Vol.

9 (1&2)

January-August 2011

Ten New Species of Frogs

PLUM JUDY (Abisara echerius)

Larval Food Plant: Embelia tsjeriam-cottam

Clockwise from top left: Egg, final instar caterpillar, Adult butterflies

Composite eyes, Adult openwing, Newly emerged butterfly, Caterpillars of different stages

Photo: Balakrishnan Valappil

Vol. 9 (1&2) January-August 2011 Executive Committee President Dr. T.N. Vijayakumar Secretary Dr. Muhamed Jafer Palot Vice President Mr. Sathyan. N.K Jt. Secretary Mr. C.J. Thomas Treasurer Mr. Muhamed Rafeek A.P.M. Members Dr. Dinesan Cheruvat Dr. K. Kishorekumar Mr. K.G.Bimalnath Mr. V. Syam Mr. S. Arjun Mr. T. Ajithkumar Dr. Vijayanthi Dr. K. Fousy Mr. Muralikrishnan. V.P Dr.Rajesh K.P O. Jayarajan Dr. Zeenath Mr. Abdul Riyaz. K. Mr. Balakrishnan Valappil Madhuraj. T.V. Vijesh Vallikunnu Editor Mr. C. Sashikumar Editorial Board Dr. Dinesan Cheruvat Mr. Babu Kambrath Dr. K.P. Rajesh Mr. V.C. Balakrishnan Mr. Praveen. J Prof. I.G. Bhaskara Panikker Nature Education Officer Dr. K. Kishorekumar Cover: Ten new species of frogs (See page:22) Layout: Babu balan Ph: 09633390101 Photographs: Dr. Anil Zacharia & Team Printing Magic Prints, Calicut Ph: 0495 40 11 2 11

Human wildlife conflict is a major concern in wildlife conservation all over the world. Depredation of domestic animals by carnivores and crop raiding by herbivores usually affects the livelihood of people living in the periphery of the forests. This has resulted in indiscriminate killing of the wild animals which in turn has caused in the drastic decline of the population of many species, pushing them towards extinction. A lot of research has gone into this problem and experts have proposed various mitigative measures. According to experts, lethal control in the management of human-wildlife conflicts, like culling or selective removal, has hardly been effective in the long run. In this backdrop, we have to review the decision of the Kerala Government to allow conditional killing of Wild Boar for crop protection. Do the authorities have enough data indicating that the Wild Boar population has increased over the years to be a major destroyer of agricultural crops? Has any study been done which shows that killing some individuals of a local Wild Boar population will deter others from raiding crops again? Or will all individuals of a local Wild Boar community be killed? Are we going to adopt the same policy in the case of elephants and tigers? Our wildlife is having a precarious existence in a shrinking habitat, surrounded by an ever-increasing human population and humanwildlife conflicts are bound to be on the increase. Unimaginative and unscientific policy decisions will only help to complicate the situation. C Sashikumar
Membership details : Ordinary - Rs. 100/-, Life - Rs. 2000/-, Institutional - Rs. 250/-, Student - Rs. 50/- (Upto 12th standard)

Contact Address:
Malabar Natur

Showcasing Nature-Part II Museum and Public Gardens at Thiruvananthapuram as an Agency of Public Instruction and a Hub of Colonial Natural History Networks1
Amruth M Kerala Forest Research Institute Peechi, Thrissur, Kerala. amrutham@gmail.com Focus in the first part of the paper was on the nature of discussions about utilities of exhibitions and
museum in 1940s. The remaining section of the paper provided context of establishment of the Museum-zoogarden complex and the nature of progressive addition of exhibits to the museum and zoo. In this second and concluding part the foundational ideology of the museum as a civilising agency is explored in detail. Further. The role played by the museum as a node in the larger colonial network of natural history, collection, calculation and measurement is also illustrated. It was mentioned in the previous part of the article that Travancore was the first princely state to found a Museum-zoo garden complex in the British India. The significance of this act is amplified by the fact that this was intended to be a public space. This was opened up while such a public was yet to be constructed in the intricately formed hierarchy of caste and class in the mid 19th century Travancore. This modern space was meant to demonstrate the virtues of the modern and showcase the resources of the native nature while it coexist with a neither fully modern and nor a traditional society that its founders imagined. The second aspect highlighted in the article is the role of this institutional complex as a hub in the colonial network of scientific institutions involved in collection and distribution of natural history objects, curios, and propagules of commercially important crops.

Museums as Nodes in Colonial Knowledge Networks

Under the curatorship of the H.S. Ferguson in nearly 15 years the museum at Thiruvananthapuram had obtained a novel orientation. Ferguson undertook the collection and arrangement of insects for the Museum, from 1888. He was also supervising the assembling of skeletons of 'birds and beasts' by a taxidermist. The taxidermist of the Museum was sent to Madras in 1889, 'to improve his knowledge of taxidermy under the Superintendent of Government Central Museum. He also had lessons in arts of modelling, moulding, and 1 casing in School of Arts there.' The collaboration with Museums in British India was further extended when the Trustees of British Indian Museum, Calcutta, sent a taxidermist to Thiruvananthapuram museum to teach taxidermy to the museum staff of the Thiruvananthapuram museum. He was also supposed to make a collection of bird specimens typical to Travancore. He accompanied 2 by the taxidermist of Travancore 'travelled in the districts and collected some specimens.' Skeletons of an elephant and camels were set up by the taxidermist and placed in the museum in 1890-91. Several glass models of the invertebrate were obtained from Dresden and placed in the Museum. Another significant addition to the taxidermy specimens were 'a collection of 57 birds of Travancore Ornithological survey worked out by Mr. H. Whistler of England, and forwarded by him to his Highness the Maharaja of Travancore, who presented them to museum.'3 As Ferguson himself recollected later close to his retirement that he had made conscious efforts to showcase the products and features of Travancore: When I began to work in 1888 there was a heterogeneous collection of odds and ends representing nothing in particular and there was very little representation either of the arts and manufacturers of Travancore or of its fauna. This ancient collection has been gradually got rid of, and in its place cases containing exhibits representing Travancore Ivory, kuftgari, brass, lace, and lace-cloth work have been substituted. The small collection of birds has been added to until practically the whole of the birds of Travancore are displayed mounted and there are good series of skins for study. Index cases for all vertebrates
1. This is an extract from a forthcoming monograph titled Governing 'Man' and 'Nature' in Colonial Travancore.

2
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

but fish have been completed and for the whole of Invertebrates. Almost complete collections of local Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians have been made, and many castes of cetaceans, snakes, lizards, 4 frogs and fishes are now exhibited. Ferguson lists names of 30 species of animals described from Travancore during his period at 5 Museum that were new to the biological world. During Ferguson's period organised collections of animals representative of the Travancore fauna were taken up, an extensive network for collection of animal specimens from the accidental capturing of which in the countryside were made.6 Besides, occasionally his contributions in the form of scientific notes or reports on the new biological specimens were read in the learned bodies like Bombay Natural History Society.7 It is interesting to look at the list of contributors to the Thiruvananthapuram Museum. While some of the collections were purchased from the collectors and professional firms and museum suppliers, a major chunk of the additions came either as exchange or as gifts from similar organisations in British India or in th Europe. For instance among the donors of the books and reports to the museum library at the turn of the 20 century included organisations such as Smithsonian Institution, USA.; Public Museum, Milwaukee; Imperial Department of Agriculture, West Indies; Children's Museum Brooklyn; Colombo Museum; Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh; Zoological Gardens, Giza, Egypt; Natural History Society, Wisconsin; Museum and Galleries, Glasgow; British Museum, London; United States National Museum, U.S. Dept of Agriculture; and Botanical Gardens at Singapore, New South Wales, Gold Coast, Ceylon, Missouri, Mysore, Udaipur, 8 Shaharanpur etc. The list would expand further as one compile such information for many years and cover donations of specimens including exhibits in the museum, animals, plant specimens and propagules etc. Besides the exchange of specimens and materials, ideas and concepts of some of the institutionalised forms of colonial knowledge such as natural history, palaeontology, petrology mineralogy, taxidermy and colonial ethnography also achieved circulation through the institution of Museum-Garden-Zoo complex. A network of professional scientists emerged and museum became a node in this trans-national / imperial knowledge network. The ethnography had inherent presumptions of progressive temporality of social change and of racial hierarchy. It also facilitated production and reproductions of colonial stereotypes. For instance, as early as in 1866 'an oil painting executed by a native artist representing a group of Hindu females of different castes' were added to the collections of Museum.9 This form of colonial anthropological representation persisted throughout the colonial period. For instance there was a, ' fine set of plaster castes of Muthuvans and Mannans, two of the hill tribes of Travancore' among the new additions in 10 the museum in 1940-41. At least two well known directors of the Madras museum during the period under consideration- Edgar Thurston and Dr. A. Ayyappan -were ethnographers of wide acclaim. The former carried out a survey of 'Castes sand Tribes of South India' which subsequently was published in 7 volumes. Ethnography enabled cognizance of the population of castes and tribes for governance and control. The official ethnography of Travancore was carried out by a forest ranger, L.A.Krishna Iyer, and he was commissioned for survey following a suggestion made by Dr. Waldschmidt who was the curator of the Indian section of the Berlin State Museum. The results of Krishna Iyer's survey were to coincide with the publication of similar works nearing conclusion in Cochin, Mysore and certain other British Indian Provinces. Having convinced of the 'utility of such a publication', Travancore Government commissioned the survey in 1934. 'Arrangements were made for taking photographs to illustrate the life and habits of the people.'11 The first Volume of the survey was published in 1937 and it was titled 'The Travancore Castes and Tribes'. The book was forwarded by Dr. J.H.Cousins, who was the head of the Department of Fine Arts at the University of Travancore. The book was prefaced by Dr. A.C.Haddon, who was the president of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Krishna Iyer was commissioned for conducting an additional survey for publication of its second volume. Meanwhile he had already collaborated with N.Kunjan Pillai in writing the 12 ethnography section of the 1931 Census on the primitive tribes of Travancore. The second volume of the work was also forwarded and introduced by two European Scholars.13 As a sequel to both these volumes, a third publication titled 'The Aborigines of Travancore' was prepared by L.A.Krishna Iyer. He collaborated with Dr.C.O. Karunakaran who was doing the 'blood grouping' of the 14 Kanikkars by taking anthropometric measurements of Kanikkars and Pulayas. This work was taken up on 15 the suggestion of Professor Ruggles Gates of London University.

Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

Representing the Other

Looking at the development of the institutional complex of Museum-zoo-public gardens it is obvious that th the institutional complex came to represent a number of concerns of the Travancore by the turn of the 20 century. Primarily, it functioned as an institution of public instruction by presenting 'a possible world' that can be created with the aid of modern knowledge and methods. Secondarily, a presentation of Travancore, its arts, industry, raw materials and nature in a manner of ordering which is aided by those knowledge associated with domination whether it was ethnography, natural history, industrial production, measurements and calculation etc. Lastly, it functioned as a showcase for Travancore's uniqueness, tradition etc. In this sense the museum was a site for making the 'Other' visible and thus for defining the self. The portrayal of the other is made possible through a temporal ordering of perception and habits of vision through the conceptual apparatuses involving distinctions such as primitive and civilised, tradition and modern, present and future, nature and culture etc. The Othering process invariably invoked these binaries. Such a portrayal of possible future was based on the highlighting of the lacks of the present or past. Such portrayals were also suggestive of a moral requirement for reform in human spirit, work ethos, social morals of work and leisure. Let us turn to the inaugural speech of C.V. Raman quoted at the beginning of the previous article (Part I). Raman contrasted the function and utility of the museums in the changed times. Raman highlighted the primacy of educating human abilities as a first step in achieving progress in the state and the exhibitions came handy and they were different from the Museum galleries. He struck a contrast between an exhibition and a museum by elaborating on the difference between both. To him museum is comparable with a beautiful mausoleum in whicha Nawab and his wife lay dead and buried and an exhibition to a palace where a man lived with his family. Museum related to the past and the exhibition related to the present and even more to the future. He opined that sometimes the two institutions ran into each other-the tendency, for example, to make the exhibition permanent16. One may be tempted to ask here: has museum become less modern all of a sudden? Or has its educative value diminished to suit such demands of the changed times? If then, what kind of modernity did those (museum and exhibitions) represent? Why did Raman choose to call it a place where Nawab and his wife lay buried and exhibition as a place were they live? Looking for the cues in this period, we see various exhibitions in all kinds of forms and variety which formerly used to be held only in metropolises abroad, being organised in the towns of Travancore. Some of these exhibitions such as Vavubali exhibition, exhibitions at Kuzhithura, Omallur, Sri Chitra Industrial exhibitions were already regular annual events. A couple of special exhibitions also came up in connection with war preparations. Some exhibitions were organised entirely on health and hygiene. Various government departments which came up as part of the governance of industriousness in Travancore such as, agriculture, commerce, electricity, health, public works and voluntary organisations such as horticultural societies were enthusiastically participating in these exhibitions. We see that more government agencies have started taking up the missions of development and progress more fervently and obviously. During this period the theme of rural reconstruction also had attracted the attention of various agencies including government, missionaries, social reformers and political activists alike. Special exhibitions of the handicraft products manufactured by cottage industries were also organised. Education by demonstration has become a normalised mode of public instruction for social transformation. Examples of improvement of countryside were being quoted from Europe and USA. rd In a rather lengthy address (delivered on 3 August, 1923) by K.C. Mamman Mappillai, who was the editor of a popular news daily in Malayalam and represented the interests of commerce and industries in the North Travancore in the Legislative Council invoked the instances of experimentations and efforts made in various parts of the world that have achieved progress and prosperity. He quoted from the Report of The Roosevelt's Committee of Rural Reconstruction in America and similar successful efforts in Ireland, and also the role of banking sector in the countries like Prussia, Germany, Austria, France, Ireland and Denmark. one person or a small committee of two with a tactful and intelligent development officer of Government in daily touch with these problems should be deputed to study the problems and their solutions in other countries

4
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

and submit a report on the lines of Roosevelt's Country Life Commission, embodying a scheme for the formation of a popular propagandist society like the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society and pointing out the way in which the solutions could be made applicable to the conditions of this country. If such a scheme is worked in hearty co-operation between the Development Departments of Government and intelligent and public-spirited citizens, I feel sure that results not less marvellous than those which have been attained in other 2 countries could be obtained by us in an incredibly short space of time. Around this time the role of museums was also being reconsidered in relation to the exhibitions. Both museum and exhibitions were distinguished in their role of pedagogy in pursuit of progress and development. While the former was housed in permanent built up space, the exhibitions were more mobile and penetrable to the rural masses. The museum was reorganised in late 1930s and early 40s. Its new role was to showcase the Travancore art and crafts. The natural history collections were relocated to another building far away from the Museum and Garden outside the limits of town for creating more space in the main building that Chisholm designed in 1870s. This decision was made by considering the architectural features of the building which reflected the indigenous style :The art advisor to the government wrote in 1940s: The choice came down by simple quantity to making it a Museum of Natural History or a Museum of Arts and Crafts. There were certain influences in favour of the latter. One of these was the building itself. Externally it is thing of architectural beauty, admittedly somewhat mixed in style, but crowned with distinctive indigenous form of the Malabar roof and gable; internally the richly decorated beams that support the lofty roof of the central hall, and the character of the corridors and wings, make the building itself exhibit number one of a section of architecture and wood carving rather than a mere cover over droves of retired animals standing about in their bones. Another influence in favour of arts and crafts was the number of specimens of these that were coming to hand and that needed just such an artistic place of abode. Eventually the matter was settled by a Government Order which fixed the future of the Museum as a centre of plastic arts and crafts (the graphic arts being housed in the Sri Chitralayam), with Kerala in the immediate foreground, India in the middle distance, and Asia in the background.17 At the same time, organising exhibitions and participating in the exhibitions abroad had become a kind of political act. In early 1920s, Travancore had deputed an officer for making arrangements to participate in the exhibition going to be held at Wembley in Britain. Elaborate arrangements were made to select and showcase the economic products of Travancore in the exhibition. When some members of the Travancore objected spending so much money and devoting the services of the Director of Agriculture for the exhibition, T. K. Velu Pillai, a member of the council defended the government decision: The industrial regeneration of the country is a portion of politicsI think that participation in a world function like the British Empire Exhibition is absolutely necessary for the industrial development of our country. There are immense facilities for such development. There are good raw materials. There is an intelligent population and there are specially trained and efficient officers who are charged with the reformation and reorganisation of industrial concernsDr. Kunjan Pillai will be coming back with great experience. He will be able to tell us what is the particular industry that stands the chance of thriving in Travancore, which is the market for our products, which of our manufactures are valued in England, which stands the chance of being valued in America, and where we have to look for purchasers.18 A booklet printed in London to form the guide to the exhibits was titled 'Travancore at the British Empire Exhibition, Wembley 1924'. The 144 page booklet had a detailed description accompanied by photographs of the plantation crops, besides similar information on the mineral resources in the State. 30 categories of produces and raw materials were displayed which included '170 species of timber in book form, arranged in revolving bookshelves.19

Absences and Lacks: Justification for development deeds

One will be able to discern a subtle yet consistent pattern in the statements of CP Ramaswamy Aiyer the Statesmen, CV Raman the Nobel Laureate Physicist and many other important figures of the period such as Bourdillon the Conservator of Forests, Mamman Mappilai the literary figure and Velu Pillai, the official historian.20 This is the repetition of the need for rising up from the given natural tendency of indolence, ignorance and incapacity to work by conscious action.
2. TLCP (1923: 109). Volume 3 second session 1923.

5
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

These were prophets announcing a new spiritual transgression with the aid of modern knowledge to overcome one's nature. These were calls to acquire capability to transform the Nature to resources by transferring oneself to resources to begin with. What this transformation means is to distinguish and separate 21 man and nature. Mere distinction is not sufficient. A separation is indispensable. As we have seen above, development and appropriation of resources were the preoccupations of the state, let they be natural or human resources. Moreover, utilisation of resources was expected to be accompanied by improvement or modification of the native human nature also. So nature was considered as a cornucopia of veritable resources, if man made use of it. The ideas of development and improvement were well anchored on a sense of lack. Since the country is at present 'not rich' or material prosperity is lacking, there is need for development: such was the logic that functioned in the colonial governance in general. This 'lack' became real only in the foreground of the European conviction that Progress is identifiable with material growth. What was to be achieved for the colonies were to be learned by observing present of the colonial masters. The present of the colonial master was to become the destination of the colonised. The Museum-garden-zoo complex through its exhibits and ordering of exhibits provided a visibility to the resources in the province and demonstrated possible modalities for creating new aesthetically ordered nature. Knowledge in economic botany, horticulture, natural history, taxidermy, ethnography, mineralogy, veterinary science etc. converged to this zone. This new arrangement also trained new way of looking at the nature and also at oneself as distinct from nature. As the exhibitions became popular and as new knowledges got institutionalised through and as government departments such departments of agriculture, forests, fishery, and industry, the role of museums were redefined to showcase arts and crafts of Travancore but without forgetting to highlight their potential in augmenting the national wealth. These two institutional practicesMuseum-Garden-Zoo and exhibitions educated a way of looking at not only the Other (which included nature as well) but it also trained one to look at oneself differently.

References
Note: In all the citations with abbreviated titles listed below, the year referred is the year of reporting, not the actual years of their printing/publication. ARMG - Report of Administration of Museum and Gardens at Trivandrum RAT - Report on the Administration of Travancore from 1862 to 1947 SMPA - Proceedings of the Sri Moolam Popular Assembly TLCP -Travancore Legislative Council Proceedings RAFD -Report on the Administration of the Forest Department Baudrillard, J. (1998). Marxist Anthropology and Domination of Nature. In S. Sim (Ed.), PostMarxism: A Reader (pp. 101-109). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bourdillon.T.F. (1893). Report on the Forests of Travancore. Trivandrum: Travancore Government Press. Cousins, J.H. (1944) The Trivandrum Museum: A Decade of Renovation. Travancore Information and Listener. May 1944, pages 13-16. GoT (1926) Speeches in the Travancore Legislative Council by T.K. Velu Pillai, Vol.1, Trivandrum. GoT, (1924) Travancore at the British Empire Exhibition: Wembley, London Iyer, L.A.Krishna (1937). The Travancore Castes and Tribes. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Trivandrum TIL (Travancore Information and Listener) (1945) Exhibitions and Their Educative Value: Sir C.V.Raman Inaugurates Sri Chitra Exhibition. December, Page 23-25 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. RAT (1888-89: 160) RAT (1888-89: 160) RAT (1940-41: 207) RAMG (1902-03: 7) RAMG (1902-03: 7-8) RAMG (1902-03: 2-6) RAMG (1903-4: 5-14) RAMG (1902-03: v-vii) RAT (1870-71: 93) RAT (1940-41: 207) RAFD (1934-35-58) Iyer (1937: xix) Forwarded by Dr.J.H.Hutton, William Wyse Professor of Social Anthropology of Cambridge University and introduction by Baron of Eickstedt. 14. RAFD (1938-39: 50) 15. RAFD (1939-40: 48) 16. TIL (1945: 25) 17. Cousins (1944: 14) 18. GoT (1926: 310-12) 19. GoT, 1924. 20. See the quotes from Bourdillon (1893: 12), cited in the Part I of the article appeared in Malabar trogon Vol.8 (2&3) May-Dec, 2010 p.3. 21. Baudrillard, J. (1998: 101-109)

6
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

A Review of Pelagic Bird Records in Sea Swallow from the off-shore waters of Kerala
Praveen, J. B303, Shriram Spurthi, ITPL Main Road, Brookefields, Bangalore 560037 paintedstork@gmail.com

An authentic checklist of Birds of Kerala based on sufficiently substantiated sightings was published in Malabar Trogon (Vol 7(3):2-13). This was based on the book, Birds of Kerala - Status and Distribution (Sashikumar et. al. 2011) which was published a year later. All species which were recorded post 1975 which sufficiently meet a well-specified criteria (see Sashikumar et. al. 2011) was included in the book as a Main List and this was the basis for inclusion in the checklist published in Malabar Trogon. As elaborated by the authors, all published and unpublished records which were accessible to them were considered during the compilation. However, it is noteworthy that records of pelagic species were not sufficiently scrutinised and one of the main reason being the inaccessibility of the journal Sea Swallow, a publication by Royal Naval Birdwatching Society (RNBWS), which carried most of the sightings from off-shore waters of India. Recently, it has been noticed that this large database is available online at their homepage (http://www.rnbws.org.uk) and this paper analyses records in this database which are made from the offshore waters of Kerala. Definition of off-shore limits
Sashikumar et. al. 2011 does not define what have been the limits of 'political' Kerala in off-shore waters for evaluating bird records and creating bird checklist. This is also true for all almost all regional publications till date and hence the ambiguity of including off-shore records in these checklists. An attempt is made to define this limit for Kerala before any further analysis of records from RNBWS database. International bird-checklists, including BirdLife International (www.birdlife.org) and SurfBirds (www.surfbirds.com), follow 200 nautical miles (NM) from the nearest land (including islands) as the limit for including birds in the checklists. Various options available and the rationale for choosing 200 NM are also understood by the international community (Jaramillo, 2003). However, in case the limits of two political entities overlap, the median distance between the two entities is chosen as the off-shore limits. In this context, we should realise that both Kerala and Lakshadweep are different entities for compiling bird records and hence we would need to draw a median between the nearest points in land to create this limit. Androth island of Lakshadweep is 116 NM (210 km) from Ezhimala, which is the nearest point in the Kerala coast. Kalpeni island is 140 NM (257 km) from Ponnani. Minicoy island is much further away from the coast and the nearest point, Alappuzha, is already 200 NM away. Kalpeni Island is no further than 200 NM from the whole of southern Kerala up to Paravoor and the distance reaches 230 NM at the southern coastal tip of Kerala - almost equidistant from the nearest island of Maldives archipelago. At the northern tip, Androth Island is 160 NM from the northern coastal tip of Kerala. Near Kodungallor, both islands are equidistant and are about 150 NM away. Hence, the islands of Androth and Kalpeni dictate the off-shore water limits of Kerala 80 NM (~150 km) at the northern tip, reducing to just 55 NM (~100 km) at Ezhimala, increasing to 75 NM (~140 km) around Kodungallor and further to 11 5NM (~210 km) at the southern tip of Kerala. If the coast of Kerala can be considered a straight line running north-west to south-east; the off-shore boundary of Kerala would be two parabolic arcs; with foci as Androth and Kalpeni; intersecting each other at a point 75 NM (140 km) west of Kodungallor. It may be of interest that some publications consider anything within 50 NM (~90 km) off the coast as 'offshore' and everything beyond as pelagic (Bailey 1968). This might be an ecological definition but may not be suited for creating bird checklists and maps for political entities. We analyse all records of pelagic birds from RNBWS database which are within these limits.

7
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

Shearwaters & Petrels

About 28 Flesh-footed / Pale-footed Shearwaters (Puffinus carneipes) were recorded from a location (10.1N, 75.6E) 60 km W of Paravoor, Kochi on August 1987. Six birds were seen closely from a location (7.87N, 75.47E) from about 160 km SW of Kollam in August 1962. These two records match our current understanding that this species would be seen in Kerala coast from May to September. However, about 20 possible Jouanin's Petrels (Bulweria fallax) reported in July 1991 (thought to be this species (or Bulwer's Petrel?] off Cochin vd Berg (1991) report this species off India) from a location (10.5N, 75.5E) 50km W of Chavakkad could also have been the former species. It has been repeatedly asserted that Jouanin's Petrels in Arabian Sea were previously misidentified as Bulwer's Petrel (Bulweria bulwerii) or Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus) before it was categorised as a distinct species. However, Bailey (1963) found separation with Bulwar's Petrel to be easy in terms of size while Wedgetailed Shearwater was still considered tricky. Our current knowledge indicates that Flesh-footed Shearwater and Wedge-tailed Shearwater are extremely troublesome to id at sea and hence these Petrels could have been a flock of Flesh-footed Shearwater which is abundant in our off-shore waters during summer. Incidentally, there is a report of a single (?) Wedge-tailed Shearwater from a location (9.75N, 75.75E) 55 km W of Chertala in August 1972 validity of this report, as against the more common Fleshfooted Shearwater, is also not certain. Further south, two Wedge-tailed Shearwaters were reported in July 1973 and a group reported in June 1977 from locations (7.55N, 75.53E & 7.5N, 75.5E) roughly 160 km SW of Thiruvananthapuram coast these two reports from same locality during similar time of the year should substantiate each other. An Audubon's Shearwater (Puffinus lherminieri) was reported at a location (12.5N, 75.5E) about 50 km W of Kasargod (off Mangalore as reported by observer) in April 1969. It is worthwhile to note that Persian Shearwater (Puffinus persicus) has historically been lumped with Audubon's and this is also the time period (spring) when it is common in our waters. Hence, this sighting most likely refers to Persian instead of Audubon's Shearwater. It might be of interest to note that Karnataka checklist (bngbirds/message/18332) also includes an untraced Audubon's Shearwater and most likely could have been this record indicated as off Mangalore by the observer. To summarise, apart from the Flesh-footed Shearwater sightings off Paravoor coast and Wedge-tailed Shearwater further SW of Thiruvananthapuram coast, correct identity of other records are open and hence should be treated with caution. Flesh-footed Shearwater was already treated in the checklist while Wedgetailed Shearwater is a recent entrant to Kerala checklist after a well-documented record in May 2011 (www.orientalbirdimages.org). Among the three reported Wedge-tailed Shearwaters, two are pre-1975 reports and with just one sighting post-1975 the species would not have satisfied the criteria for inclusion and hence would not have figured in the checklist.

Storm Petrels
There are six sightings of Wilson's Storm Petrel (Oceanites oceanicus), and this corroborates well with the knowledge that there is a marked abundance in some years for this species from the coasts of Kerala. This species spend the northern summer in Arabian Sea and sometimes large numbers migrate south during Sept-Nov (Philips 1955). Sightings are from locations close to the coast like about 25 km W (9.97N, 76E) of Kochi of a single bird in September 1962, a large count of 450 numbers just 10 km W (8.75N, 76.5E) of Paravur, Kollam in July 1967, about 8 birds SW (8N, 77.25E) of Nagercoil in October 1969, possibly one bird in August 1972 55km W (9.2N, 76.1E) of Cherthala coast in Alappuzha, about 50 birds along with dolphins, sea-snakes and crabs at a spot (9.2N, 76.1E) 40 km W of Kayankulam in August 1987 and another bird in the same year in October 100 km SW (7.8N, 76.2E) of Thiruvananthapuram coast there has also been a sighting from the land in August 1987 from the coast of Thiruvananthapuram (Sashikumar et. al. 2011) indicating perhaps that this year was particularly good for this species. Among these, at least four of them (Kochi, Paravur, Cherthala & Kayankulam) can be clearly classified as belonging to off-shore waters of Kerala and these observations boosts our understanding of this species from Kerala. Wilson's Storm Petrel moved into the main checklist only recently in May 2011 after a well-documented record from Malabar (www.orientalbirdimages.org). Had the previous observations been considered, the Kayankulam record of

8
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

1987 (the only record post-1975 from Kerala off-shore) would have substantiated the existing sighting from land in the same year and this species would have got classified into the main checklist of Kerala (Sashikumar et. al. 2010). Apart from this seemingly abundant species, a White-faced Storm Petrel (Pelagodroma marina) was collected live on board at a location (10.5N, 75E) roughly 100 km W-SW of Ponnani (observer indicates NE of Kochi must have meant NW) in June 1960. There have been no previous sightings of this species from offshore waters of Kerala but it is indicated as a widely distributed species in the Arabian Sea during northern summer. Identity of this species must have been ascertained correctly as a live specimen was taken and it is an easy species to tell from other storm-petrels. However, we are unable to trace this specimen to verify the authenticity of this record. This species cannot qualify into the main checklist as this would amount to just one sight record and also pre-1975. In any case, the presence of this interesting species within such a distance from the coast is interesting for further searches. Similarly, a White-bellied Storm Petrel (Fregetta grallaria) was recorded from a location (12.35N, 74.08E) 100 km W of Kasaragod (W of Mangalore as described by the observer) in July 1967 with a description as follows Primaries, leading edge of wings and tail dark brown, not as dark as Wilson's. Rest of dark part is grey brown; vague white rumps; white belly. Under-wing is white with dark tip and broad dark edges. Gliding and hopping across water with outspread wings, frequently kicking off from surface with a noticeable splash. This description could have matched either White-bellied Storm Petrel or Black-bellied Storm Petrel (Fregetta tropica) and most reference guides considers records of White-bellied Storm Petrel in Arabian Sea with suspicion (Rasmussen & Anderton 2005). Hence, it is safe to consider this record as Blackbellied/White-bellied Storm Petrel.

Skuas & Jaegers

There are only two records of Parasitic Jaegers / Arctic Skua (Stercorarius parasiticus) within offshore limits of the Kerala coast. About 20 seen at a location (10.7N, 75.6E), 30 km W of Ponnani, noted by the observer as seen in small groups 40 km W Chavakkad (Kerala) in Feb 1990 is most likely the wintering Skuas, where similar Pomarine Jaegers (Stercorarius pomarinus) also mix along. However, that species has not been reported by any observer who contributed to the database. Another single Parasitic Jaeger was recorded at a location (9.25N, 75.5E) about 100km W from the coast of Harippad, Alappuzha in May 1967 however the observer indicates as c.300km W of Calicut. It is not unusual that a few birds, probably firstwinter birds, linger around in tropical seas even in May. Two Catheratra Skuas were noted at a location (9.75N, 75.75E) about 55 km W of Cherthala in Alappuzha in August 1972. This could have been either South Polar Skua (Catharacta maccormicki) or Brown Skua (Catharacta antarctica) which breeds during the southern summer but the sighting does not add much value as the species is not certain. In summary, the Parasitic Jaeger records from 1967 and 1990 substantiate the current understanding of this species in Kerala coast. This species was included in Kerala checklist only in September 2010 after several well-documented records of Malabar coast (www.orientalbirdimages.org). This species was recorded twice off Kochi off-shore in Feb 2008 but did not make it to the checklist due to lack of sufficient substantiation. The 1990 sighting of 20 birds, if considered, could have allowed entry to this species into the Kerala checklist.

Other pelagic birds

A Red-billed Tropicbird (Phaethon aethereus) was recorded from 55 km W (9.75N, 75.75E) of Cherthala among other pelagics in August 1972. Two birds were recorded from a location (7.55N, 75.53E) nearly 160 km SW of Thiruvananthapuram coast in July 1973 along with Wedge-tailed Shearwaters. Though all wind-blown records of this species to Kerala coast has been in winter, this species is known to occur in Arabian Sea during July-August also. A striking species as this, this record can be considered authentic and correctly identified. A Brown Noddy (Anous stolidus) was recorded on board a ship at a location (10.5N, 75.5E) 50 km W of Chavakkad on July 1991. Though it breeds extensively in the islands of Lakshadweep and is sometimes extremely common in Lakshadweep Sea, strangely this species has never been recovered from the coast of Kerala. However, there was a recent sighting in May 2004 by Kanwar B Singh

9
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

(keralabirder/message/1376) of many individuals within 30 miles (50 km) of Kochi. This was not considered by Birds of Kerala Status and Distribution since offshore was loosely defined. These two records will automatically qualify this species into the main checklist of Kerala.

Conclusion
Analysis of Sea Swallow records indicates the following summary with reference to checklist of birds of Kerala. a) One species new to Kerala checklist which satisfies the criteria for inclusion for the main checklist. Species: Brown Noddy b) Two species which were included in Kerala checklist post June 2010 (Sashikumar et. al. 2010) but independently satisfies the criteria for inclusion based on RNBWS records. Species: Wilson's Storm Petrel, Parasitic Jaeger

References
Bailey, R. S., 1968. The pelagic distribution of sea-birds in the western Indian Ocean. Ibis 110: 493519 Jaramillo 2003. Proposal (# 76) to South American Check-list Committee: Change offshore limits to 200 nautical miles http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~remsen/SACCprop76.html Phillips, W. W. A., 1955. Wilson's Petrel [Oceanites oceanicus (Kuhl)] in Indo-Ceylon waters, with special reference to the 1954 southward migration. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 53 (1): 132133. Sashikumar, C.; Praveen, J.;Palot, M.J.;Nameer,P.O.; (2010) A Checklist of Birds of Kerala Malabar Trogon Vol 7(3):213. Sashikumar, C.; Praveen, J.; Palot, M.J.;Nameer,P.O.; (2011) Birds of Kerala Status and Distribution. 834pp. DC Books, Kottayam.

Parasitoids associated with the Mango leaf webber pest, Orthaga exvinacea Hampson (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae)
Mohammed Rafeequ,A.P.M and Ranjini, K.R. Malabar Christian College, Kozhikode rafiqcalicut@yahoo.com Mango is a popular fruit among millions of people in the orient, particularly in India, where it is the most common one and is considered to be the choicest of all indigenous fruits. Because of its excellent flavour, attractive fragrance, beautiful shades of colour, delicious taste and healthful value, mango has been recognized as one of the best fruits in the world market. Mango is known to be attacked by about 492 species of insects in the world level. Of these 188 species have been reported from India (Tandon and Varghese, 1985; Srivastava, 1998). Among the various species of insects affecting mango tree, the Lepidopteran leaf webber pest, Orthaga exvinacea Hampson, was originally regarded as a minor pest. However, later, it attained a major pest status (Rao et al., 1973). The infected trees are conspicuous with numerous webbed leaves and dry apical shoots. Such an attack in most cases prevents flower formation and fruit setting (Ayyar, 1940). In the Malabar area of Kerala state, the mango leaf webber infestation is quite serious, destroying mango orchards. Despite the perceived impact of Orthaga exvinacea on mango trees in Malabar area, there is no relevant information in the literature on its natural enemies. The successful management of this pest becomes pertinent so as to improve the quality and increase the quantity of mango production. Surveys conducted in different parts of Kozhikode district on cultivated and wild host plants during 2010-2011 revealed two pupal parasitoids attacking Orthaga exvinacea. The Eulophid Trichospilus pupivora Ferr. (Hymenoptera:Eulophidae) was the dominant parasitoid of the region followed by the Chalcidid Brachymeria lasus Walker(Hymenoptera: Chalcididae) .

10
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

In surveys from 2009 to 2011, eggs, larvae and pupae of Orthaga exvinacea were collected from infected mango trees selected at random from the accessible parts of the host plants. They were brought to the laboratory where they were kept at room temperature and checked daily until neonate or parasitoid emergence. Field collected larvae were reared individually under laboratory conditions until death, parasitoid emergence or pupation. Field collected pupae were placed in clean vials and monitored in the laboratory for pupal death, parasitoid or adult moth emergence. The colour variation and the abdominal movements (no rotary movement if parasitized) were used to segregate the parasitized pupae from the healthy ones and they were maintained individually. Pupal cases from which moths emerged were completely hollow, light brown in colour and the ecdysial cleavage line was ruptured; there was no hole on the pupal cas e. Pupal cases from which parasitoids emerged were blackish, tough and with a distinct hole. It is important to note that each parasitoid species leaves behind a characteristic exit hole on the pupal case based on which the extent of parasitization by each parasitoid within a host generation can be quantified with considerable accuracy. Data from one year field survey were grouped into those from summer (February to May; n = 10), rainy (June to September, n = 10) and winter (October to January, n = 10) months (Figure 1 & 2).

Methods

Observations
A total of 572 pupal cases were collected from various parts of Kozhikode district of which emergences were recorded from 270. Overall, 32.34 % of the pupae were parasitized by 2 pupal parasitoids, Trichospilus pupivora and Brachymeria lasus. Moths emerged from 47.20% of pupae, while the remaining 20.45% did not have any emergence from them. An important information for those advocating biological control is that there is an almost 52.79% natural mortality at the pupal stage. It is essential to realize that this is an underestimation, as it excludes those that were predated upon. Among parasitoids, Trichospilus pupivora was the most dominant accounting for 90.57% of the parasitized pupae, followed by Brachymeria lasus., 09.43% of the parasitized pupae. The consistent dominance of Trichospilus pupivora and its ability to influence the density of moths make it a potential candidate for future biological control programmes. It should be noted that in spite of 32.34% mortality inflicted by pupal parasitoids alone (other biotic factors like diseases, parasitoids on other host stages and predators should cause an even greater natural mortality), the populations were sufficient to impose economic losses in all the trees where samples were drawn. Therefore, if biological control needs to be effective, it is obvious that the quantum of release of natural enemies should be high. For instance, it is common to find at least 100 leaf webs of the pest per tree during moderate to severe infestation.

Figure 1
300 276

250

200 180

N b um er Number

150 150 116 100 68 58 50 50 33 25 34 92

Total pupae Total Pupae Moth Emergence Moth emergence Parasitoid Emergence Parasitoid emergence No Emergence No emergence

62

0 Feb-May Feb-May Jun-Sep Jun-Sep Oct-Jan Oct-Jan

11
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

Figure 2
70 60 50

Number Number

40 30 20 10 0
Feb-May Fe -M b ay Jun-Sep Oct-Jan Ju n-Sep Oct-Jan

Brachymeria lasus Bra ym ria la ch e sus Trichospilus pupivora Trich ospilu pu ivo s p ra

Results and Discussion

The larval webb of the Pyralid moth forms an important habitat for several insects and spiders. They are one way or other associated with the larval galleries and depends on the pest insect for their food requirements. Some are predatory in nature while others are parasitic and still others form commensals. Nair (1986) reported the carabid beetle, Parena laticincta and the reduvid, Oceama sp. as predators attacking Orthaga exvinacea. Tandom and Srivastava (1980) reported Hormius sp. as parasitizing Orthaga euadrusalis. In the present study, two pupal parasitoids, Trichospilus pupivora and Brachymeria lasus were found to check the population of the pest to a significant level. Both these pupal parasitoids are polyphagus, attacking a wide range of host insects. The pupal parasitoids recorded as attacking the Mango leaf webber pest, Orthaga exvinacea also attack the pupae of a range of other Lepidoptera living in the same environment. Many of these are pest species. Lack of parasitoid specificity is a significant advantage when dealing with flying species, such as Orthaga exvinacea, which can travel long distances, since the parasitoids are more likely to be already present on some other host when adult moths arrive to oviposit at a new site. On the other hand, lack of specificity is a disadvantage if the non-target species that are attacked include environmentally important species, the lowering of whose population density is considered undesirable. Overall, the role of natural enemies in the population dynamics of Orthaga exvinacea can be regarded as negligible and is unlikely to explain the differences in the pest status of Orthaga exvinacea. Absolute estimates of parasitoid impact on a host population are difficult to obtain and usually require recruitment data in addition to host population samples (Van Driesche et. al. 2008). In this study, such additional data were not collected and therefore a seasonal level of parasitism was calculated only as an indicator of parasitoid impact. Comparatively little work also has been carried out on the parasitoids and more detailed studies may well reveal attractive new options to pursue.

References
Ayyar, T.V.R. 1940. Hand book of Economic Entomology for South India. Govt.Press, Madras. Nair , M.G.R.K. 1986. Insects and mites of crops in India. ICAR, New Delhi. Rao, A.G., Krishna, J.G. and Ayyanna, T. 1973. Studies on the comparative biology of Lamida moncusalis Walk. On cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) and Mango (Mangifera indica L.). Andhra Agric. J., 20:54-62. Srivastava,R.P. 1998. Pests of mango. In mango Cultivation. International Book Distribution Company, Lucknow, pp.175-299. Tandon, P.L. and Srivastava, R.P. 1980. New records of parasites and predators of important insect pests of mango. Entomon., 5(3) : 243-244. Tandon, P.L. and Varghese,A. 1985. World list of insect, mite and other pests of mango. Technical Document No.5, IIHR,Bangalore. van Driesche, R., Hoddle, M. & Center, T. 2008. Control of pests and weeds by natural enemies. An introduction to biological control. Malden, Blackwell Publishing.

12
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

Book Review
Dipu Karuthedathu dipu.kp@gmail.com Birds of Kerala - Status and Distribution C Sashikumar, Praveen J, Muhammed Jafer Palot and P O Nameer ISBN : 9788126429219 Publisher: DC Books List price: Rs. 995 Available online at: http://www.dcbookshop.net/books/Birds-of-Kerala
For the benefit of those who are yet to decide whether they should buy this book or not, here is my suggestion: `This book is not "yet another field guide", but does exactly what the title says - gives the accurate status and the precise distribution of all birds that can be seen in Kerala as of today, with lot of supplementary information and good photographs. So if you are interested in the birds that inhabit Kerala, this is a must have book and there are no equivalents. So, if you can afford it, go for it`

What you will find:

- Accurate status and distribution supplemented with good photographs - Lot of supplementary information. (E.g.: details of habitats, details on conservation related topics, exhaustive reference to existing literature etc). - Well packaged and printed book, which fits nicely in your hand and bag!

What you will not find:

- Species identification tips and plumage details Now, if you have the patience to read a really long mail, my detailed impressions are below -

Contents of the book

The book starts with a dedication to Professor K K Neelakantan followed by the list of described families, forward by Dr. Asad Rahmani (Director, BNHS), preface and acknowledgments. Then a brief history of ornithology in Kerala is revealed mainly with the help of individual accounts of prominent ornithologists in chronological order. The chapter ends with short accounts on diverse birding related topics like Bird-ringing, Books, Surveys, AWC, Nature camps, Bird Photography, keralabirder egroup, Bird Tours etc. Then follows an excellent chapter on changing landscape of Kerala which describes the various habitats in Kerala with a special focus on how these are getting affected by recent human interferences. A one page description of climate of Kerala is followed by another very interesting account of the various Bird communities in Kerala based on the habitat. Though the previous sections do emphasize on conservation related topics, there is still another chapter completely devoted to conservation with details including the list of threatened birds of Kerala, endemic birds, IBAs, Protected Areas and important birding sites. After a detailed chapter on methodology and criteria for selection of birds for the book, the core content of the book - the individual species account - starts. This is divided into two lists: Main list describes species that have been recorded at least once since Jan 1975 (based on specimen / two published records / two photographs). The Secondary List contains all other species which have been reported from Kerala, but not part of the Main List (E.g.: Historical records, Misidentified records, Unconfirmed Sight records etc.). Both the lists follow the same format for the individual species description. For each bird the habitat, status, distribution, breeding and historical references are detailed. Where ever applicable, one or more photographs, the population trends, conservation related information and additional notes are also provided. The appendix, which follows the species accounts contain checklists for protected areas and other important birding areas, locations of Slim Ali's Travancore-Cochin bird survey, glossary and useful contacts. The book ends with an exhaustive (yes, it is really exhaustive, spreading over 40 pages) bibliography, index of

13
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

scientific names, index of English names and few pages of additional information which had trickled in later and could not be accommodated in the species accounts.

My experience
The first thing I noticed once I held the book in my hand was that it is not small! With its hard binding and 835+ pages, the book is thicker and heavier than a typical field guide. But due to the perfect dimensions of the book, it does not feel too large or heavy, but fits nicely in your hands. The book feels solid and the paper and print quality is also very good. The fonts are large enough and comfortable to read. The "History" section was a nice read, but towards the end, I felt a loss of continuity, possibly due to adjacent topics being unrelated and the disparity in the coverage for these topics. The acknowledgement section and the history section together give you a who-is-who in Kerala ornithology till date!!! The chapter on "Changing Landscape of Kerala" was very informative and equally shocking to read. It was as if somebody is warning that if you have not seen a species till now, there are chances that you may never see it again. I felt that the section of various Bird Communities would appeal to all readers, irrespective of their experience level. People who expect identification details will be disappointed as the species accounts focus heavily on status and distribution. But here and there, you can still find some concise id sections to separate out confusing species/races. This is really nice and is comprehensive at most places, but at one or two places, the information could have been complete. E.g.: Notes for Grey-breasted Laughingthrush mentions "fairbanki separated from meridionale by its longer supercilium extending well behind the eye". I was also expecting the mention of the rufous belly of fairbanki contra white belly of meridionale which would be a much noticeable field id tip compared to the supercilium. I find pleasure in just being in the field and watching the bird behaving out there and during this time, generally do not think much about the status/distribution aspects. So the occasional digressions in the form of Historical Records and Notes kept up my interest during the otherwise continuous "monotonous" flow of status/distribution data! It was interesting to read how Andaman Shama was recorded in Calicut! Detailed observations on some birds like Broad-billed Roller, Edible-nest Swiftlet and Ceylon Frogmouth also provided nice read. As I started reading through the species accounts, my memories also started flowing along with them... During my school days, I used to travel in bus for around three hours a day to and fro from school. Watching the birds from the bus was the only thing I could find to kill the time during this daily travel. Though the birds seen were almost the same every day, I used to wait in anticipation to tick the various species every day. During those days, a Red-whiskered Bulbul was a rarity for me, compared to the Red-vented Bulbuls which were relatively common. This seems contradictory to the status of Red-vented Bulbul in north Kerala which is indicated as "Comparatively rarer than the preceding species (Red-whiskered Bulbul) in the forests and in the midlands and coastal plains of north Kerala". But I think the situation is changing slowly as Red-whiskered Bulbuls have increased their presence this area as well (Not really sure of the current ratio though)! The statement in the book that Chestnut Bitterns are seen only during Monsoon times triggered me to check my records and I found that it indeed is correct and all my records were in June. My record of a nest of White-necked Stork near Koottanad (Thrissur Dt.) could have been the same as reported by Shino Jacob and Ravidran. I could also relate to the increase in Cormorants in Kerala as I never used to see them near Perintalmanna in my childhood, whereas now they can be found in the fields and water bodies with ease. Two other birds for which my observations could add value are Indian Grey Hornbill and Yellow-fronted Pied Woodpecker. Into the small number of places where Indian Grey Hornbill was recorded, I would like to add Perintalmanna where I used to see a pair quire regularly in 1990s. Though not a drier tract, I have also recorded a Yellow-fronted Pied Woodpecker in our house compound near Perintalmanna in those days. Whenever I meet Praveen during a bird survey in Kerala, knowingly or unknowingly, we would always end up talking about montane Laughingthrushes which, due to their very specific habitat dependence, is a group under threat due to the indiscriminate destruction of high altitude habitat. Though this group is less in number and range restricted, their species account on the contrary spreads across pages compared to many other birds, Praveen's obsession with this group clearly visible here. It was in one such bird survey when I first encountered Black-and-Orange Flycatcher. The sighting was from Karimala base camp during the Nelliampathy Bird Survey. Hence I was a little bit surprised to see the statement that "Black-and-Orange Flycatcher is not reported during bird surveys or studies from

14
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

Nelliampathy Hills". A possible mistake during the survey data recording and compilation? Due to the rapid changes in habitat and increase in number of bird watchers, new information is also getting added very rapidly. For example, Forest Wagtails were recently reported from mangrove forests in Mangalavanam in Ernakulam. Reports of Pied Thrush from Nandi Hills in January and February in recent years indicate that they may not be necessarily found on passage, but could also be wintering in suitable habitats in South India. This beautiful journey through the various species was abruptly disturbed by the sudden appearance of the "Kerala Political map" which actually marks the boundary between the Main and the Secondary lists! I couldn't comprehend the purpose of this map at this place. It would have been better if the maps were consolidated at one place for ease of comparison and viewing. Also, the transition between the 2 lists caught me off guard - instead of the map a title/introduction to the Secondary list could have made this transition a better experience. After the species descriptions, it was a bit of predictable set of Appendices and indexes. The final section of additional information, though ad hoc, does provide updates on few important species. Some of the minor mistakes that I could find during my first reading were: - At some places, the page is left blank for more than half. Layout could have been slightly better (E.g.: Page 701) - The font in some pages is larger compared to adjacent pages (E.g.: Page 650, 625) - Some of the photographs are wrong: Intermediate Egret page has image of a Little Egret, Amur Falcon page has an image of a Common Kestrel. - Also the Besra in the image shows a thick tarsi which is a bit odd for a Besra. Experts??? - On page 109, the section Style and Format says "In the species accounts, the English name is given first together with the Malayalam name (in both Malayalam and Latin script), followed by ...... Commonly used alternate names, in particular those used by Rasmussen and Anderton (2005) may follow", but the original species accounts miss the Malayalam names in Latin script and also contains the alternate names immediately after the English name.

Summary
In this age where a new birding book generally means a new field guide or a photographic guide, "Birds of Kerala" is a pleasant deviation where the authors focused on the status and distribution of birds and has successfully consolidated a wealth of information into a concise form. This book provides a snapshot of the current status on which we can base the analysis in the future. Due to its comprehensiveness and level of details, this book is a valuable source of information for serious birdwatchers and ornithologists. With a lot of focus on conservation and up-to-date status of birds and their habitats, this book will also help in defining and prioritizing solid conservation actions. But how does this book help a casual bird watcher? In addition in helping him to narrow down a species based on probability, this book will serve as a reference to gauge the importance of his sighting and contribute to this database, which may even influence the fate of respective habitats and the birds within. The accurate checklists and the detailed site information along with the distribution may be helpful for the visiting birders as well. So overall, I would say that this book is a must read for people who are interested in birds of Kerala, irrespective of their motive for looking at birds!

What I found interesting (In addition to the summary in the beginning):

- Most of the photos are of good quality and gives life to the text - The book contains one of the largest collections of photos taken from Kerala - Excellent print quality (except few pages E.g. 600,601,604 & 605 in the copy which was reviewed) - Various races and confusing species are given sufficient attention and would help more accurate recording in future - Additional information and Historical notes are interesting to read as well

What can be improved?

- Few minor mistakes here and there as mentioned in few sections above - Consistency in the amount of data across species (wherever data may be available). For example, first and

15
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

last dates are mentioned for many winter visitors, but missing for some others including some common ones (E.g.: Paradise Flycatcher). Another noticeable section is that of breeding where many rare birds have considerably larger sections compared to a common bird like Indian Treepie which has a generic one liner. - Though the price is on par with books like field guides (and priced low in international standards), I would have liked a slightly lesser price making it more attractive to budding birders (like students). I hope DC books would adjust the price once the initial cost is recovered!

So what next?
In the preface of the book, authors mention that this attempt is just a beginning. I am sure much more information is lying buried in the field notes and memories of lots of birdwatchers who have been active in Kerala during the recent years. I would strongly urge all the readers to go back to their notes, and with the data in the book as the basis, come up with additional information which will fill the vacuums in the book and will lay stones for a more comprehensive and complete database on status/distribution of birds in Kerala.

Amphibian diversity of Government College Campus, Chittur, Palakkad district, Kerala State
Rajkumar K P, Ansil Basheer, Umesh, P.K, Gnanakumar M, Bijoy C*, Sandeep Das
*Zoological Survey of India, Calicut - 673 006.

rajkp16@gmail.com Palakkad, popularly known as the 'rice

bowl of Kerala' lies close to the Palghat Gap, the major gap in the Western Ghats whic connects Kerala to the plains of the Tamil Nadu in the east. Parts of the district experience a dry climate when compared to the other districts of Kerala due to its unique geographical position. Chittur Government College campus (10 41'N 76 43'E; Alt. 115m) is located near the river Shokanashini, a tributary of River Bharathapuzha. With a variety of microhabitats including wetlands, paddy fields, swamps etc., it forms an ideal habitat to a number of amphibians which tend to be highly microhabitat specific. As the district faces several serious ecological problems like the reclamation of wetlands and paddy fields, the amphibian fauna is now restricted to small remnant patches of suitable microhabitat. The concentration of various species of amphibians in these patches has been mistaken as an increase in their abundance. Even though not much diverse, Chittur College campus is one of the major amphibian breeding sites during the rainy season. Lack of any previous studies here prompted us to carry out a reconnaissance survey which resulted in the generation of an amphibian checklist which is given below. Random surveys were conducted during the months of June and July 2011 from 20:00 to 2:00 hrs. Species were identified with the help of Daniels (2005) and nomenclature is followed after Dinesh et al. (2010). Altogether, 15 species of amphibians belonging to six families were recorded during the study. Breeding activities of eight species viz. Duttaphrynus m e l a n o s t i c t u s , D u t t a p h r y n u s s c a b e r, Hoplobatrachus tigerinus, Microhyla ornata, Microhyla rubra, Ramanella variegata, Hylarana aurantiaca and Hylarana malabarica were observed. More detailed study has to be conducted as these lesser creatures are considered as bioindicators of the ecosystem and forms a major predator in controlling noxious arthropods.

16
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

Checklist of Amphibians of Chittur College Campus, Palakkad district.

SL.NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SCIENTIFIC NAME Family: Bufonidae Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Schneider 1799) Duttaphrynus scaber (Schneider, 1799) Family: Dicroglossidae Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis (Schneider, 1799) Fejervarya spp Hoplobatrachus tigerinus (Daudin, 1803) Sphaerotheca breviceps (Schneider, 1799) Family: Microhylidae Kaloula taprobanica (Parker, 1934) Microhyla rubra(Jerdon, 1854) Microhyla ornata (Dumeril and Bibron, 1841) Ramanella variegata (Stoliczka, 1872) Family: Ranidae Hylarana aurantiaca (Boulenger, 1904) Hylarana malabarica (Tschudi, 1838) Family: Rhacophoridae Polypedates maculatus (Gray, 1834) Pseudophilautus kani (Biju and Bossuyt, 2009) COMMON NAME Common Indian Toad Ferguson's Toad Skittering frog Cricket frog Indian Bull frog Indian Burrowing frog Sri Lankan Kaloula Red Narrow -mouthed frog Ornate Narrow-mouthed frog Variegated Ramanella Golden frog Fungoid frog Chunam frog Kani Bush frog

Family: Ichthyophidae 15
Uraeotyphlus menoni Annandale, 1913

Menons Caecilian

Reference:
Dinesh, K.P., Radhakrishnan, C and A. Zachariah. 2010. A checklist of Amphibia of Kerala .Malabar Trogon. Vol.8(1): 8-13. Daniels, R.J. 2005. India-A Lifescape. Amphibians of Peninsular India .Indian Academy of Sciences, Universities Press, Hyderabad.

Wild Boars - They too have a right to live

P.O. Nameer
Associate Professor (Wildlife) & Head, Centre for Wildlife Studies, College of Forestry, Kerala Agricultural University, KAU (PO), 680 656. Thrissur. Kerala. nameerpo@gmail.com Introduction Save us from the wild boars!! has been a demand being clamoured by certain group of farmers of
Kerala and it has been echoing in the various print and visual media for quite some time. Accordingly, an expert committee was constituted by the Government of Kerala in February 2011 to suggest an appropriate solution for this problem. The expert committee had two sittings one each in March and April 2011 and on 27th April 2011 the committee submitted an interim report to the Government of Kerala (No. WL4-466/2011). In the said report, the committee had recommended, annihilation of crop raiding wild boars in four districts of Kerala such as Wayanad, Malappuram, Palakkad, Idukki and Pathanamthitta for a period of one year.

17
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

In this context it will be worth examining the human-wild boar conflict in a realistic manner. What are the real problems? Is the wild boar a really problematic species? Is there a substantial increase in the population of the wild boar as is being claimed by some of the farmers?

Is there an increase in the population of the wild boars in Kerala?

One of the arguments mooted by the proponents for the annihilation of the wild boar has been that there is a substantial increase in the population of wild boars in Kerala. There have been four organised all-Kerala wildlife censuses conducted in Kerala. These were held in 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2011, which was jointly organised by the State Forest Department and Kerala Forest Research Institute. The result of which is summarised below.

A
Year 1993 1997 2002 2011

B
Total Count (Numbers) 1695 902 2852

C
Density Estimate 2 (animals/km) 5.33/km2 2.37/km 4.59/km
2 2

Extrapolated number of animals %CV based on density estimated 40,963 40,425 60,940 49.96 73.00 57.55

Not available
were the number of wild boars actually sighted from all over Kerala during the census of 1993, 1997 and 2002. The author has had the fortune to traverse through the various forest areas of Kerala on several occasions during the last two decades. However, in any of these trips could I observe any substantial increase in the population of the wild boars. Moreover, in areas such as Periyar, Parambikulam, Wayanad, Chinnar etc, which are popular wildlife sightings areas within Kerala, one could find more of other wild animals such as elephant, gaur, sambar deer, spotted deer, monkeys, giant squirrels etc than wild boars.

If we examine the data presented in the above Table it can be seen that the result of the census has been erroneously interpreted to arrive at the population figures, which says that there are 40,000 to 60,000 wild boars in Kerala. These estimates (in column D) were made using the density data of column C. However, this estimation is statistically incorrect, as the % coefficient of variation (%CV) in this calculation is extremely high, making the extrapolation of the data meaningless. On the contrary the total count figures obtained in the same census exercise were only between 900 to 2900 (column B), which

The plausible reason for the human-wild boar conflict

Of late, in some places in Kerala we encounter more and more wild animals near human habitations. This need not necessarily be because of a population explosion of these wild animals, but rather, owing to various other factors. One major cause is the substantial decrease in the extent of forest, which actually is due to our encroachment into the animals' habitat. There has also been a decrease in the quality of the wildlife habitat because of anthropogenic activities. In addition, we tend to grow crops such as banana, pineapple, tapioca, paddy, amorphophallus etc. close to the forests. These crops are more nutritious and palatable to the wild animals and when available in plenty close to the wildlife habitats, they naturally get attracted. The

18
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

herbivores can fetch these crops easily spending lesser energy for foraging. So one cannot find fault with the wild animals, if they are attracted to such crops that are cultivated in the fringe areas of forests, which were once their domain until the recent past. With due respect to the feelings of the farmers, let it be stated that culling of the wild boar is not the answer to the man-wild boar conflict. The licence that is given today to the farmers of the hilly areas for the annihilation of the wild boar could set a bad precedence in the days to come, as it would enable them to make a claim for culling and annihilation of other wild animals also which might stray into the farmers field.

Ecological significance of wild boar

Let us now examine the ecological significance of the wild boar. Just like the role performed by any other organism in the functioning of this intricate ecosystem, wild boar also has its role to play. Wild boar is primarily herbivorous mammal, occasionally turning to omnivorous diet. They feed mainly on tubers, in search of which they plough the soil of the forest floor. This process actually facilitates the germination of the seeds of several forest plants, which otherwise would have been concealed deep inside the soil, and would not have been germinated. Moreover, the wild boar's activities help in the infiltration and percolation of rain water deep into the soil and thus recharging the ground water table of the region. Lacky and Lancia (1986) found that the soil that was raked up by the wild boar has been found to be richer in many of the elements such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, manganese, zinc, and copper, when compared to nearby non-raked areas. They also observed greater growth for the trees in areas with the wild boar activities. Another study by Jezierski and Myrcha (1975) found that wild boar activities accelerated the litter decomposition in the forest ecosystem. Another study by Kupka (1989) noted that the wild boar activities suppressed the weed growth in forest plantations. Alpet (1991) and Massei (1996) showed that the wild boar played a crucial role in the seed dispersal of several species of forest trees. Wild boar is an important prey species for the predators such as tiger and leopard (Schaller, 1997, Sunquist, 1999, Karanth, 2000). Thus annihilation of the wild boars could result in disastrous ecological consequences in the ecosystem.

What does the poaching data on wild animals of Kerala indicate?

According to the statistics available with the State Forest Department and the Wildlife Forensic Unit, Kerala, the wild boars are the most hunted species wild animals in the State. About 40% of the reported poaching cases on wild animals of Kerala for the past five years were on wild boars. Thus the recent order to accord sanction to the farmers to annihilate the wild boars may result in the extinction of the wild boars in the near future.

Some suggestions to overcome the human-wild boar conflict

To overcome the problems such as crop raiding by wild animals being faced by the farmers who perform agricultural practices adjacent to the forests areas, other appropriate solutions should be resorted to. One such solution could be to cultivate crops that are not preferred by the wild animals. Apart from this, bio-fence, chilli ropes, barbed wire fences, electric fences, stone/rubble wall, animal proof trenches etc. could be built around the agricultural field either singly or in combination, which could also deter the wild animals to a great extent. The farmers also should take up the responsibility of maintenance of the wild animal deterrent mechanisms. Another necessity is on the timely payment of adequate compensation to the farmers. One of the factors that aggravate the agony of the farmer is the undue delay in getting the compensation for the crop loss. Moreover, generally, the compensation paid is grossly inadequate. This has to change and they must be paid adequate compensation, as soon as the crop raiding incidence has occurred. The government should explore the possibility of finding resources towards this from various centrally sponsored schemes being implemented d through the State Forest department such as Project Elephant, Project Tiger and High Value Biodiversity Areas. Another suggestion for resource generation for compensating the human-animal conflict victims could be through collecting a human-animal conflict cess (HACC) from the various ecotourism centres of Kerala. Under these circumstances the decision to accord sanction to annihilation of crop raiding wild boars in four districts of Kerala such as Wayanad, Malappuram, Palakkad, Idukki and Pathanamthitta should be reconsidered and dropped.

19
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

An inventory of Reptilian fauna of Puliyampoyil, Balusserry, Kozhikode district, Kerala.

Umesh P K*, Shyamlal, S and R.A. Aswanth *Field Assistant, NCBS, Bangalore pavukandy@gmail.com Puliyampoyil (N 11 30' 26.98; E 75 48'24.11) is an isolated hillock in Kottur Grama Panchayath, situated about 38km east of Kozhikode city. Due to the proximity to the Malabar Wildlife Sanctuary and the hills of Wayanad, many interesting fauna and flora are found here. The habitat is varied with scrub forest, seasonal streams, marshes, rocky outcrops, caves and an old abandoned house. The foothills are covered with plantations of Coconut and Areca, interspersed with pepper and other vegetation. The rocky formation on the top of the hills and slopes attracts many lizards. The heap of coconut husks and fronds provide good shelter and foraging areas for the reptilian fauna. The maximum elevation of the hillock is about 200m asl.
Regular year-round surveys (2008-2011) were conducted in the area during various times of day. The underside of the rocks, leaf litter and fallen logs were examined for elusive. The authors also attended most of the snake rescue calls from the residential areas in and around locality, which was also a source of information. The reptiles were identified with the help of standard field guides (Daniel, 2002; Whitaker & Captain, 2004; Das, 2008). Nomenclature was followed after Aengals et al. (2011). Thirty five species of reptiles belonging to11 families were recorded during the study. Of these, four species are endemic to the Western Ghats viz. Cnemaspis beddomei, Cnemaspis wynadensis, Draco dussumeri and Ristella guentheri. The reptile list includes a species of turtle, 14 species of lizards and 20 species of snakes. The three venomous snakes viz. Russel's Viper, Indian Krait and Spectacled Cobra were fairly well distributed in the area. A good population of Kollegal Ground Gecko Geckoella collegalensis was also noted in the rocky regions of the hills. Due to lack of a comprehensive identification key, certain day geckos (Cnemaspis spp) could not be identified to the species level.

ORDER : TESTUDINES Suborder: Cryptodira 1. Family Bataguridae 1..Melanochelys trijuga (Schweigger,1812) ORDER : SQUAMATA Suborder : Sauria 2.Family Agamidae 2.Calotes calotes (Linnaeus, 1758) 3.Psammophilus dorsalis (Griffith & Pidgeon, 1831)

Indian black turtle

Common green forest lizard South Indian rock agama Beddome's day gecko Wayanad day gecko Kollegal ground gecko Brook's house gecko Asian house gecko South Indian flying lizard Common keeled skink Bronze grass skink Spotted supple skink

3.Family Gekkonidae
4.Cnemaspis beddomei (Theobald, 1876) 5.Cnemaspis wynadensis (Beddome, 1870) 6.Geckoella collegalensis (Beddome, 1870) 7.Hemidactylus brookii Gray, 1845 8.Hemidactylus frenatus Dumril & Bibron, 1836 9.Draco dussumieri Dumril & Bibron, 1837

4. Family Scincidae 10. Eutropis carinata (Schneider, 1801)

11. Eutropis macularia (Blyth, 1853) 12. Lygosoma punctata (Gmelin, 1799)

20
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

13. Lygosoma spp 14. Ristella guentheri Boulenger, 1887

Snake Skink Gnther's cat skink Bengal monitor

5. Family Varanidae
15. Varanus bengalensis (Daudin, 1802) Suborder: Serpentes

6. Family Typhlopidae
16. Ramphotyphlops braminus (Daudin, 1803) 17.Grypotyphlops acutus (Dumril & Bibron, 1844) Brahminy worm snake Beaked worm snake Rock python Common sand boa

7. Family Pythonidae
18. Python molurus (Linnaeus, 1758)

8. Family Boidae
19. Gongylophis conicus (Schneider,1801)

9. Family Colubridae
20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Coelognathus helena helena (Daudin,1803) Ptyas mucosa (Linnaeus,1758) Oligodon taeniolatus (Jerdon,1853) Oligodon arnensis (Shaw,1802) Dendrelaphis tristis (Daudin,1803) Lycodon travancoricus e (Beddome,1870) Lycodon aulicus (Linnaeus,1754), Amphiesma stolatum (Linnaeus,1758) Xenochrophis piscator (Schneider,1799) Boiga trigonata (Bechstein,1802) Ahaetulla nasuta (Lacepede,1789) Common trinket snake Indian Rat snake Russell's kukri snake Common kukri snake Common bronzeback tree snake Travancore wolf snake Common wolf snake Striped keelback Checkered keelback Common cat snake Common vine snake Common Indian krait Slender coral snake Spectacled cobra Russell's viper Common hump-nosed pit viper

10. Family Elapidae

31. Bungarus caeruleus (Schneider,1801) 32. Calliophis melanurus (Shaw,1802) 33. Naja naja (Linnaeus,1758)

11. Family Viperidae

34. Daboia russelii (Shaw & Nodder,1797) 35. Hypnale hypnale (Merrem, 1820)

References
Aengals R, Sathish Kumar V.M & Palot M.J. 2011. Updated Checklist of Indian Reptiles. (Online version) . Daniel, J C. 2002. The Book of Indian Reptiles. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, 141pp. Das, I. 2008. A Photographic Guide to Snakes and other Reptiles of India. New Holland Publishers Ltd. 144 pp. Whitaker, R. and Captain, A. 2004. Snakes of India. The Field Guide. Draco Books.Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu, xiv+479, pls, text-figs.

21
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

Great Stone-plover Esacus recurvirostris (Cuvier, 1829) at Madayipara, Kannur district, Kerala.
Rajeevan P C Pandanchira, Kizhutally, Thazhe Chovva.P.O, Kannur 670 018
At Madayipara, a flat, laterite topped hillock near Pazhayangadi, about 21 km north of Kannur, a number of over-summering migratory shorebirds are seen during the monsoons. Groups of sandplovers, stints, Redshanks and several species of sandpipers feed in and around the shallow rainwater pools. The place hosts a good population of resident Red-wattled and Yellow-wattled lapwings and occasionally, the elusive Stone-Curlews also could be observed. On 21 June 2011, at 08.30 AM, I was on a regular birdwatching sojourn at Madayipara. It was a sunny day, after about three weeks of heavy rainfall. A brown and black bird with thick yellow legs, large slightly up-curved beak and typical 'goggle' eyes was seen among a group of Red-wattled Lapwings. The bird looked similar to StoneCurlew, but was larger. Though feeding on the ground, it was quite wary and hid behind the boulders when it sensed being watched. The species was identified as Great Stone-Plover with the help of field guides. I returned to the Madayipara at 04.00 PM in the evening of the same day with C. Sunilkumar, (Mathrubhoomi, Kannur). We found the bird at the same spot and Sunil could take some good photographs. We followed the movements of the bird for about one and a half hours. It was repeatedly being mobbed by a group of noisy crows. I visited Madayipara the next day and at least ten more times after that in June and July and searched for the bird, but it had disappeared from the area as mysteriously as it had appeared. Great Stone-Plover is a rare straggler as far as Kerala is concerned. There was a sighting of this species at Puduvyppu (Eranakulam district) and another unconfirmed report at Kadalundi estuary, both in the early 1990s (Sashikumar et al. 2011, Birds of Kerala Status and Distribution, D C Books) . It is an uncommon resident in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

Ten new species of frogs discovered from Western Ghats

As many as ten previously unknown species of frog from the family Rhacophoridae have been described in the forests of southern Western Ghats according to the paper published in the latest issue of the Journal Biosystematica, an international journal on animal taxonomy, ecology and zoogeography. Of the ten species, nine species have been identified in the group of bush frogs from the genus Raorchestes and one from the group of tree frogs representing the genus Polypedates. The rare discovery is the result of five years of extensive field surveys by the scientists of Zoological Survey of India, Western Ghat Regional
Centre, Kozhikode with the researchers of Malabar Natural History Society and Travancore Natural History Society under the leadership of Dr Anil Zachariah of Wayanad. The Western Ghats region is considered as a global biodiversity hotspot for its species richness. The discovery shows that the Western Ghats still has many new species of amphibians waiting to be discovered. The find includes a canopy frog speciesRaorchestes crustai; two reed associated bush frog species- R. manohari and R. uthamani; 6 species of true bush frogs- R. agsthyaensis, R. johnceei, R. kadalarensis, R. ravii, R. theuerkaufi

22
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

is

23
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

and R. thodai and a beautiful tree frog species, Polypdates bijui. The new species are named after naturalists, conservationists and supporters of batrachalogy in the Western Ghats. R. johnceei is named after Late Prof. John C. Jacob (who was popularly known as Johncee), in honour of his nature education movement initiatives in Kerala. R. manohari is named after T.M. Manoharan, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Kerala for his outstanding efforts in conserving the forests of Kerala and for his untiring support for batrachological studies; Polypedates bijui is named after Dr. S.D. Biju, University of Delhi for his exceptional contribution to the modern amphibian study in India; Raorchestes uthamani in honour of two eminent naturalists of Kerala, P.K. Uthaman (Ornithologist) and K.V. Uthaman (Forest Officer, Kerala Forests & Wildlife Department) for their interest and support in nature conservation; R. theurekaufi after Wolfgang Theuerkauf, an ardent naturalist and botanist, Director of Gurukula Botanical Garden, Periya , Wayanad, Kerala, who is instrumental in the conservation of rare and endemic flora of southern Western Ghats; and R. ravii after Late Ravi Chandran, an enthusiastic nature lover from Wayanad, who collected the species from Naduvattom, Nilgiri district, Tamil Nadu.

Of the 10 new species, four species were collected from Bonacud estate in Thiruvananthapuram district, three from Kadalar estate, Idukki district, two from Nilgiri district, Tamil Nadu and one from Gavi, Pathanamthitta district, Kerala. Interestingly all were collected from outside the protected areas from the plantations. The team was led by Dr Anil Zacharia of Wayanad. The other members of the team included Dr. C. Radhakrishnan, Dr. K.P. Dinesh and Dr. Muhamed Jafer Palot of Zoological Survey of India, Regional Centre at Kozhikode, Kerala; E. Kunhikrishnan, Department of Zoology,University College, Thiruvananthapuram; Sandeep Das, David V. Raju and C.K. Vishnudas of Malabar Natural History Society and Dr. S. Kalesh of Travancore Natural History Society. There are 314 species of amphibians so far known from India, of these 167 are found in the Western Ghats and 105 from Kerala. Among them 43 are bush frogs and 10 tree frogs. With the present discovery, the total number has gone up to 324 from India, 177 from Western Ghats and 113 from Kerala. It is noteworthy that 34 new species of frogs have been added to the list of amphibians of Kerala in last one decade; of these 27 were from the genus Raorchestes.

An Updated Checklist of Reptiles of Kerala

Muhamed Jafer Palot & C. Radhakrishnan Western Ghat Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Calicut-673 006 The reptilian fauna of Kerala has been documented by many workers (Ferguson, 1895; Wall, 1905, 1918; Murthy, 1981; Inger et al., 1984; Radhakrishnan, 1996, 1998; Thomas et al., 1997; Zacharias, 1997; Easa, 1998; Abraham et al., 1999; Palot & Radhakrishnan, 2002, 2003, 2004, Easa & Ramachandran, 2004; Jahas & Easa, 2008 and Aracchi et al., 2007). This paper lists the reptilian fauna so far known from the geographical boundary of Kerala State updated till July 2011. Altogether 173 species of reptiles belong to 21 families have been recorded from the state of Kerala. There are 11 species of chelonians (turtles & tortoises), which include 4 species of marine turtles. The Cochin Cane Turtle (Vijayachelys silvatica) and Travancore Tortoise (Indotestudo travancorica) are endemic to the Western Ghats and fairly well distributed in the protected areas of the State. Two species of crocodiles are recorded from the region. Of these, Saltwater Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) was totally wiped out from Kerala coast by the human intervention. A total of 58 species of lizards have been recorded from the region of which the geckos Cnemaspis wynadensis and Cnemaspis nairi, the lizard Otocryptis beddomii, the skinks Eutropis clivicola and Chalcides pentadactylus are so far known only from Kerala. A few undescribed

24
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

species of lizards have been discovered through recent studies (Arachchi et al, 2007). Of the 102 species of snakes recorded from the region, many of the Uropeltid snakes are reported only form Kerala. Five species of sea snakes are reported from the coastal marine waters of Kerala. In the recent past, two new species of snake, Captain's Wood Snake, Xylophis captaini (Gower and Winkler, 2007) and Ashok's bronzeback tree snake Dendrelaphis ashoki (Van Rooijen and Vogel, 2011) were also described from the sate of Kerala. For the compilation of this checklist, the works of Smith 1931, 1935, 1943; Tikader & Shrama, 1992; Daniel 2002; Das, 1995, 2002; Whitaker & Captain 2004; Sharma, 2007; Murthy 2010; Venugopal 2010 and Aengals et al, 2011 were also referred to.

Table-1: Diversity of Reptile groups in Kerala Reptile group Crocodiles Turtles & Tortoises Lizards Snakes Total Number of species in India 3 34 202 279 518 Number of species in Kerala 2 11 58 102 173

PHYLUM: CHORDATA CLASS: REPTILIA ORDER: CROCODYLIA 1. Family Crocodylidae 1. Crocodylus palustris Lesson, 1831 2. Crocodylus porosus** Schneider, 1801 ORDER : TESTUDINES Suborder: Cryptodira 2. Family Bataguridae 3. Vijayachelys silvatica*(Henderson, 1912)
4. Melanochelys trijuga (Schweigger,1812)

Mugger crocodile Saltwater crocodile

Cochin forest cane turtle Indian black turtle Green sea turtle Hawksbill sea turtle Olive ridley sea turtle Leatherback sea turtle Indian star tortoise Travancore tortoise Leith's softshell turtle Indian flapshell turtle Asian giant softshell turtle

3. Family Cheloniidae
5. Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus,1758) 6. Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus,1766) 7. Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz,1829)

4. Family Dermochelyidae
8..Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli,1761)

5. Family Testudinidae
9. Geochelone elegans (Schoepff,1795) 10. Indotestudo travancorica * (Boulenger,1907)

6. Family Trionychidae
11. Nilssonia leithii (Gray,1872) 12. Lissemys punctata (Bonnaterre,1789) 13. Pelochelys cantorii Gray,1864

25
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

ORDER : SQUAMATA Suborder : Sauria 7. Family Agamidae

14. Calotes calotes (Linnaeus, 1758) 15. Calotes grandisquamis * Gnther, 1875 16. Calotes nemoricola *Jerdon, 1853 17. Calotes ellioti * Gnther, 1864 18. Calotes rouxii * Dumril & Bibron, 1837 19. Calotes versicolor (Daudin, 1812) 20. Draco dussumieri*Dumril & Bibron, 1837 21. Otocryptis beddomii *Boulenger, 1885 22. Psammophilus blanfordanus (Stoliczka, 1871) 23. Psammophilus dorsalis (Griffith & Pidgeon, 1831) 24. Salea anamallayana *(Beddome, 1878) 25. Salea horsfieldii*Gray, 1845 26. Sitana ponticeriana Cuvier, 1829 Common green forest lizard Large scaled forest lizard Nilgiri forest lizard Elliot's forest lizard Roux's forest lizard Indian garden lizard South Indian flying lizard Indian kangaroo lizard Blanford's rock agama South Indian rock agama Anaimalai spiny lizard Horsfield's spiny lizard Fan throated lizard Indian Chamaeleon

8. Family Chamaeleonidae
27. Chamaeleo zeylanicus Laurenti, 1768

9. Family Gekkonidae
28. Cnemaspis beddomei *(Theobald, 1876) Beddome's day gecko 29. Cnemaspis gracilis*(Beddome, 1870) Slender day gecko 30. Cnemaspis indica *Gray, 1846 Indian day gecko 31. Cnemaspis littoralis *(Jerdon, 1854) Coastal day gecko 32. Cnemaspis mysoriensis * (Jerdon, 1854) Mysore day gecko 33. Cnemaspis monticola* Manamendra-Arachchi et al., 2007 34. Cnemaspis nairi *Inger, Marx & Koshy, 1984 Ponmudi day gecko 35. Cnemaspis ornata *(Beddome, 1870) Ornate day gecko 36. Cnemaspis sisparensis * (Theobald, 1876) Sispara day gecko 37. Cnemaspis wynadensis *(Beddome, 1870) Wayanad day gecko 38.. Geckoella collegalensis (Beddome, 1870) Kollegal ground gecko 39. Gehyra mutilata (Wiegmann, 1834) Four-clawed gecko 40. Hemidactylus anamallensis *(Gnther, 1875) Anaimalai gecko 41. Hemidactylus brookii Gray, 1845 Brook's house gecko 42. Hemidactylus frenatus Dumril & Bibron, 1836 Asian house gecko 43. Hemidactylus giganteus* Stoliczka, 1871 Giant south Indian gecko 44. Hemidactylus leschenaultii Dumril & Bibron, 1836 Bark gecko 45.. Hemidactylus maculatus Dumril & Bibron, 1836 Spotted house gecko 46. Hemidactylus reticulatus * Beddome, 1870 Reticulated gecko 47. Hemidactylus triedrus (Daudin, 1802) Termite hill gecko

10. Family Lacertidae

48. Ophisops beddomei (Jerdon, 1870) 49. Ophisops leschenaultii (Milne-Edwards, 1829) 11. Family Scincidae 50. Dasia subcaeruleum*(Boulenger, 1891) 51. Eutropis allapallensis (Schmidt, 1926) 52. Eutropis beddomii (Jerdon, 1870) 53. Eutropis bibronii (Gray, 1838) 54. Eutropis carinata (Schneider, 1801) Beddome's lacerta Leschenault's lacerta Blue-bellied tree skink Allapalli grass skink Beddome's grass skink Bibron's seashore skink Common keeled skink

26
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70.

Eutropis clivicola * (Inger et al.,1984) Eutropis macularia (Blyth, 1853) Eutropis trivittata (Hardwicke & Gray, 1827) Lygosoma albopunctata (Gray, 1846) Lygosoma guentheri (Peters, 1879) Lygosoma punctata (Gmelin, 1799) Ristella beddomii* Boulenger, 1887 Ristella guentheri * Boulenger, 1887 Ristella rurkii*Gray, 1839 Ristella travancoricus* (Beddome, 1870) Kaestlea beddomii (Boulenger, 1887) Kaestlea bilineata * ( Gray, 1846) Kaestlea laterimaculata (Boulenger, 1887) Kaestlea travancorica * (Beddome, 1870) Sphenomorphus dussumieri (Dumril & Bibron, 1839) Chalcides pentadactylus (Beddome) 1870

Mountain skink Bronze grass skink Three-lined grass skink White-spotted supple skink Gnther's supple skink Spotted supple skink Beddome's cat skink Gnther's cat skink Rurk's cat skink Travancore cat skink Beddome's ground skink Two-lined ground skink Side-spotted ground skink Travancore ground skink Dussumier's litter skink Earless Skink Bengal monitor

12. Family Varanidae

71. Varanus bengalensis (Daudin, 1802)

Suborder: Serpentes 13. Family Typhlopidae

72. Ramphotyphlops braminus (Daudin, 1803) 73. 74. 75. 76. Typhlops porrectus Stoliczka, 1871 Typhlops thurstoni *Boettger, 1890 Typhlops tindalli*Smith, 1943 Typhlops beddomei Boulenger, 1890 Brahminy worm snake Slender worm snake Thurston's worm snake Tindall's worm snake Beddome's worm snake

77. Grypotyphlops acutus (Dumril & Bibron, 1844) 14. Family Uropeltidae
78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. Melanophidium punctatum * Beddome,1871 Melanophidium bilineatum* Beddome, 1870 Melanophidium wynaudense (Beddome,1863) Platyplectrurus trilineatus * (Beddome,1867) Teretrurus sanguineus *(Beddome,1867) Plectrurus aureus * Beddome,1880 Plectrurus guentheri * Beddome,1863 Plectrurus perroteti * Dum.Bibr. & Dumril,1854 Uropeltis bicatenata * (Gnther, 1864) Uropeltis ellioti * (Gray,1858) Uropeltis nitida*(Beddome, 1878) Uropeltis ocellata* (Beddome, 1863) Uropeltis beddomii * (Gnther,1862) Uropeltis macrorhyncha*(Beddome, 1877) Uropeltis woodmasoni* (Theobald,1876) Uropeltis ceylanica * Cuvier, 1829 Uropeltis arcticeps madurensis (Beddome, 1878)

Beaked worm snake

Pied-belly shieldtail Yellow-striped shieldtail Wynad shieldtail Three-lined shieldtail Western shieldtail Golden shieldtail Purple shieldtail Perrotet's shieldtail Bicatenate shieldtail Elliot's shieldtail Cochin shieldtail Nilgiri shieldtail Beddome's shieldtail Anamalai shieldtail Black-bellied shieldtail Kerala shieldtail Periyar shieldtail

27
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

95. Uropeltis rubromaculata * (Beddome, 1867) 96. Uropeltis rubrolineata * (Gnther, 1875) 97. Uropeltis myhendrae *(Beddome, 1886) 98. Uropeltis maculata * (Beddome, 1878) 99. Uropeltis petersi * (Beddome, 1878) 100. Uropeltis liura *(Gnther, 1875) 101. Uropeltis pulneyensis* (Beddome, 1863) 102. Uropeltis smithi *Gans,1966 103. Rhinophis sanguineus * Beddome, 1863 104. Rhinophis fergusonianus * Boulenger, 1892 105. Rhinophis travancoricus *Boulenger,1892

Red-spotted shieldtail Red-lined shieldtail Barred shieldtail Red- sided shieldtail Peter's shieldtail Ashambu shieldtail Palni shieldtail Violet shieldtail Red-bellied shieldtail Cardamom shieldtail Travancore shieldtail Rock python Common sand boa Red sand boa Whitaker's boa File snake Common trinket snake Montane trinket snake Indian Rat snake Banded racer Lesser stripe-necked snake Black-spotted kukri snake Travancore kukri snake Russell's kukri snake Common kukri snake Western kukri snake Striped kukri snake Ashok's bronzeback tree snake Painted bronzeback tree snake Large-eyed bronzeback tree snake Common bronzeback tree snake Ornate flying snake Travancore wolf snake Barred wolf snake Common wolf snake Bridal snake Slender bridal snake Dumeril's black-headed snake Striped keelback Beddome's keelback

15. Family Pythonidae

106. Python molurus (Linnaeus, 1758)

16. Family Boidae

107. Gongylophis conicus (Schneider,1801) Gongylophis conicus conicus (Schneider, 1801) 108. Eryx johnii (Russell,1801) 109. Eryx whitakeri* Das,1991

17. Family Acrochordidae

110. Acrochordus granulatus (Schneider,1799)

18. Family Colubridae

111. Coelognathus helena helena (Daudin,1803) Coelognathus helena monticollaris*(Schulz,1992) 112. Ptyas mucosa (Linnaeus,1758) 113. Argyrogena fasciolata (Shaw,1802) 114. Liopeltis calamaria (Gunther,1858) 115. Oligodon venustus* (Jerdon,1853) 116. Oligodon travancoricus * Beddome,1877 117. Oligodon taeniolatus (Jerdon,1853) 118. Oligodon arnensis (Shaw,1802) 119. Oligodon affinis* Gnther 1862 120. Oligodon brevicaudus * (Gnther,1862 ) 121. Dendrelaphis ashoki*Rooijen & Vogel, 2011 122. Dendrelaphis pictus (Gmelin, 1789) 123. Dendrelaphis grandoculis *(Boulenger, 1890) 124. Dendrelaphis tristis (Daudin,1803) 125. Chrysopelea ornata (Shaw,1802) 126. Lycodon travancoricus (Beddome,1870) 127. Lycodon striatus (Shaw,1802), 128. Lycodon aulicus (Linnaeus,1754), 129. Dryocalamus nympha (Daudin,1803), 130. Dryocalamus gracilis (Gnther,1864), 131. Sibynophis subpunctatus (Dumril et al., 1854) 132. Amphiesma stolatum (Linnaeus,1758) 133. Amphiesma beddomei *(Gnther,1864)

28
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

134. Amphiesma monticola *(Jerdon,1853) 135. Xenochrophis piscator (Schneider,1799) 136. Macrophistodon plumbicolor (Cantor,1839) 137. Atretium schistosum (Daudin,1803) 138. Rhabdops olivaceus * (Beddome,1863) 139. Xylophis captaini *Gower & Winkler, 2007 140. Xylophis perroteti * (Dumril et al., 1854) 141. Xylophis stenorhynchus *(Gnther, 1875) 142. Boiga trigonata (Bechstein,1802) 143. Boiga ceylonensis (Gnther,1858) 144. Boiga beddomei (Wall,1909) 145. Boiga forsteni (Dumril et al. 1854) 146. Boiga dightoni*(Boulenger, 1894) 147. Ahaetulla perroteti*(Dumril et al.,1854) 148. Ahaetulla dispar *(Gnther, 1864) 149. Ahaetulla nasuta (Lacepede,1789) 150. Ahaetulla pulverulenta (Dumril et al. 1854) 151. Enhydris dussumieri * (Dumril et al., 1854) 152. Enhydris sieboldii (Schlegel,1837) 153. Cerberus rynchops (Schneider,1799) 154. Gerarda prevostiana (Eydoux & Gervais, 1822)

Hill keelback Checkered keelback Green keelback Olive keelback water snake Olive forest snake Captain's wood snake Striped narrow-headed Snake Gnther's narrow-headed Snake Common cat snake Ceylon cat snake Beddome's cat snake Forsten's cat snake Travancore cat snake Bronze-headed vine snake Gnther's vine snake Common vine snake Brown vine snake Dussumier's smooth scale water snake Siebold's smooth-scaled water snake Dog-faced water snake Glossy marsh snake Common Indian krait Slender coral snake Striped coral snake Bibron's coral snake Beddome's coral snake Spectacled cobra King cobra Hook-nosed sea snake Annulated sea snake Cochin-banded sea snake Short sea snake Black and yellow sea snake Russell's viper Saw-scaled viper Common hump-nosed pit viper Large-scaled green pit viper Malabar pit viper Horseshoe pit viper Bamboo pit viper

19. Family Elapidae

155. Bungarus caeruleus (Schneider,1801) 156. Calliophis melanurus (Shaw,1802) 157. Calliophis nigrescens (Gnther,1862) 158. Calliophis bibroni * ( Jan,1858) 159. Calliophis beddomei* Smith ,1943 160. Naja naja (Linnaeus, 1758) 161. Ophiophagus hannah (Cantor,1836)

20. Family Hydrophiidae

162. Enhydrina schistosa (Daudin, 1803) 163. Hydrophis cyanocinctus Daudin, 1803 164. Hydrophis ornatus (Gray,1842) 165. Lapemis curtus (Shaw, 1802) 166. Pelamis platura ( Linnaeus,1766)

21. Family Viperidae

167. Daboia russelii (Shaw & Nodder,1797) 168. Echis carinatus (Schneider, 1801) 169. Hypnale hypnale (Merrem, 1820) 170. Trimeresurus macrolepis *Beddome,1862 171. Trimeresurus malabaricus*(Jerdon, 1854) 172. Trimeresurus strigatus* Gray, 1842 173. Trimeresurus gramineus * (Shaw,1802) *Endemic to the Western Ghats; ** Extinct in Kerala

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Dr. K. Venkataraman, Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata for facilities and encouragement.

29
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

References
Abraham, S., Easa, P.S., Thomas, J and M.A. Nixon. 1999. An inventory of reptile fauna in Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary, Idukki district, Kerala. Cobra. Vo.37: 24-29 Aengals R, Sathish Kumar V.M & Palot M.J. 2011. Updated Checklist of Indian Reptiles. (Online version) . http://zsi.gov.in/checklist/ Checklist%20of%20 Indian%20Reptiles.pdf. Arachchi, M. K., Batuwita, S. & R. Pethiyagoda. 2007. A taxonomic revision of the Sri Lankan day-geckos (Reptilia: Gekkonidae: Cnemaspis), with description of new species from Sri Lanka and southern India. Zeylanica 7 (1): 9-122. Daniel, J C. 2002. The Book of Indian Reptiles. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, 141pp. Das, I. 1995. Turtles and Tortoises of India. Oxford University Press. Bombay. 176pp. Das, I. 2002. A photographic guide to Snakes and other reptiles of India. New Holland Publishers (UK) Ltd. Easa, P.S. 1998. Survey of reptiles and amphibians in Kerala part of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. KFRI Research Report No.148. Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi. Easa, P.S & K.K. Ramachandran. 2004. Biodiversity documentaion for Kerala. Part 10 : Reptiles. Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi. 15210. 598.1 (548.3) EAS. Ferguson, H.S. 1895. List of snakes taken in Travancore from 1888-95. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 10-68-77. Gower, D.J. & J. D. Winkler. 2007. Taxonomy of the Indian snake Xylophis Beddome (Serpentes: Caenophidia) with description of a new species. Hamadryad 31(2):315329. Inger, R.F, Shaffer, H.B, Koshy, M and R. Budke. 1984. A report on a collection of amphibian and Reptiles from Ponmudi, Kerala, South India. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 81:406&551. Jahas, S & P.S. Easa. 2008. Abundance estimation of reptiles and amphibians of Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary. Research Centre for Environment and Social Sciences Thiruvananthapuram. 15870. 591.9.5981.1. SAB. Murthy, T.S.N. 1981. Reptiles of the Silent Valley and the New Amalambaram area, Kerala. Snake 13:452. Murthy, T.S.N. 2010. The Reptile Fauna of India. Published by B.R. Publishing Corporation, New Delhi. Palot, M.J and C. Radhakrishnan. 2002. Herpetofauna of Madayipara Hill, Kannur district, Kerala. Cobra.Vol. 48:34. Palot, M.J and C. Radhakrishnan. 2003. Checklist of snakes of Kerala with their Malayalam vernacular names. Reptile Rap. 5:3-6.2003. Palot, M.J and C. Radhakrishnan .2004. Status and distribution of Turtle fauna (Testudines: Reptilia) in the Malabar part of Kerala, India. Rec. zool. Surv. India : 102 (part 1-2): 27-39. Radhakrishnan, C.1996. Survey of Reptilian fauna of Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala.Cobra 24:7-12. Radhakrishnan, C. 1998. Reptiles. pp.507-517. In: Natural Resources of Kerala. (Eds.). WWF- India Kerala State Office, Thiruvananthapuram. Sharma, R.C. 2007. The Fauna of India and the adjacent countries- Reptilia: 1-410. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkota. Smith, M.A. 1931. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol.1.Loricata, Testudines Taylor and Francis, London. (Reprinted 1974, 1995 by Today and Tomorrow's Printers and Publishers, New Delhi). Smith, M. A. 1935. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol II. Sauria. Taylor and Francis, London .(Reprinted 1974, 1995 by Today and Tomorrow's Printers and Publishers, New Delhi). Smith, M. A. 1943. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol III.. Serpentes. Taylor and Francis, London. (Reprinted 1974, 1995 by Today and Tomorrow's Printers and Publishers, New Delhi). Thomas, J, Jahas, S and P.S. Easa. 1997. Status and distribution of Reptiles in Wayanad, Kerala. Cobra. Vol.28:25-30. Thomas, J and P.S. Easa. 1997. Reptile Fauna of PeechiVazhani Wildlife Sanctuary. Cobra. Vol.29:14-18. Tikader, B.K and R.C. Sharma. 1992. Handbook of Indian Lizards. Zoological survey of India, Kolkota. 250pp. Van Rooijen, J. & G.Vogel. 2009. A multivariate investigation into the population systematicsof Dendrelaphis tristis (Daudin, 1803) and Dendrelaphis schokari (Kuhl,1820): revalidation of Dendrophis chairecacos Boie, 1827 (Serpentes: Colubridae). The Herpetological Journal.19: 193-200. Venugopal.P.D. 2010. An updated and annotated list of Indian lizards (Reptilia: Sauria) based on a review of distribution records and checklist of Indian reptiles. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 2(3):725-738. Venugopal.P.D. 2010. Addendum to An updated and annotated list of Indian lizards (Reptilia: Sauria) based on a review of distribution records and checklists of Indian Reptiles. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 2(4):848. Wall, F. 1905. Notes on snakes collected in Cannanore from 5th November 1903 to 5th August 1904. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 16: 292-312. Wall, F. 1918. Notes on a collection of snakes made in the Nilgiri Hills and the adjacent Waynad, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 26-152. Whitaker, R. and A, Captain. 2004. Snakes of India. The Field Guide. Draco Books.Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu, xiv+479, pls, text-figs. Zacharias, V.J. 1997. Reptiles of Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 94: 575-579.

30
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

Programmes Conducted:
World Wetland day programme at Mavoor Wetlands
MNHS jointly with Jilla Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi & Mavoor Pakshi Sanketha Samrakshana Samithi organized a one day Seminar on the 'Importance of Mavoor wetlands' at Thengilakkadavu, Mavoor on 2 February 2011. More than 200 students and teachers from various schools participated in the programme. Shri. C. Suresh, President, Mavoor Grama Panchatyath inaugurated the programme. Shri. Sathyan Meppayur, Vice President, MNHS, Hameedali Vazhakkad and Rajan P.V. talked on various aspects related to the Mavoor wetlands. The seminar also remembered Late. C.P. Rajan, honorary member of MNHS, for his commendable efforts for the protection of birdlife of Mavoor wetlands.

Butterfly Migration Study Camp

The 10th annual butterfly migration study camp was organized at Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary from 11 to 13 February 2011. As many as 78 butterfly enthusiasts from all over Kerala attended the programme. Sri. K. V, Uthaman Wildlife Warden, Aralam WLS inaugurated the programme. Sri. Gopalan, K., Assistant Wildlife Warden welcomed the gathering. Sri. V. C. Balakrishnan, Sri. Balakrishnan Valappil, Dr. Saji Perambra and Dr. Jafer Palot delivered talks on butterflies and their migration. The migration of Common Albatross in nine localities of the sanctuary was observed and assessed. The influx of the migrating butterflies was found to be maximum at Chavachithode area of the sanctuary on 10 January 2010 with more than 2000 butterflies in five minutes from 11.30 AM to 11.35 AM. A total of 129 species of butterflies were observed during the survey. The 12th annual bird survey at Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary was conducted on 11, 12, 13 March 2011. 36 bird watchers participated in the survey. A total of 145 species of birds were recorded during the survey. This included three species new to the sanctuary viz. Tawny- bellied Babbler, Spotted Owlet and Northern House Martin. Thus, the total number of species recorded in the sanctuary has come up to 234. C. Sashikumar, K.V. Uthaman and Dr Jafer Palot coordinated the survey.

Bird Survey at Aralam WLS

One day Nature camp at Kakkavayal Vanapravam Conservation park

Malabar Natural History Society (MNHS) in association with the Kerala State ForestS & Wildlife Department organized a one day Nature Camp at Vanaparvam, Kakkavayal, Kozhikode, the recently declared Biodiversity Park on the occasion of the International Biodiversity Day. Thirty three nature lovers including students, teachers, photographers and journalists participated in the camp which was lead by Dr. T.N. Vijayakumar (President, MNHS) and Dr. K. Kishore Kumar (Nature Education Officer, MNHS). Vanaparvam consists of an area of 111.4 hectares of secondary moist deciduous forest patch and has a rich bird and butterfly diversity. The Pathippara waterfalls, several streams and the interesting 'Muyal Para' (Rabbit rock) near the water falls enhance the beauty of the place. The Forest Department has established an interpretation centre, butterfly garden, orchid house and a medicinal plant garden in the area. A mini hydro-electric power model has also been set up which supplies electricity for the park

One day nature walk at Theckumbad Island, Kannur district

MNHS, jointly with Society for Environmental Education in Kerala (SEEK), Payyanur organized a nature walk at Theckumbad island, Kannur district on 22 May 2011 in which 20 nature lovers participated. The Theckumabad Island is the only sacred grove with man grove vegetation in Kerala and is also famous as the only place where the ritual of Theyyam is performed by a woman.Of the14 true man groves known from Kerala coast,eight species are present here viz. Rhizophoramucronata, Rhizophoraapicalis,Sonneratiaalba,Avicenniaofficinalis,Avicenniamarina, Brugiera cylindrica, Aegiceras corniculatum and Excoecaria agallocha. Dr Dinesan Cheruvat, V.C.Balakrishnan, Prabhakran,P.V.and DrJaferPalot con-ducted the programme.In the camp it was decided to submit a memorandum . to the authorities about there cent threats faced by the grove. th

9 Annual General Meeting of MNHS

The 9th Annual General Body Meeting of the Society was organized at Malabar Christian College, Calicut on 2 April 2011. Shri. Sathyan Meppayur , Vice president of the society welcomed the gathering. Dr T.N. Vijayakumar (President) presided over the function and Dr Jafer Palot (Secretary) presented the report and Shri. A.P.M. Rafik, (Treasurer) presented the accounts. Prof. I.G. Bhaskara Panikker, Adv.L. Namassivayam, Shri. C.Sashikumar, Dr. Dineshan Cheruvat, Dr. Kishore Kumar also spoke on the occasion. Shri. Balakrishnan Valappil was selected as a member of the Executive Committee. Rain Camp at Madayipara hills, Kannur district MNHS in association with SEEK, Payyanur, organized a rain camp at Madayipara hills, Kannur district on 6-7th July 2011. As many as 73 nature enthusiasts from various parts of Kerala participated in the programme. Shri. T.P. Padmanbahan, Director, SEEK inaugurated the camp. A night survey of frogs was also

31
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

conducted during the camp. A total of 11 species of frogs were observed during the survey including the Reddish Burrowing Frog Fejervarya rufescens, Peter's Frog Fejervarya brevipalamata, Painted Frog Kaloula taporbanica, Minervarya Frog Minervarya sahyadris, etc. V.C. Balakrishnan, Dr. Dinsahan Cheruvat, Anandan Peckadam, D Jafer Palot led the team in the field. The participants also got a chance to observe insectivorous plants like Drosera indica, Utricularia spp, etc

Pelagic Bird Monitoring Results of Ongoing Study

Praveen J, KeralaBirder, B303, Shriram Spurthi, ITPL Main Road, Brookefields, Bangalore
The ongoing study of pelagic birds in the Arabian Sea coast jointly conducted by KeralaBirder and Malabar Nature History Society continued with seven days spent at sea between April and July 2011. One day expedition from Mulki, Karnataka was organized by SA Hussian Memorial Trust and one day expe-dition from Chettuva, Thrissur by Cochin Natural History Society (CNHS) & Nature Education Society, Thrissur (NEST). Patterns of the pelagic bird community changed with each month of the expedition emphasizing the need for more regular studies. In April (2, 3 & 4), the team observed good numbers of Persian Shearwaters, Parasitic Jaegers and Bridled Terns while in May (28 and 29), the seabirds present were Flesh-footed Shearwaters, Sooty Terns and Bridled Terns. In July, Fleshfooted Shearwaters increased by huge numbers along with Wilson's Storm Petrels and lesser number of Sooty and Bridled Terns. Rare sightings were those of Wedge-tailed Shearwater and Swinhoe's Storm-Petrel. In general, Persian Shearwaters and Parasitic Skuas seem to be on passage while Flesh-footed Shearwaters and Wilson's Storm Petrel seem to be monsoon visitors. Bridled Tern is perhaps the commonest seabird off the west coast of Kerala but hardly gets windblown as against the rarer Sooty Tern which is more regularly thrown inland, windblown. In 2011 itself, 10 instances of windblown Sooty Terns were reported in the coast or inland.

Oncoming Programme
11 September 2011 24-25th September 2011 8-9 October 2011
nd th th

- Breakfast with Butterflies at Kakkavayal/Madayipara - Pelagic Bird Survey at Kasaragod coast - John C Smrithi Sangamam Camp at Aralam WLS - Turtle Walk at Thaikadappuram, Nileswaram - Butterfly Survey at Aralam WLS

2 week of November 2011 -HSBC- Kerala Bird Race 10-11 December 2011 th 14-15 January 2012
th

32
Vol. 9 (1&2) Jan-August 2011

MNHS PUBLICATIONS
Bryophytes of Wayanad in Western Ghats
Author: Manju.C.Nair,Rajesh.K.P and P.V.Madhusoodanan contributory Price: Rs. 2500/- plus postage. Hard Bound; D1/4 size (A4), i-iv+284 pages; over 200 colour photographs in 14 plates, 1 Map;over 160 B&W illustrations. For copies contact: Dr. K.P.Rajesh, Botany Dept., Calicut University, Kerala-673 635, Email: kprajesh.botany@gmail.com

Nature: Observation & Interpretation

(in Malayalam) Author: Prof. John C Jacob A simple book immensely useful to students and naturalists. It guides for observing and interpreting the nature around us. Rs. 60/-

Butterflies of Kerala
(In malayalam) Authors: Md Jafer Palot, V.C. Balakrishnan & Babu Kambrath first of this kind in Malayalam Covers 138 species, 204 colour photographs with Malayalam, English & Scientific names of butterflies and their larval food plants. Rs. 340/-

Mammals of Kerala
(in Malayalam) Authors: Dineshan Cheruvat, C.Radhakrishnan & Md Jafer Palot Illustrated by : Sathyan Meppayur cover 106 species including marine mammals Rs.140/-

Marine Fungi of Kerala- A Preliminary ecological and floristic study

Author : Dr.K.Raveendran and Dr.Manimohan contributory Price Rs.2000/-plus postage For copies contact: E-mail: chengalath @ sanchamet.in or malabartrogon@yahoo.co.in Covers 80 species of marine fungi found in the marine waters of kerala. Appropriate for research students and professionals in the areas of mycology and Wetland ecology.

Spleenworts (Aslenium L- Pteridophyta) of South India

Authors; Dr.k.Azeez, Dr.V.Venugopalakrishna Kurup & Dr. P.V.Madhusoodanan Contributory Price: Rs.2500/-Plus postage. For copies contact: malabartrogon@yahoo.co.in Covers 30taxa with 39 full colour plates and 41 line drawings recorded from South India.

Jaiva vaividhyam: Nireekshanangalum Padana Padhhathikalum

(Biodiversity : Observations & Study Projects) Author: Dr. P. Pramod Price: Rs. 60/-

The book deals with the concepts and methods for studying biodiversity, with copious examples of biodiversity projects for students in a simple language. Being the first of its kind on the topic it would be useful to the students, teachers and nature lovers who wishes to undertake studies on the biodiversity.