ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

We report the results of a herpetofaunal inventory between July, 2014 and March, 2017 of Parsa National Park that detected 51 herpetofaunal species. Three amphibians (Microhyla nilphamariensis, Sphaerotheca breviceps, and Uperodon taprobanicus), two Gecko species (Hemidactylus flaviviridis and H. frenatus), one Agamid (Sitana fusca), two Skinks (Eutropis carinata and Sphenomorphus maculatus), 13 snakes (Ahaetulla nasuta, Bungarus lividus, Coelognathus helena, Coelognathus radiatus, Chrysopelea ornata, Dendrelaphis tristis, Lycodon aulicus, Lycodon jara, Oligodon arnensis, Psammodynastes pulverulentus, Ptyas mucosa, Rhabdophis subminiatus, and Trimeresurus albolabris), and one crocodile (Crocodylus palustris) are new records to Parsa National Park. This paper aims to highlight the understanding of amphibians and reptiles of Parsa National Park and will be a reference for herpetofaunal management in the park.
Content may be subject to copyright.
2018 • VOLUME 12 • NUMBER 1
ISSN: 1083-446X eISSN: 1525-9153
Published in the United States of America
amphibian-reptile-conservation.org
AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE
CONSERVATION
35
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
Amphibian & Reptile Conservation
12(1) [General Section]: 35–48 (e155).
Amphibians and reptiles of Parsa National Park, Nepal
1Santosh Bhattarai, 1,2Chiranjibi Prasad Pokheral, 1Babu Ram Lamichhane, 3Uba Raj Regmi,
3Ashok Kumar Ram, and 4Naresh Subedi
1National Trust for Nature Conservation - Biodiversity Conservation Center, Ratnanagar-6, Sauraha, Chitwan-44204, NEPAL 2National Trust for
Nature Conservation-Central Zoo, Jawalakhel, Lalitpur, NEPAL 3Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Parsa National Park,
NEPAL 4National Trust for Nature Conservation-Khumaltar, Lalitpur, NEPAL
Abstract.—We report the results of a herpetofaunal inventory between July, 2014 and March, 2017 of Parsa
National Park that detected 51 herpetofaunal species. Three amphibians (Microhyla nilphamariensis,
Sphaerotheca breviceps, and Uperodon taprobanicus), two Gecko species (Hemidactylus aviviridis and
H. frenatus), one Agamid (Sitana fusca), two Skinks (Eutropis carinata and Sphenomorphus maculatus), 13
snakes (Ahaetulla nasuta, Bungarus lividus, Coelognathus helena, Coelognathus radiatus, Chrysopelea ornata,
Dendrelaphis tristis, Lycodon aulicus, Lycodon jara, Oligodon arnensis, Psammodynastes pulverulentus, Ptyas
mucosa, Rhabdophis subminiatus, and Trimeresurus albolabris), and one crocodile (Crocodylus palustris) are
new records to Parsa National Park. This paper aims to highlight the understanding of amphibians and reptiles
of Parsa National Park and will be a reference for herpetofaunal management in the park.
Keywords. Herpetofauna, biodiversity, conservation, protected area, Terai-Arc Landscape, new records
Citation: Bhattarai S, Pokheral CP, Lamichhane BR, Regmi UR, Ram AK, Subedi N. 2018. Amphibians and reptiles of Parsa National Park, Nepal.
Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 12(1) [General Section]: 35–48 (e155).
Copyright: © 2018 Bhattarai et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use for non-commercial and education purposes only, in any medium, provided
the original author and the ofcial and authorized publication sources are recognized and properly credited. The ofcial and authorized publication
credit sources, which will be duly enforced, are as follows: ofcial journal title Amphibian & Reptile Conservation; ofcial journal website <amphibian-
reptile-conservation.org>.
Received: 23 January 2018; Accepted: 20 February 2018; Published: 17 July 2018
Ofcial journal website:
amphibian-reptile-conservation.org
Correspondence. 1 santosh.bhattarai@hotmail.com (Corresponding author)
Introduction
Globally, amphibians and reptiles are among the least
studied vertebrate taxa (Fazey et al. 2005). The amphib-
ians and reptiles of Nepal have a wide range of both ver-
tical and horizontal distribution. However, the eld of
herpetology has always received less priority than other
vertebrates (Bhattarai et al. 2017). Among herpetofaunal
species, only the gharial (Gavialis gangeticus) subjected
to long term monitoring and conservation efforts (Acha-
rya et al. 2017). Information on species richness and
distribution of amphibians and reptiles in management
plans of many Protected Areas of Nepal including Parsa
National Park (PNP) are poorly documented. Past stud-
ies by Schleich and Kästle (2002) and Shah and Tiwari
(2004) recorded 37 species from the PNP and lack de-
tailed locality information. Since then, several taxonomic
revisions of the species have been done. In addition to
this, Kästle et al. (2013) listed eight species of herpeto-
fauna which underestimates the species richness of the
PNP. Here, we provide the comprehensive checklist on
species richness with natural history data to highlight un-
derstanding of the amphibian and reptile fauna of Parsa
National Park.
Study Area
Parsa National Park (PNP), the youngest National Park
in the country, was established in 1984 as Wildlife Re-
serve and upgraded to National Park in 2017. It is geo-
graphically located within 27°15’ to 27°33’N, 84°41’ to
84°58’E. The unique sub-tropical dry ecosystem was
established to protect habitat mainly for the resident
population of wild Asian elephant (Elephas maximus).
However, it also provides a habitat for migratory wild-
life species and a dispersal site for spill-over popula-
tion of Chitwan National Park to which it is connected
at its western boundary and Valmaki Tiger Reserve of
India to the South. Examples are the Asian one-horned
Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), Royal Bengal tiger
(Panthera tigris) and Gaur (Bos gaurus). Understanding
the potential to conserve many charismatic species, the
Government of Nepal extended the area of the PNP in
2015 and the current area is 627 km2 (Fig. 1). Besides its
biodiversity conservation value, the PNP is also serving
the vital needs of the large human population living south
of the park by conserving water sources in the Siwalik
hill and has reduced the soil erosion in the hill. The PNP
includes mainly sub-tropical forests of the Siwalik and
36
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
Bhattarai et al.
Bhabar physiographic regions of Parsa, Makwanpur and
Bara districts. The vegetation is mainly dominated by Sal
(Shorea robusta) forest, and riverbeds and ood plains
are covered by Saccharum spontaneum and Imperata cy-
lindrica (Chhetri 2003). Although the PNP is connected
with Chitwan National Park (Nepal) and Valmiki Tiger
Reserve (India), very little information on species rich-
ness and diversity is available (Lamichhane et al. 2017).
We concentrated our search effort near permanent water
bodies and articially created ponds inside the park. Field
investigations were conducted at Rambhori-Bhata, Halk-
horia Daha, Amlekhganj-Hattisar, Adhabhar, Ghodema-
san, Mahadev Khola, Gaduwa-line, and Nirmalbasti,
Ramauli-Pratappur.
Field Methods
We conducted surveys in both the dry and wet seasons.
We used the visual encounter survey protocol (Heyer
et al. 1994) and active searches from 10–20 July, 2014,
15–27 March, 2015, 18–21 June, 2015, 04–10 February,
2016, 17–25 July, 2016, and 03–09 March, 2017. We
covered all major sites within the park. Our search effort
focused on recording the diverse herpetological commu-
nity as efciently as possible. On each expedition, we
spent three hours of intensive search combined with op-
portunistic records. During the survey, on detection of an
animal, we recorded the location, date, time, and micro-
habitat. We did not use dogs or chemicals or any auditory
cues for species detection. However, we included op-
portunistic records of various herpetofauna encountered
elsewhere within the PNP in our results. Photographs of
detected animals were taken whenever possible and used
as visual evidence for verifying species identications.
We used keys described in Smith (1935), Schleich and
Kästle (2002), and Shah and Tiwari (2004) for identica-
tion. We followed Frost (2017) for nomenclature of am-
phibians and Uetz et al. (2017) for reptiles.
Results
We recorded 12 species of amphibians in eight genera
and four families of anurans (Table 1), and 39 species of
reptiles which consisted of ve species of skinks, three
species of Geckonids, two species of Agamids, two spe-
cies of monitor lizards, 25 snake species, and one tortoise
and crocodile each (Table 1). We recorded 22 additional
species in the area which accounted for 51 species of the
herpetofauna in the PNP. These additional species consist
of three species of anurans, two species of gecko, two
species of skinks, 13 snake species, and one crocodile
species.
Species Accounts
AMPHIBIANS
Bufonidae (Gray 1825)
Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Schneider 1799): Recorded
from Amlekhganj-Hattisar, Adhabhar, Rambhori-Bhata,
Halkhoria Daha, Nirmalbasti, and Ramauli-Pratapur.
This was commonly seen in and around human settle-
ments during monsoon. Road-killed individuals of this
Fig. 1. Study location, Parsa National Park.
37
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
Amphibians and Reptiles of Parsa National Park, Nepal
Table 1. Amphibians and Reptiles of Parsa National Park, Nepal. An asterisk (*) denotes new records to the area.
S.N. Species IUCN Status
AMPHIBIANS
Bufonidae Gray, 1825
1. Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Schneider 1799) LC
2. D. stomaticus (Lütken 1864) LC
Dicroglossidae Anderson, 1871
3. Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis (Schneider 1799) LC
4. Fejarvarya syhadrensis (Annandale 1919) LC
5. Fejarvarya teraiensis (Dubois 1984) LC
6. Hoplobatrachus crassus (Jerdon 1853) LC
7. Hoplobatrachus tigerinus (Daudin 1802) LC
8. *Sphaerotheca breviceps (Schneider 1799) LC
Microhylidae Gunther, 1858
9. *Microhyla cf. nilphamariensis (Howlader, Nair, Gopalan, and Merila 2015) LC
10. Uperodon globulosus (Günther 1864) LC
11. *Uperodon taprobanicus (Parker 1934) LC
Rhacophoridae Hoffman, 1932 (1858)
12. Polypedates maculatus (Gray 1830) LC
REPTILES
Gekkonidae Gray, 1825
13. Hemidactylus cf. brookii Gray, 1845 NA
14. *Hemidactylus aviviridis Rüppell, 1835 LC
15. *Hemidactylus frenatus Dúmeril and Bibron, 1836 LC
Agamidae Gray, 1827
16. Calotes versicolor (Daudin 1802) NA
17. *Sitana fusca Schleich and Kästle, 1998 NA
Scincidae Gray, 1825
18. *Eutropis carinata (Schneider 1801) LC
19. Eutropis dissimilis (Hallowell 1857) NA
20. Eutropis macularia (Blyth 1853) NA
21. Lygosoma punctata (Gmelin 1799) NA
22. *Sphenomorphus maculatus (Blyth 1853) NA
Varanidae Merrem, 1820
23. Varanus bengalensis (Daudin 1802) LC
24. Varanus avescens (Hardwicke and Gray 1827) NA
Typhlopidae Merrem, 1820
25. Indotyphlops braminus (Daudin 1803) NA
Boidae Gray, 1825
26. Eryx conicus (Schneider 1801) NA
Pythonidae Fitzinger, 1826
27. Python bivittatus Kuhl, 1820 VU
Colubridae Oppel, 1811
28. *Ahaetulla nasuta (Bonnaterre 1790) NA
29. Boiga trigonata (Schneider 1802) LC
30. *Coelognathus helenam (Daudin 1803) NA
31. *Coelognathus radiatus (Boie 1827) LC
32. *Chrysopelea ornata (Shaw 1802) NA
33. *Dendrelaphis tristis (Daudin 1803) NA
38
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
species were frequently observed in the east-west nation-
al highway between Amlekhgunj and Adhabhar segment.
This is the most common bufonid in Terai, Nepal (Fig.
2).
Fig. 2. Duttaphrynus melanostictus. Photograph by Kapil
Pokharel/NTNC-BCC.
Duttaphrynus stomaticus (Lütken 1864): This was fre-
quently encountered at NTNC-Parsa Conservation Pro-
gram Ofce complex, Hattisar, Amlekhganj, Adhabhar,
Ramauli-Pratappur, Bhata, and Nirmalbasti (Fig. 3). The
individuals can be distinguished from D. melanostictus
by absence of canthal black ridge and smaller tympanum.
Fig. 3. Duttaphrynus stomaticus. Photograph by Santosh Bhat-
tarai.
Dicroglossidae (Anderson 1871)
Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis (Schneider 1799): The most
common frog of Terai Nepal within and outside protected
areas commonly encountered in water pools (Fig. 4).
Bhattarai et al.
S.N. Species IUCN Status
Colubridae Oppel, 1811
34. *Lycodon aulicus (Linnaeus 1758) NA
35. *Lycodon jara (Shaw 1802) LC
36. *Oligodon arnensis (Shaw 1802) NA
37. *Psammodynastes pulverulentus (Boie 1827) NA
38. *Ptyas mucosa (Linnaeus 1758) NA
39. Sibynophis sagittarius (Cantor 1839) NA
Elapidae F. Boie, 1827
40. Bungarus caeruleus (Schneider 1801) NA
41. Bungarus fasciatus (Schneider 1801) LC
42. *Bungarus lividus Cantor, 1839 NA
43. Naja naja (Linnaeus 1758) NA
44. Ophiophagus hannah (Cantor 1836) VU
Natricidae Bonaparte, 1838
45. Amphiesma stolatum (Linnaeus 1758) NA
46. Xenochropis piscator (Schneider 1799) NA
47. *Rhabdophis subminiatus (Schlegel 1837) NA
Viperidae Oppel, 1811
48. Daboia russelii (Shaw and Nodder 1797) LC
49. *Trimeresurus albolabris Gray, 1842 NA
Testudinidae Batsch, 1788
50. Indotestudo elongata (Blyth 1854) EN
Crocodylidae Cuvier, 1806
51. *Crocodylus palustris Lesson, 1831 VU
Table 1. Amphibians and Reptiles of Parsa National Park, Nepal. An asterisk (*) denotes new records to the area.
39
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
Fig. 4. Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis. Photograph by Santosh Bhat-
tarai.
Fejarvarya syhadrensis (Annandale 1919): The indi-
viduals we recorded had no mid dorsal line with reddish
orange patches which is characteristic of this species
(Schleich and Kästle 2002). We recorded this species
along marshy lands in the ponds inside the park.
Fejervarya teraiensis (Dubois 1984): The calling males
were recorded at puddles in Amlekhgunj, Adhabar, and
Bhata. The individuals had a cream colored mid dorsal
line with dorsolateral fold. According to Schleich and
Kästle (2002), this species is well distributed in the entire
Terai from 71 to 400 m.
Hoplobatrachus crassus (Jerdon 1853): We found an in-
dividual of this species at an army post in Gaduwaline
inside the park. Shah and Tiwari (2004) also recorded
this species from Parsa.
Hoplobatrachus tigerinus (Daudin 1802): This is the
largest frog of Terai region. Yellow colored breeding
males were frequently observed in puddles during mon-
soon (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5. Hoplobatrachus tigerinus. Photograph by Santosh
Bhattarai.
Sphaerotheca breviceps (Schneider 1799): Almost toad-
like, stocky with distinct supratympanal fold. We found
some specimens in Halkhoria Daha and Amlekhgunj-
Hattisar area during June and July and calling males were
also observed. This is the rst record to Parsa National
Park.
Fig. 6. Sphaerotheca breviceps. Photograph by Santosh Bhat-
tarai.
Microhylidae (Günther 1843, 1858)
Microhyla cf. nilphamariensis (Howlader, Nair, Gopa-
lan, and Merila 2015): The type locality of this frog is
Koya Golahut, Saidpur, Nilphamari, Bangladesh. Re-
cently, Khatiwada et al. (2017) recorded it from central
and eastern Nepal and proposed the Chitwan population
to be M. nilphamarariensis based on molecular and call
records. We believe the Parsa population to be M. nil-
phamariensis (Fig. 7). However, only detailed molecular
study will resolve its taxonomy.
Fig. 7. Microhyla cf. nilphamariensis. Photograph by Santosh
Bhattarai.
Uperodon globulosus (Günther 1864): This bulky globu-
lar frog is frequently seen during monsoon, when calling
males were seen during the night in Bhata area. Shah and
Tiwari (2004) also reported the occurrence of this species
from Parsa National Park (Fig. 8).
Amphibians and Reptiles of Parsa National Park, Nepal
40
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
Fig. 8. Uperodon globulosus. Photograph by Santosh Bhatta-
rai.
Uperodon taprobanicus (Parker 1934): This frog is gray-
ish black, and individuals have reddish-orange dorsolat-
eral irregular bands. Individuals with a mid-dorsal line
from snout to vent and with mid-dorsal line were record-
ed (Fig. 9). Males have folded black vocal sacs and were
observed in amplexus. According to Schleich and Kästle
(2002), this species is distributed from central to eastern
Nepal between 100 and 300 m elevation. Bhattarai et al.
(2017a) also recorded this species from Beeshazar and
associated lakes, a Ramsar site.
Fig. 9. Uperodon taprobanicus. Photograph by Santosh Bhat-
tarai.
Rhacophoridae (Hoffman 1932)
Polypedates maculatus (Gray 1830): Calling males were
frequently observed at NTNC-Parsa Conservation Pro-
gram ofce complex during the monsoon. This species
was frequently observed on the ofce window and in the
bathroom (Fig. 10).
Fig. 10. Polypedates maculatus. Photograph by Santosh Bhat-
tarai.
REPTILES
Gekkonidae (Gray 1825)
Hemidactylus cf. brookii (Gray 1845): Individuals with
strongly keeled dorsal tubercles and tails with spines
were recorded. Schleich and Kästle (2002) recorded H.
brookii on buildings in Chitwan National Park. However,
we recorded them in dead logs inside the park in Parsa
National Park (Fig. 11). This species is regarded as a spe-
cies complex and has been proposed for detailed molecu-
lar studies to solve taxonomy of Nepalese populations
(Rösler and Glaw 2010; Kathriner et al. 2014).
Fig. 11. Hemidactylus brookii. Photograph by Santosh Bhat-
tarai.
Hemidactylus aviviridis (Rüppell 1835): This is a com-
mon house gecko in the study area. Frequently seen at
houses, park guard posts and army posts, and the temple
inside the park, as well as villages nearby the park. This
is the rst record from the Parsa National Park.
Bhattarai et al.
41
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
Hemidactylus frenatus (Dúmeril and Bibron 1836): We
reported two individuals of this species, photographed
at Bhata-Hattisar and Gaduwa. This is the rst record of
this species from Parsa National Park.
Agamidae (Gray 1827)
Calotes versicolor (Daudin 1802): This is the most
common diurnal agamid distributed from below 100 m
to 3,200 m in Nepal (Schleich and Kästle 2002). The
species was frequently observed in and out of the park
boundary (Fig. 12).
Fig. 12. Calotes versicolor. Photograph by Santosh Bhattarai.
Sitana fusca (Schleich and Kästle 1998): This species
was described from Bardibas, Mahottari district, Nepal
ca. 100 km east of Parsa National Park. This is the rst
record of Sitana from Parsa National Park. This species
was frequently observed at NTNC-Parsa Conservation
Program ofce complex, Bhedaha Khola, and Darau
Khola. In June 2016, a gravid female was observed nest-
ing in the ofce complex, and two hatchlings of same
species were encountered in August 2016 (Fig. 13).
Fig. 13. Nesting female of Sitana fusca. Photograph by Santosh
Bhattarai.
Scincidae (Gray 1825)
Eutropis carinata (Schneider 1801): Commonly ob-
served inside the park basking in open grassland and on
rocky substrates. Observed at Kamini Daha, Bhata, Ma-
hadev Khola, Halkhoria Daha, Ghode Masan, Ramauli-
Pratappur, Sikaribasb Bhedaha Khola, and Darau Khola.
This is one of the most commonly observed skinks in
Nepal. However, earlier researchers did not report it from
Parsa National Park (Fig. 14).
Fig. 14. Eutropis carinata. Photograph by Kapil Pokharel/
NTNC-BCC.
Eutropis dissimilis (Hallowell 1857): Recorded from
Amlekhgunj-Hattisar, Sikaribaas basking during winter.
This species is rarely seen compared to its congenerics in
Parsa National Park (Fig. 15).
Fig. 15. Eutropis dissimillis. Photograph by Kapil Pokharel/
NTNC-BCC.
Eutropis macularia (Blyth 1853): Observed from Ka-
mini Daha, Amlekhgunj-Hattisar, Bhata, Nirmalbasti,
Ramauli Pratappur, Mahadev Khola, and Ghode Masan
(Fig. 16).
Fig. 16. Eutropis macularia. Photograph by Binod Darai/
NTNC-BCC.
Amphibians and Reptiles of Parsa National Park, Nepal
42
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
Bhattarai et al.
Lygosoma punctata (Gmelin 1799): Observed from Bha-
ta, Adhabhar, Sikaribaas, and Shitalpur (Fig. 17).
Fig. 17. Lygosoma punctata. Photograph by Binod Darai/
NTNC-BCC.
Sphenomorphus maculatus (Blyth 1853): This species
was frequently observed in the foothills of Siwaliks in-
side the park and found basking on the rocks of dry river
beds (Fig. 18). This is the rst record for Parsa National
Park.
Fig. 18. Sphenomorphus maculatus. Photograph by Santosh
Bhattarai.
Varanidae (Merrem 1820)
Varanus bengalensis (Daudin 1802): Individuals were
observed at Kamini Daha, Masine area, Bhata, Adhab-
har-PNP ofce, Bhedaha Khola, Shitalpur, and Ramauli-
Pratapur. They were frequently observed at human habi-
tations at Amlekhgunj, and one adult was rescued from
the Nepal Oil Corporation’s ofce complex. The species
is frequently seen in holes of the Sal (Shorea robusta)
trees lying on the ground and on standing trees (Fig. 19).
Fig. 19. Varanus bengalensis. Photograph by Kapil Pokharel/
NTNC-BCC.
Varanus avescens (Hardwicke and Gray 1827): This
species was frequently encountered in the buffer zone
around the PNP and in agricultural lands outside the
park boundary. It is a legally protected varanid of Nepal
which has been accorded the highest degree of protection
in Schedule-I under the National Parks and Wildlife Con-
servation Act, 1973. The species is facing severe threat
due to illegal hunting for its esh and skin. The skin of
varanids is used for making musical instruments by local
communities.
Typhlopidae (Merrem 1820)
Indotyphlops braminus (Daudin, 1803): The species was
observed from Kamini Daha living inside leaf litter.
Boidae (Gray 1825)
Eryx conicus (Schneider 1801): This species was en-
countered at Amlekhgunj-Hattisar (Fig. 20).
Fig. 20. Eryx conicus. Photograph by Kapil Pokharel/NTNC-
BCC.
43
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
Pythonidae (Fitzinger 1826)
Python bivittatus (Kuhl 1820): The python is the largest
snake species in Nepal and it is distributed from Nep-
alese Terai up to 2,800 m elevation in Nepal (Bhattarai
et al. 2017). In the PNP, the species was observed from
Bhata, Amlekhgunj-Hattisar, Halkhoria Daha, and Ra-
mauli Pratapur (Fig. 21). The PNP has dry sub-tropical
habitat and gets incidental re. One injured python was
found with wounds inside the park at Kamini Daha.
Fig. 21. Python bivittatus. Photograph by Om P. Chaudhary/
NTNC-BCC.
Colubridae (Oppel 1811)
Ahaetulla nasuta (Bonnaterre 1790): An individual of
this species was observed at Mahadev Khola basking
on grasses and ew to the bush when approached. An-
other individual was observed at Shitalpur on a Mallotus
philippensis tree approximately 3.5 m from ground level.
We report this species for the rst time from the park.
Boiga trigonata (Schneider 1802): Many killed speci-
mens were found in the buffer villages and highway be-
tween Amlekhgunj and Pathlaiya section of the National
Park (Fig. 22).
Coelognathus helena (Daudin 1803): Observed from
Amlekhgunj-Hattisar, Adhabhar-PNP ofce complex,
and Ramauli Pratapur. This is the rst record from Parsa
National Park.
Coelognathus radiatus (Boie 1827): Dead specimens
were found near human habitation, and an individual was
recorded at Kamini Daha. In May and June, the species
is frequently observed in buffer villages of the park, and
people kill the snakes when they encounter them.
Fig. 22. Boiga trigonata. Photograph by Kapil Pokharel/
NTNC-BCC.
Chrysopelea ornata (Shaw 1802): A juvenile individual
was observed at Shikaribas Khola, and a dead specimen
was found at Amlekhgunj-Hattisar (Fig. 23). This is the
rst record from Parsa National Park.
Fig. 23. Chrysopelea ornata. Photograph by Kapil Pokharel/
NTNC-BCC.
Dendrelaphis tristis (Daudin 1803): The basking indi-
viduals were encountered at Amlekhgunj-Hattisar, Bha-
ta-Hattisar, and Ghodemasan (Fig. 24). This is the rst
record from Parsa National Park.
Fig. 24. Dendrelaphis tristis. Photograph by Om P. Chaudhary/
NTNC-BCC.
Amphibians and Reptiles of Parsa National Park, Nepal
44
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
Lycodon aulicus (Linnaeus 1758): Observed at NTNC-
Parsa Conservation Program Ofce complex, and dead
individuals were found at Amlekhgunj-Hattisar. A bask-
ing individual was frequently observed in a crevice of
a cemented water tank (Fig. 25). This is the rst record
from Parsa National Park.
Fig. 25. Lycodon aulicus. Photograph by Santosh Bhattarai.
Lycodon jara (Shaw 1802): Observed at Amlekhgunj-
Hattisar. According to Schleich and Kästle (2002), it is
a rarely found species from Terai Nepal. However, there
are published reports of it in bordering states of India as
well. This is the rst record from Parsa National Park
(Fig. 26).
Fig. 26. Lycodon jara. Photograph by Santosh Bhattarai.
Oligodon arnensis (Shaw 1802): Observed from Amle-
khgunj-Hattisar and NTNC-Parsa Conservation Ofce
Complex (Fig. 27). This species is also frequently ob-
served in Chitwan National Park.
Fig. 27. Oligodon arnensis. Photograph by Kapil Pokharel/
NTNC-BCC.
Psammodynastes pulverulentus (Boie 1827): According
to Schleich and Kästle (2002), the records of the species
were from Butwal, western Nepal, and Khotang, Uday-
pur, and Ilam from eastern Nepal. Recently, Bhattarai et
al. (2017) reported it from Ratomate-Harda Khola, Chit-
wan National Park. Later the species was also observed
at Triveni area of Chitwan National Park. In the PNP, the
species was observed at Ghodemasan area, being the rst
record from the PNP (Fig. 28).
Fig. 28. Psammodynastes pulverulentus. Photograph by Tirtha
Lama/NTNC-BCC, photograph taken at Triveni, Chitwan Na-
tional Park.
Bhattarai et al.
45
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
Ptyas mucosa (Linnaeus 1758): Animals in combat were
observed on 7 June, 2016. A road-killed specimen in the
segment between Amlekhgunj and Adhabhar was record-
ed. Individuals were frequently observed at NTNC-Parsa
Conservation Ofce complex (Fig. 29). This report is the
rst record for Parsa National Park.
Fig. 29. Ptyas mucosa. Photograph by Santosh Bhattarai.
Sibynophis sagittarius (Cantor 1839): A specimen was
found at Ghodemasan area basking on a riverbed (Fig.
30).
Fig. 30. Sibynophis sagittarius. Photograph by Kapil Pokharel.
Elapidae (F. Boie 1827)
Bungarus caeruleus (Schneider 1801): Specimens ob-
served at Amlekhgunj-Hattisar. Killed specimens were
found near human habitation (Fig. 31).
Fig. 31. Bungarus caeruleus. Photograph by Kapil Pokharel/
NTNC-BCC.
Bungarus fasciatus (Schneider 1801): One individual
was found crawling inside Amlekhgunj-Hattisar in July
2016.
Bungarus lividus (Cantor 1839): An individual was ob-
served at Bhata-Hattisar on forest trail towards Bhata-
temple. The second individual was found killed in Amle-
khgunj. This is the rst record from Parsa National Park.
Naja naja (Linnaeus 1758): An individual was found
basking in the riverbed of Bhedah Khola. Two individu-
als were found killed at human habitation at Amlekhgunj
(Fig. 32).
Fig. 32. Naja naja. Photograph by Kapil Pokharel/NTNC-BCC.
Ophiophagus hannah (Cantor 1836): A dead specimen
was recorded at Amlekhgunj-Hattisar. Another individ-
ual was observed at Shitalpur camp in November 2016.
(Fig. 33).
Fig. 33. Ophiophagus hannah. Photograph by Kapil Pokharel/
NTNC-BCC.
Natricidae (Bonaparte 1838)
Amphiesma stolatum (Linnaeus 1758): Frequently ob-
served at Amlekhgunj-Hattisar, Bhata-Hattisar, and Ad-
habhar-PNP ofce complex. An individual was observed
feeding on Duttaphrynus melanostictus at NTNC-Parsa
Conservation Ofce complex. Road kills observed in the
segment between Amlekhgunj and Adhabhar (Fig. 34).
Amphibians and Reptiles of Parsa National Park, Nepal
46
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
Fig. 34. Amphiesma stolatum. Photograph by Kapil Pokharel/
NTNC-BCC.
Xenochrophis piscator (Schneider 1799): The species
was frequently observed in human habitation and a speci-
men was seen in the Bhata wetland (Fig. 35).
Fig. 35. Xenochropis piscator. Photograph by Kapil Pokharel/
NTNC-BCC.
Rhabdophis subminiatus (Schlegel 1837): Record of
this species was previously not reported from the PNP.
Schleich and Kästle (2002) reported it from the Chitwan
National Park. The specimen was recorded at Ghodema-
san area basking on a rock (Fig. 36) in November 2016.
Fig. 36. Rhabdophis subminiatus. Photograph by Dip Prasad
Chaudhary/NTNC-BCC.
Viperidae (Oppel 1811)
Daboia russelii (Shaw and Nodder 1797): A single indi-
vidual was observed from Bhata on the way to Rambhori
grassland. The individual was basking near a gabion wall
(Fig. 37).
Fig. 37. Daboia russelii. Photograph by Santosh Bhattarai.
Trimeresurus albolabris (Gray 1842): Two individuals
were observed at Kamini Daha in March 2014 and June
2015. The third individual was observed from Ramauli-
Pratapur in December 2016 (Fig. 38).
Fig. 38. Trimeresurus albolabris. Photograph by Kapil
Pokharel/NTNC-BCC.
Bhattarai et al.
47
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
Testudinidae (Batsch 1788)
Indotestudo elongata (Blyth 1854): An individual was
observed at Ghodemasan. Two rescued individuals were
kept at Amlekhgunj-Hattisar. Later, they were released
inside the park. Local people, especially business people,
like to keep turtles and tortoises in captivity believing
they are a sign of good luck for their business (Fig. 39).
Fig. 39. Indotestudo elongata. Photograph by Santosh Bhat-
tarai.
Crocodylidae (Cuvier 1806)
Crocodylus palustris (Lesson 1831): An individual was
kept in an enclosure in Amlekhjung-Hattisar. Later, it
was released in a wetland inside the park at Bhata.
Discussion
Our short expeditions resulted in 22 new species records
for the PNP, including three species of frog, two geckos,
one Agamid, two skink species, 13 snake species, and
one crocodile. The details of new species recorded for the
PNP are in Table 1.
The record of Traschischium tenuiceps by Kästle et
al. (2013) from the PNP needs to be veried as the el-
evational range of the species in Nepal is 1,500–2,400 m
(Schleich and Kästle 2002). We presume that the species
was mistakenly reported from the PNP.
Our survey mainly focused on daytime searches due
to logistics. It is highly likely that many other amphibians
and reptiles remain to be added to the list, especially fos-
sorial and arboreal species. During our survey we failed
to document Eryx johnii (Russell 1801) as this species is
frequently observed in nearby areas.
Among the species we recorded, Varanus avescens
and Python sp. are legally protected species in Nepal.
The pythons are the only legally protected snake species
of Nepal which has been accorded the highest degree of
protection under the National Parks and Wildlife Con-
servation Act, 1973. The Act has included the python in
the Schedule-I as Python molurus. In 2009 Python bivit-
tatus was elevated to specic status, and the occurrence
of Python molurus in Nepal is doubtful (Bhattarai 2014).
Therefore, we suggest P. bivittatus be listed in the Act
instead of P. molurus.
The IUCN has evaluated the tortoise Indotestudo
elongata as an endangered species. Similarly, Crocody-
lus palustris, Ophiophagus hannah, and Python bivit-
tatus have been categorized as vulnerable species. The
rampant killing of snake species in the buffer zone of the
PNP is an observed threat. Buffer communities perceive
all snakes to be venomous despite the fact that only 17%
of Nepalese snakes are venomous (Bhattarai et al. 2017;
Sharma et al. 2013).
The national east-west highway bisects the park in the
Amlekhganj-Pathlaiya section where many wild species
are frequently observed trampled by the vehicular move-
ment. The regular monitoring of this section will reveal
the extent of wildlife loss due to vehicles.
The PNP shares its western boundary with Chitwan
National Park, and the Siwalik hill in the North might
have unique species as this park has comparatively drier
habitats. We believe detailed inventory will further in-
crease the species richness and diversity of the park.
Acknowledgements.—Amphibians and reptiles
were recorded during eld implementation of two proj-
ects: 1. Community Based Human-Elephant Conict
Management in Chitwan-Parsa Complex (Grant no#
F15AP00340), 2. Mitigating Human-Tiger Conict en-
gaging local community in Parsa National Park (Grant
no# F15AP00781). We would like to thank US Fish and
Wildlife Service for these two funds to NTNC-BCC. We
extend our gratitude to Department of National Parks
and Wildlife Conservation, Chitwan and Parsa Nation-
al Parks for endorsing these projects. We thank Kapil
Pokharel, Harka Man Lama, Om Prakash Chaudhary,
Ashish Gurung, Dip Prasad Chaudhary, Binod Darai, Ra-
mesh Darai, Tirtha Lama, and team NTNC-BCC for their
assistance in the eld. We also acknowledge ZSL Nepal
ofce for funding support to carryout camera trap sur-
vey in Parsa National Park. We would also like to thank
Mark O’Shea and Peter Uetz for their comments on the
draft manuscript. We would also acknowledge Abhijit
Das and two other reviewers for their comments on the
manuscript.
Literature Cited
Acharya KP, Khadka BK, Jnawali SR, Malla S, Bhatta-
rai S, Wikramanayake E, Kohl M. 2017. Conservation
and population recovery of Gharials (Gavialis gange-
ticus) in Nepal. Herpetologica 73(2): 129–135.
Bhattarai S, Gurung A, Chalise L, Pokheral CP. 2017.
Geographic Distribution: Psammodynastes pulveru-
lentus (Mock Viper). Herpetological Review 48(1):
129.
Bhattarai S, Pokheral CP, Lamicchane BR. 2017. Death-
feigning behavior in Burmese Python Python bivit-
tatus Kuhl, 1820 in Chitwan National Park. Russian
Journal of Herpetology 24(4): 323–326.
Bhattarai S, Pokheral CP, Lamichhane BR, Subedi N.
Amphibians and Reptiles of Parsa National Park, Nepal
48
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. July 2018 | Volume 12 | Number 1 | e155
Herpetofauna of a Ramsar Site: Beeshazar and As-
sociated Lakes, Chitwan National Park Nepal. IRCF
Reptiles & Amphibians 24(1): 17–29.
Bhattarai S, Thapa KB, Chalise L, Gurung A, Pokheral
CP, Subedi N, Thapa TB, Shah KB. 2017. On the dis-
tribution of the Himalayan Stripe-necked Snake Lio-
peltis rappi (Günther, 1860) (Serpentes: Colubridae)
in Nepal. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 11(1)
[General Section]: 88–92 (e139).
Bhattarai S. 2014. Population of Python bivittatus in Bar-
dia National Park, Nepal. M.Sc. Dissertation Report,
Department of Wildlife Science, University of Kota,
Rajasthan, India. 64 p.
Chetri M. 2003. Food habits of gaur Bos gaurus gaurus
Smith, 1827 and livestock (cows and buffaloes) in
Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Central Nepal. Himalayan
Journal of Sciences 1(1): 31–36.
Fazey I, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB. 2005. What do con-
servation biologists publish? Biological Conservation
124: 63–73.
Frost DR. 2017. Amphibian Species of the World: An
Online Reference. Version 6.0. American Museum of
Natural History, New York, New York, USA. Avail-
able: http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/am-
phibia/ [Accessed: 25 November 2017].
Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek LC,
Foster MS. 1994. Measuring and Monitoring Bio-
logical Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians.
Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, DC, USA.
364 p.
Kästle W, Rai K, Schleich HH. 2013. Field Guide to
Amphibians and Reptiles of Nepal. ARCO-Nepal e.V.
Munich, Germany. 625 p.
Kathriner A, O’Shea M, Kaiser H. 2014. Re-examination
of Hemidactylus tenkatei van Lidth de Jeude, 1895:
Populations from Timor provide insight into the tax-
onomy of the H. brookii Gray, 1845 complex (Squa-
mata: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 3887(5): 583–599.
Khatiwada JR, Guo CH, Wang SH, Thapa A, Wang B,
Jiang J. 2017. A new species of Microhyla (Anura:
Microhylidae) from Eastern Nepal. Zootaxa 4254(2):
221–239.
Lamichhane BR, Pokheral CP, Poudel S, Adhikari D,
Giri SR, Bhattarai S, Bhatta TR, Pickles R, Amin R,
Acharya KP, Dhakal M, Regmi UR, Ram AK, Sub-
edi N. 2017. Rapid recovery of tigers Panthera tigris
in Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Oryx 52(1): 16–24.
doi:10.1017/S0030605317000886.
Rösler H, Glaw F. 2010. Morphological variation and
taxonomy of Hemidactylus brookii Gray, 1845, Hemi-
dactylus angulatus Hallowell, 1854, and similar taxa
(Squamata, Sauria, Gekkonidae). Spixiana 33: 139–
160.
Schleich HH, Kästle W. 2002. Amphibians and Reptiles
of Nepal. Koenigstein: Koeltz Scientic Books, Ger-
many. 1,200 p.
Shah KB, Tiwari S. 2004. Herpetofauna of Nepal: A
Conservation Companion – Kathmandu. IUCN Ne-
pal, Kathmandu, Nepal. 237 p.
Sharma SK, Pandey DP, Shah KB, Tillack F, Chappuis F,
Thapa CL, Elirol E, Kuch U. 2013. Venomous Snakes
of Nepal: A Photographic Guide. B.P. Koirala Insti-
tute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal. 86 p.
Smith, MA. 1935. The Fauna of British India, Including
Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia, Volume 2:
Sauria. Taylor and Francis, London, England. 440 p.
Uetz P, Freed P, Hošek J, editors. 2017. The Reptile Data-
base. Available: htpp://www.reptile-database.org [Ac-
cessed: 17 December 2017].
Bhattarai et al.
Santosh Bhattarai currently works as Conservation Ofcer at National Trust for Nature Conservation- Biodiversity
Conservation Center (NTNC-BCC), Sauraha, Chitwan, Nepal. He is particularly interested to understand evolutionary
and ecological drivers of amphibians and reptiles by which species diversify and accumulate through time and space.
Chiranjibi Prasad Pokheral currently works as Program Manager at National Trust for Nature Conservation-
Central Zoo, Lalitpur, Nepal. He completed his Ph.D. in 2012 and has more than two decades of experience in species
conservation and management in Nepal. He is focused on tiger conservation in Nepal.
Babu Ram Lamichhane currently works as Research Ofcer at NTNC-BCC. He is interested in Human-Carnivore
interactions and is pursuing his doctoral study in the same topic.
Uba Raj Regmi works at Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. He has more than 25 years of
experience of managing Protected Areas in Nepal. He currently works as Chief Conservation Ofcer at Langtang
National Park, Nepal.
Ashok Kumar Ram works at Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. Currently, he is working
as Assistant Conservation Ofcer at Parsa National Park. He is focused on Human-Elephant conict management
issues.
Naresh Subedi completed his Ph.D. in 2012 and is currently based at NTNC-central ofce, Kathamandu, and works
in the capacity of Conservation Program Manager. His earlier studies focsed on impact of invasive species on native
wild animals and their conservation measures.
... Further, as research on herpetofauna is increasing manifold as reflected in the number of studies ( Fig. 9.5), information generated will aid in planning conservation measures in the future. Boulenger, 1882Boulenger, , 1890Schleich and Kastle, 2002;Chettri et al., 2011;Subba et al., 2017;Roy et al., 2018;Ohler et al., 2018;Bhattarai et al., 2018;Khatiwada et al., 2021;Wangyal et al., 2020;and Sahi and Koul, 2020. (+) denotes presence whereas () denotes absence of the species in particular part of the Himalaya; ( a ) denotes endemic to the Himalaya. ...
... (+) denotes presence whereas () denotes absence of the species in particular part of the Himalaya; ( a ) denotes endemic to the Himalaya.  +  Source: Boulenger, 1890;Smith, 1935Smith, , 1943Chettri and Bhupathy, 2007;Schleich and Kastle, 2002;Das, 2016;Bhattarai et al., 2018;Tshewaang and Letro, 2018;Rawat et al., 2020;Wangyal, 2014;Wangyal et al., 2020;and Sahi and Koul, 2020. (+) denotes presence whereas () denotes absence of species in particular part of the Himalaya; ...
Chapter
Himalaya Biodiversity Hotspot lies in the transition zone between the Palearctic and Indo- Malayan zoogeographical realms and hence reflects life forms of the both. Geological, climatological, and biological changes coupled with complex topography and varying climates result in a biodiversity hotspot with exceptional diversity and endemism in the Himalaya. Despite increasing interest and studies in recent years, there have been very limited studies on herpetofauna of the Himalaya. In this chapter, we aimed to illustrate taxonomic diversity and trends, IUCN threat category, endemism, elevational distribution pattern, diversification pattern, and conservation issues of herpetofauna in the Himalaya. We synthesized information from various online and offline sources including our own field observations. We compiled a list of 318 species of herpetofauna comprising 124 amphibian and 194 reptile species from the Himalaya Biodiversity Hotspot. Both amphibian and reptile diversity increase from Western to Eastern Himalaya. Reptile diversity declined along the elevation gradient whereas amphibian diversity showed mid-elevation peak. Of the total herpetofauna, 53 species are under various threat categories while 65 species are either Not Evaluated or Data Deficient under IUCN Red list which indicates that we do not have basic information about these species. Origin of Himalayan herpetofauna dates back to Paleocene, while the rate of diversification increased during Miocene coinciding with the stepwise uplift of Himalaya during geological period. Rapid discovery of new species with a record of five reptiles discovered from Arunachal Pradesh alone within one year, it is clear that Himalaya still remain unexplored and true diversity is yet to be reflected. Considering the high diversity and endemism of herpetofauna in the Himalaya, it is important to carry out more research to generate baseline information which will be helpful for conservation initiatives and policy planning.
... In Nepal, the species was formerly described as rare in the Terai lowlands (Schleich and Kästle 2002). However, widespread observations from the Protected Areas network have been reported: Chitwan National Park (NP) and its vicinity (Pandey et al. 2018), Parsa NP (Bhattarai et al. 2018), Bardiya NP (Lohani et al. 2022), and Shukla Phanta NP (Rawat et al. 2020). Outside the PA network, few sightings have been reported, although reports exist for Sarlahi District (Chettri and Thapa Chhetry 2014) and Kaski District (Baral et al. 2020). ...
... Outside the PA network, few sightings have been reported, although reports exist for Sarlahi District (Chettri and Thapa Chhetry 2014) and Kaski District (Baral et al. 2020). The first report of the species in Parsa National Park was from the Amlekhgunj-Hattisar area, 6.6 km north of the present observation (Bhattarai et al. 2018). ...
... There have been occasional records of keeping elongated tortoises captive as a sign of good luck in Nepal (S. Bhattarai et al., 2018). In our survey, however, we found only a single instance of keeping the tortoise as a pet. ...
Article
Full-text available
he elongated tortoise Indotestudo elongata (Blyth, 1854), is one of the most widespread tortoises of Indo-Malayan region yet is listed as critically endangered species in the IUCN Red List. In Nepal, elongated tortoises were widespread in lowland areas. However, tortoise and other wildlife populations declined exponentially in response to growing human population and associated interferences. The extent of the anthropogenic influences is expected to vary on a fine scale. Understanding this variation is crucial to design and implementation of conservation strategies, which are lacking at this time. This study was conducted with the aim of addressing information gaps about the behavior of the local people and how these behaviors may threaten the survival of Indotestudo elongata in Bara district, Central Nepal. As our focal species is a forest dependent tortoise, we conducted surveys using questionnaire in the vicinity of forest areas from three administrative units namely Kolhabi and Nijgadh municipalities and Jeetpur-Simara Sub-Metropolitan City. Among the survey participants, nearly two-thirds of them reported to have collected tortoise from forests and nearly equivalent number of participants reported consuming tortoises. This indicates that consumption, as food was the major reason for the collection. In the past, some of the remaining tortoise carapaces, were sold by the local inhabitants for nominal price. Respondents more recently, reported no incidence of trading tortoise or their carapaces, so many of them have discarded the carapaces as they do not have utility value. However, locals continue to collect the tortoise for non-commercial use when they encounter the species. Exploitation and consumption of tortoises was significantly associated with respondents’ ethnicity viz. local ethnic communities being more involved. Successful interventions may entail local involvement in activities that include reduction of forest dependency and awareness, to protect tortoises in their natural habitat.
... An amphibian survey was carried out during the rainy season from July to October using repeated visual encounter surveys (Crump & Scott 1994;Gillespie 1997;Sunar et al. 2022) and opportunistic observation (Heyer et al. 1994;Bhattarai et al. 2018;Paudel et al. 2023). Surveys were made from 6:00 to 9:00 in the morning and 18:00-21:00 once a week, spending three hours per visit walking along the perimeter of ponds (Sunar et al. 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
Amphibians are noteworthy bio-indicators and bio-control agents. They have an intimate relationship with their aquatic environment. Therefore, the present study was conducted aiming to investigate the association of amphibian diversity with the Physicochemical factors of pond water. The field surveys were carried out in Rani Pokhari, Bhajya Pokhari and Gonga Pokhari of Bhaktapur Municipality during the rainy season using repeated visual encounter surveys and opportunistic observations. Surveys were made around the ponds from 06:00 to 09:00 and from 18:00 to 21:00 once a week spending three hours per visit walking along the perimeter of ponds. Water samples were collected from the four corners of each pond. The physicochemical analyses of sample water were carried out as per the scientific instrumentations and standard procedures. A total of 77 individuals of five different species of amphibians belonging to three families were documented from the study areas. The higher values of the Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H=1.34), and Simpson's reciprocal index (1/D=3.656) were recorded for Rani Pokhari. All the ponds exhibited a high degree of Pielou's evenness index (e>0.9). The physicochemical analysis indicated a favourable aquatic environment for amphibians in Bhajya Pokhari and Rani Pokhari and the least favourable aquatic conditions in Gonga Pokhari which supported only a few tolerant species. Karl Pearson's correlation coefficient between Shannon-Wiener diversity index and physicochemical factors revealed a positive association with temperature (r=0.997), transparency (r=0.695) and dissolved oxygen (r=0.353) while a negative association with pH, electrical conductivity, free CO2, total dissolved solids and alkalinity. The water quality of the ponds of Bhaktapur is in healthy condition for the existence of amphibians and other aquatic organisms. The information obtained is useful for implementing amphibian and pond water conservation management. In addition, this study has established baseline database of amphibians for Bhaktapur District which is valuable for the local government to maintain the biodiversity profile of the district.
... Foraging strategy plays important role in amphibian trophic ecology but the study should be repeated in different season and in different microhabitats to explain the precise dietary niche(Vignoli and Luiselli 2012). The anuran species recorded in the study area were common(Bhattarai et al. 2018) and found in all three habitat types which might result in foraging upon similar prey items. The abundance of anurans in many habitats or with high mobility could generate better opportunities for prey selection and large range ofprey consumed suggesting generalist or opportunistic feeders (Franca et al. 2004). ...
... milies. They recorded occurrence of one species from Beeshazar Lake, two from Buff Tal, one from Batauli Pokhari Lake, two from Khorsor, one from Khageri canal and one from forest roads and trails. They made the observation of four individuals of Lissemys punctata, one Melanochelys trijuga, two Melanochelys tricarinata and one Indotestudo elongata.BHATTARAI et al. (2018) conducted a herpetofaunal survey in Parsa National Park and recorded a single specimen of Indotestudo elongata from Ghodemasan. Two more rescued specimens of the same species were kept in Amlekhgunj-Hattisar and finally released inside the park later.BUHLMANN et al. (2009) described the world in seven geographic regions on the basis of ...
Article
Full-text available
Turtle Conservation in Nepal
... More specifically, the study and conservation are focused on large mammals such as tiger (Panthera tigris), Greater one horned rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) 2 . However, gharials (Gavialis gangeticus) have received conservation attention among all herpetofauna in Nepal 3,4 . ...
Article
Full-text available
The narrow-headed softshell turtle, Chitra indica are among the most threatened vertebrates of the world and are listed as Endangered species in the IUCN Red List. Three nests of Chitra indica with 496 eggs were relocated from flood prone river bank of Rapti river, Chitwan National Park, Nepal. The eggs were collected, relocated to nests with original size and dimensions. The eggs were successfully hatched and released back to the wild.
Research Proposal
Full-text available
Common Bronze-back is tree-snake species widely distributed in Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar, and Bhutan. It can be recognized without difficulty by observing a round whitish spot on top of the head, with very thin sleazy body having sky blue dots on back surface and most of the side back & belly of yellowish-white color. Ten more species of bronze-backs are established in India; among them four are in peninsular India, all of them native to the Western Ghat.
Article
Full-text available
The rare death feigning behavior by Burmese python Python bivittatus is reported from Chitwan National Park, Nepal. This documentation from natural distributional range of Burmese python from human-python conflict prone zone is expected to be helpful as outreach material to safeguard the life of animal from danger by local people. This is the first report on death feigning in Burmese python from Nepal.
Article
Full-text available
The distribution of the Himalayan Stripe-necked Snake (Liopeltis rappi) is poorly documented. We summarize the distribution of this little known snake in Nepal and provide a new locality record from Kabilas, Chitwan, Nepal. Compiled observations presented here suggest that the species is more widely distributed and we call for additional surveys and a systematic inventory.
Article
Full-text available
A new species of the genus Microhyla is described from Jamun Khadi, Jhapa district of eastern Nepal, based on molecular and morphological comparisons. This species is the sister taxon of Microhyla ornata and can be distinguished by a unique vocalization, morphology and molecular phylogeny. The uncorrected genetic divergences based on rRNA gene between the new species and its closest congeners, M. nilphamariensis, M. ornata and M. rubra were 5.34%, 6.67%, and 8.31%, respectively. The new species, Microhyla taraiensis sp. nov., is distinguished from each other of Microhyla by a combination of the following morphological characters: (1) relatively larger body size (SVL ranges 19.9–20.3 mm, n = 4 in the males and 22.1–24.9 mm, n = 3 in the females); (2) dorsal surface of head and body with light red dots; (3) toes webbing poorly developed or absent; (4) a large round inner metacarpal tubercle; and an (5) elongated outer metacarpal tubercle. In addition, our study also provides a new record of Microhyla nilphamariensis from Nepal.
Article
Full-text available
Recent herpetofaunal investigations in Timor-Leste revealed populations similar to Hemidactylus brookii Gray, 1845 in four of 13 districts. In order to properly identify these populations, we examined their relationships to other H. brookiicomplex populations, notably those from nearby Roti Island, Indonesia (to which the name H. tenkatei van Lidth de Jeude, 1895 has been applied) and topotypic Bornean samples. We evaluated both meristic and mensural data from a set of specimens that included the type material of H. brookii and H. tenkatei, and we generated nuclear (RAG1) and mitochondrial (ND2) DNA sequence data for Timor-Leste specimens and a topotypical Bornean specimen presumed to represent H. brookii sensu stricto. Morphologically, Timorese geckos are clearly distinct from H. brookii and identical to H. tenkatei. Our molecular data show that the Bornean specimen thought to be H. brookii is genetically congruent with Timor-Leste specimens, and this specimen is therefore identified as H. tenkatei. Our data also reveal that the Burmese species H. subtriedroides Annandale, 1905 is distinct from both H. tenkatei and H. brookii. While the current data do not allow us to determine with certainty whether H. tenkatei is the oldest available name for these widespread forms, it is the only name that can be reliably applied at this time.
Article
Full-text available
Food habits of gaur (Bos gaurus gaurus) and livestock (cows and buffaloes) have been studied from January to June 1998 in Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. The study aimed to understand the diet composition and common plant used by gaur and livestock. Gaurs are both grazers and browsers. The diet of gaur comprised of 38 plant species (20 species of grass, 11 species of browse and 7 species of herb and others) and that of livestock comprised of 35 plant species (19 species of grass, 13 species of browse and 3 species of herb and others). A comparative analysis of plants consumption revealed that gaurs are less selective feeder than livestock. A total of 24 plant species (16 species of grass, 6 species of browse and 2 species of herb and others) were common in the diet of gaur and livestock. 7 species of plants (5 species of grass – Cymbopogon sp., Imperata cylindrica, Phragmites karka, Themeda sp., Vetiveria zizanoides; 1 species of browse – Phaulopsis imbricata and 1 species of herb – Piper longum) are comparatively more utilized by both gaur and livestock. Himalayan Journal of Sciences 1(1): 31-36, 2003
Article
The remnant populations of Gharials, Gavialis gangeticus, are now confined to the large, deep rivers of northern India and Nepal. In lowland Nepal, the populations are restricted to a few stretches of the Narayani–Rapti and Karnali–Babai river systems. Periodic censuses of the wild populations have been made over the past 12 yr. Here, we present population trends of Gharials in the Narayani, Rapti, and Babai rivers based on these surveys. The results indicate that the combined numbers of adults and subadults have been gradually increasing since 2005, but the numbers of adults are low and female biased, with very few males recorded from all study sites. In 1978, Nepal established a captive breeding center in Chitwan National Park, from which captive-bred animals have been periodically released 4–7 yr after hatching, at which time the animals are about 1.5 m total length. The detection of hatchlings and subadult classes that are smaller than these released animals in the rivers indicates that there is natural recruitment. Therefore, collecting all nests for ex-situ breeding might not be the best strategy until more rigorous field assessments are completed to determine the relative contributions of captive-bred versus natural recruitment. We suggest that more effort should be channeled toward field assessments, including mapping and monitoring habitat availability, habitat management to ensure necessary environmental flows to create sand banks and deep pools, and research to better understand the ecology and behavior of Gharials in Nepal's rivers. The remnant populations of Gharials, Gavialis gangeticus, are now confined to the large, deep rivers of northern India and Nepal. In lowland Nepal, the populations are restricted to a few stretches of the Narayani–Rapti and Karnali–Babai river systems. Periodic censuses of the wild populations have been made over the past 12 yr. Here, we present population trends of Gharials in the Narayani, Rapti, and Babai rivers based on these surveys. The results indicate that the combined numbers of adults and subadults have been gradually increasing since 2005, but the numbers of adults are low and female biased, with very few males recorded from all study sites. In 1978, Nepal established a captive breeding center in Chitwan National Park, from which captive-bred animals have been periodically released 4–7 yr after hatching, at which time the animals are about 1.5 m total length. The detection of hatchlings and subadult classes that are smaller than these released animals in the rivers indicates that there is natural recruitment. Therefore, collecting all nests for ex-situ breeding might not be the best strategy until more rigorous field assessments are completed to determine the relative contributions of captive-bred versus natural recruitment. We suggest that more effort should be channeled toward field assessments, including mapping and monitoring habitat availability, habitat management to ensure necessary environmental flows to create sand banks and deep pools, and research to better understand the ecology and behavior of Gharials in Nepal's rivers.
Article
Based on material housed in the Zoologische Staatssammlung Munchen we describe morphological variation of the Hemiductylus brookii and the H. augulatus group and compare the results with recently published molecular phylogenies in order to find morphological correlates of several genetic clades. Our results confirm that Hemiductylus Unit hums is a synonym of H. augulatus;. The status of H. brookii leghtoni is uncertain (but probably likewise a synonym of H. angulatus), whereas H. tenkatei is considered as a distinct species. Morphologically, two different forms of H. angulatus can be distinguished on the Cape Verde Islands. Furthermore, populations of Hemiductylus brookii from Nepal and Myanmar are clearly distinguishable. Populations from Sri Lanka, the Mascarene and Comoro Islands are morphologically distinct as well and confirm the recently established specific validity of Hemidactylils parvimaculatus. However, a final resolution of the taxonomy of this species complex would require the inclusion of more genetic and morphological data from additional populations and the clarification of several nomenclatural problems. A preliminary identification key to the species H. brookii and H. angulatus is provided.
Article
This manual details standard field methods for qualitative and quantitative sampling of amphibian biological diversity. An introductory chapter is followed by an overview of amphibian diversity and natural history. Essentials of standardization and quantification are then covered. Next research design for quantitative amphibian studies is outlined. Chapter five looks at project planning and data acquisition and handling. Chapter six covers standard techniques for inventory and monitoring. Supplementary approaches are examined in the next chapter: artifical habitats; acoustic monitoring; tracking; night driving; GIS; and group activities/field trips. The ninth chapter looks at mark-recapture and removal sampling as methods of population estimation, followed by a chapter on data analysis. A conclusions and recommendations chapter is followed by seven appendices: handling live amphibians; techniques for marking amphibians; recording frog calls; specimen preparation; collecting tissue for biochemical analysis; vendors; and random number table. -S.R.Harris
Article
We provide an overview of publications from three prominent conservation journals (Biodiversity & Conservation, Biological Conservation and Conservation Biology) published in 2001 (n = 547 papers). We found a wide breadth of studies of different topics from different climates and habitats and across a range of spatial scales. Most studies were quantitative (89%) and used inferential statistics (63%). Research was biased towards vertebrates, forests, relatively pristine landscapes, and towards studies of single species and assemblages rather than communities or ecosystems. Despite assertions in the literature that conservation is synthetic, eclectic and multi-disciplinary, few studies were truly cross-disciplinary (13%). In addition, few studies investigated the loss of native vegetation (2%), or specifically studied introduced (4%) or non-threatened species (4%). 20% and 37% of studies had high relevance to policy and management, respectively. However, only 12.6% of studies actively went out to test or review conservation actions. Although many topics are covered in the literature, improvements are possible. We suggest: (1) broadening the number of habitats, taxonomic groups and scales studied and (2) providing closer and clearer links with other disciplines and research approaches, and with policy and management.