Journal
of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2018 | 10(2):
11295–11302
An annotated checklist of the herpetofauna
of the Rashtrapati Bhawan Estates, New Delhi, India
Vishal Kumar Prasad 1, Anjali Verma 2 & Ghazala Shahabuddin
3
1 Biodiversity
Research and Conservation Foundation, 73 Gulmohar Colony, ITI Road, Satara,
Maharashtra 415002, India
2 House
No. 184, Doiwala, Dehradun, Uttarakhand
248140, India
3 Centre
for Ecology, Development and Research, 201/1 Vasant Vihar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248006, India
1 vishalprasad.wildlife@gmail.com,
2 anjleeverma@gmail.com, 3 ghazala303@gmail.com
doi: http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3235.10.2.11295-11302
| ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:EE0C957C-8AE2-43D3-AF19-D839DD92BDD5
Editor: Anonymity requested. Date of publication: 26 February 2018 (online
& print)
Manuscript
details: Ms # 3235
| Received 17 June 2016 | Final received 04 January 2018 | Finally accepted 02
February 2018
Citation: Prasad, V.K., A. Verma & G. Shahabuddin (2018). An annotated checklist of
the herpetofauna of the Rashtrapati
Bhawan Estates, New Delhi, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(2): 11295–11302; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3235.10.2.11295-11302
Copyright: © Prasad et al. 2018. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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: Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing
interests.
Acknowledgements: The surveys on which
this paper is based, were carried out as part of a collaborative project
between Sahapedia Publishing Company and Rashtrapati Bhawan (RB). We are grateful for the cooperation
extended by RB, particularly the officers Mr. Rajneesh, Mr. U.D. Kukreti and Mr. Gulab Singh. We also thank the Secretariat of Rashtrapati Bhawan for formally
allowing the scientific publication of the data obtained on the herpetofauna.
We are grateful to Dr. Surya Prakash, Dr. Faiyaz Khudsar and Dr. Shah Hussain for sharing their knowledge on the current status
of herpetofauna in the Delhi region and providing
updated checklists of their project areas.
Abstract: Rashtrapati Bhavan Estates is a large semi-natural area comprising
significant patches of secondary forest, cultivation, wetlands and parks in the
heart of Delhi, the capital city of India.
An inventory of herpetofauna was undertaken
from May 15 to July 31, 2015, which revealed four species of amphibians and
eight of reptiles. One reptilian
species—Striped Keelback—was a new record
for the Delhi region. In addition,
secondary records of the presence of five snake species were obtained. Given the paucity of published data on
natural history of the national capital, this annotated species checklist
assumes importance and will be of use for urban planning and conservation.
Keywords: Amphibians,
biodiversity, capital, city, reptiles, urban ecology.
Today, amphibians and reptiles are
among the most threatened groups of vertebrate fauna (Bšhm et al. 2013). Approximately
32.5% of amphibians and 19% of recorded reptile species are Red Listed and have
been assigned threatened status (Stuart et al. 2008; Bšhm et al. 2013). In addition, a large number of taxa are
as yet data-deficient; therefore the actual numbers of threatened species may
be higher (Stuart et al. 2008). The
decline in herpetofaunal species has been caused by a
variety of factors such as loss of wetland and forest habitat, climate change,
over-exploitation, water pollution, and emergence of diseases (Gibbons et al.
2000; Kiesecker et al. 2001; Pounds et al. 2006; Sodhi et al. 2008; Thomas & Biju
2015; Nowakowski et al. 2017).
India has an immense diversity of herpetofauna, as with most other taxa and is recognized as
a mega-diversity country. At present,
there are 417 amphibian
species in India (AmphibiaWeb 2018; Frost 2017). Further, between
533–696 reptile species are found in India (Aengals
et al. 2011; Palot 2015; Uetz
et al. 2017). The hotspots for herpetofaunal diversity within India are located in the
Himalaya, Indo-Burma region, Nicobar Islands and the Western Ghats (Myers et
al. 2000; Biju 2001; Biju
& Bossuyt 2003; Mittermeier
et al. 2004). Herpetofaunal
taxa, however, are distributed in all the biomes in India from grasslands to
the high Himalaya.
Green areas in urban centres and suburbia can be important refuges for herpetofaunal diversity too (e.g., Purkayastha
et al. 2011). Remnant forests,
riverbanks, home gardens, recreational parks and even used wetlands in urban
areas, harbour much herpetofauna
(Purkayastha et al. 2011; Banville
& Bateman 2012), but such habitats remain largely unstudied in India. It is important to understand the
distribution of herpetofauna in both modified and
natural ecosystems within cities, so that they can be managed for enhanced
conservation (Banville & Bateman 2012). Further, various herpetofaunal
taxa have been found to be good indicators of ecosystem stress and habitat
condition (Welsh & Ollivier 1998; Smith & Rissler 2010).
Studies of herpetofauna in stressed
environments such as cities can provide insights into their utility as
indicators of habitat condition for particular biomes.
The Rashtrapati
Bhawan and its surrounding green areas (hereafter
referred to as Rashtrapati Bhavan
Estates or RB Estates) was created in the 1920s as a
residential area for the erstwhile Viceroy of India in the city of Delhi. Today it serves as the home and
secretariat of the President of India.
Located centrally in New Delhi, the RB Estates comprises extensive green
spaces such as forests, parks, fields, and water bodies forming an
interconnected mosaic of natural and artificial habitats (Baviskar
2016). The RB Estates has had
limited faunal research so far.
There were limited studies of herpetofauna of Delhi region for a long time, with field
studies being few and far between.
A publication by Kalpavriksh (1991) compiled
the first species list which shows two species of
amphibians and 14 of reptiles, based largely on unidentified secondary
sources. In 1997, the Zoological
Survey of India, in its periodical report for Delhi, reported seven species of
amphibians and 25 species of reptiles, based on field surveys in a large number
of localities throughout the city. A noteworthy new species record was published by Narayanan & Satyanarayan (2012). During the last decade, scientists have
been conducting more intensive surveys in various parts of Delhi including
Jawaharlal Nehru University Campus, Asola-Bhatti
Wildlife Sanctuary, Aravalli Biodiversity Park and
Yamuna Biodiversity Park (Surya Prakash pers. comm.
10 October 2016; Delhi Development Authority 2016). It is necessary to extend field surveys
to other locations within Delhi so that a more complete understanding of the
cityÕs herpetofauna can be obtained. The present study is therefore an
important step towards documentation of DelhiÕs herpetofauna
based on primary surveys.
The objective of the current study is
to inventory the herpetofauna in various habitats
present in the green areas of RB Estates.
We present here an annotated checklist of species with notes on local
abundance and ecology.
Materials and Methods
The present study was carried out
from 15 May to 31 July 2015, in the Dalikhana complex
of the RB Estates, which covers 24.4ha and consists of a mosaic of kitchen
gardens, nurseries, ponds and remnant scrub forests.
Study Area
RB Estates (28.614019450N
and 77.193663880E), has an average
elevation of 230m. Covering a total
of 133ha today, the RB Estates were carved out of the last outposts of the Aravalli Hills inside Delhi, and are considered to
historically have been a part of the Central Delhi Ridge forests (Baviskar 2016).
Since the 1980s, the forests of the RB Estate have been largely cut off
from the Central Ridge due to city roads and growing traffic (Shahabuddin 2016).
The historic Mughal Garden, which is
mainly ornamental and therefore manicured, is located next to the main office
building of RB. The other
residential gardens and ornamental herbal gardens are also intensively managed
areas. Along with the Mughal
Gardens, these areas are also off-limits to researchers due to security
reasons.
The remnant scrub forest patches and
adjoining kitchen gardens of the RB Estates, however, form an inter-connected
complex of 24.4ha (hereafter referred to as Dalikhana
complex), which was found to host a diversity of birds, spiders and insects
during surveys in 2014 (Shahabuddin 2016; refer to
Fig. 1). This area was therefore
surveyed intensively for herpetofauna during the
current study.
Within the Dalikhana
complex, the kitchen garden area includes vegetable patches, flower nurseries,
fruit orchards, greenhouses, compost processing areas, tree plantations, weedy
fallow areas, an artificial lake and a sewage treatment plant, covering an
approximate area of 8ha (Fig. 1).
Overall, the kitchen garden area has a moderate canopy cover of fruit
and other trees, dense understorey and high diversity
of seasonal weeds and flowers where rich insect diversity was recorded in 2014
(Shahabuddin 2016).
The scrub forest patches of the Dalikhana complex cover 16.4ha, have dense canopy cover and
are dominated by old trees of Prosopis julifliora. Scattered trees of native
species such as Diospyros cordifolia, Acacia modesta, Ehretia laevis, Acacia leucophloea and Acacia catechu are also present (Shahabuddin 2016). The forest has a thick bushy understorey mainly comprising native shrub species such as Adhatoda vasica, Capparis sepiaria and Grewia tenax. Seasonal herbaceous
vegetation is composed of native species such as Dipteracanthus prostrata, Abutilon indica, Barleria cristata
and Plumbago zeylanica. Water leaks from the
artificial lake, sewage pipes and the sewage tanks often form temporary swampy
areas within the forest patches, which are of importance to fauna (Shahabuddin 2016).
These low-lying swampy areas are also flooded during heavy rains.
Methods
Multiple techniques were used for the
study. Firstly, active visual
searches were carried out for reptiles and amphibians during the daytime
(06.30–09.30 hr) and during night (from 18:00hr
until 24:00hr midnight) for an average of three days each week. Apart from passive observation, active
searches were carried out in leaf litter, rocky outcrops, under rocks, inside
abandoned buildings, on tree trunks and shrubbery, greenhouses, damp soil,
flowerpots, artificial ponds and temporary rain puddles. Burrowing herpetofauna
were searched for by digging up the soil in likely
spots and pulling up stones and fallen logs (following Vasudevan
et al. 2008; Kamei et al. 2009).
Individuals were photographed in their natural habitats where
possible. All opportunistic
sightings were also taken into account for developing the final checklist as a
few species were encountered while walking from one site to another. Sloughed off snakeskins, when
encountered, were collected and used to identify species present in the area.
Second, six drift fences (each 10m in
length combined with two large pitfall traps of 35cm diameter and 50cm depth at
each end) were installed in different parts of the study area including the
vegetable garden, scrub forest patches and near marshy/pond areas for two
months (Refer to Fig. 1 for the locations). Drift fences are effective for
inventorying and monitoring diverse species of herpetofauna
(Todd et al. 2007). A pitfall trap
is a catch pit for small animals, such as reptiles-geckos, lizards, skinks,
snakes, frogs and toads (Enge 1997, 2001). The traps were checked three times a
day—morning (06:30hr), evening (19:00hr) and at night (23.30hr)—for
any trapped animals.
Trapped individuals of reptiles and
amphibians were photographed, their morphological features were noted for
identification, and subsequently released.
Salient morphological characters of anurans such as snout profile,
webbing in feet, finger/toe tip dilation, tympanum size, external colouration, digging apparatus, vocal sacs, pupil-iris,
skin texture, key feature on head, limbs were noted (following Daniel 2002; Gururaja 2012).
For reptiles, identification features such as head-body shape, head-body-subcaudal scale count, finger morphology, types of scales,
sex pores, warts and tubercles were recorded (Whitaker & Captain 2004; Giri & Bauer 2008). Species were identified using several
different guidebooks and research papers (Daniel 2002; Das et al. 1998;
Whitaker & Captain 2004; Vasudevan & Sondhi 2010; Gururaja 2012).
In order to obtain secondary
information, four gardeners working in the area were interviewed regarding
observations on herpetofauna, their
occurrence/abundance in the past and any recent sightings. Two of these informants had spent more
than 20 years in the RB Estates. Colour pictures from Whitaker & Captain (2004) were
shown to the interviewee to confirm identification of the species that they
reported to us.
Results
During our primary surveys, eight
species of reptiles from six families and four species of amphibians from three
families were reported. Interviews
with local workers reported five additional species. In this paper, only the 12 species
sighted and photographed by the researchers during the surveys, are described
(primary sightings). The annotated
checklist of species follows.
Amphibians
Family Bufonidae Gray, 1825
Indian Common Toad Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Schneider, 1799): In RB Estate, only a single individual was sighted in the weedy areas
adjoining the artificial pond the day after pre-monsoon showers in the first
week of June 2015. It is
inexplicably rare in the study area in comparison to its congener D. stomaticus (see below).
Marbled Toad Duttaphrynus stomaticus (LŸtken, 1862; Image 1): This
is a medium-sized toad of arid and semi-arid areas and has been historically
reported from Delhi region (Kalpavriksh 1991). Its current status in the Delhi region,
however, is not well understood. In
this study, we sighted it frequently at night, after the beginning of the
rains.
We observed individuals of D. stomaticus in large congregations in a small shallow pond in Dalikhana
area from 20.00hr until midnight on 16 May 2015, after a bout of heavy
rain. The males were gathered in a
close group and called loudly in a chorus from a temporary pond. The females arrived later than males. At this time, we observed the males were
brightly lime-yellow in colour and females were slightly
darker in coloration. The males
outnumbered the females in the pond and were competing by pushing and kicking
one another. Two males were
observed clasping other moving males in the pond but clasped males were
released after vibrations and jolts (Hettyey et al.
2005). Further, lone males tried to
displace pairs already in axillary amplexus (see
image 1). One female was seen dead
of exhaustion after carrying a male around for some time. The breeding period
lasted for four to five days.
The next day, thousands of eggs were
seen and in approximately two-three days, tadpoles were also seen in the lentic
water of pond. No egg attendance or
parental care for tadpoles was seen (Wells 2007).
Family Dicroglossidae
Anderson, 1871
Indian Burrowing Frog Sphaerotheca spp. (Gunther,
1859; Image 2): This species was sighted three times
during the survey during the monsoon.
The first individual was observed feeding on mosquito larvae near a
small marshy pool in the kitchen garden area in mid-May. Another calling male was found in an
artificial pond under a bunch of lotus leaves in the Spiritual Gardens of RB
Estate. On the third occasion, two
individuals were seen near the same lotus pond.
Family Microhylidae GŸnther, 1858
Ornate Narrow-mouthed Frog Microhyla
ornata (DumŽril & Bibron, 1841; Image 3): This species was sighted only twice. One individual was sighted at night very
close to a temporary pond located in a habitat of grasses, dense shrub and tree
cover in early July, soon after the commencement of the rains. A second individual was sighted the next
day from the same area. The
pulsatile and short advertisement calls of the pool breeder M. ornata (Wijayathilaka & Meegaskumbura
2016) was also heard from another spot in the kitchen-garden area after a heavy
downpour on 11 July 2015 when most of the area was waterlogged.
Reptiles
Family Gekkonidae
Gray, 1825
Kushmore House Gecko Hemidactylus cf. kushmorensis
(Murray, 1884; Image 4): This species has been clarified
taxonomically very recently by Lajmi et al.
(2016). It is distinguished from
the sympatric Yellow-bellied House Gecko by its relatively small size, reduced
lamellae on digits, dorsal tubercles (including strongly keeled tubercles on
the tail) and a blotchy pattern of dark and light spots. It is currently seen occasionally in
other parts of Delhi including JNU Campus (Surya Prakash
pers. comm. 10 October 2016) and has been historically recorded from the Delhi
Ridge (Kalpavriksh 1991).
In RB Estates, the Kushmore House Gecko was seen commonly at night in the
semi-wild parts of the Estate and was observed mainly in leaf litter on the
forest floor and on the lower reaches of tree trunks. It was frequently trapped in the pitfall
traps too. It was rarely seen
during the daylight hours. Its
eggs, which are spherical and white, were observed in clusters of 3–4
buried under rocks.
Yellow-bellied House Gecko Hemidactylus flaviviridis (RŸppell, 1835): This is a commensal species found commonly in Delhi. In the RB Estates, it was seen in
built-up areas such as offices, abandoned sheds, greenhouses, gates and
concrete fixtures in the kitchen garden.
There was a clear separation visible in the habitats utilised
by the Yellow-bellied House Gecko that occupied the built-up areas and the Kushmore House Gecko, which was seen only in the forest and
forest edge habitat.
Family Scincidae Gray, 1825
Dotted Writhing Skink Lygosoma punctatum (Gmelin, 1799): This is one of the most common skinks in Delhi, living in both wild and
semi-wild habitats. It was found to
be fairly common in RB Estates, too, with numerous individuals of varied sizes
being caught in pitfall traps. It
was seen in moist soft soil, leaf litter and near rocks in the kitchen garden
and the scrub forest.
Family Agamidae Gray, 1827
Oriental Garden Lizard Calotes versicolor (Daudin, 1812): Being one of the most common reptiles in northern Indian cities, the
Oriental Garden Lizard was seen frequently in the RB Estates as well. Individuals were mostly spotted on
shrubs and trees or crossing the path in both the forest as well as the kitchen
gardens and park areas. On two
occasions, during evening, individuals were seen sleeping on shrubs, about 1m
above the ground and were not disturbed by our movements.
Family Typhlopidae Merrem, 1820
Brahminy Worm Snake Indotyphlops braminus (Daudin, 1803; Image 5): This
species has been recorded from Delhi Ridge in the past (Kalpavriksh
1991) and appeared to be common in RB Estate. They were seen 5–6 times during
the course of the surveys, in loose soil under rocks, in dry leaf litter in the
scrub forest and in abandoned flowerpots and construction waste. More than 10 individuals were caught in
the pitfall traps and found underneath rocks. The individuals caught were between
100mm and 130mm in length. A
freshly moulted individual was also spotted, having a
translucent grey-blue milky appearance.
After shedding its skin, it turned a lustrous dark brown.
Family Colubridae Oppel, 1811
Common Wolf Snake Lycodon
aulicus
(Linnaeus, 1754): This species has been historically
recorded in Delhi and is reportedly common at present (S. Prakash
pers. comm. 10 October 2016), being reported in all checklists
published so far. In the RB
Estates, it was seen twice at night in an abandoned shed in the scrub
forest. On one occasion, it was
seen on a brick wall at a height of 3m above the ground, showing its agility
and good climbing abilities. On one
occasion, it was also seen crawling into a rock crevice. Three separate skin sloughs of Common
Wolf Snake were seen in the same area where the individuals were sighted. An abundance of two species of geckos
(see above), which are reportedly their major prey, could be a reason for their
presence in the area.
Striped Keelback Amphiesma stolatum (Linnaeus, 1758; Image 6): This snake species was seen only once when a specimen was caught in a
pitfall trap in the scrub forest after a bout of heavy rains. It appeared to be a fully formed adult,
yet was unable to climb out of the pitfall trap (due to the slippery plastic
walls of the trap). Although it is
supposedly a common and widespread Indian species (Whitaker & Captain
2004), it is rare in the Delhi region (Surya Prakash
pers. comm. 10 October 2016).
Family Elapidae Boie, 1827
Spectacled Cobra Naja Naja (Linnaeus, 1758)
The Spectacled Cobra is commonly
reported from the Delhi region particularly from agricultural and semi-wild surburban areas.
During the survey, it was seen only once, in the overgrown part of the
kitchen garden. It was reportedly more common earlier in the RB Estates,
according to the gardeners but now it is rarely seen.
Discussion and Conclusions
A total of 12 species of herpetofauna were recorded in the RB Estates in this
study. The presence of five
additional species of reptiles were reported by the gardening staff—the
Common Indian Monitor Varanus bengalensis, the Common
Krait Bungarus caeruleus, RussellÕs Viper Daboia russelii, Red Sand Boa Eryx johnii and the Rat Snake Ptyas mucosa—but were not recorded by us.
Of these species, only the Rat Snake and RussellÕs Viper
have been seen recently by the gardeners.
The other three species of reptiles have not been spotted for the last
few years.
One species could not be identified
up to the species level (burrowing frog).
Burrowing frogs (Sphaerotheca spp.) need revision throughout their range to solve taxonomic issues (Biju 2001).
While Sphaerotheca breviceps was thought to be widespread and has been recorded earlier from the
Delhi region (Zoological Survey of India 1997), recent studies now show the
presence of genetically cryptic species that were earlier included in the S. breviceps species complex. Dahanukar et al. (2017) for instance, described S. pluvialis, a species that may earlier have been grouped with S. breviceps. Similarly, Padhye et al. (2017) described the species S. pashchima (from western India) from specimens earlier identified as S. breviceps. Based solely on
photographs, we were able to identify the individuals of burrowing frog seen in
the RB Estate only up to genus level.
Specimen study will be needed to confirm the species that exists in the
area.
In comparison to other surveyed areas
in Delhi, the study area unearthed a low diversity of herpetofaunal
species. For instance, 27 species
have been recorded in Aravalli Biodiversity Park,
located in south-central Delhi, and 20 species are listed for Yamuna
Biodiversity Park, located in the flood plains of Yamuna in northern Delhi
(Delhi Development Authority 2016).
The low diversity of herpetofauna can be partially attributed to the relatively
small and isolated area of unmanaged forest and wetland habitat in the RB
Estates (less than 25ha) in comparison to the two
biodiversity parks. For
instance the Aravalli Biodiversity Park exists over
280ha and is contiguous with a larger expanse of scrub forest while the Yamuna
Biodiversity Park covers 190ha on the banks of the river Yamuna, covering both
terrestrial and aquatic systems.
The recorded species are themselves likely present in small remnant
populations in the RB Estates, making observation much more difficult. Further, much of the cultivated area in
the RB Estates is intensively managed for vegetable and flower cultivation and
therefore experiences high degree of pesticide usage, cleaning and weed-removal. Such activities are likely to reduce
microhabitats for herpetofauna.
On the other hand, the low number of
species could also be an artefact of the short period
of sampling, although care was taken to include parts of both summer and
monsoon seasons in 2015. Further,
the herpetofaunal lists for Aravalli
Biodiversity Park and Yamuna Biodiversity Park have been developed over several
years of observation. Thus it is
highly likely that further work may yield additional species in the RB Estates,
particularly those that are regionally rare.
The five most common species found in
RB Estates were the Brahminy Worm Snake, Kushmore House Gecko, Yellow-bellied House Gecko, Marbled
Toad and Dotted Writhing Skink. The
Ornate Narrow-mouthed Frog, Burrowing Frog and the Striped Keelback
were rare; having been seen only a few times each. The Common Indian Toad was rare even
during the breeding season and was outnumbered by the Marbled Toad, which was
surprisingly abundant. The current
report represents the first published
record of the Striped Keelback
in the Delhi region.
Local informants reported additional
species such as the Common Krait Bungarus caeruleus, Red Sand Boa Eryx johnnii and Common
Indian Monitor Varanus bengalensis, that have been reported from the Delhi Ridge area too (Kalpavriksh 1991). The present survey, however, could not
confirm the presence of the latter species. Either these species have become so
rare within RB Estate as to escape detection or have been locally extirpated
from the area. The latter case
might be possible given the reducing area of the wild and semi-wild habitats in
the RB Estates due to expanding construction and increasing intensity of
management (by pruning, weeding and pesticide application). Further, the isolation of the RB Estates
from the nearby Central Ridge, possibly the nearest colonising
source for faunal species, could have resulted in the gradual dwindling of herpetofaunal species over the years. Some other species of
conservation concern have been recorded in other parts of the Delhi Ridge such
as Indian Spiny-tailed Lizard (Saara hardwickii; Kalpavriksh 1991) and Indian Rock Python (Python molurus; Surya Prakash pers. comm. 10 October 2016;
Zoological Survey of India 1997), but could not be recorded in the present
study.
A number of studies show that certain
natural habitat features such as aquatic vegetation and habitat complexity can
be critical to maintaining amphibian diversity in an urban landscape context
(Parris 2006; Hamer & Parris 2011; Banvile & Bateman 2012). In the present study, too, the richest
areas for the herpetofauna were the unmanaged weedy
habitats in the forest and kitchen gardens of the Dalikhana,
especially those having temporary ponds, moist swampy patches and good tree and
shrub cover while species were largely absent from the manicured recreational
areas. Therefore, in order to
conserve the remaining diversity of herpetofauna, we
recommend (1) strict protection of the native scrub forest remnants in the RB
Estates along with their natural drainage systems, (2) chemical-free maintenance
of the artificial ponds and (3) allowing spaces for natural seasonal ponds and
uncultivated weedy patches inside the kitchen garden and nursery areas. Such measures will likely improve the herpetofaunal populations in the RB Estates and support their
long-term conservation.
References
Aengals,
R., V.M.S. Kumar & M.J. Palot (2011). Updated Checklist of Indian Reptiles. Zoological Survey of India; http://zsi.gov.in/checklist/Checklist%20of %20Indian%20Reptiles.pdf. Accessed on 11 October 2016.
AmphibiaWeb (2017). University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. Accessed on 14 June 2017.
Banville, M.J.
& H.L. Bateman (2012). Urban and wildland herpetofauna
communities and
riparian microhabitats along the Salt River, Arizona. Urban Ecosystems 15(2): 473–488; http://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0228-5
Baviskar, A. (2016). First Garden of the
Republic: Nature in the PresidentÕs Estate. Rashtrapati
Bhavan, New Delhi, 255pp.
Biju, S.D.
(2001). A synopsis of the frog
fauna of the Western Ghats, India. Occasional Publication 1. Indian Society for Conservation Biology, Thiruvanthapuram, 24pp.
Biju, S. D. & F. Bossuyt
(2003). New frog family from India reveals
an ancient biogeographical link with the Seychelles.
Nature 425: 711–714; http://doi.org/10.1038/nature02019
Bšhm, M., B. Collen, J.E. Baillie, P. Bowles, J. Chanson, N. Cox &
A.G. Rhodin (2013). The conservation status of the worldÕs reptiles. Biological Conservation 157: 372–385.
Dahanukar,
N., S. Sulakhe & A. Padhye
(2017). Identity of Sphaerotheca pluvialis (Jerdon, 1853) and other available names among the burrowing
frogs (Anura: Dicroglossidae)
of South Asia. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 9(6): 10269–10285; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3358.9.6.10269-10285
Daniel,
J.C. (2002). The book of Indian Reptiles and Amphibians. Bombay Natural
History Society. Oxford University
Press, Mumbai, 238pp.
Das, I., B. Dattagupta & N.C. Gayen
(1998). History and catalogue of
reptile types in the collection of the Zoological Survey of India. Journal of South Asian Natural
History 3(2):
121–172.
Delhi Development Authority
(2016). Annual Report of Yamuna
Biodiversity Park (Including
Phase II) and Aravalli Biodiversity Park. DDA, Delhi.
Enge, K.M.
(1997). A
Standardized Protocol for Drift-fence Surveys. Technical Report No. 14, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Florida, vi+69pp.
Enge, K.M.
(2001). The pitfalls of pitfall
traps. Journal of Herpetology 35(3): 467–478;
http://doi.org/10.2307/1565965
Frost, D.R. (2017). Amphibian Species of the World:
an Online Reference. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. Version
6.0; http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html
Downloaded on 14 June 2017.
Gibbons, J.W., D.E. Scott, T.J.
Ryan, T.D. Buhlmann, B.S. Metts,
J.L. Greene, T. Mills, Y. Leiden, S. Poppy & C.T. Winne
(2000). The global decline of reptiles, dŽjˆ vu amphibians. BioScience 50: 653–666; http://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050 [0653:
TGDORD]2.0.CO;2
Giri, V.B. & A.M. Bauer (2008). A new
ground-dwelling Hemidactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae)
from Maharashtra, with a key to the Hemidactylus
of India. Zootaxa 1700: 21–34; http://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4347.2.8
Gururaja, K. V. (2012). Pictorial
Guide to Frogs and Toads of the Western Ghats. Gubbi Labs,
LLP, Bengaluru,
xi+153pp.
Hamer, A,J.
& K.M. Parris (2011). Local and landscape determinants of amphibian communities in urban
ponds. Ecological
Applications 21(2):
378–90; http://doi.org/10.1890/10-0390.1
Hettyey,
A., J. Tšršk & G. HŽvizi (2005). Male mate choice lacking in the agile frog, Rana dalmatina. Copeia 2005(2): 403–408.
Kalpavriksh (1991). The Delhi Ridge Forest, Decline and Conservation. Kalpavriksh Environmental Action
Group, Delhi, 49pp.
Kamei, R.G., M. Wilkinson, D.J.
Gower & S.D. Biju (2009). Three new species of striped Ichthyophis (Amphibia:
Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae)
from the northeast Indian states of Manipur and Nagaland. Zootaxa 2267: 26–42;
http://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2267.1.2
Kiesecker, J.M., A.R. Blaustein & L.K. Belden (2001). Complex causes of amphibian oopulation
declines. Nature 410: 681–684; http://doi.org/10.1038/35070552
Lajmi, A., V.B. Giri & K.P. Karanth (2016). Molecular data in conjunction
with morphology help resolve the Hemidactylus brookii complex
(Squamata: Gekkonidae). Organisms Diversity
& Evolution 16: 1–19; http://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-016-0271-9
Mittermeier, R.A., P.R. Gil, M. Hoffmann, J. Pilgrim, T.
Brooks, C. G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux & G.A.B.
Da Fonseca (2004). Hotspots
Revisited, EarthÔs Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial
Eco-regions. Conservation
International, Sierra Madre and University of Virginia, 391pp.
Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A. da
Fonseca & J. Kent (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation
priorities. Nature 403(6772): 853–858; http://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
Narayanan, A. & K. Satyanarayanan
(2012). Platyceps ventromaculatus (Gray, 1834) (Squamata: Serpentes:
Colubridae) New Locality Record in Delhi National
Capital Region (NCR), India. Checklist 8(6):
1356–1358.
Nowakowski, A.J., M.E.
Thompson, M.A. Donnelly & B.D. Todd (2017). Amphibian sensitivity to habitat modification
associated with population trends and species traits. Global Ecology and
Biogeography 26(6):
700-712; http://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12571
Padhye, A., N. Dahanukar, S. Sulakhe, N. Dandekar, S. Limaye & K. Jamdade (2017). Sphaerotheca pashchima, a new species of burrowing frog
(Anura: Dicroglossidae)
from western India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 9(6): 10286–10296; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2877.9.6.10286-10296
Parris, K.M. (2006). Urban
amphibian assemblages as metacommunities. Journal of Animal
Ecology 75(3):
757–64; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01096.x
Palot, M.J. (2015). A checklist of
reptiles of Kerala, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 7(13): 8010–8022; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2002.7.13.8010-8022
Pounds, J.A.,
M.R. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma,
J.A. Consuegra, M.P.L. Fogden,
P.N. Foster, E.L. Marca, K.L. Masters, A. Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S.R. Ron, G.A. Sanchez-Azofeifa, C.J. Still &
B.E. Young (2006). Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic
disease driven by global warming. Nature 439: 161–167; http://doi.org/10.1038/nature04246
Purkayastha, J., M.
Das & S. Sengupta (2011). Urban herpetofauna:
a case study from Guwahati City of Assam, India. Herpetology Notes 4: 195–202.
Shahabuddin, G. (2016). Wildlife, Creatures Great and
Small, pp. 126–159. In: Baviskar, A. (ed.). First Garden of the
Republic: Nature in the PresidentÕs Estate. Rashtrapati
Bhavan, New Delhi, 255pp.
Smith, W.H. & L.J. Rissler (2010). Quantifying disturbance in Terrestrial
Communities: Abundance-Biomass
Comparisons of Herpetofauna
closely track Forest Succession. Restoration Ecology 18(1):
195–204; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00600.x
Sodhi, N.S., D. Bickford, A.C. Diesmos, T.M. Lee,
L.P. Koh, B.W. Brook, C.H. Sekercioglu & C.J.A. Bradshaw
(2008). Measuring
the meltdown: drivers of global amphibian extinction and decline. PLoS
ONE 3: e1636; http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001636
Stuart, S.N., M. Hoffmann, J.S. Chanson, N.A. Cox,
R. J. Berridge, P. Ramani
& B.E. Young (eds.) (2008). Threatened Amphibians of the World. Lynx Edicions,
Spain; IUCN, Switzerland; and Conservation International, USA, 758pp.
Thomas, A.
& S.D. Biju (2015). Tadpole consumption is a direct threat to the endangered Purple Frog, Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis. Salamandra 51(3): 252–258.
Todd, B.D.,
C.T. Winne, J.D. Willson
& J.W. Gibbons (2007). Getting the
drift: examining
the effects of timing, trap type and taxon on herpetofaunal drift fence surveys. The American Midland
Naturalist 158(2):
292–305; http://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2007)158[292:GTDETE]2.0.CO;2
Uetz, P., P. Freed &
J. Hošek (eds.). The Reptile Database, http://www.reptile-database.org.
Accessed on 14 June 2017.
Vasudevan, K.,
A. Kumar, B.R. Noon & R. Chellam
(2008). Density and
diversity of forest floor anurans in the rain forests of southern Western
Ghats, India. Herpetologica 64(2):
207–215; http://doi.org/10.1655/07-066.1
Vasudevan K. & S. Sondhi
(2010). Amphibians and reptiles of Uttarakhand, India. Wildlife Institute of India, Uttarakhand,
94pp.
Wells, K.D. (2007). The Ecology and
Behaviour of Amphibians. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, xi+1184pp.
Welsh, H.H. & L.M. Ollivier (1998) Stream amphibians as indicators of ecosystem
stress: a case study from CaliforniaÕs Redwoods. Ecological
Applications 8(4):
1118–1132; http://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[1118:SAAIOE]2.0.CO;2
Whitaker R. & A.
Captain (2004). Snakes of India, The Field Guide. Draco Books, Chennai,
xiv+ 469 pp.
Wijayathilaka, N. & M. Meegaskumbura (2016). An Acoustic Analysis of the
Genus Microhyla (Anura: Microhylidae) of Sri Lanka. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0159003; http://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0159003
Zoological Survey
of India (1997). State Fauna Series 6,
Fauna of Delhi-Amphibians and Reptiles. ZSL, Delhi.
