Biological Forum-An International Journal, Spl. Iss. 4 (1) (2012)

January-June, 2012 Spl. Iss. Vol. 4 No. 1 ISSN No.
(Online): 2249-3239

EDITOR IN CHIEF
Dr. 2|a U| nasan
ueparLmenL of 8oLany
Safla Sclence College, 8hopal (M)

MANAGING EDITOR
Dr. Dheera[ Vasu
SaLya rakashan
16/7698, karol 8agh, new uelhl

ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Dr. ka||ash Chandra
ZSl (Pqs.), kolkaLa (W8)
Dr. A[ay Gautam
Abhllashl lnsL. of Llfe Sclences, Mandl (P)
Dr. ka[esh kumar
CML81l, CS8, !orhaL (Assam)
Dr. Gaurav Sharma
ZSl, u8C, !odhpur (8!)

Dr. uneet Gupta
Apollo PosplLal, uelhl
Dr. kekha 8hadaur|a
!lwa[l unlv., Cwallor (M)

ADVISORY BOARD
Dr. I.S. 8rar
Au, lardlkoL (8)
Dr. k.k. khanna
8Sl, Allahabad (u)
Shr| Vasu Dev Vasu
(P)
Dr. kav|nder k. kawa|
Ceorgla (uSA)
Dr. k.N. 1|war|
8Pu, varanasl (u)
rof. M. 8hat|a
CCC, 8llaspur (P)

EDITORIAL BOARD
Dr. Sawarkar Sharma
1exas (uSA)
Dr. C.M. Senth|| kumar
88L (CSl8) !orhaL (Assam)
Dr. 8|shwa[|t kundu
ll1, uelhl
Dr. n.S. 8awe[a
ur. ?Su, Solan (P)
Dr. Man|sh kumar
SocleLy of LducaLlon, Agra (u)
Dr. M. kaghuraman
8Pu, varanasl (u)
Dr. kam I. S|ngh
nS8L, urbana, uSA
Dr. Dharmender kumar
uPl naunl Solan (P)
Dr. rabha adao
CvlSM, AmaravaLl (MS)
Dr. Neera[ kumar
MeeruL College (u)
Dr. Mano[ kumar
reLorla unlv. S. Afrlca
Dr. S.k. Ia|n
SC lndore (M)
Dr. .C. athan|a
Au, Ludhlana (8)
Dr. S.D. Mohapatra
ll8, kanpur (u)
Dr. . Suprasanna
8A8C, 1rombay (MS)
Dr. kashm| Sharma
unlv. of Agra (u)
Dr. awan kana
Pl8l, Shlmla (P)
Dr. S.A. 8ha|erao
Mumbal (MS)
Dr. 1.V. Sathe
Shlva[l unlv., kolahpur (MS)
Dr. N.N. 1r|path|
Corkhpur unlv. (u)
Dr. .V.I. keddy
n. !ALMA l.L., Agra (u)
Dr. Mamta Sharma
lC8lSA1, Pyderabad (A)
Dr. Lkta Sharma
1exas (uSA)
Dr. .k. Dubey
SvC lndore (M)
Dr. S.k. Sharma
ur. ?Su, Solan (P)
Dr. A.k. Gupta
nluM, uelhl
Dr. San[eev Sharma
SkuAS1, !ammu (!&k)
Dr. V.k. Sharma
CllL (P8)
Dr. V.k. Sharma
lA8l, usa, new uelhl
Dr. Anand Sagar
Pu, Shlmla (P)
Dr. 8.S. Ianagounder
Ckvk, uharwad
Dr. D|nesh kumar Chatanta
Shoollnl unlv. of 8loLech. &
Manag. Scl., Solan (P)

Satya rakashan, 16]7698, New kohtak koad, karo| 8agh, 8eh|nd L|berty C|nema, New De|h|-110 00S (Ind|a).
L-ma||: dheera[_vasu_72066Qyahoo.co.|n, b|o|forumQgma||.com, Webs|te: www.researchtrend.net

EDITORIAL
India, a land which gave birth to civilization in ancient times and where much of the earlier
tradition and wisdom guides actions even in modern times the philosophy of Vasudhaiva
Kutumbakam which means that the whole Universe is one family, dominates global efforts to
protect the global commons

We are profoundly privileged to bring before you the efforts of a few genius minds in the form of
Biological Forum-An International Journal. Its aims to encourage to make aware the human being
towards scientific attitude for the betterment of ecosystem and social life. This special issue is
contributions of researchers selected papers presented and their abstracts published in National
Seminar on Biodiversity and Intangible Natural Heritage held at Zoological Survey of India, Desert
Regional Centre, Jodhpur, Rajasthan on 28
th
September, 2011 organized by Zoological Survey of
India (MoEF), Kolkata in collaboration with National Museum of Natural History (MoEF), New
Delhi. Cheers to all those involved directly on front or indirectly behind the curtain in this noble attempt of
serving ecosystem.
Science belongs to the whole World, and before it, vanish all the barriers of nationality. With the
resonance of science in all the activities of our lives, we are trying to marvel this age of specialization.
Standing on this verge of eternity we are trying to possess more and more of power and self. For it, we
require a quality of mind, which should be special and should have an extreme advantage in leading to
make discoveries. What matters is the power of never letting exceptions go unnoticed.
The foundation blocks of research are to do the right thing, at the right time, in the right way; to
anticipate requirements; to develop resources and then to recognize no impediments and thence to master
circumstances. One has to act from reason rather than rule and to be satisfied with nothing short of
perfection. True researcher resides in the capacity or evaluation of uncertain, hazardous and conflicting
information. Curiosity, Confidence, Courage and Constancy are the hallmarks. Research is a long road to
be traded by the brave ones. One has to brave all odds, long pangs of suffering and frustration to bring the
work in hand to fruition. To attain the pinnacle of success one ought to nurture research with hard work
and toil.
We congratulate and wish luck to the researchers for their contributions and aspire that these
works will leave a glowing trail for the generations to come. These works will act as lighthouses to the
future generations and rare milestones in the fields of Science and Technology. It may also provide the
courage to tread the long and weary path of research, as success and hard work has a taste beyond
everything.
-The Editors

Table of Contents
Climate change and Indian Agriculture: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation
strategies...................
A.S. Faroda and Surendra Poonia

1-12
Species diversity of Coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in selected provenances of Sandal
(Santalum album Linn.) and their role in pest control..........................................
R. Sundararaj and Gaurav Sharma

13-16
Distribution and diversity of Noctuid Fauna of Veerangana Durgavati Wildlife Sanctuary, Damoh
district, Madhya Pradesh..
S. Sambath and Kailash Chandra

17-21
Role of Aquatic Insects as Biomonitors, Hussain Sagar Lake, Hyderabad..
J. Deepa
22-24
On some aspects of Territoriality and Reproduction of Pseudagrion microcephalum (Rambur) (Insecta:
Odonata: Zygoptera: Coenagrionoidea)...
B. Suri Babu and Gaurav Sharma

25-31
Studies on the apoidean visitors of Tegetes patula L., an important floral resource for bees in Thar
Desert, India.....
Rajiv K. Gupta, Narendra Kumar, Meena Rao, S. K. Charan and A. Rajpurohit

32-39
Survival strategies of Desert Fox (Vulpes vulpes pusilla) in the Thar Desert of Rajasthan.
Hemu Chaudhary and G. R. Jakher
40-44
Diversity and community structure of Butterflies in Ritchies Archipelago, Andaman and Nicobar
islands...........................................................................................................................................................
C. Sivaperuman

45-53
Diversity of Moths in Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve (GNBR), Andaman and Nicobar
islands...
C. Sivaperuman and Suresh Kumar Shah

54-60
Diversity of Moths in Neil Island, Andaman and Nicobar Islands.....
61-64
Species diversity and abundance of Odonata in Ritchies Archipelago, Andaman and Nicobar
Islands...

65-69
The Great Indian Bustard: Rare sightings with its general account.
Akhlaq Husain and Gaurav Sharma
70-73
Biological Forum
_
An International Journal, Spl. Iss. 4(1): 1-230 (2012) ISSN (on||ne): 2249-3239

Odonates of Arabian and Indian Deserts and their conservation status...
Akhlaq Husain and Gaurav Sharma
74-91
Serranid Fishes (Perciformes) in Arabian Sea with their conservation status..
Akhlaq Husain
92-113
Distributional pattern of genus Uromastyx Merrem, 1820 (Reptilia: Squamata: Agamidae:
Uromastycinae) in India, Arabia and Africa..............
Akhlaq Husain

114-122
Diversity of Phthirapteran Ectoparasites on Domestic Fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus in Garhwal
Region.......................................
Rakesh Kumar, M. C. Trivedi and Adesh Kumar

123-131
Parthenium hysterophorus: a serious threat to plant biodiversity
Disha Jaggi, Jai Knox and Manoj S. Paul
132-138
Effect of Heavy metal pollution on humans.
Mayank Varun

, Rohan DSouza and M.S. Paul
139-144
Apoidean diversity on Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. & Hook. F. Ex Gray (Asteraeae), a short
term resource for the conservation of Bees in Rajasthan.
Rajiv K. Gupta, Meena Rao, Narendra Kumar, Jagdish Saini and S. K. Rao

145-152
Use of geomorphometric techniques to reduce the bad impacts of climate changes for biodiversity
conservation of the Thar Desert...
J. Gharu, O.P. Choudhary and Seema Trivedi

153-159
Hair Snares: Simple technique for monitoring field population..................
J. Gharu and Seema Trivedi
160-164
Molluscan diversity of temporary and permanent Wetlands in and around Patna, Bihar
Gopal Sharma, Hasko Nesemann and Mohita Sardana
165-170
Diversity of Freshwater Fishes of Mizoram, India with a note on Conservation Strategies
Laishram Kosygin
171-179
Floristic diversity of Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat, India...
S. L. Meena
180-212
A Review of Depleting Plant Resources, their Present Status and Conservation in Rajasthan, India.
R.P. Pandey, S.L. Meena, P.M. Padhye and M.K. Singhadiya

213-230

Climate Change and Indian Agriculture: Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation
Strategies

A.S. Faroda
1
and Surendra Poonia
2

1
Former Chairman, ASRB, ICAR, New Delhi, India
2
Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur342 003, Rajasthan
e-mail: poonia.surendra@gmail.com

(Received 15 October, 2011, Accepted 4 January, 2012)

ABSTRACT: Agriculture is the mainstay of the Indian economy where about 65-70 percent of the
population is dependent on it for their livelihood. Therefore, the climate change has direct effect on India.
There is a strong evidence to suggest that change in climate has been occurring during the past 100 years.
The mean global temperatures increased by 0.6
O
C during last 100 years and warmest summers were
observed in the last decade of the 20
th
century and first decade of 21
st
century. This is mainly attributed
to the increased concentration levels of GHGs, viz. Co
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O and CFCs. If the emissions of GHGs
are continued at the current rate, the average global surface temperature would rise form 0.6 to 2.5
O
C in
the next fifty years and between 1.4 to 5.8
O
C by the end of the 21
st
century. A slight warming trend of
0.4
O
C over the last 100 years has been noticed over the Indian sub-continent and the changes were found
to be more significant during winter. The spatial variability of air temperatures over the country
indicated warming in peninsular region while north-west India has exhibited cooling trend. On the
rainfall variability over the country, the data did not show any significant trend. However, increase in
frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods or unseasonal rainfall are
noticed. Sub-divisional rainfall trends during the recent decades indicated decreasing rainfall trends in
north-east-region while increasing trends are noticed in north-west and north India. Projected scenarios
for the Indian sub-continent indicated a warming to the extent of 3.5 to 5.5
O
C by 2080s and more
warming is expected in winter than in summer season. Similarly, a marginal increase in rainfall of 7 to 10
percent is predicted over the sub-continent by 2080.
The climate change can influence crop yields. Higher temperatures are likely to alter the fertility
status of soils significantly. Additional application of fertilizers may be needed to counteract the adverse
processes. Conditions will be more favourable for the proliferation of weeds, insect -pests and diseases in
the warmer climates and crop damages are likely to increase. The expected rise in sea level may range
from 10 to 50 cm by 2050 and may pose a serious threat to agriculture in low lying coastal areas.
Cultivars with a better use of N can reduce surplus N-fertilizer inputs thus protecting the environment by
reducing N
2
O emissions and thus mitigating climate change. Biological nitrification inhibition or
suppressing nitrification by such genes, which are available in some tropical grasses, may pave the way
for genetically engineered development of cultivars. Integrated farming systems, intercropping, INM and
IPM practices as well as integrated watershed management practices are required to be adopted to
manage the adverse effects of climate change in India.
Key words: Climate change, Indian Agriculture, Strategies.

INTRODUCTION
India's population touched 1.2 billion in
2009. It is predicted that India's population will
be around 1.4 billion by 2025 and may exceed
that of China in the 2040s. Therefore, one of the
challenges of the 21
st
century is to ensure food
and livelihood security for the increasing
population in India. If agricultural production is
adversely affected by climate change, then the
livelihoods of even greater number of people is

at risk and their vulnerability to food security is
further intensified. Livelihood systems that are
based on agriculture may face risk of increased
crop failures, frequent incidences of insect-pests
and diseases, and loss of livestock due to climate
change.
Climate change may be one of the
reasons because nearly 60 percent of the area
sown is dependent on rainfall which is highly
1
Biological Forum
_
An International Journal, Spl. Iss. 4(1): 1-12 (2012) ISSN (online): 2249-3239

unreliable, both in time and space with strong
risks of dry spells at critical growth stages even
during good rainfall years. Climate change refers
to any change in climate over time, whether due
to natural variability or as a result of human
activity. Climate change would bring new
environmental conditions resulting from
modifications in space and time, and in the
frequency and intensity of weather and climate
processes. The climate change has the potential
to change significantly the productivity of the
agriculture. Some high productive areas may
become less productive or vice-versa. The
present evidences suggest that tropical and sub-
tropical regions may be more likely to suffer by
droughts and losses in crop productivity. Animal
husbandry is an essential component of
agriculture in India. Livestock management is
highly sensitive to climate. Therefore, the future
challenges will be more complex and
demanding.

SCENARIO OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Global Scenario
Weather observations indicated that the
global average surface temperature has increased
by 0.6
O
C since the 19
th
century. The rate of
warming is faster during the last 100 years. It is
attributed mainly to the increase in CO
2
and
other GHGs in the atmosphere.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) in its report has confirmed that the global
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide
(Co
2
), methane(CH
4
), and nitrous oxide (N
2
O),
green house gasses (GHGs) have increased
markedly as a result of human activities since
1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values
determined from ice cores spanning many
thousands of years. The CO
2
, CH
4
and N
2
O
concentrations in atmosphere were 280 ppm, 700
ppb, and 270ppb in 1750 AD. In 2005, these
values have become 378 ppm, 1750ppb and
316ppb, respectively (Ramakrishna et al., 2006).
These increases in GHGs have resulted
in warming of the climate system by 0.74
O
C
between 1906 and 2005. Eleven of the last
twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12
warmest years in the instrumental record of
global surface temperature since 1850. The rate
of warming has been much higher in recent
decades. This has, inturn, resulted in increased
average temperature of global ocean, sea level
rise, decline in glaciers and snow cover. There is
also a global trend for increased frequency of
droughts, floods. Cold days and nights and frost
have become less frequent, while hot days and
nights, and heat waves have become more
frequent. Increasing concentrations of green
house gases (GHGS) are likely to accelerate the
rate of climate change. It is predicted that the
average global surface temperature may rise 0.6
to 2.5
O
C in the next 50 years, and 1.4 to 5.8
O
C in
the next century by doubling the concentration of
CO
2
(IPCC, 2001).
The global warming has also impact on
precipitation patterns, and the frequency and
intensity of droughts and floods. The
evapotranspiration rates will increase. Other
impacts of global warming include mean sea
level rise due to melting of glaciers and polar ice
sheets. The global mean sea level rise is
predicted to be 09 to 88 cm over the next
century. If no climate policy interventions are
made, the effects of climate change on
agriculture are presented in Table 1.

Indian Scenario
Observed surface air temperature over
the Indian sub-continent showed a slight
warming trend of 0.4
O
C per 100 years. The
changes are observed to be more during winter
but low and even negative during monsoon
season. The spatial variability of air temperatures
indicated warming trends in peninsular region
while many parts of north-west India exhibit
cooling trends. Analysis of the all-India mean
surface air temperatures during 1901-2000 from
network of 31 well-distributed weather stations
reveal that the mean annual temperature rose by
0.03
O
C per decade (Rupa Kumar et al., 2002).
Monsoon rainfall displays predominant
inter annual variability being considerably below
and above normal over large areas of the Indian
sub-continent in several years, leading to
widespread droughts and flood situations. The
scenario is highly variable, the all India mean
annual and seasonal rainfall did not show any
significant trend. The summer monsoon rainfall
during 1901-2000 has shown significant
decreasing trends in the sub-divisions of north-
east India (Rupa Kumar et al., 2002). Significant
2
Faroda and Poonia

increasing rainfall trends in Konkan, Goa, Costal
Karnataka along the west coast and in Haryana,
Chandigarh, Delhi and Punjab were noticed in
north India (Fig. 1). Similarly, the winter
monsoon rainfall has shown significant
increasing trend in the sub-divisions of
Marathwada, Telangana, north interior Karnataka
and Gujarat (Rupa Kumar et al., 2002). This shift
in spatial trend pattern can have significant
implications on the crops, varieties and cropping
patterns across these regions needing appropriate
adjustments (Fig. 2).

Table 1. Effect of climate change on agriculture with no climate policy interventions.
CO
2
Concentration 2025
(405-460 ppm)
2050
(445-640 ppm)
2100
(540-970 ppm)
Global mean
temperature change
from 1990
0.4-1.1C 0.8-2.6C

1.4-5.8C
Global mean sea level
rise from 1990
3-14 cm

5-32 cm 9-88 cm
Agricultural Effects
Average crop yields
Cereal crop yields increase
in many mid- and high-
latitude regions. Cereal crop
yields decrease in most
tropical and sub-tropical
regions
A mixed effect on cereal
yields in mid- latitude
regions. More pronounced
cereal yield decreases in
tropical and sub-tropical
regions
General reduction in cereal
yields in most mid-latitude
regions for warming of
more than a few C
Extreme low and high
temperatures
Reduced frost damage to
some crops. Increased heat
stress damage to some crops
Increased heat stress
in livestock
Effects of changes in
extreme temperatures
amplified
Effects of changes in
extreme temperatures
amplified
Incomes and prices Income of poor farmers in
developing countries
decrease
Food prices increase relative
to projections
that exclude climate
change
(Source: IPCC, 2001)

Fig.1. Trends in sub-divisional summer monsoon
rainfall in India during 1901-2000.
Fig. 2. Trends in sub-divisional winter monsoon
rainfall in India during 1901-2000.

3
Faroda and Poonia

Projected Future Scenarios for India
The climate change scenarios for the
Indian sub-continent suggests an annual mean
area averaged surface warming to range between
3.5 and 5.5
O
C by 2080s (Lal et al., 2001). These
projections showed more warming in winter
season over summer monsoon (Table 2). The
spatial distribution of surface warming suggests a
mean annual rise in surface temperatures in north
India by 3
O
C or more by 2050. The study also
suggests that during winter the surface mean air
temperature could rise by 3
O
C in northern and
central parts while it would rise by 2
O
C in
southern parts by 2050.
In the case of rainfall, a marginal
increase of 7 to 10 percent in annual rainfall is
projected over the subcontinent by the year 2080.
However, the study suggests a fall in rainfall by
5 to 25 percent in winter while it would be 10 to
15% increase in summer monsoon rainfall over
the country (Table 2). It was also reported that
the date of onset of summer monsoon over India
could become more variable in future.

Table 2. Climate change projections for India.
Year Season Temperature change (
0
C) Rainfall change (%)
Lowest Highest Lowest Highest
2020s Annual 1.00 1.41 2.16 5.97
Rabi 1.08 1.54 -1.95 4.36
Kharif 0.87 1.17 1.81 5.10
2050s Annual 2.23 2.87 5.36 9.34
Rabi 2.54 3.18 -9.22 3.82
Kharif 1.81 2.37 7.18 10.52
2080s Annual 3.53 5.55 7.48 9.90
Rabi 4.14 6.31 -24.83 -4.50
Kharif 2.91 4.62 10.10 15.18
(Source: Lal et al., 2001)

The CO
2
level will increase to 605-755
ppm by 2070s from 371 ppm in 2000. The IPCC
has projected that future tropical cyclones will
become more intense, with larger peak wind
speeds and more heavy precipitation. Himaliyan
glaciers and snow cover are projected to contract.
It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves,
and heavy precipitation events will continue to
become more frequent. Increases in the amount
of precipitation are very likely in high latitudes,
while decreases are likely in most subtropical
land regions.
Analysis done by the India Meteorology
Department, and the Indian Institute of Tropical
Meteorology, Pune, generally show the same
trends for temperature, heat waves, glaciers,
droughts and floods, and sea level rise as by the
IPCC although the magnitude of the change
varies. Selective reports on projected climate
change during next century over India are given
in Table 3 (Mall et al., 2007).

Table 3. Selective reports on projected climate change during next century over India.
Region Temperature Rainfall Reference
All India

Increase in winter temperature by 1
4C with increased CO
2
concentration
Precipitation increase of approximately 20%.
Increase in heavy rainfall days during the summer
monsoon period, and an increased inter annual
variability
Bhaskaran et
al., 1995
All India Average temperature change is predicted
to be in the range of 2.334.78C with a
doubling in CO
2
concentration

Increase in the frequency of heavy rainfall events

Lonergan,
1998

All India Annual mean surface temperature
rise is projected to range between
3.5
0
C and 5.5
0
C by the end of
century
More warming in winter season.
Increase of about 7 to 10% in annual mean
precipitation.
Decline of 5-25% in winter precipitation.
Increase in monsoon precipitation is 10-15%
Lal et al.
2001
4
Faroda and Poonia

Monsoon season, over northwest India, an increase
of 30% or more in rainfall by 2050s.
Higher than normal rainfall in western semi-arid
regions of India.
Decrease between 10-20% in winter precipitation
over central India by 2050s.
All India Over the region south of 25N (south
of cities such as Udaipur, Khajuraho
and Varanasi) the maximum
temperature will increase by 24C
during 2050s. In the northern region,
the increase in maximum
temperature exceed 4C.
A general increase in minimum
temperature up to 4
0
C all over the
country.

Decrease in number of rainy days over a major part
of the country. This decrease is more in western and
central part (by more than 15 days) while near the
foothills of Himalayas (Uttaranchal state) and in
northeast India the number of rainy days increase by
510 days.
Overall increase in the rainy days intensity by 14
mm/day except for small areas in the northwest India
where the rainfall intensities decrease by 1 mm/day.
Rupa Kumar
et al. 2003

All India Increase in extremes in maximum
and minimum temperature.
Night temperatures are increasing
faster than the day temperatures.
Increase over large area, especially substantial over west
coast and west central India
Rupa Kumar
et al. 2006

(Source: Mall et al., 2007)

Causes of Climate Change
The problem of climate change is caused
by humanity's greed and short sightedness.
Increasing human activities is the main cause of
climate change. Increasing evidences over the
past few decades indicate that significant
changes in climate are taking place world wide
as a result of enhanced human activities. The
major cause to climate change has been ascribed
to the increased levels of green house gases
(GHGs) like carbon dioxide (CO
2
), methane
(CH
4
), nitrous oxide (NO
2
) and
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) due to the
uncontrolled activities such as burning of fossil
fuels, increased use of refrigerants, and enhanced
agricultural practices. These activities
accelerated the processes of climate change and
increased the mean global temperature by 0.6
O
C
during the past 100 years. It has also induced
increased climatic variability in many parts of
the world.
Since climate is closely related to human
activities and economic development, including
agricultural practices, there is a regions concern
about its stability. With the advent of the
industrial revolution, there has been a
tremendous growth in the fossil fuel utilization
leading to increased CO
2
emissions over the
globe. In addition to this, the emission of CFCs
and other GHGs like chlorine and bromine
compounds used in refrigeration and other
industrial uses not only have an impact on the
radiative forcing, but also led to the depletion of
the ozone layers. Land use change, due to
urbanization, deforestation and agricultural
practices, affect the physical, chemical and
biological properties of the earth's surface.
The CO
2
concentration in the atmosphere
is now about 31 per cent higher than 200 years
ago. If it continues to increase at the same rate it
could nearly double by 2035 and may contribute
significantly towards global warming. Burning of
fossil fuels, burning of vegetation, coal,
cowdung, crop residues, etc. are the main causes
of the increased levels of this gas.
Industrial emissions and the anaerobic
conditions in agricultural fields due to water
logging, increased use of inorganic fertilizers,
and addition of organic material under
submerged conditions of soil are the major
sources of NO
2
. NO
2
levels in the atmosphere are
estimated to have increased by 18 per cent in the
last 200 years mainly due to more intensive
agricultural practices. CFCs are emitted mainly
from refrigeration units.

Impacts of Climate Change on Indian
Agriculture
India is a large agricultural country, in
which crores of people rely on agriculture for
3 Faroda and Poonia

survival, and the population is still growing. The
agricultural production directly relates to the
social stability and sustainable development, and
agriculture is one of the most sensitive fields to
climate change due to India's huge agricultural
population, large agricultural areas, complex
geographical types and significant climate
differences.
Changes in climate can be expected to
have significant impacts on crop yields through
changes in temperature and water availability.
Climate change can affect crop yields, both
positively and negatively, as well as the types of
crops that can be grown in certain areas, by
impacting agricultural inputs such as water for
irrigation, amounts of solar radiation that affect
plant growth, as well as infestation of weeds,
insect pests and diseases. It is certain that the
future climate change will impact agricultural
production, which is mainly negative, and will
directly threaten India's food security.
Climatic changes will affect agriculture
through direct and indirect effects on crops, soils,
livestock and pests. Increase in atmospheric CO
2

has a fertilization effect on crops with C
3

photosynthetic pathway and thus promotes their
growth and productivity. Increase in temperature
can reduce crop duration, increase crop
respiration rates, alter photosynthetic partitioning
to economic products, effect the survival and
distribution of insect-pest and diseases, hasten
nutrient mineralization in soils, decrease
fertilizer use efficiencies, and increase
evapotranspiration. Indirectly there may be
considerable effects on land use, availability of
irrigation, frequency and intensity of inter and
intra-seasonal droughts and floods, and
availability of energy.
Scientists at IARI, New Delhi, used
various crop growth models to evaluate climate
change impacts on wheat, rice, sorghum and
maize. Variables used in the models included
changes in temperature, CO
2
levels, rainfall, and
solar radiation. The predicted changes to
agriculture vary greatly by region and crop. In
the case of wheat, increase in temperature by
about 2
O
C reduced potential grain yield in most
places (Fig. 3). Reductions in yields, as a result
of climate change, predicted to be more for rain
fed crops than irrigated crops. In the case of rice,
an increase of 2-4
0
C is predicted to result in a
reduction in yields. Although additional CO
2
can
benefit crops, this effect was nullified by
increase in temperature.

Fig. 3. Potential Impact of climate change on wheat production in India (Source: Aggarwal et al., 2002)
6
Faroda and Poonia

The study conducted at the Madras
School of Economics, Chennai, revealed that
spatial effects do make a significant difference to
the impact of climate change on Indian
agriculture. For example, in the study, if increase
in temperature of 2
O
C and 7 per cent increase in
rainfall is kept uniformly across India, then the
estimated loss in farm revenue is 9 per cent but
when spatial effects are taken in to account, the
impact of climate change on revenue is found to
be only 3 percent.
The study at the Madras School of
Economics, Chennai, also showed that if CO
2

concentration levels double in the latter half of
the 21
st
century then India's gross domestic
product (GDP) would decline by 1.4 to 3 per cent
points, under various climate change scenarios.
Studies have shown that in northern India rice
yields during last three decades are showing a
declining trend and this is possibly related to
increasing temperatures. Similar trends have also
been noticed in other rice growing countries.
Studies done at IARI, New Delhi, indicate the
possibility of loss of 4-5 million tonnes in wheat
production with every rise of 1
O
C temperature
throughout the growing period (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Response of simulated grain yield of irrigated wheat to changes in temperature and CO2 in north India.
(Source: Aggarwal et al., 2002).

Fertilizer use efficiency in India is generally very
low (30-50%). Climate change will alter the
requirement of fertilizers, and climate warming
will lead to a larger emission of available
nitrogen. Fertilizer effect is very sensitive to the
change of temperature. Studies have shown that
between 15 to 28
O
C temperature, the available
nitrogen emission will increase by about 4% with
1
0
C temperature rise, and the emission period
will be shortened to 3.6 days, the application
amount of N will be increased by about 8% and
16% along with 2
0
C and 4
0
C temperature
increases, respectively. Therefore, to maintain
the existing fertilizer use efficiency the fertilizer
requirement will increase, which not only
requires farmers to invest more on fertilizers, but
also poses a harmful effect impact on the soil and
environment because of the volatilization,
decomposition, and contamination of ground
water.
Climate warming could increase the
potential evapotranspiration in crop growing
season, exacerbate the evaporation of soil, and
reduce the effectiveness of soil moisture.
Therefore, more irrigation will be required. Due
to the limited supply of water resources and more
agricultural water requirement as a result of
climate warming, it is bound to lead to the over-
7 Faroda and Poonia

use of the surface and underground water
resources, which may disturb the normal water
cycle, and result in an uneven distribution of
water resources, thus affecting agriculture,
livestock husbandry, fisheries and other sectors.
Small changes in temperature and
rainfall could have significant effect on quality
of fruits, vegetables, tea, coffee, aromatic and
medicinal plants with resultant implications on
their prices and trade. Crop-pest interactions will
change significantly with climate change leading
to impact on insect-pest and diseases distribution
and losses. Crop-weed competition will be
affected depending on their photosynthetic path
way. C
3
crop growth would be favoured over C
4

weeds. Diseases and insect-pests populations are
strongly dependent on temperature and humidity.
Climate change is likely to aggravate the heat
stress in livestock, adversely affecting their
productive and reproductive performance. The
demand for water, shelter and energy
requirement of livestock will be increased.
There have been only limited studies on
the impacts of climate change in India. For
sustainable agriculture, as well as for national
food security and stability, it is necessary to
identify the impacts of climate change on India's
agricultural production, food supply capacity and
food security, and to take actions to avoid or
reduce the risk of climate change.

Management of Climate Change in India
Climate change, involving alterations in
temperature, precipitation and sea level as well
as increased impacts of GHGs, is bound to
impact agricultural production and productivity.
India will suffer severely from potential changes
in temperature and precipitation. There have
been apprehensions about a possible increase in
the warming of the El-Nino current, thought to
be a major contributory factor to droughts in
India.
These climate change related issues call
for greater understanding of crop-climate
relationships and developing crop-weather
models to devise efficient agricultural production
strategies.

Role of Agronomy and Agronomists in the
Management of Climate Change
In India, to meet the increasing demands
for food, fodder, fiber, fuel and other products in
future, the productivity will have to be increased
because the area under cultivation can hardly be
increased. To overcome the problem of climate
change agronomic management practices will
play a significant role. The agronomists will have
to keep in the fore front of their research agenda,
how to improve the deteriorated system and have
to evolve cropping/farming systems, and their
agronomic management practices, which would
harmonies high production with ecological
safety.
The agronomist is the key scientist in the
team of research in formulating the crop
production technology practices. The agronomist
has to decide which and how much of each of the
recommendations made by plant breeders, soil
scientists, entomologists, plant pathologists, etc.
will make a technically viable, socially
acceptable, economically profitable and
environmentally sound package of practice for a
particular crop in a cropping/ farming system. He
must caution against practices which have an
element of damage to the system.
The range of research covered by
agronomy is now very wide. Starting from basic
studies of the dynamics of various processes of
the soil-plant-water-atmosphere system to
developing yield increasing crop production
technologies and fitting them into farming
systems through collaborative field research
involving scientists from other disciplines is
required.
In the management of climate change,
mitigation and adaptation techniques are
important activities to be carried out. Mitigation
and adaptation are related to the temporal and
spatial scales on which they are effective. The
benefits of mitigation activities carried out today
will be evidenced in several decades because of
the long residence time to GHGs in the
atmosphere. However, the effects of adaptation
measures will be apparent immediately or in the
near future. Besides, mitigation has global in
addition to local benefits, where as adaptation
typically takes on a local or regional scale.
The purpose of mitigation and adaptation
measures is to attempt a gradual reversal of the
effects caused by climate change and sustain
8
Faroda and Poonia

development under the inescapable effects of
climate change.

Mitigation of the Impacts of Climate Change
There are several mitigation practices
that can be effectively put to use to over come
the effects of climate change with desirable
results. Mitigation options include carbon
sequestration in agriculture and forestry.
Mitigation of climate change is a global
responsibility. Agriculture, forestry,
fisheries/aquaculture provide a significant
potential for GHGs mitigation. The IPCC
estimates that the global technical mitigation
potential for agriculture will be between 5500 to
6000 mt CO
2
equivalent per year by 2030, 89%
of which are assumed to be from carbon
sequestration in soils.
Rice is an important food crop in India.
The maximum emission of CH
4
is in rice
growing cropping systems. The CH
4
emission
from rice fields can be minimized by proper
management practices. Studies conducted in the
rice-wheat system in the Indo-Genetic plain zone
in north India have shown that, zero tillage has
effectively reduced the demand for water in rice-
wheat cropping system. Zero tillage has a direct
mitigation effect as it converts the GHGs like
CO
2
in to O
2
in the atmosphere and carbon
enriches soil organic matter.
Keeping the rice fields moist rather than
flooded or continuously saturated, thereby
minimizing anaerobic conditions, and improving
root growth and diversity of aerobic soil
organisms, helps in mitigation of climate change.
Integrated Nutrient Management (INM)
has the potential to mitigate effects of climate
change. The INM involves, in general, a
combination of inorganic, organic and bio-
fertilizers in such a proportion which may keep
the soil capable of producing at an accelerated
rate with out being damaged physically,
chemically and biologically. The benefits of
INM are increase in N use efficiency and
increased yields.
One of the key emerging technologies to
reduce GHGs emissions from rice fields is the
use of zymogenic bacteria, acetic acid and
hydrogen producers; methanogens, CH
4

oxidizers, and nitrifiers and denitrifiers in rice,
which will help in maintaining the soil redox
potential in a range where both NO2 and CH4
emissions are low.
The application of urease inhibitor,
hydroquinone (Hq), and nitrification inhibitor,
Dicyandiamide (DCD) together with urea also is
an effective technology for reducing No
2
and
CH4 emissions from rice fields. Use of neem-
coated urea is another simple and cost-effective
technology. Improved management of livestock
population and its diet could also assist in
mitigation of GHGs.

Adaptation Measures to Manage Climate
Change
In recent years deep concern has been
voiced about conservation of nature and the
disturbed relationship between agriculture and
climate change. The causes are many such as
deforestation, urbanization, industrialization, soil
erosion, etc. Modernization of agriculture has
also added its bit to the situation. Another major
component of the soil-plant-atmosphere system
in crop production is water. If this is not properly
managed, it is not only wasted but also causes
tremendous damage to the soil. Increasing use of
fertilizes, insecticides, fungicides; herbicides and
other agro-chemicals have created the problems
of pollution of land, water and atmosphere.
There use will further increase to achieve the
very high production targets for agricultural
products. Therefore, we have to explore
sustainable agronomic practices to manage the
impacts of climate change.
Improved agronomic practices like
adjustment of planting dates to minimize the
effect of high temperature increase induced
spikelet sterility can be used to reduce yield
instability, by avoiding flowering to coincide
with hotter period. Adaptation measures to
reduce the negative effects of increased climatic
variability may include changing the cropping
calendar to take advantage of the wet period and
to avoid extreme weather events during the crop
growing season.
Crop varieties that are resistant to
lodging may be used to save the crop from strong
winds during the sensitive stage of crop growth.
Promotion of integrated farming systems will
also be a viable and effective alternative in
combating climate change. Multiple enterprise
agriculture, where the crop, livestock, poultry,
9
Faroda and Poonia

fish farming and trees, etc. in a single unit of
land, will minimise the risk.
Improved crop management through
crop rotations and inter cropping will be an
important component in strategic adaptation to
climate change in India. Intercropping is an
efficient strategy because grain-legume
intercrops have many potential benefits such as
stable yields, better use of resources, weeds,
insect-pests and diseases reductions, etc. as
compared to sole cropping systems. Agro-
forestry systems buffer farmers against climate
variability, and reduce atmospheric loads of
GHGs.
In-Situ moisture conservation, rain water
harvesting and recycling, efficient use of
irrigation water and use of poor quality water are
key strategies of adaptation to climate change in
India. Integrated watershed management
approach is most appropriate technology for
rainwater harvesting, storage and reuse of
harvested water to minimise the loss of crop
production during drought and flood years.
Bed-planting of crops has been proved to
be successful technology. The main advantages
are, increased water use efficiency; reduced
water logging; better access for inter row
cultivation, weed control and banding of
fertilizers; better stand establishment , less crop
lodging; and reduced seed rates.
Conservation tillage, crop residue
management and integrated nutrient management
are important technologies to manage climate
change in India. A huge amount of human and
animal drops together with plant residues
available in India have not been / is not being
properly utilized. The concept of INM, therefore,
needs to evolve a strategy of utilizing inorganic
fertilizers in a balanced proportion in addition to
use of organic manures, like FYM, compost,
green manures, crop residues and bio-fertilizers
wherever possible.
Increased attention has to be paid to the
integrated pest management (IPM) practices to
make the crop production ecologically
sustainable as farming is intensified.
Animal husbandry is an essential
component of agriculture in India. Livestock
management is highly sensitive to climate
change. Adaptation measures should be tailored
to the agro-ecological conditions. There in a need
to develop heat tolerant species/breeds of
livestock to adapt to climate change.

Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change
through Plant Breeding
Genetic resources could well prove to be
the most important cost effective basic raw
material which will allow agriculture to adapt to
climate change. Breeding research to develop
crops for the 21
st
century should take in to
account the fact that production environments
will be more variable and more stressful and
yearly climate variation will be greater. Thus, to
cope with the impacts of climate change, priority
target breeding traits will address crop responses
to temperature, water (drought and flooding) and
nutrient stresses, and elevated CO
2
and other
GHGs. Breeding new cultivars with enhanced
adaptation to high temperatures, CO
2
and other
GHGs as well as cultivars that yield well with
lower water and nutrient inputs are required.
Genetic resources and breeding methods
combining conventional and molecular tools,
including transgenic approach, are needed to
develop such cultivars.
In India, considerable progress has been
made in the genetic dissection of flowering time,
inflorescence architecture, temperature, and
drought tolerance in certain model plant systems
and by comparative genomics in crop plants.
CRIDA, Hyderabad, has come out with a
transformed sorghum cultivar SPV 462 with the
mt ID gene encoding for mannitol-1-phosphate
dehydrogenase from E. coli with an aim to
enhance tolerance to water deficit and NaCl
stresses. Germination potential of these
transgenic seeds was several times higher when
challenged with salt and water stresses. They
have remarkably robust root system in terms of
root biomass and length.
Genetic enhancement of heat tolerant
genotypes, especially in pulses, by identifying
and validating markers for high temperature
tolerance with high yield potential is one of the
key technological advances that can prove to be a
significant strategy for adapting climate change.
An additional strategy is to take
advantage of faster growth under higher
temperature. The new varieties should have
characteristics of early flowering (photo-and-
10
Faroda and Poonia

thermo insensitivity), early maturity and higher
productivity.

Policy issues to Manage Climate Change
In addition to use of technological
strategies to combat climate change related
impacts on crop production, there has to be
sound policy frame work and strong political will
on the part of the government to effectively
battle climate change. A sound policy framework
should address the issues of redesigning social
sector with focus on vulnerable
areas/populations, introduction of new credit
instruments with deferred repayment, liabilities
during extreme weather events, and weather
insurance as major vehicle to transfer risk. Role
of community institutions and private sector in
relation to agriculture should be a matter of
policy concern. Policy initiatives in relation to
access to banking, micro-credit, insurance
services before, during and after a disaster event,
access to communication and information
services is imperative in the envisaged climate
change scenario.
In India, as else where in the world,
climate change is now high on the political and
public agenda. Particular attention is being paid
to the impact of climate change on agriculture
since there could be serious implications for food
security. Most scientists and policy makers now
acknowledge that climate change will have far
reaching impacts on human society unless
significant steps are takes to deal with it.
The key policy issues are Establishment
of "Green Research Fund" for strengthening
research on adaptation, mitigation and impact
assessment; facilitate greater adoption of
scientific and economic pricing polices for water,
land, energy and other natural resources;
financial incentives and package for improved
land management; food and livelihood security;
establishment of seed banks in highly variable
and unpredictable environments, etc.

Future Researchable issues to Manage
Climate Change
1. Breeding for improved crop varieties
/hybrids to mitigate the impacts of high
temperature, droughts, floods, insect-pests
and disease infestation, etc. There is need to
intensify research efforts on marker aided
selection and transgenic development for
biotic and abiotic stress management.
2. Evolving efficient and sustainable water and
Soil management practices for different
regions.
3. Identification of crops and varieties /hybrids
with high water use efficiency, adapted to
temperature extremes and high concentration
of CO
2
.
4. Development of efficient farming systems
having tree-crop-livestock, fisheries, poultry,
mushroom, etc. components which can
withstand climate change situations, and can
be economically viable and socially
acceptable.
5. Identifying cost effective methods for
reducing green house gas emission from rice
fields and livestock farms.
6. Evolving effective and efficient conservation
agriculture practices especially in water
harvesting, nutrient, insect-pest and disease
management.
7. Precision in climate change prediction with
higher resolution on spatial and temporal
scales.
8. Preparation of a database on climate change
impacts on agriculture.
9. Development of models for weeds, insect-
pests and diseases dynamics.
10. Agricultural bio-diversity and crop
germplasm exploration for favourable traits
is an important area that needs to be tapped.
Seeds, plants and plant parts exhibiting
tolerance to temperature, water and other
atmospheric stresses caused by climate
change needs to be collected and conserved
to aid crop breeding research.

REFERENCES
Aggarwal, P.K., Nagarajan, S., Shibu, M.E. and
Ramakrishana, Y.S. (2002). Impact of
Climate Change Scenarios on Indian
Agriculture, South Asia Expert Workshp
on Adoption to Climate Change for
Agricultural Productivity, 1-3 May, 2002,
New Delhi.
Aggarwal, P.K. (2007). Climate Change:
Implications for Indian Agriculture,
Jalvigyan Sameeksha Vol. 22, 2007.
Annals of Arid Zone. 2008. Special Issue on
Climate change. 47(3&4).
11
Faroda and Poonia

Anon. (2009). A Reference Annual, Publications
Division, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, Govt. of India.
Bhaskaran, B., Mitchell, J.F.B., Lavery, J.R. and
Lal, M. (1995). Climatic response of the
Indian sub-continent to doubled CO
2

concentrations. Int. J. Climatol. 15: 873-
892.
FAO. (2009). Food and Agriculture Organisation
of the United Nations, FAO Statistical
Data Base.
Hingane, L.S., Rupa Kumar, K. and Ramana
Murthy, Bh. V. (1985). Seasonal and
annual surface air temperature for long
term trends. J. Climatol. 5: 521-528.
IPCC. (1996). Climate Change 1995: Impacts,
Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate
Change: Scientific Technical Analyses,
Second Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
IPCC. (2001). Climate Change 2001: The
Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report
of IPCC.
IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Adaptations and Vulnerability, Fourth
Assessment report of IPCC.
Kashyapi, A., Hage, Archana, P. and Kulkarni,
Deepa, A. ISPRS Archives 8/W3
Workshop proceedings: Impact of
Climate Change on Agriculture.
Keysheet-6- Agriculture- Climate Change
Impacts on Agriculture in India, IARI.
Lal, M., Nozawa, T., Emori, S., Harasawa, H.,
Takahashi, K., Kimoto, M., Abe-Ouchi,
A., Nakjima, T., Takemura, T.and
Numaguti, A. (2001). Future Climate
Change: Implications for Indian summer
monsoon and its variability. Current
Science. 81: 1196-1207.
Lonergan, S. (1998). Climate Warming in India,
World Bank Technical Paper No. 402.,
Washington DC.
Mall, R.K., Bhatla, R. and Pandey, S.N. (2007).
Water Resources in India and Impact of
Climate Change, Jalvigyan Sameeksha,
Vol. 22.
National Conference on Climate change and
Indian Agriculture, 12-13 October, 2007,
ICAR, New Delhi
Ramakrishna, Y.S., Rao, G.G.S.N., Rao, G.S.
and Kumar, V. (2006). Climate Change,
In: Environment and Agriculture, Eds.
K.L Chadha and M.S. Swaminathan,
Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi.
Rupa Kumar, K., Krishana Kumar, K. and Pant,
G.B. 1994. Diurnal asymmetry of surface
temperature trends over India, Geophys.
Res. Let. 21: 677-680.
Rupa Kumar, K., Krishna Kumar, K., Pant, G.B.
and Srinivasan, G. (2002). Climate
Change-The Indian Scenario, In:
Background Paper Prepared by FICCI,
International Conference on Science and
Technology Capacity Building For
Climate Change, October 20-22, New
Delhi.
Rupa Kumar, K., Krishan Kumar, K., Prasanna,
V., Kamala, K., Deshpande, N.R.,
Patwardhan, S.K. and Pant, G.B. (2003).
Future Climate Scenario, In: Climate
Change and Indian Vulnerability
Assessment and Adaptation, Universities
Press (India) Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad. pp.69-
127.
Rupa Kumar, K., Sahai, A.K., Krishna Kumar,
K., Patwardhan, S.K., Mishra, P.K.,
Revadkar, J.V., Kamala, K. and Pant,
G.B. (2006). High-resolution Climate
Change Scenarios for India for the 21
st

Century. Current Science. 90(3): 334-345.
SANDEE. (2009). South Asian Network for
Development and Environmental
Economics, Policy Brief, Number 39-09,
December, 2009.
Venkateswarlu, B. and Shanker, A.K. (2009).
Climate Change and Agriculture:
Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies.
Indian Journal of Agronomy. 54(2): 226-
230.

12
Faroda and Poonia

Species diversity of Coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in selected
provenances of Sandal (Santalum album Linn.) and their role in pest control

R. Sundararaj
1
and Gaurav Sharma
2

1
Wood Biodegradation Division, Institute of Wood Science & Technology, 18
th
Cross Malleswaram,
Bangalore-560 003, India
2
Zoological Survey of India, Desert Regional Centre, Jhalamand, Pali Road, Jodhpur-342 005, India.
e-mail:
1
rsundariwst@gmail.com;
2
drgaurav.zsi.india@gmail.com


ABSTRACT: Entomophagous coccinellids are perhaps the most familiar of all the predaceous beetle
groups. This charismatic group includes many beneficial species that are voracious predators of
pestiferous aphids, whiteflies, psyllids, scale insects etc. The role of coccinellids in biological control of
sandal insect pests is less studied. In the present study, surveys were conducted to identify the species
spectrum of coccinellids in six sandal provenances of south India. It revealed the presence of 25 species of
coccinellids in the sandal provenances. In the light of these findings, the importance of exploiting these
coccinellids for developing ecologically and environmentally sound insect pest management strategies in
sandal plantations is discussed.
Key words: Coccinellids, Santalum album, biological control.

INTRODUCTION
Entomophagous coccinellids are major
consumers of prey, perhaps the most familiar
non-specialists is the lady beetle family,
Coccinellidae. It is widely known that this
charismatic group includes many beneficial
species that are voracious predators of
pestiferous aphids and scale insects. They feed
on a wide variety of prey species (Hodek, 1996),
e.g. mites (Biddinger et al., 2009), aphids
(Obrycki et al., 2009), Coleoptera and
Lepidoptera (Evans, 2009), and non-preyfood
(Lundgren, 2009; Sutherland and Parrella, 2009).
Coccids are essential food for a large proportion
(36%) of coccinellid species globally, especially
in the tropics and subtropics. Coccidophagy is
likely the ancestral condition for the family
Coccinellidae (Giorgi et al., 2009), and
coccidophagous coccinellids belong to several
tribes (and genera), including Sukunahikonini,
Sticholotini, Scymnini (Cryptolaemus, Diomus,
Nephus, Sidis), Hyperaspini (Hyperaspis),
Telsimiini, Chilocorini (Chilocorus,
Exochomus), Coccidulini (Rhyzobius), Azyini,
Exoplectrini, Noviini (Novius, Rodolia), and
Coccinellini (Neda). Species from Serangiini,
Scymnini (Clitostethus), and Scymnillini prefer
whiteflies as prey (Hodek, 1996). An exact
evidence of trophic ecology of coccinellids can

only been gained by a systematic, preferably
experimental study. The finding that some food
may be eaten by ladybirds in spite of its low
suitability or even toxicity (Hodek, 1956) led to
the principal distinction between essential food
promoting successful preimaginal development
and reproduction, while alternative foods only
enable survival (Hodek, 1962, 1996). Hodek and
Honek (2009) reviewed their role in biological
control progaramme against scale insects,
mealybugs, whiteflies and psyllids. Weber and
Lundgren (2009) stressed that assessments of
intraguild predation, and the breadth of prey and
non-prey foods of the coccinellids is essential to
the understanding of this group and for their
application as biological control agents. Obrycki
et al. (2009) demonstrated its application in
biological control in agroecosystems. In this
paper, the coccinellids found active in different
provenances of sandal are listed and their role in
biological control is discussed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS
Surveys were conducted in sandal
provenances of South India during 2004 to
2007 to record the insect communities. The
six sandal provenances selected for the
Biological Forum
_

studies were Banagalore, Thangali and
Mandagadde in Karnataka, Chitteri and
Javadis in Tamil Nadu and Marayoor in
Kerala. For the studies sample plots were
selected homogenously through out the study
areas in all the provenances of sandal. In the
selected plots the insects were collected
using Insect net, Berlese funnel, Winkler
bags, Pit-fall traps and Sticky traps. From the
field collected insects the coccinellids were
sorted out, preserved by following standard
procedures and got identified with the help
of taxonomic experts.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study indicated the presence of 25
species of coccinellids in all the selected
provenances of sandal. Based on number of
identified species, Thangali and Javadis
provenances recorded maximum number of
coccinellids (22 species each). Chitteri
provenance recorded 21 species. Bangalore and
Marayoor provenances recorded 19 species each
and Mandagadde recorded 18 species (Table 1).

Table 1. Coccinellids recorded from six Sandal Provenances of South India
Sl. No Coccinellid Sandal provenances of south India
Bangalore Thangali Mandagadde Chitteri Javadis Marayoor
1. Anegleis cardoni (Ws.) + + + + + +
2. Axinoscymnus puttarudriahi
Kapur & Munshi,
+ + + + + +
3. Brumoides suturalis (Fabricius) + + + - - +
4. Cheilomenes sexmaculata
(Fabricius)
+ + + + + +
5. Chilocorus nigrita (Fabricius) + + + + + +
6. Coccinella septumpunctata
Linnaeus
+ + + + + +
7. Cryptolaemus montruizeri
Mlsant
+ + + + + +
8. Curinus coeruleus (Mulsant) + + + + + +
9. Harmonia octomaculata
(Fabricius)
+ + - - + +
10. Illeis cincta (Fabricius) + + - + - +
11. Jauravia albidula Motschulsky - - - + + +
12. Jauravia dorsalis (Weise) + + + + + -
13. Jauravia pallidula Motschulsky + + + + + +
14. Nephus regularis Sic. + + - - + +
15. Pharoscymnus flexibilis
(Mulsant)
- + - + + +
16. Phrynocaria perrotteti
(Mulsant),
+ + + + + -
17. Pseudaspidimerus flaviceps
(Walker)
- - - + + -
18. Pseudaspidimerus trinotatus
(Thunberg)
+ + + + + +
19. Pullus coccidivora Ayyar + + + - + +
20. Pullus gratiosus Wse. + + + + - -
21. Rodolia amabilis Kapur + + + + + +
22. Rodolia breviuscula Weise - + + + + +
23. Rodolia fumida Mulsant - - - + + -
24. Scymnus latemaculatus
Motschulsky
+ + + + + -
25. Scymnus nubilus Mulsant - + + + + +
Total 19 22 18 21 22 19

14
Sundararaj and Sharma

These coccinellids along with other
entomophagous predators and parasitoids mighty
be playing an active role in keeping the
populations of pestiferous insects under control.
The non-out break of insect pests on sandal in its
natural habitats mainly corroborates the
existence of variety of natural enemies in
undisturbed areas like natural forests (Sundararaj
et al., 2006 and 2007). In the emerging scenario
of growing sandal in areas outside forests where
it is affected by many pests of agricultural and
horticultural importance enough focus to be
given to exploit these coccinellids in insect pest
management of sandal.
Research on these coccinellids has
advanced mankinds concept of biological pest
management which is emerging as an important
component of integrated pest management (IPM)
programs. Indeed, the first successful classical
biological control effort involved the
introduction of the vedalia beetle, Rodolia
cardinalis (Mulsant), to control cottony cushion
scale, Icerya purchasi Maskell, on citrus plants
in California during the late 1880s (Caltagirone
and Doutt, 1989). The same coccinellid beetle,
Rodolia cardinalis (Origin: Australia), which has
an excellent record of accomplishment for the
suppression of cottony cushion scale, Icerya.
purchasi was introduced to India in the Nilgiris
in 1930 and it successfully controlled I. purchasi.
In 1941, the pest assumed serious proportions
and spread to upper Palni hills (Tamil Nadu), but
was brought under control by releasing R.
cardinalis. As I. purchasi threatened citrus in
Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala, R.
cardinalis was obtained from the Nilgiris and
New Zealand, multiplied and released in infested
localities resulting in satisfactory control (Singh,
2004). Besides, climate change is expected to
bring extension in the host range of many pests
and diseases and change in population structure
and growth rate among insect species
(Ananthakrishnan, 2007). In this context,
considering the ever-increasing importance of
conservation of sandal with a commitment of
environmental safety, research on the line of
utilization of naturally occurring coccinellids
would benefit sandal pest management.

REFERENCES
Ananthakrishnan, T.N. (2007). Insects and
Climate. Entomology Academy of India
Base Paper No. 1. p.27.
Biddinger, D.J., Weber, D.C. and Hull, L.A.
(2009). Coccinellidae as predators of
mites: Stethorini in biological control.
Biological Control. 51: 268283.
Blackman, R.L. (1965). Studies on specificity in
Coccinellidae. Annals of Applied
Biology. 56: 336338.
Caltagirone, L.E. and Doutt, R.L. (1989). The
history of the Vedalia Beetle importation
into California and its impact on the
development of biological control.
Annual Review of Entomology. 34: 116.
Evans, E.W. (2009). Lady beetles as predators of
insects other than Hemiptera. Biological
Control. 51: 255267.
Giorgi, J.A., Vandenberg, N.J., McHugh, J.V.,
Forrester, J.A.,Slipin ski, S.A., Miller,
K.B., Shapiro, L.R. and Whiting, M.F.
(2009). The evolution of food
preferences in Coccinellidae. Biological
Control. 51: 215231.

Hodek, I. (1956). The influence of Aphis
sambuci L. as prey of the ladybird beetle
Coccinella septempunctata L.. Vestnik
Ceskoslovenske Spolecnosti Zoologicke
(in Czech, English abstract). 20: 6274.
Hodek, I. (1962). Essential and alternative food
in insects. Verhandlungen des 11.
Internationalen Kongress Entomologie,
Wien, 1960. 2: 696697.
Hodek, I. (1996). Food relationships. In: Hodek,
I., Honek, A. (Eds.), Ecology of
Coccinellidae. Kluwer Academic,
Dordrecht. pp.143238.
Hodek, I and Honek, A. (2009). Scale insects,
mealybugs, whiteflies and psyllids
(Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha) as prey of
ladybirds. Biological Control. 51: 232
243.
Lundgren, J.G. (2009). Nutritional aspects of
non-prey foods in the life histories of
predaceous Coccinellidae. Biological
Control. 51: 294305.
Obrycki, J.J., Harwood, J.D., Kring, T.J. and
ONeil, R.J. (2009). Aphidophagy by
Coccinellidae: Application of biological
13
Sundararaj and Sharma

control in agroecosystems. Biological
Control. 51: 244254.
Singh, S.P. (2004). Some success stories in
classical biological control of
agricultural pests in India. APAARI
publication, 2004/2. 73pp.
Sundararaj, R., Sharma, G. and Karibasavaraja,
L.R. (2006). A checklist of insects
associated with sandal (Santalum album
Linn.)- a checklist. Annals of Forestry.
14(1): 121-168.
Sundararaj, R., Sharma, G. and Karibasavaraja,
L.R. (2007). A checklist of parasitic and
predatory groups of insects in sandal
(Santalum album Linn.) ecosystem.
Annals of Forestry. 15(1): 137-144.
Sutherland, A.M. and Parrella, M.P. (2009).
Mycophagy in Coccinellidae: review and
synthesis. Biological Control. 51: 284
293.
Weber, D.C. and Lundgren, J.G. (2009).
Assessing the tropic ecology of the
Coccinellidae: Their role as predators
and as prey. Biological Control. 51:
199-214.

16 Sundararaj and Sharma

Distribution and diversity of Noctuid Fauna of Veerangana Durgavati Wildlife
Sanctuary, Damoh district, Madhya Pradesh

S. Sambath and Kailash Chandra*

Zoological Survey of India, Central Zone Regional Centre, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur-482 002, Madhya
Pradesh, India.
*Zoological Survey of India, 535, M Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053, West Bengal, India
e-mail: sambath63@gmail.com

(Received 6 November, 2011, Accepted 2 January, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The Noctuidae is one of the largest families of the insect order Lepidoptera, which includes
more than 1300 species of moths from India. The family includes mostly economically important moths,
the larvae of which feed voraciously on a wide range of plants (polyphagous) in different agro-ecosystem
and forests and cause considerable economic loss. Due to intense anthropogenic activities in and around
the agriculture and the forest habitats, the distribution and diversity of noctuid fauna is changing in these
habitats. During the present study, attempts has been made during the year 2009-2011 to document the
noctuids of one of the conservation area of Madhya Pradesh i.e. Veerangana Durgavati Wildlife Sanctuary
(VDWS), District Damoh. The preliminary studies show that a good number of moth species would be
documented. Presently, 21 species of noctuid moths belonging to 19 genera under 7 subfamilies are
reported. The study of these insects will help in the conservation and management of this habitat.
Key words: Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Diversity, Veerangana Durgawati Wildlife Sanctuary.

INTRODUCTION
The family Noctuidae, occasionally
known as owlet moths, is the largest and most
speciose radiation of insect order Lepidoptera,
Most of the adult moths has drab forewings, and
some have brightly coloured hind wings. There
are usually few differences between the sexes.
The overwhelming majority of noctuids fly at
night and is almost invariably attracted to light.
Many are also attracted to sugar and nectar-rich
flowers. The larvae of many noctuid genera well
known as army-worms, cutworms, bollworms
and stem borers, are very economically
important and cause severe damage to various
crops in agriculture, horticulture and plantations
and natural forests each year.
At present, their control, still mainly
through the use of chemicals pesticides, is also
expensive. Thus, it is a vital pre-requisite to draw
attentions on the various biological studies of
these species which helps immensely to the
efficient use of the resources available to combat
the pest species and also to minimize
environmental contamination in different

ecosystems for the conservation and
management of noctuid fauna of these regions.
Study area: Veerangana Durgavati Wildlife
Sanctuary is situated on the state highway No.36
midway between Jabalpur and Damoh within
2330 and 2335 N latitudes and 7940 and
79 50 E longitudes of Madhya Pradesh (Fig.
1). The sanctuary stretches over an area of 24
km with its hilly topography, represent a mosaic
of all kinds of habitat and consists of well
reserved forests as tropical mixed dry deciduous
forests of medium quality and density.
The common plant species of the sanctuary
are saja (Terminalia atata), tendu (Diospyros
melanoxylon), mahua (Madhuca latifolia), teak
(Tectona grandis), palas (Butea monosperma),
khair (Acacia catechu), etc. The sanctuary is also
attributed with number of water resources which
support diverse flora and fauna.
The major wildlife attractions of the
sanctuary are tiger, leopard, nilgai, jungle cat,
striped hyena, wolf, jackal, chital, black buck,
chinkara, langur, monkeys and mongoose, etc.

Biological Forum
_

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Collection of Noctuid fauna (moths) was
made by using light trap at night (dusk to dawn).
The light trap consists of white cloth sheet (10
X 6) hung between two vertical poles in such a
way that it touches the surface and extends
forwards over the ground a little away from the
direct source of light. The source of light should
be placed at such a point that the whole sheet
from edge to edge is brightly illuminated.
A 160 watt mercury vapour bulb was
used as a light source over night. The light trap
was installed at different localities and operated
from dusk to dawn. Moths start appearing on the
trap just after sunset and most of the moths were
collected between 18.00 to 22.00 hours after that
the abundance of moths gets slowly declined.
The number of moths collected from
different localities were studied, identified and
classified with the available literature (Hampson,
1892, 1894-96 and Bell & Scott,1937) and their
current nomenclature is based on LEPINDEX, an
online database version of NHM, UK (Beccaloni
et al., 2003).
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
During this study, more than 100
specimens of noctuid moths were collected and
recorded 21 species belongs to 18 genera under 7
subfamilies, viz., Aganainae, Calpinae,
Catocalinae, Hadeninae, Heliothinae, Noctuinae
and Plusiinae (Table 1). Among the subfamilies
the Catocalinae (52.00%) outnumbers the other
subfamilies viz., Calpinae (24%), Aganainae,
Hadeninae, Heliothinae, and Plusiinae were
represented each by 4 to 5% (Fig. 2). Most of
the Catocalinae are large (7 to 10 cm, 3 to 4
inches) compared to other noctuids, and have
brightly colored hind wings. They are closely
related to the subfamilies Ophiderinae and
Calpinae. The larvae of the Catocalinae have a
spiny skin and a transverse arrangement of L1
and L2 setae on the prothorax. Most of the
members of this subfamily are flower and seed
feeders. The members of the subfamily Calpinae
are closely related to the subfamily Catocalinae
and both subfamilies contain large species with
wingspans of more than 5 centimeters.

Fig. 1. Study area of Veerangana Durgawati Wildlife Sanctuary, M.P.
18
Sambath and Chandra

Table 1. Host plants of Noctuid fauna (Family: Noctuidae) of Veerangana Durgavati Wildlife Sanctuary,
Damoh District, Madhya Pradesh.
Sl. No. Name of the species Subfamily Host Plants
1. Acanthodelta janata (Linnaeus) Catocalinae Acacia sp., Ficus sp., Tamarindus indica
2. Anomis flava (Fabricius) Catocalinae Gossypium hirsutum, Hibiscus
rosasinensis,
3. Anomis fulvida Guenee Catocalinae -
4. Anua coronata Fabricius Catocalinae Citrus sp., Terminalia bellerica
5. Anua triphaenoides (Walker) Catocalinae -
6. Artena dotata Fabricius Catocalinae Quisqualis indica, Terminalia bellerica, T.
tomentosa
7. Asota caricae (Fabricius) Aganainae Shorea robusta, Ficus bengalensis, F.
religiosa
8. Chalciope mygdon (Cramer) Catocalinae Phyllathus sp.
9. Chrysodeixis eriosoma Doubleday Plusiinae Ficus sp.
10. Dysgonia algira (Linnaeus) Catocalinae Ricinus cummunis, Citrus sp., Ficus sp.
11. Fodina stola (Guenee) Calpinae Anogeissus latifolia, cassia fistula
12. Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) Heliothinae Acacia catechu, Abizia procera
13. Hypocala deflorata Fabricius Calpinae Diospyros montana
14. Ophiusa tirrhaca (Cramer) Catocalinae Shorea robusta, Terminalia bellerica, T.
tomentosa
15. Othreis fullonia (Clerck) Calpinae Anacardium occidentale, Mangifera indica
16. Pandesma anysa (Guenee) Calpinae Acacia sp., Dalbergia sissoo,
Pithecellobium dulce,
Prosopis sp.,
17. Pericyma cruegeri Butler Catocalinae Acacia catechu, Delonix regia,
18. Psimada quadripennis Walker Calpinae Ficus bengalensis
19. Spirama retorta Clerck Catocalinae Albizia lebbek, A. procera, A.amara
20. Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) Hadeninae Annona squamosa Mangifera indica
21. Xestia semiherbida Walker Noctuinae Members of the plant family Rosaceae,
Malvaceae

Fig. 2. Diversity of Noctuid fauna (%) from Veerangana Durgawati
Wildlife Sanctuary, Damoh, Madhya Pradesh.
19
Sambath and Chandra

The subfamily Aganainae consists of ten taxa
widely distributed throughout Oriental and
Australasia regions. The larvae of this groups
mainly feed on the plants belong to the family
Moraceae, Apocynaceae and Asclepiadaceae
(Kitching & Rawlins 1998; Holloway 1988;
Common 1990), and thus the bright colours of
most adults are probably aposematic. The larvae
are sometimes aposematic, being patterned
variously in black and white, especially in
species that oviposit egg masses, which develop
into groups of gregarious larvae. Other species
oviposit singly and their larvae are usually
cryptic. The adult moths of the subfamily
Hadeninae are medium in size; have stout body
covered with long hairs. Their legs are without
spines and the larvae of many species feed on
grass, and they have four pair of prolegs, most
have thick lined along the body. They hide
during the day and feed at night and the full
grown larvae pupate in soil. The adults and
larvae of the subfamily Heliothinae are medium
sized, usually with stout body clothed with long
hairs and the larvae feed on flower bud, fruits
and foliage, and pupate in a cell in soil. The
larvae of the many species of the subfamily
Noctuinae feed on roots or stems of various
grasses. Some are generalist feeders which make
them potential pests. The majority of the
Plusiinae members are herbaceous feeders, and
species such as Chrysodeixis eriosoma
Doubleday and Thysanoplusia orichalcea
Fabricius, are recognized pests and are
characteristically widespread geographically,
highly dispersive (recorded as migrants) and
usually captured in open habitats. The subfamily
shows fairly distribution throughout the world.
Moth fauna of Madhya Pradesh
including Chhattisgarh were studied by various
researchers like Cotes and Swinhoe (1886-1889),
Hampson (1892, 1894, 1895, 1896), Singh and
Rawat (1980) Vaishampayan and Veda (1980),
Vaishampayan and Verma (1987), Singh (1987)
and Bell and Scott (1937). Chandra et al. (2004,
2006a; 2006b) recorded on moths of few
protected areas and Jabalpur district in Madhya
Pradesh. Further, Chandra and Nema (2007)
were added and consolidated more than 313
species, 221 genera under 25 moths families are
known from Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.
The present findings of 21 species under the
family Noctuidae is reported for the first time
from this wildlife sanctuary. The results from
this study can be used for making decisions on
conservation of natural resource management
especially for insect biodiversity. Hence, both
extensive and intensive surveys with long term
ecological monitoring programmes will prove to
help in identifying the status of the species.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Dr. K.
Venkataraman, Director, Zoological Survey of
India, Kolkata for providing necessary facilities
and encouragements. Sincere thanks are also due
to the Divisional Forest Officer and Forest Range
Officer, Veerangana Durgawati Wildlife
Sanctuary, District Damoh, Madhya Pradesh for
their permission and kind cooperation during the
faunistic surveys.

REFERENCES
Bell, T.R.D. and Scott, F.B. (1937). Fauna of
British India including Ceylon & Burma,
Moths-5. 1-533.
Chandra, K., Nema, D.K. and Bhandari, R.
(2004). New records of moths from
Jabalpur district, Madhya Pradesh.
National Journal of Life Sciences. 1:
373-384.
Chandra, K., Nema, D.K. and Singh, S.P. (2006).
On a collection of moths from
Achanakmar Wildlife Sanctuary,
Chhattisgarh. National Journal of Life
Sciences. 3: 183-189.
Chandra, K. and Nema, D.K. (2006). Moths of
Kanger Valley National Park (Bastar
Chhattisgarh). Records of Zool. Surv.
India. 106: 13-23.
Chandra, K. and Nema, D.K. (2007). Insecta:
Lepidoptera: Heterocera. Zool. Surv.
India, Fauna of Madhya Pradesh
(including Chhattisgarh), State Fauna
Series. 15 (Part-1): 347-418.
Cotes, E.C. and Swinhoe, C. (1886-1889). A
catalogue of Moths of India. 1-801.
Hampson, G.F. (1892). Fauna of British India
including Ceylon & Burma, Moths-1. 1-
527.
Hampson, G.F. (1894). Fauna of British India
528.
20
Sambath and Chandra

Hampson, G. F. (1895). Fauna of British India
517.
Hampson, G. F. (1896). Fauna of British India
595.
Singh, O. P. (1987). New record of Amyna octo
Guenee as pest of soyabean in M. P.
India. Indian Journal of Plant
Protection. 15(1): 95-96.
Singh O.P. and Rawat R.R. (1980). Natural
enemies of cabbage Web-worm,
Crocidolomia binotalis Zell. at Jabalpur
(M. P.). Indian Journal of Entomology.
42: 324-326.
Vaishampayan, S.M. and Veda, O.P. (1980).
Population dyanamics of gram pod
borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hbner)
and its outbreak situation gram, Cicer
arietinum L. at Jabalpur. Indian
Journal of Entomology. 42(3): 453-459.
Vaishampayan, S. M. and Verma, R. (1987).
Seasonal change in the reproductive
potential of female moths of Heliothis
armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidea) collected on light trap at
Jabalpur. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Sciences. 57(3): 200-205.

21 Sambath and Chandra

Role of Aquatic Insects as Biomonitors, Hussain Sagar Lake, Hyderabad

J. Deepa

Zoological Survey of India, Freshwater Biology Regional Centre, Hyderabad- 500 048, India
email: deepajzsi@gmail.com


ABSTRACT: Biological monitoring using insects has many advantages. Many taxa differ with regard to
their sensitivity to environmental change and habitat requirements so we can choose the taxon according
to the needed resolution. As particulate material including sediment increases, certain species of mayflies
(Caenidae) with protected abdominal gills, and caddisflies like the filter-feeding Hydropsychidae increase
in relative abundance. When dissolved oxygen is reduced, haemoglobin-possessing Chironomids increase
in number. Stonefly nymphs decline as temperature increases. The present study is based on Insect
collections made from various surveys to the Hussain Sagar lake, Hyderabad, during April, 2008-March,
2010. The less number of aquatic insects families belonging to three orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera
and Trichoptera was noted which constitute the EPT Index of a lake. Since these orders of insects are
highly sensitive to pollution, they are used as water quality indicators. Their presence and relatively
average number suggests the Hussain sagar lake to be a eutrophic one, and the results are confirmed by
chemical analysis of water. Aquatic entomofauna of Hussain sagar lake play a vital role in assessing the
health of a lake and are proved to be efficient biodiversity indicators.
Key words: Aquatic Insects, Biomonitor, Husain Sagar Lake.

INTRODUCTION
Insects are the most diverse group of
organisms in freshwater. Estimates on the global
number of aquatic insect species derived from
the fauna of North America, Australia and
Europe is about 45,000 species, of this about
5,000 species are estimated to inhabit inland
wetlands of India. Although insects are
predominantly terrestrial animals, a substantial
number, perhaps between 2 and 3% of described
species, are aquatic or semiaquatic. Some or all
representatives of 13 of the orders of insects have
one or more life stages living in or closely
associated with aquatic habitats. Because many
species are aquatic only during their immature
stages, the study of aquatic insects involves both
terrestrial and aquatic or semiaquatic life forms.
Aquatic insects of inland wetlands comprise
some well-known groups like mayflies
(Ephemeroptera), dragonflies (Odonata) and
caddiesflies (Trichoptera).
Using indicators to estimate biodiversity
is faster and less expensive than conducting
comprehensive biodiversity surveys. Aquatic
biomonitoring is the science of inferring the
ecological condition of rivers, lakes, streams, and
wetlands by examining the organisms that live

there. The present study is based on Insect
collections made from various surveys to the
Hussain Sagar lake, Hyderabad, during April,
2008-March, 2010 as a part of the project
entitled Taxonomic and ecological studies of
Aquatic insects of lakes in and around
Hyderabad (FBRC/ZSI/Hyderabad). The
Hussain Sagar Lake in Hyderabad is an
enchanting lake and is the largest man-made
Lake in Asia. Hussain Sagar bridges twin cities
Hyderabad and Secunderabad. It is a placid lake
of 24 kilometres built by Hazrat Husain Shah
Wali on a tributary of the Musi during the time
of that great builder Ibrahim Quli Qutb Shah in
1562 to meet the water and irrigation needs of
the city. The Hussainsagar catchment area is
about 275 sq km covering Kukatpally,
Dulappally, Bowenpally, Yusufguda and
Khairatabad watersheds.
Aquatic insects are the most widely used
organisms in freshwater biomonitoring. In
addition to taking direct samples of water and
testing for various metals, organic matters,
dissolved oxygen etc, aquatic insects also aid as
site monitors of water quality. Few species
belonging to family Ephemeroptera (nymphs)
Biological Forum
_

beetles of Family Elmidae (adults), Trichoptera
(larvae), Plecoptera (nymphs), Psephenidae
(water pennies) are highly sensitive to pollution
and serve as bioindicators of water quality. These
organisms require high dissolved oxygen levels.
Generally when present in less numbers, these
insects suggest it as a eutrohic lake .Some insects
of order Megaloptera (larvae), Odonates viz.
dragonflies and damselflies (nymphs), family
Gyrinidae (whirligig beetles larvae) tends to
tolerate some degradation of water quality. EPT
index, an index of water quality based on the
abundance of three pollution-sensitive orders of
macroinvertebrates relative to the abundance of a
hardy species of macroinvertebrate. It is
calculated as the sum of the number of
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera
divided by the total number of midges (Diptera:
Chironomid). The EPT Index is calculated and
results discussed.

METHODOLOGY
During the course of local surveys, three
seasonal surveys in a year were made, and
aquatic insects were collected from water bodies
of the park. Collections were made with the help
of hand operated nets of varying sizes by
randomly netting different areas of wetland.
Insects collected for study were preserved in
70% alcohol. The collections were identified
with the aid of standard literature on the groups.
Proportion of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and
Trichoptera in total number of individuals
collected gives a fairly descent picture of water
quality These groups prefer clear, unpolluted
lakes and are sensitive to pollution. This study is
significant due to its maiden effort to study the
entomofaunal diversity of lakes of Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh and their role in biomonitoring
of lakes.

Biological monitoring using insects has
many advantages. Many taxa differ with regard
to their sensitivity to environmental change and
habitat requirements so we can choose the taxon
according to the needed resolution. We can focus
on functional groups such as primary consumers
or top predators to monitor ecosystem function.
As particulate material including sediment
increases, certain species of mayflies (Caenidae)
with protected abdominal gills, and caddisflies
like the filter-feeding Hydropsychidae increase
in relative abundance. When dissolved oxygen is
reduced, haemoglobin-possessing Chironomids
increase in number. Stonefly nymphs decline as
temperature increases. The less number of
aquatic insects families belonging to three orders
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera was
noted which constitute the EPT Index of a lake.
Since these orders of insects are highly sensitive
to pollution, they are used as water quality
indicators. Their presence and relatively average
number suggests the Hussain sagar lake to be a
eutrophic one, and the results are confirmed by
chemical analysis of water. Aquatic entomofauna
of Hussain Sagar Lake play a vital role in
assessing the health of a lake and are proved to
be efficient biodiversity indicators.

Ephemeroptera: Mayflies, larvae of mayflies
live in a wide variety of flowing and standing
waters. Most of them eat plant material, either by
scraping algae or collecting small pieces of
detritus from the bottom. Larvae breathe
dissolved oxygen by means of gills on the
abdomen. They have incomplete metamorphosis.
Most mayflies are sensitive to pollution.

Plecoptera: Stone flies, are the most sensitive
order of aquatic insects. Consequently,
stoneflies are often restricted to habitats where
there is little human development, clear water,
and high dissolved oxygen content. Plecoptera
are a source of food for many game fish.
Population levels of Plecoptera are also used as
biological indicators of water quality. Stoneflies
are very sensitive to water quality, especially
dissolved oxygen levels, thus deteriorating
populations of stoneflies may mean that poor
water quality threatens the health of the aquatic
ecosystem.

Trichoptera: Caddisflies larvae live in a wide
variety of flowing and standing waters. They also
have a wide range of feeding habits, including
scraping algae, collecting fine particles of
detritus from the bottom or from the water,
shredding dead leaves, and preying on other
invertebrates. They breathe dissolved oxygen by
means of gills and their overall body surface.
Caddisflies have complete metamorphosis and
23
Deepa

remain in the water for the pupa stage. Most
kinds are sensitive to pollution, but a few kinds
are somewhat tolerant of moderate levels of
pollution.

EPT index: This is the easiest index to calculate
and is total number of Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Trichoptera families, divided by
the total number of families in all samples and
multiply by 100. The EPT Index is a reliable tool
to evaluate watershed condition useful
forestablishing reference conditions, setting
protection and restoration goals, identifying
disturbances, choosing control measures and
monitoring lake condition. Traditional physico-
chemical analysis of water quality provides a
snap shot of water quality at the time of sample
collection. In contrast, biomonitoring adds a
temporal component to the sample and provides
a history of the perturbation if any. However,
physicochemical measurements and
biomonitoring are not mutually exclusive and an
ideal water quality monitoring programme
should involve both approaches.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is thankful to the Dr.
K.Venkatraman, Director, Zoological Survey of
India, Kolkata and Dr. S.Z. Siddiqi, Officer-in-
Charge, ZSI, Hyderabad, for providing facilities
to carry out this work.

REFERENCES
Bal, A. and Basu, R.C. 1994. Insecta: Hemiptera:
Mesoveliidae, Hydrometridae, Velidae and
Gerridae. In: State fauna Series, Fauna of
West Bengal, Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata. 5(5): 535-558.
Deepa J. and Rao, C.A.N. 2007. Aquatic
Hemiptera of Pocharam Lake, Andhra
Pradesh. Zoos Print Journal. 22(12):
2937-2939.
Deepa, J. and. Rao, C.A.N. 2010. Aquatic
Entomofauna of Pocharam lake, Andhra
Pradesh (Hemiptera & Coleoptera,
Wetland ecosystem series, Rec. Zool. surv.
India, Kolkata. 13: 37-49
Deepa, J. and Rao, C.A.N. 2011. On Collections
of aquatic and semiaquatic bugs and
beetles of KBR National Park, Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh. Bugs R All. 17: 13-15.
Mukhopadhyay, P. and Ghosh, S.K. 2003.
Insecta: Coleoptera. Fauna of Sikkim. State
Fauna series, Zoological Survey of India.
Kolkata. 9(3): 19-33.
Subramanian, K.A. and Sivaramakrishnan, K.G.
2007. Aquatic Insects of India-A field
Guide,
http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/lake20
09/workshop/Indian_aqua_Insects.pdf
Thirumalai, G. 1999. Aquatic and semi-aquatic
Heteroptera of India. Indian Association
of Aquatic Biologist (IAAB) Publication. 7:
1-74.
Vazirani, T.G. 1973. Contribution to the study of
aquatic beetles (Coleoptera) XII. On a
collection of Dytiscidae from Gujarat.
Rec. zool. Surv. India, Calcutta. 67: 287-30
24
Deepa

On some aspects of Territoriality and Reproduction of Pseudagrion
microcephalum (Rambur) (Insecta: Odonata: Zygoptera: Coenagrionoidea)

B. Suri Babu
1
and Gaurav Sharma
2

1
Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Building, Bodhghat Colony, Jagdalpur-494001. District- Bastar,
Chhattisgarh, India.
2
Zoological Survey of India, Desert Regional Centre, Jhalamand, Jodhpur-342005, Rajasthan, India.
e-mail:
1
drsuribabu@rediffmail.com;
2
drguarav.zsi.india.gmail.com


ABSTRACT: The territoriality and reproductive behaviour of Pseudagrion microcephalum (Rambur) has
been studied in detail in a temporary monsoon pond, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, State Chhattisgarh,
India. The territoriality is strongly demonstrated by males towards both conspecific and heterospecific
males. Precopulatory courtship display is present and brief, lasted for 8 to 13 seconds (X= 9.5; N=30).
Intramale sperm translocation has occurred after the seizure of the female only and lasted for 10 to 20
seconds (X= 14.25; N=10). The copulatory wheel was formed during the perched condition and stage I
lasted for 15 to 35 minutes (X: 25.15; N=20) and stage II lasted for 05 to 08 minutes (X= 6.5; N=20). The
surface and below water oviposition is performed by both in tandem and female alone in underwater
guarded by male on the above water surface. Behavioural comparisons of various stages have been drawn
with other members of the genus Pseudagrion Selys.
Key words: Pseudagrion microcephalum, Reproductive Behaviour, Territoriality, Copulatory Wheel,
Oviposition.

INTRODUCTION
Pseudagrion species belong to the
family Coenagrionidae a successful family of
damselflies with over 1000 known species found
world wide (Orr, 2003). Members of the genus
Pseudagrion are placed in the subfamily
Pseudagrioninae or sprites (Silsby, 2001). The
genus Pseudagrion is particularly well developed
in Africa with more than 40 species exhibiting
much disparity in habitat requirements,
appearance and behaviour (Silsby, 2001). This
genus is also diverse and wide spread in Asia
with 28 species, where as in India 11 species are
found. Emilyamma et al. (2007) reported that P.
microcephalum found through out the plains of
India, Burma, Sri Lanka and Australia commonly
found near lakes, drains and ponds filled with
lily plants. This species migrate in large numbers
along with P. decorum towards the west coast
during months of September and October. These
species breeds in both temporary and permanent
stagnant marshy waters and lakes. P.
mirocephalum is small blue dragonfly with broad
blue medial thoracic stripe. The male with eyes
with brown cap above, dark azure blue below
fading to sky blue beneath the thorax with azure

blue with a broad black medial strip with a black
narrow stripe on each side. The abdomen with
azure blue, second segment with a goblet shaped
black mark on the upper side, segment 3-7 with
broad black markings above, and 9
th
segment
unmarked. A broad saddle shaped black mark is
present on the upper side of 10
th
segment. In the
females the eyes are pale blue beneath, olive
green above, thorax with bluish green, golden
orange above and azure blue on sides. The
abdomen is similar to male with segment 2 have
a thick dumbbell shaped above. The segment 8
and 9 have broad black stripe above and two
tongue like spots and the 10
th
segment is
unmarked.
Previous studies on Pseudagrion
reproduction consist of brief notes on
Pseudagrion rubriceps Selys (Kumar, 1980;
Prasad, 1990) and on Pseudagrion australasiae
Selys (Prasad, 1985), detailed observations on P.
decoram (Rambur) (Srivastava et al. (1994) and
on Pseudagrion rubriceps Selys (Mitra, 1996). In
view of the poor literature on the reproductive
behaviour on Pseudagrion species, an
investigation on reproductive behaviour of
Biological Forum
_

Pseudagrion microcephalum (Rambur) was
under taken.

BIOTOPE AND ASSOCIATED FAUNA
The biotope comprised a small
temporary monsoon pond in Jagdalpur town in
Bastar district of Chhattisgarh state, India at
19
o
05
'
N and 82
o
01
'
E at about 566m above mean
sea level. The rain fed pond is surrounded by
reserve forest in all sides. The pond starts filling
by the onset of south west monsoon and become
full towards the end and dried up in the month of
February. During the month of August,
September and October abundant adult odonata
fauna of different species appear in the pond.
The common vegetation like Lantana camera,
Ipoema carnea and Colocasia esculenta are
growing on the bank of the pond. The common
rooted submerged plants like Hydrilla
verticillata, Vellisneria spriralis. The floating
aquatic plants like Trapa bispinosa, Nymphaea
rubra, Nymphaea cristatum, Hygroryza aristata
and Rumex nepalensis are growing in the pond.
Along with P.microcephalum the other odonata
species were observed to be reproductively
active at the pond during the study period are
Ceriagrion coromandelianum (Fabricius),
Pseudagrion decorum (Rambur), Ischnura
senegalensis (Rambur), Agriocnemis pygmaea
(Rambur), Anax guttatus, Brathythemis
contaminata (Fabricius) and Crocothemis s.
sevilia (Drury).

The observations on the reproductive
behaviour of P.microcephalum were made from
September and October 2009. The adult
damselflies were caught with the help of
butterfly net carrying 2 meters long handle. The
captured males and females were marked as dots
laterally on the thorax and abdomen with black,
white, yellow and red ASIAN enamel paint and
released back to the field. A number of 210 adult
males and 65 females were marked and on the
basis of different color dots, they were given
different numbers. A careful watch was
maintained on the damselflies visiting the
biotope from morning till evening often using a
field binocular. All activities of P.
microcephalum were observed and noted daily in
a note book. At times the damselfly pair in
tandem and in copula was captured for
verification of markings. The duration of various
events given here in were recorded with the help
of stop watch. The symbol indicated mean
value and N is the number of observations.

OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS
(a). Territoriality: P. microcephalum males
arrived at the biotope between 9.30 to 10.30 am
and the females reached the rendezvous later
around the noon between 11.00 to 12.00 hours.
The males selected an aquatic aquatic plant in the
pond and established a base perch on them at a
level about 20-30 cm above the water surface.
The male kept watch in area within radius of
0.75 to 1.50 meters. If any conspecific male
intruded into its territory, the resident male raised
up its entire abdomen and remained in this
posture until the intruder left the area. At times
the resident male would abandon its perch and
drive away the intruding male beyond the
territory. The resident male returned back to the
same perch which it was occupying. If an
intruder belonging to a heterospecific male like
Ischnura senegalensis which is frequently
present in the area, approached the base perch,
the resident male showed similar aggressive
behaviour.
When a conspecific male enter the
territory and approach the perch, the resident
male performs repeated confrontation and
vacillation display often moving in a circular
path until the withdrawl of intruder. During this
display the resident male travel upto 3 to 5 m.
The resident males performed short patrolling
flights from base perch to the vegetation of the
bank upto 3 to 6 m distance and returned back to
the base perch with in 30 to 40 seconds. During
this flight aggressive behaviour of males were
not observed. The teneral males of P.
microcephalum were noticed as non territorial,
they cruised in the territory of matured males
without maintaining territories and at times they
perch near the territory. The teneral males often
observed sharing their perches with conspecific
male. In case of large sized intruder, like Anax
guttatus the resident male abandoned its perch
and hovered over a distance of 30-50 cms, till the
dragonflies had moved out of the area. If the
dragonflies remained in the area for a longer time
about 30 to 45 minutes, it was noticed that the
26
Suri Babu and Sharma

resident male damselfly moved to another perch
nearby where it stayed passively till the intruder
vacated the area.
The feeding flights of mature males
observed only after 16:00 hour. When a male
separated from the ovipositing female, the male
moved towards the vegetation of the bank of the
pond for searching small insects for feeding.
Territorial attachment of mature males observed
as follows: Out of 10 males marked on 18
th
Sept.,
09, 2 males found on the same territory for
successive 3 days on 19
th
, 20
th
, and 21
st
Sep., 09.
Out of 6
th
males marked on 25
th
Sep., 09, 3 males
returned to their original base perches and
establish territories on the day, 1 male of this
group returned on the base perch on 28
th
Sep.,
09. 15 males marked on 3
rd
Oct., 09 and
observed for 1 week and found changing their
territories every day within a circular area of 6 m
radius.
(b). Precopulatory courtship: As soon as a
female arrived in its territory, the resident male
at once left the base perch and followed it. No
specific courtship behaviour was displayed by
the male except that it flew along the side of the
female for some distance. The female when
receptive, responded by staying in the territory,
otherwise it escaped flying swiftly away. In
response the male by its anal appendages seized
the female by the prothorax and formed tandem
link during flight. If any other conspecific male
approached the female of the tandem, the tandem
female curved its abdomen as a negative signal.
The tandem pair flew for some time over a
period ranging between 8 to 13 seconds (X= 9.5
N=30).
(c). Intramale sperm translocation: The pair in
tandem settled down on some vegetation, usually
similar to the base perch, growing near the water
edge. Only the male provided support on the
plant where as the female body hanged vertically
down. The male then arched its abdomen in such
a way that the male gonopore situated on the
ninth abdominal venter pressed against the
opening of the vesicular spermalis on the third
abdominal venter of the secondary copulatory
apparatus. The intramale sperm translocation
process lasted for 10 to 20 seconds (X=14.25,
N=10). The female did not provide any support
to the male during sperm translocation.
(d). Copulatory wheel formation: After intra
male sperm translocation took place, the male
relaxed its abdomen and in this process the
female slightly pushed backward. The abdomen
of the female then curved ventrally forward so
that its gonopore which is situated between the
eighth and ninth sternites was brought in
juxtaposition with the male copulatory apparatus.
A copulatory wheel was thus formed either when
the tandem was perched. The copulatory wheel
position was maintained during which rhythmic
movements of abdomen were noticed. This stage
I lasted for 15 to 35 minutes (X=25.15; N=20)
were vigorous in the beginning but decreased
gradually. Apparently the sperm transfer between
the male and the female took place at that time.
This stage II lasted for 05 to 08 minutes (X=6.5;
N=20). The copulatory male showed as
aggressive behaviour also when some
conspecific male approached the wheel without
breaking the wheel, by vigorously vibrated its
wings until the intruder withdrew.
(e). Post copulatory exploratory flight: After
insemination, the copulatory wheel was disrupted
but the tandem link maintained. The pair took
rest for about 30 to 50 seconds at the copulatory
base site. The damselflies then performed short
post copulatory flight in tandem for 10.00 to
15.00 minutes (X=11.05; N=20). During this
period the female explored suitable sites for
oviposition by touching vegetation with its
ovipositor.
(f). Oviposition: On finding a suitable site for
oviposition the female alighted and perched on
the water plant, while the male remained
vertically upward in air still grasping the female
thorax by its anal appendages. The female then
arched and extended its abdomen to insert
ovipositor into plant tissue for laying eggs. The
female alone flapped its wings when it changed
sites. Apparently the female guided and
controlled the oviposition process while the male
only escorted in tandem. Only on two occasions
the wings beats were observed in the male when
it directed the site for oviposition. The female
oviposited at a site for 2-3 minutes before
moving off to other sites. The other site could be
some other spot on the same tissue, or some
other tissue of the same plant, or an altogether
different plant. The total period of oviposition
27

including interruption lasted for 18 to 45 minutes
(X: 30.25; N=25).
(g). Under water Oviposition: During the
process of oviposition, the female in tandem,
started moving backwards and descending
gradually in water until the body got submerged
up to its thorax. The male was also pulled down
until its anal appendages touched the water. The
male soon released the tandem grip of the female
prothorax and flew away to the nearest perch
staying on it with folded wings and kept vigil
over the submerged ovipositing female. The
female moved up to a depth of 30 cm under
water for oviposition. The under water
oviposition was carried out for a long period of
15 to 35 minutes ( : 21.50; N=22). After some
time the female floated to the surface where it
was caught by the anal appendages of the
guarding male and carried far away in tandem.
The female carved holes in the plant tissue for
depositing the eggs and after depositing them,
the holes were plugged with a gelatinous
material. The female P. microcephalum prefers
leaves and stems of aquatic plants like
Hygroryza aristata and Rumex nepalensis for
oviposition even though many other aquatic
plants growing in the pond.

DISCUSSION
The phenomenon of territoriality
exhibited by males, has been reported for many
Odonates (Corbet, 1962) but its absence has been
recorded amongst members of the families
Platycnemididae (Buchholtz, 1950; Heymer,
1973), most Lestidae and many Coenagrionidae
(Bick et al., 1976; Fincke, 1982; and Srivastava
and Suri Babu, 1985a) though a Coenagrid, P.
microcephalum exhibits territoriality very
strongly. For most Zygopterans the territorial
area has been found to be restricted within a
radius of 0.5m according to Furtado (1972) and
Dreyer (1978). However the territory of the
presently studied species ranged wider i.e. from
0.75 to 1.50m. Corbet (1980), stated that
aggressive behaviour of the mature males at the
rendezvous was directed predominantly towards
the conspecific males; but P. microcephalum
displays aggressive behaviour not only towards
the conspecific males, but also towards the
heterospecific intruders and in equally strong
terms while P. decorum harms the intruder
physically (Srivastava et.al.1994) where as P.
microcephalum keeps away from any such
combat. Its abdomen raising display is
comparable with the threat posture and
obelisic posture of Corbet (1962); and its
aggressive behaviour with the flight towards
intruder and wing warning signals of Bick &
Bick (1965).
Corbet (1980) believes that
precopulatory courtship is displayed in
Zygoptera by males of only those species which
exhibit the phenomenon of defending their
territories. So far two families Calopterygidae
(Kumar & Prasad, 1977) and Coenagrionidae
(Corbet, 1962), were known in which
precopulatory courtship is displayed by males.
The males of P. microcephalum seem to be
exception on both the counts. Being a member of
Coenagrionidae and strongly showing the
territoriality, its males do not display any
promiment precopulatory courtship behaviour.
Srivastava and Suri Babu (1985) in Chloroneura
quadrimaculata, Robertson (1982) in Platycypha
caligata and Waage (1973) in Calopteryx
maculata observed that males make display
flights in front of the female before attempting to
take it into tandem and the males display their
distinctive colour patterns to the females. In
some species of Zygoptera the intramale sperm
translocation is accomplished before the
formation of tandem link (Buchholtz, 1950;
Kumar & Prasad, 1977). In certain other species
the translocation occurs immediately after the
assumption of tandem link (Bick, 1972). In this
respect P. microcephalum comes under the
second category, in which the translocation
occurs only in the perched condition after the
tandem pair has settled down. This present
species has a quite long duration of tandem
position. This is so, possibly to assess the mutual
compatibility and protective adeptness of the
accompanying male during the subsequent
process of sperm transfer. This duration of
copulatory wheel position varies considerably in
different Zygoptera, even amongst members of
the same family Coenagrionidae (Bick & Bick,
1965; Utzeri et al., 1983). It is the duration in
wheel position that the sperm transfer from male
to female takes place. Srivastava & Srivastava
(1987a, 1989) have thoroughly investigated the
internal genital organs of male and female of P.
28 Suri Babu and Sharma

rubriceps, and the sperm material of many
Zygopterans including the present species
(Srivastava & Srivastava 1987a). They have
explicitly stated that sperm material translocated
and transferred in Zygoptera, is in the form of
sperm groups or bundles and certainly not as
spermatophers which was believed until then for
the order Odonata (Srivastava & Srivastava
1987b).
The Zygopterans are generally known to
oviposit endophytically. Athough P. decorum
(Srivastava et al., 1994) and P. perfuscatum, P.
microcephalum (Furtado, 1972) oviposit on
vegetation lying underwater but P.
microcephalum deposits egg on the vegetation
lying above the water surface and also
underwater. The typical mate contact guarding
behaviour in Coenagrionids, the male remained
in tandem with the female throughout the
ovipositing process is the so called agrion or
sentined position (Corbet & Brooks, 2008). All
through the process of oviposition, its male
remains in tandem with the female although not
expressing any guarding or protective behaviour.
However, the accompanying male certainly
demonstrates guarding behaviour in Calopteryx
maculate (Waage, 1973) while its female lays
eggs as observed in present species P.
microcephalum. Meskian (1986) reported that P.
Kerstani and P. hageni tropicanum both
exhibited territorial behaviour. However tandem
pairs of both species oviposited freely within the
occupied territorial areas of males of either
species as well as elsewhere. P. kersteni appears
to occupy and intermediate position when it in
range and intensity of territorial behaviour is
compared to that of other four species of
Pseudagrioan so far studies (Meskian, 1986,
1989). P. salisbaryense is non-territorial and
shows little aggressive behaviour where as P.
hageni tropicanum are most aggressive of the
species studied by Meskian, 1986, 1989. He
stated that P. citricola, P. i. inconspicuum and P.
kersteni males establish new territories each day
and less aggressive than P. hageni tropicanum.
Sharma, 2010 reported the size of territory is 1 to
2 m for D. quadrimaculata where as Prasad,
1990 reported 30 to 80 cm and Mitra, 1996 (40
to 70 cm) for P. rubriceps whereas in the
present study the territory range is 0.75 to 1.5 m
for P. microcephalum.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are deeply indebted to Dr. K.
India, Kolkata, Dr. Arun Kumar, Dehradun, Shri
R.L. Dengre, IPS, Supdt. of Police, District
Bastar (C.G.) and Shri P.N. Tiwari, IPS,
Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory,
Raipur (C.G) for help and encouragement
throughout the course of the study. The authors
wish to express their deep felt gratitude to Prof.
B. Manihar Sharma, Dept. of Life Sciences,
Manipur University, Imphal for identification of
aquatic macrophytes.

REFERENCES
Bick, G.H. and J.C. Bick. (1963). Behaviour and
populations structure of the damselflies
Enallagma civile (Hagen), (Odonata:
Coenagriidae). S. West. Nat. 8(2): 57-
84.
Bick, G.H. and J.C. Bick. (1965). Demography
and behaviour of the damselfly Argia
apicalis (Say). (Odonata:
Coenagriidae). Ecology. 46: 461-472.
Bick, G.H. and L.E. Hornuff. (1966).
Reproductive behaviour in the
damselflies Enallagma aspersum
(Hagen) and Enallagma exsulans
(Hagen) (Odonata: Coenagriidae). Proc.
Ent. Soc. Wash. 68: 68-75.
Bick, G.H., Bick, J.C. and L.E. Hornuff. (1976).
Behaviour of Chromagrion conditum
(Haden) adults (Zygoptera:
Coenagrioniidae). Odonatologica. 5(2):
129-141.
Bick, G.H. and J.C. Bick. (1980). A bibliography
of reproductive behaviour of Zygoptera
of Canada and Conterminous United
States. Odonatologica. 9(1): 5-18.
Buchholtz, K.F. (1950). Zur Paarung and
Eiablage der Agrioninen (Odonata).
Bonn. Zool. Beitr. 1: 262-275.
Chowdhury, S.H. and N. Karim. (1994).
Observations on the reproductive
behaviour of Copera annulata (Selys).
Advances in Oriental Odonatology.
pp.69-76.
Corbet, P.S. (1962). A biology of dragonflies,
Witherby. London. 247 pp.
Corbet, P.S. (1980). Biology of Odonata. Ann.
Rev. Ent. 25: 189-217.
29

Corbet, P.S. and S.J. Brooks. (2008).
Dragonflies. Harper Collins Publishers,
London, UK. 454pp.
Dreyer, W. (1978). Etho-okologische
Untersuchungen an Lestes viridis
(Vander Linden). Odonatologica
Utrechat. 7: 309-322.
Emiliyamma, K.G, C. Radhakrishnan and M.
Jafer Palot. (2007). Odonata (Insect) of
Kerala. Records of the Zooloigical
Survey of India, Occ. Paper.
Eriksen, C.H. (1960). The oviposition of
Enallagma exsulans (Odonata:
Agrionidae). Ann. Ent. Soc. Amev. 63:
439.
Fincke, O.M. (1982). Life time mating success in
a natural population of the damselfly,
Enallagma hagnei (Walsh) (Odonata:
Coenagrioniidea). Behav. Ecol.
Sociobiol. 10(4): 293-302.
Furtado, J.I. (1972). The reproductive behaviour
of Ischnura senegalensis (Rambur),
Pseudagrion microcephalum (Rambur)
and Pseudagrion perfuscatum
(Odonata: Coenagrioniidae).
Malaysian. J. Sc. 1: 57-69.
Heymer, A. (1973). Verhaltensstudien an
Prachtlibellen. J. Comp. Ethol. Suppl.
11: 1-100.
Kumar, A. (1980). Studies on the life history of
Indian dragonfly Pseudagrion rubriceps
Selys (Coenagriidae: Odonata). Rec.
Zool. Sury. India. 75(1-4): 371-381.
Kumar, A. and M. Prasad. (1977). Reproductive
behaviour in Neurobasis chinensis
chinesis (Linn.) (Zygoptera:
Calopterygidea). Odonatologica. 6:
163-171.
Meskin, I. (1986). Territorial behaviour in
Pseudagrivan hageni tropicanum
Pinhey (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae)
Odonatologica. 15: 157-167.
Meskin, I. (1989). Aspects of territorial
behaviour in the species of
Pseudagrium Selys (Zygopetera:
Coenagrionidae) Odonatologica. 18(8):
253-261.
Meskin, I. (1993) Territorial behaviour in
Pseudagrivion kersteni (Gerstacker)
(Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae)
Odonatologica. 22(1): 1-20.
Mitra, A. (1996). Reproductive ethobiology
Pseudagrium rubriceps Selys
(Zygopetera: Pseudagriinae) at Asan
Reservoir (Dehradun, India). Ann. For.
4(2): 139-144.
Mitra, A. (2007). Larval and adult behavioural
patterns os some Odonata species from
Dehradun Valley. In Odonata: Biology
of Dragonflies. Ed. B.K. Tyagi,
Scientific Publishers (India). 323-341.
Ngiam, R.W.J. (2009). The biology and
distribution of Pseudogrian rubriceps
rubriceps Selys, 1876 (Odonata:
Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae) in
Singapore Nature in Singapore. 2: 209-
214.
Orr, A.G. (2003). A guide to the Dragonflies of
Borneo: Their identification and
Biology. Natural History publications
(Borneo) Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia. 195pp.
Orr, A.G. (2005). Dragonflies of peninsular
Malaysia and Singapore. Natural
History Publications (Borneo) Sdn.
Bhd. Malaysia. 125pp.
Prasad. M. (1985). Oviposition behaviour of
Pseudagrion australasiae Selys
(Zygoptera:Coenagrionidae). Fraseria,
No.8:33-34.
Prasad. M. (1990). Reproductive behaviour of
Ceriagrion coromandelianum
(Fabricus) and Pseudagrion rubriceps
Salys (Zygoptera:Coenagrionidae).
Ann. Entamol. 8(2):35-38.
Sharma, G. (2010) Studies on the reproductive
behaviour of Disparoneura
quadrimaculata (Rambur)(Odonata
Insecta) at Gyansarovar, Mount Abu,
Rajasthan,India Proc. Impact Climate
Change on Biodeversity and challanges
in Thar Desert. pp.198-202.
Silsby, J. (2001). Dragonflies of the world.
Smithsonian Institution Press, USA.
216 pp.
Srivastava, B.K. and B. Suri Babu. (1984). Some
observations on oviposition of Ischnura
aurora (Brauer) in Indian biotope
(Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Fraseria.
6: 24.
Srivastava, B.K. and B. Suri Babu. (1985a).
Reproductive behaviour of Ceriagrion
coromandelianum (Zygoptera:
30 Suri Babu and Sharma

Coenagriidae). Proc. first Indian Symp.
Odonatol. 209-216.
Srivastava, B.K. and B. Suri Babu. (1985b). On
some aspects of reproductive behaviour
in Chloroneura quadrimaculata
(Rambur) (Zygoptera: Protoneuridae).
Srivastava, V.K. and B.K. Srivastava. (1987a).
On the Zygopteran sperm material with
reference to the spermatophore.
Odonatologica. 16(4):393-399.
Srivastava, V.K. and B.K. Srivastava. (1987b).
Male internal genital organs of the
damselfly Pseudagrion rubriceps Selys
(Odonata: Zygoptera). Folia
morphologica 35(3): 265-269.
Srivastava, V.K. and B.K. Srivastava. (1989).
Female internal genital organs of the
damselfly Pseudagrion rubriceps Selys
(Zygoptera: Odonata). Folia
morphologica. 37(2): 165-171.
Srivastava, V.K., B.K. Srivastava and B. Suri
Babu. (1994). The behaviour of
reproduction and oviposition in
Pseudagrion decorum (Rambur)
(Zygoptera: Pseudagriinae) in Central
India: Advances in Oriental.Odonatol.
pp.77-84.
Suri Babu, B. (2002). Description of territoriality
and reproduction of Agriocnemis
pygmae (Rambur, 1842) (Zygoptera:
Coenagrionidae) from Bastar, Current
trends in Odonatology. Daya
Publishing house, Delhi. pp.255-272.
Trapero-quintana, A., A. Carbera omaya, Y.
Torrescambas and L. Rodriguez
Montelier. (2008). Reproductive
behaviour of Enallagma coecum Hagen
in Cuba. (Zygoptera: Coenagrioniidae.)
Utzeri, C.E., Falchetti and G. Carchini. (1983).
The reproductive behaviour in
Coenagrion lindeni (Selys) in Central
Italy (Zygoptera: Coenagrioniidae).

31

Studies on the Apoidean visitors of Tegetes patula L., an important floral
resource for Bees in Thar Desert, India

Rajiv K. Gupta, Narendra Kumar, Meena Rao, S. K. Charan and A. Rajpurohit

Department of Zoology, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur
e-mail: beesind@gmail.com

(Received 9 January, 2012, Accepted 14 March, 2012)

ABSTRACT: This study investigated and explored the bee species (Apoidea) which are regularly
associated with Tegetes patula L. (Asteraeae) in Thar Desert. The collection of bees was made during year
2000 to 2010 and identified as per recentmost taxonomic framework. It revealed that flowers of T. patula
attracted 72 species of bees (Apoidea) in eight districts constituting Thar Desert namely, Jodhpur,
Jaisalmer, Bikaner, Barmer, Churu, Sikar, Jalore and partially Pali. The collected bees so far identified
belong to 23 genera incoming four families. These families, genera and number of their recorded species
are: Family Colletidae (02 genera): genus Colletes Latreille (03 species) and Hylaeus Fabricius (02 species);
Fam. Halictidae (08 genera): Halictus Latreille (05 species), Lasioglossum Curtis (01 sp.), Lipotriches
Gerstraecker (03 sp.), Nomia Latreille (04), Pseudapis Kirby (03), Steganomus Ritsema (01), Ceylalictus
Strand (04), Nomioides Schenck (03 species); Fam. Megachilidae (06 genera): Megachile Latreille (09
species), Coelioxys Latreille (02), Pseudoheriades Peters (05), Eoanthidium Popov (02), Icteranthidium
Michener (02), Trachusa Panzer (01); Fam. Apidae (07 genera): Ceratina Latreille (03 species),
Braunsapis Michener (03), Amegilla Friese (06), Thyreus Panzer (03), Tetragonula Moure (01), Apis
Linnaeus (03) and genus Xylocopa Latreille (03 species). This commercially produced crop in different
pockets amidst desert provides enough of forage for the survival of bee species. Its blooming is followed by
Capparis decidua (Forsk.) Edgew. It further attract majority of bees completeing their crop rotation for
the year. Precisely, Tegetes patula is very useful for sustaining a rich bee biodiversity during extremeties of
climates and this rotation of crops help their conservation in Thar Desert.
Key words: Tegetes patula, Apoidea, Hymenoptera, bee biodiversity, Thar Desert, India.

INTRODUCTION
Tegetes patula L. (Asteraeae) or The
French Merigold is a perennial plant which is
grown for its commercial utility in garland
making business. It is mainly used as an edging
plant on herbaceous borders. Liquid concentrate
from the flower and leaves is used medicinally in
eastern Asia to stop nasal bleeding. The whole
plant is harvested when in flower and distilled
for its essential oil to be used in perfume
industry. It is blended with sandalwood oil to
produce 'Ittar genda' perfume. About 35
kilograms of oil can be extracted from 1 hectare
of the plant (yielding 2,500 kg of flowers and
25,000 kg of herbage). The oil is also known for
its antifungal activity, including treatment
of candidiasis in humans and for the treatment of
several fungal infections in plants. Its root
secretions kill nematodes in the soil and it is
known to repel harmful insects, such as white fly
on tomatoes (Mares et al., 2004; Romagnoli et
al., 2005; Duttta et al., 2007).

Tegetes patula plants fully bloom for a
considerable longer period during springs to
summers in this acute arid zone of Rajasthan.

This study was conducted to investigate
and explore the bee species (Apoidea)
composition that is regularly associated with
Tegetes patula L. (Asteraeae). The collections of
bees were made during years 2000 to 2010 from
the deserts of western Rajasthan and were
identified as per recentmost taxonomic
framework of Apoidea. The investigations
revealed that flowers of T. patula attracted
almost all bee species foraging in the area during
full bloom period. The sample collection sites
were largely spread in rural territories of
Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Bikaner, Barmer, Churu,
Sikar, Jalore and partially Pali districts in major.
However, to apprehend complete bee species
composition, this presentation includes the data
of bee species collected from neighbouring
Biological Forum
_

districts in Punjab and Gujrat states of western
India.
The collection sites in referred districts
were regularly visited and kept under continuous
surveillance. Collections were made every
fortnightly from each site during blooming
periods of T. patula i.e. February to May end or
June. During this collection period ambient
temperature of this area ranged between 18
0
C to
48
0
C and RH of surface soil varied between 45 to
85%. Bee samples were collected by sweeping
net on flowerings from 7 or 7.30 AM up to 5 or 6
PM on every day of the field visit. However, at
times first author made field visits at sunrise and
near sunset to make observations for extended
periodicities of bees on flowers. Collected bees
were instantly killed using Benzene fumes in a
killing bottle. They were brought to the
laboratory and properly spread for the
identification. Confirmation of identification was
based upon microscopy involving vital body
parts such as mouth parts and genitalia etc.

OBSERVATIONS, RESULT AND
DISCUSSION
A total of 762 bees were collected on T.
patula from the referred sites. These were
identified belong to 72 species grouped under 23
genera incoming 04 families: Colletidae,
Halictidae, Megachilidae and Apidae of
Superfamily Apoidea (Table 1). This number
excludes the number of Apis specimens collected
on this crop. So far no bee incoming Family
Andrenidae has been recorded on this crop.

Table 1. Apoidean visitors of Tegetes patula in Thar Desert, India.
Sr. No. Family Species Activity periodicity Population
density
Attracting Resource
Nectar / Pollen
A). Colletidae (02 genera)
1. Colletes comberi Cockerell,
1911
RV + ? P
2. Colletes lacunatus Dours,
1872
RV + ? P
3. Colletes minutus Kuhlmann,
2002
RV + ? P
4. Hylaeus gujaraticus (Nurse,
1903)
RV + N
5. Hylaeus repentens (Nurse,
1903)
RV + N
B). Halictidae (08 genera)
6. Halictus constrictus Smith,
1853
8.30 AM 4 PM + N P
7. Halictus latisignatus
Cameron, 1908
8.30 AM 4 PM + P
8. Halictus lucidipennis Smith,
1853
8.30 AM 4 PM + P
9. Halictus propinquus Smith,
1853
8.30 AM 4 PM + N P
10. Halictus vicinus Vachal, 1894 8.30 AM 4 PM + P
11. Lasioglossum vagans (Smith,
1857)
8.30 AM 4 PM + P
12. Lipotriches bombayensis
(Cameron, 1908)
8.30 AM 3.30
PM
+ N P
13. Lipotriches fervida (Smith,
1875)
8.30 AM 3.30
PM
+ N P
14. Lipotriches
fulvinerva (Cameron, 1907)
8.30 AM 3.30
PM
+ N P
15. Nomia aurata Bingham, 1897 8.30 AM 4 PM ++ N P
16. Nomia elliotii Smith, 1875 8.30 AM 4 PM +++ N P
17. Nomia westwoodi Gribodo,
1894
8.30 AM 4 PM + N P
18. Nomia sp. 8.30 AM 4 PM + N P
33 Gupta, Kumar, Rao, Charan and Rajpurohit

19. Pseudapis oxybeloides
(Smith, 1875)
8.30 AM 4 PM + ? P
20. Pseudapis
edentata (Morawitz, 1876)
8.30 AM 4 PM + N P
21. Pseudapis sp. 8.30 AM 4 PM + N P
22. Steganomus bipunctatus
(Fabricius, 1804)
RV + N ?
23. Ceylalictus variegatus
(Olivier, 1789)
8.30 AM 3 PM +++ N P
24. Ceylalictus punjabensis
(Cameron, 1907)
8.30 AM 3 PM +++ N P
25. Ceylalictus cereus (Nurse,
1902)
8.30 AM 3 PM +++ N P
26. Ceylalictus sp. 8.30 AM 3 PM +++ N P
27. Nomioides (Nomioides)
minutissimus (Rossi, 1790)
8.30 AM 2 PM +++ N P
28. Nomioides curvilineatus
(Cameron, 1907)
8.30 AM 2 PM +++ N P
29. Nomioides sp. 8.30 AM 2 PM ++ N P
C). Megachilidae (06 genera)
30. Megachile cephalotes Smith,
1853
8.30 AM 5
PM
+++ N P
31. Megachile coelioxoides
Cresson, 1878
8.30 AM 4
PM
+ N P
32. Megachile creusa Bingham,
1898
8.30 AM 4
PM
++ N P
33. Megachile gathela Cameron,
1908
8.30 AM 5
PM
++ N P
34. Megachile latimanus Say,
1823
8.30 AM 4
PM
++ N P
35. Megachile phaola Cameron,
1907
9 AM 2 PM + N P
36. Megachile studiosa Bingham,
1897
8.30 AM 2
PM
+ N P
37. Megachile suavida Cameron,
1908
8.30 AM 2
PM
+ N P
38. Megachile vera Nurse, 1901 8.30 AM 2
PM
+ N P
39. Coelioxys capitata Smith,
1854
RV ++ N
40. Coelioxys coturnix Prez,
1884
RV + N
41. Pseudoheriades pellucidus
(Cockerell, 1920)
8 AM 4 PM ++ N P
42. Pseudoheriades
pentatuberculata (Gupta &
Sharma, 1993)
8 AM 4 PM +++ N P
43. Pseudoheriades
rufomandibulata (Gupta &
Sharma, 1993)
8 AM 4 PM +++ N P
44. Pseudoheriades sp.1 8 AM 4 PM ++ N P
46. Eoanthidium punjabensis
Gupta & Sharma
RV + N P
47. Eoanthidium adentatum
Gupta & Simlote, 1993
RV + N P
48. Icteranthidium sinapinum RV + N P
34
Gupta, Kumar, Rao, Charan and Rajpurohit

(Cockerell, 1911)
49. Icteranthidium sp. RV + N P
50. Trachusa serratocaudata
Gupta, Sharma & Simlote,
1993
RV + N P
D). Apidae (07 genera)
51. Ceratina binghami Cockerell,
1908
8.30 AM 3
PM
+++ N P
52. Ceratina hieroglyphica
Smith, 1854
8.30 AM 3
PM
+++ N P
53. Ceratina smaragdula
(Fabricius, 1787)
8.30 AM 3
PM
+++ N P
54. Braunsapis mixta (Smith,
1852)
8 AM 3 PM +++ N P
55. Braunsapis picitarsis
(Cameron, 1902)
8 AM 3 PM +++ N P
56. Braunsapis puangensis
(Cockerell, 1929)
8 AM 3 PM +++ N P
57. Amegilla confusa (Smith,
1854)
RV + N
58. Amegilla mucorea (Klug,
1845)
RV + N
59. Amegilla niveocincta (Smith,
1854)
RV + N
60. Amegilla zonata (Linnaeus,
1758)
RV + N
61. Amegilla cingulifera
(Cockerell)
RV + N
62. Amegilla violacea
(Lepeletier)
RV + N
63. Thyreus massuri
(Radoszkowski, 1893)
RV + N
64. Thyreus minuta
(Radowszkowski)
RV + N
65. Thyreus histrio (Fabricius) RV + N
66. Tetragonula
iridipennis (Smith, 1854)
8 AM 6 PM +++ N P
67. Apis dorsata Fabricius, 1793 6 AM 6 PM RV N
68. Apis cerana Fabricius, 1793 6 AM 6 PM ++ N ?
69. Apis florea Fabricius, 1787 6 AM 6 PM +++ N P

70. Xylocopa aestuans (Linnaeus,
1758)
Sunrise to sunset RV ? ?
71. Xylocopa amethystina
(Fabricius, 1793)
Sunrise to sunset + ? ?
72. Xylocopa fenestrata
(Fabricius, 1798)
Where RV Rare visitor; N Nectar; P Pollen; ? Not sure of referred flower resource; + comparative
population observed and collected.

On a normal sunny day most of the bees
started their foraging activities around 7.30 to
8.00 A.M. i.e. when ample of sunshine spread all
over the fields. Their population attained its peak
at around 12.00 noon to 1.30 P.M. and most of

the bees started returning to their nests around
3.00 to 4.30 P.M. onwards.
It is a well known fact that a number of
flowering plants use insects as pollen vectors,
and that they actually depend on the visits of
insects for their pollination. Present study is the
33

first attempt to explore the pollinator bees, on a
significant member of Family Asteraeae: Tegetes
patula. The number of species recorded on this
plant, from all over the arid zone of Rajasthan in
India, may be considered as quite high looking at
the high density of this shrub spread to all arid
area in and the neighbouring states. Gupta (2003)
reported that 658 species of bees are on record
from India so far which belongs to 65 Genera
grouped under 6 families. It was fascinating to
record 72 species in this arid zone on a single
crop. Evidently the referred plant has plenty of
resource to attract good number of bees.
Five species of family Colletidae were
collected on T. patula. They seem to be quite
rare in their visits but these were noticed
collecting pollens from the flowers. Three
species belong to genus Colletes Latreille (Table
01) and two were identified as that of genus
Hylaeus Fabricius.
A total of 08 genera including 21
species of family Halictidae were collected in a
considerable good number on this plant. They
belong to genera Halictus Latreille (05 species),
Lasioglossum Curtis (01), Lipotriches
Gerstraecker (03), Nomia Latreille (04),
Pseudapis Kirby (03), Steganomus Ritsema (01)
and two genera of exclusively minute bees
namely, Ceylalictus Strand (04) and Nomioides
Schenck (03 species). Except the species of
genus Halictus Latreille most of which were
more interested in pollens and rarely observed
drinking nectar, rest had enough affection for
both material i.e. the nectar and pollen therefore
a good number of most of the small species of
bees were observed started working on the
flowers just after sunrise and continued to work
until quite late i.e. 4 PM or sometimes even after
that in the evenings. Very small bees of genus
Nomioides and Ceylalictus were found on the
flowers for almost complete blooming season.
The pollination ecology studies on these minute
bees should be further investigated. However, an
apprehension may be made that the halictine
bees render enough of pollination services to this
crop.
Family Megachilidae may be given the
recognition of second top pollinator on this crop
with a total of 06 genera including 21 species.
However, species of genus Eoanthidium Popov
(02), Icteranthidium Cockerell (02) and
Trachusa Panzer (01 sp.) were rare visitors on T.
patula. During its blooming period, bees of these
genera were more interested on Leptadenia
pyrotechnica (Forsk.) Decne (flowering duration
from March to end of May). T. patula was
perhaps not the principal crop for these bees and,
they were mere occasional visitors. However, on
each visit they collected the pollens and nectar.
Precisely, they cannt be considered as good
contributors in the act of pollination and seed set
for the referred crop.
Bees of genus Coelioxys Latreille (02
sp.) are well known cleptoparasites (Table 01).
The females lack any pollen collecting apparatus
so they are incapable of collecting pollen grains.
Therefore they lay eggs on the pollen deposits
made by their host bees of genus Megachile,
Anthophora, Amegilla and Habropoda (tribe
Anthophorini, fam. Apidae). Precisely 04 out of
06 genera of Megachilidae least share pollination
activity on this crop. Genus Megachile Latreille
has the highest attraction for the pollens and
nectar both of T. patula. Its 09 species were
recorded from throughout the arid North West
part of India visiting this crop during all the
years of investigations. Most of them belong to
subgenus Eutricharaea Thomson. Although their
females are facilitated with a densely bristled
pollen collecting scopa at the ventral surface of
their abdomen inspite they were least observed
carrying minute pollens of T. patula. Otherwise
they are established as quite efficient transporters
of pollens (Michener, 1953). Another
megachiline genus Pseudoheriades Peters (05
sp.) includes very minute black bees and is more
or less confined to Rajasthan and Gujarat. The
plant- pollinator relationship between the flowers
of T. patula and the referred minute bees seems
to be more intimate in comparison to medium or
large sized bee species. However in comparison
to their intensive and quite prolong visits on
other flowers of Asteraceae such as sunflowers
by act of tapping their abdomen, collecting
pollen grains by roaming on each flower they
seem to be more interested in nectar on this crop.
It is a common site towards foothill states of
Himalayas that smaller megachilids which
belong to tribe Osminii, have been noted visiting
exposed anthers of the flowers of sunflowers
staying on its head for a considerably good time
span, continuously tapping their abdomen to

collect pollens and slowly fly off loaded and
saturated with pollen grains. Such act was never
observed on the inflorescence of T. patula.
Precisely, in spite of the maximum number of
taxa, Megachilidae cannt be considered as the
top pollinator group for this crop due to
limitation of one factor or another need to be
investigated in detail. However, this is worth
mentioning here that megachiline bees are quite
fast visitor and definitely share good amount of
pollination due to their large pollen collecting
apparatus. Presence of most of the megachilids
on this crop was for a limited period span i.e. for
about four to five weeks only. It was mainly due
to availability of other principal floral resources
in the neighbouring fields as mentioned above
(Gupta et al., 2011).
Apidae constitute the largest group of
bees which has been recorded with 07 genera
including 22 species on this crop. Bees of genus
Ceratina Latreille (03 sp.), Braunsapis Michener
(03 sp.), Tetragonula Moure (01 sp.) and, one
species of Apis Linnaeus (A. florea Fabr.) were
observed in good numbers on this crop. These
genera include minute to small sized bees having
their working span quite longer in comparison to
the bees of family Halictidae and Megachilidae.
They all shared major bulk of nectar as well as
pollens. However, their pollen carrying capacity
was limited to smaller area of scopa usually
present on hind legs or to the bristles on their
general body surface. Circumstantially, they
were unable to carry that much load of pollens as
compared to Megachilidae which bear densely
bristled abdominal scope.
Genus Thyreus Panzer (03 sp.) includes
cleptoparasitic bees. Just like species of genus
Coelioxys in Megachilidae, they lack pollen
collecting apparatus therefore they were often
seen busy tracking behind Amegilla species to
their nests to lay their eggs on the provision
deposits collected by the Amegilla females (also
Batra, 1977). Both cleptoparasitic genera were
present in the field however they visited flowers
exclusively for nectar. Other Apidae bees
collected on this crop were of genus Amegilla
Fabricius (06 sp.) and two larger species of Apis
(A. dorsata and A. cerana). Individuals of
Amegilla were observed carefully. They defolded
and straightened their rostrum, sucked the nectar
(during suspended and stable flight) and moved
away. They were never seen collecting pollens
on this crop.
Other occasional visitors included very
large bees of genus Xylocopa Latreille (03
species) as indicated in table 01, authors are not
sure whether they ever visited flowers and
collected nectar or pollens although they often
hovered around the shrubs and fly off all over the
area under investigation.
One may conclude from table 01 that
which species may be considered quite effective
pollinator on Tegetes patula. Parker (1981) and
Parker et al., (1987) reported that honey bees
have often been credited with pollination
services that are actually performed by other bee
species. Since the taxonomic revision of family
Apidae (Michener, 2000 & 2007), number of
genera in this family have been considerably
increased. On T. patula out of the total 22
species of Apidae smaller and medium sized
native species of genus Apis were observed
hanging on flowers on every sunny day as whole
time visitors. A. dorsata were of rare appearence.
Necessary investigation should be initiated in
this direction with regard to efficiencies of
pollinators (Lederhouse, et al., 1972; Green &
Bohart, 1975; Parker, 1981; Kuhn & Ambrose,
1984; Currie et al., 1990; Arya et al., 1994).
This is an established fact that the
principal factors which determine the
effectiveness of pollinators can be briefed as: a)
They should be found in abundance, b) Their
flight periodicities should be the maximum on
flowerings and, c) Their visiting rate (the number
of flowers visited per minute by a bee) should be
considerably enough (also Free, 1970; Ozbek,
1976; Richards, 1993, Gupta et al., 2010, 2011).
This commercially produced crop in
different pockets amidst deserts provides enough
of forage for the survival of bee species. This
becomes more significant since it provides ample
of nectar to newly emerged bees after
overwintering as pupation. Such availability of
food helps in immediate survival of offspring. Its
blooming is followed by Capparis decidua
(Forsk.) Edgew. It further attract majority of bees
completeing their crop rotation for the year
(Gupta & Charan, 2010). Precisely, Tegetes
patula becomes quite useful resource for
sustaining a rich bee biodiversity and rotation of
both crops help their survival and conservation in
37

Thar Desert. One may make further
apprehension that conservation of Tegetes patula
would become a landmark for the protection of
72 species of bees recorded from Thar Desert in
India. During periods of scarcity i.e. when other
pollen resources were rare or lacking, then bees
exclusively depend upon it.
The study suggest that detailed
investigations in this direction be initiated by
pollination and bee biologists to explore further
possibilities towards intensive and more effective
pollination of wild and cultivated crops
(Rajpurohit & Gupta, 2006). Moreover, attempts
should also be initiated for regular sawing and
maintenance of Tegetes patula, a useful resource
both for men and bees.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors wish to thank Drs. S. L. Sharma,
S. Simlote, S. Yadav, R. K. Naval, S. K. Naval
and S. K. Rao for making collections from all
over the referred territories in Punjab, Rajasthan
and Gujarat. Gratitude is extended to the Head,
Department of Zoology, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur, for providing necessary
laboratory facilities. To the ICAR New Delhi for
the financial support to the first author for the
study made under their AP Cess Funded project
(No. 1-3/90 PP) for the North West India.
Thanks are further extended to the authorities of
University Grants Commission, New Delhi for
funding the work especially in Rajasthan under
their project No. 32-497/2006/2007, SR.

REFERENCES
Arya, D.R., Sihag, R.C. and Yadav, P.R. (1994).
Role of insect pollination in seed yield of
sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.).
Indian Bee Journal. 56(3-4): 179-182.
Batra, S.W.T. (1977). Bees of India (Apoidea),
their behaviour, management and a key
to the genera. Oriental Insects. 11(3/4):
289-324.
Currie, R.W., Jay, S.C. and Wright, D. (1990).
The effects of honey bees (Apis mellifera
L.) and leafcutter bees (Megachile
rotundata F.) on out crossing between
different cultivars of beans (Vicia faba
L.) in caged plots. Journal of Apicultural
Research. 29(2): 68-74.
Dutta, B.K., Karmakar, S., Naglot, A., Aich, J.
C. and Begam, M. (2007). Anticandidial
activity of some essential oils of a mega
biodiversity hotspot in India.
Mycoses. 50(2): 121124.
Free, J.B. (1970). Insect pollinators of
crops. Academic Press, London & New
York. 544pp.
Green, T.W. and Bohart, G.E. (1975). The
pollination ecology of Astragalus
cibarius and Astragalus utahensis
(Leguminosae). American Journal of
Botany. 62(4): 379-386.
Gupta, R.K. (2003). The diversity of bees
(Hymenoptera, Apoidea) in India. Pp.
53-77. In: Gupta, R.K. (Ed.),
Advancements in Insect Biodiversity.
Agrobios (India). pp. x + 337.
Gupta, R.K. and Charan, S.K. (2010). Studies on
the Apoidean Visitors of Capparis
decidua (Forsk.) Edgew (Capparaceae),
a Resource for the Conservation of Bee
Biodiversity in Arid North West India.
Pp. 115-124 In: Gupta, R. K. (Ed.),
Advancements in Invertebrate Taxonomy
and Biodiversity. AgroBios
(International). pp. xi+552, pls. viii.
Gupta, R.K., Charna, S.K., Naval, S.K., Saini, J.,
Rao, S.K., Sharma, S.L. and Rajpurohit,
A. (2010). Bee isitors (Apoidea) on
Zizyphus rotundifolia Lamk. in western
Rajashan, India. Pp. 190-194. In: Impact
on the Climate Change on Biodiversity
and Challenges in Thar Desert.
Proceedings on the National Seminar
held at Zoological Survey of India,
Desert Research Centre, Jodhpur on 09
July, 2010. Govt. of India Publication.
Gupta, R.K., Charan, S.K. and Tiwari, P. (2011).
Forage plants of Tetragonula iridipennis
(Smith), a stingless bee (Hymenoptera,
Apoidea, Apidae, Meliponini), in the
desert of Thar in Rajasthan. Journal of
Environment and Bio-sciences. 25(2):
171-174.
Gupta, R.K. and Yadav, S. (2001). Apoidean
species composition on Crotalaria jucea
L., Cajanus cajan (L.), Helianthus annus
L. and Brassica compestris L. var.
sarson Prain in eastern Rajasthan, India

(Hymenoptera). Opus. zool. flumin. 198:
1-10.
Kuhn, E.D. and Ambrose, J.T. (1984).
Pollination of delicious apple by
megachilid bees of the genus Osmia
(Hym., Megachilidae). Journal of the
Kansas Entomological Society 57(2):
169-180.
Lederhouse, R. C., Caron, D. M. and Morse, R.
A. (1972). Distribution and behaviour of
honey bees on onion. Environmental
Entomology. 1(2): 127-129.
Mares, D., Tosi, B., Poli, F., Andreotti, E., and
Romagnoli, C. (2004). Antifungal
activity of Tagetes patula extracts on
some phytopathogenic fungi:
ultrastructural evidence on Pythium
ultimum". Microbiol Res. 159(3): 295
304.
Michener, C.D. (1953). The biology of a
leafcutter bee (Megachile brevis) and its
associates. University of Kansas Science
Bulletin. 35(3): 1659-1748.
Michener, C.D. (2000). The bees of the World.
The John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore & London, xiv + 913 pp.
Michener, C.D. (2007). The Bees of the World,
Revised Edition, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore. xiv + 953
pp.
Ozbek, H. (1976). Pollinator bees on alfalfa in
the Erzurum region of Turkey. Journal
of Apicultural Research. 15(3/4): 145-
148.
Parker, F.D. (1981). A candidate red clover
pollinator Osmia coerulescens (L.).
Journal of Apicultural Research. 20(1):
62-65.
Parker, F. D., Batra, S. W. T. and Tepedino, V. J.
(1987). New pollinators for our crops.
Agric. Zool. Rev. 2: 279-304.
Rajpurohit, A. and Gupta, R.K. (2006). The
impact of insect pollination on seed yield
of Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek.
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, India. 76(B)II: 178-181.
Richards, K.W. (1993). Non-Apis bees as crop
pollinators. Review Suisse Zoologia.
100(4): 807-822.
Romagnoli, C., Bruni, R., Andreotti, E., Rai, M.
K., Vicentini, C.B. and Mares, D.
(2005). Chemical characterization and
antifungal activity of essential oil of
capitula from wild Indian Tagetes patula
L. Protoplasma. 225(1-2): 5765.

39

Survival strategies of Desert Fox (Vulpes vulpes pusilla) in the Thar Desert of
Rajasthan

Hemu Chaudhary and G. R. Jakher*

Dept. of Zoology, Govt. P.G. College, Barmer, Rajasthan
*M.G.S. University, Bikaner, Rajasthan
e-mail: hchemuchaudhary06@gmail.com


ABSTRACT: Studies on the survival strategies of desert fox (Vulpes v. pusilla) conducted in the Barmer
region of Rajasthan during 2010-11. Desert fox (Vulpes v. pusilla) is one among the three sub-species of red
fox present in India. Desert foxes manage to survive in such a way in harsh environmental conditions of the
Thar/Indian desert, as- their dens were found under xerophytes shrubs and in open scrubs forming amiable
microclimate, daily-activities and coat-colour change according to seasons to avoid extreme conditions of
the weather, they can lose excess body heat by panting. They are also adapted to omnivorous habits to
survive in the arid environment of the desert.
Key words: Desert Fox, Thar Desert, Rajasthan.

INTRODUCTION
Three races of Red fox- a northern desert
form (Vulpes vulpes griffithi), a mountain form
(Vulpes vulpes montana) and a western desert
form, the white-footed fox or desert fox (Vulpes
vulpes pusilla) are found in India (Prater, 1980).
Thar desert is situated between 2230' N to 3205'
N and 6805' E to 7545' E and is characterized
with extreme temperatures, aridity, intense solar
radiation, strong winds and general dearth of
available water. Foxes have notably adapted to the
arid environment of the desert (Buxton, 1955),
which forms the natural features of the Thar
Desert (Rahmani, 1977); these animals use
microclimates of burrows having less harsh
atmosphere (Cloudsley-Thompson, 1965, 1977,
1979). Foxes are generally of slender build, with a
long bushy tail, sharp and long muzzle, relatively
longer body, short limbs and large ears; large ears
well supplied with blood, help to disperse the heat
and keep the animal cool (Colombo and Barnabe,
1982). The colour of the hair changes from habitat
to habitat and in the winter season it becomes very
rich (Prakash, 1994); colour also play an important
role in temperature control. The paler the animal,
the more sunlight and heat, it reflects and the
cooler the animal, foxes can lose heat by
panting, i.e. by breathing rapidly with the mouth

open. As moisture evaporates from the lungs,
mouth and tongue it cools down the tissue and
blood (Linley, 1989). Food varies with habitat and
season (Prater, 1980). When there is a serious
shortage of food availability, it begin to take
insects which are comparatively easily available
they also take carcasses of wild and domesticated
animals. The fruits of Zizyphus and Cucurbita are
also used as food by carnivores i.e. the wolf,
jackal, fox and mongoose etc. These carnivores,
have been observed taking dung of cattle too
(Sharma, 1978). Their food is much varied, from
small vertebrates and invertebrates to different
plant parts. They feed on field rodents, hare,
lizards, a variety of insects, scorpions, large
spiders, seeds and fruits of watermelon, ber
(Prakash, 1994). They also prefer to feed on
Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), Dhalu (ripen
fruits of Capparis decidua), neonates of sheep,
goat and wild mammals and umbilical cord of
mammals (Jakher et al., 2011). In fact, an
important aspect about food of desert consumers is
that they use those dietary items which are more
abundantly available in the environment
(Reichman et al., 1978). Except general
information on Desert fox (Vulpes v. pusilla) in
the Thar desert of Rajasthan, there is no any report
on detailed study yet.

Biological Forum
_

The present study was carried out in Barmer
region (located at 25 45' North latitude and 71 22'
East longitude) situated in the western part of
Rajasthan, forming a part of the Thar Desert during
June, 2010 to August, 2011. Daily, seasonal and
behavioral activities of Desert fox (Vulpes vulpes
pusilla) were studied in natural conditions by direct
observation, with the help of a binocular (750 mm)
and also by discussion with villagers. In the
behavioral study, data were collected on Ad Libitum
basis as well as by Scan sampling method (Altmann,
1974; Simpson and Simpson, 1977). The food
composition of the Desert fox's diet was studied
through analyzing the scats in the laboratory using
the standard methods of Korschgen (1980), with
some modifications. All the scats were washed and
the indigestible components such as fruit seeds,
hairs, claws, scales, feathers, bones and insect chitin
were separated. The abundance of prey (by direct
sighting) in the study areas was also studied.

OBSERVATIONS AND RESULT
During this study-period in the area,
mostly dens of desert foxes were found under
some xerophytes shrubs like Arna
(Clerodendrum phiomidis), Bui (Aerva persica),
Khimp (Leptodenia pyrotechnica), Sinia
(Crotalaria burhia) and also in open scrubs.
These xerophytes shrubs characterized by long
roots; that penetrate to a longer distance in the
soil, keeping the subsoil moist. The dens were
found to be 6-9 ft in depth with two chambers
inside and of single openings. In summer, Desert
foxes were observed (in June, 2010 and May,
2011) to come out from dens nearly 6 pm in
search of food and for other activities and return
to dens before 9 am, probably for minimizing
water loss from their body. It was also seen that
in summer before coming out from dens they
spend nearly one hour (about 5 pm) by sitting on
the opening of the dens, perhaps for adjusting
their body to outer environmental conditions.
However in winter and monsoon they were seen
wandering in the fields in the day time also.
During this study period total 30 dens of desert
fox were observed in the area out of which 10
dens were selected for intensive studies; it was
found that in summer and winter opening of the
dens were facing East and North-East to avoid
direct entrance of hot air (loo) in the dens in
summer (when wind blow from South-West to
East-North) and in winter they can enjoy direct
sunrays in the morning by sitting on the openings
of the dens. In monsoon, just after first shower of
rain, they burrow either new dens or deepen the
older ones, opening of which facing West to
South-West for preventing rain water entry in the
dens. It was observed that desert fox generally
burrows a newer den during winter and monsoon
season but during summer whenever it needs to
change the den (during the time of danger),
generally it deepens the older dens. During study
period, in the month of Aug., 2011 it was also
noted that after continuous rain in the area
(continuously for more than 2-3 days) the Desert
foxes burrow newer dens in between thick
bushes perhaps for preventing deformation of
dens in sandy areas. During the study-period,
temperature and relative humidity was noted
inside and out side the dens and rainfall of the
area was also noted in the area.
In Table 1 two things are clearly shown,
first the dens which are present under shrubs
having roughly rounded openings while in open
area they are more or less rectangular in shape.
Second temperature differences within the dens
were variable 1-2C and relative humidity by 5%
(depth of the dens were noted with thick flexible
aluminium wire and temperature and relative
humidity were noted by putting thermometers
within 1 metre depth in the dens). While out of
the dens maximum temperature and relative
humidity during summer study period, was noted
44C and 68% and minimum range was 31C
and 28% respectively; having temperature
differences of 13C and relative humidity
differences by 40%. During winter study period,
maximum temperature and relative humidity out
side the dens was 27C and 67% and minimum
range was 9C and 27% respectively; having
temperature differences of 18C and relative
humidity differences by 40%. Thus the benefits
of such dens were noted in temperature
regulation; having higher relative humidity and
avoidance from stormy winds. Their coat colour
was also seen changing from season to season
dark-brown to reddish-brown or somewhat
blackish-brown and thick hairy coat in winter for
insulating heat around the body and paler to light
brown in summer probably for reflection of sun
rays to minimize heat absorption. In June, 2010
41 Chaudhary and Jakher

and May, 2011 panting was also seen in desert
fox, just after coming from hunting and feeding,
it was breathing rapidly with open mouth and
tongue was somewhat extending out from the
mouth, probably for regulation of body
temperature.

Table 1. Temperature and Relative Humidity in the dens of Desert fox (Vulpes vulpes pusilla) in the Thar
desert of Rajasthan.
Den
No.
Shrub Sps.
under which
den was
present
Size of
den
L X B in
cm.
Depth
of den
In inches
Temperature & Relative
Humidity in Summer in
different intervals
6-8 am 12-2 pm
T. / R.H. T. / R.H.
C / % C / %
Temperature & Relative
Humidity in Winter in
different intervals
6-8 am 12-2 pm
T. / R.H. T. / R.H.
C / % C / %
1. Phog 22 x 24 86 35.3/47 36.0/45 37.2/46 37.3/45
2. Khimp 30 x 26 79 35.1/47 36.0/45 37.3/46 37.7/45
3. Bui 26 x 21 62 35.5/47 36.1/45 37.3/46 37.4/45
4. Arna 33 x 28 72 36.3/45 37.5/43 36.7/47 37.3/45
5. Arna-Khimp 28 x 22 76 36.3/45 37.6/44 36.8/47 37.4/46
6. - 30 x 24 82 35.3/47 36.0/45 37.2/46 37.3/45
7. - 26 x 21 68 35.4/47 36.1/45 37.5/46 37.7/45
8. - 28 x 21 70 35.5/47 36.1/45 37.3/46 37.4/45
9. - 30 x 26 64 36.4/45 37.8/43 36.3/47 37.2/45
10. - 26 x 20 78 36.3/45 37.6/44 36.8/47 37.4/46

Dietary habits: Several life history traits of an
organism are related to its food habits and hence
studying diet can help in predicting other
patterns such as movement, ranging and its
chances of survival. Desert fox is adapted for
omnivorous diet; for detailed study of its diet
composition along with direct observations,
abundance of prey in the study areas and scat
analysis was also done. The hunting behavior of
fox was seen in Dhok ka Oran in Feb., 2011 near
its den (nearly 10-12 metres far from the den), in
open area of the Oran. Animal was standing
motionless, in jumping position, watching
intently the desert gerbil which it had detected,
ears in standing position probably for hearing a
minute sound, suddenly it took long jump nearly
- 1 metre and forcibly pin the gerbil with the
help of forelimbs. Then by catching the gerbil in
its mouth it ran towards its den, taking food for
its cubs (two cubs were seen in that den) but
probably due to disturbance by my presence it
buried the gerbil in 5 10 cm deep cache, nearly
2 metres far from its den. The hunting behaviour
of fox was also seen in Dharasar ka Tala in
April, 2011. It was hiding behind shrub Arna
(Clerodendrum phiomidis), suddenly it jumped
over the shrub (nearly 1 metre high) but
fortunately the ground feeding Jungle warbler
was alert and flew away before becoming victim
of the fox. On the same day at 11 A.M. a sub
adult fox was seen following another adult fox,
holding a desert hare in its mouth, to snatch it. In
April, 2011 in Dharasar ka Tala, in one of the
fox's den, belly part of a dead sand snake was
found.
Prey abundance in the study areas: Prey
species such as amphibians, reptiles, ground
birds, rodents and logomorphs were observed in
the area by direct sighting during line transects.
Prey species of desert fox in the area found was
as in Table 2.

Table 2. Abundance of prey species of Desert fox in selected sites of Barmer region
Site Time
spent
Distance
walked
Number
of
transects
Mammal
Er Er/Km
Birds
Er Er/Km
Reptiles
Er Er/Km
Amphibians
Er Er/Km
Dharasar
Ka Tala
30
hrs.
40 km. 20 8 0.20 3 0.07 2 0.05 1 0.02
Dhok Ka
Oran
30
hrs.
40 km. 20 2 0.05 15 0.38 8 0.20 4 0.10
42
Chaudhary and Jakher

In Dharasar ka Tala, one of the study
area, mammals were observed comparatively
more in numbers while in Dhok ka Oran, the
second study area, various types of Reptiles and
Birds were available comparatively in plenty
while small mammals in lesser numbers,
arthropods were also present in plenty but their
numbers were not counted. Fruits of Ber
(Zizyphus nummularia), Jaal (Salvadora
persica), Kachar (Cucumis callosus), Matira
(Citrullus lanatus) and Dhalu (ripen fruits of
Capparis decidua) were also present during the
study period, on which the fox feeds.
Scat analysis: Scats not only provide data on diet
but also on some behavioral aspects, habitat use,
marking of territories, relative abundance and
den site location. For scat analysis total 15
identifiable scats were collected in different
seasons in the study areas. In Table 3 it is clearly
shown that in Summer Desert rat and Desert
gerbil forms main part of its diet while in winter
and monsoon seeds and other parts of vegetable
material were found very common in the scats.
Parts of Egg shells were also found in 6 scat
samples in winter and monsoon seasons.

Table 3. Scat analysis of Desert fox in different seasons in selected sites of Barmer region
Study Site Season Hair Bone Feather Egg Shell Insects Vegetable
Material
Others
Dharasar Summer 43% 26% 12% 0% 2% 8% 9%
Ka Tala Winter 32% 19% 8% 1% 1% 36% 3%
Monsoon 25% 18% 8% 5% 8% 34% 2%
Dhok Ka Summer 37% 23% 13% 1% 6% 12% 8%
Oran Winter 28% 18% 14% 2% 4% 36% 2%
Monsoon 20% 9% 16% 8% 10% 35% 2%

DISCUSSION
These observations tally with those of
Buxton (1955) and Cloudsley-Thompson (1965,
1977, 1979) that desert foxes have adapted their
daily and seasonal cycle routines to utilize the
comparative amiable temperatures of different
seasons for their vital activities. Desert animals
use amiable microclimate under burrows and
crevices to avoid the intense heat of the desert day
(Cloudsley-Thompson, 1965, 1977, 1979). It was
further observed during study period i.e. summer
and winter; the coat colour of desert foxes was
found to change with seasons Prakash (1994) and
Linley (1989); they lose excess body heat by
breathing rapidly with the mouth open. In the
study it was noted that desert foxes change their
dens with seasons to avoid adverse conditions of
environment. Thus foxes manage to survive in
such a way, even in the regions where the
temperature may reach over 50C Colombo and
Barnabe (1983) and Buxton (1955); which form
the natural features of the Thar desert (Rahmani,
1977). The observations also show that Desert fox
feeds on Arthropods, Reptiles, Birds, Small

mammals, their carcasses and even fruits which
are available in the area, resembles with
Reichman et al., 1978.
Thus Desert fox (Vulpes v. pusilla),
inhabiting the arid environments has evolved
morphological, physiological and behavioral
strategies. Some of them are avoidance
mechanisms to combat harsh conditions rather
than ability to tolerate them.. They are adapted to
omnivores habits to cope-up with the paucity of
food.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Grateful thanks to Prof. D. Mohan,
Head, for the necessary facilities and Prof. L. S.
Rajpurohit, Department of Zoology, J. N. V.
University, Jodhpur for his valuable suggestions
and villagers of study areas for sharing their
knowledge about the animal.

REFERENCES
Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of
behaviour: Sampling methods. Behaviour.
49: 337-349.
43

Buxton, P.A. (1955). Animal life in Desert.
Edward Arnold Pub., London.
Cloudsley-Thompson, J.L. (1965). Desert life.
Pergamon Press, London.
Cloudsley-Thompson, J.L. (1977). The Desert.
Orbis Pub., London.
Cloudsley-Thompson, J.L. (1979). Wildlife of the
deserts. Hamlyn, London.
Colombo, F. and Barnabe, G. (1983). Animals of
the deserts- Animals and their
environment. Burke Publishing Company
Limited, London.
Jakher, G.R., Chaudhary, H. and Jaipal, B.R.
(2011). Food preferences by Desert fox
(Vulpes vulpes pusilla) in the Thar desert
of Rajasthan. Abstract- National
Conference on animal science, 29 Jan,
2011, Dept of Zoology, J.N.V.U.,
Jodhpur.
Korschgen, L.K. (1980). Procedures for food
habits analysis. In: Schemnitz, S.D. (Ed).
Wildlife management techniques manual.
The Wildlife Society. Washington, D.C.
pp.113-128.
Linley, M. (1989). Desert wildlife. Mallard
Press, New York.
Prakash, I. (1994). Mammals of the Thar Desert.
Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, India.
Prater, S.H. (1980). The book of Indian animals.
Bombay Nat. History Society, Bombay.
Rahmani, A.R. (1977). Wild life in the Thar.
World Wide Fund for Nature- India.
Reichman, O. J., Prakash, I. and Roig, V. (1978).
Food selection and consumption. I.B.P.
Arid Land Synthesis, UNESCO, Paris.
16: 681-786.
Sharma, I.K. (1978). Wild life of the Indian
desert; Its survival and conservation.
International Conference on Arid Zone
Research and Development, 14-18 Feb,
1978, Jodhpur.
Simpson, M.J.A. and Simpson, A.E. (1977).
One- zero and scan methods for sampling
behaviour. Anim. Behav. 25: 726-731.

44

Diversity and community structure of Butterflies in Ritchies Archipelago,
Andaman and Nicobar Islands

C. Sivaperuman

Zoological Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre, Port Blair- 744 102, India.
e-mail: c_sivaperuman@yahoo.co.in

(Received 4 November, 2011, Accepted 6 February, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The wide distribution of butterflies in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands is an important
element in the dynamics of this ecosystem. Butterflies are recognized by the scientific community as bio-
indicators. The Ritchies Archipelago is a cluster of smaller islands which lie some 25-30 km east of
Andaman. This study was conducted during 2008-2011. Line transect methods was used to assess the
population of butterflies. A total of 72 species belongs to 5 families and 48 genera were recorded during
the study. The family Nymphalidae followed by Pieridae and Papilionidae were found to be the dominant.
Out of seventy two species, 68 species were recorded from Havelock Island, followed by Neil Island (47),
Outram Island (34), Inglis Island (32), and Henry Lawrence Island (32). Of the recorded species of
butterflies, the Pecock Pansy (5.71 per cent) was highest in dominance followed by Common Mormon
(5.48 per cent) and Stripped Tiger (4.13 per cent). Diversity Index (H') was 3.97 and () 0.02 and Species
Richness Index R1 was 9.95 and R2 was 2.03. The survey indicated the presence of a rich butterfly fauna,
which should be systematically collected for further research and study in order to build a good taxonomic
database for Ritchies Archipelago.
Key words: Butterflies, diversity, Ritchies Archipelago.

INTRODUCTION
Butterflies and their larvae play
important roles in ecosystem functioning,
including nutrient cycling and pollination. This
implies that tropical butterflies should be studied
not just as potential biological indicators, but as
targets of conservation in their own right
(Bonebrake et al., 2010; Schulze et al., 2010).
Lepidoptera are beneficial as pollinators, silk
producers, indicators of environmental quality
and are appreciated for their aesthetic value. The
holometabolous life history butterflies reveals
that Lepidoptera are exposed to a wide range of
environmental influences and there are highly
sensitive to changes in temperature, humidity
and light levels (Kremen, 1992; Sparrow et al.,
1994; Hill et al., 1995). Butterfly monitoring
programs in the tropics must, by necessity, focus
on changes in the relative abundance of species.
The assumption behind this approach is that data
on temporal fluctuations in locally common
species will help assess environmental trends and
evaluate the effectiveness of habitat conservation
efforts.

The butterflies of the Andaman and
Nicobar Islands are insular with its origins in the
fauna of the Indo-Myanmar and Indo-Malayan
regions. The butterflies of the Andaman and
Nicobar Islands are insular with its origins in the
fauna of the Indo-Myanmar and Indo-Malayan
regions.
The Andaman elements flora and fauna
have their closest resemblance to Myanmar and
Oriental elements whereas, the Nicobar appear
most closely related to Malaya. Studies on
butterflies of Andaman and Nicobar Island
received attention after the publication of Wood
Mason and de Nicebille, 1880, 1881 a & b, 1882.
Evans (1932) has worked on butterflies of these
Islands. Later, only a few researchers have
contributed on the fauna butterflies of Andaman
and Nicobar Islands (Talbot, 1939 1947; Ferrar,
1948; Arora and Nandhi, 1980, 1982; Khatri,
1989, 1991, 1992; Chandra and Khatri, 1993;
Devy et al., 1998; Sivaperuman et al., 2011).
This study is aim to describe diversity and
community structure of butterflies in Ritchies
archipelago, Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
Biological Forum
_

STUDY AREA
Ritchie's Archipelago is a cluster of
smaller islands which lie some 25-30 km east of
Great Andaman, the main island group of the
Andaman Islands.
The archipelago comprises of some 4
larger islands, 7 smaller islands and several
islets, extending in a roughly north-south chain,
parallel to the main Great Andaman group (Fig.
1). The detailed salient features of the Ritchies
archipelago are present in Table 1.

Fig. 1. Ritchie's Archipelago, Andaman & Nicobar Islands.

METHODS
This study was conducted during the
month of November, 2008 to March, 2009
September-October 2009, October, 2010 and
April, 2011. Butterfly species were estimated by
600 m line transect, traversed in one hour.
Transects were enumerated between 06:00 hours
to 11:00 hours. Butterflies were identified based
on physical features with the help of field guides
and reference books (Evans, 1932; Ferrar, 1948;
Kehimkar, 2008). Unfamiliar species were
collected for identification. Species observed
outside transects and forest edges were noted
separately. Butterflies observed along transects
alone were considered for statistical analyses.
Species richness and abundance of butterflies:
The total number of butterfly species and number
of individuals seen in each transect were
calculated using the census data and field
observations.
46
Sivaperuman

Diversity indices: Shannon index, Simpson index
and Hill's diversity numbers N1 and N2 were
calculated for different islands using the
programme SPDIVERS.BAS developed by
Ludwig and Reynolds (1988).
Dominance Index: The dominance of the each
butterfly species was calculated using the
dominance index.

Species richness and abundance of butterflies:
Species richness and abundance of butterflies
varied in the different islands. Highest number
of species richness and abundance was recorded
from Havelock followed by Neil and Outram
(Table 2). Mean number of individuals in
different locations were presented in Fig. 2.
Highest number of individuals was recorded
from the family Nymphalidae in Havelocak and
Neil Islands.
Diversity indices of butterflies in different
islands: Indices based on the proportional
abundance of species are the best approach to
measure diversity. Most widely used diversity
indices such as Shannon Index of diversity,
Simpsons Index of diversity and Hills numbers
N1 and N2 have been determined. The diversity
index (H) ranged from 2.76-3.96, with highest
in Havelock (3.96) (Table 2).
Dominance of individual species: Out of 72
species of butterflies observed in the Ritchies
archipelago, Peacock Pansy (5.71 per cent) was
highest in dominance followed by Common
Mormon (5.48 per cent) and Stripped Tiger (4.13
per cent) (Table 3). Thirty species were
represented in less than 1 per cent.
During the study period total of 1260
individuals belongs to 5 families were recorded.
The butterflies in Ritchies archipelago represent
five families i.e. Hesperidae, Lycaenidae,
Nymphalidae, Papilionidae and Pieridae. The
distribution of butterfly species showed that the
following species were recorded in all islands
namely, Peacock Pansy, Great Mormon,
Andaman Clubtail, and Common Rose.
Differences in butterfly species richness
observed at our study sites may result from
variety of causes, which may be categorized as
local or regional factors. The presence of all
Lepidoptera families at each site is represented in
a wide range. Butterfly families site selection
could be determine by the availability of some
factors such as food available, access to light to
regulate their body temperature also open space
to flight away from predators or some others to
use the breeze to flight to other places. Diversity
indices of Butterfly in Andaman and Nicobar
Islands are meager, it is interesting to find that
the diversity index of Ritchies archipelago in
this study. Changes in the diversity of butterfly
in different islands in the study area are evident
from the data, this because of the variation in the
micro habitat, floristic structure and other habitat
parameter.
Habitat preference of butterflies can be
directly related to the availability of food plants
(Thomas, 1995). Each habitat has a specific set
of micro environment suitable for a species.
Most of the species recorded during the present
study were not habitat specific. Nymphalidae
was the dominant family in the present study.
Many members of this family are polyphagous
which would help them to live in all habitats and
in different elevation gradients. In some of the
islands in Ritchies archipelago is occupied by
thick mangrove swamps and other are sandy
beaches. In the latter the littoral or beach forest
consists of some flowering bushes and this
habitat support more number of species. It also
observed that some of Nymphalids and Pierids
were regularly visit the seashore and settle on
damp patches for a few seconds, white others
like Sailers, Lacewings, and Blues confined
themselves to the forested area. The Skippers
remain within the forest area. From the
conservation point of view, we recorded several
endangered and endemic species of butterflies
from the study area. This confirms the
importance of the Ritchies archipelago for
butterfly conservation in Andaman and Nicobar
Islands.
To conserve the butterflies in the study
area it is necessary to take immediate measures
to investigate the causes of degradation both
within the forest as well as adjoining areas must
be taken to formulate the suitable action plan to
conserve the colourful population. Long-term
monitoring studies are needed with special
reference to host plants and the factor
influencing the distribution, diversity and
abundance of butterflies.
47
Sivaperuman

Fig. 2. Mean number of individuals in each of the observed families in different islands.
Where HL Havelock, JL- John Lawrence, HL Henry Lawrence, IN Inglis, SB South Button, NB North Button, MB Middle Button, OM Outram,
NL Neil Island
48
Sivaperuman

Table 1. Salient characteristics of the study sites.

Variables Havelock
John
Lawrence
Henry
Lawrence
Inglis
South
Button
North
Button
Middle
Button
Outram Neil
Coordinates
11
o
58.769
93 00.980
12
o
04.276
93 03.063
12
o
05.137
92 04.386
12
o
08.586
93 06.651
12
o
13.467
93 01.244
12
o
18.974
93 03.826
12
o
16.473
93 01.334
12
o
13.761
93 06.055
11
o
49.168
93 03.382
Description of islands
tracts of
land,
smaller
than a
continent,
surrounded
by water at
high water
tracts of
land,
smaller than
a continent,
surrounded
by water at
high water
tracts of
land,
smaller than
a continent,
surrounded
by water at
high water
tracts of
land, smaller
than a
continent,
surrounded
by water at
high water
tracts of
land, smaller
than a
continent,
surrounded
by water at
high water
tracts of
land,
smaller than
a continent,
surrounded
by water at
high water
tracts of
land,
smaller
than a
continent,
surrounded
by water at
high water
tracts of
land,
smaller
than a
continent,
surrounded
by water at
high water
tracts of land,
smaller than
a continent,
surrounded
by water at
high water
Extent of area (km
2
) 113.93 41.98 55 1.4 0.1 0.25 0.4 13 18.90
Annual average rainfall
(mm)
3180.0 3180.0 3180.0 3180.0 3180.0 3180.0 3180.0 3180.0 3180.0
Average daily maximum
air temperature (
o
C)
28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
Average daily humidity
(%)
73.9 73.9 73.9 73.9 73.9 73.9 73.9 73.9 73.9
Major vegetation types
Andaman
Tropical
Evergreen,
Andaman
Semi-
evergreen,
Andaman
Moist
deciduous,
Mangrove,
Littoral,
Agriculture
Andaman
Tropical
Evergreen,
Andaman
Semi-
evergreen,
Andaman
Moist
deciduous,
Mangrove,
Littoral

Andaman
Tropical
Evergreen,
Andaman
Semi-
evergreen,
Andaman
Moist
deciduous,
Mangrove,
Littoral

Andaman
Tropical
Evergreen,
Andaman
Semi-
evergreen,
Andaman
Moist
deciduous,
Mangrove,
Littoral

Andaman
Tropical
Evergreen,
Andaman
Semi-
evergreen,
Andaman
Moist
deciduous,
Mangrove,
Littoral

Andaman
Tropical
Evergreen,
Andaman
Semi-
evergreen,
Andaman
Moist
deciduous,
Mangrove,
Littoral

Andaman
Tropical
Evergreen,
Andaman
Semi-
evergreen,
Andaman
Moist
deciduous,
Mangrove,
Littoral

Andaman
Tropical
Evergreen,
Andaman
Semi-
evergreen,
Andaman
Moist
deciduous,
Mangrove,
Littoral

Andaman
Tropical
Evergreen,
Andaman
Semi-
evergreen,
Andaman
Moist
deciduous,
Mangrove,
Littoral,
Agriculture
49
Sivaperuman

Table 2. Difference observed in line transect method in the study sites.
Variables Havelock
John
Lawrence
Henry
Lawrence
Inglis South Button North Button
Middle
Button
Outram Neil
Butterfly
individuals
observed
437 109 98 94 69 59 75 110 214
No. of species
observed
61 30 31 32 20 21 23 35 51
Sampling
effort
(km walked)
32 12 12 18 10 10 10 15 30
Percentage of
individuals
indentified to
family/species
H - 1.60 /
7.04
Pa - 15.79 /
16.90
Pi - 15.10
/21.13
L - 7.55 / 17.
90
N - 59.95 /
38.03
H - 2.70 / 6.67
Pa- 25.23 /
23.33
Pi - 10.81 /
16.67
L - 2.70 / 6. 67
N - 58.56 /
46.67
H - 0.00 / 0.00
Pa - 21.78 /
24.24
Pi 7.92 /
18.18
L 6.93 /
12.12
N - 63.37 /
45.45
H - 3.96 / 8.11
Pa - 16.83 /
21.62
Pi - 13.86
/18.92
L 10.89 /
16.22
N - 54.46 /
35.14
H - 0.00 / 0.00
Pa 8.96 / 9.62
Pi - 38.46 /
15.38
L - 14.10 /
13.46
N - 38.46 /
11.54
H - 0.0 / 0.00
Pa - 15.25 /
28.57
Pi - 44.07 /
38.10
L - 6.78 / 14.29
N - 33.90 /
19.05
H - 0.00 / 0.00
Pa- 11.54 /
24.00
Pi - 28.21
/28.13
L- 15.38 / 24.
00
N - 44.87 /
24.03
H 5.98 /
12.50
Pa - 15.38 /
22.50
Pi - 12.22
/20.00
L - 7.69 /
12.50
N - 48.72 /
32.50
H - 3.27 /
5.77
Pa- 23.36 /
21.15
Pi - 16.82
/21.15
L 8.88 /
17. 31
N - 47.66 /
34.62
Percentage of
species
identified
94.44 41.67 45.83 44.44 36.11 29.17 34.72 47.22 65.28
Species
richness
indices (R1,
R2)
11.51, 3.40
6.18,
2.87
6.54,
3.13
6.82,
3.30
4.49,
2.41
4.90,
2.73
5.10
2.66
7.23
3.34
9.36
3.53
Shannon
index (H)
3.96 3.18 3.27 3.31
2.76
2.76 2.91 3.35 3.61
Simpson
index ()
0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03
Hills diversity
indices
(N1, N2)
52.22,
46.74
23.95,
24.24
26.26,
30.01
27.38,
31.55
15.82,
16.88
15.73,
16.11
18.39
19.53
28.53
30.86
37.05
33.45
Evenness
indices
(E1, E2)
0.93,
0.74
0.93,
0.80
0.95
0.85
0.95,
0.86
0.92,
0.79
0.91,
0.75
0.93
0.80
0.94
0.82
0.92
0.73
30
Sivaperuman

Table 3. Abundance and dominance of
butterflies in the Richies archipelago.

Name of the species
Dominance
Index
Peacock Pansy 5.71
Common Mormon 5.48
Striped Tiger 4.13
Grey Pansy 3.97
Spotted Black Crow 3.33
Andaman Crow 3.17
Common Emigrant 2.70
Blue Tiger 2.54
Lime Butterfly 2.30
Cruiser 2.30
Yellow Pansy 2.30
Yellow Orange Tip 2.22
Common Sailer 2.22
Yellow Pansy 2.22
Tailed Jay 2.14
Common Albatross 2.06
Long-Brand Bush Brown 2.06
Mottled Emigrant 1.90
Clipper 1.90
Blue Pansy 1.83
Great Jay 1.75
Nigger 1.75
Peacock Pansy 1.67
Common Rose 1.59
Common Sergeant 1.59
Glassy Tiger 1.59
Lesser Gull 1.51
Three Spot Grass Yellow 1.35
Plain Tiger 1.35
Andaman Chestnut Palmfly 1.35
Danaid Eggfly 1.35
Leopard Lacewing 1.27
Hewitson Andaman Viscount 1.27
Great Egg fly 1.27
Tree Yellow 1.19
Great Orange Tip 1.19
Apefly 1.11
Dark Grass Blue 1.11
Andaman Common Rose 1.03
Andaman Wanderer 1.03
Striped Albatross 1.03
Orange Albatross 1.03
Yamfly 0.95
Common Evening Brown 0.95
Andaman Mormon 0.87
Lesser Grass Blue 0.87
Dark Glassy Tiger 0.87
Great Mormon 0.71
Andaman Clubtail 0.71
Plains Cupid 0.71
Plains Cupid 0.71
Andaman Birdwing 0.63
Crimson Rose 0.63
Large Cabbage White 0.48
Silverstreak Blue 0.48
Common Snow Flat 0.40
Common Grass Yellow 0.40
Chocolate Albatross 0.40
Pysche 0.40
Tree Nymph 0.40
Plain Palm Dart 0.32
Indian Sunbean 0.32
Forget-Me-Not 0.32
White Banded Awl 0.24
Dark Blue Royal 0.24
Palmking 0.24
Common Spotted Flat 0.16
Andaman Colon Swift 0.16
Fivebar Swordtail 0.16
Leaf Blue 0.16
Purple Leaf Blue 0.16
Common Awl 0.08
31 Sivaperuman

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India,
for providing facilities to this study. I
acknowledge the Director, Zoological Survey of
India, the Officer-in-Charge, Andaman and
Nicobar Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of
India, Port Blair for encouragement and
providing necessary facilities and Shri. B.P.
Yadav, Divisional Forest Officer, Havelock
Forest Division, Andaman and Nicobar Islands
for logistic support to carry out this study.

REFERENCES
Arora, G.S. and D.N. Nandi. (1980). On the
butterfly fauna of Andaman and Nicobar
Islands (India) I. Papilionidae. Records
of Zoological Survey of India. 77: 141-
151.
Arora, G.S. and D.N. Nandi. (1982). On the
butterfly fauna of Andaman and Nicobar
Islands India II. Pieridae. Ibid. 80: 1-15.
Bonebrake, T.C., L.C. Ponisio, C.L. Boggs and
P.R. Ehrlich. (2010). More than just
indicators: A review of torpical buttefly
ecology and conservation. Biological
Conservation. 143: 1831-1841.
Chandra, K., and Khatri. (1993). Butterflies of
Great Nicobar Islands. Indian Journal of
Forestry. 18(4): 276-273.
Devy, M.S., T. Ganesh and P. Davidar. (1998).
Patterns of butterfly distribution in the
Andaman Islands: Implications for
conservation. Acta Oecologia. 19(6):
527-534.
Evans, W.H. (1932). The Identification of Indian
Butterflies. Bombay Natural History
Society, Bombay. 454pp.
Ferrar, M.L. (1948). Butterflies of Andaman and
Nicobar Islands. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.
Soc. 47(3): 470-491.
Hill, J.K., Hamer, K.C., Lace, L.A. and Banham,
W.M.T. (1995). Effects of selective
logging on tropical forest butterflies on
Buru, Indonesia. Journal of Applied
Ecology. 32: 754-760.
Kehimkar, I. (2008). The book of Indian
Butterflies. Bombay Natural History
Society, Mumbai. 497 pp.

Khatri, T.C. (1989). A revised list of Butterflies
from Bay Islands. J. Andaman Sci.
Assoc. 5: 57-61.
Khatri, T.C. (1991). On some Nymphalidae
(Rhopalocera: Lepidoptera) from the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Islands
on March. 3: 82-94.
Khatri, T.C. (1992). On some Lycaenids
(Rhopalcocera: Lepidoptera) from
Andaman and Nicbar Islands. Islands on
March. 6: 8-16.
Kremen, C. (1992). Assessing the indicator
properties of species assemblages for
natural area monitoring. Ecological
Applications. 2: 203-217.
Ludwig, J.A. and J.F. Reynolds. (1988).
Statistical Ecology, A premier on
Methods and Computing. A Wiley-
Interscince publication. 337pp.
Magurran, A.E. (1988). Ecological Diversity and
its Measurement. Croom Helm Ltd.
London. 179pp.
Murphy, D.D., K.E. Freas and S.B. Weiss.
(1990). An environment- metapopulation
approach to population viability analysis
for a threatened invertebrate.
Conservation Biology. 4: 41-51.
Schulze, C.H., S. Schneeweihs and K. Fielder.
(2010). The potential of land-use
systems for maintaining tropical forest
butterfly diversity. pp.74-96. In: Tropical
rainforest and agroforests under global
change ecological and socio-economic
valuations. (Eds.) Tscharnatka, T., C.
Leuschner, E. Veldkamp, H. Faust, E.
Guhardja and A. Bidin, Springers,
Berlin.
Sivaperuman, C., S.K. Shah, C. Raghunathan
and Ramakrishna. (2011). Structure and
species composition of butterflies in
Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve,
Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 168-179.
In: Entomology: Ecology and
Biodiversity, (Eds.) B.K. Tyagi and V.
Veer. Scientific Publisher, Jodhpur.
Sparrow, H.R., T.D. Sisk, P.R. Ehrlich and D.D.
Murphy. (1994). Techniques and
guidelines for monitoring neotropical
butterflies. Conservation Biology. 8:
800-809.
32 Sivaperuman

Talbot, G. (1939). The fauna of British India
including Ceylon and Burma
(Butterflies), Taylor and Francies,
London.
Talbot, G. (1947). Fauna of British India.
Butterflies II, Today & Tomorrow
Printers and Publishers.
Thomas, J.A. (1995). The ecology and
conservation of Maculinea arion and
other European species of large blue
butterfly. pp. 180-210 In: A.S. Pullin
(ed.) Ecology and Conservation of
Butterflies. Chapman and Hall, London.
Wood-Mason, J. and L. de Niceville. (1980). List
of diurnal Lepidoptera from Port Blair.
Andaman Islands. J. Asiat. Soc. Beng.
49(2): 223-243.
Wood-Mason, J. and L. de Niceville. (1981a).
List of diurnal Lepidoptera from Port
Blair. Andaman Islands. J. Asiat. Soc.
Beng. 49(2): 223-243.
Wood-Mason, J. and L. de Niceville. (1981b).
Second list of Rhopalocerous
Lepidoptera from Port Blair. Andaman
Islands. J. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 50(4): 243-
262.
Wood-Mason, J. and L. de Niceville. (1982).
Second list of Rhopalocerous
Lepidoptera from Port Blair. Andaman
Islands. J. Asiat. Soc. Beng. 11: 14-20.

33 Sivaperuman

Diversity of Moths in Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve (GNBR), Andaman
and Nicobar islands

C. Sivaperuman* and Suresh Kumar Shah

Zoological Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre, Port Blair- 744 102, India
e-mail: *c_sivaperuman@yahoo.co.in

(Received 28 December, 2011, Accepted 11 February, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The study was conducted in Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve (GNBR) during 2008-2011.
The aim of this study was to describe the species abundance, diversity and distribution pattern of moths
of Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve. The tropical rain forests of Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve
represent high level of biological diversity. Moths are among the taxonomic group in these forests with
unique species diversity, increased Pre-tsunami conversion of forest land into agricultural land by native
tribes and settlers and conversion of forests for alternative land use for resettlement after 2004 tsunami
have posed habitat loss in these forests. This change in land use pattern highlights the importance of
assessing diversity of moths and their conservation. We sampled 1840 moths from 80 species belongs to 9
families. Sampling was conducted during all seasons using light traps at 5 different sites within the
biosphere reserve. Of the recorded species, 10 were new addition to the moth fauna of GNBR.
Key words: Moths, Diversity, Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve.

INTRODUCTION
Moths are one of the large taxonomic
groups and they are assumed as less attractive of
their dull coloration and nocturnal habit, but
there are crepuscular, diurnal and some
brilliantly colored fascinating species. It is
estimated that over ten thousand species of
moths are to be found in India belongs to 41
families (Beccaloni, 2003). The Andaman and
Nicobar Islands is known for rich biodiversity
resources. The archipelago comprises of 572
islands and extending over 800 km in the Bay of
Bengal. The topography of the Andaman and
Nicobar Islands are hilly and undulating, the
elevation in Andaman is from 0 to 732 m and
Saddle Peak is the highest in North Andaman
Island. In the Nicobars the elevation rises from 0
to 568 m, Mt Thuillier being the highest peak on
Great Nicobar Island. The habitats represented in
the islands include bays, mangroves, moist
deciduous forests and evergreen forests. These
islands are tropical, that is, warm, moist and
equable. The proximity of the sea and the
abundant rainfall prevent extremes of heat. The
mountainous parts of the southern group of
islands get about 300 cm of rain annually
whereas the islands of north get less rainfall.
Flora and fauna of Andaman bears close
biogeographical affinities with Myanmar and

Thailand while Nicobar has affinities with Indo-
Mayan regions. Review of literature reveals that
only few studies have been conducted on the
moth fauna Andaman and Nicobar Islands
(Bhummanawar et al., 1991; Chandra and
Kumar, 1992; Chandra, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997;
Chandra and Rajan, 2004; Sivaperuman et al.,
2010; Sivaperuman et al., 2011).

STUDY AREA
The Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve
(GNBR) is the southernmost Island of Andaman
and Nicobar archipelago. It is situated between
6 45 and 7 15 N latitudes and 93 38 and 93
55 E longitudes and lies about 482 km south of
Port Blair and about 145 km North of Sumatra.
The GNBR includes Campbell Bay and Galathea
National Park. This island experiences tropical
climate with mean annual temperature of 22-
32
o
C, relative humidity of 82 per cent and
rainfall of 300-380cm. This reserve is known for
its unique biodiversity and houses rich genetic
germplasm resources. The Great Nicobar
Biosphere Reserve represents the tropical
evergreen forests of Indo-Malayan region and the
major forest area in this Biosphere Reserve is
still in its virgin state.

Biological Forum
_

METHODS
The study was conducted during the
months of August 2008, January 2009, July
2009, February 2010, September 2010, February
2011 and July 2011. Moths were collected using
a light trap, including 80W Philips energy saver
white day light bulb. Collected specimens were
put into tightly closed killing jars immediately
and transferred into insect envelop, and then
brought to the laboratory for preparation and
identification. Ethyl acetate was used as a killing
agent. The collection date and location
concerning each specimen were recorded in the
field note book. Specimens were pinned using
different size of insect pins and were mounted on
the insect setting boards. The species were
identified with the help of standard key of
systematic reference (Hampson, 1892, 1894,
1895 and 1896; Barlow, 1982; Holloway, 1985,
1989 and 1993). All the collected specimens
were deposited in Zoological Survey of India,
Port Blair. The details of light trapping locations
were present in Table 1.

Table 1. Details of light trapping location in Great Nicobar Biosphere.
Location name
Habitat
type
Mean under
story density
(%)
Mean
canopy cover
(%)
Mean light-trap
radius (m)
Amphibian Road Plantation 54.5 88.2 78.0
Joginder Nagar Plantation 57.3 83.8 82.1
East-west Road Evergreen 86.4 93.9 48.0
Indira Point Littoral 63.4 35.5 72.5
Kopen heat Evergreen 90.7 69.7 48.0

During the period of the study, a total of
1840 individuals and 80 species belongs to 9
families were recorded (Table 2). Sampling
was conducted during all seasons using light
traps at 5 different sites within the biosphere
reserve. Of the recorded species, 10 were new
addition to the moth fauna of GNBR. Highest
number of species were recorded from the family
Pyralidae (23), followed by Noctuidae (21),
Geometridae (13) and Arctiidae (12). Among the
recorded species, the Claterna cydonica (4.73)
showed high in dominance, followed by
Garudinia simulana (4.62), Glyphodes itysalis
(3.42), Hypsa alciphron (3.21), Micronia
astheniata (3.04).

Table 2. List of species of moths recorded from Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve with
abundance and dominance index.
Sl. No. Family / Species Name Abundance
Dominance
Index
Pyralidae
1. Aetholix flavibasalis (Guenee) 26 1.41
2. Agrotera posticalis Wileman ** 12 0.65
3. Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenee) 37 2.01
4. Diaphania annulata (Fabricius) 27 1.47
5. Diaphania bivitralis (Guenee) 53 2.88
6. Diaphania glauculalis (Guenee) 30 1.63
7. Diaphania indica (Saunders) 20 1.09
8. Diaphania stolalis (Guenee) 43 2.34
9. Diaphania pfeifferae (Lederer) 21 1.14
10. Diaphania vertumnalis (Guenee) 26 1.41
11. Glyphodes itysalis Walker 63 3.42
12. Glyphodes suralis Lederer 25 1.36
13. Hyalobathra filalis (Guenee) 12 0.65
14. Hymenia recurvalis (Fabricius) 20 1.09
15. Maruca amboinalis Felder 10 0.54
16. Maruca testulalis (Geyer) 53 2.88
17. Procedema inscisale Walker 15 0.82
33
Sivaperuman and Shah

18. Psara stultalis (Walker) 11 0.60
19. Pycnarmon meritalis (Walker) 10 0.54
20. Sameodes cancellalis (Zeller) 15 0.82
21. Sylepta derogate (Fabricius) 16 0.87
22. Tryporyza incertulus Walker 13 0.71
23. Vitessa nicobarica Hampson 9 0.49
Geometridae
24. Agathia lycaenaria koll 16 0.87
25. Bolonga schitacearia Walker 18 0.98
26. Camostola pyrrhogona (Walker) 24 1.30
27. Eumelia rosalia Stoll 22 1.20
28. Euschema militaris Linnaeus 35 1.90
29. Hyposidra talaca (Walker) 50 2.72
30. Lomographa inamata Walker 24 1.30
31. Petelia delostigma Prout ** 16 0.87
32. Petelia medardaria H. S. 38 2.07
33. Probithia exclusa Walker 17 0.92
34. Trygodes divisaria Walker 38 2.07
35. Zeheba lucidata Walker 21 1.14
36. Xythos turbata Walker 17 0.92
Uraniidae
37. Micronia astheniata (Guenee) 56 3.04
Sphingidae
38. Hippotion boerhaviae Fabricius 11 0.60
39. Hippotion velox (Fabricius) 6 0.33
40. Psilogramma menephron menephron
(Cramer)
10 0.54
41. Theretra nasus (Drury) 15 0.82
Hypsidae
42. Hypsa alciphron Cramer 59 3.21
43. Hypsa monycha Cramer 17 0.92
Arctiidae
44. Cyana amabilis (Moore) 24 1.30
45. Cyana javanica sumatrensis (Druce) 23 1.25
46. Eilema atrifrons (Hampson) 16 0.87
47. Eugoa vagiguttata (Walker) 15 0.82
48. Garudinia acornuta Holloway ** 27 1.47
49. Garudinia simulana Walker 85 4.62
50. Miltochrista danielli Arora 39 2.12
51. Barsine lineatus Walker ** 14 0.76
52. Olepa racini (Fabricius) * 19 1.03
53. Pelochyta astreus Drury 15 0.82
54. Pericallia galactina Vander Hoev. 25 1.36
55. Utetheisa pulchelloides Hampson 14 0.76
Noctuidae
56. Aegilia sundacribens Holloway 10 0.54
57. Artena rubida Walker 22 1.20
58. Barbotana nivifascia Walker 14 0.76
59. Callopistria emiliusalis Walker 12 0.65
60. Calyptra minuticornis Guenee * 30 1.63
61. Chasmina candida Walker 10 0.54
62. Chrysodeixis arisoma (Doubleday) 21 1.14
63. Claterna cydonia Cramer 87 4.73
64. Ercheia cyllaria Cramer 30 1.63
65. Erebus ephesperis ephesperis Hubner 32 1.74
66. Grammodes mygdon Cramer 24 1.30
36 Sivaperuman and Shah

67. Lopherthrum comprimens Walker 17 0.92
68. Othreis fullonica (Clark)* 9 0.49
69. Parallelia joviana (Stoll) 13 0.71
70. Psimada quadripennis Walker 12 0.65
71. Sarobides inconclusa Walker 20 1.09
72. Simplicia rufa occidentalis Holloway
**
2 0.11
73. Sympis rufibasis Guenee 24 1.30
74. Sypna albilinea Walker 13 0.71
75. Xanthodes transversa Guenee 12 0.65
76. Zurobata intractata Walker 9 0.49
Epiplemidae
77. Epiplema instabilata Walker* 2 0.11
78. Epiplema conflictaria Walker 5 0.27
Drepanidae
79. Tridepana albonotata Moore * 2 0.11
80. Tridrepana fulvata Snellen 15 0.82
Where * - New record to Andaman and Nicobar Islands; ** - New report to India

The species richness and abundance was
highest in Pyralidae (23,567), followed by
Noctuidae (21, 423), Geometridae (13,336) and
Arctiidae (12,316) (Table 3).

Table 3. Species richness and abundance in different family.
Sl.
No.
Family
Species
richness
Species
Abundance
1. Pyralidae 23 567
2. Geometridae 13 336
3. Uraniidae 1 56
4. Sphingidae 4 42
5. Hypsidae 2 76
6. Arctiidae 12 316
7. Noctuidae 21 423
8. Epiplemidae 2 7
9. Drepanidae 2 17

The distribution of moth species showed
that the following species were recorded in all
locations namely Diaphania bivitralis,
Diaphania glauculalis, Diaphania stolalis,
Diaphania pfeifferae, Diaphania vertumnalis,
Maruca testulalis, Pycnarmon meritalis, Petelia
medardaria, Hypsa alciphron, Garudinia
simulana, Claterna cydonia, Parallelia joviana,
Sympis rufibasia and Tridrepana fulvata. The
species like Ephiplemana instabilata, Vitessa
nicobarica, Petalia delostigma, Barbotana
nivifascia, Callopistria emiliusalis, Zurobata
intractata, Simplicia rufa occidentalis were
recorded from only one location (Table 4).

Table 4. Distribution of moths in Great Nicobar Islands.
Sl.
No.
Species name
Amphibian
Road
Joginder
Nagar
East-
West
Road
Indira
Point
Kopen-
heat
Pyralidae
1. Aetholix flavibasalis (Guenee) \ \ \
2. Agrotera posticalis Wileman \ \
37

3. Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenee) \ \ \ \ \
4. Diaphania annulata (Fabricius) \ \
5. Diaphania bivitralis (Guenee) \ \ \ \ \
6. Diaphania glauculalis (Guenee) \ \ \ \ \
7. Diaphania indica (Saunders) \ \ \
8. Diaphania stolalis (Guenee) \ \ \ \ \
9. Diaphania pfeifferae (Lederer) \ \ \ \ \
10. Diaphania vertumnalis (Guenee) \ \ \ \ \
11. Glyphodes itysalis Walker \ \ \ \ \
12. Glyphodes suralis Lederer \ \ \ \ \
13. Hyalobathra filalis (Guenee) \ \
14. Hymenia recurvalis (Fabricius) \ \ \
15. Maruca amboinalis Felder \
16. Maruca testulalis (Geyer) \ \ \ \ \
17. Procedema inscisale Walker \ \
18. Psara stultalis (Walker) \
19. Pycnarmon meritalis (Walker) \ \ \ \ \
20. Sameodes cancellalis (Zeller) \ \
21. Sylepta derogate (Fabricius) \ \ \
22. Tryporyza incertulus Walker \ \ \ \
23. Vitessa nicobarica Hampson \
Geometridae
24. Agathia lycaenaria koll \ \ \
25. Bolonga schitacearia Walker \ \ \
26. Camostola pyrrhogona (Walker) \ \
27. Eumelia rosalia Stoll \ \
28. Euschema militaris Linnaeus \ \
29. Hyposidra talaca (Walker) \ \ \ \
30. Lomographa inamata Walker \ \
31. Petelia delostigma Prout \
32. Petelia medardaria H. S. \ \ \ \ \
33. Probithia exclusa Walker \ \
34. Trygodes divisaria Walker \ \ \ \ \
35. Zeheba lucidata Walker \ \ \
36. Xythos turbata Walker \ \ \
Uraniidae
37. Micronia astheniata (Guenee) \ \ \ \
Sphingidae
38. Hippotion boerhaviae Fabricius \ \
39. Hippotion velox (Fabricius) \ \
40. Psilogramma menephron menephron (Cramer)

\ \ \
41. Theretra nasus (Drury) \ \ \
Hypsidae
42. Hypsa alciphron Cramer \ \ \ \ \
43. Hypsa monycha Cramer \ \ \ \
Arctiidae
44. Cyana amabilis (Moore) \ \ \
45. Cyana javanica sumatrensis (Druce) \ \
46. Eilema atrifrons (Hampson) \ \
47. Eugoa vagiguttata (Walker) \ \
48. Garudinia acornuta Holloway \ \
49. Garudinia simulana Walker \ \ \ \
50. Miltochrista danielli Arora \ \
51. Barsine lineatus Walker \ \ \
52. Olepa racini (Fabricius) \ \

53. Pelochyta astreus Drury \ \
54. Pericallia galactina Vander Hoev. \ \
55. Utetheisa pulchelloides Hampson \ \
Noctuidae
56. Aegilia sundacribens Holloway \ \
57. Artena rubida Walker \ \
58. Barbotana nivifascia Walker \
59. Callopistria emiliusalis Walker \
60. Calyptra minuticornis Guenee \ \ \
61. Chasmina candida Walker \ \
62. Chrysodeixis erisoma (Doubleday) \ \ \
63. Claterna cydonia Cramer \ \ \ \
64. Ercheia cyllaria Cramer \ \ \
65. Erebus ephesperis ephesperis Hubner \ \ \
66. Grammodes mygdon Cramer \ \
67. Lopherthrum comprimens Walker \ \
68. Othreis fullonica (Clark) \
69. Parallelia joviana (Stoll) \ \ \ \
70. Psimada quadripennis Walker \ \
71. Sarobides inconclusa Walker \ \
72. Simplicia rufa occidentalis Holloway \
73. Sympis rufibasis Guenee \ \ \ \
74. Sypna albilinea Walker \ \
75. Xanthodes transversa Guenee \ \
76. Zurobata intractata Walker \
Epiplemidae
77. Epiplema instabilata Walker \
78. Epiplema conflictaria Walker \ \
Drepanidae
79. Tridepana albonotata Moore \ \
80. Tridrepana fulvata Snellen \ \ \ \

Diversity indices
The Shannon index (H) showed high
values in Pyralidae (2.97) followed by Noctuidae
(2.79). Similarly, the Richness index R1, and R2
also showed high values in Pyralidae (3.47; 0.97)
and Noctuidae (3.31; 1.02) (Table 5).

Table 5. Diversity indices of moths in different families.
Family
Richness Indices Diversity indices Hills Numbers
Evenness
indices
R1 R2 H' N1 N2 E1 E2
Pyralidae 3.47 0.97 0.06 2.97 19.43 17.24 0.95 0.84
Geometridae 2.06 0.71 0.09 2.49 12.06 11.56 0.97 0.93
Sphingidae 0.80 0.62 0.25 1.34 3.81 4.01 0.97 0.95
Hypsidae 0.23 0.23 0.64 0.53 1.70 1.56 0.77 0.85
Arctiidae 1.91 0.68 0.12 2.29 9.92 8.09 0.92 0.83
Noctuidae 3.31 1.02 0.08 2.79 16.35 12.72 0.92 0.78
Epiplemidae 0.51 0.76 0.46 0.60 1.82 2.18 0.86 0.91
Drepanidae 0.33 0.45 0.58 0.56 1.75 1.73 0.81 0.88

This is first study to quantitatively evaluate
the species richness, diversity and community
structure of moth assemblages in the Great
Nicobar Biosphere Reserve by light trapping and
causal recording. There is a significant different
between different locations in the study area. Of
39

the commonest and regularly recorded species
are Cnaphalocrocis medinalis, Diaphania
bivitralis, Diaphania stolalis, Glyphodes itysalis,
Maruca testulalis, Camostola pyrrhogona,
Hyposidra talaca, Petelia medardaria, Trygodes
divisaria, Cyana amabilis, Miltochrista lineatus,
Claterna cydonia, Erebus ephesperis ephesperis,
Micronia astheniata and Hypsa alciphron.
The top most fifteen abundance species
belongs to Pyralidae (5 species), Geometridae (4
species), 2 species Arctidae and Noctudiae each,
and one species Hypsidae and Uraniiade
respectively. The survey work carried out so far
still covers only a limited area of the Biosphere
Reserve and many other locations remain to be
recorded. It is anticipated that further recording
will result in more species being found at this
study area. Further, light trapping will enable
continued monitoring of the abundance of each
species of conservation concern and further
recording in different areas of the study area will
help to identify the most important areas for
moths. The detailed ecological studies are
required to conserve the little know fauna of this
Island.

REFERENCES
Barlow, H.S. (1982). An introduction to the
moths of South East Asia p. 136, pl .47.
Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur.
Bhumannavar, B.S., Mohanraj, P., Rangnath,
H.R., Jacob, T.K. and Bandyopadhyay,
K. (1991). Insects of agricultural
importance in Andaman and Nicobar
Islands. CARI Research Bulletin. 6: 1-
49.
Chandra, K. (1993). New records of Moths of
Bay Islands. Journal of Andaman
Science Association. 9(1&2): 44-49.
Chandra, K. (1994). Further new records of
moths from Andaman and Nicobar
Islands. Journal of Andaman Science
Association. 10(1&2): 17-24.
Chandra, K. (1996). Moths of Great Nicobar
Biosphere Reserve, India. Malayan
Nature Journal 50: 109-116.
Chandra, K. (1997). New additions to the moth
fauna of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
Journal of Andaman Science
Association. 13(1&2): 44-47.
Chandra, K. and Kumar, S. (1992). Moths
(Heterocera: Lepidoptera) of Andaman
& Nicobar Islands. Journal of Andaman
Science Association. 8(2): 138-145.
Chandra, K. and Rajan, P.T. (2004). Faunal
diversity of Mount Harriet National Park
(South Andaman). Conservation Area
Series, Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata. 17: 1-142.
Hampson, G.F. (1892). The fauna of British
India including Ceylon and Burma:
Moths. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London.
1: 1-527.
Hampson, G.F. (1894-96). The fauna of British
Moths, Vols. 2-4. Taylor and Francis
Ltd., London.
Holloway, J.D. (1985). The Moths of Borneo:
Family Noctuidae, subfamilies
Euteliinae, Stictopterinae, Plusiinae,
Pantherinae. Malayan Nature Journal.
38: 157-317.
Noctuinae, Heliothinae, Hadeninae,
Acronictinae, Amphipyrinae,
Agaristinae. Malayan Nature Journal.
42: 57-228.
Family Geometridae, subfamily
Ennominae. Malayan Nature Journal.
43: 1-309.
Sivaperuman, C., Shah, S.K., Raghunathan, C.
and Ramakrishna. (2010). Some new
records of moth from Andaman and
Nicobar Islands. Biological Forum- An
International Journal. 2(2): 68-69.
Sivaperuman, C., Shah, S.K., Raghunathan, C.
and Venkataraman, K. (2011). First
report of Saroba maculicosta Walker
and Barsine lineatus Walker from
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India.
Association for Tropical Lepidoptera
Research, December, 2011: 2.


Diversity of Moths in Neil Island, Andaman and Nicobar Islands


Zoological Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre, Port Blair- 744 102, India

(Received 24 December, 2011, Accepted 4 February, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The study was conducted in Neil Island during 2009-2011 and the aim of this study was to
describe the species abundance, diversity and distribution pattern of moth fauna of this island. The
information on the faunal diversity and its distribution of the moth fauna are very meager. Neil Island is
one of the undocumented islands in South Andaman. It occupies an area of 18.9 km
2
. The most of the area
of this island has been converted into crop lands. Despite moth diversity of this island is has not been
explored and documented. In this paper, an attempt has been made to assess the species distribution and
diversity of moth fauna of this island. During the period of study, a total of 270 individuals, belongs to 46
species and 8 families were collected using light traps at dusk from 1730-2300 hours. The family Pyralidae
was dominated with 15 species followed by Noctuidae (10 species) and Geometridae (8 species).
Key words: Moths, diversity, Neil Island.

INTRODUCTION
Moths are often regarded as less
engaging but with their diversity of shapes, sizes
and colors they are as fascinating as butterflies.
Though moths are much common than
butterflies, people always refer to butterflies
when speaking about Lepidoptera. In fact 95
percent of all Lepidoptera are moths. There are
about 1,50,000 to 2,50,000 species of moth, with
thousands of species yet to be described. Most
species of moth are nocturnal, but there are
crepuscular and diurnal species. It is estimated
that approximately 10,000 species of moths are
to be found in India belongs to 41 families.
Moths and butterflies have been widely used in
ecological and conservation research worldwide
(Kitching et al., 2000; Summerville and Crist,
2002). Literature reveals that, 529 species belong
30 families were reported from Andaman and
Nicobar Islands. The major contribution on the
Indian moth fauna, in general, belongs to Cotes
and Swinhoe (1888), Hampson (1892, 1894,
1895 and 1896), Bell and Scott (1937), Rothchild
(1903) and Srivastava (2000). The studies on
moth fauna of Andaman and Nicobar islands
have been undertaken by Chandra (1993, 1994,
1996 and 1997), Chandra and Kumar (1992),
Chandra and Rajan (1995 and 2004), Bhumnavar
et al. (1991), Mandal and Bhattacharya (1980).

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands is known for
rich biodiversity resources. The archipelago
comprises of 572 islands and extending over 800
km. The topography of the Andaman and
Nicobar Islands are hilly and undulating, the
elevation in Andamans is from 0 to 732 m and
Saddle Peak is the highest in North Andaman
Island. In the Nicobars the elevation rises from 0
to 568 m, Mt Thuillier being the highest peak on
Great Nicobar Island. The habitats represented in
the islands include bays, mangroves, moist
deciduous forests and evergreen forests. These
islands are tropical, that is, warm, moist and
equable. The proximity of the sea and the
abundant rainfall prevent extremes of heat. The
mountainous parts of the southern group of
islands get about 300 cm of rain annually
whereas the islands of north get lesser rainfall.
Flora and fauna in Andaman bears close
biogeographical affinities with Myanmar and
Thailand while Nicobar has affinities with Indo-
Mayan regions.
Neil Island is one of the islands in the
Andaman Islands of India and it occupies an area
of 18.9 km
2
. It is located 40 kilometres north-east
of Port Blair, the capital of Andaman and
Nicobar Islands. It is the southernmost island of
Ritchie's Archipelago, save for uninhabited Sir
Hugh Rose Island, which is another 3.8 km to the
Biological Forum
_

southeast of Neil Island. Administratively, the
island is in the Neil Kendra Panchayat, Port Blair
sub-district of the South Andaman district, of the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India.
Agriculture is the primary occupation of the
villagers, and the island supplies vegetables to
the rest of Andaman.

METHODS
Moths were collected using a light trap,
including 80W Philips energy saver white day
light bulb during September 2009 to April 2011.
Collected specimens were put into tightly closed
killing jars immediately and transferred into
insect envelop, and then brought to the
laboratory for preparation and identification.
Ethyl acetate was used as a killing agent. The
collection date and location concerning each
specimen were recorded in the field note book.
Specimens were pinned using different size of
insect pins and were mounted on spreading
boards. The species were identified with the
help of standard key of systematic reference
(Hampson, 1892, 1894, 1895 and 1896; Barlow,
1982; Holloway, 1985, 1989 and 1993). All the
collected specimens were deposited in
Zoological Survey of India, Port Blair.

During the study period, a total of 270
individuals and 46 species belongs to eight
families were recorded (Table 1). The following
species were showed high in abundance namely
Glyphodes itysalis, Hypena sagitta, Asota
caricae, Barsine lineatus, Cnaphocrocis
medinalis, Erebus ephisperis, Euproctis
subnotata, Maruca testulalis and Omiodes
indicates. The species like Maruca amboinalis,
Vitessa suradeva, Zinckenia fascialis, Anisodes
absconditaria, Borbocha sp., Cleora injectaria,
Petelia delostigma, Petelia medardaria and
Hypsa andamana showed less in abundance
during this study.

Table 1. List of moths recorded in Neil Island with species abundance and dominance index.
Sl. No. Family Species name Abundance Dominance
Index
1. Pyralidae Cnaphocrocis medinalis (Guenee) 11 4.07
2. Diaphania indica Saunders 3 1.11
3. Glyphodes bivitralis (Guenee) 6 2.22
4. Glyphodes caesalis Walker 4 1.48
5. Glyphodes itysalis Walker 20 7.41
6. Glyphodes vertumnalis Guenee 3 1.11
7. Maruca amboinalis Felder 1 0.37
8. Maruca testulalis Geyer 10 3.70
9. Omiodes indicates Fabricius 10 3.70
10. Palpita rhodocosta Inoue 4 1.48
11. Pycnarmon meritalis (Walker) 6 2.22
12. Telanga sexpunctalis Moore 6 2.22
13. Tyspanodes linealis Moore 2 0.74
14. Vitessa suradeva Moore 1 0.37
15. Zinckenia fascialis Cramer 1 0.37
16. Noctuidae Callopistria thalpophiloides (Walker) 4 1.48
17. Claterna cydonia Cramer 8 2.96
18. Ercheia cyllaria Cramer 8 2.96
19. Erebus ephisperis Hubner 11 4.07
20. Grammodes geometrica Fabricius 9 3.33
21. Hypena sagitta Fabricius 15 5.56
22. Parallelia arcuata Moore 9 3.33
23. Parallelia joviana (Stoll) 7 2.59
24. Plusia peponis Fabricius 5 1.85
25. Trigonodes hyppasia (Cramer) 6 2.22
26. Geometridae Anisodes absconditaria Walker 1 0.37
27. Borbocha sp. 1 0.37
28. Cleora alienaria Walker 6 2.22

29. Cleora injectaria Walker 1 0.37
30. Heterostegane warreni Prout 9 3.33
31. Petelia delostigma Prout 1 0.37
32. Petelia medardaria Herrich-Schaffer 1 0.37
33. Trygodes divisaria Walker 7 2.59
34. Sphingidae Angonyx testacea Walker 3 1.11
35. Hippotion boerhaviae Fabricius 7 2.59
36. Marumba dyrus dyrus (Walker) 3 1.11
37. Psilogramma menephron menephron Cramer 3 1.11
38. Thretra silhetensis Boisduval 4 1.48
39. Lymantriidae Euproctis scintillans Walker 5 1.85
40. Euproctis subnotata Walker 11 4.07
41. Arctidae Barsine lineatus Walker 12 4.44
42. Pelochyta astreus Drury 5 1.85
43. Utethesia pulchelloides Hampson 4 1.48
44. Hypsiade Asota caricae Fabricius 13 4.81
45. Hypsa andamana Moore 1 0.37
46. Saturniidae Attacus atlas (Linnaeus) 2 0.74

The highest number of species richness
and abundance of moths were recorded from the
family Pyralidae (15; 88), followed by Noctuidae
(10; 82), Geometridae (8; 270) (Table 2).

Table 2. Family wise species richness and abundance of moths.
Sl.
No.
Family
Species
richness
Species
Abundance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Pyralidae
Noctuidae
Geometridae
Sphingidae
Lymantriidae
Saturniidae
Hypsiade
Arctidae
15
10
08
05
02
01
02
03
88
82
27
20
26
2
23
21

Among the collected species of moths,
fifteen species were considered as pests for
agriculture crops, namely Glyphodes indica,
Zinkenia fascialis, Trygodes divisaria, Utethesia
pulchelloides, Asota caricae, Grammodes
geometrica, Plusia peponis, Euproctis
scintillans, Cnaphocrocis medinalis, Glypodes
caesalis, Maruca testulalis, Omiodes indicates,
Tyspanodes licalis, and Parallelia joviana.
Most of the species obtained were collected
during post monsoon season. This was because
post monsoon season is the most suitable season
for the mating and regeneration activities of
Lepidopteran adults. The number of species
obtained through the light trapping shows that,
this island is one of the diverse habitat in
Andaman group of Islands. This survey was an
attempt to assess the moth fauna in Neil Island.
It is expected to be more number of species
could be explored in this area. A further work is
necessary to study the diversity and distribution
of moth fauna in this island.

REFERENCES
Barlow, H.S. (1982). An introduction to the
moths of South East Asia p. 136, pl. 47.
Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur.
Bell, T.R.D. and F.B. Scott. (1937). The fauna of
British India including Ceylon and
Burma: Moths, vol. 5: 537 pp., Taylor
and Francis Ltd., London.
Bhumannavar, B.S., P. Mohanraj, H.R.
Rangnath, T.K. Jacob and K.
Bandyopadhyay. (1991). Insects of
agricultural importance in Andaman and
Nicobar Islands. CARI Research
Bulletin. 6: 1- 49.
63

Chandra, K. (1993). New records of Moths of
Bay Islands. Journal of Andaman
Science Association. 9(1&2): 44-49.
Chandra, K. (1994). Further new records of
moths from Andaman and Nicobar
Islands. Journal of Andaman Science
Association. 10(1&2): 17-24.
Chandra, K. (1996). Moths of Great Nicobar
Biosphere Reserve, India. Malayan
Nature Journal 50: 109-116.
Chandra, K. (1997). New additions to the moth
fauna of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
Association. 13(1&2): 44-47.
Chandra, K. and S. Kumar. (1992). Moths
(Heterocera: Lepidoptera) of Andaman
& Nicobar Islands. Journal of Andaman
Science Association. 8(2): 138-145.
Chandra, K. and P.T. Rajan. (1995). Moths of
Mount Harriet National Park, Andaman.
Association. 11(1&2): 71-75.
Chandra, K. and P.T. Rajan. (2004). Faunal
diversity of Mount Harriet National Park
(South Andaman). Conservation Area
Series, Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata. 17: 1-142.
Cotes, E.C. and C. Swinhoe. (1887-89). A
Catalogue of the moths of India, Part I-
VI. Indian Museum. 812pp.
Hampson, G.F. (1892). The fauna of British
Moths. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London.
1: 1-527
Hampson, G.F. (1894-96). The fauna of British
Moths, Vols. 2-4. Taylor and Francis
Ltd., London.
Euteliinae, Stictopterinae, Plusiinae,
Pantherinae. Malayan Nature Journal.
38: 157-317.
Noctuinae, Heliothinae, Hadeninae,
Acronictinae, Amphipyrinae,
Agaristinae. Malayan Nature Journal.
42: 57-228.
Family Geometridae, subfamily
Ennominae. Malayan Nature Journal.
43: 1-309.
Kitching R.L., A.G. Orr, L. Thaib, H. Mitchell,
M.S. Hopkins, A.W. Graham. (2000).
Moth assemblages as indicators of
environment quality of Australian rain
forest. Journal of Applied Ecology. 37:
284-297.
Mandal, D.K. and D.P. Bhattacharya. (1980). On
the Praustinae (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
from the Andaman, Nicobar and Great
Nicobar Islands, Indian Ocean. Records
of Zoological Survey of India. 77: 293-
342
Rotchschild, W., R. Hartert and K. Jordan.
(1903). Novitates Zoologicae. 10: 1-583.
Srivastava, A. (2002). Taxonomy of moths of
India. IBD publishers. 334pp.
Summerville, K.S. and T.O. Crist. (2002).
Effects of timber harvest on forest
Lepidoptera: Community, guild and
species responses. Ecological
Applications. 12: 820-835.

64

Species diversity and abundance of Odonata in Ritchies Archipelago,
Andaman and Nicobar islands


Zoological Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre, Port Blair- 744 102, India.

(Received 2 January, 2012, Accepted 18 March, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The Ritchies Archipelago is a cluster of smaller islands which lie some 25-30 km east of
Andaman. This study was conducted during 2008-2011. Different islands in the Ritchies archipelago
were surveyed to assess the species diversity and distribution of Odonates. Total of thirty one species
belong to 8 families were recorded during the study period. Highest number of species was observed from
the family Libellulidae. The diversity index was varied in different islands. The distribution patterns and
diversity of dragonflies are discussed in this paper. An extensive Odonatological survey needs to be carried
out to explore the rich diversity of these graceful insects and come up with a representative checklist of
Odonates for Ritchies Archipelago.
Key words: Andaman, Dragonfly, Damselfly, Diversity, Ritchies archipelago.

INTRODUCTION
The Order Odonata is divided into three
suborders, the damselflies (Zygoptera), the
dragonflies (Anisoptera) and the primitive
dragonflies (Anisozygoptera). The Dragonflies
and damselflies occur in all types of freshwater
habitats. Generally habitats with a good water
quality, aquatic and bank side vegetation and a
natural morphology have more species. The
odonates are acutely sensitive to anthropogenic
disturbance because of their relatively low
vagility, amphibious life history, and high
trophic position. Indeed, odonates have been
called as flagship group of wetland indicator
species (Oertli et al., 2002).
The Odonata is one of the primitive and
ancient insect orders. It is very diverse and is the
second largest aquatic insect order. Odonates are
of little economic importance in the world. Their
main attraction for humans is aesthetic as they
are beautifully coloured. The presence of
odonates may be useful as an indicator of
ecosystem quality. The greatest numbers of
species are found at sites that offer a wide variety
of microhabitats. They are beneficial to humans
because as voracious aquatic predators they
assist in the control of insect pests. More than
5,000 species exist worldwide, with
approximately 470 of them occurring in the India
belongs to 139 genera and 19 families

(Subramanian, 2009), of which, 50 species under
32 genera and 11 families have been recorded in
Andaman and Nicobar Islands by various
workers (Fraser 1933, 1934 and 1936; Chhotani
et al., 1983; Lahiri and Mitra 1993; Rajan, 2006).
Recently, Mitra (2002) reported 32 species from
Nicobar Group of Islands. The present study was
made to describe the odonates of Ritchies
archipelago, Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

STUDY AREA
The Ritchie's Archipelago is a cluster of
smaller islands which lie some 25-30 km east of
Great Andaman, the main island group of the
Andaman Islands. The archipelago comprises
some 4 larger islands, 7 smaller islands and
several islets, extending in a roughly north-south
chain, parallel to the main Great Andaman
group.

METHODS
The study was conducted from 2008
through 2011 in nine different islands at
Ritchies archipelago. All specimens were
captured during the day with a sweep net. The
samples were immediately stored in envelopes.
Photographs were taken of almost all specimens
in order to facilitate further identification.
Odonates were identified based on standard
Biological Forum
_

systematic keys (Fraser, 1933, 1934, 1936;
Subramanian 2009; Mitra 2006).
Species richness and abundance of odonates:
Total number of odonates and number of
individuals seen in each location were calculated
using the census data and field observations.
Diversity indices: Diversity indices were
calculated using the programme
SPDIVERS.BAS developed by Ludwig and
Reynolds (1988).

Species richness and abundance: Species
richness and abundance was highest in Havelock
Island followed by John Lawrence and Neil
Islands (Fig. 1)
Distribution of odonates: Species of odonates
recorded in different location during the period
of study is given in Table 1.
Species diversity indices: Species diversity index
(H') was highest in Havelock (3.08) and lowest at
Middle Button (0.69) (Table 1). A total of 31
species of odonates under four families and 25
genera were recorded during the period of study.
Out of these Crocothemis servilia servilia,
Lathrecista asiatica asiatica, Orthetrum Sabina
Sabina and Tremea limbata similiata were most
common and abundance species in all islands of
Richies archipelago. The family Calopterygidae,
Lestidae, Protoneuridae, Platycnemididae and
Platystictidae were represents only one species
each namely Vestalis gracilis, Lestes praemorsa
praemorsa, Prodasineura verticalis
andamanensia, Copera marginipes and
Drepanosticta annandalei respectively.

Fig. 1. Species richness and abundance of Odonates in different islands.

The occurrence of at least 31 species of
odonates on the Ritchies archipelago suggests
an excellent species richness, which likely
reflects the wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial
habitat on the forest. Many lakes and ponds,

often found to be with abundant shoreline
vegetation, provide the classic lentic habitat for
odonates. Many small water bodies, streams and
small rivers also provide habitat diversity,
ranging from sediment and large woody debris in
66

flowing water to vegetation-choked reaches,
pools, and bank areas. The high habitat
complexity at multiple spatial scales provides a
wide variety of odonate habitat, which in turn
results in high species richness of odonate in
Ritchies archipelago.

Table 1. Distribution of the Odonates in different islands.
Sl. No. Species name Islands of Ritchie's Archipelago
Havelock John
Lawrence
Henry
Lawrence
Inglis South
Button
North
Button
Middle
Button
Outram Neil
1. Vestalis
gracilis gracilis
(Rambur)

2. Lestes
praemorsa
praemorsa
Selys

3. Prodasineura
verticalis
andamanensis
(Fraser)

4. Copera
marginipes
(Rambur)

5. Drepanosticta
annandalei
Fraser

6. Aciagrion
pallidum Selys

7. Agriocnemis
femina oeyzae
Lieftinck

8. Agriocnemis
rubescens Selys

9. Pseudagrion
andamanicum
Fraser

10. Anax guttatus
(Burmeister)

11. Gynacantha
hyalina Selys

12. Brachydiplax
chalybea
chalybea
Brauer

13. Crocothemis
servilia servilia
(Drury)

14. Diplocodes
trivialis
(Rambur)

15. Diplacodes
nebulosa
(Fabricius)

16. Lathrecista
asiatica
asiatica
(Fabricius)

67

17. Neurothemis
fluctuans
(Fabricius)

18. Neurothemis
intermedia
intermedis
(Rambur)

19. Orthetrum
chrysis (Selys)

20. Orthetrum
pruinosum
neglectum
(Rambur)

21. Orthetrum
sabina sabina
(Drury)

22. Pantala
flavescens
(Fabricius)

23. Tremea limbata
simililata
(Rambur)

24. Trithemis
aurora
(Brumeister)

25. Trithemis
festiva
(Rambur)

26. Acisoma
panorpoides
panorpoides
Rambur

27. Potamarcha
congener
(Rambur)

28. Cratilla lineata
(Brauer)

29. Rhyothemis
variegata
variegata
(Linnaeus)

30. Tholymis
tillarga
(Fabricius)

31. Zyxomma
petiolatum
Rambur

The Richies archipelago supports a
more diverse odonates community in the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The species

richness and abundance is concentrated in the
Ritchies archipelago, which consequently should
be the focus of future odonatological studies in
Andaman and Nicobar Islands.


Table 2. Diversity indices of odonates in different islands.
Islands
Richness indices Diversity indices Hills numbers Evenness indices
R1 R2 H' N1 N2 E1 E2
Havelock 5.58 2.77 0.04 3.08 21.69 23.75 0.94 0.83
John Lawrence 3.58 2.12 0.06 2.59 13.32 15.82 0.96 0.89
Henry Lawrence 2.81 1.86 0.09 2.26 9.61 11.55 0.94 0.87
Inglis 1.21 0.96 0.25 1.41 4.11 4.00 0.88 0.82
South Button 0.87 0.95 0.24 1.09 2.97 4.13 0.99 0.99
North Button 1.34 1.12 0.19 1.49 4.43 5.25 0.92 0.89
Middle Button 0.46 0.67 0.40 0.69 1.99 2.50 0.99 0.99
Outram 1.04 0.94 0.26 1.26 3.52 3.85 0.91 0.88
Neil 3.09 2.03 0.08 2.34 10.40 12.49 0.94 0.87

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are grateful to the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India,
for the support to this study.

REFERENCES
Chhotani, C., A.R. Lahiri and T.R. Mitra. (1983).
Contributions to the odonate fauna
(Insecta) of Andaman and Nicobar
Islands with descriptions of two new
species. Rec. Zool. Surv. India. 80: 467-
494.
Fraser, F.C. (1933). Fauna of British India
including Ceylon and Burma. Odonata
Vol. I, Taylor & Francis Ltd. London.
423pp.
Vol. II, Taylor & Francis Ltd. London.
398pp.
Vol. III, Taylor & Francis Ltd. London.
461pp.

Lahiri, A.R. and B. Mitra. (1993). New records
of dragonflies (Insecta) Odonata from
Bay Islands. J. Andaman Sci. Assoc. 9:
96-99.
Ludwig, J. A. and J.F. Reynolds. (1988).
Statistical Ecology, A Premier on
Methods and Computing. A Wiley-
Interscince publication. 337pp.
Mitra, T.R. (2002). Note on zoogeography of
Odonata (Insecta) of Nicobar Islands,
Indian Ocean. Rec. Zool. Surv India.
100(3-4): 183-188.
Mitra, T.R. (2006). Handbook on Common
Indian Dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata):
pp. iii+136, Zoological Survey of India.
Oertli, B., D.A. Joye, E. Castella, R. Juge, D.
Cambin and J. B. Lachavanne. (2002).
Does size matter? The relationship
between pond area and biodiversity.
Biological Conservation 104: 59-70.
Rajan, P.T., K. Chandra and J.R.B. Alfred.
(2006). Andaman evam Nicobar Dweep
Ki Prani Vividhata (in Hindi).
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.
173pp.
Subramanian, K.A. (2009). A Checklist of
Odonata of India. Zoological Survey of
India.

69

The Great Indian Bustard: Rare sightings with its general account

Akhlaq Husain
1
and Gaurav Sharma
2

1
41, Hari Vihar, Vijay Park, Dehra Dun 248 001, Uttarakhand (formerly associated with Zoological
Survey of India).
2
Zoological Survey of India, Desert Regional Centre, Jodhpur 342 005, Rajasthan.
e-mail:
1
drakhlaqhusain@gmail.com;
2

(Received 18 November, 2011, Accepted 8 February, 2012)

ABSTRACT: On September, 2010, Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors, 1831), the Great Indian Bustard, a large
ground bird (about a metre high), has been sighted after a gap of about twenty years from Solapur district
of Maharashtra as per the reports. Earlier, in Delhi it was seen over a century ago. In India, besides
Maharashtra, it is known from other Indian States (Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana,
Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh) though rare to
sight. It is also found in adjoining regions of Pakistan. Being endangered, it is categorized as Critically
Endangered under IUCN Red List and listed in Schedule I of IWPA. However, its population is
depleting to a great extent, may due to poaching and needs special concern. In the present communication,
besides rare sighting, its local names, general features, food and breeding habits have also been provided.
Key words: Great Indian Bustard sightings.

INTRODUCTION
There are all together four species of
genus Ardeotis Le Maout, 1853 in the world. The
Great Indian Bustard, Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors,
1831), the famous Indian Bustard is the only
species found in India where as the rest of three
species viz. Ardeotis arabs (Linnaeus, 1758), A.
australis (Gray, 1829) and A. kori (Burchell,
1822), are distributed in Africa, Saudi Arabia &
Yemen, Australia & New Guinea and Africa
respectively. Recently, the species was sighted in
Maharashtra state after a gap of about 25 years
which is significant from its distributional and
existence point of view. It is also known from
other Indian states (Andhra Pradesh, Delhi,
Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya
Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and
Uttar Pradesh) though rare to sight and also
occurs in adjoining regions of Pakistan. Earlier,
its has been studied in details by various workers
(Hume, 1890; Hume & Marshall, 1879; Baker,
1921, 1929; Vijayarajji, 1926; Ganguli, 1975;
Gupta, 1975; Ali & Ripley, 1980; Wood, 1983;
Kalpviraksh, 1991a,b; Rahmani, 1991, 1987;
Rahmani & Manakadan, 1989, 1990; Rahmani &
Soni, 1997; Sati & Tak, 1997; Falzone, 1992;
Hallager, 1994; Morales et al., 2001; Joshua et
al., 2005; Rasmussen & Anderton, 2005; Khan et
al., 2008). In the present communication, besides

its distribution, a brief account on its systematics,
various English and local names, features,
behavior, conservation status and threats have
been provided for general awareness as being
Critically Endangered and a rare bird.

RARE SIGHTINGS
On September 8, 2010, Ardeotis
nigriceps (Vigors, 1831), the Great Indian
Bustard, has been sighted after a gap of twenty
years, foraging in a private farm at Mangalwedha
Taluka, about 70 km from the Great Indian
Bustard Sanctuary at Nannaj, District Solapur
(Maharashtra) by Mr. Pankaj Chindarkar, a bird
watcher (Times of India, New Delhi, September
30, 2010: 12). Earlier, Rahmani & Manakadan
(1989) reported the return of the species in
Maharashtra. In Delhi it was seen over a century
ago (Kalpavriksh, 1991 a, b vide Tak & Sati,
1997).

SYSTEMATIC AND GENERAL ACCOUNT
Order: Gruiformes
Family: Otididae (Bustards)
Genus: Ardeotis Le Maout, 1853
The genus Ardeotis Le Maout, 1853 contains the
following species:
Biological Forum
_

1. Ardeotis arabs (Linnaeus, 1758), the Arabian
Bustard: It is found in Algeria, Burkina
Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Ivory Coast,
Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia,
Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kenya,
Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger,
Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia,
Sudan, and Yemen. IUCN Red List
Category: Least Concern.
2. A. australis (Gray, 1829), the Australian
Bustard, Bush Turkey: Occur country
across northern Australia and New
Guinea. IUCN Red List Category: Near
Threatened.
3. A. kori (Burchell, 1822), the Kori Bustard:
Native to Africa. IUCN Red List
Category: Least Concern.
4. A. nigriceps (Vigors, 1831), the Great Indian
Bustard, Indian Bustard: India and
Pakistan. IUCN Red List Category:
Critically Endangered.

Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors, 1831) Great Indian
Bustard
Synonyms:
Otis nigriceps Vigors, 1830-31, Proc. Zool. Soc.
London: 35 (Himalayas, North-western India);
Baker, 1929, Fauna of British India, Birds, 6: 64.
Otis edwardaii Gray, J. E., 1831. Ill Ind. Zool. i,
pl. 59 (1831-32) (no locality).
Eupodotis edwardii, Blyth, Cat. p. 258.
Eupodotis edwardsii, Jerdon. B. I. iii, p. 607
Eupodotis edwardsi Gray,G. R., 1844,List of the
specimens of birds in the collection of the British
Museum: 58.
Eupodotis leuconiensis Gray, J. E. & Gray, G.
R., 1846, Catalogue of the specimens and
drawings of mammals, birds, reptiles,and fishes
of Nepal and Tibet,p.130. (nec. Otis leuconiensis
Vieillot, 1820).
Choriotis edwardsi Bonaparte, 1856. Comptes
Rendus hebdomadaires des sances de
l'Acadmie des Sciences, Paris, 43: 416.
Choriotis nigriceps, Baker, E.C.Stuart, 1930, The
Fauna of British India including Ceylon and
Burma, Birds, 8(2nd edn): 488.
Ardeotis nigriceps, Gruson, 1976, Checklist of
the Birds of the World: 29.
Ardeotis (kori) nigriceps, Sibley & Monroe,
1990, Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the
World: 216.
Popular English Names: Great Indian Bustard,
Indian Bustard.
Vernacular Names:
Andhra Pradesh: Battameka-pakshi.
Delhi: Hookna, Hukna.
Gujarat: Ghorad, Ghorar; Kuchh: Gudad.
Haryana: Gurayin, Hukna, Tugdar.
Karnataka: Arlkujina-hakki,Yerreladdu.
Madhya Pradesh: Bherar, Hank, Ocn, Ocn,
Serailu, Sonchirya.
Maharashtra: Hoom, Maldhok.
Punjab: Gurayin, Tugdar.
Rajasthan: Godawan, Goonjni, Gujaran, Gunjam,
Vahar, Vahar Goonjni
Tamil Nadu: Kanal-mayil.
Uttar Pradesh: Gaganbher, Gunhunbher, Hookna,
Hukna, Sohan, Dhorm-chiriya
Pakistan (Sindh): Gurahna, Garumba.
Description: A large, stout and heaviest among
the flying birds with horizontal body, long-
necked and long bare legs. Colouration: Body
brownish with a black patch spotted in white,
head greyish. Upper plumage rufous, finely
penciled with black; crown black and crested
contrasting with the pale head and neck; neck
feathers somewhat lengthened and hackled in
front with a black band on lower breast, belly
white. In flight, white patches near wing tips are
pointers of its identification. Sometimes,
abnormally leucistic or near albino birds have
been reported (Vijayarajji, 1926). Size: Stands
about a metre in height, males about 1.22 m in
length, weighing 8.0-14.5 kg, females smaller 92
cm and 3.5-6.75 kg (Wood, 1983). The weight is
usually around 9.5 kg but extremely large males
have been claimed up to 18.15 kg (Baker, 1929).
Sexual Dimorphism: Male: Body deep sandy-
buff, with a black breast band during breeding
season, head and neck white, crown on head
black and crested which is puffed up by display.
They are also having a well-developed gular
pouch which is inflated when calling during
display and helps produce the deep resonant calls
(Hume & Marshal, 1879; Ali & Ripley, 1980).
Female: Duller with thinner and greyish neck,
breast band rudimentary, broken or even lacking
(Rasmussen & Anderson, 2005).
General Distribution:
India: As regards its natural distribution, it was
once widespread, mostly in arid and semi-arid
grasslands, open country with thorny scrub, dry
71
Husain and Sharma

western plains of India and Pakistan ( Baker,
1929) but now restricted to small pockets
(Rahmani & Manakadan, 1990) due to fast
dwindling of its habitats in Andhra Pradesh
(Rollapadu), Delhi (Ganguli, 1975), Gujarat
(Bhatiya, Naliya, Lala Parjau Sanctuary, Western
Kutch), Haryana (Sultanpur Bird Sanctuary,
Gurgaon), Karnataka (Rannibennur), Kerala
(Kerala Bustard Sanctuary), Madhya Pradesh
(Ghatigaon and Karera Wildlife Sanctuaries),
Maharashtra (Great Indian Bastard Sanctuary,
Solapur and Ahmednagar districts), Punjab,
Rajasthan (Desert National Park, Jaisalmer;
Sonkhaliya and Sarson), Tamil Nadu and Uttar
Pradesh.
Elsewhere: Pakistan (Sind).
Habitat: They inhabit arid and semi-arid
grasslands, open dry country with thorn scrub,
tall grass interspersed with cultivation and avoid
irrigated areas (Rasmussen & Anderson, 2005).
The dry semi-desert regions where it was found
in parts of Rajasthan has been altered by
irrigation canals that have transformed the region
into an intensively farmed area (Khan et al.,
2008).
Habit: Usually found solitary or in twos or
threes, more rarely in flocks numbering over four
and up to a dozen or more. Very shy and wary
and on approach of danger run at a great speed
and hide under bush cover. They squat and rest at
times under the shade of trees. They are often
seen in association with blackbuck and chinkara
in order to profit from their vigilance.
Call: Usually quiet but call is a bark or bellow
and is said to be made when the bird is alarmed,
otherwise males periodically make a deep
resonant moaning booming call that can be heard
from long distance.
Food and Feeding: Being omnivorous feeds on
grass seeds, groundnut, millet, sesame, jowar,
and tur crops, legume pods, berries (Zizyphus,
Eruca), insects (mainly orthopterans, also beetles
particularly Mylabris pustulata), rodents and
reptiles especially the lizards and frogs. As per
the findings (Gupta, 1975) they feed even on
Uromastyx hardwickii, the Spiny-tailed Lizard in
Rajasthan.
They also drink water, if it is available and will
sometimes sit down to drink or suck water
followed by raising up their heads at an angle
(Hallager, 1994).
Breeding Behavior: Breed during March
September, laying single egg in a scrape on
ground. The major areas where they are known
to breed are in central and western India and
eastern Pakistan. Males are said to be solitary
during the breeding season but form small flocks
in winter. They are polygamous (Rahmani,
1991). Territorial fights between males may
involve strutting next to each other, leaping
against each other with legs against each other
and landing down to lock the opponents head
under their neck (Joshua et al., 2005). They may
however distribute themselves close together
(Baker, 1921) and like other bustards they are
believed to use a mating system that has been
termed as an "exploded or dispersed lek"
(Morales et al., 2001). During courtship display,
the male inflates the gular sac which opens under
the tongue, inflating it so that a large wobbly bag
appears to hang down from the neck and also
inflates and displays the fluffy white feathers
(Rasmussen & Anderson, 2005). The tail is held
cocked up over the body. The male also raises
the tail and folds it on its back. The male
periodically produces a resonant deep, booming
call that may be heard for nearly 500 m. The
female lays a single egg in an unlined scrape on
the ground (Hume, 1890; Baker, 1929) which
may be at risk of destruction from other animals
particularly ungulates and crows and for that the
females may use a distraction display that
involves flying zigzag with dangling legs (Ali &
Ripley, 1980) as the only parent being involved
in incubation and care of the young and when
threatened, she covers the young chicks under
her wings (Falzone, 1992).
General Status: Migrant Resident; rare (for
Delhi, Tak & Sati, 1997). They are known to
make local nomadic movements in response to
various factors. Rajasthan and Sind are the
strongholds for this species with over 50% of the
entire global population.
Conservation Status: IUCN 3.1 Red List
Category: Critically Endangered; Indian Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972: Schedule I.
Threats: Hunting and habitat loss. In some
places such as Rajasthan, increased irrigation by
the Indira Gandhi Canal has led to increased
agriculture and the altered habitat has led to the
disappearance of the species from these regions
(Rahmani & Soni, 1997). Earlier, in view of
72 Husain and Sharma

depletion of the species, Rahmani (1987) showed
concern for its protection.

Abbreviation used:
IUCN: International Union for Conservation of
Nature/International Union for the Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources (formerly the
International for the Protection of Nature, IUPN).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Director,
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata for
encouragement and the respective Officer-in-
Charge, NRC, ZSI, Dehra Dun and DRC, ZSI,
Jodhpur for library facility.

REFERENCES
Ali, S. and Ripley, S.D. (1980). Handbook of the
birds of India and Pakistan (2 ed.).
Oxford University Press. pp.188191.
Baker, E.C.S. (1921). Game birds of India,
Burma and Ceylon. Bombay Natural
History Society, 2: 164185.
Baker, E.C.S. (1929). The Fauna of British
India, Including Ceylon and Burma
including Ceylon and Burma. Birds.
6(2): 6466.
Falzone, C.K. (1992). First Observations of
Chick Carrying Behavior by the Buff-
Crested Bustard. The Wilson Bulletin.
104(1): 190192.
Ganguli, U. (1975). A guide to thr birds of the
Delhi area. Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, New Delhi, ix +
301 pp, xx plts.
Gupta, P. D., 1975. Stomach contents of the
Great Indian Bustard Choriotis nigriceps
(Vigors). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.
71(2): 303304.
Hallager, SL., 1994. Drinking methods in two
species of bustards. Wilson Bull. 106(4):
763764.
Hume, A. O. (1890). The nests and eggs of the
birds of India. R H Porter. 3: 375378.
Hume, A. O. and Marshall, C. H. T. 1879. Game
birds of India, Burmah and Ceylon. 1:
711.
Joshua, J., Gokula, V. and Sunderraj, S. F. W.
(2005). Territorial fighting behaviour of
Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps.
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 102(1): 114.
Kalpavriksh. (1991a). The Delhi Ridge Forest-
Decline and Conservation. Pub. By
Kalpviraksh, C 17/A, Munirka, New
Delhi.
Kalpavirksh. (1991b). Whats that bird? A guide
to bird watching with special reference
to Delhi: 1-93. Pub. By Kalpviraksh, C
17/A, Munirka, New Delhi.
Khan, A.A., Khaliq, I., Choudhry, M.J.I.,
Farooq, A. and Hussain, N. (2008).
"Status, threats and conservation of the
Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps
(Vigors) in Pakistan". Current Science.
95(8): 10791082.
Morales, M.B., Jiguet, F. and Arroyo, B. (2001).
Exploded leks: What bustards can teach
us . Ardeola. 48(1): 8598.
Rahmani, A.R. (1987). Protection for the Great
Indian Bustard. Oryx. 21: 174-179.
Rahmani, A.R. (1991). Flocking behaviour of a
resident population of the great Indian
bustard Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors).
Revue d'Ecologie (Terre et la Vie).
46(1): 5364.
Rahmani, A. R. and Manakadan, R. (1989).
Return of the Great Indian Bustard in
Maharashtra. J. Ecol. Soc. 2: 19-29.
Rahmani, A. R. and Manakadan, R. (1990). "The
past and present distribution of the Great
Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps
Vigors". J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 87:
175194.
Rahmani, A.R. and Soni, R.G. (1997). Avifaunal
changes in the Indian Thar Desert.
Journal of Arid Environments. 36: 687
703.
Rasmussen, P.C. and Anderton, J.C. (2005).
Birds of South Asia: The Ripley Guide.
Smithsonian Institution & Lynx
Edicions. 2: 148.
Tak, P.C. and Sati, J.P. (1997). Aves. In: Fauna
of Delhi, State Fauna Series 6: 737.
Zoological Survey of India.
Vijayarajji. (1926). An albino bustard (Eupoditis
edwarsi). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.
31(2): 526.
Wood, G. (1983). The Guinness Book of Animal
Facts and Feats.

73
Husain and Sharma

Odonates of Arabian and Indian Deserts and their conservation status

Akhlaq Husain
1
and Gaurav Sharma
2

1
41, Hari Vihar, Vijay Park, Dehra Dun 248 001, Uttarakhand (formerly associated with Zoological
Survey of India).
2
Zoological Survey of India, Desert Regional Centre, Jodhpur 342 005, Rajasthan.
e-mail:
1
drakhlaqhusain@gmail.com;
2

(Received 18 November, 2011, Accepted 11 March, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The odonates, being amphibiotic, depend on fresh water bodies for completing their life
cycle and hence the areas where water bodies are in scarce, their diversity is also much less as in desert
ecosystems. However, the odonate fauna of these areas, especially the Arabian Peninsula and Great Indian
Desert, has attracted the attention of various workers during the past. Recently, the first author (A. H.)
happen to visit some Gulf areas and there, in spite of scarcity of fresh water bodies, came across
dragonflies and damselflies which made him interested in comparing with Indian fauna from same type of
ecosystem i.e.Thar Desert (the Great Indian Desert) and on exploring the recorded fauna i.e. 54 species
from Arabia, found only 14 species common with those in Thar Desert and around and 6 species to other
Indian states which is significant from zoogeographical point of views as it reveals that the Arabian fauna
consists mainly of wide-ranging African species and to a much lesser extent to wide-ranging Oriental
species. In the present communication systematic account, distributional pattern, conservation status of all
the species and threats to the endangered ones have been provided.
Key words: Odonates of Arabian and Indian Deserts.

INTRODUCTION
The odonates, being amphibiotic, depend
on fresh water bodies for completing their life
cycle and hence the areas where water bodies are
in scarce, their diversity is also much less as in
desert ecosystems. However, the odonate fauna
and other aspects of these areas (Thar Desert/
Great Indian Desert and Arabian Peninsular and
adjoining countries) have attracted the attention
of various workers during the past as under:
India: Agarwal, 1957; Bose & Mitra, 1976;
Thakur, 1985; Tyagi, 1991; Prasad, 1996, 2004;
Sharma, 2010; Sharma & Dhadeech, 2010;
Sharma & Sewak, 2010.
Arabia (Arabian Penisula): Longfield, 1932;
Aguilar & Prechac, 1986; Askew, 1988;
Walterston & Pittaway (1989), Walker &
Pittaway, 1987; Askew, 1988; Schneider, 1988,
2004; Schneider & Dumont, 1994, 1995, 1997;
Dumont, 1991; Graham, 1996; Giles, 1998;
Jodicke et al., 2004; Hellyer & Aspinall, 2005;
Kalkman, 2006; Feulner, 1999, 2001; Feulner et
al., 2007; Dijkstra & Dingemanse, 2000; Dijkstra
& Lewington, 2006; Michiel & Vinvent, 2008;
Robert, 2008; Grunwell, 2010.
In the present communication, odonate
species recorded earlier from the following

countries, falling in Arabian Peninsula and
adjacent countries have been dealt:
Arabia: Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait,
Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
Adjacent Countries: Jordan, Iraq and Isreal
(+Palestine). Recently (2010-11), the first author
(A. H.) visited some Gulf areas and there, in
spite of scarcity of fresh water bodies, came to
know of the occurrence of dragonflies and
damselflies which made him interested in
comparing the known fauna of the area with that
of Indian fauna from the same type of ecosystem
i.e. Thar Desert and around. Out of a total of 55
species (as per the earlier records) dealt, 21.82 %
species are found common to both the areas i.e.
Arabian and Indian Deserts while 12.73 %
species common to other Indian States. UAE and
Oman are found to be the richest in species
diversity i.e. 52.73 % and 41.82 % respectively
while Bahrain the least 3.64 % which could be
due to lack of information. This shows that he
Arabian fauna consists mainly of wide-range
African species and to a much lesser extent to
wide-range Oriental species.
A report on the occurrence of Sympetrum
meridionale (Selys, 1841), a southern European
Biological Forum
_

species, from Dubai (Kappes & Kappes, 2001)
remains unconfirmed (Feulner et al., 2007).

SYSTEMATIC ACCOUNT, DISTRIBUTION
AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF
SPECIES
Order: Odonata
Suborder: Anisoptera
Family: Aeshnidae
Genus: Aeshna Fabricius, 1775
1. Aeshna yemenensis Waterston, 1985
Popular English Names: Hawker Dragonfly,
Mosaic Darner.
Distribution:
Arabia: Yemen (Endemic).
Conservation Status: IUCN Red List:
Vulnerable.
Threat: Habitat loss.
Remarks: Occur in mountain streams above
2000 m.
Genus: Anax Leach, 1815
2. Anax imperator Leach, 1815
Syns: Aeschna formosa Vander Linden, 1823
Aeschna azurea Charpentier, 1825
Aeschna dorsalis Burmeister, 1839
Anax mauricianus Rambur, 1842
Aeschna lunata Kolenati, 1856.
Popular English Names: Blue Emperor,
Emperor, Emperor Dragonfly.
Description: 73-80 mm in length.
Male: Iridescent blue, marked with a diagnostic
black dorsal stripe and an apple-green thorax;
73-80 mm long.
Female: Green thorax and abdomen.
Distribution:
India: Uttarakhand (Mussoorie); West Bengal
(Kolkata).
Arabia: UAE (Hajar Mnts.).
Elsewhere: North Africa, Asia, Southern Europe.
Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Least
Concern.
3. Anax parthenope Selys, 1839
Syns: Aeschna parthenope Selys, 1839
Anax parisinus Rambur, 1842
Anax julius Brauer, 1865
Anax bacchus Hagen, 1867
Anax major Gtz, 1923
Anax geyri Buchholz, 1955
Anax jordansi Buchholz, 1955.
Popular English Names: Lesser Emperor.
Description: Eyes green, a blue saddle at S2 and
S3, a yellow rin at base of S2, abdomen and
thorax brown. Noticeable blue collar on greenish
body; holds abdomen almost straight; 66-75 mm
long.
Male: Green eyes and waisted abdomen.
Distribution:
India: Rajasthan (Thar Desert) (Sharma, 2010)
Arabia: Arabian Peninsula: Qatar, UAE (Abu
Dhabi, Das Island nr. Abu Dhabi), Kuwait.
Elsewhere: Southern Europe including most
Mediterranean Islands, north Africa and across
Asia to Japan and China, Canary islands and
Madeira archipelago, first seen in Great Britain
in 1996. Cornwall, Nepal.
Concern.
Genus: Hemianax Selys, 1883
4. Hemianax ephippiger (Brumeister, 1839)
Syns: Aeschna ephippigera Burmeister, 1839
Anax ephippiger (Burmeister, 1839).
Aeshna mediterranea Selys, 1839
Anax senegalensis Rambur, 1842
Anax marginope Baijal & Agarwal, 1955.
Popular English Name: Vagrant Emperor.
Description: Eyes brown, blue saddle extending
over top half of abdomen; 61-66 mm in length.
Distribution:
India: Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur), Rajasthan
(Thar Desert).
Arabia: Qatar, UAE (Abu Dhabi).
Elsewhere: Algeria, Angola, Botswana,
Cameroon, Chad, Iceland, Ivory Coast, Egypt,
Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana,
Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia,
Niger, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Prncipe, Senegal,
Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan,
Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe,
and possibly Burundi. Recorded in Malta in
1957.
Concern.
Family: Gomphidae
Genus: Gomphus Leach, 1815
5. Gomphus davidi Selys, 1887
Popular English Name: Levant Club-tail.
Distribution:
India: Assam, West Bengal (Darjeeling) (as
Davidius davidii Selys, 1887).
Husain and Sharma 73

Arabia: Iraq (Dohok, N Iraq), Israel, Palestine,
Jordan.
Elsewhere: Lebanon, Syria, Turkey.
Concern.
6. Gomphus kinzelbachi Schneider, 1984
Distribution:
Arabia: Iraq, Israel.
Elsewhere: Iran, S E Turkey (possibly).
Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Data
Deficient
Genus: Onychogomphus Selys, 1854
(SF: Onycogomphinae)
7. Onychogomphus macrodon Selys, 1887
Popular English Name: Levant Pincer-tail.
Distrinbution:
Arabia: Israel, Jordan.
Vulnerable.
Genus: Lindenia de Hann, 1826
8. Lindenia tetraphylla (Vander Linden, 1825)
Syn: Lindenia inkitii Bartenev, 1929.
Popular English Name: Arabian Lobe-tail,
Blade-tail.
Description: Distinctive side projections at the
end of a greenish slender body; about 72 mm
long.
Distribution:
Arabia: Oman (Wadi Abyadh), UAE, Kuwait.
Elsewhere: Asia: Caucasus, European Russia,
Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Turkey, Greece,
Montenegro, Spain, Italy, Syria. Africa.
Vulnerable (Europe and European Union).
Genus: Paragomphus Cowley, 1906
9. Paragomphus genei (Selys, 1841)
Syns: Gomphus genei Selys, 1841
Onychogomphus hagenii Selys, 1871
Gomphus excelsus Costa, 1884
Onychogomphus atratus Selys, 1885
Mesogomphus bitarsatus Frster, 1906.
Popular English Name: Green Hook-tail.
Description: Head blush, thorax green, body
yellow and black with hooked appendage; 37-41
mm long.
Distribution:
Arabia: UAE.
Elsewhere: Algeria, Botswana, Cameroon,
Central African Republic, Congo, Ivory Coast,
Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia,
Malawi, Mediterranean, Morocco, Mozambique,
Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South
Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia,
Zimbabwe, and possibly Burundi.
Concern.
Remarks: Larvae sand-dwelling.
10. Paragomphus sinaiticus (Morton, 1929)
Syn: Mesogomphus sinaiticus Morton, 1929.
Popular English Name: Sinai Hook-tail.
Description: Grayish-brown and black all over
with orange hooked appendage.
Distribution:
Arabia: Jordan, Israel, Oman, Saudi Arabia,
UAE, Yemen.
Elsewhere: Africa, known from Egypt and Sinai
to Sudan, Niger.
Vulnerable.
Family: Libellulidae
(Skimmers)
Genus: Brachythemis Brauer, 1868
(SF: Sympetrinae)
11. Brachythemis fuscopalliata (Selys, 1887)
Syn: Trithemis fuscopalliata Selys, 1887
Popular English Name: Dark-winged Ground-
ling.
Distribution:
Arabia: Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, Jordan.
Elsewhere: Iran, Syria, Turkey
Vulnerable.
Genus: Crocothemis Brauer, 1868
(SF: Sympetrinae)
12. Crocothemis erythraea (Brulle, 1832)
Syns: Libellula rubra de Villers, 1789 (nec
Mller, 1764)
Libellula ferruginea Vander Linden, 1825 (nec
Fabricius, 1775)
Libellula erythraea Brull, 1832
Libellula coccinea Charpentier, 1840
Libellula inquinata Rambur, 1842
Crocothemis chaldaeora Morton, 1920.
Popular English Names: Broad Scarlet,
Carmine Darter, Common Scarlet-darter, Scarlet
Dragonfly. Scarlet Darter.
Description:

Male: Fat-bodied, bright red all through
(including eyes, legs), with widened abdomen,
flattened and tapering to its end and small amber
patches at the bases of the hind-wings.
Female: Much more drab (yellow-brown) with
small yellow base on hind-wing and two
conspicuous pale stripes along top of thorax.
Distribution:
India: Eastern India (Assam); West Bengal
(Kolkata).
Arabia: Iraq (as C. chaldaeorum Morton), Qatar
(Al-Khor), UAE, Kuwait.
Elsewhere: Southern Europe, Britain and North
Africa.
Concern (Data Deficient as for C. chaldaeorum).
13. Crocothemis sanguinolenta (Brumeister,
1839)
Syns: Libellula sanguinolenta Burmeister, 1839
Libellula ferrugaria Rambur, 1842.
Crocothemis pygmaea Frster, 1906
Crocothemis arabica Schneider, 1982
Popular English Names: Bloody Scarlet, Little
Scarlet, Slim Scarlet-darter, Small Scarlet.
Description: Medium-sized dragonfly with
dazzling scarlet colouration and a long, slender
body, eyes large and positioned close together on
top of head, two pairs of membranous wings
with visible veins running through them and
characteristic dark spots near tip of wing
(pterostigma). Holds wings flat and at 90 degrees
to body
Distribution:
Arabia: Middle-east: Jordan, Israel, Oman
(northern), UAE (Abu Dhabi).
Elsewhere: Angola, Botswana, Cameroon,
Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Ivory
Coast, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya,
Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali,
Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, So Tom and
Prncipe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa,
Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia,
Zimbabwe, and possibly Burundi.
Concern.
Remarks: Small patch of yellow at the base of
the wings, and this feature is variable in size
between populations, with some scientists
(Dijkstra & Dingemanse, 2000) recognising two
subspecies viz. Crocothemis sanguinelenta
arabica and Crocothemis sanguinolenta
sanguinolenta.
14. Crocothemis servilia servilia (Drury, 1773)
Syns: Libellula servilia Drury, 1773
Libellula ferruginea Fabricius, 1793
Libellula soror Rambur, 1842
Crocothemis reticulata Kirby, 1886.
Popular English Name: Oriental Scarlet.
Description: Head with labrum frons and rest of
face bright blood-red, eyes blood-red above
purple on sides; base of all wings marked with
rich amber-yellow to as far as cubital nervure in
fore-wing and to first ante-nodal nervure nearly
to arc and rightly up to and including tornal
angle in hind-wing; abdomen blood-red,
segments 8-9 with mid-dorsal carina blackish
and appendages blood-red.
Sub-adult male: Whitish lines on thorax, whitish
surround to face and dusky tips on wings.
Distribution:
India: Chhatisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Kerala, Madhya
Pradesh (Jabalpur), Maharashtra, Rajasthan
(Thar Desert), Uttar Pradesh (Varansi), Western
Himalaya.
Arabia: Qatar (Al-khor)
Elsewhere: Afghanistan, Armenia, Asia,
Australia, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong,
Indonesia, Iran, Korea, Kyrgzystan, Japan,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan,
Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan,
Thailand, Tropical Asia, Turkey, south-wards to
Sundaic Archipelago, Uzbakistan, Vietnam.
USA (introduced).
Concern.
Genus: Diplacodes Kirby, 1889
(SF: Sympetrinae)
15. Diplacodes lefebevrii (Rambur, 1842)
Syns: Libellula lefebvrei Rambur, 1842. Ins.
Nevrop.: 112.
Libellula concinna Rambur, 1842
Libellula flavistyla Rambur, 1842
Libellula parvula Rambur, 1842
Libellula tetra Rambur, 1842
Libellula morio Schneider, 1845
Diplacodes unimacula Frster, 1906
Diplacodes limbata Fraser, 1949.
Popular English Names: Black Percher, Purple
Darter.
Husain and Sharma
77

Description: Small-sized, greenish-yellow,
marked with black, wings palely enfumed with
brown towards apices, anal appendage black.
Male: Very dark, older almost entirely black,
though most have pale spots along abdomen.
Female: Much shorter-bodied and somewhat
browner.
Distribution:
India: Chandigarh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Rajasthan (Thar Desert),
Uttarakhand.
Arabia: Qatar (Al-Khor and at Dandy farm near
Saudi Border), UAE.
Elsewhere: Africa, Mesopotamia. Algeria;
Angola; Botswana; Burkina Faso; Burundi;
Cameroon; Chad; Cte d'Ivoire; Cyprus;
Djibouti; Egypt, Equatorial Guinea; Ethiopia;
Gambia; Ghana; Greece; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau;
Iran, Iraq; Israel; Jordan; Kenya; Lebanon;
Liberia; Libya; Madagascar; Malawi; Mali;
Mauritius; Morocco; Mozambique; Namibia;
Nepal; Niger; Nigeria; Portugal; Runion; Sao
Tom and Principe; Senegal; Seychelles; Sierra
Leone; Somalia; South Africa; Spain; Sudan;
Syria; Tanzania, Togo; Tunisia; Turkey, Uganda;
Yemen. Eritrea (presence uncertain).
Concern.
Genus: Libellula Linnaeus, 1758
(SF: Libellulinae)
16. Libellula pontica Selys, 1887
Popular English Name: Red Chaser.
Distribution:
Arabia: Iraq, Israel, Jordan.
Elsewhere: Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Syria,
Turkey.
Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Near
Threatened.
Genus: Macrodiplax Brauer, 1868
(SF: Urothemistinae)
17. Macrodiplax cora (Kaup in Brauer, 1867)
Syns: Diplax cora Kaup in Brauer, 1867
Libellula lycoris Selys, 1872
Urothemis nigrilabris Selys, 1878
Urothemis vittata Kirby, 1893.
Popular English Name: Coras Pennant,
Wandering Pennant.
Distribution:
India: Karnataka, Kerala, Orissa, Tamil Nadu,
West Bengal.
Arabia: Oman (both brackish and freshwater
near shore), Yemen (Socotra Island).
Elsewhere: Australia, Cambodia, China, Hong
Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, Sri Lanka,
Malaysia, Mascarenes, Mauritius, Micronesia,
Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea,
Philippines, Peninsular Malaysia, Samoa,
Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands,
Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan,
Thailand, Taiwan, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam.
Concern.
Genus: Orthetrum Newman, 1833
(SF: Libellulinae)
18. Orthetrum abbotti Calvert, 1892
Syns: Orthetrum phillipsi Kirby, 1896
Orthetrum flavidulum Kirby, 1898
Oxythemis villiersi Fraser, 1949
Orthetrum malgassicum Pinhey, 1970.
Popular English Names: Abbotts Skimmer,
Little Skimmer.
Distribution:
Arabia: Jordan.
Elsewhere: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, the
Republic of the Congo, Congo (Democratic
Republic of), Ivory Coast, Egypt, Ethiopia,
Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra
Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania,
Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe and possibly
Burundi.
Concern.
19. Orthetrum chrysostigma (Burmeister, 1839)
Syns: Libellula chrysostigma Burmeister, 1839
Libellula barbarum Selys, 1849
Orthetrum toddii Pinhey, 1970
Popular English Names: Epaulet Skimmer,
Girdled Skimmer.
Description: Upper abdomen pinched or
waisted behind wings to give its English name;
39-43 mm in length.
Male: Medium-sized, all blue.
Female: Bright green or drab (brownish). Mature
females can develop the powdery blue
appearance of the males.
Distribution:
Arabia: UAE (Abu Dhabi)
Elsewhere: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana,
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African
Republic, Chad, Congo, Ivory Coast, Egypt,
78
Husain and Sharma

Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mali,
Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia,
Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda,
Zambia, Zimbabwe and possibly Burundi and
Canary Islands. Recently (2010) recorded in
Maltese Islands.
Concern.
20. Orthetrum ransonneti (Brauer, 1865)
Syn: Libellula ransonneti Brauer, 1865.
Type-locality: Red Sea.
Popular English Names: Desert Skimmer,
Ransonnet's Skimmer.
Distribution:
Arabia: Middle-east: Jordan, Israel, Oman (near
Muscat), UAE (Abu Dhabi).
Elsewhere: Afghanistan, N. Africa, Algeria,
Chad; Egypt (Sinai), Libya (uncertain),
Mesopotamia (as Libellula gracilis Albarda in
Selys, 1889), Niger; Sudan, Western Sahara,
Turkey.
Concern.
21. Orthetrum sabina sabina (Drury, 1770)
Syns: Libellula sabina Drury, 1770. Ill. Exot.
Ins., 1: 114.
Libellula gibba Fabricius, 1798
Libellula leptura Burmeister, 1839
Libellula ampullacea Schneider, 1845
Lepthemis divisa Selys, 1878
Orthetrum nigrescens Bartenev, 1929
Orthetrum viduatum Lieftinck, 1942.
Popular English Names: Green Marsh Hawk,
Oasis Skimmer, Slender Skimmer.
Description: Slender-bodied chartreuse
dragonfly. Easily identified with greenish yellow
and black segmented body. Sexes almost alike.
Male: Face yellowish green; eyes green mottled
with black; thorax greenish yellow with black
tiger like stripes; legs black; inner side of
anterior femora yellow; wings transparent, inner
edge of hind-wing tinted with yellow; wing-spot:
black with reddish brown spot; abdomen:
segments 1-3 green with broad black rings and
distinctly swollen at base. Abdomen and hind-
wing: 30-36mm, Female: Abdomen: 32-35mm,
Hind wing: 31-35mm.
Female: Very similar to male.

Distribution:
India: Indian subcontinent up to an altitude of
2000 m. Chhatisgarh, Goa, Kerala
(Thiruvanathapuram), Madhya Pradesh
(Jabalpur), Rajasthan (Thar Desert), Uttar
Pradesh (Varansi).
Arabia: Bahrain, Oman (Khawr Taqah,
Sahalnout, Salalah, Dhofar), UAE, Qatar
(Rayyan), Kuwait.
Elsewhere: South-eastern Europe and North
Africa to Japan and south to Australia and
Micronesia. Afghanistan, Cambodia, China,
Hong Kong, Indonesia, Lao, Malaysia,
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey, Viet
Nam.
Concern.
22. Orthetrum taeniolatum (Schneider, 1845)
Syns: Libellula taeniolata Schneider, 1845
Orthetrum hyalinum Kirby, 1886
Orthetrum brevistylum Kirby, 1896
Orthetrum garhwalicum Singh & Baijal, 1954.
Popular English Names: Azure Blue Skimmer,
Azure Skimmer, Little Skimmer, Small
Skimmer.
Description: Abdomen tapers evenly without a
waist; length about 35 mm.
Male: Covered in a light-blue pruinescence,
combining black, brown and beige with two
whitish bands on side of thorax. Another useful
feature to identify the species is brown colour of
top of the eyes.
Distribution:
India: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh,
Bihar, Chattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Himachal
Pradesh, Jammu-Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Nagaland,
Punjab, Rajasthan (Thar Desert), Sikkim,
Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, West Bengal.
Arabia: Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE.
Elsewhere: Asian species, reaching Eastern
Mediterranean shores of some Greek islands in
Aegean (e.g. Rhodes and Lesbos).
Afghanistan, Bangladesh; Bhutan; Cyprus;
Greece; Iran, Iraq; Israel; Jordan; Lebanon;
Nepal; Pakistan; Palestinian Territory, Occupied;
Syria, Turkey.
Concern.
Genus: Pantala Hagen, 1861
(SF: Pantalinae / Trameinae)
79
Husain and Sharma

23. Pantala flavescens (Fabricius, 1798)
Syns: Libellula flavescens Fabricius, 1798. Ent.
Syst. Supl., 285.
Libellula viridula Palisot de Beauvois, 1805
Libellula analis Burmeister, 1839
Libellula terminalis Burmeister, 1839
Dythemis russata Calvert, 1895
Sympetrum tandicola Singh, 1955.
Popular English Names: Globe Skimmer,
Wandering Glider.
Description: Medium sized with rusty thorax
and yellow abdomen; abdomen 29-35 mm (also
records of 4.5 cm), hind-wing 38-40mm.
Male: Face bright golden yellow or orange; eyes
reddish brown above, bluish grey on sides and
below; thorax olivaceous or rusty and is coated
thickly with fine yellowish hair, on sides, it is
pale green or bluish green; legs black; wings
transparent and base of hind wing amber yellow;
wing-spot bright reddish brown; abdomen bright
reddish brown and is tinted with brick red
dorsally; segments 8-10 have black spots above.
Female: Very similar to the male; eyes
olivaceous brown above and wings are evenly
smoky; abdomen lacks the dorsal red colouring
found in males.
Distribution: Yellowish.
Male: Quite red with yellow face; 49-52 mm
long.
India: Chhatisgarh, Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur),
Rajasthan (Thar Desert), Tamil Nadu (south-
east).
Arabia: Qatar, UAE (+Das Island nr. Abu
Dhabi).
Elsewhere: Almost throughout tropics. Easter
Island (south-eastern Pacific Ocean). India
(found at 18,000 ft / 5486.4 m.) to Africa across
Arabian Sea.
Concern.
Remarks: Can complete its life-cycle in two
months, from a newly laid egg to an emerging
adult.
Genus: Rhyothemis Hagen, 1867
(SF: Rhyothemistinae / Sympetrinae)
24. Rhyothemis semihyalina (Desjardins, 1832)
Syns: Libellula semihyalina Desjardins, 1832
Libellula disparta Rambur, 1842
Libellula separata Selys, 1849
Libellula syriaca Selys, 1849
Libellula var. semihyalina syriaca Selys, 1849
(in Lucas, Expl. Alg., 3:116).
Libellula hemihyalina Selys, 1850
Rhyothemis ducalis Kirby, 1898.
Popular English Name: Phantom Flutterer.
Distribution:
Arabia: Iraq (as R. semihyalina separata), Israel
(+Palestine), Oman, Yemen (Socotra Island).
Elsewhere: Africa, Algeria, Angola, Benin,
Botswana, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Egypt,
Ethiopia, Gambia, Gabon, Ghana, Iran (as R. s.
separata), Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar,
Malagasy region, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius,
Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Pretoria (as
type-loc. for R. ducalis Kirby, 1898), Reunion,
Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
South Africa, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda,
Zambia, Zimbabwe, and possibly Burundi.
Concern.
Remarks: Rhyothemis semihyalina separata
(Selys, 1849) is considered as the synonym of
the species.
Genus: Selysiothemis Ris, 1897
25. Selysiothemis nigra (Vander Linden, 1825)
Syns: Libellula nigra Vander Linden, 1825
Rhyothemis nebulosa Oguma, 1922.
Popular English Names: Black Pennant, Desert
Darter.
Description: Big body and head, whitish pale,
clear and shiny wings (veins difficult to locate).
As flutter its wings in breeze and hence the name
Pannant.
Male: Uniformly black, although they do
develop a whitish pruinescence on their thorax
and abdomen.
Females and immature males have a yellowish-
brown or sandy-brown thorax and abdomen with
extensive black markings.
Distribution:
India: Jammu-Kashmir, Rajasthan (Thar
Desert).
Arabia: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE (including
Das Island nr. Abu Dhabi).
Elsewhere: Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria;
Croatia; Cyprus; Egypt; Greece; Iraq; Israel;
Italy; Jordan; Kuwait; Libya; Malta;
Montenegro; Morocco; Portugal; Serbia; Spain;
Syria; Tunisia; Turkey; Ukraine. Nepal
(uncertain).
80
Husain and Sharma

Concern.
Remarks: The most distinguishing features of
the species are size wings (very large and broad
for such a small dragonfly) and shape of
pterostigma, which resembles an equals (=) sign.
Walker & Pittaway (1987) call this species
Desert Darter and the same was used by
Dijkstra & Lewington (2006) for Sympetrum
sinaiticum which is not found in Arabia.
Genus: Sympetrum Newman, 1833
(SF: Sympetrinae, Darters)
26. Sympetrum arenicolor Jodicke, 1994
Syn: Sympetrum deserti Jodicke, 1994.
Popular English Name: Blue-faced Meadow-
hawk.
Distribution:
India: Western India.
Arabia: Middle-east: Iraq, Israel.
Elsewhere: Central Asia: Azarbaijan (Shirvan
National Park), Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, N E
Syria, Tajikistan, E & S Turkey, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan.
Concern.
Remarks: Jodicke et al. (2009) differentiated it
from S. sinaiticum.
27. Sympetrum fonscolombii (Selys, 1840)
Syns: Libellula fonscolombii Selys, 1840
Libellula erythroneura Schneider, 1845
Sympetrum azorensis Gardner, 1959
Sympetrum rhaeticum Buchecker, 1876
Popular English Name: Red-veined Darter.
Description: Legs of both sexes mostly black
with some yellow. Body about 374043 mm
long (sexes similar in length), abdomen 24-26
mm long, average wing-span 60 mm, hind-wings
2731 mm long.
Male: Abdomen red, wings with red veins, hind-
wings bases yellow; ptero-stigma pale with a
border of black veins and underside of eye blue /
grey. Immature males resemble females but often
with more red.
Female: Almost similar but abdomen yellow, not
red and wings with yellow veins, not red veins as
in male.
Distribution:
India: Tamil Nadu (Nilgiries).
Arabia: Middle-east: Bahrain, Iraq, Israel,
Palestine, Jordan, Oman (northern part, near
Muscat), Qatar (Al-Khor), Saudi Arabia, UAE,
Yemen.
Elsewhere: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria,
Angola, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin,
Bhutan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Botswana,
Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Caucasus, Central African Republic, Chad, Cote
d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt
(Egypt African part & Sinai), European Russia,
Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland,
France (Corse, France main), Gambia, Germany,
Ghana, Gibraltar, Greece (East Aegean Island.,
Greece main, Kriti), Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Hungary, Iran, Italy (Italy main, Sardegna,
Sicilia), Japan, Kazakhastan, Kenya, Korea,
Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein;
Luxembourg; Macedonia, Yugoslav (Republic
of), Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mongolia,
Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia,
Nepal, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Poland, Portugal (Azores, Madeira, Portugal
main), Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda,
Senega, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri
Lanka, (Baleares, Canary Island., Spain main),
Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria,
Tanzania, Togo Tunisia, Turkey (Europe part);
Uganda; Ukraine (Krym, Ukraine main),
Western Sahara, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Vagratn in Denmark, Guernsey, Ireland, Isle of
Man,Jersey and United Kingdom (Grt. Britain).
Concern.
Remarks: Its a widespread and common
species found throughout Africa, southern
Europe and eastwards to Middle East, Indian
Subcontinent and Indian Ocean Islands and now
common in most of Central Europe. It migrates
to and has been found northwards as for as
Scotland, Swedish Island of Oland and Latvia Its
distribution may further extend northwards.
Fraser (1936) recorded this species from
N.W. Provinces, Kashmir and on the tops of all
the Southern hills, being especially common in
the Nilgiris, Palnis and Travancore hills.
28. Sympetrum sinaiticum Dumont, 1977
Syn: Sympetrum tarraconense Jodicke, 1994
Popular English Name: Desert Darter.
Description: Black markings high on sides of
segments 2 & 3 of abdomen, total length 34-37
mm, hind-wing length 24-29 mm,
Husain and Sharma
81

Male: Abdomen red, wings with red apical tips.
Female: Abdomen sandy-yellow.
Distribution:
Arabia: Middle-east: Saudi Arabia, Jordan.
Elsewhere: N Africa, Kyrgyzstan, S & E Spain,
Pakistan, Tajikistan, Tunisia (Tozeur Oasis).
Concern (Northern Africa)
Remarks: It is somewhat similar to Sympetrum
fonscolombei, the Red-veined Darter.
Genus: Tramea Hagen, 1861
(SF: Trameinae)
29. Tramea basilaris (Palisot de Beauvois,
1805)
Syns: Libellula basilaris Palisot de Beauvois,
1805
Trapezostigma basilare Palisot & Beauvois, 1817
Tramea burmeisteri Kirby, 1889.
Popular English Names: Key-hole Glider, Red
Marsh Trotter, Wheeling Glider.
Distribution:
India: Andhra Pradesh (Kolleru Lake), Kerala,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan (Thar
Desert).
Arabia: Oman (Muscat), UAE (Wadi Wurayah;
Fujairah).
Elsewhere: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina
Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic,
Chad, Comoros, Congo (Republic of), Congo
(Democratic Republic of), Ivory Coast,
Japan, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi,
Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique,
Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Sao Tome
and Prncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri
Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo,
Uganda, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Possibly Burundi. Eritrea; Guinea; Guinea-
Bissau; Sudan.
Concern.
Remarks: Also recognized as two subspecies, T.
basilaris basilaris (Beauvais, 1817) and T.
basilaris burmeisteri Kirby, 1889.
Genus: Trithemis Brauer, 1868
(SF: Trithemistinae)
30. Trithemis annulata (Palisot de Beauvois,
1805)
Syns: Libellula annulata Palisot de Beauvois,
1805;
Libellula haematina Rambur, 1842;
Libellula obsoleta Rambur, 1842;
Libellula rubrinervis Selys, 1841;
Tramea erythraea Brauer, 1867;
Trithemis scorteccii Nielsen, 1935;
Trithemis violacea Sjstedt, 1900.
Popular English Names: Purple-blushed Darter,
Violet Drop-wing, Violet-marked Darter.
Description:
Body held almost vertically (when perched) and
wings held forward and down and hence the
common name Drop-wing
Male: Reddish-purple or purple blush on body
with red veins on wings, thorax and abdominal
segments 1-7 violet.
In fact, this purple/ violet colour is combination
of a bright red ground colour overlaid with a fine
bluish pruinescence. Face, eyes and S 8-10 are
bright red and vertex around occelli shiny and
metallic purple.
Female: Yellow abdomen and a white-and-
yellow thorax, both of which marked with strong
black lines, also having a sizeable deep-yellow
patch at the base of her hind wing. It is rarely
seen in field.
Distribution:
Arabia: Jordan, Israel, Oman (Salalah), Qatar
(Doha, Khararra), UAE.
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Ivory Coast,
Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Gambia, Ghana,
Greece, Guinea, Israel, Kenya, Liberia,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco,
Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Niger, Runion,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia,
South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo,
Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe,
and possibly Burundi. Recently (2005) recorded
in the Maltese islands.
Concern.
Remarks: It has three subspecies, viz. Trithemis
annulata annulata (Palisot de Beauvois, 1809) ,
Trithemis annulata haematina (Rambur, 1842)
(Mauritius) and Trithemis annulata scorteccii
(Nielsen, 1935). (Sahalnout, Salalah, Dhofar,
Oman).
31. Trithemis arteriosa (Burmeister, 1839)
Syns: Libellula aurora Burmeister, 1839
Trithemis soror Brauer, 1868
Trithemis adelpha Selys, 1878
Trithemis fraterna Albarda, 1881

Trithemis congener Kirby, 1890.
Popular English Name: Gulley Darter, Red-
veined Drop-wing.
Description: Body narrow with black marks
between segments, orange flecks at the base of
the wings and large crimson eyes, lower
mouthparts yellow with a central bronze stripe,
black splashes run along sides of abdomen,
increasing in size up to tip, which is entirely
black. Wings held downwards and forwards
during rest. Colour varies according to locality.
Male: Wings red-veined, slender red abdomen.
Female: Yellow and black with four patches on
wings, yellowish-russet abdomen.
Distribution:
Arabia: UAE (upper mountain wadis).
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African
Republic, Chad, Comoros, Ivory Coast, Egypt,
Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia,
Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta (recently
recorded), Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique,
Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, possibly Burundi.
Concern.
32. Trithemis festiva (Rambur, 1842)
Syns: Libellula festiva Rambur, 1842
Libellula infernalis Brauer, 1865
Trithemis proserpina Selys, 1878.
Popular English Names: Black Stream Glider,
Indigo Drop-wing.
Description: Dark blue, orange streaks on
abdomen, without dark wing tips (distinguishing
from Indothemis limbata Selys, 1891).
Distribution:
India: Chhatisgarh, Kerala (Idamalayar, near
Edamalayar Dam), Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra (Sanjay Gandhi National Park,
Mumbai), Rajasthan (Thar Desert).
Arabia: Kuwait, Iraq.
Elsewhere: Afghanistan, Cambodia, China,
Cyprus, Greece, Hong Kong, Indonesia (Bali,
Irian Jaya, Jawa, Kalimantan, Lesser Sunda Is.,
Sulawesi, Sumatera), Iran, Lao, Malaysia
(Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, Sarawak),
Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea,
Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, Sri
Lanka, Taiwan (Province of China), Thailand,
Turkey, Viet Nam
Concern.
Remarks: It is some times confused with
Indothemis limbata Selys, 1891 (a Cambodian
and Malaysian sp.) but can be distinguished from
it in having dark wing tips. In size and behaviour
it is quite similar to more widely distributed
Trithemis annulata, the Violet Dropwing but its
habitat preference and looks are very different.
33. Trithemis kirbyi kirbyi Selys, 1891
Syns: Trithmis kirbyi Selys, 1891. Ann. Mus.
Civ. Genova, 3: 465.
Libellula ardens Gerstcker, 1891
Trithemis comorensis Fraser, 1959
Trithemis dallonia Navas, 1936.
Populae English Names: Kirbys Drop-wing,
Orange Darter, Orange-winged Drop-wing.
Description: Thorax and abdomen bright
vermilion red, a broad basal bright reddish-
yellow marking on all wings, pterostigma black
with a narrow red stripe at its middle, venation
yellow.
Male: Bright-red.
Female: Yellowish-brown.
Distribution:
India: Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya
Pradesh (Jabalpur), Maharashtra, Rajasthan
(Thar Desert), Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand.
Arabia: Oman (Michiel & Kalkman, 2008),
Qatar, UAE.
Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Ivory
Coast, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea,
Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Morocco,
Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal,
Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Western Sahara,
Zambia, Zimbabwe, and possibly Burundi. Also
present in southern Europe, Middle East, Indian
Ocean Islands and South Asia.
Concern.
Remarks: In Arabia they are intermediate
between those of the type locality of India and
the South African subspecies T. kirbyi ardens
(Gerstaecker, 1891), the Rock Down-wing.
34. Trithemis pallidinervis (Kirby, 1889)
Syns: Sympetrum pallidinervis Kirby, 1889
Trithemis dryas Selys, 1891.
Popular English Name: Long-legged Marsh
Skimmer.
83
Husain and Sharma

Description: Yellowish-brown medium-sized
with long legs, thorax with three black stripes on
each side and black underside of abdomen. Male
and female having similar marking.
Male: Metallic purple
Female: Yellowish-white.
Distribution:
India: Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Andhra
Pradesh (Himayat Sagar Lake, Hyderabad),
Assam, Bihar, Chandigarh, Chattisgarh, Dadra-
Nagar-Haveli, Daman, Darjeeling, Delhi, Diu,
Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,
Jammu-Kashmir, Jharkand, Karaikal, Karnataka,
Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mah,
Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland,
Orissa, Puducherry (Yanam dist.), Punjab,
Rajasthan (Thar Desert), Sikkim, Tamil Nadu,
Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, West
Bengal.
Arabia: Oman (northern part, near Muscat),
Saudi Arabia, Yemen.
Elsewhere: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Hong
Kong, Indonesia, Iran, Lao, Malaysia, Myanmar,
Nepal, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka,
Taiwan, Thailand, Viet Nam.
Concern.
Genus: Urothemis Brauer, 1868
(SF: Urothemitinae)
35. Urothemis edwardsii (Selys, 1849)
Syns: Libellula edwardsii Selys, 1849
Urothemis iridescens Kirby, 1898
Urothemis rendalli Kirby, 1898
Urothemis edwardsi hulae Dumont, 1975.
Popular English Name: Blue Basker.
Distribution:
Arabia: Middle-east: Israel (possibly extinct),
Saudi Arabia.
Elsewhere: Algeria, Angola; Benin; Botswana;
Burkina Faso; Cameroon; Chad; Congo, The
Democratic Republic of the; Cte d'Ivoire;
Egypt; Gambia; Ghana; Guinea; Kenya; Liberia;
Malawi; Mali; Mauritania; Mozambique;
Namibia; Niger; Nigeria; Saudi Arabia; Senegal;
Sierra Leone; Somalia; South Africa; Sudan;
Tanzania, United Republic of; Tunisia; Uganda;
Zambia, Zimbabwe
Presence uncertain in Swaziland.
Concern (2006, 2008).
36. Urothemis thomasi Longfield, 1932
Syn: Urothemis aethiopica Nielsen, 1957
Popular English Name: Skimmer.
Distribution:
Arabia: Oman (northern, southern), UAE.
Elsewhere: Nigeria, possibly Somalia.
Endangered.
Threats: Use of water by humans (e.g.,
drainage, over irrigation, pollution), Drought.
Genus: Zygonyx Hagen, 1867
37. Zygonyx torridus (Kirby, 1889)
Syns: Pseudomacromia torrida Kirby, 1889
Pseudomacromia atlantica Martin, 1900
Zygonyx hoffmanni Grnberg, 1903
Zygonyx insulana Pinhey, 1981.
Popular English Name: Ringed Cascader.
Description: Sexes alike, with yellow spots on a
dark abdomen and may be with powdery-blue
appearance; body about 50 mm long.
Distribution:
India: ? (see Remarks).
Arabia: Iraq, Israel, Oman, UAE (wadies of
Hajar mnts.), Yemen
Elsewhere: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Benin,
Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central
African Republic, Comoros, Congo, Congo
(Democratic Republic of), Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt,
Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Iran, Italy,
Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritius, Morocco,
Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Portugal, Reunion, Sierra Leone, South Africa,
Spain, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey,
Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Burundi, Mali and Mauritina (uncertain).
concern.
Remarks: Prefer hanging rather than perching.
Tariq Ch. (2010) reported it from Pakistan
(Chakwal, Khushab, Kotla, Mirpur, Rawalpindi
and Sehnsa) as Zygonyx torrida isis Fraser, 1924
and also mentioned its record from India. Earlier,
Fraser (1931) reported its (Z. t. isis) males from
Fraserpet, Coorg; Antagiri Ghat, Agency Tracts
and Salt Range, Punjab and the females from
Nandapur, Agency Tract, E. India and found it
very closely related to the forma typica, Z.
torrida torrida (Pseudomacromia torrida, Kirby,
1889), and considered it not more than a
geographical race. In view of this the identity at
subspecific level needs further study.


Suborder: Zygoptera
Family: Calopterygidae
Genus: Calopteryx Leach, 1815
38. Calopteryx hyalina Martin, 1909
Popular English Name: Clear Winged
Demoiselle.
Disrtribution:
Arabia: Israel, Palestine, Jordan.
Elsewhere: Lebanon, Syria.
Endangered.
Threat: Water extraction for agriculture and
human use, losing at least a third of its
distribution area due to the drying up of Barada
River in Syria.
39. Calopteryx syriaca Rambur, 1842
Popular English Name: Syrian Demoiselle.
Distribution:
Endangered.
Family: Coenagrionidae
Genus: Agriocnemis Selys, 1877
(SF: Agriocnemidinae)
40. Agriocnemis sania Nielsen, 1958
Distribution:
Arabia: Israel.
Elsewhere: Egypt, Ethiopia, Keyna, Libya.
Concern.
Genus: Azuragrion May, 2002
41. Azuragrion granti (MaLachlan, 1903)
Distribution:
Atabia: Yemen (Socotra Island). Endemic.
Concern.
42. Azuragrion nigridorsum (Selys, 1876)
Popular English Names: Black-tailed Bluet,
Sailing Bluet.
Description:
Male: Bluish with black lines on thorax.
Distribution:
Arabia: Oman (Khawr Talqah, Khawr Rawri,
Dhofar), Yemen (Socotra Island).
Elsewhere: Angola, Botswana, Cameroon,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique,
Namibia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania,
Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Uncertain in Guinea-Bissau, Mali and Niger.
Concern.
43. Azuragrion somalicum amitinum
(Waterston, 1989)
Syns: Enallagma somalicum Longfield, 1931
Somalicum amitinum (Waterston, 1989)
Description: Purple and black.
Distribution:
Arabia: Oman (Wadi-ash-Shuwaymiyyah).
Elsewhere: Ethiopia, Somalia.
Concern (as Azuragrion somalicum (Longfield,
1931)
Remarks: Two subspecies, A. somalicum
somalicum (Longfield, 1932) from Ethiopia and
Somalia and A. somalicum amitinum (Waterston,
1989) from Oman are recognized.
Genus: Ceriagrion Selys, 1876
(SF: Pseudagrioninae)
44. Ceriagrion georgifreyi Schmidt, 1953
Popular English Name: Turkish Red Damsel.
Distribution:
Arabia: Israel.
Elsewhere: Greece, Greek Islands (Thasos,
Zakintos and Corfu), Syria, Turkey. Lebanon
(possibly).
Threatened.
45. Ceriagrion glabrum (Burmeister, 1839)
Popular English Name: Common Orange,
Common Pond-damsel, Common Citril, Olive
Eyes, Olive-eye Damsel.
Description:
Male: Orange and green.
Female: Range from light brown to dark brown
depending on their maturity.
Distribution:
Arabia: Oman (northern), UAE.
Elsewhere: Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo (Republic of),
Congo (Democratic Republic of), Ivory Coast,
Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon,
Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius,
Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Reunion,
Sao Tome and Prncipe, Senegal, Seychelles,
Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan,
Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and
Zimbabwe.
83
Husain and Sharma

Concern.
Remarks: Two subspecies recognized
(Ceriagrion glabrum glabrum (Burmeister,
1839), C. glabrum longispinum Pinhey, 1963)
Genus: Coenagrion Kirby, 1890
46. Coenagrion syriacum (Morton, 1924)
Popular English Name: Syrian Bluet.
Distribution:
Arabia: Israel.
Threatened.
Genus: Ischnura Charpentier, 1840
(SF: Ischnurinae)
47. Ischnura elegans ebneri Schmidt, 1938
Popular English Names: Blue-tailed Damselfly,
Common Blue-tail.
Description: Male and female both have bi-
coloured ptero-stigma on front wings; length up
to 31mm.
Male: Greenish, mature always having a blue
spot at tail (Seg. 8), blue ant-humeral stripes on
thorax and blue eyes.
Female: Brownish, variable atleast in five colour
forms. Thoracic markings and tail violet in
immature form violacea but salmon-pink
thorax and blue spot in the form rutescens.
When mature female may be blue (like mail) in
form typical, olive-green thorax and brown
spot in the form infuscans or pale brown thorax
and brown spot in the form infuscans-obsoleta.
Distribution:
India: As I. elegans: Himachal Pradesh, Jammu-
Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal.
Arabia: Middle-east: Israel (Udim Nature
Reserve), Palestine, Jordan.
Elsewhere: From western Europe (except
Iceland), South and Middle Anatolia.
Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France
(France main), Germany, Greece (East Aegean
Island, Greece main, Kriti), Guernsey, Hungary,
Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy (Italy
(mainl), Japan, Jersey, Korea (DPR), Korea
(Democratic Republic), Latvia, Lebanon,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic),
Malaysia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro,
Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland,
Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain (Baleares, Spain main), Sri
Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Turkey,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine (Krym, Ukraine main);
United Kingdom (Great Britain, Northern
Ireland)
Concern (as I. elegans (Vander Linden, 1820)).
Remarks: A number of subspecies of Ischnura
elegans have been described, of which only the
widely accepted I. elegans elegans (Vander
Linden, 1820), I. elegans ebneri Schmidt, 1938
and I. elegans pontica Schmidt, 1938 are
recognized.
48. Ischnura evansi Morton, 1919
Popular English Names: Blue-banded Damsel,
Evans Blue-tail.
Description: Straight, horizontal lower edge to
black on 2
nd
segment.
Female: Eyes, thorax and posterior end of
abdomen with bluish tinge, middle of abdomen
narrow n yellowish, wings with brownish veins.
Distribution:
Arabia: Oman (Dhofar, Khawr Rawri), Qatar
(Saudi border), UAE (Zakher).
Elsewhere: Egypt (Siwa Oasis area, African
part), Ethiopia, Libya, Sudan, Syria. Djibouti
(uncertain).
Concern (Regional Assessment). Not Evaluated
(likely to be Near Threatened or Least Concern).
49. Ischnura fountaineae Morton, 1905
Popular English Name: Oasis Blue-tail
Description:
Male: Greenish-blue and black with a distinctive
orange flush to under-side of abdomen. Black-
edge on upper-side of segment 2, slopping down-
wards front.
Female: When teneral quite pale orange,
becoming much darker with age, sometimes
ando-chrome i.e. similar to male but with more
robust abdomen and an ovi-positor.
Distribution:
Arabia: Qatar (Al-Khor, Rayyan), UAE,
Kuwait.
Elsewhere: Caucasus, Kazakhstan, Russian
Federation, Syria, Turkey, Tunisia
Concern
50. Ischnura senegalensis (Rambur, 1842)

Agrion senegalensis Rambur, 1842. Ins. Nevrop:
276.
Popular English Names: African Blue-tail,
Common Blue-tail, Marsh Blue-tail, Senegal
Blue-tail, Senegal Golden Dartlet, Ubiquitous
Blue-tail.
Description:
Male: Head and thorax bright orange, eyes green,
abdomen with segments 1-2, 7 and 8-10 bright
orange, 3-6 pale blue, while partly 7 and 8-10
orange. Distinctive segment 2 in that black top
half creeps right down the side of abdomen as a
saddle mark.
Distribution:
India: Chhatisgarh, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan (Thar Desert),
Uttarakhand.
Arabia: Middle-east: Oman (northern), Qatar
(Dhofar), UAE.
Elsewhere: Africa, Egypt, Southern And Eastern
Asia: Indonesia (Bali, Borneo, Java, Lombok,
Sumba, Sumbawa, Moluccas), Timor (Lesser
Sunda Islands, South-east Asia), Sunda Islands
(Malay Archipelago), Japan, Monocco,
Philippines.
Conservaion Status: IUCN Red List: Least
Concern.
Remarks: Egypt specimens are with more
greenish tinge on thorax.
Genus: Pseudagrion Selys, 1876
(SF: Pseudagrioninae)
51. Pseudagrion arabicum Waterston, 1980
Distribution:
Arabia: Saudi Arabia, Yemen (western).
Endemic to South-western Arabia.
Habitat: Rivers in high coastal mountains of
Red Sea.
Vulnerable.
52. Pseudagrion decorum (Rambur, 1842)
Syn: Agrion decorum Rambur, 1842. Ins.
Neurop: 258.
Popular English Name: Elegant Sprite.
Description: Light blue all through with legs
blackish and wings darkish.
Distribution:
India: Chhatisgarh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra (Nagpur), Rajasthan (Thar Desert).
Arabia: Oman (northern part, wadis), UAE (Abu
Dhabi).
Elsewhere: Bangladesh, China (Yunnan), Iran,
Mayanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka.
Concern.
53. Pseudagrion sublacteum mortoni Schmidt,
1936
Popular English Name: Cherry-eye Sprite (P.
sublacteum)
Distribution:
Elsewhere: Syria.
Vulnerable.
Threat: Habitat destruction.
Family: Platycnimididae
Genus: Arabicnemis Waterston, 1984
54. Arabicnemis caerulea Waterston, 1984
Popular English Name: Powder-blue Damsel.
Description: Vivid blue body, female being
slightly paler than male.
Distribution:
Arabia: Oman, UAE, Yemen.
Vulnerable.
Family: Protoneuridae
Genus: Arabineura Schneider & Dumont, 1995
55. Arabineura khalidi (Schneider, 1988)
Popular English Name: Hajar Wadi Damsel.
Distribution:
Arabia: Oman (Al-Madhah), UAE.
Vulnerable.

CONCLUSIONS
Distributional Pattern of Species: Total: 55
species belonging to 30 genera, 7 families and 2
suborders under order Odonata have been dealt.
1. Species in Arabia & adjacent area: Out of
total 55 species dealt UAE and Oman are the
richest in species diversity, in having 29
(52.73%) and 23 (41.82%) species respectively.
Israel 21 (38.18%), Qatar 14 (25.45%), Jordan
14 (25.45%), Yemen 11 (20.00%), Iraq 09
(16.36%), Saudi Arabia 08 (14.55%) and
Bahrain 02 (3.64 % %) come next in sequence.
2. Species Common with India: 20/55 (36.36
%): Belonging to 13 genera, 3 families and 2
suborders (ref. Table 1 for details).
Thar Desert, Rajasthan & around: 14/55
(25.45%): Anax parthenope, Crocothemis
servilia servilia, Diplacodes lefebevrii,
87

Hemianax ephippiger, Ischnura senegalensis,
Orthetrum sabina sabina, Orthetrum
taeniolatum, Pantala flavescens, Pseudagrion
decorum, Selysiothemis nigra, Tramea basilaris,
Trithemis festiva, T. kirbyi kirby and T.
pallidinervis.
Species Common with other States: 6/55
(10.91%): Anax imperator, Crocothemis
erythraea, Ischnura elegans ebneri, Macrodiplax
cora, Sympetrum arenicolor and S. fonscolombii.
Conservation Status of Species:
Under IUCN Red Data List:
Endangered= 03 (Urothemis thomasi, Calopteryx
haylina and C. syriaca); Near Threatened= 03
(Libellula pontica, Ceriagrion georgifreyi and
Coenagrion syriacum); Vulnerable= 09 (Aeshna
yemenensis, Onychogomphus macrodon,
Lindenia tetraphylla, Paragamphus sinaiticus,
Brachythemis fuscopalliata, Pseudagrion
arabicum, P. sublectum motoni, Arabicnemis
caerulea and Arabineura khalidi); Least
Concern= 38 (ref. Table 1) and Data Deficient=
01 (Gomphus kinzelbachi).
Threats: Mainly the habitat loss for threatened
species categories.

Table 1. Showing Comparative Distributional Pattern of Odonate Species in India and Arabia and adjoining
countries with their Conservation Status
Sl.
No.

Species I
N
D
O
M
N
U
A
E
Q
T
R
B
A
H
K
U
W
Y
E
M
S
A
R
I
R
Q
J
O
R
I
S
R
CON
STA

1
SO: Anisoptera
F: Aeshnidae
Aeshna yemenensis

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

VU
2 Anax imperator + - + - - - - - - - - LC
3 A. parthenope* + - + + - + - - - - - LC
4 Hemianax ephippiger* + - + + - - - - - - - LC

5
F: Gomphidae
Gomphus davidi

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

LC
6 G. kinzelbachi - - - - - - - - + - + DD
7 Onychogomphus macrodon - - - - - - - - - + + VU
8 Lindenia tetraphylla - + + - - + - - - - - VU
9 Paragomphus genei - - + - - - - - - - - LC
10 P. sinaiticus - + + - - + + + - + + VU

11
F: Libellulidae
Brachythemis fuscopalliata

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

+

+

+

VU
12 Crocothemis erythraea + - + + - + - - - - - LC
13 C. sanguinolenta - + + - - - - - - - + LC
14 C. servilia servilia* + - - + - - - - - - - LC
15 Diplacodes lefebevrii* + - + + - - - - - - - LC
16 Libellula pontica - - - - - - - - + + + NT
17 Macrodiplax cora + + - - - - + - - - - LC
18 Orthetrum abbotti - - - - - - - - - + - LC
19 O. chryostigma - - + - - - - - - - - LC
20 O. ransonneti - + + - - - - - - + + LC
21 O. sabina Sabina* + + + + + + - - - - - LC
22 O. taeniolatum* + + + - - - - + - - - LC
23 Pantala flavescens* + - + + - - - - - - - LC
24 Rhyothemis semihyalina - + - - - - + - + - + LC
25 Selysiothemis nigra* + - + + - - - + - - - LC
26 Sympetrum arenicolor + - - - - - - - + - + LC
27 S. fonscolombei + + + + + - + + + + + LC
28 S. sinaiticum - - - - - - - + - + - LC
29 Tramea basilaris* + + + - - - - - - - - LC
30 Trithemis annulata - + + + - - - - - + + LC
31 T. arteriosa - - + - - - - - - - - LC
32 T. festiva* + - - - - + - - + - - LC
88
Husain and Sharma

33 T. kirbyi kirbyi* + + + + - - - - - - - LC
34 T. pallidinervis* + + - - - - + + - - - LC
35 Urothemis edwardsii - - - - - - - + - + LC
36 U. thomasi - + + - - - - - - - - EN
37 Zygonyx torridus ? + + - - - + - + - + LC

38
SO: Zygoptera
F: Calopterygidae
Calopteryx haylina

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

EN
39 C. syriaca - - - - - - - - - + + EN

40
F: Coenagrionidae
Agrionemis sania

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

LC
41 Azuryagrion granti - - - - - - + - - - - LC
42 A. nigridorsum - + - - - - + - - - - LC
43 A. somalicum amitinum - + - - - - - - - - - LC
44 Ceriagrion georgifreyi - - - - - - - - - + NT
45 C. glabrum - + + - - - - - - - - LC
46 Coenagrion syriacum - - - - - - - - - - + NT
47 Ischnura elegans ebneri + - - - - - - - - + + LC
48 Ischnura evansi - + + + - - - - - - - LC
49 I. fountaineae - - + + - + - - - - - LC
50 I. senegalensis* + + + + - - - - - - - LC
51 Pseudagrion arabicum - - - - - - + + - - - VU
52 Pseudagrion decorum* + + + - - - - - - - - LC
53 P. sublectum mortoni - - - - - - - - - + + VU

54
F: Platycnimididae
Arabicnemis caerulea

-

+

+

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

VU

55
F: Protoneuridae
Arabineura khalidi

-

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

VU
Total 20 23 29 14 02 08 11 08 09 14 21
Conservation Status Details: EN= 03, VU= 09, NT= 03, LC=39, DD=01.
India: 20 (14 from Thar Desert, 6 from other states).
Abbreviations used:
BAH: Bahrain; IND: India; IRQ: Iraq; ISR:
Israel; JOR: Jordan; OMN: Oman; KUW:
Kuwait; QTR: Qatar; SAR: Saudi Arabia; UAE:
United Arab Emirates; YEM: Yemen.
F: Family; SO: Suborder.
Nature / International Union for the Conservation
International for the Protection of Nature,
IUPN); Con. Sta: Conservation Status; DD: Data
Deficient; EN: Endangered ; LC: Least Concern;
NE: Not Evaluated; NT: Near Threatened; VU:
Vulnerable; (+): Present; (-): No Record; (?): Not
confirmed; (*): Record from Thar Desert,
Rajasthan (India).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Director,
encouragement and the respective Officer-in-
Charge, NRC, ZSI, Dehra Dun and DRC, ZSI,
Jodhpur for library facility.

REFERENCES
Agarwal, J.P. (1957). Contribution towards the
Odonata funa of Pilani. Proc. 44
th
Indian
Sci. Congr., Kolkata. p.309.
Aguilar, D. and Prechac. (1986). Field Guide to
the Dragonflies of Britain, Europe & N.
Africa. Collins.
Askew. (1988). The Dragonflies of Europe.
Harley Books.

Bose, B. and Mitra, T. R. (1976). The Odonata of
Rajasthan. Rec. zool. Surv. India, Kolkata.
71:1-11.
Dijkstra, K-D.B. and Dingemanse, N. J. (2000).
New records of Crocothemis
sanguinolenta (Burmeister, 1839) from
Israel, with a critical note on the
subspecies arabica Schneider, 1982.
89
Husain and Sharma

International Journal of Odonatology.
3(2): 169-171.
Dijkstra, K-D.B. and Lewington, R. (2006).
Field Guide to Dragonflies of Bitain and
Europe, British Wildlife Publishing,
Dorset. 320pp.
Dumont, H. J. (1991). Fauna of Palaestina.
Insecta V. Odonata of The Levant. Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities,
Jerusalem. 297pp.
Feulner, G.R. (1999). Two new UAE
Damselflies, Tribulus. 9(2): 31.
Feulner, G. R. (2001). The damselfly
Pseudagrion decorum breeding in the
U.A.E. Tribulus. 11(1): 24.
Feulner, G. R., Reimer, R. W. and Hornby, R. J.
(2007). An updated illustrated Checklist of
the Damselflies & dragonflies of the UAE.
Tribulus. 17: 37-62.
Fraser, F.C. (1936). The Fauna of British India
including Ceylon and Burma. Today and
Tomorrows Printers and Publishers, New
Delhi. 461pp.
Graham, B.G. (1998). An Illustrated Checklist of
the Damselflies & Dragonflies of the UAE.
Tribulus. 8(2): 9-10.
Giles, G.B. (1998). An Illustrated Checklist of
the Damselflies and Dragonflies of the
UAE. Tribulus. 8(2): 9-15.
Grunwell, M.J. (2010). Dragonflies and
Damselflies in the State of Qatar. Journal
of the QNHG, March, 2010. 3: 2-13.
Hellyer, P. and Aspinall, S. (2005). The
Emirates: A Natural History. Trident Press
Limited, United Arab Emirates.
Jodicke, R., Boudot, J.P., Jacquemin, G.,
Samraoui, B. and Schneider, W. (2004).
Critical species of Odonata in northern
Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. In:
Clausnitzer, V. and Jdicke, R. (Eds)
Guardians of the watershed. Global status
of dragonflies: critical species, threat and
conservation. International Journal of
Odonatology. 7: 239-253.
Jodicke, R., Kunz, B. and Wijker, A. (2009). A
further step in the differentiation between
Sympetrum areniocolor and S. sinaiticum-
photodocumentation in the field. Agrion.
13(1): 4-7.
Kalkman, V. J. (2006). Key to the dragonflies of
Turkey. Brachytron. 10(1): 3-82.
Kappes, E. and Kappes, W. (2001). Vereinigte
Arabische Emirate und angrenzende Oman
Enklaven. Naturrkundliche Reisennotizen,
11-24.3.2001. Naturkundliche
Reiseberichte. 16: 48 pp.
Longfield, C. (1932). New species of the genus
Urothemis from southern Arabia and some
comments on the species of Odonata
inhabiting the Qara Mountains. Proc.
Royal Ent. Soc. London, Ser. B,
Taxonomy. 1(2): 34-35.
Michiel J.T. van der Weide and Vincent J. K., V.
J. (2008). Some new records of dragonflies
from Oman. Agrion. 12(2): 52-54.
Pilgrim, E.M. and Von Dohlen, C.D. (2008).
Phylogeny of Sympetrinae (Odonata:
Libellulidae): further evidence of the
tomoplasious nature of wing venation.
Syst. Entomlogy. 33: 159-174.
Prasad, M. (1996). Odonata in the Thar Desert.
In: Faunal Diversity in the Thar Desrt:
Gaps in Research. (eds. Ghosh, A. K.,
Baqri, Q. H. and Prakash, I.). Scientific
Publishers, Jodhpur. pp.145-149.
Prasad, M. (2004). Insecta: Odonata of Desert
National Park. In: Fauna of Desert
National Park, Rajasthan. Conservation
Area Series 19, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata.
pp.51-58.
Robert, W. (Bob) Reimer. (2008). An
extraordinary confluence of events in the
study of UAE and Oman Odonata, Agrion.
12(2): 55.
Schneider, W. (1988). Odonata of the Wahiba
Sands and adjacent areas, Eastern Oman.
Journal of Oman Studies, Special Report
No 3.
Schneider, W. (2004). Critical Odonata in the
Levant. International J. Odontology. 7(2):
399-407.
Schneider, W. and Dumont, H.J. (1994).
Arabineura khalidi. Biol. Jaarb.
Dodonaea. p.62.
Schneider, W. and Dumont, H.J. (1995).
Arabineura n. gen., anew protoneurid
genus from Arabia, with the description of
the hitherto unknown female of
Arabineura khalidi (Schneider, 1988)
comb. nov. (Insecta: Odonata:
Protoneuridae). Biologisch Jaarboek
Dodonaea. 62: 114-120.

Schneider, W. and H.J. Dumont. (1997). The
dragonflies and damselflies (Insecta:
Odonata) of Oman. An updated and
annotated checklist. Fauna of Saudi
Arabia. 16: 89-110.
Sharma, G. (2010). New records and addition to
Odonata (Insecta: Arthropoda) fauna of
Pichhola lake, Udiapur, Rajasthan, India.
Proc. Impact of Climate Change on
Biodiversity and Challenges in Thar
Desert, ZSI, DRC, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
pp.154-156.
Sharma, G and Dhadeech, S. N. (2010). Studies
on damselflies and dragonflies (Odonata:
Insecta) in and around Thar Desert at
Osian, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. Proc.
Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity
and Challenges in Thar Desert, ZSI/DRC,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan). pp.195-197.
Sharma, G. and Sewak, R. (2010). Status,
diversity and conservation of Damselflies
and Dragonflies) Odonata: Insecta) of
Rajasthan and their role as biological
control agent. Proc.Impact of Climate
Change on Biodiversity and Challenges in
Thar Desert, ZSI/DRC, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan). pp.319-324.
Subramanian, K.A. (2005). Dragonflies and
Damselflies of Peninsular India.
Tariq Ch., M. (2010). Systematics of Dragonflies
(Anisoptera: Odonata) of Pakistan. Thesis
submitted to Dept. of Entomology, Faculty
of Crop and Food Sciences, Arid
Agriculture Univ., Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
154-55,172.
Thakur, R.K. (1985). Field notes on the Odonata
around lake Kailana, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
Bull. zool. Surv. India. 7(1-2): 21-25.
Tiple, A.D., Paunikar, S. and Talmale, S.S.
(2012). Dragonflies and Damselflies
(Odonata: Insecta) of Tropical Forest
research Institute, Jabalpur, Madhya
Pradesh, Central India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa. 4(4): 2529-2533.
Tyagi, B.K. and Miller, P.L. (1991). A note on
Odonata collected in South-western
Rajasthan, India. Notul. Odonatol. 3: 134-
135.
Walker and Pittaway, A.R. (1987). Insects of
Eastern Arabia. Macmillan, London. 175
pp.
Waterston, A. R. and Pittaway, A. R. (1989). The
Odonata or Dragonflies of Oman and
neighbouring territories. Journal of Oman
Studies, 10: 36pp., illus., maps, figs.

Husain and Sharma
91

Serranid Fishes (Perciformes) in Arabian Sea with their conservation status

Akhlaq Husain

41, Hari Vihar, Vijay Park, Chakrata Road, Dehra Dun248 001, Uttarakhand (formerly associated with
Zoological Survey of India).
e-mail: drakhlaqhusain@gmail.com


ABSTRACT: In this paper, the serranid fishes occurring in various countries bordering Arabian Sea and
its various Gulfs, have been listed with their systematic account, English and vernacular names,
distribution and conservation status. In all, 72 species belonging to 19 genera, 4 subfamilies under family
Serranidae, occurring in the area have been dealt with.
Key Words: Serranid Fishes of Arabian Sea.

INTRODUCTION
There are about 450 species of serranid
fishes species all over the world and a good
number which occur in Indian Ocean and Gulf
waters which have have attracted the attention of
various workers (Boulenger, 1889; Ben-Tuvia &
Lourie, 1969; White & Barwani, 1971; Boulos,
1975; Heemstra, 1973; Heemstra & Randall,
1979, 1986, 1993; Patro & Prasad, 1979, 1980;
Kumaran & Jones, 1980; Sivasubramaniam,
1981; Sivasubramaniam & Ibrahim, 1982a,b;
Kharbhari, 1982; Morgan, 1982; Talwar &
Kacker, 1984; Talwar & Jhingran, 1991;
Randall, 1985; Randall & Heemstra, 1991;
Randall & Anderson, 1993; Rndall & Baldwin,
1997; Kuronuma & Abe, 1986; Mathews &
Samuel, 1985, 1987, 1991; Ibrahim, 1989;
Ibrahim et al.,1989; Bouhlel, 1988; Edwards et
al., 1985; Edwards et al., 1991; Edwards &
Shaher, 1991; Edwards & Shepherd, 1992;
Manna, 1989; Baranes & Golani, 1993; Fouda &
Hermosa, 1993; Rao, 1995; Assadi & Deghani,
1997; Khalaf & Disi, 1997; Al-Sakaff & Essen,
1999; Zajonz et al., 2000; Deval, 2002; Kapoor
et al., 2002, Manilo & Bogorodsky, 2003;
Govindraju & Jayasnkar, 2004; Moazzam &
Osmany, 2004; Chavan et al., 2005; Molly et al.,
2006; Thomas et al., 2008) during the past.
In the present paper a brief account with
conservation status of 72 species belonging to 19
genera, 4 subfamilies under family Serranidae,
found along the coasts of Red Sea Persian Gulf,
Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea
has been provided.

FAMILY: SERRANIDAE
General Characters: Usually robust, compressed
and moderately elongate, covered with mostly
ctenoid scales (and also a few may be cycloid) ,
mouth superior, large and protractile having
inwardly depressible sharp teeth (which help for
seizing the prey and preventing it from
escaping), operculum normally with three short
spines, dorsal fin with spinous and soft parts,
pelvics thoracic and behind origin of spiny dorsal
and with single spine, anal with three spines,
caudal more or less truncate, single and complete
lateral line and remarkable diversity in
colouration.

LOCATION OF COUNTRIES DEALT
Arabian Sea (north-western extension of Western
Indian Ocean, bounded on the east by India, on
the north by Pakistan and Iran, on the west by the
Arabian Peninsula, on the south, west of
Kanyakumari, India and western coast of Sri
Lanka) has two important branches- Gulf of
Oman to northwest, connecting with the Persian
Gulf and Gulf of Aden in southwest, connecting
with Red Sea through the strait of Bab-el-
Mandeb. The largest islands in the Arabian Sea
are Socotra (off Horn of Africa) and Masirah and
Khuriya Muriya Islands of Oman, (off east /
south-east cost of Oman) as well as the
Lakshadweep Archipelago (Union territotry of
India consisting of Laccadive, Minicoy and
Amindivi Islands) off coast of India.
Biological Forum
_

Countries with coastline on Gulf of Oman: Oman
(Musandam peninsula and northern part), UAE
(eastern part) and Iran (south-westerern part).
Countries on coastline on Persian Gulf: United
Arab Emirates (northern part), Qatar, Bahrain,
Saudi Arabia (eastern part), Kuwait (eastern
part), Iraq southern tip) and Iran (western part).
Countries with coastline on Gulf of Aden:
Yemen (southern), Somalia (northern part),
Djibouti (north-eastern).
Countries with coastline on Red Sea: Yemen
(western), Djibouti (northern), Eritrea, Sudan,
Egypt, Israel (southern tip), Jordan and Saudi
Arabia (western part). In north, there are Sinai
Peninsula, Gulf of Aqaba, and Gulf of Suez
(leading to Suez Canal).
Gulf of Aqaba (far northern end of Red Sea):
Saudi Arabia (north-western part), Jordan (south-
western), Israel (southern tip), Egypt (eastern
Sinai Peninsula).
Gulf of Suez (far northren extension of Red Sea
towards Suez Canal): Egypt (eastern) and
western Sinai Peninsula).
Countries with coastlines on Arabian Sea:
Somalia (south-eastern part), Yemen (south-
eastern part), Oman (south-eastern part),
Pakistan, India (western part), Sri Lanka and
Maldives.

SESTEMATIC ACCOUNT, DISTRIBUTION
AND CONSERVATION STATUS
Order: Perciformes
Suborder: Percoidei
Family: Serranidae
Subfamily: Anthiinae
Genus: Plectranthias Bleeker, 1876
1. Plectranthias vexillarius Randall, 1980
Popular English Names: NA.
Vernacular Names: NA.
Size: 8.2 cm SL.
Range: NA.
General Distribution: Gulf of Oman.
Country Dealt: Oman.
Conservation Status: IUCN Red List: Not
Evaluated; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (14 of
100).
Genus: Pseudanthias Bleeker, 1873
2. Pseudanthias cichlops (Bleeker, 1853)
Syn: Anthias cichlops Bleeker, 1853
Popular English Names: Nusa-penida Bass-let,
Yellow Anthias.
Vernacular Name: Ry-bureki (India).
Size: 9.5 cm SL.
Range: NA.
General Distribution: Western Pacific: southern
Japan southward. Reported from the Indian
Ocean. Randall & Pyle (2000, Ref. 48242) note
that Pseudanthias manadensis has not been
convincingly linked to any species recognized
today.
Country Dealt: India.
Concern; FishBase: Low Vulnerability (16 of
100).
3. Pseudanthias conspicuus (Heemstra, 1973)
Syn: Anthias conspicuus Heemstra, 1973
Popular English Names: Na.
Vernacular Names: Na.
Size: NA.
Range: NA.
General Distribution: Arabian Sea.
100).
4. Pseudanthias cooperi (Regan, 1902)
Syns: Anthias cooperi Regan, 1902
Planctantias preopercularis Fowler, 1935
Popular English Names: Red-bar Anthias,
Coopers Fairy Bass-let, Red Bass-let, Red-Sea-
perch, Red-bar Failry Bass-let, Silver-streak
Goldie, Silver-streak Anthias
Size: 14 cm TL, common length 12 cm TL.
Range: 32N - 24S.
General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: East Africa
to Samoa and Line Islands, north to southern
Japan, south to Great Barrier Reef.
Countries Dealt: India, Maldives, Yemen.
100).
5. Pseudanthias marcia Randall & Hoover,
1993
Popular English Names: Marcias Anthias,
Size: 16 cm TL.
Range: NA.
General Distribution: Gulf of Oman and
southwestern coast of Oman.
Countries Dealt: Oman, Yemen.
93
Husain

100).
6. Pseudanthias squamipinnis(Peters, 1855)
Syn: Serranus squmipinnis Peters, 1855
Popular English Names: Goldie, Lyre-tail
Anthias, Lyre-tail Coral-fish, Lyre-tail Fairy
Bass-let, Orange Bass-let, Orange Fairy Bass-let,
Orange Sea-perch, Rainbow, Red Coral-perch,
Scale-fin Anthias, Scale-fin Bass-let, Scale-fin
Fairy Bass-let, Sea Goldie.
Vernacular Names: Ry-bureki (India), Barbier-
commun, Kashikeyo-mas (Madives).
Size: 15 cm TL, 7 cm (female).
Range: 32N - 32S.
General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Red
Sea and Natal, South Africa to Niue, north to
Japan, south to Australia. Recorded from Europa
Island (MNHN 1992-0508).
Countries Dealt: India, Jordan, Maldives, Saudi
Arabia, Somalia, Yemen.
100).
7. Pseudanthias townsendi (Boulenger, 1897)
Syn: Anthias townsendi Boulenger, 1897
Popular English Names: Townsends Anthias.
Size: 9 cm TL.
Range: NA.
General Distribution: Persian Gulf to southern
Oman and southern Iran.
Countries Dealt: Oman, Iran.
100).
Genus: Sacura Jordan & Richardson, 1910
8. Sacura boulengeri (Heemstra, 1973)
Syns: Anthias boulengeri Heemstra, 1973
Sacura boulengeri Heemstra & Randall, 1979
Anthias formosus Boulenger, 1889 (Muscat,
Oman)
Popular English Names: Boulengers Anthias.
Size: 19 cm TL.
Range: NA.
General Distribution: Arabian Sea.
Country Dealt: India (Thomas et al., 2008),
Oman (off Muscat), Pakistan (vide Thomas et al.,
2008).
100).
Subfamily: Epinephelinae
(Groupers)
Genus: Aethaloperca Fowler, 1904
9. Aethaloperca rogaa (Forsskal, 1775)
Syns: Perca rogaa Forsskal, 1775
Perca lunaria Forsskal, 1775
Popular English Names: Red-mouth Grouper,
Flat Grouper, Red-flushed Cod, Red-flushed
Rock-cod, Red-mouth Rock-cod, Grouper.
Vernacular Names: Hamour-dhal-al-fam-al-
ahmar, Hamoor-e-siah (Iran), Hamour (Oman),
Hamoor (Saudi Arabia), Sheneenoh (Qatar),
Ginimas-faana, Kurohata, Merou-noir
(Maldives), Karuthachemmali, Kulagini (India),
Caalo (Somalia), Robane (Djbouti).
Size: 60 cm TL, length at first maturity 34 cm.
Range: 36N - 36S, 27E - 180E.
General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea to
South Africa and east to the Gilbert Islands.
Probably found in all tropical islands of the
Indian Ocean. Recorded from Europa Island .
Countries Dealt: Bahrain, Djbouti, Egypt,
Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, India, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait,
Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, UAE, Yemen.
Deficient; FishBase: Moderate to High
Vulnerability (49 of 100).
Genus: Anyperodon Gunther, 1859
10. Anyperodon leucogrammicus
(Valenciennes, 1828)
Syns: Serranus leucogrammicus Valenciennes,
1828
Serranus micronotatus Ruppell, 1838
Serranus uropthalmus Bleeker, 1855
Popular English Names: Slender Grouper,
Slender Rock-cod, White-lined Cod, White-lined
Grouper, White-lined Rock-cod, White-line
Group, White-line Rock-cod, White-line Cod.
Vernacular Names: Hamoor (Qatar), Boalha-
jehi-faana, Merau-a-linges-blanches (Maldives),
Yaaquuri (Somalia).
Size: 65 cm TL.
Range: 32N - 24S, 32E - 171W.
General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea
south to Mozambique and east to the Phoenix
Islands, north to Japan, south to Australia.
94
Husain

Probably including all the islands of the tropical
Indian Ocean.
Countries Dealt: Egypt, Eritrea, India,
Maldives, Oman, Qatar (in ver. names), Saudi
Arabia, Somalia, Sudan.
Concern; FishBase: Moderate to High
Genus: Cephalopholis Schneider, 1801
11. Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801
Syns: Cephalopholis argus Schneider, 1801
Bodianus jacobevertsen Lacepede, 1802
Serranus myriaster Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus thyrsites Saville-Kent, 1893
Popular English Names: Popular English
Names: Peacock Hind, Peacock Cod, Peacock
Rock-cod, Peacock Coral-cod, Peacock Grouper,
Argus Grouper, Black-Rock-cod, Blue-spotted
Grouper, Sea-bass, World-wide Peacock Rock-
cod,
Vernacular Names: Dhaou, Hamour (Oman),
Hamour (Qatar), Mas-faana, Merou-paon,
Merou-celeste (Maldives), Balu-fana, Neela-
chammam (India), Maka, Mushenzi, Summan
(Somalia), Vieillie cuisinier (Djibouti)
Size: 60 cm TL, common length 40 cm TL,
length at first maturity 22 cm.
Range: 24C - 28C; 29N - 34S, 33E -
122W.
Durban, South Africa and eastward to French
Polynesia and the Pitcairn group, north to the
Ryukyu and Ogasawara islands, south to
northern Australia and Lord Howe Island. May
be confused with Cephalopholis cyanostigma.
Countries Dealt: Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt,
Eritrea, India (including Lakshadweep Is), Israel,
Jordan, Maldives, Oman, Qatar (in ver. names),
Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen.
12. Cephalopholis aurantia (Valenciennes,
1828)
Syns: Serranus aurantia Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus analis Valenciennes, 1828.
Serranus rufus Hombron & Jacquinot, 1853
Epinephelus miltostigma Bleeker, 1873.
Bodianus indelebilis Fowler, 1904.
Cephalopholis obtusauris Evermann & Seale,
1907.
Popular English Names: Orange Rock-cod,
Golden Hind, Golden Rock-cod, Orange Cod,
Sea-bass,
Vernacular Names: Hamour-dhahabi (?),
Vieille-doree (Djibouti),
Size: 60cm Tl, common length 30 cm TL.
Range: 30N - 59S, 29E - 150W.
General Distribution: Pacific: Islands of the
western Indian Ocean to Japan and the central
Pacific. Except for a single specimen caught off
the coast of Natal, South Africa, Heemstra and
Randall (1993) know of no confirmed records
from other continental localities of East Africa.
Cephalopholis aurantia from east Africa
reported by Morgans (1982) is a
misidentification of Cephalopholis nigripinnis.
Countries Dealt: Djibouti, India, Maldives.
Deficient; FishBase: Moderate to high
13. Cephalopholis boenak (Bloch, 1790)
Syns: Bodianus boenak Bloch, 1790
Serranus pachycentron Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus stigmapomus Richardson, 1846
Serranus nigrofasciatus Hombron & Jacquinot,
1853
Popular English Names: Blue-lined Coral-cod,
Brown-banded Seabass, Brown-barred Grouper,
Brown-barred Rockcod, Brown-barred Rock-
cod, Brown-barred Grouper, Brown-banded
Coral-cod, Brown Coral-cod, Brown-banded
Grouper, Brown-banded Rock-cod, Brown-
banded Sea-bass, Brown Coral Cod, Boinacki
Grouper, Charcoal Grouper, Cherna Chocolate,
Chocolate Hind, Dusky-banded Cod, Overcast
Grouper, Rock Cod, Sea-bass, Spotted-faced
Rock-cod.
Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Bontoo,
Gobra, Hekaru, Kalava, Kolaji, Kolamin, Varian-
chammam, Verri-cullawah (India), Verri-
cullawah (Sri Lanka)
Size: 33 cm TL; age 11 yrs.
Range: 32N - 32S, 29E - 171E.
General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific:
Kenya to southern Mozambique eastward to the
western Pacific. Reported from the Arafura Sea.
Not reported from oceanic islands in the Indian
Ocean, except for Aldabra, Comoros,
Madagascar, and the Andaman and Lakshadweep
islands. Unknown from the Red Sea, Persian
Gulf, and from the islands of Micronesia except
93
Husain

for Palau. Record from Rodriguez could not be
verified and is probably erroneous.
Countries Dealt: India (including Lakhsadweep
Islands), Maldives, Oman (in ver. names), Sri
Lanka.
Concern; FishBase: Low to Moderate
14. Cephalopholis formosa (Shaw, 1812)
Syn: Sciaena formosa Shaw, 1812
Popular English Names: Blue-lined Coral-cod,
Blue-lined Grouper, Blue-lined Sea-bass, Blue-
lined Hind, Blue-lined Rock-cod, Chocolate
Hind, Rock Cod.
Vernacular Names: Kangan-kossa, Verri-
Kaleva (Sri Lanka), Bontoo, Verri-cullawah
(India).
Size: 34 cm TL.
Range: 36N - 34S, 30E - 143E.
western India to Philippines, north to southern
Japan (Honshu), south to northern Australia.
'Epinephelus formosus' from Madagascar,
Runion and Mauritius are probably based on
misidentifications of Cephalopholis polleni.
Confused with Cephalopholis boenak.
Countries Dealt: India, Sri Lanka.
15. Cephalopholis hemistiktos (Ruppell, 1830)
Syn: Serranus hemistiktos Ruppell, 1830
Popular English Names: Yellow-fin Hind,
Yellow Hind, Yellow-fin Head, Half-spotted
Grouper, Half-spotted Hind.
Vernacular Names: Arus, Dhawa, Hamour,
Hummarah, Summan (Oman), Mumen (Jordan),
Shanenu (Kuwait), Saman-e-ajori (Iran), Vieille
dArabie (Djbouti).
Size: 35 cm TL, common length 23 cm TL; age
26 yrs.
Range: 33N - 10N, 32E - 66E.
General Distribution: Only from the northern
end of the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf and coast
of Pakistan. Records from elsewhere are
apparently based on misidentifications of other
species. Misidentified as Cephalopholis miniatus
by Kuronuma & Abe (1986, Ref. 5999) from
Kuwait.
Countries Dealt: Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt,
Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman,
Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan,
UAE, Yemen.
Threatened; FishBase: High Vulnerability (58 of
100).
16. Cephalopholis leopardus (Lacepede, 1801)
Syns: Labrus leopardus Lacepede, 1801
Serranus spilurus Valenciennes, 1833
Serranus homfrayi Day, 1871
Epinephelus urodelops Schultz, 1943
Popular English Names: Leopard Hind,
Leopard Cod, Leopard Coral-cod, Leopard
Grouper, Leopard Rock-cod, Red-spotted Rock-
cod, Red-spot Coral-cod
Vernacular Names: Leopard-Zackenbarsch,
Raiy-faana, Vielle-leopard (Maldives).
Size: 24 cm TL.
Range: 31N - 20S, 40E - 148W.
(but not the Red Sea, Persian Gulf or South
Africa) to the Society Islands, north to the
Ryukyu Islands, south to northern Australia.
Including most Islands of the Indian Ocean and
that of the west-central Pacific. Record from
Rodriguez could not be verified and is probably
erroneous.
Countries Dealt: India, Maldives, Sri Lanka.
Conservation Status: IUCN red List: Least
17. Cephalopholis miniata (Forsskal 1775)
Syns: Perca miniata Forsskal, 1775
Pomacentrus burdi Lacepede, 1802
Serranus cyanostigmatoides Bleeker, 1849
Serranus perguttatus De Vis, 1884
Cephalopholis maculates Seale & Bean, 1907
Cephalopholis boninius Jordan & Thompson,
1914
Cephalopholis formosanus Tanaka, 1911.
Popular English Names: Blue-spot Rock-cod,
Blue-spotted Rock-cod, Coral Cod, Coral
Grouper, Coral Hind, Coral Rock-cod, Coral
Trout, Grouper, Red Coral Perch, Red Grouper,
Reef Cod, Round-tailed Trout, Sea-bass,
Vemillion Grouper, Vermilion Sea-bass,
Vernacular Names: Aroosa, Bartama, Hamrah
(UAE), Hamoor (Saudi Arabia), Hammarah,
Hamour, Summan (Oman), Sheneenoh (Qatar),
Shimi (Jordan), Shnenu (Kuwait), Chencheera-
chammam, Sikkifana (India), Guduudow-filfil
(Somalia)
96
Husain

Size: 45 cm TL,
Range: 35N - 34S, 31E - 158W.
Durban, South Africa and eastward to the Line
Islands; most islands in the Indian and west-
central Pacific oceans. Absent from Persian Gulf
and Gulf of Oman. Misidentified as
Cephalopholis cyanostigma from Reunion.
Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India
(including Lakshadweep Is.), Israel, Jordan,
Maldives, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri
Lanka, Sudan, Yemen.
Concern; FishBase: High Vulnerability (61 of
100).
18. Cephalopholis oligosticta Randall & Ben-
Tuvia, 1983
Popular English Names: Vemilion Hind.
Size: 30 cm TL, length at first maturity 17-19
cm.
Range: 31N - 16N, 33E - 43E.
General Distribution: Only in the Red Sea,
from Eilat in the northern Gulf of Aqaba to the
Farasan Islands off the southern end of Saudi
Arabia.
Countries Dealt: Egypt, Eritrea, Israel, Jordan,
Saudi Arabia, Sudan.
19. Cephalopholis sexmaculata (Ruppell, 1830)
Syns: Serranus sexmaculatus Ruppell, 1830
Cephalopholis coatesi Whitley, 1937
Cephalopholis gibbus Fourmanoir, 1955
Popular English Names: Six-blotch Hind, Cave
Grouper, Freckled Cod, Freckled Rock Cod,
Saddled Rock Cod, Sea-bass, Six-banded
Grouper, Six-blotch Rock-cod, Six-spotted
Rock-cod, Six-band Cod, Six-band Rock-cod,
Six-spot Grouper, Six-spot Rock-cod
Vernacular Names: Abu shimi (Jordan),
Hamoor (Saudi Arabia).
Size: 50 cm, weight 7 kg.
Range: 34N - 23S, 31E - 138W.
South Africa and eastward to French Polynesia.
Reported from the Arafura Sea. Reports by
Heemstra & Randall (1984, Ref. 3153) from the
Gulf of Oman, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka are
unsubstantiated. Absent from the Persian Gulf
and is not yet known from Lakshadweep Islands.
Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India,
Jordan, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,
20. Cephalopholis sonnerati (Valenciennes,
1828)
Syns: Serranus sonnerati Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus zananella Valenciennes, 1828
Epinephelus janthinopterus Bleeker, 1873
Epinephelus unicolor Bleeker, 1875
Cephalopholis purpureus Fourmanoir, 1966.
Popular English Names: Tomato Hind, Tomato
Cod, Tomato Grouper, Tomato Sea-bass, Tomato
Rock-cod, Red Coral Rod, Coral Trout, Grouper,
Orange-spotted Cod, Orange-spotted Rock-cod,
Red Coral Trout, Red Rock-cod,
Vernacular Names: Hamour, Saman Oman);
Bontoo, Chem-kalava, Chencheera-chammam,
Choppu-chammam, Gobra, Hekaru, Ryfana,
Siggapu-cullawah, Sona-kalawa (India), Ran-
thambuva, Ranthambuwa, Segepu-kaleva,
Siggapu-cullawah (Sri Lanka), Viellie-ananas
(Djibouti), Caalo (Somalia).
Size: 58 cm. TL, common length 30 cm TL;
length at first maturity 28 cm.
Range: 34N - 32S, 31E - 158W
General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: east coast
of Africa (Djibouti, Socotra to Durban) to the
Line Islands, north to southern Japan, south to
southern Queensland (Australia). Not found at
the Chagos Archipelago despite intensive survey
and not reported from the Red Sea and Persian
Gulf.
Countries Dealt: Djibouti, India, Maldives,
Oman, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Yemen.
21. Cephalopholis urodeta (Forster, 1801)
Syns: Perca urodeta Forster, 1801
Serranus nigripinnis Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus urodelus Valenciennes, 1828
Epinephelus playfairi Bleeker, 1879
Serranus mars De Vis, 1884
Popular English Names: Dark-fin Hind, Dark-
finned Coral-cod, Banded-tail Coral-cod, Black-
finage Rock-cod, Black-fin Cod, Brown-fined
97
Husain

Rock-cod, Chevron Rock-cod, Dusky-finHind,
Dusky-fin Rock-cod, Flag-tail Rock-cod, Flag-
tailed Grouper, Flag-tail Grouper, Flag-tailed
Rock-cod, Flag-tail Cod, Sea-bass.
Vernacular Names: Kanfaiy-Kalhu-faana,
Velle-aile-noire, Zackenbarsch (Maldives)
Range: 34N - 30S, 33E - 131W.
General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Kenya to
northern South Africa and eastward to French
Polynesia and the Pitcairn Islands. Unknown
from the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman,
Persian Gulf, and the coast of India.
Countries Dealt: India, Maldives, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka.
100).
Genus: Cromileptes Swainson, 1839
22. Cromileptes altivelis (Valenciennes, 1828)
Syn: Serranus altivelis Valenciennes, 1828
Popular English Names: Hump-back Grouper,
Baramundi Cod, Baramundi Rock-cod, Bleekers
Group, Flat-fish Grouper, Grouper, High-finned
Grouper, Hump-back Rock-cod, Hump-back
Sea-bass, Hump-backed Cod, Panther Grouper,
Panther Fish, Plum-pudding Cod, Polka-dot
Grouper, Red Fish, Sea-bass,
Vernacular Names: Kalava (India)
Range: 32N - 23S, 88E - 168E.
General Distribution: Western Pacific: southern
Japan to Palau, Guam, New Caledonia and
southern Queensland, Australia. Eastern Indian
Ocean: Nicobar Islands to Broome, Western
Australia. Reports from western Indian Ocean
are unsubstantiated, except one from Kenya
which seems valid. Records from Hawaii are
probably based on released aquarium fishes.
Countries Dealt: India, Sri Lanka.
Vulnerable; FishBase: Moderate to High
Genus: Dermatolepis Gill, 1861
23. Dermatolepis striolata (Playfair, 1867)
Syns: Serranus striolatus Playfair, 1867
Serranus gibbosus Boulenger, 1888
Dermatolepis aldabremis Smith,1955
Popular English Names: Smooth Grouper,
Smooth Rock-cod.
Vernacular Names: Caalo (Somalia)
Size: 85 cm TL, weight 10.5 kg.
Range: 27N - 30S, 32E - 63E.
General Distribution: Gulf of Oman and south
coast of Arabian Peninsula, Aldabra, Comoros,
Madagascar, and coast of Africa from Kenya to
Durban, South Africa.
Countries Dealt: Eritrea, Iran, Oman, Somalia,
Yemen.
Deficient; FishBase: High Vulnerability (58 of
100).
Genus: Epinephelus Bloch, 1793
24. Epinephelus areolatus (Forsskal, 1775)
Syns: Perca areolata Forsskal, 1775
Bodianus melanurus Geoffry Saint Hilaire, 1817
Serranus angularis Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus celebicus Bleeker, 1851
Epinephelus waandersii Bleeker, 1859
Serranus glaucus Day, 1871
Epinephalus craspedurus Jordan & Richardson,
1919.
Popular English Names: Aerolate Grouper,
Aerolated Rock Cod, Falt-tail Cod, Green-
spotted Rock Cod, Reef Cod, Rock Cod, Sea
Bass, Spotted Grouper, Square-tail Grouper,
Square-tail Rock Cod
Vernacular Names: Gatow (Kuwait), Hamoor,
Kushar (Saudi Arabia), Hamour, Suman
(Oman), Kutwah (Qatar), Sammam (UAE),
Shelwa (Jordan), Lokos (Israel), Hontu, Kalava
(India), Sumeyn (Somalia), Merou-areole
(Djibouti).
Size: 47 cm in TL, common length 35 cm TL.,
females mature at 19-28 SL and males about 34
cm SL cm; depth range 10-20 m.
Range: 35N 33S, 29E 180E.
General Distribution:
Indo-Pacific: Red Sea and the Persian Gulf to
Natal, South Africa and east to Fiji, north to
Japan, south to the Arafura Sea and northern
Australia. Recently recorded from Tonga.
Appears to be absent from Micronesia,
Polynesia, and most islands of the western Indian
Ocean.
Countries Dealt: India, Bahrain, Djibouti,
Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait,
Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Conservation Status: IUCN Red List, ver. 3.1:
Least Concern; FishBase: Moderate
98
Husain

Remarks: Often confused with Epinephelus
chlorostigma.
25. Epinephelus bleekeri (Vaillant, 1878)
Syns: Serranus bleekeri Vaillant, 1878
Serranus coromandelicus Day, 1878
Epinephelus albimaculatus Seale, 1910.
Popular English Names: Bleekers Grouper,
Bleekers Rock-cod, Dusky-tail Grouper, Reef
Cod, Sea-bass, Grouper.
Vernacular Names: Hamoor, Summam (UAE),
Hamour (Oman), Lokos (Israel), Hamoor-e-khal-
naranji (Iran).
Range: 32N - 17S, 48E - 136E.
Persian Gulf to Taiwan, Indonesia and the
northern coast of Australia. Not known from
Japan, but may occur here. It has not been found
at any islands of Micronesia nor Polynesia.
Countries Dealt: Bahrain, India, Iran, Iraq,
Israel (from ver. names), Kuwait, Oman,
Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, UAE.
100).
26. Epinephelus bruneus Bloch, 1793
Syn: Serranus moara Temminck & Schlegel,
1842
Popular English Names: Coral Cod, Long-tooth
Grouper, Kelp Grouper, Mud Grouper, Reef
Cod, Sea Bass, Yellow Grouper.
Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Lokos
(Israel).
Size: 128 cm TL, common 60 cm TL, length at
first maturity 54 cm; weight 33 kg.
Range: 38N - 18N, 108E - 142E.
General Distribution: Northwest Pacific:
Korea, Japan (north to Hegura-jima Island),
China (south to Hong Kong and Hainan Island),
and Taiwan.
Countries Dealt: Oman (first record,
Abdessalam, 1995), Israel.
Vulnerable; FishBase: High to very high
27. Epinephelus chabaudi (Castelnau, 1861)
Syns: Serranus Chabaudi Castelnau, 1861
Epinephelus chabaudi (Castelnau, 1861)
Epinephelus modestus Gilchrist & Thompson,
1909
Epinephelus clarkei Smith, 1958.
Popular English Names: Moustache Grouper,
Moustache Rock-cod, Modest Rock-cod.
Vernacular Names: Merou-mousteche
(Djibouti), Lokos (Israel).
Size: 137 cm TL, common length 70 cm; weight
55 kg.
Range: 15N - 33S, 23E - 77E.
General Distribution: Kenya to Knysna, South
Africa and Kerala coast of India; however, there
are no records between Kenya and Durban, nor
between Kenya and India.
Countries Dealt: Djibouti, India, Israel (as per
ver. names), Somalia.
Evaluated; FishBase: Very High Vulnerability
(75 of 100).
Remarks: Record from Djibouti is doubtful
(Bouhel, 1988).
28. Epinephelus chlorostigma (Valenciennes,
1828)
Syns: Serranus chlorostigma Valenciennes,
1828
Serranus areolatus japonicus Temminck &
Schlegel, 1842
Serranus reevesii Richardson, 1846
Serranus geoffroyi Klunzinger, 1870
Serranus assabensis Giglioli, 1889.
Popular English Names: Blue-spot Coral Cod,
Brown-spotted Grouper, Brown-spotted Reef
Cod, Brown-spotted Rock Cod, Coral Cod, Coral
Trout, Reef Cod, Sea Bass,
Vernacular Names: Berttamah (Qatar),
Hamoor, Kushar (Saudi Arabia), Hamour
(Oman), Subati (UAE), Hamoor-e-manghoot-e-
ghavahei (Iran), Hekru, Kalava (India), Sumeyn
(Somalia), Merau pintade (Djibouti).
Size: 75.0 cm TL, common 50.0 cm TL; length
at first maturity 23-31 cm; weight 7 kg max age
29 yrs.
Range: 37N 34S, 28E 169W.
General Distribution: Red Sea to Natal, South
Africa and eastwards to western Pacific, north to
southern Japan to New Caledonia. Records from
Persian Gulf are apparently misidentifications of
E. polylepis. Not verified from Comoros,
continental shelf between Oman and Cambodia,
Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia and Australia.
Countries Dealt: India, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea,
Israel, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen,
Pakistan, Maldives, Qatar (from ver. names),
Somalia, Sudan, UAE (from ver. names).
99
Husain

Conservation Status: IUCN Red List, Least
Concern. FishBase, Moderate Vulnerability (38
of 100).
Remarks: Epinephelus chlorostigma is closely
related and very similar to E. polylepis and E.
gabriellae which seem to replace it in
northwestern Indian Ocean.
29. Epinephelus coeruleopunctatus (Bloch,
1790)
Syns: Holocentrus coeruleopunctatus Bloch,
1790
Serranus alboguttatus Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus dermochirus Valenciennes, 1830
Serranus hoevenii Bleeker, 1849
Serranus kunhardtii Bleeker, 1851
Serranus flavoguttatus Peters, 1855.
Popular English Names: White-spotted
Grouper, Ocellated Rock-cod, Grouper, Reef
Cod, Rock Cod, Sea-bass, Small-spotted Cod,
Small-spotted Rock-cod, Snowy Grouper, White-
spotted Reef-cod, White-spotted Rock-cod,
Vernacular Names: Hamour, Mishkhali,
Summan (Oman), Chammam, Fana (India)
Kalhu-fana (Maldives), Lokos (Israel), Yaquuri
(Somalia).
Range: 35N - 35S, 26E - 180E.
south to East London, South Africa and east to
Fiji. Recently recorded from Tonga. It is not
known from the Red Sea, but it does occur in the
Persian Gulf. Record from northwestern
Australia is doubtful. It is closely related to, and
is often confused with, three other white-spotted
species: Epinephelus ongus, Epinephelus
summana, and Epinephelus corallicola.
Countries Dealt: Bahrain, India (including
Lakshdweep Is.), Iran, Iraq, Israel (from ver.
names), Kuwait, Maldives, Oman, Qatar,
Somalia, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, UAE.
100).
30. Epinephelus coioides (Hamilton, 1822)
Syns: Bola coioides Hamilton, 1822
Serranus nebulosus Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus suillus Valenciennes, 1828
Homalogrystes guntheri Alleyne & Macleay,
1877.
Popular English Names: Brown-spotted
Grouper, Brown-spotted Rock Cod, Coral Cod,
Coral Trout, Estuary Cod, Estuary Grouper,
Estuary Rock-cod, Greasy Cod, Green Grouper,
Orange-spotted Cod, Orange-spotted Grouper,
Orange-spotted Rock Cod, Reef Cod, Rock Cod,
Sea Bass, Spotted Cod, Spotted River Cod,
Vernacular Names: Hamoor (UAE), Hamour
(Qatar), Hamoor-mamooli (Iran), Lokos (Israel).
Size: 120 cm TL, length at first maturity 25-30
cm; weight 15 kg; age 22 yrs.
Range: 37N 34S, 28E 180E.
Sea south to at least Durban, South Africa and
eastward to Palau and Fiji, north to the Ryukyu
Islands, south to the Arafura Sea and Australia.
Recently reported from the Mediterranean coast
of Israel. Frequently misidentified as
Epinephelus tauvina or Epinephelus
malabaricus.
Countries Dealt: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Djibouti,
Egypt, Eritrea, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan,
Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
100).
31. Epinephelus corallicola (Valenciennes,
1828)
Syns: Serranus corallicola Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus altivelioides Bleeker, 1849.
Popular English Names: Black-dotted Cod,
Coral Cod, Coral Grouper, Coral Rock-cod,
Coral Trout, Dusky Grouper, Grouper, Reef Cod,
Sea-bass.
Vernacular Names: Goudaru-fana, Poocha-
chammam (Lakshdweep Is, India), Lokos
(Israel).
Range: 27N - 30S, 100E - 155E.
General Distribution: Western Pacific:
Thailand, Hong Kong, and Taiwan to Australia
(Western Australia, Northern Territory,
Queensland and New South Wales) and eastward
to the Solomon and Mariana Islands, including
Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Papua New
Guinea, and Palau. Adults often misidentified as
Epinephelus macrospilos.
Country Dealt: India, Israel (as per ver. names).
Deficient; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (41
of 100).
100 Husain

32. Epinephelus diacanthus (Valencinnes,
1828)
Syns: Serranus diacanthus Valenciennes, 1828
Epinephelus dayi Bleeker, 1874
Popular English Names: Coral Cod, Coral
Trout, Grouper, Sea-bass, Six-barred Reef-cod,
Spiny-cheek Grouper
Vernaculr Names: Hamoor (UAE), Hamour
(Oman), Lokos (Israel), Gobra, Hekaru (India),
Hamoor-e-panj-navari (Iran).
Size: 55 cm TL.
Range: 29N 5N, 56E 83E
General Distribution: Continental shelf of the
northern Indian Ocean from the Gulf of Aden to
Sri Lanka and Madras, India. Not known from
the Persian Gulf nor the Red Sea. Records from
the western Pacific are based on
misidentifications of Epinephelus stictus or
Epinephelus fasciatomaculos.
Countries Dealt: India, Iran Israel (from ver.
names), Oman, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, UAE (from
ver. nanes), Yemen.
Threatened; FiahBase: Low Vulnerability (27 of
100).
33. Epinephelus epistictus (Temminck &
Schlegel, 1842)
Syns: Serranus epistictus Temminck & Schlegel,
1842
Serranus praeopercularis Boulenger, 1888
Epinephelus stigmogrammacus Cheng & Yang,
1983.
Popular English Names: Black-spotted
Grouper, Black-dotted, Black-spotted Rock Cod,
Rock Cod, Brown Rock Cod, Dotted Grouper,
Spotted-back Grouper,
Broken-line Grouper,
Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Gisser,
Nambo (Pakistan), Lokos (Israel), Hamoor-e-
khat-shekasteh (Iran), Diru, Merou pale
(Djibouti).
Size: 80 cm TL, common length 70 cm TL;
weight 7 kg.
Range: 28N 32S, 30E 154E.
Sea, Kenya to South Africa; Oman, west coast of
India, Korea, Japan including Ogasawara Islands,
China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Papua
New Guinea, the Arafura Sea and northern
Australia. Sometimes misidentified as
Epinephelus magniscuttis or Epinephelus
heniochus.
Eritrea, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Oman,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen.
Deficient,; FishBase: High Vulnerability (57 of
100).
34. Epinephelus fasciatus (Forsskal, 1775)
Syns: Perca fasciata Forsskal, 1775
Epinephalus marginalis Bloch, 1793
Holocentrus erythraeus Bloch & Schneider,
1801
Holocentrus forskael Lacepede, 1802
H. marginatus Lacepede, 1802
H. oceanicus Lacepede, 1802
H. rosmarus Lacepede, 1802
Serranus variolosus Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus tsirimenaraTemminck & Schlegel,
1842
Perca maculata Forster, 1844
Serranus cruentus De Vis, 1884
S. geomatricus De Vis, 1884
S. subfasciatus De Vis, 1884
Epinephelus zapyrus Seale, 1906
Epinephelus emoryi Schultz, 1953.
Popular English Names: Banded Reef-cod,
Black-tipped Cod, Black-tipped Grouper, Black-
tip Grouper, Black-tipped Rock-cod, Black-tip
Grouper, Foot-baller Cod, Golden Grouper,
Grouper, Red-banded Grouper, Red-barred Cod,
Red-barred Rock-cod, Reef Cod, Rock Cod,
Scarlet Rock-cod, Sea-bass, Striped Grouper,
Weathered Rock-cod,
Vernacular Names: Daghma (Jordan), Hamoor,
Kushar (Saudi Arabia), Hamour (Oman), Wakar
(Egypt), Akahata, Baskenmutzenbarsch, Merou-
oriflamime, Raiy-galhi-faana (Maldives), Lokos
(Israel), Chammam, Ryfana, Teda (India),
Wayeer (Somalia), Merou-oriflamime (Djibouti).
length at first maturity 16 cm; weight 2 kg.
Range: 36N - 34S, 28E - 121W.
South Africa and eastward to the Pitcairn Group,
north to Japan and Korea, south to the Arafura
Sea, southern Queensland (Australia) and Lord
Howe Island.
Countries Dealt: Bangladesh, Djibouti, Egypt,
Eritrea, India (including Lakshdweep Islands),
101
Husain

Israel, Jordan, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen.
35. Epinephelus flavocaeruleus (Lacepede,
1802)
Syns: Bodianus macrocephalus Lacepede, 1802
Holocentrus flavocaeruleus Lacepede, 1802
Holocentrus gymnosus Lacepede, 1802
Holocentrus caerulescens Shaw, 1803
Serranus babonicus Quoy & Gaimard, 1824
Perca flavopupurea Bennett, 1830.
Popular English Names: Blue-and-yellow
Grouper, Blue and yellow Reef-cod, Yellow-
finned Grouper, Yellow-fin Grouper, Yellow-tail
Reef-cod.
Vernacular Names: Lokos (Israel), Caalo
(Somalia), Chammam, Manja-kalava, Mungil-
cullawah (India), Munjil-cullawah (Sri Lanka),
Merou-faraud (Djibouti), Caalo (Somalia).
Size: 90 cm TL, common length 45 cm, length at
first maturity 49 cm; weight 15 kg.
Range: 19N - 36S, 23E - 98E.
General Distribution: Gulf of Aden south to
Port Alfred, South Africa and east to the
northwest tip of Sumatra, Indonesia. Also found
in the islands of western Indian Ocean, including
Cargados Carajos and Rodriguez. Not known
from the Red Sea and Persian Gulf.
Countries Dealt: Djibouti, India (including
Lakshdweep Islands), Israel (from ver. names),
Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka,
Yemen.
100).
36. Epinephalus fuscoguttatus (Forsskal, 1775)
Syns: Perca summana fuscoguttatus Forsskal,
1775
Serranus horridus Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus taeniocheirus Valenciennes, 1830
Serranus lutra Valenciennes, 1832.
Popular English Names: Brown-marbled
Grouper, Black Rock-cod, Black-spotted
Grouper, Black-tipped Cod, Blotch Grouper,
Blotchy Grouper, Blotchy Rock-cod, Carpet
Cod, Flower Cod, Flowery Cod, Flowery Rock-
cod, Tiger Grouper.
Vernacular Names: Fana, Chammam
(Lakshdweep Is., India), Hamour (Oman),
Hamoor, Kushar (Saudi Arabia), Lokos (Israel),
Caalo (Somalia)
Size: 120 cm TL, common length and range at
first maturity 50 TL; weight 11 kg; age 40 yrs.
Range: 35N - 27S, 39E - 171W.
and East Africa to Samoa and the Phoenix
Islands, north to Japan, south to Australia.
Unknown from the Persian Gulf, Hawaii, and
French Polynesia. Often confused with
Epinephelus polyphekadion Bleeker, 1849 (Syn:
Epinephelus microdon (Bleeker, 1856)).
Countries Dealt: India, Bangladesh, Djibouti,
Egypt, Eritrea, Israel, Jordan, Maldives, Oman
(from ver. names), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,
Threatened; FishBase: Moderate to High
37. Epinephelus gabriellae Randall &
Heemstra, 1991
Popular English Names: Multi-spotted
Grouper, Gabreillas Grouper.
Vernacular Name: Lokos (Israel).
Size: 52 cm TL.
Range: 20N - 11N, 51E - 59E.
General Distribution: Somalia to Oman.
Countries Dealt: Israel (from ver. names),
Oman, Somalia Yemen.
Vulnerable; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability
(42 of 100).
38. Epinephelus hexagonatus (Forster, 1801)
Syns: Holocentrus hexagonatus Forster, 1801
Serranus parkinsonii Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus stelllans Richardson, 1842.
Popular English Names: Star-spotted Grouper,
Hexagon Grouper, Hexagon Rock-cod, Honey-
comb Reef-cod, Sharp-spotted Grouper, White-
specked Rock-cod, White-speckled Grouper,
Wire-net Rock-cod, Wire-netting Rock-cod.
Vernacular Names: Sikkisikki-fana, Pulli-
chammam (India; Lakshdweep Is.), Lokos
(Israel).
Size: 27.5 TL, length at first maturity 19 cm.
Range: 33N - 31S, 141E - 128E.
General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: none
have been taken on the African coast, except for
the specimen recorded by Randall and Heemstra
1991 from Kenyan coast north of Kilifi Creek. It
is an insular species found in most tropical Indo-
102 Husain

Pacific islands. Absent in the Red Sea and
Persian Gulf.
Countries Dealt: India, Israel (as per ver.
names), Sri Lanka.
100).
39. Epinephelus indistinctus Randall &
Heemstra, 1991
Popular English Name: Somali Grouper.
Size: 80 cm TL.
Range: 10N - 6N, 50E - 54E.
General Distribution: Somalia (known only
from the holotype caught off Somalia).
Countries Dealt: Israel (from ver. names),
Oman, Somalia,Yemen.
100).
40. Epinephelus lanceolatus (Bloch, 1790)
Syns: Batracus gigas Gunther, 1869
Oligorus goliath De Vis, 1882
Serranus phaeostigmaeus Fowler, 1907
Steriolepoides thompsoni Fowler, 1923.
Popular English Names: Banded Rock-cod,
Bridle-bass, Brindle-bass, Brindle Grouper,
Coral Cod, Dragon Grouper, Giant Grouper,
Groper, Grouper, Mottled-brown Sea-bass,
Queensland Grouper, Queensland Groper, Reef-
cod, Sea-bass,
Gobra, Hekaru, Kalava, Kolaji, Kolayi, Kolamin,
Krruupu, Pilli-punni, Punni-mim, Varaya-
kalawa, Wekhali, Wekhru, Wulta-callawah,
(India), Lokos (Israel), Komari-kaleva, Wutla-
callawah (Sri Lanka), Merou lenceole (Djibouti)
Size: 270 cm TL, common length 190 TL, length
at first maturity 129; weight 400 kg. It is the
largest of all coral reef dwelling bony fishes.
Range: 29N - 39S, 24E - 122W.
Algoa Bay, South Africa and eastward to the
Hawaiian and Pitcairn islands, north to southern
Japan, south to Australia. Absence in the Persian
Gulf is puzzling.
Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Eritrea, India, Israel
(from ver. names), Maldives, Oman, Pakistan,
Somalia, Sri Lanka, Yemen.
Vulnerable; FishBase: Very High Vulerability
(85 of 100).
41. Epinephelus latifasciatus (Temminck &
Schlegel, 1842)
Syns: Serranus grammmicus Day 1868
Priacanthichthys maderaspatensis Day, 1868
Popular English Names: Banded Grouper,
Coral Cod, Laterally-banded Grouper, Sea-bass,
Sea-perch, Spot-fin Rock Cod, Spotty-fined Roc
Cod, Striped Grouper
Vernacular Names: Al-Hamour-al-mukhatat,
Hamour (Oman), Hamoor, Kushar (Saudi
Arabia), Lokos (Israel), Hamoor-e-khaki (Iran),
Burtam (Kuwait), Merou-a-bandes (Djibouti).
Size: 137 SL, 150 cm TL, common length 70 cm
TL, length at first maturity 86 cm; weight 58.6
kg
Range: 33N - 23S, 35W - 143E
Sea, Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Pakistan, India,
Viet Nam, Hong Kong, China, Korea, southern
Japan, Taiwan, and northwest Australia.
Unknown from the east coast of Africa, islands
of the Indian Ocean, Indonesia, Philippines, or
New Guinea.
Eritrea, India, Iran, Israel (from ver. names),
Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Sri Lanka, Sudan, UAE.
Deficient; FishBase: Moderate to High
42. Epinephelus longispinis (Kner, 1864)
Syns: Serranus longipinis Kner, 1864
Epinephelus fario (Thunberg, 1793) (ambiguous
synonym).
Popular English Names: Long-spine Grouper,
Long-spine Rock-cod, Spotted Grouper, Streaky-
spotRock-cod,
Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Fulli-
chammam, Gobra, Hekru, Wekhali, Wekhru
(India), Lokos (Israel).
Size: 55 cm TL; weight 2.7 kg.
Range: 17N - 33S, 29E - 137E.
Kenya to South Africa (32S) and east to the
Watubela Group of the eastern Banda Sea. Not
known from the Red Sea nor Persian Gulf.
103
Husain

Countries Dealt: India, Israel (from ver. names),
Maldives, Oman (Fouda & Hermosa, 1993),
Pakistan, Sri Lanka.
Concern; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (44
of 100).
43. Epinephelus maculatus (Bloch, 1790)
Syns: Holocentrus maculates Bloch, 1790
Holocentrus albo-fuscus Lacepede, 1802
Serranus seabae Bleeker, 1854
Plectropoma kulas Thiolliere, 1856
Serranus medurensis Gunther, 1873.
Popular English Names: High-fin Grouper,
Black-fin Cod, Blotchs Roc-cod, Brown-spotted
Rock-cod, Marbled Rock-cod, Rock Cod,
Spotted Grouper, Spotted Rock-cod, Spotty Cod,
Trout Cod.
Vernacular Names: Bontoo, Gobra, Hekaru,
Kalava, Kolamin, Pulli-kalava (India).
Size: 60.5 cm TL, length at first maturity 35 cm.
Range: 29N - 34S, 96E - 170W.
General Distribution: Pacific Ocean: Cocos-
Keeling Islands to Samoa, north to southern
Japan, south to southeastern Australia and Lord
Howe Island.
of 100).
44. Epinephelus malabaricus (Bloch &
Schneider, 1801)
Syns: Holocentrus malabaricus Bloch &
Schneider, 1801
Holocentrus salmoides Lacepede, 1802
Serranus crapao Cuvier 1829
Serranus polypodophilus Bleeker, 1849
Serranus estuaries Macleay, 1883
Epinephelus cylindricus Postel, 1965.
Popular English Names: Black-spot Cod,
Black-spotted Rock-cod, Brown-spotted
Grouper, Estuary Cod, Estuary Rock-cod, Giant
Rock-cod, Greasy Grouper, Grouper, Malabar
Cod, Malabar Grouper, Malabar Reef-cod,
Malabar Rock-cod, Morgans Cod, Peckeled
Grouper,
Gobra, Hekaru, Hekru, Kalava, Punni-calawah,
Wekhali, Wekhru (India), Lokos (Israel),
Hamoor-e-Malabari (Iran), Gal-bola, Gal-kossa,
Gas-bola, Kalava, Punni-calawah (Sri Lanka),
Merou malabre (Djibouti), Yaquuri (Somalia).
length at maturity 114 cm; weight 150 kg.
Range: 30N - 32S, 29E - 173W.
and East Africa to Tonga, north to Japan, south
to Australia. It is not known from the Persian
Gulf, where the closely related Epinephelus
coioides is common.
Iran, Israel, Jordan, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Yemen.
Threatened; FishBase: Very High Vunerability
(85 of 100).
45. Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834)
Syns: Serranus marginatus Lowe, 1838
S. fimbriatus Lowe 1838
Epinephelus brachysoma Cope, 1871
Serranus aspersus Jenyns, 1840.
Epinephelus gauza (Jordan & Evermann, 1896)
Popular English Names: Dusky Groiper, Dusky
Perch, Dusky Sea Perch, Sea-bass, Yellow-belly
Grouper, Yellow-belly Rock-cod.
Vernacular Names: Wakar (Egypt), Lokos
(Israel).
Size: 150 cm TL; weight 60 kg; age 50 yrs.
Range: 54N - 43S, 65W - 58E.
General Distribution: Eastern Atlantic and
Western Indian Ocean: throughout the
Mediterranean Sea and from the British Isles
round to the southern tip of Africa to southern
Mozambique and Madagascar. Southwest
Atlantic: southeastern Brazil, Uruguay, and
Argentina.
Countries Dealt: Egypt, India (Vizagapatanam),
Israel, Oman, Sudan.
Endangered; FishBase: High to Very High
Vulnrability (72 of 100).
46. Epinephelus melanostigma Schlutz, 1953
Popular English Names: One-blotch Grouper,
Black-spot Grouper, Black-spot Honey-comb
Grouper, Coral Cod, Schlutzs Rock-cod.
Vernacular Names: Sikksikki-fana, Fulli-
chammam (Lakshdweep Is., India), Lokos
(Israel).
Size: 35 cm TL, common length 25 cm TL
Range: 29N - 34S, 28E - 157W.
General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Natal,
South Africa to the central Pacific. Not known
104 Husain

from the Red Sea nor Persian Gulf.

Countries Dealt: India, Israel (as per ver.
names).
Deficient; FishBase: Low to Moderate
47. Epinephalus merra Bloch, 1793
Popular English Names: Honey-comb Grouper,
Bird-wire Rock-cod, Black-spotted Rock-cod,
Common Bird-wire Rock-cod, Coral Cod,
Dwarf-spotted Grouper, Dwarf-spotted Rock-
cod, Dwarf-spotter Grouper, Honey-comb Cod,
Honey-comb Grouper, Honey-comb Rock-cod,
Reef Cod, Wire-netted Reef-cod, Wire-netting
Cod, Wire-netting Rock-cod.
Vernacular Names: Bontoo, Pulli-cullawah,
Sikkisikki-fana (India), Fulli-chammam
(Lakshdweep Is., India), Hamoor, Kushar (Saudi
Arabia), Lokos (Israel), Pulli-kossa, Pulli-
cullawah (Sri Lanka).
Range: 35N - 35S, 28E - 129W.
General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: South
Africa to French Polynesia. Not known from the
Red Sea, Persian Gulf, nor Asian mainland.
Countries Dealt: India, Israel (in ver. names),
Maldives, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (in ver.
names), Sri Lanka.
100).
48. Epinephelus morrhua (Velenciennes, 1833)
Syns: Serranus morrhua Valenciennes, 1833
Epinephelus cometae Tanaka, 1927.
Popular English Names: Comet Grouper,
Comet Cod, Bandedcheek Reef-cod, Blue
Grouper, Contour Rock-cod, Coral Cod, Curve-
banded Grouper, Grouper, Reef Cod, Rock- Cod,
Sea-bass.
Vernacular Names: Daghma (Jordan), Hamour
(Oman), Merou-cmete (Djibouti), Lokos (Israel),
Kallu-kaleva (Sri Lanka), Sumyen (Somalia),
Laggan-fana (Lakshdweep Is., India).
Size: 90 cm, common length 60 cm; weight 7 kg.
Range: 31N - 33S, 30E - 158W.
and East Africa to the central Pacific.
Epinephelus poecilonotus, Epinephelus radiatus,
and Epinephelus tuamotoensis are sometimes
referred to as this species.
Israel, Jordan, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Yemen.
of 100).
49. Epinephelus multinotatus (Peters, 1876)
Syns: Serranus multinotatus Peters, 1876
Serranus jayakari Boulenger, 1889;
Epinephelus jayakari (Boulenger, 1889),
Epinephelus rakini Whitley, 1945
Epinephelus leprosus Smith, 1955.
Popular English Names: Brown Rock Cod,
Rankin Cod, Rankins Cod, Rankins Rock Cod,
White-blotched Grouper.
(Israel), Vieilli-plate-grise (Djibouti).
length on first maturity 41-50 cm; Weight 9 kg.
Range: 30N - 32S, 34E - 130E.
General Distribution: Persian Gulf to southern
Mozambique and eastward to Western Australia.
Not known from the Red Sea.
Countries Dealt: Bahrain, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq,
Israel (from ver. names), Kuwait, Maldives,
Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia,
UAE,Yemen.
Concern. FishBase: Moderate Vulnerabilty (39
of 100).
50. Epinephelus poecilonotus (Temminck &
Schlegel, 1842)
Syn: Serranus poecilonotus Temminck &
Echlegel, 1842
Popular English Names: Dot-dash Grouper,
Dot-dash Rock-cod, Grouper.
Vernacular Names: Lokos (Israel), Sumeyn
(Somalia),
Size: 65 cm TL; weight 4 kg.
Range: 39N - 35S, 23E - 179W.
General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: east
coast of Africa to Japan, Korea, South China
Sea, Viet Nam, and Fiji. Unknown from the Red
Sea and Persian Gulf.
Maldives, Oman, Somalia, Sri Lanka.
51. Epinephelus polylepis Randall & Heemstra
1991
103
Husain

Popular English Names: Small-scaled Grouper,
Small-scale Grouper.
Size: 61.0 cm TL, 54.7 cm (female), weight 2.1
kg.
Range: 33N - 8N, 44E - 77E
General Distribution: Gulf of Aden, Gulf of
Oman, Persian Gulf, Pakistan, and west coast of
India. Since it has only recently been discovered,
it may be expected to have a wider distribution.
Countries Dealt: Bahrain, India, Iran, Iraq,
Israel (from ver. names), Kuwait, Oman,
Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, UAE,
Yemen.
Threatened; FishBase: Moderate to High
52. Ephinephelus polyphekadion (Bleeker,
1849)
Syns: Serranus polyphekadion Bleeker, 1849
Serranus goldmanni Bleeker, 1855
Serranus microdon Bleeker, 1856.
Popular English Names: Blue-tailed Cod,
Camouflage Grouper, Camouflage Rock-cod,
Flowery Grouper, Grouper, Marble Grouper,
Marbled Cod, Marbled Grouper, Rock Cod,
Small-toothed Cod, Small-toothed Rock-cod,
Small-toother Cod, Small-tooth Grouper, Smooth
Flowery Rock-cod, Snout-spot Grouper, Snout-
spot Rock-cod, Snout-spots Rock-cod.
Vernacular Names: Merou camouflage
(Djibouti), Lokos (Israel), Kula-faana,
Madarahata, Mearou camouflage (Maldives).
Size: 90 cm TL, length at first maturity 58 cm
TL.
Range: 30N - 34S, 27E - 134W.
and east coast of Africa to French Polynesia. In
the western Pacific it ranges from southern Japan
to southern Queensland and Lord Howe Island.
Often confused with Epinephelus fuscoguttatus.
Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, India, Israel,
Jordan, Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan.
Threatened; FishBase: High to Very High
53. Epinephelus quoyanus (Valenciennes,
1830)
Syns: Serranus quoyanus Valenciennes, 1830
Serranus gilberti Richardson, 1842
Serranus megachir Richardson, 1846
Epinephelus megachir (Richardson, 1846)
Serranus paradilis Bleeker, 1848
Perca melanocelidota Gronow, 1854
Serranus alatus Alleynye & Macleay, 1877
Serranus carinatus Alleynye & Macleay, 1877.
Popular English Names: Long-fin Grouper
Vernacular Names: Lokos (Israel), Bontoo,
Pulli-cullawah (India).
Range: 35N - 32S, 110E - 156E.
General Distribution: Western Pacific: Japan to
Australia. Unknown from the Indian Ocean
except for the Andaman Islands record (as
Serranus merra). Unreported from islands of
Micronesia, Melanesia and central Pacific. Often
misidentified as Epinephelus macrospilos or
Epinephelus hexagonatus.
Countries Dealt: India, Israel (as under ver.
names).
of 100).
54. Epinephelus radiatus (Day, 1868)
Syns: Serranus radiatus Day, 1868
Epinephelus doederleinii Franz, 1910.
Popular English Names: Oblique-banded
Grouper, Oblique-banded Rock Cod,
Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Daghma
(Jordan), Lokos (Israel), Manjel-kaleva, Raja-
laveya (Sri Lanka)
Size: 70 cm SL.
Range: 36N - 24S, 36E - 155E.
General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: spotty
distribution from the Red Sea to Japan and Papua
New Guinea. Referred to as Epinephelus
morrhua morrhua in Japan.
Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Eritrea, India, Israel,
Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka,
Yemen.
100).
55. Epinephelus retouti Bleeker, 1868
Syns: Epinephelus truncatus Katayama, 1957
Epinephelus retouti mauritianus Baissac, 1962
Epinephelus mauritianus Baissac, 1962.
Popular English Names: Red-tipped Grouper,
Red-tipped Rock-cod, Red-tip Grouper, Rock
Cod.
106
Husain

Size: 50 cm TL, common length 30 cm TL;
weight 2 kg.
Range: 36N - 27S, 37E - 143W.
General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: islands in
tropical and subtropical waters from the western
Indian Ocean to Jarvis Island (Line Islands,
Kiribati) and French Polynesia, including Bassas
da India (Mozambique Channel).
Country Dealt: Israel (from ver. names),
Maldives, Oman.
of 100).
56. Epinephelus stoliczkae (Day, 1875)
Syn: Serranus stoliczkae Day, 1875
Popular English Name: Epaulet Grouper
Venacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Hamoor-
khor (UAE), Lokos (Israel), Hamoor-e-lakkeh-
zeytooni-e-manghoot (Iran).
Size: 38 cm TL, common length 35 cm TL.
Range: 29N - 10N, 32E - 68E.
General Distribution: Red Sea (including Gulf
of Suez) and northwestern Indian Ocean to the
coast of Pakistan. Specimens examined include
those from the Gulf of Oman. Not reported from
the Gulf of Aqaba nor from Persian Gulf.
Countries Dealt: Egypt, India, Iran, Israel (from
ver. names), Oman, Pakistan (Talwar & Kacker,
19984), Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, UAE
(from ver. names), Yemen.
of 100).
57. Epinephelus summana (Forsskal, 1775)
Syns: Perca summana Forsskal 1775
Serranus leucostigma Valenciennes, 1828
Popular English Names: Summan Grouper,
Suman Grouper.
Vernacular Names: Aqshar (Jordan), Hamoor,
Kushar (Saudi Arabia), Hamour (Oman), Merou
summan (Djibouti), Lokos (Israel).
Size: 52 cm TL, common length 40 cm.
Range: 31N - 9N, 32E - 46E.
General Distribution: Known only from the
Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.
Israel, Jordan, Oman (from ver. names), Saudi
Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen.
of 100).
58. Epinephelus tukula Morgans, 1959
Syn: Serranus dispara var. a Playfair, 1867
Popular English Names: Potato Grouper,
Grouper, Potato Bass, Potato Cod, Potato Rock-
cod, Grouper.
Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman); Lokos
(Israel), Sumeyn (Somalia).
Size: 200 cm TL, length at first maturity 99 cm;
weight 110 kg.
Range: 35N - 32S, 29E - 150E.
Sea and East Africa to southern Japan and
Queensland, Australia. Also from the Paracel
Islands in the South China Sea. No records from
Madagascar, Mauritius, Maldives, Laccadives,
Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Philippines.
Israel, Jordan, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,
Concern; FishBase: Very High Vulnerability (83
of 100).
59. Epinephelus tauvina (Forsskal, 1775)
Syns: Perca tauvina Forsskal, 1775
Holocentrus pantherinus Lacepede, 1802
Serranus goldiei Mackleay, 1882
Epinephelus elongates Schultz, 1953
Epinephelus chewa Morgans, 1966.
Popular English Names: Arabian Grouper,
Cod, Estuary Rock-cod, Greasy Grouper, Greasy
Cod, Greacy Reef-cod, Greasy Rock Cod, Green
Grouper, Grouper, Giant Grouper, Malabar
Grouper, Orange-spotted Grouper, Reef Cod,
Sea-bass, Speckled Rock Cod, Spotted Grouper,
Vernacular Names: Hamour, Suman (Oman),
Hamoor (Kuwait), Aqshar (Jordan), Kushar
tooweena (Saudi Arabia), Lokos (Israel), Bontoo,
Chammam, Gaudarufana, Gobra, Hekaru, Hekru,
Pani-kalawa, Poochachammam, Punni-calawah,
Punni-kalava, Salai, Wekhali, Wekhru (India),
Farey (Somalia), Pulli-kossa, Punni-callawah
(Sri Lanka), Merou-loutre (Djibouti).
Size: 75 cm TL, common length 90 cm, length at
first maturity: 61.10 cm.
Range: 30N - 32S, 29E - 123W.
Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Red Sea to South
Africa and eastward to Ducie in the Pitcairn
Group, north to Japan, south to New South
Wales and Lord Howe Island. Migration report
from the eastern Mediterraneam Sea.
107
Husain

Israel, Jordan, Kuwait (from ver. names),
Maldives, Oman (from ver. names), Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan,Yemen.
100).
Remarks: Differs from Epinepheles corallicola
and E. howlandi by its elongate body and closer-
set spots.
60. Epinephelus undulosus (Quoy & Gaimard,
1824)
Syns: Bodianus undulosus Quoy & Gaimard,
1824
Serranus lineatus Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus emboinensis Bleeker, 1852
Popular English Names: Wavy-lined Grouper,
Brown-lined Reef-cod, Brown-lined Rck-cod,
Coral Cod, Grouper, Mid-water Grouper, Mid-
water Rock-cod, Rock Cod, Sea-bass.
(Israel), Bontoo, Gobra, Hekaru, Kolayi,
Kolamin, Kurrupu, Pili-punni, Punni-min (India),
Sumeyn (Somalia), Lawaya, Thambeleya,
Thambuwa (Sri Lanka), Merou-ondule
(Djibouti).
Size: 75 cm TL, common lemgth 45 cm TL,
length at first maturity 41 cm; weight 6.4 kg.
Range: 27N - 13S, 39E - 158E.
General Distribution: Indo-West Pacific: Gulf
of Oman to Kenya, including Laccadive Islands,
India, Sri Lanka, and the Andaman Islands. Not
reported in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. Known
also from Indonesia, Sarawak of Malaysia, New
Guinea, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands,
and the Philippines.
Countries Dealt: Djibouti, India, Israel (from
ver. names), Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Somalia,
Sri Lanka, Yemen.
100).
Genus: Hyporthodus Gill, 1861
61. Hyporthodus octofasciatus (Griffin, 1926)
Syns: Epinephelus octofasciatus Griffin, 1926
Epinephelus compressus Postel, Fourmanoir &
Gueze, 1963
Popular English Names: Eight-bar Grouper,
Bar Cod, Convict Cod, Convict Grouper,
Convict Rock-cod, Grey-banded Cod, Grouper,
Rock Cod.
Size: 130 cm TL; weight 80 kg.
Range: 44N - 39S, 29E - 136W.
Somalia and South Africa to Japan, Australia and
New Zealand. Except for Japan, China, and
Korea, most distribution records for Epinephelus
septemfasciatus are probably based on this
species. Reported as Epinephelus compressus by
Postel et al.
Somalia, Yemen.
Deficient; FishBase: High to Very High
Genus: Plectropomus Oken, 1817
62. Plectropomus maculatus (Bloch, 1790)
Syn: Bodianus maculates Bloch, 1790
Popular English Names: Spotted Coral-
grouper, Bar-cheeked Trout, Bar-cheek Coral-
trout, Barred-cheek Coral-trout, Coastal Trout,
Coral Cod, Coral Trout, Grouper, Island Coral-
trout, Island Trout, Leopard Cod, Leopard Trout,
Leopard Fiash, Red Emperor, Spotted Coral-
trout, Spotted Coral-grouper.
Vernacular Names: Hamour (Oman), Gorang
(India).
Size: 100 cm SL; weight 25 kg.
Range: 21N - 28S, 117E - 159E.
General Distribution: Western Pacific:
Thailand, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia,
Papua New Guinea, the Arafura Sea, Solomon
Islands, and Australia (from Houtman Abrolhos
in Western Australia to Gladstone, Queensland).
This species was formerly listed as occurring in
the western Indian Ocean based on a
misidentification of Plectropomus pessuliferus.
Countries Dealt: India, Oman (from ver.
names), Sri Lanka.
63. Plectropomus areolatus Ruppell, 1830
Syns: Plectropomus areolatum Ruppell, 1830
Plectropomus truncatus Fowler and Bean, 1930.
Popular English Names: Polka-dot Cod,
Spotted Coral Trout, Square-tail Coral-grouper,
Square-tail Coral Trout, Square-tail Coral Trout,
Square-tail Grouper, Square-tail Leopard-
grouper.
Vernacular Name: Nagil (Saudi Arabia)
108 Husain

Range: 31N - 25S, 32E - 169W.
the Phoenix Islands and Samoa, north to Ryukyu
Islands, south to Australia.
Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, India, Israel,
Jordan, Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan,
Yemen.
Conservation Status: IUCN red List:
Vulnerable; FishBase: High Vulnerability (56 of
100).
64. Plectropomus punctatus (Quoy &
Gaimard, 1824)
Syns: Plectropoma punctatum Quoy & Gaimard,
1824
Plectropoma maculatum var. E Playfair &
Gunther, 1867
Plectropoma maculatum var. G Playfair, 1867
Plectropomus marmoratus Talbot, 1959.
Popular English Names: Marbled Coral-
grouper, Marbled Leopard Grouper.
Vernacular Name: Hamour (Oman).
Size: 96 cm TL, weight 12.2 kg.
Range: 3S - 31S, 30E - 75E.
General Distribution: Kenya to South Africa,
Comoros, Madagascar, Aldabra, Seychelles,
Mauritius, St. Brandon's Shoals, Nazareth Bank,
and the Chagos Archipelago. Unknown from the
Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and the Asian coast from
Arabia to India.
Countries Dealt: Oman, Yemen.
100).
Genus: Variola Swainson, 1839
65. Variola louti (Forsskal, 1775)
Syns: Perca louti Forsskal, 1775
Labrus punctulatus Lacepede, 1801
Serranus luti Valenciennes, 1828
Serranus flavimarginatus Ruppell, 1830
Serranus longipinna Swainson, 1839
Variola longipinna Swainson, 1839
Serranus cernipedis Miranda Ribeiro, 1913.
Popular English Names: Yellow-edged Lyre-
tail, Common Lyre-tail Cod, Lyre-tail Cod, Lyre-
tail Coral Trout, Lyre-tail Grouper, Coronation
Grouper, Coronation Trout, Fairy Cod, Grouper,
Luna-tail, Lunar-tail Cod, Lunar-tailed Cod,
Lunar-tailed Coral Trout, Lunar-tailed Rock-cod,
Moon-tail Sea-bass, Yellow-edged Lunar-tail,
Yellow-edged Lyre-tail, Yellow-edge Coronation
Trout,
Vernacular Names: Boosia (Jordan), Louti,
Rishal (Saudi Arabia), Chencheera-chammam,
Kanduryhou, Kathiavalan, Kathiavalu (India),
Kandu-haa (Maldives),Gudduudow-caydheere
(Somalia), Croissant-queue-jaune (Djiboiti).
length at first maturity 41 cm; weight 12 kg.
Range: 30N - 37S, 30E - 23W.
South Africa and the Pitcairn Islands, north to
southern Japan, south to New South Wales,
Australia. Not found in the Persian Gulf nor in
Hawaii.
Countries Dealt: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, India
(including Lakshdweep Islands), Jordan,
Maldives, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri
Lanka, Sudan, Yemen.
Subfamily: Grammistinae
Genus: Aporops Schlutz, 1943
66. Aporops bilinearis Schlutz, 1943
Syns: Aporops allfreei Smith, 1953
Alprops japonicus Kamohara, 1957.
Popular English Names: Blotched Podge, Pore-
less Podge, Two-lined Soap-fish.
Size: 9.9 cm SL.
Range: NA.
General Distribution: Indo-Pacific and Western
Central Pacific.
Country Dealt: India, Maldives, Sri Lanka.
Evaluated; FishBase: Low Vulnerabilty (17 of
100).
Genus: Diploprion Cuvier, 1828
67. Diloprion bifasciatum Cuvier, 1828
Popular English Names: Barred Soap-fish,
Two-banded Grouper, Two-band Sea-perch,
Two-banded Sea-perch, Two-banded Perch,
Two-banded Soap-fish, Yellow Emperor,
Yellow-striped Grouper.
Vernacular Name: Anoova-meen (India, Sri
Lanka).
Range: NA.
109
Husain

Maldives and India to Papua New Guinea, north
to southern Japan, south to Lord Howe Island.
Country Dealt: India, Maldives, Sri Lanka.
Evaluated; FishBase: Low to Moderate
Genus Grammistes Schneider, 1801
68. Grammistes sexlineatus (Thunberg, 1792)
Syns: Perca sexlineata Thunberg, 1792
Grammisted orientalis Bloch & Schneider, 1801
Scianea vittata Lacepede, 1802
Popular English Names: Golden-striped Soap-
fish, Sex-line Soap-fish, Black and white Striped
Soap-fish, Golden-striped Bass, Grouper, Lined
Soap-fish, Radio Fish, Six-lined Perch, Six-line
Soap-fish, Skunk Fish, Soap Fish, White-lined
Rock-cod, Yellow-striped Soap-fish,
Vernacular Name: Kotha (India),
Size: 30 cm TL.
the Marquesan and Mangarva islands, north to
southern Japan, south to New Zealand.
Range: 32N - 23S.
Countries Dealts: India, Maldives, Oman,
Somalia, Sri Lanka.
Evaluated; FishBase: Low to Moderate
Genus: Pogonoperca Gunther, 1859
69. Pogonoperca punctata (Valenciennes, 1830)
Syns: Grammistes puntatus Valenciennes, 1830
Pogonoperca reticulata Bliss 1883
Popular English Names: Soap Fish, Spotted
Soap-fish.
Size: 35 cm TL.
Range: 32N - 23S.
General Distribution: Indo-Pacific: Comoros to
Line, Marquesan and Society islands, north to
southern Japan, south to New Caledonia.
Recently found in southern Natal, South Africa.
Countries Dealt: India, Yemen.
Evaluated; FishBase: Low to moderate
Genus: Pseudogramma Bleeker, 1875
70. Pseudogramma polyacantha (Bleeker,
1856)
Syns: Pseudochromis polyacanthus Bleeker,
1856
Gnathipops samoensis Fowler & Silvester, 1922
Rhegma brederi Hilderbrand, 1940
Pseudorhegma diagramma Schultz, 1966.
Popular English Names: Honey-comb Podge,
Bold-spot Soap-fish, False Gramma, One-spot
Dotty-back, Pale-spotted Podge.
Size: 8.6 cm SL.
Range: 32N - 32S.
to the Line, Marquesan, and Ducie islands, north
to southern Japan and the Hawaiian Islands,
south to Lord Howe Island; throughout
Micronesia.
Countries Dealt: India, Jordan, Maldives, Sri
Lanka.
100).
Subfamily Serraninae
Genus: Chelidoperca Boulenger 1895
71. Chelidoperca investigatoris (Alcock, 1890)
Syn: Centropristis investigatoris Alcock, 1890
Popular English Names: AN.
Size: NA.
Range: NA.
General Distribution: Off Madras coast, India.
Evaluated: FishBase: Low to Moderate
Genus Serranus Cuvier, 1816
72. Serranus cabrilla (Linaeaus, 1758)
Syns: Perca cabrilla Linnaeus, 1758
Serranus knysanaesis Gilchrist, 1904.
Popular English Names: Comber, Gaper,
Garrupa, Learned Rock-fish.
Vernacular Names: Korfossa, Korfussa
(Egypt), Okonus-matzui (Israel).
Size: 40 cm SL, common length 25 cm TL,
length at first maturity 17.5 cm.
Range: 57N - 35S, 32W - 36E.
General Distribution: Eastern Atlantic: English
Channel southward round the Cape of Good
Hope to Natal, South Africa, including Azores,
Madeira and the Canary Islands. Also in the
Mediterranean and western Black Sea and
possibly in the Red Sea.
Countries Dealt: Egypt, Israel, Sudan.
110
Husain

Evaluated; FishBase: Moderate Vulnerability (36
of 100).

CONCLUSION
During the present study, the occurrence
of 72 species belonging to 19 genera, 4
subfamilies under family Serranidae, as per
earlier records, are listed country wise and it was
found that the main Arabian Sea (India including
Lakshadweep Islands; Maldives; Sri Lanka and
Pakistan 61 spp., Oman 43 spp., Somalia, 37 spp.
and Yemen with 36 spp.) is more rich in species
diversity than in its extensions i.e. the Gulf of
Oman, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Aden and
the Red Sea (including Gulf of Aqaba and Gulf
of Suez), it is probably due to being more open
and wide in area. The rich diversity of Israel (39)
may be due to its northern part open to the
Mediterranean Sea. Iraq is having the least
number (07) of species which could be due to
much less of its area exposed to the Persian Gulf.
Further, Aethaloperca rogaa,
cephalopholis hemistiktos, Ephenephelus
areolatus and E. coioides are the most widely
distributed species. Epinephelus is the richest in
its species diversity, with 37 species i.e. 51.39%.
of total species.
As per the conservation status of species
under IUCN Red List Epinephelus marginatus is
classified as Endangered, Cephalopholis
hemistiktos, Epinephelus bleekeri, E. coioides, E.
deacanthus, E. fuscoguttatus, E. malabaricus, E.
polylepis and E. polyphekadion as Near
Threatened, Cromileptes altivelis, Ephenephelus
bruneus, E. gabriellae, E. lanceolatus,
Plectropomus areolatus as Vulnerable and 28
species (see text) under Least Concern
category. Rest of the species are either having
Data Deficient (15 spp.) for the purpose or Not
Evaluated (15 spp.).

Abbreviations used:
International for the Protection of Nature,
IUPN); NA: Data not available.
Kg. Kilogram.
SL: standard length.
TL: Total length.
Syn. / Syns: Synonym / Synnyms.
UAE: United Arab Emirates.

ACKNOWLEDGENENTS
The author is grateful to the Director,
encouragement and the Officer-in-Charge,
Northern Regional Centre, ZSI, Dehra Dun for
library facility.

REFERENCES
Al Sakaff, H. and Esseen, M. (1999). Occurrence
and distribution of fish species off Yemen
(Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea). Naga
ICLARM Q. 22(1): 43-47.
Assadi, H. and Dehghani, P.R. (1997). Atlas of
the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman
fishes. Iranian Fisheries Research and
Training Organization, Iran.
Anderson, C. and Hafiz, A. (1989). Common
reef fishes of the Maldives. Part 2.
Novelty Printers and Publishers, Male,
Republic of Maldives. 85pp.
Baranes, A. and Golani, D. (1993). An annotated
list of the deep-sea fishes collected in the
northern Red Sea, Gulf of Aqaba. Isr. J.
Zool. 39: 299-336.
Ben-Tuvia, A. and Lourie, A. (1969). A Red Sea
grouper Epinephelus tauvina caught on
the Mediterranean coast of Israel. Israel J.
Zool. 18: 245-247.
Bouhlel, M. (1988). Poissons de Djibouti. Dubai
(United Arab Emirates): Dubai Printing
Press.
Boulenger, G.A. (1889). Second account of the
fishes obtained by Surgeon-Major A. S.
G. Jayakar at Muscat, east coast of
Arabia. Proc. Zool. Soc., London (pt 2).
236-246, pls. 25-28.
Boulos, I. (1975). The Development of Fisheries
in the Sultanate of Oman. Special Report,
FAO, Rome.
Chavan, B.B., Sawant, A.D., Sujitha, S. and
Sreeram, M.P. (2005). Rare occurrence of
Epinephelus bleekeri (Vaillant, 1877) in
the fishery of Mumbai. Marine Fisheries
Information Service, Technical and
Extension Series. 183: 20.
Deval, M.C. (2002). Common names of marine
fishes of Turkey. Unpublished report.
111
Husain

Edwards, R.R.C. and Shaher, S. (1991). The
biometrics of marine fishes from the Gulf
of Aden. Fishbyte. 9(2): 27-29.
Edwards, A.J. and Shepherd, A.D. (1992).
Environmental implications of aquarium-
fish collection in the Maldives, with
proposals for regulation. Environ.
Conserv. 19: 61-72.
Edwards, R.R.C., Bakhade, A. R. and Shaher, S.
(1985). Growth, mortality, age
composition and fishery yields of fish
from the Gulf of Aden. J. Fish Biol. 27:
13-21.
Edwards, R.R.C., Ghaddaf, A. and Shaher, S.
(1991). The demersal fish stocks and the
biometrics of fish on the P.D.R. Yemen
shelf of the Gulf of Aden. UNESCO
Project 703/PDY/40.
Fouda, M.M. and Hermosa, G.V.Jr. (1993). A
checklist of Oman fishes. Sultan Qaboos
University Press, Sultanate of Oman. 42p.
Froese, Rainer, and Daniel Pauly, eds. (2007).
"Epinephelus tauvina" in FishBase. 4
2007 version. Retrieved from
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greasy_gro
uper".Govindaraju, G S and Jayasankar, P
(2004) Taxonomic Relationship Among
Seven Species of Groupers (Genus
Epinephelus; Family Serranidae) as
Revealed by RAPD Fingerprinting.
Marine Biotechnology. 6: 229-237.
Heemstra, P.C. and Randall, J.E. (1979). A
revision of the anthiine fish genus Sacura
(Perciformes: Serranidae) with
descriptions of two new species. J.L.B.
Smith Inst. Ichthyol. Spec. Publ. 20: 12p.
Heemstra, P.C. (1973). Anthias conspicuus sp.
nova (Perciformes: Serranidae) from the
Indian Ocean, with comments on related
species. Copeia. 2: 200-210.
Heemstra, P.C. and Randall, J.E. (1986).
Serranidae. p. 509-537. In M.M. Smith
and P.C. Heemstra (eds.) Smiths' sea
fishes. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Heemstra, P.C. and Randall, J.E. (1993). FAO
Species Catalogue. Vol. 16. Groupers of
the world (family Serranidae, subfamily
Epinephelinae). An annotated and
illustrated catalogue of the grouper,
rockcod, hind, coral grouper and lyretail
species known to date. FAO Fish. Synop.
125(16): 382p.
Ibrahim, M. A. (1989). Studies on bottom
trawling and demersal fishes of Qatar
waters, Arabian Gul. Qatar Univ. Sci.
Bull. 9: 291-308.
Ibrahim, M.A., El-Bary, K.A. and Al-Khayatt,
J.A. (1989). By catch of commercial
bottom trawl fishery from Qatar waters,
Arabian Gulf. Qatar Univ. Sci. Bull. 9:
309-319.
Iranian Fisheries Company and Iranian Fisheries
Research Organization. (2000). Persian
Gulf and Oman sea fishes. Poster. Iran.
Kapoor, D., Dayal, R. and Ponniah, A.G. (2002).
Fish biodiversity of India. National
Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources
Lucknow, India. 775pp.
Khalaf, M.A. and Disi, A.M. (1997). Fishes of
the Gulf of Aqaba. Marine Science
Station, Aqaba, Jordan. 252pp.
Kharbhari, J.P. (1982). Marine Fisheries
Information Services India. Central
Marine Fisheries Research Institute. 18-
23.
Kumaran, M. and Jones, S. (1980). Fishes of the
Laccadive Archipelago. Kerala
Mathrubhumi Press.
Kuronuma, K. and Abe, Y. (1986). Fishes of the
Arabian Gulf. Kuwait Institute for
Scientific Research, State of Kuwait.
356p.
Manilo, L.G. and Bogorodsky, S.V. (2003).
Taxonomic composition, diversity and
distribution of coastal fishes of the
Arabian Sea. J. Ichthyol. 43(suppl. 1):
S75-S149.
Manna, G.K. (1989). Fish cytogenetics related to
taxonomy, evolution and monitoring
aquatic genotoxic agents. pp.21-46. In P.
Das and A.G. Jingran (eds.) Fish Genetics
in India. Proceedings of the Symposium
on Conservation and Management of Fish
Genetic Resources of India. 11-13 April,
1986.
Mathews, C.P. and Samuel, M. (1985). Stock
assessment and management of newaiby,
hamoor and hamra in Kuwait. p. 67-115.
In C.P. Mathews (ed.) Proceedings of the
1984 Shrimp and Fin Fisheries
112 Husain

Management Workshop. Kuwait Institute
for Scientific Research, Kuwait.
Mathews, C.P. and Samuel, M. (1987). Growth,
mortality and assessment for groupers
from Kuwait. Kuwait Bull. Mar. Sci. 9:
173-191.
Mathews, C.P. and Samuel, M. (1991). Growth,
mortality and length-weight parameters
for some Kuwaiti fish and shrimp.
Fishbyte. 9(2): 30-33.
Mohammad, M. and Osmany, H.B. (2004). A
Note on the occurrence of Sacura
boulengeri (Pisces: Serranidae) along
Pakistan coast. Rec. Zool. Surv. Pakistan.
15: 49-51.
Molly, V., Kasinathan, C and Seeni, M. (2006).
On the first record of the grouper,
Epinephelus flavocaeruleus from Gulf of
Mannar. Marine Fisheries Information
Service, Technical and Extension Series.
190: 24-25.
Morgans, J.F.C. (1982). Serranid fishes of
Tanzania and Kenya. Ichthyol. Bull.
J.L.B. Smith Inst. Ichthyol. 46: 1-44.
Patro, R. and Prasad, R. (1979). Chromosomes of
six marine percoids from the Indian Sea.
Indian Biol. 11(1-2): 9-12.
Patro, R. and Prasad, R. (1980). Chromosomes of
six marine percoids from the Indian Sea.
Ind. Biol. 11: 9-12.
Randall, J.E. (1995). Coastal fishes of Oman.
University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu,
Hawaii. 439pp.
Randall, J.E. and Baldwin, C.C. (1997). Revision
of the serranid fishes of the sub-tribe
Pseudogrammina, with descriptions of
five new species. Indo-Pacific Fishes. 26:
56 p.
Randall, J.E. and Anderson, C. (1993).
Annotated checklist of the epipelagic and
shore fishes of the Maldives Islands.
Ichthyol. Bull. of the J.L.B. Smith Inst. of
Ichthyol. 59: 47.
Randall, J.E. and Heemstra, P.C. (1991).
Revision of Indo-Pacific groupers
(Perciformes: Serranidae: Epinephelinae),
with descriptions of five new species.
Indo-Pacific Fishes. 20: 332 p.
Randall, J.E. and Hoover, J.P. (1993).
Pseudanthias marcia, a new serranid fish
from Oman. Rev. Fr. Aquariol. 20(2): 47-
52.
Randall, J.E. and Pyle, R.L. (2001). Four new
serranid fishes of the anthiine genus
Pseudanthias from the South Pacific.
Raffles Bull. Zool. 49(1): 19-34.
Rao, K.V.R. (1995). Pisces. pp. 483-506. In
Fauna of Chilka Lake. Wetland
Ecosystem Series 1. Zool. Surv. India.
673pp.
Sivasubramaniam, K. (1981). Demersal
resources of the Gulf and Gulf of Oman.
FAO Publ. RAB/71/278/3.
Sivasubramaniam, K. and Ibrahim, M.A.
(1982a). Common Fishes of Qatar.
Marine Science Department, Faculty of
Science, University of Qatar, Doha,
Qatar.
Sivasubramaniam, K and Ibrahim, M. A.
(1982b). Demersal fish resources around
Qatar. Qatar Univ. Sci. Bull. 2: 305-352.
Talwar, P.K. and Jhingran, A.G. (1991). Inland
fishes of India and adjacent countries.
Volume 2. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Talwar, P.K. and Kacker, R.K. (1984).
Commercial sea fishes of India.
Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta.
997pp.
Thomas, S, Sreeram, M.P., George, R.M.,
Naomi, T.S. and N.K. Sanil, N.K. (2008).
First record of occurrence of Boulengers
anthias Sacura boulengeri (Heemstra,
1973), Family: Serranidae, in Indian
waters. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India. 50(1):
69-73.
White, A.W. and Barwani, M.A. (1971).
Common Sea Fishes of the Arabian Gulf
and Gulf of Oman. Trucial States
Council.
Zajonz, U., Khalaf, M. and Krupp, F. (2000).
Coastal fish assemblages of the Socotra
Archipelago. pp.127-170. In Conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity of
Socotra Archipelago: marine habitat,
biodiversity and fisheries surveys and
management. Progress Report of Phase
III. Senckenberg Research Institute and
Natural History Museum, Frankfurt.

113 Husain

Distributional pattern of genus Uromastyx Merrem, 1820 (Reptilia: Squamata:
Agamidae: Uromastycinae) in India, Arabia and Africa

Akhlaq Husain

41, Hari Vihar, Vijay Park, Dehra Dun248 001, Uttarakhand (formerly associated with Zoological
Survey of India)
e-mail: drakhlaqhusain@gmail.com


ABSTRACT: The genus Uromastyx Merrem, 1820, the Spiny-tailed Lizards, is widely distributed. It has
about 18 species, out of which one i.e. Uromastyx hardwickii (Gray, 1827) is found in India (Thar Desert,
Kutch and adjoining arid zones, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh) and Pakistan and the rest of the species
in North African, Middle-Eastern and across south-central Asian countries. They are mostly large lizards,
ranging between 25-91cm. The smallest is Uromastyx macfadyeni (Parker, 1932), the Macfadyens
Mastigure, a species of Somalia and the largest the U. aegyptia (Forskal, 1775), the Egyptian Mastigure,
found in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Libya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria and UAE. In the present
paper the details of U. hardwickii and distribution of all the species has been dealt. They occur at
elevations from sea level to well over 914m and tend to establish themselves in hilly, rocky areas with good
shelter and accessible vegetation, though may be in arid zones.
Key words: Distributional pattern of genus Uromastyx.

INTRODUCTION
The genus Uromastyx Merrem, 1820, the
Spiny-tailed Lizards, is widely distributed. The
generic name, Uromastyx is derived from the
Ancient Greek words our (oupu) meaning tail
and mastigo (Muotiu) meaning whip or
scourge, after the thick-spiked tail
characteristic of all Uromastyx species. It has
about 18 species, out of which one i.e.
Uromastyx hardwickii (Gray, 1827) is found in
India (Thar Desert, Kutch and adjoining arid
zones, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh) and
Pakistan and the rest of the species in North
African, Middle-Eastern and across south-central
Asian countries. They are mostly large lizards
with short snout and squatty legs, smooth back
ans spiny tail, ranging between 25-91 cm. in
length. The smallest is Uromastyx macfadyeni
(Parker, 1932), the Macfadyens Mastigure, a
species of Somalia and the largest the U.
aegyptia (Forskal, 1775), the Egyptian
Mastigure, found in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel,
Jordan, Libya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria and
UAE. They occur at elevations from sea level to
well over 914 m and tend to establish themselves
in hilly, rocky areas with good shelter and
accessible vegetation, though may be in arid

zones. They live in arid regions where it is dry,
hot and sandy and live for 5-10 years in nature.
All the species of Uromastyx are listed
on CITES Appendix II in 1977. As per the
available information, Uromastyx hardwickii and
Uromastyx alfredschmidt are categorized as
Vulnerable and Near Threatened respectively,
under IUCN Red List.
In the present paper the details of U.
hardwickii and distribution of all the species has
been given.
Important references cited on these lizards are:
Indian species: Boulenger (1890), Prashad
(1913), Smith (1935), Vyas (1990), Husain &
Sharma (2010), Murthy (2010) and Venugopal
(2010).
Other species: Flower (1933), Materns (1962),
Wermuth (1967), Sorin & Sorin (2001),
Anderson (2005), Papenfuss (2006), Robinson
(2006 ), Wilms & Bohme (2000, 2001), Wilms
(2007) and Wilms et. Al. (2009)

SYSTEMATIC ACCOUNT WITH
DISTRIBUTION
Order: Squamata
Suborder: Iguania
Family: Agamidae
Subfamily: Uromastycinae
Biological Forum
_

Genus: Uromastyx Merrem, 1820

I. INDIAN SPECIES

1. Uromastyx hardwickii Gray, 1827
Uromastyx hardwicki Gray in Hardwicke &
Gray, 1827: Zool. J. London, 3: 219 (214-229)
(type-locality: Kanauj dist., Uttar Pradesh,
India).
Uromastyx griseus Cuvier, 1829: 34 Le Regne
Animal Distribu, d'apres son Organisation, pur
servir de base l'Histoire naturelle des Animaux
et d'introduction l'Anatomie Compar.
Nouvelle Edition (2nd edition). Vol. 2. Les
Reptiles. Dterville, Paris: 34 (i-xvi, 1-406).
Uromastyx reticulatus Cuvier, 1829.
Type-specimens: Holotype: BMNH
1946.8.14.44, male, plains of Kanouge,
Hindustan, India, pres. General Hardwicke,
without date.
Popular English Names: Indian Spiny-tailed
Lizard, Hardwicks Spiny-tailed Lizard, Spiny-
tailed Lizard.
Local Names: Sandho (Gujarat), Sanda (Uttar
Pradesh, Rajasthani), Salma (Delhi, Punjab).
Characters: Body stout, dorso-ventrally
flattened, with wrinkled skin; head oval; snout
flattened, upper labials 12-14, denticulated; eyes
small; ear-opening a vertical slit, deeply sunk,
anterior margin slightly denticulte; tail thick at
base having distinctive whorls of spiny scales
with large spines on side; head scales unequal,
smooth or obtusely keeled, dorsal scales small,
subequal, mostly smooth with or without
scattered larger scales, ventrals squarish, smooth;
gular scales very small, rounded; a series of
enlarged scales on each side of jaw parallel with
inter-labilas, separated from them by 3-8 rows
of smaller scales; limbs short, strong, hind limbs
with spinose tubecles; pre-ano-femoral pores
present, 12-18 on each side
Colouration: Yellowish brown, sandy or olive,
may have black spots and vermiculations and a
distinctive black spot on front of thigh; tail
bluish-grey (in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan) to sand-
coloured (in Kutch, Gujarat). Colouration in
general may vary, in being darker in colder
season.
Length and Sexual Dimorphism: Males range
from 40 to 49 cm in length while females 34 to
40 cm, have a longer tail than that of females and
with pronounced femoral pores.

Distribution:
India: Thar Desert and surrownding zones:
Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Rajasthan (hot
deserts of Jaisalmer, Barmer and Churu districts),
Gujarat (Kutch), Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh
(type- locality: Kanauj district).
Elsewhere: Afghanistan (area bordering Pakistan
Border), Pakistan.
Habitat: Inhabit dry desert tracts of northern
half of the plains of India, excavating a sloping
zig-zagging or spiralling tunnel of 6 to 8 cm
diameter and over 2 m long for their abode,
having an entrance ending in a chamber. They
are solitary in burrows, but hatchling lizards may
stay with the mother for some time. They bask
close to the entrance of the burrow and remain
very alert and smoothly slide into the burrow at
the slight hint of danger. They hibernate through
the winter and consume fat accumulated on their
back and emerge only in spring.
Habits: Prefers firm ground rather than pure
sand dunes and elevated patches of land
(especially in Kutch where it is invariably found
on isolated patches of high ground called Bets)
above rain water level, often found living in
colonies, sometimes on the outskirts of villages.
Vulnerable; CITES: Appendix II.
Threats:
Prey: Birds of prey (Falco cherrug, the Saker
Falcon, Aquila apax, the Tawny Eagle, Laggar
Falcon and other falcons) are a major predator of
the lizard in the desert. The Cattle Egrets have
also been known to prey on it.
Poaching: On the verge of extinction in western
Rajasthan due to rampant poaching by nomads,
who value this reptile both for its meat and as a
medicine. During monsoon, these lizards leave
their homes and come out to feed on tender
shoots of grass when they fall prey to raptors.
Medicinal Use: Killed for their meat and fat
which are said to cure impotence, fat stored in
tail is purported to have medicinal properties and
for this reason, these lizards are often illegally
collected and sold in various parts of India for
folk medicine. They are kept in captivity by the
cruel practice of dislocating the backbone.
113 Husain

Food & Feeding: Largely herbivorous as their
teeth are adapted for a plant diet which
comprises the flowers and fruits (Capparis
aphylla, the Kair; beans of khejri (beans of
Prosopis spicigera , the Khejri; fruit of
Salvadora persica and grasses). In locust-
breeding areas they have been known to feed on
nymphs and adults of the locust.
In summer they tend to forage more in the
mornings feeding to a greater extent on insects
and in the monsoons they feed principally on
herbs and grasses.
Breeding: Breed in spring after emerging from
hibernation and lay white pigeon-sized eggs.
Remarks: Willms, et al. (2009) resurrected
genus Saara Gray, 1845 for Uromastyx asmussi,
U. hardwickii, and U. loricata.

II. ARABIAN AND AFRICAN SPECIES

2. Uromastyx acanthinura Bell, 1825.
Uromastyx acanthinurus Bell, 1825. Zoological
Journal. London, 1: 457 (457-460) (type-
locality: Africa. Restricted to near Biskra, north
to el Kantara, Algeria, by Flower, 1933).
Type-specimens: Holotype: OUM 7845 (Oxford
University Museum of Natural History), N.
Africa (brought by Capt. Lyon RN), Bell & Hope
Collection.
Popular English Names: Bells Dabb Lizard,
North-African Mastigure, North African Spiny-
tailed Lizard.
Description: Tail longer and narrower (50.27
74.42 % of SVL); 25 whorls forming a
continuous scale row; scale counts around mid-
body 146195 (mean. 165.6); ventrals 7496
(mean. 83.1); subdigital scales 915 (mean:
12.7).
Differentiated from U. nigriventris by being
much less colourful and lacking red, green and
citreous colouration.
Distribution: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya,
Egypt, NW Libya,
Mauritania ?, Western Sahara, Chad (Tibesti and
Ennedi Mountains), Mali, Niger,
N Sudan.
Uromastix acanthinurus nigerrimus Hartert,
1913. Novit. Zool., London , 20: 79 (76-84) (type
locality: Southern Oued Mya, Algerian Sahara).
Southern Algerian Sahara. Moracco, Algeria,
Tunisia, Libya, Chad, Mali, Niger, S Sudan.
Remarks: Uromastyx acanthinura flavifasciata
is considered as a subspecies of dispar by Wilms
& Bohme (2001). Uromastix acanthinura
nigriventris Rothschild & Hartert, 1912 has been
elevated to full species status.
In some literature following treatment has been
given:
U. acanthinura acanthinura Bell, 1825:
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisiia, Mauritania, Libya
U. acanthinura. dispar Hyden, 1827: Sudan ,
Chad (Tibesti and Ennedi Mountains).
U. acanthinura. geyri Muller, 1922: South
Algeria, Mali and Niger. The subspecies lives
only in Mountain area (Air and Hoggar Mnts.).

3. Uromastyx aegyptia (Forskal, 1775)
Lacerta aegyptia Forskal, 1775. Forskal, 1775.
Descriptiones animalium, avium, amphibiorum,
piscium, insectorum, vermium; quae in itinere
Orientali observavit Petrus Forskl. Mlleri,
Hauniae: 13 (xxxiv + 164 pp) (type-locality:
Egypt).
Type-specimen: Holotype: ZFMK 52398, adult
female, coll. R. Leptien, VI. 1983 (leptieni).
Neotype (ZFMK 44216) and lectotype
designated by Wilms & Bhme 2000.
Lectotype: BMNH 1946.8.14.55 (microlepis).
Etymology: Named after its distribution in
Egypt.
Popular English Names: Egyptian Mastigure,
Egyptian Spinytailed Lizard.
Description: Tail long (60.18102.83 % of
SVL), last 28 whorls forming a continuous
scale row; scales around mid body 238322;
having pre-ano-femoral pores.
Length: One of the largest species of the genus
with a total length of up to 76 cm.
Distribution: Libya, Egypt (East of the Nile),
Israel, N Saudi Arabia, Oman, Iraq, Iran, Syria,
Jordan.
In Israel there are two of them viz. U. aegyptus
and U. ornate which are endangered there and
protected by law.
leptieni: Oman, United Arab Emirates (vicinity
of Muscat in the south through the Batina coastal
plain and the eastern foothills of the Hajar al-
Gharbi mountains to the Musandam Peninsula in
the north). Type locality: Wadi Sijii, United Arab
Emirates.
microlepis: Deserts and semi-deserts of Arabia
(Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab
116 Husain

Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait), in Jordan, Syria, Iraq
and coastal Iran.
Subspecies:
Uromastyx aegyptia aegyptia (Forsskal, 1775)
Uromastyx aegyptia microlepis Arnold, 1980
Uromastyx aegyptia leptieni Wilms & Bohme,
2000
Conservation Status: Least Concern.
Remarks: Differential diagnosis (aegyptia): The
nomino-typic subspecies is distinguished from U.
aegyptia microlepis by having enlarged
tubercular scales scattered over the scalation of
the flanks and by lower scale counts. It is
distinguished from U. aegyptia leptieni by a
different juvenile colour pattern and a higher
number of ventrals (Wilms & Bohme, 2000).
Differential diagnosis (leptieni): Uromastyx
aegyptia leptieni is distinguished from
aegyptiaand microlepisby a different juvenile
colour pattern and a lower number of ventrals
(Wilms & Bohme, 2000).
Differential diagnosis (microlepis): Uromastyx a.
microlepis is distinguished from U. a. aegyptia
by lacking enlarged tubercular scales scattered
over the scalation of the flanks and by smaller
scales. It is distinguished from U. aegyptius
leptieni by a different juvenile colour pattern and
a higher number of ventrals (Wilms & Bohme,
2000).
U. aegyptius aegyptius (Forskal, 1775): Egypt,
(East of Nile), parts of Israel.
U. aegyptius microlepis Blanford, 1874: Arab
Peninsular, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, parts of
Israel.

4. Uromastyx alfredschmidt Wilms & Bohme,
2001
Uromastyx alfredschmidti Wilms & Bohme,
2000. Zool. Abh. Staatl. Mus. Tierk. Dresden, 51
(8) (type-locality: Tassili NAjjer, Tamrit Plateau
(1600 m elevation), approx. 30 km northeast
Djanet, Algeria).
male, leg. Dr. G. Wangorsch, 22.07.1974.
Etymology: Named after Alfred Schmidt,
German herpeto-culturist and patron.
Popular English Names: Schmidts Mastigure,
Schmidts Spiny-tailed Lizard.
Description: Tail long and narrow (79.3187.26
% of SVL); 23 whorls of tail forming a
continuous scale row; scale counts around mid-
body 138202; Scales of flanks enlarged
triangular and imbricate.
Colouration: Adult males complete black.
Distribution: W. Libya, S. Algeria.
Threatened.

5. Uromastyx asmussi (Strauch, 1863)
Centrotrachelus asmussi Strauch, 1863. Bulletin
de lAcadmie Impriale des Sciences de St.
Ptersbourg, 6: 477-480 (type-locality: Sar-i-
tschah, Iran (vide Wermuth, 1967).
Type-specimen: Holotype: ZISP3029
(Zoological Museum, Academy of Sciences,
Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg),
male, Seri-Tschah (Eastern Persia), coll.
Keyzerling, 18581859.
Popular English Name: Iranian Mastigure.
Description: 12 rows of un-keeled intercalary
scales separating each tail whorl dorsally; pre-
ano-femoral- pores 813.
Distribution: S Iran (Kavir desert, Isfahan,
Khorasan, Kerman, Baluchistan-Sistan),
Afghanistan, Pakistan (Baluchistan).
6. Uromastyx benti (Anderson, 1894)
Aporoscelis benti Anderson, 1894. Ann. Mag.
nat. Hist. (6) 14: 376 (377) (type-locality:
Makulla, Hadramut, SE Arabia; lectotype from
Wadi Hadramaut, Yemen).
Type-specimen: Lectotype: BMNH
1946.8.11.72, adult male, leg. Dr. J. Anderson,
without date (designated by Wilms& Bohme
2000).
Popular English Names: Bent's Mastigure,
Bent's Spiny-tailed Lizard, Rainbow Benti,
Mountain Benti, Yemeni Spiny-tailed Lizard.
Description: Tail long; femoral and pre-anal
pores lacking; scales large, around midbody
(160.05 +/- 8.98) and ventrals large (74 +/- 4.02).
Sexual Dimorphism: Male are often
predominantly blue, sometimes with orange and
red colouring, while females are usually light tan
with reddish tails (Sorin and Sorin, 2001).
Length: 36 cm in total length.
Distribution: Yemen (species range is believed
to be restricted to the southern coastal region,
extending up to and beyond the border with
Oman (Anderson, 2005), SW Oman (found in
the coastal areas of extreme southwestern Oman
between the Yemen border and the town of
Mirbat. The species is fairly common in the
117
Husain

Mirbat region, with a density of around 1one per
hectare (Papenfuss, 2006) and and questionably
Saudi Arabia, although listed as a range State for
U. benti, Anderson (2005), Papenfuss (2006) and
Robinson ( 2006) note that the species may in
fact not extend as far north as Saudi Arabia).
Evaluated.
Remarks: It is kept as pet and for that purpose is
exported to USA, being the main importer.

7. Uromastyx dispar Heyden, 1827
Uromastyx acanthinura dispar Heyden, 1827.
Reptilien. In Rppell, E. Atlas zu Reise im
nrdlichen Afrika. l. Zoologie. H. L. Brnner,
Frankfurt a. M., pp. 1-24.
Popular English Name: Mali Uromaxtyx,
Sudan Mastigure.
Subspecies:
1. Uromastyx dispar dispar Heyden, 1827.
Reptilien. In: Rppell, E. Atlas zu Reise im
nrdlichen Afrika. l. Zoologie. H. L. Brnner,
Frankfurt a. M., pp. 1-24 (type-locality: Wste
bei Ambucol und Dongala, Nubien = Sudan).
Differential diagnosis (dispar): Discrimination
between the subspecies of U. dispar is possible
only by means of colouration of adult males.
Adult U. d. dispar males are distinguished from
adult U. d. flavifasciata males by lacking
transversal stripes on the animals back and from
adult U. d. maliensis males by the less
pronounced black colouration of the body.
Distribution: Mauritania, Sudan, Chad (Tibesti
and Ennedi Mountains).
2. Uromastyx dispar flavifasciata Mertens, 1962.
Bemerkungen ber Uromastyx acanthinurus als
Rassenkreis Senck. biol. 43: 425-432 (type-
locality: type locality: approx. 50 km north of
Dakar, Senegal (see Bohme,1978): the Spiny-
tailed Lizard.
Differential diagnosis (flavifasciata): Adult U. d.
flavifasciata males can be distinguished from U.
d. dispar and U. d. maliensis males by their black
body colouration with 57 wide, clearly-defined
yellow, white or red dorsal cross-bands.
Occasionally these cross-bands can be reduced or
be even completely absent.
Distribution: Western Sahara south of 28
northern latitude, Mauritania, SW Algeria.
3. Uromastyx dispar maliensis Jogger &
Lambert, 1996. J. African Zool., 110(1): 21-51
(type-locality: Mali, 40 south-east of Goa).
Differential diagnosis (maliensis): Adult
Uromastyx dispar maliensis males differ from
adult dispar males by the more pronounced black
colouration of the body and from adult
flavifasciata males by lacking transversal cross-
bands on the dorsum.
Distribution: NW Mali, SW Algeria.
Remarks: U. dispar maliensis Jogger &
Lambert also considered at specific level.

8. Uromastyx geyri Muller, 1922.
Uromastyx temporalis Valenciennes,
1854.Compte Rendu des Sances de lAcadmie
des Sciences, Paris 39: 89 (status unclear).
Uromastix geyri Muller, 1922. Beobachter,
Frankfurt 63: 193 (193-201) (type-locality: entre
Aquebly et Djebbel-Hoggar, Sahara).
Type-specimen: Lectotype: Gara Djenoum,
Ahaggar Mts. Algeria, S. Algeria.
Popular English Names: Geyrs Spiny-tailed
Lizard, Sahara Mastigure, Saharan Spiny-tailed
Lizard.
Etymology: Named after ornithologist H. Geyr
von Schweppenburg who brought the first
specimens of this species to Europe.
Description: Tail longer and narrower (65.45
98.06 % of SVL), 25 whorls forming a
continuous scale row; lower scale counts around
mid-body 142196; enlarged tubercular scales on
flanks.
Distribution: S Algeria, Mali and Niger (Air and
Hoggar Mountain area).

9. Uromastyx loricata (Blanford, 1874)
Centrotrachelus loricatus Blanford, 1874. Proc.
Zool. Soc. London: 660 (656-161) (type- locality:
haud procul a Bushire, urebe ad litus sinus
Persici).
Type-specimen: Holotype: BMNH
1946.8.11.59, female, Bushir, Iraq, pres. P.L.
Sclater, without date.
Popular English Names: Iraqi Mastigure, Iraqi
Spiny-tailed Lizard, Mesopotamian Mastigure.
Description: 12 rows of un-keeled intercalary
scales separating each tail whorl dorsally; 15-20
pre-ano-femoral pores.
Distribution: Iraq, SW Iran (Kurdistan-
Kermanshah, Khusestan-Lorestan, Fars)
118
Husain

10. Uromastyx macfadyeni (Parker, 1932)
Uromastix macfadyeni Parker, 1932. Proc. Zool.
Soc. London: 353(335-367) (type-locality:
Berbera, British Somaliland (Berbara vide
Willms et al. 2009).
Type-specimen: Holotype: BMNH 1946.8.14.54
(formerly BMNH 1925.4.3.1).
Popular English Name: Macfadyens Mastigure
Description: Tali long with last 8-21 annuli
forming a continuous scale row; tail width
between the 4
th
and 5
th
whorl equivalent to 5662
% of maximum tail width at 5th whorl; enlarged
scales on anterior margin of ear-opening;
presence of pre-ano-femoral pores
Distribution: NW Somalia (West Galbeed).

11. Uromastyx nigriventris Rothschild &
Hartert, 1912
Uromastix acanthinurus nigriventris Rothschild
& Hartert, 1912. Novit. Zool., London, 18: 468
(type locality: Tilrhempt between Laghouat and
Ghardaia, Algeria).
Type-specimen: Holotype: BMNH 1969.2074,
male, coll. W. Rothschild and E. Hartert, without
date.
Uromastix acanthinurus werneri Muller, 1922.
Naturwiss. Beobachter, Frankfurt ,63: 201 (193-
201) (type locality: Provinz Orn (= Ain
Sefra?, vide Mertens, 1962, cited in Wermuth,
1967): W Algeria through Morocco.
Popular English Names: Moraccan Spiny-tailed
Lizard.
Description: Tail long and narrow ((43.4875.14
% of SVL), last 2-5 whorls of annuli forming a
continuous scale row, scale counts around mid-
body 139-208, ventrals 66-99, subdigital scales
9-17. Vividly red, green and citreous coloured.
Distribution: Morocco (east and south of the
Atlas Mountain Chain), W Algeria (Sahara Atlas,
NW / NE/ SW of the Great Western Erg).

12. Uromastyx occidentalis Mateo et al., 1999
Uromastyx occidentalis Mateo, Geniez, Lopez-
Jurado & Bons, 1999. Rev. Esp. Herp. 12: 97-
109 (type-locality: Aagtel Agmumuit, between
Yeloua and Mades (Adrar Souttouf, Western
Sahara) (21 52'N, 15 31'W).
Type-specimen: Holotype: DB.ULPGC-5
collected by M. Hasi June 25th 1995.
Paratype: E.B.D.29495.
Popular English Name: Giant Spiny-tailed
Lizard.
Description: Tail long, less than 7 whorls
forming a continuous scale row; scales around
mid-body 297301; lacking preanofemoral
pores.
Distribution: Western Sahara.

13. Uromastyx ocellata Lichtenstein, 1823
Uromastyx ocellatus Lichtenstein, 1823. Knigl.
Preuss. Akad. Wiss./ T. Trautwein, Berlin. x, 107
(118 pp.) (type-locality: Nubia (and Syria).
Type-specimen: Syntypes: ZMB 809, Nubia;
ZMB 81113, Nubia; ZMB 810, Syria; all
specimens leg. Hemprich & Ehrenberg. After
Denzer, et al. (1997), ZMB 81113 are lost
which we cannot confirm at least for ZMB 811.
Popular English Name: Eyed Dabb Lizard,
Ocellated Spiny-tail.
Description: Tail long, last 821 annuli forming
a continuous scale row each; lacking enlarged
scales on the anterior margin of the ear opening;
possessing pre-ano-femoral pores.
Length: Maximum 30 cm.
Distribution: NW Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, N
Sudan, SE Egypt, Ethiopia (near Somalian
border).
U. ocillata ocillata Lichtenstein, 1823: Sudan
and Egypt
U.ocillata ornata Heyden, 1827: Egypt, Israel,
Saudi Arabia.
U. ocellata macfadyeni Parker, 1932: Somalia,
Djibouiti and perhaps Eritrea.
U. ocellata philbye Parker, 1938: Mountains of
western Arabia from Jabal as Sinfa to southern
Hejaz (Saudi Arabia).

14. Uromastyx ornata Heyden, 1827
Popular English Name: Ornate Mastigure.
Subspecies:
Uromastyx ornata ornata Heyden,1827.
Zoologie. H. L. Brnner, Frankfurt a. M., pp. 1-
24.
Description: Significantly long tail, 25 whorls
forming a continuous scale row; having enlarged
scales on the anterior margin of the ear opening;
possessing pre-ano-femoral pores; distinguished
by a different ratio between tail width at the 5th
tail whorl and between 4th and 5th whorl (tail
width between the 4th and 5th whorl equivalent
119 Husain

to 6379 % of maximum tail width at the 5th
whorl.
Young brightly colored.
Sexual Dimorphism: Males tend towards a main
body coloration of varing shades of blue (sky
blue to deep cobalt blue) and /or green (lime
green to deep forest green), with large yellow
spotting occurring on the upper back. A few also
get pinkish to orange washes over the center of
the back. Females are usually much paler
versions of the males, with more of the
background colors being tans with occasional
blue or green highlights but similar bright yellow
spotting.
Length: A medium size species, with most
maturing around 10" to 14", 250 + grams.
Distribution: E Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia.
In Israel two forms viz. U. aegyptus and U.
ornata are there which are endangered and
protected by law.
Habit: Adults are somewhat sedentary.
Breeding: They are not one of the easier ones to
pair (females must be paired while young), but
mated pairs are less aggressive toward each other
compared to say Moroccans or Mali's.
Uromastyx ornata philbyi Parker, 1938. Ann.
Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 1: 481-492 (type locality:
Mohila an der stlichen Kste des Rothen
Meeres (= Al Muwaylih, Saudi Arabia vide
Arnold, 1986 = Moila, Arabia, vide Schmidt &
Marx 1956).
Distribution: W Saudi Arabia, NW Yemen;
Type locality: between Makkah and Shabwa,
southern Hejaz, between Mountains and Rub al
Khali, Saudi Arabia.
Remarks: Differential diagnosis (ornata,
philbyi): Uromastyx o. ornatais distinguished
from U. o. philbyi by its narrower tail (ratio tail
length divided by maximum tail width at the 5
th

whorl is 3.615.3 in ornata vs. 3.033.96 in
philbyi).

15. Uromastyx principes (OShaughnessy,
1880)
Popular English Name: Princely Mastigure.
Description: Tail short, spiny.
Distribution: Somalia.

16. Uromastyx shobraki Wilms & Schmitz,
2007
Uromastyx yemenensis shobraki Wilms &
Schmitz, 2007. Zootaxa, 1394: 1-23 (type
locality: Mafraq Mocca (Mafraq al-Mukha), km
13.5, Republic of Yemen).
Uromastyx shobraki Wilms et al., 2009. Bonner
zoologische Beitrge, 56: 55-99.
male, leg. B. Schtti, 5.6.IV.1988.
Etymology: Named in honour of Dr.
Mohammed Shobrak, Director of the National
Wildlife Research Centre, NWRC in Taif, Saudi
Arabia, for his outstanding achievements
regarding the conservation of Arabian Wildlife.
Description: Long tail, last 821 annuli forming
a continuous scale row each; having smaler
scales around midbody (188.92 +/- 13.22);
smaller ventrals (86.64 +/-4.88); lacking
femoral- and pre-anal pores.
Differentiated from U. yemenensis in its larger
maximum size (393 mm v/s 337 mm in U.
yemenensis) and in different colour pattern and
in significant genetic differences.
Distribution: W Yemen.

17. Uromastyx thomasi (Parker, 1930)
Uromastix [sic] thomasi Parker, 1930: 595 (type
locality: Bu Juay (1470 feet), desert Rubal
Khali, Hadramaut, Southern Arabia (Oman vide
Wilms et al. 2002).
Type-specimen: Holotype: BMNH
1946.8.14.43.
Popular English Name: Oman Spiny-tailed
Lizard, Thomas Mastigure.
Description: Tail short; preanofemoral pores
present. May exhibit temperature-dependent sex
determination (Wilms, 2007).
Distribution: Coastal Oman. Does not occur in
Yemen (vide Wilms et al. 2002). Reports from
Bahrain are questionable vide Wilms et al.
(2002). Not in Saudi Arabia ((Rub' al Khali
desert)) vide Wilms et al. (2009).

18. Uromastyx yemenensis Wilms & Schmitz,
2007
Uromastyx yemenensis Wilms & Schmitz, 2007.
Zootaxa, 1394: 1-23 (type locality: Abyan
Governate, vicinity of Lodar (Lawdar), Republic
of Yemen).
male, leg. I. Haikal, don. 1985 (yemenensis).
120 Husain

Etymology: Named after its distribution i.e.
Yemen.
Popular English Name: South African Spiny-
tailed Lizard, Yemen Spiny-tailed Lizard.
Description: Tail long, without intercalary
scales between whorls of dorsal surface, last 8
21 whorls each consists of a simple continuous
series of large scales; lacking femoral- and pre-
anal pores; having smaller and more scales
around midbody (192.53 +/-16.63) and smaller
and more ventrals (87.61 +/-5.66).
Distribution: SW Arabia, SW Yemen.
Remarks: Uromastyx yemenensis shobraki
Wilms & Schmitz, 2007 has been elevated to full
species status.

Abbreviations used:
BMNH / BM: British Museum (Natural History)
/ The Natural History Museum, Department of
Zoology, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD,
United Kingdom (formerly The British Museum
[Natural History])
CITES: The Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
DB.ULPGC: Department of Biology, University
of Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain.
International for the Protection of Nature, IUPN).
OUM: Oxford University Museum of Natural
History.
SLV: Length from tip of snout to vent.
ZFMK: Zoologisches Forschunsmuseum
Alexander Koenig, Bonn / Zoologisches
Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander
Koenig, Bonn, Germany / Alexander Koeing
Zoological Research Museum, Bonn.
ZISP: Zoological Museum, Academy of
Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, St.
Petersburg.
ZMB: Universitt Humboldt, Zoologisches
Museum, Invalidenstrasse 43, 10115 Berlin,
Germany/ Berlin Zoological Museum.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to the Director,
encouragement and the Officer-in-Charge,
Northern Regional Centre, ZSI, Dehra Dun for
library facility.

REFERENCES
Anderson, S. (2005). University of the Pacific,
in litt., to IUCN Species Programme
Global Reptile Assessment.
Boulenger, G.A. (1890). The Fauna of British
India, Including Ceylon and Burma.
Reptilia and Batrachia. Taylor & Francis,
London, xviii. 541pp.
Flower, S. (1933). Notes on the recent reptiles
and amphibians of Egypt, with a list of the
species recorded from that kingdom. Proc.
Zool. Soc. London. pp.735-851.
Husain, A. and Sharma, G. (2010). A
comparative study on Thar Desert and
Western Himalayan reptiles with
conservation status of threatened species.
Proc. Impact of Climate Change on
Biodiversity and Challenges in Thar
Desert. 129-145 (ZSI Publ.)
Mertens, R. (1962). Bemerkungen ber
Uromastyx acanthinurus als Rassenkreis
Senck. biol. 43: 425-432.
Murthy, T.S.N. (2010). The Reptile Fauna of
India. B.R. Publishing, New Delhi. 332 pp.
Parshad, B. (1913). Note on the Spiny tailed
Lizard (Uromastyx hardwickii). J. Bombay
nat. Hist. Soc. 23: 370.
Papenfuss, T. (2006). in litt., to IUCN Species
Programme (University of California).
Robinson, M.D. (2006). in litt., to IUCN
Species Programme (Sultan Qaboos
University).
Smith, M.A. (1935). The fauna of British India,
including Ceylon and Burma. Reptiles and
Amphibia, Vol. II. Sauria. Taylor and
Francis, London, 440 pp.
Sorin, E. and Sorin, S. (2001).
http://www.kingsnake.com/uromastyx/uroc
aresheet.html (last updated 2001, viewed
December 2005).
Venugopal, P.D. (2010). An updated and
annotated list of Indian lizards (Reptilia:
Sauria) based on a review of distribution
records and checklists of Indian reptiles.
Journal of Threatened Taxa. 2(3): 725-
738.
Vyas, R. (1990). Notes on capture of the Spiny-
tailed lizard (Uromastyx hardwickii) in
Gujarat Hamadryad. 15: 28.
121
Husain

Wermuth, H. (1967). Liste der rezenten
Amphibien und Reptilien. Agamidae. Das
Tierreich. 86: 1-127.
Wilms, T. (2007). Dornschwanzagamen der
Gattung Uromastyx- Einfhrung in
Taxonomie und kologie einer auf Wsten
spezialisierten Echsengruppe. Draco. 8
(31): 4-19.
Wilms, T. and Bhme, W. (2000). A new
Uromastyx species from south-eastern
Arabia, with comments on the taxonomy
of Uromastyx aegyptia (Forskal, 1775)
(Squamata: Sauria. Agamidae).
Herpetozoa. 13(3/4): 133-148.
Wilms, T. and Bhme, W. (2001). Revision der
Uromastyx acanthinura- Artengruppe, mit
Beschreibung einer neuen Art aus der
Zentralsahara (Reptilia: Sauria:
Agamidae). Zool. Abh. Staatl. Mus. Tierk.
Dresden. 51(8).
Wilms, T., Lohr, B. and Hulbert, F. (2002).
Erstmalige Nachzucht der Oman-
Dornschwanzagame - Uromastyx thomasi
Parker, 1930- (Sauria: Agamidae:
Leiolepidinae) mit Hinweisen zur
intraspezifischen Variabilitt und zur
Lebensweise. Salamandra. 38(1): 45-62.
Wilms, T., Wolfgang, B., Philipp, W.,
Lutzmann, Nicol, L. and Andreas, S.
(2009). On the Phylogeny and Taxonomy
of the Genus Uromastyx Merrem, 1820
(Reptilia: Squamata: Agamidae:
Uromastycinae) Resurrection of the
Genus Saara Gray, 1845. Bonner
zoologische Beitrge. 56: 55-99.

122
Husain

Diversity of Phthirapteran Ectoparasites on Domestic Fowl, Gallus gallus
domesticus in Garhwal Region

Rakesh Kumar*, M. C. Trivedi* and Adesh Kumar**

*Department of Zoology, Govt. P.G. College Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
**Department of Zoology, Govt. P.G. College Ranikhet, Uttarakhand, India
e-mail: **dr.adeshk@gmail.com;*rkchauhan440@gmail.com


ABSTRACT: Phthirapteran ectoparasites are small contagious drab like wingless insect
commonly known as lice. These tiny creatures are extremely host specific. These nuisance insects
are parasites virtually of all birds and some mammals. All phthirapteran are permanent
ectoparasite and complete their entire life cycle on the body of host. Phthirapteran diversity of
Garhwal region has not been investigated so far. A routine survey work was done and specimens
were collected through fumigation and ruffling techniques. The collected specimens were
preserved in 70% ethyl alcohol. Thereafter, specimens were sorted out species-wise and sex-wise
under trinocular stereozoom research microscope. Out of twelve lice species infesting domestic
fowl all over India, nine was recorded in present study e.g. Menopon gallinae, Menacanthus
cornutus, Menacanthus stramineus, Lipeurus lawrensis tropicalis, Lipeurus heterographus,
lipeurus caponis, Goniodes gigas, Goniodes dissimilis and Goniocotes gallinae. Three species out
of nine were found amblyceran and rest ischnoceran. The amblyceran are haematophagous
species and might decrease the productivity of poultry industry in the region.
Key words: Phthiraptera, ectoparasite, Mallophaga, Ischnocera, Amblycera, Diversity.

INTRODUCTION
A dozen of phtirapteran ectoparasites
reportedly infest the domestic fowl. They mostly
feed by nibbling or chewing the dry skin scale,
feathers or scab on the skin. The irritation from
their mouthparts together with that of the sharp
claws on their feet results in nervous condition of
infested birds that prevent sleep cause loss of
appetite and diarrhoea and render the weakened
fowls an easy prey for various poultry diseases.
Furthermore the infested fowl are often found in
a mopy and drowsy condition. The parasitized
birds with droopy wings and ruffled feathers are
refusing to eat and gradually become emaciated.
The heavily infested fowl can be seen
performing preening, grooming through their
beaks and claws. The scratches thus made may
act as potential site for the entry of other
detrimental pathogens. Young chickens and
turkey that are brooded by lousy hens are often
killed in great number while the swarming of lice
from the hens to them almost as soon as they
hatched from the eggs.
Harrison (1915), Fletcher (1926), Ewing
(1929), Bedford (1932), Bhattacharjee (1939)

and Ansari (1943, 47, 51 & 55) have performed
taxonomic studies on phthirapteran fauna
infesting birds and mammals. Some of them also
provided a synoptic list for identification of
Phthiraptera. Few other workers like Wilson
(1934), Hoyle (1938), Clay (1950, 57, 58), Ward
(1957), Arora & Chopra (1959), Ryder (1967),
Brown (1970), Eichler et al. (1974), Eveleish &
Amano (1977) and Lakshminarayana (1977)
have provided some important information on
phthirapteran infesting birds and mammals.
Lakshminarayana (1979) has given a synoptic
list of Phthiraptera occurring on different avian
and mammalian host. Present paper provides
information of phthirapteran fauna occurring on
domestic fowls of Garhwal region.

MATERIALS AND METHOD
Extensive survey works in different
localities of Garhwal region was performed to
record the phthirapteran ectoparasitic diversity
on Gallus gallus domesticus. Most of the
examined birds were Assel, desi (indigenous),
Leghorn, Broiler, strains of Kalinga brown and
Biological Forum
_

starbrow. Birds legs were tied with threads and
wings held with hands. Birds were kept in large
polybags containing a wad of cotton wool soaked
in chloroform. The head of bird kept outside to
save the life of the bird. After ten minutes the
entire lice load were fallen out by fluffing the
feathers of birds on large white plastic sheet.
Lice were collected in vials containing 70%
alcohol. Then lice were sorted out species and
sex wise under stereozoom trinocular research
microscope. Selected specimens were
permanently mounted on slides and identified
under trinocular research microscope.

RESULTS
1. Menopon gallinae Linn. (1758)
This amblyceran species commonly known as
small body louse or shaft louse and was recorded
practically all over the world on domestic fowl.
In addition to the type host (Gallus gallus
domesticus) it was occasionally been founded
from other phasianids viz. Numida meleagris
domestica and Meleagris gallopavo domestica. It
is also known to pass readily to other barn yard
fowls viz. pigeons, ducks, guinea fowls, turkeys
etc. and mammals like cattle, horses and dogs.
Whenever, handling the infested bird respective
louse soon runs over the observers hand also.
This species is most common on the covert
feathers of tibial hip region, vent, back and breast
of the host.
This pale yellow small menoponid
(Table 1) have definite transverse band. They
have triangular head more or less rounded
interiorly. Temples were small, rounded laterally.
Occipital were concave. Antennae were small
and not sexually dimorphic (Plate 1, Fig. 1&2).
Prothorax was protruded. Pterothorax was short
and broad, diverging laterally and convex
posteriorly with a series of long hairs. Abdomen
was elongate and oval. The two sexes apparently
similar but the males were shorter (Plate 1, Fig.
1&2) than to female with rounded posterior end
as compared to more or less pointed posterior
end of female with a fringe of short hairs. The
male genitalia was small, simple, feebly
sclerotized and club shaped (Plate 1, Fig. 1).
The birds heavily parasitized with M.
gallinae had the skins more oftenly wounded by
the hens beak mainly under the wings. M.
gallinae is haematophagous, to be sure (although
the blood does not make a constant dietary
component for this species) but to a considerable
extent. Louse also devours on feathers and skin
products and the covert feathers get destroyed
and show unquestionable gaps next to the shaft
by the infestation of this species. Heavily
infested fowls are frequently seen devoid of
feathers on tibial hip region due to the damage
by the louse and self-preening by bird.

Table 1. Biometrical analysis of M. gallinae (in mm)
Body Parts Male Female
Length Width Length Width
Head 0.31-0.35 0.35-0.48 0.26-0.35 0.41-0.51
Prothorax 0.18-0.23 0.31-0.38 0.18-0.28 0.31-0.45
Pterothorax 0.15-0.18 0.38-0.52 0.12-0.21 0.43-0.57
Abdomen 0.89-1.04 0.64-0.71 0.94-1.20 0.61-0.80
Total length 1.54-1.78 - 1.38-2.00 -
Genitalia length 0.08-0.15 - - -

2. Menacanthus cornutus Schommer (1913)
Earlier this species has been reported
form American birds. Seguy (1944) has however,
doubted its validity. Present studies indicate that
it not only infests the poultry birds but ranks
second in the order of abundance. This fast
moving amblyceran louse apparently looks
similar to M. stramineus but is smaller in size
(Plate 1, Fig. 3&4). However, its habits show a
clear departure from M. stramineus. It is
commonly found on the feathers of breast and
vent and also back.
These small, active, brownish pale
menoponid have semilunar head with distinct
lateral antennary sinus and hair and several setae
in front. Prothoracic lateral angles angulate with
antero-lateral spine. Pterothorax is larger than
head. Abdomen elliptical with marked terminal
segment and long hairs. Two sexes are
apparently alike but the males are distinctly
124
Kumar, Trivedi and Kumar

smaller than the females (Plate 1, Fig. 3&4).
The male genitalia was distinctly smaller and
feebly sclerotized. The bases of feathers of head,
neck and crown region are found wrapped with
egg deposits. This species must be capable of
inflicting loss to the health and productivity of
bird owing to its haematophagous nature, which
has been reported for first time during present
studies. Their role in reservoiring and
transmitting infectious agents requires
investigation.

Table 2. Biometrical analysis of M. cornutus (in mm)
Head 0.29-0.34 0.41-0.46 0.32-0.37 0.48-0.55
Prothorax 0.15-0.18 0.31-0.34 0.18-0.21 0.32-0.42
Mesothorax 0.15-0.17 0.31-0.38 0.14-0.20 0.40-0.54
Metathorax 0.09-0.11 0.35-0.41 0.09-0.14 0.49-0.58
Abdomen 0.75-0.91 0.41-0.54 0.83-1.96 0.66-0.84
Total length 1.40-1.61 - 1.58-1.88 -

3. Menacanthus stramineus Nitzsch (1818)
It is commonly known as the chicken
body louse and is the large species of genus
Menacanthus which was recorded only from
domestic game birds. It is the true parasite of
Turkey (Meleagris gallopava domestica), but
now it seems to have established itself on the
domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus).
Records on Pavo m. muticus Linn., Phasinus
colchicus and Numida meleagris domestica are
due to contamination (Ansari, 1955).
This dark yellow Menoponid (Plate 1,
Fig. 5&6), with marked transverse plates is
present abundantly around cloaca, in the feathers
of back, vent and under the birds wings. When
the feathers are parted, all sizes of lice run
rapidly to cover. This species has spent its most
of the time on the skin of the host. This active
menoponid is bigger than the other two
amblyceran species. It has relatively small
triangular head, antennae short and simple.
Prothorax large, protruded, laterals angles
triangular. Sternum has cluster of long hairs.
Abdomen was ovate with a group of setae and
three long hairs in the posterior angle. Each
segment bears two rows of hairs on dorsum.
Length of segment was almost equal. The two
sexes nearly similar in appearance (Plate 1, Fig.
5&6) but the female have slightly smaller
abdomen but broader and rounded posteriorly.
Male genitalia enlarged and well sclerotized
(Plate 1, Fig. 5&6).
Menacanthus stramineus, one of the
most studied amblyceran louse, causes the most
visible damage to the skin surface and the
epidermis, as well as characteristic gnawing of
young feathers on the body region where this
species occurs in masses e.g. in the cloacal
region an inflammatory state of the skin is
usually the result, visible in the form of a
pronounced reddening.

Table 3. Biometrical analysis of M. stramineus (in mm)
Head 0.40-0.48 0.61-0.69 0.37-0.48 0.55-0.72
Prothorax 0.25-0.31 0.48-0.54 0.20-0.32 0.41-0.57
Mesothorax 0.21-0.28 0.61-0.64 0.20-0.29 0.52-0.68
Metathorax 0.12-0.20 0.64-0.69 0.11-0.15 0.57-0.75
Abdomen 1.74-2.09 0.86-1.06 1.07-2.17 0.75-1.12
Total length 12.77-3.12 - 1.90-3.09 -
123 Kumar, Trivedi and Kumar

4. Lipeurus caponis Linn. (1805)
It is commonly called as the wing louse or the
variable louse of chicken. It is cosmopolitan and
was recorded from the domestic fowl and other
gallinaceous birds from all over the world.
Kellogg and Paine (1914) recorded it from India
on Gennaeus Melanotus, G. swinhoe, Argusianus
argus, Phasianus torquata and Pavo nigripennis.
Ansari (1947) collected it from Gallus
domesticus. It prefers the large wing and tail
feathers and is commonly found between the
barbules on the underside of shaft. Neck is the
next preferred site of occurrence.
L. caponis is also an elongate louse
(Plate II, Fig. 1&2). Males have long and
narrow head, Abdomen elongates, tergite with 4-
6 long posterior hairs, tergal plates median and
divided, sexually dimorphic antennae (Plate II,
Fig. 1&2), which are filiform in female and well
built and with additional appendage in males.
Male genitalia enlarged but the basal plate feebly
sclerotized (Plate II, Fig. 1). In female, vulva
straight was not very clearly visible with two
small longitudinal bands bifurcating posteriorly.
L. caponis destroys mainly the feathers
of the tail and wings. The presence of these
Mallophaga may be more dangerous for birds
living wild, for which the destruction of flight
feathers could limit flying or make it impossible.

Table 4. Biometrical analysis of L. caponis (in mm)
Head 0.43-0.51 0.21-0.34 0.43-0.57 0.26-0.38
Prothorax 0.15-0.18 0.17-0.23 0.12-0.24 0.20-0.29
Pterothorax 0.23-0.27 0.26-0.37 0.21-0.28 0.30-0.40
Abdomen 1.17-1.39 0.31-0.43 1.04-1.46 0.33-0.57
Total length 1.98-2.24 - 1.81-2.41 -

5. Lipeurus lawrensis tropicalis Peters (1931)
It is commonly called as the tropical hen
louse. Peters (1931) described it from domestic
fowls in Bahama Islands, Caicos Islands,
Venezuela and Liberia. Ansari (1947) took off
the specimen from domestic fowl, black Minorca
at Lyallpur. Seneviratna (1963) found it in most
varieties of domestic fowls especially the white
Leghorns. This louse was normally found along
the bases of head and neck feathers and also
frequently occurs on wing and tail feathers. It has
peculiar habit of positioning itself among the
grooves found between the barbs of wing
feathers where it appears as black strips.
This species is elongate and very dark in
colour and is larger than L. caponis. The bodies
marking are very conspicuous (Plate II, Fig.
3&4). The forehead is with a minute angulation.
The two sexes are equal sized but the male have
narrower posterior abdominal portion and
possess elongate genital armature (Plate II, Fig.
3&4). The genitalia have long basal plate
tapering to bluntly pointed extremity, posterior
end broad articulating with a pair of short,
slender and tapering parameters. Preputial sac
well formed, membranous and beset with
numerous recurred denticles. Furthermore, the
antennae are sexually dimorphic being filiform in
female but enlarged and with a thickened
appendage in male (Plate II, Fig. 3). In females
the last abdominal segment is emarginated.
Owing to their haematophagous nature they seem
to be least injurious as far as health and
productivity of the host is concerned.
Table 5. Biometrical analysis of L. lawrensis tropicalis (in mm)
Head 0.60-0.77 0.38-0.51 0.60-0.78 0.38-0.54
Prothorax 0.21-0.26 0.26-0.35 0.21-0.26 0.29-0.38
Pterothorax 0.28-0.40 0.37-0.58 0.24-0.38 0.45-0.61
Abdomen 1.53-2.01 0.51-0.68 1.58-2.04 0.66-0.89
Total length 2.63-3.55 2.70-3.35
Genitalia length 0.84-1.08
126 Kumar, Trivedi and Kumar

6. Lipeurus heterographus Nitzsch (1866)
L. heterographus is very rare species in
Garhwal region. It is exclusively found in the
head and neck region of host bird. The body of L.
heterographus was smoky with irregular
longitudinal bands on the margins. Head was
narrow in front and temporal margin was
rounded. Antennae are filiform and sexually
dimorphic (Plate II, Fig. 5&6). Prothorax more
or less quadrangular with rounded lateral
margins. Pterothorax is small with lateral
margins straight and projecting. Abdomen had
transverse black blotches. Body segment 1-4
bears a median row of transversely situated setae.
Male is smaller than female.

Table 6. Biometrical analysis of L. heterographus (in mm)
Head 0.50-0.59 0.51-0.56 0.60-0.62 0.39-0.52
Prothorax 0.11-0.16 0.17-0.19 0.09-0.12 0.15-0.17
Pterothorax 0.20-0.25 0.28-0.30 0.18-0.20 0.25-0.32
Abdomen 1.01-1.09 0.495-0.55 1.05-1.30 0.65-0.69
Total length 1.82-2.09 - 1.95-2.25 -
Genitalia length -

7. Goniodes dissimilis Denny (1842)
It is commonly called the chicken
Goniodes or brown chicken louse or golden
brown chicken louse. Gallus gallus domesticus is
the type host of G. dissimilis but it has
occasionally been found on other domestic
phasianids. It has been recorded from all parts of
the world but is of very rare occurrence. Ansari
(1947) collected it from domestic fowl (black
Minorca) only. It mainly occupies back feathers
but also occurs on breast and abdomen. It is very
sluggish in habit it seems to have low
reproductive potentials, as its number remains
low in comparison to other species.
It is robust louse. The body colour of
louse was reddish or tawny brown with chestnut
markings (Plate III, Fig. 1&2). The head was
broader than long (Table 7), hexagonal or
subquadrate in out line. Front broadly rounded.
Temples were accurately angulate and
projecting. Prothorax narrow, rounded laterally.
Pterothorax was narrow projecting posteriorly.
Abdomen was globular. Tergal plates were well
marked and pigmented. Pleural plates well
pigmented, fawn coloured, occupying one half of
the lateral half. The males are distinctly smaller
than the females and easily distinguishable.
Antennae sexually dimorphic, first segment well
built in males. Male genitalia were feebly
sclerotized and variable (Plate II, Fig. 1). In
females segment eight envelopes terminal
bilobed segment. Vulva was convex with two-
minute protuberances.
This lazily moving mallophagan have a minimal
effect on weakening the host organism, both in
view of their small number and also of their
feeding habits (mainly the feathers).

Table 7. Biometrical analysis of Goniodes dissimilis (in mm)
Head 0.55-0.72 0.65-0.81 0.68-0.95 0.70-1.15
Prothorax 0.17-0.20 0.34-0.48 0.17-0.41 0.43-0.54
Pterothorax 0.29-0.48 0.74-1.0 0.34-0.55 0.78-1.28
Abdomen 0.69-0.89 0.81-1.08 0.90-1.52 0.89-1.54
Total length 1.72-2.12 2.0-3.08
Genitalia length 0.31-0.86

8. Goniodes gigas Taschenberg (1869)
It is commonly known as the large
chicken louse or blue bug. It has been recorded
from all over the world from the domestic fowl
(Gallus gallus domestics Linn.). Bedford (1932)
took it from Numida coronata, N. papillus and N.
127

p. transvaalensis. Ansari (1947) collected it from
Gallus gallus domesticus Linn. This species is
quite common but the number met with on a bird
is small.
G. gigas is a strong and stout
ischnoceran louse. General body colour is smoky
gray with tawny black pleural plates (Plate III,
Fig. 3&4). Antennae were sexually dimorphic.
The head was more or less as long as broad,
nearly quadrate. Fore head rounded temples
inwardly oblique with rounded and protruding
angle. Antennae are filiform and not modified.
Prothorax was rectangular projecting laterally.
Abdomen is broad orbicular. Posterior segment
was concaving truncate and globular. Males are
distinctly smaller than females (Table 8) with
long and well-developed genitalia (Plate III,
Fig. 3&4). Basal plate is long and narrow and
extending as far as abdominal segment IInd.
Females are with well-developed pleural plates
and hairy median region (Plate III, Fig. 4).
Owing to the minimal number and non-
haematophagic feeding habit, they are unlikely to
cause any visible damage to the health and
behaviour of infested host.

Table 8. Biometrical analysis of Goniodes gigas Taschenberg (in mm)
Head 0.75-0.89 0.89-1.01 0.74-1.03 0.91-1.15
Prothorax 0.17-0.20 0.57-0.64 0.11-0.21 0.46-0.69
Pterothorax 0.51-0.75 1.20-1.31 0.55-0.77 1.03-1.57
Abdomen 1.01-1.38 1.26-1.72 1.06-1.81 1.12-1.84
Total length 2.44-2.97 - 2.52-3.66 -

9. Goniocotes gallinae De Geer (1778)
It is also know as lesser rump or fluff louse. It is
another common ectoparasite parasite of
chickens. It has also been record from guinea
fowl (Numida melesgris domesticus Linn.). It is
very small (Table 9), globular, smoky gray
louse. It commonly inhibits fluffy basal parts of
the feathers and is abundant on the downy
feathers of the cloacal region.
Head as long as broad, nearly quadrate
(Plate III, Fig. 5&6). Marginal carina well
found, broader in front and narrow on the sides.
Temples strongly angulate with rounded tips.
Prothorax was small, narrow and globular.
Pleural plates well developed forming a simple,
comma shaped marginal sclerotization. Antennae
are simple and do not show sexual dimorphism
(Plate III, Fig. 5&6). The male are distinctly
smaller (nearly half) than females (Table 9).
In males the last segment was very
concave so as to accommodate terminal truncate
segment. Genital armature was feeble, parameres
short. In females, vulva margins with short spine
like setae on each side. Whenever occurring in
masses, it conspicuously destroys the under
down of feathers. It can be concluded that the
Mallophaga of this species, which usually occur

on the distal part of feathers, to only a small
extent effect a weakening of the host birds.

DISCUSSION
Poultry is recently emerging industry in
Garhwal region. Poultry birds are reared in rural
areas on small scale and it takes part in the
economy of India. The domestic fowl (Gallus
gallus domesticus) is attacked by large number
of ectoparasite viz. lice, ticks, mites, fleas, flies
and bugs etc. most of the ectoparasites attack the
productivity and vitality of host. The importance
of ectoparasites is very much neglected in our
country as well as in Garhwal region.
Ansari (1943, 47, 51 & 55) had
performed taxonomic studies on phthirpteran
infesting birds and mammals of Punjab and also
make available synoptic list for the identification
of these creatures. He reported eight species of
lice which was found on the domestic fowl of
Punjab. Present researches showed that eleven
species of Phthiraptera (e.g. M. gallinae, M.
stramineus, M. cornutus, L.lawrensis tropicalis,
L. caponis, L. heterographus, G. gallinae, G.
dissimilis, G. gigas and two species of Goniodes
which are yet to be identified) infesting poultry
bird of Garhwal region. Out of eleven species,
three species (M. gallinae, M. stramineus and M.
128

cornutus) are haematophagous other are feather
feeder or partially feeds on other body
derivatives.
M. gallinae and M. stramineus act as
reservoir strains of certain diseases like fowl
typhoid, fowl cholera, toxoplasmosis and eastern
equine encephalomyelitis (Derylo, 1969, 70, 72,
75; Derylo & Jarsoz, 1972; Howitt et al., 1948).
Hence, phthirapteran are able to reduce the
productivity (e.g. egg, meat and feather) and
vitality of host at some extent. During survey
work, interactions with poultry men showed that
their opinion was that phthirapteran are harmless
creature. The knowledge of poultry men is still in
inadequate. They require recognizing the lice
species. Try to check the transmission and
control them by suitable method.

Table 9. Biometrical analysis of Goniocotes gallinae (in mm)
Head 0.21-0.26 0.28-0.35 0.26-0.35 0.35-0.45
Prothorax 0.07-0.9 0.16-0.20 0.7-0.11 0.17-0.25
Pterothorax 0.08-0.11 0.21-0.35 0.11-0.16 0.32-0.67
Abdomen 0.36-0.48 0.38-0.52 0.66-0.98 0.44-0.67
Total length 0.65-0.84 - 1.04-1.35 -

CONCLUSION
In the rural areas of the country (in
villages) the chief dietary supplement are eggs
from domestic hens reared by villagers. These
peoples are completely unaware of harmful
affects and transmission of phthirapteran
ectoparasites among hosts. Out of nine three
haematophagous licee species has recorded from
Garhwal region which is the main concern

regarding decline in productivity and
debility of host bird directly (blood feeding) and
indirectly (transmitting diseases). The eco-
friendly eradication strategies and awareness
about phthirapteran ectoparasites among peoples
required more efforts in the region.

203
129

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors are thankful to U-COST for
providing financial help to Dr. Adesh Kumar in
form of project (No. UCS&T/R&D/LS/10/06
/405).

REFERENCES
Ansari, M.A.R. (1943). Mallophaga found on
domestic fowl, Gallus domesticus
Linn., in the Punjab. Indian J. Entomol.
5: 129-142.
Ansari, M.A.R. (1947). Mallophaga
(Ischnocera) infesting birds in the
Punjab (India). Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
17: 127-203.
Ansari, M.A.R. (1951). Studies on Phthiraptera
parasites on mammals from the Punjab.
Indian J. Entomol. 13: 117-145.
Ansari, M.A.R. (1955). Synoptic table for the
determination of Mallophaga infesting
the domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus).
Indian J. Entomol. 17(2): 245-270.
Arora, G.L. and Chopra, N.P. (1959).
Observation on the Life history of
Lipeurus lawrensis tropicalis Peters
(Mallophaga-Ischnocera). Fed. Bull.
(N.S.) of Punjab Univ. 10(11): 179-
187.
Bhattacharjee, J. (1939). A check list of the
ectoparasites of domesticated animals
in Burma, Ind. J. Vet. Sci., Delhi. 9:
437-42.
Bedford, G.A.H. (1932). A synoptic checklist
and host list of the ectoparasites found
on South African Mammalia, Aves and
Reptilia. Rep. Vet. Res. S. Africa. 18:
223-523.
Brown, N.S. (1970). Distribution of
Menacanthus stramineus in relation to
chicken surface temperature. J.
Parasitol. 56: 1205.
Clay, T. (1950). The Mallophaga as an aid to the
classification of birds with special
reference to Feathers. Proc. Xth
Internal. Ornithol. Cong. 207-215.
Clay, T. (1957). The Mallophaga of bird. In:
First Symposium on host specificity
among parasites of vertebrates. Inst.
Zool. Univ. Neuchatel, Imprimerie Poul
Attinger S.A. 120-157.

Clay, T. (1958). The Mallophaga of birds. In:
premier sympos. Sur la specificate
parasitair de parasites de vertebrates
1957. Union International des sci.
biology. Ser. B.no. 2. 120-158.
Derylo, A. (1969). Mallophaga as vector of
Pasteurella multocida. Ann Univ.
Mariae Curie. 24: 355-366.
Derylo, A. (1970). Mallophaga as reservoir of
Pasteurella multocida Acta. Parasitol.
Polan. 17: 301-313.
Derylo, A. (1972). Aktualny stan. Badan nad
role epizootiologiczna wszolow
(Mallophaga). Wiad Parazytol. 18: 531-
533.
Derylo, A. (1975). Investigation on economic
disadvantage of Mallophaga.VI. An
influence of ecological and
physiological factors on the Intensity of
Mallophaga infestation. Prezegl. Zool.
19(2): 181-187.
Derylo, A. and Jarosz, J. (1972). Mikroflora
jelitowa neiktorych wszolow
haematofagicznych Wiad. Parazytol. 8:
113-119.
Eichler, Wd., Zlotorzycka, J. and Ludwig, H.W.
(1974). Taxonomie and biologie der
Mallophagen and louse
mittleleuropaischer Haus and Natztiere.
Parasitol. Schr. R. Jene. 22: 1608.
Eveleigh, E.S. and Amano, H. (1977). A
numerical taxonomic study of
Mallophagan genera Cummingsiella (=
Quadraceps), Saemundssonia
(Ischnocera : Philopteridae), and
Austromenopin (Amblycera :
Menoponidae) from alcids (Aves :
Charadriiformes) of northwest Atlantic
with special reference to host parasite
relationship. Can. J. Zool. 55: 1788-
1801.
Ewing, H.E. (1929). A manual of external
parasiteCharles C. Thomas,
Springfield, III and Baltimore, 90-152,
189-202.
Fletcher, T.B. (1926). Tentative key to the orders
and families of Indian insects. Agric.
Res. Inst.Pusa, Bull. No. 162.
Harrison, L. (1915). The respiratory system of
Mallophaga. J. Parasitology. 8: 101-
127.
130

Howitt, B.F., Dodge, H.R., Bishop, L.K. and
Gorrie, R.H. (1948). Viruses of eastern
equine encephalomyelitis isolated from
chicken mites (Dermanyssus gallinae)
and chicken lice (Eomenacanthus
stramineus). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med.
68: 622-625.
Hoyle, W.L. (1938). Transmission of poultry
parasites by birds with a special
reference to English or Rouse sparrow
and chicken. Trans. Kanas. Acad. Sci.
41: 379-384.
Kellogg, V.L. and Paine, J.H. (1914).
Mallophaga from birds (mostly
Corvidade and Phasianidae) of Indian
and neighbouring countries. Rec. Indian
Mus. 10(4): 217-243.
Lakshminarayana, K.V. (1977). Factors involved
in the host specificity in Mallophaga
Sens. Lat., (Phthiraptera: Insecta)
Infesting Birds. Insect and Host
specificity, 101-109, The Macmillan
Company of India.
Lakshminarayana, K.V. (1979). A synoptic list
of Mallophaga. Record of Zool. Survey
of India. 75: 39-201.
Ryder, W.D. (1967). The dispersal of certain
species of Mallophaga which infest the
domestic fowl, Gallus gallus
domesticus. J. appl. Ecol. 4: 309-323.
Seguy, E. (1951). Order des Mallophages. In:
P.P. Grasse, Traite de Zoologie, Masson
et cie, Paris.
Seneviratna, P. (1963). Observation of lice
(Phthiraptera) on some domestic
animals and the domestic fowl in
Ceylon. Celoyn Vet. Jour. 11: 53-56.
Ward, R.A. (1957). A study of host distribution
and some relationships of biting lice.
Wilson, F.H. (1934). The life cycles and
bionomics of Lipeurus heterographus
Nitzsch. J. Parasitol. 20: 304-311.

131

Parthenium hysterophorus: a serious threat to plant biodiversity

Disha Jaggi, Jai Knox and Manoj S. Paul

Department of Botany, St. Johns College, Agra, U.P.-282002, India
email: disha.jaggi@gmail.com


ABSTRACT: Parthenium hysterophorus Linn., an annual herb native to the subtropics of north and South
America has achieved major weed status in India in last few years. It has been seen to grow luxuriantly in
forests, grasslands, wastelands, around the agricultural fields and sometimes in less competitive field
crops, and is rapidly replacing the local flora. A phytosociological analysis of weeds was conducted at
three different sites of Agra district in monsoon season, especially their population dynamics in relation to
Parthenium hysterophorus. Weeds like Withania somnifera, Cassia occidentalis, Croton bonplandianum,
Calotropis procera, Datura somnifera and Tephrosia purpurea etc. were commonly found in close vicinity of
Parthenium. In laboratory, effect of shoot and root leachates of P. hysterophorus was assessed on seed
germination of some selected plants to evaluate its allelopathic potential in nature. Shoot leachates of
Parthenium were found most inhibitory on seed germination of most of the plants species. From field and
laboratory studies it can be concluded that P. hysterophorus has strong allelopathic potential to inhibit
seed germination of neighbouring plants and is becoming a serious threat to plant biodiversity in varied
ecosystems.
Key words: Allelopathic potential, Parthenium hysterophorus, plant biodiversity weed, population dynamics,
shoot leachates.

INTRODUCTION
Parthenium hysterophorus Linn.
(Asteraceae), an alien invasive species,
commonly known as Parthenium weed is an
annual or short-lived ephemeral herb of neo-
tropical origin that now has a pan-tropical
distribution. In India and Australia, P.
hysterophorus is considered to be a major weed
(Mahadevappa, 1997; Navie et al., 1996). The
invasive ability of the weed can be attributed to
its high reproductive and dissemination ability,
its allelopathic effect on other plants, its higher
phenotypic plasticity and ability to withstand a
wide range of environmental conditions.
Parthenium weed is a weed of National
Significance. It was introduced accidentally in
India in 1955 through the imported food grains
and at present has occupied almost all parts of
India (Ramaswami, 1997). The weed grows
luxuriously around the agricultural fields and is
also found in some less competitive crops like
watermelon (Javaid & Anjum, 2005; Javaid et
al., 2006a). However, in India and Australia it
has also become a major problematic weed both
in agricultural and wastelands (Evans, 1997). It

has now become a major wasteland weed and is
rapidly replacing the native flora.
The impact of P. hysterophorus on
livestock production is significant, both directly
and indirectly and affects grazing lands, animal
health, milk and meat quality and the marketing
of pasture seed and grains. In humans severe
allergic reactions caused by this weed including
hay fever, asthma or dermatitis and can be
caused by the dust, debris or volatile fumes from
the plant as well as its pollen (Chippendale,
1994).
The successful spread of Parthenium in
so many parts of the world has mainly been
attributed to its allelopathic properties, which
enables it to compete effectively with crops and
pasture species (Singh et al., 2003; Batish et al.,
2005a, b). Parthenium is considered a noxious
weed because of its allelopathic effects (Kohli et
al., 2006). It was also reported to cause severe
crop losses. Sorghum grain yield losses between
40 and 97% were reported in Ethiopia if
Parthenium is left uncontrolled throughout the
season (Tamado et al., 2002).
Biological Forum
_

The allelochemicals released from
Parthenium affecting many plant species are
sesquiterpene lactones and phenolics. Parthenin
is the major sesquiterpene lactone whereas these
two synergistically acting groups of
allelochemicals significantly decrease the seed
germination and subsequent growth in many
crops (Batish et al., 2005a, b; Singh et al., 2003).
Because of its efficient biological activity and
adaptability to varying soils and micro
environments, Parthenium weed has a tendency
to replace the dominant flora in wide range of
habitats cutting across state boundaries and agro-
climatic regions. Its large and persistent soil seed
bank, fast germination rate and ability to undergo
dormancy make it well adapted to semi-arid
environments and releases chemicals that inhibit
the germination and growth of the neighbouring
flora
Therefore keeping in view the above the
present study has been conducted to evaluate
status of Parthenium weed in Agra district in
monsoon season (most favourable season for
germination of maximum plant species) and its
impact on neighbouring flora. Evaluation of
allelopathic potential of Parthenium on seed
germination and growth of selected plants were
also assessed under laboratory conditions.

i). Phytosociological studies: Three weeds
infested sites were selected for phytosociological
studies during 2009-2010. At each site, the
frequency percentage, density and abundance of
Parthenium was estimated, by using 1.0 m x
1.0m (1.0m
2
) quadrat. Sampling was done
randomly in triplicate at 10 spots at each selected
site. The data were compiled and were analysed
for qualitative and quantitative study using
following formulae:

Total number of individual species
Density =
Total number of quadrat studied

Total number of individual species
Abundance =
Total number of quadrat in which speices occur

ii). Preparation of aqueous leachates: Leaves
and root tips were collected from selected test
plants; 100 g of shoot and root tips were soaked
in 500 mL of double distilled water each under
aseptic conditions for 9 days and placed in
conical flasks in a refrigerator at 8 C. The
aqueous leachates were filtered through three
layers of muslin cloth/ cheese cloth to remove
debris. The filtrate was then re-filtered through
one layer of Whatman No.1 filter paper and used
for bioassay.
iii). Seed germination: Seeds of selected plant
species were collected from study sites,
thoroughly washed with tap water to remove dirt
and dust and then rinsed with mild detergent
solution for 5-7 min. The seeds were surface
sterilised with 0.1% HgCl
2
for 10 min and again
washed with sterilised distilled water 4-7 times.
The seeds were divided into 10 replicates of 10
seeds each in perti dishes and were placed on
filter paper in petri dishes and moistened with
shoot and root leachates of Parthenium
hysterophorus whereas control received distilled
water. All the seed lots were allowed to
germinate for 10-15 days. Radicle & plumule
length and biomass (in cm and mgs) of each test
plant was recorded after 10 days of germination.
Germination percentage was calculated by given
formula:

RESULTS
Dominant species and mean of
frequency percentage, density and abundance of
individual species are given in Fig. 1, 2 and 3.
Comparisons were made site wise (site I, II &
III) and plant wise.
Four most abundant plant species
cohabiting P. hysterophorus at site I was
recorded as Abutilon indicum, Cassia
occidentalis, Croton bonplandianum and
Calotropis procera presented in Fig. 1. Out of
five weeds P. hysterophorus exhibits highest
frequency, density and abundance i.e. 90%, 6.9
and 7.6. Ecological indices of C. occidentalis
and C. bonplandianum were found close to
Parthenium followed by A. indicum and C.
procera. C. occidentalis and C. bonplandianum
occurred at the frequency of 80-90% at this site
133
Jaggi, Knox and Paul

whereas other weeds occurred at the frequency
of 60-70%.
Fig. 2 represents the highest frequency,
density and abundance values exhibited by P.
hysterophorus at site II i.e. 80%, 5.5 and 6.8.
Observations made at site II showed marked
similarity between C. occidentalis and C.
bonplandianum, reported from site I. C.
occidentalis and C. bonplandianum were most
frequently occurring plant species (exhibits 80%
frequency) than any other plants recorded at site
II i.e. Datura somnifera, Rumex dentatus,
Tephrosia purpurea and Calotropis procera,
exhibited 30-60% frequency.
Highest frequency, density and
abundance were exhibited by C. occidentalis at
site III i.e. 80%, 3.6 & 4.5 presented in figure.
3.70% frequency was observed in C.
bonplandianum as compared to P.
hysterophorus. T. purpurea is one of the plants,
occurred at the same frequency of P.
hysterophorus i.e. 60% whereas frequency of
occurrence of other weeds was recorded as 40-
50% and observed as weak competitors.
Hence P. hysterophorus was recorded as
most dominant weed at site I and II whereas at
site I, C. occidentalis was dominant. C.
occidentalis and C. bonplandianum were
recorded as most competitive plant species with
P. hysterophorus; therefore their ecological
indices were found close to Parthenium weed at
two sites and higher at site III. Dominance of P.
hysterophorus may be attributed to its
allelopathic potential
Fig. 4 represent inhibition on seed
germination of selected weeds in leaf and root
leachates of P. hysterophorus. Maximum
inhibition on seed germination was observed in
leaf leachates of P. hysterophorus in W.
somnifera i.e. 51.76% and minimum was in root
leachates i.e. 15.85% in C. occidentalis.
Maximum seed germination was observed in root
leachates i.e. 79-82% in C. bonplandianum and
C. occidentalis, hence least affected. 58.81% of
germination was recorded in C. procera in shoot
leachates. Leaf leachates showed significant
inhibition on seed germination of all the selected
weeds as compared to root leachates of
Parthenium whereas slight reduction in seed
germination was also observed in root leachates
as compared to control 97.88.
Radicle & plumule length (R & P.L) and
biomass of all the selected weeds were
significantly reduced in leaf and root leachates of
P. hysterophorus. Maximum reduction in R &
P.L was observed in seedlings of W. somnifera
and C. procera in leaf leachates i.e. 1.2 &1.4 and
1.8 & 2.1, whereas biomass was reduced to
0.037-0.049 as compared to control 3.2 & 3.8 (R
& P.L)and 0.098 (biomass). Least reduction in R
& P.L was observed in leaf leachates of P.
hysterophorus in C. occidentalis and C.
bonplandianum i.e. 2.8 & 2.6 whereas significant
reduction in biomass was observed in both plants
between 0.054 -0.056. Root leachates showed
less inhibition therefore gradual increase in R &
P.L and biomass was observed in all the selected
weeds. Maximum increase was observed in root
leachates of P. hysterophorus in C. occidentalis;
hence it was least affected and recorded as best
competitor with Parthenium at infested sites.

DISCUSSION
In the present investigation, it can be
concluded that P. hysterophorus was the most
frequently occurring weed in Agra. However,
there are some naturally occurring plant species
which have the capacity to overcome allelopathic
effects of P. hysterophorus and to grow
luxuriantly in its presence. C. occidentalis and C.
bonplandianum were strong competitors of
Parthenium weed. This is in confirmity with
observations made by Knox et al., 2006 who
reported that C. occidentalis was dominant,
cohabiting with P. hysterophorus successfully at
different sites.
Ecological indices of C. occidentalis and
C. bonplandianum were found close to
Parthenium weed and at site III Cassia was
dominant. Shabbir and Javaid, (2007) made a
survey and reported that P. hysterophorus had an
appreciable degree of sociability with C.
occidentalis and in 2010, Shabbir and Javaid
reported that Parthenium weed is becoming a
dominant part of local wasteland flora with the
highest values of ecological indices. Similar
observations were made in our survey.
Parthenium is a prolific seed producer and it may
be the one of reasons of its dominancy (Navie et
al., 1996).
C. occidentalis has completely replaced
Parthenium weed at site III which is in
134

conformity to phytosociological survey made in
Islamabad and Rawalpindi and done by Shabbir
and Bajwa, 2004, which states that C.
occidentalis is replacing this weed gradually in
patches. Oudhia, 1999; Joshi and Mahadevappa,
1986 and Knox et al., 2011 reported similar
findings in their surveys.
P. hysterophorus has inhibitory effect on
seed germination and growth of plant species and
these effects were attributed to allelopathic
nature of this weed reported by many researches.
Batish et al., 2005a, b; Singh et al., 2003, stated
in their studies that allelochemicals released from
Parthenium reduce seed germination and growth
of other plant species.

Fig. 1. Vegetation dynamics recorded at site I.

Maximum inhibition on seed
germination and growth was observed in leaf
leachates, as leaves are the richest source of
allelochemicals. It was also in conformity with
Kanchan, 1975, who stated that greatest
concentration of chemicals was present in the
leaves followed by inflorescence, fruits, roots
and stems. Shabbir and Javaid, 2010 observed
similar behaviour of Parthenium weed in
Pakistan. Numbers of studies have been carried
out on allelopathic nature of P. hysterophorus
and these allelopathic effects vary plant to plant
and part to part.
Hence P. hysterophorus with strong
allelopathic influence can have detrimental
effects on growth of neighbouring flora and
ultimately reduce vegetation in land ecosystems.
Therefore need for using effective bio herbicides
to control aggressiveness of this weed is
warranted. C.

occidentalis and C. bonplandianum appeared to
be strong competitors of Parthenium population
and survive in its presence. These could be used
as alternative tool or as biological agents to
manage this problematic weed in order to save
plant biodiversity.
133
Fig. 2 Vegetation dynamics recorded at site II.


Fig. 3. Vegetation dynamics recorded at site III.

Fig. 4. Effect of leaf and root leachates of P. hysterophorus on seed germination of selected weeds.

136 Jaggi, Knox and Paul

Fig. 5. Effect of leaf and root leachates of P. hysterophorus on seeding growth of selected weeds.

REFERENCES
Batish, D.R., Singh, H.P., Pandher, J.K., Kohli,
R.K. (2005a). Allelopathic Interference of
Parthenium hysterophorus residues in soil.
Allelo. J. 15: 267-273.
Batish, D.R., Singh, H.P., Pandher, J.K., Kohli,
R.K. (2005b). Phytotoxic effects of
Parthenium hysterophorus residues on
three Brassica sp. Weed Biol. Manage. 5:
105-109.
Chippendale, J.F. and Panetta, F.D. (1994). The
cost of Parthenium weeds to the
Queensland cattle industry. Plant
Protection Quarterly. 9: 73-76.
Evans, H.C. (1997). Parthenium hysterophorus:
a review of its weed status and the
possibilities for biological control. Biocont.
News Inform. 18: 89-98.
Javaid, A. and Anjum, T. (2005). Parthenium
hysterophorus L. a noxious alien weed.
Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 11(3-4): 171-177.
Javaid, A., S. Shafique and S. Shafique. (2006a).
Parthenium weed an emerging threat to
plant biodiversity in Pakistan. Int. J. Biol.
Biotech. 3(3): 619-622.

Joshi, S. and Mahadevappa, M. (1986). Cassia
sericea S. to fight Parthenium
hysterophorus Linn. Curr. Sci. 55: 261-
262.
Kanchan, S.D. (1975). Growth inhibitors from
Parthenium hysterophorus Linn. Curr. Sci.
44: 358359.
Knox, J., Dass, A., Sharma, A. and Paul, M.S.
(2006). Vegetation dynamics of some
weeds with Parthenium hysterophorus L.
Geobios. 33: 325-326.
Knox, Jai., Jaggi, D. and Paul, M.S. (2011).
Population dynamics of Parthenium
hysterophorus (Asteraceae) and its
biological suppression through Cassia
occidentalis (Caesalpiniaceae). Turk. J.
Bot. 35: 111-119.
Kohli, R.K., Batish, D.R., Singh, H.P., Dogra, K.
(2006). Status, invasiveness and
environmental threats of three tropical
American invasive Weeds (Parthenium
hysterophorus L., Ageratum conyzoides L.,
Lantana camara L.). Biological Invasions.
8: 1501-1510.
137 Jaggi, Knox and Paul

Mahadevappa, M. (1997). Ecology, distribution,
menace and management of Parthenium.
In: Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Parthenium Management,
Mahadevappa, M and V.C. Patil. (Eds.) 6-
8 October, 1997, University of
Agricultural Sciences, Dahrwad, India.
pp.1-12.
Navie, S.C., R.E. Mc Fadyen, F.D. Panetta and
S.W. Adkins. (1996). The biology of
Australian weeds 27, Parthenium
hysterophorous L. Plant Protect. Quart.
11: 76-88.
Oudhia, P. (1999). Phytosociological studies of
rainy season wasteland weeds with special
references to Parthenium hysterophorus L.
in Raipur (India) district. Asian J.
Microbiol. Biotech. and Environ. Sci. (in
press).
Ramaswami, P.P. (1997). Potential uses of
Parthenium. In: Proc. First Int. Conf. on
Parthenium Management. pp. 77-80.
Shabbir, A. and Bajwa, R. (2004). Cassia
occidentalis a native plant to control
noxious Parthenium weed. Abstract, II
European Allelopathy Symposium.
Pulaway, Poland. p.151.
Shabbir, A. and Javaid. (2007). Parthenium
invasion in Pakistan .Pak. J. Bot. 39(7):
2519-2526.
Shabbir, A. and Javaid. (2010). Phytosociology
survey and allelopathic effects of
Parthenium weed in comparison to other
weeds in Pakistan. Indian J. Agric. Res.
44(2): 119-124.
Singh, H.P., Batish, D.R., Pandher, J.K., Kohli,
R.K. (2003). Assessment of allelopathic
properties of Parthenium hysterophorus
residues. Agric. Ecosy. Environ. 95: 537-
541
Tamado, T., Ohlander, L., Milberg, P. (2002).
Interference by the weed Parthenium
hysterophorus L. with grain sorghum:
Influence of weed density and duration of
competition. Int. J. Pest Management. 48:
183-188.

138

Effect of Heavy metal pollution on humans

Mayank Varun*, Rohan DSouza and M.S. Paul

Department of Botany, St. Johns College, Agra-282 002, India.
e-mail: 30mayank@gmail.com


ABSTRACT: Some heavy metals have bio-importance as trace elements but the biotoxic effects of many of
them in human biochemistry are of great concern. Hence, there is a need for proper understanding of
mechanism involved, such as the concentrations and oxidation states, which make them harmful. It is also
important to know their sources, leaching processes, chemical conversions and their modes of deposition
in polluting the environment, which essentially supports life. Literature sources point to the fact that these
metals are released into the environment by both natural and anthropogenic means, especially mining and
industrial activities, and automobile exhausts. They leach into the underground waters, moving along
water pathways and eventually depositing in the aquifer, or are washed away by run-off into surface
waters thereby resulting in water and subsequently soil pollution. Poisoning and toxicity in ecosystem
occur frequently through exchange and co-ordination mechanisms. When ingested, they form stable
biotoxic compounds, thereby mutilating their structures and hindering bioreactions of their functions.
This paper reviews certain heavy metals and their impact and biotoxic effects on man.
Key words: heavy metals, pollution.

INTRODUCTION
Since the rapid industrialization that took
place at the turn of the 20
th
century, pollution of
air, water, and soil has become a major global
problem. The range of different pollutants that
can contaminate land is broad and extensive, but
the group of contaminants that are of particular
interest to this study are heavy metals. In an
environmental context, it is often used to
describe a group of elements associated with
pollution and potential toxicity (Hodson 2004).
The term heavy metal is usually restricted to
those metals that have densities greater than 5
gm/cm
3
(Page, 1974). The most common heavy
metal contaminants are: Cadmium (Cd),
Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Mercury (Hg),
Lead (Pb) and Zinc (Zn). These elements are
natural components of soils in trace amounts.
Heavy metals are ubiquitous
environmental contaminants and their content in
soils has accelerated dramatically since 1900, the
beginning of the industrial revolution (Nriagu,
1979). Many soils throughout the world have
undesirably high concentrations of heavy metals.
Soil pollution by metals differs from air or water
pollution, because heavy metals persist in soil
much longer than in other compartments of the

biosphere (Lasat, 2002). Over recent decades, the
annual worldwide release of heavy metals
reached 22,000 t (metric ton) for cadmium,
939,000 t for copper, 783,000 t for lead and
1,350,000 t for zinc (Singh et al., 2003).
In most developed countries, current
heavy metal pollution cases are localised and are
declining due to cleaner industrial practices and
conversion to non-heavy metal based products
like unleaded fuel. However in developing
regions of the world, namely India and China,
heavy metal contamination of the environment is
still widespread (Krmer, 2005).

OCCURRENCE AND RECOVERY OF
HEAVY METALS
Heavy metals occur as natural
constituents of the earth crust, and are persistent
environmental contaminants since they cannot be
degraded or destroyed. To a small extent, they
enter the body system through food, air, and
water and bio-accumulate over a period of time
(Lenntech, 2004; UNEP/GPA, 2004). In rocks,
they exist as their ores in different chemical
forms, from which they are recovered as
minerals. Heavy metal ores include sulphides,
such as iron, arsenic, lead, lead-zinc, cobalt,
Biological Forum
_

goldsilver and nickel sulphides; oxides such as
aluminium, manganese, gold, selenium and
antimony. Some exist and can be recovered as
both sulphide and oxide ores such as iron, copper
and cobalt.
Metals occur in ionic form in their
respective ores that exist naturally as sulphides
would mostly occur together, likewise for oxides.
Therefore, sulphides of lead, cadmium, arsenic
and mercury would naturally be found present
together with sulphides of iron (pyrite, FeS2) and
copper (chalcopyrite, CuFeS2) as minors, which
are obtained as by-products of various
hydrometallurgical processes or as part of
exhaust fumes in pyrometallurgical and other
processes that follow after mining to recover
them. During mining processes, some metals are
left behind as tailings scattered in open and
partially covered pits; some are transported
through wind and flood, creating various
environmental problems (Habashi, 1992). Heavy
metals are basically recovered from their ores by
mineral processing operations (Peplow, 1999;
Lenntech, 2004; USDOL, 2004).

EMISSION OF HEAVY METALS IN
ENVIRONMENT
Heavy metals can be emitted in to the
environment by both natural and anthropogenic
causes. The inputs of metals to the environment
from anthropogenic activities is complicated to
distinguish as there are very large natural inputs
from the erosion, wind-blown dust, volcanic
activity and forest fires. Naturally occurring
pollution originates from excessive weathering
of rocks with surface metal deposits and can
equal or, in rare instances, exceed man-made
pollution levels. Human activity is the main
contributor to heavy metal pollution. The main
man-made sources of heavy metal pollution are:
(i) metal smelters and refineries, (ii) industrial
wastes (e.g. electroplating) (iii) military
operations, (iv) mining, (v) landfill run-offs, (vi)
agricultural chemicals such as pesticides,
herbicides and fertilisers, and (vii) automobile
emissions (Saxena et al., 1999). Heavy metal
concentrations in soil range from less than 1
mg/kg to over 1000 mg/kg (Adriano, 2001).
Cadmium is released as a by- product of
zinc (and occasionally lead) refining; lead is
emitted during its mining and smelting activities,
from automobile exhausts (by combustion of
petroleum fuels treated with tetraethyl lead
antiknock) and from old lead paints; mercury is
emitted by the degassing of the earths crust.
Generally, metals are emitted during their mining
and processing activities (Lenntech, 2004).
Environmental pollution by heavy metals is very
prominent in areas of mining and old mine sites
and pollution reduces with increasing distance
away from mining sites (Peplow, 1999). These
metals are leached out and in sloppy areas, are
carried by acid water downstream or run-off to
the sea. Through mining activities, water bodies
are most emphatically polluted (Garbarino et al.,
1995; INECAR, 2000). The potential for
contamination is increased when mining exposes
metal-bearing ores rather than natural exposure
of ore bodies through erosion (Garbarino et al.,
1995), and when mined ores are dumped on the
earth surfaces in manual dressing processes.
Through rivers and streams, the metals are
transported as either dissolved species in water
or as an integral part of suspended sediments,
(dissolved species in water have the greatest
potential of causing the most deleterious effects).
They may then be stored in river bed sediments
or seep into the underground water thereby
contaminating water from underground sources,
particularly wells; and the extent of
contamination will depend on the nearness of the
well to the mining site. Wells located near
mining sites have been reported to contain heavy
metals at levels that exceed drinking water
criteria (Garbarino et al., 1995; Peplow, 1999).
The tolerance limits of some heavy metals are
shown in Table 1.

HUMAN EXPOSURE
Soils and sediments are the ultimate sink
for many pollutants. Heavy metal pollution of
surface and underground water sources results in
considerable soil pollution and pollution
increases when mined ores are dumped on the
ground surface for manual dressing (Garbarino et
al., 1995; INECAR, 2000). Metals tend to
accumulate in the biologically active regions of
the soil, where they can be taken up by crops
(Trueby, 2003). Animals that graze on such
contaminated plants and drink from polluted
waters, as well as marine lives that breed in
heavy metal polluted waters also accumulate

140
Varun, DSouza and Paul

Table 1. Maximum contamination levels for heavy metal concentration in air, water and soil by United State
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Heavy Metal Maximum concentration
in air (mg/m
3
)
Maximum
concentrations in soil
(mg/kg)
Maximum concentrations in
drinking water (mg/l)
Cd 0.1-0.2 85 0.005
Pb - 420 0.01
Zn 1, 5* 7500 5.00
As 0.01 - 0.00
Ca 5 Tolerable 50.0
As - - 0.01
Hg - <1 0.002

such metals in their tissues, and milk, if lactating
(Habashi, 1992; Garbarino et al., 1995; Horsfall
and Spiff, 1999). Humans are in turn exposed to
heavy metals by consuming contaminated plants
and animals, and this has been known to result in
various biochemical disorders. In summary, all
living organisms within a given ecosystem are
variously contaminated along their cycles of food
chain.
Industrial products that are used in
homes, and which have been produced with
heavy metals are sources of human exposure to
such heavy metals. Mercury exposure is through
disinfectants (like mercurochrome), antifungal
agents, toiletries, creams and organo-metallics
(McCluggage, 1991); cadmium exposure is
through nickel/cadmium batteries and artist
paints; lead exposure is through wine bottle
wraps, mirror coatings, batteries, old paints and
tiles and linolein amongst others. Infants are
more susceptible to the endangering effects of
exposure to heavy metals.

Heavy metal exposure occurs
significantly by occupational exposure. Workers
of the mining and production of cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, gold and silver have
been reported to be thus exposed; also
inhabitants around industrial sites of heavy metal
mining and processing, are exposed through air
by suspended particulate matters (SPM) (Heyer,
1985; USDOL, 2004).
In a survey carried out in the city of
Firozabad (glass city of India) by the authors it
was found that most prevalent ailments among
the workers (and their families in the case of
small workshops) were lung, kidney and eye
related. The local populace is, thus, exposed to
wide range of well established toxins and even
carcinogens (Varun et al., 2011, Dsouza et al.,
2011). These are in fact the most common health
issues related to metal toxicity (Vamerali et al.,
2010). The distribution of Heavy metal pollution
in the industrial soil is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Heavy Metal content in industrial soils of Firozabad (mg/kg).

Zn Cd Pb Ni Cu As
Firozabad
industrial soil
Range
464.2-
626.35
34.6-51.3
374.33-
484.1
101.1-
186.35
132.4-
243.4
61.06-
106.87
Average 512.71 39.19 403.8 134.67 183.14 76.23
SD 65.53 6.95 45.62 33.53 45.72 18.07
Suggested
thresholds in soil
a

Industrial 360 22 600 50 91 12
Residential 200 10 140 50 63 12
Each average value is the mean of 20 composite sample values.
a- Canadian environmental quality guidelines -2003 proposed by The Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment.

141

BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF HEAVY
METALS
Some heavy metals (like Fe, Zn, Ca and
Mg) have been reported to be of bio-importance

to man and their daily medicinal and dietary
allowances had been recommended by WHO.
Their tolerance limits in drinking and potable
waters have also been reported, and are indicated
in Table 3.
Table 3. Guideline in drinking water by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Heavy Metal Maximum acceptable concentrations (WHO)
Zinc 5 mg/l
Arsenic 0.01 mg/l
Magnesium 50 mg/l
Calcium 50 mg/l
Cadmium 0.003 mg/l
Lead 0.01 mg/l
Silver 0.0 mg/l
Mercury 0.001 mg/l

The biotoxic effects of heavy metals
refer to the harmful effects of heavy metals to the
body when consumed above the bio-
recommended limits. Although individual metals
exhibit specific signs of their toxicity, the
following have been reported as general signs
associated with cadmium, lead, arsenic, mercury,
zinc, copper and aluminium poisoning:
gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, diarrhoea,
stomatitis, tremor, hemoglobinuria causing a
rustred colour to stool, ataxia, paralysis,
vomiting and convulsion, depression, and
pneumonia when volatile vapours and fumes are
inhaled (McCluggage, 1991).
Lead is the most significant toxin of the
heavy metals, and the inorganic forms are
absorbed through ingestion by food and water,
and inhalation (Ferner, 2001). Lead poisoning
causes inhibition of the synthesis of
haemoglobin; dysfunctions in the kidneys, joints
and reproductive systems, cardiovascular system
and acute and chronic damage to the central
nervous system (CNS) and peripheral nervous
system (PNS) (Ogwuebgu and Muhanga, 2005).
Other effects include damage to the
gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and urinary tract
resulting in bloody urine, neurological disorder
and can cause severe and permanent brain
damage. While inorganic forms of lead, typically
affect the CNS, PNS, GIT and other biosystems,
organic forms predominantly affect the CNS
(McCluggage, 1991; INECAR, 2000; Ferner,
2001; Lenntech, 2004). Lead affects children by
leading to the poor development of the grey

matter of the brain, thereby resulting in poor
intelligence quotient (IQ) (Udedi, 2003).
Cadmium is classified in the EPAs
Group B1, as a probable human carcinogen and
very high concentrations of cadmium is highly
toxic to organisms (Evangelou, 1998). Cadmium
is toxic at extremely low levels. In humans, long
term exposure results in renal dysfunction,
characterized by tubular proteinuria. High
exposure can lead to obstructive lung disease,
cadmium pneumonitis, resulting from inhaled
dusts and fumes. It is characterized by chest pain,
cough with foamy and bloody sputum, and death
of the lining of the lung tissues because of
excessive accumulation of watery fluids.
Depending on the severity of exposure, the
symptoms of effects include nausea, vomiting,
abdominal cramps, dyspnea and muscular
weakness. Severe exposure may result in
pulmonary odema and death. Pulmonary effects
(emphysema, bronchiolitis and alveolitis) and
renal effects may occur following subchronic
inhalation exposure to cadmium and its
compounds (McCluggage, 1991; INECAR,
2000; European Union, 2002; Young, 2005).
Zinc has been reported to cause the same
signs of illness as does lead, and can easily be
mistakenly diagnosed as lead poisoning
(McCluggage, 1991). Zinc is considered to be
relatively non-toxic. However, excess amount
can cause system dysfunctions that result in
impairment of growth and reproduction
(INECAR, 2000; Nolan, 2003). The clinical
signs of zinc toxicosis have been reported as
142 Varun, DSouza and Paul

vomiting, diarrhea, bloody urine, liver failure,
kidney failure and anemia (Fosmire, 1990).
Mercury is toxic and has no known
function in human biochemistry and physiology.
Inorganic forms of mercury cause spontaneous
abortion, congenital malformation and GI
disorders (like corrosive esophagitis and
hematochezia). Poisoning by its organic forms,
which include monomethyl and
dimenthylmecury presents with erethism (an
abnormal irritation or sensitivity of an organ or
body part to stimulation), gingivitis, stomatitis,
neurological disorders, total damage to the brain
and CNS and are also associated with congenital
malformation (Ferner, 2001; Lennetech, 2004).

CONCLUSION
Heavy metals are important to human
beings in many respects, especially in the
manufacturing of certain important products of
human use, such as accumulators (Pb), mercury-
arch lamps, thermometers (Hg), utensils (Al) and
a wide range of other products (Yaw, 1990;
McCluggage, 1991). Nevertheless the biotoxic
effects, when unduly exposed to them could be
potentially life threatening hence, cannot be
neglected. While these metals are in many ways
indispensable, good precaution and adequate
occupational hygiene should be taken in handling
them. Although heavy metal poisoning could be
clinically diagnosed and medically treated, is the
best option to prevent exposure to heavy metal
pollution and the subsequent human poisoning.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Financial support from University Grants
Commission [F. no. 35-47/2008(SR)] is duly
acknowledged.

REFERENCES
DSouza, R., Varun, M., Pratas, J. and Paul, M.S.
(2011). Spatial distribution of heavy
metals in soil and flora associated with
the glass industry in North Central India:
Implications for Phytoremediation. Soil
and Sediment contamination (Accepted).
European Union. (2002). Heavy Metals in
Wastes, European Commission on
Environment(http://ec.europa.eu/environ
ment/waste/studies/pdf/heavy_metalsrepo
rt.pdf).
Evangelou, V.P. (1998). Environmental Soil and
Water Chemistry: Principles and
Applications. Wiley-Interscience
Publications, New York, NY.
Ferner, D.J. (2001). Toxicity, heavy metals.
eMed. J. 2(5): 1-4.
Fosmire, G.J. (1990). Zinc Toxicity. Am. J. Clin.
Nutr. 51(2): 225-227.
Garbarino, J.R., Hayes, H., Roth, D., Antweider,
R., Brinton, T.I. and Taylor, H. (1995).
Contaminants in the Mississippi River, U.
S. Geological Survey Circular 1133,
Virginia, U.S.A.
(www.pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1133/)
Habashi, F. (1992). Environmental Issues in the
Metallurgical Industry Progress and
Problems, Environmental Issues and
Waste Management in Energy and
Mineral Production. Balkama,
Rotherdam. pp.1143 -1153.
Heyer, N.J. (1985). Neurological Disorder in
Three Aluminium Smelter Workers,
Arch. Intern. Med. 145(11): 1972-1975.
Hodson, M.E. (2004) Heavy metals-geochemical
bogey men? Environmental Pollution.
129: 341343.
Horsfall, M.N. Jr. and Spiff, A.I. (1999).
Speciation of Heavy Metals in Intertidal
Sediments of the Okirika River System
(Nigeria) Bull. Chem. Soc. Ethiop. 13(1):
1-9.
INECAR, Institute of Environmental
Conservation and Research. (2000).
Position Paper Against Mining in Rapu-
Rapu, Published by INECAR, Ateneo de
Naga University, Philippines.
Lasat, M.M., Pence, N.S., Letham, D.L.D. and
Kochiain, L.V. (2001). Zinc
phytoectraction in Thlaspi caerulescens.
International Journal of
Phytoremediation. 3(1): 129144.
Lenntech Water Treatment and Air Purification
(2004). Water Treatment, Published by
Lenntech, Rotterdamseweg, Netherlands.
(www.excelwater.com/thp/filters/Water-
Purification.htm).
McCluggage, D. (1991). Heavy Metal Poisoning,
NCS Magazine, Published by The Bird
Hospital, CO, U.S.A.
(www.cockatiels.org/articles/Diseases
/metals.html).
143

Nolan, K. (2003). Copper Toxicity Syndrome, J.
Orthomol. Psychiatry. 12(4): 270282.
Nriagu, J.O. 1979. Global inventory of natural
and anthropogenic emissions of trace
metals to the atmosphere. Nature. 279:
409-411.
Ogwuegbu, M.O.C. and Muhanga, W. (2005).
Investigation of Lead Concentration in the
Blood of people in the Copperbelt
Province of Zambia. J. Environ. 1: 6675.
Page, A.L. (1974). Fate and effects of trace
elements in sewage sludge when applied
to agricultural lands. EPA-670/2-74-005.
Environmental Protection Technology
Series. Office of Research and
Development, United States
Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 98pp.
Peplow. D. (1999). Environmental Impacts of
Mining in Eastern Washington, Center for
Water and Watershed Studies Fact Sheet,
University of Washington, Seattle.
Singh, O.V., Labana, S., Pandey, G., Budhiraja.
R. and Jain, R.K. (2003).
Phytoremediation: an overview of
metallicion decontamination from soil.
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology.
61: 405412.
Trueby, P. (2003). Impact of Heavy Metals On
Forest Trees From Mining Areas. In:
International Conference On Mining And
The Environment III, Sudbury, Ontario,
Canada.
(www.x-cd.com/sudbury03/prof156.html).
Udedi, S.S. (2003). From Guinea Worm Scourge
to Metal Toxicity in Ebonyi State,
Chemistry in Nigeria as the New
Millennium Unfolds. 2(2): 1314.
United Nations Environmental Protection/Global
Program of Action (2004). Why The
Marine Environment Needs Protection
From Heavy Metals, Heavy Metals 2004,
UNEP/GPA Coordination Office
(http://www.oceansatlas.org/unatlas/uses/
uneptextsph/wastesph/2602gpa.)
USDOL (United States Department of Labor)
(2004). Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA); Safety and
Health Topics: Heavy metals, USDOL
Publication, Washington, D.C.
(www.osha.gov/SLTC/metalsheavy/index
.html).
Vamerali, T., Bandiera, M. and Mosca, G.
(2010). Review: Field Crops for
phytoremediation of metal-contaminated
land. Environ Chem Lett. 8: 1-17.
Varun, M., Dsouza, R.J., Pratas, J. and Paul,
M.S. (2010). Metal contamination of soils
and plants associated with the glass
industry in North central India: Prospects
of phytoremediation. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-011-0530-4.
Springer.
Yaw, A.O. (1990). New School Chemistry,
Africana-FEP Publishers Ltd Onitsha,
Nigeria. pp. 437-472.
Young, R.A. (2005). Toxicity Profiles: Toxicity
Summary for Cadmium, Risk Assessment
Information System, RAIS, University of
Tennessee
(www.rais.ornl.gov/tox/profiles/cadmium.
shtml).

144

Apoidean diversity on Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. & Hook. F. Ex Gray
(Asteraeae), a short term resource for the conservation of Bees in Rajasthan

Rajiv K. Gupta, Meena Rao, Narendra Kumar, Jagdish Saini and S.K. Rao

Department of Zoology, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur
e-mail: beesind@gmail.com


ABSTRACT: This study explored and identified the bee species (Apoidea) which are regularly associated
with Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. & Hook. (Asteraeae), commonly referred as Golden Crown
beard. It is considerred as a notorious weed due to its level of galegine which has been found toxic to
sheep, compromising respiration, causing hemorrhaging in the heart, and ultimately resulting in death.
On the other hand its extracts are used in traditional medicines for having analgesic, emetic, febrifuge
and insecticidal actions. It is also used for cancer, snake bite, gastrointestinal disturbance, skin ailments
and haemorrhoids treatment.
The collections and identification of bees were made during years 2000 to 2010 from all over
Rajasthan. It is a perennial weed that interferes with the growth and establishment of crop species in
semiarid regions of India. The investigations revealed that flowers of V. encelioides attracted a total of 70
species of bees (Apoidea) in Rajasthan. These have been identified belongs to 22 genera incoming five
families. These genera and number of their identified species are: Amegilla Friese (06 species), Andrena
Fabricius (03 species), Colletes Latreille (02 species), Apis Linnaeus (03 species), Braunsapis Michener (03
species), Ceratina Latreille (05 species), Ceylalictus Strand (03 species), Halictus Latreille (05 species),
Hylaeus Fabricius (03 species), Icteranthidium Michener (02 species), Lasioglossum Curtis (04 species)
Megachile Latreille (06 species), Nomia Latreille (04 species), Nomioides Schenck (03 species), Pseudapis
Kirby (01 species), Pseudoheriades Peters (05 species), Tetragonula Moure (01 species), Trachusa Panzer
(01 species), Xylocopa Latreille (03 species) and, the 03 cleptoparasitic genera: Sphecodes Latreille (01
species), Coelioxys Latreille (04 species) and Thyreus Panzer (02 species). A Verbesina encelioides plant
fully blooms for a very short period amidst in between October to January and during the extremity of
cold season, bees exclusively depend upon this flower resource. Precisely, this plant is a very useful
resource for a rich bee biodiversity during extremeties of winter in Rajasthan and, amidst the storm of
expansion of urbanization; attempts should be initiated to protect wild natural habitats of V. encelioides.
Key words: Verbesina encelioides, Apoidea, Hymenoptera, bee species composition, bee diversity, Rajasthan.

INTRODUCTION
Golden crownbeard [Verbesina
encelioides (Cav.) Benth. & Hook f. ex Gray],
also known as yellowtop or cowpen daisy, is
known to be a native to America. It is also found
in the arid warmer regions of the USA, South
America (also Correll and Johnston, 1979),
Middle East and northwestern India. Golden
crownbeard grows up to 1m tall and is
multibranched with grayish-green leaves. It is
well distributed in Rajasthan, Punjab and Gujarat
in India. V. encelioides is considered as a
troublesome weed, not only for innate
competitive abilities, but also for toxins in the
foliage. The level of galegine in golden
crownbeard is toxic to sheep, compromising

respiration, causing hemorrhaging in the heart,
and ultimately resulting in death (Keeler et al.,
1992).
It is considered as a notorious weed
however, used in traditional medicines for
having analgesic, emetic, febrifuge and
insecticidal actions. It is also used for cancer,
snake bite, gastrointestinal disturbance, skin
ailments and haemorrhoids treatment
(Kingsbury, 1964). Phytochemical studies
confirmed the presence of primary metabolites,
sesquiterpenes, flavonoids, galegine and
triterpenoids (Jain & Purohit, 1985, 1989; Jain et
al., 2005, 2008; Joshi et al., 1983) in the plant.
Jain et al. (2008) found that it also possessed
antimicrobial, antiviral, antitumour,
hypoglycaemic and anti-implantation efficacies.
Biological Forum
_

V. encelioides plant fully bloom for a
quite shorter period after rains in October till
December/ January in Punjab, Rajasthan and
Gujarat.

This study was conducted to investigate
and explore the bee species (Apoidea)
composition that is regularly associated with
Verbesina encelioides (Asteraeae). The
collections of bees were made during years 2000
to 2010 from whole of the Rajasthan and were
identified as per recentmost taxonomic
framework of Apoidea. The investigations
revealed that flowers of V. encelioides attracted
almost all bee species foraging in the area during
its full bloom period. Repetitive surveys were
conducted during whole of the decade. However,
to apprehend complete bee species composition,
this presentation also includes the data of bee
species collected from neighbouring districts in
Punjab and Gujrat states of western India on
Verbesina encelioides.
The collection sites were regularly
visited and ollections were made each year from
throughout the State during the blooming periods
of V. encelioides i.e. October to January. During
this collection period ambient temperature of this
area ranged between 10
0
C to 26
0
C and RH of
surface soil varied between 62 to 88%. Bee
samples were collected by sweeping net on
flowerings from 8 or 8.30 A.M. up to 5 or 6 P.M.
However, at times intensive field visits at sunrise
and near sunset were made to make observations
for the extended periodicities of bees on flowers.
Collected bees were instantly killed using
Benzene fumes in a killing bottle. They were
brought to the laboratory and properly spread for
the identification. Confirmation of identification
was based upon microscopy involving vital body
parts such as mouth parts and genitalia etc.

OBSERVATIONS, DISCUSSION AND
RESULT
A total of 934 bees were collected on V.
encelioides from all over Rajasthan. These were
identified belong to 70 species grouped under 22
genera incoming 05 families: Colletidae,
Andrenidae, Halictidae, Megachilidae and
Apidae of Superfamily Apoidea (Table 1). This
number excludes the number of Apis specimens
collected on this crop. On a normal sunny day
most of the bees started their foraging activities
around 8.00 A.M. i.e. when sunshine spread all
over the fields. Their population attained its peak
at around 12.00 noon to 1.30 P.M. and most of
the bees started returning to their nests around
2.00 to 4.00 P.M. onwards.

Table 1. Apoidean diversity on Verbesina encelioides from Rajasthan.
Sr. No Family Species Activity periodicity Population
density
Attracting
Resource
Nectar/
Pollen
A). Colletidae (02 genera)
1. Colletes comberi Cockerell,
1911
RV + ? P
2. Colletes lacunatus Dours,
1872
RV + ? P
3. Hylaeus montanus (Nurse,
1903)
RV + N
4. Hylaeus gujaraticus (Nurse,
1903)
RV + N
5. Hylaeus repentens (Nurse,
1903)
RV + N
B). Andrenidae (01 genus)
6. Andrena balucha Nurse, 1904 8.30 AM 2.30 PM + N ?
7. Andrena
punjabensis Cameron, 1908
8.30 AM 2.30 PM ++ N ?
8. Andrena leaena Cameron,
1907
8.30 AM 4.00 PM ++ N ?
C). Halictidae (07 genera)
146 Gupta, Rao, Kumar, Saini and Rao

9. Halictus propinqua Smith,
1853
8.30 AM 4 PM ++ N P
10. Halictus latisignatus
Cameron, 1908
8.30 AM 4 PM + N P
11. Halictus lucidipennis Smith,
1853
8.30 AM 4 PM ++ N P
12. Halictus propinquus Smith,
1853
8.30 AM 4 PM + N P
13. Halictus vicinus Vachal, 1894 8.30 AM 4 PM + N P
14. Lasioglossum albescence
(Smith, 1853)
8.30 AM 4 PM N P
15. Lasioglossum deesanum
(Cameron, 1908)
8.30 AM 4 PM N P
16. Lasioglossum vagans (Smith,
1857)
8.30 AM 4 PM + N P
17. Lasioglossum clarum (Nurse,
1902)
8.30 AM 4 PM N P
18. Nomia callichlora Cockerell,
1911
8.30 AM 2 PM ++ N P
19. Nomia elliotii Smith, 1875 8.30 AM 2 PM +++ N P
20. Nomia westwoodi Gribodo,
1894
8.30 AM 2 PM + N P
21. Nomia sp. 8.30 AM 2 PM + N P
22. Pseudapis oxybeloides
(Smith, 1875)
8.30 AM 3 PM + N ?
23. Sphecodes abuensis Nurse,
1903
RV + N ?
24. Ceylalictus variegatus
(Olivier, 1789)
8.30 AM 4 PM +++ N P
25. Ceylalictus punjabensis
(Cameron, 1907)
8.30 AM 4 PM +++ N P
26. Ceylalictus sp. 8.30 AM 4 PM +++ N P
27. Nomioides (Nomioides)
minutissimus (Rossi, 1790)
8.30 AM 5 PM +++ N P
28. Nomioides curvilineatus
(Cameron, 1907)
8.30 AM 5 PM +++ N P
29. Nomioides sp. 8.30 AM 5 PM ++ N P
D). Megachilidae (05 genera)
30. Megachile cephalotes Smith,
1853
8.30 AM 5 PM +++ N P
31. Megachile coelioxoides
Cresson, 1878
8.30 AM 4 PM + N P
32. Megachile creusa Bingham,
1898
8.30 AM 4 PM ++ N P
33. Megachile gathela Cameron,
1908
8.30 AM 4 PM ++ N P
34. Megachile latimanus Say,
1823
8.30 AM 4 PM ++ N P
35. Megachile studiosa Bingham,
1897
8.30 AM 3 PM + N P
36. Coelioxys decipiens Spinola,
1838
RV ++ N
37. Coelioxys capitata Smith,
1854
RV ++ N
38. Coelioxys coturnix Prez,
1884
RV + N
230
147
Gupta, Rao, Kumar, Saini and Rao

39. Coelioxys fuscipennis Smith,
1854
RV + N
40. Pseudoheriades pellucidus
(Cockerell, 1920)
8 AM 4 PM ++ N P
41. Pseudoheriades
pentatuberculata (Gupta &
Sharma, 1993)
8 AM 4 PM +++ N P
42. Pseudoheriades
rufomandibulata (Gupta &
Sharma, 1993)
8 AM 4 PM +++ N P
45. Icteranthidium sinapinum
(Cockerell, 1911)
RV + N P
46. Icteranthidium sp. RV + N P
47. Trachusa serratocaudata
Gupta, Sharma & Simlote,
1993
RV + N P
E). Apidae (07 genera)
48. Ceratina binghami Cockerell,
1908
8.30 AM 3 PM +++ N P
49. Ceratina hieroglyphica
Smith, 1854
8.30 AM 3 PM +++ N P
50. Ceratina smaragdula
(Fabricius, 1787)
8.30 AM 3 PM +++ N P
51. Ceratina simillima Smith,
1854
8.30 AM 3 PM +++ N P
52. Ceratina propinqua
Cameron, 1897
8.30 AM 3 PM +++ N P
53. Braunsapis mixta (Smith,
1852)
8 AM 3 PM +++ N P
54. Braunsapis picitarsis
(Cameron, 1902)
8 AM 3 PM +++ N P
55. Braunsapis puangensis
(Cockerell, 1929)
8 AM 3 PM +++ N P
56. Amegilla confusa (Smith,
1854)
RV ++ N
57. Amegilla mucorea (Klug,
1845)
RV + N
73. Amegilla niveocincta (Smith,
1854)
RV + N
74. Amegilla zonata (Linnaeus,
1758)
RV ++ N
75. Amegilla cingulifera
(Cockerell, 1910)
RV + N
76. Amegilla violacea
(Lepeletier, 1841)
RV + N
77. Thyreus ?himalayensis
(Radoszkowski, 1893)
RV + N
78. Thyreus histrio (Fabricius) RV + N
79. Tetragonula
iridipennis (Smith, 1854)
8 AM 6 PM +++ N P
80. Apis dorsata Fabricius, 1793 6 AM 6 PM RV N
81. Apis cerana Fabricius, 1793 6 AM 6 PM ++ N ?
82. Apis florea Fabricius, 1787 6 AM 6 PM +++ N P

83. Xylocopa aestuans (Linnaeus, Sunrise to sunset RV ? ?
148

1758)
84. Xylocopa amethystina
(Fabricius, 1793)
85. Xylocopa fenestrata
(Fabricius, 1798)
Where RV Rare visitor; N Nectar; P Pollen; ? Not sure of referred flower resource; + comparative
population observed and collected.

It is a well known fact that a number of
flowering plants use insects as pollen vectors,
and that they actually depend on the visits of
insects for their pollination. Present study is the
first attempt to explore the pollinator bees, on a
significant member of Family Asteraeae: V.
encelioides. The number of species recorded on
this plant, from all over the Rajasthan in India,
may be considered as quite high looking at the
high density of this shrub spread all over
Rajasthan and Gujarat. Gupta (2003) reported
that 658 species of bees are on record from India
so far which belongs to 65 Genera grouped under
6 families. It was fascinating to record 70 species
in this state on a single crop. Evidently the
referred plant has plenty of resources to attract
good number of bees.
Five species of family Colletidae visited
V. encelioides. Two species of genus Colletes
Latreille were recorded in quite good number.
However, other genus of the same family,
Hylaeus Fabricius was rare in appearance.
Second Family Andrenidae included 03 species
under genus Andrena Latreille. Ashtonishingly
these are Cruciferae lovers and their act of pollen
collection could not be verified on V. encelioides
instead they collected nectar.
A total of 07 genera including 21
species of family Halictidae were collected in a
considerable good number on this plant. They
belong to genera Halictus Latreille (05 species),
Lasioglossum Curtis (04), Nomia Latreille (04),
Pseudapis Kirby (01), Sphecodes (01 species)
and two genera of exclusively minute bees
namely, Ceylalictus Strand (03) and Nomioides
Schenck (03 species). Except the species of
genus Sphecodes which were more interested in
drinking nectar (being cleptoparasites), rest of
the species had enough affection for both
material i.e. the nectar and pollen therefore a
good number of most of the small species of bees
were observed started working on the flowers

just after sunrise and continued to work until
quite late i.e. 3 to 4 PM or sometimes even after
that in the evenings. Very small bees of genus
Nomioides and Ceylalictus were found on the
flowers for almost complete blooming season
including extreme winters. The pollination
ecology studies on these minute bees should be
further investigated. However, an apprehension
may be made that the halictine bees render
enough of pollination services to this crop.
Family Megachilidae may be ranked as
second top visitor on this crop with a total of 05
genera including 18 species. However, species of
genus Trachusa (01) and Icteranthidium
Cockerell (02) were rarely seen on V.
encelioides. During the blooming periods, bees
of these genera were least interested in it. It was
perhaps not the principal crop for these bees and,
they were mere occasional visitors. However,
during little hotter days on each visit, they
collected the pollens and nectar. Precisely, they
may not be considered as good contributors in
the act of pollination and seed set on the referred
crop.
Bees of genus Coelioxys Latreille (02
sp.) are well known cleptoparasites (Table 01).
The females lack any pollen collecting apparatus
so they are incapable of collecting pollen grains.
Therefore they lay eggs on the pollen deposits
made by their host bees of genus Megachile,
Anthophora, Amegilla and Habropoda (tribe
Anthophorini, fam. Apidae). Precisely 03 out of
05 genera of Megachilidae least share pollination
activity on this crop. Genus Megachile Latreille
has the highest attraction for the pollens and
nectar both of V. encelioides. Its 06 species were
recorded from throughout the Rajasthan on the
referred crop. Most of them belong to subgenus
Eutricharaea Thomson. Their females are
facilitated with a densely bristled pollen
collecting scopa at the ventral surface of their
abdomen and they were clearly observed
carrying pollens of V. encelioides. Otherwise
also they are established as quite efficient

transporters of pollens (Michener, 1953).
Another megachiline genus Pseudoheriades
Peters (05 sp.) includes very minute black bees
and is more or less confined to Rajasthan and
Gujarat.
The plant-pollinator relationship
between the flowers of V. encelioides and the
minute bees such as those of heriadines, seems to
be more intimate in comparison to medium or
large sized bee species. However, the intensive
and quite prolong visits of genus Heriades
Spinola on other flowers (such as Sunflowers)
elsewhere (in Himachal Pradesh and
Uttarakhund) may be of interest to pollination
biologists (Gupta, 1993). On V. encelioides also
species of Pseudoheriades stay for longer period,
collect pollen grains by roaming on each flower
of the infloroscence, i.e. they seem to be equally
interested in pollens of this crop. Precisely, in
spite of the good number of taxa, Megachilidae
includes merely two very efficient pollinator
genera therefore cannt be considered as the top
pollinator group for this crop. However, this is
worth mentioning here that megachiline bees are
quite fast visitor and definitely share good
amount of pollination due to their large pollen
collecting apparatus (Gupta & Yadav, 2001;
Gupta, et al., 2011).
Apidae constitute the largest group of
bees which has been recorded with 07 genera
including 23 species on this crop. Bees of genus
Ceratina Latreille (05 sp.), Braunsapis Michener
(03 sp.), Tetragonula Moure (01 sp.) and, one
species of Apis Linnaeus (A. florea Fabr.) were
observed in good number on this crop. These
genera include minute to small sized bees having
their working span quite longer in comparison to
the bees of family Halictidae and Megachilidae.
They all shared major bulk of nectar as well as
pollens. However, their pollen carrying capacity
was limited to smaller area of scopa usually
present on hind legs or to the bristles on their
general body surface. Circumstantially, they
were unable to carry that much load of pollen
grains in comparison to megachilids which bear
densely bristled scopa beneath their abdomens.
Genus Thyreus Panzer (02 sp.) includes
cleptoparasitic bees. Just like species of genus
Coelioxys in Megachilidae, they lack pollen
collecting apparatus therefore they were often
seen busy tracking behind Amegilla species to
their nests to lay their eggs on the provision
deposits collected by the Amegilla females (also
Batra, 1977; Gupta & Yadav, 2001). Both
cleptoparasitic genera were present in the field
however they visited flowers exclusively for
nectar. Other Apidae species collected on this
crop were of genus Amegilla Fabricius (06 sp.)
and two larger species of Apis (A. dorsata and A.
cerana). Individuals of Amegilla were observed
carefully. They defolded and straightened their
rostrum, sucked the nectar (during suspended
and stable flight) and moved away. They were
never seen collecting pollens on this crop.
Other occasional visitors included
very large bees of genus Xylocopa Latreille (03
species) as indicated in table 01, authors are not
sure whether they ever visited flowers and
collected nectar or pollens although they often
hovered around the group of plants and fly off all
over the area under investigation.
Gupta et al. (2010, 2011) have indicated
that the principal factors which determine the
effectiveness of pollinators may be briefed as: a)
They should be found in abundance, b) Their
flight periodicities should be the maximum on
flowerings and, c) Their visiting rate (the number
of flowers visited per minute by a bee) should be
considerably enough (also Free, 1970; Ozbek,
1976; Richards, 1993). One may conclude from
table 01 that which group of bees may be
considered quite effective pollinator on V.
encelioides. Parker (1981) and Parker, et al.,
(1987) reported that honey bees have often been
credited with pollination services that are
actually performed by other bee species. Since
the taxonomic revision of family Apidae
(Michener, 2000 & 2007), number of genera in
this family have been considerably increased. On
V. encelioides out of the total 23 species of
Apidae smaller and medium sized native species
of genus Ceratina, Braunsapis and Apis were
observed hanging on flowers on every sunny day
as whole time visitors. A. dorsata were of rare
appearence. Necessary investigation should be
initiated in this direction with regard to
efficiencies of pollinators (Lederhouse, et al.,
1972; Green & Bohart, 1975; Parker, 1981;
Kuhn & Ambrose, 1984; Currie, et al., 1990;
Arya, et al., 1994).


This wild crop in different pockets all
over the Rajasthan provides enough of forage for
the survival of bee species during extreme
winters. This becomes more significant since it
shares nectar to newly emerged bees
immediately after overwintering as pupation.
Such availability of resources helps in immediate
survival of offspring (Gupta & Charan, 2010).
Precisely, Verbesina encelioides becomes a quite
useful resource for sustaining a rich bee
biodiversity in Rajasthan. One may make further
apprehension that conservation of wild habitats
with V. encelioides would become a landmark
for the protection of 70 species of bees in
northwest India. During periods of scarcity i.e.
when other pollen resources were rare or lacking,
then bees exclusively depended upon it.
Authors suggest that detailed
investigations in this direction be initiated by
pollination and bee biologists to explore further
possibilities towards intensive and more effective
pollination of wild and cultivated crops
(Rajpurohit & Gupta, 2006).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors wish to thank Drs. S. L. Sharma,
S. Simlote, S. Yadav, R. K. Naval, A.
Rajpurohit, S. K. Naval and S. K. Charan for
making collections from all over the referred
territories in Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat.
Gratitude is extended to the Head, Department of
Zoology, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur,
for providing necessary laboratory facilities. To
the ICAR New Delhi for the financial support to
the first author for the study made under their AP
Cess Funded project (No. 1-3/90 PP) for the
North West India. Thanks are further extended to
the authorities of University Grants Commission,
New Delhi for funding the work especially in
Rajasthan under their project No. 32-
497/2006/2007, SR.

REFERENCES
Arya, D.R., Sihag, R.C. and Yadav, P.R. (1994).
Role of insect pollination in seed yield of
sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.).
Indian Bee Journal. 56(3-4): 179-182.
Batra, S.W.T. (1977). Bees of India (Apoidea),
their behaviour, management and a key
to the genera. Oriental Insects. 11(3/4):
289-324.
Correll, D.S. and Johnston, M.C. (1979).
Manual of the vascular plants of Texas.
Univ. of Texas at Dallas, Richardson,
TX.
Currie, R.W., Jay, S.C. and Wright, D. (1990).
The effects of honey bees (Apis mellifera
L.) and leafcutter bees (Megachile
rotundata F.) on out crossing between
different cultivars of beans (Vicia faba
L.) in caged plots. Journal of Apicultural
Research. 29(2): 68-74.
Free, J.B. (1970). Insect pollinators of
crops. Academic Press, London & New
York. 544pp.
Green, T.W. and Bohart, G.E. (1975).. The
pollination ecology of Astragalus
cibarius and Astragalus utahensis
(Leguminosae). American Journal of
Botany. 62(4): 379-386.
Gupta, R.K. (1993). Taxonomic studies on the
Megachilidae (Hymenoptera, Apoidea,
Megachilidae) of northwestern India.
Reprint 1999, Scientific Publishers
(India), iv + 1-294 p.
Gupta, R.K. (2003). The diversity of bees
(Hymenoptera, Apoidea) in India. Pp.
53-77. In: Gupta, R.K. (Ed.),
Advancements in Insect Biodiversity.
Agrobios (India). pp. x + 337.
Gupta, R.K. and Charan, S.K. (2010). Studies on
the Apoidean Visitors of Capparis
decidua (Forsk.) Edgew (Capparaceae),
a Resource for the Conservation of Bee
Biodiversity in Arid North West India.
Pp. 115-124 In: Gupta, R. K. (Ed.),
Advancements in Invertebrate Taxonomy
and Biodiversity. AgroBios
(International). pp. xi+552, pls. viii.
Gupta, R.K., Charna, S.K., Naval, S.K., Saini, J.,
Rao, S.K., Sharma, S.L. and Rajpurohit,
A. (2010). Bee visitors (Apoidea) on
Zizyphus rotundifolia Lamk. in western
Rajashan, India. pp. 190-194. In: Impact
on the Climate Change on Biodiversity
and Challenges in Thar Desert.
Proceedings on the National Seminar
held at Zoological Survey of India,
Desert Research Centre, Jodhpur on 09
July, 2010. Govt. of India Publication.
Gupta, R.K., Charan, S.K. and Tiwari, P. (2011).
Forage plants of Tetragonula iridipennis
131

(Smith), a stingless bee (Hymenoptera,
Apoidea, Apidae, Meliponini), in the
desert of Thar in Rajasthan. Journal of
Environment and Bio-sciences. 25(2):
171-174.
Gupta, R.K. and Yadav, S. (2001). Apoidean
species composition on Crotalaria jucea
L., Cajanus cajan (L.), Helianthus annus
L. and Brassica compestris L. var.
sarson Prain in eastern Rajasthan, India
(Hymenoptera). Opus. zool. flumin. 198:
1-10.
Keeler, R.F., Baker, D.C. and Panter, K.E.
(1992). Concentration of galegme in
Verbesina encelioides and Galega
officinalis and the toxic and pathologic
effects induced by the plants. Journal of
the Environmental Pathology and
Toxicological Oncology. 11: 75-81.
Kingsbury, J.M. (1964). Poisonous plants of the
United States and Canada. Prentice-
Hall, Inc., New Jersey, USA.
Kuhn, E.D. and Ambrose, J.T. (1984).
Pollination of delicious apple by
megachilid bees of the genus Osmia
(Hym., Megachilidae). Journal of the
Kansas Entomological Society. 57(2):
169-180.
Jain, S.C., Jain, R., Singh, R. and Menghani, E.
(2005). Studies on Verbesina
encelioides: Chemistry and bioactivity,
Symposium on Plant Biotechnology:
New Frontiers, CIMAP, Lucknow, India,
18-20 November, 2005, 439-445.
Jain, S. C. and Purohit, M. (1985). Establishment
of callus culture of three medicinally
important plants and investigation of
their metabolites: I., Herba Pol. 31: 35-
37.
Jain, S.C. and Purohit, M. (1989). Studies on the
callus culture of selected Indian
medicinal plants II. Quantification of
different metabolites. Herba Pol. 35: 35-
38.
Jain, S.C., Jain, R., Singh, R. and Menghani, E.
(2008). Verbesina encelioides:
Perspective and potentials of a noxious
weed. Indian Journal of Traditional
Knowledge. 7: 511-513.
Joshi, K.C., Singh, P. and Singhi, C.L. (1983).
Chemical constituents of Verbesina
encelioides and Holmkioldia sanguinea.
Journal of the Indian Chemical Society.
60: 905-906.
Lederhouse, R.C., Caron, D.M. and Morse, R.A.
(1972). Distribution and behaviour of
honey bees on onion. Environmental
Entomology. 1(2): 127-129.
Michener, C.D. (1953). The biology of a
leafcutter bee (Megachile brevis) and its
associates. University of Kansas Science
Bulletin. 35(3): 1659-1748.
Michener, C.D. (2000). The bees of the World.
The John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore & London, xiv + 913 pp.
Michener C.D. (2007). The Bees of the World,
Revised Edition, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore. xiv + 953
pp.
Ozbek, H. (1976). Pollinator bees on alfalfa in
the Erzurum region of Turkey. Journal
of Apicultural Research. 15(3/4): 145-
148.
Parker, F.D. (1981). A candidate red clover
pollinator Osmia coerulescens (L.).
Journal of Apicultural Research. 20(1):
62-65.
Parker, F.D., Batra, S.W.T. and Tepedino, V.J.
(1987). New pollinators for our crops.
Agric. Zool. Rev. 2: 279-304.
Rajpurohit, A. and Gupta, R.K. (2006). The
impact of insect pollination on seed yield
of Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek.
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, India. 76(B), II: 178-181.
Richards, K.W. (1993). Non-Apis bees as crop
pollinators. Review Suisse Zoologia.
100(4): 807-822.


Use of geomorphometric techniques to reduce the bad impacts of climate
changes for biodiversity conservation of the Thar Desert

J. Gharu, O.P. Choudhary and Seema Trivedi*

Departments of Zoology, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (India). Pin: 342001.
*e-mail: svtrived@hotmail.com

(Received 12 October, 2011, Accepted 9 February, 2012)

ABSTRACT: Geomorphometric (or morphometric) techniques can help in prevention of soil erosion
caused by wind and rain by study of landscape. This would be helpful in preserving soil fertility and hence
can provide abundant food to fauna. In the Thar Desert, climate is very hot, rain periods are very short
and rainfall is scanty. Hence, area of fertile soil is not very large and major flora and fauna depend on
ground water level. Therefore, it is essential to conserve the fertility of soil for the biodiversity of the Thar
Desert for which morphometric analysis can be useful. Further, morphometric techniques can help in
analysis and interpretation of ground water level that may further help in conservation of biodiversity of
the Thar Desert. In this review, we focus on studies and impacts of climate change in eastern part of the
Thar Desert, Rajasthan, India.
Key words: Thar Desert, Biodiversity, Geomorphometric analysis, Soil erosion, Ground water.

INTRODUCTION
The Thar Desert is characterized by sand
dunes, excessive temperature during summer (up
to 50 C), and dust storms with velocities of 140-
150 Kms/hr. The annual average rainfall is less
than 10 inches and maximum rainfall occurs
during the monsoons. Thus, water is the major
limiting factor for flora and fauna to flourish in
this region. The state of Rajasthan (coordinates
26 34' 21.65 N, 73 50' 20.47 E) India, is part
of the Thar Desert. The diversity of ecological
niche in arid and semi-arid region of Rajasthan is
defined by the fact that the south-west part of
Rajasthan is contiguous with the salt marshes
and mud flat of little Rann of Kutch in Gujrat
and the east is defined by the Aravllis (Khan et
al. 2003). In the desert part of this state, the
scanty vegetation is xerophytic or characterized
by ephemerals during monsoon. However, the
flora diversity is rich, as there are 775 plant
species from 91 families and 385 genera (Shetty
and Singh, 1993) out of which 200 species have
medicinal uses (Khan and Frost, 2004). The
fauna of this region is also greatly adapted to
scarcity of vegetation and extremes of
temperature (Singh, 2008). There are 364 species
of birds including migratory birds. Among many
prominent birds are the Great Indian Bustard
(Ardeotis nigriceps) and Indian peacock (Pavo
cristatus) and among migratory birds, the

Demoiselle Crane (Anthropoides virgo) etc.
There are 50 species of reptiles including 6
species of Testudines, 20 of lizard and 24 of
snakes. Among the Testudines, the flap-shelled
turtle (Lissemys punctata) are common but black
pond turtle (Geoclemys Hamiltonii) are rare.
Among the lizards, house lizard (Hemidactylus
flaviviridis) is common but keeled rock gecko
(Cytodactylus scaber) and chameleons
(Chamaeleo zeylanicus) are rare. Among snakes,
Python morulus, Naja naja, Naja naja oxiana,
Viper russeli are rare (Gaur, 2009). There are 68
species of mammals that include desert cat (Felis
sylvetris), desert fox (Vulpes vulpes pusilla),
wolf (Canis lupus pallipes), caracal (Felis
caracal), wild boar (Sus scrofa), chinkara or
Indian Desert Gazelle (Gazella bennettii),
blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) and blue bull
(Boselaphus tragocamelus) (Sharma and Mehra,
2009).
However, the environment of the Thar in
this region is changing. Factors like deforestation
and mining in the Aravllis, unexpected floods,
population density increase and irrigation of land
by canal projects like Indira Gandhi Canal
Project, the fauna of Thar Desert is under threat
(Idris et al. 2009).
In order to conserve the biodiversity of
the Thar Desert, large scale monitoring and
Biological Forum
_

conservation methods can be assisted by
geomorphometric (hence forth referred as
morphometry or morphometric) analysis which
is the science of measuring and depicting
parameters of nature. Descriptions of
configuration of topography provide the relation
between land mass and their geomorphic
processes (Pike, 2000). Estimation of soil erosion
and prediction of movement of ground water,
etc. (Florinsky, 1998; Hodgson, 1998) can be
done by means of global positioning system
(GPS), ground and airborne laser terrain
mapping, ground penetration radar and Digital
Elevation Model (DEM). These methods
generate descriptive statistics of the shape and
surface or location in a landscape that provide
numerical framework to represent ground surface
relief patterns (Pike, 2000).
This review focuses on some of the
morphometric methods to analyze sand dunes
and other geographical features to investigate
soil erosion, ground water prospecting etc. that
may be supportive in identifying areas that may
help in conservation of biodiversity in the Thar
Desert. The review first briefly describes general
methods that are useful in morphometric analysis
followed by brief description of impacts of
climate changes on soil erosion, ground water
level etc. and studies related with these impacts
with special reference to part of the Thar Desert
in Rajasthan and its biodiversity.

METHODS FOR MORPHOMETRIC
STUDIES
Defining landscape is essential part of
morphometric analysis of soil erosion and
ground water prospecting. In conventional
approach, aircrafts were used for capture of
photographs of terrain using either camera or
multi-spectral scanner to prepare the base maps
(Bushnell, 1929). The new methods use USLE-
based (Universal Soil Loss Erosion) empirical
model complemented by DEM by using results
of the detailed slope survey by digital
topographic maps (Kuznetsova et al. 2010).
Some of the software used for DEM analysis are:
SAGA (System for Automated geo-scientific
analyses), GIS (Geographic Information system),
MicroDEM (Micro Digital Elevation Model) and
Golden Software Surfer (GSS) etc. (Milevski,
2007). The ANSWERS model (Areal Nonpoint
Source Watershed Environment Response
Simulation) is useful for soil erosion modelling,
simulation of hydrology of agricultural
watersheds during rainfall, measuring variables
such as slope, soil (porosity, moisture content,
field capacity, infiltration capacity and
erodability factor), crop (coverage, interception
capacity), surface (roughness and retention) and
channel (width and roughness) (Beasley et al.
1980). Another method Automated Landform
Classification Methodology can be applied to
ecological studies, soil resource modelling,
landslide hazards and desert geomorphology.
This method uses Digital Terrain Models
(DTM), ancillary data spatial resolution,
geomorphological data, computer modelling and
GIS (Geographic Information system) (Dragu|
and Blaschke, 2006).
For groundwater study alone, temporal
satellite data, aerial photographs, survey of maps
at 1:50 000 scale followed by ground surveys of
the geo-hydrological conditions is done. For this,
DIP (Digital Image Processing) with different
satellite data enhancement technique is used to
facilitate generation of accurate thematic maps.
Ground truth surveys and geological mapping
with the help of Brunton compass and GPS are
used to define the structural features (Thapa et
al. 2008). Data used for such studies are high
resolution digital satellite data, precision geo-
coded paper print satellite data, aerial
photographs and geological maps and then
compared with other published literatures and
maps (Thapa et al. 2008).

IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGES
Biodiversity withstands the worst of
climate changes (due to natural factors or
anthropogenic activities) either directly or
indirectly due to impact on factors like soil
erosion and ground water. The Thar Desert is no
exception to changes in climate as it has resulted
in increase in maximum and minimum
temperature, soil erosion due to wind and rain in
area where few years ago there would be
negligible rainfall, increases in ground water
level due to development of irrigation canals etc.
Some of these aspects are as follows:
SOIL EROSION
Soil is an important element of the
ecosystem and plays a crucial role in
134
Gharu, Choudhary and Trivedi

biochemical and geochemical cycling or
partitioning of water storage and release. This
balance could change due to human activity or
natural events. The major characteristic of the
desert soil varies from sandy to loamy fine sand
and has low water holding capacity that restricts
their use for agricultural purposes (Schlesinger et
al. 1996). Soil erosion is a complex process of
land denudation by which productive surface soil
are detached, transported and accumulated at a
distant place. In the Thar Desert detachment of
soil particle occurs either by hydrological
(fluvial) process of sheet rill gully erosion or
through the action of wind. Soil erosion by water
involves down slope wash which is not
concentrated (sheet erosion), concentrated down
slope wash (rill and gully erosion) and mixed
process in which soil erosion occurs due to rain
drop splash and down slope transport is due to
surface wash (Luk, 1979). The expansion of
farming practice and pasture on remote, steep hill
slope increases the potential for accelerated rates
of erosion (Millward and Mersey, 1999). This
results in loss of precious soil for cultivation and
cause siltation of reservoirs and natural stream
(Biswas et al. 1999; Jain and Dolezal, 2000).
Black and white aerial photograph have
been used for soil erosion studies (Myers et al.
1966; Iyer et al. 1975), detection of sheet wash
and rill erosion (Coldwell, 1957). Morphometric
analysis has revealed several causes that are both
natural and manmade for soil erosion. It has been
observed that soil erosion is low on gentle slopes
or flats, while on high slopes it is higher,
influenced by climate, type of vegetation cover
and human activity. In Macedonia,
morphometric studies have shown that soil
erosion is stronger on south side because it lies in
the north latitude that causes greater temperature
amplitudes, lower precipitations, poorer
vegetation, greater human impact etc. (Milevski,
2007). In India, studies of the terrain features
related to wind erosion have been done (Dwivedi
et al. 1992). Space borne multispectral data
mapping at 1:5 million scales has been used for
deriving information on soil subjected to various
kinds of degradation (Food and Agriculture
Organization, 1978). Pandey et al. (1964) studied
the movement of sand dunes in the central Luni
basin (Rajasthan) using 1:40 000 scales aerial
photographs. Landsat data and its various forms,
principal components Normalize Difference
Vegetation Index (NDVI), Soil Brightness Index
(SBI) and Perpendicular Vegetation Index (PVI)
derived from central Luni basin have some
information on the sand dunes. These were
created by standard data product like false colour
composite print generated from green red and
near infrared spectral band. Additionally Mitra
and Bhoj (1992) have delineated several
landform in western Rajasthan associated with
the wind erosion using space borne multispectral
data. All India Soil and Land Use Survey
(AISLUS) map show degradation of land by
using remotely sensed data. These data have
shown expansion of desertification in many
states in India, including Rajasthan (Chouhan,
2005). It has been found that the dune migration
rate was 0.9 cm/yr about 2000 years ago; this
was reduced to 0.25 cm/yr between 500 and 200
years ago and has been about 1.59 cm/yr in the
past 200 years. This has been attributed mainly
to due to anthropogenic activities that have lead
to decreased vegetation cover, thus increasing
soil erosion though there have been phases of
dune stabilizations as well (reviewed in Singhvi
and Porat 2008).

GROUND WATER
The economy and agriculture of
Rajasthan is mainly water dependent which is
available mainly in form of groundwater.
Groundwater potential (hydrogeological
characteristic) studies with help of remote
sensing and GIS techniques of a particular area
are useful for identifying the impact of
urbanization on water resources (Epstein et al.
2002). Consequences on watershed health in
terms of runoff responses change in land
use/cover, reduction in groundwater level,
deterioration in groundwater quality and
degradation of morphological characteristics
have also been studied (Srivastava and
Bhattacharya, 2000; Khan and Moharana, 2002;
Jat et al. 2009). Sahai and Kalubarme (1985)
used black and white, coloured infrared aerial
photographs (1: 30 000 and 1:50 000 scales) for
delineation of waterlogged areas with water table
within 1.5-3.0 m in the Ukai command area in
Gujarat. In Rajasthan, geomorphological studies
have shown that groundwater in the Thar region
accumulates due to direct percolation or through
133

surface drainage. The other source of ground
water is due to surface runoff through existing or
prior drainage channels. In order to assess
ground water it is important that drainage
channels develop. However, development of
these drainage channels depends on
morphological features that are due to
lithological type, its fabrics and climatic
conditions that cause weathering (Chatterji and
Singh, 1980). Ground water potential zones in
Rajasthan can be divided in two groups; 1)
shallow aquifers present in central Luni basin
that cover Jalore and Pali district, southern part
of Jodhpur and Barmer districts (part of western
Rajasthan). These shallow aquifers have
developed due to presence and size of drainage
patterns, proper aquifers, thickness of alluvial
material, presence of weak zones that facilitate
water movement, absence or presence of salts
that may affect quality of water, presence of sand
dunes that may facilitate accumulation of ground
water and 2) deep aquifers that may be further
divided into a) moderately deep aquifers present
in Jhunjhunu, Sikar, Nagaur districts, northern
part of Jodhpur and central part of Barmer
districts and southern part of Churu district. The
other type b) very deep aquifers are found in
sandstone formations below thick cover of sand
dunes in Jaisalmer district, north of Barmer and
Churu districts and Bikaner district. However,
these aquifers do not have strong relationship to
the surface morphology and drainage features as
their source of ground water is either fossil water
or recharge source is in a distant location
(Chatterji and Singh, 1980). Data collected from
these regions can help not only in identification
of ground water areas but can also help in
artificial recharge if there is a need so that this
can be used not only as drinking water but also
for agricultural purposes or for reforestation or
grassland development. Paradoxically, increase
in water table may adversely affect flora and
fauna of a region especially in a state like
Rajasthan. In recent years, rise in water table in
city of Jodhpur has been cause of major concern
for the population. If this water table rises in
surrounding areas reserved for wildlife, it will
affect the natural habitat and lead to threat to
biodiversity as seen in case of waterlogged areas
due to irrigation projects (discussed in following
sections).
IMPACT OF FLOODS IN THAR DESERT
Though there is scarcity of rainfall in the
Thar, in August 2006, the Barmer district was hit
by floods because it received about 600 mm of
rain within 23 days of Monsoons. Because of a
thick layer of gypsum in Kawas (the worst hit
area in the district); the floodwater did not
percolated due to thick layers of clay bentonite
and fullers earth (Tertiary) and gypsite
(Quaternary) at a depth of about 11.5 ft. Proper
planning of drainage system for excess run-off
would have prevented loss of life, property,
agricultural products and biodiversity (Rawat et
al. 2008). For such planning, morphometric
analysis can be useful.

IMPACT OF ANTHROPOGENIC
ACTIVITIES
Impact of Canal Projects in Thar Desert:
Introduction of Indira Gandhi canal Project in
1958 in hot arid ecosystem of northern Rajasthan
has changed the land use scenario by putting
more than 33% area of Hanumangarh district
into irrigated farming, planned settlements and
integrated canal and transport network
development. The excessive irrigation and
exploitation of natural resources has created
water logging/salinity generation and Aeolian
hazards and turned about 11 000 ha irrigated
double cropped land into wasteland. Important
and native species have vanished and leveling of
sand dunes as well as total clearance of shrubs
and grasses from agricultural lands enhanced
wind erosion/deposition hazard (BalakRam and
Chauhan, 2002).
Goossens et al. (1992) studied parabolic
dunes and inter dunal depression using landsat
data before and after commissioning of the canal.
It has been found that since the adoption of canal
irrigation in the desert areas, water percolation
has ascended to the subsurface (estimated as 0.3-
1.5 m per year) in the Gang Canal area and
Ghaggar canal area. This has lead to an increase
in water table and increase in critical limit for
salinity and water logging in sandy areas. In
order to make best use of the rising water levels,
once again morphometric analysis can be helpful
and this water can be channelled into areas with
lower water table, which could be useful for the
area where it is being diverted (Chatterji and
Singh, 1980).
136

Impact of Oil Refineries: In recent years,
activities related to exploration of rich oil
deposits along with the proposed construction of
oil refineries in Barmer District have increased.
Clearing of the grass lands, levelling of sand
dunes and other anthropogenic activities are
increasing that will change the topography of this
area. This will lead to effect on local flora and
fauna and (Sharma and Mehra, 2009), unless
measures to mitigate the bad impacts are
implemented.
Threatened Biodiversity: Sewan, a type of
grass (Lasiurus sindicus) among the endemic
flora is under threat due to overgrazing and water
logging due to irrigation canals as this grass
cannot survive in logged soil. The Toad-head
Agamas (Phrynocephalus laungwalaensis) is
under risk due to loss of sandy soil, as it seeks
protection by burying itself in lose sand.
Similarly, Indian Sand swimmer or Three-toed
Snake Skink (Ophiomorus tridactylus) and other
reptiles besides other vertebrates will lose their
natural habitat. Paradoxically, there has been
invasion of not only flora, specially weeds like
water hyacinth but also of rodents like
bandicoots that were not present in desert regions
of Rajasthan before the development of canals
and increase in agriculture activities (Prakash,
2001).
Efforts are now being made to employ
morphometric-based techniques in India to
prevent the bad impacts of climate changes on
biodiversity. In this regard, Indian Remote
Sensing Satellite (IRS)-Resourcesat AWiFS data
spatial inventory called Desertification/Land
Degradation Status Map (DSM) has been
prepared for the entire country. This inventory
has information on various land degradation
processes and their severity. If this information
were implemented in form of action to prevent or
mitigate bad impacts of climate change, it would
be helpful in protecting biodiversity of the region
(Ajai et al. 2009).

CONCLUSION
The ecology and biodiversity of the Thar
Desert changed due to deforestation, mining in
Aravllis, irrigation canal projects, unexpected
floods, population density, national highways
and human interventions etc. Integration of
spatial technologies like GIS, GPS and IRS can
provide valuable and timely prediction of
information about environment based on
geomorphometry. This can prove to be the basis
for protection and conservation of biodiversity of
flora and fauna of the Thar Desert. These
technologies are also helpful for maintenance or
measurement of the disturbance of abiotic factors
of the Thar Deserts like soil fertility and erosion,
ground water levels, etc.

REFERENCES
Ajai, A.S., Dhinwa, P.S., Pathan, S.K., Ganesh,
R.K. (2009). Desertification/land
degradation status mapping of India.
Current Sci. 97(10): 1478-1483.
BalakRam and Chauhan, J.S. (2002). Impact
assessment of IGNP canal on land use in
Hanumangarh District, Rajasthan using
remotely sensed data. Indian Cartographer.
200-206.
Beasley, D.B., Huggins, L.F. and Monke, E.J.
(1980). ANSWERS: A model for
watershed planning. Trans of the ASAE.
23(4): 938-944.
Biswas, S., Sudhakar, S. and Desai, V.R. (1999).
Prioritization of sub-water sheds based on
morphometric analysis of drainage basin:
A remote sensing and GIS approach. J.
Indian Soc of Remote Sensing. 27(3): 155-
166.
Bushnell, T.M. (1929). Aerial photographs of
jennings county. Proc Ind Acad Sci. 39:
229-230.
Chatterji, P.C. and Singh, S. (1980).
Geomorphological studies for exploration
of ground water in Rajasthan Desert. Proc
Ind Sci. 46(5): 509-518.
Chouhan, T.S. (2005). Degree, extent and
treatment of desertification hazards in
India. Sociedade and Natureza,
Uberlndia. Special Issue, 901-919.
Coldwell, A.E. (1957). Importance of channel
erosion as a source of sediment. Amer
Geophy Union Transac. 38: 908-912.
Dragu|, L. and Blaschke, T. (2006). Automated
classification of landform elements using
object-based image analysis.
Geomorphology. 81: 330344.
Dwivedi, R.S., Ravi Sankar, T., Venkataratnam
L and Rao DP. (1992). Detection and
delineation of various desert terrain
137

features using landsat-TM derived image
transforms. J Arid Environ. 25: 151-162.
Epstein, J., Payne, K. and Kramer, E. (2002).
Techniques for mapping suburban sprawl.
Photogramm Eng Rem. S 63(9): 913918.
Florinsky, I.V. (1998). Combined analysis of
digital terrain models and remotely sensed
data in landscape investigations. Prog.
Phys. Geog. 22: 33-60.
Food and Agriculture Organization. (1978). The
Application of Landsat Imagery Soil
Degradation Mapping at 1: 50 00000. FAO
Summary Report, AGL Bulletin. 1/78.
Gaur, S. (2009). Species richness and dominance
of reptiles in the Aravalli foothills of
Rajasthan, In: Sivperuman, C, Baqri, QH,
Ramaswamy, G (Eds), Faunal Ecology and
Conservation of the Great Indian Desert
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,
Germany. pp.53-64.
Goossens, E.B., deRoover and Goossens, R.
(1992). A digital approach to separation of
parabolic sand dune area from interdunal
using Landsat MSS data. Proc Internatl
Symp Evol Deserts, Ahmedabad, India.
Hodgson, M.E. (1998). Comparison of angles
from surface slope/aspect algorithms.
Cartogr Geogr Inf Syst. 25(3): 173-185.
Idris, M., Singh, P. and Johari, S. (2009). Impact
assessment of the indira gandhi canal on
the avifauna of the Thar Desert In:
Sivperuman, C, Baqri, QH, Ramaswamy,
G (Eds), Faunal Ecology and Conservation
of the Great Indian Desert Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg, Germany. pp.119-135.
Iyer, H.S., Singh, A.N. and Kumar, R. (1975).
Problem soil inventory of part of
Hoshiarpur District through photo-
interpretation. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 11:
79-85.
Jain, S.K. and Dolezal, F. (2000). Modeling soil
erosion using EPIC supported by GIS,
Bohemia, Czech Republic. J. Environ.
Hydrol. 8(2): 1-11.
Jat, M.K., Khare, D., Garg, P.K. and Shankar, V.
(2009). Remote sensing and GIS-based
assessment of urbanisation and degradation
of watershed health. Urban Water J. 6(3):
251-263.
Khan, M.A. and Moharana, P.C. (2002). Use of
remote sensing and GIS in the delineation
and characterization of ground water
prospect zones. J. Indian Soc. of Remote
Sensing. 30(3): 131141.
Khan, T.I. and Frost, S. (2004). Floral
Biodiversity: A question of survival in the
Indian Thar Desert. The Environmentalist.
21(3): 231-236.
Khan, T.I., Dular, A.K. and Soloman, D.M.
(2003). Biodiversity conservation in the
Thar Desert; with emphasis on endemic
and medicinal plants. The
Environmentalist. 23(2): 137-144.
Kuznetsova, Y.S., Belyaev, V.R. and Golosov,
V.N. (2010). Sediment dynamics for a
changing future. Proc ICCE Symp,
Warsaw University of Life Sciences-
SGGW, Poland, (1418 June 2010). 337:
334-344.
Luk, S.H. (1979). Effect of soil properties on
erosion by wash and splash. Earth Surf
Proc. 4: 241-255.
Milevski, I. (2007). Morphometric elements of
terrain morphology in the republic of
Macedonia and their influence on soil
erosion. Internat Conf- Erosion and torrent
control as a factor in sustainable river
basin management. 25-28 September 2007,
Belgrade-Serbia. 1-8.
Millward, A.A. and Mersey, J.E. (1999).
Adapting the RUSLE to model soil erosion
potential in a mountainous tropical
watershed. Catena. 38: 109-129.
Mitra, D.S. and Bhoj, R. (1992). Dune forms in
space images- A case study from Shahgarh
and Myajlar areas of western Rajasthan.
Proc Internat symp on evolution of Deserts
Ahmedabad, India 11-19.
Myers, V.I., Ussery, L.R. and Rippert, W.J.
(1966). Photogrammetry for detailed
detection of drainage and salinity
problems. Trans the ASCE. 6: 332- 334.
Pandey, S., Singh, S. and Ghosh, B. (1964).
Orientation, distribution and origin of
sand-dunes in the central luni basin. Proc
Symp on Problems of Indian Arid Zone
Jodhpur(Rajasthan), 23rd November to
2nd December 1964. 84-91.
Pike, R.J. (2000). Geomorphometry: Diversities
in quantitative surface analysis. Prog.
Phys. Geogr. 24: 1-20.
138

Prakash, I. (2001). Biological invasion and loss
of endemic biodiversity in the Thar Desert.
Nature Watch: Resonance. 6(3): 76-85.
Rawat, M., Jakher, G.R. and Dookia, S. (2008).
Natural disaster and ecological dilemma:
Flood affected areas of Barmer, Thar
Desert, Rajasthan. Current Sci. 94(4): 450-
451.
Sahai, B. and Kalubarme, M.H. (1985).
Ecological studies in the ukai command
area. Int. J. Remote Sensing. 6: 401-409.
Schlesinger, W.H., Raikes, J.A., Hartley, A.E.
and Cross, A.F. (1996). On the spatial
pattern of soil nutrients in desert
ecosystems. Ecology. 77: 364-374.
Sharma, K.K. and Mehra, S.P. (2009). The Thar
Desert of Rajasthan (India): Ecology and
conservation of desert ecosystem In:
Sivperuman, C, Baqri, QH, Ramaswamy,
G (Eds), Faunal Ecology and Conservation
of the Great Indian Desert Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg, Germany. pp.1-11.
Shetty, B.V. and Singh, V. (1993). Flora of
Rajasthan Vol. I-III Botanical Survey of
India, Calcutta.
Singh, G. (2008). Study on biological diversity in
Mangala, Saraswati and Rageshwari areas
of Rajasthan hydro carbon project Interim
Report, Cairns Energy Pty India Ltd.
Singhvi, A.K. and Porat, N. (2008). Impact of
luminescence dating on geomorphological
and palaeoclimate research in drylands.
Boreas. 37: 536558.
Srivastava, P.K. and Bhattacharya, A.K. (2000).
Delineation of ground water potential
zones in a hard rock terrain of Bargarh
District, Orissa-using IRS data. J. Indian
Soc. of Remote Sensing. 28(2&3): 129
140.
Thapa, R., Kumar, R. and Sood, R.K. (2008).
Study of morphotectonics and
hydrogeology for groundwater prospecting
using Remote Sensing and GIS in the north
west Himalaya, District Sirmour, Himachal
Pradesh, India. The international archives
of the photogrammetry, remote sensing
and spatial information sciences Vol
XXXVII Part B4 Beijing 2008. pp.227-
232.

249
139

Hair Snares: Simple technique for monitoring field population

J. Gharu and Seema Trivedi*

Department of Zoology, Jai Narian Vyas University, Jodhpur (Raj.)
*Email: svtrived@hotmail.com

(Received 12 October, 2011, Accepted 26 March, 2012)

ABSTRACT: Hair snares method is one of the non-invasive techniques for collecting mammalian hair
samples from fields. This technique employs simple devices to collect samples without hunting or hurting
the animals. Hair samples are collected for analysis of morphological characters for identification of the
species. These hair samples are also used for molecular identification of species, individuals, their sex, and
their genetic relatedness, thus called as non-invasive genetic sampling (NGS). Hair morphology coupled
with DNA identification is helpful in assessing aspects of animal communities such as occurrence and
distribution, relative abundance, habitat fragmentation and human disturbance.
Key words: Hair snares, techniques, mammals.

INTRODUCTION
Non-invasive techniques (such as
tracking, automated camera photography, feces
and collection of hair sample) are alternatives of
invasive techniques such as trapping and hunting
for collection of animal tissue. One such non-
invasive method for mammals is hair snares in
which the hair sample is collected without
hunting or hurting the animal. Hair snares
techniques are used where the monitoring of
field population is not so easy especially in
tropical ecosystem and tropical rain forest dense
area or snow clad areas (Kendall and McKelvey
2008, Garca-Alanz et al., 2010). In case of
carnivorous animals, an invasive technique
means trapping of animals which can be
dangerous or time consuming. Hair samples can
be used as a tool in gathering information about
animal populations, sex ratio, and also individual
animals by the genetics analysis of DNA
(Haynes et al., 2005). Other non-invasive
methods for monitoring animals may not be
highly successful if animals like mesocarnivores
that are elusive or have relatively low abundance
(Zielinski et al. 2006, Belant and Wolford 2007).
In this paper, we discuss some of the hair-snare
methods adopted for collection of hair samples.

HAIR SNARES
Non-invasive hair collection methods
can be divided into two major types: Baited and
Passive (un-baited). The baited methods are most
frequently used. Passive method is more
effective for sampling certain species where

animal behavior is not influenced by the bait.
Moreover, passive methods also have low risk of
animals becoming averse to or develop
avoidance for hair collection structures.
I). Bait Method is mainly divided into following
types as given below:
1). Hair corrals are structures that use at least
one strand of barbed wire to encircle an attractant
and are predominantly used to sample ursids
(bears) (Fig. 1).
2). Rub stations are structures saturated with
scent lures to induce rubbing, and they typically
use one of two types of hair collection devices:
a). Barbed rub pads usually consist of a carpet
pad with protruding nails (or in some cases, stiff
natural fibers) and are used primarily for felids.
Hair snares can be constructed on carpet (10 cm
x 10 cm) and nails can be put through carpet-pad
with help of nail-gun or hammer. The shafts of
these nails already have small wire (may be
barbed) and are used to snagged the hair
(McDaniel et al. 2000) (Fig. 2).
b). Adhesive rub stations typically consist of
blocks of wood covered with adhesives and are
used mainly for canids. The lures can be scent
like beaver (Castor canadensis) castoreum and
imitation catnip oil (1:32 ratio mix), Hawbacker's
Lure (containing decomposed cat gland), Cat
Passion, Pacific Call, and BB1 (Weaver et al.
2005). Edibles can also act as lure for example, a
pie hung near the rub station so that animal
inadvertently rubs or brushes against the snare to
Biological Forum
_
An International Journal, Spl. Iss. 4(1): 160 -164 (2012) ISSN (on||ne): 2249-3239

reach the lure has been used to lure Lynx
(McDaniel et al., 2000) (Fig. 3).
3). Tree and post hair snares are wrapped with
barbed wire or fitted with alternative hair
snagging devices and can be used to collect
sample of mammals like wolverines (Gulo gulo)
(Kendall and McKelvey 2008) (Fig. 4).
4). Cubbies are boxes that contain attractants
and are fitted with snaring devices at the entries
or along the inside walls and are used mostly for
mustelids but can be effective for other small- to
medium-sized species. Wood boxes for this
purpose can be 81 cm long and 30 cm high and
with25 cm width openings. This box contains a
single wire (15 gauge, 4 prong barbed wire)
attached by placing it through 9mm drilled holes
that are 20 cm above the floor and 5cm inside the
edge of the box. The wire height is adjusted to
shoulder height of raccoons or other medium
sized animals and therefore there can be 3 barbs
evenly spaced across the box (Belant and
Wolford 2007) (Fig. 5).
5). Hair Tubes or pipes are large diameter piped
(hair tubes) lined with the adhesive tape like
those used for collection of Pine Marten hairs.
The animal is compelled to enter the tube to
some degree because it gets attracted by the food
kept as bait in form of fresh meat or apple for
arboreal animals. Peanut butter rolled oats and
honey can also be used for attracting animals like
marsupials (Roache 2008) (Fig. 6).

II). Passive (un-baited) divided into two
categories:
1). Natural rub objects are objects found in
nature (e.g., bear rub trees) that are fitted with
hair snagging devices (Fig. 7).
2). Travel route snares are hair snagging
structures that target animal travel routes or other
areas of concentration such as dens, burrows,
beds, and latrines. Travel route snares employ
one of three types of hair snagging devices:
i). Barbed wire strands strung across travel
routes are primarily used to sample ursids, but
can also be used for badgers. Deer hair samples
have been collected from their feeding sites
where hare snares are used in form of barbed
wires. The wires are put 70cm to 80 cm to the
ground in the targeted animal track route area
(Belant et al., 2007) (Fig. 8).
ii). Adhesives (such as double-sided sticky
tape) hung across travel routes which can be
used to sample animals like hairy-nosed
wombats (Lasiorhinus krefftii). Hair snares
formed by 25 x 15 cm pieces of carpet with 2
Velcro strips and carpet nails have also been
used. For feline hair sample collection such traps
sprayed from catnip oil are nailed 32 cm from
base of tree and flagging tapes are placed 2 m
above each trap (Kendall and McKelvey 2008)
(Fig. 9).
iii). Modified snares and traps are leg and body
snares or traps that have been adapted to allow
animals to escape but deposit hair samples in the
process. These are used for a variety of species.
(Kendall and McKelvey, 2008).

DISCUSSION
Monitoring abundance, diversity and
density estimation of mammals can be done with
help of hair collection surveys and collections by
individual identification based on hair
morphology and nuclear or mitochondrial DNA
analysis. Such analyses are also helpful in
studying population genetic structure. DNA
analyses of hair sample also help in describing
the ecological niche and differences in diet food
among the species (Kendall and McKelvey
2008). These applications have further appeal in
conservation of biodiversity. For example, hairs
snares have been used to detect presence of
Lynx, an endangered species in the United
States. This method was more helpful because
Lynx are secretive and have low density.
Monitoring Lynx tracks on snow is useful but is
very difficult on the road-less area. Other
methods like remote camera or track plate at
scent station are costly and time consuming
(McDaniel et al., 2000). Similarly, DNA analysis
of hair samples obtained from hair snares have
made it easier to keep tract of genetic index and
thus population size of white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus uirginianw). This is because
overpopulation of this species raises difficulties
for wild life management. Since the white-tailed
deer are herbivores overpopulation also affects
the vegetation of the area (Belant et al., 2007).
Hair snares technique is better than scat
collection of faces in tropical ecosystem system
due to high decomposition rate. Hair snares in
such areas have been helpful in collection of
161
Gharu and Trivedi

samples from the field area of Selva Lacandona,
which is a tropical rainforest of southern Mexico.
Hair morphology combined with molecular
analyses has been helpful in categorical
identification of jaguar (Panthera onca), puma,
ocelot, jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi) and
margay. For morphological identification; cuticle
scale pattern are obtained by imprinting
technique and analyzed with help of stereoscopic
microscope and compared with hair catalogues.
For molecular analysis, mtDNA has been used
for sequencing cytochrome b region (Garca-
Alanz et al., 2010).
Lures that induce rubbing behavior on
linear transects of hair-snaring stations directed
perpendicular to expected line of travel act as
baffles that intercept moving animal and provide
an effective sampling unit that efficiently detects
animal. In such cases, for example, the
castoreum and catnip oil are effective to attract
the lynx. However, problems arise if hairs from
other species are also snared with hairs of species
of interest. Such situations would lead to
identification and separations of hairs of different
species and thus would time consuming and
costly. Therefore, it is important that lures only
attract the species of interest and not other non-
targeted species (McDaniel et al., 2000).
Barbed wire snares are effective method
to obtain hair samples. To increase the efficacy
of this method many a times baits in form of
food scent and mineral are also used (Belant et
al., 2007). However, seasonal migration or
availability of food during different seasons may
affect efficiency of sample collection (Garca-
Alanz et al., 2010). This is seen in case of white
tailed deer population where hair sample
collection in winters is better because in the
summer deer have the alternate food. Therefore,
during summers the density of deer decreases
and thus it also decreases the efficacy of barbed
wire. Further, hair snares should be checked for
hair samples at set time periods. In case of white
tailed deer the hair snares are checked after the
interval of 7 to 14 days (Belant et al., 2007).
However, there may be failures of
adopting methods of collection hair samples. For
example, comparisons was done between
different methods like scat detection dogs,
remote cameras, and hair snares collections for
monitoring carnivores like black bears (Ursus
americanus), fishers (Martes pennanti), and
bobcats (Lynx rufus) in Vermont. In this case
hair snare method failed to detect fishers and
bobcats (Long et al., 2007). In this study, the hair
snare with scent lure (catnip) was attached to the
target tree (40-45cm above ground). The hair
snare was made of a 10x10 cm carpet pad with
approximately 10 nails 2.5-cm long pushed
through the pad with help of nail-gun. These
nails were packaged in a coil connected by wires
which, when clipped apart, created 4 small (5
mm) barbs. A metal pie pan was suspending with
monofilament line from branches approximately
1 meter height from the ground to visually attract
the animal. Some of the reasons for the failure of
hair-snares particularly in case of felids can be
attributed to contamination during setup or
removal procedures, loss of sample during
transport or due to lack of
molecular/morphological characterization of
samples (Long et al., 2007). We suggest that
these failures could also be due to use of scent
lure that was not species specific or it was not
breeding time of these animals and possible these
scent lures failed. Yet another reason could be
the use of visual attracted that may not work in
case of felids even if the scent lure may have
worked. Therefore possibly, a food lure would
have been better in this case.
Such difficulties can be overcome by
using both baited (natural food draws) and un-
baited hair snare devices like those used in case
of black beer population monitoring in Kenai
Fjords National Park of Alaskas Kenai
Peninsula. The first hair snare device was a 3.5
m wire cable fastened at about bear head level to
tree trunk or shrub near the trail. The cable had
loops (with 3 to 4 barbs) formed in such a way
that the barbs were facing inward and were
closed with a loose rubber fastener. This fastener
allowed the loop to constrict and then break apart
when pulled tight. The second snare was made of
a single piece of barbwire (12 meters long with
up to 50 barbs) strung across a bear trail 50 cm
from the ground. Numerous traps were set that
were at least 50 m apart based on the availability
of habitat areas, bear trails, and adequate areas
for setting traps. These methods were successful
because the trapping sessions coincided with the
peak of salmon runs and berry productivity
(Robinson et al., 2009).
162
Gharu and Trivedi

CONCLUSION

Hair snare is useful and cheaper
technique for monitoring the animals. The hair
samples thus collected are used for
morphological study which includes scale pattern
analysis. These samples are also used for DNA
analysis. Other methods of sample collection for
the purpose of monitoring and identifying
mammalian biodiversity are not cost effective,
are invasive which can be harmful to the animals
or to the scientists or both.

REFERENCES
Belant, J.L. and Wolford, J.E. (2007).
Comparison of two hair snares for
raccoons. Ohio J. Sci. 107(3): 44-47.
Belant, J.L., Seamans, T.W. and Paetkau, D.
(2007). Genetic tagging free-ranging
white-tailed deer using hair snares.
Ohio J. Sci. 107(4): 50-56.
Garca-Alanz, N., Naranjo, E.J. and Mallory,
F.F. (2010). Hair-snares: A non-
invasive method for monitoring felid
163
Gharu and Trivedi

populations in the Selva Lacandona,
Mexico. Tropical Conservation
Science. 3(4): 403-411.
Haynes, L., Hackl, Z. and Culver, M. (2005).
Wild cats of the sky islands: A
summary of monitoring efforts using
noninvasive techniques. USDA Forest
Service Proceedings RMRS-P-36.
Kendall, K.C. and McKelvey, K.S. (2008). Hair
Collection. Excerpted from
"Noninvasive Survey Methods for
Carnivores," by Robert A. Long, Paula
MacKay, William J. Zielinski, and
Justina C. Ray, eds. Island Press,
Washington, D. C.
Long, R.A., Donovan, T.M., MacKay, P.,
Zielinski, W.J. and Buzas, J.S. (2007).
Comparing scat detection dogs,
cameras, and hair snares for surveying
carnivores. J. Wild Manag. 71: 2018
2025.
McDaniel, G.W., McKelvey, K.S., Squires, J.R.
and Ruggiero, L.F. (2000). Efficacy of
lures and hair snares to detect lynx.
Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28(1): 119-
123.
Robinson, S.J., Waits, L.P., and Martin, I.D.
(2009). Estimating abundance of
American black bears using DNA-
based capturemarkrecapture models.
Ursus. 20(1):111.
Roche, T. (2008). The use of baited hair traps
and genetic analysis to determine the
presence of pine marten. M Sc. Thesis.
Department Of Science, Waterford
Institute of technology.
Weaver, J.L., Wood, P., Paetkau, D. and Laack,
L. (2005). Use of scented hair snares to
detect ocelots. Wildlife Society Bulletin.
33(4):13841391.
Zielinski, W.J., Schlexer, F.V., Pilgrim, K.L.,
and Schwartz, M.K. (2006). The
efficacy of wire and glue hair snares in
identifying mesocarnivores. Wildlife
Society Bulletin. 34: 11521161.

164
Gharu and Trivedi

Molluscan diversity of temporary and permanent Wetlands in and around
Patna, Bihar

Gopal Sharma, Hasko Nesemann* and Mohita Sardana**

Zoological Survey of India, Gangetic Plains Regional Centre, Patna
*Central University of Bihar, BIT Campus, Patna 800 014
**Department of Zoology, Magadh Mahila College, Patna University, Patna-4.
e-mail: gopal_dolphinboy@rediffmail.com


ABSTRACT: The aquatic Mollusca of seven stagnant water bodies in Patna include twenty one taxa of
Gastropoda and Bivalvia. Figures of all snails occurring in the study area are compiled to a pictorial
guide, helpful for the rapid field identification.
Keywords: Wetland, aquatic mollusca, diversity, distribution, Patna, Bihar.

INTRODUCTION
Mollusca play an important role in the
ecosystems of wetlands, in the food web as well
as human food. Aquatic Mollusca have been
traditionally used as bio-indicators and their
diversity and composition allows detailed
assessment of the ecological integrity and habitat
quality. The present paper is the first
comprehensive overview of the entire aquatic
snails (Gastropoda) and mussels (Bivalvia) of
seven wetlands in the area of Patna. The material
was studied during field survey of apple-snail
habitats (Pila globosa). The recently collected
specimens were identified with the help of
Preston (1915) and Subba Rao (1989).
Three stagnant water-bodies in Patna
have been the subject of research on large
freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in the past
decade (Nesemann, Sharma & Sinha, 2003),
Kumhrar pond, Secretariat pond and Zoo pond.
The aquatic Mollusca of stagnant waters in
general have not yet been studied and earlier data
on Gastropoda were only partially known for
Kumhrar pond and Secretariat pond. Several of
the earlier studied water-bodies have been
destroyed and completely filled with sand for the
reconstruction of important archaeological sites.

Mollusca together with other benthic
invertebrates were collected qualitatively using a
plastic hand-net of 1 mm mesh size. Larger

Molluscs of the samples were pre-identified in
the field. Smaller specimens together with
sediment samples were fixed in 4%
formaldehyde and later on washed and sorted in
the laboratory. The specimens were finally kept
in separate vials and preserved in 70% ethyl
alcohol. The material is deposited in the
Zoological Survey of India, Gangetic Plains
Regional Centre, Patna, and in the Laboratory of
the Centre for Environmental Science, Central
University of Bihar in Patna. Figures are free-
hand drawings of the second author (HN) based
on self collected specimens.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Altogether twenty one species of
Mollusca have been found out of which the class
Gastropoda is represented with nine-teen species
and the class Bivalvia with two species. Snails
are represented with eight Prosobranchia and
eleven Pulmonata. Bellamya bengalensis and
Indoplanorbis exustus are the most frequent
species, followed by Gyraulus convexiusculus,
Lymnaea acuminata and Radix ovalis. The
highest number of ten to five-teen species was
found in the largest water-bodies, e.g. the
Nalanda Medical College & Hospital (NMCH)
Pond and the Mithapur Agricultural College
Pond. These are the habitats of valuable
populations of large freshwater mussels,
especially the diversified Lamellidens forms.
High species number of mollusks well
Biological Forum
_

corresponds with the occurrence of crabs
Sartoriana spinigera, prawns Macrobrachium
spp. and large blood-sucking leeches Hirudinaria
manillensis in the study sites.
It is noteworthy that the wetlands of
Patna are habitat of all species of rams-horn
snails (Family Planorbidae) found in the area.
The fauna differs markedly from the Mollusca
composition of the rivers by the presence of
Gyraulus euphraticus, Segmentina calatha,
Segmentina trochoidea and Hippeutis
umbilicalis. Invasive species like the neozoan
Haitia mexicana occur in wetland only in a
single polluted locality. All other sampling sites
are inhabited by native gastropods. The
sympatric populations of three different
Bithyniidae Digoniostoma cerameopoma,
Digoniostoma pulchella and Gabbia orcula were
found in dense macrophytes of Potamogeton
crispus in NMCH-Pond area.
The largest forms of Bellamya
bengalensis and Lamellidens cf. marginalis
were found in the two locations of the Nalanda
Medical College & Hospital Pond and the
Mithapur Agricultural College Pond. These
water-bodies are managed for fish-farming and
support the filter-feeder communities among the
invertebrates. These localities are also inhabited
by Sponges (Family Spongillidae) and bryozoans
(Family Plumatellidae).
The taxonomy of Unionidae populations
is a difficult task since the collected material is
representing intermediate forms of the previously
distinguished taxa. The species concept is in
discussion and different hypothesis are possible
(Graf, 2007). A critical compilation of all valid
taxa has been given by Haas (1969) and an
updated list of taxa by Graf & Cummings (2007).
In the earlier publications the authors tried to
distinguish consequently seven species in the
Gangetic floodplains around Patna (Nesemann,
Sharma & Sinha 2003, Nesemann et al. 2005,
Nesemann et al., 2007). The Lamellidens
specimens of the Nalanda Medical College &
Hospital Pond are very large and thick-shelled
elongated forms with characters of both
Lamellidens jenkinsianus and Lamellidens
narainporensis. The juveniles shells have a very
short anterior portion and they fit well in the
morphological range of narainporensis.
Nevertheless it has to be mentioned that all
Lamellidens forms are characterized by the same
umbo sculpture which makes a distinction of
separate species very questionable. In the light of
the extremely large conchological plasticity all
the different forms in the study area of Patna
appear to be ecological modifications and
adaptations of a single species. The same view
was already formulated and defended by Haas
(1969) who accepted only a single species
Lamellidens testudinarius for larger parts of
South-Asia. Based on recent collections from
running and stagnant waters of Patna, the authors
of the present study follow the one-species-
hypothesis and use the name Lamellidens cf.
marginalis for all the different forms of the study
area. Beside elongated and prolonged Radiatula
caerulea, few short rounded valves of a further
species Radiatula occata were found in dry
sediments along the banks.

Table 1. Distribution and abundance of Mollusca at the different sampling sites of temporary and permanent
wetlands (water bodies) in and around Patna during February and March 2011.

Sampling Sites
Kothia
Wetland pond
at
embankment
of River
Punpun
Pahari,
Fishpond,
(Near
Handicapped
Hospital)
Pahari,
Fishpond,
(Near JVG)
Nalanda
Medical
College &
Hospital (
NMCH Pond
Patna)
Mithapur,
Agricultur
al College
Pond,
Patna
Fulwari
Sharif
wetland
pond
Recovery-
site 1,
Fulwari
Sharif
wetland
pond, (
polluted
-site 2),
GPS N 25
o
3347.69
E 85
o
1505.03
N 25
o
3427.51
E 85
o
1121.28
N25
o
3408.81
E 85
o
111301
N 25
o
3607.98
E 85
o
1208.93
N
25
o
3503.9
5
E
85
o
0754
.35
N
25
o
3445.0
8
E
85
o
0443.3
8
N25
o
344
5.68
E85
o
043
8.20
Family

Genus/
Species

22. 02. 2011 15. 2. 2011 16. 2.2011 27. 02.2011
&03.03.2011
17. 03.2011 23.2.2011 23.02.2011
Bithinidae Digoniostoma
cerameopoma
Shells 2 - 61 - - -
Digoniostoma - - - 8 - - 1
166
Sharma, Nesemann and Sardana

pulchella
Gabbia orcula - - - 3 - - -
Thiaridae Melanoides
tyuberculatus
- - - 4 - - -
Thiara scabra - - - - Shells - -
Viviparidae Bellamya
bengalensis
Shells Shells Shells 25 15 numerous Shells
Idiopoma
dissimilis
Shells Shells Shells - - - -
Ampullairid
ae
Pila globosa Shells Shells Shells Shells 3 1 Shell -
Planorbidae Indoplanorbis
exustus
Shells Shells Shells 22 1 1 Shells
Gyraulus
convexiusculu
s
Shells 11 158 5 59 - 2
Gyraulus
euphraticus
11 15 17 - 59 Shells
Segmentina
trochoidea
- 1 - - - 6 -
Segmentina
calatha
- - - 12 - 4 Shells
Hippeutis
umbilicalis
- - - 4 - - -
Physidae Haitia
mexicana
- - - - - - 24
Lymnaeidae Radix ovalis 3 2 - 14 17 31 18
Radix luteola - 20 1 - - - -
Lymnaea
acuminata
63 - 1 2 31 3 7
Succineidae Quickia cf.
bensoni
2 7 + + +
Unionidae Lamellidens
cf. marginalis
forms
- - - Living Living - -
Radiatula
caerulea
- - - Shells Shells - -
Total number of identified
taxa
8 11 8 15 10 9 10
Where Shells= Empty Shells found at the site.

Table 2. Physico-chemical Characteristics of the temporary and permanent wetlands in and around Patna, Bihar.
Sl.
No.
Sampling
Sites
Kothia
Wetland
pond at
embankmen
t of River
Punpun
Pahari,
Fishpond,
(Near
Handicapped
Hospital)
Pahari,
Fishpond,
(Near JVG)

Nalanda
Medical
College &
Hospital
(NMCH
Pond
Patna)
Mithapur,
Agricultural
College
Pond, Patna

Fulwari
Sharif
wetland
pond
Recovery-site
1
Fulwari
Sharif
wetland
pond,
(polluted-site
2)
GPS > N
25
o
3347.69
E 85
o
1505.03
N
25
o
3427.51
E 85
o
1121.28
N25
o
3408.81
E 85
o
1113.01
N25
o
3607.98
E85
o
1208.93
N25
o
3503.95
E85
o
0754.35
N25
o
3445.08
E85
o
0443.38

N 25
o
3445.68
E 85
o
0438.20
Date> 22. 02. 2011 15. 2. 2011 16. 2.2011 27. 02. & 03.
03. 2011
17. 03. 2011
12.03.2011 12.03.2011
1. Time 08.00am 09.45am 10.30am 08.45am 9.00am 12.30 12.30
2. Air
Temperature
27.0
o
C 27.0
o
C 27.0
o
C 27.0
o
C 32.5
o
C 29 30.1
3. Water
Temperature
24. 0
o
C 25.5
o
C 25. 0
o
C 25. 0
o
C 26.0
o
C 22 25
4. pH 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.0 7.9 8.1
5. Free CO2 x 22.00 x x x x x
6. Phenolph. 22.00 x 6.00 4.4 19.6 9.0 14
167

Alkalinity
7. Methyl
Orange
Alkalinity
228 424 224 495 258 260 400
8. Initial D.O. 4.98 5.27 8.91 10.53 6.48 0 7.5
9. BOD 3.2 0.25 3.71 8.3 4.90 0 7.5
Where All values in mg/l except Temp & pH; X- Absent.

Details of Plates and Figures are as given
below:

Plate 1: Prosobranchia of wetlands in Patna.
Family Viviparidae
Fig. 1: Bellamya bengalensis (Lamarck, 1822)
shell height 30.8 mm. Hajipur, Berai chaur.
Fig. 2: Bellamya bengalensis (Lamarck, 1822)
shell height 10.5 mm. Ganga River, Patna.
Fig. 3: Idiopoma dissimilis (O.F. Mller, 1774)
shell height 23.7 mm. Sonaru south of Patna.
Fig. 4: Idiopoma dissimilis (O.F. Mller, 1774)
shell height 18.5 mm. Pahari south of Patna.
Family Ampullariidae
Fig. 5: Pila globosa (Swainson, 1822) shell
height 45.3 mm. Sonaru south of Patna.
Family Bithyniidae
Fig. 6: Digoniostoma cerameopoma (Benson,
1830) shell height 7.7 mm. Ganga River at
Gandak confluence opposite Patna.
Fig. 7: Digoniostoma pulchella (Benson, 1836)
shell height 7.9 mm. Ganga River at Varanasi.
Fig. 8: Gabbia orcula (Frauenfeld, 1857) shell
height 7.3 mm. Kumhrar, Patna.

Family Thiaridae
Fig. 9: Thiara scabra (O.F. Mller, 1774) shell
height 21.2 mm. Yamuna River at Allahabad.
Fig. 10: Melanoides tuberculatus (O.F. Mller,
1774) shell height 28.4 mm. Hugli (Hoogly)
River downstream Haora.

Plate 2: Planorbidae (I) of wetlands in Patna.
Family Planorbidae
Fig. 1-3: Indoplanorbis exustus (Deshayes, 1834)
shell width 15.6 mm, sinistral (= left) coiled; Fig.
1: physiological upper side, Fig. 2: lateral
view, Fig. 3: physiological lower side, Pahari
south of Patna.
Fig. 4-6: Gyraulus convexiusculus (Hutton,
1849) shell width 4.5 mm, sinistral (= left)
coiled; Fig. 4: physiological upper side, Fig. 5:
lateral view, Fig. 6: physiological lower side,
Kumhrar in Patna.
Fig. 7-9: Gyraulus euphraticus (Mousson, 1874)
view, Fig. 9: physiological lower side,
Kumhrar in Patna.

168

Plate 3: Planorbidae (II) of wetlands in Patna.
Family Planorbidae
Fig. 1-3: Segmentina calatha (Benson, 1836)
Kumhrar in Patna.
Fig. 4-6: Segmentina trochoidea (Benson, 1836)
Kumhrar in Patna.
Fig. 7-9: Hippeutis umbilicalis (Benson, 1836)
view, Fig. 9: physiological lower side, Nepal:
Pokhara, Orlan Khola.

Plate 4: Lymnaeidae, Physidae and
Succineidae of wetlands in Patna.
Family Lymnaeidae
Fig. 1-2: Lymnaea acuminata (Lamarck, 1822)
shell height 27.4 mm, Kumhrar in Patna.
Fig. 3-4: Radix ovalis (Gray, 1822) shell height
15.5 mm, Haora, Botanical Garden wetland
pond.
Fig. 5-6: Radix luteola (Lamarck, 1822) shell
height 18.2 mm, Kumhrar in Patna.
Family Physidae
Fig. 7-8: Haitia mexicana (Phillipi, 1889) shell
height 14.3 mm, Ganga River at Patna.
Family Succineidae
Fig. 9-10: Quickia bensoni (Phillipi, 1889) shell
height 10.7 mm, Zoo-Pond in Patna.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to the Director,
encouragements. Authors are also very much
thankful to the Prof. Dr. Janak Pandey, Vice-
Chancellor, Central University of Bihar and Prof.
Dr. R.K. Sinha, University Professor Dean and
Head, Centre for Environmental Science, Central
University of Bihar for giving opportunity to
work. We are also very much thankful to Dr.
Dilip K. Kedia, Research Associate,
Environmental Biology Laboratory, Patna
University for his kind cooperation in analyzing
the physicochemical parameters of samples of
the selected temporary and permanent water
bodies of Patna. Last but not least thanks are also
169

due to all staff of ZSI/GPRC/ Patna and Lab.
Staff of CUB, BIT campus, Patna for their kind
cooperation.

REFERENCES
Annandale, N. and B. Prashad. (1919). The
Mollusca of the inland waters of
Baluchistan and Seistan. Records of the
Indian Museum. 18: 17-62, pl. I-VIII.
Graf, D.L. and K.S. Cummings. (2007). Review
of the systematics and global diversity of
freshwater mussel species (Bivalvia:
Unionoida). Journal of Molluscan Studies.
73: 291-314.
Graf, D.L. (2007). Palearctic freshwater mussel
(Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida) diversity
and the Comparatory Method as a species
concept. Proceedings of the Academy of
Natural Sciences. 156: 71-88.
Haas, F. (1969). Superfamilia Unionacea. Das
Tierreich. Der Gruyter, Berlin. pp.1-613.
Nesemann, H., Sharma, G. and R. K. Sinha.
(2003). The Bivalvia species of the Ganga
River and adjacent stagnant water bodies
in Patna (Bihar, India) with special
reference on Unionacea. Acta
Conchyliorum, Ludwigsburg Wien. 7: 1-
43.
Nesemann, H., Sharma, S., Sharma, G. and R.K.
Sinha. (2005). Illustrated Checklist of
large Freshwater Bivalves of the Ganga
River System (Mollusca: Bivalvia:
Solecurtidae, Unionidae, Amblemidae).
Nachrichtenblatt der Ersten Vorarlberger
Malakologischen Gesellschaft, Rankweil.
13: 1-51.
Nesemann, H., Sharma, S., Sharma, G., Khanal,
S.N., Pradhan, B., Shah, D.N. and R.D.
Tachamo. (2007). Aquatic Invertebrates of
the Ganga River System: Volume 1
Mollusca, Annelida, Crustacea (in part),
Published by Hasko Nesemann,
Kathmandu, Nepal, ISBN 978-99946-2-
674-8. 263pp.
Preston, H.B. (1915). Freshwater Gastropoda +
Pelecypoda. The Fauna of British India
including Ceylon and Burma. pp. I-XI +
244, Francis & Taylor, London.
Ramakrishna and Dey, A. (2007). Handbook on
Indian Freshwater Molluscs 1-399
(Published by the Director, Zoological
Survey of India, Kolkata).
Subba Rao, N.V. (1989). Freshwater Molluscs
of India. Calcutta: Zoological Survey of
India. xxiii + 289pp.

170 Sharma, Nesemann and Sardana

Diversity of Freshwater Fishes of Mizoram, India with a note on Conservation
Strategies

Laishram Kosygin

Zoological Survey of India, Hilltop, Gopalpur-on-Sea, Ganjam-761 002, Odisha
e-mail: lkzsi5@yahoo.com


ABSTRACT: A systematic, updated checklist of freshwater fishes of Mizoram is provided with notes on
distribution, status and conservation strategies of threatened species. A total of 166 species of fishes
representing 71 genera, 22 families and 7 orders has been recorded. Highest species diversity was observed
in the Cyprinidae (46.4%) followed by Sisoridae (12.6%). The fish fauna includes 2 endangered (EN), 7
vulnerable (VU), 15 near threatened (NT), 104 least concern (LC) and 7 data deficient (DD) as per IUCN
status. The Brarak drainage habours highest number of species (63.2%) followed by Kolodyne (44.0%)
and Karnaphuli (27.7%). The fauna is a mixture of endemic hill stream, Assamese, Burmese and widely
distributed forms.
Key words: Fish, checklist, status, distribution, conservation, Mizoram, India.

INTRODUCTION
Mizoram is a hilly state in the southern
part of north eastern India bordering Bangladesh
in the south-west and Myanmar in the east
having the Tropic of Cancer passing through it.
The state is interspersed with numerous rivers,
streams and brooks which are drained by three
main drainages namely Barak-Meghna,
Kolodyne (Kaladan) and Karnaphuli (Kar and
Sen, 2007). The northern part of the state is
drained by the Barak-Meghna and its tributaries
namely the Tlawng (Dhaleshwari), the Tuirial
(Sonai) and the Tuivai. The Tuivawl, a tributary
of the Tuivai, is another important river in the
area. On the other hand the southern region of
the state is drained by the Kolodyne
(Chhimtuipui) with its four main tributaries - the
Mat, the Tuichang, the Tiau and the Tuipui. The
Karnaphuli (Khawthlangtuipui) and its
tributaries- the Tuichawng, the Phaireng, the
Kau, the Deh and the Tuilianpui- form the
western drainage system. The Karnaphuli enters
Bangladesh at Demagiri and finally discharge
into the Bay of Bengal. The rivers of the state
have rich fish biodiversity and fishing activity in
these rivers is considered as an exciting
experience. However, much of the potential of
the river systems and aquatic bioresources in
Mizoram remains largely unexploited.

There are few reports on the fishes of
Mizoram. Sen (1977) reported 9 species of fishes
from state and remarked that the state remains
one of the least known areas of north east India.
Barman (1988) reported the Burmese Kingfish,
Semiplotus modestus for the first time from
India. Barman (1989) further recorded 17 species
which belong to 14 genera, 8 families. Latter,
Kar et al. (2000) reported 54 species from 7
rivers of the state. Kar et al. (2002) recorded 30
species from the Tuirial river in Mizoram. While
reporting the fishes of North East India, Sen
(2003) included 46 species without giving details
of collection sites. More comprehensive and
systematic accounts of the fishes of Mizoram
were provided by Karmakar and Das (2007)
which included a total of 89 species of which 24
species were reported for the first time from
Mizoram. Kar and Sen (2007) reported 105
species of fishes from the state. However, there
is no comprehensive up to date list of fishes of
the state and information on their status are
scanty. In the present study a updated systematic
checklist of fish fauna of the river is prepared
based on the present collection and those
reported by the earlier workers. The IUCN status
of the fishes, distributions and conservation
strategies of the threatened species are provided.

Biological Forum
_

Fishes were collected from the
Dhaleshwari (Tlawng) river of Mizoram and
identified following Jayaram (1999), Talwar and
Jhingran (1991) and by consulting other relevant
literature. Species, which were not collected in
the present survey but reported earlier from
Mizoram, are also included in this report. The
families have been arranged phylogenetically
and species under a genus followed alphabetic
sequence. The correct Zoological name with
author citation, distribution and IUCN status
(IUCN, 2010) are shown against each species.

A systematic, updated checklist of
freshwater fishes of Mizoram has been prepared
base on present collection and those reported by
the earlier workers (Table 1). It includes a total
of 166 species of fishes representing 71 genera,
22 families and 7 orders. Among these
Cypriniformes has highest diversity with 4
families, 33 genera and 99 species followed by
Siluriformes (6 families with 20 genera and 46
species), Perciformes (5 families with 9 genera
and 12 species), Synbranchiformes (2 families
with 3 genera and 3 species), Clupeiformes and
Beloniformes (2 families with 2 genera and 2
species each) and Osteoglossiformes (one family
with 2 genera and 2 species). Among the
families highest species diversity was observed
in the Cyprinidae (46.4%) followed by Sisoridae
(12.6%). In the present collection a total of 26
species which belongs to 14 genera and 6
families were collected. Of the three main
drainages of the state, the Brarak and its
tributaries habour highest number of species
(63.2%) followed by Kolodyne (44.0%) and
Karnaphuli (27.7%) (Fig. 1). However,
distributions of 15 species (9.0%) are not known,
as their sites of collections were not available in
the literatures. The fish fauna of the state
includes 2 endangered (EN), 7 vulnerable (VU),
15 near threatened (NT), 104 least concern (LC)
and 7 data deficient (DD) as per the IUCN status
(Fig. 2). However, status of 31 species are not
available as many of them are newly described as
new to science. The fauna is a mixture of
endemic hill stream, Assamese, Burmese and
widely distributed forms.

Fig. 1. Known distribution of fishes in different drainages of Mizoram.

Out of the 166 species, 27 species which
are reported by the earlier workers may have
ambiguous taxonomic status and their identities
needed to be verified (Table 1). They are Chitala
chitala, Salmophasia sardinella, Salmophasia
sladoni, Barilius bakeri, Barilius dogarsinghi,
Devario shanensis, Neolissochilus blythii,
Osteobrama cunma, Semiplotus semiplotus,
Garra mcclellandi, Garra notata, Nemacheilus
corica, Schistura kangjupkhulensis, Schistura
172
Kosygin

manipurensis, Schistura sikmaiensis, Schistura
tirapensis, Schistura vinciguerrae, Mystus horai,
Ailia punctata, Glyptothorax platypogonoides,
Glyptothorax telchitta, Pseudolaguvia
tuberculata, Pseudambassis baculis,
Parambassis tenasserimensis, Awaous
stamineus, Psammogobius biocellatus and
Channa orientalis. Most of these species has
restricted distribution and are not reported from
Mizoram by the other workers. Vishwanath
(2010) remarked that Devario shanensis is
known from Hsipaw, northern Shan States,
Myanmar and Salween drainage. Similarly, B.
bakeri is endemic to the Western Ghats, where it
has been recorded from mid- and higher-
elevation streams of major rivers in Kerala,
Tamil Nadu and Karnataka (Dahanukar, 2011a).
Garra mcclellandi is endemic to the southern
Western Ghats of India and is found mainly in
the Cauvery drainage (Dahanukar, 2011b).
Ekaratne (2000) and Pethiyagoda (1991)
remarked that Channa orientalis is considered as
an endemic species to Sri Lanka and is often
confused with Channa gachua (Hamilton).
Courtenay Jr. and Williams (2004) noted that C.
orientalis differs from C. gachua in lacking
pelvic fins and report of the former species from
southern India and elsewhere are erroneous.
Dahanukar (2010) considered Puntius shalynius
is distributed in Khasi and Jaintia hills in
Meghalaya. However, Kamakar and Das (2007)
reported the fish from Kolodyne and Karnaphuli
drainages in Mizoram. Vishwanath and Kosygin
(2000) remarked that Semiplotus semiplotus
perhaps distributed only in the Ganga-
Brahmaputra drainage. The report of the fish
from Kolodyne river in Mizoram is doubtful and
it needs further study for confirmation of species
identity.
The state habours commercially important
food fishes like Tor putitora, Tor tor, Labeo
calbasu, L. rohita, L. pangusia, Cirrhinus reba,
Cirrhinus mrigala, Chagunius chagunio,
Neolissochilus hexagonolepis, Ntopterus
notopterus, Semiplotus modestus etc., It suggest
high fishery potentials in the state.
Attempts may be made to introduce the in
situ fish cultivation using scientific techniques
for sustainable development of fish resources of
the state.

Table 1. Checklist of fish fauna of Mizoram with their status and distribution.
Taxa Distribution IUCN
Status
Barak
drainage
Kolodyne
drainage
Karnaphuli
drainage
Phylum CHORDATA
Class ACTINOPTERYGII
Division TELEOSTEI
Order : OSTEOGLOSSIFORMES
Family : NOTOPTERIDAE
1. Chitala chitala (Pallas)
5
* - - - NT
2. Notopterus notopterus (Hamilton)
1,3,5,6
+ - + LC
Order : CLUPEIFORMES
Family : CLUPEIDAE
3. Gudusia chapra (Hamilton)
1,3,5,6
- - + LC
Family : ENGRAULIDAE
4. Setipinna phasa (Hamilton)
5
- - + LC
Order CYPRINIFORMES
Family CYPRINIDAE
5. Securicula gora (Hamilton)
1,3,6
+ + + LC
6. Salmophasia bacaila (Hamilton)
1,3,5,6,7
+ - + LC
7. Salmophasia phulo (Hamilton)
3,5
+ - + LC
8. Salmophasia sardinella (Valenciennes)
3,5
* - + + LC
9. Salmophasia sladoni (Day)
5
* - + - LC
10. Aspidoparia jaya (Hamilton)
3
- + - LC
173
Kosygin

11. Aspidoparia morar (Hamilton)
1,3,4
+ + - LC
12. Barilius bakeri Day
3
* + - - LC
13. Barilius barila ( Hamilton)
2,3,5
+ + - LC
14. Barilius barna (Hamilton)
2,3,5
+ + + LC
15. Barilius bendelisis (Hamilton)
2,3,4,5,6,7
+ + - LC
16. Barilius dogarsinghi Hora
5
* - + - VU
17. Barilius shacra
1,2,3,5
+ + - LC
18. Barilius tileo
1,2,3
+ - - NE
19. Barilius vagra
1,2,3,4,5,7
+ + + LC
20. Barilius sp1.
7
+ - - NA
21. Chela cachius (Hamilton)
5
- + - LC
22. Laubuca laubuca (Hamilton)
1,3
+ + + LC
23. Esomus danricus (Hamilton)
3,5
+ + + LC
24. Danio dangila (Hamilton)
4,5,6
+ - - LC
25. Danio rerio (Hamilton)
4,5,6
+ - - LC
26. Devario devario (Hamilton)
3
+ - - LC
27. Devario aequipinnatus (McClelland)
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
+ + - LC
28. Devario naganensis (Chaudhuri)
1,2,3,5,7
+ + + VU
29. Devario shanensis (Hora)
5
* - + - DD
30. Rasbora daniconius (Hamilton)
5
+ + + LC
31. Rasbora rasbora (Hamilton)
3,5
+ - + LC
32. Amblypharyngodon mola (Hamilton)
5,7
+ - + LC
33. Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus)
5
- - - VU
34. Tor barakae Arunkumar & Basudha
7
+ - - DD
35. Tor mosal (Hamilton)
1,3,5
+ + - NA
36. Tor putitora (Hamilton)
5,7
+ - - EN
37. Tor tor (Hamilton)
1,3,4
+ + - NT
38. Neolissochilus blythii (Day)
3
* - + - NA
39. Neolissochilus hexagonolepis (McClelland)
1,2,3,4,5,6
+ + - NT
40. Neolissochilus hexastichus (McClelland)
3,4
- + - NT
41. Osteobrama cotio ( Hamilton)
1,3,5,6
- + + LC
42. Osteobrama cunma (Day)
5
* - - + LC
43. Chagunius chagunio (Hamilton)
1,4
+ - - LC
44. Puntius chola (Hamilton)
1,3,5
+ - + LC
45. Puntius clavatus (McClelland)
1
- - - NT
46. Puntius conchonius (Hamilton)
1,2,3,4,5,6
+ + + LC
47. Puntius puntio (Hamilton)
3
- + - NA
48. Puntius sarana (Hamilton)
1,3
+ + - LC
49. Puntius orphoides (Valenciennes)
2
+ - - NA
50. Puntius shalynius Yazdani & Talukdar
5
- + + VU
51. Puntius sophore (Hamilton)
4,5
- - - LC
52. Puntius terio (Hamilton)
4
- - - LC
53. Puntius ticto (Hamilton)
1,2,3,5
+ + - LC
54. Puntius sp.
7
+ - - NA
55. Poropuntius clavatus (McClelland)
3
+ - - NT
56. Semiplotus modestus (Day)
1,3,5
- + - DD
57. Semiplotus semiplotus (McClelland)
1,3,4,5
* - + - VU
58. Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton)
1,3,5
+ - - LC
59. Cirrhinus reba (Hamilton)
1,4,5,7
+ - + LC
60. Cirrhinus sp.
7
+ - - NA
61. Catla catla (Hamilton)
5
- - - NA
62. Labeo bata (Hamilton)
3
- + - LC
63. Labeo gonius ( Hamilton)
5
- - - LC
64. Labeo calbasu (Hamilton)
1,4,5
+ - + LC
174
Kosygin

65. Labeo pangusia (Hamilton)
4
- - - NT
66. Labeo rohita (Hamilton)
1,5
+ - - LC
67. Labeo sp.
7
+ - - NA
68. Bangana ariza (Hamilton)
3
+ - - LC
69. Crossocheilus burmanicus Hora
1,3
+ + - LC
70. Crossocheilus latius (Hamilton)
1,2,3,4,5,6
+ + - LC
71. Garra lamta (Hamilton)
3,4,5,6
+ + - LC
72. Garra annandalei Hora
1,2,3,4,5
+ + - LC
73. Garra gotyla (Gray)
1,2,3,4,5
+ + - LC
74. Garra kempi Hora
3,7
+ - - LC
75. Garra lissorhynchus (McClelland)
2,3,5,7
+ + - LC
76. Garra manipurensis Vishwanath & Sarojnalini
7
+ - - VU
77. Garra mcclellandi (Jerdon)
4
* - - - LC
78. Garra naganensis Hora
3,4,5,7
+ + - LC
79. Garra nasuta (McClelland)
4,5,7
+ + - LC
80. Garra notata
2,3
* + - - NA
81. Garra sp.
7
+ - - NA
Family PSILORHYNCHIDAE
82. Psilorhynchus balitora (Hamilton)
2,3,4
+ + - LC
83. Psilorhynchus gracilis Rainboth
1,3,4
+ - - LC
84. Psilorhynchus sucatio ( Hamilton)
5
+ - - LC
Family BALITORIDAE
85. Balitora brucei (Gray)
1,2,3,5,7
+ + - NT
86. Acanthocobitis botia (Hamilton)
1,2,3,5
+ + - LC
87. Nemacheilus corica (Hamilton)
5
* - + - LC
88. Schistura kangjupkhulensis Hora
5
* - + - EN
89. Schistura manipurensis (Chaudhuri)
4
* - - - NT
90. Schistura multifasciata (Day)
3,4
- + - LC
91. Schistura rupecula (McClelland)
1,2,5,6
+ + - LC
92. Schistura scaturigina (McClelland)
2,3
+ - - LC
93. Schistura savona (Hamilton)
5
+ - - LC
94. Schistura sikmaiensis (Hora)
3
* + - - LC
95. Schistura tirapensis (Menon)
3
*

- + - LC
96. Schistura vinciguerrae Hora
1,2,3
* + - - LC
97. Schistura sp.
7
+ - - NA
Family CODITIDAE
98. Botia dario (Hamilton)
3,4,5
+ + - LC
99. Botia rostrata Gnther
3,7
+ - - VU
100. Pangio pangia (Hamilton)
2,3
+ - - LC
101. Lepidocephalichthys annandalei Chaudhuri
3
+ - - LC
102. Lepidocephalichthys berdmorei (Blyth)
5
+ - - LC
103. Lepidocephalichthys guntea (Hamilton)
4,5
+ - - LC
Order SILURIFORMES
Family: BAGRIDAE
104. Sperata aor (Hamilton)
1,3,4,5,6
- + + LC
105. Sperata seenghala (Sykes)
2,3
+ + + LC
106. Mystus bleekeri ( Day)
5
- - + LC
107. Mystus cavasius (Hamilton)
1,3,5,6
- - + LC
108. Mystus horai Jayaram
3
* - - + NA
109. Mystus vittatus (Bloch)
1,3,6
+ - + LC
110. Batasio batasio (Hamilton)
1,3,4
- + - LC
111. Batasio convexirostrum Darshan, Anganthoibi
&Vishwanath
6

- + - NA
112. Batasio tengana (Hamilton)
3
- - + LC
113. Olyra longicaudata McClelland
5
+ - - LC
Family: SILURIDAE
114. Ompok bimaculatus (Bloch)
5
- - - NT
173
Kosygin

115. Ompok pabo ( Hamilton)
3,5
- - + NT
116. Wallago attu (Schneider)
5
- - - NT
Family: SCHILBEIDAE
117. Clupisoma garua (Hamilton)
1,3,4
+ - - LC
118. Clupisoma montana Hora
5
- - + LC
119. Eutropiichthys murius (Hamilton)
3
+ - - LC
120. Eutropichthys vacha (Hamilton)
1,3,5
+ + + LC
121. Ailia coila (Hamilton)
1,3,5,6
+ - + NT
122. Ailia punctata (Day)
5
* - - + DD
Family: AMBLYCEPIDAE
123. Amblyceps mangois (Hamilton)
3
+ - - LC
Family: SISORIDAE
124. Conta conta (Hamilton)
5
+ - - DD
125. Hara hara (Hamilton)
3
- - + LC
126. Hara koladynensis Anganthoibi & Vishwanth
6
- + - NA
127. Erethistes pusillus Muller & Troshel
1,2,3,6
+ - + LC
128. Gagata cenia (Hamilton)
3,4,5
- - + LC
129. Gagata sexualis Tilak
3
- - + LC
130. Nangra nangra (Hamilton)
1,3,6
+ - + LC
131. Gogangra viridescens (Hamilton)
3
+ - - LC
132. Glyptothorax ater Anganthoibi & Vishwanath
6
- + - NA
133. Glyptothorax cavia (Hamilton)
1,3,5
+ + - LC
134. Glyptothorax caudimaculatus Anganthoibi &
Vishwanath
6

- + - NA
135. Glyptothorax chimtuipuiensis Anganthoibi &
Vishwanath
6

- + - NA
136. Glyptothorax striatus (McClelland)
5
- + - NT
137. Glyptothorax conirostris (Steindachner)
3,4
+ - - DD
138. Glyptothorax platypogonoides (Bleeker)
4
* - - - NA
139. Glyptothorax telchitta (Hamilton)
1,3,4,7
* + + - LC
140. Glyptothorax trilineatus Blyth
3
+ - - LC
141. Glyptothorax sp1.
7
+ - - NA
142. Glyptothorax sp2.
7
+ - - NA
143. Pseudecheneis koladynae Anganthoibi & Vishwanath
6
- + - NA
144. Pseudecheneis sulcatus (McClelland)
3,5
- + - LC
Family: ERETHISTIDAE
145. Pseudolaguvia shawi Hora
3
+ - - LC
146. Pseudolaguvia spicula Ng & Lalramliana
6
+ - - NA
147. Pseudolaguvia tuberculata (Prashad & Mukherji)
5
* + - - DD
148. Pseudolaguvia virgulata Ng & Lalramliana
6
+ - - NA
Family: HETEROPNEUSTIDAE
149. Heteropneustes fossilis (Hamilton)
5
- - - LC
Order: BELONIFORMES
Family BELONIDAE
150. Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton)
1,2,3,4,5,6
+ + + LC
Family: APLOCHEILIDAE
151. Aplocheilus panchax (Hamilton)
5
+ - - LC
Order: SYNBRANCHIFORMES
Family: SYNBRANCHIDAE
152. Monopterus icthyophoides Britz, Lalremsanga,
Lalrotluanga & Lalramliana
6

+ - - NA
Family: MASTACEMBELIDAE
153. Macrognathus pancalus Hamilton
3
+ - - LC
154. Mastacembelus armatus (Lacepde)
1,2,3,4,5,7
+ + + LC
Order PERCIFORMES
Family: CHANDIDAE
176 Kosygin

155. Chanda nama Hamilton
1,3,5,6
+ + + LC
156. Pseudambassis baculis (Hamilton)
4
* - - - LC
157. Parambassis ranga (Hamilton)
1,3,4,5,6
+ + + NA
158. Parambassis tenasserimensis Roberts
3
* + + - NA
Family: SCIAENIDAE
159. Johnius coitor (Hamilton)
1,3,6
- - + LC
Family: NANDIDAE
160. Badis badis (Hamilton)
1,2,3,4,5
+ + + LC
Family: GOBIIDAE
161. Awaous stamineus (Valenciennes)
5
* - + - NA
162. Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton)
1,3,4,5,7
+ + + NA
163. Psammogobius biocellatus (Valenciennes)
3
* - + - NT
Family: CHANNIDAE
164. Channa punctatus (Bloch)
5
+ - - LC
165. Channa stewartii (Playfair)
5
- + - LC
166. Channa orientalis Bloch & Schneider
3,4,5
* - + - NA
Note:
1
Reported by Kar et al. (2000);
2
Reported by Kar et.al. (2002);
3
Reported by Kar and Sen (2007);
4
Reported
by Sen (2003);
5
Reported by Karmakar and Das (2007);
6
Reported by others;
7
Present study; *Identity needs to be
verified; + = Present; - = Absent/Unknown; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC =
Least Concern; DD = Data Deficient; NA = Not Assessed.

CONSERVATION STRATEGIES
The state of Mizoram is blessed with rich
diversity of fish species, which inhabit three
different drainages. These aquatic habitats are
subject to considerable stresses due to changes in
the environment and various human activities.
Base on the IUCN status, fishes of the state
includes 2 endangered (EN), 7 vulnerable (VU)
and 15 near threatened (NT) species which may
be considered for conservation. Therefore,
necessary steps may be taken up to conserve the
habitats and diverse fish genetic resources of the
state on one hand and to rational and efficient

utilization of fish stock on the other hand. Some
measures for the conservation of the threatened
fishes are given below:
Preparation and distribution of
identification card: Information and
identification materials in local languages and
using local names where relevant, especially for
threatened species may be distributed to all the
stakeholders for conservation. The distribution of
clear photo-identification cards to fishing
communities would allow them to start managing
fish stocks.

Fig. 2. Status of fishes of Mizoram based on IUCN (2010).
Where EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern;
DD = Data Deficient; NA = Not Assessed.

177
Kosygin

Establishment of fish sanctuaries: Fish
sanctuaries for the protection of the threatened
species may be established at suitable portions of
the rivers in the state. Kar and Sen (2007)
pointed out that declaration of aquatic sanctuary
of some portion of the Tlwang river near Venglai
village could be ideal site.
Investigations on Biological and
Ecological Characteristics: Detail knowledge on
the ecology and biology of fishes is useful in
fishery management and conservation.
Therefore, investigation on the ecology and
biology of the threatened fishes may be
conducted using scientific techniques.
Pollution control: Water quality needs to
be improved, especially in the municipal town
areas. Measures may be taken up to maintain
water quality in rivers where there are discharges
of pollutants from agriculture, industrial and
urban sources.
Erosion control and Afforestation
programmes: The rivers of the state are usually
very turbid during the monsoon and early post-
monsoon periods due to heavy loading of soil
particles from its catchment area. Turbidity
affects fish and aquatic life by interfering with
the penetration of sunlight thereby altering the
ecological processes. High level of suspended
silts reduces visibility for aquatic life, making
them difficult to find their food even in the
euphotic zone. Extensive afforestation
programmes may be conducted and the practice
of Jhum (shifting) cultivation may be controlled.
An integrated approach is required to address
such issues as land rights and resource access,
livelihood security, and agricultural development
(e.g. to reduce dependence on shifting
agriculture) (Vishwanath et al. 2010). This
would ultimately help to retain vegetal cover and
reduce the inflow of silt particles along with the
runoff to the rivers.
Habitat and population trends
monitoring: Regular monitoring of habitat
condition and population trends of fishes may be
undertaken. The fish resources should be wisely
utilized. The challenge therefore is to conserve
fish resources while providing sustained benefits
to the local communities dependent upon these
resources for sustenance. Maintenance of the
ecological processes and functions of water
bodies of the state is essential for successful
conservation of fishes.
Implementation of domestic legislations:
Destructive fish harvesting techniques should be
prevented and laws on catching brooders may be
formulated for conservation of the threatened
fishes.
Education and community participation:
Local communities and fishermen should be
encouraged to participate in the conservation of
the fishes. Proper awareness programmes on the
status and importance of fishes and their habitats
may be organized for the local communities. The
concept of Social Fencing needs to be
established so that local communities themselves
protect fish stocks and their habitats. Such
initiatives depend on the development of trust
between local communities and conservation
authorities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to the Dr. K.
India, Kolkata for providing research facilities
and encouragements. I am also thankful to Dr.
Nebedita Sen of North Eastern Regional Centre,
Zoological survey of India for providing
literatures.

REFERENCES
Barman, R.P. (1988). First record of the King
fish, Semiplotus modestus Day 1870,
(Pisces: Cyprinidae) from India
(Mizoram). J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc.
85(1): 210.
Barman, R.P. (1989). On a small collection of
fish from Mizoram, India. J. Bombay nat.
Hist. Soc. 86(2): 463-466.
Courtenay, W.R. Jr. and Williams, J.D. (2004).
Snakeheads (Pisces, Channidae) A
Biological Synopsis and Risk Assessment.
U.S. Geological Survey circular: 1251, 143
pp.
Dahanukar, N. (2010). Puntius shalynius. In:
IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2011.2.
<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on
30 November 2011.
Dahanukar, N. (2011a). Barilius bakeri. In:
178 Kosygin

07 December 2011.
Dahanukar, N. (2011b). Garra mcclellandi. In:
07 December 2011.
Ekaratne, S.U.K. (2000). A review of the status
and trends of exported ornamental fish
resources and their habitats in Sri Lanka.
Bay of Bengal Programme, Chennai, India.
(hhtp://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/fisher
y/bobp/website/homepage.htm).
IUCN. (2010). IUCN Red List of Threatened
<http://www.iucnredlist.org/>.
Downloaded on 29 October 2010.
Jayaram, K.C. (1999). The fresh water fishes of
the Indian region. Narendra Publishing
House, Delhi. 551pp.
Kar, D., Laskar, B.M., Mandal, M., Lalsiamliana
and Nath, D. (2002). Fish genetic diversity
and habitat parameters in Barak drainage
Mizoram and Tripura. Indian J. Environ.
and Ecoplan. 6(3): 473-480.
Kar, D. and Sen, N. (2007). Systematic list and
distribution of fishes in Mizoram, Tripura
and Barak drainage of north east India.
Zoos Print Journal. 22(3): 2599-2607.
Kar, D., Dey, S.C., Mandal, M., Laskar, B. A.
and Searnleana, L. (2000). Preliminary
survey of the fish genetic resources of the
rivers in Barak drainage, Mizoram and
Tripura. In Proceedings of Lake 2000:
International Symposium on Restoration of
Lakes and Wetlands (Ramachandra, T.V.,
C.R. Murthy and N. Ahalya eds.). Center
for ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore. (ces.iisc.ernet.in/
energy/water/proceed/section2/paper2.htm).
Karmakar, A.K. and Das, A. (2007). Fishes. In:
Fauna of Mizoram, State Fauna Series, 14
(DZSI ed.), Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata. pp.507-535.
Pethiyagoda, R. (1991). Freshwater fishes of Sri
Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri
Lanka, Colombo 8, 362 pp.
Sen, N. (1977). On a collection of fish from
Mizoram. Bull. Meghalaya Sci. Soc. 2: 21-
22.
Sen, N. (2003). Fish fauna of north east India
with special reference to endemic and
threatened species. Rec. zool. Surv. India,
101(3-4): 81-99.
Talwar, P.K. and Jhingran, A.G. (1991). Inland
fishes of India and adjacent countries.
Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi, 2 vol., pp.1158.
Vishwanath, W. (2010). Devario shanensis. In:
30 November, 2011.
Vishwanath, W. and Kosygin, L. (2000). Fishes
of the cyprinid genus Semiplotus Bleeker
1859, with description of a new species
from Manipur, India. J. Bombay Nat. hist.
Soc. 97(1) 92-102.
Vishwanath, W., Ng, H.H., Britz, R., Kosygin
Singh, L. Chaudhry, S. and Conway, K.V.
(2010). The status and distribution of
freshwater fishes of the Eastern Himalaya
region. pp. 22-41. In The Status and
Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in
the Eastern Himalaya (Compilers Allen,
D.J., Molur, S., Daniel, B.A.). IUCN,
Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland.

179
Kosygin

Floristic diversity of Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary,
Gujarat, India

S.L. Meena

Botanical Survey of India, Arid Zone Regional Centre, Jodhpur- 342 008.

(Received 29 December, 2011, Accepted 19 March, 2012)

ABSTRACT: Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary is a unique phytodiversity hotspot of Banaskantha
dist. in North Gujarat. It falls under the semiarid climatic zone. Hence, floriostically vegetation of the
Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary is characterized in to the dry deciduous forest and scrub forest.
Jessore hills are the part of Aravalli hills adjoining to Mt. Abu, and separate the desert ecosystem from
dry deciduous forest types. The present paper deals with 481 indigenious and naturalized plant species
belonging to 277 genera and 80 families of Vascular plants. Among them, 415 species of Dicotyledons and
66 species of Monocotyledons are encountered. Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary is a paradise for
medicinal plants wealth. Ecosystem complexcity of the Sanctuary is being changed now a days because of
human interference. Heavy grazing activities, exotic weeds and severe drought are the main factors for
the loss of phytodiversity of the Sanctuary. Consequently, Sanctuary is facing a lot of threat, particularly
the rare and threatened plant species. So, there is an urgent need of conservation to preserve such types
of hotspot of the States.
Key words: Floristic diversity, Jessore Sloth Bear WLS, Gujarat.

INTRODUCTION
India, owing to its tropical geographical
location and diverse topography, has rich and
varied floral and faunal diversity. Biodiversity
encompasses the variety of the life on the earth at
gene, species and ecosystem levels. Protected
areas are one of the most widely accepted and
practical approaches to biodiversity conservation
the World over. Today, almost every country in
the World has designated protected areas for a
range of conservation objectives, such as
maintenance of the integrity and diversity of
ecosystem, protection of flora and fauna and
cultural heritage. In addition to the conservation
objectives, the protected areas also have
significant scientific, educational, cultural,
recreational and spiritual values apart from the
direct and indirect benefits they provided to local
as well as national economics. India is the one of
the 12 mega diversity/diverse countries and one
of the 12 megagene centre of the Worlds. The
objectives of in situ conservation of rich
biodiversity can be achieved only through
establishment of network of protected areas in
the form of Wildlife Sanctuaries, National Parks
and Biosphere Reserves.
In India, at national level, the present
scenario of protected area network covers ca

4.74% of its total landmass to address its
conservation needs of representative ecosystem
and habitats of endangered and endemic species
of floral and faunal diversity. Biological
diversity of the country in totality accounts for
7% of the World's biological resources. As per
the current assessment of the floristic resources
of the country at species level in India is
estimated to have ca.17,000 species of
Angiosperms (Karthikeyan, 2000), 48 of
Gymnosperms, 1200 of Pteridophytes, 2850 of
Bryophytes, 2021 of Lichens, 14500 of Fungi
and 6500 of Algae (Sharma & Singh, 2001).
About 35% of the flowering plants and ca 18%
of the total flora is endemic to the country. The
components of these living resources constitute
the basic material upon which our civilization
has laid its foundation and the future growth,
prosperity of our people is interlinked with the
sustainable use of these resources. As such, a
network of protected areas has been created in
the country through 95 National Praks, 500
Wildlife Sanctuaries, 14 Biosphere Reserves and
27 Tiger Reserves.
The Gujarat State occupies 1,95,984 sq.
km area that accounts for 5.98% area of the
country. It is situated on the west coast of India
Biological Forum
_

between 201' to 247' North latitudes and 684'
to 704' East longitudes. Distinctive
geomorphological features, geographical
location, convergence of four mountain ranges,
the longest sea coast in India with two sheltered
gulfs are unique features of Gujarat which
harbour rich biodiversity. For conservation of
biodiversity, Gujarat Government is very
particular as there are 21 Protected areas, 4
National Parks and 17 Wildlife Sanctuaries in all
the biogeographical zones, with 14946 sq. km
forest cover.
Jessore Wildlife Sanctuary is situated in
Banaskantha district of Gujarat State (230' to
2444' N Latitude to 710' to 73 0' E Longitude)
with a total area of 180.6 sq. km. The hills of
Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary in North
Gujarat form the counter part of hills of Mount
Abu. They are the hills of western end mountain
ranges of the Aravalli.The vegetation of the
Sanctuary fall into dry mixed deciduous forests.
Topographically, the forest tract of the Sanctuary
is highly undulating with the height ranging from
302 to 1100 m (MSL). The hills and hillocks are
drained by a number of water channels (nallahs).
Topographically, Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife
Sanctuary can be divided into hilly country,
piedment and the plain areas. The hills have got a
rugged topography, the piedment zone and the
plain areas. The piedment zones runs all along
the periphery of the hilly area and consists of
loose to semi consolidated weathered material.At
some places sand mounds also seen. The plains
down the hills are mostly agricultural fields and
Goucher lands. In general, Jessore Wildlife
Sanctuary area lies in the Archean formation.
The underlying rocks are quartzite, granite and
lime stone. Soil is rich in humus and nutrient
contents.

CLIMATE
Rainfall in the Jessore Sloth Bear
Wildlife Sanctuary is very erratic and unevenly
distributed. Highest intensity of rainfall is
observed in the month of July - August. In
summer, maximum temperature were recorded
45C in May and June while same were recorded
lowest in the month of December and January
i.e. 6C. Humidity is generally low not exceeding
20.25%, except for the monsoon season when it
reaches to 60-80 and approaches 100% at times.

METHODOLOGY
During the course of study, author made
an important attention towards the Jessore
Wildlife Sanctuary as it acts as a buffer and
separate the desert ecosystem from the dry
deciduous type of ecosystem.Intensive and
extensive six botanical exploration tours were
Fig. 1. Map showing location of study area.

181
Meena

conducted in the Sanctuary area for 3 years in
different seasons so as to collect more and more
plant species in the flowering and fruiting stages
for better understanding of floral composition of
the Sanctuary. Study area maps have been
procured from the web site of Gujarat forest
department (Fig.1). The collected Specimens
were preserved as per standard norms in the
herbarium of the Botanical Survey of India, Arid
Zone Regional Centre, Jodhpur (BSJO). All
collected plant Specimens were identified with
the help of reputed literature, proper study of the
materials and finally matching with authentic
herbarium Specimens deposited in BSJO and
Central National Herbarium (CAL).
Nomenclature of all taxa was brought upto-date
in accordance with International Code of
Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN). Some of the
plant species have been included based on
available literature (forest management plan) are
marked by astricks (*). Authenticity of their
occurrence lies with the documenting authority,
since author could not collect them inspite ofhis
best efforts. Common names of almost all
species were also noted. Bentham & Hooker's
system of classification (1862-83) has been
followed for documentation of plant wealth of
the Sanctuary.

VEGETATION OF JESSORE WILDLIFE
SANCTUARY
The flora and floral composition of
Gujarat State has been studied in great details by
many botanist like Cooke (1901-08), Blattar
(1908-09), Thakar (1926), Santapau (1962), Shah
(1978) etc. Notable works on North Gujarat
region published by Saxton & Sedgwick (1918),
Saxton (1922), Raghavan, et al. (1981) and
several other departments and university
workers. Exhaustive and detailed account on the
Biological diversity of Gujarat has been
published by Pilo et al. (1996). Recently, the
phytodiversity of Gujarat State has been studied
in detaild by Pandey & Singh (1999) and a very
recently, the floral diversity of Gujarat State has
been worked by Singh & Parabia (2003), Meena
& Pandey (2004) and Meena (2004a, 2004b,
2005, 2007).
The floral diversity of Jessore Sloth Bear
Wildlife Sanctuary can be broadly classified as
Tropical deciduous forests and Tropical thorn
forests. According to the revised classification of
forest types (Champion & Seth, 1966), the
Sanctuary can be classified into Type 5A/C3
Southern dry mixed deciduous forests of tropical
dry deciduous group and Type 6B/C1 Desert
thorn forest of the subgroup 6B of tropical thorn
forests.

1. Southern Dry Deciduous Forests: The main
tree species of this forest are: Acacia catechu,
Aegle marmelos, Anogeissus acuminata,
Anogeissus cuneata, Butea monosperma,
Bombax ceiba, Diospyros melanoxylon, Emblica
officinalis, Ficus racemosa, F. benghalensis,
Lannea coromandelica, Mitragyna parviflora,
Pithacelobium dulce, Terminalia bellirica,
Sterculia urens, Miliusa tomentosa, Wrightia
tinctoria, Wrightia arborea and Boswellia
serrata etc being most dominant trees on the top
up the hills.
The middle layer of the hills is represented by
species like Alangium salvifolium, Balanites
roxburghii, Capparis sepiaria, Casearia
elliptica, Haldina cordifolia, Mallotus
philippensis, Flacourtia indica, Grewia
flavescens, Spermadictyon suaveolens,
Holarrhena pubescens, Dyrophytum indicum,
Helicteres isora, Ziziphus xylopyrus etc.
On the top of some of these forest
ranges, Dendrocalamus strictus clumps can be
seen associated with Boswellia serrata (near
Muni ki kutia) on low and isolated hillocks the
common shrubs are Capparis sepiaria, Maytenus
emarginata, Mimosa hamata, Senna auriculata,
Woodfordia fruticosa etc. The common climbers
and twiners associated with these plants are
Abrus precatorius, Acacia pinnata, Asparagus
racemosus, Celastrus paniculata and Wattakaka
volubilis, etc.
The ground flora, which makes its
appearance during monsoon, comprises
following common species: Acanthospermum
hispidum, Achyranthes aspera, Anisomeles
indica, Impatiens balsamina var. coccinea,
Barleria prattensis, Bidens biternata, Blainvillea
acmella, Chamaecrista absus, Senna tora,
Tephrosia purpurea, Clitoria biflora,
Enicostemma axillare, Sida cordata and Sida
ovata etc. The common grass species and sedges
intermingled with these herbaceous plants are :
Apluda mutica, Dichanthium annulatum, Aristida
182
Meena

funiculata, Cenchrus setigerus, Heteropogon
contortus, Cynodon dactylon, Oropetium
thomaeum and species of Arthraxon, Eragrostis,
Digitaria, Brachiaria, Panicum, Setaria and
Themeda etc. among sedges Cyperus rotundus,
Cyperus difformis, Cyperus tuberosus,
Fimbristylis bisumbellata etc. are common.

2. Desert Thorn Forest: The vegetation of such
forests is very sparse and provide sites for
grazing. The typical vegetation of such forests is
represent by Acacia catechu, Acacia senegal,
Acacia leucophloea, Aegle marmelos,
Anogeissus acuminata, Holoptelea integrifolia,
Prosopis juliflora, Wrightia tinctoria, Mimosa
hamata, Ziziphus nummularia, Ziziphus
mauritiana, Kirganelia reticulata, Salvadora
oleoides, Prosopis cineraria etc. At certain
places, these forests are intermixed with some
typical dry deciduous species like Aegle
marmelos, Butea monosperma, Capparis
decidua, Capparis sepiaria, Balanites
aegyptiaca, Holorrhena pubescens, Maytenus
emarginatus, Diospyros melanoxylon, Ziziphus
mauritiana and Cassia auriculata etc.
The common climbers and twiners
which forms important component of these
forests are: Mucuna pruriens, Abrus precatorius,
Canavalia ensiformis, Cissampelos pariera,
Dioscorea bulbifera, Dioscorea hispida,
Cardiospermum halicacabum etc. Common stem
parasites encountered here areCuscuta reflexa,
Dendrophthoe falcata, Viscum angulatum etc
which enrich the vegetation of such habitats.
The ground flora is quite luxuriant
during monsoon, while in summer and winter it
is quite dry and barren. The common ephemeral
herbaceous plants of the ground flora during
monsoon are: Acanthospermum hispidum, Bidens
biternata, Blumea mollis, Cassia,
Dipteracanthus patulus var. alba, Martynia
annua, Pupulia lappacea, Solanum virginianum,
Tephrosia purpurea, Tribulus terrestris, Tridax
procumbens, Vernonia cinerea etc, with common
species of Amaranthus, Boerhavia, Cleome,
Corchorus, Sida etc. The common grasses which
make their appearance during monsoon are:
Aristida adscensionis, Heteropogon contortus,
Chloris dolichostachya, Themeda quadrivalvis,
Tetrapogon tenellus and species of Chloris,
Eragrostis, Cenchrus, Melanocenchris,
Oropetium etc. Occasionally the ground flora is
also represented by the parasitic species like
Orobanche aegyptiaca and Striga gesnerioides
etc.
The sub groups within these forest types
are quite conspicuous as per the varying
microclimates, hill slopes, altitudes, soil
conditions and moisture regimes. For the sake of
convenience, the above forest types can be
further identified into subgroups. Particular plant
species formed: Boswellia forests are observed in
the middle of hills while Anogeissus acuminata
forests seen towards the southern and eastern
slopes of the hills, where as Butea forests seen at
foot hills of Balundra village and Ghauta area
also. Population of Lannea coromandelica can
be observed at the higher altitudes of the
Sanctuary, mixed forests often flourish in
moisture availability sites like Kedarnath-Muni
ki kutia, Ghauta and Jagdhodiya forest area.
Bamboo forests we can see only at higher
altitudes near Muni ki kutia, while Prosopis
forests ARE found at Kapasia, Sonwadi,
Manpuria, Vaghodi areas.

ENUMERATION
PTERIDOPHYTES
PTERIDACEAE
Actinopteris radiata (Sw.) Link
Specimens examined : Jessore Sloth Bear
Wildlife Sanctuary, S. L. Meena 17837(BSJO).

ANGIOSPERMS
DICOTYLEDONS
ANNONACEAE
Miliusa tomentosa (Roxb.) Finet & Gagnep.
Common name : Umbh, Umbho.
Fl. & Fr.: March - July.
Frequent in dry deciduous forest.
Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18212(BSJO).

MENISPERMACEAE
Cocculus hirsutus (L.) Theob.
Common name : Vevdi, Vevti, Vagval, Vadhi
novelo, Achipad.
Fl. & Fr. : July - October.
Common, on the fringes of forests and
wastelands.
183
Meena

PAPAVERACEAE
Argemone mexicana L.
Common name : Darudi, Karudi.
Fl. & Fr.: November - June.
Common winter weed in waste places.

CAPPARACEAE
*Cadaba fruticosa (L.) Druce
Common name : Telio, Hemkund, Katkial,
Batkani.
Fl. : November - March; Fr. : April - August.
Common in rocky and sandy habitats.
Capparis decidua (Forssk.) Edgew.
Common name : Kerdo, Ker, Keria.
Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year.
Common, in rocky to gravelly-sandy habitat.
Specimens examined: Jessore Sloth Bear
Capparis sepiaria L. var. vulgaris Hook.f. &
Thoms.
Common name : Kanthar, Kantharo.
Fl. & Fr.: July - September.
In wastelands, dry deciduous forests.
Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18150, 18156
(BSJO).
*Cleome gynandra L.
Common name : Ghandhatu, Dholi, Talwani.
Fl. & Fr.: July - October.
Common weed of rainy season in wastelands and
forests.
Cleome viscosa L.
Common name : Pili Tilwan, Tilwan, Pili
Talvani.
Fl. & Fr.: August - November.
Fairly common, weed of rocky to sandy habitats.
Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17881,
18137(BSJO).
*Crateva nurvala Buch.-Ham.
Common name : Vayvarno, Varno, Tripan Zad.
Fl. & Fr.: February - June.

FREQUENTLY FOUND IN FORESTS AND
WASTELANDS ALONG WATER
COURSES.
Maerua oblongifolia (Forssk.) A. Rich.
Common name : Hemkand.
Common in wastelands and near forests
outskirts.

VIOLACEAE
Hybanthus enneaspermus (L.) F. v. Muell.
Fl. & Fr.: August - October.
Common in wastelands and hilly tracts among
grasses.

FLACOURTIACEAE
Casearia elliptica Willd.
Fl. & Fr.: February-May.
Rare, occasionally found on hill slopes of dry
deciduous forest.
Wildlife Sanctuary, S.K. Patel 4616(SPU).
Flacourtia indica (Burm. f.) Merrill
Common name : Yenkdi.
Fl. & Fr.: January - May.
Frequent in dry deciduous forests.

POLYGALACEAE
*Polygala arvensis Willd.
Common name : Pili Bhonysan, Piri Patsan.
Common in rocky wastelands and mixed
habitats.
*Polygala erioptera DC.
Common name : Patsan, Bhonysan.
Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year.
Common in wastelands and crevices of rocks.
Polygala irregularis Boiss.
Fl. & Fr.: August - December.
Common in arid and semi-arid areas.

CARYOPHYLLACEAE
Polycarpaea corymbosa (L.) Lam.
Common weed among grasses in wastelands and
forests.

184
Meena

PORTULACACEAE
Portulaca oleracea L.
Common name : Motiluni, Loni, Luni, Lunkha.
Common weed along road sides and moist
places.
Portulaca quadrifida L.
Common name : Ziniluni, Patluni, Sunluni,
Khatbhaji.
Fl. & Fr.: September - December.
Common in rocky and gravelly habitats.

ELATINACEAE
*Bergia ammannioides Roxb. ex Roth
Common name : Vithi Kharsan.
Fl. & Fr. : January - April.
Common in moist - marshy localities.

MALVACEAE
Fioria vitifolia (L.) Mattei
Common name : Van Bhindo, Van Kapas.
Common in rocky-gravelly habitats as forest
undergrowth.
Gossypium arboreum L.
Fl. & Fr.: July - November.
Cultivated, often escapes in wastelands.
*Kydia calycina Roxb.
Common name : Moti Hirvani, Warang, Waring,
Nihoti Hirvani.
Fl. & Fr.: October - January.
Rare, in dry deciduous and scrub forests.
Malvastrum coromandelianum (L.) Garcke
Common in wastelands and forests.
Pavonia zeylanica (L.) Cav.
Common name : Vado Kanto, Golio.
Common in wastelands, neglected corners, of
fields and gardens.
*Sida acuta Burm. f.
Common name : Bala
Fl. & Fr.: August - February.
Common in dry deciduous forests, wastelands.
Sida cordata (Burm. f.) Borssum
Common name : Bhoya Bala, Nidhidhatu Val.
Fl. & Fr.: July-December.
Common, among hedges, bushes and in
wastelands and forests.
Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena
17888,18224(BSJO).
*Sida cordifolia L.
Common name : Bala, Baladana, Kharenti.
Fl. & Fr.: August - January.
Common in rocky to gravelly and sandy soil.
*Sida mysorensis Wight & Arn.
Fl. & Fr.: September - January.
Rare, in hilly areas and ravines.
*Sida spinosa L.
Common name : Khatali Bala.
Fl. & Fr.: September - October.
Common weed in neglected corners of gardens
and wastelands.
*Thespesia populnea (L.) Soland ex Corr.
Common name : Paras Pimplo.
Fl. & Fr. : Almost throughout the year.
Common near habitations.
*Urena lobata L.
Common name : Vagadau Bhindo.
Fl. & Fr. : August - December.
Frequently found in dry deciduous forests.

BOMBACACEAE
*Adansonia digitata L.
Fl.: April-May; Fr.: June- December.
Rare, perhaps planted in open forests and near
habitations.
*Bombax ceiba L.
Common name : Savar, Shimlo, Semal , Rato
Shemalo.
Fl. & Fr. : February - June.
Rare, in rocky habitats, also planted along
habitation as avenue tree.

STERCULIACEAE
Helicteres isora L.
Common name : Mardasing, Ati, Aiti, Atai.
Fl. & Fr.: August - April.
Common in dry deciduous forests.
183
Meena

Melhania futteyporensis Munro ex Mast. var.
major (Blatt. & Hallb.) Santapau
Common name : Adabau, Khapat, Vagdau
Khapat.
Common in rocky-gravelly habitats.
*Sterculia urens Roxb.
Common name : Kadayo, Kadai, Kadio, Kakdoli,
Kandol, Kati-Jo-Jhar.
Fl. & Fr. : October - May.
Frequently found in dry deciduous and scrub
forest.
Waltheria indica L.
Common in wastelands and forest outskirts.
20624(BSJO).

TILIACEAE
Corchorus aestuans L.
Common name : Chunch, Chha-dhari Chunch.
Common weed in wastelands, fields and forests.
18138,18199(BSJO).
Corchorus depressus (L.) Vicary
Common name : Bhuphali, Bahuphali, Chamkas,
Baphuli.
Common in wastelands and forests outskirts.
*Corchorus fascicularis Lam.
Common name : Bahufali.
Fl. & Fr. : August - January.
*Corchorus olitorius L.
Common name : Patt Shak, Rajjan.
Fl. & Fr. : August - October
Common weed of wastelands and cultivate
fields.
Grewia flavescens Juss.
*Grewia hirsuta Vahal
Rare, in open forests outskirts.
Triumfetta malabarica Koen. ex Rottb.
Common name : Goil Zipti.
In wastelands, open forests and along the roads.
*Triumfetta pentandra A. Rich.
Common in wastelands, open forests and along
the roads.
Triumfetta pilosa Roth
Fl. & Fr.: August - October .
Rare in wastelands, dry deciduous forests.
*Triumfetta rhomboidea Jacq.
Fl. & Fr. : August - April.
Occasional in wastelands, on hill slopes.

ZYGOPHYLLACEAE
*Fagonia schweinfurthii (Hadidi) Hadidi ex
Ghafoor
Common name : Dhamasa, Dharamau.
Common in mixed habitats.
*Tribulus terrestris L.
Common name : Akanti, Gokharu, Bethu
Gokhru, Mithu Gokhru.
Fl. & Fr . : Almost throughout the year.
Common weed of wastelands and forests.

BALSAMINACEAE
Impatiens balsamina L. var. coccinea Hook. f.
Common name : Gulmeer, Patan Bol.
Common in moist-shady localities of hills.

RUTACEAE
Aegle marmelos (L.) Corr.
Common name : Bili, Bel, Bel-patra, Beeley.
Fl.: January - May; Fr.: February - July.
Common in dry deciduous to scrub forests,
sometimes planted.
*Naringi crenulata (Roxb.) Nicolson
Common name : Kothi, Kotha.
186
Meena

Fl. & Fr. : April - December.
Occasionally found in deciduous forests and hill
slopes.

SIMAROUBACEAE
*Ailanthus excelsa Roxb.
Common name : Moto Arduso, Rukhdo.
Fl. & Fr . : December - April.
Common in wastelands and fringes of forests
etc., sometimes planted along roadsides.

BALANITACEAE
*Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Del.
Common name : Angario, Hingoriyo, Ingoria,
Regoria.
Fl. & Fr. : December - July.
Common in scrub forests, wastelands, along the
roadsides etc.

BURSERACEAE
Boswellia serrata Roxb. ex Colebr.
Common name : Salai, Salar, Dhupelio.
Fl. & Fr.: December - April.
Rare, in high altitude of dry-deciduous forests.

MELIACEAE
*Azadirachta indica A. Juss.
Common name : Limdo, Neem.
Fl. & Fr. : December - May.
Common in wastelands, rarely found in the
forests usually planted along roads and near
habitations.
*Melia azedarach L.
Common name : Bakan limdo.
Fl. & Fr. : Nearly throughout the year.
Rarely found in wastelands, usually planted.
*Soymida febrifuga (Roxb.) A. Juss.
Common name : Royan, Ragat, Rohido, Rohan,
Royani.
Fl. & Fr. : February - May.
Occasionally found in the dry deciduous forests
on the hill slopes.

CELASTRACEAE
Maytenus emarginatus (Willd.) Ding Hou
Common name : Kankero, Vicklo, Vigo,
Vilantala.
Fl. & Fr.: October - February.
Common in scrub forest and semiarid areas.
*Celastrus paniculatus Willd.
Common name : Malkagni, Malkankni, Kangni,
Jival, Malkankananivel.
Fl.: April - June; Fr.: May - November.

RHAMNACEAE
Ziziphus mauritiana Lam.
Common name : Bordi, Bor, Bara Bor, Boadi,
Bardo-zad.
Fl. & Fr.: September - February.
Common in wastelands and scrub forests.
*Ziziphus nummularia (Burm. f.) Wight &
Arn.
Common name : Chanibor, Pali, Palia, Palera.
Very common in sandy to gravelly soils in the
wastelands and outskirts of forests, often form
pure associations.
*Ziziphus oenoplia (L.) Mill.
Common name : Bordi no-velo, Eramdi.
Frequently found in open forests and wastelands
among bushes and shrubs.
*Ziziphus xylopyrus (Retz.) Willd.
Common name : Ghat bor, Ghot bor, Ghunt bor,
Bor ghut.
Fl. & Fr . : April - October.
Occasionally found in dry deciduous forests.

VITACEAE
Ampelocissus latifolia (Roxb.) Planch.
Common name : Jungli Draksh, Panibel, Bechuti,
Panivela.
Fl.: June - September; Fr.: August - December.
Frequently found in dry deciduous forests and
scrub forests on hedges.
17924,18133(BSJO).
Cayratia trifolia (L.) Domin
Common name : Khat-Khatumbo.
Common in rocky-gravelly habitats of forest
wastelands,
187
Meena

18202(BSJO).
Cissus quadrangularis L.
Common name : Hardsankal, Chodhari.
Fl. & Fr.: September - April.
Frequently found in forest outskirts and near wet
places.

SAPINDACEAE
Cardiospermum halicacabum L.
Common name : Kak-Mardika, Chirphuti, Bari
Chirmi.
Fl. & Fr.: July - February.
Common in rocky to plain or in waste places on
hedges,
17946(BSJO).
*Sapindus emarginatus Vahl
Common name : Aritha.
Fl. & Fr. : September - December.
Rare, in dry deciduous forests, occasionally
planted along roads sides.
*Sapindus laurifolius Vahl
Common name : Arithi, Artha.
Fl. : September - December; Fr . : November -
March.
Common, planted near habitations.
*Schleichera oleosa (Lour.) Oken
Common name : Kusum, Kosimb, Kosumdi,
Kosim, Kunum.
Fl. & Fr. : February - May.
Rare, in dry deciduous forests.

ANACARDIACEAE
Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) Merrill
Common name : Modhad, Golado, Golar,
Madhol, Mayno.
Fl.: January - June; Fr. : February - July.
Common in rocky habitats at hill tops.
Mangifera indica L.
Common name : Amba, Keri, Ambo, Aam.
Fl.: December - May; Fr.: February - July.
Common in fields and near habitations.
MORINGACEAE
*Moringa oleifera Lam.
Common name : Mitho sargavo.
Fl. & Fr. : February - June.
Occasionally found in wastelands, mostly
cultivated near habitations.

PAPILIONACEAE (FABACEAE nom. alt.)
Abrus precatorius L.
Common name : Chanothi, Chanboi, Chirmi,
Ratti, Chamoli, Gumchi.
Fl. & Fr.: July - December.
Common on hedges in wastelands and forests.
18215(BSJO).
Aeschynomene indica L.
Common name : Bhoy Ikad.
Common in moist-sandy habitats.
*Alysicarpus hamosus Edgew.
Common name : Samero.
Fl. & Fr. : August - October.
Common in wastelands and open forests,
particularly among grasses.
*Alysicarpus longifolius (Rottl. ex Spreng.)
Wight & Arn.
Common name : Ghodasamervo, Moto samervo,
Ubho, Samervo, Ghanulo.
Fl. & Fr. : September - March.
Common in cultivated fields, among grasses in
wastelands.
Alysicarpus vaginalis (L.) DC.
Common name : Chauli, Dhadasamous, Sauri.
Fl. & Fr.: September - November.
Common in mixed habitats.
*Butea monosperma (Lam.) Taub.
Common name : Khakhro, Kesudo, Palas.
Fl. & Fr. : March - June.
Common from plains to hills.
Butea superba Roxb. ex Willd.
Common name : Khakhar-velo.
Fl. & Fr.: February - December.
Rare, in rocky to gravelly habitats.
Specimens examined : Kedarnath, S.K. Patel
4617(SPU).
Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.
188
Meena

Common name : Tuar.
Fl. & Fr.: October - December.
20608(BSJO).
Canavalia ensiformis (L.) DC.
Common name : Tarvardhi.
Frequently found in rocky to gravelly habitats.
*Canavalia maritima (Aubl.) Thou.
Fl. & Fr. : April - December.
Rare, in wastelands and forests.
Canavalia virosa (Roxb.) Wight & Arn.
Rare, in wastelands and forests outskirts.
*Clitoria biflora Dalz.
Common name : Garni.
Fl. & Fr . : August - October.
Common in the forests, along moist - shaded
localities.
*Clitoria ternatea L.
Common name : Garni, Gokhiran, Koyal, Bibli,
Gokaran.
Fl. & Fr. : December - March, often during
August - September.
Common among bushes and hedges.
*Crotalaria burhia Buch. - Ham. ex Benth.
Common name : Kharsham, Bagdaushan,
Kharshan, Vagdaushan.
Fl. & Fr. : March - August.
Common in arid and semiarid areas.
Crotalaria hirsuta Willd.
Common in moist-shaded localities of forests.
*Crotalaria linifolia L. f.
Common name : Adabau-San.
Common in wastelands, particularly amidst
grasses.
*Crotalaria medicaginea Lam.
Common name : Ran Methi.
*Crotalaria retusa L.
Common name : Shaniya, Gughro.
Fl. & Fr. : August - November.
Rare, in forest undergrowth and wastelands.
*Dalbergia lanceolaria L. f. subsp. paniculata
(Roxb.)Thoth.
Fl. & Fr.: March - May.
Rare, in mixed dry deciduous forests.
Dalbergia sissoo Roxb.
Common name : Sissoo, Moto Sisam, Talli.
Fl. & Fr.: January - October.
Common in the forest and open places, seldom
planted along roads and habitations.
Desmodium gangeticum (L.) DC.
Fl. & Fr.: December - January.
Rare. in wastelands and open forests.
Desmodium procumbens (Mill.) Hutch.
Rare in dry deciduous forests.
*Erythrina suberosa Roxb.
Common name : Tetarkhakhro, Jagraiyo-
khakharo, Jamghariyo.
Fl. & Fr . : March - June.
Rare, in wastelands and fringes of forests along
streams and river banks.
Indigofera cordifolia Heyne ex Roth
Common name : Bhakho
Common in sandy-rocky habitats.
*Indigofera glandulosa Wendl.
Common name : Vekario.
Occasional weed of cultivated fields.
*Indigofera linifolia (L. f.) Retz.
Common name : Galinani, Kinkiguli, Nahnigali,
Gali nahni, Jinkigali.
Fl. & Fr. : July - December.
Common in forests and wastelands.
*Indigofera linnaei Ali
Common in wastelands.
Indigofera oblongifolia Forssk.
Common name : Zil, Ziladi, Zildo.
189 Meena

Common in dry, rocky habitats.
20633(BSJO).
*Indigofera tenuifolia Rottl. ex Wight & Arn.
Rare, in wastelands and forests.
Indigofera tinctoria L.
Common name : Gali, Neel Gudi.
Frequentlu found in rocky-gravelly habitats,.
*Indigofera tirta L.f.
Fl. & Fr. : September - February.
Occasional, in wastelands and forests.
*Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC.
Common name : Kavach, Koyli.
Fl. : September - November; Fr. : November -
April.
Common in wastelands and open forests among
the clumps of trees and shrubs.
*Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre
Local name : Karanj
Fl. & Fr. : March - June.
Common in wastelands, often planted in the
forests.
*Rhynchosia bracteata Benth. ex Baker
Common name : Kumalvel.
Rare, in wastelands and open forests among the
clumps of trees and shrubs
Rhynchosia capitata (Heyne ex Roth) DC.
Rhynchosia minima (L.) DC. var. minima
Common name : Hathdhonani, Nahnikamal-vel.
Common on hedges in wastelands and forests
outskirts.
18197(BSJO).
*Sesbania bispinosa (Jacq.) Wight
Common name : Ikad.
Common in moist localities especially in fields.
*Sesbania sesban (L.) Merrill
Common name : Jayanti, Shevari.
Fl. & Fr. : Most part of the year.
Ocassional near habitations.
*Smithia conferta Sm.
Fl. & Fr. :September - January.
Frequent in low lying areas amidst grasses.
*Smithia sensitiva Ait.
Fl. & Fr. : September - January.
Rare, in wet and shaded localities among low -
lying areas.
*Tephrosia coccinia Wall.
Rare, in wastelands.
*Tephrosia pumila (Lam.) Pers.
Fl. & Fr. : Most part of the year.
Rare, in dry rocky and sandy wastelands and
open forests.
Tephrosia purpurea (L.) Pers.
Common name : Sarpankho, Baronio,
Sarpankha.
Common in wastelands and forests, often
forming dense community of its own.
18187(BSJO).
Tephrosia strigosa (Dalz.) Santapau & Mahesh.
Occasional, found in the forests at wet and mixed
habitats.
Tephrosia subtriflora Hochst. ex Baker
Common in dry habitat, paritularly in hilly tracts.
Specimens examined :Jessore Sloth Bear
Tephrosia villosa (L.) Pers.
Common in wastelands and open forests.
17906,18011,18181(BSJO).
Teramnus labialis (L. f.) Spreng.
Common name : Mash Parni.
Common among bushes and shrubs in
wastelands and open forests.
Vigna umbellata (Thunb.) Ohwi & Ohashi
190 Meena

Rare in sandy wastelands among grasses.
Zornia gibbosa Span
Common name : Samarapani.
Common in moist-shaded localities.
17913,18184(BSJO).

CAESALPINIACEAE
*Bauhinia malabarica Roxb.
Common name : Khari Chamol.
*Bauhinia purpurea L.
Common name : Kachnar, Shwet Kachnar,
Champakatha, Champakathi.
Fl. & Fr. : September - February.
Common in dry deciduous forests and scrub
forest.
*Bauhinia racemosa Lam.
Common name : Ashitro, Kasotra, Asotri, Apto,
Rakta, Kachnar.
Fl. : May - June; Fr. : August - November.
Common in dry deciduous and scrub forests, also
planted along the road sides.
Cassia fistula L.
Common name : Amaltas, Garmalo, Karmalo,
Kirmalo.
Fl.: March-June; Fr.: Throughout the year.
Common in often planted along habitation.
Cassia roxburghii DC.
Commonly planted along roadside.
*Chamaecrista absus ( L.) Irwin & Barneby
Common name : Chimed, Chon.
Common from plain to hills in forests
undergrowth in wet and shady localities.
Chamaecrista pumila (Lam.) V. Singh
Common name : Chamodiyo, Chimediyo,Bethi
Chimed.
Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 17875, 18180,
18135(BSJO).
*Senna auriculata (L.) Roxb.
Common name : Aval, Avali, Avar.
Common in plains and forest outskirts and
wastelands.
Senna occidentalis (L.) Link
Common name : Kash Mard, Sundro, Kasundri,
Sunderevi.
Common neglected corners, wastelands etc.
*Senna siamea (Lam.) Irwin & Barneby
Common name : Kasid.
Common, planted along the road side as an
avenue tree.
*Senna tora (L.) Roxb.
Common name : Puwad, Kuvandio, Pochandio,
Dadha jo zad, Puvad.
Sparsely distributed from plains to the hills.
Tamarindus indica L.
Common name : Amli, Imli, Sadad, Ambliyo
Zad.
Fl.: March - July; Fr.: April - November.
In dry deciduous forests.

MIMOSACEAE
Acacia catechu (L. f.) Willd.
Common name : Kair, Khair, Kath, Kattha.
Fl. & Fr.: May - September.
Common in open forests and on the hill slopes.
20801(BSJO).
Acacia leucophloea (Roxb.) Willd.
Common name : Aniyar, Hiver, Safed Kikar,
Brunja, Roonjro.
Common in plains, wastelands and open forests.
*Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Del. subsp.
indica (Benth.) Brenan
191 Meena

Common name : Bawal, Kalo Baval, Ram
Baval.
Common in wastelands and scrub forests.
Acacia pennata (L.) Willd.
Common name : Chikkor, Khervolio boval.
Fl.: July - September; Fr.: October - March
Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20790 (BSJO).
Acacia senegal (L.) Willd.
Common name : Kumta, Goradio Baval.
Common rocky habitats, wastelands and scrub
forests.
Specimesn examined : Jessore Sloth Bear
20802(BSJO).
*Acacia tortilis (L.) Willd.
Common name : Israeli Bawali.
Fl.: July - October; Fr.: November - February.
Recently introduced; but quite naturalized in the
area.
*Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth.
Common name : Kali Siris.
Fl.: March - August; Fr.: August - February.
Common in forests and also planted as an avenue
tree along the roadsides.
*Albizia odoratissima (L. f.) Benth.
Common name : Safed Siris.
Fl. & Fr.: April - December.
Occasional in dry deciduous forests.
Albizia procera (Roxb.) Benth.
Common name : Siris.
Fl. & Fr.: April - October.
Sparsely distributed in the forests, often planted.
Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight & Arn.
Common name : Madhad, Goya-khair, Kulais,
Virtariu.
Common, in rocky - sandy habitats.
17834(BSJO).
Mimosa hamata Willd.
Common name : Kasi, Kai baval.
Common in gravelly-rocky habitats.
18191(BSJO).
*Leucaena latisiliqua (L.) Gillis
Common name : Subaval, Pardash Baval, Liso
Baval, Lamba Bavali.
Fl. & Fr.: September - March.
Occasional found along the hedges of cultivated
fields and near habitations.
Pithecellobium dulce (Roxb.) Benth.
Common name : Goras Amli.
Fl.: November - April; Fr.: December - June.
Frequently found in rocky-gravelly wastelands
places.
*Prosopis cineraria (L.) Druce
Common name : Khijado, Shami.
Fl. & Fr.: October - June.
Common in plains and scrub forests.
*Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC.
Common name : Gando Bawal.
Native of Mexico and Central America;
naturalized in scrub forests.

ROSACEAE
Potentilla supina L.
Fl. & Fr.: December - May.
Common in dried up tanks and ponds.

COMBRETACEAE
Anogeissus acuminata (Roxb. ex DC.) Guill. &
Perr.
Common name : Dhokdo.
Frequently found in rocky-gravelly habitats.
*Anogeissus latifolia (Roxb. ex DC.) Wall. ex
Guill. & Perr.
Common name : Dhavdo, Dhamod.
Common in mixed dry deciduous forests.
Anogeissus sericea Brandis var. sericea
Common name : Kalo Dho.
*Anogeissus sericea Brandis var. nummularia
King ex Duthie
192
Meena

Common name : Dhao, Dhankra.
Rare in mixed dry deciduous forests.
Terminalia bellirica (Gaertn.) Roxb.
Common name : Baheda, Beda.
Fl.: January - May; Fr.: Throughout the year.
Ocassional in dry deciduous forests, often
planted near habitations.
4623(SPU).
Terminalia chebula Retz.
Common name : Hirda, Hirdae
Fl. & Fr.: March - December.
Rare, in dry deciduous forest.
*Terminalia cuneata Roth
Common name : Arjuna sadad, Panisadad.
Fl.: March - May; Fr.: July - November.
Common in the forests often occurring along
rivers and streams.
*Terminalia elliptica Willd.
Common name : Sadad.
Fl.: February - May; Fr.: June - December.

MYRTACEAE
*Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels
Common name : Jambu.
Fl.: February - April; Fr.: March - July.
Common along water streams and often planted
as an avenue tree and for its edible fruits.
Syzygium jambos (L.) Alston
Fl. & Fr.: January - June.
Occasionally found near streams in dry
deciduous forests and river-beds.

LYTHRACEAE
*Ammannia baccifera L.
Common name : Lal agio, Jal agaio, Agio.
Very common in waterlogged areas near tanks,
ponds, river etc.
*Ammannia multiflora Roxb.
Common name : Zino agio.
Common in waterlogged areas.
Lawsonia inermis L.
Common name : Mehendi, Henna.
Common, often planted in gardens.
*Woodfordia fruticosa (L.) Kurz
Common name : Dhavadi.
Common in the forests and wastelands.

ONAGRACEAE
Ludwigia perennis L.
Common in moist-clayey soil.
Ludwigia hyssopifolia (G. Don) Excell
In moist-marshy and shaded habitats.

CUCURBITACEAE
*Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad.
Common in sandy to gravelly - rocky habitats.
Coccinia grandis (L.) J. O. Voigt
Common name : Tindora, Ghilada, Kadvi gholi.
Common on hedges sandy-gravelly habitats.
Ctenolepis cerasiformis (Stocks) Hook. f.
Common in cultivated areas and forest outskirts.
Ctenolepis garcinii (Burm. f.) C. B. Clarke
Common climber on the hedges.
Cucumis prophetarum L.
Common on hedges in forests and wastelands.
*Diplocyclos palmatus (L.) C. Jeffrey
Fl. & Fr. : November - January.
Common near habitations.
*Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb.
Fl. & Fr.: August - September.
193
Meena

Common along hedeges and in wastelands.
*Luffa echinata Roxb.
Common name : Kukad vel.
Frequently found on the hedges.
Momordica balsamina L.
Common name : Vadkarela, Patola, Chochidan.
Common in the hedges.
*Momordica dioica Roxb. ex Willd.
Common name : Kankoda, Kantola, Vanzkantoli.
Common on hedges of the forest outskirts and
cultivated fields.
Trichosanthes cucumerina L.
Common name : Jungli parval.
Fl. & Fr. : July - August.
Common on hedges in forest and wastelands.
18218(BSJO).
*Trichosanthes tricuspidata Lour.
Common name : Ratani, Indradamni, Kalulana
Amba.
Common in the wastelands, fringes of forests and
at the foot of hills.

AIZOACEAE
*Zaleya decandra ( L.) Burm.f.
Common name : Satoda.
Fl. & Fr.: July- December.
Common weed of rudral habitats.

MOLLUGINACEAE
Glinus lotoides L.
Common name : Mitho okharad.
Common in muddy-clayey, dried-up tanks, polls
etc.
4630(SPU).
Mollugo nudicaulis Lam.
Common weed of wastelands and forests,
neglected areas.
*Mollugo pentaphylla L.
Common name : Papet.
Common in wet and shay localities from plains
to hills.
Mollugo stricta L.
Common in moist-shaded localities and forests
undergrowths.

ALANGIACEAE
Alangium salvifolium (L. f.) Wangerin
Common name : Ankol, Ankoli.
Common in gravelly-rocky habitats.

RUBIACEAE
*Catunaregam spinosa (Thunb.) Tirveng.
Common name : Mindhal, Mindhool, Madhela.
Fl.: July - September; Fr.: September -
December.
Ceriscoides turgida (Roxb.) Tirveng
Common name : Gangdi, Findarko.
Fl. & Fr.: March - June.
Haldina cordifolia (Roxb.) Ridsd.
Common name : Haldu, Haldarvo, Haldavan.
Fl. & Fr.: July - March.
*Hedyotis corymbosa ( L. ) Lam.
Common name : Parpat, Parpati.
Common in wastelands and cultivated fields.
*Hymenodictyon orixense (Roxb.) Mabb.
Common name : Lunio, Bhammar Chal, Kadwai
Pariani, Madh- Mahuda, Boisal, Rogan Kokadio.
Fl.: August - September; Fr.: October -
February.
Common dry deciduous forests.
*Ixora brachiata Roxb.
Common name : Garbala, Naveri.
194
Meena

Frequently found in dry deciduous forests at high
altitude.
Ixora pavetta Andr.
Occassional in the forest and in sandy habitats.
Wildlife Sanctuary, S.K. Patel 4619 (SPU).
*Meyna laxiflora Robyns
Common name : Phalkhado, Ali, Alu, Aliv,
Gondadi.
Fl.: December - June; Fr.: June - August.
Mitragyna parviflora (Roxb.) Korth.
Common name : Kalam, Kadam.
Fl. & Fr.: April - February.
Rare, in dry deciduous to scrub forests,
sometimes planted.
20622(BSJO).
Spermacoce articularis L.f.
Fl. & Fr.: December - February.
Common in moist-marshy places.
*Spermacoce pusilla Wall.
Common in wastelands and hilly tracts.
Spermadictyon suaveolens Roxb.
Fl.: August - December; Fr.: September -
March.

ASTERACEAE (COMPOSITAE)
Acanthospermum hispidum DC.
Common in wastelands and rocky-gravelly
habitats.
Ageratum conyzoides L.
Common name : Ajgandha, Mankadmari, Dholi,
Saddi.
Fl. & Fr.: Throughout the year, mostly August -
December.
Common in moist places of wastelands and
forest undergrowth.
*Bidens biternata (Lour.) Merr. & Sherff.
Common name : Karakokdi, Samara Kokdi.
Common in the forests and rocks crevices.
*Blainvillea acmella (L.) Philipson
Native of South America; naturalized in
*Blumea mollis (D. Don) Merr.
Common name : Chanchadmari, Bhutaco.
Fl. & Fr.: November - February.
Common in wastelands, forests and ravines.
Cyathocline purpurea (Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don)
O. Ktze.
Common name : Okharad.
Common in moist places.
*Echinops echinatus Roxb.
Common name : Shulio, Utkanto.
Fl. & Fr.: October - June.
Emilia sonchifolia (L.) DC.
Common name : Hiran Khuri.
Common in rocky-sandy habitats.
Gnaphalium polycaulon Pers.
Fl. & Fr.: November - April.
Common in damp-sandy soil and rocky grounds.
*Goniocaulon indicum (Klein ex Willd.) C. B.
Clarke
Frequently found in wastelands.
Grangea maderaspatana (L.) Poir.
Fl. & Fr.: Most part of the year.
Common in dried up tanks and low level areas.
Launaea procumbens (Roxb.) Ramayya &
Rajagopal
Common name : Moti Bhonpatri.
Fl. & Fr.: March - September.
Common in moist-marshy localities.
*Lagascea mollis Cav.
193
Meena

Common in wet - moist wastelands.
Pentanema indicum (L.) Ling
Fl. & Fr.: August - March.
*Pluchea lanceolata (DC.) C. B. Clarke
Common name : Khari Rasna, Rasna.
Fl. & Fr.: October - July.
*Pulicaria angustifolia DC.
Common name : Sisolia ni Jatni, Vanaspati.
Common in wastelands, barren fields and on
hillocks.
*Sclerocarpus africanus Jacq. ex Murray
Native of South America; naturalized in moist
and shaded habitats in the forests.
Sphaeranthus indicus L.
Common name : Gorakh Mundi, Bhurandi.
Fl. & Fr.: October - April.
Common in moist places and dried up tanks of
*Tricholepis glaberrima DC.
Common name : Brahm dandi, Fishiaru.
Rare, in the forests.
*Tridax procumbens L.
Common name : Pardesi Bhangaro.
Common in wastelands and forests in moist
habitats.
*Vernonia anthelmintica (L.) Willd.
Common in sand and clay soils.
Vernonia cinerea (L.) Less.
Common name : Saha devi, Sadedi.
Common in wet and shady places.
Xanthium strumarium L.
Common name : Gokhru, Gadariyu.
Fl. & Fr.: October - May.
Common in moist-wet wastelands and forests.
PLUMBAGINACEAE
Dyerophytum indicum (Gibs. ex Wt.) O. Ktze.
Common name : Pavi.
Fl. & Fr.: September - January.
Common in rocky-gravelly habitats of dry
deciduous forests.
Plumbago zeylanica L.
Common name : Chitrale, Chitro, Chitrak.
Common in wastelands in rocky habitats.
(BSJO).

PRIMULACEAE
Anagallis arvensis L. var. coerulea (Schrad.)
Gren. & Godr.
Fl. & Fr.: December - February.
Common weed along fields and forests.

SAPOTACEAE
Madhuca indica J. F. Gmelin
Common name : Mahudo, Mahuvo.
Frequently found in dry deciduous forests and
plains.
*Manilkara hexandra (Roxb.) Dubard
Common name : Rayana.
Occasionally found near habitations.

EBENACEAE
Diospyros melanoxylon Roxb.
Common name : Timbru, Timbervo.
Fl.: March - May; Fr.: April - August.
17899(BSJO).

OLEACEAE
Nyctanthes arbor - tristis L.
Common name : Parijatak, Cheddi, Harisingar.
Common in forests
196 Meena

*Schrebera swietenioides Roxb.
Common name : Mokho.
Fl. & Fr.: February - May.
Ocassional in mixed forests.

SALVADORACEAE
*Salvadora oleoides Decne.
Common name : Piludi.
Ocassional in scrub forests.

APOCYNACEAE
*Carissa congesta Wight
Common name : Karamda, Karvanda.
Common in dry deciduous forests and
wastelands.
Catharanthus pusillus (Murray) G. Don
Holarrhena pubescens (Buch.-Ham.) Wall. ex
G. Don
Common name : Kando, Inderjav.
Fl.: May-June; Fr.: June - September.
Common in rocky-gravelly tracts.
*Wrightia arborea (Dennst.) Mabb.
Common name : Dudhio.
Fl.: December - July; Fr.: January - September.
Frequently found in forests in hilly tracts.
Wrightia tinctoria (Roxb.) R. Br.
Common name : Dudhi, Kudi, Runchalo,
Dudhlo.
Fl.: December - June; Fr.: Throughout the year.

ASCLEPIADACEAE
*Calotropis gigantea (L.) R. Br.
Common name : Akado.
Ocassional found in wastelands and near
habitation.
*Calotropis procera (Aiton ) W.I. Aiton subsp.
hamiltonii (Wight) Ali
Common name : Ankdo, Nano Akado.
*Cosmostigma racemosa (Roxb.) Wight
Fl. & Fr.: June - December.
*Leptadenia pyrotechnica (Forssk.) Decne.
Common name : Ransar, Khip, Door.
*Leptadenia reticulata (Retz.) Wight & Arn.
Common name : Nani dodi, Khirdodi, Dodi.
Common in wastelands and open forests.
Oxystelma esculenta (L. f.) R. Br. ex Schultes
Common name : Jal Dudhi, Dudhli.
Fl. & Fr.: May - February.
Common in marshy-shaded habitats.
20794(BSJO).
Pergularia daemia (Forssk.) Chiov.
Common name : Nagla dedheli, Amer dudheli.
Telosma cordata (Burm. f.) Merrill
Fl. & Fr.: June - October.
Wattakaka volubilis (L. f.) Stapf
Fl. & Fr.: April - September.
Frequently found in rocky-sandy habitats and
forests outskirts.

LOGANIACEAE
*Mitreola petiolata (J. F. Gamel.) Torr. & A.
Gray.
Rare, in moist - wet and shady habitats in dry
deciduous forests.

GENTIANACEAE
*Canscora diffusa (Vahl) R. Br.
Fl. & Fr.: October - March.
Common in wet and shady localities.
Enicostema axillare (Lam.) A. Raynal
197 Meena

Common name : Mamejevo, Zinku Kariyatu.
Fl. & Fr.: June - December.
Frequently found in rocky-gravelly habitats.
*Exacum pedunculatum L.
Common in wet places in the forests.
*Hoppea dichotoma Heyne ex Willd.
Common in wet places in the forests.

EHRETIACEAE
*Cordia dichotoma Forst. f.
Common name : Gundha.
Common in open wastelands and dry deciduous
forests.
*Cordia gharaf (Forssk.) Ehrenb. ex Asch.
Fl. & Fr.: April - December.
Common in the forest and wastelands.
Ehretia aspera Willd. var. obtusifolia (Hochst.
ex DC.) Parmar
Common name : Nani Nandh, Kajiyari.
Fl. & Fr.: November - June.
Common in the forests.

BORAGINACEAE
Coldenia procumbens L.
Common name : Okhrad, Basario Okharad.
Fl. & Fr.: September - June.
Common in dried up tanks.
Heliotropium strigosum Willd.
Common weed of sandy soil.
Heliotropium subulatum (Hochst. ex DC.)
Vatke
Common name : Pilohathi sundho.
Common weed in wastelands.
*Trichodesma indica (L.) R. Br. var. indica
Common weed of open wastelands and forest
undergrowth.
*Trichodesma zeylanica (Burm. f.) R. Br.
Occasionally, found in open wastelands.

CONVOLVULACEAE
*Argyreia sericea Dalz.
Common name : Samudrasok
Fl. & Fr.: August-December.
Rare, climbing on trees and shrubs in wastelands
and along the road sides.
*Convolvulus prostratus Forssk.
Common name : Achi Shankhavali, Birval,
Makhn Sankhavali.
Common throughout the sanctuary.
Evolvulus alsinoides (L.) L.
Common name : Kali Shankha Vali, Kari Buti,
Kanta.
Common in wastelands, rocky habitats.
18120(BSJO).
*Hewittia malabarica (L.) Suresh
Fequently found in dry deciduous forests.
*Ipomoea carnea Jacq. subsp. fistulosa (Mart.
ex Choisy) D. F. Austin
Common in wastelands along the finges of
forests and fields.
Ipomoea obscura (L.) Ker - Gawl.
Common name : Vad Fudardi.
Common in wastelands among bushes.
*Ipomoea nil (L.) Roth
Common name : Kaladana.
Fl. & Fr.: August November.
*Ipomoea pes - tigridis L.
Common name : Photial, Wagpadi.
Fl. & Fr.: Augudt - December.
Common weed in cultivated fields, grasslands
and open forests.
Ipomoea sindica Stapf
198 Meena

Among grasses of gravelly-sandy habitats,
common.
18187,18149(BSJO).
Ipomoea sinensis (Desr.) Choisy
Common name : Dholi Fudardi.
On the hedges of wastelands and forests,
common.
*Ipomoea turbinata Lag.
Common on the edges of fields and in
wastelands among bushes.
Merremia aegyptica (L.) Urban
Common name : Panch Pan Ni Fudardi.
Common in hedges of sandy-loamy soils.
*Merremia gangetica (L.) Cufod.
Common name : Undardi, Undar Kani, Undari.
Common in moist - dry localities.
*Merremia hederacea (Burm. f.) Hall.f.
Rare, on hedges of field and forest fringes.
*Operculina turpethum (L.) Silva Manso.
Fl. & Fr.: April - November.
Rare, in moist waste places.
*Rivea hypocrateriformis (Desr.) Choisy
Common name : Fang.
Fairly common among the clumps of trees and
shrubs; often found in forests.
Rivea ornata Choisy
Common, in wastelands and forest outskirts,
among clumps of trees and shrubs.
Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 18136(BSJO)
Xenostegia tridentata (L.) D. F. Austin &
Staples
Common name : Bhinigario.
Rare in wastelands and forests.
20629(BSJO).
CUSCUTACEAE
*Cuscuta reflexa Roxb.
Common name : Amarvel, Ananth vel.
Common parasite on shrubs and trees.

SOLANACEAE
Cestrum diurnum L.
Common name : Din ka Raja, Divasni Jui.
*Datura innoxia Mill.
Common name : Kalo dhanturo, Dhantura,
Kantalo Dhaturo.
Physalis minima L.
Common name : Popti, Parpapti.
Common in wastelands, sandy-loamy soils.
*Physalis peruviana L.
Native of tropical America; naturalized in
wastelands.
*Solanum nigrum L.
Common name : Piludi.
Fl. & Fr.: Almost throughout the year,
particularly September - December.
Common weed in moist wastelands.
*Solanum virginianum L.
Common name : Bhoyringni, Bhoringni.

SCROPHULARIACEAE
Kickxia ramosissima (Wall.) Janchen
Common name : Bhini Ghilodi, Bhini Vel,
Kanoti.
Common in moist shady places of dry deciduous
forests.
*Limnophila indica (L.) Druce
Common name : Tarati, Durti.
Common in aquatic and semi aquatic habitats.
199
Meena

Lindenbergia indica (L.) Vatke
Common name : Patharchati, Zamarval,
Pirsadedi.
Common in moist-shady, rock crevices and
forests undergrowth.
Lindernia ciliata (Colsm.) Pennell
Common in shady-moist localities from plain to
hills.
Lindernia crustacea (L.) F. v. Muell.
Common in forest undergrowths at moist-shaded
localities.
Lindernia parviflora (Roxb.) Haines
Fl. & Fr.: December - March.
Common in forest undergrowth and moist places.
Striga angustifolia (D. Don) C. J. Saldhana
Common name : Dholo Agio, Kunvario Agio.
Common at moist places of plains and forests.
20796(BSJO).
*Striga gesnerioides (Willd.) Vatke ex Engl.
Common root parasite.
Verbascum chinense (L.) Santapau
Common name : Kalhar, Kolhala, Kutki.
Common in wet localities of wastelands.

GESNERIACEAE
*Didymocarpus pygmaea C. B. Clarke
Rare, in dry deciduous forests in rock crevices in
moist places.

BIGNONIACEAE
*Fernandoa adenophylla (Wall. ex G. Don)
Steenis
Frequent, planted along road sides as an avenue
tree.
*Tecomella undulata (Sm.) Seem.
Common name : Rohida.
Fl. & Fr.: January - April.
Common in forest outskirts and wastelands.

PEDALIACEAE
*Pedalium murex L.
Common name : Ubhu Gokharu.
Native of Africa, naturalized in wastelands.

MARTYNIACEAE
Martynia annua L.
Common name : Vinchhudo
Common among wastelands, forests outskirts.

ACANTHACEAE
*Blepharis linariaefolia Pers.
Common in sandy to gravelly habitats.
*Barleria prattensis Santapau
Commonly found as a forest undergrowthin
moist and shady localities.
Barleria prionitis L. subsp. prionitis var.
prionitis
Common name : Kurvat.
Fl.: September - February; Fr.: October - March.
Common in wastelands, forests undergrowths in
sandy-rocky habitats.
Barleria prionitis L. subsp. prionitis var.
dicantha Blatt. & Hallb.
Common name : Kurvat.
Dipteracanthus patulus (Jacq.) Nees var.
patulus
Common in gravelly tracts.
200 Meena

Dipteracanthus patulus (Jacq.) Nees var. alba
(Saxton) Bhandari
Rare in hilly area and forests on hedges.
Dipteracanthus prostratus (Poir.) Nees
Common name : Kali Ghavani.
Common in forests undergrowths.
Wildlife Sanctuary, S.L. Meena 20803 (BSJO)
Elytraria acaulis (L. f.) Lindau
Fl. & Fr.: April - November.
Common in moist and shady places.
*Eranthemum purpurascens Wight ex Nees
Commonly found as forest undergrowth on the
hills and in wastelands.
Eranthemum roseum (Vahl) R. Br.
Fl. & Fr.: November - March.
Rare, found in dry deciduous forests.
Specimens examined : Kadarnath, S.K. Patel
4615 (SPU).
*Haplanthodes neilgherryensis (Wight) R. B.
Majumdar
Commonly found as a forest undergrowth on the
hills and in wastelands.
Haplanthodes verticillata (Roxb.) Majumdar
Common name : Kalu Kariyatu.
Fl. & Fr.: November - March.
Hemigraphis latebrosa (Heyne ex Roth) Nees
var. latebrosa
Common in moist-shaded, rocky localities of
forests undergrowths.
20614(BSJO).
Indoneesiella echioides (L.) Sreemadh.
Common as forest undergrowth, along the
stream and in wastelands.
(BSJO).
*Justicia adhatoda L.
Common name : Arduso
Fl. & Fr.: December - January.
Common in wastelands and hilly area.
Justicia diffusa Willd.
Common weed of wastelands and forests.
Justicia procumbens L.
Fl. & Fr.: Almost round the year.
*Justicia simplex D. Don
Common name : Kalikariatu.
Common weed of wastelands and forest
outskirts.
*Lepidagathis cuspidatus (Wall.) Nees
Fl. & Fr.: November-April.
Occasionally found along the streams in moist
situations.
*Lepidagathis trinervis Wall. ex Nees
Common name : Harancharo, Paniru.
Common in shady habitats of wastelands and
rocky areas.
*Neuracanthus sphaerostachyus (Nees) Dalzell
Common name : Ghanthera.
Frequently found in rocky habitats.
Peristrophe paniculata (Forssk.) Brummitt
Common name : Kali Anghedi, Adhedi.
Common in wastelands and neglected corners.
Rungia pectinata (L.) Nees
Common name : Khadselio.
Common in moist-shaded localities.
*Rungia repens (L.) Nees
Common weed in fallow lands.

201 Meena

VERBENACEAE
*Gmelina arborea Roxb.
Common name : Sevan.
Fl.: March - May; Fr.: July - August.
Common in rocky habitats along the water
channels in wastelands and forests.
Phyla nodiflora (L.) E. Greene
Common name : Ratvelio, Ratulio, Rato kharar.
Common in moist-shaded localities or forest
undergrowths.
*Tectona grandis L.f.
Common name : Sag, Sagvan.
Native of Tropical S. Asia and Malaysia; in dry
deciduous forests, planted by forest deptt. in
open forest.
*Vitex negundo L.
Common name : Nagod, Nagud, Nargund.
Common wastelands and forest outskirts along
water courses.

LAMIACEAE (LABIATAE nom. alt.)
Anisomeles indica (L.) O. Ktze.
Common name : Goudaliyo, Chodharo.
Fairly common weed of wastelands and
neglected areas.
*Leucas aspera (Willd.) Link
Common name : Kubi.
*Leucas cephalotes (Koen. ex Roth) Spreng.
Common name : Khetarau-kubo, Dosino kubo.
Common weed in wastelands and cultivated
fields.
*Leucas zeylanica (L.) R. Br.
Common name : Kubo.
Fl. &Fr.: November - February.
Frequently found in wastelands.
Ocimum basilicum L.
Common name : Damro, Damarvo, Sabjo,
Maruo.
Common in sandy-gravelly soils in open
wastelands.
Ocimum canum Sims.
Common name : Jungli Tulsi, Ran Tulsi,
Tukmaria, Jungli maruvo, Nasvo.
Common weed in wastelands and near
habitations.
17891,17926(BSJO).
Ocimum tenuiflorum L.
Common name : Tulsi.
Common in escape or apparently wild near
habitations.
Salvia santolinaefolia Boiss.
Rare in moist sandy loam soils near dams and
river-beds.

NYCTAGINACEAE
Boerhavia procumbens Banks ex Roxb.
Fl. & Fr.: January - December.
Common in wastelands and plains.
Boerhavia repens L.
Boerhavia repens L. var. diffusa (L.) Hook.f.
Common name : Satodi.
Fairly common in weed wastelands and forests.
*Commicarpus verticillatus (Poir.) Stendl.
Common name : Vasedo, Punarnava, Zeri Satodi.
Common among bushes, hedges, rarely in sandy
plains.

202 Meena

AMARANTHACEAE
*Achyranthus aspera L. var. aspera
Common name : Aghedo, Anghedo, Anghedi.
Common weed in wasteland and forests among
herbs and shrubs.
Aerva javanica (Burm.f.) Juss. ex Schultes
Common name : Bur, Gorakhganjo.
Fl. & Fr.: July - January.
Common in semiarid areas of the sanctuary.
Aerva sanguinolenta (L.) Blume
Common name : Bur-val, Vellaro, Burji vel,
Gorakhganjo.
Frequently found in forests undergrowth.
*Amaranthus spinosus L.
Common weed of wet places in wastelands and
forest outskirts.
*Amaranthus viridis L.
Fl. & Fr.: March - October.
Common weed in wastelands and forest among
hedges.
*Celosia argentea L.
Common name : Lampdi.
Common weed of wastelands, forests and
cultivated fields.
Digera muricata (L.) Mart.
Common name : Kanjro, Lolar.
Common weed in wastelands and forests
outskirts.
Nothosaerva brachiata (L.) Wight
Fl. & Fr.: September - May.
Common in wet and shady habitats, cultivated
fields etc. preferably in damp depressions.
Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. var. lappacea
Common name : Zipto Safed.
Fl. & Fr.: Almost all around the year.
Common in gravelly to sandy habitats.
Pupalia lappacea (L.) Juss. var. velutina (Moq.)
Hook. f.
Rare, in forests and sandy habitats.
18183(BSJO).

POLYGONACEAE
Polygonum glabrum Willd.
Common along water bodies.
Polygonum plebeium R. Br. var. effusa
(Meissn.) Hook. f.
Common in dry deciduous forests at wet
localities.
Polygonum plebeium R. Br. var. plebeium
Fl. & Fr.: After rainy season.
Common in dry water bodies.

LORANTHACEAE
*Dendrophthoe falcata (L. f.) Ettingsch.
Common name : Vando.
Common stem parasite in open forests.
Viscum angulatum Burm. f.
Fl. & Fr.: February - August.
Rare, stem parasite.

EUPHORBIACEAE
*Acalypha ciliata Forssk.
Common name : Dadari, Runchalo dadro,
Chardadarjo.
Common in wastelands and forests in wet
situations.
*Acalypha indica L.
Fl. & Fr.: July - February.
Common weed in moist places.
*Acalypha malabarica Muell.-Arg.
Common name : Dadaro.
203
Meena

Common in dry deciduous forests and
wastelands.
*Baliospermum montanum (Willd.) Muell.-Arg.
Fl. & Fr. : September - March.
Common in the forest and wastelands in shady
habitats.
*Bridelia retusa (L.) Spreng.
*Euphorbia geniculata Orteg.
Native of tropical America; naturalized in the
gardens, cultivated fields and forests.
Euphorbia heterophylla L.
Rarely an escape, mostly planted.
Euphorbia heyneana Spreng.
Common in marshy places.
Euphorbia hirta L.
Common weed in variable habitats like forests,
wastelands etc.
Euphorbia indica Lam.
Common in forest wastelands and cultivated
fields.
*Euphorbia neriifolia L.
Common in rocky habitats.
Euphorbia thymifolia L.
Common name : Dudhi.
Common in moist sandy-clayey soils.
Wildlife Sanctuary, S.K. Patel 4627 (SPU).
*Euphorbia trucalli L.
Common name : Kharsani.
Native of East Africa; common as a hedge plant.
*Kirganelia reticulata (Poir.) Baill.
Common name : Kamboi, Picharun, Datwan.
Common in scrub forest, wastelands near water
courses.
*Mallotus philippensis (Lam.) Muell. - Arg.
Common name : Kanku.
Common in dry deciduous forest at high altitude.
Phyllanthus amarus Schum. & Thom.
As a weed of moist wastelands and forests
undergrowths.
Phyllanthus emblica L.
Common name : Amla
Fl.: March - May; Fr.: June - November.
Sparsely distributed in deciduous forests.
Phyllanthus fraternus Webster
Common name : Bhoy Amli, Bhonya amali.
Common in wastelands and forests undergrowth.
Ricinus communis L.
Common name : Arundo, Divel.
Common in sandy habitats or as an escape.

ULMACEAE
Holoptelea integrifolia (Roxb.) Planch.
Common name : Kanji, Kanjo, Papadi, Audo-
Aodo.
Fl. & Fr.: December-May.
Frequently found in forest outskirts and near
habitations.

MORACEAE
*Ficus benghalensis L.
Common name : Vad.
Fl. & Fr.:Almost throughout the year.
*Ficus religiosa L.
Common name : Piplo.
*Ficus racemosa L.
204
Meena

Common name : Gular, Umbar, Umaro.
Often found in the forests along water courses.

CASUARINACEAE
Casuarina equisetifolia L.
Commonly planted along the baks of dam.

MONOCOTYLEDONS
HYDROCHARITACEAE
Vallisneria spiralis L. var. denseserrulata
Makino
Common name : Jalbel.
Fl. & Fr.: February - November.
Common in ponds and ditches in association
with other aquatic weeds.

DIOSCOREACEAE
Dioscorea bulbifera L.
Common name : Varahi Kand.
Fl.: July - October; Fr.: July - March.
Dioscorea hispida Dennst.
Common name : Bhoi kund
Fl. & Fr.: June - January.
Rare, in rocky - gravelly habitats.

LILIACEAE
Asparagus asiaticus L.
Fl. & Fr.: June - November.
Rare, in dry deciduous forests and wastelands.
*Asparagus racemosus Willd.
Fl. & Fr.: August-March.
Common in the forests.
Drimia indica (Roxb.) Jessop
Common name : Dangri - Jungli.
Common in rocky-gravelly habitats of dry
deciduous forests.
*Gloriosa superba L.
Common among the clumps of shrubs in the
forests and wastelands.

COMMELINACEAE
Commelina albescens Hassk.
Common on hills in moist places.
Wildlife Sanctuary, S L. Meena 18172(BSJO).
Commelina forsskalaei Vahl
Common in marshy places and often in the
forests.
Murdannia nudiflora (L.) Brenan
Common in moist-damp shady dry deciduous
forests along grasses.
18143, 20788 (BSJO).

NAJADACEAE
*Najas marina L.
Rare, in the rivers, lake etc.
*Najas minor All.
Frequent in shallow water, still- watered ponds,
rivers etc.
*Najas welwitschii Renl
Fl. & Fr.: September December.
Rare, found in ponds, lake ditches etc.

ERIOCAULACEAE
*Eriocaulon dianae Fyson
Fl. & Fr.: January - May.
Rare, in marshy habitats.

TYPHACEAE
Typha angustifolia L.
Fl. & Fr.: August - June.
Common in marshy habitats.

203
Meena

CYPERACEAE
Bulbostylis barbata (Rottb.) C. B. Clarke
Common in wet and marshy localities.
Cyperus alulatus Kern.
Cyperus difformis L.
Common in moist-marshy localities.
20641(BSJO).
Cyperus iria L.
Common in marshy habitat.
Cyperus meeboldi Kuk.
Rare, in wet habitats in wastelands.
Cyperus pangorei Rottb.
Common in marshy localities.
Cyperus rotundus L. subsp. rotundus
Common name : Chido.
Common.in moist-clayey to sandy habitats.
Cyperus rotundus subsp. tuberosus (Rottb.)
Kuekenth.
Fl. & Fr.: August-November.
Common in aquatic and marshy habitats.
Wildlife Sanctuary, S. L. Meena 17918 (BSJO).
Fimbristylis bisumbellata (Forssk.) Bubani
Fimbristylis dichotoma (L.) Vahl
Common in marshy-wet localities.
Fimbristylis dipsacea (Rottb.) C. B. Clarke
Rare in moist places.
Fimbristylis merrillii Kern.
Rare, in moist and wet localities.
Fimbristylis quinquangularis (Vahl) Kunth
Common in marshy places.
20619(BSJO).
Fimbristylis squarrosa Vahl
Rare, in marshy localities.
Mariscus squarrosus (L.) C. B. Clarke
18130(BSJO).
Scirpus michelianus L.

POACEAE (GRAMINEAE nom. alt.)
Acrachne racemosa (Heyne ex Roem. &
Schult.) Ohwi
Common in sandy loam soils and in rocky
habitats.
Alloteropsis cimicina (L.) Stapf
Common in moist-clayey habitats of forest
undergrowth.
Apluda mutica L.
206 Meena

Common name : Bangara.
Common among hedges of cultivated fields and
bushes in wastelands.
18145(BSJO).
Aristida adscensionis L. var. pumila (Decne.)
Coss. & Dur.
Common in sandy-gravelly soil.
Aristida funiculata Trin. & Rupr.
Common name : Laso lampdo.
Common in open rocky-gravelly wastelands;
sometimes abundant and forming pure
formations.
Arundo donax L.
Commonly found in marshy habitats.
Brachiaria deflexa (Schumach) C. E. Hubb. ex
Robyns
Occasional, found in shady localities and on low
hills.
18148(BSJO).
Brachiaria ramosa (L.) Stapf
In mixed habitats, fairly common.
Cenchrus ciliaris L.
Common near water sources.
Cenchrus setigerus Vahl
Common name : Dhaman.
Most common grass in mixed habitats.
Chloris dolichostachya Lagas.
Common name : Silaru.
Common in rocky and sandy habitats, in the
forests thickets, wastelands and in plains.
Wildlife Sanctuary, S. L. Meena 20620 (BSJO).
Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.
Common name : Daro.
In fallow fields and wastelands, fairly common.
Dactyloctenium aristatum Link
Rare, in moist-rocky habitats.
Dendrocalamus strictus (Roxb.) Nees
Common name : Bomboo.
Fl. & Fr.: At the intervals of many years.
Fairly common in dry deciduous forests,.
Echinochloa frumentacea Link
Common in sandy-clayey soil or in cultivated
fields.
Eragrostis amabilis (L.) Wight & Arn.
Common in sandy-gravelly to loamy soil.
Eragrostis aspera (Jacq.) Nees
Wildlife Sanctuary, S. L. Meena 17887,
18147(BSJO).
Eragrostis japonica (Thunb.) Trin.
Common in moist and marshy habitats along
water channels.
Eragrostis pilosa (L.) P. Beauv.
Common in moist marshy places as a weed in
open wastelands.
207
Meena

Heteropogon contortus (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem.
& Schult.
Common name : Dabh.
Common in open wastelands and forests.
17943(BSJO).
Isachne globosa (Thunb.) O. Ktze.
Occasional, found near moist and marshy
habitats.
*Melanocenchris jacquemontii Jaub. & Spach.
Common in open gravelly and rocky habitats.
Oplismenus burmannii (Retz.) P. Beauv.
Common in moist and shaded localities of the
sanctuary.
Oplismenus compositus (L.) P. Beauv.
Rare, in moist and shady places.
*Oropetium thomaeum (L.f.) Trin.
Fl. & Fr.:August-October.
Monsoon grass commonly found in rocky and
gravelly habitats.
Panicum maximum Jacq.
Fl. & Fr.: March - August.
Frequently found in most parts of the top of hills
along the stream.
18208(BSJO)
Pennisetum setosum (Sw.) L. C. Rich.
Common in rocky habitats and in wastelands.
Perotis indica (L.) O. Ktze.
Common in open wet places.
Saccharum spontaneum L.
Common name : Kans.
Common in moist-marshy situations.
Setaria intermedia (Roth) Roem. & Schult.
Found in rocky habitats in open wastelands and
forests undergrowths.
17943,18223(BSJO).
Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauv.
Frequent in moist rocky-clayey soils.
Setaria verticillata (L.) P. Beauv.
Common name : Chipatiu.
Commonly found in sandy-clayey soils,
particularly along irrigation channels.
*Tetrapogon tenellus (Koen. ex Roxb.) Chiov.
*Themeda quadrivalvis (L.) O. Ktze.
Fl. & Fr.: September- November.
Common along streams at foot of hills.

ECONOMIC POTENTIALITY OF
PHYTODIVERSITY OF JESSORE SLOTH
BEAR WILDLIFE SANCTUARY
The flora of Jessore Sloth Bear
Wildlife Sanctuary is very rich from medicinal
plants point of view and this hot spot of
phytodiversity is known as paradise for
economic potentiality. The economic potentiality
of phytodiversity determined its importance for
existence and values for conservation,
particularly to establish priorities. Some of the
common plants are classified according to their
uses.

Medicinal plants
The common plants used as
medicinal in the Sanctuary by, a number of rural
people and tribes residing nearby the Sanctuary
among, viz.: Thekere, Chauhan, Koli, Kumbhar,
208
Meena

Mali, Rabari, Harijan, Waghari and Agarwals,
and tribes, viz. Majirana, Garasia, Gamar,
Damor, Khokharia, Dama, Dhajora, Dharanhi
Vansia, Kharadi etc. Traditionally the prople are
religiously inclined. Economy of the people is
mainly agrarian. Cattle rearing is the other major
occupation of the villagers as well as of
"Rabaris". The people depend upon forests for
medicinal plants, for fuel, fodder, timber, gum
and resin, dye, fibre, grazing, collection of honey
and wild fruits. Common medicinal plants of
Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary are :
Acacia nilotica subsp. indica, Acacia senegal,
Achyranthes aspera, Aerva javanica, Argemone
mexicana, Azadirachta indica, Justicia
adhatoda, Balanites roxburghii, Blepharis
linearifolia, Boerhaviarepens L. var. diffusa,
Cadaba fruticosa, Senna auriculata, Cocculus
hirsutus, Corchorus depressus, Cleome viscosa,
Crotalaria burhia, Capparis decidua, Calotropis
procera, Coldenia procumbens, Convolvulus
prostratus, Cyperus rotundus, Dactyloctenium
scindicum, Datura innoxia, Echinops echinatus,
Enicostemma axillare, Euphorbia caducifolia,
Ficus benghalensis, Ficus religiosa, Glinus
lotoides, Indigofera cordifolia, Indigofera
oblongifolia, Leptadenia pyrotechnica, Maerua
oblongifolia, Martynia annua, Momordica
dioica, Pedalium murex, Pergularia daemia,
Portulaca oleracea, Ricinus communis,
Salvadora oleoides, Tribulus terrestris,
Tephrosia purpurea, Tecomella undulata,
Xanthium indicum, Ziziphus nummularia and
Tridax procumbents etc.
Timber yielding plants
Timber is most important and
essential item for upliftment of socio-economic
status of rural population. Major timber yielding
plants of Sanctuary are : Acacia catechu, A.
leucophloea, A. nilotica subsp. indica, A.
senegal, Aegle marmelos, Ailanthus excelsa ,
Albizia lebbeck, A. procera, Anogeissus latifolia,
Azadirachta indica, Balanites aegyptica,
Bauhinia racemosa, Bombax ceiba, Boswellia
serrata, Bridelia retusa, Butea monosperma,
Capparis decidua, Cassia fistula, Senna siamea,
Cordia dichotoma, C. gharaf, Dalbergia sissoo,
Dendrocalamus strictus, Dichrostachys cinerea,
Diospyros melanoxylon, Ficus benghalensis, F.
religiosa, Haldina cordifolia, Holoptelea
integrifolia, Lannea coromandelica, Madhuca
indica, Mangifera indica, Millusa tomentosa,
Mitragyna parviflora, Moringa oleifera,
Phyllanthus emblica, Pithecellobium dulce,
Pongamia pinnata, Prosopis juliflora, Sterculia
urens, Tamarindus indica, and Ziziphus
mauritiana
Gum and resin yielding plants
Number of plant species provide
gum and resin are : Acacia catechu, A. nilotica
subsp. indica, A. senegal, Azadirachta indica,
Boswellia serrata, Butea monosperma, Lannea
coromandelica, Sterculia urens etc.
Dye yielding plants
The common dye yielding plants in
Jessore Wildlife sanctuary are : Abrus
precatorius, Acacia nilotica subsp. indica,
Achyranthus aspera, Butea monosperma,
Cocculus pendulus, Indigofera tinctoria,
Kirganelia reticulata, Nyctanthes arbor-tristis
and Striga generioides.
Tannin yielding plants
The common tannin yielding plants are
Acacia leucophloea, A. nilotica subsp. Indica,
Albizia lebbeck, Senna auriculata, Woodfordia
fruticosa, and Ziziphus mauritiana.
Fodder plants
The common fodder plants of the
Sanctuary are : Acacia leucophloea, A. nilotica
subsp. indica, Crotalaria burhia, Dichrostachys
cinerea, Echinops echinatus, Indigofera
oblongifolia, I. cordifolia, Panicum antidotale,
Tribulus terrestris, Ziziphus mauritiana and Z.
nummularia.
Food plants
The common food plants of JWLS are :
Acacia leucophloea, A. nilotica subsp. Indica, A.
senegal, Achyranthes aspera, Aegle marmelos,
Aerva javanica, Alangium salvifolium, Aloe vera,
Amaranthus spinosus, A. viridis, Asparagus
racemosus, Azadirachta indica, Bauhinia
racemosa, Brachiaria ramosa, Butea
monosperma, Capparis decidua, Celastrus
paniculatus, Celosia argentea, Cenchrus
biflorus, Citrullus colocynthis, Cordia
dichotoma, C. gharaf, Cucumis callosus,
Cyperus rotundus, Dactyloctenium scindicum,
Ficus benghalensis, F. racemosa, F. religiosa,
Grewia flevescens, Holoptelea integrifolia,
Lannea coromandelica, Madhuca indica,
Mangifera indica, Momordica balsamina, M.
dioica, Moringa oleifera, Mucuna pruriens,
209 Meena

Panicum antidotale, Phyllanthus emblica,
Physalis minima, Pithecellobium dulce, Prosopis
juliflora, Salvadora oleoides, Syzygium cumini,
Tamarindus indica, Terminalia bellirica,
Ziziphus mauritiana and Z. nummularia.
Oil yielding plants
Some of the plants yielding non-edible
oil which can be used in medicines, varnishes,
paints, lubricants, for soap making and in
perfumery. The important species are :
Argemone mexicana, Azadirachta indica,
Citrullus colocynthis, Ricinus cummunis etc.
Plants used in cottage industries :
Dendrocalamus strictus, Wrightia
tinctoria, Ailanthus excelsa, Acacia catechu,
Butea monosperma, Saccharum benghalensis
etc. are useful to enhance socio-economic status
of the rural people.

CONSERVATION OF FLORAL
DIVERSITY
Jessore hill range is unique site for
flora as well as faunal diversity. Sloth Bear is the
flag ship species of the Sanctuary. It is endowed
with a rich diversity of floral species, including
many endangered and rare species. It is the
south-western most part of the Aravalli series
and is important for conservation of depleting
Aravalli ecosystem. The area provides varied
habitat and vegetation ranging from scrub
vegetation to moist deciduous type. Jessore hills
plays an important role to check the
desertification of the adjoining areas as the hills
are adjoining to the desert of Rajasthan.
The Sanctuary is recognized as an area of high
conservation value due to richness of medicinal
plant species. Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife
Sanctuary has a unique significance of inhabiting
some species like Anogeissus latifolia and
Anogeissus sericea var. nummularia, besides
Tecomella undulata and Dendrocalamus
strictus. The species of Dalbergia, Terminalia,
Schrebera swietenoides, Hymenodictyon
orixensis, Butea superba and many other species
of socio-economic and biodiversity significance
that need to be rehabilitated and conserved viz.
Dalbergia latifolia, Anogeissus sericea,
Manilkara hexandra, Mallotus philippensis,
Albizia procera, Haldina cordifolia, Bridelia
retusa, Butea monosperma var. alba, Butea
superba, Cordia gharaf, Dalbergia paniculata,
Erythrina suberosa, Garunga pinnata, Limonia
acidissima, Madhuca indica, Moringa oleifera,
Sterculia urens, Tecomella undulata, Wrightia
arborea, Dendrocalamus strictus, Helicteres
isora, Ziziphus xylopyrus, Abrus precatorius etc.
The phytodiversity of the Jessore
Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary is affected by a
number of direct as well as indirect factors,
mostly human interferences. Heavy grazing,
lopping of trees, firewood collection, cutting of
trees for timber, forest fires and tourism etc are
the main factors that effect the forest wealth of
Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary, leading to
the degradation of Sanctuary. Beside this,
invasion of Prosopis juliflora is till continuing
which poses adverse impacts on the habitat
suitability for the local floral components. Even
it does not allow to grow any plant under the
canopy. Besides above, the over exploitation of
some of the economically important species, viz.
Cassia and Tecomella undulata have also been
brought them on the doors of extinction.
Maximum afforestation of such economic
species is, therefore, necessary to balance the
ecosystem. Recent biotechnological methods
may also be applied for the multiplication.
Further, the germplasm of depleting plant
resources may also be preserved in the seed
banks, the habitats need to be protected by
establishing more Biosphere Reserves, National
Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. Presently efforts
made in this direction include the establishment
of four National Parks and twenty one
Sanctuaries. Further, the establishment of
botanical gardens may also play a vital role in
ex-situ conservation and multiplication of the
germplasm, which is widely scattered and where
in-situ conservation is not possible. Besides
above conservation measures, the research alone
cannot help to restore the biodiversity loss unless
there is a political will, awareness and
involvement of the people in conservation
programmes. Government of Gujarat is very
particular on this subject in creating awareness
among the people and educating them on far
reaching implications of ecological degradation.
Sloth bear is the flagship species of the
Sanctuary from conservation point of view, it is
necessary that at any cost conservation of
phytodiversity measures should taken as a
210
Meena

number of plants species provide food for the
flagship species of the Sanctuary.

FLORISTIC ANALYSIS
The present work enumerates 481
indigenous and naturalized vascular plant species
belonging to 277 genera and 80 families.
Leguminosae is the biggest family in Jessore
Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary comprising 33
genera and 76 species (Fabaceae is represent by
21 genera and 49 species; Caesalpiniaceae by 5
genera and 12 species and Mimosaceae by 7
genera and 15 species) Second, third and forth
places are occupied by family Poaceae,
Acanthaceae, Asteraceae respectively.
Monocotyledons are represented poorly except
Poaceae with 34 species and 25 genera and
Cyperaceae with 16 species and 5 genera. In
monocotyledons the families represented by
single genus and single species are:
Hydrocharitaceae and Typhaceae. Among,
dicotyledons, the class Polypetalae is dominant
and represented by 187 species belonging to 108
genera and 38 families. The families represented
by single genera and single species are:
Annonaceae, Menispermaceae, Papaveraceae,
Violaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Portulacaceae,
Elatinaceae, Balsaminaceae, Simaroubaceae,
Balanitaceae, Burseraceae, Moringaceae,
Rosaceae, Aizoaceae and Alangiaceae. Among
class Gamopetalae, families represented by
single genera and single species are:
Primulaceae, Ebenaceae, Salvadoraceae,
Loganiaceae, Cuscutaceae, Gesneriaceae,
Pedaliaceae and Martyniaceae,while in class
Monochlamydeae, families Ulmaceae and
Casurinaceae are represented by single genera
and single species .The biggest family of the
class polypetalae is Fabaceae .The class
gamopetalae finds second place and it is
represented by 25 families having 107 genera
and 185 species. The class Monochlamydeae is
represented by 43 species and 22 genera with 8
families. It is intresting to note that
Monochlamydeae is lowest among
Dicotyledons.The largest family of this group is
Euphorbiaceae having 7 genera and 11 species.
Second place IS occupied by Amaranthaceae
with 7 genera and 10 species.

Table 1. Statistical synopsis of the indigenous and naturalized flora of Jessore Sloth Bear Wildlife Sanctuary
in Banaskantha district (Gujarat).
Taxonomic Group Families Genera Species
No. % No. % No. %
Angiosperm Dicotyledons 71 88.75 237 85.56 415 86.28
Monocotyledons 9 11.25 40 14.44 66 13.72
Total 80 100.00 277 100.00 481 100.00

The ratio of species belong to Monocotyledons
to Dicotyledons is 1 : 6.2 and for genera it is 1 :
5.9 and 1 : 7.8 for families. The ratio of total
number of genera and species is 1 : 1. 7.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is thankful to Dr. D. K.
Singh, Director-in-Charge, Dr. M. Sanjappa, Ex-
Director, Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata for
providing necessary facilities and to Dr. V.
Singh, Emeritus Scientist, BSI, AZRC for going
through the Mss. and valuable suggestions. The
author is equally thankful to Dr. P. M. Padhye,
Scientist-E & H.O.O. and to Dr. R. P. Pandey,
Scientist-D, BSI, AZRC, Jodhpur for
encouragement and providing facilities during
the course of present study.
REFERENCES
Bentham, G. and J.D. Hooker. (1862-83).
Genera Plantarum.Vol. 1-3. London.
Blatter, E. (1908-09). On the Flora of Kutch.
Journ. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 18: 756-
776; 19: 157-176.
Bole, P.V and J.M. Pathak. (1988). Flora of
Saurashtra, Part- II & III: Flora of India
Series 2, Botanical Survey of India,
Calcutta.
Champion, H.G. and S.K. Seth. (1968). A revised
survey of the forest types of India. Manager
of publication, Delhi 6, pp. xxv + 404, pl.
103, Map-7.
Cooke, T. (1901-08). The Flora of Bombay
Presidency, Vols. 2. London.
211
Meena

Karthikeyan, S. (2000). A statistical analysis of
flowering plants of India. In Singh, N.P.,
D.K. Singh, P.K. Hajara and B.D. Sharma
(eds.) Flora of India, Introductionary
Volume, PartII, pp. 201-217 BSI, New
Delhi.
Meena, S.L. (2004a). Some new Plants to the
Flora of Gujarat, India-I . J. Econ.Taxon.
Bot. 28(2): 387-88.
Meena, S.L. (2004b). Two new species of
Fimbristylis (Cyperaceae) from Gujarat. J.
Econ. Taxon. Bot. 28(2): 389-391.
Meena, S.L. and R.P. Panday. (2004). A
reassessment of phytodiversity of Gujarat
state: Floristic composition and analysis,
vegetation, threatened and rare taxa and
their conservation strategies. J. Econ.
Taxon. Bot. 28(4): 867-894.
Meena, S.L. (2005). Some new plants to the
Flora of Gujarat, India-II. J. Econ.Taxon.
Bot. 29(2): 375-77.
Meena, S.L. (2007). Some new plants to the
Flora of Gujarat, India - III. J. Econ.Taxon.
Bot. 31(2): 466-69.
Pandey, R.P. and V. Singh. (1999). Gujarat: In:
Mudgal, V. & P.K. Hajra (eds.) Floristic
diversity and conservation stratigies in
India. 2: 775-806.
Panday, R.P. (2001). Addition to the flora of
Gujarat-II. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 23(3):
623-625.
Pandey, R.P. (2002). Addition to the flora of
Gujarat-III. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 26(2):
505-508.
Padey, R.P. and P.M. Padhye. (1997). Addition
to the flora of Gujarat - I. J. Econ. Taxon.
Bot. 21(1): 103-106.
Parmar, P. J. and A.K. Srivastava. (2003). Some
new plants records from Saurashtra
(Gujarat State). Ind. Journ. For. 26(4):
431-432.
Parmar, P.J. and V. Singh. (2003). Interesting
plant records from Gujarat, India. Ind.
Journ. For. 26(4): 418-420.
Pilo, B., B.J. Pathak, B.A. Kumar, V.K.
Murukesan, K.R. and S. Kumari. (1996).
Biological Diversity of Gujarat (Current
knowledge). GERI Campus, Race course
road,Vadodara, Gujarat.
Raghavan, R.S., B.M. Wadhwa, M.Y. Ansari and
Rolla, S. Rao. (1981). A check list of
plants of Gujarat. Rec. Bot. Surv. India.
21(2): 1-127.
Santapau, H. (1962). The Flora of Saurashtra,
Part -I. Saurashtra Research Society,
Rajkot.
Saxton, W.T. (1922). Additional notes on plants
of north Gujarat. Rec. Bot. Surv. India.
9(3): 251-256.
Saxton, W.T. and L.J. Sedgwick. (1918). Plants
of north Gujarat. Rec. Bot.Surv. India. 6:
207-323.
Sharma, G.R. and D.K. Singh. (2001). Status of
plant diversity in India : an overview. In:
Roy, P.S., S. Singh & A.G. Toxopens
(eds.) Biodiversity & Environment. 69-105.
IIRS, Dehradun.
Shah, G.L. (1978). Flora of Gujarat State, Vol. I
& II. Sardar Patel University, Vallabh
Vidhyanagar.
Singh, A.P. and Parabia, M. (2003). The floral
diversity of Gujarat state : A Review. Ind.
For. 129(12): 1461-1469.
Thakar, J.L. (1926). Plants of Kutch and their
utility (in Gujarati). Rajkot.

212 Meena

A Review of Depleting Plant Resources, their Present Status and Conservation
in Rajasthan, India

R.P. Pandey, S.L. Meena, P.M. Padhye and M.K. Singhadiya

Botanical Survey of India, Arid Zone Regional Centre, Jodhpur - 342 008
e-mail: drslmeena.bsi@gmail.com

(Received 14 December, 2011, Accepted 21 March, 2012)

ABSTRACT: The present paper deals with review of 65 depleting plant taxa, their present status and
conservation in Rajasthan. Besides this it also envisage review of previous literature, floral composition,
phytogeographical analysis of the flora, 45 wild relatives of 66 cultivated plants, impact of canal irrigation
with 106 new introduction in the state, conservation strategies and measures and list of RET taxa in the
state their present status and causes of their rarity.
Key words: Depleting Plant Resources, Conservation, Rajasthan.

INTRODUCTION
A large number of plants and
animals have inadequate future, unless
immediate steps are taken to arrest the causes
leading to biological improvement. Floral and
faunal diversities are the two facts components
of biodiversity, which covers the variety and
variability of species. Concern for conservation
and sustainable use of plant diversity has been
growing in many countries, including India. The
population of both human and animals
(livestocks) in Rajasthan being high, coupled
with the changing climate adversely affects the
delicately balanced ecosystem. This resulted in
an over-exploitation of natural plant resources,
which possess a threat to plant diversity in
Rajasthan.
It is very significant to note that
as India has already signed the Conservation on
Biodiversity and now it is mandatory on our
part to take all efforts towards conservation and
sustainable utilization of biodiversity. In order to
regulate the exploration and commercial
exploitation of bioresources of our country, to
prevent bio-piracy and to safeguard our
traditional knowledge in the form of
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), the
Government of India has already come up with a
Biodiversity Acts, 2002 and National
Environment Policy, 2005. Thus, to achieve the
effective implementation of the above Acts, we
must have a comprehensive and up to date list of
plants and animals of the region with particular

interest to rare, endangered, threatened and
endemic taxa. Until we are not having up to date
list of plant/animals of the area, we can not make
our efforts successful towards conservation and
sustainable utilization of bio-resources, which is
the main objective of the Convention on
Biodiversity. The present paper on the review of
depleting plant resources, their present status and
conservation in Rajasthan is a step in this
direction to cover the Rajasthan flora. At the end
paper also enlisted invaded species through
Indra Gandhi Canal Project (IGNP) in N.W.
Rajasthan due to impact of canal irrigation and
listed about 106 species as new introduction
from the neighboring states viz. Punjab,
Himachal Pradesh and Kashmir.

LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY, SOIL AND
CLIMATE
Rajasthan is one of the largest State
of India, occupying an area of about 3,42,274 sq.
km. i.e. nearly 11 % of total area of the country,
located between 23
0
3-30
0
12 N latitude and
69
0
30-78
0
17 E longitude. Phyto-
geographically, it forms the eastern extremity of
great arid and semi-arid belt of world; the Great
Sahara desert belt passes through the western
part of the state. The most striking geological
feature is the Aravalli range the oldest folded
mountain range in the world, which intersects the
state diagonally end to end north - east to south -
west into three - fifth North - western desertic
Biological Forum
_

zone and two-fifth eastern semi-arid region. The
elevation of Aravalli range gradually decreases
in North - east direction, as it is 1772 m at Mt.
Abu, 1100 m at Bijapur, 913 m at Harshnath and
792 m at Khetri; elevation further decreases to
335 m at Delhi beyond the boundaries of the
state in North - east direction. The Nort- western
region, which is called as Rajasthan desert or
Marusthali, occupies an area of about 1,96,150
sq. km. and is covered with vast stretches of sand
and shifting and stabilized sand dunes of various
types, magnitude and orientation viz. parabolic,
longitudinal, barkhan, transverse, etc. The
Jurassic and Eocene rocks protrude here and
there above the sandy and hummocky plains of
aeolian origin. The soils are typical desert soils
and grey-brown desert soils containing 90-95%
sand and 10-55% clay, high percentage of
soluble salts and high pH value. Another
important topographical feature of the desert is
the presence of salt lakes viz. Smbhar and saline
tracts in Degana, Kuchaman, Didwana and
Pachpadra which narrate the past geological
history of the area and now Smbhar lake
declared as one of Indias Ramsar sites. There
are no natural fresh water lakes in Rajasthan. The
man-made major artificial lakes are Jaisamand,
Udaisagar, Pichhola, Rajsamand and Fateh sagar
in Udaipur district, Ana sagar, Pushkar, Vishal
sagar and Fai sagar in Ajmer, Balsamand, Sardar
samand and Kailana in Jodhpur, Jaisamand in
Alwar, Nakki at Mt. Abu, Gajner in Bikaner,
Aklara sagar and Ummed sagar in Kota district
are mainly used for irrigation and drinking water
and therefore, frequently cleared by way of weed
removal. In Rajasthan the man made wetlands
occupy an area of 1,00,217 ha. and natural
wetlands about 14,027 ha. only. There are
several neglected, rather small tanks, ponds,
ditches and low lands spread all over the state
which present variable emporia for aquatic and
marsh land biodiversity.
Further, the area in the North - east, East
and South - East of main Aravalli range presents
topography of isolated chain of outliers of
Aravallis, undulating tectonic plains and alluvial
plains or agricultural plains. Vindhayan hills,
which constitute a vast sedimentation formation
of sand stones, shales and lime stone, also enter
in the South - East and spread out westwards.
The soils here typically red and yellow,
ferruginous red, mixed red and black, medium
black and alluvial which have good water
holding capacity and pH is neutral to alkaline.
They have smaller content of lime, potash, iron
oxide, phosphorus, nitrogen and humus.
The climate of desertic zones in the
West of Aravalli is characterized by extremes of
temperatur - mean-maximum 33.4
0
C and mean-
minimum 18.9
0
C, low rainfall 342 mm mean
annual, high evapotranspiration i.e. 1868 mm
mean annual, low relative humidity i.e. 35 to 60
percent and high wind velocity i.e. 10.7 km./hr.
average annual. Such climatic conditions are
rather adverse to support any appreciable
biodiversity. The climate in the East of Aravalli
is semi-arid with mean annual maximum and
minimum temperature 30
0
C and 15
0
C
respectively, mean annual rainfall 850 mm.,
relative humidity 50-60 percent and mean annual
wind velocity about 7.5 km./hr. Such a climate is
suitable for comparatively dense dry deciduous
vegetation in Rajasthan.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
There is a great awareness in the recent
times of the need to conserve natural plant
resources all over the world that several thousand
species of plants and animals are threatened,
many are critically rare and a few already
extinct. Studies undertaken during last six
decades on floras in several parts of the world
have shown that many plant species are in danger
of extinction while some have already become
extinct recently. According to the reports given
by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), it is
estimated that about 10% of worlds vascular
plant species totally to about 20,000 to 25,000
species are under varying degrees of threat. The
flora of India is very rich in plant diversity with
an estimated 50,000 species of which about
18,000 are flowering plant. Of these, about 5,000
species are endemic to India, while several
hundred species are threatened. The threat to
environmental survival is now engaging the
attention of many countries. The recent
preparation of Red data Books list of
threatened and endemic taxa and symposia
organized by various countries in Europe, Africa,
North & South America, etc. on rarity, endemism
and threatened plants have recently stimulated
214 Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

the Asian countries, including India, to look in to
the fate of their depleting plant resources. In the
eleventh technical meeting of IUCN, held New
Delhi in 1969 (IUCN, 1970), the problems of the
taxa on the verge of extinction in India were also
discussed and need of the preliminary lists of
such taxa were realized to achieve the task of
conservation. A brief review of work done in
India on the threatened plants and habitats has
been published by Jain & Shastry (1981).
Following this, concerted efforts on the subject
were made in the years 1980-85 through
programme. Project on Study, Survey and
Conservation of Endangered species of Flora
(POSSCEF) supported by the U.S. Fish & Wild-
life Service (under PL-480 scheme) in the BSI
and valuable baseline data on nearly 1000
threatened and endangered plant species have
been gathered. Further, a seminar on threatened
plants of India was organised by the Botanical
Survey of India for the first time in India at
Dehra Dun in September, 1981 to evaluate the
endemic flora and to assess the status of the
threatened taxa in India. Therein, Pandey, et al.
(1983) and Sharma (1983) respectively, reported
41 and 106 taxa as rare and threatened from
whole of Rajasthan. Singh (1985) dealt with the
threatened taxa and their scope of conservation.
Recently Singh & Pandey (1997), and Pandey
(1983), Pandey & Shetty (1985) dealt with the
conservation of plant diversity in Rajasthan.
Mondal (1991) has published Massuria hill- a
type locality at Jodhpur in Rajasthan, where he
has emphasized that this area harbours a number
of new species and varieties at present. Very
recently, Singh & Pandey (1984) have published
Depleting plant resources in the Rajasthan
desert, where they dealt 43 rare and threatened
taxa in the area. The project like Man and
Biosphere (MAB) is also working in this
direction. A regional workshop on the same
subject was again organized by BSI in
collaboration with National Bureau of Plant
Genetic Resources (NBPGR) at New Delhi in
March, 1982. Recently, BSI has also published
the Indian plants Red data Book - I (Edited by
Jain & Shastry, 1984) and three volumes of the
Red data book of Indian plants (Edited by Nayar
& Sastry, 1987, 88 & 89). Singh & Pandey
(1998) published Floral diversity of Rajasthan
in greater details. The Arid Zone Regional
Centre of BSI, Jodhpur published a
comprehensive flora of Rajasthan in three
volumes (Edited by Shetty & Singh, 1987, 91 &
93). All these above publications have
contributed quite a lot in the preparation of a list
of rare and threatened taxa of Rajasthan.The
floral composition and its diversity have been
dealt by Pandey (in Shetty & Singh, 1993) and
Singh & Pandey (1998).

FLORAL COMPOSITION
The flora of Rajasthan comprising
2090 species belonging to 819 genera under 159
families of higher plants. The above analysis also
includes 137 infra specific taxa. Besides the
above this also dealt 274 cultivated plant species.
The above analysis also includes 13 intra -
specific taxa. Besides the above this also dealt
274 cultivated plant species. Gymnosperms are
represented by a solitary Ephedra ciliata. Among
Angiosperms, dicotyledons plants show
maximum diversity from specific level (72.98%)
to family level (79.22%) (Table 1).

Table 1. Statistical synopsis of the flora.
Taxonomic group Families
No. %
Genera
No. %
Species
No. %
ANGIOSPERMS
Dicotyledons
Monocotyledons
GYMNOSPERMS

126

79.22

631

77.15

1533

72.98

32 20.13 187 22.72 516 26.97
1 0.65 1 0.13 1 0.05
TOTAL 159 100.00 819 100.00 2090 100.00

213
Pandey, Meena, Padhye and Singhadiya

In Rajasthan monocotyledons are very poorly
represented, the family Poaceae maintains
highest diversity in the area comprising 315
species under 105 genera. The family
Leguminosae s.l. of polypetalae of dicotyledons
finds second place in the state with 201 species
and 54 genera. Among gamopetalae - Asteraceae
maintains highest diversity with 140 species and
65 genera. The family Euphorbiaceae having 65
species and 18 genera having maximum diversity
among the monochlamydae of angiosperms
(Table 2).

Table 2. Ten dominant families in Rajasthan.
Name of Families No. of Genera No. of Species

Poaceae

Leguminosae s.l.

Asteraceae

Cyperaceae

Acanthaceae

Euphorbiaceae

Convolvulaceae

Scrophulariaceae

Malvaceae

Lamiaceae

105

54

65

15

30

18

12

26

11

15

315

201

140

107

86

65

59

54

53

43

With regards to genera again Cyperus (33
species) of monocotyledons maintain highest
diversity and dicotyledons stand at second place.
However, contrary to families, the gamopetalous
genus Ipomoea (28 species) stands on the second
place and polypetalous genus Indigofera (27
species) on the third position. The genus
Euphorbia (19 species) shows maximum
diversity in monochlamydae group.
As regards diversity within species e.g.
Pavonia arabica, Convolvulus auricomus,
Tribulus terrestris, Alysicarpus rugosus,
Amaranthus hybridus, Barleria prionitis, Justicia
diffusa, Polygonum plebeium, Pupalia lappacea
and Veronica anagallis - aquatica are having
two or more varieties besides autonyms. As far
as gene level diversity is concerned it is more
prominent in Cucumis melo, Citrullus lanatus,
Tephrosia purpurea, Cenchrus spp. and Ziziphus
mauritiana which is phenotypically reflected in
size and shape of fruits and seeds, flower colour,
etc. indicating possibilities of natural
hybridization.
The phytodiversity ratio of species level
between monocots to dicots is 1: 2.7 of genera 1:
3.4 and of families 1:3.9. The ratio of genera to
species is 1:2.4, which is rather low in
comparision to the corresponding ratio for whole
of India (1:7.4). However, it is more or less
comparable to the ratio for the flora of Gangetic
Plains region (1:2.2) and for the flora of Gujarat
State (1:2.4). It also confirms the general rule
that, within the same flora region, the smaller the
flora, the smaller the species genus ratio i.e.
suggests poor phytodiversity.

PHYTOGEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF
THE FLORA
The flora of Rajasthan presents a
mixture of four distinct phytogeographical
elements as follow (Singh, 1977 & Singh &
Pandey, l.c.):
Indian element: 32.56%

Perso-Arabian element (Western): 30.55%
Indo-Malayan element (Eastern): 12.76%
General element: 24.22%
The phytogeographical analysis
suggests that Indian element dominants over
other adventives taxa as it forms 32.56% part of
the Rajasthan flora. It mainly consists of the
species coming from Kutchchh, Sindh,
Saurashtra, Maharashtra and neighboring
Gangetic plains. The resemblance in the list of
ten dominant families (Table 3) further supports
the above view. The Himalayan and N.E. Indian
species are poorly represented and most of them
grow at Mt. Abu and in subtropical evergreen
patches of forest in the east of Aravalli.
The second Perso - Arabian element
(western-element) constitutes 30.55% part of the
flora of Rajasthan. It includes the species
migrated from Africa, Mediterranean region,
Madagascar, North Africa, Arabia, Persia,
Turkey, Indus plains, Sudan and other Asian
countries.The Perso - Arabian elements dominats
over other adventives elements including the
Indo - Malayan elements throughout the
Rajasthan except Mt. Abu. However, the
percentage of western element decreases
gradually as one proceeds from West to East.
The ratio of Eastern to Western element in the
West of Aravallis varies from 1:4.4 to 1:6, while
east of Aravalli it varies from 1:1.7 to 1:3.
Therefore, it Drudes conclusions that Aravalli
range constitutes the line of demarcation between
Indo - Malayan and Perso - Arabian element is
correct, one should got Indo- Malayan element
in dominance in the East of Aravalli. The facts
are contrary. Therefore, authors suggest the line
of demarcation between these two elements some
where in the east of Rajasthan beyond the limits
of the State.

Table 3. Comparison of ten dominant families of India, Rajasthan and other neighboring State.
S.No. Rajasthan (Shetty &
Singh, 1993)
India (Hooker, 1897) Gangetic Plain (Duthie,
1903 - 1929)
Gujarat (Shah,
1978)
1. Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Leguminosae s.l.
2. Leguminosae s.l. Orchidaceae Leguminosae s.l. Poaceae
3. Asteraceae Leguminosae s.l. Cyperaceae Cyperaceae
4. Cyperaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae
5. Acanthaceae Rubiaceae Scrophulariaceae Acanthaceae
6. Euphorbiaceae Acanthaceae Malvaceae Malvaceae
7. Convolvulaceae Euphorbiaceae Acanthaceae Euphorbiaceae
8. Scrophulariaceae Lamiaceae Euphorbiaceae Convolvulaceae
9. Malvaceae Apiaceae Convolvulaceae Scrophulariaceae
10. Lamiaceae Brassicaceae Lamiaceae Lamiaceae

The reasons for dominance of Western element
(30.55%) in the State may:
(1) Large scale destruction of vegetation
resulting in exposure of soil where the
original natural flora is gradually replaced
by pioneer xerophytic elements of Perso -
Arabian and African origin in the modified
plant climate resembling the climate of
Libyan desert and Cyrenaica.
(2) The absence of any remarkable
barrier on the western boundary of the
State to chek the migration of Western
elements towards Indian desert.
(3) Decreasing altitude of Aravalli range
and gaps at certain places which make the
Aravalli as an imperfect barrier in the
migration of the plant species.

The Eastern element i.e. Indo - Malayan element
comprises 12.76% of the flora. It includes the
species coming from Malaysian Peninsula,
China, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Indo - China
and other Central, Eastern and South - East
Asian countries. There is a gradual decreasing
trend in Eastern element from East to West as it
is 24-33% in N.E. India, 23-31% in Southern
India (Western and Eastern Ghats), 22% in
Central India, 18.6 % in Eastern Rajasthan which
further decreases to 8.7% in the West of Aravalli
in desert areas. The probable reasons for it may
217

be the presence of a land connection and the
resemblance of plant climate between N.E. India
and Malaysian Peninsula. The absences of any
marked barrier in the West of Eastern India
fascilitates its migration in further westwards
direction. However, increase temperatures and
low rainfall towards western parts of the country
considerably decrease the percentage of
settlement of Eastern element. Aravalli range
further checks the westwards movements of Indo
- Malayan element and as such the percentage of
Eastern element decreases from 18.8% in the east
of Aravalli to 8.7% in the West of it. The recent
rise of Himalaya and Siwalik have also put some
check on the invasion of Central and East Asian
elements.
In last the general element finds third
position in Rajasthan i.e. 24.22%. It includes a
large number of cosmopolitan plants and exotics
introduced mainly from Europe, Mexico. West
Indies, East indies, America, Java, China, Japan,
Phillippines, Panama, Cuba, New Granada,
Chile, France, Argentina, Brazil, etc.The
highest percentage of this element was recorded
in S-E part of Rajasthan (41. 82%) and lowest in
northern part (17%). The Australian element is
very poorly represented in the state.

WILD RELATIVES OF CULTIVATED
PLANTS
In the biodiversity convention, the wild
genetic material having potentiality for the
improvement of crops and other cultivated plants
is considered as important as endemics and
threatened and endangered plants.The study
offloristic diversity of Rajasthan revealed that
for 45 species of crop and other cultivated plants
there are about 66 species of wild relatives which
may be utilized for exchange of genetic material
for the improvement of crop and other cultivated
plants in Rajasthan (Singh & Pandey 1996).

Table 4. Important crop plant and their wild relatives.
Sl. No. Name of plant species Wild relatives
1. Abelmoschus esculentus Abelmoschus ficulneus & Abelmoschus manihot
2. Allium cepa Diapcadi serotinum
3. Amaranthus caudatus Amaranthus hybridus, Amaranthus spinosus, Amaranthus tricolor
& Amaranthus viridis
4. Cajanus cajan Atylosia sericea & Atylosia scabaeoides
5. Capsicum annum Capsicum frutescens
6. Carissa congesta Carissa spinarum
7. Carthamus tinctorius Carthamus oxycantha
8. Citrullus lanatus Citrullus colocynthis
9. Clitoria ternatea Clitoria biflora
10. Corchorus capsularis Corchorus aestuans, Corchorus olitorius & Corchorus
trilocularis
11 Cucumis melo Cucumis prophetarum
12. Cucumis sativus Cucumis callosus & Cucumis setosus
13. Curcuma longa Curcuma amada & Curcuma angustifolia
14. Echinochloa frumentacea Echinochloa crus-galli
15. Elusine coracana Elusine indica
16. Ficus carica Ficus palmata & Ficus pumila
17. Hibiscus cannabinius Hibiscus caesius
218

18. Lablab purpureus Canavalia ensiformis & Canavalia virosa
19. Luffa acutangula Luffa acutangula var. amara
20. Luffa cylindrica Luffa echinata
21. Medicago sativa Medicago laciniata
22. Momordica charantia Momordica balsamina, Momordica cochinchinensis &
Momordica
dioica
23. Moringa oleifera Moringa concanensis
24. Morus alba Morus indica
25. Murraya paniculata Murraya koenigi
26. Nicotiana tabacum Nicotiana plumbaginifolia
27. Oryza sativa Oryza rufipogon
28. Panicum sumatrense Panicum psilopodium & Digitaria cruciata
29. Pennisetum americanum Pennisetum purpureum
30. Pisum sativum Lathyrus sativus
31. Portulaca pilosa ssp.
grandiflora
Portulaca pilosa ssp. pilosa
32. Saccharum officinarum Saccharum spontaneum
33. Setaria italica Setaria verticillata.
34. Solanum melongena Solanum incanum & Solanum virginianum
35. Sorghum bicolor Sorghum halepense & Sorghum verticilliflorum.
36. Syzygium cumini Syzygium jambos.
37. Talinum paniculatum Talinum portulacifolium
38. Trachyspermum amimi Carum balbocastanum
39. Trichosanthes anguina Trichosanthes cucumerina & Trichosanthes dioica.
40. Trifolium alexandrinum Trifolium resupinatum
41. Trigonella foenum-graecum Trigonella corniculata
42. Vigna dalzelliana Vigna aconitifolia & Vigna umbellata.
43. Vigna radiata Vigna trilobata
44. Zea mays Coix aquatica & Coix gigantea
45. Ziziphus mauritiana Ziziphus oenoplia, Ziziphus rugosa & Ziziphus xylopyrus.

On the basis of occurrence of maximum number
of spontaneous hybrids, it may be concluded that
cereals and legumes show maximum
cytogenitical relationship with wild plants. The
diversity in fruits shape, size, pulp, etc. and seed
characters in Cucurbitaceous crops also indicate
possibilities of natural hybridization and thus
occupy third place. Moreover, 3.7 % of total
flora have agri - horticultural potentiality in
Rajasthan. The maximum diversity was noted for
vegetable types and cereals and millets. Fruiting
trees also occupy reputable place, however, fibre
yielding plants, species, fodder and oil-seeds
219

have rather poor cytogenetic affinities with wild
forms.

RET TAXA AND THEIR
CONSERVATION STRATEGIES
The present flora of Rajasthan comprises
2090 indigenous and naturalized vascular plant
species belonging to 819 genera spread over 159
families and which also includes a solitary
species of Gymnosperms (Table -1).
The present paper deals with review of 65
depleting plant taxa in Rajasthan including rare,
endangerd and threatened taxa, their present
status as per the latest IUCN categories of
threat along with their probable factors for
threat and rarity and scope for conservation in
the State (Table -5). 3.15% of endemic flora is
present in the State. Total 36 taxa of Angiosperm
are endemic to the state. Among the endemics 20
taxa are of specific level, while 16 are of infra -
specific level. Out of these 14 taxa alone are
presented in the Rajasthan desert.

Table 5. Rare, Endemic and Threatened (Ret) Taxa of Rajasthan.
Sl.
No.
Name of plants/Local
name
Family Habit

Status Locality Cause of rarity
1 Abelmoschus tuberculatus
Pal et Singh var.
deltoidefolius Paul &
Nayar
Malvaceae Herb/undershru
b
Rare &
endemic
Rajasthan,
Gujarat &
M.P.
Loss of habitats.
2 Abutilon bidentatum
Hochst. ex A. Rich. var.
major (Blatt. & Hallb.)
Bhandari Imarti
Malvaceae Undershrub Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan Loss of habitats.
3 A. fruticosum Guill. &
Perr. var. chrysocarpa
Blatt. & Hallb.
Malvaceae Undershrub Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan Loss of habitats.
4

Abutilon pakistanicum
Jafri & Ali
Malvaceae Undershrub Indetermin-
ate
Rajasthan,
Maharashtra &
Pakistan
(Sindh)
Loss of habitats and
climate change.
5

Acrachne racemosa
(Heyne ex Roem. &
Schult.) Ohwi var.
sumanensis Agarwal &
Purohit
Poaceae Annual grass Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan
(Nagaur Dt.)
Only known from
type locality.
6 Alysicarpus monilifer (L.)
DC. var. venosa Blatt. &
Hallb.
Fabaceae Perennial herb Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan Loss of habitats and
over grazing.
7 Ammannia desertorum
Blatt. & Hallb. Moto
jal bhangro
Lythraceae Papillose herb Vulnerable Rajasthan,
Gujarat &
Pakistan
Loss of habitats,
over grazing and
urbanization.
8 Anogeissus sericea
Brandis
var. nummularia King ex
Duthie
Combretaceae Small tree Vulnerable Rajasthan,
Punjab &
Gujarat
Exploitation for
commercial uses
like fire wood and
timber wood.
9 Anticharis glandulosa
Aschers. var. caerulea
Blatt. & Hallb.
Scrophulariacea
e
Herb Rare &
endemic
over grazing.
10

Apluda blatteri Sur Poaceae Annual grass Endemic Rajasthan (Mt.
Abu)
over grazing.
11 Aristida royleana Trin. &
Rupr.
Poaceae Annual grass Vulnerable N. W. India &
Pakistan
over grazing.
220

(Baluchistan,
Sindh)
12 Barleria prionitis L.
subsp. prionitis var.
dicantha Blatt. & Hallb.
Acanthaceae Undershrub Rare &
endemic
Rajasthan Loss of habitats and
over grazing.
13

Bonnaya bracteoides
Blatt. & Hallb.
Scrophulariacea
e
Herb Rare &
endemic
probably
extinct
Rajasthan (Mt.
Abu)
Only known from
type locality.
14

Brachiaria
chennaveeraina Basappa
et Muniyamma
endemic
Rajasthan (Mt.
Abu)
Only known from
type locality.
15

Calligonum polygonoides
L. Phog, Phogdo
Polygonaceae Shrub Vulnerable N. W.
Rajasthan,
Iran, Syria &
Pakistan
Over exploitation
for its fire wood
value and flowering
buds used as cold
drink.
16

Carallumma edulis
(Edgew.) Benth. & Hook.
f. Pimpa
Asclepiadaceae Herbaceous
twiner
Vulnerable W. Rajasthan,
Gujarat,
Punjab &
Pakistan
over grazing.
17 Cenchrus prieurii (Kunth)
Maire var. scabra
Bhandari Lamba bhurat
endemic
W. Rajasthan Over grazing and
loss of habitats.
18 Cenchrus rajasthanensis
Kanodia & Nanda
endemic
W. Rajasthan
& Gujarat
Over grazing and
loss of habitats.
19 Citrullus colocynthis (L.)
Schard. Tumbo, Tumba
Cucurbitaceae Herbaceous
creeper
Vulnerable India,
Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, Span,
Arabia, Africa
& W. Asia.
Over exploitation
due to its seeds
which yield non
edible oil used
variously.
20 Cleome gynandra L. var.
nana (Blatt. & Hallb.)
Bhandari
Cleomaceae Herb Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan
& Gujarat
urbanization.
21 Commiphora wightii
(Arn.) Bhandari
Guggal
Burseraceae Shrub Vulnerable Rajasthan,
Gujarat,
Arabia &
Pakistan
Over exploitation
for its gum resin
used in medicines
and other perfume
industries.
22 Convolvulus auricomus
(A. Rich.) Bhandari var.
ferruginosus Bhandari
Convolvulaceae Herbaceous
creeper
Rare &
endemic
urbanization.
23 Convolvulus blatterii
Bhandari
Convolvulaceae Perennial herb Rare &
endemic
urbanization.
24 Convolvulus scindicus
Stocks Kaland
Convolvulaceae Herb/undershru
b
Vulnerable W. Rajasthan
& Pakistan
urbanization.
25

Cordia crenata Delile
Gundi
Ebenaceae Tree Endangere
d
Rajasthan &
Gujarat
Over exploitation
for its fire wood.
26 Cullen plicata (Delile)
C.H. Stirton Kapurio
Fabaceae Herb/undershru
b
Vulnerable W. Rajasthan
& Kachchh
Over exploitation
for its medicinal
value.
27 Dicliptera abuenbsis Blatt.

Acanthaceae Herb/undershru
b
Rare &
endemic
probably
extinct
Rajasthan (Mt.
Abu)
Known from type
collection only.
28 Digitaria pinnata
(Hochst.) T. Cooke var.
endemic
Rajasthan
(Jolore Dt.)
Known from type
collection only.
221

shettyana Pandey et Vyas
29

Dipcadi erythraeum
Webb. & Benth.
Liliaceae Herb Vulnerable W. Rajasthan,
Gujarat,
Pakistan,
Arabia, Egypt
& Canary
Island
Over grazing and
loss of habitats.
30 Echinops rajasthenansis
Pandey et Singh
Asteraceae Herb Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan Known from type
collection only.
31 Ephedra ciliata Fisch. &
Mey. ex C. A. Mey.
Lana, Suo phogro
Gnetaceae Woody twiner Vulnerable W. Rajasthan,
Gujarat,
Punjab, Syria,
Afghanistan &
Pakistan
Over exploitation
for its fire wood
and loss of habitats.
32 Euphorbia jodhpurensis
Blatt. & Hallb.
Euphorbiaceae Herb/undershru
b
Vulnerable N.W.
Rajasthan,
Gujarat &
Pakistan
Loss of habitats due
to rapid
urbanization.
33 Farsetia macrantha Blatt.
& Hallb. Moto hiran
chabo
Brassicaceae Herb/undershru
b
Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan
(Barmer Dt.)
Only known from
type locality - loss
of habitats due to
rapid urbanization.
34

Gisekia pharnaceoides L.
var. pseudopaniculata
Jeffry
Aizoaceae Herb Insufficient
- ly known
W. Rajasthan
& Africa
Loss of habitats.
35 Ipomoea cairica (L.)
Sweet var. semine- glabra
(Blatt. & Hallb.) Bhandari
Convolvulaceae Twiner Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan
(Jaisalmer Dt.)
Only known from
type collection.
36

Ischaemum kingii Hook. f. Poaceae Annual grass Rare &
endemic
Rajasthan (Mt.
Abu)
Known only from
type collection.
37 Lasiurus sindicus Henr.
Saven ghass
Poaceae Perennial grass Vulnerable W. Rajasthan
& Sindh
Extensively used as
fodder grass due to
its high nutrient
value in the desert.
38

Lemna maxima Blatt. &
Hallb.
Lemnaceae Minute, floating
aquatic herb
Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan
(Jaisalmer Dt.)
Only known from
type collection.
39 Lemna minima Blatt. &
Hallb.
Lemnaceae Minute, floating
aquatic herb
Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan
(Mt. Abu)
Known only from
type collection.
40

Lindernia bracteoides
(Blatt. & Hallb.) Mukherjii
Scrophulariacea
e
Herb Probably
extinct
Rajasthan (Mt.
Abu)
Known only from
type collection.
41

Luffa hermaphrodita
Singh & Bhandari
Cucurbitaceae Climber Rare &
endemic
economic uses.
42 Melhania futtyporensis
Munro ex Mast. var. major
(Blatt. & Hallb.) Santapau
Sterculiaceae Herb/undershru
b
Vulnerable Rajasthan &
Gujarat
Loss of Habitats.
43 Melhania magnifolia
Blatt. & Hallb.
Sterculiaceae Herb/undershru
b
Rare &
endemic
Rajasthan Loss of habitat.
44 Merremia rajasthanensis
Bhandari
Convolvulaceae Twiner Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan Loss of habitat.
45 Monsonia heliotropioides
(Cav.) Boiss.
Geraniaceae Annual herb Very rare W. Rajasthan Loss of habitat and
urbanization.
46

Moringa concanensis
Nimmo ex Dalz. & Gibs.
Moringaceae Tree Vulnerable Rajasthan &
Gujarat
economic uses.
47

Odontanthera varians
(Stocks) Mabberley
Dodha
Asclepiadaceae Herb Indetermin
a-te
W. Rajasthan,
Gujarat,
Arabia,
exploited for its
medicinal value.
222

Bahrin, Iran &
Pakistan
48 Oldenlandia clausa Blatt. Rubiaceae Herb Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan
(Mt. Abu)
Loss of habitats.
49

Panicum nehruense Jauhr
& Joshi
Poaceae Grass Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan
and Gujarat
Over grazing due to
fodder grass.
50 Pavonia arabica Hochst.
ex Steud. var. glutinosa
Blatt. & Hallb.
Malvaceae Herb Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan
& Gujarat
grazing in draught.
51 Pavonia arabica Hochst.
ex Steud. var.
massuriensis Bhandari
Malvaceae Herb Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan
(Jodhpur Dt.)
Known only from
type collection and
type locality loss of
habitat due to
urbanization
52

Psoralia plicata Delile
Jhil
Fabaceae Undershrub Vulnerable W. Rajasthan,
Gujarat &
Pakistan
Loss of habitat due
to urbanization.
53 Pulicaria rajputanae Blatt.
& Hallb.
Asteraceae Herb Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan
& Gujarat
Over grazing and
habitats loss.
54 Rosa clinophylla Thory
Gulab
Rosaceae Shrub Vulnerable Rajasthan (Mt.
Abu),
Karnataka, W.
Bengal &
Burma
Loss of habitat due
to rapid
urbanization.
55 Sida tiagii Bhandari Malvaceae Herb Indetermin-
ate
W. Rajasthan
& Pakistan
Loss of habitat and
over grazing.
56

Strobilanthes hallbergii
Blatt.
Acanthaceae Undershrub/shr
ub
Endemic
probably
extinct
Rajasthan (Mt.
Abu)
Only known from
type collection.
57 Tecomella undulata (Sm.)
Seem.
Rohira, Rohido, Desert
teak, State flower tree
Bignoniaceae Tree Vulnerable W. Rajasthan,
Gujarat,
Punjab,
Maharashtra,
Arabia &
Pakistan
Over exploitation
for its timber and
medicinal value.
58

Tephrosia collina Sharma
var. collina
Fabaceae Herb Rare &
endemic
Rajasthan &
Gujarat
Loss of habitat and
grazing.
59

Tephrosia collina Sharma
var. lanuginocarpa
Fabaceae Herb Rare &
endemic
Rajasthan &
Gujarat
Loss of habitat and
grazing.
60 Tephrosia falciformis
Ramaswami Rati
biyani
Fabaceae Herb Vulnerable Rajasthan,
Gujarat &
Pakistan
Over grazing and
habitats loss.
61 Tribulus rajasthanensis
Bhandari & Sharma
Zygophyllaceae Prostrate herb Vulnerable Rajasthan,
Gujarat &
Pakistan
Over grazing in dry
climate.
62

Veronica anagallis
aquatic L. var. bracteosa
Blatt. & Hallb.
Scrophulariacea
e
Herb Rare &
endemic
probably
extinct
Rajasthan (Mt.
Abu)
Only known from
type collection.
63

Veronica beccabunga L.
var. attennuata Blatt. &
Hallb.
Scrophulariacea
e
Herb Rare &
endemic
probably
extinct
Rajasthan (Mt.
Abu)
Only known from
type collection.
64 Withania coagulans Solanaceae Undershrub Vulnerable Rajasthan, Habitats loss and
223

(Stocks) Dunal Panner
bandh, Panner Patta
Afghanistan &
Pakistan
used as milk
coagulant and high
medicinal value.
65 Ziziphus truncata Blatt. &
Hallb. Borti
Rhamnaceae Shrub/tree Rare &
endemic
W. Rajasthan
& Gujarat
Over exploitation as
fire wood and as
hedge.

Most of these above endenmic taxa were
published between 1918 - 90 and they could not
spread widely as expected during such a long
time. It is very intresting to note that some of the
taxa still confined to type localities and there is
no further collection till now they are :
Alsicarpus monilifer (L.) DC. var. venosa Blatt.
& Hallb., Anticharis glandulosa Aschers. var.
caerulea Blatt. & Hallb., Barleria prionitis L.
subsp. prionitis var. dicantha Blatt. & Hallb.,
Brachiaria chennaveeraina Basappa, Cenchrus
prieurii (Kunth) Maire var. scabra Bhandari,
Convolvulus auricomus (A. Rich.) Bhandari var.
ferruginosus Bhandari, Convolvulus blatteri
Bhandari, Digitaria pennata (Hochst.) T. Cooke
var. shettyana Pandey &Vyas, *Dicliptera
abuensis Blatt., Echinops rajasthanense Pandey
&Singh, *Farsetia macrantha Blatt. & Hallb.,
*Hydrilla polysperma Blatt.,*Ipomoea carica
(L.) Sweet var. semine-glabra (Blatt. & Hallb.)
Bhandari, *Lemna minima Blatt. & Hallb.,
*Lindernia bracteoides (Blatt. & Hallb.)
Mukerjee, Luffa hermaphrodita Singh &
Bhandari, Merremia rajasthanensis Bhandari,
Oldenlandia clausa Blatt., *Pavonia arabica
Hochst. ex Steud. var. massuriensis
Bhandari,*Strobilanthus hallberghii Blatt.,
*Veronica anagallis - aquatica L. var. bracteosa
Blatt.. The taxa marked with astrick (*) may be
extinct, since their type localities are vanished
due to rapid urbanization and repeted searches in
near by area and other parts have so far not been
collected. The other taxa have a very restricted
distribution (Pandey et al., l.c.).The probable
reasons for the rarity of these taxa are badly
disturbed ecosystem, lower range of adaptibility,
grazing, rapid urbanization and climatic factors.
The authors therefore, recommend thatEx -situ
conservation and multiplication of germplasm by
biotechnological methods may give desirable
results. Emphasis should also be given for the
establishment of National Parks and Sanctuaries,
where these can multiply freely. The recent
establishment of Thar Biosphere Reserve may
play a better role in this direction.Thus, there is
an urgent need of Desert Botanic Garden
(DBG) in the heart of desert which may also
serve as an intrinsic laboratory of nature for
study of phenotypes and genotypes of all species
which show some outstanding properties and so
also to develop a National Cactarium.

Further, a few of the 19Taxa presumed
to be rare and threatened by Pandey, et al. (l.c.)
and Singh & Pandey (l.c.) and in Singh &
Pandey (Press) were of course, previously
confined to Rajasthan which now have a
comparatively wide range of adaptation and have
migrated eastwards (Gujarat, Punjab,
Maharashtra) and west wards (Pakistan, Africa
etc.). These taxa are Abelmoschus tuberculatus
Pal et Singh var. deltoidefolius Paul & Nayar,
Abutilon bidentatum Hochst ex A. Rich. var.
major (Blatt. & Hallb.) Bhandari, Abutilon
fruticosum Guill & Perr. var. chrysocarpa Blatt.
& Hallb., Ammannia desertorum Blatt. & Hallb.,
Cenchrus rajasthanensis Kanodia & Nanda,
Cleome gynandra L. var. nana (Blatt. & Hallb.)
Bhandari, Euphorbia jodhpurensis Blatt. &
Hallb., Gisekia pharnaceoides L. var.
pseudopaniculata Jeffrey, Melhania
futteyporensis Munro ex. Mast.var. major (Blatt.
& Hallb.) Santapau, M. magnifolia Blatt. &
Hallb., Panicum nehruense Jauhr & Joshi,
Pavonia arabica Hochst. ex. Steud. var.
glutinosa Blatt. & Hallb., Pulicaria rajputanae
Blatt. & Hallb., Sida tiagii Bhandari, Tephrosia
collina Sharma var. collina Sharma, Tephrosia
collina Sharma var. lanuginocarpa Sharma,
Tephrosia falciformis Ramaswami, Tribulus
rajasthanensis Bhandari and Ziziphus truncata
Blatt. & Hallb. Some others are wide, though
224

important for Rajasthan marked with double
asterisk (**) in the list. The danger of extinction
of such taxa is rather low. However, the life of
these species also may be insured on having a
DBG as suggested above.

One of the important cause of threat to
some species is their over exploitation for
various economic uses in the State has also
seriously threatened them viz.

(i) Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad. Tumba,
Tumbo, Thumba The seeds yields a non - edible
and volatile oil which has found a reputable
place in the soap industry and as a lubricant. In
the area its fruits are indiscriminately collected
by the local people and the tradesmen of
neighbouring states. Since the plant reproduces
by seeds and if this practices will continue for a
longer period, this species may become
endangered. Besides above uses, the dry seeds
are also eaten with the flour of Bajra during
scarcity. The oil cake is eaten by the cattle. The
pulp is solid to be of highly medicinal value. It is
also a very good soil binder. Its cultivation will
not only restrict the danger of its vulnerability,
but also play a vital role in the economic
development of the state.

(ii) Commiphora wightii (Arn.) Bhandari is well
known for its gum-resin called Guggal is not
only being tapped for extraction of resin in
unscientific manner but also the chemical are
applied on incisions to obtain more and more
yield on commercial scale, which finally lead to
death of plant. The gum-resin is used in
perfumes and pharmaceutical industries. The
wood is also used as fire-wood. The other factors
responsible for depleting population is climatic
changes which retarded the growth and seed
production in its entire range of distribution
(Singh, l.c.).

(iii) Epedra ciliata Fisch. & Mey. ex Mey. The
solitary living indigenous Gymnosperm in the
desert, is on the verge of vulnerability. It is being
used as fire-wood on large scale.The collections
in different herbaria revealed that the number of
female plants is rather low in this area, lead
inadequate reproductive mechanism may also be
one of the reasons for its rarity.Hence its
population have shrunk to a great extent in its
entire range of distribution from India to Syria.

(iv) Tecomella undulata (Sm.) Seem. popularly
known as Marwar teak, Rohiro, Rohira, Desert
teak is the main source of timber in the desert. It
is also a State flower tree in Rajasthan.
Obsevations have reveald that its regeneration
capacity is also very low; once the plant is cut, it
is cut forever. Under such conditions, the
survival of this taxon is also unlikely, if such
factors will continue operating. Thus maximum
afforestation of such an economically important
tree is most essential to balance the ecosystem in
the state.

(v) Calligonum polygonoides L. locally called
Phog, Phogro extensively used as fire-wood in
the desert. Its flower buds are also used with curd
as a cold drink in summers. Its present
population under depletion if current trend will
continue. These practices should immediately
stopped and some other alternative sources of
fire-wood should be introduced in the area.

(vi) Cordia crenata Delile Gundi, Gundia It
is considered as an endangered species at present
(Pandey & Teotia, 2000). This may perhaps be
due to its edible fruits besides its use as fire-
wood. However, individuals of the species
reported from Gujarat also (Gaina, 2010).

(vii) Lasiurus sindicus Henr. It is a common
fodder grass in the desert, but due to uncontroled
grazing and loss of natural habitats and irrigation
by Indra Gandhi Canal Project.The grass species
may depleted at a critical stage. Hence,
immediate steps should be taken to develop
pastureland and grassland for the use of this
species in scientific manner.

ECONOMICALLY IMPORTANT PLANTS
The flora of Rajasthan comprising
many economically useful and medicinally
important plants whose proper scientific
management and exploitation can lead to
economic development and upliftment of the
area. The study of such plants in desert and
Rajasthan has drawn the attention of several
workers. However, Singh & Pandey (l.c.) may be
referred for this, where they dealt with viz. food
223

plants, non-edible oil, gum-resin, Tanin, dye,
fibre, timber, fire - wood and medicinal plants.
Over exploitation of some of these plants has
already been discussed above, which if not be
checked will lead depletion of local plant
resources. While rest also should be exploited in
a sustainable manner shall keep the diversity of
the state enriched. Different uses of plants and
their total number are as under:
(i) Food plants 65 spp. (ii) Non-edible oil
11 spp. (iii) Gum-resin 7 spp. (iv) Tanin 10 spp.
(v) Dye 12 spp. (vi) Fibre 29 spp. (vii) Timber 34
spp. (viii) Fire - wood 26 spp. (ix) Medicinal
plant 668 spp. (x) Miscellaneous use 20
spp.(Singh & Pandey, l.c.).

THE IMPACT OF CANAL IRRIGATION
Prior to the construction of the Ganga
canal which was formerly opened in October
1957 in Ganganagar district, the entire district
was nearly barren of vegetation like the rest of
the Great Indian desert. The extensive facilities
provided by the Ganga, Bhankra and Indra
Gandhi canal Project have transformed a vast
stretch of arid land into cultivated fields, opening
scope for the invasion of the area by many weeds
(Dawre et al., 1981; Dhillon & Bajwa, 1972).
Singh and his team has done lot of work on the
impact of canal irrigation on the natural flora of
N. Rajasthan. A preliminary study on the impact
of canal irrigation on the flora of Rajasthan
desert has also been done by Roy & Shetty
(1980). Above studies are restricted to
Ganganagar, Bikaner and Churu district in
Rajasthan. But ICNP now irrigating quite a lot
of area in Barmer and Jaisalmer district and also
providing drinking water to many districts like
Jodhpur, Nagaur and Pali. On the basis of above
studies and floristic survey of N.W. Rajasthan
(Ganganagar, Bikaner, Jaisalmer, Barmer and
Churu districts) by the Scientists of BSI, Arid
Zone Regional Centre, Jodhpur also listed 106
species invaded in the irrigated areas of N.W
Rajasthan from the neighbouring states, viz.
Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir
through canal water. The irrigation by a net-work
of canal system over last 50 years or so in
Ganganagar district has changed 21% of the
species of the natural flora,whereas, in Bikaner
the change is 12% and same is the fate for Churu
district. Now on the basis of above observation
in near future the fate for Barmer, Jaisalmer,
Jodhpur and Nagaur district will be same. The
most striking example of this naturalization of
Himalayan plants in the Rajasthan desert are
species of Riccia, Marchantia and Ophioglossum
vulgatum L.(Singh & Brar, l.c.) which are quite
common in canal irrigated areas. Some other
vascular plants are from temperate Himalayan
plants such as Ammi majus, Arenaria
serpyllifolia, Astragalus submbellatus,
Astragalus tribuloides, Cichorium intybus,
Cotula anthemoides, Verbascum Thapsus, etc.
Salvia anthelmifolia, Plantago amplexicaulis,
Pouzolzia pentandra. Further, protracted
irrigation has brought about so much
amelioration in the climate that it is already
supporting laxurient growth of such woody
forms of humid tropics viz. Bambusa sps., many
other tree species such as Dalbergia sissoo,
Cordia dichotoma, Jacaranda mimosefolia,
Kigelia pinnata, Emblica officinalis and many
species of Ficus, Morus, Phoenix and Citrus are
growing well in the area (Singh, l.c.).

Many of the common species of
unirrigated desert which originally available in
the area have disappeared due to irrigation
facilities and most probably due to losing
competion against new extrants. Though
irrigation has affected the water content and
texture of soil substantially, which lead luxurient
growth of vegetation in the area. Due to large
scale irrigation facilities extensive areas in
cultivation and all natural pockets of flora and
wastelands have become scarce, wild and natural
species can only grow as weed with the crop,
which ultimately removed by the farmers.This
lead reduction in natural flora in the area.
However, whatever might be the factors
responsible for the change of the natural flora,
they are all consequent to the introduction of
irrigation facilities in the area. The following are
the species introduced in the area through canal
water:
1. Ranunculus cantonensis DC.
2. Ranunculus sceleratus L.
3. Argemone ochroleuca Sweet subsp. ochroleuca
4. Dilophia salsa Thoms.
5. Malcolmia africana R.Br.
6. Hypecoum procumbens L.
7. Oligomeris linifolia (Vahl) Macbride
226

8. Astragalus subumbellatus Klotzsch
9. Astragalus tribuloides Del.
10. Lotus corniculata L.
11. Medicago minima Lam.
12. Medicago lupulina L.
13. Trigonella hamosa L.
14. Trigonella pubescens Edgew.
15. Trifolium alexandrinum L.
16. Myriophyllum spathulatum Blatt. et Hallb.
17. Myriophyllum spicatum L.
18. Anethum graveolens L.
19. Ammi majus L.
20. Apium graveolens L.
21. Centella asiatica (L.) Urban
22. Oenanthe javanica (Bl.) DC.
23. Psammogeton canescens (DC.) Vatke
24. Trachyspermum ammi (L.) Sprangue
25. Ammannia auriculata Willd.
26. Ageratum haustonianum Mill.
27. Carthamus oxycantha Beib.
28. Cichorium intybus L.
29. Cirsium wallichii DC.
30. Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronq.
31. Cotula anthemoides L.
32. Lactuca scariola L.
33. Parthenium hysterophorus L.
34. Solbia anthemoides (Juss.) R. Br.
35. Verbesina encelioides (Cav.) Benth. &
Hook.f. ex A. Gray
36. Schenoclea zeylanica Gaertn.
37. Gastrocotyle hispida (Forssk.) Bunge
38. Heliotropium bacciferum Forssk.
39. Heliotropium currasavicum L.
40. Cuscuta capitata Roxb.
41. Lycium europaeum L.
42. Antirrhinum orontium L.
43. Majus pumilus (Burm.f.) Steenis
44. Verbascum thapsus L.
45. Orobanche aegyptiaca Pers.
46. Pedalium murex L.
47. Verbena tenuisecta Briq.
48. Utricularia inflexa Forssk.
49. Plantago amplexicaulis Cav.
50. Kochia indica Wt.
51. Amaranthus graecizans L.
52. Amaranthus tricolor L.
53. Polygonum glabrum Willd.
54. Polygonum lanigerum R. Br.
55. Chrozophora hierosolymitana Spreng.
56. Chrozophora oblongifolia (Del.) A. Juss.
57. Chrozophora prostrata Dalz.
58. Euphorbia helioscopia L.
59. Euphorbia parviflora L.
60. Euphorbia serpens H. B. E.
61. Pouzolzia pentandra (Roxb.) Benn.
62. Ficus palmata Forssk.
63. Lemna trisulca L.
64. Zeuxine strateumatica (L.) Schlecht.
65. Carex fedia Nees
66. Cyperus alopecuroides Rottb.
67. Cyperus brevifolius (Rottb.) Hassk.
68. Cyperus exaltatus Retz.
69. Eleocharis dulcis (Burm,f, )Trin ex Hensch.
70. Fimbristylis dyphylla (Retz.) Vahl
71. Fimbristylis schoenoides (Retz.) Vahl
72. Fimbristylis woodrowii C.B. Clarke
73. Mariscus squarrosus (L.) C.B. Clarke
74. Pycreus polystachyus P. Beauv.
75. Scirpus tuberosus Desf.
76. Arundinella pumila (Hochst. ex Rich.) Steud.
77. Avena sterlis L. var. culta Raizada
78. Bothriochloa inculpta (Hochst. ex Rich.) A. Camus.
79. Arundo donax L.
80. Catabrosa aquatiac (L.) P. Beauv.
81. Crypsis schoenoides (L.) Lam.
82. Dichanthium odoratum (Lisboa) Jain
83. Digitaria bicornis (Lam.) Roem.
84. Digitaria stricta Roth ex Roem.
85. Dendrocalamus strictus (Roxb.) Nees
86. Dinebra retroflexa (Vahl) Panz.
87. Diplachne fusca (L.) P. Beauv.
88. Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn.
89. Elytrophorus spicatus (Willd.) A. Camus
90. Eragrostis japonica (Thunb.) Trin.
91. Eragrostis nutans (Retz.) Nees ex Steud.
92. Erianthus ravennae (L.) P. Beauv.
93. Leptochloa chinensis (L.) Nees
94. Lolium temulentum L.
95. Panicum maximum Jacq.
96. Panicum miliaceum L.
97. Panicum psilopodium Trin
98. Panicum repens L.
99. Panicum walense Mez.
100. Phalaris minor Retz.
101. Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf.
102. Setaria homonyma (Steud.) Chiov.
103. Sporobolus indicus R.Br.
104. Sporobolus ioclados (Nees ex Trin.) Nees
105. Stipagrostis plumosa (L.) Munro ex T.
Anders.
106. Tripogon jacquemontii Stapf.

227
227


229

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are thankful to Dr. P. Singh,
Director, Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata for
the facilities and encouragement during the
course of present study. The authors are also
thankful to Dr. V. Singh, Ex-Additional Director,
Botanical Survey of India, Jodhpur for going
through the manuscript and various suggestions.

REFERENCES
Dawre, M.S., Pandey, R.P., Roy, G.P. and
Shetty, B.V. (1981). A contribution
towards the flora of Ganganagar district.
Bull. Bot. Surv. India. 21(1-4): 129-134.
Dhillon, K.B.S. and Bajwa, P.S. (1972).
Acontribution to the botany of
Ganganagar district, north Rajasthan.
Bull. Bot.. Surv. India. 11: 234 -244.
IUCN. (1970). Problems of threatened species.
IUCN. Publ., New Delhi. Ser. 18: p.132.
Jain, S.K. and Shastry, A.R.K. (1980).
Threatened plants of India: A state of the
art report. BSI, Calcutta.
Jain, S.K. and Shastry, A.R.K. (Eds.). (1984).
The Indian plant Red data Book - I. BSI,
Calcutta.
Mondal, M.S. (1991). Massuria hill A type
locality at Jodhpur, Rajasthan. J. Nat. Bot.
Soc. 45: 31-34.
Nayar, M.P. and Shastry, A.R.K. (Eds.). (1987-
89). Red data Book. Vol. 1-3, BSI,
Calcutta.
Pandey, R.P. (1983). Rastriya Maru Udhyan
avem Marusthasl main Podhon ko
surakshit Rakhane ki sambhvnayan.
Bharat ki Vanaspati. (Sanklan avem
sampadan S.K. Jain & V.N. Mundal) 115-
163. BSI Calcutta (in Hindi).
Pandey, R.P., Shetty, B.V. and Malhotra, S.K.
(1983). A preliminary census of rare and
threatened plants of Rajasthan. An
assessment of threatened plants of India
(Eds. S.K. Jain & R.R. Rao). pp.55-62.
Pandey, R.P. and Malhotra, S.K. (1985). Rare
and threatened plants of Rajasthan. Proc.
Nat. Symp. Evaluat. Environ. Zoology
Department, J.N.V. University. Geobios.
238-241.
Pandey, R.P. and Priyanku, T. (2000). Cordia
crenata Delile subsp. crenata - a taxon
almost extinct in wild. Ind. Journ. For.
23(1): 129-134.
Roy, G.P. and Shetty, B.V. (1980). The impact
of canal irrigation on the flora of
Rajasthan desert. In Arid zone Research
& Development (Ed. H.S. Mann).
pp.183-189. CAZRI, Jodhpur.
Sharma, S. 1983. A census of rare and endemic
flora of S.E. Rajasthan. An assessment of
threatened plants of India (Eds. S.K. Jain
& R.R. Rao). pp.63-70.
Shetty, B.V. and Singh, V. (1987, 91, 93). Flora
of Rajasthan Vol. I, II & III. Botanical
Survey of India, Kolkata.
Singh, N.P. and Pandey, R.P. (1997). Depleting
plant resources in the Rajasthan desert.
Bull. Bot. Surv. India. 36(1-4): 47-60.
Singh, N.P. and Pandey, R.P. (in press).
Conservation of plant diversity in
Rajasthan status report on conservation of
bio-diversity. Ministry of Environment &
Forest, New Delhi
Singh, V. (1977). Phytogeographical
reassessment on the Flora of Rajashan. J.
Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 74: 444-451.
Singh, V. (1985). Threatened taxa and scope for
conservation in Rajasthan. J. Econ. Tax.
Bot. 7:573-577.
Singh, V. and Pandey, R.P. (1984). Arid zone: in
Bharat ki Vanaspatic vividhta (in Hindi,
Eds. V.N. Mudgal & P.K. Hajara).
pp.115-127.
Singh, V. and Pandey, R.P. (1996). An
assessment of wild relatives of cultivated
plants in Indian Desert and their
conservation. In Scientific Horticulture
(Ed. S.P. Singh), Scientific Publishers,
Jodhpur. 5: 155-162.
Singh, V. and Pandey, R.P. (1998).
Phytodiversity of Rajasthan. In: Floristic
studies and conservation strategies in
India (Eds. N. Mudgal & P.K.Hajara).
BSI, Calcutta. 3: 1383-1418.

230

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS
AIM AND SCOPE
Biological ForumAn International Journal is
efforts to motivate the scholars and researchers towards the
scientific attitude. It is biannual journal and invites original
work in the following field i.e. Taxonomy, Microbiology,
Biochemistry, Biotechnology, Genetics, Genomics, Cell
Biology, Molecular Biology, Mycology, Toxicology,
Ichthyology, Entomology, Limnology, Marine Science,
Nematology, Ecology, Biodiversity, Environmental Science,
Forestry, Soil Sciences, Agriculture, Ethnobotany and
Bioinformatics. Article can be research papers, review papers, or
short communications. Research papers should be Original,
indicating the period (years) of experimentation, based on data
of minimum two years and for full research paper work must not
be of more than 5 years old. The review papers, research papers,
and short communications should not exceed 30, 20 and 5 typed
pages including tables, illustrations, drawings and graphs.
Authors are required to sign a copyright form granting the
Publisher rights for all papers accepted for publication.
Production will not start until we have received of a signed
copyright form.
Title and authors names and address must be given in
the front page. This must be followed by the abstract on separate
page. Thereafter, material and method, results and discussion,
acknowledgements, references. Tables, photographs and all
figures including drawings, graphics, and diagrams must be
attached after the references.
Title: should be short, specific and informative. The title page
should include the names (s) of author(s), affiliation, and
mailing address with e-mail of corresponding author, a running
short title not exceeding 40 characters. By-line should contain
the place (organization) where research was conducted.
Key words: Atleast 5 to 10 words.
Abstract: written in complete and simple sentence, should not
be more than 150 words. Key words (maximum 7) must be
given, and these should appear just beneath the abstract.
Introduction: part should be brief and limited to the problem or
the aim and scope of the experiment.
Material and Methods: relevant details should be given
including experimental design and the technique (s) used along
with appropriate statistical methods used clearly along with the
year of experimentation (field and laboratory).
Results and Discussion: should be combined to avoid
repetitions. Result should be supported by brief but advocate
tables or graphic or pictorial presentation wherever necessary.
All recent relevant literature should be discussed critically. All
figures including drawings, graphics, and diagrams should be
formatted preferably by MS-Word. If drawn in Excel the data
file may also be submitted along with graphs. Scanned images
of photographs must be in minimum 300dpi resolution softcopy
in. tiff or .jpeg and hardcopy should be submitted. A line
drawing and photographs must have legends. Original artwork
should accompany two copies. Repetition in graphic and tabular
matter ought to be avoided.
References: The style quoting should be as follows
Research article:
Grochulski, P., Masson, L., Borisova, S., Pusztai, M.C.,
Schwarta, J.L., Brousseau, R. and Cygler, M. (1995). Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry1A (a) insecticidal toxin: Crystal structure and
channel formation. Journal of Molecular Biology. 254(2):447-
464.
Proceedings/Seminar/Conference papers:
Estruch, J., Warren, G.W., Mullins, M.A., Nye, G.J., Craig, J.A.
and Joziel, H.G. (1996). Transgenic Plants: An emerging
approach to pest control. In: Proceedings of National Academy
of Sciences, 1995, USA, 93: 5369-5395.
Book and Chapters:
Winston, J.E. (1999). Describing Species. Columbia University
Press, New York. 518pp.
Stork, N. (1997). Measuring Global Biodiversity and its Decline
(Eds. Reakakudla, M.L., Wilson, D.E. and Wilson, E.O.)
Biodiversity II, Joseph Henry Press, Washington DC. pp.41-68
Articles should be computer-typed (Times New
Roman), double spaced throughout on A-4 papers, and must be
sent in triplicate along with a virus-free CD (MS Word). British
spelling should be followed. All queries marked in the annotated
MS by editor/ reviewer (s) must be replied and returned back
promptly. In case of an article having more than one author, the
entire correspondence regarding article will be made with
correspondence author. Editorial board reserves the right to
condense or make necessary alterations in the manuscript. All
the authors should be member of Journal.

Biological Forum

+- -:.--+:.--+: ---+:
ISSN (Print): 0975-1130
ISSN (Online): 2249-3239
Editorial Boards assumes no responsibility for the statements, opinions and subject matter advanced by
Subscription Rates/Membership:

Individual: Rs. 800/- (1 Year) Rs. 1200/- (2 Years) Rs. 1500/- (3 Years)
Institutional / Libraries: Rs. 1200/- (1 Year) Rs. 1800/- (2 Years) Rs. 2500/- (3 Years)
Foreign countries: US$150 (for 1 Year)

Manuscript and all other correspondence should be addressed to:

Dr. DHEERAJ VASU, Managing Editor
SATYA PRAKASHAN
16/7698, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, Behind Liberty Cinema, New Delhi-110 005 (INDIA)
Mob. 09868001440; 09039917230. E-mail: dheeraj_vasu_72066@yahoo.co.in; biolforum@gmail.com
Website: www.researchtrend.net

Biological Forum-An International Journal, Spl. Iss. 4 (1) (2012)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biological Forum-An International Journal, Spl. Iss. 4 (1) (2012)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

January-June, 2012 Spl. Iss. Vol. 4 No. 1 ISSN No.

You might also like