CATnews 51 Autumn 2009
The World Conservation Union
N° 51 | AUTUMN 2009
CATnews 51 Autumn 2009
J. W. DUCKWORTH1, CHRIS R. SHEPHERD2, GONO SEMIADI3, PAUL SCHAUENBERG4, JIM
SANDERSON5, SCOTT I. ROBERTON6, TIMOTHY G. O’BRIEN7, TOM MADDOX8, MATTHEW
LINKIE9, JEREMY HOLDEN10 AND NICK W. BRICKLE11
Does the ﬁshing cat inhabit
Debate in the 1930s about whether ﬁshing cat Prionailurus viverrinus inhabited Su-
matra effectively ceased in 1940 when one key reference stated that it did. No cogent
reasons were given, but most subsequent secondary sources set the island within
the species’s range. Several cautious authors stressing the lack of veriﬁable Sumat-
ran records went largely unheeded. Modern claims from Sumatra are misidentiﬁca-
tions or, at best, cannot be objectively conﬁrmed: the single certain identiﬁcation is
of a zoo animal of unknown provenance. Survey has been inadequate to assert that
ﬁshing cat does not inhabit Sumatra, so for now the question remains open. Fishing
cat is classiﬁed on the 2008 Red List as Endangered: surveys are urgent on Sumatra
and on Java, the only documented Sundaic population.
The ﬁshing cat inhabits much of mainland
tropical Asia and the large islands of Sri
Lanka and Java (e.g. Corbet & Hill 1992).
A further large island, Sumatra, is gene-
rally included in the range, despite several
past cautions. To mobilise information from
camera-trap ‚by-catch‘ (photographs of non-
target species), JWD and SIR were invited
by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
Indonesia Program in June 2008 to run a ca-
pacity-building workshop in small-carnivore
identiﬁcation using the Sundaic country pro-
grammes photographic holdings. The Muse-
um Zoologicum Bogoriense, Cibinong, Bogor,
Indonesia (MZB), holding the chief training
resource – a skin collection – was the other
partner, through GS and Yuli Sulistya Fitriana.
Four photographs, from Bukit Barisan Selatan
National Park [= NP], Sumatra, were labelled
as ﬁshing cat. Our cursory search for veriﬁ-
able records of ﬁshing cat in Sumatra found
the comment in Van Strien (1996: 172) that
“Sumatra is usually included in the [ﬁshing
cat’s] range, but there are no substantiated
records”. Hence, the four photographs were
scrutinised by workshop participants and then
externals, followed by a deeper investigation
of museum holdings, published photographs
and literature, and correspondence concern-
ing the animal on the island. Sanderson‘s
(2009) interim account of the topic overlooked
various key literature and specimen sources.
Figure 1 shows the location of sites and areas
referred to in the text.
Historical information concerning ﬁsh-
ing cat in Sumatra
Inﬂuential, generally authoritative, pre-1940
sources on tropical Asian mammals, such as
Pocock (1939), did not consider ﬁshing cat to
inhabit Sumatra, and Sody (1931: 153) spe-
ciﬁcally stated (in translation) that “it is not
known from Sumatra, Borneo or any other
island [than Java] in Indonesia”. Delsman
(1932), however, ﬁgured a ﬁshing cat shot in
Java with the comment that the hunter, Mr
Pieters, told him that (in translation) “at the
mouths of the Way Tulang Bawang, Way
Mesuji and Way Sekampung [all in today’s
Tulangbawang district] and other rivers in
South Sumatra the ﬁshing cat was repea-
tedly seen and shot, while he was hunting for
crocodiles”, information he repeated in his
overview of animals in Indonesia (Delsman
1951). Brongersma’s (1935) comprehensive
review of Sundaic cat distribution, referred,
for ﬁshing cat in Sumatra, only to this Dels-
man (1932) statement, and summed up with
“its presence in Sumatra has not yet been
deﬁnitely proved” (p. 13). Jacobson (1933) er-
roneously presented Delsman (1932) as pho-
tographic evidence of ﬁshing cat in Sumatra,
a mistake pointed out by Sody (1936), who
reiterated that there remained no ﬁrm evi-
dence of the species in Sumatra, and alluded
to a parallel saga of hunters’ claims of leo-
pard Panthera pardus on the island. This is an
informative comparison: over 70 years later
there remains no evidence that leopard has
lived in Sumatra in historical times, despite
subfossil remains there (Whitten et al. 2000);
yet leopard is more morphologically distinc-
tive to game hunters than is ﬁshing cat.
Sody (1936) mentioned two ﬁshing cats in
the Naturhistorisches Museum, Bern, Swit-
zerland (NMBE), labelled as from Padang,
but (without giving reasons) did not consider
them proof of the species in Sumatra. The
relevant specimens are NMBE 1031761 (a
female, 20 October 1913, from Padang) and
NMBE 1031294 (a male of unknown date
and locality), both donated by Zoo Rotter-
dam. P. Schmid (in litt. 2009) conﬁrmed their
identiﬁcation, adding that they came through
Johann Büttikofer (1850–1927), who had
worked at NMBE from 1876 to 1878, and who
from 1897 to 1924 directed Rotterdam Zoo.
The provenance of objects received by NMBE
from Büttikofer after 1897 is not always clear,
and Padang was a signiﬁcant trading point at
this time. In such light, Sody’s doubts guide
the only justiﬁable treatment of these speci-
Ending this 1930s ﬂurry of discussion, Chasen
(1940) listed ﬁshing cat for Sumatra, citing
only Pocock (1939) and Brongersma (1935) for
the species, yet neither included the island in
its range (see above). Sody (1949: 180) reiter-
ated that he found the contention that ﬁshing
cat occurred in Sumatra to be “unfounded”,
and warned against trusting localities of
zoo-mediated animals. Nonetheless, nearly
all other post-1940 compilations with suf-
ﬁcient range detail placed Sumatra in the
species’s range (Carter et al. 1945; Ellerman
& Morrison-Scott 1966; Lekagul & McNeely
1977; Van der Zon 1979; Corbet & Hill 1992;
Sunquist & Sunquist 2002, 2009; Suyanto et
al. 2002; Wozencraft 2005; Sanderson et al.
2008). None cited speciﬁc references for ﬁsh-
ing cat on Sumatra; all may stem from Chasen
(1940), and none is explicitly an independent
opinion that ﬁshing cat inhabits Sumatra. G.
B. Corbet (in litt. 2008) stated that, for a spe-
cies of uncontroversial species-level taxono-
my, listing by Chasen (1940) would have been
sufﬁcient for Corbet & Hill (1992) to include
Sumatra; Van der Zon (1979) explicitly based
his treatments strongly upon Chasen (1940);
and Suyanto et al. (2002: v) “obtained much ...
species distributional information from their
[Corbet & Hill 1992] treatment”.
Van Strien’s (2001) ﬁnal output on Indonesian
mammal distribution listed Sumatra for ﬁsh-
ing cat, citing only Delsman (1932) and Sody
(1936). This does not, however, imply his be-
lief of natural occurrence there: he also listed,
for Borneo, the mounted Pontianak specimen
held in the Rafﬂes Museum of Biodiversity
Research, Singapore, and generally assumed
to be a trade specimen (K. Lim in litt. 2008).
None of these historical commentators seem
to have been aware of a key specimen, # 922
B, at the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturels,
Brussels, Belgium. Suyckerbuyck donated the
skeleton, including skull, of an adult male cat
CATnews 51 Autumn 2009
ﬁshing cat on Sumatra
to IRSNB on 24 July 1877 within ‘general
inventory’ # 4008, a batch of 32 mammal,
and c.4000 other, specimens. It is labelled
‘Sumatra’, but no localities are mentioned
on the original card for 4008 or on any other
available contemporary documentation; the
mammals have been labelled as from Java,
Borneo, Sumatra and ‘no locality’, but how so
is not known. They may have been added by
S. Frechkop when the specimens were identi-
ﬁed; then, this animal was catalogued as a
leopard cat P. bengalensis, and only in 1971
was it determined to be a ﬁshing cat (by PS;
background information from G. Lenglet in
litt. 2009). The ambiguous collection location
forestalls this specimen proving ﬁshing cat
occurrence on Sumatra.
Van Bree & Mohd Khan (1992) stated that
no museum specimens of ﬁshing cat are yet
known for Sumatra. Other than the equivocal
Bern and Brussels material, neither we nor A.
Wilting (in litt. 2009) found any in 15 muse-
ums checked (AMNH, CAS, FMNH, HNHM,
LACM, MZB, NHM, NRM, RMBR, RMNH,
SMF, SMNS, USNM, ZMB, ZSM; acronyms
expanded in Supporting Online Material Ap-
pendix 1), and all institutions linked to MaNIS
(search in August 2008); Van Strien (2001)
had already checked some additional collec-
tions important for Indonesian mammals.
Recent claims of ﬁshing cat in Sumatra
Nowell & Jackson (1996: 74) mapped ﬁshing
cat across Sumatra, marking ﬁve “protected
areas where the species occurs”: Way Kam-
bas, Berbak, Gunung Leuser, Kerinci Seblat
and Bukit Barisan Selatan NPs. These spots
are not linked to source, but “the informa-
tion on occurrence in protected areas was
gathered from a wide variety of sources,
including IUCN protected area directories
... with reported occurrence independently
conﬁrmed where possible, the voluminous
ﬁles of the Protected Areas Data Unit of
the World Conservation Monitoring Centre
in Cambridge, databases maintained by na-
tional government and institutions, the litera-
ture and, most importantly, data provided by
correspondents” (Nowell & Jackson 1996:
1–2). K. Nowell (in litt. 2008) highlighted
the impossibility of conﬁrming, in this glo-
bal review of the entire family Felidae, each
record from such a large, disparate, range of
sources. She stated that the spot-markings
should not be taken as conﬁrmed records. In
fact, this trawl brought in, for Sumatra, more
records of ﬁshing cat than of any other small
cat (K. Nowell in litt. 2008), a statistic that
suggests that at least most of these records
were mistaken. We have not traced sources
for records at three of the ﬁve sites. The Ke-
rinci Seblat listing seems to relate to a 1996
set of footprints found in Sindang Silaut (Lu-
nang, West Kerinci), an area of swamp forest
30 km south-west of Tapan (Holden 2001). No
camera-trapping was undertaken here or in
any similar nearby habitat. The plaster casts
made are lost, but surviving line-drawings
and notes indicate clear webbing on the toes
(JH). The Berbak spot relates to an adult fe-
male cat found dead in the Buntu Besar River
on 22 August 1991 (HIMBIO 1992). No rea-
sons are given for the identiﬁcation as ﬁsh-
ing cat, the accompanying photograph [photo
10] is unidentiﬁable, and we cannot locate
any preserved parts. In 1985, Nash & Nash
(1985) identiﬁed footprints in Padang Sugi-
han Wildlife Reserve (= WR) as from a ﬁshing
cat, but did not secure plaster-casts. Despite
airing both the latter records (Nash & Nash
1985; HIMBIO 1992), Melisch et al. (1996:
315) evidently considered them unsatisfac-
tory because they wrote that “due to the only
marginal distribution overlap (possibly in the
north of the Malay Peninsula) and the pre-
ference for wetland environs, we tentatively
conclude that [ﬂat-headed cat] P. planiceps
replaces P. viverrinus in Borneo, Sumatra and
most of peninsular Malaysia”. In addition,
Holden (2006) referred to ﬁshing cat in Muara
Jambi; this concerned an animal seen, brieﬂy,
on a forest trail: the record is here withdrawn
by JH. This sighting was given in Maddox
et al. (2007), which also stated that ﬁshing
cat faeces were identiﬁed eight times in the
area; these reports, based merely on visual
inspection, should be disregarded.
Despite high camera-trapping effort in several
Sumatran sites since the early 1990s ( Table
1), no identiﬁable photographs of ﬁshing cat
Fig. 1. Sumatra, showing localities mentioned in the text: 1, Bukit Barisan Selatan
NP; 2, Way Sekampung; 3, Way Kambas NP; 4, Way Tulang Bawang; 5, Way Mesuji;
6, Padang Sugihan Wildlife Reserve; 7, Bentayan Wildlife Reserve; 8, Dangku Wildlife
Reserve; 9, Kerinci Seblat NP; 10, Sindang Silaut; 11, Harapan Rain Forest; 12, Asiatic
Persada; 13, Berbak NP; 14, Muara Jambi; 15, Bukit Tiga Puluh NP; 16, Padang; 17,
Tesso Nilo NP; 18, Batang Gadis NP; 19, Senepis Buluhala; 20, Rawa Singkil; 21, Sian-
tar; 22, Suak; 23, Kluet Selatan; 24, Gunung Leuser NP; 25, Meulaboh.
CATnews 51 Autumn 2009
J. W. Duckworth et al.
seem to have been generated. Kawanishi &
Sunquist (2003) cited records from Kerinci
Seblat and Bukit Barisan Selatan NPs, to ML
and TGO respectively. The latter were based
upon four photographs from 1998, 2000 and
2003, the former upon a single one. Because
many features which distinguish ﬁshing cat
from leopard cat are somewhat subjective
(e.g. shorter tail, thicker neck, different pos-
ture) or are imprecise through photographic
ﬂash (e.g. warmth of body tone), these
photographs were examined by S. Christie,
A. Hearn, T. Maddox, K. Nowell, J. Ross, Su-
narto Sunarto and M. Sunquist, as well as the
authors, resulting in concurrence that all ﬁve
images show leopard cats. The identiﬁcation
of those from Bukit Barisan Selatan NP was
covered, with reproduction of the images, by
Sanderson (2009). A further Sumatran ca-
mera-trap photograph labelled ‘ﬁshing cat’ is
in a 2009 grey literature report; this animal,
from Way Kambas, is an obvious leopard cat.
In July 2008, CRS and V. Nijman found, during
a random visit, a live ﬁshing cat at a small
zoo in Siantar (2°55´N, 99°05´E; Fig. 2). This
small-town zoo has only limited holdings of
species not native to Sumatra, but a wild ori-
gin on the island cannot be assumed, because
zoos exchange species within Indonesia (CRS
personal observations). Wildlife trade sur-
veys across Sumatra have not yielded any
other ﬁshing cat record, although leopard
cats are very common (Shepherd et al. 2004;
also E. Rood, I. Singleton and S. Wich in litt.
2009). Attempts to clarify the origin of this
animal are ongoing.
Attempting to resolve the status of ﬁsh-
ing cat in Sumatra
Chasen (1940) was the key authority quash-
ing controversy whether ﬁshing cat lives in
Sumatra. His absence of discussion, despite
the previous decade’s public controversy,
suggests that his inclusion of Sumatra was
a slip. That he published no correction does
not argue against this: he died in 1942 (Cor-
bet & Hill 1992). His working notes cannot be
re-evaluated: “the greater part” sank with
his ship during evacuation from Singapore
in World War Two (Weitzel et al. 1988). If
Chasen had in fact found out something, the
text of Sody (1949) indicates that it did not
make it onto the local ‘bush telegraph’.
Fig. 2. Captive ﬁshing cat, Siantar, Sumatra, 17 July 2008 (Photo C. R. Shepherd).
Table 1. Camera-trap studies in Sumatra reviewed for ﬁshing cat photographs. For all the listed studies the lack of photographs
of ﬁshing cat is known, for other studies undertaken on the island it is not known. Effort ﬁgures are for guidance only and are not
closely comparable between studies.
Nr in Fig. 1 Location name Trapping effort References
1 Bukit Barisan Selatan NP 10 years O‘Brien et al. 2003; this study
3 Way Kambas NP 13,297 trap-hours Franklin et al. 1999; Franklin 2002
7 Bentayan WR 495 trap-nights Maddox et al. 2007
8 Dangku WR 573 trap-nights Maddox et al. 2007
9 Kerinci Seblat NP 132,000 trap-hours Holden et al. 2003; Linkie et al. 2003
11–12 Asiatic Persada*/ Harapan Rain Forest 6,000+ trap-nights Maddox et al. 2007
13 Berbak NP 823 trap-nights Maddox et al. 2007
15 Bukit Tiga Puluh NP 2,028 trap-nights Maddox et al. 2007
17 Tesso Nilo NP and immediate surroundings 12,773 trap-nights Sunarto Sunarto in litt. 2009
18 Batang Gadis NP 1,728 trap-nights H. T. Wibisono in litt. 2009
24 Gunung Leuser NP 3,800+ trap-nights M. Grifﬁths in litt. 2009
24 Gunung Leuser NP three years D. Priatna in litt. 2009
* A plantation and logging concession landscape centred on Asiatic Persada and the adjacent (then) logging concession Asialog,
now the Harapan Rain Forest.
CATnews 51 Autumn 2009
ﬁshing cat on Sumatra
A lack of records of a species does not prove
its absence. That we have traced only one
trade or captive ﬁshing cat in Sumatra in re-
cent decades may reﬂect partly the paucity of
systematic survey. It does not indicate that
it is not native there, because CRS, despite
many market visits and active correspon-
dence with other people undertaking them,
knows of only one such record from Java, un-
questionably ﬁshing cat native range, during
his 18 years association with the country: at a
private dealer’s house in Surabaya on 14 Au-
gust 2005 (Fig. 3; M. Auliya in litt. 2009). By
a similar process of comparison, the absence
of ﬁshing cat camera-trap photographs from
Sumatra is not informative: a global review
of records of ﬂat-headed cat, which is also
a denizen of lowland wetlands, found that it
has been camera-trapped on the island only
few times (A. Wilting, pers. comm.).
For several reasons ﬁshing cat might be over-
looked in Sumatra. Firstly, the island is large
and only patchily surveyed, so species of lo-
calised geographical and/or ecological distri-
bution could be readily overlooked: e.g. the
highly distinctive Sumatran Ground Cuckoo
Carpococcyx viridis was ‘lost’ for decades
until its recent rediscovery (Brickle 2007). On
neighbouring Java, ﬁshing cat seems to be
almost restricted to tidal forests with sandy
or muddy shores (Melisch et al. 1996), and
while not tied to such habitats throughout its
range, occurring as far from the sea as Ne-
pal (Pocock 1939), the locations in Delsman
(1932) are consistent with similar habitat use
Secondly, most camera-trapping in Sumatra
has targeted tigers, and chances of camera-
trapping ﬁshing cat in this way, with its sam-
pling focus on game trails, ridges and springs
within closed forest, are low. Camera-trap-
ping in Sumatran lowland swamp forest has
been undertaken to a signiﬁcant extent only
in Way Kampas NP. Since late 2008 a pro-
gramme in Berbak NP includes many sites
near rivers, but so far no ﬁshing cats have
been photographed. There seems to have
been no camera-trapping where Delsman
(1932) reported the species.
Thirdly, variation in ﬁshing cat habitat use
across its range is too poorly understood to
know what speciﬁc microhabitat placement
of camera-traps, if any, would boost chances
of detection in Sumatra. Without good under-
standing of any species’s local behaviour and
ecology, interpreting its prevalence, including
absence, on camera-trap pictures is difﬁcult.
Sumatra is not alone in chequered percep-
tions of ﬁshing cat occurrence. This cat was
generally treated as absent from peninsular
(=West) Malaysia, an area relatively well sur-
veyed historically, but one, reportedly a wild-
trapped animal from Negeri Sembilan, lived
in a zoo there over 1967–1977 (Van Bree &
Mohd. Khan 1992), and specimens labelled
as from Malaysia come from Kuala Lumpur
(1971 and 1977; both in SMF, and plausibly
traded with the zoo; no further details on ori-
gin are available), and Malacca (1878, SMNS;
and c.1820s [date inferred from the collector’s
identity: Diard], RMNH). This last is presum-
ably the Malacca specimen(s) examined by
Swinhoe (1862). Malacca provided many
trade specimens at this era, and the origin
of the modern zoo animal cannot be known
with certainty. There remain no incontestable
records of a wild-living ﬁshing cat in penin-
sular Malaysia: an incomplete camera-trap
image from Taman Negara NP in 1999 was
thought perhaps of a ﬁshing cat (Kawanishi
& Sunquist 2003), but JGS believes it to be
a leopard cat. Kawanishi & Sunquist (2003)
also observed tracks in that park which they
thought likely to belong to ﬁshing cat.
There are also indications, assumed to be
trade specimens or misidentiﬁcations, of ﬁsh-
ing cat from Borneo (see above), Singapore
and Bali (Van Bree & Mohd. Khan 1992). Fish-
ing cat was listed from Taiwan by Swinhoe
(1862), in error; as Nowell & Jackson (1996)
pointed out, this mistake was still being re-
peated over a century later (e.g. Wozencraft
1993), and the island is still mapped for the
species in Pan Qinghua et al. (2007). Conﬁr-
mation that ﬁshing cat may be detected only
late even in relatively well-collected regions
does, however, come from Myanmar: the
ﬁrst country record (discounting non-speciﬁc
19th century statements of occurrence) was
not until 1935 (Carter 1943; AMNH 113496),
despite the Bombay Natural History Society’s
collection programme in operation, and ex-
tensive in lowland regions superﬁcially suit-
able for the species, for the preceding twenty
years (Fry 1929 and references therein).
Concluding discussion and recommen-
The occurrence of ﬁshing cat in Sumatra
should be considered hypothetical pending an
objectively veriﬁable record: a specimen, pho-
tograph or, less preferably, a ﬁeld sighting by
a cautious and capable observer experienced
with identiﬁcation of leopard cat, and pub-
lished with full supporting ﬁeld notes for the
basis of the identiﬁcation. Sign-based records
can help inform hypothetical distribution, but,
unless there is genetic conﬁrmation (see e.g.
Lucherini et al. 2008), the richness of Sumat-
ra’s carnivore community prevents their being
taken as proof. In the rather few attempts to
assess the reliability of carnivore sign records,
observers are generally overconﬁdent, even
in carnivore communities much simpler than
Sumatra’s (e.g. Davison et al. 2002), reﬂect-
ing problems of accurate sign identiﬁcation
to species more broadly across mammals (e.g.
McKelvey et al. 2006; Bowkett et al. 2009).
Fig. 3. Captive ﬁshing cat, Surabaya, Java, 14 August 2005 (Photo M. Auliya).
CATnews 51 Autumn 2009
J. W. Duckworth et al.
Although it might seem implausible that any
morphologically distinctive mammal could
mistakenly enter ‘common knowledge’ of
occurrence on a large island, this does hap-
pen. Once a species is listed for a signiﬁcant
geopolitical unit, even if that is soon dis-
credited, secondary citation of the original
error almost invariably occurs: Malay Wea-
sel Mustela nudipes is still listed for Java
(e.g. Wozencraft 2005) 175 years after the
original error was highlighted (Duckworth
et al. 2006). Furthermore, when an observer
‘knows’ a species inhabits a given area, the
bar may be (consciously or subconsciously)
lowered for subsequent identiﬁcations, and
so further ‘records’ result, a cycle, in extreme
cases, perverting conservation resource de-
ployment (Pratt 2000, McKelvey et al. 2008).
That ﬁshing cat is not proven to inhabit Su-
matra therefore requires wide dissemination,
and any overlooked or future claim warrants
The Endangered status of ﬁshing cat on the
2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
(Sanderson et al. 2008) urges speciﬁc surveys
seeking it in Sumatra. Any suitable habitat
remaining around Delsman’s (1932) sites
is of obvious survey priority. A. Compost (in
litt. 2009) points out that the habitat in some
parts of Way Kambas, Berbak and Bukit Ba-
risan Selatan NPs resembles that where he
has seen ﬁshing cats in Java: Ujung Kulon
and Pulau Dua Bird Sanctuary, Banten bay,
West Java; in the latter, he photographed
and ﬁlmed them regularly from 1988 to 1992
(see www.mawaspictures.com). Other search
areas, suggested by H. Rijksen (in litt. 2009)
on habitat grounds, are the Rawa Singkil
area, Kluet, and the Meulaboh (Bahbahrot)
swamps, along the west coast of Aceh. Even
if no ﬁshing cat records result, the undertak-
ing will help clarify current status of ﬂat-
headed cat, now also Red-Listed as Endan-
gered (Hearn et al. 2008). Equally urgent is an
assessment of ﬁshing cat’s current status in
Java and, arguably, in peninsular Malaysia.
Java holds the only conﬁrmed Sundaic popu-
lation, which was considered to be highly
threatened by the last review (Melisch et al.
1996). A. Compost (in litt. 2009) revisited Pu-
lau Dua three years ago and heard that the
ﬁshing cats there, which had been quite con-
ﬁding, had been poisoned by the owners of
the ﬁsh ponds adjacent to the island.
We thank the Wildlife Conservation Society Asia
Program, notably its director Colin Poole, for the
exercise that prompted this review; the Museum
Zoologicum Bogoriense, Cibinong, Bogor, Indone-
sia, for welcoming the exercise’s participants into
its vitally important collections; and the current
senior staff of the WCS Indonesia Programme,
Noviar Andiyani and H. T. Wibisono, and of LIPI-
Indonesian Institute of Sciences Division of Zo-
ology at Cibining, Ir Maharadatun Kamsi and Ir
Ahmad Jauhar Arief, without whom the identiﬁ-
cation workshop would not have happened; and
Frida ‘Minda’ Saanin and Deasy Krisanti at WCS
Indonesia, and Yuli Sulistya Fitriana at MZB for
essential organisational support. We thank, for
discussion and assistance, Mark Auliya, Conrad
Aveling, Sarah Christie, Alain Compost, Gordon
Corbet, Gabor Csorba, Klaas-Douwe ‘KD’ B. Dijk-
stra, Dan Duff, Neil Franklin, Gabriella Fredriks-
son, Mike Grifﬁths, Olavi Grönwall, Colin Groves,
Donny Gunaryadi, Andy Hearn, Simon Hedges, Pe-
ter Jackson, Kae Kawanishi, Richard Kraft, Katrin
Krohmann, Georges Lenglet, Lim Boo Liat, Kelvin
Lim, Debbie Martyr, Frieder Mayer, Erik Mei-
jaard, Roland Melisch, Doris Möricke, Shomita
Mukherjee, Tilo Nadler, Vincent Nijman, Kristin
Nowell, Robert Olley, Laura Eiford and Siobhan
Fagan (WCS library), Dody Permadi, Dolly Priatna,
Herman Rijksen, Ente Rood, Joanna Ross, Paul
Schmid, Ian Singleton, Sylvia Schwencke, Rob
Timmins, Graham Usher, Dave Ware, Tony Whit-
ten, Serge Wich and Andreas Wilting. Finally,
the international museums’ role, in contributing
to the Mammal Networked Information System
(MaNIS), or providing information directly, can-
not be underestimated: American Museum of
Natural History (AMNH), California Academy of
Sciences (CAS), Field Museum, Chicago (FMNH),
Magyar Neinzeti Muzeum/Hungarian Natural
History Museum (HNHM), Los Angeles County
Museum (LACM), Natural History Museum, Mu-
seum Zoologicum Bogoriense (MZB), Natural His-
tory Museum (formerly British Museum (Natural
History)), South Kensington, London, U.K. (NHM),
Naturhistorisches Museum, Bern, Switzerland
(NMBE), Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm
(NRM), Rafﬂes Museum of Biodiversity Research,
Singapore (RMBR), Leiden National Museum of
Natural History, Naturalis (RMNH), Senckenberg
Museum Frankfurt (SMF), Staatliches Museum für
Naturkunde Stuttgart (SMNS), National Museum
of Natural History, United States National Mu-
seum, Smithsonian Institution (USNM), Museum
für Naturkunde, Berlin (ZMB), and Zoologische
Staatssammlung München (ZSM).
Bowkett A. E., Plowman A. B., Stevens J. R., Dav-
enport T. R. B., Jansen van Vuuren B. 2009. Ge-
netic testing of dung identiﬁcation for antelope
surveys in the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania.
Conservation Genetics 10, 251-255.
Brickle, N. 2007. Sumatran Ground Cuckoo Car-
pococcyx viridis seen in the wild for the ﬁrst
time. Birding Asia 7, 52.
Brongersma L. D. 1935. Notes on some recent and
fossil cats, chieﬂy from the Malay Archipelago.
Zoologische Mededelingen 18, 1-89.
Carter T. D. 1943. The mammals of the Vernay–
Hopwood Chindwin expedition, northern
Burma. Bulletin of the American Museum of
Natural History 82, 99-113.
Carter T. D., Hill J. E. & Tate G. H. H. 1945. Mam-
mals of the Paciﬁc World. MacMillan, New
Chasen F. N. 1940. A handlist of Malaysian mammals.
Bulletin of the Rafﬂes Museum 15, 229 pp.
Corbet G. B. & Hill J. E. 1992. The mammals of the
Indomalayan region. Natural History Museum
Publications, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Davison A., Birks J. D. S., Brookes R. C., Braithwaite
T. C. & Messenger J. E. 2002. On the origin of
faeces: morphological versus molecular me-
thods for surveying rare carnivores from their
scats. Journal of Zoology, London 257, 141-143.
Delsman H. C. 1932. De Mangrovekat op Sumatra.
De Tropische Natuur 21, 50.
Delsman H. C. 1951. Dierenleven in Indonesië. W.
Van Hoeve, ‘s-Gravenhage, Netherlands, and
Duckworth J. W., Lee B. P. Y.-H., Meijaard E. &
Meiri S. 2006. The Malay Weasel Mustela
nudipes: distribution, natural history and a
global conservation status review. Small Car-
nivore Conservation 34 & 35, 2-21.
Ellerman J. R. & Morrison-Scott T. C. S. 1966.
Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals
1758 to 1946, 2nd edition. British Museum
(Natural History), London.
Franklin N. 2002. Conservation biology of the Su-
matran tiger in Way Kambas National Park,
Sumatra, Indonesia. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of York, York, U.K.
Franklin N., Bastoni, Sriyanto, Siswomartono D.,
Manansang J. & Tilson R. 1999. Last of the
Indonesian tigers: a cause for optimism. In
Riding the tiger: tiger conservation in human
dominated landscapes. Seidensticker J., Chris-
tie S. and Jackson P. (Eds). Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 130-147.
Fry T. B. 1929. Bombay Natural History Society’s
Mammal Survey of India, Burmah and Ceylon.
Report No. 46 (supplementary) on the second,
third and fourth collections from Toungoo, Bur-
mah, made by Mr. J. M. D. Mackenzie, I. F. S.,
between dates February 9, 1927 to March 2,
1928. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 33, 636-652.
CATnews 51 Autumn 2009
ﬁshing cat on Sumatra
Hearn A., Sanderson J., Ross J., Wilting A. & Su-
narto S. 2008. Prionailurus planiceps. In IUCN
2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Spe-
cies. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on
12 May 2009.
[HIMBIO] Himpunan mahasiswa biologi Universitas
Padjadjaran Bandung. 1992. Laporan sigi fauna
di Suaka Margasatwa Berbak, propinsi Jambi
[Report of a faunal survey of Berbak Wildlife
Reserve, Jambi province]. PHPA/AWB Sumatra
Wetland Project, Bogor, Indonesia (Report 34).
Holden J. 2001. Small cats in Kerinci Seblat
National Park, Sumatra: evidence collected
through photo-trapping. Cat News 35, 11-14.
Holden J. 2006. Small carnivores in central Sumatra.
Small Carnivore Conservation 34&35, 35-38.
Holden J., Achmad Yanuar & Martyr D. J. 2003.
The Asian Tapir in Kerinci Seblat National Park,
Sumatra: evidence collected through photo-
trapping. Oryx 31, 34-40.
Jacobson E. 1933. Über javanische Tigerkatzen.
Der Zoologische Garten (N. F.) 6, 238-244.
Kawanishi K. & Sunquist M. 2003. Possible new
records of ﬁshing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus)
from Peninsular Malaysia. Cat News 39, 3-5.
Lekagul B. & McNeely J. A. 1977. Mammals of
Thailand. Association for the Conservation of
Wildlife, Bangkok (1988 printing).
Linkie M., Martyr D. J., Holden J., Achmad Yanuar,
Hartan A. T., Sugardjito J. & Leader-Williams
N. 2003. Habitat destruction and poaching
threaten the Sumatran tiger in Kerinci Seblat
National Park, Sumatra. Oryx 31, 41-48.
Lucherini M., Luengos Vidal E. & Merino M. J.
2008. How rare is the rare Andean cat? Mam-
malia 72, 95-101.
Maddox T., Priatna D., Gemita E. & Salampessy
A. 2007. The conservation of tigers and other
wildlife in oil palm plantations. Jambi pro-
vince, Sumatra, Indonesia. Zoological Society
of London, London (Conservation Report 7).
McKelvey K. S., Aubry K. B. & Schwartz M. K.
2008. Using anecdotal occurrence data for rare
or elusive species: the illusion of reality and a
call for evidentiary standards. Bioscience 58,
Melisch R., Asmoro P. B., Lubis I. R. & Kusuma-
wardhani L. 1996. Distribution and status of
the ﬁshing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus rhizo-
phoreus Sody, 1936) in West Java, Indonesia
(Mammalia: Carnivora: Felidae). Faunistische
Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum für Tier-
kunde Dresden 20, 313-319.
Nash S. V. & Nash A. D. 1985. The large carni-
vores, primates, and ungulates in the Padang–
Sugihan Wildlife Reserve, South Sumatra.
WWF/IUCN, Bogor, Indonesia (3133 PS/Final
Nowell K. & Jackson P. 1996. Wild cats: status sur-
vey and conservation action plan. IUCN, Gland,
O’Brien T. G., Kinnaird M. F. & Wibisono H. T. 2003.
Sumatran tiger and prey populations in a tropi-
cal forest landscape. Animal Conservation 6,
Pan Qinghua, Wang Yingxiang & Yan Kun (eds)
2007. A ﬁeld guide to the mammals of China.
China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing.
Pocock R. I. 1939. The fauna of British India, includ-
ing Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia, 2nd ed., vol.
I. Taylor & Francis, London.
Pratt T. K. 2000. Nukupu’u in the twentieth centu-
ry: endangered species or phantom presence?
‘Elepaio 60(5), 35-41.
Sanderson J. 2009. How the ﬁshing cat came to
occur in Sumatra. Cat News 50, 6-9.
Sanderson J., Wilting A., Sunarto, Khan J.,
Mukherjee S. & Howard J. 2008. Prionailurus
viverrinus. In IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List
of threatened species. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Downloaded on 24 January 2009.
Shepherd C. R., Sukumaran J & Wich S. A. 2004.
Open season: an analysis of the pet trade in
Medan, Sumatra, 1997–2001. TRAFFIC South-
east Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
Sody [H. J. V.] 1931. De Vischkat, Felis viverrina. De
Tropische Natuur 20, 152-154.
Sody H. J. V. 1936. Die Fischkatze (Prionailurus
viverrinus Benn.) auf Sumatra? Der Zoologische
Garten (N. F.) 8, 141.
Sody H. J. V. 1949. Notes on some primates, Car-
nivora, and the Babirusa from the Indo-Malayan
and Indo-Australian regions (with descriptions
of ten new species and subspecies). Treubia
Sunquist M. & Sunquist F. 2002. Wild cats of the
world. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Sunquist M. E. & Sunquist F. C. 2009. Family Feli-
dae (cats). In Handbook of the mammals of the
world, vol. 1, carnivores. Wilson D. E. and Mit-
termeier R. A. (Eds). Lynx Edicions, Barcelona,
Suyanto A., Yoneda M., Maryanto I., Maharada-
tunkamsi & Sugardjito J. 2002. Checklist of the
mammals of Indonesia, 2nd edn. LIPI–JICA–
PHKA Joint Project for Biodiversity Conserva-
tion in Indonesia, Bogor, Indonesia.
Swinhoe R. 1862. On the mammals of the island of
Formosa. Proceedings of the Zoological Soci-
ety of London ‘1862’, 347-365.
Van Bree P. J. H. & Mohd Khan Bin Momin Khan
1992. On a ﬁshing cat, Felis (Prionailurus
viverrina Bennett, 1833, from continental
Malaysia. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 57,
Van der Zon A. P. M. 1979. Mammals of Indonesia.
UNDP/FAO National Park Development Project,
Van Strien N. J. 1996. The mammal fauna of the
Gunung Leuser National Park. In Leuser: a Su-
matran sanctuary. Van Schaik C. P. and Supri-
atna J. (Eds). Yayasin Bina Sains Hayati Indo-
nesia, Depok, Indonesia, pp. 132-202.
Van Strien N. J. 2001. Indoaustralian mammals. A
taxonomic and faunistic reference and atlas.
ETI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Weitzel V., Yang C. M. & Groves C. P. 1988. A cata-
logue of primates in the Singapore Zoological
Reference Collection. Rafﬂes Bulletin of Zoolo-
gy 36, 1-166.
Whitten T., Damanik S. J., Anwar J. & Hisyam N.
2000. The ecology of Sumatra. Periplus Edi-
tions (HK) Ltd, Hong Kong.
Wozencraft W. C. 1993. Order Carnivora. In Mam-
malian species of the world. A taxonomic and
geographic reference, 2nd edition. Wilson D. E.
and Reeder D. M. (Eds). Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington D.C., pp. 279-348.
Wozencraft W. C. 2005. Carnivora. In Mammalian
species of the world. A taxonomic and geo-
graphic reference, 3rd edition. Wilson D. E. and
Reeder D. M. (Eds). Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, U.S.A., pp. 532-628.
1 Wildlife Conservation Society Asia Program, 2300
Southern Blvd, New York, NY 10460, U.S.A.
Current address: PO Box 5573, Vientiane, Lao PDR
2 TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Taman SEA,
47400 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
3 Puslit Biologi LIPI, Jl. Raya Jakarta-Bogor Km.
46, Cibinong 16911, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
4 Los Navarros 6, E-35140 Mogán, Gran Canaria,
5 Small Cat Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conser-
vation Network, 25745 Bassett Lane, Los Altos,
CA 94022, USA
6 Vietnam Hunting & Wildlife Trade Program, Wild-
life Conservation Society, 1101 Hacisco tower,
Ngo 107, Nguyen Chi Thanh, Hanoi, Vietnam
7 Wildlife Conservation Society, Mpala Research
Centre, P.O. Box 555, Nanyuki, Kenya 10400
8 Zoological Society of London, Regents Park,
London, NW1 4RY
9 Fauna & Flora International Program Aceh, Jln
Tgk. Chik Dipasi No. 50, Desa Limpok,
Darussalam, Aceh Besar, Nanggroe Aceh
Darussalam 23373, Indonesia
10 P.O. Box 1380, 359 Street 306, Bong Keng Kang,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
11 Wildlife Conservation Society - Indonesia
Program, Jalan Burangrang N° 18, Bogor 16151,