Wildlife of Lao PDR: 1999 Status Report - IUCN

Species
BCI category
Modified
category
Reason for
change
Stripe-throated Yuhina not assessed LKL 6 0
Spot-breasted Parrotbill LKL 0 1 0
Short-tailed Parrotbill LKL 0 1 GT
Baya Weaver not assessed PARL 4 0
Black-headed Munia not assessed LKL 6 0
Lao risk category codes:
(P)ARL, (Potentially) At Risk in Lao PDR; LKL, Little Known in Lao PDR; 0, Not At Risk in Lao PDR.
Global status category codes:
G(N)T, Globally (Near-)Threatened; 0, considered secure.
Global
status
Reasons:
1, species occupies areas or habitats under no obvious threat and seems unlikely to be under specific threat.
2, although undoubtedly harvested whenever opportunity permits, species is clearly widespread, still relatively numerous, and tolerant of
degraded habitat
3, sole Lao record found to be in error.
4, further information gathered: see species account.
5, status is analogous to that of various large waterbirds, so species is reclassified accordingly.
6, resident species with no recent field records.
Historical Sources
The ongoing Annotated checklist and bibliography of the
birds of Indochina (Mlikovsky and Inskipp in prep.) presents
a cross-referenced species checklist of all literature (published
and ‘grey’) and the many unpublished notes available to the
compilers. This base is invaluable to all bird surveyors in the
region. A synopsis of the historical information sources for
Lao PDR is given in Thewlis et al. (1998).
Recent Information
Bird surveys exceeding one week have taken place in 30
areas of Lao PDR, supplemented by intermittent observations
in and around the towns of Vientiane and Savannakhet
(Table 11, Fig. 6). All surveys used a similar approach, except
that in Nam Kan PNBCA (Pasquet 1997).
Ethical, conservation and practical grounds meant that
these surveys relied overwhelmingly on sight records rather
than specimen collection. Where specimens would be desirable
to confirm a record, records are square bracketed. Specimen
collection allows objective subsequent verification of
records (except in cases of fraud: see e.g. Knox 1993). This
is not possible with sight records, but the problem can be
minimised by observers documenting unusual records in
detail and securing photographs and tape-recordings.
To minimise the number of mistaken identifications in
Birds
this review, a conservative approach is taken to inclusion of
records. Where a bird list in a report is dominated by species
likely to occur and where unexpected records are discussed,
and/or where observers are known to be experienced in the
region and to make identifications critically (with detailed
field notes and subsequent examination of specimen collections)
all records are included, unless specifically retracted
by the original observer(s). By contrast, species lists which
present a number of unlikely records without comment suggest
that the observer may not have been aware of the records’
significance, and thus was unfamiliar with the avifauna in
general. The cautious course is taken of excluding the whole
of such lists from this review.
Many survey reports are written with insufficient time
for surveyors to check skin collections or elusive references.
The need for speedy output means that many of them contain
a few errors, both typographical and of fact. Therefore,
in cases of inconsistency, journal papers are assumed here to
be more accurate than survey reports. It is particularly helpful
where they detail the retractions and corrections made to
survey report lists, as it is then unambiguous that a record
omitted in the journal paper was not accidentally deleted (see,
e.g., Thewlis et al. 1996: 64). The more significant records
subsequently retracted or modified from internal reports are
mentioned here.
77