review of non-cites amphibia species that are known or likely to be ...

Java such as Lampung (southern end of Sumatra), Bali and south Kalimantan (Banjarmasin).
Native frogs were removed from the wild, as frog farms were reported to only raise the
introduced Rana catesbeiana (Kusrini & Alford, 2006).
Europe was reported to be the main importer of Indonesian frog’s legs (83.2% of the total
exported), with Belgium and Luxembourg (combined as one entity in the statistical reports)
the principal destination (47.6%), followed by France (27.6%) and the Netherlands (21%).
Exports to Europe were reported to have increased since 1985. Between 1997 and 2002,
exports to Belgium and Luxembourg fluctuated between one and two million kg of frogs’ legs
per year. Most of the remaining exports went to Asia (Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia)
(Kusrini & Alford, 2006).
Indonesia was reported to be the source of the great majority of frog legs imported by
European countries, especially after India started regulating its trade in frog legs in the 1980s,
following species declines (Patel, 1993).
No trade data were obtained for the other range States.
CONSERVATION STATUS IN RANGE STATES
The taxonomy and distribution of Limnonectes macrodon has been confused: some authors
considered the species to be restricted to Java and Sumatra in Indonesia (Iskandar, pers. comm.;
IUCN et al., 2007); others have reported its occurrence in Indonesia but also in Malaysia (ACB,
2007; Frost, 2007), Myanmar (ACB, 2007; Frost, 2007; Zug et al., 2003), Thailand (ACB, 2007;
Frost, 2007), Viet Nam (ACB, 2007) and the Riau Archipelago – regarded as part of Sumatra-
(ACB, 2007; Frost, 2007).
Frost (2007) noted, however, that the species has been confused with Rana malesiana, and that
Bornean records referred to Rana ingeri. Frost (2007) also noted that, according to Berry (1975),
there are possibly two species (perhaps including Rana malesiana) under this name in Malaysia.
The Global Amphibian Assessment team (IUCN et al., 2007) argued that records from
mainland southeast Asia referred to Limnonectes blythii (although they noted that L. blythii was
undoubtedly a complex of many species), and that records of this species from the Andaman
Islands in India referred to an undescribed species (IUCN et al., 2007). Similarly, Iskandar
(pers. comm., 2007) suggested that reports from mainland Asia as well as from Sumatra and
Indochina referred to either L. blythii, L. shompenorum, L. malesianus, L. leporinus, L, ingeri or
several other recently described forms.
INDONESIA: According to the Global Amphibian Assessment team, the species is found
throughout Java and the Lampung Province in the south of Sumatra, Indonesia, and it occurs
up to at least 700 m above sea level (IUCN et al., 2007). L. macrodon was recorded from the
Sundaland Biodiversity Hotspot, Sumatra, at two of the four key biodiversity areas surveyed:
Batang Gadis and Bukit Barisan Selatan (CEPF, 2007). It has been reported to occur in Ujung
Kulon National Park in Indonesia (IUCN et al., 2007).
IUCN et al. (2007) reported that in Indonesia this species was more common in the past,
however it is now considered uncommon, but not yet rare. Kusrini (2005) noted that
L. macrodon appeared to be common in West Java, although it occurred at relatively low
densities, with maximum densities of seven frogs found per 100 m of stream length in 2002.
Kusrini also noted the need for long-term monitoring to detect possible future declines.
The major threats to the species reported by IUCN et al. (2007) were exploitation, habitat
destruction and water pollution. The species is highly exploited as food, eaten locally and
nationally, and animals from eastern Java are exported and it was suggested that the harvest
of this species needs to be properly managed (IUCN et al., 2007).
26