2012. Review of Significant Trade - Cites

Hippocampus spinosissimus
considered morphologically variable and was thought to possibly consist of more than one
species (Lourie et al., 1999a). It was reported to be commonly confused with H. histrix
(Lourie et al., 2004). Lafrance and Vincent (2011) considered H. aimei and H. arnei to be
synonyms, while Lourie (in litt. to S. Foster, cited in S. Foster in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2011)
noted that Kuiter (2009) considered H. arnei to replace H. spinosissimus in Southeast Asia and
Australia. Based on morphometric and genetic data, H. queenslandicus was also suggested as
a synonym for the species (P. Teske & S. Lourie, unpublished data, cited in Morgan and
Panes, 2008), while Kuiter (2009) considered this name to represent a distinct species in
Australia.
General distribution and status: The distribution of H. spinosissimus was reported to range
from the Central Indian Ocean (near India and Sri Lanka), South China Sea, Philippine Sea,
Java Sea, Celebes Sea to the Banda Sea, possibly also including the eastern Indian Ocean,
Coral Sea and Tasman Sea (including New Zealand) (Lourie et al., 1999a; Lourie et al., 2004).
Kuiter (2000) however considered the species’ range to be restricted to northern Australia
and southern Indonesia; a few photographs as far as the Philippines were thought to
possibly also represent H. spinosissimus (R. Kuiter, 2011, pers. comm. to UNEP-WCMC,
2011).
Hippocampus spp. were found to occur at low densities and the discontinuous nature of
suitable habitat was thought to lead to a fragmented distribution of populations (CoP12
Prop. 37). In general, densities of H. spinosissimus in situ were reported to be undocumented
(Morgan and Panes, 2008). In southern Indian waters, H. spinosissimus was considered
common and widely distributed (Salin and Mohanakumaran, 2006) and the species was
found to be genetically highly diverse, which was thought to indicate large populations
historically (Lourie et al., 2005). Furthermore, H. spinosissimus populations were thought to
be more highly connected, due to fewer barriers in their deep water habitats (Lourie et al.,
2005).
H. spinosissimus was categorised as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List, as the species was
considered threatened by targeted fishery, by-catch and habitat degradation, with inferred
declines of at least 30 per cent (Project Seahorse, 2003b).
Direct exploitation, by-catch and habitat destruction were considered to be major threats to
Hippocampus spp. (Vincent, 1996; Project Seahorse, 2003a) with the majority of
Hippocampus spp. reported to be caught as by-catch during shrimp trawls (McPherson and
Vincent, 2004; Giles et al., 2006; Perry et al., 2010). Although H. spinosissimus was reported to
be less desirable for traditional medicine than non-spiny species (Project Seahorse, 2003b),
the rise in traditional medicine was reported to have led to an increase in use of spiny
species (Vincent, 1996) and H. spinosissimus was considered to be amongst the species under
greatest threat from unsustainable harvest for traditional medicine (CoP12 Prop. 37).
The biological characteristics of Hippocampus spp. were considered likely to render them
vulnerable to over-fishing and unsuitable for intense harvesting (Vincent, 1996; Foster and
Vincent, 2004). These characteristics were also thought to explain the substantial declines in
Hippocampus populations observed by fishermen and traders worldwide (Vincent, 1996).
However, Curtis et al. (2007) found that demersal fishing may not reduce numbers in all
Hippocampus species and Martin-Smith and Vincent (2005) also observed fisheriesindependent
declines.
While overall little information was reported to be available on changes in abundance
(Project Seahorse, 2003b), substantial declines in H. spinosissimus were reported from heavily
fished areas (CoP12 Prop. 37). Furthermore, indirect evidence was thought to point at
reductions and H. spinosissimus was thought to be “particularly susceptible to decline”,
138