Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata, Reticulated Giraffe THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Abstract

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Assessment of the Reticulated Giraffe.

Full text

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2008: T88420717A88420720
Scope: Global
Language: English
Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata, Reticulated Giraffe
Assessment by: Muneza, A., Doherty, J.B., Hussein Ali, A., Fennessy, J., Marais,
A., O'Connor, D. & Wube, T.
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: Muneza, A., Doherty, J.B., Hussein Ali, A., Fennessy, J., Marais, A., O'Connor, D. & Wube, T.
2018. Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018:
e.T88420717A88420720. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-
2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
Copyright: © 2018 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State
University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe;
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™

Taxonomy
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family
Animalia Chordata Mammalia Cetartiodactyla Giraffidae
Taxon Name:ÊÊGiraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata De Winton, 1899
Parent Species:ÊÊSee Giraffa camelopardalis
Common Name(s):
• English: Reticulated Giraffe
Taxonomic Notes:
Whilst Reticulated Giraffe Giraffa reticulata de Winton 1899 is currently recognized by IUCN as a distinct
subspecies of Giraffa camelopardalis, some authorities have suggested that Reticulated Giraffe should
be elevated back to a species (Groves and Grubb 2011, Fennessy et al. 2016). Phylogenetic and
taxonomic studies are ongoing.
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria: Endangered A2acd ver 3.1
Year Published: 2018
Date Assessed: March 16, 2018
Justification:
Reticulated Giraffe is listed as Endangered under criterion A because of an estimated continuing of ~56%
over the last 30 years (3 generations). The decline is most likely attributed to habitat loss, deterioration
in habitat quality and illegal killing/poaching.
Reticulated Giraffe are are found only in the north and east of Kenya and likely persist in southern
Ethiopia and in south-western Somalia. The numbers remaining in Ethiopia and Somalia are unknown
but suspected to be small: most of the current population is believed to occur in Kenya. Based on
available aerial survey data the population of Reticulated Giraffe in Kenya in (1983-1987), was estimated
at 36,000. Most recent estimates (2011-2017) based on aerial survey data estimate the population at
15,784 individuals (11,048 mature individuals).
Geographic Range
Range Description:
Reticulated Giraffe historically occurred from southern Somalia and southern Ethiopia into northern
Kenya. In Somalia, Reticulated Giraffe ranged from the south-western border as far as the Jubba River
but their numbers were in decline long before the collapse of the State in 1991 (East 1999). Very little
information on the status of Reticulated Giraffe has emerged from the country since then and it is likely
that the subspecies occurs only in low numbers and/or as a vagrant (A.H. Ali pers. comm.).
In Ethiopia, Reticulated Giraffe were once widespread south of the central plateau, east of the Omo
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata – published in 2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
1

River (Yalden et al. 1984), and as far east as the Ogaden (Dagg 1962). Their numbers have declined
dramatically since the 1960s but a relict population likely still exists in the Borana and Ogaden regions,
bordering Kenya and Somalia to the south and east respectively (Marais et al. 2013).
The former range in Kenya is bounded in the west by the Rift Valley and in the south-east by the Tana
River, and encompasses most of the area north and east of Mount Kenya as far as the borders with
Ethiopia and Somalia (East 1999). The population of Reticulated Giraffe in Kenya is much reduced
(Marais et al. 2013) but it is still found in substantial parts of their former range including the northern
rangelands (KWS 2013).
Country Occurrence:
Native: Ethiopia; Kenya; Somalia
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata – published in 2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
2

Population
Reticulated Giraffe numbers in conservation areas was estimated to be greater than 27,110 and there
were none in private land (East 1999). It is important to note though that these data do not include any
estimate for Somalia. Therefore, East (1999) estimated a minimum total population of Reticulated
Giraffe, excluding Somalia, at greater than 27,680 (East 1999, Table 2 in the Appendix). Muller et al.
(2016) estimated a minimum of 36,000 Reticulated Giraffe approximately 30 years ago, using a
combination of historical surveys and estimates.
There is limited data on the historical and current Reticulated Giraffe populations in Somalia. Giraffe
north of Jubba River were assumed to be quite rare and in 1966 the population was thought to be
locally almost extinct (Funaioli and Simonetta 1966). In 1968, populations in northern and central
Somalia were assumed to be extinct (Amir 2006) though Funaioli and Simonetta (1966) had estimated
more than 1,000 Giraffe remaining in the Afmedu and Bubashi Game Reserves (Table 1). In 2014, there
was anecdotal evidence of Reticulated Giraffe persistence in small numbers in the Juba region and near
the Kenyan border in Somalia. Current numbers are estimated at 100 individuals (A.H. Ali pers. comm.).
In Ethiopia, the population was estimated to be less than 100 individuals in 2013, restricted mostly in
the southwestern parts of the country (Marais et al. 2013).
In the late 1970s, Reticulated Giraffe were relatively abundant in northern Kenya, numbering
approximately ~18,200, including an estimated 11,740 giraffe in the Garissa district in northern Kenya
(Table 1). In 1977 the population in Laikipia was estimated at 6,398 (DRSRS 1977, Grunblatt et al. 1995,
Butynski 2000, Muchoki 2000, Shorrocks and Croft 2009). More recent data indicate that Kenya had an
estimated population of approximately 5,528 in 2011 (KWS 2013). However, aerial surveys conducted by
KWS and other conservation partners estimated 8,561 Reticulated Giraffe in Kenya in 2015 (Table 3). The
current population estimates for Kenya are derived from a combination of Aerial Counts conducted by
different institutions over 2011-2017 (Table 3). Garissa County is estimated to have the highest number
of Reticulated Giraffe (4,356 individuals) followed by the Laikipia-Isiolo-Samburu areas (4,006
individuals) and Lamu County (1,1974 individuals). All other populations number less than 1,000 each
and include Mandera, Marsabit, Meru and Turkana Counties (Table 3).
The total population of Reticulated Giraffe in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia, is estimated to be 15,785 (c.
11,048 mature individuals), a significant (56%) decline over the last 30 years.
For further information about this species, see Supplementary Material.
Current Population Trend:ÊÊDecreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)
Reticulated Giraffe occur in north and east of Kenya and may persist in south-western Somalia and
southern Ethiopia. A study in Laikipia in northern Kenya showed that Reticulated Giraffe mostly browse
on Acacia drepanolobium, A. mellifera (44% of Giraffe forage in Laikipia), A. etbaica and Boscia
angustifolia (O’Connor et al. 2015).
Across most of their range, Reticulated Giraffe exist alongside livestock and people in northern Kenya
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata – published in 2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
3

where pastoralism is the dominant lifestyle. Thus, Reticulated Giraffe are found in most private and
community conservancies in addition to government Reserves and Parks. Northern Kenya is a xeric
landscape, which may increase the potential for long-distance movement of Giraffe in search of food.
However, few studies have been conducted to understand the spatial ecology of Giraffe in northern
Kenya. Like other Giraffe taxa, Reticulated Giraffe seem to exhibit a fission-fusion social system
(Shorrocks and Croft 2009) where they form temporary associations embedded within higher levels of
social organisation and kinship related to home range overlap, gender, and the dynamics of spatial use
(Vanderwaal et al. 2014).
Systems:ÊÊTerrestrial
Use and Trade
Hunted for meat and skins with some evidence for an increase in local trade.
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)
While further research needs to be conducted, it is currently thought that the main drivers of decline for
Reticulated Giraffe are habitat loss (including conversion to agriculture, infrastructure and urban
development, and land degradation), habitat fragmentation and poaching. Reticulated Giraffe appear to
be increasingly restricted to protected areas, including government parks and reserves, private and
community conservancies, and private ranches – the primary function of which might not be nature
conservation but livestock production. Range-wide, relatively few parks, conservancies or ranches are
enclosed, leaving a generally porous landscape for movement and gene flow between populations (with
some exceptions). Giraffe are recorded and seen on group ranches, but it is unclear the extent to which
such land can support giraffe populations given that much of these ranches are degraded. One recent
study estimated Reticulated Giraffe density on one conservancy at 9.2 Giraffe/km² vs. 2 giraffe/km² on a
group ranch (Rubenstein et al. unpublished data). Additionally, it is unclear the extent to which regions
of degraded land may act as impediments to Giraffe movements, even though there are no physical
barriers. However, rangeland loss, degradation and fragmentation are increasingly being identified as a
key threat not only to Giraffe but numerous other wildlife species in Kenya (Ogutu et al. 2016). Others
are increasingly fragmented, for example the 2010 metaling of (and subsequent ribbon development
along) the A2 Cape-to-Cairo highway, which divides Buffalo Springs and Shaba National Reserves in the
Isiolo District of Kenya, and the Isiolo-Maralal transmission line project (Tingori 2016).
Kenya’s human population has grown substantially over the last half century (World Bank 2018, Ogutu et
al. 2016, KNBS 2009, KCBS 1989). Concurrent increases in livestock (sheep, goats, camels and donkeys)
have occurred over roughly the same period (Ogutu et al. 2016). The increased human and livestock
populations has led to increased pressure on natural resources, resulting in loss of Giraffe habitat due to
harvesting of woody vegetation for charcoal, land degradation through overgrazing and climate change,
and increased coverage of a proliferating plant species (Muthiani 2001, Mizutani et al. 2003, Ogutu et al.
2016).
The region is increasingly subject to unpredictable, localised rainfall patterns and periods of drought
(sometimes extended) that can lead to devastating effects on populations of wildlife (including Giraffe)
and livestock (Williams and Funk 2011, Lyon and DeWitt 2012, Ogutu et al. 2016, Mpelasoka et al.
2018). Anecdotal evidence suggests an increase in the consumption of bush meat, despite cultural
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata – published in 2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
4

inhibitions in the case of some pastoralist societies. This may represent a significant source of additional
mortality to wild ungulate populations and is thought to be one of the drivers of decline in Reticulated
Giraffe population.
Giraffe in northern Kenya are poached using a variety of methods, predominantly wire neck snares,
poison arrows and guns. Other reported methods include spears and a ‘tree-trap’ (O’Connor et al.
unpublished data). Giraffe, which yield a very large quantity of meat for a single bullet, may be
especially attractive as a source of food to various sectors of society. There are some indications that the
trade in Giraffe meat is increasingly commercialised and being transported to urban centres (O’Connor
et al. unpublished data). Within pastoralist (Samburu and Maasai) communities, despite overwhelmingly
positive attitudes toward Giraffe, over 30% of respondents have consumed Giraffe meat in the past year,
as measured through multiple sensitive questioning techniques, and ~49% (30%-70%) across the sample
reported Giraffe meat or parts as a benefit received from Giraffe (Ruppert et al. unpublished data).
Oromo pastoralists prize Giraffe over all other trophy animals (including elephant, rhino, buffalo and
lion) and acquire increased social status by killing them. Until recently, the Oromo used only containers
made from Giraffe skin to milk or water their cattle, considering other materials to bring ill luck,
including the loss of livestock. Traditionally, they use hair from Giraffes' tails to stitch new or torn leather
garments, to decorate woven milk containers, and as baanaas, prestigious necklaces worn by men
during important ceremonies (J. Doherty pers. obs.).
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)
The profile of Reticulated Giraffe conservation has increased in recent years and various institutions
have initiated programs to stop the decline of Reticulated Giraffe populations and raise awareness. For
instance, the Northern Rangelands Trust works closely with communities to conserve wildlife and their
habitats and collecting data on Reticulated Giraffe numbers along the way. The Hirola Conservation
Programme monitors Giraffe population trends and mortalities in eastern Kenya, while San Diego Zoo
Global, in collaboration with Kenya Wildlife Service, Northern Rangelands Trust, Loisaba Conservancy,
Lewa Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy, and the Giraffe Conservation Foundation established the
Twiga Walinzi team, comprised of locals, who monitor Giraffe populations, human dimensions,
community engagement and education in Loisaba and Namunyak Wildlife Conservancies. The
Reticulated Giraffe Project conducts research and monitoring of giraffe and community engagement and
education in the Samburu-Buffalo Springs-Shaba Reserve complex area.
While Reticulated Giraffe are not currently listed in the Kenyan constitution as a protected species, the
Kenya Wildlife Service has taken steps towards protecting Giraffe populations in the country by
developing a draft National Giraffe Strategy and Action Plan (KWS 2010) which is set to be updated and
endorsed in 2018.
There is anecdoatl evidence for improving Reticulated Giraffe populations in some NRT community
conservancies as a result of added protection, awareness and coordinated grazing management.
Credits
Assessor(s): Muneza, A., Doherty, J.B., Hussein Ali, A., Fennessy, J., Marais, A., O'Connor, D. &
Wube, T.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata – published in 2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
5

Reviewer(s): Mallon, D.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata – published in 2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
6

Bibliography
Amir, G. A. 2006. Wildlife trade in Somalia. Report to the IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group –
Northeast African subgroup. IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group - Northeast African Subgroup.
Butynski, T.M. 2000. Independent evaluation of Hirola Antelope Beatragus hunteri conservation status
and conservation action in Kenya. Unpublished report of the Hirola Management Committee. Nairobi.
Dagg, A.I. 1962. The distribution of the Giraffe in Africa. School of Graduate Studies , University of
Waterloo, .
Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing. 1977-2012. Summary of aerial surveys for Garissa
District. DRSRS, Nairobi.
East, R. (compiler). 1999. African Antelope Database 1998. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Fennessy, J., Bidon, T., Reuss, F., Kumar, V., Elkan, P., Nilsson, M.A., Vamberger, M., Fritz, U. and Janke, A.
2016. Multi-locus analyses reveal four giraffe species instead of one. Current Biology 26: 2543-2549.
Funaioli, U. and Simonetta, A.M. 1966. The mammalian fauna of the Somalia Republic: Status and
conservation problems. Monitore Zoologico Italiano, Supplemento: 285-347.
Groves, C. and Grubb, P. 2011. Ungulate Taxonomy. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.
Grunblatt, J., M. Said, P. Wargute, S.C. Kifugo. 1995. DRSRS Data Summary Report: Kenyan Rangelands
1977-1994. Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS), Ministry of Planning and
National Development, Nairobi.
IUCN. 2018. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018-2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 15 November 2018).
Kenya Central Bureau of Statistics (KCBS). 1989. Kenya Population Census 1989. Office of the Vice
President, Ministry of Planning and National Development, Nairobi.
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS). 2009. Kenya Population Census 2009. Kenya National Bureau
of Statistics , Nairobi.
Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). 2013. National Giraffe Conservation Strategy, Final Draft. Unpublished.
KWS, Nairobi.
Lyon, B., DeWitt, D.G. 2012. A recent and abrupt decline in the East African long rains. Geophysical
Research Letters 39( L02702. DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050337).
Marais, A.J., Fennessy, S., Fennessy, J. 2013. Country Profile: A rapid assessment of the Giraffe
conservation status in Ethiopia. . Giraffe Conservation Foundation, Windhoek, Namibia.
Mizutani, F., Muthiani, E., Kristjanson, P., Recke, H. 2003. Impact and value of wildlife in pastoral
livestock production systems in Kenya: possibilities for healthy ecosystem conservation and livestock
development for the poor. World Parks Congress, Durban, South Africa AHEAD: 121R132.
Mpelasoka, F., Awange, J.L., Zerihun, A. 2018. Influence of coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomena on
the Greater Horn of Africa droughts and their implications. Science of The Total Environment 610–611:
691-702.
Muchoki, C. H. K. 2000. Livestock and wildlife populations trends (1977–97) in Ewaso Nyiro Basin, Kenya.
African Journal of Ecology 38: 178-181.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata – published in 2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
7

Muthiani, E.N. 2001. Wildlife utilization for community benefit: an assessment of ecological and
socioeconomic viability of community wildlife utilization. KARIRILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.
O'Connor, D.A., Butt, B., Foufopoulos, J.B. 2015. Foraging ecologies of Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis
reticulata) and camels (Camelus dromedarius) in northern Kenya: effects of habitat structure and
possibilities for competition? African Journal of Ecology 53: 183-193.
Ogutu, J.O., Piepho, H.P., Said, M.Y., Ojwang, G.O., Njino, L.W., Kifuga, S.C. and Wargute, P.W. 2016.
Extreme wildlife declines and concurrent increase in livestock numbers: What are the causes? PLoS ONE
11(9): e0163249.
Renaud, P.C. 2006. Omo National Park report for the wet season aerial survey. African Parks Foundation.
Shorrocks, B., Croft, D.P. 2009. Necks and networks: a preliminary study of population structure in the
Reticulated Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata de Winston). African Journal of Ecology 47: 374-
381.
Tingori Consultancy. 2016. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the proposed Isiolo-Maralal
transmission line project. Study Report, October 2016. Tingori Consultancy, Nairobi, Kenya.
VanderWaal, K.L., Wang, H., McCowan, B., Fushing, H. and Isbell, L.A. 2014. Multilevel social
organization and space use in reticulated giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis). Behavioural Ecology 25: 17-
26.
Williams, A.P., Funk, C. 2011. A westward extension of the warm pool leads to a westward extension of
the Walker circulation, drying eastern Africa. Climate Dynamics 37: 2417–2435.
World Bank. 2018. Population statistics (online). World Bank, Washington DC.
Yalden, D. W., Largen, M. J. and Kock, D. 1984. Catalogue of the mammals of Ethiopia. 5. Artiodactyla.
Monitore zoologico italiano/Italian Journal of Zoology, N.S. Supplemento 19(4): 67-221.
Citation
Muneza, A., Doherty, J.B., Hussein Ali, A., Fennessy, J., Marais, A., O'Connor, D. & Wube, T. 2018. Giraffa
camelopardalis ssp. reticulata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T88420717A88420720.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Supplementary Material, and for Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the
Red List website.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata – published in 2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
8

Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Habitat Season Suitability Major
Importance?
1. Forest -> 1.5. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Dry - Suitable -
2. Savanna -> 2.1. Savanna - Dry - Suitable -
3. Shrubland -> 3.5. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry - Suitable -
Threats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Threat Timing Scope Severity Impact Score
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual &
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.2. Small-holder
farming
Ongoing Majority (50-
90%)
- -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming
& ranching -> 2.3.2. Small-holder grazing, ranching or
farming
Ongoing Majority (50-
90%)
- -
Stresses: 1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is
the target)
Ongoing Majority (50-
90%)
- -
Stresses: 2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Conservation Actions in Place
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions in Place
In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
Action Recovery plan: Yes
Systematic monitoring scheme: Yes
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
Conservation sites identified: Yes, over part of range
Occur in at least one PA: Yes
Area based regional management plan: No
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata – published in 2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
9

Conservation Actions in Place
Invasive species control or prevention: Not Applicable
In-Place Species Management
Harvest management plan: No
Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly: No
In-Place Education
Subject to recent education and awareness programmes: Yes
Conservation Actions Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions Needed
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
5. Law & policy -> 5.4. Compliance and enforcement -> 5.4.2. National level
6. Livelihood, economic & other incentives -> 6.1. Linked enterprises & livelihood alternatives
Research Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.1. Taxonomy
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
Additional Data Fields
Distribution
Lower elevation limit (m): 300
Upper elevation limit (m): 1000
Population
Number of mature individuals: 11048
Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes
Extreme fluctuations: No
Population severely fragmented: No
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: No
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata – published in 2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
10

Population
All individuals in one subpopulation: No
Habitats and Ecology
Generation Length (years): 10
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata – published in 2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
11

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2008: T88420717A88420720
Scope: Global
Language: English
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.
The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens
Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew;
Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata – published in 2018.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T88420717A88420720.en
12