Assessment Results
Philautus macroscelis
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Malaysia
on:
29 Jan 2018
by:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Malaysia
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
18.39846223
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessment completed by P. Yambun and I. Das (2018).
Continuation of rigorous management of the existing parks to protect forest habitat is the best guarantee for the conservation of this species.
More information is needed on this species distribution, population status and trends. There is a need for taxonomic research for all Philautus species occurring in Malaysian Borneo.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Least Concern (LC) | |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | No / unlikely | |
| 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 | The species is known from western Sabah and NE Sarawak (Malaysia), Kalimantan (Indonesia) and Brunei, and is found at elevations between 750 and 1,800m asl. It has been recorded from Kinabalu and Crocker Range National Parks and Gunung Trusmadi (managed by the Forestry Department) in Sabah. In Sarawak, it occurs in Gunung Mulu National Park, and has also been recorded from Usun Apau, which is a proposed National Park (I. Das pers. comm. March 2018). It occurs at elevations between 750–1,840 m asl. |
| 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? | Yes / probably | There is suitable habitat available within protected areas where the species is currently found. |
| 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.). | ||
| 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.)? | ||
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | ||
| 10 | Threat mitigation | Are the threats facing the taxon, including any new and emerging threats not considered in the IUCN Red List, potentially reversible? | Species is effectively protected | This species mainly occurs in protected areas across its wide range. In Sabah, there are no threats to this species as it occurs in two well-protected and well-managed national parks, as well as, two additional sites where there are no logging activities taking place. In Sarawak, it occurs within Gunung Mulu National Park which is well protected, and the subpopulation at Usun Apau National Park is not threatened due to the current remoteness of the park (I. Das pers. comm. March 2018). |
| 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 | There was a note in the IUCN draft assessment (made by an Indonesian participant) that the species is found in the international pet trade, but we weren't able to confirm this during the Malaysian workshop. |
| 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? | Yes / probably | It is a common species, but not abundant. The population is considered to be stable. |
| 13 | Action plans | Does an Action Plan for the species already exist, or is one currently being developed? | ||
| 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 | |
| 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.) | ||
| 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? | ||
| 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? | Yes | This species may be a good choice for educational signage within range. |
| 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)? | No / unlikely | It may be difficult and expensive to obtain the required collection permits. |
| 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? | Yes / probably | |
| 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)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. There is a need for taxonomic research into Philautus species occurring in Malaysian Borneo. This species was removed from the synonymy of Rhacophorus everetti by Hertwig et al. (2012) and genetic evidence showed unequivocally that it belongs to Philautus. |
Citation:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop. 2018. Conservation Needs Assessment for Philautus macroscelis, Malaysia.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/4420
Accessed 16 May 2024
