Assessment Results
Philautus jacobsoni
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Indonesia
on:
02 Aug 2015
by:
Mirza Kusrini
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Indonesia
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
18.39846223
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessors: Hamidy, A., Iskandar, D., Kusrini, M.D., Munir, M., Mumpuni & Eprilurahman, R.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Critically Endangered (CR) | |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | Yes / probably | There is no record of this species in the wild after the description of this species, over 100 years ago. As part of the LOST program, a search was carried out in Ungaran Mountain, the known habitat of this species. All Philautus found in this area is identified morphologically and genetically as Philautus aurifasciatus. As the only available specimen of this species is located outside Indonesia, there are two possibility. Either the species might be already gone in the wild or there is a taxonomic error. |
| 3 | Phylogenetic significance | The taxon’s Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED) score, as generated by the ZSL EDGE program. (These data are not editable by Assessors). | ED value < 20 | |
| 4 | Protected habitat | Is a population of at least 50% of the individuals of the taxon included within a well-managed or reliably protected area or areas? | Yes / probably | Based on the report, the population is found in Mount Ungaran, Central Java, Indonesia, only a small fraction of the forest is under forest protection status but most of the habitat had undergone massive change into tea plantation and holiday villas |
| 5 | Habitat for reintroduction, conservation translocation or supplementation | Does enough well-managed and reliably protected habitat exist, either within or outside of currently protected areas that is suitable for conservation translocation, including population restoration or conservation introduction? | Unknown | |
| 6 | Previous reintroductions | Have reintroduction or translocation attempts been made in the past for this species? | No | |
| 7 | In situ conservation activities | Are any in situ conservation actions currently in place for this species? (Only required if a Red List Assessment has not been completed, or if new actions have been implemented since the last Red List Assessment. (Information from the Conservation Actions section of the Red List assessment should be reviewed and considered when answering this question.). | No / unlikely | This species has not been recorded from any protected areas. |
| 8 | In situ conservation activities | Are additional in situ conservation actions required to help conserve this species in the wild (e.g. habitat restoration and/or protection, control of invasive species, national legislation etc.)? | Yes / probably | If subpopulations can be located, the population size should be determined and the site protected. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Surveys are needed to determine whether or not this species still survives in the wild. Taxonomic research is also required to verify whether this is a valid, distinct species (Indonesia Red List Assessment Workshop May 2017). |
| 10 | Threat mitigation | Are the threats facing the taxon, including any new and emerging threats not considered in the IUCN Red List, potentially reversible? | Threats unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | There is almost no forest remaining at Mount Ungaran. Much of the forest at the type locality has been converted to a tea plantation and into other agricultural uses (Indonesia Red List Assessment Workshop May 2017). |
| 11 | Over-collection from the wild | Is the taxon suffering from collection within its natural range, either for food, for the pet trade or for any other reason, which threatens the species’ continued persistence in the wild? | No / unlikely | |
| 12 | Population recovery | Is the known population of this species in the wild large enough to recover naturally, without ex situ intervention if threats are mitigated? | Unknown | Until today, no population of this species has been found. In 2010, surveys were conducted at type locality as part of the Lost Frogs initiative, but failed to record this species, and multiple surveys carried out every two months by the University Negeri Semarang since then have also failed to record it (M. Kusrini and M. Munir pers. comm. May 2017). From this lack of records, it is reasonable to infer that this species has a very small population which is suspected to be fewer than 50 mature individuals. Furthermore, if the population is still extant, it is suspected to be decreasing due to ongoing decline in the extent and quality of habitat. |
| 13 | Action plans | Does an Action Plan for the species already exist, or is one currently being developed? | No | |
| 14 | Biological distinctiveness | Does the taxon exhibit a distinctive reproductive mode, behaviour, aspect of morphology or physiology, within the Order to which it belongs (e.g. Anura, Passeriformes etc.)? | No aspect of biology known to be exceptional | Most of Philautus has a distinct reproductive mode in which juveniles do not have a tadpole stage |
| 15 | Cultural/socio-economic importance | Does the taxon have a special human cultural value (e.g. as a national or regional symbol, in a historic context, featuring in traditional stories) or economic value (e.g. food, traditional medicine, tourism) within its natural range or in a wider global context? | No | |
| 16 | Scientific importance | Is the species vital to current or planned research other than species-specific ecology/biology/conservation within the Order to which it belongs (e.g. Anura, Passeriformes etc.) e.g. human medicine, climate change, environmental pollutants and conservation science? | No research dependent on this species | |
| 17 | Ex situ research | Does conserving this species (or closely related species) in situ depend upon research that can be most easily carried out ex situ? | No | |
| 18 | Ex situ conservation activities | Is any ex situ research or other ex situ conservation action currently in place for this species? (Information from the Conservation Actions section of the Red List assessment should be reviewed and considered when answering this question.) | No / unlikely | |
| 19 | Husbandry analog required | If an ex situ rescue program is recommended for this species, would an analog species be required to develop husbandry protocols first? | ||
| 20 | Husbandry analog | Do the biological and ecological attributes of this species make it suitable for developing husbandry regimes for more threatened related species? i.e. could this species be used in captivity to help to develop husbandry and breeding protocols which could be used for a similar, but more endangered species at a later stage? | No | |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Not held in captivity to date | |
| 22 | Conservation education/ecotourism potential | Is the species especially diurnal, active or colourful, or is there an interesting or unusual aspect of its ecology that make it particularly suitable to be an educational ambassador for conservation of the species in the range country, either in zoos or aquariums or within ecotourism activities? | No | |
| 23 | Mandate | Is there an existing conservation mandate recommending the ex situ conservation of this taxon? | No | |
| 24 | Range State approval | If an ex situ initiative was proposed for this species, would it be supported (and approved) by the range State (either within the range State or out-of-country ex situ)? | Yes / probably | If we can find the species, I'm sure that the range State (Indonesia) will support an ex situ initiative |
| 25 | Founder specimens | Are sufficient animals of the taxon available or potentially available (from wild or captive sources) to initiate an ex situ program, if one was recommended? | No / unlikely | As we haven't found any of the species in the wild, currently it is impossible to find founder specimens |
| 26 | Taxonomic status | Has a complete taxonomic analysis of the species in the wild been carried out, to fully understand the functional unit you wish to conserve (i.e. have species limits been determined)? | Unknown | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. It is unknown whether this species is distinct or whether it belongs to Philautus fasciatus, therefore further taxonomic work is warranted for verification (Indonesia Red List Assessment Workshop 2017). |
Citation:
Mirza Kusrini. 2015. Conservation Needs Assessment for Philautus jacobsoni, Indonesia.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/3928
Accessed 18 May 2024
