Status of reptiles in Meghamalai and its
environs, Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu, India
Subramanian Bhupathy 1 & N. Sathishkumar 2
1,2 Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Anaikatti(PO), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641108, India
1 bhupathy.s@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 sathis.tri@gmail.com
Abstract: We update the reptile fauna of Meghamalai area, Western Ghats based on a literature review
and a recent study (2006–2008) by SACON. In all, 90 species of reptiles belonging
to 53 genera and 14 families were reported from this area, which include 30
(33.3%) species endemic to the Western Ghats. Reptiles of the area shared distribution
with all biogeographic zones of India, barring the Trans-Himalaya. High species richness in Meghamalai is due to its broader elevation width, presence
of both windward and leeward zones and a variety of forest types. Studies conducted after 2006 added
several species to the faunal list of the area, but could not record 16 species
reported earlier including Hutton’s Pit Viper, Tropidolaemus huttoni and the Blue-bellied Tree Skink Dasia subcaeruleumfrom the area since 1949. Numerically, several species are currently rare, and changes in land use
and land cover could have led to reduction in their abundance and local
extinction. It is hoped that the
recently declared Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary would
reduce further degradation of habitats and help conserve biodiversity. Further studies are needed for
understanding the ecology of the several species of reptiles found in this and
the nearby areas of the Western Ghats.
Keywords: Abundance, endemic species, reptile distribution, threat status,
Western Ghats.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3595.4953-61 | ZooBank:urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:576D340A-E0C5-495D-90B0-B5F827891041
Editor: Raju Vyas, VishwamitriRiver Project, Vadodara, India. Date
of publication: 26 November 2013 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms #
o3595 | Received 26 April 2013 | Final received 09 August 2013 | Finally
accepted 28 October 2013
Citation: Bhupathy, S. & N. Sathishkumar (2013).Status of reptiles
in Meghamalai and its environs, Western Ghats, Tamil
Nadu, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4953–4961; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3595.4953-61
Copyright: © Bhupathy & Sathishkumar 2013. Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium,
reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and
the source of publication.
Funding: The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India.
Competing Interest: The
authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: We are thankful
to G.V. Subramanian and Naseem Ahmad (MoEF) for financial support; R. Sundararaju(PCCF & Chief Wildlife Warden) and Srinivas R.
Reddy (District Forest Officer) for permission to work in the forest area and
logistic support, and P.A. Azeez, G. Srinivas and other colleagues at the SálimAli Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON) Coimbatore, for
encouragement and support at various levels. We thank S. Babuof SACON for helping us in preparing the study area map.
The publication of this article is
supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), a joint initiative
of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the
European Commission, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of
Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank.
For figures, images, tables -- click here
Meghamalai (also known as High Wavy Mountains) has been
sporadically surveyed for reptiles during the 19th and early 20thcenturies by Harold S. Ferguson (1880–1904) and Angus F. Hutton (1946–48). These
surveys resulted in the description of new species such as Ashambu Shieldtail Uropeltis liura, Periyar Shieldtail Uropeltis arcticeps madurensis, Striped
Narrow-headed Snake Xylophis stenorynchus, Hutton’s Pit Viper Tropidolaemus huttoni and Blue-bellied Tree Skink Dasia subcaeruleum. Specimens collected during the above
surveys have been deposited at the British Museum Natural History (now the
Natural History Museum, London) and in the museum of the Bombay Natural History
Society, Mumbai. David & Vogel
(1998) and Hutton & David (2009) re-examined the collections made by
Hutton. Until recently, no serious attempt has been made to study the reptiles
of this area (Bhupathy et al. 2009; Chandramouli & Ganesh 2010). In the present paper, we update the
reptile fauna of Meghamalai area and provide data on
species richness, composition, distribution with respect to Indian
biogeographic zones and their threat status.
Methods
Meghamalai (9030’–10030’N & 770–78030’E)
is located in Theni Forest Division (Theni District) of Tamil Nadu state (Fig. 1). Herpetofaunaof the area was studied by Sálim Ali Centre for
Ornithology and Natural History (SACON) during 2006–2008, wherein
reptiles were sampled in three belt transects (21km2; Bhupathy et al. 2009; Fig. 1) using quadrat, and time
constrained visual encounter survey (TCVES) protocols (Campbell & Christman 1982; Crump & Scott 1994) on seasonal basis
during day-light hours. However,
specimen collection was not done due to non-availability of permits. An inventory of reptile fauna of the
area was made based on historic collections and reviews (Boulenger1891; Smith 1949a,b; Hutton 1949; David & Vogel 1998; Hutton & David
2009) and findings of recent studies (Bhupathy et al.
2009, 2011; Chandramouli & Ganesh 2010). Nomenclature followed herein is of Das
(2003), Whitaker & Captain (2008) and Aengals et
al. (2011).
Distribution analysis for the species
recorded from Meghamalai was carried out following
the biogeography zone categorization of India proposed by Rodgers & Panwar (1998): Trans-Himalaya, Himalaya, Indian Desert,
Semi-Arid, Western Ghats, Deccan Peninsula, GangeticPlain, Coasts, Northeastern India and Islands. The numerical status of each species was
assigned based on the number of observations (Not observed = 0, Rare = <5
observations, Uncommon = 6–20 and Common = >20 observations) and
relative abundance (number of observations of a species/total number of
observations of all species X 100) of reptiles were determined based on field
data generated during December 2006–November 2008 (Bhupathyet al. 2009). Categorization of the
threat status of reptiles of the area was based on Conservation Assessment and
Management Plan workshop of the IUCN protocol (Molur& Walker 1998).
Results
Species Richness
Available reports showed the occurrence of
90 species of reptiles belonging to 53 genera and 14 families in Meghamalai and its environs. This included two species (2.2%) of
turtles and tortoises, 28 (31.1%) lizards and 60 (66.7%) species of
snakes. The most diverse reptile
family in terms of number of genera and species was Colubridae(Table 1). Among
lizards, the highest number of species was contributed by the family Gekkonidae (10 species) followed by Agamidae(9). With respect
to snakes, the highest number of species was contributed by Colubridae(32) followed by Uropeltidae (12
species). In all, six reptile
families were represented by only one species (Table 1).
Distribution
Among the reptiles reported from Meghamalai, 30 species (33.3%) were endemic to the Western
Ghats. This included the highest of
11/12 (91.7%) species belonging to the family Uropeltidae.
Reptiles of this area shared distribution with all biogeographic zones of the
country barring Trans-Himalaya (Fig. 2). The highest of 61/90 (67.8%) species were found in Deccan Peninsula
followed by Coasts (36, 40%). This
area shared only four (4.4%) species with Islands found within Indian
territorial waters. However, 48
(53.3%) species had distribution restricted to two biogeographic zones (Fig.
3). Only a fourth of the reptile
species reported from Meghamalai had a wide
distribution in 7-9 biogeographic zones of the country.
Status
Of the 90 species of reptiles reported
from Meghamalai (Appendix 1), tortoises and turtles
(Indian Star Tortoise Geochelone elegans, Indian Black Turtle Melanochelys trijuga) were not reported earlier from the area,
but only found recently. Among 28
species of lizards reported, 10 were (numerically) rare and 11 were common (Fig.
4). The Blue-bellied Tree Skink
reported from the area was not observed since its first report (1949) from this
hill range. Among the 60 species of
snakes reported, only three (5%) were common and 31 species (52%) were rare
(i.e., <5 individuals observed in three years). Several species of snakes were
numerically rare compared to lizards (Figs. 4 & 5).
During recent field (2006–2008),
3,374 records of 55 species of reptiles were obtained in TCVES and quadrat
sampling; 3004 reptiles in 3600 hours of TCVES and 370 reptiles in 12ha of
quadrat sampling, which empirically worked out to 0.83 reptiles/man hour of
search and 30.8 reptiles/ha respectively. Only 10 species had relative abundance >1%. This typically included nine species of
lizards and one snake (Hump-nosed Pit Viper Hypnale hypnale). The relative abundance of Bronze Grass Skink Eutropis macularia was the highest (34.7%) followed by a
species of Day Gecko Cnemaspis sp1. (18.6%) and Blanford’s Rock Agama Psamophilus blanfordanus(Fig. 6).
Highly threatened species of Meghamalai included two ‘Critically Endangered’ (Hutton’s
Pit Viper, Dindigal Shieldtail Uropeltis cf. dindigalensis) which were not sighted in the present study and eight
‘Endangered’ species (Appendix 1). Four species were considered as ‘Data
Deficient’. In all, only 16 (18%) species were categorized as ‘Lower Risk-
Least Concerned’ (Fig. 7).
Discussion
A record of 90 species of reptiles
including two subspecies of Coelognathus helena (C.h. helena, C.h. monticollaris)
in Meghamalai, is the highest number of species reported so far for any
specific landscape of the Western Ghats. As both the subspecies of Coelognathus helena were found in the
same location (i.e., sympatric), we tentatively considered them distinct
species in the present analysis. We
suggest further studies to determine the taxonomic status of the subspecies of Coelognathus helena. A compilation by Aengels et al. (2011)
showed the occurrence of 518 reptile species in India, and Das (1996) reported
165 species from the Western Ghats. The present report of 90 species is about 17.4% of reptiles of the
country and about 54.5% of species of the Western Ghats. Based on a review, Bhupathy(2004) reported 177 species of reptiles from Tamil Nadu State and the present
report of 90 species (50.8%) from Meghamalai alone shows the conservation importance of the area. High species richness in the area is due
to its broader elevation width, various climatic conditions, and the presence
of windward and leeward sides and occurrence of a variety of forest types (Bhupathy et al. 2009,2012). Records of species such as sand boas Gongylophis conicus and Eryx johnii, Saw-scaled
Viper Echis carinatus,
Fan-throated Lizard Sitana ponticerina as well as AnaimalaiSpiny Lizard Salea anamallayana,shieldtails, Uropeltisspp. and Large-scaled Pit Viper Trimeresurus macrolepis from Meghamalai(Srinivas et al. 2008; Bhupathyet al. 2009) indicate the continuum from dry to wet (thorn-dry deciduous- moist
deciduous- evergreen-montane shola grasslands)
forests in the landscape.
Among the 90 species of reptiles reported
from Meghamalai, 30 species (33.3%) were endemic to
the Western Ghats. This is much
lower compared to the reported endemism (53.3%) of the reptiles of the Western
Ghats (Das 1996). Occurrence of
endemic species such as Ashambu Shieldtail Uropeltis liura, Periyar Shieldtail Uropeltis arcticeps madurensis, Hutton’s Pit Viper and Blue-bellied
Tree Skink in Meghamalai is poorly known even
today. Hutton’s Pit Viper is
apparently endemic to the area, but has not been observed since its description
despite intensive surveys in recent years (Bhupathyet al. 2009; Chandramouli & Ganesh 2010). Boulenger(1891) described the Blue-bellied Skink based on a specimen from Bodanaikanur (now Bodinayakanur,
a part of the present Theni Forest Division). Further, this species
was reported from Meghamalai by Smith (1949a)
though no report of this species is available since then. It was considered
endemic to this hill range till its recent collection from over ca. 600km
(straight-line distance) northwards, in KudremukhNational Park, Karnataka (Harikrishnan et al. 2012).
The higher sharing of fauna of Meghamalai with that of the Deccan Peninsula and Coasts
might be due to a similarity in bio-climate and habitats of these landscapes.
However, no commonality was found with respect to the reptile fauna between Meghamalai and the Trans-Himalaya. Difference in the age, geological
position, and variation in elevation, climate and perhaps the distance between
these landscapes might have led to distinct reptile assemblages. It is to be
noted that 48 species (53.3%) of reptiles found here were restricted to only
one or two biogeographic zones of the country (Fig. 3). This shows that the reptiles of the
Western Ghats (Meghamalai) are highly vulnerable to
habitat alterations and climate change, if any.
Several species of reptiles found in Meghamalai were numerically rare, and 16 of them (one
lizard species and 15 snakes) were not observed in recent studies (Bhupathy et al. 2009; Chandramouli& Ganesh 2010), which were reported earlier (Boulenger1891; Hutton 1949; Hutton & David 2009). Tortoises and turtles and most of the
species of lizards observed have been recorded for the first time from the
area. However, Meghamalai lies within the distribution range of many of
these newly recorded species (Smith 1931, 1935, 1943; Das 1995; Whitaker &
Captain 2008). Comparison of past
(Hutton 1949 reviewed recently in Hutton & David 2009) and recent data (Bhupathy et al. 2009; Chandramouli& Ganesh 2010) showed the occurrence of 60 species of snakes in the area;
22 species were common to both past and recent studies, 15 only to the earlier
and 23 to the latter respectively. Land use and land cover changes between the
historical and recent studies could have possibly led to a local extinction of
several species that might have contributed to the above disparity. According to Blatter& Hallberg (1917), this area was covered with
dense montane rain forests during the early 20thcentury. However, presently, most
parts of the landscape along 1000–1500 m have been altered for commercial
plantations.
As can be expected, a higher number of
snake species was (numerically) rare when compared to lizards (Figs. 4–6)
and only one species of snake got a place in the top 10 relatively common
reptiles of Meghamalai. This might be due to their difference in
trophic and spatial niches occupied by these species (most of the snakes are predators
and lizards are insectivores). Species such as the Bronze Grass Skink, a species of Day Gecko Cnemaspis sp.1 and Blanford’sRock Agama are specific to microhabitats such as forest floor with leaf litter,
trees with larger trunk and open rocks respectively (Daniel 2002). Availability of suitable microhabitats
in Meghamalai could have resulted in their higher
abundance here.
Among the ‘Critically Endangered’ species
of Meghamalai, Hutton’s Pit Viper has not been
sighted since its description (Smith 1949b), despite serious attempts to locate
the species since then (Bhupathy et al. 2009; Chandramouli & Ganesh 2010; but see Boundy2008). Similarly, the Blue-bellied
Tree Skink has not been reported from Meghamalaisince 1949 (Harikrishnan et al. 2012). Extensive field work in the region by Bhupathy et al. (2009) and Chandramouli& Ganesh (2010) did not locate the aforesaid species, and we doubt their
continued existence in Meghamalai. As mentioned earlier, changes in land
use might have taken a toll on these and several other species. Despite all these taxonomic
uncertainties and doubtful occurrence of obscure endemic forms, this landscape
is undoubtedly one of the most important reptile areas of India. It is hoped that habitat alterations and
degradation of this landscape will be under control as a portion of the area
comes under the recently declared Meghamalai Wildlife
Sanctuary (Tamil Nadu Government Gazette 2009). Collection-based studies on reptiles
would provide more insights on faunal distribution of the area (Ganesh et al.
in press) and potentially reduce the disparity in the number of species
observed in the area during the 1940s and in recent years (2006–2008).
References
Aengals, R., V.M.S. Kumar & M.J. Palot (2011). Updated Checklist of
Indian Reptiles. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, India,
www.zsi.gov.in/checklist/Checklist%20of%20Indian%20Reptiles.pdf (downloaded on 22 July 2013).
Bhupathy, S. (2004). Reptiles, pp. 62–75. In: Annamalai, R.
(ed.). Tamil Nadu Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan - Chordate Diversity.
Tamil Nadu Forest Department, Chennai.
Bhupathy, S., G. Srinivas& N. Sathishkumar (2009). A study on the Herpetofaunalcommunities of the Upper Vaigai Plateau, Western
Ghats, India. Final Report submitted to the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India. Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology
and Natural History, Coimbatore, 75pp.
Bhupathy, S., G. Srinivas,
N. Sathishkumar, T. Karthik& A. Madhivanan (2011). Herpetofaunal mortality due to vehicular
traffic in the Western Ghats, India: a case study. Herpetotropicos 5(2):
119–126.
Bhupathy, S., G. Srinivas,
N. Sathishkumar, M. Murugesan,
S. Babu, R. Suganthasakthivel& P. Sivakumar (2012). Diversity and conservation of selected biota of the Meghamalai landscape, Western Ghats. India. Current Science 102(4): 590–595.
Blatter, E. & F. Hallberg(1917). Preliminary notes on a
recent botanical tour to the High Wavy Mountain (S. India). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 25(2): 290–292.
Boulenger, G.A. (1891). Description of a new species of lizard obtained by Mr. H.S. Ferguson in Travancore, Southern India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 6(4): 449.
Boundy, J. (2008). A possible third specimen of the pitvipergenus Tropidolaemus from India. Hamadryad32 (1): 59–62.
Campbell,
H.W. & S.P. Christman (1982). Field techniques for HerpetofaunalCommunity Analysis, pp. 193–200. In: Scott, N.J. Jr. (ed.). Herpetological
Communities. Wildlife Research Report 13. U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C.
Chandramouli, S.R. & S.R. Ganesh (2010). Herpetofauna of southern Western Ghats, India
- reinvestigated after decades. Taprobanica2(2): 72–85; http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/tapro.v2i2.3145
Crump, M.L. & N.J. Scott (1994). Visual encounter survey. pp.
84-96.In: Heyer, W.R., M.A. Donnelly, R.W. Mcdiarmid, L.C. Hayek & M.S. Foster (eds.). Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity, Standard Methods
for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press.USA.
Daniel,
J.C. (2002). The Book of Indian
Reptiles and Amphibians. Oxford University Press,
Mumbai, India, 238pp.
Das,
I. (1995). Turtles and Tortoises of
India. WWF-India/Oxford University Press, Bombay, 195pp.
Das,
I. (1996). Biogeography of the
Reptiles of South Asia. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar,
Florida.
Das,
I. (2003). Growth of knowledge on
the reptiles of India, with an introduction to systematics, taxonomy and
nomenclature. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 100(2&3):
446–501.
David,
P. & G. Vogel (1998). Redescription of Trimeresurus huttoni,
Smith, 1949 (Serpents, Crotalinae), with a discussion
of its relationships. Hamadryad 22(2): 73–87.
Ganesh,
S.R., S. Bhupathy, P. David, N. Sathishkumar& G. Srinivas (in Press). Snake Fauna of High Wavy Mountains, Western Ghats, India: Species
Richness, Status and Distribution Pattern. Russian Journal of Herpetology..
Harikrishnan, S., K. Vasudevan, A. de Silva, V. Deepak, N.B. Kar,
R. Naniwadekar, A. Lalremruata,
K.R. Prasoona & R.K. Aggarwal(2012). Phylogeographyof Dasia Gray, 1830
(Reptilia: Scincidae), with
the description of a new species from southern India. Zootaxa 3233: 37–51.
Hutton,
A.F. (1949). Notes on the snakes and
mammals of the High Wavy Mountains, Madura District, south India. Part
I—Snakes. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 48: 454–460.
Hutton, A.F. & P. David (2009). Notes on a collection of snakes from south India, with emphasis on
the snake fauna of the Meghamalai Hills (High Wavy
Mountains). Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 105: 299–316.
Molur, S. & S. Walker (1998). Note book for Reptiles. CAM P. CBSG South
Asian Reptile Special Interest Group / South Asian Reptile Network, Taxon Data
Sheets from the Reptiles of India Report, 226pp.
Rodgers,
W.A. & H.S. Panwar (1998). Wildlife Protected Areas in India - Vol. 1. Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun, 341pp.
Smith,
M.A. (1931). The Fauna of British
India, Ceylon and Burma, including the whole of the Indo-Chinese subregion. Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol. I. Testutines. Taylor & Francis, London.
Smith,
M.A. (1935). The Fauna of British India, including
Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia - Vol. II. Sauria. Taylor and Francis, London,
440pp.
Smith,
M.A. (1943). The Fauna of British
India, Ceylon and Burma, including the whole of the Indo-Chinese subregion. Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol. III,Serpentes. Taylor & Francis,
London, 583pp.
Smith,
M.A. (1949a). Notes on a second
specimen of the skink Dasia subcaerulea from south India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 48: 596–597.
Smith,
M.A. (1949b). A new species of pit viper from South
India: Trimeresurus huttonisp. nov. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 48(3): 596.
Srinivas, G., S. Bhupathy& A. Madhivanan (2008). Occurrence of Salea anamallayana Beddome,
1878 in High Wavy Mountains, Western Ghats. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 105(3): 193–194.
Tamil Nadu Government Gazatte (2009). Declaration of MeghamalaiWildlife Sanctuary. Regd. No. TN/CCN/467/2009-11: 322–325.
Whitaker, R. & A. Captain (2008). Snakes of India - The
Field Guide. Draco Books, Chennai, 385pp.