21.63%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
67
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
pusillus
78
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Peninsular horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam semenanjung8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 2,601,61411)AOO 80: 2,123,71012)AOO 90: 1,956,95913)AOO 00: 1,868,108
14)% decade change
7.85%4.54%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
68
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
robinsoni
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Lesser wooly horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam bulu lulus8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 3,353,72211)AOO 80: 1,552,59312)AOO 90: 1,224,43713)AOO 00: 1,055,482
14)% decade change
21.14%13.80%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
69
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
sedulus
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Shamel's horseshoe bat5)malay name:
8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 82,17011)AOO 80: 26,17512)AOO 90: 12,15513)AOO 00: 11,018
14)% decade change
53.56%9.35%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
70
16)Output review 2009:
EN A4cEN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
shameli
79
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Lesser brown horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam bukit8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 12,353,84211)AOO 80: 7,919,82112)AOO 90: 6,414,40713)AOO 00: 5,428,220
14)% decade change
19.01%15.37%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
71
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
stheno
2)genus
Rhinolophus4)common name
Intermediate horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20507
7)regional distribution:
72
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Rhinolophidae3)species:
trifoliatus
2)genus
Aselliscus4)common name
Trident horshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar serampang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 31,15511)AOO 80: 11,30712)AOO 90: 10,54513)AOO 00: 9,157
14)% decade change
6.74%13.16%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
73
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
stoliczkanus
80
2)genus
Coelops4)common name
East asian tailess bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam tiada berekor8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 62,82011)AOO 80: 34,14312)AOO 90: 31,73413)AOO 00: 29,556
14)% decade change
7.06%6.86%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
74
16)Output review 2009:
EN B1ab(ii,iii);B
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
frithii
2)genus
Coelops4)common name
Malaysian tailess horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam tiada berekor8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc nt
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,003,81011)AOO 80: 550,58212)AOO 90: 480,31413)AOO 00: 440,450
14)% decade change
12.76%8.30%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
75
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
robinsoni
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Great roundleaf horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam bulat terbesar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
76
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
armiger
81
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Dusky roundleaf horseshoe bat5)malay name:
8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO:
11)AOO 80:
12)AOO 90:
13)AOO 00:
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
77
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
ater
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Common roundleaf horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam bulat gua8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,529,48812)AOO 90: 7,023,52813)AOO 00: 6,036,271
14)% decade change
17.66%14.06%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
79
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
cervinus
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Least roundleaf horshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam bulat terkecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
80
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
cineraceus
82
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Great roundleaf horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar bahu putih8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
82
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
diadema
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Lawa's roundleaf horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam bulat lawas8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 210,56111)AOO 80: 127,19512)AOO 90: 113,58813)AOO 00: 104,253
14)% decade change
10.70%8.22%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
83
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
doriae
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Dayak roundleaf horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 82,17011)AOO 80: 23,56412)AOO 90: 9,74813)AOO 00: 8,699
14)% decade change
58.63%10.76%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
84
16)Output review 2009:
EN A4cEN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
dyacorum
83
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Cantor's roundleaf horshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam bulat gua8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,850,46011)AOO 80: 1,432,69112)AOO 90: 1,326,82413)AOO 00: 1,233,992
14)% decade change
7.39%7.00%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
85
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
galeritus
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Large roundleaf horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam bulat besar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
86
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
larvatus
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Lekagul's roundleaf horshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar lekagul8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 82,17011)AOO 80: 26,17512)AOO 90: 12,15513)AOO 00: 11,018
14)% decade change
53.56%9.35%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
87
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
lekaguli
84
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Shield faced bat5)malay name:
Kelawar monchong perisai8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 2,729,31711)AOO 80: 1,917,34612)AOO 90: 1,724,61613)AOO 00: 1,596,579
14)% decade change
10.05%7.42%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
88
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
lylei
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Malayan roundleaf horshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam bulat Malaysia8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 50,67911)AOO 80: 15,81812)AOO 90: 10,79413)AOO 00: 4,757
14)% decade change
31.76%55.93%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
89
16)Output review 2009:
EN B1ab(ii,iii);
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
nequam
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Roundleaf horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 62,82011)AOO 80: 14,27312)AOO 90: 14,17713)AOO 00: 14,170
14)% decade change
0.67%0.05%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
90
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
orbiculus
85
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
? Roundleaf horseshoe bat5)malay name:
Kelawar ladam8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 82,17011)AOO 80: 26,17512)AOO 90: 12,15513)AOO 00: 11,018
14)% decade change
53.56%9.35%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
91
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
pomona
2)genus
Hipposideros4)common name
Pratt's roundleaf horseshoe bat5)malay name:
8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO:
11)AOO 80:
12)AOO 90:
13)AOO 00:
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20508
7)regional distribution:
92
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Hipposideridae3)species:
pratti
2)genus
Arielulus4)common name
Black gilded pipistrelle5)malay name:
Kelawar hitam kuning8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 68,15411)AOO 80: 36,22112)AOO 90: 36,20713)AOO 00: 35,586
14)% decade change
0.04%1.72%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
94
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
circumdatus
86
2)genus
Arielulus4)common name
Benom pipistrelle5)malay name:
Kelawar benom8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 459,08411)AOO 80: 64,78912)AOO 90: 64,40913)AOO 00: 64,274
14)% decade change
0.59%0.21%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
95
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
societatis
2)genus
Glischropus4)common name
Thick thumbed pipistrelle5)malay name:
Kelawar tapak tangan putih8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
96
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
tylopus
2)genus
Harpiocephalus4)common name
Hairy winged bat5)malay name:
Kelawar hidung emas besar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 659,11611)AOO 80: 612,84712)AOO 90: 582,92913)AOO 00: 571,761
14)% decade change
4.88%1.92%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
98
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
mordax
87
2)genus
Hesperoptenus4)common name
Lesser false serotine5)malay name:
Kelawar petang palsu kecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,762,25211)AOO 80: 115,05912)AOO 90: 114,63613)AOO 00: 114,216
14)% decade change
0.37%0.37%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
99
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
blandfordi
2)genus
Hesperoptenus4)common name
Doria's false serotine5)malay name:
Kelawar petang palsu sederhana8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 62,82011)AOO 80: 14,40712)AOO 90: 14,31213)AOO 00: 14,305
14)% decade change
0.66%0.05%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
100
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
doriae
2)genus
Hesperoptenus4)common name
Large false serotine5)malay name:
Kelawar petang palsu8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 574,71711)AOO 80: 244,93612)AOO 90: 242,54713)AOO 00: 239,084
14)% decade change
0.98%1.43%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
101
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
tomesi
88
2)genus
Pipistrellus4)common name
Brown pipistrelle5)malay name:
Kelawar hidung pendek8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO:
11)AOO 80:
12)AOO 90:
13)AOO 00:
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
102
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
macrotis
2)genus
Kerivoula4)common name
Hardwicke's forest bat5)malay name:
Kelawar hutan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 3,315,69811)AOO 80: 2,689,42212)AOO 90: 2,412,28313)AOO 00: 2,155,000
14)% decade change
10.30%10.67%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
104
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
hardwickii
2)genus
Kerivoula4)common name
Small woolly bat5)malay name:
Kelawar hutan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 431,79411)AOO 80: 227,49712)AOO 90: 171,33113)AOO 00: 160,563
14)% decade change
24.69%6.28%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
105
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
intermedia
89
2)genus
Kerivoula4)common name
Least forest bat, least woolly bat5)malay name:
Kelawar hutan terkecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,584,46611)AOO 80: 1,200,58012)AOO 90: 1,119,13813)AOO 00: 1,057,445
14)% decade change
6.78%5.51%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
106
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
minuta
2)genus
Kerivoula4)common name
Papillose bat5)malay name:
Kelawar hutan besar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,181,69411)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
107
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
papillosa
2)genus
Kerivoula4)common name
Clear winged bat5)malay name:
Kelawar kepak jernih8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 2,227,17711)AOO 80: 844,43712)AOO 90: 692,52013)AOO 00: 625,373
14)% decade change
17.99%9.70%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
108
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
pellucida
90
2)genus
Kerivoula4)common name
Painted bat5)malay name:
Kelawar kupu kapur8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 247,66411)AOO 80: 93,95512)AOO 90: 89,85413)AOO 00: 88,943
14)% decade change
4.36%1.01%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
109
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
picta
2)genus
Miniopterus4)common name
Medium bent winged bat5)malay name:
Kelawar jari panjang kecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 7,263,76511)AOO 80: 5,781,30812)AOO 90: 4,980,99913)AOO 00: 4,411,597
14)% decade change
13.84%11.43%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
113
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
medius
2)genus
Miniopterus4)common name
Common bent winged bat5)malay name:
Kelawar jari panjang bukit8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,973,10111)AOO 80: 1,607,24612)AOO 90: 1,452,63613)AOO 00: 1,355,244
14)% decade change
9.62%6.70%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
114
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
schreibersii
91
2)genus
Murina4)common name
Bronze tube nosed bat5)malay name:
Kelawar hidung bulu emas8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,071,36811)AOO 80: 693,58312)AOO 90: 612,64113)AOO 00: 583,487
14)% decade change
11.67%4.76%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
115
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
aenea
2)genus
Murina4)common name
Roundeared tube nosed bat5)malay name:
Kelawar hidung laras telinga bulat8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 6,882,92311)AOO 80: 5,504,03812)AOO 90: 4,719,61813)AOO 00: 4,194,038
14)% decade change
14.25%11.14%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
116
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
cyclotis
2)genus
Murina4)common name
Hutton's tube nosed bat5)malay name:
Kelawar hidung laras bukit8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 530,14111)AOO 80: 313,58612)AOO 90: 279,98213)AOO 00: 262,857
14)% decade change
10.72%6.12%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
117
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
huttoni
92
2)genus
Murina4)common name
Lesser tube nosed bat5)malay name:
Kelawar hidung laras kecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 5,958,63211)AOO 80: 4,810,82412)AOO 90: 4,137,87913)AOO 00: 3,672,371
14)% decade change
13.99%11.25%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
119
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
suilla
2)genus
Myotis4)common name
Large footed bat5)malay name:
Kelawar kaki panjang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 934,61411)AOO 80: 476,61412)AOO 90: 430,91013)AOO 00: 397,357
14)% decade change
9.59%7.79%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
121
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
adversus
2)genus
Myotis4)common name
Lesser large footed bat5)malay name:
Kelawar bakau8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,316,82811)AOO 80: 546,98012)AOO 90: 420,75313)AOO 00: 350,844
14)% decade change
23.08%16.62%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
123
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
hasseltii
93
2)genus
Myotis4)common name
Herman's bat5)malay name:
Kelawar badan merah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 659,11611)AOO 80: 93,97212)AOO 90: 72,70313)AOO 00: 65,164
14)% decade change
22.63%10.37%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
124
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
hermani
2)genus
Myotis4)common name
Horsefield's bat5)malay name:
Kelawar lobang batu8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 7,919,82112)AOO 90: 6,414,40713)AOO 00: 5,428,220
14)% decade change
19.01%15.37%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
125
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
horsfieldii
2)genus
Myotis4)common name
Burmese whiskered bat5)malay name:
Kelawar kurmis burma8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 834,72211)AOO 80: 540,34812)AOO 90: 501,10213)AOO 00: 480,354
14)% decade change
7.26%4.14%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
127
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
montivagus
94
2)genus
Myotis4)common name
Whiskered bat5)malay name:
Kelawar daun pisang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 13,211,67312)AOO 90: 13,211,67313)AOO 00: 13,211,673
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
128
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
muricola
2)genus
Myotis4)common name
Ridley's bat5)malay name:
Kelawar kecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 2,172,54611)AOO 80: 606,49112)AOO 90: 493,06713)AOO 00: 412,146
14)% decade change
18.70%16.41%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
129
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
ridleyi
2)genus
Myotis4)common name
Himalayan whiskered bat5)malay name:
Kelawar kumis gua8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 386,34911)AOO 80: 245,54612)AOO 90: 199,80313)AOO 00: 155,496
14)% decade change
18.63%22.18%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
130
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
siligorensis
95
2)genus
Nyctalus4)common name
Noctule5)malay name:
8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO:
11)AOO 80:
12)AOO 90:
13)AOO 00:
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
131
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
noctula
2)genus
Philetor4)common name
New guinea brown bat5)malay name:
Kelawar telinga pendek8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 2,077,41111)AOO 80: 1,333,08412)AOO 90: 1,222,41413)AOO 00: 1,139,092
14)% decade change
8.30%6.82%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
132
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
brachypterus
2)genus
Phoniscus4)common name
Groove toothed bat5)malay name:
Kelawar putih telinga8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 229,07811)AOO 80: 210,95312)AOO 90: 154,78613)AOO 00: 144,018
14)% decade change
26.63%6.96%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
133
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
atrox
96
2)genus
Phoniscus4)common name
Frosted groove toothed bat5)malay name:
Kelawar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 229,07811)AOO 80: 150,37812)AOO 90: 117,47013)AOO 00: 107,945
14)% decade change
21.88%8.11%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
134
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
jagorii
2)genus
Pipistrellus4)common name
Javan pipistrelle5)malay name:
Kelawar hidung pendek java8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 3,998,92811)AOO 80: 3,205,22312)AOO 90: 3,205,22313)AOO 00: 3,205,223
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
136
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
javanicus
2)genus
Pipistrellus4)common name
Malayan noctule5)malay name:
Kelawar malam kecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 4,974,01211)AOO 80: 2,923,20412)AOO 90: 2,549,73113)AOO 00: 2,367,134
14)% decade change
12.78%7.16%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
138
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
stenopterus
97
2)genus
Scotophilus4)common name
House bat5)malay name:
Kelawar rumah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 4,434,02012)AOO 90: 5,940,11413)AOO 00: 6,927,751
14)% decade change
33.97%16.63%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
144
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
kuhlii
2)genus
Tylonycteris4)common name
Lesser flat headed bat5)malay name:
Kelawar bulu kecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
145
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
pachypus
2)genus
Tylonycteris4)common name
Greater flat headed bat5)malay name:
Kelawar bulu besar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 4,434,02012)AOO 90: 5,940,11413)AOO 00: 6,927,751
14)% decade change
33.97%16.63%
6)code: 20509
7)regional distribution:
146
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Vespertilionidae3)species:
robustula
98
2)genus
Cheiromeles4)common name
Hairless bat5)malay name:
Batin kelasa8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B En B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 5,851,19911)AOO 80: 4,592,85312)AOO 90: 4,028,27813)AOO 00: 3,591,723
14)% decade change
12.29%10.84%
6)code: 20510
7)regional distribution:
147
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Molossidae3)species:
torquatus
2)genus
Tadarida4)common name
Dato Meldrum's bat, northern freetaile5)malay name:
Kelasar johor8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,683,61411)AOO 80: 1,483,52812)AOO 90: 1,483,52813)AOO 00: 1,483,528
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20510
7)regional distribution:
148
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Molossidae3)species:
johorensis
2)genus
Tadarida4)common name
Wrinkled lipped bat5)malay name:
Kelasar rumah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 13,148,44912)AOO 90: 13,148,44913)AOO 00: 13,148,449
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20510
7)regional distribution:
149
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Molossidae3)species:
plicata
99
2)genus
Tadarida4)common name
Free tailed bat5)malay name:
Kayu8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 13,148,44912)AOO 90: 13,148,44913)AOO 00: 13,148,449
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20510
7)regional distribution:
150
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Molossidae3)species:
mops
2)genus
Nycticebus4)common name
Slow loris5)malay name:
Kongkang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: VU A1cd18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 8,205,82511)AOO 80: 6,248,72612)AOO 90: 5,353,83213)AOO 00: 4,694,694
14)% decade change
14.32%12.31%
6)code: 20601
7)regional distribution:
151
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: VU A2cd
21) PWA schedule: 1.016
1) family:
Lorisidae3)species:
coucang
2)genus
Macaca4)common name
Stump tailed macaque5)malay name:
Berok kentoi8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 82,17611)AOO 80: 23,56412)AOO 90: 9,74813)AOO 00: 8,699
14)% decade change
58.63%10.76%
6)code: 20603
7)regional distribution:
153
16)Output review 2009:
EN A4cEN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.3.162
1) family:
Cercopithecidae3)species:
arctoides
100
2)genus
Macaca4)common name
Long tailed macaque5)malay name:
Kera8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 20603
7)regional distribution:
154
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.3.004
1) family:
Cercopithecidae3)species:
fascicularis
2)genus
Macaca4)common name
Pig tailed macaque5)malay name:
Berok8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 9,485,47411)AOO 80: 6,724,27112)AOO 90: 5,498,31413)AOO 00: 4,699,813
14)% decade change
18.23%14.52%
6)code: 20603
7)regional distribution:
155
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: VU A2cd
21) PWA schedule: 2.3.003
1) family:
Cercopithecidae3)species:
nemestrina
2)genus
Presbytis4)common name
Banded leaf monkey5)malay name:
Lotong ceneka8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 &?19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 10,912,62811)AOO 80: 7,661,69012)AOO 90: 6,369,13113)AOO 00: 5,516,367
14)% decade change
16.87%13.39%
6)code: 20603
7)regional distribution:
158
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.009
1) family:
Cercopithecidae3)species:
femoralis
101
2)genus
Presbytis4)common name
Black thighed leaf monkey5)malay name:
Lotong ceneka siam8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 298,16011)AOO 80: 100,91412)AOO 90: 100,52313)AOO 00: 100,226
14)% decade change
0.39%0.30%
6)code: 20603
7)regional distribution:
162
16)Output review 2009:
VU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Cercopithecidae3)species:
siamensis
2)genus
Trachypithecus4)common name
Silvered leaf monkey5)malay name:
Lotong kelabu8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 8,630,91011)AOO 80: 4,085,13912)AOO 90: 3,076,04413)AOO 00: 2,334,521
14)% decade change
24.70%24.11%
6)code: 20603
7)regional distribution:
163
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.011
1) family:
Cercopithecidae3)species:
cristatus
2)genus
Trachypithecus4)common name
Dusky leaf monkey5)malay name:
Lotong cengkong8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 12,217,08011)AOO 80: 7,935,85112)AOO 90: 7,935,85113)AOO 00: 7,935,851
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20603
7)regional distribution:
164
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.010
1) family:
Cercopithecidae3)species:
obscurus
Trachypithecus critatus
Trachypithecus obscurus
102
2)genus
Hylobates4)common name
Agile gibbon5)malay name:
Ungka tangan hitam8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B EN B2 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 8,655,45711)AOO 80: 6,613,56312)AOO 90: 5,606,53213)AOO 00: 4,899,357
14)% decade change
15.23%12.61%
6)code: 20604
7)regional distribution:
165
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: EN A2cd
21) PWA schedule: 1.006
1) family:
Hylobatidae3)species:
agilis
2)genus
Hylobates4)common name
White handed gibbon5)malay name:
Ungka tangan putih8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B EN B2 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 10,404,81311)AOO 80: 7,317,59712)AOO 90: 6,115,11313)AOO 00: 5,311,864
14)% decade change
16.43%13.14%
6)code: 20604
7)regional distribution:
166
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: EN A2cd
21) PWA schedule: 1.007
1) family:
Hylobatidae3)species:
lar
2)genus
Symphalangus4)common name
Siamang5)malay name:
Siamang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B EN B2 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 7,143,38611)AOO 80: 5,741,40312)AOO 90: 4,938,02213)AOO 00: 4,371,258
14)% decade change
13.99%11.48%
6)code: 20604
7)regional distribution:
168
16)Output review 2009:
NTLC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.005
1) family:
Hylobatidae3)species:
syndactylus
Symphalangus syndactylus
103
2)genus
Cuon4)common name
Red dog, Dhole5)malay name:
Serigala8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 3,480,27811)AOO 80: 2,945,95612)AOO 90: 2,631,42713)AOO 00: 2,323,680
14)% decade change
10.68%11.70%
6)code: 20701
7)regional distribution:
170
16)Output review 2009:
NTLC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.009
1) family:
Canidae3)species:
alpinus
2)genus
Helarctos4)common name
Malayan sun bear5)malay name:
Beruang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C: En C120)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 11,375,69411)AOO 80: 8,421,70912)AOO 90: 7,200,63513)AOO 00: 6,451,925
14)% decade change
14.50%10.40%
6)code: 20702
7)regional distribution:
171
16)Output review 2009:
VU A2dLC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.043
1) family:
Ursidae3)species:
malayanus
2)genus
Aonyx4)common name
Oriental small clawed otter5)malay name:
Memerang kecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: VU A1?18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 10,770,15311)AOO 80: 6,960,42212)AOO 90: 5,690,90813)AOO 00: 4,889,780
14)% decade change
18.24%14.08%
6)code: 20704
7)regional distribution:
172
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.039
1) family:
Mustelidae3)species:
cinerea
Helarctos malayanus
104
2)genus
Lutra4)common name
Common otter5)malay name:
Memerang utara8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 36,83611)AOO 80: 26,33312)AOO 90: 22,74413)AOO 00: 19,293
14)% decade change
15.78%19.29%
6)code: 20704
7)regional distribution:
174
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.038
1) family:
Mustelidae3)species:
lutra
2)genus
Lutra4)common name
Hairy nosed otter5)malay name:
Memerang hidung berbulu8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: VU A1?18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 3,758,77411)AOO 80: 2,824,83112)AOO 90: 2,531,20513)AOO 00: 2,225,255
14)% decade change
10.39%12.09%
6)code: 20704
7)regional distribution:
175
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.036
1) family:
Mustelidae3)species:
sumatrana
2)genus
Lutrogale4)common name
Smooth otter5)malay name:
Memerang licin8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: VU A1?18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 10,157,94311)AOO 80: 4,993,09012)AOO 90: 3,788,46613)AOO 00: 3,009,537
14)% decade change
24.13%20.56%
6)code: 20704
7)regional distribution:
176
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.037
1) family:
Mustelidae3)species:
perspicillata
105
2)genus
Martes4)common name
Yellow throated marten5)malay name:
Mengkira8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: VU A1 bc18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 7,657,71611)AOO 80: 6,538,84812)AOO 90: 5,753,97613)AOO 00: 5,038,391
14)% decade change
13.64%12.44%
6)code: 20704
7)regional distribution:
177
16)Output review 2009:
LCNT
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule: 1.019
1) family:
Mustelidae3)species:
flavigula
2)genus
Mustela4)common name
Malayan weasel5)malay name:
Pulasan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C: EN C2 a(i,ii)20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 2,064,30611)AOO 80: 1,597,22212)AOO 90: 1,424,27113)AOO 00: 1,327,960
14)% decade change
10.83%6.76%
6)code: 20704
7)regional distribution:
180
16)Output review 2009:
LCNT
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule: 1.020
1) family:
Mustelidae3)species:
nudipes
2)genus
Arctictis4)common name
Binturong5)malay name:
Binturong8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B2 ac(i)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 5,140,41911)AOO 80: 4,132,77512)AOO 90: 3,781,36113)AOO 00: 3,449,589
14)% decade change
8.50%8.77%
6)code: 20705
7)regional distribution:
182
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: VU A2cd
21) PWA schedule: 1.015
1) family:
Viverridae3)species:
binturong
106
2)genus
Arctogallidia4)common name
Tree stripped palm civet5)malay name:
Musang akar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 6,938,78611)AOO 80: 5,421,07012)AOO 90: 4,699,54813)AOO 00: 4,191,208
14)% decade change
13.31%10.82%
6)code: 20705
7)regional distribution:
183
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule: 1.048
1) family:
Viverridae3)species:
trivirgata
2)genus
Cynogale4)common name
Otter civet5)malay name:
Musang memerang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B En B2 ab(i,ii)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,037,87111)AOO 80: 862,81212)AOO 90: 772,63713)AOO 00: 727,835
14)% decade change
10.45%5.80%
6)code: 20705
7)regional distribution:
184
16)Output review 2009:
EN A4cLC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.017
1) family:
Viverridae3)species:
bennettii
2)genus
Hemigalus4)common name
Banded palm civet5)malay name:
Musang belang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: En A218)criteria B En B2 ab(i,ii)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 5,026,72811)AOO 80: 3,859,95912)AOO 90: 3,535,18313)AOO 00: 3,236,297
14)% decade change
8.41%8.45%
6)code: 20705
7)regional distribution:
186
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: VU A2cd+3c
21) PWA schedule: 1.018
1) family:
Viverridae3)species:
derbyanus
107
2)genus
Paguma4)common name
Masked palm civet5)malay name:
Musang lamri8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: VU A1ac18)criteria B VU B1 ac(i)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 6,709,80711)AOO 80: 5,414,13012)AOO 90: 4,698,08913)AOO 00: 4,212,284
14)% decade change
13.23%10.34%
6)code: 20705
7)regional distribution:
187
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule: 1.047
1) family:
Viverridae3)species:
larvata
2)genus
Paradoxurus4)common name
Common plam civet5)malay name:
Musang pulut8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 13,211,67312)AOO 90: 13,211,67313)AOO 00: 13,211,673
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20705
7)regional distribution:
188
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.007
1) family:
Viverridae3)species:
hermaphroditus
2)genus
Prionodon4)common name
Banded linsang5)malay name:
Linsang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: En A?18)criteria B
19)criteria C: En C2 a(i,ii)20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 4,468,10411)AOO 80: 3,691,67912)AOO 90: 3,292,28913)AOO 00: 2,947,390
14)% decade change
10.82%10.48%
6)code: 20705
7)regional distribution:
189
16)Output review 2009:
LCNT
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule: 1.014
1) family:
Viverridae3)species:
linsang
108
2)genus
Viverra4)common name
Large spotted civet5)malay name:
Musang titek besar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 17,65711)AOO 80: 4,42312)AOO 90: 3,78413)AOO 00: 3,208
14)% decade change
14.45%15.22%
6)code: 20705
7)regional distribution:
190
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.046
1) family:
Viverridae3)species:
megaspila
2)genus
Viverra4)common name
Malay civet5)malay name:
Musang tenggalung8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 10,803,61711)AOO 80: 7,746,08612)AOO 90: 6,463,66913)AOO 00: 5,574,896
14)% decade change
16.56%13.75%
6)code: 20705
7)regional distribution:
191
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.008
1) family:
Viverridae3)species:
tangalunga
2)genus
Viverra4)common name
Large indian civet5)malay name:
Musang jebat8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,268,83611)AOO 80: 939,33112)AOO 90: 715,44613)AOO 00: 598,400
14)% decade change
23.83%16.36%
6)code: 20705
7)regional distribution:
192
16)Output review 2009:
LCNT
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.045
1) family:
Viverridae3)species:
zibetha
109
2)genus
Viverricula4)common name
Little civet5)malay name:
Musang bulan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 2,912,31111)AOO 80: 2,371,89812)AOO 90: 2,108,72813)AOO 00: 1,806,854
14)% decade change
11.10%14.32%
6)code: 20705
7)regional distribution:
193
16)Output review 2009:
LCNT
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.049
1) family:
Viverridae3)species:
indica
2)genus
Herpestes4)common name
Short tailed mongoose5)malay name:
Bambun ekor pendek8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 6,716,08911)AOO 80: 6,520,64412)AOO 90: 6,520,64413)AOO 00: 6,520,644
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 20706
7)regional distribution:
194
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.050
1) family:
Herpestidae3)species:
brachyurus
2)genus
Herpestes4)common name
Indian grey mongoose5)malay name:
Bambun kelabu8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO:
11)AOO 80:
12)AOO 90:
13)AOO 00:
14)% decade change
6)code: 20706
7)regional distribution:
195
16)Output review 2009:
EXEXEXEX
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.052
1) family:
Herpestidae3)species:
edwardsii
110
2)genus
Herpestes4)common name
Javan mongoose5)malay name:
Cerpelai, bambun kecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 700,11711)AOO 80: 777,25612)AOO 90: 724,75813)AOO 00: 700,117
14)% decade change
6.75%3.40%
6)code: 20706
7)regional distribution:
197
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.053
1) family:
Herpestidae3)species:
javanicus
2)genus
Herpestes4)common name
Crab eating mongoose5)malay name:
Bambun8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 82,17011)AOO 80: 23,56412)AOO 90: 9,74813)AOO 00: 8,699
14)% decade change
58.63%10.76%
6)code: 20706
7)regional distribution:
199
16)Output review 2009:
EN A4cEN B2ab(ii,ii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.3.099
1) family:
Herpestidae3)species:
urva
2)genus
Pardofelis4)common name
Golden cat5)malay name:
Kucing tulap8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 6,003,23111)AOO 80: 4,641,38112)AOO 90: 3,886,97913)AOO 00: 3,403,207
14)% decade change
16.25%12.45%
6)code: 20708
7)regional distribution:
201
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.013
1) family:
Felidae3)species:
temminckii
Pardofelis temminckii
111
2)genus
Panthera4)common name
Leopard5)malay name:
Harimau bintang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C: En C2 a(ii)20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 11,387,07511)AOO 80: 8,200,20512)AOO 90: 6,833,89313)AOO 00: 5,935,530
14)% decade change
16.66%13.15%
6)code: 20708
7)regional distribution:
202
16)Output review 2009:
EN A4dLC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.044
1) family:
Felidae3)species:
pardus
2)genus
Panthera4)common name
Malayan tiger5)malay name:
Harimau belang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C: En C2 a(ii)20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 9,881,88111)AOO 80: 7,507,88812)AOO 90: 6,340,64613)AOO 00: 5,538,678
14)% decade change
15.55%12.65%
6)code: 20708
7)regional distribution:
203
16)Output review 2009:
EN A2adLC
x
14)IUCN2009: EN A2bcd_4bc
21) PWA schedule: 1.035
1) family:
Felidae3)species:
tigris
2)genus
Pardofelis4)common name
Marbled cat5)malay name:
Kucing dahan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C: En C2 a(ii)20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 5,556,60111)AOO 80: 4,628,46812)AOO 90: 4,053,61813)AOO 00: 3,656,969
14)% decade change
12.42%9.79%
6)code: 20708
7)regional distribution:
204
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: VU C1+2a(i)
21) PWA schedule: 1.011
1) family:
Felidae3)species:
marmorata
112
2)genus
Neofelis4)common name
Clouded leopard5)malay name:
Harimau dahan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C: En C2 a(ii)20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,286,79111)AOO 80: 705,81612)AOO 90: 543,89813)AOO 00: 446,595
14)% decade change
22.94%17.89%
6)code: 20708
7)regional distribution:
205
16)Output review 2009:
NTLC
x
14)IUCN2009: VU C1+2a(i)
21) PWA schedule: 1.010
1) family:
Felidae3)species:
nebulosa
2)genus
Prionailurus4)common name
Leopard cat5)malay name:
Kucing batu8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 10,612,93511)AOO 80: 7,708,36212)AOO 90: 6,435,25313)AOO 00: 5,609,539
14)% decade change
16.52%12.83%
6)code: 20708
7)regional distribution:
206
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.040
1) family:
Felidae3)species:
bengalensis
2)genus
Prionailurus4)common name
Flat headed cat5)malay name:
Kucing hutan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B EN B2 ab(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 8,363,29711)AOO 80: 4,425,67012)AOO 90: 3,392,98713)AOO 00: 2,706,335
14)% decade change
23.33%20.24%
6)code: 20708
7)regional distribution:
207
16)Output review 2009:
NTLC
x
14)IUCN2009: EN C1+2a(i)
21) PWA schedule: 1.012
1) family:
Felidae3)species:
planiceps
113
2)genus
Prionailurus4)common name
Fishing cat5)malay name:
Kucing ikan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 367,95611)AOO 80: 222,98012)AOO 90: 122,01013)AOO 00: 64,261
14)% decade change
45.28%47.33%
6)code: 20708
7)regional distribution:
208
16)Output review 2009:
VU A4cVU B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009: EN A2cd+4cd
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Felidae3)species:
viverrinus
2)genus
Elephas4)common name
Asiatic elephant5)malay name:
Gajah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C: En C2 a(ii)20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 9,610,71411)AOO 80: 6,568,12212)AOO 90: 5,488,63713)AOO 00: 4,800,745
14)% decade change
16.44%12.53%
6)code: 21001
7)regional distribution:
209
16)Output review 2009:
VU A4cdLC
x
14)IUCN2009: EN A2c
21) PWA schedule: 2.1.001
1) family:
Elephantidae3)species:
maximus
2)genus
Tapirus4)common name
Malayan tapir5)malay name:
Badak cipan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: EN A118)criteria B EN B2 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 10,189,95211)AOO 80: 6,375,61412)AOO 90: 5,230,73913)AOO 00: 4,499,959
14)% decade change
17.96%13.97%
6)code: 21101
7)regional distribution:
210
16)Output review 2009:
NTLC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.003
1) family:
Tapiridae3)species:
indicus
Asian elephant
114
2)genus
Dicerorhinus4)common name
Sumatran Rhinoceros5)malay name:
Badak kerbau8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: CR A1bcd18)criteria B dd19)criteria C: CR C2 a(?)20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 5,845,93611)AOO 80: 4,856,83312)AOO 90: 4,285,89013)AOO 00: 3,859,750
14)% decade change
11.76%9.94%
6)code: 21102
7)regional distribution:
211
16)Output review 2009:
LCCR C2a(i)
x
14)IUCN2009: A2abd; C1+2a(i
21) PWA schedule: 1.002
1) family:
Rhinocerotidae3)species:
sumatrensis
2)genus
Rhinoceros4)common name
Javan rhinoceros5)malay name:
Badak raya8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: EX18)criteria B EX19)criteria C: EX20)criteria D EX
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO:
11)AOO 80:
12)AOO 90:
13)AOO 00:
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 21102
7)regional distribution:
212
16)Output review 2009:
EXEXEXEX
x
14)IUCN2009: CR C2a(i)
21) PWA schedule: 1.001
1) family:
Rhinocerotidae3)species:
sondaicus
2)genus
Sus4)common name
Bearded pig5)malay name:
Babi bodoh8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: VU A1cd18)criteria B VU B2 ab(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 3,013,85511)AOO 80: 1,911,51312)AOO 90: 1,474,15013)AOO 00: 1,281,883
14)% decade change
22.88%13.04%
6)code: 21301
7)regional distribution:
213
16)Output review 2009:
NTLC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.006
1) family:
Suidae3)species:
barbatus
Dicerorhinus sumatrensis
115
2)genus
Sus4)common name
Common wild pig5)malay name:
Babi hutan8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 12,200,22511)AOO 80: 12,200,22512)AOO 90: 12,200,22513)AOO 00: 12,200,225
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 21301
7)regional distribution:
214
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.005
1) family:
Suidae3)species:
scrofa
2)genus
Tragulus4)common name
Lesser mouse deer5)malay name:
Kancil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 21304
7)regional distribution:
215
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.004
1) family:
Tragulidae3)species:
kanchil
2)genus
Tragulus4)common name
Large mouse deer5)malay name:
Napuh8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 21304
7)regional distribution:
216
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.003
1) family:
Tragulidae3)species:
napu
Tragulus kanchil
Rusa Unicolor
116
2)genus
Rusa4)common name
Sambar deer5)malay name:
Rusa8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: VU A118)criteria B VU B1 ab(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 10,306,36511)AOO 80: 7,100,09212)AOO 90: 5,944,20013)AOO 00: 5,189,186
14)% decade change
16.28%12.70%
6)code: 21306
7)regional distribution:
217
16)Output review 2009:
LCVU C1
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.001
1) family:
Cervidae3)species:
unicolor
2)genus
Muntiacus4)common name
Barking deer5)malay name:
Kijang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 9,931,16311)AOO 80: 6,812,75412)AOO 90: 5,799,04213)AOO 00: 5,128,228
14)% decade change
14.88%11.57%
6)code: 21306
7)regional distribution:
219
16)Output review 2009:
NTLC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.002
1) family:
Cervidae3)species:
muntjak
2)genus
Bos4)common name
Gaur5)malay name:
Seladang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C: En C120)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 7,575,57611)AOO 80: 5,786,79912)AOO 90: 5,044,02913)AOO 00: 4,469,394
14)% decade change
12.84%11.39%
6)code: 21308
7)regional distribution:
220
16)Output review 2009:
VU A2adLC
x
14)IUCN2009: VU A2cd+3cd+
21) PWA schedule: 1.060
1) family:
Bovidae3)species:
gaurus
Muntiacus muntjak
117
2)genus
Bos4)common name
Banteng5)malay name:
Banteng8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO:
11)AOO 80:
12)AOO 90:
13)AOO 00:
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 21308
7)regional distribution:
221
16)Output review 2009:
EXEXEXEX
x
14)IUCN2009: EN A2cd+3cd+4
21) PWA schedule: 1.004
1) family:
Bovidae3)species:
javanicus
2)genus
Capricornis4)common name
Serow5)malay name:
Kambing gurun8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C: En C2 a(?)b20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 7,278,50311)AOO 80: 5,540,19412)AOO 90: 4,905,97613)AOO 00: 4,396,189
14)% decade change
11.45%10.39%
6)code: 21308
7)regional distribution:
222
16)Output review 2009:
NTLC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.022
1) family:
Bovidae3)species:
sumatraensis
2)genus
Callosciurus4)common name
Black banded squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai tompok8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 3,983,24011)AOO 80: 2,544,51112)AOO 90: 2,070,02413)AOO 00: 1,815,706
14)% decade change
18.65%12.29%
6)code: 21401
7)regional distribution:
227
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Sciuridae3)species:
nigrovittatus
118
2)genus
Callosciurus4)common name
Plantain squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai merah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 5,233,88411)AOO 80: 3,710,75812)AOO 90: 3,228,09213)AOO 00: 2,832,258
14)% decade change
13.01%12.26%
6)code: 21401
7)regional distribution:
228
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Sciuridae3)species:
notatus
2)genus
Callosciurus4)common name
Prevost's squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai gading8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 4,151,95011)AOO 80: 2,884,69712)AOO 90: 2,489,48613)AOO 00: 2,084,198
14)% decade change
13.70%16.28%
6)code: 21401
7)regional distribution:
230
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.057
1) family:
Sciuridae3)species:
prevostii
2)genus
Dremomys4)common name
Red cheeked ground squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai pipi merah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 3,112,54311)AOO 80: 164,66412)AOO 90: 164,04313)AOO 00: 163,168
14)% decade change
0.38%0.53%
6)code: 21401
7)regional distribution:
232
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Sciuridae3)species:
rufigenis
Dremomys rufigenis
119
2)genus
Lariscus4)common name
Three striped ground squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai belang tiga8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 4,453,02211)AOO 80: 2,115,03112)AOO 90: 1,720,63813)AOO 00: 1,402,411
14)% decade change
18.65%18.49%
6)code: 21401
7)regional distribution:
237
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Sciuridae3)species:
insignis
2)genus
Ratufa4)common name
Cream coloured giant squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai kerawak putih kuning8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ab(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,529,48812)AOO 90: 7,023,52813)AOO 00: 6,036,271
14)% decade change
17.66%14.06%
6)code: 21401
7)regional distribution:
239
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: NT
21) PWA schedule: 1.058
1) family:
Sciuridae3)species:
affinis
2)genus
Ratufa4)common name
Black giant squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai Kerawak hitam8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ab(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 21401
7)regional distribution:
240
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.059
1) family:
Sciuridae3)species:
bicolor
120
2)genus
Rhinosciurus4)common name
Shrew faced ground squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai naning8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,671,78511)AOO 80: 938,85512)AOO 90: 661,23313)AOO 00: 488,245
14)% decade change
29.57%26.16%
6)code: 21401
7)regional distribution:
242
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Sciuridae3)species:
laticaudatus
2)genus
Sundasciurus4)common name
Horse tail squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai ekor kuda8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ab(i)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,714,42812)AOO 90: 7,208,33513)AOO 00: 6,220,697
14)% decade change
17.28%13.70%
6)code: 21401
7)regional distribution:
244
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Sciuridae3)species:
hippurus
2)genus
Sundasciurus4)common name
Slender squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai cerleh8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 5,371,22711)AOO 80: 5,321,58512)AOO 90: 5,321,58513)AOO 00: 5,321,585
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 21401
7)regional distribution:
247
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Sciuridae3)species:
tenuis
121
2)genus
Tamiops4)common name
Mountain striped squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai bunga8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 3,379,00211)AOO 80: 473,49712)AOO 90: 472,87113)AOO 00: 471,940
14)% decade change
0.13%0.20%
6)code: 21401
7)regional distribution:
248
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Sciuridae3)species:
mcclellandi
2)genus
Aeromys4)common name
Large black giant flying squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai terbang hitam8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: EN A1ac18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 4,261,27011)AOO 80: 3,414,15012)AOO 90: 3,124,14113)AOO 00: 2,845,327
14)% decade change
8.49%8.92%
6)code: 21402
7)regional distribution:
249
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: DD
21) PWA schedule: 1.031
1) family:
Pteromyidae3)species:
tephromelas
2)genus
Hylopetes4)common name
Grey cheeked flying squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai terbang pipi kelabu8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B2 ac(i)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 4,439,54011)AOO 80: 3,304,83112)AOO 90: 2,950,44613)AOO 00: 2,603,140
14)% decade change
10.72%11.77%
6)code: 21402
7)regional distribution:
251
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: DD
21) PWA schedule: 1.025
1) family:
Pteromyidae3)species:
lepidus
122
2)genus
Hylopetes4)common name
Red cheeked flying squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai terbang pipi merah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B2 ac(i)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,529,48812)AOO 90: 7,023,52813)AOO 00: 6,036,271
14)% decade change
17.66%14.06%
6)code: 21402
7)regional distribution:
252
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule: 1.024
1) family:
Pteromyidae3)species:
spadiceus
2)genus
Iomys4)common name
Horsefield's flying squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai terbang ekor merah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 13,148,44912)AOO 90: 13,148,44913)AOO 00: 13,148,449
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 21402
7)regional distribution:
253
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule: 1.029
1) family:
Pteromyidae3)species:
horsfieldii
2)genus
Petaurillus4)common name
Selangor pigmy flying squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai terbang terkecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: dd18)criteria B CE B1&?19)criteria C: dd20)criteria D CE D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 175,60611)AOO 80: 112,31712)AOO 90: 102,94213)AOO 00: 93,246
14)% decade change
8.35%9.42%
6)code: 21402
7)regional distribution:
256
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.023
1) family:
Pteromyidae3)species:
kinlochii
123
2)genus
Petaurista4)common name
Spotted giant flying squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai terbang bintang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B2 ab(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 2,541,25311)AOO 80: 200,45512)AOO 90: 199,81913)AOO 00: 198,324
14)% decade change
0.32%0.75%
6)code: 21402
7)regional distribution:
257
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule: 1.033
1) family:
Pteromyidae3)species:
elegans
2)genus
Petaurista4)common name
Red giant flying squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai terbang merah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B2 ab(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,21611)AOO 80: 7,919,43912)AOO 90: 6,414,40713)AOO 00: 5,428,220
14)% decade change
19.00%15.37%
6)code: 21402
7)regional distribution:
258
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule: 1.032
1) family:
Pteromyidae3)species:
petaurista
2)genus
Petinomys4)common name
Whiskered flying squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai terbang berjambang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: EN A?18)criteria B EN B2 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 80,47711)AOO 80: 25,40612)AOO 90: 22,53613)AOO 00: 19,880
14)% decade change
11.30%11.79%
6)code: 21402
7)regional distribution:
259
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009: VU A2c+A3c+a
21) PWA schedule: 1.026
1) family:
Pteromyidae3)species:
genibarbis
124
2)genus
Petinomys4)common name
White bellied flying squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai terbang dada putih8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: EN A?18)criteria B En B ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,426,41411)AOO 80: 878,56212)AOO 90: 693,77913)AOO 00: 621,976
14)% decade change
21.03%10.35%
6)code: 21402
7)regional distribution:
260
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.027
1) family:
Pteromyidae3)species:
setosus
2)genus
Petinomys4)common name
Vordermann's flying squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai terbang kecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B2 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 6,853,79711)AOO 80: 4,901,41612)AOO 90: 4,901,41613)AOO 00: 4,901,416
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 21402
7)regional distribution:
261
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: VU A2c+a3c+a4
21) PWA schedule: 1.028
1) family:
Pteromyidae3)species:
vordermanni
2)genus
Pteromyscus4)common name
Smoky flying squirrel5)malay name:
Tupai terbang kotor8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A: EN A?18)criteria B
19)criteria C: EN C2 a(i,ii)20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 3,028,13611)AOO 80: 2,031,90812)AOO 90: 1,846,67113)AOO 00: 1,706,119
14)% decade change
9.12%7.61%
6)code: 21402
7)regional distribution:
262
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: EN A2c+A3c+A
21) PWA schedule: 1.030
1) family:
Pteromyidae3)species:
pulverulentus
125
2)genus
Bandicota4)common name
Lesser bandicoot rat5)malay name:
Wirok ekor pendek8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 11,88811)AOO 80: 9,09212)AOO 90: 9,09213)AOO 00: 9,092
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
263
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
bengalensis
2)genus
Bandicota4)common name
Large bandicoot rat5)malay name:
Wirok hitam8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 332,08611)AOO 80: 323,45912)AOO 90: 323,45913)AOO 00: 323,459
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
264
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
indica
2)genus
Berlymys4)common name
Bower's rat5)malay name:
Tikus bulu kasar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 83,95511)AOO 80: 40,54212)AOO 90: 38,73313)AOO 00: 36,533
14)% decade change
4.46%5.68%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
265
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
bowersii
126
2)genus
Chiropodomys4)common name
Tree mouse5)malay name:
Tikus buluh8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 979,02011)AOO 80: 794,92712)AOO 90: 752,08913)AOO 00: 726,466
14)% decade change
5.39%3.41%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
266
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
gliroides
2)genus
Hapalomys4)common name
Marmoset rat5)malay name:
Tikus monyet8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 243,76011)AOO 80: 38,46912)AOO 90: 38,46913)AOO 00: 38,469
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
271
16)Output review 2009:
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
longicaudatus
2)genus
Lenothrix4)common name
Grey tree rat5)malay name:
Tikus legong8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 6,306,38311)AOO 80: 5,170,27412)AOO 90: 4,458,07513)AOO 00: 3,945,401
14)% decade change
13.77%11.50%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
272
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
canus
127
2)genus
Leopoldamys4)common name
Mountain giant rat5)malay name:
Tikus bukit besar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 1,668,99511)AOO 80: 31,52512)AOO 90: 31,44113)AOO 00: 31,265
14)% decade change
0.27%0.56%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
273
16)Output review 2009:
EN B2ab(ii,iii)
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
edwardsi
2)genus
Leopoldamys4)common name
Long tailed giant rat5)malay name:
Tikus perah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,529,48812)AOO 90: 7,023,52813)AOO 00: 6,036,271
14)% decade change
17.66%14.06%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
274
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
sabanus
2)genus
Maxomys4)common name
Mountain spiny rat5)malay name:
Tikus bukit8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 784,01711)AOO 80: 160,57212)AOO 90: 159,93613)AOO 00: 158,440
14)% decade change
0.40%0.94%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
277
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
inas
128
2)genus
Maxomys4)common name
Brown spiny rat5)malay name:
Tikus duri hitam pudar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 6,996,70812)AOO 90: 5,699,57313)AOO 00: 4,867,202
14)% decade change
18.54%14.60%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
279
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
rajah
2)genus
Maxomys4)common name
Red spiny rat5)malay name:
Tikus duri merah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,529,48812)AOO 90: 7,023,52813)AOO 00: 6,036,271
14)% decade change
17.66%14.06%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
280
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
surifer
2)genus
Maxomys4)common name
Whiteheads rat5)malay name:
Tikus bangkung8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 12,353,84212)AOO 90: 12,353,84213)AOO 00: 12,353,842
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
281
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
whiteheadi
129
2)genus
Mus4)common name
Ricefield mouse5)malay name:
Tikus sawah terkecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 525,26611)AOO 80: 413,00212)AOO 90: 451,87813)AOO 00: 471,334
14)% decade change
9.41%4.31%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
282
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009: LC
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
caroli
2)genus
Mus4)common name
House mouse5)malay name:
Tikus rumah kecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 4,434,02012)AOO 90: 5,940,11713)AOO 00: 6,928,229
14)% decade change
33.97%16.63%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
283
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
musculus
2)genus
Niviventer4)common name
White bellied rat5)malay name:
Tikus dada putih8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 977,80711)AOO 80: 381,15612)AOO 90: 376,60113)AOO 00: 375,386
14)% decade change
1.20%0.32%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
284
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
Niviventer bukit
130
2)genus
Niviventer4)common name
Dark tailed tree rat5)malay name:
Tikus akar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 8,529,48812)AOO 90: 7,023,52813)AOO 00: 6,036,271
14)% decade change
17.66%14.06%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
285
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
cremoriventer
2)genus
Niviventer4)common name
Long tailed mountain rat5)malay name:
Tikus bukit ekor panjang8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 829,92311)AOO 80: 55,66912)AOO 90: 55,57013)AOO 00: 54,934
14)% decade change
0.18%1.14%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
286
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
rapit
2)genus
Pithecheir4)common name
Monkey footed rat5)malay name:
Tikus merah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B2 ab(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 906,08211)AOO 80: 574,67912)AOO 90: 501,53513)AOO 00: 441,601
14)% decade change
12.73%11.95%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
287
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
parvus
131
2)genus
Rattus4)common name
Annandale's rat5)malay name:
Tikus tunggal8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 3,071,43411)AOO 80: 896,54612)AOO 90: 896,54613)AOO 00: 896,546
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
289
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
annandalei
2)genus
Rattus4)common name
Ricefield rat5)malay name:
Tikus sawah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 4,427,32112)AOO 90: 5,913,13613)AOO 00: 6,873,822
14)% decade change
33.56%16.25%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
290
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
argentiventer
2)genus
Rattus4)common name
Little burmese rat5)malay name:
Tikus kecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 4,434,02012)AOO 90: 5,940,11713)AOO 00: 6,928,229
14)% decade change
33.97%16.63%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
292
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
exulans
132
2)genus
Rattus4)common name
Norway rat5)malay name:
Tikus mondok8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 126,34411)AOO 80: 79,16512)AOO 90: 91,02313)AOO 00: 100,997
14)% decade change
14.98%10.96%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
293
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
norvegicus
2)genus
Rattus4)common name
House rat5)malay name:
Tikus rumah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 4,812,71911)AOO 80: 2,711,74812)AOO 90: 3,191,72213)AOO 00: 3,534,594
14)% decade change
17.70%10.74%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
294
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
diardi
2)genus
Rattus4)common name
Wood rat5)malay name:
Tikus belukar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 4,427,32112)AOO 90: 5,913,13613)AOO 00: 6,873,822
14)% decade change
33.56%16.25%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
295
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
tiomanicus
133
2)genus
Rhizomys4)common name
Hoary bamboo rat5)malay name:
Dekan kecil8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D dd
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 165,56911)AOO 80: 79,24312)AOO 90: 70,58513)AOO 00: 58,781
14)% decade change
10.93%16.72%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
296
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
pruinosus
2)genus
Rhizomys4)common name
Large bamboo rat5)malay name:
Dekan besar8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D VU D1
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 5,281,84511)AOO 80: 3,970,56912)AOO 90: 3,471,54813)AOO 00: 3,071,533
14)% decade change
12.57%11.52%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
297
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
sumatrensis
2)genus
Sundamys4)common name
Grey giant rat5)malay name:
Tikus lembah8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,67311)AOO 80: 5,944,05012)AOO 90: 4,458,23513)AOO 00: 3,497,549
14)% decade change
25.00%21.55%
6)code: 21403
7)regional distribution:
299
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule:
1) family:
Muridae3)species:
muelleri
134
2)genus
Atherurus4)common name
Brush tailed porcupine5)malay name:
Landak nibong8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B1 ac(i)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 6,333,47011)AOO 80: 4,599,69412)AOO 90: 3,922,12713)AOO 00: 3,471,169
14)% decade change
14.73%11.50%
6)code: 21407
7)regional distribution:
300
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.013
1) family:
Hystricidae3)species:
macrourus
2)genus
Hystrix4)common name
Common porcupine5)malay name:
Landak raya8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B
19)criteria C:
20)criteria D lc
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 13,211,21611)AOO 80: 13,147,99112)AOO 90: 13,147,99113)AOO 00: 13,147,991
14)% decade change
0.00%0.00%
6)code: 21407
7)regional distribution:
301
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 2.2.012
1) family:
Hystricidae3)species:
brachyura
2)genus
Trichys4)common name
Long tailed porcupine5)malay name:
Landak padi8)distribution in Peninsular Malaysia
17)criteria A:
18)criteria B VU B2 ac(?)19)criteria C:
20)criteria D n
15)Output review 2007:
9)Review 2009 (area in ha.):
10)EOO: 5,707,14511)AOO 80: 2,771,87512)AOO 90: 2,094,97713)AOO 00: 1,626,443
14)% decade change
24.42%22.36%
6)code: 21407
7)regional distribution:
304
16)Output review 2009:
LC
x
14)IUCN2009:
21) PWA schedule: 1.021
1) family:
Hystricidae3)species:
fasciculata
Trichys fasciculata
135
Selected Images of Totally Protected Species (Mammals) under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
APPENDIX IV
Family: ManidaeMalay name: TenggilingCommon name: Scaly ant eater (Pangolin)Scientific name: Manis javanica
Family: CynocephalidaeMalay name: KubungCommon name: Flying lemurScientific name: Cyanocephalus variegatus
Family: HylobatidaeMalay name: Ungka tangan hitamMalay name: Agile gibbonScientific name: Hylobates agilis
WWF-Malaysia/Rahana Husin
SELECTED IMAGES OF TOTALLY PROTECTED SPECIES (MAMMALS) UNDER WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972
Family: LorisidaeMalay name: KongkangCommon name: Slow lorisScientific name: Nycticebus coucang
138
Family: HylobatidaeMalay name: Ungka tangan putihCommon name: White-handed gibbonScientific name: Hylobates lar
Family: HylobatidaeMalay name: SiamangCommon name: SiamangScientific name: Symphalagus syndactylus
Family: CanidaeCommon name: SerigalaCommon name: DholeScientific name: Cuon alpinus
Family: Ursidae Bahasa name: Beruang MatahariCommon name: Malayan sun bearScientific name: Herlarctos malayanus
139
Family: MustelidaeMalay name: Memerang kecilCommon name: Oriental small-clawed otterScientific name: Aonyx cinerea
Family: MustelidaeMalay name: Memerang hidung berbuluCommon name: Hairy-nosed otterScientific name: Lutra sumatrana
Family: MustelidaeMalay name: Memerang bulu licinCommon name: Smooth otterScientific name: Lutrogale perspicillata
Family: MustelidaeMalay name: MengkiraCommon name: Yellow-throated martenScientific name: Martes flavigula
140
Family: ViverridaeMalay name: BinturongCommon name: Bear CatScientific name: Arctictis binturong
Family: ViverridaeMalay name: Musang belangCommon name: Banded palm civetScientific name: Hemigalus derbyanus
Family: ViverridaeMalay name: Musang lamriCommon name: Masked palm civetScientific name: Paguma larvata
Family: MustelidaeMalay name: Pulasan tanahCommon name: Malay weaselScientific name: Mustela nudipes
141
Family: ViverridaeMalay name: LinsangCommon name: Banded LinsangScientific name: Prionodon linsang
Family: ViverridaeMalay name: Bambun ekor pendekCommon name: Short-tailed mongooseScientific name: Herpestes brachyurus
Family: ViverridaeMalay name: Musang JebatCommon name: Large Indian CivetScientific name: Viverra zibetha
Family: ViverridaeMalay name: TenggalongCommon name: Malay civetScientific name: Viverra tangalunga
WWF-Malaysia/Ahmad Zafir
JNPC/DWNP/Panthera Foundation/WCS
142
Family: FelidaeMalay name: Kucing tulapCommon name: Golden catScientific name: Catopuma temminckii
Family: FelidaeMalay name: Harimau bintangCommon name: LeopardScientific name: Panthera pardus
Family: FelidaeMalay name: Harimau dahanCommon name: Clouded leopardScientific name: Pardofelis nebulosa
Family: FelidaeMalay name: Harimau belangCommon name: Malayan tigerScientific name: Panthera tigris
JNPC/DWNP/Panth era JNPC/DWNP/Panthera Foundation/WCS
JNPC/DWNP/Panthera Foundation/WCS
JNPC/DWNP/Panthera Foundation/WCS
143
Family: FelidaeMalay name: Kucing hutanCommon name: Flat-headed catScientific name: Prionailurus planiceps
Family: RhinocerotidaeMalay name: Badak kerbauCommon name: Sumatran rhinocerosScientific name: Dicerorhinus sumatrensis
Family: FelidaeMalay name: Kucing batuCommon name: Leopard catScientific name: Prionailurus bengalensis
Family: TapiridaeMalay name: Badak cipanCommon name: TapirScientific name: Tapirus indicus
144
Family: BovidaeMalay name: Kambing gurunCommon name: SerowScientific name: Capricornis sumatraensis
Family: BovidaeMalay name: SeladangCommon name: GaurScientific name: Bos gaurus
Family: SciuridaeMalay name: Tupai gadingCommon name: Prevost’s squirrelScientific name: Callosciurus prevostii
Family: SciuridaeMalay name: Tupai kerawak hitamCommon name: Black giant squirrelScientific name: Ratufa bicolor
WWF-Malaysia
145
Family: PteromyidaeMalay name: Tupai terbang hitamCommon name: Large black giant flying squirrelScientific name: Aeromys tephromelas
Family: HystricidaeMalay name: Landak padiCommon name: Long-tailed porcupineScientific name: Trachy fasciculata
Family: PteromyidaeMalay name: Tupai terbang merahCommon name: Red giant flying squirrelScientific name: Petaurista petaurista
WWF-Malaysia/Shariff Mohamad WWF-Malaysia/Shariff Mohamad
JNPC/DWNP/Panthera Foundation/WCS
146
List of Totally Protected Species (Mammals) under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
APPENDIX V
!!!!!!!!"#$%!&'!%&%("")!*+&%,-%,.!$*,-#,$!/0(00("$1!23.,+!4#"."#',!*+&%,-%#&3!(-%5!6789!
!"#$ %&'"#"$ (&#&)$*&'+$ ,-''-*$*&'+$ ./"+*0"1"/$*&'+$
6! 0:;<=:>! %>;??<@<;?! $A:@B!:;C!>:C>D! !"#$%&'"("#$)"&
9! -B;EA>FG:@<=:>! HIJI;?! '@B<;?!@>KID! *+"#,)-./"01%&("2$-3"4-%&
L! "ED<M<=:>! HE;?N:;?! $@EO!@ED<M! 5+)4$)-61%&),1)"#3&
P! QB@EJ:C<=:>! 2;?N:!C:;?:;!G<C:K! (?<@>!?<JJE;! 7+0,6"4-%&"3$0$%&
R! QB@EJ:C<=:>! 2;?N:!C:;?:;!FIC<G! 4G<C>SG:;=>=!?<JJE;! 7+0,6"4-%&0"2&
T! QB@EJ:C<=:>! $<:K:;?! $<:K:;?! 8+9./"0"#31%&%+#:")4+01%&
8! -:;<=:>! $>D<?:@:! .Gole *1,#&"0.$#1%&
U! 2DM<=:>! V>DI:;?! 0:@:B:;!MI;!J>:D! 7-0"2)4,%&&9"0"+"#1%&
7! 0IMC>@<=:>! 0>K>D:;?!N>A<@! $K:@@SA@:O>=!ECC>D! ;960,+<&)$#-2-"&
6W! 0IMC>@<=:>! 0>K>D:;?!IC:D:! -EKKE;!ECC>D! =142"&0142"&
66! 0IMC>@<=:>! 0>K>D:;?!G<=I;?!J>DJI@I! Q:<DBS;EM>=!ECC>D! =142"&%19"42"#"&
69! 0IMC>@<=:>! 0>K>D:;?!JI@I!@<A<;! $KEECG!ECC>D! =1423&&.-2%.$)$00"4"&
6L! 0IMC>@<=:>! 0>;?N<D:! )>@@EOSCGDE:C>=!K:DC>;! !"24-%&>0"($310"&
6P! 0IMC>@<=:>! *I@:M:;!C:;:G! 0:@:B!O>:M>@! !1%4-0":$.-%&
6R! X<Y>DD<=:>! V<;CIDE;?! V<;CIDE;?!/V>:D!-:C1! ;2)4$)4$%&6$#412,#3&
6T! X<Y>DD<=:>! 0IM:;?!:N:D! %D>>SMCD<F>=!F:@K!A<Y>C! ;2)4,3"00$:$"&42$($23"4"&
68! X<Y>DD<=:>! 0IM:;?!K>K>D:;?! &CC>D!A<Y>C! *+#,3"0-&6-##-44$$&
6U! X<Y>DD<=:>! 0IM:;?!J>@:;?! V:;=>=!F:@K!A<Y>C! 7-9$3"01%&:-26+"#1%&
67! X<Y>DD<=:>! 0IM:;?!@:Kri 0:MN>=!F:@K!A<Y>C! ?"319"&0"2("4"&
9W! X<Y>DD<=:>! 0IM:;?!FI@IC! -EKKE;!F:@K!A<Y>C! ?"2":,<121%&/-29"./2,:$41%&
96! X<Y>DD<=:>! "<;M:;?! V:;=>=!@<;M:;?! ?2$,#,:,#&0$#%"#3&
99! X<Y>DD<=:>! 0IM:;?!C<C<N!J>M:D! ":D?>!MFECC>=!A<Y>C! @$(-22"&9-3"%.$0"&
9L! X<Y>DD<=:>! Tenggalong 0:@:B!A<Y>C! @$(-22"&4"#3"01#3"&
9P! X<Y>DD<=:>! 0IM:;?!Z>J:C! ":D?>!#;=<:;!A<Y>C! @$(-22"&A$6-4/"&
9R! X<Y>DD<=:>! 0IM:;?!JI@:;! "<CC@>!A<Y>C! @$(-22$)10"&9"0"))-#%$%&
9T! Q>DF>MC<=:>! V:KJI;!>NED!F>;=>N! $GEDCSC:<@>=!KE;?EEM>! 7-2.-%4-%&62")/+121%&
98! Q>DF>MC<=:>! V:KJI;!N>@:JI! #;=<:;!?D>B!KE;?EEM>! 7-2.-%4-%&-:B"2:%$&
9U! Q>DF>MC<=:>! ->DF>@:<5!V:KJI;!N>A<@! [:Y:;!KE;?EEM>! 7-2.-%4-%&'"("#$)1%&
97! '>@<=:>! HIA<;?!CI@:F! \E@=>;!A:C! *"4,.19"&4-99$#)C$$&
149
LW! '>@<=:>! Q:D<K:I!J<;C:;?! ">EF:D=! ?"#4/-2"&."2:1%&
L6! '>@<=:>! Q:D<K:I!J>@:;?! 0:@:B:;!C<?>D! ?"#4/-2"&4$32$%&
L9! '>@<=:>! HIA<;?!=:G:;! 0:DJ@>=!A:C! ?"2:,>-0$%&9"29,2"4"&
LL! '>@<=:>! Q:D<K:I!=:G:;! -@EI=>=!@>EF:D=! ?"2:,>-0$%&#-610,%"&
LP! '>@<=:>! HIA<;?!J:CI! ">EF:D=!A:C! ?2$,#"$0121%&6-#3"0-#%$%&
LR! '>@<=:>! HIA<;?!GIC:;! '@:CSG>:=>=!A:C! ?2$,#"$0121%&.0"#$)-.%&
LT! %:F<D<=:>! V:=:N!A<F:;! 0:@:B:;!C:F<D! D".$21%&$#:$)1%&
L8! +G<;EA>DEC<=:>! V:=:N!N>DJ:I! $IK:CD:;!DG<;EA>DEM! E$)-2,2/$#1%&%19"42-#%$%&
LU! +G<;EA>DEC<=:>! V:=:N!D:B:! [:Y:;!DG<;EA>DEM! F/$#,)-2,%&%,#:"$)1%&
L7! VEY<=:>! $>@:=:;?! \:ID! G,%&3"121%&
PW! VEY<=:>! V:;C>;?! V:;C>;?! G,%&'"("#$)1%&
P6! VEY<=:>! H:KJ<;?!?IDI;! $>DEO! *".2$),2#$%&%19"42-#%$%&
P9! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!?:=<;?! *D>YEMC]M!M^I<DD>@! *"00,%)$121%&.2-(,%4$$&
PL! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!N>D:O:N!FIC<GSNI;<;?!-D>:KSAE@EID>=!?<:;C!
M^I<DD>@!F"41>"&">>$#$%&
PP! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!N>D:O:N!G<C:K! V@:AN!?<:;C!M^I<DD>@! F"41>"&6$),0,2&
PR! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!C>DJ:;?!G<C:K! ":D?>!J@:AN!_@B<;?!M^I<DD>@! ;-2,9+%&4-./2,9-0"%&
PT! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!C>DJ:;?!F<F<!N>@:JI! \D>BSAG>>N>=!_@B<;?!M^I<DD>@! 7+0,.-4-%&0-.$:1%&
P8! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!C>DJ:;?!F<F<!K>D:G! +>=SAG>>N>=!_@B<;?!M^I<DD>@! 7+0,.-4-%&%.":$)-1%&
PU! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!C>DJ:;?!>NED!K>D:G! QEDM>_<>@=]M!_@B<;?!M^I<DD>@! H,9+%&/,2%>$-0:$&
P7! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!C>DJ:;?!C>DN>A<@! $>@:;?ED!F<?KB!_@B<;?!M^I<DD>@! ?-4"12$001%&C$#0,)/$$&
RW! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!C>DJ:;?!J<;C:;?! $FECC>=!?<:;C!_@B<;?!M^I<DD>@! ?-4"12$%4"&-0-3"#%&
R6! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!C>DJ:;?!K>D:G! +>=!?<:;C!_@B<;?!M^I<DD>@! ?-4"12$%4"&.-4"12$%4"&
R9! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!C>DJ:;?!J>DZ:KJ:;?! 4G<MN>D>=!_@B<;?!M^I<DD>@! ?-4$#,9+%&3-#$6"26$%&
RL! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!C>DJ:;?!=:=:!FIC<G! %>KK<AN]M!_@B<;?!M^I<DD>@! ?-4$#,9+%&%-4,%1%&
RP! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!C>DJ:;?!N>A<@! XED=>K:;;]M!_@B<;?!M^I<DD>@! ?-4$#,9+%&(,2:-29"##$&
RR! $A<ID<=:>! %IF:<!C>DJ:;?!NECED! $KENB!_@B<;?!M^I<DD>@! ?4-2,9+%)1%&.10(-210-#41%&
RT! QBMCD<A<=:>! ":;=:N!F:=<! "E;?SC:<@>=!FEDAIF<;>! D2$)/+%&>"%)$)10"4"&
!
150
