o_19ko2dt161ng2j4e1tgnoqv1s45a.pdf

Status of Biological Diversity in Malaysia 

and 

Threat Assessment of Plant Species in Malaysia 

Proceedings of the Seminar and Workshop 

28 30 June 2005

THE STATUS OF MAMMALIAN BIODIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA 

1. Macaca nemestrina (Cercopithecidae) Photo courtesy L.G. Saw 

2. Rhacophorus bipunctatus (Rhacophoridae). Photo courtesy Elango Velautham 

3. Cyrtodactylus cavernicolus (Gekkonidae). Photo courtesy Indraneil Das 

4. Panthera tigris (Felidae). Photo courtesy L.G. Saw 

5. Cervus unicolor (Cervidae). Photo courtesy G.W.H. Davison 

6. Calliophis bivirgata (Elapidae). Photo courtesy Jeet Sukumaran 

7. Amyda cartilaginea (Trionychidae). Photo courtesy Indraneil Das 

8. Bufo parvus (Bufonidae). Photo courtesy Norsham Yaakob 

9. Riverine vegetation in a Malaysian lowland dipterocarp forest. Photo 

courtesy L.G. Saw 

2

G.W.H. DAVISON & ZUBAID AKBAR (2007) 

STATUS OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA & 

THREAT ASSESSMENT OF PLANT SPECIES IN MALAYSIA 

THE STATUS OF MAMMALIAN BIODIVERSITY 

IN MALAYSIA 

1 

G.W.H. Davison & 2 Zubaid Akbar 

ABSTRACT 

There are approximately 298 valid named species of non-marine mammals within the political 

borders of Malaysia. This total includes 229 species in Peninsular Malaysia, and 221 species 

in East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak), of which 152 species are shared. Over the past 22 

years the list for Peninsular Malaysia has expanded by 22, and over the past 25 years the list 

for East Malaysia has expanded by 30. Most of the additions are bats. Two genera of mammals 

(Pithecheirops, Diplogale) and 30 species are endemic to Malaysia, so far as records now 

show. Biodiversity questions range from historical uncertainty, to the definition of geographical 

limits, continued survival, synonymy, species already described elsewhere but newly recorded 

(various examples) and taxonomy of cryptic species. Since these questions are so varied in 

type, scattered across a range of taxa, and each involve few species, it will be inefficient to 

focus research effort on a major untargetted build-up of museum specimens. Two important 

fields to concentrate on are genetic diversity/biosystematics (including within-species 

diversity), and conservation (population dynamics, habitat availability, community structure). 

These will be important for retaining the genetic viability of increasingly fragmented 

populations of forest mammals, and can only be effective if adequate resources are available 

to support research as well as management posts with associated capacity-building. 

INTRODUCTION 

The status of the biodiversity of mammals, like that of other biological groups, can be divided 

into two main themes: first, the description of the diversity that exists at the various genetic, 

population and species levels of taxonomy; and second, documenting the changes in numbers 

of each species in the wild, as a response to development and other pressures. 

Knowledge about the total number of mammal species that occur in Malaysia is still increasing 

rapidly, and there are still several taxonomically difficult groups (for example Cynopterus; 

Crocidura; Myotis; Haeromys; Petaurillus; Glyphotes). There are approximately 298 valid 

named species of non-marine mammals within the political borders of Malaysia (Table 1; 

1 

National Parks Board, Singapore Botanic Gardens, 1 Cluny Road, Singapore 259569; 

Geoffrey_Davison@NParks.gov.sg 

2 

School of Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor; 

zubaid@pkrisc.cc.ukm.my 

3


Appendix), and perhaps another four known but unnamed species. This total includes 229 

species in Peninsular Malaysia, and 221 species in East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak), of 

which 152 species are shared. This means that 77 of the species in Peninsular Malaysia have 

not been found in Sabah or Sarawak, and for 68 species the reverse is true. Over the past 22 

years there have been 23 additions and one deletion (a mongoose) from the list for Peninsular 

Malaysia. One species (Javan Rhino Rhinoceros sondaicus) has become locally extinct there 

in historical time. Over the past 25 years there have been 31 additions and one deletion (the 

squirrel Glyphotes canalvus, sunk in the synonymy of Callosciurus orestes) to the list in East 

Malaysia. Nearly all of the additions are of bats. 

Table 1. Diversity of mammals in the three major political divisions of Malaysia*. 

Peninsular Sarawak Sabah Sabah & 

Malaysia 

Sarawak 

Total species 229 180 203 221 

recorded 

Total genera 108 98 104 105 

recorded 

Total families 32 30 31 31 

recorded 

Non-bats 123 118 120 129 

Most speciose Bats (106), Bats (62), Bats (83), Bats (92), 

orders Rodents (55) Rodents (56) Rodents (58) Rodents (62) 

Most speciose Rhinolophus (18), Rhinolophus (8), Myotis (10), Hipposideros 

(11), 

genera Hipposideros (18), Hipposideros (8), Rhinolophus (8) Rhinolophu (10), 

Myotis (9) Tupaia (8), Tupaia (8) Myotis (10) 

No. of genera 63 58 61 61 

with 1 species 

No. of families 9 12 (2†) 13 13 


No. of orders 3 2 3 3 


* Compiled after various authors. 

† The two families that were each represented by a single species, now locally extinct, in Sarawak are 

Bovidae (Bos javanicus) and Rhinocerotidae (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) 

Of 128 bats recorded from Malaysia, 106 are known from Peninsular Malaysia and 92 from 

Sabah and Sarawak. Of 178 non-flying terrestrial mammals recorded from ‘Malaysia, 123 

are known from the Peninsula and 129 from Sabah and Sarawak. Thus only 22 (24%) of the 

bats known from Sabah and Sarawak are not shared with the Peninsula, whereas 55 (42.6%) 

of the non-flying mammals from Sabah and Sarawak are not shared. There is greater similarity 

between the bat faunas of these geographically separate areas than between their non-bat 

faunas. 

Two genera (Pithecheirops, Diplogale) and 30 species are known only from records within 

the political boundaries of Malaysia, and for the time being they can be considered endemic 

(Table 2). There is obviously a strong possibility that species known from Peninsular Malaysia 

and lowland Sabah/Sarawak may also occur in Kalimantan, Sumatra and/or Brunei. 

4


Table 2. Mammals so far known only from specimens and sightings within the political 

boundaries of Malaysia 

Suncus ater Sabah (Kinabalu) Montane 

Crocidura baluensis Sabah (Kinabalu) Montane 

Tupaia montana Sarawak, Sabah Montane 

Rhinolophus convexus Peninsular Malaysia Montane 

Rhinolophus chiewkweeae Peninsular Malaysia Lowland 

Hipposideros ‘bicolor’ 142 kHz Peninsular Malaysia Lowland 

Hipposideros coxi SW Sarawak Lowland 

Hipposideros nequam Peninsular Malaysia Lowland 

Myotis ridleyi Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah Lowland 

Myotis gomantongensis Sabah Lowland 

Pipistrellus cuprosus Sabah Lowland 

Pipistrellus societatis Peninsular Malaysia Lowland 

Hesperoptenus doriae Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak Lowland 

Hesperoptenus tomesi Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah Lowland 

Murina aenea Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah Lowland 

Murina rozendaali Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah Lowland 

Kerivoula sp. nov. Peninsular Malaysia Lowland 

Callosciurus (Glyphotes) simus Sabah, Sarawak Montane 

Lariscus hosei Sabah, Sarawak Largely montane 

Dremomys everetti Sabah, Sarawak Montane 

Petaurillus emiliae Sarawak Lowland 

Maxomys alticola Sabah Montane 

Maxomys baeodon Sabah, Sarawak Montane 

Maxomys inas Peninsular Malaysia Montane 

Lenothrix malaisia Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, Sarawak Lowland 

Pithecheirops otion Sabah Lowland 

Chiropodomys major Sabah, Sarawak Lowland and submontane 

Melogale everetti Sabah Montane 

Diplogale hosei Sabah, Sarawak Montane 

Herpestes hosei Sarawak Unknown 

Endemic to PM 7 (Lowland 5; Montane 2) 

Endemic to Sabah 7 (Lowland 3; Montane 4) 

Endemic to Sarawak 3 (Lowland 2; Unknown 1) 

Endemic to Sabah + Sarawak 7 (Lowland 1; Montane 6) 

Endemic to PM + Sabah and/or Sarawak 6 (Lowland 6) 

Total endemic to Malaysia 30 (Lowland 17; Montane 12; Unknown 1) 

Several species can be considered near-endemic, that is, they have been recorded from within 

and also from just beyond the borders of Malaysia, or almost certainly occur beyond Malaysia 

based on habitat requirements (Table 3). The number of endemics and near-endemics is 

uncertain for two main reasons: some species (especially bats) are known from only a handful 

of specimens, so they could easily turn up elsewhere; and suitable habitat in adjacent territories 

(e.g., Kalimantan) may have been insufficiently studied. A couple of montane forms in 

Peninsular Malaysia, otherwise endemic, might extend just across the border into Thailand. 

One bat, Myotis oreias, is known from only a single specimen from Singapore, where later 

surveys have failed to find it; if the species is valid, it might still survive in Malaysia or 

elsewhere in the region. 

5


Table 3. Species of mammals known predominantly from within the political boundaries of 

Malaysia, but which are either known or almost certainly occur in similar habitats in adjacent 

territories. 

Tupaia longipes* 

Sabah and Sarawak, southwards into East Kalimantan 

Dendrogale melanura 

Mountains of north & central Borneo – under-recorded Kalimantan? 

Hipposideros ridleyi 

Extinct in Singapore, otherwise only known within Malaysia 

Callosciurus baluensis Mountains of north & central Borneo – 

under-recorded Kalimantan? 

Callosciurus adamsi 

Not recorded yet from Kalimantan? 

Callosciurus orestes 

Mountains of north & central Borneo – under-recorded Kalimantan? 

Petaurillus hosei / kinlochi* Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, Sarawak; known from Brunei 

*Taxonomic status uncertain 

In addition to endemics and near-endemics, Malaysia possesses some mammal populations 

of major significance; either they represent a significant proportion of the whole species, or 

they are genetically distinctive. Bennett (1991) estimated about 2000 to 3000 Proboscis 

monkeys Nasalis larvatus in Sabah, and fewer than 1000 in Sarawak. Numbers in Kalimantan 

are not known, but the Malaysian population might be one quarter or one third of the world 

population. There are about 11,000 Orang-utans Pongo pygmaeus morio in Sabah, and perhaps 

500 Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus in Sarawak. The Sabah population is one of the largest in 

the world, with tremendous conservation importance. The Sabah population of the Asian 

Elephant Elephas maximus, which just extends into East Kalimantan, may amount to 1600 

individuals. Not only is this a relatively large proportion of the whole species (about 5%), but 

the population is genetically distinctive, and therefore it is also internationally important 

(Fernando et al., 2003). These are just three examples of mammals for which Malaysia has 

special conservation responsibilities. 

Around 87 out of the total number of Malaysian mammals (about 292, according to the 

splitting taxonomy adopted by IUCN 2004) have been given some sort of conservation risk 

status (Table 4). They include six Critically Endangered, 15 Endangered, 24 Vulnerable, 33 

Lower Risk, and nine Data Deficient species. They represent about 30% of Malaysia’s 

mammals. Of the 30 Malaysian endemics, 3 are Critically Endangered, 4 Endangered, 5 

Vulnerable, 2 Lower Risk and 3 Data Deficient, making 17 or 57% of the endemics under 

some degree of threat, as far as they have been assessed. IUCN (2004) in fact lists 111 species 

at risk, but their total includes 18 marine mammals not considered here—for some of these, 

occurrence is anecdotal—and three terrestrial species that have not in fact occurred in Malaysia 

(Macaca leonina, Prionailurus viverrinus (possible), and Ursus thibetanus). 

Pangolin, elephant and flying lemur are the three mammalian orders with only one local 

representative each. Loss of genetic diversity in any of these could be ranked as a more 

serious national loss than, say, the loss of genetic diversity in a family or genus with many 

representatives. 

Since the last edition of the most recent taxonomic summaries (Medway 1983; Payne et al. 

1985) there has been one significant change at family level (Herpestidae is often now 

recognized as separate from Viverridae); nine changes at generic level (a new genus 

Pithecheirops; generic splits e.g. Arielulus, Hypsugo, etc.), and about 23 changes at species 

level (truly new discoveries; taxonomic splits; sunk as synonyms; name changes). 

6


Table 4. List of threatened terrestrial mammals in Malaysia (listing and taxonomy follow 

IUCN, 2004). 

CR = Critically Endangered (6 species) 

EN = Endangered (15 species) 

VU = Vulnerable (24 species) 

LR/nt = Lower Risk/near-threatened (33 species) 

DD = Data Deficient (10 species) 

Species Category Criteria (IUCN 2004) 

Chimarrogale hantu CR B1+2c (= C. phaeura part) 

Dicerorhinus sumatrensis CR A1bcd; C2a 

Hipposideros nequam CR B1+2c 

Rhinoceros sondaicus CR C2a Now extinct within 

Malaysia Rhinolophus convexus CR D 

Suncus ater CR B1+2c 

Bos javanicus EN A1cd + 2cd; C1+ 

Catopuma badia EN C2a(ii) 

Chimarrogale phaeura EN B1+2c 

Crocidura malayana EN B1+2c 

Cuon alpinus EN C2a(i) 

Cynogale bennetti EN A1ce; C2a 

Elephas maximus EN A1cd 

Hesperoptenus doriae EN B1+2c 

Maxomys alticola EN C2a 

Maxomys baeodon EN C2a 

Nasalis larvatus EN A2c; C1+2a 

Panthera tigris EN C2a(i) 

Pongo pygmaeus EN A2cd 

Rattus baluensis EN B1+2c 

Tupaia longipes EN B1+2c (= Tupaia glis?) 

Pipistrellus cuprosus VU A2c 

Bos gaurus VU A1cd + 2cd; C1+ 

Capricornis sumatraensis VU A2cd 

Catopuma temminckii VU C2a(i) 

Dendrogale melanura VU B1+2c 

Diplogale hosei VU B1+2c 

Haeromys margarettae VU A1c; B1+2c 

Haeromys pusillus VU A1c 

Hipposideros coxi VU D2 

Hipposideros ridleyi VU B1+2c 

Hystrix brachyura VU A1d 

Lariscus hosei VU B1+2c 

Lutra perspicillata VU A2acd 

Macaca arctoides VU A1cd 

Macaca nemestrina VU A1cd 

Melogale everetti VU B1+2c 

Neofelis nebulosa VU C2a(i) 

Pardofelis marmorata VU C2a(i) 

Prionailurus planiceps VU C2a(i) 

[Prionailurus viverrinus] VU C2a(i) (Doubtful record) 

Rousettus spinalatus VU C2a 

7


Suncus hosei VU B1+2c 

Sundasciurus jentinki VU B1+2c 

Tapirus indicus VU A2c+3c+4c 

Aethalops alecto 

Aonyx cinereus 

Chaerephon johorensis 

Cheiromeles torquatus 

Chiropodomys muroides 

Coelops robinsoni 

Dyacopterus spadiceus 

Hapalomys longicaudatus 

Harpiocephalus mordax 

Hipposideros lekaguli 

Hipposideros lylei 

Hylobates agilis 

Hylobates lar 

Hylobates muelleri 

Hystrix crassispinis 

Kerivoula intermedia 

Kerivoula minuta 

Macaca fascicularis 

Manis javanica 

Murina aenea 

Murina huttoni 

Murina rozendaali 

Myotis macrotarsus 

Myotis montivagus 

Myotis ridleyi 

Pipistrellus kitcheneri 

Presbytis femoralis 

Pteromyscus pulverulentus 

Rhinolophus creaghi 

Rhinolophus marshalli 

Rhinolophus philippinensis 

Sundasciurus brookei 

Symphalangus syndactylus 

LR/nt 

NT 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

LR/nt 

Pipistrellus societatis 

DD 

Helarctos malayanus 

DD 

Hipposideros doriae DD (= H. sabanus) 

Lutra sumatrana 

DD 

Myotis gomantongensis 

DD 

Presbytis frontata 

DD 

Presbytis hosei 

DD 

Suncus malayanus 

DD 

[Trachypithecus villosus] DD (= Presbytis cristata part) 

Apparently rare but not yet assessed: 

Hipposideros orbicularis ? 

Rhinolophus chiewkweeae ? 

Kerivoula sp. nov. ? 

8


LITERATURE REVIEW 

The basis for an understanding of mammal diversity in Peninsular Malaysia was set in place 

by the work of H.C. Robinson, C.B. Kloss and F.N. Chasen, in the period from 1902 until 

1941. Their work was primarily taxonomic and geographical, sampling and listing, describing 

species and subspecies, especially island races, of nearly all mammals. They deposited their 

collections in the Federated Malay States Museums and/or the Raffles Museum Singapore, 

with duplicates going largely to the British Museum (Natural History). Chasen (1940) 

published the definitive Handlist that summarises all of the earlier literature. Between them 

these three scientists produced nearly 200 publications on mammals of the region, including 

38 by Chasen (Tweedie 1948) and a massive 86 by Kloss (Banks 1951), mostly concerning 

Peninsular Malaysia but extending as far as India, Vietnam, Hainan and Java. 

In Sarawak, an equivalent process was undertaken first by A.H. Everett (1893), who collected 

natural history specimens and published a first list of mammals for Borneo, and then by the 

directors of the Sarawak Museum. Sarawak and Sabah received some attention from the 

Federated Malay States Museums (e.g., Chasen & Kloss 1931), while Hill (1960) provided a 

long publication on the Robinson Collection of mammals in the British Museum (Natural 

History) that included Bornean as well as Malay Peninsula material. Knowledge about the 

mammals of Sabah was added to by Davis (1962) and by Harrison (1964). 

Beginning at a slightly later period, agencies such as the Institute for Medical Research, the 

Department of Wildlife & National Parks, related institutions such as the Malaysian 

Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) and the Palm Oil Research 

Institute Malaysia (PORIM and its successors), as well as Malaysian universities have 

contributed to a wide array of mammalian studies. Thus, while the main taxonomic collections 

were museum-based and dated largely from the colonial era, more specialized collections for 

particular research purposes were also developed on a smaller scale within local institutions. 

The range of taxonomic methods applied has become highly sophisticated, including DNA 

hybridization (e.g., Han et al. 2000), gene sequencing (e.g., Fernando et al. 2003), and 

analysis of ultrasound (e.g., Kingston et al. 2001) and audible sound (Ross 2004). The emphasis 

of recent taxonomic work has been on cryptic species within traditionally difficult taxa, 

using a combination of new and classical morphometric techniques to separate out the species, 

e.g. by Ruedi (1995, 1996). The following paragraphs touch on some main areas of work, but 

are far from complete; many other studies of equal interest could be mentioned. Many relevant 

papers have appeared in the Journal of Wildlife & Parks, the Malayan Nature Journal and the 

Sarawak Museum Journal. 

Bio-medical studies, especially of mammal-borne zoonoses, have been the province of the 

Institute for Medical Research (e.g., Lim 1973; Lim et al. 1977). There has been a very 

strong emphasis on small mammals such as rats and squirrels, but a liberal research policy 

has led to publications on many species of mammals large and small, and on community 

ecology, altitudinal zonation and other topics. As vectors of economically and socially 

important diseases, the parasites of Malaysian mammals have come under scrutiny for many 

years (e.g. Mullin et al. 1972; Zunika et al. 2002). Escalante et al. (2005) have recently 

shown that South-east Asia—rather than Africa, as previously thought—may be the origin 

of the human-infecting Plasmodium vivax, now existing nearly worldwide. Furthermore, the 

dependence of endoparasites and ectoparasites (e.g., Fain et al. 1984) on mammalian (and, 

9


of course, many other) hosts adds a level of meta-diversity to the diversity of the hosts 

themselves. If a species of mammal declines or disappears, it sets in progress a whole train of 

other extinctions. 

Physiological studies have been rather limited, but examples include, e.g., Pevet & Yadav 

(1980), Rudd (1965), Medway (1971), Whittow & Gould (1976), Whittow et al. (1977a, 

1977b). This still leaves great scope for investigating the potential range of diversity in 

physiological mechanisms and responses, seasonality and environmental cues, unusual 

digestive physiology, responses to lunar cycles, and other features that might be expected in 

a tropical forest fauna with high species diversity and many behavioural specializations. 

Zoogeographical studies (e.g., Chasen 1940, Raven 1935, Shukor 1996, Meijaard 2003) 

and taxonomic studies have been the staple of Malaysian-based and foreign-based research, 

at least until the advent of single-species ecological research projects in the 1960s. Of many 

possible examples, the more genetically-based studies include those by Medway & Yong 

(1976), Yong (1970, 1975, 1982) and Yong & Dhaliwal (1972) on rodents. A detailed genetic 

analysis of 200 individual orang-utans Pongo pygmaeus by Goossens et al. (2005) is not only 

one of the most intensive DNA samplings of any wild primate, but has practical implications 

in demonstrating bottlenecks and in recommending the maintenance of forest corridors between 

isolated groups. 

Synecological studies have been carried out to a rather limited extent, examining niche 

differentiation between species in small groups such as primates (e.g., MacKinnon & 

MacKinnon in Chivers 1981); squirrels (Payne 1979); and other rodents including flying 

squirrels (Muul & Lim 1978). Barrett (1984) studied the community ecology of nocturnal 

mammals; Johns (e.g., 1986, 1992) examined the effects of logging; and Jephte (1996) has 

looked at some impacts of hunting. 

It has been shown that forest over alluvial ground in the extreme lowlands at Kuala Lompat, 

Krau Game Reserve, has the richest species composition of bats in the world (Kingston et al. 

2003). The much smaller community of small carnivores in lowland forest has also been 

looked at (e.g., Rajaratnam 2001, Heydon & Bulloh 1996). Emmons (2000) was able to 

complete an intensive study of treeshrews, including both diurnal and nocturnal species, and 

to demonstrate their extraordinary maternal physiology. Community structure, representing 

the ecological basis of biodiversity, has been described by Harrison (1962) and by Wells et al. 

(2004). Camera trapping has emerged as a significant research tool (Miura et al. 1997; 

Kawanishi 2002; Azlan & Sharma 2003; Numata et al. 2005). 

Autecological studies, detailed species-by-species investigations, have been conducted on 

about 7% of Malaysian mammals (about 11% of the non-bats). Not a single one of Malaysia’s 

endemic mammals has been the subject of an autecological study, but admittedly they tend to 

be small, less charismatic species that do not play a key ecological role (compared, for instance, 

with widespread key species like elephant or tiger). Table 5 lists many of the species for 

which there have been such studies, together with some indication of the duration of the 

study (as a rough guide to the intensity of the research); but this does not pretend to be a 

complete list. About 17 species have been the subject of detailed studies in Peninsular Malaysia, 

and about 8 species in Sabah and Sarawak (excluding the treeshrews). There have been fewer 

single-species studies in Sarawak than elsewhere (e.g., red banded langur Presbytis melalophos 

cruciger at Maludam; proboscis monkey Nasalis larvatus; flying fox Pteropus vampyrus) but 

10


Table 5. Partial list (for additions and improvements) of single-species ecological studies, 

with a rough indication of the length of studies and names of researchers or institutions. 

Many shorter studies, and mixed field and laboratory studies, could be added to this list, 

which emphasizes graduate-level field research. DWNP = Dept. of Wildlife & National Parks. 

Tiger >5 years (Kawanishi; DWNP; WWF) 

Siamang >5 years (Chivers; Raemaekers) 

White-handed Gibbon >5 years (Chivers; Raemaekers; Vellayan) 

Orang-utan >5 years (MacKinnon, Ancrenaz, short studies) 

Elephant >5 years (Olivier, Mohd Khan, DWNP) 

Long-tailed Macaque >3 years (Aldrich-Blake; Mah) 

Pig-tailed Macaque 3 years (Caldecott) 

Banded Langur 3 years (Bennett; Curtin; Ahmad) 

Dusky Langur 3 years (Hardy; Curtin) 

Maroon Langur 3 years (Davies) 

Proboscis Monkey >3 years (Boonratana, Bennett et al.) 

Tapir 3 years (Williams, DWNP) 

Seladang >3 years (Conry, DWNP) 

Wild Boar 3 years (Ickes, Diong) 

Sumatran Rhino >3 years (Flynn, Tajuddin, DWNP) 

Flying Fox 3 years (Gumal) 

Spotted-winged Fruit-bat 3 years (Hodgkison) 

Sun Bear 3 years (Wong Siew Te) 

Agile Gibbon 2 years (Gittins) 

Plantain Squirrel 2 years (Hafidzi) 

Slow loris 2 years (Barrett) 

Rusa Intermittent (DWNP) 

Serow Intermittent (DWNP) 

more emphasis on single-issue studies such as the effects of hunting, fire, and logging. 

From the earliest days there have been site-specific expeditions, to investigate places where 

taxonomic novelties were expected, and to fill in gaps of geographical coverage. Early examples 

were the expeditions led by the Federated Malay States Museums to Gunung Tahan and 

Gunung Kinabalu. Later examples have included Gunung Benom (Medway 1972), Pulau 

Tioman, Gunung Lawit (no consolidated publication), Danum Valley (Kiew 1977), Gunung 

Mulu (Anderson et al. 1979), and Lambir Hills (Soepadmo 1984). Furthermore, important 

series of papers on the conservation of mammalian diversity have been published by Wyatt- 

Smith & Wycherley (1961), and by Bennett (1991), Payne & Andau (1991), Ratnam et al. 

(1991) and Zaaba et al. (1991). 

AVAILABLE CHECKLISTS AND REVISIONS 

Checklists and revisions have formed the basis for all of the medical-related, physiological, 

synecological and autecological work mentioned above. There are formal checklists as well 

as field guides for all parts of Malaysia. The essential lists for Peninsular Malaysia were 

given by Medway (1969, 1978, 1983), and the relevant field guide is by Francis (2001). The 

11


list for Borneo was compiled by Medway (1965, 1977), and the relevant field guide with 

additions to the list is by Payne et al. (1985). Corbet & Hill (1992) provide the authoritative 

regional taxonomic work. 

There have been several revisions by group. Hill (1963) revised the genus Hipposideros, 

Jenkins & Hill (1981) revised the Hipposideros cervinus/galeritus complex, and Hill & Francis 

(1984) have made contributions on the distribution of bats generally. Zubaid (e.g., 1994), 

Francis (e.g., 1995), Abdullah (e.g., 2003) and their co-workers have added many records. 

Mongooses, a small but difficult group because of sexual dimorphism in skull size, were 

revised by Wells (1989). Other workers who have revised particular groups include Medway 

& Yong (1976) on rats; Brandon-Jones (1984) on colobines; Jenkins (1982), Davison (1984) 

and Ruedi (1995, 1996) on shrews; Meijaard & Groves (2004) on mouse-deer; Fernando et 

al. (2003) on elephants; and Han et al. (2000) on tree-shrews. 

SPECIMENS – WHERE ARE THEY HELD? 

The largest collections of relevant skins, skeletons and spirit-preserved material are in the 

Natural History Museum (BMNH), London; the American Museum of Natural History 

(AMNH), New York; the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago; the United States 

National Museum in Washington; Naturalis in Leiden; the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity 

Research in Singapore; and in the Sarawak Museum and Sabah Museum. 

There are also important collections within Malaysia at the Institute for Medical Research 

(IMR), the Department of Wildlife & National Parks, and at Universiti Malaya and other 

institutions of higher learning. These tend to have enhanced value in cases where they are 

linked to related studies (e.g., the link between medical studies, parasite collections and 

mammalian host collections in IMR), and where the collections are specialized (e.g., skeleton 

collections at Universiti Malaya). 

SPECIALISTS AND THE NEED FOR ASSISTANCE 

Many possible taxonomic and systematic questions could be posed for which information is 

needed. For example, are Petaurillus hosei and P. kinlochi conspecific? Is the highland form 

of Rhinolophus trifoliatus, known from one specimen from Sabah and one from Kalimantan, 

a full species? What are the systematics of the Hipposideros bicolor group (including 

H. dyacorum, H. pomona, H. ater and H. cineraceus)? Such questions generally involve a 

few species, scattered across many taxonomic groups. These are not the sort of questions that 

occupy a taxonomist full time, but often arise as adjuncts to other related studies. 

Although checklists are fun to compile, and can encourage the search for rare or seldomfound 

species, their value is strictly limited unless they are directed towards a particular 

purpose. Such a purpose could include a distribution atlas, follow-up investigations of 

community ecology, or looking at the impacts of development activities. Further knowledge 

of numbers, population dynamics, sustainability, and management for conservation would 

all be worthy targets that can build on checklists only if they are followed by intensive research. 

12


Aquatic mammals (cetaceans, dugong) are very poorly known, from every aspect of their 

biology. A small research group has been established in Universiti Malaysia Sabah. 

The only reasonably detailed distribution maps for mammals in Peninsular Malaysia are for 

primates (compiled and summarized by Marsh & Wilson 1981), and in Sabah for a selection 

of larger mammals (Davies & Payne 1982). A database of distribution records, which must 

have a high degree of taxonomic reliability, would be an important aim. 

There are sometimes differences in the presence/absence of species between sites, even in 

contiguous forests a few kilometers apart, in apparently homogenous habitat. The ecological 

requirements of mammals are not sufficiently known to be sure of the reasons. They need 

study. 

Rates of food intake, energetics, and even the diets of most Peninsular Malaysian mammals 

are very poorly known (e.g., the proportion of different prey species in the diet of predators, 

or of food-plants in the diet of herbivores). 

Various species have been labelled as pollinators, seed dispersers or seed predators, or as 

destroyers of seedlings, but the detailed information base for this is limited primarily to 

squirrels (e.g., Payne 1979), primates (e.g., Chivers 1980) and bats (e.g., Hodgkison et al. 

2003); hence the relevance of wildlife to land management practices such as forestry is hard 

to demonstrate. 

Breeding seasonality, reproductive rates, survival rates and lifespan are poorly studied and 

documented, and unknown for many species of wildlife. 

Not a single formalized, mathematical model for a Population and Habitat Viability Analysis 

exists for any Peninsular Malaysian animal (although the Peninsular Malaysian component 

of the populations of some species such as Asian elephant, Sumatran rhino, and tiger have 

been considered in less mathematically rigorous viability assessments, resulting in species 

action plans). One detailed study exists for one population of orangutans in Sabah (Goossens 

et al. 2005). 

Virtually no information is available on the population densities of even common species 

such as mousedeer and wild pigs (but see Diong 1973 and Ickes 2001). 

Thus, the biological basis for advising on the management of wildlife is extremely sketchy. 

Advice often has to rely on extrapolating from the same or similar species in other countries, 

common sense and guesswork. 

INTERNATIONAL, REGIONAL OR NATIONAL 

PROJECTS THAT CAN HELP 

Various cooperative ventures exist, in which Malaysia already participates, or could participate, 

to enhance knowledge of the diversity of mammals. 

There are examples related to particular groups of mammals, such as bats. The Malaysian 

13


Bat Research Group has been very active since the mid 1990s, with a long record of 

publications. Successful initiatives of this type deserve local support, in order to sustain 

output. They can serve as models for other research programmes, for example on rodents or 

on small carnivores, or on other vertebrate groups. Recent interest in bats has had spin-offs 

such as Bat Education workshops for children, and has spread from Malaysia to Singapore 

through a network of non-governmental organizations. 

GenBank is an international cooperative web-based catalogue of available genome sequences. 

Participation in this network is up to the individual scientist, and at first sight it is most 

useful as a source of information. It is less obvious but just as valuable as a repository to 

upload information. This announces what a researcher is working on, provides a fuller range 

of data, acts as a form of citation in a similar way to publishing, and ultimately enhances 

reputation. 

Suggestions to establish tissue banks have emerged from university research groups. If these 

are simply collections of tissue from road-kills, or untargeted trapping, tissue banks will be 

slow to develop to a point where any single collection can form a basis for research projects. 

The concept needs to be turned round, so that intensive research projects become a source of 

tissue samples, in specialized areas such as particular taxa, or to demonstrate inter- and 

intra-population variability. 

Scientists in the Philippines and Brunei Museum have research programmes on cetaceans. 

Information from aircraft pilots has been collated (e.g., in Brunei) to document aerial sightings 

that supplement data from beached animals. There is plenty of scope in the region to expand 

observation networks of pilots, fishing crews, divers and photographers, and their observations 

can provide information not only about cetaceans but also about whale-sharks, sea-snakes, 

sea-birds, migratory birds at oil rigs, and turtles. 

The IUCN Red Lists provide information about the conservation status of many species. 

Categorisation, species by species, is a cooperative venture that usually depends on scientists 

and conservationists from many countries because knowledge is dispersed, and because most 

species occur in more than one country. Malaysian mammalogists have a lot to contribute if 

the categories are to be realistic. 

A spin-off use of these categories is as biodiversity indicators that measure Malaysia’s progress 

towards the target of the Convention on Biological Diversity, to reduce the rate of biodiversity 

loss by 2010. Statistical methods are under development, and being applied group by group 

to the better-assessed taxa such as birds and amphibians. The turn of mammals will soon 

come, and Malaysian scientists can participate to refine both methodology and data. 

CAN THIS WORK BE DONE IN MALAYSIA? 

IF SO, WHAT IS REQUIRED? 

It is relatively straightforward to maintain species lists, although a level of uncertainty must 

always be accepted in defining species limits (Appendix). The uncertainty need not be an 

obstacle, even to researchers in fields other than taxonomy, even though they may express 

frustration at the ‘failure’ of classical taxonomy to settle names (Dayrat 2005). On the contrary, 

uncertainties about species boundaries are signposts to fruitful areas for research on physiology, 

14


genetics and behaviour. ‘Official’ lists of taxa will be supported if they prove useful, which 

means they must be flexible, accessible, and based on a broad range of taxonomists’ views. 

A database of what has been done could be useful, but a database of scientists can only 

provide a minimum list. It cannot include every individual with an interest in mammals who 

is potentially a contributor to knowledge, and it is not very clear who would use a list of 

scientists, since each scientist should know all others within his or her research field. Possibly 

databases should be in the form of bibliographies and library resources, rather than lists of 

projects or individuals. Library resources would be useful to everyone, and bibliographies are 

in themselves databases about which researchers are active on what topics. 

Better information flow should encourage the standardisation of field methods. There was a 

period in the 1960s and 1970s when it appeared that small-mammal trapping techniques 

were becoming well standardized (groups of three traps at 30 or 50 m intervals, one on the 

ground, one on a log, one in a tree). In the 1970s and 1980s similar uniformity was developed 

for census walks for primates and squirrels. This facilitated comparison between studies, and 

encouraged quantification. The use of mistnets, harp traps, radio telemetry and other techniques 

also require standardization. 

The limited funding needs to be targetted – but how to target? Rather than judging taxonomic 

projects on their potential for commercial application, it might be possible to assign funds to 

improving equipment capabilities / techniques, e.g. investment in electron microscopy, facilities 

for DNA analysis, and cryopreservation of tissues. Such facilities could be used by many 

scientists, and would enable them to compete in the international science arena. Funding for 

postgraduate research would encourage intensive research on single topics for several years, 

which is the route to in-depth understanding and international publications. Investment is 

needed in developing career structures and training for taxonomy. Investment is also required 

in conservation management training, to ensure that the diversity of mammals persists. 

A natural history museum, like tissue banks, will probably be effective only if collections are 

targeted. It must not be an excuse for indiscriminate collecting, but it could be a boon when 

populations of plants and animals are doomed by land conversion. Sharing on-line specimen 

data between museums, just as botanists have BRAHMS (Botanical Research and Herbarium 

Management System), is sorely needed. 

Collecting specimens of all Malaysian mammals will not resolve all questions, because 

comparison is necessary, often with extra-limital material. On-site work such as that by 

Kingston et al. (2001) can only reveal a new species by a combination of field and lab work. 

Taxonomic work by Kawada et al. (2003), Meijaard & Groves (2004), Gorog et al. (2004) 

and Olson et al. (2004) continues to show that regional comparisons are needed. Even name 

changes (e.g., Tragulus javanicus back to T. kanchil; Talpa micrura to Talpa klossii to 

Euroscaptor micrura) are not just name changes, but result from splits within wider 

populations, over broad geographical areas. Malaysian taxonomists cannot afford to specialize 

in taxonomy within Malaysia’s borders, but need the ambition, academic friendships and 

access to regional research material that will enable them to place Malaysia’s mammals in a 

regional and international context. For example, the species status of Tupaia glis cannot be 

resolved without access to Thai, Burmese and Chinese T. berlangeri. The subspecies status 

of orang-utans in Sarawak and Sabah, and the viability of their populations, cannot be judged 

without reference to those in Kalimantan. The Red List status of Rhinolophus creaghi cannot 

be reliably decided until it is known that it also occurs in Palawan. Taxonomy needs a regional 

approach, sometimes even a global approach, and this means that international collaborations 

15


with colleagues and institutions elsewhere are essential. Museum collections in other countries 

will still be essential points of reference, even if large series of all Malaysian taxa are available 

within Malaysia. 

Malaysian mammalogists need to participate in revision of the IUCN Red Lists. The current 

list includes Macaca fascicularis and Coelops robinsoni as both Lower Risk/near-threatened 

(LR/nt). It includes Pipistrellus cuprosus and Bos gaurus as both Vulnerable. Such contrasts 

make it clear that defining rigid one-word categories of status are just a first step. Much more 

crucial is the collection of information on their population biology and their response to 

pressures, because the conservation methodologies to be applied will be drastically different 

in each case. 

REFERENCES 

ABDULLAH, M.T., JUB, N. & JALAWEH, N. 2003. First record of Hipposideros ater in 

Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo. Sarawak Museum Journal 79: 271–274. 

ANDERSON, J.A.R., CRANBROOK, EARL OF, & JERMY, C.A. 1979. Management Plan 

for Gunung Mulu National Park. Sarawak Forestry Department and Royal Geographical 

Society. 

AZLAN, J.M. & SHARMA, D.S.K. 2003. Camera trapping the Indochinese tiger, Panthera 

tigris corbetti, in a secondary forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 

51(2): 421–428. 

BANKS, E. 1951. Obituary: Cecil Boden Kloss. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum 23: 336– 

346. 

BARRETT, E.B.M. 1984. The ecology of some nocturnal mammals in the rain forest of 

Peninsular Malaysia. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge. 

BENNETT, E.L. 1991. Diurnal primates. Pp. 150–172. In: Kiew, R. (ed.), The State of Nature 

Conservation in Malaysia. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. 

BRANDON-JONES, D. 1984. Colobus and leaf monkeys. Pp. 398–408. In: Macdonald, D. 

(ed.). The Encyclopedia of Mammals. Vol. 1. Allen & Unwin, London. 

CHASEN, F.N. 1940. A handlist of Malaysian mammals. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum 15: 

xx + 209. 

CHASEN, F.N. & KLOSS, C.B. 1931. On a collection of mammals from the lowlands and 

islands of North Borneo. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum 6: 1–82. 

CHIVERS, D.J. 1981. Malayan Forest Primates. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 

CORBET, G.B. & HILL, J.E. 1992. The mammals of the Indomalayan region: a systematic 

review. Oxford University Press, Oxford and London. 

DAVIES, A.G. & PAYNE, J.B. 1982. A Faunal Survey of Sabah. WWF Malaysia and Game 

Branch, Sabah Forestry Department. 

DAVIS, D.D. 1962. Mammals of the lowland rain-forest of North Borneo. Bulletin of National 

Museum, Singapore 31: 1–130. 

DAVISON, G.W.H. 1984. New records of Peninsular Malayan and Thai shrews. Malayan 

Nature Journal 36: 211–215. 

DAYRAT, B. 2005. Towards integrative taxonomy. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 

85: 407–415. 

DIONG, C.H. 1973. Studies of the Malayan wild pig in Perak and Johor. Malayan Nature 

Journal 26: 120–151. 

EMMONS, L.H. 2000. Tupai: a field study of Bornean treeshrews. University of California 

16


Press, Berkeley. 

ESCALENTE, A.A., CORNEJO, O.E., FREELAND, D.E., POE, A.C., CURREGO, E., 

COLLINS, W.E. & LAL, A.A. 2005. A monkey’s tale: the origin of Plasmodium vivax 

as a human malaria parasite. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 

102: 1980–1985. 

EVERETT, A.H. 1893. A nominal list of the mammals inhabiting the Bornean group of 

islands. Proceedings of Zoological Society of London 1893: 492–496. 

FAIN, A., NADCHATRAM, M. & LUKOSCHUS, F.S. 1984. Fur mites of the family Myobiidae 

(Acari: Prostigmata) parasitic on bats in Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 

37: 175–183. 

FERNANDO, P., VIDYA T.N.C., PAYNE J., STUEWE M., DAVISON G., ALFRED R.J., 

ANDAU P., BOSI E., KILBOURN A. & MELNICK D.J.. 2003. DNA analysis indicates 

that Asian elephants are native to Borneo and are therefore a high priority for conservation. 

PLOS Biology 1: 110–115. 

FRANCIS, C.M. 1995. First records for Peninsular Malaysia of two species of spectacular 

orange bats from Temengor, Hulu Perak, Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 48: 397– 

401. 

FRANCIS, C.M. 2001. A Photographic Guide to the Mammals of South-East Asia. New 

Holland, London. 

GOOSSENS, B., CHIKHI, L., JALIL, M.F., ANCRENAZ, M., LACKMAN-ANCRENAZ, 

I., MOHAMED, M., ANDAU, P. & BRUFORD, M.W. 2005. Patterns of genetic diversity 

and migration in increasingly fragmented and declining orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus) 

populations from Sabah, Malaysia. Molecular Ecology, 14(2): 441–456. 

GOROG, A.J., SINAGA, M.H. & ENGSTROM, M.D. 2004. Vicariance or dispersal? 

Historical biogeography of three Sunda shelf murine rodents (Maxomys surifer, 

Leopoldamys sabanus and Maxomys whiteheadi). Biological Journal of Linnean Society 

81: 91–109. 

HAN, K.H., SHELDON, F. & STUEBING, R. 2000. Interspecific relationships and 

biogeography of some Bornean tree shrews (Tupaiidae: Tupaia), based on DNA 

hybridization and morphometric comparisons. Biological Journal of Linnean Society 

70: 1–14. 

HARRISON, J.L. 1962. The distribution of feeding habits among animals in a tropical rain 

forest. Journal of Animal Ecology 31: 53–63. 

HARRISON, J.L. 1964. Introduction to the Mammals of Sabah. Sabah Society, Kota Kinabalu. 

HEYDON, M. & BULLOH, P. 1996. The impact of selective logging on sympatric civet 

species in Borneo. Oryx 30: 31–36. 

HILL, J.E. 1960. The Robinson collection of Malaysian mammals. Bulletin of Raffles Museum 

29: 1–112. 

HILL, J.E. 1963. A revision of the genus Hipposideros. Bulletin of the British Museum 

(Natural History) Zoology 11: 1–129. 

HILL, J.E. & FRANCIS, C.M. 1984. New bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) recorded from Borneo 

and Malaya. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology 47: 305–329. 

HODGKISON, R., BALDING, S., AKBAR, Z. & KUNZ, T.H. 2003. Fruit bats (Chiroptera: 

Pteropodidae) as seed dispersers and pollinators in a lowland Malaysian rain forest. 

Biotropica 35(4): 491–502. 

ICKES, K. 2001. Hyper-abundance of native wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in a lowland Dipterocarp 

rain forest of Peninsular Malaysia. Biotropica 33: 682–690. 

IUCN. 2004. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN World Conservation Union, 

17


Gland, Switzerland. 

JENKINS, P.D. 1982. A discussion of Malayan and Indonesian shrews of the genus Crocidura 

(Insectivora: Soricidae). Zoologische Mededelingen 56: 267–279. 

JENKINS, P.D. & HILL, J.E. 1981. The status of Hipposideros galeritus Cantor, 1846 and 

Hipposideros cervinus (Gould, 1854) (Chiroptera: Hipposideridae). Bulletin of the British 

Museum (Natural History) Zoology 41: 279–294. 

JEPHTE, S. 1996. Calling adaptations by primates, hornbills and argus pheasants to hunting 

in Sabah and Sarawak. M.Sc. thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. 

JOHNS, A.D. 1986. Effects of selective logging on the behavioural ecology of West Malaysian 

primates. Ecology 67: 684–694. 

JOHNS, A.D. 1992. Vertebrate responses to selective logging: implications for the design of 

logging systems. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society, London 335: 437–442. 

KAWADA, S., SHINOHARA, A., YASUDA, M., ODA, S. & LIM, B.L. 2003. The mole of 

Peninsular Malaysia: notes on its identification and ecology. Mammal Study 28: 73–77. 

KAWANISHI, K. 2002. Population status of tigers (Panthera tigris) in a primary rainforest 

of Peninsular Malaysia. Ph.D. thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. 

KIEW, B.H. (ed.). 1977. A survey of the proposed Sungei Danum National Park, Sabah. 

WWF Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

KINGSTON, T., FRANCIS, C.M., AKBAR, Z. & KUNZ, T.H. 2003. Species richness in an 

insectivorous bat assemblage from Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19: 67–79. 

KINGSTON, T., LARA, M.C., JONES, G., AKBAR, Z., KUNZ, T.H. & SCHNEIDER, C.J. 

2001. Acoustic divergence in two cryptic Hipposideros species: a role for social selection? 

Proceedings of Royal Society, London, Biological Sciences 268 (1474): 1381–1386. 

LIM, B.L. 1973. Preliminary survey of some Malaysian wild mammals as potential laboratory 

experimental animals. Jikken Dobutsu 22 (Supplement): 195–199. 

LIM, B.L., MUUL, I. & CHAI, K.S. 1977. Zoonotic studies of small animals in the canopy 

transect at Bukit Lanjan Forest Reserve, Selangor, Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 

31: 127–140. 

MARSH, C.W. & WILSON, W.L. 1981. Survey of Primates in Peninsular Malaysian Forests. 

University of Cambridge and Universiti Malaysia Kebangsaan. 

MEDWAY, LORD. 1965. Mammals of Borneo; field keys and an annotated checklist. Journal 

of Malayan Branch, Royal Asiatic Society 36(3): xiv + 193. 

MEDWAY, LORD. 1969. The wild mammals of Malaya and Singapore. Oxford University 

Press, Kuala Lumpur. 

MEDWAY, LORD. 1971. Observations on the social and reproductive biology of the bentwinged 

bat Miniopterus australis in northern Borneo. Journal of Zoology, London 165: 

261–273. 

MEDWAY, LORD. 1972. The Gunong Benom Expedition 1967. 6. The distribution and 

altitudinal zonation of birds and mammals on Gunong Benom. Bulletin of the British 

Museum (Natural History) Zoology 23: 103–154. 

MEDWAY, LORD. 1977. Mammals of Borneo, 2 nd edition. Monographs of the Malaysian 

Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, No. 7. Kuala Lumpur. 

MEDWAY, LORD. 1978. The wild mammals of Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia) and Singapore. 

2 nd edition. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur. 

MEDWAY, LORD. 1983. The wild mammals of Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia) and Singapore. 

2 nd edition, with corrections. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur. 

MEDWAY, LORD & YONG, H.S. 1976. Problems in the systematics of the rats (Muridae) of 

Peninsular Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Science 4: 43–53. 

18


MEIJAARD, E. 2003. Mammals of south-east Asian islands and their Late Pleistocene 

environments. Journal of Biogeography 30: 1245–1257. 

MEIJAARD, E. & GROVES, C.P. 2004. A taxonomic revision of the Tragulus mouse-deer 

(Artiodactyla). Zoological Journal of Linnean Society 140: 63–102. 

MIURA, S., YASUDA, M. & RATNAM, L. 1997. Who steals the fruits? Monitoring frugivory 

of mammals in a tropical rain forest. Malayan Nature Journal 50: 183–191. 

MULLIN, S.W., COLLEY, F.C. & STEVENS, G.S. 1972. Coccidia of Malaysian mammals: 

new host records and descriptions of three new species of Eimeria. Journal of Protozoology 

19: 260–263. 

MUUL, I. & LIM, B.L. 1978. Comparative morphology, food habits and ecology of some 

Malaysian arboreal rodents. Pp. 361–368. In: Montgomery, G.G. (ed.), The Ecology of 

Arboreal Folivores. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

NUMATA, S., OKUDA, T., SUGIMOTO, T., NISHIMURA, S., YOSHIDA, K., QUAH, 

E.S., YASUDA, M., MUANGKHUM, K. & NUR SUPARDI, M.N. 2005. Camera 

trapping: a non-invasive approach as an additional tool in the study of mammals in 

Pasoh Forest Reserve and adjacent fragmented areas in Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan 


OLSON, L.E., SARGIS, E.J. & MARTIN, R.D. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships among 

treeshrews (Scandentia): a review and critique of the morphological evidence. Journal 

of Mammalian Evolution 11: 49–71. 

PAYNE, J. 1979. Synecology of Malayan tree squirrels, with special reference to the genus 

Ratufa. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge. 

PAYNE, J. & ANDAU, M. 1991. Large mammals in Sabah. Pp. 177–183. In: Kiew, R. (ed.), 

The State of Nature Conservation in Malaysia. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. 

PAYNE, J., FRANCIS, C.M. & PHILLIPPS, K. 1985. Field Guide to the Mammals of Borneo. 

Sabah Society, Kota Kinabalu and WWF Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

PEVET, P. & YADAV, M. 1980. The pineal gland of equatorial mammals. I. The pinealocytes 

of the Malaysian rat (Rattus sabanus). Cell Tissue Research 210: 417–433. 

RAJARATNAM, R. 2001. The ecology of small carnivores in Tabin Wildlife Reserve, Sabah, 

Malaysia. Ph.D. thesis, University of Armidale, New England, Australia. 

RATNAM, L., NOR AZMAN HUSSEIN & LIM, B.L. 1991. Small mammals in Peninsular 

Malaysia. Pp. 143–149. In: Kiew, R. (ed.), The State of Nature Conservation in Malaysia. 

Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. 

RAVEN, H.C. 1935. Wallace’s line and the distribution of Indo-Australian mammals. Bulletin 

of the American Museum of Natural History 68: 179–293. 

ROSS, M.D. 2004. The Long Calls of wild male Orangutans: a phylogenetic approach. 

Diploma Thesis, University of Hanover, Germany. 

RUDD, R.L. 1965. Weight and growth in Malaysian rain forest mammals. Journal of 

Mammalogy 46: 588–594. 

RUEDI, M. 1995. Taxonomic revision of shrews in the genus Crocidura from the Sunda 

Shelf and Sulawesi, with description of two new species (Mammalia: Soricidae). 

Zoological Journal of Linnean Society 115: 211–265. 

RUEDI, M. 1996. Phylogenetic evolution and biogeography of Southeast Asian shrews (genus 

Crocidura: Soricidae). Biological Journal of Linnean Society 58: 197–219. 

SHUKOR MD. NOR. 1996. The mammalian fauna on the islands at the tip of Sabah, Borneo. 

Fieldana, Zoology, new series, 83: 1–51. 

SOEPADMO, E. (ed.). 1984. An ecological survey of Lambir Hills National Park, Sarawak. 

WWF Project No. 44/81. WWF Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

TWEEDIE, M.W.F. 1948. Obituary: Frederick Nutter Chasen. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum 

19


18: 170–176. 

WELLS, D.R. 1989. Notes on the distribution and taxonomy of Peninsular Malaysian 

mongooses (Herpestes). Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 37: 87–97. 

WELLS, K., PFEIFFER, M., MAKLARIN, L. & LINSENMAIR, K.E. 2004. Use of arboreal 

and terrestrial space by a small mammal community in a tropical rain forest in Borneo, 

Malaysia. Journal of Biogeography 31: 641–652. 

WHITTOW, G.C. & GOULD, E. 1976. Body temperature and oxygen consumption of the 

pentail tree shrew (Ptilocercus lowii). Journal of Mammalogy 57: 754–756. 

WHITTOW, G.C., SCAMMELL, C., LEONG, M. & R &, D. 1977a. Temperature regulation 

in the smallest ungulate, the Lesser Mousedeer (Tragulus javanicus). Comparative 

Biochemistry & Physiology A, 56 (1A): 23–26. 

WHITTOW, G.C., SCAMMELL, C., MANUEL, J.K., R &, D. & LEONG, M. 1977b. 

Temperature regulation in a hypometabolic primate, the slow loris (Nycticebus coucang). 

Archives Internationale du Physiologie et Biochimie 85: 139–151. 

WYATT-SMITH, J. & WYCHERLEY, P.R. (eds.). 1961. Nature Conservation in Western 

Malaysia, 1961. Malayan Nature Journal, 21 st Anniversary Special Issue. Kuala Lumpur. 

YONG, H.S. 1970. A Malayan view of Rattus edwardsi and R. sabanus. Zoological Journal 

of the Linnean Society 40: 359–370. 

YONG, H.S. 1975. Karyotypes of four species of Callosciurus from Peninsular Malaysia. 

Malaysian Journal of Science 3: 1–5. 

YONG, H.S. 1982. Karyotypes of Hapalomys and Pithecheir from Peninsular Malaya. 

Cytologia 47: 535–538. 

YONG, H.S. & DHALIWAL, S.S. 1972. Supernumerary (B-) chromosomes in the Malayan 

house rat, Rattus rattus diardi. Chromosoma 36: 256–262. 

ZAABA, Z.A., MOHD TAJUDDIN, A., MUSTAFA, A.R. & EBIL, Y. 1991. Large mammals 

in Peninsular Malaysia. Pp. 173–176. In: Kiew, R. (ed.), The State of Nature Conservation 

in Malaysia. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. 

ZUBAID, A. 1994. Bornean Horseshe Bat Rhinolophus borneensis newly recorded in 

Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 48: 37–38. 

20


ZUNIKA, A., IBRAHIM, S.F., CUSHION, M.T. & SASTERHENN, T.M. 2002. Detection of 

Pneumocystis carinii in lungs of wild mammals from Crocker Range Park by PCR 

amplification. ASEAN Review of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation online 

http://www.arbec.com.my/pdf/art20julysep02.pdf 

APPENDIX 

Checklist of Mammals from Malaysia 

Moonrat Echinosorex gymnurus PM Srk Sab 

Lesser Gymnure Hylomys suillus PM Srk Sab 

Short-tailed Mole Euroscaptor micrura PM 

House Shrew Suncus murinus PM Srk Sab 

Black Shrew Suncus ater Sab 

Malayan Pygmy Shrew Suncus (etruscus) malayanus PM Srk Sab 

Crocidura malayana 

PM 

SEA White-toothed Shrew Crocidura fuliginosa PM Srk Sab 

Kinabalu White-toothed Shrew Crocidura baluensis Sab 

Crocidura negligens 

PM 

Crocidura attenuata 

PM 

Sunda Shrew Crocidura monticola PM Srk Sab 

Sunda Water Shrew Chimarrogale phaeura PM Srk Sab 

Flying Lemur Cynocephalus variegatus PM Srk Sab 

Geoffroy’s Rousette Rousettus amplexicaudatus PM Srk Sab 

Rousettus leschenaultii 

PM 

Bare-backed Rousette Rousettus spinalatus Srk Sab 

Malayan Flying Fox Pteropus vampyrus PM Srk Sab 

Island Flying Fox Pteropus hypomelanus PM Sab 

Malaysian Fruit Bat Cynopterus ‘brachyotis’ open-country taxon PM Srk Sab 

Cynopterus ‘brachyotis’ forest taxon PM Srk Sab 

Horsfield’s Fruit Bat Cynopterus horsfieldi PM Srk Sab 

Short-nosed Fruit Bat Cynopterus sphinx PM 

Dusky Fruit Bat Penthetor lucasi PM Srk Sab 

Dayak Fruit Bat Dyacopterus spadiceus PM Srk Sab 

Spotted-winged Fruit Bat Balionycteris maculata PM Srk Sab 

Black-capped Fruit Bat Chironax melanocephalus PM Sab 

Grey Fruit Bat Aethalops alecto PM 

Aethalops aequalis Srk Sab 

Tailless Fruit Bat Megaerops ecaudatus PM Srk Sab 

Wetmore’s Fruit Bat Megaerops wetmorei PM ? 

Cave Fruit Bat Eonycteris spelaea PM Srk Sab 

Greater Nectar Bat Eonycteris major Srk Sab 

Common Long-tongued Fruit Bat Macroglossus minimus PM Srk Sab 

Hill Long-tongued Fruit Bat Macroglossus sobrinus PM 

Greater Sheath-tailed Bat Emballonura alecto Srk Sab 

Lesser Sheath-tailed Bat Emballonura monticola PM Srk Sab 

Black-bearded Tomb Bat Taphozous melanopogon PM Srk Sab 

21


Long-winged Tomb Bat Taphozous longimanus PM Srk Sab 

Pouch-bearing Bat Taphozous (Saccolaimus) saccolaimus PM Srk Sab 

Hollow-faced Bat Nycteris javanica PM Srk Sab 

Malayan False Vampire Megaderma spasma PM Srk Sab 

Indian False Vampire Megaderma lyra PM 

Intermediate Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus affinis PM Srk 

Lesser Brown Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus stheno PM 

Peninsular Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus robinsoni PM 

Glossy Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus refulgens PM 

Least Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus pusillus PM 

N. Malayan Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus malayanus PM 

Acuminate Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus acuminatus PM Sab 

Big-eared Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus macrotis PM 

Lesser Woolly Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus sedulus PM Srk Sab 

Trefoil Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus trifoliatus PM Srk Sab 

Hill Trefoil Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus sp. (undescribed) Sab 

Woolly Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus luctus PM Srk Sab 

Croslet Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus coelophyllus PM 

Marshall’s Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus marshalli PM 

Pearson’s Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus pearsonii PM 

Shamel’s Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus shameli PM 

Rhinolophus convexus 

PM 

Chiew Kwee’s Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus chiewkweeae PM 

Bornean Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus borneensis PM Srk Sab 

Arcuate Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus arcuatus Srk 

Creagh’s Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus creaghi Srk Sab 

Philippine Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus philippinensis Srk Sab 

Bicolour Roundleaf Horseshoe Bat Hipposideros ‘bicolor’ 131kHz taxon PM Srk Sab 

Bicolour Roundleaf Horseshoe Bat Hipposideros ‘bicolor’ 142 kHz taxon PM Srk? Sab? 

Hipposideros pomona 

PM 

Malayan Roundleaf Horseshoe Bat Hipposideros nequam 

PM 

Dusky Roundleaf Horseshoe Bat Hipposideros ater PM Sab 

Dayak Roundleaf Horseshoe Bat Hipposideros dyacorum PM Srk Sab 

Lawas Roundleaf Horseshoe Bat Hipposideros sabanus PM Srk Sab 

Least Roundleaf Horseshoe Bat Hipposideros cineraceus PM Sab 

Singapore Roundleaf Hipposideros ridleyi PM Sab 

Horseshoe Bat 

Hipposideros orbicularis 

PM 

Common Roundleaf Hipposideros cervinus PM Srk Sab 

Horseshoe Bat 

Cantor’s Roundleaf Hipposideros galeritus PM Srk Sab 

Horseshoe Bat 

Cox’s Roundleaf Horseshoe Bat Hipposideros coxi Srk 

Shield-faced Bat Hipposideros lylei PM 

Lekagul’s Roundleaf Hipposideros lekaguli PM 

Horseshoe Bat 

Great Roundleaf Horseshoe Bat Hipposideros armiger PM 

Large Roundleaf Horseshoe Bat Hipposideros larvatus PM Srk 

Pratt’s Roundleaf Horseshoe Bat Hipposideros pratti PM 

Diadem Roundleaf Horseshoe Bat Hipposideros diadema PM Srk Sab 

Trident Horseshoe Bat Aselliscus stoliczkanus PM 

22


Malayan Tailless Horseshoe Bat Coelops robinsoni PM Srk 

East Asian Tailless Horseshoe Bat Coelops frithii 

PM 

Whiskered Bat Myotis (mystacinus) muricola PM Srk Sab 

Burmese Whiskered Bat Myotis montivagus PM Sab 

Gomantong Whiskered Bat Myotis gomantongensis Sab 

Himalayan Whiskered Bat Myotis siligorensis Sab 

Horsfield’s Bat Myotis horsfieldii PM Srk Sab 

Lesser Large-footed Bat Myotis hasseltii PM Srk Sab? 

Myotis (formosus) hermani 

PM 

Myotis (ater) rozendaali PM Srk Sab 

Grey Large-footed Bat Myotis adversus PM Sab 

Pallid Large-footed Bat Myotis macrotarsus Srk Sab 

Ridley’s Bat Myotis ridleyi PM 

House Bat Scotophilus kuhlii PM Sab 

New Guinea Brown Bat Philetor brachypterus PM Srk Sab 

Lesser Flat-headed Bat Tylonycteris pachypus PM Srk Sab 

Greater Flat-headed Bat Tylonycteris robustula PM Srk Sab 

Large False Serotine Hesperoptenus tomesi PM Sab 

Blanford’s False Serotine Hesperoptenus blanfordi PM Sab 

Doria’s False Serotine Hesperoptenus doriae PM Srk 

Noctule Nyctalus noctula PM 

Malaysian Noctule Pipistrellus stenopterus PM Srk Sab 

Woolly Pipistrelle Pipistrellus petersi Sab 

Brown Pipistrelle Pipistrellus (Hypsugo) macrotis PM 

Brown Pipistrelle Pipistrellus (Hypsugo) imbricatus Srk 

White-winged Pipistrelle Pipistrellus (Hypsugo) vordermanni Srk 

May be conspecific with P. (H.) imbricatus 

Red-brown Pipistrelle Pipistrellus (Hypsugo) kitcheneri Sab 

Coppery Pipistrelle Pipistrellus (Arielulus) cuprosus Sab 

Gilded Black Pipistrelle Pipistrellus (Arielulus) circumdatus PM 

Benom Pipistrelle Pipistrellus (Arielulus) societatis PM 

Javan Pipistrelle Pipistrellus javanicus PM Sab 

Least Pipistrelle Pipistrellus tenuis PM Sab 

Dark Brown Pipistrelle Pipistrellus ceylonicus Sab 

Thick-thumbed Pipistrelle Glischropus tylopus PM Srk Sab 

Large Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus magnater Srk? Sab 

SEAsian Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus medius PM Sab 

Schreibers’s Bat Miniopterus schreibersii PM Srk? Sab 

Lesser Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus australis Srk Sab 

Brown Tube-nosed Bat Murina suilla PM Srk Sab 

Round-eared Tube-nosed Bat Murina cyclotis PM Srk Sab 

Hutton’s Tube-nosed Bat Murina huttoni PM 

Bronzed Tube-nosed Bat Murina aenea PM Sab 

Gilded Tube-nosed Bat Murina rozendaali Sab 

Hairy-winged Bat Harpiocephalus harpia Sab 

Harpiocephalus mordax PM Sab? 

Papillose Bat Kerivoula papillosa PM Srk Sab 

Hardwicke’s Forest Bat Kerivoula hardwickii PM Srk Sab 

Flores Woolly Bat Kerivoula flora Sab 

Clear-winged Bat Kerivoula pellucida PM Srk Sab 

Small Woolly Bat Kerivoula intermedia PM? Sab 

Least Forest Bat Kerivoula minuta PM Sab 

Painted Bat Kerivoula picta PM 

23


Whitehead’s Woolly Bat Kerivoula whiteheadi Srk Sab 

Kerivoula sp. nov. 

PM 

Groove-toothed Bat Phoniscus atrox PM Sab 

Frosted Groove-toothed Bat Phoniscus jagori PM 

Free-tailed Bat Mops mops PM Srk 

Wrinkled-lipped Bat Chaerephon plicata PM Srk Sab 

Dato Meldrum’s Bat Chaerephon johorensis PM 

Hairless Bat Cheiromeles torquatus PM Srk Sab 

Common Treeshrew Tupaia glis PM Srk 

Tupaia ‘longipes’ Srk Sab 

Mountain Treeshrew Tupaia montana Srk Sab 

Lesser Treeshrew Tupaia minor PM Srk Sab 

Slender Treeshrew Tupaia gracilis Srk Sab 

Painted Treeshrew Tupaia picta Srk 

Striped Treeshrew Tupaia dorsalis Srk Sab 

Large Treeshrew Tupaia tana Srk Sab 

Pentailed Treeshrew Ptilocercus lowii PM Srk Sab 

Smooth-tailed Treeshrew Dendrogale melanura Srk Sab 

Slow Loris Nycticebus coucang PM Srk Sab 

Western Tarsier Tarsius bancanus Srk Sab 

Silvered Leaf Monkey Presbytis cristata PM Srk Sab 

Dusky Leaf Monkey Presbytis obscura PM 

Banded Leaf Monkey Presbytis melalophos PM Srk 

Grey Leaf Monkey Presbytis hosei Srk Sab 

Maroon Leaf Monkey Presbytis rubicunda Srk Sab 

White-fronted Leaf Monkey Presbytis frontata Srk 

Proboscis Monkey Nasalis larvatus Srk Sab 

Long-tailed Macaque Macaca fascicularis PM Srk Sab 

Pig-tailed Macaque Macaca nemestrina PM Srk Sab 

Stump-tailed Macaque Macaca arctoides PM 

White-handed Gibbon Hylobates lar PM 

Agile Gibbon Hylobates agilis PM 

Bornean Gibbon Hylobates muelleri Srk Sab 

Siamang Hylobates syndactylus PM 

Bornean Orang-utan Pongo pygmaeus Srk Sab 

Malayan Pangolin Manis javanica PM Srk Sab 

Black Giant Squirrel Ratufa bicolor PM 

Cream-coloured Giant Squirrel Ratufa affinis PM Srk Sab 

Plantain Squirrel Callosciurus notatus PM Srk Sab 

Belly-banded Squirrel Callosciurus flavimanus PM 

Prevost’s Squirrel Callosciurus prevostii PM Srk Sab 

(Variable Squirrel) Callosciurus finlaysoni Feral 

Black-banded Squirrel Callosciurus nigrovittatus PM 

Kinabalu Squirrel Callosciurus baluensis Srk Sab 

Ear-spot Squirrel Callosciurus adamsi Srk Sab 

24


Bornean Black-banded Squirrel Callosciurus orestes Srk Sab 

Red-bellied Sculptor Squirrel Callosciurus (Glyphotes) simus Srk Sab 

Horse-tailed Squirrel Sundasciurus hippurus PM Srk Sab 

Slender Squirrel Sundasciurus tenuis PM Srk Sab 

Low’s Squirrel Sundasciurus lowii PM Srk Sab 

Jentink’s Squirrel Sundasciurus jentinki Srk Sab 

Brooke’s Squirrel Sundasciurus brookei Srk Sab 

Himalayan Striped Squirrel Tamiops macclellandii PM 

Three-striped Ground Squirrel Lariscus insignis PM Srk 

Four-striped Ground Squirrel Lariscus hosei Srk Sab 

Shrew-faced Ground Squirrel Rhinosciurus laticaudatus PM Srk Sab 

Bornean Mountain Dremomys everetti Srk Sab 

Ground Squirrel 

Red-cheeked Ground Squirrel Dremomys rufigenis PM 

Black-eared Pygmy Squirrel Nannosciurus melanotis Srk 

Plain Pygmy Squirrel Exilisciurus exilis Srk Sab 

Whitehead’s Pygmy Squirrel Exilisciurus whiteheadi Srk Sab 

Tufted Ground Squirrel Rheithrosciurus macrotis Srk Sab 

Selangor Pygmy Flying Squirrel Petaurillus kinlochii PM 

Hose’s Pygmy Flying Squirrel Petaurillus hosei Srk Sab 

Lesser Pygmy Flying Squirrel Petaurillus emiliae Srk 

Red-cheeked Flying Squirrel Hylopetes spadiceus PM Srk Sab 

Grey-cheeked Flying Squirrel Hylopetes lepidus PM Srk Sab 

Whiskered Flying Squirrel Petinomys genibarbis PM Srk Sab 

White-bellied Flying Squirrel Petinomys setosus PM Srk Sab 

Vordermann’s Flying Squirrel Petinomys vordermanni PM Srk? 

Horsfield’s Flying Squirrel Iomys horsfieldii PM Srk Sab 

Smoky Flying Squirrel Pteromyscus pulverulentus PM Srk Sab 

Large Black Flying Squirrel Aeromys tephromelas PM Srk Sab 

Thomas’s Flying Squirrel Aeromys thomasi Srk Sab 

Red Giant Flying Squirrel Petaurista petaurista PM Srk Sab 

Spotted Giant Flying Squirrel Petaurista elegans PM Srk Sab 

Large Bamboo Rat Rhizomys sumatrensis PM 

Hoary Bamboo Rat Rhizomys pruinosus PM 

Pencil-tailed Tree-mouse Chiropodomys gliroides PM Srk Sab 

Large Pencil-tailed Tree-mouse Chiropodomys major Srk Sab 

Grey-bellied Pencil-tailed Chiropodomys muroides Sab 

Tree-mouse 

Marmoset Rat 

Hapalomys longicaudatus 

Monkey-footed Rat Pithecheir melanurus PM 

Pithecheirops otion 

Sab 

Ranee Mouse Haeromys margarettae Srk Sab 

Lesser Ranee Mouse Haeromys pusillus Srk Sab 

Asian House Mouse Mus castaneus PM Srk Sab 

Ricefield Mouse Mus caroli PM Sab? 

House Rat Rattus rattus PM Srk Sab 

Malaysian Wood Rat Rattus tiomanicus PM Srk Sab 

Ricefield Rat Rattus argentiventer PM Srk Sab 

Summit Rat Rattus baluensis Sab 

Polynesian Rat Rattus exulans PM Srk Sab 

Annandale’s Rat Rattus annandalei PM 

Brown Rat Rattus norvegicus PM Srk Sab 

25


Muller’s Rat Sundamys muelleri PM Srk Sab 

Mountain Giant Rat Sundamys infraluteus Srk Sab 

Bowers’s Rat Sundamys bowersii PM 

Dark-tailed Tree Rat Niviventer cremoriventer PM Srk Sab 

Long-tailed Mountain Rat Niviventer rapit PM Srk Sab 

White-bellied Rat Niviventer bukit PM 

Red Spiny Rat Maxomys surifer PM Srk Sab 

Brown Spiny Rat Maxomys rajah PM Srk Sab 

Mountain Spiny Rat Maxomys alticola Sab 

Malayan Mountain Spiny Rat Maxomys inas PM 

Chestnut-bellied Spiny Rat Maxomys ochraceiventer Srk Sab 

Small Spiny Rat Maxomys baeodon Srk Sab 

Whitehead’s Rat Maxomys whiteheadi PM Srk Sab 

Grey Tree Rat Lenothrix malaisia PM Srk Sab 

Long-tailed Giant Rat Leopoldamys sabanus PM Srk Sab 

Edwards’ Rat Leopoldamys edwardsi PM 

Large Bandicoot Rat Bandicota indica PM 

Lesser Bandicoot Rat Bandicota bengalensis PM 

Malayan Porcupine Hystrix brachyura PM Srk Sab 

Thick-spined Porcupine Hystrix crassispinis Srk Sab 

Brush-tailed Porcupine Thecurus macrourus PM 

Long-tailed Porcupine Trichys fasciculata PM Srk Sab 

Wild Dog Cuon alpinus PM 

Malayan Sun Bear Helarctos malayanus PM Srk Sab 

Yellow-throated Marten Martes flavigula PM Srk Sab 

Malay Weasel Mustela nudipes PM Srk Sab 

Ferret-badger Melogale everetti Sab 

Teledu Mydaus javanensis Srk Sab 

Small-clawed Otter Aonyx cinerea PM Srk Sab 

Hairy-nosed Otter Lutra sumatrana PM Srk Sab 

Common Otter Lutra lutra PM 

Smooth-coated Otter Lutra perspicillata PM Srk Sab 

Malay Civet Viverra tangalunga PM Srk Sab 

Large Indian Civet Viverra zibetha PM 

Large Spotted Civet Viverra megaspila PM 

Little Civet Viverricula malaccensis PM 

Banded Linsang Prionodon linsang PM Srk Sab 

Common Palm Civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus PM Srk Sab 

Masked Palm Civet Paguma larvata PM Srk Sab 

Binturong Arctitis binturong PM Srk Sab 

Small-toothed Palm Civet Arctogalidia trivirgata PM Srk Sab 

Banded Palm Civet Hemigalus derbyanus PM Srk Sab 

Hose’s Palm Civet Diplogale hosei Srk Sab 

Otter Civet Cynogale bennettii PM Srk Sab 

Short-tailed Mongoose Herpestes brachyurus PM Srk Sab 

Indian Grey Mongoose Herpestes edwardsii PM (feral, extinct) 

Hose’s Mongoose Herpestes hosei Srk 

Javan Mongoose Herpestes javanicus PM 

26


Collared Mongoose Herpestes semitorquatus Srk Sab 

Crab-eating Mongoose Herpestes urva PM 

Tiger Panthera tigris PM 

Leopard Panthera pardus PM 

Clouded Leopard Neofelis nebulosa PM Srk Sab 

Golden Cat Catopuma temminckii PM 

Bay Cat Catopuma badia Srk Sab 

Leopard Cat Prionailurus bengalensis PM Srk Sab 

Flat-headed Cat Prionailurus planiceps PM Srk Sab 

(Fishing Cat 

Prionailurus viverrina) Old skin, Tasik Bera (doubtful record) 

Marbled Cat Felis marmorata PM Srk Sab 

Asian Elephant Elephas maximus PM Sab 

Malayan Tapir Tapirus indicus PM 

Javan Rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus PM (extinct) 

Sumatran Rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis PM Srk Sab 

(extinct) 

Wild Pig Sus scrofa PM 

Bearded Pig Sus barbatus PM Srk Sab 

Lesser Mouse-deer Tragulus kanchil PM Srk Sab 

Greater Mouse-deer Tragulus napu PM Srk Sab 

Barking Deer Muntiacus muntjak PM Srk Sab 

Yellow Muntjak Muntiacus atherodes Srk Sab 

Sambar Cervus unicolor PM Srk Sab 

Gaur Bos gaurus PM 

Banteng Bos javanicus PM Srk Sab 

Serow Capricornis sumatraensis PM 

PM = Peninsular Malaysia; Srk = Sarawak; Sab = Sabah 

SEA = South East Asia 

27

ALLEN JEYARAJASINGAM (2007) 



AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT 

KNOWLEDGE OF MALAYSIA’S AVIFAUNA 

Allen Jeyarajasingam 

ABSTRACT 

A total of 742 species of birds belonging to 85 families has been recorded within the political 

boundaries of Malaysia. Of these 43 are endemics, distributed between Peninsular Malaysia 

and the Bornean states of Sarawak and Sabah. This paper serves to assess and highlight the 

current state of knowledge of Malaysia’s birds with special emphasis on status, distribution, 

breeding biology and conservation. Although a common checklist is maintained for the country, 

the gathering and processing of scientific information have to be separate between Peninsular 

Malaysia, Sarawak, and Sabah, because the latter are disjunct territories, separated by sea. 

High species diversity still remains in the rainforest, both lowland and montane with over 395 

species or 53%. Despite nearly 150 years of specimen collection, field observations by both 

professional and amateur naturalists as well as other field and laboratory work, current 

knowledge remains relatively low, especially in Sarawak and Sabah. Most type specimens 

collected in the country by foreign collectors and scientists are currently deposited in museums 

abroad. Large gaps in the breeding biology of most resident species, together with knowledge 

of habits and conservation status exist. These can be eventually filled in if there is close cooperation 

and information sharing between government agencies, local universities and nongovernmental 

organizations in establishing and effectively coordinating a systematic network 

in order to build up an easily accessible and user friendly database for the realization of 

conservation goals. 

Sekolah Menengah Sains Alam Shah, Jalan Yaakob Latif, Bandar Tun Razak, 56000 Kuala Lumpur, Tel: 03–9131 5014, 

Fax: 03–9131 8119; allenj1959@yahoo.com 

29

INDRANEIL DAS & NORSHAM YAAKOB (2007) 



STATUS OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE 

MALAYSIAN HERPETOFAUNA 

1 

Indraneil Das & 2 Norsham Yaakob 

ABSTRACT 

Altogether, 203 species of amphibians and 397 species of reptiles are now known from 

Peninsular Malaysia and its offshore islands, and from East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak, 

and associated islands, on Borneo). Although a total of 600 herpetofaunal species seems a 

large figure in comparison to other landmasses of similar size regionally, a number of species 

have been discovered or recognized as new only in the last half a decade. Most of the new 

discoveries have been made from montane regions and offshore islands, but important findings 

have also been made not too far from the urban areas. Identification resources for the fauna 

specific to Peninsular Malaysia are relatively few, although recent field guides exist for all 

groups of taxa (except caecilians) for Borneo. No major systematic institutions exist within 

Malaysia for either type material or recent voucher specimens of herpetofaunal species, the 

Sarawak Museum in Kuching being repository of a small collection of mainly secondary 

types and older general collections from this state; the Selangor Museum in Kuala Lumpur 

was destroyed in the bombing of the city during World War II. Besides a concerted effort to 

continue inventories of Malaysia’s herpetofauna, urgently needed are the development of 

herpetology as a distinct discipline within the biological sciences of the university curriculum, 

and training of a generation of young biologists in relevant fields of systematics, ecology, 

genetics, biogeography, anatomy and morphology, in curatorship and an appreciation of the 

great outdoors. 

INTRODUCTION 

Malaysia supports a high species richness and endemicity in herpetofauna (Yong 1998), with 

203 described species of amphibians and 397 described species of reptiles (Tables 1 & 2). 

This diversity is unequally distributed across the country, the majority occurring in the 

highlands, which support a disproportionately large area of primary forest, compared to the 

lowlands. Altogether, these species represent a panoply of evolutionary history and diversity, 

from ancient groups that may had been restricted to mountain-tops due to climatic variation 

during the Pleistocene, to modern ones represented by diverse lineages. The underpinning 

reasons for the high levels of herpetological diversity of the Malaysian herpetofauna are: 

1 

Institute of Biodiversity & Environmental Conservation, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, 

Sarawak, Malaysia; idas@ibec.unimas.my 

2 

Forest Research Institute Malaysia, 52109 Kepong, Selangor, Malaysia; norsham@frim.gov.my 

31

STATUS OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE MALAYSIAN HERPETOFAUNA 

Table 1. Composition of amphibian fauna in Malaysia. The listing includes introduced species 

Family 

Number of species 

Bufonidae 35 

Megophryidae 28 

Microhylidae 34 

Ranidae 51 

Rhacophoridae 48 

Ichthyophiidae 7 

Total 203 

Table 2. Composition of the reptile fauna in Malaysia. The listing includes introduced species 

Family 


Acrochordidae 2 

Anomochilidae 2 

Boidae 4 

Colubridae 144 

Cylindrophiidae 3 

Elapidae 10 

Hydrophiidae 21 

Typhlopidae 5 

Viperidae 12 

Xenopeltidae 1 

Xenophidiidae 2 

Agamidae 37 

Anguidae 1 

Eublepharidae 1 

Dibamidae 5 

Gekkonidae 46 

Lacertidae 1 

Lanthanotidae 1 

Scincidae 61 

Uromastycidae 2 

Varanidae 4 

Crocodylidae 4 

Cheloniidae 4 

Dermochelyidae 1 

Emydidae 1 

Geoemydidae 12 

Testudinidae 3 

Trionychidae 5 

Total 397 

32


i) parts of south-east Asia were not glaciated and were refuges during the height of the 

Pleistocene glaciation (see Heaney 1991, for a review); 

ii) the region has a complex history of sea-level fluctuations that attached and detached 

islands to the Asian mainland, joining and severing populations in the process; 

iii) the region shows a high diversity of geology and climate, and therefore, supports diverse 

ecological conditions; and 

iv) the area still is clothed in relatively large unbroken tracts of primary forests, such as 

tropical rainforests and montane forests. 

This paper presents a history and inventory of the herpetofauna of Malaysia, conducts an 

analysis of trends in research and provides some suggestions for the future. 

THE ROLE OF HERPETOFAUNA 

Amphibians and reptiles often constitute significant biomass, exceeding that of all other 

vertebrates (Burton & Likens 1975; Iverson 1982), form important linkages in the ecosystem 

by providing dispersal mechanisms for plants (Moll 1980; Vogt & Guzman 1988; Varela & 

Bucher 2002; Liu et al. 2004; Rick & Bowman 1961; Moll & Jansen 1995; Fialho 1990; 

Iverson 1985), form an important link in the trophic structure through predation, sometimes 

of much larger animals (Singh 2000), scavenging (Furbank 1996); Spencer et al. 1998; Esque 

& Peters 1994), and form a potential prey-base themselves (Ernst et al. 1994; Souza & Abe 

2000; Martuscelli 1995; Rhodin et al. 1993), contribute to environmental heterogeneity (Kaczor 

& Harnett 1990), have keystone functions in maintaining ecosystem structure (Thorbjarnarson 

1992; Ross 1998) and foster important symbiotic associations with an array of organisms 

(Lago 1991; Witz et al. 1991). Several species of turtles regularly eat water hyacinths, 

Eichhornia, presumably helping to control this water weed (Davenport et al. 1992; Varghese 

& Tonapi 1986; Fachin-Terán et al. 1995). Population data on herpetofaunal species have 

been used for constructive predictive models of abundance of target taxa (Clawson et al. 

1984). 

Amphibians and reptiles are known to be important predators of insect (Bhanotar & Bhatnagar 

1976; Gans 1994) and rodent (Lim 1974; Whitaker & Advani 1983) pests in agricultural 

ecosystems, and support a thriving trade based on export of froglegs (Niekisch 1986). Snake 

venom is used in medical research, for the production of life-saving drugs (Lim et al. 1977a; 

1977b; Reid 1968; Stocker 1990) and over 500 alkaloids of 22 different structural classes 

have been found in skin extracts of amphibians (Daly et al. 2002), many with potential 

pharmaceutical value. Amphibians and reptiles are used in biomedical research, such as in 

transplant immunology, the culture of cells and tissues for studies of cell growth and association 

(Wake et al. 1975). In Malaysia, several species have high commercial value. Larger frogs, 

including Limnonectes blythi, Fejervarya cancrivora and F. limnocharis, are eaten including 

some large lizards, particularly Varanus salvator and V. nebulosus (see Khan 1969) and many 

turtle and tortoise species (Kiew 1984f; Lim & Das 1999). Several species of snakes, such as 

Python reticulatus, Naja sumatrana, Ophiophagus hannah and Acrochordus javanicus are 

prized for their meat and medicine (Lim 1961) as are crocodilians (Tweedie & Harrison 1970; 

Anonymous 1983). Finally, amphibians and reptiles, on account of their typically small body 

size, high species diversity and widespread distribution, poikilothermy and lack of parental 

care have been considered model organisms for the study of vertebrate life (Pianka 1986). 

33


Little is known of the parasitic fauna of amphibians and reptiles in Malaysia. The few studies 

carried out by Lim et al. (1990), Lim & Shabrina Mohd. Sharif (1998), Ambu et al. (1982), 

Stiller et al. (1977) & Nadchatram (1979) reveal that some of the endoparasites are of medical 

and public health importance. Some of the helminthic parasites, such as the pentastomids are 

pathogenic to man. These group of parasites are fairly prevalent among pythons, elapid and 

viperid snakes. Ecto- and endoparasites of any animal taxa provide ecological labeling of the 

host species, as they are associated with the food habits in relation with the environment. To 

date, knowledge of the host-parasite relationship of amphibians and reptiles (viruses, bacteria, 

protozoa, helminthes and arthropods) is in its infancy, and this comprises another gap in the 

study of biological associations. 

Peninsular Malaysia 

HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF STUDIES 

Early herpetological collections in the Malay Peninsula were made by Cantor (1847) and 

Stoliczka (1870a, 1870b, 1870c; 1873), not surprisingly, focussing on former centres of 

European trade, including Penang, Malacca and Singapore. Biographies of these early explorers 

are in Kolmaš (1982) and Smith (1931b). Unusual for his time, Theodore Edward Cantor 

(1809–1860), Danish surgeon-naturalist with the English East India Company, included details 

of colouration and natural history. He observed that the now rare estuarine trionychid turtle, 

Pelochelys cantorii was commonly caught in fishing stakes. Cantor’s material is at present in 

the Natural History Museum, London, with the painting of the species, and serves as iconotypes, 

being preserved at the Bodleian Library of Oxford University. Ferdinand Stoliczka (1838– 

1874), a member of the Asiatic Society of Bengal and palaeontologist of the Geological Survey 

of India, the ‘high-altitude explorer’ (sensu Kolmaš 1982), collected on Penang’s highest 

mountain–Great Hill or Bukit Bendera, describing numerous new taxa, including the bufonid 

genus Ansonia, named after the Lieutenant-Governor of Penang, Major General Archibald 

Edward Harbord Anson (1826–1925) at the time of Stoliczka’s visit. 

Significant collections of amphibians and reptiles from the Malay Peninsula at the end of the 

Nineteenth Century were made by Major Stanley Smyth Flower (Flower 1896, 1899), of the 

Northumberland Fusiliers (obituary in Smith 1946). Flower also sent specimens to London 

(Boulenger 1896b). Early checklists of the amphibians of Peninsular Malaysia in 1902 and 

1904 were compiled by Arthur Lennox Butler (1873–1939), Curator of the Selangor State 

Museum, who subsequently became Superintendent of the Sudan Game Preservation 

Department, and show 58 species. Herbert Christopher Robinson (1905) added additional 

species to the list, counting 63 nominal species, plus an “Ixalus”. Local administrators (such 

as Dudley Francis Amelius Hervey, 1849–1911, of the Malayan Civil Service) sent material 

to George Albert Boulenger (1858–1937) at the British Museum (Natural History), London, 

who described new species (e.g., Boulenger 1887a). Butler too deferred to Boulenger for 

taxonomic opinion on the fauna, and sent specimens to London, eventually to be described by 

the latter (e.g., Boulenger 1900b; 1900c; 1900d; 1905). 

The first public museum in Peninsular Malaysia was established at Taiping in 1883, with 

Leonard Wray (1852–1942), formerly an engineer with the Public Works Department of the 

Perak Civil Service, as the Curator (biography in Burkill 1927). The Selangor Museum opened 

34


to the public in 1888, Wray holding charge as Curator. The main museum building was 

completed in 1907, and in 1940, the Perak Museum and Selangor Museum were amalgamated 

to form the Federated Malay States Museum. Herpetological (and other zoological) surveys 

were carried out by the Selangor Museum throughout the Malay Peninsula, and reported in 

the Journal of the Museum. Following the government’s programme of decentralisation in the 

1930s, the two museums were again separated, and became state institutions. Museum staff 

continued to publish in the Federated Malay States Museums Journal, which issued 19 volumes 

between 1905 and 1939 (terminating with World War II). A misdirected load of bombs from 

an American B29 bomber landed on Selangor Museum on 10 March 1945. The collections 

were destroyed, and parts of the salvaged material were eventually transferred to the Perak 

Museum, Taiping in January 1946. In May 1949, the office of the Director of Museums moved 

from Kuala Lumpur to Taiping. 

The most important collection of regional herpetological (and indeed, zoological) materials 

lies in the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, National University of Singapore. The 

Museum’s earliest collection originates from the 1840s, and contains much valuable material 

acquired by a succession of field-oriented curators, some of whom also acquired specimens 

through exchange programmes with other museums. In 1888, field collectors were hired and 

collections took place mainly from the region of the border between Selangor and Pahang. 

The following year, collectors were sent to Johor and Jelebu in Negeri Sembilan. 

Compared to Borneo, there were fewer foreign expeditions in the Malay Peninsula in the 

Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. In 1899–1900, English biologists, together with students 

from the universities of Cambridge and Oxford conducted the Skeat Expedition, organised by 

Walter William Skeat (1866–1953), British ethnographer and member of the Malayan Civil 

Service (Skeat 1900). Its objective was to collect data on ethnology, zoology, botany and 

geology of the Pattani States of Siam (now Thailand), adjacent portions of northern Malaysian 

states, including Terengganu and Kelantan (sites listed in Skeat 1901), then under Siamese 

sovereign. The acquired herpetological materials were studied by Frank Fortescue Laidlaw 

(1876–1963) (Laidlaw 1900, 1901a, 1901b), a student of Trinity College, Cambridge, who 

was to later become an authority of the Odonata. 

A second collection from the northern Malay Peninsula was made by Thomas Nelson Annandale 

(1876–1924), a student of Balliol College, Oxford, who was to later join the Indian Museum, 

and Herbert Christopher Robinson (1874–1929), who was appointed Curator of the Selangor 

Museum, between 1901 and 1902. Boulenger (1903) provided an extended account of the 

fauna in a special volume edited by Annandale and Robinson. In the species accounts were 

extensive ecological notes made by Annandale. New herpetological taxa described were named 

for the leaders of the expedition, include the rare rhacophorid, Rhacophorus robinsonii, for 

Robinson and Cyclemys annandalii (presently Heosemys annandalii), for Annandale. 

An important collector was Count Nils Gyldenstolpe (1886–1961), ‘Lord of the Bedchamber’ 

to King Gustav V of Sweden, who was primarily interested in ornithological taxonomy (see 

Curry-Lindahl 1961), but also made significant herpetological collections in Thailand (1911– 

1912) and the Malay Peninsula (1914–1915). His material were described by Einar Lönnberg 

(1865–1942), professor in charge of vertebrates at Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm, 

Sweden (Lonnberg 1916), his assistant, Lars Gabriel Andersson (1868-1951) Swedish zoologist 

and for a while, a member of staff of the Museum (Andersson 1916), and by Gyldenstolpe 

35


(1916) himself. One of Lonnberg’s species, Elachyglossa gyldenstolpei, named for the leader 

of the expedition, was recently included in the genus Limnonectes by Ohler and Dubois (1999). 

The German-born zoologist, Karl Richard Hanitsch (1860–1940), while primarily a specialist 

of the Blattidae, was hired as the Raffles Museum’s first Curator (1895–1919). During this 

time, apart from donations from expatriates, the herpetological collection grew through 

expeditions organised by Hanitsch. In 1898, Hanitsch prepared a catalogue of herpetofauna 

of the Malay Peninsula and archipelago. Formerly of the Sarawak Museum, Major John Coney 

Moulton (1886–1926), was to succeed Hanitsch as the second Director of the Raffles Museum 

(1919–1923). Also primarily interested in entomology (especially the Rhopalocera and the 

Cicadidae), Moulton collected locally, as well as in Borneo. Between 1923 and 1932, Cecil 

Boden Kloss (1877–1949) was Director of the Raffles Museum. Boden-Kloss, with Museum 

Curator, Frederick Nutter Chasen (1897–1942), conducted a joint expedition with the Federated 

Malay States Museum to Cameron Highlands in Peninsular Malaysia, in addition to collecting 

in Gunung Angsi in Negri Sembilan. In 1927, Smedley made herpetological collections on 

Pulau Aur and Pulau Tioman, islands off the east coast. In 1929, the Raffles Museum 

commenced publication of its journal, the Bulletin of the Raffles Museum, since renamed the 

Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, and now in its 54th volume. Some of the herpetological material 

acquired by local collectors and expatriates were made available to Malcolm Arthur Smith 

(1875–1958; obituary in Tenison 1959), physician at the Royal Court of Siam (see Smith 

1957), who published descriptions and faunal lists (Smith 1924, 1925c, 1935, 1940). 

Another famous Curator of the Raffles Museum was Michael Willmer Forbes Tweedie (1907– 

1993), who was Assistant Curator in 1932 and Curator between 1932 and 1941, and Director 

between 1946 and 1957 (biography in Ng 1995). While primarily a carcinologist, he published 

a number of valuable herpetological papers, including the book, The Snakes of Malaya, first 

published in 1953, with subsequent editions in 1954, 1957, 1961 and 1983. In the post World 

War II era, the Raffles Museum received material from Lim Boo Liat (from throughout 

Peninsular Malaysia), Hugh Alistair Reid (Penang) and E.N.W. Oliver (Bukit Larut). Reid 

(1913–1983) was associated with the Penang General Hospital, and made observations on sea 

snake poisoning, and in 1961, founded the Penang Institute of Snake and Venom Research 

(Hawgood 1998). 

In the decades before the closing of the last century, two substantial monographic inventories 

were published – those of Grandison (1972: reporting the Gunung Benom Expedition) and 

Dring (1979), presenting an inventory of Gunung Lawit in northern Terengganu). Lim Boo 

Liat (1926–), formerly with the Institute of Medical Research, Kuala Lumpur, and currently 

associated with the Department of Wildlife and National Parks, published extensively on the 

herpetofauna, especially snakes, covering locality inventories, food behaviour studies and 

captive behaviour including epidemiology of snake bites (e.g., Lim 1955; 1963b; 1967; Lim 

& Kamarudin 1975), produced a guide to the venomous snakes (Lim 1979, revised editions in 

1982 and 1991) and described two new species of the genus Macrocalamus (see Lim 1963a; 

Norsham & Lim 2003). 

A number of papers specific to amphibians of the region were published in the second half of 

the 20th Century, culminating in the book on the fauna by Berry (1975). At about the same 

period, a number of papers of systematic and ecological value, by a large number of local 

university and research institutes, noteworthy amongst these being inventories and the 

36


description of a number of new amphibian species by Kiew (1972; 1984a; 1984b; 1984c; 

1987); Yong’s (1977) rediscovery of Rhacophorus robinsoni in Peninsular Malaysia; Berry 

and Hendrickson’s (1963) description of Leptobrachium nigrops; sea snake inventories by 

Lim and Balasingam (1969); Hendrickson’s (1966) account of the herpetofauna of Pulau 

Tioman; Yong et al.’s (1988) report of direct development in the frog genus Philautus; Denzer 

& Manthey’s (1991) checklist of the lizards of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore, to mention 

a few. Toward the end of the decade, a fine introductory work to the fauna of southeast Asia 

was published by Manthey & Grossmann (1997). With German text and richly illustrated 

with colour photos, the volume has a comprehensive species listing covering Sundaland (the 

Malay Peninsula, Borneo, Sumatra, Java, Bali and associated islands), and descriptions of 

representatives from every genera of amphibians and reptiles. 

Ecological research on turtles has been conducted by a number of colleagues in Peninsular 

Malaysia. After the early observations on the natural history of the now endangered river 

terrapin, Batagur baska, by Khan (1964), intensive studies, involving radio telemetry, were 

conducted by Edward Owen Moll (1939–) of Eastern Illinois University (Moll 1980). The 

same worker also reported on natural history and exploitation of other non-marine turtles of 

West Malaysia (Dunson & Moll 1980; Moll 1976; 1978), and wrote a status paper on the 

estuarine and marine turtles of Peninsular Malaysia (Siow & Moll 1981). In the wake of Moll, 

studies on estuarine turtles, especially the painted terrapin, Callagur borneoensis, was 

conducted as part of a doctoral thesis by Dionysius Shankar Kumar Sharma, staff of World 

Wide Fund for Nature Malaysia—apart from internal reports, the results are not publicly 

available. A valuable report by Sharma (1999) is available on the trade in tortoises and 

freshwater turtles. Marine turtles of Peninsular Malaysia have been the subjects of intensive 

studies in comparison, primarily by Chan Eng Heng, Professor of Zoology at Kolej Universiti 

Sains dan Teknologi Malaysia. A number of scientific papers have resulted from these studies 

(Chan & Liew 1996); 1999; Liew & Chan 2002; Tan et al. 2000). 

Starting in 2001, Larry Lee Grismer (1955–) and collaborators, including the authors of this 

essay, inventoried the Seribuat Archipelago, including its most famous island, Pulau Tioman, 

producing island lists, new species descriptions and biogeographic analyses (Grismer 2005; 

Grismer et al. 2006; Grismer & Das 2005; Grismer et al. 2003; Grismer et al. 2004a; Grismer 

et al. 2004b; Grismer et al. 2004c; Grismer & Leong 2005; Grismer et al. 2002a; Grismer et 

al. 2002b; Diaz et al. 2004; Grismer et al. 2006; Youmans & Grismer 2006). These studies are 

on going, and have in recent years, been extended to the Malay Peninsula and Pulau Langkawi, 

on the west coast (Grismer et al. 2006). Other important works from this century include 

Vogel et al. (2004), who revised the pit vipers previously referred to Trimeresurus popeiorum 

(at present, Popeia popeiorum), recognising several species within the group, David & Pauwels 

(2004) and Norsham & Lim (2003), described new species of Macrocalamus. Another 

colleague who made important contributions to regional herpetology is Tzi-Ming Leong (1972– 

), formerly a graduate student with the National University of Singapore, and currently with 

Singapore National Parks, who published extensively on the herpetofauna of the Malay 

Peninsula and adjacent areas (e.g., Grismer & Leong 2005; Leong 2000; Leong & Grismer 

2004; Leong & Lim 2003b; Leong et al. 2003), and especially on amphibians and their larvae 

(e.g., Leong 2002; 2004; Leong & Lim 2003a; 2003c; Leong & Norsham 2002), as part of a 

recent doctoral thesis. Jeet Sukumaran (1971–), formerly with World Wide Fund for Nature- 

Malaysia and Universiti Malaya, and currently a graduate student at the University of Kansas, 

produced several site inventories (Sukumaran 2003; Sukumaran et al. 2006), an as yet 

37


unpublished thesis on amphibian distribution on Gunung Jerai, in addition to popular writing 

(Sukumaran 2002a; 2002b). He also maintains the website, Frogs of the Malay Peninsula (see 

Appendix III). 

The work of the present authors (Das, born 1964; Norsham, born 1972) in Peninsular Malaysia 

includes surveys of montane and other highland environments, which have resulted in the 

discovery of a number of species new to science (e.g., Das 2005; Das & Haas 2005a; Das & 

Norsham 2003; Das et al. 2004; Norsham 2003; Norsham & Abdul 2000). The collection of 

the Raffles Museum was also examined, and the discovery of new species resulted (Das & 

Lim 2000; Das & Lim 2001a), apart from the herpetological type catalogue of the collection 

(Das & Lim 2001b), all undertaken with the collaboration of its Curator, Kelvin Kok Peng 

Lim (1966–). 

Two recent works in popular format exist for the herpetofauna of Peninsular Malaysia: Chanard 

et al. (1999) published an innovative pictorial checklist for the area (including Thailand), 

updating the species list of both amphibians and reptiles. The field guide to the reptiles of the 

same region by Cox et al. (1998) covers the more common or interesting species. These help 

update the fauna, last treated to a monographic review by Boulenger (1912: A vertebrate 

fauna of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of Kra to Singapore including the adjacent 

islands. Reptilia and Batrachia), with an update by Smith (1930). 

Sarawak 

The earliest herpetological specimens from Borneo were collected during the voyage of H.M.S. 

Sulphur, commanded by Captain (later Admiral) Edward Belcher (1799–1877). An account 

of the voyage to the Far East was written by Belcher (1843), where he described the ship as 

weighing 380 tons and had a crew of 109 men. Materials from this expedition, organised 

primarily to suppress piracy in the Malay Archipelago and other parts of south-east Asia, are 

extant in The Natural History Museum, London include (species marked with asterisk were 

described as new based on this collection) Takydromus sexlineatus, Tropidophorus brookei, 

Mabuya multifasciata, Hemidactylus brookii*, Hemidactylus frenatus, Cosymbotus platyurus, 

Cnemaspis kendallii* and Gekko monarchus, Tropidolaemus wagleri (see Gray 1845). Also 

collected were Tarentola borneensis* and Euprepis belcheri*, at present synonymous with 

Mabuia delalandei Duméril & Bibron, 1839, both known to be endemic to Cape Verde Islands. 

Apart from these erroneous records, the Belcher collections indicated that only the lowland 

fauna was sampled. 

The first checklist of the herpetofauna of Borneo was compiled in 1848 by the Scottish botanist, 

Hugh Low (1824–1905), a self-described admirer of Rajah Brooke (see below) of Sarawak 

(biography in Cowan 1968) and author of a book on Sarawak at the time of the First Rajah 

Brooke (Low 1848), entitled, ‘Sarawak. Its inhabitants and productions being notes during a 

residence in that country with His Excellency Mr. Brooke’. It listed a mere 19 species of 

reptiles and three of amphibians (additional species were mentioned in the text itself, including 

unspecified “land tortoises” of two species and flying lizards). Some of the early zoological 

specimens in western museums originate from collections made by European residents of 

Sarawak. Lewis Llewellyn Dillwyn (1814–1892) and James Motley (1814–1892) wrote a 

book on the natural history of Labuan, an island off Borneo and now Federal Territory of 

Malaysia (Motley & Dillwyn 1855) and sent collections in 1864 to the British Museum (Natural 

38


History), London (now, The Natural History Museum, London), which, in 1872 and 1893– 

1894, purchased a collection made by Alfred Hart Everett (Günther 1872; Boulenger 1895a; 

1896a; 1906). 

Sarawak was a hive of activity, both scientific and ethnographic, at that time. Two other 

Europeans, the Italian nobleman Marquis Giacomo Doria of Genoa (1840–1913) and botanist 

Odoardo Beccari (1843–1920) landed on the shores of Borneo in June 1865. The latter was to 

become famous for his botanical collections (biographies in Cranbrook 1986; Saint 1987), 

remained till 1868, and made some significant collections of amphibians and reptiles (see 

Shelford 1905b). Beccari’s adventures were recounted in popular vein, initially in his native 

Italian (Beccari 1902), the work subsequently translated into English in 1904. The collections 

were described by Wilhelm Carl Hartwig Peters (1815–1883), of the Zoologisches Museum 

für Naturkunde, in Berlin (Peters 1861, 1862, 1871, 1872), and one in collaboration with 

Doria himself (Peters & Doria 1878). Another famous collector from the period was Alfred 

Russel Wallace (1823–1913), cofounder, with Charles Robert Darwin (1809–1882), of the 

theory of evolution through natural selection. Wallace’s collections on Borneo were along the 

Simunjan and Sadong Rivers of Sarawak (see Bastin 1986; field sites listed in Baker 2001). 

Apart from his herpetological collections (listed by Cranbrook et al. 2005), Wallace influenced 

the then Rajah of Sarawak, James Brooke (1803–1868) to establish the Sarawak Museum 

(Banks 1983; Leh 1993), in 1886. A recent biography of Wallace was authored by his great 

nephew, Wilson (2000), and Wallace himself had described his time in Sarawak and other 

parts of south-east Asia in his entertaining memoir, entitled ‘The Malay Archipelago: the land 

of the orangutan and the bird of paradise’ (Wallace 1869). 

A series of professional curators, hired from Europe, was behind the success of the Sarawak 

Museum. The results of their researches were to be published in the scientific organ of this 

institution, the Sarawak Museum Journal. The first Curator of the Museum was John E.A. 

Lewis, appointed in 1888 (Harrisson 1961a). He was succeeded by George Darby Haviland 

(1857–1901) who served between 1893 and 1895. Herpetological research by the first two 

Curators were restricted to collections. The first Curator to collect and publish extensively 

was Edward Bartlett (ca. 1836–1908; see Das 2000, for a biography), who was associated 

with the Museum, between 1895 and 1897. Among Bartlett’s largest work is a 24 page paper 

on the crocodiles and lizards of Borneo that were represented in the Sarawak Museum, including 

the description of eight new species of lizards (Bartlett 1895e). Additionally, he wrote a series 

of papers in The Sarawak Gazette, the monthly official gazette for the staff of the Sarawak 

Civil Service, on turtles and tortoises (1894a, 1895a, 1895b, 1896b), amphibians (1894b) and 

snakes (1895c, 1895d, 1896a, 1896c). These were reprinted in a book edited by Bartlett (1896d). 

In the late 19th Century, two officers in the pay of the Sarawak Civil Service, Charles Hose 

(1863–1929) and Alfred Hart Everett (1849–1898), made extensive zoological (and other) 

collections in Sarawak, that, via sale, made their way to European and American museums, to 

be described by curators there (e.g., Boulenger 1892; 1893; 1895a; 1895b; 1896a). Biographies 

and obituaries of Hose are in Nuttall (1927) and Durrans (1993), while those of Everett are in 

Anonymous (1898) and Sharpe (1898). 

Arguably, the most famous curator the Sarawak Museum had was Robert Walter Campbell 

Shelford (1872–1912; see Poulton 1916 for a biography), between 1898 and 1905. Although 

primarily interested in entomology, he wrote two taxonomic papers on herpetological subjects 

(Shelford 1901b; 1905a; 1906), as well as a checklist of the reptiles of Borneo (Shelford 

39


1901, with an addenda and corrigenda in 1902) and an incomplete account of his time in 

Sarawak (Shelford 1916), interrupted by his untimely death. A total of 212 species was listed 

as occurring (deleting erroneous records and including new reports in Shelford’s 1902 note), 

and localities were provided for the species listed. Shelford continued the tradition of sending 

specimens to the British Museum, which were worked on by Boulenger, who described new 

species, including Lygosoma shelfordi Boulenger (1900a) honouring its collector. 

Shelford was succeeded by John Coney Moulton (1886–1926), between 1908 and 1915. 

Although Moulton wrote no major herpetological papers during his time the Museum building 

was enlarged. Moulton was succeeded by Eric Georg Mjöberg (1882–1938, born Hallands 

Ian) for a couple of years (1922–1924). Nonetheless, his collections were from some of the 

remotest regions of Sarawak–Gunung Murud, Gunung Penrissen and Gunung Pueh, including 

the adjacent Gunung Beremput), and yielded many novelties, that were described by Smith 

(1925a; 1925b). Mjöberg wrote a popular account of his various expeditions in Borneo and 

Sumatra, originally in Swedish, entitled ‘Tropikermas villande urskogar’ (Mjöberg 1928). 

Mjöberg was succeeded by Edward Banks (1903–1988) in 1925, and his emphasis being on 

mammals, and apart from a 1931 paper on crocodiles and a 1937 paper on sea turtles, did not 

publish on herpetology. In the aftermath of World War II, in 1947, Tom Harnett Harrisson 

(1911–1976; obituaries and biographied in Smythies 1975; Medway 1976; Heimann 1997) 

was hired as Government Ethnologist and Curator of the Sarawak Museum. Apart from his 

ecclectic natural history and ethnographic interests, Harrisson wrote extensively on 

herpetological topics, notably a series of sea turtle papers in 18 parts in the Sarawak Museum 

Journal (Harrisson 1951; 1954; 1955; 1956a; 1956b; 1958a; 1958b; 1959; 1961b; 1962; 1963b; 

1964; 1965; 1966; 1967) and also, papers reporting the rediscovery of Lanthanotus borneensis 

were published in notes authored by his then wife, Barbara Brünig Harrisson née Guttler 

(1922–) and a colleague, Neville Seymour Haile (1928–2004) (B. Harrisson 1961, 1962); 

T. Harrisson 1963a; Harrisson & Haile 1961a; 1961b). Haile (1958) also published a checklist 

of the snakes of Borneo. Harrisson also made the first herpetological collection from the 

remote Kelabit Highlands of Sarawak, incidental to his work on mammals there, which was 

described by Tweedie (1949). 

Closer to the present time, several foreign contributors have dealt with the local herpetofauna 

(see below). During the Gunung Mulu Expedition in 1977–1978, organised by the Sarawak 

Government and the Royal Geographical Society, Julian Christopher Mark Dring (1951–) 

collected herpetofauna from this site, revising several amphibian groups and describing new 

species (e.g., Dring 1983a; 1983b; 1987). 

Sabah 

Known historically as British North Borneo during most of the Nineteenth Century, Sabah 

has had its fair share of explorers. Predictably, its highest mountain, Gunung Kinabalu, was 

subject to intense botanical and zoological interest. Between 1887 and 1888, John Whitehead 

(1860–1899), an ornithologist, organised expeditions to Gunung Kinabalu (described in his 

folio-format work entitled ‘The exploration of Mount Kina Balu’; Whitehead 1893). His 

herpetological specimens were donated to the British Museum (Natural History), London and 

the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, and were described, sometimes 

simultaneously, by Boulenger (1887b) at the former collection, and Mocquard (1890) at the 

40


latter. Mocquard’s paper presented an updated list of herpetofauna of Borneo, with 204 species, 

comprising 49 amphibians and 155 reptiles. 

Another noteworthy expedition to this mountain was led in 1899 by Karl Richard Hanitsch 

(1860–1940), of the Raffles Museum, Singapore. The expedition was described by Hanitsch 

(1900), and Boulenger in London identified the herpetological specimens, in the process 

describing Leptobrachium baluensis, Gecko rhacophorus (at present Ptychozoon rhacophorus), 

Stoliczkia borneensis and Oreocalamus hanitschi. Two field associates of the Raffles Museum 

in Singapore, Frederick Nutter Chasen (1897–1942) and Henry Maurice Pendlebury (?–1945) 

collected on Kinabalu between April and May 1929 (Pendlebury & Chasen 1932), making 

their herpetological material available to Malcolm Smith, who wrote an account based on a 

collection of some 600 specimens, that are mostly extant in the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity 

Research, National University of Singapore (Smith 1931a). Boden Kloss’s 1928 visit to Gunung 

Kinabalu was to select collecting stations for a survey of this mountainous area the following 

year, when the Kampung (= village) Kiau approach was taken. Consequently, it bears the 

label of a great many specimens, including a number of types. 

Malaysia 

Robert Frederick Inger (1920–) of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, has been 

the most famous of the living scholars of Bornean herpetology. His contributions include 

monographs on systematics, field guides, papers on systematics, ecology and biogeography 

(e.g., Inger 1954; 1956; 1957; 1958a; 1958b; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1989; Inger & Frogner 1980; 

Inger & Gritis 1983; Inger & Haile 1959; Inger & Leviton 1961; Inger & Stuebing 1989; 

1991; 1996); 1997; Inger et al. 1995; 1996); 2001; Inger & Tan 1996); Inger & Voris 2001), 

which continue to inspire the public, a most interesting tropical fauna. A second staff of the 

same institution, Harold Knight Voris (1940–), studied marine and freshwater snakes of the 

region, publishing ecological and taxonomic studies (e.g., Han et al. 1991; Voris 1964; 1985; 

Voris & Karns 1996). A collaborator of Inger and Voris is Robert Butler Stuebing (1946–) 

who conducted research on sea snakes and crocodilians (Engkamat et al. 1991; Stuebing 

1985; Stuebing et al. 1985; Stuebing & Voris 1990; Stuebing et al. 2006), and also produced 

important accounts of several sites, new species descriptions (Stuebing 1994; Stuebing & 

Wong 2000) and an updated checklist of the snakes of Borneo (Stuebing 1991, with an update 

in 1994), culminating in a field guide to the snakes of Borneo, coauthored with Inger (Stuebing 

& Inger 1999). He also made a passionate plea for the continuation of systematic research in 

the region, and pointed out the need for continuing with systematic collections (Stuebing 

1998). A number of Japanese colleagues have contributed to our knowledge of the Bornean 

herpetofauna. Foremost, for the study of the Amphibia, is Masafumi Matsui (1950–), who 

conducted field work in Sabah and Sarawak, describing new species as well as aspects of 

distribution and biology, especially acoustics (Matsui 1983; 1986; 1996); Matsui et al. 1985; 

1996). His co-workers published significant works on reptiles–Tsutomu Hikida (1951–) and 

Hidetoshi Ota (1959–) published a number of papers on the distribution, genetics and 

systematics of lizards (e.g., Hikida 1979; 1980; 1982; 1990; Ota & Hikida 1988; 1989; 1991; 

1996); Ota et al. 1989; 1990; 1991; 1992; 1996a; 1996b) The German contribution to the 

knowledge of Bornean herpetofauna have been significant, including the work of Rudolph 

Malkmus and Ulrich Manthey (1946–) throughout Borneo, and especially in Gunung Kinabalu, 

culminating in a volume on the herpetofauna of that massif (Malkmus et al. 2002). 

41


Marine turtles of Malaysian Borneo have received attention in recent times by several workers. 

Nicolas James Pilcher (1965–) published on the situation in Sarawak and Sabah (Pilcher & 

Basintal 2000; Pilcher et al. 2000; Pilcher & Ali 1999; 2000), besides co-editing a book on 

sea turtle biology and conservation (Pilcher & Ismail 2000). G. Stanley de Silva (?–) an early 

staff member of Sabah Parks, contributed a number of papers on marine turtles of Sabah, 

addressing conservation issues (de Silva 1969a; 1969b; 1971; 1978; 1980). Ritchie & Jong 

(1993) published a popular account of man-eating crocodiles of the Batang Lupar region of 

central Sarawak, which was recently updated (Ritchie & Jong 2002). 

A number of local herpetologists have commenced publication of research papers and notes, 

all useful for increasing our overall knowledge of the distribution and biology of a fascinating 

fauna, including Norhayati Ahmed (1968–) of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, who has 

published regional checklists and inventories (e.g., Norhayati et al. 2004; 2005a; 2005b). 

The work of the first author of this paper included the addition of a number of species to the 

Bornean fauna (e.g., Das & Bauer 1998; Das & Lim 2003) and of Peninsular Malaysia (e.g. 

Das & Lim 2000; Das & Norsham 2003), a historical account of herpetofaunal researches and 

explorations on Borneo (Das 2004b) and most recently, authored a book on the reptiles of 

Borneo (Das 2006). Collaboration with Alexander Haas (1964–) of Biozentrum Grindel und 

Zoologisches Museum, Universität Hamburg, on a project on the systematics and 

ecomorphology of amphibian larvae in Borneo is ongoing, and has resulted in several papers 

(e.g., Das & Haas 2005b; Haas et al. 2006). The second author contributed to the literature of 

Peninsular Malaysia, such as papers on distributional records, inventories and new species 

descriptions (e.g., Norsham & Abdul 2000; Norsham 2003; Norsham & Lim 2003). 

TRENDS IN RESEARCH 

Figures 1 and 2 present the rate of description of species of amphibians and reptiles known to 

occur in Malaysia to date. Analyses of the discoveries of the two groups are interesting. For 

amphibians, most new species were discovered in the 1890–1900s decade, coinciding with 

Boulenger, especially his British Museum catalogues, and also the various papers he wrote at 

the time based on material originating from the Malay Peninsula. Two other spikes are evident– 

the 1960–1970s and 1980–1990s decades, when a number of new species were described 

from Borneo by Inger and co-workers. A slump in species descriptions is evident thereafter. 

The most productive phase of discovery amongst the reptiles of Malaysia occurred in the 

1830–1840s decade. Major monographs were published at this time from the museums of 

Paris and London, based on materials received from Malaysia and elsewhere, important 

contributors being John Edward Gray (1800–1875), Hermann Schlegel (1804–1884), Theodore 

Edward Cantor (1809–1860), André-Marie-Constant Duméril (1774–1860), Auguste-Henri- 

André Duméril (1812–1870) and Gabriel Bibron (1806–1848). The description of a large 

number of species since the beginning of the 21st Century thus heralds a new age of discovery 

of an interesting fauna. 

The herpetofauna of Malaysia thus continues to be poorly known, as a result of incomplete 

sampling of the fauna. Much of the data available at present result from limited sampling done 

a century ago, and many species have not been collected since the original description. The 

42


40 


30 

20 

10 

0 

1760 1770 1780 1790 1800 1810 

1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 

Decade of description 

Fig. 1. Description of currently valid species of amphibians known from Malaysia, in 10 

years interval. 

50 

40 


30 

20 

10 

0 

1750 1760 1770 1780 1790 1800 1810 

1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 

Decade of description 

Fig. 2. Description of currently valid species of reptiles known from Malaysia, in 10 years 

interval. 

43


most recent compilation on the amphibian fauna of Peninsular Malaysia, that of Berry (1975), 

and of snakes by Tweedie (1983), are in need of revision, and carry no colour illustrations. 

There has been no modern synthesis of the rich lizard fauna, nor the crocodilians of Peninsular 

Malaysia. Lim & Das (1999) published a field guide to the turtles of Peninsular Malaysia (as 

well as Borneo). On the other hand, the herpetofauna of Borneo, is much better known, thanks 

to long-term researches conducted by Inger and his associates, resulting in field guides to 

anuran amphibians (Inger & Stuebing 1989; 1997 – reprinted 2005) and snakes (Stuebing & 

Inger 1999). A volume on lizards by the same publisher is available (Das 2004a), and most 

recently, a volume on the reptiles of the island (Das 2006). Given the relatively solid basis of 

systematics of the herpetofauna of Borneo (from where, nonetheless, new species continue to 

be described), an ecological and systematic comparison of the faunas of Peninsular Malaysia 

and Borneo is proposed. Because there have been little direct comparisons of the fauna of 

Peninsular Malaysia, with that of the much better known eastern part (Sarawak and Sabah in 

Borneo), several species at present thought to be conspecific are likely to be vicars or even 

possibly unrelated, as some research now underway with specific species complexes (e.g., 

Rana chalconota, Limnonectes macrodon, Fejervarya limnocharis, Cosymbotus platyurus 

and Ophiophagus hannah) suggest. Many of the new species discovered are cryptic species, 

which are very similar to known species, hence simply not recognised until a thorough revision 

of the entire group is undertaken, sometimes utilizing modern laboratory (including gene 

sequencing) and field (ecological and behavioural) methods. Hanken (1999) described the 

process of amphibian discovery in the recent past, attributing this to not only inventories of 

poorly known regions but also the use of genetic tools. Nonetheless, the new species discoveries 

for Malaysia are at present the result of relatively ‘coarse-screening’, suggesting that additional 

species that are taxonomically cryptic will be discovered in the future, with the use of DNA 

and other techniques. 

Cryptic species are frequently localized, some restricted to patches of forests a few dozen 

hectares in extent or to one or two adjacent hill streams, making their discovery difficult, 

unless a concerted effort is made to conduct an exhaustive inventory. Non-recognition of 

cryptic species is known to have lead to their extinction (Daugherty et al. 1990). Other species 

may show populations with disjunctions, and structured into well defined phylogenetic 

assemblages or metapopulations, some with significant genetic variants, all requiring careful 

consideration for identification and conservation (see Sites & Crandall 1997). Supplying names 

to these “hidden” species, thus, is the first step towards their universal recognition and protection 

(Longino 1993; Wheeler 1995). True, the recognition of cryptic species is increasing the 

conservation burden; it also emphasizes the importance of moving away from taxon-based 

conservation to that emphasizing protection of the environment at the level of landscapes and 

ecosystems (Lovich & Gibbons 1997; Das 2002). Despite this knowledge, systematic research 

in the country is rather limited, and systematic collection small and scattered. The most 

significant one in Sarawak, the Sarawak Museum, has a small type collection (Das & Leh 

2005), and none of historical significance exists elsewhere. New collections have now started 

in the Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong, by the second author, at Universiti 

Kebangsaan Malaysia and Universiti Malaya, in Kuala Lumpur, and in Sabah, at the campus 

of Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu (the Borneensis collection), the Sabah State 

Museum, also at Kota Kinabalu, and at the Sabah Parks, Gunung Kinabalu National Park 

Headquarters. 

44


CONSERVATION ISSUES AND THE FUTURE 

Human impact on the rainforests in Malaysia predates 600 years before present (Maloney 

1985). However, since the 1970s, large-scale conversion of forest areas for agricultural use 

has put great stress on the remaining tropical forests of the country (Aiken & Moss 1975; 

Appanah 1998). West Malaysia, on account of its peninsular geometry and faunal similarity 

to other large Sundaic islands, has an insular quality (Heaney 1991), potentially making species 

more vulnerable to extinction than in typical continental situations. The forests of Borneo are 

threatened primarily through conversion of forests to plantations and timber extraction (Primack 

& Hall 1992). 

As a megadiversity country, much of Malaysia’s biological diversity remains intimately 

associated with her tropical rainforests. However, regions of exceptional concentration of 

species within biodiversity hotspots are in montane regions, which are thus of great conservation 

importance in supporting species with small geographic ranges, including rare and endemic 

species. Other areas include poorly explored offshore islands, many of which continue to 

have unexplored biological diversity. Protection of small areas may be a relatively more efficient 

and cost-effective method for protecting regional biodiversity. A recent study in Amazonia, 

comparing collection-based data and those on qualitative study of regional biodiversity show 

little correspondence, emphasizing the need for more rigorous data collection and analysis to 

identify and subsequently protect biodiversity hotspot areas. 

Besides overt threats to the fauna, caused by changing land-use patterns and habitat destruction, 

faunal decline in other parts of the world has also been reported from causes not completely 

understood at present, and may stem from a combination of factors, including ozone layer 

depletion, infection by virulent microorganisms, use of organochlorine pesticides and herbicides 

and habitat fragmentation. Lack of data on abundance make estimates of levels of imperilment 

of the Malaysian herpetofauna impossible, and serious attempts to remedy this may be needed 

to understand factors that potentially threaten species and populations. This gap is suspected 

to be a serious impediment to the conservation and management of an important component 

of the country’s biodiversity. 

The use of amphibians and reptiles to understand human impact on the environment is an 

active area of study (review in Parent 1992; see also Bury et al. 1980), although there has been 

little work done in tropical Asia. The systematic basis of these researches is of fundamental 

importance, and much work has been conducted in adjacent regions, such as Thailand, and in 

other Asian countries, such as Singapore, India, Sri Lanka and most recently, Vietnam. The 

work in Sri Lanka is particularly significant, in leading to the increase of the amphibian fauna 

from 53 to over 250 species (Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi 1998; see also 

Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda 2005; Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi 2005). 

As many cryptic species have small ranges, non-detection of unique species has been linked 

to their extinctions (see Daugherty et al. 1990). 

Nearly 600 species of amphibians and reptiles have been recorded from Malaysia, although 

this fauna is unequally distributed. An important challenge is to identify, at various spatial 

scales, areas of exceptional concentrations of species, or so-called “hotspots” of biodiversity 

of the herpetofauna (sensu Myers 1988; 1990). Important montane regions that hold promise 

include the Titiwangsa (or Main) Range of Peninsular Malaysia, that comprises Gunung Noring 

45


(1,889 m), Gunung Chamah (2,171 m), Gunung Batu Putih (2,132 m), Cameron Highlands 

(1628 m) and Fraser’s Hill (1,524 m), besides limestone areas of Gua Musang, Kelantan and 

the Kinta Valley area, Perak. Within Borneo, important montane regions requiring additional 

work include Gunung Mulu (2,377 m), Gunung Murud (2,423 m), Gunung Kinabalu (4,101 

m) and Gunung Dulit (1,311 m). Specific ecological habitats inadequately sampled include 

peat swamps and kerangas. 

One of the main goals of these studies should be to develop aid to the identification of the 

fauna, leading to a comprehensive (i.e., covering all nominal species and subspecies) 

monographs, field keys and field guides for the identification of amphibians and reptiles of 

Malaysia. Field guides are important in promoting conservation awareness and action, assisting 

capacity building, supporting environmental assessments (such as monitoring and evaluation) 

of development projects, encouraging ecotourism, building biodiversity databases, land-use 

planning through GIS applications and the production of regional and international Red Data 

Books of Threatened Species (Whitten 1996). 

Contemporary conservation programmes derive substantial inputs from scientific databases 

on the distribution, ecology and systematics of regional biodiversity. Identification of hotspots, 

be these centres of high diversity or endemicity is critical for reserve selection and design 

(Lovich 1994), helping focus scarce conservation money on the areas with the highest priority. 

Myers (1988, 1990), utilizing plants as indicators, identified 18 areas of the Earth that support 

species disproportionately high for their combined area. Fortuitously, there is a concordence 

with the distribution of other taxa as well, and at least 19% of the world’s herpetofauna are 

found in Myers’ hotspots (Mittermeier et al. 1992). Biodiversity awareness is generating an 

increasing demand for basic information which systematics can provide (see Kottelat 1995). 

A priority of the systematist, in the face of rapid loss of habitats, has become the development 

of identification tools, critical for promoting environmental awareness and conservation, 

supporting environmental impact analyses and for other biodiversity studies. 

The information base for amphibian and reptile systematics, taxonomy and field identification 

for Peninsular Malaysia continues to be the work of Boulenger (1912), with a substantial 

supplement by Smith (1930). The amphibian fauna of Borneo is somewhat better, with field 

guides available for the turtles, frogs and snakes (e.g., Inger 1966; Inger & Stuebing 1997; 

Stuebing & Inger 1999; Lim & Das 1999). Nonetheless, most of the field guides are not 

comprehensive in coverage. Several factors are responsible–the discovery of new species, 

reallocation of species to genera other than the ones originally allocated to, and in some 

instances, to different families, the synonymy of some names and the revival from synonymy 

of others, in addition to new distributional and natural history information. Monographs 

prepared in the early part of the last century contain terse descriptions, that would equally fit 

several closely related species (or “shoe-horning”), thereby potentially causing serious 

underestimation of biodiversity if assessments are made using these resources. Additionally, 

neither of the works mentioned carry colour photographs, often critical for field identification. 

Work conducted regionally, including in adjacent countries, has lead to a dramatic increase in 

the local fauna. For instance, fieldwork conducted in recent years in Vietnam has increased 

the number of known species of anuran amphibians by 40 species (N. B. Ananjeva, pers. 

comm. 1999). 

We conclude by emphasizing the importance of basic sciences for both conservation biology 

and biotechnology. Herpetology as an integral part of biodiversity science needs to be 

46


incorporated into the curricula of local schools and universities, in which students are exposed 

to the essentials of systematics, ecology, genetics, biogeography, anatomy and morphology, 

in training in field studies, acquisition and curation of biological specimens. And above all, 

what is needed is an encouragement of the appreciation of the great outdoors. 

We summarise the primary activities for enhancing herpetological conservation as discussed 

above: 

• Continue herpetofaunal inventories, particularly in species-rich zones and ecosystems, 

such as montane regions, lowland rainforests and offshore islands; 

• Examine anthropogenic effects on the herpetofauna, including the role of land-use patterns, 

habitat fragmentation and destruction, use of organochlorine pesticides and herbicides; 

• Establish and support systematic research, in addition to research on ecology, conservation 

biology, genetics, and related topics; 

• Develop identification resources tools, such as monographs, field keys and field guides 

to the fauna; 

• Promote local capacity building; 

• Prioritize conservation action, through regional Red Data Books, etc; 

• Promote conservation efforts that focus on the herpetofauna; and 

• Include herpetology and herpetological field techniques in the curricula of local schools 

and universities. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We dedicate this paper to Lim Boo Liat, who supported our early efforts to study the Malaysian 

herpetofauna, and continue to encourage and guide us. In the field, we received assistance and 

advice from a large number of friends, Datuk Chan Chew Lun, Lord Cranbrook, L. Lee Grismer, 

Alexander Haas, Robert F. Inger, Alexander Haas, Maklarin Lakim, Tzi-Ming Leong, Kelvin 

K. P. Lim, Peter K. L. Ng, Robert B. Stuebing, Jeet Sukumaran, Tan Heok Hui, Paul Yambun 

and Dennis Yong. 

We are also thankful to the following additional colleagues for various courtesies: Aaron 

Matthew Bauer, Villanova University, Villanova; Chris Austin, Lousiana, Lousiana State 

University, Baton Rouge; Colin John McCarthy and David Gower, The Natural History 

Museum, London; Robert Frederick Inger and Harold Knight Voris, Field Museum of Natural 

History, Chicago; the late Ernst Williams, Jim Hanken, José Rosado and Van Wallach, Museum 

of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, MA; Patrick David and Ivan Ineich, Muséum National 

d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris; Marinus Charles Hoogmoed, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, 

Leiden; Ulrich Manthey, Society for Southeast Asian Herpetology, Berlin; Charles Leh Moi 

Ung, Sarawak Museum, Kuching; Kelvin Kok Peng Lim, Tan Heok Hui and Peter Kee Lin 

Ng, Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, National University of Singapore; Ronald Ian 

Crombie and George Robert Zug, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C.; and Miguel Vences and Leobertus van Tuijl, Zoological Museum, 

Amsterdam. 

Our researches on the herpetofauna of Malaysia as well as manuscript preparation were 

supported by grants from Universiti Malaysia Sarawak and Forest Research Institute Malaysia. 

Finally, we are grateful to Kraig Adler, Aaron Bauer, Patrick David, Genevieve V. A. Gee, 

Lim Boo Liat and Robert Stuebing for reading and commenting on the manuscript. 

47


REFERENCES 

AIKEN, S.R. & MOSS, M.R. 1975. Man’s impact on the tropical rainforest of Peninsular 

Malaysia: a review. Biological Conservation 8: 213–229. 

AMBU, S., KRISHNANSAMY, M., DE WITT, G. F., RAHMAN, A. & HALIM, S. 1982. 

Study of helminthic infection of some snakes in northern Peninsular Malaysia. Pp. 1–4 in 

Proceeding of IUCN/SSC snake group, First Meeting. 8–12 November 1982. 

APPANAH, S. 1998. Forest management. Pp. 94–95 in S. Sani (ed.) The Encyclopedia of 

Malaysia. Volume 1. The environment. Archipelago Press, Singapore. 

ANDERSSON, L. 1916. Zoological results of the Swedish zoological expeditions to Siam 

1911–12 and 1914. 3. Batrachians. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 

4 (3–4): 13–17. 

ANONYMOUS. 1898. Death of Mr. Alfred Hart Everett. Sarawak Gazette July 1898: 136– 

137. 

ANONYMOUS. 1983. Cobra meat in demand. Malayan Naturalist 37(2): 11. 

BANKS, E. 1931. Some measurements of the estuary crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) from 

Sarawak. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 33: 1086–1088. 

BANKS, E. 1937. The breeding of the edible turtle (Chelonia mydas). Sarawak Museum 

Journal 4: 523–532. 

BANKS, E. 1983. Reminiscence of a Curator. Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 32: 59– 

60. 

BARTLETT, E. 1894a. Notes on the chelonians: tortoises and turtles, found in Borneo and the 

adjacent islands. Sarawak Gazette 24: 187–188. 

BARTLETT, E. 1894b. Notes on the batrachians, or frogs and toads of Borneo and the adjacent 

islands. Sarawak Gazette 24: 202–204. 

BARTLETT, E. 1895a. Notes on tortoises. No. 2. Sarawak Gazette 25: 29–30. 

BARTLETT, E. 1895b. Notes on tortoises. No. 3. Sarawak Gazette 25: 83–84. 

BARTLETT, E. 1895c. Notes on the snakes of Borneo and the adjacent islands. Sarawak 

Gazette 25: 160–162. 

BARTLETT, E. 1895d. Notes on the snakes of Borneo and the adjacent islands. Part II. Sarawak 

Gazette 25: 182–184. 

BARTLETT, E. 1895e. The crocodiles and lizards of Borneo in the Sarawak Museum, with 

descriptions of supposed new species, and the variation of colours in the several species 

during life. Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 1895(28): 73–96. 

BARTLETT, E. 1896a. Notes on the snakes of Borneo and the adjacent islands. Part III. 

Sarawak Gazette 26: 153–157. 

BARTLETT, E. 1896b. Notes on tortoises. No. 4. Sarawak Gazette 26: 113. 

BARTLETT, E. 1896c. Notes on the snakes. Part IV. Sarawak Gazette 26: 241. 

BARTLETT, E. 1896d. The ethnological, zoological, and botanical note book of Sarawak. 

Domingo J. J. Rodrigues.for Government Printer, Kuching. 238 pp. 

BASTIN, J. 1986. Introduction. In: The Malay Archipelago. The land of the orang-utan and 

the bird of paradise. pp:vii–xxvii. A. R. Wallace (author). Oxford University Press, Kuala 

Lumpur. 

BAKER, D.B. 2001. Alfred Russel Wallace’s record of his consignments to Samuel Stevens, 

1854–1861. Zoologisches Mededelingen 75(16): 251–341. 

BECCARI, O. 1902. Nelle foreste di Borneo: viaggi e ricerche di un naturalista. Tipografia 

di Salvador Landi, Firenze. xvi + 667 pp, 13 pls., 4 maps. (Reprinted 1921, Fratelli Alinari 

Societá Anonima, Instituto di Edizioni Artistische, Firenze. xvi + 469 pp, 70 pls.; English 

48


translation by E. H. Gigliolo, edited by F. H. H. Guillemard, 1904, Wanderings in the 

great forests of Borneo. Travels and researches of a naturalist in Sarawak. Archibald 

Constable & Co. Ltd., London. vxxiv + 424. Reprinted, 1986, 1989, Oxford University 

Press, Singapore). 

BELCHER, E. 1843. Narrative of a voyage round the world, performed in Her Majesty’s ship 

Sulphur, during the years 1836–1841, including details of the naval operations in China, 

from December 1840 to November 1841. 2 volumes. Henry Colburn, London. 

BERRY, P.Y. 1975. The amphibian fauna of Peninsular Malaysia. Tropical Press, Kuala 

Lumpur. 

BERRY, P.Y. & HENDRICKSON, J.R. 1963. Leptobrachium nigrops, a new pelobatid frog 

from the Malay Peninsula, with remarks on the genus Leptobrachium in southeast Asia. 

Copeia 1963(4): 643–648. 

BHANOTAR, R.K. & BHATNAGAR, R.K. 1976. Reptile predators of the desert locust. 

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 73: 311–313. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1882. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia s. Ecaudata in the collection 

of the British Museum. Taylor & Francis, London. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1887a. On new batrachians from Malacca. Annals and Magazine of 

Natural History Series 5, 19: 345–348. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1887b. On new reptiles and batrachians from North Borneo. Annals and 

Magazine of Natural History, Series 5, 20: 95–97. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1891. Remarks on the herpetological fauna of Mount Kina Baloo, North 

Borneo. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (6)7: 341–345. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1892. An account of the reptiles and batrachians collected by Mr. C. 

Hose on Mt. Dulit, Borneo. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1892: 505– 

508. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1893. Descriptions of new reptiles and batrachians obtained in Borneo 

by Mr. A. Everett and Mr. C. Hose. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 

1893: 522–528. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1895a. Descriptions of two new snakes of the genus Calamaria. Annals 

and Magazine of Natural History (6)16: 481. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1895b. Descriptions of four new batrachians discovered by Mr. Charles 

Hose in Borneo. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (6)16: 169–171. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1896a. Descriptions of two new batrachians obtained by Mr. A. Everett 

on Mount Kina Balu, North Borneo. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (6)17: 

449–450. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1896b. On a new gecko from Penang. Proceedings of the Zoological 

Society of London 1896: 767–768. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1899. Descriptions of three new reptiles and a new batrachian from 

Mount Kina Balu, North Borneo. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (7)4: 451– 

454. 

BOULENGER, G.A, 1900a. Descriptions of new reptiles and batrachians from Borneo. 

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1900: 182–187. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1900b. Descriptions of new batrachians and reptiles from the Larut 

Hills, Perak. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (32)6: 186–193. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1900c. Descriptions of two new lizards from Selangor. Journal of the 

Bombay Natural History Society 13: 333–334. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1900d. Descriptions of a new lizard from Batu Caves, Selangor. Journal 

of the Bombay Natural History Society 13: 335. 

49


BOULENGER, G.A. 1903. Report on the batrachians and reptiles. Pp. 131–176 in Fasciculii 

Malayenses. Anthropological and zoological results of an expedition to Perak and the 

Siamese Malay States 1901–1902, undertaken by Nelson Annandale and Herbert C. 

Robinson. Vol. 1. Zoology. University Press, Liverpool. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1905. Descriptions of a new frog of the genus Ixalus from Selangor. 

Journal of the Federated Malay States Museum 2(1): 1. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1906. Reptiles and batrachians. Pp. 517–531 in The history of the 

collections contained in the Natural History Departments of the British Museum. Vol. II. 

Separate historical accounts of the several collections included in the Departments of 

Zoology. British Museum, London. 

BOULENGER, G.A. 1912. A vertebrate fauna of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of 

Kra to Singapore including the adjacent islands. Reptilia and Batrachia. Taylor & Francis, 

London. xiii + 294 pp. 

BURKILL, I.H. 1927. Botanical collectors, collections and collecting places in the Malay 

Peninsula. A review of the work so far done towards a knowledge of the plant-geography 

of Malaya. The Gardens’ Bulletin 4(4&5): 112–202. 

BURTON, T.M. & LIKENS, G.E. 1975. Salamander populations and biomass in the Hubbard 

Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Copeia 1975: 541–546. 

BURY, R.B.,CAMPBELL, H.W. & SCOTT, N.J. 1980. Role and importance of nongame 

wildlife. Transactions of the North American Wildlife & Natural Resources Conference 

45: 197–207. 

BUTLER, A.L. 1902. On recent additions to the batrachian fauna of the Malay Peninsula. 

Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1902(2): 188–190. 

BUTLER, A.L. 1904. A list of the batrachians known to inhabit the Malay Peninsula, with 

some remarks on their habits, distribution, & c. Journal of the Bombay Natural History 

Society 15: 193–205 and 387–402. 

CANTOR, T.E. 1847. Catalogue of reptiles inhabiting the Malayan Peninsula and islands, 

collected or observed by Theodore Cantor, Esq., M.D. Bengal Medical Service. Journal 

of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 16: 607–656, 897–952, 1026–1078. (Reprinted 1966, 

A.Asher, Amsterdam, and 1981, as T.H. Canton, Catalogue of reptiles inhabiting the 

Asian continent. Cosmo Publications, New Delhi.) 

CHAN, E.H. & LIEW, H.C. 1996). Decline of the leatherback population in Terengganu, 

Malaysia, 1956–1995. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2): 196–203. 

CHAN, E.H. & LIEW, H.C. 1999. Hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys imbricata nesting on Redang 

Island, Terengganu, Malaysia from 1993 to 1997. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 

3(2): 326–329. 

CHAN-ARD, T., GROSSMANN, W., GUMPRECHT, A. & SCHULZ, K.D. 1999. Amphibians 

and reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia and Thailand: an illustrated checklist. Bushmaster 

Publications, Würselen. 240 pp. 

CLAWSON, M.E., BASKETT, T.S. & ARMBRUSTER, M.J. 1984. An approach to habitat 

modeling for herpetofauna. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12: 61–69. 

COWAN, C.F. 1968. Sir Hugh Low, G.C.M.G. (1824–1905). Journal of the Society for the 

Bibliography of Natural History 4(7): 327–343. 

COX, M.J., VAN DIJK, P.P., NABHITABHATA, J. & THIRAKHUPT, K. 1998. A photographic 

guide to snakes and other reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New 

Holland Publishers (UK) Ltd., London. 144 pp. 

CRANBROOK, LORD. 1986. Introduction. Pp. v–ix in O. Beccari (author) Wanderings in 

the great forests of Borneo. Reprinted 1993. Oxford University Press, Singapore, Oxford 

and New York. 

50


CRANBROOK, EARL OF, HILLS, D.M., McCARTHY, C.J. & PRvS-JONES, R. 2005. 

A.R. Wallace, collector: Tracing his vertebrate specimens. Part I. Pp. 8–34 in Tuen, A.A. 

& Das, I. (eds) Wallace in Sarawak – 150 years later. An International Conference on 

Biogeography and Biodiversity. Institute of Biodiversity & Environmental Conservation, 

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan. 

CURRY-LINDAHL, K. 1961. Obituary. Nils Gyldenstolpe. Ibis 103: 627. 

DALY, J.W., KANEKO, T., WILHAM, J., GARRAFFO, H.M., SPANDE, T.S., ESPINOSA, 

A. & DONNELLY, M.A. 2002. Bioactive alkaloids of frog skin: combinatorial 

bioprospecting reveals that pumiliotoxins have an arthropod source. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 99(22): 13996–14001. 

DAS, I. 2000. Herpetological contributions of Edward Bartlett (ca. 1836–1908), pioneering 

herpetologist in Borneo. Newsletter and Bulletin of the International Society for the History 

and Bibliography of Herpetology 2(1): 17–19. 

DAS, I. 2002. Amphibians of the Indo–Pacific region: conservation of neglected biodiversity. 

Pp. 47–49 in Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Olson, D.M., Morrisson, J., 

Lamoreux, J., McKnight, M. & Hedao, P. (eds) Terrestrial ecoregions of the Indo–Pacific. 

A conservation assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

DAS, I. 2004a. A pocket guide: Lizards of Borneo. Natural History Publications (Borneo), 

Kota Kinabalu. 

DAS, I. 2004b. Collecting in the “Land below the Wind”: herpetological explorations of Borneo. 

In: Herpetological expeditions and voyages. A. M. Bauer (ed.). Bonner Zoologische 

Beiträge 52(2): 231–243. 

DAS, I. 2005. A new species of Polypedates (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Gunung 

Murud, Sarawak (Borneo). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 53(2): 265–270. 

DAS, I. 2006. A photographic guide to the snakes and other reptiles of Borneo. New Holland 

Publishers (UK), Ltd., London. 144 pp. 

DAS, I. & BAUER, A.M. 1998. Systematics and biogeography of Bornean geckos of the 

genus Cnemaspis Strauch, 1887 (Sauria: Gekkonidae), with the description of a new 

species. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 46(1): 11–28. 

DAS, I. & GRISMER, L.L. 2003. Two new species of Cnemaspis Strauch, 1887 (Sauria: 

Gekkonidae) from the Seribuat Archipelago, Pahang and Johor States, West Malaysia. 

Herpetologica 59(4): 546–554. 

DAS, I. & HAAS, A. 2003. A new species of Kalophrynus (Anura: Microhylidae) from the 

highlands of north-central Borneo. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 51(1): 109–113. 

DAS, I. & HAAS, A. 2005a. A new species of Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from 

Gunung Gading, Sarawak. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 53(2): 257–263. 

DAS, I. & HAAS, A. 2005b. Sources of larval identities for amphibians from Borneo. 

Herpetological Review 36(4): 375–382. 

DAS, I. & LEH, C. 2005. A legacy of Wallace: Sarawak Museum and the history of 

herpetological research in Sarawak. Pp 57–65 in Tuen, A.A. & Das, I. (eds) Wallace in 

Sarawak – 150 years later. Proceedings of an International Conference on Biogeography 

and Biodiversity. Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation, Universiti 

Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan. 

DAS, I. & LIM, L.J. 2000. A new species of Cyrtodactylus (Sauria: Gekkonidae) from Pulau 

Tioman, Malaysia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 48(2): 223–231. 

DAS, I. & LIM, K.K.P. 2001a. A new Bufo (Anura: Bufonidae) from the peat swamps of 

Selangor, West Malaysia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 49(1): 1–6. 

51


DAS, I. & LIM, K.K.P. 2001b. Catalogue of herpetological types in the collection of the 

Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, National University of Singapore. Raffles 

Bulletin of Zoology 49(1): 7–11. 

DAS, I. & LIM, K.K.P. 2003. Two new species of Dibamus (Squamata: Dibamidae) from 

Borneo. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 51(1): 137–141. 

DAS, I. & NORSHAM, Y. 2003. A new species of Dibamus (Squamata: Dibamidae) from 

Peninsular Malaysia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 51(1): 143–147. 

DAS, I., NORSHAM, Y. & LIM, B.L. 2004. A new species of Calluella Stoliczka, 1872 

(Anura: Microhylidae) from Taman Negara, Pahang State, Peninsular Malaysia. Raffles 


DAUGHERTY, C.H., CREE, A., HAY, J.M. & THOMPSON, M.B. 1990. Neglected taxonomy 

and continuing extinctions of tuatara (Sphenodon). Nature 347: 177–179. 

DAVENPORT, J., WONG, T.M. & EAST, J. 1992. Feeding and digestion in the omnivorous 

estuarine turtle Batagur baska (Gray). Herpetological Journal 2: 133–139. 

DAVID, P. & PAUWELS, O.S.G. 2004. A re-evaluation of the taxonomy of Macrocalamus 

lateralis Günther, 1864 (Serpentes, Colubridae), with the description of two new species. 

Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 52(2): 635–645. 

DENZER, W. & MANTHEY, U. 1991. A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting Peninsular 

Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 39(2): 309–322. 

DE SILVA, G.S. 1969a. Turtle conservation in Sabah. Sabah Society Journal 5: 6–26. 

DE SILVA, G.S. 1969. Marine turtle conservation in Sabah. Annual Report of the Research 

Board Forest Department, Sabah. Pp. 124–135. 

DE SILVA, G.S. 1971. Marine turtles in the State of Sabah, Malaysia. IUCN New Series, 

Supplement Paper 31: 47–52. 

DE SILVA, G.S. 1978. Turtle notes (sightings of Dermochelys in Sabah waters). Borneo 

Research Bulletin 10(1): 23–24. 

DE SILVA, G.S. 1980. The status of sea turtle populations in East Malaysia and the South 

China Sea. Pp. 327–337 in Bjorndal, K.A. (ed.) Biology and conservation of sea turtles. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

DIAZ, R.E., LEONG, T.M., GRISMER, L.L. & NORSHAM, Y. 2004. A new species of 

Dibamus (Squamata: Dibamidae) from West Malaysia. Asiatic Herpetological Research 

10: 1–7. 

DRING, J.C.M. 1979. Amphibians and reptiles from northern Trengganu, Malaysia, with 

descriptions of two new geckos: Cnemaspis and Cyrtodactylus. Bulletin of the British 

Museum of Natural History (Zoology) 34: 181–241. 

DRING, J.C.M. 1983a. Some frogs from Sarawak. Amphibia-Reptilia 4: 103–115. 

DRING, J.C.M. 1983b. Frogs of the genus Leptobrachella (Pelobatidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 

4: 89–102. 

DRING, J.C.M. 1987. Bornean treefrogs of the genus Philautus (Rhacophoridae). Amphibia- 

Reptilia 8: 19–47. 

DUNSON, W.A. & MOLL, E.O. 1980. Osmoregulation in sea water of hatchling emydid 

turtles, Callagur borneoensis, from a Malaysian sea beach. Journal of Herpetology 14(1): 

31–36. 

DURRANS, B. 1993. Introduction. In: The pagan tribes of Borneo. Volume One. pp: viii–xli. 

C. Hose & W. McDougall (authors). Oxford University Press, Singapore. (Reprint of the 

original 1912 edition). 

ENGKAMAT, L.A., STUEBING, R.B. & VORIS, H.K. 1991. A population size estimate of 

the yellow-lipped sea krait, Laticauda colubrina, on Kalampunian Damit Island, Sabah, 

Malaysia. Copeia 1991(4): 1139–1142. 

52


ERNST, C.H., LOVICH, J.E. & BARBOUR, R.W. 1994. Turtles of the United States and 

Canada. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 578 pp. 

ESQUE, T.C. & PETERS, E.L. 1994. Ingestion of bones, stones, and soil by desert tortoises. 

Pp. 105–111 in Bury, R.B & Germano, D.J. (eds.) Biology of North American tortoises. 

USDI National Biological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

FACHIN-TERÁN, A., VOGT, R.C. & GOMEZ, M.D.S. 1995. Food habits of an assemblage 

of five species of turtles in the Rio Guapore, Rondonia, Brazil. Journal of Herpetology 

29: 536–547. 

FIALHO, R.F. 1990. Seed dispersal by a lizard and a treefrog—effect of dispersal site on seed 

survivorship. Biotropica 22: 423–424. 

FLOWER, S.S. 1896. Notes on a collection of reptiles and batrachian made in the Malay 

Peninsula in 1895–96, with a list of the species recorded from that region. Proc. Zool. 

Soc. London 1896: 856–914. 

FLOWER, S.S. 1899. Notes on a second collection of batrachians made in the Malay Peninsula 

and Siam, from November 1896 to September 1898, with a list of the species recorded 

from those countries. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1899: 600–697. 

FURBANK, M. 1996). Road kill predation by the long-necked turtle Chelodina longicollis 

(Shaw). Herpetofauna 26(1): 49–50. 

GANS, C. 1994. Frogs and paddy: Problems of management. Journal of the Bombay Natural 

History Society 91: 29–36. 

GRANDISON, A.G.C. 1972. The Gunong Benom Expedition 1967. 5. Reptiles and amphibians 

of Gunong Benom with a description of a new species of Macrocalamus. Bulletin of the 

British Museum (Natural History) Zoology 23(4): 45–101. 

GRAY, J.E. 1845. Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the collection of the British Museum. 

British Museum (Natural History), London. xxviii + 289 pp. 

GRISMER, L.L. 2005. Tioman Archipelago. Evolution’s laboratory. Malaysian Naturalist 

59(2): 12–23. 

GRISMER, J.L., GRISMER, L.L., DAS, I., NORSHAM, Y., LIM, B.L., LEONG, T.M., 

YOUMANS, T.Y. & KAISER, H. 2004c. Species diversity and a checklist of the 

herpetofauna of Pulau Tioman, Peninsular Malaysia, with a preliminary overview of habitat 

utilisation. Asiatic Herpetological Research 10: 247–279. 

GRISMER, J.L., LEONG, T.M. & NORSHAM, Y. 2003. Two new southeast Asian skinks of 

the genus Larutia and intrageneric phylogenetic relationships. Herpetologica 59(4): 552– 

564. 

GRISMER, L.L. 2006. Two new species of skinks (genus Sphenomorphus Fitzinger 1843) 

from the Seribuat Archipelago, West Malaysia. Herpetological Natural History 9(2): 151– 

162. 

GRISMER, L.L. & DAS, I. 2005. A new species of gekkonid lizard of the genus Cnemaspis 

Strauch, 1887 from Pulau Pemanggil, Johor, West Malaysia. Herpetological Natural 

History 10(1): 1–7. 

GRISMER, L.L., DAS, I. & LEONG, T.M. 2003. A new species of Gongylosoma (Squamata: 

Colubridae) from Pulau Tioman, West Malaysia. Herpetologica 59(4): 567–574. 

GRISMER, L.L., GRISMER, J.L. & YOUMANS, T.M. 2004a. A new species of Leptolalax 

(Anura: Megophryidae) from Pulau Tioman, West Malaysia. Asiatic Herpetological 

Research 10: 8–11. 

GRISMER, L.L., KAISER, H. & NORSHAM, Y. 2004b. A new species of reed snake of the 

genus Calamaria H. Boie, 1827, from Pulau Tioman, Pahang, West Malaysia. Hamadryad 

28(1 & 2): 1–6. 

53


GRISMER, L.L. & LEONG, T.M. 2005. New species of Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) 

from southern Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Herpetology 39(4): 584–591. 

GRISMER, L.L., NORSHAM, Y., LIM, L.B., LEONG, T.M., DAS, I., SOSA, R.A., GRISMER, 

J.L., CRANE, K.M., DIAZ, R.E., FIGUEROA, S.V., LEDBETTER, C.A., NEWBOLD, 

S.C., NEWBOLD, S.R., PATEL, C.P., CASTRO, J., ESCOBAR, III, R.A., GUERRERO, 

S., PINEDO, J.W., TRUJILLO, J.D. & KAISER, H. 2002a. First report on the herpetofauna 

of Pulau Aur, Johor, West Malaysia. Hamadryad 26(2): 350–353. 

GRISMER, L.L., NORSHAM, Y., LIM, L.B., LEONG, T.M., DAS, I., SOSA, R.A., GRISMER, 

J.L., CRANE, K.M., DIAZ, R.E., FIGUEROA, S.V., LEDBETTER, C.A., NEWBOLD, 

S.C., NEWBOLD, S.R., PATEL, C.P., CASTRO, J., ESCOBAR, III, R.A., GUERRERO, 

S., PINEDO, J.W., JONES, P.A. & KAISER, H. 2002b. Report on the herpetofauna of 

Pulau Tulai, Malaysia. Hamadryad 26(2): 369–371. 

GRISMER, L.L., YOUMANS, T.M., WOOD, P.L., JR. & GRISMER, J.L. 2006. Checklist of 

the herpetofauna of the Seribuat Archipelago, West Malaysia with comments on 

biogeography, natural history, and adaptive types. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 54(1): 157– 

180. 

GRISMER, L.L., YOUMANS, T.M., WOOD, P.L., JR., PONCE, A., WRIGHT, S.B., JONES, 

B.S., JOHNSON, R., SANDERS, K.L., GOWER, D.J., NORSHAM, Y. & LIM, K.K.P. 

2006. Checklist of the herpetofauna of Pulau Langkawi, Malaysia, with comments on 

taxonomy. Hamadryad 30(1&2): 58–71. 

GÜNTHER, A.C.L. 1872. On the reptiles and amphibians of Borneo. Proceedings of the 

Zoological Society of London 1872: 586–600. 

GYLDENSTOLPE, N. 1916. Zoological results of the Swedish Zoological Expeditions to 

Siam, 1911–1912 and 1914–1915.– II. Snakes. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens 

Handlingar 55(3): 1–28. 

HAAS, A., HERTWEG, S. & DAS, I. 2006. Extreme tadpoles: the morphology of the fossorial 

megophryid larva, Leptobrachella mjobergi. Zoology 109(1): 26–42. 

HAILE, N.S. 1958. The snakes of Borneo, with a key to the species. Sarawak Museum Journal, 

New Series 8: 743–771. 

HAN, K.H., STUEBING, R.B. & VORIS, H.K. 1991. Population structure and reproduction 

in the marine snake, Lapemis hardwickii Gray, from the west coast of Sabah. Sarawak 

Museum Journal, New Series 42(63): 463–475. 

HANITSCH, R. 1900. An expedition to Mount Kinabalu, British North Borneo. Journal of 

the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 34: 49–88. 

HANKEN, J. 1999. Why are there so many new amphibian species when amphibians are 

declining? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14(1): 7–8. 

HARRISSON, B. 1961. Lanthanotus borneensis – habits and observations. Sarawak Museum 

Journal, New Series 10: 17–18. 

HARRISSON, B. 1962. Beobachtungen am lebenden Taubwaran Lanthanotus borneensis. 

Natur und Museum 92(2): 38–45. 

HARRISSON, T. 1951. The edible turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Borneo. 1. Breeeding season. 

Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 3: 593–596. 

HARRISSON, T. 1954. The edible turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Borneo. 2. Copulation. Sarawak 

Museum Journal, New Series 6: 126–128. 

HARRISSON, T. 1955. The edible turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Borneo. 3. Young turtles (in 

captivity). Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 6: 633–640. 

HARRISSON, T. 1956a. The edible turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Borneo. 4. Growing turtles 

and growing problems. Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 7: 233–239. 

54


HARRISSON, T. 1956b. The edible turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Borneo. 5. Tagging turtles 

(and why). Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 7: 504–515. 

HARRISSON, T. 1958a. Notes on the edible turtle (Chelonia mydas). 6. Semah ceremonies, 

1949–1958. Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 8: 482–486. 

HARRISSON, T. 1958b. Notes on the edible turtle (Chelonia mydas). 7. Long-term tagging 

returns, 1952–1958. Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 8: 772–774. 

HARRISSON, T. 1959. Notes on the edible turtle (Chelonia mydas). 8. First tag returns outside 

Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 9: 277–278. 

HARRISSON, T. 1961a. Second to none: our first Curator (and others). Sarawak Museum 


HARRISSON, T. 1961b. Notes on the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). 9. Some new hatching 

observations. Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 10: 293–299. 

HARRISSON, T. 1962. Notes on the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). 10. Some emergence 

variations. 11. West Borneo numbers, the downward trend. 12. Monthly laying cycles. 


HARRISSON, T. 1963a. Lanthanotus borneensis: the first 30 live ones. Sarawak Museum 


HARRISSON, T. 1963b. Notes on marine turtles. 13. Growth rate of the hawksbill. 14. Albino 

green turtles and sacred ones. Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 11: 302–306. 

HARRISSON, T. 1964. Notes on marine turtles. 15. Sabah’s turtle islands. Sarawak Museum 


HARRISSON, T. 1965. Notes on marine turtles. 16. Some loggerhead and hawksbill 

comparisons with the green turtle. Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 12: 419–422. 

HARRISSON, T. 1966. Notes on marine turtles. 17. Sabah and Sarawak islands compared. 


HARRISSON, T. 1967. Notes on marine turtles. 18. A report on the Sarawak turtle industry 

(1966) with recommendations for the future. Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 15: 

424–436. 

HARRISSON, T. & HAILE, N.S. 1961a. A rare earless monitor lizard from Borneo. Nature 

190(4782): 1213. 

HARRISSON, T. & HAILE, N.S. 1961b. Notes on a living specimen of earless monitor lizard, 

Lanthonotus borneensis. Journal of the Ohio Herpetological Society 3(2): 13–16. 

HAWGOOD, B.J. 1998. Hugh Alistair Reid OBE MD: investigation and treatment of snake 

bite. Toxicon 36(3): 431–446. 

HEANEY, L.R. 1991. A synopsis of climatic and vegetational change in southeast Asia. Climate 

Change 19: 53–61. 

HEIMANN, J.M. 1997. The most offending soul alive. Tom Harrisson and his remarkable 

life. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu. 468 pp. 

HENDRICKSON, J.R. 1966. Observations on the fauna of Pulau Tioman and Pulau Tulai. 5. 

The reptiles. Bulletin of the National Museum, Singapore 34: 53–71. 

HIKIDA, T. 1979. (Notes on the Bornean arboreal skink, Apterygodon vittatus.) Japanese 

Journal of Herpetology 8: 68–69. (In Japanese.) 

HIKIDA, T. 1980. Lizards of Borneo. Acta Phytotaxonomica et Geobotanica 31: (1–3): 97– 

102. (In Japanese) 

HIKIDA, T. 1982. A new limbless Brachymeles (Sauria: Scincidae) from Mt. Kinabalu, North 

Borneo. Copeia 1982: 840–844. 

HIKIDA, T. 1990. Bornean gekkonid lizards of the genus Cyrtodactylus (Lacertilia: 

Gekkonidae) with descriptions of three new species. Japanese Journal of Herpetology 

13: 91–107. 

55


INGER, R.F. 1954. On a collection of amphibians from Mount Kina Balu, North Borneo. 

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 44(8): 250–251. 

INGER, R.F. 1956. Some amphibians from the lowlands of north Borneo. Fieldiana Zoology 

34(36): 389–424. 

INGER, R.F. 1957. A new gecko of the genus Cyrtodactylus with a key to the species from 

Borneo and the Philippines islands. Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 8: 261–264. 

INGER, R.F. 1958a. A new toad from Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 8: 

476–478. 

INGER, R.F. 1958b. Three new species related to Sphenomorphus variegatus (Peters). 

Fieldiana Zoology 39: 257–268. 

INGER, R.F. 1964. Two new species of frogs from Borneo. Fieldiana Zoology 44(20): 151– 

159. 

INGER, R.F., 1966. The systematics and zoogeography of the Amphibia of Borneo. Fieldiana 

Zoology 52: 1–402. 

INGER, R.F. 1967. A new colubrid snake of the genus Stegonotus from Borneo. Fieldiana 

Zoology 51(5): 77–83. 

INGER, R.F. 1989. Four new species of frogs from Borneo. Malayan Nature Journal 42: 

229–243. 

INGER, R.F., BOEADI & TAUFIK, A. 1996). New species of ranid frogs (Amphibia: Anura) 

from Central Kalimantan, Borneo. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 44(2): 363–369. 

INGER, R.F. & FROGNER, K.J. 1980. New species of narrow-mouth frogs (genus Microhyla) 

from Borneo. Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 27: 311–322. 

INGER, R.F. & GRITIS, P.A. 1983. Variation in Bornean frogs of the Amolops jerboa species 

group, with description of two new species. Fieldiana Zoology 19: 1–13. 

INGER, R.F. & HAILE, N.S. 1959. Two new frogs from Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal, 

New Series 9: 270–276. 

INGER, R.F. & LEVITON, A.E. 1961. A new colubrid snake of the genus Pseudorabdion 

from Sumatra. Fieldiana Zoology 44: 45–57. 

INGER, R.F. & STUEBING, R.B. 1989. Frogs of Sabah. Sabah Parks Trustees, Kota Kinabalu. 

133 pp. 

INGER, R.F. & STUEBING, R.B. 1991. A new species of frog of the genus Leptobrachella 

Smith (Anura: Pelobatidae) with a key to the species from Borneo. Raffles Bulletin of 

Zoology 39: 99–103. 

INGER, R.F. & STUEBING, R.B. 1994. First record of the lizard genus Pseudocalotes 

(Lacertilia; Agamidae) in Borneo, with description of a new species. Raffles Bulletin of 

Zoology 42: 961–965. 

INGER, R.F. & STUEBING, R.B. 1996). Two new species of frogs from southeastern Sarawak. 

Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 44: 543–549. 

INGER, R.F. & STUEBING, R.B. 1997. A field guide to the frogs of Borneo. Natural History 

Publications (Borneo) Sdn. Bhd., Kota Kinabalu. 205 pp. 

INGER, R.F., STUEBING, R.B. & TAN, F.L. 1995. New species and new records of anurans 

from Borneo. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 43: 115–131. 

INGER, R.F. & TAN, F.L. 1996. Checklist of the frogs of Borneo. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 

44(2): 551–574. 

INGER, R.F., TAN, F.L., LAKIM, M. & YAMBUN, P. 2001. New species of the lizard genus 

Sphenomorphus (Lacertilia: Scincidae), with notes on ecological and geographic 

distribution of species in Sabah, Malaysia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 49(2): 181–189. 

INGER, R.F., TAN, F.L. & YAMBUN, P. 2001. A new species of toad of the genus Ansonia 

(Anura: Bufonidae) from Borneo. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 49(1): 35–37. 

56


INGER, R.F. & VORIS, H.K. 2001. The biogeographical relations of the frogs and snakes of 

Sundaland. Journal of Biogeography 28: 863–891. 

IVERSON, J.B. 1982. Biomass of turtle populations: a neglected subject. Oecologia 55: 69– 

76. 

IVERSON, J.B. 1985. Lizards as seed dispersers? Journal of Herpetology 19: 292–293. 

IVERSON, J.B. 1992. Species richness maps of the freshwater and terrestrial turtles of the 

world. Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service 88: 1–18. 

KACZOR, S.A. & HARNETT, D.C. 1990. Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) effects 

on soils and vegetation in a Florida Sandhill community. American Midland Naturalist 

123: 100–111. 

KHAN, M.K.M.K. 1964. A note on Batagur baska (the river terrapin or tuntong). Malayan 


KHAN, M.K.M.K. 1969. A preliminary study of the Water Monitor, Varanus salvator. Malayan 


KIEW, B.H. 1972. The frogs of Tasek Bera. Malayan Nature Journal 25: 130–134. 

KIEW, B.H. 1984a. A new species of sticky frog (Kalophrynus palmatissimus n. sp.) from 

Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 37: 145–152. 

KIEW, B.H. 1984b. Rana malesiana, a new frog from the Sunda region. Malayan Nature 

Journal 37: 153–161. 

KIEW, B.H. 1984c. A new species of frog (Kalophrynus baluensis n. sp.) from Mount Kinabalu, 

Sabah, Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 38: 151–156. 

KIEW, B.H. 1984d. A new species of burrowing frog (Calluella flava sp. nov.) from Borneo. 

Malayan Nature Journal 37: 163–166. 

KIEW, B.H. 1984e. A new species of frog (Kalophrynus baluensis n. sp.) from Mount Kinabalu, 

Sabah, Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 38: 151–156. 

KIEW, B.H. 1984f. Conservation status of the Malaysian fauna. III. Amphibians. Malayan 

Naturalist 37(4): 6–10. 

KIEW, B.H. 1987. An annotated checklist of the herpetofauna of Ulu Endau, Johore, Malaysia. 


KOLMAŠ, J. 1982. Ferdinand Stoliczka (1838–1874): the life and work of the Czech explorer 

in India and High Asia. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhiskunde. Heft 9. 

Universitat Wien, Wien/Vienna. 58 pp. 

KOTTELAT, M. 1995. Systematic studies and biodiversity: the need for a pragmatic approach. 

Journal of Natural History 29: 565–569. 

LAGO, P.K. 1991. A survey of arthropod associated with gopher tortoise burrows in 

Mississippi. Entomological News 102: 1–13. 

LAIDLAW, F.F. 1900. On the frogs collected during the “Skeat Expedition” to the Malay 

Peninsula, 1899–1900. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1900(3): 883– 

890. 

LAIDLAW, F.F. 1901a. List of a collection of snakes, crocodiles, and chelonians from the 

Malay Peninsula, made by members of the “Skeat Expedition,” 1899–1900. Proceedings 

of the Zoological Society of London 1901(2): 575–586. 

LAIDLAW, F.F. 1901b. On a collection of lizards the Malay Peninsula, made by members of 

the “Skeat Expedition,” 1899–1900. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 

1901(3): 301–311. 

LEH, C. 1993. Development of the Sarawak Museum 1886–1993. Sarawak Gazette 70: 16– 

20. 

LEONG, T.M. 2000. Amphibian tales. Nature Watch, Singapore 8(4): 2–8. 

57


LEONG, T.M. 2002. Status of larval identities among the Peninsular Malaysian Anura. 

Herpetological Review 33(3): 171–174. 

LEONG, T.M. 2003. Larval descriptions of some poorly known tadpoles from Peninsular 

Malaysia (Amphibia: Anura). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 52(2): 609–620. 

LEONG, T.M. & GRISMER, L.L. 2004. A new species of kukri snake, Oligodon (Colubridae), 

from Pulau Tioman, West Malaysia. Asiatic Herpetological Research 10: 12–16. 

LEONG, T.M. & LIM, B.L. 2003a. A new species of Rana (Amphibia: Anura: Ranidae) from 

the highlands of the Malay Peninsula, with diagnostic larval descriptions. Raffles Bulletin 

of Zoology 51(1): 115–122. 

LEONG, T.M. & LIM, K.K.P. 2003b. Herpetofaunal records from Fraser’s Hill, Peninsular 

Malaysia, with larval descriptions of Limnonectes nitidus and Theloderma asperum 

(Amphibia: Ranidae and Rhacophoridae). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 51(1): 123–136. 

LEONG, T.M. & LIM, C.F. 2003c. The tadpole of Rana miopus Boulenger, 1918 from 

Peninsular Malaysia. Hamadryad 27(2): 175–178. 

LEONG, T.M., MATSUI, M., YONG, H.S. & HAMID, A.A. 2003. Revalidation of Rana 

laterimaculata Barbour et Noble, 1916 from the synonymy of Rana baramica Boettger, 

1901. Current Herpetology 22(1): 17–27. 

LEONG, T.M. & NORSHAM, Y. 2002. Tadpole of the Peninsular Malaysian ranid Limnonectes 

tweediei (Smith, 1935). Hamadryad 27(1): 78–82. 

LIEW, H.C. & CHAN, E.H. 2002. An analysis of tagging data on the green turtles of Redang 

Island, Malaysia. Pp. 135–136 in Mosier, A., Foley, A. & Brost, B. (compiled) Proceedings 

of the 20th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS–SEFSC–477. 

LIU, H., PLATT, S.G. & BORG, C. K. 2004. Seed dispersal by the Florida box turtle (Terrapene 

carolina bauri) in pine rockland forests of the lower Florida Keys, United States. Oecologia 

138: 539–546. 

LIM, B.L. 1955. Snakes collected near Kuala Lumpur. Malayan Nature Journal 9: 122–125. 

LIM, B.L. 1961. The role of snakes in the balance of nature. In: Nature conservation in western 

Malaysia, 1961. J. Wyatt-Smith & P. R. Wycherley (eds). Malayan Nature Journal 21st 

Anniversary Special Issue: 211–213. 

LIM, B.L. 1963a. Macrocalamus tweediei, a new species of reed snake from Malaya. Bulletin 

of the National Museum, Singapore 32: 99–102; Pl. 2. 

LIM, B.L. 1963b. Comments on some rare snakes. Federated Museums Journal, Singapore 8: 

60–64. 

LIM, B.L. 1979. Poisonous snakes of Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala 

Lumpur. 61 pp. Second edition 1982; Third edition 1991. vi + 74 pp. 

LIM, B.L. 1967. Further comments on rare snakes. Federated Museums Journal, Singapore 

12: 123–126. 

LIM, B.L. 1974. Snakes as natural predators of rats in an oil palm estate. Malayan Nature 

Journal 27: 114–117. 

LIM, B.L. & BALASINGAM, E. 1969. A collection of sea snakes from Port Swettenham, 

Selangor and Tumpat, Kelantan. Federation Museums Journal, New Series 14: 123–126. 

LIM, B.L. & DAS, I. 1999. Turtles of Borneo and Peninsular Malaysia. Natural History 

Publications (Borneo) Sdn Bhd., Kota Kinabalu. 151 pp. 

LIM, B.L. & KAMARUDIN, M.S. 1975. Notes on new locality records of some rare snakes 

in Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 29: 23–27. 

LIM, B.L. & SHABRINA MOHD. SHARIF. 1998. Parasites of some reptile species. Journal 

of Wildlife and National Park 16: 51–55. 

58


LIM, B.L., DE WIT, G.F. & LIM, T.W. 1977a. Extraction of raw venom from the common 

cobra, Naja naja kaouthia and the Malaysian pit viper, Ancistrodon rhodostoma. The 

Snake 9: 8–10. 

LIM, B.L., LING, A.E. & DE WITT, G.F. 1977b. Comparative studies on the dry weight of 

venoms from the Malaysian Pit Viper (Agkistrodon rhodostroma). The Snake 9: 11–13. 

LIM, B.L., RATNAM, L. & ANAN, S. 1990. A study on the collection of snakes from Taman 

Negara, Malaysia. Journal of Wildife and Parks 10: 116–134. 

LONGINO, J.T. 1993. Scientific naming. National Geographic Research & Explorations 9(1): 

80–85. 

LONNBERG, E. 1916. Zoological results of the Swedish Zoological Expedition to Siam, 

1911–1912 and 1914–1915. II. Lizards. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens 

Handlingar 55(4): 1–12. 

LOVICH, J.E. 1994. Biodiversity and zoogeography of non-marine turtles in southeast Asia. 

Pp. 380–391 in Majumdar, S.K., Brenner, F.J., Lovich, J.E., Schalles, J.F. & Miller, E.E. 

(eds). Biological diversity: problems and challenges. The Pennsylvania Academy of 

Science, Philadelphia. 

LOVICH, J.E. & GIBBONS, J.W. 1997. Conservation of covert species: protecting species 

we don’t even know. Pp. 426–429 in Abbema, J. van (ed.) Proceedings: Conservation, 

restoration and management of turtles and tortoises–An international conference. State 

University of New York, Purchase. 

LOW, H. 1848. Sarawak. Its inhabitants and productions being notes during a residence in 

that country with His Excellency Mr. Brooke. Richard Bentley, London. 416 pp. 

MALKMUS, R. 1992. Leptolalax pictus sp.n. (Anura: Pelobatidae) vom Mount Kinabalu/ 

Nord-Borneo. Sauria 14(3): 3–6. 

MALKMUS, R. 1996. Leptobrachium gunungensis sp. nov. (Anura: Pelobatidae) vom Mount 

Kinabalu, Nord-Borneo. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum 72: 297–301. 

MALKMUS, R., MANTHEY, U., VOGEL, G., HOFFMANN, P. & KOSUCH, J. 2002. 

Amphibians & reptiles of Mount Kinabalu (North Borneo). Koeltz Scientific Books, 

Königstein. 424 pp. 

MALKMUS, R. & MATSUI, M. 1997. Megophrys kobayashii, ein neuer pelobatider Frosch 

vom Mount Kinabalu. Sauria 19(1): 31–37. 

MALKMUS, R. & RIEDE, K. 1996. Die Baumfrösche der Gattung Philautus vom Mount 

Kinabalu – Teil I: Überblick und die aurifasciatus-Gruppe mit Beschreibung einer neuen 

Art (Philautus saueri n. sp.). Sauria 18(1): 27–37. 

MALONEY, B.K. 1985. Man’s impact on the rainforests of West Malaysia: the palynological 

record. Journal of Biogeography 12: 537–558. 

MANAMENDRA-ARACHCHI, K. & PETHIYAGODA, R. 2005. The Sri Lankan shrubfrogs 

of the genus Philautus Gistel, 1848 (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae), with description of 

27 new species. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement 12: 163–303. 

MANTHEY, U. & GROSSMANN, W. 1997. Amphibien & Reptilien Südostasiens. Natur 

und Tier, Münster. 512 pp. 

MANTHEY, U. & STEIOF, C. 1998. Rhacophorus cyanopunctatus sp. n. (Anura: 

Rhacophoridae), ein neuer Flugfrosch von der Malaiischen Halbinsel, Sumatra und Borneo. 

Sauria 20(3): 37–42. 

MARTUSCELLI, P. 1995. Hydromedusa tectifera (South American snake-necked turtle). 

Predation. Herpetological Review 26: 34–35. 

MATSUI, M. 1983. Amphibians from Sabah. II. Acoustic characteristics of three common 

anuran species. Contributions of the Biology Laboratory of Kyoto University 26: 123– 

129. 

59


MATSUI, M. 1986. Three new species of Amolops from Borneo (Amphibia: Anura, Ranidae). 

Copeia 1986(3): 623–630. 

MATSUI, M. 1996. Call characteristics and systematic relationships of a Malayan treefrog 

Nyctixalus pictus (Anura, Rhacophoridae). Herpetological Journal 6(2): 62–64. 

MATSUI, M., HIKIDA, T. & NAMBU, H. 1985. The amphibians and reptiles collected from 

Borneo, Malaysia. Bulletin of Toyama Science Museum 8: 151–159. 

MATSUI, M., YONG, H.S., ARAYA, K. & HAMID, A.A. 1996. Acoustic characteristics and 

systematic relationships of arboreal microhylid frogs of the genus Metaphrynella from 

Malaysia. Journal of Herpetology 30(3): 424–427. 

MEDWAY, LORD. 1976. Tom Harrisson the ornithologist, and Bornean ornithology. Borneo 

Research Bulletin 8(2): 69–73. 

MEEGASKUMBURA, M. & MANAMENDRA-ARACHCHI, K. 2005. Description of eight 

new species of shrub-frogs (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae: Philautus) from Sri Lanka. Raffles 

Bulletin of Zoology Supplement 12: 305–338. 

MITTERMEIER, R.A., CARR, J.L., SWINGLAND, I.R., WERNER, T.B. & MAST, R.B. 

1992. Conservation of amphibians and reptiles. Pp. 59–80 in Adler, K. (ed.) Herpetology: 

current research on the biology of amphibians and reptiles. Society for the Study of 

Amphibians and Reptiles, Oxford, Ohio. 

MJÖBERG, E. 1928. I Tropikermas villande urskogar. Bokförlaget Natur och Kultur, 

Stockholm. 212 pp. English translation by Barwell, A. 1930. Forest life and adventures 

in the Malay Archipelago. George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London. 201 pp. 

MOCQUARD, F. 1890. Recherches sur la faune herpétologique des Iles de Bornéo et de 

Palawan. Nouvelles Archives du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Série 3), 2: 115– 

168. 

MOLL, D. & JANSEN, K.P. 1995. Evidence for a role in seed dispersal by two tropical 

herbivorous turtles. Biotropica 27: 121–127. 

MOLL, E.O. 1976. West Malaysian turtles: utilisation and conservation. Herpetological Review 

7: 163–166. 

MOLL, E. O. 1978. Drumming along the Perak. Natural History 87(5): 36–43. 

MOLL, E.O. 1980. Natural history of the river terrapin, Batagur baska (Gray), in Malaysia 

(Testudines: Emydidae). Malaysian Journal of Science 6(A): 23–62. 

MOTLEY, J. & DILLWYN, L.L. 1855. Contributions to the natural history of Labuan and 

adjacent coasts of Borneo. John van Voorst, London. 62 pp., 12 pls. 

MYERS, N. 1988. Threatened biotas: “hotspots” in tropical forests. Environmentalist 8: 187– 

208. 

MYERS, N. 1990. The biodiversity challenge: expanded hot-spot analysis. Environmentalist 

10: 243–256. 

NADCHATRAM, M. 1979. Ectoparisites of Malayan snakes. Malayan Nature Journal 33: 

75–78. 

NG, P.K.L. 1995. Obituary. Michael Wilmer (sic) Forbes Tweedie (1907–1993). Crustaceana 

68(1): 111–115. 

NIEKISCH, M. 1986. The international trade in frogs’ legs. Traffic Bulletin 8(1): 7–8. 

NORHAYATI A., JULIANA, S. & LIM, B.L. 2004. A photographic guide to amphibians of 

Endau Rompin State Park. Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

59 pp. 

NORHAYATI A., JULIANA, S. & LIM, B.L. 2005a. A pocket guide: Amphibians of Ulu 

Muda Forest Reserve. Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 120 

pp. 

60


NORHAYATI, A., JULIANA, S., SHARMA, D.S.K. & ZAFIR, Z.W. 2005b. A survey of 

amphibians at Sungai Bebar, Pekan Forest Reserve. Pp. 149–152 in Latiff, A., Hamzah, 

K.A., Ahmed, N., Said, M.N.M., Nee, T.A. & Gill, S.K. (eds) Biodiversity expedition. 

Sungai Bebar, Pekan, Pahang. UNDP / GEF Peat Swamp Forest Project, Technical Series 

No. 4. 

NORSHAM, Y. 2003. A record of Anomochilus leonardi Smith, 1940 (Anomochilidae) from 

Peninsular Malaysia. Hamadryad 27(2): 285–286. 

NORSHAM, Y. & ABDUL, J. 2000. Terrestrial herpetofauna. Journal of Wildlife and Parks, 

18: 21–28. 

NORSHAM, Y. & LIM, B.L. 2003. A new species of mountain reed snake, Macrocalamus 

gentingensis, from Genting Highlands, Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia. Hamadryad 27(1): 

83–89. 

NUTTALL, G.H.F. 1927. The contributions to science of Charles Hose, Hon. Sc. D. (Cantab.) 

(1887–1927). Pp. 272–287 in C. Hose. Fifty years of romance and research or a junglewallah 

at large. Hutchinson & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., London. 

OHLER, A.M. & DUBOIS, A. 1999. The identity of Elachyglossa gyldenstolpei Andersson, 

1916 (Amphibia: Ranidae) with a discussion of some aspects of statistical support to 

taxonomy. Zoologica Scripta 28: 269–279. 

OTA, H. & HIKIDA, T. 1988. A new species of Lepidodactylus (Sauria: Gekkonidae) from 

Sabah, Malaysia. Copeia 1988(3): 616–621. 

OTA, H. & HIKIDA, T. 1989. Karyotypes of three species of the genus Draco (Agamidae: 

Lacertilia) from Sabah, Malaysia. Japanese Journal of Herpetology 13(1): 1–6. 

OTA, H. & HIKIDA, T. 1991. Taxonomic review of the lizards of the genus Calotes Cuvier 

1817 (Agamidae: Squamata) from Sabah, Malaysia. Tropical Zoology 4: 179–192. 

OTA, H. & HIKIDA, T. 1996. The second specimen of Calotes kinabaluensis de Grijs 

(Squamata: Agamidae) from Sabah, Malaysia, with comments on the taxonomic status of 

the species. Journal of Herpetology 30(2): 288–291. 

OTA, H., HIKIDA, T., HASEGAWA, M., LABANG, D. & NABHITABHATA, J. 1996a. 

Chromosomal variation in the scincid genus Mabuya and its arboreal relatives (Reptilia: 

Squamata). Genetica 98: 87–94. 

OTA, H., HIKIDA, T., KON, M. & HIDAKA, T. 1989. Unusual nest site of a scincid lizard 

Sphenomorphus kinabaluensis from Sabah, Malaysia. Herpetological Review 20(2): 38– 

39. 

OTA, H., HIKIDA, T., MATSUI, M. & MORI, A. 1990. Karyotype of Gekko monarchus 

(Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Sarawak, Malaysia. Japanese Journal of Herpetology 13(4): 

136–138. 

OTA, H., HIKIDA, T., MATSUI, M. & MORI, A. 1991. Karyotypes of two water skinks of 

the genus Tropidophorus (Reptilia: Squamata) from Borneo. Journal of Herpetology 25(4): 

488–490. 

OTA, H., HIKIDA, T., MATSUI, M. & MORI, A. 1992. Karyotypes of two species of the 

genus Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Sarawak, Malaysia. Caryologia 45(1): 

43–49. 

OTA, H., SENGOKU, S. & HIKIDA, T. 1996b. Two new species of Luperosaurus (Reptilia: 

Gekkonidae) from Borneo. Copeia 1996): 433–439. 

PARENT, G.H. 1992. L’utilisation des batraciens et reptiles comme bio-indicateurs. Les 

Naturalistes Belges 73(2): 33–63. 

PENDLEBURY, H.M. & CHASEN, F.N. 1932. A zoological expedition to Mt. Kinabalu, 

British North Borneo (1929). Journal of the Federated Malay States Museum 17: 1–38. 

61


PETERS, W.C.H. 1861. Eine zweite Übersicht (vergl. Monatsberichte 1859 p. 269) der von 

Hrn. F. Jagor auf Malacca, Java, Borneo und den Philippinen gesammelten und dem Kgl. 

zoologischen Museum übersandten Schlangen. Monatsberichte der Königlich Akademie 

der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1861: 683–691. 

PETERS, W.C.H. 1862. Präparate vor zur craniologischen Unterscheidung der 

Schlangengattung Elaps und über eine neue Art der Gattung Simotes, S. semicinctus. 

Monatsberichte der Königlich Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1862: 635–638. 

PETERS, W.C.H. 1871. Über neue Reptilien aus Ostafrica und Sarawak (Borneo), vorzüglich 

aus der Sammlung des Hern. Marquis J. Doria zu Genua. Monatsberichte der Königlich 

Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1871: 566–581. 

PETERS, W.C.H. 1872. Übersicht der von den Herren M. G. Doria und D. O. Beccari in 

Sarawak auf Borneo von 1865 bis 1868 gesammelten Amphibien. Annali del Museo Civico 

di Storia Naturale di Genova 3: 27–45. 

PETERS, W.C.H. & DORIA, G. 1878. Catalogo dei rettili e dei batraci raccolti da O. Beccari, 

L. M. D’Albertis e A. A. Bruijn nella sotto-regione Austro-Malese. Annali del Museo 

Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 13: 323–450. 

PETHIYAGODA, R. & MANAMENDRA-ARACHCHI, K. 1998. Evaluation of Sri Lanka’s 

amphibian diversity. Occasional Papers of the Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka 2: 1– 

12. 

PIANKA, E.R. 1986. Ecology and natural history of desert lizards. Analysis of the ecological 

niche and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 208 pp. 

PILCHER, N.J. & ALI, L. 1999. Reproductive biology of the hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys 

imbricata in Sabah, Malaysia. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 3(2): 330–336. 

PILCHER, N.J. & ALI, L. 2000. Malaysia’s Turtle Islands Park: nesting trends and their 

implications for management. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. 

Abreu-Grobois, F.A., Briseño-Dueñas, R., Márquez, R. & Sarti, L. (Compilers). NOAA 

Tech. Mem. MFS–SEFSC–436: 288–289. 

PILCHER, N.J. & BASINTAL, P. 2000. Reproductive biology of the green turtle Chelonia 

mydas in Sabah, Malaysia. Asian Journal of Tropical Biology 4(1): 59–66. 

PILCHER, N.J. & ISMAIL, G. (eds). 2000. Sea turtles of the Indo Pacific: research, 

conservation and management. ASEAN Academic Press, London. 361 pp. 

PILCHER, N.J., ENDERBY, S., STRINGELL, T. & BATEMAN, L. 2000. Nearshore turtle 

hatchling distribution and predation. Pp. 151–166 in Pilcher, N.J. & Ismail, G. (eds) Sea 

turtles of the Indo-Pacific. ASEAN Academic Press, London. 

POULTON, E.B. 1916. Editor’s introduction—biographical and general. Pp. xiii–xxii in 

Shelford, R.W.C. (author) A Naturalist in Borneo. T. Fisher Unwin Ltd., London. 331 pp. 

PRIMACK, R.D. & HALL, P. 1992. Biodiversity and forest change in Malaysian Borneo. 

BioScience 42(11): 829–837. 

REID, H.A. 1968. The paradox of therapeutic defibrination. The Lancet 1968: 485–486. 

RHODIN, A.G.J., MITTERMEIER, R.A. & HALL, P.M. 1993. Distribution, osteology, and 

natural history of the Asian giant softshell turtle, Pelochelys bibroni, in Papua New Guinea. 

Chelonian Conservation and Biology 1: 19–30. 

RICK, C.M. &BOWMAN, R. 1961. Galapagos tomatoes and tortoises. Evolution 15: 407– 

417. 

RITCHIE, J. & JONG, J. 1993. Bujang Senang. Terror of Batang Lupar. Samasa Press, Kuching. 

134 pp. 

RITCHIE, J. & JONG, J. 2002. Man-eating crocodiles of Borneo. With chapters, “The natural 

history of crocodiles” (pp. 1–4) and “A bibliography of the crocodiles of Borneo” (pp. 

62


112–117) by I. Das. Natural History Publications (Borneo), Sdn. Bhd., Kota Kinabalu. 

118 pp. 

ROBINSON, H.C. 1905. Further additions to the batrachian fauna of the Malay Peninsula 

with a list of the species at present known to occur therein. Journal of the Federated 

Malay States Museum 1(1): 19–24. 

ROSS, J.P. (ed.). 1998. Crocodiles. Status survey and conservation Action Plan. Second edition. 

IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, Gland and Gainesville. 96 pp. 

SAINT, M. 1987. Wallace, Becarri (sic) and Bishop McDougall. Sarawak Gazette 113: 30– 

31. 

SHARMA, D.S.K. 1999. Tortoises and freshwater turtle trade and utilisation in Peninsular 

Malaysia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Kuala Lumpur. 39 pp. 

SHARPE, R.B. 1898. Obituary of Everett. Ibis 1898: 627. 

SHELFORD, R.W.C. 1901a. A list of the reptiles of Borneo. Journal of the Straits Branch of 

the Royal Asiatic Society 35: 43–68. 

SHELFORD, R.W.C. 1901b. On two new snakes from Borneo. Annals and Magazine of Natural 

History 7(8): 516–517. 

SHELFORD, R.W.C. 1902. A list of the reptiles of Borneo – Addenda et corrigenda. Journal 

of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 38: 133–135. 

SHELFORD, R.W.C. 1905a. A new lizard and a new frog from Borneo. Annals and Magazine 

of Natural History (7)15: 208–210. 

SHELFORD, R.W.C. 1905b. “Wanderings in the great forests of Borneo” by Odardo Beccari. 

Sc. D., F.L.M.S., C.M.Z.S. etc. Sarawak Gazette July: 160–161. 

SHELFORD, R.W.C. 1906. A note on “flying” snakes. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 

of London 1906: 227–230. 

SHELFORD, R.W.C. 1916. A naturalist in Borneo. T. Fisher Unwin Ltd., London. 331 pp. 

Reprinted 1999 Natural History Publications (Borneo) Sdn. Bhd., Kota Kinabalu. 

SINGH, G.R. 2000. Ganges soft-shell turtle Aspideretus gangeticus predating on Nilgai 

Boselaphus tragocamelus in Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpus, Rajasthan. Journal of 

the Bombay Natural History Society 97: 285. 

SIOW, K.T. & MOLL, E.O. 1981. Status and conservation of estuarine and sea turtles in West 

Malaysian waters. Pp. 339–347 in Bjorndal, K.A. (ed.) Biology and conservation of sea 

turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

SITES, J., JR. & CRANDALL, K. 1997. Testing species boundaries in biodiversity studies. 

Conservation Biology 11(6): 1289–1297. 

SKEAT, W.W. 1900. Report on Cambridge Exploring Expedition to the Malay Provinces of 

Lower Siam. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 30: 

73–77. 

SKEAT, W.W. 1901. Appendix. List of place-names in the Siamese Malay States visited by 

Members of the “Skeat Expedition”. Pp. 583–586 in Laidlaw, F.F. (author) List of a 

collection of snakes, crocodiles, and chelonians from the Malay Peninsula, made by 

members of the “Skeat Expedition,” 1899–1900. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 

of London 1901(2): 575–586. 

SMITH, M.A. 1921. Two new batrachians and a new snake from Borneo and the Malay 

Peninsula. Journal of the Federated Malay States Museum 10: 197–199. 

SMITH, M.A. 1922. On a collection of reptiles and batrachians from the mountains of Pahang, 

Malay Peninsula. Journal of the Federated Malay States Museum 10: 263–282. 

SMITH, M.A. 1924. Two new lizards and a new tree frog from the Malay Peninsula. Journal 

of the Federated Malay States Museum 11(3 & 4): 183–186. 

63


SMITH, M.A. 1925a. On a collection of reptiles and amphibians from Mt. Murud, Borneo. 

Sarawak Museum Journal 3(1): 5–14. 

SMITH, M.A. 1925b. Contribution to the herpetology of Borneo. Sarawak Museum Journal 

3(8): 15–34. 

SMITH, M.A. 1925c. A new ground-gecko (Gymnodactylus) from the Malay Peninsula. 

Journal of the Malay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 3(1): 87. 

SMITH, M.A. 1930. The Reptilia and Amphibia of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of 

Kra to Singapore including the adjacent islands. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum 3: 1–149. 

SMITH, M.A. 1931a. The herpetology of Mt. Kinabalu, North Borneo, 13,455 ft. Bulletin of 

the Raffles Museum 5(1): 3–32. 

SMITH, M.A. 1931b. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Vol. I. Loricata, 

Testudines. (Taylor and Francis, London. 185 pp. Reprinted in 1970 by Ralph Curtis 

Books, Hollywood, Florida and in 1980 by Today and Tomorrow’s Publishers, Dehradun. 

SMITH, M.A. 1935. On a collection of reptiles and amphibians from Perak, Malay Peninsula. 

Bulletin of the Raffles Museum (10): 61–63. 

SMITH, M.A. 1940. A new snake of the genus Anomochilus from the Malay Peninsula. Annals 

and Magazines of Natural History Series 11, 6(35): 447–449. 

SMITH, M.A. 1946. Stanley Smyth Flower 1871–1946. Copeia 1946(4): 185–187. 

SMITH, M.A. 1957. A physician at the Court of Siam. Country Life Ltd., London. 164 pp. 

Reprinted 1982, 1985, 1986, Oxford University Press, Singapore, Oxford and New York. 

SMYTHIES, B.E. 1975. Obituary (of Tom Harrisson). Sarawak Museum Journal, New Series 

23: 311–312. 

SOUZA, F.L. & ABE, A.S. 2000. Feeding ecology, density and biomass of the freshwater 

turtle, Phrynops geoffroanus, inhabiting a polluted urban river in south-eastern Brazil. 

Journal of the Zoology 252: 437–446. 

SPENCER, R.J., THOMPSON, M.B. & HUME, I.D. 1998. The diet and digestive energetics 

of an Australian short-necked turtle, Emydura macquarii. Comparative Biochemistry and 

Physiology 121: 341–349. 

STILLER, D., LIM, B.L. & NADCHANTRAM, M. 1977. Entonyssus asiaticus Fain, 1960 

(Acari: Entonyssidae), a lung parasite of Malaysian snakes with notes on the immature 

stages. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 1: 129–130. 

STOCKER, K. F. 1990. Medical use of snake venom proteins. CRC Press, Boston. 280 pp. 

STOLICZKA, F. 1870a. Observations on some Indian and Malayan Amphibia and Reptilia. 

Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 1870(4): 103–108. 

STOLICZKA, F. 1870b. Observations on some Indian and Malayan Amphibia and Reptilia. 

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 39(2): 134–157. 

STOLICZKA, F. 1870c. Observations on some Indian and Malayan Amphibia and Reptilia. 

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 39(3): 159–228. 

STOLICZKA, F. 1873. Notes on some species of Malayan Amphibia and Reptilia. Journal of 

the Asiatic Society of Bengal 42(2): 111–126. 

STUEBING, R.B. 1985. Batang Lupar crocodiles: happy bachelors, lovesick behemoths, or 

nasty brutes? Malayan Naturalist 39(1/2): 43–46. 

STUEBING, R.B. 1991. A checklist of the snakes of Borneo. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 39: 

323–362. 

STUEBING, R.B. 1994. A checklist of the snakes of Borneo: addenda and corrigenda. Raffles 


STUEBING, R.B. 1994. A new species of Cylindrophis (Serpentes: Cylindrophiidae) from 

Sarawak, western Borneo. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 42: 967–973. 

64


STUEBING, R.B. 1998. Faunal collecting in southeast Asia: fundamental need or blood sport? 

Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 46(1): 1–10. 

STEUBING, R.B., BEZUIJEN, M.R., AULIYA, M. & VORIS, H.K. 2006. The current and 

historic distribution of Tomistoma schlegelii (the false gharial) (Müller, 1838) (Crocodylia, 

Reptilia). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 54(1): 181–197. 

STUEBING, R.B. & INGER, R.F. 1999. A field guide to the snakes of Borneo. Natural History 

Publications (Borneo) Sdn Bhd., Kota Kinabalu. 254 pp. 

STUEBING, R.B., ISMAIL, G. & SALLIH, K. 1985. On the possible causes of crocodile 

attacks in Batang Lupar, Sarawak. Report to the Faculty of Science and Natural Resources, 

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia– Sabah Campus, Kota Kinabalu. 45 pp. 

STUEBING, R.B. & VORIS, H.K. 1990. Relative abundance of marine snakes on the west 

coast of Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Herpetology 24(2): 201–202. 

STUEBING, R.B. & WONG, A. 2000. A new species of frog, Philautus erythrophthalmus 

(Rhacophoridae) from southwestern Sabah, Malaysia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 48: 

293–296. 

SUKUMARAN, J. 2002a. Frogs and toads in Malaysia. Tam Tam (February–March 2002): 4– 

15. 

SUKUMARAN, J. 2002b. Snaking out. The fear factor. Malaysian Naturalist 56(2): 22–25. 

SUKUMARAN, J. 2003. The amphibian fauna of a forested area in Temengor, Perak, Malaysia, 

with the first record of Philautus parvulus (Boulenger, 1893) in the Malay Peninsula. 

Hamadryad 27(1): 1–10. 

SUKUMARAN, J., NORSHAM, Y. & YONG, D. 2006. The herpetofauna of the southeast 

Pahang peat swamp forest. Hamadryad 30(1&2): 74–90. 

TAN, S.G., NG, W.K., JOSEPH, J. & CHAN, E.H. 2000. Genetic variation in hawksbill turtle 

(Eretmochelys imbricata) from Malaysia using RAPD markers. Pp. 261–266 in Shariff, 

M., Yusoff, F.M., Gopinath, N., Ibrahim, H.M. & Nik Mustapha, R.A. (eds) Towards 

sustainable management of the Straits of Malacca. MASDEC, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 

Serdang, Malaysia. 

TENISON, W.P.C. 1959. Dr. Malcolm Arthur Smith, F.L.S., F.Z.S. British Journal of 

Herpetology 2(8): 136–137. 

THORBJARNARSON, J. 1992. Crocodiles: an Action Plan for their conservation. IUCN, 

Gland. 136 pp. 

TWEEDIE, M.W.F. 1949. Reptiles of the Kelabit Plateau. Sarawak Museum Journal 5: 154– 

155. 

TWEEDIE, M.W.F. 1953. The snakes of Malaya. Government Printing Office, Singapore. 

139 pp. Second edition, 1961. 143 pp.; third edition, 1983. Singapore National Printers 

(Pte) Ltd., Singapore. 167 pp. 

TWEEDIE, M.W.F. & HARRISON, J.L. 1970. Malayan animal life. Third edition. Longmans, 

Green and Co., London and Longman Malaysia Bhd., Kuala Lumpur. Note: Reprinted 

1977, 1981 and 1988. 237 pp. 

VARELA, R.O. & BUCHER, E.H. 2002. Seed dispersal by Chelonoidis chilensis in the Chaco 

dry woodland of Argentina. Journal of Herpetology 36: 137–140. 

VARGHESE, G. & TONAPI, G.T. 1986. Observations on the identity of some Indian freshwater 

turtles and their feeding habits. Biological Conservation 37: 87–92. 

VOGEL, G., DAVID, P. & PAUWELS, O.S.G. 2004. A review of morphological variation in 

Trimeresurus popeiorum (Serpentes: Viperidae: Crotalinae), with the description of two 

new species. Zootaxa 727: 1–63. 

VOGT, R.C. & GUZMAN-GUZMAN, S. 1988. Food partitioning in a Neotropical freshwater 

turtle community. Copeia 1988: 37–47. 

65


VORIS, H.K. 1964. Notes on the sea snakes of Sabah. Sabah Society Journal 2(3): 138–141. 

VORIS, H.K. 1985. Population size estimates for a marine snake (Enhydrina schistosa) in 

Malaysia. Copeia 1985(4): 955–961. 

VORIS, H.K. & KARNS, D.R. 1996. Habitat utilization, movements, and activity patterns of 

Enhydris plumbea (Serpentes: Homalopsinae) in a rice paddy wetland in Borneo. 

Herpetological Natural History 4(2): 111–126. 

WAKE, D.B., ZWEIFEL, R.G., DESSAUER, H.C., PIANKA, E.R., RABB, G.B., RUIBAL, 

R., WRIGHT, J.W. & ZUG, G.R. 1975. Report of the Committee of Resources in 

Herpetology. Copeia 1975: 391–404. 

WALLACE, A.R. 1869. The Malay Archipelago: the land of the orangutan and the bird of 

paradise. Macmillan and Co., London. 638 pp. Reprinted several times. 

WHEELER, O.D. 1995. Systematics, the scientific basis for inventories of biodiversity. 

Biodiversity & Conservation 4: 476–489. 

WHITAKER, R. & ADVANI, R. 1983. Preliminary field study on snakes as agents of 

management of rodent populations. Indian Forester 109: 417–419. 

WHITEHEAD, J. 1893. The exploration of Mount Kina Balu. Gurney & Jackson, London. 

317 pp. Reprinted 1991, Yayasan Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, 317 pp., and 1992, with an 

introduction by Bernard Harrison, Graham Brash Publishers, Singapore. 

WHITTEN, T. 1996. Field guides: useful tools in environmental planning and management. 

Environmental Department Dissemination Notes 51: 1–4. 

WILSON, J.G. 2000. The forgotten naturalist. In search of Alfred Russel Wallace. Arcadia 

Scholarly Publishing Pty Ltd, Kew, Victoria. 263 pp. 

WITZ, B.W., WILSON, D.S. & PALMER, M.D. 1991. Distribution of Gopherus polyphemus 

and its vertebrate symbionts in three burrow categories. American Midland Naturalist 

126: 152–158. 

YONG, H.S. 1977. Rediscovery of Rhacophorus robinsoni, an Asian-frog in Peninsular 

Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 30(1): 59–61. 

YONG, H.S. 1998. Reptiles and amphibians. Pp. 62 in Yong, H.S. (ed.) The Encyclopedia 

Malaysia. Volume 3. Animals. Archipelago Press, Singapore. 

YONG, H.S., NG, C.K. & ISMAIL, R. 1988. Conquest of the land: direct development in a 

Malaysian Philautus tree frog. Nature Malaysiana 13(4): 5–7. 

YOUMANS, T.M. & GRISMER, L.L. 2006. A new species of Cyrtodactylus (Reptilia: 

Squamata: Gekkonidae) from the Seribuat Archipelago, West Malaysia. Hepertological 

Natural History 10(1): 61–70. 

66


APPENDIX 1 

Checklist of Amphibian Species of Malaysia 

Peninsular Sabah Sarawak 

Malaysia 

Bufonidae 

Ansonia albomaculata Inger 1960 

• 

Ansonia anotis Inger Tan & Yambun 2001 

• 

Ansonia fuliginea (Mocquard 1890) 

• 

Ansonia guibei Inger 1966 

• 

Ansonia hanitschi Inger 1960 • • 

Ansonia leptopus (Günther 1872) • • 

Ansonia longidigita Inger 1960 • • 

Ansonia malayanus Inger 1960 

• 

Ansonia minuta Inger 1960 

• 

Ansonia penangensis Stoliczka 1870 

• 

Ansonia platysoma Inger 1960 • • 

Ansonia spinulifer (Mocquard 1890) • • 

Ansonia tiomanicus Hendrickson 1966 

• 

Ansonia torrentis Dring 1984 

• 

Bufo asper Gravenhorst 1829 • • • 

Bufo divergens Peters 1871 • • 

Bufo juxtasper Inger 1964 • • 

Bufo kumquat Das & Lim 2001 

• 

Bufo macrotis Boulenger 1887 

• 

Bufo melanostictus Schneider 1799 • • • 

Bufo parvus Boulenger 1887 

• 

Bufo quadriporcatus Boulenger 1887 • • • 

Leptophryne borbonica (Tschudi 1839) • • • 

Pedostibes everetti (Boulenger 1896) 

• 

Pedostibes hosii (Boulenger 1892) • • • 

Pedostibes maculatus (Mocquard 1890) 

• 

Pedostibes rugosus Inger 1958 • • 

Pelophryne api Dring 1984 

• 

Pelophryne exigua (Boettger 1901) 

• 

Pelophryne guentheri (Boulenger 1882) 

• 

Pelophryne macrotis (Boulenger 1895) 

• 

Pelophryne misera (Mocquard 1890) 

• 

Pelophryne rhopophilus Inger & Stuebing 1996 

• 

Pelophryne signata (Boulenger 1895) • • 

Pseudobufo subasper Tschudi 1839 

• 

Megophryidae 

Leptobrachella baluensis Smith 1931 • • 

Leptobrachella brevicrus Dring 1984 

• 

Leptobrachella mjobergi Smith 1925 

• 

Leptobrachella palmata Inger & Stuebing 1991 

• 

Leptobrachella parva Dring 1984 • • 

Leptobrachella sarasinae Dring 1984 

• 

67


Leptobrachium abbotti (Cochran 1926) • • 

Leptobrachium gunungense Malkmus 1996 

• 

Leptobrachium hendricksoni Taylor 1962 • • 

Leptobrachium montanum Fischer 1885 • • 

Leptobrachium nigrops Berry & Hendrickson 1963 • • 

Leptobrachium smithi Matsui et al. 1998 

• 

Leptolalax arayai Matsui 1997 

• 

Leptolalax dringi Dubois 1987 • • 

Leptolalax gracilis (Günther 1872) 

• 

Leptolalax hamidi Matsui 1997 

• 

Leptolalax heteropus Boulenger 1900 

• 

Leptolalax kajangensis Grismer et al. 2004 

• 

Leptolalax maurus Inger et al.1997 

• 

Leptolalax pelodytoides (Boulenger 1893) 

• 

Leptolalax pictus Malkmus 1992 

• 

Megophrys baluensis (Boulenger 1899) 

• 

Megophrys edwardinae Inger 1989 • • 

Megophrys kobayashii Malkmus & Matsui 1997 

• 

Megophrys nasuta (Schlegel 1858) • • • 

Xenophrys aceras (Boulenger 1903) 

• 

Xenophrys dringi (Inger, Stuebing & Tan 1995) 

• 

Xenophrys longipes (Boulenger 1885) 

• 

Microhylidae 

Calluella brooksi (Boulenger 1904) 

• 

Calluella flava Kiew 1984 

• 

Calluella guttulata (Blyth 1856) 

• 

Calluella minuta Das & Norsham 2004 

• 

Calluella smithi (Barbour & Noble 1916) • • 

Chaperina fusca Mocquard 1892 • • • 

Gastrophrynoides borneensis (Boulenger 1890) 

• 

Kalophrynus baluensis Kiew 1984 

• 

Kalophrynus eok Das & Haas 2003 

• 

Kalophrynus heterochirus Boulenger 1900 • • 

Kalophrynus intermedius Inger 1966 

• 

Kalophrynus nubicolus Dring 1984 

• 

Kalophrynus palmatissimus Kiew 1984 

• 

Kalophrynus pleurostigma Tschudi 1838 • • • 

Kalophrynus punctatus Peters 1871 

• 

Kalophrynus robinsoni Smith 1922 

• 

Kalophrynus subterrestris Inger 1966 • • 

Kaloula baleata (Müller 1836) • • • 

Kaloula pulchra Gray 1831 • • 

Metaphrynella pollicaris (Boulenger 1890) 

• 

Metaphrynella sundana (Peters 1867) • • 

Microhyla annectans Boulenger 1900 

• 

Microhyla berdmorei (Blyth 1856) • • • 

Microhyla borneensis Parker 1926 • • 

Microhyla butleri Boulenger 1900 

• 

Microhyla fissipes Boulenger 1884 

• 

Microhyla heymonsi Vogt 1911 

• 

Microhyla maculifera Inger 1989 

• 

Microhyla palmipes Boulenger 1897 

• 

68


Microhyla perparva Inger & Frogner 1979 • • 

Microhyla petrigena Inger & Frogner 1979 • • 

Microhyla superciliaris Parker 1928 

• 

Micryletta inornata (Boulenger 1890) 

• 

Phrynella pulchra Boulenger 1887 

• 

Ranidae 

Amolops larutensis (Boulenger 1899) 

• 

Fejerarya cancrivora (Gravenhorst 1829) • • • 

Fejervarya limnocharis (Gravenhorst 1829) • • • 

Fejervarya raja (Smith 1930) 

• 

*Hoplobatrachus chinensis (Osbeck 1765) 

• 

Huia cavitympanum (Boulenger 1893) • • 

Ingerana baluensis (Boulenger 1896) • • 

Ingerana tenasserimensis (Sclater 1892) 

• 

Limnonectes blythi (Boulenger 1920) 

• 

Limnonectes finchi (Inger 1966) 

• 

Limnonectes ibanorum (Inger 1964) 

• 

Limnonectes ingeri (Kiew 1978) • • 

Limnonectes kenepaiensis (Inger 1966) 

• 

Limnonectes kuhlii (Tschudi 1838) • • • 

Limnonectes laticeps (Boulenger 1882) • • 

Limnonectes leporinus (Andersson 1923) • • 

Limnonectes macrognathus (Boulenger 1917) • 

Limnonectes malesianus (Kiew 1984) • • 

Limnonectes nitidus (Smedley 1931) 

• 

Limnonectes palavanensis (Boulenger 1894) • • 

Limnonectes paramacrodon (Inger 1966) • • 

Limnonectes pileatus (Boulenger 1916) 

• 

Limnonectes plicatellus (Stoliczka 1873) 

• 

Limnonectes tweediei (Smith 1935) 

• 

Meristogenys amoropalmus (Matsui 1986) • • 

Meristogenys jerboa (Günther 1872) 

• 

Meristogenys kinabaluensis (Inger 1966) • • 

Meristogenys macrophthalmus (Matsui 1986) 

• 

Meristogenys orphocnemis (Matsui 1986) 

• 

Meristogenys phaeomerus (Inger & Gritis 1983) 

• 

Meristogenys poecilus (Inger & Gritis 1983) 

• 

Meristogenys whiteheadi (Boulenger 1887) 

• 

Occidozyga baluensis (Boulenger 1896) • • 

Occidozyga laevis (Günther 1858) • • • 

Occidozyga lima (Gravenhorst 1829) 

• 

Rana banjarana Leong & Lim 2003 

• 

Rana baramica Boettger 1901 • • • 

Rana erythraea (Schlegel 1837) • • • 

Rana glandulosa Boulenger 1882 • • • 

Rana hosii Boulenger 1891 • • • 

Rana laterimaculata Barbour & Noble 1916 • • 

Rana luctuosa (Peters 1871) • • • 

Rana miopus Boulenger 1918 

• 

Rana nicobariensis (Stoliczka 1870) • • • 

Rana nigrovittata (Blyth 1856) 

• 

Rana picturata Boulenger 1920 • • 

69


Rana raniceps (Peters 1871) • • • 

Rana signata (Günther 1872) • • • 

Staurois guttatus (Günther 1859) • • 

Staurois latopalmatus (Boulenger 1887) • • 

Staurois tuberilinguis Boulenger 1918 • • 

Taylorana hascheana (Stoliczka 1870) 

• 

Rhacophoridae 

Chirixalus nongkhorensis (Cochran 1927) 

• 

Nyctixalus pictus (Peters 1871) • • • 

Philautus acutus Dring 1987 

• 

Philautus amoeanus Smith 1931 

• 

Philautus aurantium Inger 1989 

• 

Philautus bunitus Inger et al. 1995 

• 

Philautus disgregus Inger 1989 

• 

Philautus erythropththalmus Stuebing & Wong 2000 

• 

Philautus gunungensis Malkmus & Riede 1996 

• 

Philautus hosii (Boulenger 1895) • • 

Philautus ingeri Dring 1987 • • 

Philautus kerangae Dring 1987 

• 

Philautus longicrus (Boulenger 1894) • • 

Philautus mjobergi Smith 1925 • • 

Philautus parvulus (Boulenger 1893) 

• 

Philautus petersi (Boulenger 1900) • • • 

Philautus refugii Inger & Stuebing 1996 

• 

Philautus saueri Malkmus & Reide 1996 

• 

Philautus tectus Dring 1987 • • 

Philautus umbra Dring 1987 

• 

Philautus vermiculatus (Boulenger 1900) 

• 

Polypedates chlorophthalmus Das 2005 

• 

Polypedates colletti (Boulenger 1890) • • • 

Polypedates leucomystax Gravenhorst 1829 • • • 

Polypedates macrotis (Boulenger 1894) • • • 

Polypedates otilophus Boulenger 1893 • • 

Rhacophorus angulirostris Ahl 1927 • • 

Rhacophorus appendiculatus (Günther 1859) • • • 

Rhacophorus baluensis Inger 1954 • • 

Rhacophorus bipunctatus Ahl 1927 

• 

Rhacophorus cyanopunctatus Manthey & Steioff 1998 • • • 

Rhacophorus dulitensis Boulenger 1892 • • 

Rhacophorus everetti Boulenger 1894 • • 

Rhacophorus fasciatus Boulenger 1895 

• 

Rhacophorus gadingensis Das & Haas 2005 

• 

Rhacophorus gauni Inger 1966 • • 

Rhacophorus harrissoni Inger & Haile 1959 • • • 

Rhacophorus kajau Dring 1984 • • 

Rhacophorus nigropalmatus Boulenger 1895 • • 

Rhacophorus pardalis Günther 1858 • • • 

Rhacophorus prominanus Smith 1924 

• 

Rhacophorus reinwardtii (Schlegel 1840) • • • 

Rhacophorus robinsoni Boulenger 1903 

• 

Rhacophorus rufipes Inger 1966 • • 

Rhacophorus tunkui Kiew 1987 

• 

70


Theloderma asper (Boulenger 1886) 

• 

Theloderma horridum (Boulenger 1903) • • 

Theloderma leprosa (Tschudi 1838) 

• 

Ichthyophiidae 

Caudacaecilia asplenia (Taylor 1965) 

Caudacaecilia larutensis (Taylor 1960) 

Caudacaecilia nigroflava (Taylor 1960) 

Ichthyophis biangularis Taylor 1965 

Ichthyophis dulitensis Taylor 1960 

Ichthyophis monochrous Bleeker 1858 

Ichthyophis singaporensis Taylor 1960 

* introduced species. 

Checklist of 15 April 2006. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

71


Checklist of Reptile Species of Malaysia 

APPENDIX II 

Peninsular Sabah Sarawak 

Malaysia 

Acrochordidae 

Acrochordus granulatus (Schneider 1799) • • • 

Acrochordus javanicus Hornstedt 1787 • • 

Anomochilidae 

Anomochilus leonardi Smith 1940 • • 

Anomochilus weberi van Lidth de Jeude 1890 

• 

Boidae 

Python breitensteini Steindachner 1881 • • 

Python brongersmai Stull 1938 

• 

Python molurus (Linnaeus 1758) 

• 

Python reticulatus (Schneider 1801) • • • 

Colubridae 

Ahaetulla fasciolata (Fischer 1885) • • 

Ahaetulla mycterizans (Linnaeus 1758) 

• 

Ahaetulla prasina (Boie 1827) • • • 

Amphiesma flavifrons (Boulenger 1887) • • 

Amphiesma frenatum (Dunn 1923) 

• 

Amphiesma inas (Laidlaw 1901) 

• 

Amphiesma petersii (Boulenger 1893) • • • 

Amphiesma sanguineum (Smedley 1931) 

• 

Amphiesma saravacense (Günther 1872) • • • 

Aplopeltura boa (Boie 1828) • • • 

Asthenodipsas laevis (Boie 1827) • • • 

Asthenodipsas malaccanus Peters 1864 • • • 

Bitia hydroides Gray 1842 

• 

Boiga cyanea (Duméril et al. 1854) 

• 

Boiga cynodon (Boie 1827) • • • 

Boiga dendrophila (Boie 1827) • • • 

Boiga drapiezii (Boie 1827) • • • 

Boiga jaspidea (Duméril et al. 1854) • • • 

Boiga multomaculata (Boie 1827) 

• 

Boiga nigriceps (Günther 1863) • • • 

Calamaria albiventer (Gray 1835) 

• 

Calamaria bicolor Duméril et al. 1854 • • 

Calamaria borneensis (Bleeker 1860) • • 

Calamaria everetti Boulenger 1893 • • 

Calamaria gervaisii Duméril et al. 1854 

• 

Calamaria grabowskyi Fischer 1885 • • 

Calamaria gracillima Günther 1872 

• 

Calamaria griswoldi Loveridge 1938 

• 

Calamaria hilleniuisi Inger & Marx 1965 • • 

72


Calamaria ingeri Grismer et al. 2004 

• 

Calamaria lateralis Mocquard 1890 

• 

Calamaria leucogaster Bleeker 1860 • • 

Calamaria lovii Boulenger 1887 • • • 

Calamaria lumbricoidea Boie 1827 • • • 

Calamaria melanota Jan 1862 

• 

Calamaria modesta Duméril et al. 1854 

• 

Calamaria pavimentata Duméril et al. 1854 

• 

Calamaria prakkei van Lidth de Jeude 1893 

• 

Calamaria schlegeli Duméril et al. 1854 • • • 

Calamaria schmidti Marx & Inger 1955 

• 

Calamaria suluensis Taylor 1922 • • 

Calamaria virgulata Boie 1827 • • 

Cantoria violacea Girard 1857 

• 

Cerberus rynchops (Schneider 1799) • • • 

Chrysopelea ornata (Shaw 1802) 

• 

Chrysopelea paradisi Boie 1827 • • • 

Chrysopelea pelias (Linnaeus 1758) • • • 

Coelognathus erythrurus (Duméril et al. 1854) 

• 

Coelognathus flavolineatus (Schlegel 1837) • • • 

Coelognathus radiatus (Boie 1827) 

• 

Collorhabdium williamsoni Smedley 1931 

• 

Dendrelaphis caudolineatus (Gray 1834) • • • 

Dendrelaphis cyanochloris (Wall 1921) 

• 

Dendrelaphis formosus (Boie 1827) • • • 

Dendrelaphis pictus (Gmelin 1789) • • • 

Dendrelaphis striatus (Cohn 1905) • • 

Dryocalamus subannulatus (Duméril et al. 1854) • • 

Dryocalamus tristrigatus (Günther 1858) • • 

Dryophiops rubescens (Gray 1834) • • • 

Elaphe prasina (Blyth 1854) 

• 

Elapoidis fuscus Boie 1827 

• 

Enhydris alternans (Reuss 1834) 

• 

Enhydris bocourti (Jan 1865) 

• 

Enhydris doriae (Peters 1871) • • 

Enhydris enhydris (Schneider 1799) • • 

Enhydris indica (Gray 1842) 

• 

Enhydris pahangensis Tweedie 1946 

• 

Enhydris plumbea (Boie 1827) • • 

Enhydris punctata (Gray 1849) 

• 

Fordonia leucobalia (Schlegel 1837) • • 

Gerarda prevostiana (Eydoux & Gervais 1837) • 

Gongylosoma balodeirum (Boie 1827) • • • 

Gongylosoma longicauda (Peters 1871) • • • 

Gongylosoma mukutense Grismer et al. 2003 

• 

Gonyophis margaritatus (Peters 1871) • • • 

Gonyosoma oxycephalum (Boie 1827) • • • 

Homalopsis buccata (Linnaeus 1758) • • • 

Hydrablabes periops (Günther 1872) • • 

Hydrablabes praefrontalis (Mocquard 1890) 

• 

Lepturophis borneensis Boulenger 1900 • • • 

Liopeltis tricolor (Schlegel 1837) • • • 

Lycodon albofuscus (Duméril et al. 1854) • • • 

73


Lycodon butleri Boulenger 1900 

• 

Lycodon capucinus Boie 1827 • • 

Lycodon effraenis Cantor 1847 • • 

Lycodon laoensis Günther 1864 

• 

Lycodon subcinctus Boie 1827 • • • 

Macrocalamus chanardi David & Pauwels 2004 • 

Macrocalamus gentingensis Norsham & Lim 2003 • 

Macrocalamus jasoni Grandison 1972 

• 

Macrocalamus lateralis Günther 1864 

• 

Macrocalamus schulzi Vogel & David 1999 

• 

Macrocalamus smithi David & Pauwels, 2004 • 

Macrocalamus tweediei Lim 1963 

• 

Macrocalamus vogeli David & Pauwels 2004 

• 

Macropisthodon flaviceps (Duméril et al. 1854) • • 

Macropisthodon rhodomelas (Boie 1827) • • • 

Oligodon annulifer Boulenger 1893 

• 

Oligodon booliati Leong & Grismer 2004 

• 

Oligodon cf. cinereus (Günther 1864) 

• 

Oligodon everetti Boulenger 1893 

• 

Oligodon meyerinkii (Steindachner 1891) 

• 

Oligodon octolineatus (Schneider 1801) • • • 

Oligodon purpurascens (Schlegel 1837) • • • 

Oligodon semicinctus (Peters 1862) ? ? 

Oligodon subcarinatus (Günther 1872) • • 

Oligodon vertebralis (Günther 1865) 

• 

Opisthotropis typica (Mocquard 1890) 

• 

Oreocalamus hanitschi Boulenger 1899 • • • 

Oreophis porphyraceus (Cantor 1839) 

• 

Orthriophis taeniurus (Cope 1861) • • • 

Pareas carinatus (Boie 1828) • • 

Pareas macularius Blyth in: Theobald 1868 

• 

Pareas margaritophorus Jan in: Bocourt 1866 • 

Pareas nuchalis (Boulenger 1900) • • 

Pareas vertebralis (Boulenger 1890) • • 

Psammodynastes pictus Günther 1858 • • • 

Psammodynastes pulverulentus (Boie 1827) • • • 

Pseudorabdion albonuchalis (Günther 1896) • • 

Pseudorabdion collaris (Mocquard 1892) • • 

Pseudorabdion longiceps (Cantor 1847) • • 

Pseudorabdion saravacensis (Shelford 1901) 

• 

Pseudoxenodon baramensis (Smith 1921) 

• 

Pseudoxenodon macrops (Blyth 1855) 

• 

Ptyas carinata (Günther 1858) • • • 

Ptyas fusca (Günther 1858) • • • 

Ptyas korros (Schlegel 1837) • • 

Ptyas mucosa (Linnaeus 1758) 

• 

Rhabdophis chrysargos (Schlegel 1837) • • • 

Rhabdophis conspicillatus (Günther 1872) • • • 

Rhabdophis murudensis (Smith 1925) • • 

Rhabdophis subminiatus (Schlegel 1837) 

• 

Sibynophis collaris (Gray 1853) 

• 

Sibynophis geminatus (Boie 1826) 

• 

Sibynophis melanocephalus (Gray 1835) • • • 

74


Stegonotus borneensis Boulenger 1899 

• 

Stoliczkia borneensis Boulenger 1899 • • 

Xenelaphis ellipsifer Boulenger 1900 • • • 

Xenelaphis hexagonotus (Cantor 1847) • • • 

Xenochrophis flavipunctatus (Hallowell 1860) 

• 

Xenochrophis maculatus (Edeling 1864) • • 

Xenochrophis trianguligerus (Boie 1827) • • • 

Xenochrophis vittatus (Linnaeus 1758) 

• 

Xenodermus javanicus Reinhardt 1836 • • • 

Cylindrophiidae 

Cylindrophis engkariensis Stuebing 1994 

• 

Cylindrophis lineatus Blanford 1881 

• 

Cylindrophis ruffus (Laurenti 1768) • • 

Elapidae 

Bungarus candidus (Linnaeus 1758) 

• 

Bungarus fasciatus (Schneider 1801) • • • 

Bungarus flaviceps Reinhardt 1843 • • • 

Calliophis bivirgata (Boie 1827) • • • 

Calliophis gracilis Gray 1835 

• 

Calliophis intestinalis (Laurenti 1768) • • • 

Calliophis maculiceps (Günther 1858) 

• 

Naja kaouthia Lesson 1831 

• 

Naja sumatrana Müller 1887 • • • 

Ophiophagus hannah (Cantor 1836) • • • 

Hydrophiidae 

Aipysurus eydouxii (Gray 1849) • • 

Astrotia stokesii (Gray in: Stokes 1846) 

• 

Enhydrina schistosa (Daudin 1803) • • • 

Hydrophis brookii Günther 1872 • • 

Hydrophis caerulescens (Shaw 1802) • • • 

Hydrophis cyanocinctus (Daudin 1803) • • • 

Hydrophis fasciatus (Schneider 1799) • • • 

Hydrophis gracilis (Shaw 1802) • ? ? 

Hydrophis klossi Boulenger 1912 • • 

Hydrophis melanosoma Günther 1864 • • 

Hydrophis ornatus (Gray 1842) • • 

Hydrophis spiralis (Shaw 1802) • • • 

Hydrophis torquatus Günther 1864 

• 

Kerilia jerdoni Gray 1849 • • 

Kolpophis annandalei Laidlaw 1901 

• 

Lapemis curtus Shaw 1802 • • • 

Laticauda colubrina (Schneider 1799) • • • 

Laticauda laticaudata (Linnaeus 1758) 

• 

Pelamis platyura (Linnaeus 1766) • • • 

Praescutata viperina (Schmidt 1852) • • 

Thalassophis anomalus Schmidt 1852 • • • 

Typhlopidae 

Ramphotyphlops albiceps (Boulenger 1898) 

• 

Ramphotyphlops braminus (Daudin 1803) • • • 

75


Ramphotyphlops lineatus (Schlegel 1839) • • • 

Ramphotyphlops olivaceus (Gray 1845) 

• 

Typhlops muelleri Schlegel 1839 

• 

Viperidae 

Calloselasma rhodostoma (Boie 1827) 

• 

Cryptelytrops purpureomaculatus (Gray 1832) • 

Garthius chaseni (Smith 1931) 

• 

Ovophis convictus (Stoliczka 1870) 

• 

Parias hageni (van Lidth de Jeude 1886) 

• 

Parias malcolmi (Loveridge 1938) 

• 

Parias sumatranus (Boie 1827) • • • 

Popeia fucata (Vogel, David & Pauwels 2004) • 

Popeia nebularis (Vogel, David & Pauwels, 2004) • 

Popeia sabahi (Regenass & Kramer 1981) • • 

Trimeresurus borneensis (Peters 1871) • • • 

Tropidolaemus wagleri (Boie 1827) • • • 

Xenopeltidae 

Xenopeltis unicolor Reinwardt 1827 • • • 

Xenophidiidae 

Xenophidion acanthognathus Günther & Manthey 1995 

Xenophidion schaeferi Günther & Manthey 1995 

• 

• 

Agamidae 

Acanthosaura armata (Hardwicke & Gray 1827) • 

Acanthosaura crucigera Boulenger 1885 

• 

Aphaniotis fusca (Peters 1864) • • 

Aphaniotis ornata (van Lidth de Jeude 1893) 

• 

Bronchocela cristatella (Kuhl 1820) • • • 

Calotes emma Gray 1845 

• 

Calotes versicolor (Daudin 1802) 

• 

Complicitus nigrigularis (Ota & Hikida 1991) 

• 

Draco blanfordii Boulenger 1885 

• 

Draco cornutus Günther 1864 • • 

Draco cristatellus Günther 1872 • • • 

Draco fimbriatus Kuhl 1820 • • • 

Draco haematopogon Boie in: Gray 1831 • • • 

Draco maculatus (Gray 1845) 

• 

Draco maximus Boulenger 1893 • • • 

Draco melanopogon Boulenger 1887 • • • 

Draco obscurus Boulenger 1887 • • • 

Draco quinquefasciatus Hardwicke & Gray 1827 • • • 

Draco sumatranus Schlegel 1844 • • • 

Gonocephalus belli (Duméril & Bibron 1837) • 

Gonocephalus bornensis (Schlegel 1848) • • 

Gonocephalus chamaeleontinus (Laurenti 1768) • 

Gonocephalus doriae (Peters 1871) • • 

Gonocephalus grandis (Gray 1845) • • • 

Gonocephalus liogaster (Günther 1872) • • 

Gonocephalus mjobergi Smith 1925 

• 

Gonocephalus robinsoni Boulenger 1908 

• 

76


Harpesaurus borneensis (Mertens 1924) 

• 

Hypsicalotes kinabaluensis (de Grijs 1937) 

• 

Phoxophrys borneensis Inger 1960 • • 

Phoxophrys cephalum (Mocquard 1890) • • 

Phoxophrys nigrilabris (Peters 1864) 

• 

Phoxophrys spiniceps Smith 1925 • • 

Pseudocalotes dringi Hallermann & Böhme 2000 • 

Pseudocalotes flavigula (Smith 1924) 

• 

Pseudocalotes larutensis Hallerman & McGuire 2001 • 

Pseudocalotes sarawacensis Inger & Stuebing 1994 

• 

Anguidae 

Ophisaurus buettikoferi van Lidth de Jeude 1905 • • 

Eublepharidae 

Aeluroscalabotes felinus (Günther 1864) • • • 

Dibamidae 

Dibamus booliati Das & Norsham 2003 

Dibamus ingeri Das & Lim 2003 

Dibamus leucurus (Bleeker 1860) 

Dibamus tiomanensis Diaz et al. 2004 

Dibamus vorisi Das & Lim 2003 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Gekkonidae 

Cnemaspis affinis (Stoliczka 1870) 

• 

Cnemaspis argus Dring 1979 

• 

Cnemaspis baueri Das & Grismer 2003 

• 

Cnemaspis dringi Das & Bauer 1998 

• 

Cnemaspis flavolineata (Nicholls 1949) 

• 

Cnemaspis kendallii (Gray 1845) • • 

Cnemaspis kumpoli Taylor 1963 

• 

Cnemaspis limi Das & Grismer 2003 

• 

Cnemaspis nigridia (Smith 1925) 

• 

Cosymbotus craspedotus (Mocquard 1890) • • • 

Cosymbotus platyurus (Schneider 1792) • • • 

Cyrtodactylus aurensis Grismer 2005 

• 

Cyrtodactylus baluensis (Mocquard 1890) • • 

Cyrtodactylus brevipalmatus (Smith 1923) 

• 

Cyrtodactylus cavernicolus Inger & King 1961 

• 

Cyrtodactylus consobrinus (Peters 1871) • • • 

Cyrtodactylus elok Dring 1979 

• 

Cyrtodactylus ingeri Hikida 1990 

• 

Cyrtodactylus malayanus (De Rooij 1915) 

• 

Cyrtodactylus matsuii Hikida 1990 

• 

Cyrtodactylus peguensis (Boulenger 1893) 

• 

Cyrtodactylus pubisulcus Inger 1957 • • 

Cyrtodactylus pulchellus Gray 1827 

• 

Cyrtodactylus quadrivirgatus Taylor 1962 • • 

Cyrtodactylus semenanjungensis Grismer & Leong 2005 • 

Cyrtodactylus seribuatensis Youmans & Grismer 2005 • 

Cyrtodactylus sworderi (Smith 1925) 

• 

Cyrtodactylus tiomanensis Das & Lim 2000 

• 

77


Cyrtodactylus yoshii Hikida 1990 

• 

Gehyra butleri Boulenger 1900 

• 

Gehyra mutilata (Wiegmann 1834) • • • 

Gekko gecko Linnaeus 1758 • • ? 

Gekko monarchus (Duméril & Bibron 1836) • • • 

Gekko smithii (Gray 1842) • • • 

Hemidactylus brookii Gray 1845 • • 

Hemidactylus frenatus Duméril & Bibron 1836 • • • 

Hemidactylus garnotii Duméril & Bibron 1836 

• 

Hemiphyllodactylus harterti (Werner 1900) 

• 

Hemiphyllodactylus typus Bleeker 1860 • • • 

Lepidodactylus lugubris (Duméril & Bibron 1836) 

• 

Lepidodactylus ranauensis Ota & Hikida 1988 

• 

Luperosaurus browni Russell 1979 • • 

Ptychozoon horsfieldii (Gray 1827) • • 

Ptychozoon kuhli Stejneger 1902 • • • 

Ptychozoon lionotum Annandale 1905 

• 

Ptychozoon rhacophorus (Boulenger 1899) 

• 

Lacertidae 

Takydromus sexlineatus Daudin 1802 • • 

Lanthanotidae 

Lanthanotus borneensis Steindachner 1877 

• 

Scincidae 

Apterygodon vittatum Edeling 1864 • • 

Brachymeles apus Hikida 1982 • • 

Dasia grisea (Gray 1845) • • 

Dasia olivacea Gray 1839 • • • 

Dasia semicincta (Peters 1867) 

• 

Emoia atrocostata (Lesson 1830) • • • 

Emoia caeruleocauda (De Vis 1892) 

• 

Lamprolepis nieuwenhuisii (van Lidth de Jeude 1905) • • 

Lamprolepis vyneri (Shelford 1905) 

• 

Larutia larutensis (Boulenger 1900) 

• 

Larutia miodactyla (Boulenger 1903) 

• 

Larutia puehensis Grismer et al. 2003 

• 

Larutia seribuatensis Grismer et al. 2003 

• 

Larutia trifasciata (Tweedie 1940) 

• 

Lipinia nitens (Peters 1871) 

• 

Lipinia surda (Boulenger 1900) 

• 

Lipinia vittigera (Boulenger 1894) • • • 

Lygosoma albopunctata Gray 1846 

• 

Lygosoma bampfyldei Bartlett 1895 • • • 

Lygosoma bowringii (Günther 1864) • • • 

Lygosoma quadrupes (Linnaeus 1766) 

• 

Mabuya indeprensa (Brown & Alcala 1980) 

• 

Mabuya longicauda (Hallowell 1856) 

• 

Mabuya macularia (Blyth 1853) 

• 

Mabuya multifasciata (Kuhl 1820) • • • 

Mabuya rudis Boulenger 1887 • • 

Mabuya rugifera (Stoliczka 1870) • • • 

78


Sphenomorphus aesculeticola Inger et al. 2002 

• 

Sphenomorphus alfredi (Boulenger 1898) 

• 

Sphenomorphus anomalopus (Boulenger 1890) • 

Sphenomorphus butleri (Boulenger 1912) 

• 

Sphenomorphus cameronicus Smith 1924 

• 

Sphenomorphus cophias (Boulenger 1908) 

• 

Sphenomorphus crassa Inger et al. 2002 

• 

Sphenomorphus cyanolaemus Inger & Hosmer 1965 • • 

Sphenomorphus haasi Inger & Hosmer 1965 • • 

Sphenomorphus hallieri (van Lidth de Jeude 1905) 

• 

Sphenomorphus indicus (Gray 1853) 

• 

Sphenomorphus ishaki Grismer 2006 

• 

Sphenomorphus kinabaluensis (Bartlett 1895) 

• 

Sphenomorphus maculatus (Blyth 1845) 

• 

Sphenomorphus maculicollus Bacon 1967 • • 

Sphenomorphus malayanus (Doria 1888) 

• 

Sphenomorphus multisquamatus Inger 1958 • • 

Sphenomorphus murudensis Smith 1925 

• 

Sphenomorphus praesignis (Boulenger 1900) 

• 

Sphenomorphus sabanus Inger 1958 

• 

Sphenomorphus sanctus (Duméril & Bibron 1839) • 

Sphenomorphus scotophilus (Boulenger 1900) • 

Sphenomorphus shelfordi (Boulenger 1900) 

• 

Sphenomorphus sibuensis Grismer 2006 

• 

Sphenomorphus stellatus (Boulenger 1900) • •? 

Sphenomorphus tanahtinggi Inger et al. 2002 

• 

Sphenomorphus tenuiculum (Mocquard 1890) 

• 

Sphenomorphus tersus (Smith 1916) 

• 

Tropidophorus beccarii Peters 1871 • • 

Tropidophorus brookei (Gray 1845) • • 

Tropidophorus micropus an Lidth de Jeude 1905 

• 

Tropidophorus mocquardii Boulenger 1894 

• 

Tropidophorus perplexus Barbour 1921 

• 

Uromastycidae 

Leiolepis belliana (Hardwicke & Gray 1827) 

Leiolepis triploida Peters 1971 

• 

• 

Varanidae 

Varanus dumerilii (Schlegel 1839) • • • 

Varanus nebulosus (Gray 1831) 

• 

Varanus rudicollis Gray 1845 • • • 

Varanus salvator (Laurenti 1768) • • • 

Crocodylidae 

Crocodylus porosus Schneider 1801 • • • 

Crocodylus raninus Müller & Schlegel 1844 

• 

Crocodylus siamensis Schneider 1801 

•? 

Tomistoma schlegelii (Müller 1838) • • • 

Dermochelyidae 

Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli 1761) • • • 

79


Cheloniidae 

Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758) 

•? 

Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758) • • 

Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus 1766) • • 

Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz 1829) 

• 

Trionychidae 

Amyda cartilaginea (Boddaert 1770) • • • 

Chitra chitra Nutphand 1979 

• 

Dogania subplana (Geoffroy Saint-Hillaire 1809) • • • 

Pelochelys cantorii Gray 1864 • • 

*Pelodiscus sinensis (Wiegmann 1834) • • 

Geoemydidae 

Batagur baska (Gray 1831) 

• 

Callagur borneoensis (Schlegel & Müller 1844) • • 

Cuora amboinensis (Daudin 1801) • • • 

Cyclemys dentata (Gray 1831) • • 

Cyclemys oldhami Gray 1863 

Heosemys annandalei (Boulenger 1903) 

• 

Heosemys grandis (Gray 1860) 

• 

Heosemys spinosa (Gray 1831) • • 

Malayemys macrocephala (Gray 1859) 

• 

Notochelys platynota (Gray 1834) • • • 

Orlitia borneensis Gray 1873 • • 

Siebenrockiella crassicollis (Gray 1831) • • 

Emydidae 

*Trachemys scripta (Schoepff 1792) • • • 

Testudinidae 

Indotestudo elongata (Blyth 1853) 

• 

Manouria emys (Schlegel & Müller in: Temminck 1844) • • • 

Manouria impressa (Günther 1882) 

• 

* refers to introduced species. 

Checklist of 15 April 2006. 

80


APPENDIX III 

Websites Relevant to Malaysian Herpetology 

1. Amphibian Species of the World (Second Edition) by D. R. Frost, American Museum of Natural 

History (www.research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index/html) 

2. Reptile Species of the World by P. Uetz, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (www.emblheidelberg.de-uetz/db-info/related.html). 

3. Frogs of the Malay Peninsula by J. Sukumaran, University of Kansas (www.frogweb.org) 

4. Lizards of Borneo by I. Das & G. Ismail, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (www.arbec.com.my/lizards.) 

5. Turtles and Crocodiles of Borneo by I. Das, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (www.arbec.com.my/ 

crocodilesturtles) 

6. Amphibia Web, University of California (http://www.amphibiaweb.org) 

7. Amphibia Tree (http://texas.amphibiatree.org) 

8. HerpNET (http://herpnet.org) 

9. Aquatic Snakes of Southeast Asia by Harold Voris, Field Museum of Natural History (http:// 

www.fieldmuseum.org/aquaticsnakes) 

10. Bibliomania by Breck Bartholomew (http://www.herplit.com). Includes a database of approximately 

50,000 citations. 

81

A. AHMAD & A.R. KHAIRUL-ADHA (2007) 



STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ON FRESHWATER 

FISHES OF MALAYSIA 

1 

A. Ahmad & 2 A.R. Khairul-Adha 

ABSTRACT 

Freshwater fishes of Malaysia are diverse and inhabit a great variety of habitats ranging from 

small torrential streams to estuarine, highly acidic ecosystems and alkaline waters. Several 

species are endemic. Currently, there are about 280 species of freshwater fishes in Peninsular 

Malaysia, with more than 100 and 200 species reported from Sabah and Sarawak, respectively. 

The figures for Sabah and Sarawak are believed to be underestimates as the two states are 

poorly inventoried. In Peninsular Malaysia research on freshwater fishes is already established 

while in Sabah and Sarawak, the research is actively picking up in pace. Unlike Sabah, the 

fishes of Sarawak have never been the subject of any major research endeavor. Focus was 

given to major rivers in the state and many isolated and inland water bodies were left unexplored. 

In general, the fish diversity reported from Peninsular Malaysia reflects the peninsula’s close 

similarity with mainland Asiatic icthyofauna and the Sundaic component. The lack of research 

coordination, funding and local variations in regulation hamper efforts to bring together all 

collections into one repository centre. This issue requires urgent attention. 

INTRODUCTION 

Land development has altered the landscape as well as the aquatic ecosystems in many parts 

of Malaysia. Conversion of an intact forest has resulted in a loss of fish habitats in the country. 

These losses are almost always permanent and recovery, if taking place, will probably take 

many years and even so, does not restore the original diversity. Freshwater fishes of Malaysia 

are diverse and interesting but the knowledge is rather unsatisfactory and varies greatly in 

Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. 

Freshwater fishes inhabit a great variety of habitats ranging from small torrential streams to 

estuarine habitats, with several species flourishing in highly acidic ecosystems of peat swamps 

and acid-water freshwater swamps. There are some species that thrive in both acidic and 

alkaline waters. Several species are endemic and their distribution are restricted to small areas, 

1 

Freshwater Ecosystem Research Unit (UPEAT), Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science and 

Technology, University College of Science and Technology Malaysia (KUSTEM), 21030 Kuala Terengganu, 

Terengganu; amirrudin@kustem.edu.my 

2 

Faculty of Resources Science & Technology, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Dept. of Aquatic Sciences, 94300 Kota 

Samarahan, Sarawak; akhairul@frst.unimas.my 

83

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ON FRESHWATER FISHES OF MALAYSIA 

or confined to a particular drainage system, or if widely distributed, confined to an island or to 

a few localities. 

The diversity of freshwater fishes in Peninsular Malaysia reflects a close similarity with 

mainland Asiatic icthyofauna and others are from Sundaic origin. These overlaps have been 

recognized by many researchers (e.g., Mohsin & Ambak 1983, Zakaria-Ismail, 1994). In 

Malaysia, there are various institutions engaged in the study of freshwater fish diversity. 

However, much of the research is driven on individual basis, rather than on a collective or 

collaborative effort, and this leads to a loss in information when focus and funding change 

directions. The lack of research coordination and local variation in enforcement hamper efforts 

to bring together all known specimens freshwater fishes of Malaysia into one holding institution. 

The objective of this paper is to present the state of knowledge on the freshwater fish diversity 

in Malaysia. This information is gathered from past and recent publications. The need for a 

repository center is briefly discussed here. Brief information about the specialists and people 

working in the conservation and management of freshwater fishes as well as the possibilities 

for international collaboration are highlighted. 

FRESHWATER FISHES OF PENINSULAR MALAYSIA 

Freshwater fishes of Peninsular Malaysia have been receiving attention since 1800s. However, 

post-1990s may be regarded as the period where studies on the freshwater fishes are at its 

peak. Numerous works were published, particularly for Peninsular Malaysia (for details account 

of references, see Lim & Tan 2002). For the past 15 years, research on the freshwater fishes 

in Peninsular Malaysia has increased steadily and many new species and new records were 

reported. These were made possible by the surveys and inventories conducted in areas 

previously inaccessible and areas that were believed to harbor a lower diversity. 

As of 2002, at least 278 species are recognized as native with at least 24 species introduced 

(Lim & Tan 2002). This number, at present, is around 290. Since 1990, 50 more native species 

have been added to the list and more than half are new to science (Lim & Tan 2002). To date, 

Peninsular Malaysia has probably one of the most extensively studied ichthyofauna diversity 

in the Southeast Asia region. This is due to the easy access to various inland habitats. Mohsin 

& Ambak (1983)’s publication on the diversity of freshwater fishes of Peninsular Malaysia is 

very extensive and considered a “classic” but, typically, it contains numerous nomenclature 

errors. In 1989, M. Zakaria-Ismail completed his doctorate on the systematics, zoogeography 

and conservation of freshwater fishes of Peninsular Malaysia (Zakaria-Ismail 1989). In his 

dissertation, he listed many species as new records. This list is now no longer the most updated 

checklist and furthermore, his dissertation is not widely available. Many new species have 

been subsequently added to the list, arising from inventories done at other areas such as the 

North Selangor Peat Swamp Forest (NSPSF) (Ng et al. 1992). The inventories, which began 

in 1989, resulted in the discovery and documentation of 65 species of fish. Following this, 

several other reports on the freshwater fish diversity are being prepared (Ahmad & Lim in 

prep). The species diversity in Peninsular Malaysia may not exceed 300 unless major taxonomic 

revisions on certain groups are dealt with, supplemented with the use of molecular approaches. 

84


FRESHWATER FISHES OF SABAH AND SARAWAK 

Sabah and Sarawak has perhaps over 100 and 200 species, respectively. It is difficult to 

provide a close estimate of the diversity as many studies are still in progress or about to begin. 

Therefore, the figures currently available for Sabah and Sarawak are poor estimates. The two 

states are believed to harbor more than what we currently know of their ichthyofauna diversity. 

This low number merely reflects the lack of inventory studies. For Sabah, Chin (1990) listed 

the number of freshwater fish species ca. 155, including 12 exotic species. Martin-Smith & 

Tan (1998) acknowledged that the true number of freshwater fishes in Sabah is probably 

much higher. 

Sabah is probably better known for its freshwater fish diversity based on the work of Robert 

F. Inger & P. K. Chin, the Freshwater Fishes of North Borneo (1962) and a subsequent 

supplementary chapter in 1990 (Inger & Chin 1990). Apart from this, there were no other 

major taxonomical studies/revisions nor were there many comprehensive collections made— 

much of the research in the state were ecological in approach. Specialist collections at localized 

areas however, yielded interesting results (Chin & Samat 1992, Chin & Samat 1995). Work 

by Martin-Smith & Tan (1998) has significantly contributed to the understanding of 

ichthyofauna in eastern Sabah. Two new species of the genus Gastromyzon had been described 

recently (Tan & Martin-Smith 1998). 

Unlike Sabah, the freshwater fishes of Sarawak have never been the subject of any major 

research endeavor. Scattered studies were conducted mainly on documenting the fish fauna 

that were affected by development as part of the requirement of Environmental Impact 

Assessment (EIA). Again, focus was given to major rivers in the state and many isolated and 

inland water bodies were left unexplored. Watson & Balon (1984) conducted a survey along 

the Baram River but much of the associated taxonomic work was ignored. The listing of 

species that occurred in the River drainage, including those that occurred in Brunei, can be 

found in Kottelat & Lim (1995). This listing is probably the only major publication for the 

state of Sarawak. Several new species including a Rasbora, a freshwater puffer fish and an 

anabantoids fish had been described in the last decade from the state. 

AREAS WITH KNOWN DIVERSITY 

Previous studies on the freshwater fishes of Peninsular Malaysia were mainly conducted at 

Taman Negara (King Edward’s National Park) (Zakaria-Ismail 1984, Tan & Hamzah 1990). 

Following this, at least four major rivers were surveyed and among them, only Sungai Pahang 

can be regarded as being thoroughly surveyed (Khan et al. 1996) and the fish collection properly 

catalogued and identified to the taxon level! 

Fish survey along a tributary of Sungai Terengganu was made prior to the construction of the 

Kenyir hydroelectric dam more than two decades ago. Cramphorn (1983) visited several sites 

and the materials collected might be available elsewhere. The fish diversity along Sungai 

Perak and Sungai Kelantan have been documented by T.I. Kvernevik but these are not complete. 

A major gap is recognized and a more thorough survey is urgently required. 

85


As for Tasik Bera and Tasik Chini, the ichthyofauna diversity and it contributions to fisheries 

have been documented by Mizuno & Furtado (1982). This was followed ten years later by the 

study on the swamp ichthyofauna of North Selangor Peat Swamp Forest (NSPSF) (Ng et al. 

1992, 1994). The study marks the beginning of a fresh era for the freshwater fish research in 

Malaysia, particularly for Peninsular Malaysia. 

In the late 1990s, a study was initiated to document the fish diversity of a small pocket of peat 

and freshwater swamp forest in the Pondok Tanjung Forest Reserve, Perak. In the five months 

of short-period samplings (December 1997 to April 1998), 42 fish species were recorded 

(Mansor et al. 1999) and the number has now increased to 50 species (A. Ahmad unpubl.). 

More focus was given to document the freshwater fish fauna of peat swamp related ecosystems. 

Zakaria-Ismail (1999) reported about 33 species of freshwater fish in Nenasi Forest Reserve, 

Pahang. Another study recorded 46 species in Southeast Pahang Peat Swamp Forest (SEPPSF). 

The most recent survey in SEPPSF, conducted along Sungai Bebar and Sungai Serai, yielded 

approximately 58 species, thus bringing the total fish species known to SEPPSF to 65 species 

(Ahmad et al. 2005). 

Studies on the freshwater fish species in several major islands in Peninsular Malaysia yielded 

surprising results. Penang Island’s ichthyofauna was documented by Alfred (1963) in which 

Neolissocheilus hendersoni (previously known as Acrossocheilus hendersoni Herre) was 

described. The species is endemic to Penang and Langkawi Islands. The Tioman Island’s 

ichthyofauna has been surveyed by several researchers and the latest results were published 

by Ng et al. (1999). Fourteen species were reported to inhabit the many streams and creeks on 

the island. Despite its relatively low diversity, two species occurring there: Sundoreonectes 

tiomanensis (loach) and Clarias batu (catfish) are not found elsewhere. While Clarias batu is 

common along streams (Lim & Ng 1999), the loach is confined to a single cave situated in the 

island’s interior. 

In 2002, Malayan Nature Society (MNS) together with several other institutions organized a 

scientific and heritage expedition to the island of Langkawi. Together with previous collections, 

a checklist of the freshwater fish was prepared. At least 24 species were recorded, while three 

others are additional to the ones already known for Peninsular Malaysia (Ahmad & Lim in 

prep). 

Inventory studies were also conducted in states parks such as Endau-Rompin (Zakaria-Ismali 

1987, Ng & Tan 1999), Perlis State Park (Ahmad et al. 2001, Samat et al. 2002, Ahmad & 

Samat 2005), Penang National Park (Ahmad et al. 2002, Ahmad et al. 2004), small streams 

and headwaters in Pahang (Zakaria-Ismail 1993) and Johor (Lim et al. 1990), small isolated 

swamps in Terengganu (Kottelat et al. 1992). Ng & Tan (1999) recorded two new catfish 

species from Sungai Kahang while several new species were described from the freshwater 

swamps at Kuala Berang, Terengganu (Kottelat & Lim 1993). 

In Sabah, there were no other major studies except for the work of Inger & Chin (1962). 

Localised surveys were conducted while others were more ecological in approach. Samat & 

Chin (1996) produced a checklist of the balitorid fishes, comprising 19 species and briefly 

discussed the biogeography, taxonomy, species composition and ecomorphology. A study on 

the balitorid loach, Gastromyzon is currently on-going (K.K.P. Lim, pers. comm.). Studies 

conducted at Danum Valley (Martin-Smith 1998, Martin-Smith & Tan 1998) yielded several 

86


new species (Tan & Martin-Smith 1998). Inventories were also conducted at Sungai Segama 

in the Tabin Wildlfe Reserve, Crocker Range, Maliau Basin and Kinabalu Park (Goose 1972, 

Samat 1990). 

In Sarawak, apart from the work of Watson & Balon (1984) and the compilation of a fish 

checklist by Kottelat & Lim (1995), several other studies were conducted, mainly focusing on 

small areas and lacking major taxonomic work. Inventories were conducted along the Rajang 

River, Lambir and Gunung Mulu National Parks, Batang Ai and Bario areas. Large areas of 

the peat swamp forest in the state are yet to be explored. A small pocket of peat swamp forest 

near University Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) has about 16 species of freshwater fish (Khairul- 

Adha & Yuzine in press). Surveys in other areas were conducted but the results are preliminary 

(Ahmad & Khairul-Adha in prep.). 

REPOSITORY CENTER 

Malaysia does not have a national repository centre (Ng 2000). The collections in Peninsular 

Malaysia are currently deposited in the respective institutions where the research is conducted. 

The need for a national repository centre is necessary but until this is created, universities, 

research institutions and government agencies will continue to keep their respective collections. 

At present, the collection at University Malaya (BIRCUM) is probably the only one being 

actively used by researchers and taxonomists alike. The University College of Science and 

Technology Malaysia (KUSTEM), Kuala Terengganu and University Kebangsaan Malaysia 

(UKM), Bangi each holds a good collection of freshwater fishes. The collections at KUSTEM 

are mainly new collections and this does not include collections reported by Mohsin & Ambak 

(1983). Fisheries Research Institute (FRI), Malacca, holds a significant number of collections 

that includes materials from Sungai Pahang. Many of these collections may not have been 

accurately curated. 

In Sabah and Sarawak, both the State Museums play a significant role in holding a large 

collection of fishes found in the states. Apart from that, University Malaysia Sabah (UMS), 

Kota Kinabalu and UNIMAS have their own collections. The number of collections may not 

be as great compared to the Museums’ collections, but they are still considered significant 

from the viewpoint of research. 

LOCAL EXPERTISE 

Ng (2000) stated that taxonomic expertise is a greatly misused word. In Malaysia, the number 

of practising taxonomists is scarce. Many taxonomists are trained in the field of research but 

unfortunately, do not eventually practice active taxonomic research. The establishment of the 

national repository center may not materialize if there is insufficient number of taxonomists, 

ecologists and biologists. In addition, it is becoming increasingly difficult to encourage the 

younger generation to be involved in the research and development of freshwater fishes. 

Kottelat & Whitten (1996) and Ng (2000) commented on the pathetic number of practising 

taxonomists in Asia. In Malaysia, the figure (Table 2 in Ng 2000) showed that only a few are 

involved in this field, but the actual number practicing might be even less than what is reported! 

In addition, many senior researchers are not actively publishing their results. The collaboration 

87


between Malaysia and other external agencies such as the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity 

Research (RMBR), Singapore, plays a significant role in enhancing knowledge on the country’s 

freshwater fishes. 

External collaboration is needed but more importantly, the availability of sufficient research 

funding is crucial to enable inventory work and systematic research. The involvement of 

organisations such as the United Nation Development Program, (UNDP) through the Global 

Environmental Facility (GEF) in the research on the peat swamp forests in Southeast Pahang, 

Sarawak and Sabah is significant in contributing to the habitat conservation. Notwithstanding 

this, it is crucial that local researchers play a more active role to the research and conservation 

of these precious natural resources. 


Special thanks to Prof. Dr. A. Ambak (KUSTEM), Assoc. Prof. Dr. Peter K.L. Ng (ZRC), 

Kelvin K.P. Lim (ZRC), Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lee Nyanti (UNIMAS) and Patrick K.Y. Lee (UM) 

for valuable discussion on this paper. The first author is also grateful to Siti Ariza Aripin for 

gathering the materials for this manuscript. 

REFERENCES 

AHMAD, A., ALI, A.B. & MANSOR, M. 2001. Freshwater fishes of Wang Kelian, Perlis 

State Park. Pp. 111–121 in Faridah-Hanum, I., Osman, K. & Latiff A. (eds.) Kepelbagaian 

Biologi dan Pengurusan Taman Negeri Perlis: Persekitaran Fizikal dan Biologi Wang 

Kelian. Jabatan Perhutanan Perlis. 

AHMAD, A., YUSRI, Y., SITI AZIZAH, M.N. & ALI, A.B. 2002. The fish fauna of Pantai 

Acheh Park, Penang, Malaysia. Journal of Bioscience 13(2): 35–41. 

AHMAD, A., YUSRI, Y., SITI AZIZAH, M.N. & ALI, A.B. 2004. The fish fauna of Pantai 

Acheh Forest Reserve in Penang, Malaysia: species composition, local distribution and 

inter-site relationship. Journal of Bioscience 15(1): 49–61. 

AHMAD, A. & SAMAT, A. 2005. Additional records of the freshwater fishes of Perlis State 

Park, Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 57(3): 327–343. 

AHMAD, A., MAZLAN, A.G., SYED AHMAD RIZAL, T.N., ABD. RAHMAN, A.R., 

JAMIL, M., JACQUELINE, L., & ABDULLAH, S. 2005. Freshwater fishes of Sungai 

Bebar and adjacent areas. Pp. 145–148 in Summary Findings PSF Technical Series No. 4. 

Peat Swamp Forest Project. UNDP, GEF, Pahang Forestry Department & Universiti 

Kebangsaan Malaysia. 

ALFRED, E.R. 1963. Notes on a collection of freshwater fishes from Penang. Bulletin of the 

National Museum 32: 143–156. 

CHIN, P.K. 1990. The freshwater fishes of North Borneo. 47 pp. in Inger, R.F. & Chin, P.K. 

The Freshwater Fishes of North Borneo. Sabah Zoological Society, Sabah. 

CHIN, P.K. & SAMAT, A. 1992. A new species of loach, Nemacheilus elegentissimus (family 

Balitoridae, subfamily Nemacheilinae) from Danum Valley, Sabah. Malay. Nat. J. 46: 

25–33. 

CHIN, P.K. & SAMAT, A. 1995. Freshwater fishes of Danum Valley, Sabah. Sabah Soc. J. 

12: 17–46. 

88


CRAMPHORN, J. 1983. Sungai Terengganu fish survey, 1980. Malay. Nat. 36(4): 16–20. 

GOOSE, J.P. 1972. Fishes of Kinabalu National Park (North Borneo). Biologie 48(3): 1–5. 

INGER, R.F. & CHIN, P.K. 1962. The Freshwater Fishes of North Borneo. Fieldiana Zool. 

45: 1–268. 

INGER, R.F. & CHIN, P.K. 1990. The Freshwater Fishes of North Borneo. Fieldiana Zool. 

45: 1–268. Revised edition. Lun Hing Trading, Kota Kinabalu. 

KHAIRUL-ADHA, A.R. & YUZINE, E. (in press). The fish fauna. Biodiversity of a peat 

swamp forest at Kota Samarahan. Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental 

Conservation, University Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan. 

KHAN, M.S., LEE, P.K.Y., CRAMPHORN, J. & ZAKARIA-ISMAIL, M. 1996. Freshwater 

fishes of the Pahang River basin, Malaysia. Wetlands International – Asia Pacific 

Publication No. 112. 82 pp. 

KOTTELAT, M. & LIM, K.K.P. 1993. A review of the eel-loaches of the genus Pangio 

(Teleostei: Cobitidae) from the Malay Peninsula, with descriptions of six new species. 

The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 41(2): 203–249. 

KOTTELAT, M. & LIM, K.K.P. 1995. Freshwater fishes of Sarawak and Brunei Darussalam: 

a preliminary annotated checklist. The Sarawak Museum Journal XLVIII 69 (new series): 

228–256. 

KOTTELAT, M. & WHITTEN, T. 1996. Freshwater biodiversity in Asia with special reference 

to fish. World Bank Technical Paper No. 343. 59 pp. World Bank, Washongton D.C. 

KOTTELAT, M., NG, P. & LIM, K. 1992. Recent collections of freshwater fish from 

Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Naturalist 46(2): 7–12. 

LIM, K.K.P. & NG, H.H. 1999. Clarias batu, a new species of catfish (Teleostei: Clariidae) 

from Pulau Tioman, Peninsular Malaysia. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 

No. 6: 157–167. 

LIM, K.K.P. & TAN, H.H. 2002. Freshwater fish diversity in Peninsula Malaysia: A review 

of recent findings. In: A. Ali et al. (eds.) The Asian wetlands: bringing partnership into 

good wetland practices. Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang. In CD form. 

LIM, K.K.P., NG, P.K.L. & KOTTELAT, M. 1990. On a collection of freshwater fishes from 

Endau-Rompin, Pahang-Johore, Peninsular Malaysia. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 

38(1): 31–54. 

MANSOR, M., ALI, A.B. & AHMAD, A. 1999. Pondok Tanjung: a unique blackwater swamp 

in Malaysia. Pp. 110–120 in M.R. Che Salmah & A.B. Ali (eds.) Proceedings of the Joint 

USM-RCJ-NHK Education Corporation Workshop on Public Awareness of Wetlands and 

Role of Ramsar Convention on Wetland Conservation and Wise Use, Penerbit Universiti 

Sains Malaysia, Penang. 

MARTIN-SMITH, K.M. 1998. Relationship between fishes and habitat in rainforest streams 

in Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Fish Biology 52: 458–482. 

MARTIN-SMITH, K.M. & TAN, H.H. 1998. Diversity of freshwater fishes from eastern 

Sabah: an annotated checklist from Danum Valley and a consideration of inter- and intracatchment 

variability. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 46(2): 573–604. 

MIZUNO, N. & FURTADO, J.I. 1982. Ecological notes on fishes. Pp. 321–349 in Furtado, 

J.I. & Mori, S. (eds.) Tasek Bera. The Ecology of a Freshwater Swamp. Dr. W. Junk 

Publishers, The Hague. 

MOHSIN, A.K.M. & AMBAK, A. 1983. Freshwater Fishes of Peninsular Malaysia. Universiti 

Pertanian Malaysia, Selangor. 284 pp. 

NG, H.H. & TAN, H.H. 1999. The fishes of the Endau drainage, Peninsular Malaysia with 

descriptions of two new species of catfishes (Teleostei: Akysidae, Bagridae). Zoological 

Studies (Taiwan) 38(3): 350–366. 

89


NG, H.H., TAN, H.H. & LIM, K.K.P. 1999. The inland fishes of Pulau Tioman, Peninsular 

Malaysia. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 6: 169–187. 

NG, P.K.L. 2000. Development and future direction of biodiversity collections in Southeast 

Asia. Pp. 49–65 in Proceeding of the International Conference on In-situ & Ex-situ 

Biodiversity Conservation in the New Millennium, 20–22 June 2000, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. 

NG, P.K.L., TAY, J.B., LIM, K.K.P. & YANG, C.M. 1992. The conservation of the fish and 

other aquatic fauna of the North Selangor Peat Swamp Forest and adjacent areas. Asian 

Wetland Bureau Publication No. 81. 90 pp. 

NG, P.K.L., TAY, J.B. & LIM, K.K.P. 1994. Diversity and conservation of blackwater fishes 

in Peninsular Malaysia, particularly in the North Selangor peat swamp forest. 

Hydrobiologia 285: 203–218. 

SAMAT, A. 1990. Taburan dan populasi ikan air tawar di beberapa altitud di Taman Kinabalu, 

Sabah. Pertanika 13(13): 341–348. 

SAMAT, A. & CHIN, P.K. 1996. The balitorid fish of Sabah. The Sarawak Museum 

Journal L(71) (new series): 87–92. 

SAMAT, A., AHMAD, A., USUP, G. & MAIMON, A. 2002. Fishes of Perlis State Park with 

reference to its habitat environment and conservation. Pp. 135–147 in Latiff, A., Osman, 

K., Faridah-Hanum, I. & A. Rahman, Y. (eds.) Kepelbagaian Biologi dan Pengurusan 

Taman Negeri Perlis: Persekitaran Fizikal dan Biologi dan Sosio-ekonomi Wang Mu. 

Taman Negeri Perlis & Jabatan Perhutanan Perlis. 

TAN, E.S.P. & HAMZAH, J. 1990. Game fishes of Taman Negara. J. Wildlife and Parks 10: 

78–93. 

TAN, H.H & MARTIN-SMITH, K.M. 1998. Two new species of Gastromyzon (Teleostei: 

Balitoridae) from the Kuamut headwaters, Kinabatangan Basin, Sabah, Malaysia. Raffles 


WATSON, D.J. & BALON, E.K. 1984. Structure and production of fish communities in tropical 

rain forest streams of northern Borneo. Can. J. Zool. 62: 927–940. 

ZAKARIA-ISMAIL, M. 1984. Checklist of fishes of Taman Negara. Malayan Naturalist 37: 

21–26. 

ZAKARIA-ISMAIL, M. 1987. The fish fauna of the Ulu Endau river system, Johore, Malaysia. 


ZAKARIA-ISMAIL, M. 1989. Systematics, zoogeography and conservation of the freshwater 

fishes of Peninsular Malaysia. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Colorado State University, 

USA. 473 pp. 

ZAKARIA-ISMAIL, M. 1993. The fish fauna of the Sungai Teris and Sungai Rengit, Krau 

Game Reserve, Pahang, Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 46: 201–228. 

ZAKARIA-ISMAIL, M. 1994. Zoogeography and biodiversity of the freshwater fishes of 

Southeast Asia. Hydrobiologia 285: 41–48. 

ZAKARIA-ISMAIL, M. 1999. Survey of fish diversity in peat swamp forest. Pp. 173–198 in 

Chin T.Y. & Havmoller, P. (eds.) Sustainable management of Peat Swamp Forest in 

Peninsular Malaysia, Vol. 1: Resource and Environment. Forestry Department Peninsular 

Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

90

MD. AKHIR ARSHAD & PADILAH BAKAR (2007) 



Commercial and Exotic Fish Diversity in 

Marine Parks in the Straits of Malacca and 

South China Sea 

1 

Md. Akhir Arshad & 2 Padilah Bakar 

ABSTRACT 

Inventory of species diversity in different marine ecosystems has been conducted in Peninsular 

Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak since early 1900’s. Much of the work in taxonomic identifications 

was made possible through integrated effort ranging from periodic national fish resource surveys 

initiated as early as 1926, fishing trials and statistical data collected at various landing points. 

These efforts were strengthened by regional cooperation mechanisms, international research 

initiatives and grants. These have contributed, directly and indirectly, to an increase in 

information on marine fish diversity. At present, there are 1751 species of marine and brackish 

water fish recorded in Malaysia. More than 400 species recorded in the coastal areas and river 

estuaries and more than 450 species recorded offshore in East Malaysia alone. The diversity 

in the coastal areas, estuaries and offshore for Peninsular Malaysia is lower. 

Improvements in diving and photographic-videographic equipments have provided a superb 

documentation of information of biodiversity at specific sites especially in marine park islands 

for both coastal and offshore areas. The interest in underwater photography and videography 

has enhanced the work significantly. Significant findings on fish biodiversity in marine park 

islands especially on rare and exotic species have increased tremendously. 

This paper provides an overall picture of the Global Taxonomic Initiative (GTI) in Malaysia’s 

marine fish environment based on the information gathered through individual research and 

institutional efforts, including published and unpublished reports. Information specific to Pulau 

Payar in the Straits of Malacca, Pulau Redang Islands in Terengganu, Tioman Islands in Pahang 

and Tinggi Islands in Johor are selected for the review since extensive research and surveys 

had been conducted on these islands. 

The paper also discusses issues and obstacles experienced in undertaking the Global Taxonomic 

Initiative and provide recommendations for more effective GTI efforts including repository 

and management of specific marine ecosystems and corridors. 

Fisheries Research Institute, 11960 Batu Maung, Penang, Tel: 04–626 3925, Fax: 04–626 2210; 1 akhir38@yahoo.com; 

2 

padilahbakar@yahoo.com 

91

1. Cucurlionidae. Photo courtesy Shawn Cheng 

2. Hospitalitermes sp. (Termitidae) Photo courtesy Shawn Cheng 

3. Danaus affinis (Nymphalidae). Photo courtesy L.G. Kirton 

4. Drupadia ravindra moorei (Lycaenidae). Photo courtesy L.G. Kirton 

5. Junonia orithya wallacei (Nymphalidae). Photo courtesy L.G. Kirton 

6. Johora grallator (Potamidae). Photo courtesy Lim Cheng Puay 

7. Geosesarma gracillimum (Grapsidae). Photo courtesy P.K.L. Ng 

8. Odontolabis femoralis (Lucanidae). Photo courtesy L.G. Kirton 

9. Riverine vegetation in a tropical lowland dipterocarp forest. Photo 

courtesy L.G. Saw



MALAYSIAN FRESHWATER CRABS: 

CONSERVATION PROSPECTS AND 

CHALLENGES 

1 

Peter K. L. Ng & 2 Darren C. J. Yeo 

ABSTRACT 

Of the over 150 species of true freshwater crab species now known from Sundaic Southeast 

Asia, more than half occur in Malaysia. Currently, 24 genera and 102 described species from 

four families; Potamidae, Gecarcinucidae, Parathelphusidae and Sesarmidae, are known. Many 

species of freshwater crabs, however, have very restricted geographic ranges, a consequence 

of their relative low fecundity cum direct development, poor dispersal abilities, and nichespecialisation. 

This makes freshwater crabs highly susceptible to anthropogenic activities. 

While there is no clear evidence that any one species has been made extinct as a result, the 

threats facing many known species are critical. The conservation status of Malaysian freshwater 

crabs are reviewed and assessed using the criteria established by the IUCN (2001), and the 

problems and challenges associated with these discussed. The report serves as a starting point 

for determining appropriate conservation strategies for these animals. 

INTRODUCTION 

Of the estimated 6,500 known species of brachyuran crabs, over 1,000 are known to be wholly 

freshwater in habit. Freshwater crabs are one of the most important organisms inhabiting 

Southeast Asian freshwaters, but are relatively poorly known because of their secretive habits. 

They are present in almost all clean freshwater bodies, from lowlands to high mountains. 

Some species have also become terrestrial and semi-terrestrial, moving about or burrowing 

into the forest floor. Their direct development and freshwater habit have resulted in rampant 

speciation, with a large number of species occurring in this part of the world. Malaysia alone 

has one of the highest densities of freshwater crab diversity in the world, with 24 genera and 

102 known species from four families (Potamidae: 41 species; Parathelphusidae: 40 species; 

Gecarcinucidae: 3 species; and Sesarmidae: 18 species), many of them endemic, and more 

than half of them described between 1990 and 2000 (Ng 1988, 1990a, 2004; Cranbrook & 

Furtado 1988; Ng & Ambu 1998). 

Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260, Republic of 

Singapore; 1 dbsngkl@nus.edu.sg; 2 darrenyeo@nus.edu.sg 

95

MALAYSIAN FRESHWATER CRABS: CONSERVATION PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES 

Much of this diversity and endemism is owed to the complicated topography and equally 

diverse and heterogeneous habitats found in much of the country, ranging from rugged montane 

habitats with waterfalls and torrential streams to moist lowland forests to subterranean 

freshwaters; in both continental as well as insular landmasses. These provide plenty of 

opportunities not only for allopatric speciation to occur by geographic isolation, but also for 

sympatric speciation through niche specialization in the many ecological niches available. 

Naturally, these are coupled with the freshwater crab characteristics of possessing low fecundity, 

direct development and limited dispersal abilities. 

The species distributions cover a wide gamut, from point endemics such as Johora johorensis 

(Gunung Pulai, Johor) to localized taxa like Geosesarma nemesis (Gunung Pulai and Gunung 

Panti, Johor, and Singapore) to wide ranging species such as Parathelphusa maculata 

(throughout Peninsular Malaysia, southernmost Thailand, Singapore and southern half of 

Sumatra). 

The present paper aims to assess and discuss the conservation status of the 102 freshwater 

crab species now known from Malaysia. 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

For purposes of reference and discussion, certain geographical terms have been used in this 

paper. These are defined below: 

Sundaland/Sundaic - refers to the continental land masses and islands of the Sunda Shelf, i.e., 

Malay Peninsula, Borneo, Sumatra, Java and Lesser Sunda Islands. Palawan (including 

Balabac) is included but Sulawesi and the southern islands of the Philippines (e.g., 

Mindanao and Mindoro) are excluded. 

Malay/Malayan - pertaining to Peninsular Malaysia, inclusive of southernmost Thailand (south 

of the Isthmus of Kra), and Singapore. 

The terminology for morphological structure follows essentially that used by Ng (1988). Several 

genera and species are in the process of being described or the descriptions are in press. In 

such instances, no name has been applied. In this paper, the abbreviations G1 and G2 are used 

for the male first and second pleopods, respectively. 

Although Ng (1988) previously recognised the taxon of subspecies, a reconsideration of the 

state of brachyuran systematics suggests that such a fine division is neither useful nor realistic, 

especially considering the poor understanding we have of their mechanisms of speciation. 

The phylogenetic species concept is utilised here as far as possible. Under this framework, all 

taxa previously regarded as subspecies are recognised here as species. 

With regards to the threat status, the most recent (IUCN 2001) guidelines (Red List Categories 

& Criteria, version 3.1) were adopted for use in assessing the threat-levels of the various 

freshwater crab species considered. These categories are: Critically Endangered (CR), 

Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC), or Data 

Deficient (DD). 

96

PETER K. L. NG & DARREN C. J. YEO (2007) 

Although the criterion of population size is an important consideration in ascertaining a species’ 

threat level, this is almost impossible to determine for the freshwater crab species treated here. 

The necessary quantifications simply have not been done. Many species are also very secretive 

in habits, and several have not been rediscovered since they were first collected. In particular, 

species, which are obligate cave dwellers, deep forest terrestrial species, tree-climbers or that 

otherwise have very specialised niches, cannot be effectively sampled. As such, the only 

objective data-sets of use are of the presence/absence type. Even so, when a species is 

supposedly absent from an area, this observation must be considered with regards to its known 

habits and behaviour. In many cases, the habitats and habits of a species can be predicted on 

the basis of its carapace physiognomy, leg structure and proportions, eye form as well as 

colour. 

Nevertheless, in general, the presence/absence criterion at least allows the geographic range 

to be predicted using either the Extent of Occurrence (i.e. area contained within the shortest 

continuous imaginary boundary encompassing known sites of occurrence), or the Area of 

Occupancy (i.e. the area within its Extent of Occurrence which is actually occupied by the 

taxon). Given that most tropical habitats are very heterogeneous in structure, and aquatic 

habitats (including swamp forest structure and underground water-tables) fluctuate substantially 

depending on the time of the year; and that some species have small and highly localised 

populations; the Area of Occupancy (i.e. the available aquatic habitat particular to the species) 

criterion is too subjective to be very useful. The Extent of Occurrence is thus the preferred 

criterion for estimates used here for geographic range. 

As such, the CR, EN and VU outcomes resulted from evaluation against criteria B1(a) and 

(b)(iii) in those categories. Continuing decline in Extent of Occurrence and/or quality of habitat 

was inferred if the habitat was not a protected area, or if it was a protected area subject to 

anthropogenic impacts such as pollution or encroachment. 

A taxon is CR if its Extent of Occurrence is estimated to be less than 100 km 2 (B1) and its 

habitat is severely fragmented or it is known to exist at only one location (B1(a)); and there is 

a continuing decline in the area, extent and/or quality of its habitat (b)(iii). 

It is EN if its Extent of Occurrence is estimated to be less than 5,000 km 2 (B1) and its habitat 

is severely fragmented or it is known to exist at no more than five locations (B1(a)); and there 

is a continuing decline in the area, extent and/or quality of its habitat (b)(iii). 

It is VU if its Extent of Occurrence is estimated to be less than 20,000 km 2 (B1) and its habitat 

is severely fragmented or it is known to exist at no more than 10 locations (B1(a)); and there 

is a continuing decline in the area, extent and/or quality of its habitat (b)(iii). VU status was 

also applied to taxa that have an Area of Occupancy estimated to be less than 20 km 2 ; and are 

known from only a single population which is at least partly in a protected area, but is “prone 

to the effects of human activities or stochastic events within a very short time period in an 

uncertain future, and is thus capable of becoming Critically Endangered or even Extinct in a 

very short time period” (D2). 

NT status was awarded to taxa that were evaluated against the criteria but did not qualify for 

CR, EN or VU at present, but likely to qualify for such a category in the near future. 

97


LC status was awarded to taxa that were evaluated against the criteria and did not qualify for 

CR, EN, VU or NT; in general, these taxa are widespread (Extent of Occurrence greater than 

20,000 km 2 ) and abundant. 

RESULTS 

The results are presented in Table 1, which is a checklist of the freshwater crabs of Malaysia, 

showing available data relevant to the IUCN (2001) Red List criteria together with the 

conservation outcomes. The assessment shows that of the 102 Malaysian species known, 16 

taxa are Critically Endangered, 46 Endangered, 28 Vulnerable, 10 of Least Concern and 2 are 

Data Deficient. None of the species evaluated here qualified for the Near Threatened category 

as defined above. 

DISCUSSION 

Based on the conservation status assigned to the Malaysian freshwater crabs in the present 

study, a few patterns have emerged that should be noted. The restricted distributions of most 

of the freshwater crab species in Malaysia pose serious problems for conservation. It is 

somewhat fortunate that the species with the most restricted distributions are those which 

inhabit offshore islands or mountains (see later, however). These areas are generally less 

disturbed or not scheduled for development, at least for the moment. The serious loss of 

natural forest as a result of land development and agriculture has generally affected the lowlands 

more severely. The species which do occur in lowlands, e.g., Parathelphusa maculata and 

Sayamia sexpunctata, are still common in relatively unpolluted plantation waterways and 

ricefields. These lowland species also have relatively much wider distributions, and are least 

at risk. Ten species (e.g., Perithelphusa borneensis) reported here with an Extent of Occurrence 

of approximately 1,500 to 2,000 km 2 are categorized as Least Concern. Aquatic species (e.g., 

Isolapotamon collinsi and Thelphusula baramensis) in general appear to be faring better than 

their terrestrial kin, as only 22 out of 51 primarily aquatic species (43%) are categorized under 

Critically Endangered or Endangered. On the other hand, terrestrial or semi-terrestrial species 

like Geosesarma katibas and Thelphusula granosa seem to be under much greater threat, with 

36 out of 47 such species (77%) being regarded as Critically Endangered or Endangered. 

Perhaps not surprisingly, the results also indicate that specialist species, e.g., the obligate 

cave-dwelling crab, Cerberusa caeca, are also more threatened, with most such taxa being 

Critically Endangered or Endangered. Interestingly, highland taxa, despite their relative 

inaccessibility, seem to also be at higher risk, with all 10 highland species in Peninsular Malaysia 

(e.g., Johora grallator) being Critically Endangered or Endangered. Many of the potamids 

and smaller parathelphusids are especially vulnerable to development and pollution. The limited 

distribution of most of these species with very restricted ranges is not an anomaly. Johora 

johorensis for example, is only known from Gunung Pulai, and despite much collecting around 

the hill and other areas, has not been recorded elsewhere. In neighbouring hills, it is replaced 

by two very different taxa: J. intermedia to the north and J. murphyi to the east. Any 

development of Gunung Pulai would thus have dire consequences for J. johorensis. Finally, 

the isolated nature of small islands also appears to put the island endemic species at a 

disadvantage, as illustrated by the eight species (five Johora, one Parathelphusa, two 

Geosesarma) known only from Pulau Tioman, all of which are regarded as Endangered. 

98

Table 1. Checklist of the freshwater crabs of Malaysia (Potamidae, Parathelphusidae, Gecarcinucidae, Sesarmidae) 

Species Status No. of Extent of Range Habitat/Ecology Threats Conservation measures 

sites Occurrence 

Johora aipooae EN 1



Johora gua EN 1



Johora intermedia LC >20



Johora tahanensis VU 3



Stoliczia CR 1



Stoliczia CR 1



Stoliczia tweediei CR 1



Isolapotamon VU 4



Isolapotamon VU 3



Phricotelphusa CR 1



Thelphusula VU 2



Thelphusula EN 1



Stygothelphusa CR 1



Sundathelphusa EN 1 2,000 km 2 Widespread throughout Primarily aquatic. Living in No immediate threat, The retention of 

maculata De Man, Peninsular Malaysia. Also slow-flowing lowland streams especially to populations designated protected 

1879 found in Singapore and under rocks, vegetation, leaf within protected areas areas. 

southern half of Sumatra. litter and debris. Also dig deep throughout its range. 

burrows in stream banks. High 

tolerance for anoxic water 

conditions. 

Parathelphusa VU 5



Parathelphusa EN 1



Salangathelphusa VU 2



Geosesarma EN 1



Geosesarma LC 6



Geosesarma EN 1


The conservation of freshwater crabs hinges almost entirely on preserving patches of natural 

forest large enough to maintain the good water quality of the original streams. Potamids are 

extremely sensitive to polluted or silted waters, and will not survive when exposed to these 

factors. In Singapore for example, the small patch of primary forest of Bukit Timah Hill (ca. 

70 hectares) is quite sufficient to maintain a small but thriving population of the potamid 

Johora singaporensis. This species is known from only one other area in Singapore, which is 

threatened with development, and Bukit Timah is probably its last refuge (see Ng 1988, 1989, 

1990b). The same is true for Parathelphusa reticulata, which is known to occur only in a 

small remnant patch of peat swamp forest patch of less than 50 hectares in the Central Catchment 

Area of Singapore (Ng 1989, 1990a, b). Similar patterns have been recorded for the freshwater 

crabs of Sri Lanka (Bahir et al. 2005). 

Development, agriculture and exploitation of forest products probably cannot be halted, but 

compromises will have to be made if many freshwater crab species are not to be extirpated. It 

is likely that some species have already become extinct through extensive developments in 

some areas before their taxonomy can be better understood. Judicious and careful exploitation 

(e.g., controlled logging) is unlikely to cause extinctions as long as the water drainages are not 

polluted or redirected and the forest cover not completely stripped away. The recolonisation 

of many lowland plantations and estates by more adaptable species like Parathelphusa maculata 

is encouraging. How more montane taxa like potamids will cope is not known, but considering 

their fastidious habitat requirements, most species will not be able to adapt as readily as 

parathelphusids. 

The subjectivity of threat levels assigned here must be emphasised, as some of the limitations 

of this study echo the challenges faced in conservation. Conservation challenges are often 

associated with the amount of knowledge available on the species. The freshwater crabs of 

Singapore and southern Peninsular Malaysia are better known, and their biology and distribution 

better understood, as are the potential threats. This, of course, stems from an inherent bias for 

conservation efforts to target the better studied species, which are better known simply because 

they are more easily caught by workers in more accessible areas, e.g., Johora tiomanensis, a 

large, locally common aquatic species found in the lower stretches of the forest streams of the 

southern half of Pulau Tioman, which are mostly in close proximity to villages. Conversely, 

hard-to-find species tend to be neglected as we simply do not know enough to initiate directed 

conservation efforts, e.g., Geosesarma tiomanicum, a tiny terrestrial species that dwells among 

the leaf litter of the forest floor in the rugged, hilly parts of Pulau Tioman, often some distance 

away from water sources – encountering this species in the middle of the forest is purely a 

matter of chance, subject to weather, seasons, and their own fluctuating populations (Ng 1988; 

Yeo et al. 1999). 

Another aspect of our limited knowledge of some freshwater crabs that proves challenging 

for conservation, is the evolving taxonomy of some taxa. Some wide-ranging “species” that 

we might try to conserve (or worse, not see the need to conserve, presuming that they are 

widespread and common enough) may actually prove to be complexes of several distinct 

cryptic taxa, which could differ in various ways such as diets, habits, microhabitat preferences, 

ecological niches, local distribution, etc. One such possibility is Johora intermedia, which is 

here assigned the status of “Least Concern” primarily because it has been recorded from more 

than 20 sites throughout the lower half of the Main Range of Peninsular Malaysia (Selangor, 

Pahang, Negri Sembilan and northwestern Johor) in an estimated Extent of Occurrence of 

118

PETER K. L. NG & DARREN C. J. YEO (2007) 

some 1,500 km 2 . However, while the area it is known from appears to be relatively extensive, 

it must be noted that the distribution consists of many pockets of populations, and this species 

is known to show the greatest variation among the Johora species, facts that point to it probably 

being a species complex (Ng 1988). Another probable species complex is the troglophilic 

crab, Stygothelphusa bidiensis, which has an unlikely distribution of two disjunct cave systems 

in Sarawak (Bau and Gua Serian). The available evidence suggests that the populations in the 

two cave systems actually belong to two separate species (unpublished data). The same situation 

is true of Lepidothelphusa cognetti, which occurs in the sandstone streams of Bau and Penrissen. 

Another point to consider is that for freshwater crabs in developing countries, the line separating 

a vulnerable or endangered species is a very fine one. This is mainly because of the very 

restricted distributions of many species and the speed of development projects; the time lapse 

between project conception and implementation, even for large scale ones, can be as short as 

a year. 

Using Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore as an example, 42 species of potamids and 

parathelphusids are known at present. All the potamids (27 taxa) are found only in Peninsular 

Malaysia and Singapore. Of the 15 parathelphusids, 10 are endemic to Peninsular Malaysia 

and Singapore, the other five species also occurring in Sumatra or southern Thailand. The 

endemic taxa are almost always highland species, or occur on isolated islands. The conservation 

of this remarkable diversity is imperative (see also Ng 1988). There is thus, more than ever, a 

need to establish more nature reserves and national parks. And careful planning, co-ordination 

and supervision to minimise its destructive effects must temper development, inevitable though 

it may be. At the same time, other broader, long term issues, those of water-shed conservation, 

sufficient size of protected areas, and forest conditions (primary or secondary or disturbed) 

must be given due consideration. Such matters if dealt with properly would not just be for the 

benefit of freshwater crab diversity, but for the overall ecosystem as well. 


The authors thank the organisers of the workshop for inviting this paper from them, in particular, 

Saw Leng Guan, the chair of the organising committee. 

REFERENCES 

BAHIR, M.M., NG, P.K.L., CRANDALL, K. & PETHIYAGODA, R. 2005. A conservation 

assessment of the freshwater crabs of Sri Lanka. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement 

12: 121–126. 

CRANBROOK, EARL OF, & FURTADO, J.L. 1988. Freshwaters–Decapod Crustacea. Pp. 

225–250 in Earl of Cranbrook (ed.) Key Environments: Malaysia. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), 2001. The 

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: 2001 Categories & Criteria. Version 3.1. http:// 

www.redlist.org/info/categories_criteria2001.html [accessed 01.01.2004]. 

NG, P.K.L. 1988. The Freshwater Crabs of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Department 

of Zoology, National University of Singapore. Shinglee Press, Singapore. 

119


NG, P.K.L. 1989. Endemic freshwater crabs in Singapore: Discovery, Speciation and 

Conservation. Singapore Institute of Biology Bulletin 13(2/3): 45–51. 

NG, P.K.L. 1990a. Parathelphusa reticulata spec. nov., a new species of freshwater crab from 

blackwater swamps in Singapore (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Gecarcinucoidea). 

Zoologische Mededelingen 63: 241–254. 

NG, P.K.L. 1990b. The Freshwater Crabs and Prawns of Singapore. Pp. 189–204 in Chou, 

L.M. & Ng, P.K.L.(eds.) Essays in Zoology. Department of Zoology, National University 

of Singapore. 

NG, P.K.L. 2004. Crustacea: Decapoda, Brachyura. Pp. 311–336 in Yule, C.M. & Yong, H.S. 

(eds.) Freshwater invertebrates of the Malaysian region. Academy of Sciences Malaysia. 

NG, P.K.L. & AMBU, S. 1998. Freshwater crabs, prawns and snails. Pp. 86–87 in Yong, H.S. 

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Malaysia, Volume 3: Animals, Didier Millet Editions, Kuala Lumpur, 

Malaysia. 

YEO, D.C.J., CAI Y.-X. & NG, P.K.L. 1999. The freshwater and terrestrial decapod crustacea 

of Pulau Tioman, Peninsular Malaysia. In: Sodhi, N.S., Yong H.S. & Ng, P.K.L.(eds.) 

The Biodiversity of Pulau Tioman, Peninsular Malaysia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 

Supplement 6: 197–244. 

120

SHAWN CHENG & LAURENCE G. KIRTON (2007) 



OVERVIEW OF INSECT BIODIVERSITY 

RESEARCH IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA 

1 

Shawn Cheng & 2 Laurence G. Kirton 

ABSTRACT 

Malaysia’s commitment to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity has provided 

fresh impetus for the documentation of the country’s flora and fauna. Insects greatly outnumber 

other major lifegroups in terms of diversity and numbers, but an assessment of the degree to 

which the biodiversity and taxonomy of insects have been researched in Malaysia indicates 

that there are still great needs. In a survey of institutions in the vicinity of the capital city of 

Malaysia, 25% of 387 entomology dissertations and articles written over the last decade were 

on the subject of insect diversity, with many of the studies being of the numerical kind, while 

only 4% were on taxonomy and systematics – the science of describing biological diversity. 

In addition, the taxonomy and diversity of only a few major insect orders, such as Lepidoptera 

(butterflies and moths), Isoptera (termites) and Phasmida (stick insects), have been relatively 

well studied in Malaysia. Little is known of other important insect orders, such as Coleoptera 

(beetles), Hymenoptera (bees, wasps and ants), Diptera (flies) and Hemiptera (bugs). We argue 

that if any effective inventory of Malaysia’s insect fauna is to take place, sustained interest 

and funding needs to be devoted to the study of their diversity and taxonomy. 

INTRODUCTION 

Biodiversity is often broadly defined as the different forms of plants, animals and 

microorganisms that exist, the levels at which they occur (e.g., species, population and 

ecosystem levels) and the different ways in which organisms, climate and geology combine to 

form functioning ecosystems. Approximately 1.8 million living species have been named and 

described and, of these, one million are insects (May 2002). It has also been estimated that 

invertebrates represent more than 90% of the planet’s 10 million or so animal species (Erwin 

1983, Wilson 1992). 

Insects are ubiquitous in the environment and play important roles in maintaining the stability 

of ecosystems by being part of the food chain, mediating decomposition processes and through 

various ecological interactions, such as pollination, predation and herbivory. Large-scale 

anthropogenic activities such as forest clear-cutting extirpate insect species and destroy 

ecosystem dynamics and interactions that have been in place for millennia. 

Forest Research Institute Malaysia, 52109 Kepong, Selangor, Malaysia. 1 shawn@frim.gov.my; 2 laurence@frim.gov.my 

121

OVERVIEW OF INSECT BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA 

In view of the rapid decline of forested areas in the world, world leaders agreed to promote the 

sustainable use and conservation of natural resources, at the United Nations Conference on 

Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Biodiversity Treaty, an 

important document stemming from the conference in Rio, emphasised the importance of 

countries accepting the responsibility for conserving biological diversity and promoting their 

use in a sustainable manner. Malaysia ratified the treaty in 1994, a year after the Treaty came 

into force. At the international conference, “Biodiversity: Science and Governance,” held in 

Paris in 2005, the Malaysian premier, Dato Seri’ Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, highlighted the 

government’s efforts to protect and conserve the environment through the actions and 

coordination of the National Council on Biodiversity and Technology and the Natural Resources 

and Environment Ministry. A current project, initiated by the Prime Minister, aims to document 

Malaysia’s biodiversity with the objective of producing a national ‘red data book’ on endangered 

animal and plant species in the country, their distributions and the levels of threat they face 

(Koh 2005; Cyranoski 2005). 

In view of this plan to document Malaysia’s biodiversity, there is a need to assess the current 

status of insect diversity research and the level of information available on major insect groups 

in Peninsular Malaysia. In this paper, we examine current trends in entomological research by 

analysing the undergraduate and postgraduate dissertation topics of students over the last 

decade in a few universities in and around the Klang Valley of Peninsular Malaysia, namely, 

University of Malaya, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and Universiti Putra Malaysia. In 

addition, we examined both entomological dissertations and articles stemming from research 

by the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) in the Pasoh Field Station from 1964 to 

1999. FRIM was included in the survey because it is the primary research institution that 

conducts research on diversity and conservation in Peninsular Malaysia. Although there are 

limitations to the data obtained – for example, not all Malaysian universities or all years were 

included in the census – the results of this survey are still expected to give a good indication 

of the pattern of entomological research in Peninsular Malaysia. In addition to conducting this 

survey, we also examined the availability of taxonomic information on several well-known 

insect orders in Peninsular Malaysia. 

TRENDS IN RELATION TO FIELDS OF RESEARCH 

The number of entomological dissertations and articles from each of the institutions surveyed, 

and the number on insect diversity, is shown in Table 1. A total of 387 entomology dissertations 

and articles were examined. About 25% of these were on the subject of insect diversity; with 

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia contributing 75% of all studies on insect diversity. 

Figure 1 shows the frequency of dissertations and articles on different topics of entomological 

research for the combined dataset of the survey, some of which covered more than one research 

area. Insect control was the most heavily researched area, and accounted for 31% of all 

entomological research. Insect diversity was the next most studied subject and accounted for 

close to 26% of all reported entomological work. Biological and ecological research, which 

was a popular area of research among undergraduates, contributed 37% of all documented 

work. Insect taxonomy, accounted for a mere 4% of all entomological studies. Although the 

survey did not cover taxonomic work published in local and international journals by staff of 

the various universities surveyed, this low figure is probably still reflective of the shortage of 

taxonomic research on insects in Malaysia. 

122


Table 1. Numbers of research dissertations and articles on entomology and insect diversity (in 

parentheses) in the institutions surveyed. 

Institutions Faculties Years No. of 

examined dissertations / 

articles 

* 

Universities: 

Universiti Malaya Institute of Biological Science 1995-2004 83 (21) 

Universiti Putra Forestry & Agriculture 1991-2001 144 (2) 

Malaysia 

Faculties 

Universiti Kebangsaan School of Bioscience 1995-2004 128 (75) 

Malaysia 

Institutes: 

Forest Research Institute – 1964-1999 32 (2) 

Malaysia † Total 387 (100) 

* 

All counts for universities were based on dissertations. † For the Forest Research Institute Malaysia, 

counts were based on both dissertations and scientific articles from projects conducted in the Pasoh 

Field Station’s 50-hectare plot (Soepadmo et al. 2000). 

Control 

Diversity 

Biology 

Field of study 

Ecology 

Taxonomy 

Environmental monitoring 

Bioinformatics 

Forensics 

Biochemistry 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

Num ber of dissertations / articles 

Fig. 1. Numbers of dissertations/articles written on different entomological research areas in 

the institutions surveyed. 

In addition to the areas of entomological research mentioned above, there are also new and 

emerging areas of entomological research, such as environmental monitoring using insects as 

indicator species, bioinformatics, forensics and insect biochemistry. Together, they contributed 

to a very small number (eight) of the 387 dissertations, reports and articles written, among the 

four institutions surveyed. 

123


TRENDS IN RELATION TO INSECT ORDERS STUDIED 

Figure 2 shows the number of dissertations/articles written on the different insect groups in 

the four institutions surveyed. About 15 insect orders have been the subject of studies. They 

represent slightly less than half of all recognised insect orders. The most researched insect 

order was Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), while Neuroptera, Plecoptera, Thysanura and 

Collembola were the least studied groups. Other orders that were the focus of much 

entomological research were Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Homoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera, 

Orthoptera and Isoptera, in decreasing frequency. To some extent, the level of research on the 

different orders reflects the size of the order, for example, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera are 

the largest and second largest insect orders, respectively. It also reflects their economic 

importance in agriculture and forestry, as pests (e.g., many Coleoptera and Hemiptera) or as 

beneficial insects (e.g., Hymenoptera). There were also many entomological dissertations / 

articles written that were not on any specific insect order; many were comparative studies on 

the composition of invertebrate communities in natural and disturbed environments. 

General 

Lepidoptera 

Coleoptera 

Hymenoptera 

Hom optera 

Insect order 

Diptera 

Hemiptera 

Orthoptera 

Isoptera 

Odonata 

Neuroptera 

Plecoptera 

Collembola 

Acarina 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

No. of dissertations / articles 

Fig. 2. Numbers of dissertations / articles written on different insect orders in the institutions 

surveyed. The category, ‘General,’ refers to dissertations / articles that did not specify a specific 

insect order, or that were about invertebrate or insect communities in general. Dissertations / 

articles on Acarina (mites) are included for comparison. 

AVAILABILITY OF TAXONOMIC INFORMATION ON THE 

DIFFERENT INSECT ORDERS 

The level of taxonomic information available on several insect orders in Peninsular Malaysia 

is compared against the size of the different orders in Table 2. The order Coleoptera (beetles) 

is well-known as the most diverse and numerous in the animal kingdom. However, there is a 

124


great void of information on Coleoptera in Malaysia. Although some groups have been relatively 

well-studied (e.g., Chrysomelidae), on the whole there is very little documentation of the 

taxonomy of most groups of beetles. Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) is another vastly 

diverse group, but it has been relatively well-studied in Peninsular Malaysia. Moths are much 

more diverse than butterflies, and although there are several good monographs on them, much 

more work is needed to document their diversity in Peninsular Malaysia as well as in Sabah 

and Sarawak. The Isoptera (termites) and Phasmida (stick insects) are two other relatively 

well-studied groups in Peninsular Malaysia, although many unresolved taxonomic problems 

are recognised to exist the Isoptera (Tho 1992). 

Table 2. Comparison of relative species diversity and the level of taxonomic information 

available for some insect orders occurring in Peninsular Malaysia. 

Order Relative size * Availability of Monographs available 

taxonomic information 

1. Coleoptera * * * * * * * * * * Very low - 

2. Lepidoptera * * * * * * * * High Butterflies: Fleming (1983), 

Corbet & Pendlebury (1992); 

Moths: Holloway (1976) † , 

Barlow (1982) 

3. Hymenoptera * * * * * * Very low - 

4. Diptera * * * * * Very low - 

5. Hemiptera * * * * Very low - 

6. Homoptera * * * Very low - 

7. Orthoptera * * * Very low - 

8. Collembola * * Very low - 

9. Isoptera * * Moderate Tho (1992) 

10. Phasmida * High Brock (1999), Seow-Choen 

(2000) 

11. Thysanura * Very low - 

* 

Relative size of the order is based on figures given in Romoser & Stoffolano (1998). 

† 

In addition, there is a further series of publications on the moths of Borneo by Holloway (1983, 1985, 

1986, 1987, 1988, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001). Many parts of this series are also available on 

the World Wide Web (http://www.mothsofborneo.com). Although based on specimens from Borneo, 

Holloway’s work is a useful reference for Peninsular Malaysia as well. 

Orders that have been relatively well studied are, to some extent, those that have attractive 

species (e.g., butterflies, moths and stick insects) or that have some importance in agriculture 

and forestry (e.g., termites). It is also worth noting that a number of monographs were authored 

by individuals who were not entomologists by profession, but who pursued the study of insects 

privately (e.g., the monographs on butterflies and stick insects). 

In spite of its large number of species, many of which are beneficial insects, taxonomic 

information on the Hymenoptera (bees, wasps and ants) in Peninsular Malaysia is still very 

lacking. Other relatively large groups that have been little studied are the Diptera, Hemiptera, 

Homoptera, and Orthoptera. Many groups of insects for which taxonomic information is still 

lacking are important in ecosystem functions such as pollination, predation, phytophagy and 

the promotion of soil stability. 

125


CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS FOR INSECT DIVERSITY 

RESEARCH IN MALAYSIA 

As in most other countries, economically important insect pest species have been an important 

area of research in Malaysia. Research has often been driven by the need to develop management 

strategies for such pest species, thus, studies on insect control were highest in frequency in the 

institutions surveyed. Insect diversity studies ranked second in number. However, many utilised 

indices of diversity (e.g., Simpson’s D & E and the Shannon diversity index) to measure 

biodiversity richness (or poorness). In many such studies, specimens are sorted based on 

phenotypes (termed “recognisable taxonomic units”) to obtain diversity indices for different 

study areas. While this method allows for the comparison of animal or plant richness, it does 

little to enable the understanding of biological and ecological systems. 

At the heart of understanding biological and ecological systems in an ecosystem is the 

understanding of the species that make up the diversity of the ecosystem, and the interactions 

of these species with other each other and with their environment. Such an understanding is 

only made possible through taxonomic work that enables us to identify species and provides 

a foundation upon which we can build on our knowledge of their biology, behaviour and 

ecological functions. In spite of this, taxonomic studies were poorly represented in the 

institutions surveyed, ranking last in number among mainstream areas of research such as 

diversity, ecology and biology. 

The few studies on insect taxonomy that have been conducted in the country have primarily 

been on specific insect groups. Many insect groups have been poorly researched. The 

Hymenoptera, Diptera and Hemiptera, to name a few, are taxonomically diverse groups, yet 

there are no monographs on these insect groups in Malaysia. The Collembola and Thysanura 

are also poorly researched insect groups. Although small and rarely noticed, they are important 

in terrestrial ecosystems. Collembolans, for example, help in decomposition and nutrient cycling 

in the soil, while thrips are thought to be important pollinators of dipterocarp trees. 

Taxonomists shoulder the responsibility of documenting organic diversity, and their skills are 

also needed in many ecological studies. In addition to their role in documenting species, 

taxonomists also usually ensure the proper curation and maintenance of valuable reference 

collections, as well as work on the systematics of the groups of organisms they study. The 

field of systematics, which is an extension of taxonomy, analyses relationships between 

organisms and discusses origins or causes of diversity. Research on systematics can often 

indirectly provide more information on the biological and ecological interactions of species 

than studies on diversity, yet it has rarely been pursued as a subject of research in the institutions 

surveyed. The dearth of taxonomic or systematic studies on insects is a serious cause for 

worry; our limited capacity to identify insects inadvertently limits our capacity to document at 

least three quarters of our country’s biological diversity. 

CONCLUSION 

The dearth of taxonomic information on the majority of insect orders in Peninsular Malaysia 

is a matter of great concern, because one of the prerequisites in any effort to conserve species 

is that they need to be identified and described. Most insect orders remain poorly studied in 

126


Peninsular Malaysia. There is a great need for taxonomic and systematic studies on insects in 

Malaysia, especially on many of the less popular insect groups. In addition, taxonomists and 

systematists need to be provided with adequate funds and incentives that will enable them to 

conduct their research, purchase relevant equipment and discuss and present their work. At 

the administrative and political level, there needs to be sustained interest and commitment to 

funding to ensure that insect diversity is properly documented and described. The success of 

Malaysia’s initiative to inventorise its biodiversity greatly depends on sustained political will. 


We wish to thank Ms. Sheena Jeremiah and Mr. Jeyakumar for their assistance in data collection. 

Our thanks also go to the custodians of the various resource centres at Universiti Malaya, 

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and Universiti Pertanian Malaysia for permission to use their 

reference libraries. 

REFERENCES 

BARLOW, H.S. 1982. An Introduction to the Moths of South East Asia. Malayan Nature 

Society, Kuala Lumpur. 305 pp. 

BROCK, P.D. 1999. Stick and Leaf insects of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Malayan 

Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. 222 pp. 

CORBET, S.A. & PENDLEBURY, H.M. 1992. The Butterflies of the Malay Peninsula. 4th 

edition. Revised by Eliot, J.N. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. 595 pp. 

CYRANOSKI, D. 2005. Malaysia plans ‘red book’ in its attempt to go green. Nature 436: 

313. 

ERWIN, T.L. 1983. Tropical forest canopies: the last biotic frontier. Bulletin of the 

Entomological Society of America 29: 14–19. 

FLEMING, W.A. 1983. Butterflies of West Malaysia and Singapore. 2 nd edition. Revised by 

McCartney, A. Longman Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 148 pp. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1976. Moths of Borneo with Special Reference to Mount Kinabalu. Malayan 

Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. 264 pp. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1983. The moths of Borneo: family Notodontidae. Malayan Nature Journal 

37: 1–107. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1985. The moths of Borneo: family Noctuidae: subfamilies Euteliinae, 

Stictopterinae, Plusiinae, Pantheinae. Malayan Nature Journal 38: 157–317. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1986. The moths of Borneo: key to families; families Cossidae, 

Metarbelidae, Ratardidae, Dudgeoneidae, Epipyropidae and Limacodidae. Malayan Nature 

Journal 40: 1–165. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1987. The Moths of Borneo, part 3. Southdene Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur. 

199 pp. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1988. The Moths of Borneo, part 6. Southdene Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur. 

101 pp. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1993. The moths of Borneo: family Geometridae, subfamily Ennominae. 


HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1996. The moths of Borneo: family Geometridae, subfamilies Oenochrominae, 

Desmobathrinae and Geometrinae. Malayan Nature Journal 49: 147–326. 

127


HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1997. The moths of Borneo: family Geometridae, subfamilies Sterrhinae 

and Larentiinae. Malayan Nature Journal 51: 1–242. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1998. The moths of Borneo: families Castniidae, Callidulidae, Drepanidae 

and Uraniidae. Malayan Nature Journal 52: 1–155. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1999. The moths of Borneo: Lymantriidae. Malayan Nature Journal 53: 

1–188. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 2001. The moths of Borneo: family Artiidae, subfamily Lithosiinae. 


KOH, L.C. 2005. Malaysia to prepare inventory of ecosystem this year. The New Straits 

Times, 24 January 2005. p. 2. 

MAY, R. 2002. Biological Diversity in a Crowded World: Past, Present and Likely Future. 

Essay. . February 2002. 

MAYR, E. & ASHLOCK, P.D. 1991. Principles of Systematic Zoology. McGraw-Hill, New 

York. 475 pp. 

ROMOSER, W.S. & STOFFALANO, J.G., JR. 1998. The Science of Entomology. 4 th edition. 

McGraw-Hill, Singapore. 605 pp. 

SEOW-CHOEN, F. 2000. An Illustrated Guide to the Stick and Leaf Insects of Peninsular 

Malaysia and Singapore. Natural History Publications (Borneo), Kota Kinabalu. 173 pp. 

SOEPADMO, E., MANOKARAN, N., NOORSIHA, A., JULIA, S., QUAH, E.S. & CHUNG, 

R.C.K. 2000. Ecological Studies in Pasoh Forest Reserve, Negeri Sembilan, Peninsular 

Malaysia (1964-1999). Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur (unpublished 

booklet). 32 pp. 

THO,Y.P. 1992. Termites of Peninsular Malaysia. Kirton, L.G. (ed.). Forest Research Institute 

Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 224 pp. 

WILSON, E.O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts. 413 pp. 

128

CHEY VUN KHEN (2007) 



RESEARCH ON THE DIVERSITY OF MOTHS AND 

BUTTERFLIES IN MALAYSIA AND THEIR USE AS 

BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS 

Chey Vun Khen 

ABSTRACT 

The two geographical regions of Malaysia namely the Malay Peninsula and Sabah and Sarawak 

in Borneo, share a large proportion of their biodiversity including many moth and butterfly 

species. There are about 4,000 species of larger moths and 936 species of butterflies in Borneo. 

The Malay Peninsula has 1,031 species of butterflies, about 88 % of which are also found in 

Borneo. Their suitability as indicators of biodiversity is discussed: moths and butterflies are 

better known taxonomically in Malaysia, they respond rapidly to habitat change, their 

caterpillars being mainly phytophagous reflect the vegetation type being sampled, and moths 

especially are more speciose and easily sampled using a light-trap, which facilitates data 

analysis. The main biodiversity indices used are explained: for moth samples, Williams Alpha 

based on the log series is most appropriate, and for butterflies, which normally have smaller 

samples, non-parametric indices–e.g., the Shannon and Simpson indices – are commonly used. 

Research work on the diversity of moths and butterflies in Malaysia is also reviewed. 

INTRODUCTION 

Malaysia comprises two regions in Sundaland separated by the South China Sea, namely the 

Malay Peninsula and Sabah and Sarawak in the island of Borneo. Despite the geographical 

separation, the two regions share a large proportion of their biodiversity, including many 

species of moths and butterflies (Insecta: Lepidoptera), as they were joined by land when sea 

levels were lower in the last ice age. 

Butterflies are the most glamorous insects, and they have been better studied worldwide 

compared to all other insect groups. In the Malay Peninsula, there are 1,031 species, with 21 

endemics (Corbet & Pendlebury 1992), while the number of species is lower in the island of 

Borneo (936) but with a much higher number of endemics (94) (Ohtsuka 1996). About 88 % 

of the species in the Malay Peninsula are also found in Borneo. However, most of them occur 

as different subspecies in the two different regions. Half of the species are distributed in the 

Forest Research Centre (Sepilok), Sabah Forestry Department, P.O. Box 1407, 90715 Sandakan, Sabah. Malaysia. 

Fax: 089-531068. Email: VunKhen.Chey@sabah.gov.my 

129

RESEARCH ON THE DIVERSITY OF MOTHS AND BUTTERFLIES IN MALAYSIA AND THEIR USE AS 


lowlands below 750 m, and one-seventh of the species occur in the highlands. The rest are 

found in habitats at both elevations. 

Moths are more speciose than butterflies, and taxonomically they have been better studied in 

Borneo than in the Malay Peninsula. They are commonly divided into the bigger macromoths 

and the smaller micromoths. According to Holloway (pers. comm.), there are just over 4,000 

species of macromoths in Borneo. Most of them are also found in the Malay Peninsula. Robinson 

& Tuck (1993) estimated the number of species of the lesser-studied micromoths in South- 

East Asia to be more than 6,000, with most of the species occurring in Malaysia. Moths are 

more diverse between 500 metres and 1,000 metres above sea level (Chey 1998), where there 

is an overlap of both lowland and montane elements. 

THREATENED SPECIES 

CITES (2001) includes all the birdwing butterflies (Troides spp.) in Appendix II. This also 

covers the exceedingly beautiful Rajah Brooke’s Birdwing, Troides (Trogonoptera) brookiana, 

found in Malaysia. In the IUCN Red Data Book on threatened swallowtail butterflies of the 

world (Collins & Morris 1985), three endemic species found in Malaysian Borneo are listed 

in the threatened categories, namely Papilio acheron, Graphium procles, and Troides 

andromache. They are mainly montane species. Another two species, Papilio mahadeva (in 

the Malay Peninsula) and Papilio karna (in Borneo), were said to require further monitoring 

and research. However, it is not only the sought-after, showy butterflies, which are threatened. 

As more lowland forests are being cleared, the families with a high proportion of lowland 

endemics with forest-restricted distribution, such as the lasiocampid and limacodid moths 

(Holloway & Barlow 1992) and the satyrid and amathusiid butterflies (Hamer et al. 2003), are 

losing much of their habitat. Paradoxically some species of limacodids may be able to persist 

(a few with pest status) in palm plantations such as oil palm and coconut. 

TAXONOMY 

The main taxonomic monograph on butterflies in the Malay Peninsula was written by Corbet 

& Pendlebury (4 th edition, 1992, revised and enlarged by J.N. Eliot). Volumes written by 

Otsuka (1988) on the bigger butterflies (Papilionidae, Pieridae and Nymphalidae), Seki et al. 

(1991) on the Lycaenidae and Maruyama (1991) on the Hesperiidae form the primary 

monograph in Borneo. Revisions of some groups are also being carried out, e.g., the rattanfeeding 

hesperiid genus, Zela (Kirton & Eliot 2004). Abang et al. (2004) described 11 new 

subspecies of butterflies of the families Pieridae, Nymphalidae, and Lycaenidae found in 

Balambangan island, Borneo. 

For moths, introductory monographs have been published by Barlow (1982), focusing mainly 

on macromoths, and Robinson et al. (1994), focusing on micromoths. A major taxonomic 

work on the macros is being published in the “Moths of Borneo” series by Holloway (1983, 

1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989a, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003). A further volume, 

consisting of two more parts, is about to go to press at the time of writing. 

130


Local collections of Lepidoptera are kept mainly in the forest research institutions of Peninsular 

Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. The Sabah Forest Insect Museum in Sepilok, for example, 

houses more than 2,400 species of macromoths with 18,000 pinned specimens. Various other 

collections are also maintained by universities and other research institutions. In addition, 

there are privately owned collections, such as that of Dato’ Henry Barlow, who keeps an 

excellent collection of moths in his residence in Genting Sempah. By and large most of the 

collections with type specimens are housed in the major museums in developed countries, for 

example, the Natural History Museum in London. 

INDICATORS OF BIODIVERSITY 

Biodiversity on a global scale is estimated to be about 10 million species, and over 60 % are 

insects (Speight et al. 1999). Since the insect fauna is a major proportion of the biodiversity in 

a terrestrial ecosystem such as the tropical rain forest, human disturbance such as forest 

conversion will have a telling effect on it. The insect group that fulfils most criteria as effective 

indicators of changes in biodiversity is moths (Holloway & Stork 1991). 

Taxonomy is the foundation of biodiversity, and its importance is underlined when insect 

groups are being used as bioindicators. To avoid confusion such as pooling of sibling species, 

which would adversely affect data, insect groups with better known taxonomy are preferred. 

Compared to other insect groups, moths (especially the macromoths) are the best known 

taxonomically after butterflies. Butterflies, however, are fewer in species and less readily 

sampled, which makes data analysis more difficult. Moths are easily sampled using a lighttrap 

at night and, being more speciose, they provide a larger data set that is easier to analyse. 

Compared to vertebrates such as mammals or birds, which are less readily observed or sampled, 

moths, for the afore-mentioned reasons, are relatively easily sampled. 

In their larval stage, moths and butterflies are mainly phytophagous leaf-feeders (Holloway et 

al. 2001; Robinson et al. 2001), but the caterpillars of some species of moths belong to other 

guilds such as detrivores of plant and animal material, flower, fruit, and seed predators, stem 

borers, lichen and algal browsers, fungal feeders and insectivores (Holloway & Stork 1991). 

Some of them are stenotopic species restricted to a certain habitat, some are specialists with 

limited ecological tolerance or are host-plant specific, while others are generalists indicative 

of disturbed habitat. Moths of the Lophoptera lineage (Noctuidae: Stictopterinae) have 

caterpillars that are known to be leaf-feeders of Dipterocarpaceae, and species in this group 

are likely to be absent in highly degraded forest sites (Chey 2002). Thus, abundance or absence 

of the moths will reflect on the composition of the vegetation in the area being sampled. 

Rapid and sensitive response to environmental disturbance is a prerequisite for a bioindicator. 

Moths and butterflies generally have short life cycles and respond rapidly to changes in the 

environment. Species with limited ecological tolerance can only thrive in an undisturbed forest 

environment and will be the first to disappear after human disturbance. Most generalists or r- 

strategists, on the other hand, are opportunists distributed over a wide range of ecological 

gradients, and they rapidly increase in abundance as a result of disturbance. They particularly 

favour early successional stages in ecological regeneration, and many are pests of crops. 

131



BIODIVERSITY INDICES 

Species abundance models are commonly used to indicate the level of biodiversity in a habitat, 

with the log normal and the log series being the main models. They are based on an assumption 

that for a very large sample that closely reflects the population structure, it will result in a bellshaped 

log normal curve. But a typical smaller annual sample is one-tailed and usually fits 

equally well to the log series and the log normal, with the rarer species having been missed. 

Species abundance curves usually have the log abundance plotted against species rank. A 

shallower curve means higher diversity while a steeper curve means lower diversity. 

Moth samples are usually annual samples, which fit into the log series. Based on the log 

series, a diversity index known as Williams Alpha is derived (Fisher et al. 1943). This index 

is independent of sample size, which allows cross-comparison of most samples. The log series 

gives a diversity value less subject to the vagaries of the non-resident species, and is more 

dependent on the mid-range species resident at the site, and hence more representative (Taylor 

1978). For these reasons, most moth samples are compared using Williams Alpha. A higher 

value means higher diversity. 

For butterfly samples, which are normally smaller, non-parametric indices with no assumption 

on the underlying species abundance distribution are commonly used. These include the popular 

Shannon index, as well as Simpson’s index (Magurran 1988). They are diversity indices based 

on the proportional abundances of species. 

SIMILARITY COEFFICIENTS 

Biodiversity indices alone may tell us the levels of diversity but they don’t show the composition 

of the underlying species assemblages. The ‘coefficient of association’ is a R-mode measure 

of percentage dissimilarity showing the pattern in species distributions and, hence, species 

associations, among the sampling sites. Based on the percentage dissimilarity, numerical singlelink 

dendrograms as well as linkage diagrams can be drawn in which species indicative of a 

habitat are clustered together. This technique has been applied in biodiversity studies in 

Malaysia, for example, by Chey (1994). 

Similarity coefficients can also be used in the R-mode to identify associations of species of 

moths that show correlations with particular vegetation zones and altitude zones (e.g., Holloway 

1989b; Chey et al. 1997; Intachat et al. 2005). These associations offer particularly good 

suites of indicator species. 

Preston’s coefficient of faunal resemblance (1962), a simpler Q-mode measure of similarity 

based on presence or absence of species, is commonly used. The number of species present in 

each of any two sites and the number of shared species between them are used to calculate the 

Preston’s coefficient. Based on the coefficient values, single-link dendrograms can be drawn 

clustering similar sites together. 

132


RESEARCH REVIEW 

Apart from the taxonomic work mentioned earlier, most of the research work on diversity of 

moths and butterflies in Malaysia has focused on their use as bioindicators of habitat quality 

and habitat change. 

The specialist of Bornean macromoths, Dr. Jeremy Holloway in London, started his association 

with Borneo back in 1965 when a Cambridge expedition to Mount Kinabalu was organised. A 

paper giving a numerical analysis of the Kinabalu moth samples was published (Holloway 

1970), as well as a taxonomic monograph on the moths of Mount Kinabalu (Holloway 1976). 

Thereafter, he has been consistently publishing taxonomic monographs in his “Moths of 

Borneo” series. Apart from that, he also publishes papers on moth ecology, particularly on the 

use of moths as indicators in comparing forest habitats in Malaysia. His papers include one on 

the larger moths of Gunung Mulu in Sarawak (Holloway 1984), and the response of moths to 

forest conversion in Sabah (Holloway et al. 1992). 

Dr. Holloway also trained up two Malaysian entomologists working on moths. One is the 

present author who used moths to compare the biodiversity between plantation and natural 

forests in Sabah (Chey 1994; Chey et al. 1997), and who later studied the moth diversity of 

Lanjak-Entimau in Sarawak (Chey 2000a; 2000b). Another is Dr. Jurie Intachat of FRIM, 

who assessed moth diversity in natural and managed forests in Peninsular Malaysia (Intachat 

1995; Intachat et al. 1999a; 1999b; 2005). Chey worked on the whole spectrum of macromoths 

to inventory biodiversity, while Intachat focused on the geometroid moths specifically to 

monitor change. 

Others who have worked on moth diversity in Borneo include the German researchers Schulze 

& Fiedler (1996, 1997) and Beck et al. (2002). 

Research on butterflies as indicators of forest disturbance in Sabah has been carried out since 

the mid 1990s by Dr. Jane Hill of the UK and her colleagues. Their papers include species 

abundance models (Hill & Hamer 1998), comparison of butterflies in rain forest gaps and 

closed-canopy forests (Hill et al. 2001) as well as in natural and selectively logged forests 

(Hamer et al. 2003), and the effects of rainfall as opposed to logging on the abundance of a 

selected butterfly species (Hill et al. 2003). They used fruit-baited traps, which were also used 

to study vertical stratification of activity (Tangah et al. 2004), as well as walk-and-count 

ground-based surveys. 

In addition to these studies, a lot of general information on moths and butterflies in Malaysia 

is provided in the handbook by Holloway et al. (2001) and in the hostplant book by Robinson 

et al. (2001). 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

Dr. J.D. Holloway of the Natural History Museum in London kindly commented on the 

manuscript. 

133



REFERENCES 

ABANG, F., TREADAWAY, C.G. & SCHROEDER, H.G. 2004. A contribution to the butterfly 

fauna of the island of Balambangan (Malaysia, Sabah). Futao No. 47: 1–13. 

BARLOW, H.S. 1982. An Introduction to the Moths of South East Asia. With plates by B. 

D’Abrera. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. 305 pp. 

BECK, J., SCHULZE, C.H., LINSENMAIR, K.E. & FIEDLER, K. 2002. From forest to 

farmland: diversity of geometrid moths along two habitat gradients on Borneo. Journal 

of Tropical Ecology 18: 33–51. 

CHEY, V.K. 1994. Comparison of biodiversity between plantation and natural forests in Sabah 

using moths as indicators. D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University. 284 pp. 

CHEY, V.K. 1998. Butterflies and moths. Pp. 102–103 in Yong, H.S. (ed.) The Encyclopedia 

of Malaysia, Volume 3: Animals. Archipelago Press, Editions Didier Millet, Singapore. 

CHEY, V.K. 2000a. Insects. Pp. 93–105 in Soepadmo, E. & Chai, P.P.K. (eds.) Development 

of Lanjak-Entimau Wildlife Sanctuary as a Totally Protected Area. Phase I & Phase II. 

1993–1999. Scientific Report. ITTO, Yokohama & Sarawak Forest Department, Kuching. 

CHEY, V.K. 2000b. Moth diversity in the tropical rain forest of Lanjak-Entimau, Sarawak, 

Malaysia. Malayan Nat. J. 54(4): 305–318. 

CHEY, V.K. 2002. Comparison of moth diversity between lightly and heavily logged sites in 

a tropical rain forest. Malayan Nat. J. 56(1): 23–41. 

CHEY, V.K., HOLLOWAY, J.D. & SPEIGHT, M.R. 1997. Diversity of moths in forest 

plantations and natural forests in Sabah. Bulletin of Entomological Research 87: 371– 

385. 

CITES. 2001. CITES Handbook. CITES Secretariat, Switzerland. 

COLLINS, N.M. & MORRIS, M.G. 1985. Threatened Swallowtail Butterflies of the World. 

The IUCN Red Data Book. IUCN, Gland & Cambridge, UK. 401 pp. 

CORBET, A.S. & PENDLEBURY, H.M. 1992. The Butterflies of the Malay Peninsula. 4 th ed. 

rev. J.N. Eliot with plates by B. D’Abrera. Malaysian Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. 595 

pp. 

FISHER, R.A., CORBET, A.S. & WILLIAMS, C.B. 1943. The relation between the number 

of species and the number of individuals in a random sample of an animal population. J. 

Anim. Ecol. 12: 42–58. 

HAMER, K.C., HILL, J.K., BENEDICK, S., MUSTAFFA, N., SHERRATT, T.N., MARYATI, 

M. & CHEY, V.K. 2003. Ecology of butterflies in natural and selectively logged forests 

of northern Borneo: the importance of habitat heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Ecology 

40: 150–162. 

HILL, J.K. & HAMER, K.C. 1998. Using species abundance models as indicators of habitat 

disturbance in tropical forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 458–460. 

HILL, J.K., HAMER, K.C., TANGAH, J. & DAWOOD, M. 2001. Ecology of tropical 

butterflies in rainforest gaps. Oecologia 128: 294–302. 

HILL, J.K., HAMER, K.C., DAWOOD, M.M., TANGAH, J. & CHEY, V.K. 2003. Rainfall 

but not selective logging affect changes in abundance of a tropical forest butterfly in 

Sabah, Borneo. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19: 35–42. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1970. The biogeographical analysis of a transect sample of the moth fauna 

of Mt. Kinabalu, Sabah, using numerical methods. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2: 259–286. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1976. Moths of Borneo with special reference to Mount Kinabalu. Malayan 

Nature Society & Sabah Foundation. 264 pp. 

134


HOLLOWAY, J. D. 1983. The moths of Borneo: family Notodontidae. Malayan Nat. J. 37: 1– 

107. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1984. The larger moths of the Gunung Mulu National Park: a preliminary 

assessment of their distribution, ecology, and potential as environmental indicators. Pp. 

149–190 in Jermy, A.C. & Kavanagh, K.P. (eds.) Gunung Mulu National Park, Sarawak, 

Part II. Sarawak Museum Journal 30. Special Issue 2. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1985. The moths of Borneo: family Noctuidae: subfamilies Euteliinae, 

Stictopterinae, Plusiinae, Pantheinae. Malayan Nat. J. 38: 157–317. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1986. The moths of Borneo: key to families; families Cossidae, 

Metarbelidae, Ratardidae, Dudgeoneidae, Epipyropidae, Limacodidae. Malayan Nat. J. 

40: 1–166. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1987. The moths of Borneo: superfamily Bombycoidea: families 

Lasiocampidae, Eupterotidae, Bombycidae, Brahmaeidae, Saturniidae, Sphingidae. 

Southdene, Kuala Lumpur. 199 pp. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1988. The moths of Borneo: family Arctiidae, subfamilies Syntomiinae, 

Euchromiinae, Arctiinae; Noctuidae misplaced in Arctiidae (Camptoloma, Aganainae). 

Southdene, Kuala Lumpur. 101 pp. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1989a. The moths of Borneo: family Noctuidae, trifine subfamilies: 

Noctuinae, Heliothinae, Hadeninae, Acronictinae, Amphipyrinae, Agaristinae. Malayan 

Nat. J. 42: 57–226. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1989b. Moths. Pp. 437–453 in Lieth, H. & Werger, M.J.A. (eds.) Tropical 

Rain Forest Ecosystems. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1993. The moths of Borneo: family Geometridae, subfamily Ennominae. 

Malayan Nat. J. 47: 1–309. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1996. The moths of Borneo: family Geometridae, subfamilies 

Oenochrominae, Desmobathrinae, Geometrinae. Malayan Nat. J. 49: 147–326. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1997. The moths of Borneo: family Geometridae, subfamilies Sterrhinae, 

Larentiinae. Malayan Nat. J. 51: 1–242. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1998. The moths of Borneo: families Castniidae, Callidulidae, Drepanidae 

and Uraniidae. Malayan Nat. J. 52: 1–155. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 1999. The moths of Borneo: family Lymantriidae. Malayan Nat. J. 53: 1– 

188. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 2001. The moths of Borneo: family Arctiidae, subfamily Lithosiinae. 

Malayan Nat. J. 55: 279–486. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. 2003. The moths of Borneo: family Nolidae. Southdene, Kuala Lumpur. 

279 pp. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. & BARLOW, H.S. 1992. Potential for loss of biodiversity in Malaysia, 

illustrated by the moth fauna. Pp. 293–311 in Abdul Aziz S.A. Kadir & Barlow, H.S. 

(eds.) Pest Management and the Environment in 2000. CAB International & Agricultural 

Institute of Malaysia. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D. & STORK, N.E. 1991. The dimensions of biodiversity: the use of 

invertebrates as indicators of human impact. Pp. 37–61 in Hawksworth, D.L. (ed.) The 

Biodiversity of Microorganisms and Invertebrates: Its Role in Sustainable Agriculture. 

CAB International. 

HOLLOWAY, J.D., KIRK-SPRIGGS, A.H. & CHEY, V.K. 1992. The response of some rain 

forest insect groups to logging and conversion to plantation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 

335: 425–436. 

135



HOLLOWAY, J.D., KIBBY, G. & PEGGIE, D. 2001. The Families of Malesian Moths and 

Butterflies (Fauna Malesiana Handbooks, Vol. 3). Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden. 

456 pp. 

INTACHAT, J. 1995. Assessment of moth diversity in natural and managed forests in Peninsular 

Malaysia. D.Phil. thesis. Oxford University. 156 pp. 

INTACHAT, J., HOLLOWAY, J.D. & SPEIGHT, M.R. 1999a. The impact of logging on 

geometroid moth populations and their diversity in lowland forests of Peninsular Malaysia. 

Journal of Tropical Forest Science 11(1): 61–78. 

INTACHAT, J., CHEY, V.K., HOLLOWAY, J.D. & SPEIGHT, M.R. 1999b. The impact of 

forest plantation development on the population and diversity of geometrid moths 

(Lepidoptera: Geometridae) in Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 11(2): 329– 

336. 

INTACHAT, J., HOLLOWAY, J.D. & SPEIGHT, M.R. 2005. A preliminary assessment of the 

diversity of geometroid moths within different types of forests in Peninsular Malaysia. 

Malayan Nat. J. 57(1): 1–28. 

KIRTON, L.G. & ELIOT, J.N. 2004. A revision of the rattan-feeding skipper genus, Zela de 

Niceville (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Malayan Nat. J. 56(4): 317–367. 

MAGURRAN, A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Croom Helm, London. 

179 pp. 

MARUYAMA, K. 1991. Butterflies of Borneo Vol. 2 No. 2. Hesperiidae. Tobishima 

Corporation, Tokyo. 83 pp. 

OHTSUKA, K. 1996. Bornean butterflies examined through distribution. Fujimura Girls’ 

High School, Tokyo. 52 pp. 

OTSUKA, K. 1988. Butterflies of Borneo Vol. 1. Tobishima Corporation, Tokyo. 61 pp. 

PRESTON, F.W. 1962. The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity. Ecology 43: 

185–215, 410–432. 

ROBINSON, G.S. & TUCK, K.R. 1993. Diversity and faunistics of small moths 

(Microlepidoptera) in Bornean rainforest. Ecological Entomology 18: 385–393. 

ROBINSON, G.S., TUCK, K.R. & SHAFFER, M. 1994. A Field Guide to the Smaller Moths 

of South-East Asia. With illustrations by K. Cook. The Natural History Museum, London 

& Malaysian Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. 309 pp. 

ROBINSON, G.S., ACKERY, P.R., KITCHING, I.J., BECCALONI, G.W. & HERNANDEZ, 

L.M. 2001. Hostplants of the Moth and Butterfly Caterpillars of the Oriental Region. The 

Natural History Museum, London & Southdene, Kuala Lumpur. 744 pp. 

SCHULZE, C.H. & FIEDLER, K. 1996. First record of the family Dudgeoneidae (Lepidoptera, 

Ditrysia) from Borneo. Tinea 15: 74–77. 

SCHULZE, C.H. & FIEDLER, K. 1997. Patterns of diversity and vertical stratification in 

hawkmoths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) of a Bornean rain forest. Mitteilungen der Deutschen 

Gesellschaft für allgemeine und angewandte Entomologie 11: 767–770. 

SEKI, Y., TAKANAMI, Y. & OTSUKA, K. 1991. Butterflies of Borneo, Vol. 2 No. 1 

Lycaenidae. Tobishima Corporation, Tokyo. 113 pp. 

SPEIGHT, M.R., HUNTER, M.D. & WATT, A.D. 1999. Ecology of Insects. Concepts and 

Applications. Blackwell Science, Oxford. 

TANGAH, J., HILL, J.K., HAMER, K.C. & DAWOOD, M.M. 2004. Vertical distribution of 

fruit-feeding butterflies in Sabah, Borneo. Sepilok Bulletin 1: 15–25. 

TAYLOR, L.R. 1978. Bates, Williams, Hutchinson – a variety of diversities. Pp. 1-18 in Mound, 

L.A. & Waloff, N. (eds.) R.E.S. Symposium 9. Diversity of Insect Faunas. Blackwell. 

136

ARTHUR Y.C. CHUNG (2007) 



AN OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON BEETLE 

DIVERSITY & TAXONOMY IN MALAYSIA 

Arthur Y.C. Chung 

ABSTRACT 

Beetles form the most diverse insect order, with an estimated 400,000 species worldwide 

representing two-fifths of all insect species. Although some research has been carried out on 

beetle diversity in Malaysia, because of their high diversity, our understanding of their 

taxonomy, diversity, species assemblages and ecology is still far from adequate. Even at the 

family level, there are 166 families worldwide, more than half of which are recorded in Malaysia. 

Diversity in the beetle order is not only observed in numbers. Size, shape, colour and occurrence 

in various habitat types are also diverse in beetles. The smallest, biggest and bulkiest insects 

are beetles. Many small beetles are found in leaf litter and soil, and these are relatively difficult 

to extract and study. Different methods have to be used to conduct a comprehensive survey of 

beetles because of their occurrence in various types of habitats. The number of researchers 

who are working on beetle diversity, however, is very low, making it difficult to achieve an 

adequate knowledge of this insect group. Basic information on beetle diversity is very important, 

as this can contribute valuable information that can guide the formulation of conservation 

measures. In addition, many beetles are essential from an ecological and economic point of 

view. For example, the pollinating weevil, Elaeidobius kamerunicus, has contributed 

significantly to increased yields in the palm oil industry in Malaysia. In view of this, there is 

a need to encourage more researchers to work on beetles, such as through the provision of 

adequate funding. Having good and well-managed collections of beetles is crucial in facilitating 

research on beetle diversity and taxonomy. In addition to this, the use of information technology, 

such as databasing and electronic imaging, will enhance such efforts. There is also a need for 

networking and collaboration within agencies in Malaysia, as well as with foreign institutions, 

as a platform for the sharing and exchange of information that will further contribute to our 

understanding of beetle diversity at the local, regional and global level. 

INTRODUCTION 

Biodiversity has emerged at the centre of one of the most contentious global debates of this 

century. The debate often focuses on tropical rainforests, which are extremely diverse. Insects 

are one of the most important and dominant inhabitants of the rainforest. Approximately threequarters 

of all species worldwide are insects, and more than half are found in tropical rainforests. 

Forest Research Centre, Forest Department, P.O. Box 1407, 90715 Sandakan, Sabah; Tel: 089-537886; Fax: 089- 

531068; Arthur.Chung@sabah.gov.my 

137

AN OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON BEETLE DIVERSITY & TAXONOMY IN MALAYSIA 

To date, a substantial amount of research has been carried out to investigate insect diversity in 

the tropics (e.g. Stork 1991; Davis et al. 1997; Chung 1999). However, the current level of 

understanding of the diversity of many insect groups is still deficient. The importance of good 

local species-richness data for a wide range of questions posed by evolutionary biology in 

general and ecology in particular, is evident (Hammond 1990). To assess habitats for their 

relevance for conservation, ecological and diversity inventories provide an essential tool for 

environmental management, and insects are a major component in every terrestrial habitat. 

Beetles are extremely diverse and abundant (Stork 1991; Chung et al. 2000a), and they 

participate in a great variety of interactions with other organisms. This makes them an important 

group to study if we are to understand the assemblage structure and diversity of the insect 

fauna in various tropical habitats. 

BASIC INFORMATION OF BEETLES 

Beetles belong to the insect order Coleoptera, which is characterized by a pair of sheath wings 

known as elytra. This is believed to be the most important factor that has contributed to the 

evolutionary success of the beetles (Evans 1977). The body and the elytra (forewings) are 

usually heavily sclerotized, giving the beetle an armoured appearance, which also protect it 

from dehydration and ultraviolet radiation. The cuticle (outer skin and skeleton) consists of 

chitin and protein, which is tough and protects the soft, inner organs. Another typical 

characteristic feature of this group is the biting mouthparts, giving them great adaptability. 

The word ‘beetle’ actually comes from the Middle English word ‘bityl’ or ‘betyll’ and the Old 

English ‘bitula’ meaning ‘little biter’ (Lawrence & Britton 1994). Beetles are an endopterygote 

group, that is they exhibit complete metamorphosis (holometabolous development), with 

distinct larval and pupal stages. Other detailed characteristic features of beetles are explained 

in standard taxonomical and ecological references of this group, for example, Evans (1977), 

Lawrence and Britton (1994) and Crowson (1981). 

Beetles are probably related to soft-bodied, weakly flying insects such as alder flies 

(Megaloptera) and lacewings (Neuroptera) (Evans 1977; Lawrence & Newton 1982). The 

ancestors of beetles probably evolved about 300 million years ago during the Upper 

Carboniferous or Lower Permian periods (Evans 1977). There are fossils showing that the 

primitive Coleoptera had megalopteran-like venation on the elytra. Some other fossils have 

been found in the Ural mountains, Russia and in Czechoslovakia, showing marked similarities 

to the recent archostematan Ommadidae (a primitive Coleoptera family). The evolutionary 

history and phylogeny of beetles are discussed in Crowson (1981), and Lawrence and Newton 

(1982). 

DIVERSITY AND TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF BEETLES 

With an estimated 400,000 species, beetles form the most diverse insect order, outnumbering 

the Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera (Hammond 1992; 1995). They encompass two-fifths of all 

insect species. In comparison, there are about 45,000 species of vertebrates and 250,000 species 

of plants. Beetles are not only diverse in species but also in structure and size: the largest of 

them (the cerambycids Titanus giganteus from South America and Xixuthrus heros from Fiji) 

138


attain a length of 200 mm, almost 800 times greater than that of the smallest ones (Nanosella 

and related genera in the family Ptiliidae), which fall well within the size range of larger 

protozoans, such as Paramecium (Lawrence & Britton 1994). 

There are a few beetle classifications used worldwide (e.g. Crowson 1981; Lawrence 1982; 

1991; Paulian 1988) since the first appearance of Crowson’s major work in 1955. One of the 

latest and widely used was compiled by Lawrence and Newton (1995), in accordance to the 

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1985). This classification listed 166 

families, 453 subfamilies and approximately 3,300 genera placed within four suborders 

(Table 1). 

The largest suborder of Coleoptera is Polyphaga, which is divided into five series and 16 

superfamilies, covering more than 90% of all beetle species. Within the Polyphaga, the 

superfamilies Chrysomeloidea, Curculionoidea and Staphylinoidea are the most successful 

groups (Lawrence & Newton 1982). The Chrysomeloidea (Chrysomelidae-Bruchidae- 

Cerambycidae) and Curculionoidea (Anthribidae-Attelabidae-Brentidae-Apionidae- 

Curculionidae-Scolytidae-Platypodidae) are predominantly herbivorous with 70,000 and 

60,000 described species, respectively. The superfamily Staphylinoidea (c. 40,000 described 

species) contains the predominantly predacious and saprophagous Staphylinidae (c. 30,000 

described species), Pselaphidae, Scydmaenidae, Leodidae and Ptiliidae. 

Table 1. The suborders of Coleoptera 

Suborder 

Archostemata 

Myxophaga 

Adephaga 

Polyphaga 

Remarks 

3 families, rare and primitive beetles, several fossils up to 280 million 

years old. 

4 families, small and uncommon beetles, feeding on algae. 

8 families including Carabidae and Cicindelidae, mainly carnivorous 

beetles. 

Majority of the families, vary greatly in form and habits, feeding on 

various types of food. 

Taxonomic classification within the order is rather complicated, and it is important to realize 

that the higher level classification of Coleoptera is not stable. Some suborders and many 

families probably do not represent monophyletic groups. Cladistic hypotheses for the 

classification of the Coleoptera are, therefore, lacking (Mawdsley 1994; Gullan & Cranston 

1998; Chung 2003). A comprehensive bibliography on beetle families can be obtained through 

the internet (Lawrence et al. 2005). 

IMPORTANCE OF BEETLES IN THE TROPICAL ECOSYSTEM 

Because of their high diversity, beetles are suitable insects to use as indicators of environmental 

change. They are found in numbers in most vegetation types and can be easily sampled using 

various techniques (Chung et al. 2000b). Beetles are widely used in studies on diversity and 

ecology (e.g. Davis et al. 1997; Chung 2004). Documentation of diverse and ecologically 

important insect groups, such as assemblages of beetles, can provide qualitative and quantitative 

139


measures of biodiversity that provide a basis for decision making in relation to conservation 

(Harper & Hawksworth 1995). 

Many beetles attack living trees and, thus, reduce the commercial value of their timber (Booth 

et al. 1990). They also sometimes cause the death of the trees, either directly or by transmitting 

pathogens. Some scarab beetles attack and cause severe damage to oil palm (Wood 1968) and 

rattans (Chung 1995). The gold dust weevil, Hypomeces squamosus, is one of the commonest 

defoliators that attacks many tree species, including dipterocarps and fast-growing exotic tree 

species (Chey 1996). Many cerambycids beetles are stem-borers: their larvae can severely 

damage trees, resulting in devaluation of timber and, sometimes, tree mortality. Thapa (1974) 

reported attack by the cerambycid borer, Cyriopalus wallacei, on dipterocarps in Sabah. 

Ambrosia beetles (Scolytidae and Platypodidae) also cause damage to many species of forest 

trees and rattans (Anzai 1991; Chung 1995; Chey 1996). 

Some beetles are beneficial to humans. The discovery of a weevil pollinator had a dramatic 

effect on production in Malaysian oil palm plantations. The weevil, Elaeidobius kamerunicus, 

was introduced into Malaysia in 1981 to replace the practice of assisted pollination (Syed et 

al. 1982; Yee et al. 1984). Sakai et al. (1997) also reported that beetles of the families 

Chrysomelidae and Curculionidae contributed to the pollination of Shorea parvifolia in 

Sarawak. In addition, dung beetles (Scarabaeidae) are important decomposers and nutrient 

recyclers in the rainforest. 

More research needs to be carried out on beetles because, in spite of their economic importance, 

there is still a lack of taxonomic and ecological information on the order in South-east Asia. 

For example, Hammond (1990; 1992) estimated that about 75% of the 6,000 species of beetles 

collected from a lowland forest in Sulawesi were undescribed, and Mohamedsaid (1990, 1993a; 

1993b, 1994, 1996a) described numerous new species of leaf beetles in Malaysia within a 

short period of time. 

STUDIES ON BEETLE DIVERSITY AND TAXONOMY IN 

MALAYSIA & ADJACENT COUNTRIES 

Chung (2003) recorded 106 families of beetles in Borneo, mainly from Sabah (Appendix 1). 

This number, however, does not include all the families known to occur in Borneo. In Peninsular 

Malaysia, at least 93 beetle families are known to occur (Tung 1983), this number being based 

on the beetle family list issued by the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology in England. 

A few recent studies on beetle diversity have been conducted in Malaysia. Chung (1999) and 

Chung et al. (2000a & b) compared the beetle diversity in various habitat types in Sabah, that 

is, primary forest, logged-over forest, forest plantations and oil palm plantations. In Peninsular 

Malaysia, Fauziah (2003a; 2003b) conducted beetle surveys in Langkawi and Johore. Abang 

and Norashikin (submitted) investigated the diversity and distribution of night flying beetles 

in a lowland mixed dipterocarp forest site in Sabah using modified Pennsylvanian light traps. 

Burghouts et al. (1992) also compared Coleoptera with other invertebrates in their study on 

leaf-litter decomposition and litter invertebrates, in a Sabah lowland rainforest. A project on 

“Tools for monitoring soil biodiversity in the ASEAN Region,” with funding from the Darwin 

140


Initiative, UK, was conducted in Sabah between the years 2000-2003, involving researchers 

from the Natural History Museum (London), Universiti Malaysia Sabah and the Sabah Forestry 

Department. One of the focal study groups was soil and leaf-litter inhabiting beetles, which 

have been little studied. 

In the adjacent country of Brunei, Mawdsley (1994) investigated the spatial structure of the 

Coleoptera assemblage in the rainforest and explored ways in which biologists can scale up 

estimates of species richness from a local to a regional scale. He used a wide range of collecting 

methods to sample from ground to canopy levels and compared the importance of each sampling 

method. Stork (1987a; 1987b, 1991) studied the arthropod fauna of lowland rainforest trees, 

in the same area as Mawdsley, wherein he emphasized the composition, guild structure and 

faunal similarity between Coleoptera and other insect groups. 

Other research on Coleoptera has focused on certain beetle groups, emphasizing their taxonomy 

or ecology. Much of the research has been conducted by foreign researchers. Abang (2001) 

provided a list of publications on insect taxonomy (including beetles) authored by foreign 

scientists in Malaysia. Despite high diversity in the order, only 11 papers were published on 

beetles in the Malayan Nature Journal and the Malayan Naturalist from 1940 to 1990 (Kiew & 

Lyons 1992). Mohamed Salleh Mohamedsaid is one of the very few Malaysian beetle 

taxonomists. His work focuses on the taxonomy of leaf beetles, Chrysomelidae (e.g., 

Mohamedsaid 1996a; 1997). A total of 1,073 species and 215 genera from 13 subfamilies 

were recorded in Malaysia and Borneo (Mohamedsaid 2004). In addition, Fatimah Abang of 

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) works on longhorn beetles (e.g. Abang & Vives 

2004, Abang 2003, Vives & Abang 2003) and weevils (pers. comm.). 

Davis (1993) and Davis et al. (1997) investigated the ecology and behaviour of rainforest 

dung beetles in south-eastern Sabah. Hammond (1984) published a checklist of Staphylinidae 

occurring in Borneo, but emphasized that this list is conservative and that the actual number 

of staphylinids could be many times more than the figure in the list. Stork (1986) published an 

inventory of the Carabidae from Borneo. Hlavac and Maruyama (2004) worked on 

Staphylinidae that exhibit mutualistic relationships with ants in Peninsular Malaysia. Fireflies 

were studied by Ballantyne and Menayah (2000), and Mahadimenakbar et al. (2003). The 

Forest Research Institure Malaysia (FRIM) has also conducted some ecological research on 

fireflies (Krishnakumari 2002) and has on-going research on their biology and habitat 

requirements (L.G. Kirton, pers. comm.). 

Japanese researchers have also contributed significantly to research on beetle diversity and 

taxonomy in Malaysia. Mizunuma and Nagai (1994) published a comprehensive, illustrated 

account of the world’s lucanids, and many of the species featured are found in this region, 

including Malaysia. Ohara et al. (2001) worked on Histeridae, Ochi and Kon (1994) on dung 

beetles, and Kon et al. (1995) on Passalidae, while Araya (1994) and Araya et al. (1994) 

worked on Lucanidae. Makihara (1999) studied the Cerambycidae of Kalimantan, and his 

illustrated publication is often used as a reference in Sabah and Sarawak because, 

biogeographically, they share a lot of similarities with Kalimantan. The on-going Bornean 

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Conservation (BBEC) Programme has provided opportunities 

for Japanese researchers to work on beetles in Malaysia, particularly in Sabah (Mustafa & 

Kusano 2004). 

141


Much of the research work in the past focused only on certain beetle taxa and not on Coleoptera 

as a whole. It is important that more research is conducted to study and understand beetles as 

a group, in order to gain a more comprehensive picture of this order collectively. 

BEETLE REFERENCE COLLECTIONS IN MALAYSIA 

As with all animal or plant groups, a reference collection of beetles is important for the study 

of their systematics as well as their diversity and, ultimately, forms the basis for their 

conservation. It provides basic, salient information, and the primary evidence for existence of 

species. Besides being indispensable to taxonomic work, a good beetle collection is part of 

the local, national, regional and international natural heritage (Abang & Ghazally 2001, Chung 

& Chey 2001). Beetle collections are usually an integral part of insect collections in general, 

which are often housed by museums, Federal or State Departments of Forestry and Agriculture, 

research institutions and universities. A list of the depositories that house existing insect 

collections in Malaysia has been provided by Abang and Ghazally (2001). 

To date, there are approximately 1,700 species of beetles from 89 families in the Coleoptera 

collection of the Forest Research Centre in Sepilok, Sandakan. Although some are 

morphospecies – that is, they are recognised as having different morphology even though it is 

uncertain if they are different species – this number still probably reflects a very high number 

of true species. At the Sarawak Forest Research Centre in Kuching, more than 350,000 

specimens from 31 families have been recorded, but only about 10% are identified to genus 

level (Lucy Chong, pers. comm.). There is also a good collection of beetles at Universiti 

Kebangsaan Malaysia in Bangi, with more than 600 identified beetle species, mainly from the 

family Chrysomelidae (Anon. 1996, Mohamedsaid 1996b). However, after the retirement of 

Prof. Mohamed Salleh Mohamedsaid, there is no other beetle specialist working on this group 

(Azman S., pers. comm.). A total of 61 families have been recorded at the Forest Research 

Institute Malaysia (FRIM) in Kepong (S. Cheng, pers. comm.). Other prominent beetle 

collections are in the Sarawak Museum and Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Abang et al., 1996), 

Universiti Malaya and Universiti Malaysia Sabah. 

THE NEED FOR COOPERATION IN RESEARCH ON BEETLE 

DIVERSITY AND TAXONOMY IN MALAYSIA 

The high diversity of beetles in Malaysia practically guarantees that one will always be 

encountering beetles that have never been collected before, thus, classifying and identifying 

them can be a daunting task. Unlike many other insect orders, the taxonomy of beetles is 

difficult and unstable. The status of some families is very uncertain, while the classification of 

some obscure families varies, subject to the different views of different beetle taxonomists. 

Many of the characters used to delineate families are very general, being applicable to various 

beetle families. Being very diverse, there are many exceptions in the characters used. For 

example, some tenebrionids look almost identical to erotylids or coccinellids. In view of these 

difficulties, experience, skill and time are important when working on beetle diversity. It is 

also essential for beetle specialists to cooperate and share information, in order to be more 

effective in advancing our understanding of beetle taxonomy and diversity. 

142


There are very few researchers that work on beetles in Malaysia and it is, therefore, difficult to 

achieve an adequate knowledge of this insect group. Abang and Ghazally (2001) noted that 

there were only about 17 insect taxonomists in the entire country, a number that is far too 

small to provide the substantial effort needed to alleviate the problem of a shortage of taxonomic 

information on insects. Basic information on beetle taxonomy and diversity is very important, 

as this can contribute valuable information that can guide the formulation of measures to 

ensure sustainable environmental management. Furthermore, many beetles are important from 

an ecological and economic perspective. For example, the pollinating weevil, Elaeidobius 

kamerunicus, has contributed significantly to the palm oil industry in Malaysia. 

In view of the immensity and importance of the task, there is a need to encourage more 

researchers to work on beetles. Adequate funds need to be channeled towards such research to 

encourage more work on beetle diversity and taxonomy. Having good and well-managed 

collections of beetles is crucial in enabling research on beetle diversity and taxonomy. In 

addition to this, the use of information technology, such as databasing and imaging (e.g., 

digital images of specimens), will enhance such efforts. There is also a need for networking 

and collaboration within agencies in Malaysia, as well as with foreign institutions, as a platform 

for the sharing and exchange of information that will further contribute to our understanding 

of beetle diversity at the local, regional and global level. Since many of the good collections 

of beetles are in the developed countries, it is important for local scientists to liaise with 

foreign counterparts and work together with them. ANeT, established under the DIWPA network 

for social insect collections, is a good example of networking of researchers who are working 

on ants, through meetings, seminars and via the Internet. 

In summary, my recommendations to enhance research on beetle diversity in Malaysia are 

similar to those highlighted for the roles of collections in biodiversity conservation (Abang & 

Ghazally 2001, Chey 2001), and they can be summarized as follows: 

• Increase the number of beetle specialists in Malaysia; 

• Provide training on beetle diversity and taxonomy for inexperienced curators and auxiliary 

staff; 

• Provide funding and other incentives to encourage research on beetle diversity and 

taxonomy; 

• Encourage beetle specialists to publish identification manuals and monographs to benefit 

more para-taxonomists and students; 

• Increase the use of information technology to enhance research on beetle diversity and 

taxonomy; 

• Establish networking and collaborative work; and 

• Establish a directory for researchers working on beetles in this region. 


The author would like to thank Dr. Chey Vun Khen (Sabah Forestry Department), Lucy Chong 

& Paulus Meleng (Sarawak Forestry Corporation), Prof. Fatimah Abang (UNIMAS), Dr. Rosli 

Hashim (UM), Prof. Zaidi Mohd. Isa & Azman Sulaiman (UKM), Dr. Laurence Kirton & 

Shawn Cheng (FRIM) for providing information regarding collections in their respective 

institutions. 

143


REFERENCES 

ABANG, F. & GHAZALLY, I. 2001. The role of entomological collections in research and 

education: a case for Malaysia. Sabah Museum Monograph 6: 31–48. 

ABANG, F. 2003. A checklist of the longhorn beetles from Sarawak. Serangga 8(1&2): 24– 

30. 

ABANG, F. & MOHD. FAUZI, N. (submitted). Diversity and vertical distribution of night 

flying beetles (Coleoptera) in a Bornean lowland mixed dipterocarp forest. Sarawak 

Museum Journal. 

ABANG, F., SULAIMAN, H. & MUNEY, S. 1996. Systematic entomology in Sarawak: a 

preview. Serangga 1(2): 63–73. 

ABANG, F. & VIVES, E. 2004. Two new species of Callichromatini from Sarawak, Southwestern 

Borneo (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Lambillionea CIV: 233–237. 

ANON. 1996. Pusat Sistematik Serangga, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Serangga 1(1): 

1–6. 

ARAYA, K. 1994. Discovery of a flightless Aegus (Coloptera, Lucanidae) in Borneo. Elytra 

22: 271–280. 

ARAYA, K., KIKUTA, T. & OKUMA, T. 1994. The genus Penichrolucanus (Coleoptera, 

Lucanidae) new to the fauna of Borneo. Elytra 22: 151–152. 

ANZAI, M. 1991. Attraction of beetles (in particular ambrosia beetles) to freshly felled logs 

of plantation species. Sabah Forestry Department Report. 52 pp. 

BALLANTYNE, L.A. & MENAYAH, R. 2000. Redescription of synchronous firefly, Pteroptyx 

tener Olivier (Coleoptera: Lampyridae), of Kampung Kuantan, Selangor. Malayan Nature 

Journal 54(4): 323–328. 

BOOTH, R.G., COX, M.L. & MADGE, R.B. 1990. IIE Guides to Insects of Importance to 

Man— Coleoptera. International Institute of Entomology & The Natural History Museum, 

London. 384 pp. 

BURGHOUTS, T., ERNSTING, G., KORTHALS, G. & VRIES, T.D. 1992. Litterfall, leaf 

litter decomposition and litter invertebrates in primary and selectively logged dipterocarp 

forest in Sabah, Malaysia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B 335: 

407–416. 

CHEY, V.K. 1996. Forest Pest Insects in Sabah. Sabah Forest Record No. 15, Sabah Forest 

Department. 111 pp. 

CHEY, V.K. 2001. Local insect collections: problems and challenges. Sabah Museum 

Monograph 6: 27–30. 

CHUNG, A.Y.C. 1995. Insect pests of rattans in Sabah. The Planter 71(827): 55–66. 

CHUNG, A.Y.C. 1999. The Diversity of Coleoptera Assemblages in Different Habitat Types 

in Sabah, Malaysia with Special Reference to Herbivory. D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 

U.K. 307 pp. 

CHUNG, A.Y.C., EGGLETON, P., SPEIGHT, M.R., HAMMOND, P.M. & CHEY, V.K. 2000a. 

The diversity of beetle (Coleoptera) assemblages in different habitat types in Sabah, 

Malaysia. Bulletin of Entomological Research 90(6): 475–496. 

CHUNG, A.Y.C., EGGLETON, P., SPEIGHT, M.R., HAMMOND, P.M. & CHEY, V.K. 2000b. 

Beetle (Coleoptera) sampling with the Winkler method, flight-interception-trapping and 

mist-blowing in Sabah, Malaysia. Sabah Parks Nature Journal 3: 63–78. 

CHUNG, A.Y.C. 2003. Manual for Bornean beetle (Coleoptera) family identification. Prepared 

for Course on Tools for Monitoring Soil Biodiversity in the ASEAN Region, Universiti 

Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, 12-26 October 2003. (Unpublished). 

144


CHUNG, A.Y.C. 2004. Vertical stratification of beetles (Coleoptera) using flight intercept 

traps in a lowland rainforest of Sabah, Malaysia. Sepilok Bulletin 1: 27–39. 

CHUNG, A.Y.C. & CHEY, V.K. 2001. The importance of the forest insect collection in Sabah. 

Pp. 179–183 in Zahra Y., Moo-Tan, S. & Yorath, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the International 

Conference on In-Situ & Ex-Situ Biodiversity Conservation in the New Millennium. 20- 

22 June 2000. Yayasan Sabah & Sabah Museum, Kota Kinabalu. 

CROWSON, R.A. 1955. The natural classification of the families of Coleoptera. Nathaniel 

Lloyd, London. 187 pp. 

CROWSON, R.A. 1981. The biology of the Coleoptera. Academic Press, London. 802 pp. 

DAVIS, A.J. 1993. The ecology and behaviour of rainforest dung beetles in northern Borneo. 

Ph.D. Thesis, Leeds University, U.K. 280 pp. 

DAVIS, A.J., HUIJBREGTS, J., KIRK-SPRIGGS, A.H., KRIKKEN, J. & SUTTON, S.L. 

1997. The ecology and behaviour of arboreal dung beetles in Borneo. Pp. 417–432 in 

Stork, N.E., Adis, J. & Didham, R.K. (eds.) Canopy arthropods. Chapman & Hall, London. 

EVANS, G. 1977. The life of beetles. George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London. 232 pp. 

FAUZIAH, A. 2003a. Diversity of Coleoptera in Endau Rompin. In: The Proceedings of the 

Seminar on Ecological Studies in Tropical Rainforests. 19-20 August, 2003. FRIM, 

Kepong. 

FAUZIAH, A. 2003b. Beetle diversity on Langkawi Islands. In: The Proceedings of the Seminar 

on the findings of the Scientific & Heritage Expedition 2003 – Langkawi Islands. 20-21 

October, 2003. Langkawi, Kedah Darul Aman. 

GULLAN, P.J. & CRANSTON, P.S. 1998. The insects: an outline of entomology. Chapman & 

Hall, London. 470 pp. 

HAMMOND, P.M. 1984. An annotated check-list of Staphylinidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) 

recorded from Borneo. Sarawak Museum Journal 33(54): 187–218. 

HAMMOND, P.M. 1990. Insect abundance and diversity in the Dumago-Bone National Park, 

North Sulawesi, with special reference to the beetle fauna of lowland rainforest in the 

Toraut region. Pp. 197–254 in Knight, W.J. & Holloway, J.D. (eds.) Insects and the 

rainforests of South East Asia (Wallacea). The Royal Entomological Society of London. 

HAMMOND, P.M. 1992. Species inventory. Pp. 17–39 in Groombridge, B. (ed.) Global 

biodiversity–status of the earth’s living resources. WCMC, Chapman & Hall, London. 

HAMMOND, P.M. 1995. The current magnitude of biodiversity. Pp. 113–138 in Heywood, 

V.H. & Watson, R.T. (eds.) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge. 

HARPER, J.L. & HAWKSWORTH, D.L. 1995. Preface. Pp. 5–12 in Hawksworth, D.L. (ed.) 

Biodiversity – measurement and estimation. Chapman & Hall, London. 

HLAVAC, P. & MARUYAMA, M. 2004. A new genus and species of the myrmecophilus 

tribe Sahlbergiini from Malaysia (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Aleocharinae) 

Koleopterologische Rundschau 74: 191–199. 

ICZN. 1985. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, adopted by the XV International 

Congress of Zoology. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. 338 pp. 

KIEW, R. & LYONS, K. 1992. Annotated bibliography: Malayan Nature Journal (1940-1990), 

Malayan Naturalist (1974-1990). Malayan Nature Journal 44(3&4): 123–479. 

KON, M., UEDA, A. & JOHKI, Y. 1995. Two new species of Aceraius (Coleoptera, Passalidae) 

from Sabah, Borneo. Japanese Journal of Systematic Entomology 1: 99–104. 

KRISHNAKUMARI, A.N. 2002. Management and Conservation of Fireflies in Peninsular 

Malaysia. PhD Thesis. University of London, Imperial College of Science, Technology 

and Medicine, 216 pp. 

145


LAWRENCE, J.F. 1982. Coleoptera. Pp. 482–553 in Parker S.P. (ed.) Synopsis and 

classification of living organisms. McGraw-Hill Book Co., London. 

LAWRENCE J.F. 1991. Order Coleoptera. Pp. 144–658 in Stehr, F.W. (ed.) Immature insects 

vol. 2. Kendall/Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, Iowa. 

LAWRENCE, J.F. & BRITTON, E.B. 1994. The beetles of Australia. CSIRO, Melbourne 

University Press, Victoria. 192 pp. 

LAWRENCE, J.F., HASTINGS, A.M., DALLWITZ, M.J., PAINE, T.A. & ZURCHER, E.J. 

2005. General bibliography: beetles of the world. 

http://biodiversity.uno.edu/delta/elateria/www/genbibl.htm (Date accessed: 15 June, 2005) 

LAWRENCE, J.F. & NEWTON, A.F.Jr. 1982. Evolution and classification of beetles. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 13: 261–290. 

LAWRENCE, J.F. & NEWTON, A.F. Jr. 1995. Families and subfamilies of Coleoptera (with 

selected genera, notes, references and data on family-group names). Pp. 779–1092 in 

Pakaluk, J. & Slipinski, S.A. (eds.) Biology, phylogeny, and classification of Coleoptera: 

papers celebrating the 80 th birthday of Roy A. Crowson. Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii 

PAN, Warszawa. 

MAHADIMENAKBAR, M.D., SCHILTHUIZEN, M. & ZULHAZMAN, H. 2003. Preliminary 

survey of fireflies (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) in Lower Kinabatangan, Sabah. Pp. 27–36 

in Maryati M., Atsuko T., Goossens, B. & Indran, R. (eds.) Lower Kinabatangan Scientific 

Expedition 2002. Universiti Malaysia Sabah. 

MAKIHARA, H. 1999. Atlas of longicorn beetles in Bukit Soeharto Education Forest, 

Mulawarman University, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. PUSREHUT Special Publication 

No. 7. Mulawarman University & JICA. 140 pp. 

MAWDSLEY, N.A. 1994. Community structure of Coleoptera assemblage in a Bornean 

tropical forest. Ph.D. thesis, University of London. 307 pp. 

MIZUNUMA, T. & NAGAI, S. 1994. The lucanid beetles of the world. Mushi-sha, Tokyo, 

Japan. 340 pp. 

MOHAMEDSAID, M.S. 1990. A new species of Lilioceris from Sabah, Malaysia 

(Chrysomelidae: Criocerinae). Entomological Review of Japan XLV(2): 93–95. 

MOHAMEDSAID, M.S. 1993a. A new species of Monolepta Chevrolat from Borneo 

(Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae). Entomological Review of Japan XLIII(1): 

1–9. 

MOHAMEDSAID, M.S. 1993b. An interesting new species of Liroetiella from Sabah, Malaysia 

(Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae). Entomological Review of Japan XLIII(1): 

45–46. 

MOHAMEDSAID, M.S. 1994. New species of Aulacophora from Sabah, Malaysia 

(Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae). Treubia 31(1): 1–9. 

MOHAMEDSAID, M.S. 1996a. A new genus and two new species of Galerucinae from 

Malaysia (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Serangga 1(2): 79–89. 

MOHAMEDSAID, M.S. 1996b. Spesimen holotip Chrysomelidae (Insecta: Coleoptera) dalam 

repository Pusat Sistematik Serangga, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Serangga 1(1): 

23–27. (in Malay). 

MOHAMEDSAID, M.S. 1997. Nota mengenai kumbang daun subfamili Chrysomelinae dari 

Semenanjung Malaysia (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Serangga 2(1): 119–124. (in Malay). 

MOHAMEDSAID, M.S. 2004. Catalogue of the Malaysian Chrysomelidae (Insecta: 

Coleoptera). Pensoft, Bulgaria. 239 pp. 

MUSTAFA, K.Y. & KUSANO, T. 2004. Working together towards nature conservation for 

our future. Mid term progress report of BBEC programme (February 2002–November 

2004). BBEC Publication No. 34. JICA, Sabah State Government & UMS. 65 pp. 

146


OCHI, T. & KON, M. 1994. Dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) collected from Sabah, 

Borneo (I). Elytra 22: 281–298. 

OHARA, M., MAZUR, S., MIZOTA, K. & MOHAMED, M. 2001. Records of the histerid 

beetles (Coleoptera: Histeridae) at the Crocker Range Park, Sabah, East Malaysia–A report 

of the Scientific Expedition to the Crocker Range, Sabah, Malayasia (Crocker XPDC 

’99). Nature and Human Activities 6: 59–63. 

PAULIAN, R. 1988. Biologie des Coleopteres. Lechevalier, Paris. 719 pp. (in French) 

SAKAI, S., MOMOSE, K., YUMOTO, T., KATO, M. & INOUE, T. 1997. Beetle pollination 

of Shorea parvifolia (section Mutica, Dipterocarpaceae) in general flowering period in 

Sarawak, Malaysia. Pp. 169–179 in Inoue, T. & Hamid, A.A. (eds.) General flowering of 

tropical rainforests in Sarawak. Canopy Biology Program in Sarawak: Series II. 

STORK, N.E. 1986. An annotated checklist of the Carabidae (including Cicindelinae, 

Rhysodinae and Paussinae) recorded from Borneo. Department of Entomology, Natural 

History Museum, London. 24 pp. 

STORK, N.E. 1987a. Guild structure of arthropods from Bornean rainforest trees. Ecological 

Entomology 12: 69–80. 

STORK, N.E. 1987b. Arthropod faunal similarity of Bornean rainforest trees. Ecological 

Entomology 12: 219–226. 

STORK, N.E. 1991. The composition of the arthropod fauna of Bornean lowland rainforest 

trees. Journal of Tropical Ecology 7:161–180. 

SYED, R.A., LAW, I.H. & CORLEY, R.H.V. 1982. Insect pollination of oil palm: introduction, 

establishment and pollinating efficiency of Elaeidobius kamerunicus in Malaysia. The 

Planter 58: 547–561. 

THAPA, R.S. 1974. The biology and ecology of the borer Cyriopalus wallacei Pasc. Sabah 

Forest Record No. 11, Sabah Forest Department. 33 pp. 

TUNG, V.W.Y. 1983. Common Malaysian Beetles. Longman, Malaysia. 142 pp. 

VIVES, E. & ABANG, F. 2003. Notes on the Lepturinae (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of the 

Sarawak Museum insect collection. The Sarawak Museum Journal LVIII(79): 245–250. 

WOOD, B.J. 1968. Pests of oil palms in Malaysia and their control. The Incorporated Society 

of Planters, Kuala Lumpur. 204 pp. 

YEE, C.B., LIM, K.C., ONG, F.C. & CHAN, K.W. 1984. The effects of Elaeidobius 

kamerunicus Faust. on bunch components of Elaeis guineensis Jacq. Pp. 129–139 in 

Proceedings of the Symposium on Impact of the Pollinating Weevil on the Malaysia Oil 

Palm Industry. 21-22 February 1984, Kuala Lumpur. 

147


APPENDIX 1 

A list of beetle families, based on Chung (2003) 

1 Acanthoceridae 43 Geotrupidae 85 Ptiliidae 

2 Aderidae 44 Gyrinidae 86 Ptilodactylidae 

3 Anobiidae 45 Histeridae 87 Ptinidae 

4 Anthicidae 46 Hybosoridae 88 Rhipiceridae 

5 Anthribidae 47 Hydraenidae 89 Rhipiphoridae 

6 Apionidae 48 Hydrophilidae 90 Rhizophagidae 

7 Attelabidae 49 Inopeplidae 91 Rhysodidae 

8 Biphyllidae 50 Jacobsoniidae 92 Salpingidae 

9 Bostrychidae 51 Laemophloeidae 93 Scaphidiidae 

10 Bothrideridae 52 Lagriidae 94 Scarabaeidae 

11 Brentidae 53 Lampyridae 95 Scirtidae 

12 Bruchidae 54 Languriidae 96 Scolytidae 

13 Buprestidae 55 Lathridiidae 97 Scraptiidae 

14 Cantharidae 56 Leiodidae 98 Scydmaenidae 

15 Carabidae 57 Limnichidae 99 Silphidae 

16 Cebrionidae 58 Lophocateridae 100 Silvanidae 

17 Cerambycidae 59 Lucanidae 101 Sphindidae 

18 Cerylonidae 60 Lycidae 102 Staphylinidae 

19 Chelonariidae 61 Lyctidae 103 Tenebrionidae 

20 Chrysomelidae 62 Lymexylidae 104 Throscidae 

21 Cicindelidae 63 Melandryidae 105 Trogidae 

22 Cisidae 64 Meloidae 106 Trogositidae 

23 Clambidae 65 Melyridae 

24 Cleridae 66 Mordellidae 

25 Coccinellidae 67 Mycetophagidae 

26 Colydiidae 68 Mycteridae 

27 Corylophidae 69 Nitidulidae 

28 Crytophagidae 70 Nosodendridae 

29 Cucujidae 71 Noteridae 

30 Curculionidae 72 Oedemeridae 

31 Dermestidae 73 Othniidae 

32 Discolomidae 74 Passalidae 

33 Dryopidae 75 Passandridae 

34 Dytiscidae 76 Paussidae 

35 Elateridae 77 Pedilidae 

36 Elmidae 78 Phalacridae 

37 Endomychidae 79 Phengodidae 

38 Erotylidae 80 Platypodidae 

39 Eucinetidae 81 Propalticidae 

40 Eucnemidae 82 Pselaphidae 

41 Eulichadidae 83 Psephenidae 

42 Georissidae 84 Pterogeniidae 

148

IDRIS A.B. (2007) 



THE STATUS OF RESEARCH ON HYMENOPTERA 

IN MALAYSIA, WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON 

ICHNEUMONIDAE 

Idris A.B. 

ABSTRACT 

The insect order Hymenoptera (wasps, ants and bees) is the second most speciose and diverse 

order on earth after beetles. They are extremely important as biological control agents of 

insect pests. The number of species is unknown but more than 115,000 species have been 

described and 5 to 10 times more await discovery. Problems faced by researchers working on 

Hymenoptera include poor inventory data, unavailability of up-to-date identification keys, 

checklists, databases, reference books and catalogues, and the lack of taxonomic revision. 

The number of researchers working on Hymenoptera worldwide is declining at an alarming 

rate. To date, 1,200 ant species have been recorded in Malaysia while more than 20,000 

ichneumonid specimens have been collected, viz., up from 300 specimens eight years ago. 

Many species have been recorded from Malaysia for the first time, and many new species 

have been identified. Research is being conducted on ant and ichneumonid wasp systematics, 

as well as on their diversity and ecology, particularly in relation to habitat change. Generally, 

ants and ichneumonids were negatively affected by habitat (forest) change and could be used 

as bioindicators of habitat disturbance. Few revisions and catalogues are available, and there 

are no checklists. Specimens are housed in museums and insect collection centers throughout 

the world. Major collection centres in Malaysia include the Center for Insect Systematics 

(UKM) and Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation (ITBC) (UMS). 

INTRODUCTION 

Hymenoptera is derived from the Greek words hymen, which means ‘membrane’ (or Hymeno, 

the Greek god of marriage), and ptera, which means ‘wing’ (LaSalle & Gauld 1993). The 

order comprises two suborders—Symphyta and Apocrita. The Symphyta, or sawflies, are 

more primitive. They have complete wing venation and do not have the constricted ‘wasp’swaist’ 

seen in the rest of the order (LaSalle & Gauld 1993). Most species have phytophagous 

larvae that resemble those of Lepidoptera in both appearance and behaviour. Sawflies are a 

relatively small group consisting of 14 families, which contain just over 5% of described 

species of Hymenoptera, with the majority in the family Tenthredinidae (Gaston 1993). 

Center for Insect Systematics, School of Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences, Faculty of Science & 

Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia; idrisgh@pkrisc.cc.ukm.my 

149

THE STATUS OF RESEARCH ON HYMENOPTERA IN MALAYSIA 

The suborder Apocrita contains the vast majority of species of Hymenoptera. It is divided into 

two groups, the Parasitica and Aculeata. The aculeates represent the most diverse group of 

Hymenoptera, in which the ovipositor structure has been modified into a sting. This group 

contains the groups of Hymenoptera known to most people, such as bees, wasps, hornets and 

ants. Some species are quite large in size, having a wing span of up to 10 cm (eg. the Spider 

wasps, Pompilidae). The majority of species are predatory (eg. wasps and hornets) or pollen 

feeding (eg. bees), but parasitism is common, particularly in the lower aculeates (Chrysidoidea). 

There are 19 families in Aculeata, and together they account for over 45% of described 

Hymenoptera species (Gaston 1993), with the families Apidae (bees), Formicidae (ants) and 

Sphecidae containing the most species. 

The Parasitica is the largest group of Hymenoptera, and includes all non-aculeate Apocrita. 

Members have a constricted waist, but in which the ovipositor has not been developed into a 

sting. The vast majority of the species are parasitoids. However, there are species which are 

phytophagous, gall-forming, or predatory. The Parasitica contains 48 families in 10 

superfamilies, and encompasses almost half the described species of Hymenoptera, with most 

of the species in superfamilies Ichneumoniodea and Chalcidoidea (Gaston 1993). The majority 

of the species, especially the Chalcidoidea, are very small (eg. 0.18 mm in length for some 

species in the family Trichogrammatidae), and most people are not even aware of their existence 

and role. 

The insect order Hymenoptera is one of the dominant life forms on earth, both in terms of the 

number of species as well as in the diversity of life styles that have evolved within the group. 

The Hymenoptera contain the vast majority of socially organized insects and parasitoids, as 

well as a great variety of specialist predators and herbivores. They have emerged as the most 

speciose group in many studies on terrestrial biodiversity and they are pre-eminent as biological 

control agents of insect pest species. 

The number of species of Hymenoptera is unknown and, at present, is almost impossible to 

estimate with any accuracy. Even the number of described species has not been accurately 

documented, given that there are many families for which there are no checklists or catalogues 

available. Some good checklists or catalogues are those of Johnson (1992), Bolton (1995), 

Noyes (1998), Townes (1983), van Achterberg (1983, 1988, 1997), Quicke (1987) and Sharkey 

(1988). La Salle and Gauld (1993) and Gaston (1993) have estimated the number of described 

species of Hymenoptera at more than 115,000 species. However, the total number (including 

undescribed and uncollected species) could be 5–10 times more, given that this is often the 

proportion of new species that are discovered following taxonomic revision of highly speciose 

families (Austin 1999). Determining the number of species for the ‘megadiverse’ regions of 

the world is a major problem. These areas include tropical or subtropical countries such as 

Australia, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, China, Brazil, Equador, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Zaire 

and Madagascar; with a few exceptions, they have generally been poorly surveyed (McNeely 

et al. 1990). The hymenopteran fauna of Costa Rica is particularly well-studied (Hanson & 

Gauld 1995), and this work serves as a useful foundation for future research on the fauna of 

Costa Rica itself, and for other regions. The extent of species richness and biological complexity 

within the Hymenoptera dictates that the group should be at the center of studies assessing 

arthropod diversity. The full extent of their diversity will only be revealed when detailed 

studies similar to those in Costa Rica are undertaken for other species-rich regions of the 

world. Limiting factors common to many countries are the unavailability of up-to-date 

150

IDRIS A.B. (2007) 

identification keys, taxonomic revisions, checklists, databases and catalogues (these are either 

lacking, difficult to get or very expensive to buy), the lack of taxonomists, poor financial 

support and a lack of research facilities and training programs. 

STUDIES ON HYMENOPTERA IN MALAYSIA 

Out of 100 families of Hymenoptera listed in Goulet and Huber (1993), there are only four 

groups, namely the Formicidae (true ants), Apidae (bees) and two parasitic wasp families 

(Ichneumonidae and Braconidae) that have been given more attention by local entomologists. 

Unfortunately, none of the present-day local entomologists undertake full-time taxonomic 

research, and this has a negative impact on efforts to advance our knowledge of the taxonomy 

and diversity of even these better-studied groups of Hymenoptera. 

A. Ants (Formicidae) 

Ants are important decomposers of organic matter, and contribute to nutrient cycling and soil 

enrichment. They have a well-earned title as ‘ecological engineers’ in terrestrial ecosystems 

(LaSalle & Gauld 1993)—they serve as food for other animals, have roles to play in seed 

dispersal, are able to control parasitism and predation, and some species have evolved 

mutualistic relationships with plants and other insects. In view of this, studies on this particular 

group of insects are vital. 

There are no checklists available for ants in Malaysia, but Bolton (1995) has catalogued the 

ants of the world. According to Maryati (pers. comm.), there are currently 1,200 species of 

ants recorded from Malaysia, an increase of 300 over the number of species reported 10 years 

ago (Maryati 1995). This increase in the number of species recorded is mainly a result of 

intensive study by her research team, supported by external grants, in collaboration with 

scientists from the United Kingdom (Natural History Museum), Japan, USA, and Europe. The 

interesting geological and evolutionary history of Borneo, and its high biodiversity, attracts 

research collaboration between local and foreign entomologists. Although most of the ant 

collections are kept at the Natural History Museum (NHM), London, some are also deposited 

at the new ‘Borneonsis’ Collection Center in the Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation 

(ITBC) located in Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS), or in other museums or national 

collections in Japan, the United Kingdom and USA. A number of publications that are useful 

references for researchers working on ants, some of which are revisions or catalogues, are 

listed in Table 1. 

Malaysian entomologists currently working on ants are Datin Professor Dr. Maryati Mohamed 

of Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS), Professor Dr. Ahmad Said Sajap of Universiti Putra 

Malaysia (UPM) and the author, Associate Professor Dr. Idris Abd. Ghani of Universiti 

Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Foreign entomologists actively involved in ant research in 

Malaysia are Professor Dr. Kazuo Ogata (Osaka University), Professor Dr. Seiki Yamane 

(Kagoshima University), Dr. Y. Hashimoto (attached to University Malaysia Sabah) and Dr. 

Barry Bolton (Natural History Museum, London). Japanese researchers are currently involved 

in a project on ‘Insect Inventory in Tropical Asia’, funded the JSPS (Japan Society for the 

Promotion of Science). 

151


Table 1. Selected Publications Dealing with Ants in Malaysia. 

No Title Authors & Year 

1 The Role of Three Insect Groups (Ants, Dung beetles and Bakhtiar 2000 

Geometrid Moths) as Biological Indicators in Three Type of 

Habitats (Primary, Secondary & Oil Palms). MSc Thesis, 

Universiti Malaysia Sabah. 

2 A revision of the Australian ant genus Notoncus Emery, with Bolton 1955 

note on the genera of Melophorini. 

3 The ant tribe Tetramoriini. The genus Myr in the Oriental and 

Indo-Australian Regions, and in Australia. Bolton 1977 

4 A New General Catalogue of the Ants of the World Bolton 1995 

5 A preliminary analysis of the ants of Pasoh Forest Reserve Bolton 1996 

6 Identification Guide to the Ant Genera of the World Bolton 1997 

7 Stratification of ants in a primary rainforest in Sabah, Borneo Bruhl et al. 1998 

8 Leaf litter ant communities in tropical lowland rainforest Bruhl 2001 

in Sabah, Malaysia: Effect of forest disturbance and fragmentation 

9 Fauna semut di Hutan Hujan Tropika (Primer Sekunder) Chung 1993 

di Lembah Danum 

10 Common Lowland Forest Ants of Sabah. Forest Department Sabah. Chung 1995 

11 The ants of Tabin Wildlife Reserve, Sabah Hashimoto et al. 1999 

12 Diversity of Ants along an Urbanisational Gradient. MSc. Thesis. 

Universiti Malaysia Sabah Jimbau 2004 

13 Semut, UBTP, Universiti Malaysia Sabah Maryati 1995 

14 Terrestrial Ants of Poring, Kinabalu Park, Sabah Maryati et al. 1996 

15 Terrestrial Ants of Sayap, Kinabalu Park, Sabah Maryati 1998 

16 Taburan Semut Mengikut Altitude di Gunung Kinabalu. MSc thesis. Norhasiah 2000 

Universiti Malaysia Sabah. 

17 Comparison of Ant & Termite Diversity Between Regenerating & Noel 2004 

Primary Forest in Danum Valley & their Relationship with Physical, 

Climatic and Biological Factors. MSc. Thesis. Universiti Malaysia 

Sabah. 

18 Ant composition along an elevation gradient in Mount Kinabalu, Shanmuga 1996 

Sabah, Malaysia 

19 Canopy ants diversity assessment in the fragmented rainforest Widodo et al. 2001 

of Sabah 

20 Ground ant fauna in a Bornean Dipterocarp Forest Yamane et al. 1996 

B. Bees (Apidae) 

1. Honey bee group 

Apart from providing us with honey, pollen and resin, honey bees are vitally important as 

pollinators. Seven species have, so far, been recorded in Malaysia. They are Apis dorsata 

(giant honey bee, believed to be native to Malaysia), A. cerana (oriental honey bee), A. florea 

(dwarf honey bee), A. nuluensis and A. koschevnikovi (two bee species that nest in cavities), 

A. mellifera (common honey bee, introduced from Australia for the bee keeping industry) and 

A. andreniformis (recently described from Tenum, Sabah). 

152

IDRIS A.B. (2007) 

There are few Malaysian entomologists working on bees; they are Prof. Dr. Mahadzir Mardan 

(Universiti Putra Malaysia), Mr. Hussan Abdul Kadir (Malaysian Agriculture Research and 

Development Institute) and Mr. Salim Tingek in the Tenom Agricultural Research Station, 

Sabah (TARSS). These entomologists are studying bee behavior, pollination or 

thermoregulation. TARSS is quickly becoming a center dedicated to research on bees. Bee 

specimens are kept at various academic institutions such as UKM, UM, UPM and UMS and 

government agencies such as MARDI and the Department of Agriculture (Crop Protection 

Division). 

2. Stingless bee group 

Like honey bees, the stingless bees also play an important role in pollination (e.g., Trigonia 

thoracica, the pollinator for starfruit), Stingless bees however, are not an important source of 

honey and they are not kept commercially in hives. Very little is known about these bees. 

To date, there are no Malaysian entomologists actively working on this group, nor are there 

any international or regional funds to support such research. However, Dr. Khoo Soo Ghee 

(retired lecturer of the University of Malaya) had recorded at least 35 species of Trigona from 

Malaysia, and this confirms Malaysia’s status as being the country with the highest diversity 

of Trigona species in tropical Asia (S.G. Khoo, pers. comm.). Much of the material stemming 

from his research (identification keys, checklists, literature and specimens) are currently kept 

at the Insect Collection of University of Malaya or in Dr. Khoo’s personal collection. 

Identification keys for both honey bees and stingless bees are available at University of Malaya, 

TARSS and UPM, as well as from related websites, e.g., Taxacom Listserv Archive for 1996 

or http://www.taxapad.com. 

C. Parasitic Wasps, with special emphasis on Ichneumoidea (Ichnemonidae 

and Braconidae) 

The parasitic wasps (Parasitica; refer above) is the largest group of Hymenoptera, the two 

largest families, Ichneumonidae and Braconidae, respectively having 35 and 28 subfamilies 

worldwide (Goulet & Huber 1993). These two subfamilies have been studied more than the 

other families. In nature, these parasitic wasps, also known as parasitoids, regulate herbivore 

populations, thereby reducing damage to the leaves, stems, flowers, fruits and roots of plants. 

In view of this, Altieri & Nicholls (2004) suggested that these wasps indirectly promote global 

floral and faunal diversity. However, highly disturbed habitats such as agricultural ecosystems 

do not favor parasitoid survival. 

1. Braconidae 

The braconids of the Old World Tropics, in particular the Indo-Australian and Oriental species, 

have been studied primarily by Drs. C. van Achterberg (Leiden Museum), D.L.J. Quicke 

(Imperial College, London) and A.B. Idris (UKM, Malaysia). At least three recent revisions 

have been published (Quicke 1997, Simboloti & van Achterberg 1990a, 1990b). In addition, 

one illustrated book to the subfamilies was published in 1996 (van Achterberg 1996), and 

another publication, “Keys to the Genera of Braconidae of the World,” is in press (van 

153


Achterberg, pers. comm.). In Malaysia, inventory work has just begun on braconids and, to 

date, there are c. 7,000 braconid specimens from 22 subfamilies in the collection of the Centre 

for Insect Systematics (CIS), UKM. Postgraduate collaboration with the Natural History 

Museum in Leiden, Holland and the University of Leiden, is on-going. 

2. Ichneumonidae 

Ichneumonidae is the largest family in the order Hymenoptera and the second largest family 

in the Animal kingdom. The number of species in the family exceeds the total number of 

vertebrate species and is greater than the number of species from any other insect family, with 

the exception of the Cucurlionidae (weevils), which is the most speciose insect family in the 

world (LaSalle & Gauld 1993, Romoser & Stoffolano 1998). It is estimated that Ichneumonidae 

comprises 5–8% of the total number of described insect species on earth (Gaston 1993). In 

1969, Townes reported that 16,032 ichneumonid species had been described worldwide and 

that, of these, 2,579 species were from the Indo-Australian region. Based on this, he estimated 

that the total number of ichneumonid species worldwide could be more than 60,464. 

a. Systematics and Taxonomic Studies 

The earliest studies on Ichneumonidae were conducted by Gravenhost in 1829. In Malaysia, 

studies were initiated by Smith (1858), who first described Pimpla punctata (Pimplinae), 

Sketia croceipes (Cryptinae) and Enicospilus giganteus (Ophininae) from Sarawak (East 

Malaysia). In 1903, Cameron (1903) described Camptotypus rugosus (Pimplinae) from 

Peninsular Malaysia. Since then, many species have been described or recorded from Malaysia. 

Despite this, there have been no concerted efforts to collect and inventorise or to work on the 

taxonomy, systematics, zoogeographical distribution and phylogenetic relationships of 

Malaysian ichneumonids. In view of this, a study on Malaysian ichneumonids was initiated 

by the author in late 1997. To begin with, the genera Goryphus (Cryptinae) and Xanthopimpla 

(Pimplinae) were extensively studied. New species were described and new records made. 

Xanthopimpla is a very large tropicopolitan genus, with most species occurring in the Indo- 

Papuan archipelago, while the genus Goryphus is one of the commonest genera of Cryptinae 

and is highly abundant in the tropical and subtropical parts of the Old World. Both groups are 

poorly known. Studies on the genera Theronia (Pimplinae) and Enicospilus (Ophininae) have 

just begun in early 2005. 

Eight years ago, the CIS had about 300 specimens of Ichneumonidae. Today it has over 20,000 

specimens, accumulated over a period of seven to eight years of study. Of these, 20 specimens 

are types or paratypes. A total of 28 out of the 35 ichneumonid subfamilies world-wide, and 

21 out of the 22 ichneumonid subfamilies in the Indo-Australian region (Yu & Horstmann 

1997a, 1997b, Goulet & Huber 1993), have been collected. Among the subfamilies collected 

were Agriotypinae, Tersilochinae, Cylloceriinae, Micropleptinae, Orthopelmatinae and 

Tatogastrinae, which are new records for tropical Asia. A total of 140 genera were identified 

and, of these, at least 20 genera were new records for Malaysia. For Goryphus (Cryptinae), 20 

species were recorded for Malaysia (up from only 8 prior to this study), including six new 

records and five new species (Yu & Horstmann 1997a). A total of 58 species of the genus 

Xanthopimpla were also recorded, of which five species were new to science and nine species 

were new records for Malaysia. This represents a 40% increase in the number of species 

recorded from Malaysia. To date we have already successfully identified one species of 

Enicospilus, that is, E. lietincki, as a new record for Malaysia. 

154

IDRIS A.B. (2007) 

Molecular phylogenetic studies using 28S rRNA and CO1 genes are in progress. Our 

preliminary results indicate that the use of CO1 genes gives better resolution compared to 28S 

genes. In addition, phylogenies derived from molecular classification agreed with those derived 

from morphology, at the genus level (Idris et al. 2005). 

b. Ecological Studies 

Results from an ecological study conducted in several localities in Peninsular Malaysia, that 

is, Taman Negara Merapoh (TNM), Pasoh Forest Reserve (PFR), Kuala Lompat Forest Reserve 

(KLFR) in the Krau Wildlife Reserve, Bangi Forest Reserve (UKMFR), Kuala Langat South 

Forest (HKLS) and Kuala Langat North Forest (HKLU), showed that the abundance of 

Xanthopimpla spp. (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) were significantly different between 

localities. Table 2 shows the ichneumonid species diversity (Shannon-Weiner diversity index, 

H’) in the six different forest localities. The ichneumonid abundance in TNM, a primary 

forest, was not significantly different from that in HKLU, a forest that had been logged five 

years ago. In fact, both forests had somewhat similar species richness indices (Margalef’s 

richness index, R’) and evenness indices (Shannon-Weiner evenness index, E’). Interestingly, 

only 48% of species were common to both forests. The primary forest conditions of TNM 

help equilibrate the population of Xanthopimpla species within the resources available. HKLU, 

even though highly fragmented, has a high number of individuals and high species diversity. 

This suggests that H’ will be high, irrespective of the degree of habitat disturbance, as long as 

the number of species (richness, R’) and number of individuals of a species (evenness, E’) are 

high (Magurran 1988). Disturbed forest fragments result in an increase in the abundance and 

diversity of arthropod species (Samways, 1994). Although some species may be lost as a 

result of disturbances, others may benefit from these same disturbances. The abundance and 

diversity of wasps in HKLU could be attributed to the EL-Nino effects or a difference in 

forest type. It could also be due to the heterogeneity of HKLU as compared to other forests as 

suggested by the habitat heterogeneity hypothesis (Price 1984, Gauld 1987, Huston 1994). In 

comparison with other forest fragments, HKLU is considerably more dynamic, as it was logged 

in 1993 and constitutes vegetation still under succession. HKLS was last logged in 1976, 

while PFR and KLFR were logged more than 50 years ago and would have achieved greater 

climax equilibrium. PFR is considered less disturbed (FRIM, 1995), while Kuala Lompat is 

adjacent to a large area of pristine forest. HKLS, Pasoh and Kuala Lompat had low wasp 

abundance and diversity and this is probably due to competitive equilibrium resulting from 

Table 2. Shanon diversity indices (H’), evenness indices (E’) and Margalef’s indices (richness 

indices, R’) for Xanthopimpla species in six different forest localities in Peninsular Malaysia. 

Forests 1 

H’ E’ R’ 

Hutan Kuala Langat Utara (HKLU) 2 2.62 a 0.95 4.93 

Taman Negara, Merapoh (TNM) 2.55 a 0.94 4.47 

Pasoh Forest Reserve (PFR) 1.99 b 0.96 2.73 

Kuala Lompat Forest Reserve (KLFR) 1.98 b 0.95 2.82 

Bangi Forest Reserve (UKMFR) 1.89 b 0.91 2.92 

Hutan Kuala Langat Selatan (HKLS) 2 1.70 b 0.95 2.17 

1 

Values of H’ with similar alphabets were not significantly different at p < 0.05 (paired t-test). 

2 

HKLU and HKLS are peat swamp forests; the others are lowland dipterocarp forests. 

155


competitive exclusion (Huston, 1994; Cox & Moore, 1993). For Bangi FR, the low wasp 

abundance and diversity are probably due to its isolated location and small fragment size (it is 

only 105 ha). Huston (1994) pointed out that in smaller areas, competition is high and this 

results in equilibrium between extinction and immigration; such areas are likely to have lower 

diversity compared with larger areas. 

The study also showed that ichneumonid diversity was significantly higher in the understorey 

than in the middle-storey or canopy of the forest, based on traps placed on a canopy tower at 

0 m, 8 m and 15 m above ground level. Species richness and species evenness followed the 

same trend (Idris & Kee 2002). These results agree with that of Gonzaga & Idris (2004), who 

studied the vertical abundance of Xanthopimpla species (Ichneumonidae) in Pasoh Forest 

Reserve. Idris & Kee (2002) found that ichneumonid diversity tended to increase from the 

forest fringe into the interior, but only up to between 400 to 600 m into the interior of the 

forest (Table 3). This indicates that there are more ichneumonid species in the interior of the 

forest than in the fringe, and that species that inhabit the interior of the forest may be sensitive 

to disturbance. However, this was not the case for some species of genus Xanthopimpla such 

as X. gampsura, X.elegans elegans and X. stemator, as their abundance and diversity tended 

to be higher in the fringe than in the interior of the forest (Gonzaga & Idris 2004). The percent 

species similarity between all ground level samples and the ground level samples at the base 

of the canopy tower was higher than the percent species similarity between ground level traps 

and traps placed at a height of 15 m on the canopy tower (Table 4). 

In 1998, a series of studies were conducted at the Bangi Forest Reserve to compare the 

effectiveness of various collecting methods. Malaise traps, pitfall traps, yellow pan traps, 

light traps and sweep nets were used. The results indicated that Malaise traps were more 

effective. In Sulawesi, Indonesia, Noyes (1989) found that yellow pan traps and sweep nets 

Table 3. Shannon diversity index (H’), species evenness (E), and species richness (R) for 

Ichneumonidae collected at the Sungkai Wildlife Forest Reserve, Perak, Malaysia from July 

till October 2000. 

Shannon’s 

Trap location Diversity Shannon’s Margalef’s index 

Index (H’) 1 Evenness (E) (Richness, R) 

Horizontal distance 

from forest edge (m) 2 

0 2.76 b 0.89 5.91 

100 3.50 c 0.94 10.23 

200 4.30 d 0.99 16.96 

400 4.53 d 0.97 16.87 

600 4.49 d 0.95 16.90 

Vertical Height (m) 3 

0 3.68 b 0.95 9.19 

15 0.35 a 1.52 1.68 

1 

Values of H’ with the same alphabet were not significantly different at alpha = 0.05. 

2 

Malaise traps were installed on the ground or forest floor. 

3 

Malaise traps were installed at the top and bottom of a canopy tower 400 m from the forest edge. 

156

IDRIS A.B. (2007) 

Table 4. Percent species similarity of Ichneumonid species between ground level and canopy 

samples at Sungkai Wildlife Forest Reserve, Perak, Malaysia (July to October 2000). 

Species similarity (%) 

Sampling location Horizontal Horizontal Bottom of Top of 

(total) (400 m) tower tower 

Horizontal (total) 1 100 - - - 

Horizontal (400 m) 2 75.4 100 - - 

Bottom of tower 3 50 98.7 100 38.1 

Top of tower 3 33.3 45.4 38.1 100 

1 

All species from all sites in the horizontal sampling with ground-level Malaise traps, viz. 0, 100, 200, 400 and 600 

m from the forest edge. 

2 

Data for horizontal sampling with ground-level Malaise traps at 400 m from the forest edge. 

3 

Data for the canopy tower, 400 m from the forest edge (bottom = 0 m, top = 15 m from forest floor). 

sometimes collected more ichneumonids in areas that are undulating. Although the Bangi 

forest is also undulating, the mean numbers of ichneumonids caught in yellow pan traps and 

sweep nets were significantly lower than in Malaise traps. However, for the nocturnal 

ichneumonid subfamily Ophioninae, light traps were more effective. 

A study on the flight phenology of ichneumonids in the primary and regenerating forests of 

Pasoh F.R. was conducted from April 2002 to March 2003. Generally, in both forests, there were 

two peaks flight activities, viz., June-July and October-December 2002, with the highest activity 

recorded in July 2002. Based on the flight phenology of the different genera, parasitoids could 

be categorized into genera that (1) peaked twice a year, (2) peaked only in June-July, (3) peaked 

only in October-December and (4) peaked in March. However, the flight activity of most genera 

varied with locality. The results also showed that seasonal new leaf flushes of trees may influence 

flight activity of ichneumonids. More ichneumonids were caught during the dry season of May 

to August 2002 than during the wet season of October to December 2002. Additionally, the 

optimum number of samples needed to yield maximum species diversity (the asymptote or 

threshold level) was higher in primary forests than in secondary or disturbed forests. 

c. Zoogeographical Distribution 

A study on the zoogeographical distribution of the genus Xanthopimpla and Goryphus recorded 

58 species and three subspecies of Xanthopimpla in Malaysia (Idris et al. 2005). Of these, 53 

and 34 were from Malay Peninsular and East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak), respectively. 

Only 20 species of Goryphus have been recorded in Malaysia: 12 species from the Peninsula 

and eight species from Sabah (no species have been recorded from Sarawak yet). The lower 

number of species recorded from East Malaysia is due to lower sampling intensity as a 

consequence of a limited budget. Zoogeographical maps showing the distribution of each 

species in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak are available (Idris et al. 2005). 

d. Potential Biological Indicators 

There was a significant difference between disturbed and undisturbed habitats in relation to 

body size class distribution of Xanthopimpla species (Table 5). Although medium- and smallsized 

Xanthopimpla species dominated both habitats, populations of larger-sized species 

157


(approximately 12 mm body length or larger) tended to be higher in disturbed areas. This 

could be an example of competitive exclusion, in which certain species are prevented from 

occupying an area by the presence of other species (Cox & Moore, 1993). Xanthopimpla 

species, as examples of pimpline wasps, lay eggs in suitable hosts, and larger species select 

hosts that enable the development of a larger wasp. (Gauld, 1984). Disturbed habitats may 

favor the existence of suitable hosts for large Xanthopimpla species, which compete with 

smaller species for the limited resources available. Certain large species like X. gampsura 

were abundant in disturbed habitats, while X. nigritarsis nigritarsis was found only in pristine 

habitats. Although the finding is preliminary and needs to be verified by replication at other 

locations, these two species of Xanthopimpla may have the potential to be used as biological 

indicators for habitat disturbance. 

Table 5. Contingency table 1 for the body length of Xanthopimpla species collected in 

undisturbed and disturbed habitats. 

Body length (mm) Undisturbed Disturbed 

Small (5.30 - 8.66) 16 20 

Medium (8.67 - 12.03) 30 11 

Large (12.04 - 15.4) 2 11 

Total 48 42 

1 

Chi Square (2 degrees of freedom) = 15.15, p < 0.001. 

PUBLICATIONS AND OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON 

ICHNEUMONIDAE AND OTHER PARASITIC HYMENOPTERA 

There are many ways to access information on Hymenoptera, in particular the Ichneumonidae 

and other parasitic hymenopterans. Provided below is a list of relevant references, revisions, 

catalogues, CD-ROMs and electronic information-sources (websites, etc). Useful books for 

beginners are those written by LaSalle & Gauld (1993), Gauld & Bolton (1996), Austin & 

Dowton (2000), Quicke (1987), Morley (1913) and Goulet & Huber (1993). Books or 

catalogues specifically on Braconidae (braconid wasps) and Formicidae (ants) have been written 

by van Achterberg (1996), Shenefelt (1975), van der Vecht & Shenefelt (1969) and Bolton 

(1997). Many other books or catalogues provide information on Ichneumonid wasps 

(Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) but these are too numerous to list here. To date, few revisions 

on Ichneumonidae and Braconidae have been published; these are Townes (1983), Quicke 

(1997) and Simboloti & van Achterberg (1990a & 1990b). Bouèek (1988) and Huang & 

Noyes (1994) provide good revisions for Chalcidoidea and Encyrtidae, respectively. 

There are several journals that frequently publish or are devoted to research on Hymenoptera 

(Table 7). The Oriental Insects Monograph, Pacific Insect Monograph and Ichneumonologia 

Orientalis commonly publish articles on Ichneumonidae and Braconidae of the Indo-Australian 

and Oriental Regions, while the Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden and Zoologische 

Verhandelingen usually publish articles on braconids. The Journal of Hymenoptera Research 

publishes research on any aspect of Hymenoptera. Other articles on Hymenoptera diversity 

and taxonomy can also sometimes be found in Serangga, Bulletin of Entomological Research, 

Biocontrol and various other entomological journals. 

158

IDRIS A.B. (2007) 

At least one Interactive Catalogue of World Ichneumonidae called ‘Taxapad 1998’ is available 

in the form of CD-ROM (Table 7). (http:/www.taxapad.com) The CD is available for purchase 

at over RM 2,000/-, inclusive of a guide book. A CD-ROM identification guide to the genera 

of Braconidae is almost ready (van Achterberg, pers. comm.). Information on Chalcidoidea is 

also available online (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/chalcidoids) and ‘A Universal 

Chalcidoidea Database’ on CD ROM is also available for purchase (RM 4,000/- each) (John 

Noyes, pers. comm.). The proceedings of the ‘International Symposium on biological control 

of arthropods’ is also available on CD ROM (van Driesche, pers. comm.). 

Table 6. List of publications related to Ichneumonidae and other parasitic Hymenoptera 

Type of References and Titles 

Author (s) and Year 

Books/Revisions/Catalogues 

1. Hymenoptera & Biodiversity LaSalle & Gauld 1993 

2. The Hymenoptera Gauld & Bolton 1996 

3. Hymenoptera: Evolution, Biodiversity & Biological Control Austin & Dowton 2000 

4. Parasitic wasps Quicke 1997 

5. Hymenoptera of the World: Identification to Subfamilies Goulet & Huber 1993 

6. Illustrated Key to Subfamilies Braconidae (Hymenoptera: van Achterberg 1996 

Ichneumonoidea) 

7. Identification Guide to the Ant Genera of the World Bolton 1997 

8. Fauna of British India. Vol 3: Hymenoptera Morley 1913 

9. Australasian Chalcidoidea Bouèek 1988 

10. An Introduction to the Ichneumonidae of Australia Gauld 1984a 

11. The Pimplinae, Xoridinae, Acaenitinae and Lycorininae Gauld 1984b 

(Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) of Australia 

12. The taxonomy, distribution & host preferences of African Gauld & Mitchell 1978 

Parasitic Wasps of the Subfamily Ophioninae 

13. The taxonomy, distribution & host preferences of Indo-Papuan Gauld & Mitchell 1981 

Parasitic Wasps of the Subfamily Ophioninae (Hymenoptera: 

Ichneumonidae) 

14. Studies on the Hymenoptera. A collection of articles on Gupta 1993 

Hymenoptera commemorating the 70 th Birthday of Henry 

Townes 

15. Revision of genera Gelini (Ichneumonidae). Townes 1983 

16. A Catalogue and Reclassification of the Indo-Australian Townes et al. 1961 

Ichneumoidae 

17. A Catalogue of World Ichneumonidae (Parts 1 & 2) Yu & Horstmann 

1997a,1997b 

18. The Indo-Australian species of Xanthopimpla (Ichneumonidae) Townes & Chiu 1970a 

1970b 

19. Genera of Ichneumonidae, Part I Townes 1969 

20. A revision of the Indo-Pacific Species of Ooencyrtus Huang & Noyes 1994 

(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) 

21. Revision of the Euagathis species (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) Simboloti & van 

from Sulawesi 

Achterberg 1990a 

22. Revision of the Euagathis species (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) Simboloti & van 

from the Sundaland 

Achterberg 1990b 

23. Hymenopterorum Catalogus: Braconidae 8 Shenefelt 1975 

24. Hymenoptera Catalogus: Braconidae 1 van der Vecht & 

Shenefelt 1969 

25. The Old World Genera of Braconine Wasps Quicke 1987 

(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) 

159


Researchers working on Hymenoptera can stay in touch with each other by registering 

themselves in a discussion group (parahym@)nhm.ac.uk). Registration can be done online or 

by contacting John Noyes at the NHM (j.noyes@nhm.ac.uk). The ‘International Hymenoptera 

Conference’ is held every four years and enables researchers to present their research findings. 

Table 7. Examples of some Journals, CD-ROM/VCD, Websites and Researchers Working on 

Hymenoptera Parasitica. 

Journals 

1. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 

2. Journal Natural History 

3. Zoologische Mededelingen Leiden. 

4. Zoologische Verhandelingen. 

5. Serangga 

6. Oriental Insects Monograph 

7. Pacific Insect Monograph 

8. Ichneumonologia Orientalis 

9. Bulletin Entomological Research 

(Devoted to only systematics articles except for no.7 and 9) 

CD-ROM/VCD 

1. Interactive Catalogue of World Ichneumonidae. 1998. 

(Taxapad 1999) by Dicky, S. Yu. 1998. 

http://www.taxapad.com 

2. Universal Chalcidoidea Database : CD-ROM by Noyes (1998). 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/chalcidoids 

3. International Symposium on biological control of arthropods. 

CD-ROM Delta-interkey CSIRO, Australia. 

Available Websites 

http:/www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/chalcidoids 

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomolgy/hymcours 

http://www.insectconsultancy.nl 

http://www.sfu.ca/~carmean/tig/ 

http://www.tolweb.org 

http://www.zoo.bio.ufpr.br/hymenoptera 

http://www.hymenoptera.tamu.edu/ 

http://hymenoptera.tamu.edu/ish/ 

http://www.discoverlife.org 

http://www.royensoc.co.uk 

hymenopterans 

hymenopterans 

stingless bees 

Apocrita 

hymenopoterans 

hymenopterans 

chalcids 

especially ants 

insect parasitoids 

RESEARCHERS 

Currently, few researchers work on hymenopterans, and many of those that do work on this 

order work on bees, ants and larger-sized wasps (e.g., vespids and specids), which are not as 

diverse as ichneumonids, braconids and chalcids (Goulet & Huber 1993). Table 8 lists the 

researchers working on parasitic Hymenoptera. 

160

IDRIS A.B. (2007) 

Table 8. List of Researchers working on the specific groups of Hymenoptera, and Institution 

in which they are attached. 

Hymenoptera Group Researchers Institute(s) 

Ichneumonids M. Fitton & I. D. Gauld Natural History Museum, 

London 

V.K Gupta 

University of Florida/ 

American Institute of 

Entomology, Florida 

D.K. Yu 

Agriculture & Agri-Food 

Canada Research Center, 

Alberta, Canada 

D. Wahl American Entomological 

Institute, Gainesville, Florida, 

USA 

K. Horstmann Biozentrum, Zoologie III, Am 

Hubland, Germany 

H. Goulet, J.T Huber Center for Land & Biological 

& M.J Sharkey 

Resources Research Ottawa, 

Canada 

Braconids D.L. Quicke Imperial College of Science, 

Technology and Medicine, 

University of London 

C. van Achterberg The Natural History Museum, 

Leiden, Holland 

A.D Austin 

R.A.Wharton 

J.B. Whittfield 

University of Adelaide, 

Australia 

Department of Entomology, 

Texas A & M University, 

Texas, USA 

University of Illinois at 

Urbana Champaign, USA 

Chalcids J. Heraty University of California, 

Riverside 

J. Noyes Natural History Museum, 

London 

J. LaSalle CSIRO, Australia 

SOURCES OF FUNDS 

Funds to conduct research on Hymenoptera can be sourced from the ASEAN Regional Centre 

for Biodiversity Conservation, the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the 

Darwin Initiative, Asia-Link Projects (supported by the European Union) and the Japan Society 

for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). Locally, government and semi-government agencies 

such as the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (under the Intensification of 

Research Priority Areas or IRPA grant system), Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) 

and the Johor State Park are primary sources of funding. With sufficient funds, inventories 

and research into the taxonomy, and ecology of Malaysian Hymenoptera can be conducted. 

161


Overseas funding agencies are also open avenues for collaboration between local taxonomists 

and foreign researchers. 

DEPOSITORIES OF COLLECTIONS 

Many collections of Hymenoptera are housed in various institutes of higher learning and 

museums overseas. The largest collections, with many type specimens, are in the Natural 

History Museum (United Kingdom), Oxford University Museum (United Kingdom), National 

Museum of Natural History (Leiden, Netherlands), American Institute of Entomology Insect 

Collection (Florida, USA) and other museums in Europe, Japan and the USA. The American 

Institute of Entomology Insect Collection in Florida has c. 800,000 of ichneumonid specimens. 

Museums and insect collection centers that have Malaysian specimens include: 

• Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 69817-0916 USA. 

• Deutsches Entomologisches Institut Schicklerstrasse 5D-16225 Eberswalde, Germany. 

• Hope Entomological Collections, The University Museum, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 

3PW United Kingdom. 

• Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Département d’Entomologie, Rue 

Vautier 29, B-1000 Bruxelles, Belgique. 

• Muséum National d’Histoire, Laboratoire d’Entomologie, 45 rue de Buffon, F-75005 

Paris, France. 

• Museum Victoria Science Program, GPO BOX 666E, Melbourne, Victoria 3001 Australia. 

• National Museum of Natural History, Naturalis, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The 

Netherlands. 

• Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Burgring 7, A-1014 Wien, Austria. 

• Systematic Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, 060-8589, Japan. 

• The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom. 

• Universiteit van Amsterdam, Zoölogisch Museum Amsterdam, Afdeling Entomologie, 

Plantage Middenlaan 64, 1018 DH Amsterdam, the Netherland. 

• Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15 DK-2100 

Copenhagen, Denmark. 

• Zoologisches Museum an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10115 Berlin, 

Invalidenstrae 43, Germany. 

• American Institute of Entomology Insect Collection, University of Florida, USA. 

CONCLUSION 

Hymenopterans are an important component of our national biodiversity heritage, and play a 

significant role in maintaining ecological balance in many natural and man-made ecosystems. 

Only two Malaysian researchers are currently working on the taxonomic diversity and species 

abundance of Hymenoptera in relation to habitat change. The difficulties in getting grants and 

reference materials and the lack of job vacancies for students trained in taxonomic research 

contribute to the dearth of researchers. Only few institutes have specimen holdings i.e., the 

Center for Insect Systematics of UKM, Borneansis Collection (University Malaysia Sabah), 

Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) and Sabah Forest Research Center (FRC). It would 

be very difficult to develop checklists, revisions or catalogues on Hymenoptera if the basic 

162

IDRIS A.B. (2007) 

need for local expertise and resources are not met. While Malaysia may have adequate facilities 

for such research, a further problem is the insufficiency of annual funds to curate specimens 

on a long term basis. 


We thank the CIS staff who were involved in the studies. The studies were funded by IRPA 

09-02-02-0022, 09-02-02-0170 and 09-02-02-0017-EA072 under the auspices of the Ministry 

of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI). 

REFERENCES 

ALTIERI, M.A. & NICHOLLS, C.I. 2004. Biodiversity and Pest Management in 

Agroecosystems. 2 nd Edition. Food Products Press. An Imprint of The Haworth Press, 

Inc., New York. 

AUSTIN, A.D. & DOWTON, M. 2000. Hymenoptera: Evolution, Biodiversity and Biological 

Control. CSIRO Publishing, Australia. 467 pp. 

AUSTIN, A.D. 1999. The role of species in biodiversity research–lessons from the parasitic 

Hymenoptera. Pp. 159–165 in W. Ponder & D. Lunney (eds.). The Conservation and 

Biodiversity of Invertebrates. Royal Society of New South Wales, Sydney. 

BAKHTIAR, E.Y. 2000. The role of three insect groups (ants, dung beetles and geomerid 

moths) as biological indicator in three habitat types (primary forest, secondary forest 

and oil palm plantation) at Tabin, Lahad Datu, Sabah. MSc Thesis. Universiti Malaysia 

Sabah. 196 pp. 

BOLTON, B. 1955. A New Genera Catalogue of the Ants of the World. Harvard University 

Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

BOLTON, B. 1977. The ant tribe Terramoriini. The genus Tetramorium Mayr in the Oriental 

and Indo-Australian regions, and in Australia. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural 

History) (Entomology) 36: 67–151. 

BOLTON, B. 1997. Identification Guide to the Ant Genera of the World. Harvard University 

Press, Cambridge, London. 222 pp. 

BOUEK, Z. 1988. Australasian Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera): A Biosystematic Revision of 

Genera of Fourteen Families, with a Reclassification of Species. CAB International, UK. 

832 pp. 

BRUHL, C.A. 2001. Leaf litter ant communities in tropical lowland rainforest in Sabah, 

Malaysia. Effects of forest disturbance and fragmentation. PhD Thesis. Universiti Malaysia 


BRUHL, C.A., GUNSALAM, G. & LINSENMAIR, K.E. 1998. Stratification of ants 

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a primary rainforest in Sabah, Borneo. Journal of Tropical 

Ecology 14: 285–297. 

CAMERON, P. 1903. Description of new genera and species of Hymenoptera taken by Robert 

Sheford at Sarawak, Borneo. Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 

39: 101–153. 

CHUNG, A.Y.C. 1993. Kajian fauna semut (Hymenootera: Formicidae) di Hutan Hujan 

Tropika (Promer dan Sekunder) di Lembah Danun, Sabah. BSc Thesis, Universiti 

Kebangsaan Malaysia. 108 pp. 

163


CHUNG, A.Y.C. 1995. Common lowland rainforest ants of Sabah. The Borneo Nature Series 

No. 1: Sabah. 59 pp 

COX, B.C. & MOORE, P.D. 1993. Biogeography: An Ecological and Evolutionary Approach. 

5 th edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications. Oxford. 

GASTON, K.J. 1993. Spatial patterns in the description and richness of the Hymenoptera. Pp. 

277–293 in LaSalle, J. & Gauld, I.D. (eds.). Hymenoptera and Biodiversity. CABI, 

Wallingford. 

GAULD, I. & BOLTON, B. (eds.). 1996. The Hymenoptera. 2 nd Edition. Oxford University 

Press, Oxford and The Natural History Museum, London. 

GAULD, I.D. & MITCHELL, P.A. 1978. The taxonomy, distribution & host preferences of 

African Parasitic Wasps of the Subfamily Ophioninae. CAB & CIE, England. 

GAULD, I.D. & MITCHELL, P.A. 1981. The taxonomy, distribution & host preferences of 

Indo-Papuan Parasitic Wasps of the Subfamily Ophioninae. CAB & CIE, England. 

GAULD, I.D. 1984a. An Introduction to the Ichneumonidae of Australia with a contribution 

on Metopiinae by M.G. Fitton. British Museum of Natural History, London. 

GAULD, I.D. 1984b. The Pimplinae, Xoridinae, Acaenitinae and Lycorininae (Hymenoptera: 

Ichneumonidae) of Australia. Bull. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. (Ent.) 49(4): 235–339. 

GAULD, I.D. 1987. Some factors affecting the composition of tropical ichneumonid faunas. 

Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 30: 299–312. 

GAULD, I.D. 1991. The Ichneumonidae of Costa Rica. Memoirs of the American 

Entomological Institute Volume 47. 

GONZAGA, A.D. & IDRIS, A.B. 2004. Horizontal and Vertical Distribution of Genus 

Xanthopimpla (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) in an Ecological Plot of Pasoh Forest 

Reserve, Malaysia. J. Asia-Pacific Entomology 7(2): 221–225. 

GOULET, H. & HUBER, J.T. 1993. Hymenoptera of the world. An Identification Guide to 

Subfamilies. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Publication 1894/E. 668 pp. 

GUPTA, V. K. (ed.) 1993. Studies on the Hymenoptera. A collection of articles on Hymenoptera 

Commemorating the 70 th Birthday of Henry Townes. Contributions of the American 

Entomological Institute, Vol. 20. 

GUPTA, V.K. 1987. Catalogue of the Indo-Austarlian Ichneumonidae. Memoirs of the American 

Entomological Institute 41: 17–237. 

HANSON, P. E. & GAULD, I.D. (eds.) 1995. The Hymenoptera of Costa Rica. Oxford 

University Press, Oxford and The Natural History Museum, London. 

HUANG, D.W. & NOYES, J.S. 1994. A revision of the Indo-Pacific species of Ooencyrtus 

(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), parasitoids of the immature stages of economically important 

insect species. Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. 63(1): 1–136. 

HUSTON, M.A. 1994. Biological Diversity: The Coexistence of Species on Changing 

Landscapes. Cambridge University Press. Great Britain. 

IDRIS, A.B. & KEE, S.S. 2002. Horizontal and vertical diversity of Ichneumonid wasps 

(Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) in the Sungkai Wildlife Forest Reserve in Perak, Malaysia. 

J. Asia-Pacific Entomol. 5: 85–89. 

IDRIS, A.B., NUR AZURA, A., GONZAGA, A.D. NG, Y.F. & SUHANA, Y. 2005. Current 

study on Ichneumonid of Malaysia. Report of Insect Inventory Project in Tropic Asia 

(TAIIV): 71–81. 

JOHNSON, N.F. 1992. Catalogue of World Species of Proctotrupoidea. Exclusive of 

Palatygastridae (Hymenoptera). The American Entomological Institute, Gainsesville. 

JONATHAN, J.K. & GUPTA, V. K. 1973. Ichneumonologia Orientalis: Part III. The Goryphus- 

Complex (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). The Association for the Study of Oriental 

Insects, Dept. of Zoology, University of New Delhi, India. 

164

IDRIS A.B. (2007) 

LASALLE, J. & GAULD, I.D. 1993. Hymenoptera and Biodiversity. CABI, Wellingford. 

348 pp. 

MAGURRAN, A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Chapman & Hall. 

New York. 

MARYATI, M. 1995. Semut, UBTP: Universiti Malaysia Sabah. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. 

53 pp. 

MARYATI, M. 1998. Terresterial Ants (Formicidae: Hymenoptera) of Sayap-Kinabalu Park, 

Sabah. ASEAN Review of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation (ARBEC). 

15 pp. 

MARYATI, M., AZIZAH, H. & ARBAIN, K. 1996. Terrestrial ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 

of Poring, Kinabalu Park, Sabah. Pp 117-123. In Tropical rainforest research–current 

issues, Monographiae biologicae, Edward, D.S., Booth, W.T. & Choy, S.C. (Eds.). Kluwer 

Academic Publisher, London. 

MCNEELY, J.A., MILLER, K.A., REID, W.V., MITTERMEIR, R.A. & WERNER, T.B. 1990. 

Conserving the World’s Biological Diversity. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland; WRI, CI, WWF- 

US and the World Bank, Washington, DC. 

MORLEY, C. 1913. The Fauna of British India. Hymenoptera, Vol. III. Tylor & Francis. 

London. 

NOEL, B.T. 2004. Comparison on ant and termite diversity between regenerating and primary 

forest in Danum Valley and their relationship with physical, climatic and biological factors. 

MSc Thesis, Universiti Malaysia Sabah. 78 pp. 

NORHASILAH, M.Y 2000. Taburan semut (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) mengikut altitude di 

Gunung Kinabalu. BSc Thesis, Universiti Malaysia Sabah. 70 pp. 

NOYES, J.S. 1989. The diversity of Hymenoptera in the tropics with special references to 

Parasitica in Sulawesi. Ecological Entomology 14: 197–207. 

NOYES, J.S. 1998. Catalogue of the Chalcidoidea of the World. Biodiversity Catalogue 

Database and Image Library CDROM Series. ETI Biodiversity Center, Amsterdam. 

PRICE, P.W. 1984. Insect Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Toronto. 300 pp. 

QUICKE, D.L.J. 1987. The old world genera of braconine wasps (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). 

J. Nat. Hist. 21: 43–157. 

QUICKE, D.L.J. 1997. Parasitic Wasps. Chapman & Hall, London. 470 pp. 

ROMOSER, W.S. & STOFFALANO. J.G., JR. 1998. The Science of Entomology. 4 th edition. 

Mc Graw Hill, Washington DC. 605 pp. 

SAMWAYS, M.J. 1994. Insect Conservation Biology. Chapman & Hall, London. 274 pp. 

SHANMUGA, S. 1996. Ant composition (Hymenoptera) along an elevation gradient in Mount 

Kinabalu, Sabah. MSc Thesis, Universiti Malaysia Sabah. 110 pp. 

SHARKEY, M.J. 1988. A taxonomic Revision of Alabagrus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). 

Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. 57(2): 31–437. 

SHENEFELT, R.D. 1975. Hymenopterorum Catalogus. Braconidae 8. Uitgeverij Dr. W. Junk 

B.V. 230 pp. 

SIMBOLOTI, S. & VAN ACHTERBERG, C. 1990a. Revision of the Euagathis species 

(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) from Sulawesi. Zool Ver.Nat. Hist. Mus., Leiden. 

SIMBOLOTI, S. & VAN ACHTERBERG, C. 1990b. Revision of the Euagathis species 

(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) from the Sundaland. Zool Verh. Nat. Hist. Mus, Leiden. 

SMITH, F. 1858. Catalogue of Hymenopterous insects collected at Sarawak, Borneo ; Mt 

Ophir, Malacca and at Singapore by A.R. Wallace. Journal of the Proceedings of the 

Linnaean Society of London. Zoology 2: 42–130. 

TOWNES, H. 1969. The genera of Ichneumonidae, Part 1. Memoirs of the American 

Entomological Institute 11: 1–300. 

165


TOWNES, H. 1983. Revision of Genera of Gelini (Ichneumonidae). Memoirs of the American 

Entomological Institute 35: 281 pp. 

TOWNES, H. & CHIU, S.C. 1970a. The Indo-Australian species of Xanthopimpla 

(Ichneumonidae). Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 14: 1–36. 

TOWNES, H. & CHIU, S.C. 1970b. The Indo-Australian Species of Xanthopimpla 

(Ichneumonidae). Memoirs of the American Entomological Instititue 14: 193–194. 

TOWNES, H., TOWNES, M. & GUPTA, V.K. 1961. A Catalogue and Reclassification of the 

Indo-Australian Ichneumoidae. Memoirs of the American Entomological Instititue 1: 

1–522. 

VAN ACHTERBERG, C. 1996. Illustrated Key to Subfamilies Braconidae (Hymenoptera: 

Ichneumonoidea). Zoologische Verhandelingen. The National Natuurhistorisch Museum, 

Leiden. 

VAN ACHTERBERG, C. 1983. Revision notes on the genera Dapsilarthra Aut. And Mesocrine 

Foester (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Alysinae). Tijdschrift Voor Entomologie 126(1-2): 

1–24. 

VAN ACHTERBERG, C. 1988. Revision of the subfamily Blacinae Foster (Hymenoptera, 

Braconidae). Zoologische Verhandelingen 249: 1–324. 

VAN ACHTERBERG, C. 1997. Revision of the Haliday collection of Braconidae 

(Hymenoptera). Zoologische Verhandelingen 314: 1–115. 

VAN DER VECHT, C.H. & SHENEFELT, R.D. 1969. Hymenoptera Catalogus: Braconidae 

1. Uitgeverij, Netherland. 

WAHL, D.B. & SHARKEY, J.S. 1993. Superfamily Ichneumonoidea. Pp 358–449 in Goulet, 

H. & Huber, J.T. (eds.). Hymenoptera of the World: An Identification Guide to Families. 

Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Publication 194/E. 

WAHL, D.B. 1993. Family Ichneumonidae. Pp. 395–442 in Goulet, H. & Huber, J.T. (eds.). 

Hymenoptera of the World: An Identification Guide to the Families. Canada 

Communication Group Publishing, Canada. 

WIDODO, E.S., MARYATI, M. & HASHIMOTO, Y. 2001. Canopy and diversity assessment 

in the fragmented rainforest of Sabah, East Malaysia. Nature and Human Activities 6: 

13–23. 

YAMANE, S.K., ITINO, T. & ABD. RAHMAN, N. 1996. Ground ant fauna in a Bornean 

Dipterocarp Forest. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 44(1): 253–262. 

YU, D.S. & HORSTMANN, K. 1997a. A Catalogue of World Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). 

Mem. Am. Entomol. Inst. 58 (Part 1): 1–790. 

YU, D.S. & HORSTMANN, K. 1997b. A Catalogue of World Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). 

Mem. Am. Entomol. Inst. 58 (Part 2): 791–876. 

166

MACROFUNGAL DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA 

1. Pisolithus aurantioscabrosus (Pisolithaceae). Photo courtesy Lee S.S. 

2. Cantharellus sp. (Cantharellaceae). Photo courtesy Lee S.S. 

3. Panus giganteus (Polyporaceae). Photo courtesy Lee S.S. 

4. Amanita tjibodensis (Amanitaceae). Photo courtesy Lee S.S. 

5. Russula sp. (Russulaceae). Photo courtesy Lee S.S. 

6. Thelephora sp. (Thelephoraceae). Photo courtesy Lee S.S. 

7. Stereum sp. (Stereaceae). Photo courtesy Lee S.S. 

8. Dictyophora indusiata (Phallaceae). Photo courtesy Lee S.S. 

9. Canopy of a Malaysian lowland dipterocarp forest. Photo courtesy L.G. Saw 

168

LEE SU SEE & ROY WATLING (2007) 




1 

Lee Su See & 2, 3 Roy Watling 

ABSTRACT 

Macrofungi, also known as macromycetes or larger fungi, are fungi, which possess large 

(macroscopic) sporocarps or fruiting bodies. Many macrofungi are important as sources of 

food and medicine; some are symbionts in ectomycorrhizal associations with trees while others 

cause diseases and decay. It is estimated that up to about 70% of the fungi in Malaysia have 

yet to be discovered. This paper discusses the status of macrofungal diversity in Malaysia and 

shows that the existing figures for the number of species of Malaysian fungi are grossly 

underestimated. Much research still needs to be done before a clearer understanding of the 

status of macrofungal (and total fungal) diversity in Malaysia can be obtained and the resources 

needed for such an undertaking are discussed in the paper. 

INTRODUCTION 

Malaysia, one of the world’s 12 most biologically diverse countries, is known to possess over 

15,000 species of flowering plants, 286 species of mammals, more than 150,000 species of 

invertebrates, over 1,000 species of butterflies, 12,000 moth species, and more than 4,000 

species of marine fishes (WCMC 1994). Yet amazingly, according to the Assessment of 

Biological Diversity in Malaysia (Anonymous 1997), there are only 400 species of fungi in 

the peninsula and 300 species in East Malaysia. The report does not mention whether any 

species are common to the two regions. 

An assessment of all the fungi known to occur in Malaysia would be a monumental and time 

consuming task requiring access to numerous libraries and fungal collections around the world. 

As the time given for preparation of this paper was rather short, we restrict ourselves to a 

discussion of the diversity of only the basidiomycete macrofungi here, which still is a 

considerable task. 

Macrofungi, also known as macromycetes or larger fungi, are fungi which possess large 

(macroscopic) sporocarps or fruiting bodies (Hawksworth et al. 1995) visible to the naked 

eye as opposed to the microfungi or micromycetes which possess microscopic sporomes. For 

the purpose of this paper Singapore is geographically considered part of Malaysia, thus reports 

1 

Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong, 52109 Selangor, Malaysia; leess@frim.gov.my 

2 

Caledonian Mycological Enterprises, 26 Blinkbonny Avenue, Edinburgh EH4 3HU, U.K. 

3 

Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, U.K. 

169


of macrofungi from the former are also included as those being from Malaysia. Many 

macrofungi are important as sources of food and medicine, some are symbionts in 

ectomycorrhizal associations with trees while others cause diseases and decay. 

A recent study of putative ectomycorrhizal fungi in a lowland rain forest at Pasoh, Malaysia 

clearly illustrates the large number of tropical fungi yet to be discovered (Lee et al. 2003). Of 

the 296 taxa of putative ectomycorrhizal fungi recorded, 66% are undescribed, reflecting the 

poor knowledge of macrofungi in the tropics. In another study also conducted at Pasoh, more 

than 200 species of polypores were found from a relatively small area of about 4 ha and along 

adjacent trails (Hattori & Lee 2003). The authors of this last study estimate that about 300 

species of polypores might be expected from this single research site compared to only about 

330 species recorded for the whole of Europe where most of the species have already been 

listed (Ryvarden & Gilbertson 1993, 1994). These examples are from only a few studies in 

Malaysia re-emphasising the late Prof. E.J.H. Corner’s estimate that up to 70% of the fungi in 

Malaysia had yet to be discovered. From information obtained through personal communication, 

Jones and Hyde (2004) estimated that there are over 2,000 documented fungi in Malaysia. It 

would be safe to say that this figure is still an underestimate of the fungal diversity of Malaysia. 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

The first attempt to list Malayan fungi was made by Bancroft in 1913 (cited in Chipp 1921) in 

his “List of fungi identified in the Federated Malay States” in which 105 species were 

mentioned. An additional five species were listed by Sharples later that same year (Chipp 

1921) and this was followed by a brief but important contribution on 16 boletes five years 

later by Patouillard and Baker (1918) (see Watling 2000). Subsequently, a general list of fungi 

for the Malay Peninsula was published by Chipp (1921) who, however, did not attempt to 

give a total number of species as many synonyms were evident and many of the early 

determinations still needed checking. Basidiomycetes make up the bulk of the collections 

described by Chipp (1921), with the earliest records being the collections of Beccari between 

1865 and 1879 on his way to Sarawak and those of Rev. Father Scortechini in 1885. Other 

early collectors included Kunstler but the majority of the collections were the result of work 

by Ridley and Mrs. E. Burkill (Chipp 1921). The data contained in these early reports are now 

long out of date and the taxonomy considerably changed but there has been no other general 

listing of the fungi for the peninsula or Malaysia since. This lack of information was evident 

in Lim’s (1972) short illustrated report on the more common macrofungi of Malaysia and 

Singapore, where the majority of the fungi were identified to genus level only and where 

surprisingly only one of the ten references listed was directly concerned with Malaysian fungi, 

despite extensive monographic work in the area. 

Unlike other tropical countries, Malaysia and Singapore have been very well served for the 

macrofungi as many world monographs have been published centred around the macrofungi 

species found in the Malay Peninsula. This has been a result largely of the efforts and 

contributions of the late Prof. E.J.H. Corner who undoubtedly was the most prolific and 

authoritative mycologist in Malaysia (Watling 2001a). Of his 141 publications produced 

between 1929 until his death in 1996 (Watling 2001a), 97 concerned mycological topics, 

nearly all of them dealing with the macrofungi. His monographic treatments of the Boletaceae, 

Cantharellaceae, Clavariaceae, Thelephoraceae, Tricholomataceae and Polyporaceae are used 

170


worldwide and are highly significant contributions to the fungal flora of Malaysia. In 15 

monographs covering just eight basidiomycete groupings, Corner described 621 new taxa of 

Malaysian fungi (Table 1). These new discoveries mainly resulted from his collecting trips to 

selected locations in the forests of Singapore, parts of Johor, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang and 

Mt. Kinabalu in Sabah. No doubt many more new taxa would have been discovered had the 

collecting trips been extended to more areas in each location and to other locations in the 

country. Considering that macrofungi are found in over 140 families in the basidiomycetes 

(and this excludes the many larger Ascomycota), it is quite awe-inspiring to imagine the numbers 

of new taxa that await discovery. 

In addition to the monumental work of Corner, there are various publications on the macrofungal 

diversity of specific localities in Malaysia, such as Pulau Langkawi (Kuthubutheen 1981), the 

grounds of the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Kepong (Watling & Lee 1995, 

1998), Sabah (Pegler 1997), selected forest reserves in Peninsular Malaysia (Lee et al. 1995, 

Watling & Lee 1999, Salmiah et al. 2002), and Pasoh Forest Reserve, Negeri Sembilan (Hattori 

& Lee 2003, Lee et al. 2002, 2003). There are also several publications on ascomycetes from 

Malaysia (e.g., Spooner 1991, Whalley 1993, Whalley et al. 1996, 1999) but these are not 

considered in the present paper. 

Table 1. New taxa of Malaysian macrofungi described in selected monographs of the late 

Prof. E.J.H. Corner 

Fungus Group No. new taxa Reference(s) 

Amanita 30 Corner & Bas (1962) 

Boletes 105 Corner (1972) 

Cantharelloid fungi 24 Corner (1966) 

Clavarioid fungi 9 Corner (1970) 

Pleurotoid polypores 15 Corner (1981) 

Polypores 172 Corner (1983, 1984a, 1984b, 

1987, 1989a, 1989b, 1991a) 

Thelephora and allies 18 Corner (1968) 

Tricholomataceous agarics: 

Mycenoid and tricholomatoid 103 Corner (1994) 

components 

Marasmioid components 93 Corner (1996) 

Trogia 52 Corner (1991b) 

Note: several species have varieties, which are not included here. 

A recent study of polypores in East and South-East Asia (Hattori 2004) found that South-East 

Asia possesses a rich diversity of polypore fungi, many of which are possibly endemic. South- 

East Asia is considered a refugia during the Pleistocene and is the centre of distribution for 

several species (Table 2). Of the 208 species of polypore fungi found in Pasoh, Negeri Sembilan 

between 1992 and 1999, seven were temperate species, 33 pantropical, 24 paleotropical and 

144 found only in South-East Asia showing that many were probably endemic (Hattori 2004). 

Data on macrofungal diversity may also be obtained from publications dealing with other 

aspects of macrofungi, for example, those dealing with utilization, e.g., Burkill (1966), Sather 

(1978), Chin (1981, 1988) and Christensen (2002). However, data from some of the older 

171


Table 2. Polypore fungi whose centre of distribution is considered to be in South-East Asia 

Antrodiella aurantilaeta (Corner) T. Hatt. & Ryv. 

Antrodiella brunneimontana (Corner) T. Hatt. 

Elmerina holophaea Pat. 

Elmerina ungulata Corner 

Inonotus scaurus (Lloyd) T. Hatt. 

Protodaedalea hispida Imazeki 

Tyromyces incarnatus Imazeki 

Source: Hattori 2004 

publications need to be reexamined or re-evaluated and the fungal identifications confirmed 

but this may be impossible to carry out in the absence of voucher specimens. Information may 

also be obtained from assorted publications on macrofungal taxonomy from Malaysia (e.g., 

Baroni & Watling 1999; Hattori & Lee 1999; Pegler & VanHaecke 1994; Sims et al. 1995; 

Watling et al. 1995; Watling & Hollands 1990; Watling 1993a, 1993b, 1994a, 1997; Watling 

& Sims 2004; Turnbull 1995; Turnbull & Watling 1999) or South-East Asia (e.g., Jülich 

1980, 1982, 1984a, 1984b; Watling 1994b, 1998, 2001b); ecology (e.g., Hong et al. 1984) 

and plant pathology (e.g., Hilton 1959, Singh 1973, Lee 1993, Lee & Noraini Sikin 1999). 

Although a listing of Malaysian macrofungi may be compiled by going through all the published 

literature, the veracity of much of the data cannot be confirmed unless voucher specimens 

exist. 

SPECIMEN COLLECTIONS 

Information on specimen collections of Malaysian fungi is scattered and not easily accessible. 

Fungal collections made before 1912 were sent to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Chipp 

1921) with a small amount kept for comparison at the Singapore Botanic Gardens (SING). 

Collections made during the British colonial era in Malaya, including those from forestry and 

agriculture were also sent to Kew (K) for identification. Collections made by the Rev. M.J. 

Berkeley which were originally housed at the British Museum were transferred to Kew in 

1979 under the Morton Agreement and material collected from Malaya and Singapore sent to 

the well known mycologists G.E. Massee, M.C. Cooke, E.M. Wakefield and R.W.G. Dennis 

were all deposited and available for examination at Kew. Some of the material collected on 

more recent expeditions to Borneo, e.g., to Mulu, are housed both at the Royal Botanic Garden 

Edinburgh (E) and at Kew (see Watling & Hollands 1990). Prof. Corner’s extensive collection 

of Malaysian specimens, except those monographed before 1972, are now held in the Edinburgh 

Botanic Garden library and herbarium. Other materials are in the Botany School, Cambridge 

(CGE), although it is hoped that in the future these specimens will also be transferred to join 

the Edinburgh holdings. Some, many in rather poor condition, are held in the Singapore Botanic 

Gardens. Presently when time permits Evelyn Turnbull in Edinburgh is gradually databasing 

Corner’s collections but this is a slow activity. However, many of the collections so-far 

catalogued have been examined and where necessary revised by visiting scientists, e.g., C. 

deCock, T. Hattori, U. Koljag, Y. Ota, E. Horak, S. Miller and R. Garcia-Sandoz. Other Corner’s 

collections can also be found in the US Department of Agriculture’s collections at Beltsville, 

Maryland, U.S.A. (BPI) as demonstrated on its website, whilst many of the collections of W. 

Jülich would most probably be deposited at the Rijksherbarium, Leiden, Netherlands (L). 

172


Some collections of specific groups are also housed in Zurich, Switzerland (ZT) and Innsbruck, 

Austria resulting from collections made by Swiss and Austrian mycologists who visited 

Malaysia and South-East Asia in the 1970s and 1980s and exchange of specimens with Corner. 

None of these materials is supported by voucher cultures. Recent collections made by R. 

Watling & E. Turnbull of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh under the auspices of 

collaborative projects with FRIM and featured in their papers noted above are deposited in the 

Edinburgh herbarium. 

Several institutions in Malaysia maintain culture collections of macrofungi for research, 

teaching and commercial purposes. Apart from those at FRIM, most of the cultures are of 

non-indigenous species, comprising macrofungi cultivated in the country for food or medicinal 

purposes and whose original sources are largely undetermined (Tan & Lee 1999). However, 

specimen collections of macrofungi are rarer. Some universities such as Universiti Malaya 

(UM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), hold 

some macrofungal collections, but information on the status and condition of the collections 

is not available. FRIM has a small collection of macrofungal specimens, mainly focused on 

the ectomycorrhizal and wood-inhabiting taxa. In order to obtain up-to-date information on 

the fungi of Malaysia, a survey of fungal collections, both of cultures and herbarium specimens 

held by both local and overseas institutions, needs to be carried out. 

Early drawings of Malaysian macrofungi collected in Singapore made by C. de Alwis and 

Mrs. Burkill have been transferred from Edinburgh, where they formed part of the Corner 

bequest, to Singapore while Corner’s field notes, commentaries and keys, line-drawings and 

numerous water colours accompany his material in Edinburgh. 

SPECIALISTS/RESEARCHERS 

In the early 1900s, specific scientists were assigned to study or specialize in particular fungal 

groups, for example, ascomycetes were under the purview of C.F. Baker who was a staff 

member of the Singapore Botanic Gardens in 1917, while the myxomycetes were the specialty 

of A.R. Sanderson (Chipp 1921). Corner’s brief when he was appointed Assistant Director in 

Singapore included overseeing mycology and this led to him becoming involved in the study 

of butt-rot fungi of rubber, which in its turn led to the development of the mitic hyphal system 

for the classification of polypores. This tradition of specialization was upheld until very recently 

in most institutions dealing with fungal taxonomy, e.g., the International Mycological Institute 

in the U.K., the Rijksherbarium, Leiden, but unfortunately this practice ceased in the 1990s 

due to budget constraints. Several British experts well versed with the Malaysian mycota such 

as D.N. Pegler and R. Watling have retired and as a result of changing priorities in parallel 

with many countries in the western world, have not been replaced. However, there is hope yet 

in Japan and China where there are several young mycologists including fungal taxonomists 

who are interested in tropical fungal diversity. There has also been an upsurge of interest in 

the study of mycodiversity in neighbouring Thailand where many young researchers are being 

trained both locally and abroad in mycology and fungal taxonomy. Locally, researchers who 

work with Malaysian macrofungi are usually not trained as mycologists or taxonomists, their 

knowledge of macrofungal taxonomy being acquired through personal interest or necessity 

while working on plant pathology or other disciplines involving fungi. As in the west, mycology 

and fungal taxonomy are given little attention if any, in local university curricula as attention 

173


is focused more on the more glamorous and current topics of biotechnology and applied 

microbiology. The reasons for this are best discussed at another forum. There is a need to 

identify local researchers who are able to contribute the expertise needed to fully evaluate the 

fungal diversity of Malaysia. 

Public appreciation of the fungi and their diversity needs to be encouraged through the 

organisation of interesting educational talks and regular fungal forays but the lack of sufficient 

experienced and knowledgeable leaders is a major stumbling block. One way to overcome 

this lack of expertise would be to invite some of the retired, experienced mycologists to conduct 

hands-on training courses and workshops on fungal taxonomy for local students, scientists 

and researchers. These experts could also be appointed visiting/honorary lecturers or professors 

at local universities to help strengthen the teaching of mycology and taxonomy as well as to 

assist in the supervision of student projects. Such experts could also be invited to participate 

in expeditions and other interdisciplinary projects where a fungal component exists, thereby 

in the process contributing to the evaluation and enumeration of our fungal diversity. 

RELATED PROJECTS 

At FRIM and other local educational and research institutions, various studies concerning 

macrofungi are being carried out, e.g., projects on selected plant pathogens, fungi utilized for 

food, medicine and industrial purposes, and those involved in ectomycorrhizal associations. 

However, there are few projects aimed directly at evaluating the macrofungal diversity of the 

country. One post-graduate project currently being undertaken at a local university aims to 

evaluate the biodiversity of polypore fungi using both classical and molecular techniques for 

ex-situ germplasm conservation and cultivation. A collaborative project between Universiti 

Sains Malaysia and some Japanese researchers has been underway for the last two years in the 

north of the country but details are sketchy. Between 1992 and 1998, FRIM collaborated with 

mycologists from the U.K. and Japan on the macrofungi of Pasoh Forest Reserve, Negeri 

Sembilan and this has resulted in the publication of several research papers, the discovery of 

many undescribed fungi of which some have already been published as new (Watling et al. 

1995; Hattori & Lee 1999). Many of the collections made during the duration of these two 

projects still await further study and it is likely that several more new species, particularly in 

the Russulaceae and hypogeous fungi will be described when the taxonomists find the time to 

work on the collections. It is only through the joint efforts of such collaborative projects and 

with the help of foreign experts that we can hope to have a better understanding of our 

macrofungal diversity. 

In the U.K. the British Mycological Society has been at the forefront of British mycology and 

its members have actively played a role in the enumeration of the British fungal flora. There is 

no equivalent organization in Malaysia but non-governmental organisations such as the 

Malaysian Nature Society (MNS), Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) and other organisations 

involved in nature conservation and education could assist in the evaluation of the Malaysian 

macrofungal diversity if such a project were to be implemented. Many members of the MNS 

are keen and expert nature photographers and have submitted photos of assorted fungi for 

identification. With a little education, interested members could be trained to properly collect 

and document the details of the fungi for further identification by the experts. This is where 

the stumbling block lies—there is a dearth of local expertise in the identification of the 

174


macrofungi. Some of the measures mentioned in the previous section could hopefully be 

implemented to overcome this problem. 

RESOURCES REQUIRED 

Information on macrofungal diversity in Malaysia is still far from satisfactory. As a first step, 

a thorough review of the literature on the topic needs to be conducted together with an 

assessment of the collections available not only in Malaysia but worldwide. This requires 

time, manpower and funding. Secondly, manpower and funding are needed for field visits to 

collect macrofungi from various locations and habitats throughout the country. This is a daunting 

and time consuming task as the collecting trips should coincide with the fungal fruiting seasons 

of the various locations. To ensure a proper representation of the flora of a particular area, 

collections need to be made over a continuous period of several years. Suitably trained 

manpower is needed not only to make the collections but also to describe and identify them. 

For the short-term, this could best be achieved either by inviting foreign experts to lead such 

collecting trips whilst providing on-the-job training to young, local researchers who could 

then continue the work later on, or by suitable candidates training with a mentor in Europe or 

North America, and in the case of Edinburgh, working with Corner’s collections as the senior 

author and Tham Foong Yee from Singapore have been able to do. More importantly, 

researchers who have been trained in fungal taxonomy and inventory should continue to work 

in those fields and not be assigned to other projects so as not to lose the impetus gained from 

that training. Dedicated positions or time available in a particular job for macrofungal taxonomy 

must be assured. Otherwise, the benefits from the training would not be realized and no further 

progress would be made in macrofungal taxonomy. Facilities to store the specimens, such as 

proper storage cabinets and a herbarium are also needed, as are suitably trained curators for 

the collections. Molecular techniques are now routinely used for fungal identification; therefore 

equipment for such methods should also be available. 

CONCLUSION 

An up-to-date and accurate listing of the macrofungal diversity of Malaysia is a huge challenge 

that requires time, manpower, funding and expertise, not all of which are in place at the moment. 

Given the proper resources, dedication and commitment, it can be achieved, thereby not only 

providing us with a knowledge of our rich natural heritage but also open the doors for 

exploration and sustainable utilisation of our natural wealth for the welfare and benefit of 

humankind. 

REFERENCES 

ANONYMOUS. 1997. Malaysia: Country Study on Biological Diversity. Assessment of 

Biological Diversity in Malaysia. Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment, 

Malaysia. 186 pp. 

BARONI, T. & WATLING, R. 1999. Taxonomic and mycogeographic notes on some Malaysian 

fungi IV. Notes on Clitopilus and Rhodocybe. Mycotaxon LXXII: 57–72. 

175


BURKILL, I.H. 1966. A Dictionary of the Economic Products of the Malay Peninsula. Vol. 1 

& II. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2443 pp. 

CHIN, F.H. 1981. Edible and poisonous fungi from the forests of Sarawak. Part 1. The Sarawak 

Museum Journal 29: 211–225. 

CHIN, F.H. 1988. Edible and poisonous fungi from the forests of Sarawak. Part II. The Sarawak 

Museum Journal 60 (New Series): 195–201. 

CHIPP, T.F. 1921. A list of the fungi of the Malay Peninsula. The Gardens’ Bulletin, Straits 

Settlements II (9, 10, 11): 311–418. 

CHRISTENSEN, H. 2002. Ethnobotany of the Iban and Kelabit. A joint publication of the 

Forest Department Sarawak; NEPCon, Denmark; and University of Aarhus, Denmark. 

384 pp. 

CORNER, E.J.H. & BAS, C. 1962. The genus Amanita in Singapore and Malaya. Persoonia 

2: 241–304. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1966. A Monograph of Cantharelloid Fungi. Oxford University Press. 

255 pp. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1968. A monograph of Thelephora (Basidiomycetes). Beih. Nova Hedwigia 

27: 1–110. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1970. Supplement to “A monograph of Clavaria and allied genera”. Beih. 

Nova Hedwigia 33: 1–299. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1972. Boletus in Malaysia. Government Printing Office, Singapore. 

263 pp. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1981. The agaric genera Lentinus, Panus and Pleurotus with particular 

reference to Malaysian species. Beih. Nova Hedwigia 69: 1–169. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1983. Ad Polyporaceas I. Amauroderma and Ganoderma. Beih. Nova 

Hedwigia 75: 1–182. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1984a. Ad Polyporaceas II. Polyporus, Mycobonia and Echinochaete. Beih. 


CORNER, E.J.H. 1984b. Ad Polyporaceas III. Piptoporus, Buglossoporus, Laetiporus, 

Meripilus and Bondarzewia. Beih. Nova Hedwigia 78: 133–222. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1987. Ad Polyporaceas IV. The genera Daedalea, Flavodon, Gloeophyllum, 

Heteroporus, Irpex, Lenzites, Microporellus, Nigrofomes, Nigroporus, Oxyporus, 

Paratrichaptum, Rigidoporus, Scenidium, Trichaptum, Vandebylia and Steccherinum. Beih. 


CORNER, E.J.H. 1989a. Ad Polyporaceas V. The genera Albatrellus, Boletopsis, Coriolopsis 

(dimitic), Cristelloporia, Diacanthodes, Elmeria, Fomitopsis (dimitic), Gloeosporus, 

Grifola, Hapalopilus, Heterobasidion, Hydnopolyporus, Ischnoderma, Loweporus, 

Parmastomyces, Perenniporia, Pyrofomes, Stecchericium, Trechispora, Truncospora and 

Tyromyces. Beih. Nova Hedwigia 96: 1–218. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1989b. Ad Polyporaceas VI. The genus Trametes. Beih. Nova Hedwigia 97: 

1–197. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1991a. Ad Polyporaceas VII. The Xanthochroic Polypores. Beih. Nova 

Hedwigia 101: 1–175. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1991b. Trogia (Basidiomycetes). Gardens’ Bulletin Singapore, Supplement 

2: 1–97. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1994. Agarics in Malesia: I Tricholomatoid, II Mycenoid. Beih. Nova 

Hedwigia 109: 1–271. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1996. The Agaric genera Marasmius, Chaetocalathus, Crinipellis, 

Heimiomyces, Resupinatus, Xerula and Xerulina in Malesia. Beih. Nova Hedwigia 111: 

1–175. 

176


HAWKSWORTH, G.C., KIRK, P.M., SUTTON, B.C. & PEGLER, D.N. 1995. Ainsworth & 

Bisby’s Dictionary of the Fungi. 8 th edition. CAB International, Wallingford, U.K. 

616 pp. 

HATTORI, T., & LEE, S.S. 1999. Two new species of Perenniporia described from a lowland 

rainforest of Malaysia. Mycologia 91(3): 525–531. 

HATTORI, T. & LEE, S.S. 2003. Community structure of wood-decaying basidiomycetes in 

Pasoh. Pp. 161–170 in Okuda, T., Manokaran, N., Matsumoto, Y., Niiyama K., Thomas 

S.C. & Ashton P.S. (eds.) Pasoh. Ecology of a Lowland Rain Forest in Southeast Asia. 

Springer, Tokyo. 

HATTORI, T. 2004. Diversity and distribution patterns of East and Southeast Asian polypores. 

Paper presented at the IV Asia-Pacific Mycological Congress, 14–19 November 2004, 

Chiangmai, Thailand. 

HILTON, R.N. 1959. Maladies of Hevea in Malaya. Rubber Research Institute, Malaya. 

101 pp. 

HONG, L.T., THILLAINATHAN, P. & ARSHAD, O. 1984. Observations on the fruiting and 

growth of some agarics in a dipterocarp stand. Malayan Nature Journal 38: 81–88. 

JONES, E.B.G. & HYDE, K.D. 2004 Introduction to Thai fungal diversity. Pp. 7–35 in Jones, 

E.B.G., Tanticharoen, M. & Hyde, K.D. (eds.) Thai Fungal Diversity. National Center for 

Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC), Thailand. 

JÜLICH, W. 1980. (3) Basidiomycetes: Phanerochaete Karst. In: Jermy, A.C. (ed.) Notulae et 

novitiates Muluenses. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 81: 43–46. 

JÜLICH, W. 1982. Basidiomycetes of South-East Asia. 1. The genus Paraphelaria 

(Auriculariales). Persoonia 11(4): 397–406. 

JÜLICH, W. 1984a. Basidiomycetes of South-East Asia. 2. on Scenedium apiarum, with a 

discussion of the nomenclatural status of the genus Hexagonia Pollini (Hexagona Fr.). 

Persoonia 12(2): 107–117. 

JÜLICH, W. 1984b. Basidiomycetes of South-East Asia. 3. On Flabellophora Cunn., the 

pancake fungus. Int. J. Myc. Lich. 1(3): 319–325. 

KUTHUBUTHEEN, A.J. 1981. Notes on the macrofungi of Langkawi. The Malayan Nature 

Journal 34(3): 123–130. 

LEE, S.S. 1993. Diseases. Pp. 203–223 in Awang, K. & Taylor, D. (eds.) Acacia mangium 

Growing and Utilization. MPTS Monograph Series No. 3. Bangkok, Thailand: Winrock 

International and FAO. 

LEE, S.S. & NORAINI SIKIN, Y. 1999. Fungi associated with heart rot of Acacia mangium 

trees in Peninsular Malaysia and East Kalimantan. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 11: 

240–254. 

LEE, S.S., BESL, H. & SALMIAH, U. 1995. Some fungi of the Sungai Halong and surrounding 

areas, Temengor Forest Reserve, Hulu Perak, Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 48: 

147–155. 

LEE, S.S., WATLING, R. & NORAINI SIKIN, Y. 2002. Ectomycorrhizal basidiomata fruiting 

in lowland rain forests of Peninsular Malaysia. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques 274(4): 

33–43. 

LEE, S.S., WATLING, R. & TURNBULL, E. 2003. Diversity of putative ectomycorrhizal 

fungi in Pasoh Forest Reserve. Pp. 149–159 in Okuda, T., Manokaran, N., Matsumoto, 

Y., Niiyama, K., Thomas, S.C. & Ashton, P.S. (eds.) Pasoh. Ecology of a Lowland Rain 

Forest in Southeast Asia. Springer, Tokyo. 

LIM, G. 1972. Some common large fungi in Malaysia and Singapore. The Malayan Nature 

Journal 25: 84–89. 

177


PATOUILLARD, N. & BAKER, C.F. 1918. Some Singapore Boletinae. Journal of the Straits 

Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 78: 67–72. 

PEGLER, D.N. 1997. The Larger Fungi of Borneo. Natural History Publications, Kota 

Kinabalu. 95 pp. 

PEGLER, D.N. & VANHAECKE, M. 1994. Termitomyces of Southeast Asia. Kew Bulletin 

49(4): 717–736. 

RYVARDEN, L. & GILBERTSON, R.L. 1993. European Polypores Part 1: 1–393. Fungiflora, 

Oslo. 

RYVARDEN, L. & GILBERTSON, R.L. 1994. European Polypores Part 2: 394–743. 

Fungiflora, Oslo. 

SALMIAH, U., JONES, E.B.G. & WATLING, R. 2002. The distribution of wood-inhabiting 

fungi in Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 14(4): 433–440. 

SATHER, C. 1978. Iban folk mycology. The Sarawak Museum Journal 47: 81–102. 

SIMS, K., WATLING, R. & JEFFRIES, P. 1995. A revised key to the genus Scleroderma. 

Mycotaxon LVI: 4.3–420. 

SINGH, K.G. 1973. A Check-list of Host and Diseases in Peninsular Malaysia. Bulletin No. 

132. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur.189 pp. 

SPOONER, B.M. 1991. Lophodermium and Hypoderma from Mt. Kinabalu, Sabah, Kew 

Bulletin 46: 73–100 

TAN, Y.H. & LEE, S.S. 1999. Mushroom genetic resources in Malaysia. Pp. 28–37 in 

Broderick, A. & Nair, T. (eds.) Proceedings Mushroom Biology and Mushroom Products, 

Vol. II. Sydney, Australia. 

TURNBULL, E. 1995. Inocybe in Peninsular Malaysia. Edinburgh Journal of Botany. 52(3): 

351–359. 

TURNBULL, E. & WATLING, R. 1999. Taxonomic and floristic notes on Malaysian larger 

fungi III. Malayan Nature Journal 53 (3): 189–200. 

WATLING, R. 1993a. A remarkable bolete: validation of Boletus peltatus. Edinburgh Journal 

of Botany 50(2): 237–240. 

WATLING, R. 1993b. Observations on Malaysian Bolbitiaceae with records from Solomon 

Islands. Gardens Bulletin, Singapore 45(2): 359–381. 

WATLING, R. 1994a. Taxonomic and floristic notes on some Malaysian larger fungi–1. 


WATLING, R. 1994b. Ectomycorrhizal fungi in the Paleotropics. Mycologia Helvetica 2: 

129–138. 

WATLING, R. 1997. Tricholosporum superbum: a new Malesian agaric. Bolletino del Gruppo 

Micologico G. Bresadola – Nuova Serie BGMB 40(2-3): 485–490. 

WATLING, R. 1998. Heinemannomyces: a new lazuline-spored agaric genus from South 

East Asia. Belgian Journal of Botany 131(2): 133–138. 

WATLING, R. 2000. Bresadola, Cesati and Patouillard’s old world Boletes. Pp. 577–590 in 

Papetti, C. (ed.) Micologia Duemila. Associazione Micologica Bresadola, Trento, Italy. 

WATLING, R. 2001a. John Corner’s contribution to tropical mycology. Pp. 33–40 in L.G. 

Saw, L.S.L. Chua & K.C. Khoo (eds.) Taxonomy: the Cornerstone of Biodiversity. 

Proceedings of the Fourth International Flora Malesiana Symposium 1998. Forest Research 

Institute Malaysia, Kepong. 

WATLING, R. 2001b. The relationships and possible distributional patterns of boletes in 

south-east Asia. Mycological Research 105(12): 1440–1448. 

WATLING, R. & HOLLANDS, R. 1990. Boletus from Sarawak. Notes from the Royal Botanic 

Garden Edinburgh 46: 405–422. 

178


WATLING, R. & LEE, S.S. 1995. Ectomycorrhizal fungi associated with members of the 

Dipterocarpaceae in Peninsular Malaysia–I. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 7(4): 657– 

669. 

WATLING, R. & LEE, S.S. 1998. Ectomycorrhizal fungi associated with members of the 

Dipterocarpaceae in Peninsular Malaysia–II. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 10(4): 

421–430. 

WATLING, R. & LEE, S.S. 1999. Some larger fungi of Semangkok Forest Reserve, Selangor. 

Malayan Nature Journal 53(4): 315–322. 

WATLING, R. & SIMS, K. 2004. Taxonomic and floristic notes on some larger Malaysian 

fungi. IV Scleroderma. Pp. 93–96 in Cripps, C. (ed.) Fungi in Forest Ecosystems: 

Systematics, Diversity & Ecology. New York Botanic Garden, New York. 

WATLING, R., TAYLOR, A., LEE, S.S., SIMS, K. & ALEXANDER, I. 1995. A rainforest 

Pisolithus; its taxonomy and ecology. Nova Hedwigia 61 (3-4): 417–429. 

WHALLEY, A.J.S. 1993. Tropical Xylariaceae; their distribution and ecological situation. Pp 

113–119 in Isaac, S., Frankland, J., Watling, R. & Whalley, A.J.S. (eds.) Aspects of Tropical 

Mycology, Cambridge. 

WHALLEY, M., WHALLEY, A.J.S., THIENHIRUN, S. & SIHANONTH, P. 1999. Camillea 

malaysianensis sp. nov. and the distribution in SE Asia. Kew Bulletin 54: 715–722. 

WHALLEY, M., WHALLEY, A.J.S. & JONES, E.B.G. 1996. Camillea selangorensis sp. 

nov. from Malaysia. Sydowia 48: 145–151. 

WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRe (WCMC) (1994) Species database. 

Downloaded from info@WCMC.org.uk 

179

SITI AISYAH ALIAS (2007) 



A CHECKLIST OF MANGLICOLOUS 

MARINE FUNGI FROM MALAYSIA 

Siti Aisyah Alias 

ABSTRACT 

Mangrove forests occur in muddy shores, lagoons and estuaries of tidal rivers and provide a 

very unique habitat to many organisms including manglicolous marine fungi. Submerged 

parts of aerial roots, pneumatophores, subterranean roots, rhizomes, overhanging branches 

and twigs of mangrove trees and driftwood are the most common niches for marine fungi. The 

number of higher marine fungi species recorded from the mangrove areas has increased in 

recent years. Studies revealed that mangrove fungi are the second largest group among the 

marine fungi. A checklist of Malaysian higher marine fungi from the mangrove ecosystem is 

presented in this paper. The total number of fungi species recorded in Malaysia is 302 of 

which 234 species are identified and 68 species unidentified. The total number of species 

recorded in Malaysia is relatively high when compared to the total number of species recorded 

worldwide (444 species). The Ascomycota was the largest group encountered (275 species), 

followed by Deuteromycota (23 species) and Basidiomycota (2 species). The most commonly 

occurring species were Lignincola leaves (17.87%), followed by Verruculina enalia (13.92%), 

Trichocladium achrasporum (12.88%), Savoryella lignincola (12.35%), Dictyosporum 

pelagicum (11.86%), Lulworthia grandispora (11.53%), Halocyphina villosa (11.55%), 

Periconia prolifica (10.10%), Leptosphaeria australiensis (9.32%), Halosarpheia marina 

(8.93%), Halosarpheia retorquens (8.22%), Lignincola longirostris (8.16%), Halosarpheia 

ratnagierensis (7.40%), Kallicroma tethys (7.30%), Dactylospora heliotrepha (5.81%), 

Trichocladium alopallonellum (5.73%), Trichocladium linderi (5.40%), Cirrenalia pygmea 

(5.38%), Savoryella paucispora (5.36%) and Marinosphaeria sp. (5.07%). Percentage 

colonization was 84.8% and the average number of fungi per sample was 2.93. 

Institute of Biological Sciences, University Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur. Tel: 03–7967 4387, Fax: 03–7967 4178; 

siti_aisyah_2000@yahoo.com 

181

SEAWEED DIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA 

1. Halymenia sp. (Rhodophyta). Photo courtesy S.M. Phang. 

2. A mixture of Phaeophyta. Photo courtesy S.M. Phang. 

3. Arytera littoralis (Sapindaceae). Photo courtesy L.G. Saw. 

4. Etlingera elatior (Zingiberaceae). Photo courtesy L.G. Saw. 

5. Nepenthes rajah (Nepenthaceae). Photo courtesy L.G. Saw. 

6. Pinanga disticha (Palmae). Photo courtesy L.G. Saw. 

7. Etlingera metriocheilos (Zingiberaceae). Photo courtesy L.G. Saw. 

8. Rafflesia cantleyi (Rafflesiaceae). Photo courtesy L.G. Saw. 

9. Alpinia malaccensis (Zingiberaceae). Photo courtesy L.G. Saw. 

184

PHANG et al (2007) 




S. M. Phang, C. L. Wong, P. E. Lim, J. L. S. Ooi, S. Y. Gan, Melor Ismail, 

H. Y. Yeong & Emienour Muzalina Mustafa 

ABSTRACT 

Malaysia has an extensive coastline totaling 3432 km with 418,000 km 2 of continental shelf. 

Numerous islands form clusters along the coastlines. Rocky shores and sandy bays alternate 

with mudflats, while coral reefs fringe most islands. All these harbour niches for the variety of 

seaweed species found in Malaysian waters. The first checklist of the marine benthic algae in 

Malaysia was published in 1991 by Phang and Wee, together with a historical account of 

phycological research in this region. In 1998 Phang updated the checklist, including the first 

Malaysian new species (Sargassum stolonifolium Phang et Yoshida) published in the ‘Seaweeds 

Resources of the World’ by Critchley and Ohno. The present tally includes 386 taxa comprising 

Chlorophyta (13 families, 102 taxa), Rhodophyta (27 families, 182 taxa), Phaeophyta (8 

families, 85 taxa) and Cyanophyta (8 families, 17 taxa). Many of the seaweeds have potential 

for commercialisation based on a variety of products and uses. The seaweed resources have 

to be protected against biodiversity losses due to habitat destruction, pollution, over-harvesting 

and biopiracy. The inventory of Malaysian seaweeds must continue together with more focused 

ecological studies. Biomass assessments of natural seaweed areas, productivity determination 

and phenological studies of important species, should be encouraged. Only then can the 

status of the seaweed flora of Malaysia be assessed and threatened species and habitats 

identified. 

INTRODUCTION 

Malaysia lies within the Indo-Malay-Philippine archipelago, which is part of the Indo-West 

Pacific region. With its extensive coastline totaling 4675 km with 418 000 km 2 of continental 

shelf, there exists high marine biodiversity as well as bioproductivity. Of the marine 

bioresources, the marine algae find niches in the various marine habitats (Phang, 1998). Algae 

are non-flowering photosynthetic organisms ranging from the microscopic phytoplankton to 

the macroscopic marine algae or seaweeds. In the present classification system, members of 

the Algae Kingdom are separately placed into three different phyla. The prokaryotic bluegreen 

algae belong to the Prokaryota; the unicellular eukaryotic algae are placed in the Protista; 

while the macroscopic eukaryotic algae are placed in the Plantae. The seaweeds are thus part 

of the Plantae and may be grouped into three divisions namely the Chlorophyta (green 

Institute of Biological Sciences & University of Malaya Maritime Research Centre, University Malaya, 50603 Kuala 

Lumpur, Malaysia; Tel: 03-79674610, Fax: 03-79674699; phang@um.edu.my 

185


seaweeds), Rhodophyta (red seaweeds) and the Phaeophyta (brown seaweeds). In this paper, 

the filamentous marine blue green algae (Cyanophyta) will also be considered seaweeds, as 

many of these species have both ecological and commercial importance just like the other 

seaweeds. 

In Malaysia, these tropical seaweeds are subjected to the equatorial climate dominated by 

monsoon wind systems, with the Northeast Monsoon blowing between November and March, 

while the Southwest Monsoon brings rain from May to September (Phang 1998). Mangrove 

swamps dominate the west coast Peninsular Malaysia which is sheltered by Sumatra, Indonesia. 

On the east coast, rocky shores of post-Triassic granite are found in the north and Triassic 

quartzite and shale towards the south. Sandy and rocky beaches with coral reefs characterise 

the coastlines of Sabah and Sarawak. The salinity of Malaysian waters range between 28 and 

34 ppt, while surface water temperature range between 27 and 29°C. Semi-diurnal tides occur 

on the west coast Peninsular Malaysia, while the east coast has a mixed tidal system. Mixed 

tidal regimes occur in Sabah and Sarawak. 

SURVEY AND DOCUMENTATION OF SEAWEED 

RESOURCES IN MALAYSIA 

The early records of seaweeds in the Southeast Asian region were contributed through the 

Preussische Expedition nach Ost-Asien (1860–1863) (Martens, 1866) and the Siboga 

Expedition (1899 – 1900) (Gepp & Gepp, 1911). Teo & Wee (1983) published the first guide 

to the seaweeds of Singapore. Seaweed research in Malaysia started in the 1980’s when Phang 

(1984) published the first account of the seaweed resources of Malaysia. Using sources of 

information like Burkill’s (1966) ‘A Dictionary of the Economic Products of the Malay 

Peninsula’ and publications without verification from deposited specimens, a list of Malaysian 

seaweeds and their uses was compiled. In 1991, Phang and Wee published the first checklist 

of the marine benthic algae in Malaysia together with a historical account of the study of 

marine algae in this region (Phang & Wee 1991). In 1998, Phang updated the checklist of 

Malaysian marine algae including additions from Phang (1994a, b, 1995) and a new species 

Sargassum stolonifolium described from Penang, west coast Peninsular Malaysia (Phang & 

Yoshida 1997). This checklist was published as part of the chapter on the seaweed resources 

of Malaysia in the ‘Seaweed Resources of the World’ (Critchley & Ohno 1998). Two hundred 

and sixty specific and infraspecific taxa (17 Cyanophyta, 92 Chlorophyta, 94 Rhodophyta 

and 57 Phaeophyta) were recorded (Phang 1998). Rhodophyta dominated as is expected of 

tropical seaweed flora. As we move towards the tropics, the ratio of red to brown seaweeds 

increases (Feldmann 1937). Many of the red algae are filamentous comprising mainly epiphytic 

species. These two checklists comprise many species that were reported in literature but were 

not verified due to absence of deposited material. 

A survey conducted from 1995 to1999 by the University of Malaya in collaboration with 

Hokkaido University, Japan, resulted in many additions to the checklist and confirmation of 

some taxa, especially of the Rhodophyta. Thirty-eight new records (Kawaguchi et al. 2002, 

Masuda et al. 1997, 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2003; Tani & Masuda 2003, 

Tani et al. 2003, Terada et al. 2000, Yamagishi et al. 2003), including one new species 

Lomentaria gracillima Masuda et Kogame were added to the checklist. Further additions 

included taxa previously recorded by Zanardini (1872), 35 species of Rhodophyta, 13 species 

186


of Phaeophyta and 16 species of Chlorophyta recorded by Ahmad Ismail (1995), Ajisaka 

(2002), Ajisaka et al. (1999) and Lim et al. (2001). In 2004, two new records of Gracilaria, 

Gracilaria articulata and G. manilaensis (Lim & Phang 2004) and 13 new records of Sargassum 

(Wong & Phang 2004), were published. Two expeditions to the northeast Langkawi resulted 

in a checklist for Langkawi Islands with 84 taxa identified (Phang et al. 2005). The seaweed 

flora of Langkawi is quite distinct from that of Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia. At the 

species level, the Sorenson’s Coefficient of Similarity (S) between flora of Langkawi and 

west coast Peninsula Malaysia is 35.21%, although at the genus level, the S= 66.22%. The 

tally of Malaysian marine algae now stands at 388 specific and infraspecific taxa (17 taxa of 

Cyanophyta, 102 Chlorophyta, 182 Rhodophyta and 87 Phaeophyta) (Phang 2006). Table 1 

gives the checklist of Malaysian marine algae. Most of the specimens are deposited at the 

Seaweeds and Seagrasses Herbarium established at the Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty 

of Science, University of Malaya, which presently houses more than 7000 numbers of herbarium 

specimens collected from Malaysia, and the Herbarium of the Graduate School of Science, 

Hokkaido University, Japan. 

Of the marine blue-green algae or Cyanophyta, species of Oscillatoria and Lyngbya dominate 

the mudflats while Brachytrichia grow abundantly over intertidal rocks and the sandy seabed. 

The Chlorophyta consists of the second highest number of taxa in Malaysian waters. Twelve 

species of Caulerpa have been recorded, mainly in coral reefs. Recent collections indicate 

that eight of these, namely C. lentillifera, C. peltata, C. racemosa, C. scalpelliformis, C. 

serrulata, C. sertulariodes, C. taxifolia and C. verticillata are still commonly found. The 

coral reefs are also dominated by species of Halimeda (H. discoidea, H. opuntia, H. tuna), the 

erect coralline algae which contribute towards reef building with the calcium carbonate retained 

in their cell walls. Several species of Enteromorpha and Ulva are found in the nutrient-rich 

shores and mudflats. Enteromorpha intestinalis, E. chlathrata, Ulva lactuca and U. fasciata 

are commonly seen covering small rocks, stones, driftwood and sandy patches along beaches. 

Many of these species are eaten by the coastal communities of the region. 

The red seaweeds or Rhodophyta comprise the highest number of taxa. Species of Halymenia 

dominate the subtidal bedrock areas, while Laurencia and Hypnea species inhabit the bedrocks 

at the intertidal regions. These grow mainly in the cleaner deep waters. Four species of 

Eucheuma and two species of Kappaphycus, sources of carrageenan, have been collected 

from lower intertidal to upper sub-tidal areas in Sabah and around islands in Peninsular 

Malaysia. Except for the cultivated Kappaphycus, many of the Eucheuma species seem to 

have disappeared from Peninsular Malaysia. Twenty-two species of the agarophytic genus 

Gracilaria have been reported, many of which inhabit mangroves, sandy-mudflats and rocky 

shores. Erect coralline (Amphiroa, Jania) as well as crustose coralline (Lithothamnion, 

Peyssonnelia) Rhodophytes are commonly found in the coral reefs especially in the cleaner 

deep waters around the islands. In the mangroves small tufted thalli of Bostrychia, Laurencia 

microcladia, Caloglossa adnata, Catenella grow commonly with the green filaments of 

Chaetomorpha linum and Cladophora. Common epiphytic taxa include Champia parvula, 

Centroceras, Ceramium, Spyridia, Polysiphonia, Heterosiphonia, Herposiphonia and 

Tolypiocladia glomerulata (Phang 1989). Thirty-eight new records including one new species, 

were reported from the Malaysian-Japanese collaboration from 1995. 

The brown seaweeds or Phaeophyta contribute high algal biomass (Phang & Maheswary 1989) 

on reefs. While Sargassum and Dictyota dominate in terms of species number, Padina are the 

most frequently found species. They inhabit a variety of substratum including mangroves, 

187

Table 1. Checklist of Malaysian Marine Algae 

TAXA DISTRIBUTION HABITAT 

Division Cyanophyta 

Order Chroococcales 

Family Microcystaceae 

Merismopedia thermalis Kutzing [Syn: Agmenellum thermale (Kutzing) Drouet & Daily] Sn M 

Microcystis zanardii (Hauck) P. Silva comb. nov [Syn: Anacystis aeruginosa (Zanardini) Drouet & Daily] Sn R, E 

Family Entophysalidaceae 

Entophysalis Kutzing Sn Mg 

Order Oscillatoriales 

Family Nostocaceae 

Anabaena licheniformis Bory de Saint-Vincent Sn E 

Calothrix C. Agardh E R 

Calothrix crustacea Schousboe & Thuret W C 

Nostoc commune Vaucher Sn R, P 

Family Scytonemataceae 

Scytonema hofman-bangii C. Agardh [Scytonema hofmannii C. Agardh nom. illeg.] Sn P 

Family Oscillatoriaceae 

Lyngbya majuscula (Dillwyn) Harvey W M 

Oscillatoria lutea C. Agardh Sn E 

Family Phormidiaceae 

Pelagothrix clevei J. Schmidt W R 

Spirulina subsalsa (Oersted) 

Family Schizotrichaceae 

Schizothrix arenaria (Berkeley) Gomont Sn E 

Schizothrix calcicola (C. Agardh) Gomont Sn S, M 

Schizothrix mexicana Gomont Sn R, C, S, M, E 

188

Order Stigonematales 

Family Mastigocladaceae 

Brachytrichia quoyi (C. Agardh) Bornet & Flahault W R, C 

Mastigocladus Cohn Sn Mg 

Division Chlorophyta 

Order Ulvales 

Family Ulvaceae 

Enteromorpha clathrata (Roth) Greville E, Sn C, R, M, E 

Enteromorpha compressa (Linnaeus) Nees W - 

Enteromorpha flexuosa (Wulfen) J. Agardh W - 

Enteromorpha flexuosa (Wulfen) J. Agardh subsp. flexuosa [Syn: Enteromorpha prolifera (O.F. Muller) 

J. Agardh var. tubulosa (Kutzing)] P - 

Enteromorpha flexuosa (Wulfen) J. Agardh subsp. flexuosa [Syn: Enteromorpha tubulosa (Kutzing) 

Kutzing] Sn R 

Enteromorpha flexuosa (Wulfen) J. Agardh subsp. paradoxa (C. Agardh) Blidin Sn S 

Enteromorpha intestinalis (Linnaeus) Nees W, E, P R, S 

Enteromorpha ovata Thivy & Visalaksmi ex H. Joshi & V. Krishnamurthy Sn W 

Ulva beytensis Thivy & Sharma Sn C 

Ulva conglobata Kjellman W R 

Ulva fasciata Delile E, Sb, Sn E, D, M, S 

Ulva lactuca Linnaeus W, Sn D 

Ulva latissima Linnaeus P - 

Ulva pertusa Kjellman P, Sn D 

Ulva reticulata Forsskaal P, W, Sn D 

Family Sphaeropleaceae 

Sphaeroplea C. Agardh Sn M, S 

Order Cladophorales 

Family Anadyomenaceae 

Anadyomene plicata C. Agardh W, E, Sk R, C, S 

Anadyomene stellata (Wulfen) C. Agardh Sb - 

189

Family Siphonocladaceae 

Boergesenia forbesii (Harvey) J. Feldmann E C, E, R 

Boodlea coacta (Dickie) G. Murray & De Toni E S 

Boodlea composita (Harvey) Brand [Syn: Cladophora composita Harvey] W, E - 

Boodlea montagnei (Harvey ex J. Gray) Egerod [Syn: Microdictyon montagnei Harvey ex J. Gray] W, Sn C, E 

Boodlea struveoides Howe E - 

Cladophoropsis herpestica (Montagne) Howe W - 

Cladophoropsis javanica (Kutzing) P. Silva comb. nov. [Cladophoropsis zollingeri (Kutzing) Reinbold] Sn C 

Cladophoropsis membranaceae (Hofman Bang ex C. Agardh) Børgesen E, Sn E, M 

Cladophoropsis sundanensis Reinbold W, Sn R 

Dictyosphaeria cavernosa (Forsskal) Bøergesen [Syn: Dictyosphaeria favulosa (C. Agardh) Decaisne 

ex Endlicher] W, E, Sn C, R 

Struvea anastomosans (Harvey) Piccone et Grunow ex Piccone [Syn: Struvea deliculata Kutzing] W, E C, E, R 

Struvea ramosa Dickie E C, R 

Family Valoniaceae 

Valonia aegagropila C. Agardh W, E C, R 

Valonia fastigiata Harvey ex J. Agardh W, P R 

Valonia utricularis (Roth) C. Agardh W, E C, R 

Valoniopsis pachynema (G. Martens) Børgesen W R 

Family Cladophoraceae 

Chaetomorpha aerea (Dillwyn) Kutzing E - 

Chaetomorpha antennina (Bory de Saint-Vincent) Kutzing W R 

Chaetomorpha crassa (C. Agardh) Kutzing Sn M 

Chaetomorpha gracilis Kutzing Sn M 

Chaetomorpha gracilis Kutzing [Syn: Lola gracilis (Kutzing) V. Chapman] Sn Mg 

Chaetomorpha linum (O.F. Muller) Kutzing W, E, Sn C, E, M, R, S 

Chaetomorpha minima Collins & Hervey W, E E 

Chaetomorpha spiralis Okamura W - 

Cladophora catenata (Linnaeus) Kutzing E C, E, R 

Cladophora coelothrix Kutzing [Syn: Cladophora repens Harvey] E - 

Cladophora forsskali (Kutzing) Bornet ex De Toni [Syn: Siphonocladus forsskalii (Kutzing) Bornet 

ex De Toni] Sk - 

190

Cladophora inserta Dickie forma inserta [Syn: Cladophora inserta Dickie] W S 

Cladophora patentiramea (Montagne) Kutzing Sn M 

Cladophora prolifera (Roth) Kutzing W S 

Cladophora prolifera (Roth) Kutzing [Syn: Cladophora rugolosa G. Martens] W S 

Cladophora sericea (Hudson) Kutzing [Syn: Cladophora nitida Kutzing] Sn Mg 

Cladophora stimpsonii Harvey E C 

Cladophora vagabunda (Linnaeus) van den Hoek E E 

Cladophora vagabunda (Linnaeus) van den Hoek [Syn: Cladophora fascicularis (Mertens 

ex C. Agardh) Kutzing] W C, R 

Cladophora vagabunda (Linnaeus) van den Hoek [Syn: Cladophora mauritiana Kutzing] Sn E 

Cladophoropsis javanica (Kutzing) P. Silva, comb. nov. [Rhizoclonium grande Børgesen] W, Sn R 

Rhizoclonium hookeri Kutzing [Syn: Rhizoclonium africanum Kutzing] E - 

Ventricaria ventricosa (J. Agardh) Olsen & J. West [Valonia ventricosa J. Agardh] E, P C 

Order Bryopsidales 

Family Bryopsidaceae 

Bryopsis corymbosa J. Agardh W, E, Sn C, E, R 

Bryopsis hypnoides Lamouroux E F 

Bryopsis indica A.Gepp & E. Gepp E, Sn C, E 

Bryopsis pennata Lamouroux W, E C, R 

Bryopsis pennata Lamouroux var. leprieurii (Kutzing) Collins & Harvey Sn C, R, E 

Bryopsis pennata Lamouroux var. secunda (Harvey) Collins & Hervey Sn C, R 

Bryopsis plumosa (Hudson) C. Agardh E, Sn C, R 

Derbesia fastigiata W. R. Taylor Sn Mg 

Derbesia prolifica W. R. Taylor E C 

Family Caulerpaceae 

Caulerpa fergusonii G. Murray W R 

Caulerpa lentillifera J. Agardh W, E, Sb, P, Sn C, D, M, R, S 

Caulerpa mexicana Sonder ex Kutzing [Syn: Caulerpa crassifolia (C. Agardh) J. Agardh] P - 

Caulerpa microphysa (Weber van Bosse) J. Feldmann W, E R 

Caulerpa peltata Lamouroux W, E, Sn C, R, S 

Caulerpa peltata Lamouroux [Syn: Caulerpa racemosa (Forsskaal) J. Agardh var. clavifera 

(Turner) Weber-van Bosse] P, Sn C 

191

Caulerpa peltata Lamouroux [Syn: Caulerpa racemosa (Forsskaal) J. Agardh var. peltata 

(Lamouroux) Eubank] E C 

Caulerpa prolifera (Forsskaal) Lamouroux forma zosterifolium Børgesen W C 

Caulerpa racemosa (Forsskaal) J. Agardh W, E, Sb, Sn C, M, S 

Caulerpa racemosa (Forsskaal) J. Agardh var. laetevirens (Montagne) Weber-van Bosse W R 

Caulerpa racemosa (Forsskaal) J. Agardh var. macrophysa (Sonder ex Kutzing) W. R. Taylor W, E R, S 

Caulerpa racemosa (Forsskaal) J. Agardh var. turbinata (J. Agardh) Eubank Sn C 

Caulerpa racemosa (Forsskaal) J. Agardh var. turbinata (J. Agardh) Eubank [Syn: Caulerpa 

chemnitzia (Esper) Lamouroux] P - 

Caulerpa scalpelliformis (R. Brown ex Turner) C. Agardh P - 

Caulerpa serrulata (Forsskaal) J. Agardh W, E, Sb, Sn C 

Caulerpa serrulata (Forsskaal) J. Agardh var. pectinata Kutzing W R, S 

Caulerpa sertulariodes (S. Gmelin) Howe W, Sb, Sn C, D, S 

Caulerpa sertulariodes(S. Gmelin) Howe forma longiseta (Bory de Saint-Vincent) Svedelius W S 

Caulerpa taxifolia (Vahl) C. Agardh W, E, P, Sb, Sn C, D, R 

Caulerpa verticillata J. Agardh W, E, Sb, Sn C, R, E 

Family Codiaceae 

Codium arabicum Kutzing W, Sn D 

Codium geppiorum O. Schmidt W, E, Sn C, E, S 

Codium tomentosum Stackhouse E, P C, R 

Family Halimedaceae 

Halimeda discoidea Decaisne Sb R, S 

Halimeda macroloba Decaisne W, E C, S 

Halimeda opuntia (Linnaeus) Lamouroux W, E, Sb, Sn C, S 

Halimeda opuntia (Linnaeus) Lamouroux var. minor Vickers E C, S 

Halimeda simulans Howe W, E S 

Halimeda tuna (Ellis & Solander) Lamouroux W, E, Sb, Sn C, S 

Family Udoteaceae 

Avrainvillea erecta (Berkeley) A. Gepp & E. Gepp W, E, Sn C, E, S 

Avrainvillea longicaulis (Kutzing) G. Murray & Boodle W, E C 

Avrainvillea obscura (C. Agardh) J. Agardh E C, S 

192

Tydemannia expeditionis Weber-van Bosse E R, S 

Udotea argentea Zanardini var. spumosa A. Gepp & E. Gepp W C, S 

Udotea cyathiformis Decaisne (Syn.: Udotea sublittoralis Taylor) E - 

Udotea flabellum (Ellis & Solander) Howe W S 

Rhipidosiphon javensis Montagne [Syn: Udotea javensis (Montagne) A. Gepp & E.Gepp] W, E, Sn C, S 

Order Dasycladales 

Family Dasycladaceae 

Bornetella Munier-Chalmas Sn C 

Neomeris annulata Dickie P, E, Sn C, R 

Family Polyphysaceae 

Acetabularia acetabulum (Linnaeus) P. Silva [Acetabularia mediterranea Lamouroux nom. illeg.] P - 

Acetabularia crenulata Lamouroux Sb - 

Acetabularia major G. Martens P - 

Acetabularia parvula Solms-Laubach E C 

Acetabularia pusilla (Howe) Collins E - 

Division Rhodophyta 

Order Erythropeltidales 

Family Erythrotrichiaceae 

Erythrotrichia carnea (Dillwyn) J. Agardh Sn E 

Order Acrochaetiales 

Family Acrochaetiaceae 

Acrochaetium Nageli E C 

Order Nemaliales 

Family Galaxauraceae 

Galaxaura rugosa (Ellis & Solander) Lamouroux [Syn: Galaxaura squalida Kjellman] Sb - 

Tricleocarpa cylindrica (Ellis & Solander) Huisman & Borowitzka [Syn: Galaxaura cylindrica 

(Ellis & Solander) Lamouroux] Sb - 

193

Family Liagoraceae 

Liagora ceranoides Lamouroux [Syn: Liagora leprosa J. Agardh] E - 

Order Gelidiales 

Family Gelidiaceae 

Gelidium amansii Lamouroux W R 

Gelidium pusillum (Stackhouse) Le Jolis W R 

Gelidium spinosum (S. Gmelin) P. Silva, comb nov. [Syn: Gelidium latifolium Bornet ex Hauck] P - 

Pterocladia caerulescens (Kutzing) Santelices W C, S 

Pterocladia caloglossoides (Howe) Dawson [Syn: Pterocladia parva Dawson] E C, R 

Family Gelidiellaceae 

Gelidiella acerosa (Forsskal) J. Feldmann & G. Hamel [Syn: Gelidiopsis rigida (C. Agardh) 

Weber-van Bosse] E, P C, R 

Gelidiella lubria (Kutzing) J. Feldmann & G. Hamel [Syn: Gelidiella bornetii (Weber van Bosse) 

J. Feldmann & G. Hamel] 

Gelidiella pannosa (Feldmann) Feldmann et G. Hamel W R 

Order Gracilariales 

Family Gracilariaceae 

Gracilaria articulata Chang et Xia P M 

Gracilaria canaliculata Sonder P C, M, S 

Gracilaria blodgetti Harvey [Syn: Gracilaria cylindrica Børgesen] W M 

Gracilaria cacalia (J. Agardh) Dawson Sn C 

Gracilaria changii (Xia et Abbott) Abbott, Zhang et Xia W, E Mg, M, R, S 

Gracilaria coronopifolia J. Agardh W, E, Sn C, M 

Gracilaria crassa Harvey ex J. Agardh Sb, Sn D 

Gracilaria dura (C. Agardh) J. Agardh Sb - 

Gracilaria edulis (G. Gmelin) P. Silva W R, S, M 

Gracilaria edulis (S. Gmelin) P. Silva [Gracilaria lichenoides Greville nom. illeg.] W, Sk, Sn R 

Gracilaria eucheumoides Harvey P - 

Gracilaria firma Chang et Xia W, Sb R 

Gracilaria foliifera (Forskaal) Børgesen W R 

Gracilaria lichenoides Greville forma taenoides (J. Agardh) V. Hay [Syn: Gracilaria taenoides J. Agardh] P - 

194

Gracilaria manilaensis Yamamoto et Trono P, W M 

Gracilaria minor (Sonder) Durairatnam P - 

Gracilaria multifurcata Børgesen W C, R 

Gracilaria salicornia (C. Agardh) Dawson W, E, Sb Mg, M, R, S 

Gracilaria subtilis (Xia et Abbott) Xia et Abbott W S, M 

Gracilaria tenuistipitata Zhang et Xia W R 

Gracilaria textorii (Suringar) De Toni W R 

Gracilaria urvillei (Montagne) Abbott, Zhang et Xia W, Sb, Sn S, M 

Gracilaria verrucosa (Hudson) Papenfuss [Gracilaria confervoides Greville nom. illeg.] P, Sb - 

Gracilariopsis bailiniae Zhang et Xia W, Sb R 

Order Bonnemaisoniales 

Family Pterocladiophilaceae 

Asparagopsis taxiformis (Delile) Trevisan E R, C, S 

Family Halymeniaceae 

Cryptonemia crenulata (J. Agardh) J. Agardh Sb R 

Cryptonemia yendoi Weber van Bosse W R 

Grateloupia filicina (Lamouroux) C. Agardh W, Sb R, F 

Halymenia dilatata Zanardini E, Sb C, R 

Halymenia durvillei Bory de Saint-Vincent W, E, Sb, P C, R 

Halymenia floresia (Clemente y Rubio) C. Agardh E, Sn C, R, S 

Halymenia formosa Harvey ex Kutzing E, Sn C 

Halymenia maculata J. Agardh W, E, Sb, Sk C, R 

Halymenia microcarpa (Montagne) P. Silva [Syn: Halymenia durvillei Bory de Saint-Vincent var. Sn C 

ceylanica Kutzing (Harvey ex Kutzing)] 

Family Kallymeniaceae 

Callophyllis heanophylla Setchell E R 

Family Peyssonneliaceae 

Peyssonnelia inamoena Pilger E C, F 

Family Rhizophyllidaceae 

Portieria hornemannii (Lyngbye) P. Silva E C 

195

Order Hildenbrandiales 

Family Hildenbrandiaceae 

Hildenbrandia rubra (Sommerfelt) Meneghini W R 

Order Corallinales 

Family Corallinaceae 

Amphiroa anceps (Lamarck) Decaisne E C, R 

Amphiroa foliaceae Lamouroux W, E, Sb C, R 

Amphiroa fragilissima (Linnaeus) Lamouroux W, E, Sb, P, Sn E 

Amphiroa rigida Lamouroux W, E, Sn C, E, R 

Amphiroa tribulus (Ellis et Solander) Lamouroux E, Sb - 

Corallina Linnaeus W, Sb - 

Fosliella dispar Foslie E - 

Jania adhaerens Lamouroux E - 

Jania capillacea Harvey E - 

Jania decussate-dichotoma (Yendo) Yendo E C 

Jania rubens (Linnaeus) Lamouroux W, Sb E 

Melobesia membranacea (Esper) Lamouroux Sk, P E 

Mesophyllum erubescens (Foslie) Lemoine [Lithothamnion erubescens Foslie] W R 

Mesophyllum simulans (Foslie) Lemoine [Lithothamnion simulans (Foslie) Foslie] W R 

Family Caulacanthaceae 

Catenella impudica (Montagne) J. Agardh Sn Mg 

Catenella nipae Zanardini W, Sk, Sn Mg 

Caulacanthus ustulatus (Turner) Kutzing W, Sk R 

Order Gigartinales 

Family Gigartinaceae 

Chondracanthus acicularis (Roth) Fredericq [Gigartina acicularis (Roth) Lamouroux] W C 

Chondracanthus intermedius (Suringar) Hommersand W R 

Family Hypneaceae 

Hypnea charoides Lamouroux W R 

Hypnea cenomyce J. Agardh Borneo - 

196

Hypnea cornuta (Kutzing) J. Agardh W S, M 

Hypnea esperi Grunow Sn C, E 

Hypnea flexicaulis Yamagishi et Masuda Sb E 

Hypnea musciformis (Wulfen) Lamouroux P - 

Hypnea pannosa J. Agardh W, E C, R 

Hypnea spinella (C. Agardh) Kutzing E, Sn C, E, R 

Hypnea spinella (C. Agardh) Kutzing [Syn: Hypnea cervicornis J. Agardh] E, Sb, Sn C 

Hypnea stellulifera (J. Agardh) Yamagishi et Masuda W, Sb F, M, R 

Family Sarcodiaceae 

Sarcodia J. Agardh W R 

Family Schizymeniaceae 

Titanophora (J. Agardh) J. Feldmann W C 

Family Solieriaceae 

Agardhiella subulata (C. Agardh) Kraft & Wynne [Syn: Agardhiella tenera (J. Agardh) Schmitz] P - 

Eucheuma serra (J. Agardh) J. Agardh P - 

Eucheuma arnoldii Weber van-Bosse [Syn: Eucheuma cuppressoideum Weber-van Bosse] P, Sn - 

Eucheuma denticulatum (Burman) Collins & Harvey [Syn: Eucheuma muricatum (S. Gmelin) 

Weber-van Bosse] P - 

Eucheuma denticulatum (Burman) Collins & Harvey [Syn: Eucheuma spinosum J. Agardh] P - 

Eucheuma horridum J. Agardh P - 

Kappaphycus alvarezii (Doty) Doty ex P. Silva, comb. nov Sb S 

Kappaphycus cottonii (Weber-van Bosse) Doty ex P. Silva Sb C, R 

Solieria anastomosa P. Gabrielson et Kraft Sb C, R 

Solieria robusta Greville (Kylin) Sn - 

Order Rhodymeniales 

Family Champiaceae 

Champia compressa Harvey E C, F, R 

Champia parvula (C. Agardh) Harvey W, E E 

Champia vieillardii Kutzing E C 

Gastroclonium compressum (Hollenberg) Chang & Xia E - 

197

Family Lomentariaceae 

Lomentaria gracillima Masuda et Kogame Sb E 

Lomentaria monochlamydea (J. Agardh) Kylin E C 

Family Rhodymeniaceae 

Botryocladia leptopoda (J. Agardh) Kylin W Mn, C, S 

Ceratodictyon spongiosum Zanardini W, Sb C, R 

Chamaebotrys boergesenii (Weber-van Bosse) Huisman E C, E 

Chrysymenia J. Agardh Sb - 

Coelarthrum Børgesen Sb R 

Gelidiopsis intricata (C. Agardh) Vickers E C 

Order Ceramiales 

Family Ceramiaceae 

Anotrichium tenue (C. Agardh) Nageli (Syn: Griffithsia tenuis C. Agardh) W, E, Sb C, E, R 

Antithamnionella elegans (Berthold) J. Price & D. John [Syn: Antithamnionella breviramosa (Dawson) 

Wallaston in Wolmsley & Bailey] E E 

Callithamnion fellipponei Howe E - 

Centroceras clavulatum(C. Agardh) Montagne Sb - 

Centroceras minutum Yamada E C 

Ceramium corniculatum Montagne E - 

Ceramium diaphanum (Lightfoot) Roth [Ceramium tenuissimum (Roth) Areschoug nom. illeg.] W, E E 

Ceramium fimbriatum Setchell & Gardner [Syn: Ceramium gracillimum (Kutzing) Griffiths & Harvey] E E 

Ceramium flaccidum (Kutzing) Ardissone E E 

Corrallophila huysmansii (Weber-van Bosse) R. Norris [Syn: Ceramium huysmansii Weber-van Bosse] Sn R 

Griffithsia schousboei Montagne W E, R 

Ptilothamnion codicolum (Dawson) Abbott E E 

Spyridia filamentosa (Wulfen) Harvey W, E C, E, R, S, 

Wrangelia argus (Monatgne) Montagne E E 

Wrangelia bicuspidata Børgesen W, E Mn, C, S 

Family Dasyaceae 

Dasya iyengarii Børgesen W, E, Sb, Sk E, F 

Dasya longifila Masuda et Uwai Sb E 

Dasya malaccensis Masuda et Uwai W F 

198

Dasya pilosa (Weber-van Bosse) Millar E, Sb R 

Heterosiphonia crispella (C. Agardh) Wynne W, E, Sb, Sk E, F 

Heterosiphonia Montagne W E 

Family Delesseriaceae 

Caloglossa adhaerens King & Puttock [Syn: Caloglossa adnata (Zanardini) De Toni] Sk - 

Delesseria adnata Zanardini [Syn: Caloglossa bengalensis (Martens) King & Pullock] Sk - 

Delesseria beccarii Zanardini [Syn: Caloglossa beccarii (Zanardini) De Toni] Sk - 

Hypoglossum caloglossoides Wynne et Kraft E C, E 

Hypoglossum rhizophorum Ballantine et Wynne E C 

Hypoglossum simulans Wynne, I. Price & Ballantine W C 

Martensia australis Harvey Sb E, R 

Martensia fragilis Harvey W, E C, E, R 

Taenioma dotyi Hollenberg W R 

Taenioma perpusillum (J. Agardh) J. Agardh Sb, Sk E 

Zellera tawallina Martens Sb R 

Family Rhodomelaceae 

Acanthophora muscoides (Linnaeus) Bory de Saint-Vincent Sn C 

Acanthophora spicifera (Vahl) Børgesen W, E, Sn, P C, D, R, S 

Acanthophora spicifera (Vahl) Børgesen [Syn: Acanthophora orientalis J. Agardh] W, Sn C, E 

Acanthophora spicifera (Vahl) Børgesen [Syn: Acanthophora thierryi Lamouroux] Sk - 

Amansia rhodantha (Harvey) J. Agardh Sb R 

Bostrychia moritziana (Sonder ex Kutzing) J.Agardh Sn Mg 

Bostrychia tenella (Lamouroux) J. Agardh W Mg 

Bostrychia tenella (Lamouroux) J. Agardh [Syn: Bostrychia binderi Harvey] Sn R 

Chondria armata (Kutzing) Okamura E, P R 

Chondria decidua Tani et Masuda Sb E 

Chondria econstricta Tani & Masuda Sb E 

Chondria xishaensis Zhang (Chang) & Xia Sb E 

Herposiphonia pacifica Hollenberg W, E F, R 

Herposiphonia secunda (C. Agardh) Ambronn E - 

Herposiphonia vietnamica Pham Sb E 

Laurencia articulata Tseng E C, R 

Laurencia botryoides (C. Agardh) Gaillon P - 

199

Laurencia caduciramulosa Masuda et Kawaguchi E R 

Laurencia calliclada Masuda E R 

Laurencia concreta Crib W, Sb C 

Laurencia corymbosa J. Agardh W, E C, R 

Laurencia decumbens Kutzing [Syn: Laurencia pygmaea Weber-van Bosse] W R 

Laurencia flexilis Setchell Sk R 

Laurencia glandulifera (Kutzing) Kutzing W R 

Laurencia implicata J. Agardh E - 

Laurencia intricata Lamouroux W, E - 

Laurencia lageniformis Masuda Sb, Sk R 

Laurencia majuscula (Harvey) Lucas E, Sb, Sk C, R 

Laurencia microcladia Kutzing Sn Mg 

Laurencia nangii Masuda Sb C, E 

Laurencia obtusa (Hudson) Lamouroux W C 

Laurencia pannosa Zanardini Sk - 

Laurencia papillosa (C. Agardh) Greville, Setchell et Gardner W, E, Sb, Sk C, R, S 

Laurencia parvipapillata Tseng E C 

Laurencia perforata (Bory de Saint-Vincent) Montagne E C 

Laurencia pinnata Yamada W R 

Laurencia similis Nam et Saito Sb C, R 

Leveillea junggermanniodes (Herling & G. Martens) Harvey W, Sn E, C 

Murrayellopsis dawsonii Post E R 

Neosiphonia apiculata (Hollenberg) Masuda et Kogame E, Sb E 

Neosiphonia flaccidissima (Hollenberg) M.S.Kim et I.K.Lee W E 

Neosiphonia savatieri (Hariot) M.S.Kim et I.K.Lee E, Sb E 

Polysiphonia coacta Tseng E C, R 

Polysiphonia decussata Hollenberg E E 

Polysiphonia ferulaceae Suhr ex J. Agardh Sn E 

Polysiphonia fucoides (Hudson) Greville [Syn: Polysiphonia nigrescens (Hudson) Greville in W. Hooker] W, E E, R 

Polysiphonia platycarpa Børgesen Sn E 

Polysiphonia scopulorum Harvey W, E C, E, F, R 

Polysiphonia subtillisima Montagne E E, C 

Polysiphonia violaceae Greville E E, R 

Tolypiocladia calodictyon (Harvey ex Kutzing) P. Silva E E 

Tolypiocladia glomerulata (C. Agardh) Schmitz W, E E 

200

Division Phaeophyta 

Order Ectocarpales 

Family Ectocarpaceae 

Ectocarpus siliculosus (Dillwyn) Lyngbye [Misapplied name: Ectocarpus confervoides (Roth) Le Jolis] W - 

Ectocarpus variabilis Vickers W - 

Feldmannia enhali Hamel W, E E 

Feldmannia indica (Sonder) Wolmsley & Bailey W, E D, E 

Feldmannia simplex (Crouan & Crouan) Hamel [Syn.: Ectocarpus cylindricus Saunders] E - 

Family Ralfsiaceae 

Ralfsia Berkeley Sb - 

Order Sphacelariales 

Family Sphacelariaceae 

Sphacelaria caespitula Lyngbye Sk, Sn - 

Sphacelaria rigidula Kutzing [Syn: Sphacelaria furcigera Kutzing] W, Sb R 

Order Dictyotales 

Family Dictyoceae 

Dictyopteris acrostichoides (J. Agardh) Bornet W C, S 

Dictyopteris deliculata Lamouroux E E 

Dictyopteris woodwardia (R. Brown ex Turner) [Syn: Haliseris woodwardia (R. Brown ex Turner) Sk - 

C. Agardh] 

Dictyota bartayresiana Lamouroux W, E, Sn C, R 

Dictyota beccariana Zanardini Sk, P - 

Dictyota cervicornis Kutzing Sn M 

Dictyota cervicornis Kutzing [Syn: Dictyota indica Sonder ex Kutzing] E, Sn C 

Dictyota cervicornis Kutzing [Syn: Dictyota pardalis Kutzing] P - 

Dictyota cervicornis Kutzing forma spiralis Taylor E R 

Dictyota ciliolata Kutzing Sn C 

Dictyota dentata Lamouroux Sb - 

Dictyota dichotoma (Hudson) Lamouroux W, E, P, Sb, Sk R 

Dictyota dichotoma (Hudson) Lamouroux [Syn: Dictyota apiculata J. Agardh] P - 

Dictyota divaricata Lamouroux E - 

Dictyota friabilis Setchell W, E C, Mn, M, R 

201

Dictyota hauckiana Nizamuddin [Syn: Dictyota atomaria Hauck] Sb - 

Dictyota jamaicensis Taylor E S 

Dictyota linearis (C. Agardh) Greville W - 

Dictyota maxima Zanardini Sk - 

Dictyota mertensii (Martius) Kutzing [Syn: D. dentata Lamouroux] E S 

Dictyota submaritima Va Pham Hoang E R 

Lobophora variegata (Lamouroux) Wolmsley ex Oliveira (Syn.: Pocockiella variegata (Lamouroux) 

Papenfuss) W, E, Sb C, S 

Padina australis Hauck W, E C, R 

Padina boergesenii Allender & Kraft W, E C 

Padina boryana Thivy [Syn: P. commersonii Bory de Saint-Vincent] W, E, Sn R, C 

Padina caulescens Thivy E - 

Padina gymnospora (Kutzing) Sonder Sb, Sn C, S 

Padina minor Yamada E C, S 

Padina pavonia Lamouroux Sk - 

Padina tetrastromatica Hauck W, E, Sn C, R 

Spatoglossum vietnamense Pham Sb C 

Stypopodium zonale (Lamouroux) Papenfuss Sn C 

Order Scytosiphonales 

Family Chnoosporaceae 

Chnoospora minima (Hering) Papenfuss W R 

Family Scytosiphonaceae 

Colpomenia sinuosa (Mertens ex Roth) Derbes & Solier W, Sb E, R 

Hydroclathrus clathratus (C. Agardh) Howe [Syn: Asperococcus clathratus (C. Agardh) J. Agardh] W, P, Sb C, S 

Rosenvingea fastigiata (Zanardini) Børgesen [Syn.: Asperococcus fastigiatus Zanardini] Sk - 

Rosenvingea orientalis (J. Agardh) Børgesen W C, S 

Order Fucales 

Family Cystoseiraceae 

Cystoseira trinodis (Forsskal) C. Agardh E C, R 

Hormophysa cuneiformis (J. Gmelin) P. Silva W, E, Sb C, D, R 

Hormophysa cuneiformis (J. Gmelin) P. Silva [Syn: Cystoseira prolifera J. Agardh] W, Sk, Sn C, D 

Hormophysa cuneiformis (J. Gmelin) P. Silva [Syn: Cystoseira triquetra C. Agardh] Sb, Sn C 

202

Family Sargassaceae 

Sargassum abbottiae Trono W C 

Sargassum acutifolium Greville W, Sk C 

Sargassum angustifolium C. Agardh Sk, Sn - 

Sargassum aquifolium (Turner) C. Agardh Sn - 

Sargassum asperifolium Hering & G. Martens ex J. Agardh Sn D 

Sargassum baccularia (Mertens) C. Agardh W C 

Sargassum balingasayense Trono Sb C 

Sargassum binderi Sonder ex J. Agardh W C 

Sargassum cervicorne Greville E C 

Sargassum cinereum J. Agardh E, Sb, Sn D 

Sargassum crassifolium J. Agardh [Syn: Sargassum feldmanii Pham] 

Sargassum cristaefolium C. Agardh W, E C, R 

Sargassum dotyi Trono W C, R 

Sargassum duplicatum (J. Agardh) J. Agardh Sb, Sn R 

Sargassum erumpens Tseng et Lu E C 

Sargassum filipendula C. Agardh Sb - 

Sargassum granuliferum C. Agardh W, P C 

Sargassum grevillei J. Agardh W C 

Sargassum heterocystum (kuetzing) Montagne E C, R 

Sargassum hornschuchii C. Agardh Sb C 

Sargassum ilicifolium (Turner) C. Agardh W, E, Sn R, C 

Sargassum ilicifolium (Turner) C. Agardh [Syn: Sargassum sandei Reinbold] W R 

Sargassum illicifolium (Turner) C. Agardh var conduplicatum Grunow E R 

Sargassum laxifoliumTseng et Lu Sb C, R 

Sargassum microcystum J. Agardh Sb C, R 

Sargassum myriocystum J. Agardh W, Sn C 

Sargassum oligocystum Montagne Sb R 

Sargassum polycystum C. Agardh W, E, Sb, Sn D, C, R, S 

Sargassum siliculosoides Tseng et Lu E C, R 

Sargassum siliquosum J. Agardh W, P, Sb, Sn R 

Sargassum spathulaefolium J. Agardh W, Sn D 

Sargassum squarrosum Greville W C, R 

Sargassum stolonifoium Phang et Yoshida W R 

203

Sargassum swartzii C. Agardh W C 

Sargassum tenerrimum J. Agardh Sb - 

Sargassum torvum J. Agardh Sn R 

Sargassum virgatum C. Agardh W, Sn C 

Sargassum vulgare C. Agardh Sb C 

Sargassum wightii Greville W C 

Turbinaria conoides (J. Agardh) Kutzing W, E, P, Sb, Sn C, D, R 

Turbinaria deccurrens Bory de Saint-Vincent W, E R 

Turbinaria ornata (Turner) J. Agardh W, E, P, Sn C, S 

Turbinaria ornata (Turner) J. Agardh var. serrata Jaasund Sn C 

Turbinaria tricostata Barton E - 

Abbreviation 

Distribution: 

P: Peninsular Malaysia; Sb: Sabah; Sk: Sarawak; Sn: Singapore; E: East Coast Peninsular Malaysia; W: West Coast Peninsular Malaysia 

Habitat: 

C: Coral; D: Driftweed; E: Epiphyte; M: Mud; Mg: Mangrove; P: Planktonic; R: Rock, Bedrock, Stones; S: Sand; W: Wood; F: Fish cage, fishing line 

and fish net 

204


sandy areas, mudflats, coral reefs and rocky shores. Turbinaria and the encrusting Lobophora 

variegata often accompany the Padina on the intertidal coral reefs. The new species Sargassum 

stolonifolium Phang and Yoshida described from Penang Island, is the first in the genus to 

exhibit the phenomena of new plantlets derived from the first leaves (Phang & Yoshida 1997). 

ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF SEAWEEDS IN MALAYSIA 

Early records show that several seaweeds were utilised in Malaysia for food, animal feed, 

fertiliser and traditional medicine (Burkill 1966, Hooper 1960, Zaneveld 1959, Phang 1984). 

Seaweeds like Gracilaria changii, G. edulis, G. salicornia, G. tenuispitata and Gelidium spp. 

are used as salads and for the preparation of desserts such as agar-agar. Sarer which is a 

species of Gracilaria forms part of the food for the ‘buka puasa’ during the fasting months, 

especially along the east coast. In Sabah Eucheuma and Caulerpa are collected and eaten 

either raw or blanched in salads. In the Chinese medicine shops one can buy dried Sargassum, 

Turbinaria and Ulva of unknown origin, which is popularly used by the Chinese in a soup 

considered as a rich source of iodine and which ‘cools’ the body system. The nutritional value 

of Malaysian seaweeds is not known except for a short study reporting on the lipid and fattyacid 

content of selected seaweeds (Norazmi 2001). Nine species of seaweeds were analysed 

for fatty acid composition, and Dictyota dichotoma was found to contain the highest (17.6% 

ash-free dry wt) amount of lipids. All the seaweeds contained eicosapentaenoic acid ranging 

from 2.4 to 10.7% total fatty acid, with Gracilaria edulis having the highest content. 

Of the Malaysian seaweeds, only Eucheuma (Kappaphycus) is presently cultivated for the 

commercial production of carrageenan chips as well as semi-refined carrageenan in Tawau, 

Sabah. Fishing families around Semporna, east coast Sabah, are involved in the mariculture 

of the Eucheuma using the monofilament techniques in the reefs fringing the islands near 

Semporna. The average cultivation period is 45 days and continues for eight months of the 

year. The monthly production from Semporna was around 60 to 100 tonnes dry wt per month 

(Phang 1998). The harvested seaweed is sun dried on the platforms of houses built on the 

reefs and sold at RM 1.10 (US$1 = RM3.8) per kg dry wt (moisture content of 32 to 35%) to 

the carrageenan producers. There are three semi-refined carrageenan factories in Tawau. 

Gracilaria changii, a good source of high quality agar and agarose (Phang 1994b) has also 

been experimentally cultivated in shrimp ponds, mangrove ponds and irrigation canals (Phang 

et al. 1996). Unlike Eucheuma, Gracilaria farming has not gone large-scale, probably because 

there are no large agar factories in the region. 

The search for novel bioactive compounds from marine algae has revealed tropical seaweeds 

to be a potentially important source (Masuda et al. 2002, Varaippan et al. 2004). Bioactive 

properties of seaweeds range from antiviral to antioxidant, immunostimulatory, anti-coagulant, 

anti-thrombic and anti-inflammatory. Traditionally coralline algae like Corallina and Amphiroa 

are crushed and fed to children to expel worms. Halimeda opuntia, Acanthophora spicifera, 

Laurencia, Eucheuma spinosum, Gracilaria sp., Hypnea musciformis, Dictyopteris sp., and 

Sargassum spp. contain antibiotic compounds. 

These tropical seaweed resources have great potential for development as food, feed and 

sources of biopharmaceutical products in addition to industrial colloids. A potentially good 

culture system would be the integrated culture with shrimp, fish or abalone farming. Gracilaria 

205


can be cultured in shrimp ponds, where the seaweed removes dissolved nutrients from the 

excess feed of the shrimps, thereby cleaning up the water, and produce a useful biomass for 

extraction of agar and agarose or any other useful biochemicals (Phang et al. 1996). The 

seaweeds can also be used to feed aquaculture species like abalone. The young larvae find 

protection amongst the seaweeds from predators and the seaweeds also produce oxygen and 

remove carbon dioxide, thereby contributing to reduction in global warming simultaneously. 

THREATS TO SEAWEED RESOURCES 

There is little information on the ecology and biology of tropical seaweeds, more so of the 

Malaysian species (Phang 1988, 1989, 1995; Wong & Phang 2004). Information on standing 

biomass and productivity of natural populations is scarce, while none on the harvesting from 

any natural seaweed populations is available. 

Threats to seaweed resources include land reclamation, construction of jetties, bridges and 

marinas, pollution, trawlers, destructive fishing methods, sand mining, overharvesting of 

commercial species, introduction of alien and invasive species, illegal bioprospecting and 

also natural phenomena like tropical storms, typhoons and global warming. Of these threats, 

development of islands and coastal areas into resorts and marinas is the greatest. Natural 

sandy habitats and fringing coral reefs have been silted over by clearing of mangroves (Phang 

1988, 1995) as well as beach areas, for aquaculture and construction. Increased marine traffic 

adds oil and grease to the waters, while untreated discharges from sewage facilities, rubber 

and palm oil mills, electronic and electro-plating industries, bring organic and inorganic 

pollutants to the marine ecosystem (Ramachandran et al. 1995). 

MANAGEMENT OF SEAWEED RESOURCES 

Habitat destruction is an important issue related to the management of the seaweeds. Continued 

population concentration in coastal areas will lead to increased user conflicts, competition for 

ocean resources and habitat destruction. Aquaculture may replace wild fishing, resulting in 

impacts on the habitats of the seaweeds in the form of pollution and also habitat destruction. 

This issue may hopefully be addressed with the implementation of the National Coastal Zone 

Management Plan. The increase in bioprospecting would require laws to prevent biopiracy. 

Presently there are no specific legislations or policies to safeguard the seaweed resources. 

Marine Parks serve as refuges for seaweeds, but without increased manpower, funding and 

authority, even seaweed habitats in protected areas may be threatened. While about 14 ministries 

and 23 government agencies perform ocean related functions, there is no clear Federal-State 

relationship regarding biodiversity management. There is also lack of coordinated gathering, 

processing, storage and dissemination of biodiversity information. Recently the Marine Parks 

Division has been entrusted the task of documenting the marine resources of Malaysia. There 

is a lack of skilled human resources in implementing agencies as well as research institutions 

and universities for managing the resources, especially in the form of taxonomists. The 

important contribution of the general public to marine biodiversity conservation and 

management must not be neglected. Non-governmental organisations like the Malaysian Nature 

Society and the Malaysian Society of Marine Sciences regularly organise community awareness 

206


programmes to enlist public assistance in the protection of natural resources. An Environmental 

Education Curriculum should be introduced to schools to inculcate awareness in the younger 

population. 

Strategies for the protection of seaweeds and other natural resources include the establishment 

of a National Biodiversity Directorate, National Ocean Council, National Biodiversity Database 

and more Marine Protected Areas. The practice of sustainable fisheries, sustainable mariculture 

and the control of invasive alien species must be enforced. Integrated marine and coastal area 

management should be practiced. Alternative livelihoods could be introduced for poverty 

alleviation in coastal communities. There should be increased funding for research in areas of 

distribution, abundance and ecology of seaweed resources, thus enabling the proper assessment 

of the sustainability of the seaweed resources in Malaysia. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS 

The last two decades have seen an increase in seaweeds as a potential economic resource in 

the Asia-Pacific region, including Malaysia. Two genera, Eucheuma (Kappaphycus) and 

Gracilaria were targeted for development in Malaysia. However Gracilaria cultivation has 

not gone beyond the experimental stage. Eucheuma culture in Sabah continues with the fishing 

community around Semporna and has spread to the Kudat area through initiatives from the 

state government. These resources cannot meet the demands of the three carrageenan factories. 

Gracilaria on the other hand does not demand clean waters as Eucheuma, and should in fact 

grow well in Peninsular Malaysian waters. Agar processing requires simpler technology than 

carrageenan, and in fact has a high domestic demand (Jahara & Phang 1990). Of the other 

seaweeds, Caulerpa species are easy to culture but would require good marketing to sell its 

use as a delicacy in restaurants. Acanthophora, Gracilaria and Hypnea can be grown as feed 

for abalone. 

The inventory of Malaysian seaweeds continues. Presently 386 taxa are recorded. Many 

scientifically interesting as well as commercially important species have been identified. 

Ecological information is scarce. Biomass assessments of natural seaweed areas, productivity 

determination and phenological studies of important species, should be encouraged. Only 

then can the status of the seaweed flora of Malaysia be assessed, and threatened species and 

habitats identified. The use of new approaches like molecular taxonomy should be encouraged 

to enhance species identification and possibly provide a fingerprinting technique to monitor 

and prevent biodiversity loss. 


Acknowledgements are due to Professor Michio Masuda, University of Hokkaido, whose 

expertise made a worthy checklist possible, Professors Shigeru Kawaguchi, Tetsuro Ajisaka, 

K. Kogame, Misni Surif and all the expedition members, especially my students Wong Ching 

Lee, Melor Ismail and Murugadas T. Loganathan, who contributed towards the wonderful 

collections. We are grateful to the Fisheries Departments, Marine Parks and Fisheries Research 

Institutes, throughout the Malaysian states, which have always been very generous with their 

207


assistance during our fieldwork. Generous research grants from the IRPA Grants No.09-02- 

03-222 and 09-02-03-788, MOSTE, Malaysia and Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and 

Culture, Japan, are gratefully acknowledged. 

REFERENCES 

AHMAD ISMAIL 1995. Rumpai Laut Malaysia. (Seaweeds of Malaysia). Dewan Bahasa 

dan Pustaka, Malaysia. (In Bahasa Malaysia). 

AJISAKA, T. 2002. Sargassum specimens from Singapore and Malaysia in the Herbarium of 

the Bishop Museum. Pp. 77–88 in Abbott, I.A. & McDermid, K. (eds.) Taxonomy of 

Economic Seaweeds. With reference to some Pacific species. Vol. VIII. California Sea 

Grant Programme. 

AJISAKA, T., PHANG, S.M. & YOSHIDA, T. 1999. Preliminary report of Sargassum species 

collected from Malaysian coasts. Pp. 23–42 in Abbott, I.A. (ed.) Taxonomy of Economic 

Seaweeds. With reference to some Pacific species. Vol. VII. California Sea Grant 

Programme. 

BURKILL, I.H. 1966. A Dictionary of the Economic Products of the Malay Peninsula. 2 vols. 

Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 

CRITCHLEY, A.T. & OHNO, M. 1998. Seaweed Resources of the World. Japan International 

Cooperation Agency. 

FELDMANN, J. 1937. Recherches sur la vegetation marine de la Mediterranee. La cote des 

Alberes. Rev. Algol. 10: 1–339. 

GEPP, A. & GEPP, E.S. 1911. The Codiaceae of the Siboga Expedition including a monograph 

of Flabellariaceae and Udoteaceae. Siboga-Expedite Monographie 62. 

HOOPER, D. 1960. On Chinese Medicine: Drugs of Chinese Pharmacies in Malaya. The 

Garden’s Bulletin Straits Settlements VII(1-15): 1–57. 

JAHARA, J. & PHANG, S.M. 1990. Seaweed Marketing and Agar Industries in Malaysia. 

Pp. 75–86 in BOBP, Gracilaria production and utilization in the Bay of Bengal. BOBP/ 

REP/45. Bay of Bengal Programme. 

KAWAGUCHI, S., KATO, A., MASUDA, M., KOGAME, K. & PHANG, S.M. 2002. 

Taxonomic Notes on the Marine Algae of Malaysia. VII. Five Species of Rhodophyceae, 

with the Description of Lomentaria gracillima sp. nov. Botanica Marina 45: 536–547. 

LIM, P.E. & PHANG, S.M. 2004. Gracilaria species (Gracilariales, Rhodophyta) of Malaysia 

including two new records. Mal. J. Sci. 23(2): 71–80. 

LIM, P.E., THONG, K.L. & PHANG, S.M. 2001. Molecular differentiation of two 

morphological variants of Gracilaria salicornia. J. Appl. Phycol. 13: 335–342. 

MARTENS, G. VON. 1866. In Die Preussische Expedition nach Ost-Asien; nach amlitchen 

quellen: Botanischer Theil, Berlin. 

MASUDA, M., ABE, T., KAWAGUCHI, S. & PHANG, S.M. 1999. Taxonomic Notes on 

Marine Algae from Malaysia. I. Six Species of Rhodophyceae. Botanica Marina 42: 

449–458. 

MASUDA, M., ABE, T., KAWAGUCHI, S. & PHANG, S.M. 2001b. Taxonomic Notes on 

Marine Algae from Malaysia. VI. Five Species of Ceramiales (Rhodophyceae). Botanica 

Marina 44: 467–477. 

MASUDA, M., ABE, T., KOGEAME, K., KAWAGUCHI, S., PHANG, S.M., DAITOH, T., 

SAKAI, Y. & SUZUKI, M. 2002. Taxonomic Notes on the Marine Algae of Malaysia. 

VIII. Three species of Laurencia (Rhodophyceae). Botanica Marina 45: 571–579. 

208


MASUDA, M., KAWAGUCHI, S. & PHANG, S.M.1997. Taxonomic Notes on Laurencia 

similis and L. papillosa (Ceramiales, Rhodophyta) from the Western Pacific. Botanica 

Marina 40: 229–239. 

MASUDA, M., KATO, A., AHIMADA, S., KAWAGUCHI, S. & PHANG, S.M. 2000a. 

Taxonomic Notes on Marine Algae from Malaysia. II. Seven Species of Rhodophyceae. 

Botanica Marina 43: 181–190. 

MASUDA, M., KOGAME, K., KAWAGUCHI, S. & PHANG S.M. 2000b. Taxonomic Notes 

on Marine Algae from Malaysia. IV. Six Species of Ceramiales (Rhodophyceae). Botanica 

Marina 43: 569–579. 

MASUDA, M., KOGANE, K., KAWAGUCHI, S. & PHANG, S.M. 2001a. Taxonomic Notes 

on Marine Algae from Malaysia. V. Five Species of Rhodymeniales (Rhodophyceae). 


MASUDA, M., UWAI, S., KOGAME, K., KAWAGUCHI, S. & PHANG, S.M. 2003. 

Taxonomic Notes on Marine Algae from Malaysia. X. Four Species of Dasya 

(Rhodophyceae), with the Descriptions of Dasya longifila sp. nov and D. malaccensis sp. 

nov. Botanica Marina 46: 243–255. 

NORAZMI MOHAMED 2001. Fatty-acid Composition of Some Malaysian Seaweeds. 

Unpublished B.Sc. Thesis, Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Malaya. 

PHANG, S.M. 1984. Seaweed Resources of Malaysia. Wallaceana W38: 3–8. 

PHANG, S.M. 1988. The Effect of Siltation on Algal Biomass Production at a Fringing Coral 

Reef Flat, Port Dickson, Peninsular Malaysia. Wallaceana 51: 3–5. 

PHANG, S.M. 1989. Notes on the Ecology of Some Marine Epiphytic Rhodophytes at Cape 

Rachado, Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 43: 84–95. 

PHANG, S.M. 1994a. New Records of Malaysian Marine Algae. Hydrobiologia 285: 123–129. 

PHANG, S.M.1994b. Some Species of Gracilaria from Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. 

Pp. 125–134 in Abbott, I.A. (ed.) Taxonomy of Economic Seaweeds. With reference to 

some Pacific species, Vol. IV. California Sea Grant College. 

PHANG, S.M.1995. Distribution and abundance of marine algae on the coral reef flats at 

Cape Rachado, Port Dickson, Peninsular Malaysia. Malaysian J. Science 16A: 23–32. 

PHANG, S.M. 1998. The Seaweed Resources of Malaysia. Pp. 79–91 in Critchley, A.T. & 

Ohno, M. (eds.) Seaweed Resources of the World, Japan International Cooperation Agency. 

PHANG, S.M. 2006. Seaweed resources in Malaysia: current status and future prospects. 

Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 9(2): 185–202. 

PHANG, S.M. & MAHESWARY, V. 1989. Phycocolloid Content of Some Malaysian 

Seaweeds. Pp. 65–77 in Proceedings Twelfth Annual Seminar Malaysian Society of Marine 

Sciences. Kuala Lumpur. 

PHANG, S.M. & YOSHIDA, T. 1997. Sargassum stolonifolium Phang et Yoshida sp. nov. 

from Penang Island, Peninsular Malaysia. Pp. 61–73 in Abbott, I.A. (ed.) Taxonomy of 

Economic Seaweeds. With reference to some Pacific and Caribbean species. Vol. VI. 

California Sea Grant College. 

PHANG, S.M. & WEE, Y.C. 1991. Benthic Marine Algae. Pp. 51–61 in Kiew, R. (ed.) The 

State of Nature Conservation in Malaysia. Malayan Nature Society. 

PHANG, S.M., SHAFEEI SHAHARUDDIN, HASHIM NORAISHAH & SASEKUMAR, 

A. 1996. Studies on Gracilaria changii (Gracilariales, Rhodophyta) from Malaysian 

Mangroves. Hydrobiologia 326/327: 347–352. 

PHANG, S.M., WONG, C.L., LIM, P.E., YEONG, H.Y. & CHAN, C.X. 2005. Seaweed 

Diversity of Langkawi with emphasis on Northeast Langkawi. Malaysian J. Science 24: 

77–94. 

209


RAMACHANDRAN, S.D., MURUGADAS, T.L., TONG, S.L. & PHANG, S.M. 1995. Heavy 

metal accumulation in Malaysian seaweeds. Pp. 240–245 in Watson, D., Ong, K.S. & 

Vugers, G. (eds.) ASEAN Criteria and Monitoring. Advances in Marine Environmental 

Management and Human Health Protection. EVS Environmental Consultants, Vancouver 

and National Science and Technology Board, Singapore. 

TANI, M. & MASUDA, M. 2003. A Taxonomic Study of Two Minute Species of Chondria 

(Ceramiales, Rhodophyta) from the North-Western Pacific, with the Description of 

Chondria econstricta sp. nov. Phycologia 42(3): 220–231. 

TANI, M., YAMAGISHI, Y., MASUDA, M., KOGAME, K., KAWAGUCHI, S. & PHANG, 

S.M. 2003. Taxonomic Notes on Marine Algae from Malaysia. IX. Four Species of 

Rhodophyceae, with the Description of Chondria decidua sp. nov. Botanica Marina 46: 

24–35. 

TEO, L.W. & WEE, Y.C. 1983. Seaweeds of Singapore. Singapore University Press, Singapore. 

TERADA, R., KAWAGUCHI, S., MASUDA, M., KAWAGUCHI, S. & PHANG, S.M. 2000. 

Taxonomic Notes on Marine Algae from Malaysia. III. Seven Species of Rhodophyceae. 


WONG, C.L. & PHANG, S.M. 2004. Biomass Production of Two Sargassum Species at Cape 

Rachado, Malaysia. Hydrobiologia 512: 79–88. 

WONG, C.L. & PHANG, SM. 2004. Diversity and Distribution of Malaysian Sargassum 

species. Pp. 23–46 in Phang S.M., Chong, V.C., Ho, S.C., Noraieni, M., Jillian, O.L.S. 

(eds). Marine Science into the New Millennium: New Perspectives & Challenges. 

University of Malaya Maritime Research Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 

VARAIPPAN, C. S., ANG, M.Y., ONG, C.Y. & PHANG, S.M. 2004. Biologically active 

polybrominated indoles in the red alga Laurencia similis from the coastal waters of Sbah 

(Rhodomelaceae, Ceramiales). Malaysian J. Sci. 23(2): 119–126. 

YAMAGISHI,, Y., MASUDA, M., ABE, T., UWAI, S., KOGAME, K., KAWAGUCHI, S. & 

PHANG, S.M. 2003. Taxonomic Notes on Marine Algae from Malaysia. XI. Four Species 

of Rhodophyceae. Botanica Marina 46: 534–547. 

ZANARDINI, G. 1872. Phycearum indicarum pugillus a CL. Eduardo Beccari ad Borneum, 

Singapore et Ceylanum annis. MDCCCLXV-VI-VII cellectarum. Mem. Reale Istituto 

Veneto Sci. Let. Art. 17: 129–170. 

ZANEVELD, J.S. 1959. The Utilization of Marine Algae in Tropical South and East Asia. 

Economic Bot. 13: 89–131. 

210

L.G. SAW & R.C.K. CHUNG (2007) 



TOWARDS THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA 

1 

L. G. Saw & 2 R. C. K. Chung 

ABSTRACT 

Malaysia has an estimated 15,000 species of vascular plants (angiosperms, gymnosperms and 

pteridophytes). Although located in the Malesian region, its affinity is Sundaic, having common 

elements with Sumatra, Java and Palawan. The two halves of Malaysia, Peninsular Malaysia 

extending from mainland Asia and East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak on the island 

of Borneo have their own distinct floristic components. Peninsular Malaysia has about 8,300 

species of vascular plants and Sabah and Sarawak have an estimated 12,000 species. The 

Flora of Sabah and Sarawak is generally richer than that of Peninsular Malaysia. For trees, on 

the average, Sabah and Sarawak have about 44% more species than Peninsular Malaysia. The 

flora of Peninsular Malaysia is better documented that of Sabah and Sarawak. The Flora of 

Malaysia project is planned in a phased approach, the approach is taken due to historical 

reasons, the different flora affinities between Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak 

and perceived resources available for such an endeavour. Peninsular Malaysia has recent 

revisions on a number of large families and families of tree species. Until recently, Sabah and 

Sarawak do not have specific accounts for the region. The Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak 

project, initiated in 1991, represents the first systematic modern attempt to document some of 

the important plant families of these two states. This project is expected to continue for another 

10 years to complete the revision of about 4,000 estimated tree species found in the two states. 

The Flora of Peninsular Malaysia project began in 2005 with initial funds from the Malaysian 

government for at least the next five years. Upon completion of the Tree Flora of Sabah and 

Sarawak project, it is envisage the Flora of Sabah and Sarawak project will only start in about 

2015. It is estimated that the Flora of Peninsular Malaysia project will take at least 20 years to 

complete (at revision rates of about 400-500 species a year). To achieve such rates, there must 

be substantial increase in manpower involvement and fund allocation. 

INTRODUCTION 

The two geographical halves of Malaysia pose interesting challenges towards documenting 

the flora of Malaysia. Peninsular Malaysia or the Malay Peninsula (here includes Singapore 

and Peninsular Thailand) contains the floristic elements of the Sunda Self and also of the 

mainland Asiatic species from seasonal climates (Wong 1998). Borneo, with its greater isolation 

from Malaya, has a flora of Sundaic element; however its flora is quite distinct. Historically, 

Forest Research Institute Malaysia, 52109 Kepong, Selangor, Malaysia; 1 sawlg@frim.gov.my; 2 richard@frim.gov.my 

211


the two regions followed quite different botanical past. A very brief historical perspective is 

provided here, highlighting only the major works that are significance to the flora of these two 

regions. A more detail account of the historical works relating to the flora of both Borneo and 

Malaya can be obtained from the introductory volumes of the Flora Malesiana volumes (de 

Wit 1949, van Steenis-Kruseman 1950, van Steenis 1955). Wong (1987, 1995a) and Soepadmo 

(1999) also provided reviews with additional updates from de Wit, van Steenis and van Steenis- 

Kruseman of the botanical collection and documentation of the flora of both Peninsular Malaysia 

and Borneo. 

BOTANICAL HISTORY OF PENINSULAR MALAYSIA 

Botanical Collections 

Peninsular Malaysia with a more direct former British Colonial rule had a longer and more 

sustained period of botanical exploration and enumeration. Its botanical history dates back to 

the first British settlement in the early 1800’s in the Malay Peninsula in Penang where the 

island was important for the spice trade. Among the very important collectors during this 

period include that of N. Wallich whose collection, arranged in a catalogue (Wallich’s 

catalogue), included contributions from G. Porter, W. Jack and G. Finlayson. Numbering 

about 8,000 species, Wallich’s catalogue became the basis of many plant names for Penang 

and Singapore in Malaya, and India. W. Griffith, Wallich’s predecessor, collected large numbers 

of specimens particularly from Malacca also form the basis of the foundation of botanical 

work in Malaya. Many collectors followed included L. Wray Jr., Father Scortechini, H. Kunstler 

(often labelled as King’s Collector), A.C. Maingay, C. Curtis, C.B. Kloss, R. Derry, T. Oxley, 

J.S. Goodenough, I.H. Burkill, Mohamad Haniff, N. Cantley, F.W. Foxworthy and etc. A full 

listing of these collectors has been summarised by Burkill (1927) with some details of their 

background and their collection itineraries can be obtained from van Steenis-Kruseman (1950). 

H.N. Ridley’s arrival into Malaya is very significant to Malayan botany. Between 1888 and 

1900, he was appointed as Director of Gardens and Forests, Straits Settlements and in 1901- 

1912, Director of Gardens, Singapore. Ridley was a man of great ability and he contributed 

most significantly towards the botany of Peninsular Malaysia. In his career, he described over 

4,200 plant species. He amassed a huge collection amounting to about 50,000 numbers, of 

which the main set is in Kew with duplicates in Singapore and other herbaria (van Steenis- 

Kruseman 1950). No other collector has amassed such a size of collection for Malaya since. 

Subsequent directors and curators of the herbarium at Singapore Botanic Gardens continued 

to build upon the foundation set up by Ridley. Of particular importance were the contributions 

from I.H. Burkill, M.R Henderson, E.H.J. Corner, R.E. Holttum and C.X. Furtado. All of 

them had contributed in exploration, collections and publications, giving us a better 

understanding of the flora of Peninsular Malaysia. 

At the turn of the twentieth century, A.M. Burn-Murdoch set up a forest herbarium in Kuala 

Lumpur, with the aim of producing an account of the commercially important tree species of 

Malay Peninsula (Wong 1987). The specimens were collected as reference specimens and 

duplicates were submitted to H.N. Ridley for identification. The small herbarium was at the 

office of the Conservator of Forests, Strait Settlements and Federated Malay States. His 

successor, G.E.S. Cubitt continued with the collection although at a slower rate. In 1916, the 

212


Wray Herbarium of the Agriculture Department was transferred to the Forest Department in 

Kuala Lumpur (Cubitt 1919). In 1918, Cubitt secured the services of F.W. Foxworthy, as the 

first Forest Research Officer of the Federated Malay States and Straits Settlements. Under 

Foxworthy the herbarium grew quickly. By the end of 1920, the herbarium contained over 

6000 numbers (Wong 1987). With the decision to form a Forest Research Institute (FRI), an 

area of about 800 acres was acquired at Kepong in 1926 and the main office building was 

constructed in 1929 with the herbarium moving into the east wing of the building. C.F. 

Symington joined FRI in 1929 and began to assist the running of the herbarium. He contributed 

a large collection to the Kepong herbarium in particular the family Dipterocarpaceae on which 

he was preparing a foresters’ manual of the important timber family. By the time World War II 

broke out in Malaya with J.G. Watson having succeeded Foxworthy, the herbarium had about 

43,000 specimens. Unfortunately, during the war many of the specimens were badly damaged 

when looters plundered the herbarium. With the internment of the British officers, V.L. Bain, 

a Eurasian being exempted from detention was appointed the acting State Forest Officer of 

Selangor. He was able to reappoint several local staff members at Kepong. Aziz Budin went 

on to restore the damaged collection and attempted to replace some of the lost specimens 

either by duplicates or by new collections. 

After the war, J. Wyatt-Smith took charged of the herbarium and collection gained momentum. 

With the formation of the Federation of Malaya in 1957 and subsequently the Federation of 

Malaysia in 1963, the transition towards Malayanisation came into being. K.M. Kochummen 

who joined FRI as Assistant Botanist in 1953 subsequently took charge of the herbarium in 

1960. In 1964, F.S.P. Ng was recruited as Forest Botanist. By 1965, the collection at FRI 

numbered over 74,000 specimens (Wong 1987). In 1965, T.C. Whitmore was engaged under 

the Colombo Plan to lead the Tree Flora of Malaya project (Whitmore 1972). In the years 

following, Whitmore conducted large collecting expeditions into many parts of Peninsular 

Malaysia, many places not collected previously. The Tree Flora project completed its last 

volume with the publication of Volume 4 in 1989. By then the herbarium has accumulated 

about 130,000 specimens. In 1980, K.M. Wong joined Kochummen managing the FRI 

collection. L.G. Saw joined the institute in 1982 as Hill Forest Silviculturist, later in 1985 

joined the herbarium to understudy Kochummen as he was to retire. In 1985, the Forest Research 

Institute Malaysia (FRIM) was formed as a statutory body from FRI and in the years following; 

the mandate of FRIM was to expand beyond forestry related flora research it traditionally 

worked on and have now included the study of the total flora of Malaysia. In this much 

summarised survey of collections, we have not included many collectors which should be a 

subject of much wider review. Later botanists to join the much expanded role of FRIM included 

Farah Ghani (deceased), Idris Mohd. Said (have since left), L.S.L. Chua, R.C.K. Chung, Y.Y. 

Sam, E. Soepadmo and more recently Ruth Kiew. 

Bibliography of the Flora of Peninsular Malaysia 

In the following account, we have restricted the discussion to the main floristic publications 

that pertain to the flora of the Malay Peninsula. Other incidental accounts of local checklists 

and revisions of genera can be obtained from the bibliography found in the general chapter of 

Flora Malesiana Volume 5 (van Steenis 1955) and Turner (1997). The Flora of British India 

was the first major account covering all the families of Malay Peninsula. The scope of the 

volumes was to include plants within the British territories of India, together with those of 

Kashmir and Western Tibet, and Malaya (Hooker & Thomson, 1872-1897 in 7 volumes) as 

213


part of the British colony. Plants from Borneo however, were not included in the revisions. 

Although the Flora of India included treatment of the Flora of Malay Peninsula, it became 

apparent that it was not warranted from a phytogeography perspective and the manner of 

treatment produced from limited data available at the time had produced an unsatisfactory 

revision (de Wit 1949). As a result, G. King (1889), working from the Calcutta Herbarium, 

initiated the series Materials for a Flora of the Malayan Peninsula. The revisions, written by 

various authors, were originally published as separate papers in the Journal of the Asiatic 

Society of Bengal. King and Gamble subsequently compiled these instalments into 4 volumes. 

King died after completion of Volume 4 and the work of editorship was passed on to J.S. 

Gamble who continued the series to instalment 26 which were compiled into Vol. 5 with the 

last instalment published in 1936 (Ng & Jacobs 1983). These volumes however, covered only 

the dicotyledonous families and even so, the Urticales viz. Cannabinaceae, Moraceae, Ulmaceae, 

Urticaceae and most of the Euphorbiaceae never appeared in print (Ng & Jacobs 1983). H.N. 

Ridley (1907) published separately in Singapore in three parts of the Materials for a Flora of 

the Malayan Peninsula completing the monocotyledons. These publications were very important 

ground-breaking work and they become the basis for subsequent work on the Flora of the 

Malayan Peninsula. Using the Materials as foundation for the Flora of the Malay Peninsula, 

Ridley upon his retirement completed the Flora of Malay Peninsula and published them in 5 

volumes between 1922 and 1925 (Ridley 1922-1925) for the angiosperms and a separate final 

fern instalment in 1926 (Ridley 1926). 

Following Ridley’s publication of the Flora of Malay Peninsula, botanical work continued in 

more detail and from different perspectives. I.H. Burkill (1935), succeeding Ridley, 

subsequently produced two volumes of A Dictionary of the Economic Products of the Malay 

Peninsula. Other important publications from Singapore included E.H.J. Corner’s (1940) 

Wayside Trees of Malaya, M.R. Henderson’s (1959, 1974) Malayan Wild Flowers. By the 

1950s, a revised Flora of Malaya was initiated as knowledge of the Malayan flora improved 

with more explorations and collections. A number of publications followed, mainly by Holttum 

(Zingiberaceae (1950), Marantaceae (1951), bamboos (1958), orchids (1964) and ferns (1968)). 

The volume on grasses was published by Gilliland (1971). With the move of interest away 

from floristic work in the 1970s in Malaysia and Singapore, the revised Flora of Malaya was 

more or less discontinued. Piggott (1988) produced a popular photographic account for ferns. 

The orchid flora was again subjected to another revision in 1992 by Seidenfaden & Wood. 

Turner (1997) collated a checklist of Peninsular Malaysian flora based on literature. More 

recently, Clarke (2001) published the Nepenthes of Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia and 

Kiew (2005) revised the Begonias of Peninsular Malaysia in richly illustrated volumes. 

At the Forest Research Institute at Kepong, interest was towards tree species and identification 

manuals for foresters for the more important timber tree families and other minor forest products. 

Burn-Murdoch (1911, 1912) initiated the first publications of such foresters’ manual with the 

publication of the Trees and Timbers of the Malay Peninsula. The Malayan Forest Records 

series was started and Foxworthy published a number of volumes on commercial timbers and 

minor forest products (Foxworthy 1921, 1922, 1932). In 1934, C.F. Symington was appointed 

the first Forest Botanist and he envisaged producing a foresters’ tree manual comprising all 

the Malayan timber-producing families. However, it was obvious that much research was still 

required and that a great deal of instability still existed in the botanical nomenclature. He then 

concentrated on the most important timber family, the Dipterocarpaceae, which he completed 

in 1940 and was published as the Foresters’ Manual of Dipterocarps in 1943 in his absence 

(Symington 1943). 

214


After the War, John Wyatt-Smith served as Forest Botanist. Wyatt-Smith also saw the 

importance of Symington’s work and the need to document similar information on timber 

trees of other families. However, it became evident also that the botanical knowledge of the 

many non-Dipterocarps was inadequate for a similar treatment. In the interim, Wyatt-Smith 

(1952) produced a booklet listing out the more common timber species found in Malaya that 

is used by staff of the Forest Department as an identification tool for the common timber 

species (Pocket Check List of Timber Trees). K.M. Kochummen subsequently revised this 

“Pocket Check List” three times to include new information. The Pocket Check List has now 

become an important identification reference for students of the common Peninsular Malaysian 

timber species. Wyatt-Smith also produced a series of other more taxonomic publications on 

some of the important timber families (e.g., Burseraceae (Wyatt-Smith 1953a), Leguminosae 

(Wyatt-Smith 1953b), Myristicaceae (Wyatt-Smith 1953c), Sapotaceae (Wyatt-Smith 1954a), 

Lauraceae (Wyatt-Smith 1954b) and Sapindaceae (Wyatt-Smith 1954c), and the genus 

Calophyllum (Guttiferae) (Henderson & Wyatt-Smith 1956)). 

The Tree Flora of Malaya project under T.C. Whitmore as editor published two volumes 

(Whitmore 1972, 1973) followed by another two volumes with F.S.P. Ng (1978, 1989) as 

editor. The final four volumes covered over 2,800 species of trees found in Malaya. Interests 

in the non-timber but commercially important groups resulted in the production of J. 

Dransfield’s (1979) A manual of the rattans of the Malay Peninsula and K.M. Wong’s (1995b) 

The bamboos of Peninsular Malaysia. 

BOTANICAL HISTORY OF SABAH AND SARAWAK 

(AND BORNEO) 

Sabah and Sarawak lack the collection intensity of Malaya in the early years. However, in 

recent years both herbaria at the Forest Research Centres of Sandakan and Kuching have 

added much to their collections. Wong (1995a) has amply summarised the collection history 

and bibliography of Bornean flora in the introductory chapters of the Tree Flora of Sabah and 

Sarawak Volume 1. We shall not elaborate further here. Suffice to add since that review, the 

Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak has since published five volumes (Soepadmo & Wong 

1995, Soepadmo et al. 1996, Soepadmo & Saw 2000, Soepadmo et al. 2002, 2004). The 

Plants of Kinabalu project led by Beaman and his collaborators completed the project with the 

publication of five volumes of the series (Parris et al. 1992, Wood et al. 1993, Beaman & 

Beaman 1998, Beaman et al. 2001, Beaman & Anderson 2004). Modern identification manuals, 

amounting to floristic enumerations, of the rattans of Sabah and Sarawak (J. Dransfield 1984, 

1992), and the bamboos of Sabah (S. Dransfield 1992) have been published. More charismatic 

groups such as orchids and Nepenthes continue to attract interest with a checklist of the Orchids 

of Borneo (Wood & Cribb 1994), Slipper Orchids of Borneo (Cribb 1997) and the Orchids of 

Borneo (Beaman et al. 2001), and Nepenthes of Borneo (Clarke 1997) produced. A richly 

illustrated Etlingera (Zingiberaceae) of Borneo was also recently published (Poulsen 2006). 

THE FLORA OF MALAYSIA – WHAT DO WE KNOW? 

Currently there is no comprehensive checklist for the flora of Malaysia. A number of checklists 

exist as a result of the different botanical history of the two main regions of Malaysia. For 

215


Peninsular Malaysia, the work of Ridley (1922-1926) provided the first complete enumeration 

of the vascular plants of the Flora of Malay Peninsula; the angiosperms were published in the 

five volumes between 1922 and 1925. Subsequently, Ridley published a separate checklist of 

the ferns (Ridley 1926). Ridley’s enumeration by now has become outdated; Turner’s (1997) 

publication of “A Catalogue of the Vascular Plants of Malaya” serves as the most recent 

checklist based on existing literature survey. In this catalogue Turner enumerated 8,198 species 

(Table 1). Parris & Latiff (1997) published a further update on the ferns and fern allies with 

some additions and nomenclatural changes to the group (Table 2). In this checklist, ferns and 

fern allies of Sabah and Sarawak were included to provide the first complete checklist of the 

group for Malaysia. 

Table 1. Summary of the checklist of the flora of Peninsular Malaysia comparing Ridley’s 

(1922-1925, 1926) enumeration and Turner’s (1997) catalogue 

Enumeration Groups Families Genera Species 

Ridley (1922-1925, 1926) Ferns 16 86 417 

Gymnosperms 3 5 23 

Dicots 132 1,048 5,009 

Monocots 31 354 1,734 

Total 182 1,493 7,183 

Turner (1997) Ferns & fern allies 34 133 632 

Gymnosperms 4 8 27 

Dicots 165 1,092 5,529 

Monocots 45 418 2,010 

Total 248 1,651 8,198 

Table 2. Ferns and fern allies checklist enumerated in 1997 (Parris & Latiff 1997) 

Region 

Species Total 

Malay Peninsula 647 

Sabah 750 

Sarawak 615 

Total 1,165 

For Sabah and Sarawak, no checklist exists but two important compilations were made for 

Borneo (Merrill 1921, Masamune 1942, 1945). Masamune’s compilations provided a more 

critical checklist and in that enumeration, 8,164 species of Bornean vascular plants were listed 

(Table 3). Other and more current accounts for flora of Borneo were mostly foresters’ manuals 

and checklists often on selected groups in the region or states of Brunei, Kalimantan, Sabah 

and Sarawak (e.g. Anderson 1980, Argent et al. 1997, Ashton 1964, 1968, 1988, Browne 

1955, Burgess 1966, Cockburn 1976, 1980, Hasan & Ashton 1964, Keith 1947, Kessler & 

Sidiyasa 1994, Newman et al. 1996, Primack 1983, Smythies 1965, Whitmore et al. 1990a, 

1990b, 1990c, Wood & Agama 1956, Wood & Meijer 1964). The other checklists and revisions 

have been reviewed in the previous section. The launch of the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak 

216


Table 3. Summary of the flora of Borneo based on Masamune’s checklist 

Checklists Groups Families Genera Species 

Masamune (1945) Ferns & fern allies 118 963 

Masamune (1942) Gymnosperms 5 7 34 

Dicots 133 996 4,997 

Monocots 29 307 2,170 

Total 167 1,428 8,164 

in 1991 was very significant as it was for the first time, a modern floristic approach was used 

in a systematic fashion to enumerate the trees species (Soepadmo & Wong 1995). Apart from 

these enumerations, the other sources of information on the flora of Malaysia are from the 

Flora Malesiana Series I & II for seed plants and ferns and other scattered publications. 

Based upon the above discussion, the flora for Peninsular Malaysia now stands over 8,300 

species with recent updates from Turner (1997) (e.g., Turner 2000, Latiff & Turner 2001a, 

2001b, 2001c, 2001d, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, Kamarudin & Turner 2004). This is a relatively 

accurate estimate and provides a relatively good understanding of the actual flora for Peninsular 

Malaysia. For Sabah and Sarawak, however, it is more difficult to arrive at an accurate figure. 

Most estimates are for Borneo (e.g. Merrill (1921) estimated about 9,000 species, Masamune 

(1942, 1945) enumerated about 8,200 species and more recently Wong (1995a) estimated a 

flora of between Merrill’s 9,000 and 15,000 species). Kiew (1984) stressed the urgency for 

the Bornean flora where at the time of her review, no singular project has been initiated for 

Borneo. As mentioned earlier, the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak is the most important 

modern taxonomic project for Borneo. Since its inception in 1991, five volumes have been 

published and the estimation based on the revision from volumes 1 to 5 provides an indication 

of the diversity of the Bornean flora. Table 4 provides a comparison of the Tree Flora of Sabah 

and Sarawak with the Flora of Malaya comparing similar families and their enumeration. 

Table 4. Comparing revisions of similar families of the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak with 

the Tree Flora of Malaya (figures for Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak were extracted from 

volumes 1–5 included 2 single-species families not found in the Tree Flora of Malaya; figures 

for Tree Flora of Malaya volumes 1-4 with updates from Turner (1997)) 

TFSS Tree Flora of Sabah & Tree Flora of Malaya Species 

Volumes Sarawak common to 

Families Genera Species Families Genera Species both regions 

1 31 99 312 31 91 227 152 

2 23 75 247 21 63 186 116 

3 4 29 358 4 27 246 139 

4 6 21 292 6 21 202 106 

5 4 25 361 4 27 225 132 

Total 68 249 1,570 66 229 1,086 645 

217


On the average, the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak contained about 44.5% more species 

than the Tree Flora of Malaya. If this proportion is maintained for the rest of the tree flora, 

then with the Tree Flora of Malaya having 2,830 species (Ng et al. 1990), it is estimated that 

the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak will contain just over 4,000 species. Based upon this 

estimation also, with about 8,300 species of vascular plants in Peninsular Malaysia, it is 

estimated that the Flora of Sabah and Sarawak will contain about 12,000 species. In the table 

above, we have also included in the count, 645 species in the revisions that are common to 

both Sabah and Sarawak, and Peninsular Malaysia, i.e., 59.4% overlap. Based upon this overlap 

and using the estimated ratios we have worked out earlier, the total tree flora of Malaysia 

should be just over 5,200 species and estimated total flora of vascular plants of Malaysia will 

be just over 15,300 species. 

HERBARIA, COLLECTIONS AND SPECIMENS 

Specimens are essential in the documentation of the flora of Malaysia. Today, the collection at 

the herbarium of Forest Research Institute Malaysia (KEP) stands about 300,000 specimens. 

The other large herbarium holdings include the Forest Research Centre at Sandakan (SAN) 

with 253,725 specimens and the Forest Research Centre at Kuching (SAR) with about 250,000 

specimens (Table 5). Other important Malaysian collections are found at the herbaria at 

Universiti Malaya (KLU) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKMB). The herbarium at 

the Singapore Botanic Gardens (SING) is particularly very important for the Peninsular 

Malaysian flora. Many type specimens for plants described from Peninsular Malaysia are 

found there. It has about 650,000 specimens. Other important collections for the Malaysian 

flora include The Forest Herbarium (BKF), Bangkok, Thailand, National Herbarium of 

Netherlands, Leiden (L), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (K), Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh 

(E), UK, Arnold Arboretum (A), Harvard University, USA, and Central National Herbarium 

(CAL), Calcutta, India. For Sabah and Sarawak, the Herbarium Beccarianum (FI-B), Florence, 

Italy is particularly important for Beccari’s collection and the herbarium of Brunei Forest 

Department (BRUN). 

Table 5. Important herbarium holdings for Malaysia and Singapore 

Country Institutions Specimens 

Malaysia Forest Research Institute Malaysia 300,000 

Forest Research Centre, Sandakan, Sabah 253,725 

Forest Research Centre, Kuching, Sarawak 250,000 

Universiti Malaya 65,000 

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 72,000 

Singapore Singapore Botanic Gardens 650,000 

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE FOR A FLORA OF MALAYSIA 

Among the key resources to speeding up the documentation of a flora of Malaysia is the 

availability of recent revisions that may set the foundation for the flora writing. The vascular 

flora of Malaysia will include 250 families in Peninsular Malaysia and 253 families in Sabah 

218


and Sarawak. In working towards the flora of Malaysia, we have continued to separate the 

two regions for the purpose of further analysis, simply out of convenience from the historical 

perspective and also a general tendency in many revisions to maintain the two regions as 

separate. We have compiled a review of recently published revisions against these families 

that included the floras of Peninsular Malaysia (Malaya) and of Sabah and Sarawak (Borneo). 

The recent revisions include publications from the Flora Malesiana series, Tree Flora of Malaya, 

the revised Flora of Malaya, Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak, and other journal articles or 

series covering revisions of the whole family in the list. In the analysis, out of the 250 families 

occurring in Peninsular Malaysia, 207 families (83%) have recent revisions. This is a very 

good coverage. For Sabah and Sarawak or Borneo, the coverage is much lower, 164 families 

out of 253 occurring there or about 64%. In recent years, world checklists are being generated 

and these are being made available in the internet, for example, the checklists available from 

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (www.kew.org/wcb/), where the monocots are now available 

for downloading. Such checklists can certainly provide an initial update especially for Borneo 

where existing list by Masamune (1942, 1945) has long become obsolete. 

TOWARDS A FLORA OF MALAYSIA 

In the last decade and half, Malaysia has been very fortunate in terms of the resources available 

to document its floristic diversity. The Tree Flora of Malaya published its final volume in 

1989 (Ng 1989). In 1990, it became apparent that the botanical work of documenting the flora 

of Malaysia should continue and it was an obvious decision to continue the well tested formula 

of the Tree Flora of Malaya to be extended to Sabah and Sarawak. The first author was then 

delegated to prepare proposals for funding towards a Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak project. 

The project was launched in 1991 for first five years with funding from the Malaysian 

Government, the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) of the United Kingdom and 

the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO). It was originally estimated that the 

project will run for ten years to cover about 3,000 species (Soepadmo 1995) in eight volumes. 

Having completed five volumes of the tree flora, with the current estimate of about 4,000 

species of trees, we envisage that the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak will need at least 

another ten years to complete the remaining estimated 2,500 species at a revision rate of about 

250 species per year using present resources. 

In realising the Flora of Malaysia, a pragmatic approach is to review our existing commitment 

towards the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak project and how else can we extend into a full 

national flora project. The institutions currently engaged in the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak, 

i.e. the Forest Research Institute Malaysia, and the Forest Departments of Sabah and Sarawak 

would want to complete the Tree Flora project. The review of species distribution and literature 

provided above also provide an indication that the Flora of Malaysia can be completed in a 

phase approach. In this pragmatic approach, the Flora of Malaysia can be tackled as two 

regional projects, revisions for Peninsular Malaysia and for Sabah and Sarawak. And it is this 

approach that we have taken towards plans to realise the Flora of Malaysia. In April 2004, the 

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment was formed. With the creation of the ministry, 

it became of national priority that the government was committed to document the biodiversity 

of the country. The work of documenting the flora of Malaysia became very quickly a national 

need and no more an academic wish-list for botanists in Malaysia. For the immediate use, the 

country requires a checklist of its flora, as Peninsular Malaysia has already a checklist; the 

219


immediate need was for Sabah and Sarawak to have an updated list. Under the Ninth Malaysian 

Plan, a project was prepared just to meet this need. 

In 2005, plans were drawn for a Flora of Peninsular Malaysia project. It was thought that the 

time was ripe for the project. The Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak has already been running 

well for about 15 years and Peninsular Malaysia since the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak 

project started has been relatively neglected. Furthermore, as explained earlier, a phase approach 

to realise the Flora of Malaysia was a very viable option for Malaysia. Following the proposal, 

the Flora of Peninsular Malaysia received funding at the end of 2005 for the next five years. 

For Sabah and Sarawak, we reckon when the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak project is 

completed, attempts will be made to start the Flora of Sabah and Sarawak project. 

COLLABORATIONS, CONTRIBUTORS AND RATES OF REVISION 

Flora projects are always collaborative involving both local and foreign experts. The 

experiences from both the Tree Flora of Malaya and Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak projects 

have shown that contributions from experts are essential to their success. Experts often produce 

revisions at much faster pace. At the same time, local botanists must be trained to form expertise 

that can continue with the work within the country. Such strategy must be used for a Flora of 

Malaysia. Currently, Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak and the new Flora of Peninsular Malaysia 

are also using such strategy. Collaborations are at different levels, at institutional level, our 

traditional partners include local partners such as Forest Research Centre, Sandakan, Forest 

Research Centre, Kuching, Universiti Malaya, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti 

Malaysia Sarawak, Universiti Malaysia Sabah; regional herbaria include Singapore Botanic 

Gardens and the Royal Forest Herbarium, Bangkok; internationally the Royal Botanic Gardens 

Kew, Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh, Natural History Museum, London, National 

Herbarium of Netherlands, Leiden, and Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University, USA. The 

collaborating institutes are important to support herbarium specimen loans, sourcing of 

literature, provide base for specimen consultations and taxonomic expertise. From these 

institutions, the current projects have over 25 collaborators promising to contribute to the 

revisions of the families. 

To develop and build local expertise, two essential elements must be in place; opportunities to 

build careers in botanical sciences and availability of training regimes for those interested. 

The Flora of Peninsular Malaysia project when it was mooted included these elements. We are 

also very fortunate that in the last few years, the Forest Research Institute Malaysia has 

committed to increase the number of botanists to do floristic work. In the last two years, 

FRIM has recruited five new botanists and took in eight contract researchers for the two 

projects. Together with existing staff, FRIM now has 18 botanists working on both these 

projects. Training of these new and aspiring botanists have become a very important element 

of the projects together with getting the revisions done. We are confident if the current 

institutional and financial supports are maintained, both the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak 

and the Flora of Peninsular Malaysia projects will be successful and will produce not just the 

revisions that contributes towards a Flora of Malaysia but also ensure that Malaysia will 

maintain a pool of botanists trained in understanding the local flora. 

220


How many years will it take for the current flora projects to complete? It is very important that 

in planning towards a Flora of Malaysia, we have realistic estimation and projection of 

manpower and financial layout. The Tree Flora of Malaya took 24 years to complete. Kiew 

(1984) made some projections on the rate of revisions botanists takes in producing the different 

types of floras (identification and information floras) based from past flora projects. They 

ranged from 250 species per taxonomist per year to 20-30 per year. Based upon our experience 

with the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak, we have estimated the rate of revision using a fulltime 

experienced botanist as an example. We have taken the example of the late Mr. K.M. 

Kochummen who worked with the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak project. During his tenure 

with the project, Kochummen revised five families covering 375 species (Table 6) from 1992 

to March 1999. This gave a rate of about 54 species per year for the seven years he was with 

the project. 

Table 6. Families revised by K.M. Kochummen (1992–March 1999) during his tenure with 

the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak project 

Families Genera Species 

Anacardiaceae 17 92 

Burseraceae 8 59 

Celestraceae 10 44 

Moraceae 5 173 

Ochnaceae 5 7 

Total 45 375 

For the Flora of Peninsular Malaysia, Table 7 provides the different rates of revision against 

the number of full-time staff working on the flora revisions. The matrix estimates the number 

of years needed to complete the Flora of Peninsular Malaysia with the estimated flora of 8,300 

species. Using the example of Kochummen, we estimated that for a budding botanist, it would 

be very difficult to maintain a revision of over 50 species per year. A more realistic figure of 

about 40 species may be feasible for a relatively grounded botanist. If our current manpower 

strength is maintained with about 10 full-time botanists working for the project, we envisage 

that it will take just over twenty years to complete the Flora of Peninsular Malaysia. This 

estimate ignores the contributions from other collaborators. 

Table 7. Rate of revision based on about 8,300 species of vascular for the Flora of Peninsular 

Malaysia 

Number of Full-time Staff 

5 10 15 20 

Revision 20 83 42 28 21 

Rates/ 30 55 28 18 14 

Staff/ 40 42 21 14 10 

Year 50 33 17 11 8.3 

60 28 14 9.2 6.9 

221


For the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak we have also worked out the rates using similar 

formulation (Table 8). The project with 5 full-time staff will take over twelve years to complete. 

Table 8. Revision rates based on about 2,500 species of tree species for the Tree Flora of 

Sabah and Sarawak 

Number of Full-time Staff 

5 10 15 20 

Revision 20 25 12.5 8.3 6.3 

Rates/ 30 16.7 8.3 5.6 4.2 

Staff/ 40 12.5 6.3 4.2 3.1 

Year 50 10 5 3.3 2.5 

60 8.3 4.2 2.8 2.1 

FINANCES AND INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT 

One of the constant challenges in any flora project is to ensure long-term commitment and 

sustainability in funding for the continuity of project. Projects are financed in fixed timeframe, 

e.g., it is fortunate that we have funding for 5 years for the Flora of Peninsular Malaysia. 

Following which it is often difficult to obtain extension. The Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak 

project went through a number of funding changes over the last 15 years — ODA, ITTO, 

Government of Malaysia until 2006 (Intensification of Research and Development Priority 

Areas (IRPA) funding), the IRPA funding ceased in 2006 and from then on, the project is 

dependent on research development fund from the Ninth Malaysian Plan for the next five 

years. In future, we are not certain how we can continue but it is up to the project to develop 

different ways to maintain the funding continuity. It is therefore important that such a project 

must have strong institutional commitment, failing which it would be almost impossible to 

secure continuity in finances and manpower commitment. Similarly, we expect the Flora of 

Peninsular Malaysia to go through different funding challenges as the project develops. We 

are fortunate that for the first five years we have quite generous funding coming from IRPA. 

It is essential funding bodies would want to see good products from the project. There is a 

need to be creative in selling the products from the project outside the standard flora volumes 

which projects like this deliver. More innovative methods must be used to make the results of 

the projects become pertinent or relevant to both national and scientific needs. 

The Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak now has produced five volumes, FRIM is currently 

making information from the project available in the internet thus disseminating the results of 

the project to the wider public. The Flora of Peninsular Malaysia is being implemented together 

with a conservation project of threatened plants of Peninsular Malaysia, thus extending the 

taxon information with distribution to be used in conservation. 

222


CONCLUSION 

Based upon the discussion above, the phase approach towards a Flora of Malaysia and the 

following points are reiterated. 

• The inventory for a Flora of Malaysia can be done with resources in Malaysia and 

collaboration with our traditional partners; 

• Based on current Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak and the Flora of Peninsular Malaysia 

projects, the Flora of Malaysia to continue with the geographical division of Peninsular 

Malaysia and Sabah & Sarawak; 

• The project to be phased into the immediate short-term needs (checklists) and revisions 

of the two geographical floras; and 

• Project must be seen as long-term and requires long-term institutional and financial 

commitments. 

REFERENCES 

ANDERSON, J.A.R. 1980. A Checklist of the Trees of Sarawak. Forest Department, Sarawak. 

364 pp. 

ARGENT, G., CAMPBELL, E.J.F. & WILKIE, P. (eds.). 1997. Manual of the Larger and 

More Important Non-Dipterocarp Trees of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Volumes 1 & 

2. Forest Research Institute, Samarinda, Indonesia. 685 pp. 

ASHTON, P.S. 1964. Manual of Dipterocarp Trees of Brunei State. Oxford University Press, 

London. 242 pp. 

ASHTON, P.S. 1968. A Manual of the Dipterocarp Trees of Brunei State and of Sarawak. 

Borneo Literature Bureau for Sarawak Forest Department, Kuching. 129 pp. 

ASHTON, P.S. 1988. Manual of the Non-Dipterocarp Trees of Sarawak. Volume 2. Dewan 

Bahasa dan Pustaka for Forest Department Sarawak, Kuching. 490 pp. 

BEAMAN, J.H. & ANDERSON, C. 2004. The Plants of Mount Kinabalu 5. Dicotyledon 

Families Magnoliaceae to Winteraceae. Natural History Publications (Borneo) in 

association with Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 609 pp. 

BEAMAN, J.H. & BEAMAN, R.S. 1998. The Plants of Mount Kinabalu 3. Gymnosperm and 

Non-Orchid Monocotyledons. Natural History Publications (Borneo) in association with 

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 220 pp. 

BEAMAN, J.H., ANDERSON, C. & BEAMAN, R.S. 2001. The Plants of Mount Kinabalu 4. 

Dicotyledon Families Acanthaceae to Lythraceae. Natural History Publications (Borneo) 

in association with Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 570 pp. 

BEAMAN, T.E., WOOD, J.J., BEAMAN, R.S. & BEAMAN, J.H. 2001. Orchids of Borneo. 

Natural History Publications (Borneo) in association with Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 

584 pp. 

BROWNE, F.G. 1955. Forest trees of Sarawak and Brunei. Government Press, Sarawak. 369 

pp. 

BURN-MURDOCH, A.M. 1911. Trees and timbers of the Malay Peninsula, Part 1. F.M.S. 

Government Press. Kuala Lumpur. 

BURN-MURDOCH, A.M. 1912. Trees and timbers of the Malay Peninsula, Part 2. F.M.S. 

Government Press. Kuala Lumpur. 

223


BURGESS, P.F. 1966. Timbers of Sabah. Sabah Forest Records No. 6. Forest Department, 


BURKILL, I.H. 1927. Botanical collectors, collections and collecting places in the Malay 

Peninsula. The Gardens’ Bulletin, Straits Settlements 4 (4 & 5): 113–202. 

BURKILL, I.H. 1935. A dictionary of the economic products of the Malay Peninsula. Vols. 1 

& 2. Governments of the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States. 

CLARKE, C.C. 1997. Nepenthes of Borneo. Natural History Publications, Kota Kinabalu and 

Science and Technology Unit, Sabah. 209 pp. 

CLARKE, C.C. 2001. Nepenthes of Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia. Natural History 

Publications (Borneo). 329 pp. 

COCKBURN, P.F. 1976. Trees of Sabah. Volume 1. Sabah Forest Records No. 10. Forest 

Department Sabah. 261 pp. 

COCKBURN, P.F. 1980. Trees of Sabah. Volume 2. Sabah Forest Records No. 10. Forest 

Department Sabah. 124 pp. 

CORNER, E.J.H. 1940. Wayside Trees of Malaya. 2 Volumes United Selangor Press, Kuala 

Lumpur. 

CUBITT, G.E.S. 1919. Report on forest administration for the year 1918. Federated Malay 

States. F.M.S. Government Press. Kuala Lumpur. 

CRIBB, P.J. 1997. Slipper orchids of Borneo. Natural History Publications, Kota Kinabalu. 

DE WIT, H.C.D. 1949. History of Malaysian phytography. Flora Malesiana I(4): LXXI-CLXI. 

DRANSFIELD, J. 1979. A manual of the rattans of the Malay Peninsula. Malayan Forest 

Records 29. Forest Department, West Malaysia. 270 pp. 

DRANSFIELD, J. 1984. The rattans of Sabah. Sabah Forest Records 13. Forest Department 

Sabah. 87 pp. 

DRANSFIELD, J. 1992. The rattans of Sarawak. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew & Sarawak 

Forest Department. 233 pp. 

DRANSFIELD, S. 1992. The bamboos of Sabah. Sabah Forest Records No. 14. Royal Botanic 

Gardens, Kew & Forestry Department Sabah. 94 pp. 

FOXWORTHY, F.W. 1921. The commercial woods of the Malay Peninsula. Malayan Forest 

Records 1. Forest Department, Federated Malay States Government. 

FOXWORTHY, F.W. 1922. Minor forest products of the Malay Peninsula. Malayan Forest 

Records 2. Forest Department, Federated Malay States Government. 

FOXWORTHY, F.W. 1932. Dipterocarpaceae of the Malay Peninsula. Malayan Forest Records 

10. Federated Malay States Government. 

GILLILAND, H.B. 1971. A revised flora of Malaya. Volume 3. Grasses of Malaya. Botanic 

Gardens, Singapore. 319 pp. 

HASAN, P. & ASHTON. P.S. 1964. A checklist of Brunei trees. 132 pp. 

HENDERSON, M.R. 1959. Malayan Wild Flowers, Dicotyledons. Caxton Press Ltd., Kuala 

Lumpur. 

HENDERSON, M.R. 1974. Malayan Wild Flowers, Monocotyledons. Art Printing Works, 

Kuala Lumpur. 

HENDERSON, M.R. & WYATT-SMITH, J. 1956. Calophyllum Linn. The Gardens’ Bulletin 

Singapore 15: 375. 

HOLTTUM, R.E. 1950. The Zingiberaceae of the Malay Peninsula. The Gardens’ Bulletin 

Singapore 13: 1–250. 

HOLTTUM, R.E. 1951. The Marantaceae of Malaya. The Gardens’ Bulletin, Singapore 13: 

254–296. 

224


HOLTTUM, R.E. 1958. The bamboos of the Malay Peninsula. The Gardens’ Bulletin Singapore 

16: 1–135. 

HOLTTUM, R.E. 1964. A revised flora of Malaya. Volume 1. Orchids of Malaya. Botanic 

Gardens, Singapore. 759 pp. 

HOLTTUM, R.E. 1968. A revised flora of Malaya. Volume 2. Ferns of Malaya. Botanic Gardens, 

Singapore. 653 p. 

HOOKER & THOMSON. 1872–1897. Flora of India. Volumes 1–7. 

KAMARUDIN, M.S. & TURNER, I.M. 2004. Quarterly notes: New taxa and records of 

Malaysian vascular plants. Folia malaysiana 5(1): 65–68. 

KESSLER, P.J.A. & SIDIYASA, K. 1994. Trees of the Balikpapan-Samarinda area, East 

Kalimantan, Indonesia. Tropenbos Series 7. The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, 

The Netherlands. 446 pp. 

KIETH, H.G. 1947. The timbers of North Borneo. North Borneo Forest Records No. 3. 

Government of the Colony of North Borneo. 154 pp. 

KIEW, R. 1984. Towards a flora of Borneo. Pp. 73–80 in Ismail Sahid et al. (eds.), Research 

Priorities in Malaysian Biology. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. 

KIEW, R. 2005. Begonias of Peninsular Malaysia. Natural History Publications (Borneo), 

Kota Kinabalu. 308 pp. 

KING, G. 1889. Materials for a Flora of the Malayan Peninsula. Journal of the Asiatic Society 

of Bengal 58: 359–408. 

LATIFF, A. & TURNER, I.M. 2001a. Quarterly notes: New taxa and records of Malaysian 

vascular plants. Folia malaysiana 2(1): 54–56. 

LATIFF, A. & TURNER, I.M. 2001b. Quarterly notes: New taxa and records of Malaysian 


LATIFF, A. & TURNER, I.M. 2001c. Quarterly notes: New taxa and records of Malaysian 


LATIFF, A. & TURNER, I.M. 2001d. Quarterly notes: New taxa and records of Malaysian 

vascular plants. Folia malaysiana 2(4): 283–284 

LATIFF, A. & TURNER, I.M. 2002a. Quarterly notes: New taxa and records of Malaysian 


LATIFF, A. & TURNER, I.M. 2002b. Quarterly notes: New taxa and records of Malaysian 

vascular plants. Folia malaysiana 4(2): 129–132 

LATIFF, A. & TURNER, I.M. 2003. Quarterly notes: New taxa and records of Malaysian 

vascular plants. Folia malaysiana 4(3 & 4): 227–230. 

MASAMUNE, G. 1942. Enumeratio Phanerogamarum Bornearum. Taihoku. 739 pp. 

MASAMUNE, G. 1945. Enumeratio Pteridophytarum Bornearum. 124 pp. 

MERRILL, E.D. 1921. A bibliographic enumeration of Bornean plants. Journal of Straits 

Branch Royal Asiatic Society, Special Number. 637 pp. 

NEWMAN, M.F., BURGESS, P.F. & WHITMORE, T.C. 1996. Manuals of Dipterocarps for 

Foresters: Borneo Island Light Hardwoods. Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh & CIFOR. 

275 pp. 

NG, F.S.P. & JACOBS, M. 1983. A guide to King’s “Materials for a flora of the Malayan 

Peninsula”. The Gardens’ Bulletin Singapore 36: 177–185. 

NG, F.S.P. (ed.) 1978. Tree Flora of Malaya. Volume 3. Malayan Forest Records 26. Forest 

Department, West Malaysia. 339 pp. 

NG, F.S.P. (ed.) 1989. Tree Flora of Malaya. Volume 4. Malayan Forest Records 26. Forest 

Department, West Malaysia. 549 pp. 

225


NG, F.S.P., LOW, C.M. & MAT ASRI, N.S. 1990. Endemic trees of the Malay Peninsula. 

Research Pamphlet 106. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 118 pp. 

PARRIS, B.S. & LATIFF, A. 1997. Towards a Pteridophyte flora of Malaysia: A provisional 

checklist of taxa. Malayan Nature Journal 50: 235–280. 

PARRIS, B.S., BEAMAN, R.S. & BEAMAN, J.H. 1992. The Plants of Mount Kinabalu 2. 

Ferns. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 165 pp. 

PIGGOTT, A.G. 1988. Ferns of Malaya in colour. Tropical Press Sdn. Bhd. Kuala Lumpur, 

Malaysia. 458 pp. 

POULSEN, A.D. 2006. Etlingera of Borneo. Natural History Publications (Borneo) in 

association with Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. 263 pp. 

PRIMACK, R.B. 1983. Forester’s guide to the Moraceae of Sarawak. Forest Department 

Sarawak, Kuching. 140 pp. 

RIDLEY, H.N. 1907. Materials for a Flora of the Malayan Peninsula. 3 Parts. Methodist 

Publishing House. Part 1, 233 pp.; Part 2, 235 pp.; Part 3, 197 pp. 

RIDLEY, H.N. 1922–1925. The flora of the Malay Peninsula. Volume 1-5. L. Reeve & Co., 

Ltd. London. 

RIDLEY, H.N. 1926. The ferns of the Malay Peninsula. Journal of the Malayan Branch, 

Royal Asiatic Society 4: 1–121. 

SEIDENFADEN, G. & WOOD, J.J. 1992. The orchids of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. 

Olsen & Olsen, Fredensborg. 779 pp. 

SMYTHIES, B.E. 1965. Common Sarawak trees. Borneo Literature Bureau, Sarawak. 153 p. 

SOEPADMO, E. 1995. Background to the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak Project. Pp. 

XIII–XIX in Soepadmo, E. & Wong, K.M. (eds.) Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak. 

Volume One. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Sabah Forestry 

Department, Sandakan & Sarawak Forestry Department, Kuching. 

SOEPADMO, E. 1999. Botanical study of Malaysian medicinal plants–an appraisal. In A. 

Manaf Ali et al. (eds.) Phytochemical and biopharmaceutins from the Malaysian rain 

forest. FRIM & PSSM, Kuala Lumpur. 

SOEPADMO, E., SAW, L.G. & CHUNG, R.C.K. (eds.) 2002. Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak, 

Vol. 4. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Sabah Forestry Department, 

Sandakan & Sarawak Forestry Department, Kuching. 388 pp. 

SOEPADMO, E., SAW, L.G. & CHUNG, R.C.K. (eds.) 2004. Tree Flora of Sabah and 

Sarawak, Vol. 5. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Sabah Forestry 

Department, Sandakan & Sarawak Forestry Department, Kuching. 528 pp. 

SOEPADMO, E. & WONG, K.M. (eds.) 1995. Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak. Vol. 1. 

Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Sabah Forestry Department, Sandakan 

& Sarawak Forestry Department, Kuching. 513 pp. 

SOEPADMO, E. & SAW, L.G. (eds.) 2000. Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak. Vol. 3. Forest 

Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Sabah Forestry Department, Sandakan & 

Sarawak Forestry Department, Kuching. 511 pp. 

SOEPADMO, E., WONG, K.M. & SAW, L.G. (eds.) 1996. Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak. 

Vol. 2. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Sabah Forestry Department, 


SYMINGTON, C.F. 1943. Foresters’ manual of Dipterocarps. Malayan Forest Records No. 

16. Syonan-Hakubutukan, Kuala Lumpur, Malaya. 244 pp. 

TURNER, I.M. 1997 (‘1995’). A catalogue of the vascular plants of Malaya. The Gardens’ 

Bulletin Singapore 47: 1–757. 

TURNER, I.M. 2000. The taxonomy of Malaysian vascular plants: New taxa (1996–2000) 

and endemic genera. Folia malaysiana 2: 41–82. 

226


VAN STEENIS, G.G.G.J. 1955. Annotated selected bibliography. Flora Malesiana Series I. 

Volume 5. P. Noordhoff Ltd. 

VAN STEENIS-KRUSEMAN, M.J. 1950. Cyclopaedia of collectors. Flora Malesiana Series 

I. Volume 1. P. Noordhoff Ltd. 

WHITMORE, T.C. (ed.) 1972. Tree Flora of Malaya. Volume 1. Malayan Forest Records 26. 

Forest Department, West Malaysia. 471 pp. 

WHITMORE, T.C. (ed.) 1973. Tree Flora of Malaya. Volume 2. Malayan Forest Records 26. 

Forest Department, West Malaysia. 444 pp. 

WHITMORE, T.C., TANTRA, I.G.M. & SUTISNA, U. 1990a. Tree Flora of Indonesia. Check 

list of Kalimantan. Part I. Forest Research and Development Centre. Bogor. Pp. 1–181. 

WHITMORE, T.C., I.G.M. & SUTISNA, U. 1990b. Tree Flora of Indonesia. Check list of 

Kalimantan. Part II. 1. Forest Research and Development Centre. Bogor. Pp. 181–429. 

WHITMORE, T.C., I.G.M. & SUTISNA, U. 1990c. Tree Flora of Indonesia. Check list of 

Kalimantan. Part II. 2. Forest Research and Development Centre. Bogor. Pp. 431–620. 

WONG, K.M. 1987. The herbarium and arboretum of the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia 

at Kepong–a historical perspective. The Gardens’ Bulletin Singapore 40: 15–30. 

WONG, K.M. 1995a. A brief history of botanical collecting and documentation in Borneo. 

Pp. XXI-XLI in Soepadmo, E. & Wong, K.M. (eds.). Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak. 

Volume 1. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Sabah Forestry Department, 


WONG, K.M. 1995b. The Bamboos of Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Forest Records No. 41. 

Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong. 

WONG, K.M. 1998. Patterns of plant endemism and rarity in Borneo and the Malay Peninsula. 

In Peng, C.-I. & Lowry II, P.P. (eds.). Rare, threatened, and endangered floras of Asia and 

the Pacific Rim. Academia Sinica Monograph Series No. 16: 139–169. 

WOOD, G.H.S. & AGAMA, J. 1956. Check list of forest flora of North Borneo. North Borneo 

Forest Records No. 6. 

WOOD, G.H.S. & MEIJER, W. 1964. Dipterocarps of Sabah (North Borneo). Sabah Forest 

Records No. 5. 

WOOD, J.J., BEAMAN, R.S. & BEAMAN, J.H. 1993. The Plants of Mount Kinabalu 2. 

Orchids. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 411 pp. 

WOOD, J.J. & CRIBB, P.J. 1994. A checklist of orchids of Borneo. Royal Botanic Gardens, 

Kew. 

WYATT-SMITH, J. 1952. Pocket check list of timber trees. Malayan Forest Records No. 17. 

Forest Department, Kuala Lumpur. 

WYATT-SMITH, J. 1953a. Manual of Malayan timber trees. Burseraceae. F.R.I. Research 

Pamphlet No. 1. Forest Research Institute, Kepong. 

WYATT-SMITH, J. 1953b. Manual of Malayan timber trees. Leguminosae. F.R.I. Research 


WYATT-SMITH, J. 1953c. Manual of Malayan timber trees. Myristicaceae. F.R.I. Research 


WYATT-SMITH, J. 1954a. Manual of Malayan timber trees. Sapotaceae. F.R.I. Research 


WYATT-SMITH, J. 1954b. Manual of Malayan timber trees. Lauraceae. F.R.I. Research 


WYATT-SMITH, J. 1954c. Manual of Malayan timber trees. Sapindaceae. F.R.I. Research 


227

NAZIR KHAN NIZAM KHAN & MOHD YUNUS ZAKARIA (2007) 



FOREST RESOURCES TREND AND 

SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT IN 

PENINSULAR MALAYSIA 

1 

Nazir Khan Nizam Khan & 2 Mohd Yunus Zakaria 

ABSTRACT 

Malaysia is well endowed with some of the world’s richest forests, a richness not only in 

terms of numbers and uniqueness of species but also diversity of habitats and ecosystems. The 

total forested area in Peninsular Malaysia is about 44.7% (5.88 million hectares) of its land 

area. Of this total, some 35.7% (4.70 million hectares) are within Permanent Reserved Forests 

(PRFs). PRFs are legally gazetted Forest Reserves, managed sustainably for economic, social 

and environmental values. During the implementation of the New Economic Policy in 1970, 

the need to eradicate poverty and distribute wealth among the various communities saw the 

massive development of large-scale agriculture, particularly in the rural areas. This has resulted 

in the conversion of forest areas to plantation crops such as oil palm and rubber. Although 

large forest areas were cleared for this purpose, at the same time, there was a significant 

increase in the gazettement of PRFs. In 1970, the total forested areas was approximately 8.0 

million ha and this dropped to 5.87 million ha in 2003 or a decrease of 27%. During the same 

period, the area gazetted as PRFs was 3.3 million ha in 1970 and it was increased to 4.7 

million ha or an increase of 42% in 2003. 

In an attempt to conserve the species and genetic resources in various forest and ecological 

types, the Forestry Department has also set aside pockets of virgin forests known as Virgin 

Jungle Reserve (VJR) and has taken actions to classify relevant areas of the PRFs into eleven 

different functional classes. Efforts are also being taken by the Department to ensure in situ 

conservation of biodiversity during forest harvesting in the PRFs. The Forestry Department is 

committed to forest conservation and protection of the environment, where PRF areas open 

for harvesting are subjected to forest management certification processes and the acreage of 

the PFR areas opened for harvesting are regulated and controlled. From another perspective, 

the Forestry Department had, to date, organised eight scientific biodiversity expeditions. 

INTRODUCTION 

The tropical rainforest has long been valued as a source for food, fuel, medicine and materials, 

for shelter and livelihood. It will continue to play an important role in the country’s socioeconomic 

development and environmental conservation. 

Forest Department Peninsular Malaysia, Jalan Sultan Salahuddin, 50660 Kuala Lumpur; 1 nazir@forestry.gov.my; 

2 

yunus@forestry.gov.my 

229

FOREST RESOURCES TREND AND SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA 

The economic contributions of the forest are well recognized particularly to the wood and 

non-wood based industry and trade. This is reflected by the fact that the country has emerged 

as one of the main supplier of the world’s tropical hardwood products. In 2003, the forestry 

sector contributed RM 16.3 billion, which is 4.3 percent of the total export earnings, of which 

Peninsular Malaysia contributed RM 8.13 billion. The forestry sector also provided employment 

opportunities for over 330,000 people in Malaysia. In Peninsular Malaysia, the sector provided 

direct employment to 87,000 people. Forest revenue collected by various states in Peninsular 

Malaysia amounted to RM 335 million in 2003. 

Although not easily translated into financial values, the roles of forests in watershed protection, 

conservation of soil and water resources, conservation of flora and fauna, conservation of 

genetic resources and support for agricultural and environmental conservation have long been 

recognized by forest managers. To meet the environmental as well as socio-economic needs, 

Permanent Reserved Forest (PRF) areas, wildlife reserves and water catchment areas were 

established. 

This paper highlights the trends and current status of forest resources. It also elaborates on the 

forest management practices and biodiversity conservation in Peninsular Malaysia and the 

various initiatives and actions undertaken to achieve sustainable forest management. Forest 

coverage and timber production are briefly discussed here. 

SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT 

The World Conservation Strategy, which was initiated by the United Nations Environmental 

Program (UNEP), defines conservation as follows (IUCN 1980): 

All human lives depend on the natural environment for survival and long-term well-being. 

Hence for any economic development to be sustainable, it must first be ecologically sustainable, 

and must satisfy three conditions: 

• Ecological integrity of the ecosystem must be maintained; 

• Renewable resources must be used sustainably; and 

• Biological diversity must be maintained. 

Article 2 of the Convention of Biological Diversity defines ‘sustainable use’ as the use of 

components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term 

decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations 

of present and future generation (Anonymous 2005). 

The sustainable forest management concept in Malaysia is in line with the conservation and 

sustainable use definitions outlined by the World Conservation Strategy and Convention of 

Biological Diversity respectively. The definition adopted by Malaysia and the International 

Tropical Timber Council is “Sustainable forest management is the process of managing 

permanent forest land, to achieve one or more clearly specified objectives of management 

with regard to continuous flow of desired forest products and services, without undue reduction 

in its inherent values and future productivity and without undesirable effects in the physical 

and social environment” (Mohd Yunus et al. 2003). 

230


Malaysia is committed to manage its natural forest in a sustainable manner; to ensure continuous 

timber production, maintain multiple functions of the forests, conserve biodiversity and control 

environmental impact (Mohd Yunus 1993, Anonymous 1996). The following are the objectives 

of the National Forest Policy 1978 (revised 1992) (Anonymous 1995): 

• To conserve and manage the nation’s forest, based on the principles of sustainable 

management 

• To protect the environment and to conserve the forest biological diversity, genetic resources, 

and to enhance research and education 

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, POLICY AND LEGISLATIONS 

Under Article 74(2) of the Malaysian Constitution, forestry comes under the jurisdiction of 

the respective State Governments. As such, each state is empowered to enact laws on forestry 

and to formulate forest policy independently. The executive authority of the Federal Government 

only extends to the provision of the maintenance of the experimental and demonstration stations, 

training and in the conduct of research. 

In order to facilitate the adoption of a coordinated and common approach to forestry, the 

National Land Council (NLC) established the National Forestry Council (NFC) in December 

20, 1971. The NLC is empowered under the Malaysian Constitution to formulate a national 

policy for the promotion and control of the utilization of land for mining, agriculture and 

forestry. The NFC serves as a forum for the Federal and the State Governments to discuss and 

resolve common issues relating to forestry policy, administration and management. The 

responsibility for implementing the decisions of the NFC lies with State Governments unless 

it is within the authority of the Federal Government. 

In 1977, the National Forestry Policy was accepted by the National Forestry Council and later 

endorsed by the National Land Council on April 19, 1978. This policy was revised in November 

1992 to take cognizance of the current concern expressed by the world community on the 

importance of biological diversity conservation and the sustainable utilization of the genetic 

resources, as well as the role of local communities in forest development. 

STATUS OF PENINSULAR MALAYSIA’S FOREST RESOURCES 

Forested Areas 

During the implementation of the New Economic Policy in 1970, particularly with two prime 

objectives, i.e. eradication of poverty and distribution of wealth among the races, one of the 

strategies was the development of large-scale agricultural development, particularly in rural 

areas. The development of forest areas into palm oil and rubber plantations in tandem causes 

reduction of forested areas in Peninsular Malaysia. However, there was a significant increase 

in the gazettement of permanent reserved forest (PRF). In 1970, the total forested areas was 

approximately 8.0 million ha and this has dropped to 5.87 million ha in 2003, a decrease of 27 

%. During the same period, the area gazetted as PRF was 3.3 million hectares and this was 

increased to 4.7 million ha or an increase of 42 % in 2003. Table 1 illustrates the trend. 

231


In 2003, natural forest cover in Peninsular Malaysia was 5.88 million ha or 44.7 % of the total 

land area of Peninsular (Abdul Rashid, 2005). The bulk of these forested areas comprised the 

Dry Inland Forest (5.4 million ha), followed by Peat Swamp Forest (0.30 million ha), Mangrove 

Forest (0.10 million ha) and Planted Forest (0.08 million ha). 

Permanent Reserved Forest and Protected Areas in Peninsular Malaysia 

Out of the 5.88 million ha, 4.70 million ha or 35.7% of the total land area had been designated 

as the Permanent Reserved Forest (PRF) to be managed sustainably for the benefit of the 

present and future generations (Abdul Rashid, 2005). 

Of the total PRF, approximately 3.18 million ha (24.2% of the total land area) are classified as 

production forest with the remaining 1.52 million ha (11.6 % of the total land area) being 

classified as protection forest (Abdul Rashid, 2005). Based on the National Forestry Policy, 

the role of the production forest is to ensure the supply in perpetuity, at reasonable levels, of 

all forms of forest produce that can be economically produced within the country. On the 

other hand, the role of the protection forest is to ensure favourable climatic and physical 

conditions of the country, the safeguarding of water resources, soil fertility, environmental 

quality, conservation of biological diversity and the minimization of damage by floods and 

erosion to rivers and agricultural lands. 

Apart from the protection forests within the PRF, other protected areas, which had been gazetted 

as national parks, wildlife and bird sanctuaries amounted to 0.89 million ha (6.8% of the total 

land area) (Abdul Rashid, 2005). Of this total, 0.58 million ha are designated as National and 

State Parks, while 0.31 million ha are wildlife and bird sanctuaries. A total of 0.12 million ha 

(0.9% of the total land area) of the wildlife and bird sanctuary areas are located within the PRF. 

Table 1. Forested Area and Permanent Reserved Forests (PRF) in Peninsular Malaysia (1970 to 2003) 

Year PRF (ha) Forested Year PRF (ha) Forested 

Area (ha) 

Area (ha) 

1970 3,337,708 8,009,000 1987 4,288,408 6,348,000 

1971 3,307,770 7,875,000 1988 4,928,646 6,288,000 

1972 3,434,326 7,583,000 1989 4,866,201 6,320,000 

1973 3,412,113 7,450,000 1990 4,866,470 6,270,000 

1974 3,412,113 7,319,000 1991 4,748,057 6,111,000 

1975 3,448,007 7,290,000 1992 4,675,021 6,042,000 

1976 3,448,007 7,199,000 1993 4,698,459 6,024,008 

1977 3,164,439 6,968,000 1994 4,687,463 6,003,000 

1978 2,948,351 6,839,000 1995 4,684,904 5,991,000 

1979 2,932,943 6,588,000 1996 4,684,094 5,820,547 

1980 3,124,045 6,505,000 1997 4,731,927 5,852,869 

1981 3,083,103 6,438,000 1998 4,730,216 5,838,860 

1982 3,064,837 6,378,000 1999 4,853,646 5,938,068 

1983 3,064,837 6,373,000 2000 4,837,500 5,979,649 

1984 2,999,655 6,353,000 2001 4,840,431 5,924,407 

1985 3,274,008 6,353,000 2002 4,701,858 5,892,901 

1986 4,617,010 6,455,000 2003 4,696,211 5,879,723 

232


Forest Plantations 

To relieve the pressures on natural forests as well as to supplement future wood supply of the 

country, forest plantations, which are capable of yielding a high volume of timber per unit 

area within a shorter rotation, are being established. The species planted include tropical pines 

such as Pinus caribaea, P. merkusii and Araucaria species, as well as fast-growing hardwood 

species, such as Acacia mangium, Gmelina arborea, and Paraserianthes falcataria. Other 

species planted include Tectona grandis, Shorea macrophylla and Durio zibethinus. By the 

end of 2003, 0.08 million ha of plantation areas were established in Peninsular Malaysia. 

In view of the growing importance of forest plantation and to encourage greater private sector 

investment, a National Committee on Forest Plantation Development with full participation 

from the private sector had been formed. The Committee’s main role is to formulate a national 

strategy and action plan for the promotion and effective implementation of forest plantation 

programs. As forest plantation projects are being viewed as strategic projects of national interest, 

the Government of Malaysia provides fiscal incentives, as well as full tax exemption under 

the Pioneer Status for ten (10) years or 100% tax exemption under the Investment Tax 

Allowance for five (5) years, effective from 1993. 

FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

Forest management in Peninsular Malaysia has a long history; it goes back to nearly a century 

ago when the first Chief Forest Officer was appointed in 1901. The forest management practices 

are being developed and revised to meet fluctuating market, supply and demand situations, as 

well as advancement made in ecological, industrial, and harvesting technologies. 

Functional Classes 

Section 10 of National Forestry Act 1984 required PRF areas to be classified and gazetted into 

eleven functional classes. Except for the first functional class (3.18 million ha), which is for 

timber production under sustainable management, all the remaining ten functional classes 

(1.52 million ha) are for purposes of conservation and protection and are as follows: 

Hectares (approximate) 

Production forest 3,000,000 

Soil protection forest 300,000 

Soil reclamation forest 6,000 

Flood control forest 6,000 

Water catchment forest 800,000 

Forest sanctuary for wildlife 100,000 

Virgin Jungle Reserved forest 20,000 

Amenity forest 70,000 

Education forest 50,000 

Research forest 30,000 

Forest for federal purposes 20,000 

233


The classification of the above functional classes is by no means exclusive. An area of the 

PRF can be classified under more than one functional class provided their uses are not 

contradictory. For example, forest trekking, camping, picnicking and bird watching activities 

should not pose problems in the catchment areas provided these are done in low densities. 

There is a need to formulate specific management practices for each of the functional classes. 

One of the aims of classifying the forest into different functions is to ensure that the forest is 

used and managed within its capacity. Over-use and inappropriate management result in forest 

health degradation that could change the forest ecosystem. The drastic changes in the ecosystem 

will negatively impact human welfare, health and food production. 

Selective Management System (SMS) 

Currently, the production forests are managed under Selective Management System. The system 

advocates the selection of a cutting regime based on diameter limits and species composition 

of the standing trees. In Peninsular Malaysia, the implementation of the SMS involves 

conducting forest activities that could be distinctly categorized into three stages, namely preharvesting, 

during harvesting and post-harvesting activities. The pre-harvesting activities 

include pre-felling forest inventory, cutting limit prescription and timber tagging. During 

harvesting, activities include directional felling and forest road construction while post harvest 

activities include forest survey, post-felling forest inventory and prescription of silvicultural 

treatments. Some of the activities are further elaborated below. 

The SMS is designed to achieve sustainability of the forest with management objectives of 

economic and efficient harvesting under prevailing conditions. It requires the selection of 

management (cutting) regimes based on inventory data, which will be equitable to logger and 

forest owner, as well as ensuring ecological balance and environmental quality. 

Pre-Harvesting Activities 

Cutting Limits Prescription 

The cutting limits prescription is based on the stand and stock information obtained from the 

pre-felling forest inventory, together with other relevant information needed to determine the 

optimal cutting regimes (diameter limits) for the forest area. Under SMS, the next cut is expected 

to be between 30-55 years and with an estimated net economic outturn of 30–40 cubic meters 

per hectare. The criteria for cutting limits prescription are as follows: 

• The cutting limit prescribed for the group of dipterocarp species should not be less than 

50 cm dbh, except for Neobalanocarpus heimii (Chengal) where the cutting limit prescribed 

should not be less than 60 cm dbh. 

• The cutting limit prescribed for the group of non-dipterocarp species should not be less 

than 45 cm dbh. 

• The residual stocking should have at least 32 sound commercial trees per ha from the 

diameter class 30–45 cm or its equivalence. 

• The difference in the cutting limits prescribed between the dipterocarp and that of the 

non-dipterocarp species should be at least 5 cm. 

• The percentage of dipterocarp species in the residual stand for trees having 30 cm dbh 

and above should not be less than that in the original stand. 

234


Timber Tagging 

Subsequently, timber tagging is carried out where harvestable trees are marked. This activity 

is carried out to ensure that only marked trees are felled, as well as to control the amount of 

timber output from the forest. The timber tagging system has proven to be an efficient 

mechanism in controlling and tracking the movement and removal of logs from the forest. 

During Harvesting Activities 

During harvesting, prescribed forestry activities would have to be conducted in accordance 

with rules and regulations as stipulated in the logging license issued by the State Forestry 

Department. Among others, matters given due consideration during forest harvesting include: 

• directional felling to ensure minimal damage to residual stand; 

• construction of forest roads, skid trails and log landings according to prescribed standards 

to ensure minimal adverse environmental impact; and 

• demarcation of adequate buffer zones along rivers and streams to mitigate soil erosion. 

Post-Harvesting Activities 

Forest Survey 

Immediately after harvesting, a forest survey is carried out to check on felled and un-felled 

trees and compliance to license conditions. 

Post-Felling Forest Inventory 

Normally, at two to five years after harvesting, a post-felling forest inventory is conducted to 

assess the status of the residual stand, as well as to determine any appropriate silvicultural 

treatments to be carried out. 

A similar inventory is conducted at year 10 to assess the status of the regenerated forest. The 

sequence of operations under SMS is shown in Table 2. 

Annual Harvesting Coupe 

The annual harvesting coupe for the natural forests is determined for a period of five years, 

which follows the Malaysia Plan. For the Eighth Malaysia Plan (2001–2005), the annual 

harvesting coupe is 42,870 ha. This is expected to provide an annual yield of 3.43 million 

meter cubic (Abdul Rashid, 2005). Table 3 shows the trend of annual harvesting coupe from 

1994 to 2003. Table 4 shows the log consumption by the sawmill and plywood/veneer industries. 

Based on the current production capacity of the forest, acreage of PRF and current log 

consumption, it is concluded that log supply from the PRF (natural forests) will not be able to 

meet the industry’s demand and this supply will continue to decline further in the long term. 

In terms of resource sustainability, current forest planning and integrated operational studies 

have shown that, with average growth rates of trees over 30 cm dbh of 0.8–1.0 cm per year in 

diameter and 2.0–2.5 cubic meters per hectare per year in commercial gross volume, the hill 

forests in Peninsular Malaysia are capable of producing every 25–55 years of at least 45–85 

net cubic meters per hectare. 

235


Table 2. Sequence of Operations under the SMS 

Year 

Activities 

n-2 to n-1 Pre-felling forest inventory of 10% sampling intensity using 

systematic-line plots to determine appropriate cutting regimes (limits). 

n-1 to n Tree marking incorporating directional felling. 

N 

Felling all marked trees. 

n + 1 / 4 

to n + 1 / 2 

Forest survey to determine fines on trees unfelled, royalty on short 

logs and tops, and damage to residuals. 

n + 2 to n + 5 

Post-felling forest inventory of 10% inventory using systematic-lineplots 

to determine residual stocking and appropriate silvicultural 

treatments. 

n +10 

Forest inventory of regenerated forest to determine status of the forest. 

Table 3. Annual Harvesting Coupe 

Year Approved Annual Annual Coupe 

Coupe (ha) 

Logged (ha) 

1994 52,250 37,725 

1995 52,250 33,246 

1996 46,040 37,587 

1997 46,040 34,410 

1998 46,040 30,408 

1999 46,040 41,527 

2000 46,040 30,366 

2001 42,870 26,711 

2002 42,780 26,482 

2003 42,780 27,714 

Source: Forestry Statistics Peninsular Malaysia 2003 

Table 4. Log Consumption By Sawmill and Plywood/Veneer Mills (Meter Cubic) 

Year Sawmill Plywood/Veneer Total 

1994 9,196,184 1,993,797 11,189,981 

1995 10,046,496 1,450,941 11,497,437 

1996 9,173,683 1,606,582 10,780,265 

1997 9,172,923 1,599,376 10,772,299 

1998 5,532,675 1,023,785 6,556,460 

1999 6,348,688 1,080,691 7,429,379 

2000 6,092,286 9,524,26 7,044,712 

2001 5,443,689 7,977,05 6,241,394 

2002 5,425,635 7,952,38 6,220,873 

2003 6,279,228 7,600,45 7,039,273 

Source: Forestry Statistics Peninsular Malaysia 2003 

236


The size of forest area opened for harvesting is regulated and controlled through the National 

Forestry Council (NFC). To enhance regulation on harvesting operations, the NFC has decided 

to set output cap per unit area, at 85 meter cubic per ha. With this output cap, the damages to 

the forest stand is expected to be lower and will ensure sufficient trees left for regeneration 

and future harvesting. 

Technology Development 

Environmentally, socially and economically sound timber harvesting is a fundamental aspect 

of wise forest use. In recent years, research into reduced impact logging (RIL) and low impact 

logging (LIL) harvesting technologies as a systematic approach to planning, implementing, 

monitoring and evaluating forest harvesting has been intensified. The principal aim of the 

new technologies is to improve forest management by minimizing the negative impacts of 

forest harvesting on the residual stand and the environment. 

Reduced impact logging can be described as the implementation of an intensively planned 

and controlled set of forest harvesting guidelines, which results in low level of damage to 

residual trees, soil and water so that the productive capacity of the forest after logging is 

sustained together with its ecological functions. 

The essential components of RIL operation generally comprise pre- harvest forest inventory 

of individual trees, pre-harvest planning of roads and skid trails‘ direction of felling‘ efficient 

utilization of felled trees, minimum ground disturbances and effective field supervision. Besides 

the government’s efforts, the private sector has also contributed to the improvement of forest 

harvesting technologies. For example, Kumpulan Perkayuan Kelantan (KPK) has initiated 

the building of crusher-run all-weather forest roads in its concession areas, while KPKKT 

(Kumpulan Pengurusan Kayu Kayan Terengganu Sdn Bhd) has modified an excavator for log 

extraction that was found to reduce the amount of logging damage substantially when compared 

to the conventional method. In addition, a local company has built a modified excavator known 

as RIMBAKA for the purpose of log extraction. 

FOREST MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION 

From the Malaysian perspective, forest management certification entails an independent 

assessment of a forest management operation, according to specific economic, social, 

environmental and ecological criteria, indicators, activities and management specifications. 

This forest assessment typically includes an evaluation of the economic viability of the 

operation, the social and environmental impact of the forest management activities and the 

ecological health of the forest. It covers forest inventory, management planning, silviculture, 

harvesting, computation and control of the annual allowable cut, road construction and other 

related forest management activities. 

Since its establishment, the Malaysia Timber Certification Council (MTCC) has been involved 

in a number of internal consultative processes to formulate and revise the Malaysian Criteria 

& Indicators (MC&I). It involved government departments and agencies, environmental nongovernmental 

organisations (NGOs), forest licensees, manufacturers of wood and panel 

products, and trade unions. 

237


A total of 29 indicators, 87 activities and 49 standards of performance under 6 criteria of the 

MC&I were used to assess forest management practices in 8 states in Peninsular Malaysia; 

Pahang, Selangor, Terengganu, Johor, Kedah, Perak, Negeri Sembilan and Kelantan. To date, 

a total of 4.68 million ha of PRF covering the eight State Forest Management Units (FMUs) 

had been given MTCC’s Certificate for Forest Management. 

MS ISO 9002 

The MS ISO 9000, in brief, is a series of standards for quality management and quality assurance 

system. The adoption of MS ISO 9000 series will ensure the establishment of quality systems, 

products and services. The MS ISO 9000 processes can help to attain sustainable forest 

management because the processes will ensure activities are carried out according to the 

standards. 

The core process identified for the Forestry Department was sustainable timber production 

from the PRF while the major activities identified to ensure the achievement of this core 

process are forest boundary demarcation, pre-felling forest inventory, timber tagging, forest 

harvesting, post-felling forest inventory and silvicultural treatments. 

The Forestry Department Headquarters, and eight State Forestry Departments namely, Johor, 

Kedah, Pahang, Selangor, Kelantan, Negeri Sembilan, Perak and Terengganu have been 

awarded the MS ISO 9002 certificates. 

FOREST BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY CONSERVATION 

The tropical rainforest of Malaysia is one of the most complex and rich ecosystems in the world. 

The forest has long been recognized as a repository of genetic resources for both flora and 

fauna. As one of the 12 mega-diverse countries in the world, the forests are home to at least 

14,500 species of flowering plants and trees, 600 species of birds, 286 species of mammals, 140 

species of snakes and 80 species of lizards (Zul Mukhshar, 2000, Mohd Yunus & Mangsor 

2002). In an attempt to diversify and expand the conservation of genetic resources of various 

forest and ecological types in their original conditions, the Forestry Department has also set 

aside pockets of Virgin Jungle Reserves (VJRs). A total of 87 VJRs covering 23,002 hectares 

were established throughout Peninsular Malaysia. These VJRs represent samples of the many 

forest types found in the PRFs. Represented forest types include Mangrove Forest, Heath Forest, 

Peat Swamp Forest, Lowland Dipterocarp Forest, Hill Dipterocarp Forest, Upper Dipterocarp 

Forest and Montane Forest (there are no VJRs in the upper hill and montane forests). These 

VJRs are unique and represent an integral part of sustainable management practice in Peninsular 

Malaysia. Besides VJRs, there are other protection areas under different functional classes. There 

is 0.12 million ha of protected areas in the PRF or 2.5% of the PRF area. 

Efforts are also being taken by the Forestry Department to ensure in situ conservation of 

biodiversity during forest harvesting in the production forests of the PRFs. In this context, 

even though the prescribed minimum cutting limit for the Dipterocarp species in Peninsular 

Malaysia is 50 cm dbh; for the species Neobalanocarpus heimii (Chengal), the minimum 

cutting limit has been raised to 60 cm so as to better conserve populations of this species. In 

238


addition, other measures for environmental protection and biological conservation have been 

taken into consideration during harvesting: retention of mother trees and fruits trees; retention 

tree for protection; buffer zone along rivers and streams; timber tagging and directional felling; 

construction of forest roads; and skid trails and log landings according to prescribed standards 

approved by the Forestry Department. Seed Production Areas (SPA) have also been established 

in natural stands for indigenous species such as Shorea leprosula, S. parvifolia, S. acuminata 

and Eurycoma longifolia. 

The Forestry Department together with the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) is 

undertaking a project to locate and survey threatened tree species. A number of species have 

already been identified and the Department is taking the necessary steps to conserve areas 

where the populations occur. 

FOREST BIODIVERSITY EXPEDITIONS 

The Forestry Department is committed to forest conservation and protection of the environment. 

A number of projects with greater emphasis on forest bio-diversity is being implemented in 

the Eighth Malaysia Plan and these are expected to continue into the Ninth Malaysia Plan. 

To date, the Forestry Department has organised several scientific biodiversity expeditions. 

The first expedition was held at the Perlis State Park, Perlis (28 September to 4 October 

1999). This was then followed by the Endau Rompin State Park, Pahang (16-22 June 2002), 

Matang Mangroves, Perak (20-25 October 2002), Ulu Muda Forest Reserve, Kedah (23-29 

March 2003), Gunung Stong Forest Reserve, Kelantan (24-29 May 2003), the Royal Belum 

State Park, Perak (25 July–1 August 2003), Gunung Mandi Angin, Terengganu (5-10 June 

2004) and Forest Park Kenong, Pahang (16-21 August 2004). In all the expeditions, the 

department had the fullest cooperation and active participation from scientists from Universiti 

Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Putra Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), 

Universiti Malaya (UM), World Wide Fund for Nature, Malaysia (WWF), Malaysian Nature 

Society (MNS), SIRIM, Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), Institute of Medical 

Research (IMR) and other related government agencies. In addition, the Forestry Department 

also participated in scientific expedition organized by other organization, namely LADA and 

MNS for the Scientific and Heritage Expedition of Langkawi Islands from 10-19 April 2003, 

with UKM in the Scientific Expedition of Tasik Chini, Pahang from 22-27 May 2004 and with 

FRIM during the Scientific Expedition of Gunung Aais, Pahang from 3-10 July 2004. 

The Forestry Department had also organised a series of seminars to disseminate the results of 

the expeditions. To date, three seminars had been organised, namely Endau-Rompin, Pahang 

(5–6 May 2003), Ulu Muda, Kedah (14–16 February, 2004) and Gunung Stong, Kelantan 

(20–22 April, 2004). In addition a National Conference on Sustainable Management of Matang 

Mangroves, Perak was held from 5 – 8 October 2004. 

CONCLUSION 

The need for effective forest management and conservation must be given priority, not only to 

ensure a sustained supply of wood and non-wood forest products but also to maintain forest 

239


health for environmental stability, to provide sanctuary for wildlife and to serve as an invaluable 

storehouse of genetic resources useful for indigenous tree species, agricultural crops and 

livestock. This renewal asset will continue to be managed in accordance with national objectives 

and priorities so that the country will continue to enjoy the benefits generated from the forests 

and forest industries. 

Malaysia’s commitment to sustainable forest management is best reflected through her 

achievements in the formulation of the comprehensive National Forestry Policy and the National 

Forestry Act, the establishment and gazettement of PRF and a network of conservation areas, 

and the marked progress made in forestry research and development. It is further attested by 

the operationalisation and implementation of the Malaysian Criteria, Indicators and Activities 

for Assessing Sustainable Forest Management based on the elaboration of the ITTO Criteria 

and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical Forest, and the allocation of 

financial resources to carry out forest development activities, as well as projects and studies 

related to sustainable management. 

Sustainable forest management is the principle of the forest management practices in Malaysia 

and the Forestry Department will continue to enhance and improve its management practices 

in the light of new research findings, innovative technologies, better skills and knowledge. 

Thus, it will demand conscientious effort, a lot of hard work and a strong commitment, 

determination and collaboration from the government, private sectors and non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs). 

REFERENCES 

ABDUL RASHID, M.A. 2005. Forest Management In Malaysia. Paper presented during the 

Malaysian Timber Mission to Australia & New Zealand, 7–11 April 2005. Forestry 

Department Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 

ANONYMOUS. 1993. Final project reports Project PD10/87 (F) – Forest Management of 

Natural Forest In Malaysia. Report presented to the International Tropical Timber 

Organisation (ITTO). Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 

ANONYMOUS. 1995. National Forestry Policy 1978 (Revised 1992). Forestry Department 

Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 

ANONYMOUS. 1996. Forestry In Peninsular Malaysia. Forestry Department Peninsular 

Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 

ANONYMOUS. 2004. Forestry Statistics Peninsular Malaysia 2003. Forestry Department 

Peninsular Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 

ANONYMOUS. 2005. Convention On Biological Diversity Handbook. Secretariat of the 

Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Canada. 

IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1980. World Conservation Strategy. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

MOHD YUNUS, Z. 1993. Determination Of The Optimum Cut and Rotation In Malaysian 

Production Forests: An Economic Approach. MPhill. Dissertation, University Of Wales, 

Bangor, UK. 

MOHD YUNUS, Z. & MANGSOR, M.Y. 2002. Telok Bahang Forest Trails An Oldest Tropical 

Rainforest In The City’s Vicinity, Penang Malaysia. Penang State Forestry Department, 

Penang, Malaysia. Pp. 6 & 7. 

240


MOHD YUNUS, Z., MANGSOR, M.Y., SHEIKH ABU BAKAR & A. YUSOF, S. 2003. 

Commercialise: Forest Knowledge and Beauty. Paper presented at the KUSTEM 2 nd Annual 

Seminar On Sustainability Science and Management. Kolej Universiti Sains & Teknologi 

Malaysia, Terengganu, Malaysia. 

ZUL MUKHSHAR, M.S. 2000. The Role Of Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia In 

The Management And Conservation Of Protected Areas. Paper presented at the Workshop 

on the Management And Conservation of Protected Area: Administrative and Legislative 

Issues. Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 

241

WONG KHOON MENG (2007) 



PLANT BIOGEOGRAPHY OF THE 

MALAYSIAN REGION 

Wong Khoon Meng 

ABSTRACT 

The major characteristics of Malaysia’s rich plant diversity are explored. Basic ideas in plant 

geography are recapitulated, outlining the interest and significance of studying plant 

distributions. The biogeography of the Malaysian region focuses on two principal components: 

the distribution of taxa within the region, which identify the Riau Pocket and other 

biogeographical elements, and affinities between geographical areas, such as the Malesian 

and Australasian floras. Aspects of historical biogeography, pertaining to changes in distribution 

with reference to earth history, i.e., geological processes and changes through geologic time 

(including plate tectonics, continental drift and “interplate dispersal” of plants, and climatic 

change), and ecological biogeography, addressing patterns of distribution in relation to 

prevailing environmental conditions (such as the Malesian demarcation knots and local 

edaphically controlled floristic differences), are dealt with. The biogeographical setting of the 

Malaysian region is summarized in terms of the biogeographical units recognized via repeated 

floristic patterns (the Malay Peninsula, Perak, the Riau Pocket and NW Borneo hotspot, the 

Kapuas-Lupar region, the East Coast Sabah subprovince, and seasonal Asiatic intrusions); 

sharp ecological definitions and isolated environments (high mountains, limestone hills, 

ultramafic sites, kerangas-peat swamp complexes) and the apparently high speciation rates in 

lowland rain forests. 

Rimba Ilmu Botanic Garden, Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, 

Tel: 03–7967 4685; Fax: 03–7967 6150; wong@um.edu.my 

243

J. GREGSON, R. DE KOK, J. MOAT & S. BACHMAN (2007) 



APPLICATION OF GIS TO CONSERVATION 

ASSESSMENTS AT THE ROYAL BOTANIC 

GARDENS, KEW 

J. Gregson, R. de Kok, J. Moat & S. Bachman 

ABSTRACT 

As part of its conservation work in areas such as Madagascar and Cameroon, the GIS unit at 

the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew has developed the use of Geographical Information Systems 

(GIS) in making rapid conservation assessments. These applications assist Kew staff to make 

better informed species conservation status assessments, such as International Union for 

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) ratings, based not only on herbarium 

and field data, but also on up to date vegetation maps, physical and climatic conditions and 

known threats. This article gives an overview of the work of the South-East Asia Section at 

Kew, and reviews the algorithms used by the GIS unit which are relevant to the Malaysian 

Plant Red Data Project. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew has been at the forefront of plant taxonomy research for 

over 150 years, and has a long history of research and collaboration in South-East Asia. As 

scientists have become more aware of the worldwide threat to biodiversity, the focus of Kew’s 

work has moved in recent years towards plant conservation and sustainable use of plants. A 

variety of work is being undertaken in these areas: baseline biodiversity research (producing 

inventories and check-lists); production of support materials, such as field-guides; seed-banking 

and development of specialised horticultural techniques with a view to future re-introductions 

and forest restoration; research into sustainable use of plants; and vegetation mapping and 

conservation assessments using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). This work is carried 

out in collaboration with local institutions, with an emphasis on training and capacity-building. 

Baseline biodiversity research is being undertaken with contributions to regional floras such 

as Flora Malesiana (Chrysobalanaceae (Prance 1989), Nepenthaceae (Cheek & Jebb 2001)) 

and the Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak (Aquifoliaceae (Andrews 2002), Chrysobalanaceae 

(Prance 1995), Dipterocarpaceae (Ashton 2004)). Inventories and check-lists are also being 

produced, for regions including Mt Kinabalu (Beaman 1992-2004), Brunei (Coode et al. 1996), 

Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Tel: +44(0)20 7942 

5349; j.gregson@nhm.ac.uk 

245

APPLICATION OF GIS TO CONSERVATION ASSESSMENTS AT THE ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS, KEW 

Mt Jaya and Vogelkop (New Guinea), and the Maliau Basin, Danum Valley and Imbak Valley 

in Sabah. Kew is also working on World Checklists of various groups: Monocots, Labiates, 

Euphorbiaceae, Rubiaceae, Conifers, Araliaceae, Sapotaceae, Fagales and Magnoliaceae have 

been completed to date. 

Kew is also active in bioinformatics, and several computer-based interactive keys have been 

produced or are being worked on, including Rattans of Borneo, Rattans of Laos and an 

interactive key to the families of the Flora Malesiana region (Malesian Key Group 2004). 

Projects can include the production of field guides, which are an invaluable identification aid 

and educational tool: current projects include the production of a Field Guide to the Forest 

Trees of Southern Thailand, and a project to assess and conserve plant diversity in commercially 

managed tropical rainforests in eastern Sabah, both with funding from the UK Darwin Initiative. 

Kew offers a wide range of training opportunities, from informal courses and support to 

international courses in Herbarium Techniques, Botanic Garden Management, Plant 

Conservation Strategies and Tropical Plant Identification. 

The herbarium at Kew also contains a dedicated GIS unit, which provides GIS and Remote 

Sensing support for Kew, and works on various projects around the world. GIS is a useful tool 

for speeding up conservation assessments, by automating initial IUCN ratings based on 

herbarium specimen data, and by using analysis of plant distribution patterns combined with 

other geographical data to inform conservation planning. This paper looks at some of the 

ways in which GIS has been used to help with conservation assessments, looking at examples 

of past and current projects the unit is working on. 

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) is a more powerful version of a conventional printed 

map, with the advantage that different sets of information can be extracted from the map, as 

required. In addition, databases can be linked to the geographical information stored in the 

map, and this data can be analyzed and modeled spatially using computer software. GIS has 

many applications, and can be put to use in the field of plant conservation in two main ways: 

using herbarium specimen data, and vegetation mapping using data from remote sensing. 

Point Distribution Maps 

GIS AND HERBARIUM SPECIMEN DATA 

The information contained in herbarium specimen labels provides a large and useful database, 

which includes spatial data (locality information) and temporal data (collection dates), which 

is ideal for analysis by GIS. Research into plant taxonomy at Kew has generated a large body 

of information in plant systematics as well as accumulating one of the largest and most complete 

herbarium collections in the world. This information, especially when combined with data 

from other herbaria, can be put to use developing advice for biodiversity conservation planning 

(e.g., Schatz 2002). 

Many families with particular expertise at Kew, for example Palms and Rubiaceae, have been 

studied in depth and large databases have been created for these families using data from the 

Kew Herbarium and other herbaria around the world; the locality information recorded on 

these specimens has been looked up in atlases and gazetteers and translated into numerical 

246


coordinates (georeferencing) suitable for analysis by GIS. Although the data originates from 

different eras and is of varying accuracy, the accuracy of herbarium specimen records can be 

weighted, to take into account imprecise locality data from older specimens. A series of inhouse 

tools have been developed to aid georeferencing of Kew’s herbarium specimens including 

converting co-ordinates from different projections e.g. UTM and taking bearings from a known 

locality e.g. ‘20 miles north of Gaborone’. 

The software used by the GIS unit includes all ESRI products (previously ArcView and now 

ArcGIS 9) and ERDAS primarily for remote sensing work. The Digital Chart of the World 

can be used as a standard base map for plotting species point distribution maps. Additional 

maps (called layers) can then be added and queries between the map layers are possible. 

Standard GIS techniques and algorithms have been used in a variety of ways and are continually 

being developed for novel applications. 

A simple example (Fig. 1) shows a point distribution map combined with a map of geological 

substrate. A histogram can be quickly plotted showing how the distribution of different species 

varies with geological substrate. By combining point distribution maps with other types of 

map, histograms can be produced to show the range of substrates, vegetation types or altitudes 

which a particular species prefers – this information can be used in conservation planning, 

Fig. 1. Analysis of distribution in relation to geological substrate. 

247


also to locate where a species may occur and has not been collected or even for the reintroduction 

of a species. 

A revision of the Leguminosae of Madagascar (Du Puy et al. 2001) has provided the basis for 

applying GIS to the investigation of ecological parameters which determine the extent of 

species distributions. The revision produced a database of Papilionoid Legumes in Madagascar, 

giving the co-ordinates of each collection locality, which could be used to make a point 

distribution map. The species distribution map was then compared with other map layers in 

the system, such as altitude, substrate, climate or vegetation type and the results gave much 

greater precision of altitudinal ranges, substrate preferences (both difficult to determine 

accurately in the field, leading to inaccurate data on specimen labels) and data on other 

ecological parameters which dictate the distribution patterns of the species. 

This data on ecological parameter preferences of species, combined with map layers, can be 

used to predict the full possible distribution of a species, filling in the apparent gaps caused by 

under-collection in certain areas: a technique called gap analysis (Scott et al. 1993). Point 

distribution maps only show where species have been collected, and not necessarily the whole 

range of a species: the points are often concentrated along roads and rivers or other easily 

accessible areas. However, by applying this technique, the full distribution of a species can be 

predicted from incomplete point distribution maps. 

Other techniques have also been developed from this project, and are discussed below. 

GIS AND IUCN RATINGS 

One of the primary targets agreed under the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (Anon. 

2002) is “A preliminary assessment of the conservation status of all known plant species, at 

national regional and international levels” (Target (a) (ii)) – to be achieved by 2010. However, 

currently less than 3% of vascular plants have a global conservation status using the IUCN 

criteria, and between 2003 and 2004, the number of species evaluated and published was 

similar to the number of new species described during that period. The rate at which IUCN 

ratings can be assigned and published therefore needs to be dramatically increased if this 

target is to be met, and if IUCN ratings are to be of use in conserving plant biodiversity. 

GIS can be used as a tool for applying IUCN ratings as certain parameters used in IUCN Red 

List criteria can be quickly calculated from databased and georeferenced species. Using 

herbarium datasets, scripts have been developed in Avenue (ArcView’s programming language) 

to automate the calculation of Extent of Occurrence (EOO), Area of Occupancy (AOO), 

estimates of the number of subpopulations as well as the number of collections and number of 

unique localities. Willis et al. (2003) used herbarium data in Red List assessments of 

Plectranthus from eastern and southern tropical Africa, and describe the GIS techniques used. 

Extent of occurrence (EOO) 

The spatial distribution (range) of a species can be used in assessing its conservation status, as 

a species with a small distribution, or a distribution fragmented in few locations, is likely to be 

248


more threatened than a species which is continuously distributed over a large geographical 

area. Distribution is also the parameter which is most suitable for GIS analysis. 

IUCN criteria recognise two types of range-related attributes of a species: extent of occurrence” 

(EOO) is the area that includes all sites of occurrence of a species (Fig. 2a), and “area of 

occupancy” (AOO, discussed below) is the area within a species’ extent of occurrence which 

is currently occupied by the species (Fig. 2b). 

In order to assign a category of threat to a species, five quantitative criteria are defined (criteria 

A-F), and at least one needs to be met for a species to qualify as threatened, but a species 

should be tested against all criteria where possible. Various parameters are used in each criterion 

and extent of occurrence is used in Criteria A (declining population) and B (geographical 

range size, and fragmentation, decline or fluctuations). 

IUCN defines the extent of occurrence as “the area contained within the shortest continuous 

imaginary boundary which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred or projected 

sites of present occurrence of a taxon…EOO can often be measured by a minimum convex 

polygon (the smallest polygon in which no internal angle exceeds 180 degrees and which 

contains all the sites of occurrence).” (IUCN 2001). 

Extent of occurrence can be calculated within a GIS by: 

1. importing georeferenced data 

2. plotting a point distribution map 

3. generating a polygon enclosing the points 

4. calculating the area of the shape 

An algorithm should be used to ensure the shape is drawn in the same way each time (Willis 

et al. 2003). In addition it should be noted that the EOO calculation can only be made when 

there are at least three unique localities. 

IUCN (2001) recommend that EOO is calculated using a minimum convex polygon (also 

called a convex hull), (see above). However, Burgman & Fox (2003) showed that estimates 

based on minimum convex polygons are often biased, affected by the spatial arrangement of 

the habitat, the sample size and the spatial and temporal distribution of the sampling. The use 

of Alpha hulls is recommended for estimating EOO as this method can reduce (but not eliminate) 

these errors. 

Scripts have been developed for automating EOO calculations in ArcGIS using Alpha-hulls. 

Problems may arise when trying to define the value of alpha (). IUCN (2005) suggest a 

value of 2 as ‘a good starting point, but no further information is available. 

Area of occupancy (AOO) 

IUCN defines area of occupancy as “the area with its ‘extent of occurrence’ which is occupied 

by a taxon” (IUCN 2001). This definition reflects the fact that a species will not usually occur 

throughout the area of its extent of occurrence, which may contain unsuitable or unoccupied 

habitats. AOO is used in Criteria A (declining population), B (geographical range size, and 

249


fragmentation, decline or fluctuations). and D (very small population or very restricted 

distribution). 

IUCN recommends obtaining estimates by counting the number of occupied cells in a uniform 

grid that covers the entire range of a taxon, then tallying the total area of all occupied cells 

(Fig. 2b). This is a calculation that can be easily automated within a GIS. 

One problem which arises with area of occupancy calculations is that the results of this method 

are highly influenced by the placement of the grid. For example, if an organism is found at 

four localities that are less distant from each other than the distance across a grid cell, the 

calculated area of occupancy can vary by a factor of four (White 2004). This problem can be 

reduced by searching for a grid position which minimizes the area of occupancy. White (2004) 

describes a method for automating this procedure within ArcView and concludes that “the 

arbitrary nature of using fixed grid methods should be avoided”. Using an automated method 

has the advantage that it results in a consistent grid placement, ensuring consistent results if 

the procedure is replicated (Willis et al. 2003). 

However, another problem arises with calculating AOO because the “size of the area of 

occupancy will be a function of the scale at which is measured, and should be at a scale 

appropriate to relevant biological aspects of the taxon, the nature of the threats and the available 

data” (IUCN 2001). For example if a species has been rarely sampled, then the distance between 

observed locations might reflect a lack of observations rather than a lack of occupied habitat 

and a coarser grid may therefore be more appropriate. It is therefore not appropriate to use one 

set cell size for a wide range of taxa, but what is an appropriate grid size to use when automating 

AOO calculations? 

The guidelines for using the IUCN criteria (IUCN 2005) recommend a grid size of 2 km, 

recognising that for intensely sampled species, a finer grid of 1 km may be more appropriate, 

and for sparsely sampled species, a coarser grid. Grid sizes of more than 3.2 km are not 

recommended as they preclude the listing of species as Critically Endangered (CR) because 

the AOO threshold for CR is 10 km 2 . A method is described of standardising AOO estimates 

by scaling the AOO estimate up or down to the reference scale (a 2 km grid size). 

Willis et al. (2003) suggest that a suitable grid cell width/height is one tenth of the maximum 

distance between any two points on the extent of occurrence polygon. This effectively scales 

AOO to the EOO measurement and has given good results so far. Calculations of AOO using 

this ‘sliding scale’ grid width/height are currently adopted by the GIS unit at Kew, although 

the grid cell size can be manually set by the user within the application. AOO can also be 

calculated when there are only two unique localities; the ‘sliding scale’ technique can be used 

where grid cell width/height is one tenth of the distance between the two points. 

Number of Sub-populations 

IUCN defines sub-populations as “geographically or otherwise distinct groups in the population 

between which there is little demographic or genetic exchange” (IUCN 2001). Subpopulations 

are used in Criteria B (geographical range size, and fragmentation, decline or fluctuations) 

and C (small population size and fragmentation, decline or fluctuations). Two techniques for 

estimating the number of subpopulations of a species have been developed: the cell adjacency 

250


method (Schatz 2002) and Rapoport’s mean propinquity method (Willis et al. 2003), (Fig. 2c). 

The cell adjacency method considers all contiguous grid cells from the AOO calculations to be 

a single subpopulation. Rapoport’s mean propinquity technique is based on the mean line 

length of a minimum spanning tree (a set of lines that connect all points in the minimum 

possible distance). Subpopulations are separated where the limb (line) distance is greater than 

twice the mean limb distance (Willis et al. 2003). 

Other parameters 

The above three parameters have the advantage that they can be calculated quickly, easily and 

automatically from georeferenced data sets, and can be used to assign preliminary conservation 

ratings to species using IUCN Criteria. For taxa that are threatened, a more detailed ‘desktop’ 

conservation assessment may be required and GIS can be of use here too. Habitat level data 

can be used to infer declines at the species level. Remote sensing imagery including aerial 

photographs and satellite images were used to see how forest cover changed over time at 

Mount Oku and Ijim Ridge in Cameroon (Baena 2005). 

A B C D 

Fig. 2. Examples of EOO, AOO and subpopulations calculations using GIS. From Willis et al. 

(2003). 

Habitat fragmentation for each species distribution can also be calculated: the preferred habitat 

of the species is first identified from the label, and species distributions compared to habitat 

datasets. Fragmentation of habitats can be calculated using Fragstats program and Patch Analyst 

in ArcView. Consideration needs to be made as to which metric of fragmentation is used; 

again there may not be a ‘one size fits all’ solution. It may also be possible to develop indices 

of fragmentation based on the subpopulation techniques as discussed above. Biological meaning 

can be added to the distances between subpopulations, i.e., by considering dispersal ability so 

that a more realistic measure of fragmentation can be obtained. 

251


GIS AND VEGETATION MAPPING 

As noted above, currently only c. 3% of vascular plants have a global conservation status 

using the IUCN criteria, and so in some areas, much more rapid methods of conservation 

assessment may be required. 

Analysis of vegetation maps in GIS can be a powerful tool for rapid conservation prioritization. 

GIS analyses provide solid scientific data, which can be used for planning and management of 

biodiversity conservation. This technique produces relatively rapid biodiversity assessments, 

and so is particularly suited to conservation hotspots where information on the distribution 

and rarity of the vast majority of plant species is scarce, and habitats are being destroyed 

faster than individual species distribution data is being compiled. 

Madagascar is one such conservation hotspot with high biodiversity and a high level of 

endemism, which is under threat from habitat degradation and destruction. At Kew, the methods 

described below have been used successfully in Madagascar to identify conservation priorities, 

and similar techniques may be applicable in other conservation hotspot areas such as South- 

East Asia. 

Case study: vegetation mapping in Madagascar 

Du Puy & Moat (1998) used the Papilionoid Legume specimen database to demonstrate that 

certain parameters such as seasonality and substrate (underlying rock type) have an effect on 

species distribution (see discussion above). Distinct preferences can be demonstrated for many 

species, such as exclusive occurrence in seasonally dry or perennially humid habitats, on a 

certain geological type such as limestones, quartzites or sand (Du Puy & Moat 1998). A more 

informative vegetation map can therefore be made by dividing the broad vegetation zones 

into narrow vegetation types based on rock type, which reflect the distribution of individual 

species, so that each type of vegetation contains its own distinctive range of species. This 

subdivision of vegetation zones based on underlying rock types is therefore a way of rapidly 

estimating patterns of individual species distributions. If as many vegetation types as possible 

are included in reserves, the resulting network of protected areas will contain as large a diversity 

as possible. This technique has been successfully applied to conservation and planning and 

management of protected areas in Madagascar (Du Puy & Moat 1996). 

Initially, a map of remaining primary vegetation in Madagascar was derived from satellite 

imagery. Classification and mapping was done by remote sensing techniques, using Landsat 

and Spot data (Faramalala 1988). 

In the next step, a geological map was digitised and simplified to rock types affecting vegetation 

(e.g. limestone, lavas etc). A composite map was then produced, of vegetation zones and rock 

types, showing patterns of variation within vegetation zones (Fig. 3). Each vegetation zone 

subdivision (vegetation type) will contain a different suite of species, so the maximum number 

of species can be preserved by conserving as many of the vegetation zone subdivisions as 

possible. 

The current degrees of protection for each vegetation type were quantified, by overlaying a 

map of protected areas onto the vegetation types map. Amounts of protection for each type 

252


Fig. 3 (From Du Puy & Moat 1998) 

253


were automatically calculated in ArcView, and the results displayed on histograms (Fig. 4), 

enabling poorly protected areas to be identified. 

This technique enables plant diversity assessments of hotspot areas to be compiled relatively 

rapidly, which can then be used to identify conservation priorities, so that new reserves can be 

targeted to conserve the greatest possible diversity of species. 

Fig. 4. (From Du Puy & Moat 1998). 

FUTURE WORK 

The GIS unit at RBG Kew is continuing to develop techniques to aid conservation efforts, in 

particular through improving automated conservation assessments based on IUCN Categories 

and Criteria. Ecological niche modelling has been investigated as a potential tool for estimating 

species range size and may be useful in delimiting isolated populations, therefore informing 

studies of fragmentation. Lack of data may be the biggest problem for these techniques as 

large numbers of data points (i.e. unique localities) are often needed to a) run the algorithms 

and b) validate the final models. As previously mentioned an index for fragmentation based 

on Rapoport’s mean propinquity method and dispersal ability is also being investigated. The 

algorithms for the methods as outlined above are available from the GIS unit upon request. 

This initial work on the Madagascar Vegetation is being updated using remote sensing 

techniques for the year 2000/1/2 (Anon. 2005) This uses MODIS imagery, which separates 

vegetation classes with a single-date surface reflectance image combined with entire year 

vegetation greenness data. Composite images of Landsat ETM imagery were used to eliminate 

cloud cover. An initial classification separated 11 land cover classes, and then a higher resolution 

254


subsequently (from 250 metres to 30 metres) obtained, using Landsat ETM (enhanced thematic 

mapper) on board Landsat 7. 

CONCLUSION 

Recent advances in information technology have led to the development of computer based 

methods in conservation biology, and GIS is a particularly useful tool for plant conservation. 

Target 2 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation aims for “a preliminary assessment of 

the conservation status of all known plant species, at national, regional and international levels” 

(Anon. 2002) but at current rates, this target will take a long time to reach. GIS can speed up 

this process by providing a means to automate the preliminary assessment of the conservation 

status of a particular species based upon specimen information present within existing major 

collections. 

The application of these methods is limited by the availability of data and the uncertainties in 

the available data. These GIS techniques require large amounts of georeferenced specimen 

data, and such databases are often the product of taxonomic work. However, new technologies 

facilitating data transfer and electronic publication now make it possible for data held within 

institutions to be shared and analysed collaboratively. 


We thank the following members of staff at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew for their 

contributions to this paper: Sharon Balding, Stuart Cable, Colin Clubbe, Robyn Cowan, 

Matthew Daws, Michael Fay, Roger Joiner, Eimear Nic Lughadha, Simon Owens, Hugh 

Pritchard, Margaret Ramsay, Moctar Sacandé, Vincent Sarasan, Paul Smith, Roger Smith, 

Nigel Taylor, Clare Tenner and Christopher Wood. 

REFERENCES 

ANDREWS, S. 2002. Aquifoliaceae. Pp. 1–28 in Soepadmo, E., Saw, L.G. & Chung, R.C.K. 

(eds) Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak. Vol. 4. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala 

Lumpur. 

ANON., 2002. Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Published by the Secretariat of the 

Convention on Biological Diversity, Quebec. 

ANON., 2005. CEPF Madagascar Vegetation Mapping Project. Availabe at http:// 

www.vegmad.org/ 

ASHTON, P.S. 2004. Dipterocarpaceae. Pp. 63–388 in Soepadmo, E., Saw, L.G. & Chung, 

R.C.K. (eds) Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak. Vol. 5. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, 

Kuala Lumpur. 

BAENA, S. 2005. Monitoring vegetation cover changes in Mount Oku and the Ijim Ridge 

(Cameroon) using satellite and aerial sensor detection. Available at http://www.kew.org/ 

gis/projects/oku_cameroon/index.html 

BEAMAN, J.H. 1992–2004. The Plants of Mount Kinabalu. 5 volumes. Royal Botanic Gardens, 

Kew. 

255


BURGMAN, M. & FOX, C. 2003. Bias in species range estimates from minimum convex polygons: 

implications for conservation and options for improved planning. Animal Conservation 6: 

19–28. 

CHEEK, M. & JEBB, M. 2001. Nepenthaceae. Flora Malesiana 15, Ser. I: Vol. 15. Nationaal 

Herbarium Nederland, Leiden. 164 pp. 

COODE, M., DRANSFIELD, J., FORMAN, L., KIRKUP, L. & SAID, I. (eds.) 1996. A checklist 

of the flowering plants and gymnosperms of Brunei Darussalam. Ministry of Industry 

and Primary Resources, Brunei Darussalam. 494 pp. 

DU PUY, D.J. & MOAT, J.F. 1996. A refined classification of the primary vegetation of 

Madagascar based on the underlying geology: using GIS to map its distribution and to 

assess its conservation status. Pp. 205–218 in Lourenço W.R. (ed.) Proceedings of the 

International Symposium on the Biogeography of Madagascar. Editions de l’ORSTROM, 

Paris. 

DU PUY, D.J. & MOAT, J.F. 1998. Vegetation mapping and classification in Madagascar 

(using GIS): implications and recommendations for the conservation of biodiversity. Pp. 

97–117 in Huxley, C.R., Lock, J.M. & Cutler, D.F. (eds.) Chorology, taxonomy and 

ecology of the Floras of African and Madagascar. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 

DU PUY, D.J., BOSSER, J., RABEVOHITRA, R., VILLIERS, J., LABAT, J. & MOAT, J.F. 

2001. The Leguminosae of Madagascar. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 720 pp. 

FARAMALALA, M.H. 1988. Etude de la Végétation de Madagascar à l’aide des Données 

spatiales. Doctoral Thesis, Univ. Paul Sabatier, Toulouse. 167 pp. 

IUCN 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival 

Commission. IUCN, Gland, Swizerland and Cambridge, UK. 

IUCN 2005. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. IUCN Species 

Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Swizerland and Cambridge, UK. 

PRANCE, G.T. 1989. Chrysobalanaceae. Flora Malesiana 10, Ser. I: 635–678. 

PRANCE, G.T. 1995. Chrysobalanaceae. Pp. 155–180 in Soepadmo, E. & Wong, K.M. (eds.) 

Tree Flora of Sabah and Sarawak, Vol. 1. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala 

Lumpur. 

SCHATZ, G. 2002. Taxonomy and Herbaria in Service of Plant Conservation: Lessons from 

Madagascar’s Endemic Families. Annals of the Missouri Botanic Gardens 89(2): 

145–152. 

SCOTT, J.M., DAVIS, F., CSUTI, B., NOSS, K., BUTTERFIELD, B., GROVES, C., 

ANDERSON, H., CAICCO, S., D’ERCHIA, F., EDWARDS, T.C. Jr, ULLIMAN, J. & 

WRIGHT, R. 1993. Gap Analysis: A geographic approach to protection of biological 

diversity. Wildlife Monograph 123. 41 pp. 

The Malesian Key Group 2004. An Interactive Key to Malesian Seed Plants Version 1.0. The 

Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Leiden & The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Available 

at http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/herbarium/keys/fm/ 

WHITE, J. 2004. Range size, error rates and the geometry of rare species distributions. In 

Brooks, M., Carothers, S. & La Banca, T. (eds.) The Ecology and Management of Rare 

Plants of Northwestern California: Proceedings from a 2002 Symposium of the North 

Coast Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. CNPS Press, Sacramento, CA. 

226 pp. 

WILLIS, F., MOAT, J. & PATON, A. 2003. Defining a role for herbarium data in Red List 

assessments: a case study of Plectranthus from eastern and southern tropical Africa. 

Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 1537–1552. 

256

C. LUSTY, W.A.N.AMARAL, W. D.HAWTHORNE, L.T. HONG & S. OLDFIELD (2007) 



APPLYING THE IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES 

IN A FOREST SETTING 

1 

C. Lusty, 2 W. A. N. Amaral, 3 W. D. Hawthorne, 

4 

L. T. Hong & 5 S. Oldfield 

ABSTRACT 

The IUCN-The World Conservation Union Red List categories provide a globally-accepted 

framework for classifying animal and plant taxa according to their risk of extinction. Different 

versions of the categories have been in use for forty years. Their present form, version 3.1 

published in 2001, demands a quantitative assessment of species status, and has been carefully 

designed to accommodate the spectrum of case-studies from large mammals to mosses or 

commercially-exploited trees to poorly-known insects. Consequently, the categories are 

assigned by the use of any one of five major criteria that infer either past or potential species 

population declines, or habitat declines, restriction in geographical distribution or population 

numbers. For the uninitiated assessors of forest species, the categories may present a daunting 

need for largely unavailable data. In this paper, we would like to demonstrate that the categories 

can be applied through the use of available forest management data, biological inventory 

datasets and/or proxy information on habitats, as well as a certain amount of inference or 

extrapolation. Developing standards for using the criteria at a national level promotes 

consistency, replicability and a shared understanding of the categories. Furthermore, shared 

standards can be developed and applied across regions through forest genetic resource networks 

and species specialist networks (e.g. APFORGEN and the IUCN Species Survival Commission 

(SSC) Global Tree Specialist Group), and contribute to global indicators of biodiversity loss 

relevant to the Global Strategy on Plant Conservation and the Convention on Biological 

Diversity’s 2010 target. 

1 

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), INIBAP, Parc Scientific Agropolis II, 34397 Montpellier – 

Cedex 5, France; Fax: +33 467 610334; c.lusty@cgiar.org 

2 

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Via dei Tre Denari 472/a, 00057 Maccarese (Fumicino), 

Rome, Italy; Fax: +39 06 61979661; 

3 

Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3RB, UK; 

Fax: +44 1865 275074; william.hawthorne@plant-sciences.oxford.ac.uk 

4 

IPGRI Regional office for Asia, Pacific and Oceania, c/o Stesen Kuarantin Lepas Masuk, Jabatan Pertanian Bangunan 

JKR (P) 1746, P.O. Box 236 UPM Post Office, 434 Serdang, Selangor Darul Ehsan Malaysia, +60 3 948 7655; 

l.hong@cgiar.org 

5 

Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI), Descanso House, 199 Kew Road, Richmond, Surrey, 

TW9 3BW UK; Fax: +44 208 3325956; sara.oldfield@bgci.org 

257

APPLYING THE IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES IN A FOREST SETTING 

INTRODUCTION 

In 2002, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and 

world leaders at the World Summit on Sustainable Development endorsed a commitment to 

reduce biodiversity loss by 2010. Among the indicators of biodiversity loss that are being 

adopted by the CBD are the IUCN Red List categories. Red List categories and Red Data 

books, over the past four decades of use, have become widely recognised as an international 

standard and reference for species conservation status. However, only 2.5% of the estimated 

number of extant (and recently extinct) species has been assessed; the comprehensively covered 

groups being mammals, amphibians, birds, conifers and cycads (Baillie et al. 2004). 

Furthermore, at a national or local level, conservation action continues to be geared towards 

species that are economically, ecologically or aesthetically attractive at a local level, rather 

than to the species which are listed ‘top of the league’ in Red Lists. 

It has been the expressed intention of the IUCN Red List categories not to prioritize species 

but to provide an objective indicator of extinction risk, which might be used as an initial step 

in the conservation prioritization process. In reality, throughout much of the developing world 

resource managers carrying out conservation on the ground do not apply or refer to the Red 

List categories for multiple reasons. This divorce between the processes of defining 

conservation priorities at a local level and global level could give reason to be sceptical of the 

2010 targets being monitored appropriately, let alone achieved. However, the Workshop on 

Threat Assessment of Plant Species in Malaysia, organized by the Forest Research Institute 

Malaysia (FRIM) represents a national level initiative to bring together conservation 

practitioners, taxonomists and Red List assessors to provide coherence to the Red List process. 

This paper is not an overview of the guidelines for the Red List categories (please see the 

official guidelines prepared by the IUCN SSC Red List Programme) but explores their 

application when assessors only have access to limited datasets. It also briefly examines the 

Red Listing process in comparison to a conservation prioritization process, which might be 

adopted by a forest resource manager, and suggests mechanisms by which Red Listing might 

be better aligned to conservation action on the ground. 

THE EVOLUTION OF THE IUCN RED LISTING SYSTEM 

Before 1994, the IUCN proposed a mechanism for Red Listing species that was based entirely 

on subjective judgement of experts. Species were categorized according to an increasing order 

of extinction risk: from ‘Endangered’, ‘Vulnerable’ to ‘Rare’, and ‘Indeterminate’ for those 

species which were threatened to an unknown degree. Responding to recommendations for 

the development of a system to promote transparency, objectivity and replicability, several 

new versions of the categories were drafted and tested in consultation with experts of different 

taxonomic fields over a five-year period. The agreed system, version 2.3, was published in 

1994 (IUCN 1994) and presented a quantitative framework for the application of categories 

very similar to the present version (3.1). Different animal and plant groups were evaluated 

using version 2.3 categories and a number of issues arose, most publicly a controversy on the 

listing of commercially-exploited fish species. A Criteria Review Working Group was brought 

together to recommend revisions to the system. As a result of their discussions some small but 

significant changes were made and version 3.1 was published in 2001 (IUCN 2001; see box 

258


entitled “Main differences between versions 2.3 and 3.1.”). A system for the application of 

categories at a regional level was also devised and published in 2003 (IUCN 2003). 

In version 2.3 and 3.1 the IUCN have striven to develop a scientifically thorough and robust 

evaluation system to represent as accurately as possible the risk of species extinction. The 

system is impressively flexible in being applicable to a wide range of life forms under very 

different types of threat, everything from corals, colonial ants, obscure mosses known only 

from one location, ancient redwoods, elephants and commercially-exploited fish species. 

Such broad applicability has been achieved through the use of a range of criteria, of which 

only one need apply for the allocation of a threat category: 

A. Population reduction (past, present or future) 

B. Limited geographic range, fragmented, declining or fluctuating 

C. Small population size and fragmented, declining or fluctuating 

D. Very small population or restricted distribution 

E. Quantitative analysis of extinction risk 

Each criterion has three quantitative thresholds corresponding to increasing extinction risk: 

‘Critically Endangered’, ‘Endangered’ or ‘Vulnerable’. Species that do not meet any thresholds 

are considered either to be ‘Near Threatened’, ‘Least Concern’, ‘Data Deficient’ or ‘Not 

evaluated’. The thresholds are arbitrary but appear to be generally applicable to a wide range 

of threatened taxa. For any one species, the thresholds of some criteria may be inappropriate 

but at least one alternative criterion should be applicable. The spirit in which the system was 

devised encourages the user to examine each species profile against all five criteria so that the 

most relevant and precautionary assessment is attained. For more details you are directed to 

the red list categories and guidelines (IUCN 2001; IUCN 2005; http://www.iucnredlist.org/ 

info/programme.html). 

Main differences between versions 2.3 and 3.1 of the IUCN Red List Categories 

• New A subcriterion with a more challenging threshold (reductions of at least 50% as 

opposed to 20%) for species which are subject to population declines because of known 

and reversible threats. This provides leeway for species undergoing a controllable 

decline (e.g. commercial exploitation) to avoid classification as threatened until a 

more serious population decline has taken place; 

• The threshold for species classified under VU A have risen from a 20% population 

decline to 30%; 

• Allowance of population declines within a ‘moving window’ of the past or future in 

A4 

• Maximum time cap for derived future declines of 100 years; 

• Addition of subcriterion on extreme fluctuations under C2; 

• VU D2 guidelines for restricted area of occupancy reduced from 100km 2 to 20km 2 

• Loss of ‘Lower Risk - Conservation Dependent’* 

• Some important changes in definitions have taken place 

• National and regional level assessments possible 

* this affects the evaluation of 20% of Peninsular Malaysian tree species which were assessed 

against version 3.0 categories – the most appropriate category for these species is now ‘Near 

Threatened’ 

259


The present version is not expected to be updated in the foreseeable future. A comprehensive 

set of guidelines (IUCN 2005) and a documentation format have also been produced. Evaluated 

species must now follow a submission system, involving the completion of a four-page 

information sheet with a 15-page annex to capture information on habitat, threat, conservation 

measures, use and trade. Forms are submitted to the Red List Secretariat and evaluated by the 

appropriate Red List Authority. Depending on the approval of the assessment the species will 

be published in the next edition of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species TM . 

A QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT WHERE FEW 

QUANTITATIVE DATA EXIST 

All numerical data, as well as less quantitative information, are uncertain to some extent and 

most of the difficulty of using the red list categories is related to uncertainty of various kinds 

(Akçakaya et al. 2000). Estimating population sizes and declines for individual species depends, 

at best, on the use of statistical distributions that are subject to environmental influences, intra 

and inter-population variation, or, at worse, on circumstantial information, inferences from 

related taxa or trends in the species’ habitat. 

The way in which uncertainty within the data is handled has a significant influence on the 

outcome of the assessment. Perversely, the more data available on a species the greater the 

number of options available to carry out the categorization, and as a consequence additional 

uncertainties creep into the assessment and the need for detail in the guidelines increases. An 

illustration of this paradox is the category ‘data deficient’, which is intended for both species 

that are “well-studied, with biology well known, but where appropriate data on abundance 

and/or distribution are lacking”; and for species known from type specimens for which there 

are no available data at all. 

Data uncertainty is recognized to be a result of either measurement error or natural variation 

or semantic vagueness (Akçakaya et al. 2000)—the latter being the payback for designing a 

system that has to limit explicitness in order to conserve its general applicability. The authors 

of the guidelines and criteria make a considerable effort to describe how assessors deal with 

data paucity and uncertainty. Specific methods for dealing with different forms of uncertainty 

are developed using fuzzy numbers (Akçakaya et al, 2000). Assessors are suggested to provide 

range values and best estimates and describe the means through which these were attained— 

through confidence limits or expert opinion etc. They are also advised to be explicit about 

their attitude to risk and dispute, both of which influence the interpretation of data and the 

management of uncertainty. The qualification of individual species under a range of categories 

to reflect data uncertainty is acceptable—although only one category will be published in a 

red listing. 

Fuzzy numbers are most effective when datasets are relatively rich and measurement error is 

the greatest constraint. Where data are poor, the assessor is faced with the quandary of using 

estimation, inference and even suspicion in what appears to be a well-defined quantitative 

framework. In these cases, where qualitative data are used to answer a quantitative question 

the possibilities for interpretational and semantic errors become more significant. For example, 

a ‘subpopulation’, which is used in criteria B and C, is defined by rates of genetic exchange 

(“typically one successful migrant individual per year or less”). Taking tree species as an 

260


example, this knowledge is confidently or partly known for perhaps 100 or so tropical trees in 

total, which have been the focus of detailed studies—for lesser known species defining 

subpopulations remains highly assumptive, based less on measurement and more on the 

assessors willingness to make a judgement based on general ecological knowledge of the 

taxonomic group and the presumed extent and distribution of subpopulations. Similarly putting 

an estimate on the age of ‘mature individuals’, as a basis for estimates of population size, or 

the ‘average age of parents’, the unit for estimating the timeframe within which population 

reductions are measured, are challenging for the vast majority of tropical plant species, 

especially as these values may not be constant throughout the range of a species. 

There are some criteria that are more lenient than others at allowing the use of inference or 

proxy data. There are defined terms of assessment based on an increasing degree of assumption: 

• Observed is based on firm data. 

• Estimated is based on data with an allowance of statistical estimation or assumptions 

about observed variables (e.g. indices of abundance) and the measure variable (number 

of mature individuals). Estimations are also projected into the future. 

• Inferred is a calculation based on indirect evidence but at least within the same units of 

measurement (e.g. population declines based on rate of habitat loss). Inferences may also 

be made when imposing trends from certain subpopulations to infer the status of lesser 

known subpopulations and the global population as a whole. 

• Suspected is a type of inference that is based on indirect evidence concerned with another 

unit of measurement (e.g. population declines based on changes in habitat quality). 

A first step to approaching the Red Listing process might be to realize the potential of the 

available dataset and work with the criteria that are suited to the levels of assumption that are 

required. For criteria C1 and for D (categories of ‘Endangered’ and ‘Critically Endangered’) 

population size must be estimated, whereas criterion A allows the use of proxy data to infer 

population reductions. 

RULES OF THUMB AND USING PROXY DATA 

Rules of thumb can help to tighten the definitions for defined groups of species or geographical 

areas so that assessments can be made using a common understanding. Rules of thumb are 

“rules of general guidance that are based on experience or practice rather than theory”. They 

represent a pragmatic approach to dealing with limited information or circumstances. In the 

case of the Red List categories they potentially help to improve replicability, consistency and 

Ways of dealing with lack of data: 

• estimations, projections, inferences, and suspected trends, including: 

– the use of proxy data 

– extrapolation from known subpopulations to less well-known subpopulations 

– ecological inference from close relatives to less well-known species 

• using criteria which are more accepting of qualitative data e.g. A & B 

• describing range values and giving best estimates 

• establishing rules of thumb 

261


transparency and introduce some certainty about how the evaluation took place. The guidelines 

are full of rules of thumb that are applicable at a general level. However, more specific rules 

of thumb may be defined for groups of related taxa or unrelated taxa either with shared life 

forms, biological or ecological traits, habitat preferences or geographical ranges. 

There are numerous points in the Red List process where decisions on interpretation make a 

considerable difference to the assessment and where rules of thumb may be particularly useful; 

the interpretation of the main definitions in particular: 

1. Generation length/Mature individuals – estimating the average age of parents and when 

age at effective reproductive maturity is particularly influential for species exhibiting 

wide ranging values (e.g. for trees between 100 years). The interpretation of 

these definitions influence estimated population size and the estimated timeframe by which 

population declines are judged (Criteria A, B, C & D). 

2. Location/Subpopulation/Severely fragmented – defining subpopulations that exist in 

almost complete isolation from incoming genetic influence or locations that may be 

potentially influenced by a single event is a relatively subjective judgement, especially 

for lesser known species. These definitions influence population status estimates (Criteria 

B, C & D). 

3. Extent of occurrence (EOO)/Area of occupancy (AOO) – measuring EOO and AOO 

is entirely subject to the scale of measurement and influence distribution estimates (Criteria 

A & B). The guidelines recognise that the scale used should be appropriate to the biological 

aspects of the taxon, the nature of threats and available data. Clearly rules of thumb are 

called for here. 

4. Population reduction/Continuing decline/Extreme fluctuations – depend on 

judgements as to whether a decline is part of a natural fluctuation or a more serious 

extinction process (Criteria A, B & C). Assessors also must consider whether the trend 

will continue. 

Developing a common understanding of the spirit of the definitions and how they should be 

interpreted or defining rules of thumb within a group of assessors or a network may significantly 

speed up and simplify the evaluation process. Using proxy data provides a special case. Where 

specific habitat types harbour a number of endemic species, it may be possible to share estimates 

of habitat loss among relevant species. Inferences of decreasing habitat extent or quality are 

acceptable for criteria A and B. Quantifying the reduction of specific habitat types at a national 

level through a consensual approach may facilitate the assessment of diverse species. However, 

careful attention should be paid to assessing the habitat-specificity of the species in question 

and the impact of forest loss and fragmentation on those species, as well as whether other 

criteria may apply. Proxy data should not be used to carry out bulk assessments of large 

numbers of species without giving thought in each individual case to whether the species 

might be more or less prone to extinction and deserve more detailed assessment. 

The other alternative is to give species a category of ‘data deficient’. The problem with this 

category is that it is a hold-all for assessments suffering diverse data limitations and has no 

application in conservation prioritization. More compelling support for pursuing a path of 

assigning threat categories wherever possible is provided by the hundreds of resource managers, 

who are making decisions on conservation priorities every day. 

262


THE CASE OF TREE SPECIES 

Between 1995 and 1998 a Dutch Government-funded project undertaken by the World 

Conservation Monitoring Centre and the IUCN SSC assessed 10,000 tree species according 

to the 2.3 version of the IUCN categories, of which 5999 were threatened and documented in 

the World List of Threatened Trees (Oldfield et al. 1998). As part of the project William 

Hawthorne reviewed the 2.3 version of the IUCN categories and suggested several rules of 

thumb for the application of the criteria and associated definitions; many of which were taken 

up and presented as guidelines to the several hundred assessors involved. One of the main 

recommendations that arose from his review was that assessing tropical tree species according 

to their distribution (i.e. criterion B) is the most appropriate and practical way of optimizing 

use of available data; by contrast “approaches via notions of population size or change are 

likely to be unreliable or untenable” (Hawthorne 1995). 

Examples of rules of thumb used in the assessment of trees include: 

– defining mature individuals as those which have reached potential according to their 

ecological niche – canopy species which have reached the canopy etc.; 

– estimating generation length to be 10–20 years for medium-large pioneer trees, 50 years 

for most tropical species and 100 years for slow-growing species; 

– measuring EOO for tropical species using degree squares (i.e. slightly more than 100 km 

square) and a finer resolution for higher threat categories 

More than half the assessments of threatened tree species fulfilled the B criterion and were 

assigned the ‘Vulnerable’ category (Table 1). Many of these assessments were ‘inferred’ from 

declines in habitat. These are tree species usually from restricted areas of forest type habitats, 

which have declined by at least 20% in the past 100 years (i.e., approximately 2–3 tree 

generations). The lack of data may have precluded more severe threat categories from being 

assigned; available data to estimate population size were very rare and those species that were 

assessed using the C criterion were usually highly specified or confined to islands or mountains. 

Very few classifications were listed under more than one criterion. 

Table 1. The assessment of tree species using the 2.3 version of the IUCN categories 

A criterion B criterion C criterion D criterion Total 

Declining Population Less than 10,000 Population 

population of at confined to individuals and confined to 100 

least 20% 20,000km 2 and declining km 2 or 5 

declining 

locations 

% tree species 22% 56% 6% 16% 

assessed 

Number of 1320 3359 360 960 5999 

tree species 

assessed 

Ex CR EN VU DD 

% tree species 2% 16% 22% 60% 5% 

assessed 

Number of tree 95 976 1,319 3,609 375 

species assessed 

Source: Oldfield & Lusty (1998) 

263


CONSERVATION PRIORITIZATION PROCESSES 

An unsurprising but nonetheless striking insight provided by William Hawthorne’s study is 

that conservation prioritization processes for forest resource management use much the same 

datasets as might be used in the assignment of a Red List category. Graudal et al. (2004) 

propose that resource conservation assessments should consider past and present geographical 

distribution, prevailing utilization patterns in terms of direct use or indirect land-use, occurrence 

in protected areas – i.e. data types that would feed directly into an A or B criterion Red List 

assessment. However, as a rule, Red List categories are not used or applied in the resource 

management setting, except in various developed countries where resource management and 

nature conservation are more effectively linked. 

Evidently there are often substantial differences between typical national conservation 

prioritization processes and Red Listing, not least the scale at which either is carried out: Red 

Listing categories were designed for use at the species or global level; conservation prioritization 

is applied at a local level and is frequently customised to the local conditions and situations, 

although they often respect global distribution patterns. Furthermore, the main criterion for 

including species in some forest conservation programmes is their present and possible future 

value (Graudal et al. 2004, although not for example Hawthorne and Abu Juam 1995). Resource 

managers place emphasis on a wider range of factors, including costs of intervention, potential 

success, legal issues and particularly on species’ value in phylogenetic, economic, ecological 

or cultural terms. Assessments may be based on qualitative data, soliciting different stakeholders 

to provide a subjective score for each variable. Weightings and judgement values may also be 

used. For example, a multistakeholder group, comprising scientists, researchers, farmers, local 

peasants, and business people, scored forest tree species for their ‘utility’, ‘ecological value’ 

and ‘threat’ in Sao Paulo State, Brazil (Koshy et al. 2002). 

The Ghana Forestry Department uses the “Star system” (Hawthorne & Abu Juam 1995, 

Hawthorne 1996, 2001), which aims to define plant species priority for conservation on the 

basis primarily of species’ global distribution. Aspects of a species’ biology, economic and 

ecological value have a minor influence on the categorization. Black, Gold, Blue, Scarlet, 

Red, Pink and Green stars are assigned in order of declining conservation priority. Species 

that are extremely rare on a global scale automatically attain a high significance (Black Star) 

without regard for other species or data attributes. Other species might have been sampled in 

more degree squares, but are estimated to be sparser or more ecologically sensitive and so 

may also earn high significance despite their wider range. Common and widespread but heavily 

exploited species earn a reddish (Scarlet, Red or Pink) Star according to degree of exploitation 

in proportion to inventories of standing crop. One of the main applications of Stars is in a 

weighted average score of rarity for the plant community (a Genetic Heat Index), and for this 

purpose, the weight is approximately in inverse proportion to the numbers of degree squares 

occupied for a subsample of species in each of the Stars. Stars have also been useful in Ghana 

to frame management regulations – e.g. allowable cut in logging operations is reduced for 

Scarlet Star species, and Black Star species are to be protected wherever they occur; and to 

justify patterns of uneven apportionment of global funds to local conservation initiatives 

(Hawthorne et al. 1998). Similar Star categorisations have been applied in Mexico and 

Honduras, Cameroon and Malaysia (see Chua et al. 1998; Gordon et al. 2004) 

264


As a rule conservation prioritization processes—and there many types, often very divergent 

from each other—do not necessarily register changes in threat but are more clearly aimed to 

provide managers or policy makers an indication of which species are worth conserving at 

any one time. The change in priorities over the years may not necessarily be linked to changes 

in extinction risk, especially where assessments are based on subjective judgements of ad hoc 

groups of stakeholders. The conservation prioritization process, therefore, may not provide a 

reliable monitoring tool. Assessments in the Red List system should hypothetically be 

comparable over time, although it is too early to judge whether this proves to be correct, 

especially for the more subjective assessments. 

Numerous other differences between the two systems exist, including the following: 

• IUCN Red List system offers the option of classifying species according to just one 

dimension or parameter of the current status or trends of their population. In this way it 

encourages a precautionary approach. A conservation prioritization approach would 

usually be more holistic, taking account of all available data. 

• Conservation prioritization occurs at a local scale and may not be applicable at a global 

level. The Red List system was designed for global level assessments and works best at 

this level. 

• Conservation prioritizations are undertaken by resource managers and stakeholders. IUCN 

Red List assessments are most often carried out by taxonomists and as a result are frequently 

considered to be ‘top down’ and academic, but that is not to say they would not benefit 

from more local inputs. 

• Resource managers are obliged to make further within species assessments about which 

populations or gene pools are a priority for conservation. 

However, the similarities between the two scales of approach are fundamental. The baseline 

data are often the same. The Red List categories depend on a much broader use of ecological, 

biological and utilization aspects of species than is immediately obvious when first discovering 

the criteria. The two systems can share the following data types: 

– geographical distribution 

– number of individuals 

– regeneration rates and population trends 

– threats and sustainable use considerations 

– ecological specificity 

– levels of protection or conservation measures 

The effectiveness of both systems is underpinned by reliable taxonomy and nomenclature, 

and, obviously, both are constrained by the lack of information. Conservation prioritization is 

constrained by the availability of data on species occurrence, frequency, ecology and status 

(Amaral et al. 2004). Basic surveys are needed to locate populations, estimate population 

numbers, study population dynamics and monitor threats. Both assessments, therefore, share 

the challenge of dealing with data uncertainty and different attitudes to risk and both would 

potentially be advanced by the pooling of expert opinion and developing a consensual or 

synergistic approach. 

265


MECHANISMS FOR SHARING INFORMATION AND 

METHODOLOGIES 

The Red List workshop held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, brought together nearly 200 people 

from around 50 different institutes, including national and state forest departments, the national 

forestry research institute, environmental and conservation organizations, botanic gardens 

and universities. The workshop represented a first step towards the development of a national 

Red Data book of plants and focused on familiarizing participants with the Red List categories. 

Some dissatisfaction had previously been expressed by Malaysian scientists and resource 

managers with the way certain published Red Data assessments had been derived mainly 

through remote desk work with insufficient reference to details on the ground (Chen, 2004). 

Red List assessments, furthermore, are perceived by some to play an important role in 

determining both government and international trade policy concerning commercial species 

and, therefore, are treated with political interest (despite the expressed intentions of the IUCN 

for the Red List categories not to be used for prioritization without the consideration of multiple 

additional factors). Given this context the workshop played a pivotal role in developing a 

common understanding of the Red List system among a diverse group of stakeholders and 

allowed taxonomists and researchers to benefit from the insights of resource managers and for 

the latter to contribute directly to the assigning of Red List categories. 

One of the main challenges in both resource management and Red List assessments is to 

ensure that the species of concern out of the thousands of described species are the focus of 

attention. The highly rare species are well-known by the taxonomist but possibly not by the 

resource manager. From the latter’s perspective rare species may be overlooked if their use 

and value are not considered to be significant, or they may simply be unrecognised. However, 

mutual territory of appreciation to both taxonomists and resource managers exists in the form 

of species that are locally widespread (and hence appear in forest inventories) but suffering 

(or have suffered) significant declines either through habitat decline or direct exploitation. 

These species potentially may be considered threatened through the use of criterion A or B. 

These are the same criteria that allow the use of inference and are more open to interpretation. 

The Malaysian workshop allowed resource managers and researchers to air their different 

views on and discuss the impact of past, continuing or future habitat declines on species 

extinction rates. In the future, such a group could come to an agreement on the estimated 

decline in specific habitat types and how species might be consistently assessed using criteria 

A and B. Fortunately, the Malaysian Red Listing process has only just begun and according to 

the project manager will involve a number of follow-up workshops to achieve this kind of 

consensus (Saw L.G. pers. comm.). 

There are further existing mechanisms for facilitating more informed assessments, including 

networks, databases and electronic conference groups. Numerous forest genetic resources 

(FGR) or forestry networks are already functioning and these are viable and valuable channels 

for facilitating, enhancing awareness and also assisting in informed assessments across the 

region as well as nationally. Examples of networks associated with IPGRI include the South 

Pacific Regional Initiative on Forest Genetic Resources (SPRIG), which has coordinated work 

in five south pacific island nations, the Central Asian and Transcaucasian Network on Plant 

Genetic Resources (CATCN-PGR) in the central Asian sub-region, the Sub-Saharan African 

Programme of Forest Genetic Resources (SAFORGEN) coordinating work in sub-Saharan 

countries and the Asia Pacific Forest Genetic Resources Programme (APFORGEN). Such 

266


networks could provide the channels for introducing and discussing the Red List categories 

and carrying out joint assessments. 

The IUCN/SSC Global Tree Specialist Group (GTSG) was established in 2003 with two specific 

aims. The first is to act in an advisory capacity to the action-based Global Trees Campaign 

which is run by UNEP/World Conservation Monitoring Centre and Fauna and Flora 

International and aims to conserve the world’s most threatened plant species. The second is to 

promote and implement Red Listing for trees. The GTSG takes a pragmatic approach to red 

listing, attempting to use all available information to evaluate species in priority regions and 

taxonomic groups. The intention is to provide evaluations which can be used as part of 

conservation planning for tree species where possible using evaluation workshops as a means 

to determine conservation priorities. In its first year of operation (2004) the GTSG contributed 

to the evaluation of over 1200 tree species using various approaches including desk studies, 

correspondence with experts, workshops and liaison with other IUCN/SSC plant specialist 

groups. The GTSG also evaluated several major commercial timber species and in doing so 

sought input from a wide range of stakeholders in an attempt to develop a robust evaluation 

model. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Despite its quantitative framework, the IUCN Red List categorisation inevitably demands 

varying degrees of subjective judgement. It is a well-matured system, in the sense that the 

rules have evolved through more than a decade of use and feedback, but is somewhat 

complicated and time-consuming to absorb and use. The risk that such a system presents is 

that while a few relatively well-known groups may be intensively assessed by well-versed 

assessors the vast majority of threatened species remain either unevaluated or their assessment 

is unrecognised. A small percentage (3%) of described plant species has been assessed using 

versions 3.0 or 3.1 Red List categories. Whereas, an exercise to approximate for missing data 

carried out by Pitman & Jørgensen (2002), using proxies of endemic species and threatened 

species for different combinations of countries, hotspots, tropical and temperate zones, suggest 

that somewhere between 22% and 47% of described plant species are likely to be threatened. 

It is widely recognised that global-level biodiversity monitoring needs to address a far broader 

range of species and means should be sought to increase the involvement of a wider group of 

stakeholders, the use of local calibration, ground-truthing and locally collected data (Balmford 

et al. 2005). 

The feasibility, therefore, of assessing plants using the IUCN Red List system may be brought 

into question. However, the knowledge that resource managers and policy makers are obliged 

to make daily decisions about genetic resources and that species-level information and indicators 

are increasingly sought in international and national policy-making should encourage us to 

maximise on the strong points of the Red List system and on all information and expertise 

available to accelerate the application of the Red List categories. We are advocating that this 

process might be better facilitated through the use of rules of thumb and coordinated through 

joint initiatives between taxonomists, conservationists and resource managers typified by the 

Workshop on threat assessment of plant species in Malaysia. In addition, some of the raw data 

used to categorise the species (e.g. degree square distribution data; estimates of population 

size) could also be used to frame local systems (focused initially through the Red List priorities 

267


themselves), and can be checked and updated periodically as a means of monitoring 

conservation status and Red List categorization. While there is a place for more informed Red 

List assessments, involving experts and resource managers on the ground, the application of 

the Red List categories in conservation prioritization processes is less clear and not seriously 

explored here. This is an area that should be more formally reviewed and studied. 

REFERENCES 

AKÇAKAYA, H.R., FERSON, S., BURGMAN, M., KEITH, D.A., MACE, G.M. & TODD, 

C.R. 2000. Making consistent IUCN classifications under uncertainty. Conservation 

Biology 14: 1001–1013. 

AMARAL, W.A.N., KJAER, E., YANCHUK, A & GRAUDAL, L. 2004. Research needs. 

Pp. 37–48 in FAO, FLD, IPGRI. Forest Genetic Resources Conservation and Management. 

Vol. 1: Overview, concepts and some systematic approaches. International Plant Genetic 

Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. 

BAILLIE, J.E.M., HILTON-TAYLOR, C., STUART, S.N. (eds.). 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List 

of threatened species. A global species assessment. IUCN Species Survival Commission. 

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 191 pp. 

BALMFORD, A., CRANE, P., DOBSON, A., GREEN, R.E., & MACE, G.E. 2005. The 2010 

challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights. Phil. Trans. 

R. Soc. B 360: 221–228. 

CHEN, H.K. 2004. A Malaysian assessment of the World List of Threatened Trees. Traffic, 

Southeast Asia, Selangor, Malaysia. 48 pp. 

CHUA, L.S.L., HAWTHORNE, W.D., SAW, L.G.& QUAH, E.S. 1998. Biodiversity database 

and assessment of logging impacts. Pp. 30–41 in Lee, S.S., Dan, Y.M., Gauld, I.D. & 

J.Bishop (eds.) Conservation, management and development of forest resources. 

Proceedings of the Malaysia-United Kingdom Programme Workshop, 21-24 October, 

1996, Kuala Lumpur. Forest Research Institute, Malaysia. 

GORDON, J.E., HAWTHORNE, W. D., REYES-GARCY´, A., SANDOVAL, G., & 

BARRANCE, A.J. 2004. Assessing landscapes: a case study of tree and shrub diversity 

in the seasonally dry tropical forests of Oaxaca, Mexico and southern Honduras. Biological 

Conservation 117: 429–442. 

GRAUDAL, L., YANCHUK, A. & KJAER, E. 2004. National planning. Pp. 25–36 in FAO, 

FLD, IPGRI. Forest Genetic Resources Conservation and Management. Vol. 1: Overview, 

concepts and some systematic approaches. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 

Rome, Italy. 

HAWTHORNE, W.D. & ABU-JUAM, M. 1995. Forest protection in Ghana. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 203 pp. 

HAWTHORNE, W.D. 1995. Categories of conservation priority and Ghanaian tree species - 

A comparison of IUCN red book categories and Ghanaian ‘Star’ values. Unpublished 

report commissioned by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 

HAWTHORNE, W.D. 1996. Holes and the sums of parts in Ghanaian forest: Regeneration, 

scale and sustainable use. In: Swaine, M.D., Alexander, I.J., & Watling, R. (eds.). Studies 

in Guinea-Congo rain forest. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Edinburgh 104(b): 75– 

176. 

268


HAWTHORNE, W.D. 2001. Forest conservation in Ghana: forestry, dragons, genetic heat. 

In: Weber, W., White, L.J., Vedder, A., & Naughton-Treves, L. (eds) African rain forest 

ecology and conservation. An interdisciplinary perspective. Yale University Press. 

HAWTHORNE, W.D., GRUT, M. & ABU-JUAM, M. 1998. Forest production and biodiversity 

conservation in Ghana, and proposed international support of biodiversity conservation. 

CSERGE working paper, GEC 98-18. 

IUCN. 1994. IUCN red list categories: Version 3.0. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival 

Commission. 21 pp. 

IUCN. 2001. IUCN red list categories. Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. 

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 30 pp. 

IUCN. 2003. Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels: version 

3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, 

UK. 26 pp. 

IUCN. 2005. Guidelines for using the IUCN red list categories and criteria. Prepared by the 

Standards and Petitions Subcommittee of the IUCN SSC Red List Programme Committee. 

52 pp. 

KOSHY, M.P., NAMKOONG, G., KAGEYAMA, P., STELLA, A., GANDARA, F. & 

AMARAL, W.A.N. 2002. Decision-making strategies for conservation and use of forest 

genetic resources. Unpublished report. 

OLDFIELD, S. & LUSTY, C.1998. Conservation and sustainable management of trees (with 

CD-Rom) World Conservation Press. 32 pp. 

OLDFIELD, S. LUSTY, C. & MACKINVEN, A. 1998. The World List of Threatened Trees. 

World Conservation Press. 650 pp. 

PITMAN, N.C.A. & JØRGENSEN, P.M. 2002. Estimating the size of the world’s threatened 

flora. Science 298: p. 989. 

269



LEE et al (2007) 

CONSERVATION STRATEGIES OF SHOREA 

LUMUTENSIS (DIPTEROCARPACEAE) IN 

PENINSULAR MALAYSIA 

1,4 

S. L. Lee, 1 K. K. S. Ng, 1 L. G. Saw, 1 C. T. Lee, 1 M. Norwati, 2 N. Tani, 

2 

Y. Tsumura & 3 J. Koskela 

ABSTRACT 

To conserve a rare plant, conservation programs must be guided by the biological attributes of 

the species. Shorea lumutensis is a rare and endemic dipterocarp in Peninsular Malaysia. A 

comprehensive research study was initiated to assess the population ecology and population 

genetics of S. lumutensis to elucidate specific ecological and genetic requirements and 

subsequently to recommend conservation strategies. This paper is apparently the first attempt 

at applying both the ecological and genetic approaches into conservation management of a rare 

dipterocarp. This paper also attempts to link the gaps between conservation research and 

conservation management in a realistic approach. It is our hope that this study will serve as a 

model for the other studies related to conservation of rare dipterocarps. 

INTRODUCTION 

In Peninsular Malaysia, the family Dipterocarpaceae comprises 155 species (Ashton 1982). In 

the past, conservation of the dipterocarps was not an important issue as the family was seen as 

common and none of the species were presumably threatened. However, a recent study by Saw 

& Sam (2000) indicates that over 57% of the species have distribution patterns restricted to 

specific zones. There are also 30 species that are endemic to Peninsular Malaysia, and out of 

these, 12 species are considered rare. Many rare plants are endangered in part because their 

populations are small. Small and isolated populations are inherently more vulnerable to natural 

catastrophes, demographic and environmental stochasticity (Shaffer 1981, Lande 1998, 

Holsinger 2000). They are also threatened by genetic stochasticity such as loss of genetic diversity 

by drift and inbreeding (Keller & Waller 2002). In addition, plants with narrow habitat specificity 

and limited dispersal potential are at particular risk for global extinction, as landscapes become 

mosaics due to anthropogenic activities. 

1 

Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kepong, 52109 Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia 

2 

Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8687, Japan 

3 

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Regional Office for Europe, Via dei Tre Denari 472/a, 00057 Maccarese 

(fiumicino), Rome, Italy 

4 

Correspondence: Soon Leong LEE, leesl@frim.gov.my 

271

CONSERVATION STRATEGIES OF SHOREA LUMUTENSIS (DIPTEROCARPACEAE) IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA 

Shorea lumutensis is one of the rare and endemic dipterocarps in Peninsular Malaysia. It was 

assigned as critically endangered according to IUCN (1994) version 2.3 criteria (CR A1cd, 

C2a) due to suspected population reduction of at least 80% over the last 10 years and the 

population estimated to number less than 250 mature individuals. Taxonomic characteristics of 

S. lumutensis have been described by Symington (1943) and Ashton (1982). It is a mediumsized 

to large tree with irregular longitudinally fissured bark and short buttress (Fig. 1). The 

leaves are leathery and oblong-elliptic in shape and have about 14 pairs of nerves, prominent 

beneath and usually markedly glaucous on the undersurface. The species produces hermaphrodite 

flowers (about 9 mm long, petals linear and pale yellow in color with 20-25 stamens) and 

subsessile fruits with three outer and two inner wings. Locally known as balau putih (putih in 

Malay means white, referring to the leaf undersurface), it is reported to be restricted to the 

western part of Peninsular Malaysia. 

Very little is known about the biology of S. lumutensis. Consequently, we do not know how to 

address specific conservation problems and how to set conservation strategies and priorities. 

This research was aimed to assess the population ecology and population genetics of 

Fig. 1. Morphological characteristics of S. lumutensis. 

272


S. lumutensis to elucidate specific ecological and genetic requirements for the species’ existence. 

The specific objectives were: (1) to generate information on the population status, habitat 

association, spatial distribution, demographic structure, population dynamics, flowering and 

fruiting biology, and germination and seedling behaviour of S. lumutensis; (2) to generate 

information on the levels of genetic diversity, spatial genetic structure, population genetic 

structure, inbreeding, mating system, gene flow, minimum population size and breeding unit 

size for conservation; and (3) to integrate the outputs to recommend management prescriptions 

and conservation priorities for the species and its habitats. 

Population Survey 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Since S. lumutensis is reported to be restricted to the western part of Peninsular Malaysia, a 

forest survey was conducted in seven forest reserves, i.e., Segari Melintang, Tanjung Hantu, 

Lumut, Teluk Muroh, Pangkor Utara, Sungai Pinang, and Pangkor Selatan in the Manjung 

District. For these reserves, the major threats to the existence of the species were identified. 

Study Plot 

For the purpose of ecological studies, an 8-ha study plot (200 400 m) across an elevation 

gradient of 65-125 m, in Compartment 5, Sungai Pinang Forest Reserve, was demarcated for 

the study. The plot was subdivided into 400 subplots, each of 10 20 m. Within the study plot, 

all S. lumutensis individuals >1 cm dbh were mapped and their diameters recorded. 

Topography and Spatial Distribution 

Influence of topography on its spatial distribution was examined by their relative abundance in 

four different elevation classes, i.e., valley ranging 65–80 m above sea level (asl), lower and 

upper slopes ranging 81–95 m asl, 96–110 m asl respectively, and ridge ranging 111–125 m asl. 

The subplots were assigned to their respective elevation classes, taking the elevation at the 

center of the subplots as the mean. 

Spatial Distribution Analysis 

Diameter sizes were defined into four classes: large trees (BIG) >25.0 cm, pole trees (POL) 4.0- 

25.0 cm, saplings (SAP) 2.0–2.5 cm, and seedlings (SEE) 1.0–1.1 cm. Five continuous distance 

classes, each of 20 m, were considered, from 0–20 m to 80–100 m. The spatial distribution of 

each stem diameter class was tested using the Ripley’s (1976) K-function. Confidence limits were 

estimated using the bootstrap method; the location of individuals was randomized in 19 Monte 

Carlo trials to determine a 95% confidence interval within each 20-m distance class. 

Demographic Structure and Short-term Population Dynamics 

The demographic structure of the species was examined by assigning individuals to one of five 

size classes (dbh): 1–5 cm, 6–10 cm, 11–20 cm, 21–30 cm, and >31 cm, and fitted to inverse 

J-shaped curve (y = ae -bx ), the shape distribution of natural tree populations with abundant 

273


regeneration (Condit et al. 1998). Short-term population dynamics was derived from the initial 

census in September 2001 and a repeat census in August 2004 for growth rates (based on 

increase in dbh) and mortality. 

Flowering and Fruiting Biology 

Phenological observations were carried out using binocular from January 2002 to October 

2005. Periodic surveillance was undertaken following Appanah & Chan (1982) to establish 

the flowering stages (budding, initial bloom, peak bloom, tail bloom, and termination of bloom), 

flowering intensity (intense, moderate, and poor) and fruiting stages (seed development, seed 

maturing and seed fall). 

Germination and Seedling Studies 

Seed collections were conducted in December 2002 for trees B026 and B385, and in January 

2003 for trees B004 and B005 within the 8-ha study plot in Sungai Pinang. The seed weight 

variation and its effect on germination and speed of germination were tested using binary and 

ordinal logistic regression analyses, respectively. The relationship between seed weight and 

seedling vigor (seedling height after three months of growth) was tested for y = bx + c, in 

which y represents the seedling height, x the seed weight, and a and b are the intercept and the 

slope of the curve, respectively. 

Development of Microsatellite Loci 

The total genomic DNA was extracted from leaf tissues using the procedure described by 

Murray & Thompson (1980), with modification, and further purified using CsCl-ethidium 

bromide gradient (Sambrook & Russell 2001). The microsatellite library enriched for 

dinucleotide (CT) repeats was constructed following Lee et al. (2004). For those loci showing 

multiple alleles, low stutter and robustness of interpretation, forward primers labelled with 

6-FAM, HEX, or NED fluorescent dyes were synthesized and further used to confirm the polymorphic 

loci using 24 large trees of S. lumutensis from Sungai Pinang. 

Sample Collection and DNA Extraction 

During the mapping process at the 8-ha study plot in Sungai Pinang, leaf or inner bark samples 

were collected for individuals >1 cm dbh for genetic studies. In addition, a total of 40–48 

representative samples were also collected from Pangkor Selatan, Lumut, Segari Melinting 

and Teluk Muroh, using the transect-line sampling method, as explained by Lee et al. (2000). 

The 54 individuals of S. lumutensis >20 cm dbh in Sungai Pinang were also used together with 

the four half-sib families (B004, B005, B026, and B385) collected within the 8-ha study plot 

for mating system and gene flow studies. Genomic DNA was extracted using the procedure 

described by Murray & Thompson (1980), with modification. 

Microsatellite Analysis 

The samples were genotyped for four native microsatellite loci (Slu057, Slu110, Slu124 and 

Slu175) and four microsatellite loci developed for S. leprosula (Sle111a, Sle118, Sle267 and 

Sle303a; Lee et al. 2004). PCR amplifications and fragment analysis were performed according 

274


to Lee et al. (2004) using a GENEAMP PCR System 9700 (Applied Biosystems) and an ABI 

PRISM 377 DNA Sequencer (Applied Biosystems), respectively. 

Data Analysis 

Allelic frequencies were determined for each locus in each population (individuals with dbh 

>25 cm were used to represent the Sungai Pinang population). Based on these data, the following 

levels of genetic diversity were estimated: average number of alleles per locus (A a 

), allelic 

richness (R s 

; Petit et al. 1998), gene diversity (H e 

; Nei 1987) and fixation index (F is 

; Nei 1987). 

Spatial genetic structure in the Sungai Pinang was evaluated using Moran’s I coefficient (Moran 

1950). An indication of the trends in spatial scale of genetic substructuring was obtained using 

correlograms (Sokal & Oden 1978). A permutation procedure using Monte Carlo simulation 

was applied to test significant deviation from random distribution of each calculated measure 

(Manly 1997). Population genetic structure was quantified using R-statistics (R st 

; Slatkin 1995, 

Goodman 1997). Relatedness among populations was quantified using D A 

genetic distances 

(Nei et al. 1983) for pairwise comparison of divergence between populations and cluster analysis 

on genetic distances via the neighbor-joining (NJ) method (Saitou & Nei 1987). Relative strength 

of the nodes was determined using bootstrapping analysis (1000 replicates). For the direct 

estimation of gene flow, parentage was determined by simple exclusion method and likelihoodbased 

approach in the program CERVUS 2.0 (Marshall et al. 1998). The breeding unit parameters 

were estimated according to Nason et al. (1998). The minimum population size to maintain 

current level of genetic diversity was estimated according to Lee et al. (2002). 

Ecology 

RESULTS 

The species was present in five forest reserves, i.e., Sungai Pinang, Pangkor Selatan, Segari 

Melintang, Lumut and Teluk Muroh, which were confined to an area of approximately 313 

km². As the two island populations (Sungai Pinang and Pangkor Selatan) are separated from 

the mainland by the Straits of Dinding, they must have been isolated from mainland populations 

many thousand years ago. Among the three mainland populations, no distinctive geographical 

barrier divided the Lumut and Teluk Muroh but the Segari Melintang population was separated 

by the Manjung River. 

Within these reserves, S. lumutensis occurs as small patches in a general matrix of coastal hill 

dipterocarp forest, usually at >100 m asl. Isolated individuals are occasionally seen but rare. 

The species is most often a subcanopy to emergent tree. Symington (1943) reported that the 

species seldom exceeded 50 cm dbh but in Sungai Pinang and Lumut, four trees >100 cm dbh 

were encountered. The preferred habitat for these five populations appears to be dry coastal hill 

forest on moderate-fertility soils, in microclimates where drainage is good or where high soil 

moisture levels cannot be permanently maintained. The number of large trees was estimated to 

be less than 500 for these five populations. Although the number of large trees was low in each 

of the populations, progressively larger numbers of associated saplings and seedlings were 

observed scattered surrounding the large trees in each of these populations. We also identified 

the following potentially major threats for population endangerment: logging activities (Segari 

Melintang), excavation for stones (quarry) and conversion to oil palm plantations (Lumut and 

Teluk Muroh), and land development for tourism (Pangkor Selatan and Sungai Pinang). 

275


A total of 416 individuals >1 cm dbh were recorded within the 8-ha plot in Sungai Pinang. The 

population density of S. lumutensis >30 cm dbh within the plot was 4.4 trees ha -1 . The prominent 

associated species within the habitat are two palm species, i.e., Eugeissona tristis and Calamus 

castaneus. The study of the relationship between microtopography and spatial distribution 

showed that the species distribution was strongly related to topography; prominent on ridges 

and upper slopes, and totally absent in the lower slopes and valleys. This was further supported 

by spatial distribution analyses, in which significant spatial aggregation was detected at four 

size classes (Fig. 2) and the level of aggregation was highest in SEE and SAP, followed by 

POL, and then BIG. 

Diameter distribution was skewed, with many more small than large individuals being present. 

The distribution was significantly fitted to inverse J-shaped curves (y = ae -bx ; a = 154.6; b = 

0.6; r² = 0.98, P < 0.01), indicating abundant regeneration. The medium-sized trees (11–20 

cm) constituted 1.7% of the total 416 individuals found within the plot, compared with 8.2% in 

the largest-sized trees (>31 cm) and 82.2% in the smallest-sized trees (1–5 cm). Short-term 

population dynamics derived from the initial census in September 2001 and a repeat census in 

August 2004 showed that a total of 75 trees died over the 3-year study period. Mortality was 

detected only at the two lowest-sized classes (1–5 cm and 6–10 cm), 22% and 8% respectively 

(Table 1). Growth was slow in most of the trees enumerated, at mean rates around 

0.3 mm yr -1 (lowest-sized class) to 2.4 mm yr -1 (highest-sized class) and the mean growth rate 

increased with increasing size class. 

15 

BIG 

30 

25 

POL 

10 

20 

Ripley’s K 

5 

0 

Ripley’s K 

15 

10 

5 

0 

-5 

-5 

-10 

-10 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

clas s 

Distance class 

class 


70 

60 

SAP 

90 

80 

SEE 

70 

50 

60 

Ripley’s K 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

-10 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

Distance clas class s 

Ripley’s K 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

-10 

-20 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

Distance class class 

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution analysis using Ripley’s K-function on four diameter classes of 

S. lumutensis within an 8-ha (400 200 m) plot: large trees (BIG >25 cm), pole trees (POL 

4–25 cm), saplings (SAP 2.0–2.5 cm) and seedlings (SEE 1.0–1.1 cm). Distance classes were 

defined at five intervals, each of 20 m, from 0–20 m (class 1) to 80–100 (class 5). Dotted lines 

represent 95% confidence limits. 

276


Table 1. Percentages of mortality, mean and maximum growth rates of S. lumutensis at five 

diameter size classes in the Sungai Pinang plot between 2001 and 2004. Value in parentheses is 

the standard deviation. 

Size class/cm No. of trees % Mean growth Max. rate/ 

mortality rate/mm yr -1 mm yr -1 

1–5 342 22 0.3 (0.5) 1.3 

6–10 14 8 0.7 (0.7) 2.3 

11–20 7 0 1.4 (1.1) 3.7 

21–30 19 0 1.6 (1.2) 3.7 

>31 34 0 2.4 (1.9) 6.3 

Phenological observations within the 8-ha study plot from January 2002 to October 2005 showed 

a flowering event in August 2002 on five trees, i.e., B004, B005, B026, B325 and B385. The 

budding stage was observed on B026, B325 and B385 on 15 August 2002 and two weeks later 

on B004 and B005. The duration of bloom was short, approximately two weeks. The period 

from tail flowering to mature fruit fall was approximately 10 weeks and the period from budding 

stage to mature fruit fall was approximately 16 weeks. Variation of seed morphology was 

obvious among trees; the tree B385 produced the biggest mature seeds with shorter wings. 

Fruit predation was extensive; the majority of the fallen mature seeds were consumed by small 

mammals (e.g., squirrels and rats). 

The distribution of seed size based on 200 individually weighed seeds from four mother trees 

was approximately normal (Fig. 3A). The average seed weight was 18.8 mg (SD = 5.5). 

Germination study showed that the proportion of seed germinated was 35.5%. All the fertile 

seeds germinated within 22 days and more than 50% germinated within nine days (Fig. 3B). 

An ordinal logistic regression analysis showed that seed weight did not affect the speed of 

germination (z = 0.73, P = 0.465). However, a binary logistic regression analysis on the 

probability of seedling emergence vs. seed weight revealed that a significant relationship exists 

between these variables (z = 6.23, P < 0.001). Accordingly, seed weight did influence seedling 

emergence but did not influence the speed of germination. 

There was a weak relationship (seedling height = 0.26 [seed weight] + 3.17; n = 71, r² = 0.19, 

P = 0.11) between seedling height (after three months of growth) and seed weight (Fig. 3C); 

only 19.1% of the variability among the observed values of seedling height was explained by 

the linear relationship between seedling height and seed weight and the remaining 81.9% of the 

variation was not explained by this relationship. The germination rate and seedling performance 

according to mother tree are shown in Table 2. The germination rate ranged from 6% (B004) to 

60% (B385). At the age of two years, the mean seedling height ranged from 23 cm (B005) to 38 

cm (B026) and the mean diameter at ground height (dgh) ranged from 3.7 mm (B005) to 5.3 

mm (B026). B026 produced small seeds (mean seed weight = 17.8 ± 2.8 mg) with low 

germination rate (22%) but had seedlings with the most vigor (mean height and dgh after two 

years of growth were 38 ± 12 cm and 5.3 ± 1.2 mm, respectively). 

Genetics 

From the microsatellite library enriched for dinucleotide (CT) repeats, a total of 336 clones 

were sequenced. A high proportion of the clones were identified to contain microsatellite repeat 

277


25 

20 

A 

Proportion (% ) 

15 

10 

5 

0 

6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-29 30-32 33-35 

W e Weight (m(mg) 

30 

25 

B 

Proportion (% ) 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 22-24 

TimTime e of of germination (Day) (Day) 

16 

14 

C 

See dling he ight (cm ) 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

10 14 18 22 26 30 

Seed ed Weight w (mg) 

g) 

Fig. 3. (A) Distribution of seed sizes (black) and proportions of germinated seed 

(grey) based on 200 individually weighed seeds from four mother trees in one population. 

(B) Proportions of seeds germinated at three-day intervals within 24 days. (C) Relationship 

between seed weight and seedling height (after three months of growth): seedling height 

= 0.26 (seed weight) + 3.17 (r² = 0.19, P = 0.11). 

(97.9%). However, these microsatellite clones showed high redundancies and only 55.3% were 

unique (single copy). For these unique microsatellite clones, 87.3% were CT/GA repeats, 8.3% 

were GT/CA repeats, and 4.4% were other repeats (e.g., GT/CA, AAG, and GGA). Screening 

of 48 primer pairs of unique microsatellite clones, however, managed only to obtain five 

polymorphic loci after screening on 24 large trees from Sungai Pinang (Table 3). The number 

of alleles ranged from two (Slu175) to nine (Slu124), and the probability of paternity exclusion 

278


Table 2. Mean seed weights, germination rates and seedling performance after two years of 

potting of four mother trees of S. lumutensis. Value in parentheses is the standard deviation. 

Tree No. 

No. of 

seeds 

Germination test 

Seedling performance 

after two years 

No. of Mean seed % seed Mean height Mean 

seeds weight/mg germinated /cm dgh/mm 

004 85 50 12.0 (3.1) 6 - - 

B005 190 50 20.5 (2.9) 54 23 (9) 3.7 (1.3) 

B026 100 50 17.8 (2.8) 22 38 (12) 5.3 (1.2) 

B385 120 50 24.6 (3.7) 60 28 (10) 4.1 (0.8) 

Table 3. Locus names, primer sequences, repeat motifs, annealing temperatures (T), numbers 

of alleles observed (A) and allele size ranges of microsatellites sequenced from the CT-enriched 

genomic library of S. lumutensis. Expected heterozygosity (H e 

), polymorphic information content 

(PIC) and probability of paternity exclusion (P e 

). * indicate a significant departure from Hardy- 

Weinberg equilibrium (P < 0.05). 

Locus Primer sequence (5’ - 3’) Repeat T A Size H e 

PIC P e 

Slu 044a F: ACA AAA AGT GGA TGG TGA G (GA) 15 

50 3 138-152 0.535* 0.409 0.218 

R: TTG TAG TGT TGT CCA GTG TG 

Slu 057 F: TTT GTG GTC CCC GCC TTC TG (CT) 12 

50 3 109-113 0.525 0.459 0.273 

R: ATC AGA CAA TCT TTT TGG AC 

Slu 110 F: CAT CCT TAC CTT TGT CAC CC (GA) 21 

50 5 216-222 0.649 0.567 0.368 

R: TCA GGC TCC ATT CTT CTT TT 

Slu 124 F: GCA AAA TAA TAC TCA ATG GG (CA) 12 

50 9 130-161 0.759 0.713 0.544 

R: TGT CAC ATG GGT AAT AAA CT 

Slu 175 F: CAT CAT TAC AAT CAT CCA TC (GA) 15 

50 2 217-223 0.294 0.246 0.123 

R: CAC TTG CTT CGT CGT CTA CC 

ranged from 0.123 (Slu175) to 0.544 (Slu124). A significant departure from Hardy-Weinberg 

equilibrium was detected on Slu044a. Linkage disequilibrium was found between Slu044a 

and Slu175. 

The study revealed high levels of genetic diversity in S. lumutensis (Table 4). The allelic richness 

ranged from 5.7 (Lumut) to 6.3 (Segari Melintang) whereas the gene diversity ranged from 

0.609 (Sungai Pinang) to 0.673 (Segari Melintang). The study also showed high positive values 

of fixation index (F is 

> 0.1) in all populations, an indication of an excess of homozygotes. The 

spatial distribution of alleles study showed significant spatial genetic structure in SEE, SAP 

and BIG but not in POL (Fig. 4). The coefficient of population differentiation quantified using 

R-statistics showed that most of the total genetic diversity was partitioned within population. 

The proportion of genetic diversity distributed among populations was estimated as 0.058, thus 

only 5.8% of the genetic variability was distributed among populations. The cluster analysis 

among populations, however, formed three genetic clusters; Lumut/Teluk Muroh, Sungai Pinang/ 

Pangkor Selatan, with Segari Melintang being the outlier (Fig. 5). 

279


Table 4. Genetic diversity statistics (A a 

, R s 

and H e 

) and fixation indices (F is 

) of S. lumutensis 

based on eight microsatellite loci. Value in parentheses is the standard deviation. 

Population Sample size A a 

R s 

H e 

F is 

Sungai Pinang 47 7.4 (1.8) 6.0 (1.4) 0.609 (0.082) 0.130 

Pangkor Selatan 48 8.1 (1.7) 6.1 (1.1) 0.663 (0.077) 0.128 

Segari Melintang 48 7.9 (1.9) 6.3 (1.3) 0.673 (0.058) 0.109 

Lumut 40 6.6 (1.4) 5.7 (1.2) 0.636 (0.074) 0.156 

Teluk Muroh 48 7.0 (1.5) 6.0 (1.1) 0.661 (0.052) 0.194 

Mean 46 7.4 (0.6) 6.0 (0.2) 0.648 (0.026) 0.143 

0.15 

0.1 

BIG 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

POL 

0.05 

0 

Moran’s I 

0 

-0.05 

Moran’s I 

-0.02 

-0.04 

-0.06 

-0.08 

-0.1 

-0.1 

-0.15 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

Distance e clas class s 

-0.12 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


0.06 

0.04 

SAP 

0.1 

SEE 

0.02 

0.05 

Moran’s I 

0 

-0.02 

-0.04 

-0.06 

-0.08 

Moran’s I 

0 

-0.05 

-0.1 

-0.1 

0 1 2 3 4 5 


-0.15 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

class 


Fig. 4. Correlograms of average Moran’s I coefficients on four diameter classes of S. lumutensis 

within an 8-ha (400 200 m) plot: large trees (BIG >25 cm), pole trees (POL 4–25 cm), 

saplings (SAP 2.0–2.5 cm) and seedlings (SEE 1.0–1.1 cm). Distance classes were defined at 

five intervals, each of 20 m, from 0–20 m (class 1) to 80–100 m (class 5). Dotted lines represent 

95% envelopes of average I distribution after 1000 permutations of individual multi-genotypes 

within each diameter class. 

The phenological observations using binocular showed five flowering trees (B004, B005, B026, 

B325 and B385) during the flowering event in August 2002. However, paternity assignment 

showed that an addition of seven trees (B003, B011, B012, B023, B030, B349 and B397) 

within the 8-ha plot also contributed pollen for the reproduction of the four mother trees. In 

other words, these trees might have flowered but at low density which could not be picked up 

through binoculars. The dbh of the flowering trees ranged from 31–110 cm and this allowed us 

to make the assumption that trees above 30 cm dbh can be considered as reproductively mature. 

280


SM 

BI 

LU 

TM 

52 

SP 

PS 

Fig. 5. Neighbor-joining (NJ) cluster analysis based on D A 

distances (Nei et al. 1983) among 

the Sungai Pinang (SP), Lumut (LU), Pangkor Selatan (PS), Segari Melintang (SM) and Teluk 

Muroh (TM) populations. The bootstrap values (based on 1000 replications) were generated 

by PowerMarker software (Liu & Muse 2005). 

The summary results of mating system, paternity assignment and breeding unit parameters are 

given in Table 5. Shorea lumutensis can be inferred to follow the mixed-mating model (mean 

outcrossing rate = 63.4%), with B004 showing the lowest value of outcrossing rate (22.2%) 

and B005 the highest (92.0%). The pollen flow is moderately extensive, in the range of 122.0 

m (B004) to 220.3 m (B385) with the mean of 175.2 m, and this allowed us to postulate that 

low energy insects might be the main pollinators for S. lumutensis. In comparison with the 

germination study, mother trees with higher outcrossing rate and receiving pollen from many 

distant paternal trees produced bigger seeds, and bigger seeds have a greater probability to 

germinate and establish seedlings. The mean breeding unit size and area were estimated as 52 

individuals and 11.8 ha, respectively. The minimum population size to maintain current levels 

of genetic diversity (number of alleles) is shown in Fig. 6. The basic relationship between A t 

with sample size was logarithmic. To maintain 95% of alleles, 270 individuals are required (in 

the range of 200-310 individuals). 

Table 5. The summary results of mating system, paternity assignment and breeding unit 

parameters of four half-sib families of S. lumutensis in Sungai Pinang. Value in parentheses is 

the standard deviation. 

Mating system and paternity assignment 

% of seed 

Mean pollen 

% of seed due received 

flow 

to outcrossing pollen outside 

distance/m 

plot 

Breeding unit parameter 

Tree No. 

No. of 

seeds 

Size/individual 

Area/ha 

B004 38 22.2 11.1 122.0 (0.0) 70 16.0 

B005 50 92.0 24.0 220.0 (120.2) 47 10.7 

B026 44 61.4 13.6 138.4 (28.3) 45 10.3 

B385 50 78.0 16.0 220.3 (78.5) 44 10.1 

Mean 45.5 63.4 (15.1) 16.2 (2.8) 175.2 (26.2) 52 (6) 11.8 (1.4) 

281


100 

90 

80 

70 

% of alleles 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 

No. of individua ls 

Fig. 6. Changes in % of alleles maintained with changes in the number of individuals of S. 

lumutensis removed. All values were based on a mean of 1000 resamplings with standard 

errors (SE). Dotted lines represent standard errors. 

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This study showed that S. lumutensis comprises only five populations and perhaps no more 

than 500 large individuals; extinction of the species is likely if nothing is done to conserve it. 

There are two basic conservation strategies for plants, in situ and ex situ conservation. In situ 

conservation involves the designation, management and monitoring of species at the location 

where they are currently found, whereas ex situ conservation involves the sampling, transfer 

and storage of species away from the original locations where they were found. Conserving S. 

lumutensis in its natural habitat is clearly the first step. However, ex situ conservation is also 

necessary to provide insurance against catastrophic events and to facilitate the possibility of 

future reintroduction into appropriate habitats. 

Selection of In situ Conservation Area 

Shorea lumutensis has >90% of its total genetic diversity residing within the population and 

displays mix-mating system. As the species is endemic to Peninsular Malaysia and comprises 

only five populations and perhaps no more than 500 large individuals, the five populations 

need to be conserved. The cluster analysis showed that Segari Melintang harbors some unique 

genetic characteristics which should receive additional attention for conservation purposes. 

The minimum population size needed to maintain 95% of its genetic diversity was estimated as 

270 individuals (in the range of 200-310) and the mean breeding unit size was estimated as 52 

individuals. When planning a conservation area, however, a minimal population size should be 

regarded only as a last resort and an extreme compromise. For added safety, much larger 

population or area should constitute units of in situ conservation (Hawkes et al. 1997). However, 

282


as the resources available for conservation programs are limited, it is unrealistic simply to 

recommend in situ conservation area “as large as possible”. In practice, the size of a conservation 

area, rather than the number of trees, is often dictated by the relative concentration of people 

and the suitability of the land for human exploitation (agriculture, urbanization, logging, etc). 

Therefore, for S. lumutensis, conserving an area no less than 100 ha with at least of 300 

individuals >10 cm dbh (including 60 reproductive trees >30 cm dbh) in each population will 

be sufficient to maintain maximum levels of genetic diversity to withstand loss of genetic 

variability due to drift and should be enough to contain the minimum number of reproductive 

individuals to prevent inbreeding. 

The areas should be demarcated within the Compartments where S. lumutensis is found, such 

as Compartment 5 of Sungai Pinang (N 04º14’32”; E 100º33’33”), Compartments 1 and 2 of 

Pangkor Selatan (N 04º12’19”; E 100º34’23”), Compartment 5 of Teluk Muroh (N 04º11’13”; 

E 100º37’47”), Compartment 3 of Lumut (N 04º13’38”; E 100º38’26”), and Compartments 41 

and 42 of Segari Melintang (N 04º22’36”; E 100º37’13”) (Fig. 7). Extensive surveys should be 

carried immediately to enumerate, measure and tag the individuals within these compartments. 

The survey should be extended to other compartments if the criterion of conserving 300 

individuals cannot be fulfilled. The criterion of at least 100 ha should always be satisfied even 

when the number of individuals exceeds 300. There is a possibility that the number of individuals 

is less than 300 in Pangkor Selatan; than the population might require re-introduction to increase 

its size and gene pool. 

For each population of S. lumutensis, the conservation area to be established should have a 

central core area, surrounded by a buffer zone and perpheral to this, a transition zone (Fig. 7). 

Laidlaw (1994) and Lee et al. (2002) have shown that there is a higher occurrence of deleterious 

effects on reserves that are situated at the edge of a forest reserve. The presence of a buffer 

zone will protect the core from edge effects and other factors that might threaten the population 

viability of S. lumutensis present in the core. The transition zone, however, may be made available 

for sustainable harvesting activities. 

To ensure these conservation areas are fully protected, legal provisions must be in place at the 

State level. The establishment of in situ conservation areas will not only conserve S. lumutensis, 

but also help to conserve the forest ecosystem and other important, but non-targeted species, 

such as tongkat ali (Eurycoma longifolia, Simaroubaceae) in Sungai Pinang. 

Monitoring and Management In situ conservation Area 

Monitoring is a quantitative assessment of the status of a population and its component 

individuals over time (Tuxill & Nabhan 2001). Monitoring is important both before and after 

legal protection of in situ conservation areas. Before protection, monitoring gives a basis for 

prediction and allows a critical situation to be identified. During protection, monitoring indicates 

the effectiveness of protected areas in preserving and enhancing the species they contain. 

Once the conservation areas are demarcated, the areas shall be monitored at frequent intervals 

to note disturbances or encroachments. Habitat protection from anthropogenic catastrophes 

represents the first and the most important measure for the existence of the species in a natural 

habitat. Phenological observations can be initiated during this process to check the reproductive 

status and to enable seed collections. 

283


Segari Melintang 

Tanjung Hantu 

Conservation area design 

Core 

Pangkor Utara 

Buffer zone 

Transition zone 

Sungai Pinang 

Lumut 

Pangkor Selatan 

Teluk Muroh 

Fig. 7. Proposed in situ conservation areas (compartments highlighted in black) and model for 

reserve design (inset) of S. lumutensis. Compartments where the survey was conducted are 

highlighted in grey. The species is not present in Pangkor Utara and Tanjung Hantu. 

284


Even if the habitat remains untouched, all populations face some risk of decline through exposure 

to the vagaries of natural temporal and spatial variations, such as environmental and demographic 

variations. Hence, monitoring of population size should also be conducted at appropriate intervals 

to detect any drastic reduction so that timely management prescriptions can be provided to 

ensure their health. 

At five-year intervals, the populations should be enumerated to determine its size distribution, 

mortality, recruitment, population growth and other demographic variables. The information 

generated helps to understand the mechanisms that influence population behavior and can be 

used to predict population trends. In addition, genetic assessment should also be conducted to 

determine population bottlenecks and inbreeding depression. The 8-ha study plot is already 

available for Sungai Pinang and this should be included in the core area. A similar study plot 

shall be established in Pangkor Selatan, Segari Melintang, Lumut and Teluk Muroh. Although 

monitoring is an expensive process in terms of time and resources, it is the only way to ensure 

that S. lumutensis is conserved effectively. 

A management plan for the conservation areas must be developed to regulate human intervention 

in a manner that ensures the population viability of the target species is maintained or enhanced 

(Maxted et al. 1997a). Given the large amount of genetic diversity detected presently, 

S. lumutensis should have enough genetic resources necessary for short-term ecological 

adaptation and for long-term evolutionary change. However, all the populations exhibited high 

positive values of fixation index, an indication of homozygote excess, which might indicate 

depression due to inbreeding. In Sungai Pinang, the inbreeding depression can be either due to 

high selfing rate or biparental mating. Inbreeding causes the loss of heterozygosity with no 

change in allele frequencies, because continuous selfing and mating between relatives will 

purge the deleterious recessive alleles and expose them as homozygotes to the environment 

(Oostermeijer et al. 2003). It is generally agreed that inbreeding is associated with increased 

seed abortion, low germination rates, high seedling mortality, and poor growth and flowering 

of the offspring (Dudash & Carr 1998). Thus, if a population consists of less than 60 reproductive 

individuals, the priority should be to enlarge the population size to minimize inbreeding 

depression due to small population size. If a population consists of a few hundred reproductive 

individuals, thinning is required to reduce the degree of spatial genetic structure and thus 

minimize the inbreeding depression due to biparental mating. 

The direct estimation of gene flow showed that its pollen flow is not extensive, which might 

indicate that its pollen do not cross large forest openings. Because the five populations were 

isolated from each other due to geographical barrier or fragmentation, if the populations are 

allowed to exist in small population sizes for a long period of time, it is expected that the loss 

of genetic variation by drift cannot be compensated for by immigration of seeds or pollens 

from other populations. This leads to genetic erosion and increased genetic differentiation among 

populations. Consequently, low levels of genetic diversity might reduce evolutionary potential 

and increase the probability of population extinction. The most effective way to counter genetic 

risks is to allow for migration, i.e., the exchange of pollen and seeds with neighbors. The idea 

of habitat corridors initially developed for animal conservation (Simberloff & Cox 1987) might 

be an option, and provided resources are available, this approach may be applied to bridge the 

Sungai Pinang population with that in the Pangkor Selatan, and Teluk Muroh population with 

the Lumut population. 

285


In situ conservation areas should be intensively managed to support the natural regeneration of 

target species and prevent them from competition with other species that may become dominant 

following the rules of natural succession. The demographic study conducted in Sungai Pinang 

showed that the population consisted of a low number of medium-sized trees and had high 

mortality of seedlings. Thus, silviculture treatments should be designed to encourage seedling 

regeneration and enhance sapling growth by selectively eliminating the two prominent associated 

palm species (E. tristis and C. castaneus), so as to minimize the space competition and maximize 

the sunlight exposure. Nevertheless, as the two island populations were entirely isolated from 

mainland populations and the three mainland populations were isolated from each other either 

due to geographical barrier or fragmentation, restricted gene flow and contemporary demographic 

independence are anticipated. Therefore, the five populations should be considered as distinct 

management units, which will require specific management prescriptions. Like monitoring, 

management prescription activities are often expensive in time and resources. Hence, active 

management should be carried out with decreasing intensity and eventually stops when 

monitoring indicates that survival and reproduction, especially the quality of the offspring, 

have achieved acceptable levels. 

Ex situ Conservation 

Ex situ conservation can be divided into several specific techniques, such as seed storage, in 

vitro storage, DNA storage, field gene bank and botanical garden. As the species produces 

recalcitrant seeds which are extremely short-lived in nature, ex situ conservation based on seed 

storage and periodic regeneration appears to be more in principle than in practice. Although in 

vitro conservation is seldom useful or economically viable for the conservation of forest trees, 

it may be more relevant to S. lumutensis with seed storage problems. The use of DNA storage 

method is rapidly increasing in importance. It is now routinely possible to amplify specific 

oligonucleotides or genes from the entire mixture of genomic DNA. The advantage of this 

technique is that it is efficient, simple and takes up little space but the obvious problem is that 

it does not allow the regeneration of entire plants (Maxted et al. 1997b). A better assurance 

against possible extinction in its natural habitat is the establishment of the species in ex situ 

conservation areas, such as botanical gardens and arboreta. Realistically, however, botanical 

gardens and arboreta collections are always limited to a small number of individuals. 

Although the establishment of new populations to areas outside their historic range might not 

be successful due to genetic and ecological adaptation problems, increased use of S. lumutensis 

in terms of planting in forest areas, watersheds and degraded lands or as field gene bank should 

be encouraged. The idea is that the cultivation of a valuable but rare tree species can result in 

multiplication and distribution of its germplasm. Moreover, when a rare species becomes 

common as a result of planting, and its products have economic value, the harvesting pressures 

on its natural populations will decrease. 

As the species is outcrossed and the majority of its genetic diversity was partitioned within the 

population, a minimum of 10 unrelated mother trees per population should be used to establish 

a field gene bank. In addition, as the species exhibited significant spatial genetic structure up 

to the scale of about 20 m, the selected mother trees for seed collections should be more than 20 

m apart. Chances for success are greatest if seeds are drawn from a composite cross among the 

available populations so that natural selection will weed out unsuccessful genotypes from among 

the segregating progeny of such hybrid populations (Barrett & Kohn 1991). Larger seeds have 

286


a greater chance of germination compared to smaller seeds. Using 30 progenies per mother tree 

and combining the progenies from five populations would provide a stand of 1500 individuals. 

In addition to the genetic considerations, stand sizes should be kept at a manageable level and 

that the burden of future management and regeneration is within the capacity of the institution 

in charge. A minimum of 10 ha is recommended. Initial planting may want to consider planting 

2000 individuals (40 progenies per mother tree) because this number will decrease as a result 

of mortality and other factors. 


This report was extracted from the paper, “Linking the gaps between conservation research and 

conservation management of rare dipterocarps: A case study of Shorea lumutensis” by the 

same authors in Biological Conservation 131(2006): 72–92. The Forest Department of Perak is 

acknowledged for granting us permission to access the various forest reserves. We thank the 

District Forest Officer of Kinta Manjung and the staff of the Renjer Office in Lumut for their 

logistic support during the field work; and Ghazali Jaafar, Yahya Mahani, Ramli Ponyoh, Mariam 

Din, Sharifah Talib, the late Baya Busu, Ayau Kanir, Angan Atan and Mustapa Data for their 

excellent assistance in the field and laboratory. The Forest Department of Peninsular Malaysia 

is acknowledged for providing the digital maps of the forest reserves in Manjung District and 

Hamidah Mamat (FRIM) for helping to illustrate Fig. 7. This project was supported in part by 

the IRPA research grant (09-04-01-0013-EA001), the Timber Export Levy Fund (A179 QIZZ), 

and the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) Agreement No. APO01/056, 

APO02/084 and APO03/094. 

REFERENCES 

APPANAH, S. & CHAN, H.T. 1982. Methods of studying the reproductive biology of some 

Malaysian primary forest trees. Malaysian Forester 45: 10–20. 

ASHTON, P.S. 1982. Dipterocarpaceae. Flora Malesiana 9: 237–552. 

BARRETT, S.C.H., & KOHN, J.R. 1991. Genetic and evolutionary consequences of a small 

population size in plants: implications for conservation. Pp. 3–30 in Falk, D.A. & Holsinger, 

K.E. (eds.), Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford University Press, New 

York. 

BÜCKING, W. 2003. Are there threshold numbers for protected forests? Journal of 

Environmental Management 67: 37–45. 

CONDIT, R., SUKUMAR, R., HUBBELL, S.P. & FOSTER, R.B. 1998. Predicting population 

trends from size distributions: a direct test in tropical tree communities. American Naturalist 

152: 495–509. 

COX, G.W. 1993. Conservation Ecology. W.C. Brown, Dubugue, IA. 

DUDASH, M.R. & CARR, D.E. 1998. Genetics underlying inbreeding depression in Mimulus 

with contrasting mating systems. Nature 393: 682–684. 

FRANKEL, O.H. & SOULÉ, M.E. 1981. Conservation and Evolution. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge. 

FRANKLIN, I.R. 1980. Evolutionary change in small populations. Pp. 135–150 in Soulé, M.E. 

& Wilcox, B.A. (eds.), Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. 

Sinauer Assocs., Sunderland, Massachusetts. 

287


GOODMAN, S.J. 1997. Rst Calc: a collection of computer programs for calculating estimates 

of genetic differentiation from microsatellite data and determining their significance. 

Molecular Ecology 6: 881–885. 

GRAUDAL, L., KJAER, E.D. & CANGER, S. 1995. A systematic approach to the conservation 

of genetic resources of trees and shrubs in Denmark. Forest Ecology and Management 73: 

117–134. 

GRAUDAL, L., YANCHUK, A. & KJÆR, E. 2004. National planning. Pp. 25–36 in FAO, 

DFSC, IPGRI, Forest Genetic Resources Conservation and Management, Vol. 1: Overview, 

Concepts and Some Systematic Approaches. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 

Rome. 

HAMRICK, J.L. 1993. Genetic diversity and conservation in tropical forest. Pp. 1–9 in Drysdale, 

R.M., John, S.E.T. & Yapa, A.C. (eds.), Proceedings of the ASEAN-Canada Symposium 

on Genetic Conservation and Production of Tropical Tree Seed. ASEAN–Canada Forest 

Tree Seed Center, Saraburi, Thailand. 

HAWKES, J.G. 1991. International workshop on dynamic in situ conservation of wild relatives 

of major cultivated plants: summary of final discussion and recommendations. Israel Journal 

of Botany 40: 529–536. 

HAWKES, J.G., MAXTED, N. & ZOHARY, D. 1997. Reserve design. Pp. 132–143 in Maxted, 

N., Ford-Lloyd, B.V. & Hwakes, J.G. (eds.), Plant Genetic Conservation: the In Situ 

Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 

HOLSINGER, K.E. 2000. Demography and extinction in small population. Pp. 55–74 in Young, 

A.G. & Clarke, G.M. (eds.), Genetics, Demography and Viability of Fragmented 

Populations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

IUCN 1994. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria version 2.3. IUCN, Gland. 

KELLER, L.F. & WALLER, D.M. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution 17: 230–241. 

KOSKI, V. 1996. Management guidelines for in situ conservation of wind pollinated temperate 

conifers. Forest Genetic Resources 24: 1–7. 

LAIDLAW, R.K. 1994. The Virgin Jungle Reserves of Peninsular Malaysia: the Ecology and 

Dynamics of Small Protected Areas in Managed Forest, Ph.D. dissertation, University of 

Cambridge, Cambridge. 

LANDE, R.C. 1998. Anthropogenic, ecological and genetic factors in extinction and 

conservation. Research on Population Ecology 40: 259–269. 

LAWRENCE, M.J. & MARSHALL, D.F. 1997. Plant population genetics. Pp. 99–113 in 

Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B.V. & Hwakes, J.G. (eds.), Plant Genetic Conservation: the In 

Situ Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 

LEE, S.L. & KRISHNAPILLAY, B. 2004. Status of forest genetic conservation and management 

in Malaysia. Pp. 206–228 in Luoma-aho, T., Hong, L.T., Ramanatha Rao, V. & Sim, H.C. 

(eds.), Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Forest Genetic Resources Programme (APFORGEN) 

Inception Workshop. IPGRI-APO, Serdang, Malaysia. 

LEE, S.L., TANI, N., NG, K.K.S. & TSUMURA, Y. 2004. Isolation and characterization of 21 

microsatellite loci in an important tropical tree Shorea leprosula and their applicability to 

S. parvifolia. Molecular Ecology Notes 4: 222–225. 

LEE, S.L., WICKNESWARI, R., MAHANI, M.C. & ZAKRI, A.H. 2000. Genetic diversity of 

Shorea leprosula Miq. (Dipterocarpaceae) in Malaysia: Implications for conservation of 

genetic resources and tree improvement. Biotropica 32: 213–224. 

LEE, S.L., NG, K.K.S., SAW, L.G., NORWATI, A., SITI SALWANA, M.H., LEE, C.T. & 

NORWATI, M. 2002. Population genetics of Intsia palembanica (Leguminosae) and genetic 

288


conservation of Virgin Jungle Reserves (VJRs) in Peninsular Malaysia. American Journal 

of Botany 89: 447–459. 

LIU, K. & MUSE, S.V. 2005. PowerMarker: Integrated analysis environment for genetic marker 

data. Bioinformatics 21: 2128–2129. 

MANLY, B.F.J. 1997. Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. 

Chapman and Hall, London. 

MARSHALL, T.C., SLATE, J., KRUUK, L. & PEMBERTON, J.M. 1998. Statistical confidence 

for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Molecular Ecology 7: 

639–655. 

MAXTED, N., GUARINO, L. & DULLOO, M.E. 1997a. Management and monitoring. Pp. 

144–159 in Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B.V. & Hwakes, J.G. (eds.), Plant Genetic 

Conservation: the In Situ Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 

MAXTED, N., FORD-LLOYD, B.V. & HWAKES, J.G. 1997b. Complementary conservation 

strategies. Pp. 15–39 in Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B.V. & Hwakes, J.G. (eds.), Plant Genetic 

Conservation: the In Situ Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 

MENGES, E.S. 1991. The application of minimum viable population theory to plants. Pp. 31– 

61 in Falk, D.A. & Holsinger, K. (eds.), Genetic and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford 

University Press, New York. 

MORAN, P.A.P. 1950. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37: 17–23. 

MURRAY, M. & THOMPSON, W.F. 1980. Rapid isolation of high molecular weight plant 

DNA. Nucleic Acids Research 8: 4321–4325. 

NASON, J.D., HERRE, E.A. & HAMRICK, J.L. 1998. The breeding structure of a tropical 

keystone plant resource. Nature 391: 685–687. 

NEI, M. 1987. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. Columbia University Press, New York. 

NEI, M., TAJIMA, F. & TATENO, Y. 1983. Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from 

molecular data. Journal of Molecular Evolution 19: 153–170. 

OOSTERMEIJER, J.G.B., LUIJTEN, S.H. & DEN NIJS, J.C.M. 2003. Integrating demographic 

and genetic approaches in plant conservation. Biological Conservation 113: 389–398. 

PETIT, R.J., EL MOUSADIK, A. & PONS, O. 1998. Identifying population for conservation 

on the basis of genetic markers. Conservation Biology 12: 844–855. 

RIPLEY, B.D. 1976. The second-order analysis of stationary processes. Journal of Applied 

Probability 13: 255–266. 

SAITOU, N. & NEI, M. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing 

phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 11: 553–570. 

SAMBROOK, J. & RUSSELL, D.W. 2001. Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 3rd 

edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York. 

SAW, L.G. & SAM, Y.Y. 2000. Conservation of Dipterocarpaceae in Peninsular Malaysia. 

Journal of Tropical Forest Science 12: 593–615. 

SHAFFER, M.L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31: 131– 

134. 

SIMBERLOFF, D. & COX, J. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. 

Conservation Biology 1: 63–71. 

SLATKIN, M. 1995. A measure of population subdivision based on microsatellite allele 

frequency. Genetics 139: 457–462. 

SOKAL, R.R. & ODEN, N.L. 1978. Spatial autocorrelation in biology. I. Methodology. 

Biological Journal of Linnean Society 10: 199–228. 

SYMINGTON, C.F. 1943. Forester’s Manual of Dipterocarps, Malayan Forest Records No. 

16. Forest Research Institute, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 

289


THEILADE, I., YANCHUK, A. & HALD, S. 2004. Establishment and management of ex situ 

conservation stands. Pp. 31–45 in FAO, FLD, IPGRI, Forest Genetic Resources 

Conservation and Management. Vol. 3: In Plantations and Genebanks (ex situ). International 

Plan Genetic Resources Institute, Rome. 

TUXILL, J. & NABHAN, G.P. 2001. People, Plants and Protected Areas: A Guide to In Situ 

Management. Earthscan Publications, London. 

WYATT-SMITH, J. 1950. Virgin jungle reserves. Malayan Forester 13: 92–94. 

290

o_19ko2dt161ng2j4e1tgnoqv1s45a.pdf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?