Wildlife of Lao PDR: 1999 Status Report - IUCN

no hunter could confuse a gibbon, even hairless, with a Douc
Langur) underscore the overall problem that no assumptions
should be made during interviews and that errors often lie
with the surveyor’s interpretation of local information, and
in particular a widespread failure by surveyors to understand
that as villagers do not use a Linnaean classification, it is not
always possible to fit their information into one.
Village interview data gathered during 1988-1993 (see
Information sources) came mostly from interviews conducted
in or adjacent to large blocks of forest. Extrapolating findings
to the whole nation would overestimate abundance in
Lao PDR. These data were collected 5-11 years prior to this
revision and distributions have doubtless changed for some
species. The original maps are reproduced in Annex 5 to
facilitate comparison with the field survey results (Table 12)
which come largely from 1993-1998.
There are problems with the treatment of signs as confirmed
records. In Lao PDR, many taxonomic groups contain
similar species (bears; deer; muntjacs; otters; cats; dogs;
etc.). Within each group, the various species leave rather similar
signs, and individual species can leave signs widely varying
in size. Kanchanasakha et al. (1998) documented the wide
size ranges shown by Tiger footprints. Similarly wide ranges
are likely for other species in the region. The discussion of
big cat faeces and scrapes in Kanchanasakha et al. (1998:
229) also cautions against attempting species identifications.
Kruuk et al. (1993) gave field-validated guidelines for separating
otter signs to species, but there appear to be few comparable
studies of other groups. Many mammal species vary
in size across their geographic ranges. Thus it is unwise to
claim firm identifications in Lao PDR based upon size guidelines
derived elsewhere, e.g. van Strien (1983), which was
written for use in Indonesia, not Indochina. Except with people
who have been active in the region using sign-based survey
techniques for many years, a cautious approach has been
taken to the inclusion of sign-based records in the following
list.
ANNOTATED LIST OF SPECIES
Key species distribution across recent survey areas is given
in Table 12.
Manidae: Pangolins (2 species in Lao PDR; 7 worldwide)
• Manis pentadactyla Chinese Pangolin. Conservation Significance:
Globally Near-Threatened; At Risk in Lao PDR;
CITES Appendix II. Documented Range and Habitat:
North M13 , centre M10 . There are too few locality records to
determine this species’s geographical distribution and
altitudinal range in Lao PDR. Corbet and Hill (1992) mapped
the two pangolin species in Lao PDR as showing a simple
latitudinal replacement, with this species north of about 19ºN,
Large Mammals
and M. javanica south of this. It seems more likely that there
is a wide latitudinal overlap between the species, with
pentadactyla primarily in hills and mountains and javanica
in the lowlands and lower hills. Habitat use is unclear in Lao
PDR. Status Information: See below. The only recent field
sighting is of a single individual in Nam Theun Extension
PNBCA (Duckworth 1998); another was seen in a village in
Nakai-Nam Theun NBCA (Evans et al. in prep. b). Animals
(collected by villagers) were seen around Nam Phoun NBCA
in 1997 (Boonratana 1997, RB). The only historical record
may be of two individuals from Phongsali (Osgood 1932),
although Deuve (1972) mentioned occurrence in Bokeo
Province.
• Manis javanica Sunda Pangolin (= Malayan Pangolin M2,
M4, M7 ; = Pangolin M3 ). Conservation Significance: Globally
Near-Threatened; At Risk in Lao PDR; CITES Appendix II.
Documented Range and Habitat: North M15 , centre M10 ,
south M8 . Wide variety of forest types and secondary growth;
probably mainly lowlands and lower hills. Status Information:
See below. Recent records from a wide distribution of
areas below 600 m, from Xe Pian NBCA in the south, north
at least to Nam Kading NBCA (Table 12); records from Nam
Phoun NBCA are based on local reports (RB). Most records
are of captured animals; in no area have field sightings been
common, nor were tracks found particularly frequently. Hunters
report that animals still occur widely, but numbers seem
low. The only historical record may be from Ban Thateng
(Bolaven Plateau) at 900 m (Osgood 1932; but see his cautions
on the altitudes of individual records, p. 197). Deuve
(1972) considered that the species inhabited the length of the
Mekong valley, from Pakxe north to Louangphabang.
Status Information on Pangolins: Pangolins were reported
during 99% of 1988-1993 village interviews (n = 328), suggesting
that they remained widespread, despite intensive collecting
for food and scales. They are eaten in rural Lao PDR
(Table 1) and are widely available in urban food markets and
restaurants (Annex 1), being one of the most commonly sold
mammals in the That Luang fresh food market in Vientiane
(Srikosamatara et al. 1992). Whole animals are exported to
Thailand (Srikosamatara et al. 1992) and Vietnam (Nash
1997, Compton in prep. b; RJTim). Pangolin claws and scales
are used in traditional medicine (Martin 1992). Parts are
mixed with other ingredients in many medicines (Baird
1995b) and this non-specific use presumably elevates demand
for pangolins.
Pangolins are the most heavily traded animal in Lao PDR,
at least through Ban Lak (20), with javanica outnumbering
pentadactyla (Compton in prep. b). Pangolin scales generate
a large trade from Lao PDR. Skins for leather goods can only
be used from a proportion of animals (those still fresh at the
tannery), but even so they are exported in quantity: 4020 in
165