Wildlife of Lao PDR: 1999 Status Report - IUCN

1965), but no detailed fauna has yet been written. Delacour
(1940) wrote an interim list, as he was concerned that various
mammal-related publications included fantasy. His own
important collection of 1938-1939 was not then fully documented,
and we have not traced any subsequent published
overview of it. There are other post-Osgood collections which
have never been written up. Examination of the accounts for
‘big game’ species in Osgood (1932) indicates how scientific
collectors ignored them in favour of the smaller ones,
the assumption being that the ‘sportsmen’ would take care of
knowledge concerning them. There are indeed various hunting
books on Indochina, some including Lao PDR, but nobody
has yet produced a modern analysis of the faunistic
information that they contain, or its reliability. Information
as available has been incorporated here.
The more recent Les mammifères du Laos (the mammals
of Lao PDR; Deuve 1972) built on a series of papers in the
former Lao national scientific journal (Deuve 1961a, 1961b,
Deuve and Deuve 1962a-1964d). However, the validity of
this work is compromised as methodology (how much fieldwork
was undertaken and where, how much use was made
of secondary reports, how identifications were confirmed,
etc.) was not discussed. Deuve’s earlier papers show that some
species were listed for Lao PDR simply because they were
implied to be there in sources such as Tate’s (1947) Mammals
of eastern Asia. Furthermore, Deuve largely ignored
previous major works on the mammals of Indochina, e.g. he
stated that no otters had been identified to species in north
and south Lao PDR, but Osgood (1932) and Delacour (1940)
listed various specimens from these regions. Even where
Deuve’s work appears to have been original, trenchant errors
with conspicuous species (for example those concerning
the distribution, subspecies and Lao name of Douc
Langur; Timmins and Duckworth in press) urge consideration
of these records as unconfirmed.
Recent Information
Field surveys of large mammals for periods exceeding a
week took place in 32 areas during 1991-1998 (Table 12,
Fig. 7). The types of methodology used on these surveys and
the balance between them varied widely between sites,
depending on factors such as season, duration and goals of
the survey, characteristics of the survey area, and previous
experience and personal inclination of the surveyor(s). In few
areas could it be considered that a wide enough range of methods
was used in sufficient depth to give a balanced overall
view of the large mammal community. In many areas the
backbone of mammal survey has been incidental opportunistic
observation by day. Little direct nocturnal observation
was undertaken at sites north of Phou Khaokhoay National
Biodiversity Conservation Area (NBCA). Intensive sign
searching was patchy. Camera-trapping (Plates 1, 14) was
used at only a few sites. Mammal remains in village houses
were examined extensively in relatively few areas.
Large Mammals
This list seeks to lay a reliable baseline for future work.
Thus if there is any reasonable doubt over a piece of information,
it is better left out. This situation is very different
from that faced by the author of a management-oriented survey
report, where any plausible information on key species
should be included. If it is not, the species’s needs are unlikely
to be incorporated into future management activities.
Many indirect methods are used to record mammals, some
of which do not give information of absolute reliability.
Authors therefore phrase their findings appropriately. For
example, Boonratana (1998a) wrote for Fishing Cat in Dong
Hua Sao NBCA that “scats found on boulders close to streams
... suggest that they belong to this species”. This indicates
clearly that management of the NBCA should cater for the
needs of Fishing Cat, even though the presence of the species
remains to be confirmed. By contrast, defining the national
range (geographical, altitudinal, habitat) of Fishing Cat
can use only reliable records. What constitutes acceptable
information varies between species, and depends also on the
experience of the surveyor.
Below follows some information about the two chief
methods of indirect recording, local information and signs.
Assessing local information about mammals has never been
experimentally validated in Indochina. Some problems could
be reduced by interviewers noting (in Lao script) the name
used locally for the animal under discussion, rather than
merely their assessment of which species they believe is under
discussion. Even so, a given name may mean different
animals in different areas. Furthermore, even with an unambiguous
name, not all informants will know perfectly the identification
characteristics of the animals about which they are
speaking. Conceptual differences between scientifically based
surveyors rooted in concepts such as gene-pools and diagnosable
morphological characteristics, and rural hunters unconcerned
by such things, are widespread. Considerable further
work is necessary to understand the assumptions involved
in using local information. The reliability of basic information
concerning high profile species (those valuable in trade,
as food sources, dangerous to people and/or damaging to crops
etc.) seems to be relatively high, especially if they are also
visually distinctive (Annex 5). Reliability is low for species
of little direct relevance to local informants, or where there
are several closely-similar species, even when the species
are economically important (e.g. muntjacs; Timmins et al.
1998).
Various recent incidents in Lao PDR exemplify the dangers
of uncritical acceptance of local information, including:
a charred gibbon skeleton (Plate 5) claimed to be that of a
Douc Langur; the investigation at one site of recent Saola
sightings by two people independently, which produced two
lists of specific records (related to time and locality) with
little congruence; claims several years apart from the same
area that a certain event happened ‘recently, for the first time’;
and others. These deliberately elementary examples (clearly,
163