ISSN 0972-088X Vol. 07 No.

1 2004

Ungula,tes
@{}
India

"
•

� lllli!rfl'l illafl il'iiR!I

d tl Ii1
'j � Wildlife Institute of India
INDIA
The Environmental Infonnation System (ENVIS) Centre at the Wildlife Institute of India, set up in
September 1997, is part of the ENVIS setup of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government
of India. It deals with general matters concerning 'wildlife' and specifically those related to 'protected
areas'. Its objectives are to:

*
Establish a data bank on infonnation related to wildlife and wildlife protected areas, and thereby
build up a repository and dissemination centre for infonnation on wildlife science;

Promote national and international cooperation, and exchange of wildlife related infonnation;

,,
Provide decisio� makers at the apex level with information related to conservation and
development

eovis J6ulletio
Wildlife and Protected Areas

Proj�ct L�tlfkr
P.R. Sinha

Proj�ct Coordinator
V.B. Mathur

Project Co-coordinator
S.A. Hussain

Proj�ct Associate
A. David

Advisory Committe�
P.K. Mathur
B.C. Choudhury
K. Sivakumar
M.S. Rana
R. Thapa
K.K. Shrivastava

WILDLIFE INSTITUfE OF INDIA

Post Box# 18, Cllandrabani, Dehradun- 248 001
Tel : (0135) 2640111-115; Fax: (0135) 2640117
Email: envis@wii.gov.in; wii@envis.nic.in
Website : http://www.wii.gov.in/envis; http://www.wiienvis.nic.in

cnvi• J;ullttin : Wll ENVIS Centre on Wildlife and Protected Areas

 £nv1s J6ullet1n
Wildlife and Protected Areas

Ungulates of India

Editors

K. Sankar
S.P. Goyal

Editorial Processing

G. Chhibber

Maps

M. Veerappan

The contents of the bulletin may be freely used for n o n co mmercial purposes with due acknowledgement.
-

Citation: Sankar, K and Goyal, S.P. (Eds.) 2004. Ungulates of India. ENVIS Bulletin: Wudlife
and Protected Areas, Vol. 07, No. 1. Wudlife Institute of India, Deheradun, India. P p. 448.

Citation for individual chapter: Sharma, K., and Rahmani, AR 2004. Four homed antelope
or OJ.owsingha (Tetracems quadna;nis Blainvillle}. Pp. 53-60. In: K. Sankar and S.P. Goyal (Eds.)
Ungulates of India. ENVIS Bulletin: Wudlife and Protected Areas, Vol. 07, No. 1. Wudlife
Institute of India, Deheradun, India. Pp. 448.

ENVIS Bulletin: Wudlife and Protected Areas, Vol. 07. No. 1. Printed in 2007.

£nvis J5ultetin is also av ailable on the internet at

WII website: http:/Iwww. wii.gov.in/ envhome/ eindex

Species illustrations are by Centre for Environmencl Education (CEE), Ahmedabad, India.

PhotoCredics:
Asian wild buffalo, Barking deer, Indian wild ass, Nilgiri tahr, Rhinoceros {WII Photo Library)
Blue bull, Hog deer, Sambar (K. Sankar)
Indian gazelle (J. Van Gruisen), Four horned antelope (S.P. Goyal), Brow antlered deer {S.A. Hussain),
Wild pig (J.S. Jalal), Indian antelope (Y.V. Jhala), Pygmy hog {G. Narayan), Soptted deer (B. Pandav),
Indian bison {M.K.S. Pasha), Mouse deer (S. Prasad), Swamp deer (Q. Qureshi)
Leaf deer {www.animalinfo.org/species/artiperi/muntputa.htm)

£rwis .gullrrirr. Wit ENVIS Centre on Wildlife and Protected Areas

 Director's Note i

Foreword ii

SECTION I
(Species Account)
1. Asian Wild Buffalo 01-16

2. Barking Deer or Muntjac 17-28

3. Blue Bull or Nilgai 29-40

4. Brow Antlered Deer or Sangai 41-52

5. Four-Horned Antelope or Chowsingha 53-60

6. Hog Deer 61-78

7. Indian Antelope or Blackbuck 79-90

8. Indian Bison or Gaur 91-102

9. Indian Gazelle or Chinkara 103-114

10. Indian Wild Ass or Khur 115-124

11. Leaf Deer or Leaf Muntjac 125-130

12. Mouse Deer 131-140

13. Nilgiri Tahr 141-156

14. Pygmy Hog 157-162

15. Sambar 163-170

16. Spotted Deer or Chital 171-180

17. Swamp Deer or Barasingha 181-192

18. The Great Indian One-Horned Rhinoceros 193-202

19. Wild Pig 203-218

tnvi• �ullelln : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004)

 SECTION ll
(Conservation and Management of Ungulates)
20. Ungulates of West Bengal and its adjoining areas
including Sikkim, Bhutan and Bangladesh 219-238

21. Capture and translocation of ungulates with special

reference to spotted deer or chital in West Bengal 239-246

22. Management of deer in captivity 247-256

23. Management of over abundant ungulate populations 257-272

24. Distribution of peninsular ungulates in relation to

biogeography zones, states and protected areas of India 273-293

SECTION lll
(Bibliography)
25. Selected bibliograpgy on ungulates of India 295-394

Author index 395-428

Subject index 429-432

Taxonomic name index 433-436

Publication year index 437-442

26. List of contributors 443-448

UNGULATES OF INDIA
The 'Ungulates of India' is the second issue in the series of Envis Bulletin on
ungulates in this region, the earlier one being on 'Mountain Ungulates'. These two

bulletins together provide comprehensive information on all wild ungulate fauna

found in India.

Information on the status and distribution; natural history, ecology and conservation
issues for 19 species is covered in Section-1 of the bulletin. Issues pertaining to
policy and practice of management of ungulate populations are discussed along
with detailed accounts of their distribution in Protected Areas and States in Section-
11. A select bibliography on ungulates is given in Section-Ill. I hope this issue will be
of immense value to the biologists, wildlife managers and students interested in
the conservation and management of ungulates in our country.

P.R. Sinha
Director & Team Leader
ENVIS Centre, Wildlife Institute of India

!IIYit .iullrrio : WilDLIFE mo PROTECTED AREAS (2006)

 H
aving received floral and faunal elements from Ethiopian, Palearctic and Oriental
realms, in addition to its own endemic species, India has attained the distinction
as one of the 1 2 mega-biodiversity countries in the world. As far as the
native, extant, wild ungulate diversity is concerned, India is represented by two
orders, seven families, 23 genera and 39 species. This list does not include Dicerorhinus
sumatrensis, a few individals of which are reported to occur near the Myanmar
border, and 8os javanicus once reported from Manipur. China, the centre of origin
for cervids and caprids, 2.8 times larger than India, and located at the junction of the
Palearctic and Oriental realms, has two orders, seven families, 26 genera and 4 7
species. It is unmatched by any other country for the number of true deer species
(16, nine in India) and musk deer species (five, two in India). However with reference
to number of caprids (goat-antelopes, wild sheep and goats), India ( 1 2 species),
owing to the majestic Himalaya, excels China ( 1 0 species).

All ungulate species flourished in India before the arrival of the British, who introduced
firearms (the British, however, also established the Reserve Forests, which paved the
way for the present day protected area network). Also, the control of devastating
epidemics through improved healthcare, enabled the native Indian population to
build up rapidly. Both fire arms and human population increase, led to the rapid
decline of wild ungulate abundance through hunting and habitat loss. As a result,
Cervus elaphus wallichi has disappeared from Sikkim, C. e. hanglu and C. eldi are
confined to a very small portion of their former habitat, and many other species like
Sus salvanius, Tetracerus quadricornis, Gazella bennettii, Capricornis sumatraensis,
Hemitragus hylocrius, Capra falconeri, Buba/us arnee, Cervus duvauceli and Axis
porcinus face increasing threats from the bourgeoning human population. Despite
this picture of gloom, there is good news in the discovery of three new species of
ungulates (Muntiacus crinifrons, M. putaoensis and Nemorhaedus caudatus) for India.
They were discovered in Arunachal Pradesh by the Mysore-based Nature Conservation
Foundation, formed by alumni of the Wildlife Institute of India.

Long-term conservation of viable populations of ungulates and their habitats is

essential, because the future of all our large carnivores is dependent upon the survival
of wild ungulates. Field-based conservation, focusing on protected areas and corridors,
and control of poaching, is the urgent need of the hour to ensure the future of our
wild ungulates. I am sure that this ENVIS Bulletin, which covers several species and
their behavioural ecology, would go a long way in achieving this objective.

Dr. A.J.T. Johnsingh

Former Dean, Faculty of Wildlife Sciences, WI/ and
currently Senior Scientific Advisor,
WWF-India and Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore.

II UNGULATES OF INDIA
 SECTION I

Species Account

Ungulates of India
tnvis .gulletin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004)
 Asian wild buffalo

ASIAN WILD BUFFALO

(Bubalus bubalis Linnaeus, 1758)
P.K.Mathur, P.K. Malik and P.O. Muley

Order : Artiodactyla
Family Bovidae
Sub-Family Ruminantia
Tribe Bovini
Genus Bubalus
Species B. bubalis
Common name : Wild buffalo, Asian Wild buffalo, Indian Wild buffalo

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule I
IUCN RED DATA BOOK : Endangered
CITES : Appendix Ill

INTRODUCTION

Asian wild buffalo (Bubalus buba/is Linn.) in the Indian Sub-continent is

also called as water buffalo or 'Arni'. It is one of the four wild oxen species
found in India (Prater 1965). Three others are: the Gaur or Indian Bison
(8os gaurus H. Smith), the Banteng or Tsaine (Bos banteng Wagner),
and the Yak (8os grunniens Linn.). The mammalian tribe Bovini (family
Bovidae, subfamily Bovinae) contains all the most important of the world's
larger domestic species. Wild oxen are easily recognizable by their
massive build and their general similarity in form to domestic cattle. The
wild buffalo is the third largest land mammal in the Indian Sub-continent,
after the elephant and the rhinoceros (Ranjitsinh et a/. 2000). In the rest
of Asia, it is now in all likelihood extinct.

The wild water buffalo is the ancestor of the domestic water buffalo, which
is now found in most tropical and subtropical regions as the buffalo was
domesticated very early during the ancient human civilization, but exactly

£ovis_gulleti11 : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) l

 when and where, is uncertain. Representations of tame and hence
possibly domesticated buffaloes appear on seals both in the Indus valley
(Mohenjodaro) and in Mesopotamia from about the middle of the third
millennium B.C. (Mason 1974, Mathur eta/. 1995, Lenstra and Bradley
1999, Massicot 2004).

In Bovini, there are four genera a nd twel ve sp ec ies Bubalus (Asian

.

buffalo), Syncerus (African bufffalo), Bison (American bison), and Bos

(Gaur and cattle), between them no interbreeding appears possible. On
morphological basis, the closet relative of Buba/us is the African buffalo
Syncerus. Both have horn cores which tend to be triangular in cross
section (Mathur eta/. 1995, Muley 2001 ). In wild bovids, Bubalus has
four species (IUCN/SSC 1988). These are: (i) Bubalus bubalis (Asian
wild buffalo) -truly wild populations occur in India and Nepal while
domesticated or feral form are very widely distributed in Asia, South
America, North Africa, Europe, and Australia; (ii) Buba/us mindorensis
(The Tamarau)- closely related to Asian wild buffalo and is endemic to
the Philippine island of Mindoro; (iii) Bubalus depresicornis (Lowland
Anoa) -a dwarf race, 60-100 em at shoulder, related to water buffalo
and native of dense forests of Sulawesi in eastern Indonesia; and (iv)
Bubalus quarlesi (Mountain Anoa) -like Lowland Anoa, it is also �nd�mic
to Sulawesi, but is found in mountain forests up to 2000 m. Some
authorities, including Groves (1969), use the name B. arnee in place of
B. bubalis. Likewise, 1996 IUCN Red List on Threatened Animals listed
the Asian water buffalo as Bubalus arnee and later changed to Bubalus
bubalis in 2000 Red List (Massicot 2004).

The wild btJffalo in most of its existing range in Assam is interbreeding

with domestic buffalo. Initially, the gene flow is from wild bulls to domestic
cows, but when hybrids turn feral join the wild herd, the flow reverses
and, due to sheer out numbering of wild by domestic and hybrid, the
gene introgression leads to "swamping" of the wild gene pool (Muley
2001).

Two types of water-buffalo have been discerned; the 'swamp type' in

South East Asia and 'river type' on the Indian sub continent and farther
west. The swamp type resembles the Arni progenitor most closely. The
two types differ in karyotype (swamp type has 2n=48 chromosomes while
the river type buffalo has 2n=50). In contrast, African buffalo has 2n=52
chromosomes (Lenstra and Bradley 1999). The two types of water buffalo
crossbreed to produce fertile progeny with 2n=49 chromosomes.

2 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Asian wild buffalo

SURVEYS AND ECOLOGICAL STUDIES

With the advent of British rule in the Indian sub-continent, and particularly
after the consolidation of the whole country following the mutiny of 1857,
many hunters penetrafed all parts of the country. Earlier available books
and references on natural history by several hunters and naturalists refer
about the wild buffalo in the jungles. Prominent references on wild buffalo
have been made by Forsyth (1889), Brander (1923), Mooney (1930),
Pocock (1939), Gee (1953) and Noronha {1954a ahd b). They gave a
vivid picture of the great herds of hoofed animals a ncf the numerous large
predators that occurred in extensive and dense grassy jungles. Surveys
on wild buffaloes in Northeast India and Central India have been
documented (Mooney 1930, Daniel and Grubh 1966, Spillett 1966, Divekar
1976, Divekar eta!. 1979, Divekar and Bhusan 1988, Mathur eta!. 1995,
Ranjitsinh eta/. 2000). There are only a few studies on wild buffalo those
have focused on the morphological features, behavioural characteristics
and ecology of the species (lnverarity 1895, Gee 1953, Ashby and
Santiapillai 1987, Pandey 1988, Mathur eta!. 1995, Muley 2001, Kotwal
et a/. 2003, Kotwal and Mishra 2004). The only study available on
population genetics of wild buffalo is by Muley (2001).

MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES

Wild buffaloes in Kaziranga National Park, Assam have been categorized

based on horn size and shape, body coat colour and chevron markings
into three categories: (i) wild inside the park, (ii) hybrid feral inside the
park, and (iii) hybrid domestic in cattle camps on the adjacent islands in
river Brahmaputra (Mathur eta/. 1995). Wild buffalos can be sexed and
aged into adult male, adult female, sub-adult, and calf. The sub adult
male and female are difficult to identify in field conditions as they have
the same morphology and the distinguishing characters develop only at
the later phase of this stage. The genitals of the sub- adult males are not
fully developed and thus this character does not help in identification.
The sub- adult buffaloes have a smaller body size when compared to
adult buffalo. Hair on the body is more, body coat colour is brownish red
and the under parts are reddish. Horns are much smaller and semi-lunar
in shape. Adult male and female buffaloes can be easily distinguished in
field mainly based on horn shape and body coat colour. Adult males have
crescent shaped horns, which are very thick at the base. These horns
are highly curved, thus the tip to tip distance between them is small. The
body coat colour varies from dark grey to black, with light reddish ear
pinnae and under parts of the body. The adult males have more hairs on

!nvis.�ullrtin: WILDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 3

 the body compared to the female. The bones above the eye form
pronounced ridges, which have supra-orbital flecks (patch of light
coloured hair). They also have supra-labial and infra-labial flecks, which
tend to be obscured with age. The adult females have comparatively thin
and less crescentic horns. Tip to tip distance between the horns is larger
than that the male. Body coat colour is grey to brownish, more like mud
colour. Hair on the body is very scanty. They lack supra-orbital flecks
and have supra-labial and infra-labial flecks present. In the case of the
calves, the body coat at birth is golden colour and the body is covered
with thick hairs. At about six months of age, calves develop reddish brown
coat and horns start appearing. Chevrons are the characteristics features
of wild buffalo and helps, not only in age classification, but also in
differentiation from domestic buffalo in which chevrons are absent.
Chevrons are light and pale cream coloured markings, present on the
neck region at two places; below the lower jaw and above the chest.
These markings are due to the presence of light colored hairs and the
skin. Chevrons become very distinguished in calves after the age of six
month and stay so till the sub-adult stage. It becomes obscured and
indistinct in older animals.

In wild B. bubalis, head and body length is 2,400- 3,000 mm, tail length
is 600- 1,000 mm, shoulder height is 1,500- 1,900 mm and weight is·
700- 1,200 kg (Massicot 2004).

Mathur et a/. (1995) carried out the morphometric study using skulls of
wild buffalo collected in Udanti sanctuary, Central India (n=2) and North­
eastern India (n=30) and the comparison resulted into higher distance
from tip to tip of the horn in the case of Central Indian population (965
mm) in comparison to North-eastern buffaloes- NEB (869 mm). However,
the maximum distance of horns and outer curved distance was much
higher in the case of NEB. No sex differences were made based on horns.
Lundrigan (1996) recognized that the paired frontal horns are most
distinctive characteristic of bovids. Accordingly, Muley (2001) used
headshot (photographs) of the individual buffalo taken in KNP using a 35
mm camera fitted with zoom lens (70-210 mm and 70-300 mm) and 35
mm slides were projected on a white paper so as to make linear
measurements of the horn using a standard millimeter ruler. The Principal
Component Analysis revealed that the samples of domestic buffaloes
collected in the surrounds of KNP were separated from the domestic
hybrid buffaloes maintained in cattle camps on the northern periphery of
KNP and wild buffaloes inside the parks. The hybrid and wild buffaloes
showed some overlap in their scores as hybrid populations contains some

4 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Asian wild buffalo

backcrosses. Further, the factor analysis indicated that all three groups
have very tight distributions i.e. three types of buffaloes (domestic, hybrid
and wild) were distinctly segregated. The results indicated that the wild
are distinct groups with hybrid buffaloes being the intermediate. The
dendrogram generated using pair-wise linearized square distances
indicated that wild and hybrid are in one clade and the domestic buffaloes
are separate from these two. The overall results indicated that it is possible
to construct a classification scheme to decipher three categories of
buffaloes found in around KNP.

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION

Distribution and Status

The grassy jungles and swampy areas are the ideal habitat for the wild
buffaloes where tbey can get food and shelter, and pools of water and
mud for wallow. They occasionally use woodland. They prefer areas of
short grass adjacent to water bodies (swamps, river, streams etc.) with
scattered trees.

The Asian wild buffalo (B. bubalis) is now designated as endangered by

the IUCN. Wild members of this species have disappeared from most of
the original range because of usurpation of habitat by agriculture, hunting
by people, and competition from and diseases transmitted by domestic
livestock. A few herds, presumably to be descended from original native
stock are still scattered in India and Nepal.

The wild buffalo was the once widely distributed over the tracts of tall
grasslands and riverine forests in India and Nepal. Its range extended
from eastern Assam in floodplains of river Brahmaputra to Terai
grasslands and flood plains of the Ganges in Uttar Pradesh and
Uttranchal and going southwards to coastal plains to the south of
Godavari River in Peninsular India (Mathur et a/. 1995). As late as of
nineteenth century, wild buffalo was plentiful in Assam, Bengal, Bihar,
Orissa and Madhya Pradesh (Fahimuddin 1975). There is no mention of
the wild buffalo in old Tamil literature, although domestic ones are
frequently mentioned. As regards wild buffaloes in Sri· Lanka, they are
thought to be feral and not truly wild (Cockrill1974, Ashby and Santiapillai
1987). There is substantial free living population in south-east Asian
countries (such as Burma, Malaysia and Indonesia) and Australia which
was derived from domestic swamp buffaloes (Cockrill 1974).

!nvis .�ullttin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 5

 By the middle of twentieth century, wild buffaloes were present in few
surviving grasslands of Brahmaputra valley (Kaziranga, Oibru-Sakowa,
Laokhowa and Pabha) and Manas in Assam; in riverine forests of
lndravati in Bastar district and Udanti, Sitanadi areas in Raipur district
of Madhya Pradesh; Koraput district in Orissa and in Kosi Tappu in Nepal
(Daniel and Grubh 1966). A large-horn variety Macroceros was found in
Manas and on the foot hills of Arunachal Pradesh till the turn of twentieth
century. But this variety was lost completely due to extensive hunting.

Today, wild buffaloes in India are found in only two states and that to in a
few scattered wildlife protected areas, namely Kaziranga and Manas National
Parks in Assam; and lndravati NP, and Udanti, Sitanadi, Bhairamgarh and
Pamed Sanctuaries in Chattisgarh. In the last bastion of the wild buffalo,
Assam, the population is almost confined to Kaziranga NP. In other PAs of
Assam, the few surviving animals are all affected by genetic swamping
through interbreeding with the domestic buffaloes and this has also overtaken
the population in Kaziranga. A marked deterioration in size of the wild
buffaloes in the PAs in Assam has been observed (Ranjitsinh 1997). In
Manas, the laxity of control due to the insurgency during the past decade
has resulted both in the reduction of numbers and probably genetic swamping
in the much more numerous southern populations which will inevitably have
effect on the rest of the herds in the adjacent central part of the reserve -
the Uchila range and along the Manas- Beki River (Ranjitsinh eta/. 2000).
The main hope with regard to the genetic purity of the wild buffaloes lies in
the Peninsular population, confined in the last two decades to the four
protected areas specially set up for them in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh
(Bastar region in the present Chattisgarh state).

Probably, Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve is the only remaining habitat for
wild buffaloes in Nepal, wherein the population is estimated around 160
buffaloes.

Population

In contrast to the huge population (more than 130 million) of domestic

water buffalo (B.bubalis), the present population of wild water buffalo in
its entire range is estimated to be lower than 2,000 individuals that to in
widely scattered protected areas across Assam and Chattisgarh states
in India and Kosi Tappu reserve in Nepal.

Presently, Kaziranga National Park (KNP) is the main strong hold of wild

6 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Asian wild buffalo

buffalo as it harbours almost 80-90% of its estimated population. Present

population in and around Kaziranga is about 1,600 individuals (Vasu 2003).
The population in KNP has shown a steady increase from 1966 onwards.
The first systematic and extensive census of wildlife in KNP was conducted
in 1966 (Spillett 1966). A total of 471 buffaloes were tallied during the two
days census across eight blocks covering 33 compartments and using
18 census parties (four persons on elephant). The census was a total
count of compartment and blocks. Since 1966, the Assam Forest
Department has carried out census every six years. The population has
shown a gradual increase from 471 in 1966 to 1192 in 1999. An exclusive
census of wild buffaloes was also carried out by the park authorities in
March 2001 in which 1,670 animals were counted including 228 feral
buffaloes (Vasu 2003). In 1999, wild buffaloes were found in all the census
blocks of KNP with heaviest concentration in the Baguri block on the
western side of the park. Interestingly, in almost all the past census
conducted so far, the Baguri has the maximum concentration of all the
wild animals (elephant, rhino, swamp deer, sambar, hog deer, barking deer)
and according to the 1991 census figures, about 50.6% of the buffalo
population was recorded from this block only. This block represents about
17.1% area of the original park or roughly one fifth of the total area of the
park (429.9 km2). The density of wild buffalo in Baguri block works out to
seven buffaloes per 100 ha while density in rest area of the park covering
4/5th of the total area was just one buffalo per 100 ha. Thus, Baguri block
provides the most favoured and preferred habitat to wild buffaloes in KNP.

Populations of wild buffalo in other PAs of Assam including Manas Tiger

Reserve have definitely dwindled in the recent past. There is a hope for
recovery of population in Manas with now effective protection and
improved management provided. Population surveys on wild buffaloes
in Peninsular India have been undertaken from time to time right from the
year 1930. Almost all earlier surveys by Mooney (1930) in Orissa, Daniel
and Grubh (1966) in Peninsular India, Divekar (1976) in west Bastar,
Divekar eta/. (1979) in Raipur and Bastar districts, Divekar and Bhusan
(1988), Mathur et at. (1995) in Udanti sanctuary, and Ranjitsinh et at.
(2000) in Udanti and lndravati protected areas have indicated the rapid
decline trends in the population and concluded that the species appears
to be moving towards local extinction, primarily due to poaching, habitat
loss, low population size and probably resultant genetir: disorders. Daniel
and Grubh (1966) have estimated a population of less than 250 animals
in Bastar and Raipur dustricts while this has further declined to 150
individuals (Divekar and Bhusan 1988). It was feared that this 100 odd
individuals were facing the inbreeding problem.

C:nvis �ulle�in: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS {2004) 7

 A joi nt survey carried out by the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department,
Wildlife Institute of India, Bombay Natural History Society, and Bastar
Society for Nature in May 2000 assessed 42- 44 animals in Udanti and
about 25-30 buffaloes in lndravati, the total number thus less than 75
(Ranjitsinh eta/. 2000). Subsequent to this last survey, the Chattisgarh
stAte was carved out of larger erstwhile Madhya Pradesh almost four
years ago. On the one hand, the problem of insurgency in the Bastar
region has gone out of control while on the other hand the newly created
state recognizes the significance in protecting and conservation of wild
buffalo being the state animal. Accordingly, the current estimated
population of wild buffalo in different pockets/PAs in the region by the
Chattisgarh Forest Department is around 200-250 individuals. As stated
earlier, the estimated population in Kosi Tappu, Nepal is around 160
individuals.

Hence, from the above stated figures (Assam, Chattisgarh and Nepal) it
is amply clear that the species of wild buffalo has greatly suffered in its
entire range of distribution and moreover there are hardly any promising
signs of its improvement/recovery in majority of the locations of its
present distribution. The only favourable site for this species is Kaziranga
NP wherein the population has shown a steady growth during the past
40 years or so and the population is further expected to grow with better
protection and improved habitat management. A constant vigil and annual
monitoring of wild buffalo population is required as there are evidences
that populations of other sympatric wild herbivores (rhino, swamp deer,
hog deer) in KNP are also on constant increase during last two or three
decades and there is an apprehension that these species may compete
for resources. Nevertheless, the park management has been successful
in extending the park area by adding six additional areas and presently
efforts are on to get the entire park area free from cattle camps
maintaining domestic 'hybrid' buffaloes.

ECOLOGY

Spillett (1966) has provided some insight on the sex and adult to young
ratio based on the extensive census carried out in Kaziranga NP.
Accordingly, 82% counted individuals were adults, of which almost 30%
were 'non-sexed'. Out of 271 sexed adults, 80% (217) were females and
39% of these were reported to the accompanied by young. Thus, for
every 2.6 sexed females there was one young. The analysis of census
figures obtained for the year 2001 revealed that almost 73% of sexed

8 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Asian wild buffalo

adults were females (Vasu 2003). Nearly 11% of the total population was
represented by calf category. For every 3.8 sexed adult females there
was one calf. It appears that female to calf ratio has improved in the
recent time in comparison to the earlier census.

Study on the ecology and population genetics of the Asian wild buffalo in
KNP during 1988-1992 by Mathur eta/. {1995) revealed that out of the
total 25 sightings, 68% sightings were made in short grasslands. Buffaloes
avoided the woodland. Herd size ranged from solitary bull to a total of 45
individuals, 48% of the sighting was in the category of 10·20 individuals.
The average herd size comes out to be 13 individuals/herd. Adult solitary
bulls comprise 24% of the total sighting records whereas, they formed
40% of the total adult males recorded. The solitary bull is commonly
encountered unit, all {100%) of the isolated individuals were adult males.
In terms of total abundance, adult females out numbered adult males by
eight times. The adult male to female ratio was 1 :8 or 12 adult males:
100 females. Breeding herds forms 50% of the total sightings. Herds
with adult males constituted 35% of total sighting records while herds
without adult males were recorded for 41% times of total sightings. For
every 100 adult females there were 34 calves, and for every 100 adult
buffaloes there were 62 sub adults.

Before Kaziranga was declared as a national park in 1974, there were

several 'Khuties' (cattle camps) on the northern periphery and these
Khuties had domestic swamp buffaloes. During the peak breeding season
(November- January), wild bulls thronged the cattle camp to mate with
female domestic buffaloes. The livestock owners encouraged
interbreeding with wild bulls as the calves thus produced fetched higher
prices in the village market. Moreover, domestic bulls could not be
maintained in cattle camps as they were invariably chased out by the
wild bulls. The husbandry practices were such that the animals were
handled minimally, making them very aggressive and strangers. These
cattle camps were rehabilitated in 1973-74, several livestock herders
could not translocate their buffaloes and they were left inside the park to
form a distinct 'feral' population. The rehabilitated cattle camps were
settled on the river islands in river Brahmaputra, north of newly created
Kaziranga NP. Mathur eta/. (1995) carried out a survey on the domestic
buffaloes in cattle camps. Eight camps (Laharni, Murkhowa, Bhawani,
West Lumsali, East Lumsali, West Janeki, East Janeki, and Debashari)
had a population of more than 2,800 domestic buffaloes. The park
management has made efforts in recent years to once again relocate

£ovis �ullerio : WILDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 9

 these cattle camps on river islands as the entire stretch of river
Brahmaputra along the northern boundry of KNP has been added as the
sixth addition and the wildlife law requires relocation of villages, cattle
camps, etc. It seems that considerable population of domestic buffaloes
in cattle camps has declined over the years because of strict regulations.
However, there is regular interaction of domestic buffaloes with wild
buffalo bulls. Cattle herders leave their herds to graze in the park area.
Invariably, wild bulls will follow the domestic buffaloes while they return

to the cattle camps in the evening. This way, despite cattle camps being
relocated outside the National Park area, wild bulls continued to mate
with domestic buffaloes. The domestic buffalo females are therefore sired
by these visiting solitary bulls. Cattle owners dispose the male hybrid
progeny before they attain the age of one year in far flung areas for
drought purpose.

The genetic exchange between domestic and wild buffaloes was therefore
studied and clearly established (Mathur et a/. 1995). Based on the
data on hybrid domestics, it is assumed that calves are born on equal
sex ratios in wild buffaloes . Mortality in case of hybrid domestic calves
was slightly biased towards male calves i.e., for every 100 female calves,
140 male calves died. If this is assumed in case of wild buffaloes it would
explain partly as to why only 12 adult males were present for 100 adult
females. This revealation can be argued and supported by the fact that

males are solitary on account being thrown out of the herd during the
breeding season by the dominant males and they suffer htgher mortality
due to predation when compared to females who remain in nerds. Also
since during the rut the dominant bulls spend more time and energy
defending their harem and territory, they become weak and emaciated at
the end of the season which makes them vulnerable to predation and
disease.

Wild buffaloes used short grassland more than its availability whereas
woodland was avoided. Wetlands (beefs) were used significantly in
proportion to its availability, where as tall grasslands were used less
than their availability. After the monsoon season, when water starts
drying, short grasslands surrounding the lakes are exposed. These short
grasslands around numerous reduced beefs offer the best grazing
grounds for all the wild herbivores in KNP including wild buffaloes. Wild
buffaloes are predominantly grazers and they find very little grassland in

woodland areas to feed. However, during the monsoon season when all
short grasslands and most of the tall grasslands are submerged under

lQ UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Asian wild buffalo

several feet of water, buffaloes are known to use the woodland. Beefs
(lakes and swampy areas) are used by wild buffaloes for feeding and
wallowing. Buffaloes were also observed to feed on water hyacinth and
other aquatic vegetation. Wetland habitats in KNP were classified based
on depth of water body, extent of bank area and extent of adjacent short
grasslands. Twenty beefs were classified into eight wetland type. Wild
buffaloes used all the eight habitat types indicating that wetlands play an
important role in determining the habitat suitability for wild buffaloes while
there was a decreasing order in the case of elephant and rhino, swamp
deer and hog deer. Wild buffalo preferred medium depth of wetlands and
large extent of short grasslands. The study also indicated that probably
there is no direct competition between the five wild herbivores (elephant,
rhino, buffalo, swamp deer, and hog deer).

Unfortunately, till date there is no radio-telemetry study carried out on

wild buffaloes in India or even in Nepal so as to provide authentic
information on the habitat use, movement and dispersal pattern, home
range, etc.

BEHAVIOUR

The wild buffalo is usually diurnal and lives in herds of females and their
young. The males gather in separate bachelor herds outside the breeding
season or remain solitary. Only the dominant bull mates with a large
number of female buffaloes. Thus, usually during the peak breeding
season (November-January) only one bull can be seen in a herd of
buffaloes. This bull spends entire breeding period and avaiis opportunity
to breed with as many females in estrous as possible. According to
Massicot (2004), calves are us�ally born in March-May, but have been
observed in other months of the year also. Gestation period is assumed
to be about 300-340 days. Puberty is reached about 18 months and
usually one calf is born. The birth interval is usually about two years.
Weaning occurs after 6-9 months. Maximum age of at least 25 years in
the wild and 29 years in captivity has been documented.

Despite wild buffalo remaining in a herd; they usually maintain a safe

distance of about 50-75 m. Often they get alarmed or even start running
on seeing the human or otherwise being disturbed. They continue to graze
on short grasslands around beefs or remain in wallow if the safe distance
is maintained and they are not being disturbed. They are true social
animal. This was evident when one of the herd members was chemically

C:nlris.iullttin: WILDliFE AND PROTECTEDAAEAs(2004) l l

 immobilized for collection of blood sample in KNP during the study carried
out on this species. Till the buffalo was revived by the research team
and could join other members of its herd, the entire herd remained present
at a distance.

Wild buffalo is definitely ferocious and aggressive in its behaviour,

particularly wild solitary bulls and buffaloes with calves are dangerous
and they often charge. Wild buffalo seems to have a good power of
hearing. As to sounds, members of a herd grunt to each other when
moving along. Adult wild bulls often fight during the breeding season in
order to show their dominance.

CONSERVATION

Once widely distributed in its former range, wild buffalo is one of the
worst affected mammalian species in the recent times. In past, the
species was hunted for its meat, hide, and trophy while during recent
past 40-50 years; habitat loss on the account of agriculture expansion
and other developmental works has severely impacted this species.
Domestication of the species and continuous interbreeding with domestic
buffalo in majority of field sites has led to genetic swamping, competition
and mortality due to disease. Extremely small populations of wild buffalo
that too in widely scattered locations probably also results in inbreeding
and related genetic disorders. Habitat fragmentation, habitat degradation,
and poaching are the main threats to the conservation of this globally
important species. Frequent and increasing level of floods in Brahmaputra
in recent years is one potential causes of worry to wild buffalo population
in KNP. Flood is a normal phenomenon in river floodplains and essential
for maintaining the diversity of habitats particularly grasslands and
wetlands in the area by annual inundation. Brahmaputra is prone to
flooding and river migration. However, increased level of disturbance by
way of deforestation in the up-stream/catchment, construction of lateral
embankments, diversion of river flow, construction of reservoir and other
developmental activities can have cascading effect on the hydrology of
the area and river channel changes ultimately impacting the wildlife
habitat and threatened species.

Despite wild buffalo as a species has greatly benefited the human society
by its early domestication and subsistence support for livelihood to
masses, the species has suffered severely in living memory and dismally
never received recognition and attention which it deserves. In present

l 2 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Asian wild buffalo

time, it is now difficult to ascertain the purity of wild buffalo population in

the absence of a well known reference/control population. The study on
population genetics on wild and domestic buffaloes in KNP has revealed
that the wild buffaloes in the national park area are still a distinct group
fully worthy of conservation efforts (Muley 2001 ) . Hence, urgent and
concerted efforts are needed to rehabilitate cattle camps and domestic
buffaloes from the northern side of the original KNP (429.9 km2) as the
entrre Brahmaputra river stretch along the initial KNP has been added
as the sixth addition (376.5 km2 river area upto its northern bank including
enclave river islands) to KNP. Once the biotic pressure due to existing
cattle camps and ongoing genetic exchange between domestic buffaloes
and wild bulls are discontinued in the larger area of KNP, chances are
that habitat will recover rapidly and the wild buffalo population will
increase in its size and the current level of genetic divergence vis-a-vis
hybrid and domestic buffaloes will be maintained.

In the case of Manas Tiger Reserve, efforts for effective protection of

wild buffalo population and habitat improvement are desirable on priority
so as to safe guard the species from local extinction.

The central Indian population of wild buffalo in the Bastar region and
Aaipur district has dwindled to precariously low le
. vel. Despite the species
having been declared as the State animal by Chattisgarh, the scattered
populations are under constant risk due to increasing biotic pressure
and hunting. The protection of species and its habitat has become much
more complex due to growing threat of local insurgency. However, the
significance of these population(s) from the genetic purity and variability
point of view can not be over emphasized. Efforts on the highest priority
firstly, to protect the population(s) through awareness campaign and
community involvement while strengthening the protection infrastructure
and adoption of anti-poaching strategies are urgently required. Secondly,
concurrent actions for habitat restoration, preservation of the germplasm
using appropriate technology are also necessary. This would be possible
if the species is not only given its much desired national and international
recognition but also wanted vital support for its conservation. Further,
research studies carried out so far on both populations (North-eastern
and Central Indian) are now quite old, inadequate and need updation in
view of the changed scenario. Thus, there is an urgency to encourage
and support research and monitoring activities on the specie's in its
present distribution range.

£nvif.gullrrin : WILDliFE ANO PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 13

 REFERENCES

Ashby, K. R. and Santiapillai, C. 1987. The ecology of free living Water

Buffalo (Bubalus buba/is L.) in Sri Lanka and with particular reference
to Ruhuna National Park. Tigerpaper. XIV (3): 20-26.

Brander, A. 1923. Wild Animals in Centra/India. Natraj Publisher, Dehra

Dun, India.

Cockrill, R. E . (Ed.). 1974. The husbandry and health of the domestic

Buffalo. FAO Publication, Rome.

Daniel, J. C. and Grubh, B. R. 1966. The Indian Wild Buffalo, Bubalus

bubalis (L.) in peninsular India: a preliminary survey. J. Bombay Nat.
Hist. Soc. 63{1 ): 32-53.

Divekar, H. K. 1976. A resurvey of the status of Wild Buffaloes in the

West Bastar, Madhya Pradesh. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 73 {2): 382-
385.

Divekar, H. K. and Bhusan, B. 1988. Status survey of the Wild Asiatic Buffalo
Bubalus buba/is in the Raipur and Bastar districts of Madhya Pradesh.
Technical report. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay. Pp. 35

Divekar, H. K., Grub, R., Shekhar, P. B., Mohapatra, K. K., and Divekar,
V. D. 1979. Status and ecology of Wild Buffalo Bubalus bubalis, in
the Raipur and Bastar districts of Madhya Pradesh. Unpublished
Report. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay. Pp. 19.

Fahimuddin, M. 1975. Domestic Water Buffalo. Oxford and ISH Publishing Co.

Forsyth, J. 1889. The Highlands of Centra/India. Pp. 475. Chapman and

Hall, London.

Gee, E. P. 1953. Wild Buffaloes and tame. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 51
(3): 727-730.

Groves, C. P. 1969. Systematics of the anoa (Mammalia, Bovidae).

Beaufortia 17:1-12.

lnverarity, J. D. 1895. The Indian Wild Buffalo. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.
10:41-52.

1 4 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Asian wild buffalo

IUCN/SSC, 1988. Asian wild cattle specialist group. Newsletter. 1 : 5&6.

Kotwal, P. C. and Mishra, R. P. 2004. Ecobiology of Indian Wild Buffalo

Buba/us arnee L. in Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary, Chhattisgarh, India. J.
Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 101 (2): 252-254.

Kotwal, P. C., Naik, M. L. and Mishra, R. P. 2003. Indian Wild Buffalo

(Buba/us bubalis L.) an endangered species: habitat and diurnal activity
pattern in Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary. Cheeta/. 41 (3-4): 19-28.

Lenstra J. A. and Bradley D. G. 1999. Systematics and phylogeny of

cattle. In: Fries, R. and Ruvinsky, A. (Eds.), Genetics of Cattle. Pp.
1-14. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International, Wallingford,
Oxon, UK.

Lundrigan, B. 1996. Morphology of horns and fighting behavior in the

family Bovidae. Journal of Mammalogy. 77: 462-475.

Mason, I. L. 1974. Species, types and breeds. In: Cocrill, W. R. (Ed.),

The husbandry and health of the domestic buffalo. Pp. 47. FAO
Publication.

Massicot, P. 2004. Animal info-Wild Water Buffalo. Available: http://

www.animalinfo.org/species/artiperi/bubaarne.htm.

Mathur, P. K., Malik, P. K. and Muley, P. D. 1995. Ecology and population

genetics of Asian Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis L.) in India. Project
report. Pp. 54. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

Mooney, H. F. 1930. The distribution of Wild Buffalo in Orissa. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. 34: 242-244.

Muley, P. D. 2001. Genetic and morphometric studies to differentiate

between wild and domestic Asian Water Buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis
L.) and their hybrids in Kaziranga National Park, Assam India. Ph.D.
dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.

Noronha, R. P. 1954a. The Indian Wild Buffalo. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.
54{1 ): 202-204.

Noronha, R. P. 1954b. More notes on the Indian Buffalo. Report. New

York Zoological Society.

ttvis,'gullttill; WILOLIFEANO PROTECTEOAAEAS (2004) 15

Pandey, R. K. 1988. Habitat utilization and diurnal activity pattern of Indian
Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis L.) in lndravati National Park, India: A
study of habitat/animal interaction. Journal of Tropical Forestry. 4(111):
269-280.

Pocock, R. I. 1939. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma.
Mammalia. Vol. 1. Taylor & Francis, London.

Prater, S. H. 1965. Book of Indian Animals, 2nd edition. Bombay Natural

History Society, India.

Ranjitsinh, M. K. 1997. Beyond the Tiger- Portraits of Asian wildlife.

Brijbasi Printers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.

Ranjitsinh, M. K., Chauhan, S. K. S., Banubakode, S. B., Sivakumar, K.,

Akhtar, A., Patil, V. and Verma, S. C. 2000. Status and conservation of
the Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) in Peninsular India. Unpublished report.
Pp. 33. Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, Wll, BNHS and BSCN.

Spillett, J. J. 1966. The Kaziranga Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. 63{3): 494-527.

Vasu, N. K. 2003. Management Plan: Kaziranga National Park {2003-

2004 to 2012-2013). Pp. 240. Forest Department, Government of
Assam, India.

l6 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Barking deer

BARKING DEER OR MUNTJAC

(Muntiacus muntjac Zimmermann, 1780)
C. Barrette

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Cervidae
Sub-Family : Cervinae
Tribe : Bovini
Genus : Muntiacus
Species : M. munljak
Common name : Barking deer

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule Ill
IUCN RED DATA BOOK : Lower risk
CITES : Not Listed

INTRODUCTION

The muntjac or barking deer or rib faced deer are small, solitary, forest
living species which are found over most of the oriental biogeographic
region of the world (Prater, 1980). The most widespread species is the
Indian or red muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak Zimmermann), of which there
are ten recognized sub-species (Grubb and Gardner 1998) found in Sri
Lanka, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, South China, through
Indochina to Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra, Borneo, Java, Bali, Lombok
and many smaller Indonesian islands (Grubb 1993). The muntjac of north
M.m. vagina/is. The southern form is M.m. allieus. Third race M.m.
India is
malabaricus is found in Malabar and extends to Sri Lanka (Prater 1980).

Over the wide range that the Indian muntjac occupies, it is expected to be
found in a variety of forested habitats and climatic conditions. Since
muntjacs have not been studied under most of those ecological situations,
the description that follows has to be taken as an account that is true in

!ovi•JSullerio: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) l 7

 general but not in specifics. Indeed. there might be some substantial inter­
population differences in most aspects of muntjac's ecology. It i s
nonetheless useful to look for features that are likely t o be common t o all
muntjacs as a starting point, to provide a coherent description of its ecology
and behavior, as well as a framework to try to explain its natural history.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

Muntjacs have a reddish coat of a rather uniform hue, without any

conspicuous markings on the legs or tail. The belly and the inside of the
legs are a little paler. The tail is short and pointed, the muzzle is rather
large and black. There are no noticeable seasonal changes in coat colour.
Newborn have a spotted coat, but since they are very small and remain
hidden rather than following their mother during the first few weeks of
life, one is unlikely to see spotted fawns in the field. There is no sexual
differences in coat colour except for the two black lines that run along
the antler pedicles of males and that extend down the face. Both sexes
have large preorbital glands located at the corner of the eyes, that appear
as a sigmoid fold of skin right in front of the eye. They are larger in males
and are very conspicuous when everted prior to marking with them or
during intense aggressive interactions (Dubost 1971, Barrette 1976,
1977a). In addition both sexes have a pair of frontal glands : two straight
slits on the face, between the eyes (Barrette 1976).

Males are only a little larger than females in body weight (e.g. about 22
kg vs 20 kg : Sunquist 1981, Phillips 1984). Based on skeletal
measurements males are not larger than females (e.g. M. m. muntjak,
maxillary tooth row length, in mm : females= 60.3 ± 2.1, n = 7, males=
60.2 ± 2.6, n = 12; Barrette1987). Thus, compared to most other deer,
muntjacs show little sexual dimorphism in body size (Barrette 1987,
Glutton-Brock 1987, Geist and Bayer 1988).

Males have antlers with a short brow line and a simple beam that can
reach about 15 em in length, and that tend to curve inwards at the tip in
older males. They grow from pedicles that spring from the frontal bones
and that can be as long as the antlers. The pedicles are continuous with
prominent bony ridges that extend down the face past the eyes, all the
way to the anterior border of the preorbital glands (thus the name rib­
faced deer). In addition, males have well developed upper canines that
protrude about 2 em from the maxillary bone, and are usually visible even
when the animal's mouth is shut (Chapman 1997). These teeth are

1 8 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Barking deer

pointe-d, sharp and apparently "hinged" (Aitchison 1946}. These tusks,

along with the antlers, are used in male-male combats (Barrette 1977b)
and are more important to a male's reproductive success than his antlers
are (Chapman et a/. 1997). Males are believed to defend themselves
against dogs with their tusks (Brooke 1874, Dansie 1970).

STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION

Being inconspicuous and solitary, muntjacs are very difficult to survey

with any acceptable level of precision or accuracy. One is more likely to
hear their loud alarm bark, or find their fecal pellets on the forest floor, or
their hair in a predator's scat, than to actually see them. Even when one
sees a muntjac, it is likely to be already alarmed and already dashing for
the nearest cover. It is therefore one thing to see a muntjac, but quite
another to recognize it as to sex or age class (adult or juvenile). For
instance, in 14 months of field work in Kanha, Schaller (1967) has se�n
muntjacs on 23 occasions. In Wilpattu (Sri Lanka), over 14 months of
field work, I had the chance to see muntjacs from hides at water holes
(n = 726}, and from a vehicle while doing road surveys at low speed with
three experienced observers at all times (n = 330). During the road
surveys, 146 (44 %) of the 330 sightings lasted less than one minute,
and in 46 cases (14 %), we failed to identify the sex of the animal (Barrette
1977c). During surveys (either on foot or from a vehicle) one is likely to
underestimate the number of muntjacs present, and underestimate still
further the abundance of fawns. It is important to stress these difficulties
because they are particularly real for a small, inconspicuous, solitary,
forest-dwelling animal like the muntjac.

Estimates of population density or composition are rare and approximate; e.g.

Wilpattu, Sri Lanka: 2.5/km2 (Barrette 1977c), Nagarhole, India: 4.2/km2(Karanth
and Sunquist 1992), Karnali-Bardia, Nepal?: 1.7/km2 (Dinerstein 1987), Rajaji,
India: 1/km2 (Johnsingh pers. com.). Short of obtaining accurate data on density
on such a cryptic animal, one could collect useful information on the relative
abundance of muntjacs through counts of signs, like pellet groups or barks, in
order to compare habitats or populations, or to monitor the fluctuations of a
given population through time (Duckworth 1998). Thus, nothing very specific
can be said about the exact status and distribution of muntjacs. Muntjacs seem
to be found wherever there is some forest cover without too much disturbance
from humans (or feral dogs) (Eisenberg and Lockhart 1972, Seidensticker 1976,
Barrette 1977c, Mishra 1982, Chapman et at. 1993). It therefore seems that
unless the forest habitat has been degraded and invaded by humans and feral

£ovis .�ullrtio : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 19

 dogs, some muntjacs are likely to be found, no matter the type of forest (except
may be the most humid), or the altitude (below about 3000 m), all over their
range.

ECOLOGY

Muntjacs are likely to be found in most forest habitats that are closed
enough to conceal them from a human observer (Wood 1931, Powell1964).
In such a habitat the animal finds both cover to exhibit its primary anti
predator tactics, i.e. hiding, Given its small body size a muntjac needs a
small absolute quantity of food per unit time, but a large quantity relative to
its body size. Also, its food must be highly digestible, i.e. low in fiber and
rich in protein or sugar (Hofmann and Stewart 1972, Jarman 1974, Hofmann
1985, Kay 1987). Therefore, muntjacs feed on fruits, bud's, freshly
sprouted leaves, and seeds (but not large ones : see Dinerstein 1987).
They are thus neither browsers nor grazers but n ibblers, or gleaners
(Barrette 1977c). They will occasionally graze near the forest cover but
only on immature, actively growing grass blades (Barrette 1977c, Jackson
eta/. 1977, Harding 1986, Dinerstein 1987, Chapman etat. 1993). Muntjacs
are sedentary and occupy rather small home ranges all their life. They
have never been shown to exhibit seasonal shifts in habitat use or any
form of migration. There is no convincing evidence of territoriality in M.
muntjak. Muntjacs are vulnerable to all large carnivores. For instance they
can be an important prey for the leopard (Panthera pardus) (Eisenberg
and Lockhart 1972), and the tiger (Panthera tigr is) (Sunquist eta/. 1999).

BEHAVIOUR

Muntjacs are solitary deer and this probably is a consequence of their need
for concentrated food (Hofmann 1985) which itself an effect of their small
size (Geist 1974, Jarman1974). Being nibblers, their food is widely dispersed
as small, rich items. In these circumstances individuals in a group, even of
small size, would have to compete constantly for the highly clumped food
(Jarman 1974). Individuals therefore are induced to forage singly.

There is no such thing as a herd of muntjacs (Wood 1931, Powell 1964).

Even under conditions that encourage the formation of aggregations (e.g.
a large clump of fallen fruits under a fruiting tree, or a small water hole at
the end of a drought) the largest group recorded numbered four (Barrette
1977c). In addition, such groups are accidental, temporary and result
more from a convergence towards a given ecological necessity, than a
result of social attraction.

2Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Barking deer

Among the animals seen in the. field, over 65% are solitary (Eisenberg and
Lockhart 1972, 1977c, Seidensticker 1976). This value varies among social
classes. Adult females are least solitary, they are usually accompanied
by one fawn, sometimes by a yearling female (presumably their daughter)
and a fawn. But they are almost never seen with another adult female.
Adult males are the most solitary. They spend short periods of a few days
with an restrus female until she is bred, occasionally tolerate a yearling
male in their vicinity, but are otherwise alone. Adult males are extremely
aggressive towards each other, engaging in fierce fights with antlers and
tusks (Dubost 1971, Barrette 1977b).

Muntjacs deposit scent in their home range with their facial glands and
seem to use feces and urine to mark as well (Dubost 1971, Barrette
1977d). Thus, a local population of muntjacs probably form some kind of
social unit held together more or less loosely by a net of scent that informs
the individuals on their conspecifics identity, sexual status and
wherebouts. For muntjacs, solitary therefore does not mean asocial.

In addition to scent, vocalisations also keep muntjacs in contact with each

other. As their name indicates, barking is a loud and commonly used call.
Barking is neither a mating, nor a territorial call, it is an alarm call, given in
response to the presence of a predator or of a human disturbance (Dubost
1971, Barrette 1977a, c, Yahner 1980, Oli and Jacobson 1995). A muntjac
that hears a distant bark pays attention to it, stopping momentarilly from
foraging for instance and showing some alert behaviors like a raised head,
stiff gait or front feet stamping. Therefore, barking informs a muntjac both
of the presence of a potential danger and of a con specific in the vicinity. It
should be added that barking can also be used by a subordinate individual
in the presence of a dominant one as a way of gaining access to a clumped
resource apparently by making the dominant believe that a predator has
been perceived nearby (Barrette 1977c).

The spatial organization of muntjacs is rather simple. Females have home

ranges that are smaller than those of males and whose size is presumably
a function of the abundance and distribution of food. Males have larger
home ranges encompassing those of a few females (Dubost 1970, Harding
1986, Chapman eta/. 1993). Thus the distribution of females is controlled
by food, that of males is a response to the distribution of females.

Compared to other deer, muntjacs spend much time grooming one another
in every type of pairs that they form {adult male-a�ult female, adult male­
yearling male, adult female-yearling female or fawn) (Dubost 1971,

cSnvis.�ullttin : WtLOLIFE ANO PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 21

 Barrette 1977a). By comparison, in the Axis deer (Axis axis) for instance,
social grooming is very rare except between a female and her young
fawn. It otherwise occurs only as an immediate prelude to copulation,
the male licking a femal's vulva and fore legs (Barrette 1987). Also,
muntjacs' tongue is exceptionally long, allowing them to lick their own
eye and preorbital glands, which they actively do while urinating or
defecating as part of t� elaborate protocol they use while scent marking
(Dubost 1971, Barrette 1977a, d).

REPRODUCTION AND POPULATION DYNAMICS

Muntjacs breed and give birth in all months of the year (Chapman and
Dansie 1970, Barrette 1977c, Chapman et a/. 1993, Pei et a/. 1995,
Chapman et at. 1997). This is made possible· because females
experience a post-partum oestrus, ovulating within a few days after
parturition (Chapman and Dansie 1970, Barrette 1977a, c). Thus for a
given female the interbirth interval is not 12 months as it would be if
reproduction was seasonal, but about seven months (Chapman 1993,
Pei eta/. 1995, Chapman eta/. 1997). This is to say that a female can be
pregnant almost continuously for her entire adult life. Since a female also
can conceive as early as at 10 months of age (Chapman 1993), it makes
for a rather high productivity both at the individual and at the population
level, even if females almost always give birth to single fawns.

One curious feature is found in the reproductive tract of muntjacs.

Although both ovaries are active, most of the embryos develop in the
right horn of the uterus (Chapman and Dansie 1970). This is all the more
surprising since implantation takes place within 10 days after parturition.
In such a situation we would expect that the horn which the newborn
fawn has just vacated would not be in a condition to allow a successful
implantation so few days later. Yet, that is exactly what happens, even
though the other uterine horn is available for implantation.

For births to occur in all months of the year it is not sufficient that females
ovulate in all months, it is necessary that males be also capable of
breeding in all months. Usually, male deer can breed only while their
antlers are hard. Antler growth and spermatogenesis are both controlled
and synchronized by the level of testosterone secretion (Lincoln 1985).
In this respect, muntjacs are a remarkable exception : males can breed
even while their antlers are in velvet (Chapman and Harris 1991, Chapman
et a/. 1997). This means that a male is always available for mating
whenever he meets an estrus female. Given the solitary habit and the

22 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Barking deer

low density of the species, it probably happens that a female does not
encounter a male at her first post-partum oestrus. In such a case she
will ovulate again, at about 15 days interval (Barrette 1977c, Yahner 1979,
Chapman. 1993) presumably until she is bred. Newborn fawns have a
spotted coat and have a mean weight between 1.2 and 1.5 kg depending
on the sample studied (Acharjyo and Mishra 1981 ).

One aspect of males antler cycle which is all the more curious since
breeding is non-seasonal and a male can breed at anytime, is that, at the
population level, antler cycle is rather synchronous (Barrette 1977a, c,
Mishra 1982, Acharjyo and Patnaik 1984, Chapman and Harris 1991 ). It
seems that each male usually sheds his antlers every 12 months. At the
population level, the synchrony is strong e.g. 32 of 34 antler castings in
April-May (Acharjyo and Patnaik 1984), not a single male in velvet for 6
months of the year (Barrette 1977c) most antlers shed within two months
(Chapman and Chapman 1982, Chapman eta/. 1997).

Males are well equipped with weapons (antlers and tusks) that they use in
combat among themselves (Barrette 1977b), but they are not much larger
than females in body size, and seem to have large testis for their body size.

Courtship and mating is vigorous (Dubost 1971, Barrette 1977a, Yahner

1979). During the some 24 hours that a female is in estrus, a male mates
with her several times at short intervals and remains in very close
proximity to her. It would be interesting to obtain data on relative testis
size of muntjacs and other tropical deer, in order to confirm that they are
relatively large in muntjac, and thus confirm the possibility of sperm
competition in this deer. That would explain the reduced weight
dimorphisim and could help to understand other curious aspects of
reproduction in muntjacs.

CONSERVATION

Muntjacs depend on a good quality forest habitat, both for food and for
cover more than sambar
•. { Ce�vus unicolor) or chital do for instance.
For that reason, muntjacs are likely to suffer more, and sooner, than
other deer species from forest degradation resulting from cattle grazing,
wood cutting or fodder collection for instance. In addition, because
muntjacs are extremely nervous and easily alarmed, they are certainly
very much disturbed by any human presence, especially if it includes
the presence of feral dogs, even without active poaching. Nevertheless,
since they are adaptable and require relatively small home ranges, they

£crvit �ulltcio : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTEDAAEAS (2004) 23

 can continue to occur in forest patches near villages, albeit at low
densities, where the much larger chital and sambar have long become
extirpated. Such small remnants would however be non viable in the long
run. The local abundance of muntjacs may therefore be a useful index of
habitat quality. The increasing silencing of their conspicious bark could
be taken as an alarm.

According to the recent deer conservation action plan of the IUCN, only
the black muntjac of China (M. crinifrons) is considered vulnerable
(Wemmer 1998). It must be emphasised however that in the case of four
of the seven other species of muntjacs, a conservation status could not
be assigned because of 'deficient data' (Wemmer 1998). Given its wide
geographical range and its great adaptability, the species M. muntjac as
a whole may be one of the least threatened deer in the region. The IUCN
gives status to all ten subspecies of M. muntjak (Wemmer 1998),
pr�sumably on the basis of sufficient data.

REFERENCES

Acharjyo, L.N. and Mishra, C. G. 1981. Notes on weight and size at birth
of eight species of Indian wild ungulates in captivity. J. Bombay Nat.
Hist. Soc., 78 : 373-375.

Acharjyo, L.N. and Patnaik, S.K. 1984. A note on antler casting of barking deer
i cus muntjak) in captivity. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 81 : 690.
(Munta

Aitchison, J. 1946. Hinged teeth in mammals: a study of the tusks of muntjacs

and chinese water deer. Proc. Zoo/. Soc. Lond., 116: 329-338.

Barrette, C.1976. Musculature of facial scent glands in the muntjac. J.

A nat., 122: 61-66.

Barrette, C.1977a. The social behavior of captive muntjacs, Muntiacus

reevesi (Ogilby 1839). Z. Tierpsychol, 43: 188-213.

Barrette, C. 1977b. Fighting behaviour of muntjac and the evolution of

antlers, Evolution, 31 : 169-176.

Barrette, C. 1977c. Some aspects of the behaviour of muntjacs in Wilpattu

National Park, Sri Lanka. Mammalia, 41 : 1-34.

24 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Barking deer

Barrette, C. 1977d. Scent marking in captive muntjacs, Muntiacus

reevesi. Anim. Behav., 25: 536-541.

Barrette, C. 1987. The comparative behavior and ecology of chevrotains,

musk deer, and morphologically conservative deer. In : Biology and
management of the Cervidae. C. Wemmer (Ed.). Smithsonian
Institution, Washington. 200-213.

Brooke, V. 1874. On Sclater's Muntjac and other species of the genus

Cervulus. Proc. Zoo/. Soc. Land., 1874: 33-42.

Chapman, D. I. and Dansie, 0. 1970. Reproduction and feotal development in

female muntjac deer (Muntiacus reevesiOgilby). Mammalia, 34: 303-319.

Chapman, D.l. and Chapman, N.G. 1982. The antler cycle of adult
Reeves' muntjac. Acta Theria/., 27: 107-114.

Chapman, N.G. 1993. Reproductive performance of captive Reeves'

Muntjac. In: Deer of China: biology and management. N.Ohtaishi and
H.l. Sheng (Eds.), Elsevier: 199-203.

Chapman, N.G. 1997. Upper canine teeth of Muntiacus (Cervidae) with

particular reference to M. reevesi. Z. SaOgetierk., Supp. II : 32-36.

Chapman, N.G. and Harris, S. 1991. Evidence that the seasonal antler
cycle of adult Reeves' muntjac (Muntiacus reevest) is not associated
with reproductive quiescence. J. Reprod. Fert., 92 : 361-369.

Chapman, N.G., Claydon, K., Claydon, M., Forde, P.G. and Harris, S. 1993.
Sympatric populations of muntjac (Muntiacus reeves1) and roe deer
(Capreolus capreolus) : a comparative analysis of their ranging behaviour,
social organization and activity. J. Zoo/., Land., 229 : 623-640.

Chapman, N.G., Furlong, M. and Harris, S. 1997. Reproductive strategies

and the influence of date of birth on growth and sexual development
of an aseasonally-breeding ungulate : Reeves' muntjac (Muntiacus
reevesi ) J. Zoo/., Land., 241 : 551-570.
.

Glutton-Brock, T.H., Guinness, F.E. and Albon, S. D. 1982. Red deer.

Behavior and ecology of two sexes. University of Chicago Press.

£nvit J5ullttio: WilDUFE AND PROTECTEOAAEAS (2004) 25

 Clutton-Brock, T.H. 1987. Sexual selection in the Cervidae. In: Biology
and management of the Cervidae. C. Wemmer (Ed.}, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington : 110-12·1.

Dansie, 0. 1970. Muntjac (Muntiacus sp.). British Deer Society

Publication, 2: 3-20.

Dinerstein, E. 1987. Deer, plant phenology, and succession in the lowland

forests of Nepal. In : Biology and management of the Cervidae. C.
Wemmer (Ed.), Smithsonian Institution, Washington : 272-288.

Dubost, G. 1970. L'organisation spatiale et sociale de Muntiacus reevesi

Ogilby 1839 en semi-liberte. Mammalia, 34 : 331-355.

Dubost, G. 1971. Observations ethologiques sur le Muntjac (Muntiacus

muntjac Zimmermann 1780 et M. reevesi Ogilb.y 1839) en captivite et
semi-liberte. z. Tierpsychol. 28: 387-427.

Duckworth, J.W. 1998. The difficulty of estimating population densities

of nocturnal forest mammals from transect counts of animals. J. Zoo/.,
Lond., 246 : 466-468.

Eisenberg, J.F. and Lockhart, M. 1972. An ecological reconnaissance of

Wilpattu National Park, Ceylon. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology,
No. 101.

Geist, V. and Bayer, M. 1988. Sexual dimorphism in the Cervidae and its
relation to habitat. J. Zoo/., Lond., 214: 45-53.

Geist, V. 1974. On the relationship of social evolution and ecology in

Ungulates. Amer. Zoo/., 14 : 205-220.

Grubb, P. 1993. Order Artiodactyla. In : Mamma/ species of the world. A

taxonomic and geographic reference. D. E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder
(Eds.), Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. : 377-414.

Grubb, P. and Gardner, A.L. 1998. List of species and subspecies of the
families Tragulidae, Moschidae, and Cervidae. In : Deer, status survey
and conservation action plan. C. Wemmer (Ed.), IUCN/SSC Deer
specialist group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: 6-16.

Harding, S.P. 1986. Aspects of the ecology and social organization of the
muntjac deer, (Muntiacus reevesi). Ph.D. Thesis, Oxford University.

26 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Barking deer

Hofmann, R. R. 1985. Digestive physiology of t h e deer - their

morphophysiological specialization and adaptation. Bull. R. Soc. N.Z.,
22: 393-407.

Hofmann, R.R. and Stewart, D.R.M. 1972. Grazer or browzer : a

classification based on the stomach structure and feeding habits of
East-African ruminants. Mammalia, 36: 226-240.

Jackson, J.E., Chapman, D.l. and Dansie, 0. 1977. A note on the food of
Muntjac deer (Muntiacus reeves1). J. Zoo/. Lond, 183: 546-548.

Jarman, P.T. 1974. The social organization of antelope in relation to their

ecology. Behaviour, 48: 215-267.

Karanth, U.K. and Sunquist, M.E. 1992. Population structure, density and
biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarhole, India.
J. Trop. Ecology, 8 : 21-35.

Kay, R.N.B. 1987. Weights of salivary glands in some ruminant animals.

J. Zoo/., Lond, 211 : 431-436.

Lincoln, G.A. 1985. Seasonal breeding in deer. Bull. Roy. Soc. N.Z., 22:
165-179.

Mishra, H.R. 1982. The ecology and behaviour of the chital (Axis axis) in
the Royal Chitawan National Park, Nepal. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Edinburgh.

Oli, M.K. and Jacobson, H.A. 1995. Vocalizations of barking deer

(Muntiacus muntjac) in Nepal. Mammalia, 59: 179-186.

Prater, S.H. 1980. The book of Indian Animals. Bombay Natural History
Society, Bombay. Pp. 324.

Pei, K., Taber, A.D., O'hara, B.W. and Wang, Y. 1995. Breeding cycle of
the Formosan Reeves' muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi micrurus) northern
Taiwan, Republic of China. Mammalia, 59: 223-228.

Phillips, W.W.A. 1984. Manual of the mammals of Sri Lanka. Wildlife and
nature protection society of Sri Lanka. 2nd edition.

Powell, A.N.W. 1964. The Muntjac or barking deer. J. Bengal Nat. Hist.
Soc., 33: 143-148.

c£11vit �ullrtin : WJLOUFE ANO PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 27

 Schaller, G.B. 1967. The deer and the tiger University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.

Seidensticker, J.C 1976. Ungulate populations in Chitawan valley, Nepal.

Biological Conservation 101 183- 201.

Sunquist, M. E. 1981. The social organization of tigers (Panthera tigris)

in Royal Chitawan National Park, Nepal. Smithsonian Contributions
to Zoology, 336 : 1-98.

Sunquist, M., Karanth, K.U. and Sunquist, F. 1999. Ecology, behaviour

and resilience of the tiger and its conservation needs. In: Riding the
tiger: Tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes. J.
Seidensticker, S. Christie and P. Jackson (Eds.). Cambridge
University Press: 5-18.

Wemmer, C. (Ed.) 1998. Deer. Status survey and conservation action

plan. IUCN/SSC Deer specialist group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
and Cambridge, UK.

Wood, H.S. 1931. Notes on the natural history and shikar of Indian deer,
I :the barking deer. J. Darjeeling Nat. Hist. Soc., 5 : 61-68.

Yahner, A. H. 1979. Temporal patterns in male mating behavior of captive

Reeves' muntjac (Muntiacus reeves1). J. Mamm., 60: 560-567.

Yahner, R.H. 1980. Barking in a primitive ungulate, Muntiacus reevesi:

function and adaptiveness. Am. Nat., 116: 157-177.

28 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Nilgai

BLUE BULL OR NILGAI

{ Boselaphus tragocamelus Pallas, 1766)
K. Sankar, A.J.T. Johnsingh and B. Acharya

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Bovidae
Sub-Family : Bovinae
Tribe : Boselaphini
Genus : Boselaphus
Species : B. ta
r gocamelus
Common name : Nilgai, Blue bull

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) Schedule Ill
/UCN RED DATA BOOK Lower risk
CITES Not listed

INTRODUCTION

Nilgai are the largest antelopes in Asia, about the size of a horse. Brander
(1923) reported a 270 kg bull in central India. Walker (1968) reported
that an adult nilgai weighs about 200 kg. Prater (1971) opined that bulls
could weigh up to 270 kg. In Texas, 39 bulls averaged 241 kg and 23
adult cows 169 kg (Sheffield et a/. 1983). An adult male stands 130 to
140 em at the shoulder (Walker 1968, Prater 1971). Sale eta/. (1988)
reported shoulder height of eight bulls ranging from 130 to 150 em (mean
138.4 em) and for five cows from 100 to 130 em (mean 116.8 em), in
Punjab, India. Bulls in Texas averaged 180 em in length, 160 em in
chest girth, and 120 em height at the shoulders. The corresponding
dimensions for cows were 170 em, 130 em, and 120 em respectively
(Sheffield eta/. 1983). Only male nilgai have horns which are short (15-
20 em), stout, conical and smooth in nature.

tovisJSulltrin: WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 29

 Nilgai calves and cows are light brown in colour. The light brown colour
of male calves begins to darken by the tenth month and they develop
black legs and brownish grey shoulders by 18 months. Adult nilgai bulls
are steel-grey or blue grey in colour with black legs, which is developed
by the fourth year (Sheffield eta/. 1983). All individuals have dark and
white markings on their heads, ears, under-parts, fetlocks, and tail, and

prominent white vibrissa spots on the head. At the midpo i nt on the ventral
side of the neck is a tuft of hair, more pronounced in bulls than in cows
(Sheffield eta/. 1983).

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION

Nilgai are endemic to peninsular India. Historical records point out that
all the Mughal emperors were extremely fond of hunting nilgai, especially
Jehangir, credited with hunting down, among other animals, nearly 900
nilgai (Ali 1927). In the past, nilgai were distributed in open vegetation
types all over India, down to Mettupalayam (latitude: 11 o N) in south India
(Brander 1923, Pythian-Adams 1951, Prater 1971 ) . The present
distribution of nilgai ranges from the Himalayan foothills, southward
through central India, down to the southern districts of Andhra Pradesh.
They are found in 114 Protected Areas of the country, in 16 States: Andhra
Pradesh, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,
Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab,
Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and West Benga
' l. They
are absent in the north-east India, and the southernmost parts of the
peninsula. Nilgai have also been reported in Pakistan, mainly along the
border with India (Mirza and Khan 1975, Roberts 1977) and in Nepal
(Dinerstein 1979). Introduced nilgai populations occur in U.S.A., Mexico
and South Africa (Lever 1985).

Nilgai occur near human habitations and crop fields outside protected
areas. They are found in a variety of habitats, from level ground to
undulating hills, in thin brush with scattered trees to cultivated plains,
but not in dense forests and steep hills (Blanford 1888, Prater 1971).
They are absent from the true arid zone where woody cover is inadequate
to meet their requirements.

POPULATION

Though nilgai were once common throughout India (Adams 1858, Blanford
1888), like most large mammalian fauna of India, they have declined
drastically because of habitat destruction and over-hunting (Schaller 1967).

30 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Nilgai

Roberts {1977) reported that nilgai numbers are much reduced even in
India, despite being regarded as sacred by the Hindu farming population.
Their current population in India is yet to be assessed. Population figures
are rarely available ev'en from within the PAs from where they have been
reported. Needless to say, estimating nilgai numbers outside PAs becomes
even more difficult. However, a safe estimate of nilgai in India would be
between 100,000 and 150,000. North-central India, covering four states
(Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh) account for a
large majority (about 60%} of the total nilgai population in the country.

ECOLOGY

Group size and composition

Nilgai are partially social in their habits (Roberts 1977), although

congregations and large groups are rare. According to Dinerstein (1980),
nilgai occur in groups ranging from one to 10 individuals, and the mean
group size observed in Karnali-Bardia in Nepal was 2.9. In Sariska, seasonal
group size of nilgai (excluding single individuals) varied greatly, from two to
43 individuals, with a mean group size of 4.0 (Sankar 1994), with groups of
up to five individuals formed 87 per cent of the groups observed. In Gir,
Khan eta/. {1995) reported mean group size of nilgai (including 'groups' of
one) as 2.2, with high seasonal variability in group sizes.

According to Schaller (1967), nilgai groups change constantly, but three

distinct kinds of groups are discernible: (i) one or two cows with young
calves, (ii) 3 to 6 adult and yearling cows with calves, and (iii) male groups
varying in number from 2 to 18. Sheffield et a/. (1983) reported that in
Texas, nilgai exhibited sexual segregation, except during the breeding
season (December to March), when groups were formed with a male,
and one or more cows and their calves. During the non-breeding season,
especially the monsoon in India (July-October), bulls were usually found
in all-male groups of less than 10 individuals, or sometimes in groups of
10 to 23, rarely more. N'on-breeding cows and their calves occur mainly
in groups of less thar'l 16, often as singles and occasionally in larger
groups of 16 to 24. During the breeding and calving seasons, this
structure may change (,Sankar 1994).

Sex ratio

Data from captive-bred nilgai indicated that the sex ratio of nilgai at birth
is approximately even. Of the 535 nilgai born in zoos worldwide, 49%

!nvia..iullttill: WllDUFE AND PROTECTED AREAs {2004) 31

 were males and 51% females (Jarvis 1968, Lucas 1970). In India, the
sex ratio (male:female) of free ranging adult nilgai favours females: 0.59:1
in Bharatpur (Schaller and Spillett 1966), 0.39:1 in Vanvihar Sanctuary
(Schaller 1967), and 0.4:1 in Sariska (Sankar 1994). In Gir, down the
years, the female-biased sex ratio of nilgai appears to be tilting more
towards females: from 0.89:1 (Berwick and Jordan 1971) to 0.71:1 (Khan
et a/. 1995). In Texas, the observed male:female ratio was 0.81:1
(Sheffield eta/. 1983).

The female:calf ratios for free-ranging nilgai are: 1:0.23 in Gir (Khan et
a/. 1995), 1:0.48 in Sariska (Sankar 1994), and 1:1.03 in Texas (Sheffield
et a/. 1983). The higher number of young in nilgai, as compared to
sympatric ungulates, can be attributed to twinning (Kyle 1990, Sankar
1994) and strong defence of calves by cows making them less vulnerable
to predation (Sankar 1994). One adult female nilgai in Sariska was
observed guarding a 'creche' of four calves (A.J.T. Johnsingh pers.
observ.). Of the 755 calves encountered in Sariska, 80 per cent were
twins. The study on free-ranging nilgai in Texas also recorded births of
triplets (Kyle 1990). The main reason for the lower female:fawn ratio in
Texas was due to a combination of twinning and the total absence of any
large predator there.

Reproduction

According to Prater (1934) and Asdell (1946), nilgai have no regular

rutting season. In central India, Brander (1923) noticed calves of free­
ranging nilgai in all seasons. In Bharatpur, most calves were born during
the rainy season (June to October}, and most breeding activity occurred
from October to February, with a peak in November and December
(Schaller 1967). Data from captive nilgai in zoos throughout the world
showed that peak periods of birth last for 3 to 4 months, but these peak
months varied from location to location (Sheffield eta/. 1983). In Sariska,
though new born nilgai calves were seen from July to November, most
of the calving was observed in October and November (Sankar 1994).
Judging from this fact, and the knowledge that their gestation period is 8
to 9 months (Crandall 1964, Prater 1971 ), nilgai in Sariska would have a
peak rut from December to January.

Predation and mortality

Predation on nilgai by large predators like tiger (Panthera tg

i rs
i ) and leopard
(P. pardus) in Rajaji (Johnsingh eta/. 1993) and in Sariska (Sankar eta/.

32 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Nilgai

1993) was negligible. The same applied for the lions in Gir (Chellam 1993).
Due to large body sizes and gregarious habits of adult nilgai, leopards
(Panthera pardus) may find it very difficult to hunt them down. The preference
of nilgai for human-dominated habitats make them less vulnerable to predation
by tiger. Nilgai cows may be capable of defending their calves from
predators. Sankar (1994) once observed an adult nilgai female with two
young calves chasing away a tiger, and a dhole (Cuon a/pinus) on another
occasion. Very little information is available on mortality in nilgai other than
natural predation. In Sariska, eight dead nilgai were diagnosed with symptoms
of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) (Sankar 1994). Nilgai, being an antelope
and therefore less dependent on water, was least affected by the severe
drought of 1988 in Sariska, when, of the 153 wild ungulates killed by the
drought, only 18 were nilgai (Goyal et a/. 1993).

Food habits

Studies on nilgai food habits showed that they are browsers (Berwick 1974,
Mirza and Khan 1975, Dinerstein 1979, 1980) or mixed feeders (Haque 1990,
Sankar 1994). In southern Texas, they are grazers (Sheffield et a/. 1983).
Nilgai can thrive upon variable proportions of grass, herbs, and browse,
subject only to a minimum requirement of protein, which must not be below
8 per cent of their intake. A study of ungulate foo.d habits in Nepal (Dinerstein
1979) indicated that sambar and nilgai feed on the same browse species.
Apart from this, there is little information available on the dietary overlap
between nilgai and other wild ungulates. According to Rodgers (1988), the
large size of nilgai means they can exist on much poorer quality food items,
making them coarser browsers. They are also fond of raiding crops and are
regarded considered as pests in agriculture fields. Their ability to reach up
to a height of 2.2 m height (bulls) helps in accessing forage in heavily grazed
areas. At times, even female nilgai have been observed standing on hind
legs and feeding on Zizyphus mauritiana leaves and fruits (K. Sankar pers.
observ.). Nilgai was found associated with common langur (Semnopithecus
entellus) in feeding areas in Sariska, gleaning food dropped by them.

In Sariska, nilgai fed on 91 plant species that included 20 tree, nine shrub, 12
·creeper/straggler, 29 herb and 21 grass species (Sankar 1994). Grass formed
an important component of nilgai diet during and soon after monsoon. During
winter and summer nilgai fed on fallen leaves and fruits of Zizyphus maurt
i a
i na,
fallen flowers of Butea monosperma, fallen pods of Acacia nilotica, A. catechu
and A. /eucoph/oea, and fallen leaves of Anogeissus pendula, along with grass
and browse. Like most other mammals, freshly fallen flowers of mahua tree
(Madhuca indica) are a favourite for chital in Central India. Analysis of preference

£:nvi•..iullttin: WILDUFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 33

 ratings and the dietary importance of browse species of nilgai in Sariska revealed
that the leaves of Capparis sepiaria (crude protein content (CPC) = 10 to 14%),
Grewa
i flavescens (CPC = 8 to 14%) and Zizyphus mauritiana (CPC = 3.9 to
10.5%) were the preferred plant species (Sankar 1994).

Habitat use and home range

Nilgai are found in open areas with undulating or flat terrain (Berwick
1974); they avoid dense hilly forests and prefer scrublands with low tree
and shrub densities (Chakraborty 1991, Sankar 1994, Khan 1996). A
radio-collared nilgai female had a mean seasonal home range of 3.6 km2
in Sariska (Sankar 1994), and its annual home range was 7.3 km2• In
Texas, a nilgai female had a 0.6 km2 home range, and the mean home
range of eight bulls was 4.7 km2 (Sheffield eta/. 1983). In India, nilgai
are generally considered diurnal (Brander 1923, s·challer 1967), and the
same holds true for the Texan population, although some degree of
nocturnal activity did occur (Sheffield eta/. 1983). In Nepal, Dinerstein
{1979) reported two activity peaks (0700 and 1800 hrs) for nilgai during
summer, and a radio-collared nilgai female in Sariska also showed two
activity peaks, 0700 to 0900 hrs, and 1600 to 1800 hrs during winter
(Chakraborty 1991).

Water use

In Nepal, Dinerstein (1979) observed that the availability of surface water

influenced the distribution and movements of ungulates including nilgai.
According to Prater (1971) nilgai can go for long periods without water,
and even during the hot weather, nilgai do not need to drink water regularly.
Nilgai are reported to be water independent even in desert areas (Bohra et
a/. 1992). A 168 kg nilgai male in Texas drank up to 14 litres every 24
hours during July-August, when temperatures reached 40°C. During a
drought in Texas in 1971, a radio-collared bull deserted a home range
soon after all surface water had evaporated from there, and established a
new range about 1.6 km away in an area with ponds (Sheffield eta/. 1983).

BEHAVIOUR

Mating system

During the breeding season, the bulls move about in search of breeding
cows, and upon finding one, defend the area around her from intrusions
by other males - a system described as 'roving territoriality' (Sheffield

34 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Nilgai

et a/. 1983). Mature bulls maintain an area of dominance around

themselves, whether or not cows are present. Breeding bulls respond to
intrusions into these areas from other bulls by displays, threats, and
chases, which either results in the intruding bulls leaving, or remaining
in the area in a subordinate status. Courtship in nilgai is simple and
involves a neck-stretched-forward, tail erect display by the male, showing
the conspicuous white ventral side, and following the female in oestrus
during a slow, sedate mating march.

Vocalisation

Although normally silent, nilgai have several vocalisations. Adults of both

sexes, and calves as young as 5 months of age, sometimes utter a guttural
alarm, more frequently when nilgai detects a hidden motionless observer,
and especially when the wind direction is not in its favour. The call is audible
for a distance of nearly 500 m. The alarm call of cows is of a higher pitch
than that of bulls. Calves also call in a higher pitch, but much more softly.
The alarm call of one group member usually alerts others, which sometimes
join in. A low-pitched belching moan can be heard occasionally when one
bull chases another (Sheffield eta/. 1983). At times, cows produce a very
low-pitched call to their calves (K. Sankar pers. observ.).

Display behaviour

Adult bulls display their dominance in many ways. A 'head-up' display

consists of a raised muzzle exposing the white throat patch to adversaries.
Another display is the 'horizontal-neck' display, where the head and neck
is held stiff and stretched horizontal with the gular hair tuft and pinnae
completing the picture. A bull would also exhibit a 'lateral display' when
another male challenges him or when walking towards a subordinate.
During the lateral display, the forelegs are held stiff, while the hind legs
are brought forward under the body so that the rump is lowered and the
back prominently arched. The head and neck are stretched forward, ears
are held below horizontal and the male walks with short, slow, and deliberate
steps. Viewed laterally, a displaying male appears massive at the chest
and lower neck and relatively small at the rump. The eyes appear glazed
and are rolled back, exposing the whites (Sheffield eta/. 1983). During
this process, the neck is stretched forward. Remarkably, this lateral display
never occurs when opponents are very close to each other (Sheffield et
a!. 1983). Sometimes bulls also jerk their head down to point the tip of their
horns to their opponents. Submissive behaviour recorded in Sariska
included that of a sub-adult nilgai bull sitting on its belly with forelegs folded

!nvis JSullrtio: WILDLIFE ANO PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 35

 beneath, and repeatedly butted the chin of an adult bull, which stood over
it, extending its neck (A.J.T. Johnsingh pers. observ.).

Fighting

Walther (1 974) described two types of fighting in nilgai bulls: (i) the
combatants stand or kneel, and butt each other on the forehead with
their harris, (ii) a neck-fight, in which both animals either stand or kneel,
and push their necks against each other. Nilgai are the only bovids that
exhibit neck-fighting between horned bulls. However, hornless cows of
several bovids (including nilgai) neck-fight, which Walther ( 1 97 4)
considered phylogenetically very old, and suggested that it was also part
of the behavioural repertoire of hornless ancestors of the modern horned
ungulates. The persistence of this behaviour in nilgai bulls may relate to
their relatively primitive horn structure. Since these horns are ineffective
binding instruments, the common and more highly evolved head-to-head
shoving with crossed horns (as observed in gazelle and kudu), has not
developed in nilgai.

Calf behaviour

As seen in several species of ungulates, nilgai calves remain hidden for a

while after birth, a habit called 'lying out'. Twin nilgai calves born in captivity
spent their first 1 0 days sleeping inside a shed, and rising only to nurse at
two-hour intervals (Lacey 1 969). In Texas, the period of remaining hidden
lying-out was about a month, after which the calves began travelling with
their mother. This transition from lying-out to continued association with
the mother appeared to occur gradually (Sheffield eta/. 1 983).

Dung piles

Nilgai have a characteristic habit of defecating repeatedly in the same

location, resulting in the formation of large faecal piles or lavatory sites of
nearly a meter in diameter (Brander 1 923, Dharmakumarsinhji 1 959, Schaller
1 967). The social significance of this phenomenon is not yet clear. Schaller
(1 967) suggested that these piles might function as territorial markers, since
the behaviour is characteristic of several species of African antelopes
(Leuthold 1977). Contrastingly, in Texas, there was little evidence that nilgai
were territorial despite using faecal piles (Sheffield eta/. 1 983). As evident
from the different sizes of pellet groups at faecal piles, all age- and sex
classes, including calves, use lavatory sites, although bulls undoubtedly
use them more often than cows and calves (K. Sankar pers. observ.).

36 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Nilgai

CONSERVATION

Although there has been a reduction in the overall range of nilgai, the existing
populations seem to �e doing fairly well. This is largely because of they are
a protected species under the law, and more importantly the protection they
acquire from being considered sacred due to their resemblance to domestic
cows. Moreover, gradual degradation of dense forests into open scrub and
thickets, increasingly bordered by agricultural fields, has offered favourable
habitat conditions for the increase of nilgai numbers. Invariably, in such
situations, nilgai become serious pests as crop raiders and a major issue of
human-wildlife conflict. Possible solutions voiced include a selective culling
programme linked to licensed hunting permits. However, throughout the range
of the nilgai, most farmers are Hindus, and in Rajasthan and Haryana, many
of them are Bishnois, a sect that rigorously protects all animals. Bishnoi
farmers prefer to tolerate the raids on their crops rather than permit the
slaughter of nilgai. So it is highly unlikely that any scheme to cull or ranch
nilgai either for hunting or for local consumption will ever work in India (Kyle
1990). This attitude may however change, when the number of people living
off the land increases, when the local people begin to believe nilgai are
vermin or a source of meat. Relocations of problematic nilgai, for the time
being, seem the safest solution.

REFERENCES

Adams, A.L. 1858. Remarks on the habits and haunts of some of the
Mammals found in various parts of India and the western Himalayan
mountains. Proc. Zoo/. Soc. London. 26: 512-531.

Ali, S. 1927. The Moghul emperors of India as naturalists and sportsmen.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 31(4): 833-861.

Asdel!, S.A. 1946. Patterns of Mammalian Reproduction. Cornell Univ.

Press. Ithaca. 670 Pp.

Berwick, S.H. 1974. The community of wild ruminants in the Gir forest
ecosystems, India. Ph.D Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven.
266 Pp.

Berwick; S.H., and Jordan, P.A. 1971. First report of the Yale-Bombay
Natural History Society studies of wild ungulates at the Gir Forest,
Gujarat, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 68: 412-423.

Cnvi• �ullrrin : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS {2004) 37

 Blanford, W.T. 1888. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and
Burma. Mammalia. Taylor and Francis. London. England. 617 Pp.

Bohra, H.C., Goyal, S.P., Ghosh, P.K. and Prakash, I. 1992. Studies on
ethology and eco-physio
. logy of the antelopes of Indian Desert. Annals
of Arid Zone. 31: 83-96.

Brander, A.A. D. 1923. Wild animals in centra/India. Edward Arnold and

Co. London. 296 Pp.

Chakraborty, B. 1991. Habitat use by radio-instrumented chital, sambar

and nilgai in Sariska Tiger Reserve. M.Sc. Dissertation, submitted to
Saurashtra University, Rajkot. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun.

Chellam, R. 1993. Ecology of the Asiatic Lion (Panthera leo persica).

Ph.D. Thesis. Saur. Univ., Rajkot.

Crandall, L.S. 1964. The management of wild mammals in captivity. Univ.

of Chicago Press. 769 Pp.

Dharmakumarsinhji, K.S. 1959. A field guide to big game census in India.

Indian Board for Wildlife, New Delhi. 2: 62-66.

Dinerstein, E. 1979. An ecological survey of the Royal Karnali-Bardia

Wildlife Refuge, Nepal. Part II. Habitat-Animal interactions. Bioi.
Conserv. 16: 265-300.

Dinerstein, E. 1980. An ecological survey of the Royal Karnali-Bardia Wildlife

Reserve, Nepal. Part-Ill. Ungulate populations. Bioi. Conserv. 16: 5-38.

Goyal, S.P., Sankar, K., and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1993. Monitoring isolated
ungulate populations - A case study from Sariska Tiger Reserve.
Poster paper: In: International Wildlife Management Congress, San
Jose, Costa Rica. 19-25 September, 1993.

Haque, N. 1990. Study on the ecology of wild ungulates of Keoladeo

National Park, Bharatpur. Ph.D. Thesis. Centre for Wildlife and
Ornithology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. 308 Pp.

Jarvis, C. (Ed.) 1968. Species of wild animals bred in captivity during

1966. Int. Zoo Yearbook. 8: 288-316.

38 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Nilgai

Johnsingh, A.J.T., Goyal, S.P., Rawat, G.S. and Mukherjee, S. 1993.

Food habits of tiger and leopard in Rajaji, North West India. Abstract.
International Symposium on the tiger, 22-24 Feb., M.O.E.F., Govt. of
India, New Delhi.

Khan, J.A 1996. Factors governing habitat occupancy of ungulates in

Gir lion Sanctuary, Gujarat, India. International Journal of Ecology
and Environmental Science. 22: 73-83.

Khan, J.A., Chellam, R., and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1995. Group size and
age-sex composition of three major ungulate species in Gir Lion
Sanctuary, Gujarat, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 92: 295-302.

Kyle, A. 1990. An antelope for all seasons. New Scientist. April 1990.

Lacey, M. 1969. A note on breeding the nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus

at Stanley Zoo. Int. Zoo Yearbook. 9: 115.

Leuthold, W. 1977. African Ungulates: a Comparative Review of their

Behavioral Ecology. Springer-Verlag. New York.

Lever, C. 1985. Naturalized Mammals of the World. Longman, London. 467 Pp.

Lucas, J. (Ed.) 1970. Species of wild animals bred in captivity during

1968. Int. Zoo Y earbook. 10: 249-280.

Mirza, Z.B. and Khan, M.A. 1975. Study of distribution, habitat and food of
nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus in Punjab). Pak. J. Zoo/. 7: 209-214.

Prater, S.H. 1934. The Wild Animals of the Indian Empire. J. Bombay
Nat. Hist. Soc: 37: 76-79.

Prater, S.H. 1971. The Book of Indian Animals. Bombay Natural History
Society, Bombay.

Pythian-Adams, E.G. 1951. Jungle memories. Part IX -Antelopes and

deer. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 50(1): 1-19.

Roberts, T.J. 1977. The Mammals of Pakistan. Ernest Benn Ltd., London.
361 Pp.

!ovis ..Sullttin : WiLDUFE AND PROTECTED APD.s (2004) 39

 Rodgers, W.A. 1988. The Wild Grazing Ungulates of India: An Ecological
Review. In: Singh, P. and P.S. Pathak (Eds.) Rangeland Symposium,
Rangeland Management Society of India, IGFRI, Jhansi, Nov. 9-12,
1987. 404-419 Pp.

Sale, J.B., Franzmann, A.W., Bhattacharjee, K.K. and Choudhury, S..

1988. Immobilization and translocation of nilgai in India using
carfentanil. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 85: 281-287.

Sankar, K., Goyal, S.P. and Jo hnsing h, A.J.T. 1993. Feeding ecology of
tiger and leopard in Sariska Tiger Reserve. International Symposium
on the Tiger, 22-24 Feb., M.O.E.F., Govt. of India, New Delhi.

Sankar, K. 1994. The ecology of three large sympatric herbivores (chital,

sambar, nilgai) with special reference to reserve management in Sariska
Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

Schaller, G.B. and Spillett, J.J. 1966. The status of the big game
species in the Keoladeo Ghana Sanctuary, Rajasthan. The Cheetal
8(2): 12-16.

Schaller, G.B. 1967. The Deer and the Tiger. Univ. of Chicago Press,
Chicago. 370 Pp.

Sheffield, W.J., Fall, B.A. and Brown, B.A. 1983. The Nilgai Antelope.
The Caesar Kleberg Program in Wildlife Ecology and Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences. The Texas A&M Univ. 100 Pp.

Walker, E.P. 1968. Mammals of the World. Vol. II. The John Hopkins
Press, Baltimore. 1500 Pp.

Walther, E.P. 1974. Some reflections on expressive behaviour in combats

and courtship of certain horned ungulates. In Geist, V. and Walther,
F. (Eds.). The Behaviour of Ungulates and its relation to Management
-a symposium. IUCN Publ. 24. Merges, Switzerland. 56-106 Pp.

4Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Brow antlered deer

BROW ANTLERED DEER OR SANGAI

( Cervus eldi M'Cielland, 1842)
S.A. Hussain, S. Singsit, N. Vaiphei, S. Angom and K. Kipgen

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : CeNidae
Sub-Family : CeNinae
Tribe : Bovini
Genus : Cervus
Species : C. eldi
Common name : Sangai, Manipur Brow antlered deer

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule I
IUCN RED DATA BOOK : Critically endangered
CITES : Appendix I

INTRODUCTION

Eld's deer or brow-antlered deer ( Cervus eld1) is a highly endangered

Southeast Asian cervid. Once distributed throughout much of Southeast
Asia extending from Manipur in north eastern India to Indochina and
southern China, now occurs in patches in Northeast India, Myanmar and
Southern China including Hainan islands. Traditional taxonomy divides
Eld's deer into three subspecies viz. Sangai or Manipur brow-antlered
deer C. e. eldi : Thamin or Myanmar brow antlered deer C. e. thamin ;
and Siamese brow-antlered deer C. e. siamensis. Among these the Sangai
is the rarest with a localized population of around 180 animals occurring
in the southern fringe of Loktak Lake in Manipur. ln. fact, the Indian
subspecies was considered extinct until a small population of around 14
individual was rediscovered in the early 1950s (Ranjitsinh 1975). Since
then effective conservation measures have reestablished the population
and are believed to be secure.
 Eld's deer belongs to the sub-genus Rucervus wh ich also includes the
swamp deer or barasing�la (C. duvaucelt) and the extinct Shomburk's
deer (C. schomburgkt) (Geist 1998). Although the relationships within
this group have not been assessed using molecular data, a recent
phylogenetic study placed Eld's deer as the sister taxon to another
swamp adap t e d species, Pere David's deer (Eiaphurus davidianus), and
-

these two s pecies comprised the basal lineage in the Cervus clade
(Randi eta/. 2001, Balakrishnan eta/. 2003). The three subspecies of

Eld's deer shows modest morphological differentiation. C. e. eldi

possesses a modified foot, with splaying hooves and cornified skin on
tha back of its digits (Geist 1998). These modifications have been viewed
as adaptations that may enable the deer to walk more easily on moist
ground (Whitehead 1 972). C. e. eldi also has the smallest antlers of the
three subspecies (Geist 1998). Slight differences in pelage colour have
also been noted. C. e. siamensis displays a more rufous colour than the
other subspecies, whereas the Hainan Island deer bear white spots on
the flanks (Geist 1998). It is not clear whether any of these morphological
differences represent phenotypic plasticity or evolved responses to
different habitats. Similar variation in foot morphology among barasinga

subspecies (Geist 1998) suggests that this character may be relatively

plastic over evolutionary time.

It is believed that the existing three sub-species of brow antlered deer

originated from a single species. The Cervus e. siamensis was initially
confined to Thailand and then migrated to Myanmar, over a period of
time some of its physical characteristics were modified after which it
came to be known as Cervus e. e/di. This species is especially adapted
to their characteristics phumdi habitat. The deer has divided hooves and
its pasterns are greatly elongated unlike those of other deer species.
Therefore, the animal can walk conveniently over the quaking surface.
Cervus e. eldi is a medium sized deer with uniquely distinctive antlers,
measuring 100 to 110 em in length with an extremely long brow line which
forms the main beam such that the two form a continuous curve at right
angles to the closely set pedicles. The forward protruding beam appears
to come out from the eyebrow signifying its name, brow antlered deer.
The antlers of the opposite sides are unsymmetrical with respect to each
other. The beams are unbranched initially whereas curvature increases
as length increases and they get forked also. The sexes are moderately
dimorphic in body size and weight. The height of a fully grown stag may
be approximately 115 to 125 em at shoulder level and weighing
approximately 95 to 110 kg. The female is shorter with lesser weight as
 Brow antlered deer

compared to its male .counterpart. The length of the body from base of
the ear up to its tail is about 145 to 155 em for both the sexes. The tail is
short and rump patch is not pronounced. Sangai attains sexual maturity
in the fourth year and survives for approximately 20 years.

SPECIES RANGE

The Sangai is now restricted to the Keibul Lamjao National Park (KLNP)
in the Southeastern fringe of Loktak Lake in Manipur valley between
24°30'to 50°'N and 93°48'to 93°54'E. The lake covers an area of about
286 km2 at the elevation of 768.5 m. The characteristic feature of the
Loktak Lake is the presence of floating vegetation locally known as
Phumdi. These are heterogeneous mass of soil vegetation in organic
matter which occurs in all sizes from a few centimeters to about 2.5 m
thick. They occupy about two-third of the surface area of the lake. The
habitat in Park consists of phumdi, hillocks and elevated strips of land
surrounding the lake. The other ungulates which share the habitat are
hog deer Axis porcinus and wild pig Sus scrota.

POPULATION

During 1955 the estimated Sangai population was 100 animals (Gee 1955,
1960, 1961). The first aerial census of the Sangai in the park, was
conducted during 1975 and recorded the presence of only 14 individuals
(6 stags, 5 hinds, 3 fawns) in the National Park (Ranjitsinh, 1975).
Subsequently, in 1977 a repeat survey revealed the presence of 18
animals (6 stags, 8 hinds and 4 fawns). The last aerial census was carried
out in 1993 during which 98 animals were counted which included 38
stags, 48 hinds, 12 fawns.

Since 1994, ground census are being carried out almost every year.
Ground census in the park is possible only during February to April when
the vegetation is dried up and the phumdi settles on the lake bed. The
census was based on simple ground survey, based on simultaneous
observations and count from vantage points posts namely Toya hill,
Pabot hill, Chingmai, Sagram, Keibul hills etc. The census at each
vantage point was made simultaneously by counting the individuals that
were seen with wide range binoculars between 1600-1700 hours and
again the next day between 0600-0700 hours. In 1994 the population
was estimated as 137 animals that included 36 stags, 65 hinds and 16
fawns. There seems to be large variation in the numbers seen during
 aerial and ground census. Nevertheless, it is inferred that the population
is on the rise, the population in latest survey conducted in 2003 was
estimated to be 180 animals 65 stags, 74 hinds, and 41 fawns (Singsit
2003). The over all exponential rate of increase of the population was
estimated as 9% per annum. The sex ratio varied between 55 males per
100 females and 103 males per 100 females during 1977 to 2003
respectively. In the year 1999 the number of males reported was higher
than the females. The mean sex ratio however was 79.4 ± 2.5 males per
100 females. The doe to fawn ratio was 37.1 ± 3.8 fawn per hundred
does.

HABITAT USE

The Keibul Lamjao National Park is the only known natural habitat of
Sangai. The park covers an area of 40 km2 and is situated in the south­
eastern side of Loktak Lake. The habitats in the Park may broadly be
divided into three distinct types:

(1) the central, western and southern areas covered under phumdi. The
phumdi is the floating mass of entangled vegetation, formed by the
accumulation of organic debris and biomass with soil particles,

(2) the area consisting of three hillocks namely, Toyaching, Pabotching

and Chingjao and the grasslands at the ridges of the Thangbirel,
Bogna-yangbi, and

(3) deep water area in the northern side with or with�ut phumdi which
may be treated as aquatic ecosystem.

The Sangai use phumdis, hillocks and elevated strips of land along the
lake. However, the phumdis forms the main habitat, which provides food,
shelter and breeding sites. Within the KLNP, Sangai are confined to a
small area of about 9-10 km2 in the south western portion of the park.
They usually do not appear much in the north eastern part of the park as
this has clear water, thin coverage of phumdis and higher human
interference from the surrounding villages. Although the area of the
National Park is 40 km2, the actual core area covered by thick phumdis
are round 9.5 km2 which can sustain the weight of the Sangai.

REPRODUCTION

Cervus e/di exibits polygynous mating (Bronson, 1989, Monfort et at.

1990, Hosack eta/. 1997). Cervus eldi females can begin reproducing at

44 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Brow antlered deer

4 years of age and typically continue to reproduce until they are 10 years
of age. They begin estrus in the late winter or early spring. They exhibit
a long period of ovarian activity of 225 to 342 days, during which the
females average 10 to 17 estrous cycles. Then after they have mated,
females enter anestrous. This is just the opposite of estrus, and is a
period when they are not sexually receptive. Some studies have shown
that the presence of males triggers ovarian function in females (Prescott
1987, Van 1996, Hosack eta/. 1978, Aung eta/. 2001 ).

The Sangai is a seasonal breeder with highest peak in March. The males
show aggressiveness before mating but not during the peak period of
the rutting season. This behaviour is also seen at times other than mating.
Also there is no indication in Sangai that the adult male is chosen by the
adult female (Sanayaima 1988). The rutting season of Sangai varies,
though not much. Generally it occurs during February ·April (Sanayaima
1988, Tombi 1991, Shamungou 1992). This agreed with the earlier finding
of Desai and Malhotra (1978). In captivity the rutting occurs between
January-April with peak during February (Oas 1988). Sangai in rut
develops a characteristic habit of moving from place to place preferably
within the central part of KLNP (Sanayaima 1988).

Aggressive activities are sometimes exhibited by males raising the head

upwards and showing the incisors which is comparable to the "Head up
display" of Axis deer (Schaller 1967). A general display exhibited by
Sangai at KLNP is the rubbing of the head or pre- orbital organ on the
bushes, thrashing the vegetations with their antlers or forelegs. Similar
display is also exhibited during the rutting season by the stags in Manipur
Zoological Garden (MZG). The rutting fight determines the rank of the
stag, as to who will dominate the other or vice-versa. A stag, either solitary
or holder would show more aggressive nature on seeing another mature
stag at a distance of about 5 to 10 m thrusting on the ground, grasses
and trees. The older stag or rival would then encounter the approacher
or leave.

Fight of the adult stags occurs during the months of February and March.
During the fight between the stags with hard antlers, the stags interlock
their antlers and their heads are brought into contact and push each other.
Once they are tired, they move backwards for a short distance, which is
followed again with a fresh attack on each other, leading to serious fights
in certain cases. The winner of the fight raises its head exhibiting
dominant display and the one defeated shows a submissive display by
lowering his head towards the ground and moving away.

tnvit J5ullttin : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 45

 Mortality rate of the younger or weaker stags and hind in captivity was
reported to be higher as a result of fight than that of the individuals in
natural habitat. One of the reasons was non-availability of spacious area
during rutting (Sanayaima 1988). In MZG, two stags died after heavy
fighting for possession of a receptive doe during March 1990 (Tombi
1991 ). In the wild rivals rarely fight with the leader and also move freely
in a larger area, thus, temporary or permanent injury due to fight is
negligible in KLNP.

MATING

The rutting stag associates itself with a particular female and follows her
(Sanayaima 1988, Tombi 1991). The male displays threat postures till
the female comes into the peak of its heat. Driving or following for a
particular female continues for about 48 hr till the female responds to the
call of the male. She rubs her nose against the flanks of the stag, keeping
the hind legs apart with heads down, indicating her readiness for mating.
The stag mounts her, holding her body with straight forelegs. It rests its
head on the withers of the female, with the tail directed downwards. The
male gradually starts raising itself till his legs are upright. By this time
the mating is over, which takes place for a few seconds. The female
rapidly flaps her ears and whisks her tail whereas the male is relatively
quiet after the copulation.

GESTATION AND FAWNING

Like many other deer species, Sangai is seasonally monoestrous. The

mature female delivers a fawn during October-November, after a
gestation period of 245-273 days (Shanmugou 1992). The record from
MZG indicates that the fawns were also produced during December, which
means that the gestation period of the animal may be extended up to 300
days in captivity and under controlled feeding conditions. Sangai get
sexual maturity by the end of four years and breeds only once a year
giving birth to one fawn. The breeding season lasts from September to
December of the year, the gestation period being 213 days (Tombi 1991).
The proportion of males to females at birth tends to be equal. A mature
female Sangai can drop a fawn every year. A female fawn becomes
sexually mature in about 4 years in MZG, a young doe may attain its
sexual maturity at the age of 4 Y2 years or a little over it. At this age the
skeletal development also reaches its peak. Sanga·i in the KLNP use the

46 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Brow antlered deer

old deserted nests of the wild pig as a good breeding place and they put
the young ones in the nest of the wild boars till they can walk by
themselves. The calf stand on its four legs after 18 to 25 minutes of birth
(Sanayaima 1988). The calves start nibbling with the mother after 4
weeks. The minimum age of weaning reported is 2 months 4 grassess
days and the maximum age 2 month 24 days. The minimum age of
shedding of antlers is reported to be around 1 year and 7 months. The
life span of Sangai is about 20 years (Sanayaima 1988,Tombi 1991).

Females of the subspecies C. eldi siamensis have been reported to give

birth annually for up to 6 consecutive years. Females are fertile for a
maximum of 12 to 14 years. Most births of C. e. siamensis occur between
October and November (75% of 171 reported births). Of all births, 94
percent occurred between October to February. About 92 percent of
births involve single young, while the remaining 8% were twins. Most
twins were apparently stillborn or die within a few days of birth (Prescott
1987, Hosack eta/. 1997, Aung eta/. 2001). The average weight of a
newborn from the subspecies C. e. thami n is between 4.7 and 4.8 kg.
Newborns of C. e. eldi are slightly larger, averaging between 4.7 and 6
kg. The young are weaned at about 5 months of age (Prescott 1987,
McCracken 1996, Aung eta/. 2001, McShea eta/. 2001).

FEEDING HABIT

The food habits of Sangai have been rarely examined in details. A total
of 233 plant species belonging to 58 families have been recorded from
the Keibul Lamjao National Park, out of which 33 species of plants have
been identified as primary food plants and 21 plant species have been
identified as emergency food plants (Tombi 1991). The common food
species were Zizan ia latifol ia, Scah hrum spp., Er ian t h us and
Capi lli pedium spp. However, seasonal variation of different species and
the parts consumed was rarely examined. The reproductive cycle of
Sangai is well adjusted with the seasonal changes of the forage condition.
The monsoon rain during May-June is very important from the nu�ritional
point of view for all sex and age classes. The forage condition is good
during this period and this helps the growth of the antlers of the males
after their shedding in May-June (Shamungou 1992).

Sangai exhibit bimodial activity pattern. They start foraging from early
morning 0430 hrs to 0800 hrs. Then, they take rest with the rise in
temperature and start feeding again in the evening around 1500 hrs till

c!:ovis.gulltllo: WtLOUFE ANDPROTECTEOAAEAs(2004) 47

 1800 hrs. On sunny days, they stop feeding early in the morning at around
0700 hrs, while they continue up to 1000 hrs on cloudy days when
temperature is low. During daytime, Sangai rest under thick and tall reeds
and grasses. At night, some of them may even rest in the hillocks. Fawns
as old as 10-15 days nibble grasses and start consuming it in quantified
manner in about 50 days (Tombi 1991). By this time, many fawns have
been weaned, and require more food. The sangai in KLNP have adapted
well to the prevailing environment by synchronizing their weaning and
pregnancy period with the availability of fodder.

FACTORS AFFECTING POPULATION AND THREAT

The survival of sangai is very much threatened primarily by poaching.

Sangai used to be hunted under a permit by the Manipur State Durbar till
early 1900's. It was only in 1934 that the hunting of Sangai was stopped.
In 1975, Ranjitsinh reported poaching in the Park, the poachers used
dogs, and trap. In spite of stringent protection measures poaching in the
KLNP is a threat to the existence of the deer. Conservation measures
for wildlife were tightened considerably with the introduction of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972 and Manipur Wildlife Protection Rules (1974).under
section 64 within state (Shamungou 1998). In spite of such efforts the
poaching case in the park was usually 3 or 4 animals as reported during
1983-85.

The other factors which are believed to be affecting the population are
mortality during monsoon, water quality degradation and reduction in the
thickness of phumdi in the Park. During high flood years large scale
mortalities of Sangai has been observed. This is unavoidable due to
various reasons and immediate measures to control such loss are
urgently required. The major problem which Sangai are facing in the Park
is in the form of alteration in the structure and composition of the phumdi.
This is largely due to construction of Ethai barrage which has changed
the natural water regime of the Park (P-anwar 1979). There is significant
change in the composition of the phumdis which is prominent with respect
to Phragmites karka, Zizania /atifo/ia and Saccharum munja which
constitute the favourite food of Sangai and also provide shelter to the
species. In 1960 E.P. Gee recorded maximum density of Phragmites
karka (45%) followed by Narenga porphyrochroma (25%), Saccharum
munja (15%) and other species namely Zizania latifolia, Alpinia allughas
and Erianthus procerus in the range of 2-5 % in the phumdis. In 1996,
Shamungou (1998) reported proportion of Learsia hexandra (32.5%)

48 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Brow antlered deer

Zizania /atifolia (14.6%), Capillipedium (14.2%), and Phragmites karka

(1 0 %) and other species in the range of 2-5 %. During 1980s, the ratio
between shelter and food plants was approximately 60% and 40%. The
present conditions favour growth of food plants like Learsia hexandra
and Capillipedium spp. The shelter plants are stunted, mainly due to
constant floating of the phumdis making sangai vulnerable to poaching.
Paragrass like Brachairia mutica and A/ternanthera phitoxiroides unless
controlled, can pose a great threat to the biodiversity of the park due to
its gregarious growth and invasion (Shyamjai 2002).

Productivity of the phumdi is believed to be influenced by the depth of

water. Tombi (1991) reported that the rate of productivity has an inverse
relation with the depth of water in KLNP. The interspecific competition
for grazing on the dried phumdi has become a serious problem, affecting
the carrying capacity of the park (Tombi 1991 ). It has led to the
disappearance of tall and leafy grasses of the park. The areas with heavy
grazing have low grass cover dominated by Learsia hexandra,
Capillipedium spp. etc.

In spite of such pressures the Sangai population has shown an increasing

trend. in the last two decades.The annual rate of increase in the
population during 1977-2003 in Keibul Lamjao National Park is
approximately 9%. Cervids generally are flexible in adjustment to any
habitat. By nature, if protected and adequate food resources provided,
Cervids expand their population and increase rapidly. Sangai multiplying
in captivity and its populations reaching 60 at National Zoological Park,
Gawhati Zoo and similar such population at different Zoos in India stands
as insurance against extinction threat of this subspecies. There are also
recommendations from various agencies to find a second home for Sangai
within Manipur. However, availability of land in densely populated Manipur
valley is a major constraint for such conservation efforts. This needs to
be tackled with greater political will and active support of local
communities.

REFERENCES

Aung, M., McShea, W., Htung, S., Than, A. and Soe, T. 2001. Ecology
and social organization of a tropical deer ( Cervus e/di thamin). Journal
of Mammalogy, 82(3): 836-847.

!uvis..l;ullrtill : WtLDUFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 49

 Balakrishnan, C., Monfort, N. Gaur, S. L., Singh, A. and Sorenson, M. D.
2003. Phylogeography and conservation genetics of Elds deer Cervus
eldi. Molecular ecology. 12:1-10.

Bronson, F. 1989. Mammalian Reproductive Biology. Chicago, Illinois:

The University of Chicago Press.

Das, A.K. 1988. Brow-antlered deer (Cervus e. eldt) at Calcutta Zoo.

Zoo's Print. 5-6.

Desai, J.H. and Malhotra, A.K. 1978. The Manipur brow-antlered deer
(Cervus e.eldt), its status and breeding in captivity. Int. Zoo. Year
Book, 18: 235-236.

Gee, E.P. 1955. The brow antlered deer, Cervus eldi McClelland, Journal
of Bombay. Nat. hist. Soc. 52(4): 917-9.

Gee, E.P. 1960. Report on the status of brow- antlered deer of Manipur
(India), Journal Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 57(3):597-617.

Gee, E.P. 1961. The brow antlered deer of Manipur. Oryx 6(2): 103-115.

Geist, V. 1998. Deer of the world: Their evolution behaviour and ecology.
Stackpole books, Mechanising, PA.

Hosack, D., Miller, K., Marchinton, R. and Monfort, S. 1997. Ovarian

activity in captive eld's deer ( Cervus eldi thamin), Journal of
Mammalogy, 78(2): 669-674.

McCracken, K. 1996. At the Zoo: Saving the Skittish Eld's Deer. Zoogoer,
25(3).

McShea, W., Aung, M., Poszig, D., Wemmer, C. and Monfort, S. 2001.
Forage, habitat use, and sexual segregation by a tropical deer ( Cervus
eldi thamin) in a dipterocarp forest. Journal of Mammalogy, 82(3):
848-857.

Monfort, S., Wemmer, C., Kepler, T., Bush, M. and Brown, J. 1990.
Monitoring ovarian function and pregnancy in the eld's deer (Cervus
eldi thamin) by evaluating urinary steroid metabolite excretion. Journal
of Reproduction & Fertility, 88: 271-281.

5Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Brow antlered deer

Panwar, H.S. 1979. Are only the Sangai and Keibul Lamjao threatened? Are
the people of Manipur themselves not? An assessment of the
environmental crisis in the state of Manipur. A survey report in pursuance
to directives from the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Pp.34.

Prescott, J. 1987. The status of the Thailand Brow-antlered deer ( Cervus

eldi amensis) in captivity. Mammalia, 51{4): 571-577.

Randi, E, Mucci, N., Claro-Hergueta, F., Bonnet, A. and Douzery, E.J.P.

2001. A mitochondrial DNA control region phylogeny of the Cervinae:
speciation in Cervus and implications for conservation. Animal
Conservation, 4, 1-11.

Ranjitsinh, M.K. 1975. Keibul Lamjao Sanctuary and the brow-antlered

deer-1972 with notes on a visit in 1975. J. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 72
(2): 214-255.

Sanayaima, D. S. 1988. Reproductive biology of brow antlered deer Ph.D.

Thesis, Manipur University, lmphal.

Schaller, G. B. 1967. The deer and the tiger: a study of wildlife in India.
Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago

Shamungou, S. K. 1992. Reproduction cycle of Brow antlered deer,

Cervus eldi eldi (Me Clelland) in Keibul Lamjao National Park, Manipur.
Population and Habitat viability Assessment Workshop briefing Book
for Sangai Vol. II -Contributed articles and reports.

Shyamjai, S. S. 2002.Vegetation and phumdi of Keibul Lamjao National

Park. In: Tris
. al, C.L and Manihar, Th. (Eds.). Management of Phumdis
in Loktak Lake, Proceedings of a workshop held at lmphal, Manipur
22-24 Jan, p29-36.

Singsit, S. 2003. The dancing deer of Manipur. Newsletter, Wildlife

Institute of India, 10(3): 5-7.

Tombi, S. H. 1991. Bioecology of the seriously endangered Brow antlered

deer, Cervus eldi eldi in the only natural habitat Keibul Lamjao of
Manipur with special reference to its conservation. Final technical
report to the Dept. of Env., Government of India, 127 Pp.

�Dvis•�ullrtiD: WILDUFE AND PROTECTEOAAEAS (2004) 5l

Whitehead, G. K. 1972. Deer of the world. Viking Press, New York.

Yan, L. S. 1996. Population viability analysis for two isolated populations

of Hainan eld's deer. Conservation Biology, 10(5): 1467-1472.

52 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Four-horned antelope

FOUR-HORNED ANTELOPE OR
CHOWSINGHA
(Tetracerus quadricornis Blainville, 1816)
K. Sharma and A. R. Rahmani

Order : Artiodactyla
Family Bovidae
Sub-Family Bovinae
Tribe Boselaphini
Genus Tetracerus
Species T. quadrci ornis
Common name Four-horned antelope or Chowsingha

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule I
IUCN RED DATA BOOK: Vulnerable
CITES : Not listed

INTRODUCTION

The four-horned antelope (T etracerus q u a dri c ornis) and N i lgai

(Bose/aphus tragocame/us) belonging to Boselaphini tribe are the last
survivors of a form very similar to that of the ancestors of the entire
sub-family. Both have relatively primitive anatomical and behavioral
characteristics. Absence of rings on horns that are keeled in front
distinguish them from the true antelopes. The four-horned antelope is
a monotypic species of its genus and is endemic to India. Though
widely distributed in India, it is nowhere found in high abundance and
has always been known as a shy and elusive creature. It is known to
inhabit dry deciduous forests and prefers forested areas to open
grasslands.

.£ovisJSullerio: WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 53

 The four-horned antelope has a golden brown coat that darkens after
the monsoon and fades after winters. It has a dark band running down
on each leg and sports a conspicuous white ring just above the hooves.
It has a pair of well-developed glands between the false hooves of the
hindlegs, but their use is unknown. The preorbital glands in front of the
eyes are regularly used for marking grass twigs or thorny trunks.
Standing about 55-60 em at shoulder height, an adult individual weighs

around 20-22 kg. It is not distinctly dimorphic other than that females
are hornless. The four horned antelope is unique as adult males have
four horns. In males, the rear pair of horns starts developing at an early
age of few months while the development of second pair starts at an
age of about 14-15 months. This and the final size of front horns may
vary depending upon various factors ranging from nutrition to habitat
conditions. The front pair of horns is generally smaller than the rear
ones but may get as long as the latter. Fawns at birth are tiny, smaller
than an adult black naped hare ( Lepus nigricollis nigricollis) and are

kept hidden amidst thick vegetation. The fawns are quite vulnerable at
this age and they can easily become prey of a wide range of predators
including large raptors.

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION

The antelope has a vast range of distribution though it is confined to

India in its natural distribution. A questionnaire survey (Rice 1991) gave
some idea about the distribution of this animal. From the northern
frontiers in Uttar Pradesh to South in Tamilnadu, the four-horned
antelope can be found from Orissa in East to Gujarat in West. Mainly
known as a forest dweller, there are interesting biological boundaries
of its distribution even within some national parks that boast a modest
population of this species. A superficial analysis reveals its preference
for dry deciduous forest (Champion 1936) patches where it can be found
quite evenly distributed. Preferring browsing to grazing, in its home
range it requires undergrowth and specific vegetation composition for
foraging comprising chiefly of fruit/flower bearing trees like Bombax
seiba, Madhuca indica, Emblica officina/is, Diospyros melanoxylon,
various Zyziphus species and a variety of herbs and shrubs. Within
the dry deciduous forest, this antelope inhabits all sub classes from
open savannahs to dense miscellaneous patches (Sharma and
Rahmani, 2003) and often seems more evenly distributed than other
sympatric ungulate species. The observed densities of four-horned
antelope in different Protected Areas (PA's) of the country is given
below.

54 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Four-horned antelope

Density of four-horned antelope in different Protected Areas are as follows :

Site Density (Nos./km2)

Panna National Park, Madhya Pradesh 2.7

Pench National Park, Madhya Pradesh 1.1

Gir Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat 0.75

Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Tamilnadu 0.88

Dhaknakolkaz Wildlife Sanctuary, Maharashtra 1.28

POPULATION

Although the four-horned antelope is not uncommon in many protected

areas, it is always found in low density. The best of the available density
figures for this species come from Panna National Park, Madhya Pradesh
(Chundawat 2001, Sharma and Rahmani 2003) where this animal thrives.
Other important areas claiming good populations (> 0.5 animals/km2)
include Kumbhalgarh WLS, Rajasthan (R.S. Chundawat pers. comm.),
Gir WLS, Gujarat (Berwick 1974, Khan eta/., 1996), Pench National
Park, Maharashtra (Biswas and Sankar 2002). Mudumalai WLS
(Bhaskaran 1999), Tamilnadu, and Dhaknakolkaz WLS, Maharashtra.
Due to its shy and solitary behavior leading to low number of sightings,
most census estimates tend to exclude this species. Various studies
at many other sites do mention occurrence of this species (Schaller
1967, Karanth and Sunquist 1992, Jathana eta/. 2001) but report low
densities (< 0.5 animals/km2).

ECOLOGY

The four-horned antelope prefers to live solitary or in very small groups. In

Panna National Park, encounters with groups of two or more animals increase
between February and June. A general assumption could be of this period
being the mating season, but needs further investigation. Individuals have
been seen attempting mating in February in Panna. Details of their courting
rituals are still unknown, but males are heard making husky 'cough' calls
and moving tentatively around females while courting. Records from a captive
pair of four-horned antelope reported by Shull ( 1958) suggest that the animal
has a gestation of eight and a half months. Fawns are barely able to walk
for a few days after birth and are kept hidden. In case of twins, they are
generally separated by a few meters possibly to increase the chances of
fawn survival of at least one fawn in case of predation.

t11vis_gullerio : WiLOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 55

 The four-horned antelope seems to fit well in the various categories
proposed by Jarman (1976) and statistically re-established by Brashares
et at. (2000) correlating body size and various ecological parameters,
viz. anti-predator behavior, feeding behavior and grouping behavior. The
four-horned antelope is a selective browser that can also be given a
separate class of a 'nibbler'. It has a selective choice of food that
comprises mostly of fruits, pods, flowers and seeds. The next choice in
its food is soft leaflets of shrubs, trees and creepers. Grass and other
low protein plant parts are generally avoided. The antelope forages in
short bouts and often walks few hundred meters while continuing its
foraging movement.

The four-horned antelope prefers hiding and taking refuge to fleeing. It is

this tendency of the animal that explains to an extent their extensive use
of forested areas and thickets within open savannahs. Its preference for
freezing on seeing a predator is dependent on undergrowth and horizontal
visibility. On one occasion in Panna, a four-horned antelope standing
still in medium tall grass managed to be missed by a leopard walking just
6 meters away.

The four-horned antelope uses closed canopy and thick undergrowth for
resting and nursing young ones, but may use open or scrub forest for
foraging purpose. These animals are also known to be drinking regularly
and are never seen too far from water. They move locally from areas
where water dries out in summers. The four-horned antelope visits
waterholes during the day hours and avoids visiting in late evening hours.
The animals are very tentative and cautious when approaching waterholes
and often drink with forelegs folded.

Details about the antelope's home range size are unknown but they
certainly seem to defend and avoid extensive overlaps in their territories.
The four-horned antelope defecates on middens and visits them with
variable frequencies. Defecation and urination on middens, and marking
by preorbital glands are the two evident modes of maintaining territories.
Preliminary study suggests that the male and female home ranges and
territories are exclusive spatial mosaics, but at times individuals get
together to share crucial resources like limited food and water.

BEHAVIOUR

Little is known about the courting behavior of fo.ur-horned antelope. Pairs

can be continuously seen moving together for a few months' time.

56 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Four-horned antelope

Breeding males tolerate fawns, but are wary of presence of any other
male. A husky 'coughing' call by male is heard while trying to woo the
female or possibly avoiding rivals. They are mostly quiet, but make few
diagnostic calls. Its alarm call is a repeated sore-throated pronk and can
easily be distinguished from that of other herbivores. A similar call is
made by females to locate tiny fawns hidden in vegetation. In addition,
inaudible communication is also expected but is unknown. This follows
observations where an individual finds free ranging conspecifics after
perseverant walks in a direction through long distances.

As the four-horned antelope is never seen fighting due to its wary and
shy behavior, precise ways of its fighting are not known. Still, going by
its body size (e.g. Caro eta/. 2003), looking at its crown studded with
four short dagger like horns and following evidence of many males with
broken fore or rear horns, one may predict that they fight fiercely either
by locking heads or by indulging in neck wrestle similar to that of a nilgai.

Females with twins are frequently seen, while fawns follow mother for a
considerably long time. Twins suckle one side each in a fashion similar
to that of a domestic goat. Group of a female with fawns of two different
litters is not uncommon. Loosely associating, the previous year individual
generally lurks around mother and is more shy and cautious of threats
than the rest.

In response to predators, the four-horned antelopes prefer freezing to

fleeing. Another conspicuous and interesting feature of the animal's
antipredator behaviour is that of taking conspicuous leaps followed by
quiet stealthy movements across thick vegetation with little horizontal
visibility. Females are extremely protective about their fawns and when
threatened, indulge in attention seeking by making loud calls often
followed by a conspicuous flee which fawns invariably follow.

CONSERVATION

The current status and trends of the overall population of four-horned

antelope is not known. The biggest threat to the population is from habitat
destruction or habitat alteration. As discussed, the antelope has a very
selective choice of food and shelter because of its metabolic,
thermoregulatory and antipredatory requirements. Increase in certain
herbivore populations may lead to decline in their strongholds as a result
of increased competition and more exposure to predators. Similarly, as
much as destruction of its habitat, improving certain habitat without

C:nvis.Sullrtin: WiLOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004} 57

 keeping this animal in mind may cause its distribution to shrink. Its major
distribution that is limited to dry deciduous forests exposes it to more
biotic pressures. Lack of water, encounters with poachers in areas where
the dry deciduous forest is confined to fringes of the well-protected core
zone, and commercial collection of non-timber forest products (NTFP)
that comprise a major chunk of its food, pose threats to this species.
Due to its specific food choice, the animal is not reported to be a menace
to agricultural land and hence enjoys a good reputation amongst farmers
adjoining the forests.

Controlling quantity and period of collections of NTFP, provision of

perennial and ecologically non-invasive waterholes and generating
awareness among people about the biological and ecological importance
(e.g. Hobbs 1996) of this species are proposed for long term survival of
the species.

The four-horned antelope is protected by Indian law and is listed in Schedule

I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Awareness about this species, its
importance and role in forest herbivore community and information access
to park managers, decision makers and general public about its specific
requirements in terms of habitat are needed for its long-term survival.

The four-horned antelope was the least studied antelope in India so far as
only little scientific information was available (Berwick 1974, Prater 1980,
Rice 1991, Bhaskaran 1999, Rahmani 2001) . Considering its uniqueness
and endemism in India, more scientific research is required on this animal
with emphasis on its evolution, behavior, mortality, population viability,
habitat selection and relationship with sympatric species.

REFERENCES

Berwick, S. H. 1974. T he community of wild ruminants in the Gir forest

ecosystem, India. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, USA. Pp 226.

Bhaskaran, N., 1999. An ecological investigation of four-horned antelope

(Tetracerus quadricornis) in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary and National
Park. Pp. 29. Report, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai.

Biswas, S. and Sankar, K. 2002. Prey abundance and food habit of tigers
(Panthera tigris tigris) in Pench National Park, Madhya Pradesh, India.
J. Zoo/. Lond. 256: 411-420.

58 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Four-horned antelope

Brashares, J. S., Garland T. Jr., Arcese P. 2000. Phylogenetic analysis

of coadaptation in behavior, diet, and body size in the African antelope.
Behavioral Ecology 11 (4J: 452- 463.

Caro, T. M., Graham, C. M., Stoner, C. J. and Flores, M. M. 2003.

Correlates of horn and antler shape in bovids and cervids. Behav.
Ecol. Sociobiol., 55:32-41.

Champion, H. G. 1936. A preliminary survey of the forest types of India

and Burma. Indian Forest Records 1. Pp 286.

Chundawat, R. S., 2001. Tiger conservation in dry tropical forests of

India. Annual Report. Center for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore. Pp. 25.

Hobbs, N. 1996. Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. J. Wild/.

Manage. 60(4):695-713.

Jarman, P. J., 1974. The social organization of antelope in relation to

their ecology. Behaviour 48:215-267.

Jathana, D., Karanth, K., Johnsingh, A. J. T. 2001. Density, biomass

and habitat occupancy of ungulates in Bhadra Tiger Reserve,
Karnataka. Final Report submitted to Save the Tiger Fund of the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington DC and Exxon
Mobil Corporation.

Karanth, K. U. and Sunquist M. E. 1992. Population structure density

and biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarhole,
India. J. Trap. Ecol. 8: 21-35.

Khan, J. A., Chellam, R., Rodgers, W. A. and Johnsingh, A. J. T., 1996.

Ungulate densities and biomass in the tropical dry deciduous forests
of Gir, Gujarat, India. J. Tropical Ecology. 12: 149-162.

Prater, S. H. 1980. The book of Indian animals. 3rd edition (reprint).

Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai.

Rahmani, A. R. 2001. Antelopes. Part 4: North Africa, the Middle East,

and Asia. D.P. Mallon and Kingswood, S.C. (compilers). Global Survey
and Regional Action Plans. SSC Antelope Specialist Group. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. viii + 260 Pp.

£nvis .gulletio: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AReAs (2004) 59

Rice, C. 1991. The status of four-horned antelope Tetracerus quadricornis.
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 88: 63-66.

Schaller, G. B. 1967. The deer and the tiger. Pp. 370. The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.

Sharma, K. and Rahmani, A.R. 2003. Ecology and distribution of four­

horned antelope Tetracerus quadricornis. A nnual Progress Report
2002-2003. Pp. 38.

Shull, E. M. 1958. Notes on the four-horned antelope Tetracerus

quadricornis (Biainville). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 55(2): 339-340.

6Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Hog deer

HOG DEER
(Axis porcinus Zimmerman, 1780)
T. Biswas

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Cervidae
Sub-Family : Cervinae
Genus :Axis
Species : A. porcinus
Common name : Hog deer, Para

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule Ill
IUCNRED DATA BOOK : Lower risk
CITES : Appendix I

INTRODUCTION

Hog deer (Axis porcinus) is a shy species and is restricted to the tall
moist alluvial grasslands of South and Southeast Asia. They are stout,
standing only 27 to 28 inches high at the shoulder (Prater 1980). Their
body is relatively long, and the back line slopes down from a high rump
to the shoulders. Hog deers have short wedge shaped face with front
legs shorter than their hind legs. The upper part of their limbs are well
muscled. They have a strongly built neck, particularly the males whose
neck thickens during the peak mating period (Whitehead 1972). Apart
from their body structure the white under color of their tail is a typical
feature. Their thickset appearance and habit of crashing through the under
growth in head down posture has undoubtedly contributed to its popular
name 'hog deer' (Schaller 1967, Prater 1980).

There are two sub-species of hog deer, both occurring in the Asian
continent (Ellerman and Morrison Scott 1951 ) . Axis porcinus porcinus

. .t.. 1
 (Typical race), found in Pakistan (Roberts 1 987), North and Northeast
India (Schaller 1967, Prater 1980, Biswas eta!. 2002), Nepal (Whitehead
1972, Dhungel and Gara 1991, Hill and Corbett 1992), Myanmar
(Whitehead 1972} and Sri Lanka (Phillips 1984) and Axis porcinus
annamiticus (Eastern race) from Thailand and Indo China (Heude 1888,
Whitehead 1972, Putman 1988, Hill and Corbett 1992, Dhungel and Gara
1991 ) . The eastern race is known to be slightly larger than the typical
South-Asian race (Dallman and Burlace 1935). The body color of the
typical race is brown with a yellowish or reddish tinge, with a coat of
speckled appearance. The males generally darken with age and get a
dark brown body color (Prater 1980). The eastern species is brownish
or yellowish with the undersurface of the body being darker than above
(U Tun Yin 1967). Evan (1902) mentioned that stags in Burma have spots
along the body during summer.

Since hog deer belong to the deer group, only the males have antlers. An
adult male has a typical 3 tined antler, 10-15 inches long, mounted on distinct
pedicels on the forehead. The males are larger standing about 65-75 em at
the shoulder (with females slightly smaller at 60-65 em) and weigh 35-45 kg
(Prater 1980, Mishra 1982, Putman 1988). Adult males could be differentiated
from the sub-adults and adult females by their well-developed six-tined
antlers. Sub-adult males usually have spikes and smaller antlers. The fawns
are usually spotted and less than 50 em at the shoulder.

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION

In the past, the native range of hog deer was extended from Pakistan in
the west to southern Thailand and Vietnam in the east, through northern
India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar (Dhungel and Gara 1991,
Biswas and Mathur 2000). Throughout its range, the species is associated
with swampy plains and river systems. However, over the past decade,
hog deer has been reported to be extinct from most of their range (Table
1) (Biswas and Mathur 2000). In India, the original range of hog deer
extended over the Indo-Gangetic plain (Lydekkar 1898). across northern
India through the states of Haryana, Eastern Rajasthan, Punjab, Uttar
Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal to the Brahmaputra valley in Assam
(Whitehead 1972) (Fig. 1). Currently Corbett National Park (Corbett) is the
Western and Nampdapha Tiger Reserve (Namdapha) is the Eastern limit
of the species in India. During a recent survey (Biswas et a!. 2002) in
India, the distributional range of hog deer was found to be severely altered,
with populations being limited to only a few places within the entire region.
 Hog deer

Table 1. Status of hog deer in its native range (1975-1983) (Biswas

and Mathur 2000).
Country Status
Pakistan Believed endangered

India Abundant in particular reserves

Nepal Abundant in some reserves. May be

increasing in Chitwan (Dhungel) but also
report ed endangered

Bangladesh Believed extinct.

Burma Unknown a n d known to b e enormously

reduced in numbers.

Thailand Endangered. Possibly extinct in the wild.

Laos & Cambodia Endangered

Vietnam Endangered last published sighting in 6aec

Laec Province (1997}, Skull discovered in Gia
Lai Province (1999)

China 1st ranked protected species in China.

Sri Lanka Endangered or Possibly extinct in the wild

� 1!4pootol""''- _.
.....

- Po�·- .. """-
·+
100 0 100 �Jiomders
�

Figure 1. Historical range and recorded evidence of Hog Deer (Axis porcinus)
in Indian Terai.

tnvit .gullerin : W1LDUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 63

 The moist, alluvial, tall grasslands found along the Gangetic and
Brahmaputra flood plain in northern India is commonly known as the terai
region. This region falls within the north Indian Mors1 Tropical Forest
(Champion and Seth 1968). Hog deer is an endemic and obligate species
of the grasslands (terai region) within this region, which are under
immense pressure due to various anthropogenic and stochastic factors

(Biswas eta/. 2002). Altered land use, change in flooding regime, weed
invasion, woodland succession, agricultural conversions for sugarcane
and paddy cultivation, village encroachment, growing human habitations

are reported to be the primary factors causing the loss and fragmentation
of the terai region. Due to these growing pressures over the past decade,
the terai region and the grasslands have become highly fragmented. The
current terai region can be broadly separated into the Western and
Eastern region because of the lack of continuity of grasslands or forests
between them. Thus, hog deer that was abundant in the past, currently
occurs in isolated populations within these regions. Besides, habitat loss
and habitat fragmentation and indiscriminate hunting of this species
throughout its range also seemed to be a crucial factor affecting its
distribution and population (Biswas eta/. 2002).

Biswas eta/. (2002) reported unsustainable (20-50 animals) or extinct

population of hog deer from Tripura, Meghalaya, Haryana and Punjab.
From its past distributional range, only 29 places still had hog deer, of
which only 6 (7.8%) places seemed to have relatively sustainable
(approx. more than 200 animals) populations. At present, hog deer
distribution is primarily restricted to the protected areas within the terai
region. Based on the current distribution of hog deer and the prevailing
pressures on its habitat, Eastern terai in comparison to Western terai,
was reported to have a higher likelihood for supporting the species in
the future (Biswas eta/. 2002). Hog deer distribution is relatively more
continuous in Eastern terai than in Western terai. Corbett, Dudhwa and
Katarniaghat are the only areas in Western terai with the hog deer
population, while Gorumara, Jaldapara, Manas, Orang, Kaziranga,
Nameri and D'ering, are the primary protected areas besides other areas
within Eastern terai that currently have hog deer population.

POPULATION

Lahan and Sonowal ( 1973) and Tikader (1983) reported a population

estimate of approximately 6000 hog deer from Kaziranga National Park
and 10,000 from Manas Tiger Reserve (Tikader 1983) in Assam; 25 from
Keibul Lamjo National Park, Manipur (Gee 1964); 20 from Keoladeo

64 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Hog deer

National Park, Rajasthan (Spillette 1966); 4000 from Dudhwa National Park,
Uttar Pradesh; 105 from West Kheri (?challer 1967); more than 200 from
Jaldapara. The current approximate estimate of hog deer population in
India is based on direct obse>tvcftions, feedback from the local villagers,
forest department officials and the department documentations during the
survey in 2002 (Table 2). The survey suggested that Dudhwa Tiger
Reserve (Dudhwa), Kaziranga National Park (Kaziranga) and Manas Tiger
Reserve (Manas), to have the highest hog deer population (Biswas et at.
2002). Except for the abundance estimate of hog deer at Jaldapara (Biswas
1999) there have been no studies so far to provide an accurate estimated
of their population in India.

ECOLOGY

Most of the available information on hog deer in India has been obtained
from the anecdotal notes made by the authors while observing the Indian
Tiger and Asian One-horned Rhino_ in the past (Gee 1959, Gee 1964,
Spillette 1966, Schaller 1967). There have not been sufficient studies
providing adequate information on the ecology, biology and behavior of
hog deer in their native range. Taylor (1971) conducted the first pioneering
study on the biology of hog deer in Australia where it was introduced into
New South Wales in 1864. Laurie (1978), Schaff (1978), Sediensticker
{1976), Mishra {1982), Tamang (1982), reported their observations on
the social organization and ecology of hog deer from different protected
areas in Nepal. Dhungel and Gara {1991) conducted the first ecological
study on hog deer in its native range at Royal Chitawan National Park
(Chitawan), Nepal, which was followed by Biswas (1999) at Jaldapara
Wildlife sanctuary (Jaldapara) in India. Most of the ecological and
biological information discussed hereafter are summarized from the
above studies.

Table 2. Estimated population of hog deer in India (Source: Biswas et al.,

2002)

State Districts Place Approx.

population

Arunachal Pradesh Pasigat D'ering 100-200

Arunachal Pradesh Lower Subansir ltangar 0

Arunachal Pradesh Raing Kornu 0

Arunachal Pradesh Dibang Valley Mehao 0

Arunachal Pradesh Tirap Mamdapla 20-50

cnvi••�ullttin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 65

 State Districts Place Approx.
population

Arunachal Pradesh East Kameng Pakkui 0

.

Darrang Barnodi 10<

Assam

Lakhimpur Borchapori 0
Assam

Tinsukhia Dibrusikhowa 20- 50

Assam

Golaghat Kaziranga >1000

Assam
Nagaon,

Nagaon Laokhowa 10<

Assam

Barpeta, Manas >1000

Assam
Bongaingaon

Assam Sonitpur Nameri 20-50

Assam Lakhimpur New Area 10<

Assam Darang, Orang 200- 500

Sonitpur

Assam Dhemaji Kobuchapori, 20-50

Assam Tinsukhia Sibiachapori 0

Amarpur

Assam Sonitpur Bu rachapori 20-50

Assam Tinsukhia Sadiya 0

Assam Dhemaji, Bordalani 0

Lakimpur

Assam Sonitpur Kochamora 0

Assam Sonitpur Hagurajuli 0

Assam Dhemaji Sonarighat 10<

Assam Jonai Pay a 0

Assam Morigaon Pobitora 0

Assam - Ripu Chirang 0

Assam Sonitpur SunaiRupa 20-50

Bihar West Valmiki 100 - 200

Champaran

Haryana Kaithal Seonsar (H) 0

Haryana - Sultanpur 0

Manipur -
Dzuko 0

Manipur - Keibul Lamjao 10<

66 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Hog deer

State Districts Place Approx.

population

Manipur -
Siroi 0

Meghalaya - Balpakram 0

Punjab - Bir Aishwan 10<

Punjab - Bir Bhadson 10<

Punjab - Bir Dosanjh 10<

Punjab - Bir Gurdialpur 10<

Punjab -
Bir Motibagh 10<

Punjab - Harike 0
Sanctuary,

Rajasthan -
Keoladeo Ghana 0

Tripura N. Tripura Ambasa {T) 10<

Tripura S. Tripura Gomti {T) 10<

Tripura S.Tripura Trishna 0

Uttar Pradesh Aligarh Bulandshahar 0

Uttaranchal Nainital, Corbett 200- 500

Udham Singh
Nagar, Bijnor

Uttar Pradesh Lakhimpur Dudhwa 1000

Kheri -2000

Uttar Pradesh Gaziabad Garmukteshwar 10<

Uttar Pradesh 5 Districts Hastinapur 10<

Uttar Pradesh Bahraich Katerniyaghat 20-50

Uttar Pradesh Bijnor Khader 10<

Uttar Pradesh Lakhimpur Kishanpur 100-200

Uttar Pradesh N.Pilibhit Loggabagga 0

Uttar Pradesh Muzzafarnagar Mirapur 10 <

Uttar Pradesh Lakhimpur N.Kheri FD 20-50

Uttar Pradesh Aligarh Narora 0

Uttaranchal Dehardun Rajaji 0

Uttar Pradesh - West Kheri 0

Forest

West Bengal -
Bethuadahari 0

West Bengal Gooch Behar Buxa 10<

West Bengal Jalpaiguir Chapramari 0

West Bengal Jalpaiguri Gorumara 100-200

!IIVis�ullttia: WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 67

 Naturalist in the past have rQported that hog deer preferred reed beds
and swampy meadows bordering the streams (Pocock 1933), while
avoided extensive forests (Schaller 1967, Laurie 1978, Mishra 1982) and
scrubland (Laurie 1978). In India at Corbett National Park (Corbett),
Uttaranchal they were primarily observed in the valley of the Ramganga
River but never in the surrounding hills; in West Kheri, they were common
in the low lying marshy meadows bordering the Sal forests. In Kaziranga
National Park, Assam they were abundant in the vast grass thickets
(Schaller 1967). Mishra {1982) concluded hog deer to be a grassland
specialist. Earlier, Schaff (1978) had also reported that hog deer primarily
used grasslands in other areas of Nepal. Thus, most observations so
far have suggested a strong association of hog deer with the grasslands.
More recent studies have shown that hog deer exhibit a selective
preference for grasslands (Dhungel and Gara 1991, Biswas 1999, Biswas
and Mathur 2000, Biswas et a/. 2002). Dhungel and Gara {1991)
concluded from their study that hog deer exclusively used grassland
habitats at Royal Chitawan National Park, Nepal. Hog deer at Jaldapara
showed selective preference for natural lmperata cylindrica dominated
grasslands over other grassland types (Biswas 1999). At Jaldapara hog
deer primarily used riverine and plantation grasslands (artificially raised
grasslands) for cover and the pure natural grassland for forage. The
natural grasslands had extensive stretches of lmperata cylindrica, their
preferred foraging species. lmperata cylindrica constituted the highest
percentage of their diet at Chitawan (Dhungel and Gara 1991). Based on
the structure of the grasslands at Jaldapara (Biswas and Mathur 2003)
and their selective use (Biswas 1999) by hog deer, it is suggested that
hog deer had a preference for natural grasslands with a mosaic of tall
and short grasses over dense, tall, homogenous grasslands. Dhungel
and Gara (1991) observed a similar selection pattern at Chitawan and
explained it due to their small home range and short movement
capabilities relative to other cervids.

The home range of hog deer is small unlike other deer species because of
seasonal distribution of food, cover for hiding and availability of water.
Home range of stags in Chitawan varied from 16 ha to 233 ha (mean = 80
ha), while those of hinds varied from 11 ha to 205 ha (mean = 60 ha).
Home ranges of both males and females overlapped and appeared stable
during the study period at Chitawan (Dhungel and Gara 1991). A study by
Harestad and Bunnel {1979) showed that home ranges vary directly as a
power of body weight, thus explaining the small home range of hog deer in
Chitawan as compared to other species. Seasonal distribut. ion of food,
water, and cover in the grasslands were also offered as the essential

68 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Hog deer

factors influencing their home range. Movements of hog deer were also
found to be relatively less when compared to other ungulates, except during
the rutting season (Dhungel and Gara 1991) and when disturbed by large
animals such as rhinoceros or domestic elephants (Dhungel and Gara
1991, Biswas 1999, 2000). According to Dhungel and Gara (1991 ), the
stags traveled an average distances of 255 m while the hinds traveled
only 250 m. Maximum activity of the species was observed during the
early morning, early evening and late evening hours (Dhungel and Gara
1991, Biswas 1999, 2000). At Chitawan the age and sex of hog deer, water
proximity, and food availability within the grasslands were the primary
factors affecting the movement of the species. Though individual
movements varied extensively, they were in general observed to be
sedentary in the grasslands with sufficient food, water, and hiding cover
(Dhungel and Gara 1991).

The hog deer has been documented to be less social and essentially
solitary. with groups of 2 to 5 individuals (Pocock 1933, Prater 1980)
but never in herd- s (Lydekker 1898, Whitehead 1972). Rowntree (1935).
Kurt (1978), and Schaller (1967) stated that though primarily a solitary
species, hog deer formed occasional congregation in small groups after
the burning of the grasslands or while feeding during the rutting season.
Schaller (1967) reported a maximum of 40 individuals in a group observed
at Kaziranga. Taylor (1971) observed a herd size of 12 and 19 animals
during December in an introduced population at Victoria, Australia.

Group sizes of hog deer in Jaldapara were observed to differ among the
grasslands found within the study, area. Larger groups were observed
throughout the study in natural grasslands (in pure grasslands 3.09 ± 0.1,
n=288; and in savanna grasslands: 2.67 ± 0.2, n=104) than in riverine
(1.9 ± 0.1, n=118) and plantation grasslands (2.16 ± 0.2, n=92) (Biswas et
a/. in prep.). Mean group size increased from December to April with larger
groups being formed in the summer (3.09 ± 0.1, n=393; March-April) than
in the winter (2.15 ± 0.1, n=317; Dec-Feb). Hog deer herd size at Jaldapara
dominantly ranged between 3-4 animals, and the largest group had 23
animals. The largest hog deer group at Chitawan had 20 individuals
(Dhungel and Gara 1991 ). The mean group size of hog deer at
Jaldapara (2.68 ± 0.01, n=711, Biswas eta/. in prep.) was found to be
higher than that reported from Chitawan (1.8, n=720) (Dhungel and
Gara 1991 ).

The percentage of different types of groups from 710 sightings over 5

months at Jaldapara were calculated to be solitary 41 %, small (2-3

�nvis�ullttin: WiLDLIFE �NO PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 69

 animals) 41%, medium (4- 6 animals) 11%, large (7-1 0 animals} 4 %,
and very large (> 10 animals) 3% groups (Biswas et a/. in prep.). The
small groups were defined as family units because they were dominantly
comprised of adult pairs, mother-fawn association or adult female with
fawn and sub-adults (female groups). Formations of medium and large
groups were observed to be higher in the summer (March-April) than in
the winter (December-February). The 40.9% of solitary individuals
observed at Jaldapara were either adult males or adult females or
unclassified.

According to Biswas eta/. (in prep.) hog deer either remained solitary or
in family units depending on the season and the gender. Adult males
remained solitary irrespective of the season, while the composition of
family units, medium and large groups changed with season. Adult
females primarily formed family units (all-female groups, adult pairs or
mother-fawn association) or mixed groups (large and very large groups)
depending on the season. Except for mother-fawn association and mixed
groups the percent composition of solitary females, adult pairs, and female
groups decreased in the summer. Among the 710 groups observed at
Jaladapara the composition of only 679 groups were documented. The
age and sex composition of 31% groups that could not be identified
primarily comprised of solitary (46.9%) and paired (22.5%) individuals,
with only a few groups of more than 7 individuals. Percent composition
of mother-fawn association at Jaldapara increased from 3.4% in winter
to 11.7% in summer. The fawning season of hog deer starts from late
January through May reaching a peak in March (Singh 1973, Dhungel
and Gara 1991). Hence, formation of mother-fawn associations in hog
deer from January with a peak in March, suggests the onset of their
fawning season at Jaldapara. The formation of mixed groups at Jaldapara
increased from 1.3% in December to 20.4% by April. Increased formation
of mixed groups and proportion of adult males within these groups in
April suggests the onset of hog deer breeding season at Jaldapara.
Formation of mixed groups in Chitawan also increased from May reaching
a peak in July (Dhungel and Gara 1991) Literature suggests that the
.

breeding season of hog deer starts from July through November with a
peak in September and October (Mishra and Wemmer 1987, Dhungel
and Gara 1991). In India, hog deer starts rutting by September and
October (Lydekker 1898, Prater 1986, Blanford 1888-91) after a gestation
period of 8 months. The gestation period of hog deer at Chitawan was
found to be 7-8 months with a litter size of one (Dhungel and Gara 1991) .
Other reported hog deer's gestation period were 7.5 months (Chitawan,
Tamang 1982) and 8 months (Whitehead 1972, Prater 1986).

7Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Hog deer

Schaller (1967) reported that the adult sex ratio of hog deer to be equal.
However, subsequent studies showed a ratio ranging from 52 adult male:
100 adult female (Chitawan, Dhungel and Gara 1991) and 56 adult male:
100 adult females (Jaladapara, Biswas et a/. in prep) indicating a bias
towards pinds (Biswas and Mathur 2000, Biswas eta/. in prep). Studies
on other species in India and Nepal with sex ratio favoring hinds are
reported to be the characteristics of a polygamous species (Spillett and
De 1966, Seidensticker 1976, Mishra 1982). The age structure of hog deer
population at Jaldapara was observed to be 56 adult males: 100 adult
females: 21 fawn: 17 sub-adult females: 8 sub-adult males. The adult:fawn
ratio at Jaldapara was 100:13 which is similar to that at Chitawan (Dhungel
and Gara 1991). Age structure estimated during earlier studies were
observed to be higher in fawns, 100:16 (Seidensticker 1976, Tamang 1982)
and 100:30 (Mishra and Wemmer 1987) than the one estimated by Dhungel
and Gara (1991) and Biswas eta/. (in prep.).

Bhowmick (1997) recorded the life span of hog deer to vary from 15.6 to
18.1 years (avg. 16.7 years) from 6 captive animals. Predation (Dhungel
and Gara 1991) and poaching (or hunting) (Biswas etal. 2002) seemed
to be the direct causes of hog deer's death. Dhungel and Gara (1991)
considered hog deer as an important prey species for tigers and leopards
at the Chitawan Park. Five radio-collared hog deer (26%) were killed by
tigers during the 28-month study period at Chitawan. Other studies in
Chitawan have reported hog deer to comprise 11.5% (Seidensticker
1976), 15.4% (McDougal 1977), 18.8% (Sunquist 1981) and 18.7%
(Mishra 1982) of tiger kills. Thus, predation by tiger and leopard were
recognized as the only cause of their natural death in Chitawan. In India,
no hog deer kills were recorded from Jaldapara during the study by
Biswas (1999). However, many old skulls of hog deer were found from
many areas in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam during the survey (Biswas
eta/. 2002). O.n an average 2-3 hog deer skulls were recorded from most
of the houses in villages randomly visited during the survey in Arunachal
Pradesh. Regular firing shots and Machan's (tree houses made for
poaching) were found during the survey in Nameri National Park, Sonai­
Rupai Wildlife Sanctuary and Namdapha Tiger Reserve. A group of 8
people with hunting tools were encountered at Hastinapur Wildlife
Sancturay (pers. obs.). According to the questionnaire survey, 52% of
responses reported high incidences of hog deer being hunted from nearby
areas. Hunting was reported as the primary reason for the sudden decline
of the hog deer population from north Bengal since 1877. Biswas eta/.
(2002) provided a detailed account of evidences of hog deer hunting
during the survey and past records from the district of Coach Behar (West

£avi•�ullrtin: WiLDLIFEANO PROTECTEOAAEAs(2004} 71

 Bengal) during 18th century. Thus, hunting seems to be one of the primary
causes of hog deer's death in India beside natural predation.

CONSERVATION

Although the hog deer is not officially listed as endangered (IUCN 1996).
its present situation in, most of its ranges, based on our survey and
analysis, is alarming (Biswas and Mathur 2000, Biswas and Singh 2002,
Biswas et al. 2002). It has been reported as extinct from Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh, China, and Thailand. India (Biswas et al. 2002) and Nepal
seem to be the only countries within the native range of the hog deer
with a higher probability for the survival of the species in the future, if
provided adequate protection. The eastern subspecies, Axis porcinus
annamitacus of Thailand and Indochina, is listed endangered (USDI,
www.doi.gov) and Data Deficient (IUCN 1996 Red List of Threatened
Animals). The Asian sub-species, Axis porcinus porcinus is included
under Appendix I in CITES 1973, Low Risk 'near threatened' in IUCN
1996 (Red List of Threatened Animals), and Schedule-Ill of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act 1972 of India. The survival of the hog deer appears to
be threatened by two main factors viz. habitat destruction and hunting
(Sheshadri 1969). Whitehead (1972) reported that the population of hog
deer in West Bengal reduced drastically due to hunting and the
conversion of grasslands to crop fields. Singh (1973) stated that the
population of hog. deer in Punjab was severely affected due to the rapid
agricultural developments and 'Green Revolution'. The rich alluvial soil
of the terai makes it one of the most productive agricultural lands in India
and thus it is prone to conversion for sugarcane, wheat and paddy
cultivation. Indeed, an increase in the production of rice, sugar and wheat
was used as an index of the possible loss or conversion of grasslands
in the past (Biswas and Mathur 2000).

The past distributional range of hog deer provides an insight to the loss
of forest and hog deer habitat in India (Biswas and Mathur 2000). Among
all the 64 sites known in the past to have had hog deer populations current
evidence of their presence were recorded only from 29 sites. This
indicates a serious threat to the species and its habitat. In Jaldapara,
the conversion of natural grasslands for fodder plantations for rhino was
also reported to affect hog deer habitat (Biswas 2000, Biswas and Mathur
2003). In a subsequent study, Biswas and Singh (2002) calculated the
probability of all the remnant patches of grasslands within north Bengal
and Eastern terai to support hog deer. The fragmented and patchy nature
of these grasslands was evident from image analysis and their probability

72 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Hog deer

to support hog deer was found to be very low.

On comparing the 'Eastern terai' with the 'Western terai' it is evident that
the former has more areas with current surviving hog deer population in
India. Unlike, Western Terai, where the remnant grasslands are currently
protected as islands only within three protected areas (Corbett National
Park, Dudhwa National Park and Kishanpur Wildlife Sanctuary), Eastern
terai still has relatively larger numbers and stretches of grasslands
distributed all along the northern and southern banks of the rivers
Brahmaputra, Lohit and Siang. During the survey, most of the wasslands
within the entire terai region (Uttar Pradesh to Assam) were found to be
converted to crop fields or human habitations.

Besides these anthropogenic pressures, habitat fragmentation and habitat

loss, the remnant hog deer population was found to be voluntarily hunted
throughout its range (Biswas eta/. 2002). In Assam, the presence of Khuti's
(grazing camps) found within the protected areas or in the grassland
patches provide easy access to the forest and hence increased the
possibility of poaching for any species (Biswas eta/. 2002). Relocation of
these grazing camps from the protected areas and the grasslands with
potential hog deer population is likely to reduce the intensity and frequency
of anthropogenic disturbance to the species and its habitat. Identifying the
grasslands that have the potential to support hog deer and other terai
species hence would assist in designing a relocation strategy for the
current grazing camps. The predicted probability of supporting hog deer
on 1.7% of the grassland patches in north Bengal (Biswas and Singh 2002)
provides a clue to the status of the species in remnant grassland patches
within the entire range. Lack of awareness about the species and its status
of being a Scheduled (Ill) species are possibly the only reason for the
absence of any monitoring of the population of hog deer within the current
protected areas. Based on the prevailing pressures and threats on the
remnant hog deer populations, the status of hog deer in India is endangered,
which needs immediate attention.

Hence, it is suggested that the status of hog deer should be revised

immediately according to the norms of lUCN (1996) and the Wildlife
(Protection) Act 1972. Also sincere attention ·should be given to the
protection and conservation of the remnant grasslands to avoid further
destruction and loss of habitat of the species. Furthermore, the hog deer
also constitutes an important prey species for large carnivores such as
tigers and leopards, and hence needs adequate protection. Studies have
documented hog deer as a prey species for the tiger (Panthera tigris)

!ovi••�ullttin: WiLDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 73

 population, within the terai region in Nepal (McDougal 1977, Sunquist
1981, Stoen and Wegge 1996, Siedensticker et a/. 1999). Given that in
the eastern region of Indian terai where the major tiger prey chital (Axis
axis) is absent, it can be reasonably speculated that its congeneric
species, hog deer would play a significant role in the tiger's diet. Thus,
protection and conservation of hog deer and its habitat within the current
terai region would eventually lead to the maintenance of the prey base
for the flagship species such as the tiger.

Besides hog deer, the terai grasslands also provide refuge to rhino, wild
buffalo, swamp deer, hispid hare, pygmy hog, Bengal florican, and swamp
francolin, which have an equally narrow distribution and threatened
status. This unique faunal composition in terai region hence, calls for the
implementation of multi-species conservation strategy or focused
attention towards the conservation of grassland ecosystem. Biswas
(2000) questioned the single species conservation strategy at Jaldapara
and suggested for a multi-species conservation approach by conserving
and protecting the natural grasslands rather than individual species.
Identification of the grassland patches and evaluating their potential to
support these species would eventually lead to the conservation of the
remnant grassland patches and the endemic fauna throughout the region.

REFERENCES

Bhowmick, M.K. 1997. Autecology of hog deer (Axis porcinus) in

protected areas of sub-Himalayan West Bengal. World Wide Fund,
USA.

Biswas, T. 1999. Habitat utilization by hog deer (Axis Porcinus) in relation

to other sympatric species at Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary. M.Sc
Thesis, Saurashtra University, Rajkot. Gujarat, India.

Biswas, T. 2000. Conservation of hog deer and its habitat in Jaldapara

Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Abstract of papers presented at 'First
Students Conservation Science Conference', Department of
Zoology, University of Cambridge, UK.

Biswas, T. and Mathur, V.B. 2000. A review of the present conservation

scenario of hog deer (Axis porcinus) in its native range. Indian
Forester Vo/.126(10}.

74 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Hog deer

Biswas, T. and Singh, S. 2002. Status and distribution of hog deer (Axis
porcinus) in the duars - analyzing a changing landscape.
Dissertation submitted to Forestry and Ecology Division, Indian
Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun.

Biswas, T, Mathur, V.B. and Sawarkar, V.B. 2002. Status of hog deer
(Axis porcinus) in India. Report submitted to Wildlife Institute of
India, Dehradun.

Biswas, T. and Mathur, V.B. 2003. The Grasslands of Jaldapara Wildlife

Sanctuary- composition, structure and their Conservation
Significance. In ENVIS Bulletin-Grassland �cosystems and
Agroforestry, Vol. 1, No.1 :29-47.

Blanford, W. 1888-91. The fauna of British India: Mamma/is. London.

617 pp.

Champion, H.G. and Seth, S. K. 1968. A Revised Survey of the forest

types of India. Manager of Publications, Government of India
Press, New Delhi.
'
Dhungel, S.K and 0' Gara, W.B. 1991. Ecology of Hog Deer in Royal
Chitwan National Park, Nepal, Wild. Mono. 119. Pp.1-40.

Dollman and Burlace. 1935. In: Hill J. E. and Corbett G.B. 1992. Mammals
of Jndomalayan Region: A Systematic Review. Oxford University
Press.

Ellerman, J.R. and Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. 1951. Checklist of Palearctic

and Indian mammals 1758 to 1946. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist., London.
810 pp.

Evan, Capt. G.H. 1902. Notes on the Hog Deer in Burma. J.Bombay Nat.
Hist. Soc. 14: 310-315.

Gee, E.P. 1959. Report on the survey of the rhinoceros area of Nepal.
Oryx 5(2):59-85.
Gee, E.P. 1964. The Wildlife of India. Collins, London UK.

Harested, A.S, and Bunnel, F.L. 1979. Home range and body weight- a

.£nvi5 .�ullttin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 75

 reevaluation. Ecology 60:389-402.

Heude. 1888. In: Ohtashi, N and Y, Gao. 1990. Distribution of deer in

China. Mam. Rew. Vol (20), No.s 2/3.

Hill, J. E. and Corbett, G.B. 1992. Mammals of lndomalayan region: A

systematic review. Oxford University Press.

Kurt, F. 1978. Socio-ecological organization and aspect of management in

South Asian Deer. In: Threatened Deer: Pp 219-39. IUCN,
Switzerland.

Lahan, P. and Sonowal, R.N. 1973. Kaziranga Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam:

a brief description and report on the census of large animals.
J.Bombay Nat.Hist. Soc. (70): 245-278.

Laurie, W.A. 1978. The ecology and behavior of the greater one-horned
rhinoceros. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Pp. 450.

Lydekkar, R. 1898. The Deer of All Lands. Rowlands Ward, London. In:
Moore, G and R. Mayze 1990. The Hog Deer. Published by
Australian Deer Research Foundation Ltd., Victoria, Australia.

McDougal, C. 1977. The face of the tiger. Rivington books, London.

Mishra, H.R. 1982. The ecology and behaviour of Chital (Axis axis) in
Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of
Edeinburg, U.K.

Mishra, H.R, and Wemmer, C. 1987. The comparative breeding ecology

of four cervids in Royal Chitawan National Park. Pp 259-271. In:
C. Wemmer (Ed.). Biology and management of the Cervidae.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Pocock, E.H. 1933. A game book for Burma and adjoining territories.
London.

Phillips, W.W.A. 1984. Manual of the mammals of Sri Lanka. 2"d edition
Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka, Colombo.

76 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Hog deer

Prater S.H. 1980. The book of Indian animals. Bombay Natural History
Society. Hornbill House India.

Putman, R. 1988. The natural history of deer. Christopher Helm, London.

Roberts, T.J. 1987. The Mammals of Pakistan. Ernest Benn ltd. London.

Rowntree, J.B. 1935 Habits of Hog Deer (Hyelaphus Porcinus Zimm.).

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 38: 396.

Schaff, D. 1978. Some aspects of the ecology of the Swamp Deer or

Barasingha in Nepal. In: Threatened Deer. IUCN, Switzerland.
Pp. 66-86.

Schaller, G.B. 1967. The deer and tiger, The University of Chicago press,
Chicago, 370 pp.

Sediensticker, J.C. 1976. Ungulate population in Chitawan Valley, Nepal.

Bioi. Cons. (10): 183-210.

Sheshadri, B. 1969. The Twilight of India's Wildlife. John Baker, London.

Siedensticker, J., Christie S., and Jackson, P. (Eds.). 1999. Riding the
tiger: Tiger conservation in human dominated landscapes. Pp.
255-272, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Singh, A. 1973. Tiger Haven. MacMillan, ltd., London, U.K. 237 pp.

Spillette, J.J. 1966. A report of the wildlife survey in North India and
Southern Nepal. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. (3):492-628.

Spillette, J.J. and De, R.C. 1966. A study of the chital in Corbett Nationaf
Park, Uttar Pradesh. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.Soc., 63 (3):576-598.

Stoen, 0. and Wegge, P. 1996. Prey selection and prey removal by tiger
(Panthera tigris) during the dry season in lowland Nepal.
Mammalia. 60: 363-373.
Sunquist, M.E. 1981. The social organization of tigers (Panthera .tigris)
in Royal Chitwan National Park. Smithson. Contrib. Zoof. 339,
98 Pp.

Covis.8ullttio: WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 77

Tamang, K.M. 1982. The status of tiger and its impacton principal prey
populations in the Royal Chitawan National Park, Nepal. Ph.D
Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 123 Pp.

Taylor, P.G. 1971. Aspects of the biology of the hog deer(Axis Porcinus,
Zimmerman 1780). Ph.D. Thesis, Department Of Zoology, Monash
University, Australia.

Tikader, B.K. 1983. Threatened animals of India. Zoological Survey of

India, Calcutta.

U Tun Yin. 1967. Wild Animal of Burma. Rangoon Gazette ltd. Rangoon.

Whitehead, G.K. 1972. Deer of the world. Constable and Company Ltd.,
London. Pp 191.

78 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Blackbuck

INDIAN ANTELOPE OR BLACKBUCK

(Anti/ope cervicapra Linnaeus, 1758)
K. lsvaran

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Bovidae
Sub-Family : Cervinae
Genus : Anti/ope
Species : A cervc i apra
Common name : Blackbuck

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule I
IUCN RED DATA BOOK: Vulnerable
CITES : Appendix Ill

INTRODUCTION

The blackbuck is a medium-sized antelope native to the Indian sub­

continent. This antelope shows remarkable sexual dimorphism. Males
are on average larger than females, conspicuously coloured, and horned.
Adult males (subspecies rajputanae) weigh 34 to 45 kg, while females
weigh 31 to 39 kg (Ranjitsinh 1989). The coats of adult males show
striking black (or dark brown) and white patterns while the coats of females
and immature males are a more subdued light brown and white. Coat
colour in adult males varies from tan to jet-black. This variation can be
seen among males within a population. Furthermore, even an individual
male's coat colour may vary seasonally and with his breeding status
(Schaller 1967, Prater 1971, Mungall 1978). Unlike females, which are
hornless, males bear distinctive long, spiral and diverging horns.

Blackbuck belong to the tribe Antilopini and their closest extant relatives
are the gazelles (Effron 1976, Rebholz and Harley 1999). Two sub

tnvis .iullrtio : W1LDUFE ANO PROTECliD AREAS (2004) 79

 species of blackbuck are currently recognised: the northwestern A. c.
rajputanae and the eastern and southern A. c. cervicapra (Groves 1980,
Ranjitsinh 1989). Body size, horn length, and the darkness of male coats
typically decrease from north to south and from west to east
(Dharmakumarsinhji and Gaekwad 1958, Krishnan 1972, Ranjitsinh
1989).

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION AND

POPULATION STATUS

Blackbuck are native to the Indian sub-continent. They are found in a

wide range of habitats, from semi-arid grasslands and scrub to open
forest (Schaller 1967, Mungall eta/.1981, Prasad 1981, Ranjitsinh 1989,
lsvaran 2005). They reach their highest densities in semi-arid, opea, and
short-grass plains.

Blackbuck historically ranged from near Peshawar (in Pakistan) in the

northwest, through the Indo-Gangetic plains, up to the plains of western
Assam in the east, centrally in the Deccan, in open plains areas along
the western coast of the peninsula, and along the eastern coastal plains
to southern Tamil Nadu (Blanford 1888-91, Lydekker 1907). Within their
range, they were one of the most abundant ungulates of the plains. Herds
containing many hundred animals were reported until as recently as the
early part of the 201h century (Lydekker 1907, Stockley 1928).

The current distribution of blackbuck is much reduced. Within India, they

are found throughout a large part of their former range. However, their
populations, previously large and contiguous, are now small, scattered,
and relatively isolated. The most recent survey of blackbuck populations
in the country, based on observations made between 1981 and 1988,
arrived at an estimate of 29,000-38,000 individuals (Rahmani 1991). This
estimate includes populations both within and outside protected areas.
Rajasthan, Punjab, Gujarat, and Maharashtra had the largest state-wise
population estimates (Rahmani 1991) Velavadar in Gujarat, Tal Chappar
.

in Rajasthan, Nannaj in Maharashtra, Rollapadu in Andhra Pradesh,

Ranebennur in Karnataka, and Point Calimere in Tamil Nadu currently
hold some of the largest concentrations of blackbuck within protected
areas (Ranjitsinh 1989, Rahmani 1991, Jhala 1993a, lsvaran 2003).

Outside India, blackbuck are locally extinct in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

In Pakistan, captive breeding schemes were established in the 1970s
with the aim of reintroducing blackbuck into the wild. As a result of these

80 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Blackbuck

schemes, a few small captive and sen:'i-captive populations currently

exist (Ranjitsinh 1989). In Nepal, only a few small populations consisting
of several tens of individuals currently survive (Khanal 2002).

Although native to the Indian subcontinent, considerable numbers of

blackbuck are currently found in the U.S.A and Argentina, where they
were introduced over 80 years ago. In the U.S.A, blackbuck are mainly
found on game ranches in the state of Texas and recent censuses place
their total population in Texas at around 35,000 individuals (Mungall 1998).

ECOLOGY

Habitat and foraging ecology

Blackbuck are group-living grazers that prefer relatively open, short-grass

habitats and avoid thick cover; this is most likely a reflection of both
foraging preferences and predator avoidance strategies (Prasad 1981,
Ranjitsinh 1989, Jhala 1997). Grass is their preferred forage and most
of their feeding is done in grassland habitats which typically have low
shrub and tree cover. Furthermore, they are reported to avoid tall
grasslands perhaps because taller grasses are less nutritious due to a
higher prevalence of fibre and because visibility is low in such habitats
(Ranjitsinh 1989, Jhala 1997). While resting too, blackbuck are primarily
found in open areas, even when temperatures are high. This preference
for habitats with high visibility may be explained by their anti-predator
behaviour. They appear to rely on early detection and flight to avoid
predation (Mungall 1978, Ranjitsinh 1989) and such a strategy is thought
to be most successful in open habitats (Jarman 1974).

Although blackbuck feed mostly on grasses, browse (such as seed pods

of species like Prosopis spp and Acacia spp) can form a significant portion
of their diet in some seasons (Prasad 1981, Goyal eta/. 1988, Ranjitsinh
1989, Jhala 1997). Browse is likely to be most important when nutritional
levels in grasses are particularly low. Where easily accessible,
blackbuck also regularly feed on crops, such as groundnut, wheat, barley,
millet, and blackgram (Prasad 1981, Jhala 1993b, Manakadan and
Rahmani 1998).

Two challenges that blackbuck face in the semi-arid habitats they thrive
in are water limitation and large fluctuations in nutritional levels in their
forage. Blackbuck show several physiological and behavioural traits that
are probably adaptive responses to these environmental conditions.

tllvih�UIIfcin: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTEOAAEAS (2004) 81

 When the digestibility of forage is low, blackbuck seem to rely on body
reserves (Jhala 1991 ). They also feed less and reduce their movements,
perhaps as a way of conserving energy and avoiding the large
physiological costs of trying to digest coarse forage (Jhala 1997, lsvaran
and Jhala 2000). Blackbuck similarly show several physiological and
behavioural responses when water is limited, including concentrating their
urine and faeces, panting, and feeding at times of the day that may allow
them to maximise water intake through their forage (Mungall 1978, Jhala
eta/. 1992).

REPRODUCTION AND SEX RATIOS

Females give birth to a single fawn after a gestation period of 5 months

(Mungall 1978). About two weeks after giving birth, females become
receptive again. Although an adult female can potentially give birth twice
a year, average fecundity is reported to be 1 or 1.5 fawns per year
(Schaller 1967, Mungall 1978).

Sex ratios are even at birth (Mungall 1978), but become increasingly
biased towards females in older age classes. Adult sex ratios ranging
from 1:1.2 (male:female) at Vanasthali and 1:1.7 at Chilka, to 1:2.8 at Tal
Chappar and 1 :3.5 at Rollapadu have been recorded (Schaller 1967,
lsvaran 2005). Such skew in adult sex ratios is known from many
polygynous species. It is thought to result from the greater mortality that
males experience due to factors related to strong competition among
males for mates. For example, sexually selected characters in males,
such as conspicuous colouration, may increase the risk of predation,
and characters such as large body size relative to females and high
testosterone levels may pose energetic costs or depress immune function
(Fisher 1930, Glutton-Brock eta/. 1982, Promislow 1992).

PREDATION AND POPULATION DYNAMICS

Historically, the cheetah was probably the main predator of blackbuck

(Gee 1969). Currently, wolves, whenever present in an area, are the
main predator of both fawns and adults (Ranjitsinh 1989, Jhala 1991 ).
Fawns are also hunted by jackals. Village dogs are reported to kill fawns
but are unlikely to successfully hunt and kill adults, although they have
been seen to chase them (Ranjitsinh 1989).

The dynamics of blackbuck populations and the roles of predation and

resources are still not well understood. Studies at Velavadar in Gujarat

82 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Blackbuck

suggest that although predation by wolves may strongly influence

population growth rates, it is unlikely to regulate blackbuck populations,
except when they crash to particularly low numbers following catastrophic
events such as floods and droughts (Jhala 1991, Jhala 1993a). Blackbuck
populations are more likely to be regulated by the quantity and quality of
forage, especially when populations are large (Jhala 1993a).

BEHAVIOUR

Social organisation: group-living

Blackbuck are typically found in groups which are variable in size. The
main types of groups are female groups (adult females and immatures of
both sexes), all-male groups (adult and immature males), and mixed­
sex groups (adults and immatures of both sexes). The major exceptions
to such group-living are territorial males (although territories may often
be clustered in space). and females who leave their group to give birth
and are solitary for a large part of the time while their fawns are very
young (Mungall 1978, Ranjitsinh 1982, Prasad 1983, lsvaran 2003).
Groups do not defend exclusive home ranges and are usually unstable.
They may join, split and re-form several times during a day.

Group-living in open-plains antelope is thought to primarily be an

adaptation to reduce the risk of predation (Jarman 1974). Individuals in
groups may benefit from group-living in several ways. They may detect
predators sooner, the probability of an individual being attacked may be
diluted by the presence of other individuals, and the presence of many
individuals may make it difficult for predators to target and follow one
individual (reviewed in Pulliam and Caraco 1984). On the other hand,
group-living also has its costs; for example, competition for forage and
other resources and the risk of acquiring diseases may increase with
group size and such costs may limit group sizes.

Blackbuck show remarkably large variation in group size both between

populations and within populations. For example, group sizes vary from
2-36 animals at Mudmal (Prasad 1983), to 2-129 at Point Calimere (Nair
1976), and 2500+ at Velavadar (lsvaran 2003). Such variation among
populations probably arises from differences between them in ecological
conditions, such as habitat structure and resource abundance (lsvaran
2003). The costs and benefits of group-living are likely to change under
different ecological conditions and, therefore, the group sizes that are
optimal and evolutionarily stable will also change.

tnvi5>l;ullttin: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 83

 Territoriality and Mating system

The mating system of blackbuck is based on the defence of mating

territories by males. Territories are usually established in open areas.
Males use a variety of scent marks and visual displays to demarcate
the areas they defend (Mungall 1978, Ranjitsinh 1982, Prasad 1989,
lsvaran and Jhala 2000). A territory is usually focused around one or
more dung piles which are formed by repeated urination and defecation
by males at particular spots. Males perform exaggerated urination­
defecation displays on these dung piles and may rest on them. Females
appear to derive information from these dung piles; when visiting a
male's territory, females smell the main dung pile frequently (lsvaran
1995). Males also regularly mark their territories using secretions from
their pre-orbital glands. Visual displays form another important aspect
of territory defence. Males use characteristic stereotyped displays while
patrolling the borders of their territories and when approaching male
intruders. Similar displays are also used in courtship and mating.
Encounters between territorial owners and their neighbours or male
intruders involve elaborate ritualised displays and parallel walks which
may escalate into fights involving horn contact (Mungall 1978, Prasad
1989, Ranjitsinh 1989, lsvaran and Jhala 2000).

Blackbuck show extraordinary variation in mating system. Two main forms

that are seen are resource-based territoriality and lekking. In many
populations, males defend mRting territories in areas used by females,
typically along feeding circuits (Mungall 1978, Prasad 1989). As females
move through these territories during their daily circuits, males display
and attempt to mate with receptive females. Such resource-based
territories are smaller than a female's home range and are visited by
females for relatively short periods of time. The dynamics of resource­
based territoriality (factors influencing male mating success, mate choice
etc.) are not well understood.

In a few populations (e.g., Velavadar, Tal Chappar) males follow a rare

and unusual mating strategy called lekking (Ranjitsinh 1982, lsvaran and
Jhala 2000, lsvaran 2003). Here, males gather on open sites and defend
small clustered territories which are devoid of resources that typically
attract females, such as forage and water. These territories are visited by
females solely for the purpose of mating. Such territorial aggregations are
called leks. This mating system has attracted much interest because it is

84 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Blackbuck

rare (seen in < 1% of mammals) and because it is associated with strong

sexual selection. Male mating success is highly skewed, with a few males
gaining most of the matings (lsvaran and Jhala 2000). Some of this skew
may be explained by female mating behaviour on leks. Receptive female
blackbuck usually visit multiple territories before mating with a male.
Territory location appears to be one of the main cues they use to choose
mates {lsvaran and Jhala 2000). Female visits and matings are higher on
central than on peripheral territories. Corresponding with this female
preference for central territories, males compete more for central territories
than for peripheral ones. Overall, lekking is a costly tactic for males: males
on leks fight more, engage for longer in costly displays, and feed less
than males in all-male groups (lsvaran and Jhala 2000}.

Blackbuck mating behaviour is very variable both between and within

populations. Apart from distinct resource-based territories and lek­
territories, many populations show a range of intermediate forms of
territoriality (lsvaran 2005). Mating territories can vary in size, the degree
to which they are clustered, and in the abundance of resources they
contain. For example, territories averaged 9 ha in Mudmal (Prasad 1989},
2 ha in Texas (Mungall 1978), 0.6 ha in Velavadar (lsvaran 2003). The
distribution of territories may also vary from solitary dispersed territories
to tightly clustered classical leks. This large-scale variation in mating
system is related to female distribution in the environment. Lekking is
seen in populations in which females move in large groups and local
densities of females are high, while males defend more dispersed
territories where females are found in small groups (lsvaran 2005). It is
possible that because lekking is a costly behaviour it is favoured only
when local numbers of receptive females are large enough to offset the
costs of lekking.

In all the Indian populations studied, blackbuck breed throughout the year.
However, there are two major peaks in rutting, one from March to April
and the other from August to October (Schaller 1967, Ranjitsinh 1989),
These peaks in rutting result in subsequent peaks in fawning.

Fawning

Females give birth in relatively dense vegetation. Fawns initially do not

follow their mothers when they move to forage but bed down in the grass
till their mothers return to them. Mothers, who remain in the vicinity of
their fawns in the first few days after giving birth, begin to move for

�nvl1 �TSullrlio : WiLOUFE AND PROTECTED MEAS (2004) 85

 increasing amounts of time with their group. Fawns, however, join the
group only when they are nearly a month old. Males do not perform any
care of offspring (Mungall 1977, Mungall 1978, Ranjitsinh 1989).

CONSERVATION

Blackbuck numbers in India have fallen dramatically in the last century

and this antelope is currently restricted to small, scattered populations.
Two principal factors for this drastic reduction are hunting and the loss
of suitable habitat. As a result of hunting in the last century, blackbuck
numbers had already diminished rapidly by the time they were given
complete legal protection, and healthy populations were only found in
areas with some form of protection (Gee 1969, Krishnan 1972, Ranjitsinh
1989). Even today, blackbuck densities outside protected areas are low.
The main exceptions to this are sites where local communities prevent
hunting, largely because of religious sentiments. Second, throughout India
semi-arid open habitats, the areas that blackbuck thrive in, have been
converted into agricultural or pastoral land.

When given some protection, blackbuck thrive as a result of their high

fecundity and their ability to survive well in diverse habitats. However,
this tendency for blackbuck populations to grow rapidly often brings them
into conflict with local communities. In most protected areas with healthy
populations of blackbuck, individuals regularly feed in adjoining crop fields.
Some factors thought to be responsible for this movement are the relatively
small size of many protected areas with blackbuck, and the greater
nutritional value of many crops CO!llpared with natural forage, particularly
in the dry season (Jhala 1993b, Manakadan and Rahmani 1998). Several
recommendations have been made to address this problem, such as
implementing various crop protection measures and compensation
schemes, and growing non-palatable species in fields close to the
sanctuary (Manakadan and Rahmani 1998). The effectiveness of these
various recommended actions have not yet been systematically studied.
Another major problem affecting several blackbuck populations is the
conversion of grasslands into dense thorny shrublands due to the fairly
recent spread of the exotic Prosopis juliflora. This is likely to depress
blackbuck numbers as blackbuck densities are highest in open grasslands
and scrub and decrease as shrub and tree cover increase (Mungall 1978,
Ranjitsinh 1989, Shankar Raman et a/. 1995). Overall, the status of
blackbuck in India seems to depend on the maintenance of suitable habitat,
on measures to mitigate hunting outside protected areas, and on the
resolution of conflict that arises from crop damage.

86 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Blackbuck

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is supported by a John Stanley Gardiner fellowship at the

University of Cambridge.

REFERENCES

Blanford, W. T. 1888·91. The fauna of British India, including Cey lon and
Burma, Mammalia. Taylor and Francis, London.

Glutton-Brock, T. H., Guinness, F. E. and Albon, S. D. 1982. Red Deer:

Behavior and ecology of the two sexes. Edinburgh University Press,
Edinburgh.

Dharmakumarsinhji, R. S. and Gaekwad, S.F. 1958. The blackbuck. Indian

Board for Wildlife. 4 pp.

Effron, M. 1976. Deciphering gazelle taxonomy with chromosomes.

ZooNooz49, 12-14.

Fisher, R. A. 1930. The Genetical Theor y of Natural Selection. Clarendon

Press, Oxford.

Gee, E. P. 1969. The wildlife of India. Collins: Fontana books, London.

Pp. 224.

Goyal, S. P., Bohra, H. C., Ghosh, P. K. and Prakash, I. 1988. Role of

Prosopis cineraria pods in the diet of two Indian desert antelopes.
Journal of Arid Environment 14: 285-290.

Groves, C.P. 1980. A note on geographic va.riation in the Indian

blackbuck. (Unpublished).

lsvaran, K. 1995. A study of lekking in blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra

rajputanae) in Velavadar National Park, Gujarat. M.Sc. dissertation,
Saurashtra, Rajkot.

lsvaran, K. 2003. The evolution of lekking: Insights from a species with

a flexible mating system. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

eovis .iultfliD : WtLOUFE AND PROTECTED AA9.s (2004) 87

 lsvaran, K. 2005. Female grouping best predicts lekking in blackbuck
(Anti/ope cervicapra). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57, 283-294.

lsvaran, K. and Jhala, Y. V. 2000. Variation in lekking costs in blackbuck

(Anti/ope cervicapra): relationship to lek-territory location and female
mating patterns. Behaviour 137, 547-563.

Jarman, P. J. 1974. The social organization of antelope in relation to

their ecology. Behaviour 48, 215-267.

Jhala, Y. V. 1991. Habitat and population dynamics of wolves and

blackbuck in Velavadar National Park, Gujarat, India. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia.

Jhala, Y. V. 1993a. Predation on blackbuck by wolves in Velavadar

National Park, Gujarat, India. Conservation Biology 7, 874-881.

Jhala, Y. V. 1993b. Damage to Sorghum crop by blackbuck. International

Journal of Pest Management 39, 23-27.

Jhala Y. V. 1997. Seasonal effects on the nutritional ecology of blackbuck

(Anti/ope cervicapra) J. Appl. Ecol. 34, 1348-1358.

Jhala, Y. V., Giles, R. H. Jr., and Bhagwat, A. M. 1992. Water in the

ecophysiology of blackbuck. Journal of Arid environment 22, 261-
269.

Khanal, P. 2002. Study on the ecology, behaviour and habitat options for
the conservation of last remaining blackbuck population in Nepal by
using GIS. A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree in Environmental Sciences, Kathmandu
University, Nepal.

Krishnan, M. 1972. An ecological survey of the larger mammals of

peninsular India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 69, 469-501.

Lydekker, R. 1907. The game animals of India, Burma, Malaya, and Tibet.
Rowland Ward, Limited, London, pp. 409.

Manakadan, R. and Rahmani, A. R. 1998. Crop damage by blackbuck

88 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Blackbuck

(Anti/ope cervicapra) at Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary, Andhra Pradesh

Society. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 95, 408-417.

Mungall, E. C. 1978. The Indian Blackbuck Antelope: A Texas View.

Kleberg Studies in Natural Resources, College Station, Texas, USA.

Mungall, E. C. 1998. Bucks in the black: India vs. Texas. Exotic Wildlife
8,1-3.

Mungall, E. C., Patel, B. H. Prasad, N. L. N. S. and Doherty, S. E. 1981.

Conservation and management of the Indian blackbuck antelope
(Anti/ope cerveicapra)- A final report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sept. 1981 (Unpubl.).

Nair, S. S. 1976. A population survey and observations on the behaviour

of the blackbuck in the Point Calimere Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu. J.
Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 73, 304-310.

Prasad, N. L. N. S. 1981. Home range, dispersal, and movement of

blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra) population in relation to seasonal
change in Mudmal and environs. Ph. D. dissertation, Dept. of
Biosciences, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, India.

Prasad, N. L. N. S. 1983. Seasonal changes in the herd structure of

blackbuck. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 80, 549-554

Prasad, N. L. N. S. 1989. Territoriality in the Indian blackbuck, (Anti/ope

cervicapra Linnaeus). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 86, 187-193.

Prater, S. H. 1971. The book of Indian animals. 3rd ed. Bombay Natural
History Society, Bombay. Pp. 324.

Promislow, D. E. L. 1992. Costs of sexual selection in natural populations

of mammals. Proc. R. Soc. Series B 247, 203-140.

Pulliam, H. R. and Caraco, T. 1984. Living in groups: is there an optimal

size? In: Krebs, J. A., Davies, N. B. (Eds.) Behavioural Ecology: An
Evolutionary Approach. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, Pp.
122-147.

!nvit .l;ullttiD : WllDUFE ANC> PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 89

Rahmani, A. R. 1991. Present distribution of the blackcuck (Anti/ope
cervicapra Linn.) in India, with special emphasis on the lesser known
populations. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 88, 35-46.

Ranjitsinh, M. K. 1982. Ecology and behaviour of the Indian blackbuck

(Anti/ope cervicapra Linn. 1758) in the Velavadar National Park,
Gujarat. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 79, 241-246.

Ranjitsinh, M. K. 1989. The Indian Blackbuck. Natraj Publishers,

Dehradun.

Rebholz W. and Harley E. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships in the bovid

subfamily Antilopinae based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol.
Phyla. Evo/. 12:87-94.

Schaller, G. B. 1967. The deer and the tiger. The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago. Pp._ 370.

Shankar Raman, T. R. Menon, R. K. G. and Sukumar, R. 1995. Decline

of blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra) in an insular nature reserve: The
Guindy National Park, Madras. Current Science 68, 578-580.

Stockley, C. H. 1928. Big game shooting in the Indian Empire. Constable

and Company Ltd., London. Pp. 200.

9Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Gaur

INDIAN BISON OR GAUR

(Bos gaurus Lambert, 1804)
M.K.S. Pasha, K. Sankar, Q. Qureshi and G. Areendran

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Bovidae
Sub-Family : Bovinae
Tribe Bovini
Genus : Bos
Species : B. gaurus
Common name : Gaur

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) Schedule I
IUCN RED DATA BOOK: Vulnerable
CITES Appendix I

INTRODUCTION

Gaur (Bos gaurus) is commonly referred as the Indian bison belongs to

the sub-family Bovinae of the order Artiodactyla, and is the largest living
bovine, confined to the Oriental biogeographic region of the world. The
gaur, belongs to the group of wild oxen. These include the Asiatic buffalo,
African buffalo, true cattle and bison. The ancestors of the gaur are known
to have evolved in Asia some 20 million years ago. In total, there are 21
sub-species of wild oxen, which belong to nine species, constituting four
genera (Gentry 1978, 1992). Bos gaurus gaurus (India and Nepal), Bos
gaurus readei (Myanmar-Burma and Indochina) and 8os gaurus hubbacki
(Thailand south of the isthmus Kra and West Malaysia) are the recognized
sub-species of gaur.

Gaur bulls are larger in stature as compared to the cows. Bulls weigh
600-1000 kg and stand 1.6- 1.9 m at shoulder whereas cows are shorter
and weigh about one fourth the males. These animals are known to have

tovis�ullerio: WILDLIFE ANO PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 91

 acute sense of smell and good hearing but the visual senses are relatively
less developed. One of the most striking features of gaur is the muscular
ridge on its shoulders, which slopes down to the middle of the back where
it ends in an abrupt dip. This is often referred to as the dorsal ridge and
is the result of the extension of the dorsal vertebrae. Both sexes have
horns and in the males especially larger at the base with more outward
swath and lesser incurving at the tips. There is a high bulging forehead
ridge between the horns referred to as bos. The average spread I length
of one horn is 80-100 em. The distance between tips of horns may be up
to 120 em. The colour of the eyes are brown.

The old males have two prominent skin folds (dewlap), one small at the
chin and a long one hanging below throat. At the time of birth newly born
calves are light golden yel.low in colour. The younger bulls and females
have brown pelage but the older males are almost jet black. The forehead
is ashy and both hind and fore legs are white or slightly yellowish colour
up to the knees, forming stockings. Albinism is rare and it is infrequently
recorded (Negihal 2002).

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION

The present and the past distribution of gaur suggests that B. gaurus is
an animal of the Indo-Malayan realm, and would have traversed into the
Indian sub-continent through the North-eastern region downwards to the
eastern peninsula and then west to the Central Indian highlands and to
the Ghats southwards. The gaur population in India occurs in more or
less isolated pockets largely corresponding to the major mountain
systems of the Western Ghats, the Central Indian highlands and the north­
eastern Himalayas. Apart from this gaur are also found in forests of South
Bihar, West Bengal and South-eastern peninsula. With respect to the
present distribution of gaur, largely confined to hilly regions, Schaller
(1967) points out that the plains would have also been the abode of gaur
in the past. This is presupposed on the basis that to reach central India
gaur had to traverse the Gangetic plains, and in order to reach southern
India they had to cross the upland plateau (Schaller 1967). As diverse
as their distribution the habitats that gaur inhabits are diverse too. Their
habitats range from Tropical Wet, Semi-Wet Evergreen and bamboo
forests in the North-east to Tropical Moist Deciduous in the Western
Ghats to Tropical Dry Deciduous forests in Central India to Shola forests
and Tropical Thorn forests on the eastern slopes in the Western Ghats.
In these areas gaur are known to occur, in relatively undisturbed habitats,
up to elevations of 2500 m.

92 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Gaur

Extralimitally gaur occurs in Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma),

Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and West Malaysia. Gaur population in
Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and
West Malaysia are on the verge of decline (Hedges in. prep.). Gaur in Nepal
is restricted to the Royal Chitawan National Park and Parsa Wildlife Reserve.
In Bhutan gaur is largely confined to the Royal Manas National Park. In
Bangladesh a few gaur were thought to occur in the Chittagong Hill tracts,
Sylhet and Mymensingh areas in the early 1980s (Sarker and Sarker 1984),
but are probably now extinct. In Myanmar, gaur were formerly widespread
throughout the forested hill tracts but their current status is threatened due
to the high level of trade in wild cattle trophies along the Thailand-Myanmar
border (Hedges in prep., Rabinowitz eta/. 1995, Slater 1983). In Thai! and,
the estimated population of gaur in 1994 was 920 (Hedges in. prep.). Though
the current status of gaur in Laos is unknown, they are known to occur in
good numbers in the southern region (Hedges in. prep.). Hunting and political
unrest in the last century has been the major cause of the present critical
status of gaur in Cambodia (Hedges in. prep., Olivier and Woodford 1994).
In Vietnam the political unrest in the last century leading to habitat destruction
and disturbance and hunting have been the cause of decline for gaur
population (Dang 1986, Hedges in. prep). The destruction and exploitation
of the lowland rainforest has been the major cause contributing to the decline
of gaur population in Malaysia (Dolan 1967, Hedges in. prep.).

POPULATION

According to Ranjitsinh {1997) the estimated population of gaur in India

is between 12,000 and 22,000 and Sankar et a/. (2000) estimated the
gaur population in India to be approximately 23,500.

ECOLOGY

Gaur is a gregarious and sociable animal. The group structure is very

fluid, similar to chital (Axis axis), which are known to exhibit fission -
fusion system of group formation and dissolution. The group size may
range from 2 to 16 animals or, sometimes more than 20 animals. A typical
group consists of cows and few calves, one to two adult bulls and sub
adults. Old males are generally solitary in nature and join the group, more
frequently, during the rut. Younger and old solitary bulls at times associate
with other males to form bachelor groups (Schaller 1967). Adult cows
generally lead the group. Cows and young usually stay in a group. The
strongest bond is of mother and the calf. The group size ranged from 2
to 19 in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh (PTR) and in Kanha

c£ovis .�ullrrin: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 93

(Madhya Pradesh) between 2 and 40 animals (Schaller 1967). Gaur
grou ps averaged between 5 to 7 in Palamau (Sahai 1977). A mean group
size of 6.0 was calculated for Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary (Vairavel
1998). Other observations showed a group size of 12 to 20 (lnverarity
1889), 8 to 12 (Brander 1923), 10 to 20 (Russell 1900), and occasionally
30 to 40 animals (Sanderson 1912).

At birth the sex ratio of gaur has been found to be equal (Schaller 1967).
The sex ratio (male:female) of free ranging gaur in India showed a
preponderance towards females i.e. 80 : 100 in Kanha (Schaller 1967),
45 : 100 in Parambikulam (Vairavel 1998), 47 : 100 in Tadoba (Dubey
1999), 60 : 100 in Pench Tiger Reserve (PTA), Madhya Pradesh (Sankar
et. a/. 2000) and 18: 100 in Nagarahole (Karanth and Sunquist 1992). The
reported cow:calf ratio of gaur in Kanha, Parambikulum and PTA is, 100:42,
100:16, and 100:24 respectively (Schaller 1967, Vairavel 1998, Sankar
et. a/. 2000).

Cows give birth to a singe calf after a gestation period of eight to nine
months. Twins are unknown. The bulls exhibit flehmen, an up curled lip
movement, when approaching a cow in heat. The cow moves away from
the herd before giving birth and remains with the calf for few days before
rejoining the herd. The newly born calf becomes active after few minutes
of birth and stays with the cow. For almost 5 to 8 months the young
suckles milk and then switches over to green feed.

Disease is the primary cause of natural mortality in free ranging gaur. Gaur
have succumbed to epidemics of foot and mouth disease (Ali 1953), rinderpest
(Baker 1890, Stewart 1928), and anthrax (Peacock 1933) in many areas of
distribution. Riderpest took a heavy toll in Bandipur and Mudumalai Sanctuaries
in 1968 and Peryiar in 1974-75 (Ranjitsinh 1997). Three gaur were reported
to have died as a result of Anthrax in Kanha in 1969 (Ranjitsinh 1997).

Predation by tiger (Panthera tigris) is another cause of mortality in gaur,

and tiger is the major predator of this bovid throughout its range (Schaller
1967, Johnsingh 1983, Rice 1986, Karanth 1988, Ranjitsinh 1997, Pasha
et. a/. 2001) . Leopard (P. pardus) is also known to predate on calves and
yearlings (Karanth 1988, Pasha et. a/. 2001) . Wild dogs ( Cuon a/pinus)
have also been reported to attack gaur (Johnsingh 1980). Mortality rate
of 50% for calves, primarily as a result of predation, under age one was
reported in Kanha (Schaller 1967). Poaching of gaur has been reported
from the borders of Kerala-Karnataka, Kerala-Tamil Nadu and in the North
East (Sankar et. a/. 2000).

94 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Gaur

The early morning and evening hours are predominant feeding periods.
During the hot hours of the day gaur retire to the shade of thick trees or tall
bushes. On an average they feed for 15 to 18 hours a day. Their diet chiefly
includes young and mature leaves of trees, shrubs, herbs, bamboo shoots
(Dendrocalamus strictus and Bambusa arundinacea) and buds. Fruits of
Aega/e marmalos, Bau hinea spp., Cassia fistulla, Cordia myxa, Diospyros
melanoxylon, Phyllanthus emblica, Gmelina arborea, Terminalia bellerica and
Randia dumetorum are also eaten (Brander 1923, Schaller 1967, Krishnan
1972, Sankar eta/. 2000). Gaur also feeds on bark of some tree species. In
central India, the gaur is reported to feed on the bark of Adina cordifolia
(Brander 1923, Schaller 1967) and in Mysore (now in the State of Karnataka)
on the bark of Wendlandia natoniana (Ogilive 1954). Sanderson (1968)
reports of gaur eating the bark of Phyllanthus emblica. During summer, teak
( Tectona grandis) debarking by gaur occurs in many areas throughout
central India (Ranjitsinh 1997, Pasha eta/. 2002). In Pench Tiger Reserve
(Madhya Pradesh), gaur fed on 77 31 trees, 20 shrubs, 5
plant species:
climbers, 9 herbs and 12 grasses (Sankar eta/. 2000). Like other herbivores
gaur also visit salt licks periodically for minerals (Schaller 1967, Krishnan
1972).

Gaur is known to be one of the most wide ranging animals and show seasonal
and local movements between foraging sites (Schaller 1967). Schaller (1967)
observed that in Kanha gaur frequented meadows and low-lying forested areas
during most part of the year except monsoons when the animals moved up
and dispersed into the hills. Physiographical features, temperature and rainfall
fluctuations played an important role in the home ranges of. gaur in PTA
(Sankar eta/. 2000). The mean daily movement of adult males was more in
summer (1.75 km ± 1.23) as compared to monsoon (1.31 km ± 0.79). In
contrast an adult female had larger mean daily movement in monsoon ( 1.39
km ± 0.98) as compared to that in summer {1.23 km ± 0.79). The summer
home ranges of male and female gaur in PTA were 12.61 km2 and 7.25 km2
respectively. During monsoon, home ranges of male and female were
7.62 km2 and 13.8 km2 respectively. The home ranges of both male and female
overlapped during the two seasons reported (Sankar eta/. 2000). Gaur tends
to travel long distances largely at ni ght. Seasonal vegetation changes,
_
interspersion and size of forage sites, availability of water, and rut seem to
influence the ranging behaviour of gaur (Schaller 1967, Sankar eta/. 2000).

Being an obligatory drinker, gaur needs water every day and may visit
water bodies twice a day during the hottest periods. While feeding they
move to water holes and then resume feeding. Though Vairavel (1998)
reported that gaur in Parambikulum WLS was seen drinking water only
during noon hours, in PTA dawn and dusk hours, have been observed
as the most frequent periods of visitation to water holes by gaur.

£nvisJSuflrcin: WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 95

 BEHAVIOUR

Rutting, flehmen, tending, mounting are some of the most evident patterns
of sexual behaviour observed in gaur bulls. The incessant increase in
these patterns marks the onset of rut in gaur. Flehmen, is an up curled
lip movement exhibited by a bull, approaching a cow, to detect if the cow
is in oestrus. When a bull accompanying a cow in oestrus moves in
response to the movements of the cow, such an action has been termed
as tending by Schaller (1967).

The mating season of gaur varies through the entire distribution range
(Prater 1971 ), while in some areas definitive peaks have been observed.
Brander (1923) reported December-January as the peak mating season
for gaur in central India. Stebbing (1911) and Sanderson (1912) also made
similar observations. In south India, this may range from November to
March (Morris 1937). An unsynchronized pattern in parturition of gaur
indicates that calves are born throughout the year and some mating occurs
in all months of the year (Schaller 1967, Vairavel 1998, NRC 1983).

Leadership among gaur is only apparent during travels of a group from

one place to another in a single file when an animal takes a leading position
in initiating or directing the movement prior to their shift from a forest patch.
Leadership is not readily detectable particularly during foraging. Females
generally lead a group (Schaller 1967, Johnsingh 1980). In case of all
male groups, the older and larger male leads the herd, i.e. age and size
being the criterion for determining of the leadership of the group.

Licking in gaur is a social gesture, which probably facilitates to minimize

aggression (tension), strengthen the social bond, assertion of the
hierarchy, cleaning, and during qourtship. During the rest hours such an
activity is conspicuous. Members of all age and sex class participate in
such an activity. The bulls lick the cows more during courtship (Schaller
1967). Adult females take part in grooming more compared to other age
-sex classes (Schaller 1967). The bulls also lick each other but this
follows a hierarchical pattern (Schaller 1967). The mother constantly licks
the newly born calves. Licking is mostly oriented to the head and the
neck regions that are inaccessible to self-licking.

Gaur exhibit different vocalizations advertising their mood and

temperament. They snort and give phoo I pffhong calls when alarmed or
surprised, the moo call is given when they come out to feed in the open,
the bulls during rut give out a high pitched and far carrying whistle-like

96 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Gaur

call. Forsyth (1889), Brander (1923}, Schaller (1967), Sanderson (1968}

and Krishnan (1972} are some of the writers who have mentioned the
variety of vocalization in gaur. The cow - calf bond is perhaps the
strongest association in gaur (Sankar et a/. 2000). The cows about to
give birth get separated from the group and become solitary (Sanderson
1912}. The cows with the newly born calf remained away from the group
for some days and then rejoin the group (Schaller 1967}. The newly born
calf becomes active after a few hours from birth. It stays with the mother
for almost 5 to 8 months (Schaller 1967}. Schaller (1967} has noted that
suckling was prominent in calves less than six months old.

Having an acute sense of smell gaur can detect danger very well and
are extremely alert as they sense it. When startled or threatened due to
the presence of predators they assume an 'alert' posture - the head is
held up to the level of dorsal ridge and facing the source of threat. When
alarmed, gaur at times thump their forelegs onto the ground in unison
•

and communicate to the other members of the group with a series of

sounds and gestures (Schaller 1967}. Gaur seldom attacks people. When
harassed by predators like tiger, gaur is known to attack humans without
any provocation (Morris 1954, Davidar 1989).

CONSERVATION

Gaur is an Endangered animal listed in Schedule - I of the I ndian Wildlife

Protection Act of 1972 and is included in the Appendix I of the
Conservation on International trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). IUCN has classified gaur as 'Vulnerable'.

Past records indicate that populations of gaur have succumbed to

epidemics of foot and mouth disease (FMD}, rinderpest and anthrax in
many areas of distribution. This is largely due to the fact that gaur has
little immunity to some cattle diseases. In fact no wild animals in India so
profoundly influenced by transmitted infections from domestic livestock
as gaur. Further, poaching of animals and sport hunting in the past, and
habitat degradation are mainly responsible for the decline or extinction of
small local populations. Krishnan (1972} pointed out that gaur have been
affected more than elephants (Eiephus maximus} in areas of their co­
existence, by the dwindling of the forests and human invasion. For these
reasons the distribution of gaur has altered over the last 30 years.

Presently, gaur occurs in 101 existing and 27 proposed Protected Areas

£ovis .Sullttio : WILDLJFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 97

 (PA's) of India covering 15 states. Present distribution range of gaur

covers approximately 7.12% of the geographical area and 30% of forest

cover of India. The PAs cover 14.3% area of the distribution zone of
gaur. Tropical Moist Deciduous and Tropical Dry Deciduous forests are
the dominant vegetation types within the present distribution limits of gaur.
The principal threats to gaur reported from the 52 PA's were habitat
degradation, poaching and disease (8%) (Sankar eta/. 2000).

The overall trend in gaur population reported from the 52 PA's, showed
that, much of the population is stable with exception to some PA's of
Peninsula India and North-East where population has declined (Sankar
eta/. 2000}. The Western Ghats and their outflanking hills in the south

India constitute one of the most extensive extant strongholds of gaur,

with good numbers in Wynaad - Nagarhole - Mudumalai - Bandipur
complex (Ranjitsinh 1997). The other areas with sizeable population of
gaur in Peninsular India are Billiranganswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary
(Karnataka), Tadoba- Andhari Tiger Reserve and Melghat Tiger Reserve
in Maharashtra. During the recent years the population of gaur has been
reported exterminated from three PA's, Thattekad Wildlife Sanctuary
(Kerala), Bhandhavgarh (Madhya Pradesh) and Kanger Valley National
Park (Madhya Pradesh). Three major (Western Ghats, Central India and
North-East) and two minor (Bihar and West Bengal) units of gaur
conservation areas have been identified (Sankar et. a/. 2000). Within these
units, information on population status from the states of Andhra Pradesh,
Orissa and North-East is lacking except the North Cachar hills district
of Assam with population-400 (Choudhury 2002a) and Nagaland also
known to be having sizeable population (Choudhury 2002b).

Rapid loss and fragmentation of forests, disease and illegal hunting seem
to be the primary cause of decline of the gaur population in India. This
has been a result of the mounting anthropogenic pressures. If not kept
under check, this may result in the slow retreat of gaur from other habitats
too. Over a time period this could effectively reduce the genetic diversity
of gaur populations as a result of inbreeding and expose the population
to environmental and biological stocasticities, thereby making them more
susceptible to the probable occurrence of an epidemic and broadening
the likelihood of wiping out of such fragmented populations of gaur in
future. There is a need to implement a wide vaccination programme for
the domestic livestock in and around protected areas to prevent these
livestock transmitting diseases to gaur.

98 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Gaur

Despite gaur being a megaherbivore, little information is available on the

ecology of the species. It is only in the last decade the ecological work
on gaur in India has come into focus and gained some pace. Comparative
behavioural studies of different populations is required to gather
information on inter-specific relationships and the response of gaur to
the change and alteration in their habitat. Further research on long-term
analysis of populat'ion dynamics and factors that regulate free ranging
wild populations need to be investigated. Genetic studies of the free
ranging, especially the isolated populations, would further enhance the
scope of conservation and management of gaur in India.

REFERENCES

Ali, S. 1953. Hyderabad State, pp. 82-89. In Preservation of wildlife in

India. A compilation. R. Burton (Ed.). Bangalore.

Baker,.S. 1890. Wild beasts and their ways. London.

Brander, A.D. 1923. Wild animals in centra/India. Edward Arnold. Co.

London.

Choudhury, A. 2002a. The status of Gaur Bos gaurus in north Cachar

hills district of Assam. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc.99(3): 506-509.

Choudhury, A. 2002b. Distribution and status of Gaur 8os gaurus in

Nagaland. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc.99(3): 509-511.

Dang H. H. 1986. Biology and ecology of ungulates in Vietnam. Science

and Engineering Publishing House, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Davidar, E.R.C. 1989. Bison encounter. Species. Newsletter of the SSG,

IUCN. May, No.12.

Dolan, J.M. 1967. Javan banteng and other Bibo.s cattle. Zoonooz.
40(12):8-10.

Dubey, Y. 1999. Application of Geographic Information System and

Remote Sensing in Assessing Habitat, Resource Availability and its
Management in Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra. Ph.D.
thesis, Forest Research Institute (Deemed Univ.) Dehra Dun, India.

£nvit.iulltlia: WILDUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 99

 Forsyth, J. 1889. The highlands of centra/India: Notes on their forests
and wild tribes, natural history and sports. Chapman and Hall. London.

Gentry, A. W. 1978. Bovidae. In Evolution of African mammals. Vincent J.

Maglio and H.B.S. Cooke (Eds.). Havard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.

Gentry, A. W. 1992. The sub-families and tribes of the family bovidae.

Mammal. Rev. 22(1):1-32.

Hedges, S. (In prep.). Asian wild cattle and buffaloes: Status report and
conservation action plan, IUCN/SSC, Gland, Switzerland.

lnverarity , J. 1889. Unscientific notes on tiger. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.

Soc. 3 (3): 143-144.

Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1980. Ecology and behaviour of dhole or Indian wild

dog- (Cuon a/pinus Pallas 1811). With special reference to predator­
prey relations at Bandipur. Ph.D. Thesis. Madurai Kamraj University.

Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1983. Large mammalian prey-predators in Bandipur.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 80(1):1-57.

Karanth, K.U. 1988. Analysis of predator-:prey balance in Bandipur Tiger

Reserve with reference to census reports. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.
85(1):1-8.

Karanth, K.U. and Sunquist, M.E.1992. Population structure, density and

biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarahole,
India. J. Trap. Eco/. (8): 21-35.

Krishnan, M. 1972. An ecological survey of mammals in India. The gaur.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 69 (2): 322-349.

Morris, R. 1937. Close seasons for big game - are they beneficial?
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 39(3): 621-622.

Morris, R.C. 1954. Gaur attacking man. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 52{1):
204.

National Research Council. 1983. Litte-known Asian animal with a promising

economic future. National Academic Press, Washington, DC.

l 00 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Gaur

Neginhal, S.G. 2002. Albino gaur at the Nagarhole National Park,

Karnataka. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc.99(3): 512.

Ogilive, C.S. 1954. The behaviour of seladang. Malaya Nat. J. 9:1-10.

Olivier, R. and Woodford, M. 1994. Ariel surveys for Kouprey in Cambodia.

March 1994. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN , Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Pasha, M.K.S. Qureshi, Q. Sankar, K. and Areendran, G. 2001. Predation

by tiger Panthera tigris Linn. on gaur Bos gaurus H. Smith in Pench
Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc.93(3) 432-
433.

Pasha, M.K.S., Areendran, G., Sankar, K. and Qureshi, Q. 2002.

Debarking of teak Tectona grandis Linn. F. by gaur 8os gaurus H.
Smith during summer in a tropical dry deciduous habitat of central
India. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc.99(2): 238-244.

Peacock, E. 1933. A game book for Burma and adjoining territories. London.

Prater, S.H. 1971. The book of Indian mammals. Bombay Natural History
Society. Bombay.

Rabinowitz, A., Schaller, G.B. and Uga, U. 1995. A survey to assess

the status of Sumatran rhinoceros and other large mammal species
in Tamanthi Wildlife Sanctuary, Myanmar. Oryx. 29(2): 123-128.

Ranjitsinh, M.K. 1997. Beyond the tiger: potraits of Asian wildlife. Birajbasi
Printers. New Delhi.

Rice, C.G. 1986. Observations on predators and prey at Eravikulam

National Park, Kerala. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 83(2):283-305.

Russell, C. 1900. Bullet and shot in Indian forest, plain and hill. London.

Sahai, S.P. 1977. Backs to the walls: saga of wildlife in Bihar, India. Affiliated
East-West Press Ltd., New Delhi.

Sanderson, G. 1912. Thirteen y ears among wild beast of India. Edingurgh.

Sanderson, G.P. 1968. The wild beasts of India. Mittal Publications, Delhi,
India.

tovisJ5utlttio: WilllUFE AND PROTECTEDAAEAS (2004) 1 01

Sankar, K., Qureshi, Q., Pasha, M.K.S. and Areendran, G. 2000. Ecology
of gaur Bos gaurus in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh. Final
Report. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun.

Sarker, S.U. and Sarker, N.J. 1984. Mammals of Bangladesh - their

status, distribution and habitat. Tigerpaper. 11 (1 ) : 8-13.

Schaller, G.B. 1967. The deer and the tiger. A study of wildlife in India.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Simpson, G.G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of

mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. (85): 1-350.

Slater, R. E. 1983. Summary of currently available information on

internationally threatened wild species in Burma. FAO Nature
Conservation and National Parks Project. Field Document 7/83 Fo:
BUR/80/006. FAO, Rangoon, Burma.

Stebbing, E. 1911. Jungle by- ways in India. London.

Stewart, A. 1928. Tiger and other game. London

Vairavel, S.M. 1998. Ecology of gaur (Bos gaurus H. Smith) with special
reference to habitat utilization in Parambikulum Wildlife Sanctuary,
Kerala, India. Ph.D. Thesis, Forest Research Institute, Dehra Dun, India.

l 02 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Chinkara

CHINKARA OR INDIAN GAZELLE

(Gazella bennettii Sykes, 1831)
S. Oookia and S.P. Goyal

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Bovidae
Sub-Family Ruminantia
Genus : Gazella
Species : G. bennettii
Common name : Chinkara

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule I
IUCN RED DATA BOOK: Lower risk
CITES : Not listed

INTRODUCTION

The Indian gazelle or chinkara is characterized by their sandy colouring

and a distinctive white streak on each side of the face. Horns are present
in both sexes; however they are smaller in females. They are completely
ringed in male and remain throughout the life. A characteristic of the
gazelle is the tuft of hair growing from the knees (Roberts 1977).

CLASSIFICATION

According to Corbet (1978), classification within the genus Gazella, is

very difficult because of the slight difference observed among species.
The taxonomic status of chinkara has been a subject of controversy. In
the literature of 191h century, the taxonomic nomenclature of chinkara
begins with Gazella bennettii by Jerdon ( 1867, 1874) and Gazella
bennetti by Sterndale (1884). Later, Ellerman and Morrison-Scott ( 1951)
and Prater (1971) called it Gazella gazella, while Groves (1969) and
Corbet (1978) placed it with Gazella dorcas. Later, Groves (1985)

�nvls .gullttin : WilDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 Q3

 recognised it as Gazella bennettii, a distinct species. According to
Groves, this animal is characterised by its sandy or tawny colour, poorly
expressed flank stripes and pygal stripes, hairy build and horns which
are, straight with tips slightly outturned with prominent rings in male, while
horns in female are, comparatively short. Later Gazella dorcas (Groves)
and Gazella gazella (Pallas) were considered as two distinct species

(Bohra eta/.1992). Furley eta/. (1988) based on chromosomal studies

argued that the chinkara should not be classified as a sub-species of
Gazella gazella or Gazella dorcas but should be established as a distinct
species Gazella bennetti in its own right.

Groves (1985) further classified this species into four sub-species: G. b.

bennetti, G . b. christyi, G. b. sub-species undescribed and G. b. fuscifrons.
Recently Groves (2003) again described Gazella bennettii as Gazella
bennettii and one new sub species G. b. salinarum with three earlier ones,
through differences in their coat colour, body skeleton and measurements.
Gazella b. bennettii Sykes, 1831 is found in Ganga valley, its vicinity and
the Deccan; G. b. christyi Blyth, 1842 is in Kutch and Saurastra as far east
of Ahmedabad; G. b. salinarum is a resident of salt range of Pakistan and
east as far as Delhi and last one G. b. fuscifrons Blanford, 1873 is a resident
of Baluchistan (Iran and Pakistan) to Sind and Rajasthan (Groves 2003).

MORPHOLOGY

A full grown male measures about 65 em at the shoulder and weighs

about 23 kg, the horns average 25 to 30 em and rarely exceed this length
in southern India. The best heads are seen in the arid tracts of north­
west India. A horn length of over 40 em has been the longest on record.
Horns of does usually range between1 0 and 13 em (Prater 1971 ). The
chinkara is of a slender graceful build. The dorsal and lateral coat colour
is light chestnut, the colour deepening where it joins the white of the
under parts on the flank and buttocks. There is an usual white streak
down each side of the face, so characteristic of all gazelles, and a dusky
patch above the nose. Both the sexes bear horn. The horns of the male
appear almost straight when seen from the front; in profile they take a
slightly S-shaped curve. Each horn of the male has 15 to 25 rings. Horns
of the female animals are ring less and are straight smooth spikes.
Hornless females, however, are not uncommon (Prater 1971 ).

DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS

Brander (1882-1923) had elaborately dwelt on the earlier distribution of

the Indian gazelle in the sub-continent. Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951)

l 04 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Chinkara

have described the distribution of the Indian gazelle- Gazella gaze/la

(Pallas) now renamed bennetti (Sykes) from Morocco, Algeria, Western
Tunisia, through the Arabian peninsula and the desert areas of eastern
Iran to the Indian sub-continent. The chinkara is presently distributed in
the plains and low hills of western and central India, extending southwards
to a little south of the Krishna river. It is found in Pakistan, in the Middle
Eastern countries and westwards in northern Africa. The chinkara is
undoubtedly a very adaptable animal. It is common even in the salt range
in Pakistan Punjab and up to levels of about 1200 m (Prater 1971) . It
exists in extensive sand dune areas, down to the sea level as well as in
rocky plateaus and hilly regions of up to 1500 m elevation (Roberts 1977).

The chinkara is found in almost every type of eco-system in western

Rajasthan. Unlike the blackbuck, the chinkara is not restricted to only a few
pockets but is much more scattered and is sometime found far away from
human settlement and water holes. Interestingly enough, the Chinkara rarely,
if ever, shares the same habitat as the blackbuck. The chinkara is a familiar
faunal element of shifting dune countries and the interdunal valleys in the
extreme arid part of western Rajasthan (rainfall 100 mm to 150 mm). The
occurrence of this animal in a hilly and humid area like Jaisamand (Udaipur),
located in southern Rajasthan, points to its versatility of niche occupation.

ECOLOGY

Food Habits

Based on a study conducted in desert, chinkara generally preferred the

leaves of Capparis burhia and Zizyphus nummularia and also fed on the
leaves of Acacia tortolis and on the standing crop of bajra (Pannisetum
typhoides) and moth (Phaseolus acontifolius) during the post-monsoon
and winter seasons. Eleusine compressa appeared to be the most
preferred grass of the chinkara. The chinkara have been noticed to pick
up the highly nutritious green or dried pods shed by the Prosopis cineraria
trees (crude proteins 11.5%, gross energy value 6.5 kcal/g) (Dookia 2002).

Chinkara avidly consume the moisture-laiden nutritive flowers of

Tecome/la undulata from mid March to April. The chinkara inhabiting Dawa­
Doli sanctuary Desert National Park, Lohawat-Phalodi area and other
sandy areas consume, the latex bearing leaves of the generally shunned
Calotropis procera during summer. Chinkara in the Oeser! National park
dig up the loose sandy soil of the dunes and expose the roots of
Dipterygium glaucum to eat its moisture laden root bark to quench their
thirst during summer.

£nvit_gullerin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTEDAAEAs(2004) l 05

 We have observed that the chinkara, which are mainly browser,
selectively consume leaves having low fibre and high crude protein
contents. The soft branches and leaves of C. burhia are much relished
by these animals; when these plants dry up in summer, the chinkara
readjust their feeding habit and feed on the green leaves of M. emarginata
and to some extent on the energy and moisture-rich pods of P cineraria
(Bohra et a/. 1992). In the saline desert tract of Israel, the pods of Acacia
species reportedly form a considerable part of diet of Gazella dorcas
(Baharav 1981, 1982). Roberts (1977) observed that the gazelles in the
Cholistan desert region of Pakistan browse on Leptadinia spartium and
Acacia jacquemonti during the early part of summer. When nothing else
is available, the animals browse on Ca/ligonum polygonoides. During
monsoon, the young and sprouting shoots of grasses Aristida mutabilis,
A. funiculate and Cenchrus pennisetiformis provide sustenance to the
chinkara. A changeover from browsing to grazing in chinkara was noticed
only in this season and for a very short time.

The selection of food plants of low fibre and high protein content by the
chinkara may be a reflection of their poor fibre digestibility. This, again,
may be related to the absence of certain essential cellulolytic bacteria
and of a suitable delaying mechanism in their reticula-rumen as reported
by several other concentrate feeders. The light-weight stomach of these
animal� may be considered as an aid to fast leaping, a very effective
means of escaping from poachers and predators.

Soil Ingestion

Free ranging ungulates usually ingest substantial amounts of soil during

the course of foraging. The ingested soil apparently meets the mineral
requirements of these animals. Radioisotopic studies have shown that
soil can serve grazing animals as a good source of minerals, which are
generally lacking in the feeds during summer (Healy et a/. 1970). The
blackbuck and the chinkara of Rajasthan also ingest considerable
quantities of soil while feeding on the ground flora (Goyal and Bohra 1983).
The faecal silica contents, which is an indicator of soil ingestion in sheep
and goat maintained on the two common desert top feeds viz., leaves of
Z. nummularia and P cineraria, were of the order of only 3.4 to 5.4 per
cent, while in the antelopes and the chinkara, feeding on their respective
preferred feeds, silica accounted for 39% and 26%, respectively, of the
faecal matter (Ghosh eta/. 1987, Dookia 2002). The minimum faecal
silica content of about 10 per cent in the case of chinkara and 14.5% in
blackbuck were recorded during January. The presence of higher

1 06 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Chinkara

amounts of silica in the faecal matter of the wild ungulates in comparison

to domestic livestock would indicate actual soil ingestion by the former
species. Since the dry grasses usually contain considerable amount of
silica due to dust particles trapped in them, the faecal content of silica in
blackbuck would understandably be higher.

Water dependancy and role of preformed water

The fact that the chinkara inhabit one of the driest parts of the country
viz. the Rajasthan desert, testifies to the hardiness of this animal's life
under severe harsh conditions. Their occupation of the desert terrain
would indirectly indicate the existence of well developed physiological
and behavioural adaptive mechanisms in this animal. The chinkara, are
adapted in selecting feeds which are not only rich in nutrients but also in
water. This ensures a reasonably large contribution of the preformed
water of the feeds to their overall water balance. It is generally held by
the desert people, and the view has been supported by earlier naturalists
like Sterndale {1884) that the chinkara may not need any free water for
drinking purposes, its food habit and physiological efficiency of water
use being good enough to keep it in water balance.

This ungulate usually drinks from natural water holes (nadis) which occur
at various locations in the desert and cater to the needs of human and
their domestic livestock as well. These water holes are, thus, spots of
intense biotic activity almost throughout the day and, as a result, a good
deal of disturbance is caused in these areas. The chinkara, generally
choose periods of comparatively less activity and disturbance for
quenching their thrust at the water holes. Although, as stated earlier, the
daily water needs are small for this animal, they, nevertheless, compete
with the domestic livestock for the meagre water resources of their desert
habitat.

In the Indian Desert, we rarely encountered chinkara at water holes. On

rare occasions when these animals were seen drinking, they spent an
average of 71 seconds (range 46-92) at each bout of drinking. These
animals usually quench their thirst with a single bout and rarely go for a
second one. This only point to the extreme desert-worthiness of the
chinkara which, in our view, compare well with some of the hardy
antelopes in the African veld and desert fringes which reportedly remain
without drinking water indefinitely {Tayler 1998). Apparently, the water
balance of these animals is dependant on (i) the preformed water in their
feeds, and (ii) the metabolic water that they produce. It is difficult to

£nviaJ3ullttia: WILDUFE AND PROTECTEOAAEAS (2004) 1 07

 ascertain the actual amount of preformed water which the chinkara may
derive from their preferred feeds in their desert habitat. Only rough
estimates can be made.

It would appear that most of the plant species preferred by the chinkara
contain more than 50% water on fresh weight basis. The chinkara should,
therefore, get considerable quantities of water through their feed, thus,
explaining their independence of free drinking water. We have observed
the chinkara in the Desert National Park, Bap-Phalodi and Mukam­
Samrathal areas, to consume considerable quantities of Calotropis
procera leaves during summer. These animals have been seen to dig up
the soil and expose the root of the Dipterygium glaucum, which grows
on the sand dunes and in the interdunal areas. They nibble at the root
bark of this plant which is rich in moisture. A similar behaviour of gazelles
in the Pakistan was observed in desert, digging up and eating succulent
stem of the moisture-rich parasitic plant, Cista nche tubu/osa (Roberts
1977). The observed ability of the Indian gazelle to go without drinking
water indefinitely may also be linked to their preference for the fruit of
wild plant, Citrullus co/ocy nthis (Roberts 1977), which grows abundantly
on sand dunes and contain as much as 90% moisture.

Behavioural thermoregulation

Studies indicated that, in summer months, the chinkara of the Rajasthan desert
seeks shade during the period between 1000 to 1700 hrs under thickets of
bushes and tree (Bohra et a/. 1992). Where large trees are extremely scanty,
chinkara take shelter at midday under the bushes of Capparis decidua,
Leptadinia pyrotechnica and Calotropis procera. In the Kalabagh Reserve of
Pakistan, Schaller (1975) observed that Indian gazelle usually seek shade
under dense bushes during the hotter parts of the day. Roberts (1977)
postulated that the gazelle's coat is a valuable part of its overall strategy to
minimize heat absorption in the course of a hot summer day.

Home range

Chinkara do not have any compact social bindings like other social
animals. But by and large they have an area where they live and also
have an unmarked boundary. In chinkara, the home range of neighbouring
herds may overlap. The area of home range totally depends on the
resources like; habitat, food, and water. The home range size recorded
was 2.2 km2 to 2.4 km2 per herd in Thar Desert of Rajasthan (Dookia
2002).

l 08 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Chinkara

REPRODUCTION AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

These animals are less gregarious than the blackbuck and live in small
herds of 10 to 20 individuals. They are either found as a group of
comprising of a single buck, one or more does and the fawns, or as
solitary bucks, and a group of all male individuals.

Territoriality among males

Several dung piles can be seen in chinkara habitats. These are mainly a
buck leading the group, comprising of one or more females, and kids.
When a chinkara group gets alerted, it is the does with the kids that
leave the area first. Before leaving the occupied area the buck approaches
its nearest dung, smells and scrapes by its fore legs; bend the hind legs
and urinate on the pile. Then it further bends the hind legs (squatting
low) and defecates. While urinating and defecating, it watches the
surroundings, and then disappears flickering its tail all the time. Chinkara
dung piles are found only in those areas where these animals feel
absolutely secure.

Breeding

The chinkara has no particular breeding season. The chinkara buck, like
bucks of Grant's gazelle, Thomson's gazelle (Walther 1977), and the
Uganda Kob (Schaller 1967) touch the under part of the doe with a stiff
leg, an action termed /aufschlag by Walther (1977). One or two fawns
are born at a time. There is a record of a hybrid between male chinkara
and female-blackbuck completely dominating the blackbuck herd, driving
away the male and retaining mastery of the herd (Prater 1971) The Indian .

gazelle showed two main peaks of breeding period in Thar Desert of

Rajasthan. These were March-April and August-September.

Sex ratio

Generally the sex ratio of Indian gazelles was female biased, and over
all adult male/female ratio is 1:1.5, sub-adult male/female ratio is 1:1.9
and ratio among juvenile and adult female is about 1:4.3 found in semi
arid region of Thar Desert of Rajasthan (Dookia 2002).

Natality

Indian gazelle is a year long breeder but this activity increased during

£ovit Jiullttiu : WtLOI.IFE AND PROTECTEDAAEAS (2004) 1 09

 February-March (autumn) and July-August (monsoon) months. The over
all average birth rate was 0.59 fawn/female/year (Dookia 2002).

Mortality

No specific period/season was observed for mortality of Indian gazelles.

The mortality rate was slightly high in mixed or family herd as compared to
all male herds, because feral dogs, caused a heavy toll in young ones and
hunted them. The average death rate among mixed herd was 0.2 ind./year
and maximum deaths were reported in young ones. Mostly young gazelles
were preyed by feral dogs. Death rate in all male herds was reported to be
0.2 ind./year, which was mainly hunted by feral dogs (Dookia 2002).

Predation

Indian gazelle is a potential prey species for carnivores of the Thar

Desert. Hairs of Indian gazelle were found in scat of Canis domesticus
(feral dog). Vulpes bengalensis (common fox), Vulpes vulpes pusil/a
(desert fox) and Felis chaus Uungle cat) (Dookia 2002). Foxes hunt mainly
on juveniles whereas cats hunt on young one and wolf, jackal and feral
dog kill young and adult both. The main predator of Indian gazelle was
found to be feral dogs (Dookia 2002).

BEHAVIOUR

Reproductive behaviour

Indian gazelle breed throughout the year. The reproductive pattern was
a long process, completed in various short phases, i.e., herding the
female, courtship displays, testing phase, pre-mounting phase,
copulation and post copulatory phase. The mating process was normally
ended after 6-8 hours, but some time the whole rituals were ended after
2-3 days with one female.The Indian gazelle showed two main peaks of
breeding period in Thar Desert of Rajasthan. viz. March-April and August­
September.

The mating activities were less during February-April but fawns were
found more in this period, which resulted from mating period of August­
October where successful mounting rate was high. However, the survival
rate of fawns was greater during monsoon but on the other hand it was
found low during the other seasons. The territorial males spent their
maximum time in defence of their territory during peak period of mating
from August-October. In these days fighting were common in between
surrounding males for possession of rutting females (Dookia 2002).

1 1Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Chinkara

Aggressive behaviour

Total seven types of aggressive patterns were observed during the study
in Thar Desert of Rajasthan (Dookia 2002) like, nod-butt, forward­
downward-blow, push-butt, forward-push and forward-swing, sideward­
push and sideward-swing, horn-levering and horn-weaving and head­
low posture. This type of behaviour is encountered during ttie temporary
clashes iri between the territorial male in breeding period, but some time
this type of normalized clashes can turn into serious fighting.

Mother-fawn relationship

The young one at the time of birth generally found with light brown hairy
body. The fawn found walking slowly in and around the birth place only
in the presence of mother. After 5-6 days, fawn was seen following
mother. Whenever a mother rejoined the herd with her fawn, all the adult
females surrounded both and sniffed the fawn and mother.

The newly born fawn was found completely dependent on its mother for
milk upto two weeks but after that they were seen nibbling on grass at
intervals. However the frequency of suckling was high during the first
month after parturition. This frequency was reduced in the second month
and by the third month the fawn completely fed on vegetation.

During the first month, when the fawns were very small and helpless,
the mother gazelles were always watchful. They responded to every call
(even very low grunts) made by the fawns. Similarly whenever mother
gazelle sensed any danger it made loud sneeze and after this all the
adult females moved forward to the fawn and encircled but remained
slightly away (Dookia 2002).

Anti-predatory behaviour

Generally one member of a herd was always found vigilant towards

unforeseen danger. These animals communicated through different modes
like stamping on the ground with the help of foreleg, sneeze type voice
call, tail movement stopped and sttoting (jump on all four feet at a same
time). These modes of signal transfer were used according to nature of
danger. The chinkara found quite vigilant, and maximum activity was
performed by sub-adults (18.6%} as compared to all other individuals
followed by adult females (15.8%}. The adult males (7.2%} and juveniles
(3.2%) spent less time for this activity (Dookia 2002).

Cnvis.l;ulltlin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTEDAAeAS (2004) 1 1 1

Fighting

Most fights were carried out with several fighting techniques in one
encounter. The names of different fighting actions and fighting techniques
are reported by Walther et a/.(1983). Total seven type of fighting patterns
were found in chinkara, like boxing, horning, clash-fighting, push-fighting,
twist-fighting, horn-pressing, front-pressing and forehead-pressing, fight­
circling and air-cushion-fighting. All these fighting can be involved in a
long fight of the territorial males.

The Indian gazelle spent maximum time in air-cushion-fighting and

minimum in twist-fighting. Air-cushion fightings were quite common in
between territorial males and horning in between sub-adults or non­
territorial males, whereas boxing was common in females and young
gazelles. Duration of air cushion fighting was longest, mean time spent
was 6.15 minute per fight. The duration of fights ranged from one minute to
about 6 minutes. On few occasions, repeated fights in a day were also
observed and some males continued this activity for 2-3 days. Usually,
there was no obvious winner or loser in the fights between territorial bucks,
after a fight one or both may abruptly switched to another activity, simply
turned and walked off, or started grazing and moved away from each other
(Dookia, 2002).

CONSERVATION

One of the major reasons for the decline in the number of antelopes in
Thar desert is due to change in Kundua pattern and increase in livestock
populations. It is suggested to regulate livestock grazing in areas habited
by antelopes. Domestic animals of these regions should be vaccinated
to avoid any transfer of diseases to wild speices.

Among other major threats to this species is poaching and it is relatively

high in non- Bishnoi areas in Rajasthan. The people of the Bishnoi
community who have been traditionally holding the chinkara and blackbuck
in great reverence and have been protecting them from natural calamities,
predators and poachers, are slowly, through perceptionally turning some
times hostile due to high crop loss due to change in land use patterns. It
is proposed to keep certain areas as fallow land around Bishnoi dominated
villages who are preserving the antelopes. Such management input will
probably minimize the conflict with people for crop depredation.

1 12 UNGUlATES OF INDIA
 Chinkara

With the present trend of increase in human and domestic population, it is

no longer possible to allocate reasonably large areas like the Desert National
Park situated in Jaisalmer and Barmer districts exclusively for preservation
of these animals. In view of this it proposed to declare a few more santuaries
such as Dawa-Doli and Guda-Bishnoi and other areas after suitable survey.

REFERENCES

Baharav, D. 1981. Food habits of the mountain gazelle in semi-arid

habitats of eastern lower Galilee, Israel. Journal of Arid Environments.
Vol. 4: 63-69.

Baharav, D. 1982. Desert habitat partitioning by the dorcas gazelle.

Journal of Arid Environments. Vol. 5: 323-335.

Bohra, H. C., Goyal S. P., Ghosh, P. K. and Prakash, I. 1992. Studies on

ethology and eco-physiology of Antelopes of the Indian Desert. Annals
of Arid Zone. Vol. 31(2): 83-96.

1882-1923. Wild animals in centra/India. Edward Arnold

Brander, A. A. D.
and Company, London. Pp. 296.

Corbet, G. B. 1978. The mammals of the Palaearctic region: A taxonomic

review. Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) and Cornell University Press, London
and Ithaca.

Dookia, S. 2002. Habitat preference, abundance and group size of Indian

Gazelle gazelle bennetti in semi arid region of Rajasthan. Ph.D. thesis.
J.N.V. University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Pp. 179.

Ellerman, J. R. and Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. 1951. Checklist of

Palearctic and Indian mammals. 1758 to 1946. 2"d ed. British Museum
(Natural History), London. Pp. 810.

Furley, C.W., Tichy, H., and Verpmann, H.P. 1988. Systematics and
chromosomes of the Indian gazelle Gazella bennettii (Sykes, 1831). Z.
Sangetierkunde. 53:48-54.

Ghosh, P. K. Goyal, S. P. and Bohra H. C. 1987. Competition for resource

utilization between wild and domestic ungulates in the Rajasthan
desert. Tiger paper Vol XIV
. (1): 2-7.

Goyal S. P. and Bohra, H. C. 1983. Soil ingestion by two wild ungulates,

Antelope cervicapra and Gazella gazella in their natural habitats.
Annals of Arid Zone. Vol. 22(1) : 99-102.

£11vitJ;utlttill : WILDUFE AND PROTeCTED AAEAS (2004) 1 13

Groves, C. P. 1969. On the smaller gazelles of the genus Gazella de
Blainville, 1816. Z. Sdugetierkunde. Vol. 34: 38-60.

Groves, C. P. 1985. An introduction to the gazelles. Chinkara. Vol. 1: 4-16.

Groves, C. P. 2003 Taxonomy of ungulates of the Indian subcontinent.

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. Vol. 100 2&3: 341-362

Healy, W.B., Mu Cabe, W. J. and Wilson, G. F. 1970. Ingested soil as a

source of micronutrients for grazing animals. New Zealand Journal
of Agricultural Research Vol. 13: 503-521.

Jerden, T. C. 1867. A handbook of the mammals of India. Thacker, Spink

and Co. Calcutta.

Jerden, T.C. 1874. Mammals of India: A natural history of the animals

known to inhabit continental India. John Wheldon, London. 335 pp.

Prater, S. H. 1971. The book of Indian animals. Bombay Natural History

Society, Bombay. Pp. 324.

Roberts, T. J. 1977. The Mammals of Pakistan. Ernest Benn. Ltd., London.

Pp. 361.

Schaller, G. B. 1967. The deer and the tiger: A study of wildlife in India.
( Ed.) University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Pp. 370.

Schaller, G. B. 1975. A note on a population of Gazella gazella bennetti

J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. Vol. 73: 209-211.

Sterndale, R. A. 1884. Natural history of the Mammalia of India and

Ceylon. Thacker, Spink and Co. Calcutta. Pp. 540.

Taylor, C. R. 1998. The !::land and the Oryx. Sden. American Vol. 220:
8-95.

Walther, F. R. 1977. Sex and activity dependency of distance between

Thomson's Gazelles (Gazella thomsoni Giinther 1884). Anim. Behav.
Vol. 25:713-719.

l l4 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Indian wild ass

INDIAN WILD ASS OR KHUR

(Equus hemionus khur Pallas, 1775)
N.Shah

Order Perissodactyla
Family Equidae
Genus Equus
Species E. hemionus
Common name Khur

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule I
IUCN RED DATA BOOK : Endangered
CITES : Appendix I

INTRODUCTION

Equids have been important part of human history and religion and they
have captured human hearts with their grace, beauty, faithfulness and
services. The perissodactyls were the dominant ungulates of the Miocene
grasslands in most of the world (Simpson 1951, Colbert 1980). Eohippus,
the first horse belonging to the lower Eocene (55 million years ago). was
widely spread through North America and Europe (MacFadden 1976, 1977).
They were browsers, and became extinct at the end of the Miocene. From
then on, the entire course of horse evolution was restricted to the North
American continent. All the horses that appeared subsequently in other
regions of Eurasia, Africa and South America, were emigrants from North
America (Romer 1959, Martin and Neuner 1978, Colbert 1980). The horses
colonised South America over the Panama Bridge during the Pliocene,
and the Old World via the Bering Land Bridge, thus achieving a remarkably
wide geographical distribution in different directions and at different times
(Harris and Porter 1980, Eisenberg 1981, Waring 1983).

Covis JSullerin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 15

The genus Equus suNived in to the Old World, with good diversity as horses,
zebra and asses (Colbert 1980). In the 19th Century, tarpan (the wild horse,
E. ferus of Europe), sub-species of the Plains' zebra, E. burchelfi burchelfi
(Hughes 1988) a race of the Asian wild asses E. hemionus hemippus (Syrian
wild ass) (Groves 1974) went extinct. The Przewalskii's horse is now in zoos,
with a few reintroduced from the zoo into the wild in Mongolia (Duncan 1992).
Today, there remain only seven species of the genus, with 20 sub species:
three zebras with nine sub species in Africa, three wild asses (one in Africa
and two in Asia) with nine sub species, and a reintroduced wild horse in Asia
(Duncan 1992).

The evolutionary relationships among these species are not yet definitely
established (George and Ryder 1986). The new approaches (Ryder and
Epel 1978, Ryder et at. 1979, George and Ryder 1986, Ryder and
C he m n i c k 1 9 9 0} coupled w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l p a l a e o n to l o g i c a l a n d
morphological studies (Groves 1974), have established that extant equids
diverged from a common ancestor 3-5 million years ago (between
Pliocene and Pleistocene), Zebras are a monophyletic group and
domestic horses are very close to Przewalskii horse; they probably
constitute a single species. The wild ass once occupied the southern
half of Asia; today they survive only as fragmented populations. There
are two species of Asiatic wild ass, E. hemionus and E. kiang.

The five subspecies of E. hemionus are: the Indian wild ass or khur in
western India, the Onager in Iran (introduced in Israel), the North Mongolian
Dziggetai in Russia and Mongolia, the Gobi Dziggetai in Mongolia and
China, the Kulan in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan,. The Syrian wild ass
went extinct in 1927 (Groves 1974). The hemionus have more slender
limbs with longer distal segments and broader, more rounded rumps. Also,
their pelage is lighter in winter and less red in summer (Groves 1974).
The first incisors appear at 2.5 to 3 years of age, canine teeth are vestigial
or absent in female equids (Eisenmann and Shah 1996). The hemionus
have no sexual dimorphism, and it is often difficult to sex them from a
distance. The khurstands 110-127 em (average 117.2 em) at the shoulder
(Groves 1974). The adult female khur weighs approximately 200 kg, and
adult males approximately 240 kg (Ali 1946). The colour of summer pelage
is dark greyish fawn to reddish grey, but the white underparts extend higher
up the flank, to about the halfway line or more. In winter, the colour is
greyish to pale chestnut; the winter coat is as short as the summer coat.
The dorsal stripe does not extend down the tail, as it does in the other
sub-species, but fades away midway.

l l6 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Indian wild ass

The range of khur was probably always restricted to the deser�s of

northwestern India. l[l the 201h Century, the Indian wild ass had a fairly
wide distribution in the dry regions of north-west India and South Pakistan.
They existed as far north as Jaisalmer and Bikaner in Rajasthan, and
west into Sind and Baluchistan (Gee 1963). The former distribution of
this sub-species was in Baluchistan, around Balgajar in central Makran,
as well as Sohtagan in the extreme western bordrer of Kharan district. In
the 1880s, wild
. asses were abundant in Baluchistan. A small population
survived in the Great Rann of Kutch on the border of Chacro and Nagar­
Parkar tehsils of Tharparkar district in Sindh until the late 1960s (Roberts
1977). The only remaining small population of khur in the world today is
in Wild Ass Sanctuary in the Little Rann of Kutch and surrounding
landscape in Gujarat (Groves 1974, Shah 1993, 2004).

ECOLOGY

Khur mares first breed at 2 or 3 years of age (Heptner eta/. 1966). There
is a pronounced seasonality in reproductive activity. A captive female
khur attained maturity at the age of two years, 10 months and 24 days,
and a captive male at the age of three (Malhotra 1989). Gestation period
in captivity is estimated to be around 370 days, ranging from 342 to 397
days (Malhotra 1989).

Mating and foaling in the khuroccurred mainly during the monsoon (June­
September), which is also a period of vegetative growth, and ended in
peak winter (December-January). All recorded births were single (Shah
1993). Male foals weaned at 1-2 years of age, and female foals continued
to remain with the family band (Shah 1993, 1998, 1999). Post-partum
oestrus is reported in equines (Ginther 1979). Wild ass mares are
monoestrous species, but are seasonally polyoestrous (Hafez 1980).The
khur population in the Little Rann of Kutch observed to have sex ratio of
51 to 66 males per 100 females, the foal per 100 female ratio was 42 to
66 (Shah 1993, 1998, 1999}.

Equids are generalist herbivores, and being hindgut fermenters, they are
effective consumers of coarse plants (Duncan eta/. 1990). Water limits
equids' ranges, as they have to drink regularly. The activity pattern of
the khur remained consistent throughout the year, with resting being
predominant. Annually, the family bands spent 28%, and all-male herds
24% of the daytime feeding. In the winter, they spent less time feeding
during the day, as they raided crops by night. The wild ass in the Little
Rann of Kutch are active during the night, to maximise resource intake
in the natural vegetation-agriculture interface (Shah 1993, 1998, 1999).

toM .13ullttio : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 1 17

 Khur occupy the barren Rann (saline mudflat), Rann grassland, Bets
(vegetated islands on the barren Rann), and the Rann fringes with
vegetation interspersed with croplands. Choice of habitat differed
seasonally. An introduced exotic shrub Prosopis juliflora dominated the
scrubland. Scrubland with low to medium density of shrubs and Rann
grassland were the most preferred habitat. The medium and dense
scrubland provided thermal cover for the khur, and foaling ground for
gravid mares. The fallow land and croplands were frequented by the khur
throughout the year. In summer, water is a crucial resource and the
pods of Prosopis forms a part of their diet when grasses are dried up
and withered (Shah 1993,1998,1999). Khur were observed to feed on
ninteen species of plants of which six are crops (Shah 1993).

The home ranges of wild equids are principally determined by human

land-use patterns (Duncan 1992). The mean daily diurnal movement of
an Khur was 4 to 7 km (Shah 1993). The observed home ranges were
found within 2-3 km radius from the water source along the fringes. The
annual home range size was 19 km2 for the family band and all male
herd, individual mare had 16 km2 and dominant stallion 8 km2 (Shah
1993, 1998, 1999).

POPULATION
..

In 1946, the khur population was estimated to be 5000 (Ali 1946). The
population showed a declining trend between 1946 and 1969 (Ali 1946,
Gee 1963, Spillet 1968, Shah 1993, 1998, 1999) with a sharp fall from
1960 to 1962, which could be due to the epidemic "surra" and consecutive
droughts {Shah 1993, 1998, 1999). In 1962, a population of 870 khur
was estimated (Gee 1963). An aerial survey in the summer of 1969 by
the Gujarat Forest Department and Dharamkumarsinhji gave an estimate
of only 362 khur. Forest Department counts indicated that there were
720 khur in 1976, 1989 in 1983, 2072 in 1990, and 2839 in 1999. Until

1976, the khur population was restricted to the Wild Ass Sanctuary but
with increase in human and wild ass populations, and droughts, the khur
started to emigrate to areas to the south and east of the sanctuary as
these are resource-rich areas. Later, they emigrated further south, south­
west, south east of the Sanctuary, and north into the Great Rann of Kutch',
Rajasthan and bordering Pakistan (Shah 1993, 1998, 1999).

The only captive breeding khur stock in the world is in Sakkar Baugh
Zoo, Junagadh, Gujarat (India) (Shah 1996). The wild ass was found

l l8 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Indian wild ass

exhibited in the Paris Zoo, where nine foals were born from 1842 to1849,
and in the London Zoo, where a pair presented in 1934 by the Maharaja
of Kutch, lived for more than 20 years (Smielowski and Raval 1988).

BEHAVIOUR

The equids exhibit a range of social systems, with two distinct forms and
some intermediates. They have a social system where the only cohesive
unit is the female and her offspring. This system typifies equids adapted
to semi-arid and arid areas, such as the Asiatic wild asses (Kiingel1977,
Shah 1993, Shah 1998), feral asses, African wild ass (Moehlman 1974)
and Grevy's zebra (Klingel 1974) . The Khur exhibits resource defence
territories and guarding of mares on these territories (Shah 1993). There
are four primary social units in the wild ass: (i) family or breeding band
comprises of a dominant stallion, females of all age classes, foals,
yearlings, and occasional sub-adult males, (ii) territorial stallion, (iii) all­
male group constitutes more than a year old males and (iv) ostracised
males,' the one displaced from prime territory (Kiingel1977, Shah1993).

Group size increases during the breeding period, as wild asses

congregate during this period, which also coincides with an abundance
of resources. With the depletion of resources in the non-breeding period,
the group size gets smaller. Typical group size of a family varied between
10 and 40 (Jarman 1974). In the all-male group the typical group size
was 6 to 51 (Shah 1993).

Stallions in the Little Rann of Kutch were observed to form two kinds of
breeding strategies: year-round maintainence of territories or seasonal
territories and defend mares on these territories (Shah1993). The stallion
defended territories throughout the year, which attracted mares during
the breeding period, and the territory holders contributed largely to
breeding (Shah 1993). Aggression by an adult male is usually against
another territory-holding male. These male territories are associated with
breeding behaviour, an oestrous mare will not be persecuted by other
males once she enters a territorial male's area (Klingel 1977, Shah 1993,
1998, 1999).

Males holding no territory may wander freely. In non-territorial areas,

males gather around mares in oestrous and mate promiscuously, with
none having excl.usive mating rights (Shah1998) as observed in Grevy's
zebra (Ginsberg1987). Marginal territories were held either by a young
or an old stallion. The territorial stallions soiled themselves with mud or

Cavit.gllllfl1a: WJLOUFE AND PROTECTED AReAS (2004) l l9

slush during the breeding period, for visual display and actively chase
off other males from their territory during breeding season (Shah 1993).
Vocalisation is another means of maintaining a territory. Territories are
marked by dung piles, and marking by micturation has also been
observed (Shah 1993). Females move between territories of males.
Mares separate from herd during time of birth and seems to. prefer
scrubland for delivering young, foals generally follow mother within few
hour of birth (Shah 1993).

Khur have good vision, hearing and smell. They largely flee when
approached by humans, people have reported maximum speed of 40
km/hr when they have been chased by motor vehicle. Female were
observed defending their foals from feral dog by chasing and kicking
them (Shah 1993).

CONSERVATION

Five of the seven Equus species are threatened with extinction. Their
conservation requires management to ensure their (sustained) survival,
and to reintroduce them into parts of their ancestral ranges (Duncan 1992).
The limiting factors for most wild asses is resource competition with
domestic livestock (Wolfe 1979, Shah 2004). The possibility of
transmission of diseases from domestic livestock to wild asses, calls
for constant veterinary vigilance in areas that they co exist (Shah 1993,
2004).With the Rann of Kutch being the only home for the sub species,
any outbreak of an epidemic can severely decimate this only remaining
population. To prevent such a disaster, an alternate home for the khur in
the Great Rann of Kutch and Thar Desert in Rajasthan should be urgently
considered (Shah 1993, 1999).

Although the wild ass sanctuary was notified in 1973, land settlement
works had not been completed till date. Priority should be given to this
issue, which would solve most of the problems faced by wild ass
sanctuary. The management is understaffed a n d needs t o be
strengthened.

The increase in human population, unregulated livestock grazing and

unabated invasion of the exotic plant Prosopis juliflora (mesquit) around
the Little Rann, .has led to heavy pressure on the habitat. Supervised
thinning of P. juliflora would prevent the species from spreading. The salt
mining has been the major source of economy for the locals in the Little
Rann of Kutch· since 1873. Salt works has resulted in heavy vehicular

l 20 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Indian wild ass

traffic throughout the habitat (Shah 1993, Sinha 1993). The delineation
of salt mining zones and salt transportation routes would reduce pressure
on the fragile habitat (Shah 1993).

The water for irrigation that will be brought into the Sardar Sarovar Project
command area along the southern fringe, will cause a drastic change in
the land use pattern, thus impacting the wildlife habitat and fragmenting
wildlife populations. The command area occupies the prime habitat for
the wild ass and other wildlife species (Goyal et a/. 1999). There has
been a rapid change from rain-fed agriculture to that of irrigated cropping
pattern, the increasing Khur population and range expansion has led to
increased crop depredation (Shah 1999). Since the early 1990s, dumping
of feral pigs into the Rann from nearby towns has been a major menace,
and is one of the factors for increase in crop damage and the resulting
'
antag onism of people (Shah 1993, 1999).The Bets should be well
managed by protection from biotic pressures, to allow natural
regeneration.

REFERENCES

Ali, S. 1946. The wild ass of Kutch, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 46: 472-477.

Colbert, E.H. 1980. Evolution of the Vertebrates: A history of the

backboned animals through time. 3rd Edition John Wiley and sons,
New York. Pp. 510.

Duncan, P. 1992. Zebras, Asses and Horses: An Action Plan for the
conservation of wild equids. P. Duncan (Ed.). Published by IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland. Pp. 36.

Duncan, P., Foose T.J., Gordon, I.J., Gakahu, C.G. and Lloyd, M. 1990.
Comparative nutrient extraction from forages by grazing bovids and
equids: a test of the nutritional model of equid/bovid competition and
coexistence. Oeco/ogia 84: 411-418.

Eisenberg, J.F. 1981. The Mammalian Radiations: An Analysis of trends in

Evolution, Adaptation and Behaviour. The Athlone Press, London. Pp. 610.

Eisenmann V. and Shah, N.V. 1996. Some craniological observations on the

Iranian, Transcaspian, Mongolian and Indian hemiones In: F. Rietkerk, K.
Brouwer and S. Smits (Eds.). European Endangered species Programme
(EEP) Yearbook 1995196 including proceedings of the 131h EEP
conference, Saumer 20-24 June 1996. EAZA Executive office, Amsterdam.

!rtvil �ullttin : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) l 2l

Gee, E.P. 1963. The Indian wild ass: A survey (Feb. 1962). J. Bombay
Nat. Hist. Soc. 60: 517-529.

George, M. and Ryder, O.A. 1986. Mitochondrial DNA evolution in the

genus Equus. Mol. Bioi. Evol. 3: 535-546.

Ginsberg, J.R. 1987. Social Organization and Mating Strategies of an arid

adapted equid: the Grevy's Zebra. Thesis D. Phil, Princeton, USA. Pp. 268.

Ginther, O.J. 1979. Reproduction Biology of the Mare. McNaughton and

Gunn. Inc., Ann Arbor.

Goyal S.P., Sinha, B., Shah, N. and Panwar, H.S. 1999. Sardar Sarovar
Project- a conservation threat to the Indian wild ass (Equus hemionus
khur). Bioi. Conserv. 88: 277-284.

Groves, C.P. 1974. Horses, Asses and Zebras in the Wild. David and
Charles Newton Abbot, London. Pp. 192.

Harris, A.H. and Porter, L.S.W. 1980. Late Pleistocene horses of Dry
Cave, Eddy County, New Mexico. J. Mamm. 61: 46-65.

Hafez, E.S.E. 1980. Horses. In: Reproduction in farm animals. E.S.E.

Hafez (Ed.). Pp 387-408. Lea and Febringer, Philadelphia.

Heptner, V., Nasimovic, A. and Bannikov, A. 1966. Die Saugetiere der

Sowjetunion. Vol. 1. Jena: Gustav Fisher Verlag.

Jarman, P.J. 1974. The social organization of antelope in relation to their

ecology. Behavo
i ur48, 215-267.

Klingel, H. 1974. Soziale organisation und Verhalten des Grevy Zebras

(Equus grevyt). Z. Tierpsychol. 36: 37-70.

Klingel, H. 1977. Observations on social organization and behaviour of

African and Asiatic wild asses (Equus a fricanus and E. hemionus)
Z. Tierpsychol. 44: 323-331.

Macfadden, B.J. 1976. Cladisitc analysis of primitive equids. Systemat.

Zoo/. 25: 1-14.

1 22 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Indian wild ass

MacFadden, B.J. 1977. "Eohippus" to Equus: fossil horses at the Yale

Peabody Museum. Discovery 12: 69-76.

Malhotra, A.K. 1989. A survey of status and breeding of Indian wild ass
(E. hemionus khur) in captivity in India. Zoosprint 4(11 ) : 9-10.

Martin, L.D. and Neuner, A.M. 1978. The end of the Pleistocene in North
America. Trans. Neb. A cad. Sci. 6: 117-126.

Roberts, T.J. 1977. The Mammals of Pakistan. Ernest Benn Ltd. London.

Romer, A.S. 1959. The Vertebrate Story. 41h Edition (revised). The Univ.
of Chicago Press. Pp. 437.

Ryder, O.A. and Chemnick, L. 1990. Chromosomal and Molecular

evolution in Asiatic wild asses. Genetica 83: 67-72.

Ryder, O.A. and Epel, N.C. 1978. Chromosomal banding studies of the
Equidae. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 20: 323-350.

Ryder, O.A., Sparks, R.S., Sparks, M.C. and Clegg, J.B. 1979. Hemoglobin
polymorphism in Equus przewalskii and E. cabal/us analysed by
isoelectric focussing. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 628: 305-308.

Shah, N. V. 1993. Ecology of wild ass (Equus hemionus khur) in Little

Rann of Kutch. Ph.D. Dissertation, M.S.University, Baroda, Gujarat.

Shah, N. V. 1996. Status of Captive wild ass (Equus hemionus khur) in

the Indian Zoos. Report: Stamm-Stifung Oberwil, Switzerland.

Shah, N. 1998. Mammalian Diversity in Little Rann of Kutch, Gujarat,

India. Report to Gujarat Ecological and Education Research
Foundation, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

Shah, N. 1999. Mammals. In: Ecological study of wild ass sanctuary Little Rann
of Kutch. H.S. Singh, B.H. Patel, A. Parvez, V.C. Soni, N.V. Shah, K. Tatu
and D. Patel (Eds.). Pp. 109-150. Published by GEER Foundation,
Gandhinagar, Gujarat. 300 Pp.

Shah, N. 2004. Khur and Kiang Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Equid Specialist
Group Action Plan.

tPVit .�ulltrio : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AP£As (2004) 1 23

Spillet, J.J. 1968. A report on wildlife surveys in south and west India. J.
Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 65: 1-46.

Simpson, G.G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.

Sinha, B.C. 1993. Impact of landuse of the Eco-degradation of the wild

ass habitat in Little Rann of Kutch, Gujarat. Report, Wildlife Institute
of India, Dehra Dun, India.

Smielowski, J.M. and Raval, P.P. 1988. The Indian wild ass and captive
populations. Oryx 22: 85-88.

Waring, G.H. 1983. Horse behaviour: The behavioural traits and

adaptations of domestic and wild horses including ponies. Noyes
Publications Park Ridge, New Jersey, USA. 292 Pp.

Wolfe, M.L. 1979. Population Ecology of the Kulan. In: Proceedings of

Symposium on the Ecology and Behaviour of wild and feral Equids.
Sept. 6-8. Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie. 205-218 Pp.

l 24 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Leaf deer

LEAF DEER OR LEAF MUNTJAC

( Muntiacus putaoensis)
A. Datta

��J �•,j� -. :I
t.•... .:;...
.•'t·"··.·•··'·. ·'.•'-t.·..· .t �..,...,.
.
I f
-��,,
, •

·· '
·
-� .
f .�. I
.
..

. \�.- · /1
'
·��� I
.�.'i..\11 ,.
· .� 1/11' .
·"" .,.� -
!#'
I
....
\ '�

··· 'I .·...

. .A

� .
to(--.:,.
�
_- ' ' /
, . . ...
... ·
·•··
-�.... . .. . .

-
.·.·�-�
}
.. ....
... . �---

' . ....��-�.i
:;'\. �''\'." ··"·
' 'f

i .·�· 'II<- �•.••.••

,
A:4a �··
� . . • ·.· · ·.· . ..·
. . .•
, �.,,.& . >, '. •.
<0_ •

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Cervidae
Genus : Muntiacus
Species : M. munljac
Common name : Ling-Pun, Lang-wu, K-koi

INTRODUCTION

Recent taxonomic and genetic studies suggest that there are eight to
ten species of muntjacs in the world, with the Indian muntjac M. muntjak
distributed throughout south and South-east Asia, while all other muntjacs
have relatively more restricted distribution,s in China, Thailand, Myanmar,
Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos (Amato et at. 1999 a, 1999 b, Rabinowitz et
at. 1999). It has been speculated that many of these little-known forest
muntjacs speciated in these isolated mountain forests (Amato et at.
1999a).

In the 1990s, surveys in South-east Asia have led to the description of

four ungulate species new to science (Dung et at. 1993, 1994, Schaller
and Vrba 1996, Giao et at. 1998, Rabinowitz et at. 1999). Amongst them
is the leaf deer Muntiacus putaoensis discovered in northern Myanmar
in 1997 by Wildlife Conservation Society scientist Alan Rabinowitz
(Amato et at. 1999a, Rabinowitzet at. 1999). Another species of muntjac,
the threatened black barking deer M. crinifrons, earlier thought to be
endemic to southeast China, was also recently discovered in Myanmar
(Rabinowitz and Khaing 1998, Rabinowitz et at. 1998). Both these
species are restricted to isolated mountain forest habitats in remote, less
accessible areas in the tropical Indo-Malayan and Sino-Himalayan region,
with high floral endemism in the mid-temperate zone (Rabinowitz et at.

tovisJlulletio: WILDUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 25

1999). There have also been rediscoveries of other muntjac or barking
deer species (Amato eta/. 1999b).

Till recently, only the widespread Indian muntjac was known to occur in

the Indian subcontinent (Prater 1971). The discovery of the leaf deer in
the hill forests of Myanmar led to conjecture that the species could also

occur in the adjoining hill forests of Arunachal Pradesh in northeast India,

a region whose wildlife has remained poorly explored due to remoteness

and difficult mountainous terrain. The possibility of occurrence of the

species was first investigated in April 2002 during a study of hunting
patterns among tribal communities in eastern Arunachal (Datta 2002),
and in November-December 2002, a survey was undertaken that
specifically aimed to establish the occurrence of leaf deer. The survey
covered nearly 400 km on foot in forests and villages of Jairampur Forest
Division (FD), Namdapha Tiger Reserve (TR) and surrounding areas in
eastern Arunachal (Datta 2003). The knowledge and experience of the
Lisu and Tangsa tribal communities about the occurrence and distribution

of large mammals were relied on to gather evidence for the presence of

the leaf deer and other muntjac species in the area. Skulls and skins of
deer species were examined, photographed and measured from village
households. The survey established the occurrence of the leaf deer
(Datta etat. 2003) in Changlang district, Arunachal Pradesh (Datta 2003)
representing a new addition to the large mammal species of the Indian
subcontinent after perhaps a century.

DESCRIPTION

This is amongst the smallest known species of muntjacs (mean adult body
mass 12 kg), at half the size of the Indian muntjac (22-29 kg) (Amato etat.
1999a, Rabinowitz etat. 1999). It has small unbranched antlers with short
thin pedicels. Another distinguishing characteristic of the leaf deer is the
greater similarity in size and appearance of adult males and females,
including an equally pronounced development of canines in females that
has not been reported in any other muntjac species, apart from the
Truongson muntjac M. truongsonensis (Amato eta/. 1999a). Externally, it
is very similar to the Indian muntjac in coat colour and general appearance
(Rabinowitz et at. 1999), although ears are more rounded. The leaf deer
has a relatively large pre-orbital fossa compared to other muntjacs. It is
also reported that there is lack of spotting on juveniles, unlike most other
muntjac species (Rabinowitz et at. 1999). Osteological studies and DNA
analysis suggest that it is most closely related to the Truongson muntjac
(Amato eta/. 1999a), another species new to science described from only

1 26 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Leaf deer

the Annamlte Mountains in Laos-Vietnam (Giao eta/. 1998). However, the

coat colour is black in this· species.

During the survey in eastern Arunachal, five skulls (four partial male
skulls and one complete female skull) could be obtained. The
morphometric measurements of all antlers of the male leaf deer skulls
are obtained in eastern Arunachal are given in Table 1 along with
comparative measurements of leaf deer specimens from Myanmar and

of common barking deer or Indian muntjak which gives an indication of

the size difference between leaf deer and Indian barking deer. The single
leaf deer female skull also had prominent large canines measuring 24
mm, while Indian muntjak female have canines lengths of only about 6
mm, while males have canine lengths ranging from 31-36 mm. On
subsequent visits (2003-2005), two more fresh skins and skulls of leaf
deer were seen with hunters, while tracks and thrashing signs reportedly
of the leaf deer were shown by hunters. A sighting of a small solitary
muntjak at dusk in Namdapha in October 2003 may have been of the leaf
deer (Charudutt Mishra, pers. comm.) Camera trapping is underway in
Namdapha from late 2005 to obtain photographic evidence of this rare
and elusive species. Till date, there appears to be only a single picture
of a live animal, a female leaf deer that was caught by hunters in Myanmar
and subsequently transported to Yangon zoo (Rabinowitz 2001 ).

Table 1. Morphometric measurements from antlers of leaf deer

Muntiacus putaoensis and the Indian muntjac M. muntjak.

Measurements Putative leaf Leaf deer Barking deer

deer n =4 (Myanmar) n =>50
Beam length R:30,L:29 R:32,L:33 R: 95, L: 95

Pedicel length R: 33, L: 34 R:30, L:30 R:62,L:64

Main beam circumference R:27, L:27 23 73

Burr circumference 44 38 94

Gap between antler tips 49 47 97

Greatest width of antlers 51 56 140

Pedicel circumference R: 29, L: 30 27 54

R = Right; L = Left

!nvis_gulletin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 27

RANGE, DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT

In eastern Arunachal Pradesh, the occurrence of this deer was reported

and confirmed in two different areas of Changlang district (Datta 2003,
Datta eta/. 2003). These areas are 120-130 km west of its hitherto known

distributional range. In fact, this western range extension means a two­

fold increase in the total east-west range of the leaf deer, which, prior to
this survey, was known to occur only in a stretch of c.70 km (east-west)
in Myanmar. The areas are: Miao Reserve Forest (RF), Hongkap RF,
Pangsau RF and Rima RF {27°·2r15'N, 96°-96°30'E), west of Namdapha
TR in the Patkai hill ranges. These areas are north of the Hukwang Valley
on the Myanmar side. The other locality in Changlang district where the
leaf deer was reported and confirmed was in forests around the Lisu villages
of Gandhigram (Siddhi) and Vijaynagar (Dawodi) and the northeastern
areas of Namdapha TR (2r-27°30'N, 96°45'-97°15'E). This area is further
east of the reserved forests mentioned above, although forests are
contiguous. The area is close to the Putao town and villages in northern
Myanmar from which they were first described in 1997. Further surveys
in adjoining Lohit district to the north and Tirap district to the south-west

are necessary to determine whether they occur over a wider area.

Tangsa hunters claimed that the leaf deer occurs only on certain steep
forested hills (800-1200 m}, higher up than the normal range of the Indian
muntjac, which occurs near villages along river valleys. The Usus also
reported it as occurring in steep hill forests near the Myanmar border.
Surprisingly, they were reported in much lower altitudes (900-1600 m)
than previously reported by Rabinowitz et at. ( 1999) in Myanmar. They
also reportedly visit salt licks in the area; several hunters reported
sighting the species near or in their jhum fields.

CONSERVATION STATUS AND THREATS

The presence of the leaf deer was reported by most hunters, and it was
recognized as being distinct from the Indian muntjac, much smaller in
size. However, all villagers claimed that the leaf deer is very rare, difficult
to see and not found everywhere, only in patches in some particular
localities. Although the species is hunted when encountered, it is not
actively sought because of its small size and lack of any other value for
hunters. Most respondents had only seen the animal once or twice, while
many younger villagers had only heard of it, but never sighted it.

The local tribes had different names for the two species. Amongst the
Tangsa, the Mossang sub-tribe call the leaf deer Ling-pun and the Indian

1 28 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Leaf deer

muntjac Khi-ji, while the Tikhak sub-tribe call them Lang-wu and Ko-koi,
respectively. The Lisu name for the Indian muntjac is Che, while the leaf
deer is Lugi-che, which is similar in meaning to the Myanmarese name
for the animal, Phet-gyi, denoting a deer small enough to be wrapped in
a leaf of Phrynium sp. This in fact is the origin of the common English
name for the species. Leaf deer skulls are usually discarded since they
are small (much smaller than the Indian muntjac), and make unimpressive
trophies. The species is hunted with snares, cross-bows and dogs; locally
made guns are also used sometimes.

The current recorded/known range of the species in India is mainly within

reserved forests and unclassed state forests, and also within the
Namdapha TR in Changlang district, although it is possible that they may
occur in adjoining Lohit and Tirap districts too. Traditional subsistence
hunting that is prevalent in these areas appears to be a more serious
threat to this rare species in its restricted range within India.

REFERENCES

Amato, G., Egan, M.G. and Rabinowitz, A.R. 1999a. A new species of
muntjac, Muntiacus putaoensis (Artiodactyla: Cervidae) from northern
Myanmar. Animal Conservation 2: 1-7.

Amato, G., Egan, M.G., Schaller, G.B., Baker, R.H., Rosenbaum, H.C.,
Robichaud, W.G. and De�alle, R. 1999b. Rediscovery of Roosevelt's
barking deer (Muntiacus rooseveltorum), J. Mamm. 80: 639-643.

Datta, A. 2002. Status of hornbills and hunting of wildlife among tribal

communities in eastern Arunachal Pradesh. Wildlife Conservation
Society - India Program, Bangalore.

Datta, A. 2003. A survey of endangered mammals in Changlang district,

Arunachal Pradesh: discovery of two new muntjacs from India.
Interim report, March 2003, Wildlife Conservation Society-India,
Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, India.

Datta, A., Pansa, J., Madhusudan M.D. and Mishra, C. 2003. Discovery
of the leaf deer Muntiacus putaoensis in Arunachal Pradesh: an
addition to the large mammals of India. Current Science 84: 101-102.

£nvi1 _guilttin : WiLDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 29

 Dung, V., Giao, P.M., Chin, N.N., Tuoc, D., Arctander, P. and Mackinnon,
J. 1993. A new species of living bovid from Vietnam. Nature 363:
443-445.

Dung, V., Giao, P.M., Chin, N.N., Tuoc, D. and Mackinnon, J. 1994.
Discovery and conservation of the Vu Quang ox in Vietnam. Oryx
28: 16-21.

Giao, P.M, Tuoc, D., Dung, V., Wikramanayake, E., Amato, G., Arctander,
P. and Mackinnon, J. 1998. Description of Munticaus truongsonensis,
a new species of muntjac (Artiodactyla: Muntiacidae) from Central
Vietnam and implications for conservation. Animal Conservation 1:
61-68.

Prater, S.H. 1971. The Book of Indian Animals. Oxford University Press,
Bombay.

Rabinowitz, A. 2001. Beyond the Last Village. Island Press, New York.

Rabinowitz, A.A., and Khaing, S.T. 1998. Status of selected mammal

species in north Myanmar. Oryx 32: 201-208.

Rabinowitz, A.A., Amato, G. and Khaing, S.T. 1998. Discovery of the

black muntjac, Muntiacus crinifrons (Artiodactyla, Cervidae), in north
Myanmar. Mammalia 62: 105-108.

Rabinowitz, A.A., Myint, T., Khaing, S.T. and Rabinowitz, S. 1999.

Description of the leaf deer (Muntiacus putaoensis), a new species
of muntjac from northern Myanmar. J. Zoo/. 249: 427-435.

Schaller, G.B. and Vrba, E.S. 1996. Description of the giant muntjac
(Megamuntiacus vuquangensis) in Laos. J. Mammal. 77: 675-683.

,1

l 3Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Mouse deer

MOUSE DEER
(Moschiola meminna Erxleben, 1777)
T. R. Shankar Raman

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Tragulidae
Genus : Moschiola
Species : M. meminna
Common name : Mouse deer

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule I
IUCN RED DATA BOOK: Lower rsik
CITES : Not listed

INTRODUCTION

The diminutive mouse deer or Indian chevrotain is surely one of our most
captivating mammals. Although marked with a vivid pattern of white spots
and stripes on its pelage, the mouse deer often goes unnoticed in Indian
forests because it is small, compactly built, shy, and mostly nocturnal in
habit. The species is interesting from evolutionary, behavioural, and
ecological perspectives, but little is known of it as there has been no
full-fledged study of the species in the wild. Indeed, this is an urgent
need as threats to the species mount from habitat alteration and hunting
across its range.

EVOLUTION AND PHVLOGEOGRAPHV

The chevrotains or mouse deer (Family Tragulidae, Order Artiodactyla:

even-toed ungulates) belong to an ancient mammalian lineage that was
probably abundant and distributed worldwide during the Oligocene and

!ovia..iullrfia : WilllliFE AND PROl£Cl£0 AREAS (2004) l 3l

Miocene, from 35 to 5 million years ago (Dubost 2001 ) . Fossil
assemblages dated at 18 million years before the present (Myr) are
known from southern Asia, where mouse deer reached their highest
diversity with 5 named and 52 unnamed species at around 11.5 Myr,
thereafter declining in diversity since 9 Myr (Barry eta/. 1991, in Meijard
and Groves 2004). Today, mouse deer are represented by four species
in three genera having a largely tropical distribution confined to parts of
Africa and Asia (MacDonald and Norris 2001 ). Africa has a single
species, the Water Chevrotain (Hyemoscus aquaticus) occurring in west
and central Africa. Three species are found in south and south-east Asia.
The Indian chevrotain is distributed across Peninsular India ranging from
Nepal (Mitchell and Punzo 1976) in the North down to Sri Lanka
(Eisenberg and Lockhart 1972). The greater mouse deer ( Tragulus napu)
and lesser mouse deer ( T. javanicus) are distributed in tropical rainforests
of south-east Asia (the former species is not found in Java). Although
this taxonomy was adopted after years of taxonomic revisions as well
as based on skin, skull, and skeletal characters (Van Dort 1989), recent
and more detailed analysis of cranial characteristics and coat colouration
patterns of the Tragu/us mouse deer suggests that at least 6 species
with 24 sub-species may be recognised in south-east Asia: T. javanicus,
T. williamsoni, T. kanchil, T. nigricans, T. napu, and T. versicolor, of which
it is not clear if the last species is still extant in its range in south-east
Vietnam (Meijaard and Groves 2004).

Although the mouse deer belong to the sub-order Ruminantia (ruminants)

among the even-toed ungulates, they share many features linking them
with the sub-order Suina (suids, including pigs, boars, peccaries, and
hippopotamuses). The mouse deer are considered primitive ruminants,
resembling species that represent the link between ruminants and non­
ruminants, and have therefore been called living fossils (Janis 1984).
Thus, they have a simpler stomach (three-chambered with the third
chamber, omasum. virtually absent) and four well-developed toes with
the bones of the petty or side toes complete. They lack upper incisors
(like other ruminants), have incisor-like lower canines with a full set of
lower incisors, and only three premolar teeth. Males possess projecting
tusk-like upper-canines that grow continually, as in musk deer. These
are smaller and peg-like in females. Among ruminants, mouse deer are
placed in the infra-order Tragulina distinguished from all other ruminants
in the infra-order Pecora by the lack of bony or horny protuberances
(horns and antlers) on the skull.

l 32 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Mouse deer

The African water chevrotain retains primitive pig-like characteristics

such as the absence of cannon bones in the fore limbs and toughened
skin on the rump forming a shield more effective against the canines of
rivals during aggressive encounters (Oubost and Terrade 1970). Asiatic
chevrotains have true cannon bones. Of the three species, the Indian
chevrotain is similar to· the African in having only a rudimentary chin gland,
which is well developed in T. napu and T. javanicus and used by the latter
species to rub secretions on the backs of opponents during fights and
on mates during courtship.

APPEARANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS

The Indian chevrotain is a diminutive mammal with a shoulder height of

around 25 to 30 em. The limbs are short and along with the high
hindquarters, give the animal a squat appearance and relatively limited
agility and speed. The coat colour is reddish-brown with a pattern of white
spots fusing into stripes along the flank and rump. There are also three
white stripes across the throat. The crown, forehead, and a wedge-shaped
portion between the eyes tends to be dark brown or blackish. The dorsal
portion, along the back, is also of darker colouration, whereas the lower
parts are white. The head and body length is about 50 to 58 em ending in
a short (3 em) tail. With a body mass of around three kilograms, the mouse
deer is the smallest ungulate to be found in Indian forests. They lack antlers
and have tusk-like upper-canines, prominent in males. The dental formula
is incisors 0/3, canines 1/1, pre-molars 3/3, and molars 3/3.

DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT

Within India, Prater (1971} reports a northern limit around 24° N in the
Indian peninsula. The Indian chevrotain is commonly encountered in a
number of forest areas along the Western Ghats, in the Eastern Ghats
up to Orissa, and in the forests of central India. The Kalakad­
Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve at the extreme south of the Western Ghats
appears to be one of the best localities for the species and may represent
a major population stronghold (personal observations). The species may
also be frequently met with in most other protected areas along the
Western Ghats such as the Periyar Tiger Reserve, Indira Gandhi Wildlife
Sanctuary, Silent Valley, Mudumalai-Bandipur-Nagarahole, Bhadra, and
Kudremukh. Krishnan (1972} notes that the species is seen almost
commonly around Karwar and in some forests of south India having also
observed the species in the Simlipal hills of Orissa in the east. Along the
Eastern Ghats populations of mouse deer occur in the forest tracts along

Cnvis JSullrrio : WiLDlifE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) l 33

 the Nallamal hills and Srisailam Nagarjuna Sagar. Schaller (1967) notes
the occurrence of the species in Kanha National Park in Madhya
Pradesh.

The Indian chevrotain is found in tropical deciduous and moist evergreen

and semi-evergreen forests of the Peninsular Indian hills, plains, and
plateaux, extending into montane forests up to around 1850 m elevation
(Prater 1971, personal observations). They are reporteq to favour rocky
habitats (MacDonald and Norris 2001), grass-covered rocky hill-sides
and forest (Prater 1971), seldom far from water (Eisenberg and Lockhart
1972), and often occur along forest streams and rivers (personal
observations).

HABITS, ECOLOGY AND BEHAVIOUR

Very little is known about the ecology and behaviour of the Indian
chevrotain with much of the information being in the form of anecdotal
observations and sight records (Prater 1971, Krishnan 1972, Paulraj
1995, Gokula 1997). Like other forest ruminants, adults are mostly solitary
except at the time of courtship. During the day, the chevrotains stay
concealed in dens that may be in hollows at the base of trees or in rocky
crevices. They are also reported to be able to climb up sloping tree boles
(Krishnan 1972). Occasionally, they may also be encountered resting in
the leaf litter of the forest floor where their dappled pelage acts as an
effective camouflage as long as the animal stays immobile. If one chances
upon it while it is resting thus, the animal allows the observer to approach
quite close before suddenly rushing off into the forest undergrowth or
into a well-chosen hiding spot. Their activity appears to be mostly
\'
crepuscular and nocturnal. Chevrotains may be located during night
surveys with a spotlight, detected usually by the reflected eye-shine in
the undergrowth. The animals are of a shy and retiring disposition,
avoiding open areas and ready to scurry away at the least hint of alarm.
Krishnan (1972) notes that when standing at ease the chevrotain may
trail a forefoot or hindfoot, as if lame in that leg.

Some idea of the ecological requirements and behaviour of the Indian

chevrotain may be attained by comparison with other closely related
tragulids. Unfortunately, little information exists on the other species as
well. Typically, they are considered mainly solitary, nocturnal, living in
dense undergrowth, and fairly selective in their diet (Barrette 1987, Kay
1987). Studies on behaviour have been few and often conducted in
captivity (African water chevrotain: Dubost 1975, greater mouse deer:

1 34 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Mouse deer

Ralls eta/. 1975). The water chevrotain leads a solitary lifestyle except
during breeding. This species spends its time mostly on land but will
retreat to water if threatened. Males have a home range of 23-28 ha that
overlap with more than one female range (13-14 ha). Although there is
no intra-sexual overlap in home range, territorial defence has not been
noted. The African water chevrotain has anal and preputial glands and
marks its home range with urine and feces. Older and heavier animals
tend to be dominant and fights are a simple rush with animals attempting
to slash each other with their canines. The species is known to occur at
densities of 7. 7 to 28 animals/km2 in Gabon (Dubost 2001 ).

Research on the south-east Asian greater and lesser mouse deer ( T.

napu and T. javanicus) indicates that these species also have relatively
small home ranges of between 2 and 12 ha in primary tropical rainforest
of Sabah, Borneo (Ahmad 1994 in Heydon and Bulloh 1997). These
species appear to be sensitive to habitat disturbance and depletion of
food resources, mainly fruit. Heydon and Bulloh (1997) found that
densities of both species was over 20 animals/km2 in primary rainforest
in Borneo, but was lower ( < 16/km2} in logged forest. Densities of T.
javanicus were correlated with abundance of small fruits whilst density
of T. napu and biomass of mouse deer were correlated to density of large
standing Ficus trees, which are a keystone resource for these mouse
deer in times of fruit scarcity (Heydon and Bulloh 1997}. O'Brien eta/.
(2003) also estimated densities of these two mouse deer species in
Sumatra at 2.0 to 6.28 animals/km2, with densities being nearly ten times
greater in areas of low human density as compared to areas of high
human density. Although thought to be mainly nocturnal in activity, a
radio-telemetry study on the activity patterns and habitat use in the lesser
mouse deer ( T. javanicus) in Borneo indicated that the species is mostly
active by day and rests at night (Matsubayashi eta/. 2003). This study
also found that mouse deer preferred canopy-gap areas with dense
undergrowth and creeping bamboo to forage during the day, moving to
higher and drier ridge areas for resting at night. The species was noted
to eat fallen fruits of wild figs (Ficus sp.), which are often common in gap
areas, fallen leaves of a pioneer tree species and a mushroom. Camera­
trap photographs have also been obtained of lesser mouse deer
consuming fruits from the forest floor in Malaysia (Miura eta/. 1997).

The Indian chevrotain is reported to attain densities of around 0.58 animals/

km2 in Sri Lanka (Dubost 2001 ). There are no published estimates of
population densities and population status of the species from India. The
species is mostly encountered alone or rarely a pair may be noticed.

!nvis•�ulluin: WrLDUFE ANDPROTECTEDAREAs(2004) 1 35

 They forage for herbs and shrubs on the forest floor and, like their south­
east Asian cousins, may eat fallen fruit from the forest floor. Krishnan
(1972) notes that the Indian chevrotain eats the fruits of species such
as Terminalia bellerica, Gmelina arborea, and Garuga pinnata, common
in the deciduous forests of south India. As a small-bodied ruminant, the
chevrotain may be expected to have high energy requirements per unit
body mass, which may be met by the selection of an easily digestible
fruit-based diet that allows rapid fermentation and swift gut passage (Kay
1987, Heydon and Bulloh 1997).

PREDATION

The Indian chevrotain is an important prey of the major carnivores in

Indian forests. In Kanha, Schaller (1967) found no trace of mouse deer
.,·

in tiger (Panthera tigris) and jackal (Canis au reus) scats but indicated
that it is consumed only rarely by tigers. It is a frequent prey of the leopard
(Panthera pardus) noted in leopard scats in protected areas such as the
Mundanthurai plateau of the Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve
(Sathyakumar pers. com.) and in Karian Shola National Park in the
Anamalai hills (D. Mudappa pers. com.). The wild dog or dhole (Cuon
a/pinus) is also known to consume mouse deer (A. J. T. Johnsingh pers.
com.). Among the small carnivores, the Nilgiri marten (Martes gwatkins1),
endemic to the Western Ghats, is known to prey on the Indian chevrotain
(Mudappa 1999, Madhukumar 2002). Other carnivores such as pythons
(Python molurus), large eagles, crocodiles, and smaller cats may also
occasionally prey upon the mouse deer. Such predation has also been
noticed among the south-east Asian mouse deer (Lim 1973, Shine eta!.
1998, Dubost 2001, O'Brien eta/. 2003).

REPRODUCTION

As in other aspects of its biology, little is known about reproduction in the

Indian chevrotain. The species is reported to have a breeding gestation
period of around 5 months (MacDonald and Norris 2001). Females are
reported to bring forth their young, usually twins, in their dens or hides, at
the end of the rains and commencement of the cold season (Prater 1971).
Mating can occur within two days of birth (Dubost 2001 ).

THREATS TO MOUSE DEER POPULATIONS

Mouse deer are among the most frequently hunted animals in the forests
where they occur. Hunting of mouse deer by indigenous and settled local

1 36 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Mouse deer

communities is widespread along the Western and Eastern Ghats.

Madhusudan and Karanth (2000, 2002) give an account of the techniques
used for hunting mouse deer by people such as the Kuruba in tropical
.
forests of Karnataka near and within Nagarahole and Kudremukha. The
chevrotains are actively hunted using hunting dogs to locate and flush
the animals and a club/machete to kill, and also passively using deadfall
traps by night . Much of the hunting is for the pot, although wild meat is
often sold in local markets in many places. Mouse deer is one species
that even women and children join with men in hunting during the day.
The team of hunters beat bushes and flush animals toward nets held by
people where the animals are caught and killed. In addition, low wire
snares with many nooses may be placed along the ground across trails
to catch passing mouse deer. In the Dakshin Kannada district, 78% of
49 hunters interviewed by Madhusudan and Karanth (2002) ranked the
chevrotain as the species they hunted the most. They also believed that
this had led to depressed abundance of the species in areas with hunting.
Three-fourths of the hunters themselves identified hunting as the most
important factor for the decline in abundance. The control of hunting is a
critical requirement for the conservation of the species in areas where it
occurs.

If the studies on south-east Asian mouse deer ( Tragulus spp.) are any
indication, then the Indian chevrotain may also be expected to be very
sensitive to habitat loss, alteration, and degradation. Habitat and ecological
requirements for the conservation of the Indian chevrotain require field
research that has hitherto been lacking. Radio-telemetry studies of home
range and social organisation and behavioural-ecological studies on habitat
preferences and use, foraging ecology, the effects of habitat alteration
and degradation, and on reproduction and population dynamics are sorely
needed to develop a more realistic and comprehensive picture of the future
conservation prospects of this species.

REFERENCES

*Ahmad, A. H. 1994. The ecology of mousedeer (Tragulus species) in a

Bornean rainforest, Sabah, Malaysia. M.Phil. thesis, University of
Aberdeen, U. K.

*Barry, J. C., Morgan, M. E., Winkler, A. J., Flynn, L. J., Lindsay, E. H.,
Jacobs, L. L. and Pilbeam, D. 1991. Faunal interchange and Miocene
terrestrial vertebrates of southern Asia. Paleobiology 17: 231-245.

£nvih�ulluin: WiLO\.IFEANDPROTECTEDAREAs(2004) 13 7
Barrette, C. 1987. The comparative behaviour and ecology of chevrotains,
musk deer and morphologically conservative deer. Pp 200-213. In:
Wemmer, C. M. (Ed.). Biology and management of the cervidae.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.

*Dubost, G. 1975. Behavior of the African chevrotain Hyemoschus

aquaticus-its ecological and phylogenetic significance. Zeitschrift
fur Tierpsychologie 37: 449-501.

Dubost, G. 2001. Chevrotains. Pp 500-501. In: MacDonald, D. and Norris,

S. (Eds.). The new encyclopedia of mammals. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.

Dubost, G. and Terrade, R. 1970. Skin changes of Tragulidae into a

protective shield. Mammalia 34: 505-513.

Eisenberg, J.F. and Lockhart, M. 1972. An ecological reconnaissance of

Wilpattu National Park, Ceylon. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology
101:1-118.

Gokula, V. 1997. Notes on foetuses of mouse deer Tragulus meminna in

Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu., South India. J. Bombay
Nat. Hist. Soc. 94: 148.

Heydon, M. J. and Bulloh, P. 1997. Mouse deer densities in a tropical

rainforest: the impact of selective logging. Journal of Applied Ecology
34: 484-496.

Kay, R. N. B. 1987. The comparative anatomy and physiology of digestion

in tragulids and cervids and its relation to food intake. Pp. 214-222.
In: Wemmer, C. M. (Ed.). Biology and management of the cervidae.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.

Krishnan, M. 1972. An ecological survey of the larger mammals of

Peninsular India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 69: 469-501.

*Lim, B.L. 1973. Unusual predators of mouse deer. Malayan Nature

Journa/26: 3-4.

MacDonald, D. and Norris, S. (Eds.). 2001. The new encyclopaedia of

mammals. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 930 pp.

l 38 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Mouse deer

Madhukumar. 2002. Hunting attempt by Nilgiri marten Martes gwatkinsi

Horsfield, family Mustelidae, in Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala. J.
Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 99:286.

Madhusudan, M. D. and Karanth, K. U. 2000. Hunting for an answer: is

local hunting compatible with large mammal conservation in India. Pp
339-355. In: Robinson, J. G. and Bennett, E. L. (Eds.). Hunting for
\

sustainability in tropical forests. Columbia University Press, New

York, 582 pp.

Madhusudan, M. D. and Karanth, K. U. 2002. Local hunting and the

conservation of large mammals in India. Ambio 31:49-54.

Matsubayashi, H., Bosi, E. and Kohshima, S. 2003. Activity and habitat

use of lesser mouse-deer ( Tragulusjavanicus). Journal of Mammalogy
84: 234-242.

Meijaard, E. and Groves, C. P. 2004. A taxonomic revision of the Tragulus

mouse-deer (Artiodactyla). Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society
140:63-102.

Mitchell, R. and Punzo, F. 1976. New mammal records from Nepal. J.

Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 73: 54-58.

'*Miura, S., Yasuda, M. and Ratnam, L. C. 1997. Who steals the fruits?
Monitoring frugivory of mammals in tropical rain forest. Malayan Nature
Journal 50: 183-193.

Mudappa, D. 1999. Lesser known carnivores of the Western Ghats.

ENVIS Bulletin 2 (2 ) : 65-70.

O'Brien, T., Kinnaird, M. F. and Wibisono, H. T. 2003. Crouching tigers,

hidden prey: Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropical forest
landscape. Animal Conservation 6: 131-139.

"Paulraj, S. 1995. Prey-predator relationships with special reference to

the tiger, panther, and dhole competitions in Kalakad-Mundanthurai
Tiger Reserve (Tirunelveli District- Tamil Nadu). Indian Forester 121:
922-930.

Prater, S. H. 1971. T he book of Indian animals. Bombay Natural History

Society, Bombay. 324 Pp.

£nvit_gullttia: WILDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 39

*Ralls, K., Barasch, C., and Minkowski, K. 1975. Behavior of captive
mouse deer Tragulus napu. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 37: 356-
378.

Schaller, G. B. 1967. The deer and the tiger. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago. 370 Pp.

*Shine, R., Harlow, P. S., Keogh, J. S. and Boeadi. 1998. The influence
of sex and body size on food habits of a giant tropical snake.
Functional Ecology 12: 248-258.

*Van Dort, S. M. 1989. Skin, skull, and skeleton characters of mouse

deer (Mammalia: Tragulidae) with keys to the species. Bulletin
Zoologisch Museum Universiteit van Amsterdam 12(5): 89-96.

*not seen in original.

l 40 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Nilgiri tahr

NILGIRI TAHR
(Hemitragus hylocrius Ogilby, 1838)
C.G. Rice and M.D. Madhusudan

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Bovidae
Sub-Family : Caprinae
Tribe : Caprini
Genus : Hemitragus
Species : H. hylocru
i s
Common name : Nilgiri thar

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule I
IUCN RED DATA BOOK: Endangered
CITES : Not listed

INTRODUCTION

The scientific name of Nilgiri tahr stems from Ogi lby's original
designation of the species as Kemas hylocrius Ogilby 1837, which was
changed to Hemitragus hylocrius by Blyth in 1858 (Lydekker 1966).
Other synonyms include Capra warryato, Kemas warryato (Lydekker
1966), and Hemitragus jemlahicus hylocrius (Haltenorth 1963).
Contemporary names are Nilgiri tahr and Nilgiri ibex (English), varai
aard or varai aardu (Tamil and Malayalam). The Nilgiri tahr is one of the
three species of Hemitragus, the others being the Himalayan tahr (H.
jemlah icus) and the Arabian tahr (H. jayakari). S o m e early
classifications included the tahr in the genus Capra, but they have been
placed in a separate genus since 1841 (Lydekker 1966). Haltenorth
(1963) considered all the tahr to be one species, but this has not been
generally accepted (Prater 1980, Honacki et a/. 1982, Novak and
Paradiso 1983, Wilson and Reeder 1993).
As members of the Tribe Caprini, tahr are related to the goats (Capra
spp.), sheep ( Ovis spp.), aoudad (Ammotragus /ervia}, and bharal
(Pseudois nayaur). Their apparent affinities with these genera vary
depending on whether one is consid�ring morphologic, chromosomal,
or behavioural characteristics (Schaller 1977, Rice 1988b). Recent

study undertaken on molecular genetics (Ropiquet and Hassanin 2005)

indicated that Nilgiri thar is more closely related to genus Ovis (sheep)
and placed in a new genus Nilgiritragus. How ever, in this article, we

have retained the original genus of Nilgiri thar i.e. Hemitragus.

DESCRIPTION

Adult male �ilgiri tahr reach about 110 em at the shoulder (Prater 1980)
and weigh about 100 kg (Wilson 1980). Females attain a shoulder height
of about 80 em (Rice 1989) and weigh about 50 kg (Wilson 1980). Weights
of 10 captive Nilgiri tahr males (age> 4 years) averaged 99.1 kg (S.E. =

8.5), and 11 females (age > 2 years) averaged 58.4 kg (S.E. = 6.4).
(Swengel pers. com.).

Tahr show particular stages in pelage development, which diverge

between the sexes as they mature. At birth, both sexes have a generally
grey coat with no facial marking or carpal patches. At 10-14 weeks, they
grow a fluffy tan coat, which is shed at about 20 weeks of age. The
ecological or social function of this coat is not clear (Rice 1989). After
shedding the tan coat, they are again grey overall, with black carpal
patches, an indistinct light-coloured facial stripe anterior to the eye, and
a dark dorsal stripe. Females never lose this pelage. Adult males,
however, develop a completely distinct pelage, which at the final stage
consists of generally dark brown or black hair on the legs, neck,
shoulders, and muzzle, with a conspicuous silvery saddle on the flank,
hence the name commonly given to them, 'saddlebacks'. Based on these
maturational changes, Rice (1989) described the following sex and age
classes for Nilgiri tahr:

•
Young (Yg): Age up to 1 year. Horn length less than 7 em. Overall
pelage grey.

•
Yearling (YI): At the start of the birth season, all young advanced to
yearling. Age usually 1-2 years. Horn length usually 6-14 em. Overall
pelage grey.

•
Adult female (F): Age 2+ years. Standing about 80 em at the shoulder.
Horns up to 30 em long and more slender than those of adult males.
 Nilgiri tahr

Overall pelage grey.

•
Light brown male (Lbm): Age 2-4 years. About the same size as adult
females. Distinguished from them by the presence of scrotum and
penis sheath or by heavier horns. Overall pelage grey with black carpal
patch.
•
Large light brown male (Libm): Age c. 4 years. Slightly larger and
stockier than F's. Horns slightly larger and heavier. At least half of
carpal patch white. Overall pelage grey.
•
Dark brown male (Dbm}: Age c. 5 years. Horn and body size greater
than those of females. Carpal patch white against dark brown lower
forelegs. Facial markings distinct. Overall pelage brown. Light saddle
may be present, but not distinct.
•
Saddleback (S), with three subdivisions: S1 -Age c. 6 years. Off­
white or tan saddle distinct. Black on legs but shoulders and neck
dark brown; S1-2 -Age c. 7 years. Saddle may be silvery. Black
extending onto shoulders but not to withers; S2 - Age 8+ years.
Saddle silvery. Black extending to withers and neck.

Except for the last few centimetres, Nilgiri tahr horns show a constant
curve, have a flattened inner margin and a small anterior-interior ridge.
There is no twist or flare to the horns, but their axis is about 20° off that
of the skull, so the tips diverge moderately (Rice 1984, 1989). The horns
of males are heavier and longer than those of females, the latter being
due to the males' retention of high initial growth rates through their second
and third years (Rice 1989). The maximum horn length listed by Ward
(1910} is 44 em.

Studies of the chromosomes of Nilgiri tahr indicate that it has a diploid

number of 58, a fundamental number of 58, 54 acrocentric autosomes, 0
submetacentric autosomes, and 2 metacentric autosomes. The X
chromosome is acrocentric and the Y chromosome is subacrocentric
(Benirschke and Kumamoto 1980). Comparisons with the chromosomes
of other Hemitragus (Nelson-Rees eta/. 1967, Benirschke and Kumamoto
1982) supports the specific status of the three tahrs (Rice 1984).

DISTRIBUTION

Nilgiri tahr are associated with steep and rocky terrain adjoining
expanses of grasslands (Jerden 1874, Blanford 1888-91, Sterndale 1929,

£nvi&_gllllflin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 1 43

Prater 1980). This habitat is found between 1200 m and 2700 m in the
southern Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Because this habitat is
highly discontinuous, Nilgiri tahr occur in about a dozen-and-a-half
isolated populations (Davidar 1971, 1978, Rice 1984). At present, Nilgiri
tahr distribution is restricted to a narrow stretch of the Western Ghats
about 400 km in length, from the northern rim of the Nilgiri Plateau to the
Ashambu Hills (Rice 1984, Mishra and Johnsingh 1994, 1998).

The most recent review of Nilgiri tahr populations placed the total
population at an estimated 2000-2500. Recently, there has been a
drastic decline in the tahr population in the Nilgiris (Table 1). Recent
counts also appear to indicate an increasing population in the High
Range (Table 1). Information from the other tahr populations further
south has been minimal and often not verifiable. Nevertheless, current
populations are probably less than 2000, perhaps substantially less.

Table 1. Nilgiri tahr population estimates

Location Year Number Number Source

seen estimated
The Nilgiris 1927 NA c. 400 Pythian-Adams (1927)

1939 NA s 500 Pythian-Adams (1939)

1963 292 400 Davidar (1963)

1969 NA 300 Schaller (1971)

1976 334 450 Davidar (1976)

1991 75 NA Varman (1991)

1993 106 NA Tyagi (1993)

1995 101 175 Anon (1995),

Sumithran eta/.

(1996)

The Anamalais 1971 301 445 Davidar (1978)

1994 362 560-680 Mishra and Johnsingh

(1994, 1998)

Eravikulam/ 1969 439 500 Schaller {1971)

High Range 1979 515 550 Rice (1988c)

1980 614 620 Rice (1988c)

1993 NA 890+ P.V. Karunakaran,

pers. comm.

1 44 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Nilgiri tahr

The Nilgiri tahr is listed in the IUCN Red List as an Endangered species
(IUCN 1996) due to its limited distribution and low numbers. It is
protected by Indian law under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972 (Anon 1992).

In 1993 there were 28. Nilgiri tahr in captivity in North America at seven
institutions (Swengel 1993), but this has declined to 6 individuals in 2
institutions in 2004 (ISIS online database). This population is based on
only three founders. In India, there was one male at the Trivandrum Zoo
and there is a small group at Sri Lanka's National Zoological Garden in
1993 (Swengel 1993).

ECOLOGY

Habitat

Nilgiri tahr habitat is typified by grassland areas close to rock faces

and sheer cliffs - an association that, in the southern Western Ghats,
occurs at elevations between 1200 m and 2700 m. These montane
grasslands are closely associated with unique, stunted, montane
evergreen forests locally called sho/a. Species such as Chrysopogon
zeylanicum, Sehima nervosum, Eulalia spp., lschaemum spp., and
Arundinella spp., dominate the vegetation of the grasslands. In the shola
forests, tree species such as Syzygium arnottianum, /lex wightiana,
Symplocos pendu/a, and Miche/ia nilagirica, and understory/shrub
species like Strobilanthes spp., Rubus spp., Gautheria fragrantissima
and Rhodomyrtus tomentosa occur. A more detailed description of the
vegetation of these areas is given by Meher-Homji (1969). Among a
few, Davidar (1978) recorded two areas in the dry, scrubby Amaravati
slopes of Tamil Nadu, where tahr occur at elevations of c. 900 m. Tahr
also occur in similar, dry, lower-elevation areas on the slopes
overlooking the Aliyar Dam, near Pollachi, Tamil Nadu (Mishra and
Johnsingh 1998). Whether these are exceptions, or indicative of a
previously wider lowland distribution, is not clear.

Schaller (1977) termed tahr "the quintessential goat" with reference to

its affinity for rock bluffs and precipitous terrain, seemingly for security
from predation. This is true to the extent that Rice (1984} did not observe
mixed groups of tahr in the gently undulating, grassy areas at the centre
of the Eravikulam Plateau. Often, animals graze among the grass
tussocks in the cliffs, but they feed mostly in the adjoining grasslands.

Cnvis_gullrrin: WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 45

Rice (1984) also noted very infrequent use of sho/a forests, and then,
mostly along their margins. However, observations of male groups in
the Rajamalai area during times of sexual segregation indicated that
males often fed even within large shola forest patches (Madhusudan
pers. obs.). Water is abundant in most tahr habitat, so their dependence
on water is difficult to assess.

Davidar (1978) and Rice (1984, 1985) noted that, like several other
ungulate species, male and female Nilgiri tahr have different habitat
preferences. Rice (1984) also thought that the areas used by males
contained forage of lower quality. Subsequent work (Madhusudan 1995,
Madhusudan and Johnsingh 1998) showed that areas used exclusively
by male tahr contained greater amounts of the preferred graminoid forage
than was available in habitats used by females. Females, on the other
hand, appeared to trade-off foraging opportunities for offspring security
by selecting habitats close to cliffs where they were more secure from
predation but encountered less of their preferred graminoid forage. Thus,
males attempt to maximize body condition outside the rutting season by
using areas with high forage biomass despite elevated predation risk,
whereas females seem to maximize offspring security at the expense of
better foraging opportunities.

Being dependent on cliffs and steep terrain, female and sub adult tahr
typically move little in the course of a day. Generally they move from the
cliffs where they bed to nearby feeding areas, and return to bed, often to
the same cliffs, covering 0.5-4 km in a day. As the rut approaches, males
are thought to move extensively in search of oestrous females, but after
the rut, they move very little (Madhusudan 1995), probably in order to
regain physical condition lost during vigorous rutting. Detailed accounts
of ranging in the Nilgiri tahr are not available.

Food Habits

Nilgiri tahr are primarily grazers, but also feed on forbs and shrubs. Rice
( 1988d) listed 38 species of plants eaten by tahr at Eravikulam.
Microhistological analysis of Nilgiri tahr faecal pellets from the Nilgiris
Eulalia phaeothrix, Chrysopogon zeylanicus, Carex sp.
indicated that
and Andropogon sp. contributed the most to tahr diet (18%, 13%, 14%,
and 11%, respectively), and that although Dicanthium sp. was common
in the grassland, it occurred infrequently in tahr pellets (0.5%).

1 46 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Nilgiri tahr

POPULATION BIOLOGY

Composition

Although population composition estimates have been made for a number

of areas and at different times (Table 2), these figures are difficult to
compare due to the inconsistent methods employed. The best way of
understanding is, the ratio of young/100 F and has a wide range (32-89).
This represents reproduction minus mortality that has taken place up to
the time of the counts, and gives some indication of reproduction, namely
.
that it is highly variable The yearling/1 00 F ratio gives an indication of
.
potential recruitment to the adult population. Lack of a stable age
distribution resulting from fluctuating reproduction is evident in the studied
population (Rice 1984).

Table 2. Population composition estimates for Nilgiri tahr expressed as

the number of individuals in each class per 100 females
(adapted from Rice 1988c).

Sex and Age Class

Location Year No. Season s Dbrr Lbm VI Yg S+ Total Source

F Dbm Males

Nilgiri 1969 56 Post-monsoon 27 12 23 55 75 39 63 Schaller

Plateau {1971)
1975 151 Pre-monsoon 10 17 34 27 34 27 60 Davidar
(1976)
Grass 1971 60 Pre-monsoon 2 7 22 32 60 8 31 Davidar
Hills (1971)
1980 99 Pre-monsoon 6 12 49 28 47 18 67 Rice (1988c)
Eravi- 1969 87 Post-monsoor 33 13 13 52 89 46 59 Schaller
kulam (1971)
1978 142 Pre-monsoon 10 24 24 56 32 37 57 Rice (1988c)
1979 188 Post-monsoor 10 28 28 21 59 28 66 Rice {1988c)
1980 268 Post-monsoor 14 31 9 26 36 23 54 Rice (1988c)

Mortality

Rice (1988c) estaimed mortality rates of 50% for young, 35% for
yearling, and 20% for adults and estimated the average life expectancy
at 3-3.5 years. For Eravikulam, Rice (1988c) felt that mortality factors
listed in order of i mportance were: predation (leopard and Asiatic wild

£nvis �ullrrin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 47

dog (Rice 1986), accidents, predation by man, injury incurred during
intraspecific encounters, and disease. Rice (1988e) found a significant
effect of both month of birth and age of young on mortality. Mortality
was highest during the first two weeks of birth, after which it more or
less stabilized. Mortality was lowest during the winter, higher in the
pre-monsoon, and highest during the monsoon. The younger the young
at the start of the monsoon, the higher the monsoon mortality rate (Rice
1988e). Young born to mothers that shifted their home range also
experienced a higher rate of mortality than those that did not (Rice
1988c). For unknown reasons, mortality of young was lower for males
(Rice 1988c) at Eravikulam in 1981.

REPRODUCTION

Jerdon (1874) stated that the Nilgiri tahr "is said to produce two young
at birth", and this was apparently the prevailing opinion when Fletcher
(1911) wrote that he was more inclined to judge one to be the usual
number. Prater (1980) maintained that sometimes two, but more
commonly one young are produced. More recent observations both in
the wild (Schaller 1973, 1977, Davidar 1978, Rice 1984) and in captivity
(Wilson 1980, Waterhouse pers. com.) indicate that one young per
female is the rule. Nevertheless, rare cases of twins have been reported
(Davidar 1978).

Rice (1988e) found that, although one young was produced at a time,
several females gave birth twice within the year. About half of the females
who lost their first young of the season gave birth to a second one during
the monsoon. This resulted in a secondary minor birth season in late
July - early August.

Group composition counts indicate that the reproductive rate for Nilgiri
tahr varies widely. The only direct measurement of this was by Rice for
the Eravikulam study in 1981 (Rice 1988e). Of the 46 individually known
females, 4% did not give birth, 89% gave birth to 1 young, and 7% to 2
young (1 in the winter and 1 during the monsoon). No statistical effect
was detected of age of female on the mean fecundity of 1.02 births per
female.

Gestation for Nilgiri tahr is 174-201 days (Swengel and Pichner 1987).
Most births take place in the winter. At Eravikulam, Rice (1984, 1988e)
recorded first births on 10 January in 1981. They peaked soon after that,
but continued until as late as March.

1 48 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Nilgiri tahr

The rutting season for Nilgiri tahr is during the monsoon. In 1981 at
Eravikulam, Rice (1984, 1988e) recorded a bimodal oestrus pattern with
18 females in oestrus observed around the middle of July and 10 more
near the end of August. Most births can be expected during the middle
two weeks of January (corresponding to oestrus in 2nd half of July),
followed by more scattered births through mid-March.

Although these observations of births and oestrus were both bimodal,

the peaks were separated by different lengths of time. Rice (1988e)
attributed this difference to the effects of rainfall on oestrus, and presented
evidence that increased oestrus coincided with a periods of low rainfall,
and the intervening periods of low oestrus to higher rainfall, with a lag
time of about 5 days.

BEHAVIOUR

Predator relations

The anti-predator behaviour exhibited by Nilgiri tahr has been described

in some detail by Schaller (1971) and Rice (1984, 1986). Tahr signal
their alarm on the presence of a predator in several ways: by an alert
posture, running with a particular "rocking-horse" gait, by giving a short,
hoarse whistle repeatedly, and by taking flight.

The use of these signals depends upon circumstances, especially on

the species of predator involved. With the exception of Nilgiri tahr that
are habituated to humans, they flee from humans at about 300 m. At
greater distances, they may react by slowly moving while grazing, away
from the disturbance. If surprised at close distances, Nilgiri tahr take
immediate and precipitous flight onto cliffs (Rice 1986). Initially, at least
at Eravikulam, disturbed Nilgiri tahr stopped on the nearest steep slabs,
but if disturbed a second time, moved much further (Rice 1986). Nilgiri
tahr also react very strongly to the presence of a leopard, but in a
completely different manner. Instead of taking flight, they typically keep
the leopard in view and may follow the leopard and remain within 20 m
(Rice 1986). Asiatic wild dog do not seem to elicit a strong reaction
despite the fact that they do prey on Nilgiri tahr (Rice 1986). The
behavioural response of Nilgiri tahr is clearly tied to the different hunting
methods of humans and leopard. Humans are avoided at great distances
in keeping with their use of firearms. Once deprived of the advantage of
surprise, leopards, which are slower than tahr, are monitored so that
there is no further opportunity for surprise.

tnvil �ullttin : WiLDUFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 1 49

Social behavior

Rice (1984, 1988a) and Walther (1984) gave detailed descriptions of

Nilgiri tahr social behaviour and organised it into a hierarchical and
functional classification (Walther 1984).

Agonistic behaviour

Agonistic behaviour is the means by which animals settle their

disputes during competitive interactions. For Nilgiri tahr females, these
disputes are of low intensity and of short duration. They typically use
a single threat or aggressive act (e.g. approach, butt) to elicit a
submissive action in a dispute over space or a food resource (Rice
pers. obs.). Extended agonistic interactions always involve males,
and are of two types- sparring and fights (Geist 1974) which differ
greatly in context and dynamics (Rice 1988a). Sparring is essentially
practicing for fighting. It is engaged in by younger males, is initiated
with a single threat or aggressive action, is of low intensity, and it is
difficult to distinguish a winner. Fights are between saddlebacks, they
often ensue after a sequence of mutual dominance displays and
threats. The aggressive actions are of very high intensity, and the
winner is obvious because the loser takes flight and is chased by the
winner (Rice pers. obs.).

Sexual behaviour

In the course of a rutting season, the basic side/rear twist/sniff is given

by males to females several times. These displays are variations on the
common theme of placing the male's muzzle in the vicinity of the
female's inguinal region (Rice 1984, 1988a). The foreleg kick, whoosh,
and hum accompany high intensity courtship displays. Urinating and/
or moving away were the typical responses by females to these
displays.

Mother-infant relations

Shortly before parturition, female tahr separate from other tahr and move
to steep rock slabs and cliffs. One to two days after giving birth, they
move back onto adjacent grassland. If a number of females are giving
birth at the same time, they may congregate in a group of solely females
and young. Otherwise, the female and neonate soon join a mixed group.

1 50 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Nilgiri tahr

Very small young suckle from the rear, side or front, but older young
suckle in reverse-parallel position, either from the side, or by approaching
between the female's forelegs (Rice pers. obs.). Although Nilgiri tahr
young perform the usual bunting motions associated with suckling, they
also perform two similar, but different behaviours, which have been called
rear and side bunts by Rice (1995}. For these, the young approaches
the female and jabs her udder once with its muzzle, and then moves
away without attempting to suckle.

SOCIAL ORGANISATION

Like most caprids, Nilgiri tahr form basically two types of groups:
mixed groups which contain animals of all sex and age classes, and
male g r o u p s , w h i c h c o n s i s t of o n l y males. V e r y s h o r t t e r m
associations of females with their neonates (kindergarten o r creche
groups) also occur. Generally, males spend increasingly greater parts
of the year in male groups as they mature, so generally, light brown
males are not found in male groups, large light brown males are seldom
found in them, dark brown males are frequently seen in male groups,
and saddlebacks very often. Mixed groups are larger (up to 150), and
females are solitary only for the brief period of isolation before
parturition. In contrast, male groups are smaller (maximum of 43), and
solitary males are commonly encountered (usually saddlebacks).
Older males spend most of the year in male groups, and come into
mixed groups mainly during the rut.

CONSERVATION

There are a number of interacting factors, which are significant for Nilgiri
tahr conservation. These are limited habitat, human disturbance, and the
small size of existing populations. Nilgiri tahr habitat was probably never
very extensive. Consequently, any reductions in habitat quality or extent
are significant for conservation of tahr and other endemic grassland
animals and plants. This affects tahr populations by direct conversion of
grassland to plantation is a conservation threat which affect tahr
populations. Such changes making adjacent tahr habitat more accessible
to illegal hunting, which is already a significant problem. It also promotes
other disturbances due to increased human activity. Such disturbances
place energetic demands on tahr (MacArthur et a/. 1979), which may
depress populations even in the absence of illegal hunting and outright
habitat destruction.

.£nvi1 .gullrtin: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 1 51

 In the months prior to the monsoon, fires commonly occur in the
grasslands. The fresh growth following burning appears to provide short­
term benefits for tahr (Rice 1988c, 1990). On the other hand, fires may
damage shola forest fringes and the increasing frequency of fire appears
to promote the establishment of unpalatable grassland species: bracken
(Pteridium aquilinum) in the higher elevations, and lemon-grass

(Cymbopogon f/exuosus) in the lower elevations (M. D. Madhusudan,

pers. obs.).

4
The fact that Nilgiri tahr occur in small, isolated populations is a central
issue in the conservation of this species because such population are
always prone for local extinciton (Primach 1998) especially due to short­
term fluctuations induced by stochastic variation. Given the relatively
short life span of Nilgiri tahr (<10 years, Rice 1988c) and variable rates
of reproduction, a series of coincidences limiting reproduction for several
years could decimate or even eliminate a population.

Another issue is the genetic diversity represented by these various small

populations. Due to their isolation, these populations can be expected to
be genetically divergent due to founder effects, genetic drift, and locally
varying selection pressures. Consequently, until detailed studies provide
a description of genetic diversity for this species, each population should
be considered important component of the total genetic diversity for
Nilgiri tahr. Colonization of unoccupied habitat in the past populations
has probably entirely eliminated such movements. Consequently, if these
small populations remain completely isolated, their genetic diversity will
decline.

Given these concerns, several measures should be taken to ensure the

continued survival of Nilgiri tahr. All existing populations should be
surveyed regularly. Status assessments should be based on actual
counts, as well as sex and age structures (as described by Rice 1989).
The number of adult females in a given area provides the best measure
of population status and trend {although distinguishing light brown males
from adult females when surveying wary animals in the field can be
difficult) and is preferred over total counts because total counts can be
misleading.

Nilgiri tahr habitat is quite limited, and conversion of grassland areas to

plantations or other uses should be halted. Also, maintaining the
remoteness of tahr habitat is a cost-effective means of reducing human

1 52 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Nilgiri tahr

disturbances and illegal hunting. In addition, prohibitions on shooting and

snaring of tahr need to be actively enforced. Burning of the grassland
should be closely controlled and its effects on shola and grassland
communities should be evaluated through research and monitoring. Most
Nilgiri tahr habitat is located near or along the boundary between the
Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Because people can easily move
across this boundary, close coordination between these two states of
their patrols and other enforcement activities is essential for meaningful
enforcement of hunting prohibitions.

Due to the likely loss of natural colonisation and migration, long term
conservation efforts for Nilgiri tahr should include strategies to compensate
for this. Initially, all occupied and potential habitat for Nilgiri tahr should be
inventoried and new populations should be established where feasible.
Studies on the genetics of extant populations should be undertaken to
assess inter and intra-population variability. Based on the results of these
studies, artificial migration may be deemed appropriate.

REFERENCES
Anon. 1992. The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Natraj Publishers,
Dehra Dun. 138 Pp.

Anon. 1995. U.S.A./NWEA Nilgiri tahr project. Tahr 6(1)3-4.

Benirschke, K. and Kumamoto, A.T. 1980. The chromosomes of Nilgiri

tahr Hemitragus hylocrius. lnternat. Zoo Yearb. 20:274-275.

Benirschke, K. and Kumamoto, A.T. 1982. The chromosomes of Arabian

tahr. Mammalian Chromosomes Newsletter 23(3):67-68.

Blanford, W. 1888-91. The fauna of British India. Taylor & Francis,

London.

Davidar, E.R.C. 1963. Census of the Nilgiri tahr Hemitragus hylocrius

(Ogilby) in the Nilgiris. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 60:251-252.

Davidar, E.R.C. 1971. A note on the status of the Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus
hylocrius) on the Grass Hills in the Anamallais. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.
Soc. 68:347-354.

Davidar, E.R.C. 1976. Census of the Nilgiri tahr in the Nilgiris, Tamil
Nadu. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 73:142-148.

£nvi1 �ullerin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 1 53

Davidar, E.R.C. 1978. Distribution and status of the Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus
hylocrius) - 1975-78. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 75:815-844.

Fletcher, F.W.F. 1911. Sport on the Nilgiris and in Wynaad. Macmillan

and Co. , Ltd., London. 455 Pp.

Geist, V. 1974. On fighting strategies in animal combat. Nature 250:354.

Haltenorth, T. 1963. Klassification des Saugetiere: Artiodactyla. lnternat.

Hanb. Zoo/., Berlin, 8:1-167.

Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. and Koeppl, J.W. 1982. Mammal species of
the world. Allen Press and Association of Systematics Collections,
Lawrence. 694 Pp.

IUCN 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.

Jerdon, T.C. 1874. The mammals of India. John Wheldon, London.

Lydekker, R. 1966. (originally published 1913). Catalogue of ungulate

mammals in the British Museum. Johnson Reprint Corp., New York.

MacArthur, R.A., Johnston, R.H. and Geist, V. 1979. Factors influencing

heart rate in free-ranging bighorn sheep: a physiological approach to
the study of wildlife harassment. Can. J. Zoo/. 57:2010-2021.

Madhusudan, M.D. 1995. Sexual segregation in the Nilgiri tahr

(Hemitragus hylocrius). Dissertation submitted to Saurashtra
University, Rajkot, in partial fulfillment of the Master's Degree in
Wildlife Science.

Madhusudan, M. D. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1998. Analysis of habitat­

choice using ordination: the Nilgiri tahr in southern India. Current
Science 74: 1000-1003.

Meher-Homji, V.M. 1969. Some considerations on the succession of

vegetation around Kodaikanal. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 48:42-51.

Mishra, C. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1994. Status and conservation of the

Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius Ogilby, 1838) in Anamalai Hills,
South India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun.

Mishra, C. and Johnsingh, A. J. T. 1998. Population and conservation

status of the Nilgiri tahr Hemitragus hy/ocrius in Anamalai Hills, south
India. Biological Conservation 86: 199-206.

l 54 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Nilgiri tahr

Nelson-Rees, N.A., Kniazeff, A.J., Malley, F.R. and Darby, N.B. Jr. 1967.
On the karyotype of the tahr Hemitragus jemlahicus and the Y­
chromosome of goats and sheep. Chromosoma (Berl.) 23:154-161.

Novak, R.M. and Paradiso, J.L. 1983. Walker's Mammals of the World.
John Hopkins Univ. Press, Battimore. 1362 Pp.

Prater, S.H. 1980. The book of Indian animals. 3rd (Ed.). J. Bombay Nat.
Hist. Soc., Bombay. 324 Pp.

Pythian-Adams, E. 1927. Game preservation in the Nilgiris. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc. 32:339-343.

Pythian-Adams, E. 1939. The Nilgiris Game Association, 1879-1939. J.

Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 32:339-343.

Primack, R. B. 1998. Essentials of Conservation Biology. Sinauer

Associates, Sunderland, Mass. 660 Pp.

Rice, C.G. 1984. The behavior and ecology of Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus
hy/ocrius Ogilby, 1838). Unpbl. dissertation, Texas A&M Univ.,
College Station. 254 Pp.

Rice, C.G. 1985. The Nilgiri tahr. Sanctuary Asia 5(2):126-135.

Rice, C.G. 1986. Observations on predators and prey at Eravikulam

National Park, Kerala. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 83:283-305.

Rice, C.G. 1988a. Agonistic and sexual behavior of Nilgiri tahr

(Hemitragus hylocrius). Ethology 87:89-112. ·

Rice, C.G. 1988b. The Nilgiri tahr. The India Magazine 8(4):20-31.

Rice, C.G. 1988c. Habitat, population 'dynamics, and conservation of

Nilgiri tahr, Hemitragus hylocrius. Bioi. Conserv. 44:137-156.

Rice, C.G. 1988d. Notes on food habits of Nilgiri tahr. J. Bombay Nat.
Hist. Soc. 85:188-189.

Rice, C.G. 1988e. Reproductive biology of Nilgiri tahr, Hemitragus

hylocrius (Mammalia: Bovidae). J. Zoo/., Lond. 214:269-284.

Rice, C.G. 1989. Growth, maturation, and physical characteristics of Nilgiri

tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 86:129-134.

£nvis ..iullttin : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 55

Rice, C. G. 1990. Nilgiri tahr, Eravikulam National Park, and conservation.
Pp. 387-399. In: J.C. Daniel and J.S. Serrao (Eds.), Conservation in
developing countries: problems and prospects. Oxford University
Press, New Delhi.

Rice, C.G. 1995. On the origin of sexual displays in Caprids. Z. f.

Saugetierk. 60:53-62.

�
Ropiquet, A. and A. Hassauin (2005). Molecular evidence for the
polyphyly or the genus Hemitragus (Mammalia, Bovidae). Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 36(1): 154 -168.

Schaller, G.B. 1971. Observations on Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius

Ogilby 1838). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 67:365-389.

Schaller, G.B. 1973. Observations on Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus

jemlahicus). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 70:1-24.

Schaller, G.B. 1977. Mountain monarchs. Univ. Chicago Press. 425 Pp.

Sterndale, A.A. 1929. Sterndale's Mammalia of India. Thacker, Spink,

and Co., Calcutta. 347 Pp.

Sumitran, S., Fraser, J.D. and Radcliffe, R. 1996. Ecology and population
dynamics of Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius) in the Nilgiris, S. India.
Draft Final Report.

Swengel, F.B. 1993. 1992-1993 North American Regional Nilgiri Tahr

Studbook. Minnesota Zoological Garden, Apple Valley, MN, USA.

Swengel, F.B. and Pichner, J. 1987. Status and management of the Nilgiri
tahr in captivity. AAZPA Regional Conference Proceedings 1987:584-589.

Tyagi, P.C. 1993. Mukurthi National Park - A nature's paradise. Tahr

4(3) 8-9.

Varman, S. 1991. Tahr count at Mukurthi National Park. Tahr 2(3):3-5.

Walther, F.R. 1984. Communication and expression in hoofed mammals.

Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington. 423 Pp.

Wilson, C.G. 1980. The breeding and management of Nilgiri tahr Hemitragus
hylocrius at Memphis Zoo. lnternat. Zoo Yearb. 20:1 04-106.

Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M. (Eds.). 1993. Mammal Species of the
World. Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institution Press.

1 56 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Pygmy hog

PYGMY HOG
(Sus salvanius Hodgson, 1847)
Goutam Narayan

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Suidae
Genus Sus
Species Sus salvanius
Common name Nal Gahori

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule I
IUCN RED DATA BOOK: Critically Endangered
CITES : Appendix I

INTRODUCTION

The pygmy hog Sus salvanius (Hodgson) is the smallest and the rarest
wild suid in the world. Today, it is at the brink of extinction mainly due to
habitat related problems. Not only its grassland habitats have disappeared
over a large tract, the existing ones too are under severe anthropogenic
pressure. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has accorded the
highest priority rating (Status Category 6 - Critically Endangered) to the
species putting it among the most endangered of all mammals. It is also
listed in the Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

DISTRIBUTION

In the past, Pygmy hog was found in the alluvial grassland belt south of
Himalayan foothills from Uttar Pradesh to Assam, through Nepal terai and
Bengal duars. Currently, the only viable population of the species exists in
the Manas Tiger Reserve (spread over Kokrajhar, Bongaigaon, Barpeta,

!nvi•J5ullttin: WiLOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 1 57

Nalbari and Darrang districts of Assam) and nowhere else in the world
(Narayan et al. 1999). Till the early 1990s it was also found in Barnadi
Wildlife Sanctuary in Darrang district but has probably disappeared from
there. The species was found in at least 5 other sites in Assam till the
early late 1970s or 1980s but these populations have since been decimated
(Oliver 1979, 1980 , 1984, Oliver and Deb Roy 1993, Mallinson 1971 ).

HABtTAT

Pygmy hogs prefer undisturbed patches of grassland dominated by early

successional riverine communities, typically comprising dense tall grass
sward intermixed with a wide variety of herbs, shrubs and young trees.
Grasslands dominated by N arenga porphyrocoma, S accharum
spontaneum, S. bengalensis, lmperata cylindrica and Theme d a villosa,
forming characteristic grass associations of 2 to 3m height are ideal for
the species. It is not found in areas that experience extensive flooding
(e.g. similar grasslands on riverine floodplains of Kaziranga or Orang).

DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERS

Pygmy hog measures about 65 em (25 inches) in length and 25 em (10

inches) in height and weighs 8 to 9 kg. Females are a little smaller and the
newborn babies weigh only 150 to 200 g. A vestigial tail (2.5 em or 1 inch
in adults) and only three pairs of mammae distinguishes it from the wild
pig (Sus scrota) which, despite being much larger, often gets confused
with pygmy hogs. The pygmy hog is locally called No/ Gahori or Takuri
Borah in Assamese, Oma Thakhri in Bodo, and Sano Bane/ in Nepali.

THREATS AND IMPORTANCE

The main threats to survival of pygmy hog are loss and degradation of
habitat due to human settlements. agricultural encroachments, flood
control schemes, and improper management. Some management
practices, such as planting of trees in the grasslands and indiscriminate
use of fire to create openings and to promote fresh growth of grass,
have caused extensive damage to the habitats the authorities intend to
protect. In fact, large scale burning of grass in the dry season remains
the principal threat to even the last surviving population of the species.

The survival of pygmy hogs is closely linked to the existence of the tall,
wet grasslands of the region which, besides being a highly threatened
habitat itself, is also crucial for survival of a number endangered species
such as the one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros u n icornis), tiger

l 58 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Pygmy hog

(Panthera tigris), swamp deer ( Cervus duvauceft), wild buffalo (Bubalus

bubalis), hispid hare ( Caprolagus hispidus) and Bengal florican
(Eupodotis benga/ensis). The pygmy hog is one of the most useful
indicators of current wildlife management practices in these habitats as
it has disappeared from grassland which still support some other species.
It is therefore important to understand why it is disappearing faster than
other less sensitive species and take remedial actions if we wish to
preserve the original habitats in their pristine state and with optimal
diversity. This will eventually benefit all species of these threatened
habitats. Preserving these important habitats, which are one of the richest
in the Indian sub continent in terms of their biodiversity, will also help in
maintaining long term ecological and economic well being of the region.

CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN

It is therefore essential to formulate a properly structured action plan to

save the species from extinction. This includes:
•
conservation breeding of the species with aims to reintroduce them
to selected sites from where they have disappeared as well as an
insurance against the possible early extinction of the species in the
wild;
•
upgrading the (legal as well as actual) protection status of the above
sites;
•
field research to plan ideal management practices for maintenance
of optimal diversity of these habitats and mechanism to implement
the recommendations of such studies;
•
reintroduction of viable number of pygmy hogs for their long term
survival in the wild, monitoring the reintroduced populations; and
•
monitoring and modifying management practices to promote survival
of all original inhabitants of such habitats.

THE PYGMY HOG CONSERVATION PROGRAMME

The Pygmy Hog Conservation Programme (PHCP) is a broad-based

research and conservation programme which aims to fulfil at least some
of the above requirements. This important recovery programme for the
highly threatened species and their equally endangered habitats is being
conducted under the aegis of a formal International Conservation
Management and Research Agreement (ICMRA), signed between IUCN/
SSC Pigs, Peccaries and Hippos Specialist Group, Durrell Wildlife
Conservation Trust (DWCT}, the Forest Department, Government of
Assam. and the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India;

£11Yis.8ulltlill: WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 59

later renewed through a Memorandum of Understanding (Mol)). Following
the singing of the MoU, a local governing body consisting Indian experts
and government officials has been formed for management of the
Programme. The DWCT is the main financial sponsor for the Programme
and funds for the first three years were largely provided by the European
Union through the Trust. Currently, donations to the Trust by individuals
and organisations are helping in continuation of the Programme.

The main aim of this collaborative programme is conservation of the

pygmy hogs and other endangered species of tall grasslands of the region
through field research, captive breeding and reintroductions after
adequate restoration of degraded former habitats. The above agreement
stipulates that ownership of all pygmy hogs bred in captivity would lie
with the Government of Assam, till perpetuity. Translocation and
reintroduction of any such animal is possible only with mutual consent of
the agencies involved. A governing body consisting of local Indian experts
and officials has been constituted for management of the Programme.

CONSERVATION BREEDING

One of the main objectives of the programme is to establish a well

structured conservation breeding project for pygmy hogs as an insurance
against the possible early extinction of the species in the wild and as a
source of animals for reintroduction projects. In 1996, six wild hogs were
caught from Manas National Park and transferred to a custom built
research and breeding centre built at Basistha near Guwahati. Five more
hogs were caught and released at the capture site after fitting three males
and a female with radio harness for radio-telemetry studies.

Increase in captive population

The six hogs settled down well in Basistha and 3 adult females, which
were pregnant from wild, produced healthy litters in 1996. All but one of
the 13 young (7 males, 6 females) were reared thereby tripling the
population and kicking-starting the project. Seven and five more litters
were born in 1997 and 1998 respectively and the hog population stood
35 and 51 at the end of these two years. This constituted a phenomenal
850% increase in little over two years despite some hogs dying due to
infection, which was effectively controlled with local and international
help. The unanticipated and rapid increase in the captive population,
however, had created accommodation problems. Although more
enclosures and a quarantine facility were constructed at Basistha (with

160 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Pygmy hog

funds provided by DWCT and the Assam Valley Wildlife Society) and
efforts to reduce productivity were introduced in 1998. Later, increasingly
rigorous curbs were imposed on the reproduction of these animals and
by 2001, the captive population was allowed to rise 77, which constituted
13-fold increase in the stock in 6 years. Currently 80 hogs (37 male and
43 females) are present at the Research and Breeding Centre.

Reintroduction

A much larger pre-release cum breeding and holding centr!3 is now being
established at Potasali near Nameri National Park in Assam. The facility
will include large enclosures with natural habitat, where hogs earmarked
for release to the wild would be reared. The vegetation at the Potasali site
is being restored by transplanting grass from pygmy hog habitat. Since
world's only captive population of pygmy hogs at Basistha may constituted
15-20% of the total population of the species, the second breeding centre
will also be an insurance against any catastrophe at the present location
(Narayan et at. 1999a). A couple of sites in Sonai Rupai Wildlife Sanctuary
and Nameri have been shortlisted for carrying our soft release of the
captive bred hogs under the reintroduction programme. Surveys to locate
other reintroduction sites in Assam and in areas in Arunachal Pradesh
and Bhutan bordering Assam are also being carried out.

DNA studies

Investigation to determine relatedness among the wild caught and the wild
sired individuals mooted in 1997 to maximize the genetic heterozygosity
in captive population, but due to various reasons these studies could begin
only in 2002 with the help of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology,
Hyderabad. Results of the study are being analysed for publication.
Besides genetic studies, introduction of a few more wild animals into the
captive population may also be required to improve the heterozygosity,
which is important for long-term survival of any population.

FIELD STUDIES AND CONSERVATION AWARENESS

In addition to the concluded first phase of radio-tracking studies in Manas,

a wide ranging survey of known and suspected sites of pygmy hog
distribution has been carried out. A field station has been established in
Manas and work on grassland ecology has been started to provide
grassland management guidelines for conservation of natural floral and
faunal diversity of these habitats. The Basistha centre is used as a

£nvis.�ullttin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 1 61

environmental education centre as well as one of the few sites in the
country to train people on conservation breeding of endangered species.
Awareness campaign in fringe villages of the Manas has been initiated
under a collaborative Manas Conservation Awareness Initiative and a
similar pmgramme has been planned for Nameri and Sonai Rupai.

REFERENCES

Mallinson, J. J. C. 1971: The pigmy hog, Sus salvanius (Hodgson) in

northern Assam. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 68: 424-433.

Narayan, G., Oliver, W. L. R. and Deka, P. J. 1999: The status and

conservation program for the pygmy hog (Sus salvanius). In: Seventh
world conference on breeding endangered species: Linking zoo and
field research to advance conservation, Roth, T. L., Swanson, W. F.
and Blattman, L. K. (Eds.), Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden,
Cincinnati, Pp 109-127.

Narayan, G., Deka, P. J., Chakraborty, A. and Oliver, W. L. R. 1999a:

Increase in captive population of pygmy hogs Sus salvanius: Health
problems and husbandry, Dodo, J. Durrell Wild!. Cons. Trust, 35: 70-86.

Oliver, W. L. R. 1979: Observations of the biology of the pigmy hog (with

a footnote on the hispid hare): pigmy hog survey report, part II. J.
Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 76: 115-42.

Oliver, W. L. R. 1980: The biology and conservation of the pigmy hog

Sus (Porcu/a) salvanius and the hispid hare Caprolagus hispidus.
Special Scien. Rep. No. 1, Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust: 80 Pp.

Oliver, W. L. R. 1984: The distribution and status of the hispid hare

Caprolagus hispidus: the summarised findings of the 1984 pigmy hog/
hispid hare field survey in northern Bangladesh, southern Nepal and
northern India. Dodo, J. Jersey Wild!. Preserv. Trust, 21: 6-32.

Oliver, W. L. R. and Deb Roy, S. 1993: The pygmy hog (Sus salvanius).
In: Pigs, Peccaries and Hippos: Status survey and conservation action
plan, Oliver, W. L. R. (Ed.). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland: 121-129.

l 62 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Sam bar

SAM BAR
( Cervus unicolor Kerr, 1792)
K. Sankar and B. Acharya

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Cervidae
Sub-Family : Cervinae
Genus : Cervus .
Species : C. unico/or
Common name : Sambar

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule Ill
IUCN RED DATA BOOK : Lower Risk
CITES : Not listed

INTRODUCTION

Sambar (Cervus unicolor) is the largest deer species native to South

and South-East Asia. Adult sambar stags weigh between 225 and 320
kg. Sambar hinds are smaller and weigh between 135 and 225 kg
(Lydekker 1916, Crandall 1964, Downes 1983). It is closely related to
the red deer (C. e/aphus elephus) of Asia and Europe, the Rusa deer
(C. timorensis) of Asia, and the Rocky Mountain elk (C.e. nelsoni) of
North America (Whitehead 1972).

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION

No Indian ungulate has adapted itself to a wider variety of forest types

and environmental conditions than the sambar (Schaller 1967). It has an
exceedingly wide geographical distribution that includes India, Myanmar,
Sri Lanka, exteAding through the Malay countries, and eastward to the
Philippines and beyond (Prater 1971 ) . The Indian sub-species C.u.niger
is confined to India. Within India sambar occur in the thorn forests of
Gujarat and Rajasthan, in the moist deciduous forests throughout
peninsular India, in the pine and oak forests at the Himalayan foothills,
and in the evergreen and semi-evergreen forests of north-eastern India.

POPULATION

Although sambar are encountered in widespread locations and habitat

types, nowhere are they abundant. By nature, they are difficult animals
to locate or observe, making their enumeration all the more difficult.
Sambar have been recorded to occur in 208 Protected Areas of
lndia.(Source: National Wildlife Database, Wll). The strongholds of
sambar where they have been adequately studied are: Kanha (Schaller
1967), Bandipur (Johnsingh 1983), Nagarahole (Karanth and Sunquist
1992), Sariska (Sankar 1994), Gir (Khan eta/. 1995), Pench (Biswas
and Sankar 2002), and Ranthambore (Bagchi eta/. 2003) in India, and
Karnali-Bardia (Oinerstein 1979), in Nepal. Sambar have been
successfully introduced to numerous locations outside their native range
e.g into San Luis Obispo Country, California, into the Gulf Prairies and
Edwards Plateau regions of Texas (Abies and Ramsey 1974), into the
1990), into
St. Vincent Islands, Franklin Country, Florida (Lewis et a!.
Australia (Siee 1984), into New Zealand (Kelton and Skipworth 1987),
and also into Western Cape Province, South Africa (Lever 1985).

ECOLOGY

Group size and composition

Sambar are essentially a non-social species. In sambar the typical group

is small, numbering fewer than six individuals (Schaller 1967). The
characteristic social unit is one hind and one fawn or one hind, one
yearling and one fawn (Schaller 1967, Kelton 1981, Downes 1983).
Family groups usually travel in a single file led by the adult female (Kelton
1981) . During the rut, dominant stags are frequently seen with hinds and
occasionally with other stags who ·may challenge the dominant stag for
breeding opportunities (Lewis eta/. 1990).

Average group size of sambar is reported to be 4 to 5 individuals (Jerden

1874 and Prater 1971). Khan eta/. (1995) observed sambar group sizes
ranging from one to five individuals in Gir. In Nagarahole more than 95%
of sambar sightings were that of solitary individuals, pairs, or family
associations, and a mean group size of 1. 7 was recorded (Karanth and
 vC
:
U I IUCU

Sunquist 1992). In Sariska the average group size of sambar was about
four individuals (Sankar 1994). More than 85 percent of the sambar groups
were observed with 1 to 5 individuals. Mean group size of sambar in
Pench. in central India, was 1. 7 (Biswas and Sankar 2002) and in
Ranthambore, the mean group size was 3.7 (Bagchi eta/. 2004).

Antler condition and breeding season

The period of breeding (rut) of sambar is determined by the annual antler

cycle of antler development, the frequency of sexual behaviour, and, in
a way, the time of fawning. Sambar stags exhibited a distinct antler cycle
in Sariska (Sankar 1994). Hard altlers were shed during the summer,
followed by emerging and velvet antlers during monsoon months. During
the remaining part of the year, sambar remained in hard antler stage. In
Bandipur sambar stags in hard antlers were observed largely between
November and April and most males had shed their antlers by M�y
(Johnsingh 1983). In St. Vincent Islands, Florida, during July and August
98 to 100 % of all sambar stags were in velvet antlers and most stags
shed their antlers between April and June (Shea eta/. 1990).

In India the peak rut of sambar occurs between October and December
(Lydekker 1916, Schaller 1967). Schaller (1967) reported that in Kanha
the rut spreads over a period of at least seven months with a peak in
November-December. In Sariska the peak rutting season was in winter
when almost all stags were carrying hard antlers (Sankar 1994). The
main rut of sambar in New Zealand was in June and July with a small
peak occurring in November (Kelton 1981 ).

Sex ratios

Schaller (1967) estimated a sex ratio of 0.2 males : 1 female in Kanha. In

Bandipur the average male : female ratio was 0.3 : 1, and the female:
fawn ratio was 1 : 0.3 (Johnsingh 1983). The male : female ratio in
Nagarahole (Karanth and Sunquist 1992) was 0.4 : 1. In Sariska the
estimated average male: female ratio was 0.1 : 1 and the average female:
fawn ratio was 1 : 0.2 (Sankar 1994). In Gir, the average male : female
ratio was 0.5 : 1, and the female : young ratio was 1 : 0.1 (Khan et a/.
1995). Flynn eta/. (1990) recorded the male :female : fawn ratio as 0.7 :
1 : 0.2 in Florida, USA. Richardson (1972) recorded a 1 : 1 male-female
ratio, and 1 : 0.2 female-fawn ratio in Texas, USA. The relatively low
male numbers may be either due to selective predation, or sambar stags
may be more vulnerable to stress conditions.

tovi5 •�llllflin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AReAs (2004) 1 65

In Kanha, sambar fawns were seen from April to December and the peak
fawning period was in May and June (Schaller 1967). However, in
Sariska most of the sambar fawns were dropped between November
and January (Sankar 1994).

Food habits

Sambar have been observed to feed on more than 139 species of plants
(Schaller 1967, Johnsingh and Sankar 1991). The food requirements of
sambar are less specialised than those of other deer (Schaller 1967).
Sambar would graze or browse depending upon the forage available at
any given point of time (Bentley 1978, Kelton 1981, Ngampongsai 1987).
Young green grasses are the preferred forage of sambar in Kanha, but
browse is often important during seasons when green grasses are scarce
(Schaller 1967). Analysis of faecal pellets of sambar in Kanha National
Park revealed that browse was a dominant dietary component (Martin 1977}.
In Sariska sambar were observed grazing as long as the green grasses
are available, but switched over to browse and fallen leaves, flowers and
fruits in winter and summer (Sankar 1994). Dinerstein (1979) confirmed
that browse is important for sambar in Nepal. Richardson (1972) reported
that the diet of sambar greatly varied from large amount of browse in the
dry season to an almost complete dependence on grass and herbaceous
plants in the wet season in Texas. This flexibility of sambar diet from graze
to browse has enabled the wide distribution of this species.

Home range

In Sariska (Sankar 1994}, the mean home range of sambar stags was
around 4 km2 and for sambar hinds was 1.7 km2• The estimated annual
home range of sambar stags was nearly 15 km2, whereas that of hinds
was nearly 3 km2. In Florida the estimated mean home range of sambar
stags was around 11 km2 and sambar hinds nearly 6 km2 (Shea et at
1990). The mean annual home range was estimated to be around 46 km2
for sambar stags and around 20 km2 for sambar hinds. Richardson (1972}
reported a mean home range of about 10 km2 for sambar stags in Texas,
with almost 5 km2 for the hinds.

The preference of sambar for heavy cover has already been recorded
(Schaller 1967, Johnsingh 1983}. This might probably the reason why
sambar hinds, largely browsers, had smaller home ranges. Sambar stags
were in rut during winter, characterized by increased movements in
search of receptive hinds, and hence had larger home ranges for that

l 66 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Sam bar

season. These stags ranged very less in summer, probably due to rise
in temperature and water dependency. By covering a greater area, a
male of a polygynous �pecies increases his chances of finding receptive
females (Lewis At a/. 1990).

Predation and Mortality

Predation (mainly by tiger, leopard and dholes) is the main cause of

mortality in sambar, though sambar are also a favourite with hunters and
poachers. In Kanha, sambar remains were found in nearly 11% of tiger
scats and 9% of leopard scats analysed (Schaller 1967). In Bandipur
remains of sambar were found in about 30% tiger scats, 14% leopard
scats, and 14% dhole scats (Johnsingh 1983). In adjoining Nagarahole
remains of sambar were found in about 25% tiger scats, 13% leopard
scats, and 10% dhole scats (Karanth and Sunquist 1995). In Sariska,
around 51% of the scats of tiger and around 20% of leopard scats
contained sambar remains (Sankar 1994). Sambar remains were found
in nearly 14% of tiger scats in Pench (Biswas and Sankar 2002) and
50% of tiger scats in Ranthambore (Bagchi eta/. 2003).

Mortality of sambar stags is usually high relative to their representation

in the population (Johnsingh 1983, Karanth and Sunquist 1995). Males
are said to be more susceptible to predation. Weakened condition after
rut (Hornocker 1970) and territorial contests (Estes and Goddard 1967,
Schaller 1967) make males vulnerable to predation.

Water Use

Water is an important component of the sambar's summer home range,

especially when the temperature is hot. Being an animal of hilly terrain,
sambar cannot travel long distance to drink water. Unusually large
aggregations ( > 10 individuals) were in the vicinity of sprouting grass
(monsoon) and around water holes (summer), as in Bandipur, where
sambar formed large groups only at water holes and feeding sites
(Johnsingh 1983). Eisenberg and Lockhart (1972) commented that water
holes are sites where most sambar in a given area come together at
dusk to aggregate temporarily, before eventually dispersing for food.

BEHAVIOUR

Sambar are predominantly forest-dwellers, favouring the cover of trees,

venturing out into the open mainly at night, and late at dusk or early dawn.
They usually rest the whole of the daylight hours (Schaller 1967).

c£rJVis.gulluin: W1LDUFEANDPROTECTEDAREAS(2004) 16 7
CONSERVATION

Sambar constitute one of the largest, and in turn, the most favoured prey
species of large carnivores such as the tiger, leopard and dhole as
reported from Kanha (Schaller 1967), Bandipur (Johnsingh 1983) Rajaji
National Park (Johnsingh et a/. 1993), and Sariska (Sankar 1994). Next
only to chital, sambar are numerically the second most important prey
species of the large carnivores of India. In large tracts of forests not
inhabited by chital, sambar are the mainstay of t � e prey biomass
available to carnivores. Taking into consideration sambar's preference
for cover and avoidance of disturbance, the abundance of sambar would
be a reliable indication of the health of a forested area, and it's potential
to host adequate carnivore numbers.

REFERENCES

Ables, E. D., and Ramsey, C. W. 1974. Indian mammals on Texas

rangelands. J. Bombay Nat. His. Soc. 71: 18-25.

Bagchi, S., Goyal, S.P., and Sankar, K. 2003. Prey abundance and prey
selection by tigers (Panthera tigris) in a semi-arid, dry deciduous
forest in western India. Journal of Zoology 260:285-290.

Bagchi, S., Goyal, S.P., and Sankar, K. 2004. Herbivore density and
biomass in a semi-arid tropical dry deciduous forest of western India.
Journal of Tropical Ecology 20:475-478.

Bentley, A. 1978. An introduction to the deer of Australia. Koetong ed.

Koetong Trust Service, Victoria, Australia.

Biswas, S., and Sankar, K. 2002. Prey abundance and food habit of tigers
(Panthera tigris tigris) in Pench National Park, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Journal of Zoology 256:411-420.

Crandall, L. 1964. The management of wild animals in captivity. University

of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Dinerstein, E. 1979. An ecological survey of the Royal Karnali-Bardia

Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Part II:Habitat/animal interactions. Biola.
Conserv. 16:265-300.

Downes, M. 1983. The forest deer project 1982. Australian Deer

Research Foundation Ltd., Melbourne, Australia.

l 68 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Sam bar

Eisenberg, J. F., and Lockhart, M. 1972. An ecological reconnaisance

of Wilpattu National Park, Ceylon. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology. 101:1-118.

Estes, A.D. and Goddard, J. 1967. Prey selection and hunting behaviour
of the African wild dog. J. Wild/. Manage. 31: 52-70.

Flynn, L.B., Shea,S.M.,Lewis,J.C. and Marchinton, R.L. 1990. Population,

status, health and habitat use. In: Ecology of sambar deer on St.
Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Bull. No. 25. Tall timber
research station, Talloahassee, Florida. 63-96 Pp.

Hornocker, M. 1970. An analysis of mountain lion predation upon mule

deer and elk in Idaho primitive area. Wild/. Monogr. 21. The wildlife
Society, Washington, D.C.

Jerdon, T.C. 1874. The mammals of India. London.

Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1983. Large mammalian prey- predators in Bandipur.

J. Bombay Nat.Hist.Soc. 80(1):1-57.

Johnsingh, A. J. T., and Sankar, K. 1991. Food plants of chital, sambar

and cattle on Mundanthurai plateau, Tamil Nadu, South India.
Mammalia 55:57-66.

Johnsingh, A.J.T., Goyal,S.P., Rawat, G.S. and Mukherjee, S. 1993. Food

habits of tiger and leopard in Rajaji, north west India. Abstracts.
International symposium on the tiger, Delhi. 22nd to 24th February.
Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.

Karanth, K. U., and Sunquist, M.E. 1992. Population structure, density

and biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarahole,
India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 8:21-35.

Karanth, K. U., and Sunquist, M.E. 1995. Prey selection by tiger, leopard
and dhole in tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology 64:439-450.

Kelton,S.D. 1981. Biology of sambar deer (Cervus unicolorKerr, 1972) in

New Zealand with particular reference to diet in a Manuwata flax swamp.
Master's Thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Kelton, S.D. and Skipworth, J.P. 1987. Food of sambar deer (Cervus
.

unicolor) in a Manawatu (New Zealand} flax swamp. New Zealand

Journal of Ecology. 10:149-152.

Khan, J. A., Chellam, R. and Johnsingh, A. J. T. 1995. Group size and

age-sex composition of three major ungulate species in Gir Lion
Sanctuary, Gujarat, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 92:295-302.

c£nvi5 .�ulltrin : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTEDAAEAS (2004) 1 69

Lever, C. 1985. Naturalized mammals of the world. Longman, London.
467 pp.

Lewis, J.C., Flynn, L.B., Marchinton, R.L., Shea, S.M. and Marchinton,
E.M. 1990. Part I : Introduction, study area description and Literature
review. Pp 1-12. In: Ecology of sambar deer on St. Vincent National
Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Bull. No. 25. Tall Timbers Research Station,
Tallahassee, Florida.

Lydekker, R. 1916. Wildlife of the world. Vol.ll. Rowland Ward Ltd.,

London, U.K.

Martin, C. 1977. Status and ecology of the Barasingha ( Cervus duvauceli

branden) in Kanha National Park {India). J. Bombay Nat.Hist.Soc.
74:60-132.

Ngampongsai, C. 1987. Habitat use by the sambar ( Cervus unicolor) in

Thailand: A case study for Khao-Yai National Park. Pp 289-298. In:
C.M.Wemme (Ed.). Biology and management of the Cervidae.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Prater, S.H. 1971. The book of Indian animals. Bombay Natural History
Society, Bombay.

Richardson, W. A. 1972. A natural history survey of sambar deer

( Cervus unicolor) on the powerhorn ranch calhoun country, Texas.
M.Sc., Thesis. Texas A & M University, Texas. 76 Pp.

Sankar, K. 1994. The ecology of three large sympatric herbivores (chital,

sambar and nilgai) with special reference for reserve management in
Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. Ph.D. Thesis. University of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.

Schaller, G.B. 1967. The Deer and the Tiger. A study of Wildlife in India.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 370 Pp.

Shea, S.M., Flynn, B.L., Marchinton, R.L. and Lewis, J.C. 1990. Social
behaviour, movement ecology, and food habits. In: Ecology of sambar
deer on St.Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Bulletin no.25,
Tall timbers research station, Tallahesse, Florida.

Slee, K.J. 1984. The sambar deer in Victoria. Pp 559-72. In: "Deer". Post­
Grad.Comm.Vet.Sci., Proc. 72. Univ. of Sydney. Sydney.

Whitehead, G.K. 1972. Deer of the world. Constable and Co., Ltd.,
London, U.K.

1 7Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Spotted deer

SPOTTED DEER OR CHITAL

(Axis axis Erxleben, 1777)
K. Sankar and B. Acharya

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Cervidae
Sub-Family : Cervinae
Genus :Axis
Species :A. axis
Common name : Spotted deer

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule Ill
IUCNRED DATA BOOK: Unlisted
CITES : Not listed

INTRODUCTION

Chital or spotted deer (Axis axis) is the third largest deer inhabiting the
plains and undulating terrain of India. A well-built stag stands 90 em at
the shoulder and weighs about 85 kg (Prater 1971 ). The coat is reddish­
fawn, spotted with white, and with white underparts. The antlers curve in
the shape of a lyre, with up to three points on each antler. This popular
species is a favourite with zoological parks around the world for their
beautiful appearance and graceful gait.

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION

Chital is an endemic species of south Asia, occurring in India, Sri Lanka,

Nepal and Bangladesh (Prater 1934, Schaller 1967). The northern
boundary of chital's distribution runs along the foothills of the Himalaya
from western Assam through West Bengal, U ttar Pra desh and
Uttaranchal. The eastern boundary follows western Assam, northern
Bengal and Sikkim. The western boundary is formed by eastern
Rajasthan and Gujarat. Chital occur throughout the rest of peninsular
India sporadically in the forested areas. They are found in a variety of
forest types in In dia viz. dry deciduous, moist deciduous, thorn and

mangrove forests. The introduced chital population in Andaman Islands

is found in evergreen forests. Eisenberg and Seidensticker (1976) were

of the opinion that dry deciduous habitats with scrub serves the favoured
habitat of chital .

POPULATION

Chital have declined drastically throughout their range, and are now
only locally abundant within 123 Protected Areas of India and some
forest tracts (Source: National Wildlife Database, Wll). The strongholds
of chltal where they have been adequately studied are: Corbett (De
and Spillit 1966), Kanha (Schaller 1967), Bandipur (Johnsingh 1983),
Nagarahole (Karanth and Sunquist 1992), Sariska (Sankar 1994), Gir
(Khan eta/. 1995), Guindy (Raman 1997), Pench (Biswas and Sankar
2002), Ranthambore (Bagchi eta/. 2003) in I n d ia, Chitwan (Mishra 1982)
and Karnali-Bardia (Dinerstein 1980), in Nepal, and Wilpattu (Eisenberg
and Lockhart 1972) in Sri Lanka. Introduced chital populations occur
in USSR, Yugoslavia, USA, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Australia,
Hawaii and several private ranches in the Western Cape, South Africa
(Lever 1985).

ECOLOGY

Group size and composition

Chital are essentially social animals, rarely seen as solitary individuals.

The basic social unit among chital is a matriarchal family group, normally
consisting of an adult female, her offspring from the previous year, and a
fawn {Ables 1974). The usual herd is composed of two or more such
family units and is often accompanied by individual deer of mixed sex
and age-classes. Chital is known to exhibit a fission-fusion system or
fluid group formation and dissolution (Schaller 1967, Mishra 1982, Sarette
1991). Depending on various circumstances, a chital group may consist
of one to 150 or more individuals (De and Spillit 1966, Eisenberg and
Lockhart 1972, Fuchs 1977, Krishnan 1972, Schaller 1967). The
composition of chital groups has been observed to change frequently
 Spotted deer

during feeding periods, during the rut when males frequently join groups

of females (Schaller 1967), or while fleeing from predators (Dinerstein

1980). These social groupings of chital do not remain permanent (Schaller
1967, Eisenberg and Lockhart 1972).

According to Dinerstein (1980), chital group size in Karnali-Bardia (Nepal)

varied from one to 91 individuals with a mean group size of 10.7. Mishra
(1982) reported a higher percentage of chital in group size of between
five to 10 individuals with a mean group size of 7.5 in Chitawan National
Park, Nepal. Barrette (1991) reported two to 125 individuals in Wilpattu
(Sri Lanka) with a mean group size of 12. In Nagarahole, where only 4%
of chital sightings were of single individuals, the mean group size of chital
was around six, (range 1-81) (Karanth and Sunq�ist 1992). In the
scrublands of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, formation of large
groups (> 20 individuals) occurred in June to August when forage
conditions improved just after the monsoon rains. These large
aggregations were attributed to local abundance of forage and predator
avoidance strategy (Sankar 1994). The seasonal group size in Sariska
varied from 2 to 88 individuals with an average group size of 7 to 8
individuals. About two-third of the chital groups observed had less than
6 individuals. The absence of open grassy patches within Sariska might
have prevented formation of larger groups. ·Khan eta/. (1995) observed
chital group sizes ranging from one to more than 50 individuals in Gir.
Mean group size of chital in Pench, in central India, was 3.4 (Biswas
and Sankar 2002), while in Ranthambore, the mean group size was 4.6
(Bagchi eta/. 2004). Abies (1974) reported group size of chital varied
from 2 to 15 individuals in Texas, USA.

Antler condition and breeding season

The period of breeding (rut) of chital is determined by the annual antler

cycle of antler development, the frequency of sexual behaviour, and,
in a way, the time of fawning. Differences in the onset of the main rut
and the peak of the rut of chital exist across locations. In Kanha, a
high percentage of chital bucks were observed in hard antler
throughout the year (Schaller 1967). The lack of definite season for
antler shedding in Kanha is perfectly in accord with the observation
that breeding was not confined to any season but took place through
out the year, with the activity increasing greatly from March to June,
peaking in May. In Karnali-Bardia, 100 percent hard antlers were seen
in the month of July, of which 53 percent of them were seen with

tnvis S.lulletin: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 73

antlers > 3 feet (Dinerstein 1980), while in Chitwan the peak rut was
observed to be between April and May (Mishra and Wemmer 1987).

(n Bandipur the peak rutting season was between April and July
(Sharatchandra and Gadgil 1975, Johnsingh 1983). However, the

juvenile and yearling stags peaked their rut 2Y2 and five months later,

respectively, possibly a strategy to gain mating chances at a time

when the adult males are past their rut, thus avoiding interclass conflict

for mates. Though chital in Sariska remained in hard antlers throughout

the year, in summer close to 95 percent of the stags were observed

in hard antlers, of which about 25 percent of them were with antlers>

3 feet in length (Sankar 1994). In Guindy National Park, 50% of the
stages were in hard antlers for nearly the whole of the year, but a

distinct seasonality existed among age classes of males, with most

adult stags in hard antler during March-July; the peak rut being May­

June (Raman 1998). For chital in Texas, USA, the major breeding
season lasted from late May till August, which included a breeding
peak (Ables 1974). In Hawaii, USA, the rut was in April through August
with sporadic mating observed throughout the year (Graf and Nichols
1966). During the rut, stags bellow and fight to defend small groups
(harems) of females with which they hope mate. Gestation is 210-225
days, after which a single fawn is born. Fawns are weaned off at about
six months, and sexual maturity is reached by the 12th-14th month
(Prater 1971).

Sex ratio

Invariably, the adult sex ratio of chital is biased towards females.

Schaller (1967) reported sex ratio of 0.6 male :1 female in Corbett
National Park, 0.7 : 1 in Keoladeo Sanctuary, Bharatpur, and 0.7:1 in
Kanha. Dinerstein (1980) reported a sex ratio of 0.5 males:1 female,
and 1 : 0.5 as fema.�:� to fawn ratio in Royai-Karnali Bardia. In Bandipur,
the average male :female ratio was 0.6 : 1, and the female :young ratio
was 1 : 0.4 (Johnsingh 1983). The male : female ratio in Nagarahole
(Karanth and Sunquist 1992) was 0. 7 : 1. In Sariska, the average male
:female ratio was 0.4 : 1, and the female: fawn ratio was 1 : 0.2 (Sankar
1994). Also, new-born fawns were seen all through the year with a peak
fawning period from December to February. In Gir, the average male :
female ratio was 0.4 : 1, and the female : young ratio was 1 : 0.2 (Khan
eta/. 1995). The ratio of males to females in Hawaii was 0.7 : 1 (Graf
and Nichols 1966).

l 74 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Spotted deer

Predation and Mortality

The main causes of death in chital are predation, diseases and accident.
Occasionally, stags kill each other when fighting. Humans avidly hunt
and poach chital throughout their range. Chital are known to be
susceptible to livestock-borne diseases such as rinderpest (Schaller
1967) and foot-and-mouth disease (Sankar 1994). Accidents especially
from speeding vehicles are a cause of chital mortality but occur rarely
within protected areas. Predation is by far the major cause of chital
mortality. Older chital stags are more susceptible to predation than
younger stags (Johnsingh 1983, Patel 1992, Karanth and Sunquist 1995).
This may be due to their being less vigilant during rut, separation from
the group after rut, or weakening from injuries from conflicts. In Kanha,
chital remains were found in about 52% of tiger scats and 59% of leopard
scats analysed (Schaller 1967). In Bandipur remains of chital were found
in about 39 % tiger scats, 51% leopard scats, and 52% dhole scats
(Johnsingh 1983). In adjoining Nagarahole remains of chital were found
in about 31% tiger scats, 44% leopard scats, and 50% dhole scats
(Karanth and Sunquist 1995). In Sariska, around 54% of the scats of
tiger and 21% of leopard scats contained chital remains (Sankar 1994).
Chital remains were found in about 53% of tiger scats in Pench (Biswas
and Sankar 2002) and 61% of tiger scats in Ranthambore (Bagchi eta/.
2002).

Food habits

Chital are known to feed on more than 160 species of plants (Schaller
1967, Johnsingh and Sankar 1991). Schaller (1967) showed that graze
formed the bulk of the feed of chital, while Mishra (1982) considered
chital primarily a grazer. On the basis of morpho-physiological ruminant
feeding types, Hofmann (1985) classified chital as an intermediate/mixed
feeder. Rodgers (1988) had categorised chital as a generalist feeder,
with a diet consisting of grasses, forbs, and leaves of woody plants. In
Sariska, chital was a grazer as long as green grasses were available
(monsoon and post-monsoon seasons), but switched over to fallen leaves,
flowers and fruits in winter (Sankar 1994).

Home range

In Sariska the mean home range of male chital stag was around 3.5 km2,
and that of a chital doe was around 2.5 km2. The estimated annual home

£nvis �ullotin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 1 75

range of a chital doe was around 16 km2 (Sankar 1994). Annual mean
home range of chital does in Karnali-Bardia was about 1.4 km2, and that
of stags was about 2 km2 (Moe and Wegge 1994).

Water use

Chital usually drink water once a day, and more frequently in summer.
This has made them inhabitants of forest tracts with widely scattered but
assured presence of water.

BEHAVIOUR

Chital spend a major portion of their life in foraging, resting, and wandering
within their ranges, with the extent of these activities determined by
season (Schaller 1967). In a day, peak feeding times are around dawn
and dusk. They usually have two major resting periods - before dawn
and mid-day.

CONSERVATION

Chital form one of the important prey of top carnivores as is evident from
studies in Kanha (Schaller 1967), Bandipur (Johnsingh 1983), Rajaji
National Park (Johnsingh eta/. 1993), Sariska (1994), Pench (Biswas
and Sankar 2002) and Ranthambore (Bagchi et a/. 2002). Chital is a
species that is most amenable to wildlife management practices, and
just a little effort and care is required to increase the numbers of this
prolific breeder, in addition to maintaining the grassland-woodland
interface (edge) habitat so essential for the survival of the species.
Though the species has thrived well and, is now locally abundant within
protected areas, the remaining population is highly vulnerable to poaching,
habitat destructions and livestock-borne diseases. Livestock such as
buffaloes out-compete chital in forage consumption during the pinch
season as observed in Sariska (Sankar 1994), making the case strong
for prevention of livestock grazing where chital is present. As would be
obvious from the above fact, the conservation and management of chital
populations is of paramount importance in reducing large carnivore
depredation of livestock, and, consequently, mitigate the increasing levels
of human-wildlife conflict.

1 76 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Spotted deer

REFERENCES

Ables, E.D. 1974. The Axis deer in Texas. The Caeser Kleberg Research
Programme. The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. A & M
University System. Texas. 86 Pp.

Bagchi, S., Goyal, S. P. and Sankar, K. 2003. Prey abundance and

prey selection by tigers (Panthera tigris) in a semi-arid, dry deciduous
forest in western India. Journal of Zoology 260:285-290.

Bagchi, S., Goyal, S. P. and Sankar, K. 2004. Herbivore density and

biomass in a semi-arid tropical dry deciduous forest of western India.
Journal of Tropical Ecology 20:475-478.

Barrette, C. 1991. The size of Axis deer fluid groups in Wilpattu National
Park, Sri Lanka. Mammalia 55:207-220.

Biswas, S., and Sankar, K. 2002. Prey abundance and food habit of
tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) in Pench National Park, Madhya Pradesh,
India. Journal of Zoology 256:411-420.

De, R.C., and Spillit, J.J. 1966. A study of the chital or spotted deer in
Corbett National Park, Uttar Pradesh. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 63:
576-598.

Dinerstein, E. 1980. An ecological survey of the Royal Karnali-Bardia

wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Part Ill: Ungulate populations. Bioi. Conserv.
16:5-38.

Eisenberg, J. F., and Lockhart, M. 1972. An ecological reconnaisance

of Wilpattu National Park, Ceylon. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology. 101:1-118.

Eisenberg, J. F., and Seidensticker, J. 1976. Ungulates in Southern

Asia: A consideration of biomass estimates for selected habitats.
Biological Conservation 1 0:293-308.

Fuchs, E.R. 1977. Behaviour. In: The Axis deer in Texas. E.B. Ables
(Ed.).Pp 24-52. Ceasar Kleberg, Texas.

Graf, W. and Nichols, L.1966. The Axis deer in Hawaii. J. Bombay Nat.

tiiVis�ulletin: WILDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) l 77

 Hist. Soc. 63: 629-734.

Hofmann, R.R. 1985. Digestive physiology of the deer-their

morphophysiological specialization and adaptation. Pp 393-407. The
Royal Society of New Zealand, Bull.22.

Johnsingh, A. J. T. 1983. Large mammalian prey-predators in Bandipur.

J. Bombay Nat.Hist.Soc. 80(1): 1-57.

Johnsingh, A. J. T., and Sankar, K. 1991. Food plants of chital, sambar

and cattle on Mundanthurai plateau, Tamil Nadu, South India.
Mammalia 55:57-66.

Johnsingh, A.J.T., Goyal, S.P., Rawat, G.S. and Mukherjee, S. 1993.

Food habits of tiger and leopard in Rajaji, north west India. Abstracts.
International symposium on the tiger, Delhi. 22nd to 24th February.
Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.

Karanth, K. U., and Sunquist, M.E. 1992. Population structure, density

and biomass of large herbivores in the tropical forests of Nagarahole,
India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 8:21-35.

Karanth, K. U., and Sunquist, M. E. 1995. Prey selection by tiger, leopard

and dhole in tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology 64:439-450.

Khan, J. A., Chellam, R. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1995. Group size and
age-sex composition of three major ungulate species in Gir Lion
Sanctuary, Gujarat, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 92:295-302.

Krishnan, M. 1972. An ecological survey of the larger mammals of

peninsular India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 69:469-501.

Lever, C. 1985. Naturalized mammals of the world. Longman, London.

467 Pp.

Mishra, H.R. 1982. The ecology and behaviour of chital (Axis axis) in the
Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Ph.D. Thesis. University of
Edinburg. U.K. 240 Pp.

Mishra, H.R., and Wemmer, C.M. 1987. The comparative breeding

ecology of four cervids Royal Chitwan National Park. Pp 259-271.

1 78 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Spotted deer

ln.: C. M. Wemmer (Ed.). Biology and management of the Cervidae.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., Research Symposia
of the National Zoological Park. (A conference held at the
Conservation and Research Center, National Zoological Park,
Smithsonian Institution, Front Royal, Virginia, August 1-5, 1982}.

Moe, S. R., and Wegge, P. 1997. Spacing behaviour and habitat use of
axis deer (Axis axis) in lowland Nepal. Canadian Journal of Zoology
72:1735-1744.

Patel, A. H. 1992. Are chital stags more vulnerable to dhole predation

than does? J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 89:153-155.

Prater, S.H. 1934. The wild animals of the Indian Empire. J. Bombay
Nat. Hist. Soc. 37: 76-79.

Prater, S.H. 1971. The book of Indian animals. Bombay Natural History
Society, Bombay.

Raman, T. R. S. 1997. Factors influencing seasonal and monthly changes

in the group size of chital or axis deer in southern India. Journal of
Biosciences 22:203-218.

Raman, T. R. S. 1998. Antler cycles and breeding seasonality of the

chital (Axis axis Erxleben) in southern India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.
Soc. 95:377-391.

Rodgers, W. A. 1988. The wild grazing ungulates of India: an ecological

review. Pp 404 - 419. In: P. Singh and P. S. Pathak (Eds.)
Rangelands - resource and management. Proceedings of the National
Rangeland Symposium, IGFRI, Jhansi, November 9-12, 1987. IGFRI,
Jhansi

Sankar, K. 1994. The ecology of three large sympatric herbivores (chital,

sambar and nilgai} with special reference for reserve management in
Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. Ph.D. Thesis. University of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.

Schaller, G.B. 1967. The Deer and the Tiger. A study of Wildlife in India.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Pp. 370.

£nviH�U!lttin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 79

Sharatchandra, H.C. and Gadgil, M. 1975. A year of Bandipur. J. Bombay.
Nat. Hist. Soc. 72: 625-647.

Varman, K. S., and Sukumar, R. 1995. The line transect method for
estimating densities of large mammals in a tropical deciduous forest:
An evaluation of models and field experiments. Journal of Biosciences

20:273-287.

1 80 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Swamp deer

SWAMP DEER OR BARASINGHA

(Cervus duvauceli Cuvier, 1823)
Q. Qureshi, V.B. Sawarkar, A.R. Rahmani and P.K. Mathur

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Cervidae
Sub-Family : Cervinae
Tribe : Cervini
Genus Cervus
Species C. duvauceli
Common name Barasingha

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule I
/UCN RED DATA BOOK: Vulnerable (VU C1)
CITES : Appendix I

INTRODUCTION

The Barasingha or swamp deer ( Cervus duvaucel!) were once abundant

throughout the tall wet grasslands of the North Indian Terai, the
Brahamaputra flood plain, and the Central Indian grasslands bordering
sal ( Shorea robusta) forests. The barasingha has declined over the years,
as a result of loss of habitat and biotic pressures over much of its former
range. The species is reported extinct from Pakistan and Bangladesh
and restricted to few isolated localities in India and Nepal.

The swamp deer or barasingha is endemic to the Indian subcontinent..

Three sub species of swamp deer has been identified, Cervus duvauceli
duvauce/i, Cervus duvauceli branderi (Pocock 1946, Ellerman and
Morrison Scott 1951} and Cervus duvauceli ranjitsinhii (Groves 1981 ) .

The Barasingha was split into two species duvaceli (northern) and branderi
(central) on the basis of splayed hooves in case of former inhabiting
swampy habitat while later have well knit and hard hooves as an
adaptation for hard ground (Dunbar-Brander 1927, Pocock 1946 and
Ellerman and Morrison Scott 1951 ). In 1982, Grooves further split the
northern sub species in to two duvauceli (north-western) and ranjitsinhii
(north-eastern) sub species on the basis of more palmate antlers and
pelage colour in north-eastern population of barasingha. The barasingha
measure 180 em in length, shoulder height 119-135 em, stags weigh
170-280 kg and hinds weigh 130-145 kg (Schaller 1967, Prater 1972,
Gopal 1995). The heaviest stag weighing 256 and 267 kg were reported

by Maharaja of Gooch, Bihar (1908). The coat is generally brown in

colour, with males being darker than females. During winter the thick
brownish coat is developed which is shed on the onset of summer. The
summer pelage is reddish brown in colour. The underparts, including the
underside of the tail, are whitish. There is a dark dorsal stripe, on each
side of which may be a row of faint spots (Dunbar-Brander 1927, Prater
1971). The antlers are worn only by males, and have twelve or more
points thus the name Barasingha. The antler grows up to one meter in
length, the largest measured was 41 inch along (Schaller 1967).

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION

The northern sub species, duvauceli occurred in tall wet grasslands

throughout Indus and Gangetic river basins, the eastern sub species
ranjitsinhii is distributed along tall wet grasslands of Brahmaputra flood
plains and central sub species branderi is distributed along the grasslands
bordering Sal forest and rivers of central Indian highlands (Lydekker 1898,
Brander 1923, Burton 1952, Gee 1964, Spillet 1966, Schaller 1967). The
species suffered major losses during 1930's to 1960's owing to major
change in agriculture practice, as large tracts of grasslands were cleared
for raising crop and unregulated hunting. Since the time of Schaller's
estimate (1967) the areas have undergone considerable spatial and legal
changes. For the convenience of comparison we considered localities
as given by Schaller (1967). Schaller had reported barasingha from 15
localities in India of which 11 were in Uttar Pradesh, three in Assam and
one in West Bengal. At present the swamp deer exist in only 6 localities
in Uttar Pradesh, 2 in Assam and none in West Bengal. In Nepal, out of
four localities reported by Schaller (1967) only two localities now have
swamp deer. Holloway (1973) had reported one more locality, the
Katerniaghat Sanctuary in Bahraich district of Uttar Pradesh.

At present duvaceli is restricted to Jhilmil tal Wildlife Conservation Reserve

(Uttaranchal) (Sinha, S.P., pers. com.), Hastinapur Sanctuary (Khan A.,
pers. com.), Bijnor Forest Divison, Pilibhit Forest Divison, Kishanpur

l 82 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Swamp deer

Sanctuary, Dudhwa National P ark, Katerniaghat Sanctuary (Uttar

Pradesh) in India (Table1) Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve and Karnali
,

Bardia Reserve in Nepal. The ranjitsinhii at present is only found in Assam,

good population survive in Kaziranga National Park though status in Manas
Tiger Reserve is uncertain (Table 1). The branderi at present is found only
in Kanha Tiger Reseve (Madhya Pradesh) (Table 1) .

Table 1. Status of Barasingha in 1965 (Schaller 1967) and present (based

on Qureshi et a/. 1995).

Location 1965 Present (Based

on Qureshi eta/.
1995)

Nepal

Sukla Phanta Sanctuary and

Kanchanpur 1000 1600

Bardia Division 200 50-100

Banke Division A few -

Chitawan Division A few Extinct

India

Uttar Pradesh

Jaulasal Sanctuary Fewer than 100 Extinct

Lalkua Sanctuary Very few, if any Extinct

Maldhan Sanctuary Very few, if any Extinct

Along Ganges River, Probably some -

West of Bijnor

Alonq Ganges River, 1 00(+)( -) -

West of handpur

Between Hardwar and Luksor 1 doe shot in 1963 -

Dudhwa Tiger Reserve -1200 1200 - 1400

Sonaripur Sanctuary Fewer than 50 -

South Kheri Forest Division Fewer than 200 -

Bahdi Tal, A few -

6 miles west of Bellerain

Ghola and surrounding tracts 800-900 -

Kishanpur Sanctuary - -

Katerniaghat Sanctuary - -

Mirchia, bordering Nepal A few Extinct

Cnvis.�ullrtin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) l 83

 Location 1965 Present (Based
on Qureshi eta/.
1995)

West Bengal

Jaldapara Sanctuary and A few Extinct

surrounding forest

Assam

Manas Sanctuary Perhaps a few Status

Indeterminate

Darang Division along A few Extinct

Bhutan border

Kaziranga Sanctuary 200-250 450- 500

Madhya Pradesh

Kanha National Park -50 300. 350

Motinala and Karanjia ranges, A few seen Extinct

Mandla District

Balaghat District Several seen in Extinct

between Baihar and Lamba 1960
Near Amarkantak, A few Extinct
Bilaspur District

Near Kota, Bilaspur District 1 stag shot in 1960 Extinct

Madhya pradesh-Orissa
border Raipur District 1 00(+)( ) - Extinct

West Bastar Division near 4 seen in 1963 Extinct

Tekemeta

West Bastar Division near

Kutru in Toynar and
Bhairamgarh Range Rare Extinct

Localities In Italics are part of Oudhwa Tiger Reserve

POPULATION

Schaller (1967) in 1965 estimated the duvauceli population to be

between 1400 and 1800 in India and approximately 1600 in Nepal. Sinha
(1986) had estimated the number of duvauceli in 1972 between 2400
and 2600 in India and around 1200 in Suklaphanta (Nepal). Ellenberg
and Baur's (1987) estimates for Suklaphanta (Nepal) ranged between

1 R4 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Swamp deer

1300 and 1500. Qureshi et al. (1995) estimated 1500 -2000 duvauceli
individuals in 1991 for India and 1500-1900 for Nepal (Table 1). At
present, the population in India is 1800-2400 and 1600-1700 in Nepal
(Buddhi pers. com.).

The ranjitsinhi ranged between 200 and 250 in 1965 (Schaller, 1967) which
increased to 520 in 1972 (Lahan and Sonowal, 1973). In 1978 there were
700 individuals of ranjitsinhii (Kusvaha and Unni 1986). In 1992 around
500 animals were surviving (Muley P., pers. com.), Manas had
approximately 50 individuals (Sharma L., pers. com.) and rest were in
Kaziranga. The current estimate is 400-500 barasingha in Kaziranga
National Park (Kaziranga Forest Deptt. records).

The branderi survives only in Kanha. Schaller (1967) in 1965 observed

fewer than 100 barasingha in Kanha which increased to 200 in 1974
(Martin 1977) and reached a maximum of 500 in 1988 (Kotwal 1987, Gopal
1995). The branderi reported to be present in Moti Nala Range, Karangia
Range (Mandla District). Balaghat District, Bilaspur District and West
Bastar Forest Division (Schaller 1967). In 1974, swamp deer were extinct
from all these places except Kanha. Schaller (1967) estimated 400-500
animals surviving in all these localities. The present estimate of population
is 300 - 350 barasingha in Kanha (Nayak A., pers. com). In 1992 there
were approximately 50 individuals in five Indian Zoos and 300 in various
Zoos in North America and Europe

ECOLOGY

The Barasingha group size shows marked seasonal changes in response

to breeding and food availability. The smallest groups (5-15) were formed
during winter, followed by monsoon (10-25) and summer (10-50) (Martin
1977, Schaff 1978, Singh 1984, Sankaran 1989, Qureshi eta/. 1995).
The single individuals were observed largely during rutting season (winter
and late monsoon) and large groups (mean 32, range 2-250) were found
more common during summer, which is largely a congregations in
response to new flush in burnt flood plain grasslands (Schaff 1978,
Qureshi eta/. 1995). The all male group is largely seen during summer
and late winter, while mixed groups are seen through out the year with
highest proportion in summer. The group sizes were smaller in branderi
in comparison to duvauceli and ranjitsinhii due to small population and
difference in grassland composition, structure and habitat management
regime.

envis -�ullttio: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 1 85

Barasingha is monoestrous and monotochus in nature, females
reproduce at the age of 2 to 3 years and males of age grater than 4
years contribute to breeding (Schaller 1967, Martin 1977, Schaff 1978,
Qureshi eta/. 1995). The gestation period in barasingha is 240 to 250
days (Asdel! 1964). The sex ratio in all three sub species ranged from
40 to 80 stags per 100 hinds (Schaller 1967, Martin 1977, Schaff 1978,
Singh 1984, Sankaran 1989, Qureshi eta/. 1995). The low male:female
ratio is attributed to selective predation and poaching. Barasingha
female including the two year aged fema�e observed to have
reproductive rate of 20 to 45 fawn per 100 hinds (Schaller 1967, Martin
1977, Schaff 1978, Singh 1984, Sankaran 1989, Qureshi et a/.1995).
The barasingha mortality is largely by predation, flooding (duvauce/i
and ranjitsinhit), and poaching. Tiger is a major predator of barasingha,
there are anecdotal information and reports of kills by leopards and
wild dogs. Jackal predation on fawns and yearlings has been reported
by Singh (1985) and Schaff (1978). The frequency of baraingaha kills
range 25 to 50 percent in different populations (Schaller 1967, Martin
1977, Schaff 1978, Singh 1984, Qureshi eta/. 1995). Predation by tigers
was observed to be major cause of decline of branderi population in
Kanha National Park. After Kanha management has taken steps to stock
part of population in enclosure and stopped tiger shows with aid of baits
which caused unnatural concentration of tigers in grassland, the
barasingha population has increased (Panwar 1973). Flood is reported
to be a major catastrophe for ranjitsinhii population in Kaziranga and
duvauceli populations loose few individuals during every heavy flood
(Qureshi et af. 1995). Deaths in barasingha due to disease are not
recorded. Schaller ( 1967) did mention of abortion of fetus due to
brucellosis. The barasingha population occur in areas where rinderpest,
foot and mouth disease, brucellosis, heammorhagic septicimia and
anthrax were reported in wild as well as livestock populations. The
ectoparasites like house flies, ticks and lice and endoparsites like
flukes, lungworms Eucheria coli and Mange are reported to occur in
barasingha population but no death due to any of these is observed
(Schaller 1967, Schaff 1978, Arora 1990, Qureshi eta/. 1995).

Barasingha utilize variety of habitat types including open forest where

grasses are present, maximum abundance was observed in marshy
and sandy grasslands (Schaller 1967, Martin 1977, Schaff 1978, Singh
1984, Gopal 1995, Qureshi eta/. 1995}. Barasingha were seen moving
through forested habitats when they shift to different habitats as per
their seasonal needs (Martin 1977, Schaff 1978, Qureshi eta/. 1995).
The composite home range of herds range from 1 0 to 30 km2, annually

1 86 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Swamp deer

(Qureshi et at. 1995). Barasingha on an average move 2·3 km (straight

line) daily and known to move distances of 5-7 km during seasonal
shifts of habitat (Martin 1977, Schaff 1978, Singh 1985, Sankaran 1989,
Qureshi et at. 1995). Barasingha is primarily a grazer and largely feed
on grasses and aquatic plants. Some of the most utilized species were
Sacharum spp, lmperata cylindrica, Narenga porphyrocoma, Phragmite s
karka, Oryza rufipogon, Hygroryza spp and Hydrilla spp (Schaller 1967,
Martin 1977, Schaff 1978 and Singh 1984, Moe 1994, Qureshi et a/.
1995). The drinking of water varies with season, twice in winter and
monsoon to thrice or more in summer. The feeding happens through
out the day which peaks during 5 to 11 hrs and 15 to 20 hrs. The timing
varies between seasons, during summer morning feeding ends early
and evening bout start late (Martin 1977, Schaff 1978, Singh 1984,
Qureshi eta/.1995}. During summer animal do rest under trees shades
and it is quite common to see them sitting in open. Habitat use is largely
influenced by food quality. Grassland burning significantly affects the
movement and choice of food species. Most of the grass species within
15 days of burning produce succulent and palatable shoots, thus
barasingha is less choosy during this time (mid winter burning period}
...

(Martin 1977, Schaff 1978, Qureshi et a/. 1995). The specific habitat
requirement for rutting is shallow wetland surrounded by tall grasses
and for fawning the tall upland grasslands (Martin 1977, Qureshi eta/.
1995). Barasingha avoids using areas grazed by livestock. The habitat
use is largely influenced by food quality.

BEHAVIOUR

Barasingha is polygynous, males and females have linear hierarchy

and during rut males tend t� defend females in estrous (Schaller 1967,
Martin 1977, Schaff 1978, Singh 1985, Qureshi eta/.1995). Stags settle
dominance by sparring and body size displays amongst them while
hinds exhibit dominance by pushing other hinds from preferred resting
or feeding sites, by butting, kicking by foreleg and thumping ground
(Singh 1984, Qureshi et a/. 1995). Mating in duvauceli and branderi
occurs during winter, most of the stags are in hard antler by September
and they start bugling by then. Bugling peaks during mid October to
November with earliest call in mid August to as late as mid April and as
season progresses the evening bugling peak shifts to morning (Schaller
1967, Martin 1977, Schaff 1978, Singh 1984, Qureshi eta/.1995). The
rutting starts for duvauceli in August- September, early December for
branderi and April for ranjitsinhii; while antler shedding begins by mid
January, late April and beginning of October respectively for three sub

tnvis -�ulletin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) l 87

species (Brander 1923, Finn 1929, Champion 1933, Schaller 1967,
Prater 1971, Martin 1977, Schaff 1978, Singh 1984, Gopal 1995, Qureshi
etat. 1995).

Barasingha are highly fidel in use of rutting grounds, so much so that in

Kanha and Dudhwa they visit rutting grounds in the midst of agricultural
fields (Schaller 1967, Martin 1977, Schaff 1978, Qureshi eta/. 1995).
Adult stags generally create wallows by digging soil by antler and fore
feet, these wallows are churned regularly, stag rolls and urinate in it to
leave scent secreted by inter digital glands (Schaller 1967, Martin 1977,
Singh 1984, Qureshi et a/. 1995). The stags rub their body and neck
against tall grasses for marking (Singh 1984). The fight for dominance
around wallow sites are common (Singh 1984, Qureshi eta/. 1995). The
grass thrasing and carriage of vegetative material on antlers is
demonstrated to enhance the size profile by barasingha stags (Schaller
1967, Martin 1977, Singh 1984, Qureshi eta/. 1995). The stag sniff the
genital of hinds, or urine and do flehmen to asses estrous condition in
hinds (Schaller 1967, Martin 1977, Singh 1984, Qureshi eta/. 1995). The
female behaviour is very subtle and seems to keep track of male
dominance as they allow largely dominant or other high ranking stags to
copulate. Barasingha stag approach females with submissive posture,
outstretched neck with antlers held parallel to ground and ears held
laterally. The head up display, prancing, calling and chasing happens
depending upon the response of hinds (Singh 1984, Qureshi eta/. 1995).
Receptive hind generally makes no attempt to escape from dominant stag
and at times seen following and encircling stag (Singh 1984, Qureshi et
a/. 1995). Hinds have been observed to chase males, avoid mount by
males and even kick by forelegs, probably the ones not in estrous (Singh
1984, Qureshi eta/. 1995).

The fawning peak occurs in July to August in duvaceli, September­

October in branderi, and March-April in ranjitsinhii (Schaller 1967, Martin
1977, Schaff 1978, Singh 1984, Gopal 1995, Qureshi eta/. 1995). Hinds
segregate from herd to give birth in selected tall grass areas and fawn
remain in this surrounding for approximately 7 to 15 days, fawn is
introduced to herd as soon as it is able to follow mother (Schaller 1967,
Martin 1977, Schaff 1978, Singh 1984, Qureshi eta/. 1995). Hinds visit
the hiding sites and make soft moaning calls for fawns to suckle (Singh
1984, Qureshi eta/. 1995).

Barasingha have keen sense of hearing and smell. Barasingha behaviour

to detect and communicate danger are, the alert posture with and without

l 88 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Swamp deer

tail being raised, thumping ground by foreleg, scanning for danger, alarm
call, and forming tightly bunched group (Schaller 1967, Martin 1975,
Schaff 1978, Singh 1984, Qureshi eta!. 1995).

CONSERVATION

Barasingha population in there current distribution range are largely

present in protected areas, with exception of Bijnor and Pilibhit
populations and some populations like that of Dudhwa and Kaziranga
seasonally move out of protected areas. The habitat of barasingha is
more threatened being flood plain grassland, change in river dynamics
due to human developmental activities, increase in siltation and reduced
flow of water during critical periods of summer. The management earlier
treated these grasslands as useless (termed blanks) and extensively
planted and destroyed large areas of habitat. The wetlands used by
barasingha should be modified by management only after appropriate
scientific study. The current practice of grassland burning to control
woody succession need to be done in form of a mosaic. Harrowing should
be discouraged as it seems to deteriorate grassland condition and
promote occupation by unpalatable grass species like Cymbopogon spp.
(Qureshi et a/. 1995). Many grasslands and woodland are having a
problem of weed infestation (like Se sbania spp.) which need to be
controlled by manual removal. The manual weed removal in Dudhwa and
Kaziranga yielded good results as it has improved the habitat of
barasingha.

Barasingha meat was not considered a delicacy but they were hunted
and still poached for antler and meat. The populations outside protected
areas as well as seasonally migrating population need to be protected.
Barasingha population recovered in most of its range in North and Central
India once grazing was controlled (Schaller 1967, Martin 1977, Schaff
1978, Singh 1984, Qureshi eta/. 1995). Serious efforts are needed to
control grazing in Hastinapur, Jhilmil tal and Katerniaghat. There is a
need to adopt wildlife management aspects in forest working plans to
address needs of protection and management especially for barasingha
population in Bijnor and Pilibhit divison. Pilibhit divison has good
barasingha population and can be upgraded to a conservation reserve
category. The new relocation sites need to be identified for barasingha
population of branderi (Kanha) and ranjitsinhii (Kaziranga) to establish
one or few more sites of these subspecies for long term conservation.
Barasingha population of Sathiana and some herds of Kakraha move
out to their traditional breeding grounds, these areas need to be secured.

C:nvis.�ullerin : WiLDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 89

 REFERENCES

Arora, A.1990. Some biological studies in swamp deer at Dudhwa N.P.

New Cattle Wildlife Institute of India Voi.06 : Pp. 26-27.

Asdel I, S.A. 1964. Pattern of mammalian reproduction. Cornell University

Press, Ithaca.

Brander, A. 1923. Wild animal in Centra/India, London.

Burton, R. 1952. A history of shikar in India. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc.

50(40) : 845-869

Champion, F. 1933. The jungle in sunlight and shadow. London

Dunbar- Brander, A.A. 1927. Wild Animal in Centra/India. Edward Arnold

and Co., London.

Ellenberg, H. and Baur J. J. 1988. Population condition, population

structure and population trends of swamp deer ( Cervus duvaucell) in
Suklaphanta, Wildlife reserve, West Bengal. Report DNPWC. Project
Nepal 85/011.

Ellenberg, J. R. and Morrison-Scot T.C.S. 1951. Checklist of Palearctic

and Indian mammals. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Foose, T. J. 1987. A strategic view of the history, status and prospects

of cervids in captivity. In: Wemmer, C. M. (Ed.) : Biology and
management of the cervidae. Washington D. C. Smithsonian Institute
Press. USA.

Finn, F. 1929. Sterndale's mammalia of India. Calcutta.

Forsyth. J. 1889. The highlands of Centra/India. London.

Gee, E. P. 1964. The wild life of India, Collins, London.

Ghimire J.N. 1996. Status and distribution of population in Royal Bardia

National Park Nepal. M.Sc. Dessertation. Tribhuvan University,
Kathmandu.

190 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Swamp deer

Gopal, R. 1995. The Biology and Ecology of Hard Ground Barasingha

C. duvaucelii branderi in Kanha National Park, Ph.D.Thesis,
Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Dr H.S. Gour
Vishvidhyalya, Sagar, M.P., India.

Groves P. C. 1982. Geographic variation in the Barasingha or swamp

deer ( Cervus duvauce!J). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 79. 620-629.

Holloway, C. W. 1973. Swamp deer in Uttar Pradesh. Oryx 12: 14-4�.

Knight, R. 1970. The sun river elk herd. Wild. Monograph: 23.

Kotwal P. C. 1987. Ecological studies on evaluation of certain wildlife

habitats and their utilization by major mammals in Kanha National
Park. D. Sc. Dissertation, Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University, Sagar,
India.

Kushvaha, S.P.S. and Unni, N.V.M. 1986. Application of remote sensing

techniques in forest cover monitoring and habitat evaluation- a case
study of KazirangaNational Park, Assam. In: Proceedings of seminar
cum workshop on wildlife habitat evaluation using remote sensing
techniques. 238-247 Pp.

Lahan P. and Sonowal, R.N. 1973. Kaziranga Wildlife Sanctuary Assam.

A brief description report on the census of large animals (March 1971) .
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 70: 245-278.

Lydekker, R. 1898. The deer of all lands. London.

Maharaja of Gooch Behar. 1908. Thirty seven years of big game shotting
in Gooch Behar, the buars and Assam. Rowland Ward London.

Martin C. 1977. Status and ecology of the Barasingha ( Cervus duvauceli

branden) in Kanha National Park (India). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.
74: 60-132.

Moe, S.R. 1994. The importance of aquatic vegetation for the management
of the barasingha ( Cervus duvaucell). Bio(ogical Conservation 70:
33-37.

Olney, P. J. S. 1987. Census of rare animals in captivity 1985. Int. Zoo.

Vb. 26:539.

£nvis.�ultetin: WrLDLIFEANDPROTECTEDAREAs(2004) 191

Panwar, H.S. 1973. Interim report for Kanha. Madhya Pradesh Forest
Department Madhya Pradesh.

Pocock R. 1943. The larger deer of British India J. Bombay Natural

History Society. 43(4) : 553-572.

Prater, S. H. 1971. The book of Indian Animals. Bom bay Natural History
Society Bombay, Bombay.

Qureshi 0., Sawarkar, V.B. and Mathur, P.K. 1995. Ecology and
Management of swamp deer ( Cervus duvauceli) in Dudhwa Tiger
Reserve, U.P (India). Project Report. Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun.

Sankaran, R. 1989. Status of the swamp deer in Dudhwa National Park

(1988-1989). Technical Report 14, Bombay Natural History Society,
Bombay.

Sawarkar V.B. 1988. Status of the northern swamp deer in Dudhwa

National Park. Report, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

Schaff D. and Singh, A. 1977. Barasingha in Dudhwa Sanctuary. Oryx

14: 495-498.

Schaff, D. 1978. Population size and structure and habitat relations of

the Barasingha (Cervus d. duvauceli) in Suklaphanta wildlife reserve,
Nepal. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, USA.

Schaller, G. B. 1967. The deer and the tiger. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.

Sinha, N. H. 1986. Hard ground Barasingha Cervus duvauceli branderi.

In : wildlife wealth of India, resource and management. Pp 493-499.
Majupuria, T. (Ed.). Bangkok, Thailand. Craftsman Press.

Singh, V. P. 1984. Bio-ecological studies on cervus duvauceli duvaceli,

swamp deer (Barasingha) in Oudhwa forest near Indo-Nepal border.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Kanpur, India. D. A. V. College, Kanpur University.

Spillet, J. J. 1966. The Kaziranga Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam. J. Bombay

Nat.Hist. Soc. 63 494-528.

1 92 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 The great Indian one-horned rhinoceros

THE GREAT INDIAN ONE-HORNED

RHINOCEROS
(Rhinoceros unicornis Linnaus, 1758)
S.P. Sinha

Order Perisodactyla
Family Rhinocerotidae
Sub-Family Ruminantia
Genus Rhinoceros
Species R. unicornis
Common name : Genda or Gainda

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule I
IUCN RED DATA BOOK: Endangered
CITES : Appendix I

INTRODUCTION

The Great Indian one-horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) is

perhaps the most endangered species of Indian mega fauna and one of
the five remaining species of rhinoceros of an approximately 30 genera
that once roamed the world. Rhinoceroses first appeared in the late
Eocene period. The oldest Indian rhinoceros like species was Brontops
robustus, but the genus Rhinoceros may be traced back to the Pliocene
period in northern India, and fossilized remains show that these animals
were dwellers of riversides and marshes. In India, the rhinoceros has
an old and traditional-linked history. The representation of the rhinoceros
ichnographically or its mention in written accounts has been reviewed
by a number of authors including, Ali (1927), Ettinghausen (1950}, Rao
(1957} and Rookmaaker (1982). Although most of these quote were
sixteenth and seventeenth century accounts by medieval authors and
other second hand information, the accounts by AI Beruni and Ibn

Cnvi&J3ulletin : WtLDUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) l 93

Batuta, the two historians and scholars of the same period, are among
the more authentic ones. Akbar the third Mughal emperor of India (1542-
1605L records the existence of rhinoceros near Sambhal in Uttar
Pradesh (Jarrat 1949}. Another Mughal emperor, Jahangir, records
them in his memoirs as inhabiting Aligarh in Uttar Pradesh. The historical
records of distribution of rhinoceros in India and Pakistan are given
below:

Historical records of rhinoceros distribution in India and Pakistan

Country Site Era Reported by

India Ganganagar, Raj. 3500-400BC Banerjee and

Chakravoorty (1973)

India LanghnaL Guj. Pre-Pottery Zuener (1952)

India Lake Kanevel, Guj. 8000-1200 BC Momin eta/. (1973)

India Siwalik Hills Miocene-Lower Baker and Durand

(1836),
Falconer and
Cautely (1847),
Falconer (1868),
Lydekkar (1876).

India Mirzapur, UP Not Known Cockburn (1883)

India Banda, UP Not Known Cockburn (1883)

India Chirand, Bihar c.1700 BC Nath (1976)

India Madras, Tamil Not known Lydekkar (1880)

Nadu

India Gokak, Belgaum, Not known Foote (1874)

Kar

Pakistan Harappa 2500-1 500 BC Prashad 1936

Pakistan Mohenjo Daro c.300 BC Marshall 1931

A large number of miniature paintings and other objects depicting

rhinoceroses were made in India between 1500 and 1650 and a famous
mmiature painting of circa 1600, showed Emperor Jahangir hunting
rhinoceroses. Although animals are easily recognizable as greater one-

l 94 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 The great Indian one-horned rhinoceros

horned rhinoceros, all three Asian rhinoceros once inhabited the Indian
subcontinent. The Javan and Sumatran rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
sondaicus and Diceros sumatrensis) become extinct in India in the early
part of this century and the greater one-horned rhinoceros is the only
rhinoceros species left in the wild in the country (Menon 1996). The
Indian rhino averages 170-180 em (5 ft 10 inch to 6 feet) at the shoulders
with a girth of 335 em (11 ft) behind the withers and weigh around 2
tons. The great Indian rhino has a single horn which is 35 - 40 em in
length. A record specimen exhibited in the British Museum had a length
of almost 62 em and a base circumference of almost same. The horn of
the rhino is not a true horn because it does not have a core of bone.
The compact mass of keratin fibers not fixed to the skull and rest
epidermally on a bony cushion. There are numerous instances of rhinos
losing their horns and being replaced by new one. The average weight
of an Indian rhino horn is around 750 gms. In international markets of
far east the price of one kilogram of powered horn cost around 40,000
US dollar. Such high price lures and proves to be the strongest incentive
for poaching (Dutta 1996). The growth pattern of rhino horn at different
age classes is given below:

Growth pattern of horn in Indian one horned rhinoceros

Age Size

At birth No protuberance

6 months 1.1 -1.65 em

1 Year 3.3-5.5 em

2 Year 6.6-8.8 em, basal circumference 17.6-22 em

3 Year 8.8- 13.2 em, basal circumference 17.6-44 em

3-20 Year 19.8-22 em, fully matured horn

25-30 Years Reduction in height due to wear and tear

The skin of this massive creature is divided in to great shields by heavy

folds before and behind the shoulders and in front of the thighs. The
fold in front of the shoulders not continued right across the back, a
distinctive character of this rhinoceros. On the flanks, shoulders, and
hindquarters, the skin is studded with masses of rounded tubercles.
With its grotesque build, long boat-shaped head, its folds of armour,
and its tuberculated hide, the animal looks like a monster of some bygone
age (Prater 1948).

£nvis.�ul1Qtin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 95

Identifying a male and female rhinoceros in the wilderness is difficult
when the animal is found in the tall grasslands. But in open areas if
carefully observed on the basis of genital organs, collar folds and shape
of the head, one can distinguish between male and female. In case of
males, collar folds and head is massive as compared to female rhinos.
In females, the skull is slightly thinner, the base of the horn is narrower
and the horn is slimmer. However for sub adult rhino and calf such
determination is impossible without physical examination (Dutta 1996).

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION

Historically, the range of the great Indian one-horned rhinoceros once

extended all along the flood plains of the river Indus, Ganges and
Brahmaputra. Babur- nama has recorded the presence of the rhino in
Hindukush to the west to the present lndo-Myanmar border to the east.
The causes of decline of the rhino population in the past were due to
destruction and fragmentation of rhino habitat primarily for extension of
agriculture and tea gardens, poaching of rhino for horns and other parts
attributed to have magical medicinal value, hunting of rhino for sports
during Mughal period and early days of British rule in India, and later
during the regimes of the Maharajas, in the last 400 years wiped out the
rhinos from most of its range of distribution except in pockets left in north­
east in the states of Assam and West Bengal along with Nepal where
such vestiges of terai constitute the last strong hold for rhinos.

POPULATION

Currently, around 2500 rhinos exist in the wild of which over 1500 are
in Kaziranga NP and over 500 in the Royal Chitwan NP, Nepal. The
rest are found in small insecure pockets in Orang WLS, Pabitora WLS,
Assam and Jaldapara WLS, Gorumara NP, West Bengal. The rhino
population in Laokhowa Wildlife Sanctuary was totally wiped out during
1983 when 40 rhinos were killed by poachers during the Assam
agitation. In addition to these wild rhino were reintroduced in Dudhwa
NP, Uttar Pradesh, India and in Royal Bardia NP, Royal Suklaphanta
Wldlife Reserve, Nepal.

ECOLOGY

The one-horned rhinoceros is largely a grazer. They are associated

with the water bodies for feeding, wallowing and resting. Mating takes

1 96 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 The great Indian one-horned rhinoceros

Current status of Indian one-horned rhinoceros in India and Nepal

(2004)

Migratory Population

Katerniaghat WLS, India- 4 rhino

Natural Population

Name of the Area Number of Rhino Total Area

Kaziranga NP, Assam 1600 + 430 km2

Royal Chitwan NP, Nepal 600 + 932 km2

Pobitara WLS, Assam 78 16 km2

Jaldapara WLS, West Bengal 65 216 km2

Orang WLS, Assam 46 78 km2

Gorumara NP, West Bengal 32 8.88 km2

Manas NP Doubtful existence -

Laokhowa WLS No rhino left -

Reintroduced Population

Name of the area Rhino Population

Dudhwa NP/ TR, India 21

.

Royal Bardia NP, Nepal 85

Royal Sukhlaphanta WLS, Nepal 6

place throughout the year and there is no specific calving season.

The rhino wallows in lakes, rivers and temporary pools. In Chitwan,
Nepal, it wallowed most frequently between June 9nd October (51%
of observations). Heat regulation is probably ·a major function of
wallowing, but escape from flies, especially in tall grasslands during
the monsoon, may also be important (Laurie 1978). The Indian rhino
is the most aquatic rhino, wade and swim with ease and also feed on
number of aquatic plants, like Hygrorhyza cristata, Tvoppa spp, Valles
naria and Nymph. It has been observed that after burning of grassland,
within a week rhino feed on half burned sward of grasses with dry pith
and also lick the ash on the ground (Sinha and Sawarkar 1991) Though .

it prefers swamp and grasslands, they can also be found in wood jungle

cnvi• .gulletin : WrLOUFE AND PROTECTED AAfAS (2004) l 97

up ravines and low hills (Prater 1948}. The age distribution of Indian
rhinos in Chitwan, Nepal was reported as: 27% sub adults, 32% adult
females, and 20% adult males and 14% calves, 14% sub adults, and
65% adults (Laurie 1978). The gestation period is between 16 and 18
months and single calf is born during the rainy season (Laurie 1978).
Usually mother rhino keeps her calf away from other rhino and is very
aggressive. This period is crucial to new born calf as it is vuneralble
to predation. The causes of mortality among adult rhinos are due to
disease like anthrax, road accidents, over inundation of water and
succumbing to injuries caused due to fighting between individuals.
Males attain sexual maturity at the age of 7 years and females at 5
years. The longevity or life span of a rhino in the wild is 30-35 years
and in captivity 4 7 years.

BEHAVIOUR

The one horned rhino is largely solitary in nature and the male and
female are seen together only during mating season. The one horned
rhino is not territorial. The home ranges of dominant bulls overlap with
one another, with ranges of weaker males that do not attempt to mate,
and with ranges of females. Calf stays with its mother for at least four
years. From time to time rhino meet with each other in the common
ground like grazing areas and wallow sites and stay together without
showing any aggression. It has been observed in Kaziranga NP when
32 rhino were wallowing in a small pool of water and were tolerant to
each other (Deb Roy pers. com.).

Mating in rhino is initiated by female which runs around potential breeding

male by making loud sound and frequently squirting urine and some
time pushes the male. Male rhino chases female rhino for hours till
female rhino get exhausted and stays in one place and then mating
takes place.

Mother always tries to keep away her calf from the male. The moment
mother becomes conscious of presence of male near her calf it chases
away the male. Male calf when separated from mother usually makes
company with other young male but keeps itself away from dominating
male of the area. Communication between rhinos is through audible and
ultrasonic sound in varied frequencies. Rhino can identify each other by
sniffing the pedal gland secretion left behind on the path ways.

1 98 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 The great Indian one-horned rhinoceros

CONSERVATION

Despite of the efforts as provided by the field staff to protect the species,
persecution of this animal still continues due to rising price of its horn in
the international markets especially in the far- east countries for preparing
oriental medicines. In Kaziranga NP from 1983-89, a total of 235 rhinos,
were killed by the poachers for horns. New ways of poaching rhinos by
electrocution in Kaziranga NP and Pabitora WLS, Assam and using
pesticide in Jaldapara WLS in West Bengal were reported (Menon 1996).

Considering their small and isolated population in the existing ranges, it

is recommended that reintroduction of the species in suitable habitats in
its former range of distribution is the need of the hour. The IUCN Rhino
specialist group and RhinoSub- Committee of the Indian Board of Wildlife
(IBWL ) recommended the establishment of an additional rhino population
in India. The Dudhwa NP fulfilled all the criteria required for the
reintroduction among the various sites surveyed in India by a panel of
experts. Thus, Dudhwa NP becomes the first and currently the only site
of reintroduction of the rhinos in India during 1984-85. Other reintroduced
rhino population exist in Royal Bardia NP andSukhlaphanta WLS in Nepal
and reintroduction of rhinos took place between 1986 and 2004. The
reintroduction of rhino in Dudhwa NP took place in two phases. lhe first
phase in 1984, in which five rhinos comprising 2 males and 3 females
were captured and translocated to Dudhwa from Pabitara WLS, Assam.
These animals were released in the Rhino Reintroduction Area (RRA) in
a specially constructed stockade for health care and for experiencing
fence before final release in to the main fenced area of RRA. In the second
phase in 1985, four female rhinos were translocated from The Royal
Chitwan NP, Nepal. In 2004, after 20 years of reintroduction in Dudhwa
NP, rhino population raised to 18 from a founder population of 5 rhinos
(one male and four female) after facing number of set backs (Sinha and
Sawarkar 1991, 1992, Sinha et at. 2001, Pluhaeek and Sinha 2002).

In Nepal, in 1986, a total of 13 animals (5 males and 8 females) were

captured from Suaraha area of Royal Chitwan NP and successfully
released in the alluvial flood plain of the Karnali River in The Royal Bardia
NP. Similarly, in 1991 another batch of 25 animals (8 males and 17
females) were captured from the same area and released into Royal
Bardia National Park (Maskey et at. 2001). Later in 1999, four males were
released in the RBNP. In the year 2000, a total of 20 animals were captured
from Chitwan and released in RBNP and four in Royal Suklaphanta

Covis .�ullrtio : WILDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 1 99

Wildlife Reserve. In the year 2001, five more rhinos were translocated
from Royal Chitwan NP to The Royal Bardia NP (Maskey eta!. 2001}.
The governments of India and Nepal are already providing considerable
funds to conserve the rhino and their habitats and have been successful
in in-situ conservation. Because of the demographic pressures, to carry
this success in to the next millennium, the efforts of the Governments of
India and Nepal should be augmented with International funds.
Conservation success achieved in India and Nepal in case of the Rhino
has been possible due to extraordinary dedication and commitment of
the field staff. The service conditions of these field staff who are the
guardians of the world's heritage requires to be adequately upgraded in
order to commensurate with their selfless struggle. Though it is a mega
herbivore, very little research has been conducted on this species. There
is a need for further research on this species to study the food habits,
home range, habitat use, behaviour etc. to strenghen our knowledge
required for better management of rhino habitats.

REFERENCES

Ali, S.A. 1927, The Moghul emperors of India as naturalist and sportsmen,
part 1. J. Bombay. Nat.Hist.Soc.31 (4): 833-861.

Baker, W.E and Durand, H.M. 1836. Sub-Himalayan fossil remains of

the Dadapur collection. J.Asiat.Soc.Benga/5: 486-504.

Banerjee, S and Chakravoorty, S. 1973. Remains of the Great One­

horned Rhinoceros, Rhinoceros uncornis Linnaeus from Rajasthan.
Sci. and Cult. 39(1 0): 430-431.

Cockburn. J. 1883. On the recent existence of Rhinoceros indicus in

the North Western province and a description of a tracing of an
archatic rock painting from Mizrapore representing the hunting of this
animal. J.Asiat. Soc. Bengal 52: 56-64.

Dey, S.C. 1999. Over view of Indian Rhino Action Plan. Proceedings of
IUCN I SSC Asian rhino specialist group meeting for India and Nepal,
meeting held in Kaziranga NP, Assam. Feb.21-27, 1999.

Dutta, A.K. 1996. Unicornis: The great Indian one-horned rhinoceros.

Konark Publishers PT Ltd. , New Delhi.

200 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 The great Indian one-horned rhinoceros

Ettinghausen, R. 1950. Studies in Muslim iconography, 1: the unicorn.

Occ. Papers Freer Gallery of Art. 1(3): 1-209.

Falconer, H and Cautely, P.T. 1847. Fauna Antiqua sivalensis, being

the Fossil Zoology of the Siwalik Hills in the North of India.
Illustrations, Part Ill: Suidae and Rhinoceratidae. Plates 69-80. Smith,
Elder and Co., London.

Foote, F.B. 1874. Rhinoceros deccanensis, a new species discovered

near Gokaka, Belgaum District. Mem.Geoi.Sur. India (Palaeont India).
Series X, 1(1): 1-17.

Falconer, H. 1868. Palaeontological memoirs and notes, 2 vols. Robert

Hardwickwicke, London.

Jan Pluhaeek, Sinha, S.P. and Petr Sfpek 2002. Successful breeding of
Indian rhinoceros of different origin in Dudhwa NP (Uttar Pradesh,
India). In Press: Canadian Journal of Zoology.

Jarret, H.S. 1949. Ain-1-Akbari of Abdul Fazi-1-A//ami, II: A Gazetteer

and Administrative Manual of Akbars Empire and Past History of India.
2nd ed., corrected and further annotated by Sir Jadu-Nath Sarkar.
Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal (Bibliotheca Indica, 271). Calcutta.

Laurie, A. 1978. The Ecology and Behaviour of the greater one Horned
Rhinoceros, Ph. D Dissertation, University of Cambridge, UK.

Lydekkar, R. 1876. Descriptions of the molar teeth and other remains of

mammalian. Mem.geol.surv. India (Palaeont.lndia), series X, 1(2): 19-
87.

Lydekkar, R. 1880. A sketch of the history of the fossil vertebrata of

India. J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal49: 8-40.

Marshall, J. 1931. Mohenjo- Daro and the Indus civilizations, 3 vols. Arthur
Probsthain, London.

Maskey, T.M., Jnawali, S.R., Pradhan, N.M.B and Dhakal, N.P. 2001.
Reintroduction of greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
unicornis) in the Royal Bardia NP and Royal Suklaphanta WR,
Western Lowland, Nepal. Proceedings of the International elephant
and rhino research symposium, Vienna, June 7-11, 2001. 202- 209.

£nvit.f5ulletin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 20 1

Menon, V. 1996. Under Siege: Poaching and protection of greater one­
horned rhinoceros in India. Traffic India, WWF-India, New Delhi

Momin, K.N., Shah, D.R. and Oza, G.N. 1973. Great Indian rhinoceros
. inhabited Gujarat. Current Science 42: 801-802.

Nath, B. 1976. On the occurrence of great Indian rhinoceros- Rhinoceros

unicornis Linn. from the prehistoric site at Chirand, Saran district,
Bihar. News letter, Zoological Survey, India 2(3): 86-87.

Prashad, B. 1936. Animal remains from Harappa. Mem. Archaeological

Survey, India 51: 1-76.

Prater, S.H. 1948. The book of Indian Animals. Bombay Natural History
Society, Oxford University Press, Calcutta.

Rao, H.S 1957. History of our knowledge of the Indian fauna through the
ages. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc. 54:251-280.

Rookmaaker, L.C. 1982. The former distribution of the Indian Rhinoceros

(Rhinoceros unicornis) in India and Pakistan. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist.
Soc. 308-309.

Sinha, S.P. and Sawarkar, V.B. 1991. Management of the reintroduced

Great one- homed rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) in Dudhwa
National Park, UP, India. International Rhino Conference, Rhinoceros
Biology and Conservation, San Diego, California, USA: 9-11 May
1991.

Sinha, S.P. and Sawarkar, V. B. 1992. Management of the reintroduced

Indian Great one- homed rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) in
Dudhwa National Park. IV World Congress of National Parks and
protected areas, Caracas, Venezuela. 10-21, February, 1992.

Sinha, S.P., Sawarkar, V.B and Tiwari, A. 2001. Management of Re­

introduced Greater one-horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis)
in Dudhwa National Park & Tiger Reserve, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Proceedings of the International elephant and rhino research
symposium, Vienna, June 7-11, 2001. 222- 230.

Zuener, F.E. 1952. The micro industry of Langhnaj, Gujarat. Man 52:
129-131.

202 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Wild pig

WILD PIG
(Sus scrota Linnaeus, 1758)
N.P.S. Chauhan

Order : Artiodactyla
Family : Suidae
Sub-Family : Suinae
Genus : Sus
Species : S. scrota
Common name : Wild pig

Conservation Status
WPA (1972) : Schedule Ill
IUCN RED DATA BOOK : Lower risk
Citis : Not listed

INTRODUCTION

The wild pig, Sus scrota Linnaeus, belongs to the Order Artiodactyla,
Family: Suidae, Sub family: Suinae and Sub order: Suiformes. The wid
pigs are ungulates native to Eurasia. The race found in India is Sus scrota
cristatus. The wild pig is Schedule Ill species of Wildlife Protection Act,
1972.

Several different words in English identify different types of pigs eg. Boar
- an adult male pig, Sow- an adult female pig, Piglet/farrow- a juvenile
pig, Shoat- a young pig between 100 to 180 lb (50 to 90 kg), Gilt- an
immature female pig, Barrow- a castrated male pig, Hog- synonym for
wild pig in the United States; in its original sense it means a castrated
boar and Swine - synonym for pigs (plural).
DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERS

The wild pig has distinct sparser coat and fuller crest or mane of black
bristles reaching from the nape down the back. The colour of the animal
is black mixed with grey, rusty brown and white hairs. The young are
brownish and grown up pigs are grayish in colour. New born wild pigs

are brown with light or black stripes on its back. An elongated head with
an abruptly truncated mobile snout ending in a flat disc having the nostrils
is distinct in pigs. A well-grown male stands 90 em. high at the shoulder
and its weight may well exceed 230 kg. The wild pigs have incisor teeth
in the upper jaws. Their molar teeth when unworn are capped with small
hillock-like columns. The tushes (canines) are well developed in the

males. The lower tusks grow as long as 32 em. on the outside curve.
Both the upper and lower tushes curve outwards and project from the
mouth. As they are not ruminants, their stomach is much less complexed

and consists of a single chamber. Their feet are narrow and have the
bones of the four toes complete. The petty toes are completely developed

but do not touch the ground while walking. The cannon bones are not
developed in the feet.

DISTRIBUTION

The wild pig is one of the most widely distributed terrestrial mammals,
and has by far the largest range of all Suiformes. This range has been
greatly expanded by humans. The species now occurs in pure wild or
barely modified feral form on all continents except Antarctica, and on
many oceanic islands. It is found throughout the steppe and broad-leaved
forest regions of the Palaearctic, from Western Europe to the Erstwhile
Soviet Far east, extending southwards as f a r North Africa, the
Mediterranean basin and the Middle east, through India, Indo-China,
Japan, Taiwan and the Greater Sunda Islands of South-east Asia. It is
common in the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir, upper
Himalayas and desert, Sri Lanka, Burma and Tenasserim, Syria and part
of the Malay Peninsula.

HABITAT

The wild pigs occupy a wide variety of habitats, from semi-desert to

tropical rain forests, temperate woodlands, grasslands and reed jungles,
and often venturing into agricultural land to forage. After rainy season,
they are commonly seen in crop fields. They have always been associated
 Wild pig

itself with man, and successfully utilises the human altered landscape
(Fadeev 1981 and Erkinaro et at. 1982). Being a resilient and fast
breeding animal, it is �apable of expanding and establishing its population
in new areas (Erkinaro et a/. 1982 and Ahmed 1991). The species is
also known for its biological and ecological adaptability (Tisdell 1982 and
Ramdas 1987).

GROUP SIZE AND ACTIVITY PATTERN

Wild pigs are gregarious, forming herds or 'sounders' of varying size

depending on locality and season, but usually of between 6 and 20
individuals, though aggregations of over 100 individuals have been
reported (Prater 1980, Lekagul and McNeely 1977, Briedermann 1990).
The basic social unit is a nucleus of one or more females and their last
litters. Wild pigs display great intelligence. The sense of smell is acute,
and the eyesight and hearing is moderate. They are normally most active
in the early morning and late in the evening, though they become
nocturnal in disturbed areas, where activity usually commences shortly
before sunset and continues throughout the night. They spend 4-8 hours
for foraging or travelling to feeding areas.

FOOD HABITS

They are omnivorous, living on crops, roots, tubers, fruits and carrion.
The stomach and fecal matter analysis indicated that vegetable matter,
fruits, seeds, roots and tubers, constituted about 90% of the diet (Spitz
1986). No animal is more destructive to crops than pigs.

Whereas a study on the Indonesian wild pig, Sus scrota vittatus in the
Ujung Kulon National Park indicated that these animals were
predominately frugivorous, feeding on about 50 species of fruits,
especially Ficus species. and that they were important seed dispersal
agents (Pauwels 1980). An analysis. of the stomach contents of wild pigs
in West Malaysia revealed that sugarcane, tapioca and rice were the
commonest food items, but usually more than one type of food had been
eaten, even where a single cultivated crop was abundant (Diong 1973).
Other items commonly consumed by these pigs included soil,
earthworms, roots and other vegetable matter and in mangrove areas,
molluscs, crabs and other arthropods and even fishes.

tnvis.�ullflin: WtLOUFE AND PROTECTED AReAs (2004) 205

Wild pigs have also occasionally been reported to predate larger
vertebrates, such as deer fawns and tethered goats (Hoogerwerf 1970).
A large boar in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal was seen to scare
away a leopard from its kill, a domestic buffalo calf, and then it partly
consumed the prey (William Oliver pers. obs.). Feeding is generally a
social activity; even solitary males may join fee din g groups, which
also provides an opportunity for display and other agonistic behaviors
(Beuerle 1975).

REPRODUCTION

Wild pigs are prolific breeders and apparently breed throughout the year.
The reproductive activity in pigs tends to be seasonal and positively
correlated with the relative availability of food or climatic factors. In central
India, the majority of young ones are born in two periods, shortly before
and shortly after the rains. In tropical countries, such as Sri Lanka, peak
estrous activity has been recorded during the wettest months i.e.
November and December (Santiapillai and Chambers 1980). However,
social organization may also play a role in modulating the timing of
reproductive events, since furrowing is often synchronized amongst
females in the same social groups, which suggests a mechanism for
synchronizing the onset of estrous (Spitz 1986). Boars and sows are
known to collect in large assemblies when pairing. They congregate in a
circle, the master boars remain in the centre.

Annual recruitment in to the total population depends on reproductive

rate i.e. the number and prolificacy of females, and juvenile mortality;
both of these factors may be influenced by the availability of food and
other external factors (Spitz 1986). The period of gestation is four months
and four to six young ones are born at a time. In Western Europe, litter
size is usually between 4 and 7 piglets (Briedermann 1990). Harrison
and Bates (1991) reported occurrence of 5 and 7-10 piglets per litter as
being usual in Iraq and Armenia respectively. The mother shelters them
in a heap of grasses or branches which she builds before uttering. After
breeding, the big boars live alone or in company of another of equal size
or with one or two sows.

CAPTIVE BREEDING

Among all 10 wild pigs species with exception of Sus domesticus, the
Sus scrota is by far the most widely maintained and bred in captivity,

206 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Wild pig

though general perceptions about the relative abundance of this species

has resulted in diminished interest. in its propagation. Many zoos,
particularly in Western Europe, have therefore disposed of their stocks
of these animals, mostly to 'wild boar breeding farms', which have
escalated in number to meet growing demands in the gourmet meat
markets and for commercial diversificati_on. In addition, increasingly
restrictive quarantine and other veterinary regulations pertaining to the
international movements of all live suids, have made it extremely difficult
to establish new breeding programs.

HUMAN-WILD PIG CONFLICT

Wild pigs invade human habitation, agricultural and horticultural farms

and feed on different crops. Occasionally wild pigs attack on people and
cause injury due to mere confrontation. Human casualties by wild pigs
are widespread in different parts of the country. A survey conducted in
the state of Madhya Pradesh showed 58 human casualties due to wild
pigs in and around 12 protected areas and forest divisions during 1989
to 2000 (Chauhan and Rajpurohit 1996, 1998). Most of these cases
occurred inside forests and resulted in to severe injury. In Noradehi
wildlife sanctuary and Chindwara West forest division, seven and five
human casualties bY pigs respectively were recorded. During 1991-1992,
.
two cases of human casualty by wild pigs were recorded in AI mora forest
division, Uttaranchal state. Few sporadic cases of wild pig attacks were
reported from different sates.

Wild pigs notoriety as a crop pest is univers-al (Tisdell1982). They cause

extensive damage to agricultural crops and utilise the agro-ecosystem
for food resource and shelter. Presently the wild pig populations are
fragmented and relatively isolated all over. Some of these isolated
populations became locally overabundant and depend upon agricultural
crops especially in and around protected areas or managed forests for a
major part of their food requirement. Besides agricultural crops, they
cause damage to ground vegetation, orchards, forest plantations and
possibly act as carrier of some infectious diseases.

Wild pigs raid crop fields in groups, and feed on variety of crops.
Damage to Triticum aestivum, Oryza sativa, Zea mays, Saccharum
officinarum, Arachis hypogea, Cicer arietinum, Brassica compestris and
Sorghum vulgare varied from 5-30% across the country. Eleusine
coracona, Phaseolus radiatus, Glycine max, Sesamum indicum, Lens

C:ovitJSullttio: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTEDAAEAS (2004) 20 7

escu/enta and Ipomoea batatas showed insignificant damage i.e. only
5-8 %. Damage was very high in crop fields close to forest areas
(Chauhan and Rajpurohit 1996, 1998). Crop raiding was observed
generally during night. Almost all phenological stages were fed upon
by wild pigs, but the early tender stage and crop maturation stage when
grain panicles were formed were highly preferred. As a result, there
has been increasing trend in the human-wild pig conflict in and around
protected areas, managed forests and human settlements throughout
the country. Despite of this fact, management of this species hitherto
has not been attempted in India because the information available on
ecology and behaviour is inadequate for management of this species.
This task has become even more difficult and challenging in situations
where people's interests come in way of wildlife needs. Consequently,
the conservation efforts for the endangered species are adversely
affected every where.

The environment, socio-cultural and agricultural practices in Europe,

Australia and America are different, and thus the conflict mitigation
strategies developed elsewhere have limited scope of use in our
situations. Construction of rubble or stone wall or digging of trenches for
wild pigs is expensive. Terrain, local development, cropping pattern make
the use of above control measures very difficult. Pig bombs are illegal
and dangerous. Trapping and snanng of pigs for contraception purpose
and using cost-effective barriers for controlling wild pigs have a wide
scope, and seem to have the potential to develop as effective
management tool to control the wild pigs. The success of this operation
can help in reducing the crop depredation and thus mitigating human­
wild pig conflict.

In India, farmers employ different crop protection measures to protect

their crop from wild pigs. Crop damage is generally contained by lighting
fire at some places in crop field, and guarding crop fields sitting on
elevated platforms during nights with light. They manually guard their
farms, use ingenious noise making systems, fire crackers and even guns
to create psychological barrier, to scare away wild pigs from farms
(Ahmed 1991 ). At times pig bombs are also illegally employed to eliminate
wild pigs. The forest department helps in crop protection by deputing
crop watch guards in highly impacted areas and providing torches and
fire crackers to farmers in few places to scare away wild animals. Barbed
wire fence is also used to contain crop damage by wild pigs. Crop
protection trench (CPT) w1th 1 m depth, 1.2 m breadth and 1 m bund

208 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Wild pig

height and rubble wall with 1.5 m height and 1 m breadth are the two
commonly used barriers for crop protection. A six strands electric fence
of about 2 km length was installed around Talla village boundary of
Bandhavgarh National Park to contain crop damage by chital and wild
pigs. Despite local efforts to control wild pigs, it continues to remain a
problematic animal. The propensity of wild pigs to overcome deterrents
is a behavioural adaptatio_n, about which very little is known. Wild pigs

getting used to firework bluff is again a behavioural adaptation acquired

after learning that the noise is not physically harmful. This aspect of
behaviour makes it a difficult animal to manage. There is no empirical
data that could help us understand how wild pigs develop behavioural
adaptation, which enable i t to use agro-ecosystem despite crop
protection measures.

According to Mackin (1970), Andrzejwski and Jezierski (1978) and Genov

(1981), the damage to crops increases when there is less natural food
available in forests and artificial feeding of wild pigs could reduce crop
damage. Hone and Atkison (1983) reported fencing to control feral pig
movement. Poisoning campaign was adopted to eliminate wild pigs in
the sugarcane area of Pakistan (Shafi and Khokhar 1986). Reduction in
feral pig density by snaring has been reported by Anderson and Stone
{1993) and Choquenot eta/. (1993). Development of trapping technique
to manage wild pigs has the potential to develop an effective applicable
management tool.

To mitigate the problem cost-effectively in specific situations, it is

necessary to have information on the ecology and behaviour of wild pigs
within protected areas and outside village interface man-altered
fragmented areas, and nature and extent of crop damage problem and
socio-economic aspects of crop losses. This will allow determination of
locations of maximum and minimum disturbance, and possible sites for
pig damage control. Considering wild pig habits and widespread nature
of the problem, it is imperative to have an effective wild pig control
programme. The ecological and management considerations will provide
a basis for developing an action plan to mitigate the problem effectively
and on a long-term basis.

RESEARCH ON WILD PIGS

There is no systematic study on the ecology and behaviour of wild pigs

especially with respect to agricultural crop damage and economic losses

tnvitJSullrrio : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTEDAREAs (2004) 209

in man-altered protected areas-village interface situations. The research
conducted in India so far includes only few ecological parameters, and
they are not management oriented. There is paucity of information on
wild pigs from Indian sub-continent; the available information is
fragmentary (Anon 1890, Mason 1893, Brander 1923, Ali 1927, Morris
1929, Rao 1957, Schaller 1967, Santiapillai and Chambers 1980, Prater
1980, Tiwari 1985, Shafi and Khokhar 1986, Ramachandran eta/. 1986,
Ramdas 1987, Ahmed 1989, 1991 ) . Aspects of man and wild pigs
interaction on the western ghats of south Maharashtra has been briefly

studied by Ahmad (1991). The bulk of classical and applied scientific

investigations on the wild pigs are by and large confined to Europe, North
America, New Zealand and Australia. The research findings have little
or no application in India due to different environmental, socio-cultural
and agricultural practices.

American literature on feral pigs, Sus scrota, mostly deals with

distribution, morphology, ecology, habitat, feeding and foraging impact
on native flora and management aspects (Matschke 1967, Barret 1970,
1978, Pine and Gerdes 1973, Bratton 1975, Wood and Roark 1980,
Baber and Coblentz 1986, 1987, Anderson a n d S t o n e 1 9 9 3 ) .
Occurrence, migration, ranging pattern, habitat, feeding, mortality,
reproduction, hunting and management have been studied by many
European authors (Fedyushin 1964, Miroslov 1965, Rakov 1970, Makin
1970, Fadeev 1973, 1975, 1981, Jezierski 1977, Andrejewski and
Jezierski 1978, Genov 1981, Erkinaro eta/. 1982, Kratochoil eta/. 1986,
Dardaillon 1986, 1988, Gerard eta/. 1991 ). Australian literature pertains
to the impact of feral hogs on the native flora, agriculture, animal
husbandry and management (Giles 1978, Griggs 1981, Pavlov et a/.
1981, Pavlov and Hone 1982, Tisdell 1982, Woodall 1983, Mcilory 1983).

MAJOR THREATS

Habitat destruction and hunting pressure, either for food, sport or in

reprisal for crop damage, are the major threats to this species, particularly
in areas near human habitation. Illegal hunting of wild pigs is reported
from in and around protected areas and managed forests in the Indian
subcontinent. Wild pig has been one of the most important target species
for recreational hunting. Over-hunting and changes in the landuse pattern
have resulted in the fragmentation of its range and its extermination
throughout the British Isles, Scandinavia, parts of North Africa, and many
parts of its range in the Russia and northern Japan. Nevertheless. the

21 Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Wild pig

species remains widely distributed and is often locally abundant. As a

result of its depredations on agricultural crops, it is regarded as a pest in
many countries and remains unprotected outside wildlife reserves or is
managed as a game animal.

In India, no animal is more destructive to agricultural crops than wild

pigs and it is impossible to make a plea for its protection (Prater 1980).
In the Pul-i-Khumri district of Afghanistan, decrease in the numbers of
wild pigs was due to the draining of marshlands for agricultural purposes
and hunting by Europeans in the 1950's (Hassinger 1970). But they
were still numerous in other adjoining districts where they increasingly
raided crop fields and caused serious damage during the crop
harvesting time. In many parts of Perak and Johore in West Malaysia,
wild pigs (Sus scrota vittatus) populations declined drastically as a
result of increased hunting pressure, particularly for commercial
purposes (Diong 1973). Nevertheless on account of extensive damage
caused to a variety of crops, including sugar cane, tapioca, rice and
coconut by wild pigs, they are still included in the Agricultural Pest
Ordinance, 1977 in Malaysia. Lay (1967) also reported the damage to
crops by wild pigs in Iran which brings great wrath upon them from the
local farmers. In Pakistan, the expansion of the sugarcane industry
during 1960-1970 brought about local increase in the numbers of wild
pigs, Sus scrota davidi (Shafi and Khokhar 1985). They cause
considerable damage in the cane fields, which led to more and more
use of poison baits by farmers for killing the pigs.

Wild pigs are also susceptible to a variety of highly contagious diseases

which can decimate their populations. Santiapillai eta/. (1991) referred
to a catastrophic crash in the wild pig population owing to an outbreak of
swine fever during 1989 in Ruhuna National Park, Sri Lanka, but the
population apparently recovered. Many wild pigs are also reported to
have died during an outbreak of disease in the Kanto region on Honshu
Island, Japan during 1877 (Yanagida 1913).

CONSERVATION STRATEGIES

To safeguard wild pig populations, protection and improvement of the

habitat throughout its range of distribution is necessary. The wild pig
populations are well protected within protected areas and managed
forests in India, but the peripheral populations need to be monitored and
protected from illegal hunting practices.

!nvi•.gullrtio: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTEOAAEAS (2004) 21 1

The action plan priorities for this species focus on threats from habitat
loss, over-hunting, hybridization with domestic pigs, and introduced
diseases .• Other priority recommendations include the need for
additional data on the distribution and status of species; the resolution
of questions relating to the genetic distinctness and range limitations
of some of the continental races; and the ecological and genetic
relationships between this and other species of Sus in those areas where
sympatry occurs.

Some practical measures have been taken for the specific purpose of
conserving wild pig populations, except maintaining stock levels for
sport hunting. Genov eta/. (1991) reported a gradual increase of the
wild pig population in Bulgaria during 1950 following legal measures to
regulate hunting, and because of the reintroduction of animals from
breeding farms. There may be some other factors also operating for
recovery of these pig populations. Similar cases of increases in the
local wild pig populations have also been described in Spain, France,
Switzerland, Czechoslovakia and eastern Russia by Saez-Royuela and
Tellerfa (1986).

RESEARCH PRIORITY

1. Information is lacking on the distribution, status and future

management needs of these animals. A study to assess current local
attitudes towards wild pigs, current population trends and extent of
illegal hunting is important.

2. Efforts should also be made to resolve outstanding questions relating

to the genetic distinctness and range limitations of many of the
continental races, which are poorly understood at present.

3. Promote further research on the ecology and physiology of all less·

studied populations, particularly those in extreme habitats, man-altered
situations or in areas of sympatry with other species of Sus.

4. Mitigation of human-wild pig conflict for long-term conservation of the

species.

21 2 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Wild pig

REFERENCES

Ahmed, B.H.M. 1991. Man and wild pigs (Sus cristatus) interaction from
the western ghats of south Maharastra. Ph.D., thesis, Shivaji
University, Kohlapur.

Ahmed, B.H.M. and Samant. 1989. Selection of new habitats by wild boar
(Sus cristatus, Wagner) due to human interaction in the Radhanagari
Wildlife Sanctuary from the Western Ghats. Proc. National
Symposium on Animal Behaviour, Pp. 184-187.

Ali, S. 1927. Moghul Emperors of India as naturalists. J. Bombay Nat.

Hist. Soc., 32(1 ): 42.

Anderson, S. J. and Stone, C.P. 1993. Snaring to control feral pigs (Sus
scrota) in a remote Hawaiian rain forest. Bioi. Conservation, 63: 195-
201.

Andrejewski, R. and Jezierski, W. 1978. Management of wild pigs

population and its effect on commercial land. Acta Theriologica, 23(19):
309-339.

Anonymous. 1890. The preservation of insectivorous birds, birds of

plumage and game in the central province. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.,
4(1 ): 96.

Baber, D.W and Coblentz, B. E. 1986. Density, home range, habitat and
reproduction in feral pigs on Santa Catalina Island, California, U.S.
J. Mammology, 67(3): 512-525.

Baber, D.W and Coblentz, B.E. 1987. Diet, nutrition and conception in
feral pig on Santa Catalina Island. J. Wild/. Manage., 51(2): 306-317.

Barret, R.H. 1970. Management of wild hogs on private lands. Trans.

Calif. Nev. Sec. Wild/. Soc., 17: 71-78.

Barret, R.H. 1978. The feral hog at PyeCreek Ranch California, U.S.
Hilgardia. 46: 283-355.

B e u erle, W. 1975. Frielanduntersuchungen zum kampf-und

sexualverhalten des Europischen wildschweines (Sus scrota L.).
Zeitschrift Tierpsychologie, 39: 211-258.

CnvisJSullflin: WiLDliFE AND PROTECTEDAAEAS (2004) 21 3

Brander, D.A.A. 1923. Wild Animals in Centra/India. Natraj Publication,
Dehradun, India.

Bratton, S.P. 1975. The effect of the European wild pigs, Sus scrota on
grey beach forest in the Great Smokey Mountains. Ecology, 56: 1356-
1366.

Briedermann, L. 1990. Schwarzwild. VEB Deutscher Landwirtschafts­

verlag, Berlin. Pp. 540.

Chauhan, N.P.S. and Rajpurohit, K.S. 1996. Survey of animal damage

problem in and around protected areas and managed forests. Phase
I - Madhaya Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa. A report. Wildlife Institute of
India, Dehradun.

Chauhan, N.P.S. and Rajpurohit, K.S. 1996. Survey of animal damage

problem in and around protected areas and managed forests. Phase
II - Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himacha' ·radesh. A report. Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun.

Choquenot, D., Kilgaur, R.J. and Lukins, B.S. 1993. An evaluation of

feral pig trapping. Wildlife Research, 20: 15-22.

Dardaillon, M. 1986. Seasonal variation in habitat selection and spatial

distribution of wild pigs (Sus scrota) in Camargao, South France.
Behav. Process, 13: 251-268.

Dardaillon, M. 1988. Age class influence on feeding choice of free ranging

wild pigs (Sus scrota). Canad. J. Zoo/., 67: 2792-2796.

Diong, C. H. 1973. Studies of the Malayan wild pig in Parak and Johore.
Malay. Nat. J., 26: 120-151.

Erkinaro, E., Kalevi, H., Lindgren, E., and Sulkava, S. 1982. Occurrence
and spread of wild pigs (Sus scrota) in the eastern Fin no Scandia.
Memoranda, 58: 39-47.

Fadeev, E.V. 1973. Population dynamics of Sus scrota in the European

part of Russian SPSR. Zoo/. Zn., 52(8): 1214-1219.

Fadeev, E.V. 1975. The ecology of the wild pigs in the central Russian
SPSR. Bioi. Poelroned, 28(5): 20-28.

21 4 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Wild pig

Fadeev, E.V. 1981. Dynamics of the northern limits of the area of

distribution of the wildboar, Sus scrota in Eastern Europe. Bioi. Nauk.
(Mosc.), 0(9): 56-64.

Fedyushin, A.V. 1964. New data on the settlement of the wild pigs Sus
scrota in western Siberia. lzv. Omskogo QTD Geogr Obshch SSSR,
5(12): 127-129.

Genov, P. 1981. Significance of natural biocenoses and agrocenoses as

the source of food for wild pigs (Sus scrota). Ekol. Pol., 29: 117-186.

Genov, P . , Nikolov, H., Massei, G. and Gerasimov, S. 1991.

Craniometrical analysis of Bulgarian wild boar (Sus scrota)
populations. J. Zoo/. Soc. Land., 225: 309- 325.

Gerard, J.F., Teillaud, P., Spitz, F., Mauget, A. and Campan, A. 1991.
Le Sanglier. Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie), suppl., 6:11-65.

Giles, J.R. 1978. Feral pigs in New South Wales. Final Report. Aust.
Mant. Res. Con. Rev., 35: 1-11.

Griggs, P.O. 1981. Feral pigs in Australia and a case study of distribution
of the disturbances in Girrawean National Park, South East
Queensland. Queensland Geog. J., 6: 37-48.

Harrison, D. L. and Bates, P. J. J. 1991. The Mammals of Arabia (2nd Ed.).

Harrison Zoological Museum, Sevenoaks, United Kingdom, xvi 354 Pp.

Hassinger, J. D. 1970. A survey of the mammals of Afganistan. Fieldiana

Zool., 60: p. 163.

Hone, J. and Atkison, B. 1983. Evaluation of fencing to control feral pig

movement. Australian Wildlife Research, 1 0(3): 499-506.

Hoogerwerf, A. 1970. Udjong Kulon. The Land of the Last Javan

Rhinoceros. E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands.

Hufnagl, E. 1972 : Libyan Mammals. Orleander Press, Pp. 48.

Jezierski, W. 1977. Longevity and mortality rate in a population of wild

pigs. Acta. Theriologica, 22(24): 337-348.

£nvis-�ullerin : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 215

Kratochoil, Z., Zdenek, K. and Jin, P. 1986. Age structure and reproduction
of population of Sus scrota in Chechoslovakia. Folia. Zoo/., 35(4):
311-324.

Lay, D. M. 1967. A study of the mammals of Iran. Fie/diana Zoo!., 54: 1-

282. Pp. 223.

Lekagul, B. and McNeely, J. A. 1977. Mammals of Thailand. Kurusapha

Ladprao Press. Bangkok, Pp. 661-664.

Mackin, R. 1970. Dynamics of damage caused by wild pigs to different

agricultural crops. Acta Theriologica, 15(27): 447-458.

Mason, J.M. 1893. Food of wild boar. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 8 (3):
447.

Matschke, G.H. 1967. Ageing European wild hogs by dentition. J. Wild/.

Mgmt., 31(1): 109-113.

Mcilory, J.C. 1983. The sensitivity of Australian animals to 1080 poison

vs the sensitivity of feral pigs Sus scrota to 1080 and its implications
for poisoning campaigns. Australian Wildlife Research, 1 09(1 ): 139-
148.

Miroslov, J. 1965. The cause of migration of Sus scrota. Ziva, 13(5):

189-191.

Morris, R.C. 1929. Partial disappearance of wild boar Sus cristatus. J.

Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 34 (1): 245.

Pauwels, W. 1980. Study of Sus scrota vittatus, its ecology and behaviour
in Ujung Kulon Nature Reserve, Java, Indonesia. (Unpubl.) Ph.D.,
thesis, University of Basel, Switzerland.

Pavlov, P.M. and Hone, J. 1982. The behavour of feral pigs, Sus scrota in
flocks of lambing ewes. Australian Wildlife Research, 9(1): 101-110.

Pavlov, P.M., Creme, F.H.J., Kilgour, R.J. and Pedersen, H. 1981.

Predation by feral pigs on Merino lambs at Nyngan, New South
Wales, Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb., 21(113): 570-
574.

21 6 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Wild pig

Pine, D.S. and Gerdes, G.L. 1973. Wild pigs in Monterey County,
California. California Fish and Game, 59: 126-137.

Prater, S.H. 1980. The book of Indian animals. 3rd ed., Bombay Natural
History Society, Bombay, India.

Rakov, N.V. 1970. Cause of mortality of wildboar and its interrelation

with predators in the Amus territory, Zoo/. ZH., 49(8): 1220-1228.

Ramachandran, K.K., Nair, P.V.K. and Esa, P.S. 1986. Ecology of larger
mammals of Periyar Wildlife Sanctuary. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.,
83(3): 505-524.

Ramdas, K. 1987. Some other mammals in Indian wildlife (Eds.).

H. Hoefer; S. Israel; T. Sindais and B. Grewal, Pp. 115-131.

Rao, H.S. 1957. History of our knowledge of the Indian fauna through
the ages. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 54: 251-280.

Saez-Royuela, C. and Tellerfa, J. L. 1986. The increased population of

wild boar (Sus scrotaL.) in Europe. Mammal Rev., 16 (2): 97-101.

Santiapillai, C. and Chambers, M. A. 1980. Aspects of the population

_ dynamics of the wild pig (Sus scrota, Linnaeus 1758) in the Ruhana
National Park, Sri Lanka. Spixiana (Muenchn), 3 (3): 239-250.

Santiapillai, C., Dissanayake, S., Sumanasena, A. H., Padmasiri, U.

Wijesinghe, G., Jaymane, H. P. and Badaranaike, C. 1991. Population
structure, activity and density of the wild pig (Sus scrota) in the Ruhuna
National Park, Sri Lanka. W.W.F., 3988 Project Report Asia:
conservation of large mammals, August 1991 (unpubl.): 9 Pp.

Schaller, G.B. 1967. The Deer and the Tiger. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.

Shafi, M.M. and Khokhar, A.A. 1986. Some observations on wild pigs
(Sus cristatus) and its control in sugarcane areas of Punjab, Pakistan.
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 3 (1): 63-67.

Sp· 'f. 1986. Current state of knowledge of wild boar biology. Pig News
and Information, 7 (2):171-175.

!nvis .�ullflin: WiLDliFE AND PROTECTED f<AEAS (2004) 2l 7

Tisdell, C.A. 1982. Wild pigs: Environmental Pest or Economic Resource,
Pergamon Press, Sydney.

Tiwari, S.K. 1985. Zoo Geography of India and South-east Asia. CBS
Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, India.

Wood, G.W. and Roark, N.D. 1980. Food habits of feral hogs in coastal
South Carolina. J. Wild/. Mgmt., 44(2): 506-511.

Woodall, P.F. 1983. Distribution and population dynamics of dingoes

(Canis famaliaris) and feral pigs (Sus scrota) in Queensland. J.
Applied Ecology, 20(1 ) : 85-95.

Yanagida, K. 1913. Changes in distribution of wild animals (in Japanese ) .

The Collected Writings of Yanagida Kunio, 24: Pp. 416.

21 8 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Ungulates of West Bengal and its adjoining areas

UNGULATES OF WEST BENGAL AND

ITS ADJOINING AREAS INCLUDING
SIKKIM, BHUTAN AND BANGLADESH
N.C. Bahuguna and J. K. Mallick

INTRODUCTION

The Himalayas separates Palaearctic region from the Oriental region.

The Oriental region is further divided into three sub-regions: Indian
Peninsular, Malayan and Himalayan Montane sub-region. Thus the fauna
and flora of the West Bengal is the representatives of all these regions.
Although small, the state of West Bengal can be classified in to four
zoogeographic regions, which resemble more outside the state. The
fauna and flora of Darjeeling hills resemble more to the fauna and flora
of Sikkim and Bhutan than the other fauna of the State. Similarly, there
is resemblance between north Bengal and Assam, south west Bengal,
Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa, and Sundarbans of India and Bangladesh.
Past records show that a variety of animals representing vast tracts of
all these Zoogeographic regions were found in this State. In course of
time, the rich flora and fauna gave way to increasing human pressure.
The status (past and present), distribution and population of all ungulate
species in West Bengal are discussed.

THE GREAT INDIAN ONE-HORNED RHINOCEROS

(Rhinoceros unicornis Linnaeus, 1758)

Distribution : Past and Present

Jalpaiguri (Gruning 1911, Hunter ,1876). Past distribution within state

is in Darjeeling (Hunter 1876), Gooch Behar (Campbell 1907, Bhaduri
1966, Hunter 1876), Maida (Sengupta 1969, Hunter 1876), Murshidabad
(Agrawal eta/. 1992) and also Sundarbans. Sengupta (1969) mentions
presence in Maida although very rare. Bhutan {Bhutan govt. records).

Presently species is distributed in JWLS, GNP and CWLS (Agrawal et

a/. 1992). CWLS, JWLS and GNP (Respective Management Plans).

£nvi5 �ulletin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 21 9

Status

Endangered in the State (Agrawal et a!. 1992). In the past, species

was covered under a special Act - The Bengal Rhinoceros Preservation
Act of 1932. Population greatly decreased due to hunting. Maharaja of
Gooch Behar (1908) killed more than 207 rhinos between 1871 and
1907 in forests of Gooch Behar and Buxa. According to Hunter(1876)
big games in Maida district included rhinos were very rare due to
deforestation (Banerjee 1966). There were about 200 rhinos in Torsa
region and a dozen or so in other pockets in North Bengal in 1920
(Fawcus Committee Report). In later part of nineteenth century, a
sportsman in Bengal Doors (a Planter) fired about 100 shots at rhino in
one day killing five and wounding more than 25 (Dey 1987). Shebbeare
and Roy (1948) report of about eighty rhinoceroses prior to 1930, but
poachers killed about 50 rhinoceroses. Avari (1957) reports decrease
in population reducing to less than a dozen due to poaching in thirties.
In 1933, T.V. Dent collected about 50 skulls. Roy was made Honorary
Game Warden of Jaldapara and scarcely ever saw a rhinoceros until
1936. There were about 25 rhinos in Hasimara (JWLS) in 1942 (Ahmad
1981). Annual report of 1936-37 mentions, although common in
Jalpaiguri, the species showed tendency to extinction up to 1932 due
to heavy poaching and since 1933 population began to increase in Buxa.
Population had swelled to about 60 by the en.d of forties. Ahmad (1941)
reports of about 60 to 70 rhinos in the State. Anon (1954) mentions of
some rhinos in Sankosh region of Jalpaiguri and a few scattered in
Gooch Behar forests. The population increased up to 76 in 1966-67.

Pollock found the animal extremely plentiful and shot 44 in seven years
(Stracey 1951). Gee (1952) mentions presence of 25 rhinos in Gooch
Behar. Rao, in his inspection report, mentions rhino in Bhutri and Khairbari
in 1954. Annual report of 1953-54 mentions 56 or more rhinos in Jaldapara.
Report of 1954-55 shows presence in Barobisha and Balapara areas along
Gholani River and probably only 3 (a male, a female and a calf) in
Gorumara. But population was 5 as per the Report of 1955-56 and 4 as
per the Report of 1956-57. Bist (1997) reports presence of rhinos in Buxa
(Panbari and South Bholka blocks) before 1968. Annual Report of Wildlife
Preservation in West Bengal for 1967-68 shows this species in Buxa
Division. The Report mentions increase in Patlakhawa population.
Presence in Nathua forests reported 1981. Last rhino in Patlakhawa (Gooch
Behar) killed in 1985. In 1986, the population in Jaldapara again reduced
to just 14. Considered an extinct species in Sundarbans (Ghosh, 1997).

22Q UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Ungulates of West Bengal and its adjoining areas

Blyth (1862) mentions it quite common in eastern Sundarbans and also in

'
Rajmahal hills of Bengal (now in Bangladesh). ln'1984, a large bone of a
rhino collected at Bakkhali area of Sundarbans; doubted by ZSI to be the
remains of R. unicornis. Common in Bangladesh Sundarbans till 1908 (Khan
1982). Presence of rhinoceros throughout north India reported up to 161h
century (Rookmaaker 2002a). For genetic improvement, two rhinos
procured from Guwahati Zoo and released one each in Gorumara and
Jaldapara in fenced area.

Population

Census figures 1964- 72, 1975- 23, 1978- 19, 1980- 32,1985- 22, 1989-
39, 1992- 44, 1996- 57, 1998-75 (JWLS=56, GNP=19) and 2002 -84
in JWLS (27 male, 11 female, 2 unknown sex, 6 subadult male, 2
subadult female, 2 subadult unknown sex, 16 female with male calf, 4
female with female calf and 14 female with sex unknown calf) and 22 in
GNP (6 male, 11 female and 5 calves).

THE WILD PIG

(Sus scrota cristatus Wagner, 1939)

Distribution : Past and Present

Wild pigs are distributed in Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri, Gooch Behar, Maida,

Birbhum, Murshidabad, Nadia, Bardwan, Bankura, Purulia and N & S
24-Parganas (Agrawal eta/. 1992). Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri (Hunter
1876). 24- Parganas (De 1994). Dinajpur and Maida (Allen eta/. 1993).
In past, recorded from Maida, Murshidabad, Nadia and Midnapore also
(Baker 1886). Bangladesh (Agrawal eta/. 1992). Widely distributed in
forests excepting very high mountains. O'Malley (1907) mentions
occurence up to 8000 ft. Sikkim (Avasthe and Jha 1999). Bhutan
(Bahuguna pers. com.).

Wild pig has been reported from the areas of MWLS, GNP, JWLS,
NVNP, SWLS, LWLS, HWLS, STR, BTR and CWLS (Respective
Management Plans).

Status

Very common in state and has relatively high abundance in Darjeeling

o!:nvis _gullffin : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 22 1

and Jalpaiguri. Causes extensive damage to crop in Darjeeling.
O'Malley (1911) reports abundance in Midnapore. Bhattacharya eta/.

(1985) mention common in Purulia. Recorded from all districts but now
restricted to Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri, Purulia, West Dinajpur and N. and
S. 24- Prg. Common in hills and Sundarbans of Bangladesh (Khan
1982).

Population

1989-2305; BTR in 1995-2600 and STR- 12000 (De, 1990). There are
200 to 225 in Wildlife Division-!, 250 to 280 in Wildlife Division-11 (in
GNP), 180 to 200 in Kurseong Division, 300 to 350 in Jalpaiguri Division
and 15 to 20 wild boars in Baikunthpur Division according to Census
figure of 2002. Report for 2001 of Department of Forest, Bangladesh
mentions Sunderban population ranging from 20,000 to 25,000.

THE CHITAL OR SPOTTED DEER

(Axis axis axis Erxleben, 1777)

Distribution

Widely distributed in Bengal especially in Pu-rulia, Birbhum and Nadia,

N. & S 24- Parganas (Agrawal et at. 1992). 24- Parganas (De 1994).
Maida (Sengupta 1969, Allen eta/. 1993). Jalpaiguri (Gruning 1911).
Bankura (O'Malley 1908). Midnapore (O'Malley 1911 ) . Maida,
Midnapore and Sundarbans, river Brahmaputra and Meghna forming
eastern limit of range (Baker 1886). Occurrence of species has been
recorded from Darjeeling (part) and Jalpaiguri districts and also
Sundarbans. Sikkim and Bangladesh (Agrawal et at. 1992) and Bhutan
(Avasthe and Jha 1999).

Species has been reported from most of the PAs excepting those in
the higher altitude.

Status

O'Malley (1911) mentions large herds of cheetal existed 30 years ago

and then became extinct in Midnapore. It was also found in Tura, Jhari,
Talgheri and Dubrajpur under Raipur Police Station of Bankura district
(O'Malley 1908, Mitra 1957). Annual Report of 1936-37 mentions the

222 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Ungulates of West Bengal and its adjoining areas

number of stags decreasing and that of doe increasing probably on

account of shooting being restricted to grown up stags only. Presence
of species also mentioned in Kalimpong Division (91h Working Plan,
1997-98 to 2017-18); now extinct there. Considered extinct in Purulia
but reported by Sahoo (1991). Records of 1895, show it in Bholka and
Alipurduar tehsils of Buxa forests only (Mitra 1951) In the beginning of
.

twentieth century, restricted to west of Balasan River but a stray one

has been known to cross to east (O'Malley 1907). Baker (1886) mentions
presence in Sundarbans in abundance.

VII Working Plan of Jalpaiguri Division mentions Gorumara too thick

for cheetal. Local people, in vicinity of Apalchand range of Baikunthpur
Division, report about the presence of cheetal before seventies.
Shooting of animal was banned in Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling districts
(Anon 1954). In STR, large numbers of cheetal found in Chulkati,
Mechua, Bagmara, and Narayantala areas (Chaudhuri and Chakraborty
1989). Naskar and Guha Bakshi (1987) estimated cheetal population
of 1300 only in tribal shikaries in Sunderbans reported to throw foliage
from trees to attract and hunt deer (Paul 1984). Khan (1982) mentions
common in Sundarbans and extinct in other areas of Bangladesh.
Population in Bangladesh Sunderbans (East, South and West
Sanctuary) recorded 1,00,000-1,50,000 (Anon 2001).

Became extinct in North Bengal forests and reappeared again as a result

of reintroduction. Das (1966) shows 11 cheetal in Jaldapara in May
1964.

Reintroduced in regenerated forests of Bankura district with the active

support of the local FPCs at Sutan, Joypur etc. and released in PAs of
North Bengal from time to time. Now again seen in various sanctuaries
of Jalpaiguri district. Species has been introduced/reintroduced in
various PAs, Deer Parks, etc., exceeding 500 in number so far (Mallick
pers. com.). Up to 2001-2002, about 100 more deer have been
introduced. First introduction was undertaken after independence in
1954 in Mahatpur plantations of Nadia district. During flash floods in
Bibhutibhusan WLS in N. 24- Parganas, more than hundred marooned
deer could be rescued with the help of villagers.

Population

Assessment in STR-30,000 (De 1990); BTR in 1995-480. Other PAs,

£nvi1 �ulletin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 223

Deer parks, etc.- c.2000 (Mallick pers. com.). 450 to 500 in Wildlife
Division-I, 30 to 35 in Wildlife Division-II (in GNP), 8 to 10 in Baikunthpur
Division, 350 to 400 in Jalpaiguri Division and 114 to 190 spotted deers
in Cooch Behar Division according to Census figure of 2002.

THE HOG DEER OR PARA

(Axis porcinus porcinus Zimmermann, 1777)

Distribution

Terai/Duars forests, particularly along big rivers. Jalpaiguri (Gruning 1911,

Hunter 1876). Cooch Behar (Bhaduri 1966). Maida and Dinajpur (Baker
1886). Maida (Sengupta 1969, Lambourn 1918). 24- Parganas (De 1994).
Sunderban forests (Calcutta Review, 1858 as per De, 1990}. Bhutan
(Shrestha 1997) are margin areas inhabited by the species. PAs reported
to have species are BTR, MWLS, JWLS, GNP and CWLS (Agrawal eta/.
1992). CWLS, GNP, JWLS and BTR (Respective Management Plans).

Status

Not common. Though population is not common but has shown general
increase in trend one years, Barel in past records, Baker (1886)
mentions so much abundance in Maida and Dinajpur that a shikari
bagged a hundred in three days with two guns. O'Malley (1907) mentions
formerly plentiful in Terai, but then became almost exterminated, partly
owing to extension of cultivation in Terai and partly in consequence of
prevalence of netting, in which old and young, buck and doe killed
indiscriminately. Common till the beginning of twentieth century (Mitra
1951). Calcutta Review in 1858 recorded abundance of species in more
open parts of Sunderban forests (De 1990). De also corroborates
occurrence near human habitations in 24- Parganas. Possibly extinct
species has been considered in Ban gladesh (Khan 1982). Seidensticker
and Hai (1983) believe that they are extinct in Bangladesh (Biswas
and Mathur 2000).

Population

1989-1459. In 1995 at BTR-11 0; 70 to 80 in Wildlife Division-I, 35 to 40

in Wildlife Division-11 (in GNP); 2000 to 2500 in Cooch Behar Division
according to Census figure of 2002.

224 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Ungulates of West Bengal and its adjoining areas

THE SAMBAR
( Cervus unicolor niger Blainville, 1816)

Distribution

O'Malley (1907) mentions presence in Darjeeling hills up to 3000 ft.

altitude. Species has also been reported from Darjeeling (Dash 1947,
Hunter 1876) and Jalpaiguri (Gruning 19_11). Bankura (Mitra 1957).
Purulia (Bhattacharya et a/. 1985). Midnapore (O'Malley 1911) and
Bangladesh (Agrawal et at., 1992). Based on current distribution the
species has been reported from MWLS, CWLS, GNP, JWLS, BTR and
NVNP (Respective Management Plans).

Status

The species in the state has been considered as rare (Agrawal eta/.
1992). In Kalimpong Division, species is still seen in Lish, Churanti
and Ramthi blocks of Chel range and from Tista Bridge to Coronation
Bridge of Kalimpong Range (91h Working Plan, 1997-98 to 2017-18).
Annual Report of 1936-37 mentions seeing in abundance in Tista Valley
of Darjeeling district, Jalpaiguri, Buxa and Chittagong forests; Buxa
showed tendency of poplutaion decline till 1932 and thereafter number
started increasing. The species was considered as common till the
beginning of twentieth century (Mit'ra 1951). {1911) mentions
O'Malley
.sambar rare in Midnapore. According to Bhattacharya et a/. (1985),
the species is extinct in Purulia. Maharaja of Gooch Behar (1908) shot
259 sambar between 1871 and 1907. Rest House record of 1952
reveals that Dutta Mazumdar saw 15 hinds and 4 stags of sambar in
Moraghat forest of Jalpaiguri. A.C. Gupta records a lot of poaching
there as per his remarks in 1955 in the register. Hunting banned in
Buxa for 2 years during 1950-52. In 1956 also, such ban imposed for
a period of ten years in Jalpaiguri Division and parts of Gooch Behar
Division (Madarihat Range and Nilpara and Chilapata forests to the
west of Torsa river). Prior to 1970, plentiful numbers (Basbar et a/.
2001 ). Restocking of species was done in Jaldapara in November
1996 by captive population from Manipur Zoo. Sambar was released
in Arabari forests of Midnapore district in 1955 and in Bethuadari from
Deer Park in Nadia district in 1969. Species is uncommon in
Bangladesh (Khan 1982).

envis J3ulltlio : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 225

Population

Present population of the species in the state is as follows. 1989- 533.

In 1995 at BTR- 80; 60 to 70 in Wildlife Division-!, 25 to 30 in Wildlife
Division-11 (in GNP only). and 430 to 450 sambar in Gooch Behar
Division according to Census figure of 2002.

THE BARKING DEER OR MUNT JAC

(Muntiacus muntjak vagina/is Boddaert, 1785)

Distribution

Species has been reported from Darjeeling, Jalp�iguri, Midnapore and

Purulia (Agrawal eta/. 1992). Gooch Behar (Bhaduri 1966). Bankura
(Roy 1987). Midnapore (O'Malley 1911), Purulia (Bhattacharyya etat.
1985). Baker (1886) and Gupta (1966) mention presence of species in
Sundarbans. Sikkim, Bhutan and Bangladesh (Agrawal et a/. 1992).
Sanyal (1892) mentions absence of species from Lower Bengal. Khan

(1982) mentions that the species is found in hills and Sundarbans of

Bangladesh.

Present distribution indicates the presence of species from NVNP,

CWLS, BTR, SWLS, JWLS, GNP, MWLS, R mnWLS and STR
(Respective Management Plans).

Status

Though the species is not common but presently, widely distributed in

the forests of Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling and rarely in Sundarbans
(Halliday and Bulchery Islands). Present at Sundarbans (Mandai and
Nandi 1989) at the fag end of 19th Century but now almost extinct from
this part (Ghosh 1997). Annual Report of 1936-37 mentions common in
Darjeeling district and Buxa forests. In Buxa, showed tendency of
extinction till 1932 and thereafter the number started increasing. Roy

(1987) considers it as elusive species in a few deep wooded forests of

Ajodhya and Bandwan in Purulia, Banspahari in Midnapore and
Ranibandh in Bankura. Hoof marks of species have recently been found
in HWLS (Das and Nandi 1999, De 1990). Species have been seen in
forests of Kalimpong Division from foothill to an altitude of 2340m in
upper hills (9th Working Plan, 1997-98 to 2017-18).

226 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Ungulates of West Bengal and its adjoining areas

First introduced at Mahatpur plantations of Nadia district in 1954, then

at BthWLS in 1969, in RmnWLS in 1978 and lastly at Dow Hill Deer
Park, Kurseong.
Population

1989- 1404; BTR in 1995-920; 200 to 250 in Wildlife Division- I, 55 to 60

in Wildlife Division-11 (in GNP), 170 to 190 in Kurseong Division, 45 to
50 in Jalpaiguri Division and 190 to 210 barking deer in Gooch Behar
Division according to Census figure of 2002.

THE GAUR OR INDIAN BISON

(8os gaurus gaurus H. Smith)

Distribution

Terai Duars (Mitra 1957, Dutt-Mazumdar 1955). Darjeeling (Dash 1947)

and Jalpaiguri (Gruning 1911) . Midnapore (Sanyal 1892, Sterndale
1982). Midnapore and Bankura (Baker 1886). Birbhum (Ghosh et a/.
1992). Bangladesh (Agrawal et a/. 1992). Sikkim (Avasthe and Jha
1999). Bhutan (Anon 2003a).

Status

Annual report of 1936-37 mentions 30-40 in Upper Tondu forests of

Jalpaiguri, 50 in Buxa forests and 100 in Chittagong forests. Schaller
(1998) mentions that about 15 gaurs in Jaldapara and a few stragglers
in Sukna forest (MWLS). As per 91h Working Plan of Kalimpong Division
(1997-98 to 2017-18), found in middle and upper hills forests of
Kalimpong Sub-division, particularly in eastern portion. Three such
herds have been located in Mo, Thosum and Rechila blocks and seen
to climb up to an altitude of 2590 m or more very fast on steep terrains
having even 100% slope Maharaja of Gooch Behar (1908) shot 48

bisons between 1871 and 1907. Its shooting was banned in Jalpaiguri
and Darjeeling districts (Anon 1954).

Now found in Jalpaiguri only. Gaur have been shot even in Midnapore
and Bankura also (Baker 1886). Probably rare in the beginning of the
twentieth century as there was appeal for protecting bison along with
Sumatran and Indian rhino (R.M.G. 1932). A study done in 1981 by
Archaeological Department of University of Delhi from Bahiri, a

c£nvis.gullelin: WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 227

Chalcolithic-cum-lron Age Site in Birbhum district of West Bengal. It
re'vealed presence of Bos gaurus and this strengthens the idea that
Birbhum area had thick forests in those days (Ghosh et a/. 1992).
Sterndale (1982) mentions of suitable gaur habitat near Midnapore.
Extinct in Bangladesh (Khan 1982), Sundarbans (Ghosh 1992, Gupta
1966). Bhutan (Anon 2003a). Bangladesh (Khan 1982).

Population

1997- 1055 plus (JWLS- 225, GNP+CWLS- 315, MWLS- 65, and BTR-
450). There were 15 to 20 in Wildlife Division-!, 350 to 380 in Wildlife
Division-11 (in GNP), 14 to 18 in Kurseong Division, 55 to 60 in Jalpaiguri
Division and 450 to 500 in Gooch Behar Division according to Census
figure of 2002.

Present Habitats (PAs)

NVNP, BTR, MWLS, JWLS, GNP and CWLS (Agrawal et a/. 1992).
MWLS, GNP, JWLS, BTR, NVNP and CWLS (Respective Management
Plans).

ABBREVIATIONS

BbWLS Bibhuti Shushan Wildlife Sanctuary

BlpWLS Ballavpur Wildlife Sanctuary
BthWLS Bethuadahari Wildlife Sanctuary
BTR Buxa Tiger Reserve
CWLS Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary
GNP Gorumara National Park
hrs hours
HWLS Halliday Island Wildlife Sanctuary
JWLS Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary
L.R.P. Lateral Road project (part of highway from Siliguri to
Binnaguri along the foothill)
LWLS Lothian Island Wildlife Sanctuary
MWLS Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary
NVNP Neora Valley National Park
NWLS Narendrapur Wildlife Sanctuary
PNHZP Padmaja Naidu Himalayan Zoological Park, Darjeeling
or Darjeeling Zoo

228 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Ungulates of West Bengal and its adjoining areas

AWLS Raiganj Wildlife Sanctuary

RmnWLS Ramnabagan Wildlife Sanctuary
SjWLS Sajnakhali Wildlife Sanctuary
SLDRC Salt Lake Deer Research Centre
SNP Singalila National Park
SWLS Senchal Wildlife Sanctuary.

REFERENCES

Agrawal, V.C., Das, P.K., Chakraborty, S., Ghose, R.K., Mandai, A.K.,
Chakraborty, T.K., Poddar, A.K., Lal, J.P., Bhattacharya, T.P. and
Ghosh, M.K. 1992. Mammalia. State Fauna Series 3. Fauna of West
Bengal. Part 1. Zoological Survey of India. Calcutta.

Ahmad, Y.S. 1941. A report on the development of the Cooch Behar

State Forests. State Press. Cooch Behar.

Ahmad, Y.S. 1981. With the Wild Animals of Bengal. Dacca.

Alfred, J.R.B., Sinha, N.K. and Chakraborty, S. 2002. Checklist of

Mammals of India. Occasional paper No.199, Records of the
Zoological Survey of India. Kolkata.

Ali, S.M. 1981. Ecological reconnaissance in eastern Himalaya. Tiger

Paper. Vol. VIII. No. 2.

Allen, B.C., Gait, E.A., Allen, C.G.H. and Howard, H.F. 1993. Gazetteer
of Bengal and North East India. Mittal Publications. New Delhi-
110059.

Anonymous (undated). Oecriptive catalogue of the exhibits in the Natural

History Museum, Darjeeling.

Anonymous (various years). Annual progress reports on forest

administration in West Bengal. Forest Directorate, Govt. of W.B.

Anonymous (Various years). Annual reports on wildlife preservation in

West Bengal. Forest Directorate, Govt. of W.B.

C11vis .gullttia : WiLDliFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 229

Anonymous (various years). State reports of West Bengal Forests. PSC
(S), Office of PCCF/W.B. Forest Directorate, Govt. of W.B.

Anonymous. 1924-32. Final Report of the survey and settlement

operation in the District of Murshidabad.

Anonymous. 1928-35. Final report of the survey and settlement

operation in the District of Maida.

Anonymous. 1954. Forestry in West Bengal. Fourth world forestry

congress, Dehra Dun. Govt. of West Bengal. Calcutta.

Anonymous. 1966. Centenary Commemoration Volume. Forest

Directorate, Govt. of W.B. West Bengal Forests. Calcutta.

Anonymous. 1966a. Proceedings of Symposia on Preservation of

Wildlife (in connection with W. B. Forest Centenary, 1964). Forest
Directorate, Govt. of W.B. Calcutta.

Anonymous. 1994. The Red Data Book on Indian Animals. Part 1:

Vertebrata (Mammalia, Aves, Reptilia and Amphibia). (Ed.). Director,
ZSI, Calcutta.

Anonymous. 2000. Report on the vertebrate biodiversity of Ayodhya

hill in Purulia, West Bengal. Submitted by Prakriti Samsad, member
Indian Board of Wildlife. Kolkata.

Anonymous. 2001. Sundarbans: The World Heritage. Department of

Forests. Bangladesh.

Anonymous. 2003. IUCN Red List of threatened mammals of India. http:/

/www. red I ist.org/search. php

Anonymous. 2003a. IUCN Red List of threatened mammals of Bhutan.

http://www. redlist.org/search/search. php

Anonymous. 2003b. IUCN Red List of threatened mammals of

Bangladesh. http:// www.redlist.org/search/search.php

Arora, B.M. 2002. Reproduction in Wild Mammalia and Conservation.

Association of Indian Zoo and Wildlife Veterinarians. Bareilly.

23Q UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Ungulates of West Bengal and its adjoining areas

Avari, E.D. 1957. The Jaldapara Game Sanctuary, West Bengal. Jour.
Bengal Nat. Hist. Soc. 29 (3). Darjeeling.

Avasthe, R. and Ajeya J. 1999. Mammals of Sikkif!1. World Wide Fund

for Nature-India. Sikkim Field Office, Deorali. Gangtok.

Baker, E. B. 1886. Sport in Bengal. Ledger Smith & Co., London.

Baker, E.C.S. 1922-29. The Fauna of British India, Vols. 1-6. London.

Banerjee, A.K. 1966. Rhinoceros- a historical treatment. West Bengal

Forests. Forest Directorate. Government of West Bengal. Centenary
Commemoration Volume. Calcutta.

Banerjee, A.K. 1966a. Wild buffalo and gaur: History of distribution.

West Bengal Forests. Forest Directorate. Government of West
Bengal. Centenary Commemoration Volume. Calcutta.

Basbar, M.A., Begum, F. and Mondal, K.K. 2001. Sambhur deer

breeding in captivity in Dulahazra Safari Park (Managed National
Reserve), Bangladesh. Tigerpaper. 28 (1). January-March.

Bhaduri, J.N. 1966. History of Gooch Behar District Forests. West

Bengal Forests. Forest Directorate. Government of West Bengal.
Centenary Commemoration Volume. Calcutta.

Bhattacharyya, B.K. 1979. West Bengal Distr ict Gazetteers.

Murshidabad. Bengal Secretariat Press. Calcutta.

Bhattacharya, B.K., Ray, P., Chakraborty, B.A., Sengupta, S.,

Sengupta, K.S., Mukherje, S., Sen, N.N. and Maity, T. 1985. West
Bengal District Gazetteers. Puruliya. Bengal Secretariat Press.
Calcutta.

Bird, G.W. 1909. The Sportsman in Burma. Shikar, travel, and natural
history. Indian Forester. 35(4): 229-235 & 35(6): 399-405. Dehradun.

Bist, S.S. 1997. Wildlife management in West Bengal [1947-1997]: The

first fifty years. Himalayan Paryavaran. 5. Darjeeling.

Biswas, T., and Mathur, V.B. 2000. A Review of the present conservation

£ovit JSullecio : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 23 1

 scenario of Hog Deer (Axis porcinus) in its native range. Indian
Forester. Vol. 126(10):1068-1084. Dehradun.

Blanford, W.T. 1888-91. The Fauna of British India including Burma and
Ceylon: Mammalia. Tailor & Fransis. London.

Blyth, E. 1862. A Memoir on the living "Asiatic species of Rhinoceros".

Jour. Asiat. Soc. Bengal. 2. Calcutta.

Campbell, A.C. 1907. Glimpses of Bengal of comprehensive,

archaeological and pictorial history of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.
Campbell & Medland 3 & 4, Hare Street, Calcutta.
...

Chaudhuri, A.B. and Chakraborty, K. 1989. Sunderbans mangrove

ecology and wildlife. Surya Publication. Dehradun.

Chaudhury, S. 1952. Game Sanctuaries and National Parks in West

Bengal. Jour. Bengal Nat. Hist. Soc. 25 (3). Darjeeling.

Daniel, J.C. and Grubh, B.R. 1966. The Indian Wild Buffalo, Bubalus
bubalis (Linnaeus, 1758) in peninsular India: A prelimnary survey.
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 63.

Das, A.K. and Nandi, N.C. 1999. Fauna of Indian Sundarbans Mangal
and Their Role in the Ecosystem. Sundarbans Mangal. Guha Bakshi,
D.N. (Ed.). Naya Prakash. Kolkata.

Dash, A.J. 1947. Bengal District Gazetteers. Darjeeling. Calcutta.

Das, K.C. 1964. Should tiger population being in a deplorable state be

preserved and how. Proceedings of symposia. Arranged in
connection with West Bengal Forest Centenary. Department of
Forests. Government of West Bengal.

Das, P.K. 1966. Jaldapara Wild Life Sanctuary. West Bengal Forests.
Forest Directorate. Government of West Bengal. Centenary
Commemoration Volume. Calcutta.

De, Barun (Ed.) 1994. West Bengal District Gazetteers. 24-Parganas.

Govt. of West Bengal. Calcutta.

232 UNGULATES OF INOlA

 Ungulates of West Bengal and its adjoining areas

De, R.N. 1990. The Sundarbans. Oxford University Press. Calcutta.

Pp. 49.

Dey, S.C. 1987. Rhinoceros-its past and present, West Bengal.

XXIX:19, Information and Cultural Affairs Department. Govt. of West
Bengal. Kolkata.

Dutt-Mazumdar, S. 1955. Wildlife of Darjeeling hills. Jour. Bengal Nat.

Hist. Soc. 27 (4):155-159. Darjeeling.

Finn, Frank. 1929. Sterndales Mammalia of India. Thacker, Spink &

Co. Calcutta.

Foster, William. 1921. Early Travels in India. 1583-1610. Oxford.

Gao, Yao-ting. 1985. Classification and distribution of the musk deer

(moschus) in China. Contemporary Mammalogy in China and Japan.
EdT Ka wamichi. Mammalogical Society of Japan. Pp113-116.

Gee, E.P. 1948. The great one-horned rhinoceros in Kaziranga

Sanctuary, Assam. Jour. Bengal Nat. Hist. Soc. 23 (2). Darjeeling.

Gee, E.P. 1952. The great Indian one-horned rhinoceros. Jour. Bengal
Nat. Hist. Soc. 25 (4). Darjeeling.

Ghosal, S. 1999. Kailash the ultimate. The Twilight. 1 (5). Kolkata.

Ghosh, A.K. 1997. Faunal diversity in Sundarbans. Man a n d

Environment Annual Volume, 1996. Centre for Study o f Man &
Environment. Calcutta.

Ghosh, M., Saha, K.D., Sahu, U., Roy, S. and Talukdar, B. 1992.
Archaeozoological Remains from West Bengal, India. Fauna of West
Bengal, Part 2. ZSI. Kolkata.

Gruning, J.F. 1911. Eastern Bengal and Assam district Gazetteers.

Jalpaiguri. Pioneer Press, Allahabad.

Gupta, A.C. 1958. The Indian Buffalo. Jour. Bengal Nat. Hist. Soc. 30
(1) . Darjeeling.

cnvi• .�ulletin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 233

Gupta, A.C. 1966. Wildlife of lower Bengal with particular reference to
the Sundarbans. West Bengal Forests. Forest Directorate.
Government of West Bengal. Centenary Commemoration Volume.
Calcutta.

Hawkins, R.E. 1986. Encyclopedia of Indian Natural History. Centenary

Publication of the Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 1883-1983. Oxford
University Press. Delhi.

Hob ley, C. W. 1932. The Rhinoceros. Jour. Soc. Preservation Fauna

Empire N. S. 17:20-21.

Hunter, W. W. 1876. A statistical account of Bengal. Volume X. Districts

of Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri, and State of Kuch Behar. Trubner &
Co. London.

Inglis, C.M., Travers, W.L., O'Donel, H.V. and Shebbeare, E.O. 1919.
A tentative list of the vertebrates of the Jalpaiguri districts, Bengal.
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 26(3):819-825.

Khan, M.A.R. 1982. Wildlife of Bangladesh: A Check List. University of

Dhaka. Dhaka.

Lahiri Choudhury, O.K. 1988. The Indian elephant in a changing world.

Ch. XIX. Contemporary Indian Tradition. C. M. Borden (Ed.).
Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C.

Lambourn, G.E. 1918. Bengal District Gazetteers. Maida. Bengal

Secretariat Book Depot. Calcutta.

Maharaja of Gooch Behar. 1908. Thirty-seven years of big game

shooting in Gooch Behar, the Duars and Assam: A rough Diary, the
Times Press. Bombay.

Mandai A.K. and Nandi, N.C. 1989. Fauna of Sundarban Mangrove

Ecosystem, West Bengal, India. ZSI. Calcutta.

Mitra, A. 1951. Census 1951. West Bengal District Handbooks.

Jalpaiguri. Thacker's Press and Directories, Ltd., Calcutta.

Mitra, S.N. 1957. "Banglar Shikar- Pram". Publication Department. Govt.

234 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Ungulates of West Bengal and its adjoining areas

of West Bengal, Calcutta.

Mountfort, G. 1973. Tigers. Newton Abbot. London.

Mukherjee, A.K. 1980. Wildlife in the Sunderban, West Bengal.

Proceedings of the Workshop on Wildlife Ecology: 123-127.

Dehradun, January 1978. (Ed.). Director, ZSI. Calcutta.

Naskar. K.R. andLGuha Baksi, D.N. 1987. Mangrove swamps of the

Sundarbans -An Ecological perspective. Naya Prakash, Kolkata.
Pp.264.

O'Malley, L.S.S. 1907. Bengal District Gazeteers. Logos Press. New

Delhi.

O'Malley, L.S.S. 1908. Bengal District Gazeteers. Bankura. Bengal

Secretariat Book Depot. Govt. of West Bengal. Calcutta.

O'Malley, L.S.S. 1911. Bengal District Gazeteers. Midnapore. Bengal

Secretariat Book Depot. Govt. of West Bengal. Calcutta.

Paul, Newton. 1984. Forest langurs. Sanctuary Asia. 4 (4).

Pocock, R.I. 1939-41. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and
Burma: Mammalia, Vol. 1-11. Taylor & Francis, London, 503 Pp.

Prasad, S. 2002. Rise in Awareness for faunal protection: Some who

made it and some who did not. A Study of the ecological history of
Duars with special reference to Buxa Tiger Reserve. Study report
for IEDP. BTR. Alipurduar. Directorate of Forests. Government of
West Bengal.

Prater, S.H. 1971. The book of Indian animals. BNHS. Bombay.

Ranjitsinh, M.K. 1981. Himalayan fauna. The Himalaya: Aspects of

change. Ed. J.S.Lall and A.D. Maddie. OUP. New Delhi.

Rao, S. 1937. An outline of the fauna of India. Indian Science Congress

Association. Calcutta.

A. M.G. 1932. Rhino in difficulty. Indian Forester. 58(8):411-413. Dehra Dun.

£nvisJ3ullttin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 23 5

Rookmaaker, K. 2002. Historical records of the Javan rhinoceros in
North-East India. The Rhino Foundation for Nature in NE India.
Newsletter No. 4.

Rookmaaker, L.C. 2002a. Historical Records of the Rhinoceros

(Rhinoceros unicornis) in Northern India and Pakistan. Zoos' Print
Journal. Vol 17. No 11. Coimbatore. India.

Roy, S. 1987. Western wilderness in West Bengal, West Bengal.

Information & cultural affairs department. Government of West
Bengal. XXIX:19. Calcutta.

Saha, S.S., Chattopadhyay, S., Mukherj ee, R.P. and Alfred, J.R.B.
1992. Wildlife and its conservation in West Bengal. State Fauna
Series 3. Fauna of West Bengal. Part 1. Zoological Survey of India.
Calcutta.

Sahoo, A.K. 1991. Wildlife in south-western tracts of West Bengal: Past

and present. West Bengal. Information & cultural affairs department.
Government of West Bengal. XXXIII: 17. Calcutta.

Sanyal, P. 1991. Jala Anchaler Mahima. Information & cultural affairs

department. Government of West Bengal. Paschimbanga. 25:12-13.
Calcutta.

Sanyal, P. 1992. 'Bichitra Buxa Banabhumi', Paschimbanga. 26:14.

Information and Cultural affairs department. Govt. of West Bengal.
Kolkata.

Sanyal, A.B. 1892. A Hand-book of the management of animals in

captivity in lower Bengal. Bengal Secretariat Press. Calcutta.

Schaller, G.B. 1998. The deer and the tiger. Natraj Publishers. Dehra
Dun.

Sclater, P.L. 1872. Report on additions to the society's menagerie in

February, 1872. Proc. Zoo/. Soc.:493-496. London.

Sclater, P.L. 1875. Report on exhibition of upper horn of a two-horned

Rhinoceros. Proc. Zoo/. Soc.:566. London.

236 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Ungulates of West Bengal and its adjoining areas

Sclater, W.L. 1891. Catalogue of Mammalia in the India museum.

CalcuttQ., Part II. Calcutta. (Indian Museum).

Sengupta, J. 1969. West Bengal District Gazetteers. Maida. Govt. of

West Bengal. Calcutta.

Seshadri, B.K. 1969. The twilight of India' Wildlife. The Curwen Press.
London.

Sharma, B.D. 1994. High altitude wildlife of India. Oxford and IBH
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.

Sharma, T.R. 2000. Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve. Biosphere

Reserves in India and their management. Proceeding of the Review
Meeting: Biosphere and their management, 8-11 September 2000.
?eechi, Kerala. Sharma, J.K., Easa, P.S., Mohanan, C. Sasidharan,
N., Rai, R.K. (Eds.) Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of
India, New Delhi and Kerala Forest Research Institute.

Shebbeare, E.O. and Roy, A.N. 1948. The Great one-horned rhinoceros
(Rhinoceros unicornis L). Jour. Bengal Nat. Hist. Soc. 22 (3).
Darjeeling.

Shreshtha, T.K. 1997. Mammals of Nepal with reference to those of

India, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Pakistan. Publ. Mrs. Bimala Shrestha,
G.P.O. Box 6133, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Sterndale, R.A. 1982. Natural History of the Mammalia of India and

Ceylon. Himalayan Books. New Delhi.

Stracey, P.O. 1951. The Vanishing Rhinoceros and Assam's Wildlife

Sanctuaries. Jour. Bengal Nat. Hist. Soc. Vol. XXV. 25 (2). Darjeeling.

Talbot, L.M. 1960. A look at threatened species (A report on some

animals of Middle East and Southern Asia) which are threatened
with extermination, Oryx. 5:153-293.

Tikader, B.K. 1983. Threatened Animals of India. ZSI. Calcutta.

Working Plans (Volume I & II) of Darjeeling, Kalimpong, Kurseong,

£ovili _gullrtin : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AfiD.s (2004) 23 7

 Baikunthpur, Jalpaiguri, Gooch Behar, Buxa, Birbhum, Bardhwan,
Bankura (N & S), Puru/ia, Midnapore (E & W), and South 24-
Parganas Forest Divisions. Gove r nment of West Beng a l .
Department o f Forests.

Yonzon, Prahlad B, 2004. http://www.resourceshimalaya.org/fauna/

mammalsnew. htm

238 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 SECTIONll

Conservation and
Management of
Ungulates

Ungulates of India
£n11is J3ulletin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004)
 Capture and translocation of ungulates

CAPTURE AND TRANSLOCATION OF

UNGULATES WITH SPECIAL
REFERENCE TO SPOTTED DEER OR
CHITAL IN WEST BENGAL
S.P. Chowdhury

INTRODUCTION

Free ranging and captive ungulates are captured and relocated due to
their over abundance. Wild ungulates are crop pests in several agricultural
areas abutting small forest patches while over abundance of captive
animals creates stress on the facilities housing them in terms of space,
rising food, maintenance costs and increased susceptibility to disease
due to over crowding. A humane and publicly approved form of managing
this problem is the capture and translocation of these over abundant
animals. A number of methods for capture of these animals are currently
available ranging from trapping to netting etc. (ver Cauteren eta/. 1999,
Haulton eta/. 2001) In this article I discuss a capture method standardised
in West Bengal.

Wildlife managers are being increasingly challenged with controlling

species regarded as over abundant. Increased deer-related vegetation
and ecosystem, in several areas frequently exceed the tolerance limits
of local communities (Decker and Connelly 1989, Diamond 1992, Me
Cullough eta/. 1997). These often result in the communities resorting to
illicit culling of animals or use of other equally damaging methods.
Traditional non-lethal methods to scare away animals are becoming
ineffective and the deer become increasingly habituated to measures such
as fencing (Decker and Connelly 1989}. Normally diurnal animals,
ungulates have been increasingly documented raiding crop fields in the
night.

Since 1990 capture and translocation of spotted deer (Axis axis) herds
from smaller sanctuaries and deer parks was regularly done in West
Bengal (Table 1). Based on the field experience, capture techniques have
been modified from time to time. In the last five years, improved capture
technique gave 0% casualty record. Most of the captured spotted deer
were released in forested areas.

tnvir. JSulltlin : WILOLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 239

PRESENT CAPTURE METHOD USED

A drive corral usually has nylon netting supported by posts to delineate

an enclosure and a funnel fence that directs animals into the corral.
Mammals as small as Jack rabbits (Lepus spp) (Henke and Demarais
1990) and as large as ungulates have been restrained in drive corrals.
A modification of the drive corral method is used in West Bengal where
in a temporary enclosure is made at a suitable location (approachable
by truck also if required, a stretch of road is laid) about 30 m x 20 m
rectangular size with bamboo poles 3m above ground level. Bamboo
poles are embedded 1m underground 2.5 m apart. Nets made up of 4
mm/ 6 mm pure nylon ropes (not polypropylene) of 3 m x 10 m size with
10 em x 10 em mesh size, are then streteched on the poles. Two drop
gates are fixed on the gap between two poles on opposite direction
sides for trapping and loading facility. Loading drop gate is connected
with a tunnel made of 4' x 8' x %" ply-board and ends at loading ramp.
Loading ramp is made at such height that it levels with the truck floor.
The floor and walls of the transportation truck are padded with straw
and jute.

After erection of the enclosure, artificial provisioned feed is provided inside

in the enclosure keeping the trapping gate open. Within a week or so deer
become habituated to the enclosure and its food supply. Different types of
fodder and foods are used to attract deer. Before trapping, a watcher
monitors the habits of entry, and drops the gate when a desirable number
of deer have entered the enclosure. Deer are allowed to settle down
fammilarise themselves to the enclosure, provisioned feed and water. Two
persons carry jute cloths fitted with ropes, covering all sides of the nets
with the cloth. The enclosure is covered on all sides with jute sheets. A
truck is then placed at the loading ramp, secured at the tunnel entry and
the loading gate is opened to allow deer to enter the truck. A person
monitors the loading, injured or sick animals are taken out through a side
gate if required. About twenty to twenty five deer are loaded in one truck.
The top of the truck is covered with net and tarpaulin, leaving adequate
ventilation gap. After a few hours of rest translocation journey begins.

Deer have been translocated in such way ranging from 200 km to 550
km without any problem using the above method. Enroute, some fodder
is given and water sprayed during halts on road. The truck is taken to
release site and deer are directly released, opening the backside of the
truck either on ramp or fitted with slanted wooden planks. Though the

240 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Capture and translocation of ungulates

operation seems easy, staff involved in capture operations need to be

experienced and highly sk.illed in handling deer. Professional help for
study and planning has been rendered to other states like Manipur,
Chattisgarh and Gujarat.

MATERIALS

1. Nylon nets

(a) For spotted deer and black buck :- Nets made of 4 mm dia. Pure
nylon cord. Mesh size10em x10em, with 8 mm dia border ropes.
Tie ropes 1m long at 4-corners and 2.5 m apart on sides. Total
size of nets 3m x10m.

(b) For sambar and nilgai :- Nets made of 6 mm dia. Pure nylon cord.
Mesh size10em x10em, with1Omm dia border ropes. Tie ropes
1m long at 4-corners and 2.5 m apart on sides. Total size of nets
3m x10m.

2. Drop gates

Made of 37mm dia Gl pipe frame. Gate frame1.5 m x1.5 m fitted with
nylon nets and pulley attachments for dropping mounted on suitable
iron channel frame for the drop gate, are fabricated locally.

GUIDELINES FOR SMALLER UNGULATE CAPTURE

Capturing ungulates becomes necessary for a radio-collaring, treatment

of sick and injured animals and as a management option to translocate
locally abundant populations. A number of methods ranging from
tranquilization to net trapping to corralling are used. The choice of method
is dependent on the official and the need for capture.

Objectives

Capture methods depends upon

(a) Capture of animals for radio-collaring ar�d treatment - Large
operations with nets are expensive and lengthy process, suitable
for large nos. of animal capture.

(b) Chemical immobilisation is suitable for a few animals for capture

for treatment, sample collection or translocation of animals

£nvis.l5ollhtin: WtLDLIFE ANDPROTECTEDAAEAs(2004) 241

 (transport crate required). Chemical immobilization is also useful
for cage transfer in zoos, tranquilization.

(c) Capture of animals for radio-collaring, treatment and translocation

of small groups - net trapping.

(d) Capture of large groups of animals for translocation - corralling.

Location

Trapping devices should be placed in areas that receive high use by

animals. Trails between bedding and feeding areas are ideal sites if they
are far enough from roads so that neither traps nor animals are visible to
the public (VerCauteren et al. 1999). Capture methods also differ
depending upon locations. In zoos, enclosures with water wet moats are
suitable for net capture and animals can be taken by hands for manually
loading into crates. Undulating terrain, sharp slopes or cliffs in forest
areas are not suitable tor any capture. Enclosures with sharp protruding
tree stumps can injure animals during capture. Temporary enclosures
can be made surrounding feeding stalls in captive condition. Animals can
be difficult to find after darting inside dense undergrowth in forest areas.

Planning

Planning of any capture operation is very crucial. Failur�s are often seen
in the field due to improper planning even after huge expenditure and
wasting manpower. Such examples are seen in Karera WLS in Madhya
Pradesh and Mahesana in Gujarat after making a large corral with iron
angle and chain link iron nets for capturing black bucks. In Karera, black
bucks never entered the corral and in Mahesana several animals died
and others were badly injured trying to escape through the wire nets.

It is advisable to visit the location several times for observing the habits
of the animals and then prepare operation plan. People participating in
capture operation should have predefined duties to perform tor better
co-ordination during the operation.

Animal behaviour

Deer and antelopes are susceptible to shock after capture. They develop
sudden symptoms of bradycardia, anoxaemia, hypoglycemia and capture­
myopathy due to stress and fatigue during capture, leading to collapse
and death. Acute death syndrome is also observed in some cases within

242 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Capture and translocation of ungulates

minutes of capture in case of spotted deer when excited. Self inflicted

injuries including fracture of limbs are also observed in cases when the
darted or netted animals try to escape and jump against iron nets of the
enclosures. Problems with the temporary enclosures is that animals
suspiciously avoid suddenly erected structure for some periods. But
ultimately surrender to regular supply of fresh food (bait) without any
disturbance.

Darting of free ranging animal is also difficult. They usually maintain safe
flight-distance, which is more than the shooting range. Even shooting at long
range of smaller animals often result in darting at improper site; penetration of
darts into abdomen or coring of needles with bones. It was also seen that
darted stags were chased and injured by other males of the herd during
induction period taking advantage of their weakness. Small solitary animals
like barking deer are very difficult to find after darting inside dense forest
cover and animals may die if not attended to after chemical immobilisation.

Handling

Handling of captured animals requires special skill. The person handling

the animal should be alert enough to avoid sudden kick from the animal,
as hooves are razor sharp in these animals. Antlers and horns are to be
held properly away from the body. Black buck males were seen trying to
horn down the capturing person on few occasions. Tushes of barking deer,
musk deer, and mouse deer should be avoided. It can inflict deep wounds
if handled carelessly. Darted animals should be taken special care for
their recumbent gait. All the time sternal recumbence position should be
maintained to avoid accumulation of gas in (tympani) the abdomen, which
may exert pressure on the heart and lead to cardiac failure.

Reduce external stimuli

Sharp noise, loud conversation, frequent appearance to observe animals,

long chasing, unnecessary caressing or patting captured animals are
some sources of external stimulation which should be avoided during
capture operation. It was mentioned earlier that wild ungulates are very
prone to shock. Use of hide for darting is advisible. Animals should be
allowed to settle down to their normal behaviour before darting. In the
excited state drug requirement may become higher than normal and drugs
like Xylazine Hcl may not work properly when the animal is highly excited.
All planning and verifying should be done before starting the operation;
sign language should be used for communication during operation. Human

£nvis•�ullrrin: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 243

touch excites the wild animals. It is always better to blind fold the animal
during handling; it reduces a large amount of external stimuli and reduces
stress levels.

THE KEYS TO SUCCESS

a) Take professional help of veterinary doctors in capture operation.

Wild animals are best treated by a doctor.
b) Emergency medicines like cardiac stimulant, respiratory stimulant,
antibiotics, antiseptic sprays, DNS and drip sets, proper needles
and syringes for injections should be procured and kept ready at
hand during the operation. Human 'First-Aid' kit should also be
kept ready.

c) Capturing and handling animals require lots of patience. Do not

expect animals to behave as desired. Wait, observe and modify
your plan according to field situation. Only patience will give a
good result.

Table 1. Record of spotted deer translocation in West Bengal

Division Captured from Year No. of

Animals
24-Parganas (South) Narendrapur Ramkrishna 2003 4
Mission
Bankura (N) Division Ramkrishna Mission, 2001 13
Narendrapur Deer Park
Bankura North Banpukuria 2000 8
Bankura South Bethua Dahri WLS 1995 8
1996 16
Bonpukuria Deer Park 1997 30
Saltlake, DRC 1995 17
Birbum Division Ballavpur WLS under 2001 6
Birbhum Division 7
9
BTR Saltlake DRC 1990 24
Subhas Sarobar 1990 36
Coochbehar Adina Deer Park, Maldah 1997 3
Bethua Dahri 1992 28
Saltlake DRC 1990 7
Zoological Garden 1997 8

244 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Capture and translocation of ungulates

Deer Research Centre, Jadavpur Stadium 2002 4

Salt Lake
Divisional Forest Officer, Deer Research Centre 2002 1
Wildlife Research
Division
East Midnapur Division Ballavpur WLS 2003 15
Kangsabati Soil Cons., Ballavpur WLS 2002 15
Division- II
Kangsabati Soil Cons. Ballavpur Deer Park 2002 13
Division-I
Kangsabati Soil Ramnabagan WLS 2001 10
Conservation Division- II
Kansabati Soil Ballavpur WLS under 2001 12
Conservation Division-! Birbhum Division
Maldah Division Adina Deer Park. 2002 6
Nadia-Murshidabad Ballavpur WLS 2003 13
Division
Panchet Soil Ramnabagan WLS 2001 5
Conservation Division,
Bishnupur Bankura
PSC Div. Bethudahri WLS 2000 18
Purulia Bonpukuria Deer Park 1998 10
Purulia Division Adina Deer Park. 2002 15
Ballavpur Deer Park 2002 16
Ballavpur WLS 2002 13
Ballavpur WLS under 2001 16
Birbhum Division
Rupnarayan Div. Banpukuria 2000 7
Garchumuk 1999 6
Rupnarayan Planning Ballavpur WLS 2002 18
-

& Survey Division

Rupnarayan Planning Ramnabagan WLS 2001 8
& Su-rvey Division,
Midnapore

Sundarban Tiger Bidisha Complex, 2003 10

Reserve Narayangarh 8
Deer Research Centre, 2003 6
Mission Salt Lake
Rahara Ram Krishna 2003 14
Mission

Cnvit J;uUrtin : WILDUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 2 45

Urban & Recreational Bidisha Complex, 2003 7

Narayangarh
W. Midnapore Bethudahri WLS 2000 20
Bibhuti Bhusan WLS 1999 16
21
OM/ Midnapore, Res. 1998 10
Complex
Jhargram Deer Park 1998 9
West Midnapore Bibhuti Bhusan WLS 2000 17
Garchumuk Deer Park 2001 11
West Midnapore Bethuadahri WLS 2002 16
Division
West Midnapur Bidisha Complex, 2003 12
Division Narayangarh
Garhchumuk 2002 19
WL Div-1 Adina Deer Park 1999 51
WL-1 Adina Deer Park, Maldah 1996 22
1997 10
Bethua Dahri 1992 20
Jheelmeel Park, Calcutta 1990 20
Mahananda (Hog Deer) 1993 7
Parmadan WLS 1998 10
WL-11 Adina Deer Park, Maldah 1997 7
Bethuadahri WLS 1998 26
Saltlake DRC 1999 4
Grand Total 811

REFERENCES
Decker D. J. and Connelly N. A. 1989. Deer in suburbia-pleasures and
pests. The Conservationist. 43:46-49.

Diamond J. 1992. Must we shoot deer to save Nature? Natural History.

August:2-8.

Haulton, S.M., Porter, W.F., and Rudolph, B.A. 2001.Evaluating 4 methods

to capture white- tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 255-264.

McCullough, D.R., Jennings, K.W., Gates, N.B., Elliot, B.G., and

Didonato, J.E., 1997. Overabundant deer populations in California.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:478-483.

VerCauteren K., Beringer J. and Hungnstrom S. 1999. Cage traps for

white-tailed deer. In: Proulx G, ed. Mammal Trapping. Sherwood Park
Al-berta: Alpha Wildlife Research and Management. 155 -164 Pp.

246 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Management of deer in captivity

MANAGEMENT OF DEER IN
CAPITIVITY
LN. Acharjyo

INTRODUCTION

Sambar, swamp deer, chital, hog-deer and barking deer are a group of
six fascinating cervids or true deer in peninsular India belonging to the
Family: Cervidae and Order: Artiodactyla. They are the most common
and popular ungulates on display as exhibits in many of the captive
rearing facilities/ zoological and deer parks because they instantly attract
public attention due to their varying colour, sizes and forms, agility,
behaviour, calls, instincts and peculiarities in antler formation which differ
greatly in different species and also with age. Brow antlered deer, though
the species is not of peninsular India, but has been included for
comparision.

This article is primarily intended to discuss briefly about the biology and
management issues of five species of deer in captivity viz. Sambar
( Cervus unico/or), chital or spotted deer (Axis axis), hog-deer (Axis
porcinus), barking deer or muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) and brow­
antlered or thamin deer or sangai ( Cervus eldi eld1) of north-east India.

BIOLOGY

Detailed knowledge on biological features/behaviours/functions of captive

wild animals are essential for their successful management. It will be
appropriate to give an outline of salient anatomical and biological features
of these deer hereunder. The cervids or deer are terrestrial and
herbivorous in nature. These ungulates are even-toed and hoofed, each
foot has two functional toes. Though they are devoid of upper incisors,
poorly developed canines or tushes are present in the upper jaw except
in barking deer where upper canines in the male are well developed for
self-defence. The gastrointestinal tract has a four-chambered stomach
accompanied by long and tortuous intestinal can·al and are classed as
true ruminants. An interesting feature is that these animals are devoid of
gall bladder. The female deer has two pairs of mammae. Aforementioned
species have facial glands below each eye which become active during
mating season.

Envis .�ullttin : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 24 7

Antler Cycle

The most distinguishing feature of the deer is presence of antlers in males.

They appear as bony appendages of the skull and grow from permanent
skin covered base known as pedicel.

The first set of antlers borne by young deer are always simple and as
single spike. As the deer grow, these antlers a18 shed and a new set of
antlers grow again from the pedicel with a branch or tine at the base.
While growing, the antlers are covered with fine haired vascular skin
known as "velvet" and on attaining full size, the velvet dries up and
later rubbed off against tree trunks or other convenient objects making
the antlers clean of velvet and hard, a condition coinciding with the
onset of rutting season. The hard antlers are shed annually following
the breeding season and the cycle continues every year till the antlers
attain maximum species-specific size and number of tines. Normally
each antler of a full grown sambar, chital and hog-deer has three tines
or branches but the brow-antlered deer has three or more branches or
tines including the main beam. However, the antlers of barking deer
are small with only the beam without branches or with a short brow-tine
at the base.

The details of different aspects of antler cycle were observed in sambar,

chital, hog-deer and barking deer at Nandankanan Zoological Park
(NKZP}, Bhubaneswar (Acharjyo 1983, Acharjyo and Patnaik 1983,
1984, 1988) and of brow-antler deer observed at Alipore Zoological
Gardens (AZG), Kolkata (Das 1988) (Table 1 ).

REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY

Reproductere biology of cervids in capativity has been published based

on the work undertaken at NKZP (Acharjyo and Misra 1971, Acharjyo
and Mishra 1980, 1981, Acharjyo and Mohapatra, 1977), National
Zoological Park (NZP) New Delhi (Desai and Malhotra 1978, Sankhala
and Desai 1969) and AZG (Das, 1988) (Table 2).

LIFE SPAN

Walker eta/. (1964) have reported the usual life span of Axis sp. to be
10-15 years, and that of Cervus sp. and Muntiacus sp. as 15-18 years
and about 10 years respectively.

248 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Table 1. Antler cycle in five species of deer of Peninsular India

Details of antler cycle Sam bar Chital Hog-deer Barking deer Brow-antlered
deer
I
:
Period of antler casting (Peak 6-mo period Mar 9-mo period Aug- 6-mo period Oct- 3-mo period Mar- 4-mo Period May-
period of antler casting) - Aug (Apr-June) Apr (Nov-Jan) Mar (Nov-Feb) May (Apr-May) Aug (June-July)

I
Period of velvet rubbing (Peak 8-mo period Aug- 8-mo period Jan- 9-mo Period Nov- 4-mo period Aug- Dec
period of velvet rubbing) Mar (Sept-Oct) Aug (Mar-June) July (Feb-May) Nov (Aug-Sept)

Duration of antler casting Within 1-6d Within 1-5d within 1-5d within 1-4d within 1-8d
(Duration of antler casting (within 1-3d) (within 1-2d) (within 1-3d) (within 1-2d) (within1-2d)
of majority of antlers of both
sides)
(>)

�-
"' Span of antler growth i.e. 40-55 mo 35 - 55 mo 30 - 40 mo 45 - 65 mo 45-70 mo
:;;,
5. interval between antler casting
:0
=·
0
and rubbing of velvet
s:
Inter-casting period of antlers
I ll>

f
330-378 days 322-382 days 338-383 days - 334 -371 days :::J
ll>
m Age at first-antler casting 1yr 5 mo- 1yr 11 mo 1yr 25 mo - 1yr 7 mo 0
� <D
0 1yr 10 mo 2yr 1 mo 1yr 8 mo 3
"U
<D

I
Maximum length (weight) 295 em (151 gm) 125 em 90cm (23200gm) - 120 em (28 gm) :::J
....
of single spike antler (31600 gm) 0
-

i
a.
Maximum length (weight) 940 em (3078 gm) 820 em (840 gm) 430 em (271 gm) 110 em (252 gm) 1143 em (1600 CD
CD

§
of largest cast antler gm) ...,
s·
Yr-Year; mo-month; d-days; Jan-January; Feb-February; Mar-March; Apr-April; Aug-August; Sept- September; Oct- October; ()
ll>
Nov-November, Dec-December; em-Centimeter; gm-grams
tv
�
-o
rv
(]1
1 Table 2. Some aspects of reproductive biology of five species deer of Peninsular India

0
Details of antler cycle Sam bar Chital Hog-deer Barking deer Brow-antlered
I
c
deer I
z
G'l
c Fawning season All the months of All the months All the months A!l the months September - I
�m the year except of the year of the year of the year December
(/) May I
0 '
., '
z Age of sexual maturity 1 year and 1 year and - - 2- 3 years (Female)
0
> 6 months (Female) 6 months (Female 3- 4 years (Male) :
Gestation period 8 months 70 - 75 months 8 months 6 months 236 - 244 days '

Litter size 1 rarely two 1 rarely two 1 rarely two 1 rarely two 1

Sex ratio at birth (Number of 738: 100 1043: 100 50: 100 1138: 100 11875: 100
males to 100 females) (limited data)

Weight at birth in kg 7000- 12300 2200- 4000 2000- 2740 1200- 2010 4540-4650
'
Length (tip to tip) at birth in em 880- 1070 650- 770 540- 600 450- 560 715- 737

Inter- parturition interval in days 368 344-385 253- 397 ------- 356- 393
--
 Management of deer in captivity

MANAGEMENT OF CERVIDS IN CAPATIVITY

There is an increased recognition of the varying need and instincts of

different species of wild animals in captivity and the temperamental
differences between individuals within a species. It has also been
appreciated and emphasized that optimum living conditions and upkeep
of any species of captive wild animal could ensure their well-being, long
life and propagation. These objectives can only be accomplished for
different deer species through good management practices involving
housing, feeding, sanitation, routine management procedures and
healthcare measures outlined as follows:

Housing

The deer are maintained in captivity in spacious outdoor open enclosures

or paddocks bounded on all sides usually with 2.0-2.5 meters high fence
with chain- link mesh or partly with wet/ dry moat on the viewers' side
and chain-link mesh fence/ wall on the other sides or with wet/ dry moat
all around the enclosure. Stand-of-barriers are provided on the viewers'
side to keep the visitors at bay. The important aspect for housing is that
enclosure should be so designed to prevent the entry of stray dogs and
other predators like jackal into the enclosure or to prevent the escape of
the deer out of the enclosure. The area of the enclosure depends upon
the species and number of deer to be displayed. The "Recognition of
Zoo Rules, 1992" stipulates the minimum prescribed size of outdoor open
enclosure for a pair of brow-antlered deer/ hangul/ swamp deer as 1500
square meters with an extra area of 125 square meters for each additional
animal. Similarly the minimum prescribed size of feeding/ resting cubicle/
night shelter for these species has been specified as 3.0 x 2.0 x 2.5
metres. These specifications hold good for all large sized Indian deer.
The enclosure may be established on a high ground to facilitate good
drainage and should be away from carnivorous animals for stress less
peaceful living. The ground should not be too soft for hoofed animals to
prevent abnormal overgrowth of hooves which m a y otherwise
nec�ssitate surgical interference involving risk. Sufficient number of
trees, plants and bushes are desirable inside the enclosure to provide
cover, shade, privacy and for rubbing of antlers. Wherever necessary
tree guards may be provided to trees/plants to minimize damage due to
nibbling and rubbing of antlers. The sambar and brow-antlered deer
enclosures need to have adequate and free access to water sources
like ponds/ water moats and wallow to meet some of their biological
needs.

C:n�is JSullttin : WILDLIFE .6.ND PROTECTED ARE.6.S (2004) 25 1

Feeding

The deer are ruminant herbivores feeding on their choicest food items
like grass, leaves, fruits, twigs, and young shoots of edible trees and
plants available in the wild. In contrast, the same animals in captivity are
dependant upon the food offered to them. Incidentally the digestive system
and food habits of deer are similar to cattle, sheep and goat and we could
adopt same nutritional principles in absence of information on the precise
nutrional requirements of different species of deer in captivity and the
diet of these animals can be compounded on the basis of our knowledge
on feed requirements of domestic ruminants.

The deer in captivity are fed with concentrates in the form of mash
(consisting of crushed grains like barley, oats and ragi; crushed pulses
like horse gram and Bengal gram, crushed oil cake, common salt and
vitamin and mineral supplements) or dry cattle/ goat ration or pelleted
cattle feed. The concentrate formulae of deer mash of NZP (Desai and
Malhotra 1978) and of NKZP (Acharjyo pers. comm.) are as follows:

Ingredients NZP NKZP

Wheat Bran 22% 10%

Rice Bran (fine) 24%
Horse gram (whole/ crushed) 12% 25%
Maize (whole) 13%
Barley (crushed) 16%
Oats (crushed) 8%
Ragi (crushed) 20%
Groundnut Oil Cake (Crushed) 26% 19%
Turmeric Powder 1%
Salt 1% 1%
Mineral mixture/ supplement 1% 0.980%
Vitamin AD3 supplement 0.020%

The daily ration for each adult deer at NKZP is 2.500 kg (sambar),
1.000 kg (chital), 0.750 kg (hog deer and barking deer) and 2.000 kg
(brow-antlered deer) of concentrate deer mash in addition to grass and
green fodder given ad libitum.

The concentrates are fed in the forenoon plus seasonal fresh grass and
green fodder in the afternoon. The quantity of food requirement of an
individual is determined according to species, age, sex, size, weight and

252 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Management of deer in captivity

physiological status of the animal like state of pregnancy and nursing

status, young and growing animals etc. Deer replacing antlers and
pregnant does have high demand for minerals especially calcium. The
ruminants need large amount of roughages to keep the gastrointestinal
canal healthy, mobile and efficient. Lack of sufficient roughages may
lead to stasis of bowel and telescoping of the intestine.

In nature, the deer spend much time in foraging. Providing most of the diet to
such animals in the form of concentrates without foraging facilities may upset
digestion. It has been observed that depriving them of foraging time leads to
abnormal behaviour like lip, neck and tongue movements, etc. The deer in
captivity are group feeders. Therefore, they need to be provided with sufficient
feeding space enabling them to have their full share of food and exercise
besides chances of avoiding infighting. Inadequate and poor quality of food
may give rise to nutritional stress manifested by deficiency diseases.

Sometimes accidental ingestion of foreign bodies/ objects like nails, wire,

plastics, rubber etc., toxic paints, insecticides and pesticides used inside zoo
premises cause health hazards and has to be scrupulously guarded against.

Hygienic storage and daily inspection of all food items for quality and
quantity before feeding, regular and timely distribution of fresh and nutritious
food must be ensured to prevent diet related risks. Clean water from
protected water supply system may be provided daily. Salt licks are always
made available inside the enclosure to avoid mineral deficiency.

Sanitation

Maintenance of proper sanitation and hygiene of the deer enclosures as

well as the surrounding areas are of utmost importance for their health
and well-being. The excreta, left over food items, foreign materials like
plastic carry bags, etc. if any has to be collected daily and properly
disposed off at appropriate places. The pools and moats (both dry and
wet) should be cleaned and disinfected regularly. The food and water
troughs have to be properly cleaned daily before serving food and water.

ROUTINE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

Commencement of day's routine work begins with checking of all the deer
enclosures to identify problems of management and to detect births and deaths
if any. It is advisable to maintain a small note book by the person- in- charge
of pens/ enclosures so that none of the routine identified work is skipped.

£Pvis JSulleriP : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 2 53

Experience has shown that majority of deaths occur within a month of
birth or on arrival of the animals, therefore, special attention to such animals
during this crucial period is essential. Traumatic injuries from fighting during
rutting season, feeding time, fighting due to incompatibility among animals,
capture operations etc. are responsible for about 20 to 25 per cent of total
deaths in captive wild ruminants including deer. Improved methods of
capture and management may be able to minimize the casualty.

The deleterious consequences of inbreeding like still-births, congenital

anomalies, early mortality, abortions etc. can be eliminated by planned
breeding which is not practicable in deer living in groups. Hence, it is
always advisable to introduce unrelated and fresh blood (animals)
frequently amongst captive deer to avoid any inbreeding. If required, the
animal injectable transponders can be used for identifying individual deer.

If it is unethical to keep single specimens of any species of deer as it may

lead to boredom, captivity stress, psychological problems and even infertility.
Feeding of deer by visitors should be discouraged as otherwise it may lead
to over feeding and digestive disorders. Various kinds of vandalism to
animals by visitors such as disturbances during feeding/ mating/ resting
time, feeding unsuitable articles, inflicting injuries etc/ should be prevented.
Over crowding can be a chief source of nuisance and managemental hazard.
It should be avoided by implementing population control measures in the
light of prolificacy of breeding in some species e.g. chital.

The deer stags with hard antlers specially during rutting season and hand
reared adult male specimens with hard antlers are invariably dangerous
and attack the keepers and others suddenly without provocation. Keeping
this in view, one must be cautious and take special precautions to avoid
imminent danger while entering deer enclosures in case hard antlered
adult animals are present.

Few of the many managemental problems have been described above

which one would come across as a routine which could be minimized
with effective, efficient and timely intervention in animal management.

HEALTH CARE MEASURES

One of the mandates of any captive rearing facility is to maintain the

collection of wild animals in optimum health. It can only be achieved by
good management practices coupled with health care/ disease control

254 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Management of deer in captivity

programmes. The deer in captivity suffer from variety of infectious and

non-infectious diseases like sister domestic ruminants.

Regular health monitoring by trained deer keepers in detection of illness

at the initial stage like change in over all appearance, behaviour,
defecation, urination, appetite, feed intake, water consumption,
rumination, change in activity pattern, d�charges from natural orifices
etc, shall help in taking prompt action to initiate diagnosis, treatment and
to correct managemental error if any.

There must be a well equipped Veterinary Hospital under the charge of

specially qualified and experienced veterinarian to attend the sick deer
and initiate prophylactic/ curative measures to optimize health condition.
Zoo should be equipied with facilities for controlling the animals by blow
pipe, capture gun with required equipments, drugs, chemicals etc. and
pathological laboratory to carry out routine clinical tests and surgical
equipments to conduct operations.

Morbidity due to parasitic infestations have a great damaging effect on

the well being of resident animals and when coupled with mortality
specially in young deer could be devastating. Therefore, a de-worming
schedule consisting of planned programme of examination of faceal
samples to detect the parasitic infestation followed by administration of
appropriate anthelmintics at regular intervals is necessary to lessen the
incidence of parasite disease problems in deer.

Under the prevailing management practices, FMD Quadrivalent vaccine

is being only given to a few sambar, chital and hog deer at very few
captive rearing locations in India. No other vaccines are being
administered to captive deer in India at present. But as a precautionary
measure, domestic ruminants available around such locations should
be given vaccine against common infectious diseases.

There should be quarantine enclosure for housing all newly received

deer for a period of thirty days and an isolation ward to accommodate
the resident deer suffering from infectious diseases.

A well equipped post-mortem room for conducting post-mortem examination

(PME) of all dead animals and a carcass disposal facility (incinerator/ pit)
for effective disposal of dead animals after PME should be in place away
from animal display areas and Veterinary Hospital Complex.

!nvis-�ulletin: WilDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 2 55

 REFERENCES

Acharjyo, L.N. 1983. Observations on aspects of antler casting in captive

sambar deer. In: R.D.Brown (Ed.) Antler Development in Cervidae.
Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Kingsville, Taxas, U.S.A
Pp. 23 - 28.

Acharjyo, L.N. and Mishra, R. 1971. Age of sexual maturity of three species
of wild animals in captivity. J.Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 68: 446.

Acharjyo, L.N. and Mishra, C.G.1980. Some notes on age of sexual

maturity of seven species of Indian wild mammals in captivity.
J.Bombay Nat . Hist, Soc. 77: 504- 507.

Acharjyo, L.N. and Mishra, C.G. 1981. Notes on weight and size at birth
of eight species of Indian wild ungulates in captivity. J.Bombay Nat.
Hist. Soc. 78: 373-375.

Acharjyo, L.N. and Mohapatra, S. 1977. Sex ratio at birth in some captive
wild mammals. J.Bombay Nat. Hist, Soc. 74: 167- 169.

Acharjyo, L.N. and Patnaik, S.K. 1983. Some observatiohs on antler cycle
of hog-deer (Axis porcinus) in captivity. J.Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.
80: 631-632.

Acharjyo, L.N. and Patnaik, S.K. 1984. A note on antler casting of barking
deer (Muntiacus muntjak) in captivity. J.Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 81:
690-691.

Acharjyo, L.N. and Patnaik, S.K. 1988. Some observations on antler cycle
of captive chital (Cervus axis). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 85: 411-414.

Das, A.K. 1988. Some observations on the Manipur Brow-antlered deer

(Cervus eldi eld1) in Calcutta Zoo from 1970-1977. Zoo Zen. Vol.lll
(8&9): 67- 75.

Desai, J.H. and Malhotra, A.K. 1978. The Manipur Brow- antlered deer,
Cervus eldi eldi its status and breeding in captivity. InternationalZoo
Yearbook. 18: 235-236.

Sankhala, K.S. and Desai, J.H. 1969. Reproductive pattern of some

Indian mammals. Cheetal12 (1): 114 -129.

Walker, E.P. 1964: Mammals of the world. Volume-11. The John Hopkins
Press. Baltimore. Pp. 1382 - 1391.

256 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Management of over abundant ungulate populations

MANGEMENT OF OVER ABUNDANT

UNGULATE POPULATIONS
H.S. Pabla

INTRODUCTION

Throughout human history, man and wildlife have had an intimate

relationship. In the beginning, man was a food item for big predators
and a competitor for herbivores. With the passage of time, and the
advent of tools and weapons, man himself became a successful
predator and the herbivores became a resource for him. Seasonal or
periodic human migrations were dictated by the animal migrations in
search of greener pastures or drinking water. An equilibrium was
established, perhaps, when man became a cultivator. His crops acted
as a powerful lure for wild herbivor�s. while man was able to snare,
trap or shoot them either in the act of feeding or while they hung around
his fields. As bulk of the animals still lived far away from human
habitation and the hunting methods were simple, and there was little
commerce, the number of animals killed was not large enough to
endanger their existence. But with the advent of guns, vehicles and
trade in wildlife products, the equation got vitiated.

The explosion in human population in the 2Qth century pushed human

settlements into the remotest parts of our wilderness, so that the entire
countryside became a neighbourhood of man and wildlife. As there was
little legal protection for animals in the colonial times, except, perhaps,
in reserved shooting blocks, wildlife lost its habitat to agriculture and
huge numbers to poaching. Official response to this drastic loss came
in the form of promulgation of various rules and regulations to regulate
hunting. Madhya Pradesh enacted its 'MP Forest (Hunting, Shooting,
Fishing, Poisoning Water and Setting Traps or Snares in Reserved or
Prot�cted Forests) Rules, 1963 under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. A
more organised response at the national level came in the form of the
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA) which created a strong framework
for directing the future conservation efforts of the country. The Act was
founded on the fact that wildlife is a natural resource which could be
preserved if consumed carefully. It proposed creation of a set of graded
protected areas, namely national parks, sanctuaries, closed areas and
game reserves, where animals were to be fully protected while
pres01".ibing conditions under which animals could be hunted and traded

c£nvisJSultttin: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004\ 25 7

in other areas. However, the WPA lost its original character with the
passage of time as a series of amendments have rendered it completely
ineffective as a management tool and have converted it into a sort of
religious scripture prohibiting every worldly benefit that man can
possibly draw from wildlife. Rather than creating a system of checks
and balances, hunting and trade in all forms, has been banned.

The impact of the Act on the growth of wildlife populations is debatable.

While we can say that whatever is left of our wildlife is due to the protection
provided by the Act, it also needs to be decided whether we are better
off now, in comparison to the situation prevailing at the time of the
promulgation of the Act. Thanks to the Act, we have nearly 12% of our
forest areas protected under the Act, where the populations have
definitely grown over time although we have lost some species even
inside the PAs. However, we all agree that wildlife is not better off in our
managed forests, despite the protection provided by law.

OVER-ABUNDANT POPULATIONS

This expression is used with reference to situations where wild animals

cause extensive crop damage. The perception that there are any over­
abundant wildlife populations is not well founded. The notion of abundance
is based on the fact that wildlife causes widespread damage to human
interests, not based on their numbers. The reality is that wildlife is not at
all abundant outside a few high profile protected areas; it only looks
abundant on the basis of the damage it causes to our crops, property
and life. Only populations of a few species, namely nilgai, wild pig and
black buck, which live on agricultural lands, or close by, are seen as
abundant. Even these species are not abundant as their density in and
around these croplands is far lower than their density in managed forests,
not to speak of the PAs.

Whether these populations are abundant or not, they live off the
agricultural lands, causing huge losses to the rural economy. The food
obtained by the animals from the agricultural lands is clearly the cost of
conservation that should be borne by the government, not by the poor
farmers. It is clear that conservation comes at a cost but the costs are
distributed unevenly in the society. The government bears the limited
cost of maintaining the staff and developing the infrastructure. This cost
is negligible when compared with the direct and indirect costs incurred
by the local people in terms of lost economic opportunities, crop raiding
and livestock depredations. For example, in Madhya Pradesh alone,

2 58 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Management of over abundant ungulate populations

conservation impacts nearly 5,500 villages (within 2 km from forest

boundary) wit� 451,000 families and 8,79,450 ha of cultivable land.
Between April1998 and March 2003, 166 human deaths, and 3131 human
injuries from wildlife were reported. In addition, 14090 cattle were killed
by large predators. There is no record of the extent of damage to crops
which is even more grievous than the losses to predators. Although most
states have provisions for paying some kind of ex gratia amounts for the
loss of human lives or livestock, very few states have a provision for
compensating crop losses. There are neither attempts to estimate and
compensate these costs, nor efforts to alleviate these problems and
minimise the costs. And wherever any compensation systems have been
evolved, these are limited and cosmetic. Due to the inherent conflict
between the conservation programmes and the local people, there is little
popular sympathy for wildlife. Some urban elite, the environmentalists
and the conservation agencies are the only ones who support
conservation. The local people want their forests protected but do not
want wild animals. It is almost impossible to convince them of the reasons
for protecting wildlife, except as a vague righteous belief in the right of
all living bemgs to live. But in the face of the severe economic hardships
that these animals perpetrate, even these traditional beliefs do not stop
them from killing these animals.

ESTIMATED CROP DAMAGE AND PROTECTION COSTS

Although no studies on the quantification of damage are available in

India, even empirical estimates show that the quantum and spread of
this damage is quite astounding. An accurate assessment of crop
damage by wild animals is very difficult for various reasons. While it
is difficult to distinguish the damage caused by wild animals from that
caused by domestic livestock, quantification of the loss in monetary
or grain terms is even more difficult without actually cutting the crop
in damaged and control fields. A rapid survey, based on interviews
with villagers, was conducted in the Noradehi, Raisen and Vidisha
forest divisions in Madhya Pradesh in September 2002, to assess the
crop damage. The data from Noradehi appeared to be sufficiently
reliable to be useful for making state level projections, while that from
the other divisions was useful for a general comparison. As per the
data received from Noradehi, up to 30%, 10% and 40% loss was
reported in case of paddy, wheat and gram crops, respectively, in the
villages situated inside the sanctuary (sample: 2 villages, all families
covered). The loss in these villages is attributed to nilgai, chinkara,
chital and wild pig. In another village, situated about two km from the

!uvisJ3ulletio : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 2 59

forest boundary, 10% and 25% loss in the case of paddy and gram
crops respectively has been estimated. Here, the list of raiders also
includes the common langur. No crop damage clearly attributed to
wild animals was found in any village beyond 2 km from the forest
boundary. The average crop damage has been assessed to be Rs.
1067 per ha, per year, in the sample villages, which comes to between
10% to 20% of the total yield, depending upon whether the field is
irrigated or not and whether it is single crop or two crop agriculture.
On the basis of the human population and cultivated area of 214
villages situated within 5 km from the sanctuary boundary and the
crop loss assessed in the sample villages, the total loss to the state

has been estimated as Rs. 627 crores out of which Rs. 94 crores is
the direct loss while the remaining Rs. 534 crores is the cost of
protection inputs in the form of labour and materials. Although these
figures are rather empirical, but the exercise gives us an idea of the
enormity of the problem. It is obvious that the actual damage to crops,
coupled with the opportunity cost of protecting the crops is so high
that it deserves a senous attention of the state and the society. Equally
serious is the loss of quality of life of the people of the vulnerable
villages in terms of lost comfort and sleep. Spending close to 100
nights, year after year, perch precariously built machans in cold and
wet weather must be a very exasperating experience.

It is obvious from the above that wild animals, both herbivores and
predators are a serious issue in the lives of the rural people, especially
the tribals and other poorer sections. While predators have to pay the
price in terms of poisoning, snaring and electrocution deaths, crop­
raiding populations, especially those away from PAs, are also in
serious danger of being exterminated through poaching by locals as
well as professionals. Unless serious efforts are made to control the
prevailing conflict, these populations are likely to be wiped out in the
near future. Therefore, the management of these populations should
deal with the problem of crop raiding and the conservation of these
species as well.

MANAGEMENT OF LOSSES AND POPULATIONS

There are two possible strategies to deal with the problem, namely,
prevention, and compensation. Prevention can either be by putting fences
between the animals and crops or by reducing the populations of the
problem animals. Compensation can be either on the basis of periodic
assessments or at flat rates. These strategies can be used in various

260 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Management of over abundant ungulate populations

combinations, depending upon specific situations. These possible options

are briefly discussed below.

Compensation

As crop and other kinds of damage is inevitable where man and wildlife
live together, it is the duty of the government to compensate these
losses because by feeding the animals on their crops, the farmers are
directly bearing the cost of maintaining our wildlife, at least partially.
Many governments have compensation schemes in place but generally
prefer to call it ex gratia because the amounts offered are not
comparable to the losses incurred. A summary of the kinds and rates
of compensation prevalent in a few.states is given in the Annexure-! at
the end.

In most cases, the system of investigations before a payment can be

made is so cumbersome that it is hard to imagine any money reaching
the affected people at all. Therefore, the schemes are not really serving
their obvious purpose of controlling the hostility of the people against
wildlife. A more transparent, fair and effective policy can be based on
the principle that everybody who lives in a given area is equally
vulnerable to these losses and everybody should be paid uniform rates,
irrespective of the actual loss. This is because the quantum of loss is
likely to be inversely proportional to the crop protection costs incurred
by the owner, which deserve to be compensated as well. In such a
case, the probability of loss for different villages, or belts, can be
assessed periodically through a systematic sampling, and cheques can
be sent to the listed people without their having to submit a claim.
Obviously, the scheme is going to be expensive. But if the poorest
people are already paying the cost, it is reasonable for the government
to foot the bill. Though it sounds utopian, such systems already exist
in the western countries. It is reported that farmers in Great Britain get
paid on the basis of migratory ducks feeding in a field on the day of
assessment. No assessment of actual loss is required as the loss will
depend on the number of birds feeding in a field.

Fencing

As long as man and animals share common habitats, crop damage is

inevitable. It is true that the extent of damage depends upon the density
of the problem populations around croplands. The preventive strategies

Cnvis �ullerin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 26 1

can be based on either keeping the numbers of animals low or fencing
the croplands effectively to prevent the animals from entering the fields.
In Africa, most of the protected areas are fenced off with the help of a
double fence, the inner one being a power fence while the outer one is
a chain link fence. In many cases, a road runs along the periphery for
patrolling the fence. The fence serves the dual purpose of keeping the
wild animals inside while preventing the domestic livestock and people
out. However, in India human habitation is intimately interspersed with
wildlife habitats, therefore putting fences on forest or PA boundaries
may be worthwhile at only very few locations. Another option can be
either putting fences around villages or croplands, leaving corridors
for wild animals between the fences. Again, as putting a single fence
around whole villages may pose many practical problems, private
fences involving groups
,...-----,
of farmers, with
Scale of Poaching
attractive subsidies
In a study, conducted in 1996-97, pub­
f r o m the government
lished in Ambio, Ulhas Karanth and
may p r o v i d e a more
Madhusudan have reported poaching lev­
pragmatic solution. In
els of 216 hunter days per month per vil­
fact, a combination of
lage, involving 26 species, around
both the approaches,
Kundremukh National Park in Karnataka.
based on site-specific
The same study reported regular hunting
requirements, will have
of 16 species around Nagarhole National
to be adopted. While
Park. Hunters supply meat to nearby
chain-link fences are
towns in Karnataka and Kerala. If that is
expensive to install but
the norm for the rest of the country as well,
easy to maintain, power
keeping in mind the number of villages situ­
fences are relatively
ated in the forest areas, poaching must be
cheaper to install but
treated as a bigger threat to wildlife than
require con ti-nual
even the habitat loss. Applying this norm
maintenance. Barbed­
to MP, and presuming that a hunter must
wire fences can also be
be earning at least 100 rupees per day for
a useful alternative if the
his work, the poachers are earning around
strands are sufficiently
Rs. 600 crore per annum. This is nearly
close and tight to
double of the annual revenue of the forest
prevent animals from
department. If this is an exaggeration, one
forcing through.
can apply one's own correction factor to
However, in view of the
arrive at an acceptable figure. The loss is
exorbitant costs of
still mind bo
_ ggling. Who are we fooling by
metallic fencing, a
putting a ban on hunting?
heavy government

262 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Management of over abundant ungulate populations

African Experience

Kenya has had no hunting of lions since 27 years and the lion
population has been greatly reduced. Tanzania has lion hunting and
at the same time the biggest population on the continent. The situation
in Kenya illustrates that lions would be viewed only as threats to
people and livestock in the absence of trophy hunting. Lions in
Amboseli National Park were exterminated by angry Maasai in the
early 1990s, and three-fourths of the lions in Nairobi Park were
speared in the past year. Lions inflict serious damage to these
people's livelihoods, so why should they be tolerated outside the
parks? The Tanzanian hunting industry certainly has the potential
to play an important role in lion conservation, but there is significant
room for improvement. Hunting companies need to engage local
communities directly and help them to co-exist with lions.(Dr. Craig
Packer a Distinguished McKnight Professor from the University of
Minnesota. He has done 26 years of research on the lions of the
Serengeti and is regarded as one of the world authorities on lion, in
an interview published in The African lndaba a-Newsletter, July
2004).

As a consequence of the Wildlife Policy of Tanzania (1998) Wildlife

Management Areas are being created where villages manage the
wildlife on their land and are increasingly earning revenues, including
those from lions. This raises tolerance levels towards wildlife
including dangerous game and improves the potential for wildlife as
a land use option. Areas which otherwise would be lost for wildlife
are thereby safeguarded. (Tanzania: Lion Conservation And Human­
Lion Conflicts, By Dr. Rolf D. Baldus, The African lndaba a­
Newsletter, July 2004).

The Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZAWA} last year disbursed over K1.8
billion, generated from hunting licenses from the 2003 hunting season,
to 49 communities living in and around game management areas
(GMAs) across the country. Source: UNIRIN, June 2004.

Local pastoralist communities on the ranches outside Lake Mburo

National Park in Mbarara district, Uganda, have started reaping the
benefits after a pilot sport-hunting project began 3 years ago. The
project allows the communities to manage the wild animals and benefit
from sport-hunting trophy fees. With an economic value attached to

£nvis .gullrrin : WilDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 263

 game animals, the prospects of pastoralists co-existing with wild
animals look brighter. The communities get 65% of the trophy fees,
Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) 15%, landowners 10%, sub-county
local government 5% and the Community Protected Areas Institutions
5%. This helped reduce poaching and charcoal burning. Disputes
between wildlife authorities and pastoralists have ceased to exist.
Sport-hunting would replace poaching outside the protected areas
since government does not have any enforcement capacity. The
concept of utilizing wildlife for the benefit of local communities is
sweeping across the southern and eastern African countries under
the catch phrase: "use it or lose it. (Source: New Vision, Kampala,
Uganda Reported 1n The African lndaba e-Newsletter, July 2004)

subsidy will be required to popularise such solutions by people in

general.

A realistic compensation for crop losses and protection costs, along with
subsidies on crop protection, is a critical requirement. There are all kinds
of agricultural and other subsidies but none of them targets, conservation
and agriculture alike. A conservation subsidy to fund such a scheme
can go a long way in helping the poor farmers and wildlife at the same
time. The estimate of available subsidies is to the tune of Rs. 200,000
crores per annum as reported in the news papers. Diverting some of
this money for such a scheme should not be difficult for a large country
like ours.

POPULATION MANAGEMENT

Scientific management of herbivore populations is of critical importance

to their well being, as otherwise, the populations may explode and push
themselves, and their sympatric species, into extinction, by destroying
their own habitat through overgrazing. Population management is all
the more important in situations where these populations earn human
hostility by damaging crops and other property, as the risk is then
compounded by increased poaching. The problem populations outside
PAs, where they are in serious conflict with local human interests, are
in serious and imminent danger of being wiped out, because they are
not wanted there. These populations can only be saved if they lose
their nuisance value or turn into a positive resource for the people
concerned. Translocation, culling and sport hunting are the only
solutions for managing populations.

2 64 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Management of over abundant ungulate populations

Translocation

Translocation of wild animals is a routine activity in Africa and other

countries where wildlife is actively managed. It is mainly used for trading
animals and stocking new protected areas or private game reserves. It
is hardly ever used as a tool to manage unwanted herbivore populations
because of the scale of operations required. Mass translocation of whole
populations is an extremely expensive and slow proposition and is
unviable as a tool of choice. Moreover, in India, we have no experience
or expertise in handling animals at the required scale and it will be
impossible to consider any sizable initiative without intensive hands-on
training of a very large number of forest staff. As such training is not
available in India at present, collaboration with African or American
experts is the only way of introducing it at any reasonable scale. It usually
involves high mortality rates which may be unacceptable in the current
sentimental environment in India.

Culling

Culling is the process of reducing wild populations by killing. The term

is more often used to describe an operation when management agencies
themselves, or through hired shooters, kills large numbers of animals,
of selected age and sex, to balance the population size, or its growth
rate, to suit the available habitat. Culling requires expertise and
equipment currently beyond the reach of our forest departments. Even
more important issue is what to do with large numbers of dead animals
in the light of the legal prohibition against utilising the products of culling
for consumption or trade.

Sport Hunting

Sport hunting, through permits, is the only viable way of managing

wildlife populations in the long run. Hunting is one of the most popular
recreation activities in the world for which people are ready to pay mind
boggling amounts of money. An extreme example of the hunting craze
was reported, in The Hunting Report Newsletter (at
www.huntingreport.com). when a single Canadian bighorn sheep hunt
was auctioned for 4,05,000 dollars. And the hunter, one Sherwin Scott,
could not bag the animal within the allotted 17 day hunt in the Cadoman
area bordering Jasper National Park. Wild animals near human
habitations are being killed by poachers without paying anything. If we

£nvis _gullflin : WILDLIFE �NO PROTECTED AR�s (2004) 26 5

 Mountain Conservancy Project, Pakistan

The project was launched, in early 1990s, as a joint effort of IUCN,

WWF and the Government of Pakistan, in North-Western Frontier
Province of Pakistan in response to rampant poaching of various
dwindling wild sheep and goat species. The villagers admitted
poaching for meat. The project loaned money to the village for pur­
chasing meat and started a sport hunting project. The fees charged
are upward of USD 5000 per animal. Markhor (Capra falconeri), the
most endangered animal in the area, is charged USD 25000 per
animal. The returns from the project are shared with the villagers.
Since then the villagers have paid back their loans, poaching has
gone down drastically and the wildlife has bounced back. The bag
limits have been raised over the years in response to the increase
in populations. The markhor bag limit started as one animal per year
in the beginning has now gone up to 6 animals. The project was
started in one valley but has spread to 10 valleys now.

officially harvest the animals, which are otherwise being killed by

poachers, and share the returns with the communities, the same animals
can become a source of revenue.

This will tend to minimise poaching as the local people will have an
incentive in guarding the animals. To do this, hunting licenses can be
issued after deciding the sustainable bag limits and other necessary
regulations. Licenses can be auctioned annually to the travel agents
or hunting outfitters, who can then bring in sport hunters, with all the
attendant benefits to the local people. In such a scenario, where more
animals means more returns, people will have a built-in incentive for
preserving these populations, rather than exterminating them. Apart
from generating revenues from hunting fees, it will also support local
businesses and employment as outfitters, guides, and in hospitality.
The revenues generated from the operations can be used to
compensate crop losses as well. Some of our common species, such
as black buck, nilgai, sambar, chital and wild pig are eminently suited
for this kind of management. Hunting, both for sport and for managing
populations, is practiced in most countries of the world. It pays for a
major proportion of the conservation budget and brings in very high
returns to the adjoining communities. Indian herbivores, introduced
abroad are among the most popular trophies in North and South
America. Some of the internet advertisements for these animals are

266 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Management of over abundant ungulate populations

shown below as a sample:

1 King Ranch, Texas.

•
Nilgai
•
$300.00 per gun per day plus harvest fee (1 day hunt).
•
Bull $900.00 harvest fee per bull
•
Cow $500.00 harvest fee per cow
2. YEAR ROUND TEXAS-LTD HOG HUNTS
•
2 days - $600.00- 2 hogs.

3 Texas hog hunts, ARCHERY ONLY

•
2 day minimum, 4 hog limit, lodging, tripods and feeders included,
$100.00 per day, TROPHY FEE of $350.00

4 South Texas wild hog/javalina hunts, GUARANTEED SHOT

•
days I 2 hogs, $395.00,
•
day- $500- 2 Hogs, Deluxe Lodging and Meals

5 Clubs and Associations Specializing in Wild Boar Hunting

Iowa Bowhunters Association

•
Michigan Bow Hunters
•
North Carolina Outdoor Recreation Club
•
Virginia, Blacksburg-Shawnee Hunting Club

6 Texas Safari Ranch (www.texassafari.com)

•
Axis- $ 2000
•
Black Buck - $1600

7 Argentina Hunting (www.argentinahunting.8m.com)

Official website of Argentina offers hunts for spotted deer, black buck,
wild boar and wild buffalo, among others.

LEGAL ISSUES

As mentioned at the outset, the WPA, in its current form does not
support any population management options. Section 12 gives a very
restrictive definition of 'Sci enti f i c manage ment' of wil d l i f e as
'translocation of any wild animals to an alternative suitable habitat' or

£r111is�ulltrin: WILDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 26 7

'population management of wildlife without killing or poisoning or
destroying any wild animals'. Section 11 (1) (b) of the Act, permits
hunting of wild animals belonging to Schedule II, Ill and IV, if they
become dangerous to human life and property, including standing crops.
There is a glaring contradiction between these two sections. What
section 11 permits us in terms of permitting 'hunting' problem
populations, section 12 has taken it away by putting serious constraints
on the term 'manag.ement'. As we have no expertise in mass
translocation of wild animals, we are in no position, at all, to manage
our problem populations. However, we can hunt these populations to
their extermination without calling it 'management' as section 11 permits
hunting in all its expressions, such as killing, poisoning and destroying
etc. Hunting and translocation are the only tools for scientific
management of wildlife. But, while translocation is an emergency
response in selected situations, hunting is a routine operation for
managing wildlife populations all over the world. By outlawing hunting
we have almost totally eliminated any chances of serious attempts at
alleviating the suffering of forest dwelling communities.

Scientific management of wildlife is a tool to draw maximum benefits

from this resource as well as to minimise the losses due to human
wildlife conflict. These benefits can be drawn only through a system of
ownership, utilisation and trade of wildlife products such as meat,
trophies etc. The WPA does not permit any of these enterprises. Under
such circumstances, management of populations, over abundant or not,
is irrelevant.

In response to the wide spread hue and cry against crop damage by
nilgai, wild pig and black buck, many states, such as UP, MP, Rajasthan,
Maharashtra, etc. have permitted their hunting, except black buck, under
severe restrictions. Madhya Pradesh has permitted killing of nilgai and
wild pig but no one has applied for permission because of impossible
and impractical conditions imposed.

Summary of Hunting Systems Permitted in Different States

State Species Features

MP Wild pig Sport hunting outside RF/PF, beyond 5

km from PA boundary, permit issued by
SDM, licence fee: local hunter Rs. 100,
district level hunter Rs. 1000 per year,

268 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Management of over abundant ungulate populations

royalty: Rs. 1 00/animal, maximum hunt

allowed: 5 animals per license/year

Nilgai Hunting license issued by SDM o n

c o m p l aint, anyone w i th a licensed
weapon can be permitted to hunt, has to
hunt in the complainant's field only, and
within 15 days, carcase property of the
government.

Rajasthan Nilgai Forest Rangers to DCF authorised t o

kill, in specified districts

Whereas the legal provisions for hunting animals have been there since
the inception of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, these have never
been used due to the belief that any show of utilitarian attitude towards
wildlife may trivialize its sanctity. Although the Act was amended in
1991, and again in 2002, to remove provisions for hunting, for pleasure
or revenue, the MP Wildlife (Protection) Rules, 1974 still retain the
original plan for sport hunting. Same may be true for other states as
well.

Sceptics may raise the bogey of political and cultural problems. If the
programme is liked and accepted by the people, the politicians will also
support it. As far as the so-called cultural aversion to hunting is
concerned, it is a complete hoax. A large majority of our people are non­
vegetarian, poachers are butchering our wild, shikar was banned only
as recently as 1970, while the sleeping provisions for hunting continued
right up to 1991. The Madhya Pradesh Wildlife (Protection) Rules, 1974
still contain provisions regarding the constitution of shooting blocks and
hunting fees. If fishing can be permitted, why should killing of any other
species be a taboo? We can be confident that if a proper communication
campaign is launched before such a decision is implemented, we can
have sufficient public opinion in favour of a people-centred and scientific
wildlife utilization programme.

The arguments against sport hunting, given by well-meaning

conservationists are as follows:

a) that starting sport hunting may open the floodgates for more
poaching in the name of legal hunting;
b) we may not be able to control the bag limits within scientific
prescriptions, due to our notorious inability to implement our

!1111i1 •�llllttin : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 269

 regulations;
c) it may deplete the prey base for endangered carnivores, and may
lead to a rise in cattle-lifting depredations.

These are valid fears but a closer look will show that there are built in
answers to these fears. The very proposal for introducing sport hunting

is meant to reduce poaching by making entire rural populace the

guardians of wild animals, instead of only the forest guard protecting
the animals. As far as the question of exceeding sustainable bag limits
is concerned, the risk is minimum in view of the fact that if the
communities start getting reasonable incomes from the venture, the
incentive and pressure to stick to sustainability co·nsiderations will be
a reasonable safeguard. Conservation lobbies and scientific institutions
as independent watchdogs to ensure that limits are not crossed. The
fear of depleting the prey base for predators is also unfounded as the
numbers to be hunted will be very low (below 5% of the adult population
per annum), and that too be compensated by a reduction in poaching.
Moreover, experience worldwide shows that, rather than depleting,
populations of hunted ani_mals grow, under the influence of properly
managed hunting programmes (see box).

WILDLIFE AS A NATURAL RESOURCE

Animal resources, like plant resources, have a natural growth curve,

involving growth, equilibrium and decay, in that order. This growth pattern
eminently lends itself to human intervention according to scientific
principles. If we do not control growing populations, by removing the annual
increment at or just before the equilibrium, the animals will destroy their
habitat, and consequently themselves. They will also become pests and
will, in any case, lose popular and political support. It will neither serve
the interests of the protectionists nor of pragmatic conseryationists if the
populations are permitted to enter the decay phase without any economic
benefits to the society. Wildlife, then is viewed as a renewable natural
resource and its management as such for human welfare is vital.
Experience worldwide has proved this beyond doubt and we should
reconsider our ecological policies, as we are revising our economic
policies, in the light of global experiences. As nothing can be attempted
beyond the prevailing legal framework, we will have to begin by overhauling
the WPA to bring it in tune with the principles being followed globally.

27Q UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Management of over abundant ungulate populations

Annexure- I

Summary of Compensation Systems in various states

Type of Loss State Rate of Compensation

(Rs.)

Crop damage AP At par with natural

calamities or riots.

West Bengal 2500/ha

Bihar 500/acre

Jharkhand 2,500/ha

Meghalaya 3750-7500/ha

Tamil Nadu Up to 15000

Orissa 1000/acre.

Karnataka 2000/acre

UP 150-2500/acre

Gujarat 250-5000

Livestock deaths AP Market Value

West Bengal 70-450

Meghalaya 100-1500

MP 5000

Jharkhand 500-3,000

Maharashtra 3000-9000
(or 75% of the market value,
whichever is less)

Human deaths, Karnataka 25000-100,000

Permanent disability, Assam 20,000

Injuries UP 5000-50,000

Gujarat 2500-100,000

AP Up to 20000

W Bengal 5000-20000

Tamil Nadu 20000-1 0, 0000

Bihar 6000-20000

£oYisJlullrrio: WILDUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 27 l

 Jharkhand 331333 -1,001000

Meghalaya 301000-1001000

MP 101000-501000

Orissa "21000-1 ,00,000

Maharashtra 501000-2,00,000

Loss of house, other Karnataka 5,000

property
UP 400-3000

AP At par with natural

calamities or riots

West Bengal 500-1000

Bihar 200-1000

Jharkhand 11000-101000

Meghalaya 5000-10,000

Tamil Nadu 5000

Orissa 2,000-3,500

2 72 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Distribution of peninsular ungulates

DISTRIBUTION OF PENINSULAR
UNGULATES IN RELATION TO
BIOGEOGRAPHIC ZONES, STATES
AND PROTECTED AREAS OF INDIA
J.S. Kathayat and V.B. Mathur

INTRODUCTION

In all, 34 ungulate species belonging to seven families viz., Bovidae,

Cervidae, Equidae, Moschidae, Rhinocerotidae, Suidae and Tragulidae occur
in India. Of these, 20 ungulate species belonging to four families viz.,
Bovidae, Cervidae, Equidae and Moschidae occur in the Himalaya, the
distribution and abundance status have already been published in the earlier
issue of ENVIS bulletin on Mountain Ungulates of India. In this article
information on distribution of remaining ungulate species found in Indian
region has been summarized. There are about 360 Protected Areas (PAs)
covering approximately 116,296 km2 (3. 75% of the region) in which these
species occur. These include: 1 PA in the Trans-Himalayan zone, 47 in the
Himalayan zone, 6 in the Desert zone, 69 in the Semi-Arid zone, 47 in
Western Ghats zone, 109 in the Deccan Peninsular zone, 30 in the Gangetic
Plain, 6 in the Coastal zone and 45 in the North-East India. The Western
Ghats Mountains (58) has the highest percentage of PA coverage while the
province of Punjab Plains (4A) has the lowest PA coverage (Table 1) .

PROTECTE D AREA COVERAGE

PA coverage in different Biogeographic Regions

An analysis of area covered under the PA network in each biogeographic

zone ( i.e, area available for conservation of ungulates and other species}
reveals that the Western Ghats Mountains (58) has the highest (10,595
km2) coverage while the Punjab Plains (4A) has the lowest (907 km2).
The area covered under the PA network in other provinces are as follows:
18 - Tibetan Plateau (1 ,784 km2), 2A - North-West Himalaya (2,783 km2),
28 - West Himalaya (5,520 km2), 2C - Central Himalaya (317 km2), 2D­
East Himalaya (9,40 km2), 4A- Punjab Plains (932 km2), 48- Gujarat
Rajputana (12,373 km2), SA- Malabar Plai'ns (1 ,531 km2), 58- Western
Ghats Mountains (10,595 km2), 6A- Central Highlands (11 ,979 km2), 68-

!11vis�ulletln: WilOLIFEAND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 273

Chhota Nagpur (7,961 km2). 6C- Eastern Highlands (4,449 km2), 50-
Central Plateau (11,730 km2), 6E- Deccan South km2),
7A- Upper
(3,403
Gangetic Plain (5,877 km2), 78- Lower Gangetic Plain (1,842 km2), 88-
East Coasts (1 ,597 km2), 9A- Brahmaputra Valley (2,388 km2), and 98-
North-East India (2,581 km2) {Table 2).

PA size distribution of ungulate species

Table 3, indicates the ungulate species found in various PAs and the
potential areas (in km2) available for each species are as follows: Barking
deer was reported in 208 PAs (70,663 km2), blackbuck in 64 PAs (33,737
km2), brow-antlered deer in 1 PA (40 km2), four-horned antelope in 89
PAs (42,906 km2), chital in 176 PAs (60,937 km2), gaur in 126 PAs
(42,097 km2}. hog deer in 3 4 PAs (9,370 km2), Indian gazelle in 55
PAs (32,440 km2), Indian wild ass in 2 PAs (12;459 km2), mouse deer
in 62 PAs (25,31 0 km2), nilgai in 148 PAs (63,206 km2), Nilgiri tahr in
12 PAs (2,917 km2), one-horned rhinoceros in 11 PAs (2,970 km2),
pygmy hog in 2 PAs (526 km2), sambar in 217 PAs (77,550 km2), swamp
deer in 9 PAs (5,413 km2), wild pig in 246 PAs (96,287 km2), and wild
buffalo in 15 PAs (5,405 km2).

The mean PA size for PAs in Provinces 6A and 78 are low while it is
higher for 3A and 60 (Table 1). Over 36% of these PAs are <100 km2 and
about 44% PAs are in the category of 101-500 km2. In other words, 80%
of PAs that afford protection to ungulates are smaller in size. There is a
need for at least a few large PAs to maintain viable populations of some
of these ungulates species for long-term conservation.

UNGULAT E SPECIES RI CHNESS IN ST ATES AN D

PROTECTED AREAS

Wild pig seems to be the most common ungulate species in the country
as it is reported from 246 PAs, while the Brow-antlered deer is found
only in one PA (Table 4).

The highest ungulate species richness is found in the biotic province

Central Highlands (12 species) and the minimum species richness is
observed in the biotic province Tibetan Plateau (1 species). Table 3
indicates the state of Uttar Pradesh has the most number of ungulate
species (12 species) while the state of Sikkim has the least (2 species).
Ungulates species richness in other states given in the parantheses are
as follows: Andhra Pradesh (10), Arunachal Pradesh (6), Assam (10),

2 74 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Distribution of peninsular ungulates

Bihar (9), (11), Goa (7), Gujarat (1 0), Haryana (7),

Chhattishgarh
Himachal Pradesh (4), Jammu & Kashmir (4), Jharkand (8), Karnataka
(8), Kerala (8), Madhya Pradesh (11), Maharashtra (10), Manipur (5),
Meghalaya (4), Mizoram (4), Nagaland (4), Orissa (9), Punjab (6),
Rajasthan (7), Tamil Nadu (9), Tripura (4), Uttaranchal (6), and West
Bengal (8).

The detailed accounts of species presence by PA, Biogeographic Zone

and state are presented in Table 4. However, it is stated that the data
presented is collated from PA managers and state headquarters and is
subject to limitations viz. {1) Some species populations exist outside the
PA network (2) The presence of a few species are yet to be confirmed
from some PAs (3) The total area of the PA may not be the potential
9-rea for the ungulate species and (4) A few PAs have the 'proposed'
status i.e. they have not been gazatted. We are always seeking to update
information on distribution of ungulates species and any queries or
suggestions may be directed to the National Wildlife Institute Datatbase,
Wildlife Institute of India Usk@wii.gov.in).

tnvis _gullttin : WiLDUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 275

Table 1. Sizes of Protected Area in different Biogeographic Zones

Biogeographic Biogeographic Number of Minimum Maximum

zone* Province* Protected size (km2) size (km2)
Areas

Trans Himalaya 18 1 1784.00 1784.00

Himalaya 2A 13 14.00 754.40

28 17 2.13 1552.00
2C 5 35.34 104.00
2D 12 55.00 4149.00

Desert 3A 6 2.03 7506.22

Semi-arid 4A 23 1.43 186.50

48 46 4.45 1153.42

Western Ghats SA 11 8.00 563.28

58 36 55.00 874.20

Deccan 6A 26 0.27 1471.13

Peninsula 68 22 8.75 1354.30
6C 13 14.16 1258.37
6D 32 1.42 3568.09
6E 16 0.88 1194.00

Gangetic Plain 7A 17 1.09 2073.00

78 13 0.14 544.67

Coasts 88 6 5.95 1330.10

Northeast 9A 24 4.14 849.79

98 21 4.70 500.00

*
Followed by
Rodgers, W.A. and Panwar, H.S. 1998. Planning a Protected Area netwrok in India. Vol. I &
2. A report prepared for the Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife, Government
of india. Wildlife Institute oflndia, Dehra Dun. 608 pp.

276 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Distribution of peninsular ungulates

Table 2. Protected Area size in different Biogeographic Zones and Ungulate

species richness.

Province Area of No. of No. of Total % No. of

Province States P.As Area of Coverage Species
(km2) P.As of PA
(km2) Area

18 75069 1 1 1784.00 2.38 1

2A 69401 2 13 2783.24 4.01 2

28 52072 2 H 5416.40 10.40 3

2C 5457 2 5 317.98 5.83 3

20 83743 1 12 9405.57 11.23 4

3A 178296 2 6 16076.09 9.02 5

4A 122903 6 23 907.53 0.74 7

48 416576 4 46 12380.30 2.97 11

SA 66633 5 11 1836.52 2.76 9

SB 65546 6 36 10595.66 16.17 10

6A 241310 4 26 11979.41 4.96 12

68 178095 4 22 7961.12 4.47 8

6C 208150 2 13 4449.23 2.14 11

60 410041 4 32 11405.88 2.78 11

6E 342743 4 16 3403.95 0.99 10

7A 206687 2 17 5879.36 2.84 10

78 148161 2 13 1842.35 1.24 11

88 61778 3 6 1597.00 2.59 5

9A 66290 1 24 3879.99 5.85 10

98 105050 5 21 2394.44 2.28 7

3104001 360 116296.02 3.75

£nvis �ullrtin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 277

 sa!:>ads ll?lOl 0
0 ... 0 ... 0
"' ..... ..... " " co co co "' " " "
... <D ... ... ... ... ...

Ofe una PI!M X '> '> '> '> X X X X X X X X X X X '> X X

Jeoa PI !M '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '>

(1?40U!SI?J1?8) Jaaa dWI?MS X X '> X X X X X X X X X X '> X X X X X

Jeqwes '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> X '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '>

DOH Aw5Ad )< )< .... )< )( )( X )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )< )( x )(

isoJa:>OU!4� (paUJ04-auo Jall?aJ�) UI?!PUI X X '> X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

J41?l !J!OI!N X X X X X X X X X X X '> X X X X X X

(!e51!Nl unqan1a '> X X '> '> X '> '> X '> '> X X '> '> X X X X

(U!lOJfla4:> UI?!PUI) Jaaa asnow '> X X X '> '> X X X X '> '> '> '> '> X X X X

SS'If PI! M :l!li?!S'o' X X X X X X '> X X X X X X X X X X X X

(eJeltUt4:>) auaze£> UI?!PUI -.. X X X '> X '> X X X X X X '> '> )( )( )( )(

Cl)
Q)
Jaaa 5oH
co )( '> '> .... X '> '> '> )( X X )( X X X '> )( X X

U5
Cl) (UOS!S UI?!PUI) Jnl?£) '> '> '> '> '> '> X X X X '> '> .... '> '> )( X '> '>
::I
0
·.:::
co (11?»!4:>) Jaaa pauods -.. X '> '> '> X )( X X
>
'> '> '> .... '> '> '> '> '> '>

c
Q)
() (1?40U!SMOLI:l) adOfalUI? paUJ04·Jn0::1 '> X X '> '> )( '> X X X '> '> '> ., '> )( X X X
c
Q)
.....
.....
::I
() Jaaa (S,PI3) paJiiflUI?·MOJ8 X )( X X )( X X X )(
()
X )( X X X X X X '> X

0
Cl)
Q) (adofalU'o' lii?!PUI) )f:>nq)f:>l?l8 '>
·u X X X '> X ., '> X X X '> X '> ., X X X X

Q)
a.
(/)
0
._

(>teflunw ue!PUI) Jaaa 6u!)IJ1?8 '> '> '> '> '> '> ., '> .... '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '>
.....
Q)
.0
E
::I
z ..<: .c

.c
-*, �"' E ..<:
"'
�
..::
salels: "'
� ,
It .c
It
"' "'
"' � "" -"'
a: iii "'
It '"
-o
J:1 -o
� §'
0> ""' c:

"'
.<:
(.) !!! "' '"
.<: :::>
"' "' "' "' E "'
c:

t3i
"' E 'iii
c:
E � c:
0 '" "' >- "' "'
� "' ..<: lti Q. .<:
� '"
�
.c ;;; '"
E E .c
c:
-g :::> ,6
.c
.c ;;; :;; M l!; �
.c
"'
c:
"' lil' t:l "'
0>
<( 4: <( co u I I � ..., "" "" :::;: :::;: :::;: :::;: :::;: z

278 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 VOQZ) s� 031:>310lld aNV 3�11011M : U!l'IJ"fr •!•"'1

I
q?, :xJ , rj
� �
--4
=E
"'
!:l ii Q)
::l.
"C
I::
iii
=
3" �
c
� Jll. ..2.
8-
"'
"'
Q)
C"
CD
[ �!!.
=r
g'
.g
=r [ � w
�
I::
Ill .,
0
' 0
:::s
::!:
:::s
c:
CD
Q.

' ' ' ' ' 'X ' ' Barking Deer (Indian Muntjak)

' ' )( X <._ X ' ' ' Blackbuck (Indian Antelope)

•
X X X )( X X X X X Brow-antlered (Eid's) Deer
I
X ' )( X ' )( ' )( <.. Four-horned antelope (Chowslngha)

I
' ' <._ X ' )( 'X <.. Spotted Deer (Chlttal)
iI
' ' X ' ' X )( X <... Gaur (Indian Bison)

' ..... ..... )( X )( X <._ X Hog Deer

X ..... )( )( X )( <._ X X Indian Gazelle (Chlnkara)

)( X X )( X )( X X X Asiatic Wild Ass

X X X X ' )( )( X ' Mouse Deer (Indian Chevrotln)

)( ' ' X X X ' ' <.. Bluebull (NIIgal)

X X )( X ' )( )( X X Nllglrl Tahr

'
..... <._ X )( X X )( X X Indian (Greater one-horned) Rhinoceros

!'
X X X X X X X X X Pygmy Hog

' ' ' ' <._ X ' ' 'Sambar

X ' )( X X X )( X X swamp Deer (Baraslngha)

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Wild Boar

X X X X X X X X X Wild Buffalo

�
00
N
"' � ID N ..... "' ID Total Species

SalBin5un JelnSU!Uad JO UO!lnQ!JlS!O

1\.)
Table 4. Distribution of Ungulates in various Protected Areas in India
co
0
..
"' E
c .c;
u
..
z "'
c: 0
Gl ·;;;
c:
c :;<
.. 3:
c :;::
0::
�
� ..
u
� c.
.Q
0;
0
.c;

� "' �.. "' "'

.c;
m ::J
::< .. � :.
..
"'
en
.c; c:
c: ..
.. >
;:
.. e c: ;:
.q: -;;; c. -;;;
.><
<:
(.J 0 c:

0 c: 0
E
- .. "' 0 .t c: :E � .c; ·;;;
..
0:. .. "' o; ,j,
0 c:
"Tl .. w 0
(.J :.
E
.c; .c;
N c ..
u u ..
.. en
c:
- (.J
- iii
- � "' c:
0 a!
z .. ..
"'
c: "' .. .!! .q: ,§. -;;;
0
:;:: :;::
< � ....,.
0::
2l ::. .. "' e; c:
Ql :u
en
.. .. .Q
� .!! .. 32
� E � "'
c. c.

)> .. I! "' v; -;;; 0

.><
u c: � .!!
"' :u � § 0
.. 0
�
..
g.
..
8'
.. w
<T c: "' ;: 0 "'
=
'-'
u ....
'-'
- ::r::
.5!' '5
u
::J
..!!!.
c:
.. c.
.. 0 "' c: .0 .. .c; .. 0 c: .. :; "' :; a. a!
.. ..
i .0 -.:: c:
.. .. .><
.. .. .. E .0
li
i
::J
:>< .. ..
8' 8' <.>
E :; ·a. "'
li
"' "'

�
::J
-e 8'
� � � �
.. .. :; "' 0 ::J "'
� [; c: c:
:; "'
iii iii (i; a. a! iii a! u..
0
(/) ::r:: � ::< iii z a. (/)
I 16 Sakkrm Khangchendzonga NP 1977 1784 ()( 1829-8� ./' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

2 2A 11machal Pradesh Great Hmalayan NP 1984 754 4( ��� ./' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .;' X

Khokhan WLS 1954 14� 1�2787 ./' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Gamgu�Siahbehl WLS 196< 1088� 1S00.39tS .;' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

1\ras WLS 1954 t4.0C 280().368( .;' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Kanawar WLS 1954 61 {)( 180().483� ./' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Kalatop.Khaurar WLS 1951: 69.0C 1185-2 76.!! ./' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

IBandr WLS 196:< 41 3 762·216( ,f X X X I. X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Rup-Bhabha WLS 198 738()( 90$.565{ ./' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

ShlkauDevr WLS 196:< 72.0C 18()().3� ,f X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Trnhan WLS 199< 61 ()( NA ,f X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Nargu WLS 196, 27831 9t04034 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ./' X

Jammu t. Kastmr Dachlgam NP 1981 1712! 1642-4285 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ,f X

Krshlwa NP 1981 400.0C 17()().713� ,f X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ./' X

26 11machal Pradesh Chal WLS 197t 108.5< 70 1-2� ./' X X X X X X X X X X X X X ,f X ,f

X

Chlfdhar WLS 19& 561! 20()().3641 ./' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .;' X

Darangha� WLS 196< 167.{)( 21()().331� ./' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Darlaghat WLS 196< 140{)( 1075-206� ./' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ./' X

M�atllal WLS 1954 575! 9()().196€ ./' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .;' X

Sill� WLS 1961 2" 1230-184 ./' X X X )( X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Sllma Water Gatchment WLS 195! 102 19()().262( ./' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Taira WLS 196< 26.00 1�3324 ./' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

-----·--- - - -
-
 Table 4 Continued....

..
�
� 0
...
�
·;1: c c
;;z
.. 5 ·� &
c
=
0
0.
i
0
.<:
.. � �
� :::>
:IE a; 0 !::!.
j u .§,
c
.. ·s:0
c c
g i ..
g.
.t::
0
E

l5 e i
'15 c.. [ij
'o
;;;
-� c c
:;: ..
c .<:
·=
... "i & �.. a !::!. "'
•
�
I
.<:
N '6
e. !l. ..
..
�
c
... ... " '15 ;- i!l .. <( e. -
'll
0
.. 10
=&. =&. � � �
;;_ :;; e.
.. il 5 ..
c 'ii ., � "' • o

il
....
E '6 � � - .<: ! .!l
�
., 11 .!l
c
..,
0 ll �.. 0

i
..
..
"i e. \2. :r
0.
u
d-
c"' •
0::"'
w

:&.. ....
c <!)
'6 ..
iC !!. .!l
:::>

g.
...
.. 0 � i -5: :;
u

:� :;
>-

g, .., E

l
:::> ·.,;
:li!
� :; "'
� '6
� �
j �
E
e
� il "
.t:
'6 ..
I!! Ill
Uttarancha Gangoln NP
... �
1955 1552 0C
;r � Ill Jl .... � � .10 � :IE Ill !Z .10
>-
<>. <n
.,
1S00.7ooc ., X X X X X X X X X X X X X ., X X

G<MndNP l!lSC 472� 129010638 ., X X X X X X X X X X X X X ., X ., X

Nanda Oevi NP 198:.i 624.6 35001 0 781t X X X X X X X X X X X X )I X ., X ., X
Vailey of Rowers NP 198< 875<: 3350106!_1� ., X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

�
Askot Musk DeerWLS 198f 5999 240().500( ., X X X X X X X X X X X X X ., X ., X
..
s.
BmsarWLS 19811 455 2000-JOO( ., X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ., X
.. G<Mnd Pashu Villar V.'LS 1951i 4810C 129010638/ ., X X X X X X X X X X X X X ., X ,/ X
�
=­ Kedamath WLS 197: 9752� 1100.700: ., X X X X X X X X X X X X X ., X ., X 0
= Mussoorie WLS 1� 108 2005� ., X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X u;·
.....
a· ....
2C Soklum Barsey Rhododenaoo WLS 1991! 1�0C 1000.J60C ., X X X X X )I X X X X X X X X iC ., X
I a=
:::E Falltlong LhoWLS 1984 517f 1375-265<: ., X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
I c:
e
.....
MeenamWLS 1987 35� 1&J0.325C ., X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
1 5'
"' WestBenga Nea"a Vailey NP 198f 880C �0-320( ., X X X X ., X X X X X X X X X X ., X �
� 19 7€ 38�
0 Sencha WLS 150().260( ., X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ., X I 0
-
""0
:0 20 Atunacha Pradesh MOI.Cing NP 198f 483.0C 700-300� ., X X X X X X X X X X X X X ., X ,/
-'I
Namdapha NP 198:! 1807 8 "0
200to457! ., .,
� X X X X ., X X )( X X X X X X ,/ X
(1)
O'Enng Mernotia (la1) WLS 197e 1900C 1�25<: ., X X X X X ., X X X X X X X ., X ., X i �
@ OibangWLS 1991 4149 oc 1SOO.SOOC ., �
,/ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
I
f
"'
Ead e Nesl WLS
ltanagar WLS
198S 2170C
19 7e 1403<.
1100-290C
21�11�
.,
.,
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
.,
.,
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
.,
.,
X

X
.,
X
X
X
(/)
c:
P>
"' ....
Kan1ang WLS 1955 7830C 2004571 "' .,
�
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

KaneWLS 1991 12(1.150( ., c:

550C X X X X X )( X X X X X X X X X ,/ X
�
MehaoWLS 198C 2815C 33().356( ., X X X X X X X X X X X X X ., X ., X <0
I
c:
1\..)
PakhurWLS 19T. 8619� 1�190( ., X X X X ., X X X X X X X X ., X ., X
I P>
Sessa Orchid WLS 198l: IOOOC &:J0-310C .; X .; .....
co X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
(1)
Tale Valley WLS
-- ------ ------
199:: 337oc 1S00.270C
----·-·-
.,
--
X X
_)(__ �� X
--
X X X X l<
�-
X X )( � ., x I (/)
 Table 4 : Continued ....

tv
(X)
..
.<; �
u

tv g> 0
c:
:>:
... :? :<:
..
8: � i5 a::
E _g <; .<;
... ;; "' ...
" \:!.
� � .. .. .<;
c
i �
::!!;
c
.<; c: 01

z .> .. e c: ... 8. =
..
u 0 .
c:
..
G) 0 ..
� ..Q c:

l
c: .<;
E .. � :<: .. !:!
c c.. -;;-
=g �
c:

� .. � "' !:!. "' ..

.. 01
'6 c \:!. "' "g =
..
c:
ID
� iii
., .. 0 -
:i5
c: =

i
..
..
.:( � 1
..
a:: ..
..
c:
=
-" �
..,
..
�
..
c:
"'
..!t
-.;
<(
:2 �
.S!'
�
.,.
.. 8' :: .S!
..
m
(/) al UJ r7
7.i c
g c
c: c '6 � :If
l!l �
.. .J:
.. e. :s: c :::
g.
.. "' 0 0 �
c:
'6 01
c:
:£l
.. ] .,
..
c:
=
� !.!
c
.. :;
..,
,_ >-
.2
Q. .2'
a.
"
ID
0:: "'
.
0 .. .. " 3:
c:
10
c:
E
.. :.;;: � .. E
Tl
I ;;,
10
�
:0
� �
·"

!i � � e
CD
& !
5
� $ "g ] il
.. �
c;.
�
'6
c:
'!-
E
l � �
z ,-;:
0 3A Ra,asfl<r1 DeSEft fjp 199 3162()( 170.22i X� X X X X X � X X X X X X X X X X
j; Tal Olhapper WLS 1971 79< J04.JO. X � X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Gujr.it Lala Greallnd<r1 Bus!ad WLS 199! 2.0 I X X X X X X X � X X � X X X X X X X

Kachchh DeSEf1WLS 198( 7506Z f-43l X X X X X X X X � X � X X X X X � X

Naray<r1 S�WR WLS 199! 444 2: 3-18 X X X X X X X ., X X � X X X X X � X

W11dAssWLS 19/ 49!>311 00.:11 X , X X X X X � � X � X X X X X � X

4A H<r(llla Sublpu-NP 1985 14• 216-21 X � X X X X X X X X � X X X X X X X

AbubshellarWLS 198) 1153( til X � X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Bhmdawas WLS 198€ 4 I 20( X X X X X X X X X X � X X X X X X X

Blr Bara Ban WLS 1991 4 �� w X X X X X X X X X X � X X X X X X X

Sir Sh1k� WLS 198/ 7 67 400-120< � X X X � X X X X X � X X X � X � X

Kales.r-NP 199< 115.7{ l4{).o!l< � X X X � X , X X X X X X X � X � X

Na11arWLS 1987 2 11 NJ X � X X X X � X X X � X X X X X � X

Saraswati Plllltat100 WLS 1\I&C 44.!>; NJ X , X X X X � X X X X X X X X X .I X

H1ma::hal Pradesh l�aona Dev1 WLS 196< 123()( 500-101 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X � X X X

Renuka WLS 19&1 40; 200-Ui X X X X � X X X X X X X X X -.1 X X X

Surbalba'a WLS 1951: 190 400.6& X X X X , X X X X X X X X X � X � X

Jammu & �ashm<r JasrotaWLS 198) 257 300-35( , X X X � X X X X X X X X X X X � X

llandnl WLS 1981 44 2 w X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X , X

Rarrnag;r- Raldla WLS 1981 Ill! 43().611 � X X X � X X X X X � X X X X X , X

Sunnsa t.ms..- WLS 1981 555( 400-6:J( � X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X � X

Punjab AboharWLS 198.! 1805( 100.20! X � X X X X X X X X � X X X X X X X

Blr &.nErtlen WLS 1951 65( w X X X X X X X X X X � X X X X X X X

BlrGsd�WLS 19n 62( Ill X X X X X X ./ X X X � X X X X X � X

8lr t.btibagl WLS 195< 64( ().25( X � X X X X � X X X � X X X X X X X

Hanl.e Lake WLS 19a< 80{)( <1 X X X X X X � X X X X X X X X X � X

Takhoi-Reh81Tll'Jf WLS 199 38< lVI � X X X X X X X X X X X X X � X � X

-
 Distribution of peninsular ungulates

oJeuna PI!N x x x >< )( x x >< x >< >< x >< >< >< >< >< x >< x >< >< >< x x x ><

6!d PIIN" X " '> )( '> " )( " '> )( )( '> '> )( '> )( '> '> '> '> )( '> '> )< '> '>

(e46u1seJea.) Jii(] dWeMS x x x x x x x >< x x x x )( x x x >< x x: x x x x x x x )(

Jeqwes '> x x '> x '> '> " " '> " x " " " -. x '> '> x -. x '> '> '> -. '>

ssy PHM � �e!S� x x x x >< x x x )( x x )( >c. x >< x x x x x x x x x x x x

(eJe�UJ4:>) aua:re!) UeJpu )( X )( '> )( )( " '> )( )( )( '> '> )( )( )( )( '> )( '> '> '> )( )( )( )( '>

J'J;l{J 6o� X )( X )( )( X X )( )( X X X )( .... )( X X )( )( X )( )( )( X X X )(

(UOS!8 Ue! pUJ) Jne!: x X x x X x >< x >< x x >< x >< >< x >< x >< x x -.... x x x x x

J a� (s,pt3) piJiUUe-MOJE x x x x x >< x x x x >< x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x )(

(� e [1unw u�JPUJ) 1aao 6u1�1ee x " >< x >< " >< " '> x " " " " -. '> >< '> x '> >< x " " >< x x

"'0
<II
:::J
c: ..
:0:
c:
0 f
(.) ID
....

!ovi••�ullrtio: WiLDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 283

 X X X X X X X X
!!rolim
X X X X
OH9
/' /' X X X
X X
/'
PL61 SlM eRMljSeWO$
00;-ooc
/' /' X X X X

PL61
/' X X X
£zm
/' /' X X X
/'
-SlM �131fef1 lljiBM!Jil4S
X X X X
bPI! I iXH
/' /' X X X X X
/'
9l£9S
/' X X
1961
/' X
X /' X I' X X X
/'
dN 4ltrui8.4>fl)l e'fl1Bll£)l
ll<;t�
X X X

B161
X X X
66£l
/' /' X X
X /'
X X /' X X X X dN epstA!S )We�
sm1
X
�I
/' X X X X
/' X X
SlM uoe6QOO
/'
X X X X %9
/' X

�L£·lll
/' X X

696t
/' X

009
/' /' /' X X X X
X /' X /' X X X X SlMI!IPOOS
/' X I' X X /' /' X /' X
19Kll OOS£9 161
�
�
SlM req.uel() JeUOQ!lll
X
lfSape.!dAlll(l
/' X X X X
/' X X
<;!l<;i)()';
/' X X X X X
�61
/' X X
X /' X X X £66S SlMJe4!fllJll\
�ZS6 t
I' X I' X X
�-009
/' X X X
£961
I' /' X X
SlM !OOl;f\jAltlpe1
X /' X X X
I' X

6161
/' X X /' X X /' /' X X X
X /' X X X X X 'LS·QOl t6W SlM BletllB IIS
oow SS6t
I' X X X
ILL·OOt
/' X /' X
/' /' X
X X X I' X X X Ml/SlM eljSues
16ts
/' X X X
9£6-oc\l
/' X /' X X X X
X /' X /' X X X /' X X lWl S1M�&ls
OOS"O'SI
X
OOIOC
/' X I' X X X X
:sst
X /' X X X X X X X X SlM lJllfllfSil
f �WBM
It liS
X
0911·09t
/' X X /' X X X
X X X X fS61 SlM tel 1'>1 ue� "4d
tst· sa
/' X X X

0009Z 6161
/' X X X X
/' /' X /' X
SlM 1�10 fBlJO!IBN
X X X X
/' X X X X X X

00()(; 0961
I' X X X
X
X X X
\IU
/' X X X X SlM�Jeqetf
OOLt·OOC
/' X X

IP��99z 0961
I' X X X /' /' X X X

ooci·09t
SlM OQ\IIUilCVf
I
X /' X X X
/' X X X

�l91S 1161
/' I' X X X X
I' X X
X /' X
I' • X X /' X X X X SlM 4JI!f1B4QWO)l
1st919 S61
I' X X
I' X X
zt·OOl
SlM lllapeflll)l
X X X X X
/' X

00001 iL61
/' X X X
9()(;•0
X X /' X X /' X
X /' X X X X X X X slM .oe&s Jll�Mer
looooc 7B61
/' /' X X X X X
X
/' X /' X X X
X X
IS9-olS SlM qA?6WeMeMwer
X X

oozs SS61
/'
169-lLS
/' X X X
/' /' X X
SlM PUIBWI!SIIlr
X /' X X X
�66l ti6ZZ £961
/' X X X X X X
I' /' /' X X X
X /' X X X X X X X SlM \jJellpoJStJa49
OGZ�l
/' /' X X X X X
W61
/' X
X !�-961:
/' X /' X X X /' )( X X SlMJSSilS
k>s£LZ Z661
I' X /' X '
X
X /' X /' X X X I' X X X X
/' I'
UL-oot dN BljSlJlS
iooZ6£
/'
�-stl
X
0961
/' /' X X
X /' X X X WdN BJOI.WIB41UBH
sst·osr
/' X /' X X

00S9�l
/' X X /' X X X X <1:
� <
�- �· ,
� � 3: t: &_ OOl
j
'<
5' g' dtt �.ueo llll4JSBieM i5
"-
!D
0:
-o 3
3
r:r
<0
3 � '[ c
..
0
c
"'
;;;· ;;;· <0 ,.
0
c
�
0 � g> �
,. .. ;:: ::? � !D z
! g:
;. .
iif g
i
r:r
.., "' ..
c
.o· � '<

;;;' §:
..
:;> .. � 5' c �
.. !!1. ,g· u.
� :;>
:c
0 G) "' � "-
S! "' "- ..
�
"'
;; z
::;:
� - "- a :;· !l.. !l .. .. 0
.. :;>
_.,
0 <0 � �
n
"'
- !!1. <ii
"' ..
"' .. ,.. :;> ..
- ,.. U' "- .8 U)
iii 0 > ;: � "- ;; ..
@' 3 ;;; > .. w
.. "' ..!: � "' !D
;;;- 7i
.. Q. :>
Q. ..:... -o
7i 2:
�
"'
�
.. Q. "' "' ;;
c;; ;;;· 0 ;r. -m ;;;- "' ... .. :3'

�
:3'

.g·
.. .. ;;-
"' :r "'
-
_g 5- 0: "'
> ;;;-
:3'
3 , ::l
;; n ,..
.. � � "'
]: .. a (!)
:3'
�
:3'

s ..
� 0 3: a <
!!- < 7i :;· z
�
c:
0
a 5 -o
3. n
.. :::>
� ..
2: � �
�
"'
:3'
!!-
..q
co
· -- N

.... panU!JUO� : v a1qe.1

 Table 4 Continued ....

..
.&:
...
c
c
;;z
"' �0
..,.
a. �>
�
..,. .&:
c 0 .. ..
.. ..
� l! .&:
� 0 ..
::0
u
c 'e :IE .. "' .&: c ...

�
c
e c c
< ... a. "" u
� ..
E - "' :;, 0 7! c
c
:c
c: ;;;
l!
<;. .&:
..
..
.,.
'6
c
c
..
!!! �
c:
:<: 0
.. � ..
..
'6 =
..
c: ..
u .. c = '6 � iii .. c .. 0 E!!.
:c � 3 ..... .. c:
.,
..
..
.!! < = "'
a. < � cr: .. ;. ., .. c
� ::5! "'
:: 0
"' .. .§ ..
0 "" .. ..
c 0
.. ..
'6 i z
- � .. ...
0
�"'
�
., -;; ..
0. w .r c:
u
E 5 c: .. (!) � 0 � ::z:: 0
.,.
�
"'
0 0 .. "' ., .. '§ a.
c .D .. .&: ..
::::
u .. >-
.a 0::
�
"' - =
c: c
..
.!! .. - ....
� =
0
.. .. .D "l: E E "'

�
:;z :;
.,.
2
.. u
:; ...
'6
.. ::0 ..
:§> E ..., ...,

l
.. ...
0 S!
..
:; .. 2 0 &. .. 0 0 ::0 "'
iii (I) "- :: < Ci' "' iii. "' ... (I) (!) :r:: c
: :IE 5 z t: (I) � �
Ke�ala Neyyar WLS 1958 128.00 00.1858 .; X X X ./ ./ X X X ./ X ? X X ./ X ./ X

Peecht-Vazham WLS 1958 125.00 186-922 ./ X X X ./ ./ X X X ./ X ./ X X ./ X X X

Peppara WLS 1983 53.00 9().1717 ./ X X X X ./ X X X ./ X "' X X ./ X ./ X

Thattekadu WLS 1983 25 16 35-523 ./ X X X X X X X X X X X X X .; X "' X

Maharashtra TansaWLS 1970 304.81 0-818 ./ X X "' ./ X X X X "' X X X X "' X ./ X

!'>'>
= 58 Goa Mottern NP 1992 107.00 0-781 "' X X X X ./ X X X ./ X X X X "' X ./ X
s.
... MollemWLS 1967 133.00 0-781 "' X X X X "' X X X ./ X X X X .; X ./ X
�
Gutarat Pll'naWLS 1990 160.84 300-700 0
�
.; X X "' ./ X X X X X X X X X X X ./ X

250.00 27-927 c;; ·

;· Kama taka Ansht NP 1981 X X X X ./ ./ X X X "' X X X X .; X ./ X -
-,
Bandtpur NP 1974 874.20 600-1454 ./ X X ./ ./ .; X X X ./ X X X X ./ X ./ X
o=
� RaJtV Gand11 (Nagarahole) NP 1988 643 .39 700-960 .; X X .; ./ ./ X X X ./ X X X X ./ X ./ X
c:
-
�
..., Bhad"aWLS 1974 49246 670-1870 ./ X X ./ ./ ./ X X X ./ X X X X ./ X ./ X a·
'"
Btltgrt Rangaswamy Temple WLS 1987 539.5<: 710-151
:::J
� ./ X X ./ ./ ./ X X X X X X X X ./ X ./ X
0
\) Brahmagwt WLS 1974 181.29 819-1363 ./ ./ ./ ./ ./
0
-
X X X X X X X X X X X X X

I
OandeltWLS 1987 475.0< 150-606 ./ ./ ./ ./ X X ./ .; ./ "0
X X X X X X X X X
<D
MookambtkaWLS 1974 247()( 2020 X X X X ./ ./ X X X X X X X X "' X X X :::J
Pus�rtWLS 1987 102.9 900 -1000 .; X X X ./ "' X X X ./ X X X X "' X "' X s·
en
r Shettthalt WLS

Talakave�t WLS
1974
1 981
395.6C
105.01
500-IHX
64-165�
./

.;
X X X ./ ./ X X X X X X X X .;

.;
X ./

./
X c:
$»
�
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
-,
Kerala 8avtkulam NP 1978 97.0C 1400-2694 ./ X X X X "' X X X X X ./ X X X X "' X c:
Pe�tyar NP 198l 350.0C 900-201� "' X X X ./ .; X X X ./ X ./ X X ./ X .; X
:::J
<0
Silent Valley NP 1964 89.5 1000-301� ./ X X X X ./ X X X ./ X ./ X X .; X ./ X c:
N Aralam WLS 1984 55.0C 50-114 ./
CX>
.; X X X "' X X X ./ X X X X ./ X "' X
�
Chimmony WLS 1984 90_()( 20-1114 ./ ./ ./ "' "' <D
(]l X X X X X X X )( X X X X X
en
 Table 4 : Continued ....

1'.)
0
..
CD
.&:
;;-
u
:;;
o- en
c: 0
;;; c
:;;:
3: � :;:
� .. IX
c:
0
c. e
c
0 :;; .&:
4>
:c 2
z
u 'ii �
>
"'
t!: �
4> �
G) c: c == c E g'
c c. 0
"' "'
c ·;;; "' E' -< "iii 0
=
c:
.,. (.)
c:
E c: 3!
"' :g ;;;
�m 'ii c
-
'6 0
0 ..r:;
:;: "' t!
0:: ..r:; ..
�
:;:
� '6 c
4o
m
"'
.J,! g' ::§. c 0
.!ll Cl> Cl>
�
.!! -< ::§.
"'
::c
..!!! ..., ';;'
!!!
Cl>
.&: iii
"' -
en
�
c: ...,
c: 'ii JZI
en
"' :;; - ., ..., :;; ...
c. .2
0 -< e .!i c:
..
2S ..c !!! 0 �
�
:2 .,
Vi t!: u �
"Tl l! ""' ""' .!ll ... "'
en
..., w rT c:
-;;;
c 0 "C �
�
..
"'
§: � "'
� :X:
:s
u
:!! -
0 c: .& .&: =
en l!) 1-
Q..
JZI
z 2 "' � '6 .. � u ... ]., >-
j E"'c.
a:l
i E
""' c: c
0 :!! :!! "'
� 0
.:. s:: "'
�
"' 't:
"'
E
8' '6 :§! '6
"' :;c ... "' � "' "'
)>
�
"' ., "' "' "'
iii u;
Kerala (et)IJ#d) ChnY\ar WLS
e
Q..
..
>-
1984
<
9044
�
500-241X
;;
m m a;
0
u.. !
"'
�
"'
0
:X: c:
::
0
==
"'
m z
"'
c:
>-
Q.. tl �
"'
�"' �
X X X X X X X X )( X )( )(
lcU,j,rWLS 1976 700C 450-741: ./ X X )( )( )( X X )( "' X )( )( X "' X ./ )(
ParaJTbt-ulam WLS 197J 2850C 500-144< ./ X X X "' "' X X X "' X ./ X X "' X "' )(
PerryarWLS 1950 m.oc 900-201� X X )( X "' "' X X X "' X X X X "' X "' )(
Shendurney WLS 1984 100.3< 200-150C ./ X X X X ./ X X X "' X X X X "' X X )(
WayanadWLS 197 344 44 640-1151: "' X )( "' "' "' )( X )( "' X X X X "' X "' )(
Maharashtra Bhrmashan�ar WLS 198: 130 7e 180-1201: "' X )( X X "' X "' )( "' "' X X X "' X "' )(
Koyana WLS 198! 4235e (g)()( "' )( X X X "' X X X "' "' X )( X "' X )( )(
Radhanagarr WLS 195! 3511E ()..5()( X X X X X "' X X X "' X X X X "' X "' )(
T amrlllacir lndra
r Gandhr (Annamalar) NP 1� 117 IC 300-25� ./ X X X "' ./ )( X X ./ X "' )( X "' X X )(
MuciJmalar I �p 199( 1032 690-141X X X )( ./ "' ./ )( X )( " X X X X ./ )( ./ )(
Mukurlhri.P 199< 78 4l 1 700-260( ./ X )( )( ./ ./ X )( )( X X ./ )( X "' X ./ )(
lndrra Gandhr (Annamalai) WLS 197E 841 4! 300-25� )( )( X X )( "' )( )( )( )( X ./ X X )( )( )( )(
KalakadWLS 197E 22351 60-177 X )( )( )( )( ./ X )( )( X )( ./ X )( X )( )( )(
MuciJmalar WLS 194, 2177! 690- 1 40C )( )( )( ./ )( " )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( "' )( ./ )(
Mundanlhura� WLS 1971 56731 30-1861 )( )( )( )( ./ ./ X X )( " )( ./ )( )( ./ )( ./ )(
Srrvrllrpulhur (Giant �rrrel) WLS 1� 4852( 200- 120C "' )( )( X X ./ )( X )( ./ X X )( )( X )( X )(
6A Chhatbshgarh Guru Ghasl Das (Sanjay) IJP 1981 14711; 380-98( ./ )( X ./ X X X X X " ./ X X X "' X ./ )(
Achanat..mar WLS 197� 551.5! 5()5.57( ./ X X ./ ./ ./ X X )( X ./ X X X " X "' )(
Bharramgarh WLS 198:: 138� 21-63< ./ X X X ./ ./ X X X X ./ X X X ./ )( ./ ./
 en 00£ 9161 SlMJilil� ,......_
Q) X X X X X X X /' X X X X X X X X X /' ;g·�c
co
OOL"OOI Os65� 9l61 SlMBlJlfl9 wewe�
.....
ct:l X X X /' X X X /' X X X X X /' X X X /'
N
:::l )( /' X /' X X X /' X X X X X /' X X X X
l96t·l)c;t M IS9 9161 SlMlJlUB�IIl8 £419 99
0') X X X X X /' X X X X X X X /' X
�st·06 .10 oa·ost 1£'0£� �L61 SlM.IIldJUe�
c /' /' /'

:::l X /' X /' X X X /' X X X X X X X X /' X

OO;·ooz If� '161 SlM IW BMS J!JIBlJI!V'l ;g
.....
ct:l
X X X X X X X /' X X /' X X X X X /' X
lll5·ooc :toos �961 SlMJruJII!)I
0
�
X X X X X X X X X X X X X IS£ txrsL L%1 SlMe4Qelde-4>UBI() ljSllpeJd £un
:::l
/'

j
/' /' /' /'

en X X X /' X X X /' X X /' X X /' X X X X

95t·9�t 5·w 6961 SlMIBMilA
c X /' X /' X X X /' X X X X /' /' /' X X /' k:66·1S£ f>tsa 5F61 SlM lBI,6tG1"1 fil
c WN �ll9£ 5L61 dN tBWe6n� eJiljSB£lJI'YI t
Q) X /' X /' X X X /' X X X X /' /' /' X X /' w
c.. X /' X /' X X X /' X X /' X X /' /' X /' /'
t99"9£C 16"l9� 9L61 SlMLJOI,6U!S �
0 X /' X /' X X X /' /' X /' X X /' /' X X /'
oos-ooz �s·;gc 5l61 SlM uqna ktues 0..
0
Os9�l5 9L61 SlMlueWlB�
X z
c
X X X /' X X /' X X X X X /' /' X /' /' <
rnc:s
bc;J-01�
w
0 X X X /' X X X X X X X X X ' X X X /' •l"OH WI SlM U9lld u.

-:;::;
/

X X X X X X X X X X X X X
09t·CL£ w·5r� 961 SlM e41edued �
wn -orc
/' /' /' /' /'
:::l
�
.0 X /' X /' X X X /' )( X /' X /' /' /' X /' /' �tm 1L61 SlM!4£W4::113d
!J!l" t611 W61
·;::
..... X X r X X X X X X X /' X /' /' �-o9l SlM!4llpe.JON ·!
en
/' /' /' /'

U61 SlM !.109

.!l
X X X /' X X X /' /' X /' X /' /' /' X X /' 1m-osc :gilt
0 )( /' X X X X X /' X X /' X /' X X X /' X
00; 001111' 11161 SlMB£p6eg �..
)( /' X /' X X X /' /' X X X X /' /' X ' /' �5£1·09£ 111"995 IWI dN eJndles ">
006 · 0S£
/
..
)( /' X /' X X X /' /' X X X X X /' X X /' ·
ggggy 11161 dNkfues «.)

X /' X /' X X X /' /' X X X /' /' /' X X /' tlll·vrc f>nsc: �161 dN (!U!lJSJI!!lBA�) 40U8d
X /' X /' X X X /' /' X /' X X /' /' X /' /'
�Sill l/9" �1'5 11161 dN BUUBd
X /' /' /' X X X /' /' X X X /' /' /' X /' /' 096-o5t 00 0 1'6 �561 dNB4UB)f
)( /' X /' X X X /' /' X X X X X /' X X /' ooL·ou l1z· o I' 1161 dN i!SSO�
X /' X
"'
/' X X X /' /' X /' X /' /' /'
...,
X /' /' oo-osv ftli"SI' 9961 �1/dN 4£611e4PUB9 ljSllpe.lcJ BAlJleli'l
[IJ
� � :e
"'
.. ::? "' :z [IJ
;:
:::
0 � "'
9:
:J:
g> "'
<:
[IJ [IJ
;:;
[IJ
.. ?; )>
;;
;:' 4' !a
� .&
-o 0
0
�
"" 9. 0
Q. 0. .. 3 9,
.. .. ![ .. -
<: n ;;<- "' .. !!( �
..
"' , 3
g-
3 "' .,. ;;; "' 0 :::
..
7 ,.. c .. .. �
"" .;;·
-o -
'<

C)
.... §:
..
0
0
G) ..
.. :;- 0.
::r

g
..
:a
.,. ,g· 9:
"'
.. � !l
.. .&
::0:
.. 0 :J: .. .. :::E .. - 0.
r 0 "'
c

!* ..
-
.0
;.-
m Q.
.. 0 z o;
;; - .. ..
s
::r
o ;e �
.. "" &: N
..
a � ..
J!_ ..
�
-o
0 - � - 0. ;; ::0
�
::1
if .. ::r

a; .. :;-
)>
.. en .. Q. Q.
2:
.. 0
..
0
"' = .. n ;;;· n a -m ;:; �
::1
"' ;;;·
.. 9:
.. 0 ::r .. "' 0.r .. ::r 1i'
a; "'
::r
o; 3
�
..
:;· k n
:;- .2. ..
=
0
"i � )>
a
o
::1
]: ..
:;-
"' ; ::r i:f 0 .. ::: :a
.. ..
n
::r o; n .. c ..
.!!!. -
0.
:; - 0
::r � �-
::0 9. 0
:! ..
::r
2 � c
g"
n ,g·
.. ::r
.e.
g

···· panu!JUOO : p a1qe.1

 OICIII18 PI!M X X X X X X X " " X X X X X " " )( )( )( ... X )( )( '> X '>

6 idPIIM X '> X ... ... .... .... .... .... )( ... ... ... '> X X '> '> ... ... ... '> ... .... ... ...

(e46U!SCJe9) JiiQ dWCMS X X X X )( )( " X )( " )( X X X )( )( X X X )( )( X X " " X

Jeqwes.., ... ... X '> ... ... X '> ... X '> X '> ... ... '> ... ... ... ... ... ... '> ... ...

6oH�W6� )( X X )( )( X )( X X X X )( )( " " )( X X )( " )( X X " " X

soJa:>OU!4ll (pauJo4-auo ICil!)) ueiPUI X X X X X X X )( X )( X y X )( X X X X X X )( )( X X )( )(

l4C! iJI61!N X " X X X X X X X X X X X X X X " X )( X X X " X X "

(1•611N) un qan1a " .... ... X '> X '> )( '> '> X X X X X X X '> X '> ... ... '> ... ... ...

(U!IOlA343 U2!PUI) JiaQ asno�� " ... X ... X " )( )( X " " )( )( X )( X " ... )( )( " )( )( " )( "

ss� PI!M �fi•!S'>J X X )( )( )( " X X X " X X X X X X X X X X X " X X )( X

(eJe�U143) auaze!) UCIPUI X )( )( )( )( " )( " )( )( " " X >< )( " " )( X '> X .... )( >< X '>

Jaao 6oH X )( >< X )( )( )( " " )( )( )( " X X X )( )( )( X X )( )( X )( X

(UOS!8 UCipUI) Jne!) )( ... )( )( ... )( X )( '> )( X '> ... ... ... '> '> ... " ... '> ... ... '> '> ...

�·"43) Jaao pauods '> ... ... X '> )( '> ... '> X '> ... '> ... ... '> ... ... " '> X '> ... .... ... '>

(elj6U!SMO\l3) adOI31U2 p3UJ04·Jn0:1 x ... ... X '> X X X '> >< X '> X X '> " X X '> ... " ... ... X X '>

J33Q (s.pt3) pal311UC•MOJ8 >< X >< " " " " >< )( " X X X X X )( )( X X X X X X X X X

(adOI31U� UejpUj) ��nq��l8 >< )( )( )( X X )( X X X X X X X )( X " X X ") X X X X X X

(�e[lunw ue!PUI) Jaao 6u)�Jea >< .... '> ... ... ... " )( '> .... ... '> X ... ... ... )( .... ... '> '> " ... '> " ...

� I�S:! �
� � �� � i ��� � I�� � � I� = ��� $ �I�� � �
� � � ?;l IS! ""'
s:: 6
('")
� ""'
<0
<';'
"'
""
"'
"'
(w) a6U2ljiCUjp111!�"V � M

� I�
� � � � �I� �� � �
� '

�
1;:::
:
S? � � � � ;:::!;
,._
M "' M "" ..., ,._ "' ..., -
..., ,..., .,., "'

g�
.... "'
(·w�·bs) eaJif !;: ?;l IC•
0>
..,. � (S; ....
,._ � ;::!; <0
� N N

IU3W4SUqCIS3 jO JCiA� I� � � � I� � �� �� I� � � � �� � I� � 1:;6� �

� � � �
..,
�
0()
� �
a)
� � �

V)
....l
eaJif papa101d :;:
"' "'
....l
V) V)
V)
:t :;: V)
....l
� :;::
...J V) ...J
....l V) ....l 9.: :;:: V)
� :;::
V)
....l
V)
....l :;:: :;:: V)
V) ....l :;: V) :;::
....l V) V)
....l
V)
....l ....l
� :;:: ; :;::
V) V)
:;:: :;:: V)
:;: .!'l
� n. � 0 V)
V) � :;: ....l ....l n. �

I1 1
t � � j
0>
ii1 � i
....l z
� :;:: =

j � J f j�
:B � c;
"i � "'
e. � �
J
:;:
"' ill
� !!i "H. � "[
ill

J �� � -il §
II! ""0 .c >
s,
E
Jl
..
I- ....l � .£ u;
"E le
6
::0
""
..,
V) V)
l!!
""0
c; :.::m c3
! �
in::>

"0
(I)
::l SiiCIS "i "i
"' "'
c:
""0
iii le iii
:;:; � � e
c:
0
.c � II>
c:
.c
"'

6 .c
--.. 0 6
u
nu)IIOJdJ!4deJ6oa6o!a (.)
"'

288 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Distribution of peninsular ungulates

Ofejjii8PI!N >< >< >< X >< >< K K "' )( )( >< >< K >< >< >< " " >< )( )( )( >< >< )( ><

6!<f PI!N >< .. )( '> )( )( ... '> '> '> .. '> .. '> '> " .. )( .. .. .. .. '> .. '> .. ..

(e46utseJeg) ••iiQ dweMS >< X X >< >< )( )( >< )( X X >< >< )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )(

Jeqwes '> .. .. )( '> ... )( )( .. ... .. .. ' .. ' ' ' )( >< ' ' ' ' ' .. )( '

6oHiiWMd >< >< )( )( )( X X )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( >< )(

)( >< X X >< )( )( )( )( )( )( )( >< )( >< )( )( >< >< >< >< >< )( )( )( )( ><
(pauJO\j-auo 1201!))Uefpuf
142.1. fl!6JIN >< >< >< >< )( )( )( )( )( >< >< )( >< >< )( )( )( )( X )( >< )( )( )( )( )( )(

(!e 6f!Nl unq•nte )( .. ' )( )( ' )( )( )( ' ' ' ' ' ' '> '> ' >< .. .. ' ' .. .. .. ..

(Ufi0JA04:) UC!puf) JOa() asno�• )( '> )( )( )( )( )( )( >< )( ' )( )( .. ' )( )( )( )( ' '> )( ... " ' )( )(

SS'If PI!M �112!S'If >< >< >< >< >< )( )( )( )( >< )( >< >< )( )( )( )( >< >< >< )( )( )( )( )( )( )(

(eJeltUJ4::>) •um!J ue!pu )( )( >< )( )( )( )( )( )( ' )( ' ><' .. >< .. )( )( )( )( ' )( )( )( )( ..

•oao 6oH >< >< )( )( )( K X )( )( >< )( >< )( )( )( )( >< )( )( )( )( " >< )( >< )( )(

(UOS !B lreJpllf) Jne!) >< " .. >< )( ' )( )( )( .. ' ' >< )( ' ' )( >< )( .. ' ' .. ' '> >< ..

(lcll4::>l Jaao P•���>ds " '> ' .. ' ... ' ... ' ... '> '> ' ' .. ' ' ' )( ' .. .. ... )( .. >< '

(e46UfSM04:)) adOfoiU2 pOUJO\j·JnO� >< >< .. >< >< )( )( )( )( ' ' ' )( '> .. " .. )( )( ' ' ' ' ' ' )( ><

JnQ {s,pt3) palafiU2-MOJ8 )( >< " >< >< )( >< >< )( )( >< >< )( >< >< >< )( )( )( )( )( )( >< )( >< >< )(

(adot•IU'If ue1puf) ��nq��e1e >< >< )( )( >< )( >< ' )( ' .... '> )( '> ... >< )( .. )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )(

(�e[lunw ue!puf) ••ao 6ut�Jee )( )( >< )( )( )( ..

� �� �� � � I� � :Z:; I �� $ � � i � � �i I�� � � � Ri � 0�
)( .. ' )( ' ' )( ... )( )( )( )( .. ' ... ' ' ' .. '>

(w) a6� feU!Pn..Wf

;�� ; �r:����;�I�;��8�� �� 8� � � r-:�

:=! ::;; N
:;!
� cc; �
M

(·w�·bs) eaJ\1

IUOW45!fC121S3 JO leOA ���� � �������������������·���

Cl.
Cl. :;:: (/)

:;:: 1 ��
eaJ\f paPOIOld �� ; .!

i
1> �
(/)(f)
g�
(/)
� (/) (/)

�j
(/) (/) ..J ..J

� g� ilijlij � �
� g :>:�:>: � :>:

l f
:;:: Cl.

i] i j ��
(/) "'

1jJl j
� .,
:: (/) (/)
� g
�
:>:
g ., �
;
t
..J

ti
>
� ;:
!
� lI
� �� lij

_, :;::
1
� ! � � �cf � J
""
lij � .,
Cl. .....

1i

I
"0 SOI\!IS '§ ..
I i)
Ql � ..
:::l
r:: lJ!
;
8
..
r:: �
0
O'U!AOld �!4deJ6oa6o!8
u
iil

£11vi1 .�ullttin: WII.OLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEJ.S (2004) 289

 oteuna PI W x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

li!d PIW ... )( )( )( )( )( ... ... ... X ... ... ... X .... ... " )( " " " " " )( )( X

(e4DUtSeJeg) JiiQ dUJe MS X X X X X >< X X X X X X X X X X X X X X >< >< X >< >< ><

Jeqwes ...,. X ") '\. X '\. '\. ""). X X .... ... .... X "'). ' .... X )( ") X X X X X X

��W� X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X )( )( )( )( X X X X X X )( " )( )( )( )( X X X

J4!1 !J!f>I!N X X >< X X X X X >< X X X X X X >c :J< X )C X X X X X >< X

(J!DI!N) ttnqants '> X '> '> X '> '> '> X X X '> X X '> X X X X X X x X X X X

(Uf10JIIi4:l Ue JPUI) Ji;(] iSOOW X X X X X X '> X X X '> '> X X x '> >< X >< >< X X X >< >< x

SS'f' PI!M '!&e!S� x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x >< x x >< x x x x

(e J e � UJ4:l) iltile � Ue tPUI >< '> X X X >< X X >< >< >< '> X X '> >< >< >< >< X X X X X X X

Jia(] 6ot- X X X X X )(' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X )( X X

(uosta U!!PUI) met >< x x x x x " , x x x x x x x x , x x x x -.. x x x x

�------J� ----1-1-���+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-r-r-���r1r1r1���_,
(te�4:>l JiiO pauods " x " .., x .., .., .., " x .., .., x x .., .., " x .., " .., .., x x .., ..,

(e46UtSM04:l) idO!ijUe piUJ04-Jn0� '> X X X X X '> X >< X "> '> X X '> '> X X >< '\. X X X X X X

Jii(] (S,Pt3) paJiUUe-MOJ8 >< X X X >< X X X >< X X X >< X >< X X X X X X X X X X ><

(adotiiUV ueJPUt) �'nq�:>el8 '> '> " x x x >< x " '> x " x '> x x " " " x " x " x '> "

(�eflunw uetPUt) JiiQ 6uJ�Jeg " x x x x " '> x x " " " x x x " " x x '> x >< x x � x

"0
Q)
:I
c:
..
c:
0
u
w
"'

290 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Distribution of peninsular ungulates

OftiJOBPI!N X x x: X >< X X X X >< X >< x X X X X '> X '-) X X >< >< >.. X >< X

6 !dPJW '> X '> '> '> X X x X X x '> '> X '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> X X >< '> '> '>

( elj6UfS!Jtg) JN(] d W!M $ '> X'> X '> " X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X )(

J!qW!S '> X'> '> '> X X X X X X '> '> X '> '> '> '> X '> '> '> X '> X '> '> '>

60H Jiw6�d X X X X >' X >< )C >< X X X X X X X X 'X X >< X X X X X X >< X

(p8UJ0�·8UOJUJ!))ue �
'>
� X X '> X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X )( X � x x x x x \.

J4f!!Jf61!N ""' X X X '-: X X X X X X X X X X X )( X X X. X X X X X X X X

( UUOJAI�J U f J) UI ) J8i() &SilOft X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X >< X X X

ssy PI!M lfle!s' x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

(eJe)jU!4:>) an en� uep� x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

J&a(]llot-'> X'> '> '> X X X X X X '> X X '> '> '> '> x '> '> X X X X X X '>

(U0S!8 U!!PU� Jne£ '> X X X X X X X X )( X X X X X X X '> X '> '> '> X X X '> '> '>

(J!II!�:)) Jta(] ptuod�'> X '> '> '> )( '> X X X X '> '> )( '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> )( '>

(t4fiUJSM04:)) 8doJ8jUt ptUJOlj-JnO� X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X '> X '> X X X X x X x x

188(] (S.PJ3) p8J8!1U!·MOJ8 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X

( ldOJIIIU'If Ut!PUJ) �'0q>ptJ8 X X '> '> X X X X X X X x X x X x X X x X x X '> X X X X x

(�t�UOVj UR!PUJ) IN(] 6upptg '> X X '> X X X X X X X '> X X '> '> '> '> '> '> '> '> X '> X '> '> '>

£nvit �ullrtin ; WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 291

 Table 4 : Continued ....

� ..
-..()
.r:::
"'
0::
�· c
x
... ..
-�
0 .E
� a.
Q;
'Z
.r:::
0 > ;;;-
.. :::;
-.;
"'
Cl
u
- � .. .r:::

c
u "'
c :::
0::.. 8. �
.r::: 0::

�
0::
u
z ·:; E � .. ... c: 0::
0::
v;
Gl !:! e - 'o
� E
.r:::
c
0 :c .. ..
c 0.. ..<::: ..
c,
'0
c
0::
.. Lii
- c:
.
u .. \,!. .. '0 "'
0::
..
.!a e.
=
u
:c
.. c: = '0 , .. -
iii �
..
<{ ,§. .. 0

�
.. :0 .. 0::
.!Z'
<( � e 0: Q; = .. , Q; 0::
� :g
1ii Q; .Q
a.
.. Q; 0::
.. .. .. ..
� .c g'
Cl Cl
�
-" -" .. "'
e
m ,
.. w ... u
E i5
'0
c: �
..
(!) �
..
Cl � :r Cl
0'1
=
8' .;- c: "
en 0'1 ,
., v 0 .!!!. :;:; .., ...
..c;: .. = c: u .. :; >. .. a.
0::
:::>
m
Cl E
c:
..
;f; .., E
0:: ..,
:::>
0 .. .. :;c -"
5
::
5 .., -� E
z: ��
8' 0 � � E
u
0 8' & ..
� .., , :g
<n&.
.. "'
., "' "' 0 .., '0
0:: :::>
.. 3:
iii u; 0:: a; :r iii � �
..
>- <( <{ m m u.. (!) � :::;; en (I) :.:
z
0 Malma>da WLS 19ff 1080 12�-13\ll X X X X ._. ._. X X X X X X X X ._. X ._. X
)> Rarmabaga>WLS 1981 0 ,, 2Q.2( ._. X X X ._. X X X X X X X X X X X X X
86 Orissa Bhltar1<a>i�a liP 198t 145.0C 0-5( X X X X ._. X X X X X X X X X ._. X ._. X
Balu'-hood Konark WLS 1981 71 7. 0-2l X ./ X X ._. X X X )< X X X X X X X X X
Ta111INadu Gulf of lvlannar lilarine liP 198( 62: Nil X X X X ._. X X X X X X X X X X X X X
West Bengal Sundertlan UP 198' 1330 1{ 0· X X X X ._. X X X X X X X X X X X "' X
Ha�y IslandWLS 197f' 5.9: 1600-32!)( X X X X X ._. X X X X X X X X X X X X
Lotllan IslandWLS 197( 380( 1600.J25( X X X X ._. X X X X X X X X X X X ._. X
9A Assam 01bru.Sarkhowa liP 199'; 340()( 9-IUl ._. X X X X X ._. X X X X X X X X X ._. X
Ka4irmga NP 197� 8497� 41J50C
- ._. X X X X ._. ._. X X X X X ._. X ._. ._. ._. ._.
IIIanas tlP IY9l 5000l 100-00C ./ X X X ./ ._. "' X X X X X ._. ._. ./ ._. "' ._.

Narn&ri NP 1991 200()( 0-5()( ._. X X X X ._. "' X X X X X X X "' X X X

Oroog NP 1� 78 81 0-SOC ._. X X X X "' v X X X X X v X ./ X ._. ._.
AmchmgWLS 2001 78 61 50-56! "' X X X X ./ X X X X X X X X v X X X
BarariWLS 2001 326.2� 100-19�! "' X X X X ._. X X X X X X X X "' X v X
Barnad WLS 198( 26 2 150-25( X X X X X "' ./
X X X X X v ._. X X X X
Bhe�oo-BornjanPod
- lmon• WLS 1� 72 119-12. "' X X X X .; ./ X X X X X X X X X ./ X
BordcMbam-&lmukh WLS (prop) 199< 112 90-9! X X X X X X v X X X X X X X X X X X
Burachapon WLS 199t 44 Oi 60-?l X X X X X X ._. X X X X X X X X ./ v X
Ol<+.rashilaWLS 199-<: 45.51 30-45. v X X X X ._. X X X X X X X X X X X
Oeepor &leiWLS 19Be 4I � "' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Oihing·Patkai WLS 200• Ill I liP ._. X X X X ._. X X X X X X X X v X "' X
East Kartli AnglongWLS 20()( 221.81 80-501 "' X X X X "' X X X X X X X X "' X X X
Gara�ant WLS 195� o.IY. 100-12 X X X X X ./ X X X X X X X X X X X X
QbbonWLS 1991 2091 100-121 .; X X X X X X X X X X X X X v X "' X
LaoiJlowaWLS 197 7011 60-7 X X X X X X ./ X X X X X ._. X X ./ ./ v
Marat Long1 WLS 200< 415()( 100-50( v X X X X ._. X X X X X X X X v X X X
 Table 4 : Continued ....

� ..
.. ..
�
0..
'E

c � .3 i
c
"
::;: :;;

·�s:0
u

E
i c � E -
..
.
'ii ""'
·s
g .. ::
��
0..

�
.E

i
..
c
"'
'6
� ..
.c;

..
c
:E 0

.. .e
.c;
g \:!. \:!. ·;;;
. � !!!.
0
c iEo·
�
c

2l 1i ..
iii "'
i "' :;; to;
'0
� e.
.. ;;
c 'i "' t
� ..
'0
� !

i �i] i
.. .., !
.e
�
"" � � � 0

c "'
0 0
i: "'
! ...
w � :t=
!
i
c
g. ..
<!)
.. .,
"
.. '6 'i e
i 0 �;; �
E
�j t
0..

. ::
ii: m
1i ""
u

;;
c
"
:� i
D
:2
� "'
I a �37 � �
'0 "0
0 0
<>. � �. a} $
0
� � � .� � � � �
Nalltl«WLS 2()()( 00 N� )( )( )(
Nalltl«·Dolg-ung WLS 200 97 15 100-12C
A

X X
X

X X
X

X
)I

X
X

X
X

X
X

)(
X

X
X

X
)I

)I
X

X
X

X
X

X
X X

X
I
X X

North Karb An�ong WLS 200U 9600 80-o<.\ v' X J/. X X v' X X '< � X X X )( v' )( X ..
PablloraWLS 1987 388 0.00:: X X x X X X )I X X X X X v' X X X v' X

Parn.[)otlng WLS 199� 339 9C X X X X X X v' X x X X X l< X X X X X

Sonao-Rupao WLS 199a 22000 0-50C "' X X X X v' v' X X X X X v' X v' v' v' v'

9B Ma!llpll' Keobu-La01ao NP 1977 4000 757-78" v' X v' X X X v' X X X X X X X X X v' X

Yangoupokp-ld<chao WLS 1989 18480 1000-210C v' X X X X X X X )( X X X X X v' )I X )I

ZeladWLS 19971 2100 200-24{ v' X ; X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

('»
M!!9halaya Balphal<ram NP 198 192-10Z:: "'
� 22000 v' '< X X X v' X X X X X X X X X X v'
;;· Nol-rek Ridge NP 1986 47 48 600-141 v' X X X X "' X X J/. X X )( X X v' X v' )I
&!
Non!j<h)llem WI.S 1981 2900 400-9'.(
. v' 0
�
X X X X X X X X X X X X X v' X v' X

SojUWlS 1979 5 18 ().60C X X X X )( X X X X X X X X X X X "' "' (j)'

....
;;· ......
Mozoram Mu�en NP 1991 20000 1000-150C v' X X )I .. X X '< "' X v' X
X X X X X X
a=
:E Pha� Blue Moontam NP 1 992 !>U.OO 136().215 v' X X X X X X X X X X X X X v' X X X c
....
� Oaflll� WLS 198 50000 :l00-80C v' X X X '( "' )I X X X X X X X v' X v' X
()"
ril Kha�W19ung WLS 199 4100 4W-1:ll.k v' X X X X X X X X X X X X X v' X v' X :::J
� Lengteng WLS 199\i 400-2JO: "' "'
12000
v'
0 X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X 0
-
-o
;;o Ngengpuo WLS 1991 11000 1000·20<X v' X X X X "' X X X X X X X X "' X v' X
'"0
� Nagaand lntanki NP 199 2020 202-7� v' X x X X X X X X X X X X X v' X v' v
<1>
FakomWLS 1980 641 2000-2725 "' :::J
� X X X )< v' X X X X x X X X v' X v' X

1980 9 2J 1300-150C "'

0 :::J
PuoebadZe WLS X X X X X X X X X '( X X X X X v' X
� Rangapahar WLS 1986 4 7� 0-18C v X X X X X x X X X X X X X "' X v' X
(J)
c
� Tnpura IGumb WLS 1988 389.54 26� "' X X X " v' X X X x X X X � "' X v' X Ill
......
� RowaWLS 1988 08' :JI.k "' X )( X X /. X X X X X X X X X X "' X
� c
Sepah�alaWLS 1981 18.:>:3 N!' v' '( X X � X X X X x X X X X X " v' X
:::J
TnshnaWLS 1988 194 7U N� "' X X X "' v' X X X X X X X X X X "' X <0
c
208 64 1 as 176 126 34 55 62 148 12 11 2 217 9 246 15
rv Ill
-.()
The mformatiOfl presented here IS collected from the National Wildlife Database ar WJI whiCh IS wxtared by mformatlotl from PA managers and orllflf' secondary sources
<D
(.U (J)
SECTION lll

BibHography

Ungulates of India
£11vis J;ullttia : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004)
 Selected bibliography

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON
UNGULATES OF INDIA
S. Agarwal, S. Uniyal and M.S. Rana

INTRODUCTION

A large volume of scientific information on ungulates is widely scattered

in India. It would be difficult and critical to access appropriate and relevant
literature on the subject due to in absence of proper documentation. This
compilation is the first of its kind to collate the existing published
information on Ungulates of India and contains 1101 references that are
largely in English language. This bibliography covers almost 139 years
(between 1867 and 2005) of publications.

The following secondary sources have been consulted during the

compilation of this bibliography:

a) International Database. Wildlife and Ecology Studies CD-ROM (Period

1935- 2005).
b) WII Library and Documentation Centre in-house Databases.

i) Reprint Database.
ii) Book Database.
iii) WILD Database (Indexing and Abstracting Database of Indian
Wildlife).
iv) MPBIB Database (Bibliography on Wildlife and Protected Area
Management in Madhya Pradesh).
v) Indian Mammal Research Bibliographic Database. (Developed by
Dr. M.S. Rana for Scientometric Study of Indian Mammals literature).
To make bibliography more user friendly, the bibliography has been
supplemented with four indices for easy access to the citations.

a) The Author index

b) The Subject index
c) The Species index, and
d) The Publication year index

Each article in the bibliography has been analysed on the basis of 14

broad subject heading as shown in Table 1. Among these, Behaviour
followed by Conservation and Management, Natural History and
Morphology dominate the database.

£nyis-�ultttin: WILOUFE ANO PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 29 5

Table 1. Subject Distribution
Sl. No. Name of Subject No. of References

1 Behaviour 245
2 Conservation and management 238
3 Natural History 131
4 Morphology 118
5 Distribution 94
6 Status 89
7 Wildlife Health 72

8 Population Studies 64
9 Captivity 53
10 Habitat 36
11 Reproduction 16
12 Ecology 14
13 Wildlife trade 6
14 Taxonomy 4

Further analysis of database showed that the ungulate species like Anti/ope
cervicapra, Rhinceros unicornis, Axis axis and Cervus unicolor have been
mostly studied in India. Table 2 presents the distribution of literature of the
species in-term of number of references available in the bibliography.

Table 2. Distribution of literature on species of ungulates in India

Sl. No. Name of species No. of references

1 Anti/ope cervicapra 161

2 Rhinoceros unicornis 141
3 Axis axis 137
4 Cervus unicolor 130
5 Bas gaurus 96
6 Cervus duvauceli 78
7 Boselaphus tragocamelus 74
8 Bubalus bubalis 61
9 Gazella gazella 58
10 Hemitragus hylocrius 52
11 Cervus eldi 40
12 Muntiacus muntjac 31
13 Sus scrota 29
14 Axis porcinus 25
15 Tetracerus quadricornis 24
16 Equs hemionus 18
17 Tragu/us meminna 11
18 Sus salvanius 10

2 96 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

Over 861 authors have been indexed in the present bibliography and their
contribution in-term of number of publication ranged from 1 to 21. The leading
authors who contributed= 10 articles were: A.J.l. Johnsingh, A.R. Rahmani,
C.G. Rice, H.S. Panwar, E.P. Gee, E.R.C. Davidar, K. Sankar, K.U. Karanth,
L.N. Acharj yo, P.C. Kotwal, R. Gopal, R.C. Morris and R.K. Pandey.

Further analysis of the database showed that 745 out of 1101 references
have been contributed individually, as shown in Table 3. Other 314
references were found to be contributed in collaboration.

Table 3. Authorship pattern

Sl. No. Authorship pattern No. of references

1 Single 745
2 Two 199
3 Three 62
4 Four 41
5 Five 6
6 Six 3
7 Seven 1
8 Eight 1
9 Ten 1
10 Annon 42
Total 1101

The trends in the chronological development of literature has been shown

in Table 4. The number of publications in a year ranged 0-52 with the
year 1991 recording the maximum publications (052}.

Table 4. Chronological Development of literature

Sl. No. Period No. of articles
1 1867-1899 35
2 1901-1910 37
3 1911-1920 45
4 1921-1930 63
5 1931-1940 53
6 1941-1950 34
7 1951-1960 52
8 1961-1970 48
9 1971-1980 105
10 1981-1990 245
11 1991-2000 312

tnvis ,1\ullllin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAs {2004) 29 7

 12 2001-2005 57
13 Undated and in press 15
Total 1101

The above table also revealed that 614 (>55 %) references have been
published from 1981 to 2005.

For the convenience of the user, this bibliography is also available in database
form at the Wildlife Institute of India, Library and Documentation Centre. It is
hoped that providing information both in traditional printed form as well as through
machine readable database will be very useful and act as a ready reference to
both professional and amateur wildlife ecologists and protected area managers,
interested in the ungulates of India. We would also like to add that this database
is not complete. While all possible efforts have been made to cite the references
as accurately as possible, it is probable that some mistakes have remained,
largely owing to the compilation of the majority of references from secondary
sources. We would be grateful if such mistakes are brought to our notice for
correction and continuous updation of this database.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ON UNGULATES IN INDIA

0001. Abdulali, H. 1962. The Wild pigs in the Andamans. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 59(1 ): 281-283.

0002. Acharjyo, LN. 1981. Observation of some aspects of antler

shedding in sam bar ( Cervus unicolor) in captivity. International
Symposium on antler development in cervidae. Caesar Kleberg
Wildlife Res. lnst. Texas AI univ. Kingsville, Texas, USA.

0003. Acharjyo, L.N. 1982. Antlers of a castrated chital stag (Axis axis).
Cheetal. 24{1-2): 74.

0004. Acharjyo, L.N. and Mishra, A. 1972. Effect of amputation of hind

limb on the growth of antlers in captivity. Indian Forester. 98(8):
507-508.

0005. Acharjyo, L.N. and Mishra, G. 1980. Some notes on age of sexual
maturity of seven species of Indian wild mammals in captivity.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 77(3): 505-507.

0006. Acharjyo, LN. and Mishra, G. 1981. Notes on weight and size

298 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

at birth of eight species of Indian wild ungulates in captivity.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 78(2): 373-375.

0007. Acharjyo, L.N. and Misra, R. 1971. Age of sexual maturity of three
species (i.e. Sambar, Nilgai, African lion) of wild animals in
captivity. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 68(2): 446.

0008. Acharjyo, L.N. and r-Jisra, R. 1972. Observations on weight and

size at birth of some wild mammals in captivity. Cheetal. P. 64-67.

0009. Acharjyo, L.N. and Misra, R. 1973. A Note on age of sexual

maturity of two species of antelopes in captivity. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 70(2): 378.

0010. Acharjyo, L.N. and Misra, R. 1975. A Note on the breeding habits
of four horned antelope ( Tetracerus quadricornis) in captivity.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 72(2): 529-530.

0011. Acharjyo, L.N. and Patnaik, S.K. 1983. Some observations on

antler cycle of hog-deer (Axis porcinus) in captivity. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 80(3): 631-632.

0012. Acharjyo, L.N. and Patnaik, S.K. 1984. A note on antler casting
of barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac) in captivity. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 81(3): 690-691.

0013. Acharjyo, L.N. and Patnaik, S.K. 1988. Some observations on

antler cycle of captive chital ( Cervus axis). Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 85(2): 411-413.

0014. Acharjyo, L.N. and Rao, A.T. 1986. Bluetongue like disease in
some captive Indian wild ruminants. Kerala Journal of Veterinary
Science. 17(2): 121-127.

0015. Acharjyo, L.N. and Rao, A.T. 1988. Sarcocystosis in some Indian
wild ruminants. Indian Veterinary Journal. 65(2): 169-170.

0016. Acharya, B.B. 1997. Habitat occupancy by wild ungulates in

Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh. M.Sc. Dissertation,
Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat. 50p.

0017. Adamson, G.P. 1916. Albino hog deer (Cervus porcinus). Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 24(3): 589-590.

CnvitJSullttin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 299

0018. Agarwal, H.P. 1970. Barasingha. Cheetal. 13(1) : 61-62.

0019. Agarwal, H.P. 1971. Barasingha ke seeng. Cheetal. 14(2): 59-

61.

0020. Agarwal, H. P. 1972. Conservation of swamp deer ( Cervus

duvauceli branderi) in Kanha National Park, Madhya Pradesh.
Cheetal. 14(4): 20-24.

0021. Agarwal, H.P. 1976. The Introduction or rehabilitation of swamp

deer (Barasingha) into other parts of India. Cheetal. 17(3-4):
21-24.

0022. Agarwal, M.G., Kotwal, P.C. and Gopal, R. 1994. Deer-ked bite
in men at Kanha National Park. J. Parasit. Appl. Anim. Bioi. 8(2):
129.

0023. Agarwal, V.C. and Chakraborty, S. 1991. Ecology, distribution

and management of non-rodent mammalia species of economic
importance. Proceedings of First National Symposium on
Unconventional Pest: Control vs. Conservation and National
Seminar on Animal behaviour, Oct. 14-16, 1991. 11-25.

0024. Agnihotri, D.C. 2001. Socio-ecological study and breeding

control of Boselaphus tragocamelus (antelope). Cheetal. 40(1-
2): 30-33.

0025. Agrawal, P.C., Das, P.K., Chakraborty, S., Ghose, R.K., Mandai,
A.K., Chakraborty, T.K., Poddar, A.K., Lal, J.P., Bhattacharya,
T.P. and Ghosh, M.K. 1992. Mammalia. State fauna series 3.
Fauna of West Bengal. Part 1, Zoological Survey of India,
Calcutta.

0026. Ahmed, B.H.M. 1991. Man and wild pigs (Sus cristatus)
interaction from the Western Ghats of South Maharashtra. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra.

0027. Ahmed, B.H.M. and Samant. 1989. Selection of new habitats by

wild boar (Sus cristatus Wagner) due to human interaction in
the Radhanagari Wildlife Sanctuary from the Western Ghats.
Proceedings of National symposium on animal behaviour.
pp.184-187.

300 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0028. Ahmed, M.F. 1976. An Exercise for estimating wild ungulates

population in Gir by road strip census. Indian Forester. 102(8):
526-530.

0029. Alfred, J.R.B. 2001. Habitat suitability analysis of chinkara,

Gazella bennetti in Rajasthan: a remote sensing and GIS
Approach. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. 73p.

0030. Alfred, J.R.B., Sinha, N.K. and Chakraborty, S. 2002. Checklist

of mammals of India. Occasional paper no. 199, Records of
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.

0031. Ali, S. 1946. The wild ass of Kutch. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 46: 472-477.

0032. Ali, S.A. 1926. A Solitary cow gaur. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 31(2): 518-519.

0033. Ali, S.A. 1927. The Breeding of the Indian r h i n o c e r o s

(Rhinoceros unicornis) in captivity. Journal o f Bombay Natural
History Society. 31(4): 1031.

0034. Ali, S.A. 1927. The Moghul emperors of India as naturalists and
sportsmen. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 31(4):
833-861.

0035. Ali, S.A. and Santapau, H. 1958. Birth of a Great Indian

rhinoceros in captivity. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 55(1): 157-158.

0036. Ali, S.M. 1978. Deer and antlers of India and their conservation.
Zoologiana. 2: 7-15.

0037. Ali, S.M. 1981. Ecological reconnaissance in Eastern Himalaya.

Tigerpaper. 8: 1-3.

0038. Ali, S.M. 1985. The Great Indian one horned rhinoceros and its
allies species. My forest. 21(4): 239-250.

0039. Ali, S., Ansari, S., Ehtesham, N.Z., Azfer, A., Homkar, U., Gopal, R.
and Hasnain, S.E. 1998. Analysis of the evolutionarily conserved
repeat motifs in the genome of the highly endangered Central Indian
Swamp Deer Cervus duvauceli branderi. Gene. 223: 361-367.

£nvis Julletio : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 30 1

0040. Andavan, L.M. 2003. Present population status and conservation
of the chital (Axis axis) in the Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger
Reserve, Tamilnadu, South India. Tigerpaper. 29(4): 30-31.

0041. Anon. Bagadara: Sanctuary: A brief note. Sanjay Gandhi

National Park, MP.

0042. Anon. Population and Habitat Viability Analysis Workshop

(P.H.V.A.) for barasinga (Cervus duvaucel1). Wildlife Institute
of India, Dehradun.

0043. Anon. 1896. The Brow antlered deer or Manipur stag (Cervus
eldil). Indian Forester. 22(4): 154-156.

0044. Anon. 1904. The Distribution of the hog deer ( Cervus porcinus).
Indian Forester. 30(10): 477.

0045. Anon. 1909. A Record Great Indian Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros

unicornis). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 19(3): 746.

0046. Anon. 1911. Pig sticking in Bengal. Indian Forester. 37(3-4):

203-206.

0047. Anon. 1911. The Wild buffalo in Southern India. Indian Forester.
37(12): 89-93.

0048. Anon. 1918. Death of Indian rhinoceros Zoological Society

Bulletin. 21(5): 1673.

0049. Anon. 1921. Some splendid blackbuck heads. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 27(3): 625-626.

0050. Anon. 1921. Sore neck in Sambhar. Journal of Bombay Natural

History Society. 27(4): 937.

0051. Anon. 1922. The Tiger making the ' Sambhar call'. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 28(3): 792-795.

0052. Anon. 1923. The Record black buck head (Antelope cervicapra).
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 29(2): 555-556.

0053. Anon. 1930. White rhinos. Indian Forester. 56(6): 288.

302 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0054. Anon. 1935. The wild animals of the Indian empire and the
problem of their preservation: Part II. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 37(1) : 57-36.

0055. Anon. 1936. Hog hunting reminiscences. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 38(3): 515-519.

0056. Anon. 1938. Pangolin and sambar: A curious belief. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 40(2): 322.

0057. Anon. 1953. Python capturing chinkara. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 51(4): 945-946.

0058. Anon. 1959. An Albino barking deer. Journal of Bombay Natural

History Society. 56(1) : 131-132.

0059. Anon. 1960. How many young does a chital have. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 57(3): 653-654.

0060. Anon. 1960. It happened in Northern India: (1) Stalking buffalo

for tiger (2) Unauthorised shooting of a tigress. Cheetal. 2(2): 33.

0061. Anon. 1961. Report on rhinoceros. Cheetal. 3(2): 64-75.

0062. Anon. 1972. Report of the Rhino poaching. Directorate of

Forests, Government of West Bengal.

0063. Anon. 1980. Caliberation of portability gradient and the rate of

defecation of cheetal under various feeds in F.R.I. Forest
Research Institute, Dehradun. 20p.

0064. Anon. 1980. Minutes of the Rhino sub-committee (of the wildlife
status evaluation committee) meeting held at Dudwa National
Park, 3-5 June, 1980.

0065. Anon. 1981. Impact of tourism on chital ( Axis axis axis)

population. Karnataka Forest Department. National Seminar on
Forest and environment 2-3 Dec. Bangalore. P. 13-20.

0066. Anon. 1982. Management plan of Gorumara wildlife sanctuary

in Jalpaiguri district, West Bengal for the period of 1981-82 to
1985-86. Directorate of Forests, Government of West Bengal.

£ovis �ulletin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 303

0067. Anon. 1982. Management plan of Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary
in Jalpaiguri district, West Bengal for the period of 1981-82
to 1985-86. Directorate of Forests, Government of West
Bengal.

0068. Anon. 1985. Last stand of the blackbuck: the bishnois preserve
a species. The India magazine.

0069. Anon. 1987. Endangered nature and nature conservation.

Cheetal. 28(2): 5-14.

0070. Anon. 1987. Wildlife week 1987, Wildlife of manipur: its present
status with particular reference to some rare and near extinct
species. P. 1-24.

0071. Anon. 1988. The Bastar bhaisa. Sanctuary Asia. 8(2): 68.

0072. Anon. 1988. The lndravati Tiger Reserve. Sanctuary Asia. 8(2):
62-63.

0073. Anon. 1989. Wild buffaloes in Madhya Pradesh. Forest

Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. 15p.

0074. Anon. 1990. Comments on recommendations. Seminar on

management of swamp deer in Dudwa tiger project area INTAC,
DNP, 1st Feb'1990 P. 1.5.

0075. Anon. 1993. Important Fauna of Tiger Reserves. Project Tiger.

Ministry of Environment and F orests. Government of India, New
Delhi.

0076. Anon. 1994. Population Habitat Viability Assessment (PHVA)

for Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica). Zoo Print. 9(1-2): 7-11.

0077. Anon. 1994. Rhino conservation in India and elsewhere including

first draft Report of the PHVA analysis Workshop for Indian
Rhino. Zoo print. 9(3 4): 1-72.
-

0078. Anon. 1994. The red data book on Indian animals Part 1:
Vertebrata (Mammalia, aves, reptilia and amphibia). Zoological
Survey of India, Calcutta.

304 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0079. Anon. 1995. Nilgiri tahr project. Tahr. 6(1 ) : 3-4.

0080. Anon. 1995. Report on the P.H.V.A. for Sarasingha. Zoo Print.
10(11): 1-30 61-63.

0081. Anon. 1998. Karera abhyaranya se kale hirnon ka safaya.

Cheetal. 37(3-4): 65-66.

0082. Anon. 2003. IUCN red list of threatened mammals of India. IUCN,
Switzerland.

0083. Archibald Field, J. 1907. Abnormal Sambur horns. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 17(4): 1020.

0084. Areendran, G. 1997. The ecology of gaur (8os gaurus) in Pench

Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh: progress work for the period
October 1996 to August 1997. Wild life Institute of India,
Dehradun.

0085. Arora, A. 1990. Some biological studies in swamp deer ( Cervus

duvaucel1) at Dudhwa National Park. WI/ Newsletter. 6: 26-27.

0086. Arora, S.M. 1986. Some health problems encountered in captive

semi-captive rhinos. Zoo Print. 1(8): 9-11.

0087. Arora, S.M. 1988. Chemical immobilization of deer and

antelopes. T igerpaper. 15(1): 8-14.

0088. Arora, S.M. 1991. Some diseases encountered in wild and captive
mammals. International Seminar on veterinary medicine in wild
and captive animals, India, Bangalore, 8-10 Nov. 1991. P.26-27.

0089. Arora, S.M. 2002. Reproduction in wild mammalia and

conservation. Association of Indian Zoo a n d Wildlife
Veterinarians, Bareil/y.

0090. Arora, V.M. 1991. Some nature tales about blackbucks and
rhesus macaques. Zoo Print. 6(7): 14.

0091. Atkinson, G. 1932. An albino chital, (Axis axis). Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 35(4): 888.

£ovis.iullflill: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTEOAAEAS (2004) 3 0 5.

0092. Avari, E.D. 1957. The Jaldapara Game sanctuary, West Bengal.
Journal of Bengal Natural History Society.

0093. Avasthe, R. Jha, A. 1999. Mammals of Sikkim. Sikkim field office,

Gangtok.

0094. Awal, M.A. and Malik, J.K. 1992. Effects of oxines and atropine
on acute phosphamidon intoxication in Bu balus bubalis. Bull.
Environ. Contam. Toxico. 49(3): 410-416.

0095. Badam, G.L. and Salahuddin. 1982. Some new fossil sites on
the Central Narmada Valley, Madhya Pradesh. Current Science.
51(18): 898-899.

·oo96. Bahadur, S.S. 1925. A Hybrid black buck (A. cervicapra) and
chinkara (G. bennetti). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 30(4): 911-912.

0097. Baidya, K.N. 1982. Alarm call by great Indian rhino Rhinoceros
unicornis. Cheetal. 23(4): 8-9.

0098. Baidya, K.N. 1982. Alarming status of the Great Indian

Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicorn i s ) . Environmental
Conservation. 9(4): 346-347.

0099. Baker, E.C.S. 1903. The Gaur and the gayal (Bos gaurus and Bos
frontalis). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 15(2): 227-248.

0100. Baker, E.C.S. 1929. The Fauna of British India, Vol. 1-6. Taylor
and Francis, London.

0101. Balakrishnan, C.N., Montfort, S.L., Gaur, A., Singh, L. and

Sorenson, M.D. 2003. Phylogeography and conservation
genetics of elds deer Cervus eldi. Molecular ecology. 12: 1-10.

0102. Balak�ishnan, M. 1991. Olfactory communication signals in large

Indian mammals. Proceedings of First National Symposium on
Unconventional Pest: Control vs. Conservation and National
Seminar on Animal behaviour, Oct. 14-16, 1991. P.139.

0103. Balakrishnan, M. and Easa, P.S. 1986. Habitat preferences of

the large mammals in Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctaury, Kerala.
Biological Conservation. 37(3): 191-261.

306 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0104. Balakrishnan, M. and Wegge, P. 1990. Conservation of wild

mammals on the Indian Sub-continent. Trans. Congr. Int. Union
Game Bioi. 19(2): 664-676.

0105. Balasubramanian, P. and Bole, P.V. 1993. Seed dispersal by

mammals at Point Calimere Wildlife Sanctuary, Tamil nadu.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 90(1 ): 33-44.

0106. Banerjee, A.K. 1966. Rhinoceros- a historical treatment. West

Bengal Forests, Forest directorate, Government of West Bengal.

0107. Banerjee, A . K . 1966. Wild buffalo and Gaur: history of

Distribution. West Bengal forests, Forest directorate.
Government of West Bengal. Centenary Commemoration volume,
Calcutta.

0108. Banerji, S. and Chkaraborty, S. 1973. Remains of the Greater

One-horned Rhinoceros, Rhinoceros unicornis Linn. from
Rajasthan. Science and Culture, Calcutta. 30(1 0): 430-431.

0109. Bansal, R.P. and Joshi, R.C. 1980. A note on rinderpest in gaur
(Bibos gaurus. Indian Veterinary Journal. 57(3): 259-260.

0110. Baronia, A.K. Status of some major mammals in Noradehi

Sanctuary and appraisal of related problems. Wildlife Institute
of India, Dehradun. 23p.

0111. Barron, A.H.D. 1911. A deformed thamin stag (Cervus eld1).

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 21: 654-655.

0112. Beadon, W.R.C. 1926. The "Sambhar calls" of tigers. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 31 (2): 515-516.

0113. Becher, E.F. 1894. Cold-weather shooting in Raipur. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 8(4): 556-562.

0114. Bedi, R. 1991. Geanda: a prehistoric animal. Sastha Sahitya

Manda/ Publication, New Delhi.

0115. Belsare, O.K., Chandiramani, S.C. and Dutta, J.J. 1984.

Composition and behaviour of gaur herd in Kanha National Park.
Cheetal. 26(2): 28-31 .

!nvi• Jlullrtin : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 30 7

0116. Benskin, E. 1931. White chital. Indian Forester. 57(1): 43.

0117. Berwick, S.H. 1974. The community of wild ruminants in the Gir
forest ecosystem, India. Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan University,
Michigan. 266p.

0118. Berwick, S.H. and Jordan, P.A. 1971. First report of the Yale
Bombay Natural History Society studies of wild ungulates at
the Gir forest, Gujarat, India. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 68(2): 412-423.

0119. Best, J.W. 1911. An Abnormal sambar head. Indian Forester.

37(7): 401.

0120. Bey, H. 1967. A profile of Kaziranga. Cheetal. 10(1): 19-22.

0121. Bhalerao, G.D. 1931. Trematode parasites of pigs in Bengal.

Records of Zoological Survey of India. 33(4): 475-482.

0122. Bharucha, E.K. 1987. An Observation on the relationship

between a sambar and a tree-pie. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 84(3): 675.

0123. Bharucha, E. and Asher, K. 1987. Blackbuck behaviour and Horn

size. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 84(3): 674-675.

0124. Bharucha, E. and Asher, K. 1993. Behaviour patterns of the

blackbuck Anti/ope cervicapra under suboptimal habitat conditions.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 90(3): 371-390.

0125. Bharucha, E., Asher, K. and Jugtawat, R. 1989. Some interesting

aspects of wolf (Canis lupus Linn.) behaviour observed at Guda
near Jodhpur (Rajasthan). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 86(2): 237-238.

0126. Bhaskaran, N. 1999. An ecological investigation of four-horned

antelope ( Tetracerus quadricornis) in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary
and National Park. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay. 29pp.

0127. Bhatia, C.L. and Desai, J.H. 1971. Breeding of the Indian
rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) at Delhi Zoological Parks.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 68(3): 820-823.

308 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0128. Bhatnagar, R.K. 1971. Reaction of chital (Axis axis) (Erxleben)

to jungle cat (Felis chaus) Guldenstaedt. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 69(2): 444-445.

0129. Bhatnagar, Y. 2000. Status survey of large mammals in Eastern

Ladakh and Nubra. (IN): Conserving biodiversity in the Indian
Trans-Himalaya: new initiatives of field conservation in Ladakh.
Annual Technical Report. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

0130. Bhattacharjee, M.L. and Halder, B.A. 1971. The Occurrence of

Fasciola gigantica in the liver of an Indian Rhinoceros. British
Veterinary Journal. 127(5): 7-8.

0131. Bhattacharya, A. 1993. Premating calls of Great Indian One

horned Rhinoceros (R.unicornis) L. and its comparative study
with other calls. Cheetal. 31(3-4): 30-32.

0132. Bhattacharya, A. 1994. Some new aspects of pre and post

defecating b e h a v i o u r associated with s c e n t m a r k i n g
relationship i n Great Indian one horned rhinoceros. Cheetal.
33(3-4): 1-9.

0133. Bhattacharya, A. and Pal, B.C. 1982. Daily activity cycle of

Great Indian one horned rhinoceros at Gorumara and Jaldapara
Wildlife Sanctuary, West Bengal, India. Journal of Bengal Natural
History Society. 1(2): 53-58.

0134. Bhattacharya, A. and Pal, B.C. 1982. Home range of rhinoceros

at Gorumara and Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary in West Bengal.
All India Symposium on Wildlife Biology. 12: 1-5.

0135. Bhattacharya, A. and Pal, B.C. 1994. Rhinoceros of Jaldapara:

some problems for survival and their proposed conservation
measures. Zoo Print. 9(11 ): 5-6.

0136. Bhattacharya, K.K. and Frenzmann, A.W. 1986. Intestinal rupture

in a free-living Sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) in India. Journal
of Wildlife Disease. 22(1) : 136.

0137. Bhattacharya, M., Chakraborty, A., Baishya, G. and Dey, S. 1992.

Glans penis of the Indian one horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
unicornis). Indian Journal of Animal Science. 62(10).: 950-951.

£nvis _gullttio : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 309

0138. �hattacharya, S. 1992. First Systematic Tagging of Brow­
antlered deer at Calcutta zoo. Zoo Print. 7(10): 4-5.

0139. Bhattacharya, S., Choudhury, A. and Biswas, G.G. 1997. A

collaborative study on gaurs (Bos gaurus H. smith) in North
Bengal, West Bengal. World Wide Fund for Nature, Calcutta. 79p.

0140. Bhattacharya, T. and Chattopadhyay, B. 1979. Population status

of Indian blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra Linn.) and spotted deer
(Axis axis Erxleben) in Ballavpur Wildlife Sanctuary, West
Bengal. Cheetal. 20(4): 39-47.

0141. Bhattacharyya, B.K. 1991. Studies on the reproductive

performances of one horned rhinoceroses (Rhinoceros
unicornis). International Seminar on Veterinary Medicine in Wild
and Captive Animals, India, Bangalore, 8-10 Nov. 1991. P.32.

0142. Bhattacharyya, B .K. and Goswami, U.C. 1987. Some

observations on the process of parturition, neonate and maternal
behaviour in Great Indian one horned rhino Rhinoceros
unicornis. Zoo Print. 2(8): 6-8.

0143. Bhat, M.N. and Manickam, R. 1998. Coproculture and study of

seasonal variation in parasitic burden in spotted deer (Axis axis)
in different sanctuaries in Tamil Nadu. Indian Veterinary Journal.
75(5): 469-471.

0144. Bhat, M.N. and Manickam, R. 1998. lnte11sity of nematode

infection and corpoculturing in sambar ( Cervus unicolor). Indian
Journal of Animal Science. 68(7): 643-644.

0145. Bhat, M.N., Manickam, R., Nedunchellian, S. and Jayakumar,

V. 1998. Detection of leptospirial antibodies in the sera of
elephants. Indian Veterinary Journal. 75(3): 201-203.

0146. Bhat, S.D. 1997. Vaginal prolapse in a wild chital (Axis axis) in
Rajaji National Park, U.P. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 94(2): 393-394.

0147. Bhat, S.D. and Rawat, G.S. 1995. Habitat use by chital (Axis
axis) in Dhaulkhand, Rajaji National Park, India. Tropical
Ecology. 36(2): 177-189.

3l Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

0148. Bhat, S.D. and Rawat, G.S. 1999. Some food plants of chital in
Rajaji National Park, India. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 96(3): 467-468.

0149. Bhola, M.P. 1930. White chital. Indian Forester. 56(11 ) : 467.

0150. Shushan, B. 1985. Indian Whiskered terns Chilidonias hybridus

mobbing a female Blackbuck Anti/ope cervicapra. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 82(2): 409-410.

0151. Biddulph, C.H. 1955. Abnormal horns of blackbuck (Anti/ope

cervicapra). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 52(4): 920.

0152. Biggs, H.V. 1907. A Gaur attacking and killing a man without
provocation. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 18(2): 487.

0153. Bishnoi, R.S. 1992. The Blackbuck and the Bishnois. Cheetal.
31(1-2): 38-40.

0154. Bist, S.S. 1992. Population history of Great Indian Rhino in North
Bengal. Zoo Print. 9(3-4): 42-51.

0155. Bist, S.S. 1997. Wildlife management in West Bengal (1947-

1997): the fifty years.

0156. Biswas, S. and· Sankar, K. 2002. Prey abundance and food habit
of tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) in Pench National Park, Madhya
pradesh, India. Journal of Zoology London. 256: 411-420.

0157. Biswas, T. 1999. Habitat utilization by hog deer (Axis porcinus)

in relation to other sympatric species at Jaldapara Wildlife
Sanctuary. M.Sc. Dissertation, Saurashtra University, Rajkot,
Gujarat. 107p.

0158. Biswas, T. 2000. Conservation of hog deer and .its habitat in

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Abstract: Paper presented
at First students Conservation Science Conference, Department
of Zoology, University of Cambridge, U.K. March 28-30'h.

0159. Biswas, T. 2002. Status and distribution of hog deer (Axis

porcinus) in the duars - analyzing a changing landscape.
Certificate Course Dissertation, Indian Institute of Remote
Sensing, Dehradun.

£nvit�ultttie: WILDliFE AND PROTECTEOAAEAS (2004) 31 1

0160. Biswas, T. and Mathur, V.B. 2000. A review of the present
conservation scenario of hog deer (Axis porcinus) in its native
range. Indian Forester. 126( 1 0): 1068-1084.

0161. Biswas, T. and Mathur, V.B. 2002. A survey on the current

status and distribution of hog deer (Axis porcinus) in India.
Wildlife Institute of India, Oehradun.

0162. Biswas, T. and Mathur, V.B. 2003. The grasslands of Jaldapara

Wildlife Sanctuary - composition, structure and their conservation
significance. En vis Bulletin. 1(1 ) : 29-47.

0163. Biswas, T., Mathur, V.B. and Sawarkar, V.B. 2002. Status of
hog deer (Axis porcinus) in India. Wildlife Institute of India,
Oehradun. 2002.

0164. Blackburn, H.V. 1935. A bull gaur (B. gaur) and a tigress fight
to death. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 37(4): 950-
951.

0165. Blanford, W.T. 1891. On the gaur (Bos gaurus) and its allies.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 6(2): 222-230.

0166. Blood, B.W. 1893. Measurements of blackbuck horns. journal

of Bombay Natural History Society. 7(4): 550.

0167. Bohra, H.C. and Ghosh, P . K. 1991. The changing pattern of

human animal relationships in the Rajasthan desert. Proceedings
of First National Symposium on Unconventional Pest: Control
vs. Conservation and National Seminar on Animal behaviour,
Oct. 14-16, 1991. P. 32-37.

0168. Bohra, H.C. and Goyal, S.P. 1991. Crop damage by the Chinkara
gazelle in the arid region of Western Rajasthan. Proceedings of
First National Symposium on Unconventional Pest: Control vs.
Conservation and National Seminar on Animal behaviour, Oct.
14-16, 1991. P.82-83.

0169. Bohra, H.C., Goyal, S.P., Ghosh, P .K. and Prakash, I. 1992.
Studies on ethology and eco-Physiology Of The antelopes of
The Indian desert. Annals of Arid Zone. 31(2): 83-96.

31 2 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

01 70. Bordoloi, C.C., Kalita, H., Kalita, S.N. and Baishya, G. 1 993.
Scapula of the Great Indian rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis). Indian
Veterinary Journal. 70(6): 540-542.

01 71 . Bordoloi, C.C., Pathak, M. and Choudhury, A. 1 990. Incidence

of interstinal helminth infection in Rhinoceros unicornis in
captivity. Zoo Print. 5(5): 1 4.

01 72. Boro, B.R. and Sarma, G. 1 982. Note on the isolation of an

antibiotic resistant strain of staphylococcus aureus from the
nasal wound of rhinoceros. Indian Journal of Animal Science.
67: 588-560.

01 73. Borthakur, S. and Bordoloi, C.C. 1 997. Gross anatomical study

on the skull of adult rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis). Indian
Veterinary Journal. 74(8): 670-672.

01 74. Boswell, K. 1945. Sambar swings. Journal of Bombay Natural

History Society. 45(4): 601-602.

01 75. Brahmachary, R.L., Mallik, B. and Rakshit, B. 1 970. An attempt

to determine the food habits of the Indian rhinoceros. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 67(3): 558-560.

01 76. Brander, A.A.D. 1 91 3. Photograph of a wild gaur (Bibos gaurs).

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 22(3): 621-622.

01 77. Brander, A.A.D. 1925. The" Sambhar call" of the tiger. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 30(4): 905-906.

01 78. Brander, A.A.D. 1 926. On the colour of the eye of the gaur or
Indian bison (Bibos gaurus). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 31 (1 ): 220-222.

01 79. Brander, A.A.D. 1 927. Wild animals in Central India. Edward

Arnold Co., London. 296pp.

01 80. Brander, A.A.D. 1 936. White Bison. Journal of Bombay Natural

History Society 38(3): 61 9-620.

01 81 . Brander, A.A.D. 1 944. Breeding season of the Indian Sambar.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 44(4): 587.

£.,vis�ulle�io: WiLDLIFE AND PRorecreoAR�s(2004) 31 3

0182. Briggs, G.W. 1931. The Indian rhinoceros as a sacred animal.
Journal of the American Oriental society. 51: 276-282.

0183. Bristow, C.H. 1925. Determination of the age in Blackbuck.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 30(2): 469-470.

0184. Brook Fox, E. 1906. The Indian Chevrotain or Mouse-Deer

(Tragulus meminna). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
16(4): 739.

0185. Brook Fox, E. 1913. Chinkara suffering from Guinea-Worm.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 22(2): 390.

0186. Browne, E.G. 1920. Female blackbuck (A.cervicapra) with

horns. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 27(1): 169.

0187. Brownlow, A.L. 1931. Large head of Malay sambhar (Cervus

unicolor equinus). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
35(1): 199.

0188. Buckland, C.T. 1889. Birth of a rhinoceros at Calcutta. Field.

0189. Budden, J. 1921. Blackbuck v. Motor. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 27(4): 939.

0190. Bulkley, H. 1893. Curious tumour on a blackbuck. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 7(3): 405.

0191. Bulu Imam, A.R.H. 1993. Notes on the Gaur or Indian Bison
(Bos gaurus). Cheetal. 32(3): 28-35.

0192. Burke, R. 1915. Abnormal antlers of the cheetal (Axis axis).

Indian Forester. 41(12): 489-492.

0193. Burnett, J.H. 1959. Increase of swamp deer ( Cervus duvauceli

Cuv.) in the Kaziranga Sanctuary, Assam. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 56(2): 318-319.

0194. Burton, R. 1952. A history of shikar in India. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 50(4): 845-869.

0195. Burton, R.G. 1912. Do Chinkara (Gazelle bennett!) drink water.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 21 (3): 1068.

3l 4 UNGUlATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

0196. Burton, R.M. 1910. A Good chinkara or Indian Gazelle head.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 19(4): 982-983.

0197. ·Burton, R.W. 1918. Buffalo in the Nicobar Island. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 25(3): 491.

0198. Burton, R.W. 1929. Clicking noise made by muntjac. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 33(2): 439.

0199. Burton, R. W. 1931. Abnormal horns of sambhur ( Cervus

unicolor). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 34(4):
1058-1059.

0200. Burton, R.W. 1951. Shooting of peafowl and antelope

(Biackbuck) prohibited in Madras state. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 50(2): 433.

0201. Cameron, I.L. 1929. Body measurement of a gaur (Bibos gaurus).

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 33(4): 983-985.

0202. Cash, B. Cash, A. 1971. The Indian rhinoceros at home. Field.

238: 89.

0203. Caton Jones, F.W. 1906. Shooting notes from the Central
Provinces. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 16(4):
754-755.

0204. Chakraborty, A., Bhattacharya, M. and Baishya, G. 1989. A note

on the liver of Indian One-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
unicornis). Indian Veterinary Journal. 66: 1071-1072.

0205. Chakraborty, A. and Chaudhury, B. 1991. Capture myopathy.

International Seminar on Veterinary Medicine in Wild and Captive
Animals, India, Bangalore, 8-10 Nov. 1991. P.18.

0206. Chakraborty, A. and Islam, S. 1993. A survey of gastrointestinal

parasitic infection in free living rhinoceros of the Kaziranga
National Park, Assam. Indian Journal of Animal Science. 63(2):
155-156.

0207. Chakraborty, B. 1991. Habitat use by radio instrumented chital,

sambar and nilgai in Sariska Tiger Reserve. M.Sc. Dissertation,
Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat. 44p.

£nvis.�ullftin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 31 5

0208. Chakraborty, T. 1993. Vitamin E. Deficiency of captive elephants
and rhinoceroses. Zoo Print. 8(11 ): 28-30.

0209. Champion, F.W. 1929. The Distribution of the Mouse deer

(Moschiola meminna). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 33(4): 985-986.

0210. Champion, H.G. 1938. An albino sambar. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 40(2): 322-323.

0211. Champion, H.G. and Seth, S.K. 1968. A revised survey of the
forest types of India. Manager of Publication, Delhi.

0212. Chandrabhushansinhji. 1937. Replacement of horns in Nilgai.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 39(3): 618-619.

0213. Chandrachur. 1950. A Doe cheetal with horns. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 49(3): 547.

0214. Chandran, P.R. 1980. Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius) in

captivity. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 77(1): 129-
130.

0215. Chandra, J. 1987. Wildlife census in Karera Bustard Sanctuary.

Zoo Print. 2(10): 7.

0216. Chandra, J. 1990. Unique Karera Great Indian Bustard

Sanctuary. Tigerpaper. 17(1): 16-20.

0217. Chandra, J. 1997. Crop damage caused by Blackbucks

(Anti/ope cervicapra) at Karera Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary,
and possible remedial solutions. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 94(2): 322-332.

0218. Chandra, J. 1997. Crop damage caused by Blackbucks at

Karera Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary, and its possible
remedial solutions. Tigerpaper. 24(3): 26-32.

0219. Chatterjee, A.K. and Chandiramani, S.S. 1986. Microscopic

pigmental variations in hair shaft samples from a gaur. Cheetal.
27(4)-28(1): 5-7.

3l 6 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

0220. Chattopadhyay, B. and Bhattacharya, T. 1985. Population dynamics

of blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra) Linn of Ballavpur Wildlife
Sanctuary, West Bengal. Indian Forester. 111(10): 849-869.

0221. Chattopadhyay, B. and Bhattacharya, T. 1986. Basic diurnal

activity pattern of blackbuck, Anti/ope cervicapra Linn. of
Ballavpur Wildlife Sanctuary, W.B. and its seasonal variation.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 83(3): 553-561.

0222. Chattopadhyay, B. and Bhattacharya, T. 1986. Food habits of

blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra) Linn. of Ballavpur Wildlife
Sanctuary, West Bengal, India. Tropical Ecology. 27: 93-100.

0223. Chaturvedi, M.D. 1969. The Vanishing rhino of India. Cheetal.

11(1): 11-15.

0224. Chaturvedi, M.D. 2000. The vanishing rhino of India. Cheetal.

39(2): 1-7.

0225. Chaudhary, S.R. 1978. Maintenance of wildlife sanctuaries and

parks. Cheetal. 16(2): 14-22.

0226. Chaudhuri, A.B. and Chakraborty, K. 1989. Sunderbans

mangrove ecology and Wildlife. Surya Publication, Dehradun.

0227. Chaudhury, S. 1952. Game sanctuaries and National parks in

West Bengal. Journal of Bengal Natural History Society. 25(3):

0228. Chauhan, D.R. 1985. A female blackbuck with horns. Journal

of Bombay Natural History Society. 82{1): 188.

0229. Chauhan, N.P.S. 1992. Resolving a people versus protected

area conflict: a case study of Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary,
Madhya Pradesh, India. IV World Congress of National Parks
and protected areas, Caracas, Venezuela, 10-21 February 1992.
pp.320-321.

0230. Chauhan, N.P.S. and Rajpurohit, K.S. 1996. Survey of animal

damage problem in and around protected areas and managed
forests Phase II Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal
pradesh, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. Wildlife Institute
of India, Dehradun.

tnvit>�ullttin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 3 l 7.

0231. Chauhan, N.P.S. and Sawarkar, V.B. 1989. Problems of over­
abundant populations of Nilgai and Blackbuck in Haryana and
Madhya Pradesh and their management. Indian Forester. 115(7):
488-493.

0232. Chauhan, N.P.S. and Singh, R.V. 1990. Crop damage by over
abundant poplations of Nilgai and blackbuck in Haryana (India)
and its management. Proceedings of Vertebrate Pest Conference
14: 218-220.

0233. Chauhan, P.P.S., Arora, G.S. and Ahluwalia, S.S. 1974. A note
on the occurrence of an immature parafilarid worm in the anterior
chamber of eye of a buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Journal of
Helminthology. 48(4): 289-291.

0234. Chavan, S.A. 1998. Action plan for Blackbuck National Park at
Velavadar. Velavadar National Park, Gujarat. 73p.

0235. Chhangani, A.K., Purohit, A.K. and Mohnot, S.M. 2002. Status
survey and ecology of nilgai. Cheetal. 41(1-2): 7-14.

0236. Chitampalli, M.B. 1983. Abnormal horns in the nilgai. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 80(1 ): 209.

0237. Chitampalli, M.B. 1983. Unusual feeding behaviour of Nilgai.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 80(2): 412.

0238. Chitrapu, V.R. 1998. Kanyakumari district and its natural

heritage. Zoo Print. 13(2}: 3-4.

0239. Choudhury, A. 1985. Distribution of Indian one-horned

rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis). Tigerpaper. 12(2): 25-30.

0240. Chou �hury, A. 1987. Railway threat to Kaziranga. Oryx. 21(3):

160-163.

0241. Choudhury, A. 1997. Indian One-horned Rhinoceros Rhinoceros

unicornis Linn 1758 in Arunachal Pradesh. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 94(1): 152-153.

0242. Choudhury, A. 2002. Distribution and conservation of the gaur 8os

gaurus in the Indian subcontinent. Mammal Review. 32(3): 199.

31 8 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

0243. Chowdhury, M.K. and Ghosh, S. 1984. Operation Rhino­

Jaldapara Sanctuary. Indian Forester. 110(11): 1098-1108.

0244. Christopher, S.A. 1937. A Big buffalo head. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 39(2): 391.

0245. Chundawat, R.S. and Rawat, G.S. 1994. Indian cold deserts: a
status report on biodiversity. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

0246. Clifford, A. 1907. An abnormal hog deer head. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 17(4): 1020.

0247. Clutterbuck, P.H. 1894. Sambhur horns eaten by porcupines.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 9(2): 225.

0248. Clutterbuck, P.H. 1894. The Barking deer ( Cervus muntjac).

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 9(2): 230.

0249. Cockburn, J. 1883. On the recent existence of Rhinoceros

indicus in the North western province; and a description of a
tracing of an archatic rock painting from Mirzapore representing
the hunting of this animal. Journal of Asiatic Soc. Bengal. 52:
56-64.

0250. Cockburn, J. 1884. On the recent extinction of a species of

rhinoceros in the rajmahal hills and Bos gaurus in the Mirzapur
district. Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, September
1884. P. 114-141.

0251. Cohen, J.A. 1977. Species identification and age classification

of the Jaws of some common Indian ungulates near Mudumalai
Wildlife Sanctuary. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
74(2): 246-248.

0252. Comber, E. 1904. Breeding season of big game. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 116: 176-179.

0253. Comber, E. 1908. Shedding of the antlers of the Muntjac or

Barking deer ( Cervulus muntjac). Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 18(2): 490-491.

0254. Goode, J.M. 1890. A Panther chasing a nilgai. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 5(3): 307.

£avi1 .�ulletia : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 3l 9

0255. Copley, H. 1921. Double growth of horns in sambhar. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 27(4): 938.

0256. Courthope, E.A. 1908. Abnormal antlers of Cervus axis. Indian

Forester. 34(6): 365.

0257. Crowley, H.S. 1945. A Sambar's death. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 45(3): 414-415.

0258. Cuffe, C. T.W. 191 �- Abnormal sambhur horns. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 23(2): 356.

0259. D'Cunha, E.P.E. and Akhtar, A. 1986. Mortality from a hail Storm
at the Karera Bustard Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 83(2): 218-219.

0260. Dang, H. 1964. Wildlife in open country - I. The Blackbuck.

Cheetal. 5(1) : 20-24.

0261. Daniel, J.C. 1970. The Nilgiri Tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius) Ogilby
in the high range Kerala and the Southern hills of the Western
Ghats. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 67(3): 535-542.

0262. Daniel, J.C. 1991. Ungulate conservation in India - Problems

and prospects. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 29(1-4): 349-
356.

0263. Daniel, J.C. and Grubh, B.A. 1966. The Indian Wild Buffalo,
Bubalus bubalis (Linn.) in Peninsular India: A Preliminary Survey.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 63(1) : 32-53.

0264. Daniel, M. 1987. A Short note on a new found group of tahr.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 84(3): 673-674.

0265. Dass, B.C. 1938. White Sambar (Rusi unicolor Kerr). Indian
Forester. 64(7): 446.

0266. Das, A.K. 1988. Brow-antlered deer ( Cervus eldi eld1) at Calcutta
Zoo. Zoo Print.

0267. Das, A.K. and Nandi, N.C. 1999. Fauna of Indian Sundarbans
Mangal and their role in the ecosystem. (IN): Mangal, Sundarbans
and Bakshi, Guha (Eds.) Sundarban Mangal, Naya Prakash,
Kolkata.

32Q UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0268. Das, A.K., Pratap, K. and Singh, G.R. 1991. Radiography of

verticular coronary arteries in a nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus).
International Seminar on Veterinary Medicine in Wild and Captive
Animals, India, Bangalore, 8-10 Nov. 1991. P.15.

0269. Das, B.N. 1969. The role management and economic function
of a national park with special reference to Kaziranga. Indian
Forester. 95(11); 785-791 .

0270. Das, P.K. 1966. Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary - West Bengal

Forest (Centenary commemoration volume 1964). Directorate
of Forests, Government of West Bengal.

0271. Datta, A. 2003. A survey of endangered mammals in Changlang

district, Arunachal Pradesh: discovery of twp new muntjac from
India. Interim Report, Wildlife conservation society, Nature
Conservation Foundation.

0272. Datta, A., Madhusudan, M.D. and Mishra, C. 2003. Discovery

of leaf deer Muntiacus putoensis in Arunachal Pradesh: an
addition to the large mammals of India. Current Science. 84:
101-102.

0273. Daver, S.R. 1938. Cause of sore neck in sambar. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 40(1): 118-122.

0274. Davidar, E.R.C. 1959. Status of wildlife in the Nilgiris. Nilgiri

Hills Wildlife Association Centenary 1877-1977. P. 62-76.

0275. Davidar, E.R.C. 1963. Census of the Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus

hylocrius) (Ogilby) in the Nilgiris. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 60(1): 251-252.

0276. Davidar, E.R.C. 1963. Status of the nilgiri tahr census by the
Nilgiri Wildlife Association. Cheetal. 6(1 ): 56-58.

0277. Davidar, E.R.C. 1964. A large herd of chital. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 61(3): 682-683.

0278. Davidar, E.R.C. 1969. An Encounter between wild dogs and sambar.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 66(2): 374-375.

tnvi• �ullttin: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AIDS (2004) 32 1

0279. Davidar, E.R.C. 1969. The Three saddle backs. Cheetal. 12(1 ) :
130-134.

0280. Davidar, E.R.C. 1971. A Note on the status of the nilgiri tahr
(Hemitragus hylocrius) on the grass hills in the Anamallais.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 68(2): 347-354.

0281. Davidar, E.R.C. 1972. Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius) saddle

backs. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 69(1): 173-174.

0282. Davidar, E.R.C. 1976. Census of the nilgiri tahr in the Nilgiris,
Tamilnadu. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 73(1 ) :
142-148.

0283. Davidar, E.R.C. 1978. Distribution and status of the Nilgiri tahr
(Hemitragus hylocrius) 1975-78. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 75(3): 815-844.

0284. Davidar, E.R.C. 1980. Predator trail- A Saga. Cheetal. 22(1-2):

65-67.

0285. Davidar, P. 1973. The Grey goats of the blue mountains.

Cheetal. 15(4): 28-30.

0286. Davis, H.J. 1911. Large heads of Malay sambhur and brow­
antlered deer. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 21(1) :
248.

0287. Desai, J.H. 1986. The Brow antlered deer ( Cervus eldi eld1).
(IN): Majupuria, T.C. (Ed.) Wildlife wealth of India: resources and
Management, Tee Press, T hailand. P. 515-517.

0288. Desai, J.S. 1986. The brow-antlered deer. Zoo Print. 1(4): 5-6.

0289. Deshmukh, A. 2003. To�ill a blackbuck. Sanctuary Asia. 23(3):

48-49.

0290. Deshmukh, V.R. and Dhore, M.A. 1994. Nutritive values of some
lesser known Herbivore food from Melghat Tiger Reserve
(Maharashtra). Indian Forester. 120(1 0): 920-923.

322 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0291. Dey, S.C. 1987. Rhinoceros - its past and present, West Bengal.
Government of West Bengal, Calcutta.

0292. Dey, S.C. 1994. Overview of rhinoceros. Zoo Print. 9(3-4): 3-6.

0293. Dey, S.C. 1999. Overview of Indian Rhino Action Plan.

Proceedings of IUCN/SSC Asian Rhino Specialist Group
Meeting for India and Nepal, Feb 21-27, 1999, Assam.

0294. De, R.C. and Spillett, J.J. 1966. A study of the Chital or spotted
deer in Corbett National Park, Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 63(3): 576-598.

0295. Dharmakumarsinhji. 1981. Blackbuck: Anti/ope cervicapra -

observations from a lifetime's experience. Sanctuary Asia. 1(4):
36-45.

0296. Dharmarajan, G., Raman, M. and John, M.C. 2003. The effects
of cattle grazing and habitat on helminth loads of chital (Axis
axis) in the Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Southern India.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 100(1) : 58-64.

0297. Dhoot, V.M. and Upadhya, S.V. 2001. Pasteurellosis in a chital

deer (Axis axis) in captivity. Zoo Print. 16(2): 428-429.

0298. Dinerstein, E. 1989. The foliage as fruit hypothesis and the feeding
behaviour of south asian ungulates. Biotropica. 21: 214-218.

0299. Dinerstein, E. 1991. Seed dispersal by Greater One-horned

Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) and the flora (Rhinoceros)
latrines. Mammalia. 55(3): 355-362.

0300. Dinerstein, E. and McCracken, G.F. 1990. Endangered Greater

one-horned rhinoceros carry high levels of genetic variation.
Conservation Biology. 4 (4): 417-422.

0301. Divekar, H.K. Environmental consequences of hydro-electric

projects in Bastar district Central India. Unpublished. 11 p.

0302. Divekar, H.K. 1977. A re-survey of the status of Wild Buffaloes

in West Bastar, Madhya Pradesh. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 73(2): 382-385.

tnvis �ullttiD : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS {2004) 323

0303. Divekar, H.K. and Shushan, B. 1988. Status survey of the wild
Asiatic buffalo Bubalus bubalis in the Raipur and Bastar districts
of Madhya Pradesh. SANCF report No. 3/1988. 76p.

0304. Divekar, H.K., Grubh, B.A. and Shekar, P.B. 1983. Status and
ecology of wild buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) Linn. in Chandrapur
district of Maharashtra. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 80(2): 405-409.

0305. Divekar, H.K., Mohapatra, K.K. and Shekar, P .B. 1982. Some
observations on wild buffalo Buba/us bubalis Linn. in Kaziranga
National Park, Assam. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 79(1): 188-189.

0306. Divyabhanusinh. 1988. Interaction between sambar ( Cervus

unicolor) and Indian wild dog ( Cuon a/pinus) in Sariska National
Park. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 85(2): 410-411.

0307. Dixit, M.K. 1995. Rhino surgery. Himal. 8(2): 26-31.

0308. Dookia, S. 2002. Habitat preference, abundance and group size

of Indian gazelle Gazelle gazelle bennetti in semi-arid region of
Rajasthan. Ph. D. Dissertation, J. N. \1. University, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan. 179pp.

0309. Dookia, S. 2003. Religious sentiments of people for chinkara

(Gazella bennettt) near Nagaur, in Thar desert of Rajasthan.
Cheetal. 41(3-4): 78.

0310. Dougherty, S.E. 1982. Blackbuck antelope in India: perspective

on the management of a threatened species. 11Op.

0311. Dover, C. 1932. The duration of life of some Indian mammals.

Indian Forester. 58: 81-90.

0312. Duke, J.A. 1919. Spotted deer (Axis axis) and wild dogs (Cuon
dukhunensis). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
26(2): 661.

0313. Duke, J.A. 1929. After bison and buffalo in the high sal forest.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 33(2): 419-424.

324 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0314. Dutta, A.K. 1996. Unicornis: the Great Indian One horned
Rhinoceros. Konark Publishers, New Delhi.

0315. Dutta, B.C. and Bhattacharyya, B.K. 1990. Notes on rhinoceros.

Zoo print. 5(1 0): 3.

0316. Dutta, J.J., Belsare, O.K. and Chandiramani, S.S. 1982. Status
of the gaur (8os gaurus) in Kanha National Park, Madhya
Pradesh. Proceedings of Symposium on Ecology and Animal
Population, Zoological Survey of India, Part 4. pp.153-170.

0317. Dwivedi, G.D. and Shukla, R. 1988. The Pench Bison - An

ecological and behavioural study. Cheetal. 29(1 ) : 28-31.

0318. Eastmure, G.B. 1949. Indian one-horned rhinoceros a beast that

has suffered severely at the hands of the hunter. Field. 194:
891-892.

0319. Ellenberg, H. and Baur, J.J. 198 8 . Population condition,

population structure and population trends of swamp deer
( Cervus duvauceli} in Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve, West
Bengal. Report DNPWC, Project Nepal 8 5/011.

0320. Ellerman, J. and Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. 1951. Checklist of

Palearctic and other mammals 1758 to 1946. 2nd ed. British
Museum (Natural History), London. 81 Opp.

0321. Ellison, B.C. 1922. H.R.H. The Princes of Wales' shooting in

India in 1921 and 1922: (Part II). Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 28(4): 1 091-1107.

0322. Ellison, B.C. 1923. Some natural history notes connected with
the Prince of Wales' tour in India. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 29(1) : 271-274.

0323. Evans, G.H. 1895. Notes on the thamin or brow-antlered deer ( Cervus
eldit). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 9(2): 326-333.

0324. Evans, G.H. 1 9 1 1 . Strange mortality amongst blackbuck

(Anti/ope cervicapra). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 21 (1 ): 247-248.

C:nvls S�ullrtio : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 325

0325. Faizi, S. 1982. An instance of interspecific aggression between
chital (Axis axis Erxleben) and blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra
Linnaeus) at Point Calimere Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 79(3): 664-665.

0326. Fayrer, F.D.S. 1913. Large Sambar head. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 22(2): 391.

0327. Fenn, A.A. 1914. Female blackbuck with horns. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 23(2): 353-354.

0328. Fenton, L.L. 1915. Occurrence of the Barking deer (Muntiacus

vagina/is) and animals in Kathiawar. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 23(4): 775.

0329. Ferris, W.B. 1907. A Malformed blackbuck head. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 17(3): 844-845.

0330. Field, F. 1907. Abnormal sambar horns. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 17(3): 845.

0331. Field, J.A. 1906. Abnormal Antlers of the Chital or Spotted Deer
( Cervus axis). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
17(3): 840-841.

0332. Field, J .A. 1907. Abnormal sambar horns. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 17(4): 1020.

0333. Fitz-Gibbon, F. 1911. Panther and Wild Boar. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 21(1 ): 237.

0334. Fooks, H.A. 1945. Canine teeth in chital (Axis axis). Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 45(3): 416-417.

0335. Foote, F.B. 1874. Rhinoceros deccanensis a new species

discovered near Gokaka, Belgaum district. Mem.Geoi.Sur.lndia
(Palaeont, India) Series X. 1(1 ) : 1-17.

0336. Forsyth, J. 1889. The highlands of Central India: Notes on their

forests and wild tribes, natural history and sports. Chapman and
Hall, London.

326 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0337. Fox, J.L. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1997. India. (IN): Shackleton,
D.M. (Ed) Wild sheep and goats and their relatives. IUCN
Species Survival Commission, Caprinae Specialist Group. pp.
215-231.

0338. Fox, J.L., Nubru, C. and Chundawat, R.S. 1991. The mountain
ungulates of Ladakh, India. Biological conservation. 58: 167-190.

Q339. Frend, G.V.R. 1934. Hoof disease in the Muntjac (Muntiacus

muntjac). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 37(3): 726-
727.

0340. Frend, G.V.R. 1960. Jungle dogs kill sambar doe. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 57(3): 652-653.

0341. Furley, C.W., Tichy, H. and .Uerpmann, H.P. 1988. Systematics

and chromosomes of the Indian Gazelle, Gazella bennetti
(Sykes, 1831) . Z. Saeugetierkd. 53: 48-54.

0342. Gadekar, M. 1994. Chinkara Sanctuary. Sanctuary Asia. 14(1) :

67-68.

0343. Gairola, H.K. 1987. Study of parturition in Great Indian

Rhinoceros. Indian Veterinary Journal. 11: 185-190.

0344. Gangadharan, B., Silamban, S., Biju, P. and Anbiah, S.V. 1996.
Sarcocystosis in an Indian gaur (Bos gaurus). Zoo Print. 11(7):
18.

0345. Gangadharan, B., Valsala, K.V., Nair, M.G. and Rajan, A. 1992.
Sarcocystosis in a sambar deer ( Cervus unicoi or). Indian
Journal of Animal Science. 62(2): 127-128.

0346. Gargi. and Singh, R. 2000. Ganges soft-shell turtle Aspideretus

gangeticus predating on nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus in
Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 97(2): 285.

0347. Garg, U.K., Pillai, A.G.R., Richharia, V.S. and Pal, A.K. 1990.
Tuberculosis in a white spotted deer (Axis axis). Zoo Print. 5(10):
12.

Cnvis.Sulletin: WiLDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 32 7

0348. Gee, E.P. 1948. The Great One-horned rhinoceros in Kaziranga
Sanctuary, Assam. Journal of Bengal Natural History Society.
23(2):

0349. Gee, E.P. 1949. The Indian rhinoceros. Loris. 5(2): 73-76.

0350. Gee, E.P. 1950. The Indian Rhino faces extinction. Country file.
107: 1731,1733, 1735.

0351. Gee, E.P. 1952. The Great Indian One-horned Rhinoceros.

Journal of Bengal Natural History Society. 25(4):

0352. Gee, E.P. 1953. Further observations on the Great Indian One
Horned Rhfnoceros (R. unicornis Linn.). Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 51(4): 765-772.

0353. Gee, E.P. 1953. The Life history of the Great Indian One Horned
Rhinoceros (R.unicornis Linn.). Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 51(2): 341-348.

0354. Gee, E.P. 1953. Wild buffaloes and tame. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 51(3): 727-730.

0355. Gee, E.P. 1955. Great Indian One Horned Rhinoceros (R.
unicornis Linn) cow with presumptive twin Calves. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 53(2): 256-257.

0356. Gee, E. P. 1955. The Brow antlered deer ( C e rvus eldi)

(Mcclelland). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 52(4):
918-919.

0357. Gee, E.P. 1955. The management o f India's Wild Life

Sanctuaries and National Parks - Part II. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 52(4): 718-734.

0358. Gee, E.P. 1960. Report on the status of the brow-antlered deer
of Manipur (India): Oct-Nov 1959 and March 1960. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 57(3): 597-617.

0359. Gee, E.P. 1961. The brow antlered deer of Manipur. Oryx. 6(2):
1 03-115.

328 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0360. Gee, E.P. 1962. The present status of four rare animals in India.
Cheetal. 4(2): 29·33.

0361. Gee, E.P. 1963. Report on a brief survey of the wildlife

resources of India including the rhinoceros. Oryx. 7: 67·76.

0362. Gee, E.P. 1963. The Indian wild ass: a survey. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 60: 517-529.

0363. Gee, E.P. 1964. The wildlife of India. Collins, London. 224p.

0364. Ghosal, S.B., Joshi, S.C. and Shah, H.L. 1987. Morphological
studies of the sarcocyst of Sarcocystis levinei of the naturally
infected water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). Indian Veterinary
Journal. 64: 915-917.

0365. Ghosh, O.K. 1984. Human impact on Jaldapara Sanctuary: a

case history. Diploma Dissertation, Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun.

0366. Ghosh, O.K. 1991. Studies on the ecostatus of the Indian

Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) with special reference to the
altered habitat due to the human interference in Jaldapara Wildlife
Sanctuary, West Bengal. Ph.D. Disseratation, Ranchi University,
Bihar. Unpublished.

0367. Ghosh, O.K. 1996. Crop depredation around Jaldapara

sanctuary by Rhinoceros unicornis in indicative trend. Indian
Forester. 122(10): 884-896.

0368. Ghosh, M. 1988. The Craniology and dentition in the pigmy hog
with a note on the generic status of Porcula Hodgson, 1847.
Records of Zoological Survey of India. 85(2): 245-266.

0369. Ghosh, M., Saha, U., Roy, S. and Talukdar, B. 1992. Subrecent
remains of Great One-horned rhinoceros from Southern West
Bengal, India. Current Science. 62(8): 577·580.

0370. Ghosh, P.K., Goyal, S.P. and Bohra, H.C. 1987. Competition
for resource utilization between wild and domestic ungulates in
the Rajasthan desert. Tigerpaper. 14(1): 2-7.

.£nvis�ullttin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 3 29

0371. Ghosh, S.B. 1994. Fodder grasses of Indian Sanctuaries I.
Identification of grasses, consumed b y herbivores, in the
Mahananda and other Wildlife Sanctuaries of North Bengal.
Indian Forester. 120(10): 946-952.

0372. Gilbert, R. 1888. Notes on sambhur and sambhur stalking.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 3(4): 224-232.

0373. Gokula, V. 1997. Comments on a newly born gaur ( 8os gaurus) .

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 94(2): 395.

0374. Gokula, V. 1997. Notes on foetses of mouse deer Tragulus

meminna in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Tamilnadu, South
India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 94( 1 ): 148.

0375. Gopakumar, G. 1993. The food and feeding habits of Indian gazelle
in Western India. Indian Journal of Forestry. 16(4}: 313-318.

0376. Gopal, R. 1991. Habitat utilization on pattern of some major

ungulates in Bhandhavgarh National Park in Madhya Pradesh.
Journal of Tropical Forestry. 7(1}: 67-72.

0377. Gopal, R. 1992. An assessment of population increase of tiger and

some prey animals. Journal of Tropical Forestry. 8(4): 335-342.

0378. Gopal, R. 1992. Pilot survey for pellet group census from
random circular milli hectare plots. Journal of Tropical Forestry.
8(3}: 262-266.

0379. Gopal, R. 1992. Resurrection of the Branderi Barasingha.

Cheetal. 31(1-2): 1-5.

0380. Gopal, R. 1995. The biology and ecology of Hard ground Barasinha
C. duvaucelii branderi in Kanha National Park. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Harisingh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh.

0381. Gopal, R. 1996. The Kanha success story - an ecological

retrospective. Cheetal. 35(3-4): 5-14.

0382. Gopal, R. 2000. Geographical isolation of the Central Indian

barasingha (Cervus duvauceli branderi) in conservation
imperatives for the future. T igerpaper. 27(4): P.1-7.

330 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0383. Gopal, R., Kotwal, P.C. and Homkar, U. 1993: Hair structure of
the Hard Ground Barasingha ( Cervus duvauceli branden). My
Forest. 29(3): 197-199.

0384. Goswami, U . C. 199 3 . Analysis of certain strategies of

conservation and propagation of Rhinoceros unicornis (L).
Tigerpaper. 20(4): 16-22.

0385. Goswami, U.C., Bhattacharyya, B.K. and Sarma, P.K. 1987.

Placenta of rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis L.). Current
science. 56(8): 380-381.

0386. Gouldsbury, J.C. 1974. An Observation on the behaviour of

Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius) when threatened by wild dogs
or dhole ( Cuon a/pinus). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 71 (3): 603-605.

0387. Goyal, S.K. 2000. Note on religious sentiment of people for nilgai
(Boselaphus tragocamelus) near Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Cheetal.
39(2): 47-48.

0388. Goyal, S.K. and Rajpurohit, L.S. 1998. Ecobehavioural study of

nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus at Beriganga near Jodhpur
(Rajasthan). Cheetal. 37(1-2): 36-39.

0389. Goyal, S.K., Rajpurohit, L.S. and Sridhara, S. 1999. Mass killing
of mammalian crop pest-nilgai (blue bull), Bose/aphus
tragocamelus in Village Parasala, Osian of Jodhpur, India.
Advances of Ethology. (34): 224.

0390. Goyal, S.P. and Bohra, H.C. 1983. Soil ingestion by two wild
ungulates Anti/ope cervicapra and Gazella gazel/a in their natural
habitats. Annals of Arid zone. 22(2): 99-102.

0391. Goyal, S.P. , Bohra, H.C. and Ghosh, P.K. 1986. Food
preferences of the Indian antelope (Anti/ope cervicapra) and the
gazelle (Gazella dorcas) in a desert environment. My Forest.
22(3): 153-158.

0392. Goyal, S.P., Bohra, H.C., Ghosh, H.C. and Prakash, I. 1988.
Role of Prosopis cineraria pods in the diet of two Indian desert
Antelopes. Journal of Arid Environment. 14(3): 285-290.

£r111i1 �ulletin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 33 l

0393. Goyal, S.P., Sankar, K. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1993. Monitoring
isolated population - a case study from Sariska Tiger Reserve'.
International Wildlife Management Congress, San Joe, Costa
Rica, 19-25 September, (Poster paper).

0394. Goyal, S.P., Sinha, S.P., Shah, N.V. and Panwar, H.S. 1999.
Sardar Sarovar project- a conservation threat to the Indian wild
ass (Eqqus hemionus khur). Biological Conservation. 88: 277-
284.

0395. Grahm, H.H. 1944. Real sportsmen don't waste game. Indian
Forester. 70{10): 362-363.

0396. Groves, C.P. 1980. A Note on Geographic variation in the Indian

Blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra) Linn 1958. Records of
Zoological Survey of India. 76(1-4): 125-138.

0397. Groves, C.P. 1982. A Note on Geographic variations in the

Indian Blackbuck (Anti/ope cericapra) Linn. 1758. Records of
Zoological Survey of India. 79(3-4): 489-503.

0398. Groves, C. P. 1982. Geographic variation in the Barasingha or

Swamp deer ( Cervus duvaucelt). Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 79(3): 620-629.

0399. Groves, C.P. 2003. Taxonomy of ungulates of the Indian

subcontinent. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 100(2-
3): 341-362.

0400. Groves, C.P. and Chakraborty, S. 1983. The Calcutta collection

of Asian rhinoceros. Records of Zoological Survey of India. 80(3-
4): 251-263.

0401. Guin, D.P. and Pal, B.C. 1982. Seasonal migration of gaur (Bos
gaurus H. Smith) at Gorumara Wildlife Sanctuary, West Bengal,
India. Cheetal. 23(3): 5-11.

0402. Guin, D.P. and Pal, B.C. 1984. Importance of minimum safe
distance in behaviour of study of Gaur. Cheetal. 26(2): 24-27.

0403. Gupta, A.C. 1958. Gorumara Game Sanctuary. Journal of

Bengal Natural History Society. 29(4): 133-139.

332 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0404. Gupta, A.C. 1958. The Indian buffalo. Journal of Bengal Natural
History Society. 30(1):

0405. Gupta, A.C. 1966. Wildlife of lower Beng al with particular

reference to the Sunderbans: West Bengal Forests. Government
of West Bengal, Calcutta.

0406. Gupta, R.C. and Bhardwaj , C.S. 1992. Investigations into the
daily life schedule of Indian Blackbuck Anti/ope Cervicapra
Linnaeus. Geobios. 19: 150-156.

0407. Gupta, R.C., Sharma, A.K., Verma, S.K., Khar, S.K. and Datt,
S.C. 1981. Studies on various reproductive disorders in
buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) -a clinical review. Philipp. J. Vet.
Med. 20{2): 133-144.

0408. Gurm, B.S., Agarwal, H.P. and Kankane, P.L. 1977. Langur's
Association with Chitals. Cheetal. 18{3-4): 41.

0409. Gurun g , D.B. 1986. Barkin g deer (Muntiacus muntiacus

vagina/is). (IN): Majupuria, TC. (Ed.) Wildlife wealth of India:
Resources and Management, Tee Press, T hailand P. 500-504.

0410. Haj ra, P.K. and Shukla, V. 1982. Dudwa National Park: some
botanical aspects of the proposed new habitat for rhino.
Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.

0411. Hakimuddin, M. 1930. White chital. Indian Forester. 56{8): 361-362.

0412. Hall, J.E. 1936. Horn growth as observed in black buck and
Nilgai. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 38(3): 618-
619.

0413. Hall, J.E. 1936. Shooting notes for the Central Provinces.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 39(1): 103-115.

0414. Hall, J.E. 1936. Shooting wild buffalo in the Kosi river swamps.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 38(3): 587-592.

0415. Hall, J.E. 1939. A Fine swamp deer head. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 41 {2): 417-418.

!ovi• .�ullrtio : WILDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 333

04 1 6. Ham be r, L. G . W. 1 9 2 4. B I a ck buck and jack a I. J o urn a I of
Bombay Natural History Society. 29(4): 1050.

0417. Haque, M.N. 1989. Small mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus)

feeding on droppings of Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus).
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 86(3): 435.

0418. Haque, M.N. 1990. Study on the ecology of wild ungulates of

Keoladeo National Park Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. 308p.

0419. Harikumar, G., Thomas, B., Joseph, K.J. and Zacharias, V.J.
1999. Population dynamics of sambar Cervus unicolor in Periyar
Tiger Reserve. Indian Forester. 125(1 0): 995-1003.

0420. Harington, H.H. and Best, J.W. 1911. Tiger calling like a sambhur.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 21(1 ): 235-236.

0421. Harvey, C.J.W. 1932. The game rules

. of Manipur. Administrative
Report of the Manipur State.

0422. Hasan, S.M. 1978. Recovery of Wild Buffalo from Panna.

Cheetal. 20(4): 29-32.

0423. Hauxwell, T.A. 1907. A massive sambhur head. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 18(1): 189.

0424. Heath, R.H. 1921. Record female Indian gazelle (G. bennett1).
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 27(3): 625.

0425. Heinen, J.T. and Srikosamatara, S. 1996. Status and protection

of Asian Wild cattle and Buffalo. Conservation Biology. 10(4):
931-934.

0426. Heydon, M.J. and Bulloh, P. 1997. Mouse deer densities in a

tropical rainforest: the impact of selective logging. Journal of
Applied Ecology. 34: 484-496.

0427. Higgins, J.C. 1931. The Mithun. Journal of Bombay Natural

History Society. 35(2): 444-445.

334 UNGULATESOFINDIA
 Selected bibliography

0428. Higgins, J.C. 1934. The game birds and animals of the Manipur
state with notes on their numbers, migration and habits. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 37: 307.

0429. Hill, W.C.O. 1958. Abnormal site o f horned growth in

(Rhinoceros unicornis) Linn. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 55(3): 553-554.

0430. Hiteshi, H.L. 1947. The 'Watching attitudes of the cheetal or

spotted deer (Axis axis Erxl). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 47(2): 376-377.

0431. Holdsworth, R.L. 1961. Our less known species: The

Chausingha or four horned antelope. Cheetal. 3(2): 56-57.

0432. Holloway, C. 1973. Swamp deer in Uttar pradesh. Oryx 12(1):

41-48.

0433. Hoogstraal, H. 1971. Haemaphysalis (H.) Sambar Sp. N.

(Ixodoidea: Ixodidae), A Parasite of the sambar deer in Southern
India. Journal of Parasitology. 57(1 ): 173-176.

0434. Hubback, T. 1939. Behaviour of sambhur in the presence of wild

dogs. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 41(1): 172.

0435. Hudson, C.W.M. and Cumming, J.W.N. 1905. Breeding season

of big game-(1) The Nilgai or blue b u l l (Boselaphus
tragocamelus)-(2) The persian Gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa).
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 16(3): 503.

0436. Hussain, M.K. 1969. The Southern Asiatic gaur or Indian Bison
(Bos gaurus gaurus H.Smith). Cheetal. 12(1 ): 29-47.

0437. Hussain, M.K. 1970. The Dainty muntjac or barking deer

(Muntiacus cervulinus muntjac (Zimmermann). Cheetal. 12(2):
62-71.

0438. Hussain, S.A. 1970. Black buck (Anti/ope cervicapra) Linn

swimming. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 67(1):
106-107.

e.v;. �ullttill : WiLOUFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004). 335

 0439. Hutton, A.F. 1947. The Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hy/ocrius).
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 47{2): 374-376.

0440. Hutton, A.F. 1951. Gaur attacking man. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 50(1): 166.

0441. Imam, A.B. 1985. Seasonal migration of gaur (Bos gaurus

H.Smith) (A comparative study between observations at
Gorumara Wildlife Sanctuary, West Segal and Megpal and Bamni
in Rajkhol Orissa. Cheetal. 26(3-4): 45-48.

0442. Imam, A.B. 1994. The Essential differences between the gaur
gayal and Mithun in India. Cheetal. 33(1 ): 37-41 .
. .
' ,.;.

0443. lngen, V. and lngen, V. 1944. Malformed horns of gaur (Bibos

gaurus). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 44(4): 587-
588.

0444. lngen, V. and lngen, V. 1946. A Large gaur head. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 46(1) : 181.

0445. Inglis, C.M. 1952. Melanism in the barking deer (Muntiacus

muntjac). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 50(3): 648.

0446. lnverarity, J.D. 1894. Notes on sambhur and sambhur shooting.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 8(3): 391-395.

0447. lnverarity, J.D. 1894. The Four horned antelope (Tetracerus

quadricornis). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 9(2):
193.

0448. lnverarity, J.D. 1895. The Cheetal or spotted deer. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 9(4): 481-485.

0449. lnverarity, J.D. 1895. The Indian wild buffalo. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 1 0(1): 41-52.

0450. lnverarity, J.D. 1905. Abnormal Sambar head. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 16(5): 378.

0451. lnverarity, J.D. 1906. Sambar horns. Journal of Bombay Natural

History Society. 17(1 ): 23-26.

336 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0452. lshvaran, K. 1995. A study of lekking in blackbuck (Antilpe

cervicapra rajputanae) in Velavadar' National Park, Gujarat.
M.Sc. Dissertation, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat. 51p.

0453. lshvaran, K. 2003. The evolution of lekking: insights from a

species with a flexible mating system. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

0454. lshvaran, K. 2005. Female grouping best predicts lekking in

blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra). Behavioural Ecology and
Sociobiology. 57: 283-294.

0455. lshvaran, K. and Jhala, Y.V. 2000. Variation in investment among

lekking male blackbuck Anti/ope cervicapra: the effects of
territory location and female mating patterns. Behaviour. P. 1·
23.

0456. Jacob, M.C. 1943. Rescue of a rhino. Indian Forester. 69(4):

153-155.

0457. Jain, P.K. 1989. Operation rhino. The Hindustan Times. May 7th.

0458. Jakher, G.R. and Dookia, S. 2000. Scent marking behaviour of

Indian gazelle (Gazella bennetti Sykes 1831) in Thar Desert of
Rajasthan, India. Cheetal. 39(3·4): 37-45.

0459. Jakher, G.R., Dookia, S. and Dookia, B.A. 2002. Herd

composition and population dynamics of Gazella bennetti
(Sykes, 1831) in gogelao enclosure (Nagaur) Rajasthan. Zoo
Print. 17(11) : 936-938.

0460. James, A.W.H. 1925. The "Sambhar call" of the tiger. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 30(2): 462-464.

0461. Jani, P.B., Ghodasara, D.J., Joshi, B.P. and Prajapati, K.S.
1991. A Study on pathology of wild captive herbivorus animals.
International Seminar on Veterinary Medicine in Wild and Captive
Animals, India, Bangalore, 8-10 Nov. 1991. P.17-18.

0462. Jathanna, D. 2001. Density, Biomass and habitat occupancy of

ungulates in Bhadra Tiger Reserve, Karnataka. M.Sc.
Dissertation, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat. 71p.

!nvi• J3ullrtin : WILDUFE AND PROTECTED� (2004) 33 7

0463. Jathanna, D., Karanth, K.U. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 2003.
Estimation of large herbivore densities in the tropical forests of
Southern Indian using distance sampling. Journal of Zoology.
261(3): 285-290.

0464. Jayal, N.C. 1979. Report on the aerial census of Brow-antlered

deer conducted on 9th March, 1979. Manipur Forest Department,
Manipur.

0465. Jayson, E.A. 1994. A note on nest building behaviour of wild

boar (Sus scrota) Linnaeus. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 91(3): 451.

0466. Jayson, E.A. 1994. Faecal pellet attributes of selected

ungulates. Cheetal. 33(3-4): 45-53.

0467. Jayson, E.A. 1999. Habitat preference of five herbivores in the

Chimmony Wildlife Sanctuary. Indian Forester. 125(10): 975-985.

0468. Jayson, E.A. and Sridhara, S. 1999. Habitat use of herbivores

in the Chimmony Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala, India. Advances of
Ethology. 34: 127.

0469. Jerden, T.C. 1867. The handbook of the mammals of India.

Thacker, Spink, Calcutta. 335pp.

0470. Jerden, T.C. 1874. The mammals of India: a natural history of

the animals known to inhabit continental India. John Wheldon,
London. 335pp.

0471. Jhala, Y.V. 1990. Wolves and blackbuck. Sanctuary Asia.

19(10): 26-33.

0472. Jhala, Y.V. 1991. Habitat and population dynamics of wolves

and blackbuck in Velavadar National Park, Gujarat, India. Ph.D.
Disseration, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Virginia. 236p.

0473. Jhala, Y.V. 1993. Damage to Sorgtium crop by blackbuck.

International Journal of Pest Management. 39(1): 23-27.

338 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0474. Jhala, Y. V. 1993. Predation on blackbuck by wolves in

Velavadar National Park, Gujarat, India. Conservation Biology.
7(4): 874-881.

0475. Jhala, Y. V. 1997. Seasonal effects on the nutritional ecology of

blackbuck Antelope cervicapra. Journal of Applied Ecology
34(6): 1348-1358.

0476. Jhala, Y.V., Giles, R.H. and Bhagwat, A.M. 1992. Water in the
ecophysiology of blackbuck. Journal of Arid Environment. 22(3):
261-269.

0477. Jha, A.K., Sinha, J.K., Sinha, P.R. and Quansin, A. 1987.
Rhinoceros: Sanjay Gandhi Biological Park, Patna. Zoo print.
2{9): 5-6.

0478. Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1973. Mudaliar Ootu-A last stronghold for the
rare Nilgiri Tahr. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
70(2): 376-377.

0479. Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1979. An interesting behaviour of three Nilgiri

Tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius Ogilby 1833) kids. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 76(1): 154.

0480. Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1980. Ecology and behaviour· of dhole or

Indian wild dog - Cuon a/pinus Pallas 1811: with special
reference to predator prey relations at Bandipur. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Madurai Kamraj University, Tamilnadu.

0481. Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1981. Importance of fruits in the diet of Chital

in dry season. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 78(3):
594.

0482. Johnsingh, A. J.T. 1983. Large Mammalian Prey-Predators in

Bandipur. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 80(1): 1-57.

0483. Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1992. Prey selection in three large sympatric

carnivores in Bandipur. Mammalia. 56(4): 517-525.

0484. Johnsingh, A.J.T. and Sankar, K. 1991. Food plants of Chital,

Sambar and cattle on Mundanthurai plateau, Tamilnadu, South
India. Mammalia. 55(1): 57-63.

£nvi5 _gulltrin : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 33 9

0485. Johnson, J.M. 1975. The Blackbuck in Point Calimere Sanctuary,
Tamilnadu population dynamics and observations on behaviour.
Indian Forester. 101(8): 484-494.

0486. Johnson, J.M. 1982. Blackbuck census in point calimere: a

rejoinder. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 79(1 ): 186-
187.

0487. Johnson, J.M. 1984. White dots on the legs of barking deer.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 81(1) : 182.

0488. Johnson, J.M. 1986. A fight between bull gaurs in Mudumalai.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 83(3): 659-550.

0489. John, A.W. 1928. A Good nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius).

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 32(3): 597.

0490. Kadambi, K. 1960. The Antlers duel. Cheetal. 2(2): 44-50.

0491. Kakati, B.N. and Rajkonwar, C.K. 1972. Some observations on

the reproductive behaviour of (Rhinoceros unicornis). Indian
Forester. 98(6): 357-358.

0492. Kalaiarasan, V., Sankaravadivelu, C. and Paulraj, S. 1999.

Problem of water for blackbucks (Anti/ope cervicapra) in Point
Calimere Sanctuary. Tigerpaper. 26(3): 18-20.

0493. Kankane, P.L. 2000. Status survey of endangered species:

status survey of Chinkara and desert cat in Rajasthan. Zoological
survey of India, Calcutta. 71p.

0494. Karanth, K.U. 1984. Interaction between gaur and tiger in Bhadra
Wildlife Sanctuary. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
81(2): 460-461.

0495. Karanth, K. U. 1987. Analysis of predator prey balance in

Bandipur Tiger Resere with reference to census report. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 85(1 ): 1-8..

0496. Karanth, K.U. 1988. Population structure, density and biomass

of large herbivores in a South Indian tropical forest. M.Sc.
Dissertation, University of Florida. 91pp.

340 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0497. Karanth, K.U. and Sunquist, M.E. 1992. Population structures,

density and biomass of large herbivorous in the tropical forests
of Nagarhole, India. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 8(1) : 21-35.

0498. Karanth, K.U. and Singh, M. 1986. Dry zone afforestation and
its impact on blackbuck populations. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society (Centenary proceedings) P. 565-570.

0499. Karanth, K.U. and Sunquist, M.E. 1995. Prey selection by tiger,
leopard and dhole in tropical forests. Journal of animal ecology.
64: 439-450.

0500. Kay, R.N.B. 1987. The comparative anatomy and physiology of

digestion in tragulids and cervids and its relation to food intake.
(IN): Wemmer, C.M. (Ed.) Biology and management of the
cervidae. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. P. 214-222.

0501. Kempe, J.E. 1946. The Riddle of the bearded pig: A problem of
distribution. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 46(2):
281-285.

0502. Kennion, T.A. 1921. A Baby hog deer· in captivity. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 28(1): 271-273.

0503. Khadri, S.S.M.S. and Valandikar, S.C. 2002. Chemical

immobilization of gaurs attended at Sri Chamarajendra Zoological
Gardens Mysore for shifting them to the new enclosure. Zoo
Print. 17(6): 7-8.

0504. Khajuria, H. 1971. A note on the Four-Horned Antelope,

T etracerus quadricornis (Biainville), in Jabalpur Distt. Cheetal.
14{2): 23.

0505. Khajuria, H. and Sinha, N.K. 1986. Limiting factors in the

population dynamics of vanishing Central Indian swamp deer
Cervus duvauceli branderi (Pocock). (IN): Majupuria, T.C. (Ed.)
Wildlife wealth of India: Resources and Management, Tee Press,
T hailand P. 479-491.

0506. Khan, I.A. 1936. Horn growth as observed in blackbuck and

Nilgai. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 39(1) : 170-
171.

i£nvi1 �ullttin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS {2004) 34 1

0507. Khan, I. and Goyal, S.P. 1993. Fecal pellet measurement of
Manipur Brow-antlered deer with respect to sex and age
classes. Zoo Biology. 12: 561-565.

0508. Khan, J A 1990. Gir lion project: ungulate habitat ecology in

. .

Gir. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. 214pp.

0509. Khan, J. A. 1994. Estimation of ungulate densities in dry tropical

forest of Gir: a comparison of three analysis procedures. Tropical
Ecology. 35(2): 275-283.

0510. Khan, J . A . 1995. Conservation and management of Gir lion

sanctuary and National Park, Gujarat, India. Biological
Conservation. 73(3): 183-198.

0511. Khan, J . A. 1996. Factors governing habitat occupancy of

ungulates in Gir lion Sanctuary, Gujarat, India. International
Journal of Ecology and Environmental Science. 22: 73-83.

0512. Khan, J . A . 1997. Estimation of ungulate densities by line­

transect method in Gir forest, India. Tropical Ecology. 38(1 ) : 65-
72.

0513. Khan, J.A. and Chellam, A. 1995. Group size and age-sex
composition of three major ungulate species in Gir lion
sanctuary, Gujarat, India. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 92(3): 295-302.

0514. Khan, J.A., Chellam, A., Rodgers, W.A. and Johnsingh, A . J. T .

1996. �ngulate densities and biomass in the tropical dry

deciduous forests of Gir, Gujarat, India. Journal of Tropical
Ecology. 12(1): 149-162.

0515. Khan, J.A. Rodgers, W.A., Johnsingh, A.J.T. and Mathur, P.K.
1994. Tree and shrub mortality and debarking of sambar Cervus
unicolor (kerr) in Gir after a drought in Gujarat, India. Biological
Conservation. 68(2): 149-154.

0516. Khan, J.A. and Vohra, U. 1992. Group size and group
composition of chital (Axis_axis) in Gir, Gujarat, India. Mammalia.
56(4): 662-665.

342 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0517. Khan, M.G.A. and Choudhury, B.C. 1987. Breeding Indian

rhinoceros in Nehru zoo. Zoo Print. 11(4-5): 13-15.

0518. Khellen, T. 1989. Sangai - a threatened species. Sun. 13(4): 26.

0519. Khengarji, R. 1911. An Abnormal chinkara head. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 20(3): 849.

0520. Kinloch, A.P. 1919. Record female Nilgiri Tahr (Hemitragus

hylocrius). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 26(2): 666.

0521. Kinloch, A.P. 1926. The Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius).

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 31(2): 520-521.

0522. Kinnear, N.B. 1911. Golden cat (Felis temminck1) killing buffalo
calf. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 21(1 ): 237.

0523. Kinnear, N.B. 1915. Hair ball from the stomach of Nilgai. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 24(1): 188.

0524. Kirkpatrick, K.M. 1952. Chital (Axis axis) (Erxl): A strange

attraction. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 50(3):
467-468.

0525. Kitchener, H.J. 1954. Malformation in antlers of the Malayan

sambar. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 52(2-3):
588-589.

0526. Kitchener, H.J. 1955. Malformed muntjac head. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 53(2): 259-260.

0527. Kolte, S.W., Ganorkar, A.G. and Kurkure, N.V. 1998.

Cysticercus tenuicollis in spotted deer ( Cervus porcinus). Indian
Veterinary Journal. 75(9): 74.

0528. Kotwal, P.C. 1981. Some observations on definitive behaviour

of cheetal (Axis axis) in Kanha National Park. Cheetal . 22(3):
26-28.

0529. Kotwal, P.C. 1987. Ecological studies on evaluation of certain

wildlife habitats and their utilisation by major mammals in Kanha
National· Park. Ph .D. Di s s e rtation, H a risingh Gaur
Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. 395p.

C:IIYis�ulltlin: WilDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 343

0530. Kotwal, P .C. 1989. Seasonal movements of Barasingha (Cervus
duvauceli branderi) in Kanha National Park. Cheetal. 30(1-2):
43.

0531. Kotwal, P.C. 1993. Re-introduction of Barasingha (Cervus

duvauceli branden) in Supkhar, Kanha National Park. Journal
of Tropical Forestry. 9(11): 138-14 7.

0532. Kotwal, P.C. 1997. Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary: a potential

haven for the cheetah. Hornbi/1. pp.24-27.

0533. Kotwal, P .C. and Gopal, R. 1994. Food habits of tigers in Kanha
National Park. Journal of Tropical Forestry. 1 0(2): 139-143.

0534. Kotwal, P.C. and Mishra, R.P. 2003. Studies on Indian wild
buffalo (Bubalus bubalis L.) in Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary, India.
T igerpaper. 30(2): 7-10.

0535. Kotwal, P.C. and Mishra, R.P. 2004. Ecobiology of Indian wild
buffalo Bubalus arnee L. in Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 101(2): 252-254.

0536. Kotwal, P.C., Naik, M.L. and Mishra, R.P. 2003. Indian wild
buffalo (Bubalus bubalis L.) in endangered species: habitat and
diurnal activity pattern in Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary. Cheetal.
41(3-4): 19-28.

0537. Kotwal, P .C. and Parihar, A.S. 1989. Management Plan of

Kanha National Park and Project Tiger Kanha for the Period
1989-90 to 1998-99. 402p.

0538. Kotwal, P.C. and Parihar, A.S. 1992. Management of hardground

Barasingha in Kanha National Park. Journal of Tropical Forestry.
8(2): 160-172.

0539. Krishnan, M. 1972. An Ecological survey of larger mammals of

Peninsular India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
69(2): 297-351.

0540. Krishnan, M. 1972. An Ecological survey of the larger Mammals

of Peninsular India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
69(3): 469-501.

344 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0541. Krishnan, M. 1972. India's threatened hardground Barasingha.

Cheetal.15(1): 3-4.

0542. Krishnan, M. 1975. India's wildlife in 1959-70: an ecological

survey of the larger mammals of peninsular India. Bombay
Natural History Society, Bombay. 171p.

0543. Krishne Gowda, C.D. 1969. Breeding the Great Indian

Rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis at Mysore zoo. Inter. Zoo
Yearkbook. 9: 101-102.

0544. Krishne Gowda, C.D. 1974. Plans for breeding colonies of large
mammals in India. (IN ): Martin, P. (Ed.) Breeding of endangered
species in captivity, Academic Press, London. P. 309-313.

0545. Kumar, M. 2002. Hunting attempt by Nilgiri marten Martes

gwatkinsi Horsfield, family Mustelidae in Periyar Tiger Reserve,
Kerala. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 99: 286.

0546. Kumar, R., Nair, M.G,. Varshney, K.C. and Ramalingam, S. 2000.
Bezoar in a spotted deer {Axis axis). Zoo Prn
i t. 15(3): 232.

0547. Kumar, S. and Rahmani, A.A. 1997. Status of Indian grey wolf
Canis lupus pallipes and its conservation in marginal agricultural
areas of Sholapur district, Maharashtra. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 94(3): 466-472.

0548. Kumar, S. and Rahmani, A.A. 2000. Livestock depredation by

wolves in the Great Indian Bustard sanctuary, Nannaj
(Maharashtra) India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
97(3): 340-348.

0549. Kumar, S. and Thakur, M.L. 1993.A note on cheetal Axis axis
(Erxleben) damage to nursery stock at Satyanarayan Forest
Nursery, Dehradun (U.P.). Indian Forester. 119(2): 157-158.

0550. Kunhunu, N.V.A. 1989. Food resources partitioning among

sympatric bovids, chinkara, blackbuck and nilgai in Rajasthan
desert. M.Sc. Dissertation, Saurashtra University, R ajkot,
Gujarat. 90p.

0551. Kurup, G.U. 1971. A foursome of barking deer (Muntiacus

muntjac) Zimmer. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
68(2): 445.

!nvis JSullrtin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 345

0552. Kurup, G.U. 1975. Spatial-specific conditioning in the spotted
deer (Axis axis axis) (Erxleben). Cheetal. 16{3): 42-43.

0553. Kurup, G.U. and Menon, R.K.G. 1989. Behaviour of blackbuck,

Anti/ope cervicapra cervicapra (Linn.) during solar eclipse of
1980. Records of Zoological survey of India. 85(4): 539-546.

0554. Kushwaha, S. P.S., Khan, A., Habib, B., Quadri, A. and Singh,
A. 2004. Evaluation of sambar and Muntjac habitats using
Geospatial modelling. Current science. 86(10): 1390-1400.

0555. Kushwaha, S. P.S. and Unni, N.V.M. 1986. Application of remote

sensing techniques in forest cover monitoring and habitat
evaluation • a case study of Kaziranga National Park, Assam.
Proceedings of Seminar-cum- Workshop on Wildlife Habitat
Evaluation using remote sensing techniques, /IRS and Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun. P. 238-24 7.

0556. Kushwah, R.B.S. 2003. The playground of the blackbuck

Bagdara Sanctuary. Cheetal. 41(3-4): 82-83.

0557. Lad, P.M. and Gopal, R. 1992. The status of Indian Gaur (8os
gaurus) in Bandhavgarh National Park. Journal of Tropical
Forestry. 8(1): 84-95.

0558. Lahan, P. and Sonowal, R.N. 1973. Kaziranga Wildilfe

Sanctuary, Assam: a brief description and report on the census
of large animals. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
70: 245-278.

0559. Lal, H. 1991. Paratuberculosis in wild gaur (8os gaurus) smith

in Palamau T iger Reserve Bihar. International Seminar on
Veterinary Medicine in Wild and Captive Animals, India,
Bangalore, 8-10 Nov. 1991. P.27.

0560. Lal, S. 1953. Wild buffaloes and tame. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 51 (3): 726-727.

0561. Lang, E.M. 1977. The Indian rhirr'o (Rhinoceros unicornis) in

captivity. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 74(1): 160.

346 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0562. Latham, H.D. 1930. Body measurement of a gaur. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 34(2): 562-563.

0563. Latham, H.D. 1930. Good head of Nilgiri tahr. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 34(2): 563.

0564. Laurie, W.A. 1978. The ecology and behaviour of the Great One­
horned rhinoceros. Ph.D. Disseratation, Cambridge University.

0565. Lawrence, J.A. 1977. Habits of mouse deer. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 74(3): 525.

0566. Lewis, E .S . 1940. The 'Sambhur' call of the tiger and its
explanation. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 41(4):
889-890.

0567. Lindsay, E. 1896. Sambhur shedding its horns accidentally.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 10(3): 535.

0568. Livesey, T.R. 1935. Tigers burying their kill. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 38( 1): 179-180.

0569. Livesey, T.R. 1936. Gaur heads from the chin hills. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 38(4): 819.

0570. Logan-Home, W.M. 1928. The Bray of the chital stag. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 32(3): 594.

0571. Longrigg, J.H. 1921. Panther in tree with a pig. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 27(4): 935-936.

0572. Lott, D.L. and McCoy, M. 1995. Asian rhinos (Rhinoceros

unicornis) on the run? Impact of tourist visits on one population.
Biological Conservation. 73(1): 23-26.

0573. Lydekker, R. 1924. The game animals of India, Burma, Malaya

and Tibet. Rowland Ward Ltd., London.

0574. Mac I. and Ritchie, C. 1908. A Large sambhur head. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 18(4): 899-900.

£ovit�ulltl1n: WilDliFE AND PROlECTEDAREAs (2004) 34 7

0575. Mackenzie, A.F. 1906. Measurement of Buffalo (Bos buba/us)
horns. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 17(1 ) : 230.

0576. Mackenzie, J.M.D. 1929. Wild dogs and barking deer. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 33(1 ) : 705-706.

0577. Mackenzie, K. 1892. Measurement of Sambur horns. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 7(4): 551-553.

0578. Madhusudan, M.D. 1995. Sexual segregation in the Nilgiri tahr

( Hemitragus hy locrius) M. Sc. Oisserta tion, Saurashtra
University, Rajkot, Gujarat.

0579. Madhusudan, M.D. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1998. Analysis of

habitat use using ordination: the nilgiri tahr in Southern India.
Current science. 74(11 ): 1000-1003.

0580. Madhusudan, M.D. and Karanth, K.U. 2000. Hunting for an

answer: is local hunting compatible with large mammal
conservation in India. (IN): Robinson, J.G. and Bennett, E.L.
(Eds.) Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests. Columbia
University Press, New York. P. 339-355.

0581. Madhusudan, M.D. and Karanth, K.U. 2002. Local hunting and
the conservation of large mammals in India. Ambia. 31: 49-54.

0582. Malhotra, A.K. 1989. A survey of status and breeding of Indian wild
ass (E. hemionus khur) in captivity in India. Zoo Print. 4(11 ) : 9-10.

0583. Manakadan, R. and Rahmani, A.A. 1998. Crop damage by

blackbuck Anti/ope cervicapra at Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary,
Andhra pradesh. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
95(3): 408-417.

0584. Mandai, A.K. and Nandi, N.C. 1989. Fauna of sundarban

mangrove ecosystem, West Bengal. Zoological survey of India,
Calcutta.

0585. Mandai, D. and Choudhury, A. 1986. On two Trichomonad

flagellates from the wild boar and deer of Sunderbans forest,
India. Journal of Bengal Natural History Society. 3(2): 36-40.

348 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0586. Manimozhi, A . , Kanakasabai, R. and Lalitha, P.S. 1995.

Histological characteristics of preorbital gland of blackbuck
(Anti/ope cervicapra). Proceedings of the National Symposium
on recent trends in Indian Wildlife Research, A. V. C. College,
Mayiladuthurai. P.81-84.

0587. Manners-Smith, J. 1909. Haunts of the Indian Rhinoceros.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 19(3): 746-747.

0588. Mark, S.B., Kenneth, R. and Cheeran, J.V. 1983. Grooming of

chital by langur in Kanha National Park, India. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 80(1) : 209-210.

0589. Martin, A.F. 1911. Notes on the gaur (8os gaurus). Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 21(1): 241-245.

0590. Martin, C. 1972. Notes on the Barasingha, Cervus duvauceli

branderi, in the Kanha National Park. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 69(2): 413-415.

0591. Martin, C. 1977. Status and ecology of the Barasingha in Kanha

National Park (India). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 74(1): 60-132.

0592. Martin, E.B. 1983. Rhino exploitation: the trade in rhino products
in India, Indonesia, Malayasia, Burma, Japan and South Korea.
WWF-Hong Kong.

0593. Martin, E.B., Bradley, C. and Vigne, L. 1987. Conservation crisis

-the rhinoceros in India. Oryx. 21(4): 212-218.

0594. Martin, S.J. 1913. Record cheetal (Axis axis) head. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 22(3): 622.

0595. Martin, W.R. 1932. A Rhino in difficulties. Indian Forester. 58(8):

432-433.

0596. Mason, J.M. 1893. Food of wild boar. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 8(3): 447.

0597. Mathur, P.K., Malik, P.K. and Muley, P.O. 1995. Ecology and
population genetics of Asian wild buffalo (Bubalus bubalis L) in
India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. pp.54 .

£r111is JSulletio : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 3 49

0598. Mathur, S.C., Maj umdar, S.S. and Jala, V.K. 1975. Suspect
rinderpest in a blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus). Indian
Veterinary Journal. 52: 412-413.

0599. Mathur, V.B. 1991. Ecological impacts of livestock grazing on wild

ungulates in Sariska National Park, India. IV International Rangeland
Congress, France, Montpellier, 22-26 April, 1991. P.485-488.

0600. Mathur, V.B. 1991. The Ecological interaction between habitat

composition, habitat quality and abundance of some wild
ungulates in India. Ph.D. Disseration, University of Oxford,
Oxford. 279p.

0601. Mathur, V.B. 2002. Status and distribution of hog deer (Axis
porcinus) in India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

0602. Me C.Ciive, J. 1928. A Tussle between tiger and buffalo bait.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 32(3 ) : 586.

0603. Me Cann, C. 1928. The Record four horned antelope ( Tetracerus

quadricornis). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 32(3):
592-593.

0604. Me Cann, C. 1968. Notes on barking deer

(Muntiacus muntjac)
(Zimmermann). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
65 ( 3) : 767-769.

0605. Me Connell. 1922. Sore neck in sambhar. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 28 ( 4 ) : 1125.

0606. Mehrotra, R.C. Madhya Pradesh Main Vanya Prani Sanrankshan

Ka Ek Dashak.

0607. Menon, R.K.G. 1982. Observations on cheetal at Guindy

National Park, Madras. Cheetal. 24(1-2 ) : 37-40.

0608. Menon, R.K.G. 1996. Another Sambhar story. Blackbuck. 12(4 ) :

109-111.

0609. Menon, V. 1996. Under siege: poaching and protection of

Greater One Horned Rhinoceros in India. Traffic India, WWF­
India, New Delhi.

3 5Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

0610. Middleton, B.A. 1998. The water buffalo controversy in Keoladeo

National Park, India. Ecological Modelling. 106(1) : 93-98.

0611. Middleton, B.A. and Mason, D.H. 1990. Seed herbivory by nilgai,
feral cattle and wild boar in the Keoladeo National Park, India.
Biotropica. 22: 538-543.

0612. Milimani, M.V. 1972. Gaur with special reference to Mysore state.
Forest Research Institute, Dehradun. 50p.

0613. Milne, C.J. R. 1905. Albinism in the Blackbuck. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 16(4): 742.

0614. Miri, M.G. 1939. Note on the rhinoceros captured during last
October for the American Zoo. Indian Forest er. 65(4): 207-210.

0615. Mishra, C. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1994. Status and conservation

of the Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius Ogilby 1838) in Anamalai
hills, South India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

0616. Mishra, C. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1998. Population and conservation

status of the Nilgiri tahr Hemitragus hylocrius in Anamalai Hills, south
India. Biological Conservation. 86(2): 199-206.

0617. Mishra, G.C. 1991. Rhino rehabilitation in Dudhwa National Park.

Van Vigyan. 27(1): 60-64.

0618. Mishra, G.P. and Kotwal, P.C. 1990. Plant-herbivore-carnivore

system in Kanha National Park. Journal of Tropical Forestry.
6(1) : 67-76.

0619. Mishra, P.C. 1994. Manual of a captive Indian rhinoceros calf

(Rhinoceros unicornis) at Sanjay Gandhi Biological Park. Zoo
Print. 9(9): 1-2.

0620. Mishra, P.C. and Jha, A.K. 1993. Breeding of rhinoceros in

Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Patna. Zoo print. 8(6): 5.

0621. Mishra, P.K. 1998. M.P.: All set to preserve biodiversity. Environ.
6(2): 12-16.

0622. Mishra, A.M. and Sharma, R.N. 1994. Seed dispersal of some
tree and shrub species by mammals in a tropical deciduous forest
of Central India. Journal of Tropical Forestry. 10(3): 192-198.

£11vis .1Sullrti11 : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 35 1

 0623. Mishra, R.P. 2001. Studies on Indian wild buffalo (Bubalus
bubalis L.) and its habitat in Udanti Wildlife Sanctuary. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur,
Madhya Pradesh. 223p.

0624. Mitra, T.R. 1986. Ecology of wild and captive chital Axis axis
axis (Erxleben). (IN): Majupuria, TC. (Ed.) Wildlife wealth of India:
Resources and Management, Tee Press, Thailand P. 505-514.

0625. Miura, S. 1981. Social behaviour of the Axis deer during the dry
season in Guindy Sanctuary, Madras. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 78(1): 125-138.

0626. Mohan, R.S.L., Dharmasingh, J., Jeyaseelan, J. and Daniel, D.

1998. Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius) of Kanyakumari district.
Zoo Print. 13(2): 48-49.

0627. Momin, K.N., Shah, D.R. and Oza, G.M. 1973. Great Indian
Rhinoceros inhabited Gujarat. Current Science. 42(22): 801-802.

0628. Montfort, S.L. and Wildt, D. 1992. Brow-antlered deer fawns born
using A. I technique first time for endangered cervids. Zoo Print.
7(8): 9.

0629. Mooney, H. F. 1930. The Distribution of wild buffalo in Orissa

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 34(1): 242-244.
. �..
�·
0630. Morris, R.C. 1925. Wild animals of Central India. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 30(3}: 694-698.

0631. Morris, R.C. 1926. Wild dogs and further jungle tragedies.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 31(3): 811-812.

0632. Morris, R.C. 1927. 'Clicking noise' made by muntjac. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 32(1): 216.

0633. Morris, R.C. 1928. Sambhar and wild dogs. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 33(1): 198.

0634. Morris, R.C. 1930. On distinguishing between males and

females and other controversial matters pertaining to the gaur
(Bibos gaurus). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
34(3): 801-802.

3 52 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

0635. Morris, A. C. 1930. Partial disappearance of the wild pig (Sus

cristatus). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 34(1 ):
245-246.

0636. Morris, R.C. 1934. Growth and shedding of antlers in sambar

(Rusa unicolor) and Cheetal (Axis axis) in south India. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 37(2): 484.

0637. Morris, R.C. 1936. Shedding of horns by Sambhur. Indian

Forester. 62(6): 366.

0638. Morris, R.C. 1937. A very large sam bar stag. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 39(2): 390.

0639. Morris, R.C. 1937. Gaur bulls attacking a wounded bull. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 39(2): 391.

0640. Morris, A. C. 1938. Behaviour of gaur or Indian bison. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 40(2): 325.

0641. Morris, R.C. 1938. 'Stamping grounds' and 'Sore neck' in sambar.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 40(3): 560-561.

0642. Morris, R.C. 1948. Sam bar gnawing bark of ( Wendlandia

notoniana). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 47(4):
729.

0643. Morris, R.C. 1948. Sambar neck sore. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 47(4): 729-730.

0644. Morris, A. C. 1949. A diseased gaur. Journal of Bombay Natural

History Society. 48(3): 578.

0645. Morris, R.C. 1952. Cases of unwounded gaur or Indian bison

(Bibos gaurus) charging. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 51(1): 266.

0646. Morris, A.C. 1954. Gaur attacking man. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 52(1): 204-205.

0647. Morris, R.C. 1955. Extraordinary behaviour of a solitary bull bison

(Gaur). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 52(4): 916.

e.IYi•.gulltrio : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 3 53

0648. Morris, R.C. West, E.M. 1927. Solitary cow gaur. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 32(1): 215.

0649. Mosse, A.H. 1923. On the rann of kutch. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 29(1 ): 274-275.

0650. Mudappa, D. 1999. Lesser known carnivores in Western Ghats.

Envis Bulletin. 2(2): 65-70.

0651. Muir, G.B. F. 1916. Chase of Chinkara buck (Gazella bennettt)

by another. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 24(2):
355-356.

0652. Mukherjee, A.K. 1974. Some examples of recent faunal

impoverishment and regression. (IN): Mani, M.S., (Ed.) Ecology
and Biogeography in India, Dr. W.Junk Publishers, The Hague.
P. 99-134.

0653. Mukherjee, A.K. 1980. Wildlife in the Sunderban, West Bengal.

Proceedings of the Workshop on Wildlife Ecology, Dehradun,
Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta. pp. 123-127.

0654. Mukherjee, R.P. 1974. Report of the tour to Keibul Lamjao

sanctuary in connection with the preliminary survey of brow­
antlered deer. Wildlife wing, Forest Department. Govt of Manipur.

0655. Mukherjee, R.P. 198.4. Breeding behaviour of brow-antlered deer

of Manipur. Records of Zoological Survey of India. 81(3-4): 77-80.

0656. Mukherjee, S.C., Das, R., Arora, B.M. and Mehrotra, M.L. 1984.
A case of rabbies in a captive rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
unicornis). Ind. Comp. Microbial. lmmunol and lnf. Dis. 5: 32.

0657. Mukherjee, S. and Sengupta, S. 1998. Rhino poaching in

Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary, North Bengal, India. Tigerpaper.
25(1): 20-21.

0658. Mukherjee, S. and Sengupta, S. 1999. Census of Great Indian

one horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis Linn) at Jaldapara
Wildlife Sanctuary, Gooch Behar Forest Division, West Bengal,
India. Tigerpaper. 26(4): 18-21.

354 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0659. Muley, P.O. 1992. Wild buffaloes in Kaziranga. Sanctuary Asia.

12(5): 44-50.

0660. Mungall, E.C., Patel, B.H., Prasad, N.L.N.S. and Dougherty, S.E.
1981. Conservation and management of the Indian blackbuck
antelope (Antelope cervicapra). Joint United States, Indian
Blackbuck Project, A Final Report. P. 1-111 .

0661. Mungall, E. C., Patel, B.H., Prasad, N.L.N.S. and Dougherty, S.E.
1984. Example management situations for Indian blackbuck
antelope (Anti/ope cervicapra). Cheetal. 25(2-3): 14-26.

0662. Mustill, F.J. 1939. Behaviour of gaur or Indian bison (Bibos

gaurus). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 40(4): 731-
733.

0663. Naidu, M.K. 1981. Potentiality of game farming for rural

development. Tigerpaper. 8(3): 2-4.

0664. Naik, P .K. An approach to a rational management of Kanha

National Park. 52p.

0665. Naik, R.N. 1982. Gaur and its habitat requirement and biotic
stress: a case study at the Mahaveer Sanctuary. Wildlife Institute
of India, Dehradun. 39p.

0666. Nair, P.V. and Jayson, E.A. 1988. Habitat utilization by large
mammals in the teak plantation and natural forests. Kera/a Forest
Research Institute, Kerala.

0667. Nair, S.S. 1976. A Population survey and observations on the

behaviour of the blackbuck in the Point Calimere Sanctuary,
Tamil Nadu. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 73(2):
304-310.

0668. Nandi, S.N. and Deb, S.K. 1972. Horn cancer in a rhinoceros.
Indian Veterinary Journal. 49: 881-882.

0669. Narayan, G. 1998. Pigmy hog conservation programme - a case

study: Conservation breeding for reintroduction - principles and
protocol. Zoo Print. 13(10): 2-3.

£ovis �ullrtio : WiLDUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 3 55

0670. Narayan, G., Deka, P.J., Chakraborty, A. and Oliver, W.L.R.
1999. Increase in captive population of pygmy hogs Sus
salvanius: health p�oblems and husbandry. Dodo. 35: 70-86.

0671. Narayan, G., Oliver, W.L.R. and Deka, P.J. 1999. The status
and conservation program for the Pygmy hog (Sus sa/vanius).
Seventh World Conference on Breeding Endangered Species:
Linking Zoo and Field Research to Advance Conservation.
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. P. 109-127.

0672. Narayanaswamy, H.D., Sundararaj, A., Manohar, S.M., Sridhar,

R., Renchith Sheela, P.R. and Shakir, S.A. 1998. Outbreak of
rabies in captive spotted deers. Indian Veterinary Journal. 75(7):
643-644.

0673. Natarajan, K.N., Sundar Raj, P.T.S. and Shah, C.K. 1978.
Blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra Linn.) at Point Calimere
Sanctuary. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 75(1):
209-211.

0674. Nath, B. 1976. On the occurrence of Great Indian Rhinoceros

Rhinoceros unicornis Linn. from the pre-historic sites at Chirand,
saran district, Bihar. Newsletter of Zoological Survey of India.
2(3): 86-87.

0675. Neginhal, S.G. 1978. Ecological impact of afforestation at the

Ranibennur Blackbuck Sanctuary. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 75(suppl.): 1254-1258.

0676. Neginhal, S.G. 2002. Albino gaur at the Nagarhole National Park
Karnataka. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 99(3): 512.

0677. Negi, M.S. 1982. Role of remote sensing technique in wildlife

management: estimation of carrying capacity for cheetal - a case
study. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. 46p.

0678. Netam, K.S. 1983. Gaur and its habitat: Baranawapara Wildlife
Sanctuary, Raipur, Madhya Pradesh. Diploma Dissertation,
Wildlife lnstutute of India, Dehradun. 29p.

0679. Newton, P.N. 1984. Forest langurs. Sanctuary Asia. 4(4): 335-343.

356 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0680. Newton, P .N. 1989. Associations between langur monkeys

(Presbytis entellus) and chital deer (Axis axis): Chance
encounters or a Mutualism? Ethology. 83{2): 89-120.

0681. Newton, P.N. 1992. The Deer and the Monkey. Sanctuary Asia.
12{1): 14-21.

0682. Nielsen, N.O., Oosterhuis, J., Janssen, D., McColl, K.,

Anderson, M.P. and Heuschele, H.P. 1988. Fatal respiratory
disease in nilgiri tahr possibly malignant catarrhal fever.
Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research. 52(2): 216-221.

0683. Nolthenius, A.C.T. 1944. Canine teeth in chital (Axis axis) stags.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 45(1): 83-84.

0684. Noronha, R.P. 1952. Wild Buffaloes and Tame. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 51( 1): 266-267.

0685. Noronha, R.P. 1954. More notes on Indian Buffalo. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 52(1) : 202-204.

0686. O'Hara, G.M. 1907. Trapping of rhinoceros in the Dindlings,

straits settlements. Indian Forester. 33(8): 383-388.

0687. Ojha, P.R. and Kumar, A. 1994. Social (Inter group) interactions
in blackbucks at Gajner Wildlife Sanctuary, Bikaner. Cheetal.
33{1): 27-32.

0688. Ojha, P.R. and Kumar, A. 1995. Social communication among

blackbuck part- 1-vocal: tactile and olfactory communications.
Cheetal. 34(2): 1-9.

0689. Oliver, W.L.R. 1978. The Doubtful future of the pigmy hog and
the hispid hare: Part I A Conservation report of pigmy hog field
survey, 1977. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 75(2):
341-372.

0690. Oliver, W.L.R. 1979. Observations on the biology of the pigmy

hog (with a footnote on hispid hare): Pigmy hog survey, 1977
Part II. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 76(1) : 115-
142.

£nvitJ3ullrrin: WilDLIFE AND PROTECTEDAREAS (2004) 3 57

0691. Oliver, W.L.R. 1997. Hogs, hoglets and more hoglets captive
pigmy hog population increases by 666 percent. Zoo Print. 13(1) :
31-32.

0692. Oliver, W.L.R. and Narayan, G. 1996. Pigmy hog (Sus

salvanius) conservation programme. Zoo Print. 11{11) : 21-25.

0693. Olivier, H. D. 1901. On rhinoceros shooting. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 13(3): 538-539.

0694. Osmaston, B.B. 1928. Clicking noise made by muntjac. Journal

of Bombay Natural History Society. 32(4): 795.

0695. Osmaston, L.S. 1896. Abnormal sambhur horns. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 10(3): 534-535.

0696. Oza, G.M. and Bose, P.K. 1977. Should the blackbuck survive.
Everyman's science. P. 1 05-107.

0697. Oza, G.M. and Gaekwad, A. 1 9 7 4. Blackbuck and

Desmostachya bipinnata. Cheetal. 16(1 ): 31-32.

0698. Pabla, H.S. 1997. Development of a user-friendly wildlife

monitoring methodology for protected areas in India. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Forest Research Institute, Deemed University,
Dehradun. 203p.

0699. Padhi, B.C., Mohanty, A.K., Misra, S.C. and Panda, D.N. 1987.
A note on the occurrence of amphistomes in the rumen of spotted
deer (Axis axis) at the Nandankanan Biological Park, Barang,
Orissa. Indian Veterinary Journal. 64(10): 893.

0700. Pal, C. and Bharadwaj, M.B.L. 1989. Histology and

histochemistry of corpus epididymidis in Indian buffaloes
(Bubalus bubalis) at different ages of maturity. Indian Veterinary
Journal. 66(6): 541-544.

0701. Panda, R.M. 1997. Impact of habitat structure on blackbuck

conservation in Orissa. Zoo Print. 12(4): 19-20.

0702. Pandey, R.K. 1982. Ecological studies on grassland of Kanha

National Park with special reference to Wildlife Management.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Sagar, Madhya Pradesh 6p.

3 58 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

0703. Pandey, R.K. 1982. Ecology of grasslands of Kanha National

Park with special reference to wildlife management. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Sagar University, Madhya Pradesh. 248pp.

0704. Pandey, R.K. 1988. Habitat utilization and diurnal activity pattern
of Indian Wild Buffalo (Buba/us bubalis Linn.) in lndravati Wildlife
National Park, India: a study of habitat/animal interaction.
Journal of Tropical Forestry. 4(3): 269-280.

0705. Pandey, R.K. 1989. A study of biotic impact on the structure

and function of grasslands of Kanha Wildlife National Park,
India. Symposium on issue and technology in the management
of impacted wildlife at glenwood springs, Colorado, Feb 6-8
1989.

0706. Pandey, RK., Kandya, A.K. and Kotwal, P.C. 1986. Ecological
studies of Kanha Wildlife National Park, India Ill. Utiilization of
grassland habitat by three common wild ungulates. Journal of
Tropical Forestry. 2(4): 235-240.

0707. Pandey, R.K., Kandya, A.K. and Kotwal, P.C. 1986. Ecological
studies of Kanha Wildlife National Park, India. Journal of Tropical
Forestry. 2(2): 131-145.

0708. Pandey, R.K., Kandya, A.K. and Kotwal, P.C. 1986. Ecological
studies of the the Kanha Wildlife National Park, India (II) -
Population density and biomass of five common wild ungulates.
Jr. Jpn. For. Soc. 68(9): 354-360.

0709. Pandey, R.K., Kandya, A.K. and Kotwal, P.C. 1987. Ecological
studies on Kanha Wildlife National Park, India. IV. Forage
consumption by sustained wild ungulates. Journal of Tropical
Forestry. 3(1 ) : 48-66.

0710. Pandey, R.K., Kandya, A.K. and Kotwal, P.C. 1988. Ecological
studies of Kanha National Park, India. Journal of Tropical
Forestry. 4(1 ) : 3-4.

0711. Pandey, S.K., Bandopadhyay, A.C., Chandrapuria, V.P. and

Bhargava, M.K. 1991. Cutaneous nodulations of horns of a
swamp deer, (Cervus duvaucell). Zoo Print. 6(5): 7.

tollit �ullttio : WILDliFE ANO PROTEClEO AREAs (2004) 3 59

0712. Pandey, S.K., Sharma, I.J. and Kotwal, P.C. 1992. Normal values
of certain blood biochemicals in swamp deer ( Cervus duvauceli
branden). Indian Veterinary Journal. 69(12): 1156-1158.

0713. Pandit, B.A. and Kotiwar, O.S. 2000. Bark stripping by sambar
(Cervus unicolor) Kerr. in Gir forest, Gujarat. Indian Forester.
126(8): 865-869.

0714. Pandit, P.K. 1994. Vaccinating wild rhinos (Rhinoceros

unicornis)against Anthrax at jaldapara wildlife sanctuary. Zoo
Print. 9(9): 3-4.

0715. Pandit, P.K. and Yadav, V.K. 1996. Management of Jaldapara

Wildlife Sanctuary, West Bengal, India. Tigerpaper. 23(4): 1-5.

0716. Pant, A., Chavan, S.G., Roy, P.S. and Das, K.K. 1999. Habitat
analysis for sambar in Corbett National Park using remote
sensing and GIS. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote
Sensing. 27(3): 133-139.

0717. Panwar, H.S. Central Indian Barasinga: High hopes for survival.
Seminar on Env i ornmental Preservation a n d W i l dlife
Conservation, University of Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. pp.1-8.

0718. Panwar, H.S. Kanha National Park. Unpublished. 9p.

0719. Panwar, H.S. Project Tiger: Management Plan - Kanha Tiger

Reserve (1973-74 to 1978-79). 180p.

0720. Panwar, H.S. Success with the Brarideri Barasingha (Cervus

duvauceli branden) in Kanha National Park. IUCN/SSC Deer
Specialist Group, Working Meeting Longview, Washington, USA.
pp.1-24.

0721. Pan war, H .S. 1977. Success with the Branderi Barasinga.
Tigerpaper. 4(4): 1-6.

0722. Panwar, H.S. 1979. Are only the sangai and Keibul Lamjao
threatend? Are the people of Manipur themselves not - an
assessment of the environmental crisis in the state of Manipur.
Manipur Forest Department, Manipur. P. 1-21.

36Q UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0723. Panwar, H.S. 1982. Management of wildlife habitats in India: An

instructional presentation. Workshop on techniques in Wildlife
Research and Management, Kanha. pp.1-29.

0724. Panwar, H.S. 1982. Saving the Barasingha - A conservation

saga. Sanctuary Asia. 2(2): 150-157.

0725. Panwar, H.S. 1983. Kanha National Park - The pride of Project
Tiger. Sanctuary Asia. 3(1 ): 22-37.

0726. Panwar, H.S., Rajvanshi, A., Gautam, P. and Rastogi, A. 1990.

A study of impacts of Bodhghat hydel project upon wildlife and
related human aspects with special reference to wild buffalo
conservation in Bastar. Wildlife Institute of India, Oehradun. 152p.

0727. Parasharya, S.M. 1998. Foraging association of white stork

Ciconia ciconia with blackbuck Anti/ope cervicapra. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 95(1): 112.

0728. Parihar, A.S. 1982. Report on the Kanha National Park, Madhya
Pradesh: Information for the IBW award for the Best Managed
Wildlife Reserve for the 1981-82 Block. pp.1-21.

0729. Parihar, J.S., Kotwal, P.C., Panigrahy, S. and Chaturvedi, N.

1986. Study of Wildlife Habitat using_ high resolution space
photographs - a case study of Kanha National Park. Special
Publication, ISRO-SP-17-86. pp. 65-82.

0730. Parr, B.A. 1924. An Abnormal chital head. Indian Forester. 50(2):
73-75.

0731. Parr, B.A. 1924. Malformed horns in the cheetal (Axis axis).
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 29(4): 1051-1052.

0732. Parsons, A. E. 1940. A Large head of Indian buffalo (Bos bubalis

Linn.). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 41 (3): 659-
660.

0733. Pasha, M.K.S. 1998. Ranging Patterns and habitat use by Gaur
(Bos gaurus) in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh. Zoo
Print. 13(1): 36-37.

£nvi... 13ullttin: WlLOLIFE ANOPROTECTEOAAEAs(2004) 361

0734. Pasha, M.K.S. and Areendran, G. 2000. Ecology of gaur (8os
gaurus) in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh: progress
report October 1999-July 2000. Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun.

0735. Pasha, M.K.S., Areendran, G., Sankar, K. and Qureshi, Q. 2002.

Debarking of teak Tectona grandis Linn. F. by Gaur Bos gaurus
H. Smith during summer in a tropical dry deciduous habitat of
Central India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 99(2):
238-244.

0736. Pasha, M.K.S., Qureshi, 0., Sankar, K. and Areendran, G. 2001.

Predation by tiger Panthera tigris Linn. on gaur Bos gaurus smith
in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 98(3): 432-433.

0737. Patel, A.H. 1992. Are chital stags more vulnerable to dhole
predation than does. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
89(2): 153-155.

0738. Pathak, N.N. 1991. Comparison of chemical composition of

mixed herbages and faeces of some deer species of Dudhwa
National Park, India. Zoo Print. 6(11 ): 13-14.

0739. Pathak, N.N., Arora, B.M. and Kaushik, S.N. 1991. Feed intake,
dry matter digestibility and defaecation rate in captive hog deer
(Axis porcinus). Zoo Print. 6(5): 6-7.

0740. Pathar. 1907. Buffalo tracking. Indian Forester. 33(11 ): 511-519.

0741. Paulraj, S. 1995. Prey-predator relationships with special

reference the tiger, panther and dhole competetions in Kalakad­
Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (Thirunelveli District - Tamil Nadu).
Indian Forester. 121 (10): 922-930.

0742. Pearce, C.R. 1908. A large sambhllr head (Malay Variety).

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 18(3): 676.

0743. Peppe, F. H. 1937. Abnormal Horn growth in the Muntjac

(Muntiacus vagina/is). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 39(4): 854-855.

362 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0744. Phythian-Adams, E.G. 1951. Jungle Memories: Part 9 Antelope

and deer. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 50(1 ): 1-
12.

0745. Phythian-Adams, E.G. 1954. Record sambar for the Nilgiris.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 52(2-3): 588.

0746. Phythian-Adams, E.G.1955. The Status of the Nilgiri tahr or 'Ibex'

(Hemitragus hylocrius Blyth). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 53(2): 260.

0747. Pillai, B.S. 1952. The Record spread of gaur horns (Bibos
gaurus). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 50(4): 935-
936.

0748. Pillai, B.S. 1953. Albino sambar. Journal of Bombay Natural

History Society. 51(4): 935.

0749. Pillai, D. 1933. Curious death of cheetal (Axis axis) in captivity.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 36(4): 986-988.

0750. Pillai, N.G . 1963. The Nilgiri Tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius)

(Ogilby) in captivity. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
60(2): 451-454.
0751. Pillai, R.S. and Hingorani, B.H. 1964. A Population census of
chital or spotted deer (Axis axis) and some other animals in
Dehradun Forest Division, Uttar Pradesh and India. Records of
Zoological Survey of India. 62(3-4): 227-238.

0752. Pitman, C.R.S. 1912. A Deformed head of the four horned

antelope. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 21(2): 658.

0753. Pitman, C.R.S. 1912. Do Chinkara (Gazella benne ttl) drinks

water. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 21(2): 655.

0754. Pitman, C.R.S. 1913. How wild boar fight. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 22(2): 391.

0755. Pitman, C.R.S. 1913. Mouse deer ( Tragulus meminna) in the

Central Provinces. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
22(3): 624.

Cnvis �ulltlin : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 363

0756. Pitman. C.R.S. 1913. Notes on the drinking habits of wild
animals and birds. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
22(1): 193-194.

0757. Pitman, C. R.S. 1913. The co lou ration of the eyes of the
domesticated buffalo. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 22(2): 390.

0758. Pitman, C.R.S. 1915. Effect of Castration on blackbuck. Journal

of Bombay Natural History Society. 23(3): 575.

0759. Pizey, R.M. 1932. Sounds made by gaur or Indian bison (Bibos
gaurus). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 36(1): 243.

0760. Pizey, R.M. 1940. On the distinction between Indian and

Malayan gaur. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 41(3):
657-659.

0761. Pluhacek, J., Sinha, S.P. and Sipek, P . 2002. Successful

breeding of Indian rhinoceros of different origin in Dudhwa
National Park (Uttar pradesh, India). Paper accepted in Canadian
Journal of Zoology.

0762. Pocock, R.I. 1941. The fauna of British India including Ceylon
and Burma: Mammalia, Vol. 1-11. Taylor and Francis, London. 503p.

0763. Pocock, R.I. 1942. The larger deer of British India. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 43(3): 553-572.

0764. Pocock, R.I. 1943. The Larger deer of British India: Part 4: The
Cheetal (Axis) and the hog deer (Hyelaphus). Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 44(2): 169-178.

0765. Pocock, R.I. 1943. The Larger deer of the British India: Part 3:
The (Sambar) (Rusa). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 44(1) : 27-37.

0766. Pollock, C. 1898. Indian wild cattle: The Tsine and the gaur
(Miscalled bison). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
12(1): 184-193.

0767. Porwal, M.C., Roy, P .S. and Chellamuthu, V. 1996. Wildlife

364 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

habitat analysis for sambar ( Cervus unicolor) in Kanha National

Park using Remote Sensing. International Journal of Remote
Sensing. 17(4): 2683-2697.

0768. Powell, S.H. 1908. Abnormal antlers of spotted deer or chital

( Cervus axis). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society .
18(3): 675.

0769. Power, G.B. 1921. A Good female chinkara head (G. bennet!).
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 28(1) : 266.

0770. Power, J.M. 1954. Panther killed by domestic buffaloes. Journal

of Bombay Natural History Society. 52(1) : 201.

0771. Pradhan, M.S. 1996. A note on some of the scheduled mammals

from the semi-arid habitats adjacent to the backwaters of Ujani
wetland in Maharashtra state. Records of Zoological Survey of
India. 95(3-4): 299-303.

0772. Prajapati, M.C. and Singh, S. 1994. A beneficial aspect of nilgai

(Boselaphus tragocamelus) in scientifically utilised ravines- an
observation. Indian Forester. 120(10): 890-897.

0773. Prakash, I. 1988. Wildlife, human-animal interactions and

conservation in the Rajasthan desert. (IN): Prakash, lshwar
(Ed.) Desert ecology, Scientific Pblishers, Jodhpur, India. P.
169-177.

0774. Prasad, N.K. 1972. Sambar of Hazaribagh National Park.

Dehradun. Misc.

0775. Prasad, N.L.N.S. 1981. Home range, dispersal and movement

of blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra) population in relation to
seasonal change in Mudmal and environs. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat.

0776. Prasad, N.L.N.S. 1983. Home range size of blackbuck Anti/ope

cervicapra at Mudmal. Sunderdruck aus z.f. saugetierkunrie Bd.
1(2): 110-117.

0777. Prasad, N.L.N.S. 1983. Horn growth in blackbuck. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 80(3): 634-635.

(:nvi• J3ullrlill : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTEDAAEAS (2004) 3 65

0778. Prasad, N.L.N.S. 1983. Seasonal changes in the herd structure
of blackbuck. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 80(3):
549-554.

0779. Prasad, N.L.N.S. 1989. Territoriality in Indian Blackbuck,

(Anti/ope cervicapra) (Linnaeus). Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 86(2): 187-193.

0780. Prasad, N.L.N.S. and Rao, J.V.R. Role of habitat manipulation

in the conservation of blackbuck. Zoological Survey of India,
Cochin. P. 1-15.

0781. Prasad, V.G. and Verghese, A. 1991. Animal behaviours that

affect agricultural prodution. Proceedings of First National
Symposium on Unconventional Pest: Control vs. Conservation
and National Seminar on Animal behaviour, Oct. 14-16, 1991.
P.133-134.

0782. Prater, S.H. 1921. An Old time buffalo hunt. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 27(3): 627-628.

0783. Prater, S.H. 1934. The wild animals of the Indian empire. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 37: 76-79.

0784. Prater, S.H. 1939. Additional notes on the Asiatic two horned
rhinoceros. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 40(4):
618-627.

0785. Prater, S.H. 1971. The book of Indian animals. Bombay Natural
History Society, Bombay. 324pp.

0786. Praveen Rao, K. and Singh, A.K. 1995. Heterogenous grouping

- a strategy against predation. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 92(2): 260-261.

0787. Pythian-Adams, E. 1927. Game preservation in the Nilgiris.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 32: 339-343.

0788. Pythian-Adams, E. 1939. The Nilgiri game Association - 1879-

1939. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 41: 384-396.

0789. Qureshi, Q. 1991. Population status and movement of Nilgai

366 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

(Boselaphus tragocamelus, Pallas) around the v i l l a g e

Gursikaran near Aligarh Muslim University. M.Sc. Dissertation,
Aligarh Muslim University, Afigarh. 43p.

0790. Qureshi, Q., Sawarkar, V.B. and Mathur, P.K. 1995. Ecology
and mangement of swamp deer ( Cervus duvauce!J) in Dudhwa
Tiger Reserve, U.P., India Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

0791. R.M.G. 1932. Rhino in difficulty. Indian Forester. 58(8): 411-413.

0792. Raha, A.K. and Yadav', V.K. 1997. In-situ genetic improvement
programme release of Great Indian one-horned rhinoceros in
Gorumara National Park and Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary, West
Bengal, India. Zoo Print. 12(10): 1-2.

0793. Rahmani, A.A. 1990. Distribution of the Indian Gazelle or

Chinkara Gazella bennetti (Sykes) in India. Mammalia. 54(4):
605-619.

0794. Rahmani, A.A. 1990. Distribution, density, group size and

conservation of the Indian gazelle or chinkara Gazella bennetti
(Sykes 1831) in Rajasthan, India. Biological Conservation. 51(3):
177-189.

0795. Rahmani, A.A. 1991. Present distribution of the Blackbuck

Anti/ope cervicapra Linn. in India, with special emphasis on the
lesser known population. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 88(1 ): 35-46.

0796. Rahmani, A.A. 1992. Threatened fauna of the Indian grasslands.

(IN): Singh, K.P. and Singh, J.S. (Eds.) Tropical Ecosystems:
Ecology and Management, Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi.
pp.143-150.

0797. Rahmani, A.A., Shushan, B., D'Cunha, E.P.E., Ali, S. and Daniel,
J.C. 1985. Study of the Ecology of Some Endangered Species
of Wildlife and their Habitats: The Great Indian Bustard. Bombay
Natural History Society, Bombay. 22p.

0798. Rahmani, A.A. and Manakadan, R. 1987. Interspecific behaviour

of the great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps (Vigors). Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 84(2): 317-331.

�DVi.. �ullrlin: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 367

0799. Rahmani, A.A. and Sankaran, R. 1991. Blackbuck and Chinkara
in the Thar desert: a changing scenario. Journal of Arid
Environment. 21(3): 379-391.

0800. Rai, L. 1954. Wildlife conservation. Indian Forester. 80(2): 72-

75.

0801. Rajasingh, G.J. 1983. A note on the longevity and fertility of the
blackbuck, Anti/ope cervicapra (Linn.). Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 80(3): 633-634.

0802. Rajpurohit, K.S. and Chauhan, N.P.S. 1996. Survey of wild

animal damage problems in and around protected areas and
managed forests in India phase- 1: Madhya pradesh, Bihar and
Orissa. Wildlife Institute of India, Oehradun. 20p.

0803. Rajpurohit, L.S. 1988. Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus) a

serious crop pest between Jodhpur and Osian (Rajasthan).
Cheetal. 29(2): 10-13.

0804. Rajpurohit, L.S. 1991. Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus)

depredation on crop fields and other mammalian agricultural
pests around Jodhpur. Proceedings of First National Symposium
on Unconventional Pest: Control vs. Conservation and National
Seminar onAnimal behaviour, Oct.14-16, 1991. P.90-91.

0805. Raju, R. and Heggde, S.N. 1995. Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary - a

fragile ecosystem. Indian Forester. 121 (10): 938-948.

0806. Ramakantha, V. 1990. Aerial census on the Manipur brow­

antlered deer: a report. Zoo Print. 5(2):

0807. Ramanuj. 1931. Black four-horned antelope (Tetracerus

quadricornis.). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 35(3):
674.

0808. Raman, T.R.S. 1997. Factors influencing seasonal and monthly

changes in the group size of chital or axis deer in Southern India.
Journal of Bioscience. 22(2): 203-218.

0809. Raman, T.R.S. 1998. Antler cycles and breeding seasonality of

the chital (Axis axis Erxleben) in Southern India. Journal of

368 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

Bombay Natural History Society. 95(3): 377-391.

0810. Raman, T.R.S., Menon, R.K.G. and Sukumar, R. 1995. Decline

of blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra) in an Insular Nature Reserve:
the Guindy National Park, Madras. Current science. 68(6): 578-
580.

0811. Raman, T.R.S., Menon, R.K.G. and Sukumar, R. 1996. Ecology

and management of chital and blackbuck in Guindy National
Park, Madras. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 93(2}:
178-192.

0812. Ramaswamy, K. and Arora, B.M. 1991. Prevalence of Muellerius

capil/aris in free ranging spotted deer (Cervus axis) in India and
its experimental cross transmission to goats. Journal of Wildlife
Disease. 27(1): 102-104.

0813. Ramchandra, K.K., Vijayakumaran, P. and Easa, P.S. 1986.

Ecology of large mammals of Periyar Wildlife Sanctuary. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 83(3): 505-524.

0814. Ranjitsinh, M.K. 1975. Keibui-Lamjao Sanctuary and the brow­

antlered deer - 1972 with notes on the visit in 1"975. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 72(2): 243-255.

0815. Ranjitsinh, M.K. 1980. Geographic variation in the Barasingha

or swamp deer (Cervus duvauceli Cuvier, 1823). Cheetal. 22(1-
2): 9-10.

0816. Ranjitsinh, M.K. 1982. Ecology and behaviour of the Indian

blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra Linn, 1758) in the Velavadar
National Park, Gujarat. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 79: 241-246.

0817. Ranjitsinh, M. K. 1982. Territorial behaviour of the Indian

blackbuck (Anti/ope cervicapra, Linnaeus, 1758) in the Velavadar
National Park, Gujarat. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 79(2): 241-246.

0818. Ranjitsinh, M.K. 1983. Manipur's brow-antlered deer. Sanctuary

Asia. 11(3): 230-237.

Cnvit J3ullrtin : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAfAS (2004) 3 69

0819. Ranjitsinh, M.K. 1987. Unusual coloration of nilgai (Boselaphus
tragocamelus). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
84(1) : 203.

0820. Ranjitsinh, M.K. 1989. The Indian blackbuck. Natraj Publisher,

Oehradun.

0821. Ranjitsinh, M.K. 2000. Status and conservation of the wild buffalo
(Bubalus bubalis) in Peninsular India. Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun. 35p.

0822. Rao, A.T. and Acharjyo, L.N. 1996. Causes of mortality in captive
bovids at Nandankanan Zoo. Indian Veterinary Journal. 73(7):
793-795.

0823. Rao, D.D.S. 1991. Habitat utilization and distribution pattern of

Indian wild pig (Sus scrota cristatus) in Sariska Tiger Reserve.
M.Sc. Dissertation, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat. 51p.

0824. Rao, H.S. 1957. History of our knowledge of the Indian fauna
through the ages. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
54: 251-280.

0825. Rao, J.V.R. 1982. Management and hunsbandry of blackbuck.

FAO, Bangkok. 75p.

0826. Rao, K.P ., Singh, A.K. and Paramanand. 1995. Heterogenous

grouping-a strategy against predation. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 92(2): 260-261.

0827. Rao, R.K. 1974. Status of gaur (8os gaurus) in the Godavari valley
of Andhra Pradesh. Forest Research Institute, Dehradun. 41 p.

0828. Rashid, M.A. 1977. Census of blackbuck in the Velavadar

National Park of Gujarat state. Cheetal. 19(1): 3-13.

0829. Rashid, M.A. 1978. Census of blackbucks in the Velavadar

National Park of Gujarat State. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 75(2): 479-482.

0830. Rattray, R.H. 1906. A malformed blackbuck head. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 17(2): 519.

3 7Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

0831. Rau, C.S. 1916. A Three horned sambhur. Indian Forester. 42(3):
156.

0832. Rau, U.R. and Rao, K.N.A. 1971. Ornithodoros. Journal of

Parasitology. 57(2): 432-435.

0833. Rawal, R. 1986. At Men's mercy. Cheetal. 27(3): 25-26.

0834. Ray, J., Joshua, J. and Ronald, J. 2000. Sighting of barking

deer (Muntiacus muntjac) in Kalakad - Mundanthurai Tiger
Reserve, Tamilnadu. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
97(1): 139-140.

0835. Rebsch, B.A. 1910. Mortality of cheetal ( Cervus axis) from

rinderpest. Indian Forester. 36(6-7): 394.

0836. Rendall, H.D. 1917. Kathiawar Blac�buck. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 25(1): 14 7.

0837. Rice, C. G. 1984. The behaviour and ecology of Nilgiri Tahr

(Hemitragus hylocrius Ogilby 1838). Dissertation, Texas A&M
University, College station. 254pp.

0838. Rice, C.G. 1985. Courting Round the mountain. Animal Kingdom.
88(6): 22-31.

0839. Rice, C.G. 1985. The Nilgiri tahr. Sanctuary Asia. 5(2): 126-
135.

0840. Rice, C.G. 1986. Observations on predators and prey at

Eravikulam National Park, Kerala. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 83(2): 283-305.

0841. Rice, C. G. 1988. Agonistic and sexual behaviour of Nilgiri tahr

(Hemitragus hylocrius). Ethology. 78(2): 89-112.

0842. Rice, C.G. 1988. Habitat, population dynamics, and conservation

of Nilgiri tahr Hemitragus hylocrius. Biological Cconservation.
44: 137-156.

0843. _Rice, C. G. 1988. Notes on the food habits of Nilgiri Tahr. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 85(1): 188-189.

£avit.iullrcin : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 37l

0844. Rice, C. G. 1988. Reproductive biology of nilgiri tahr Hemitragus
hylocrius (Mammalia: Bovidae). Journal of Zoology. 214(2): 269-
284.

0845. Rice, e.G. 1988. The Nilgiri tahr. The India magazine. 8(4): 20-31.

0846. Rice, e.G. 1989. Growth, maturation, and p h ysical

characteristics of Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius) (Ogilby).
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 86(2): 129-134.

0847. Rice, e.G. 1990. Nilgiri tahr Eravikulam National Park and
conservation. (IN): Daniel, J.C. and Ser rao, J.S. (Eds.)
Conservation in developing countries: problems and prospects.
Oxford University press, New Delhi. P. 387-399.

0848. Rice, e.G. 1991. The status of four-horned antelope Tetracerus

quadricornis. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 88(1) :
63-66.

0849. Rice, e.G. 1995. On the origin of sexual displays in eaprids. Z.

Saeugetierkd. 60(1 ): 53-62.

0850. Richardson, J.W. 1889. Wild buffalo. Journal of Bombay Natural

History Society. 4(3): 231.

0851. Richardson, W.S.J. 1894. Horns and skull measurements.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 8(4): 564.

0852. Robinson, s.e.H. 1942. Measurement of an Indian Bison head

(Bibos gaurus). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
43(1) : 100-101.

0853. Rocky, P. 2002. Threats to the existence of brow-antlered deer

( Cervus eldi eldi) in Keibul Lamjao National Park, Manipur, India.
T igerpaper. 29(4): 6-8.

0854. Rodgers, W. A . 1986. A note on ear-sore in Sariska Wildlife

Sanctuary, Rajasthan. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 83(2): 425-427.

0855. Rodgers, W.A. 1986. The role of fire in the management of wildlife
habitats: A Review. Indian Forester. 112(1 0): 845-857.

3 72 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

0856. Rodgers, W.A. 1988. The wild grazing ungulates of India: an

ecological review. Proceedings of N a t i onal Rangeland
S y m posium. IGFRI, J h ansi, Nov. 9-12 1987, Rangeland
Management Society of India.

0857. Rodgers, W.A. and Rajvanshi, A. 1989. The conservation of wild

buffalo in Bastar, Madhya Pradesh with especial reference to
Bhairamgarh Wildlife Sanctuary. Cheetal. 30(1-2): 17-22.

0858. Rodon, G.S. 1894. Stalking sambhur. Journal of Bombay Natural

History Society. 8(4): 563.

0859. Rodon, G.S. 1897. Leopard versus Chital Pig versus Leopard.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 11(1) : 158-159.

0860. Rodon, G.S. 1903. Gazelle taking to water. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 15(1): 142.

0861. Rodon, G.S. 1903. The Four horned antelope ( Tetracerus

quadricornfs). Journal ofBombay Natural History Society. 15(2): 346.

0862. Rookmaaker, L.C. 1983. The Former distribution of the Indian

rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) in India and Pakistan. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 80(3): 555-563.

0863. Rookmaaker, L.C. 2002. Historical records of the rhinoceros

(Rhinoceros unicornis) in Northern India and Pakistan. Zoo Print.
17(1 ) : 923-929.

0864. Rosse!, H.G. 1938. Behaviour of gaur or Indian Bison (Bibos

gaurus). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 40(2): 325-
326.

0865. Rosse!, H.G. 1945. Size of chital (Axis axis) in India and Ceylon.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 45(3): 417.

0866. Rossel, H.J. 1940. Behaviour of gaur and elephant. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 41(3): 656-657.

0867. Rowntree, J.B. 1935. Habits of the hog deer (Hyelaphus porcinus
Zimm). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 38(2): 396.

£ovis �ullt!in : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 3 73

0868. Roy Chaudhary, K.C. 1966. Behaviour of chital (Axis axis)
.
(Erxeleben). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 63(3):
747.

0869. Roy, A.N. 1945. The Great Indian rhinoceros. Indian Forester.
71(4): 125-126.

0870. Sabharwal, A.K. 1989. Birth of rhino calves in Kanpur zoo. Zoo
Print. 4(12): 5-7.

0871. Sahabandu, H.D.R. 2001. Ranging, activity patterns and habitat

use of Blackbuck and nilgai in Velavadar National Park, Gujarat,
India. M.Sc. Dissertation, Saurashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat.
76p.

0872. Sahai, K. 1985. A paradise called Kanha. Span. 6: 2-7.

0873. Sahai, R.C. 1972. Distribution composition and herd size of gaur
(Bos gaurus) in Palamau Bihar. Cheetal. 15(1): 59-66.

0874. Sahai, A. and Gaswami, S.L. 1977. The sex chromatin in

polymorphonuclear Leucocytes of water buffaloes Bubalus
bubalis. Zoot. Anz. 198(1/2): 89-93.

0875. Saha, S.S., Chattopadhyay, S., Mukherjee, R.P. and Alfred,

J.R.B. 1992. Wildlife and its conservation in West Bengal. State
Fauna series 3. Fauna of West Bengal. Part 1. Zoological
Survey of India, Calcutta.

0876. Sahoo, A.K. 1990. Drug immobilisation of Indian rhinoceros

(Rhinoceros unicornis). Indian Forester. 116(12): 986-988.

0877. Sahoo, A.K. 1991. Wildlife in South-western tracts of West

Bengal: past and present. Information and Cultural affairs
Department, West Bengal. 33: 17.

0878. Sale, J.B. 1981. Final recommendations of the rhino sub­

committee for the wildlife status evaluation committeee of the
IBWL on the translocation of Great Indian Rhinoceros.
Government of India, New Delhi.

374 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0879. Sale, J.B. 1986. Rhinos re-established in Uttar Pradesh. Indian

Forester. 112(10): 945-948.

0880. Sale, J. B., Frenzman n, A. W., Bhattac harjee, K. K. and

Chowdhury, S. 1988. Immobilization and translocation of nilgai
in India using Carfentanil. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 85(2): 281-287.

0881. Sale, J.B. and Singh, S. 1987. Reintroduction of Greater Indian

rhinoceros into Dudhwa National Park. Oryx. 21(2): 81-84.

0882. Samai, R.S. 1991. The Use of homeopathy in treatment of wild

and captive animals. International Seminar on Veterinary
Medicine in Wild and Captive Animals, India, Bangalore, 8-10
Nov. 1991. P.22.

0883. Sankaran, R. 1989. Status of swamp deer in Dudhwa National

Park (1988-89). Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay.

0884. Sankaran, R. 1990. Status of the swamp deer ( Cervus duvauceli

duvaucel1) in the Dudhwa National Park, Uttar Pradesh. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 87(2): 250-259.

0885. Sankar, K. A confiding Chital. Hornbill. 31p.

0886. Sankar, K. 1990. Recto-vaginal prolapse in a wild chital. Journal

of Bombay Natural History Society. 87(2): 288.

0887. Sankar, K. 1994. The ecology of three large sympatric herbivores

(Chital, sambar and Nilgai) with special reference for reserve
management in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 190p.

0888. Sankar, K., Qureshi, Q., Pasha, M.K.S. and Areendran, G. 2000.
Ecology of gaur Bos gaurus in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya
pradesh. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

0889. Sankar, K. and Vijayan, V.S. 1992. Notes on the food habits of
Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus) Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 89(1): 115-116.

£nvis JSulletin : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 3 75

0890. Sankhala, K.S. 1977. Captive breeding, re-introduction and
nature protection: the Indian experience. Inter. Zoo Yearbook.
17:98-101.

0891. Sankhala, K.S. and Desai, J.H. 1969. Reproductive pattern of

some Indian mammals. Cheetal. 12(1): 114-129.

0892. Sankhala, K.S. and Desai, J.H. 1970. Reproductive behaviour

of brow-antlered deer. Journal of Bombay Natural History

Society. 67(3): 561-563.

0893. Sanyal, P. 1995. A new report on pygmy hog Sus salvanius

(Hodgson) from west bengal. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 92(1): 116.

0894. Sanyal, A.B. 1986. The Indian rhinoceros. Zoo Print. 1(1) : 12-
15.

0895. Sanyal, A.B. 1992. A handbook of the managment of animals in

captivity in lower Bengal. Bengal Secretriate Press, Calcutta.

0896. Sanzgiri, M.N. 2003. Dudhwa National Park - success story of

conservation of Great Indian one horned rhinoceros. Tigerpaper.
30(1): 15.

0897. Sathyakumar, S. 2000. Status of mammals on Mundanthurai

plateau, South India. Tigerpaper. 27(2): 1-6.

0898. Sathyanarayana, M.C. and Murthy, B. 1995. Activity patterns

and feeding habits of gaur (8os gaurus) in Berijam Reserve
forest, Palni hills, Tamilnadu. Proceedings of the National
Symposium on recent trends in Indian Wildlife Research, A. V. C.
College, Mayiladuthurai. PBS-87.

0899. Sawarkar, V.B. 1988. Status of the Northern swamp deer

( Cervus duvaucel1) in Dudhwa National Park. Wildlife Institute
of India, Dehradun.

0900. Saxena, A. 1989. Protecting the One-horned rhino in India. The

Times of India. Section 2. April 11'h·

3 76 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

0901. Saxena, R. 1996. A note on the status of four-horned antelope ifl

Madhya Pradesh. Journal of Tropical Forestry. 12(4): 246-247

0902. Saxena, R. 1996. Some behavioural observations on Nilgai with

special reference to Madhya Pradesh. Journal of Tropical
Forestry. 12(1): 51-53.

0903. Saxena, R. 1998. Notes on chinkara with special reference to

Madhya Pradesh. Journal of Tropical Forestry. 14(1) : 65-66.

0904. Schaaf, C.D. and Singh, A. 1977. Barasingha in the Dudwa

Sanctuary. Oryx. 13: 495-498.

0905. Schaller, G.B. 1970. Observations on the Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus

hylocrius) Ogilby 1838. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 67(3): 365-389.

0906. Schaller, G.B. 1972. The deer and the tiger: a study of wildlife
in India. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 370p.

0907. Schaller, G.B. 1976. A note on a population of Gazella gazel/a

bennetti. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 73(1): 209-
211.

0908. Schaller, G.B. 1977. Mountain monarch. University of Chicago

press. 425p.

0909. Schaller, G.B. 1998. The wildlife of Tibetan steppe. T he

University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. 373p.

0910. Schaller, G.B. and Chandra De, R. 1964. The Shedding of Antlers
by Cheetal Deer. Cheetal. 7(1) : 15-17.

0911. Schultz, B. 1986. The management of crop damage by wild

animals. Indian Forester. 112(10): 891-899.

. 0912. Sclater, P.L. 1875. Report on the exhibition of upper horn of a two
horned rhinoceros. Proceedings of Zoological Society of London.

0913. Sclater, P.L. 1891. Catalogue of mammalia in the India museum,

Calcutta. Indian museum, Calcutta.

tiiYi• .gull11in : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 377

0914. Seshadri, B. 1969. The Twilight of India's wildlife. John Baker,
London.

0915. Sewell, J. 1894. A Blackbuck with one horn. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 9(2): 228.

0916. Shahi, S.P. 1977. Backs to the wall: saga of wildilfe in Bihar,
India. East West Press, New Delhi. 159p.

0917. Shahi, S.P. 1982. Man and Wildlife. Cheetal. 23(3): 30-37.

0918. Shahi, S.P. and Mukherjee, S.K. 1982. Keibui-Lamjao National

Park: a report. Forest Department, Government of Manipur.

0919. Shah, N.M., Dholakia, P.M., Heranjal, D.O., Prajapati, K.S.,

Gangopadhyaya, A.M. and Bhuva, C.N. 1986. Incidence of
tuberculosis in blackbuck and white-spotted deer. Indian Journal
of Animal Science. 56{11): 1141-1142.

0920. Shah, N.V. Mammals. (IN): Singh, H.S., Patel, B.H., Parvez, R.,
Soni, VC., Shah, N. V, Tatu, K. and Patel, D. (Eds.) Species
Status and Conservation Action Plans: Asia. P. 109-150.

0921. Shah, N.V. 1993. Ecology of wild ass (Eqqus hemionus khur) in
Little Rann of Kutch. Ph.D. Dissertation, M.S. University, Baroda,
Gujarat.

0922. Shah, N.V. 1996. Status of captive wild ass (Eqqus hemionus
khur) in the Indian zoos. Gujarat Ecological and Education
Research Foundation (GEER), Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

0923. Shah, N.V. 1998. Mammalian diversity in Little Rann of Kutch,

Gujarat, India. Gujarat Ecological and Education Research
Foundation (GEER), Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

0924. Shah, N.V. 2004. Khur and Kiang action plan. IUCN/SSC Equid
Specialist Group Action Plan.

0925. Shamungou, K. 1988. Ecology and bionomices of brow-antlered

deer ( Cervus eldi eld1) McClelland 1842 in Keibui-Lamjao
National park, Manipur. Ph.D. Disseratation, Manipur University,
Canchipur.

378 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0926. Shankar, M.S., Suchitra, S., John, M.C. and Manimozhi, A. 1995.
A study on diurnal activity pattern of sambar deer ( Cervus
unicolor). Proceedings of the National Symposium on recent
trends in Indian Wildlife Research, A . V. C. College,
Mayiladuthurai. P. 78-84.

0927. Shankar, M.S., Suchitra, S., John, M.C. and Manimozhi, A. 1997.
A Study on Diurnal Activity Pattern of Sambar Deer ( Cervus
unico/or). Zoo Print. 12(2): 13-15.

0928. Sharatchandra, H.C. and Gadgil, M. 1978. On the time budget

of different life history stages of chital (Axis axis). Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society. 75{suppl.): 949-960.

0929. Sharma, A. 1998. Put to the horn. Down to Earth. 7(4): 54-57.

0930. Sharma, A.K. 1995. Interaction between blackbuck Anti/ope

cervicapra (Linn.) and Indian fox Vulpes benga/ensis (Shaw).
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 92(1): 118.

0931. Sharma, A.K., Joshi, V.B., Sharma, M., Katoch, V., Singh, S.P.,
Katoch, R.C., Satta, M.K. and Asrani, R.K. 1996. Concurrent
chlamydia! and verminous pneumonia in a barking deer
(Muntiacus muntjac). Indian Veterinary Journal. 73(8): 876-878.

0932. Sharma, D. and Johnsingh, A.J.T. 1995. Impacts of Management

Practices on Lion and Ungulate Habitats in Gir Protected Area.
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. 95 pp.

0933. Sharma, I.K. 1977. Ecological study of habitats, feeding and

survival of the Indian Gazelle (Gazella gaze/fa) (Pallas). Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 74(2): 347-350.

0934. Sharma, I.K. 1981. Ecological aspects of habitat preferences,

feeding, daily activities and niche of the nilgai (Boselaphus
tragocamelus). Tigerpaper. 8(1 ): 21-22.

0935. Sharma, I.K. 1991. Economic social and religious aspects of

vertebrate pests control in Western Rajasthan. Proceedings of
First National Symposium on Unconventional Pest: Control vs.
Conservation and National Seminar on Animal behaviour, Oct.
14-16, 1991. P.90.

tnvis .�utlttin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 379

0936. Sharma. I.K. 1991. Role of wildlife fauna in ecosystems to check
desertification (Reforestation) in western Rajasthan Thar desert.
Proceedings of First National Symposium on Unconventional
Pest: Control vs. Conservation and National Seminar on Animal
behaviour, Oct. 14-.16, 1991. P.91-92.

0937. Sharma, K. and Rahmani, A . A. 2003. Ecology and distribution

of four-horned antelope ( Tetracerus quadricornis). Annual
progress report 2002-2003. 38pp .

0938. Sharma, A.D. 1994. Blackbuck damage - as a problem for

sanctuary management in Bustard Sanctuary, Karera. Indian
Forester. 120(1 0): 924-928.

0939. Sharma, RD. 1995. Bustard Sanctuary, Karera: problems and

remedies. Indian Forester. 121 (10): 954-964.

0940. Sharma, A.D. 1996. Blackbuck damage - as a problem for

sanctuary management in Bustard Sanctuary Karera. Journal
of Tropical Forestry. 12(3): 159-165.

0941. Sharma, A.D. 1996. Flora and Fauna of Bustard Sanctuary,

Karera. Cheetal. 35(1-2): 55-58.

0942. Sharma, A.D. 1996. Keys for identification of plant remains in

faecal matter of ungulates. Indian Forester. 122(1 0): 903-922.

0943. Sharma, A.D. 1996. Tackling the problem of blackbucks in

Bustard Sanctuary, Karera. Indian Forester. 122(1 0): 951-954.

0944. Sharma, S.K. 1988. The Small mongoose feeding on droppings

of Nilgai. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 85(3): 611.

0945. Shebbeare, E.O. and Roy, A.N. 1948. The Great one horned
rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis L). Journal of Bengal Natural
History Society. 22(3):

0946. Shortridge, G.C. 1912. The Indian buffalo (Bubalus bubalis).

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 21(4): 1023.

0947. Shrivastava, A.B., Chaudhury, R.K., Shrivastava, H.O.P. and

Malik, P .K. 1998. Occurrence of Gastrothylax species in

380 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

barasingha (Cervus duvauceli branden). Indian Veterinary

Journal. 75(7): 645-646.

0948. Shrivastava, A.B, Sharma, R.K., Chaudhury, R.K. and Gopal,

R. 1997. Sarcocystosis could be a threat to Barasingha, Cervus
duvauceli branderi. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
94(3): 558.

0949. Shrivastava, P., Saxena, R. and Mathur, R. 1995. Ecological

adaptations of Chital (Axis axis) and Sam bar (Cervus unicolor)
in Madhav National Park, Shivpuri, M.P. Nat. Enviro. 12(11 ) :
53-56.

0950. Shukla, M.S. Pidiyar, V. Shave, N. Patole and M.S. Shouche,

Y.S. 2001. PCR amplification and sequencing of mitochondrial
125 rRNA gene fragment from Muntiacus muntjac (Indian
muntjac)_. Current Science. 80(5): 617.

0951. Shukla, R. 1990. An ecological study of interactions between

wild animals and vegetation in Pench Sanctuary and its environs.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar,
Madhya Pradesh. 246p.

0952. Shukla, R. 1997. The ecology and status of the Pench Tiger
Reserve, India. T igerpaper. 24(4): 5-6.

0953. Shukla, R. and Khare, P.K. 1997. Study on ungulate population

in the Pench Wildlife Reserve, M.P. Journal of Tropical
Forestry. 13(1) : 60-64.

0954. Shukla, R. and Khare, P.K. 1997. Study on wild and domestic
ungulate biomass in the Pench Wildlife Reserves, Madhya
Pradesh. Journal of Tropical Forestry. 13(2): 106-111.

0955. Shukla, R. and Khare, P.K. 1998. Food habits of wild ungulates
and their competition with livestock in pench wildlife reserve, Central
India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 95(3): 418-421.

0956. Shukla, R. and Khare, P.K. 1998. Study on plant biomass and
herbage consumption in the Pench Wildlife Reserve, M.P.
Journal of Tropical Forestry. 14(3): 178-183.

Cll�it..iullrri": WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 38 l

0957. Shukla, R. and Pandey, R.K. 1990. Diurnal activity pattern and
social organisation of Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus) in
Pench Wildlife Sanctuary of M.P. Journal of Tropical Forestry.
6(2): 167-171.

0958, Shull, E.M. 1958. Notes on the fourhorned antelope ( Tetracerus

quadricornis) (Biainville). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 55(2): 339-340.

0959. Simmonds, M.H. 1923. Change of the colour in the blackbuck

(Antelope cervicapra). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 29(3): 834-837.

0960. Simon, E.S. 1943. Breeding season of the Indian Sambar (Rusa
unicolor, kerr). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 44(1 ):
118-119.

0961. Singhal, N. and SenGupta, S. 1999. Gorumara National Park,

West Bengal: problems prospects and management. Indian
Forester. 125(10): 963-974.

0962. Singh, A. 1958. The Black buck. Cheetal. 1 (1): 36.

0963. Singh, A. 1977. The status of the swamp deer ( Cervus duvauceli
duvauce!J) in the Dudwa National Park. Proceedings of IUCN/
SSG Deer Specialist Group, Switzerland.

0964. Singh, A. 1980. World's most endangered mammal Manipur

Brow-antlered deer ( Cervus eldi eld1). Tigerpaper. 7(2):

0965. Singh, A.N. and Singh, A. 1982. Vetalar and Rompun an Ideal
combination of immobilising drugs for Subhuman primates and
ungulates. Indian Forester. 1 08(10): 676-677.

0966. Singh, A.R. 1997. Blackbuck, the romantic antelope. Cheetal.

36(1-2): 39-40.

0967. Singh, A.R. 1999. Gypsy (A pet hog deer). Cheetal. 36(3-4):
27-29.

0968. Singh, B. 1996. The white chital of palain. Sanctuary Asia. 16(1):
50-51.

382 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

0969. Singh, D.F. and Pradhan, M.S. 1992. Vertebrate fauna of Tansa
Wildlife Sanctuary, Maharashtra. Records of Zoological Survey
of India. 91(3-4): 449-470.

0970. Singh, D.P. 1985. Geographic variation in the barasingha or

swamp deer ( Cervus duvaucefl). Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 82(1) : 189-190.

0971. Singh, G.R. 1981. Sri Kailash Sankhla's "Tiger" - Some Brick­
bats and Bouquets. Cheetal. 22(4): 43-47.

0972. Singh, G.R. 1991. White blackbuck. Zoo Print. 6(11): 12.

0973. Singh, H.S. 1995. White blackbuck white variant of Blackbuck

(Anti/ope cervicapra). Indian Forester. 121 (1 0): 909-911.

0974. Singh, H.S. 2001. Antelopes and gazelle: distribution and

population status in Gujarat, India. Indian Forester. 127(10):
1098-1105.

0975. Singh, J. Feeding behaviour of blackbuck and assessment of

impacts of feeding on wheat field. Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun. 43p.

0976. Singh, L. 1991. Present status of Terai Barasingha (swamp deer)

Cervus duvauceli duvauceli in India and its conservation.
International Seminar on Veterinary Medicine in Wild and Captive
Animals, India, Bangalore, 8-10 Nov. 1991. P.15.

0977. Singh, R.M.K. 1977. The Manipur brow antlered deer ( Cervus
eldi eld1), a case history. Proceedings of IUCN!SSC Deer
Specialist Group, Switzerland.

0978. Singh, R.V. 1995. Some studies on the ecology and behavi.our
of nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus Pallas) with an assessment
of damage to agricultural crops and development of strategy for
damage control in South-Western haryana. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. 120p.

0979. Singh, R.V. and Chauhan, N.P.S. 1992. Electric fence for
prevention of crop damage by nilgai to reduce human wildlife
conflict in Haryana. Symposium of Zoological Research in
refation to man and environment March 1-4, 1992. P. 30-31 .

envl• J3ullflin : WilDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 383

0980. Singh, R. and Chauhan, N.P.S. 1991. Assessment of damage
to winter crops (Rabi) by nilgai in Nahar and kairu areas of
·
Haryana (India). Proceedings of First National Symposium on
Unconventional Pest: Control vs. Conservation and National
Seminar on Animal behaviour, Oct. 14-16, 1991. P.85.

0981. Singh, R. and Chauhan, N.P .S. 1991. Economic aspect of crop
losses by Nilgai and blackbuck in Haryana. Proceedings of First
National Symposium on Unconventional Pest: Control vs.
Conservation and National Seminar on Animal behaviour, Oct.
14-16, 1991. P.82.

0982. Singh, S. Habitat devastation threatens Manipur Brow-antlered

deer (Cervus eldi eld1). Forest Department, Government of Manipur.

0983. Singh, S. 1928. Abnormal black buck and a good chinkara head
from Bikaner. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 32(3):
593.

0984. Singh, S. 1930. Malformed cheetal head (Axis axis). Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 34(1): 245.

0985. Singh, S. 1941. Measurement of a fine head of the Indian

Gazelle. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 42(4): 930.

0986. Singh, S. 1983. The biology of Brow-antlered deer Cervus eldi

eldi Me. Clelland 1842 at Keibui-Lamjao National Park, Manipur.
Wildlife wing, Reprint collection, Govt. of Manipur.

0987. Singh, S.K. 1995. Hirno Ki Duniya. Cheetal. 34(2): 35-38.

0988. Singh, T. 1981. A note on sangai in Keibul Lamjao National Park.

Willdife wing, Govt. of Manipur.

0989. Singh, V.P. 1981. The swamp deer of Dudwa. Animal citizen.
18(4): 12-17.

0990. Singh, V.P. 1984. Bio-ecological studies on Cervus duvauceli

duvauceli, Swamp deer (Barasingha) in Dudwa forest near Indo­
Nepal border. Ph.D. Dissertation, D.A. \1. Co/lge, Kanpur.

38 4 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

0991. Sinha, B.C. 1993. Impact of landuse of the eco-degradation of

the wild ass habitat in Little Rann of Kutch, Gujarat. Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun.

0992. Sinha, N.K. 1973. A dwindling population of Swamp Deer,

Cervus duvauceli branderi Pocock (Family: Cervidae:
Mammalia). Cheetal. 15(4): 41-48.

0993. Sinha, N.K. 1979. A contribution to the study of Indian wildlife.

Ph.D. thesis, University of Jabalpur, Jabalpur. 161p.

0994. Sinha, N.K. 1986. Hard ground Barasingha Cervus duvauce/i

branderi. (IN): Majupuria, T.C. (Ed.) Wildlife wealth of India:
Resources and Management, Tee Press, T hailand P. 493-499.

0995. Sinha, N.K. 1986. Study on blackbuck, Anti/ope cervicapra (Linn)

around Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (IN): Majupuria, T.C. (Ed.) Wildlife
wealth of India: Resources and Management, Tee Press,
Thailand. P. 467-477.

0996. Sinha, N.K. 1993. A Note on Indian chital. Cheetal. 32(1-2): 25-30.

0997. Sinha, N.K. 1998. Behavioural ecology: a study of some of the

Artiodactyla species. 90p.

0998. Sinha, S.K. 1976. Drug immobilisation trials on free living Indian
wild animals. Cheetal. 17(3-4): 29-45.

0999. Sinha, S.K. 1985. Blackbuck of Gujarat. Cheetal. 27(1-2): 16-

27.

1000. Sinha, S.P. and Sawarkar, V.B. 1991. Management o f

reintroduced Great Indian One-horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
unicornis) in Dudhwa National Park, U.P., India. International
Rhino Conference on Biology and conservation, San Diego.

1001. Sinha, S.P. and Sawarkar, V.B. 1991. Management of the

reintroduced Great Indian One-horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
unicornis) in Dudhwa national park, Uttar pradesh, India - A
report. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

!Qvi• J3ullttiQ : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS {2004) 38 5

1002. Sinha, S.P. and Sawarkar, V.B. 1991. Rhino reintroduction
programme in Dudwa National Park (U.P.). IUCN Reintroduction
Newsletter 9th November 1991.

1003. Sinha, S.P. and Sawarkar, V.B. 1992. Management of

reintroduced Great one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
unicornis) in Dudhwa National Park. IV World Congress of
National Parks and protected areas, Caracas, Venezuela, 10-
21 February 1992.

1004. Sinha, S.P., Sawarkar, V.B. and Tiwari, A. 2001. Management

of reintroduced greater one horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
unicornis) in Dudhwa National Park and tiger reserve, Uttar
pradesh, India. Proceedings of the International Elephant and
Rhino Re·search Symposium, V ienna, 7-11 June, 2001. P. 222-
230.

1005. Skirving, O.S. 1907. Malformed sambar and gaur horns. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 17(3): 846.

1006. Smielowski, J. 1987. Albinism in the blue bull or nilgai,

Boselaphus tragocamelus (Pallas, 1766). Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 84(2): 427-428.

1007. Smielowski, J.M.b and Raval, P.P. 1988. The Indian wild ass
and captive populations. Oryx. 22: 85-88.

1008. Smith, J.M. 1905. Melanism in blackbuck. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 16(2): 361.

1009. Smith, O.A. 1914. Breeding of wild pig (Sus cristatus). Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 23(2): 352.

1010. Smith, O.A. 1914. Wild pig (Sus cristatus) crossing water.
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 23(2): 352.

1011. Smith, O.A. 1915. Further notes on wild pigs. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 23(3): 575.

1012. Solanki, G.S. 2003. Time budget for activity pattern and food
selection in Indian gazelle (Gazella bennett1) in arid region in
Rajasthan, India. Indian Journal of Forestry. 26(1): 30-34.

386 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

1013. Solanki, G.S. and Naik, R.M. 1998. Grazing interactions between
wild and domestic herbivores. Small Ruminant Res. 27(3): 231-
235.

1014. Soni, V.C. 1983. Daily cycle of activity of the Dorcas Gazelle in
the Thar Desert, India. Cheetal. 24(3-4): 9-11.

1015. Spillett, J.J. 1966. A report of wildlife surveys in North India and
Southern Nepal, Jan-Jun 1966. Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society 63(3): 492-493.

1016. Spillett, J.J. 1966. A report on wildlife surveys in South and West
India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 65: 296-325.

1017. Spillett, J.J. 1966. Blackbuck of Sikandra Uttar Pradesh. Journal

of Bombay Natural History Society. 63(3): 599-601.

1018. Spillett, J.J. 1966. Brief summary of the statu::; of the Great Indian
one horned Rhinoceros. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 63(3): 573-575.

1019. Spillett, J.J. 1966. The Kaziranga Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 63(3): 494-527.

1020. Spillett, J.J. 1967. Concerning the Great Indian one horned
rhinoceros. Cheetal. 10(1): 14-18.

1021. Sreenu, M. and Jayaprakash. 2002. Rumen fistulation in

chinkara. Zoo Print. 17(11) : 942.

1022. Sreenu, M., Rao, K.V., Venkanna, B. and Babu, K.S. 1997.
Amputation of Hind Limb in Chinkara (Gazella bennet1) under
Diazepam and Ketamine Anaesthesia. Zoo Print. 12(2): 12.

1023. Srinivasalu, C. 1998. Growth rate of chital (Axis axis Exbrl.) in

selected semi-captive deer parks of Andhra Pradesh. Zoo Print.
13(4): 6-.

1024. Srinivasalu, C. 1998. Physical conditions of chital Axis axis

Erxleben. in relation to age class, sex and management
conditions in semi-captive deer parks of A.P. Zoo Print. 13(1 0):
23-25.

£nvi... �ulluin : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 38 7

1025. Srinivasalu, C. 2001. Chital (Axis Axis Erxleben, 1777) herd
composition and sex ratio on the Nallamala Hills of Eastern
Ghats, Andhra Pradesh, India. Zoo Print. 16(12): 655-658.

1026. Srinivasalu, C. 2003. The gaur Bos gaurus Smith, 1827 in Kawai
Wildlife Sanctuary, Andhra pradesh. Zoo Print. 18(2): 1025-1026.

1027. Srivastava, K.K., Bhardwaj, A.K., George, S. and Zacharias,

V .J. 1996. Micro-histological studies on the food habits of

samber, gaur and cattle in Periyar Tiger Reserve in winter. Indian

Forester. 122(1 0): 933-936.

1028. Srivastav, A.B., Katiyar, A.K., Awadhiya, R.P. and Jain, N.K.
1989. Metastatic suppurative pneumonia in a wild buffalo bull.
Zoo Print. 4(5): 23-24.

1029. Srivastav, A.B., Sharma, R.K., Chaudhury, R.K. and Gopal, R.

1998. Sarocystis could be a threat to Barasingha, Cervus
duvauceli branderi. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
94(3): 558.

1030. Stanford, J.K. 1951. Crab-eating chital. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 50(2): 398-399.

1031. Sterndale, R.A. 1929. Sterndale's mammalia of India. Thacker,

Spink, Calcutta. 347p.

1032. Sterndale, R.A. 1982. Mammalia of India and Ceylon. Himalaya

Book, New Delhi.

1033. Stockley, C.H. 1924. An Unusually large cow gaur (B. gaurus).
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 30(1); 219-220.

1034. Stockley, C.H. 1928. Big game shooting in the Indian empire.
Constable and co., London. pp.200.

1035. Stockley, C.H. 1930. The Distribution of the mouse deer. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 34(2): 563-564.

1036. Stracey, P.D. 1951. The vanishing rhinoceros and Assam's wildlife
sanctuaries. Journal of Bengal Natural History society. 25(2):

38 8 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

1037. Stracey, P.O. 1959. Points for a model talk on wildlife (1)Wildlife
Management (2) Wildlife Management in India (3) Conservation
of Wildlife in India (4) Sportsman's code: Do's and Don't of
Shikar (5) Control (6) Forestry and Wildlife Management.
Cheetal. 1(2): 46-53.

1038. Stracey, P.O. 1960. The Black buck of Point Calimere. Cheetal.
3(1): 67-69.

1039. Subramanian, K.S. 2003. Possible peste des petitis ruminants

in free-ranging spotted deer Axis axis. Zoo Print. 18(9): 1205.

1040. Sukumar, R. 1991. The management of large mammals in

relation to male strategies and conflict and people. Biological
Conservation. 55: 93-102.

1041. Sumithran, S. and Fraser, J.D. 1997. Status, ecology and

conservation of the Nilgiri tahr in the Mukuruti National Park, S.
Va. J. Sci. 48(2): 153.

1042. Sumithran, S. Fraser, J.D. and Radcliffe, R. 1993. Ecology and

population dynamics of nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius) in the
Nilgiris, S.lndia. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences,
Blackburg. 48pp.

1043. Sunquist, M.E., Karanth, K.U. and Sunquist, F. 1999. Ecology,

behaviour and resilience of the tiger and its conservation needs.
(IN): Seidensticker, S. Christie and Jackson, P. (Eds.) Riding
the tiger: tiger conservation in human-dominated landscape,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. P. 5-18.

1044. Taibel, A.M. 1945. On Experiments in albinism with chital (Axis

axis). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 45(3): 417-419.

1045. Tak, P.C. and Lamba, B.S. 1981. Some observations on hog
deer (Axis porcinus) at Dhikala, Corbett National Park. Indian
Journal of Forestry. 4(4): 209-305.

1046. Tak, P.C. and Lamba, B.S. 1984. Ecology and ethology of the
spotted deer (Axis axis axis) (Erxleben) (Artiodactyla: Cervidae).
Records of Zoological Survey of India. Occ(43): 1-100.

£11Yi1.iulltrio : WiLDlifE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 389

1047. Talukdar, S.R. and Bordoloi, C.C. 1996. Gross and histological
study on the thyroid gland of a week: a old rhino calf (Rhinoceros
unicornis). Indian Veterinary Journal. 73(1): 85-87.

1048. Tate, G. 1920. Abnormal sambhar horns. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 27(1): 170-171.

1049. Tawkne. 1895. Pig sticking extraordinary. Indian Forester. 21(3):

118.

1050. Tehsin, R. 1992. Does the Manipur deer ( Cervus eldt) exude a
leech repellent? Journal of Bombay Natural History Society.
89(2): 245.

1051. Tehsin, R.H. 1980. Occurrence of the large brown flying squirrel
and mouse deer near Udaipur, Rajasthan. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society. 77(3): 498.

1052. Tehsin, R.H. 1998. Highways for survival. Tigerpaper. 25(2):

26-27.

1053. Thakuria, D.B. 1997. Studies on the breeding ethology of Indian

Rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) during rut in captivity. Zoo Print.
12(4): 1-5.

1054. Thomas, 0. 1923. Scientific results from the Mammal survey;

no.38. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 29(1): 84.

1055. Thorn, W.S. 1939. Sore neck in sambar: The Theory of 'Atavistic
degeneracy'. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 40(4):
733-736.

1056. Thorn, W.S. 1943. A Few notes about the five rhinoceros of the
World. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 44(2): 257-274.

1057. Tikader, B.K. 1983. Threatened animals of India. Zoological

Survey of India, Calcutta.

1058. Tombi, H. 1987. Impact of human activities on the wildlife fauna

of Keibul Lamjao National Park, Manipur. Proceedings of Annual
Conference on National Environment Science, New Delhi.

3 90 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

1059. Tombi, H. 1987. Study on the ecology of the National habitat of

brow-antlered deer at Keibul Lamjao Park. Proceedings of 7th
Indian Science Congress Ill.

1060. Tombi, H. 1990. Ecology of the brow-antlered deer Cervus eldi

eldi in the willdlife national park of Manipur India. Proceedings
of 5th International Congress of ecology held at Yokohama,
Japan Aug 23-30, 1990.

1061. Tombi, H. 1990. Study on the wildlife fauna on the loktak lake
with special reference to the conservation of brow-antlered deer.
Special talk in the zoology of Indian science congress, Cochin.
1062. Tong, E. H. 1965. The Breeding of Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
unicornis) at Whipsnade Park. Cheetal. 8(2): 32-35.

1063. Trivedi, T.R. 1941. An Albino nilgai. Journal of Bombay Natural

History Society. 42(4): 929-930.

1064. Trotter, E.W. 1908. Malformed sambhur horn. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 18{2): 492.

1065. Tyabji, H.N. 1990. Reaction of a group of Gaur Bos gaurus to

the presence of an unidentified predator in Bandhavgarh National
Park, Madhya Pradesh. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 87(2): 287-288.

1066. Tyagi, P.C. 1993. Mukurthi National Park- a nature's paradise.

Tahr. 4(3): 8-9.

1067. Tyler, H. 1908. A panther and a buffalo. Journal of Bombay

Natural History Society. 18(3): 671.

1068. Udaya Sekhar, N. 1998. Crop and livestock depredation caused by

wild animals in protected areas: the case of Sariska Tiger Reserve,
Rajasthan, India. Environmental Conservation. 25(2): 160-171.

1069. Vairavel, S.M. 1998. Ecology of gaur (8os gaurus H. Smith) with
special reference to habitat utilization in Parambikulam Wildlife
Sanctuary, Kerala, India. Ph.D. Dissertation, Kerala Forest
Research Institute, Kerala. 190p.

1070. Vale, S.D. 1893. A Gazelle's food. Journal of Bombay Natural

History Society. 7{4): 547-548.

tovit..iullecio: WILDLIFE ANDPROTECTEDAAEAS(2004) 391

1071. Varman, K.S. 1996. Population count of Nilgiri ta h r (Hemitragus
hylocrius Ogilby) in Mukuruti National Park, Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu,
India. T igerpaper. 23(2): 4-8.

1072. Varman, K.S. and Sukumar, R. 1993. Ecology of sambar in

Mudumalai Sanctuary, Southern India. Centre for ecological
sciences, Bangalore. P. 273-284.

1073. Varman, K.S. and Sukumar, R. 1995. The line transects method
for estimating densities of large mammals in a tropical deciduous
forest: an evaluation of models and field experiment. Journal of
Bioscience. 20(2): 273-287.

1074. Varman, S. 1991. Tahr count at Mukurthi National park. Tahr.

2(3): 3-5.

1075. Varma, T.K ..• Prasad, A., Arora, B.M. and Malviya, H.C. 1990.
On the occurrence of Palamphistomum lobatum Srivastava and
Tripathi, 1980 from rumen and reticulum of blackbuck. Indian
Journal of Animal Science. 60(4): 430-432.

1076. Vasaviah, V., Ganesh, T.N., Swaminathan, D., Thiruthalinathan,

R. and Rani, R.U. 1996. Extirpation of eyeball in a hog deer (Axis
porcinus). Indian Veterinary Journal. 73(9): 973-974.

1077. Vasudev, R.V. and Raman a, R.J.V. 1991. Wildlife depredation

on cultivated crops; blackbuck vulnerability to decimation during
crop rading. Proceedings of First National Symposium on
Unconventional Pest: Control vs. Conservation and National
Seminar on Animal behaviour, Oct. 14-16, 1991. P.89.

1078. Vasu, N.K. 2003. Management plan - Kaziranga National Park

(2003-2004 to 2012-2013). Forest Department, Government of
Assam. pp.240.

1079. Vattakaven, J. 2002. Ungulate abundance, ranging and activity

pattern of wolves. M.Sc. Dissertation, Forest Research Institute,
Deemed University, Dehradun. 88p.

1080. Veeramani, A. and Jayson, E.A. 1995. A survey of crop damage

by wild animals in Kerala. Indian Forester. 121(10): 949-953.

39 2 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

1081. Venugopal, B., Shiv Shankar, R., Lakshminaryan, M.S. and

Naik, S. 1994. Activity pattern of Indian rhino in Mysore zoo.
Zoo Print. 9{11}: 77-81.

1082. Verma, K.S. and Soni, S. 1995. Aerometric study of fungal

spores in buffalo shed. Flora and Fauna. 1(2): 131-132.

1083. Vigne, L. and Martin, B. 1991. Assam's rhinos face new poaching
threats. Oryx. 25(4): 215-221.

1084. Walker, S. 1988. Sangai breeding strategy discussions at

Calcutta zoo. Zoo Print. 3(5}: 3-5.

1085. Walker, S. 1991. A short and informal report on Barasingha in

Indian zqos. Zoo Print. 6(3): 16-17.

1086. Walker, S. 1994. Manipur Brow-antlered deer ( Cervus eldi eld1)

locally known as sangai - population and habitat viability assessment
11-13 October. Conservation Breeding Group, Mysore.

1087. Walker, S. and Marimuthu, R.1991. The 1990-1991 status and

management update for Manipur brow antlered deer in Indian
Zoological Gardens. Zoo Print. 6(4): 7-10.

1088. Walker, S., Marimuthu, R.and Kumaragurubaran, M. 1992. The

1991-1992 status and management survey update for Manipur
brow-antlered deer in Indian zoological garden Zoo Print. 7(1 0):
14-16.

1089. Waller, R. 1972.Observations on the wildlife sanctuaries of India.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 69(3): 574-590.

1090. Waller, R. 1972. The Great indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros

unicornis) with special reference to its main sanctuary,
Kaziranga, in Assam. Cheetal. 15(1): 5-10.

1091. Ware, F. 1919. Wild dogs (Cuon dukhunensis) and sambhur.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 26(3): 837-838.

1092. Willet, J. 1968. The Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius) Ogilby.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 65(3): 769-771.

tnvisJ3ullflill: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 39 3

1093. Williams, J.L.H. 1971. Notes on the Nilgiri tahr (Hemitragus
hylocrius). Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 68(3):
824-827.

1094. Wilson, A. 1912. Some notes from the Abor Expedition. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society. 21(3): 1068.

1095. Wilson, A. A. 1913. The effect of castration on a Blackbuck

(Anti/ope cervicapra). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society. 22(3): 622-624.

1096. Yadav, V.K. 2 0 0 0. Male-male aggression in Rhinoceros

unicornis- case study from North Bengal, India. Indian Forester.
126(10): 1030-1034.

1097. Yadav, V.K. 2 0 0 0. Male-male aggression i n Rhinoceros

unicornis- An observation form North Bengal, India. Zoo Print.
15(9): 328-330.

1098. Yazdani, G.M., Pradhan, M.S. and Kulka rni, P.P. 1994.
Observations on unusual behaviour of some wild animals in the
tourism zone of Bandipur Tiger Reserve, Karnataka state.
Cheetal. 33(2}: 39-41.

1099. Yekanthappa, K. and Nanjappa, K.A. 1998. Food-rot disease

among free living spotted deer (Axis axis) in Bandipur Project
Tiger Reserve: investigation and control measures. Indian
Forester. 124(10): 810-813.

1100. Yin, U.T. 1956. Rhinoceros in the Kochin state. Journal of

Bombay Natural History Society. 53(4): 693-694.

1101. Yoganand, T.R.K and Ali, S.M. 1996. Blackbucks using the nilgiris
eastern slopes: a corridor connecting Moyar valley and Pillur slopes
forests. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 93(2): 292-293.

3 94 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

AUTHOR INDEX

Abdulall, H. Akhtar, A.

0001 0259

Acharjyo, LN. Alfred, J.R.B.

0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007, 0029,0030,0875
0008,0009,0010,0011,0012,0013,
0014,0015,0822 Ali, S.
0031,0039,0797
Acharya, B.B.

0016 All, S.A.

0032,0033,0034,0035

Adamson, G.P.
All, S.M.
0017
0036,0037,0038,1101

Agarwal, H.P.
Anblah, S. V.
0018,0019,0020,0021,0408
0344

Agarwal, M.C.
Andavan, L.M.
0022
0040

Agarwal, V.C.
Anderson, M.P.
0023
0682

Agnihotri, D.C. Anon

0024 0041,0042,0043,0044,0045,0046,
0047,0048,0049,0050,0051,0052,
Agrawal, P.C. 0053,0054,0055,0056,0057,0058,
0025 0059,0060,0061,0062,0063,0064,
0065,0066,0067,0068,0069,0070,

Ahluwalia, S.S. 0071,0072,0073,0074,0075,0076,

0077,0078,0079,0080,0081,0082
0233

Ansari, S.
Ahmed, B.H.M.
0039
0026,0027

Archibal� Field, J.
Ahmed, M.F.
0083
0028

tovlt .iullttiD : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 39 5

Areendran, G. Babu, K.S.
0084,0734,0735,0736,0888 1022

Arora, A. Badam, G.l.

0085 0095
Arora, B.M.

0086,0087,0088,0089,0656,0739, Bahadur, S.S.

0812,1075 0096

Baidya, K.N.
Arora, G.S. 0097,0098
0233
Balshya, G.
Arora, V.M. 0137,0170,0204

0090
Baker, E.C.S.

Asher, K. 0099,0100

0123,0124,0125
Balakrishnan, C.N.

Asrani, R.K. 0101

0931
Balakrishnan, M.

Atkinson, G. 0102,0103,0104

0091
Balasubramanian, P.
0105
Avari, E.D.

0092
Bandopadhyay, A.C.
0711
Avasthe, R.
0093
Banerjee, A.K .

0106,0107
Awadhiya, R.P.

1028
Banerji, S.
0108
Awal, M.A.
Bansal, R.P.
0094
0109

Azfer, A.
Baronia, A.K.
0039
0110

3 96 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

Barron, A.H.D. Bhardwaj, A.K.

0111 1027

Batta, M.K. Bhardwaj, C.S.

0931 0406

Baur, J.J.
Bhargava, M.K.
0319
0711

Beadon, W.R.C.
Bharucha, E.
0112
0123,0124,0125
Becher, E.F.
0113
Bharucha, E.K.

0122
Bedi, R.
0114
Bhaskaran, N.

Belsare, O.K. 0126

0115,0316
Bhatia, C.L.

Benskin, E. 0127
0116

Bhatnagar, R.K.
Berwick, S.H. 0128
0117,0118

Bhatnagar, Y.
Best, J.W.
0129
0119,0420

Bhattacharjee, K.K.
Bey, H.
0880
0120

Bhattacharjee, M.L.
Bhagwat, A.M.
0130
0476

Bhattacharya, A.
Bhalerao, G.D.
0131,0132,0133,0134,0135
0121

Bharadwaj, M.B.L. Bhattacharya, K.K.

0700 0136

£nvi• ..gullttia : WilDLIFE AND PROTCCTEO AAEAS (2004) 39 ]

Bhattacharya, M. Biju, P.
0137,0204 0344

Bhattacharya, S. Bishnoi, R.S.

0138,0139 0153

Bist, S.S.
Bhattacharya, T.
0154,0155
0140,0220,0221,0222

Biswas, G.G.
Bhattacharya, T.P.
0139
0025

Biswas, S.
Bhattacharyya, B.K.
0156
0141,0142,0315,0385

Biswas, T.
Bhat, M.N.
0157,0158,0159,0160,0161,0162,
0143,0144,0145
0163

Bhat, S.D. Blackburn, H.V.

0146,0147,0148 0164

Bhave, N. Blanford, W.T.

0950 0165

Bhola, M.P. Blood, B.W.

0149 0166

Shushan, B. Bohra, H.C.

0150,0303,0797 0167,0168,0169,0370,0390,0391,
0392

Bhuva, C.N.
Bole, P.V.
0919
0105

Biddulph, C.H.
Bordoloi, C.C.
0151
0170,0171:0173,1047

Biggs, H.V.
Boro, B.R.
0152
0172

398 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

Borthakur, S. Bulloh, P.
0173 0426

Bose, P.K. Bulu Imam, A.R.H.

0696 0191

Boswell, K.
Burke, R.
0174
0192

Bradley, C.
Burnett, J.H.
0593
0193

Brahmachary, R.L.
Burton, R.
0175
0194

Brander, A.A.D.
Burton, R.G.
0176,0177,0178,0179,0180,0181
0195

Briggs, G.W.
0182 Burton, A.M.

Bristow, C.H. 0196

0183
Burton, R.W.

Brook Fox, E. 0197,0198,0199,0200

0184,0185
Cameron, I.L.
Browne, E.G. 0201
0186

Cash, A.
Brownlow, A.L. 0202
0187

Cash, B.
Buckland, C.T.
0202
0188

Caton Jones, F.W.

Budden, J.
0203
0189

Chakraborty, A.
Bulkley, H.
0137,0204,0205,0206,0670
0190

Clivi• J;ullrciu : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 3 99

Chakraborty, B. Chandrapuria, V.P.
0207 0711

Chakraborty, K. Chandra, J.

0226 0215,0216,0217,0218

Chakraborty, S. Chatterjee, A.K.

0023,0025,0030,0400 0219

Chakraborty, T. Chattopadhyay, B.

0208 0140,0220,0221,0222

Chakraborty, T.K. Chattopadhyay, S.

0025 0875

Champion, F.W. Chaturvedi, M.D.

0209 0223,0224

Champion, H.G. Chaturvedi, N.

0210,0211 0729

Chandlramani, S.C. Chaudhary, S.R.

0115 0225

Chandiramanl, S.S. Chaudhuri, A.B.

0219,0316 0226

Chandra De, R. Chaudhury, B.

0910 0205

Chandrabhushansinhji Chaudhury, R.K.

0212 0947,0948,1029

Chandrachur Chaudhury, S.
0213 0227

Chandran, P.R. Chauhan, D.R.

0214 0228

400 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

Chauhan, N.P.S. Chowdhury, M.K.

0229,0230,0231,0232, 0802, 0979, 0243
0980,0981

Chowdhury, S.
Chauhan, P.P.S. 0880

0233
Christopher, S.A.

Chavan, S.A. 0244

0234
Chundawat, R.S.

Chavan, S.G. 0245,0338

0716
Clifford, R.

Cheeran, J.V. 0246

0588
Clutterbuck, P.H.

Chellamuthu, V. 0247,0248

0767
Cockburn, J.
0249,0250
Chellam, R.

0513,0514
Cohen, J.A.
0251
Chhangani, A.K.
0235
Comber, E.
0252,0253
Chitampalli, M.B.

0236,0237
Coode, J.M.
0254
Chitrapu, V.R.

0238
Copley, H.
0255
Chkaraborty, S.

0108
Courthope, E.A.
0256
Choudhury, A.

0139,017J,0239,0240,0241,0242,
Crowley, H. S.
0585 0257

Choudhury, B.C. Cuffe, C.T.W.

0517 0258

!IIYi• .iulltrie : WILDUFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 40 1

 �
Cumming, J.W.N. Datt, S.C.

0435 0407

D'Cunha, E.P.E. Daver, S.R.

0259,0797 0273

Dang, H. Davidar, E.R.C.

0260 0274,0275,0276,0277,0278,0279,
0280,0281,0282,0283,0284

Daniel, D.

0626 Davidar, P.
0285

Daniel, J.C.

026.1' 0262, 0263,0797 Davis, H.J.

0286

Daniel, M.

0264 Deb, S.K.

0668

Dass, B.C.
Deka, P.J.
0265
0670,0671

Das, A.K.
Desai, J.H.
0266,0267,0268
0127,0287,0891,0892

Das, B.N.
Desai, J.S.
0269
0288

Das, K.K.
Deshmukh, A.
0716
0289

Das, P.K.
Deshmukh, V.R.
0025,0270
0290
(
Das, R.
Dey, S.
0656
0137

Datta, A.
Dey, S.C.
0271,0272
0291,0292,0293

4Q 2 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

De, R.C. Dougherty, S.E.

0294 0310,0660,0661

Dharmakumarsinhji Dover, C.
0295 0311

Dharmarajan, G. Duke, J.A.

0296 0312,0313

Dharmasingh, J. Dutta, A.K.

0626 0314

Dholakia, P.M. Dutta, B.C.

0919 0315

Dhoot, V.M. Dutta, J.J.

0297 0115,0316

Dhore, M.A. Dwivedi, G.D.

0290 0317

Dinerstein, E. Easa, P.S.

0298,0299,0300 0103,0813

Divekar, H.K. Eastmure, G.B.

0301,0302,0303,0304,0305 0318

Divyabhanusinh Ehtesham, N.Z.

0306 0039

Dixit, M.K. Ellenberg, H.

0307 0319

Dookia, B.R. Ellerman, J..

0459 0320

Dookia, S. Ellison, B.C.

0308,0309,0458,0459 0321,0322

!nvis J3ulltlia : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS {2004) 40 3

�
Evans, G.H. Fraser,J.D.

0323,0324 1041,1042

Falzl, S. Frend, G.V.R.

0325 0339,0340

Fayrer, F.D.S. Frenzmann, A.W.

0326 0136,0880

Fenn, A.A. Furley,C.W.

0327 0341

Fenton, L.L. Gadekar, M.

0328 0342

Ferris, W.B. Gadgil,M.

0329 0928

Field,F. Gaekwad, A.
0330 0697

Field, J.A. Gairola, H.K.

0331,0332 0343

Fitz-Gibbon, F. Ganesh,T.N.
0333 1076

Fooks, H.A. Gangadharan, B.

0334 0344,0345

Foote, F.B. Gangopadhyaya,R.M.

0335 0919

Forsyth, J. Ganorkar, A.G.

0336 0527

Fox,J.L. Gargi
0337,0338 0346

404 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

Garg, U.K. Ghosh, P.K.

0347 0167,0169,0370,0391

Gaswami, S.L. Ghosh, S.

0874 0243

Gaur, A.
Ghosh, S.B.
0101
0371

Gautam, P.
Gilbert, R.
0726
0372

Gee, E.P.
Giles, R.H.
0348,0349,0350,0351,0352,0353,
0476
0354, 0355,0356,0357,0358,0359,
0360,0361,0362,0363
Gokula, V.

George, S. 0373,0374

1027
Gopakumar, G.

Ghodasara, D.J. 0375

0461

Gopal, R.
Ghosal, S.B. 0022,0039,0376,0377,0378,0379,
0364 0380,0381,0382,0383,0533, 0557,
0948,1029
Ghose, R.K.
0025 Goswami, U.C.

0142,0384,0385
Ghosh, O.K.

0365,0366,0367
Gouldsbury, J.C.

0386
Ghosh, H.C.
0392
Goyal, S.K.

0387,0388,0389
Ghosh, M.

0368,0369
Goyal, S.P.

0168,0169,0370,0390,0391,0392,
Ghosh, M.K.
0393,0394,0507
0025

.£11Yi& JSultt1i11 : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 40 5

Grahm, H.H. Hamber, L.G.W.
0395 0416

Groves, C.P. Haque, M.N.

0396,0397,0398,0399,0400 0417,0418

Grubh, B.R. Harikumar, G.

0263,0304 0419

Guin, D.P. Harington, H.H.

0401,0402 0420

Gupta, A.C. Harvey, C.J.W.

0403,0404,0405 0421

Gupta, R.C. Hasan, S.M.

0406,0407 0422

Gurm, B.S. Hasnain, S.E.

0408 0039

Gurung, D.B. Hauxwell, T.A.

0409 0423

Habib, B. Heath, R.H.

0554 0424

Hajra, P.K. Heggde, S.N.

0410 0805

Hakimuddin, M. Heinen, J.T.

0411 0425

Halder, B.R. Heranjal, D.O.

0130 0919

Hall, J.E. Heuschele, H.P.

0412,0413,0414,0415 0682

406 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

Heydon, M.J. Hutton, A.F.

0426 0439,0440

Higgins, J.C. Imam, A.B.

0427,0428 0441,0442

Hill, W.C.O. lngen, V.

0429 0443,0444

Hingoranl, B.H. Inglis, C.M.

0751 0445

Hiteshl, H.L. lnverarlty, J.D.

0430 0446,0447,0448,0449,0450,0451

Holdsworth, R.L. lshvaran, K.

0431 0452,0453,0454,0455

Holloway, C. lslam,S.
0432 0206

Homkar, U. Jacob, M.C.

0039,0383 0456

Hoogstraal, H. Jain, N.K.

0433 1028

Hubback, T. Jain, P.K.

0434 0457

Hudson, C.W.M. Jakher, G.R.

0435 0458,0459

Hussain, M.K. Jala, V.K.

0436,0437 0598

Hussain, S.A. James, A.W.H.

0438 0460

tnvit Jlulltlin : WILDUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 40 7

 �
Jani, P.B. 0481,0482,0483,0484,0514,0515,

0461 0579,0615,0616,0932

Janssen, D. Johnson, J.M.

0682 0485,0486,0487,0488

Jathanna, D. John, A.W.

0462,0463 0489

Jayakumar, V. John, M.C.

0145
0296,0926,0927

,.. Jayal, N.C.

Jordan, P.A.
0464
0118

Jayaprakash
Joseph, K.J.
1021
0419

Jayson, E.A.
Joshi, B.P.
0465,0466,0467,0468,0666,1080
0461

Jerdon, T.C.
Joshi, R.C.
0469,0470
0109

Jeyaseelan, J.
Joshi, S.C.
0626
0364

Jhala, Y.V.
0455,0471,0472,0473,0474,0475, Joshi, V.B .

0476 0931

Jha, A. Joshua, J.

0093 0834

Jha, A.K. Jugtawat, R.

0477,0620 0125

Johnsingh, A.J.T. Kadambi, K.

0337,0393,0463, 0478,0479,0480, 0490

408 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

Kakati, B.N. Kempe, J.E.

0491 0501

Kalaiarasan, V. Kenneth, R.
0492 0588
Kennion, T.A.
Kalita, H. 0502
0170

Khadri, S.S.M.S.
Kalita, S.N.
0503
0170

Khajuria, H.
Kanakasabai, R.
0504,0505
0586

Khan, A.
Kandya, A.K.
0554
0706,0707,0708,0709,0710

Khan, I.
Kankane, P.L.
0507
0408,0493

Khan, I.A.
Karanth, K.U.
0506
0463,0494,0495,0496,0497,0498,
0499,0580,0581,1043
Khan, J.A.

0508,0509,0510,0511,0512,0513,
Katiyar, A.K.
0514,0515,0516
1028

Khan, M.G.A.
Katoch, R.C.
0517
0931

Khare, P.K.
Katoch, V.
0953,0954,0955,0956
0931

Kaushik, S.N. Khar, S.K.

0739 0407

Kay, R.N.B. Khellen, T.

0500 0518

�11vi1 JSullrtiJJ : WilDUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 409

Khengarji, R. Kumar, A.
0519 0687,0688

Kinloch, A.P. Kumar, M.

0520,0521 0545

Kinnear, N.B. Kumar, R.

0522,0523 0546

Kirkpatrick, K.M. Kumar, S.

0524 0547,0548,0549

Kitchener, H.J. Kunhunu, N.V.A.

0525,0526 0550

Kolte, S.W. Kurkure, N.V.

0527 0527

Kotlwar, O.S. Kurup, G.U.

0713 0551,0552,0553

Kotwal, P.C. Kushwaha, S.P.S.

0022,0383,0528,0529,0530,0531, 0554,0555
0532,0533,0534,0535,0536,0537,
0538,0618,0706,0707,0708,0709,
Kushwah, R.B.S.
0710,0712,0729
0556

Krishnan, M.
Lad, P.M.
0539,0540,0541,0542
0557

Lahan, P.
Krishne Gowda, C.D.
0558
0543,0544

Lakshminaryan, M.S.
Kulkarni, P.P.
1081
1098

Lalitha, P.S.
Kumaragurubaran, M.
0586
1088

41 0 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

Lal, H. Lott, D.L.

0559 0572

Lai,J.P. Lydekker, R.
0025 0573

Lal, S. Mac !.Ritchie, C.

0560 0574

Lamba, B.S. Mackenzie, A.F.

1045,1046 0575

Lang, E.M. Mackenzie, J.M.D.

0561 0576

Latham, H.D. Mackenzie, K.

0562,0563 0577

Laurie, W.A. Madhusudan, M.D.

0564 0272,0578,0579,0580,0581

Lawrence, J.A. Majumdar, S.S.

0565 0598

Lewis, E.S. Malhotra, A.K.

0566 0582

Lindsay, E. Malik, J.K.

0567 0094

Livesey, T.R. Malik, P.K.

0568,0569 0597,0947

Logan-Home, W.M. Mallik, B.

0570 0175

Longrigg, J.H. Malviya, H.C.

0571 1075

!!Wit .�ullttia : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 4l l

Manakadan, R. Martin, S.J.

0583,0798 0594

Mandai, A.K. Martin, W.R.

0025,0584 0595

Mandai, D. Mason, D.H.

0585 0611

Manickam, R. Mason,J.M.

0143,0144,0145 0596

Manimozhi, A. Mathur, P.K.

0586,0926,0927 0515,0597,0790

Manners-Smith, J. Mathur, R.

0587 0949

Manohar, B.M. Mathur, S.C.

0672 0598

Marimuthu, R. Mathur, V.B.

1087,1088 0160,0161,0162,0163,0599,0600,

0601

Mark, S.B.
Me C.Ciive, J.
0588
0602

Martin, A.F.
Me Cann, C.
0589
0603,0604

Martin, B.
Me Connell
1083
0605

Martin, C.
McColl, K.
0590,0591
0682

Martin, E.B.
McCoy, M.
0592,0593
0572

41 2 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

McCracken, G.F. Mishra, G.P.

0300 0618

Mehrotra, M.L. Mishra, P.C.

0656 0619,0620

Mehrotra, R.C. Mishra, P.K.

0606 0621

Menon, R.K.G. Mishra, R.M.

0553,0607,0608,0810,0811 0622

Menon, V. Mishra, R.P.

0609 0534,0535,0536,0623

Middleton, B.A. Misra, R.

0610,0611 0007,0008,0009,0010

Milimani, M.V. Misra, S.C.

0612 0699

Milne, C.J.R. Mitra, T.R.

0613 0624

Miri, M.C. Miura, S.

0614 0625

Mishra, A. Mohanty, A.K.

0004 0699

Mishra, C. Mohan, R.S.L.

0272,0615,0616 0626

Mishra, G. Mohapatra, K.K.

0005,0006 0305

Mishra, G.C .
Mohnot, S.M.
0617 0235

&!vis �llllttio : WtLOLIFE AND PROTECTED MfAS (2004) 4l 3

Momin, K.N. Muley, P.O.
0627 0597,0659

Montfort, S.L. Mungall, E.C.

0101,0628
0660,0661

Mooney, H.F.
Murthy, B.
0629
0898

Morrison-Scott, T.C.S.
Mustill, F.J.
0320
0662

Morris, R.C.
0630,0631,0632,0633,0634,0635, Naldu, M.K.
0636,0637,0638,0639,0640,0641, 0663
0642,0643,0644,0645,0646,0647,
0648 Nalk, M.L.

0536
Mosse, A.H.
0649
Nalk, P.K.
0664
Mudappa, D.
0650
Naik, R.M.

Muir, G.B.F. 1013

0651
Naik, R.N.
Mukherjee, A.K. 0665
0652,0653

Nalk, S.
Mukherjee, R.P. 1081
0654,0655,0875

Nair, M.G.
Mukherjee, S.
0345,0546
0657,0658

Nair, P.V.
Mukherjee, S.C.
0666
0656

Mukherjee, S.K. Nair, S.S.

0918 0667

41 4 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

Nandi, N.C. Nolthenius, A.C.T.

0267,0584 0683

Nandi, S.N. Noronha, R.P.

0668 0684,0685

Nanjappa, K.A. Nubru, C.

1099 0338

Narayanaswamy, H.D. O'Hara, G.M.

0672 0686

Narayan, G. Ojha, P.R.

0669,0670,0671,0692
0687,0688

Natarajan, K.N.
Oliver, W.L.R.
0673
0670,0671,0689,0690,0691,0692

Nath, B.
Olivier, H.D.
0674
0693

Nedunchellian, S.
Oosterhuis, J.
0145
0682

Neginhal, S.G.
Osmaston, B.B.
0675,0676
0694

Negi, M.S.
Osmaston, L.S.
0677
0695

Netam, K.S. Oza, G.M.

0678 0627,0696,0697

Newton, P.N. Pabla, H.S.

0679,0680,0681 0698

Nielsen, N.O. Padhi, B.C.

0682 0699

tavi• ..iullttin : WILDUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 41 5

 �
Pal, A.K. Parasharya, B.M.

0347 0727

Pal, B.C. Parihar, A.S.

0133,0134,0135,0401,0402 0537,0538,0728

Pal, C.
Parihar, J.S.
0700
0729

. '
.f Panda, D.N.
Parr, B.A.
0699
0730,0731

Panda, R.M.
Parsons, R.E.
.. 0701
0732

Pandey, R.K.
Pasha, M.K.S.
0702, 0703, 0704,0705, 0706, 0707,
0708,0709,0710,0957 0733,0734,0735,0736,0888

Pandey, S.K. Patel, A.H.

0711,0712 0737

Pandit, B.R. Patel, B.H.

0713 0660,0661

Pandit, P.K. Pathak, M.

0714,0715 0171

Panigrahy, S. Pathak, N.N.

0729
0738,0739

Pant, A.
Pathar
0716
0740

Panwar, H.S.
Patnaik, S.K.
0394, 0717,0718,0719,0720,0721,
0011,0012,0013
0722,0723,0724,0725,0726

Patole, M.S.
Paramanand
0950
0826

4l 6 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

Paulraj, S. Pocock, R.I.

0492,0741 0762,0763,0764,0765

Pearce, C.R. Poddar, A.K.

0742 0025

Peppe, F.H. Pollock, C.

0743 0766

Phythian-Adams, E.G. Porwal, M.C.

0744,0745,0746 0767

Pidiyar, V. Powell, S.H.

0950 0768

Pillai, A.G.R. Power, G.B.

0347 0769

Pillai, B.S.
Power, J.M.
0747,0748
0770

Pillai, D.
Pradhan, M.S.
0749
0771,0969,1098

Pillai, N.G.
Prajapati, K.S.
0750
0461,0919

Pillai, R.S.
Prajapati, M.C.
0751
0772

Pitman, C.R.S.
Prakash, I.
0752,0753,0754,0755,0756,0757,
0169,0392,0773
0758

Prasad, A.
Pizey, R.M.
1075
0759,0760

Prasad, N.K.
Pluhacek, J.
0774
0761

£.,.;5 ,iullrtio: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED Ai<EAS (2004) 41 7

Prasad, N.L.N.S. Rahmani, A.R.
0660,0661, 0775,0776,0777,0778, 0547,0548,0583,0793,0794,0795,
0779,0780 0796,0797,0798,0799,0937

Prasad, V.G. Ral, L.

0781 0800

Pratap, K. Rajan, A.
0268 0345

Prater, S.H. Rajasingh, G.J.

0782,0783,0784,0785 0801

Praveen Rao, K. Rajkonwar, C.K.

0786 0491

Purohit, A.K. Rajpurohit, K.S.

0235 0230,0802

Pythlan-Adams, E. Rajpurohit, L.S.

0787,0788 0388,0389,0803,0804

Quadri, A. Raju, R.
0554 0805

Quansin, A. Rajvanshi, A.
0477 0726,0857

Qureshi, a. Rakshit, B.
0735,0736,0789,0790,0888 0175

R.M.G. Ramakantha, V.
0791 0806

Radcliffe, R. Ramalingam, S.
1042 0546

Raha, A.K. Ramana, R.J.V.

0792 1077

4l 8 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

Ramanuj Rao, K.V.

0807 1022

Raman, M. Rao, R.K.

0296 0827

Raman, T.R.S. Rashid, M.A.

0808,0809,0810,0811 0828,0829

Ramaswamy, K. Rastogi, A.
0812 0726

Ramchandra, K.K. Rattray, R.H.

0813
0830

Rani, R.U.
Rau, C.S.
1076
0831

Ranjitsinh, M.K.
Rau, U.R.
0814,0815,0816,0817,0818,0819,
0832
0820,0821

Raval, P.P.
Rao, A.T.
1007
0014,0015,0822

Rawal, R.
Rao, 0.0.8.
0833
0823

Rawat, G.S.
Rao, H.S.
0147,0148,0245
0824

Ray,J.
Rao, J.V.R.
0834
0780,0825

Rebsch, B.A.
Rao, K.N.A.
0835
0832

Renchlth Sheela, P.R.

Rao, K.P.
0672
0826

.!:IIYi• ..iulltl;., : WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 4l 9

 �
Rendall, H.D. Rowntree, J.B.

0836 0867

Rice, C.G. Roy Chaudhary, K.C.

0837,0838,0839,0840,0841,0842, 0868

0843,0844,0845,0846,0847,0848,
0849 Roy, A.N.
0869,0945

Richardson, J.W.
0850 Roy, P.S.
0716,0767

Richardson, W.S.J.
Roy, S.
0851
0369

Richharia, V.S.
Sabharwal, A.K.
0347
0870

Robinson, S.C.H.
Sahabandu, H.D.R.
0852
0871

Rocky, P.
Sahai, K.
0853
0872

Rodgers, W.A.
Sahai, R.
0514,0515,0854,0855,0856,0857
..
J_,
0874

Rodon, G.S.
Sahai, R.C.
0858,0859,0860,0861
0873

Ronald, J.
Saha, S.S.
..
0834
0875

Rookmaaker, L.C. Saha,U.

0862,0863 0369

Rossel, H.G. Sahoo, A.K.

0864,0865 0876,0877

Rossel, H.J. Salahuddin

0866 0095

42 Q UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliography

Sale, J.B. Sathyakumar, S.

0878,0879,0880,0881 0897

Samai, R.S. Sathyanarayana, M.C.

0882 0898

Samant Sawarkar, V.B.

0027 0163,0231,0790,0899,1000,1001,
1002,1003, 1004

Sankaran, R.
Saxena, A.
0799,0883,0884
0900

Sankaravadivelu, C.
Saxena, R.
0492
0901,0902,0903,0949

Sankar, K.
Schaaf, C.D.
0156,0393,0484,0735,0736,0885,
0904
0886,0887,0888,0889

Schaller, G.B.
Sankhala, K.S.
0890,0891,0892 0905,0906,0907,0908,0909,0910

Santapau, H. Schultz, B.

0035 0911

Sanyal, P. Sclater, P.L.

0893 0912,0913

Sanyal, R.B. Sengupta, S.

0894,0895 0657,0658,0961

Sanzgiri, M.N. Seshadri, B.

0896 0914

Sarma, G. Seth, S.K.

0172 0211

Sarma, P.K. Sewell, J.

0385 0915

£nvisJSullttin: WiLDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 4 21

Shahi, S.P. Sharma, I.J.

0916,0917,0918 0712

Shah, C.K. Sharma, I.K.

0673 0933,0934,0935,0936

Shah, D.R. Sharma, K.

0627 0937

Shah, H.L. Sharma, M.

0364 0931

Shah,N.M. Sharma, A.D.

0919 0938,0939,0940,0941,0942,0943

Shah, N.V. Sharma, R.K.

0394,0920,0921,0922,0923,0924 0948, 1029

Shakir, S.A. Sharma, R.N.

0672 0622

Shamungou, K. Sharma, S.K.

0925 0944

Shankar,M.S. Shebbeare, E.O.

0926,0927 0945

Sharatchandra, H.C. Shekar, P.B.

0928 0304,0305

Sharma, A. Shiv Shankar, A.

0929 1081

Sharma, A.K. Shortridge., G.C.

0407,0930,0931 0946

Sharma, D. Shouche,Y.S.
0932 0950

42 2 UNGULATES OF INDIA
 Selected bibliograpJ:!y

Shrivastava, A.B. Singh, A.N.

0947,0948 0965

Shrivastava, H.O.P. Singh, A.A.

0947 0966,0967

Shrivastava, P. Singh, B.
0949 0968

Shukla, M.S. Singh, D.F.

0950 0969

Shukla, R. Singh, D.P.

0317,0951,0952,0953,0954,0955, 0970
0956,0957

Singh, G.R.
Shukla, V.
0268,0971,0972
0410

Singh, H.S.
Shull, E.M.
0973,0974
0958

Singh, J.
Silamban, S.
0975
0344

Singh, L.
Simmonds, M.H.
0101,0976
0959

Singh, M.
Simon, E.S.
0498
0960

Singh, R.
Singhal, N.
0346,0980,0981
0961

Singh, R.M.K.
Singh, A.
0977
0554,0904,0962,0963,0964,0965

Singh, R.V.
Singh, A.K.
0232,0978,0979
0786,0826

£nvis.l;ulletin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 423

Singh, S. Skirving, O.S.

0772,0881,0982,0983,0984,0985, 1005

0986
Smielowski, J.

Singh, S.K. 1006

0987
Smielowski, J.M.
1007
Singh, S.P.

0931
Smith, J.M.
1008
Singh, T.

0988
Smith, O.A.
1009,1010,1011
Singh, V.P.

0989,0990
Solanki, G.S.
1012,1013
Sinha, B.C.

0991
Soni, S.
1082
Sinha, J.K.
0477
Soni, V.C.
1014
Sinha, N.K.
0030,0505, 0992,0993,0994,0995, Sonowal, R.N.
0996,0997 0558

Sinha, P.R. Sorenson, M.D.

0477 0101

Sinha, S.K. Spillett, J.J.

0998,0999 0294,1015,1016, 1017,1018,1019,
1020
Sinha, S.P.
0394,0761,1000,1001,1002,1003, Sreenu, M.

1004 1021,1022

Sipek, P. Sridhara, S.

0761 0389,0468

4 24 UNGULATES OF iNDIA
 Selected bibliography

Sridhar, R. Sundar Raj, P.T.S.

0672 0673

Srikosamatara, S. Sundararaj, A.
0425 0672

Srinivasalu, C. Sunquist, F.
1023,1024,1025,1026 1043

Srivastava, K.K. Sunqulst, M.E.

1027 0497, 0499 1043 •.

Srivastav, A.B.
Swaminathan, D.
1028,1029
1076

Stanford, J.K.
Taibel, A.M.
1030
1044

Sterndale, R. A.
Tak, P.C.
1031,1032
1045,1046

Stockley, C.H.
Talukdar, B.
1033,1034,1035
0369

Stracey, P.O.
Talukdar, S.R.
1036,1037,1038
1047

Subramanian, K.S.
Tate, G.
1039
1048

Suchitra, S.
Tawkne
0926,0927
1049

Sukumar, R.
Tehsin, R.
0810,0811,1040,1072,1073
1050

Sumithran, S.
Tehsin, R.H.
1041' 1042
..

1051' 1052

tmt J3ullrriD : WILOLIFE AND PROTECTED AREAs (2004) 425

�
Thakuria, D.B. Tyabji, H.N.

1053 1065

Thakur, M.L. Tyagi, P.C.

0549 1066

Thiruthalinathan, R. Tyler, H.
1076 1067

Thomas, B. Udaya Sekhar, N.

0419 1068

Thomas, 0. Uerpmann, H.P.

1054 0341

Thorn, W.S. Unnl, N.V.M.

1055, 1056 0555

Tichy, H. Upadhya, S.V.

0341 0297

Tikader, B.K. Valravel, S.M.

1057 1069

Tiwari, A. Valandikar, S.C.

1004 0503

Tombi, H. Vale, S.D.

1058, 1059,1060,1061 1070

Tong, E.H. Valsala, K.V.

1062 0345

Trivedi, T.R. Varman, K.S.

1063 1071,1072,1073

Trotter, E.W. Varman, S.

1064 1074

426 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

Varma, T.K. Vijayan, V.S.

1075 0889

Varshney, K.C. Vohra, U.

0546 0516

Vasaviah, V.
Walker, S.
1076
1084, 1085,1086, 1087, 1088

Vasudev, R.V.
Waller, R.
1077
1089,1090

Vasu, N.K.
Ware, F.
1078
1091

Vattakaven, J.
1079 Wegge, P.

0104

Veeramanl, A.
1080 West, E.M.

Venkanna, B. 0648

1022

Wildt, D.
Venugopal, B. 0628
1081

Willet, J.
Verghese, A.
1092
0781

Williams, J.L.H.
Verma, K.S.
1093
1082

Wilson, A.
Verma, S.K.
1094
0407

Wilson, A.A.
Vigne, L.
1095
0593, 1083

Vijayakumaran, P. Yadav, V.K.

0813 0715,0792,1096,1097

!nvitJ;ullrtio: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTEOAAEAS (2004) 42 7

Yazdani, G.M.
1098

Yekanthappa, K.
1099

Yin, U.T.
1100

Yoganand, T.R.K.
1101

Zacharias, V.J.
0419, 1027

428 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

SUBJECT INDEX

Behaviour
0002,0032,0050,0056,0057,0059,0063,0098,0102,0105,0112,0115,0117,
0122,0123,0124,0125,0128,0131,0132,0133,0134,0142,0148,0156,0157,
0164,0169,0175,0177,0195,0198,0221,0222,0237,0253,0254,0257,0260,
0264,0273,0278,0290,0298,0299,0306,0308,0312,0317,0325,0333,0340,
0346,0370,0371,0375,0386,0388,0390,0391,0392,0401,0402,0406,0408,
0416,0417,0420,0426,0428,0430,0431,0434,0438,0439,0440,0441,0452,
0454,0455,0458,0460,0465,0468,0474,0475,0479,0480,0481,0482,0483,
0484,0485,0488,0490,0491,0494,0495,0499,0500,0507,0516,0521,0522,
0524,0528,0530,0533,0536,0545,0548,0550,0551,0552,0553,0564,0565,
0568,0570,0571,0572,0576,0580,0586,0588,0596,0600,0604,0605,0611,
0622,0625,0626,0631,0632,0633,0634,0636,0637,0639,0640,0641,0642,
0643,0646,0647,0651,0655,0662,0666,0667,0678,0679,0680,0681,0687,
0688,0694,0697,0704,0713,0727,0733,0735,0736,0737,0738,0739,0741,
0749,0753,0759,0775,0776,0778,0779,0781,0786,0789,0794,0798,0808,
0816,0817,0826,0833,0837,0838,0840,0841,0843,0849,0859,0860,0864,
0866,0867,0868,0871,0873,0889,0892,0893,0898,0902,0905,0907,0908,
0910,0926,0927,0928,0930,0933,0934,0944,0955,0957,0971,0975,0978,
0987,0990,0997,1009,1010,1012,1013,1014,1025,1027,1030,1043,1046,
1055,1065,1067,1070,1079,1081,1091,1096,1097,1098,1101

Captivity
0002,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,0010,0011,0012,0013,0033,
0035,0086,0087,0094,0127,0138,0146,0171,0181,0208,0214,0243,
0266,0297,0373,0502,0517,0543,0561,0582,0614,0619, 0620,0628,
0656,0670,0750,0870,0882,0895,0922,0958,0960,0972,1007,1023,
1024, 1053, 1062, 1084, 1085

Conservation and management

0016,0020,0021,0026,0027,0036,0039,0041,0054,0064,0065,0066,
0067,0068,0069,0070,0072,0073,0074,0076,0077,0078,0079,0080,
0081,0082,0084,0089,0092,0097,0101,0104,0110,0118,0120,0135,
0152,0153,0155,0158,0160,0162,0167,0168,0215,0216,0217,0218,
0224,0225,0227,0229,0230,0231,0232,0234,0238,0240,0242,0245,
0262,0269,0270,0294,0301,0305,0310,0347,0357,0365,0366,0367,
0379,0381,0382,0384,0389,0394,0418,0422,0449,0456,0457,0467,
0473,0492,0503,0510,0518,0529,0531,0532,0537,0538,0547,0549,
0555,0580,0581,0583,0590,0591,0593,0598,0599,0606,0609,0610,
0615,0616,0617,0618,0621,0652,0653,0660,0661,0663,0664,0665,

tnvis JSulletio : WtLOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 429

0669,0671,0677,0689,0692,0698,0702,0703,0705,0706,0707,0708,
0709,0710,0715,0718,0719,0720,0722,0723,0724,0725,0726,0728,
0729,0734,0767,0772,0773,0780,0787,0790,0792,0794,0796,0797,
0800,0802,0803,0804,0805,0811,0814,0821,0825,0842,0847,0855,
0856,0857,0858,0875,0876,0877,0878,0879,0880,0881,0887,0890,
0895,0896,0900,0906,0909,0911,0916,0923,0924,0932,0936,0938,
0939,0940,0941,0943,0951,0952,0954,0956,0961,0964,0965,0976,
0978,0979,0980,0981,0990,0991,0998,0999,1000,1001,1002,1003,
1004,1017,1018,1019,1036,1037,1040,1041,1043,1057,1058,1061,

1066, 1068, 1077, 1078, 1080, 1083, 1087, 1088, 1089, 1090

Distribution
0001,0023,0025,0030,0044,0061,0093,0100,0129,0159,0161,0165,
0179,0209,0211,0239,0241,0242,0261,0263,0271,0272,0277,0283,
0291,0302,0303,0304,0316,0328,0335,0337,0355,0358,0361,0362,
0396,0397,0398,0400,0405,0409,0431,0478,0493,0501,0539,0542,
0557,0582,0601,0629,0635,0649,0650,0654,0674,0689,0690,0745,
0746,0747,0755,0762,0771,0785,0793,0795,0799,0807,0823,0834,
0848,0862,0863,0901,0913,0922,0937,0946,0949,0969,0974,0994,
0999,1015,1016,1031,1032,1035,1051,1092,1093,1100

Ecology
0037,0085,0226,0267,0380,0476,0535,0584,0597,0624,0816,0888,
0920,0921

Habitat
0027,0029,0042,0103,0134,0147,0157,0207,0366,0376,0410,0462,
0467,0472,0508,0511,0515,0554,0555,0556,0579,0623,0627,0665,
0666,0675,0701,0716,0780,0823,0982,0991,1052,1059,1069,1086

Morphology
0003,0008,0017,0019,0049,0052,0058,0083,0091,0096,0111,0119,
0137,0151,0166,0170,0173,0178,0180,0183,0186,0187,0192,0196,
0199,0201,0210,0212,0213,0219,0228,0236,0244,0246,0248,0251,
0255,0256,0258,0286,0326,0327,0329,0330,0332,0334,0368,0383,
0412,0423,0424,0429,0442,0443,0444,0445,0448,0450,0451,0487,
0489,0506,0519,0520,0525,0526,0562,0563,0574,0575,0577,0594,
0603,0613,0638,0676,0683,0695,0700,0711,0730,0731,0732,0742,
0743,0747,0748,0752,0757,0758,0760,0768,0769,0777,0815,0819,
0830,0831,0846,0851,0852,0861,0865,0915,0959,0970,0973,0983,
0984, 0985, 1005, 1008, 1011, 1033, 1044, 1048, 1063, 1064

430 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

Natural history
0018,0034,0043,0045,0046,0047,0051,0053,0055,0060,0090,0106,
0107,0113,0114,0116,0126,0149,0174,0176,0182,0188,0189,0194,
0200,0202,0203,0223,0247,0249,0250,0259,0265,0279,0284,0285,
0289,0292,0295,0311,0313,0314,0320,0321,0322,0323,0331,0336,
0342,0350,0352,0353,0354,0356,0372,0395,0403,0411,0413,0414,
0415,0421,0427,0435,0436,0437,0446,0447,0466,0470,0471,0477,
0504,0540,0541,0560,0566,0567,0573,0587,0589,0595,0602,0608,
0630,0645,0648,0684,0685,0686,0693,0696,0717,0740,0744,0754,
0756,0763,0764,0765,0766,0770,0783,0784,0788,0791,0824,0869,
0872,0906,0912,0914,0916,0917,0929,0962,0966,0967,0968,0977,
0986,0993,0996,1020,1024,1034,1038,1049,1056,1094,1095

Population studies
0028,0029,0040,0042,0140,0154,0193,0220,0275,0276,0281,0282,
0300,0319,0377,0378,0393,0419,0459,0463,0464,0472,0486,0495,
0496,0497,0498,0505,0509,0512,0513,0514,0558,0597,0607,0616,
0658,0667,0673,0691,0721,0751,0789,0801,0806,0810,0811,0828,
0829,0842,0853,0884,0897,0903,0905,0953,0974,0992,0995,1042,
1071,1073,1074,1086

Reproduction
0024,0089,0141,0252,0343,0374,0385,0407,0453,0544,0578,0761,
0809,0844,0874,0891

Status
0031,0038,0061,0071,0075,0084,0110,0129,0139,0150,0159,0161,
0163,0184,0197,0235,0245,0271,0274,0280,0287,0288,0293,0302,
0315,0338,0348,0349,0351,0359,0360;0361,0363,0368,0404,0409,
0425,0432,0449,0469,0493,0534,0535,0539,0547,0601,0612,0615,
0654,0671,0734,0774,0785,0798,0813,0818,0820,0821,0827,0836,
0839,0845,0850,0883,0885,0894,0899,0904,0918,0925,0945,0951,
0963,0969,0976,0988,0989,0994,1015,1026,1036,1041,1045,1050,
1059, 1060, 1072, 1087, 1088

Taxonomy
0251,0341,0399,0732

Wildlife Health
0014,0015,0022,0048,0086,0088,0109,0121,0130,0136,0143,0144,
0145,0171,0172,0185,0190,0191,0204,0205,0206,0208,0233!0243,
0268,0296,0297,0307,0324,0339,0344,0345,0364,0433,0461,0523,

tnvis.�ulletin: WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 43 1

0527,0546,0559,0585,0644,0656,0659,0668,0670,0672,0682,0699,
0712,0714,0812,0822,0832,0835,0854,0882,0886,0919,0931,0947,
0948,1006, 1021, 1022, 1028,1029,1039,1047, 1075,1076, 1082,1099

Wildlife Trade
0062,0569,0592,0609,0657,0782

Others
0095,0108,0309,0318,0369,0387,0935,0942,0950

432 UNGULATESOFINDIA
 Selected bibliography

TAXONOMIC NAME INDEX

Anti/ope cervicapra
0005,0009,0041,0049,0052,0068,0069,0081,0087,0088,0090,0096,0102,
0123,0124,0140,0145,0150,0151,0153,0166,0167,0169,0183,0186,0189,
0190,0200,0215,021€,0217,0218,0220,0221,0222,0228,0229,0231,0232,
0234,0259,0260,0289,0295,0310,0324,0325,0327,0329,0390,0391,0392,
0396,0397,0406,0412,0416,0438,0452,0454,0455,0461,0466,0471,0472,
0473,0474,0475,0476,0485,0486,0492,0498,0506,0547,0548,0550,0553,
0556,0583,0586,0613,0649,0660,0661,0667,0673,0675,0687,0688, 0696,
0697,0701,0706,0708,0727,0744,0756,0758,0771,0775,0776,0777,0778,
0779,0780,0781,0786,0795,0796,0797,0798,0799,0801,0810,0811,0816,
0817,0820,0822,0825,0826,0828,0829,0830,0836,0871,0882,0891,0915,
0919,0930,0935,0936,0938,0939,0940,0941,0943,0959,0962,0966,0971,
0972,0973,0974,0975,0981,0983,0993,0995,0997,0999,1008.1013,1017,
1038,1075,1077,1095,1101

Axis axis
0003,0005,0013,0016,0040,0059,0063,0065,0087,0088,0091,0105,0116,
0118,0128,0140,0143,0145,0146,0147,0148,0149,0192,0205,0207,0213,
0256,0277,0294,0296,0297,0312,0325,0331,0334,0347,0357,0376,0377,
0378,0408,0411,0430,0448,0463,0466,0481,0482,0484,0490,0509,0510,
0512,0513,0514,0516,0524,0528,0529,0533,0540,0546,0549,0552,0570,
0585,0588,0594,0600,0607,0618,0622,0624,0625,0630,0636,0672,0677,
0679,0680,0681,0683,0699,0705,0706,0708,0709,0718,0730,0731,0737,
0738,0744,0749,0751,0764,0768,0808,0809,0811,0812,0835,0855,0859,
0865,0868,0885,0886,0887,0891,0910,0919,0928,0932,0949,0952,0953,
0955,0965,0968,0984,0987,0993,0996,0997,0998,1023,1024,1025,1030,
1039, 1044, 1046, 1068, 1073, 1098, 1099

Axis porcinus
0011,0017,0044,0055,0102,0157,0158,0159,0160,0161,0163,0246,0502,
0527,0601,0738,0739,0764,0867,0891,0893,0965,0967,1045,1076

Bos gaurus
0016,0084,0095,0099,0107,0109,0115,0139,0152,0164,0165,0176,0178,
0180,0191,0201,0219,0242,0250,0290,0316,0317,0344,0373,0377,0401,
0402,0413,0427,0436,0440,0441,0442,0443,0444,0468,0488,0494,0503,
0529,0539,0557,0559,0562,0569,0589,0612,0630,0634,0639,0640,0644,
0645,0646,0647,0648,0662,0665,0676,0678,0679,0705,0707,0715,0718,
0725,0733,0734,0735,0736,0747,0756,0759,0760,0766,0800,0805,0822,

£nvi5 J5ullrtin : WILOUFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 43 3

0827,0852,0864,0866,0873,0888,0898,0952,0953,1005,1013,1026,1027,
1033, 1065, 1069, 1073, 1080

Bose/aphus tragocame/us
0007,0009,0015,0016,0024,0087,0095,0118,0167,0207,0212,0231,0232,
0235,0236,0237,0254,0268,0346,0387,0388,0389,0412,0417,0435,0461,
0506,0510,0512,0513,0514,0523,0550,0598,0599,0600,0611,0622,0744,
0772,0781,0786,0789,0803,0804,0819,0822,0826,0854,0871,0880,0887,
0889,0891,0902,0934,0935,0936,0944,0952,0953,0955,0957,0965,0978,
0979,0980,0981,0998,1006,1013,1052,1063,1068

Bubalus bubalis
0047,0060,0071,0072,0073,0094,0095,0107,0113,0118,0197,0233,0244,
0263,0301,0302,0303,0304,0305,0313,0354,0364,0404,0407,0414,0422,
0425,0449,0522,0532,0534,0535,0536,0560,0575,0597,0602,0610,0623,
0629,0659,0684,0685,0700,0704,0726,0732,0740,0757,0770,0782,0796,
0821,0850,0857,0874,0929,0946,1028,1067,1082

Cervus duvauceli
0018,0019,0020,0021,0022,0039,0042,0080,0085,0095,0193,0225,0262,
0319,0357,0378,0379,0380,0381,0382,0383,0398,0432,0505,0529,0530,
0531,0537,0538,0540,0541,0590,0591,0606,0621,0664,0705,0706,0708,
0709,0711,0712,0717,0718,0719,0720,0721,0723,0724,0725,0728,0729,
0738,0763,0790,0796,0800,0815,0851,0872,0882,0883,0884,0899,0904,
0917,0947,0948,0963,0970,0976,0989,0990,0992,0993,0994,1029,1085

Cervus eldi
0043,0101,0111,0138,0262,0266,0286,0287,0288,0323,0356,0358,0359,0464,
0507,0518,0628,0654,0655,0722,0806,0818,0853,0892,0918,0925,0964,0977,
0982,0986,0988,1050,1058,1059,1060,1061,1084,1086,1087,1088

Cervus unico/or
0002,0007,0015,0016,0050,0051,0056,0083,0087,0102,0112,0118,0119,
0122,0136,0144,0174,0177,0181,0187,0199,0207,0210,0247,0255,0257,
0258,0265,0273,0278,0286,0290,0306,0321,0322,0326,0330,0332,0340,
0345,0372,0376,0377,0378,0413,0415,0419,0420,0423,0433,0434,0446,
0450,0451,0460;0463,0466,0467,0468,0482,0484,0490,0509,0510,0512,
0513,0514,0515,0525,0529,0533,0540,0550,0554,0566,0567,0568,0574,
0577,0599,0600,0605,0608,0630,0631,0633,0636,0637,0638,0641,0642,
0643,0695,0705,0707,0708,0713,0716,0729,0741,0742,0744,0745,0748,
0765,0767,0774,0781,0831,0858,0887,0926,0927,0932,0949,0952,0953,
0955,0960,0997,1005,1027,1048,1055,1064,1068,1072,1073,1080,1091

434 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

Eqqus hemionus kiang

0129,0245,0338,0909,0924

Equus heminous
0031,0362,0394,0461,0582,0649,0882,0921,0922,0923,0924,0991,1007

Gazella gazella
0029,0057,0096,0118,0125,0167,0168,0185,0195,0196,0260,0308,0309,
0341,0342,0375,0390,0391,0392,0424,0435,0458,0459,0493,0510,0512,
0514,0519,0649,0651,0744,0753,0769,0771,0786,0793,0794,0799,0826,
0860,0882,0903,0907,0933,0935,0936,0939,0952,0953,0974,0983,0985,
1012,1013,1014,1021,1022,1070

Hemitragus hylocrlus
0079,0214,0238,0261,0264,0274,0275,0276,0279,0280,0281,0282,0283,
0284,0285,0386,0439,0466,0478,0479,0489,0520,0521,0563,0578,0579,
0615,0616,0626,0682,0746,0750,0788,0837,0838,0839,0841,0842,0843,
0844,0845,0846,0847,0849,0905,1041,1042,1066,1071,1074,1092,1093

Muntiacus muntjac
0012,0058,0198,0205,0248,0253,0272,0328,0339,0409,0437,0445,0487,
0526,0551,0554,0576,0604,0630,0632,0694,0708,0743,0832,0834,0931,
0950,0952,0953,1080,1094

Muntiacus putoensis
0271,0272

Rhinoceros unicornis
0033,0035,0038,0045,0048,0053,0061,0062,0064,0075,0077,0086,0088,
0097,0098,0106,0108,0114,0127,0130,0131,0132,0133,0134,0135,0137,
0141,0142,0154,0170,0171,0172,0173,0175,0182,0188,0202,0204,0206,
0208,0223,0224,0239,0241,0243,0249,0250,0291,0292,0293,0299,0300,
0307,0314,0315,0318,0335,0343,0348,0349,0350,0351,0352,0353,0355,
0361,0366,0367,0369,0384,0385,0400,0410,0429,0456,0457,0461,0477,
0491,0517,0543,0561,0564,0572,0587,0592,0593,0595,0609,0614,0617,
0619,0620,0627,0656,0657,0658,0668,0674,0686,0693,0714,0715,0761,
0784,0791,0792,0833,0862,0863,0869,0870,0876,0878,0879,0881,0894,
0896,0900,0912,0945,0961,1000,1001,1002,1003,1004,1018,1020,1036,
1040,1047,1053,1056,1062,1081,1083,1090,1096,1097,1100

Sus sa/vanius
0055,0368,0669,0670,0671,0689,0690,0691,0692,0893

£nvi1 .�ultttin : WiLDliFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 435

Sus scrofa
00011002310026100271004610121103331046510467104681050110512105271
0571105851059610611 063510741107541082310859109531100911010,10111
I

1049, 10681 1080

Tetracerus quadricornis
00101001510126,043110447,050410512105141054010603106301074410752,
080710822,0848,0861,0891,0901,0937,0952,0958,0969,1013

Tragulus meminna
0184,0209,0374,0426,0500,0565,0744,0755,1035,1051,1054

436 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 Selected bibliography

PUBLICATION YEAR INDEX

1867 1896

0469 0043,0567,0695

1874 1897

0335,0470 0859

1898
1875
0766
0912

1901
1883
0693
0249

1903
1884
0099,0860,0861
0250

1904
1888 0044,0252
0372

1905
1889 0435,0450,0613,1008
0188,0336,0850
1906

1890 0184,0203,0331,0451,0575,0830

0254
1907
0083,0152,0246,0329,0330,0332,
1891
0423,0686,0740,1005
0165,0913

1908
1892
0253,0256,0574,0742,0768,1064,
0577
1067

1893
1909
0166,0190,0596,1070
0045,0587

1894 1910
0113,0247,0248,0446,0447,0851, 0196,0835
0858,0915
1911
1895 0046,0047,0111,0119,0286,0324,
0323,0448,0449,1049 0333,0420,0519,0522,0589
1912 1926
0195,0752,0753,0946,1094 0032,0112,0178,0521,0631

1913 1927

0176,0185, 0326,0594,0754,0755, 0033,0034,0179,0632,0648,0787

0756,0757,1095
1928

1914 0489,0570,0602,0603,0633,0694,

0258,0327,1009,1010 0983,1034

1929
1915
0100,0198,0201,0209,0313,0576,
0192,0328,0523,0758,1011
1031

1916
1930
0017,0651,0831
0053,0149,0411,0562,0563,0629,
0634,0635,0984,1035
1917
0836
1931
0116,0121,0182,0187,0199,0427,
1918
0807
0048,0197

1932
1919
0091,0311,0421,0595,0759,0791
0312,0520,1091

1933
1920
0749
0186,1048

1934
1921 0339,0428,0636,0783
0049,0050,0189,0255,0424,0502,
0571,0769,0782 1935
0054,0164,0568,0867
1922
0051,0321,0605 1936
0055,0180,0412,0413,0414,0506,
1923 0569,0637
0052,0322,0649,0959,1054
1937
1924 0212,0244,0638,0639,0743
0416,0573,0730,0731,1033
1938

1925 0056,0210,0265,0273,0640,0641,

0096,0177,0183,0460,0630 0864

Ll. -� R I lNr.lll ATFS OF N

 Selected bibliography

1939 1953
0415,0434,0614,0662,0784,0788, 0057,0352,0353,0354,0560,0748
1055
1954
1940 0525,0646,0685,0745,0770,0800
0566,0732,0760,0866
1955
1941 0151,0355,0356,0357,0526,0647,
0762,0985,1063 0746

1942 1956
0763,0852 1100

1943 1957
0456,0764,0765,0960,1056 0092,0824

1944 1958
0181,0395,0443,0683 0035,0403,0404,0429,0958,0962

1945 1959
0174,0257,0334,0865,0869,1044 0058,0193,0274,1037

1946 1960
0031,0444,0501 0059,0060,0340,0358,0490,1038

1947 1961
0430,0439 0061,0359,0431

1948 1962
0348,0642,0643,0945 0001,0360

1949 1963
0318,0349,0644 0275,0276,0361,0362,0750

1950 1964
0213,0350 0260,0277,0363,0751,0910

1951 1965
0200,0320,0440,0744,1030,1036 1062

1952 1966
0194,0227,0351,0445,0524,0645, 0106,0107,0263, 0270,0294,0405,
0684,0747 0868,1015,1016,1017,1018,1019
0426,0475,0512,0532,0547,0691, 2001
0698,0701,0792,0808,0927,0948, 0024,0029,0297,0462,0623,0736,
0952,0953,0954,0966,1022,1041, 0871,0950,0974,1004,1025
1053
2002
1998 0030, 0089,0156,0159,0161,0163,
0039,0081,0143,0144,0145,0234, 0235,0242,0308,0459,0503,0545,
0238,0388,0527,0579,0583,0610, 0581,0601,0676,0735,0761,0853,
0616,0621,0626,0657,0669,0672, 0863,1021,1079
0727,0733,0809,0903,0909,0923,
0929,0947,0955,0956,0997,1013, 2003
1023,1024,1029,1052,1068,1069, 0040,0082,0101,0162,0271,0272,
1099 0289,0296,0309,0399,0453,0463,
0534,0536,0556,0896,0937,1012,
1999 1026,1039,1078
0093,0126,0148,0157,0267,0293,
0389,0394,0419,0467,0468,0492, 2004
0650,0658,0670,0671,0716,0961, 0535,0554,0924
0967,1043
2005
2000 0454
0129,0158,0160,0224,0346,0382,
0387,0455,0458,0493,0546,0548,
0580,0713,0734,0821,0834,0888,
0897,1096,1097
 List of contributors

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
51. Name & Address E-mail
No.

1. Dr. L. N. Acharjyo
M-71, Housing Board Colony
Baramunda,
Bhubaneswar- 751 003
(Orissa)

2. Dr. Aparajita Datta

Nature Conservation Foundation
3076/5, 4th Cross, Gokulam Park
Mysore - 570 002
(Karnataka) aparajita@ncf-india.org

3. Mr. G. Areendran
Head-ENVIS Centre
lndra Gandhi Conservation
Monitoring Centre
World Wide Fund For Nature-India
SECRETARIATE
172-B, Lodhi Road
New Delhi - 110 003 gareendran@wwfindia.net

4. Mr. B. Bhaskar Acharya

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal) bhaskar@wiii.gov.in

5. Mr. N.C. Bahuguna

Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Regional office (Central Region),
Kendriya Bhavan, 5th Floor,
Sector- H, Aliganj
Lucknow
(Uttar Pradesh) ccf@moefroclko.org

6. Dr. N.P.S Chauhan

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal) npsc@wii.gov.in

�nvil .iullflin: WILDliFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 44 3

Sl. Name & Address E-mail
-

No.

7. Clifford G. Rice
Research Scientist
Wildlife Management Programme
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Boo Capital Way
NW, Olympia, WA - 98501
(USA) ricecgr@dfw.wa.gov

8. Dr. Cyrille Barrette

Laval University, Ste-Foy, Qc
(Canada) cyrille.barrette@bio.ulaval.ca

9. Dr. Goutam Narayan

Pygmy Hog Conservation
Programme,
Indira Nagar, Basistha
Guwahati- 781 029
(Assam) phog@sancharnet.in

10. Dr. S.P. Goyal

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal) goyalsp@wii.gov.in

11 . Dr. S.A. Hussain

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal) hussain@wii.gov.in

12. Mr. Jayanta K. Mallick

Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Regional office (Central Region).
Kendriya Bhavan, 5th Floor
Sector- H, Aliganj
Lucknow - 226 024
(Uttar Pradesh)

13. Dr. A.J.T. Johnsingh

Magnolia 101, Eastern Gardenia
Sahakara Nagar
Bangalore - 560 092
(Karnataka) ajt.johnsingh@gmail.com

444 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 List of contributors

Sl. Name & Address E-mail

No.
14. Dr. J.S. Kathayat
Wildlife Institute of India,
P.O. Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
( Uttaranchal) jsk@wii.gov.in

15. Dr. Kavita lsvaran

University of Cambridge
Cambridge Street,
Cambridge
(United Kingdom) ks41O@cam.ac.uk

16. Ms. Kimjalhai Kipgen

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal) kim@wii.gov.in

17. Mr. Koustubh Sharma

Bombay Natural History Society
Hornbill House.
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road
Dr. Salim Ali Chowk
Mumbai - 400 023 kos78@sancharnet.in,
(Maharashtra) koustubhsharma@indiatimes.com

18. M.D. Madhusudan

Nature Conservation Foundation
3076/5, IV Cross.
Gokulam Park net@ncf-india.org
Mysore - 570 002 www.ncf-india.org
(Karnataka) info@ncf-india.org

19. Dr. P.K. Malik

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal) malikpk@wii.gov.in

20. Dr. P.K. Mathur

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal) mathurpk@wii.gov.in

£nvit �ulletin : WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AAEAS (2004) 44 5

Sl. Name & Address E-mail
No.
21. Dr. V.B. Mathur
Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal) vbm@wii.gov.in

22. Ms. Ngailian Vaiphei

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal} ngai@wii.gov.in

23. Dr. Nita Shah

Bomaby Natural Histroy Society,
Hornbill House,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road,
Dr. Salim Ali Chowk
Mumbai- 400 023
(Maharashtra) nitashah_in@yahoo.com

24. Dr. H.S. Pabla

Additional Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests (WL)
Ground Floor, A-Block
"Van Bhawan ", Tulsi Nagar
Bhopal - 462 003
(Madhya Pradesh) pablahs@sancharnet.in

25. Dr. Parag D. Muley

255 Biochemistry (new additions)
433 Babcock Drive
Madison, Wl 53706
(USA) pdmuley@facstaff.wisc.edu

26. Mr. M.K.S. Pasha

B-21 3004 Sathyam Apartments,
Vasundara Enclave
New Delhi - 11 0 096 Khalid.pasha@gmail.com

27. Mr. Qamar Qureshi

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal} qnq@wii.gov.in

446 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 List of contributors

Sl. Name & Address E-mail

No.

28. Dr. M.S. Rana

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal) msrana@wii.gov.in

29. Dr. A. R. Rahmani

Director,
Bombay Natural History Society
Hornbill House,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road
Dr. Salim Ali Chowk
Mumbai - 400 023
(Maharashtra) Ibnhs@bomz.vsn I. net.in

30. Dr. K. Sankar

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal) sankark@wii.gov.in

31. Ms. Sangeeta Angom

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal) sangom@wii.gov.in

32. Mr. V.B. Sawarkar

464, Rasta Peth, Flat No. 3
Near M.S.E.D. Power House
Pune - 411 011
(Maharashtra) woodowl464@yahoo.co.in

33. Dr. T. R. Shankar Raman

Centre for Ecological Research and
Conservation,
Nature Conservation Foundation
3076/5, IV Cross, Gokulam Park
Mysore - 570 002
(Karnataka) podocarp@vsnl.net

34. Mr. S. Singsit

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Government of Manipur
Sanjenthong
lmphal-795 001
(Manipur)

£ovis ,'gulltlin : WiLDliFE AND PROTECTED AREAS (2004) 447

 Sl. Name & Address E-mail

No.

35. Dr. S.P. Sinha,

Project Coordinator
Type IV # 5, Wildlife Institute of India
Residental Quarters,
Chandrabani Campus
,, Dehra Dun - 248 001 sinhasp@yahoo.com,
(Uttaranchal) sinhasp@hotmail.com
•

36. Mr. Subrato Pal Chowdhury

Technical Assistant
0/o The Chief Conservator of
Forests (Wildlife)
IV; Government of West Bengal
"Bikash Bhawan", North Block
J 3rd Floor, Salt Lake City
Kolkata- 700 091
(West Bengal)

37. Dr. Sumit Dookia

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun - 248 001
(Uttaranchal) sumit@wii.gov.in

38. Mrs. Sun ita Agarwal

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun- 248 001
(Uttaranchal) sunita@wii.gov.in

39. Ms. Tanushree Biswas

Department of Frws,
Utah State University
Logan - 84321
(USA) tanu@cc.usu.edu

40. Mrs. S. Uniyal

Wildlife Institute of India,
Post Box# 18
Dehra Dun- 248 001
(Uttaranchal) shashi@wii.gov.in

448 UNGULATES OF INDIA

 •

.I

This Issue WILDLIFE INSTITUTE OF INDIA

Ungulates of India
Printed In 2007 Post Box # 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248001
Tel 0135-2640111-114 Fax 0135-2640117
e-mail envis@wii.gov.ln; wii@envis.nic.in
URL http://www .wii.gov.in/envis; http://www.wiienvis.nic.in

Printed at Allied Printers, Dehradun. 0135-2654505, 3290845