Mystery or myth: a review of history and conservation status of the Malabar Civet Viverra civettina Blyth, 1862

Abstract

Malabar Civet Viverra civettina, one of only two small carnivores in the world listed as Critically Endangered, is considered endemic to the Western Ghats, India. However, it has never been sighted with certainty in the wild and its 'known' ecology is based on speculation, not fact. We reviewed the history of its collection and published and unpublished literature on the species, and collated and interpreted results of recent surveys in order to review critically some persistent uncertainties about the species. All known skins have changed hands before reaching their current destinations, and the primary origin of each remains unknown. Malabar Civet is so close morpho-logically to the disjunct Large-spotted Civet V. megaspila of South-east Asia that the two are often considered conspecific. Four early skins have been identified as both V. megaspila and V. civettina at different times. Discrepancies in the early field descriptions attributed to Malabar Civet suggest that they refer to other, non-congeneric, species (no other Viverra is suspected to occur in southern India), yet most of these descriptions have been repeated as applying to Malabar Civet almost verbatim until the present, with no additional information from the wild. We present a novel possibility that the genus Viverra does not occur in the wild in southern India and Mala-bar Civet is not a taxon. If the latter is a valid taxon, the results of recent surveys suggest that it may be either extinct or near extinction across its small world range.

Full text

47
Small Carnivore Conservation, Vol. 43: 47–59, December 2010
Mystery or myth: a review of history and conservation status of the
Malabar Civet Viverra civettina Blyth, 1862
R. NANDINI1 and Divya MUDAPPA2
ABSTRACT
Malabar Civet Viverra civettina, one of only two small carnivores in the world listed as Critically Endangered, is considered endemic to
the Western Ghats, India. However, it has never been sighted with certainty in the wild and its ‘known’ ecology is based on speculation,
not fact. We reviewed the history of its collection and published and unpublished literature on the species, and collated and interpreted
results of recent surveys in order to review critically some persistent uncertainties about the species. All known skins have changed
hands before reaching their current destinations, and the primary origin of each remains unknown. Malabar Civet is so close morpho-
logically to the disjunct Large-spotted Civet V. megaspila of South-east Asia that the two are often considered conspecic. Four early
skins have been identied as both V. megaspila and V. civettina at different times. Discrepancies in the early eld descriptions attributed
to Malabar Civet suggest that they refer to other, non-congeneric, species (no other Viverra is suspected to occur in southern India),
yet most of these descriptions have been repeated as applying to Malabar Civet almost verbatim until the present, with no additional
information from the wild. We present a novel possibility that the genus Viverra does not occur in the wild in southern India and Mala-
bar Civet is not a taxon. If the latter is a valid taxon, the results of recent surveys suggest that it may be either extinct or near extinction
across its small world range.
KEYWORDS: Critically Endangered, extinct, India, Viverridae, Western Ghats
Introduction
Among mammalian carnivores, the Viverridae is an ancient family,
widely distributed in Asia and Africa across a variety of habitats.
Of the 33 viverrid species (civets, genets and oyans) recognised by
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 14 are currently clas-
sied as globally threatened (Schipper et al. 2008). This includes
Malabar Civet Viverra civettina Blyth, 1862—a species described
as endemic to the Western Ghats (Pocock 1939, Schreiber et al.
1989, Corbet & Hill 1992, Jennings & Veron 2009). The West-
ern Ghats biogeographic zone includes the biotic provinces of the
Western Ghats mountains and Malabar Plains as per Rodgers &
Panwar (1988) and Rodgers et al. (2002). This species has been
shrouded in mystery since its original description, and no reliable
information exists about its distribution, ecology or population
status. Currently listed as the only Critically Endangered (CR)
viverrid by The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Schipper
et al. 2008), it was feared extinct until its rediscovery by G. U.
Kurup in 1987 (Kurup 1987, 1989).
Within its reported geographic range of southern India, Mal-
abar Civet remains the least common of the four sympatric civets;
the two scansorial palm civets—Common Palm Civet Paradoxu-
rus hermaphroditus and Brown Palm Civet P. jerdoni (subfamily
Paradoxurinae)—and the ground-dwelling Small Indian Civet
Viverricula indica (subfamily Viverrinae) being relatively com-
mon and widely distributed (e.g. Mudappa 1999).
Within its genus, Malabar Civet is by far the most range-
restricted species. It is one of the four species of the genus Viverra,
which is restricted to Asia (Corbet & Hill 1992), with the clos-
est relative of this genus being African Civet Civettictis civetta of
sub-Saharan Africa (Ray 1995). Besides Malabar Civet, Viverra
includes Large Indian Civet V. zibetha, Large-spotted Civet V.
megaspila and Malay Civet V. tangalunga. Malabar Civet is often
considered a subspecies of Large-spotted Civet (see below) and
closely resembles it in appearance, although there is a large gap in
their geographic ranges.
Table 1 gives geographic ranges of Viverra and Viverricu-
la. Large Indian Civet is the most widely distributed species of
Viverra, and Small Indian Civet is also very widespread. Mala-
bar Civet is reported only from the Western Ghats in south India
(Kurup 1989, Corbet & Hill 1992, Ashraf et al. 2009): there are
no records of Malabar Civet from the Eastern Ghats or central
India (Blanford 1888, Schreiber et al. 1989). Some of these civet
species are found outside their native ranges, having been trans-
ported by humans for various purposes. Large Indian and Large-
spotted Civets overlap widely in range with each other, and may
also show a small overlap with the mostly allopatric Malay Civet;
Small Indian Civet overlaps in range with all species of the genus
Viverra. The reported distribution of Malabar Civet overlaps no
other species of Viverra (Table 1).
Malabar Civet has not been sighted with certainty in the wild
and is a species known exclusively from specimens. Therefore,
there is an urgent need to consolidate the available information
on the species and review its status in order to frame conserva-
tion plans. Here, we review information on the species’s occur-
rence, assess critically the state of knowledge of this species and
provide a comprehensive account of reports throughout its world
range—based on the locations (albeit imprecise) of extant skins in
museums and sighting reports in the Western Ghats biogeograph-
ic zone that includes the Malabar Plains and the Western Ghats
mountains.
Methods
We collated information on all known skins of Malabar Civet from
the literature, and checked the actual presence of the skins at six
museums through visits. To examine specimens of Malabar Civet
and the history of each, we obtained information directly from the
Natural History Museum, London, UK (NHM) and from ve mu-
seums in India—Bombay Natural History Museum, Mumbai (=
Bombay) (BNHS); Zoological Survey of India Museums in Kolk-
ata (= Calcutta) and Kozhikode (= Calicut) (ZSI); Calicut Uni-

48
Table 1: Distribution and range overlap of civets of the genera Viverra (Malabar Civet, Large Indian Civet, Large-spotted Civet and
Malay Civet) and Viverricula (Small Indian Civet) across South and South-east Asia. Light grey = native distribution, dark grey =
introduced regions. Source: Corbet & Hill (1992).
Civet Species
South India
East India
NE India
Burma
China
Laos, Cambodia,
Vietnam, Thailand
Singapore
Malay peninsula
Sumatra
Borneo
East Asia Islands
Philippines
Malabar V. civettina
Large Indian V. zibetha
Large-spotted V. megaspila
Malay V. tangalunga
Small Indian Viverricula indica
Small Carnivore Conservation, Vol. 43, December 2010
Nandini & Mudappa
versity Museum, Kozhikode; and Chennai Government Museum,
Chennai (= Madras). Tag details were noted (accession number,
date of collection, location of collection, details of collection and
collector, sex of the specimen; Table 2). We spoke with curators
regarding the skins and obtained as much detail as possible, but in
most cases we had no access to accession registers or collectors’
eld books. Where it was permitted, we photographed the skins.
Also, we searched for skins and skulls of Viverra and Civettic-
tis in museum collections using the online search engines MaNIS
(Mammal Networked Information System), BioCASE (Biological
Collections Access Service for Europe), Arctos, GBIF (Global Bi-
odiversity Information Facility) portal, and Systax. We searched
online collection databases of certain museums—the Natural His-
tory Museum, South Kensington, London, U.K., and Muséum
National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France. We obtained infor-
mation of the collections at the World Museum, Liverpool, U.K.,
Rafes Museum of Biodiversity Research, Singapore, and at the
Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity, NCB Naturalis (formerly Ri-
jksmuseum van Natuurlijke Histoire; RMNH), Leiden, the Neth-
erlands, via direct correspondence with the curators.
We also collated data on the taxonomy and distribution from
available literature on Malabar Civet. Three search engines (Web
of Science, Current Contents and Google Scholar) were used to
nd literature on Malabar Civet using the keywords “Viverra civet-
tina”, “Malabar civet” and “Viverra megaspila civettina” (search-
es ending 5 May 2009). We also compiled a list of references from
the reference lists of other publications and unpublished reports,
notably Van Rompaey & Colyn (1996).
We held discussions with eld biologists who have carried
out civet surveys in southern India, as well as others who have had
possible sightings of Malabar Civet, and collated recent unpub-
lished information on the species.
In the following sections, we collate the details of the speci-
mens of Malabar Civet in museum collections and then discuss
the descriptions and historical accounts of Malabar Civet in the
literature. Finally, we synthesise the eld accounts and reported
sightings of the species since its description up to the present, in-
cluding current research.
Results
Database searches and direct communication with museum cura-
tors revealed specimens of other Viverra species but not of Mala-
bar Civet. Searching the NHM catalogue revealed two skins of
Malabar Civet in their collections and these were viewed and tag
details noted. Six surviving skins were viewed in museums within
India. These were located through direct contact and published ac-
counts. We got details of the holotype from Khajuria et al. (1977),
but we were not able to access it during the visit to ZSI – Kolkata.
Comparison of Malabar Civet skins with two other species of
Viverra and the sympatric Viverricula is presented as Fig. 1.
The search engines—Current Contents and Web of Science—
did not yield any result for the keywords “Viverra civettina”,
“Malabar Civet” or “Viverra megaspila civettina” while Google
Scholar yielded 53, 412 and 12 search results, respectively. Most
Fig. 1. Skins (top to bottom) of Small Indian Civet Viverricula
indica, Malabar Civet Viverra civettina and Large Indian Civet V.
zibetha at BNHS; and Large-spotted Civet V. megaspila at NHM

49
Small Carnivore Conservation, Vol. 43, December 2010
A review of the Malabar Civet
Table 2. Specimens of Malabar Civet: locations and collection details from tags. All specimens below had tags labelled V. civettina or V.
megaspila civettina. However, we think specimens 1 and 2 (*in table below) were reclassied by Lindsay (1928) as V. megaspila (sensu
stricto) and are not V. civettina. We did not see skins 9–13, and we obtained details for 11 from Khajuria et al. (1977), and from curators
or publications for 9, 10, 12, and 13.
Museum Collection
number
Skin Skull Sex Collection
location
Source of skin Date of col-
lection
Collector Complete Tag details
1* Zoological Survey
of India, Kolkata
10394 Y N - - Unknown Unknown
(nineteenth
century)
Unknown Tag 1: Indian Museum Calcutta,
Viverra civettina, Purchased
Tag 2: ZSI, Viverra megaspila
subsp. civettina Blyth, Purchased,
det. Robinson and Kloss 7.1.20
2* Zoological Survey
of India, Kolkata
20834 Y N - - Purchased Unknown
(nineteenth
century)
Unknown Tag 1: Indian Museum Calcutta,
Viverra civettina, South Indian
variety, V. civettina Blyth, Pur-
chased
Tag 2: ZSI, Viverra megaspila
civettina Blyth
Tag 3: Indian Museum, Viverra
civettina, Purchased
3 Natural History
Museum, London
ZD
1884.6.3.11
Y Y M Sumatra
on earliest
tag - later
changed to
South India
Unknown,
deposited at
Zoological So-
ciety, London,
then sold to Dr.
Crisp, then sold
to NHM, pur-
chased
Donated to
Zool. Soc.
before 1838,
bought from
Dr Crisp
1860
Sir T. S. Raf-
es
Tag 1: V. megaspila, Sumatra,
Collector: Sir T. S. Rafes, Crisp
Sale
Tag 2: V. civettina, Probably S In-
dia, Collector: Sir T. S. Rafes,
Crisp Sale
Tag 3: Moschothera civettina, In-
dia (no doubt), Collector: Sir T.S.
Rafes, Crisp Sale
4 Natural History
Museum, London
ZD
1920.1.17.3
Y Y M Trivandrum
Zoo
Obtained from
Trivandrum
Zoo
1907 - Govt.
Zoo/ Muse-
um - Tvdm,
1918 -
BNHS,
1920 -
NHM
W. S. Millard Tag 1: Viverra civettina, Trivan-
drum Zoo, Bombay Natural His-
tory Society
Tag 2: Moschothera civettina,
Travancore, Trivandrum Zoo.
5 Bombay Natural
History Society,
Mumbai
5599 Y Y M Trivandrum
Zoo
Obtained from
Trivandrum
Zoo
1907 - Govt.
Museum -
Tvdm,
1918 -
BNHS
W. S. Millard Viverra civettina, Trivandrum
Zoo, patch of skin missing from
neck, possibly due to a skin in-
fection.
6 Zoological Sur-
vey of India,
Kozhikode
3847 Y N - Elayur,
Kerala
Recovered
from a hunter
1987 G. U. Kurup Viverridae, Malappuram district,
Ernad Taluk, Karyzannur, Elayur,
Collection date: 9.3.1987 (sic),
date of entry: 17.3.1987 (sic).
7 Calicut Univer-
sity Museum,
Kozhikode
no details Y N - Elayur,
Kerala
Recovered
from a hunter
1987 N. G. George
and ZSI team
Malabar Civet cat
8 Chennai Govern-
ment Museum
no details Y N - Unknown Unknown Presumably
before 1923
Unknown Unknown
9-10 Wildlife Institute
of India, Dehra
Dun
2 skins, de-
stroyed
N N - Elayur,
Kerala
Recovered
from a hunter
1990 N. V. K.
Ashraf
Unknown
11 Zoological Survey
of India, Kolkata
10393
(=A.S.B
No. 140A,
=I.M,
No.b)
Y Y - South Mala-
bar, Kerala,
India
1845 Lord Arthur
Hay
[not seen]
12 NCB Naturalis,
Netherlands
(RMNH)
3748 Y Y FIndia Unknown 14 June
1938
Gebr. Blazer Civettictis civetta, India
13 Zoological Survey
of India, Kolkata
? Y Y - ? Unknown Unknown
(ninteenth
century)
Lord W.
Rutledge
[not seen]. According to
Sclater (1891) the skeleton
corresponding to this skin is at
the museum.

50
Small Carnivore Conservation, Vol. 43, December 2010
of these results pertained to the biodiversity of the Western Ghats
where Malabar Civet was mentioned and were not studies or re-
views of the species itself. Further, only nine of these results were
peer-reviewed publications. Obtaining references from published
papers and unpublished reports (of projects carried out) proved
the best method of obtaining literature on the species. Many pub-
lications on Malabar Civet pertain to taxonomic discussions or
descriptions, and most were written before 1940. Since 1990, four
surveys (Ashraf et al. 1993, 2009, Rai & Kumar 1993, Jayson
2007, Rao et al. 2007, N. G. George unpublished) have been con-
ducted for Malabar Civet and the recent papers and unpublished
reports pertain only to these surveys.
Museum specimens of Malabar Civet
Schreiber et al. (1989) quoted W. C. Wozencraft (in litt. 1988)
that there are 10 skins of Malabar Civet in museums; however,
we found only six skins and four skulls (belonging to four of the
six skins), deposited in museums in India and the United King-
dom, labelled Viverra civettina, and took details from the litera-
ture for one more. Within India, the specimens are: the holotype
skin and skull in the ZSI – Kolkata (not seen), one skin in the
ZSI – Kozhikode, one skin and skull in BNHS, one skin in Calicut
University, and one stuffed specimen in the Chennai Government
Museum. Two skins and their corresponding skulls are deposited
at the NHM (Table 2). In addition, we examined two non-type
skins at ZSI – Kolkata that are labelled as V. civettina but seem
to be V. megaspila (sensu stricto). Papeş & Gaubert (2007) men-
tioned a specimen (number 3478) at RMNH, and we examined
photographs of the skin and skull sent to us by the museum and
the tag on the specimen, which records the animal as Civettic-
tis civetta from India (entered in 1938). Based on its appearance,
and despite the labelled origin of ‘India’, we believe that it is not
a Viverra of any species. Pending a proper investigation of this
specimen, it is not discussed any further in this paper.
The holotype of Malabar Civet was obtained by Lord Arthur
Hay; it was given by him in 1845 to the Asiatic Society of Bengal
and was later transferred to the Indian Museum in Calcutta (now
called Kolkata), then to the Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata
(Sclater 1891, Lindsay 1928, Khajuria et al. 1977). There is neither
recorded account of the origin (specic geographic location, cap-
tive/wild animal, traded/hunted animal) of this specimen nor any
other rst-hand detail of its collection. Lindsay (1928) recounted
Blyth’s description of the holotype in his catalogue of 1862 where
the latter described the specimen to be in poor condition. Lindsay
(1928) also noted that the skin was torn down the back but that
there are enough of the anks, feet, and tail to discern the patterns.
She stated that the skin was dull yellowish with brown markings,
speculating that this was possibly due to the curing methods em-
ployed. At the time, she noted that while the upper jaw of the skull
was in good condition, the lower jaw was broken.
We were able to examine only two skins at ZSI – Kolkata,
both labelled as V. civettina, neither of which was the holotype.
One specimen (catalogue number 10394) had two tags, and the
second skin (catalogue number 20834) had three tags attached to
it (Table 2). We believe that these are two of the purchased skins
(c and d) listed in Sclater (1891) that Lindsay (1928) reclassied
as V. megaspila (see later). We were not able to examine the speci-
men listed as the holotype (catalogue number 10393, de Khajuria
et al. 1977) that was discussed by Lindsay (1928). Khajuria et
al. (1977) gave the following details for the holotype: “Viverra
civettina Blyth, 1862. J. Asiat. Soc. Beng., Calcutta, 31: 332.
Holotype: Reg. No. 10393 (= A. S. B. No. 140A, = I. M. No. b),
unsexed; study skin and skull (one ramus of the lower jaw dam-
aged); South Malabar, Kerala, India; 1845; Lord A. Hay collector.
Current name: Viverra megaspilla civettina Blyth” (sic).
The two specimens of Malabar Civet at NHM (Fig. 2a)
were deposited there at different times. The older specimen (ZD
1884.6.3.11; with skin and damaged skull) was traded twice be-
fore it reached the Museum. It was rst presented by Sir Thomas
Stamford Rafes to the Zoological Society before 1838, and later
bought from the sale of the society’s museum collections by a Dr
Crisp around 1860. The British Museum in turn “purchased (it)
from the effects of Dr Crisp” (D. M. Hills, NHM, in litt. 2007; Fig.
2a, bottom skin). The specimen carries three tags. The original
details for this specimen, in the Zoological Society catalogue (and
oldest tag) record it as V. megaspila from Sumatra collected by T.
S. Rafes. Lindsay (1928) and Pocock (1933) examined the speci-
men and identied it as a Malabar Civet, noting that V. megaspila
does not occur in Sumatra. Thus, whatever the identity of the skin,
this reported locality cannot be of a wild origin. Further, Pocock
(1933) found that the skull characteristics of the specimen matched
those of Malabar Civet skull in ZSI – Kolkata. It is therefore pos-
sible that the second tag (V. civettina, location “probably S India”)
was attached after Lindsay’s examination of the skin, and the third
tag (Moschothera civettina Blyth, location “India (no doubt)”)
must have been written after Pocock’s examination because the
genus Moschothera was rst proposed only at this time (Pocock
1933). The later two tags’ location of India is presumably inferred
from the reidentication of the specimen, rather than being based
on any objective evidence. Pocock (1933) speculated that it was
probably raised in captivity, and ascribed to this the differences in
skull morphology of this specimen from the holotype.
The second specimen (ZD 1920.1.17.3; skin and skull) at
NHM is one of two male civets that lived and died in captivity at
the Trivandrum Zoological Park, Kerala, India. They were both
deposited in the Government Museum, Trivandrum, in 1907, and
subsequently were obtained by the Bombay Natural History So-
ciety in 1918. One was deposited at NHM in 1920 (D. M. Hills in
litt. 2007; Fig. 2a, top), while the other (also skin and skull) was
retained in BNHS (Fig. 2b). The Trivandrum Zoo holds no records
regarding origin of specimens from prior to the 1950s. Further-
more, the zoo belonged to the regional monarch in the rst half of
the twentieth century and as animals were probably procured from
various places during the king’s travels, it is not prudent to assume
that the animals were captured locally within the Travancore re-
gion (Director, Trivandrum Zoo verbally 2010). Again, therefore,
these specimens’ locality of origin remains unknown.
The skins in ZSI – Kozhikode and in Calicut University Mu-
seum are the most recently collected (Figs 2c, 2d). That at ZSI
– Kozhikode was procured from Elayur (also called Elayavur),
Kerala, by a team led by G. U. Kurup (1989) and the other skin
obtained during the same expedition was deposited at Calicut Uni-
versity Museum (N. V. K. Ashraf and A. Kumar verbally 2010).
Most recently, another skin and a stuffed specimen were collected
by N. V. K. Ashraf from a tribal settlement near Poongode (< 15
km from Elayur), Kerala, during a survey in 1990 (Ashraf et al.
1993) (Fig. 3) and were deposited at the Wildlife Institute of India
(WII), Dehradun. DM searched for them at the WII museum and
conrmed with the laboratory in-charge that a skin and a stuffed
specimen of Malabar Civet had been discarded on disintegration.
Nandini & Mudappa

51
Small Carnivore Conservation, Vol. 43, December 2010
Fig. 2. Malabar Civet Viverra civettina specimens at: (a) NHM
(top: ZD 1920.1.17.3, bottom: ZD 1884.6.3.11); (b) BNHS (5599);
(c) ZSI – Kozhikode; and (d) Calicut University, Kozhikode.
A review of the Malabar Civet
Taxonomic descriptions and historical accounts
Blyth (1862) is the original description of Viverra civettina. As
curator of the Zoological Department of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal, Blyth documented various donations to the collections.
In documenting several such skins, to which he gave the name
Viverra megaspila, he discussed the other species of Viverra in
Asia as well as the African Civet (which he called V. civetta). In
this publication, he proposed both the names V. megaspila and V.
civettina, giving very brief notes of their occurrence and morphol-
ogy. He stated that there were four ‘races’ (sic) of Asiatic civets
that were different from V. civetta. He described V. civettina as
inhabiting Southern Malabar and being similar to V. civetta except
for the mane, and noted that V. megaspila differed from V. civet-
tina in the pattern of stripes on the sides. In a later note on Asiatic
civets, Blyth (1864) suggested that V. civettina inhabited “South-
ern Malabar and probably Ceylon”, and again contrasted its stripe
patterns and mane with those of V. civetta.
The next published information about Malabar Civet is by
Jerdon (1874), who reported it to be very common, having seen
many individuals. He stated that it occurred throughout the Mala-
bar coast from Travancore region (present-day southern Kerala)
up to Honore (= Honavar, Karnataka), and probably to the north
of this as well. He had not seen it in the Eastern Ghats or central
India, but suspected it would be found in Sri Lanka. He distin-
guished the species from the (allopatric) Large Indian Civet by
colour patterns and described the pelage of Malabar Civet as fol-
lows: “dusky grey, with large transverse dark marks on back and
sides; two obliquely transverse dark lines on the neck, which, with
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 3. Skin and a stuffed specimen of Malabar Civet Viverra
civettina collected by Ashraf et al. (1993). Photo: N. V. K. Ashraf.

52
the throat, is white; a dark mark on the cheek; tail ringed with dark
bands; feet dark. Size of the last [V. zibetha] or nearly so”. This
description had omissions and factual errors. It did not clearly
mention the distinct crest/mane along the back running to the tip
of the tail, the banded/collared pattern of the throat, or the distinct
(spotted) markings on the anks, though he did note such details
about V. zibetha.
Lindsay (1928), after examining four Malabar Civet skins,
noted that it had “three obliquely transverse black lines on the
throat”, which we have found true in our examination of skins.
In contrast, Small Indian Civet has two transverse marks on the
neck and throat that vary in colour and size between individuals
(our examination of 15 skins and 20 photographs). Lindsay (1928)
also noted that Malabar Civet did not have a dark patch under the
eye (on the cheek). Small Indian Civet has a dark patch under
and sometimes around the eyes, and these patches vary in colour
and size (examination of same skins and photographs). Given the
similarity of Jerdon’s description to characteristics of Small In-
dian Civet, and given that his projected range for Malabar Civet
overlaps with the relevant part of the present-day range of Small
Indian Civet, we echo Pocock’s (1933) thoughts and suggest that
Jerdon had mistaken Small Indian Civet for Malabar Civet. This
is particularly unfortunate, because Jerdon (1874) contained the
rst reported sightings of Malabar Civet and the rst account of
its projected geographic range, and has thus formed the basis of
most accounts of its distribution and ecology ever since (Sterndale
1884 to Menon 2003, Jayson 2007, Ashraf et al. 2009). However,
Jerdon (1874) also gave a species entry for Small Indian Civet,
and regarded it to be common.
Sterndale (1884) repeated Jerdon’s description and distribu-
tion of V. civettina. He noted that Large Indian Civet is found south
to Orissa and central India but is then replaced by Malabar Civet
further south, but noted that Kellaart (sic) did not record the latter
from Sri Lanka. Blanford (1888) noted that the reported range of
Malabar Civet is geographically separate from that of Large In-
dian Civet, indicating that the two are probably separate species.
Blanford, based on his correspondence with W. L. Sclater and on
Jerdon’s (1874) account, described the pelage and dentition of V.
civettina while stating that he himself had never seen the animal.
Pocock (1933) pointed out that Blanford mistakenly described the
tail of Malabar Civet to have complete bands (as does Small In-
dian Civet’s). However, Blanford (1888) had also mentioned that
in his correspondence with W. L. Sclater, the latter had described
the tail bands being united by a black line above.
Sclater (1891) studied four specimens then held at the In-
dian Museum, Kolkata. He repeated Jerdon’s distribution, but de-
scribed the features of the skin and skull after his own examina-
tion. Pointing out features of the skin and skull that distinguish
Malabar Civet from Large Indian Civet, he directed attention
to the distinct marking on the hindquarters, the black line down
the tail, and the quadrangular shape of the rst upper molar of
Malabar Civet. He listed four specimens of V. civettina as in the
holdings of the Indian Museum – one (skin, skeleton) donated by
Lord W. Rutledge; one, the type (skin, skull), contributed by Lord
A. Hay, via the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1845; and two skins
purchased, for which no further details of origin are available.
Subsequently, these specimens were examined closely by Lindsay
(1928), who declared that only Hay’s was a Malabar Civet, the
rest being Large-spotted Civets.
Robinson & Kloss (1920) considered Malabar Civet a sub-
species of Large-spotted Civet. They examined the skull of the
holotype and a skin at the Indian Museum, which had “no prov-
enance”. While they pointed out differences in pelage and skull
morphology between Malabar Civet and Large-spotted Civet,
they also stated that these characteristics are highly variable, and
that these differences might be individual variations. However,
Lindsay (1928) opined that they probably examined the skull of
the holotype while mistakenly examining a skin that was actually
V. megaspila, although called V. civettina by Sclater (1891); and
that this was probably why they considered Malabar and Large-
spotted Civets conspecic. Our examination in ZSI – Kolkata,
which received some years ago most, perhaps all, of the mammal
specimens of the Indian Museum, Kolkata, revealed two skins la-
belled as both Viverra megaspila civettina and Viverra civettina
(see above for details and Table 2) that are probably two of the
three specimens reclassied by Lindsay (1928) as V. megaspila, al-
though no additional tag or information seems to have been added
to reect this. The tag identications still classify them as Viverra
civettina and Viverra megaspila civettina (tag details in Table 2).
Examination of archival notes and accession registers might pro-
vide the necessary information for these skins. The present loca-
tion and identication of the Lord W. Rutledge specimen (skin and
skeleton) reported by Sclater (1891) is unclear to us.
Lindsay (1928) investigated comprehensively the skins and
skulls of Malabar Civet available in various museums (‘Calcutta
Museum’ [now called the ‘Indian Museum, Kolkata’]; BNHS; and
NHM) and compared them with the other Viverra species. She
concluded that V. civettina is a distinct species, and claried details
of a number of museum specimens then extant. In Kolkata, she re-
identied as V. megaspila three skins listed by Sclater (1891) as
V. civettina. She also considered two skins and skulls at NHM as
undoubted Malabar Civets. She examined various morphological
characteristics (skin and skull) of all four species of Viverra and
noted the differences in the upper premolars, bullae, and shape of
the coronoid processes. She cited A. P. Kinloch’s (1923) record in
the Nelliampathy Hills of a civet probably larger than the Toddy-
cat (= Common Palm Civet) judging from the faeces. Kinloch
(1923) had never seen the animal leaving these faeces, and made
no mention of Small Indian Civet, an obvious possibility; but
the editors of the journal (JBNHS 1923; R. A. Spence and S. H.
Prater) suggested in the editorial that it might be a Malabar Civet.
They also stated that there might be a stuffed Malabar Civet in the
Madras Museum, Tamil Nadu, India. We located this specimen,
which is kept in a glass case. It is clearly a specimen of Viverra,
but the details to allow identication to species are obscured by its
poor condition. The records of the museum (Satyamurthi 1971),
however, noted this as Moschotherea civettina (sic).
Pocock (1933) reviewed the taxonomic status of the genus
Viverra and placed two of the four civets theretofore of that ge-
nus into a new genus, Moschothera: Large-spotted and Malabar
Civets. He distinguished the two genera through differences in
foot and skull morphology. Concordant with Blyth (1862), he per-
ceived a closer similarity between Moschothera and the African
Civet—previously grouped with Viverra until moved to a new
genus Civettictis by Pocock (1915)—than with Viverra (sensu
stricto). Both Viverra and Moschothera have been used for these
two species for the next seven decades, depending on author. Fol-
lowing an examination of multiple specimens of the four species,
he emphasised that intraspecic variation in skull morphology and
pelage is often greater than interspecic differences. He suggested
Nandini & Mudappa
Small Carnivore Conservation, Vol. 43, December 2010

53
A review of the Malabar Civet
Small Carnivore Conservation, Vol. 43, December 2010
that some characteristics of Malabar Civet used to differentiate it
from other Viverra (s.l.) could be a result of captive rearing (four
specimens—two NHM, one BNHS, and one ZSI – Kolkata—
known at the time were speculated to have been captive for at
least part of their lives). Regarding Jerdon’s (1874) report of the
common occurrence of Malabar Civet, he wondered if Jerdon had
mistaken the more widely distributed Small Indian Civet for this
species. In his own attempts to obtain fresh specimens of Malabar
Civet, he was sent a pair of civets from Trivandrum by his con-
temporaries, who had apparently “had no difcultly in getting a
pair [of Malabar Civets]”, but these turned out to be Small Indian
Civets (Pocock 1933). Pocock (1939) compared one skin from
Trivandrum Zoo with V. megaspila, commenting on the foot and
pelage morphology, again pointing to the need to examine inter-
specic variation within each of these species.
Prater (1935) mentioned in passing two other large civet
species in British India in addition to V. zibetha—Large Malabar
Civet (sic) Moschothera civettina from Travancore and Cochin,
and Burmese Civet (sic) M. megaspila found in Southern Burma,
Siam, Annam, Cochin China and the Malay Peninsula. He noted
that the differences between Moschothera and Viverra were in the
absence of sheaths to the claws of the fore feet and relative hair-
less skin between the pads of the feet. He considered both the
species to be rare.
Webb-Peploe (1947) in his notes on the mammals of south
Tinnevelly [= Tirunelveli] was doubtful of the presence of Large
Malabar Civet in this region but suspected it to occur in the moun-
tains since the species recorded there were similar to those in
neighbouring Travancore (present day region around Trivandrum)
where Malabar Civet had been reported.
Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) disagreed with Pocock’s
(1933) reclassication and considered Moschothera as merely a
subgenus, and Malabar Civet as a geographic race of Large-spot-
ted Civet.
Prater (1965) mentioned Malabar Civet only briey, which
he considered a race of Large-spotted Civet. He stated that this
civet “was once very common in the coastal districts of Malabar
and Travancore”, occurring in wooded plains as well as the ad-
joining hill slopes (presumably repeating Jerdon 1874), but noted
that at the time of his publication that it was rare and possibly
nearing extinction; Pocock (1939) had already made this case
quite strongly.
Subsequent to this, Wozencraft (1984, 1989) examined the
NHM specimens of Malabar Civet and considered it a separate
species. All taxonomic accounts henceforth maintain the status of
this species (Jennings et al. 2008). However, Corbet & Hill (1992)
kept V. civettina specically distinct only provisionally, because
only one of the morphological characteristics suggested by Lind-
say (1928), the curved coronoid process of the mandible, seemed
to be valid based on their examinations.
Field surveys and ecological accounts
There are very few accounts of Malabar Civet from the wild. The
rst account was provided by Jerdon (1874), who reported the
species as common along the Malabar Coast and occasionally in
the hills of Wynaad and Coorg [= Kodagu]. Following him, no bi-
ologist or surveyor appears to have believed that s/he had sighted
the species until Hutton (1949). The extensive Mammals of India
surveys conducted by the Bombay Natural History Society be-
tween 1908 and 1915 yielded no information or skins of Malabar
Civet (e.g. Wroughton 1921, Pocock 1939), but few of the sur-
veys were in the presumed range of Malabar Civet, and most of
these failed to detect even other nocturnal small carnivores even
though some species like Small Indian Civet are common around
these sites today. Several of the other small carnivores endemic
(or nearly so) to south India (Stripe-necked Mongoose Herpestes
vitticollis, Brown Mongoose H. fuscus [which also occurs Sri
Lanka], Brown Palm Civet and Nilgiri Marten Martes gwatkinsii)
were found on only one survey in the series (Wroughton 1921)
and this took place, the collector (G. C. Shortridge) suspected,
at too high altitude for Malabar Civet (Ryley 1913). G. C. Shor-
tridge was also of the opinion that since nobody seemed familiar
with Malabar Civet in Coorg, Blanford’s record (Blanford only
quoted Jerdon’s description of the distribution) from there may
have been of a straggler from the coasts. In the Berars (commonly
known as Melghat), the surveyor, C. A. Crump, was informed by
His Highness the Rao that Small Indian Civet was known by the
local name ‘jabadio’ (Wroughton 1912); a local name suggested,
without clear foundation, to denote specically Malabar Civet in
Kerala in the latter half of the twentieth century (see below).
The next claim of Malabar Civet in the wild after Jerdon
(1874) is by Hutton (1949), who reported sightings from the High
Wavy Mountains (9°42′N, 77°26′E; altitude > 1,500 m a.s.l.; Fig.
4) and Varushanad Valley (9°32′N, 77°22′E; altitude > 1,500 m
a.s.l.). He described two species of civets from the region – the
“Large Malabar Civet (Moschothera civettina)” and the “Small
Indian Civet (Viverricula indica)” and listed the Tamil name
‘punagu poonai’ for both species. He stated that Malabar Civet
was fairly common in evergreen forest, though not often seen, and
reported that it was kept in captivity for the collection of civetone.
He stated that he himself had been unsuccessful in raising animals.
In describing Small Indian Civet he had little to say, stating that
he had only seen one in deciduous forest at about 900 m a.s.l., but
guessing that it must be fairly common, judging from the drop-
pings; however, he did not state what characteristics he used to
distinguish these species (either as faeces or for the animal itself).
We examined a photograph (with kind permission from Hutton
himself) of a young animal reared by him in the High Wavys that
he identied as a Malabar Civet, but, given the size of the animal
and its age, compounded by the quality of the image, we cannot
identify the species with certainty: however, it looks more like a
young Small Indian Civet than a Viverra. Currently, Small Indian
Civet is common in the High Wavy Mountains (pers. obs.), but
there has been no other evidence of Malabar Civet from this re-
gion (see following section).
Recent years – ‘rediscovery’ and sightings
In more than half a century since 1949, there have been only two
published accounts of eld sightings of possible Malabar Civ-
ets. K. U. Karanth (1986) reported sighting an animal he consid-
ered probably a Malabar Civet in Bhagavathy Valley, Karnataka
(13°12′N, 75°12′E), in 1975. He saw the animal in daylight (17h00)
at a distance of 10 m while driving down a road and described it
as larger than Small Indian Civet, greyish in colour with indistinct
patterns and a banded tail; he did not note the presence of a crest.
As noted by Schreiber et al. (1989), Karanth (1986) published his
account of the sighting nearly a decade after the sighting, when he
checked his observation against a skin specimen to cross-check
his identication (K. U. Karanth in litt. 2009).
Kurup (1987, 1989), in his papers on the “rediscovery” of

54
Malabar Civet, mentioned sighting an individual near Thiruvalla,
Kerala (8°24′N, 76°58′E), a decade before publication, but provid-
ed no detailed description of the sighting or the animal. In March
1987, three live civets were reported to have been captured in Elay-
ur (11°17’N, 76°06’E), Kerala, and a team from ZSI – Kozhikode,
investigated the site (Kurup 1989). By the time they arrived there,
the animals were dead. Apparently these were captured at a site
that was being converted from a cashew Anacardium occidentale
plantation to a rubber Hevea brasiliensis plantation (Ashraf et al.
2009). One of these skins is deposited in ZSI – Kozhikode (Ku-
rup 1989) and another is at the Calicut University Museum (N.
V. K. Ashraf, A. Kumar and N. G. George verbally 2010). Kurup
(1987, 1989) did not furnish a detailed description of the skins or
their capture (location of capture, purpose or method of capture,
or ecology or behaviour of the animal). Although a passing men-
tion is made of the report of three animals, Kurup (1989) only
identied and described the skin now in the possession of ZSI –
Kozhikode, and gave no details of the other two.
Following the reports from Elayur, several surveys have
been conducted in the Western Ghats, particularly in the lowland
forests and plantations (Ashraf 1992, Ashraf et al. 1993, 2009,
Rai & Kumar 1993, Jayson 2007, N. G. George verbally 2010).
N. G. George, Curator at Calicut University, conducted a one-year
survey in early 1990s around Elayur doing both eldwork and
conducting questionnaires using yers with pictures of civets, but
did not nd any evidence of Malabar Civet (N. G. George verbally
2010). Ashraf et al. (1993) surveyed the regions of Elayur and ad-
joining areas of Calicut and Palghat (two districts in Kerala), and
the Kudremukh Wildlife Sanctuary in 1990. Their survey did not
result in direct sightings of the species but procured one skin (fair-
ly fresh, from a tribal settlement, Poongode, 11°10’N, 76°16’E)
and a stuffed specimen of an animal killed in 1987 from a hunter
in Elayur. Both these specimens were deposited in the Wildlife
Institute of India but have since been lost (see above). Accord-
ing to Ashraf et al. (1993), only 10% (mainly hunters, Ayurvedic
physicians and civet-rearers) of people surveyed seemed to be fa-
miliar with Malabar Civet, reportedly referring to it by the local
name ‘jawad’ (but see below). Of 22 areas surveyed, seven (in
Kerala) reported having had captives assigned by the interviewers
to Malabar Civets in the past 30 years to collect civetone. Hunt-
ers interviewed (n=6) in Kudremukh National Park did not recog-
nise Malabar Civet through the discussion methods used. Ashraf
Nandini & Mudappa
Small Carnivore Conservation, Vol. 43, December 2010
Fig. 4. Locations of collections and reported
sightings of Malabar Civet Viverra civettina.
Towns referred to in the text are also marked
here. (1–Trivandrum, 2–Thiruvalla, 3–High
Wavy Mountains, 4–Varushanad Hills,
5–Nelliampathy Hills, 6–Aliyar, 7–Palghat,
8–Malappuram, 9–Poongode, 10–Nilambur
Reserved Forests, 11–Elayur, 12–Wynaad
Wildlife Sanctuary, 13–Biligiri Rangaswamy
Temple Wildlife Sanctuary, 14–Kannavam
Reserved Forest, 15–Kozhikode, 16–Kannur,
17–Kodagu, 18–Kudremukh National Park,19–
Udupi, 20–Someshwara Wildlife Sanctuary,
21–Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary, 22–Karwar,
23–Tirunelveli).

55
A review of the Malabar Civet
Small Carnivore Conservation, Vol. 43, December 2010
et al. (1993) consolidated information from discussions regard-
ing captures and enumerated 22 captures of animals assigned by
the interviewers to Malabar Civet in 18 occasions over 40 years
(1953–1993); ten of these were caught by dogs. They listed poten-
tial sites with populations of Malabar Civets and provided a list
of potential habitats (ecological distribution) for Malabar Civet
based on interviews, although they did not come across any direct
evidence for the occurrence of the species.
As a follow-up of the survey of Ashraf et al. (1993), Rai
& Kumar (1993) conducted a short study in Nilambur and ad-
joining forests in Kerala, and a questionnaire survey north of the
Palghat Gap from Nilambur, Kerala, north to Agnashini Valley in
Karnataka (seven districts in total). This study resulted in no direct
sightings or photographs of Malabar Civet, but reported hunters
at various sites along the Western Ghats stating that they recog-
nised the species based on verbal descriptions of the surveyors.
Rai & Kumar (1993) reported Malabar Civet as occurring in cash-
ew plantations and rice elds in Nilambur based on information
from villagers, and they even located defecation sites, which they
identied as from the species. Their survey suggested knowledge
of Malabar Civet in the Kannavam Forest Range (Kerala) and
Kudremukh NP, Someshwara NP, Mookambika WLS, and Kar-
war in Karnataka. Neither Ashraf et al. (1993) nor Rai & Kumar
(1993) presented any comparative information regarding occur-
rence or abundance of Small Indian Civet at most of these sites.
They obtained no skins but Rai & Kumar (1993) recovered a civet
gland (species unconrmed) from a hunter in Kannur district in
Kerala who had killed an animal in February 1992. However, this
gland was too foetid to be of use for histological or genetic analy-
sis (A. Kumar verbally 2010). Rai & Kumar (1993) also walked
transects at night, and reported Small Indian Civet among other
nocturnal mammals at certain sites, but did not record Malabar
Civet.
The most recent survey for Malabar Civet was a reconnais-
sance in eleven districts in Kerala and six in Karnataka in 2006
and 2008 (Rao et al. 2007, Ashraf et al. 2009). Again, this study
resulted in no sightings or photographs of Malabar Civet but ques-
tionnaire surveys suggested knowledge of the animal in Malap-
puram and Kannur districts in Kerala. However, in contrast to Rai
& Kumar (1993), they concluded that only few people in Karnata-
ka had local knowledge of the species, almost all of them from the
Udupi district. Ashraf et al. (2009) also found community-specic
local names used for large ground-dwelling civets within their sur-
vey sites. The name ‘jawad’ and its derivatives that Rai & Kumar
(1993) reported to mean the Malabar Civet in Kerala, was used for
the Small Indian Civet in Karnataka (Rao et al. 2007). Although
it is quite plausible that the name would also be used for Malabar
Civet, that it is clearly not tied only to it invalidates the conclu-
sions of Rai & Kumar (1993) and Ashraf et al. (1993) regarding
the extensive distribution of Malabar Civet in Karnataka.
Another two-year study in Kerala (Jayson 2007) used eld
surveys, questionnaires, brochures inviting public response, and
live-trapping to seek Malabar Civet. The study also visited cap-
tive-breeding centres of Small Indian Civet. This study too could
not nd Malabar Civet, and concluded that many identications
of Malabar Civet by recent surveyors using local people’s answers
were false: upon examination these invariably turned out to be
Common Palm Civet (Jayson 2007).
Over the past few years a few sightings of ‘possible Malabar
Civets’ have not entered mainstream literature, including (with
kind permission for their presentation here from the observers)
sightings apparently of large civets stated to be different from
Small Indian Civet from Karwar (T. Baskaran verbally 2010), the
High Wavy Mountains (R. Whitaker & J. Lenin verbally 2009),
the Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary (A. Datta
verbally 2009), the Aliyar Forest Range of the Indira Gandhi
Wildlife Sanctuary (M. Singh verbally 2010) and Coorg (S. Molur
in Ashraf et al. 2009); none of these could be conrmed as involv-
ing Malabar Civet by the observers themselves.
Discussion
A century and a half after it was described and several surveys and
reports later, Malabar Civet remains elusive, and nothing solid is
known about its distribution, ecology or status. A critical review
of available information leads to two possible conclusions: one,
now widely accepted, is that Malabar Civet is an extremely rare
species that is extinct or nearly so. The second, more novel, pos-
sibility is that the species is an artefact and did not exist at all.
Is Malabar Civet extinct?
The Western Ghats has lost much of its forest cover in the past
century (Menon & Bawa 1998), mostly through land use change,
expansion of human population and development projects. Ker-
ala, the state that Malabar Civet is primarily reported to inhabit,
lost 25.6% of its forest area between 1973 and 1990, including
19.5% of its dense forest cover (Jha et al. 2000). Within Kerala,
Jha et al. (2000) also estimated that forest loss was greatest in the
Palghat district, Kerala, and increase in agriculture was most in
the Kozhikode district, both lowland regions that presumably had
evergreen forests. These districts encompass the sites identied as
potential Malabar Civet habitat by Ashraf et al. (1993), and also
the region where the species was ‘rediscovered’ (Kurup 1989).
Coupled with this, Kerala had the highest state-level average hu-
man population density in India until the 1980s, with the popula-
tion growing over ve-fold in the past century (National Infor-
matics Centre 2005). Human population density can be used as a
surrogate of anthropogenic impact (Cardillo et al. 2004), and has
been associated with a measure of mammal population declines in
other studies (Brashares et al. 2001).
Another human activity driving animal extinctions, as well
as, more commonly, population reductions, is hunting for trade
and subsistence (Corlett 2007). Civets have played an historically
important role in various civilisations, and in India from as far
back as 1030 B.C. until the present day (Abebe 2003). They are
a source of the aromatic product ‘civet’, which is obtained from
glands near the anus, and the English name civet itself originates
from the African word ‘zibeth’ or Arabian word ‘zabaad’ denot-
ing the civet perfume; evidently, ‘jawad’, in use in southern India
for civets (see above), is also homologous. While all civets of the
subfamily Viverrinae produce civet, mainly African, Large Indian
and Small Indian Civets have been kept in captivity and traded for
extraction of civet in India, China, Ethiopia, Egypt, Arabia and
Europe (Dannenfeldt 1985).
Within India, civet was among two animal products men-
tioned in trade lists (the other being musk) in the Coromandel
region (present day Tamil Nadu) in the mediaeval (900–1300
CE) and the Vijayanagara (1400–1600 CE; present day northern
Karnataka) periods, and used locally for temple services (Muku-
nd 1999). Civet was also used for medicinal purposes in South

56
India (Hymavathi 1993), and today remains a key ingredient in
Ayurvedic medicine, a form of traditional medicine (Balakrishnan
& Sreedevi 2007a). Small Indian Civets are kept in captivity in
Kerala to extract the civet for Ayurvedic medicine (Xavier 1994),
and it is thought that most civet farms replenish their stock of
animals by capture from the wild and not through captive-rearing
(Balakrishnan & Sreedevi 2007a). While there are only records of
Small Indian Civet in captivity today, there are reports of animals
said to be Malabar Civet having been used for the extraction of
civet in the past (Hutton 1949, Ashraf et al. 2009; but see above
for the uncertainty over identications of this species). Hunting
of Viverra species has eliminated them from most of their range
in China (Corlett 2007, Lau et al. 2010). Had there been targeted
such exploitation of Malabar Civet in south India, this might have
further spiralled its decline, resulting in its current great rarity.
The combination of the limited geographical and postulated
ecological distribution, disappearing habitat within this range, and
possible hunting of the species for its civet or meat, provides plau-
sible reasons to explain the rarity of this species. However, even
in regions where hunting and encroachment of natural habitats are
chronic conservation issues, as in parts of South-east Asia, behav-
iourally similar species like Large-spotted Civet persist. This lat-
ter is relatively readily found by surveys using appropriate meth-
odology in the occupied altitude range in large contiguous tracts
of forest (Austin 1999, Lynam et al. 2005, Jenks et al. 2010, Gray
et al. 2010) and even in some smaller habitat blocks (Nguyen et
al. 2004). Surveys that use appropriate techniques but outside the
altitude and habitat type typically occupied by the species do not
record it at all (J. W. Duckworth in litt. 2010).
It remains possible that Malabar Civet has been overlooked
by recent surveys through a failure to focus on exactly suitable
habitats (whatever these might be), and if these habitats are frag-
mented or mostly converted, hunting would be highly damaging
to any remaining (small) populations. By contrast, if suitable habi-
tat remains at all widespread, large-scale hunting as a cause for
extinction of Malabar Civet seems unlikely as (a) even hunters do
not seem to be familiar with the species, and (b) no other mammal
species, including many of the rare primates that are more com-
monly hunted/preferred, have become extinct in the last century
in this region.
Is Malabar Civet a myth?
It is possible that Malabar Civet may not be a valid taxon, and
that no Viverra species has occurred (in historical times) naturally
in the Western Ghats. The rst reason to doubt that any Viverra
occurs naturally in south India is the poorly-documented history
of Malabar Civet specimens. None has reliable location data, and
collections were not of animals that had been directly obtained
alive from the wild by the collectors themselves and therefore
their actual origins also are unknown.
The pre-1980 specimens could be explained as Large-spotted
Civets mislabelled as to location. Edward Blyth, who described
Malabar Civet, traded exotic species across continents for mer-
cantile as well as academic purposes, and Kolkata was at the time
a hub for such animal trade (Brandon-Jones 1997); and mistakes
in cataloguing could have been a distinct possibility for specimens
in addition to the obvious such case for the NHM specimen origi-
nally labelled Sumatra. This skin was contributed by Sir T. S. Raf-
es, who worked extensively in South-east Asia and very little in
India (Rafes 1830), so it is possible this skin was mislabelled at a
later date as being from India having in fact come from the South-
east Asian range of V. megaspila.
It has also been speculated before that all the earlier speci-
mens collected were possibly of individuals kept in captivity. Out
of all the distinguishing features of Malabar Civet discussed, only
one—the angle of the coronoid process—is consistently distinc-
tive for V. civettina compared with V. megaspila (Pocock 1933).
Pocock (1933) and Corbet & Hill (1992), while accepting, ten-
tatively, the validity of V. civettina, cautioned that interspecic
variation between Viverra is eclipsed by intraspecic variation
within these species and suggested that the distinguishing features
of Malabar Civet could be cases of individual variation within
Large-spotted Civet.
It is also curious there have been no conrmed sightings of
Malabar Civet in the wild, despite directed surveys (see above).
The only historical primary reports of sightings in the wild, Jerdon
(1874) and Hutton (1949), both seem to have been misidenti-
cations of Small Indian Civet. Other efforts specically for the
species led to the procurement only of Small Indian Civets, albeit
misidentied as Malabar Civet (Pocock 1933). The only two pub-
lished accounts of possible sightings in the recent years (Karanth
1986, Kurup 1989) do not carry adequate information regarding
the description of the individuals sighted to enable rm identica-
tion to species by others.
While all the earlier skins might be explained as mistakes
over provenance, the appearance of four skins in the late 1980s
(Kurup 1989, Ashraf et al. 1993) within a 15 km radius warrants
a fresh line of reasoning. The paucity of sightings after numerous
localised surveys around the sites of the rediscoveries might sug-
gest that these individuals were derived from trade or farming.
Civets have been transported to various countries and islands
to be farmed for the production of civet, and in some areas free-
ranging self-sustaining populations have resulted. The Large In-
dian Civet has been introduced to the Andaman Islands (Corbet
& Hill 1992); Small Indian Civet has been introduced to the is-
lands of Lombok, Sumbawa, the Philippines (Heinsohn 2001) and
Madagascar, the Comoros and Socotra (Corbet & Hill 1992); and
the Malay Civet has been introduced to Sulawesi and the Moluc-
cas, all plausibly for the extraction of civet (Boitani 2001). Many
carnivore introductions have been successful, and an example
of an alien invasive is the American Mink Neovison vison, that
succeeded in environments where it was not ecologically distinct
from its conspecics (Macdonald & Thom 2001). Small Indian
Civet, introduced to Madagascar from tropical Asia nearly 2000
years ago, is said to be now common in degraded and agricultural
lands (Primack & Corlett 2005).
It is plausible that Large-spotted Civet was traded or intro-
duced into India for use in the perfume industry, and few individu-
als might have run wild, resulting in the low number of reports and
skins. The recent records are from near Kozhikode, a well-known
and important international trading port since ancient times (Male-
kandathil 2007). Import of animals might explain the lack of con-
rmed sightings in the wild, and accounts of the animals only from
hunters and traditional medicine practitioners. Although Ashraf et
al. (1993) concluded that Ayurvedic physicians were aware of the
use of the civet from Malabar Civets in captivity, later studies do
not report the same (Balakrishnan & Sreedevi 2007b). At present
the only civets in captivity in South India are Small Indian Civets,
and these are farmed extensively across Kerala state (Balakrish-
nan & Sreedevi 2007a).
Nandini & Mudappa
Small Carnivore Conservation, Vol. 43, December 2010

57
A review of the Malabar Civet
Small Carnivore Conservation, Vol. 43, December 2010
Conclusion
This examination of historical information highlights more than
ever the importance of determining the taxonomic status, and in-
deed existence, of Malabar Civet. Given the current limited state
of knowledge of the species, we do not advocate one possibility
over the other, but that both these so different possibilities exist
emphasises how remarkably poorly known is Malabar Civet.
An obvious approach would be a study of the morphomet-
rics and molecular phylogenetics of the genus, particularly of all
Viverra civettina, Viverra megaspila and Civettictis civetta skins
labelled as being from India before further eld surveys are com-
missioned. This might provide information regarding the taxo-
nomic validity of Malabar Civet, its origin and the relationship
between Malabar Civet and its congeners. However, the results
of such investigations might be inconclusive if enough samples
of the V. megaspila are not available from all across their range.
Recent molecular studies on another mammal, Layard’s Striped
Squirrel Funambulus layardi, reported from the Western Ghats
and Sri Lanka but never sighted in the wild in the Western Ghats,
have revealed that the locality within India was possibly a mistake
(R. Dissanayake verbally 2010). Once genetic information on the
skins is generated, non-invasive genetic techniques can be stand-
ardised for distinction of this species from other small carnivores
(data for many other carnivores already available; see Mukherjee
et al. 2010), and these techniques can be applied to faeces col-
lected from the eld.
It is also important simultaneously to examine the prevalence
of historical trade of animals in the subcontinent and the extent of
current and past use of civets in the Ayurveda industry. Govern-
ment archives with records of animals brought into the country
at specic locations might provide some leads. Details of loca-
tions from validated museum records could help with designing
intensive surveys in specic sites. Intensive eld studies should be
undertaken after a careful assessment of the habitat (forest cover,
altitude and other ecological variables) at the presumed locations
of validated skins and identication of similar habitat patches
across the Western Ghats.
It is imperative to have accurate information regarding the
validity of species so that efforts are not wasted in conservation
assessments or plans. However, if Malabar Civet is indeed a dis-
tinct species, it would be the rst mammal to reach near-extinction
in the Western Ghats within historical times, and urgent and large-
scale surveys to locate and assess the species in the wild must be
conducted as a priority.
Acknowledgements
We dedicate this paper to the late Naresh Chaturvedi, ex-Curator of
BNHS, for his encouragement and support. We thank the staff of various
museums for their co-operation, especially C. Radhakrishnan and Ram-
akrishna at ZSI, and staff at Calicut University Museum, Paula Jenkins
and Daphne Hills at NHM, Varad Giri at BNHS, and Steven van der
Mije, NCB Naturalis (RMNH). The authorities at the Trivandrum Zoo
and Kerala State Archives, Thiruvananthapuram, were helpful with our
queries. We are also grateful to many people for discussions and informa-
tion: N. V. K. Ashraf, M. Balakrishnan, Theodore Bhaskaran, Aparajita
Datta, Rajith Dissanayake, N. G. George, Thomas Groen, Angus Hutton,
E. A. Jayson, P. Jeganathan, K. Ullas Karanth, V. Karthikeyan, Ajith Ku-
mar, Janaki Lenin, Charudutt Mishra, Kakoli Mukhopadhyay, Malvika
Onial, Suhel Quader, Siddharth Rao, A. R. Rahmani, Uma Ramakrishnan,
Mahesh Rangarajan, Mewa Singh, Anindya Sinha, K. A. Subramanian,
Kalyan Varma, V. S. Vijayan and Francis Xavier. J. W. Duckworth, Jerry
Belant, T. R. Shankar Raman, Robin Vijayan, and M. D. Madhusudhan
and two anonymous reviewers provided insightful comments on the man-
uscript. The rst author was supported by a grant from the CEPF-ATREE
(Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund – Ashoka Trust for Ecology and
Environment) Western Ghats Program and Nature Conservation Founda-
tion, Mysore.
References
Abebe, Y. D. 2003. Sustainable utilization of the African Civet (Civet-
tictis civetta) in Ethiopia. Pp. 197–208 in Bihini Won wa Musiti (ed)
Second Pan-African symposium on the sustainable use of natural re-
sources in Africa. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.
Ashraf, N. V. K. 1992. From N. V. Ashraf Kunhunu... Small Carnivore
Conservation 7: 18.
Ashraf, N. V. K., Kumar, A. & Johnsingh, A. J. T. 1993. Two endemic
viverrids of the Western Ghats, India. Oryx 27: 109–114.
Ashraf, N. V. K., Menon, V., Amstrong, N., Rao, S. & Karthik, K. 2009.
Conservation of Malabar Civet (Viverra civettina) in Kerala and
Karnataka: nal report. Wildlife Trust of India, New Delhi, India.
Austin, S. C. 1999. Camera-trapping evidence of Large-spotted Civet
Viverra megaspila in Xe Piane National Biodiversity Conservation
Area (NBCA), southern Lao PDR. Natural History Bulletin of the
Siam Society 47: 255–257.
Balakrishnan, M. & Sreedevi, M. 2007a. Captive breeding of the Small
Indian Civet Viverricula indica (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803).
Small Carnivore Conservation 36: 5–8.
Balakrishnan, M. & Sreedevi, M. 2007b. Husbandry and management of
the Small Indian Civet Viverricula indica (Geoffroy Saint-Hillaire,
1803) in Kerala, India. Small Carnivore Conservation 36: 9–13.
Blanford, W. T. 1888. The fauna of British India including Ceylon &
Burma: Mammalia. Taylor & Francis, London, U.K.
Blyth, E. 1862. Report of Curator, Zoological Department, 1862. Journal
of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 31: 331–345.
Blyth, E. 1864. Notes on sundry Mammalia. Proceedings of the Zoologi-
cal Society of London ‘1864’: 482–486.
Boitani, L. 2001. Carnivore introductions and invasions: their success
and management options. Pp. 123–144 in Gittleman, J. L., Funk, S.
M., MacDonald, D. W. & Wayne, R. K. (eds) Carnivore conserva-
tion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Brandon-Jones, C. 1997. Edward Blyth, Charles Darwin, and the animal
trade in nineteenth-century India and Britain. Journal of the History
of Biology 30: 145–178.
Brashares, J., Arcese, P. & Sam, M. 2001. Human demography and re-
serve size predict wildlife extinction in West Africa. Proceedings
of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 268:
2473–2478.
Cardillo, M., Purvis, A., Sechrest, W., Gittleman, J., Bielby, J. & Mace, G.
2004. Human population density and extinction risk in the world’s
carnivores. PLoS Biology 2: E197.
Corbet, G. B. & Hill, J. E. 1992. The mammals of the Indomalayan re-
gion. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.
Corlett, R. T. 2007. The impact of hunting on the mammalian fauna of
tropical Asian forests. Biotropica 39: 292–303.
Dannenfeldt, K. 1985. Europe discovers civet cats and civet. Journal of
the History of Biology 18: 403–431.
Ellerman, J. R. & Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic
and Indian mammals. British Museum (Natural History), London,
U.K.
Gray, T. N. E., Pin C. & Pin C. 2010. Status and ecology of Large-spot-

58
ted Civet Viverra megaspila in eastern Cambodia. Small Carnivore
Conservation. 43: 12–15.
Heinsohn, T. E. 2001. Human inuences on vertebrate zoogeography:
animal translocation and biological invasions across and to the
east of Wallace’s Line. Pp. 153–170 in Metcalfe, I., Smith, J. M.
B., Morwood, M. & Davidson, I. (eds) Faunal and oral migration
and evolution in SE Asia-Australasia. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, the
Netherlands.
Hutton, A. F. 1949. Notes on the snakes and mammals of the High Wavy
Mountains, Madura District, South India. Part II–Mammals. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 48: 681–694.
Hymavathi, P. 1993. Religion and popular medicine in Medieval Andhra.
Social Scientist 21: 34 –47.
Jayson, E. A. 2007. Status of the critically endangered species, Malabar
Civet Viverra megaspila civettina Blyth, 1862 in the southern West-
ern Ghats. Kerala Forest Research Institute (Research Report 305),
Peechi, India.
Jenks, K. E., Wanghonsa, S., Songsasen, N., Leimgruber, P. & Howard,
J. 2010. Camera-trap evidence of Large-spotted Civet Viverra
megaspila in Khao Ang Rue Nai Wildlife Sanctuary and Khao Yai
National Park, Thailand. Small Carnivore Conservation 42: 19–21.
Jennings, A. & Veron, G. 2009. Family Viverridae (civets, genets and
oyans). Pp. 174–232 in Wilson, D. E. & Mittermeier, R. A. (eds)
Handbook of the mammals of the world. Vol. 1. Carnivores. Lynx
Edicions, Barcelona.
Jennings, A., Veron, G. & Helgen, K. 2008. Viverra civettina. In The
IUCN 2008 Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2010.4. <www.
iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 24 April 2010.
Jerdon, T. C. 1874. The mammals of India; a natural history of all the
animals known to inhabit continental India. John Weldon, London,
U.K.
Jha, C., Dutt, C. & Bawa, K. 2000. Deforestation and land use changes in
Western Ghats, India. Current Science 79: 231–238.
Karanth, K. U. 1986. A possible sighting record of the Malabar Civet
(Viverra megaspila Blyth) from Karnataka. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 83: 192–193.
Khajuria, H., Chaturvedi, Y. & Ghoshal, D. K. 1977. Annotated cata-
logue of the type specimens of mammals in Zoological Survey of
India. Records of the Zoological Survey of India (miscellaneous pub-
lications, occasional papers) 7.
Kinloch, A. P. 1923. The larger mammals of the Nelliampathy Hills.
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 29: 552–554.
Kurup, G. U. 1987. The rediscovery of the Malabar Civet, Viverra
megaspila civettina Blyth in India. Cheetal 28(2): 1–4.
Kurup, G. U. 1989. The rediscovery of the Malabar Civet, Viverra
megaspila civettina Blyth in India. Tigerpaper 16(1): 13–14.
Lau, M. W.-N., Fellowes, J. R. & Chan, B. P. L. 2010. Carnivores (Mam-
malia: Carnivora) in south China: a status review with notes on the
commercial trade. Mammal Review 40: 247–292.
Lindsay, H. M. 1928. A note on Viverra civettina, Blyth. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 33: 146–148.
Lynam A. J., Myint Maung, Saw Htoo Tha Po & Duckworth, J. W. 2005.
Recent records of Large-spotted Civet Viverra megaspila from Thai-
land and Myanmar. Small Carnivore Conservation 32: 8–11.
Macdonald, D. & Thom, M. 2001. Alien carnivores: unwelcome experi-
ments in ecological theory. Pp. 93–122 in Gittleman, J. L., Funk, S.
M., MacDonald, D. W. & Wayne, R. K. (eds) Carnivore conserva-
tion. Cambridge University, Cambridge, U.K.
Malekandathil, P. 2007. Winds of change and links of continuity: a study
on the merchant groups of Kerala and the channels of their trade,
1000–1800. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Ori-
ent 50: 259–286.
Menon, V. 2003. A eld guide to Indian mammals. Dorling Kindersley &
Penguin India, New Delhi, India
Menon, S. & Bawa, K. 1998. Deforestation in the tropics: reconciling
disparities in estimates for India. Ambio 27: 576–577.
Mudappa, D. 1999. Lesser-known carnivores of the Western Ghats. EN-
VIS Bulletin: wildlife and protected areas, mustelids, viverrids and
herpestids of India 2(2): 65–70.
Mukherjee, S., Ashalakshmi, C. N., Home, C. & Ramakrishnan, U. 2010.
An evaluation of the PCR-RFLP technique to aid molecular-based
monitoring of felids and canids in India. BMC Research Notes 3:
1–8.
Mukund, K. 1999. The trading world of the Tamil merchant: evolution
of merchant capitalism in the Coromandel. Orient Blackswan, Hy-
derabad, India.
Nguyen X. D., Pham T. A., Nguyen M. T. & Le H. T. 2004. Mammals. Pp.
85–103, 133–138 in Sage, N., Kutcher, S., Nguyen X. V., Wilson,
P. & Dunlop, J. (eds) Biodiversity Survey U Minh Thuong National
Park. Agriculture Publishing House, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Papeş, M. & Gaubert, P. 2007. Modeling ecological niches from low
number of occurrences: assessment of conservation status of viver-
rids (Mammalia, Carnivora) across two continents. Diversity and
Distributions 13: 890–902.
Pocock, R. I. 1915. On the feet and glands and other external characteris-
tics of the Viverrinae, with the description of a new genus. Proceed-
ings of the Zoological Society of London 1915: 131–149.
Pocock, R. I. 1933. The civet-cats of Asia. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 36: 423–449.
Pocock, R. I. 1939. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Bur-
ma. Mammalia. Vol I. Primates and Carnivora (in part): families
Felidae and Viverridae. Taylor and Francis Ltd, London, U.K.
Prater, S. H. 1935. The wild animals of the Indian Empire. Part IV. Car-
nivora or beasts of prey (continued). Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 37: 189–215.
Prater, S. H. 1965. The book of Indian animals, 2nd edn. Bombay Natural
History Society, Bombay, India.
Primack, R. B. & Corlett, R. T. 2005. Tropical rain forests: an ecological
and biogeographical comparison. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
U.K.
Rafes, S. 1830. Memoir of the life and public services of Sir Thomas
Stamford Rafes F.R.S. &c., particularly in the government of Java,
1811–1816, and of Bencoolen and its dependencies, 1817–1824;
with details of the commerce and resources of the Eastern Archi-
pelago. John Murray, London, U.K.
Rai, N. & Kumar, A. 1993. A pilot study on the conservation of the Mala-
bar Civet, Viverra civettina (Blyth, 1862). Small Carnivore Conser-
vation 9: 3–7.
Rao, S., Ashraf, N. V. K. & Nixon, A. M. A. 2007. Search for the Malabar
Civet Viverra civettina in Karnataka and Kerala, India, 2006–2007.
Small Carnivore Conservation 37: 6–10.
Ray, J. 1995. Civettictis civetta. Mammalian Species 488: 1–7.
Robinson, H. C. & Kloss, C. B. 1920. Notes on Viverridae. Records of the
Indian Museum 19: 175 –179.
Rodgers, W. A. & Panwar, H. S. 1988. Planning a wildlife protected area
network in India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
Rodgers, W. A., Panwar, H. S. & Mathur, V. B. 2002. Wildlife protected
area network in India: a review. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra-
dun, India.
Ryley, K. V. 1913. Bombay Natural History Society’ Mammal Survey of
Nandini & Mudappa
Small Carnivore Conservation, Vol. 43, December 2010

59
A review of the Malabar Civet
Small Carnivore Conservation, Vol. 43, December 2010
India. Report No. 11. Coorg. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 22: 486–513.
Satyamurthi, T. S. 1971. The mammals (Tamil). Publication of the Gov-
ernment Museum, Chennai, India.
Schipper, J., Hoffman, M., Duckworth, J. W. & Conroy, J. 2008. The 2008
IUCN Red Listings of the world’s small carnivores. Small Carnivore
Conservation 39: 29–34.
Schreiber, A., Wirth, R., Riffel, M. & Van Rompaey, H. 1989. Weasels,
civets, mongooses, and their relatives: an action plan for the conser-
vation of mustelids and viverrids. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Sclater, W. L. 1891. Catalogue of Mammalia in the Indian Museum, Cal-
cutta, part II. Indian Museum, Calcutta, India.
Sterndale, R. 1884. Natural history of the Mammalia of India and Ceylon.
Thacker, Spink & co., Calcutta, India.
Van Rompaey, H. & Colyn, M. 1996. An annotated bibliography of the
Herpestidae and Viverridae (Carnivora, Mammalia). Musée Royal
de l’Afrique Centrale Annales Sciences Zoologiques 279: 1–411.
Webb-Peploe, C. G. 1947. Field notes on the mammals of south Tinn-
evelly, south India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society
46: 629–644.
Wozencraft, W. C. 1984. A phylogenetic reappraisal of the Viverridae
and its relationship to other Carnivora. Unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of Kansas, Lawrence, U. S. A.
Wozencraft, W. C. 1989. Classication of the Recent Carnivora. Pp.
569–593 in Gittleman, J. L. (ed.) Carnivore behavior, ecology and
evolution, vol. 1. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, U.S.A.
Wroughton, R. C. 1912. Bombay Natural History Society’s Mammal
Survey of India: Report 2. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 21: 820–825.
Wroughton, R. C. 1921. Summary of the results from the Indian mammal
survey of the Bombay Natural History Society, Appendix. Journal of
the Bombay Natural History Society 27: 520–534.
Xavier, F. 1994. A study on Small Indian Civet (Viverricula indica) as a
sustainable wildlife resource. University of Kerala (Ph. D. thesis),
Thiruvananthapuram, India.
1National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of
Science Campus, Bangalore 560 012, India, & Department
of Biological Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn AL 36849,
USA
Corresponding author email: nandinirajamani@gmail.com
2Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5, IV Cross,
Gokulam Park, Mysore – 570002, India
Email: divya@ncf-india.org
Small carnivore conservation in Colombia: SCSG
and ProCAT Colombia cosponsor symposium at the
III Colombian Zoological Congress
Little information is available on the ecology and life history of
small carnivores in Colombia (families Mephitidae, Mustelidae
and Procyonidae). As part of a new project about these species in
Colombia, ProCAT Colombia and the Small Carnivore Special-
ist Group (SCSG) are gathering available information on these
species and establishing research projects in several parts of the
country. Also, this project is bringing together researchers from
the entire country and is developing a web-based information sys-
tem to update our knowledge of small carnivores.
Also, as part of this initiative and to help address informa-
tion needs, ProCAT Colombia, the Universidad Distrital Fran-
cisco José de Caldas, and the Small Carnivore Specialist Group
are co-sponsoring a symposium at the III Colombian Zoological
Congress in Medellin, Colombia, 21–26 November 2010. The
symposium is titled ‘Small Carnivores of Colombia (Skunks,
Raccoons, and Weasels)’. Objectives of this symposium are to
summarise the state of knowledge and conservation of small car-
nivores in Colombia, prioritise information needs and possible
conservation actions, and dene a course of action to facilitate
small carnivore conservation in Colombia. Presentations will in-
clude global priorities for small carnivore conservation, role of
spatial scale in conserving small carnivores, current conserva-
tion measures being implemented, and the status of small carni-
vores in Colombia.
The project and symposium is being lead by SCSG members
José F. González-Maya and Jerry Belant, with the support of Diego
Zárrate, Sergio Balaguera, Amancay Cepeda and Abelardo Rodrígu-
ez among other national researchers, and the online platform is now
under construction by Amancay Cepeda and Sandra Hernández.
For more information about the congress and this sympo-
sium, please visit http://www.iiicongresocolombianozoologia.org/,
and for any other aspect related with the initiative and project please
contact info@procat-conservation.org.
.
Sm a l l Ca r n i v o r e Sy m p o S i u m