A
response to the article “Taxonomic errors and
inaccuracies in Sri Lanka’s Red List, 2007: a cautionary note”
Channa Bambaradeniya 1,
Devaka Weerakoon2, R.H.S. Suranjan Fernando 3 & Chaminda
Bhathiya Kekulandala 4
1 8337 Montgomery Run Road, Apt. I, Ellicott City, MD 21043, USA
2 Department of Zoology, University of Colombo,
Colombo 3, Sri Lanka
3 307/1, Dutugamunu
Mawatha, Watapuluwa, Kandy,
Sri Lanka
4 191 / 5 A, Jakulawatta,
Galthude, Panadura, Sri
Lanka
Email: 1 cbambaradeniya@gmail.com, 2 devaka_w@yahoo.com, 3 sasurh@gmail.com, 4 bkekulandala@gmail.com
Date of publication (online): 26 April 2010
Date of publication (print): 26 April 2010
ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)
Manuscript details:
Ms # o2435
Received 03 April 2010
Citation: Bambaradeniya, C., D. Weerakoon, R.H.S.S. Fernando & C.B. Kekulandala
(2010). A response to the article “Taxonomic
errors and inaccuracies in Sri Lanka’s Red List, 2007: a cautionary note”. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(4): 845-847.
Copyright: © Channa Bambaradeniya,
Devaka Weerakoon, R.H.S. Suranjan Fernando & Chaminda Bhathiya Kekulandala 2010.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium
for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate
credit to the authors and the source of publication.
As members of the team that was involved in the preparation of the
‘2007 Red List of Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka’ (IUCN Sri Lanka
& the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, 2007), we have paid
careful attention to a recent article published by Bahir
& Gabadage (2009) in the Journal of Threatened Taxa, which has attempted to judge or interpret the quality
of this publication. After careful
review of the article under reference, we have decided to submit a response in
order to address erroneous interpretations and misleading statements contained
therein, based on reasoned judgment or analysis. The 2007 Red List of Threatened Fauna and
Flora of Sri Lanka will be referred to herein, as the 2007 National Red List.
The 2007 National Red List was the result of a three-year
collaborative project implemented by IUCN (International Union for Conservation
of Nature) in Sri Lanka and the Ministry of Environment and Natural
Resources. This project, evaluated the
conservation status of selected fauna and flora species in Sri Lanka using
IUCN’s Global Red List Categories and Criteria, adapted to a regional level. The project was steered by the National
Species Conservation Advisory Group (NSCAG) appointed by the Biodiversity
Secretariat of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.
As elaborated on page 11 of the 2007 National Red List, the
project followed an extensive consultative process, involving a group of expert
reviewers appointed by the Biodiversity Secretariat. These reviewers consisted
of over 50 researchers, taxonomists and naturalists, within 11 taxonomic
groups. It also consulted relevant
stakeholders such as protected area managers, and non-governmental
environmental organizations in the country.
It is evident that Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have not read this section of the document
as the statements made in the background as well as conclusions in their
article have implied that appropriate specialists have not been consulted in
the preparatory process of this national document. Ironically the first author, Mr. Mohomed Bahir was one of the
appointed expert reviewers as can be seen from the list contained in page viii.
Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have
ignored facts, in their effort to point out errors in taxonomy, nomenclature,
citations, and data, in the 2007 National Red List. We will address all of their unsubstantiated
allegations, with relevant facts, in the following sections.
The science of taxonomy is
dynamic and fluid, continuously evolving and changing as new data emerges.
Taxonomists often find themselves at odds with each other in changes relating
to nomenclature. Therefore it is obvious
that the taxonomic changes emerging after the
publication of the 2007 National Red List could only be be addressed in its future revisions.
Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have
pointed out nomenclatural issues relating to the amphibians in the 2007
National Red List, without noting the fact that the document has chosen to
adopt the list of threatened amphibians from the Global
Amphibian Assessment (www.globalamphibians.org). The decision to adopt the threatened
amphibians list from the Global Amphibian Assessment was taken in order to
avoid duplication of efforts, a decision which was endorsed by the National
Species Conservation Advisory Group (NSCAG) of Sri Lanka, as well as the expert
reviewers, including the foremost amphibian taxonomists and researchers in the
country. This fact is mentioned in the methodology
section of the document (page 12). It is
to be noted however, that the national list was further supplemented with
evaluations of amphibian species described more recently from Sri Lanka (Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi
2005; Fernando et al. 2007; Meegaskumubura et al.
2007).
Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have further highlighted Cnemaspis tropidogaster (Boulenger
1885) as being erroneously evaluated as an endangered species in the 2007
National Red List, when it is actually an extinct species known only from its lectotype. However,
they have evaded the fact that the paper which described C. tropidogaster as an extinct species (Manamendra-Arachchi et al. 2007) was actually
published two weeks after the release of the 2007 National Red List. It is noted that they have also refrained
from citing this paper, the first author of which was a member of the expert
review team (mentioned in page vii of the 2007 National Red List) that
evaluated and endorsed the list of threatened reptiles included in the 2007
National Red List.
Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have commented on the taxonomic
validity of a recently described endemic lizard, Cophotis dumbara (Samarawickrama
et al. 2006). Since another group of
researchers concurrently described the same species as Cophotis dumbarae (Manamendra-Arachchi,
Silva & Amarasinghe, 2006), in the preparation of
the 2007 Red list, the relevant articles of the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999) were carefully reviewed, with the
available background information relating to these two publications, in order
that the valid scientific name of the species could be determined. Based on our review of ICZN, and further
consultations with the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the
taxonomic validity of Cophotis dumbara
Samarawickrama, Ranawana, Rajapaksha, Ananjeva, Orlov, Ranasinghe & Samarawickrama 2006 was confirmed. The taxonomic validity
of Cophotis dumbara was further verified by Hallermann & Böhme
(2007). This species is also listed in
reputed world faunal and/or reptile databases, including the Encyclopedia of
Life (www.eol.org). It is cited in
this manner in the recent IUCN global list of threatened
species (www.redlist.org) as well.
Amidst this clear backdrop, we find it quite puzzling to understand the
attempts by Bahir & Gabadage
(2009) to downgrade the discovery of Samarawickrama
et al. (2006). Their allegation that Samarawickrama
et al. (2006) did not consult local agamid taxonomists is a subjective personal
opinion, which is irrelevant to the 2007 National Red List.
Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have
pointed out a few typographical errors in the 2007 National Red List of Sri
Lanka. Although the document was peer reviewed and carefully proof read during
the publishing process, a few errors have crept in. Typographical errors could easily occur in
any publication, as evident from such errors even in the article by Bahir & Gabadage (2009). They have also highlighted instances of
authors’ names being misspelled in the 2007 National Red List of Sri Lanka.
Such typographical errors are common in any publication and are also seen in
the paper under reference in the misspelling of “Goonatilake”
as “Goonatileke”.
Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have
also attempted to mislead readers through erroneous interpretations of citation
issues in the 2007 National Red List, highlighting three publications (i.e., Bossuyt et al. 2004; Bahir & Surasinghe 2005; Bambaradeniya
2006a). As clearly mentioned in the
methodology section of the 2007 National Red List (page 12), the distribution
data on the taxonomic groups selected for evaluation were compiled using
published papers, articles, unpublished technical reports and checklists,
museum records and herbarium records. Bahir & Surasinghe (2005)
only discuss the conservation status of Agamid lizard species, without
including the distribution data of species.
As this paper lacked relevant information on the distribution of Agamid
species in Sri Lanka, it was not used for the evaluation of species, hence not
cited under data sources of the 2007 National Red List.
The valuable scientific work of Bossuyt
et al. (2004) was also not considered for species evaluations, for the same
reason stated above. However, the
inadvertent omission of this paper, which provides an insight to local endemism
within the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka Biodiversity Hotspot, within the overview
section of the document is regretted. A table that depicts statistics on the
species richness of inland and marine fauna of Sri Lanka was adapted from the
editorial article (Bambaradeniya 2006b) of a
publication on the fauna of Sri Lanka (Bambaradeniya,
2006a) for the overview section of the 2007 National Red List (page 3), and
this paper is correctly referenced, in contrary to the erroneous statement made
by Bahir & Gabadage
(2009), referring to it as an expanded reference.
Bahir & Gabadage (2009) have
also misinterpreted information related to endemic freshwater fish species in
Sri Lanka, stated in the 2007 National Red List. The Red list publication highlights 44
endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka.
This list is based on an article written by the eminent freshwater fish
researcher and taxonomist of Sri Lanka Mr. Rohan Pethiyagoda (Pethiyagoda 2006),
which appeared in an IUCN publication on the status of fauna of Sri Lanka (Bambaradeniya 2006).
Bahir & Gabadage
(2009) have assumed that this data was obtained from Goonatilake
(2007), which is not a taxonomic publication, but a useful field identification
guide.
Open constructive criticism on any publication is very valuable
especially in a nationally significant document such as the 2007 National Red
List. This will enable revision and
improvement for future updates, through the institutional mechanism established
by the Biodiversity Secretariat of the Ministry of Environment and Natural
Resources.
Having been closely involved in the document preparation process,
we feel we are in a position to regretfully state that the article by Bahir & Gabadage (2009)
appears to be aimed at undermining a consolidated national effort to enhance
biodiversity conservation and management in Sri Lanka. This is further evidenced by their attempt to
provide undue publicity to their article through a newly established NGO - The Taprobanica Nature Conservation Society, casual and
irresponsible electronic circulations and biased media campaigns. We recognize the fact that the first author
of this article, Mr. Mohomed Bahir
is a reputed naturalist, who has contributed immensely towards recent advances
in freshwater crab taxonomy and herpetofaunal
research in Sri Lanka. In no way do we refute his capabilities, and have,
through reasoned arguments, emphatically disproved his critique of this
important publication.
We wish to highlight that the 2007 National Red List has
contributed immensely to raising conservation awareness in Sri Lanka, and has
led to biodiversity conservation initiatives ranging from grass-root level
actions to policy decisions, including the revision of conservation related
legislation over the past years.
We strongly hope that future positive outcomes of the 2007
National Red List for the conservation of biodiversity in Sri Lanka will not be
hindered or hampered by unfounded articles such as that by Bahir
& Gabadage (2009).
References
Bahir, M.M., &
D.E. Gabadage (2009). Taxonomic errors and inaccuracies
in Sri Lanka’s Red List, 2007: a cautionary note. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(10): 525-529.
Bahir, M.M., & T.A. Surasinghe (2005). Conservation Assessment of the Sri Lankan Agamidae (Reptilia: Sauria), pp.407-412. In: Yeo,
D.C.J., P.K.L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda (eds.). Contributions to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri
Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12.
Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. (ed.) (2006a). The Fauna of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy,
Research and Conservation. The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka &
Government of Sri Lanka, viii+308pp.
Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. (2006b). Species Richness of Fauna in Sri
Lanka: Current Status and Future Prospects, pp. x-xii. In: Bambaradeniya,
C.N.B. (ed.). The Fauna of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy, Research and
Conservation. The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka &
Government of Sri Lanka, viii+308pp.
Fernando,
S.S., L.J.M. Wickramasinghe, & R.K. Rodrigo
(2007). A new species of endemic frog
belonging to genus Nannophrys Gunther, 1869 (Anura: Dicroglossinae) from Sri Lanka. Zootaxa 1403:
55-68.
Goonatilake, S. de. A.
(2007). Freshwater
fishes of Sri Lanka. Biodiversity Secretariat,
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 134pp.
Hallermann, J., & W. Böhme (2007). On the validity of two recently described species of
the endemic Sri Lankan genus Cophotis Peters, 1861 (Squamata:
Agamidae) from the Knuckles Forest Range. Salamandra 43(3): 187-190.
ICZN (1999). International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature (4th Edition). International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature, London, 306pp.
IUCN Sri Lanka & the
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (2007). The 2007 Red List of
Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka, xiii+148pp.
Manamendra-Arachchi, K., S. Batuwita,
& R. Pethiyagoda (2007). A taxonomic revision of Sri Lanka
day-geckos (Reptiles: Gekkonidae: Cnemaspis), with description of new species from Sri Lanka and
Southern India. Zeylanica 7(1): 9-22.
Manamendra-Arachchi, K., A. de Silva & T. Amarasinghe (2006). Description of a second species of
Cophotis (Reptilia: Agamidae) from the highlands of Sri Lanka. Lyriocephalus 6(supplement No. 1): 1-8.
Meegaskumbura, M. & K. Manamendra-Arachchi (2005). Descriptions
of eight new species of shrub frogs (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae: Philautus) from Sri
Lanka. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement
12: 305–338.
Meegaskumbura, M., K. Manamendra-Arachchi,
C.J. Schneider & R. Pethiyagoda (2007). New
species amongst Sri Lanka’s extinct shrub frogs (Amphibia:
Rhacophoridae: Philautus). Zootaxa 1397:
1-15.
Pethiyagoda, R.
(2006). Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater fishes, pp.103-112.
In: Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. (ed.). The Fauna of Sri Lanka:
Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation. The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka &
Government of Sri Lanka, viii+308pp.