REVIEW OF NON-CITES REPTILES THAT ARE KNOWN OR LIKELY … · There are few studies that report on trade in non-CITES reptiles. However, the United States maintains records of all

REVIEW OF NON-CITES REPTILES THAT ARE KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE

IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE

(Version edited for public release)

A report to the European Commission Directorate General Environment

ENV.E.2. – Environmental Agreements and Trade

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

May, 2009

2

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314 Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136 Email: [email protected] Website: www.unep-wcmc.org ABOUT UNEP-WORLD CONSERVATION

MONITORING CENTRE

The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

(UNEP-WCMC), based in Cambridge, UK, is the

specialist biodiversity information and assessment

centre of the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP), run cooperatively with

WCMC 2000, a UK charity. The Centre's mission is

to evaluate and highlight the many values of

biodiversity and put authoritative biodiversity

knowledge at the centre of decision-making.

Through the analysis and synthesis of global

biodiversity knowledge the Centre provides

authoritative, strategic and timely information for

conventions, countries and organisations to use in

the development and implementation of their

policies and decisions.

The UNEP-WCMC provides objective and

scientifically rigorous procedures and services.

These include ecosystem assessments, support for

the implementation of environmental agreements,

global and regional biodiversity information,

research on threats and impacts, and the

development of future scenarios.

CITATION

UNEP-WCMC (2009). Review of non-CITES reptiles

that are known or likely to be in international trade. A

Report to the European Commission. UNEP-

WCMC, Cambridge.

PREPARED FOR

The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect

the views or policies of UNEP or contributory

organisations. The designations employed and the

presentations do not imply the expressions of any

opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP, the

European Commission or contributory

organisations concerning the legal status of any

country, territory, city or area or its authority, or

concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or

boundaries.

© Copyright: 2009, European Commission

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1. TRADE IN REPTILES ................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2. REPTILE TRADE AND THE INTERNET ........................................................................................................ 6

1.3. THE IMPACT OF TRADE ON REPTILES ....................................................................................................... 6

2. SELECTION OF SPECIES FOR REVIEW .................................................................................... 7

2.1. PET TRADE ........................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2. FOOD, MEDICINES AND SKIN TRADE .................................................................................................. 8

2.3. SPECIES SELECTION ............................................................................................................................. 8

2.4. IDENTIFYING SPECIES NEW TO THE MARKET ..................................................................................... 9

3. SPECIES REVIEWS ........................................................................................................................ 18

3.1. Methods............................................................................................................................................ 18

SPECIES: Physignathus cocincinus ....................................................................................................... 19

SPECIES: Pogona vitticeps ..................................................................................................................... 24

SPECIES: Abronia graminea .................................................................................................................. 27

SPECIES: Eublepharis macularius ......................................................................................................... 30

SPECIES: Gekko gecko ............................................................................................................................ 33

SPECIES: Basiliscus plumifrons ............................................................................................................. 42

SPECIES: Elaphe guttata ........................................................................................................................ 45

SPECIES: Elaphe obsoleta ....................................................................................................................... 49

SPECIES: Lampropeltis getula................................................................................................................ 54

SPECIES: Lampropeltis triangulum ....................................................................................................... 59

ANNEX I ...................................................................................................................................................... 67

Introduction

4

1. INTRODUCTION

This report was conducted in order to identify reptile species which are currently not listed in CITES or the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations, but for which there is evidence of international trade, drawing attention particularly to species which are globally threatened and/or appear to be commonly in trade within the European Union. Based on a survey of 24 websites offering reptiles for sale within the EU, 75 species were identified as being commonly in trade (advertised on five or more websites) and a further 14 species were less common in trade (advertised on fewer than five websites) but were considered globally threatened in the IUCN Red List. In-depth reviews were conducted for ten species. The remaining species may be suitable for in-depth reviews in subsequent reports.

This work follows-on from two reports on trade in non-CITES amphibians. The first report, a document for SRG 42, provided an overall analysis of amphibian species that are not listed in CITES but for which regional or international trade was considered to be a major threat in the 2007 IUCN Red List; in-depth reviews were undertaken for 13 species. The second report, SRG 46/8, included in-depth reviews for a further 20 species.

1.1. TRADE IN REPTILES

Reptiles are traded commercially primarily for food, the pet trade, skins and as traditional medicines (Schlaepfer et al., 2005). Turtles are the most heavily exploited reptiles for human consumption (Klemens and Thorbjarnarson, 1995), although crocodilians, snakes, and lizards may also be important in international trade (Table 1). Exploitation for food is greatest in tropical and sub-tropical regions (Klemens and Thorbjarnarson, 1995), particularly in east and southeast Asia (van Dijk et al., 2000).

The pet trade involves a wide range of snakes, lizards, turtles and tortoises from around the world (Hoover, 1998; Franke and Telecky, 2001; HSUS, 2001; Auliya, 2003; Raselimanana, 2003; Carpenter et al., 2004), with major markets in the EU (Auliya, 2003; Raselimanana, 2003; Engler and Parry-Jones, 2007) and the United States (Hoover, 1998; Franke and Telecky, 2001; HSUS, 2001; Raselimanana, 2003). Keeping reptiles as pets has become increasingly popular over the last few decades (Brant, 2001; Auliya, 2003).

The reptile skin trade involves mainly snakes, crocodiles and larger lizards originating in tropical and sub-tropical regions (Jenkins and Broad, 1994; Shine et al., 1996; Fitzgerald and Painter, 2000; Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Mieres and Fitzgerald, 2006; Brooks et al., 2007; Arroyo Quiroz et al., 2007), with the EU, US and Japan as the main consumer markets (Jenkins and Broad, 1994).

Reptiles are also frequently used in traditional folk medicine, with at least 165 species used (including 60 snakes, 51 lizards and 43 turtles and tortoises) (Alves et al., 2008).

Over 8,700 living reptile species have been described to date (Uetz, 2008). However, > 90% of species are not listed in CITES and therefore trade data are not generally available for them. At present, 675 reptile species (and a further 9 subspecies and 6 populations) are listed in CITES: Appendix I – 75 spp., 5 ssp. and 6 poulations; Appendix II - 527 spp., 4 ssp. and 4 populations; and Appendix III – 55 spp. A further 23 species and one subspecies not listed in CITES are listed in the annexes to the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations.

Introduction

5

Nethertheless, CITES trade data provide an insight into the types and levels of trade in CITES-listed reptiles, together with information on the sources and origin of species. Direct trade in CITES Appendix II reptiles 1997-2007 (as reported by the exporters), included roughly 12.3 million live animals, 4.2 million kg of meat and 31.3 million skins, from at least 372 species. Much of the trade was in wild-sourced specimens, including almost all trade in Cordylidae spp., Colubridae spp., Emydidae spp. and Trionychidae spp. (Table 1). Considering live, wild-sourced reptiles only, the five most highly traded species were Cuora amboinensis, Testudo horsfieldii, Varanus salvator, Varanus exanthematicus and Python regius and the top five exporting countries were Malaysia, Indonesia, Madagascar, Uzbekistan and Ghana.

Table 1. Overview of global trade in CITES Appendix II reptiles over the period 1997-2007, excluding reexports. (Only the trade terms ‘live’, ‘meat’ and ‘skins’ were considered).

Live Meat Skins

Order Family Quantity % wild Quantity (kg)

% wild Quantity % wild

CROCODYLIA Alligatoridae 150161 41 660558 kg 70 10869540 20

Crocodylidae 206481 2 3083382 kg <1 1718335 18

SAURIA Agamidae 228806 88

Chamaeleonidae 657389 67

Cordylidae 78483 >99

Gekkonidae 264932 97

Helodermatidae 679 2

Iguanidae 6260344 2 5609 0 3150 0

Lacertidae 5 0

Scincidae 4325 0

Teiidae 64593 42 4335063, 100 kg

100

Varanidae 582015 72 218646 100 7148004 >99

Xenosauridae 158 0

SERPENTES Boidae 332048 32 62062 >99

Carettochelidae 307 0

Colubridae 4643 97 4100 100 582325 100

Elapidae 127709 50 6256 100 1173092 >99

Loxocemidae 146 0

Pythonidae 1653487 15 255932 90 5384423, 4600 kg,

1316867 m,

81, 17 (kg), <1 (m)

Tropidophiidae 40 32

Viperidae 45 0

TESTUDINES Chelidae 18 0

Dermatemydidae 95 0

Emydidae 583044 98

Pelomedusidae 17624 2

Platysternidae 3 0

Testudinidae 963149 43

Trionychidae 81216 98 13900 100

Introduction

6

There are few studies that report on trade in non-CITES reptiles. However, the United States maintains records of all legally imported and exported amphibians and reptiles to/from the US, including those not listed in CITES (Schlaepfer et al., 2005). Over the period 1998-2002, Schlaepfer et al. (2005) reported that the US imported 7.6 million wild-caught whole reptiles and 18.4 million wild-caught reptile parts and products, and exported 26 million wild-caught whole reptiles and 1.3 million wild-caught reptile parts and products. The majority of imports were declared as wild-caught or ranched, whilst captive bred specimens or those of unknown source made up a greater proportion of exports (Schlaepfer et al., 2005).

1.2. REPTILE TRADE AND THE INTERNET

The rapid growth in availability and usage of the internet has created a new global marketplace, leading to a boom in online sales of wildlife (both legal and illegal), which is largely unregulated (IFAW, 2005; Engler and Parry-Jones, 2007; IFAW, 2008).

Live reptiles and their products can be found offered for sale on online auctions, classifieds websites, pet retailer websites, and in chat rooms and web fora. For example, in a one-week survey of wildlife trade on the internet, IFAW (2005) recorded 526 turtle products and 2,630 items made from other reptiles, including “handbags, belts, wallets, watchbands, shoes and accessories, as well as taxidermy items and skulls.”

The internet trade in specimens of CITES-listed species was also discussed at the 14th Conference of the Parties to CITES, where it was recognised that “use of the internet has been identified as one of the factors for the perceived increase in illegal wildlife trade entering the EU over the past 5 years” and “Furthermore, increased use of the Internet for trade in CITES-listed species may be changing the nature of traditional wildlife trade and thus affecting trade routes and modes of shipment” (CITES Secretariat, 2007). As a result, a workshop was convened to consider the implications of trade on the internet for CITES implementation and Enforcement (CITES Secretariat, 2007).

1.3. THE IMPACT OF TRADE ON REPTILES

International trade is thought to have had a major negative impact on certain reptiles, for example i) the commercial trade in tortoises and freshwater turtles for food, Traditional Chinese Medicines and as pets (Jenkins, 1995; Klemens and Thorbjarnarson, 1995; Gibbons et al., 2000; van Dijk et al., 2000; Schlaepfer et al., 2005; Cheung and Dudgeon, 2006; Shi et al., 2007; Zhou and Jiang, 2008), ii) over-harvesting of certain snakes for their skins, food and the pet trade (Klemens and Thorbjarnarson, 1995; Gibbons et al., 2000; Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Boback, 2005; Brooks et al., 2007) and iii) over-harvesting certain lizards for food and their skins (Klemens and Thorbjarnarson, 1995; Gibbons et al., 2000). Raselimanana (2003) reported that the reptile trade from Madagascar included species classified as rare or with limited distributions, and that “uncontrolled trade through unsustainable collection levels carries enormous risks for the long-term viability of natural populations.”

Captive breeding may reduce the exploitation of wild reptiles, but wild-caught reptiles are often needed to sustain captive breeding operations, and there is particular concern that reptile farms and ranches in many range states may be having a detrimental impact on wild populations (HSUS, 2001; Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Shi et al., 2007).

The precise impact of exploitation on reptile populations is generally difficult to determine due to the lack of systematic population surveys and trade data (Schlaepfer et al., 2005). Schlaepfer et al. (2005) cautioned that “The void of information also implies that population declines due to overcollecting could be going undetected.”

Selection of species for review

7

2. SELECTION OF SPECIES FOR REVIEW

Previous SRG reports focusing on non-CITES amphibians (SRG 42/10, SRG 46/8) used the Global Amphibian Assessment (IUCN et al, 2006) for the basis of the species selection, as all amphibian species have been reviewed, with threats to each species categorized in detail. This allowed species to be selected for which regional or international trade was considered to be a major threat. However, no such comprehensive global assessment currently exists for reptiles. Instead, a combination of literature reviews and internet searches were used to identify non-CITES reptile species currently in international trade, focusing specifically on the pet trade, food and medicines, and the reptile skin trade.

2.1. PET TRADE

Auliya (2003) conducted a study on the live reptile trade in the EU in the 1990s, and found that reptile species for which trade was not regulated by CITES or the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations were abundant in the EU market, often far outnumbering the number of CITES-listed species. These included species identified as globally threatened. The author provided a list of 188 non-CITES reptiles recorded at 15 trade fairs in 1998 and 419 non-CITES reptiles recorded on approximately 100 price lists of wholesalers and retailers 1977-1999. Auliya (2003) also reported that “In recent years, the species composition of live reptiles shipped to Düsseldorf, Germany has been estimated to consist of approximately 40% CITES-listed species and 60% non-CITES species (R. Fenske, Düsseldorf Airport Customs, Germany, pers. comm., June 1999).” Analysis of 10 random price lists (1981-1999) revealed that the average percentage of CITES to non-CITES species was between 29 and 71 per cent (Auliya, 2003).

A survey of twenty-four EU websites including reptile importers, wholesalers, retailers, and classifieds advertisements posted by the public (Table 2) was used to compile a list of non-CITES reptiles currently offered for sale within the EU. Only advertisements using the species’ scientific names were considered. Prices and source were also recorded where available.

The survey was conducted 2nd-13th March 2009. A total of 562 non-CITES reptile species were found offered for sale (with a further 25 reptiles advertised at the genus level), including 285 Sauria, 212 Serpentes and 65 Testudines. When combined with the species identified in trade within the EU and Auliya (2003) (but discounting the many subspecies, synonyms and any species which have subsequently been listed in the CITES appendices or annexes to the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations), there was evidence of trade within the EU in over 700 species (Annex I to this report). It is likely that the total number of reptile species offered for sale within the EU is likely much higher than this, but it is hoped that this study has identified the species most commonly in trade.

Table 2. Websites used to survey reptile species offered for sale within the European Union.

Website Country/Region Type of site

www.eurofauna.com Europe pets classifieds

www.animalfarm.cz Czech Republic terraristic retailer

www.tiias-pets.net/ Finland pet retailer

www.lafermetropicale.com France terraristic retailer/breeder

www.jungleshop.org/ France reptile retailer/breeder

www.evannonce.com/animaux.php? France pets classifieds

www.marche.fr/reptiles/ France pets classifieds

www.terraristic-classifieds.com/ Germany terraristic classifieds

www.reptilica.de Germany pet retailer

www.reptipark.de Germany pet retailer

www.hoch-rep.com Germany reptile importer/wholesaler

www.tropicfauna.de/ Germany reptile importer/retailer

www.aziendanaturaviva.com Italy pet retailer


8

Website Country/Region Type of site

www.serpenti.it/vendo/index.php?catid=4 Italy terraristic classifieds

www.rare-reptiles.com/index/Home.htm Netherlands reptile retailer/breeder

www.szrek.pl/ Poland pet retailer

www.terrarium.com.pl/forum Poland stock list posted on a forum

www.terrariumonline.com Spain pet retailer

www.dragoreptile.com Spain reptile retailer

www.anuncios-gratuitos.com/clasificados/animales/ Spain pets classifieds

www.faunaimportuk.com/ United Kingdom reptile importer/wholesaler

www.the-livingrainforest.co.uk/lrf/index.php United Kingdom pet retailer

www.southcoastexotics.com/ United Kingdom pet retailer

www.crystalpalacereptiles.com/ United Kingdom pet retailer

2.2. FOOD, MEDICINES AND SKIN TRADE

Evidence of international trade in non-CITES reptiles for food or medicinal purposes referred primarily to regional trade within South East and East Asia, mainly to, from and within China (e.g. Klemens and Thorbjarnarson, 1995; van Dijk et al., 2000; Yau et al., 2002; Zhou and Jiang, 2004; Cheung and Dudgeon, 2006; Zhou and Jiang, 2008; Haitao et al., 2008).

Use of non-CITES reptiles for food or medicinal purposes was also documented in other countries such as Brazil (e.g. da Nóbrega Alves and Pereira Filho, 2007; da Nóbrega Alves et al., 2008) and the United States (e.g. Fitzgerald and Painter, 2000; Roman and Bowen, 2000), but there was no indication that the species involved were traded internationally.

No evidence was found of trade to the EU in non-CITES, non-EC-listed reptiles for food, medicinal purposes or for skins. Non-CITES reptiles reported to be traded internationally for food, their skins and/or medicinal purposes are presented in Table 3. All of these species were reported to be traded from China and mostly within Asian markets. No trade to the EU was reported and no evidence could be found through preliminary internet searches that any of these species are imported into the EU for food, medicines or skins.

A general web survey was conducted to look for any indication of food, medicines or skins from non-CITES reptiles offered for sale in the EU. General searches using the terms ‘turtle’, ‘tortoise’, ‘snake’ and ‘lizard’, combined with ‘meat’, ‘skins’ and ‘medicine’ (and ‘soup’ for turtle) were conducted. In addition, general searches using the scientific names of the species in Table 3 together with ‘meat’, ‘skins’ and ‘medicine’ were carried out. Virtually no evidence was found of use in the EU. Only a few cases of ‘turtle soup’ or ‘snake meat’ were found, but no species names were given.

Given the high levels of skins of CITES-listed species coming into the EU, it is likely that skins from other species may be coming in. However, as described above, species-specific evidence could not be found.

2.3. SPECIES SELECTION

In order to select species for review, we focused on species most commonly in trade at present (ie. those identified on many sites in the 2009 internet survey). Seventy-five species were found on five or more websites (Table 4) and may warrant species reviews.

Species with the highest priority for review would be those of global conservation concern, particularly those known to be threatened by international trade, especially where there was evidence that species advertised for sale were wild caught. However, information on threat status was not readily available, with IUCN Red List assessments available for only 16 of the 75 species. The source was given for some specimens on some websites, but for the majority of specimens advertised, no source was given. Species of greatest priority for review were


9

therefore selected based on indications of high levels of trade (found on the greatest number of websites), together with information on threat status and source where available.

In addition to the species which appeared to be common in trade, a further 14 species were found on fewer than five websites, but had been assessed by the IUCN as globally threatened (ie. Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable). These were also selected as species which may warrant species reviews (Table 5).

2.4. IDENTIFYING SPECIES NEW TO THE MARKET

Of particular interest to the SRG was identifying species which may be new to the market. Comparison of the species found in trade in the 2009 internet survey, with those identified previously by Auliya (2003) revealed nearly 300 species newly identified in the internet survey. However, it cannot be concluded that these species are new to the market, as (due to the enormous number of species likely to be in trade) none of the studies is likely to have provided a complete list of species in trade at the time. Automated internet searches may be a better method to identify any new species entering trade within the EU. Automated internet searches conducted annually/biannually could be used to generate lists of a greater proportion of reptile species offered for sale at each time period (by monitoring a larger number of websites offering reptiles for sale in each EU country). Comparison of lists between time periods would allow identification of species which had not previously been found offered for sale within the EU.


10

Table 5. Non-CITES reptiles in international trade for their skins, food or medicinal purposes.

Species References Uses Notes

Serpentes

Elaphe moellendorffi Zhou & Jiang (2004) Medicinal, Food, Skins From China. Recorded in EU pet trade (Auliya, 2003).

Zaocys dhumnades Zhou & Jiang (2004); Yau et al (2002) Medicinal, Food

From China. Deleted from Annex D; Yau et al. (2002) mentioned it is used as TCM, but didn't give indication of international trade

Enhydris chinensis Zhou & Jiang (2004) Food (Medicinal, Skins) From China. Deleted from Annex D.

Enhydris plumbea Zhou & Jiang (2004) (Food, Medicinal) From China. Deleted from Annex D.

Sinomatrix annularis Zhou & Jiang (2004) Food, (Skins) From China

Dinodon rufozonatum Zhou & Jiang (2004) Food, Medicinal, (Skins) From China

Bungarus fasciatus Zhou & Jiang (2004) Food, Medicinal, (Skins) From China

Bungarus multicinctus Zhou & Jiang (2004); Yau et al (2002) Medicinal, (Food, Skins)

From China; Yau et al. (2002) mentioned it is used as TCM, but didn't give indication of international trade

Trimeresurus mucrosquamatus Zhou & Jiang (2004) Food, Medicinal, (Skins) From China

Macropisthodon rudis Zhou & Jiang (2004) Food, (Skins) From China

Gloydius brevicaudus Zhou & Jiang (2004) Food, Medicinal, (Skins) From China

Deinagkistrodon acutus Zhou & Jiang (2004) Food, Medicinal, (Skins) From China. Recorded in EU pet trade (Auliya 2003).

Testudines

Pelodiscus sinensis Cheung & Dudgeon (2006) Food, Medicinal Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou (China); Deleted from Appendix III and Annex C. Recorded in EU pet trade (Auliya 2003).

Cyclemys dentata Cheung & Dudgeon (2006); Zhou & Jiang (2008) Food, Medicinal Shenzhen, Guangzhou (China). Recorded in EU pet trade (Auliya 2003).


11

Table 4. Reptile species not listed in the annexes to the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations, found advertised for sale on five or more websites. Species selected for review are shaded.

Taxon Notes No.

websites Price

Sources (where stated)

IUCN Red List

SAURIA

AGAMIDAE

Agama agama (Common Agama) Inc. syn. Agama armata and ssp. Agama agama lionotus. 5 € 22

Chlamydosaurus kingii (Frilled Dragon) 11 € 139-300 inc. CB & ranched

Japalura splendida (Splendid Japalure) 5 € 22-24

Physignathus cocincinus (Water Dragon) 15 € 25-300 inc. CB & farmed

Physignathus lesueurii (Eastern Water Dragon) 8 € 100-149 inc. CB

Pogona henrylawsoni 8 € 50-220 inc. CB

Pogona vitticeps (Inland Bearded Dragon) Inc. ssp. P. v. leucistic. 20 € 40-400 inc. CB

Xenagama batillifera 5 € 99-149 inc. WC & CB

CHAMAELEONIDAE

Rhampholeon brevicaudatus (Bearded Pygmy Chameleon) 6 € 25-69 inc. CB

Rhampholeon kerstenii (Kenya Pygmy Chameleon) 5 € 42 inc. CB

GEKKONIDAE

Eublepharis macularius (Leopard Gecko) Inc. ssp. E. m. leucistic, E. m. montanus. 18 € 30-159 inc. CB

Gekko gecko (Tokay Gecko) 10 € 15-35 inc. WC

Gekko ulikovskii Inc. syn. Gecko auratus. 10 € 19-30

Gekko vittatus (Lined Gecko) 6 € 29-32 inc. WC

Hemidactylus frenatus (Bridled House Gecko) 6 € 5-6

Hemitheconyx caudicinctus (African Fat-tailed Gecko) 12 € 59-160 inc. CB

Lygodactylus williamsi (Turquoise Dwarf Gecko) 6 € 50-289

Pachydactylus bibronii (Bibron's Thick-toed Gecko) 6 € 10-20

Paroedura picta (Madagascar Ground Gecko) 11 € 15-90 inc. CB

Ptychozoon kuhli (Kuhl's Flying Gecko) 6 € 26-29


12

Taxon Notes No.

websites Price


IUCN Red List

Ptyodactylus hasselquistii (Yellow Fan-fingered Gecko) Inc. ssp. P. h. ragazzi. 5 € 24

GERRHOSAURIDAE

Gerrhosaurus major (Great Plated Lizard) 7 € 30-100

Gerrhosaurus nigrolineatus (Black-lined Plated Lizard) 8 € 15-60

IGUANIDAE

Anolis carolinensis (Green Anole) 10 € 10-17 inc. WC LC

Anolis equestris (Greater Cuban Anole) 7 € 39-58 inc. WC

Anolis sagrei (Brown Anole) Inc. syn. Norops sagrei. 8 € 10-15 inc. WC

Basiliscus plumifrons (Green Basilisk) 12 € 59-250 inc. CB & farmed

Basiliscus vittatus (Brown Basilisk) 7 € 35-89

Corytophanes cristatus (Smooth Helmeted Iguana) 5 € 59-89

Crotaphytus collaris (Collared Lizard) Inc. ssp. C. c. collaris, C. c. fuscus. 5 € 59-79 inc. WC LC

Dipsosaurus dorsalis (Desert Iguana) 6 € 99-127 inc. WC LC

Leiocephalus personatus (Haitian Curly-tailed Lizard) Inc. ssp. L. p. opistho. 8 € 28-35 inc. WC

Leiocephalus schreibersii (Red-sided Curly-tailed Lizard) 5 € 24-35

Sauromalus obesus (Chuckwalla) 7 € 159-335 inc. WC & captive born

Sceloporus magister (Desert Spiny Lizard) 6 €36-39 LC

Sceloporus malachiticus (Green Spiny Lizard) 5 € 19-39 inc. CB & captive born

Sceloporus variabilis (Rose-bellied Lizard) Inc. ssp. S. v. olloporus. 5 € 19-22 inc. CB

LACERTIDAE

Holaspis guentheri (Blue-tailed Gliding Lizard) Inc. ssp. H. g. laevis. 6 € 15-39 inc. WC

Takydromus sexlineatus (Asian Grass Lizard) 8 € 9-13 inc. CB

SCINCIDAE

Chalcides ocellatus (Ocellated Skink) Inc. ssp. C. o. ocellatus, C. o. tiligugu. In EU Habitats Directive & Berne Convention 5 € 18

Riopa fernandi 7 € 39-80

Tiliqua gigas (Giant Blue-tongued Skink) Inc. ssp. T. g. gigas, T. g. keyensis. Delected from Annex D 20/05/04 6 € 75-300, £1495-5995 inc. CB & captive housed


13

Taxon Notes No.

websites Price


IUCN Red List

Tiliqua scincoides (Eastern Blue-tongued Skink) Inc. syn. Tropidophorus scincoides & ssp. T. s. intermedia. Delected from Annex D 20/05/04 5 € 99-300

Trachylepis quinquetaeniata (Five-lined Skink) Inc. syn. Mabuya quinquetaeniata. 5 € 20-22

SERPENTES

COLUBRIDAE

Dasypeltis scabra (Common Egg-eater) 5 € 40-139 inc. WC

Elaphe bairdi (Baird's Rat Snake) Inc. syn. Pantherophis bairdi. 6 € 69-600 inc. CB LC

Elaphe climacophora (Japanese Rat Snake) 5 € 30-119 inc. CB

Elaphe guttata (Corn Snake) Inc. syn. Pantherophis guttata & spp. E. g. amelano, E. g. guttata, E.g.rosacea. 19 € 10-900 LC

Elaphe mandarinus (Mandarin Rat Snake) Inc. syn. Euprepiophis mandarinus. 6 € 395 inc. CB

Elaphe obsoleta (North American Rat Snake)

Inc. syn. Pantherophis obsoletus & ssp. E. o. leucictica, E. o. lindheimeri, E. o. obsoleta, E. o. quadrivittata, E. o. rossalleni, E. o. spiloides. 12 € 40-159 inc. CB LC

Elaphe schrenkii (Russian Rat Snake) Inc. ssp. E. s. schrenkii. 7 € 89-149 inc. CB

Heterodon nasicus (Western Hog-nosed Snake) Inc. ssp. H. n. nasicus. 11 € 100-1850 inc. CB

Lampropeltis alterna (Grey-banded Kingsnake) Inc. ssp. L. a. alterna, L. a. blairi. 5 € 120-125 inc. CB LC

Lampropeltis getula (Common Kingsnake) Inc. ssp. L. g. brooksi, L. g. californiae, L. g. floridana, L. g. getulus, L.g. goini, L. g. holbrooki, L.g. nigritis, L. g. splendida 13 € 20-250 inc. CB LC

Lampropeltis mexicana (Mexican Kingsnake) Inc. ssp. L. m. greeri, L. m. mexican, L. m. thayeri. 9 € 50-225 inc. CB LC

Lampropeltis ruthveni (Ruthven's Kingsnake) 8 € 75-250 inc. CB NT

Lampropeltis triangulum (Milk Snake)

Inc. ssp. L. t. abnorma, L. t. andesiana, L.t. annulata, L. t. arcifera, L. t. campbelli, L.t. elapsoides, L. t. gaigae, L. t. gentilis, L. t. hondurensis, L. t. micropholis, L. t. nelsoni, L. t. polyzona, L. t. sinaloe, L. t. stuarti, L. t. syspila, L. t. triangulatum. 17 € 35-600 inc. CB

Lamprophis fuliginosus (Brown House Snake) Inc. syn. Boaedon fuliginosus. 9 € 15-79 inc. CB

Pituophis catenifer (Gopher Snake) Inc. ssp. P. c. affinis, P. c. annectans, P. c. catenifer, P. c. sayi, P. c. vertebralis. 5 € 70-250 LC


14

Taxon Notes No.

websites Price


IUCN Red List

Pituophis melanoleucus (Pine Gopher Snake) Inc. syn. Pituophis sayi & ssp. P. m. lodingi, P. m. melanoleucus, P. m. sayi, P. m. vertrbralis. 6 € 70-400 inc. CB LC

Spalerosophis diadema (Diadem Snake) Inc. ssp. S. d. atriceps, S. d. cliffordi. 6 € 50-150 inc. CB

Thamnophis marcianus (Checkered Garter Snake) Inc. ssp. T. m. marcianus. 9 € 15-80 inc. CB

Thamnophis sirtalis (Common Garter Snake) Inc. ssp. T. s. concinnus, T. s. infernalis, T. s. parietalis, T.s. similis, T. s. sirtalis, T. s. tetrataenia. 7 € 25-165 inc. CB LC

TESTUDINES

CHELIDAE

Chelus fimbriatus (Matamata Turtle) 6 € 120-129

Emydura subglobosa (Red-bellied Short-necked Turtle) Inc. syn. Emydura albertisi. 5 € 35-100 LR/lc

EMYDIDAE

Pseudemys concinna (River Cooter) Inc. ssp. P. s. concinna, P. s. hieroglyphica. 6 € 13-23

Pseudemys nelsoni 5 € 23

Trachemys scripta (Common Slider)

Inc. syn. Chrysemys scripta, Pseudemys scripta & ssp. T. s. grayi, T. s. ornata, T. s. scripta, T. s. troostii. Subspecies T. s. elegans on Annex B 11 € 9-120 inc. CB & farmed LR/nt

GEOEMYDIDAE

Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima (Central American Wood Turtle) Inc. ssp. R. p. incisa, R. p. manni. 7 € 69-79

KINOSTERNIDAE

Kinosternon carinatum Inc. syn. Sternotherus carinatus. 6 € 25-39 inc. CB

Kinosternon leucostomum (White-lipped Mud Turtle) Inc. ssp. K. l. leucostomum, K. l. postinguinale. 5 € 35-55 inc. WC

Kinosternon scorpioides (Scorpion Mud Turtle) Inc. syn. Kinosternon cruentatum & ssp. K. s. scorpiodes. 9 € 25-100 inc. CB

Sternotherus odoratus (Common Musk Turtle) 6 € 18-250

PELOMEDUSIDAE

Pelomedusa subrufa (African Helmeted Turtle) Inc. ssp. P. s. subrufa. Delected from CITES Appendix III 04/03/07 9 € 19-60

TRIONYCHIDAE

Apalone ferox Inc. syn. Trionyx ferox. 5 €20-35 inc. CB


15

Table 5. Globally threatened reptile species not listed in the annexes to the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations found advertised for sale on at least one website. Species selected for review are shaded.

Taxon Notes No.

websites Price


IUCN Red List

SAURIA

AGAMIDAE

Trapelus savignii Inc. syn. Agama savignii. 2 55-90zl VU

ANGUIDAE

Abronia graminea (Terrestrial Alligator Lizard) 3 € 990(unav)-1400 EN

Diploglossus warreni (Warren's Galliwasp) Inc. syn. Celestus warreni. 1 € 145(unav) CR

GEKKONIDAE

Goniurosaurus kuroiwae (Kuroiwa's Ground Gecko) 1 inc. CB VU

Nephrurus deleani (Acacia Knob-tailed Gecko) 1 EN

IGUANIDAE

Crotaphytus reticulatus (Reticulated Collared Lizard) 1 VU

Ctenosaura palearis 2 € 69 CR

Ctenosaura quinquecarinata (Oaxacan Spiny-tailed Iguana) Inc. syn. Enyaliosaurus quinquecarinatus. 2 € 49 EN

LACERTIDAE

Acanthodactylus pardalis (Egyptian Fringe-fingered Lizard) 2 35zl VU

SERPENTES

COLUBRIDAE

Pituophis ruthveni (Louisiana Pine Snake) 1 € 300 EN

TESTUDINES

CHELIDAE

Elseya branderhorsti (White-bellied Snapping Turtle) 3 € 120 inc. CB & farmed VU

EMYDIDAE

Clemmys guttata (Spotted Turtle) 2 VU

GEOEMYDIDAE

Morenia petersi (Indian Eyed Turtle) 1 VU

TRIONYCHIDAE

Pelodiscus sinensis (Chinese Softshell Turtle) Inc. syn. Trionyx sinensis. Deleted from CITES App. III 23/06/05 3 € 15 VU


16

REFERENCES

Alves, R. R. N., Vieira, W. L. S., and Santana, G. G. 2008. Reptiles used in traditional folk medicine: conservation implications. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17: 2037-2049.

Arroyo-Quiroz, I., Pérez Gill, R., and Leader-Williams, N. 2007. Mexico in the International Reptile Skin Trade: a Case Study. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16 (4): 931-952.

Auliya, M. 2003. Hot trade in cool creatures - a review of the live reptile trade in the European Union in the 1990s with a focus on Germany. TRAFFIC Europe. Brussels, Belgium.

Boback, S. M. 2005. Natural history and conservation of Island Boas (Boa constrictor) in Belize. Copeia, 2005 (4): 880-885.

Brant, W. E. 2001. Commercial production of reptiles for the US pet trade. IUCN SSC - Commercial captive propagation and wild species conservation. Selected background papers. White Oak Foundation, Jacksonville, Florida USA.

Brooks, S. E., Allison, E. H., and Reynolds, J. D. 2007. Vulnerability of Cambodian water snakes: initial assessment of the impact of hunting at Tonle Sap Lake. Biological Conservation, 139 (3-4): 401-414.

Carpenter, A. I., Rowcliffe, J. M., and Watkinson, A. R. 2004. The dynamics of the global trade in chameleons. Biological Conservation, 120 (2): 291-301.

Cheung, S. M. and Dudgeon, D. 2006. Quantifying the Asian turtle crisis: market surveys in southern China, 2000-2003. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 16: 751-770.

CITES Secretariat. 2007. Internet trade in specimens of CITES-listed species. Fourteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, The Hague, Netherlands, 3-15 June 2007. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. COP14 Doc. 28. URL: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/14/doc/E14-28.pdf Accessed 8-4-2009.

da Nóbrega Alves, R. R., da Silva Vieira, W. L., and Gomes Santana, G. 2008. Reptiles used in traditional fold medicine: conservation implications. Biodiversity Conservation, 17: 2037-2049.

da Nóbrega Alves, R. R. and Pereira Filho, G. A. 2007. Commercialization and use of snakes in north and northeastern Brazil: implications for conservation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16 (4).

Engler, M. & Parry-Jones, R. 2007. Opportunity of threat: the role of the European Union in global wildlife trade. TRAFFIC Europe. Brussels, Belgium.

Fitzgerald, L. A. and Painter, C. W. 2000. Rattlesnake commercialization: long-term trends, issues, and implications for conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28 (1): 235-253.

Franke, J. and Telecky, T. M. 2001. Reptiles as pets: an examination of the trade in live reptiles in the United States. The Humane Society of the United States.

Gibbons, J. W., Scott, D. E., Ryan, T. J., Buhlmann, K. A., Tuberville, T. D., Metts, B. S., Greene, J. L., Mills, T., Leiden, Y., Poppy, S., and Winne, C. T. 2000. The global decline of reptiles, déjà vu amphibians. BioScience, 50: 653-666.

Haitao, S., Parham, J. F., Zhiyong, F., Meiling, H., and Feng, Y. 2008. Evidence for the massive scale of turtle farming in China. Oryx, 42: 147-150.

Hoover, C. 1998. The US Role in the international live reptile trade: Amazon tree boas to Zululand dwarf chameleons. TRAFFIC North America.

HSUS. 2001. The trade in live reptiles: imports to the United States. The Humane Society of the United States. URL: http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/reptile_trade_import.pdf Accessed 18-2-2009.

IFAW. 2005. Caught in the web: wildlife trade on the internet. International Fund for Animal Welfare. London, UK.

IFAW. 2008. Killing with keystrokes: an investigation of the illegal wildlife trade on the World Wide Web. International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Jenkins, M. 1995. Tortoises and freshwater turtles: the trade in South East Asia. TRAFFIC International.

Jenkins, M. & Broad, S. 1994. International trade in reptile skins: A review and analysis of the main consumer markets, 1983-1991. TRAFFIC International. Cambridge, UK.

Klemens, M. W. and Thorbjarnarson, J. B. 1995. Reptiles as a food resource. Biodiversity and Conservation, 4 (3): 281-298.


17

Mieres, M. M. and Fitzgerald, L. A. 2006. Monitoring and managing the harvest of tegu lizards in Paraguay. Journal of Wildlife Management, 70 (6): 1723-1734.

Raselimanana, A. P. 2003. Trade in reptiles and amphibians, in Goodman, S. M. & Benstead, J. P., (eds.), The natural history of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1564-1568.

Roman, J. and Bowen, B. W. 2000. The mock turtle syndrome: genetic identification of turtle meat purchased in the south-eastern United States of America. Animal Conservation, 3: 61-65.

Schlaepfer, M. A., Hoover, C., and Dodd Jr, C. K. 2005. Challenges in evaluating the impact of the trade in amphibians and reptiles on wild populations. BioScience, 55 (3): 256-264.

Shi, H., Parham, J. F., Lau, M., and Chen, T. H. 2007. Farming endangered turtles to extinction in China. Conservation Biology, 1: 5-6.

Shine, R., Harlow, P. S., and Keogh, J. S. 1996. Commercial harvesting of giant lizards: The biology of water monitors Varanus salvator in southern Sumatra. Biological Conservation, 77 (2-3): 125-134.

Suiter, K. and Sferrazza, S. 2007. Monitoring the sale and trafficking of invasive vertebrate species using automated internet search and surveillance tools. Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species: 89-93.

Uetz, P. 2008. The reptile database URL: www.reptile-database.org Accessed: 7-4-2009. van Dijk, P. P., Stuart, B. L., & Rhodin, A. G. J. 2000. Asian turtle trade. Proceedings of a workshop on the conservation and trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs No. 2. Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 1-4th December 1999.

Yau, F. C. F., Wong, K. L., Shaw, P. C., But, P. P. H., and Wang, J. 2002. Authentication of snakes used in Chinese medicine by sequence characterized amplified region (SCAR). Biodiversity and Conservation, 11: 1653-1662.

Zhou, Z. and Jiang, Z. 2004. International trade status and crisis for snake species in China. Conservation Biology, 18 (5): 1386-1394.

Zhou, Z. and Jiang, Z. 2008. Characteristics and risk assessment of international trade in tortoises and freshwater turtles in China. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 7 (1): 28-36.

Species reviews

18

3. SPECIES REVIEWS

3.1. Methods

For each of the species selected for review, an extensive literature review was conducted to establish each species’ conservation status in all range states. In the absence of CITES trade data, trade patterns were assessed using internet searches. In addition to the information found from the survey of 24 websites offering reptiles for sale within the EU (used for the species selection process), Google searches were conducted, searching by the species’ scientific name, together with search terms such as ‘for sale’, ‘buy’, ‘price’ and ‘pets’. Synonyms of species’ scientific names (listed at the beginning of each species review) were also used, to check whether species were recorded under a different name. Use of common names was avoided, as they were ambiguous (i.e. several species called the same name, different common names used for the same species), however, where many advertisements were seen using a species’ common name, this was noted in the review. In addition to general web searches, and in order to focus more specifically on the pet trade in Europe, Google searches were performed limiting the search to pages from a selection of EU countries, namely France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Physignathus cocincinus

19

REVIEW OF NON-CITES REPTILES THAT ARE KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE IN

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

REPTILIA AGAMIDAE

SPECIES: Physignathus cocincinus

SYNONYMS: -

COMMON NAMES: Water Dragon (English)

RANGE STATES: Cambodia, China, Lao People's Democratic Republic,

Myanmar, Thailand, Viet Nam

IUCN RED LIST: Not evaluated

TRADE PATTERNS:

The following information was derived from the initial internet survey of 24 websites offering reptiles for sale in the EU, combined with searches using the species’ scientific name along with a selection of key words (as outlined in the section on methods):

• Advertised on the Czech website www.animalfarm.cz. Price and source were not specified.

• Advertised on many French websites including www.lafermetropicale.com, www.jungleshop.org, www.marche.fr, www.lezards.net, http://physignathus.forumactif.fr and www.lorlux-bazar.com, with prices ranging from €20-300. Sources were generally not specified, but www.lezards.net offered captive-bred babies.

• Advertised on many German websites including www.reptilica.de, www.reptipark.de, www.hoch-rep.com, www.tropicfauna.de, www.world-of-tropic.de, www.dhd24.com, and www.deine-tierwelt.de, with prices ranging from €10-49. Two websites indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Advertised on the Italian websites www.aziendanaturaviva.com and www.tanadinamo.splinder.com for €50. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on the Polish websites www.szrek.pl and www.terrarium.com.pl for 120-150zl. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on the Spanish websites www.terrariumonline.com, www.animalnaturegrow.com, www.bichosfera.com and www.reptilica.es, with prices ranging from €22-55. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on many British websites including www.faunaimportuk.com, www.the-livingrainforest.co.uk, www.southcoastexotics.com, www.exotic-pets.co.uk, http://slitherin.co.uk and www.cardiffreptilecentre.co.uk, with prices ranging from £18-70. Two websites indicated that specimens were captive bred and captive farmed.

• Many more advertisements were seen using the common name ‘water dragon’. However, this name also applies to the Eastern water dragon Physignathus lesueurii.

• Information on captive care and breeding was found on many websites including:


20

– http://aqualandpetsplus.com – http://waterdragons.tripod.com – www.herpcenter.com – www.homegrownherps.com – www.swallowaquatics.co.uk – www.le-monde-des-reptiles.com – www.reptimania.com

There was anecdotal evidence that P. cocincinus are taken from the wild for the international pet trade: on one care sheet (HomeGrownHerps, 2009) it was reported that “Unfortunately, because they [P. cocincinus] are so valued as pets, they are stolen from the wild”, and on a hobbyist’s website (Power, 2008) it was reported that “Water dragons are also imported from Cambodia, Thailand and perhaps south China [in addition to Viet Nam]”, and that P. cocincinus may be threatened by overcollection and commercial trade.

The zoo population of P. cocincinus reported to ISIS was 323 individuals (ISIS, 2009), but the species was also reported to be “one of the most popular lizards in the pet trade” (WAZA, 2008).

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states

P. cocincinus are water dragons from southern and eastern Asia, found in forested hills and lowlands, always close to water (WAZA, 2008; Smithsonian National Zoological Park, 2009; OffBeatPets, 2009).

Cambodia: P. cocincinus was reported to occur in eastern Cambodia (Stuart et al., 2006), and in the Cardamom Mountains, southwest Cambodia (Stuart and Emmett, 2006; Grismer et al., 2008). It was reported to have been recorded in evergreen forest, evergreen mixed with deciduous forest, disturbed forest and seasonally flooded lowland evergreen forest, at elevations of 190-400 m, generally near water (Stuart and Emmett, 2006). Stuart et al. (2006) reported that a specimen had been confiscated from local hunters by the authorities.

China: P. cocincinus was reported to occur in south China (Zhao and Adler, 1993), in Guangdong, Guangxi and Yunnan (Zhao, 1998). Local villagers reported the species’ presence in the Zhangmu area, Southwest Guangxi, China (Fellowes et al., 2002). P. cocincinus was classified as Endangered in the China Red Data Book and described as “a rare species in China” (Zhao, 1998).

P. cocincinus was reported to be involved in the wildlife trade in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, southern China, specifically for food and drink and medicines (Li Yiming and Li Dianmo, 1996).

To (2005) reported that an apparently wild population of P. cocincinus “has been discovered along a stream on Tsing Yi Island, New Territories,” in Hong Kong S.A.R., where sightings indicated that at least eight individuals were present. To (2005) reported that “There is no known previous record of this lizard in the wild in Hong Kong S.A.R. (Bogadek and Lau, 1997; Karsen et al., 1998). However, it is commonly available in local reptile pet shops for sale (Lau et al., 1996). Thus, it is very likely that these water dragons were released by people who used to keep them at home as pets.”

Lau et al (1996) reported that “A wide variety of lizards from all over the world are available in the pet shops in Hong Kong S.A.R. The most common species are. [...] and Green Water Dragon (Physignathus cocincinus) from China and Vietnam [...] the vast majority are believed to be caught in the wild.”


21

Lao People's Democratic Republic: P. cocincinus was reported to have been recorded in the centre (limestone region, Nakai Plateau and Annamite mountains) and south of Lao PDR (Tobias, 1997; Stuart, 1998a; 1998b; 1998c; in: Stuart, 1999), and thought to probably occur throughout the country (Stuart, 1999). It was reported to be found “In vegetation above streams in evergreen forest,” at altitudes of 60-700 m (Stuart, 1999).

P. cocincinus was reported to be “Potentially At Risk in Lao PDR” (Stuart, 1999), with adults and eggs extensively harvested for food (Stuart, 1998a; 1998c; in: Stuart, 1999). There was reported to be a major issue of illegal, international trade in wildlife in Lao, with wildlife populations throughout Lao reported to be declining (Stuart, 1999). However, no specific information on P. cocincinus population size or status was available.

Myanmar: P. cocincinus was reported to occur in Myanmar (Zug et al., 2003), but no information on its conservation status was found.

Thailand: P. cocincinus was reported to occur in “Sakon Nakhon (Phu Phan); Ubon Ratchathani (Sanoi River); Nakhon Ratchasima (Khao Yai, Sakaerat); Saraburi (Muak Lek); Nakhon Nayok (Sarika Falls), Srakaew (Pang Sida); Prachin Buri (Tap Lan); Chachoengsao (Khao Ang Rue Ni); Rayong (Khao Chamao); Chanthaburi (Khao Sebab, Khao Soidao); Trat (Koh Chang); Chon Buri (Khao Kieo)”, where it occurs along hill streams in evergreen forest (Nabhitabhata and Chan-ard, 2005). It was classified as Endangered in the Thailand Red Data Book (Nabhitabhata and Chan-ard, 2005).

Viet Nam: P. cocincinus was recorded in many regional wildlife surveys, including in Ba Be and Cho Don Districts, Bac Kan province (Dang et al., 2003), Na Hang District, Tuyen Quang Province (Nguyen Quang Truong et al., 2003), Phu Quoc Island, Kien Giang Province (Phuong et al., 2006), the proposed ‘Francois’ Langur Species and Habitat Conservation Area’, Na Hang District, Tuyen Quang Province (Bezuijen et al., 2004; Le Trong Trai et al., 2004), Ha Giang Province (Bain and Truong, 2004), Thua Thien Hue Province (Nguyen Quang Truong and Bain, 2006) and Ngoc Linh Nature Reserve, Kon Tum Province (Le Trong Trai et al., 1999). It was listed in the Viet Nam Red Data Book as Vulnerable (Ministry of Science, 2000).

In an evaluation of the illegal hunting, use and trade of wildlife in Ba Be and Cho Don Districts, Bac Kan province, P. cocincinus was reported to be ‘commonly traded’ (defined as: recorded in at least two locations including village, restaurant, medicine shop or middlemen house, where the number of individuals at each sighting was more than ten animals) (Dang et al., 2003). In comparison, in a similar study conducted in Na Hang District, Tuyen Quang Province (Nguyen Quang Truong et al., 2003), P. cocincinus was reported to be ‘rarely traded’ (defined as: record in only one location that could be a village, restaurant, medicine shop, or middleman house; or where the number of individuals was less than ten animals). In recent years, a number of illegal wildlife transportation cases were reported in Ba Be and Cho Don Districts, including two seizures of P. cocincinus: one of 3kg in 2001 and one of 20 kg in 2002 (Dang et al., 2003). Wildlife in Ba Be and Cho Don Districts was reported to be hunted for food, traditional medicine, ornaments and trade (both for personal use and selling to visitors), and despite the existence of national and local legislation to manage and control wildlife trade, enforcement effectiveness was reported to be low (Dang et al., 2003).

P. cocincinus was also reported to be hunted for food and trade in Thua Thien Hue Province (Nguyen Quang Truong and Bain, 2006), and hunted by local people (for both adults and eggs), in Ha Giang Province (Bain and Truong, 2004).

REFERENCES:

Bain, R. H. and Truong, N. Q. 2004. Herpetofaunal diversity of Ha Giang Province in northeastern Vietnam, with descriptions of two new species. American Museum Novitates, 3453 (1): 1-42.

Bezuijen, M. R., Potess, L. F., Quan Van Tue, Trinh Thang Long, Nguyen Hung Manh, & Insua-Cao, P. 2004. Development of the Francois' Langur Species and Habitat Conservation Area, Tuyen


22

Quang Province, Viet Nam. PARC Project VIE/95/G31 and Forest Protection Department Tuyen Quang, Government of Viet Nam (FDP)/UNOPS/UNDP/Scott Wilson Asia-Pacific Ltd., Ha Noi. URL: http://www.un.org.vn/undp/projects/parc/docs/sl26-report.pdf Accessed 31-3-2009.

Bogadek, A. and Lau, M. W. N. 1997. A revised checklist of Hong Kong amphibians and reptiles. Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society, 21: 173-188.

Dang, N. X., Van Sang, N., Van La, T., Tuong, N. X., & Truong, N. Q. 2003. Evaluation of the wildlife trade in Ba Be and Cho Don Districts. PARC Project VIE/95/G31&031, Government of Viet Nam (FPD)/UNOPS/UNDP/Scott Wilson Asia-Pacific Ltd., Ha Noi. URL: http://www.un.org.vn/undp/projects/parc/docs/bn12-wildlife-trade-bb-cd.pdf Accessed 31-3-2009.

Fellowes, J. R., Hau, B. C. H., & Chan, B. P. L. 2002. Report of a Rapid Biodiversity Assessment at Chunxiu Headwater Forest Nature Reserve, Southwest Guangxi, China 24 May 1998. South China Forest Biodiversity Survey Report Series (Online Simplified Version). URL: http://www.kfbg.org/content/64/18/2/E09_Chunxiu_report_w.pdf Accessed 31-3-2009.

Grismer, L. L., Neang, T., Chav, T., Wood Jr, P. L., Oaks, J. R., Holden, J., Grismer, J. L., Szutz, T. R., and Youmans, T. M. 2008. Additional amphibians and reptiles from the Phnom Samkos Wildlife Sanctuary in northwestern Cardamon Mountains, Cambodia, with comments on their taxonomy and the discovery of three new species. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 56 (1): 161-175.

HomeGrownHerps. 2009. The Chinese water dragon: Physignathus cocincinus URL: http://www.homegrownherps.com/Care%20Sheets%20Pages/Water%20Dragon%20Care.htm Accessed: 30-3-2009.

ISIS. 2009. ISIS species holdings: Physignathus cocincinus URL: www.isis.org Accessed: 30-3-2009.

Karsen, S. J., Lau, M. W. N., and Bogadek, A. 1998. Hong Kong amphibians and reptiles. The Provisional Urban Council, Hong Kong SAR.

Lau, M. W. N., Ades, G., Goodyer, N., & Zou, F. S. 1996. Wildlife trade in southern China including Hong Kong and Macao. 159 pp. URL: http://www.zd.brim.ac.cn/bwg-cciced/english/bwg-cciced/tech-27.htm Accessed: 30-3-2009.

Le Trong Trai, Le Manh Hung, Ha Van Tue, Trinh Viet Cuong, Nguyen Truong Son, Pham Duc Tien, & Bui Xuan Phuong. 2004. A biodiversity survey of the proposed Francois' Langur Species and Habitat Conservation Area, Tuyen Quang Province, northern Viet Nam. Report prepared by BirdLife International in Indochina for the PARC Project. PARC Project VIE/95/G31 and Forest Protection Department Tuyen Quang, Government of Viet Nam (FPD) / UNOPS / UNDP / Scott Wilson Asia-Pacific Ltd., Ha Noi.

Le Trong Trai, Richardson, W. J., Bui Dac Tuyen, Le Van Cham, Nguyen Huy Dung, Ha Van Hoach, Monastyrskii, A. L., & Eames, J. C. 1999. An investment plan for Ngoc Linh Nature Reserve, Kon Tum Province, Vietnam: a contribution to the management plan. BirdLife International Vietnam Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam. URL: http://www.biology.hcmuns.edu.vn/store/elib/pub/IBA/Cddata/report_pdf/report5.pdf Accessed 31-3-2009.

Li Yiming and Li Dianmo 1996. A preliminary investigation on the status of the wildlife trade in Guangxi, China. Chinese Biodiversity, 4: 57-63.

Ministry of Science, T. a. E. 2000. Red data book of Vietnam, Part 1: animals. Publishing House "Science & Techniques", Hanoi.

Nabhitabhata, J. and Chan-ard, T. 2005. Thailand Red Data: mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Bangkok, Thailand. 234 pp.

Nguyen Quang Truong & Bain, R. 2006. An assessment of the herpetofauna of the Green Corridor Forest Landscape, Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam. Report No 2: Green Corridor Project, WWF Greater Mekong & Vietnam Country Programme and FPD Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam. URL: http://cbc.amnh.org/center/staff/pdf/bain-pub/GCPReport2HerpetofaunaEN.pdf Accessed 31-3-2009.

Nguyen Quang Truong, Nguyen Van Sang, Ngo Xuan Tuong, & Nguyen Truong Son. 2003. Evaluation of the wildlife trade in Na Hang District. PARC Project VIE/95/G31&031,


23

Government of Viet Nam (FPD) UNOPS/UNDP/Scott Wilson Asia-Pacific Ltd., Ha Noi. URL: http://www.un.org.vn/undp/projects/parc/docs/bn13-wildlife-trade-nh.pdf Accessed 30-3-2009.

OffBeatPets. 2009. Profile: Chinese Water Dragons (Physignathus cocincinus) URL: http://www.offbeatpets.com/lizards/chinese-water-dragons-physignathus-cocincinus/00105.html Accessed: 1-4-2009.

Phuong, D. H., Truong, N. Q., Son, N. T., & Khoi, N. V. 2006. A photographic guide to mammals, reptiles and amphibians of Phu Quoc Island, Kien Giang Province, Vietnam. Wildlife at Risk and Phu Quoc National Park. Ho Chi Minh City General Publishing House. URL: http://www.wildlifeatrisk.org/UserFiles/File/PQ%20mammal%20guide%202007.pdf .

Power, T. 2008. Chinese Water Dragons in Vietnam - natural environment. Tricia's Chinese Water Dragon, reptile and amphibian care page URL: http://www.triciaswaterdragon.com/wdvietnam.htm#dragon Accessed: 1-4-2009.

Smithsonian National Zoological Park. 2009. Reptiles & amphibians. Fact sheets. Chinese water dragon URL: http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ReptilesAmphibians/Facts/FactSheets/Asianwaterdragon.cfm Accessed: 30-3-2009.

Stuart, B. 1998a. A survey of amphibians and reptiles in Dong Khanthung Proposed National Biodiversity Conservation Area. CPAWM/WCS.

Stuart, B. 1998b. A survey of amphibians and reptiles in Hin Nam No NBCA, east-central Laos. CPAWM/WCS. Vientiane.

Stuart, B. 1998c. A survey of amphibians and reptiles in Khammouane Limestone National Biodiversity Conservation Area. CPAWM/WCS.

Stuart, B. L. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles, in Duckworth, J. W., Salter, R. E., & Khounboline, K., (eds.), Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 Status Report. IUCN - The World Conservation Union / Wildlife Conservation Society / Centre for Protected Areas and Watershed Management, Vientiane. 43-68.

Stuart, B. L. and Emmett, D. A. 2006. A collection of amphibians and reptiles from the Cardamon Mountains, southwest Cambodia. Fieldiana.Zoology, 109: 1-27.

Stuart, B. L., Sok, K., and Neang, T. 2006. A collection of amphibians and reptiles from hilly eastern Cambodia. Raffles Bull.Zool, 54 (1): 129-155.

To, A. 2005. Another alien has landed: the discovery of a wild population of water dragon, Physignathus cocincinus, in Hong Kong. Porcupine, 33: 3-4.

Tobias, J. 1997. Environmental and social action plan for the Nakai Nam Theun catchment and corridor areas: report of the wildlife survey. WCS report to IUCN.

WAZA. 2008. Chinese water dragon (Physignathus cocincinus). World Association of Zoos and Aquariums URL: http://www.waza.org/virtualzoo/factsheet.php?id=303-001-029-001&view=Sauria,%20Rhynchocephalia Accessed: 30-3-2009.

Zhao, E.-M. 1998. China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals - Amphibia and Reptilia. Science Press, Beijing.

Zhao, E.-M. and Adler, K. 1993. Herpetology of China. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Oxford, Ohio.

Zug, G., Slowinski, J., and Wogan, G. 2003. Checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of Myanmar URL: http://www.calacademy.org/research/herpetology/myanmar/checklist.html Accessed: 3-4-2009.

Pogona vitticeps

24


INTERNATIONAL TRADE

REPTILIA AGAMIDAE

SPECIES: Pogona vitticeps

SYNONYMS: Amphibolurus vitticeps

COMMON NAMES: Inland Bearded Dragon (English)

RANGE STATES: Australia


TRADE PATTERNS:


• Captive bred specimens were advertised on the European pet classified site www.eurofauna.com for €100-120.


• Advertised on the Finnish website www.tiias-pets.net for €130. Source was not specified.

• Advertised on many French websites including www.lafermetropicale.com, www.jungleshop.org, www.evannonce.com, www.marche.fr, www.btanimaux.com, http://paris.kijiji.fr and www.marocain.biz with prices ranging from €30-300 for individuals and €300-400 for breeding pairs. Several websites indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Advertised on many German websites including www.terraristic-classifieds.com, www.reptilica.de, www.hoch-rep.com, www.world-of-tropic.de, www.dhd24.com and www.deine-tierwelt.de, with prices ranging from €20-250. Three websites indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Advertised on the Italian websites www.aziendanaturaviva.com, www.serpenti.it www.zooh.it, www.tropicaliaonline.it and www.tanadinamo.splinder.com for €45-300. Sources were not specified.


• Advertised on the Spanish websites www.dragoreptile.com, http://ciudadcadiz.olx.es, www.mundoanuncio.com and www.habitamos.com for €45-120. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on many British websites including www.faunaimportuk.com, www.the-livingrainforest.co.uk, www.southcoastexotics.com, www.crystalpalacereptiles.com, www.exotic-pets.co.uk, www.tropicalfishworld.net and www.venomreptiles.com, with

Pogona vitticeps

25

prices ranging from £20-495. Three websites indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Information on captive care and breeding was found on many websites including: – www.blackninjakitty.com – www.faunaimportuk.com – http://beardeddragoncaresheet.weebly.com – www.repticzone.com – www.herpcenter.com

Pogona vitticeps was described as “the most commonly found captive bred bearded dragon species” (Periat, 2000), “the second most bred [reptile] species in captivity” (Anon, 2009a) and “popular in the pet trade [...] easy to keep and breed” (Anon, 2009c).

The ‘founder stock’ of today’s captive bred specimens are thought to have been smuggled out of Australia between 1974 and 1990 (Grenard, 1999; in: Periat, 2000), with many of the captive specimens in trade at preset reported to come from German stock (Anon, 2009b).

CONSERVATION STATUS in range states:

Australia: P. vitticeps occurs in the interior of all eastern continental states, to the eastern half of South Australia and south-eastern Northern Territory (Cogger, 2000; Periat, 2000). It was reported to be “found in a very wide range of habitats, from the dry sclerophyll forests and eucalypt and Callitris woodlands in the south-east of its range, through mallee and arid Acacia scrubs to the gibber, sandplain and sand ridge deserts of the interior” (Cogger, 2000).

Hoser (1997) reported that “For Pogona [ssp.], there is no conservation effort required at this stage. Excluding heavily urbanized areas, most populations in Australia are secure and under no known threat. Even areas of heavily degraded and modified habitat still retain large numbers of Pogona [...] These populations may in fact exceed those originally present. Feral animals such as foxes and cats, while preying on these lizards, do not appear to cause problems for populations as a whole. It is likely that the toll taken by feral pests probably roughly equates with the toll that would have been taken by the native predators displaced by the feral ones, meaning no net difference for the lizards.” Tens of thousands of Pogona spp. were reported to be killed on Australia’s roads each year, but it was reported that “it is doubtful if even this has any real impact on numbers” (Hoser, 1997).

Exports of any native wildlife from Australia were reported to have been strictly prohibited since the 1960s (Periat, 2000). The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 prohibits exportation of native reptiles and amphibians from Australia, except where prior permission has been granted by the Commonwealth Minister for Art, Heritage and Environment for display purposes or scientific research at approved institutions (Jenkins, 1985). It was reported that whilst there was some initial smuggling of P. vitticeps following Australia’s ban on wildlife exports, this has now almost stopped (Anon, 2009b).

REFERENCES:

Anon. 2009a. Bearded dragon Pogona vitticeps URL: http://www.faunaimportuk.com/caresheets/csbeardeddragon.htm Accessed: 27-3-2009a.

Anon. 2009b. Care of Bearded Dragons (Pogona vitticeps) URL: http://beardeddragoncaresheet.weebly.com/general-info.html Accessed: 27-3-2009b.

Anon. 2009c. Central Bearded Dragon (Pogona vitticeps) URL: http://www.ozanimals.com/Reptile/Central-Bearded-Dragon/Pogona/vitticeps.html Accessed: 27-3-2009c.

Cogger, H. G. 2000. Reptiles and amphibians of Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney, Australia. Grenard, S. 1999. An owner's guide to a happy healthy pet: the Bearded Dragon. Howell Book House,

New York. Hoser, R. 1997. Pogona - from an Australian perspective. Reptilian Magazine UK, 5 (2). URL:

http://www.smuggled.com/pogona1.htm Accessed: 27-3-2009.

Pogona vitticeps

26

Jenkins, R. W. G. 1985. Government legislation and conservation of endangered reptiles and amphibians, in Grigg, G., Shrine, R., & Ehmann, H., (eds.), The biology of Australasian frogs and reptiles. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited.

Periat, J. 2000. "Pogona vitticeps" (on-line), Animal Diversity Web URL: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Pogona_vitticeps.html Accessed: 26-3-2009.

Abronia graminea

27


INTERNATIONAL TRADE

REPTILIA ANGUIDAE

SPECIES: Abronia graminea

SYNONYMS: -

COMMON NAMES: Terrestrial Alligator Lizard (English)

RANGE STATES: Mexico

IUCN RED LIST: Endangered

TRADE PATTERNS:


• Advertised on the French website www.lafermetropicale.com for €999 (adults). However, this species was reported to be currently unavailable, and it was noted that females were never for sale. Most other reptiles on the website were reported to be captive bred, but the source of Abronia graminea was not specified.

• Advertised on the German website www.hoch-rep.com, with no information on price or source.

• Advertised on the Spanish websites www.dragoreptile.com and www.foroanimales.es, for €1400 and €3000 a pair, respectively. Sources were unspecified.

• Discussion indicating interest in the species was found on many forums such as www.dghtserver.de/foren, www.faunaexotica.net/foro, www.reptileforums.co.uk, www.sanguefreddo.net, www.geckosunlimited.com and http://dragonsdasgard.actifforum.com.

• A hobbyist on the forum http://www.captivebred.co.uk/forum reported that someone in Belgium was selling A. graminea on the Dutch website www.marktplaats.nl/ - but this advert could not be found.

• Hobbyists in the United States (http://forum.kingsnake.com, www.forums.repashy.com) and Canada (www.geckosunlimited.com) also expressed interest in obtaining the species. A hobbyist on the forum www.forums.repashy.com reported to have 4 A. graminea from his breeding project that would shortly be for sale on www.kingsnake.com: “One is a juvenile pair and I will sell for $2,500 USD the other two are unsexed babies (8 months old, so established) and will sell them for 1,000 each. I have legal documentation on all of my animals.”

• Advertised on the American website http://forums.pnwhs.org for $2000. Source was unspecified.

Abronia graminea

28

Discussions on internet forums indicated that many hobbyists were interested in owning Abronia graminea but that they were available infrequently and tended to be expensive. There was some indication that specimens were captive bred: a hobbyist on www.captivebred.co.uk/forum stated “Abronia species are kept (and bred) by very few people both in the USA and in Europe”; on the forum www.geckosunlimited.com, a hobbyist in the US commented “I will be importing a small group of Abronia graminea this year from Mexico. They will be CB babies, and most of them are already sold out but they will have all legal documentation”; and a hobbyist in Germany noted “a close friend of mine is breeding them (only a very few each year).” However, another hobbyist in the US commented “I would love to be able to tag along with [...] on his many trips to Mexico to find these guys”, indicating that there may be some collection of wild-caught specimens. Concerning prices, a hobbyist on www.reptileforums.co.uk reported “last time I saw some for sale there were 1800 Euros a pair” and another reported “I found a few breeders in Europe [...] I priced them at about £1200 - £1500 a young pair.” A hobbyist on www.captivebred.co.uk/forum reported that A. graminea cost about £1700 a pair.

Wagner (2008a) reported establishment of a captive breeding project in Veracruz, Mexico, consisting of 19 breeding adult A. graminea. He reported that in cooperation with national wildlife agencies (SEMARNAT and PROFEPA), a small number of captive-bred offspring from the breeding project could be exported each year.


Mexico: A. graminea is a small tree-dwelling lizard endemic to the highlands of the States of Veracruz and adjacent Puebla, Mexico, where it inhabits bromeliads in the canopy of montane pine-oak and cloud forest, at an elevational range of 1,350 to 2,743 m a.s.l. (Flores-Villela and Santos-Barrera, 2007). It was classified as Endangered in the IUCN Red List (Flores-Villela and Santos-Barrera, 2007), as “the extent of occurrence is less than 3,000 km², populations are severely fragmented and there is a continuing decline in the area and quality of forest habitat.”

Flores-Villela and Santos-Barrera (2007) reported that A. graminea was considered to be moderately common and frequently recorded within its restricted range, although it was assigned a population trend of Decreasing. Wagner (2008b) reported that they were “uncommon to extremely rare in their native habitats.”

Major threats were reported to be “deforestation and degradation of habitat, largely through the conversion of land to agricultural use” (Flores-Villela and Santos-Barrera, 2007). The pet trade was also reported to be a potential threat to the species, although current levels of exploitation were considered to be unclear, and it was recommended that further research was needed into current levels of exploitation (Flores-Villela and Santos-Barrera, 2007). Wagner (2008b) also reported human persecution to be a threat, stating that “Abronia are often targeted and killed upon sight because many local people are under the false impression that the animals are venomous [...] We have encountered instances of this as an example just in the past year where a peasant farmer estimated he had killed about 30 adult Abronia graminea on his 100 acres of land, over a 12 month period.”

A. graminea was reported to occur in two protected areas: El Cañón Río Blanco and Pico de Orizaba National Park (Flores-Villela and Santos-Barrera, 2007). Wagner (2008b) reported that Project Abronia was conducting in situ conservation activities, including educating local people and buying up small pieces of land to protect A. graminea in its natural habitat.

A. graminea is listed on the Mexican Federal Endangered Species List (May 16 2000) under the category –‘Special Protection’ (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, 2000). Species are categorised as in need of ‘Special protection’ when it is considered that they might be threatened and therefore in need of conservation action (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, 2000).

Abronia graminea

29

REFERENCES:

Flores-Villela, O. and Santos-Barrera, G. 2007. Abronia graminea. In: IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 24-3-2009.

Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca. 2000. Proyecto de Norma Oficial Mexicana PROY-NOM-059-ECOL-2000, Protección ambiental-Especies de flora y fauna silvestres de México-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. URL: http://www.economia.gob.mx/work/normas/noms/kpronoman/p059ecol.pdf Accessed: 24-3-2009.

Wagner, J. 2008a. Captive Breeding Project URL: http://projectabronia.com/captive-breeding-project.html Accessed: 24-3-2009a.

Wagner, J. 2008b. Conservation URL: http://projectabronia.com/conservation.html Accessed: 24-3-2009b.

Eublepharis macularius

30


INTERNATIONAL TRADE

REPTILIA GEKKONIDAE

SPECIES: Eublepharis macularius

SYNONYMS: -

COMMON NAMES: Leopard Gecko (English), Northern Leopard Gecko

(English), Leopardgecko (German)

RANGE STATES: Afghanistan, India, Pakistan


TRADE PATTERNS:


• Advertised on the European pet classified site www.eurofauna.com for €30-100. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on the Finnish website www.tiias-pets.net for €69. Source was not specified.

• Advertised on many French websites including www.lafermetropicale.com, www.jungleshop.org, www.marche.fr, http://pagesperso-orange.fr, www.gusbazar.com and http://paris.kijiji.fr, with prices ranging from €39-270. One website indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Advertised on many German websites including www.terraristic-classifieds.com, www.reptilica.de, www.reptipark.de, www.hoch-rep.com, www.tropicfauna.de, http://mecklenburg-vorpommern.kijiji.de, http://suche.deine-tierwelt.de and www.aqua-andy.de, with prices ranging from €25-130. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on the Italian website www.aziendanaturaviva.com for €38-75. Sources were not specified.


• Advertised on the Spanish websites www.dragoreptile.com, http://terrariomania.mforos.com, www.euroreptiles.com and http://foroanimales.es for €24-50. Sources were generally not specified but one site advertised captive-bred juveniles.

• Advertised on many British websites including www.faunaimportuk.com, www.the-livingrainforest.co.uk, www.southcoastexotics.com, www.crystalpalacereptiles.com, www.charltonreptiles.co.uk, www.thereptileroom.co.uk and


31

www.stockportpetwarehouse.com, with prices ranging from £35-565. Almost all websites indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Many more advertisements were seen using the common name ‘leopard gecko’. • Information on captive care and breeding was found on many websites including:

– www.progeckos.com – www.wnyherp.org – www.southwalesreptiles.org.uk – www.geckosunlimited.com – www.geckolist.com – www.rtpnet.org – http://aqua-terra-vita.com

Many reports indicated that E. macularius is commonly bred in captivity, for example:

– Bartlett and Bartlett (1995) stated that “Without question, the gecko species most favoured by herpetoculturists is the hardy and attractive leopard gecko (Eublepharis macularius). Captive colonies now produce sufficient numbers of leopard geckos to virtually sustain the demand of hobbyists [...] Thus, despite the fact that thousands of these lizards are sold annually, relatively few wild-caught specimens are imported.”

– Beebe (2007) reported that E. macularius had been bred in captivity for many years, resulting in many variants which looked quite different from wild specimens.

– Castellanos (2009) described E. macularius as “one of the most popular and easiest geckos to keep in captivity” and “one of the easiest geckos to breed.”

– Woods (2001) reported that “Leopard geckoes are a very popular pet animal. Most pet store stock is believed to be captive bred at this time, with a mainly Pakistani ancestry (de Vosjoli, 1990; Hunziker, 1994).”

– Hasz (2009) described E. macularius as “perhaps the most widely bred captive reptile in the world.”

– Tremper (1996) stated that “For decades this lizard was the only species being bred in captivity generation-after- generation. It has a fantastic tract record and is probably the most widely kept pet lizard next to the sometimes troublesome green iguana, (Iguana iguana).”

– Brant (2001) reported that one US commercial reptile breeders produced 55,000 captive-bred E. macularius in just one year.


Beebe (2007) described E. macularius as “nocturnal, ground-dwelling geckos native to desert environments such as those of Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Mojave Desert, and Western India”. One online care sheet (Hasz, 2009) described E. macularius as “Common in the wild.”

Several online sources reported that E. macularius occurs in Iran and Iraq (e.g. Woods, 2001), however, no published distribution records for this species were found, and Leviton et al. (1992) commented that “E. macularius is often cited for Iran and Iraq, but that species does not occur west of Pakistan.”

Afghanistan: E. macularius was reported to be found “From eastern Afghanistan south of the Hindu Kush and the Northwest Frontier Provinces” (AfghanGeckos, 2009). No information on conservation status was found.

India: E. macularius was reported to inhabit arid country, occurring in “Gujarat, Rajastan, and as far south as Pune in the Deccan” (Daniel, 1983; Molur and Walker, 1998) and also in “Bhopal in M.P and Kanara in Karnataka” (Molur and Walker, 1998).

Molur and Walker (1998) reported that E. macularius had an estimated range of >20,000 km2 and an estimated area of occupancy of >2,000 km2, that it was found at many locations, but that national/ regional/global populations were unknown. It was assigned the IUCN Red List


32

category of Lower Risk/least concern (nationally) and Data Deficient (globally), with no trade or threats reported (Molur and Walker, 1998).

Pakistan: E. macularius was included in several checklists of reptiles from Pakistan (Khan, 1972; Khan, 2002; Khan, 2004). The following information was given about its distribution: “it has been recorded from Azad Kashmir, NWFP, northern Punjab, Balochistan and lower Sindh. Its range extends from Rajputana and Khandesh District of India” (Khan, 2002).

REFERENCES:

AfghanGeckos. 2009. Afghan geckos: Eublepharis macularius URL: http://afghangeckos.netfirms.com/macularius.htm Accessed: 30-3-2009.

Bartlett, R. D. and Bartlett, P. P. 1995. Geckos: everything about selection, care, nutrition, diseases, breeding, and behaviour. Barrons Educational Series Inc.

Beebe, J. 2007. Eublepharis macularis - aka Leopard Gecko URL: http://ezinearticles.com/?Eublepharis-Macularius---aka-Leopard-Gecko&id=563029 Accessed: 26-3-2009.


Castellanos, C. 2009. Leopard gecko Eublepharis macularius URL: http://www.progeckos.com/caresheets/leos.pdf Accessed: 26-4-2009.

Daniel, J. C. 1983. The book of Indian reptiles. Bombay Natural History Society, Oxford University Press.

de Vosjoli, P. 1990. The general care and maintenance of Leopard Geckoes and African Fat-tailed Geckoes. Lakeside, C.A.: Advanced Vivarium Systems.

Hasz, M. 2009. Leopard Gecko Eublepharis macularius. Animal care sheets from the North Carolina Herpetological Society URL: http://www.rtpnet.org/ncherps/pdf_forms/Leopard%20Gecko.pdf Accessed: 24-3-2009.

Hunziker, R. 1994. Leopard Geckoes: identification, care and breeding. T.F.H. Publications Inc, Neptune City, NJ.

Khan, M. S. 1972. Checklist and Key to the Lizards of Jhangh District, West Pakistan. Herpetologica, 28 (2): 94-98.

Khan, M. S. 2002. Key and checklist to the lizards of Pakistan. Herpetozoa, 15 (3/4): 99-119. Khan, M. S. 2004. Annotated checklist of amphibians and reptiles of Pakistan. Asiatic Herpetological Research, 10: 191-201.

Leviton, A. E., Anderson, S. C., Adler, K., and Minton, S. A. 1992. Handbook to Middle East amphibians and reptiles. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

Molur, S. & Walker, S. 1998. Report of the workshop "Conservation Assessment and Management Plan for reptiles of India" (BCPP- Endangered Species Project). Zoo Outreach Organisation, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, India, Coimbatore, India. URL: http://www.cbsg.org/cbsg/workshopreports/24/reptiles_of_india_camp_(1998).pdf Accessed 30-3-2009.

Tremper, R. 1996. Leopard Geckos: past and future, Reptiles Magazine, URL: http://www.leopardgecko.com/emcare.html Accessed 30-3-2009.

Woods, V. 2001. "Eublepharis macularius" (on-line), Animal Diversity Web URL: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Eublepharis_macularius.html Accessed: 26-3-2009.

Elaphe guttata

33


INTERNATIONAL TRADE

REPTILIA GEKKONIDAE

SPECIES: Gekko gecko

SYNONYMS: -

COMMON NAMES: Tokay Gecko (English)

RANGE STATES: Bangladesh, Belize (int), Cambodia, China, Hong

Kong, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Martinique (int), Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Province of China, Thailand, United States of America (int), Viet Nam


TRADE PATTERNS:


• Advertised on the French websites www.lafermetropicale.com, www.jungleshop.org, www.marche.fr and www.3bscientific.fr for €6-35. One website indicated that specimens were wild-caught.

• On the forum http://dragonsdasgard.actifforum.com, G. gecko was advertised on a pricelist of species imported from Indonesia, costing roughly $0.80 per specimen.

• Advertised on the German websites www.reptilica.de, www.hoch-rep.com, www.deine-tierwelt.de, www.dhd24.com and www.terrino.de for €10-15. Two websites indicated that specimens were captive bred.


• Was not found advertised on any Spanish websites, although on the forum www.faunaexotica.net/foro, hobbyists discussed the species and reported that they generally cost €18 - €55.

• Advertised for sale on the British websites www.faunaimportuk.com, www.crystalpalacereptiles.com, www.exotic-pets.co.uk and www.reptileforums.co.uk for £45-895. Two websites indicated that specimens were wild-caught.

• Many more advertisements were seen using the common name ‘Tockay gecko’. • Information on captive care and breeding was found on many websites including:

– www.wnyherp.org – www.flockreptiles.com – www.gekkota.com – http://geckoinformation.info

Elaphe guttata

34

– www.anapsid.org Baldwin (2009) stated that “Tokays are one of the easiest species of gecko to keep and breed in captivity, but, ironically, most specimens offered for sale are wild-collected animals.”


Teynié (2004) gave the following description of Gekko gecko: “This very large and colourful gecko is fairly common in suburban and disturbed areas almost all over South-east Asia at low elevations; It is less common in forest [...] Gekko gecko is often collected for food, medicine or pet trade.” Cox (1998) reported the species to occur “throughout eastern tropical Asia”.

Lever (2003) reported that G. gecko had been introduced to many countries, with naturalised populations in the Philippines, United States, the Hawaiian Islands and possibly Japan (the Ryukyu Archipelago), Madagascar and Samoa. Some populations were thought to be descendents of escaped pets or individuals released intentionally in the hope that they would control cockroaches, others may have originated from wild geckos transported amongst shipments from their native countries (Lever, 2003). In addition, G. gecko was reported to have been introduced to the Lesser Antillean islands (Powell and Henderson, 2005), Martinique, French West Indies (Henderson et al., 1993) and Belize (Biological-Diversity.INFO, 2009).

Bangladesh: G. gecko was reported to occur in the Sundarbans and adjacent areas (Seidensticker and Hai, 1983) and the Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary (Uddin and Foisal, 2007). No information on conservation status was found.

Cambodia: G. gecko was reported to occur in eastern Cambodia (Stuart et al., 2006); Tonle Sap, central Cambodia (Campbell et al., 2006); and in the Cardamom Mountains, southwest Cambodia (Grismer et al., 2008). It was listed as a species characteristic of anthropogenically-modified environments (Stuart et al., 2006).

China: G. gecko was reported to occur in southern China, westward to Yunnan (Zhao and Adler, 1993). It was recorded on cliffs in and around Dapingshan Headwater Forest Nature Reserve, east Guangxi (Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, 2002a), on cliffs at Fusui Rare Animal Nature Reserve, southwest Guangxi (Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, 2002b) and on cliffs, forest/cliffs and forest edge at Nonggang National Nature Reserve, southwest Guangxi, where “Calls of Gekko gecko were also commonly heard” (Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, 2002c).

G. gecko was classified as Endangered in the China Red Data Book (Zhao, 1998). Chan et al. (2006) reported that “Species that have been victims of worldwide pet and food trade include the Tokay Geckos, one of the largest gecko species in the world, whose wild populations have declined considerably in mainland China.”

G. gecko was reported to figure prominently in Traditional Chinese Medicine (Zhao and Adler, 1993; Yinfeng et al., 1997; Li et al., 2004), with dried G. gecko bodies seen for sale throughout the country (Zhao and Adler, 1993). The species was also reported to be commonly consumed in south China, with huge trade volumes (Lau et al., 1996).

In a study of the sustainability of wildlife use for TCM in China, Yinfeng et al. (1997) found that in a survey of six markets (May-June 2006), G. gecko was offered for sale at all of them, including an estimated 900 individuals offered for sale at one market. They also found that in a survey of thirteen TCM manufacturers 1990-1995, G. gecko was used at two, with an annual average consumption of >3,000 pairs (Yinfeng et al., 1997).

G. gecko was reported to be involved in the wildlife trade in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, southern China, specifically as live wildlife, food and drink and medicines (Li Yiming and Li Dianmo, 1996). It was reported that large quantities of G. gecko were purchased 1950-1970, which then declined in the 1980s (Li Yiming and Li Dianmo, 1996).

Yinfeng et al. (1997) reported that G. gecko was farmed extensively in China, with farming occurring in two provinces, with 303 farms, involving at least 415,000 animals. Shi et al. (2004) reported that a wildlife farm in Daxin County, Guangxi Province had successfully bred 1,800

Elaphe guttata

35

G. gecko. However, the supply of many species used in TCM, including G. gecko, was reported not to meet the demand (China National Corporation of Traditional and Herbal Medicine, 1995 in: Yinfeng et al., 1997), and Yinfeng et al. (1997) stated that, according to their survey, the demand for G. gecko was met solely by wild populations.

G. gecko was reported to be listed in Appendix II of the Wild Animal Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China and Category II of the Regulations on the Conservation and Management of Wild Resources of Medicinal Plants and Animals (Yinfeng et al., 1997).

Yinfeng et al. (1997) gave the following information about wildlife legislation in China:

“Wild Animal Protection Law (WAPL) of China puts protected species into two categories, which are included in List of Wild Animals under State Protection. Capture, killing, sale, purchase, transportation and carrying of protected species or products thereof are prohibited unless approved by wildlife authorities at certain level. Once approved, Special Hunting Permit and Hunting Gun Possession License are required to capture or kill protected species. In addition, Regulations for the Conservation of Wild Terrestrial Animals explicitly forbid the sale and purchase of protected species or products thereof in markets. Regulations on the Conservation and Management of Wild Resources of Medicinal Plants and Animals afford three categories of protection to a total of 76 species corresponding to 42 types of plant and animal items included in the List of Wild Resources of Medicinal Plants and Animals under State Protection. The Regulations forbid the collection or killing of species included in Category I. The collection or killing of Category II or III species are subject to prior grant of Medicine Collection Permit based on plans proposed by medicine departments in collaboration with wildlife departments at or above county level and approved by medicine departments at higher level. The Regulations further provide that businesses in Category II and III species shall only be undertaken by China TCM Company.”

However, Yinfeng et al. (1997) reported that this legislation needed to be implemented and enforced more effectively.

Hong Kong, S. A. R. : Chan et al. (2006) reported G. gecko to be “locally uncommon” in Hong Kong, found in Lantau, Lion Rock and Mid-Levels, with most sightings from Lantau Island. Populations in suburban areas were thought to probably be escapees, as G. gecko was reported to be widely available in pet shops (Chan et al., 2006).

Lau et al. (1996) reported that “According to the trade statistics of Hong Kong, from November 1993 to October 1994 Hong Kong is recorded to have imported [...] over 36,000 Tokay Geckos from Thailand. Demand in neighbouring southern China is expected to be even higher” and that “It is not known whether any of these animals are re-exported to China.”

All native gecko species, including G. gecko , were reported to occur in Hong Kong’s protected areas, such as the Country Parks (Chan et al., 2006).

Taiwan, Province of China: Lue (1987) reported the occurrence of G. gecko in Taiwan. However, it was reported in Zhao and Adler (1993) that the range of G. gecko possibly included Taiwan, but that “H. Ota (1989 in: Matsui et al., 1989) believes that old records for Taiwan represent temporary invasions since there are no recent records for this species on the island.”

India: G. gecko was reported to occur in northeastern India (Molur and Walker, 1998; Pawar et al., 2007; Das, 2008). Daniel (1983) reported that it is found only in Bihar, Bengal and Assam.

Molur and Walker (1998) reported that Gekko g. gecko had an estimated range of >20,000 km2 and an estimated area of occupancy of >2,000 km2, that it was found at many locations, but that national/regional/global populations were unknown. It was assigned the IUCN Red List category of Data Deficient, both nationally and globally, there was thought to be no trade in the species and threats were reported to be unknown (Molur and Walker, 1998).

Elaphe guttata

36

Pawar et al. (2007) reported 50 unique occurrences of G. gecko in the Northeast Indian conservation area network; 1.5% of the species’ expected range was predicted to occur within NE India’s protected areas.

Indonesia: Kurniandaru (2008) described G. gecko as “a common species at Prambanan”, Java, Indonesia. Thornton et al. (1988) recorded G. gecko on the islands of Krakatau 1984-86; they reported that it was probably a recent coloniser and that it had a restricted distribution.

Lao People's Democratic Republic: G. gecko has been recorded in the north, centre and south of Lao PDR (Davidson et al., 1997; Stuart, 1998abc in: Stuart, 1999; Teynié et al., 2004; Teynié, 2004). It was reported to be found “in the canopy of most forest types,” as well as being “commonly seen on houses and other people-made structures” (Stuart, 1999).

It was reported in Stuart (1999) that “more than 7,000 individuals of this genus (and probably of this species based on its abundance and frequent contact with people) were reported to be legally exported from Lao PDR in 1995-1996 (Foppes and Kethpanh, 1997).” Duckworth et al. (1999) reported that whilst many G. gecko are collected for trade, the effect of this on populations is unknown.

Malaysia: G. gecko was reported to occur in southern Malaysia (Grismer, 2006). No information on conservation status was found.

Myanmar: G. gecko was reported to occur in Myanmar (Zug et al., 2003). Zug et al. (1998) recorded its presence in the dry deciduous dipterocarp forest of Chatthin Wildlife Sanctuary and adjacent the farmlands, north central Myanmar. No information on conservation status was found.

Nepal: G. gecko was reported to occur in Eastern Nepal, where it was considered ‘rare’ (Shrestha, 2000).

Philippines: G. gecko was reported to occur on San Salvador Island, Zambales Province and in Bataan Province (Brown et al., 1996); the central Philippine island of Panay and its associated islands (Ferner et al., 2000); disturbed lowland forests of the Sierra Madre Mountains, northeast coast of Luzon Island (Diesmos, 2007) and in Balbalasang-Balbalan National Park (BBNP) Municipality of Balbalan, Kalinga Province (Diesmos et al., 2004).

In Balbalasang-Balbalan National Park, Diesmos et al. (2004) reported its occurrence in edges and secondary forest and in open and built-up areas at altitudes of 750-950 m, with a relative abundance of ‘common’ and, on the island of Panay, Ferner et al. (2000) stated that “This common species is found around human habitation and in forest adjacent to disturbed areas.”

Singapore: G. gecko was reported to be native to Singapore (National Biodiversity Reference Centre Singapore, 2006). No information on conservation status was found.

Thailand: G. gecko was classified as Least Concern in the Thailand Red Data Book (Nabhitabhata and Chan-ard, 2005). It was reported to occur “in all habitats of forest and other plantations, including houses and gardens in towns” and to be found in all provinces (Nabhitabhata and Chan-ard, 2005).

Pauwels et al. (2003) recorded G. gecko in Phetchaburi Province, western peninsular Thailand, and described it as an “Ubiquitous nocturnal species, found in houses as well as in evergreen forest.”

Aowphol et al. (2006) stated that “It is the only species of the genus Gekko that is found throughout Thailand including the large cities.”

Viet Nam: G. gecko was recorded in Ba Be and Cho Don Districts, Bac Kan province (Dang et al., 2003), Na Hang District, Tuyen Quang Province (Nguyen Quang Truong et al., 2003), Phu Quoc Island, Kien Giang Province (Phuong et al., 2006), the proposed ‘Francois’ Langur Species and Habitat Conservation Area’ in Na Hang District of Tuyen Quang Province (Bezuijen et al., 2004; Le Trong Trai et al., 2004),

Elaphe guttata

37

Thua Thien Hue Province (Nguyen Quang Truong and Bain, 2006) and Ngoc Linh Nature Reserve, Kon Tum Province (Le Trong Trai et al., 1999). It was classified as Threatened in the Viet Nam Red Data Book (Ministry of Science, 2000).

Stuart (2004) reported that:“Gekko gecko is frequently traded for medicinal purposes in Viet Nam and China (Martin, 1992; Nash, 1997; Yiming and Dianmo, 1998; Li and Wang, 1999; Cuc Phuong Conservation Project and TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, 2000; Ziegler, 2002)”and that: “Reptiles from Laos and Cambodia are exported to Viet Nam, often via a series of traders, where they join Vietnamese reptiles along northward trade routes to China (Nash, 1997; Compton and Le, 1998; Stuart et al., 2000) .”

In two surveys to evaluate illegal hunting, use and trade of wildlife in Ba Be and Cho Don Districts, Bac Kan province (Dang et al., 2003), and Na Hang District, Tuyen Quang Province (Nguyen Quang Truong et al., 2003), G. gecko was reported to be ‘commonly traded’ (defined as: recorded in at least two locations including village, restaurant, medicine shop or middlemen house, where the number of individuals at each sighting was more than ten animals). A number of illegal wildlife transportation cases were reported in Ba Be and Cho Don Districts, including a seizure of 124kg of reptiles in 2002, which included G. gecko (Dang et al., 2003). G. gecko was listed as a species considered valuable for traditional medicine (Dang et al., 2003; Nguyen Quang Truong et al., 2003) and kept locally as a pet (Nguyen Quang Truong et al., 2003). Despite the existence of national and local legislation to manage and control wildlife trade, enforcement effectiveness was reported to be very low in Ba Be and Cho Don Districts, mainly due to large profits and traditional habits (Dang et al., 2003). Implementation of legislation in Na Hang District was reported to have played an important role in limiting illegal wildlife trade activities in the area (Nguyen Quang Truong et al., 2003).

Hendrie (2000) reported two seizures of wildlife shipments which included G. gecko in early 2000; shipments were thought to be destined for the Chinese border. G. gecko was also found offered for sale at two pet markets (Hendrie, 2000).

In two market surveys of animals used in traditional medicines in Viet Nam, Nguyen Dao Ngoc Van and Nguyen Tap (2008) reported that wild sourced G. gecko were offered for sale, either dried or steeped in alcohol. Captive-bred G. gecko were also reported to be used for traditional medicines in Viet Nam, however “traders interviewed in the south of Viet Nam [...] suggested that the number of animals currently bred in captivity in Viet Nam does not meet the market demand for these species” (Nguyen Dao Ngoc Van and Nguyen Tap, 2008).

REFERENCES:

Aowphol, A., Thirakhupt, K., Nabhitabhata, J., and Voris, H. K. 2006. Foraging ecology of the Tokay gecko, Gekko gecko in a residential area in Thailand. Amphibia-Reptilia, 27 (4): 491-503.

Baldwin, R. 2009. Tokay gecko information: an introduction to the popular pet store lizard - the Tokay gecko URL: http://www.reptilechannel.com/media/lizards/wild-lizards/look-tokay-gecko.aspx.pdf Accessed: 2-4-2009.

Bezuijen, M. R., Potess, L. F., Quan Van Tue, Trinh Thang Long, Nguyen Hung Manh, and Insua-Cao, P. 2004. Development of the Francois' Langur Species and Habitat Conservation Area, Tuyen Quang Province, Viet Nam. PARC Project VIE/95/G31 and Forest Protection Department Tuyen Quang, Government of Viet Nam (FDP)/UNOPS/UNDP/Scott Wilson Asia-Pacific Ltd., Ha Noi. URL: http://www.un.org.vn/undp/projects/parc/docs/sl26-report.pdf Accessed 31-3-2009.

Biological-Diversity.INFO. 2009. Reptiles of Belize URL: http://biological-diversity.info/reptiles.htm Accessed: 3-4-2009.

Brown, R. M., Ferner, J. W., Sison, R. V., Gonzales, P. C., and Kennedy, R. S. 1996. Amphibians and reptiles of the Zambales mountains of Luzon Islands, Republic of the Philippines. Herpetological Natural History, 4 (1): 1-22.

Campbell, I. C., Poole, C., Giesen, W., and Valbo-Jorgensen, J. 2006. Species diversity and ecology of Tonle Sap Great lake, Cambodia. Aquatic Sciences-Research Across Boundaries, 68 (3): 355-373.

Elaphe guttata

38

Chan, S. K. F., Cheung, K., Ho, C., Lam, F., and Tang, W. 2006. The geckos of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Biodiversity: Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department Newsletter, 13: 1-9.

China National Corporation of Traditional and Herbal Medicine. 1995. Materia medica commonly used in China. Science Press. Beijing (in Chinese).

Compton, J. and Le, Q. H. 1998. Borderline: an assessment of wildlife trade in Vietnam. WWF Indochina Programme. Hanoi, Viet Nam.

Cox, M. J. 1998. A photographic guide to snakes and other reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New Holland, London, UK. 144 pp.

Cuc Phuong Conservation Project and TRAFFIC Southeast Asia 2000. Seizures and prosecutions: Viet Nam. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 18 (3): 127-128.

Dang, N. X., Van Sang, N., Van La, T., Tuong, N. X., and Truong, N. Q. 2003. Evaluation of the wildlife trade in Ba Be and Cho Don Districts. PARC Project VIE/95/G31&031, Government of Viet Nam (FPD)/UNOPS/UNDP/Scott Wilson Asia-Pacific Ltd., Ha Noi. URL: http://www.un.org.vn/undp/projects/parc/docs/bn12-wildlife-trade-bb-cd.pdf Accessed: 3-4-2009.

Daniel, J. C. 1983. The book of Indian reptiles. Bombay Natural History Society, Oxford University Press.

Das, A. 2008. Diversity and distribution of herpetofauna and evaluation conservation status in Barail Hill Range (Including Barail Wildlife Sanctuary), Assam, Northeast India URL: http://rufford.org/files/Final%20Report.pdf Accessed: 1-4-2009.

Davidson, P., Robichaud, W. G., Tizard, R. J., Vongkhamheng, C., and Wolstencroft, J. 1997. A wildlife and habitat survey of Dong Ampham NBCA and Phou Kathong proposed NBCA, Attapu Province, Lao PDR. Vientiane. CPAWM/WCS.

Diesmos, A. C. 2007. Conservation of herpetofaunal communities in fragmented lowland rainforests in the Philippines. Rufford Small Grant for Nature Conservation, Project Reference No. 171/07/04. URL: http://www.ruffordsmallgrants.org/files/RSGFinalReport.Diesmos2007.pdf Accessed: 3-4-2009.

Diesmos, A. C., Brown, R. M., and Gee, G. V. A. 2004. Preliminary report on the amphibians and reptiles of BalbalasangûBalbalan National Park, Luzon Island, Philippines. Sylvatrop, the Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources, 13: 63-80.

Duckworth, J. W., Salter, R. E., and Robichaud, W. G. 1999. Introduction, in Duckworth, J. W., Salter, R. E., & Khounboline, K., (eds.), Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 status report. IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Wildlife Conservation Society, Centre for Protected Areas and Watershed Management, Vietiane.

Ferner, J. W., Brown, R. M., Sison, R. V., and Kennedy, R. S. 2000. The amphibians and reptiles of Panay Island, Philippines. Asiatic Herpetological Research, 9: 1-37.

Foppes, J. and Kethpanh, S. 1997. The use of non-timber forest products in Lao PDR. Paper presented at the Workshop on Sustainable Management of Non-Wood Forest Products, Malaysia, October 1997.

Grismer, L. L. 2006. Slender toes in southern Malaysia. Iguana, 13 (1): 3-6. Grismer, L. L., Neang, T., Chav, T., Wood Jr, P. L., Oaks, J. R., Holden, J., Grismer, J. L., Szutz, T.

R., and Youmans, T. M. 2008. Additional amphibians and reptiles from the Phnom Samkos Wildlife Sanctuary in northwestern Cardamon Mountains, Cambodia, with comments on their taxonomy and the discovery of three new species. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 56 (1): 161-175.

Henderson, R. W., De Latte, A., and McCarthy, T. J. 1993. Gekko gecko (Sauria: Gekkonidae) established on Martinique, French West Indies. Caribbean Journal of Science, 29: 128-129.

Hendrie, D. B. 2000. Compiled notes on the wildlife trade in Vietnam. Report to TRAFFIC SEA, Cuc Phuong Conservation Project. URL: http://nytts.org/VIETNAM/tradenotes_05-00.pdf Accessed: 3-4-2009.

Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden. 2002a. Report of a rapid biodiversity assessment at Dapingshan Headwater Forest Nature Reserve, east Guangxi, China, 24 to 27 September 1998. South China Forest Biodiversity Survey Report Series: No. 19 (Online Simplified Version). KFBG, Hong Kong SAR. URL:

Elaphe guttata

39

http://www.kfbg.org.hk/content/56/18/2/E19_Dapingshan_report_w.pdf Accessed 2-4-2009a.

Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden. 2002b. Report of rapid biodiversity assessments at Fusui Rare Animal Nature Reserve, southwest Guangxi, China, 1998 and 2001. South China Forest Biodiversity Survey Report Series. No: 12 (Online Simplified Version). KFBG, Hong Kong SAR. URL: http://www.kfbg.org/content/62/18/2/E12_Fusui_report_w.pdf Accessed 2-4-2009b.

Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden. 2002c. Report of rapid biodiversity assessments at Nonggang National Nature Reserve, southwest Guangxi, China, 19 to 27 May 1998. South China Forest Biodiversity Survey Report Series: No 10 (Online Simplified Version). KFBG, Hong Kong SAR. URL: http://www.kfbg.org/content/34/13/2/E10_Nonggang_report_w.pdf Accessed 2-4-2009c.

Kurniandaru, S. 2008. Providing nest boxes for Java sparrows Padda oryzivora in response to nest site loss due to building restoration and an earthquake, Prambanan Temple, Java, Indonesia. Conservation Evidence, 5: 62-68.

Lau, M. W. N., Ades, G., Goodyer, N., and Zou, F. S. 1996. Wildlife trade in southern China including Hong Kong and Macao. 159 pp. URL: http://www.zd.brim.ac.cn/bwg-cciced/english/bwg-cciced/tech-27.htm Accessed: 3-4-2009.

Le Trong Trai, Le Manh Hung, Ha Van Tue, Trinh Viet Cuong, Nguyen Truong Son, Pham Duc Tien, and Bui Xuan Phuong. 2004. A biodiversity survey of the proposed Francois' Langur Species and Habitat Conservation Area, Tuyen Quang Province, northern Viet Nam. Report prepared by BirdLife International in Indochina for the PARC Project. PARC Project VIE/95/G31 and Forest Protection Department Tuyen Quang, Government of Viet Nam (FPD) / UNOPS / UNDP / Scott Wilson Asia-Pacific Ltd., Ha Noi.

Le Trong Trai, Richardson, W. J., Bui Dac Tuyen, Le Van Cham, Nguyen Huy Dung, Ha Van Hoach, Monastyrskii, A. L., and Eames, J. C. 1999. An investment plan for Ngoc Linh Nature Reserve, Kon Tum Province, Vietnam: a contribution to the management plan. BirdLife International Vietnam Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam. URL: http://www.biology.hcmuns.edu.vn/store/elib/pub/IBA/Cddata/report_pdf/report5.pdf Accessed 31-3-2009.

Lever, C. 2003. Naturalized reptiles and amphibians of the world. Oxford University Press, USA. Li Yiming and Li Dianmo 1996. A preliminary investigation on the status of the wildlife trade in

Guangxi, China. Chinese Biodiversity, 4: 57-63. Li, W. and Wang, H. 1999. Wildlife trade in Yunnan Province, China, at the border with

Vietnam. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 18 (1): 21-30. Li, W. L., Zheng, H. C., Bukuru, J., and De Kimpe, N. 2004. Natural medicines used in the

traditional Chinese medical system for therapy of diabetes mellitus. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 92 (1): 1-21.

Lue, K. Y. 1987. Taiwan lizards. Taiwan Provincial Department of Education, Taiwan, Republic of China.

Martin, E. B. 1992. Observations on wildlife trade in Viet Nam. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 13 (2): 61-67. Matsui, M., Hikida, T., and Goris, R. C. 1989. Current Herpetology in East Asia. Proceedings of the

second Japan-China Herpetological Symposium Kyoto, July 1998. Herpetological Society of Japan. Kyoto.

Ministry of Science, T. a. E. 2000. Red data book of Vietnam, Part 1: animals. Publishing House "Science & Techniques", Hanoi.

Molur, S. and Walker, S. 1998. Report of the workshop "Conservation Assessment and Management Plan for reptiles of India" (BCPP- Endangered Species Project). Zoo Outreach Organisation, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, India, Coimbatore, India. URL: http://www.cbsg.org/cbsg/workshopreports/24/reptiles_of_india_camp_(1998).pdf Accessed 30-3-2009.

Nabhitabhata, J. and Chan-ard, T. 2005. Thailand Red Data: mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Bangkok, Thailand. 234 pp.

Nash, S. V. 1997. Fin, feather, scale and skin: observations on the wildlife trade in Lao PDR and Vietnam. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia. Malaysia.

Elaphe guttata

40

National Biodiversity Reference Centre Singapore. 2006. List of reptile species present in Singapore URL: http://www.nbrcnparks.org/pdf/Bio_List_Reptiles.pdf Accessed: 2-4-2009.

Nguyen Dao Ngoc Van and Nguyen Tap. 2008. An overview of the use of plants and animals in traditional medicine systems in Viet Nam. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Greater Mekong Programme. Ha Noi, Viet Nam. URL: http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2008/WWFBinaryitem9483.pdf Accessed: 3-4-2009.

Nguyen Quang Truong and Bain, R. 2006. An assessment of the herpetofauna of the Green Corridor Forest Landscape, Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam. Report No 2: Green Corridor Project, WWF Greater Mekong & Vietnam Country Programme and FPD Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam. URL: http://cbc.amnh.org/center/staff/pdf/bain-pub/GCPReport2HerpetofaunaEN.pdf Accessed 31-3-2009.

Nguyen Quang Truong, Nguyen Van Sang, Ngo Xuan Tuong, and Nguyen Truong Son. 2003. Evaluation of the wildlife trade in Na Hang District. PARC Project VIE/95/G31&031, Government of Viet Nam (FPD) UNOPS/UNDP/Scott Wilson Asia-Pacific Ltd., Ha Noi. URL: http://www.un.org.vn/undp/projects/parc/docs/bn13-wildlife-trade-nh.pdf Accessed 30-3-2009.

Pauwels, O. S. G., David, P., Chimsunchart, C., and Thirakhupt, K. 2003. Reptiles of Phetchaburi Province, Western Thailand: a list of species, with natural history notes, and a discussion on the biogeography at the Isthmus of Kra. The Natural History Journal of Chulalongkorn University, 3 (1): 23-53.

Pawar, S., Koo, M. S., Kelley, C., Ahmed, M. F., Chaudhuri, S., and Sarkar, S. 2007. Conservation assessment and prioritization of areas in Northeast India: priorities for amphibians and reptiles. Biological Conservation, 136 (3): 346-361.

Phuong, D. H., Truong, N. Q., Son, N. T., and Khoi, N. V. 2006. A photographic guide to mammals, reptiles and amphibians of Phu Quoc Island, Kien Giang Province, Vietnam. Wildlife at Risk and Phu Quoc National Park. Ho Chi Minh City General Publishing House. URL: http://www.wildlifeatrisk.org/UserFiles/File/PQ%20mammal%20guide%202007.pdf Accessed: 3-4-2009.

Powell, R. and Henderson, R. W. 2005. Conservation status of Lesser Antillean reptiles. Iguana, 12 (2): 63-78.

Seidensticker, J. and Hai, M. A. 1983. The Sundarbans wildlife management plan: conservation in the Bangladesh coastal zone URL: http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/6652/1/6E755BE9-F6AC-4F0E-9CF0-5752AA7BB76C.pdf Accessed: 1-4-2009.

Shi, H., Fan, Z., Yin, F., and Yuan, Z. 2004. New data on the trade and captive breeding of turtles in Guangxi Province, South China. Asiatic Herpetological Research, 10: 126-128.

Shrestha, T. K. 2000. Herpetology of Nepal: a field guide to amphibians and reptiles of Trans-Himalayan Region of Asia. Steven Simpson Books.

Stuart, B. 1998a. A survey of amphibians and reptiles in Dong Khanthung Proposed National Biodiversity Conservation Area. CPAWM/WCS.

Stuart, B. 1998b. A survey of amphibians and reptiles in Hin Nam No NBCA, east-central Laos. CPAWM/WCS. Vientiane.

Stuart, B. 1998c. A survey of amphibians and reptiles in Khammouane Limestone National Biodiversity Conservation Area. CPAWM/WCS.

Stuart, B. L. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles, in Duckworth, J. W., Salter, R. E., & Khounboline, K., (eds.), Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 Status Report. IUCN - The World Conservation Union / Wildlife Conservation Society / Centre for Protected Areas and Watershed Management, Vientiane. 43-68.

Stuart, B. L. 2004. The harvest and trade of reptiles at U Minh Thuong National Park, southern Viet Nam. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 20 (1): 25-34.

Stuart, B. L., Sok, K., and Neang, T. 2006. A collection of amphibians and reptiles from hilly eastern Cambodia. Raffles Bull.Zool, 54 (1): 129-155.

Stuart, B. L., Timmins, R. J., Hendrie, D. B., Lieng, S., Chun, S., Hout, P., Heng, K., Touch, T. S., Prak, H. L., Chul, T., Compton, J., and Holloway, R. 2000. Turtle trade in Indochina: regional

Elaphe guttata

41

summary (Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam). Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia. Chelonian Research Monographs, 2: 74-76.

Teynié, A. 2004. Notes on reptiles of Nam Lan Conservation Area in Phongsaly Province of Lao PDR URL: http://www.shnao.net/Doc/Teynie/Teynie_Lao_Nam_Lan_Note_%20on_%20Reptiles.pdf Accessed: 1-4-2009.

Teynié, A., David, P., Ohler, A., and Luanglath, K. 2004. Notes on a collection of amphibians and reptiles from southern Laos, with a discussion of the occurrence of Indo-Malayan species. Hamadryad, 29: 33-62.

Thornton, I. W. B., Zann, R. A., Rawlinson, P. A., Tidemann, C. R., Adikerana, A. S., and Widjoya, A. H. T. 1988. Colonization of the Krakatau Islands by vertebrates: equilibrium, succession, and possible delayed extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 85 (2): 515-518.

Uddin, M. A. and Foisal, A. S. A. 2007. Local perceptions of natural resource conservation in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary, in Fox, J. et al., (eds.), Making conservation work: linking rural livelihoods and protected areas in Bangladesh. East-West Centre and Nishorgo Program of the Bangladesh Forest Department.

Yiming, L. and Dianmo, L. 1998. The dynamics of trade in live wildlife across the Guangxi border between China and Vietnam during 1993-1996 and its control strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7: 895-914.

Yinfeng, G., Xueying, Z., Yan, C., Di, W., and Sung, W. 1997. Sustainability of wildlife use in Traditional Chinese Medicine. 220 pp. URL: http://www.zd.brim.ac.cn/bwg-cciced/english/bwg-cciced/tech-34.htm Accessed 2-4-2009.

Zhao, E.-M. 1998. China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals - Amphibia and Reptilia. Science Press, Beijing.

Zhao, E.-M. and Adler, K. 1993. Herpetology of China. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Oxford, Ohio.

Ziegler, T. 2002. Die Amphibien und Reptilien eines Tieflandfeuchtwald-Schutzgebietes in Vietnam. Natur & Tier. Verlag, Munster, Germany.

Zug, G., Slowinski, J., and Wogan, G. 2003. Checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of Myanmar URL: http://www.calacademy.org/research/herpetology/myanmar/checklist.html Accessed: 3-4-2009.

Zug, G. R., Win, H., Thin, T., Min, T. Z., Lhon, W. Z., and Kyaw, K. 1998. Herpetofauna of the Chatthin Wildlife Sanctuary, north-central Myanmar with preliminary observations of their natural history. Hamadryad, 23 (2): 111-120.

Elaphe guttata

42


INTERNATIONAL TRADE

REPTILIA IGUANIDAE

SPECIES: Basiliscus plumifrons

SYNONYMS: -

COMMON NAMES: Green Basilisk (English)

RANGE STATES: Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, ? Panama


TRADE PATTERNS:


• Advertised on the French websites www.lafermetropicale.com, www.marche.fr, http://lezards.fr and www.ventedereptiles.fr for €40-100. Captive-bred juveniles were advertised on http://lezards.fr whilst the specimen advertised on www.ventedereptiles.fr was reported to originate from Central America.

• Advertised on the German websites www.reptilica.de, www.hoch-rep.com, www.tropicfauna.de, www.world-of-tropic.de, www.terraon.de and www.deine-tierwelt.de for €40-130. One website indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Advertised on the Italian website www.gebyte.it for €150. • Advertised on the Polish websites www.szrek.pl and www.terrarium.com.pl for 200-

259zl. Sources were not specified. • Advertised on the Spanish websites www.anuncios-gratuitos.com,

www.pecespeces.com, http://terrariomania.mforos.com and www.animal-center.es for €35-250. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on many British websites including www.faunaimportuk.com, www.the-livingrainforest.co.uk, www.southcoastexotics.com, www.crystalpalacereptiles.com, www.exotic-pets.co.uk, www.888reptiles.co.uk and www.leeroyslizardlounge.com, with prices ranging from £50-65. Four websites indicated that specimens were captive bred or captive farmed.

• Information on captive care and breeding was found on many websites including: – http://caresheets.net – www.bestvivs.co.uk – www.reptilechannel.com – www.repticzone.com – www.centralpets.com

Elaphe guttata

43

Castellón (2008) listed B. plumifrons as one of the main internationally traded, captive bred reptiles exported from Nicaragua, with three companies in Nicaragua known to currently be engaged with captive-breeding of the species.


B. plumifrons is a large lizard with a distinctive dragon-like appearance, reported to occur in the “Humid lowlands on the Atlantic versant from eastern Honduras to western Panama and on the Pacific slope in southwestern Costa Rica and probably adjacent southwestern Panama; also in the premontane zone in central Costa Rica in the Río Reventazón valley (1-775 m)” (Savage, 2002).

Costa Rica: B. plumifrons was reported to occur in Costa Rica, inhabiting “Lowland Moist and Wet Forests and into Premontane Wet Forest, primarily along stream courses with considerable stands of trees still intact” (Savage, 2002). Vaughan et al. (2007) reported that the species also inhabited human-modified habitats, such as Cacao plantations, and that “Agroforestry systems connected to patches of riparian forests appear to play an important role in this species’ conservation.”

Leenders (2001) stated that “Basiliscus plumifrons is frequently seen on the banks of almost every river in the Caribbean lowlands and along the canals of Tortuguero.”

Population growth and deforestation were identified as threats to Costa Rica’s herpetofauna (Savage, 2002). The country has a large network of National Parks, reserves and wildlife refuges, covering 15 per cent of its land area, with around 75% of known herpetofauna occurring within these protected areas (Savage, 2002). B. plumifrons was reported to occur at La Selva Biological Station and Reserve, where it “can be found along any of La Selva’s rivers and major streams [...] commonly seen in the vegetation along Rio Puerto Viejo at the River Station” (Guyer and Donnelly, 2005).

Costa Rica was reported to have legislation protecting all plants and animals from unauthorised killing or capture (Savage, 2002).

Honduras: Wilson and Townsend (2006) recorded B. plumifrons in their study of herpetofauna in the Honduran rainforest. The species was reported to be restricted to Lowland Moist Forest at elevations of 60-225 m, where its relative abundance was considered ‘Common’ and its conservation status as ‘Stable’ (denoting that a stable population was found at one or more rainforest localities). The entire rainforest herpetofauna of Honduras was reported to be threatened by habitat loss due to deforestation, as a result of unregulated human population growth (Wilson and Townsend, 2006).

Wilson and McCranie (2004) assigned all reptiles of Honduras with an Environmental Vulnerability Score based on geographic and ecological distribution and level of human persecution. B. plumifrons was categorised as a species of Medium vulnerability as its distribution is peripheral to Honduras and widespread elsewhere, it occurs in only one (of eight) forest formations within Honduras and it is generally ignored by humans (Wilson and McCranie, 2004). They stated that: “The principal threats to the survival of members of the herpetofauna are uncontrolled human population growth and its corollaries, habitat alteration and destruction, pollution, pest and predator control, overhunting, and overexploitation” (Wilson and McCranie, 2004). However, in terms of human persecution, B. plumifrons was not placed in the category for species ‘commercially or noncommercially exploited for hides and/or meat and/or eggs’, indicating that overexploitation was not considered a major threat to B. plumifrons in Honduras.

Nicaragua: There were several reports of the occurrence of B. plumifrons in Nicaragua (Gaige et al., 1937; Peters and Orejas-Miranda, 1986; Leenders, 2001), but no information on its conservation status was found.

Panama: There were several reports that the distribution of B. plumifrons probably extends into Panama (Peters and Orejas-Miranda, 1986; Leenders, 2001; Savage, 2002). In a survey of

Elaphe guttata

44

indigenous wildlife use in the Río Caloveborita watershed of western Panama, Smith (2008) reported that 88 B. plumifrons were captured by local hunters 1999-2000, with most game-kill sites concentrated around human settlements.

REFERENCES:

Castellón, R. 2008. Study review of Nicaragua's wildlife trade policy. MARENA-CITES Ni. URL: http://www.cites.org/common/prog/policy/NICARAGUA-WTPR-FIN-EN.pdf Accessed 25-3-2009.

Gaige, H. T., Hartweg, N., and Stuart, L. C. 1937. Notes on a collection of amphibians and reptiles from eastern Nicaragua. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 357.

Guyer, C. and Donnelly, M. A. 2005. Amphibians and reptiles of La Selva, Costa Rica, and the Caribbean slope: a comprehensive guide. University of California Press.

Leenders, T. 2001. A guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica. Zona Tropical Publication. Peters, J. A. and Orejas-Miranda, B. 1986. Catalogue of the Neotropical Squamata. Part II: Lizards and amphisbaenians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Savage, J. M. 2002. The amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica: a herpetofauna between two continents, between two seas. University of Chicago Press.

Smith, D. A. 2008. The spatial patterns of indigenous wildlife use in western Panama: Implications for conservation management. Biological Conservation, 141 (4): 925-937.

Vaughan, C., Ramirez, O., Herrera, G., Fallas, E., and Henderson, R. W. 2007. Home range and habitat use of Basiliscus plumifrons (Squamata: Corytophanidae) in an active Costa Rican cacao farm. Applied Herpetology, 4 (3): 217-226.

Wilson, L. D. and McCranie, J. R. 2004. The conservation status of the herpetofauna of Honduras. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, 3 (1): 6.

Wilson, L. D. and Townsend, J. H. 2006. The herpetofauna of the rainforests of Honduras. Caribbean Journal of Science, 42 (1): 88.

Elaphe guttata

45

REVIEW OF NON-CITES REPTILES THAT ARE KNOWN OR LIKELY TO BE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE

REPTILIA COLUBRIDAE

SPECIES: Elaphe guttata

SYNONYMS: -

COMMON NAMES: Corn Snake (English)

RANGE STATES: Mexico, United States of America


TRADE PATTERNS:


• Advertised on the Czech websites www.animalfarm.cz (price and source not specified) and www.serpentarium.cz (€20-55 for captive bred hatchlings).

• Advertised on the European pet classified site www.eurofauna.com for €10-20. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on the Finnish website www.tiias-pets.net for €80-100. Specimens were reported to be captive bred.

• Advertised on many French websites including www.lafermetropicale.com, www.jungleshop.org, www.evannonce.com, www.marche.fr, http://alsace.kijiji.fr, www.btanimaux.com and www.leboncoin.fr, with prices ranging from €40-300. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on many German websites including www.terraristic-classifieds.com, www.reptilica.de, www.hoch-rep.com, www.tropicfauna.de, www.tiere-kleinanzeigen.com, www.deine-tierwelt.de and www.enimal.de and, with prices ranging from €25-270. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on the Italian websites www.serpenti.it, http://palermo.kijiji.it, www.annunciora.it and www.subito.it for €40-130. One website indicated that specimens were captive bred.


• Advertised on the Spanish websites http://terrariomania.mforos.com, www.anuncios-gratuitos.com, www.milanuncios.com, http://ciudadcordoba.olx.es and http://las-palmas-de-gran-canaria.blidoo.es for €50-300. One website indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Advertised on many British websites including www.faunaimportuk.com, www.the-livingrainforest.co.uk, www.southcoastexotics.com, www.leeroyslizardlounge.com,

Elaphe guttata

46

www.888reptiles.co.uk and www.bizrate.co.uk, with prices ranging from £40-200. Three websites indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Information on captive care and breeding was found on many websites including: – www.wnyherp.org – www.kingsnake.com – www.reptileallsorts.com – www.cornsnakes.net – www.reptileinfo.com

Reported to be the most frequently bred snake species for pet purposes (Resmer, 1999).

Schulz (1995) noted: “The captive breeding of most of the species of Elaphe can generally be considered as relatively easy. […] Species like E. guttata and E. obsoleta usually reproduce regularly every year without special husbandry techniques being necessary”. Similarly, Chodan (2002) stated: “My experience with the rat snakes of genus Elaphe has taught me that these snakes are by far one of the easiest to breed in captivity”.

One US reptile captive breeding centre reported producing 12,500 Corn snakes (Elaphe gutatta) in 2001 through captive breeding (Brant, 2001).

Bartlett and Barlett (1999) reported that Corn snakes “usually adapt well to captivity. In fact, most of those now offered for sale are themselves descendants of generations of captivity. As a result of this almost domestication –and partly due to the calm nature of the snake- corn snakes are easy to maintain and to breed.”

The species was reported to be taken from the Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion for the pet trade and is known to enter the pet trade in New Mexico and Texas (Fitzgerald et al., 2004). In 1999, 25 E. guttata emoryi specimens were reportedly collected by nongame permit holders operating in the Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion in Texas (Fitzgerald et al., 2004). An average of 5,100 E. guttata live specimens were reportedly exported from the US yearly between 1995 and 2000. In addition, 539 small leather products and 184 leather pieces were exported from the US during the same period (Fitzgerald et al., 2004). Reported to be subject to trade in and/or from Mexico at pet shops and shows, for the pet trade (Fitzgerald et al., 2004).


Taxonomic note: Burbrink (2002) examined phylogenetic relationships among E. guttata populations and identified three partitions of E. guttata: an eastern partition (east of the Mississippi river) corresponding to E. guttata guttata, a western partition corresponding to E. guttata emoryi and a central partition in western Louisiana and eastern Texas. Burbrink recognized the three partitions as species using evolutionary species criteria: Elaphe guttata (eastern partition), Elaphe emoryi (western partition) and Elaphe slowinskii (central partition).

E. guttata was reported to occur in “S. New Jersey south through Florida and s. Tennessee to Texas, Mexico, and e. New Mexico, se. Colorado, se. Nebraska to sw. Illinois. Separate population in e. Utah and w. Colorado” (Behler and King, 1979).

The species has apparently been introduced to a number of Caribbean islands, including the Bahamas (Lee, 2005), US Virgin Islands (Perry et al., 2003), Cayman Islands (Brunt and Davies, 1994) and Lesser Antilles (Henderson, 2004).

Hammerson (2007) considered the species to be globally ‘Secure’ and stable and reported that “adult population size is unknown but presumably exceeds 10,000 and probably exceeds 100,000”, adding that it occurs in many protected areas.

Resmer (1999) reported that E. guttata are sometimes captured in the wild to be sold as pets, but considered that “there are many snake breeders, so wild capturing does not pose a serious threat to this species”.

Elaphe guttata

47

Mexico: Occurrence was reported in Behler and King (1979) and Flores-Villela and Canseco-Márquez (2004). No information on conservation status was found.

United States of America: Reported to occur in the ”eastern United States from southern New Jersey south through Florida, west into Louisiana and parts of Kentucky”, and to be “most abundant in Florida and the southeastern U.S.”(Resmer, 1999; FMNH, 2006).

Hammerson (2007) considered the species to be ‘Secure’ at the national level and reported the following State-level distribution and conservation status: Alabama (‘Apparently Secure’); Delaware (‘Critically Imperilled’); Florida (‘Secure’); Georgia (‘Secure’); Kentucky (‘Vulnerable’); Louisiana (‘Secure’); Maryland (‘Apparently Secure’); Mississippi (‘Secure’); New Jersey (‘Critically Imperilled’); North Carolina (‘Apparently Secure’); South Carolina (‘Under Review’); Tennessee (‘Secure’); Virginia (‘Apparently Secure’); and West Virginia (‘Critically Imperilled’).

The species was also reported from southwestern Illinois, along the Mississippi River bluffs from Jersey to Randolph counties, where it was considered to be threatened mainly due to highway traffic (UI, 2008).

Tuberville et al. (2005) reported E. guttata to be present in the following southeastern national parks: Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve (Florida); Cape Hatteras National Seashore (North Carolina); Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (Georgia); Cumberland Island National Seashore (Georgia); Fort Frederica National Monument (Georgia); Fort Matanzas National Monument (Florida); Fort Pulaski National Monument (Georgia); Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park (Georgia); and Ocmulgee National Monument (Georgia).

Rocus and Mazzotti (2002) reported occurrence of the species in southern Florida. The Lower Keys (Florida) population of E. guttata was listed as a ‘Species of Special Concern’, as it “has a significant vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, human disturbance, or human exploitation which, in the foreseeable future, may result in its becoming a threatened species unless appropriate protective or management techniques are initiated or maintained” (FFWCC, 2008). Resmer (1999) considered that “corn snakes are not an endangered species. However, they are listed by the state of Florida as a Species of Special Concern because they face habitat loss and destruction in the lower Florida Keys.”

Hammerson (2007) noted that no major threats are known and that “habitat destruction is a local threat in some areas, but this species tolerates a fair amount of low intensity habitat alteration.”

The species is listed in the Nongame regulations for Texas, therefore it is necessary to obtain a permit to collect, possess or sell it (Fitzgerald et al., 2004).

In North Carolina, E. guttata was reported to range over much of the state, but to be “uncommon in the northern mountains and the extreme north-eastern Coastal Plain. Records are lacking from some counties, especially in the western and northeastern Piedmont. The snakes are most common in the southeastern Coastal Plain” (Boynton et al., 2006). Boynton et al. (2006) also noted: “Though not listed under any category of special protection, the corn snake is probably declining throughout most of the state. Like other snake species in North Carolina, many corn snake populations have been severely reduced or eliminated, and most face continued threats from habitat destruction, alteration and fragmentation; from largely unregulated commercial collecting; and from persecution of individuals. Large numbers are killed by motor vehicles each year. Despite these threats, the corn snake is still common in some places in North Carolina, and its future appears secure in a few well-protected areas.”

REFERENCES:

Bartlett, R. D. and Barlett, P. 1999. Corn snakes. Barron's Educational Series. 48 pp. Behler, J. L. and King, F. W. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Boynton, A., Beane, J., and Godfrey, M. 2006. Corn snake - Elaphe guttata. North Carolina Resources Commission. North Carolina Wildlife Profiles.

Elaphe guttata

48


Brunt, M. A. and Davies, J. E. 1994. The Cayman Islands - Natural history and biogeography. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Burbrink, F. T. 2002. Phylogeographic analysis of the cornsnake (Elaphe guttata) complex as inferred from maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 25 (3): 465-476.

Chodan, A. 2002. Captive Snake Breeding, Grade A Reptiles, URL: www.gradeareptiles.com FFWCC. 2008. Florida's endangered species, threatened species, and species of special concern. Florida

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Fitzgerald, L. A., Painter, C. W., Reuter, A., and Hoover, C. 2004. Collection, trade, and regulation of reptiles and amphibians of the Chihuahuan Desert ecoregion. TRAFFIC North America. Washington D.C.

Flores-Villela, O. and Canseco-Márquez, L. 2004. Nuevas especies y cambios taxonómicos para la herpetofauna de México. Acta Zoológica Mexicana, 20 (2): 115-144.

FMNH. 2006. Corn snake, Florida Museum of Natural History, URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/herpetology/fl-guide/Elaphegguttata.htm Accessed: 18-3-2009.

Hammerson, G. 2007. Elaphe guttata, NatureServe - An online encyclopedia of life, URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Elaphe+guttata+ Accessed: 19-3-2009.

Henderson, R. W. 2004. Lesser Antillean snake faunas: distribution, ecology, and conservation concerns. Oryx, 38 (3): 311-320.

Lee, D. S. 2005. Reptiles and amphibians introduced to the Bahamas; a potential conservation crisis. Bahamas Journal of Science, 12 (2): 2-6.

Perry, G., Pierce, J., Griffin, D., van Buurt, G., and Lazell, J. 2003. Elaphe guttata guttata (Corn snake). Herpetological Review, 34 (3): 264.

Resmer, K. 1999. Elaphe guttata, Animal Diversity Web - University of Michigan, URL: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Elaphe_guttata.html Accessed: 19-3-2009.

Rocus, D. S. and Mazzotti, F. J. 2002. Reptiles of southern Florida. University of Florida. Schulz, K. D. 1995. A monograph of the colubrid snakes of the genus Elaphe Fitzinger. Koeltz Sceintific

Books. 439 pp. Tuberville, T. D., Willson, J. D., Dorcas, M. E., and Gibbons, J. W. 2005. Herpetofaunal species

richness of southeastern national parks. Southeastern Naturalist, 4 (3): 537-569. UI. 2008. Illinois natural history survey - Elaphe guttata, Institute of Natural Resource

Sustainability at the University of Illinois, URL: http://www.inhs.illinois.edu/animals_plants/herps/species/el_guttata.html Accessed: 19-3-2009.

Elaphe obsoleta

49


INTERNATIONAL TRADE

REPTILIA COLUBRIDAE

SPECIES: Elaphe obsoleta

SYNONYMS: -

COMMON NAMES: North American Rat Snake (English), Rat Snake (English)

RANGE STATES: Canada, United States of America


TRADE PATTERNS:


• Advertised on the European pet classified site www.eurofauna.com. Price and source were not specified.

• Advertised on the Finnish website www.tiias-pets.net for €90-159. Specimens were reported to be captive bred.

• Advertised on many French websites including www.lafermetropicale.com, www.jungleshop.org, www.marche.fr, www.leboncoin.fr, www.marocain.biz and http://paris.kijiji.fr, with prices ranging from €45-100. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on many German websites including www.terraristic-classifieds.com, www.reptilica.de, www.hoch-rep.com, www.tropicfauna.de, www.haustier-anzeiger.de,

http://suche.deine-tierwelt.de and www.dhd24.com, with prices ranging from €25-129. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on the Italian websites www.serpenti.it, http://palermo.kijiji.it, www.italypet.com and www.gebyte.it for €45-250. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on the Polish website www.szrek.pl for 80-300zl. Source was not specified.

• Advertised on the Spanish websites www.anuncios-gratuitos.com, www.telefonica.net and www.mundoanuncio.com for €55-85. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on the British websites www.leeroyslizardlounge.com, http://freespace.virgin.net and www.peregrine-livefoods.co.uk for £25-125. Two websites indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Information on captive care and breeding was found on many websites including: – www.reptileallsorts.com – http://centralpets.com – www.wnyherp.org – www.squamata.it – www.havensteadranch.com

Elaphe obsoleta

50

The species was reported to be taken from the Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion for the pet trade and known to enter the pet trade in Texas (Fitzgerald et al., 2004). In 1999, two Elaphe obsoleta lindheimeri specimens were reportedly collected by nongame permit holders operating in the Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion in Texas (Fitzgerald et al., 2004).


Taxonomic note: Burbrink et al. (2000) and Burbrink (2001) examined genetic and morphological variation in Elaphe obsoleta and identified three clades: western clade (west of the Mississippi River), central clade (east of the Mississippi River and west of the Appalachian Mountains and Apalachicola River), and eastern clade (east of the Appalachians and the Apalachicola River). They recognized the three clades as distinct species: E. obsoleta (western clade), E. spiloides (central clade) and E. alleghaniensis (eastern clade).

Occurrence reported in “E. Ontario and s. Vermont south to Florida Keys, west to w. Texas and adjacent Mexico, north to sw. Minnesota, and s. Michigan” (Behler and King, 1979).

Hammerson (2006) considered the species’ global conservation status to be ‘Secure’ and stable and reported that “adult population size is unknown but presumably exceeds 100,000. This snake is fairly common in many areas”. The author added that the species occurs in many protected areas.

Hammerson (2006) also noted that no major threats were known for the species and that “this snake thrives on partial deforestation. Locally, some populations have declined as a result of extensive deforestation and various forms of intensive development”.

Canada: Hammerson (2006) considered the species’ national conservation status in Canada to be ‘Vulnerable’ and reported occurrence in Ontario (with a state-level conservation status of Vulnerable).

Weatherhead et al. (2002) found that two E. obsoleta populations 30 km apart in eastern Ontario exhibited synchronous variation in population size over 18 years (1981-1998), and that both were declining over that period. The authors noted that the dynamics of the two populations were different and concluded that they were affected by different processes. They also considered that “evidence of declining populations in circumstances where rat snakes and their habitats were assumed ‘safe’ is disquieting”, but noted that the 18-year study period was too short to differentiate between declines that are natural negative fluctuations and those that represent a sustained decrease in a population (Weatherhead et al., 2002).

Blouin-Demers et al. (2001) found that E. obsoleta had slower growth and later maturation in Ontario than in Maryland, which would make the Ontario populations less capable of recovering from population declines.

The species was reported to be “rare and local in southeastern Ontario, and even rarer in southwestern Ontario where it has declined with loss of forest cover” (NRC, 2007).

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources considered the species to be threatened provincially (MNR, 2009).

Elaphe obsoleta

51

United States of America: Reported to occur “from New England south through Florida and west through the eastern halves of Texas and Nebraska and north again to southern Wisconsin” (Trepanowski, 2003). Conant and Collins (1998 in: Trepanowski, 2003) noted: “Elaphe obsolete obsoleta (Black Rat Snake) is the most widely distributed common rat snake with a range from New England south through Georgia and west across the northern parts of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and north through Oklahoma to southern Wisconsin. There is also an isolated population in southern Canada and northern New York. E. o. quadrivittata (Yellow Rat Snake) found along the coast of the Carolinas south through Georgia and Florida. E. o. rossalleni (Everglades Rat Snake) has an isolated population in southern Florida, hence, where the Everglades are located. E. o. spiloides (Gray Rat Snake) ranges from southern Georgia and northern Florida west through Mississippi and north to southern Kentucky. E. o. lindheimerii (Texas Rat Snake) can be found in southern Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana.”

Hammerson (2006) considered the species’ national conservation status in the US to be ‘Secure’ and reported the following State-level distribution and conservation status: Alabama (Secure); Arkansas (Apparently Secure); Connecticut (Apparently Secure); Delaware (Secure); Florida (Not Ranked); Georgia (Secure); Illinois (Not Ranked); Indiana (Not Ranked); Iowa (Apparently Secure); Kansas (Secure); Kentucky (Secure); Louisiana (Secure); Maryland (Not Ranked); Massachusetts (Critically Imperilled); Michigan (Not Ranked); Minnesota (Vulnerable); Mississippi (Secure); Missouri (Not Ranked); Nebraska (Apparently Secure); New Jersey (Not Ranked); New York (Apparently Secure); North Carolina (Secure); Ohio (Not Ranked); Oklahoma (Secure); Pennsylvania (Secure); Rhode Island (Imperiled); South Carolina (Not Ranked); Tennessee (Secure); Texas (Secure); Vermont (Imperiled); Virginia (Secure); West Virginia (Not Ranked); and Wisconsin (Vulnerable/Imperiled).

The species was reported to “continue to maintain a healthy population in many areas” (Trepanowski, 2003).

Tuberville et al. (2005) reported E. obsoleta to be present in the following southeastern national parks: Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve (Florida); Cape Hatteras National Seashore (North Carolina); Cape Lookout National Seashore (North Carolina); Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (Georgia); Charles Pinckney National Historic Site (South Carolina); Congaree Swamp National Monument (South Carolina); Cumberland Island National Seashore (Georgia); Fort Frederica National Monument (Georgia); Fort Matanzas National Monument (Florida); Fort Pulaski National Monument (Georgia); Fort Sumter National Monument (South Carolina); Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (Alabama); Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park (Georgia); Moores Creek National Battlefield (North Carolina); and Ocmulgee National Monument (Georgia).

Rocus and Mazzotti (2002) reported occurrence of the species in southern Florida.

In Illinois, the species was reported to be “locally common, especially in southern counties” and to be “common around farm buildings and abandoned houses” (UI, 2008).

Stickel et al. (1980) studied an E. obsoleta population in Maryland and recorded 330 snakes a total of 704 times over a 35-year period. The population density was considered to be low, probably less than 0.5 snakes/ha (Stickel et al., 1980).

In Massachusetts it was considered to be “exceedingly rare” and reported to be found “only in the Connecticut Valley and southern Worcester County” (UMA, 2009). It is illegal to “harass, kill, collect or possess” this species in Massachusetts (UMA, 2009).

In Michigan, E. obsoleta was reported to “occur in the southern half of the Lower Peninsula, but are rare and declining. They are listed as a ‘species of special concern’ by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and are protected by state law” (DNRM, 2006; DNRM, 2008).

Reported to occur in New York state, where it is unprotected by federal laws (NYDEC, 2007).

In North Carolina, the species was reported to be “commonly found in and around human dwellings and survive well in established neighbourhoods, sometimes turning up in chimneys,

Elaphe obsoleta

52

attics and basements” and also to be the most common large snake encountered by people in most parts of the state (Dorcas, 2004).

Reported to be commonly found in Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Ross County, Ohio (Wieg, 2004).

In Virginia, the species was reported to be distributed statewide and to be commonly seen (VDGIF, 2009). Reported to occur in the Colonial National Historical Park, Virginia, where 10 individuals were observed during herpetological inventories conducted in 2001-2003 (Mitchel, 2006).

REFERENCES:

Behler, J. L. and King, F. W. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Blouin-Demers, G., Prior, K. A., and Weatherhead, P. J. 2001. Comparative demography of black rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta) in Ontario and Maryland. Journal of Zoology, 256 (01): 1-10.

Burbrink, F. T. 2001. Systematics of the eastern ratsnake complex (Elaphe obsoleta). Herpetological Monographs, 15: 1-53.

Burbrink, F. T., Lawson, R., and Slowinski, J. B. 2000. Mitochondrial DNA phylogeography of the polytypic North American rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta): a critique of the subspecies concept. Evolution, 54 (6): 2107-2118.

Conant, R. and Collins, J. T. 1998. Reptiles and amphibians (Eastern/Central North America). Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.

DNRM. 2006. Southern Lower Peninsula - Species of greatest conservation need. Michigan's Wildlife Action Plan - Department of Natural Resources, Michigan.

DNRM. 2008. Black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta), Department of Natural Resources, Michigan, URL: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12145_12201-61209--,00.html Accessed: 20-3-2009.

Dorcas, M. E. 2004. Rat snake - Elaphe obsoleta, Davidson College, Herpetology Laboratory, North Carolina, URL: http://www.bio.davidson.edu/projects/herpcons/herps_of_NC/snakes/Elaobs/Ela_obs.html Accessed: 20-3-2009.

Fitzgerald, L. A., Painter, C. W., Reuter, A., and Hoover, C. 2004. Collection, trade, and regulation of reptiles and amphibians of the Chihuahuan Desert ecoregion. TRAFFIC North America. Washington D.C.

Hammerson, G. 2006. Elaphe obsoleta, NatureServe - An online encyclopedia of life, URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Elaphe+obsoleta Accessed: 20-3-2009.

Mitchel, J. C. 2006. Inventory of amphibians and reptiles of Colonial National Historical Park. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Technical report NPS/NERCHAL/NRTR-2005/006.

MNR. 2009. Species at risk in Ontario (SARO) list, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, URL: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/246809.html Accessed: 26-3-2009.

NRC. 2007. Amphibians and reptiles of Ontario - Black rack snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta), Natural Resources Canada, URL: http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/subsite/glfc-amphibians/elaphe-obsoleta-obsoleta Accessed: 20-3-2009.

NYDEC. 2007. Checklist of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals of New York state. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. New York.

Rocus, D. S. and Mazzotti, F. J. 2002. Reptiles of southern Florida. University of Florida. Stickel, L. F., Stickel, W. H., and Schmid, F. C. 1980. Ecology of a Maryland population of black rat

snakes (Elaphe o. obsoleta). American Midland Naturalist: 1-14. Trepanowski, P. 2003. Elaphe obsoleta, Animal Diversity Web - University of Michigan, URL:

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Elaphe_obsoleta.html Accessed: 20-3-2009.

Elaphe obsoleta

53

Tuberville, T. D., Willson, J. D., Dorcas, M. E., and Gibbons, J. W. 2005. Herpetofaunal species richness of southeastern national parks. Southeastern Naturalist, 4 (3): 537-569.

UI. 2008. Elaphe obsoleta, Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability at the University of Illinois, URL: http://www.inhs.illinois.edu/animals_plants/herps/species/el_obsolet.html Accessed: 20-3-2009.

UMA. 2009. Snakes of Massachusetts - Black rat snake Elaphe obsoleta, University of Massachusetts Amherst, URL: http://www.umass.edu/nrec/snake_pit/pages/brat.html

VDGIF. 2009. Black ratsnake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta), Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, URL: http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=030023 Accessed: 20-3-2009.

Weatherhead, P. J., Blouin-Demers, G., and Prior, K. A. 2002. Synchronous variation and long-term trends in two populations of black rat snakes. Conservation Biology, 16 (6): 1602-1608.

Wieg, C. 2004. A herpetofaunal inventory of Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Ross County, Ohio. Heartland Network Inventory and Monitoring Program - National Park Service. Technical Report NPS/HTLN/P6514020002.

Lampropeltis getula

54


INTERNATIONAL TRADE

REPTILIA COLUBRIDAE

SPECIES: Lampropeltis getula

SYNONYMS: -

COMMON NAMES: Common Kingsnake (English)

RANGE STATES: Mexico, United States of America,

IUCN RED LIST: Least Concern

TRADE PATTERNS:



• Advertised on the European pet classified site www.eurofauna.com for €20. The specimen was reported to be captive bred.

• Advertised on the French websites www.lafermetropicale.com, www.marche.fr, http://dragonsdasgard.actifforum.com, www.petite-annonce.org and www.btanimaux.com for €20-140. One website indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Advertised on many German websites including www.terraristic-classifieds.com, www.hoch-rep.com, www.tropicfauna.de, http://suche.deine-tierwelt.de, www.dhd24.com and www.aqua-andy.de, with prices ranging from €45-250. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on the Italian websites www.serpenti.it, www.italiansnake.com, http://mondosommersoenonsolo.splinder.com and www.italypet.com for €9-280. One website indicated that the specimen was captive bred.


• Advertised on the Spanish websites http://terrariomania.mforos.com, www.anuncios-gratuitos.com, http://ciudadhuelva.olx.es, www.segundamano.es and www.habitamos.com for €40-120. One website indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Advertised on the British websites www.the-livingrainforest.co.uk, www.southcoastexotics.com, www.exotic-pets.co.uk, www.leeroyslizardlounge.com and www.pets-classifieds.co.uk for £60-130. All websites indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Information on captive care and breeding was found on many websites including:

Lampropeltis getula

55

– www.repticzone.com – http://caresheets.net – www.thekingsnake.co.uk – www.wnyherp.org – www.exotic-pets.co.uk

Fitzgerald et al. (2004) noted that Lampropeltis getula specimens in trade are primarily produced in captivity. One US reptile captive breeding centre reported producing 5,000 Lampropeltis getula in 2001 (Brant, 2001).

The species was reported to be taken from the Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion for the pet trade and was known to enter the pet trade in New Mexico and Texas (Fitzgerald et al., 2004). In 1999, 24 L. getula specimens were collected by nongame permit holders operating in the Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion in Texas (Fitzgerald et al., 2004). An average of 2,000 L. getula live specimens were reportedly exported from the US yearly between 1995 and 2000 (Fitzgerald et al., 2004).

Reported to be subject to trade in and/or from Mexico at pet shops and shows, for the pet trade (Fitzgerald et al., 2004). Between 1995 and 2000, one live specimen was reportedly seized in the state of Coahuila, Mexico (Fitzgerald et al., 2004).


Reported to occur in “S. New Jersey to s. Florida, west to sw. Oregon and s. California, south to s. Baja California and Zacatecas, Mexico” (Behler and King, 1979).

Considered to be of ‘Least Concern’ by the IUCN (Hammerson et al., 2007).

Hammerson (2005) and Hammerson et al. (2007) considered the species’ global conservation status to be ‘Secure’ and ‘relatively stable’ and reported that “total adult population size is unknown but certainly exceeds 100,000 and probably exceeds 1,000,000”, adding that “many occurrences are in national parks and other well-protected areas.”

Hammerson (2005) and Hammerson et al. (2007) noted that no major threats have been identified and that “local declines likely have occurred in areas where habitat has been intensively developed for human uses, but in most of the range this species is not threatened.”

Mexico: Occurrence reported in Mexico (Behler and King, 1979; Flores-Villela and Canseco-Márquez, 2004), where it was considered to be threatened (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, 2000).

United States of America: Reported to occur “from the Pacific to the Atlantic coast of North America, from southwestern Oregon, Nevada, southern Utah, southern Colorado, southeastern Nebraska, southern Iowa, Illinois, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, West Virginia, and New Jersey south to southern Baja California, northern Sinaloa, San Luis Potosi, Tamaulipas, Texas, the U.S. Gulf Coast, and southern Florida, at elevations from sea level to around 2,130 meters (7,000 feet) (Conant and Collins, 1998; Stebbins, 2003)” (Hammerson, 2005; Hammerson et al., 2007). Several authors also reported state-level occurrence of the species, such as Kansas (Collins, 2007), Kentucky (Dury and Gessing Jr, 1940), Missouri (Daniel et al., 2008), Texas (UT, 1999; Ford and Lancaster, 2007), Utah (Shofner, 2007).

Hammerson (2005) considered the species’ national conservation status in the US to be ‘Secure’ and reported the following State-level distribution and conservation status: Alabama (Secure); Arizona (Secure); Arkansas (Secure); California (Secure); Colorado (Critically Imperilled); Delaware (Imperilled); District of Columbia (Imperilled), Florida (Imperilled/Vulnerable); Georgia (Secure); Illinois (Not Ranked); Indiana (Not Ranked); Iowa (Critically Imperilled); Kansas (Secure); Kentucky (Secure); Louisiana (Secure); Maryland (Secure); Mississippi (Apparently Secure); Missouri (Not Ranked); Navajo Nation (Imperilled); Nebraska (Critically Imperilled); Nevada (Secure); New Jersey (Not Ranked); New Mexico (Secure); North Carolina (Secure); Ohio (Not Ranked); Oklahoma (Secure); Oregon (Vulnerable); South Carolina (Not

Lampropeltis getula

56

Ranked); Tennessee (Secure); Texas (Secure); Utah (Imperilled/Vulnerable); Virginia (Secure); and West Virginia (Secure).

Tuberville et al. (2005) reported L. getula to be present in the following southeastern national parks: Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve (Florida); Cape Hatteras National Seashore (North Carolina); Cape Lookout National Seashore (North Carolina); Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (Georgia); Congaree Swamp National Monument (South Carolina); Cumberland Island National Seashore (Georgia); Fort Frederica National Monument (Georgia); Fort Pulaski National Monument (Georgia); Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (Alabama); Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park (Georgia); Moores Creek National Battlefield (North Carolina); and Ocmulgee National Monument (Georgia).

In Arizona, L. getula nigra was reported to be found across most of the state and to be “absent from Arizona’s higher mountains and the high elevations of Mogollon Rim country” (Brennan, 2008).

Reported to be relatively commonly encountered in the Arkansas Post National Memorial National Park (McCallum et al., 2003).

Reported to be uncommon and found in low numbers at the San Joaquin experimental range, California (Purcell et al., 2007).

In Florida, L. getula getula was reported to be “found in the northern peninsula from Alachua Co. north and west into the panhandle, excluding the Apalachicola Lowlands. It intergrades (interbreeds) with the Florida kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula floridiana) from Nassau Co. in the northern peninsula south to Pinellas Co. in the central peninsula. Outside of Florida, it is found from southern Alabama to the southern New Jersey” (FMNH, 2000). Rocus and Mazzotti (2002) reported occurrence in southern Florida.

The species has apparently declined in Florida in recent decades: records from 1858 to 1999 found it to be present in 54 counties, whereas records from 1990 to 1999 only found it represented in 23 counties (Krysko, 2001; Krysko and Smith, 2005). Krysko and Smith (2005) also noted:

“Although kingsnakes still appear to be widespread in Florida because they are occasionally encountered at scattered localities throughout the state, this species appears to have declined drastically or completely disappeared from most areas where it was once common and presently exists in only a few disjunct populations. Unfortunately, the projection for the continued existence of the kingsnake in Florida appears bleak based on the decline in encounter rates over the last few decades. […] Possible causes for the population declines include habitat loss and fragmentation, road mortality, pollution, toxin buildup in tissues, red imported fire ants, and over-collecting by commercial collectors for the pet trade, but a combination of these factors may be the best explanation.”

The authors added that

“the docile disposition and numerous color variation of kingsnakes in Florida have created a lucrative market in the pet trade (Enge, 1994). Means (1992) reported adult Apalachicola Lowland kingsnakes selling for $200-300 each. However, recent advances in captive husbandry practices by many herpetological enthusiasts have subsequently produced drastic declines in pet trade prices as well as fewer individuals taken from the wild as captive born hatchlings presently sell for $15-35” (Krysko and Smith, 2005).

In Illinois, reported to be “locally common in the Shawnee Hills and along the southern Mississippi River bluffs” (UI, 2008).

Reported to be “abundant” in the Great Falls Bypassed Reaches of South Carolina (Dorcas et al., 2006). Winne et al. (2007) documented a decline in one South Carolina L. getula population between 1975 and 2006. Collection of specimens was considered not to be a cause of the decline, as the site had been protected from the pressures of collecting since 1951.

Lampropeltis getula

57

In Virginia, the species was reported to be “widespread in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont Regions, but has been found in only 3 counties in the Tennessee River drainage of southwest Virginia. It also occurs in the Potomac River drainage in Northern Virginia” (VDGIF, 2009). Reported to occur in the Colonial National Historical Park, Virginia, where one individual was observed during herpetological inventories conducted in 2001-2003 (Mitchel, 2006).

REFERENCES:

Behler, J. L. and King, F. W. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.


Brennan, T. C. 2008. Online field guide to the reptiles and amphibians of Arizona URL: http://www.reptilesofaz.com/Snakes-Subpages/h-l-getula.html

Collins, J. T. 2007. A checklist of the amphibians, turtles, and reptiles of the Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Butler and Greenwood Counties, Kansas. Journal of Kansas Herpetology, 22: 9-10.

Conant, R. and Collins, J. T. 1998. Reptiles and amphibians (Eastern/Central North America). Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.

Daniel, R. E., Edmond, B. S., and Briggler, J. T. 2008. New herpetological records from Missouri for 2008. Missouri Herpetological Association Newsletter, 21.

Dorcas, M. E., Price, S. J., and Vaghan, G. E. 2006. Amphibians and reptiles of the Great Falls Bypassed Reaches in South Carolina. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science, 122 (1): 1-9.

Dury, R. and Gessing Jr, W. 1940. Notes on Lampropeltis in Kentucky. Copeia, 4: 241-243. Fitzgerald, L. A., Painter, C. W., Reuter, A., and Hoover, C. 2004. Collection, trade, and regulation of reptiles and amphibians of the Chihuahuan Desert ecoregion. TRAFFIC North America. Washington D.C.

Flores-Villela, O. and Canseco-Márquez, L. 2004. Nuevas especies y cambios taxonómicos para la herpetofauna de México. Acta Zoológica Mexicana, 20 (2): 115-144.

FMNH. 2000. Eastern kingsnake URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/herpetology/fl-guide/Lampropeltisggetula.htm Accessed: 23-3-2009.

Ford, N. B. and Lancaster, D. L. 2007. The species-abundance distribution of snakes in a bottomland hardwood forest of the Southern United States. Journal of Herpetology, 41 (3): 385-393.

Hammerson, G. 2005. Lampropeltis getula, NatureServe - An online encyclopedia of life, URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Lampropeltis+getula Accessed: 24-3-2009.

Hammerson, G. A., Frost, D. R., and Santos-Barrera, G. 2007. Lampropeltis getula, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed: 27-3-2009.

Krysko, K. L. 2001, Ecology, conservation, and morphological and molecular systematics of the kingsnake, Lampropeltis getula (Serpentes: Colubridae), PhD thesis, University of Florida.

Krysko, K. L. and Smith, D. J. 2005. The decline and extirpation of the kingsnake in Florida, in Meshaka, W. E. & Babbitt, K. J., (eds.), Amphibians and Reptiles Status and Conservation in Florida. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. 132-141.

McCallum, M. L., Trauth, S. E., Neal, R. G., and Hoffman, V. 2003. A Herpetofaunal inventory of Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas County, Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 57: 122-130.

Mitchel, J. C. 2006. Inventory of amphibians and reptiles of Colonial National Historical Park. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Technical report NPS/NERCHAL/NRTR-2005/006.

Purcell, K. L., Drynan, D. A., and Mazzocco, K. M. 2007. Vertebrate fauna of the San Joaquin experimental range, California: an annotated checklist. Pacific Southwest Research Station: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service.

Rocus, D. S. and Mazzotti, F. J. 2002. Reptiles of southern Florida. University of Florida.

Lampropeltis getula

58


Shofner, R. M. 2007. A modern checklist of the amphibians, reptiles and turtles of Utah. Journal of Kansas Herpetology, 21.

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Third edn. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.


UI. 2008. Lampropeltis getula, Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability at the University of Illinois, URL: http://www.inhs.illinois.edu/animals_plants/herps/species/la_getula.html Accessed: 23-3-2009.

UT. 1999. Herps of Texas - Snakes: Lampropeltis getula, University of Texas, URL: http://www.zo.utexas.edu/research/txherps/snakes/lampropeltis.getula.html

VDGIF. 2009. Eastern black kingsnake - Lampropeltis getula nigra, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, URL: http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=030030 Accessed: 23-3-2009.

Winne, C. T., Willson, J. D., Todd, B. D., Andrews, K. M., and Gibbons, J. W. 2007. Enigmatic decline of a protected population of Eastern Kingsnakes, Lampropeltis getula, in South Carolina. Copeia, 2007 (3): 507-519.

Lampropeltis triangulum

59


INTERNATIONAL TRADE

REPTILIA COLUBRIDAE

SPECIES: Lampropeltis triangulum

SYNONYMS: -

COMMON NAMES: Milk Snake (English)

RANGE STATES: Belize, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El

Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, United States of America, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of),


TRADE PATTERNS:



• Advertised on the European pet classified site www.eurofauna.com for €100. The specimen was reported to be captive bred.

• Advertised on the French websites www.lafermetropicale.com, www.evannonce.com, www.marche.fr, http://paris.kijiji.fr, http://boubiland.forumactif.com and www.leboncoin.fr, for €35-200. One website indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Advertised on many German websites including www.terraristic-classifieds.com, www.reptipark.de, www.hoch-rep.com, www.tropicfauna.de, www.snakeguy.de, www.dhd24.com and http://suche.deine-tierwelt.de, with prices ranging from €50-600. One website indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Advertised on the Italian websites www.aziendanaturaviva.com, www.serpenti.it, http://mondosommersoenonsolo.splinder.com, http://torino.kijiji.it and http://torino.kijiji.it for €50-250. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on the Polish website www.szrek.pl for 150-400zl. Sources were not specified.

• Advertised on the Spanish websites http://terrariomania.mforos.com, www.anuncios-gratuitos.com, www.mundoanuncio.com and www.habitamos.com for €85-300. One website indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Advertised on many British websites including www.the-livingrainforest.co.uk, www.southcoastexotics.com, www.crystalpalacereptiles.com, www.exotic-pets.co.uk,


60

www.leeroyslizardlounge.com and www.cardiffreptilecentre.co.uk, with prices ranging from £50-150. All websites indicated that specimens were captive bred.

• Information on captive care and breeding was found on many websites including: – www.wnyherp.org – www.vmsherp.com – www.thekingsnake.co.uk – www.reptimania.co.uk – www.aquamania.co.uk

One US reptile captive breeding centre reported producing 600 Lampropeltis triangulum in 2001 through captive breeding (Brant, 2001).

The species was reported to be taken from the Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion for the pet trade and is known to enter the pet trade in New Mexico and Texas (Fitzgerald et al., 2004). In 1999, seven L. triangulum specimens were reportedly collected by nongame permit holders operating in the Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion in Texas and an average of 1,120 L. triangulum live specimens were reportedly exported from the US yearly between 1995 and 2000. (Fitzgerald et al., 2004).


Armstrong et al. (2001) reported the species to range “from portions of northern South America through Central America, most of the continental United States and into southeastern Canada.” Behler and King (1979) similarly reported it to occur in “Se. Maine, sw. Quebec, se. and sc. Ontario, s. Wisconsin, and c. and se. Minnesota south through most of United States east of the Rocky Mountains; Mexico south to Colombia and Venezuela.”

Reported to be “widespread and still considered abundant throughout most of their range” (Isberg, 2002).

Hammerson (2005) considered the species’ global conservation status to be ‘Secure’ and ‘relatively stable’ and reported that “total adult population size is unknown but probably exceeds 1,000,000”, adding that “many occurrences are in national parks and other well-protected areas.”

Hammerson (2005) noted that “intensive agricultural development and urbanization have caused localized declines, and collectors probably have depleted accessible populations near roads, but in most areas this snake is not threatened.”

Williams (1978) recognized 23 L. triangulum subspecies. Many of these subspecies were reported to practice Batesian mimicry, by which their colour patterns look similar to either those of the venomout copperhead or the coral snake (Isberg, 2002). Baetsian mimicry particularly between milk and coral snakes might pose lookalike issues. In North America, Behler and King (1979) noted that in the north, the species is often mistaken for the Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) and in the south for the Eastern Coral Snake (Micrurus fulvius)”. Lampropeltis triangulum doliata was reported to look deceptively like coral snakes of the genus Micrurus (Porter, 1972). Werler and Dixon (2000) noted that “the red and yellow rings of the Texas coral snake [Micrurus fulvius] are always in contact with none another, whereas in the milk snakes [Lampropeltis triangulum] the two colors are invariably separated by a black ring. Furthermore, the coral snake’s black rings, which are as wide as its red ones, are much broader thanthose of the milk snake, and all of the coral’s rings cross the belly uninterrupted”.


61

Belize: Occurrence reported in Belize (Neill and Allen, 1961 and Meerman, 1994 in: WCS and MNRLIC, 1998; Campbell, 1999).

Canada: Reported to be found “throughout the Great Lakes region including southern Ontario and Quebec. In Ontario, the snake ranges as far north as Lake Nipissing and Sault Ste. Marie. In Quebec, it occurs along the Ontario/Quebec border and south of the St. Lawrence River, west of the St. François River” (Fischer, 2002).

Hammerson (2005) considered the species’ national conservation status in Canada to be ‘Secure’ and reported the following State-level distribution and conservation status: Ontario (Vulnerable) and Quebec (Vulnerable).

Classified as a species of ´Special Concern´ by COSEWIC (Fischer, 2002) and by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR, 2009).

Fischer (2002) reported the species to be “widespread, abundant and apparently secure, but with cause for long term concern” in Quebec, and “widespread” in Ontario.

Local declines were reported in the Toronto area, but other Ontario populations were apparently not declining. However, not enough information was considered to be available to confirm this or to estimate trends in Quebec (Fischer, 2002).

Fischer (2002) also reported: “An informal survey of several prominent naturalists and herpetologists found in 2002 that most felt that the Eastern Milksnake was locally common at best, and that it had declined. Some suggested that the species´ apparent rarity was an artefact of its nocturnal and “subterranean” habitats. […] Nevertheless, all other large snakes in Eastern Canada have declined and it is reasonable to suspect that Milksnakes have too, especially because they are as susceptible to roadkill, persecution and habitat loss as are other snakes. Therefore, given the species apparent rarity, the existence of known threats and the lack of any data to support the claim that Milksnakes are secure, the recommendation is for Special Concern until surveys are conducted that provide evidence that the species is abundant or otherwise.”

The main threats to the species in Canada were considered to be habitat loss and habitat modification; land use practices; persecution by people; predation; and mortality on roads (Fischer, 2002).

Fischer (2002) noted: “The Eastern Milksnake is not as attractive as members of the other more colourful subspecies of Milksnakes (Bartlett, 1987) and therefore, is not as much in demand in the pet trade (Ernst and Barbour, 1989). Nevertheless, there is concern with respect to the Eastern Milksnakes’ vulnerability to massive collecting because it is viewed as a desirable pet in some areas. A mid-sized Eastern Milksnake can bring in anywhere from $25 to $35US. As with many other large snakes, over-collecting and destruction of hibernacula may cause Milksnakes to become locally extirpated (Coffin and Pfannmuller, 1988).”

Fischer (2002) reported the following on the protection afforded to L. triangulum in Canada:

“In Ontario, the Eastern Milksnake has been listed as a “specially protected species” under Schedule 9 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997. Part II, section 5 of this Act prohibits the hunting or trapping of any specially protected reptiles. Part III, Section 40, states that a specially protected reptile cannot be kept in captivity. However, this does not apply when a specially protected reptile is kept in captivity for personal education or scientific purposes, or for any other purpose as long as a Minister has given authorization to do so. Propagation or possession of a specially protected reptile for propagation is prohibited under Section 45. The buying and selling of a specially protected reptile is prohibited by Part IV section 48. Section 53 and section 55, prohibit the transport of a specially protected reptile into or out of Ontario. All of the above sections are followed by the stipulation “except under the authority of a licence and in accordance with the regulations”.


62

In Quebec, the Eastern Milksnake is afforded protection under “Loi sur la conservation et la mise en valeur de la faune”, Quebec’s Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife (R.S.Q.c. C-61.1). Article 26 of this act states that “No person may disturb, destroy or damage … the eggs, nest or den of an animal”, and thus, the destruction of eggs as well as any hibernating sites of snakes is prohibited. Article 42 protects the Eastern Milksnake from captivity or trade. This article states that “to keep an animal in captivity or to capture it with a view to keeping it in captivity and, where such is the case, to dispose thereof, a person must hold a licence issued for such purpose and comply with the norms, numbers and conditions prescribed by regulation”. The Eastern Milksnake is not listed in this Act as a species that can be kept in captivity (R.S.Q.c. C-61.1 r 0.0001); therefore it is illegal to do so (P. Aquin, pers. comm).

The regulations of Quebec are general and do not specifically focus on the Eastern Milksnake. Although the regulations of Ontario are specific with regard to the Milksnake as a species of special consideration, neither the Ontario nor Quebec regulations can protect the Milksnake from what appear to be its two greatest potential causes of decline: road mortality (Harding 1997) and deliberate killing by humans (B. Johnson, pers. comm). The illegal pet trade is the most easily enforced regulation; however, it is unlikely that the pet trade is a threat to wild Eastern Milksnake populations in Canada since they are easily bred in captivity. As a result, those people who are seeking a Milksnake as a pet can obtain one from captive-bred stock and do not have to exploit wild populations (P. Gregory, pers. comm.).”

Colombia: Occurrence reported (Freiberg, 1982). No information on conservation status was found.

Costa Rica: Leenders (2001) reported that, in Costa Rica, L. triangulum “lives at elevations below 2,000 m, and can be found everywhere except for the southern Caribbean slope.”

Ecuador: Occurrence reported in southwest and central Ecuador (Freiberg, 1982; Almendáriz and Carr, 2007). Cisneros-Hereida (2007) reported L. triangulum micropholis to occur in the provinces of Guayas, Los Ríos, Imbabura, Pichincha, Bolívar and El Oro, and considered the species to be “rather widespread and relatively adapted to disturbed habitats.” Cisneros-Hereida (2007) listed killing because of its coralsnake pattern, habitat loss and fragmentation and road-kill as the main threats to the species in the country.

El Salvador: Reported from eight localities in El Salvador, within the departments of Ahuachapán, La Libertad, La Paz, San Miguel and San Salvador and to have an approximate distribution area of 6,760 km2 in the country (Greenbaum and Komar, 2005). Considered to be Vulnerable in El Salvador according to an evaluation using the IUCN Red List criteria (Greenbaum and Komar, 2005).

Guatemala: Reported to occur from near sea level to about 1,650 m in Guatemala (Campbell, 1999). No information on the conservation status of the species in the country was found to be available.

Honduras: Reported to occur in Honduras from sea level to 750 m in the tropical moist forest, tropical dry forest, subtropical wet forest, and subtropical moist forest formations (Wilson and Meyer, 1982). Occurrence reported in 2005 in the Sierra de Omoa, northwestern Honduras, including El Cusuco National Park (Townsend, 2006; Townsend et al., 2006). Considered infrequent in the rainforests of Honduras (Wilson and Townsend, 2006).

Mexico: Occurrence reported in Veracruz (De la Torre-Loranca et al., 2006), Jalisco (Fanti Echegoyen, 2002) and throughout most of the Yucatan peninsula (Campbell, 1999).

Considered to be threatened in Mexico (Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, 2000).

Gutierrez Mayen and Ramírez Bautista (1997) considered L. t. campbelli to be widely distributed but rare and endangered in the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán valley (states of Puebla and Oxaca).


63

Nicaragua: Occurrence reported in Nicaragua (Ruiz Pérez and Buitrago, 2003 in: Rueda Pereira, 2007). No information on the conservation status of the species in the country was found to be available.

Panama: No information on the conservation status of the species in the country was found to be available.

United States of America: Hammerson (2005) considered the species’ national conservation status in the US to be ‘Secure’ and reported the following State-level distribution and conservation status: Alabama (Secure); Arizona (Imperilled); Arkansas (Not Ranked); Colorado (Secure); Connecticut (Secure); Delaware (Imperilled); District of Columbia (Critically Imperilled); Florida (Not Ranked); Georgia (Apparently Secure); Illinois (Not Ranked); Indiana (Not Ranked); Iowa (Apparently Secure); Kansas (Apparently Secure); Kentucky (Secure); Louisiana (Apparently Secure); Maine (Secure); Maryland (Secure); Massachusetts (Secure); Michigan (Secure); Minnesota (Apparently Secure); Mississippi (Apparently Secure); Missouri (Not Ranked); Montana (Imperilled); Nebraska (Secure); New Hampshire (Secure); New Jersey (Not Ranked); New Mexico (Apparently Secure); New York (Secure); North Carolina (Vulnerable); Ohio (Not Ranked); Oklahoma (Vulnerable); Pennsylvania (Secure); Rhode Island (Secure); South Carolina (Imperilled); South Dakota (Apparently Secure); Tennessee (Secure); Texas (Secure); Utah (Imperilled/Vulnerable); Vermont (Secure); Virginia (Secure); West Virginia (Secure); Wisconsin (Apparently Secure); and Wyoming (Vulnerable).

Tuberville et al. (2005) reported E. obsoleta to be present in the following southeastern national parks: Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve (Florida); Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (Georgia); and Cumberland Island National Seashore (Georgia).

Found in South Dakota, where Platt et al. (2006) reported the species to occur widely in the western parts of the state.

Reported to be present but rare in Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Ross County, Ohio (Wieg, 2004).

Various other authors reported several State level occurrences, including Kansas (Collins, 2007), Kentucky (Dury and Gessing Jr, 1940; Armstrong et al., 2001), Missouri (Daniel et al., 2008), Tennessee (Armstrong et al., 2001), Texas (UT, 1999; SWCHR, 2009), Utah (Shofner, 2007), Virginia (VDGIF, 2009).

In Arizona, Brennan (2008) reported that the species is “distributed across a large portion of the state’s northeastern plateau region and a small portion of southeastern Arizona. Its secretive nature makes it difficult to document distribution. In Arizona it is likely much more broadly distributed than we currently know”. Reported from Cochise Country, Arizona (Badman and Neinaber, 2003), where Brennan (2008) noted that the species is protected: “It is against Arizona State law to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect this animal in Cochise County AZ, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Statewide in Arizona, collection of the species is allowed subject to the necessary permits and bag and possession limits (two specimens per year, or four in possession) (Fitzgerald et al., 2004).

Reported to be rare in the Arkansas Post National Memorial National Park (McCallum et al., 2003).

Reported to be found throughout Florida, where it was considered to be locally abundant (FMNH, 2000). Rocus and Mazzotti (2002) reported occurrence of the species in southern Florida.

In Illinois, it was reported that the species is “not commonly seen, except perhaps in the Chicago region and portions of the Shawnee Hills, because of its secretive nature” and that it “may be over collected for the pet trade at some localities” (UI, 2008).

In Michigan, the species was reported to be “fairly common throughout the Lower Peninsula, but rare in the Upper Peninsula” (DNRM, 2007).


64

Reported to occur in New York state, where it is unprotected by federal laws (NYDEC, 2007).

Reported to occur in North and South Carolina; in South Carolina, L. triangulum triangulum was considered a Species of Special Concern (Dorcas, 2005).

The species is listed in the Nongame regulations for Texas, therefore it is necessary to obtain a permit to collect, possess or sell it (Fitzgerald et al., 2004).

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of): Occurrence reported (Freiberg, 1982). L. triangulum andesiana was reported to be found in Tachira, Merida and Zulia states and to be the only subspecies of L. triangulum to occur in Venezuela (Navarrete and Rodríguez-Acosta, 2003).

REFERENCES:

Almendáriz, A. and Carr, J. L. 2007. Lista actualizada de los anfibios y reptiles registrados en los remanentes de bosque de la cordillera de la costa y áreas adyacentes del suroeste del Ecuador. Escuela Politécnica Nacional. Quito, Ecuador.

Armstrong, M. P., Frymire, D., and Zimmerer, E. J. 2001. Analysis of sympatric populations of Lampropeltis triangulum syspila and Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides, in Western Kentucky and adjacent Tennessee with relation to the taxonomic status of the scarlet kingsnake. Journal of Herpetology, 35 (4): 688-693.

Badman, J. A. and Neinaber, L. 2003. Milksnakes (Lampropeltis triangulum) from Cochise Country: Notes on captive breeding and pattern. Sonoran Herpetologist, 16 (2).

Bartlett, R. D. 1987. In search of amphibians and reptiles. E.J. Brill Publishing, New York. 363 pp. Behler, J. L. and King, F. W. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.


Brennan, T. C. 2008. Milksnake - Lampropeltis triangulum URL: http://www.reptilesofaz.com/Snakes-Subpages/h-l-triangulum.html Accessed: 24-3-2009.

Campbell, J. A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles of northern Guatemala, the Yucatan, and Belize. University of Oklahoma Press.

Cisneros-Heredia, D. F. 2007. On the distribution and conservation of Lampropeltis triangulum (Lacepede, 1789) in Ecuador. Herpetozoa, 19 (3-4): 182-183.

Coffin, B. and Pfannmuller, L. 1988. Minnesota's endangered flora and fauna. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 473 pp.

Collins, J. T. 2007. A checklist of the amphibians, turtles, and reptiles of the Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Butler and Greenwood Counties, Kansas. Journal of Kansas Herpetology, 22: 9-10.

Daniel, R. E., Edmond, B. S., and Briggler, J. T. 2008. New herpetological records from Missouri for 2008. Missouri Herpetological Association Newsletter, 21.

De la Torre-Loranca, M. A., Aguirre-León, G., and López-Luna, M. A. 2006. Coralillos verdaderos (Serpentes: Elapidae) y Coralillos falsos (Serpentes: Colubridae) de Veracruz, México. Acta Zoológica Mexicana, 22 (3): 11-22.

DNRM. 2007. Eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum), Department of Natural Resources, Michigan, URL: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12145_12201-61211--,00.html Accessed: 24-3-2009.

Dorcas, M. E. 2005. Rare, threatened and endangered amphibians and reptiles within the Catawba-Wateree river system. Final report to Duke Power company.

Dury, R. and Gessing Jr, W. 1940. Notes on Lampropeltis in Kentucky. Copeia, 4: 241-243. Ernst, C. H. and Barbour, R. W. 1989. Snakes of Eastern North America. George Mason University

Press, Fairfax, Virginia. 282 pp. Fanti Echegoyen, E. 2002. Reptiles y anfibios de Jalisco. Universidad de Guadalajara. Fischer, L. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 29 pp.


65

Fitzgerald, L. A., Painter, C. W., Reuter, A., and Hoover, C. 2004. Collection, trade, and regulation of reptiles and amphibians of the Chihuahuan Desert ecoregion. TRAFFIC North America. Washington D.C.

FMNH. 2000. Scarlet kingsnake, Florida Museum of Natural History, URL: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/herpetology/fl-guide/Lampropeltistelapsoides.htm Accessed: 24-3-2009.

Freiberg, M. 1982. Snakes of South America. T.F.H. Publications Inc. Greenbaum, E. and Komar, O. 2005. Threat assessment and conservation prioritization of the

herpetofauna of El Salvador. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14 (10): 2377-2395. Gutierrez Mayen, M. G. and Ramírez Bautista, A. 1997. Inventario herpetofaunístico del valle

semiárido del Tehuacán-Cuicatlán. Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Escuela de Biología. Puebla, Mexico. Informe final del proyecto H330.

Hammerson, G. 2005. Lampropeltis triangulum, NatureServe - An online encyclopedia of life, URL: www.natureserve.org Accessed: 25-3-2009.

Isberg, T. 2002. Lampropeltis triangulum, Animal Diversity Web - University of Michigan, URL: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Lampropeltis_triangulum.html Accessed: 24-3-2009.

Leenders, T. 2001. A guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica. Zona Tropical Publication. McCallum, M. L., Trauth, S. E., Neal, R. G., and Hoffman, V. 2003. A Herpetofaunal inventory

of Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas County, Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 57: 122-130.

Meerman, J. 1994. Summary of herpetofauna distributions in Belize. Report to National Protected Areas Management Project.

MNR. 2009. Species at risk in Ontario (SARO) list, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, URL: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/246809.html Accessed: 26-3-2009.

Navarrete, L. F. and Rodríguez-Acosta, A. 2003. Notes on the natural history of the milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum andesiana Williams, 1978 in Venezuela. Caribbean Journal of Science, 39 (2): 235-236.

Neill, W. T. and Allen, R. 1961. Further studies on the herpetology of British Honduras. Herpetologica, 17 (1): 37-52.

NYDEC. 2007. Checklist of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals of New York state. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. New York.

Platt, S. G., Horse, Z. F., Mannel, S., Killing, C. C., and Rainwater, T. R. 2006. A herpetofaunal survey of southwestern South Dakota with an emphasis on species of conservation concern. Journal of Kansas Herpetology, 20: 10-19.

Porter, K.R. 1972. Herpetology. W.B. Sunders company. Rocus, D. S. and Mazzotti, F. J. 2002. Reptiles of southern Florida. University of Florida. Rueda Pereira, R. 2007. Recopilación de la información sobre la biodiversidad de Nicaragua.

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua-León, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and INBio Costa Rica.

Ruiz Pérez, G. A. and Buitrago, V. 2003. Guía ilustrada de la herpetofauna de Nicaragua. Impresiones Helios. 337 pp.


Shofner, R. M. 2007. A modern checklist of the amphibians, reptiles and turtles of Utah. Journal of Kansas Herpetology, 21.

SWCHR. 2009. Louisiana milksnake - Lampropeltis triangulum amaura, Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research, URL: http://www.southwesternherp.com/snakes/amaura.html Accessed: 24-3-2009.


66

Townsend, J. H. 2006, Inventory and conservation assessment of the herpetofauna of the Sierra de Omoa, Honduras, with a review of the Geophis (Squamata: Colubridae) of eastern nuclear Central America, MA thesis, University of Florida.

Townsend, J. H., Wilson, L. D., Talley, B. L., Fraser, D. C., Plenderleith, T. L., and Hughes, S. M. 2006. Additions to the herpetofauna of Parque Nacional El Cusuco, Honduras. Herpetological Bulletin, 96: 29-39.


UI. 2008. Lampropeltis triangulum - Milk snake, Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability at the University of Illinois, URL: http://www.inhs.illinois.edu/animals_plants/herps/species/la_triangu.html Accessed: 24-3-2009.

UT. 1999. Herps of Texas - Snakes: Lampropeltis triangulum, University of Texas, URL: http://www.zo.utexas.edu/research/txherps/snakes/lampropeltis.triangulum.html Accessed: 24-3-2009.

VDGIF. 2009. Scarlet kingsnake (Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum), Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, URL: http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=030029 Accessed: 24-3-2009.

WCS and MNRLIC. 1998. Belize biodiversity information system, Wildlife Conservation Society and Ministry of Natural Resources´ Land Information Centre, URL: http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WCS/030600.HTM Accessed: 27-3-2009.

Werler, J.E. & Dixon, J.R. 2000. Texas snakes: Identification, distribution and natural history. University of Texas Press.

Wieg, C. 2004. A herpetofaunal inventory of Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, Ross County, Ohio. Heartland Network Inventory and Monitoring Program - National Park Service. Technical Report NPS/HTLN/P6514020002.

Williams, K. L. 1978. Systematics and natural history of the American milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum. Milwaukee Public Museum Publications by Biology and Geology (2): 1-258.

Wilson, L. D. and Meyer, J. R. 1982. The snakes of Honduras. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Wilson, L. D. and Townsend, J. H. 2006. The herpetofauna of the rainforests of Honduras. Caribbean Journal of Science, 42 (1): 88.

Annex I

67

ANNEX I

Non-CITES reptile species with evidence of trade in the EU, based on the internet survey conducted for this report together with those species identified by Auliya (2003).

Order/Family Species Notes Auliya 2003

Internet survey 2009

IUCN Red List

SAURIA

AGAMIDAE Acanthosaura sp. X X

Acanthosaura armata X

Acanthosaura capra X X

Acanthosaura crucigera X X

Acanthosaura lepidogaster X

Agama aculeata X X

Agama agama Inc. syn. Agama armata and ssp. Agama agama lionotus

X X

Agama impalearis X

Agama kolnierzasta X

Bronchocela cristatella X

Bronchocela jubata X X

Calotes andamanensis Inc. syn. Calotes andamani

X

Calotes emma X

Calotes cf. jubatus X

Calotes mystaceus X

Calotes versicolor X X

Ceratophora stoddartii X

Chlamydosaurus kingii X X

Draco volans X

Gonocephalus sp. X

Gonocephalus chamaeleontinus X X

Gonocephalus godefroyi X

Gonocephalus grandis X

Gonocephalus kuhlii X

Hydrosaurus amboinensis X X

Hydrosaurus pustulatus X X DD

Hydrosaurus weberi X X

Japalura splendida X X

Laudakia atricollis Inc. syn. Acanthocercus atricollis, Agama atricollis.

X X

Laudakia melanura Inc. syn. Agama melanura .

X

Laudakia nupta Inc. syn. Agama nupta & ssp. Laudakia nupta fusca.

X

Laudakia stellio Inc. ssp. L. s. beachydactyla, L. s. picea.

X

Leiolepis belliana Inc. syn. Physignathus temporalis.

X

Annex I

68



IUCN Red List

Leiolepis guttata X

Leiolepis reevesi X

Leiolepis triploida X

Lophognathus temporalis X X

Physignatus spp. X X

Physignathus cocincinus X X

Physignathus lesueurii X X

Phrynocephalus mystaceus X

Pogona ssp. X

Pogona henrylawsoni X

Pogona vitticeps Inc. ssp. P. v. leucistic.

X X

Pseudocalotes tympanistriga X

Pseudotrapelus sinaitus X

Trapelus flavimaculatus X

Trapelus mutabilis Inc. syn. Agama mutabilis.

X X

Trapelus savignii Inc. syn. Agama savignii.

X VU

Tympanocryptis tetraporophora X

Xenagama batillifera X

Xenagama taylori X

ANGUIDAE Abronia graminea X EN

Barisia cf. moreleti X

Diploglossus warreni Inc. syn. Celestus warren.

X CR

Elgaria kingii X LC

Elgaria multicarinata Inc. ssp. E. m. multicarinata, E. m. webbi.

X LC

Gerrhonotus moreletti X

Ophiodes intermedius X

Ophisaurus apodus X

Ophisaurus ventralis X LC

CHAMAELEONIDAE Rhampholeon spp. X

Rhampholeon acuminatus X

Rhampholeon boulengeri X

Rhampholeon brevicaudatus X

Rhampholeon kerstenii X X

Rhampholeon nchisiensis X

Rhampholeon spectrum X

Rhampholeon spinosum X

Rhampholeon temporalis X

Rhampholeon uluguruensis X

Rhampholeon viridis X

CORDYLIDAE Platysaurus imperator Inc. ssp. P. i. rhodesianus.

X X

Platysaurus intermedius X

Playtsaurus jansenii X

Annex I

69



IUCN Red List

Platysaurus pungweensis X

GEKKONIDAE Aeluroscalabotes felinus X

Agamura sp. X

Agamura persica X X

Ailuronyx seychellensis X X LC

Asaccus elisae X

Bavayia robusta X

Blaesodactylus antongilensis Inc. syn. Homopholis antongilensis.

X

Blaesodactylus sakalava Inc. syn. Homopholis sakalava.

X

Bunopus tuberculatus

Chondrodactylus angulifer X

Cnemaspis africana X X

Coleonyx brevis X X LC

Coleonyx elegans X

Coleonyx mitratus X X

Coleonyx variegatus Inc. ssp. C.v. abbotti, C. v. utahensis, C. v. Variegates.

X

Cosymbotus platyurus X

Cyrtodactylus louisiadensis X X

Cyrtodactylus marmoratus X

Cyrtodactylus pulchellus X X

Cyrtodactylus quadrivirgatus X

Diplodactylus galeatus X

Diplodactylus tessellatus X

Diplodactylus vittatus X

Dixonius siamensis Inc. syn. Phyllodactylus siamensis.

X

Ebenavia inunguis X

Eublepharis macularius Inc. ssp. E. m. leucistic, E. m. montanus.

X X

Geckolepis anomala X

Geckolepis maculata X

Geckolepis petiti X

Geckolepis polylepis X

Geckolepis typica X

Geckonia chazaliae X X

Gekko gecko X X

Gekko grossmanni X X

Gekko petricolus X X

Gekko smithii X X

Gekko ulikovskii Inc. syn. Gecko auratus.

X X

Gekko vittatus X X

Gonatodes albogularis X

Annex I

70



IUCN Red List

Goniurosaurus araneus X

Goniurosaurus hainanensis X

Goniurosaurus kuroiwae X VU

Goniurosaurus lichtenfelderi Inc. ssp. G. l. lichtenfelderi.

X X

Goniurosaurus luii X

Goniurosaurus orientalis X

Goniurosaurus yamashinae X

Hemidactylus spp. X

Hemidactylus brookii X X

Hemidactylus fasciatus

Hemidactylus flaviviridis X

Hemidactylus frenatus X X

Hemidactylus mabouia X X

Hemidactylus marmoratus Inc. ssp. Gecko marmoratus.

X X

Hemidactylus prashadi X

Hemidactylus triedrus Inc. ssp. H. t. triedrus.

X

Hemidactylus turcicus X

Hemitheconyx brookii X

Hemitheconyx caudicinctus X X

Hemitheconyx echinus X

Hemitheconyx longicephalus X

Hemitheconyx muriceus X

Hemitheconyx richardsonii X

Holodactylus africanus X X

Homopholis boivini X

Homopholis fasciata X

Lepidodactylus lugubris X X

Lucasium damaeum Inc. syn. Diplodactylus damaeus.

X

Lygodactylus angularis X X

Lygodactylus angulatus X

Lygodactylus capensis X X

Lygodactylus kimhowelli X

Lygodactylus luteopicturatus X

Lygodactylus picturatus X X

Lygodactylus williamsi X

Nephrurus amyae X

Nephrurus deleani X EN

Nephrurus levis Inc. ssp. N. l. levis. X

Nephrurus wheeleri X

Oedodera marmorata X

Oedura castelnaui X X

Oedura monilis X X

Pachydactylus bibronii X X

Pachydactylus capensis X

Pachydactylus tigrinus X X

Annex I

71



IUCN Red List

Palmatogecko rangei X

Paroedura androyensis X

Paroedura bastardi X X

Paroedura masobe X

Paroedura picta X X

Phyllodactylus xanti Inc. ssp. P. x. Nocticolus.

X LC

Ptychozoon kuhli X X

Ptyodactylus guttatus X

Ptyodactylus hasselquistii Inc. ssp. P. h. ragazzi.

X

Rhacodactylus chahoua X

Saurodactylus mauritanicus LC

Sphaerodactylus klauberi X

Sphaerodactylus macrolepis Inc. ssp. S. m. guarionex, S. m. spanius.

X

Sphaerodactylus nicholsi X

Sphaerodactylus roosevelti X

Sphaerodactylus townsendi X

Stenodactylus eleganus X

Stenodactylus petrii X

Stenodactylus sthenodactylus X X

Strophurus intermedius X

Strophurus spinigerus X

Strophurus taeniatus X

Strophurus taenicauda X

Strophurus williamsi X

Tarentola annularis X X

Tarentola chazaliae X

Tarentola gigas X

Tarentola mauritanica X LC

Tarentola scaber X

Teratolepis fasciata X

Teratoscincus cf. fasciata X

Teratoscincus roborowskii X

Thecadactylus rapicauda X

Tropiocolotes steudneri X

Tropiocolotes tripolitanus X

Underwoodisaurus milii Inc. syn. Nephrurus milii.

X

GERRHOSAURIDAE Gerrhosaurus spp. X X

Gerrhosaurus flavigularis X X

Gerrhosaurus major X X

Gerrhosaurus nigrolineatus X X

Gerrhosaurus validus X

Tracheloptychus madagascariensis X

Tracheloptychus petersi X X

Annex I

72



IUCN Red List

Zonosaurus laticaudatus X

Zonosaurus madagascariensis X X LC

Zonosaurus maximus X

Zonosaurus ornatus X X

IGUANIDAE Anolis sp. X

Anolis allisoni X

Anolis armouri X

Anolis bahorucoensis Inc. ssp. A. b. southerlandi.

X

Anolis barbatus Inc. syn. Chamaeleolis barbatus.

X

Anolis bartschi X X

Anolis bimaculatus Inc. ssp. A. b. sabanus.

X

Anolis brevirostris X

Anolis carolinensis X X LC

Anolis chlorocyanus X X

Anolis cristatellus Inc. ssp. Anolis cristatellus wileyae.

X X

Anolis cupreus X

Anolis cybotes X

Anolis equestris X X

Anolis evermanni X

Anolis extremus X

Anolis garmani X

Anolis guamuhaya Inc. syn. Chamaeleolis guamuhaya.

X

Anolis gundlachi X

Anolis krugi X

Anolis lucius X

Anolis luteogularis X

Anolis olssoni X

Anolis porcatus X

Anolis porcus Inc. syn. Chamaeleolis porcus.

X

Anolis richardi X

Anolis roquet Inc. ssp. A. r. martiniquensis.

X X

Anolis sagrei Inc. syn. Norops sagrei.

X X

Anolis smallwoodi X

Anolis vermiculatus X

Basiliscus spp. X

Basiliscus basiliscus X X

Basiliscus plumifrons X X

Basiliscus vittatus X X

Callisaurus draconoides X X LC

Chalarodon madagascariensis X X

Cophosaurus texanus X LC

Annex I

73



IUCN Red List

Corytophanes cristatus X X

Corytophanes percarinatus X

Crotaphytus collaris Inc. ssp. C. c. collaris, C. c. fuscus.

X X LC

Crotaphytus insularis X X LC

Crotaphytus reticulatus X VU

Ctenosaura palearis X X CR

Ctenosaura pectinata X

Ctenosaura quinquecarinata Inc. syn. Enyaliosaurus quinquecarinatus.

X X EN

Ctenosaura similis X X

Dipsosaurus dorsalis X X LC

Gambelia wislizenii X X LC

Holbrookia texana X

Laemanctus longipes X X

Laemanctus serratus X X

Leiocephalus spp. X

Leiocephalus barahonensis X

Leiocephalus carinatus Inc. ssp. L. c. armouri, L. c. hobadom, L. c. hodsoni.

X X

Leiocephalus personatus Inc. ssp. L. p. opistho.

X X

Leiocephalus schreibersii X X

Liolaemus sp. X

Norops biporcatus Inc. syn. Anolis biporcatus.

X

Oplurus cuvieri X

Oplurus cyclurus X

Oplurus fierinensis X

Oplurus grandidieri X

Oplurus quadrimaculatus X

Phrynosoma modestum X X LC

Phrynosoma platyrhinos X X LC

Plica plica Inc. syn. Tropidurus plica

X

Plica umbra Inc. syn. Tropidurus umbra

X

Polychrus acutirostris X

Polychrus gutturosus X

Polychrus marmoratus X

Sauromalus ater X LC

Sauromalus hispidus X

Sauromalus obesus X X

Sceloporus clarkii X X LC

Sceloporus cyanogenys X X

Sceloporus jarrovii X X LC

Sceloporus magister X X LC

Sceloporus malachiticus X X

Sceloporus merriami X LC

Annex I

74



IUCN Red List

Sceloporus occidentalis X

Sceloporus olivaceus X LC

Sceloporus orcutti X LC

Sceloporus poinsettii X X LC

Sceloporus undulatus Inc. ssp. S. u. garmani.

X LC

Sceloporus variabilis Inc. ssp. S. v. olloporus.

X X

Sceloporus virgatus X LC

Stenocercus sp. X

Tropidurus sp. X

Tropidurus torquatus X

Uranoscodon superciliosus X

Urosaurus ornatus X LC

Uta stansburiana X LC

LACERTIDAE Acanthodactylus ssp. X

Acanthodactylus boskianus X

Acanthodactylus pardalis X X VU

Adolfus jacksoni X

Eremias argus X

Gallotia eisentrauti X

Gallotia galloti X LC

Holaspis guentheri Inc. ssp. H. g. laevis.

X

Lacerta jayakari X

Lacerta viridis Inc. syn. Lacerta bilineata.

X LC

Latastia longicaudata X X

Podarcis sicula X LC

Takydromus sexlineatus X X

PYGOPODIDAE Lialis burtonis X

Lialis jicari X

SCINCIDAE Acontias percivali X

Amphiglossus cf. waterloti X

Chalcides chalcides X X LC

Chalcides mionecton X LC

Chalcides ocellatus Inc. ssp. C. o. ocellatus, C. o. Tiligugu.

X

Chalcides ragazzii X

Chalcides viridanus X LC

Dasia olivacea X X

Egernia depressa X

Egernia frerei X X

Egernia hosmeri X

Egernia kingii X

Egernia stokesii X

Egernia striolata X X

Emoia cyanura X X

Eumeces laticeps X LC

Annex I

75



IUCN Red List

Lamprolepis smaragdina Inc. syn. Dasia smaragdina.

X X

Lygosoma koratense Inc. syn. Riopa koratense.

X DD

Lygosoma variegata X

Mabuya spp. X X

Mabuya macularia X X

Mabuya multifasciata X X

Mabuya sundevalli X

Mochlus fernandi Inc. syn. Lygosoma fernandi.

X X

Novoeumeces schneideri Inc. syn. Eumeces schneideri.

X X

Riopa fernandi X

Scincella lateralis X LC

Scincus scincus X X

Tiliqua spp. X

Tiliqua gerrardii X X

Tiliqua gigas Inc. ssp. T. g. gigas, T. g. keyensis.

X X

Tiliqua scincoides Inc. syn. Tropidophorus scincoides & ssp. T. s. intermedia.

X X

Trachydosaurus rugosus Inc. syn. Tiliqua rugosa & ssp. T. r. asper.

X

Trachylepis spp. X

Trachylepis brevicollis Inc. syn. Mabuya brevicollis.

X

Trachylepis maculilabris Inc. syn. Mabuya maculilabris.

X

Trachylepis margaritifera Inc. syn. Mabuya margaritifera.

X

Trachylepis perrotetii Inc. syn. Mabuya perrotetii.

X X

Trachylepis planifrons Inc. syn. Mabuya planifrons

Trachylepis quinquetaeniata Inc. syn. Mabuya quinquetaeniata.

X X

Trachylepis striata Inc. syn. Mabuya striata.

X X

Trachylepis vittata Inc. syn. Mabuya vittata.

X LC

Tropidophorus apulus X

Tropidophorus berdmorei X

Tropidophorus grayi X

TEIIDAE Ameiva ameiva X X

Ameiva bifrontata X

Ameiva chaitzami X X DD

Ameiva festiva X

Ameiva undulata X X

Callopistes flavipunctatus X

Annex I

76



IUCN Red List

Cnemidophorus deppei X X

Cnemidophorus lemniscatus X

Cnemidophorus marmoratus X

Cnemidophorus motaguae X LC

XANTUSIIDAE Lepidophyma flavimaculatum X X

Xantusia henshawi X LC

Xantusia vigilis X LC

XENOSAURIDAE Xenosaurus grandis VU

SERPENTES

ACROCHORDIDAE Acrochordus javanicus X

COLUBRIDAE Ahaetulla mycterizans X X

Ahaetulla nasuta X X

Ahaetulla prasina X X

Amphiesma stolatum Inc. syn. Natrix stolata.

X

Aplopeltura boa X

Arizona elegans X X LC

Bogertophis rosaliae Inc. ssp. Elaphe rosalia.e

X LC

Bogertophis subocularis Inc. syn. Elaphe subocularis.

X X LC

Boiga blandingii Inc. syn. Toxicodryas blandingii.

X

Boiga cyanea X

Boiga cynodon X X

Boiga dendrophila Inc. ssp. B. d. gemmicincta, B. d. melanota.

X X

Boiga guangxiensis X

Boiga irregularis X

Boiga kraepelini X

Cemophora coccinea X LC

Chrysopelea ornata X X

Coluber constrictor Inc. ssp. C. c. constrictor.

X LC

Coluber hippocrepis X

Crotaphopeltis hotamboiea X

Dasypeltis atra X

Dasypeltis medici X

Dasypeltis scabra X X

Dendrelaphis pictus X

Diadophis punctatus X LC

Dispholidus typus X

Dryadophis dorsalis X

Drymarchon corais X X

Drymarchon couperi Inc. syn. Drymarchon corais couperi.

X X LC

Annex I

77



IUCN Red List

Drymarchon melanurus Inc. syn. Drymarchon coralis melaneura.

X X LC

Drymobius margaritiferus X

Elaphe ssp. X

Elaphe hybrid X

Elaphe bairdi Inc. syn. Pantherophis bairdi.

X X LC

Elaphe bimaculata X X

Elaphe climacophora X X

Elaphe dione X

Elaphe emoryi Inc. ssp. Pantherophis emoryi.

X LC

Elaphe flavirufa Inc. ssp. E. f. flavirufa, E. f. pardalina.

X X

Elaphe flavolineata X

Elaphe frenata X

Elaphe guttata Inc. syn. Pantherophis guttata & spp. E. g. amelano, E. g. guttata, E.g. rosacea.

X X LC

Elaphe helena X X

Elaphe mandarinus Inc. syn. Euprepiophis mandarinus.

X X

Elaphe moellendorffi X X

Elaphe obsoleta Inc. syn. Pantherophis obsoletus & ssp. E. o. leucictica, E. o. lindheimeri, E. o. obsoleta, E. o. quadrivittata, E. o. rossalleni, E. o. spiloides.

X X LC

Elaphe prasina Inc. syn. Gonyosoma prasina, Rhadinophis prasinum.

X

Elaphe persica X

Elaphe porphyracea Inc. ssp. E. p. coxi, E. p. laticincta.

X

Elaphe quadrivirgata X

Elaphe quatuorlineata Inc. ssp. E. q. muenteri.

X X

Elaphe rufodorsata X

Elaphe scalaris Inc. syn. Rhinechis scalaris.

X LC

Elaphe schrenkii Inc. ssp. E. s. schrenkii.

X X

Elaphe slowinskii X DD

Elaphe vulpina X LC

Erpeton tentaculatus X

Gonyosoma frenatum X

Annex I

78



IUCN Red List

Gonyosoma jansenii Inc. syn. Elaphe jansenii.

X

Gonyosoma oxycephalum X X

Heterodon spp. X

Heterodon kennerlyi X LC

Heterodon nasicus Inc. ssp. H. n. nasicus.

X X

Hypsiglena torquata X

Lampropeltis spp. X X

Lampropeltis alterna Inc. ssp. L. a. alterna, L. a. blairi.

X X LC

Lampropeltis calligaster Inc. ssp. L. c. calligaster.

X X LC

Lampropeltis campelli X

Lampropeltis getula Inc. ssp. L. g. brooksi, L. g. californiae, L. g. floridana, L. g. getulus, L.g. goini, L. g. holbrooki, L.g. nigritis, L. g. splendid.

X X LC

Lampropeltis mexicana Inc. ssp. L. m. greeri, L. m. mexican, L. m. thayeri.

X X LC

Lampropeltis nigritus X X

Lampropeltis pyromelana Inc. ssp. L. p. knowblochi, L. p. pyromelana.

X X LC

Lampropeltis ruthveni X X NT

Lampropeltis triangulum Inc. ssp. L. t. abnorma, L. t. andesiana, L.t. annulata, L. t. arcifera, L. t. campbelli, L.t. elapsoides, L. t. gaigae, L. t. gentilis, L. t. hondurensis, L. t. micropholis, L. t. nelsoni, L. t. polyzona, L. t. sinaloe, L. t. stuarti, L. t. syspila, L. t. triangulatum.

X X

Lampropeltis zonata X LC

Lamprophis spp. X

Lamprophis aurora X

Lamprophis fuliginosus Inc. syn. Boaedon fuliginosus.

X X

Lamprophis lineatus X

Lamprophis mentalis X

Lamprophis olivaceus X

Langaha madagascariensis X

Leioheterodon geayi X

Leptodrymus pulcherrimus X

Leptophis mexicanus X

Annex I

79



IUCN Red List

Lycodon laoensis X

Lystrophis pulcher X

Lystrophis semicinctus X

Masticophis flagellum X LC

Masticophis taeniatus X LC

Mehelya capensis X

Natrix fasciata X

Natrix maura X X LC

Natrix natrix X LR/lc

Nerodia cyclopion X LC

Nerodia fasciata X X LC

Nerodia floridana X LC

Nerodia sipedon Inc. ssp. N. s. sipedon.

X LC

Nerodia taxispilota X LC

Oligodon sp. X

Opheodrys aestivus X X LC

Oplurus sp. X

Oplurus cuvieri X

Oplurus cyclurus X

Oplurus quadrimaculatus X

Oreocryptophis porphyraceus Inc. ssp. O. p. coxi, O. p. laticincta, O. p. vaillanti.

X

Oxybelis fulgidus X

Oxyrhopus rhombifer Inc. ssp. O. r. inaequifasciatus.

X

Pareas carinatus X

Pareas vertebralis X

Philodryas baroni X

Philothamnus spp. X

Philothamnus heterodermus X

Philothamnus irregularis X X

Philothamnus semivariegatus X X

Pituophis spp. X X

Pituophis catenifer Inc. ssp. P. c. affinis, P. c. annectans, P. c. catenifer, P. c. sayi, P. c. vertebralis.

X X LC

Pituophis deppei Inc. ssp. P. d. deppei, P. d. jani.

X LC

Pituophis melanoleucus Inc. syn. Pituophis sayi & ssp. P. m. lodingi, P. m. melanoleucus, P. m. sayi, P. m. vertrbralis.

X X LC

Pituophis ruthveni X EN

Pituophis sayi =Pituophis melanoleucus sayi or Pituophis catenifer sayi?

X LC

Annex I

80



IUCN Red List

Rhamphiophis rubropunctatus X

Rhinocheilus lecontei X LC

Rhynchophis boulengeri X

Salvadora grahamiae LC

Salvadora hexalepis X LC

Sonora semiannulata X LC

Spalerosophis sp. X

Spalerosophis diadema Inc. ssp. S. d. atriceps, S. d. cliffordi.

X X

Spilotes pullatus X X

Storeria dekayi X LC

Storeria occipitomaculata X LC

Telescopus spp. X

Telescopus semiannulatus X

Thamnophis spp. X

Thamnophis atratus Inc. ssp. T. a. atrus, T. a. hydrophilus.

X LC

Thamnophis cyrtopsis Inc. ssp. T. c. cyrtopis, T. c. ocellatus.

X X LC

Thamnophis elegans Inc. ssp. T. e. terrestris, T. e. vagrans.

X LC

Thamnophis marcianus Inc. ssp. T. m. marcianus.

X X

Thamnophis ordinoides X X LC

Thamnophis proximus X

Thamnophis radix Inc. ssp. T. r. haydeni.

X X LC

Thamnophis sauritus Inc. ssp. T. s. sauritus.

X X LC

Thamnophis sirtalis Inc. ssp. T. s. concinnus, T. s. infernalis, T. s. parietalis, T.s. similis, T. s. sirtalis, T. s. tetrataenia.

X X LC

Thrasops jacksonii X

Trimorphodon biscutatus Inc. ssp. T. b. quadruplex.

X LC

Uromacer catesbyi X

Xenochrophis vittatus Inc. syn. Natrix vittata.

X

Zamenis longissimus X

Zamenis persicus X

Zamenis situla Inc. syn. Elaphe situla.

X X LC

CYLINDROPHIIDAE Cylindrophis ruffus X

ELAPIDAE Acanthophis antarcticus X X

Acanthophis laevis X

Aspidelaps lubricus Inc. ssp. A. l. cowlesi, A. l. infuscatus, A. l. lubricus.

X

Annex I

81



IUCN Red List

Aspidelaps scutatus Inc. ssp. A. s. scutatus.

X

Boulengerina annulata X

Dendroaspis angusticeps X X

Dendroaspis polylepis X X

Dendroaspis viridis X X

Naja ashei X

Naja haje X X

Naja kaouthia Inc. ssp. N.k. Suphanensis.

X

Naja annulifera X

Naja melanoleuca Inc. ssp. N. m. melanoleuca.

X

Naja mossambica X

Naja nigricollis X

Naja nivea X

Naja nubiae X

Naja pallida X

Oxyuranus microlepidotus X

Oxyuranus scutellatus Inc. ssp. O. s. canni.

X

Pseudechis porphyriacus X

Pseudohaje goldii X

HYDROPHIIDAE Hydrophiidae spp.

VIPERIDAE Agkistrodon contortrix Inc. ssp. A. c. mokasen, A. c. phaeogaster, A. c. pictigaster.

X LC

Agkistrodon piscivorus Inc. ssp. A. p. conanti.

X X LC

Agkistrodon taylori Inc. syn. Agkistrodon bileneatus taylori.

X X LC

Atheris sp. X

Atheris ceratophora X X

Atheris chlorechis X X

Atheris desaixi X

Atheris hispida X

Atheris nitschei X

Atheris squamigera X X

Atropoides picadoi X

Bitis arietans X

Bitis gabonica Inc. ssp. B. g. gabonica, B. g. rhinoceros.

X X

Bitis nasicornis X X

Bitis parviocula X

Bitis peringueyi X

Bitis worthingtoni X

Bothriechis schlegelii X

Bothrops alternatus X

Bothrops atrox Inc. syn. Bothrops isabelae.

X

Annex I

82



IUCN Red List

Bothrops neuwiedi Inc. syn. Bothrops diporus.

X

Bothrops venezuelensis X

Causus defilippii X

Causus lichtensteinii X

Causus maculatus X

Cerastes cerastes X

Cerastes vipera X X

Crotalus adamanteus X LC

Crotalus atrox X X LC

Crotalus basiliscus X LC

Crotalus cerastes Inc. ssp. C. c. cercobombus.

X LC

Crotalus enyo Inc. ssp. C. e. enya, C. e. furvus.

X X LC

Crotalus horridus Inc. ssp. C. h. atricaudatus.

X LC

Crotalus lepidus Inc. ssp. C. l. klauberi, C. l. lepidus.

X LC

Crotalus mitchellii Inc. ssp. C. m. mitchellii.

X LC

Crotalus molossus Inc. ssp. C. m. molossus.

X LC

Crotalus oreganus Inc. ssp. C. o. helleri, C. o. oreganus.

X LC

Crotalus polystictus X LC

Crotalus pricei LC

Crotalus ravus Inc. ssp. C. r. ravus.

X LC

Crotalus ruber Inc. ssp. C.r. ruber. X X LC

Crotalus tigris LC

Crotalus triseriatus Inc .ssp. C. t. triseriatus.

X LC

Crotalus viridis Inc. ssp. C. v. nuntius, C. v. oreganus.

X X LC

Deinagkistrodon acutus X X

Echis carinatus Inc. ssp. E. c. sochureki.

X

Echis coloratus X

Echis leakyei X

Echis ocellatus X

Gloydius blomhoffii X

Macrovipera lebetina Inc. syn. Vipera lebetina & ssp. M. l. turanica, V. l. obtuse.

X X

Macrovipera mauritanica X

Macrovipera xanthina Inc. syn. Vipera xanthina

X X

Montatheris hindii X

Ovophis monticola Inc. ssp. O. m. convictus.

X

Porthidium lansbergii Inc. ssp. P. l. houtmanni.

X

Annex I

83



IUCN Red List

Porthidium ophryomegas X

Proatheris superciliaris Inc. syn. Atheris superciliaris.

X

Sistrurus catenatus Inc. ssp. S. c. tergeminus.

X LC

Sistrurus miliaris Inc. ssp. S. m. barbouri.

X X LC

Trimeresurus sp. X

Trimeresurus albolabris Inc. syn. Cryptelytrops albolabris & ssp. T. a. insularis.

X X

Trimeresurus fasciatus Inc. syn. Cryptelytrops fasciatus.

X

Trimeresurus flavomaculatus X

Trimeresurus gumprechti Inc. syn. Viridovipera gumprechti.

X

Trimeresurus jerdonii Inc. syn. Protobothrops jerdonii & ssp. P. j. xanthomelas.

X

Trimeresurus kanburiensis Inc. syn. Cryptelytrops venustus, Trimeresurus venustus.

X

Trimeresurus macrops Inc. syn. Cryptelytrops macrop.s

X X

Trimeresurus mucrosquamatus Inc. syn. Protobothrops mucrosquamatus.

X

Trimeresurus puniceus X

Trimeresurus purpureomaculatus X

Trimeresurus stejnegeri Inc. syn. Viridovipera stejnegeri & ssp. T. s. stejnegeri.

X X

Trimeresurus sumatranus X

Trimeresurus trigonocephalus X

Tropidolaemus philippinensis X

Tropidolaemus wagleri X X

Vipera albicornuta Inc. syn. Montivipera albicornuta.

X

Vipera ammodytes Inc. ssp. V. a. ammodytes, V. a. gregorwalneri, V. a. meridionalis, V. a. montandoni, V. a. transcaucasia.

X

Vipera aspis Inc. ssp. V. a. zinnekeri.

X LC

Vipera latastei Inc. ssp. V. l. gaditana, V. l. latastei.

X NT

Vipera lotievi X

Annex I

84



IUCN Red List

Vipera palaestinae X

Vipera raddei X LR/lc

Vipera seoanei Inc. ssp. V. s. seoanei.

X LC

XENOPELTIDAE Xenopeltis unicolor X X

TESTUDINES

CHELIDAE Acanthochelys spixii X LR/nt

Chelodina gunaleni X

Chelodina longicollis X X

Chelodina novaeguineae X LR/lc

Chelodina reimanni X LR/nt

Chelodina siebenrocki X X LR/nt

Chelus fimbriatus X X

Chelydra serpentina Inc. ssp. C. s. osceola.

X

Elseya sp. X

Elseya branderhorsti X X VU

Elseya latisternum X

Elseya novaeguineae X X LR/lc

Elseya shultzei X

Emydura sp. X

Emydura macquarii X X

Emydura subglobosa Inc. syn. Emydura albertisi.

X X LR/lc

Hydromedusa tectifera X X

Phrynops geoffroanus X

Phrynops gibbus X X

Phrynops hilarii X X

Phrynops nasutus X X

Phrynops tuberosus Inc. syn. Phrynops geoffroanus tuberosus.

X

Platemys platycephala X

CHELYDRIDAE Chelydra serpentina Inc. ssp. C.s. serpentina.

X X

EMYDIDAE Clemmys guttata X X VU

Clemmys marmorata X

Deirochelys reticularia Inc. ssp. D. r. chrysea.

X X

Emydoidea blandingii X LR/nt

Emys orbicularis X X LR/nt

Malaclemys terrapin Inc. ssp. M. t. centrata, M. t. terrapin.

X LR/nt

Pseudemys concinna Inc. ssp. P. s. concinna, P. s. hieroglyphica.

X X

Pseudemys floridana X X

Pseudemys gorzugi X LR/nt

Pseudemys nelsoni X X

Pseudemys peninsularis X X

Pseudemys rubriventris X X

Annex I

85



IUCN Red List

Trachemys callirostris Inc. syn. Trachemys scripta callirostris.

X

Trachemys dorbigni X

Trachemys emolli X

Trachemys scripta Inc. syn. Chrysemys scripta, Pseudemys scripta & ssp. T. s. grayi, T. s. ornata, T. s. scripta, T. s. troostii.

X X LR/nt

Trachemys venusta X

GEOEMYDIDAE Cyclemys atripons X

Cyclemys dentata X X LR/nt

Cyclemys shanensis Inc. syn. Cyclemys tscheponensis.

X

Geoemyda tcheponensis

Mauremys caspica Inc. ssp. M. c. caspica.

X X

Mauremys japonica X X LR/nt

Mauremys rivulata Inc. syn. Mauremys caspica rivulata.

X X

Morenia petersi X X VU

Rhinoclemmys funerea X LR/nt

Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima Inc. syn. Geoemyda pulcherrima & ssp. R. p. incisa, R. p. manni.

X X

Rhinoclemmys punctularia X X

KINOSTERNIDAE Claudius angustatus X

Kinosternon cf. acutum X LR/nt

Kinosternon baurii X

Kinosternon carinatum Inc. syn. Sternotherus carinatus.

X X

Kinosternon flavescens X X

Kinosternon integrum X LC

Kinosternon leucostomum Inc. ssp. K. l. leucostomum, K. l. postinguinale.

X X

Kinosternon minor Inc. ssp. Sternotherus minor.

X

Kinosternon scorpioides Inc. syn. Kinosternon cruentatum & ssp. K. s. scorpiodes.

X X

Kinosternon subrubrum Inc. ssp. K. s. hippocrepis.

X X

Kinosternon odoratum X

Staurotypus salvinii X LR/nt

Staurotypus triporcatus X X LR/nt

Sternotherus odoratus X X

PELOMEDUSIDAE Pelomedusa spp. X

Annex I

86



IUCN Red List

Pelomedusa subrufa Inc. ssp. P. s. subrufa.

X

Pelusios spp. X

Pelusios castaneus X

Pelusios castanoides X LR/lc

Pelusios gabonensis X

Pelusios niger X

Pelusios sinuatus X

Pelusios williamsi X

TRIONYCHIDAE Apalone ferox Inc. syn. Trionyx ferox

X X

Apalone spinifera Inc. ssp. A. s. spinifera

X

Dogania subplana X

Pelodiscus sinensis Inc. syn. Trionyx sinensis.

X X VU

Trionyx spp. X

References: Auliya, M. 2003. Hot trade in cool creatures - a review of the live reptile trade in the European Union in the 1990s

with a focus on Germany. TRAFFIC Europe. Brussels, Belgium.

Documents

REVIEW OF NON-CITES REPTILES THAT ARE KNOWN OR LIKELY … · There are few studies that report on trade in non-CITES reptiles. However, the United States maintains records of all