The Fauna of Sri Lanka - IUCN

The Fauna of Sri Lanka: 

Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation 

Edited by 

Channa. N. B. Bambaradeniya 

This publication has been prepared by 

the World Conservation Union in Sri Lanka 

with financial assistance from the Royal Netherlands Government. 

Printing of this publication has been made possible by 

the Royal Netherlands Government and the Protected Area Management 

and Wildlife Conservation (PAM & WC) Project 

i

The designation of geographical entities in this report, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the 

expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country 

territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries. The 

views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN. 

This publication has been prepared by the World Conservation Union in Sri Lanka with financial assistance 

from the Royal Netherlands Government. Printing of this publication has been funded by the Royal 

Netherlands Government and the Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation Project. 

Published by: 

The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Colombo, Sri Lanka 

Government of Sri Lanka. 

Copyright: 

© 2006, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial 

purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder 

provided the source is fully acknowledged. 

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is 

prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. 

Citation: 

Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. (Editor), 2006. Fauna of Sri Lanka: Status of 

Taxonomy, Research and Conservation. The World Conservation Union, 

Colombo, Sri Lanka & Government of Sri Lanka. viii + 308pp 

ISBN: 955-8177-51-2 

Cover photographs: 

Produced by: 

Printed by: 

Available from: 

Stenella longirostris - © Anouk Ilangakoon 

Notocrypta paralysos - © Naalin Perera 

Panthera pardus kotiya - © Gehan de Silva Wijeratne 

The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Sri Lanka 

Karunaratne & Sons Ltd., 

67, UDA Industrial Estate, 

Katuwana Rd, Homagama, Sri Lanka 

The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Sri Lanka 

53, Horton Place. Colombo 7, Sri Lanka 

Biodiversity Secretariat 

Ministry of Environment, 

104, ‘Parisarapiyasa’, 

Robert Gunawardane Mawatha, 

Battaramulla, Sri Lanka 

ii

Contents 

Message from the Country Representative of IUCN Sri Lanka 

Message from the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment 

Dedication 

Acknowledgements 

Editorial 

v 

vi 

vii 

ix 

x 

Section 1: Status of Invertebrate Fauna in Sri Lanka 1 

An Overview of the Taxonomic Status of Class Hexapoda (Insecta) in Sri Lanka 3 

Anura Wijesekara 

Current Status and Future Directions in Bee Taxonomy in Sri Lanka 12 

W. A. I. P. Karunaratne and J. P. Edirisinghe 

Current Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation of Dragonfly Fauna of Sri Lanka 20 

Matjaz Bedjanic 

Current Status of Aphid Taxonomy in Sri Lanka 35 

Jayanthi P. Edirisinghe and M.A.P. Wijerathna 

Current Taxonomic Status of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Sri Lanka 43 

R. K. Sriyani Dias 

Species Richness, Distribution and Conservation Status of Butterflies in Sri Lanka 53 

W. P. N. Perera and C.N.B. Bambaradeniya 

Taxonomic Status of Ticks in Sri Lanka 65 

P. R. M.P. Dilrukshi 

Systematics and Conservation of Spiders in Sri Lanka: Current Status and 70 

Future Prospects 

Suresh P. Benjamin and Channa N. B. Bambaradeniya 

Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Crabs 77 

Mohomed M. Bahir & Rohan Pethiyagoda 

Land Snails in Sri Lanka 84 

K. B. Ranawana 

Section 2: Status of Vertebrate Fauna in Sri Lanka 101 

Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Fishes 103 

Rohan Pethiyagoda 

Some Aspects of Ecology of Endemic Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka 113 

Upali S. Amarasinghe, R. R.A. R. Shirantha and M.J.S. Wijeyaratne 

Sri Lankan Amphibians: Diversity, Uniqueness and Conservation 125 

Rohan Pethiyagoda, Kelum Manamendra-Arachchi, Mohomed M. Bahir and 

Madhava Meegaskumbura 

Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka 134 

Anslem de Silva 

iii

Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka 164 

Professor Sarath W. Kotagama, Rex I. De Silva, Athula S. Wijayasinha & 

Vathsala Abeygunawardane 

Status of Waterfowl in Sri Lanka 204 

Deepal Warakagoda and Udaya Sirivardana 

Taxonomic Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka 216 

D. K. Weerakoon and W. L. D. P. T. S. de A. Goonatilake 

Ecological Traits of Endemic Small Mammals in Rainforests of Sri Lanka, 

and Their Implications for Conservation 232 

Mayuri R. Wijesinghe 

The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka 235 

Sriyanie Miththapala 

Section 3: Status of Marine Fauna in Sri Lanka 257 

Coral Associated Invertebrates: An Overview of the Current Taxonomic Status 259 

Malik Fernando 

Current Status of Taxonomy and Ecology of Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka 274 

Darshani de Silva 

The Taxonomy and Status of Offshore Birds (seabirds) of Sri Lanka 288 

S. W. Kotagama1 and Rex I. De Silva 

Taxonomy and Status of the Sharks and Rays of Sri Lanka 294 

Rex I. De Silva 

Taxonomy and Current Status of Marine Mammals in Sri Lanka 302 

A. D. Ilangakoon 

iv

Message from the Country Representative of IUCN Sri Lanka 

In the year 2004, after a lapse of nearly two decades, The World Conservation Union (IUCN), in 

collaboration with the Biodiversity Secretariat of the Ministry of Environment organized a series of 

national workshops on the status of fauna in Sri Lanka. 

The intention of organizing these workshops was to upgrade and disseminate the knowledge pertaining to 

taxonomy, ecology and research on the fauna of the island through presentations made by eminent 

scientists and naturalists, based on recent research. Since a wealth of information was presented at these 

workshops, IUCN recognized the need to compile this valuable knowledge and information into a single 

comprehensive publication, which could be used by a variety of stakeholders, including policy makers, 

protected area managers, researchers, conservation biologists, environmentalists and students. 

Most of the scientists who presented papers at these national workshops came forward voluntarily to write 

up full papers on their research in relation to taxonomy, ecology and the conservation of fauna in Sri Lanka. 

Thus, this publication includes updated information on all groups of inland vertebrate fauna, selected groups 

of inland invertebrate fauna and selected groups of marine fauna. 

We wish to thank all the scientists and naturalists who contributed towards this publication and sincerely 

acknowledge the group of peer reviewers that included Sri Lankan and foreign scientists who assisted us 

to review each paper in order to enhance the technical quality of this publication. 

We sincerely hope that this publication would be used by various stakeholders for the conservation of fauna 

in Sri Lanka. 

Mrs. Shiranee E Yasaratne 

Country Representative 

The World Conservation Union (IUCN) 

Sri Lanka 

v

Message from the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Sri Lanka 

It is with great pleasure that I write this message for this comprehensive publication on the status of fauna 

in Sri Lanka, on behalf of the Ministry of Environment. Being the government focal member, the Ministry 

of Environment has been actively involved in biodiversity conservation activities in collaboration with IUCN 

– The World Conservation Union in Sri Lanka, during the past two decades. Such collaborations have 

resulted in several valuable outputs, including publications such as the 1999 Biodiversity Conservation 

Framework for Action, and several workshops to raise awareness and/or build capacity to conserve the 

rich biodiversity in the island. The Ministry decided to co-finance the printing of this publication through 

financial assistance from the ADB/GEF funded Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation 

Project, in order to disseminate it and provide information on the current status of fauna in Sri Lanka, 

among a wider group of stakeholders including researchers, students, teachers and policy makers. I am 

confident that this publication would contribute towards promoting research on the different groups of 

fauna in the island, and also be used to develop and implement relevant conservation policies. I wish to 

thank all the researchers who contributed with very interesting papers on the status of different groups of 

fauna, in order to make this publication a success. 

Mr. Jayalath R. W. Dissanayake 

Secretary 

Ministry of Environment 


vi

Dedication 

This publication is dedicated to the memory of late Prof. Felix Prashantha Amerasinghe, a brilliant research 

scientist and an exemplary university academic who contributed immensely towards the development of 

natural sciences in Sri Lanka. 

Although initially selected to enter medical college, Prof. Amerasinghe, in his youth, opted to pursue 

biological sciences as an undergraduate at the University of Ceylon, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, where he 

obtained a First Class Honours Degree in Zoology. Subsequently, he obtained a Ph.D. in Entomology from 

the University of Bristol, UK. He commenced his university teaching career in 1972 as an Assistant 

Lecturer at the Department of Zoology, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, where he served for nearly 

three decades. In 1996, he was appointed Professor of Applied Zoology and between 1998 and 1999, held 

the position of Head of the Department of Zoology, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. Between 1990 

and 1992, Prof. Amerasinghe also served as a Visiting Associate Professor at the Department of 

Entomology, University of Maryland, USA. He was a dedicated teacher who possessed unique teaching 

skills that encouraged and stimulated students to develop an interest in biology. 

As a research scientist, Prof. Amerasinghe specialised primarily in the field of Medical Entomology. He 

was very methodical and systematic in his research work, with extra-ordinary commitment to deliver 

scientifically objective and high quality outputs. During his research career spanning 35 years, he was able 

to publish more than 80 peer-reviewed papers in reputed national and international journals, and also 

present more than 50 papers at national, regional and international conferences. He believed in applied 

research that would benefit the country and the world at large. He made an invaluable contribution to the 

field of Medical Entomology, through his pioneering research work on mosquito ecology and taxonomy. 

The findings of his enduring research work enabled the government of Sri Lanka to design and implement 

effective malaria control programmes, especially in the Mahaweli irrigation systems. Apart from his 

primary research interests related to Medical Entomology, he also pursued an interest in the field of ecology 

and biodiversity as an ardent naturalist. Some of his unique research related to these fields include the 

study of food habits of the Sri Lankan Leopard, and description of the structure and identification of the 

hairs of the mammals of Sri Lanka. 

He supervised the research work of several undergraduate and postgraduate students in Sri Lanka, where 

his able guidance enabled them to complete their research successfully and pursue their careers in the field 

of biology. He always encouraged creative thinking amongst students, and promoted constructive criticism 

and positive approaches in designing and implementing research work. 

Prof. Amerasinghe held several professional affiliations, in national and international scientific bodies. A 

few that highlight his reputation and credibility as a scientist include being a Fellow of the National 

Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka, Fellow of the Institute of Biology, Sri Lanka, Fellow of the Royal 

Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, and Member of the Entomological Society of America. He also 

held chairmanship of committees and councils in several professional associations and national institutes in 

Sri Lanka. 

His expertise was regularly sought by many international organizations, including the World Health 

Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP), where he was hired as an advisor on assignments related to vector control. He was 

invited to be one of the Lead Authors of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and was also a member of 

an international working group on a WHO/UNEP-commissioned project on Biodiversity and Human 

Health. He carried out several short-term consultancies in countries such as the Philippines, Pakistan, 

Thailand and India. 

vii

At the time of his unexpected demise, he held the position of Theme Leader overseeing the global research 

program related to the Water, Health and Environment Theme of the International Water Management 

Institute (IWMI), a CGIAR-supported research institute with headquarters in Colombo, Sri Lanka. During 

his six year tenure at IWMI, he initiated a collaborative partnership with The World Conservation Union 

through a unique project integrating biodiversity conservation aspects into an irrigation development scheme 

in Southern Sri Lanka. This was the first time in Sri Lanka where conservation concerns were addressed 

parallel to the implementation of a large-scale irrigation development and agricultural settlement scheme. 

Prof. Amerasinghe managed to introduce the concept of eco-agriculture into this project. 

Prof. Amerasinghe received several national and international research awards and honours, for his unique 

research work. In 2001, he brought immense honour and glory to his motherland by being included in the 

First Edition of the “2000 OUTSTANDING SCIENTISTS OF THE 21ST CENTURY” published by the 

International Biographical Centre, Cambridge, England. 

His untimely demise, which left a vacuum in the field of biological research in Sri Lanka, is an irreplaceable 

loss to the scientific community of the world. 

viii


The World Conservation Union gratefully acknowledges the scientists and naturalists who contributed their 

findings through scientific papers towards making this publication possible. The Union would also like to 

thank the following scientists who reviewed the papers in this publication for technical content: Dr. Pamela 

Rasmussen, Michigan State University Museum West Circle Drive, East Lansing, MI, USA; Prof. Colin P. 

Groves, School of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia; 

Dr. Indraneil Das, University of Sarawak Malaysia, Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia; Mr. Sanjay 

Molur, Zoo Outreach Organization, Coimbatore, India; Prof. Jayanthi Edirisinghe, Department of Zoology, 

Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka; Dr. Michael van der Poorten, Wariyapola, Sri 

Lanka; Mr. Rohan Pethiyagoda, Wildlife Heritage Trust, Sri Lanka; Mr. Jerker Tamelander, Regional 

Marine Programme, Asia Regional Office, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka; Dr. Sriyanie Miththapala, IUCN - Asia 

Regional Office, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka and Dr. Channa Bambaradeniya, Regional Species Programme, 

IUCN - Asia Regional Office, Colombo 7 Sri Lanka. 

We would like to thank the Biodiversity Secretariat of the Ministry of Environment for the continuous 

support rendered. 

The Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation (PAM & WC) Project, along with the Royal 

Netherlands Government are gratefully acknowledged for providing the financial support needed to print 

this document. 

ix

Editorial 

Species Richness of Fauna in Sri Lanka: Current Status and Future Prospects 

Taxonomic research on the faunal groups of Sri Lanka has undergone a tremendous growth since the 

1990s, initiated by a handful of Sri Lankan naturalists and taxonomists. This has resulted in the discovery 

and scientific description of several new species of invertebrate and vertebrate fauna. In particular, the 

numbers of amphibian and freshwater crab species have increased considerably, due to intensive scientific 

surveys of these groups. The number of amphibian species recognised by Kirtisinghe (1957) has undergone 

a three-fold increase (102 species at present), as a result of the work carried out during the past decade by 

Dutta and Manamendra-Arachchi (1996); Manamendra-Arachchi and Pethiyagoda (1998); Manamendra- 

Arachchi and Pethiyagoda (2005); Meegaskumbura and Manamendra-Arachchi (2005). Similarly, over the 

past 12 years, a surge in interest of research on Sri Lanka’s freshwater crabs has resulted in the discovery 

of more than 40 new species (Ng, 1994, 1995a, b; Bahir, 1998, 1999; Ng and Tay, 2001; Bahir and Ng, 

2005; Bahir and Yeo, 2005). It is interesting to note the discovery of new species even among popular 

groups of vertebrates such as birds (Warakagoda and Rasmussen, 2004) and mammals (Groves and 

Meijaard, 2005), after a lapse of more than 100 years. It is also encouraging to note that a few researchers 

have begun to focus on lesser-known invertebrates such as insects, spiders and land snails in the island, 

leading to the discovery of new species (Karunaratne, 2004; Wijesinghe, 1991a, 1991b; Benjamin, 2000; 

Benjamin and Jocqué, 2000; Benjamin, 2001; Naggs et al., 2005). 

Although many species of fauna have been described recently in Sri Lanka, there was no attempt to collate 

updated information in the form of a single publication, in order to facilitate and enhance research, 

education, awareness and conservation activities. This publication is intended to collate and present updated 

information on the status of taxonomy, research and conservation of different groups of fauna in Sri Lanka. 

Based on the papers appearing in this publication, the current species richness among different groups of 

fauna in Sri Lanka is presented in Table 1. 

Table 1. Species richness of inland and marine fauna in Sri Lanka. (The number of endemic species is 

presented in parenthesis) 

Group Number of Species 

Invertebrate Fauna 

Bees 148 (21) 

Dragonflies (Odonates) 120 (57) 

Aphids 84 (2) 

Ants 181 

Butterflies 243 (20) 

Ticks 27 

Spiders 501 

Freshwater Crabs 51 (51) 

Land Snails 246 (204) 

Group Number of Species 

Vertebrate Fauna 

Freshwater Fish 82 (44) 

Amphibians 102 + (88+) 

Reptiles 184 (105) 

Birds 482 (33) 

Mammals 91(16) 

Marine Fauna 

Echinoderms 213 

Marine Molluscs 228 

Sharks 61 

Rays 31 

Marine Mammals 28 

x

This recent research also highlights a higher degree of endemism than hitherto estimated among most 

groups of fauna in the island. Among the inland indigenous vertebrate species (i.e., excluding marine forms 

and migratory birds) described currently, 43% are endemic to Sri Lanka. A higher percentage of endemism 

is evident among the freshwater crabs (100%), amphibians (86%), and land snails (83%), with many of 

them being point endemics. Most of this endemic fauna are restricted to the wet zone of the island. Even 

though Sri Lanka has experienced prolonged land connections with India during much of the Pleistocene 

period, recent molecular investigations have revealed a unique endemic insular radiation, especially among 

the less mobile faunal groups such as tree-frogs (Meegaskumbura et al., 2002), agamid lizards (Macey et 

al., 2000; Schulte et al., 2002) and skinks (Austin et al., 2004). 

Several measures are needed to further enhance our current knowledge and understanding on the richness 

of fauna in Sri Lanka. Although there are several theories pertaining to the biogeographic evolution in Sri 

Lanka and India, none of them have been able to unravel gaps and pecularities in the geographic 

distribution of taxa, and many of the evolutionary processes are yet to be understood adequately. 

Therefore, researchers from the two countries should pursue in collaborative studies related to 

biogeography. As highlighted in some papers of this publication, comprehensive taxonomic revisions need 

to be carried for several groups of fauna, and a close collaboration between taxonomists in India and Sri 

Lanka is a prerequisite to such taxonomic revisions. Careful examination - both morphological and 

molecular - of Indian and Sri Lankan faunal specimens, through collaborative and synchronised taxonomic 

investigations, is necessary to address problems related to taxonomy. The lack of a well-maintained national 

faunal repository in Sri Lanka is a major obstacle to taxonomists studying different groups of fauna. The 

type specimens of many faunal taxa described to date are located in museums of the developed world, 

which can be accessed only by a handful of taxonomists and naturalists. Therefore, attempts should be 

made to upgrade the faunal repository of the National Museum of Sri Lanka, and encourage researchers 

to deposit type specimens there. This would certainly encourage young researchers to become involved in 

the study of fauna in Sri Lanka. 

With current trends in development, many ecosystems and with them, their species, are under severe 

pressure, if not under threat, from human activities. Continued taxonomic research will provide a sound 

scientific foundation on which conservation and management decisions about the fauna of Sri Lanka can 

be based. 

Channa N.B. Bambaradeniya 

The World Conservation Union (IUCN) 

Asia Regional Species Conservation Programme, 

53, Horton Place, Colombo 07, Sri Lanka. 

Email: cnb@iucnsl.org 

xi

Literature Cited 

Austin, C.C., I. Das & A. De Silva. 2004. Higher-level molecular phylogenetic relationships of the endemic 

genus Lankascincus from Sri Lanka based on nuclear DNA sequences. Lyriocephalus, 5: 11-22. 

Bahir, M. M. 1998. Three new species of montane crabs of the genus Perbrinckia (Crustacea, 

Parathelphusidae) from the central mountains of Sri Lanka. Journal of South Asian Natural 

History, 3: 197–212. 

Bahir, M. M., 1999. Description of three new species of freshwater crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda: 

Parathelphusidae: Ceylonthelphusa) from the south-western rain forests of Sri Lanka. Journal of 

South Asian Natural History, 4: 117–132. 

Bahir, M. M. & P. K. L. Ng, 2005. Description of ten new species of freshwater crabs (Parathelphusidae: 

Ceylonthelphusa, Mahatha, Perbrinckia) from Sri Lanka. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng & R. 

Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles 

Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 47–75. 

Bahir, M. M. & D. C. J. Yeo, 2005. A revision of the genus Oziotelphusa Müller, 1887 (Crustacea: 

Decapoda: Parathelphusidae), with descriptions of eight new species. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng 

& R. Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri Lanka. The 

Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 77–120. 

Benjamin, S. P. 2000. Epidius parvati sp. n., a new species of the genus Epidius from Sri Lanka 

(Araneae:Thomisidae). Bull. Br. arachnol. Soc., 11(7), 284-288. 

Benjamin, S. P. and Jocqué R. 2000. Two new species of the genus Suffasia from Sri Lanka (Araneae: 

Zodariidae). Revue suisse de Zoologie, 107(1): 97-106. 

Benjamin, S. P. 2001. The genus Oxytate L. Koch 1878 from Sri Lanka, with description of Oxytate 

taprobane sp. n. (Araneae: Thomsidae). Journal of South Asian Natural History. 5(2): 153-158, 

10 figs. 

Dutta, S. K. & K. Manamendra-Arachchi, 1996. The amphibian fauna of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage 

Trust of Sri Lanka, Colombo. 232 pp. 

Groves, C.P. and Meijaard, E. 2005. Interspecific variation in Moschiola, the Indian chevrotain. Raffles 

Bulletin of Zoology, 12: 413-421. 

Karunaratne, W. A. I. P., 2004. Taxonomy and Ecology of Bees of Sri Lanka. Ph.D. Thesis 

(Unpublished), Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya. 

Kirtisinghe, P., 1957. The Amphibia of Ceylon. Published by the author, Colombo. xiii+112 pp, 1 pl. 

Macey, J.R., J.A. Schulte, A. Larson, A.B. Ananjeva, Y. Wang, R. Pethiyagoda, N. Rastegar-Pouyani & 

T.J. Papenfuss, 2000. Evaluating Trans-Tethys migration: an example using acrodont lizard 

phylogenetics. Systematic Biology, 49: 233-256. 

Manamendra-Arachchi, K. & R. Pethiyagoda, 1998. A synopsis of the Sri Lankan Bufonidae (Amphibia: 

Anura) with description of new species. Journal of South Asian Natural History, 3: 213–248. 

Manamendra-Arachchi, K. & R. Pethiyagoda, 2005. The Sri Lankan shrub-frogs of the genus Philautus 

Gistel, 1848 (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae), with description of 27 new species. Raffles Bulletin of 

Zoology, Supplement 12: 163–303. 

Meegaskumbura, M., F. Bossuyt, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Manamendra-Ararchchi, M. Bahir, M. C. 

Milinkovitch & C. J. Schneider, 2002. Sri Lanka: an amphibian hotspot. Science, 298: 379. 

Meegaskumbura, M. & K. Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005. Descriptions of eight new species of shrub frogs 

(Ranidae: Rhacophorinae: Philautus) from Sri Lanka. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 12: 

305–338. 

Naggs, F., Raheem, D., Ranawana, K., Mapatuna, Y. 2005. The Darwin initiative project on Sri Lankan 

xii

Land snails: Patterns of diversity in Sri Lankan forests. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 12: 23 – 29. 

Ng, P. K. L., 1995a. A revision of the Sri Lankan montane crabs of the genus Perbrinckia Bott, 1969 

(Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Parathelphusidae). Journal South Asian Natural History, 1: 

129–174. 

Ng, P. K. L., 1995b. Ceylonthelphusa scansor, a new species of tree-climbing crab from Sinharaja Forest 

in Sri Lanka (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Parathelphusidae). Journal South Asian Natural 

History, 1: 175–184. 

Ng, P. K. L. & W. M. Tay, 2001. The freshwater crabs of Sri Lanka (Decapoda: Brachyura: 

Parathelphusidae). Zeylanica, 6: 113–199. 

Schulte, J.A., J.R. Macey, R. Pethiyagoda and A. Larson, 2002. Rostral horn evolution among agamid 

lizards of the genus Ceratophora endemic to Sri Lanka. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 

22: 111-117. 

Warakagoda, D.H. and P.C. Rasmussen (2004). A new species of scops-owl from Sri Lanka. Bull. B.O.C. 

124 (2): 85-105. 

Wijesinghe, D. P. 1991a. A new species of Gelotia (Araneae: Salticidae) from Sri Lanka. Journal of 

theNew York Entomological Society 99(2): 274-277. 

Wijesinghe, D. P. 1991b. New species of Phaeacius from Sri Lanka, Sumatra and the Philippines 

(Araneae: Salticidae). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 8(8): 249-255. 

xiii

Scolia aureipenniformes 

Naalin Perera 

Tetrathemis yerburiya 

M. Bedjanic 

Section 1: 

Status of Invertebrate 

Fauna in Sri Lanka 

Nephila maculata 

Naalin Perera 

Pathysa antiphates 

Vimukthi Weeratunga 

Oziotelphusa hippocastanum 

Wildlife Heritage Trust 

1

Abstract 

An Overview of the Taxonomic Status of 

Class Hexapoda (Insecta) in Sri Lanka 

Anura Wijesekara* 

*P.O. Box 11, Horticulture Research and Development Institute, Peradeniya, 20400 

A project initiated to compile a list of all insect species recorded from Sri Lanka found the names of 

11,144 species belonging to 30 insect orders, the only order not represented in Sri Lanka being 

Grylloblattodea. The number of insects recorded from Sri Lanka is 53% of all known organisms in 

Sri Lanka and 81% of the known animal species, according to the biodiversity data given in 

Statistical Compendium 2000. Our knowledge of Sri Lankan insects, however, varies widely 

according to the order. The five apterygote orders are probably the least studied; no attempts to 

systematically collect or comprehensively study Sri Lankan material belonging to any of these orders 

were found. 

There seem to be four impediments for research on insect taxonomy in Sri Lanka. They are (a) lack 

of passionate amateur entomologists and trained taxonomists, (b) lack of well-curated insect 

collections in the country and poor accessibility to existing collections, (c) lack of well -organized 

training in systematic entomology, and (d) lack of comprehensive literature collections. 

Key words: Insects, Taxonomy 

Status of Insect Taxonomy in Sri Lanka 

THE FAUNA OF SRI LANKA (2006): 3-11 

© IUCN - The World Conservation Union 

Taxonomy is the science of discovering, describing and classifying species. The taxonomic knowledge of 

a group of organisms in a country or region includes the number of described species in that country or 

region, their names, their place in a systematic classification and the means for their identification. It has 

been claimed by some writers that insects are a taxonomically poorly known group in Sri Lanka. For 

example, while reporting the presence of over 5,000 species of plants in Sri Lanka the authors of several 

recent publications on biodiversity and the environment display awareness of the presence of only a very 

few insect groups in Sri Lanka; the number of insect species recorded from Sri Lanka according to these 

publications ranges between 900-1,200 (SOBA, 1994; Statistical Compendium 2000; State of the 

Environment 2002). This, however, is not an accurate representation of the state of the taxonomic 

knowledge of Sri Lankan insects, nor a true picture of the actual diversity and richness of Sri Lanka’s 

insect fauna. Even as far back as 1861 Walker listed 2,007 species recorded from the country belonging to 

nine insect orders (Tennent, 1861), and Haly (1890) listed 1,510 beetle species alone in the collection of the 

Colombo Museum. Since then numerous entomologists have added significantly to the taxonomic 

knowledge of Sri Lankan insects. Among them E.E. Green, G.M. Henry, C.H. Fernando and C. V. 

Krombein have made notable contributions. For most groups of Sri Lankan insects this information is widely 

scattered in the vast taxonomic literature going back to the mid 19th century. For only a very few groups 

are there comprehensive accounts available dealing with the Sri Lankan species. 

Wijesekara and Wijesinghe (2003) made an attempt to compile a list of all insect species recorded from Sri 

Lanka. Although a list was not published they found the names of 11,144 species recorded from Sri Lanka 

belonging to 30 insect orders, the only order not represented in Sri Lanka being the Grylloblattodea. This 

number is 53% of all known organisms in Sri Lanka and 81% of the known animal species, based on the 

data found in Statistical compendium 2000. This information is currently being used to compile a database 

of all known Sri Lankan insects. The database will consist of the valid name, synonyms, literature 

references, distribution, and where available photographs of all Sri Lankan insects. This work has been 

3

The Fauna of Sri Lanka (2006) 

financed by the Council for Agriculture Research Policy (CARP) in Sri Lanka. The objective of this paper 

is to present the status of taxonomic knowledge of Sri Lankan insects under each insect Order represented 

in Sri Lanka. The orders are not listed in any particular systematic sequence. 

Apterygote Orders 

Of all the insect orders represented in Sri Lanka the five apterygote orders are probably the least studied. 

There has been no attempt to systematically collect or comprehensively study Sri Lankan material of any 

of these orders. Our knowledge of these orders in Sri Lanka is based on random descriptions of species 

by various taxonomists based on material found among the collection of other insects from Sri Lanka. 

Information on these orders can be found in Ritter, 1910-1; Imms, 1912; Nosek, 1976; Fernando, 1958; 

Pages, 1984; Silvestri, 1913 and Wygodzinsky, 1957. Number of species known to occur in Sri Lanka under 

each order is given by Wijesekara and Wijesinghe (2003). 

Smaller Pterygote Orders 

Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Orthoptera and Phasmatodea 

The order Ephemeroptera is represented in Sri Lanka by 46 species in 8 families. This is a relatively wellstudied 

insect group in Sri Lanka. Hubbard and co-workers studied the systematics, phylogeny and ecology 

of this order from Sri Lanka (Hubbard and Peters, 1978; Hubbard, 1983; Hubbard, 1985). Many 

taxonomists have studied Sri Lankan Odonata, too. De Fonseka (1998) compiled the taxonomic knowledge 

of this group from Sri Lanka according to which there are 117 species in 12 families representing this order. 

It should also be regarded as a better studied group in the country. A recent revival of interest on this group 

is evident, by the work initiated by Bedjanic (2002, 2004). Some notable taxonomic work on Sri Lankan 

Odonata includes Laidlaw, 1924; Fraser, 1933; Laidlaw, 1951 and Lieftinck, 1955. 

G.M. Henry (better known in Sri Lanka for his work on birds) is mainly responsible for our considerable 

knowledge of the Orthoptera of Sri Lanka (Henry, 1933, 1934, 1937, 1939, 1940, 1942, 1944). In addition, 

Chopard (1936) and Sandrasagara (1949) have studied Sri Lankan Orthoptera, including the families 

Acrididae and Gryllidae. Phasmatodea of Sri Lanka is also well known. In the most recent study of this 

group, Henneman (2002) recorded 69 species from this country. This study is a good example of how 

things are with most of the insect taxa in Sri Lanka. Hennemann collected Phasmatodea in only 4 

locations, Kandapola, Gelioya, Hunnas falls and roadside on the way to Hunnas falls from Kandy. Studying 

this material he revised some groups of the Order and found many synonyms and few new species. Similar 

studies are needed for many insect groups of Sri Lanka. 

Blattaria, Mantodea, Dermaptera, Isoptera and Embioptera 

There are records of 66 species of Blattaria (cockroaches) from Sri Lanka. However no exclusive 

taxonomic studies on Sri Lankan cockroaches have been conducted so far, leading to a relatively poor 

knowledge of this group. Present knowledge consists of scattered descriptions of species in world 

literature. Unlike cockroaches, the order of praying mantises (Mantodea) is better known (Henry, 1931, 

1932; Beier, 1956). 

The knowledge of Dermaptera of Sri Lanka is fairly complete. Earlier records of Sri Lankan species were 

first compiled by Burr (1901), and Brindle (1972) revised this Order for Sri Lanka. There are records of 

56 species of termites from Sri Lanka. Green in 1913 first compiled a catalogue of Isoptera for Sri Lanka. 

Since then, except for additions of a few new species and records, no comprehensive taxonomic work 

dealing exclusively with Sri Lankan termite species has been published. The tea research institute of Sri 

Lanka (TRI) is conducting studies on Isoptera but their main concern is on ecology and control of pest 

species. Knowledge of Embioptera is limited to 4 species, which Ross recorded in 1979. Ross (personal 

communications) is in the opinion that many more species could be present in this country. 

4

Wijesekera: An Overview of the Taxonomic Status of Class Hexapoda (Insecta) in Sri Lanka 

Plecoptera, Zoraptera, Psocoptera, Pthiraptera, Thysanoptera, Neuroptera, Mecoptera 

and Siphonaptera 

Taxonomic knowledge on Plecoptera, Zoraptera and Pthiraptera in Sri Lanka is very poor and limited to 

scattered description of species. Zwick (1980) studied the Plecopteran genus Neoperla from Sri Lanka. 

It is necessary to conduct systematic studies on these groups to improve our knowledge. New (1977) 

studied two Psocopteran families, Epipsocidae and Pseudocaeciliidae, from Sri Lanka. There is very little 

information on thrips (Thysanoptera) of Sri Lanka. Schmuts in 1913 reported all known thrips from Ceylon 

and since then only Oda et al have done any exclusive work on Sri Lankan thrips. The study of Oda et al. 

(1997) was limited to a small collection from Sri Lanka. Very little information limited again to isolated 

descriptions of species is available on Sri Lankan Neuroptera, Mecoptera, and Siphonaptera which indicate 

the need for taxonomic study of these groups. Meinander (1982) studied the Neuropteran Family 

Coniopterygidae of Sri Lanka. 

Hemiptera, Homoptera, Trichoptera and Strepsiptera 

There are over 794 species of Hemiptera recorded from Sri Lanka (Wijesekara and Wijesinghe, 2003). 

The only comprehensive work is that by Distant (1902-1918) in the Fauna of British India series. His sevenvolume 

work needs to be used carefully as it contains numerous errors. However, many others have 

studied various families of Hemiptera from Sri Lanka. Even so many large families such as the 

Pentatomidae and Reduviidae are yet to be comprehensively studied. Slater (1972) studied a collection of 

Lygaidae from Sri Lanka and gave a checklist for the Family. Wijesekara and Henry (1999) have started 

to work on Miridae of Sri Lanka and the study is being continued with the intension of revising the Family. 

In addition a Catalog of Hemiptera of Sri Lanka is being compiled as a collaborative work between the Sri 

Lanka Department of Agriculture and United States Department of Agriculture. 

The status of Homoptera is similar to that of Hemiptera. Some groups have been studied but a 

comprehensive work for the Order is lacking. There are few major studies on this group: Reen, 1896-1922 

(Coccoidea); Goot, 1918 (Aphidae); Fenna, 1975 (Delphacidae); Pringle, 1955 (Cicadidae); and Melichar, 

1903 (Homoptera). Trichoptera is another group that has been fairly well studied. Schmid (1958) and 

Malicky (1973) did exclusive studies of Sri Lankan Trichoptera. There are several recent works including 

a checklist of Strepsiptera of Sri Lanka (Kathirithamby, 1994; Kifune, 1997). However there has not been 

any systematic collection of this group in the country. 

Larger Pterygote Orders 

Diptera 

The order Diptera is the fourth largest insect order in Sri Lanka, consisting of 1,341 species (Wijesekara 

and Wijesinghe, 2003). A substantial amount of taxonomic work has been done on various families of 

Diptera in Sri Lanka. Notable studies include Amerasinghe, 1983, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991 (Culicidae); 

Burger, 1981 (Tabanidae); Camras, 1957 (Conopidae); Davies and Gyorkos, 1987-1989 (Simuliidae); 

Hardy, 1971 (Bibionidae); Oldroyd, 1957 (Tabanidae); Wijesekara, 2002 (Agromyzidae), etc. There are 

many more families yet to be studied from Sri Lanka. 

Hymenoptera 

Hymenoptera is the third largest insect order in Sri Lanka. It is considered that Hymenoptera is a betterstudied 

group in Sri Lanka. But it is no better studied than other larger insect orders represented in the 

country. Hymenoptera is a large Family divided in to 20 super families. Symphyta is not well represented 

in the country. Smith (1982) studied the Symphyta. Most of the work on Sri Lankan Hymenoptera has 

concerned three superfamilies of Apocrita. Recent work has been mainly based on the Smithsonian 

Institution project ‘Biosystematic Studies on Ceylonese Insects’ led by Dr. K. V. Krombein. Krombein 

(1978-1998) revised many groups of Apocrita from Sri Lanka. The informal division Parasitica includes 

5


mostly micro Hymenoptera and they are very specious. Very little work has been done on micro 

Hymenoptera of Sri Lanka. Even economically very important groups like Ichneumonoidea are yet to be 

systematically studied. Notable works on Sri Lankan Parasitica include Dessart, 1975, 1988 and 

Wijesekara and Schauff, 1994. Recent initiatives have also been taken to study the other hymenopteran 

groups in Sri Lanka. For instance, Dias (2002a, 2002b, 2003) has initiated work on ants, while Karunaratne 

(2004) has done a comprehensive study on the taxonomy and ecology of bees of Sri Lanka. 

Lepidoptera 

The order Lepidoptera is the second largest insect Order in the county with 2,158 species (Wijesekara and 

Wijesinghe, 2003). It is divided into 32 superfamilies. The only group we know well is the butterflies, most 

of which are in the superfamily Papilionoidea. Many taxonomists have worked on the butterflies of Sri 

Lanka and a fair amount of taxonomic studies and identification guides are available for the group 

(Ormiston, 1924; Woodhouse, 1952; d’Abrera, 1998). Since Hampson’s (1892-1896) account of Sri Lankan 

Lepidoptera in the Fauna of British India very little work has been done on moths and other 

microlepidoptera of Sri Lanka. Recent works on of Sri Lanka Lepidoptera other than butterflies include 

Wu and Pack, 1998, 1999; Buttiker, 1962; Diakonoff, 1982 and Orhant, 1981. 

Coleoptera 

The Coleoptera of Sri Lanka includes at least 3,033 species. The taxonomic status of this order is more or 

less similar to that of other large orders. Being the largest group of insects in Sri Lanka (also the world) 

there are more to study than what we already know. Some recent work on Sri Lankan Coleoptera include; 

Bonadona, 1986 (Anthicidae); Chujo, 1975 (Erotylidae and Languridae); Hammond, 1972 (Staphylinidae: 

Oxytelini); Kaszab, 1980 (Tenebrionidae); Lobl, 1971 (Scaphidiidae); Medvedev, 1989 (Chrysomelidae); 

Ohira, 1973 (Elateridae); Therond, 1971 (Histeridae); Ullrich, 1975 (Staphylinidae: Tachyporinae ); 

Wewalka, 1973 (Dytiscidae ); Wiesner, 1975 (Cicindelidae); Wittmer, 1956, 1973 (Drilidae, Cantharidae, 

Prionoceridae). The Coccinellidae of Sri Lanka is being studied at Horticulture Research and Development 

Institute, Gannoruwa under a CARP funded project with the objective of preparing an identification guide 

for this important group. 

Insect Taxonomy in Sri Lanka - Constraints 

Most taxonomists who have studied Sri Lankan insects in the past were not Sri Lankans and this continues 

to be the case. If there were more local scientists working in this field our knowledge of Sri Lankan insects 

would have been much better by now. However, there are a few noteworthy local taxonomists who have 

contributed to increase the knowledge of Sri Lankan insects since Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948. 

Karunaratne, Fernando (C.H.), Amerasinghe, and Wijesekara have contributed by describing new species 

from Sri Lanka and compiling the taxonomic knowledge of several groups. W. Fernando also described 

many new insect species from Sri Lanka but his types are lost and most descriptions cannot be used to 

recognize the species. When one contemplates the present status of insect taxonomy in Sri Lanka one can 

identify three major impediments, though they are not exclusive of each other. First and foremost among 

the impediments is the lack of passionate amateur entomologists. It may be due to cultural taboo in the 

country that leads most people to teach children to avoid or let alone the animals they find in their 

environment. The second impediment is the lack of well-curated insect collections in the country. The 

national insect collection is not housed adequately nor well curated. The status of a few existing smaller 

collections is the same. In addition, these collections are virtually inaccessible even to local researchers as 

they are simply kept locked up. The third impediment is the lack of well-organized education in systematic 

entomology. There is no satisfactory training in modern systematic biology available even at university level, 

where the subject should be taught in conjunction with insect ecology, evolutionary biology, genetics, 

molecular biology and biological illustrations. Lack of comprehensive literature collection is the fourth 

impediment. Local libraries do not subscribe to any modern taxonomic journals. There is a fairly good 

collection of old literature but no one seems to take notice of the availability or need to preserve what is 

6


available. It is ironic that sometimes it is easier to find a locally published item in a library outside the 

country! 

That is briefly my knowledge of the status of insect taxonomy in Sri Lanka. I will let readers to draw their 

own conclusions from this short review. 


I am indebted to Dr. D. P. Wijesinghe of the City University of New York, USA who has helped generously 

by collaborating and sending his collection of references on the insects of Sri Lanka. He also reviewed the 

manuscript and gave valuable suggestions to improve it. I thank Dr. Channa Bambaradeniya, IUCN Sri 

Lanka for inviting me to give a presentation in the Workshop of Status of invertebrate Fauna in Sri Lanka. 

Finally I gratefully appreciate the financial support for my work from the Council for Agriculture Research 

Policy in Sri Lanka, grant No. 12/486/362. 

References 

Amerasinghe, F. P. 1983. A Note on Aedes (Stegomyia) novalbopictus Barraud from Sri Lanka, including 

first descriptions of the female and egg (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Natural History, 17(2): 

203-212. 

Amerasinghe, F. P. 1987. Present status of mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) taxonomy in Sri Lanka. 

Proceedings of the Seminar on Present Status of Faunal Taxonomy in Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka 

Association for the Advancement of Science, Section D: 20-38. 

Amerasinghe, F. P. 1989. Redescription of Heizmannia (Heizmannia) greenii Theobald from Sri Lanka 

(Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito Systematics, 21(2): 83-99. 

Amerasinghe, F. P. 1990. A guide to the identification of the anopheline mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of 

Sri Lanka. I. Adult females. Ceylon Journal of Science Biological Sciences, 21(1): 1-16. 

Amerasinghe, F. P. 1991. A guide to the identification of the anopheline mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) of 

Sri Lanka. II. Larvae. Ceylon Journal of Science Biological Sciences, 22(1): 1-13. 

Amerasinghe, F. P., 1993. A new species of Heizmannia from Sri Lanka (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito 

Systematics, 25(2): 110. 

Banks, J. and J Banks. 1986. A Selection of the Butterflies of Sri Lanka. Lake House Investments Ltd., 

Colombo. 16 col. pl. 

Bedjanic, M., 2002. Dragonflies collected in Sri Lanka during January and February 1995 (Odonata). 

Opuscula Zoologica Fluminensia 205: 1-22. 

Bedjanic, M., 2004. Odonata fauna of Sri Lanka: research state and threat status. In: V. Clausnitzer & R. 

Jödicke (Ed), Guardians of the watershed - Global status of dragonflies: critical species, threat and 

conservation, pp. 279-294, International Journal of Odonatology 7(2), Worldwide Dragonfly 

Association, Worcestershire. 

Beier, M. 1956. Mantiden aus Ceylon (Orth.). Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in 

Basel, 67(1): 33-40. 

Bonadona, P. 1986. Anthicidae (Coleoptera) de Sri Lanka. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplement, 30: 

55-75. 

Brindle, A. 1977. Dermaptera from Ceylon. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 84(2): 453-461. 

Burr, M. 1901. The earwigs of Ceylon. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 14: 59-78, 316-336. 

Chopard, L. 1936. The Tridactylidae and Gryllidae of Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica, 20(1): 9-87. 

7


Chujo, M. 1975. Coleoptera: Erotylidae and Languridae from Ceylon. Entomologica Scandinavica 

Supplementum, 4: 195-198. 

d’Abrera, B. 1998. The Butterflies of Ceylon. WHT Publications (Private) Limited, Colombo. 224 pp. 

de Fonseka, T. 1997. A Guide to the Dragonflies of Sri Lanka. [Printed & published by author, London.] 

229 pp. 

Dias, R.K.S. 2002 (a). Current knowledge on ants of Sri Lanka. ANeT Newsletter, 4, 17 –21 pp. 

Dias, R.K.S. 2002 (b). Ants of Sri Lanka with a brief description of field and laboratory methods. 

Sarvodaya Vishvalekha Press, Ratmalana, 44 p. 

Dias, R. K. S., 2003. Taxonomic study of the worker ants collected from Colombo and Galle districts in Sri 

Lanka. Proceedings of the Fourth ANeT workshop held at Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand in 

November, 2003. 

Distant, W. L. 1902-18. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Rhynchota. Taylor and 

Francis, London. Vol. I (1902) Heteroptera, 438 pp.; Vol. II (1903-04) Heteroptera, 504 pp.; Vol. III 

(1906) Heteroptera-Homoptera, 503 pp.; Vol. IV (1907-08) Homoptera and Appendix, 501 pp.; Vol. V 

(1911) Heteroptera: Appendix, 362 pp.; Vol. VI (1916) Homoptera: Appendix, 248 pp.; Vol. VII (1918) 

Homoptera: Appendix, Heteroptera: Addenda, 210 pp. 

Fennah, R. G. 1975. Homoptera: Fulgoroidea Delphacidae from Ceylon. Entomologica Scandinavica 

Supplementum, 4: 79-136. 

Green, E. E. 1896-1922 The Coccidae of Ceylon. London. 5 Pts. Pt. 1. pp. i-xi, 1-103 (1896); Pt. 2. pp. 

105-169 (1899); Pt. 3. pp. 171-249 (1904); Pt. 4. pp. 251-344 (1909); Pt. 5. pp. 345-472 (1922) 

Green, E. E. 1937. An annotated list of the Coccidae of Ceylon, with emendations and additions to date. 

Spolia Zeylanica, 20(3): 277-341. 

Gunawardane, W. T. T. P. & Karunaratne, P. B. 1965. The genus Hydrometra (Hemiptera, Heteroptera) 

in Ceylon, with description of a new species. Spolia Zeylanica, 30(2): 233-244, 3 pl., map. 

Goot, P. van der 1918. Aphididae of Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica, 11(40):70-75. 

Haly, A. 1890. First Report on the Collection of Beetles in theColombo Museum. George J A Skeen, 

Government Printer, Colombo. 208 pp. 

Hampson, G. F. 1892-1896. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Moths. Taylor and 

Francis, London. Vol. I (1892) 527 pp.; Vol. II (1894) 609 pp.; Vol. III (1895) 546 pp.; Vol. IV (1896) 

594 pp. 

Hammond, P.M. 1973-75. Coleoptera Staphylinidae Oxytelini from Ceylon. ). Entomologica 

Scandinavica Suppliment. 4:141-178. 

Henry, G. M. 1932. Notes on Ceylon Tettigoniidae, with descriptions of new species. Part 1. Spolia 

Zeylanica, 16(3): 229-256. 

Henry, G. M. 1933. Descriptions and records of Ceylonese Acrididae. Spolia Zeylanica, 17(3): 155-200. 

Henry, G. M. 1933. Observations on the genus Genimen Bolivar (Insecta, Acrididae), with description of a 

new genus and species. Spolia Zeylanica, 18(1): 193-198. 

Henry, G. M. 1934. New and rare Hexacentrinae (Insecta, Orthoptera) from Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica, 

19(1): 1-21. 

Henry, G. M. 1937. A new genus and species of Acrididae from South India and Ceylon (Orthoptera). 

Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London Series B Taxonomy, 6: 197-200. 

Henry, G. M. 1937. Euprepocnemis kalkudensis sp. nov. (Insecta, Acrididae) from Ceylon with remarks 

on Euprepocnemis alacris (Serville) in the island. Spolia Zeylanica, 20(3): 343-345. 

8


Henry, G. M. 1939. Five new species of Pseudophaneroptera Brunner (Insecta, Tettigoniidae) from 

Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica, 21(2): 97-111. 

Henry, G. M. 1939. The genus Zumala Walker, (Insecta, Orthoptera) with description of a new species. 

Spolia Zeylanica, 21(3): 219-228. 

Henry, G. M. 1939. A new tettigoniid genus and species from Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica, 21(3): 229-232. 

Henry, G. M. 1940. The genus Pelerinus Bolivar (Allodapa Brunner) (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae) with 

descriptions of three new species. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London Series 

B Taxonomy, 9(1): 7-15. 

Henry, G. M. 1940. A new Indian genus and species of Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera). Proceedings of the 

Royal Entomological Society of London Series B Taxonomy, 9(6): 97-101. 

Henry, G. M. 1944. Diogena lankae, sp. nov. (Insecta, Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae). Ceylon Journal of 

Science Section B Zoology, 22(2): 183-186. 

Henry, G. M. 1944. Reflex bleeding in Sathrophyllia rugosa (L.) (Insecta, Orthoptera). Ceylon Journal of 

Science Section B Zoology, 22(2): 187-188. 

Henry, G. M. 1944. An organ of unknown function in some Pseudophyllinae (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae). 

Ceylon Journal of Science Section B Zoology, 22(2): 189. 

Henry, G. M. 1944. Facial asymmetry in Eumastacidae (Orthoptera, Acridoidea). Ceylon Journal of 

Science Section B Zoology, 22(2): 191. 

Henry, G. M. 1944. Notes on the behaviour of Orchetypus rugifrons (Waterhouse) (Orthoptera, 

Acridoidea, Eumastacidae). Ceylon Journal of Science Section B Zoology, 22(2): 193-195. 

Hennemann, F.H. 2002. Notes on the Phasmatodea of Sri Lanka (Orthoptera). Mitteilungen der 

Munchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft. 92: 37-78. 

Hlisnikovsky, J. (1972). Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Liodidae (Coleoptera) von Ceylon. Mitteilungen der 

Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 45(1-3): 131-149. 

Hubbard, M. D. 1983. Ephemeroptera of Sri Lanka: Ephemeridae. Systematic Entomology, 8(4): 383-392. 

Hubbard, M. D. and W. L. Peters. 1978. A Catalogue of the Ephemeroptera of the Indian sub region. 

Oriental Insects Supplement. 9:1-43. 

Karunaratne, W. A. I. P. 2004. Taxonomy and Ecology of Bees of Sri Lanka. Ph.D. Thesis (Unpublished) 

Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya. 

Kathirithamby, J. 1994. Records and a checklist of Strepsiptera (Insecta) from Sri Lanka. Journal of 

South Asian Natural History, 1(1): 17-25. 

Kaszab, Z. 1979. Faunistik der Tenebrioniden von Sri Lanka (Coleoptera). Folia Entomologica 

Hungarica, 32(2): 43-128. 

Kifune, T. 1997. On the genus Paraxenos from Sri Lanka in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution 

with a checklist of Strepsiptera from Sri Lanka and India (Notulae Strepsipterologicae-XXIV). 

Japanese Journal of Entomology, 65(2): 407-412. 

Krombein, K. V. 1979a. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, IV. Kudakrumiinae, a new subfamily 

of primitive wasps (Hymenoptera: Mutillidae). Transactions of the American Entomological 

Society, 105(1): 67-83. 

Krombein, K. V. 1979b. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, V: A monograph of the Ampulicidae 

(Hymenoptera: Sphecoidea). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 298: i-iii, 1-29. 

Krombein, K. V. 1981. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, VIII: A monograph of the Philanthidae 

(Hymenoptera: Sphecoidea). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 343: i-iii, 1-75. 

9


Krombein, K. V. 1982. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, IX: A monograph of the Tiphiidae 

(Hymenoptera: Vespoidea). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 374: i-iv, 1-121. 

Krombein, K. V. 1983. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, XI: A monograph of the Amiseginae 

and Loboscelidiinae (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 376: 

i-iii, 1-79. 

Krombein, K. V. 1984. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, XIII: A monograph of the Stizinae 

(Hymenoptera: Sphecoidea, Nyssonidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 388: i-iii, 1-37. 

Krombein, K. V. 1985. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, XV: A monograph of the Alyssoninae, 

Nyssoninae, and Gorytinae (Hymenoptera: Sphecoidea: Nyssonidae). Smithsonian Contributions to 

Zoology, No. 414: i-iii, 1-43. 

Krombein, K. V. 1996. Biosystematic studies of Ceylonese wasps, XXI: A revision of the Bethylinae and 

Epyrinae (Cephalonomiini and Sclerodermini) (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae). Smithsonian 

Contributions to Zoology, No. 579: i-iii, 1-29. 

Lobl, Ivan 1971. Scaphidiidae von Ceylon (Coleoptera). Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 78(4): 937-1006. 

Malicky, H. 1973. Results of the Austrian-Ceylonese Hydrobiological Mission 1970...Part XVI: The 

Ceylonese Trichoptera. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Station Sri Lanka (Ceylon) 24(1-2): 

153-177. 

Medvedev, Lev Nikadrovich 1989. Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera) of Sri Lanka. The subfamilies 

Cryptocephalinae and Chlamisinae. Annotationes Zoologicae et Botanicae, Bratislava, No. 193: 1-8. 

Meinander, M. (1982). The Coniopterygidae of Ceylon (Neuroptera). Entomologica Scandinavica, 13(1): 

49-55. 

New, T. R. 1977. Epipsocidae and Pseudocaeciliidae (Psocoptera) from Sri Lanka. Oriental Insects, 11(3): 

409-420. 

Oda, Y, U. C. Kahawatta, P. Rajapaksha and H. Rajapaksha, 1997. Thrips collected in Sri Lanka. 

Research-Bulletin-of-the-Plant-Protection-Service-Japan. 33: 71-73. 

Ohira, Hitoo 1973. Coleoptera: Elateridae from Ceylon. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplementum 

4: 27-38. 

Ross, E. S. (1979). Embioptera from Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Entomologica Scandinavica, Supplement No. 

11: 30-32. 

Schedl, K. E. 1972. Scolytidae of Ceylon. Contributions to the morphology and taxonomy of Scolytoidea. 

Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft. 45: 221-229. 

Schmid, F. 1958. Trichopteres de Ceylan. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie, 54(1/2): 1-173. 

Schmutz, K. 1913. Zur Kenntnis der Thysanopterenfauna von Ceylon. Sitz. Ber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, math.- 

naturw. Kl., Abt. I, 122(7): 991-1088. 

Slater, J. A. 1982. Hemiptera, Heteroptera: Lygaeidae from Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Entomologica 

Scandinavica Supplement, No. 11: 1-27. 

Smith, D. R. 1982. Symphyta (Hymenoptera) from Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the Entomological Society 

of Washington, 84(1): 117-127. 

Soba. (1994). Soba, Biological Diversity of Sri Lanka. Environmental Publication. Ministry of Transport, 

Highways, Environment and Women’s affairs. 5(3):8-15. 

State of the Environment in Sri Lanka. 2002. A National Report Presented for the South Asian Association 

for Regional Cooperation. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Sri Lanka. 245 pp. 

Statistical Compendium on Natural Resources Management. Sri Lanka. 2000. 

10


Tennent, J. E. 1861. Sketches of the Natural History of Ceylon with Narratives and Anecdotes. Longman, 

Green, Longman, and Roberts, London. 1861: 500 pp.Division of Ministry of Forestry and 

Environment. Sri Lanka. 343 pp. 

Therond, J. 971. Coleoptera: Histeridae de Ceylan. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplementum 1: 251-256. 

Ullrich, Wolfgang G. 1975. Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Tachyporinae von Ceylon I. Teil: Gattung 

Tachinomorphus Kraatz. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplementum, 4: 137-140. 

Wewalka, G. 1973. Results of the Austrian-Ceylonese Hydrobiological Mission 1970...Part IX. Dytiscidae 

(Coleoptera). Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Station Sri Lanka (Ceylon), 24(1-2): 83-87. 

Wijesekara, G. A. W. and M. E. Schauff. 1994. Revision of the tribe Euplectrini of Sri Lanka 

(Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Oriental Insects. 28: 1-48. 

Wijesekara, G. A. W and T. J. Henry. 1999. The taxonomic status of the plant bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae) 

of Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium of the Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka. 1: 

173-194. 

Wijesekara, A. 2002. Synopsis of the Agromyzidae (Diptera) of Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science 

(Biological Sciences), 29: 41-62. 

Wijesekara, A. and D.P. Wijesinghe. 2003. History of insect collection and a review of insect diversity in 

Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci.) 31: 43-59. 

Wiesner, J. 1975. Notes on Cicindelidae of India and Sri Lanka. Cicindela, 7(4): 61-70. 

Wittmer, W. 1956. Drilidae, Cantharidae, Prionoceridae von Ceylon (Col.) (17. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der 

indo-malayischen Malacodermata). Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel, 

67(1): 49-52. 

Wittmer, W. 1973. Coleoptera: Cantharidae und Malachiidae von Ceylon. Entomologica Scandinavica 

Supplementum 4: 24-26. 

Zwick, P. 1980. The genus Neoperla (Plecoptera: Perlidae) from Sri Lanka. Oriental Insects, 14(2): 263-269. 

11

The THE FAUNA Fauna OF of SRI Sri LANKA Lanka (2006): 12-19 


Current Status and Future Directions in Bee Taxonomy in Sri Lanka 

W.A. Inoka P. Karunaratne* and Jayanthi P. Edirisinghe* 

*Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya 

Abstract 

Bees (Hymenoptera:Apoidea) are the most important pollinators of flowering plants resulting in fruit 

and seed production. Bees are unique among all other pollinators due to the presence of special 

pollen carrying hairs on their body. The very first record of taxonomic work on bees of Sri Lanka 

dates back to 1897 and was later followed by the Smithsonian Surveys in the late 1970’s. A recently 

conducted field study in 29 collection sites distributed among 13 districts of Sri Lanka led to the 

identification of 148 species of bees in 38 genera and 4 families. Among them are 5 genera and 15 

species of bees previously not recorded from Sri Lanka and a bee species new to Science. Of the 

so far known bees, twenty one species are considered to be endemic to Sri Lanka. Based on field 

collections made in 29 sites, the highest number of bee species was recorded from the Low Country 

Dry Zone. Of the different habitats from which the bees were collected agricultural habitats 

documented the highest diversity of bees. Floral hosts on which bees were collected consisted of 

167 species in 115 genera distributed in 44 plant families. Weeds and wild flowers were the most 

preferred floral hosts of bees being visited by 129 bee species, followed by vegetable crops and 

trees. Many gaps in our knowledge of bees were evident during our study. The need to conduct year 

round surveys especially in the Dry and Arid Zones of the country has been highlighted. Priority 

should be given to the revision of taxa in the light of new findings. Collaboration with experts on 

different taxa in the region is essential for this purpose. Proper management and protection of bee 

nesting sites and their foraging plants would lead to the conservation of bees. 

Key words: Bees, Taxonomy, Diversity, Floral hosts, Affinities 

Introduction 

Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Apiformes) are the most important pollinators of flowering plants resulting 

in fruit and seed production. The specialized hairs on different parts of the body enable bees to carry pollen 

thus making them different from all other hymenopterans. Bees are an ancient group of insects that 

originated about 120 million years ago (Roubik, 1992). The present distribution of bees depends on their 

ability to reach suitable areas under their own power (Michener, 2000). The highest bee diversity has been 

recorded from warm temperate, desert regions of the world. 

The world bee fauna comprises 16,325 species in 425 genera and 7 families (Michener 2000). From both 

temperate and tropical India about 2,500 species of bees have been recorded (Gupta, 2003). From Sri 

Lanka, 148 species of bees in 38 genera and 4 families have been recorded (Karunaratne, Edirisinghe and 

Pauly, 2005). The floral hosts of the documented bees comprise 167 species in 115 genera and 44 plant 

families (Karunaratne, 2004). 

Taxonomic History 

The published work on bees of Sri Lanka dates back to the British Colonial Period when Dalla Torre (1896) 

listed 17 species of bees from Sri Lanka. Bingham (1897) recorded and described 42 species of bees from 

Sri Lanka. Through a survey of published literature on bees of Sri Lanka, Wijesekara (2001) compiled an 

annotated list of bees of Sri Lanka documenting 132 bee species in 25 genera and 4 families. In addition to 

the latter two noteworthy publications on bees several others have described numerous species of bees 

from Sri Lanka. Among them are Sakagami and Ebmer (1987), Schwarz (1990), Sakagami (1978 and 

12

Karunaratne & Edirisinghe: Current Status and Future Directions in Bee Taxonomy in Sri Lanka 

1991), Sakagami, Ebmer and Tadauchi (1996 and 1998), Snelling (1980) and Baker (1996). The landmark 

publication on the bees of the world by Michener (2000) includes 29 genera and several subgenera of bees 

that have been documented form Sri Lanka. The Smithsonian Sri Lanka Insect Survey has resulted in the 

identification of several bee species. Duplicate specimens of bees identified through this survey have been 

deposited in two locations in Sri Lanka. The insect collection at the National Museums, Colombo holds 

about 58 species and about 42 species are held in the Invertebrate Systematics and Diversity Facility 

(ISDF) of the Department of Zoology, University of Peradeniya. 

Following the work of Bingham (1897) and the Smithsonian Survey, recently local scientists undertook 

taxonomic studies on bees, their floral hosts and nesting. The recent study (Karunaratne, Edirisinghe and 

Pauly, 2005) documented 148 species of bees that are deposited in the ISDF of the Department of Zoology, 

University of Peradeniya. 

Diversity of Bees 

The world bee fauna according to Michener (2000) is classified under seven families of which only four 

families are known to occur in Sri Lanka (Appendix 1). The four families are Apidae (with 9 genera and 

58 species), Colletidae (with one genus and two species), Halictidae (with 19 genera and 53 species) and 

Megachilidae (with 9 genera and 35 species). Apidae and Halictidae are the most specious families of bees 

in Sri Lanka while the two genera Lasioglossum and Megachile include the most number of species. 

The recent study conducted in Sri Lanka documented 5 genera and 15 species of bees previously not 

recorded and a species new to science. Karunaratne, Edirisinghe and Pauly, (2005) provides an updated 

list of bees with new records. The so far recorded bees numbering 148 species are listed in Appendix 1. 

Affinities of the Bee Fauna 

Of the 38 bee genera recorded from Sri Lanka 10 genera are cosmopolitan in distribution according to 

Michener (2000). These include the well-known bee genera such as Apis, Ceratina, Lasioglossum, 

Megachile, and Xylocopa. The remaining bee genera are shared with one or more zoogeographic regions 

of the world while one genus is confined to the Oriental Region. Our bee fauna has close affinities with the 

Ethiopian Region where 34 of our genera (89%) are shared with this region. Eighteen genera (47%) are 

shared with the Palearctic Region and another 18 genera with the Australian Region. 

With reference to the bees of the Indian subcontinent (Gupta 2003), 18 of our bee species have been 

recorded from other countries of the subcontinent other than India. About 30 species of our bees have also 

been recorded from neighbouring India. It is noteworthy that of them, seven species are confined to Sri 

Lanka and India. 

Floral Hosts of Bees 

Floral relationships of bees of Sri Lanka have not been recorded previously except for the four well known 

species of honeybees (Punchihewa, 1994) and Euaspis edentata (Gupta, 2003). The recent field study by 

Karunaratne (2004) documented 167 species of plants as floral hosts of bees. Pollen carriage by these 

flower-visiting bees was also documented. 

The documented floral hosts of bees consist of 167 species of plants in 115 genera and 44 families. Of the 

different plant families, Fabaceae included the most number of bee floral hosts (23 species). Majority 

(51%) of the floral hosts of bees were indigenous plants. Naturalized exotic floral species (44%) were 

equally attractive to bees. Wild flowers were the most frequented floral hosts of bees followed by 

vegetable crops. Flowers of 6 plant species attracted unusually large number of bee species. Of them, 

Hyptis suaveolens, a naturalized exotic weed is highly attractive to bees from which 60 species of bees 

were recorded. 

13


Nesting Ecology 

Bees are diverse in their nesting habits. Honeybees make hives in which they store honey and pollen for 

their young. All other bees are termed pollen bees as they store only pollen to feed their young. Pollen bees 

have diverse nesting habits. Majority are ground nesters. Others nest in plant stems, in wood and in 

crevices. 

Krombein and Norden (2001) were the first to record nesting in pollen bees in Sri Lanka during the 

Smithsonian Surveys. Three species of trap nesting bees, Anthidiellum butarsis, A. krombeini 

(Megachilidae) and Hylaeus sedens (Collectidae) have been reported. Recent field study identified 16 

species of trap nesting bees in the families Apidae (5 species) and Megachilidae (8 species). Thirteen 

species of ground nesting bees were also recorded. Nesting in three species of wood boring carpenter bees 

of the Genus Xylocopa were also documented. 

Gaps in Bee Taxonomy 

The major constrains in bee taxonomy in Sri Lanka is the lack of regional bee specialists. Revision of 

known taxa is an essential task. Recent upgrading of the subfamily Nomiinae in Sri Lanka (Karunaratne, 

Edirisinghe and Pauly, 2005) resulted in 11 genera of bees that were previously under 3 genera. This 

highlights the need for revision of our bee taxa by experts of the regional fauna. Lack of an expert 

identified reference bee collection in the country is a major impediment to taxonomy. 

Conservation 

Being the most efficient pollinators of most of our flowering plants including certain crops, conservation 

priorities and proper management plans should focus on bees. Conserving the floral hosts that provide food 

for bees and their nesting sites is a priority. Rational and planned application of insecticides and weedicides 

that would affect the bees the least should be followed. Measures such as application of insecticides prior 

to flowering and at a time of the day when bees are less active on flowers (late evenings) would minimize 

their exposure to such chemicals. 


Authors are grateful to the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka for funding (RG/2001/B/02) the 

project on ‘Taxonomy and Ecology of bees of Sri Lanka’. Drs. S.W.T. Batra, formerly of the USDA and 

B.B. Norden, formerly of the Smithsonian Institution are acknowledged for initiating bee research in Sri 

Lanka. 

References 

Baker, D. B. (1996) Notes on some palearctic and oriental Systropha, with descriptions of new species and 

a key to the species (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Halictidae), Journal of Natural History, 30. 1527-1547 

Bingham, C. T. (1897) The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma, Hymenoptera Vol. 1, 

Wasps and Bees. Taylor and Francis. London. 

Dalla Torre, C. G., (1896) Catalogus Hymenopterorum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et 

synonymicus. X: Aphidae (Anthophilla) – Leipzig 643 pp. 

Gupta, R. K. (2003) An annotated catalogue of bees of the Indian Region, online http://geocities.com/ 

BeesInd2/braunsapis.htm 

Karunaratne, W. A. I. P. (2004). Taxonomy and Ecology of Bees of Sri Lanka. Ph.D. Thesis 

(Submitted), Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya. 

14


Karunaratne, W. A. I. P., Edirisinghe, J. P., and Pauly, A. (2005). An updated checklist of bees of Sri Lanka 

with new records. MAB Checklist and Handbook Series. Publication No. 23. National Science 

Foundation. (In press) 

Krombein, K. V. & Norden, B. B. (2001) Notes on trap-nesting Sri Lankan wasps and bees (Hymenoptera: 

Vespidae, Pompilidae, Sphecidae, Colletidae, Megachilidae), Proceedings of the Entomological 

Society, Washington, 103(2), 274-281. 

Michener, C. D. (2000) The Bees of the World, pp. 913. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkin 

University Press. 

Punchihewa, R. W. K. (1994). Beekeeping for honey production in Sri Lanka: management of Asiatic 

Hive honeybee Apis cerana in its natural tropical monsoonal environment. Sri Lanka Department 

of Agriculture, Sri Lanka. 

Roubik, D. W. (1992). Ecology and Natural History of tropical bees. Cambridge University Press. New 

York. 

Sakagami, S. F. and Ebmer, P. A. (1987) Taxonomic notes on Oriental halictine bees of the genus Halictus 

(Subgen. Seladonia) (Hymenoptera Apoidea), Linzer biol. Beitr. 19.2, pp 301-357. 

Sakagami, S. F., Ebmer, A. W. and Tadauchi, O. (1996) The Halictine bees of Sri Lanka and the vicinity. 

III. Sudila (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) Part 1. Esakia, 36: 143-189. 

Sakagami, S. F., Ebmer, A. W. and Tadauchi, O. (1998) The Halictine bees of Sri Lanka and the vicinity. 

III. Sudila (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) Part 2. Esakia, 38: 55-83. 

Sakagami, S. F. (1978) Tetragonula stingless bees of the Continental Asia and Sri Lanka (Hymenoptera, 

Apidae), Journal of the Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Series VI, Zoology, Vol.21, No.2: 

165-247. 

Sakagami, S. F. (1991) The halictid bees of Sri Lanka and the vicinity. II. Nesohalictus (Hymenoptera: 

Halictidae). Zoological Science 8: 169-178. Japan: Hokkaido University. 

Schwarz, H. F. (1990). Beitrag zur Kenntnis orientalischer Nomada Arten. Entomofauna Suppl, cited in 

Michener, C. D. (2000) Bees of the world. Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 

Snelling, R. R. (1980) New bees of the genus Hylaeus from Sri Lanka and India (Hymenoptera: 

Colletidae). Contributions in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 328: 1-18. 

Wijesekara, A. (2001). An annotated list of bees (Hymenoptera:Apodea: Apiformes) of Sri Lanka, 

Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 144: 145-158. 

15


Appendix 1: List of Bees recorded from Sri Lanka. 

FAMILY – COLLETIDAE 

SUBFAMILY - HYLAEINAE 

Hylaeus krombeini Snelling, 1980 

Hylaeus sedens Snelling, 1980 

FAMILY - HALICTIDAE 

SUBFAMILY - HALICTINAE 

Halictus (Seladonia) lucidipennis Smith, 1853 

Homalictus singhalensis (Blüthgen, 1926) 

Homalictus paradnanus (Strand, 1914) 

Lasioglossum (Ctenonomia) amblypygus (Strand, 1913) 

Lasioglossum (Ctenonomia) cire (Cameron, 1897) 

Lasioglossum (Ctenonomia) clarum (Nurse, 1902) 

Lasioglossum (Ctenonomia) semisculptum (Cockerell, 1911) 

Lasioglossum (Ctenonomia) vagans (Smith, 1857) 

Lasioglossum (Evylaeus) carinifrons (Cameron, 1904) 

Lasioglossum (Nesohalictus) halictoides (Smith, 1859) 

Lasioglossum (Nesohalictus) serenum (Cameron, 1897) 

Lasioglossum (Sudila) alphenum (Cameron, 1897) 

Lasioglossum (Sudila) aulacophorum (Strand, 1913) 

Lasioglossum (Sudila) bidendatum (Cameron, 1898) 

Lasioglossum (Sudila) kandiense (Cockerell, 1913) 

Pachyhalictus bedanus (Blüthgen, 1926) 

Pachyhalictus kalutarae (Cockerell, 1911) 

Pachyhalictus sigiriellus (Cockerell, 1911) 

Pachyhalictus vinctus (Walker, 1860) 

Sphecodes biroi Friese, 1909 

Sphecodes crassicornis Smith, 1875 

Sphecodes decorus (Cameron, 1897) 

SUBFAMILY - NOMIINAE 

Austronomia notiomorpha Hirashima, 1978 

Austronomia krombeini Hirashima, 1978 

Austronomia sp. 1 

Austronomia sp. 2 

Curvinomia formosa (Smith, 1858) 

Curvinomia iridiscens (Smith, 1857) 

Hoplonomia westwoodi (Gribodo, 1894) 

Leuconomia sp. 

Lipotriches basipicta (Wickwar, 1908) 

Lipotriches bombayensis (Cameron, 1908) 

Lipotriches comberi (Cockerell, 1911) 

Lipotriches sp nr. comperta (Cockerell, 1912) 

Lipotriches exagens (Walker, 1860) 

Lipotriches fervida (Smith, 1875) 

16


Lipotriches fulvinerva (Cameron, 1907) 

Lipotriches sp. * 

Lipotriches pulchriventris (Cameron, 1897) 

Macronomia rustica (Westwood, 1875) 

Maynenomia sp. 1 

Maynenomia sp. 2 

Nomia crassipes Fabricius 1798 

Nomia nasicana* Cockerell, 1911 

Nomia sp. 

Pachynomia sp. 

Pseudapis oxybeloides (Smith, 1875) 

Steganomus nodicornis Smith 1875 

Ceylalictus appendiculata (Cameron, 1903) 

Ceylalictus horni (Strand, 1913) 

Ceylalictus cereus (Nurse, 1901) 

Ceylalictus taprobanae (Cameron, 1897) 

Systropha tropicalis Cockerell, 1911 

FAMILY – MEGACHILIDAE 

Anthidiellum butarsis Griswold, 2001 

Anthidiellum krombeini Griswold, 2001 

Anthidiellum ramakrishnae (Cockerell, 1919) 

Exanthidium rotundiventre Pasteels, 1987 

Euaspis edentata Baker, 1995 

Pachyanthidium sp. 1 

Pseudoanthidium sp. 1 

Lithurgus atratus Smith, 1854 

Coelioxys angulata Smith, 1870 

Coelioxys apicata Smith, 1854 

Coelioxys capitata Smith, 1854 

Coelioxys confusus Smith, 1875 

Coelioxys fenestrata Smith, 1873 

Coelioxys fuscipennis Smith, 1854 

Coelioxys minutus Smith, 1879 

Coelioxys nitidoscutellaris Pasteels, 1987 

Coelioxys taiwanensis Cockerell, 1911 

Megachile albolineata Cameron, 1897 

Megachile amputata Smith, 1858 

Megachile ardens Smith, 1879 

Megachile ceylonica Bingham, 1896 

Megachile conjuncta Smith, 1853 

Megachile disjuncta Fabricius, 1781 

Megachile hera Bingham, 1897 

Megachile kandyca Friese, 1918 

Megachile lanata Fabricius, 1793 

Megachile mystacea Fabricius, 1775 

Megachile nana Bingham, 1897 

17


Megachile nigricans Cameron, 1898 

Megachile reepeni Friese, 1918 

Megachile relata Smith, 1879 

Megachile umbripennis Smith, 1853 

Megachile vestita Smith, 1853 

Megachile vigilans Smith, 1878 

Heriades binghami Cameron, 1897 

FAMILY - APIDAE 

Amegilla (Amegilla) confusa Smith, 1854 

Amegilla (Amegilla) quadrifasciata de Villers, 1789 

Amegilla (Glossamegilla) violacea Lepeletier, 1841 

Amegilla (Micramegilla) mucorea (Klug, 1845) 

Amegilla (Zebramegilla) fallax Smith, 1879 

Amegilla (Zebramegilla) subcoerulea Lepeletier, 1841 

Amegilla (Zonamegilla) cingulata Fabricius, 1775 

Amegilla (Zonamegilla) cingulifera Cockerell, 1910 

Amegilla (Zonamegilla) comberi Cockerell, 1911 

Amegilla (Zonamegilla) niveocincta (Smith, 1854) 

Amegilla (Zonamegilla) perasserta Rayment, 1947 

Amegilla (Zonamegilla) puttalama Strand, 1913 

Amegilla (Zonamegilla) subinsularis (Strand) 

Amegilla (Zonamegilla) zonata Linnaeus, 1758 

Amegilla sp. 

Braunsapis cupulifera Vachal, 1894 

Braunsapis flaviventris Reyes, 1991 

Braunsapis mixta Smith, 1852 

Braunsapis picitarsis Cameron, 1902 

Ceratina (Ceratinidia) hieroglyphica Smith, 1854 

Ceratina (Pithitis) binghami Cockerell, 1910 

Ceratina (Pithitis) smaragdula Fabricius, 1787 

Ceratina (Simoceratina) tanganyicensis Strand, 1911 

Ceratina (Xanthoceratina) beata Cameron, 1897 

Ceratina (Xanthoceratina) picta Smith, 1854 

Nomada adusta Smith, 1875 

Nomada antennata Meade-Waldo, 1913 

Nomada bicellularis Schwarz, 1990 

Nomada ceylonica Cameron, 1897 

Nomada lusca Smith, 1875 

Nomada priscilla Nurse, 1902 

Nomada wickwari Meade-Waldo, 1913 

Tetralonia commixtana Strand, 1913 

Tetralonia taprobanicola Strand, 1913 

Tetralonia fumida Cockerell, 1911 

Thyreus ceylonicus Friese, 1905 

Thyreus histrio Fabricius, 1775 

Thyreus insignis Meyer, 1912 

18


Thyreus ramosellus Cockerell, 1919 

Thyreus surniculus Lieftinck, 1959 

Thyreus takaonis Cockerell, 1911 

Xylocopa aestuans Lepeletier, 1841 

Xylocopa amethystina Fabricius, 1793 

Xylocopa auripennis Lepeletier, 1841 

Xylocopa bryorum Fabricius, 1775 

Xylocopa coerulea Fabricius, 1804 

Xylocopa dejeanii Lepeletier, 1841 

Xylocopa fenestrata Fabricius, 1798 

Xylocopa nasalis Westwood, 1842 

Xylocopa nigrocaerulea Smith, 1874 

Xylocopa ruficornis Fabricius, 1804 

Xylocopa tenuiscapa Westwood, 1840 

Xylocopa tranquibarica Fabricius, 1804 

Apis cerana Fabricius, 1793 

Apis dorsata Fabricius, 1793 

Apis florea Fabricius, 1787 

Trigona iridipennis Smith, 1854 

Trigona sp. 

(148 bee species in 38 genera) 

* Genus and species have been upgraded and published in Karunaratne et. al. (2005). 

19



20 

Abstract 

Current Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation of 

Dragonfly Fauna (Insecta: Odonata) of Sri Lanka 

Matjaz Bedjanic* 

*Kolodvorska 21b, SI-2310 Slovenska Bistrica, Slovenia 

e-mail: matjaz.bedjanic@guest.arnes.si 

Altogether 116 described odonate species are known from Sri Lanka. The level of endemism is high 

– 53 taxa or 45.7 % are confined to the island. The families Chlorocyphidae, Euphaeidae, 

Protoneuridae, Platystictidae, Gomphidae and Corduliidae consist of almost exclusively endemic taxa. 

Additionally, four new endemic species are currently being described, bringing the actual number of 

dragonfly taxa to a total of 120 and the number of endemic representatives to a total of 57 taxa or 47.5 

%. The odonate fauna of Sri Lanka is still insufficiently known. The knowledge on distribution, biology 

and taxonomy of adults and especially larval forms is very poor. Destruction of primary and secondary 

rainforests, destruction of forest corridors along streams, pollution and other pressures on streams and 

rivers in the southwestern and central parts of Sri Lanka are the major threats to the exceptionally 

rich endemic dragonfly fauna. More than 80% of the species confined to Sri Lanka are classified as 

endangered. Altogether 20 highly threatened endemic dragonfly species from Sri Lanka are currently 

proposed for inclusion on the new IUCN Global Red List of Threatened Animals. The paper elaborates 

on future research priorities, with recommendations for the conservation of odonate fauna in Sri Lanka. 

Key words: Odonata, Dragonflies, Sri Lanka, Taxonomy, Research, Conservation, 

Endangered species 

Short Outline of Dragonfly Biology 

With the exception of the sea, extremely cold north and south parts of the Earth, completely dry deserts or 

high mountains, there is virtually no dragonfly-free place on the planet. They are predatory insects with 

incomplete metamorphosis, which spend most of their lives hidden from human eyes as larvae in the water. 

Adult winged insects can be met along rivers, streams, paddy fields, marshes, pools and lakes almost year 

round. Dragonflies are very interesting and diverse insects, which instantly attract our attention with their 

amazing flight skills and beautiful colours. They represent an independent insect order (lat. Odonata) with 

almost 6000 described species, of which around 120 are known to occur in Sri Lanka. 

The dragonflies of Sri Lanka can be divided in two suborders – damselflies (lat. Zygoptera) and dragonflies 

(lat. Anisoptera), but the broadly applied term “dragonflies” applies to both suborders. Damselflies (Zygoptera) 

are generally small and delicate insects with hammer-shaped head on which the compound eyes are well 

separated, match-like slender abdomen and essentially equally shaped narrow wings, which at rest are folded 

over abdomen or are slightly spread. Dragonflies (Anisoptera) are generally larger and more robustly built 

insects, in which large compound eyes cover almost entire head. Their hind wings are always expanded at 

the base, the venation of fore and hind wings differs substantially and at rest the wings are broadly opened. 

Incomplete metamorphosis – the life cycle consisting of egg and several larval instars followed by the adult 

phase – is characteristic of dragonflies. After several moults the larva becomes proportionally larger and 

its swollen wing pads declare it is ready to emerge. It climbs out of water and the adult emerges from 

unbearably tight larval casing, remarkably quickly expands its soft wings and flies away before even 

developing brighter colours. Before becoming sexually mature, adults indulge in feeding and their attractive 

colouration develops only after several days. During the pre-reproductive period and while feeding, the 

adults are encountered often far from their breeding places. At breeding places, which are usually near 

water, they mate and lay eggs.

Ecological Significance of Dragonflies 

Bedjanic: Current Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation of 

Dragonfly Fauna of Sri Lanka 

Although dragonflies are generally considered of little economic significance, both larvae and adults are 

predators near the top of food chains in their ecosystems. Some species feed chiefly on mosquitoes and 

their larvae. Thus, in some regions, their potential in pest control in paddy fields is substantial. The latter 

aspect has been well documented in a paddy field ecosystem in Sri Lanka (Bambaradeniya et al., 2004). 

Fonseka (2000) and Orr (2003) provide additional relevant information on dragonfly biology and ecology. 

Dragonflies are often addressed as the “guardians of the watershed”. In nature conservation efforts they 

appear at two levels – as the subject of conservation concern in the case of endangered species and as 

indicators of wetland habitat quality. In different stages of their lives dragonflies occur both in terrestrial 

and freshwater habitats and are sensitive for disturbances in both. While the habitat selection of adult 

insects strongly depends on vegetation structure, their larvae develop in water and are critical in regard to 

water quality and aquatic habitat structure. Therefore, along with birds and amphibians, dragonflies can 

serve as one of the key bioindicator groups, whose high species diversity clearly mirrors favourable 

conservation state of wider wetland ecosystem. 

An Overview of Past Dragonfly Research in Sri Lanka 

The odonatological research in Sri Lanka has a very long history. The very first contribution to the 

knowledge of the island’s dragonflies was made by E. de Selys - Longchamps and H. A. Hagen in the 

middle of the 19th century. Although their work has been continued by several recognized odonatologists, 

e. g. B. W. F. Kirby, F. F. Laidlaw, F. C. Fraser, M. A. Lieftnick and D. St. Quentin, in the last years it 

became very clear that our knowledge of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka is still very incomplete. 

Famous dragonfly manuals published by F. C. Fraser in his series The Fauna of British India including 

Ceylon and Burma: Odonata: Vol. I-III (1933-1936), are still very relevant for the odonatological research 

in Sri Lanka. However, it is noteworthy that Sri Lanka is one of the few Asian countries, for which a book 

on its dragonfly fauna is available - titled “Dragonflies of Sri Lanka” (Fonseka, 2000). It represents the 

first overview of many different odonatological aspects, ranging from the history of odonatological 

research, compilation of the known species descriptions, determination keys for adults and larvae, summary 

of distributional records, notes on ecology etc. Despite some deficiencies and gaps it represents an 

important milestone in odonatological research in Sri Lanka and will surely stimulate further research. 

For the past ten years I have studied the Sri Lankan dragonfly fauna, which made the main subject of my 

graduation thesis titled “An attempt of the analysis of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka (Insecta: Odonata)” 

(Bedjaniè, 1998). In this work I gathered all published information on each dragonfly taxon, and combined 

with the results of my fieldwork in January and February 1995, I compiled a synopsis of the odonate fauna 

of Sri Lanka. Thus, an analysis of the present knowledge of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka as well as a 

preliminary analysis of adult dragonfly phenology was presented. My research into the dragonfly fauna of Sri 

Lanka has continued since, with additional fieldwork in October - November 2001 and in April-May 2003, and 

with a number of publications (Bedjanic, 1999; 2000; 2001; 2002a; Bedjanic & Šalamun, 2002). In the 

special issue of International Journal of Odonatology, which has brought the first ever overview of dragonfly 

threat status and conservation priorities in different regions of the world also the status of dragonfly fauna of 

Sri Lanka has been discussed. Comprehensive article with the title Odonata fauna of Sri Lanka: research 

state and threat status (Bedjanic, 2004) covers different aspects of odonatology in Sri Lanka in detail. 

Status of Taxonomy and Research on Sri Lankan Dragonfly Fauna 

According to the present knowledge altogether 116 described dragonfly species from 12 families occur in 

Sri Lanka. Currently, four new endemic species are in the process of description, thus bringing the number 

of dragonfly taxa to a total of 120 (Appendix 1). The odonate fauna of Sri Lanka is similar to that of South 

India, but 53 species (45.7 %) are unique to the island. Four undescribed species bring the number of likely 

21


endemic representatives to a total of 57 (47.5 %). Endemism is very high or almost exclusive in the 

families Chlorocyphidae, Euphaeidae, Protoneuridae, Platystictidae, Gomphidae and Corduliidae (Fig. 1). 

More than half of all endemic species are probably not closely related to the species occurring in India. 

Some species, viz. Sinhalestes orientalis, Cyclogomphus gynostylus, Microgomphus wijaya and 

Anisogomphus solitaris seem to be taxonomically isolated. 

Figure 1: Endemism of dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka. Total number of dragonfly taxa (grey columns) and 

number of endemic dragonfly taxa (black columns), sorted by families. 

To gain a better overview of the present knowledge of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka all published data 

for all species and subspecies were analysed in order to evaluate their research state. Also some of the 

author’s unpublished data were included (Table 1). The analysis clearly shows that at present we know 

very little about dragonflies of Sri Lanka. Most species in given categories are confined to Sri Lanka and 

this fact definitely has also “global” importance from the biodiversity conservation point of view. 

Category I: The species group known from one sex consists of only endemic taxa. Females are mostly 

undescribed. The reason is that females are rarely seen at waters, their behaviour is less known, and they 

are difficult to determine. 

Category II: About one quarter of the species in Sri Lanka has been found on only a few localities and 

the records are from a limited number of specimens. This category also consists of exclusively endemic 

taxa. This information clearly indicates a poor faunistical research state of dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka 

and in some cases should not be interpreted as actual species rareness. 

Category III: The group of species with unknown larval stages or larval skin, contains no less than 75 

species and subspecies or more than 60 % of the odonate fauna of Sri Lanka. This information is important 

because records of larvae and exuviae clearly indicate the development of the species in a particular habitat. 

For the research of ecological requirements of individual species, which forms a basis for the effective 

species conservation measures, the correct determination of larvae or exuviae is of crucial importance. 

Category IV: Some species, e.g. Sinhalestes orientalis, Heliogomphus ceylonicus and Heliogomphus 

nietneri, have not been found for more than 120 years since their original descriptions. All species in this 

category appear rare and endangered or even extinct. They deserve special attention in the future. 

22



Table 1: 

Research state of dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka. In each category the number of taxa and their 

proportion to all taxa known for Sri Lanka is given. All species, except those with an asterisk, 

are endemic to the island. Species for which the material is present in the author’s collection 

and awaits further treatment are underlined. 

CATEGORY 

I. SPECIES WITH AN 

UNKNOWN SEX: 

14 taxa; 11,7 % 

SPECIES LIST 

Mortonagrion ceylonicum, Archibasis sp. nov., Drepanosticta fraseri, 

D. sinhalensis, D. starmuehlneri, D. submontana, Drepanosticta sp. 

nov. A, Drepanosticta sp. nov. B, Disparoneura ramajana, Elattoneura 

caesia, Anisogomphus solitaris, Heliogomphus ceylonicus, H. nietneri, 

Macrogomphus annulatus keiseri, Gomphidia pearsoni, Macromia 

flinti, M. zeylanica, Macromidia sp. nov. 

II. 

SPECIES KNOWN 

FROM LESS THAN 

FIVE LOCALITIES: 

29 taxa; 24,2 % 

Sinhalestes orientalis, Mortonagrion ceylonicum, Archibasis sp. nov., 

Drepanosticta adami, D. austeni, D. brincki, D. digna, D. fraseri, 

D. hilaris, D. montana, D. sinhalensis, D. starmuehlneri, D. submontana, 

D. subtropica, D. walli, Drepanosticta sp. nov. A, Drepanosticta sp. 

nov. B, Disparoneura ramajana, Elattoneura. leucostigma, 

Anisogomphus solitaris, Heliogomphus ceylonicus, H. nietneri, H. lyratus, 

Macrogomphus lankanensis, M. annulatus keiseri, Megalogomphus 

ceylonicus, Macromia flinti, Macromidia sp. nov., Hylaeothemis 

fruhstorferi 

III. SPECIES STILL 

LACKING 

DESCRIPTION OF 

LARVAL STAGES OR 

EXUVIA: 

75 taxa; 62,5 % 

Libellago adami, L. finalis, L. greeni, L. lineata indica, Lestes 

praemorsus decipiens*, L. elatus*, L. malabaricus*, Sinhalestes 

orientalis, Indolestes divisus, I. g. gracilis, Mortonagrion ceylonicum, 

Onychargia atrocyana*, Paracercion malayanum*, Enallagma 

parvum*, Aciagrion occidentale*, Ceriagrion cerinorubellum*, 

Pseudagrion malabaricum*, P. rubriceps ceylonicum, Archibasis sp. 

nov., Drepanosticta adami, D. austeni, D. brincki, D. digna, D. fraseri, 

D. hilaris, D. lankanensis, D. montana, D. nietneri, D. sinhalensis, 

D. starmuehlneri, D. submontana, D. subtropica, D. tropica, D. walli, 

Drepanosticta sp. nov. A, Drepanosticta sp. nov. B, Platysticta apicalis, 

P. maculata, Disparoneura ramajana, Elattoneura bigemmata, 

E. caesia, E. centralis, E. leucostigma, E. tenax, Prodasineura sita, 

Anax indicus*, Anaciaeschna donaldi*, Gynacantha dravida*, 

Cyclogomphus gynostylus, Heliogomphus ceylonicus, H. lyratus, 

H. nietneri, H. walli, M. annulatus keiseri, Macrogomphus 

lankanensis, Gomphidia pearsoni, Macromia flinti, Macromidia sp. 

nov., Hylaeothemis fruhstorferi , Tetrathemis yerburii, Cratilla lineata 

calverti*, Lathrecista a. asiatica*, Orthetrum chrysis*, O. glaucum*, 

O. luzonicum*, O. t. triangulare*, Indothemis carnatica*, I. limbata 

sita*, Trithemis pallidinervis*, Onychothemis tonkinensis ceylanica*, 

Palpopleura s. sexmaculata*, Rhyothemis triangularis*, Aethriamanta 

b. brevipennis*, Hydrobasileus croceus*, Macrodiplax cora* 

IV. 

SPECIES NOT FOUND 

FOR MORE THAN 50 

YEARS: 

11 taxa; 9,2 % 

Sinhalestes orientalis, Drepanosticta adami, D. austeni, D. hilaris, 

D. montana, D. submontana, Elattoneura leucostigma, Heliogomphus 

ceylonicus, H. nietneri, H. lyratus, Macrogomphus lankanensis 

23


Additional comment: There are many additional species, whose occurrence in Sri Lanka is very poorly known 

but are not rare elsewhere. The following species could be included in this category: Lestes malabaricus, 

Agriocnemis f. femina, Paracercion malayanum, Anax indicus, Hemianax ephippiger, Gynacantha dravida, 

Indothemis carnatica, Indothemis limbata sita, Onychothemis tonkinensis ceylanica, Palpopleura s. sexmaculata, 

Rhyothemis triangularis, Aethriamanta b. brevipennis and Zyxomma petiolatum. 

From the above analysis of the present knowledge of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka the following 

important conclusions can be made: 

‣ The dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka is insufficiently known. The fact, that almost 65% or 78 species 

and subspecies are included in at least one category is self-explaining. 

‣ Special attention should be devoted to projects dealing with taxonomy of larval forms and adults in 

direct connection with rigorous faunistic mapping. 

‣ In whole South and South-east Asia more attention should be devoted to the description of larval 

forms and exuviae. To the present not a single Zygopteran larval form of mostly endemic Sri Lankan 

representatives of the families Chlorocyphidae, Lestidae, Platystictidae and Protoneuridae has been 

described. 

Threat Status of the Dragonfly Fauna of Sri Lanka 

It is obvious that at present we know very little about dragonflies of Sri Lanka. Relevant published 

information on the biology and ecology of endemic representatives is virtually nonexistent, while our 

knowledge on the taxonomy and distribution is patchy. 

Not a single dragonfly species from Sri Lanka is included in the global 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Species (IUCN, 2003). So far only one species, Sinhalestes orientalis has been placed on the 

“prestigious” world list of dragonfly taxa to which special attention should be devoted in the following years 

(Moore et al., 1997). Unfortunately there are many additional ones which would deserve such status and 

should be declared as priority species for future investigations. This is imperative since endemic dragonfly 

fauna of Sri Lanka is severely threatened and some very interesting taxa are at the brink of extinction. 

The main reason for this is rapid destruction of primary rainforest, which has approached a catastrophe in 

the last decades. In the middle of 20th century more than 50% of Sri Lanka was covered with forest but 

only thirty years later the percentage has fallen to around 20%. Impoundment, extraction for irrigation, 

over-use of pesticides and careless pollution of rivers and streams, together with other pressures on flowing 

waters, have brought most endemic species near to extinction. Factors as high population growth followed 

by urbanisation and acute shortage of land (Sri Lanka has nearly 19 million inhabitants and population 

density over 300 people per sq. km!), mining, soil erosion and environment pollution result in additional 

habitat loss and affect fauna and flora both directly and indirectly. 

It may look surprising but around 14% of the island is within different forms of protected areas, ranging 

from biosphere reserves and national parks, nature reserves, forest reserves, wildlife sanctuaries etc. 

Unfortunately, there is a complete lack of systematically gathered information on dragonfly fauna of 

existing protected areas in Sri Lanka and not a single professional study on this topic has ever been made. 

In this situation we can only guess to which extent the existing protected areas really ensure the long-term 

conservation of dragonfly fauna. Despite the fact that the proportion of protected areas in Sri Lanka is 

relatively high they are mainly located in the dry zone lowlands because of the historically strong 

attachment of official nature conservation towards elephants, leopards and other large animals. Our data 

indicates that only a small proportion of endemic dragonfly taxa inhabit dry zone forests with lowland rivers 

and numerous water tanks. 

The speculation that some endemic species may already be extinct and that many small and isolated 

dragonfly populations are probably on the brink of disappearance is unfortunately very close to reality. In 

24



addition, many protected areas are too small for long term survival of endangered species or degraded to a 

considerable extent. Even more problematic is the exclusion of several patches of rainforests with 

exceptionally rich fauna and flora from the current protected area network. 

Only recently the nature protection agencies and institutions in Sri Lanka started to recognise dragonflies 

as an important part of island’s biodiversity. Not a single dragonfly species is mentioned in the official 

“Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance”. On the other hand, in the publication named “The 1999 List of 

Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka” (IUCN Sri Lanka, 2000), altogether 50 dragonfly species are 

listed as threatened (TR), 20 dragonfly species as highly threatened (HT) and 4 dragonfly species as data 

deficient (DD). More or less the same data are presented also in “A Comparison of the Conservation and 

Legal Status of the Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka” (IUCN Sri Lanka, 2003). Unfortunately, the only basis 

for the mentioned evaluation of the dragonfly species’ threat status has been the book Dragonflies of Sri 

Lanka (Fonseka, 2000), which is not the best source for such task, especially for the non-odonatologist. 

Despite numerous deficiencies in listing and ranking of single dragonfly taxa the general message was 

stressed quite correctly – dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka with its numerous endemic representatives is very 

endangered. 

Bedjanic (2004) assessed the threat status of the Sri Lanka dragonfly fauna. The list of endangered 

dragonfly species of Sri Lanka comprises 47 exclusively endemic taxa, among them also 4 recently 

discovered, yet undescribed species. This means that more than 80% of endemic dragonfly taxa are 

threatened. Almost all endemic representatives of the families Protoneuridae, Platystictidae, Gomphidae 

and Corduliidae are listed as endangered. 

In the framework of IUCN SSC Odonata Specialist Group, Bedjanic (2005a) published a report titled 

Globally Endangered Dragonflies of Sri Lanka. Threat and conservation status of 20 most endangered 

endemic dragonfly species, viz. Sinhalestes orientalis, Drepanosticta adami, D. austeni, D. hilaris, 

D. montana, D. submontana, Elattoneura leucostigma, E. caesia, Disparoneura ramajana, 

Anisogomphus solitaris, Cyclogomphus gynostylus, Gomphidia pearsoni, Heliogomphus ceylonicus, 

H. lyratus, H. nietneri, Macrogomphus lankanensis, Microgomphus wijaya, Macromia flinti, 

Tetrathemis yerburii and Hylaeothemis f. fruhstorferi was assessed and they were proposed for 

inclusion on the new IUCN Global Red List of Threatened Animals. 

It should be stressed that this list is very incomplete. Surely some additional endemic species as well as 

some undescribed taxa are highly endangered and are at the brink of extinction. Globally, all endangered 

dragonfly species of Sri Lanka can be marked as range restricted species. Their known occurence is 

limited almost exclusively to a few isolated localities in the wet and intermediate zones of Sri Lanka. These 

facts are alarming and definitely have global importance from the biodiversity conservation point of view. 

Conservation Priorities and Recommendations 

Effective nature conservation measures in declared protected areas as well as establishment of new 

protected areas in the wet zone is of utmost importance and probably the only way to ensure the long-term 

preservation of rich endemic fauna and flora of Sri Lanka, including dragonflies. Since natural vegetation 

and habitats are already so disturbed and fragmented the focus should be set on taking an effective action 

to stop further encroachment on the wet zone rainforests and establishment of smaller protected areas and 

corridors between them. Only such a “network” could ensure long-term preservation of endemic fauna 

and flora. 

Basic information on biology and distribution of endemic dragonfly species is still very poor. It is therefore 

impossible at this point to suggest “single-species-oriented” conservation measures. In order to improve 

our knowledge on the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka special attention should be devoted to projects dealing 

with taxonomy of larval forms and adults, in connection with serious faunistic mapping and research on the 

biology of selected dragonfly species. Only in this way we will be able to effectively assess their 

25


conservation status, suggest appropriate conservation measures for the key species as well as recognise 

and promote the importance of dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka for biodiversity conservation. 

General guidelines for protection of rich endemic dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka include the following: 

‣ Establishment of network of new small protected areas and corridors in the wet zone. 

‣ Conservation of forest corridors along streams and rivulets outside protected areas in the wet zone. 

‣ Effective execution of appropriate nature conservation measures in partially degraded existing 

protected areas. 

Fortunately very high diversity of fauna and flora, especially the number of taxa confined to the island, has 

already been recognised and there are good reasons to name Sri Lanka as one of the “hot-spots” of South 

and South-east Asia (Mittermeier et al., 2000). In addition, Sri Lankan Moist Forests (Ecoregion 21) and 

South-western Sri Lanka Rivers and Streams (Ecoregion 172) are included in the prestigious WWF’s 

Global 200 list of the Earth’s most biologically outstanding habitats. 

Research Priorities and Recommendations 

Dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka is very interesting but insufficiently known. Knowledge on distribution, 

biology and taxonomy is very poor - especially regarding larval forms. Due to the habitat destruction 

(mainly primary tropical rainforest) the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka is also very endangered – some very 

interesting or/and endemic taxa are threatened with extinction or are probably already extinct. 

According to the above facts the main dragonfly research priorities are as follows: 

‣ Special attention in the future should be devoted to taxonomy of larval forms and adults. Expert 

taxonomic knowledge should be focused especially on description of larval forms and exuviae. In adult 

dragonfly taxonomy a revision of exclusively endemic family Platystictidae with remarkable species 

radiation is urgently needed. 

‣ Serious faunistic mapping should cover the whole island. In order to get an overview of conservation 

status of less widespread and highly endangered endemic species, the research should be focused on 

protected areas and other still preserved areas without nature conservation status. Especially reserves 

and sanctuaries in the wet and intermediate zone will surely bring many new dragonfly taxa to light, 

not to mention the crucial nature conservation overview, namely, to which extent the existing protected 

areas really ensure the long-term preservation of extremely interesting endemic dragonfly fauna. 

‣ Research of biology and ecology of most endangered species should be carried out in order to 

evaluate their remaining population size and options of long term survival. 

‣ All existing odonatological data (museum collections, literature, unpublished field observation) should 

be gathered in the odonatological database called “Distributional Atlas of the dragonflies of Sri 

Lanka”, which will enable an overview of present knowledge for each species and generate outputs 

such as distribution maps, seasonal phenology and altitudinal distribution charts etc. 

‣ An expert should produce a photographic field guide for the dragonfly fauna of the island with a 

comprehensive, clear and reliable determination key for adult dragonflies as soon as possible. 

To carry out the suggested measures successfully, some basic conditions have to be fulfilled on local and 

international level. Above all, mutual cooperation with appropriate nature conservation institutions and 

experts in Sri Lanka should be built and joint projects should be prepared. A small team of local scientist or 

students should be trained in dragonfly research. With appropriate taxonomic and field knowledge on 

biology of dragonflies it would be possible for them to carry out the necessary field work in different 

seasons at selected localities year around or to explore many different parts of the island in the same 

season. 

26



For serious scientific faunistic work, which is inevitably connected to capturing of dragonflies and building 

a scientifically managed museum collection, a legal permission has to be issued by the appropriate nature 

conservation authority. However, a mechanism should be developed, which would ensure easier obtaining 

of necessary permits for field work on one hand and on the other hand would control the field work in 

terms of collecting and submitting the results. IUCN Species Survival Commission – Odonata Specialists 

Group could act as an important mediator in issuing recommendation based on references of the researcher 

and could also play an important role in the exchange and evaluation of results. 

Finally, the necessary funds for additional odonatological fieldwork and research should be assured at the 

state or international level. 

Current Odonatological Activities and Future Perspectives 

In last years the interest on the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka has considerably grown. Herewith the book 

Dragonflies of Sri Lanka (Fonseka, 2000) greatly fulfilled its basic purpose. In addition, some popular 

articles on dragonflies, such as the one written for unfortunately discontinued nature conservation magazine 

Sri Lanka Nature (Silva Wijeyeratne, 2001), definitely helped to stimulate this aspect. Based on the 

cooperation of the author with local naturalists and sponsored by the leading Sri Lankan ecotouristic 

company Jetwing, a small photographic guide to the dragonflies of Sri Lanka has been published in last two 

years (de Silva Wijeyeratne et al., 2003; reprint 2004). It comprises 88 photographs of 64 dragonfly species, 

including many interesting endemic representatives. Dragonfly photographs and short species descriptions 

will also form a part of the new popular Field Guide to Birds, Butterflies and Dragonflies of Sri Lanka, 

which is scheduled to be hopefully published in 2005 in Sinhala and English language. In the frame of 

activities of ecotouristic company Jetwing, also a special Dragonfly Research Project is being developed, 

details of which can be found on the Internet (www.jetwingeco.com). 

As already mentioned the author is involved in the studies of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka since his 

first field trip to the island in 1995. Up to now a comprehensive graduation thesis (Bedjanic, 1998), as well 

as some faunistic and taxonomic articles were published on the topic (Bedjanic, 1999; 2000; 2001; 2002a; 

Bedjanic & Šalamun, 2002). Three years ago, a small booklet Dragonflies of Sri Lanka in Colour has been 

privately published as a draft of future photographic manual to the dragonfly fauna of the island (Bedjanic, 

2002b). After January and February 1995 the serious faunistic work in the frame of the PhD project was 

continued in October-November 2001 and in April-May 2003. In absence of official permits the fieldwork 

has unfortunately mainly been limited to the non-protected areas, but nevertheless gave very good results. 

More than 50 localities in different parts of the island were visited and more than 70 species were recorded 

both in 2001 and 2003. Among the recorded species there are some very interesting and even new taxa as 

well as many hereto unknown larval forms. Currently, two new species (genus Archibasis and 

Macromidia, which were previously not known to be present on the island) are in the process of describing 

from material collected in 2001 and at least two new species (genus Drepanosticta) are present in the 

material gathered in April and May 2003. All of them are endemic, and the percentage of the species 

confined to the island is slowly nearing 50%, a fact that is of immense conservation importance on a global 

scale. In addition, larval stages of more than dozen mostly endemic species are now known and await 

description. This will enable additional field work methods and open better possibilities for detecting the 

species with unusual behaviour and/or out of optimal season. In this way, the knowledge on distribution, 

larval biology and habitat requirements of selected species is expected to be greatly improved. 

In the beginning of 2005 the work on the odonatological database called “Distributional Atlas of the 

dragonflies of Sri Lanka” finally started. Considerable proportion of all existing odonatological data (all 

published literature, unpublished author’s data, data from some museum collections) is already imported 

and currently there are about 3500 faunistic records of different quality in the database. Further important 

step includes geolocating of all dragonfly localities what will enable future GIS analysis. In this way it should 

soon be possible to generate basic outputs such as distribution maps, seasonal phenology and altitudinal 

27


distribution charts etc. Also the distribution map of all dragonfly localities in Sri Lanka will be elaborated in 

order to point out the white spots and very limited distribution of many endemic species. 

Hopefully, the nature conservation authorities in Sri Lanka will show some interest and support towards 

planned dragonfly research projects in the future. Of course, the most important thing would be exchange 

of experience and knowledge as well as logistic support in the field, not to mention help in obtaining 

necessary permits. On the other hand, funds for covering of travel and material costs will have to be 

organized. With the proper advice, knowledge support or contacts with possible donors, the IUCN SSC, 

IUCN Sri Lanka and National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka could play an important role in this respect. 


For the constant support and help with literature the author is thankful to Dr Bastiaan Kiauta (Bilthoven, 

The Netherlands). Dr Jan van Tol (Leiden, The Netherlands) enabled the work in the odonatological 

collection of the National Natuurhistorisch Museum in Leiden, allowed the copying of a part of Dr M. A. 

Lieftick’s correspondence and helped in various other aspects. Especially encouraging were fruitful 

discussions with the late Mr Terence de Fonseka (London, UK), who also greatly helped with literature. 

Due to help and enthusiasm of Mr Gehan De Silva Wijeyeratne (Colombo, Sri Lanka) the work on Sri 

Lanka’s Dragonfly Research Project continues in various ways. Colleagues from Sri Lanka, Mr Gehan De 

Silva Wijeyeratne, Mrs Karen Coniff, Mrs Nancy van der Poorten and Mr Amila Salgado, regularly e-mail 

me their dragonfly photographs, including some very interesting dragonfly records. Dr Channa 

Bambaradeniya (Colombo, Sri Lanka) helped with different information and stimulated the writing of 

present contribution. Mr Ali Šalamun (Koper, Slovenia) and Mrs Mojca Bedjanic (Slovenska Bistrica, 

Slovenia) rendered pleasant company and helpful hand during the fieldwork in Sri Lanka. 

References 

Bambaradeniya C.N.B., Edirisingha J.P., De Silva D.N., Gunatilleke C.V.S., Ranawana K.B. & Wijekoon 

S. (2004) Biodiversity associated with an irrigated rice agro-ecosystem in Sri Lanka, Biodiversity and 

Conservation 13: 1715-1753. 

Bedjanic, M., 1998. An attempt of the analysis of the dragonfly fauna of Sri Lanka (Insecta: Odonata). 

Graduation Thesis, University of Ljubljana. [In Slovenian; English title and abstract]. 

Bedjanic, M., 1999. The dry season aspect of the odonate fauna of Sri Lanka - Abstr. Pap. 2nd Odonatol. 

Symp. Alps-Adriatic reg. Comm.,Wiena. Anax 2(1): 45. 

Bedjanic, M., 2000. Description of the last larval instar of Epophthalmia vittata cyanocephala Hagen, 

1867 (Anisoptera: Corduliidae). Odonatologica 29(1): 57-61 

Bedjanic, M., 2001. Erforschungsstand der Libellenfauna von Sri Lanka. Abstracts of papers and posters 

presented on the XVII. SIEEC Symposium, Radenci, Slovenia, 20.V.-26.V.2001. Radenci. pp. 9-10 

Bedjanic, M., 2002a. Dragonflies collected in Sri Lanka during January and February 1995 (Odonata). 

Opuscula Zoologica Fluminensia 205: 1-22 

Bedjanic, M., 2002b. Dragonflies of Sri Lanka in Colour: First Draft Version 2002. Privately Published, 

Fram. 

Bedjanic, M. & A. Šalamun, 2002. Additional notes on the last larval instar of Epophtalmia vittata 

cyanocephala Hagen, 1867 from Sri Lanka (Odonata: Corduliidae). Opuscula Zoologica 

Fluminensia 204: 1-6 

Bedjanic, M., 2004. Odonata fauna of Sri Lanka: research state and threat status. In: V. Clausnitzer & R. 

Jödicke (Ed), Guardians of the watershed - Global status of dragonflies: critical species, threat and 

conservation, pp. 279-294, International Journal of Odonatology 7(2), Worldwide Dragonfly 

Association, Worcestershire. 

28



Bedjanic, M., 2005. Globally Endangered Dragonflies of Sri Lanka. Datasheets for assessing species for 

the IUCN Global Red List of Threatened Animals, Prepared for the IUCN SSC Odonata Specialist 

Gro up,Version 1 - January 2005, Slovenska Bistrica. 42 pp. 

Bridges, C. A., 1994. Catalogue of the family-group, genus-group and species-group names of the Odonata 

of the world. 3rd Edn., Bridges, Urbana, Illinois. xlviii+905 pp. 

De Silva Wijeyeratne, G., M. Bedjanic & K. Coniff, 2003. Dragonflies of Sri Lanka. Jetwing Research 

Initiative, Colombo. 

Fonseka, T. De, 2000. Dragonflies of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust, Colombo. 

Fraser F. C., 1933a. The Platystictas of Ceylon (Order Odonata). Ceylon Journal of Science (B) 17 (3): 

201-224. 

Fraser F. C., 1933b. The Gomphinae of Ceylon (Order Odonata). Ceylon Journal of Science (B) 18(1): 

19-36. 

Fraser, F.C., 1933c. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Odonata: Vol. I. Taylor 

& Francis, London. 

Fraser, F.C., 1934. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Odonata: Vol. II. Taylor 


Fraser, F.C., 1936. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Odonata: Vol. III. Taylor 


IUCN 2001. IUCN Red List Categories: Version 3.1. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival 

Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 

IUCN SRI LANKA, 2000. The 1999 list of Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka. IUCN Sri Lanka, 

Colombo. 

IUCN SRI LANKA, 2003. A Comparison of the conservation and legal status of the Fauna and Flora of 

Sri Lanka. IUCN Sri Lanka, Colombo. 

Kirby, W. F., 1891. On some Neuroptera (Odonata) collected by Mr. E. E. Green in Ceylon. Proceedings 

of the Zoological Society of London 1891: 203-206, pl. 20. 

Kirby, W. F., 1894. Catalogue of the described Neuroptera Odonata (Dragonflies) of Ceylon, with 

Description of New Species. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 24 (157): 545-566, pls. 41, 

42 excl. 

Kirby, W. F., 1905. List of a small Collection of Odonata (Dragonflies) from Ceylon, collected by Mr. E. 

Ernest Green, with Notes on the genus Zygonidia and its allies, and Descriptions of new Species of 

Zygonidia, Kirb., and Onychothemis, Brauer, frorm Ceylon and Tonkin. Annals and Magazine of 

Natural History (VII) 15 (87): 270-278. 

Laidlaw, F. F. 1924. A catalogue of the dragonflies (Odonata) recorded from Ceylon, based on material 

collected by Mr. E. E. Green, with description of a new species. Spolia Zeylanica 12(47/48): 335-374 

Laidlaw, F. F., 1951. A note on the Derivation of the Odonate Fauna of the Island of Ceylon. 

Entomological News 62 (2): 77-8. 

Lieftnick, M. A., 1940. On some Odonata collected in Ceylon, with description of new species and larvae. 

Ceylon Journal of Science (B) 22(1): 79-117 

Lieftnick, M. A., 1955. Synopsis of the dragonflies (Odonata) of Ceylon. Zoologische Mededelingen 

34(5): 67-87. 

Lieftnick, M. A., 1971. Odonata from Ceylon. Entomologica Scandinavica, Suppl. 1: 188-207. 

29


Mittermeier, R. A., N. Myers & C. G. Mittermeier, 2000. Hotspots: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most 

Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX Conservation International, USA. 

Moore, N. W., 1997 (Comp.). Dragonflies - Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC 

Odonata Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, UK. 

Orr, B., 2003. A guide to the dragonflies of Borneo – their identification and biology. Natural History 

Publications, Kota Kinabalu. 195 pp. 

Silva Wijeyeratne, G. DE, 2001. Dragonflies and damselflies for beginners. Sri Lanka Nature 3(1): 20-24 

St. Quentin, D., 1972. Results of the Austrian Ceylonese Hydrobiological Mission 1970 of the 1 st Zoological 

Institute of the University of Vienna (Austria) and the Department of Zoology of the Vidyalankara 

University of Ceylon, Kelaniya. Part VI: a new Drepanosticta from Ceylon (Order: Odonata; 

Insecta). Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Station, Sri Lanka 23: 137-139. 

St. Quentin, D., 1973. Results of the Austrian Ceylonese Hydrobiological Mission 1970 of the 1st 

Zoological Institute of the University of Vienna (Austria) and the Department of Zoology of the 

Vidyalankara University of Ceylon, Kelaniya. Part XII: Contributions to the Ecology of the Larvae of 

some Odonata from Ceylon. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Station, Sri Lanka 24 (1&2): 113-124 

30



Appendix 1: Species List of the Dragonflies of Sri Lanka 

According to the present knowledge altogether 116 described dragonfly species from 12 families occur in 

Sri Lanka. Currently, four new endemic species are in the process of description (numbered and indicated 

as “sp. nov.”, not printed bold), thus bringing the number of dragonfly taxa to a total of 120. Altogether 57 

taxa are endemic and are marked with (*). 

Additional 7 species (marked with §, not printed bold) are included in the present species list without a 

number: Aciagrion hisopa (Selys, 1876), Hemicordulia asiatica Selys 1878, Neurothemis fluctuans 

(Fabricius, 1793), Trithemis kirbyi kirbyi Selys, 1891, Rhyothemis obsolescens Kirby, 1889 and 

Rhyothemis phyllis phyllis (Sulzer, 1776). Their occurrence on Sri Lanka is doubtful and not well 

documented or the record is based on determination error. One of them, viz. Trithemis kirbyi kirbyi is 

listed in FONSEKA (2000), who gives 117 species and subspecies for the island. 

System and nomenclature mainly follow the Catalogue of the family-group, genus-group and species-group 

names of the Odonata of the world (BRIDGES, 1994). 

ORDER ODONATA 

SUB-ORDER ZYGOPTERA 

FAMILY CALOPTERYGIDAE 

1.) Neurobasis chinensis chinensis (Linnaeus, 1758) 

*2.) Vestalis apicalis nigrescens Fraser, 1929 

FAMILY CHLOROCYPHIDAE 

*3.) Libellago adami Fraser, 1939 

*4.) Libellago finalis (Hagen, 1869) 

*5.) Libellago greeni (Laidlaw, 1924) 

6.) Libellago lineata indica (Fraser, 1928) 

FAMILY EUPHAEIDAE 

*7.) Euphaea splendens Hagen, 1853 

FAMILY LESTIDAE 

8.) Lestes elatus Hagen, 1862 

9.) Lestes malabaricus Fraser, 1929 

10.) Lestes praemorsus decipiens Kirby, 1894 

*11.) Sinhalestes orientalis (Hagen, 1862) 

*12.) Indolestes divisus (Hagen, 1862) 

*13.) Indolestes gracilis gracilis (Hagen, 1862) 

FAMILY COENAGRIONIDAE 

14.) Agriocnemis femina femina (Brauer, 1868) 

15.) Agriocnemis pygmaea (Rambur, 1842) 

*16.) Mortonagrion ceylonicum Lieftinck, 1971 

17.) Onychargia atrocyana Selys, 1865 

18.) Paracercion malayanum (Selys, 1876) 

§ Aciagrion hisopa (Selys, 1876) 

19.) Aciagrion occidentale Laidlaw, 1919 

20.) Enallagma parvum Selys, 1876 

31


21.) Ischnura aurora aurora (Brauer, 1865) 

22.) Ischnura senegalensis (Rambur, 1842) 

23.) Ceriagrion cerinorubellum (Brauer, 1865) 

24.) Ceriagrion coromandelianum (Fabricius, 1798) 

25.) Pseudagrion malabaricum Fraser, 1924 

26.) Pseudagrion microcephalum (Rambur, 1842) 

*27.) Pseudagrion rubriceps ceylonicum (Kirby, 1891) 

*28.) Archibasis sp. nov. 

FAMILY PLATYCNEMIDIDAE 

29.) Copera marginipes (Rambur, 1842) 

FAMILY PLATYSTICTIDAE 

*30.) Drepanosticta adami (Fraser, 1933) 

*31.) Drepanosticta austeni Lieftinck, 1940 

*32.) Drepanosticta brincki Lieftinck, 1971 

*33.) Drepanosticta digna (Selys, 1860) 

*34.) Drepanosticta fraseri Lieftinck, 1955 

*35.) Drepanosticta hilaris (Hagen, 1860) 

*36.) Drepanosticta lankanensis (Fraser, 1931) 

*37.) Drepanosticta montana (Hagen, 1860) 

*38.) Drepanosticta nietneri (Fraser, 1931) 

*39.) Drepanosticta sinhalensis Lieftinck, 1971 

*40.) Drepanosticta starmuehlneri St. Quentin, 1972 

*41.) Drepanosticta submontana (Fraser, 1933) 

*42.) Drepanosticta subtropica (Fraser, 1933) 

*43.) Drepanosticta tropica (Hagen, 1860) 

*44.) Drepanosticta walli (Fraser, 1931) 

*45.) Drepanosticta sp. nov. A 

*46.) Drepanosticta sp. nov. B 

*47.) Platysticta apicalis Kirby, 1894 

*48.) Platysticta maculata Hagen, 1860 

FAMILY PROTONEURIDAE 

*49.) Disparoneura ramajana Lieftinck, 1971 

*50.) Elattoneura bigemmata Lieftinck, 1971 

*51.) Elattoneura caesia (Hagen, 1860) 

*52.) Elattoneura centralis (Hagen, 1860) 

*53.) Elattoneura leucostigma (Fraser, 1933) 

*54.) Elattoneura tenax (Hagen, 1860) 

*55.) Prodasineura sita (Kirby, 1894) 

SUB-ORDER ANISOPTERA 

FAMILY AESHNIDAE 

56.) Anaciaeschna donaldi Fraser, 1922 

57.) Anax guttatus (Burmeister, 1839) 

58.) Anax immaculifrons Rambur, 1842 

32

59.) Anax indicus Lieftinck, 1942 

60.) Hemianax ephippiger (Burmeister, 1839) 

61.) Gynacantha dravida Lieftinck, 1960 



FAMILY GOMPHIDAE 

*62.) Anisogomphus solitaris Lieftinck, 1971 

*63.) Burmagomphus pyramidalis sinuatus Fraser, 1933 

*64.) Cyclogomphus gynostylus Fraser, 1926 

*65.) Heliogomphus ceylonicus (Selys, 1878) 

*66.) Heliogomphus lyratus Fraser, 1933 

*67.) Heliogomphus nietneri (Selys, 1878) 

*68.) Heliogomphus walli Fraser, 1925 

*69.) Macrogomphus annulatus keiseri Lieftinck, 1955 

*70.) Macrogomphus lankanensis Fraser, 1933 

*71.) Microgomphus wijaya Lieftinck, 1940 

*72.) Paragomphus henryi (Laidlaw, 1928) 

*73.) Megalogomphus ceylonicus (Laidlaw, 1922) 

*74.) Gomphidia pearsoni Fraser, 1933 

75.) Ictinogomphus rapax (Rambur, 1842) 

FAMILY CORDULIIDAE 

*76.) Epophthalmia vittata cyanocephala Hagen, 1867 

*77.) Macromia flinti Lieftinck, 1977 

*78.) Macromia zeylanica Fraser, 1927 

*79.) Macromidia sp. nov. 

§ Hemicordulia asiatica Selys, 1878 

FAMILY LIBELLULIDAE 

*80.) Hylaeothemis fruhstorferi fruhstorferi(Karsch, 1889) 

*81.) Tetrathemis yerburii Kirby, 1894 

82.) Brachydiplax sobrina (Rambur, 1842) 

83.) Cratilla lineata calverti Förster, 1903 

84.) Lathrecista asiatica asiatica (Fabricius, 1798) 

85.) Orthetrum chrysis (Selys, 1891) 

86.) Orthetrum glaucum (Brauer, 1865) 

87.) Orthetrum luzonicum (Brauer, 1868) 

88.) Orthetrum pruinosum neglectum (Rambur, 1842) 

89.) Orthetrum sabina sabina (Drury, 1773) 

90.) Orthetrum triangulare triangulare (Selys, 1878) 

91.) Potamarcha congener (Rambur, 1842) 

92.) Acisoma panorpoides panorpoides Rambur, 1842 

93.) Brachythemis contaminata (Fabricius, 1793) 

94.) Bradinopyga geminata (Rambur, 1842) 

95.) Crocothemis servilia servilia (Drury, 1770) 

96.) Diplacodes nebulosa (Fabricius, 1793) 

97.) Diplacodes trivialis (Rambur, 1842) 

98.) Indothemis carnatica (Fabricius, 1798) 

33


99.) Indothemis limbata sita Campion, 1923 

§ Neurothemis fluctuans (Fabricius, 1793) 

100.) Neurothemis intermedia intermedia (Rambur, 1842) 

101.) Neurothemis tullia (Drury, 1773) 

102.) Rhodothemis rufa (Rambur, 1842) 

103.) Sympetrum fonscolombii (Selys, 1840) 

104.) Trithemis aurora (Burmeister, 1839) 

105.) Trithemis festiva (Rambur, 1842) 

§ Trithemis kirbyi kirbyi Selys, 1891 

106.) Trithemis pallidinervis (Kirby, 1889) 

107.) Onychothemis tonkinensis ceylanica Ris, 1912 

108.) Palpopleura sexmaculata sexmaculata (Fabricius, 1787) 

§ Rhyothemis obsolescens Kirby, 1889 

§ Rhyothemis phyllis phyllis (Sulzer, 1776) 

109.) Rhyothemis triangularis Kirby, 1889 

110.) Rhyothemis variegata variegata (Linnaeus, 1763) 

111.) Hydrobasileus croceus (Brauer, 1867) 

112.) Pantala flavescens (Fabricius, 1798) 

113.) Tramea basilaris burmeisteri Kirby, 1889 

114.) Tramea limbata (Desjardins, 1832) 

115.) Tholymis tillarga (Fabricius, 1798) 

116.) Zyxomma petiolatum Rambur, 1842 

117.) Aethriamanta brevipennis brevipennis (Rambur, 1842) 

118.) Macrodiplax cora (Kaup, 1867) 

119.) Urothemis signata signata (Rambur, 1842) 

*120.) Zygonyx iris ceylonicum (Kirby, 1905) 

34

Edirisinghe & Wijerathna: Current Status THE of FAUNA Aphid OF Taxonomy SRI LANKA (2006): in Sri Lanka 35-42 


Current Status of Aphid Taxonomy in Sri Lanka 

Jayanthi P. Edirisinghe* and M.A.P. Wijerathna § 

*Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya 

§ 

Wildlife Trust, TREE Centre, Randenigala, Rantambe 

Abstract 

Aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) are a group of minute insects (with winged and wingless adults) that 

live on plants. They are plant sap feeders and thereby act as vectors of viral diseases of plants. 

Hence, aphids are of much economic importance. Presently, the known aphid fauna of Sri Lanka 

consists of 84 species in 46 genera and 6 subfamilies. Two species of aphids are considered to be 

endemic to Sri Lanka, while 74 of our aphid species are shared with India. The aphids that are found 

particularly on upcountry vegetables are cosmopolitan in distribution. Distribution of aphids in Sri 

Lanka is associated more with the distribution of their host plants than the geography of the country. 

Field studies indicate that aphids are more abundant in the Mid Country Wet Zone. Majority of the 

aphid species are polyphagous, inhabiting a variety of unrelated host plants. Aphids have been 

recorded from 300 species of plants belonging to 71 families. 

To fill the gaps in aphid taxonomic research it is necessary to make extensive field collection 

covering parts of the country where previous collections have not been made. Furthermore, the 

balance of the flowering plants including crops need to be examined for aphids. Specially, host 

specific or oligopahgous aphid species on crops need to be identified. Since aphids are considered as 

potential pests and viral vectors, their management becomes more important than conservation. 

Key words: Aphids, Taxonomy, Affinities, Host plants, Distribution 

Introduction 

Aphids (Homoptera:Aphididae) are one of the most harmful insect groups as plant sap feeders, plant gall 

formers and vectors of viral diseases of plants. They occur both in the tropics and the temperate regions of 

the world. The greatest distribution of aphids is in the temperate region. The world aphid fauna comprises 

over 4,000 species in 493 genera and 9 subfamilies (Blackman et al., 1982). In India, where both tropical and 

temperate climates prevail a rich aphid fauna is present nearing 1,000 species in 214 genera and 9 subfamilies 

(Blackman and Eastop, 1984; Gosh and Agarawala, 1982). Presently, 82 species of aphids in 46 genera and 6 

subfamilies have been recorded from Sri Lanka (Wijerathna and Edirisinghe, 1999). The aphids documented 

from Sri Lanka have been recorded from 300 species of plants belonging to 21 families. Eighteen species of 

aphids have been documented from vegetable crops and over 20 species from weeds. Among the aphid 

species are several potential vectors of plant viruses. Aphids have been proven to be the vector of viral 

diseases in several local crops (Abeygunawardena and Perera, 1964; Jeyanadarajah and Liyanage, 1994). 

Systematics 

The early records of aphids of Sri Lanka date back to the British Period (Westwood, 1890; Scoutenden, 

1905; van der Goot, 1918) during which several aphid species collected on water traps have been 

described. Therefore, the aphid species recorded are without host records. Thereafter, Judenko and Eastop 

(1963), Caver (1965) and Blackman and Eastop (1984) reported several aphid species from Sri Lanka with 

their host records. The most comprehensive study so far conducted of aphids is by Wijerathna (1997). In this 

study aphids were collected from 26 sites located in 7 agroecological regions within the Wet, Intermediate and 

Dry Zones of the country. The collection sites came within 17 Administrative Districts of Sri Lanka. A total of 

47 species of aphids in 28 genera and 5 subfamilies were collected during this study. Over 1,000 plant species 

were examined for aphids and of them, aphids were present on 300 plant species in 71 plant families. 

35


The list of aphids so far recorded from Sri Lanka is given in Table 1. Aphids of the Family Aphididae is 

represented in Sri Lanka by 6 subfamilies. Within each subfamily are several tribes. Subfamily Aphidinae 

includes 2 tribes; Aphidini and Macrosiphini. Each of the remaining subfamilies includes only a single tribe 

in Sri Lanka. In the tribe Aphinidi, 7 genera are included of which the Genus Aphis is represented by the 

largest number of species. The Tribe Macrosiphini includes the largest number of genera (22). Each of 

these genera is represented by 1-3 species. Subfamily Drephanociphinae includes two tribes with a single 

Genus in each. Subfamily Pemphiginae has a single tribe represented by 5 genera. A comprehensive list of 

the taxonomy of the currently known aphid species from Sri Lanka is provided in Wijerathna and 

Edirisnghe, 1999. 

Table 1: 

Aphid taxa recorded from Sri Lanka 

Subfamily Tribe Genus No. of species 

Aphidinae Aphidini Aphis 6 

Hylopterus 1 

Hysteroneura 1 

Melanaphis 1 

Rhopalosiphum 3 

Schizaphis 4 

Toxoptera 3 

Macrosiphini Acyrthosiphon 3 

Akkaia 1 

Aulacorthum 2 

Brachycaudus 1 

Chaetosiphon 1 

Dysaphis 1 

Ipuka 1 

Liaphis 1 

Macrosiphoniella 2 

Macrosiphum 2 

Matsumuraja 1 * 

Micromyzus 3 

Myzuz 6 

Neotoxoptera 1 

Pentalonia 1 

Phorodon 1 

Rhodobium 1 

Rhopalosiphoninus 1 

Sinomegoura 1 

Sitobion 8 

Uroleucon 1 

Vesiculaphis 1 

Drepanosiphinae Tinocallis 1 

Phyllaphidini Phyllaphidini 1 

36

Edirisinghe & Wijerathna: Current Status of Aphid Taxonomy in Sri Lanka 

Greenidenae Sebaphidini Schoutedenia 1 

* Species Endemic to Sri Lanka 

Greenideni Greenidea 2 

Greenideoida 1 

Hormaphidinae Ceratophidini Astegopteryx 3 

Cerataphis 1 

Ceratoglyphina 1 

Ceratovacuna 1 

Pseudoregma 1 

Lachninae Lachnus 1 

Pyrolachnus 1 

Pemphiginae Ceratopemphigus 1 * 

Eriosoma 1 

Geoica 1 

Kaltenbachiella 2 

Tetraneura 2 

The type specimens of aphids of Sri Lanka have been deposited in museums outside Sri Lanka. Type 

specimens of 40 species of aphids (in 22 genera) are held in the Natural History Museum (NHM), London. 

Several expert-identified (mostly by taxonomists at the NHM) aphid specimens are held in local Institutions. 

In the Agriculture Department, the HORDI museum holds a number of specimens collected and identified 

by the British. In the University of Peradeniya, Department of Zoology holds specimens of 34 aphid 

species collected during a field survey (Wijerathna, 1997) whose identity been confirmed by the 

Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London. 

Identification of aphids (collected into 70% alcohol) is based on slide mounted specimens. The 

identification key prepared by Martin (1983) for tropical aphids includes most of the common aphids of Sri 

Lanka and is a useful illustrated guide. 

Affinities of the aphid fauna 

A quarter of the world aphid fauna has been described from India. Therefore, it is not surprising that most 

of our aphids are shared with India. Of the 84 known species of aphids of Sri Lanka (Appendix 1), 74 

species are shared with India (Gosh, 1971). Few other species are shared with Central Asia, East Africa 

and Mauritius. The aphid, Sitobion wickstroemiae recorded from the shrub Wickstroemia indica (Family 

Thymelaeceae) also occurs in South Africa and Mauritiu. The shrub, Wickstroemia indica has been 

introduced to Sri Lanka from East Africa and it has since become a weed in and around Kandy. Majority 

of the aphids on vegetable crops are cosmopolitan in distribution (Wijerathna and Edirisinghe, 1997). 

Endemism in aphids of Sri Lanka cannot be ascertained accurately as the aphids of the Indian subcontinent 

are not fully known. According to Ghosh (1971A) 10 aphid species are endemic to Sri Lanka. However, 8 

of these species have been subsequently reported from other countries in the Indian subcontinent, thus 

making only two aphid species endemic to Sri Lanka. The two species are Matsumaraja capitophoroides 

H.R.Lo. and Ceratopemphigus zehntneri Schouteden ( Schouteden, 1905; Judenko and Eastop, 1963). 

The aphid fauna of India is well known through the work of several authors among whom Ghosh (1971A, 

1971B, 1974 & 1990) has made a significant contribution. From Pakistan, 15 species of vegetable infesting 

aphids have been recorded by Nasir and Yousuf (1995). 

37


Host Plants of Aphids 

During a field survey nearly one third of our flowering plants were examined for aphids. The 300 plant 

species in 71 families that harboured the 84 species of aphids recorded for Sri Lanka are included in 

Wijerathna and Edirisinghe (1999). The host plants of aphids were grouped into14 categories based on the 

economic use or taxonomic status of the plant. Most aphid species was found on non - graminaceous 

weeds followed by vegetable crops and fruit trees. Endemic plants that were examined for aphids 

harboured a few species of very common aphids. 

The number of flowering plant species endemic to Sri Lanka is 879 (Bandaranayake and Sultanbawa, 

1991) which is very high compared to India. Yet, Sri Lanka is poor in endemic aphid species. About half of 

the aphid species (443) recorded from India is endemic to that country (Ghosh, 1990). In Sri Lanka most 

of the endemic plant species are found in very stable mixed forests where plant diversity is very high 

forming several canopy layers. Furthermore, most endemic plant species are trees and not herbaceous 

plants on which aphids continuously feed. 

Of the two species of aphids considered to be endemic to Sri Lanka, the plant host of Matsumaraja 

capitophoroides is recorded as Brunfelsia uniflora Pohl.D. (F.Solanaceae) (Judenko and Eastop, 1963). 

The other endemic aphid species, Ceratopemphigus zehntneri has been recorded from water traps and 

hence is without a host record. Majority of the aphids recorded are polyphagous, living on several unrelated 

plants. The aphids on vegetables in particular are polyphagous except for the two species that occur on 

carrots. Few other species of aphids are host specific. The host specific aphids known from Sri Lanka are, 

Macrosiphoniella psedoartemesiae on Artemesia vuigaris (F.Compositae) Greenideoida ceyloniae on 

Mesua ferra (F.Guttiferae) and Sitobion wickstroemiae on Wickstroemia indica (F. Thymelaeceae ) 

Distribution 

Distribution of aphids (based to collection sites) is associated more with the distribution of their host plants 

than any other factor. Mid country Wet Zone had the highest diversity of aphid species than any other 

agro-ecological region of the country. In terms of habitats, areas cultivated with vegetables and weedy 

areas harboured the most number of aphids. In primary forests such as the Sinharaja and Delwala, only 

the forest edge and boundaries bearing common weeds harboured aphids. 

Economically Important Aphids 

Of the different plant categories on which aphids were collected, vegetables formed a very important 

group. Although, aphids were recorded from 55 crops only about 20 vegetable species can be considered 

as extensively cultivated and commonly consumed. These include both up country and low country 

vegetables. A total of 18 species of aphids infested vegetable plants. Among these vegetables beans, carrot, 

cauliflower, chilly, lettuce and tomato harboured the most number of aphids. 

Of the aphids recorded from Sri Lanka about 30 species are potential viral vectors, known world over 

(Blackman and Eastop, 1984). Work of Thevasagayam and Canagasinghum (1961), Abeygunawardena and 

Perera (1964), Peries (1985) and Jayanandaraja and Liyanage (1994) have confirmed the role of aphids 

as viral vectors of vegetable crops of Sri Lanka. 

In conclusion the aphid species recorded from Sri Lanka is relatively small (84 species) in comparison to 

most other countries in the Indian subcontinent. Considering the high diversity of our flowering plants, the 

paucity of the aphid fauna cannot be explained. It is more so when the aphids endemic to Sri Lanka (2 

species) are considered. Although Sri Lanka has a rich endemic flora, none of them harboured any 

endemic aphids. Aphids have limitations in distribution, as only the alates produced under high population 

density are able to take to flight. Natural barriers may limit their dispersal by air. Extensive field studies 

encompassing the entire country and the balance of the flowering plants and ferns would shed further light 

on our aphid fauna. 

38



The field study on aphids and their host plants was made possible through a grant from the National 

Science Foundation (NSF) of Sri Lanka. The taxonomists at the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, 

London are acknowledged for confirming the identity of aphids. 

References 

Abeygunawardena, D. V. W. and Perera, S. M. D. (1964). Virus disease affecting Cowpea in Ceylon. 

Trop. Agric. Vol. CXX: 181-204. 

Bandaranayake, W. M. and Sultanbawa, M. U. S. (1991). A list of the endemic plants of Sri Lanka. 

Forestry Information Service, Forest Department, Sri Lanka: 27pp. 

Blackman, R. L. and Eastop, (1984). Aphids on the World’s crops: an identification guide. John Wiley and 

Sons, New York. 446 pp. 

Carver, M. (1965). Two new species of Micromyzus van der Goot (Homoptera: Aphididae). Proc. R. Ent. 

Soc. London. (B) 34(9-10):113-116. 

Ghosh, A. K. (1971A). A list of Aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) from India and adjacent countries. J. 

Bombay Nat. His. Soc. (2): 201-220 

Ghosh, A. K., Banerjee, H., Raychaudhar, D. N. (1971B). Studies at the aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) 

from Eastern India. Oriental Insects. Vol. 5(1): 103-110. 

Ghosh, A. K. (1974). Aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) of economic importance in India. Indian Agric. Vo. 

18(2): 81-214. 

Ghosh, A. K. (1990). Endemism in the Aphidoidea fauna of the Indian Region. Acta. Phytopathologica et. 

Entomologica Hangaria. 25/1-4/1: 343-349 

Ghosh, A. K. and Agarawala B. W. (1983). A catalogue of Aphidiid Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) parasites 

of Aphids (Homoptera) of India. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc. Vol. 79 (1): 125-134 

Jayanandaraja, P. and Liyanage, T. (1994). Viruses isolated from tomato affected by a severe disease 

condition. Proceedings Part 1. Abstract of Papers. Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of 

Science B 76:92pp. 

Judenko, E. and Eastop, V. F. (1963). A list of Sinhalese aphids. Entomologists Monthly Magazine 3: 62-63. 

Martin, J. H. (1983). The identification of common aphid pests of tropical agriculture. Trop. Pest. 

Management. 29: 395-441. 

Nasir, A. &Yousuf, M. (1995). Aphids and their host plants in the province of Punjab, Pakistan. Pk. Journ. 

Zool. 27 (3): 282-284. 

Peries, I. D. R. (1985). Systhetic Pyrethroid insecticides and their potential use in Sri Lanka. Tropical 

Agriculture. Vo. 141: 65-75 

Schouteden, H. (1905). Notes on Ceylonese aphids. Spolia Zeylanica. 11: 181-190. 

Thevasagayam, E. S. R. and Canagasinghum, L. S. C. (1961). Major insect pests of Brinjol (Solanum 

melongena) and their control. Trop. Agric. Vo. CXVII: 105-114. 

van der Goot, P. (1918). Aphididae of Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica: 70-75. 

Westwood, J. O. (1890). On a species of aphideous insects infesting the Bread Fruit trees of Ceylon. 

Trans. R. Ent. Soc. Lond. 4: 647-651. 

Wijerathna, M. A. P. and Edirisinghe, J. P. (1999). A checklist of aphids and their host plants from Sri Lanka. 

MAB Checklist and Handbook Series. Publication No. 21. National Science Foundation, Sri Lanka. 

Wijerathna, M. A. P. (1997). A survey of aphids and their natural enemies on economic and other plants. 

M.Phil. Thesis. University of Peradeniya. Sri Lanka. 

39


Appendix 1. List of Aphids Recorded from Sri Lanka 

FAMILY –APHIDIDAE 

SUBFAMILY- APHIDINAE 

TRIBE-APHIDINI 

Aphis craccivora (Koch, 1854) 

Aphis fabae solanella (Theobald, 1914) 

Aphis gossypii (Glover, 1877) 

Aphis nasturtii (Kaltenbach, 1843) 

Aphis nerii (Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841) 

Aphis spiraecola (Patch, 1914) 

Hylopterus pruni (Geoffroy, 1762) 

Hysteroneura setariae (Thomas) 

Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner) 

Rhopalossiphum maidis (Fitch, 1859) 

Rhopalossiphum padi L., 1758 

Rhopalossiphum rufiabdominali (Sasaki) 

Schizaphis cyperi (Passerini, 1874) 

Schizaphis graminum (Rondoni, 1852) 

Schizaphis hypersiphonata Basu, 1970 

Schizaphis minuta (van der Goot ) 

Toxoptera aurantii (Boyer de Fonsocolombe, 1841) 

Toxoptera citricidus (Kirkaldy) 

Toxoptera odinae (van der Goot ) 

TRIBE-MACROSIPHINI 

Acyrthosiphon gossypii (Mordvilko, 1914) 

Acrythosiphon kondoi (Shinji, 1938) 

Acrythosiphon pisum (Harris, 1776) 

Akkaia taiwana Tak. 

Aulacorthum circumflexus (Buckton, 1876) 

Aulacorthum solani (Kaltenbach, 1843) 

Brachycaudus helichrysi (Kaltenbach, 1843) 

Chaetosiphon tetrarhodum (Walker, 1849) 

Dysaphis crataegi (Kaltenbach, 1843) 

Ipuka dispersum (van der Goot ) 

Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach) 

Macrosiphoniella sanborni (Gillette, 1908) 

Macrosiphoniella pseudoartemisiae (Shinji, 1933) 

Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) 

Macrosiphum rosae (Linnaeus, 1758 ) 

Matsumuraja capitophoroides (Hille Ris Lambers) 

Micromyzus judenkoi (Carver) 

Micromyzus kalimpongensis (Basu, 1967) 

Micromyzus nigrum (van der Goot, 1918) 

Myzus ascalonicus (Doncaster, 1946) 

Myzus boehmeriae (Takahashi, 1933) 

40


Myzus cerasi (Fabricius, 1775) 

Myzus obtusirostris (David) 

Myzus ornatus (Laing, 1932) 

Myzus persicae (Sulzer, 1776) 

Neotoxoptera oliveri ( Essig, 1935 ) 

Pentalonia nigronervosa (Coquerel, 1859) 

Phorodon humuli (Schrank, 1801) 

Rhodobium porosum (Sanderson, 1900) 

Rhopalosiphoninus latysiphon (Davidson, 1912) 

Sinomegoura citricola (van der Goot, 1917) 

Sitobion avenae (Fabricius, 1775) 

Sitobion lambersi (David) 

Sitobion leelamaniae (David) 

Sitobion miscanthi (Takahashi, 1921) 

Sitobion pauliani (Ram) 

Sitobion phyllanthi Takahashi 

Sitobion wikstroemiae (Marmet) 

Sitobion sp. (Unidentified) 

Uroleucon minutum (van der Goot ) 

Vesiculaphis caricis (Fullaway, 1910) 

SUBFAMILY-DREPANOSIPHINAE 

Tinocallis kahawaluokalani (Kitkaldy, 1907) 

TRIBE-PHYLLAPHIDINI 

Shivaphis celti (Das, 1918) 

SUBFAMILY- GREENIDINAE 

TRIBE - SEBAEPHIDINI 

Schoutedenia lutea L., 1917 

TRIBE- GREENIDENI 

Greenidea artocarpi (Westwood, 1890) 

Greenidea formosana Takahashi, 1916 

Greenideoida ceyloniae van der Goot, 1918 

SUBFAMILY-HORMAPHIDINAE 

TRIBE-CERATOPHIDINI 

Astegopteryx bambusae (Buckton, 1893) 

Astegopteryx insularis (van der Goot, 1917) 

Astegopteryx minuta (van der Goot, 1917) 

Cerataphis variabilis (Hille Ris, 1934) 

Ceratoglyphina bambusae (van der Goot, 1917) 

Ceratovacuna lanigera (Zehntner, 1897) 

Pseudoregma bambusicola (Takahashi, 1893) 

41


SUBFAMILY-LACHNINAE 

Lachnus greeni (van der Goot) 

Pyrolachnus pyri (Buckton, 1899) 

SUBFAMILY-PEMPHIGINAE (ERIOSOMATINAE) 

TRIBE- ERIOSOMATINI 

Ceratopemphigus zehntneri Schouteden, 1905 

Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann, 1802) 

Geoica lucifuga (Zehntner, 1898) 

Kaltenbachiella elsholtriae (Shinji, 1936) 

Kaltenbachiella japonica (Matsumura, 1917) 

Tetraneura nigriabdominalis (Sasaki, 1899) 

Tetraneura yezoensis (Matsumura, 1917) 

42

Abstract 

Dias: Current Taxonomic Status of Ants (Hymenoptera: THE FAUNA Formicidae) OF SRI LANKA (2006): in Sri Lanka 43-52 


Current Taxonomic Status of 

Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Sri Lanka 

R. K. Sriyani Dias* 

*Department of Zoology, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya. 

The paper highlights the status of research on ants of Sri Lanka, based on published information and 

ongoing research of the author. A total of 181 ant species in 61 genera have been recorded from Sri 

Lanka, which includes the endemic and relict monotypic genus Aneuretus. Majority of the ant 

species recorded from Sri Lanka belong to the subfamily Myrmicinae. The Genus Camponotus 

(Formicinae) includes the highest number of ant species recorded so far in the island. 

Key words: Ants, Species, Distribution, Research 

An overview of past research on ants of Sri Lanka 

Ants are a very common group of insects in most terrestrial habitats in Sri Lanka. Their habitats vary from 

highly disturbed urbanized areas to undisturbed forests. They inhabit buildings and outdoors, their 

microhabitats extend into soil (even up to a depth of 20 cm) decaying wood, plants, trees, litter, termite 

nests etc. Bingham (1903) was one of the very first to publish a list and descriptions of ant species 

recorded from Sri Lanka. This publication provides identification keys to the species. The past five decades 

has seen several publications on taxonomic work on ants in Sri Lanka (Bolton and Belshaw, 1987; Dorow 

and Kohout, 1995; Jayasooriya and Traniello, 1985; Wilson, 1964; Wilson et al., 1956). A revival of 

taxonomic work on ants of Sri Lanka in recent times began with the work initiated by the author in 2000. A 

preliminary taxonomic study of the ants collected from the premises of the Kelaniya University (Gampaha 

District) was carried out (Dias and Chaminda, 2000; Dias et al., 2001) and this work was later extended to 

areas in the Districts of Gampaha, Colombo, Ratnapura and Galle (Dias and Chaminda, 2001; Chaminda 

and Dias, 2001). 

The subfamilies, genera and species of ants identified during these studies are listed in the Tables 1 and 2. 

The absence of a given subfamily, genus or species in a given district does not indicate that the particular 

taxa are actually absent in the area as ants were not collected from each and every site in a district. Field 

and laboratory methods for the study of ants and a list of ants held in the Reference Insect collection of 

the Department of National Museums, Colombo is given in Dias (2002a, 2002b). 

Ant Diversity and their distribution in Sri Lanka 

According to the currently accepted classification of ants by Bolton (1994), ants belonging to ten 

subfamilies have been recorded from Sri Lanka (Table 1). The provisional checklist of ants documented 

from Sri Lanka given in Appendix 1 is based on Bolton (1995), specimens deposited at the National 

Museums, Colombo and recent field studies by the author. Certain generic and species names appearing 

in this list are different from those of Dias (2002) due to the updating of taxonomic names according to 

Bolton (1995). Fifty six genera of ants have been recorded from Sri Lanka by Bolton (1995). Our studies 

added five more genera namely Aphaenogaster Mayr, Cardiocondyla Emery, Ochetellus, Prenolepis 

Mayr and Protanilla Taylor to the ant fauna of the country. Although the genus Leptanilla (subfamily 

Leptanillinae) has not been recorded from the recent field study, it is recorded by Bolton (1995) as being 

present in Sri Lanka. 

43


Currently, a total of 181 ant species in 61 genera have been recorded from Sri Lanka (Table 1 and 

Appendix 1) and includes the endemic and relict monotypic genus Aneuretus. Majority of the ant species 

recorded from Sri Lanka belong to the subfamily Myrmicinae (75 spp,), followed by Formicinae (49 spp.) 

and Ponerinae (30 spp.). The Genus Camponotus (Formicinae) includes the highest number of ant species 

(22) recorded so far. 

Table 1: 

A summary of the taxonomic diversity of ants of Sri Lanka, based on information gathered up 

to 2004. 

Subfamily Genera Species 

Aenictinae 01 05 

Aneuretinae 01 01 

Cerapachyinae 01 05 

Dolichoderinae 04 09 

Dorylinae 01 01 

Formicinae 12 49 

Myrmicinae 24 75 

Ponerinae 13 30 

Pseudomyrmecinae 01 04 

Leptanillinae 02 02 

Total 61 181 

Worker ants belonging to 58 species in 39 genera and ten subfamilies collected from the Districts of 

Gampaha, Colombo, Ratnapura and Galle were identified (Table 2). Ant subfamilies that were common to 

the four districts were Dolichoderinae, Formicinae, Myrmicinae, Pseudomyrmecinae and Ponerinae. Among 

the dolichoderines, Tapinoma and Technomyrmex were common in all the four districts. The formicines 

Anoplolepis gracilipes, Camponotus, Paratrechina and Oecophylla smaragdina and the myrmicines, 

Crematogaster, Pheidologeton, Monomorium, Pheidole, Meranoplus bicolor, Lophomyrmex and 

Solenopsis were common in all four districts. The Pseudomyrmecine, Tetraponera and the ponerines, 

Diacamma, Odontomachus and Hypoponera were also common in the four districts. Pachycondyla was 

found in all three districts except Colombo district. The sole living representative of the Subfamily 

Aneuretinae, Aneuretus simoni was found only in the Ratnapura District and the cerapachyine, 

Cerapachys was collected from Maimbula forest (Gampaha District) only. Worker ants belonging to the 

genus Aenictus was collected from Gampaha, Ratnapura and Galle districts. So far, Polyrhachis 

rastellata was recorded only from Colombo District and a single specimen of Strumigenys was collected 

from Galle District. Several unidentified species belonging to six genera (Crematogaster, Cerapachys, 

Myrmicaria, Anochetus, Leptogenys, Myrmoteras and Cataulacus) were collected from the forest 

reserves. 

The field surveys enabled the identification of micro-habitats preferred by certain ant species. Aenictus 

and most ponerines were found in the leaf litter, while Aneuretus simoni inhabited the leaf litter and 

associated soil. Species of the genera Tetraponera and Crematogaster occurred in vegetation. 

Monomorium was generally found indoors. Dorylus and Lophomyrmex were found both indoors and 

outdoors, indicating that they are generalists. Protanilla occurred in soil. 

Recent research (Dias and Chaminda, 2001; Perera, 2003; Perera and Dias, 2003; Perera and Dias, 2004 

collection) showed that the single living representative species (Aneuretus simoni – Plate 1) of the 

Subfamily Aneuretinae recorded only from Sri Lanka (Bolton, 1995) inhabits the city - reservoir 

associated forest (“Pompekelle”) in Ratnapura. Its density in a selected region of this forest was 7m -2 . 

This species has been found in the Gilimale forest too. It is listed as globally threatened (IUCN, 2004). 

44

Dias: Current Taxonomic Status of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Sri Lanka 

Table 2: 

Ants recorded from University of Kelaniya premises, areas in Gampaha, Colombo, Ratnapura 

and Galle Districts 

Species Kelaniya Gampaha Colombo R’pura Galle 

Aenictinae 

Aenictus sp. X X 

Aneuretinae 

Aneuretus simoni 

Cerapachyinae 

Cerapachys sp. 

Dolichoderinae 

Tapinoma melanocephalum X X X 

Tapinoma indicum X X 

Technomyrmex bicolor 

Technomyrmex elatior 

X 

X 

Tapinoma sp. X X X X 

Technomyrmex sp. X X X X 

Dolichoderus sp. X X X 

Dorylinae 

Dorylus orientalis 

Dorylus sp. 

Formicinae 

Anoplolepis gracilipes X X X 

Oecophylla smaragdina X X X X X 

Paratrechina longicornis X X X X 

Camponotus sp. X X X X X 

Paratrechina sp. X X X X X 

Polyrhachis sp. X X X 

Prenolepis sp X X 

Polyrachis rastellata 

Lepisiota sp. 

Myrmoteras sp. 

Acropyga sp. 

Myrmicinae 

Pheidologeton diversus X X 

Monomorium destructor 

Monomarium floricola X X 

X 

Meranoplus bicolor X X X X X 

Pheidole spathifera 

X 

Solenopsis geminata X X X X X 

Lophomyrmex quadrispinosus X X X 

Lophomyrmex spp. X X X 

Crematogaster spp. X X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

45


Pheidole spp. X X X X 

Pheidologeton spp. X X X X 

Tetramorium sp. X X X 

Monomarium spp. X X X 

Crematogaster Sp.1 X X 

Crematogaster Sp.2 





Cataulacus sp. 

Strumigenys sp. 

Leptanillinae 

Protanilla sp. 

Pseudomyrmecinae 

Tetraponera rufonigra X X X X 

Tetraponera spp. 

Tetraponera allaborans 

Ponerinae 

Odontomachhus simillimus X X 

Diacomma ceylonense X X 

Diacomma rugosum X X X 

Diacamma spp. X X X X 

Odontomachus spp. X X X X 

Hypoponera sp. X X X X X 

Leptogenys spp. X X 

Pachycondyla sp. X X X X 

Platythyrea sp. 

Anochetus sp. X X 

Total Species 33 26 20 35 24 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Issues pertaining to taxonomy and research on ants 

Like most other tropical countries, Sri Lanka has a rich ant fauna that remains undiscovered due to lack of 

taxonomic research by local scientists. Setting up a good reference collection of ants collected island wide 

is an essential task, since the collection at the National Museum is very old, incomplete and not properly 

curated. 

Although a colony of ants consist of queen/s, males, major workers and minor workers, taxonomic keys of 

ants, generally, are based on the morphology of minor workers. However, identification to the species level 

requires the collection of both minor and major workers for some ant genera such as Pheidole. Ant genera 

of subfamily Leptanillinae have been identified on the basis of male morphology (Ogata et al., 1995) and it 

appears that workers are rare in this subfamily (Three workers of Protanilla were present in our recent 

collection). 

46


The two publications, Bolton (1994) and Bolton (1995) provide the most recent classification and taxonomic 

keys for the subfamilies and genera of ants recorded from the world. About 9200 species of ants have 

been recorded from the world according to Bolton (1995) but this number has been increased to 11,100 by 

2002. However, lack of a good reference collection of ants and unavailability of publications that provide 

species descriptions are two major problems for the identification of ants collected from Sri Lanka. 

In the past, very few research has been carried out to collect, identify and record ants of Sri Lanka. 

Bingham (1903) is the only publication which carries species descriptions of ants based on sporadic 

collections. The system of classification used in this publication is outdated. Dias and Chaminda (2000, 

2001) and Dias (2002, 2003) provide accounts on ants of Sri Lanka and a reference collection of ants is 

held in the Department of Zoology, University of Kelaniya. 

The inadequacy of research that focuses on forest ants of Sri Lanka (except for Perera 2003, Perera and 

Dias, 2003) with only a few sporadic publications by foreign researchers is a major barrier for the 

development of myrmecology in Sri Lanka. The current research (funded by the National Science 

Foundation of Sri Lanka) in progress at the Department of Zoology, University of Kelaniya to study ant 

communities in the city reservoir associated forests in Ratnapura, Gilimale and Sinharaja would reveal most 

of the wet zone ants. In addition, steps should be taken to extend ant surveys to other districts in the Wet 

zone and also to the Dry zone of Sri Lanka. 

Research priorities and recommendations 

• Initiate taxonomic research on ants in the other districts of Sri Lanka, with emphasis on forestdwelling 

ants. 

• Initiate detailed studies on the single living representative species of the subfamily Aneuretinae (A. 

simoni) in the Ratnapura District. One of its current localities includes the highly disturbed 

“Pompekelle” forest, it would be worthwhile to document how it survives in such disturbed areas. 

• Develop a well-maintained reference collection of ants at the Dept. of National Museums, Colombo. 

• Maintain active links with the Network for the study of Asian ants (ANeT), an association comprising 

Asian myrmecologists who work towards the development of myrmecology in Asia (Website:http:// 

www.geocities.com/anet_malaysia). New research findings of the members of this association are 

published through ANeT Newsletter printed at the Kagoshima University in Japan. 


I am indebted to the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka for the Research Grants, RG/ZSSL/99/02 

and RG/2003/ZOO/06, and travel grants to develop myrmecology in Sri Lanka. I wish to convey my 

deepest gratitude to Prof. Seiki Yamane, Kagoshima University, Japan, Mr. Barry Bolton, Natural History 

Museum, London and Research Assistants, Miss. K. Ranawaka, Mr. K. M. G. R. Chaminda and Miss. K. 

A. M. Perera. 

References 

Bingham, C. T. (1903). Hymenoptera Vol. 2. Ants and cuckoowasps. Taylor and Francis, London. 

Bolton, B. (1987). A review of the Solenopsis genus-group and revision of Afrotropical Monomorium 

Mayr. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) 54: 263 – 452. 

Bolton, B. (1994). An identification guide to the ant genera of the world. Harvard University Press, 

London, 222 p. 

Bolton, B. (1995). A new general catalogue of the ants of the world. Harvard University Press, London, 

504 p. 

47


Bolton, B., and R., Belshaw (1993). Taxonomy and biology of the supposedly lestobiotic ant genus 

Paedalgus (Hym:Formicidae). Systematic Entomology 18: 18 –189. 

Dias, R. K. S. and K. M. G. R. Chaminda (2000). A preliminary taxonomic study of Sri Lankan ants. 

Proceedings of the Second ANeT workshop and seminar held at Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota 

Kinabalu, East Malaysia. (Abstract). 

Dias, R.K.S., K.M.G.R. Chaminda and S. Yamane (2001). Systematics of the worker ant fauna collected 

from the premises of Kelaniya University Proceedings of the 57th SLAAS Annual Session, 176 p. 

(Abstract). 

Dias, R. K. S. and K. M. G. R. Chaminda. 2001. Systematics of some worker ants (Hymenoptera, 

Formicidae) collected from several regions of Sri Lanka (Abstract). Proceedings of the Third ANeT 

workshop and seminar held in Hanoi, Vietnam. ANeT Newsletter, 4, 15 p. 

Chaminda, K.M.G.R. and R.K.S. Dias. 2001. Taxonomic key for the identification of Sri Lankan ants: 

Subfamilies (Abstract). Proceedings of the Third ANeT. ANeT Newsletter, 4, 15 –16 p. 

Dias, R.K.S. 2002 (a). Current knowledge on ants of Sri Lanka. ANeT Newsletter, 4, 17 –21 p. 

Dias, R.K.S. 2002 (b). Ants of Sri Lanka with a brief description of field and laboratory methods. 

Sarvodaya Vishvalekha Press, Ratmalana, 44 p. 

Dias, R.K.S. and K.M.G.R. Chaminda. Taxonomic key for the subfamilies of worker ants (Family: 

Formicidae) in Sri Lanka and some information on Aneuretus simoni Emery in Ratnapura. Submitted 

to Spolia Zeylanica, National Museums Department, Colombo in May, 2002. 

Dias, R. K. S., 2003. Taxonomic study of the worker ants collected from Colombo and Galle districts in Sri 

Lanka. Proceedings of the Fourth ANeT workshop held at Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand in 

November, 2003. 

Dorow, W. H. O. and Kohout, R. J. 1995. A review of the Subgenus Hemioptica Roger of the genus 

Polyrhachis Fr. Smith with description of a new species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Formicinae). 

Zool. Med. Leiden., 69: 93 -104 pp. 

Eguchi, K., 2001. A revision of the Bornean species of the ant genus Pheidole (Insecta: Hymenoptera: 

Formicidae: Myrmicinae), Tropics, Monograph Series No. 2, 154. 

Holldobler, B. and E. O. Wilson. 1990. The Ants. Springer Verlag, Berlin. 732 p. 

IUCN (2004). 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. (www.redlist.org). Accessed 21 July 2005. 

Jayasooriya, A. K. and Traniello, J. F. O., 1985. The biology of the primitive ant Aneuretus simoni Emery 

(Formicidae: Aneuretinae) – Distribution, abundance, colony structure and foraging ecology. Insectes 

Sociaux (Paris), 32 (4): 363 -374 pp. 

MacKay, W. P. 1993. A review of the New World ants of the genus Dolichoderus (Hymenoptera: 

Formicidae). Sociobiology, 22 (1), 148 p. 

Ogata, K., Terayama, M. and K. Masuko, 1995. The ant genus Leptanilla: discovery of the workerassociated 

male of L. japonica and a description of a new species from Taiwan (Hymenoptera: 

Formicidae: Leptanillinae). Systematic Entomology, 20, 27 – 34 pp. 

Perera, K. A. M., 2003. The relative abundance and density of Aneuretus simoni Emery (Order: 

Hymenoptera, Family: Formicidae) in a selected region in the forest (“Pompakelle”) associated with 

water pumping station in Ratnapura. Unpublished thesis submitted for the B. Sc. (Special) Degree in 

Zoology, University of Kelaniya, 55 p. 

Perera, K. A. M. and R. K. S. Dias, 2003. The relative abundance of Aneuretus simoni Emery in the 

forest (“Pompekelle”) associated with the water pumping station in Ratnapura. Proceedings of the 59 

th Annual Sessions of SLAAS 

48


Sumanasinghe, H. P. W., 2001. Diversity of worker ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) collected from four 

pineapple fields and some biological aspects of Paratrechina longicornis Latrielle, a selected 

formicine ant found in the pineapple fields infested with Dysmicoccus sp., Unpublished thesis 

submitted for the B. Sc. (Special) Degree in Zoology, University of Kelaniya, 80 p. 

Sumanasinghe, H. P. W. and R. K. S. Dias. 2002. Diversity of worker ants collected from four 

Dysmicoccus brevipes Cockerell infested and uninfested pineapple fields in Attanagalla and a 

preliminary study on the association between Paratrechina longicornis Latreille and Dysmicoccus 

brevipes (Abstract). Proceedings of the 58 th Annual Sessions of SLAAS, 168 pp. 

Traniello, J. F. A. and A. K. Jayasuriya. 1985. The biology of the primitive ant Aneuretus simoni Emery 

(Formicidae; Aneuretinae) ii. The social ethogram and division of labour. Insectes sociaux, Paris, 

375-388 pp. 

Wilson, E. O., 1964. The true army ants of the Indo-Australian area (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: 

Dorylinae). Pacific Insects, 6 (3); 427 - 483 pp. 

Wilson, E. O., Eisner, T., Wheeler, G. C. and J. Wheeler, 1956. Aneuretus simoni Emery, a major link in 

ant evolution. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 115 (03): 81 -105 pp. 

49


Appendix 1: A provisional checklist of subfamilies, genera and species of ants 

recorded from Sri Lanka (10 subfamilies, 61 genera and 180 species) 

AENICTINAE 

Aenictus Shuckard 

Aenictus fergusoni Walker 

Aenictus porizonoides Walker 

Aenictus biroi Forel 

Aenictus pachycercus (Dalla Torre) 

Aenictus ceylonicus (Dalla Torre) 

ANEURETINAE 

Aneuretus Emery 

Aneuretus simoni Emery (Endemic) 

CERAPACHYINAE 

Cerapachys Smith 

Cerapachys coecus (Emery) 

Cerapachys fossulatus Forel 

Cerapachys fragosus (Emery) 

Cerapachys luteoviger Brown 

Cerapachys typhlus (Emery) 

DOLICHODERINAE 

Dolichoderus Lund 

Dolichoderus taprobanae (Mayr) 

Ochetellus Shattuck 

Ochetellus glaber Shattuck 

Tapinoma Foerster 

Tapinoma melanocephallum (Santschi) 

Tapinoma indicum Forel 

Technomyrmex Mayr 

Technomyrmex albipes Emery 

Technomyrmex bicolor Emery 

Technomyrmex detorquens (Donisthorpe) 

Technomyrmex elatior Bingham 

Technomyrmex albipes (Emery) 

DORYLINAE 

Dorylus Fabricius 

Dorylus orientalis Fabricius 

FORMICINAE 

Acropyga Roger 

Acropyga acutiventris Roger 

Anoplolepis Santschi 

Anoplolepis gracilipes (Jerdon) 

Camponotus Mayr 

Camponotus irritans (Roger) 

Camponotus albipes Emery 

Camponotus auriculatus Mayr 

Camponotus mitis (Roger) 

Camponotus barbatus Roger 

Camponotus fletcheri Donisthorpe 

Camponotus greeni Forel 

Camponotus sericeus Mayr 

Camponotus indeflexus (Donisthorpe) 

Camponotus variegatus Mayr 

Camponotus mendax Bingham 

Camponotus maculatus (Mayr) 

Camponotus isabellae Forel 

Camponotus latebrosus (Donisthorpe) 

Camponotus ominosus Forel 

Camponotus rufoglaucus Forel 

Camponotus reticulatus Roger 

Camponotus sesquipedalis Roger 

Camponotus simoni Emery 

Camponotus thraso Bingham 

Camponotus varians Roger 

Camponotus wedda Forel 

Lepisiota Santschi 

Lepisiota capensis Mayr 

Myrmoteras Forel 

M. binghami Forel 

Myrmoteras ceylonica Gregg 

Oecophylla Smith 

Oecophylla smaragdina Fabricius 

Paratrechina Motschoulsky 

Paratrechina longicornis Latrielle 

Paratrechina taylori (Bolton) 

Paratrechina yerburyi (Bolton) 

Plagiolepis Mayr 

Plagiolepis pisssina Roger 

Polyrhachis Smith 

Polyrhachis rastellata Smith F. 

Polyrhachis (Hemioptica) bugnioni Forel 

Polyrhachis (Hemioptica) scissa (Roger, 1862) 

Polyrhachis (campomyrma) exercita 

50


Donisthorpe 

Polyrhachis (Myrma) horni Emery 

Polyrhachis (Myrma) illaudata Donisthorpe 

Polyrhachis (Myrmhopla) jerdonii Emery 

Polyrhachis (Myrma) nigra Emery 

Polyrhachis (Myrmhopla) tibialis var. pectita 

Santschi 

Polyrhachis (Myrma) punctillata Emery 

Polyrhachis (Myrmhopla) rupicapra Emery 

Polyrhachis (Myrmhopla) sophocles Emery 

Polyrhachis (Myrmothrinax) thrinax Forel 

Polyrhachis (Myrmhopla) xanthippe Emery 

Polyrhachis (Myrma) yerburyi Emery 

Prenolepis Mayr 

Pseudolasius Emery 

Pseudolasius isabellae Forel 

Acanthomyrmex Emery 

Acanthomyrmex luciolae Emery 

MYRMICINAE 

Anillomyrma Emery 

Anillomyrma decamera Ettershank 

Aphaenogaster Mayr 

Aphaenogaster becarii Emery 

Calyptomyrmex Baroni Urbani 

Calyptomyrmex singalensis Baroni Urbani 

Calyptomyrmex tamil Baroni Urbani 

Calyptomyrmex vedda Baroni Urbani 

Cardiocondyla Emery 

Cardiocondyla nuda Forel 

Cataulacus Emery 

Cataulacus simoni Emery 

Cataulacus taprobanae Smith F. 

Crematogaster Lund 

Crematogaster dohrni Mayr 

Crematogaster anthracina Smith 

Crematogaster apicalis (Emery) 

Crematogaster biroi (Emery) 

Crematogaster brunnescens (Emery) 

Crematogaster haputalensis (Emery) 

Crematogaster pellens (Donisthorpe) 

Crematogaster ransonneti Emery 

Crematogaster rogeri Emery 

Crematogaster rogenhoferi Mayr 

Dilobocondyla Santschi 

Dilobocondyla didita (Donisthorpe) 

Lophomyrmex Emery 

Lophomyrmex quadrispinosus (Jerdon) 

Metapone Forel 

Metapone greeni Forel 

Metapone johni Karavaiev 

Meranoplus Smith F. 

Meranoplus bicolor (Smith F.) 

Monomorium Mayr 

Monomorium destructor (Jerdon) 

Monomorium floricola (Jerdon) 

Monomorium pharaonis (L.) 

Monomorium latinode Mayr 

Monomorium consternens (Donisthorpe) 

Monomorium subopacum (Mayr) 

Monomorium rogeri (Ettershank) 

Monomorium criniceps (Emery) 

Monomorium taprobanae (Bolton) 

Monomorium mayri Forel 

Myrmicaria Saunders 

Myrmicaria brunnea Saunders 

Oligomyrmex Ettershank 

Oligomyrmex bruni Forel 

Oligomyrmex butteli (Ettershank) 

Oligomyrmex deponens (Donisthorpe) 

Oligomyrmex aprobanae Forel 

Paedalgus Forel 

Paedalgus escherichi Forel. 

Paratopula Wheeler 

Paratopula ceylonica (Wheeler) 

Pheidole Westwood 

Pheidole barreleti Forel 

Pheidole ceylonica Motchoulsky 

Pheidole diffidens Walker 

Pheidole gracilipes (Emery) 

Pheidole horni Emery 

Pheidole latinoda (Roger) 

Pheidole malinsii Forel 

Pheidole megacephala (Roger) 

Pheidole nietneri Emery 

Pheidole noda Smith 

Pheidole parva Mayr 

51


Pheidole pronotalis Forel 

Pheidole rugosa Smith F. 

Pheidole spathifera Emery 

Pheidole sulcaticeps Roger 

Pheidole templaria Forel 

Pheidologeton Mayr 

Pheidologeton diversus (Jerdon) 

Pheidologeton pygmaeus Emery 

Pheidologeton ceylonensis Forel 

Rophalomastix Forel 

Rophalomastix escherichi Forel 

Recurvidris (Bolton) 

Recurvidris pickburni (Bolton) 

Solenopsis Westwood 

Solenopsis geminata Mayr 

Solenopsis nitens Bingham 

Stereomyrmex Emery 

Stereomyrmex horni Emery (Endemic) 

Strumigenys F. Smith 

Strumigenys godeffroyi Brown 

Strumigenys lyroessa (Roger) 

Tetramorium Mayr 

Tetramorium bicarinatum (Mayr) 

Tetramorium curvispinosum Mayr 

Tetramorium tortuosum Roger 

Tetramorium simillimum (Mayr) 

Tetramorium pilosum Emery 

Tetramorium pacificum Mayr 

Tetramorium transversarium Roger 

Tetramorium yerburyi Bingham 

Vollenhovia Mayr 

Vollenhovia escherichi Forel 

PONERINAE 

Anochetus Mayr 

Anochetus consultans (Brown) 

Anochetus longifossatus Mayr 

Anochetus madaraszi Mayr 

Anochetus nietneri (Mayr) 

Anochetus yerburyi Forel 

Centromyrmex Mayr 

Centromyrmex feae (Emery) 

Cryptopone Emery 

Cryptopone testacea Emery 

Diacamma Mayr 

Diacamma rugosum Mayr 

Diacamma ceylonense Emery 

D. didita (Donisthorpe) 

Gnamptogenys Brown 

Gnamptogenys coxalis (Brown) 

Harpegnathos Jerdon 

Harpegnathos saltator Jerdon 

Hypoponera Santschi 

Hypoponera ceylonensis (Taylor) 

Hypoponera confinis Wilson & Taylor 

Hypoponera taprobanae Bolton 

Leptogenys Roger 

Leptogenys ocellifera Emery 

Leptogenys exudans (Donisthorpe) 

Leptogenys falcigera Roger 

Leptogenys hysterica Forel 

Leptogenys. meritans (Donisthorpe) 

Leptogenys. pruinosa Forel 

Leptogenys. diminuta (Emery) 

Leptogenys. yerburyi Forel 

Leptogenys peuqueti (Andre) 

Myopopone Roger 

Myopopone castanea (Roger) 

Myopias Roger 

Myopias amblyops Roger 

Odontomachus Latreille 

Odontomachus simillimus Fred Smith 

Pachycondyla Smith F. 

Pachycondyla luteipes Brown 

Platythyrea Roger 

Platythyrea parallela (Donisthorpe) 

Platythyrea clypeata Forel 

PSEUDOMYRMECINAE 

Tetraponera Smith F. 

Tetraponera rufonigra (Smith F.) 

Tetraponera allaborans 

Tetraponera nigra var. insularis 

(Bolton) 

T. petiolata (Bingham) 

LEPTANILLINAE 

Leptanilla Emery 

Leptanilla besucheti Baroni Urbani 

Protanilla Taylor 

52

Abstract 

Perera & Bambaradeniya: Species Richness, THE FAUNA Distribution OF SRI LANKA and (2006): Conservation 53-64 

© Status IUCN of - The Butterflies World Conservation in Sri Lanka Union 

Species Richness, Distribution and Conservation Status of 

Butterflies in Sri Lanka 

W. P. N. Perera and C.N.B. Bambaradeniya 

IUCN – The World Conservation Union, 53, Horton Place, Colombo 07, Sri Lanka 

Although butterflies are a group of charismatic insects, only a few researchers have studied them in 

Sri Lanka. The total butterfly species in Sri Lanka described to date includes 243 species, classified 

under five families. This includes 20 species that are endemic to the island. Their distribution in Sri 

Lanka is governed by climate, topography and vegetation types. In general, a higher species richness 

of butterflies occurs in the foothill areas. Several species of butterflies exhibit mass migrations, 

usually from the Dry and Arid zones towards the Intermediate and Wet Zones. The paper discusses 

the current conservation status of butterflies, and recommends actions to enhance their conservation. 

Key words: Butterflies, Species, Distribution, Conservation 

Historical background 

The butterflies of Sri Lanka have been studied in detail by only a handful of researchers, starting from the 

work of Fedric Moore (1880). This was followed by the pioneering studies of Ormiston (1924), Woodhouse 

and Henry (1942), and Woodhouse (1950), based on extensive field observations. More recently, d’Abrera 

(1998) made a publication based mainly on a study of local butterfly specimens in the Natural History 

Museum in Britain, supplemented by some field observations carried out in the island. 

Apart from the above works, several researchers have studied and published on the status of specific 

butterfly families (Bambaradeniya and Ranawana, 1996), butterflies occurring in specific localities 

(Samarasinghe et al., 1996; van der Poorten, 1996; Dening, 1992; Goonatilake and Goonatilake, 2000; 

Chamikara and Sumanaratne, 1998: Perera and Perera 2001; Samarawickrama and Rajapaksha, 2003), life 

cycle and natural history of species (Kolambaarachchi, 2001; Munidasa K.G.H. 1995; Nanayakkara, 1999; 

Chamikara, 1998; Samarasinghe et al., 1998), and migration of species (Perera, 2001, 2002; Senaratne, 

1997; Williams and Senaratne, 1998). A paper published by Gaonkar (1996) highlights the butterflies of the 

Western Ghats region in India, including Sri Lanka. 

Current taxonomic status 

Based on phylogenetic analysis of butterflies in the world, Ackery et al (1999) revised the classification of 

butterflies, and grouped them under three super families; Hedyloidea, Hesperoidea and Papilionoidea. 

According to the classification of Ackery et. al (1999), the butterflies of Sri Lanka belong to the latter two 

super families, representing five families. The total butterfly species in Sri Lanka described to date includes 

243 species (d’Abrera, 1998) (Appendix 1), classified under Papilionoidea (Family Papilionidae – 15 

species; Pieridae – 27 species; Nymphalidae – 69 species; Lycaenidae – 86 species) and Hesperoidea 

(Family Hesperridae – 46 species). The total includes 20 endemic species (Papilionidae – 2; Nymphalidae 

– 8; Lycaenidae – 8; Hesperridae – 2). However, ongoing taxonomical work on the group may result in an 

increase in the number of endemic species (Gaonkar, in prep.). 

Distribution of butterfly species 

The major factors that govern the distribution of butterfly species in the island include climate, topography and 

vegetation types. Most butterfly species in Sri Lanka are distributed island-wide, with differences in their 

53


relative abundance related to bioclimatic zones. Some species occur in more than one bioclimatic/floristic zone, 

while certain others are restricted in their distribution, as highlighted in Table 1. In general, a higher species 

richness of butterflies occurs in the foothill areas. The populations of butterflies in the Dry and Arid Zones 

reach peak levels soon after the monsoons. Their populations in the Wet Zone are also seasonal but not so 

pronounced, being generally stable throughout the year, with slight reductions during high rainfall periods. 

Table 1: Butterfly species with restricted distribution patterns 

Bio-climatic Zone Habitats/ Species 

Vegetation types 

Lowland Wet Zone Tropical Rain Forests Jamides coruscans , Mycalesis rama, Hasora 

badra, “Papilio helenus” 

Montane Wet Zone Montane and Lower Parantica taprobana, Vanessa indica, 

Montane Forests 

Lethe daretis, Udara lanka 

Wet Patana Grassland Baracus vittatus 

Lowland Dry and Dry Zone Forests (Evergreen/ Pathysa nomius, Charaxes solon, 

Intermediate Zone Deciduous) and scrubland Amblypodia anita 

Grasslands 

Zizula hylax, Freyeria trochilus,Azanus jesous 

Savanna and Dry & 

Symphaedra nais, Ypthima singala 

Intermediate Patana 

Arid Zone (North) Scrubland, mangrove and Colotis danai, Colotis fausta, Azanus ubaldus, 

other coastal vegetation Tarucus nara, Spindasis lunulifera, Tajuria jehana 

Arid Zone (South) Scrubland, mangrove and Ixias marianne, Gomalia elma, Colotis amata, 

other coastal vegetation Belenois aurota, Tarucus callinara 

Wet coastal zone Mangrove and coastal Euploea phaenareta, Ideopsis similes, Curetis 

scrub Home Gardens thetis,Zesius chrysomallus 

and secondary vegetation 

Several species of butterflies exhibit mass migrations, soon after the north-eastern monsoon rains. 

Woodhouse (1950) has listed 70 butterfly species that exhibit migratory behaviour. Most common species 

that take part in mass migrations include members of the Pieridae (Pioneer, Mottled Emmigrant, Lemon 

Emmigrant, Lesser Albatross). They usually migrate from the Dry and Arid zones towards the Intermediate 

and Wet Zones. 

Butterflies that occur in forest and scrubland vegetation types also exhibit vertical stratification, as 

highlighted in Table 2. 

Table 2: Vertical stratification of butterfly species according to forest types 

Vegetation Type Strata 1 Strata 2 Strata 3 Strata 4 

Lowland Tropical 

Rain Forest 

Lowland Dryand 

Intermediate Zone 

Forest 

Canopy (30-40m) 

Pachliopta jophon, 

Vindula erota 

Canopy (25m) 

Papilio crino, 

Pachliopta hector, 

Hebomoia 

glaucippe 

Sub-canopy 

Papilio helenus, 

Idea iasonia, 

Kallima philarchus 

Understorey 

Neptis jumbah, 

Euploea core 

Understorey 

Mycalesis rama, 

Jamides coruscans 

Cheritra freja 

Ground 

Ypthima ceylonica 

Leptosia nina 

Ground 

Nissanga patina, 

Melantis leda 

- 

54

Perera & Bambaradeniya: Species Richness, Distribution and Conservation 

Status of Butterflies in Sri Lanka 

Dry and Arid 

Zone Scrubland 

Tall scrub (3m) 

Cotopsila pyranthe, 

Ixias marianne, 

Belenois aurota 

Ground layer 

Leptosia nina 

- 

- 

Conservation status, constraints and threats to butterflies 

Among the total butterfly species in Sri Lanka, 76 are nationally threatened (IUCN Sri Lanka, 2000), while 

one species (the endemic Ceylon Rose – Atrophaneura jophon) is listed as globally threatened, under the 

critically endangered category (IUCN, 2003). The status of 40 species could not be analyzed due to lack 

of data on their occurrence and distribution. The natural history of more than 50% of the butterflies in the 

island is still unknown. The major threats to butterflies in Sri Lanka include destruction and degradation of 

habitats, air pollution, over-use of pesticides, over-exploitation for commercial trade and natural factors 

such as prolonged drought and over-predation by opportunistic predators in managed landscapes. 

A majority of the endemic species in Sri Lanka are restricted to natural forests in the Wet Zone, and their 

populations have been negatively affected by clearance and fragmentation of these forests. Similarly, a 

decrease in the mass migrating pierids is clearly evident during the past decade, and this may be attributed 

to clearance of scrubland vegetation in the Dry and Arid Zone, for human settlements and other 

development activities. Similarly, the Common Banded Peacock (Papilio crino) has declined in many 

parts of the Dry Zone, with the felling of its primary food plant - Satin wood (Chloroxylon sweitenia). 

The mass migratory species are also subjected to large scale mortality due to road accidents, when they 

move between forest/scrubland patches fragmented by road networks. 

Many species of butterflies visit and/or breed in agricultural landscapes. For instance, Bambaradeniya 

(2004) documented 53 species of butterflies from a single rice field ecosystem in Bathalagoda. The 

agricultural ecosystems such as rice fields in Sri Lanka are subjected to over-use of pesticides and 

weedicides, and this could lead to negative impacts on butterflies that use many herbaceous food plants 

(weeds) growing in such landscapes. 

Over-collection of butterflies such as the Papilionids for ornamental trade is a growing concern, as indicated 

by the detections of the Customs Department over the past decade.Among the butterflies subjected to 

commercial trade in Sri Lanka, two species (Ceylon Rose – Pachliopta jophon, Ceylon Birdwing – 

Troides darsius) are included in the CITES appendices. 

Prolonged periods of drought experienced in different parts of the island during the past decade may have 

also affected butterflies populations in such area, due to scarcity of food resources, and harsh conditions. 

The butterflies that have adapted to survive in managed landscapes such as home gardens are negatively 

affected by opportunistic predatory animals such as Ants, Mynahs, Bulbuls and Drongos, which feed on 

eggs, caterpillars, pupae and adult butterflies. 

There are several species that have become commoner during the past two decades, due to the expansion 

of larval host plants in modified landscapes. For instance, the population of the Blue Mormon (Papilio 

polymnestor) has expanded, due to the increase in the availability of its larval food plants, belonging to the 

Family Rutaceae (Lime, Lemon, Orange etc.). Among the pierids, the Lemon Emigrant (Catopsilia 

pomona) has increased in numbers, due to the use of Cassia fistula in avenue plantations. Similarly, the 

populations of the Common Grass Yellow (Eurema hecabe) and the Three-spot Grass Yellow (Eurema 

blanda) have also increased, due to the planting of Sesbania grandiflora in home gardens, and the 

spread of Cassia tora in degraded areas, which are preferred larval food plants of these butterflies. 

Among the danaids, the Single-banded Crow (Euploea core) has also increased in numbers, due to the 

use of Nerium oleander as a home garden hedge plant. Among the lycaenids, the population of the Lesser 

Grass Blue (Zizina otis) has also grown, due the expansion of grasses in disturbed areas. 

55


Current conservation actions 

At present, a revival of interest on butterflies of Sri Lanka and their conservation is evident. IUCN is in the 

process of compiling data on butterflies, to evaluate their conservation status, using the global Redlist 

criteria and categories. IUCN has also initiated a joint programme with Dr. Michael van der Poorten, who 

possesses a wealth of knowledge and experience on the butterflies in Sri Lanka, to promote research and 

awareness on butterflies in the island. A pioneering website (www.srilankaninsects.net) initiated by Dr. van 

der Poorten provides useful information on the butterflies of Sri Lanka, including the distribution and life 

histories of several species. A proposal has already been prepared for a comprehensive field study on the 

abundance, distribution, and life histories of butterflies in Sri Lanka. Several awareness creation workshops 

were also organized during the recent past. Several individuals (mostly foreigners) involved in illegal 

collections have been caught and filed legal action by the Department of Wildlife Conservation and the 

Customs Department over the past decade. It is interesting to note that some of the private sector 

corporates have begun to use butterflies to promote eco-tourism, and produced pictorial awareness material 

(Wijeyeratne, 2004). 

Recommendations for conservation of butterflies in Sri Lanka 

The following recommendations are made to promote research and other activities to conserve the 

butterflies in Sri Lanka. 

• Conduct an island-wide survey on the distribution,and flight seasons, with particular emphasis on the 

once that were categorized as data deficient in the IUCN analysis conducted in 1999. This should lay 

the foundation for long-term monitoring of prioritized populations in selected localities in the island. 

Identify butterfly hotspots, and promote restoration of degraded areas with suitable larval host plants. 

• Conduct comparative molecular biological studies to verify the taxonomic status of the endemic 

species, sub-species, races in Sri Lanka (proposed by Woodhouse, 1950 and d’Abrera, 1998) with 

those of the Indian mainland. 

• Special studies should be initiated by academic institutions, focusing on the following aspects: 

o Impact of habitat degradation / forest fragmentation on local and meta populations 

o Impact of industrial/agro-chemicals. 

o Impacts of invasive alien plant species. 

o Studies on life histories and ecology of butterflies 

o Indigenous nectaring sources and larval food plants 

o Adaptations of species to changing habitats. 

o Seasonal migration, morphological variations and other behavioural patterns. 

• The repository at the national museum needs to be upgraded, in order to facilitate future research on 

the taxonomy of butterflies in Sri Lanka. 

• Establish butterfly friendly habitats in non-forested areas. This should be done with the cooperation of 

the private sector organizations, schools, NGOs, temples and government agencies. 

o Establish relevant larval food plants and adult nectaring plants in home gardens, urban parks, and 

agricultural landscapes 


We wish to extend our sincere gratitude to Dr. Michael van der Poorten, a veteran lepidopterist, for his 

untiring efforts to conserve the butterflies in Sri Lanka, and for commenting on the manuscript. 

56

Reference 



Ackery, P., de Jong R. and Vane-Wright R.I. (1999), The Butterflies: Hedyloidea, Hesperoidea and 

Papilionoidae. In Lepidoptera, Moths and Butterflies. 1. Evolution, Systematics and Biogeography. 

Handbook of Zoology 4 (35) 263 – 300 (ed. N.P. Kristensen). Berlin: de Gruyter 

Bambaradeniya C.N.B., Edirisingha J.P., De Silva D.N., Gunatilleke C.V.S., Ranawana K.B. & Wijekoon 

S. (2004) Biodiversity associated with an irrigated rice agro-ecosystem in Sri Lanka , Biodiversity 

and Conservation 13: 1715-1753. 

Bambaradeniya and Ranawana K.B. (1996), The Swallowtail Butterflies of Sri Lanka- A plea for their 

conservation, Loris xxi (2): 33-36. 

Chamikara S. & Sumanarathne B.S. (1998) Records of Southern Duffer-Diseophora lepida ceylonica 

(Lepidoptera:Amathusiidae) from Madakada Mukalana and Dombagaskanda, Kaluthara District. Sri 

Lanka Naturalist 2 (3):20. 

Chamikara S. (1998) Notes on the life history of Common Tiger Danaus genutia (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) 

Sri Lanka Naturalist 2 (4): 41-43. 

d’ Abrera B., (1998), The Butterflies of Ceylon, wildlife Heritage trust, Sri Lanka 

Dening R.C. (1992) Butterflies in tourist resorts of Nuwara Eliya, Sri Lanka. Loris XIX (5): 168-170. 

Gaonkar, H. (1996). Butterflies of Western Ghats India, including Sri Lanka. Journal of the Bombay 

Natural History Society, 05: 20-40. 

Gaonkar, H. The Atlas of the butterflies of the Western Ghats and Sri Lanka, The Natural History 

Museum, London (In preparation). 

Goonatilake M.R.M.P.N. & Goonatilake W.L.D.P.T.S. de A. (2000), Butterflies (Lepidoptera: ditrysia: 

Papilionoid) of Handurumulla – Pohonaruwa Forest, Loris 22 ( 4):8-10. 

Kolambaarachchi R. (2000). Notes on the life cycle of Common Mormon (Papilio polytes Linn, 1758). 

Sri Lanka Naturalist 4 (1):4-6. 

Moore F.C. (1880-1881) The Lepidoptera of Ceylon (Vol I,II,III ) Reeve, London. 

Munidasa K.G.H. (1995), Papilio crino, The Common Banded Peacock Butterfly. Loris Vol 20 (5):224- 

225. 

Nanayakkara S. (2000) Breeding the Common Grass Yellow Butterfly. Loris 22 (2): 52-53. 

Ormiston W. (1924). The Butterflies of Ceylon. W.H. Cave & Company. 

Perera W.P.N. (2002). An Observation of the Emigration of Pioneer Butterfly (Belenois aurota Fabricius, 

1793) in Southern Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Naturalist V (3 & 4): 53-55. 

Perera W.P.N. (2001). Some notes on migration of Lesser Albatross (Appias paulina) in Badulla District. 

Sri Lanka Naturalist IV (4): 60-61. 

Perera M.S.J. & Perera W.P.N. (2001). From the Field Note Books. Sri Lanka Naturalist 4 (1): 18-19. 

Samarasinghe M.D.P., Paranagama P. and Veediyabandara S. (1998), Survey of the butterfly fauna of 

Udawalawa National Park. Proceedings of the Second Annual Forestry symposium 1996, 

Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, University of Sri Jayawardenapura. 

Samarawickrama V.A.M.P.K and Rajapaksha D.R.N.S. (2003), A study on the butterfly faunal diversity 

in various habitats in the Knuckles forest range. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Forestry symposium 

2003, Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, University of Sri Jayawardenapura. 

Senarathne C.V. (1997) An unusual flight of the Fivebar Swordtail Graphium antiphates ceylonicus. Sri 

Lanka Naturalist 1 (2): 18-19. 

57


Tennant J.E. (1861). Natural History of Ceylon. 

Van der Poorten N. (1996), Butterflies in Sri Lanka. Loris XXI: 5-7. 

Williams N. & Senarathne C. (1998), Flight of butterflies at Kirinda, Hambanthota District. Sri Lanka 

Naturalist II (3): 21. 

Wijeyeratne, G.De S. (2004). Butterflies of Sri Lanka. Jetwing Eco Holidays. 

Woodhouse L.G.O (1950). The Butterfly Fauna of Ceylon. Ceylon Government Press 

Woodhouse L.G.O. & Henry G.M.R. (1942). The Butterfly Fauna of Ceylon, Ceylon Government Press, 

Colombo. 

58



Appendix 1: Checklist of Butterflies in Sri Lanka 

Family Species Common Name 

PAPILIONIDAE Troides darsius E Common Birdwing/ Ceylon Birdwing 

Pachliopta hector 

Pachliopta jophon E 

Pachliopta aristolochiae 

Papilio crino 

Papilio demoleus 

Papilio helenus 

Papilio polytes 

Papilio polymnestor 

Chilasa clytia 

Graphium sarpedon 

Graphium doson 

Graphium agamemnon 

Pathysa nomius 

Crimson Rose 

Ceylon Rose 

Common Rose 

Banded Peacock 

Lime Butterfly 

Red Helen 

Common Mormon 

Blue Mormon 

Mime 

Blue Bottle 

Common Jay 

Green Jay/ Tailed Jay 

Spot Swordtail 

Pathysa antiphates 

Five bar Swordtail 

PIERIDAE Leptosia nina Psyche 

Delias eucharis 

Prioneris sita 

Belenois aurota 

Cepora nerissa 

Cepora nadina 

Appias indra 

Appias libythea 

Appias lyncida 

Appias albina 

Appias paulina 

Ixias marianne 

Ixias pyrene 

Hebomoia glaucippe 

Catopsilia pyranthe 

Catopsilia pomona 

Pareronia ceylanica 

Colotis amata 

Colotis fausta 

Colotis danae 

Colotis aurora 

Colotis etrida 

Eurema brigitta 

Eurema laeta 

Eurema hecabe 

Jezebel 

Painted Saw-tooth 

Pioneer 

Common Gull 

Lesser Gull 

Plain Puffin 

Striped Albatross 

Chocolate Albatross 

Common Albatross 

Lesser Albatross 

White Orange Tip 

Yellow Orange Tip 

Great Orange Tip/ Giant Orange Tip 

Mottled Emigrant/ African Emigrant 

Lemon Emigrant 

Blue Wanderer/ Dark Wanderer 

Small Salmon Arab 

Large Salmon Arab 

Crimson Tip 

Plain Orange Tip 

Little Orange Tip 

Small Grass Yellow 

Spotless Grass Yellow 

Common Grass Yellow 

59


Eurema blanda 

Three-spot Grass Yellow 

Eurema andersoni 

One-spot Grass Yellow 

NYMPHALIDAE Idea iasonia Tree Nymph 

Ideopsis similis 

Blue Glassy Tiger 

Tirumala limniace 

Blue Tiger 

Tirumala septentrionis Dark Blue Tiger 

Parantica aglea 

Glassy Tiger 

Parantica taprobana Ceylon Tiger 

Danaus chrysippus 

Plain Tiger 

Danaus genutia 

Common Tiger 

Euploea core 

Common crow 

Euploea sylvester 

Double- banded Crow 

Euploea phaenareta 

King Crow 

Euploea klugii 

Brown King Crow 

Ariadne ariadne 

Angled Castor 

Ariadne merione 

Common Castor 

Byblia ilithyia 

Joker 

Cupha erymanthis 

Rustic 

Phalanta phalantha 

Leopard 

Phalanta alcippe 

Small Leopard 

Vindula erota 

Cruiser 

Cirrochroa thais 

Tamil Yeoman/ Yeoman 

Cethosia nietneri 

Ceylon Lace Wing 

Argynnis hyperbius 

Indian Fritillary 

Vanessa indica 

Indian Red Admiral 

Vanessa cardui 

Painted Lady 

Kaniska canace 

Blue Admiral 

Junonia lemonias 

Lemon Pansy 

Junonia orithya 

Blue Pansy 

Junonia hierta 

Yellow Pansy 

Junonia atlites 

Grey Pansy 

Junonia iphita 

Chocolate Soldier 

Junonia almana 

Peacock Pansy 

Hypolimnas bolina 

Great Eggfly 

Hypolimnas misippus Danaid Eggfly 

Doleschallia bisaltide Autumn Leaf 

Kallima philarchus E Blue Oakleaf 

Pantoporia hordonia Common Lasker 

Neptis hylas 

Common Sailor 

Neptis jumbah 

Chestnut-streaked Sailor 

Moduza procris 

Commander 

Parthenos sylvia 

Clipper 

60



Symphaedra nais 

Dophla evelina 

Euthalia lubentina 

Euthalia aconthea 

Rohana parisatis 

Polyura athamas 

Charaxes solon 

Charaxes psaphon 

Libythea celtis 

Libythea myrrha 

Acraea violae 

Discophora lepida 

Melanitis leda 

Melanitis phedima 

Lethe drypetis 

Lethe daretis E 

Lethe dynaste E 

Lethe rohria 

Orsotriaena medus 

Mycalesis visala 

Mycalesis mineus 

Mycalesis perseus 

Mycalesis rama E 

Nissanga patnia 

Ypthima ceylonica 

Ypthima singala E 

Elymnias hypermnestra 

Elymnias singala E 

Baronet 

Red spot Duke 

Gaudy Baron 

Baron 

Black Prince 

Nawab 

Black Rajah 

Tawny Rajah 

Beak 

Club Beak 

LYCAENIDAE Spalgis epeus Apefly 

Curetis thetis 

Arhopala abseus 

Arhopala amantes 

Arhopala ormistoni E 

Arhopala bazaloides 

Arhopala pseudocentaurus 

Surendra vivarna 

Zesius chrysomallus 

Amblypodia anita 

Iraota timoleon 

Catapaecilma major 

Loxura atymnus 

Rathinda amor 

Tawny Costor 

Southern Duffer 

Common Evening Brown 

Dark Evening Brown 

Tamil Treebrown 

Ceylon Treebrown 

Ceylon Forester 

Common Treebrown 

Nigger 

Tamil Bush Brown 

Dark-brand Bushbrown 

Common Bushbrown 

Cingalese Bushbrown 

Gladeye Bushbrown 

White Four-ring 

Jewel Four-ring 

Common Palmfly 

Ceylon Palmfly 

Indian Sunbeam 

Aberrant Bushblue 

Large Oakblue 

Ormiston’s Oakblue 

Tamil Oakblue 

Centaur Oakblue 

Common Acacia Blue 

Redspot 

Purple Leafblue 

Silverstreak Blue 

Common Tinsel 

Yamfly 

Monkey-puzzle 

61


Horaga onyx 

Horaga albimaculata 

Cheritra freja 

Spindasis lohita 

Spindasis vulcanus 

Spindasis schistacea 

Spindasis ictis 

Spindasis lunulifera 

Spindasis nubilus E 

Tajuria cippus 

Tajuria jehana 

Tajuria arida E 

Pratapa deva 

Hypolycaena nilgirica 

Bindahara phocides 

Virachola perse 

Virachola isocrates 

Rapala iarbus 

Rapala manea 

Rapala varuna 

Rapala lankana 

Deudorix epijarbas 

Anthene lycaenina 

Petrelaea dana 

Nacaduba pactolus 

Nacaduba hermus 

Nacaduba ollyetti E 

Nacaduba berenice 

Nacaduba sinhala E 

Nacaduba kurava 

Nacaduba beroe 

Nacaduba calauria 

Prosotas nora 

Prosotas dubiosa 

Prosotas noreia E 

Ionolyce helicon 

Jamides bochus 

Jamides coruscans E 

Jamides lacteata 

Jamides alecto 

Jamides celeno 

Catochrysops panormus 

Blue Onyx 

Brown Onyx 

Common Imperial 

Long -banded Silverline 

Common Silverline 

Plumbeous Silverline 

Ceylon Silverline 

Scarce Shot Silverline 

Clouded Silverline 

Peacock Royal 

Plains Blue Royal 

Ceylon Indigo Royal 

White Royal 

Nilgiri Tit 

Plane 

Large Guava Blue 

Common Guava Blue 

Indian Red Flash 

Slate Flash 

Indigo Flash 

Malabar Flash 

Cornelian 

Pointed Ciliate Blue 

Dingy Lineblue 

Large 4-Lineblue 

Pale 4-lineblue 

Woodhouse’s 4-Lineblue 

Rounded 6-Lineblue 

Pale Ceylon 6-Lineblue 

Transparent 6-Lineblue 

Opaque 6-Lineblue 

Dark Ceylon 6-Lineblue 

Common Lineblue 

Tailless Lineblue 

White-tipped Lineblue 

Pointed Lineblue 

Dark Cerulean 

Ceylon Cerulean 

Milky Cerulean 

Metallic Cerulean 

Common Cerulean 

Silver Forget-me-not 

62



Catochrysops strabo 

Lampides boeticus 

Syntarucus plinius 

Castalius rosimon 

Discolampa ethion 

Caleta decidia 

Tarucus nara 

Tarucus callinara 

Freyeria trochilus 

Zizeeria karsandra 

Zizina otis 

Zizula hylax 

Talicada nyseus 

Everes lacturnus 

Azanus ubaldus 

Azanus jesous 

Actyolepis lilacea 

Actyolepis puspa 

Celastrina lavendularis 

Udara singalensis 

Udara akasa 

Udara lanka E 

Neopithicops zalmora 

Megisba malaya 

Euchrysops cnejus 

Chilades pandava 

Chilades lajus 

Chilades parrhasius 

Abisara echerius 

Forger-me-not 

Pea Blue 

Zebra Blue 

Common Pierrot 

Banded Blue Pierrot 

Angled Pierrot 

Striped Pierrot 

Butler’s Spotted Pierrot 

Grass Jewel 

Dark Grass Blue 

Lesser Grass Blue 

Tiny Grass Blue 

Red pierrot 

Indian Cupid 

Bright Babul Blue 

African Babul Blue 

Hampson’s Hedge Blue 

Common Hedge Blue 

Plain Hedge Blue 

Singalese Hedge Blue 

White Hedge Blue 

Ceylon Hedge Blue 

Quaker 

Malayan 

Gram Blue 

Plains Cupid 

Lime Blue 

Small Cupid 

Plum Judy 

HESPERIIDAE Bibasis oedipodea Branded Orange Awlet 

Bibasis sena 

Badamia exclamationis 

Choaspes benjaminii 

Gangara thyrsis 

Gangara lebadea 

Hasora chromus 

Hasora taminatus 

Hasora badra 

Celaenorrhinus spilothyrus 

Coladenia indranii 

Sarangesa dasahara 

Tapena thwaitesi 

Orange-tail Awl 

Brown Awl 

Indian Awl king 

Gaint Redeye 

Banded Redeye 

Common Banded Awl 

White-banded Awl 

Ceylon Awl 

Black flat 

Tricolour Pied Flat 

Common Small Flat 

Black Angle 

63


Tagiades japetus 

Tagiades litigiosa 

Caprona ransonnettii 

Caprona alida 

Gomalia elma 

Baracus vittatus 

Ampittia dioscorides 

Halpe decorata E 

Halpe egena E 

Halpe ceylonica 

Suastus gremius 

Suastus minuta 

Iambrix salsala 

Udaspes folus 

Notocrypta paralysos 

Notocrypta curvifascia 

Hyarotis adrastus 

Matapa aria 

Spalia galba 

Tractrocera maevius 

Oriens goloides 

Potanthus pallida 

Potanthus pseudomaesa 

Potanthus confuscius 

Telicota colon 

Telicota ancilla 

Baoris penicillata 

Borbo cinnara 

Pelopidas agna 

Pelopidas mathias 

Pelopidas thrax 

Pelopidas conjuncta 

Cattoris kumara 

Cattoris philippina 

Panara bada 

Ceylon Snow Flat 

Water Snow Flat 

Golden Angle 

Ceylon Golden Angle 

African Marbled Skipper 

Hedge Hopper 

Bush Hopper 

Decorated Ace 

Rare Ace 

Ceylon Ace 

Indian Palm Bob 

Ceylon Palm Bob 

Chestnut Bob 

Grass Demon 

Common banded Demon 

Restricted Demon 

Tree Flitter 

Common Red eye 

Indian Skipper 

Common Grass Dart 

Common Dartlet 

Indian Dart 

Common Dart 

Tropic Dart 

Pale Palmdart 

Dark Palmdart 

Paintbrush swift 

Wallace’s Swift 

Little Branded Swift 

Small Branded Swift 

Large Branded Swift 

Conjoined Swift 

Blanck Swift 

Philippine Swift 

Smallest Swift 

(E – Endemic species) 

64

Abstract 

Dilrukshi: Taxonomic THE FAUNA Status OF SRI of LANKA Ticks (2006): in Sri Lanka 65-69 


Taxonomic Status of Ticks in Sri Lanka 

P.R.M.P. Dilrukshi* 

*National Science Foundation, 47/5, Maitland Place, Colombo 07, Sri Lanka 

Twenty-seven species of Ixodid ticks (hard ticks) belonging to nine genera have been reported to 

date from Sri Lanka. Of the nine genera, genus Haemaphysalis is the best represented genus in Sri 

Lanka with 11 species of ticks recorded to date. These tick species have been recorded feeding on 

a range of wild and domesticated vertebrate hosts in the country. 

The geographic distribution of these tick species on the island is less well understood, except in the 

case of species parasiting domestic pets and livestock. A recent study carried out on the distribution 

of cattle ticks in Sri Lanka recorded eight species of ticks. Of these, Boophilus sp., Haemaphysalis 

bispinosa, Haemaphysalis intermedia and Rhipicepahlus haemaphysaloides showed a wide 

distribution in the country, from montane to dry zones. Hyalomma marginatum, Hyalomma 

brevipunctata Amblyomma integrum and Haemaphysalis spinigera were found to be more 

prevalent in the low country dry zone. 

The Boophilus sp. found in Sri Lanka (hitherto identified as B. annulatus s.l.) is here considered to 

be an undescribed species. The immature stages (larva and nymph) of Amblyomma sp., Hyalomma 

spp. and Rhipicephalus spp. have been found to attack humans extensively and have been reported 

to cause severe intra-aural (within ear canal) conditions in humans in some areas of Sri Lanka. 

Key words: Ticks, Research, Parasites, Taxonomy 

Introduction 

Ticks are obligate blood sucking external parasites of mammals, birds and reptiles found in almost every 

region of the world. They are primarily parasites of wild animals and only 10% of the species feed on 

domestic animals (Lane and Crosskey, 1993). Many ticks feed opportunistically on humans; some species 

feed more avidly than others on human hosts. Ticks have biologically complex interactions with microorganisms 

and with their vertebrate hosts, on whom they depend for blood meals and survival (Wilson, 

2002). Therefore, they transmit a wide variety of pathogens (bacteria, rickettsiae, protozoa and viruses) 

that surpasses any other group of blood sucking arthropods. They rank second only to the mosquitoes as 

vectors of life-threatening, debilitating diseases. Apart from being vectors, they also cause severe damage 

to the host through their bite. 

Ticks belong to the suborder Ixodida, of the Order Parasitiformes (class Arachnida; subclass: Acari), a 

taxon that also includes mites (Sonenshine, 1991, Goddard, 1989). About 850 tick species belonging to two 

major tick families are known to occur in the world. The Family Ixodidae includes ticks that are commonly 

called ‘hard ticks’ because they possess a hard sclerotized dorsal scutum. The group includes more than 

650 species belonging to thirteen genera. The Family Argasidae includes ‘soft ticks’, and contains 150 

species belonging to five genera (Sonenshine, 1991). There is a third Family, the Nuttaliellidae, which is 

monophyletic and share characters of both Argasidae and ixodidae, in addition to having many derived 

features. The only species found in Family Nuttaliellidae is Nuttalliella namaqua Bedford 1931 collected 

in localities in Namibia, Republic of South Africa, and Tanzania from nests of rock swallows and hyraxes, 

and is of minor veterinary and medical importance (Sonenshine, 1991). 

The studies conducted on the taxonomy and ecology of ticks in Sri Lanka are scanty. The most 

comprehensive study on hard ticks in Sri Lanka was conducted by Seneviratne (1965). This study reported 

26 species of ticks belonging to nine genera. This study was conducted on the samples collected by the 

65


various persons in different parts of the country on wild and domesticated animals. Weilgama (1974) 

conducted another study on taxonomy of the cattle tick Boophilus annulatus (sensu lato) in Sri Lanka. 

Halim et al (1983) recorded tick species on goats in the dry zone of the country. Other citations are short 

reports or brief mentions of tick species in works focused on disease aspects (e.g., Balasuriya et al., 1995; 

Dilrukshi and Amerasinghe (1999 a,b); Weilgama, 1982; Weilgama et al., 1986a, 1986b, 1989a, 1989b). The 

most recent and comprehensive eco-taxonomic study was by Dilrukshi (2004) on cattle ticks. 

The Ixodid Tick Fauna of Sri Lanka 

Twenty-seven species of ixodid ticks belonging to nine genera have been reported to date from Sri Lanka 

(Seneviratne, 1965). These genera are as follows: Amblyomma Koch, 1844; Aponomma Neumann, 1899; 

Boophilus Curtice, 1891; Dermacentor Koch, 1844; Haemaphysalis Koch, 1844; Hyalomma Koch, 1884; 

Ixodes Latreille, 1795; Rhipicephalus Koch, 1844; and Nosomma Schulze, 1919. In the paragraphs below, 

information on hosts and distribution from available literature are summarized. It is to be notes that most 

are derived from fragmentary records accumulated over the years and collated in works such as 

Seneviratne (1965) and others. Understandably, the bulk of information relates to ticks parasiting domestic 

pets and livestock. We have, at present, a very poor understanding of the geographic distribution and host 

relations of ticks parasiting wild animals in the country. 

In the genus Amblyomma, three species are recorded to occur in Sri Lanka to date. They are A. integrum 

Karsch, 1879, A. clypeolatum Neumann, 1899, and A. testudinarum Koch 1844. They have been reported 

commonly on wild animals. Adult A. clypeolatum have been reported on the star tortoise (Testudo elegans 

Schoepff), wild boar (Sus scrofa cristatus Wagner) and water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis bubalis 

Linnaéus), while A. integrum has been found on a variety of animals such as sloth bear (Melursus ursinus 

Shaw), water buffalo, Sambar (Cervus unicolor unicolor), domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticus), horse 

(Equus caballus), cattle (Bos spp), and elephant (Elephas maximus zeylanicus). Immature stages have 

been reported on humans, the domestic cat (Felis catus), and mouse deer (Moschiola meminna). 

Immature stages of A. integrum were the major intra-aural tick species in human patients in a recent study 

in the Sabaragamuwa Province (Dilrukshi et al., 2004). Amblyomma testudinarum has been collected on 

wild boar (Sus scrofa cristatus) and water buffalo (Senadhira, 1969). 

Three species (and one variety) belonging to genus Aponomma are reported in Sri Lanka namely, A. 

gervaisi Lucas, 1847; A. gervaisi var lucasi Warburton, 1910; A. javanense Supino, 1897 and A. 

trimaculatum Lucas, 1878 (Seneviratne, 1965). Ticks of this Genus have been found usually on reptiles 

and, rarely, on wild boar (Senadhira, 1969). 

The status of the species of Genus Boophilus in Sri Lanka is presently rather unclear. Seneviratne (1965) 

listed both B. microplus and B. annulatus characters in Boophilus sp. in Sri Lanka. Later, Weilgama 

(1974) found that the Sri Lankan “B. annulatus” differed from the typical form, listed it as B. annulatus 

(sensu lato). Dilrukshi (2004) provides a detailed analysis of the complex of character traits seen in the Sri 

Lankan species and does not consider the species to be closely allied to B. annulatus. Taxonomic material 

pertaining to the Sri Lanka Boophilus is currently under study at the Institute of Arthropodology and 

Parasitology, USA, and the consensus of opinion is that this is a distinct and as yet undescribed species 

(personal communication from L. Durden, Institute of Arthropodology and Parasitology (IAP), Georgia, 

Southern University, USA). Boophilus generally feed on mammalian hosts and have been recorded on 

the domestic dog (Canis famialiris), leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya), spotted deer (Cervus axis 

ceylonensis), Sambar (Cervus unicolor) , buffalo, goat (Capra hircus), sheep (Ovis sp.), cattle and horse 

(Seneviratne 1965, Balasuriya et al 1997, Dilrukshi and Amerasinghe 1999 a&b, Dilrukshi and 

Amerasinghe, 2000). They have been recorded on humans (Seneviratne, 1967, Dilrukshi et al, 2004). This 

species was the most abundant cattle tick found in Sri Lanka (Dilrukshi, 2004). 

The genus Dermacentor Koch, 1844 is represented by only one species D. auratus in Sri Lanka on wild 

pig, Sambar and sloth bear. Edussuriya and Weilgama (2003) reported immature stages of this species 

infesting human ear canals at the Central Province location of Kandy. 

66

Dilrukshi: Taxonomic Status of Ticks in Sri Lanka 

The Genus Nosomma too, is represented by one species, N. monstrosum Nuttall and Warburton 1908 on 

wild pig, and wild and domesticated water buffalo (Seneviratne 1965). The genus Ixodes, is represented 

by two species, Ixodes petauristae Warburton, 1938 and Ixodes ceylonensis Kohls, 1950 (Kohls, 1950). 

The ticks of this genus are poorly represented on large mammals and seem to occur more on small 

mammals such as mongoose (Herpestes fuscus), rat (e.g. Rattus rattus kandiyanus), and birds such as 

the Ceylon bush lark (Mirafra affinis ceylonensis) in Sri Lanka. 

The Genus Rhipicephalus Koch, 1844 is represented by two species, R. haemaphysaloides Supino, 1897 

and R. sanguineus Latreille, 1806. These two species have a wide distribution in the country. 

Rhipicephalus haemaphysaloides is found on animals such as domestic dog, cattle, domesticated water 

buffalo, sheep, goat, horse, chicken (Gallus domesticus), and on wild animals such as black-naped hare 

(Lepus nigricollis sinhala) and wild boar; immature forms occur on humans (Senadhira, 1969; Halim et 

al., 1983, Dilrukshi 2004, Dilrukshi et al., 2004). The species R. sanguineus is found more on domestic 

stock such as the cat, domesticated water buffalo, sheep, cattle, dog, chicken and also on hare. The larva 

and nymph occurs on humans (Seneviratne, 1965; Senadhira, 1969, Dilrukshi et al., 2004). 

In the Genus Hyalomma, Seneviratne (1965) recorded one species Hy. marginatum isaaci Sharif, 1928 on 

cattle, domesticated water buffalo, goat, sheep horse, leopard, and wild water buffalo. The larva occurs 

on mongoose (Herpestes flavidens), hare and mouse deer in Sri Lanka. More recently Weilgama et al. 

(1989) reported the presence of another species Hy. brevipunctata Sharif, 1928 on domestic water 

buffaloes in Sri Lanka. Dilrukshi and Amerasinghe 1999 reported the presence of Hy. brevipunctata on 

neat cattle in Sri Lanka in the areas of low country dry zone , low country wet zone and mid county regions 

in the island. Dilrukshi et al. (2004) reported the occurrence of nymphs of Hy. marginatum and Hy. 

brevipunctata in the ear canal of humans in Ratnapura district. This is one of the common species found 

to attack humans in association with jungle or areas with a high density of vegetation. 

Of the nine genera, Genus Haemaphysalis is the best represented genus in Sri Lanka with 11 species of 

ticks recorded to date. They are as follows 1. H. aculeata Lavarra, 1905; 2. H. bispinosa Neumann, 

1897; 3. H. cuspidata Warburton, 1910; 4. H. cornigera var anamala Warburton; 1913, 5. H. hystricis 

Supino, 1897; 6. H. intermedia Warburton and Nuttal 1909; 7. H. kyasanursensis Trapido, Hoogstraal and 

Rajagopalan, 1964; 8. H. leachi var indica Warburton, 1910; 9. H. minuta Kohls, 1950; 10. H. spinigera 

Neumann, 1897; 11. H. turturis Nuttall and Warburton 1915. The ticks of this genus are found on a wide 

variety of animals such as wild mammals, livestock, birds, and immature forms sometimes on humans 

(Seneviratne 1965, Senadhira, 1969). 

The most widespread species of this Genus are H. bispinosa and H. intermedia which are found on cattle, 

domesticated buffaloes, sheep, goat, dog, chicken, leopard, Ceylon jackal (Canis lanka Wroughton), sloth 

bear, hare, mouse deer, and Ceylon jungle fowl (Gallus lafayetti Lesson). Apart from these hosts, 

H. intermedia also has been found on wild boar and spotted deer, and immature stages found on the forest 

wagtail (Dendronanthus indicus Gemlin), a migrant bird from India (Senevirathene, 1965, Halim et al., 

1983 and Halim 1984). The H. bispinosa and H. intermedia are common cattle ticks found in all parts of 

the country (Dilrukshi, 2004). Recent morphometric analyises done on the H. bispinosa populations found 

in the low country dry, low country wet, mid country, and montane wet zones showed three distinct sub 

populations of this taxon. This is an indication of the probable presence of a subspecies or species complex 

within the taxon identified as “H. bispinosa” on the island – an aspect that needs further investigation. 

The species H. spinigera has been recorded on cattle, leopard and sloth bear, and immature stages 

recovered from the forest wagtail (Seneviratne, 1965). H. spinigera was only found in the cattle of low 

country dry zone (Dilrukshi, 2004). Haemaphysalis cornigera has been collected only from sambar at 

Elahara in the North Central Province. Heamaphysalis aculeata has been recorded on mouse deer, 

leopard and mongoose, and is known to attack humans. The species H. cuspidata is another species found 

on domestic goat, and also has been recorded on wild animals such as leopard, Ceylon civet cat 

(Viverricula indica mayori), mongoose, polecat (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus hermaphroditus) and 

mouse deer. This species appears to be restricted to Sri Lanka (Seneviratne, 1965). Haemaphysalis 

67


hystricis has been found only on wild mammals such as the sloth bear wild boar, and birds such as the 

common Ceylon mynah (Acridotheres tristis melanosternus). Haemaphysalis kyasanursensis has been 

recorded on the Indian crested porcupine (Hystrix indica), and H. leachi var indica has been recorded on 

goat, Ceylon civet cat and Grey flying squirrel (Petaurista philipensis lanka ) and nymphs collected on 

forest wagtails. Haemaphysalis minuta has been recorded on chicken, Ceylon civet cat, and Ceylon jungle 

fowl. Haemaphysalis turturis has been recorded on leopard, civet cat, spotted deer, wild boar, Sambar, 

Ceylon small civet (Viverricula indica mayori), spotted dove (Streptopelia chinensis ceylonensis) and 

black crow (Corvus macrorhynchos culminatus) (Seneviratne, 1965). 

The checklist of the ticks found in Sri Lanka presented here is based on the studies of Seneviratne (1965), 

Weilgama et al. (1989), Dilrukshi et al. (1999 a&b) and Dilrukshi (2004). 

Issues and gaps related to tick research 

There have been many studies relating to livestock-related tick-borne disease aspects in Sri Lanka (see 

review in Dilrukshi 2004). However, a paucity of published literature in the fields of tick taxonomy and 

ecology show that these areas have been somewhat neglected during the past 25 years. There are no 

comprehensive taxonomic keys or descriptions of the tick fauna of the island. Intra-species morphological 

variability in relation to geographic, climatological, and/or other factors within their distributional range on 

the island is poorly known except for the Boophilus annulatus (sensu lato) of Weilgama (1974) and the 

cattle ticks investigated by Dilrukshi (2004). Information on ecology, too, seems to have been more a byproduct 

of studies focused on disease aspects of tick infestations, rather than ecologically focused 

investigations. The most recent work is that of Dilrukshi, (2004), who carried out a taxonomic and 

ecological study of ticks parasitizing cattle in four zones climatological within Sri Lanka in order to 

determine the distribution of ticks species, the tick parasite burden borne by cattle in different localities, 

and the distribution of different species on the body of the host. Dilrukshi et al, (2004) conducted a limited 

investigation on human infestations of ticks, based on hospital records and surgically removed tick 

specimens. An attempt also was made by author to investigate the molecular basis of the intra-species 

morphological variation seen in tick populations. 

Future research priorities 

It is felt that apart from the tick species presently known there can be more unknown species present in 

Sri Lanka. Therefore more comprehensive island wide surveys on ticks in different hosts in Sri Lanka 

should be carried out to investigate the current status of ticks in the country. Additionally, systematically 

collected information is necessary on distributional, ecological, and pathogen relations of ticks that parasitize 

both domestic and wild animals, as well as those that appear to be exclusive wild animal feeders. This is an 

important priority in an era when, increasingly, human population expansion at the expense of wild areas 

creates conditions where zoonotic infections are tranisiting from their natural cycles, impinging on humans, 

and causing human disease. 

Acknowledgments 

I am grateful to Dr. F.P. Amerasinghe and Dr. P.H. Amerasinghe for their guidance in this work. I thank 

for the support given by the staff of the Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science in the University of 

Peradeniya where the work of this study was carried out. This work was supported by the Sri Lanka 

National Science Foundation (Grant No. Rg/96/B/01). 

References 

Balasuriya, C.A., Amerasinghe, P.H. and Amerasinghe, F.P. (1995). Distribution of ticks (Acarina: 

Ixodidae) on the body of the dogs. Abst. Proceedings of the Annual Research Sessions 1995. 

Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. Session IIB, 8. 

68

Dilrukshi: Taxonomic Status of Ticks in Sri Lanka 

Dilrukshi, P.R.M.P. (2004). Aspects of the Ecology and Morphotaxonomy of cattle ticks (Acarari:Ixodidae) 

in Sri Lanka. Ph.D. thesis, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. unpublished. 

Dilrukshi, P.R.M.P., and Amerasinghe, F.P. (1999a). Trends in the abundance of cattle ticks 

(Acari:Ixodidae) in different climatic zones in Sri Lanka. Abst. Annual Research Session: University 

of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. Proceedings and Abstracts, 26. 

Dilrukshi, P.R.M.P. and Amerasinghe, F.P. (1999b). A study on the ecology of cattle ticks (Acari:Ixodidae) 

in Sri Lanka. Abs. Proceedings of the 55 th Annual Sessions, Sri Lanka Association for the 

Advancement of Science, Part 1, 173-174. 

Dilrukshi, P.R.M.P. and Amerasinghe, P.H. (2000). A study on the abundance, distribution and protein 

profiles (SDS-PAGE) of cattle ticks (Acarina: Ixodidae). Abs. Proceedings of the 56 TH Annual 

Sessions, Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science, Part 2, 186. 

Dilrukshi, P.R.M.P., Yasawardene, A.D.K.S.N., Amerasinghe P.H. and Amerasinghe, F.P. (2004). Human 

otoacariasis: a retrospective study from an area of Sri Lanka. Transactions of the Royal Society of 

Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 98, 489-495. 

Edussuriya, B.D.P., Weilgama, D.J. (2003). Case reports: intra-aural tick infestations in humans in Sri 

Lanka. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 97: 412-413. 

Goddard, J. (1989). Ticks and tick borne diseases affecting military personnel. School of Medicine, 

Human System Division (AFSC), Brook Air Force Base, Texas, 78235-5301. 

Halim, S.R. (1984). Studies on the Ixodidae of goats in the dry zone of Sri Lanka with special reference to 

Haemaphysalis intermedia Warburton and Nuttal 1909, M.V. MSc. thesis, University of Peradeniya, 


Halim S.R., Weilgama, D.J., Perera, P.S.G., and Fernando S.T. (1983). Ixodidae on Goats in the dry zone 

of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Veterinary Journal 31, 14-20. 

Kohls, G. M. (1950). Two new species of ticks from Ceylon (Acarina: Ixodidae). Journal of Parasitology 

36, 319-321. 

Lane, R.P. and Crosskey, R.W. (1993). Medical Insects and Arachnids. Chapman and Hall, 2-6 Boundary 

Raw, London SE1 8HN, UK. 

Senadhira, M.A.P. (1969). The parasites of Ceylon V. Arthropoda, a host check list. Ceylon Veterinary 

Journal, XVII (1), 3-25. 

Sonenshine, D.E. (1991). Biology of Ticks. Vol 1. New York Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

Weilgama, D.J. (1974). Studies of Boophilids in Sri Lanka. MVS thesis, University of Sri Lanka, 

Peradeniya campus, Sri Lanka. 

Weilgama, D.J. (1982). Ecto and haemoprotozoan parasites of the water buffalo in Sri Lanka. Proceedings 

of the Workshop on water buffalo research in Sri Lanka 24-28 November 1982, Peradeniya, Sri 

Lanka. SAREC report R3: Stockholm, Sweden, 134. 

Weilgama, D.J., Perera, P.S., Nanayakkara, E., and Nambuge, D. (1986a). Observations on Theileriosis 

among cattle and buffaloes in Sri Lanka. Abs. S.L. Vet. J., 34, 64. 

Weilgama D.J., Weerasinghe, H.M.C., Perera P.S.G., Navaratne M., (1986b). Pre-imunisation of calves 

using 60 Co irradiated Babesia bigemina. Abst. Sri Lanka Veterinary Journal 34, 65-66. 

Weilgama, D.J., Bahirathan, M. and Perera P.S.G. (1989a). Studies on some protozoan infections of 

buffaloes in Sri Lanka. Abs. Proceedings of Symposium on buffalo research in Sri Lanka. 41-43. 

Weilgama, D.J., Perera, P.S., Nanayakkara, E., and Nambuge, D. (1989b). Observations on Theileriosis 

among cattle and buffaloes in Sri Lanka. Abs. Sri Lanka Veterinary Journal 34, 64. 

Wilson, M.E. (2002). Prevention of tick-borne diseases. Medical Clinics of North America (Philadelphia, 

PA) 86 (2), 219-238. 

69



Systematics and Conservation of Spiders in Sri Lanka: 

Current Status and Future Prospects 

Suresh P. Benjamin* and Channa N. B. Bambaradeniya § 

*University of California, Berkeley, Insect Biology Division – ESPM, 201 Wellman Hall #3112 Berkeley, 

CA 94720-3112. E-mail: sureshb@gwu.edu. 

§ 

IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Regional Species Programme, 

53, Horton Place, Colombo 07, Sri Lanka. E-mail:cnb@iucnsl.org 

Abstract 

In this review we examine recent advances in our understanding of the systematic status of Sri 

Lankan spider fauna, which currently consist of 501 known species. In general they are very poorly 

known. The endemic spider fauna are confined to the natural forests of the south-west and the 

central highland region and are related to that of Western Ghats in India. Detailed collection based 

study is needed before further conclusions could be drawn. 

Key words: Spiders, Taxonomy 

Introduction 

Sri Lanka with a forest cover of approximately 23% of total land area, is known to be of great conservation 

importance, highlighted by the presence of a rich endemic fauna and flora. The island is classified as one 

of the 25 global biodiversity ‘hot spots’ with an extraordinary level of endemism, and with an imminent 

threat of habitat loss. The tropical rainforests in the south-west of Sri Lanka has been reduced to a great 

extent during the past five decades, and at present the near-primary forest cover accounts for less than 

5% of the land area of the biodiversity-rich Wet Zone of the island. The existing forest patches of the wet 

zone are in a severely fragmented state. 

Spiders are one of the most diverse arthropod groups, and an important component in terrestrial 

ecosystems. They are valuable indicators of endemism, and for early warning of ecological change. They 

are capable of responding more rapidly to changes in the environment than long-living vertebrates and plants. 

Many spiders in Sri Lanka could be used as focal species in the complex process of deciding which habitats 

afford conservation priority. The above salient aspects related to spiders and ongoing rapid habitat destruction, 

make the collection and study of Sri Lankan spider fauna most important. In this review we will highlight the 

current status of spider taxonomy using a set of families currently under revision. We discuss previous work 

on the group, current state of knowledge, problems encountered and suggest future directions. Although, 

our focus is on spiders, the interpretations presented should prove useful for other arthropod taxa as well. 

Taxonomy of spiders in Sri Lanka 

In general spiders in Sri Lanka are very poorly known. Scientific documentation of spiders in Sri Lanka 

began with the work of Pickard-Cambridge (1869). The last comprehensive study was conducted more 

than a century ago by Pocock (1900). A few foreign researchers worked on a few spider families in Sri 

Lanka there after (Brignoli, 1972, 1975; van Helsdingen, 1985). Involvement of local researchers in spider 

taxonomy in Sri Lanka began with the works of Wijesinghe (1983, 1987) who conducted a preliminary 

survey and a review on the group. He stated that a little over 400 species of spiders are known from Sri 

Lanka, with an estimation of the actual total number to be close to 1000. The 1990s onwards has been a 

period of renowned interest on spider taxonomy in Sri Lanka, with several new species being described 

(Benjamin, 1999, 2000, 2001; Benjamin and Jocque, 2000; Wijesinghe, 1997, 1999a, 1999b). Bambaradeniya 

(2001) documented seven spider taxa (two species and five genera occurring in the oriental region) that 

70

Benjamin & Bambaradeniya: Systematics and Conservation of Spiders in Sri Lanka: 


are new records to Sri Lanka, from a rice field ecosystem at Bathalagoda. Recently, Huber and Benjamin 

(2005) described a new genus (Wanniyala) of pholcid spiders from the island. 

Based on a review of these recent advances on spiders, it could be stated that the Sri Lankan spider fauna 

consists of about 501 known species, under 45 families (Appendix 1). However, the actual number might 

be even exceeding 4000 species. Among the total species described so far, the Mygalomorphs (commonly 

referred to as ‘tarantulas’ or ‘bird-eating spiders’) consist of 21 species, under five families. They are 

dominated by the Family Theraphosidae, which is represented by 10 species currently described from the 

island (Smith and Kirk, 2002). The balance consist of Araneomorphs, which are dominated by the jumping 

spiders (Family Salticidae – 104 species). 

In general even the described taxa are very poorly known. Many species and even new genera await 

discovery and description. The taxonomical identity of most known species is uncertain as these were 

described without modern taxonomical standards and/or were based on juvenile specimens. Further, field 

work, mainly in the south western and central highlands and detailed systematic studies will be needed to 

provide a more complete picture of the spider fauna of Sri Lanka. 

Distribution 

The spiders of Sri Lanka are distributed throughout the island, from the high mountains to the coast, occurring 

in natural and managed environments. Preliminary results suggest that the endemic spider fauna are confined 

to the intact natural forests in the south-west and the central highland region. In some cases there appears to 

be sister species in lowland rainforest, central highlands and the forest of the knuckles conservation area. 

Preliminary results suggest that Sri Lankan endemic spider fauna are more related to that of Western Ghats 

in India. This biogeographic pattern is in accordance to that of what is known for other faunal groups. 

For example, the primitive jumping spider Genus Onomustus Simon. 1900, is represented by O. nigricauda 

in the Sinharaja forest reserve, by O. quinquenotatus (Agra-bopath forest reserve) and Onomustus sp A 

(from Hakgala) in the central highlands and by Onomustus sp B from Knuckels conservation area. In the 

case of Oxytate subvirens (Strand, 1907), which is not an endemic, it is found in disturbed habitats and is 

widely distributed. On the other hand Oxytate taprobane Benjamin, 2001 is endemic to the central 

highlands. The two Sri Lankan Oxytate species are certainly closely related, but their taxonomic affinities 

to other species in Oriental region is unclear due to the limited information available. Although the type 

species of Oxytate was re described, a generic revision still remains to be done. Thus, most species of the 

genus are only known from their original descriptions. Thus, even the non-endemic spider fauna of Sri 

Lanka is in need of study. 

Research in progress 

Currently the spiders of the families Thomisidae, Tetragnathidae, Saticidae, Pholcidae and Zodariidae are 

being revised. Some Genera of the spider Families Tetrablemmidae (Lehtinen, 1981), Stenochilidae 

(Lehtinen, 1982), Ochyroceratidae (Brignoli, 1972, 1975), Hersiliidae (Baehr & Baehr, 1993), Nesticidae 

(Lehtinen & Saaristo, 1980), Linyphiidae (Helsdingen, 1985) and Lycosidae (Lehtinen & Hippa, 1979) have 

been revised. Benjamin (2004) has conducted a taxonomic revision for the jumping spider subfamily 

Ballinae (Araneae, Salticidae). A survey of the pholcid spiders of the island has been undertaken (Huber & 

Benjamin, 2005). A study on the occurrence and distribution of Theraphosids in the south-western part of 

Sri Lanka is currently under progress. However, as only a few habitats have been sampled in these studies, 

many more new species should be expected. 

Conservation 

So far Arachnida and other invertebrates have hardly been considered for conservation in Sri Lanka, 

neither for biodiversity assessment nor for conservation research. The reasons for this are multifold: Sri 

71


Lanka’s conservation program is based on large vertebrates, of high aesthetic value. The other reasons 

include the unmanageable number of species involved, non-availability of sufficient taxonomical information 

and a dearth of trained personnel to work on the group. The drawbacks are that decisions have been based 

on a very small fraction of the total biodiversity. Not much work has been done on the ecology or biology 

of the Sri Lankan spider fauna. This absence of faunistic information could also hamper attempts to 

interpret the faunal composition of the Indian subcontinent as well as understanding biogeography patterns. 

For a detailed assessment of the spider fauna a good systematic collection of material representing all 

ecological regions within the island is needed. To date no such collection is available. Collections housed in 

major museums seem to be random collections not suitable for a detailed study. 

The descriptions of most of the known species are around 100 or more years old, no illustrations were 

provided, making identification difficult. Furthermore, the exact localities are unknown, in some cases only 

the main cities like Colombo, Galle or Kandy is given, making positive identification extremely difficult. 

It may be necessary to examine museum material, most of which are in Europe or the USA. These 

voucher specimens are difficult to obtain from Sri Lanka. Moreover, in some cases it is necessary to 

examine types of Indian species, as related species of a Genus currently known only from India may occur 

in Sri Lanka. For example the Genus Colaxes Simon, 1900 (Salticidae) was only known by a single 

species, Colaxes nitidiventris, from Trichinopoly, India. During recent field work two new species, 

Colaxes wanlessi Benjamin, 2004 (from Hakgala, Hakgala forest and Agra-bopath forest) and Colaxes 

horton, Benjamin, 2004 (from Horton Plains) both in the central highland were discovered. In another case, 

the Genus Suffasia was established in 1893, for two species from southern India. The type species, 

S. tigrina (Simon, 1893) from Kodaikanal, Tamil Nadu, and an undescribed species from the same locality. 

During recent field work in Sri Lanka two undescribed species were collected. The first one, Suffasia 

mahasumana Benjmain and Jocqué, 2000 (from the Knuckles Range) and the second species, Suffasia 

attidiya Benjamin and Jocqué, 2000 (from the Bellanwila-Attidiya sanctuary and the Kalugala, Labugama 

Forest Reserve). Thus, if we are to avoid the creation of new synonyms the simultaneous study of Indian 

types may be necessary. 

In some cases the types may be lost. The type of Oxytate subvirens (Strand, 1907) was deposited in the 

Staatlichees Museum für Naturkunde, Stuttgart, Germany. This collection was destroyed during the 

second-world war, and the description was based on female specimens, with no illustrations. There was no 

recent redescription of O. subvirens or any other Oxytate species from Sri Lanka. As closely related 

Oxytate species can be reliably identified only by male genital morphology the designation of a male 

neotype and redescription of the species based on both sexes become necessary. 

Future directions 

1. Establishing a reference collection of spiders. 

2. Redescription of known taxa. 

3. Study of their behaviour/life history. 

4. Inclusion of spiders in conservation decision-making. 

5. Training of taxonomists and para taxonomists in Sri Lanka. 

References 

Baehr, M. & Baehr, B. 1993. The Hersiliidae of the Oriental Region including New Guinea. Taxonomy, 

phylogeny, zoogeography (Arachnida, Araneae). Spixiana Supplement 19: 1-95. 

Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. and Jayanthi P. Edirisinghe. 2001. The Ecological Role of Spiders in the Rice 

fields of Sri Lanka. Biodiversity 2: 3-10. 

72



Benjamin, S. P. 1999. Taxonomical studies on some spiders (Araneae) from Sri Lanka. Families: 

Scytodidae, Tetragnathidae, Lycosidae and Thomisidae. M.Sc. Thesis, University of 

Innsbruck.pp.140.figs.280. 

Benjamin, S. P. 2000. Epidius parvati sp. n., a new species of the genus Epidius from Sri Lanka 

(Araneae:Thomisidae). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 11: 284-288. 

Benjamin, S. P. and Jocqué R. 2000. Two new species of the genus Suffasia from Sri Lanka (Araneae: 

Zodariidae). Revue suisse de Zoologie, 107: 97-106. 

Benjamin, S. P. 2001. The genus Oxytate L. Koch 1878 from Sri Lanka, with description of Oxytate 

taprobane sp. n. (Araneae: Thomsidae). Journal of South Asian Natural History. 5: 153-158, 10 figs. 

Benjamin, S. P. 2004. Taxonomic revision and phylogenetic hypothesis for the jumping spider subfamily 

Ballinae (Araneae, Salticidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. 142: 1-82. 

Brignoli, P. M. 1972. Ragni di Ceylon I. Mission biospeleologica Aellen-Strinati (1970) (Arachnida, 

Araneae). Revue Suisse de Zoologie. 79: 907-929. 

Brignoli, P. M. 1975. Araneae: Ochyroceratidae from Ceylon. Spiders from Ceylon II. Entomologica 

Sacandinavica Supplementum. 4: 234-239. 

Helsdingen, P. J. van 1985. Araneae: Linyphiidae of Sri Lanka, with a note on Erigonidae. Entomologica 

Scandinavica Supplement. 30: 13-30. 

Huber, B. A. & Benjamin, S. P. 2005. The pholcid spiders from Sri Lanka: redescription of Pholcus 

ceylonicus and description of a new genus (Araneae: Pholcidae). Journal of Natural History. 39 

(37): 3305-3319 

Lehtinen, P. T. 1982. Spiders of the Oriental-Australian region IV. 

Stenochilidae. Annales Zoologici Fennici 19: 115-128. 

Lehtinen, P. T. & Hippa, H. 1979. Spiders of the Oriental-Australian region. I. Lycosidae: Venoniinae and 

Zoicinae. Annales Zoologici Fennici 16: 1-22. 

Lehtinen, P. T. & Saaristo, M. I. 1980. Spiders of the Oriental-Australian region. II. Nesticidae. Annales 

Zoologici Fennici 17: 47-66. 

Lehtinen, P. T. 1981. Spiders of the Oriental-Australian region. III. Tetrablemmidae, with a world revision. 

Acta Zoologica Fennica 162: 1-151. 

Pocock, R. I. 1900. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Arachnida: i-xii, 1-279. 

London. 

Smith, A. and Kirk, P. (2002). A Field Guide on the Theraphosid Spiders of India and Sri Lanka, particularly 

the Genus Poecilotheria. Fittzgerald Publication. 

Wijesinghe, D.P. 1983. Spiders of Sri Lanka: An introductory survey. B.Sc Thesis (unpublished) University 

of London, London. 

Wijesinghe, D.P. 1987. The present status of spider taxonomy in Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the workshop 

on “Present Status of Faunal Taxonomy in Sri Lanka”, Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of 

Science. pp 7-19. 

Wijesinghe, D. P. 1991a. A new species of Gelotia (Araneae: Salticidae) from Sri Lanka. Journal of the 

New York Entomological Society 99: 274-277. 

Wijesinghe, D. P. 1991b. New species of Phaeacius from Sri Lanka, Sumatra and the Philippines 

(Araneae: Salticidae). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 8: 249-255. 

Wijesinghe DP. 1997. Relationships of Spartaeine and other Primitive Jumping Spiders, with Reviews of 

Cyrba and Cocalus and Description of a New Genus (Arachnida: Araneae: Salticidae). Unpublished 

D. Phil. Thesis, The City University of New York. 

73


Appendix 1. Species richness of spiders under different families and genera in Sri Lanka 

Family / Genera 

Number of 

pecies 

Mygalomorphs 

Idiopidae 4 

Heligmomerus, Scalidognathus 

Dipluridae 1 

Ischnothele 

Nemesiidae 1 

Atmetochilus 

Barychelidae 5 

Diplothele, Plagiobothrus, Sason, Sipalolasma 

Theraphosidae 10 

Chilobrachys, Plesiophrictus, Poecilotheria 

Araneomorphs 

Scytodidae 3 

Loxosceles, Scytodes 

Tetrablemmidae 7 

Brignoliella, Pahanga, Shearella, Tetrablemma 

Pholcidae 18 

Artema, Belisana, Crossopriza, Leptopholcus, Micropholcus, Modisimus, Pholcus, 

Psilochorus, Smeringopus, Spermophora, Wanniyala 

Ochyroceratidae 7 

Merizocera, Simonocera 

Segestriidae 12 

Ariadna 

Stenochilidae 1 

Stenochilus 

Mimetidae 3 

Mimetus, Phobetinus 

Oonopidae 5 

Aprusia, Epectris, Gamasomorpha, Ischnothyreus, Opopaea, Orchestina, Xestaspis 

Eresidae 1 

Stegodyphys 

Oecobiidae 1 

Oecobius 

Hersiliidae 5 

Hersilia, Tama 

Uloboridae 6 

Hyptiotes, Miagrammopes, Uloborus, Zosis 

Nesticidae 1 

Nesticella 

Theridiidae 42 

Achaearanea, Anelosimus, Argyrodes, Cephalobares, Chrysso, Coleosoma, 

Coscinida, Dipoena, Enoplognatha, Episinus, Euryopis, Gnathonarium, 

Latrodectus, Molione,Phoroncidia, Steatoda, Theridion, Theridula, Thwaitesia 

74



Theridiosomatidae 2 

Ogulnius, Theridiosoma 

Theridiosomatidae 2 

Ogulnius, Theridiosoma 

Mysmenidae 2 

Mysmenella, Phricotelus 

Linyphiidae 20 

Atypena, Labullinyphia, Lepthyphantes, Meioneta, Metalepthyphantes, 

Microbathyphantes, Neriene, Obrimona, Lygarina, Nematogmus, Trematocephalus, 

Typhistes 

Tetragnathidae 28 

Dyschiriognatha, Nephila, Tetragnatha 

Araneidae 53 

Anepsion, Arachnura, Araneus, Argiope, Caerostris, Chorizopes, Clitaetrea, Cyclosa, 

Cyrtarachne, Cyrtophora, Gasteracantha, Gea, Glyptogona, Herennia, Homalopoltys, 

Mangora, Neogea, Neoscona, Nephilengys, Ordgarius, Poltys, Pronous,Ursa 

Hahniidae 5 

Aviola, Hahnia 

Dictynidae 5 

Atelolathys, Brigitta, Dictyna, Dictynomorpha, Rhion 

Agelenidae 2 

Tegenaria 

Titanoecidae 1 

Pandava 

Psechridae 2 

Fecena, Psechrus 

Oxyopidae 7 

Oxyopes, Peucetia 

Ctenidae 2 

Ctenus 

Zoridae 2 

Diallomus 

Lycosidae 16 

Arctosa, Hippasa, Hogna, Ocyale, Pardosa, Zoica 

Pisauridae 5 

Perenethis, Thalassius 

Miturgidae 4 

Campostichomma, Devendra 

Liocranidae 4 

Argistes, Paratus 

Clubionidae 11 

Cheiracanthium, Corinna, Matidia, Medmassa, Simalio, Sphingius 

Corinnidae 21 

Castianeira, Aetius, Coenoptychus, Copa (Koppe), Oedignatha, Orthobula, 

Sphecotypus, Trachelas, Utivarachna 

75


Zodariidae 6 

Cryptothele, Storena. Suffasia 

Cryptothelidae 1 

Cryptothele 

Selenopidae 1 

Selenops 

Sparassidae 22 

Heteropoda, Olios, Pandercetes, Spariolenus, Thelcticopis 

Philodromidae 2 

Thanatus, Gephyrota, Tibellus 

Thomisidae 36 

Amyciae, Ascurisoma, Boliscus, Borboropactus, Cymbacha, Diaea, Epidius, 

Holopelus, Lysiteles, Monaeses, Pagida, Peritraeus, Phrynarachne, Runcinia, 

Stiphropus, Tagulis, Talaus, Thomisus, Tmarus 

Salticidae 106 

Asemonea, Ballus, Bianor, Brettus, Carrhotus, Chrysilla, Cocalus, Colaxes, Colopsus, 

Cosmophasis, Curubis, Cyrba, Epidelazia, Epocilla, Euphrys, Flacillula, Gangus, 

Gelotia, Harmochirus, Hasarius, Hispo, Hyllus, Icius, Irura, Maevia, Marengo, 

Menemerus, Modunda, Mymarachne, Onomastus, Padillothoraz, Panachraesta, 

Panysinus, Phaeecius,Phausina, Phintella, Phyaces, Plexippus, Plotius, Portia, 

Ptocasius, Rhene, Saitis, Sandalodes, Sigytes, Siler, Simaetha, Spartaeus, Stergusa, 

Telamonia, Thiania, Thyene, Uroballus 

Total 501 

76

Bahir & Pethiyagoda: Conservation THE of FAUNA Sri Lankan OF SRI LANKA Freshwater (2006): Crabs 77-83 


Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Crabs 

Mohomed M. Bahir *§ & Rohan Pethiyagoda * 

* 

Wildlife Heritage Trust, 95 Cotta Road, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka. 

§ 

Durrell Institute for Conservation Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NS, U.K.. 

Abstract 

A surge in research interest on Sri Lanka’s freshwater crabs since the early 1990s has resulted in 

the discovery of several new crab species in the island, with 51 species being described to date. All 

Sri Lankan freshwater crab species recorded so far, along with 5 genera are endemic to the island. 

It is alarming to note that 37 of the 51 species are threatened with extinction, with 26 species being 

restricted to a single site. This paper discusses the threats in detail, and lists actions that need to be 

taken to safeguard these species from future extinction. Based on the findings it is apparent that 

conservation actions should involve not only more extensive research in to this field, but also legal 

and institutional reforms which will engage local communities in the in- situ conservation of 

freshwater crabs. 

Key words: Freshwater crabs, Conservation, Pollution, Invasive species 

Introduction 

The exploration of Sri Lanka’s freshwater crabs began 125 years ago with the description in 1880 of 

Thelphusa [now Perbrinckia] enodis and Thelphusa [Ceylonthelphusa] rugosa by the American 

zoologist, J. S. Kingsley. Following partial treatments by Rathbun (1904), Roux (1915) and Fernando (1960), 

the freshwater crab fauna of Sri Lanka was treated in a single revision for the first time only in 1970, by 

the German carcinologist R. Bott in his Süßwasserkrabben von Ceylon. 

In the early 1990s, there was a surge in interest in Sri Lanka’s freshwater crabs following a collaborative 

exploration and taxonomic treatment of this fauna by the National University of Singapore and the Wildlife 

Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka (Ng, 1994, 1995a, b; Bahir, 1998, 1999; Ng & Tay, 2001; Bahir & Ng, 2005; 

Bahir & Yeo, 2005). This was followed by an (on-going) island-wide survey of the freshwater 

carcinofauna commissioned by the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka. 

While only eight species in four genera were recognized as valid as at 1994, the fauna today stands at 51 

species in seven genera, with every prospect of the species-count increasing as exploration continues. 

Based on the present state of knowledge of the peninsular Indian carcinofauna (Bossuyt et al., 2004; MMB 

& D. C. J. Yeo, in prep.), it appears that all Sri Lankan freshwater-crab species are endemic, as are the 

genera Ceylonthelphusa, Perbrinckia, Mahatha, Clinothelphusa and Pastilla. The lowland genera 

Oziothelphusa and Spiralothelphusa, however, are shared also with southern India. 

All the Sri Lankan freshwater crabs belong to a single family, the Parathelphusidae (some species were 

assigned to the Sundathelphusidae by earlier workers, but this family has been synonymised with 

Parathelphusidae by recent authors). The restricted range of many species, together with extensive loss of 

habitat, cause concern for the security of this fauna into the future. Twenty-six of the 51 species presently 

recognized from Sri Lanka occur only at a single site each, rendering them extremely vulnerable to habitat 

loss, degradation and stochastic events. A conservation assessment leading to species under threat being 

identified and classified according to the IUCN’s Red List criteria was made by Bahir et al. (2005), using 

quantitative data to calculate the probability/risk of extinction for each species at the global scale; the 

present report draws heavily on the content of this paper. 

77


As a result of prioritising species for conservation action and gathering information on the distribution of 

and threats to each species through the Red List assessment process, it is now possible to proceed to the 

preparation of recovery plans for the conservation of threatened species. 

Country Background 

Sri Lanka (65,230 km 2 ) receives relatively low rainfall (< 2,000 mm yr -1 ) except in the south-western ‘wet 

zone’ (~ 17,200 km 2 ), where precipitation ranges from ~ 2,000–5,000 mm yr -1 . Diversity, richness and 

endemism across all taxa are much higher in the wet (including the montane) zone than in the dry zone, the 

biota of which resemble those of southern India. 

The wet zone, which accounts for only a quarter of Sri Lanka’s territory, contains 88% of the flowering 

plants occurring in the island, and 95% of the island’s angiosperm endemics (Dassanayake et al., 1980– 

2004). This pattern repeats also for other groups for which the results of recent surveys are available, such 

as amphibians (Meegaskumbura et al., 2002; Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005) and land snails 

(Naggs & Raheem, 2000; Naggs et al., 2005). Not surprisingly, the same is true also of the freshwater 

crabs, in which 41 (80%) of the 51 known species are restricted to the wet zone. Yet, only 4.6% of the 

wet zone (800 km 2 ) now contains natural forest. This predicament is exacerbated by the fact that the wet 

zone contains 67% of the island’s 19 million human population (Anon., 2003)—a density of 700km -2 — 

which is exceptional by the standards of all other global biodiversity hotspots (Cincotta et al., 2000). 

Given the very poor representation of Sri Lankan freshwater crabs in old museum collections, there is no 

reliable historical baseline against which to judge trends in distributions or populations. As a result, it is 

unlikely that evidence of recent extinctions will be found, unlike has been the case for flowering plants (~ 

130 species: see Dassanayake et al., 1980–2004); amphibians (19 species: Manamendra-Arachchi & 

Pethiyagoda, 2005; Stuart et al., 2004); and freshwater fish (2 species: Pethiyagoda, 1994). The 

conservation of the entire freshwater crab fauna, given its remarkable diversity, richness and endemism, is 

therefore a matter of the highest priority. 

Sri Lanka’s freshwater carcinofauna is undoubtedly rich in comparison with other similar, well-studied 

tropical Asian countries. For example, Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore, which together have a territory 

about twice the extent of Sri Lanka, have about the same number of freshwater crab species (Ng, 1988), 

while Taiwan (36,000 km 2 ) has 34 species (Ng et al., 2001). 

Conservation 

With 37 of 51 species threatened with global extinction, it is clear that conservation interventions are 

urgently necessary. The urgency is more so given that freshwater crabs are not targeted for exploitation in 

Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, several important conservation-relevant questions remain unanswered for lack of 

data. Are the crab species that are known from exceedingly small populations naturally rare or cryptic, or 

are they the vanishing remnants of a sudden decline? Have species been reduced to extremely small 

Extents of Occurrence because of habitat loss (or other impacts) or are their distributions naturally so 

severely restricted? 

We propose that a precautionary approach be adopted in determining strategies for conserving this fauna: 

the present tentative conservation assessments should be accepted at face value, and recovery strategies 

devised accordingly, until data become available to support the conclusion that each threatened species is 

in fact secure. 

Sri Lanka’s aquatic habitats are threatened by invasive alien species (>90% of the freshwater-fish biomass 

comprises exotics: Pethiyagoda, 1994) and pollution, while its forests are threatened by encroachment and 

illegal produce extraction. The greater threats to the island’s remaining wet zone habitats are perceived to 

be from indirect sources exacerbated by ‘island effects’ resulting from fragmentation — invasive species, 

78

Bahir & Pethiyagoda: Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Crabs 

encroachment, pesticide influx, edge effects, local climate change (Schaefer, 1998), rainwater acidification 

and increased erosion (and consequential silt load in flowing waters). 

Pesticides are a serious concern given that these substances are freely and widely used in Sri Lanka. 

Regulation presently addresses only human safety issues, and not impacts on other non-target organisms or 

the environment in general (Anon., 1980). Given that 24 of Sri Lanka’s 51 freshwater crab species are 

restricted to montane and sub-montane habitats, poor sloping-land management and unwise land-use 

change in the highlands continues to be a serious problem (Hewawasam et al., 2003). An estimated 292 

MT ha -1 yr -1 of topsoil is lost to erosion from these lands, degrading habitats and increasing silt loads in 

streams and rivers (ADB, 2003). 

A handful of freshwater-crab species have wide distributions and are clearly tolerant of land-use change, 

given that they persist in rice fields (e.g. Oziothelphusa spp.) and tea plantations (e.g. Ceylonthelphusa 

rugosa and Ceylonthelphusa soror). Even such species, however, could suffer catastrophic declines as a 

result of changes, for example, in land development, hydrology or pesticide-use regimes. It is noteworthy 

that the populations of two species of widely distributed freshwater fishes (Labeo lankae and 

Macrognathus aral) assessed in 1980 as “common” (Senanayake, 1980) crashed within a decade, without 

warning, for reasons still unknown— they are now presumed extinct (Pethiyagoda, 1994). 

It is of immediate concern that 26 (51%) of the island’s 51 crab species are known from Extents of 

Occurrence


2. Periodic monitoring of Critically Endangered species is necessary, especially so as to detect actions 

that could alter habitat, so that these could be treated before they impact on the population involved. 

3. All pesticides approved for release in Sri Lanka should be assessed for impact on non-target 

organisms and the environment in general, and the labelling of such products should include 

information on environmental safeguards. 

4. Legal and institutional reforms need to be made to engage local communities in the in situ 

conservation of point-endemic freshwater crabs. 

5. The ex situ management of crabs is still in its infancy. It is necessary that capacity in ex situ 

management be built so that captive populations of Critically Endangered species could be maintained. 

Literature cited 

ADB (Asian Development Bank), 2003. Sri Lanka: environmental statistics (PDF). http://www.adb.org/ 

Documents/EDRC/Statistics/Environment/srilanka.pdf [accessed 01.01.2004]. 

Anonymous, 1980. Control of Pesticides Act. Government Publications Bureau, Colombo. 32 pp. 

Anonymous, 2003. Statistical pocket book, 2003. Department of Census and Statistics, Colombo. 100 pp. 

Bahir, M. M. 1998. Three new species of montane crabs of the genus Perbrinckia (Crustacea, 

Parathelphusidae) from the central mountains of Sri Lanka. Journal of South Asian Natural 

History, 3: 197–212. 

Bahir, M. M., 1999. Description of three new species of freshwater crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda: 

Parathelphusidae: Ceylonthelphusa) from the south-western rain forests of Sri Lanka. Journal of 


Bahir, M. M. & P. K. L. Ng, 2005. Description of ten new species of freshwater crabs (Parathelphusidae: 

Ceylonthelphusa, Mahatha, Perbrinckia) from Sri Lanka. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng & R. 

Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles 

Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 47–75. 

Bahir, M. M., Ng, P. K. L., Crandall, K. & R. Pethiyagoda, 2005. A conservation assessment of the 

freshwater crabs of Sri Lanka. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions 

to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 

No. 12: 121–126. 

Bahir, M. M. & D. C. J. Yeo, 2005. A revision of the genus Oziotelphusa Müller, 1887 (Crustacea: 

Decapoda: Parathelphusidae), with descriptions of eight new species. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng 

& R. Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri Lanka. The 


Bierregaard, R.O., C. Gascon, T. E. Lovejoy & R. Masquita, 2001. Lessons from Amazonia: the ecology 

and conservation of a fragmented forest. Yale University Press, New Haven. 478 pp. 

Bossuyt, F., M. Meegaskumbura, N. Beenaerts, D. J. Gower, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Roelants, A. Mannaert, 

M. Wilkinson, M. M. Bahir, K. Manamendra-Arachchi, P. K. L. Ng, C. J. Schneider, O. V. Oommen 

& M. C. Milinkovitch, 2004. Local endemism within the Western Ghats–Sri Lanka Biodiversity 

Hotspot. Science, 306: 479–481. 

Bott, R., 1970. Die Süßwasserkrabben von Ceylon. Arkiv för Zoologi, 22: 627–640. 

Brook, B.W., N. S. Sodhi, & P. K. L. Ng, 2003. Catastrophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore. 

Nature, 424: 420–423. 

Cincotta, R.P., J. Wisnewski & R. Engelman, 2000. Human populations in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature, 

404: 990–992. 

80


Dassanayake, M. D., F. R. Fossberg & W. D. Clayton (eds.), 1980–2004. A revised handbook to the 

flora of Ceylon. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi. 15 vols. 

Ferraz, G., G. J. Russel, P. C. Stouffer, R. O. Bierregaard, S. L. Pimm, & T. E. Lovejoy, 2003. Rates of 

species loss from Amazonian forest fragments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 

100: 14069–14073. 

Gunawardena, E. R. N., U. Rajapakshe, K. A. Nandasena, & P. T. W. Rosier, 1998. Water quality issues 

in the uplands of Sri Lanka. In: Gunasena, H.P.M. (ed.), Proceedings of the final workshop: 

University of Peradeniya — Oxford Forestry Institute Link Project. Faculty of Agriculture, Univ. 

Peradeniya, Peradeniya. Pp. 37–44. 

Hewawasam, T., F. von Blanckenburg, M. Schaller & P. Kubik, 2003. Increase of human over natural 

erosion rates in tropical highlands constrained by cosmogenic nuclides. Geology, 31: 597–600. 

IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), 2001. The IUCN Red 

List of Threatened Species: 2001 Categories and Criteria (version 3.1). http://www.redlist.org/ 

info/categories_criteria2001.html [accessed 01.01.2004]. 


Gistel, 1848 (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae), with description of 27 new species. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. 

Ng & R. Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to biodiversity exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The 


Meegaskumbura, M., F. Bossuyt, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Manamendra-Arachchi, M. Bahir, M. C. Milinkovitch 

& C. J. Schneider, 2002. Sri Lanka: An Amphibian Hotspot. Science, 298: 379. 

Naggs, F. & D. Raheem, 2000. Land snail diversity in Sri Lanka. Natural History Museum, London. CD ROM. 

Naggs, F., D. Raheem, K. Ranawana & Y. Mapatuna, 2005. The Darwin Initiative project on Sri Lankan 

land snails: patterns of diversity in Sri Lankan forests. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda 

(eds.), Contributions to Biodiversity Exploration and Research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of 

Zoology, Supplement No. 12: 23–29. 

Ng, P. K. L., 1988. The freshwater crabs of peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Department Zoology, 

National University of Singapore. viii+156 pp., 4 pls. 

Ng, P. K. L., 1989. Endemic freshwater crabs in Singapore: discovery, speciation and conservation. 

Singapore Institute of Biology Bulletin, 13: 4551. 

Ng, P. K. L., 1990a. Endemic freshwater crabs and prawns of Singapore. In: Chou, L. M. & P. K. L. Ng 

(eds.), Essays in Zoology. Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore. Pp. 189–204. 

Ng, P. K. L., 1990b. Parathelphusa reticulata sp. nov., a new species of freshwater crab from blackwater 

swamps in Sigapore (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Gecarcinucoidea). Zoologische 

Mededelingen, 63: 241–254. 

Ng, P. K. L., 1994. A note on the freshwater crabs of the genus Spiralothelphusa Bott, 1968 (Crustacea: 

Decapoda: Brachyura: Parathelphusidae), with description of a new species from Sri Lanka. Journal 


Ng, P. K. L., 1995a. A revision of the Sri Lankan montane crabs of the genus Perbrinckia Bott, 1969 

(Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Parathelphusidae). Journal South Asian Natural History, 1: 129–174. 

Ng, P. K. L., 1995b. Ceylonthelphusa scansor, a new species of tree-climbing crab from Sinharaja Forest 

in Sri Lanka (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Parathelphusidae). Journal South Asian Natural 

History, 1: 175–184. 

Ng, P. K. L. & W. M. Tay, 2001. The freshwater crabs of Sri Lanka (Decapoda: Brachyura: 

Parathelphusidae). Zeylanica, 6: 113–199. 

81


Ng, P. K. L., C. -H. Wang, P. -H. Ho & H. -T. Shih, 2001. An annotated checklist of brachyuran crabs from 

Taiwan (Crustacea: Decapoda). National Taiwan Museum Special Publication Series, 11: 1–86, 8 pls. 

Pethiyagoda, R., 1994. Threats to the indigenous freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka and remarks on their 

conservation. Hydrobiologia, 285: 189–201. 

Schaefer, D. 1998. Climate change in Sri Lanka? Statistical analyses of long-term temperature and rainfall 

records. In: Domroes, M. & Roth, H. (eds.), Sri Lanka: past and present — Archaeology, geography, 

economics — selected papers on German research. Margraf Verlag, Weikersheim. Pp. 103–117. 

Senanayake, F. R., 1980. The biogeography and ecology of the inland fishes of Sri Lanka. 

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California, 

Davis. 421 pp. 

Stuart, S., J. S. Chanson, N. A. Cox, B. E. Young, A. S. L. Rodrigues, D. L. Fischman & R. W. Waller, 

2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science, 306: 1783–1786. 

Table 1: Checklist of the freshwater crabs of Sri Lanka (Parathelphusidae). Conservation status is derived 

using the IUCN (2001) Red List criteria. CR, Critically Endangered; EN, Endangered; VU, 

Vulnerable; NT, Near Threatened; LC, Least Concern. Extent occurrence is estimated based on 

available habitat; Number of Locations is the number of discontiguous sites from which the 

species was recorded; Habitat Protection notes whether at least one population lies within a 

protected area and if so, the institution managing the protected area: FD = Forest Department, 

WD = Department of Wildlife Conservation. 

Species Conservation ~ Ext. of No. of Habitat 

Status Occurrence (km 2 ) sites protection 

Ceylonthelphusa alpina EN 10 2 Y FD 

Ceylonthelphusa armata EN 20 2 N 

Ceylonthelphusa callista CR 5 1 N 

Ceylonthelphusa cavatrix VU 10 3 Y FD 

Ceylonthelphusa diva CR 10 1 N 

Ceylonthelphusa durrelli CR 1 1 N 

Ceylonthelphusa kandambyi NT 1,750 5 Y FD 

Ceylonthelphusa kotagama CR 5 1 Y FD 

Ceylonthelphusa nata CR 5 1 N 

Ceylonthelphusa orthos CR 5 1 N 

Ceylonthelphusa rugosa LC > 20,000 >10 Y FD/WD 

Ceylonthelphusa savitriae CR 5 1 N 

Ceylonthelphusa sentosa LC 5,000 >10 Y FD 

Ceylonthelphusa sanguinea CR 10 1 Y FD 

Ceylonthelphusa soror LC 5,600 >10 Y FD/WD 

Ceylonthelphusa venusta NT 250 3 Y FD 

Clinothelphusa kakoota CR 100 1 N 

Mahatha adonis NT 2,000 3 Y FD 

Mahatha helaya CR 5 1 N 

82


Mahatha iora CR 100 1 N 

Mahatha lacuna CR 5 1 N 

Mahatha ornatipes LC 5,000 >10 Y FD 

Mahatha regina CR 5 1 N 

Oziothelphusa ceylonensis NT 12,000 5 N 

Oziothelphusa dakuna EN 1,000 2 Y WD 

Oziothelphusa gallicola EN 100 2 N 

Oziothelphusa hippocastanum NT > 20,000 3 Y WD 

Oziothelphusa intuta CR 10 1 N 

Oziothelphusa kodagoda CR 10 1 N 

Oziothelphusa mineriyaensis LC 2,500 2 Y WD 

Oziothelphusa populosa EN 2,000 2 N 

Oziothelphusa ritigala VU 900 1 Y WD 

Oziothelphusa stricta NT 10,000 5 Y WD 

Pastilla ruhuna EN 350 3 Y FD 

Perbrinckia fenestra VU 1 1 Y FD 

Perbrinckia cracens CR 10 1 N 

Perbrinckia enodis CR 10 1 Y WD 

Perbrinckia fido CR 10 1 N 

Perbrinckia gabadagei VU 10 1 Y WD 

Perbrinckia glabra VU 50 1 Y WD 

Perbrinckia integra NT 300 5 Y FD/WD 

Perbrinckia morayensis CR 100 1 Y WD 

Perbrinckia nana NT 1,750 5 Y FD 

Perbrinckia punctata CR 50 1 Y WD 

Perbrinckia quadratus CR 5 1 N 

Perbrinckia rosae CR 5 1 N 

Perbrinckia scansor LC 6,500 >10 Y FD 

Perbrinckia scitula CR 80 2 N 

Perbrinckia uva VU 120 3 Y FD 

Spiralothelphusa fernandoi EN 1,800 2 N 

Spiralothelphusa parvula EN 250 3 N 

83



Abstract 

Land Snails in Sri Lanka 

K.B. Ranawana* 

*Department of Zoology, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka 

Land snails in Sri Lanka form a highly diverse group. Of the 246 land snail species recorded from 

the island, 83% are endemic to the country. These include five endemic and relict land snail genera. 

Pulmonate land snails (Sub class Pulmonata) form the major group (64% of the total) of the land 

snail fauna in Sri Lanka, while prosobranch land snails (Sub class Prosobranchia) form the balance 

component (36%). About 18 exotic snail and slug species have been introduced to the country during 

the last century, mainly through the agricultural trade. The introduced pest snail and slug species 

have been concentrated in vegetable growing landscapes in the high altitude region. Pest species 

have not moved deep inside the natural forests. Most of island’s land snail diversity is concentrated 

in lowland wet zone forests and wet montane forest regions of the country. Therefore, the 

conservation of these important forest regions is essential for the long-term survival of the islands’ 

rich land snail fauna. 

Key words: Molluscs, Species richness, Endemicity, Distribution, Conservation 

Introduction to molluscs 

Molluscs are among the most ancient of animals on earth today. They appear in the oldest Cambrian 

deposits, more than 500 million years BP (Kay, 1995). With an estimated 80,000 species worldwide, 

molluscs (snails and slugs) comprise the second most diverse animal phyla after arthropods (Solem, 1984; 

Emberton et al., 1997). They also form a most successful animal group living today (Kay, 1995). Majority 

of the molluscs are aquatic (marine and freshwater) while terrestrial species comprise of about 25% of the 

total number (Emberton et al., 1997). 

Class Gastropods is the largest class of molluscs having over 75,000 living species. Gastropod molluscs are 

the most successful of all molluscan classes and thy have colonized a wide range of habitats including the 

oceans, freshwaters as well as the land. The class Gastropods is divided in to three major subclasses, 

namely Prosobranchia, Opisthobranchia and Pulmonata. Opisthobranchs are generally marine. 

Prosobranchs have robust calcareous shells, long thin tentacles with eyes at their bases and a circular plate, 

the operculum, fixed to the top of the shell, which closes the shell’s aperture when the snail retracts. The 

sexes are separate. Land pulmonates are highly evolved for a terrestrial life than are Prosobranchs and 

their physiology and anatomy is more specialized for dealing with life on land. Some pulmonates possess 

shells as solid as those of prosobranchs but many do not. The shells often have little calcium carbonate 

and may be largely made from protein. The shell may be reduced in size to the extent that the snail can no 

longer retract into its shell as in Eurychlamys. In several independent pulmonate lineages such as slugs a 

shell is residual or completely absent. Most pulmonates have a lower pair of chemosensory and tactile 

tentacles and all possess a longer pair of upper tentacles with eyes located in the bulbous tips. They are 

hermophrodites with a combined genital orifice usually sites just behind the right tentacles (Barnes, 1982). 

During recent years, molluscs along with other animals and plants are undergoing a rapid process of 

extinction largely due to human activities, and the present extinctions of species occur in time spans of less 

than ten years (Kay, 1995). Majority of the terrestrial molluscs are forest dwellers, which are sensitive to 

habitat disturbance. Therefore, the terrestrial molluscs are of regional and global concern, from the 

biodiversity conservation point of view (Emberton, 1995; Tattersfield et al., 2001). Molluscs have become 

important elements in the studies on mechanisms of evolution and examining the effects of ecology on 

84

Ranawana: Land Snails in Sri Lanka 

evolutionary change (Crampton, 1932; Cain and Sheppard 1950; Cain and Currey, 1963; Cowie, 1992; 

Johnson et al., 1993). Their low vagility also makes them suitable as indicators for biogeographical studies 

of early tectonic events (Solem, 1981). 

Land snail communities occur nearly world-wide, with sympatric species richness varying from one in sub 

Antarctic islands (Solem, 1984) to 97 indigenous species recorded from a patch of rainforest in 

southwestern Camaroon (de Winter and Gittenberger, 1998). According to Solem (1984) land snail 

communities with more than 30 species is extremely rare, especially in tropical rainforests, where “snails 

generally are neither diverse nor abundant”. However, recent land snail surveys conducted in afromontane 

forests of Mount Kenya (Tattersfield et al., 2001) and Pukeamaru Ecological District in northeastern New 

Zealand (Barker and Mayhill, 1999) resulted in recording high species richness (68 species from Mount 

Kenya and 94 species from New Zealand), indicating that land snails are a poorly understood group in 

tropical forests (de Winter and Gittenberger, 1998). According to Lange and Mwinzi (2003), although the 

malacofauna is facing a conservation challenge, patterns of their biodiversity in many parts of the world 

are poorly understood. 

Most of the ecological studies on land snails in the tropics are confined to African tropics (de Winter and 

Gittenberger, 1998; Emberton et al., 1997; Lange and Maes, 2001; Lange and Mwinzi 2003; Tattersfield, 

1996; Tattersfield, 1998, Tattersfield, 2001). Similarly, land molluscs in the Madagascan rainforests have 

also been well studied (Emberton, 1995). Outside the tropical region more attention has been paid for the 

land molluscs in New Zealand, where there is a high species richness (Barker and Pauline, 1999; Emberton, 

1995). A comparatively limited amount of work has been carried out on land molluscs in the South Asian 

region. 

Studies on land snail fauna of Sri Lanka 

Studies on land snails in Sri Lanka was initiated more than 100 years ago (Collet, 1897, 1898, 1900; 

Blanford and Godwin-Austen, 1908; Guade 1914, 1921). Although these works were mainly on the 

taxonomy and distribution of species, they still remain as the pioneering work on the land molluscs in Sri 

Lanka. After this initial period, work on land molluscs showed very slow progress until the 1980’s 

(Ratnapala, 1984; Ratnapala and Arudpragasam, not dated; Breckenridge and Fallil, 1973). A revival of 

interest on ecological research on Sri Lankan land molluscs occurred in the late 1990’s (Morden et al., 

2003; Naggs et al., 2003; Raheem et al., 2000; Raheem and Butterworth, 1998). Commencement of the 

Darwin Initiative (UK) land snail diversity project in Sri Lanka (1999 – 2002) was mainly responsible for 

initiating the second phase of ecological research on Sri Lankan land molluscs. 

Although there is a growing interest on ecological research on land molluscs in Sri Lanka little is known of 

the ranges of distribution and population sizes of a large proportion of the fauna. Basic distributional 

information is lacking for nearly 30% of snail taxa known from Sri Lanka. Many of the endemic species 

are known only from single localities and they have not been recorded since the publication of the last 

volume of the Fauna of British India series in 1921 (Raheem et. al., 2000). 

Land snail surveys conducted in Sri Lanka during the recent past have focused on the distribution of land 

snails in the wet southeastern part of the county, where there is a high endemism of species (Naggs et al., 

2003; Raheem, et al., 2000; Raheem and Butterworth, 1998). Natural forest of the other parts of the 

country has not been surveyed to the same extent and hence data on the distribution and diversity of land 

snails in those regions are not available. Naggs et al. (2003) stressed that land snails are ideal subjects for 

addressing high priority questions relating to rainforest biotas and have long been recognized as possessing 

a number of attributes that make them particularly suitable subjects for studies in evolutionary biology. Due 

to their low mobility land snails have become models for studying the effects of pesticides and influence of 

the activities of man in altering the environment. Therefore, information on the distribution and ecology of 

land snails is an important prerequisite for monitoring habitat quality. Some land snails are vectors of 

helminthic diseases of vertebrates in Sri Lanka (Ratnapala, 1984). 

85


Species richness and endemicity of land snails 

Species richness and endemicity is high among Sri Lankan land snails (Naggs et al., 2003). Approximately 

246 species of land snails are known from Sri Lanka of which the majority (83%) are endemic to the 

country (Naggs and Raheem, 2000). Sub class Pulmonata is represented by 159 species in 23 families and 

subclass Prosobranchia is represented by 88 species in four families (Appendix 1). This indicates that the 

pulmonate group dominates land snails in Sri Lanka. 

The families Ariophantidae (mainly Cryptozona and Euplecta) with 45 species and Glessulidae (22 

species) are the largest pulmonate families found in the country. Cyclophoridae (48 species) is the largest 

Prosobranch family (Appendix 1) 

Much of this endemism is concentrated in the wet, southwestern portion of the island (Raheem, 2000). A 

significant portion of Sri Lankan snail fauna consists of Gondwanan relicts, with origins dating back prior to 

the break up of the southern super-continent over 100 million years ago (Naggs et al., 2003). Despite its 

faunistic affinities with Indian mainland the Sri Lankan land mollusc fauna is the most distinct in the South 

Asian Region (Naggs et al., 2003). A total of five land snail genera, namely, Ravana, Ratnadvipia, 

Acavus, Oligospira and Aulopoma are endemic to Sri Lanka. Except for the latter Genus, the rest 

belongs to the pulmonate group. Fourteen species are included in these five genera. All the species 

belonging to these genera show discontinued distribution and are restricted to few specific habitats. 

Although some large and brilliantly coloured snails of the Genus Acavus has attracted attention from 

scientists, nature lovers and traditional medical practitioners (Hausdorf and Perera, 2000; Perera, 1991), 

ecological information on the species of other four genera are almost lacking. 

Land-snail fauna in Sri Lanka bears evidence of the island’s long association with the Indian subcontinent. 

Of the 60 land snail genera recorded from the island 13 (Ruthvenia, Thysanota, Cryptozona, Euplecta, 

Mariaella, Eurychlamys, Corilla, Beddomea, Trachia, Leptopomodes, Micraulax, Tortulosa and 

Nicida) are restricted to Sri Lanka and Peninsular India, primarily to Western Ghats; approximately 50% 

of the 247 species recorded from the island belong to genera endemic to southern India and Sri Lanka 

(Raheem et al., 2000) 

About 18 exotic land snails and slug species, most of which are agricultural pests, have also been recorded 

from the country during recent studies (Naggs et al., 2003). 

Land snail distribution 

Recently concluded studies (Raheem et al., 2000; Ranawana, 2005) show that the lowland rainforest zone 

and the montane rainforest zone in Sri Lanka have distinctive snail faunas. The lowland rainforest fauna is 

composed of a widely distributed element and a localized or restricted-range component. Widely distributed 

lowland rainforest species include Cryptozona chenui, Ratnadvipia irradians, Acavus phoenix, Corilla 

adamsi, Beddomea albizonatus aggregate and Leptopoma semiclausum These taxa range across most 

or all of the forested area of the lowland wet zone: some species such as Ratnadvipia irradians occur in 

both forest and non forest habitats (Raheem et al., 2000). 

Recent and on-going studies on land snails in Sri Lanka 

Recently concluded Darwin Initiative Land Snail Diversity project: October 1999 – October 2002, was the 

most intensive study undertaken to evaluate the status of land snails in the country (excluding the Knuckles 

Region) during the last century. During this three-year study approximately 150 morphospecies were 

recorded, including 110 endemic species. At least 50 species (undescribed) are new to science, which 

include several unidentified genera and exotic species (Naggs et al., 2005). Systematic work on these new 

species is now being carried out at the Natural History Museum, London. 

86


Forty-nine species of land snails have been recorded from Knuckles region alone during the same period. 

Of these, 37 species haven been positively identified in to species level while 12 species could not be 

identified to the species level. These included 36 species of pulmonates, while 15 were prosobranchs. Of 

the 49 species recorded 28 (57%) were endemics, including species representing three endemic genera. 

Of the 39 species recorded from the montane forests of Knuckles 22 were endemics, including three 

endemic genera. Sub montane forests supported 20 endemic species including four endemic genera. The 

intermediate zone forests of Knuckles harboured 19 endemic species with three endemic genera (Table 1) 

(Ranawana, 2005). 

Darwin initiative Land Survey has also resulted in recording 18 exotic species of snails and slugs (Table 2) 

with seven previously unrecorded species (Arion intermedius, Cochlicopa lubrica, Deroceras laeve, D. 

reticulatum, Milax gagates, Oxychilus alliarius and a Semperula sp.) (Naggs et al., 2003). Most of the 

exotic species are recorded in association with agricultural land, especially in Nuwara Eliya area, where 

climatic conditions are conducive for their survival and reproduction. Although the exotic Lissachatina 

fulica occurs along the forest edges, no other exotic species have been found inside natural forests. The 

threats from these exotics to the survival of the endemic land snail fauna in the country are yet to be 

evaluated. 

Table 1: Land snail distribution in the Knuckles region (+ present, - absent, * Endemic species , ** 

Endemic Genera Habitats: MF – Montane Forest; MC – Montane Cardamom; SMF – 

Submontane Forest; SMC- Submontane Cardamom. SMGL- Submontane Grasslands; IMF- 

Intermediate Zone Forests; IMHG - Intermediate Zone Home Gardens.) 

Family 

Pulmonata 

Species 

Montane Sub montnae zone Intermediate 

zone 

Zone 

MF MC SMF SMC SMGL IMF IMHG 

ACAVIDAE Oligospira polei** + - + + + + - 

ACHATINIDAE Achatina fulica - - - - - + + 

ARIOPHANTIDAE Cryptozona bistrialis + - + + + + + 

Cryptozona ceraria* + + - - - + - 

Cryptozona chenui* + + + + - + - 

Euplecta colletti* - + + - - - - 

Euplecta indica - - - - - + - 

Euplecta layardi* - - - - - - + 

Euplecta Sp A + + + + + + - 

Euplecta new Sp. B + + + + + + - 

Euplecta partita* + + + + - + - 

Euplecta prestoni* - - - + - - - 

Euplecta semidecussata + + + + - + + 

Euplecta travancorica + + + + + + + 

Macrochlamys nepas* + - - - - - - 

Macrochlamys woodina + - + + + + + 

Rathnadvipia irradians** + - + + + - + 

Ravana politissima** - - + - - - + 

87


BULIMINIDAE Mirus stalix* + - - - - + - 

CAMAENIDAE Beddomea albizonata* + - + + + + + 

CAMAENIDAE Beddomea trifasciatus* - - + + - + + 

CHAROPIDAE Ruthvenia sp A + + + + + + + 

CHAROPIDAE Thysanota elegans* - - - + - - - 

CORILLIDAE Corilla colletti* + + + + + - + 

Corilla gudei* + + + + + + - 

ENDODONTIDAE Philalanka sp A + + + - - + - 

EUCONULIDAE Eurychlamys regulata* - - + - - + + 

GLESSULIDAE Allopeas layardi* - + - + - - - 

Glessula sp A + + + + + + + 

Glessula sp B + + + + + + + 

STEPTAXIDAE Indoartemom layardianus* + - - - - + - 

SUBULINIDAE Subulina octona - + - + + + + 

VERONICELLIDAE Laevicaulis alte - - - - - - + 

VERTIGINIDAE Pupisoma longstaffae* + - + - - + - 

Prosobranchia 

CYCLOPHORIDAE Aulopoma grande** + + + + - + + 

Aulopoma Sp.A.** + + + + + + + 

Aulopoma Sp B** + - + - - + - 

Cyclophorus ceylanicus* - + + + - + + 

Japonia vesca* + - - - + + - 

Leptopomoides poecilus* - - + - - + - 

Leptopoma Sp.A - + + + + - - 

Pterocyclus cumingi + - - - - + - 

Theobaldius annulatus* + + + + + + + 

Theobaldius bairdi* + + + + + - - 

Theobaldius Sp. A + + + + + + - 

Theobaldius subplicatus* + - - - - - - 

PUPINIDAE Tortulosa nevilli* + + - - - - - 

Tortulosa Sp A + + + - - - - 

Tortulosa Sp B + - + - - - - 

88


Table 2: Distribution of the 18 exotic land snail species across the four major climatic zones of Sri Lanka 

(source: Naggs et al., 2003) 

lowlands (1000m altitude) of the wet zone 

a 

include plantations, vegetable field and home gardens 

* occur in natural forest, which has been subjected to intensive selective logging in the last three decades. 

SPECIES CLIMATIC ZONE HABITAT 

Conservation issues 

Lowland Highland Inter Dry Modi Natural 

Wet Wet mediate fied a Forest 

Allopeas gracile + + + - + - 

A. panayensis + - + - + - 

Arion intermedius - + - - + - 

Bradybaena similaris + + - - + - 

Cochlicopa lubrica - + - - + - 

Deroceras laeve - + - - + - 

D. reticulatum - + - - + - 

Eustreptaxis kibweziensis - - + - + - 

Gulella bicolor - - + + + - 

Kaliella barrakporensis + + - + + +* 

Laevicaulis alte + - + - + +* 

Lissachatina fulica + + + + + + * 

Mariaella dussumieri + + + - + - 

Milax gagates - + - - + - 

Oxychilus alliarius - + - - + - 

Phaedusa ceylanica - + - - + - 

Semperula sp. + - - - + +* 

Subulina octona + 0 + 0 + - 

Total 9 12 8 3 18 4* 

Habitat loss is the main threat faced by land snails in the country today. The high diversity areas such as 

lowland rainforests of the wet zone are highly fragmented. Ground cover of the mountain regions like 

Knuckles Region is cleared for cardamom cultivation. Since most of our land snails are leaf litter 

inhabitants, clearance of forest floor is detrimental to their survival. Vast are of land in the wet zone of Sri 

Lanka was inundated due to large scale dam construction for river diversion (especially the Mahaweli 

river) and hydroelectric generations. Such land losses due to development activities either minimize the 

area available for land snails or completely wipe out a species from the area due to habitat loss. Frequent 

fires in the grasslands, scrublands and forests are detrimental to the survival of land snails and as a result 

very few land snail species are recorded from the grasslands, which are subjected to repeated fires. Use 

of agrochemicals is also harmful to native land snail species found in association with human settlements. 

Species belonging to endemic genera such as Acavus and Ratnadvipia, which are found in synanthropic 

habitats are severely affected by agrochemicals. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Lowland rainforests in the wet zone and the montane zone forests harbour a significant portion of island’s 

land snail diversity and endemism with many species restricted to localized areas in these zones. Survival 

89


of highly diverse land snail fauna of Sri Lanka is therefore dependent on the effective conservation of the 

country’s remaining rainforest fragments and the montane forests. The following recommendations are 

made to promote research and conservation activities of land snails of Sri Lanka: 

• Conduct research on the ecology and distribution of land snails of Sri Lanka, with particular emphasis 

on the endemic and relict taxa which intern help us to identify the land snail hotspots 

• Develop plans for population restoration of endemic and relict species which are facing the danger of 

extinction due to habitat loss (such as development activities, inundation of land due to dam building). 

The affected taxa could be translocated to a suitable areas having similar habitat conditions. 

• There should be a strict regulation to control the entry of exotic land snails in to the country. These 

exotic species have entered the country mainly through the import trade of vegetables and foliage 

plants. In the mean time attempts should be made to control these exotic species as much as possible 

before they colonize natural forest habitats in the country 

• Care should be taken to control the spread of some predatory gastropods, which has been introduced 

to the country in early 1950’s to control Lissachatina fulica. Still individuals of predatory gastropod 

Eustreptaxis kibweziensis are recorded from Peradeniya, where it was first introduced. This 

predatory carnivore population has to be eradicated before it enters the natural habitats. 


Baker, G.M., and P. C. Mayhill. 1999. Patterns of diversity and habitat relationships in terrestrial mollusc 

communities of the Pukeamaru Ecological District, northeastern New Zealand. Journal of 

Biogeography 26: 215 – 238. 

Barns, R.D. 1980. Invertebrate Zoology. Holt- Saunders, Tokyo, Japan: 316 – 362pp. 

Blanford, W. T. and Godwin – Austin, H.H. 1908. Mollusca, Vol. I, Testacellidae and Zontidae. Fauna 

of British India. Taylor and Francis, London. 

Breckenridge, W.R., and S.F.M. Fallil. 1973. Histological observations on the reproductive system of 

Achatina fulica (Gastropods, Pulmonata, Stylommatophora). Ceylon Journal of Science 

(Biological Science), 10 (2): 85 – 118. 

Cain, A. J. and J.D. Currey. 1963. Area effects in Cepaea. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal 

Society of London, ser B,. 256: 1 -81. 

Cain, A. J. and P.M. Sheppard. 1950. Selection of in the polymorphic lad snail Cepaes nemoralis. 

Heridity, 4: 275 – 294. 

Collet, O. 1900. Contribution to Ceylon Malacology. (3) The terrestrial Mollusca of 

Ambagamuwa (Part II). Journal, R.A.S. (Ceylon) 16 (51): 132 -139. 

Collet, O. 1898. Contribution to Ceylon Malacology. (2) Description of a new helicoids land shell from 

the southern province. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Ceylon Branch), 15 (49): 153 - 154. 

Collet, O. 1897. Contribution to Ceylon Malacology. (1) The terrestrial Mollusca of Ambagamuwa. 

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Ceylon Branch), 15 (48): 12 -22. 

Cowie, R.H. 1992. Variation in species diversity and shell shape in Hawaiian land snails: in situ speciation 

and ecological relationships. Evolution 49, 1191 – 1202. 

De Winter, A.J. and E. Gittenberger. 1998. The land snail fauna of a square kilometre of rainforest in SW 

Cameroon: high species richness, low abundance and seasonal fluctuations. Malacologia, 40, 231 -250. 

Emberton, K.C., T.A. Pearce, P. F. Kasigawa, P. Tattersfield and Z. Habibu. 1997. High diversity and regional 

endemism in land snails of eastern Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6: 1123 – 1136. 

Emberton, K.C. 1995. Land-snail community morphologies of the highest-diversity sites of Madagascar, 

North America and New Zealand, with recommended alternatives to height-diameter plots. 

Malacologia, 36 (1 -2): 43 -66. 

Gude, G.K. 1921. Mollusca, Vol. III. Land Operculates (Cycloporidae, Truccatellidae, Assimineidae, 

Helicinidae). Fauna of British India. Taylor and Francis, London, 386p. 

90


Gude, G.K. 1914. Mollusca, Vol. II. Trochomorphidae – Janellidae, Fauna of British India. Taylor and 

Francis, London, 520p. 

Hausdorf, B., and K.K. Perera. 2000. Revision of the genus Acavus fron Sri lanka (Gastropods: 

Acavidae). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 66: 217 – 231. 

Kay, E.A. 1995. Which molluscs for extinction?. In: The conservation Biology of Molluscs. ed. E. 

Alison Kay. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, Chapter 1; 1-11. 

Lange, C.N., and M. Mwinzi. 2003. Snail diversity, abundance and distribution in Arabuko Sokoke forest, 

Kenya. African Journal of Ecology, 41: 61 – 67. 

Lange, C.N., and K. Maes. 2001. The land snails of Kakamega forest in Kenya. African Journal of 

Ecology, 39: 219 – 222. 

Morden, P., F. Naggs, K. Ranawana, S. Kumburegama, and B. Grimm. 2003. A guide to the PEST and 

EXOTIC GASTROPODS of SRI LANKA. Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum, 

London: 10pp. 

Naggs, F., Raheem, D., Ranawana, K., Mapatuna, Y. 2005. The Darwin initiative project on Sri Lankan 

Land snails: Patterns of diversity and in Sri Lankan forests. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 12: 23 – 29. 

Naggs, F., Raheem, D.C., Mordan, P.B., Grimm, B., Ranawana, K.B. and Kumburegama, N.P.S. (2003). 

Ancient relicts and contemporary exotics: faunal change and survivorship in Sri Lanka’s snail fauna. 

Slugs & Snails: Agricultural, Veterinary & Environmental Perspectives, British Crop Protection 

Council Symposium Proceedings No. 80, 103 - 108. 

Naggs, F. and Raheem, D. (2003). The Darwin Initiative project on Sri Lankan land snails: patterns of 

diversity in Sri Lankan forests. Molluscan Conservation and Biodiversity, Special Publication 

Conchological Society, 8pp. 

Naggs, F. and Raheem, D. (2000). Land snail diversity in Sri Lanka. The Natural History Museum, 

London. xiii + pp 203. 

Perera, K.K. 1992. A snails’s tale – Acavus of Sri Lanka. Loris, 19: 90 -92. 

Raheem, D., T. Butterworth, C. Inglis, T.G. Mahesh Priyadarshana and L.J.K. Ranil Perara. 2000. Land 

snail diversity in Sri Lankan rainforest remnants, 29 + xxix. 

Raheem, D. and Butterworth, T. (1998). A survey of land mollusk diversity in southwestern Sri Lanka. 

Final Report of an Imperial College (University of London) expedition to southwestern Sri 

Lanka, 1-34pp. 

Ranawana, K.B. 2005. Patterns of diversity and ecology of land snails in the Knuckles region, Sri Lanka, 

(Unpublished report). 

Ratnapala, R. (1984). Land snails: distribution and notes on ecology. In: C. H. Fernando Ecology and 

biogeography in Sri Lanka (ed.). Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague: 391 – 410. 

Ratnapala, R. and K.D. Arudpragasam. A checklist of land snails of Sri Lanka. UNESCO: Man and 

Biosphere National Committee for Sri Lanka, Publication No.13. Natural resources, Energy and 

Science Authority of Sri Lanka: 10 pp. 

Solem, A. 1984. A world model of land snail diversity and abundance. World – wide snails. In: A. Solem 

and A.C. van Bruggen (eds.) Biogeographical studies on none-marine Mollusca. Brill and Backhuya, 

Leiden. 6 -62pp. 

Solem, A. 1981. Land snail biogeography: a true snail’s pace of change. In: G, Nelson and D. E. Rosen 

(eds.), Vicariance biogeography: a critique, 197 – 237. 

Tattersfield, P., C.M. Warui, M.B. Seddon, and J.W. Kiringe. 2001. Land - snail faunas of afromontane 

forests of Mount Kenya, Kenya: ecology, diversity and distribution patterns. Journal of 

Biogeography, 28, 843 -861. 

Tattersfield, P. 1998. Patterns of diversity and endemism in east African land snails and their implications 

for conservation. Journal of Conchology, Special Publication no. 2: 77 -86. 

Tattersfield, P. 1996. Local patterns of land snail diversity in a Kenyan rainforest. Malacologiya, 38: 

161 – 180. 

91


Appendix 1: Checklist of Land Snails in Sri Lanka 

(reproduced with permission from Naggs and Raheem, 2003) 

* : Endemic species 

** : Endemic Genus 

CLASS : GASTROPODA 

SUBCLASS : PULMONATA 

SUPERORDER : STYLOMMATOPHORA 

SUPERFAMILY : PUPILLOIDEA 

FAMILY 

:PUPILLOIDEA 

Sub Family : Pupillinae 

1. Microstele muscerda (Benson 1853) 

2. Pupoides coenopictus Hutton 1834 

FAMILY :VERTIGINICLAE 

Sub Family : Gastrocoptinae 

3. Gastrocopta (Gastrocopta) mimula* (Benson 1853) 

Sub Family : Nesopupinae 

4. Nesopupa (Indopupa) cinghalensis* (Gude 1914) 

5. Pupisoma longstaffae* Godwm-Austen 1912 

6. Pupisoma miccyla* (Benson 1860) 

FAMILY 

:PYRAMIDULIDAE 

7. Pyramidula halyi* (Jousseaume 1894) 

Subfamily 

FAMILY 

: Bulimininae 

:BULIMININAE 

Subfamily : Bulimininae 

8. Mirus panos* (Benson 1853) 

9. Mirus proletaria* (Pfeiffer 1855) 

10. Mirus stalix* (Benson 1863) 

FAMILY 

:CERASTUIDAE 

11. Rachis punctatus (Anton 1839) 

12. Rhachistia adumhratus* (Pfeiffer 1855) 

13. Rhachistia pulcher (Gray 1825) 

SUPERFAMILY : PUNCTOIDEA 

FAMILY 

:ENDODONTIDAE 

14. Philalanka circumsculpta* Sykes 1897 

15. Philalanka depressa* (Preston 1909) 

16. Philalanka edithae* (Preston 1909) 

17. Philalanka lamcabensis* Jousseaume 1894 

18. Philalanka liratula* (Pfeiffer 1860) 

19. Philalanka mononema *(Benson 1853) 

20. Philalanka secessa* Godwin-Austen 1898 

92


21. Philalanka sinhila *(Godwin-Austen 1897) 

var. suavis (Jousseaume 1894) 

22. Philalanka thwaitesi* (Pfeiffer 1854) 

23. Philalanka trifilosa* (Pfeiffer 1854) 

FAMILY 

:CHAROPIDAE 

Subfamily : Charopinae 

24. Ruthvenia biciliata* (Pfeiffer 1855) 

25. Ruthvenia caliginosa* (Sykes 1898) 

26. Ruthvenia clathratula* (Pfeiffer 1850) 

var. compressa (Sykes 1898) 

27. Thysanota elegans* Preston 1909 

28. Thysanota eumita* Sykes 1898 

29. Thysanota hispida* Sykes1898 

SUPERFAMILY : CLAUSILIOIDEA 

FAMILY 

:CLAUSILIDAE 

Subfamily : Phaedusinae 

30. Phaedusa ceylanica* (Benson 1863) 

SUPERFAMILY : GASTRODONTOIDEA 

FAMILY 

:GASTRODONTIDAE 

31. Zonitoides arboreus (Say 1816) 

SUPERFAMILY : HELICARIONOIDEA 

FAMILY 

:EUCONULIDAE 

32. Eurychlamys layardi* (Benson manuscript name ) 

33. Eurychlamys regulala *(Benson 1860) 

34. Eurychltiniys winifredae* (Preston 1909) 

FAMILY 

:HELICARIONIDAE 

Subfamily : Sesarinae 

35. Kaliella barrakporensis (Pfeiffer 1853) 

36. Kaliella colletti* Sykes 1899 

37. Kaliella delectabilis* Sykes 1898 

38. Kaliella leithiana* Godwin-Austen 1883 

39. Kaliella salicensis* Godwin-Austen 1897 

40. Sivella galerus* (Benson 1856) 

41. Sivella hyptiucyclos* (Benson 1863) 

FAMILY 

:ARIOPHANTIDAE 

Subfamily : Ariophantinae 

42. Cryptozona bistrialis (Beck 1837) 

43. Cryptozona ceraria* (Benson 1853) 

44. Cryptozona chenui* (Pfeiffer 1847) 

45. Cryptozona Juliana* (Gray 1834) 

var. ganoma (Pfeiffer 1854) 

93


46. Cryptozona novella* (Pfeiffer 1855) 

47. Cryptozona semirugata (Beck 1837) 

48. Euplecta acuducta (Benson 1850) 

49. Euplecta albnonata (Dohm 1858) 

50. Euplecta binoyaensis* Godwin-Austen 1899 

51. Euplecta colletti* Sykes 1897 

52. Euplecta concavospira* (Pfeiffer 1854) 

53. Euplectu emiliana * (Pfeiffer 1853) 

54. Euplecta gardeneri* (Pfeiffer 1846) 

55. Euplecta hyphasma* (Pfeiffer 1854) 

56. Euplecta indica (Pfeiffer 1846) 

57. Euplecta isabellina* (Pfeiffer 1854) 

58. Euplecta laevis* Blanford 1901 

59. Euplecta lankaensis* Preston 1909 

60. Euplecta layardi* (Pfeiffer 1853) 

61. Euplecta neglecta 11 * Preston 1909 

62. Euplecta partita* (Pfeiffer 1854) 

63. Euplecta phidias* (Hanley & Theobald 1876) 

64. Euplecta prestoni* (Godwin-Austen 1897) 

65. Euplecta rosamonda* (Benson 1860) 

66. Euplecta scobinoides* Sykes 1897 

67. Euplecta semidecussata (Pfeiffer 1853) 

68. Eiip!ecta subopaca* (Pfeiffer 1854) 

69. Euplecta trimeni* (Jousseaume 1894) 

70. Euplectaturritella (H. Adams 1869) 

71. Euplecta travancoricii (Benson 1865) [= praeeminens Sykes 1898] 

72. Euplecta verrucula* (Pfeiffer 1855) 

73. Ratnadvipia edgariana** (Benson 1853) 

74. Ratnadvipia irradians** (Pfeiffer 1853) 

75. Ravana politissima** (Pfeiffer 1854) 

76. Mariaella dussumieri Gray 1855 

Subfamily : Macrochlamydinae 

77. Macrochlamys mdica Godwin-Austen 1883 

78. Macrochlamys kandiensis* Godwin-Austen 1883 

79. Macrochlamys neaps* (Pfeiffer 1855) 

80. Macrochlamys perfucata* (Benson 1853) 

81. Macrochlamys tratanensis* (Jousseaume 1894) 

82. Macrachlmys umbrina* (Pfeiffer 1859) 

83. Macrachlmy vilipensa (Benson 1853) 

84. Macrochlamys woodiana (Pfeiffer 1853) 

85. Microcystina bintennensis* Godwin-Auten1899 

86. Microcystina lita* Sykes 1898 

Subfamily : Durgellinae 

87. Satiella membranacea* (Benson 1853) 

88. Sitala operiens* Sykes 1898 

94


89. Sitala phyll.ophila* ( Benson 1863) 

90. Sitala pyramidalis* Sykes 1898 

SUPERFAMILY : LIMACOIDEA 

FAMILY 

:LIRNACIDAE 

91. Deroceras reticulatum (Miiller 1774) 

SUPERFAMILY : ACHATINOIDEA 

FAMILY 

:FERUSSACIIDAE? 

92. Digoniaxis? cingalensis* (Benson 1863) 

FAMILY 

:GLESSULIDAE 

Subfamily : Glessulinae 

93. Glessula capillacea (Pfeiffer 1855) 

94. Glessula ceylanica* (Pfeiffer 1845) 

95. Glessula collettae* Sykes 1898 

96. Glessula deshayesi (Pfeiffer 1853) 

97. Glessula fulgens* (Pfeiffer 1858) 

98. Glessula inornata* (Pfeiffer 1853) 

var. minor Beddome 1906 

99. Glessula lankana* Pilsbry 1908 

100. Glessula layardi* Pilsbry 1908 

101. Glessula nitens* (Gray 1825) 

102. Glessula pachycheila* (Benson 1853) 

var. taprobanicci Pilsbry 1908 

103.Glessula pullens* Beddome 1906 

104. Glessula panaethu* (Benson 1860) 

105. Glessula pwahilis* (Benson 1856) 

106. Glessula prestoni* Ci ude 1914 

107. Glessulapunctogallana* (Pfeiffer 1852) 

108. Glessula pusilla Beddome 1906 

109. Glessula reynelli* Gude 1914 

var. immitis Gude 1914 

110. Glessula sattaraensis (Hanley & Theobald 1874) 

111. Glessula serena* (Benson 1860) 

112. Glessula simony* (Jousseaume 1894) 

113. Glessula sinhila* Preston 1909 

114. Glessula veruina* (Benson 1853) 

FAMILY 

:SUBULINIDAE 

Subfamily : Subulinidae 

115. Subulina octona (Bruguiere 1789) 

116. Allopeas gracile (Hutton 1834) 

var. panayensis (Weiffer 1846) 

117. Allopeas layardi* (Benson 1863) 

118. Allopeas marine* (Jousseaume 1894) 

119. Allopeas prestoni* (Sykes 1898) 

95


120. Allopeas pussilus* (H.. Adams 1867) 

121. Allopeas sykesi* (Pilsbry 1906) 

122. Paropeas achatinaceum (Pfeiffer 1846) 

Sub Family : Rumininae 

123. Zootecus insularis (Ehrenberg 1831) 

FAMILY 

:ACHATINIDAE 

124. Achatina fulica Bowdich 1822 

FAMILY 

:STREPTAXIDAE 

Subfamily : Streptaxinae 

125. Indoartemon cingalensis* (Benson 1853) 

126. Indoartemon gracilis* (Collet 1898) 

127. Indoartemon layardianus* (Benson 1853) 

128. Perrottetia peroteti (Petit de la Saussaye 1841) 

129. Perrottetia ravanae* Blanford 1899 

Subfamily : Enneinae 

130. Gulella bicolor (Hutton 1834) 

131. Sinoennea planguncula (Benson 1863) 

SUPERFAMILY : ACAVOIDEA 

FAMILY 

:ACAVIDAE 

Subfamily : Acavinae 

132. Acavus haemastoma** (Linnaeus 1758) 

[=concolor (Pilsbry 1890), conns (Pilsbry 1890), fastosus (Albers 1854) and melanotragus (born 1778) 

133. Acavus phoenix** (Pfeiffer 1854) 

[= prosperus (Albers 1857)] 

134. Acavus superbus** 

(Pfeiffer 1850) species complex including grevillei (Pfeiffer 1857) and reseolabiata (Nevill 1881) 

135. Oligospira polei** (Collet 1899) 

136. Oligospira skinneri** (Reeve 1854) 

137. Oligospira waltoni** (Reeve 1842) 

SUPERFAMILY : CORILLIDOIDEA (=PLECTOPYLIDOIDEA?) 

FAMILY 

:CORILLIDAE (=PLECTOPYLIDAE?) 

138. Corilla adamsi* Gude 1914 

var. hinidunensis Nevill 1871 

139. Corilla beddomeae * (Hanley 1875) 

140. Corilla carabmata* (Ferussac 1821) 

141. Corilla colletti* Sykes 1897 

142. Corilla erronea* (Albers 1853) 

var. eronella Gude 1896 

143. Corilla fryae* Gude 1896 

144. Corilla giidei* Sykes 1897 

145. Corilla humberti* (Brot 1864) 

96


146. Corilla lesleyae *Barnacle 1959 

147. Corilla odontophora * (Benson 1865) 

SUPERFAMILY : CAMAENOIDEA 

FAMILY 

:CAMAENIDAE 

Subfamily : Camaeninae 

148. Beddomea albizonatus* (Reeve 1849) 

var. simoni (Jousseaume 1894) 

149. Beddomea ceylanicus*(Pfeiffer 1846) 

150. Beddomea intermedius* (Pfeiffer 1855) 

151. Beddomea frifasciatus* (Gmelin 1786) 

var. rufopicta (Benson 1856) 

152. Trachia fallaciosa (Ferussac 1821) 

153. Trachia vittata (Muller 1774) 

154. Landouria radleyi* (Jousseaume 1894) 

SUPERFAMILY : HELICOIDEA 

FAMILY 

:BRADYBAENIDAE 

Subfamily : Bradybinaenae 

155. Bradybaena similaris (Femssac 1822) 

Subfamily : Succineinae 

156. Succinea ceylanica Pfeiffer 1855 

ORDER 

FAMILY 

: SYSTEUOMMATOPHORA 

:VERONICELLIDAE 

157. Laevicaulis alte (Femssac 1821) 

158. Semperula maculata (Tempieton 1888) 

159. Semperula siamensis (Martens 1867) 

SUBCLASS : PROSOBRANCHIA 

SUPERFAMILY : CYCLOPHOROIDEA 

FAMILY 

:CYCLOPHORIDAE 

Subfamily : Cyclophorinae 

160. Cyclophorus alabastrimis* (Pfeiffer 1855) 

161. Cyclophorus ceylanicus* (Pfeiffer 1849) 

162. Cyclophorus involvulus (Muller 1774) 

163. Cyc!ophorus menkeanus * (Philippi 1848) 

164. Aulopoma grande* * (Pfeiffer 1855) 

165. Aulopoma helicinum ** (Chemnitz 1786) 

166. Aulopoma itieri** (Guerin 1847) 

Ver. Hofmeisteri Troshcel 1847 

167. Aulopoma sphaeroideum** Dohrn 1857 

168. Cyathopoma (Cyathopoma) album Beddome 1875 

169. Cyathopoma (Cyathopoma) artatum* Sykes 1897 

170. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) ceylanicum* Beddome 1875 

171. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) colletti* Sykes 1898 

97


172. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) conoideum* Sykes 1898 

173. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) innocens* Sykes 1899 

174. Cyathopoma (Cyathopoma) leptomita* Sykes 1898 

175. Cyathopoma (Cyathopoma) mariae* Jousseaume 1894 

176. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) ogdenianum* Preston 1909 

177. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) perconoideum* Preston 1909 

178. Cyathopoma (Cyathopoma) prestoni* Sykes 1897 

179. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) serendibense* Preston 1903 

180. Cyathopoma {Jerdonia) turbinatum* Sykes 1897 

181. Cyathopoma (Jerdonia) uvaense* Preston 1909 

182. Japonia binoyae* ( Sykes 1899) 

183. Japonia occulta* Sykes 1899 

184. Japonia vesca *(Sykes 1899) 

185. Leptopoma apicatum* Benson 1856 

186. Leptopoma elatum* Pfeiffer 1852 

187. Leptopoma semiclausum* (Pfeiffer 1855) 

188. Leptopomoides conulus* (Pfeiffer 1855) 

189. Leptopomoides flammeus* (Pfeiffer 1855) 

190. Leptopomoides halophilus* (Benson 1851) 

191. Leptopomoides orophilus* (Benson 1853) 

192. Leptopomoides poecilus* (Pfeiffer 1855) 

193. Leptopomoides taprobanensis 26 * (Preston 1909) 

194. Micraulax coeloconus (Benson 1851) 

195. Scabrina brounae* (Sykes 1898) 

196. Scabrina liratula* (Preston 1909) 

197. Theobaldius annulatus* (Pfeiffer 1847) 

var. discus Kobelt 1902 

198. Theobaldius bairdi* (Pfeiffer 1854) 

199. Theobaldius cadiscus* (Benson 1860) 

200. Theobaldius cratera* (Benson 1856) 

201. Theobaldius cytopoma* (Benson 1860) 

202. Theobaldius layardi* (H. Adams 1868) 

203. Theobaldius liliputianus* (Preston 1909) 

204. Theobaldius loxostoma* (Pfeiffer 1854) 

205. Theobaldius parapsis* (Benson 1853) 

206. Theobaldius parma* (Benson 1856) 

207. Theobaldius subplicatulus* (Beddome 1875) 

208. Theobaldius thwaitesi* (PfeifFer 1855) 

Subfamily : Pterocyclinae (?) 

209. Pterocyclus bifrons* PfeifFer 1855 

210. Pterocyclus bilabialus Sowerby 1835 var. cornice Nevill 1878 

211. Pterocyclus cingalensis* Benson 1853 

212. Pterocyclus cumingi PfeifFer 1851 

213. Pterocyclus troscheli* Benson 1851 

98


FAMILY 

:DIPLOMATINIDAE 

Subfamily : Diplomatininae 

214. Nicida catathymia* (Sykes 1898) 

215. Nicida ceylamca* (Beddome 1875) 

216. Nicida delectabilis* (Preston 1905) 

217. Nicida lankaensis* (Preston 1905) 

218. Nicida pedronis* (Beddome 1875) 

219. Nicida prestomi* (Sykes 1897) 

FAMILY 

:PUPINIDAE 

Subfamily : Pupininae 

220. Tortulosa aurea* (PfeifFer 1855) 

221. Tortulosa austeniana* (Benson 1853) 

222. Tortulosa barnaclei* Tomlin 1928 

223. Tortulosa blanfordi* (Dohrn 1862) 

224. Tortulosa colletti* (Sykes 1898) 

225. Tortulosa congener* (Sykes 1905) 

226. Tortulosa connectens* (Fulton 1903) 

227. Tortulosa cumingi* (PfeifFer 1857) 

228. Tortulosa decora* (Benson 1853) 

229. Tortulosa duplicate* (PfeifFer 1855) 

230. Tortulosa eurytrema* (PfeifFer 1852) 

231. Tortulosa greeni* (Sykes 1899) 

var. robusta (Fulton 1903) 

232. Tortulosa haemastoma* (PfeifFer 1857) 

233.Tortulosa hartleyi* Tomlin 1928 

234. Tortulosa layardi * (PfeifFer 1851) 

235. Tortulosa leucocheilus* (A. Adams & Sowerby 1866) 

236. Tortulosa marginata* (PfeifFer 1854) 

var. crenulata (Fulton 1904) 

var. notata (Sykes 1905) 

237. Tortulosa nevilli* (Sykes 1898) 

vsz.flaveola (Fulton 1904) 

238. Tortulosa metneri* (Nevill 1871) 

var. caperata (Collett 1899) 

var. unicolor (Collett 1899) 

239. Tortulosa prestoni*(Sykes 1905) 

240. Tortulosa pyramidata* (PfeifFer 1852) 

241. Tortulosa rugosa *(Fulton 1904) 

242. Tortulosa smithi* (Sykes 1905) 

243. Tortulosa sykesi* (Fulton 1904) 

244. Tortulosa templemani* (Pfeiffer 1852) 

245. Tortulosa thwaitesi* (Pfeiffer 1852) 

SUPERFAMILY : RISSOIDEA 

FAMILY :TRUNCATELLIDAE 

246. Truncatella ceylanica * Pfeiffsr 1856 

99


100

Trachypithecus vetulus 


Section 2: 

Status of Vertebrate 


Philautus femoralis 


Ceratophora stoddartii 


Puntius srilankensis 


Urocissa ornata 


101

102

Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Fishes 

Rohan Pethiyagoda * 

* 

Wildlife Heritage Trust, 95 Cotta Road, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka. 



Abstract 

The paper highlights the species richness of freshwater fish in Sri Lanka, which consist of 82 species, 

including 44 endemics. It provides a discussion on conservation issues that pose a threat to the 

island’s freshwater fish fauna, mainly invasive alien species, hydrological alterations and degradation 

of aquatic habitats and recommends specific conservation actions. 

Key words: Freshwater fish, Taxonomy, Conservation, Issues, Invasive species 

Introduction 

Sri Lanka has one of the world’s best known freshwater-fish faunas thanks to it having been well 

represented in the international ornamental fish trade from its beginnings in the 1930s, when wild-caught 

fish were exported to Europe and the United States. This trade was conducted necessarily using sea 

freight, involving passages of several weeks in widely varying environments, and succeeded only because 

the economics allowed for extremely high mortality. The Red Ruby Barb (Puntius nigrofasciatus), the 

Cherry Barb (P. titteya), the killifishes (Aplocheilus spp.) and many others have thus played a prominent 

part in international trade for decades, diminishing only when the principle of sustainability was absorbed 

into the regulatory process in the wake of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. 

The island’s freshwater fish fauna has received significant attention in the technical literature, beginning 

with the description of specimens sent by expatriate enthusiasts to the British Museum (now The Natural 

History Museum) in the 1860s (e.g. Günther, 1864, 1868). Prior to this, the only fish descriptions from Sri 

Lanka had been based on a single collection made ca 1827 near the Kinniyar hot springs north of 

Trincomalee by A. Reynaud, a French explorer, based on which Georges Cuvier and Achille Valenciennes 

described several species as new (Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1828–49). The first local exploration of this 

fauna by an expert, however, occurred only in the early 1860s, when the Dutch ichthyologist P. Bleeker 

broke journey at Galle and made a collection from the Gin River basin, from which he described several 

new species. In 1900, Bleeker’s work drew George Duncker, a German ichthyologist, to the same river 

and several other localities, based on which work the first checklist of Sri Lankan freshwater fishes was 

published (Duncker, 1912). 

Following Duncker’s work, the freshwater fishes received detailed attention in the work of P. E. P. 

Deraniyagala, who described several new species and the first illustrated faunal treatment (Deraniyagala, 

1952), to which were added synopses by way of Mendis (1954) and Munro (1955). The first systematic 

exploration of the island’s fish fauna however, took place only in the late 1970s in the seminal work of 

Senanayake (1980), which sadly remains unpublished. Senanayake (1982) and Senanayake et al. (1987) 

also reviewed, for the first time, the conservation of Sri Lanka’s freshwater fishes. This work was 

supplemented by the work of Pethiyagoda (1990; 1994) and through the description of several additional 

new species. 

Current taxonomic status of freshwater fish 

Despite the early attention to freshwater fish in Sri Lanka, several novelties remain to be described 

(Pethiyagoda, in progress; see also Appendix 1), an activity retarded by the need to address several 

taxonomic and nomenclatural problems in the Indian literature (e.g. see Pethiyagoda & Kottelat 2005a,b). 

At present, a total of 82 species of freshwater fishes (44 species, 54% of them endemic) are known from 

103


the island, including diadromous species but not adventitious marine species that sometimes enter fresh and 

brackish waters (see Appendix 1). Thirteen of these species remain to be identified and/or described 

(Pethiyagoda, in progress). 

A fuller understanding of Sri Lanka’s freshwater fish fauna is also likely to develop as the results of 

molecular analyses now in progress become available (e.g. see Bossuyt et al., 2004; Meegaskumbura & 

Pethiyagoda, work in progress). This approach is likely to be particularly important in informing 

conservation-management decisions relating to populations that show distinct inter-basin differences. 

Conservation Status 

Endangered Species. At present, nine species of freshwater fish in Sri Lanka are considered as globally 

threatened (IUCN, 2004), while 39 species have been identified as nationally threatened (IUCN Sri Lanka, 

2000) (see Table 1). 

Extinctions. The populations of two species (Labeo lankae and Macrognathus aral) have crashed 

precipitously and they may be extinct (Pethiyagoda, 1994). Trends in almost all other species are not 

documented, and with no comprehensive assessment having been made over the past 15 years, it is 

possible that several other species have disappeared or are on the brink of extinction. The foremost priority 

for the conservation of this fauna therefore is a competent scientific national assessment based on fresh 

sampling. 

Conservation Issues 

Invasive species: While the primary cause of Sri Lanka’s amphibian extinctions has probably been habitat 

loss, invasive species are likely to be flagged as the key agent for the extinction of freshwater fishes. Some 

nine alien species of freshwater fishes (and several other aquatic organisms) are now naturalised in Sri 

Lanka (Bambaradeniya, 2002), many of them invasive. Many other exotic species are recorded 

sporadically, and persist as potential invasives. 

Both the freshwater fishery and the ornamental fish industry are clearly implicated in the introduction of 

freshwater invasive species to Sri Lanka. The first alien species introduced was the rainbow trout, in the 

1880s to the highlands, to support a sport fishery. Two unidentified species of fishes recorded from an 

altitude of 1,800 m in the 1840s by Kelaart (1852) disappeared after the introduction of trout. The decline 

of the trout fly fishery in the 1970s led to the rapid decline of the population of this fish through poisoning 

for local consumption everywhere except in the Belihul Oya within Horton Plains National Park, where 

this species is strictly protected. Given that trout have inhabited this stream for more than a century now, it 

is likely that they have already done such damage as they are capable of doing and have reached a ‘steady 

state’ ecological position. The protection accorded to them is, however, a poor reflection on conservation 

science in Sri Lanka, especially given that they occur syntopically with several restricted-range endemics 

such as the crabs Ceylonthelphusa sorror, Perbrinckia punctata and P. glabra; and the shrimp 

Lancaris singhalensis. 

Fishes introduced the lowland reservoir fishery, however, pose far more serious problems. Beginning with 

Oreochromis mossambicus in the 1950s, several tilapiine cichlids and their hybrids have been introduced 

to Sri Lanka (e.g., O. niloticus, O. urolepis, Tilapia rendalli, T. zillii) in a continuing fisheries 

development programme. Tilapias represent between 70 and 90 percent of the freshwater fish harvest at 

present, and a major share of the national freshwater fish biomass. Apart from the effects of competition 

and predation, increasingly more intensive gill-net fisheries also impact directly on the larger species of 

indigenous fishes (e.g. Wallago attu, Channa ara, which are now extremely rare). They may also have 

impacted on Labeo lankae, which was in fact represented incidentally in the reservoir fishery (Senanayake, 

1980), and led to the near extirpation of freshwater turtles in most reservoirs that support a fishery. 

104

Pethiyagoda: Conservation of Sri Lankan Freshwater Fishes 

Approximately 30,000 MT of freshwater fish (all of them alien) are harvested annually in Sri Lanka, 

representing an important source of nutrition and employment for rural communities. Yet, this fishery 

represents less than 0.1% of annual per capita GNP, which suggests that it is not indispensable in economic 

terms. Tragically, international fisheries development agencies such as the Asian Development Bank and 

the UN Food and Agriculture Organization have continued indiscriminately to support the introduction of 

alien species with no consideration of the environmental consequences involved. Indeed, an environmental 

impact assessment has not been made or mandated for the introduction of even one of the dozen or so 

alien species released in Sri Lanka by the fishery, and fisheries scientists continue to ignore the potential 

for negative consequences (see De Silva et al., 2004, for a review). 

Given that no other causes have been implicated in the population crash of Labeo lankae (an endemic 

carp the distribution of which overlapped completely with that of tilapia), it is necessary to recognize that 

tilapia appears to have been responsible for at least a single species extinction in Sri Lanka. Given also that 

tilapias have extended their range to rivers, streams and estuaries, and even to the highlands (Pethiyagoda, 

1994), it is time to consider controls in respect of both past and future introductions. The problem of 

invasive alien species is particularly important because the declines of indigenous fish populations they 

precipitate tend to be sharp and catastrophic, allowing little time of remedial interventions to be planned 

(Moyle et al., 1986). No possibilities for reducing existing tilapia populations present themselves, except by 

way of yet-to-be-developed biological controls, towards which international fisheries development agencies 

such as the ADB and FAO are yet to direct significant attention or investment. Given the “sustainable 

development” rhetoric these agencies espouse, their role in this tragic outcome needs to be highlighted, and 

the need for them to engage in the development of controls canvassed internationally. It is also necessary 

that any future intended release of exotic organisms in Sri Lanka (whether aquatic or otherwise) be 

informed by an environmental impact assessment, together with safeguards against their potential for 

invasiveness. This is especially necessary given that fisheries agencies have consistently ignored the 

provisions of Sections 37 and 38 of the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, which regulate the import 

and release of live organisms to Sri Lanka. 

Ornamental fish industry: The ornamental fish industry too, has been less than responsible in its 

management of exotic aquatic organisms. Several species of fishes imported for the local aquarium trade 

have become established in natural habitats as a result of (e.g.) escapes from ponds during floods, or 

deliberate release of redundant specimens because of widespread religious and ethical aversion to 

destroying life. Given the increasing number of organisms entering international trade, it is necessary even 

now that a “positive list” of organisms that can be imported or kept for trade be developed and enforced, 

choosing only from among species that pose little risk of becoming established should they be released. 

While the collection of freshwater fishes for the ornamental fish trade has diminished significantly in the 

course of the last decade, it needs to be recognized that such collection does impact also on non-target 

species, especially as it occurs largely in habitats in which there is no food fishery (and therefore no other 

harvesting). In the interest of sustainability therefore, the industry should be encouraged, through 

appropriate incentives and regulation, to shift entirely from collection to culture. While the ornamental fish 

industry poses threats as detailed above, it also presents a unique opportunity through its capacity for ex 

situ conservation. The industry possesses important knowledge and technology for breeding fishes, and has 

already engaged in conservation programmes for three threatened species, Puntius bandula, 

P. srilankensis and Devario pathirana (A. Pathirana, pers. comm.). Engagement with the industry, and 

commissioning competent institutions and individuals within it to undertake the sustainable and scientific 

maintenance of captive freshwater fish populations could prove to be the only strategy whereby future fish 

extinctions could be averted. The development of ex situ conservation strategy requires however, that an 

unfortunate oversight in Section 49A of the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, which prohibits the 

keeping of animals (including fish), be revised. 

It is important to emphasise here that extreme care must be taken in releasing fishes (or any organism), 

105


even in the course of conservation practice. The release of fishes from the Kelani Basin into the Mahaweli 

Basin has already been commented on (see Pethiyagoda, 1991: 36); similar releases should be discouraged 

in the future except perhaps in extreme circumstances, such as preventing an otherwise inevitable 

extinction. A practice has also evolved where animals confiscated by customs or wildlife authorities are 

released into natural habitats. While the ethics behind this are clear, the ecological consequences are 

potentially serious. A process for the safe disposal of such animals needs to be developed: e.g., they should 

be destroyed or maintained in captivity in perpetuo, e.g., in the National Zoological Gardens. 

Hydrological alterations: Compared with invasive species, other impacts on Sri Lanka’s freshwater fishes 

appear less important though not negligible. Sri Lanka has no natural lakes or perennial lentic habitats. In 

the course of the past two millennia however, widespread hydrological alterations have taken place, mainly 

in the construction of lowland impoundments, giving rise to thousands of reservoirs. The Accelerated 

Mahaweli Development Project between 1978 and 1988 resulted in the creation for the first time of several 

large highland reservoirs, and also perhaps more importantly, in a trans-basin diversion. The impacts of 

these historical hydrological alterations on fish faunas, while widely speculated on in the popular media, 

have never been objectively assessed; no direct negative impacts are known. 

Degradation of habitats. Pollution of waterways by urban and industrial refuse has had local impacts in 

some areas, while silt deposition resulting from poor agricultural practices on highland slopes has had much 

more widespread effects (Hewawasam et al., 2003). Pesticides and agricultural chemicals too, pose a risk, 

especially as the regulatory process for their approval addresses only health, and not environmental, risks 

(Anon., 1980). Although Sri Lanka has experienced extensive deforestation, there is as yet no evidence 

that this, or the land use change that usually accompanies it, has directly impacted on freshwater fishes 

except where riparian shade has been lost (e.g. Helfman, 1981). 

Fishes and other aquatic organisms need to be treated separately from other groups for conservation 

purposes. Protected areas provide only marginal overlap with aquatic ecosystems, and very few of Sri 

Lanka’s many “point endemic” fishes (e.g., Puntius bandula, P. srilankensis, Devario pathirana) 

occurs in a protected area. Species-protection too, does not work well for these organisms because they 

are seldom targeted for exploitation. Their conservation therefore depends largely on beneficial 

engagement by civil society, especially local communities. Unfortunately, no provision exists in Sri Lanka’s 

essentially protectionist legal framework to facilitate conservation, especially interventional management, 

and this deficiency needs to be addressed in future reforms. 

Recommended conservation actions 

1. A conservation assessment of the freshwater fauna is overdue, but for most species up to date information 

on populations and trends simply does not exist to facilitate one. A comprehensive assessment of the 

populations of all freshwater fish species based on fresh sampling is therefore an urgent necessity. 

2. While fisheries managers maintain detailed catch records at several stations in Sri Lanka, taxonomic 

data are not acquired. The maintenance of records of the catch of each species, especially the 

indigenous-species by-catch, could provide a means to make trend analyses that could inform future 

conservation decisions. 

3. All pesticides approved for release in Sri Lanka should be assessed for impact on non-target 

organisms and the environment in general, and the labelling of such products should include 

information on environmental safeguards. 

4. All future releases of exotic fishes should be preceded by an environmental impact assessment 

involving specific safeguards against invasiveness. 

5. A positive list of organisms that may be imported by the ornamental fish industry needs to be 

developed and enforced. The necessary legal provisions for this already exist in the Fauna and Flora 

Protection Ordinance. 

106


6. Legal and institutional reforms need to be made to engage local communities in the in situ conservation 

of point-endemic freshwater fishes; and to engage the ornamental fish industry in ex situ conservation, 

especially the development of methodologies to breed “difficult” threatened species (e.g. Puntius 

asoka) in captivity. 

7. International agencies, particularly the FAO and ADB should be informed of the negative 

consequences of their fisheries development projects in Sri Lanka and urged to engage in supporting 

the research and capacity-building necessary to manage the fishery sustainably into the future. 

8. Incentives and regulatory measures need to be introduced to phase out, over a defined time scale 

(say 2-3 years), the harvesting of fishes from the wild by the ornamental fishery, while encouraging 

the culture of such species as for which there is commercial demand. 

9. Finally, although its consequences will have minimal conservation benefit at this stage, the Department 

of Wildlife Conservation should take steps to eradicate the last population of rainbow trout in Sri 

Lanka, in Horton Plains National Park, at least so as to demonstrate that it is alive to the risk alien 

species pose to the indigenous biodiversity of Sri Lanka. 

Table 1: Current IUCN Global Red List of Sri Lankan freshwater fishes (IUCN, 2004) and National 

Red List (IUCN Sri Lanka, 2000). CR – Critically endangered; EN – Endangered; VU – 

Vulnerable; LR – Lower Risk, DD – Data deficient. 

Species Global status National status 

1. Acanthocobitis urophthalmus LR/cd Threatened 

2. Aplocheilus dayi – Threatened 

3. Aplocheilus werneri – Threatened 

4. Belontia signata LR/cd Threatened 

5. Channa ara – Threatened 

6. Channa orientalis – Threatened 

7. Clarias brachysoma – Threatened 

8. Danio aequipinnulus [sic] aequipinnatus DD Highly Threatened 

9. Danio pathirana CR Highly Threatened 

10. Esomus thermoicos – Threatened 

11. Garra ceylonensis – Threatened 

12. Garra phillipsi DD Threatened 

13. Heteropneustes microps VU – 

14. Horadandia atukoralei – Threatened 

15. Labeo fisheri EN Threatened 

16. Labeo lankae CR Highly Threatened 

17. Lepidocephalichthys jonklaasi EN Threatened 

18. Macrognathus aral DD Highly Threatened 

19. Malpulutta kretseri LR/cd Threatened 

20. Microphis brachyurus – Threatened 

21. Monopterus desilvai – Highly Threatened 

22. Ophisternon bengalense – Threatened 

23. Puntius asoka EN Highly Threatened 

24. Puntius bandula CR Highly Threatened 

107


25. Puntius cumingii LR/cd Threatened 

26. Puntius martenstyni EN Highly Threatened 

27. Puntius nigrofasciatus LR/cd Threatened 

28. Puntius pleurotaenia LR/cd Threatened 

29. Puntius srilankensis – Threatened 

30. Puntius ticto – Threatened 

31. Puntius titteya LR/cd Highly Threatened 

32. Rasbora vaterifloris LR/cd Threatened 

33. Rasbora wilpita EN Threatened 

34. Schismatogobius deraniyagalai DD Threatened 

35. Schistura notostigma Threatened 

36. Sicyopterus griseus Threatened 

37. Sicyopterus halei DD Threatened 

38. Sicyopus jonklaasi DD Threatened 

39. Stiphodon martenstyni – Highly Threatened 

40. Xenentodon cancila – Threatened 


Anon., 1980. Control of Pesticides Act. Government Publications Bureau, Colombo. 

Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. 2002. The status and implications of invasive alien species in Sri Lanka. Zoos’ 

Print Journal, 17 (11): 930-935. 





Cuvier, G. & A. Valenciennes, 1828–49. Histoire naturelle des poissons. Paris, Strassbourg. 

Deraniyagala, P. E. P., 1952. A coloured atlas of some vertebrates from Ceylon, 1: fishes. National 

Museum, Colombo. 

Duncker, G. 1912. Die Susswasserfische Ceylons. Jahrb. Hamburg Wiss. Anst., Beiheft 2, Mitt. 

Naturhist. Mus. Hamburg, 29 (2): 241–272. 

Günther, A. 1864. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, 5. British Museum, London. 

Günther, A. 1868. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, 7. British Museum, London. 

Helfman, G. S. 1981. The advantage to fishes hovering in shade. Copeia, 1981: 392–399. 


erosion rates in tropical highlands constrained by cosmogenic nuclides. Geology 31: 597–600. 

IUCN Sri Lanka. 2000. The 1999 list of threatened fauna and flora of Sri Lanka. Colombo: IUCN Sri 

Lanka. 114 pp. 

IUCN (2004). 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. (www.redlist.org). 

Kelaart, E.F. 1852. Prodromus faunae Zeylanicae; being contributions to the zoology of Ceylon, Observer 

Press, Colombo. 

Mendis, A.S. 1954. Fishes of Ceylon. Fisheries Research Station, Colombo. 

108


Moyle, P. B., H. W. Li & B. A. Barton, 1986. The Frankenstein effect. The impact of introduced fishes on 

native fishes of North America. In: Stroud, R. H. (Ed.), Fish culture in fisheries management. 

American fish. Soc., Bethesda. 

Munro, I.S.R. 1955. The Marine and Freshwater Fishes of Ceylon, Department of External Affairs, Canberra. 

Pethiyagoda, R. 1991. Freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust, Colombo. 

Pethiyagoda, R. 1994. Threats to the indigenous freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka and remarks on their 

conservation. Hydrobiologia, 285: 189–201. 

Pethiyagoda, R. & M. Kottelat, 2005 a. A review of the barbs of the Puntius filamentosus group 

(Teleostei: Cyprinidae) of southern India and Sri Lanka. In: Yeo, D. C. J., Ng, P. K. L. & Pethiyagoda, 

R. (Eds.), Contributions to biodiversity exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles 

Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 12: 127–144. 

Pethiyagoda, R. & M. Kottelat, 2005 b. The identity of the south Indian barb Puntius mahecola (Teleostei: 

Cyprinidae). In: Yeo, D. C. J., Ng, P. K. L. & Pethiyagoda, R. (Eds.), Contributions to biodiversity 

exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 12: 145–152. 

Senanayake, F.R. 1980. The biogeography and ecology of the inland fishes of Sri Lanka, unpublished 

Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Biology, University of California, Davis. 

Senanayake, F.R. & P.B. Moyle. 1982. Conservation of Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka, Biol. 

Conservation, 22: 181–195. 

Senanayayake, F.R., Soulé, M. & J. W. Senner. 1977. Habitat values and endemicity in the vanishing rain 

forests of Sri Lanka, Nature, 265: 351–354. 

109


Appendix 1: Provisional Checklist of Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka 

(Note: Exotic species have been omitted. The use of “sp.” does not imply that the species is new: only that 

without further research, a name cannot reliably be assigned to it. ‘E’ refers to endemic species, it being 

noted that the diadromous sicydiine gobies are unlikely to be truly endemic.) 

FAMILY: ANGUILLIDAE 

1. Anguilla nebulosa 

2. Anguilla bicolour 

FAMILY: CYPRINIDAE 

3. Amblypharyngodon melettinus 

4. Amblypharyngodon grandisquammis E 

5. Chela ceylonensis E 

6. Chela sp. 1 E 

7. Chela sp. 2 E 

8. Devario malabaricus 

9. Devario pathirana E 

10. Devario sp. E 

11. Esomus thermoicos E 

12. Garra ceylonensis E 

13. Garra sp. E 

14. Rasboroides atukorali 

15. Rasboroides vaterifloris E 

16. Labeo dussumieri 

17. Labeo fisheri E 

18. Labeo lankae E 

19. Puntius asoka E 

20. Puntius bandula E 

21. Puntius bimaculatus 

22. Puntius chola 

23. Puntius cumingii E 

24. Puntius dorsalis 

25. Puntius martenstyni E 

26. Puntius nigrofasciatus E 

27. Puntius pleurotaenia E 

28. Puntius sarana E 

29. Puntius singhala E 

30. Puntius srilankensis E 

31. Puntius titteya E 

32. Puntius vittatus 

33. Puntius sp. 1 E 





38. Rasbora caverii 

39. Rasbora daniconius 

110


40. Rasbora wilpita E 

41. Tor khudree 

FAMILY: BALITORIDAE 

42. Acanthocobitis urophthalmus E 

43. Schistura notostigma E 

FAMILY: COBITIDAE 

44. Lepidocephalichthys jonklaasi E 

45. Lepidocephalichthys thermalis 

FAMILY: BAGRIDAE 

46. Mystus gulio 

47. Mystus cavasius 

48. Mystus vittatus 

49. Mystus sp. E 

FAMILY: SILURIDAE 

50. Ompok bimaculatus 

51. Wallago attu 

FAMILY: CLARIIDAE 

52. Clarias brachysoma E 

FAMILY: HETEROPNEUSTIDAE 

53. Heteropneustes fossilis 

FAMILY: ADRIANICHTHYIDAE 

54. Oryzias sp. 1 E 

55. Oryzias sp. 2 E 

FAMILY: SYNBRANCHIDAE 

56. Ophisternon bengalense 

57. Ophisternon desilvai E 

FAMILY: APLOCHEILIDAE 

58. Aplocheilus dayi E 

59. Aplocheilus parvus 

60. Aplocheilus werneri E 

FAMILY: CICHLIDAE 

61. Etroplus maculatus 

62. Etroplus suratensis 

FAMILY: ANABANTIDAE 

63. Anabas testudineus 

111


FAMILY: BELONTIIDAE 

64. Belontia signata E 

65. Malpulutta kretseri E 

66. Pseudosphromenus cupanus 

FAMILY: CHANNIDAE 

67. Channa ara E 

68. Channa gachua 

69. Channa orientalis E 

70. Channa punctata 

71. Channa striata 

FAMILY: MASTACEMBELIDAE 

72. Macrognathus cf. aral 

73. Mastacembelus armatus 

FAMILY: GOBIIDAE 

74. Awaous melanocephalus 

75. Oligolepis acutipinnis 

76. Sicyopterus griseus 

77. Sicyopterus halei 

78. Sicyopus jonklaasi E 

79. Stenogobius malabaricus 

80. Stiphodon martenstyni E 

81. Schismatogobius deraniyagalai 

82. Glossogobius giuris 

112

Amarasinghe et al.: Some Aspects of Ecology of Endemic THE FAUNA Freshwater OF SRI LANKA Fishes (2006): of Sri 113-124 Lanka 


Some Aspects of Ecology of Endemic Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka 

Abstract 

Upali S. Amarasinghe, R.R.A.R. Shirantha and M.J.S. Wijeyaratne 

Department of Zoology, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya 11600, Sri Lanka. 

Sri Lanka supports a diverse freshwater fishes, about 48% of which are endemic. Most of these 

endemic freshwater fish species occur in the hill country forested streams of the wet zone. There 

are sophisticated interactions between fish species in a fish community and its environment for food, 

space and/or spawning. As evident from the biology of cyprinids in hill streams in Sri Lanka, most of 

the endemic freshwater fish species tend to show well-defined niche segregation and ecological 

adaptations. Several anthropogenic activites such as deforestation, gem mining and uncontrolled use 

of agrochemicals, pose significant threats to survival of many endemic freshwater fish species in Sri 

Lanka. Exploitation of endemic fish species from the wild for ornamental fish trade is also a major 

cause of decline of their populations. Further, accidental introduction of clown knife fish (Chitala 

ornatus) and cleaner fish (Ptrygoplichthys multiradiatus), which poses threats to diversity of 

freshwater fishes in Sri Lanka, is an indirect adverse effect of ornamental fish trade. Although some 

introductions of exotic fish species such as African cichlids, most notably Oreochromis 

mossambicus and O. niloticus, have socio-economic benefits, effective strategies should be 

implemented to control transfer and introduction of aquatic organisms. 

Key words: Endemic fish, Ecology, Distribution 

Introduction 

As mentioned by Greenwood (1992), fishes, no less than other organisms, are threatened by numerous 

human activities, but because fishes are less obvious than terrestrial life they are often overlooked, as is 

their role in global ecology. Literature on riverine fisheries (Welcomme 1979) and tropical fish ecology 

(Lowe-McConnell 1987) highlights Africa and the Neotropics and contains relatively little about most Asian 

rivers except the Mekong river basin (Rainboth 1996) and southern India and Western Ghats (Kurup et al., 

2004). However in tropical Asia, there are more than 105 families of freshwater fishes compared to 74 in 

Africa and only 60 in South America (Dudgeon 2000). Sri Lanka supports a diverse freshwater fishes, 

about 48% of which are endemic. However, as in many parts of the tropical Asia (oriental region), 

information on the ecology of freshwater fish species in rivers and streams in Sri Lanka is scanty and not 

well-synthesized. Nevertheless, such information is imperative in order to identify conservation status of 

individual species, especially due to the fact that a number of endemic freshwater fish species are reported 

to be threatened with extinction and that others are depleted due to various anthropogenic activities 

(Senanayake and Moyle 1982). Although it is a fact that endemic freshwater fish species and other cooccuring 

non-endemic fish species share the same ecological conditions, ecology of former needs to be 

emphasized in relation to conservation of endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. In this paper, 

information on ecology of endemic freshwater fish species is reviewed with a view to identifying major 

threats to them and future needs to generate information required for planning conservation strategies. 

Distribution of endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka 

Senanayake and Moyle (1982) have suggested that based on the distribution pattern of freshwater fish 

species, three ichthyofaunal provinces could be identified in Sri Lanka. They are, (i) the Southwestern 

Province; (ii) the Mahaweli Province; and (iii) the Dry Zone Province. The Southwestern Province 

consists of the river basins from the Nilwala Ganga in the south and to the Attanagalu Oya in the north, 

113


with the border of the second peneplain forming the boundary in the east. The Mahaweli Province is 

essentially the drainage basin of the Mahaweli River. This province covers all three peneplains and the fish 

fauna in the first peneplain of this ichthyofaunal province is largely identical to that in the Dry Zone 

Province. The Dry Zone Province covers all parts of the first peneplain except the area in the wet zone 

climatic region. Out of the total of 62 freshwater fish species, at least 30 species are endemic to Sri Lanka 

(Pethiyagoda 1991, 1994; Bailey and Gans 1998; Watson 1998; www.fishbase.org). List of endemic 

freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka and their occurrence in the three ichthyological provinces are 

presented in Table 1. The highest number of endemic freshwater fish species is found in the Southwestern 

ichthyological province. According to Pethiyagoda (1991), 25 out of 30 species (83.3%) occur in this 

province. In the Mahaweli ichthyological province 10 endemic species (33.3%) are found (Silva 1993). 

There are four endemic species in the Dry zone ichthyological province, which form only 13.3% of the 

total number of endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. However, the concept of ichthyological 

provinces in Sri Lanka is questionable when it is viewed on the basis of the comprehensive account by 

Pethiyagoda (1991) regarding distribution of freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka. 

The taxonomy of the fishes of South Asia is however not very accurate (Kottelat 1989), hence it needs to 

be revised. Such revisions will undoubtedly increase the degree of endemism of freshwater fishes in Sri 

Lanka (Pethiyagoda 1994). For example, Pethiyagoda and Kottelat (2004) have shown that the cyprinid 

species, generally known as Puntius filamentosus (De Silva et al. 1981; Pethiyagoda 1991), is P. singhala, 

which is endemic to Sri Lanka. On the other hand, Heteropneustes microps is now considered as a junior 

synonym of H. fossilis (Pethiyagoda and Bahir 1998). 

Table 1: List of endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka and their occurrence in three ichthyofaunal 

provinces. SW – Southwestern ichthyofaunal province; M – Mahaweli ichthyofaunal province; D 

– Dry zone ichthyofaunal province (Senanayake and Moyle 1982). Occurrence of fish species in 

the three ichthyofaunal provinces was compiled on the basis of information given in Pethiyagoda 

(1991, 1994), Bailey and Gans (1998), Watson (1998) and www.fishbase.org. 

Family Species Ichthyofaunal Province 

SW M D 

Belontiidae Belontia signata + + + 

Malpulutta kretseri + 

Aplocheilidae Aplocheilus dayi + 

Aplocheilus werneri + 

Balitoridae Acanthocobitis urophthalmus + 

Schistura notostigma + + 

Claridae Clarias brachysoma + + + 

Cobitidae Lepidocephalichthys jonklaasi + 

Channidae Channa orientalis + 

Cyprinidae Danio (=Devario) pathirana + 

Garra phillipsi + 

Garra ceylonensis + + + 

Labeo fisheri + 

Labeo porcellus lankae + 

Puntius asoka + 

114

Amarasinghe et al.: Some Aspects of Ecology of Endemic Freshwater Fishes of Sri Lanka 

Puntius bandula + 

Puntius cumingii + 

Puntius martenstyni + 

Puntius nigrofasciatus + + 

Puntius pleurotaenia + 

Puntius srilankensis + 

Puntius titteya + 

Rasbora (=Rasboroides) vaterifloris + 

Rasbora wilpita + 

Gobiidae Schismatogobius deraniyagalai + 

Sicyopterus halei + 

Sicyopus jonklaasi + 

Stiphodon martenstyni + 

Total 30 species 25 10 04 

Percentages 83.3% 33.3% 13.3% 

Endemic freshwater fish species and their ecology 

As there are no natural lakes in Sri Lanka, all freshwater fish species indigenous to Sri Lanka are either 

riverine or marsh-dwelling species. Hence, endemic fish species occur in riverine habitats. It is known that 

the biology and ecology of riverine species, which complete their entire life cycle in riverine habitats, are 

closely linked with the annual hydrological regimes and flood patterns (Poff et al., 1997; Welcomme and 

Halls 2001). As mentioned by Kortmulder (1987), there are sophisticated interactions between fish species 

in a fish community and its environment. The interactions between species are for food, space and/or 

spawning. Any direct human influenece that works on this web of inter-relationships or through large 

disturbances such as erosion, pollution or climatic factors, are likely to have far-reaching and largely 

unpredictable effects (Kortmulder 1987). As such, better understanding of ecology of endemic fish species 

is necessary for planning conservation strategies for them. 

Moyle and Senanayake (1984) have investigated resource partitioning among the fishes of small rainforest 

streams of Sri Lanka, which included 11 Cyprinidae, 2 Gobiidae, 2 Channidae, and one species each in the 

Cobitidae, Cyprinodontidae, Belontidae, Belonidae and Mastacembelidae. They have shown that although 

several species were habitat generalists, most species occurred in distinct habitats. Moyle and Senanayake 

(1984) have also shown that within the habitats of these fish communities, microhabitat overlap among cooccurring 

species was low, particularly in relation to position in the water column. They have also observed 

feeding specialization among the fish species co-occurring in rainforest streams in Sri Lanka. Based on a 

more detailed study however, the macro- and micro-habitats, and feeding habits of several Barbus species 

in Sri Lanka (Table 2; Kortmulder et al. 1990) indicate that habitat characteristics are common for most 

endemic and indigenous species. Wickramanayake and Moyle (1989) have suggested that fish assemblages 

in wet zone streams of Sri Lanka are co-evolved systems with competition serving as an important 

structuring force that reinforces species segregation. 

Kortmulder (1987) has analyzed the altitudinal distribution of 11 Puntius species studied in Sri Lanka, 

beginning with headwaters and ending with brackishwater near the coast. The order of sequence was, P. 

titteya, P. bimaculatus, P. pleurotaenia, P. nigrofasciatus, P. cumingii, P. dorsalis, P. filamentosus, P. 

vittatus, P. sarana, P. chola and P. amphibius. The first five species in this list are endemic species 

which prefer higher altitudes. 

115


Kortmulder (1987) further indicated that these Puntius species are distributed over a range of stream 

types. In the marshy brooks with relatively still water, P. titteya is found, while P. bimaculatus occurs in 

areas with strong currents. Also in rocky brooks with generally strong currents, only adult individuals of 

P. bimaculatus inhabit. Although they can withstand strong currents, they favour relatively quiet parts of 

the stream. In the irregular hill streams of the forested areas, P. pleurotaenia inhabits in deep parts with 

rapid flow, while P. nigrofasciatus inhabits in shallow areas of the stream with abated current. Kortmulder 

(1987) also mentioned that P. cumingii is found in deep pits of the lower courses of hill streams and 

torrents, with a relatively high current pattern. The latter species prefers these deep pits where there is a 

balance between the verge of current and non-current. According to Kortmulder (1987), endemic species 

did not occur in the lowland marshes and wet paddylands. 

Table 2: Macro- and micro-habitats, feeding habits of some endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. 

Figures in column 3 indicate stream gradient (in %), depth (d. in cm) and width (w. in m) of the 

stream. (Adopted from Kortmulder et al.,1990). 

Species Macro-distribution Micro-distribution 

Altitude Water bodies Soils Haunts Feeding habits 

ranges 

P. titteya 300-150 m Marshy, slowflowing 

Red laterite, fine Mostly hidden, Picks or scrapes 

streams, particulate and fallen leaves, small items from 


Kortmulder et al., 1978; De Silva et al. 1977, 1980; Kortmulder 1982), it can be seen that endemic species 

tend to show well-defined niche segregation and ecological adaptations as compared to indigenous species, 

which have come from the mainland. As such any form of habitat altration might pose threats to the 

existence of endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. 

From the above review of literature, it is obvious that information on the ecology of endemic freshwater 

species is highly fragmented and restricted to a few river basins. Also, no comprehensive studies on these 

aspects have been reported for the last two decades. As such, it is imperative that further research on 

ecology of freshwater fish species be carried out in order to define effective strategies for conservation. 

This is of particular importance because it has been shown that the apparent biotic affinities between the 

Indian mainland and Sri Lanka, which have been hitherto interpreted as a result of frequent migrations of 

species during the recent periods of low water level, are due to limited biotic interchange between these 

areas (Bossuyt et al., 2004). As the endemism in Sri Lanka is much higher than hitherto suspected, Bossuyt 

et al. (2004) indicate that treating Western Ghats and Sri Lanka as a single biodiversity hotspot carries with 

it the danger of overlooking the strong biogeographic structure within this region. 

Threats to diversity of endemic freshwater fish 

Various authors have indicated a number of threats to endemic freshwater fish in the island. Dudgeon 

(2000) indicated that in Asian rivers and associated wetlands, anthropogenic influences imperil the 

biodiversity. According to him, the main threats include, (i) deforestation and drainage basin alteration that 

destroy or degrade instream and riparian habitats; (ii) river regulation, including flow modification and 

impoundment by dams, water extraction for irrigation etc.; (iii) pollution; and (iv) over-harvesting of fishes. 

In Sri Lanka too, decline of the native freshwater fish populations can be attributed to interaction of a 

number of factors, foremost of which are (i) deforestation; (ii) urbanization; (iii) river damming; (iv) gem 

mining; (v) improper use of pesticides; (vi) siltation and pollution; (vii) over-exploitation for ornamental fish 

trade; (viii) use of destructive fishing methods such as plant-derived poisons; and (ix) introduction of exotic 

species (Senanayake and Moyle 1982; Wijeyaratne 1993; Pethiyagoda 1994, 1998; Gunasekara 1996; 

Wijesekara and Yakupitiyage 2001). 

Most of these factors are interrelated with each other. As such, habitat degradation due to these factors 

should be minimized through appropriate strategies in order to reduce threats to endemic freshwater fishes. 

Due to the changes in land-use patterns with increased human population, forest cover of Sri Lanka has 

reduced from 70% to about 22% of land area during the twentieth century (Anon. 1991). Deforestation, 

improper cultivation practices in upper catchment areas of drainage basins of rivers and gem mining cause 

heavy siltation in streams and rivers. Due to the loss of shade as a result of deforestation, some endangered 

endemic fish species such as Lepidocephalichthys jonklaasi and Rasbora wilpita, which prefer shaded 

habitats in forested areas (Pethiyagoda 1991) are adversely affected. Senanayake and Moyle (1982) have 

also shown that the abundance of endemic species, P. pleurotaenia, P. nigrofasciatus and 

Acanthocobitis urophthalmus in streams of Sri Lanka is correlated with the extent of riparian forest cover 

(shade). Many freshwater fish species of Sri Lanka, including endemic species such as Danio (=Devario) 

pathirana, Garra phillipsi and Rasbora (=Rasboroides) vaterifloris prefer habitats with unsilted clear 

water (Pethiyagoda 1991). Senanayake and Moyle (1982) have also identified siltation due to gem mining 

as a threatening factor for the survival of B. signata, P. nigrofasciatus and Sicyopterus halei. 

Pethiyagoda (1994) also showed that several endemic fish species such as P. srilankensis, Labeo fisheri, 

R. vaterifloris and Malpulutta kretseri are far less common in turbid water compared to clear water. 

River damming is known to radically alter flood pattern. Fishes and other elements of lotic fauna are 

adapted to the flood patterns in rivers of tropical Asia. It has been reported that due to the damming of the 

Mahaweli river, Labeo fisheri was severely threatened (Senanayake and Moyle 1982). Smith and Jiffry 

(1986) have mentioned that due to the alteration of hydrological pattern in the flood plains of the Mahaweli 

river after construction of three major dams, reproductive biology of Labeo dussumieri, an indigenous 

species, had been adversely affected. 

117


It is a fact that there is an increase in the use of pesticides and herbicides in Sri Lanka, which might pose a 

severe threat to aquatic biodiversity. However, due to lack of data, impact of these agrochemicals on 

freshwater fish populations is poorly understood. 

It is well known that freshwater endemic fish species are caught from the wild for the aquarium trade 

(Evans 1981; Senanayake and Moyle 1982; Wijeyaratne 1993). Gunasekara (1996) has presented data on 

export quantities of five freshwater endemic species, based on the records of Sri Lanka Customs, Export 

Development Board, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Board of Investment and 

information gathered from live fish exporters. Export quantities of five species of endemic freshwater 

fishes during 1994 are given in Table 3. 

Table 3: Export quantities of five species of endemic freshwater fishes during four quarters in 1994 

(Adopted from Gunasekara 1996). 

Species 1 st Quarter 2 nd Quarter 3 rd Quarter 4 th Quarter 

Puntius cumingii 46,800 15,000 8,770 9,750 

P. nigrofasciatus 103,800 44,500 12,102 16,912 

P. titteya 82,300 43,500 18,678 18,487 

Belontia signata 43,100 14,500 7,331 10,390 

Rasbora (=Rasboroides) vaterifloris 84,800 43,500 32,104 29,650 

Total 360,800 161,000 78,985 85,189 

Gunasekara (1996) has shown that a multinational company has exported three shipments of large 

quantities of five endemic fish species presented in Table 3 with much shorter time intervals than the time 

period required for captive breeding. He therefore suggested that it was virtually impossible to export such 

large volumes of endemic fish within short durations depending solely upon captive breeding. As such, most 

shipments of endemic freshwater fishes contain individuals caught from the wild. Gunasekara (1996) also 

indicated that the death rate of endemic fish reported at the air cargo terminal in Katunayake was 10-30% so 

that higher numbers are transported to the air cargo terminat in order to compensate for dead animals. On 

the other hand, captive breeding of most endemic freshwater species is possible (Chandrasoma et al. 1993; 

Kithsiri et al. 2003) and as such, strict regulations should be imposed in order to change the existing system 

of wild collection of freshwater fish species to captive breeding in the ornamental fish export industry. 

Unfortunately, the export trade of several nationally threatened fish species are not currently restricted and/ 

or regulated by the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act No. 2 of 1996 (see Table 4 for details). 

Table 4: Fish species included in the IUCN red data list of 1999 and those protected under the Fisheries 

and Aquatic Resources Act No. 2 of 1996 (Source: Wijesekara and Yakupitiyage 2001; Ekaratne 

et al. 2003). HT – Highly threatened; TR – Threatened; (VU) – Vulnerable according to IUCN 

Global Red List. 

Family/Species IUCN Red Data Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 

List of 1999 Act No. 2 of 1996 

Family: Cyprinidae 

Danio aequipinnatus HT No export restriction 

Danio pathirana HT Export restricted 

Esomus thermoicos TR No export restriction 

Garra ceylonensis TR No export restriction 

Garra phillipsi TR No export restriction 

Horadandia atukorali TR No export restriction 

118


Labeo fisheri TR Export prohibited 

Labeo lankae HT Export prohibited 

Puntius asoka HT Export prohibited 

Puntius bandula HT Export prohibited 

Puntius cumingii TR Export restricted 

Puntius matenstyni HT Export prohibited 

Puntius nigrofasciatus TR Export restricted 

Puntius pleurotaenia TR No export restriction 

Puntius srilankensis TR Export prohibited 

Puntius ticto TR No export restriction 

Puntius titteya HT Export restricted 

Rasbora vaterifloris TR Export prohibited 

Rasbora wilpita TR Export prohibited 

Family: Cobitidae 

Lepidocephalichthys jonklaasi TR Export prohibited 

Family: Balitoridae 

Acanthocobitis urophthalmus TR No export restriction 

Schistura notostigma TR No export restriction 

Family: Clariidae 

Clarias brachysoma TR Export restricted 

Family: Heteropneustidae 

Heteropneustes microps (= H. fossilis) (VU) No export restriction 

Family: Beloniidae 

Xenentodon cancila TR No export restriction 

Family: Aplocheilidae 

Aplocheilus dayi TR No export restriction 

Aplocheilus werneri TR No export restriction 

Family: Synbranchiformes 

Monopterus desilvai HT No export restriction 

Family: Gobiidae 

Schismatogobius deraniyagalai TR Export prohibited 

Sicyopterus griseus TR No export restriction 

Sicyopterus halei TR Export prohibited 

Sicyopus jonklaasi TR Export prohibited 

Stiphodon martenstyni HT No export restriction 

Family: Belontiidae 

Belontia signata TR Export restricted 

Malpulutta kretseri TR Export prohibited 

Family: Mastecembelidae 

Macrognathus aral HT Export restricted 

Family: Channidae 

Channa ara TR No export restriction 

Channa orientalis TR Export prohibited 

119


As mentioned earlier, information on the ecology of freshwater fish species in rivers and streams in Sri 

Lanka is scanty and not well-synthesized. Hence, most of the development plans are based on such 

incomplete information, which might adversely affect on aquatic biodiversity. For example, in Kukule Ganga 

hydropower project area in the Kalu Ganga river basin, R. vaterifloris, a nationally threatened species 

(IUCN 2000), was found prior to commencement of the project activities (Shirantha 2004). However, in 

the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report of this hydropower project, this species has not been 

listed. The EIA report indicates that many of the endemic fish species such as P. nigrofasciatus and 

P. titteya found in the project area are also found in other river basins of the wet zone. However, as this 

EIA report was based on incomplete information on the distribution and abundance of endemic freshwater 

fish species, no mitigatory measures have been proposed to sustain the populations of the threatened fish 

species such as R. vaterifloris. 

Do exotic species adversely affect endemic species? 

Introduced African cichlids (Oreochromis mossambicus, O. niloticus and Tilapia rendalli) are ubiquitous 

in Sri Lankan reservoirs and support profitable fisheries. These species are essentially limnophilic fishes 

(Fryer and Iles 1972) so that when present in rivers and streams, they occur only in non-flowing parts. The 

Tilapia (O. mossambicus) is found in restricted areas of Debegama stream in Kelani river basin 

(Atalugama in Kagalle district) and Attanagalu Oya in Waharaka (Hettiarachchi, 2005), Dehiovita and 

Atulugama in the Kelani river basin and Kuruwita in the Kalu Ganga river basin (Fernando et al. 2002). 

Fernando et al. (2002) reported that during 278 fish collecting field visits in the Kelani river basin, 66 

specimens of O. mossambicus were caught near a rubber estate in the village Dehiovita, that only 4 

specimens of O. mossambicus were caught in the Kalu river basin during 240 fishing trials with cast nets 

and scoop nets and that they were escapees from fishponds close to the sampling sites in the two river 

basins. Fernando et al. (2002) also mentioned that during the fish collecting field visits to three other river 

basins of Sri Lanka (Gin Ganga – 42; Polwathu Oya – 44; Nilwala Ganga – 47) using electrofishing and 

cast netting, none of the exotic tilapia species was caught. 

The indigenous riverine species have colonized artificial lacustrine habitats (tanks and reservoirs) as feeding 

grounds. Most endemic freshwater fish species such as P. nigrofasciatus, P. cumingii, P. titteya and 

R. vaterifloris are not found in reservoirs where tilapias are abundant, but occur in the streams and rivers 

in the central hill areas of Sri Lanka (Pethiyagoda 1991). As such, it is unlikely that introduced O. 

mossambicus may pose threats to endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. No published data are yet 

available on the temporal variation of the co-occurring pupulations of endemic fish species and exotic 

tilapias in order to come to a definite conclusion on the impact of exotic tilapias on endemic fish species in 


However, accidental introduction of two exotic fish species (Clown Knife Fish - Chitala ornatus and Tank 

Cleaner - Ptrygoplichthys multiradiatus) has been reported recently. Chitala ornatus, which was first 

reported in Diyawanna Oya in 1994 (Gunawardane 2002), is widespread in streams and reservoirs in the 

wet zone of Sri Lanka (e.g., Diyawanna Oya, Panape Ela in Mellana (Horana), Wevita Wewa in 

Bandaragama, Weres Ganga in Moratuwa, Godangoda and Mathugama) (Mr. Jagath Gunawardena, pers. 

comm.; R.R.A.R.S., pers. obs.). The water bodies of the wet zone invaded by Chitala ornatus and 

Ptrygoplichthys multiradiatus, are known to harbour endemic fish species such as Aplochielus dayi, 

Puntius nigrofasciatus, P. titteya, Belontia signata, Channa orientalis, Garra ceylonensis, Malpulutta 

kretseri, Micropterus desilvai, R. vaterifloris, Schistura notostigma and Sicyopus jonklaasi (Mr. 

H.G.S. Maduranga, pers. comm.). Chitala ornatus is known to be a voracious piscivore. Ptrygoplichthys 

multiradiatus is found in Polgolla reservoir (Sumanasinghe, 2005), hence there is a possibility to expand its 

range of occurrence in the Mahaweli river basin. The scraping feeding habit of this species could change 

habitat/substrate quality, leading to detrimental effects on co-occuring species. Gunawardane (2002) 

mentioned that due to the increase in numbers of C. ornatus, abundance of several small, surface-dwelling 

fish species has decreased. According to Gunawardane (2002), since introduction of C. ornatus in 1994, 

120


decrease in abundance of Aplochielus dayi, A. parvus, Horadandiya athukorali, P. vittatus, P. 

bimaculatus, R. daniconius and Amblypharyngodon melettinus has taken place. These two alien invasive 

species have been introduced to Sri Lankan freshwaters accidentally through ornamental fish industry. 

Conclusion 

It is well understood that the endemic status of the species is primarily as a result of geographical isolation. 

As evident from the biology of cyprinids in hill streams in Sri Lanka (De Silva and Kortmulder 1977; De 

Silva et al. 1977, 1980; Kortmulder 1982), most of the endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka tend to 

show well-defined niche segregation and ecological adaptations. As such, any form of habitat alteration 

might be detrimental to the existence of endemic fish species. Despite this, several anthropogenic activites 

such as deforestation, gem mining and uncontrolled use of agrochemicals, pose significant threats to 

survival of many endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. Exploitation of endemic fish species from 

the wild for ornametal fish trade is a major cause of decline of their populations. Accidental introduction of 

clown knife fish (C. ornatus) and cleaner fish (P. multiradiatus), which poses threats to biodiversity of 

freshwater fishes in Sri Lanka, is also an indirect adverse effect of ornamental fish trade. Although some 

introductions of exotic fish species such as African cichlids, most notably Oreochromis mossambicus and 

O. niloticus, have socio-economic benefits and do not pose any significant threats to freshwater fish 

biodiversity in Sri Lanka (Fernando et al. 2002), effective strategies should be implemented to control 

transfer and introduction of aquatic organisms. Wijeyaratne (1993) has shown that most of the endangered 

and vulnerable freshwater fish species (73%) occur only in lotic habitats. Most endemic freshwater fish 

species in Sri Lanka prefer forested streams in higher altitudes. As such, conservation and management of 

not only the aquatic habitats but also the associated terrestrial habitats such as riparian vegetation, land-use 

patterns of catchment areas of streams and rivers, especially in the higher altitudes of the country, should 

be part of the overall strategy for conservation of endemic freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. There is 

little compatibility between conservation and legal status in Sri Lanka as regards to export of endemic 

freshwater fish species (Ekaratne et al. 2002). As Wijeyaratne (1993) has shown, conservation status of 

endemic freshwater fish species changes with time. Hence, legal framework pertaining to their 

conservation needs to be revised from time to time based on the prevailing conservation status of species. 

An effective means for rapid assessment of conservation status is therefore necessary for the endemic 

freshwater fish species in Sri Lanka. Scanty and incomplete information on the ecology of endemic 

freshwater fish species is of little use for the decision making process in the approval of development 

project proposals. A complete revision of the taxonomy of freshwater fish in Sri Lanka is a timely need. 


We are thankful to Mr. M.G.S. Maduranga and Mr. Jagath Gunawardade who kindly sent us information 

on the accidentally introduced freshwater fish species in the wet zone of Sri Lanka. 

References 

Anon. (1991) Natural resources of Sri Lanka: Conditions and Trends. Natural Resources, Energy and 

Science Authority of Sri Lanka, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 280 p. 

Bailey, R.M. and C. Gans (1998) The new synbranchid fishes, Monopterus roseni from Peninsular India 

and M. desilvai from Sri Lanka. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, The University of 

Michigan, No. 726, 18 p. 

Bossyut, J., M. Meegaskumbura, N. Beenaerts, D.J. Gover, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Roelants, A. Mannaert, 

M. Wilkinson, M.M. Bahir, K. Manamendra-Arachchi, P.K.L. Ng, C.J. Schneider, C.V. Commen and 

M.C. Milinkovitch (2004) Local endemism within the Wester Ghats-Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot. 

Science 306: 479-481. 

121


Chandrasoma, J., H.C. Chin and H.P. Amandakoon (1993) Reproductive biology and breeding of Cuming’s 

barb (Puntius cumingii Gunther). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 10: 209-214. 

De Silva, S.S. (1987) Impact of exotics on the inland fishert resources of Sri Lanka. Archiv für 

Hydrobiologie 28: 273-293. 

De Silva, S.S. and K. Kortmulder (1987) Some aspects of the biology of three species of Puntius (= Barbus) 

(Pisces, Cyprinidae), endemic to Sri Lanka. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 27(2): 182-194. 

De Silva, S.S., K. Kortmulder and M.J.S. Wijeyaratne (1977) A comparative study of the food and feeding 

habits of Puntius bimaculatus and P. titteya (Pisces, Cyprinidae). Netherlands Journal of Zoology 

27(3): 253-263. 

De Silva, S.S., P.R.T. Cumaranatunga and C.D. De Silva (1980) Food, feeding ecology and morphological 

features associated with feeding of four co-occurring cyprinids (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Netherlands 

Journal of Zoology 30(1): 54-73. 

De Silva, S.S., J. Schut and K. Kortmulder (1985) Reproductive biology of six Barbus species indigenous 

to Sri Lanka. Environmental Biology of Fishes 12(3): 201-218. 

Dudgeon, D. (2000) The ecology of tropical Asian rivers and streams in relation to biodiversity 

conservation. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 31: 239-263. 

Ekaratne, K., R.H.S.S. Fernando, S. De Silva, C.N.B. Bambaradeniya and D. De Silva (2003) A 

comparison of the conservation and legal status of the fauna and flora of Sri Lanka. IUCN Sri 

Lanka, Colombo. 163 p. 

Evans, D. (1981) Threatened freshwater fish of Sri Lanka. IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre. 58 p. 

Fryer, G. and T.D. Iles (1972) The cichlid fishes of the Great Lakes of Africa: Their biology and evolution. 

Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, U.K. 641 p. 

Fernando, C.H., R.R.A.R. Shirantha, M.J.S. Wijeyaratne and P.R.T. Cumaranatunga (2002) Tilapias and 

indigenous fish biodiversity in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Journal of Aquatic Sciences 7: 1-22. 

Greenwood, P.H. (1992) Are the major fish faunas well-known? Netherlands Journal of Zoology 42: 

131-138. 

Gunasekara, S. (1996). Export of indigenous freshwater fish – a survey. Customs Courier 3(2): 10-11. 

Gunawardane, J. (2002) Occurrence of Chitala chitala (Syn. Notopterus chitala) in native freshwater 

habitats. Sri Lanka Naturalist, A Publication of the Young Zoologists’ Association of Sri Lanka 5(1): 6-7. 

Hettiarachchi, C.P. (2005) Impact of exotic cichlids on riverine communities of indigenous fish species of 

Sri Lanka. Unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. 67 p. 

IUCN (2000) The 1999 List of Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka. IUCN Sri Lanka, Colombo. 114 p. 

Kithsiri, H.M.P., P.P.G.S.N. Siriwardena and G.R.M. Rupika (2003) Captive breeding of some endemic 

ornamental fish species in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Journal of Aquatic Sciences 8: 85-93. 

Kottelat, M. (1989) Zoogeography of the fishes from Indochinese inland waters with an annotated checklist. 

Bulletin of the Zoological Museum, University of Amsterdam 12: 1-54. 

Kortmulder, K. (1982) Etho-ecology of seventeen Barbus species (Pisces, Cyprinidae). Netherlands 

Journal of Zoology 32(2): 144-168. 

Kortmulder, K. (1987) Ecology and behaviour of tropical freshwater fish communities. Archiv für 

Hydrobiologie 28: 503-513. 

Kortmulder, K., E.J. Feldbrugge and S.S. De Silva (1978) A combined field study of Barbus (= Puntius) 

nigrofasciatus Gunther (Pisces, Cyprinidae) and water chemistry of its habitats in Sri Lanka. 

Netherlands Journal of Zoology 28(1): 111-131. 

122


Kortmulder, K., K.G. Padmanabhan and S.S. De Silva (1990) Patterns of distribution and endemism in 

some cyprinid fishes as determined by the geomorphology of South-West Sri Lanka and South Kerala 

(India). Ichthyological Explorations in Freshwaters 1(2): 97-112. 

Lowe-McConnell, R.H. (1987) Ecological studies of tropical fish communities. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, U.K. 382 p. 

Moyle, P.B. and F.R. Senanayake (1984) Resource partitining among the fishes of rainforest streams in Sri 

Lanka. Journal of Zoology, London 202: 195-223. 

Pethiyagoda, R. (1991) Freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 362 p. 

Pethiyagoda, R. (1994) Threats to the indigenous freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka and remarks on their 

conservation. Hydrobiologia 285: 189-201. 

Pethiyagoda, R. (1998) Fishes in trouble: The decline and fall of Sri Lanka’s freshwater fish fauna. LORIS, 

Journal of Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka 22(2): 56-64. 

Pethiyagods, R. and M.M. Bahir (1998) Heteropneusetes microps, a junior synonym of H. fossilis 

(Osteichthyes: Heteropneustidae). Journal of South Asian Natural History 3(1). 

Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks and J.C. 

Stromberg (1997) The natural flow regime. BioScience 47: 769-784. 

Kurup, B.M., K.V. Radhakrishnan and T.G. Manojkumar (2004) Biodiversity status of fishes inhabiting 

rivers of Kerala (S. India) with special reference to endemism, threats and conservation measures. 

In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Management of Large Rivers for 

Fisheries. Volume II (R. Welcomme and T. Petr eds) FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 

bangkok, Thailand, RAP Publication 2004/17, pp. 163-182. 

Rainboth, W.J. (1996) Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. FAO Species Indentification Sheets for Fishery 

Purposes, FAO, Rome. 265 pp. 

Senanayake, F.R. and P.B. Moyle (1982) Conservation of freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka. Biological 


Shirantha R.R.A.R. (2004) Some aspects of biology and population dynamics of selected endemic 

freshwater fish species inhabiting two river basins of Sri Lanka. Unpublished M.Phil. thesis, University 

of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. 241 p. 

Silva, E.I.L. (1993) Discontinuum of the Mahaweli river and its impact on the distribution and diversity of 

indigenous riverine fish fauna. In: W. Erdelen, C. Preu, N. Ishwaran and C.M. Madduma Bandara 

(eds) Ecology and Landscape management in Sri Lanka, Proceeding of the international and 

interdisciplinary Symposium, 12-26 March 1990. Margraf Scientific Books, Weikersheim, Germany. 

397-414 pp. 

Silva, E.I.L. and R.W. Davies (1986) Movement of some indigenous riverine fish in Sri Lanka. 

Hydrobiologia 137: 265-270. 

Smith, M.A.K. and F. Jiffry (1986) Reproductive strategy of labeo dussumieri and implications of 

hydroelectric and irrigation projects on the Mahaweli Ganga, Sri Lanka. In: J.L. Maclean, L.B. Dizon 

and L.V. Hosillos (eds) The first Asian fisheries forum. Asian Fisheries Society, Manila, Philippines. 

693-696 pp. 

Sumanasinghe, H.P.W. (2005) Investigation of the status of the fishery of exotics in Polgolla reservoir, Sri 

Lanka. Unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. 51 p. 

Watson, R.E. (1998) Stiphodon martenstyni, a new species of freshwater goby from Sri Lanka (Teleostei: 

Gobiidae: Sicydiini). Journal of South Asian Natural History 3(1): 69-78. 

Weliange, W.S. and U.S. Amarasinghe (2003) Seasonality in dietary shifts in size-structured freshwater 

fish assemblages in three reservoirs of Sri Lanka. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68: 269-282. 

123


Welcomme, R.L. (1979) Fisheres ecology of floodplain rivers. Longman, London, U.K. 317 p. 

Welcomme, R.L. and A. Halls (2001) Some considerations of the effects of differences in flood patterns 

on fish populations. Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology 1: 313-321. 

Wikramanayake, E.D. and P.B. Moyle (1989) Ecological structure of tropical fish assemblages in wet-zone 

streams of Sri Lanka. Journal of Zoology, London 218: 503-526. 

Wijesekara, R.G.S. and A. Yakupitiyage (2001) Ornamental fish industry in Sri Lanka: Present status and 

future trends. Aquarium Science and Conservation 3: 241-252. 

Wijeyaratne, M.J.S. (1993) Conservation of freshwater fish biodiversity in Sri Lanka. Conservation and 

Sustainable Development 1: 61-73. 

124

Pethiyagoda et al.: Sri Lankan Amphibians: Diversity, THE FAUNA Uniqueness OF SRI LANKA and (2006): Conservation 125-133 


Sri Lankan Amphibians: Diversity, Uniqueness and Conservation 

Rohan Pethiyagoda*, Kelum Manamendra-Arachchi * , 

Mohomed M. Bahir* and Madhava Meegaskumbura *§ 

*Wildlife Heritage Trust, 95 Cotta Road, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka. 

§ 

Department of Biology, Boston University, 5 Cummington Street, Boston, MA, 02215, USA 

Abstract 

A recent acceleration of amphibian research in Sri Lanka has resulted in the discovery of more than 

100 new species, with descriptions of 102 valid amphibian species been published up to now. A 

significant finding of research spanning the past decade is a unique endemic radiation among direct 

developing tree frogs belonging to the genus Philautus in Sri Lanka. The paper discusses 

conservation issues related to the amphibians in the island, and highlights research needs to facilitate 

their conservation. 

Key words: Amphibians, Taxonomy, Conservation, Research 

Introduction 

Knowledge of Sri Lanka’s amphibians has, during the past decade, increased rapidly. The first review of 

this fauna, Kirtisinghe (1957) recognized 35 species-group taxa. This figure was increased to 53 species by 

Dutta & Manamendra-Arachchi (1996), based on examination of museum materials and also a field survey 

that commenced in 1993. Based on this field survey, Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi (1998) 

suggested that Sri Lanka’s amphibian fauna might comprise of as many as 250 species, a figure revised to 

~140 species by Meegaskumbura et al. (2002). As at now, descriptions of 102 valid amphibian species have 

been published (Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005; Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 

2005), and a single species of caecilian remains identified but not yet described: see Table 1. A total of 94 

species have been treated under the Global Amphibian Assessment (Stuart et al., 2004; 

www.globalamphibians.org), of which 79 (i.e. 84%) species are—or were—endemic to Sri Lanka. Several 

further species remain to be described. 

The recent acceleration of research, both in southern India (e.g. Biju, 2001; Biju & Bossuyt, 2003) and Sri 

Lanka has resulted in a complete re-evaluation of the Amphibia of this region. Rarely has so much effort, 

across so many disciplines, been invested in the investigation of a fauna as has been done for the Amphibia 

of Sri Lanka. Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda (2005) examined all the Sri Lankan type material and 

almost all the other preserved material, in museums in Europe, the U.S.A. and India, alongside extensive 

field surveys, in a project initiated by the Department of Wildlife Conservation in 1998. This facilitated the 

re-discovery of several species that had otherwise been known only from type specimens collected in the 

19th century, and also provided data for conservation assessments to be made. 

At the same time, several workers undertook molecular analyses to attempt resolution of interesting 

questions. Bossuyt et al. (2000) showed that the family Rhacophoridae (the tree frogs) contained more 

than one evolutionary lineage, and demonstrated that the striking morphological and reproductive 

resemblances between Madagascan and Asian tree frogs (such as direct-developing larvae that bypass the 

“conventional” tadpole stage) is the result of evolutionary convergence and not common ancestry. 

Meegaskumbura et al. (2002) confirmed that the Sri Lankan direct-developing rhacophorids all belong to a 

single genus, Philautus, and not several other genera such as Theloderma and Rhacophorus, which do 

not occur in the island. Another smaller group of rhacophorids, all but one endemic, are represented by five 

species of Polypedates, which build foam nests. Meegaskumbura et al. (2002) also showed that the Sri 

Lankan Philautus represent a large, endemic insular radiation, having evolved in the island from ancient 

ancestral populations. 

125


While they demonstrate also that a few species had back-migrated to India, Bossuyt et al. (2004) show 

conclusively that the Sri Lankan Philautus have long been isolated from the Indian group, with no biotic 

exchange having taken place between the island and the mainland in the past ~ 500,000 years. This result 

is surprising as Sri Lanka has experienced prolonged terrestrial connections with India during the sea-level 

low-stands that accompany glacial maxima. For example, the most recent Ice Age resulted in sea levels 

that were ~ 120 m lower than today, and a ~ 140 km-wide land connection across what is now the Palk 

Strait. The reasons for this “land bridge” not serving as a medium for biotic exchange between the two 

land masses are not yet clearly understood, especially as Pleistocene climate is not well known at the local 

level (Pant & Rupa Kumar, 1997), both drier (Prematihilake & Risberg, 2003) and wetter (Ashton & 

Gunatilleke, 1987) climates having been postulated. 

The presence in Sri Lanka of ancient lineages of amphibians was demonstrated also by Roelants et al. 

(2004), who showed that the endemic genus Lankanectes diverged from the mainstream of Ranidae 

before the India-Sri Lanka plate separated from the Madagascar plate, in the Upper Cretaceous. This 

species may in the future be classified as a monotypic family, beside some equally unique montane frog 

clades from southern India. Indeed, a new family of frogs was described from the same region by Biju & 

Bossuyt (2003), the first new amphibian family to be discovered worldwide in 75 years. 

Sri Lanka’s Amphibia then, are important not just for their species richness, but also for their representation 

of ancient lineages. Several species have been diagnosed but remain to be described (Meegaskumbura & 

Manamendra-Arachchi, in prep.). Others are known from molecular analyses (e.g. Gower et al., 2005) 

and await formal description. 

While work on exploration, taxonomy and systematics has been progressing, little indeed is known of the 

biology of the Sri Lankan Amphibia. This appears paradoxical given that one of the world’s best-studied 

amphibians is a Sri Lankan endemic. Ichthyophis glutinosus was the first species of amphibian to be 

described from Sri Lanka, by Seba (1735). Sarasin & Sarasin’s (1887–1890) study of this species remains 

fundamental not just to the study of caecilians, but to embryology itself (Gower et al., 2005), while Plate’s 

(1922–1931) study of its histology has not been improved on. Since then, apart from Kirtisinghe’s (1946) 

casual observation of direct development in a species of Sri Lankan Philautus, little has been added, e.g. 

to knowledge of ecology, ethology and reproduction in this group of animals. 

Recently, Bahir et al. (2005) reported in detail reproduction and development in 17 species of Philautus 

and Wickramasinghe et al. (2004) have summarized larval biology and life history in Nannophrys 

ceylonensis. However, large gaps remain in our knowledge of the natural history of other species of Sri 

Lankan amphibians. Breeding has not been observed in Lankanectes corrugata or Nannophrys 

marmorata, both of which represent endemic genera. Such observations could be crucial to future captive 

breeding projects, should populations of these species crash (the latter species is presently categorized as 

Critically Endangered in the IUCN Red List). 

Conservation 

The Global Amphibian Assessment (www.globalamphibians.org ; see also Stuart et al., 2004;) evaluated all 

5,743 species of amphibians described and considered valid world-wide. Of these, 94 (i.e. 1.64%) are from 

Sri Lanka. While this is not a record amongst the biodiversity-rich countries of the world, the GAA analysis 

does award to this island a dismal record of failure: 19 of the 34 species of amphibians confirmed as extinct 

worldwide in the past 500 years are from Sri Lanka. These comprise of 17 species of Philautus, and one 

species each of the endemic genera Adenomus and Nannophrys. Three further apparently extinct species 

of Philautus are known from 19th century museum collections (Manamendra-Arachchi et al., work in 

progress). 

A broad-based multi-stakeholder assessment of the amphibian fauna, together with the results of the WHT 

amphibian survey of 1993–, concluded that 63 (67%) of the 94 species then recognized are Threatened 

126

Pethiyagoda et al.: Sri Lankan Amphibians: Diversity, Uniqueness and Conservation 

with extinction. In addition to the 19 extinct species, 11 species were evaluated as Critically Endangered, 

28 as Endangered and 5 as Vulnerable. Sri Lanka’s Amphibia are in trouble and little is being done about it. 

The conservation of a sensitive fauna that is not victim to targeted exploitation, such as the Sri Lankan 

amphibians, is a challenge in the extreme. What are the threats? Habitat loss is the first cause to be 

implicated by most workers. The vast majority of the Sri Lankan amphibians are restricted to the southwestern 

wet zone quarter of the island (Dutta & Manamendra-Arachchi, 1996) and more than 95% of the 

original forest cover has now vanished. Only ~ 800 km 2 of relatively undisturbed forest now remain in the 

wet zone, and even this is severely fragmented. Three fragments (Knuckles, Sinharaja, Peak Wilderness) 

account for half this estate: the balance 400 km 2 are contained in > 100 fragments of varying size, many of 

which exist only on maps. Clearly, fragmentation is a threat, and needs to be addressed through the active 

management of habitat quality at key sites, and through the establishment of habitat corridors between 

them. 

Fragmentation per se, is however, unlikely to be the only significant threat. Pesticide use in Sri Lanka is still 

to be regulated: the Pesticides Control Act (Anon., 1980) addresses only threats to human health and not 

environmental health or impact on non-target organisms. Taken together with massive erosion from sloping 

lands (Hewawasam et al., 2003), aquatic ecosystems in general are gravely at risk, and these risks remain 

unassessed. 

Air pollution too, is yet to be assessed in Sri Lanka except in the context of human health in urban areas. 

Acid rain and mist has been implicated in montane forest dieback (now widespread in key amphibian 

habitats including Horton Plains and Knuckles) in many other countries. The single report there has been 

of this phenomenon in Sri Lanka (Gunawardena et al., 1998), has largely been ignored by the conservation 

establishment. 

While threats to amphibians such as the above are self-evident, the causes for the extreme rarity of many 

species are as yet not fully understood. In a phase during which new species continue to be discovered, it 

could be argued that a discussion of either rarity or extinction is inappropriate, and that rare and even 

“extinct” species could be discovered with further exploration. However, given the record of exploration of 

the last decade, Sri Lanka is now one of the better-explored countries with respect to amphibians. It is 

necessary to explain then, how it is that so many species are known from just one or a handful of 

specimens, albeit from relatively good-quality forest (Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005). 

Amphibian species may be under-sampled in surveys because their populations are in any case small, or 

because individuals are otherwise difficult to locate (e.g. cryptic coloration; small size; restriction to 

arboreal or canopy habitats; lacking prominent vocalisation in males). The population declines observed in 

many parts of the world (see www.globalamphibians.org) have as yet not been observed in Sri Lanka, but 

this could be because no populations have been monitored over sufficiently long periods of time. Such 

monitoring is now in place, but only at a single site (Agra-Bopath Forest Reserve, a montane cloud forest 

habitat, the surrounding anthropogenic habitats and a regenerating forest patch). It is imperative that 

monitoring be carried out, at least in major bio-geo-climatic zones and prominent habitats within these zones. 

In addition to monitoring populations, it is necessary also to acquire data on parameters known to pose 

threats to amphibians, such as UV-B radiation, water quality, climatic variation, and infection by known 

pathogens such as the oomycete, Saprolegnia ferax (Kiesecker et al., 2001) and the chytrid fungus 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Blaustein et al., 1994; Pounds et al., 2006). 

Only in a single case has it been possible to obtain quantitative information on range shrinkage of an 

amphibian species in Sri Lanka, that of the torrent toad Adenomus dasi. Discovered only in 1997, this 

species is known from only a single location, the forest surrounding the Fishing Hut at Rajamally in Moray 

Estate, Maskeliya (Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 1998). Even here, it is rare, though tadpoles 

have been seen in the stream that descends from the Peak Wilderness forest. Adenomus dasi is, however, 

well represented from 19th century museum collections made from around Nuwara Eliya ~ 30 km distant, 

127


from which its present locality is separated by the Dimbula Valley. Its representation in museum collections 

suggests that it was both widely distributed and abundant up to the 1880s. The species appears to be 

dependent on clear, unpolluted high altitude (> 1,300 m) streams: it has not been recorded, however from 

Horton Plains, in which the Belihul Oya is possibly the only unpolluted high altitude stream remaining in the 

island. At Rajamally, both adults and tadpoles were observed to be mostly aquatic. Ranked as Critically 

Endangered, A. dasi is clearly in need of conservation attention, and it would be a challenge to see it 

successfully reintroduced to its former habitat in Nuwara Eliya. 

How could such a feat be achieved? 

Research needs 

Before research needs could be listed, it is necessary to note that research in general is discouraged by the 

regulatory framework that has evolved subsequent to the illusion of sovereign ownership of biodiversity 

that the Convention on Biological Diversity thrust on biodiversity-rich developing nations (Pethiyagoda, 

2004). While keeping and breeding amphibians as a hobby is commonplace in much of the developed world, 

it is both illegal and unfashionable in Sri Lanka. Two consequences of this are a lack of popular empathy 

with amphibians (which are, by and large, treated with revulsion); and a lack of human resources skilled 

and interested in managing captive populations. 

Captive breeding and reintroduction are clearly actions of last resort, but given a track record of 19 

extinctions and a further 11 Critically Endangered, it is one that needs to be considered at least for some 

Sri Lankan species. Taking A. dasi as an example, the starting point would be the accumulation of local 

climatic and water quality data, together with in situ observations of activity patterns, diet, resource 

utilization, breeding behaviour and larval development, together with an assessment of threats at each lifehistory 

stage. Such a programme would also need examine possible in situ options, such as improved 

upstream water-quality management; the maintenance of riparian vegetation. With these data in hand, an 

informed judgement could be made with regard to restoring degraded former habitats of the species with a 

view to reintroduction within a rigorous monitoring regime. Even if ex situ measures were not to be 

implemented immediately, the importance of developing the methodologies for this cannot be overemphasized. 

For example, the work of Bahir et al. (2005) has bestowed captive breeding potential for all 

seven Critically Endangered Sri Lankan Philautus species, a process that may otherwise have involved a 

lead-time of several years. 

The keys provided by Dutta & Manamendra-Arachchi (1996); Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda 

(2004) and Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi (2005) facilitate the identification of all currently 

known Sri Lankan amphibians. With names and diagnoses available for these species, reliable work could 

commence on assessing populations, habitat requirements and distributions with a view to improving 

conservation practices. By offering only protection, the present regulatory framework discourages 

engagement with this fauna by scientists and interested citizens. The threats to amphibians in Sri Lanka 

however, will persist regardless of how effectively they are protected. The need of the hour is sciencebased 

conservation that seeks to address threats such as environmental pollution, climate change and 

habitat degradation. 

128


Table 1: Provisional checklist of the amphibian species of Sri Lanka as at 1 Jan. 2006, giving also 

conservation as determined by the Global Amphibian Assessment (Stuart et al., 2004; 

www.globalamphibians.org). Where the conservation status has not yet been formally included in 

the IUCN Red List, the recommended status is represented by ‘E’ for endangered and ‘V’ for 

vulnerable. 

Taxon 

Endemicity Conservation 

status 

Bufonidae (8) 

Adenomus dasi Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 1998 Endemic Critically Endangered 

Adenomus kandianus (Günther, 1872) Endemic Extinct 

Adenomus kelaartii (Günther, 1858) Endemic Endangered 

Bufo atukoralei Bogert & Senanayake, 1966 Endemic Least Concern 

Bufo kotagamai Fernando & Dayawansa, 1994 Endemic Endangered 

Bufo melanostictus Schneider, 1799 — Least Concern 

Bufo noellerti Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 1998 Endemic Endangered 

Bufo scaber Schneider, 1799 (see Dubois & Ohler, 1999: 154) — Least Concern 

Microhylidae (10) 

Kaloula taprobanica (Parker, 1934) — Least Concern 

Microhyla karunaratnei Fernando & Siriwardhane, 1996 Endemic Critically Endangered 

Microhyla ornata (Duméril & Bibron, 1841) — Least Concern 

Microhyla rubra (Jerdon, 1854) — Least Concern 

Microhyla zeylanica Parker & Hill, 1949 Endemic Endangered 

Ramanella nagaoi Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2001 Endemic Vulnerable 

Ramanella obscura (Günther, 1864) Endemic Near Threatened 

Ramanella palmata (Parker, 1934) Endemic Endangered 

Ramanella variegata (Stoliczka, 1872) — Least Concern 

Uperodon systoma (Schneider, 1799) — Least Concern 

Ranidae (Raninae) (15) 

Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis (Schneider, 1799) — Least Concern 

Euphlyctis hexadactylus (Lesson, 1834) — Least Concern 

Fejervarya greenii (Boulenger, 1904) Endemic Endangered 

Fejervarya kirtisinghei Manamendra-Arachchi & Gabadage, 1994 Endemic Least Concern 

Fejervarya limnocharis (Boie, 1835) — Least Concern 

Hoplobatrachus crassus (Jerdon, 1853) — Least Concern 

Lankanectes corrugatus (Peters, 1863) Endemic Least Concern 

Nannophrys ceylonensis (Günther, 1868) Endemic Vulnerable 

Nannophrys guentheri Boulenger, 1882 Endemic Extinct 

Nannophrys marmorata Kirtisinghe, 1946 Endemic Critically Endangered 

Rana aurantiaca Boulenger, 1904 — Vulnerable 

Rana gracilis Gravenhorst, 1829 Endemic Least Concern 

Rana temporalis (Günther, 1864) Endemic Near Threatened 

Sphaerotheca breviceps (Schneider, 1799) — Least Concern 

Sphaerotheca rolandae (Dubois, 1983) — Least Concern 

129


Ranidae (Rhacophorinae) (66) 

Philautus abundus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Least Concern 

Philautus adspersus (Günther, 1872) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus alto Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Endangered 

Philautus asankai Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Endangered 

Philautus auratus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Endangered 

Philautus caeruleus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Endangered 

Philautus cavirostris (Günther, 1869) Endemic Endangered 

Philautus cuspis Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Endangered 

Philautus decoris Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Endangered 

Philautus dimbullae (Shreve, 1940) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus eximius (Shreve, 1940) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus extirpo Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Extinct 

Philautus femoralis (Günther, 1864) Endemic Endangered 

Philautus fergusonianus (Ahl, 1927) Endemic Least Concern 

Philautus folicola Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Endangered 

Philautus frankenbergi Meegaskumbura & Manamendra- Endemic ‘E’ 

Arachchi, 2005 

Philautus fulvus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Endangered 

Philautus hallidayi Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005 Endemic ‘V’ 

Philautus halyi (Boulenger, 1904) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus hoffmanni Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005 Endemic ‘E’ 

Philautus hoipolloi Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Least Concern 

Philautus hypomelas (Günther, 1876) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus leucorhinus (Lichtenstein, Weinland & Von Martens, 1856) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus limbus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Critically Endangered 

Philautus lunatus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Critically Endangered 

Philautus macropus (Günther, 1869) Endemic Critically Endangered 

Philautus malcolmsmithi (Ahl, 1927) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus microtympanum (Günther, 1859) Endemic Endangered 

Philautus mittermeieri Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005 Endemic ‘V’ 

Philautus moororum Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005 Endemic ‘E’ 

Philautus nanus (Günther, 1869) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus nasutus (Günther, 1869) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus nemus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Critically Endangered 

Philautus ocularis Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Endangered 

Philautus oxyrhynchus (Günther, 1872) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus papillosus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Critically Endangered 

Philautus pleurotaenia (Boulenger, 1904) Endemic Endangered 

Philautus poppiae Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005 Endemic ‘E’ 

Philautus popularis Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Least Concern 

Philautus procax Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Critically Endangered 

Philautus regius Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Data Deficient 

Philautus reticulatus (Günther, 1864) Endemic Endangered 

130


Philautus rugatus (Ahl, 1927) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus rus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Near Threatened 

Philautus sarasinorum (Müller, 1887) Endemic Endangered 

Philautus schmarda (Kelaart, 1854) Endemic Endangered 

Philautus semiruber (Annandale, 1913) Endemic Data Deficient 

Philautus silus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Endangered 

Philautus silvaticus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Endangered 

Philautus simba Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Critically Endangered 

Philautus sordidus Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Near Threatened 

Philautus stellatus (Kelaart, 1853) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus steineri Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005 Endemic ‘E’ 

Philautus stictomerus (Günther, 1876) Endemic Near Threatened 

Philautus stuarti Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005 Endemic ‘E’ 

Philautus temporalis (Günther, 1864) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus variabilis (Günther, 1859) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus viridis Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Endangered 

Philautus zal Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Extinct 

Philautus zimmeri (Ahl, 1927) Endemic Extinct 

Philautus zorro Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2005 Endemic Endangered 

Polypedates cruciger Blyth, 1852 Endemic Least Concern 

Polypedates eques Günther, 1858 Endemic Endangered 

Polypedates fastigo Manamendra-Arachchi & Pethiyagoda, 2001 Endemic Critically Endangered 

Polypedates longinasus (Ahl, 1931) Endemic Endangered 

Polypedates maculatus (Gray, 1834) — Least Concern 

Ichthyophiidae (4) 

Ichthyophis glutinosus (Linnaeus, 1758) Endemic Least Concern 

Ichthyophis orthoplicatus Taylor, 1965 Endemic Vulnerable 

Ichthyophis pseudangularis Taylor, 1965 Endemic Vulnerable 

Ichthyophis sp. Endemic - 


Anon., 1980. Control of Pesticides Act. Government Publications Bureau, Colombo. 32 pp. 

Ashton, P. S. & C. V. S. Gunatilleke, 1987. New light on the plant geography of Ceylon I: historical plant 

geography. Journal of Biogeography 14: 249–285. 

Bahir, M. M., M. Meegaskumbura, K. Manemendra-Arachchi, C. J. Schneider & R. Pethiyagoda, 2005. 

Reproduction and terrestrial direct development in Sri Lankan shrub frogs (Ranidae: Rhacophoridae: 

Philautus). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement, 12: 339–350. 

Biju, S. D. 2001. A synopsis to the frog fauna of the Western Ghats, India. Occasional Papers of the 

Indian Society for Conservation Biology, 1: 1–24. 

Biju, S. D. & F. Bossuyt, 2003. New frog family from India reveals and ancient biogeographical link with 

Seychelles. Nature, 425: 711–714. 

Blaustein, A. R., D. G. Hokit, R. K. O’Hara, & R. A. Holt, 1994.Pathogenic fungus contributes to 

amphibian losses in the Pacific Northwest. Biological Conservation, 67: 251–254. 

131


Bossuyt, F. & M. C. Milinkovitch, 2000. Convergent adaptive radiations in Madagascan and Asian ranid 

frogs reveal covariation between larval and adult traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, 97: 6585–6590. 





Dubois, A. & A. Ohler, 1999. Asian and Oriental toads of the Bufo melanostictus, Bufo scaber and Bufo 

stejnegeri (Amphibia, Anura): a list of available and valid names and redescription of some namebearing 

types. Journal of South Asian Natural History, 4: 133–180. 

Dutta, S. K. & K. Manamendra-Arachchi, 1996. The amphibian fauna of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage 

Trust of Sri Lanka, Colombo. 232 pp. 

Gower, D. J., M. M. Bahir, Y. Mapatuna, R. Pethiyagoda, D. Raheem & M. Wilkinson, 2004. Molecular 

phylogeny of Sri Lankan ichthyophis (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae) with discovery of a 

cryptic species. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement, 12: 153–161. 

Gunawardena, E. R. N., U. Rajapakshe, K. A. Nandasena, & P. T. W. Rosier, 1998. Water quality issues 

in the uplands of Sri Lanka. In: Gunasena, H.P.M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the final workshop: 

University of Peradeniya — Oxford Forestry Institute Link Project. Faculty of Agriculture, Univ. 

Peradeniya, Peradeniya. Pp. 37–44. 


erosion rates in tropical highlands constrained by cosmogenic nuclides. Geology 31: 597–600. 

Kiesecker, J. M., A. R. Balustein & L. K. Belden, 2001. Complex causes of amphibian population declines. 

Nature, 410: 681–684. 

Kirtisinghe, P., 1946. The presence in Ceylon of a frog with direct development on land. Ceylon Journal 

of Science, Series B, 23: 109–112.Kirtisinghe, P., 1946. The presence in Ceylon of a frog with direct 

development on land. Ceylon J. Sci., (B), 23: 109–112. 

Kirtisinghe, P., 1957. The Amphibia of Ceylon. Published by the author, Colombo. xiii+112 pp, 1 

pl.Kirtisinghe, P., 1957. The Amphibia of Ceylon. Colombo: i-xiii + 1–112, 1 pl. 

Manamendra-Arachchi, K. & R. Pethiyagoda, 1998. A synopsis of the Sri Lankan Bufonidae (Amphibia: 

Anura) with description of new species. Journal of South Asian Natural History, 3: 213–248. 


Gistel, 1848 (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae), with description of 27 new species. Raffles Bulletin of 

Zoology, Supplement 12: 163–303. 

Meegaskumbura, M. & K. Manamendra-Arachchi, 2005. Descriptions of eight new species of shrub frogs 

(Ranidae: Rhacophorinae: Philautus) from Sri Lanka. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 12: 

305–338. 

Meegaskumbura, M., F. Bossuyt, R. Pethiyagoda, K. Manamendra-Ararchchi, M. Bahir, M. C. 

Milinkovitch & C. J. Schneider, 2002. Sri Lanka: an amphibian hotspot. Science, 298: 379. 

Pant, G. P. & K. Rupa Kumar, 1997. Climates of South Asia. Wiley, New York. 344 pp. 

Pethiyagoda, R. 2004. Biodiversity law has had some unintended effects. Nature, 429: 129. 

Peters, W., 1860. Über einige interessante Amphibien, welche von dem durch seine zoologischen Schriften 

rühmlichst bekannten österreichischen Naturforscher Professor Schmarda während seiner auf 

mehrere Welttheile ausgedehnten, besonders auf wirbellose Thiere gerichteten, 

naturwissenschaftlichen Reise, mit deren Veröffentlichtung Hr. Schmarda gegenwärtig in Berlin 

beschäftigt ist, auf der Insel Ceylon gesammelt wirden. Monatsb. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1860: 182–186. 

132


Pethiyagoda, R. & K. Manamendra-Arachchi, 1998. Evaluating Sri Lanka’s amphibian diversity. 

Occasional Papers of the Wildlife Heritage Trust, 2: 1–12. 

Plate, L. 1922–31. Fauna et Anatomia ceylanica. [In German]. University of Jena, Jena. 4 vols., 2,372 

pp., 105 pl. 

Pounds, J. A., M. R. Bustamante, L. A. Coloma, J. A. Consuegra, M. P. L. Fogden, P. N. Foster, E. La 

Marca, K. L. Masters, A. Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S. R. Ron, G. A. Sánchez-Azofeifa, C. J. 

Still and B. E. Young, 2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global 

warming. Nature, 439: 161-167. 

Prematihilake, R. & J. Risberg. 2003. Late Quaternary climate history of the Horton Plains, central Sri 

Lanka. Quaternary Science Review, 22: 1525–1541. 

Roelants, K., J. Jiang & F. Bossuyt, 2004. Endemic ranid (Amphibia: Anura) genera in southern mountain 

ranges of the Indian subcontinent represent ancient frog lineages: evidence from molecular data. 

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 31: 730–740. 

Sarasin, P. & F. Sarasin, 1887–1890. Ergebnisse Naturwissenschaftlicher. Forschungen auf Ceylon. 

Zweiter Band: Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte und Anatomie der ceylonesischen Blindwühle 

Ichthyophis glutinosus. L. Keidel’s Verlag, Wiesbaden. 263 pp. 

Stuart, S., J. S. Chanson, N. A. Cox, B. E. Young, A. S. L. Rodrigues, D. L. Fischman & R. W. Waller, 

2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science, 306: 1783–1786. 

Wickramasinghe, D. D., S. W. Kotagama & R. J. Wassersug, 2004. Larval biology and life history of the 

Sri Lankan rock frog Nannophrys ceylonensis (Anura: Ranidae). Lyriocephalus, 5: 55–61. 

133



Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka 

Anslem de Silva* 

*Amphibia and Reptile Research Organization of Sri Lanka (ARROS) 

15/1 Dolosbage road, Gampola, Sri Lanka 

kalds@sltnet.lk 

Abstract 

Sri Lanka is endowed with high herpetofaunal diversity and endemism. According to past research, 

a total of 184 reptile species occur in the island, of which 105 are endemic. The endemics include 

22 species of saurian reptiles and 10 species of serpentoid reptiles which are considered 

geographical relicts. The present paper provides a detailed account on the current status of the 

reptiles in Sri Lanka, including their distribution, and conservation issues. It also highlights research 

gaps, and proposes several activities to promote the conservation of reptiles in Sri Lanka. 

Keywords: Reptiles, Research, Conservation,Threats 

Introduction 

Sri Lanka ranks as a great herpetological paradise in the world. It is blessed with not only high amphibian 

and reptile diversity and endemism, but also relatively high densities of individuals interested in herpetology 

and publications, especially when compared with other countries in South Asia (refer bibliographies by de 

Silva 1998a, 1998b & 1998c for publications on herpetology up to December 1997). Within the last decade, 

however, herpetology in Sri Lanka has undergone a renaissance, spurred mainly by organizations such as 

the Amphibia and Reptile Research Organization of Sri Lanka (ARROS), the Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri 

Lanka (WHT) and Turtle Conservation Project (TCP). In addition, organizations such as the Young 

Zoologists Association (YZA), Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force (DAPTF/IUCN/SSC) Working 

Group Sri Lanka, Wildlife Conservation Society (Galle), and the World Conservation Union (IUCN), have 

promoted the appreciation of amphibians and reptiles and provided outlets for the publication of research 

findings of these animals. 

Several significant herpetological fora were held in Sri Lanka organized by ARROS in collaboration with 

the WHT. These were: 

1. The First National Herpetological Conference held at the University of Peradeniya in 1995. 

2. The First International Conference of South Asian Amphibians, Reptiles, and their Habitats in 1996 at 

the Institute of Fundamental Studies and University of Peradeniya 

3. A CAMP (Conservation Assessment & Management Plan) workshop for amphibians and reptiles in 

1998 at the University of Peradeniya, 

4. The Fourth World Congress of Herpetology, held in Bentota in December 2001 

5. The First PHVA (Population Habitat & Viability Assessment) for Geochelone elegans and CAMP 

workshop for chelonians of Sri Lanka in 2003 at the Zoological Gardens, Dehiwela. 

The above herpetological meetings, especially the Fourth World Congress of Herpetology, were products 

of this renaissance and a benchmark for a new age in Sri Lankan herpetology, characterized both by 

increased international cooperation in research and by the blossoming of herpetology as a research 

discipline for many young Sri Lankan zoologists. Three recent volumes: The amphibia of Sri Lanka: recent 

research (2001), The herpetology of Sri Lanka: current research (2004) and The Diversity of the Dumbara 

Mountains (The Knuckles Massif, Sri Lanka): with special reference to its herpetofauna (2005 – in press) 

134

De Silva: Current Status of the Reptiles of Sri Lanka 

are perfect reflections of these trends. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, volume 12 (2005) is another 

significant issue with many herpetological contribution. Because the herpetofauna is so rich and varied, 

these many contributions merely scratch the surface of amphibian and reptile study in Sri Lanka. 

Nonetheless, they serve to illustrate the depth and breadth of topics currently under research and serve as 

evidence of the vitality of herpetology as a discipline in Sri Lanka. 

The present paper focuses on the status of reptiles of Sri Lanka under five headings. It is envisaged that 

this will stimulate further research and studies into the natural history and distribution of amphibians and 

reptiles and initiate effective management and conservation strategies by the relevant government 

departments, researchers, and NGOs. 

Carl Linnaeus [1707-1778] described the first reptile (Cylindrophis maculata) from Sri Lanka in 1754. 

Since then, a host of subsequent workers included descriptions of reptiles from Sri Lanka in their 

publications during the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. 

The reptile fauna of Sri Lanka is highly diverse and shows affinities to that of the Western Ghats of 

peninsular India. Though the wet zone of Sri Lanka is remarkably similar to the Western Ghats region in 

India, it is considered the ‘least influenced by recent invasion from southern India’ (Crusz & Nugaliyadde, 

1977). In fact, recent molecular studies of some amphibians and uropeltid snakes show that Sri Lanka has 

maintained a fauna distinct from that of the Indian Mainland (Bossuyt et. al., 2004). 

Knowledge of the Sri Lankan reptiles, however, is largely limited to species descriptions and basic 

information. The general and systematic treatments on the reptiles of Sri Lanka consist of outdated 

classics, such as those of Malcolm A. Smith (1933, 1935, 1943), Edward H. Taylor (1950a, 1950b, 1953), 

Paulus E. P. Deraniyagala (1953, 1955), P. H. D. H. de Silva (1980, 1969), and Frank Wall (1921). Three 

genera have been revised recently with descriptions of new species: Aspidura (Reptilia: Ophidia: 

Colubridae) by Gans & Fetcho, 1982; Lankascincus (Reptilia: Scincidae) by Greer, 1991 and 

Ceratophora (Reptilia: Agamidae) by Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi, 1998. In addition five new 

species of geckos of the Genus Cyrtodactylus was described by Batuwita and Bahir (2005), while a new 

species of the Genus Boiga (Reptilia: colubridae) was recently described by Samarawickrama et al. (2005) 

Reports published to date list 184 reptile species in Sri Lanka (Table 1, Appendix 1), of which 105 are 

endemic (Deraniyagala, 1953, 1955; de Silva, 1990a, 2001, de Silva, P.H.D.H., 1980; Gans & Fetcho, 1982; 

Greer, 1991; Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi, 1998; Smith,1933, 1935, 1943 and Taylor, 1950a, 

1950b, 1953, Bahir & Maduwage, 2005; Bahir & Silva, 2005 and Batuwita & Bahir, 2005). This number 

includes the 5 species of marine turtles that visit the beaches of Sri Lanka for nesting and the 13 species of 

marine snakes (Family Hydrophiidae) that inhabit the coastal waters, estuaries, mangroves, and river 

mouths of the country. 

Of the reptiles, six endemic genera comprising of 22 species of saurian reptiles (Chalcidoseps – 1 species, 

Lankascincus – 6 species; Nessia – 8 species) and three of agamid lizards (Ceratophora – 5 species; 

Lyriocephalus – 1 species; Cophotis – 1 species), are considered geographical relicts (Crusz, 1986; Greer, 

1991, de Silva 2001). Likewise, five endemic genera of serpentoid reptiles — one uropeltid genus 

(Pseudotyphlops – 1 species) and four colubrid genera (Aspidura – 6 species; Cercaspis – 1 species; 

Haplocercus – 1 species; Balanophis – 1 species) are considered geographical relicts (Crusz, 1986; de 

Silva, 1990a & 1990b). Several new species of geckos, lacertids, skinks, and snakes that have been 

discovered recently await description. 

135


Table 1: Current taxonomic status of Reptiles in Sri Lanka (As at 2005) 

Reptile No of Endemic No of Endemic unique at the Endemicity 

Group Genera Genera Species Species sub-species % 

Crocodilia 01 Nil 02 Nil Nil Nil 

Testudines 08 Nil 09 Nil 01 1 

Sauria 25 06 76 48 06 63 

Serpentes 46 05 97 46 05 47 

Total 80 11 183 92 12 50 

Source: Bahir & Maduwage, 2005; Bahir & Silva, 2005 and Batuwita & Bahir, 2005; de Silva, 

1990a, 2001 

Some of the current taxonomical studies of the reptiles of Sri Lanka include the following: 

1. Studies of geckos, skinks, lacertids, and snakes indicate the presence of several new species in the 

island. Molecular and alpha taxonomy of these reptiles are being determined by Rohan Pethiyagoda, 

K. Manamendra-Arachchi, M. Bahir, Anslem de Silva, Aaron Bauer, Christopher Austin and Indraneil 

Das. 

2. Studies of phylogenetic affinities within major lineages of these groups is in progress. 

3. Preliminary molecular DNA sequencing to resolve the placement of Lankascincus within the larger 

lygosomine radiation shows that Lankascincus represents an independent lineage separate from the 

Eugongylus, Mabuya, Egernia, or Sphenomorphus groups (Austin, Das & de Silva 2004). 

4. Guide to reptiles with easy keys and colour illustrations of all species are in print. 

5. Preparation of a well preserved and identified collection of reptiles with relevant locality data for the 

National Museum has commenced. 

Distribution of Reptiles in Sri Lanka 

Published literature (de Silva, 1998a, 1998b & 1998c) and recent island-wide surveys of some reptiles give 

us a fair idea of the distribution of reptiles in the country. Reptile distribution has been studied using 

different parameters, such as the three climatic zones (de Silva, 1987, 1990a, 1992, 2003), seven vegetation 

zones (Crusz, 1984, 1986), the four biogeographic regions (Senanayake et al., 1977) and altitudinal 

stratification (Gans & Fetcho, 1982, Greer, 1991, Erdelen, 1984 & Pethiyagoda and Manamendra- 

Arachchi, 1998). Others have documented reptiles in specific locations or ecosystems such as Knuckles 

(Bambaradeniya & Ekanayake, 2003); Nilgala, (de Silva et al., 2004a; Goonewardene et al., 2004), 

Bolgoda (Ranwella, 1995), Sinharaja, (Jones et al., 1998), Polgolla (Nathaniel et al., 2004). The distribution 

of reptiles is fairly clearly determined by the three climatic zones (wet, intermediate and dry), with altitude 

forming another important parameter. 

The relict species (all Ceratophora, Cophotis, Lyriocephalus, Chalcidoseps, Nessia and several 

species of Lankascincus, Aspidura, Balanophis, Cercaspis and Haplocercus) are confined to the wet 

and parts of the intermediate climatic zones from sea-level to 2200 m above the mean sea level. Within this 

altitudinal range, the species are distributed according to their ecological needs: e.g., Ceratophora 

stoddartii inhabits cloud forest from 1500 to 2200 m above the mean sea level. Appendix 2 shows the 

distribution of reptiles in the seven vegetation zones of Sri Lanka (Figure 1) used by Eisenberg & McKay 

(1970), Gaussen et al. (1964), and Crusz (1984). 

136


Present Conservation Status of Reptiles 

Deforestation, with consequent loss of wildlife habitats and habitat fragmentation, is the biggest threat faced 

by Sri Lanka’s herpetofauna. The rate of depletion of forests and wild life habitats in Sri Lanka is 

considered one of the highest in South Asia (McNeely et. al., 1990). Forests were preserved untouched by 

the ancient rulers of the island as catchment areas and for security. Conservationists consider that the 

extensive felling of forests that took place during the last few hundreds of years would have had a 

tremendous impact on the endemic fauna of the country, as the majority of endemic amphibian and reptile 

species inhabit wet and intermediate lowland and montane forests. These forests today contain the most 

distinctive elements of the Sri Lankan reptile fauna that has been least influenced by recent invasions from 

the Indian mainland (Crusz 1984). During more recent times (commencing from the early 1980s) vast areas 

of the dry zone and monsoon forests were cleared once again under the Accelerated Mahaweli Project for 

agriculture and settlement. 

The natural forest cover that was around 84% of the land area in 1880 is now reduced to 23% (Gunatilleke 

et al., 1995). Although there are laws and enactments pertaining to the protection of flora and fauna, these 

are routinely violated. Typical examples are the marine turtle hatcheries and the large scale robbing of 

turtle eggs and killing turtles for their flesh. The International Institute for Environment and Development 

(1992) and the Central Environmental Authority (1988) of Sri Lanka state that the enforcement of these 

laws has been very ineffective. They are outdated and have glaring inadequacies. 

Reptiles are adaptable and less extinct-prone than most other vertebrates (Wilcox, 1980) that adapt poorly 

to environmental changes. This could be a reason we witness appreciable populations of many reptile 

species. However, our studies indicate that many endemic and relict reptiles face numerous threats. In 

1998 during a five-day CAMP workshop on amphibians and reptiles of Sri Lanka held at the University of 

Peradeniya, 119 reptile species were assessed using IUCN Red List (1994) criteria and 43 species were 

classified as Vulnerable, 27 Endangered and 18 as Critically Endangered (de Silva et. al., 2000). The IUCN 

Sri Lanka, using different criteria reflecting the data available in the country, has determined that 86 species 

are threatened (IUCN Sri Lanka, 2000). The leaf nose lizard (Ceratophora tennentii) was listed as an 

endangered reptile in the IUCN Red List for many years. These lizards inhabit only the montane forests in 

the Knuckles Mountain range. Senanayake (1980) considers that this species may become extinct if its 

habitat is lost due to clearing of the primary forests for cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum) plantations. A 

recent study at Knuckles (de Silva et. al., 2005a) indicates the presence of healthy and appreciable 

populations of Ceratophora tennentii widely distributed in the Knuckles Mountain range. However, it was 

observed that there is a marked decline of Cophotis ceylanica in the Knuckles Mountain range though 

appreciable numbers were observed in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. 

In contrast, recent studies indicate that some species of reptiles which were earlier considered rare (e.g. 

Lyriocephalus scutatus, Calodactylodes illingworthorum, Calotes liolepis, Balanophis ceylonensis, 

etc) in the country exist in fairly healthy populations at present (de Silva et al., 2004 a, . 2004 b, de Silva et. 

al., 2005a, de Silva et. al., 2005b). They even occupy ranges larger than those hitherto reported by 

Deraniyagala (1953, 1955), P. H. D. H. de Silva (1980) and de Silva (1990a). In addition, the lack of data 

regarding the golden gecko (Calodactylodes illingworthorum) has led to the assumption that they were 

uncommon (e.g., Manamendra-Arachchi, 1997, Wickramsinghe and Somaweera, 2003). However, after 

investigating nearly 50 specific sites inhabited by the golden gecko, and counting the number of individuals 

sighted or heard in each of the study sites as well as the number of healthy egg clusters, it is our conclusion 

that Calodactylodes illingworthorum is the dominant gecko species in its range (de Silva et al., 2004a). 

Most of the endemic fossorial reptiles (e.g. the species Chalcidoseps thwaitesii and the Genus Nessia 

etc) when kept out from their niche for 10 to 15 minutes the skin commences to dry and would then 

proceed to shrivel up. Thus, the coolness and moisture content in its microhabitat is a critical factor for the 

survival of these fossorial relict reptiles. Chalcidoseps thwaitesii is mainly confined to the Knuckles 

ecosystem. Studies on the annual rainfall of the Knuckles Range have shown a decrease in the rainfall 

137


(Giragama & Madduma Bandara, 1993; Madduma Bandara 1991). In addition, the negative impacts of the 

cultivation of cardamom at the Knuckles have been extensively reported (Abeygunawardena & Vincent 

1993; Gunawardane et al., 2003). Studies have shown that in natural forested areas without cardamom 

cultivation the ‘A’ horizon is well preserved and covered with mulch to a depth of 30-35 cm whilst in 

cardamom fields the mulch level has reduced to 15-25 cm (Madduma Bandara, 1991). This data is from a 

study conducted in mid 1980’s, thus, it is possible that at present this mulch level could be further reduced. 

When we measured the mulch level in some cardamom plantations at Kobonila in 2004, we found that it 

was less that 10 cm (de Silva et al., 2005). In addition, the soil erosion was high. Thus, we see possible 

long-term irreversible habitat degradation at the Knuckles that could affect the microhabitat of these and 

other fossorial animals that inhabit the cool moist humus and leaf litter of the forest floor and lay their eggs. 

Threats Faced by Herpetofauna 

Diminishing availability of natural habitats have pushed many reptiles to adapt to live in home gardens, 

plantations, and in degraded habitats (de Silva, 1990b, 2001). Some of these reptiles are Lankascincus 

species, Lyriocephalus scutatus, Calotes liolepis, Otocryptis wiegmanni etc. As a result these reptiles 

are presently over-exposed to predators such as domestic cats, poultry and the common coucal (Centropus 

sinensis) as well as climatic changes, human predation, and other threats. 

Predators 

Domestic cats, poultry and the Common Coucal (Centropus sinensis) are known predators of agamids, 

geckos, skinks and snakes. With increasing human population, domestic cats and poultry have also 

increased and have become an important threat to reptiles (de Silva, 2001). 

A pilot study conducted in 99 households in a village in Gampola showed that cats were reared in 49 houses 

and poultry in 16. These animals had killed or killed and eaten 346 reptiles and amphibians within a period 

of 12 months. The three cats which I kept killed the following within a period of 12 months (1992) a total 

of 39 reptiles: Calotes liolepis = 2, Calotes calotes = 3, C. versicolor = 4, Otocryptis wiegmanni = 7, 

Aspidura brachyorrhos = 2, Mabuya madaraszi = 2, Mabuya carinata = 3, Lankascincus fallax = 5, 

Geckos = 11(de Silva, 2001). 

Field observations conducted in the Gampola area (Central Province) over a period of ten years showed a 

sharp decrease in the numbers of the ground dwelling agamid Otocryptis wiegmanni due to preying by 

domestic cats and the common coucal. The common coucal is now commonly found near human 

habitations in rural and urban areas. Recent observations show that in addition to these predators, adult 

lizards prey on the young of other lizard species (de Silva 2001). Senanayake (1980) observed the common 

garden lizard (Calotes versicolor) predating on juvenile Rhino horned lizards (Ceratophora stoddartii). It 

is known that adult Calotes versicolor feed on young Sitana ponticeriana and that Calotes nigrilabris 

feed on young Cophotis ceylanica (de Silva, 2001). 

Expansion of Human Settlements 

A rapid increase in human population has occurred in Sri Lanka over the past century with much land being 

cleared for agriculture, plantations, and human settlements. Erdelen (1988) has shown that the area of 

natural forest cover is inversely proportional to population growth, thereby disturbing, fragmenting, and 

reducing the natural habitats of animals. Furthermore, the human consumption rate of the flesh and eggs of 

some reptiles such as sea and fresh water turtles, Crocodylus palustris, C. porosus, and Varanus 

bengalensis has also increased. Also a high rate in killing and excessive collecting of reptiles is also 

evident, with the expansion of settlements (de Silva, 1982, 1984, 1990a & 1990b; Gans, 1973; Crusz, 1973; 

1984; Erdelen 1988; Richardson, 1994; Senanayake et al,1977; Whitaker and Whitaker, 1978). 

138


The Accelerated Mahaweli Project was the biggest single human settlement scheme in recent years and 

resulted in the replacement of about 200,000 hectares of natural wildlife habitats with agriculture (Baldwin, 

1991). It is one of the largest irrigation projects to be carried out in Asia and many reptiles were killed and 

considerable extents of their nesting habitats were destroyed in the process. 

Forest fires 

Over a thousand hectares of forests and grasslands are set on fire annually. These fires may be a serious 

threat to the herpetofauna, including their eggs that are laid in leaf litter. Daniels (1991) considers this a 

threat faced by amphibians in India. 

Climatological changes 

Increasing temperatures and decreasing annual rainfall is a trend seen in Sri Lanka in the recent past 

(Fernando & Chandrapala, 1991).This may have adverse effects on reptiles that require moist cool habitats 

(discussed above). In the first quarter of 1992 a catastrophic mortality of Cophotis ceylanica was 

observed around Hakgala (1,500 m) and Nuwara Eliya (1,800 m) where hundreds of dead specimens were 

found within a few days (de Silva, 1996, Palihawadana, 1998). Although post mortem and other 

pathological examinations were not conducted to ascertain the cause of death, an extended drought with 

high temperatures reported during this period is believed to have been a major contributory factor (de Silva, 

1996). According to Fernando and Chandrapala (1991) there has been an increase in temperature and a 

decrease in the annual rain-fall in these areas during the past century. 

Agrochemical use 

Pesticides were first used in Sri Lanka to control malaria in 1946. Since then there has been a gradual 

increase in the use of pesticides. Presently some 100 active ingredients are used in both agriculture and in 

public health. Sri Lanka imports about 2000 metric tons of pesticides per year, 70 % being used in paddy 

cultivation. (Mubarak, 1986). Although there is no data regarding the direct effects of pesticides on reptiles, 

a considerable number of human deaths occur in Sri Lanka annually due to toxic effects of pesticides. 

According to the Ministry of Health (1999) it is the 5th leading cause of human death in Sri Lanka: often 

due to self ingestion while accidental poisoning is caused while spraying pesticides on paddy and vegetable 

fields. Frogs that were common in paddy fields in the past are now less common. It is reasonable to 

assume that use of pesticides and herbicides in paddy cultivation could be a factor responsible for reducing 

the frog populations. The author took part in a survey around Naula and Dambulla in 1970-80 to investigate 

the effects of spraying malathion for malaria mosquitoes. During this survey, all householders informed the 

author that since spraying they have not observed a single house gecko in their houses, which had been 

common earlier. High application rates of nitrogen fertilizer may be another contributory factor. Nearly one 

third of Sri Lanka’s land is cropped, and its farmers use 77-124 Kg of nitrogen fertilizer per hectare which 

is 2 to 8 times more fertilizer than is used in any other country in the region (Baldwin, 1991). 

Road kills 

In Sri Lanka an appreciable number of reptiles and amphibians are run over daily and killed by road traffic 

(Bambaradeniya et al., 2001; de Silva, 1999, 2001, 2003). One of the first reports on this aspect was 

documented by the author in a study of the herpetofauna of the Horton Plains National Park (de Silva. 

1999). In a subsequent study along the Dolosbage road, Gampola was that used by the author daily to travel 

from his residence to Gampola town. This stretch of road is approximately 2.25 long. The authors’ house 

was built in the early 1970’s. Up to 1997 there was less traffic on this road, thus there was virtually no 

road deaths of reptiles and amphibians along this stretch of road. However, this increased to approximately 

six road kills per year since 1997. Forty-four reptiles comprising of 15 species and 4 amphibians comprising 

of 2 species were run over and killed by vehicles. The common (8) reptile that was run over and killed was 

139


Calotes calotes. All were males. One Coeloganthus helena with a rat in its mouth was observed run over 

and killed. The present study, though observed twice a day by the author has shown 44 road deaths. 

However, several checks daily will show more as it was observed that during the day crows feed on road 

kills. However, these random observations made in 2.25 km stretch reflect the magnitude of road kills of 

reptiles and amphibians in Sri Lanka annually. Furthermore, many colleagues from different parts of the island 

too have informed the author of several road kills they observe regularly, including juvenile crocodiles. 

Smuggling 

Under the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance (Amendment-Schedule 1) all reptiles are protected 

except Naja naja, Bungarus caeruleus, Bungarus ceylonicus, Daboia russelii, and Echis carinata. 

Only occasional permission is given by the Department of Wildlife to zoos and researchers to study or 

export reptiles under the provisions of CITES. Nevertheless, there is evidence that reptiles are smuggled 

out of the Island quite often. 

Killing of snakes 

Snakes, both venomous and non-venomous, are widely killed in Sri Lanka through fear and ignorance, as a 

precautionary measure against snakebite. The high incidence of snakebite morbidity and mortality in Sri 

Lanka is the major contributory factor for this attitude (de Silva, 1981 & 1982. In the Accelerated 

Mahaweli areas the settlers are constantly exposed to snake bite (de Silva, 1981; de Silva & Ranasinghe, 

1983; de Silva & Hewage, 1987; Deniyage & de Silva 1989). Field observations conducted in all the 

Mahaweli settlements indicated that many snakes are ‘over killed’, especially the Russell’s viper (Daboia 

russelii) and the common krait (Bungarus caeruleus). Furthermore, a host of other non-venomous and 

venomous snakes such as the Trinket snake (Coeloganthus helena), common kukri snake (Oligodon 

arnensis) the Gamma cat snake and Forsten’s cat snake (Boiga trigonata trigonata and Boiga forsteni) 

and the green pit viper (Trimeresurus trigonocephalus) were also killed usually while clearing forests 

during preparation of land. Studies indicated that an average of five snakes was killed each day in the 

Mahaweli settlement areas alone (de Silva, 1982, de Silva & Ranasinghe 1983). 

Species specific threats 

Ongoing studies on geckos and skinks show that despite the fact that Calodactylodes illingworthorum is 

both widespread in the savannah and locally abundant where it occurs, it remains vulnerable to a variety of 

threats. Perhaps most importantly, the boulder outcrops with which it is associated are naturally discrete 

from one another, promoting the isolation of individual populations. Prior to human modification of the 

landscape, the surrounding monsoon forest would have provided corridors connecting boulder retreats. 

These forests, however, are now highly fragmented, in part due to extensive logging and clearing for 

agriculture over the past several centuries. As a result much of the region is covered by extensive 

grasslands and fire resistant trees such as Terminalia chebula, Terminalia bellirica, Phyllanthus 

emblica and Careya arborea, which are unsuitable for Calodactylodes. On a smaller scale, other possible 

threats are those associated with direct disturbance of rocky retreat sites and the immediately adjacent 

vegetation. Thus interesting scenarios of possible population “isolation” within the same locality of 

Calodactylodes illingworthorum was observed. This may lead to eventual extinction of the species. 

Research Gaps and Proposals Pertaining to the Taxonomy of Reptiles in 


There are several difficulties faced by local taxonomists, such as: 

• Lack of comparative material in the National Museum as well as in Zoology museums of Universities 

throughout the country. 

140


• Lack of “properly” preserved collections in the National Museum. 

• Lack of easy and reliable identification keys for most reptile groups. 

• Lack of training facilities in taxonomy and field techniques. 

• Though expertise is available, chemicals and other relevant material for molecular taxonomy is very 

expensive. 

• The intraspecific variation is unstudied for most reptile species, explicit phylogenies being non-existent. 

• Most subspecies erected by Deraniyagala need confirmation by comparison with more Indian and Sri 

Lankan samples and molecular studies. 

• Studies on the ecology and behavior of reptiles are almost non-existent except for a few papers (de 

Silva, 1992; de Silva, 2003; de Silva et. al., 2004a, de Silva et. al., 2004b, de Silva et. al., 2005a, de 

Silva et. al., 2005b and Palihawadana, 1998 etc). 

• The distribution of most species is incompletely known. 

• Threats faced by reptiles are poorly understood. 

• Conservation, conservation breeding, and management of reptiles are in early stages of development. 

• There are difficulties in obtaining permits for research and research grants and for the exchange of 

material with international collaborators, universities, and museums. 

The following initial steps are recommended: 

• The National Museum to establish links with reputed museums that hold types and other specimens 

needed for comparative taxonomic studies 

• Initiate collection of “properly” preserved specimens with detailed data including latitude and longitude 

coordinates of locations. 

• Develop easy and reliable identification keys. 

• Conduct workshops and hands-on-training in taxonomy and field techniques. 

• Ensure availability of relevant material for molecular taxonomy. 

• Initiate research on systematics, biology, and ecological aspects of the reptiles of Sri Lanka with the 

broader goal of placing these reptiles into their evolutionary and ecological contexts. 

• Establish and encourage joint studies with India. 

• Initiate and encourage island wide surveys. 

• Identify threats to reptiles and initiate action to address the issues that arise. 

• Initiate programs on conservation breeding by the National Zoological Gardens with assistance from 

relevant experts. 

• Generate data that can be used to formulate conservation and management plans. 

• Ensure availability of research grants; the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWLC) to take a 

leading role in promoting research. 

Conservation and Management of Reptiles of Sri Lanka 

Some specific and general proposals regarding conservation, management and captive breeding of reptiles 

are listed below: 

General proposals 

1. Introduction of a module on reptile and amphibian diseases into the undergraduate curriculum. 

2. Initiate well designed studies to gather information on the distribution and status of reptiles. It is on the 

basis of such studies that warnings could be given (Crusz, 1973). 

141


3. Declare smaller isolated forests with high biodiversity as protected areas. These could serve as school 

“field laboratories”; to be managed and protected by the schoolchildren and NGO’s in the particular 

area. 

4. Captive breeding of endangered and vulnerable taxa need high priority. Captive breeding programs 

should be initiated when the wild population is still in the thousands (1990 IUCN Red List). 

5. Identify natural enemies and other threats. 

6. Commercial breeding and harvesting of reptiles (monitor lizards, crocodiles and terrapins) at well 

supervised farms could be an effective way of controlling poaching. 

7. Encouraging farmers to employ organic farming methods instead of using insecticides and artificial 

fertilizers. 

8. Studying traditional beliefs and practices regarding reptiles will enable utilization of some of these 

beliefs in public awareness programs to reduce the wanton destruction and killing of these animals. 

For example, it is widely believed that the flesh of Geochelone elegans is poisonous and therefore it 

should not be killed. Geckos are not killed, as it is believed the geckos are indicators of either good or 

bad luck. The flesh and fat of Varanus salvator is considered highly poisonous, and the scavenging 

habits of the water monitor are perhaps reasons that Sri Lankans do not kill it for flesh. 

9. Conduct awareness programs on the importance of reptiles. 

10. Initiate immediate steps to reduce road kills. 

Some Specific Proposals: 

1. Protection of the chief nesting habitats of Crocodylus porosus along the south and west coasts of 

the island (e.g. ecosystems that support the flag plant - Lagenandra toxicaria). 

2. Identify localities where Crocodylus palustris and C. porosus are killed for consumption and end the 

practice. 

3. Monitor turtle hatcheries with immediate effect to ensure that accepted best practice codes are 

followed (Refer Hewavisenthi, 1993, Richardson, 1995, Weerasinghe & Walker, 1995 and de Silva, 

1996). 

4. Conduct awareness programs for cultivators in areas with large populations of Geochelone elegans 

in an attempt to minimize burns and other severe injuries to these animals during land preparation 

activities. 

5. Initiate immediate conservation breeding programs for critically endangered reptiles such as 

Ceratophora karu and C. erdelani etc. 

6. Establish a rapid response mechanism in the veterinary unit of the DWLC in collaboration with the 

Veterinary Faculty of the University of Peradeniya. Such a mechanism would have enabled quick 

investigation into the causes of the mass mortality of Cophotis ceylanica in 1992 around Hakgala 

and Nuwara Eliya. 


Abeygunawardena, P. & J. R. Vincent. 1993. Bare Knuckles: fighting deforestation in Sri Lanka. Harvard 

Institute for International Development, (Spring 1993): 1-17 

Austin, C.C., I. Das & Anslem De Silva. 2004. Higher-level molecular phylogenetic relationships of the 

endemic genus Lankascincus from Sri Lanka based on nuclear DNA sequences. In: de Silva, Anslem 

(Editor). 2004. The herpetology of Sri Lanka: current research (including the Proceedings of the 

Fourth World Congress of Herpetology, Sri Lankan papers and the Nilgala Expedition papers). 

Lyriocephalus Special Issue, Vol. 5, Nos. 1 & 2:11-22. 

142


Bahir, M. M. & A. Silva 2005. Otocryptis nigristigma, a new species of agamid lizard from Sri Lanka. 

The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 12: 235-241. 

Bahir, M. M. & K. P. Maduwage 2005. Calotes desilvai, a new agamid lizard from Morningside Forest, 

Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 12: 134-150. 

Baldwin, M. F. (Ed.). 1991. Natural Resources of Sri Lanka Conditions and Trends. NARESA, 

Colombo, 280 pp. 

Bambaradeniya, C. N. B., L.J.M. Wickramasinge, V.A.P. Samarawickrama & L.D.C.B. Kekulandala. 

2001. Herpetofaunal mortality in highways: a case study from Sri Lanka. Abstracts Fourth World 

Congress of Herpetology. pp 10-11. 

Bambaradeniya, C..N..B. & S. P. Ekanayake. 2003 A Guide to the Biodiversity of the Knuckles Forest 

Region. IUCN, Sri Lanka Country Office, Colombo. 68 pp. 

Batuwita, S. & M. M. Bahir, 2005. Description of five new species of Cyrtodactylus (Reptilia: 

Gekkonidae) from Sri Lanka. In: Yeo, D. C. J., P. K. L. Ng & R. Pethiyagoda (eds.), Contributions to 

biodiversity exploration and research in Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 

12: 351–380. 

Bossuyt, F., M. Meegaskumbura, N. Beenaerts, D. Gower, R, Pethiyagoda, K. Roelants, A. Mannaert, M. 

Wilson, M. Bahir, K. Manmendra-Arachchi, P. K. L. Ng. C. Schneider, O. V. Oommen & M. C. 

Milinkovitch. 2004. Local endemism within the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot. 

Science., Volume 306. 479-481. 

Central Environmental Authority. 1988. Sri Lanka National conservation strategy. Central Environmental 

Authority, Colombo, xvii + 160 p 

Crusz, H. 1973. Nature conservation in Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Biological Conservation, 5(3): 199 207. 

Crusz, H. 1984. Parasites of endemic and relict vertebrates: a biogeographical review, IN: Ecology and 

Biogeography in Sri Lanka, Ed. Fernando, C.H., Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague; 321 351. 

Crusz, H. & L. Nugaliyadde. 1977. Parasites of the relict fauna of Ceylon; VII. General consideration and 

first host-parasite checklist; C.R. Soc. Biogeor. 477: 85-106. 

Crusz, H. 1986. The vertebrates of Sri Lanka: endemism and other aspects. Rep. Soc. Res. Native 

Livestock 11: 65-85. 

Daniels, R. J. R. 1991. The problem of conserving amphibians in the Western Ghats, India. Current 

Science, 60(11): 630 632. 

Das, I. 1991. Color Guide to the Turtles and Tortoises of the Indian Subcontinent. R & A Pub. Ltd. 

Portishead, 133 pp. 

Das, I. 1996. Biogeography of the reptiles of South Asia. Krieger Publishing Co. Florida, 87 pp. 

Das, I. & Anslem de Silva. 2005. Photographic guide to snakes and other reptiles of Sri Lanka. New 

Holland Publishers, UK.Ltd. 144 pp (in press). 

David, P. & I. Ineich. 1999. Les serpents venimeux du monde: systématique et répartition. Dumerillia, 3: 

3-499. 

de Silva, Anslem. 1980. Cercaspis carinatus, a relict snake of Sri Lanka. Loris, 15(3): 105 107. 

de Silva, Anslem. 1981. Snakebite in Anuradhapura district. The Snake, 13: 117 130. 

de Silva, Anslem. 1982. Snakes of Sri Lanka: How they are endangered. Proc. IUCN/SSC Snake Group, 

Madras, November 1982, p. 1 & 2. 

de Silva, Anslem. & L. Ranasinghe. 1983. Epidemiology of snakebite in Sri Lanka: a review. Ceylon 

Medical Journal, 28(3):144 154. 

143


de Silva, Anslem. 1984. Snakes of Sri Lanka: Endangered?. Loris, 16(5):221 222. 

de Silva, Anslem. 1987. Ecological notes on Bungarus ceylonicus Gunther, 1864. The Snake, 19(1): 59 

66. 

de Silva, Anslem. & P. Hewage. 1987. Snake bite in Mahaweli System H area: Galnewa. Proc. Kandy 

Society of Medicine, 10: 115 116. 

de Silva, Anslem. 1990a. Colour Guide to the Snakes of Sri Lanka. R & A Publishing Ltd., Avon, 

England, 130 pp. 

de Silva, Anslem. 1990b. Observations on some vanishing relict lizards of Sri Lanka. Hamadryad 15(1): 

34-35. 

de Silva, Anslem. 1992. Bungarus caeruleus: it’s ecology and bite in Sri Lanka. IN: Recent advances in 

toxicology research, Vol.1, Eds. Gopalakrishnakone, P. & Tan, C. K. Venom and Toxin Research 

Group, National University of Singapore. pp. 746 759. 

de Silva, Anslem. 1996. Proposed Action Plan: Conservation, restoration and management of the 

Testudines and their habitats in Sri Lanka. Department of Wildlife Conservation & Global 

Environmental Facility Progamme, 28 pp. 

de Silva, Anslem. 1998a. The Sauria (lizards and varanids) of Sri Lanka: a checklist and an annotated 

bibliography. Dept. of Wildlife Conservation/GEF/UNDP/FAO, 52 pp. 

de Silva, Anslem. 1998b. The Snakes of Sri Lanka: a checklist and an annotated bibliography. Dept. of 

Wildlife Conservation/GEF/UNDP/FAO, 112 pp. 

de Silva, Anslem. 1998c. The Testudines and Crocodilians of Sri Lanka: a checklist and an annotated 

bibliography. Dept. of Wildlife Conservation/GEF/UNDP/FAO, 42 pp. 

de Silva, Anslem. 1999. The habitat preferences and the status of amphibians and reptiles at Horton 

Plains National Park. Report, Zoological Survey of Sri Lanka. National Science Foundation, 

Colombo. 67 pp. 

de Silva, Anslem. S. Molur & S. Walker. 2000. Conservation Assessment and Management Plan CAMP 

Report for amphibians and selected taxa of reptiles of Sri Lanka. Conservation Breeding 

Specialist Group, Sri Lanka. 226 pp. 

de Silva, Anslem. 2001. The Herpetofauna of Sri Lanka: historical aspects and current status. Ministry 

of Environment, 100 pp + 150 plates .ISBN 955-96005-0-8 

de Silva, Anslem. 2003. The Biology and status of the star tortoise (Geochelone elegans) in Sri Lanka. 

Ministry of Environment, 100 pp + 16 plates. 

de Silva, Anslem. A. Bauer, C. C. Austin, S. Goonewardene,, Z. Hawke, V. Vanneck, A. Drion, P. 

De Silva, B. J. K. Perera, R. L. Jayaratne & M. M. Goonasekera. 2004a. Distribution and the natural 

history of Calodactylodes illingworthorum (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) in Sri Lanka: preliminary findings. 

In: de Silva, Anslem (Editor). 2004. THE HERPETOLOGY OF SRI LANKA: CURRENT RESEARCH 

(Including the Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress of Herpetology, Sri Lankan papers and the 

Nilgala Expedition papers). Lyriocephalus Special Issue, Vol. 5, Nos. 1 & 2: 192 - 198. 

de Silva, Anslem. A. Bauer, C. C. Austin, S. Goonewardene,, Z. Hawke, V. Vanneck, A. Drion, & M. M. 

Goonasekera. 2004b. Some behavioural aspects of Ophisops leschenaultii lankae (Reptilia: 

Lacertidae) at Nilgala fire-savannah, Sri Lanka.2004. In: de Silva, Anslem (Editor). 2004. The 

herpetology of Sri Lanka: current research (Including the Proceedings of the Fourth World 

Congress of Herpetology, Sri Lankan papers and the Nilgala Expedition papers). Lyriocephalus 

Special Issue, Vol. 5, Nos. 1 & 2: 206 - 212. 

de Silva, Anslem, A. Bauer, C. Austin, S. Goonewardene, J. Drake, & M. M. Goonasekera. 2005a. 

Chalcidoseps thwaitesii (Günther, 1872) (Reptilia: Scincidae) four-toed skink: preliminary 

144


observation. IN: The Diversity of Dumbara Mountains (Knuckles Massif, Sri Lanka): With 

special reference to its herpetofauna. Lyriocephalus Special issue, Volume 6 Numbers 1 & 2: (in 

press). 

de Silva, Anslem, A. Bauer, C. Austin, R. Meek, S. Goonewardene, J. Drake, & M. M. Goonasekera. 

2005b. Ceratophora tennentii Günther & Gray, in Tennent, 1861 (Reptilia: Agamidae) some notes on 

its ecology. IN: The Diversity of Dumbara Mountains (Knuckles Massif, Sri Lanka): With special 

reference to its herpetofauna. Lyriocephalus Special issue, Volume 6 Numbers 1 & 2: (in press). 

de Silva, P. H. D. H. 1980. Snake Fauna of Sri Lanka. National Museums of Sri Lanka. Colombo, xi + 

472 pp. 

Deniyage, S. L. & De Silva, Anslem. 1989. Snakebite at Galnewa: June 1986 May 1987. Proc. Kandy 

Society of Medicine, 11:4 5. 

Deraniyagala, P. E. P. 1953. A Colored atlas of some vertebrates from Ceylon, Vol.2, Tetrapod reptilia. 

Ceylon National Museum, 101 pp. 

Deraniyagala, P. E. P. 1955. A Colored Atlas of some Vertebrates from Ceylon. Serpentoid Reptilia. 

Ceylon national Museums, Colombo, vii + 107 pp. 

Eisenberg, J. F. & G. M. McKAY. 1970. An annotated checklist of the recent mammals of Ceylon with 

keys to the species. Ceylon J. Sci. (Bio. Sci.). 8:69-99. 

Erdelen, W. 1984. The Genus Calotes (Sauria, Agamidae) in Sri Lanka: distribution patterns. J of 

Biogeography, 11: 515 525. 

Erdelen, W. 1988. Forest Ecosystem and Nature Conservation in Sri Lanka. Biological Conservation, 43: 

115 135. 

Fernando, T. K. & L. Chandrapala. 1991. Global warming and rainfall variability Sri Lanka situation. 

Proc. 47th Ann. Ses. Sri Lanka Assoc. Adv. of Sci. Part., 1 : 138. 

Gans, C. 1973. Uropeltid snakes survivors in a changing world. Endeavor, 32(116); 60 65. 

Gaussen, H. P., L. M. Viart & L. Labroue. 1964. International map of vegetation, Ceylon. Ceylon Survey 

Dept. Colombo. 

Gans, C. & Fetcho, J. R. 1982. The Sri Lankan Genus Aspidura (Serpentes. Reptilia, Colubridae). Annals 

of Carnegie Museum, 51(14): 271 316. 

Giragama, W. M. G. B. & C. M. Madduma Bandara. 1993. Rainfall and relative humidity of the Dumbara 

Hills (Knuckles Range). Annual Review 1992, Institute of Fundamental Studies, Kandy, pp.72-73. 

Golay, P., H.M. Smith, D.G. Broadley, J.R. Dixon, C. McCarthy, J.C. Rage, B. Schtti & M. Toriba. 1993. 

Endoglyphs and other major venomous snakes of the world. A checklist. Azemiops, Herpetological 

Data Center. 478 pp. 

Goonewardene, S., Z. Hawke, V.Vanneck, A. Drion, Anslem de Sikva R. Jayaratne & J. Perera. 2004. 

Report of Project Hoona – 2003. Diversity of Nilgala fire savannah, Sri Lanka: with special 

reference to its herpetofauna. Project Hoona. 81 pp + 164 – 220 pp. 

Greer, A.E., Jr. 1970. A subfamilial classification of scincid lizards. Bulletin of the Museum of 

Comparative Zoology 139(3):151-184. 

Greer, A. E. 1991. Lankascincus a New Genus of Scincid Lizards from Sri Lanka, with Descriptions of 

Three New Species. Journal of Herpetology, 25(1): 59 64. 

Gunatilleke, I. A. U. N., P.B. Karunaratne & C.V.S. Gunatilleke.1995. Status of natural habitats in relation 

to the herpetofuana of Sri Lanka. Lyriocephalus, 2(1&2): 71-80. 

Gunawardane, H. G. 2003. Ecological implications of cardamom cultivation in the high altitudes of 

Knuckles Forest Reserve, Central; province, Sri Lanka. The Sri Lanka Forester. 26: 1-9. 

145


HewavisenthI, S. 1993. Turtle Hatcheries in Sri Lanka: boon or bane?. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 60: 19 – 

22. 

International Institute for Environment and Development. 1992. Environmental Synopsis of Sri Lanka. 

Overseas Development Administration, 26 pp. 

IUCN Sri Lanka. 2000. The 1999 list of threatened fauna and flora of Sri Lanka. Colombo: IUCN Sri 

Lanka. 114 pp. 

Jones, J.P.G., C.D.Ferry, C.E.Isherwood, C.G.Knight, K. Weerakoon. 1998. A conservation review of 

three wet zone forests in south-west Sri Lanka. CSB Conservation Publications, UK. 59 pp + 

appendix. ISBN 1 901399 044. 

Kluge, A. G. 2001. Gekkotan lizard taxonomy. Hamadryad, 26(1): 1-209. 

Maduma Bandara, C. M. 1991. Climate and hydrology of the Dumbara Hills. Annual Review 1990. 

Institute of Fundamental Studies, Kandy. p. 51. 

Manamendra-Arachchi, K. 1997. Gecko! Sri Lanka Nature 1(1):45-55. 

McDiarmid, R. W., J. A. CampbelL & T. A. Toure. 1999. Snake species of the world: a taxonomic and 

geographic reference. The Herpetologists’ League. 511 pp. 

McNealy, J. A., K.R. Miller, W. V. Reid, R. A. Mittermeier, & T. B. Werner. 1990. Conserving the 

World’s Biological Diversity. IUCN, WRI, CI & WWF US, Gland, 193 pp. 

Ministry of Health. 1999. Annual Health Bulletin Sri Lanka (1999). Colombo. Govt. Printer.157 pp. 

Mubarak, A.M. 1986. Pesticides and their impact on the environment. In: Dissanayake, C. B. & L. 

Gunatilake (eds), Some aspects of the chemistry of the environment of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Association 

for the Advancement of Science, Colombo. pp. 89-99. 

Nathanael , S. D. M. Nayna Pradeep, S. M. M. Samarakoon & Anslem de Silva. 2004. Herpetofaunal 

diversity with special reference to endemic and nationally threatened species at Polgolla, an upland 

area in the mid country wet zone of Sri Lanka. In: de Silva, Anslem (Editor). 2004. THE 

HERPETOLOGY OF SRI LANKA: CURRENT RESEARCH (Including the Proceedings of the Fourth 

World Congress of Herpetology, Sri Lankan papers and the Nilgala Expedition papers). 

Lyriocephalus Special Issue. Vol. 5, Nos. 1 & 2: 86-95. 

Palihawadana, A. 1998. An ecological study of Cophotis ceylanica. IN: Biology and Conservation of 

the Amphibians, reptiles and their habitats in South Asia. (Ed.) Anslem de Silva, 253-260. 

Pethiyagoda, Rohan & Kelum Manamendra Arachchi. 1998. A revision of the endemic Sri Lankan agamid 

lizard genus Ceratophora Gray, 1835, with description of two new species. J. South Asian Nat. 

Hist., 3(1): 1-50. 

Pethiyagoda, Rohan & Kelum Manamendra Arachchi. 1998. Evaluating Sri Lankas amphibian diversity. 

Occ. Pap. Wildlife Heritage Trust Sri Lanka (2): 1 12 

Ranwella, S. P. 1995. A checklist of vertebrates of Bolgoda south lake area. YZA Publication No. BG- 

1-1995. 82 pp. 

Richardson, P. 1994. The Turtle Conservation Project (TCP) Sri Lanka: How much is a turtle worth?. 

Testudo, 4(10: 17 – 21. 

Richardson, P. 1995. The Marine Turtle Hatcheries of Sri Lanka. Care for the Wild, Turtle Conservation 

Project (Unpublished Document), 14pp. 

Samarawickrama, V. A. M. P. K., V. A. P. Samarawickrama, N. M. Wijesena and N. L. Orlov 2005. A 

new species of Genus Boiga (Serpentes: Colubridae) from Sri Lanka. Russian Journal of 

Herpetology, 12 (3): 213-222 

146


Senanayake, F. R. 1980. The status of the endemic lizard, Genus: Ceratophora in Sri Lanka. Tiger paper, 

7(4): 26 28. 

Senanayake, F. R., M. Soule & J. W. Senner. 1977. Habitat values and endemicity in the vanishing rain 

forests of Sri Lanka. Nature, London, 265: 351 354. 

Smith, M. A. 1933.The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia. 

Vol.I. Loricata, Testudines. Taylor & Francis. London. xxviii+ 185 pp. 

Smith, M. A. 1935. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia & Amphibia. 

Vol. 11- Sauria. Taylor & Francis, London. 440 pp. 

Smith, M. A. 1943. The Fauna of British India, Ceylon and Burma, including the Whole of the Indo- 

Chinese Sub-Region. Reptilia and Amphibia Vol. 3 - Serpents (R.B.S. Sewell editor) Taylor and 

Francis, London, xii + 568 pp. 

Stuart, S., J. S. Chanson, N.A. Cox, B.E. Young, A.S.L. Rodrigues, D.L. Fischman & R.W. Waller, 2004. 

Status and trends of amphibians declines and extinctions worldwide. Science, 306: 1783-1786. 

Taylor, E. H. 1950 (a). Ceylonese Lizards of the Family Scincidae. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 

33 (13): 481-518. 

Taylor, E. H. 1950 (b). A Brief Review of Ceylonese Snakes. University of Kansas Science Bulletin. 33 

(14): 519-603. 

Taylor, E. H. 1953. A Review of the Lizards of Ceylon. University of Kansas Science Bulletin. 35 (12): 

1525-1585. 

Wall. Frank. 1921. Ophidia Taprobanica or the Snakes of Ceylon, H.R. Cottle, Govt. Printer Colombo. 

xxii + 581. 

Weerasinghe, A. AND B. Walker.1995. Some Notes on the Turtle Hatchery, Yaddehimulla, Unawatuna, Sri 

Lanka. Lyriocephalus, 2 (1 & 2): 43 – 47. 

Whitaker, R. AND Z. Whitaker. 1978. Preliminary crocodile survey Sri Lanka. Journal of Bombay 

Natural History Society, 76(21):66 85. 

Wickramsinghe, M. AND Somaweera, R. 2003. Distribution and current status of the endemic geckos of 

Sri Lanka. Gekko 3(1):2-13. 

Wilcox, B. A. 1980. Insular ecology and conservation. In: Conservation biology, an evolutionaryecological 

perspective (Eds.) Soule, M.E. & B. A.Wilcox. 95-117. Sunderland, M.A. Sinauer 

Associates. 

147


Appendix 1: Provisional checklist of the reptiles of Sri Lanka (As at June 2005). 

The list of reptiles below is provisional, as the validity of some generic and species allocations needs 

to be examined with more samples. The families, genera, and species are listed alphabetically. 

Sources consulted in preparing this list are: Bahir & Maduwage, 2005; Bahir & Silva, 2005 and 

Batuwita & Bahir, 2005; Das, 1991, 1996; Deraniyagala, 1953, 1955; de Silva 1990a, 2001, de Silva, 

P. H. D. H., 1980; Greer, 1991; Kluge, 2001; Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi, 1998, Taylor, 

1950b, 1953, McDiarmid et al., 1999, Golay et al., 1993, David & Ineich, 1999 and Samarawickrama 

et. al., 2005. The endemic status according to current knowledge is given; but more taxa are presently 

being studied and may eventually be given endemic status. 

FAMILY CROCODYLIDAE Gray, 1825 

Genus: Crocodylus Laurenti, 1768. 

1. Crocodylus palustris Lesson, 1831. English: Mugger or Marsh Crocodile, Sinhala: Hala Kimbula, 

Tamil: Kulathi Muthalei. Status: Not endemic. 

2. Crocodylus porosus Schneider,1801. English: Saltwater or Estuarine Crocodile, Sinhala: Gata 

Kimbula, Tamil: Semmukku Muthalei. Status: Not endemic. 

FAMILY BATAGURIDAE 

Genus: Melanochelys Gray, 1869 

3. Melanochelys trijuga parkeri (Deraniyagala, 1939). English: Parker’s Black Turtle, Sinhala: 

Parkerge Gal Ibba. Status: unique at sub-species level 

4. Melanochelys trijuga thermalis (Lesson, 1830). English: Black Turtle, Sinhala: Gal Ibba, Tamil: 

Amai, Karuppu amai. Status: Not endemic. 

FAMILY CHELONIIDAE Gray, 1825 

Genus: Caretta Rafinesque, 1814. 

5. Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Loggerhead Sea Turtle, Sinhala: Olugedi kasbaeva, 

Kannadi kasbaeva = Spectacled Turtle, Tamil: Perunthalai amai = bigheaded turtle. Status: Not 

endemic. 

Genus: Chelonia Brongniart, 1800 

6. Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Green turtle, Sinhala: Gal Kasbaeva (= rock turtle), Mas 

Kasbaeva = flesh turtle, Vali Kasbaeva (= sand turtle), Tamil: Pal Amai = Tamil. Status: Not endemic. 

Genus: Eretmochelys Fitzinger, 1843. 

7. Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766). English: Hawksbill Sea Turtle, Sinhala: Pothu Kasbaeva = 

Scaly turtle, Leli Kasbaeva = Scally turtle, Tamil: Nanja Amai = poisonous Turtle. Status: Not 

endemic. 

Genus: Lepidochelys Fitzinger, 1843. 

8. Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829). English: Olive Ridley Sea Turtle, Sinhala: Batu Kasbaeva 

= Dwarf Turtle or Mada Kasbaeva = Mud Turtle, Tamil: Pul Amai = Grass turtle. Status: Not 

endemic. 

FAMILY DERMOCHELYIDAE Stejneger, 1907 

Genus: Dermochelys Blainville, 1816. 

9. Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli, 1761). English: Leatherback Sea Turtle, Sinhala: Dara Kasbaeva = ridge 

turtle or Tun Dara Kasbaeva = three ridge turtle, Tamil: Dhoni Amai = boat turtle. Status: Not endemic. 

148


FAMILY TESTUDINIDAE Gray, 1825 

Genus: Geochelone Fitzinger, 1835 

10. Geochelone elegans (Schoepff, 1795). English: Indian Star Tortoise, Sinhala: Mevara Ibba = marked 

tortoise or Taraka Ibba = Star tortoise, Tamil: Katu Amai = forest tortoise, Kattupta Aamai. Status: 

Not endemic. 

FAMILY TRIONYCHIDAE Bell, 1828 

Genus: Lissemys Smith, 1931. 

11. Lissemys punctata punctata (Bonnaterre, 1789). English: Flapshell Turtle, Sinhala: Kiri Ibba = milk 

turtle, Tamil: Pal Aamai = milk turtle. Status: Not endemic. 

FAMILY AGAMIDAE Gray, 1827 

Genus: Calotes Cuvier, 1817. 

12. Calotes calotes (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Green garden lizard, Sinhala: Pala katussa = Green Lizard, 

Tamil: Pachai karata. Status: Not Endemic. 

13. Calotes ceylonensis (Müller, 1887). English: Painted lip lizard, Sinhala: Thola-visituru katussa. Status: 

Endemic. 

14. Calotes desilvai Bahir & Maduwage, 2005. English: Maculate lizard, Sinhala: Lapawan Katussa. 

Status: Endemic. 

15. Calotes liocephalus Günther, 1872. English: Crestless lizard, Sinhala: Kondu datirahita katussa. 


16. Calotes liolepis Boulenger, 1885. English: Whistling lizard, Forest lizard, Sinhala: Sivuruhandalana 

katussa. Status: Endemic. 

17. Calotes nigrilabris Peters, 1860. English: Black cheek lizard, Sinhala: Kalu kopul katussa. Status: 

Endemic. 

18. Calotes versicolor versicolor (Daudin, 1802). English: Common garden lizard, Sinhala: Gara katussa 

(= house lizard). Status: Not Endemic. 

Genus: Ceratophora Gray, 1834. 

19. Ceratophora aspera Günther, 1864. English: Rough horn lizard, Sinhala: Raluang katussa Kuru 

angkatussa. Status: Endemic. 

20. Ceratophora erdeleni Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi. 1998. English: Erdelen’s horn lizard, 

Sinhala: Erdelenge angkatussa. Status: Endemic. 

21. Ceratophora karu Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi. 1998. English: Karunaratne’s horn lizard, 

Sinhala: Karunaratnage angkatusua. Status: Endemic. 

22. Ceratophora stoddartii Gray, 1835. English: Rhinohorn lizard, Sinhala: Kagamuva angkatussa. 


23. Ceratophora tennentii Günther and Gray, 1861. English: Leafnose lizard, Sinhala: Pethi angkatussa. 


Genus: Cophotis Peters, 1861. 

24. Cophotis ceylanica Peters, 1861. English: Pygmy lizard, Sinhala: Kandukara kurukatussa. Status: 

Endemic. 

Genus: Lyriocephalus Merrem, 1820. 

25. Lyriocephalus scutatus (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Lyre head lizard, Hump snout Lizard, Sinhala: 

Gatahombu katussa = Humpsnout lizard, Karamal bodiliya = Crested lizard, Kandukara bodiliya = 

Montane lizard, Sondura = Beloved. Status: Endemic. 

149


Genus: Otocryptis Wagler, 1830. 

26. Otocryptis nigristigma Bahir & Silva, 2005. English: Lowland kangaroo lizard, Sinhala: Thalawe . 

talikatussa = lowland Pendant lizard. Status: Endemic. 

27. Otocryptis wiegmanni Wagler, 1830. English: Upland kangaroo lizard, Sinhala: Gomu talikatussa = 

Forest Pendant lizard; Pinum katussa = Jumping lizard, Tali katussa = pendant lizard, Kala katussa. 


Genus: Sitana Cuvier, 1829. 

28. Sitana ponticeriana Cuvier, 1829. English: Fanthroat lizard, Sinhala: Pulina talikatussa = Sand 

pendant lizard, Vali katussa = Sand lizard, Pullibim katussa = spotted ground lizard. Tamil: Veeseri 

wona. Status: Not Endemic. 

FAMILY CHAMAELEONIDAE Gray, 1825 

Genus: Chamaeleo Laurenti, 1768. 

29. Chamaeleo zeylanicus Laurenti, 1768. English: Sri Lankan Chameleon, Sinhala: Bodilima, Bodiliya, 

Tamil: Pachai wona. Status: Not endemic. 

FAMILY GEKKONIDAE Boulenger, 1885 

Genus: Calodactylodes Strand, 1926. 

30. Calodactylodes illingworthorum Deraniyagala, 1953. English: Sri Lankan golden gecko, Sinhala: 

Maha galhuna. Status: Endemic. 

Genus: Cnemaspis Strauch 1887. 

31. Cnemaspis jerdonii scalpensis (Ferguson, 1877). English: Jerdon’s day gecko, Sinhala: Jerdonge 

divasarihuna. Status: unique at sub-species level 

32. Cnemaspis kandiana (Kelaart, 1853 “1852”). English: Kandyan day gecko, Sinhala: Kandukara 

divasarihuna. Status: Endemic. 

33. Cnemaspis podihuna Deraniyagala, 1944. English: Dwarf day gecko, Sinhala: Kuda divasarihuna, 

Podi galhuna. Status: Endemic. 

34. Cnemaspis tropidogaster (Boulenger, 1885). English: Roughbelly day gecko, Sinhala: Ralodara 

divasarihuna. Status: Not endemic. 

Genus: Cosymbotus Fitzinger, 1843. 

35. Cosymbotus platyurus (Schneider, 1792). English: Frilltail Gecko, Sinhala: Nagutavakarali huna. 

Status: Not endemic. 

Genus: Cyrtodactylus. Gray, 1827. 

36. Cyrtodactylus cracens Batuwita & Bahir, 2005. English: Sinharaja bent-toe gecko, Sinhala: Sinharaja 

vakaniya huna. Status: Endemic 

37. Cyrtodactylus edwardtaylori Batuwita & Bahir, 2005. English: Namunukula bent-toe gecko, Sinhala: 

Namunukula vakaniya huna. Status: Endemic 

38. Cyrtodactylus fraenatus (Günther, 1864). English: Great forest gecko, Sinhala: Maha kalae huna or 

Mukalam huna. Status: Endemic. 

39. Cyrtodactylus ramboda Batuwita & Bahir, 2005. English: Ramboda bent-toe gecko, Sinhala: 

Ramboda vakaniya huna. Status: Endemic 

40. Cyrtodactylus soba Batuwita & Bahir, 2005. English: Dumbara bent-toe gecko, Sinhala: Dumbara 

vakaniya huna. Status: Endemic 

41. Cyrtodactylus subsolanus Batuwita & Bahir, 2005. English: Dolahena bent-toe gecko, Sinhala: 

Dolahena vakaniya huna. Status: Endemic 

150


Genus: Geckoella Gray 1867. 

42. Geckoella collegalensis (Beddome, 1870). English: Collegal rockgecko, Sinhala: Collegalge 

vakaniyahuna. Status: Not endemic. 

43. Geckoella triedrus (Günther, 1864). English: Spotted bowfinger gecko, Sinhala: Pulli vakaniyahuna. 


44. Geckoella yakhuna (Deraniyagala, 1945). English: Blotch bowfinger gecko; Demon gecko, Sinhala: 

Lapavan vakaniyahuna, Yak huna = demon gecko. Status: Endemic. 

Genus: Gehyra Gray, 1834. 

45. Gehyra mutilata (Wiegmann, 1834). English: Four-claw gecko, Sinhala: Caturanguli huna. Status: Not 

endemic. 

Genus: Hemidactylus Oken, 1817 

46. Hemidactylus brookii parvimaculatus Deraniyagala, 1953. English: Spotted housegecko, Sinhala: 

Pulli gehuna. Status: unique at sub-species level 

47. Hemidactylus depressus Gray, 1842. English: Kandyan gecko, Sinhala: Hali gehuna. Status: Endemic. 

48. Hemidactylus frenatus Duméril & Bibron, 1836. English: Common house-gecko, Sinhala: Sulaba 

gehuna. Status: Not Endemic. 

49. Hemidactylus leschenaultii Duméril & Bibron, 1836. English: Bark or Sycamore gecko, Sinhala: 

Kimbul huna = crocodile gecko, Gas huna = tree or Kumbuk huna = Terminalia arjuna. Status: Not 

Endemic. 

50. Hemidactylus maculatus hunae Deraniyagala, 1937. English: Spotted giantgecko or Rock gecko. 

Sinhala: Davanta tit huna. Status: Not endemic 

51. Hemidactylus scabriceps (Annandale, 1906). English: Scaly gecko, Sinhala: Korapotu huna. Status: 

Not endemic. 

52. Hemidactylus triedrus lankae Deraniyagala, 1953. English: Termite hill gecko, Sinhala: Humbas 

huna. Status: unique at sub-species level 

Genus: Hemiphyllodactylus Bleeker, 1860. 

53. Hemiphyllodactylus typus Bleeker, 1860. English: Slender gecko, Sinhala: Sihin huna. Status: Not 

endemic. 

Genus: Lepidodactylus Fitzinger 1843. 

54. Lepidodactylus lugubris (Duméril & Bibron, 1836). English: Scaly-finger gecko or Mourning gecko, 

Sinhala: Salkapa huna. Status: Not endemic. 

FAMILY LACERTIDAE Gray, 1825 

Genus: Ophisops. Ménétries, 1832. 

55. Ophisops leschenaultii lankae (Deraniyagala, 1953). English: Leschenault’s Snake eye Lizard, 

Sinhala: Panduru sarpakshi katusa. Status: unique at sub-species level 

56. Ophisops minor minor (Deraniyagala, 1971). English: Lesser snake eye lizard, Sinhala: Kuda 

sarpakshi katusa. Status: unique at sub-species level 

FAMILY SCINCIDAE Gray, 1825 

Genus: Chalcidoseps Boulenger 1887. 

57. Chalcidoseps thwaitesii (Günther, 1872). English: Fourtoe snakeskink, Sinhala: Caturanguli 

sarpiyahikanala. Status: Endemic. 

151


Genus: Dasia Gray, 1839. 

58. Dasia halianus (Haly & Nevill in: Nevill, 1887). English: Haly’s treeskink, Sinhala: Helige rukhiraluva. 


Genus: Lankascincus Greer, 1991. 

59. Lankascincus deignani (Taylor, 1950). English: Deignan’s lankaskink, Sinhala: Deignange 

lakhiraluva. Status: Endemic. 

60. Lankascincus deraniyagalae Greer, 1991. English: Deraniyagal’s lankaskink, Sinhala: Daraniyagalge 


61. Lankascincus fallax (Peters, 1860). English: Common lankaskink, Sinhala: Sulaba lakhiraluva. Status: 

Endemic. 

62. Lankascincus gansi Greer, 1991. English: Gans’s lankaskink, Sinhala: Gansge lakhiraluva. Status: 

Endemic. 

63. Lankascincus taprobanensis (Kelaart, 1854). English: Smooth lanka skink, Sinhala: Sumudu 


64. Lankascincus taylori Greer, 1991. English: Taylor’s lanka skink, Sinhala: Telorge lakhiraluva. Status: 

Endemic. 

Genus: Lygosoma 

65. Lygosoma punctatus (Gmelin, 1799). English: Dotted skink, Sinhala: Tit hiraluhikanala. Status: Not 

endemic. 

66. Lygosoma singha (Taylor, 1950). English: Taylor’s skink, Sinhala: Taylorge hiraluhikanala. Status: 

Endemic. 

Genus: Mabuya Fitzinger, 1826. 

67. Mabuya beddomii (Jerdon, 1870). English: Beddome’s stripe skink, Sinhala: Vairan hikanala. Status: 

Not endemic. 

68. Mabuya bibronii (Gray, 1838). English: Bibron’s sand skink, Sinhala: Vali hikanala. Status: Not 

endemic. 

69. Mabuya carinata lankae Deraniyagala, 1953. English: Common skink, Sinhala: Sulaba hikanala. 

Status: unique at sub-species level 

70. Mabuya floweri Taylor, 1950. English: Taylor’s skink, Sinhala: Taylorge hikanala. Status: Endemic. 

71. Mabuya macularia maculara (Blyth, 1853). English: Bronzegreen little skink, Sinhala: Pingu 

hikanala. Status: Not endemic. 

72. Mabuya madaraszi Méhely, 1897. English: Spotted skink, Sinhala: Pulli hikanala. Status: Endemic. 

Genus: Nessia Gray, 1839. 

73. Nessia bipes Smith, 1935. English: Smith’s snakeskink, Sinhala: Smithge sarpahiraluva. Status: 

Endemic. 

74. Nessia burtonii Gray, 1839. English: Threetoe Snakeskink, Sinhala: Triyanguli sarpahiraluva. Status: 

Endemic. 

75. Nessia deraniyagalai Taylor, 1950. English: Deraniyagala’s snakeskink, Sinhala: Derniyagalage 

sarpahiraluva. Status: Endemic. 

76. Nessia didactylus (Deraniyagala, 1934). English: Two toe snakeskink, Sinhala: Dvayanguli 


77. Nessia hickanala Deraniyagala, 1940. English: Sharkhead snakeskink, Sinhala: Morahis 


78. Nessia layardi (Kelaart, 1854). English: Layard’s snakeskink, Sinhala: Leyardge sarpahiraluva. Status: 

Endemic. 

152


79. Nessia monodactylus (Gray, 1839). English: Toeless snakeskink, Sinhala: Ananguli sarpahiraluva. 


80. Nessia sarasinorum (Müller, 1889). English: Sarasin’s snakeskink, Sinhala: Sarasinge sarpahiraluva. 


Genus: Sphenomorphus Fitzinger 1843. 

81. Sphenomorphus dorsicatenatus Deraniyagala, 1953. English: Catenated litter skink, Sinhala: 

Damwal singitihikanala. Status: Endemic. 

82. Sphenomorphus dussumieri (Duméril & Bibron, 1839). English: Dussumier’s litter skink, Sinhala: 

Salkasahita singitihikanala. Status: Not endemic. 

83. Sphenomorphus megalops (Annandale, 1906). English: Annandale’s litter skink, Sinhala: Annandalege 

singitihikanala. Status: Endemic. 

84. Sphenomorphus rufogulus (Taylor, 1950). English: Redthroat litter skink, Sinhala: Taylorge 


85. Sphenomorphus striatopunctatus (Ahl, 1925). English: Ahl’s litter skinks, Sinhala: Ahlge 


FAMILY VARANIDAE Gray, 1827 

Genus: Varanus Merrem, 1820. 

86. Varanus bengalensis (Daudin, 1802). English: Land monitor, Sinhala: Talagoya. Status: Not endemic. 

87. Varanus salvator salvator (Laurenti, 1768). English: Water monitor, Sinhala: Kabaragoya. Status: Not 

Endemic. 

ORDER SERPENTES 

FAMILY ACROCHORDIDAE Bonaparte, 1831 

Genus: Acrochordus Hornstedt, 1787 

88. Acrochordus granulatus (Schneider, 1799). English: Wart snake, Sinhala: Diya goya, redi naya. 


FAMILY BOIDAE Gray, 1825 

SUB FAMILY ERYCINAE Bonaparte, 1831 

Genus: Gongylophis Wagler, 1830. 

89. Gongylophis conica brevis (Deraniyagala, 1951) English: Sand boa, Sinhala: Vali pimbura, kota 

pimbura. Status: unique at sub-species level 

SUB FAMILY PYTHONIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 

Genus: Python Daudin, 1803 

90. Python molurus molurus (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Indian python, Pimbura. Status: Not endemic. 

FAMILY CYLINDROPHIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 

Genus: Cylindrophis Wagler, 1828 

91. Cylindrophis maculata (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Pipe snake, Sinhala: Depath naya. Status: 

Endemic. 

153


FAMILY COLUBRIDAE 

Genus: Ahaetulla Link, 1807 

92. Ahaetulla nasuta (Lacépcde, 1789): English: Green vine snake, Sinhala: Ahaetulla. Status: Not 

endemic. 

93. Ahaetulla pulverulenta (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854). English: Brown vine snake, Sinhala: 

Henakandaya. Status: Not endemic. 

Genus: Amphiesma Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854. 

94. Amphiesma stolatum (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Buff striped keelback, Sinhala: Aharukuka. Status: 

Not endemic. 

Genus: Argyrogena Werner, 1924. 

95. Argyrogena fasciolata (Shaw, 1802). English: Banded racer, Sinhala: Wal gerandiya. Status: Not endemic. 

Genus: Aspidura Wagler, 1830 

96. Aspidura brachyorrhos (Boie, 1827). English: Boie’s roughside, Sinhala: Le madilla. Status: Endemic. 

97. Aspidura copei Günther, 1864, English: Cope’s roughside, Sinhala:Kalumedilla. Status: Endemic. 

98. Aspidura deraniyagalae Gans & Fetcho, 1982. English: Deraniyagala’s roughside, Sinhala: Kandu 

madilla. Status: Endemic. 

99. Aspidura drummondhayi Boulenger, 1904. English: Guenther’s Drummond – Hay’s roughside, 

Sinhala: Ketiwalmadilla. Status: Endemic. 

100. Aspidura guentheri Ferguson, 1876. English: Ferguson’s roughside, Sinhala: Kudamadilla. Status: 

Endemic. 

101. Aspidura trachyprocta Cope, 1860. English: Common roughside, Sinhala: Dalawa madilla. Status: 

Endemic. 

Genus: Atretium Cope, 1861 

102. Atretium schistosum (Daudin, 1803). English: The Olive keelback watersnake, Sinhala: Diyawarna. 


Genus: Balanophis Smith, 1938 

103. Balanophis ceylonensis (Günther, 1858). English: Sri Lanka keelback, Sinhala: Nihaluwa. Status: 

Endemic. 

Genus: Boiga Fitzinger, 1826 

104. Boiga barnesii (Günther, 1869). English: Barnes’s cat snake, Sinhala: Panduru mapila. Status: 

Endemic. 

105. Boiga beddomei (Wall, 1909). English: Beddoms cat snake, Sinhala: Kaha mapila. Status: Not endemic. 

106. Boiga ceylonensis (Günther, 1858). English: Sri Lanka cat snake, Sinhala: Nidi mapila. Status: Not 

endemic. 

107. Boiga forsteni (Duméril, Bibron and Duméril, 1854). English: Forsten’s cat snake, Sinhala: Naga 

mapila. Status: Not endemic. 

108. Boiga trigonatus trigonatus (Schneider, 1802). English: Gamma cat snake, Sinhala: Ran mapila. 


109. Boiga ranawanei Samarawickrama, 2005. Ranawana’s Golden cat snake. Status: Endemic. 

Genus: Cerberus Cuvier, 1829 

110. Cerberus rynchops (Schneider, 1799). English: Dog-faced water snake, Sinhala:Kuna diya kaluwa. 


Genus: Cercaspis Wagler, 1830 

111. Cercaspis carinata (Kuhl, 1820). English: The Sri Lanka wolf snake, Sinhala: Dhara radanakaya. 


154


Genus: Chrysopelea Boie, 1826 

112. Chrysopelea ornata ornata (Shaw, 1802). English: Ornate flying snake, Sinhala: Malsara. Status: 

Not Endemic. 

113. Chrysopelea taprobanica (Smith, 1943). English: Striped flying snake, Sinhala: Dangara danda. 


Genus: Coeloganthus Fitzinger, 1843. 

114. Coeloganthus helena (Daudin, 1803). English: Trinket snake, Sinhala: Katakaluwa. Status: Not endemic 

Genus: Dendrelaphis Boulenger, 1890 

115. Dendrelaphis bifrenalis (Boulenger, 1890). English: Boulenger’s bronze back, Sinhala: Pandura 

haldanda. Status: Not endemic. 

116. Dendrelaphis caudolineolatus (Günther, 1869). English: Gunther’s bronze back, Sinhala: Viri 

haldanda. Status: Not endemic. 

117. Dendrelaphis oliveri (Taylor, 1950). English: Oliver’s bronze back, Sinhala: Oliverge haldanda. 


118. Dendrelaphis tristis (Daudin, 1803). English: Common bronze back Sinhala: Tura haldanda. Status: 

Not endemic. 

Genus: Dryocalamus Günther, 1858. 

119. Dryocalamus gracilis ( Günther, 1864). English: The scarce bridal snake, Sinhala: Megata 

radanakaya. Status: Not endemic. . 

120. Dryocalamus nympha (Daudin, 1803). English: Bridal snake, Sinhala: Geta Radanakaya, Geta 

karawala. Status: Not endemic. 

Genus: Gerarda Gray, 1849 

121. Gerarda prevostianus (Eydoux & Gervais, 1837). English: Gerard’s water snake, Sinhala: Prevostge 

diyabariya. Status: Not endemic. 

Genus: Haplocercus Günther, 1858 

122. Haplocercus ceylonensis Günther, 1858. English: The black spine snake, mould snake, Sinhala: 

Kurunkarawala. Status: Endemic. 

Genus: Liopeltis Fitzinger, 1843 

123. Liopeltis calamaria (Günther, 1858). English: Reed snake, Sinhala: Punbariya. Status: Not endemic. 

Genus: Lycodon Boie in: Fitzinger, 1826 

124. Lycodon aulicus (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Wolf snake, house snake, Sinhala: Alu radanakaya. 


125. Lycodon osmanhilli (Taylor, 1950). Flowery wolf snake, Sinhala: Mal radanakaya. Status: Endemic. 

126. Lycodon striatus sinhaleyus Deraniyagala, 1955. English: Shaw’s wolf snake, Sinhala: Kabara 

radanakaya. Status: unique at sub-species level 

Genus: Macropisthodon Boulenger, 1893 

127. Macropisthodon plumbicolor palabariya Deraniyagala, 1955. English: The green keelback, Sinhala: 

Palabariya. Status: Endemic. 

Genus: Oligodon Boie in: Fitzinger, 1826 

128. Oligodon arnensis (Shaw, 1802). English: Common kukri snake, Banded Kukri, Sinhala: Arani dath 

ketiya. Status: Not endemic. 

129. Oligodon calamarius (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Templeton’s kukri snake, Sinhala: Kabara dath 

ketiya. Status: Endemic. 

130. Oligodon sublineatus Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854. English: Dumerul’s kuki snake, Sinhala: Pulli 

dath ketiya. Status: Endemic. 

155


131. Oligodon taeniolata ceylonicus Wall, 1921. English: The variegated kukri snake, Sinhala: Wairi dath 

ketiya. Status: unique at sub-species level 

132. Oligodon taeniolata fasciatus (Günther, 1864). English: Russell’s kukri snake, Sinhala: Pulli dath 

ketiya. Status: Not endemic. 

Genus: Ptyas Fitzinger, 1843 

133. Ptyas mucosa maxima (Deraniyagala, 1955). English: Rat snake, Sinhala: Gerandiya. . Status: unique 

at sub-species level 

Genus: Sibynophis Fitzinger, 1864 

134. Sibynophis subpunctatus (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854). English: Jerdon’s polyodent, Sinhala: 

Dathigomaraya. Status: Not endemic. 

Genus: Xenochrophis Günther, 1864 

135. Xenochrophis asperrimus (Boulenger, 1891). English: The checkered keelback, Sinhala: Diya 

polonga, Diya bariya. Status: Endemic. 

136. Xenochrophis piscator piscator (Schneider, 1799). English: The Checkered keelback, Sinhala: Diya 

naya, Diya bariya. Status: Not endemic. 

FAMILY ELAPIDAE 

Genus: Bungarus Daudin, 1803 

137. Bungarus caeruleus (Schneider, 1801). English: The common krait, Sinhala: Thel karawala. Status: 

Not endemic. 

138. Bungarus ceylonicus ceylonicus Günther, 1864. English: Sri Lanka (= Ceylon) krait, Sinhala: Madu 

karawala. Status: Endemic. 

139. Bungarus ceylonicus karavala Deraniyagala, 1955. English: Sri Lanka (= Ceylon) krait, Sinhala: 

Hath karawala. Status: Endemic. 

Genus: Calliophis Gray, 1834 

140. Calliophis melanurus sinhaleyus Deraniyagala, 1951. English: Sri Lanka coral snake, Sinhala: 

Depath kaluwa. Status: unique at sub-species level 

Genus: Naja Laurenti, 1768 

141. Naja naja (Linnaeus, 1758). English: Indian cobra, Sinhala: Naya. Status: Not endemic. 

FAMILY HYDROPHIIDAE 

Genus: Astrotia Fischer, 1855 

142. Astrotia stokesii (Gray in Stokes, 1846). English: Stoke’s sea snake, Sinhala: Mahavalakkadiya. 


Genus: Enhydrina Gray, 1849 

143. Enhydrina schistosa (Daudin, 1803). English: Hook nose sea snake, Sinhala: Valakkadiya. Status: Not 

endemic. 

Genus: Hydrophis Latreille in Sonnini & Latreille, 1801 

144. Hydrophis bituberculatus Peters, “1872” 1873. English: Peter’s sea snake, Peterge muhudunaya. 


145. Hydrophis cyanocinctus (Daudin, 1803). English: The chitul, Sinhala: Wairan muhudunaya. Status: 

Not endemic 

146. Hydrophis gracilis (Shaw, 1802). English: John’s sea snake, Sinhala: Kudahis Muhudu naya. Status: 

Not endemic. 

156


147. Hydrophis lapemoides (Gray, 1849). English: Persian Gulf seasnake, Sinhala: Persiyanu bokke 

muhudu naya. Status: Not endemic 

148. Hydrophis ornatus ornatus (Gray, 1842). English: Gray’s sea snake, Sinhala: Grayge Muhudu naya. 


149. Hydrophis spiralis (Shaw, 1802). English: Narrow banded sea snake, Sinhala: Sihin Mudhu naya. 

Status: Not endemic 

150. Hydrophis stricticollis (Günther, 1864). English: Guenther’s sea snake, Guntherge muhudunaya. 


Genus: Kerilia Gray, 1849 

151. Kerilia jerdonii (Gray, 1849). English: Jerdon’s sea snake Sinhala: Jerdonge Muhudu naya. Status: 

Not endemic. 

Genus: Lapemis Gray, “1834” (1835) 

152. Lapemis curtus (Shaw, 1802). English: Shaw’s sea snake, Sinhala: Shawge kuda muhudunaya. Status: 

Not endemic. 

Genus: Pelamis Daudin, 1803 

153. Pelamis platurus (Linnaeus, 1766). English: Yellow bellied sea snake, Sinhala: Badakaha muhudu 

naya. Status: Not endemic. 

Genus: Thalassophina Smith, 1929 

154. Thalassophina viperina (Schmidt, 1852). English: Schmidt’s sea snake, Sinhala: Polon muhudunaya. 


FAMILY TYPHLOPIDAE Merrm, 1820. 

Genus: Ramphotyphlops Fitzinger, 1843 

155. Ramphotyphlops braminus (Daudin, 1803). English: Common blind snake, Sinhala: Dumuta kanaulla. 


Genus: Typhlops, Oppel, 1811 

156. Typhlops ceylonicus Smith, 1943. English: Smith’s blind snake, Sinhala: Smithge kanaulla. Status: Endemic. 

157. Typhlops lankaensis Taylor, 1947. English: Lanka blind snake, Sinhala: Lak kanaulla. Status: Endemic. 

158. Typhlops leucomelas Boulenger, 1890. English: Pied typhlops, Sinhala: Dewarna kanaulla. Status: 

Endemic. 

159. Typhlops malcolmi Taylor, 1947. English: Malcolm’s blind snake, Sinhala: Malcomge kanaulla. Status: 

Endemic. 

160. Typhlops mirus Jan in: Jan and Sordelli, 1860. English: Jan’s blind snake, Sinhala: Heenkanaulla. 


161. Typhlops porrectus Stoliczka, 1871. English: Stoliczka’s blind snake, Sinhala: Stoliczkage kanaulla. 


162. Typhlops tenebrarum Taylor, 1947. English: Taylor’s blind snake, Sinhala: Taylorge kanaulla. Status: 

Endemic. 

163. Typhlops veddae Taylor, 1947. English: Veddha’s blind snake, Sinhala: Veddage kanaulla. Status: Endemic. 

164. Typhlops violaceus Taylor, 1947. English: Violet blind snake, Sinhala: Dan kanaulla. Status: Endemic. 

FAMILY UROPELTIDAE Müller, 1832 

Genus: Platyplectrurus Günther, 1868 

165. Platyplectrurus madurensis ruhunae Deraniyagala, 1954. Status: Endemic. DOUBTFUL SPECIES. 

157


Genus: Pseudotyphlops Schlegel, 1839 

166. Pseudotyphlops philippinus (Schlegel, 1839). English: Large shield tail, Sinhala: Maha bimulla. 


Genus: Rhinophis Hemprich, 1820 

167. Rhinophis blythii (Kelaart, 1853). English Blyth’s earth snake, Sinhala: Gomarathudulla. Status: 

Endemic. 

168. Rhinophis dorsimaculatus (Deraniyagala, 1941). English: Orange shield tail, Sinhala: Thambapani 

walga ebaya. Status: Endemic. 

169. Rhinophis drummondhayi (Wall, 1921). English: Drummond-Hay’s earth snake, Sinhala: 

Thapothudulla. Status: Endemic. 

170. Rhinophis homolepis (Hemprich, 182). English: Kelaarts earth snake, Sinhala: Depaththudulla. Status: 

Endemic 

171. Rhinophis oxyrynchus (Schneider, 1801). English: Schneider’s earth snake, Sinhala: Ulthudulla. 


172. Rhinophis philippinus (Cuvier, 1829). English: Cuvier’s earth snake, Sinhala: Cuvierge walga ebaya. 


173. Rhinophis porrectus (Wall, 1921). English: Willey’s earth snake, Sinhala: Digthudulla. Status: 

Endemic. 

174. Rhinophis punctatus (Müller, 1832). English: Muller’s earth snake, Sinhala: Ticthudulla. Status: 

Endemic. 

175. Rhinophis tricoloratus (Deraniyagala, 1975). English: Deraniyagala’s shield tail, Sinhala: 

Deraniyagalage walga ebaya. Status: Endemic. 

Genus: Uropeltis Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854. 

176. Uropeltis melanogaster (Gray, 1858). English: Black shield tail, Sinhala: Kaluwakatulla. Status: 

Endemic. 

177. Uropeltis phillipsi (Nicholls, 1929). English: Phillips’s shield tail, Sinhala: Iriwakatulla. Status: Endemic. 

178. Uropeltis ruhunae (Deraniyagala, 1954). Status: Endemic. DOUBTFUL SPECEIS. 

FAMILY VIPERIDAE Oppel, 1811 

Genus: Daboia Gray, 1842 

179. Daboia russelii russelii (Shaw & Nodder, 1797). English: Russell’s viper, Sinhala: Tith Polonga. 


Genus: Echis Merrem, 1820 

180. Echis carinatus carinatus (Schneider, 1801). English: Saw scale viper, Sinhala: Vali polonga. Status: 

Not endemic. 

Genus: Hypnale Fitzinger, 1843 

181. Hypnale hypnale (Merrem, 1820). English: The Merrem’s Hump nose viper, Sinhala: Polonthelissa. 


182. Hypnale nepa (Laurenti, 1768). English: Merrem’s hump-nosed viper, Sinhala: Mukalan thelissa. 


183. Hypnale walli (Gloyd, 1977). English: Gloyd’s Hump-nosed viper, Sinhala: Kuda mukalan thelissa. 


Genus: Trimeresurus (Lacépcde, 1804) 

184. Trimeresurus trigonocephalus (Latereille in: Sonini & Latreille, 1801). English: Green pit viper, 

Sinhala: Pala polonga. Status: Endemic. 

158


Appendix 2: Distribution of reptiles of Sri Lanka in the seven vegetation zones 

Distribution zones: 

A1 = Monsoon scrub jungle - extreme north and North West. 

A2 = Monsoon scrub jungle - extreme south east 

B = Monsoon forest and grassland 

C = Inter monsoon forests 

D1 = Rain forest and grassland – below 900 m 

D2 = Rain forest and grassland – 900 to 1500 m 

D3 = Rain forest and grassland – above 1500 m 

* = Five species of marine turtles that visit the beaches of A1, A2, B, C, and D1 

** = Marine and snakes that inhabit estuaries, mangroves along the beaches of A1, A2, B, C, and D1 

•% = The species of the genus Sphenomorphus is presently subjected to revision. Thus not listed under 

vegetation zones. 

Occurrence: P – present, Ab – Absent, NR – not recorded 

Source: Bahir & Maduwage, 2005; Bahir & Silva, 2005 and Batuwita & Bahir, 2005; de Silva, 

2001, Das & de Silva, 2005. 

Species A1 A2 B C D1 D2 D3 

1. Crocodylus palustris P P P P NR Ab Ab 

2. Crocodylus porosus P P P P P Ab Ab 

CROCODILIA 2 2 2 2 1 Ab Ab 

3. Melanochelys trijuga parkeri NR NR P NR Ab Ab Ab 

4. Melanochelys trijuga thermalis P P P P P NR Ab 

5. Caretta caretta * P P NR P P Ab Ab 

6. Chelonia mydas * P P P P P Ab Ab 

7. Eretmochelys imbricata * P P P P P Ab Ab 

8. Lepidochelys olivacea * P P P P P Ab Ab 

9. Dermochelys coriacea * P P P P P Ab Ab 

10. Geochelone elegans P P P P Ab Ab Ab 

11. Lissemys punctata punctata P P P P P Ab Ab 

TESTUDINES 8 8 8 8 7 Ab Ab 

12. Calotes calotes P P P P P P Ab 

13. Calotes ceylonensis NR NR P P NR Ab Ab 

14. Calotes desilvai Ab Ab Ab Ab P NR Ab 

15. Calotes liocephalus Ab Ab Ab Ab P P Ab 

16. Calotes liolepis Ab Ab P P P P Ab 

17. Calotes nigrilabris Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab P P 

18. Calotes versicolor versicolor P P P P P P P 

19. Ceratophora aspera Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

20. Ceratophora erdeleni Ab Ab Ab Ab P NR Ab 

21. Ceratophora karu Ab Ab Ab Ab P NR Ab 

22. Ceratophora stoddartii Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab P P 

159


23. Ceratophora tennentii Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab P P 

24. Cophotis ceylanica Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab P P 

25. Lyriocephalus scutatus Ab Ab NR NR P P Ab 

26. Otocryptis nigristigma NR NR P P Ab Ab Ab 

27. Otocryptis wiegmanni NR NR NR P P P Ab 

28. Sitana ponticeriana P P P P Ab Ab Ab 

29. Chamaeleo zeylanicus P P P NR Ab Ab Ab 

30. Calodactylodes illingworthorum Ab Ab P P Ab Ab Ab 

31. Cnemaspis jerdoni scalpensis Ab Ab P P P Ab Ab 

32. Cnemaspis kandiana Ab Ab Ab P P P Ab 

33. Cnemaspis podihuna Ab Ab P P NR Ab Ab 

34. Cnemaspis tropidogaster Ab Ab NR P P P Ab 

35. Cosymbotus platyurus NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 

36. Cyrtodactylus cracens Ab Ab Ab Ab P NR Ab 

37. Cyrtodactylus edwardtaylori Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab 

38. Cyrtodactylus fraenatus Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

39. Cyrtodactylus ramboda Ab Ab Ab Ab P NR Ab 

40. Cyrtodactylus soba Ab Ab Ab Ab P P Ab 

41. Cyrtodactylus subsolanus Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

42. Geckoella collegalensis Ab Ab P Ab Ab Ab Ab 

43. Geckoella triedrus Ab Ab Ab NR P P NR 

44. Geckoella yakhuna P NR P P Ab Ab Ab 

45. Gehyra mutilata P P P P P P NR 

46. Hemidactylus brookii parvimaculatus P P P P P NR Ab 

47. Hemidactylus depressus P P P P P NR Ab 

48. Hemidactylus frenatus P P P P P P NR 

49. Hemidactylus leschenaultii P P P P NR Ab Ab 

50. Hemidactylus maculatus hunae Ab Ab P P NR Ab Ab 

51. Hemidactylus scabriceps P Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab 

52. Hemidactylus triedrus lankae P NR P P P Ab Ab 

53. Hemiphyllodactylus typus Ab Ab NR P P Ab Ab 

54. Lepidodactylus lugubris Ab Ab Ab NR P Ab Ab 

55. Ophisops leschenaultii lankae P Ab P NR Ab Ab Ab 

56. Ophisops minor minor P Ab P NR Ab Ab Ab 

57. Chalcidoseps thwaitesii Ab Ab Ab Ab P P Ab 

58. Dasia halianus P P P P P Ab Ab 

59. Lankascincus deignani Ab Ab Ab Ab P P Ab 

60. Lankascincus deraniyagalae Ab Ab Ab Ab P P Ab 

61. Lankascincus fallax P P P P P P NR 

62. Lankascincus gansi Ab Ab Ab Ab P NR Ab 

63. Lankascincus taprobanensis Ab Ab Ab Ab P P P 

64. Lankascincus taylori Ab Ab Ab Ab P P NR 

160


65. Lygosoma punctatus P P P P P Ab Ab 

66. Lygosoma singha NR NR P NR Ab Ab Ab 

67. Mabuya beddomii P NR NR NR Ab Ab Ab 

68. Mabuya bibronii P P P NR Ab Ab Ab 

69. Mabuya carinata lankae P P P P P P Ab 

70. Mabuya floweri P Ab P Ab Ab Ab Ab 

71. Mabuya macularia maculara P P P P P Ab Ab 

72. Mabuya madaraszi P NR P P P Ab Ab 

73. Nessia bipes Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab 

74. Nessia burtonii Ab Ab Ab Ab P P Ab 

75. Nessia deraniyagalai Ab Ab P Ab Ab Ab Ab 

76. Nessia didactylus Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

77. Nessia hickanala P Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab 

78. Nessia layardi Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

79. Nessia monodactylus Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

80. Nessia sarasinorum Ab Ab P P P Ab Ab 

81. Sphenomorphus dorsicatenatus • 

82. Sphenomorphus dussumieri • 

83. Sphenomorphus megalops • 

84. Sphenomorphus rufogulus • 

85. Sphenomorphus striatopunctatus • 

86. Varanus bengalensis P P P P P Ab Ab 

87. Varanus salvator salvator P P P P P Ab Ab 

SAURIA 26 17 34 30 45 26 6 

88. Acrochordus granulatus ** P P P P P Ab Ab 

89. Gongylophis conica brevis P P P Ab Ab Ab Ab 

90. Python molurus molurus P P P P P Ab Ab 

91. Cylindrophis maculate P Ab P P P Ab Ab 

92. Ahaetulla nasuta P P P P P Ab Ab 

93. Ahaetulla pulverulenta P P P P P Ab Ab 

94. Amphiesma stolatum P P P P P Ab Ab 

95. Argyrogena fasciolata P Ab P Ab Ab Ab Ab 

96. Aspidura brachyorrhos Ab Ab Ab P P Ab Ab 

97. Aspidura copei Ab Ab Ab Ab NR P Ab 

98. Aspidura deraniyagalae Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab NR P 

99. Aspidura drummondhayi Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab P NR 

100. Aspidura guentheri Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

101. Aspidura trachyprocta Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab P P 

102. Atretium schistosum P P P P P Ab Ab 

103. Balanophis ceylonensis Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

104. Boiga barnesii Ab Ab Ab Ab P P Ab 

105. Boiga beddomei P Ab P P Ab Ab Ab 

161


106. Boiga ceylonensis Ab Ab P P P P Ab 

107. Boiga forsteni P NR P P P Ab Ab 

108. Boiga trigonatus trigonatus P P P P P Ab Ab 

109. Cerberus rynchops ** P P P P P Ab Ab 

110. Cercaspis carinata Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

111. Chrysopelea ornata ornata NR Ab P P P Ab Ab 

112. Chrysopelea taprobanica P NR P P Ab Ab Ab 

113. Coeloganthus helena P P P P P Ab Ab 

114. Dendrelaphis bifrenalis P NR P NR P Ab Ab 

115. Dendrelaphis caudolineolatus Ab Ab NR NR P NR Ab 

116. Dendrelaphis oliveri P Ab P Ab Ab Ab Ab 

117. Dendrelaphis tristis P Ab P P P Ab Ab 

118. Dryocalamus gracilis P Ab P P P Ab Ab 

119. Dryocalamus nympha P Ab P P P Ab Ab 

120. Gerarda prevostianus ** P NR P P P Ab Ab 

121. Haplocercus ceylonensis Ab Ab Ab Ab P P Ab 

122. Liopeltis calamaria P Ab P P P Ab Ab 

123. Lycodon aulicus P P P P P Ab Ab 

124. Lycodon osmanhilli Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

125. Lycodon striatus sinhaleyus Ab Ab Ab P P Ab Ab 

126. Macropisthodon plumbicolor palabariya Ab Ab P P P P Ab 

127. Oligodon arnensis P P P P P Ab Ab 

128. Oligodon calamarius Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

129. Oligodon sublineatus Ab Ab Ab P P Ab Ab 

130. Oligodon taeniolata ceylonicus P P P P Ab Ab Ab 

131. Oligodon taeniolata fasciatus Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

132. Ptyas mucosa maxima P P P P P P P 

133. Sibynophis subpunctatus Ab Ab P P P Ab Ab 

134. Xenochrophis asperrimus P P P P P Ab Ab 

135. Xenochrophis piscator piscator P P P P P Ab Ab 

136. Bungarus caeruleus P P P P Ab Ab Ab 

137. Bungarus ceylonicus ceylonicus Ab Ab Ab P P P Ab 

138. Bungarus ceylonicus karavala Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab P P 

139. Calliophis melanurus sinhaleyus P P P P P Ab Ab 

140. Naja naja P P P P P P Ab 

141. Astrotia stokesii ** P P P P P Ab Ab 

142. Enhydrina schistosa ** P P P P P Ab Ab 

143. Hydrophis bituberculatus ** P P P P P Ab Ab 

144. Hydrophis cyanocinctus ** P P P P P Ab Ab 

145. Hydrophis gracilis** P P P P P Ab Ab 

146. Hydrophis lapemoides** P P P P P Ab Ab 

147. Hydrophis ornatus ornatus** P P P P P Ab Ab 

162


148. Hydrophis spiralis** P P P P P Ab Ab 

149. Hydrophis stricticollis** P P P P P Ab Ab 

150. Kerilia jerdonii ** P P P P P Ab Ab 

151. Lapemis curtus ** P P P P P Ab Ab 

152. Pelamis platurus ** P P P P P Ab Ab 

153. Thalassophina viperina ** P P P P P Ab Ab 

154. Ramphotyphlops braminus P P P P P Ab Ab 

155. Typhlops ceylonicus Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

156. Typhlops lankaensis Ab Ab P Ab Ab Ab Ab 

157. Typhlops leucomelas Ab Ab Ab P P Ab Ab 

158. Typhlops malcolmi Ab Ab P Ab Ab Ab Ab 

159. Typhlops mirus Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

160. Typhlops porrectus Ab Ab Ab Ab P P Ab 

161. Typhlops tenebrarum Ab Ab P Ab Ab Ab Ab 

162. Typhlops veddae Ab Ab P Ab Ab Ab Ab 

163. Typhlops violaceus Ab Ab P Ab Ab Ab Ab 

164. Platyplectrurus madurensis ruhunae Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

165. Pseudotyphlops philippinus Ab Ab P P P Ab Ab 

166. Rhinophis blythii Ab Ab Ab Ab P P P 

167. Rhinophis dorsimaculatus P Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab 

168. Rhinophis drummondhayi Ab Ab Ab P P P Ab 

169. Rhinophis homolepis Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

170. Rhinophis oxyrynchus P Ab P Ab Ab Ab Ab 

171. Rhinophis philippinus Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

172. Rhinophis porrectus P Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab 

173. Rhinophis punctatus Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

174. Rhinophis tricoloratus Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

175. Uropeltis melanogaster Ab Ab Ab Ab P P Ab 

176. Uropeltis phillipsi Ab Ab Ab Ab P P Ab 

177. Uropeltis ruhunae Ab Ab Ab Ab P Ab Ab 

178. Daboia russelii russelii P P P P P P Ab 

179. Echis carinatus carinatus P P P P Ab Ab Ab 

180. Hypnale hypnale P P P P P P Ab 

181. Hypnale nepa Ab Ab Ab Ab P P P 

182. Hypnale walli Ab Ab Ab Ab P P P 

183. Trimeresurus trigonocephalus P P P P P P P 

SERPENTES 52 37 59 56 75 21 8 

GRAND TOTAL (except Sphenomorphus) 88 64 103 96 128 47 14 

163



Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka 

Sarath W. Kotagama * , Rex I. De Silva § , Athula S. Wijayasinha * 

& Vathsala Abeygunawardane * 

* 

Field Ornithology Group of Sri Lanka, Department of Zoology, University of Colombo, Colombo 03. 

§ 

Seabird Watch, 31 Dampe, Madapatha 10306, (Piliyandala) 

Abstract 

The paper elaborates on a scientific discussion related to the avifaunal richness in Sri Lanka, and 

presents the current avifaunal list in the island, based on a set of scientific criteria and principles. 

The list includes 482 species, under eleven categories. These include 220 breeding residents. Aspects 

related to their distribution, research and conservation is also discussed briefly. 

Key Words: Birds, Endemics, Conservation 

Introduction 

Avian taxonomy has undergone vast changes over the last 15 years. These have caused tremendous 

debate among professional ornithologists, it is only now, and that some settlement is seen in the literature. 

New techniques in the identification of species using DNA-DNA hybridization methodologies resulted in 

this primary change. 

In 1990 Sibley and Monroe (Sibley Monroe 1990) stunned the ornithological world by publishing the 

“Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World” based on the new method (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990). 

Their publication presented a highly novel taxonomic scheme for birds of the world. Secondly, they also 

proposed revisions to common English names for some known species. Their classification has been highly 

controversial among professional ornithologists, but was nevertheless adopted by the Oriental Bird Club. 

The result was too much for even the professional ornithological taxonomist, so that the acceptance of the 

revised classification was almost suspended for need of further verification. Further work over the year 

has now clearly resulted in its acceptance as evident from the numerous publications that are coming out. 

The avifaunal list of a country is further complicated by the large number of amateur birdwatchers who 

are not scientists but merely persons interested in the avian organism; this phenomenon is not present in 

most other faunal groups. Further, over the years with the upsurge of interest in biodiversity and the 

consequent commercialization of bird watching; species lists have been flouted to enhance the “image of 

the country’s bird life with absolute disregard to the principles of taxonomy. This unscientific approach to 

listing species has affected most seriously the endemic species. 

Species names and certain classification changes are recognized by taxonomists, even though it is not 

always accepted or appreciated by amateur bird watchers. One other factor that affects the species list of 

a country is the character of birds migrating and appearing in unexpected locations because of their flying 

ability. The decision as to whether to include such sight records in the “country list” has always been 

difficult. However, considering the positive contributions that such sight records can have; the authors have 

adopted a system following already accepted practices. 

Species richness of birds in Sri Lanka 

Bird species lists for Sri Lanka have been published by Phillips (1978), Ripley (1982), Perera and 

Kotagama (1983), De Silva (1990), Wijesinghe (1994), Inskipp et al (1996), and Grimmett et al (1998) over 

the last two decades. Except for Wijesinghe (1994), all the other publications of the 90’s have followed the 

same principles of taxonomy. 

164

Kotagama et al.: Avifaunal List of Sri Lanka 

There are numerous apparent inconsistencies between the lists and the taxonomy adopted by some authors, 

requires us to state some basic principles on which the list must be based on. Therefore, this “Avifaunal list 

of Sri Lanka” is based on the following criteria and principles. 

1. Taxonomy (includes scientific nomenclature and classification) 

We have followed the taxonomy (nomenclature and classification) of Grimmett et al (1998) which is based 

on Inskipp et al (1996). The nomenclature and classification of both these publications is based on Sibley 

and Monroe (1990). This is not new to Sri Lanka as the senior author had already used Sibley and 

Monroe’s classification in A Field Guide to the Birds of Sri Lanka (Kotagama and Fernando 1994) and in 

the Sinhala publication Sirilaka Kurullo (Kotagama and Wijayasinha 1998). 

The scientific names in the recent publication by Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) “are those of Ali & Ripley 

(1983) with some changes adopted by Inskipp et al (1996) and subsequent authors”. A closer look at the 

taxonomic status of species in the new publication, has however opened up a new situation. The taxonomic 

status of some species has been given as “ Taxonomy-dependent”. The definition given in the glossary of 

the book is “ Used here to indicate that extralimital range statement depends on species limits adopted”. 

We interpret this, to mean that there is some more taxonomic work needed to be done, to make such a 

species a definitive species. Accordingly, we have not changed the scientific names in this list from that 

published for Sri Lanka previously (Kotagama and Wijayasinha 1998). However, for reference we have 

indicated as foot notes all such changes proposed by Rasmussen & Anderton (2005). 

Even though text or illustrations distributed electronically (e.g. by means of the World Wide Web) are 

treated as “unpublished” by the ICZN 4th Edition; Article 9/9.8, we have included literature source 

information for taxa from the most widely published electronic version of the avifaunal taxonomy compiled 

and updated by Alan P Peterson. (www.zoonomen.net/avtax ). This electronic version is constantly being 

updated. A visit to this site will give an indication of the complications of avifaunal taxonomy and its 

constant changes. 

2. Species List 

The species list is based on the following principles taking in to consideration the factor of flight, and the 

large number of “bird watchers” both local and foreign now looking out for birds in the country. “An 

annotated species list of the birds of Sri Lanka” (Kotagama et al in press) is to be published shortly. 

Over the years the species number has increased considerably as there are more observers looking for 

birds than in the past. This has also become a problem, as the acceptance of some of these sightings, being 

subjective, has caused groups taking opposing stands on the issue. Including these subjective identifications 

in a scientific listing of species within a geographic area will always be controversial. We believe our 

principles will however overcome this problem without unduly affecting the contributions of bird watchers. 

The list of species compiled for Sri Lanka in the current article includes 482 species (Appendix 1), under 

eleven categories (Table 1), based on the criteria and principles explained here. 

Table 1: Present avifaunal richness in Sri Lanka 

Catergory 

Number 

Breeding Residents (BrR) 220 

Winter Visitors (WV) 127 

Winter Vagrants (WVa) 69 

Status Uncertain (SU) 38 

Vagrant (Va) 10 

165


Summer Visitor (SV) 4 

Passage Migrants (PM) 2 

Breeding Resident and Winter Visitor (BrR & WV) 5 

Breeding Resident and Summer Visitor (BrR & SV) 1 

Breeding Resident/ Uncertain Winter Visitor (BrR/UWV) 5 

Winter Visitor/ Uncertain Breeding Resident (WV/UBr) 1 

Total species number 482 

3. Format of species categorization 

The following categorization of species is modified from a system devised by the Records Committee of 

the British Ornithologists’ Union. While accepting that this categorization is, to some extent arbitrary; it is 

our opinion that this represents the best compromise under the circumstances. It is hoped that this will 

encourage naturalists to report new sightings and that ornithologists will pay more attention to species in 

List III. 

List I. Includes species whose presence is confirmed by one or more specimens in Legge (1983), Wait 

(1931), Whistler (1946), Phillips (1978) and other confirmed publications and sight records within the last 

25 years. A total of 359 belongs to List. I (Appendix 1) 

List II. Includes species for which there are three or more sight records. Sightings should be confirmed by 

more than one observer or documented by valid description in a recognized refereed ornithological or 

scientific publication. Species with specimens but not recorded (sighted) within last 25 years are also 

included here. A total of 41 species belongs to List II (Appendix II). 

List III. Includes species for which there are one or two sight- records. [Observers are encouraged to pay 

particular attention to species in this list, some of which may be more common than the records indicate]. 

A total of 82 species belongs to List III (Appendix 1). 

4. Sub-species 

The number of birds present in Sri Lanka has been boosted with the use of sub species, e.g. Phillips (1978) 

lists “427 birds”, but the same author has listed only 100 mammal species (Phillips 1980, 1981, 1984). If his 

mammal lists were expanded to sub-species level the list would increase to 130! 

The recognition of sub species is however more difficult in the present dynamic “taxonomically volatile 

environment”. With a great desire to revise the traditional taxonomy using modern tools, and also the new 

emphasis on biodiversity, endemic species and conservation of isolated species, has resulted in many sub 

species being upgraded to species level. Further, the boundaries of discrimination needed for differentiation 

have been severely questioned. All these have resulted in the practice of listing organisms in a country at 

“species level”, unless the sub species is definitely distinctive. 

In order avoid further confusions, the species listing adopted here is based on “definitive full or true 

species” and not sub species. 

5. Endemic Species 

The number of endemic species has undergone numerous changes over the years. Much of this has been 

the result of “close taxonomic revisions” (Table 2). Since 1977 the numbers basically settled at around 

21. This increased with the addition of two species in 1990 bringing the total to 23. The number in Sibley & 

Monroe (1990), Kotagama and Fernando (1994), Kotagama and Wijayasinha (1998), Harrison (1999), 

Inskipp et al (1996) and Grimmett et al (1998) is 23 definitive endemic species. 

166


Table 2: Changes in the number of endemic birds recognized for Sri Lanka since 1872 

Year Number of Reference Comment 

Species 

1872 37 Holdsworth – Catalogue of Birds found in Ceylon 

1880 47 Legge – A history of birds of Ceylon Including 17 species in the 

present list 

1931 25 Wait – Manual of Birds of Ceylon Excluded the Red faced- 

Malkoha 

1944 22 Whistler – Avifaunal survey of Ceylon 

1946 20 Ripley – Comments to Endemic Birds of Ceylon Grey Hornbill, Rufous Babbler 

and Red- faced Malkoha were 

excluded 

1952 21 Phillips – Revised Checklist of Birds of Red- faced Malkoha and Ceylon 

Ceylon 

Grackle included 

1975 20 Phillips – Revised Checklist of Birds of Black capped Bulbul excluded 

Ceylon 

1977 21 Flemming – Notes on endemic birds of Ceylon Rufous Babbler included 

1978 21 Phillips – Revised checklist of Birds of Ceylon 

1990 23+1 Sibley & Monroe – Distribution and Taxonomy Crimson fronted Barbet 

of Birds of the World 

suggested as Endemic 

1994 23+1 Kotagama and Fernando – A field guide to the Follow Sibley and Monroe 

Birds of Sri Lanka 

1994 23+3 Wijesinghe – A checklist of the 3 species are suggested as 

birds of Sri Lanka 

Endemic 

1996 23+3 Inskip et al. – An Annotated Checklist of Follow Sibley and Monroe refers 

the Birds of the Oriental Region 

to Wijesinghe 

1998 23 Grimmett et al. – Birds of the Indian 

Subcontinent 

1999 23 Harrison – A Field Guide to the Birds of 


Wijesinghe (1994) published a “checklist” which considered an addition of three more species, which did 

not receive widespread acceptance because its treatment was not in keeping with sound taxonomic 

practice. None of the subsequent publications on the avifauna of the region and Sri Lanka have listed these 

three species as endemics (Inskipp et al 1996, Grimmett et al 1998). 

We have always maintained that the definitive number of endemic species for Sri Lanka was 23 and that 

three others were “proposed” by Wijesinghe (1994). Subsequently, Warakagoda and Rasmussen (2005) 

described a new bird species (Serendib Scops Owl - Otus thilohofmanni) that is endemic to Sri Lanka. 

However, within Sri Lanka some sectors considered the endemic species proposed by Wijesinghe (1994) 

as acceptable; although they violated basic principles of scientific taxonomy. This may be due to an over 

enthusiasm in boosting endemic numbers to create a better ornithological image and increase demand in 

“commercial bird watching”. 

This has now been put to rest by the publication of Rasmussen and Anderton (2005) were the new number 

of endemics has been given as 33. 

167


In a personal electronic communication prior to the publication Rasmussen (Sri Lanka Wildlife News-April 

2004) indicated that the number of endemic species would rise to 33. In her note she stated: 

“Based on this work, which will be described fully in the forthcoming book, the proposed list of thirty three 

Sri Lankan Endemic Birds is given below.” Further, she stated, “The ten newly recognized endemics, 

which will doubtless attract renewed interest, are listed below for convenience.” 

The “taxonomic status” assigned to these 33 birds however, has complicated the final number of endemic 

species. Some of them are “taxonomic-dependent”, while others are not (Table 3). Two species that were 

definitive species under Grimmett et al. (1998) have been given as “taxonomic-dependent” – in this case 

we retain the former status till verified fully. 

Accordingly, based on our interpretation of “taxonomic-dependent”, we propose that the number of 

endemics should be “25 definitive and eight as proposed, making a total of 33 species”, as highlighted in 

Table 3. 

Table 3: Status change of endemic species based on Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) 

Species Grimmett Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) 

et al. 1998 

GALLIFORMES: 

1.Galloperdix bicalcarata Endemic Endemic 

2. Gallus lafayetii Endemic Endemic 

PICIFORMES 

3. Chrysocolaptes lucidus - Endemic; Taxonomy dependent 

Chrysocolaptes lucidus stricklandi 

upgraded to C. stricklandi 

4. Megalaima flavifrons Endemic Endemic 

5. Megalaima rubricapilla - Endemic - M. r. rubricapilla upgraded to 

M. rubricapilla 

BUCEROTIFORMES: 

6. Ocyceros gingalensis Endemic Endemic 

CUCULIFORMES: 

7. Phaenicophaeus pyrrhocephalus Endemic Endemic 

8. Centropus chlororhynchus Endemic Endemic 

PSITTACIFORMES: 

9. Loriculus beryllinus Endemic Endemic 

10. Psittacula calthropae Endemic Endemic 

STRIGIFORMES: 

11. Otus thilohofmanni Endemic 

12. Glaucidium castanonotum Endemic Endemic; taxonomy-dependent 

COLUMBIFORMES: 

13. Columba torringtoni Endemic Endemic 

14. Treron pompadora - Endemic; taxonomy dependent 

T.p.pompodora upgraded to T. pompodara 

PASSERIFORMES: 

15. Urocissa ornate Endemic Endemic 

168


*16. Dicrurus paradiseus lophorhinus - Endemic; taxonomy dependentDicrurus 

paradiseus lophorhinus upgraded to 

D. lophorhinus 

*17. Tephrodornis pondicerianus - Endemic; taxonomy dependentT. 

pondicerianus affinis upgraded to T. affinis 

18. Myophonus blighi Endemic Endemic 

19. Zoothera spiloptera Endemic Endemic 

20. Zoothera dauma - Endemic; taxonomy dependent 

Z. dauma imbricata upgraded to Z. 

imbricata 

21. Eumyias sordida Endemic Endemic 

22. Sturnus albofrontatus Endemic Endemic 

23. Gracula ptilogenys Endemic Endemic; taxonomy dependent 

24. Pycnonotus penicillatus Endemic Endemic 

25. Pycnonotus melanicterus Endemic Endemic; taxonomy dependent 

P. m. melanicterus upgraded to 

P. melanicterus 

26. Zosterops ceylonensis Endemic Endemic 

27. Bradypterus palliseri Endemic Endemic 

28. Garrulax cinereifrons Endemic Endemic 

29. Pellorneum fuscocapillum Endemic Endemic 

30. Pomatorhinus horsfieldii - Endemic; taxonomy dependent 

P. schisticeps melanurus and 

P.s. holdsworthii upgraded to 

P (schisticeps) melanurus 

31. Turdoides rufescens Endemic Endemic 

32. Dicaeum vincens Endemic Endemic 

33. Hirundo daurica - Endemic; taxonomy dependent 

Sub species H. daurica hyperythra 

Upgraded to H. hyperythra 

6. Vernacular names 

We are well aware that vernacular names have no place in scientific taxonomy. However, because of the 

unusual interest in birds and the growing public interest in “bird watching” both internationally and locally, 

we felt that it would justify the inclusion of the vernacular names. The names are available only for English 

and Sinhala, while Tamil names are in preparation. Hence, they are not included here. 

6.1 English vernacular names 

The English names follow Grimmett et al (1998). It must be emphasized here that the use of country prefix 

(Sri Lanka) in common names has been restricted to endemic species only. We do not agree with the 

reason for use of Ceylon by Sibley & Monroe (1990), as we do not agree with their reason for retaining 

“Ceylon” which is - “ Sri Lanka occupies the island of Ceylon, but the geographical name is normally 

used for bird ranges (as Madagascar is used rather than its nation, the Malagasy Republic.” This is totally 

unacceptable in any geographical sense. 

We also do not agree with the reasoning given in the ENVIS list (Manakadan & Pittie 2001) for retaining 

“Ceylon”. 

169


We take the stand that the change of the English name from Ceylon to Sri Lanka should be properly 

reflected and it should therefore be used only for endemic birds as was proposed by the senior author and 

accepted by most authorities since 1983. 

6.2 Sinhala vernacular names 

The Sinhala names follow the principles developed by Perera & Kotagama (1983), modified and published 

in Kotagama & Wijayasinha (1998). These principles bring the Sinhala vernacular names in line with the 

scientific names and enable the coining of Sinhala names for all avian species for the world as well as 

higher taxonomic levels. The higher taxonomic names are not given in this publication. 

7. Distribution 

The distribution of birds is based very much on subjective deductions supplemented by observations over 

the years. No formal distributional survey has been conducted to date. The initial attempts to rectify this 

situation were done with the first Zoological Survey programme launched by the National Science 

Foundation (then NARESA) in 1984. 

The Survey enabled the acceptance of the use of the 10 km2 grid system for the study of the bird 

distribution. This grid system was developed and applied on an experimental basis and showed that 

distribution can be given with greater accuracy than with earlier methodology (Kotagama 1986). For lack 

of funds, the study never took off beyond the initial stage. Thus, the distribution of birds in Sri Lanka is still 

very much a subjective representation. 

The present distribution is based on climatic-topographical delineations recognized as zones, e.g. Dry Zone, 

Low Country Wet Zone etc. The distribution is also given on the basis of the Avifaunal zones (Kotagama 

1986). 

Avifaunal zones were recognized using as a basis, studies of the available published distributional 

information (Kotagama 1986). The zones were an improvement on zones recognized by Legge (1881). 

Allocation of all the birds to these zones is not yet possible because of limited data availability on the birds. 

Use of more refined methods and instruments involving opportunistic observational records, in-depth 

transect and mist-netting applications should be pursued using the grid; further refined to 5 km2 which is 

made possible by using accurate GPS coordinates. With the application of GIS, more descriptive and 

refined distribution patterns could be recognized in the future. This aspect has to be a major component of 

future research directions 

8. Research 

Taxonomic research has never been properly achieved in Sri Lanka. Any taxonomic study requires 

adequate samples and these do not exist even at the National Museum. Numerous foreigners made the 

earlier collections, and most of the specimens have been deposited in museums across the globe. Duplicate 

collections no doubt may have been left behind but such specimens are not known to exist. The most 

comprehensive recent Avifaunal Survey was last conducted in 1936–1939 by Hugh Whistler. What is left 

of his specimens are in very bad condition. 

Very recently, a fairly good collection of specimens appeared on the pavement of Nugegoda town. This 

was fortunately recovered and handed over to the Museum in 1990. This collection, referred to as the 

“Zoysa collection”, was a personal one made by a Mr. Zoysa, who was a member of the collection team 

of Hugh Whistler. The specimens have not been described and published by the Museum to date. 

Today, it would not be necessary to pursue a specimen collection survey as was done in the past. However, 

birds will need to be captured where possible without killing them and fresh tissues/blood samples collected 

for use in modern molecular biological taxonomic treatments such as DNA analysis. Such an exercise 

170


would reveal more interesting taxonomic information about the avifauna of the country. This can easily be 

coupled with a distributional study. The time is right for such a survey and we hope the conservation 

community will be enlightened by such a benign (“ahimsa”) technique, which will enable us to understand 

the avifauna and assist in its future conservation. 

9. Conservation 

The natural habitats of birds have undergone considerable change over the years. These changes have 

affected the distribution and abundance of birds. The impacts of these changes were presented by 

Kotagama (1996). The effect can be recognized under three groups:- 

• species that have been threatened due to reduction in habitat, 

• species that have expanded in response to habitat changes, and 

• species with apparently no effect 

9.1 Threatened Species 

Various authors have over the years tried to recognize affected species. Kotagama (1989) had considered 

the biology and ecology in an attempt to bring objective considerations into play for the recognition opf 

threatened species. Moving in this direction, we now have the list in the Asian Red Data Book (2001). 

These efforts culminated with the BirdLife International / IUCN threatened species listing of 2000, 

Threatened Birds of the World. These publications recognize 16 species as threatened in Sri Lanka (Table 

4). The list contains 1 critical, 2 endangered, and 13 vulnerable species. 

Table 4: Threatened Birds of Sri Lanka (based on IUCN criteria) ARDB/ BirdLife / IUCN 2000. 

(Status: End – Endemic, BrR – Breeding resident, Vag – Vagrant, Mig – Migrant; 

Habitat: For – Forest, Wet – Wetland, OC – Ocean) 

CRITICAL 

1. Christmas Island Frigatebird Fregata andrewsi, Vag, OC 

ENDANGERED 

2. Spotted Greenshank Tringa guttifer, Vag, WET 

3. Sri Lanka Whistling-thrush Myophonus blighi End, For 

VULNERABLE 

4. Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis BrR, Wet 

5. Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus BrR, Wet 

6. Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni Mig, For 

7. Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gregarious Vag, Wet 

8. Wood Snipe Gallinago nemoricola Mig, Wet 

9. Spoon-billed Sand piper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus Mig, Wet 

10. Sri Lanka Wood-pigeon Columba torringtoni End, For 

11. Red-faced Malkoha Phaenicophaeus pyrrhocephalus End, For 

12. Green-billed Coucal Centropus chlororhynchos End, For 

13. Ashy-headed Laughing Thrush Garrulax cinereifrons End, For 

14. Kashmir Flycatcher Ficedula subrubra Mig, For 

15. White faced Starling Sturnus albofrontatus End, For 

16. Sri Lanka Magpie – Urocissa ornata End, For 

171


Near Threatened 

• Malabar Pied Hornbill Anthracoceros cronatus BrR, For 

• Sri Lanka Chestnut-backed Owlet Glaucidiuim cstanonotum End,For 

• Great Snipe Gallinago media Vag, Wet 

• Asian Dowithcher linmodromus semipalmattus Vag, Wet 

• Grey-headed Fish Eagle Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus BrR, Wet 

• Pallied Harrier Circus macrourus Mig, Open Land 

• Darter Anhinga melanogaster BrR, Wet 

• Black headed Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus BrR, Wet 

• Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala BrR, Wet 

• Black -necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus BrR, Wet 

• Sri Lanka Spot-winged Thrush Zoothera spiloptera End,For 

• Sri Lanka Dull-blue Flycatcher Eumyias sordida End, For 

• Sri Lanka Myna Gracular ptilogenys End, For 

• Sri Lanka Yellow-eared Bullbull Pycnonotus penicllatus End, For 

• Sri Lanka Bush Warbler Bradypterus palliseri End, For 

• Sri Lanka Orange-billed Babbler Tudoides ruffescens End, For 

• Sri Lanka Legge’s Flowerpecker Dicaeum vincens End, For 

Critical species 

The critical species is a pelagic species. It is not a breeding resident of the country and as such, there is 

very little we can do other than ensuring its total protection when sighted within the territorial waters of Sri 

Lanka. 

Endangered Species 

The Endangered species contain one endemic species and one migrant species. The status of the migrant 

species in the country is “vagrant” and the current records indicate less than three sightings. Providing full 

protection is the only action possible, as there does not appear any site tenacity to enable site-specific 

conservation action for such a migrant species. 

On the other hand the endemic species is generally found in very restricted locations. Current information 

justifies recognizing some specific areas for its conservation, and it is also necessary to have some specific 

research and study instituted to enable development of conservation plans for this species. 

Vulnerable species 

The strategy for vulnerable species will have to be the same. With very little information on their actual 

distribution, biology and ecology, any action is going to have very limited impact. 

Further to this list a feature (only in birds) is the “near threatened” category. There are 17 species in this 

category. An analysis of the total threatened and near threatened birds indicates 15 endemics, 8 breeding 

residents, 5 regular migrants and 5 vagrants. With respect to habitats there are 18 forest birds, 15 wetland 

birds, one ocean bird and one open habitat bird. 

The international criteria developed recognize threatened species at the international level, but fail to 

recognize some species that are of national concern. This has resulted in the application of modified criteria 

for recognizing “Nationally threatened species”. The national list initially published in 1989; revised in 1993 

172


(Wijesinghe et al 1989, 1993) contained 56 species. This exercise was further developed by application of 

modified IUCN criteria by Weerakoon et al in the 2000 List of Threatened fauna and flora of Sri Lanka 

(IUCN 2000). The work recognized 60 species (Table 4). A further revision is being undertaken with 

further revised criteria. 

9.2 Threats 

The principle threat is habitat loss. Most of the species recognized as threatened have been brought to this 

status due to habitat loss in forests and wetlands. Conservation action requires protecting existing natural 

habitats. Limited to a few locations and at rather insignificant level is the killing of birds for food etc. 

A new threat that has an adverse effect on the avifauna is the “commercialization of bird watching”. The 

use of tape lures to attract rare and elusive birds (mostly endemics) to be shown to foreign visitors by 

using breeding or communication calls has clearly had its impact. The practice, on the merit of clear 

evidence, resulted in prohibiting tape lures within Sinharaja Wilderness Area. We wish to record our 

gratitude to the Conservator of Forest for the prompt action and the Forest Officer at Sinharaja who was 

enlightened enough to recognize the impact immediately it was reported and acted swiftly to take remedial 

measures. 

The Field Ornithology Group of Sri Lanka (FOGSL) in recognition of potential impacts of “over-watching” 

has already instituted a Code of Ethics, which it enforces strictly among its members. 

9.3 Research constraints 

The major constraints related to avifaunal research in Sri Lanka include the following: 

1. The lack of due recognition for the science of taxonomy at all levels. Starting from the portals of 

higher education and research, taxonomy receives the lowest priority. It is often not part of the 

curriculum and is often excused by the (invalid) argument “that there are no employment prospects 

for taxonomists”. The research/ education institutes do not get the necessary funds and cadres for 

taxonomy as it is of low priority. Thus, we get caught in the “chicken and egg” situation and the net 

result being the negative effect on the knowledge of biodiversity. 

2. The absence of a proper referral collection to compare and study, to enable any worthwhile 

taxonomic work to be done. The poor state of specimens in the Museum and inability to have proper 

access, are some of the problems faced by researchers. 

3. The absence of original descriptive literature, 

4. The conservation conscious “activists” who are ever ready to voice concern about “biodiversity rich 

Sri Lanka”, are extremely critical if not naive about identifying species based on taxonomic principles. 

5. The lack of willingness to apply the “rigor of science” in data collection for gathering information 

needed for specific conservation actions beyond the designation of areas for protection. 

10. Current conservation actions and future directions 

In recognition of the threats, the following action has been initiated: 

1. IBAs.The need to ensure habitat / ecosystem protection as the principle pathway for conservation of 

the wild populations, the Important Bird Areas(IBA) programme to recognize habitat/ ecosystems was 

launched in 2001 by FOGSL. This exercise resulted in the identification from literature and limited 

field verification of 77 potential IBA’s for Sri Lanka. An extensive education programme island wide 

(except north and east) was also conducted. The follow up will involve a detailed survey of these 

potential IBA s in the coming years and establishing Site Support Groups (SSG s) to assist in their 

management with the assistance of the relevant state agency. 

173


2. Research into species. The absence of information on the biology and ecology of the avifauna of Sri 

Lanka is appalling. It is not surprising, as scientific interest in the subject did not commence till 1976. 

We now have some reliable information on avian communities but lack species specific information. 

The initial work commenced with the study on the endemic Spot winged Thrush (Chandralal & 

Weerakoon in press), and presently a study on the flagship species Blue Magpie (Ratnayake 2004 ), 

Ashy headed Babbler (Siriwardena 2004) and the Spot billed Pelican (eco-V 2000 – 2004) is ongoing. 

More are planned for the future. 

3. Database. Sri Lanka can be proud of having the largest database of continuous flock studies in the 

world at Sinharaja, (Since 1980). Similarly, detailed studies on communication and habitat needs have 

been pursued in the present flock studies (Goodale et al 2003). 

4. Species Recovery Plan. Under the Protected Area Management and Wildlife Conservation Project, 

plans for species recovery are expected to be initiated. This will enhance the required conservation 

action for some of the species. 

5. Annual Waterfowl Counts. The Ceylon Bird Club has been conducting the Annual Waterfowl Count 

in Sri Lanka on behalf of Wetlands International. These counts provide data for “estimates and trend 

analysis” of the use of wetlands by waterfowl. The data however, does not stand the rigor of 

scientific analysis for “good estimates or census” due to constraints in the data collection methodology. 

This however does not make the survey redundant for macro level assessments of the waterfowl. It 

is useful for conservation especially for the identification of wetland sites for designation under the 

Ramsar criteria. 

At least in the case of birds, we do not usually need to collect specimens for identification, but we need to 

initiate a serious survey to undertake some molecular biological analysis using modern methodologies for 

taxonomic and phylogenetic studies. We hope that funding for such an activity will be forthcoming in the 

future. 

The taxonomy keeps changing, so does the status of the species in each country, new threats emerge as 

we go along - monitoring and evaluation is a constant necessity. This exercise repeated at least every five 

years, will be a major step to put science into its correct perspective and to enable the proper conservation 

of species. 

References 

De Silva, R.I. 1989. Identity of Skuas Catharacta in Sri Lanka. Cormorant 17. 

De Silva, R.I. 1990. The seabirds of Sri Lanka: An annotated checklist. Ceylon Journal of Science 

(Biological Science): 21 (1): 28-33 

De Silva, R.I. 2000a. An Australian Wader Himantopus himantopus leucocephalus in Sri Lanka. Loris 

22:15-17. 

De Silva, R.I. 2000b. A further note on the Australian Stilt Himantopus leucocephalus in Sri Lanka. Loris 

22:27. 

De Silva, R.I. 2003. An Unusual Stilt from Sri Lanka. Loris 23. 

Fry, C.H. 1980. The Evolutionary Biology of Kingfishers (Alcedinidae). Living Bird 18: 113-160. 

Grimmett, R. et al.1998. Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Christopher Helm (Publishers) Ltd, London. 

Harrison, J. 1999. A Field Guide to the Birds of Sri Lanka. Oxford University Press. 

Inskipp, T. et al.1996. An Annotated Checklist of the Birds of the Oriental Region. Oriental Bird Club, UK. 

Jonsgard, P. 1981. The Plovers, Sandpipers and Snipes of the World. Lincolin: University of Nebraska Press. 

174


Kotagama, S. and Fernando, P. 1994. A Field Guide to the Birds of Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust. 

Kotagama, S. and Wijayasinha, A. 1998. Siri Laka Kurullo. Wildlife Heritage Trust. 

Legge, W. V. 1983. A History of the Birds of Ceylon. (2 nd edition). Thisara Prakasakayo, Dehiwala, 


Livezey, B.C. 1996. A Phylogenetic Analysis of Modern Pochards (Anatidae: Aythyini). Auk 113:74-93. 

Manakandan, R. & Pittie, A. 2001. Standardised common and scientific names of the birds of the Indian 

Subcontinent. Buceros (ENVIS Newsletter)6. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. Mumbai. 

Mees, G.F. 1997. On the Identification of Heteronis senex Bonaparte. Bulletin of British Ornithological 

Club, 117:67-68. 

Moynihan, M. 1959. A Revision of the Family Laridae (Aves).Amer. Mus. Novit. 1928:1-42. 

Phillips, W.W.A. 1978. Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Ceylon. Wildlife and Nature Protection Society 

of Ceylon. 

Rassmussen, P. C. and Anderton, J. C. 2005. Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide. Volumes 1and 2. 

Smithsonian Institution and Lynx Edicions, D.C. and Barcelona. 

Sibley, C. G. and Monroe, B.L. 1990. Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World.Yale University 

Press, New Haven & London. 

Wait, W.E. 1931. Manual of the Birds of Ceylon (2 nd edition). Sony Reprints Agency, Delhi-31, India. 

Warakagoda, D.H. and P.C. Rasmussen (2004). A new species of scops-owl from Sri Lanka. Bull. B.O.C. 

124 (2): 85-105. 

Whistler, H. 1944. The Avifaunal Survey of Ceylon conducted Jointly by the British and Colombo Museum. 

Spolia Zeylanica. Vol.23, Parts 3 & 4. 

Wijesinghe, D.P. 1989. List of Sri Lanka Bird Species. Ceylon Bird Club. 

175


Appendix 1: 

Checklist of avifauna in Sri Lanka 

Legends: 

(L1) List I. Includes species whose presence is confirmed by one or more specimens in Legge (1983), 

Waite (1931), Whistler (1944), Phillips (1978) and other confirmed publications and sight records within the 

last 25 years. 

(L2) List II. Includes species for which there are three or more sight records. Sightings should be 

confirmed by more than one observer or documented by valid description in a recognized refereed 

ornithological or scientific publication. Species with specimens but not recorded (sighted) within last 25 

years are also included here. 

(L3) List III. Includes species for which there are one or two sight- records. [Observers are encouraged 

to pay particular attention to species in this list, some of which may be more common than the records 

indicate]. 

BrR 

WV 

WVa 

Va 

SU 

SV 

PM 

BrR & WV 

BrR & SV 

BrR/UWV 

WV/UBr 

- Breeding Resident 

- Winter Visitor 

- Winter Vagrant 

- Vagrant 

- Status Unknown 

- Summer Visitor 

- Passage Migrant 

- Breeding Resident and Winter Visitor 

- Breeding Resident and Summer Visitor 

- Breeding Resident/ Uncertain Winter Visitor 

- Winter Visitor/ Uncertain Breeding Resident 

Availability of specimens confirmed in.. 

d – Specimen lodged in Department of Wildlife Conservation, Sri Lanka 

w – Whistler. H (1944) 

g – Legge. W.V. (1983) 

t – Wait. W.E. (1931) 

p – Phillips W.W.A. (1978) 

GALLIFORMES 

PHASIANIDAE 

1. Francolinus pictus (Jardine & Selby) 1828 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Painted Francolin. S: Tith Watu-kukula ) 

2. Francolinus pondicerianus (Gmelin) 1789 BrR L1 w g 

(E: Grey Francolin. S: Alu Watu-kukula ) 

3. Coturnix coromandelica (Gmelin) 1789 SU L1 w g t p 

( E: Rain Quail. S: Wahi Piriwatuwa ) 

176


4. Coturnix coturnix ( Linnaeus ) 1758 WVa L2 g 

( E: Common Quail. S: Podu Piriwatuwa ) 

5. Coturnix chinensis (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Blue-breasted Quail. S: Laya-nil Piriwatuwa ) 

6. Perdicula asiatica (Latham) 1790 BrR L1 g 

( E: Jungle Bush-quail. S: Wana Panduru-watuwa ) 

7. Galloperdix bicalcarata (Forster, JR) 1781 END BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Spurfowl. S: Sri Lanka Haban-kukula ) 

8. Gallus lafayetii Lesson 1831 END BrR L1 g 

( E: Sri Lanka Junglefowl. S: Sri Lanka Wali-kukula ) 

9. Pavo cristatus Linnaeus 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Indian Peafowl. S: Monora/ Sebeda ) 

ANSERIFORMES 

DENDROCYGNIDAE 

10. Dendrocygna bicolor (Vieillot) 1816 WV L1 w g t p 

( E: Fulvous Whistling-duck. S: Maha Thamba-seruwa ) 

11. Dendrocygna javanica (Horsfield) 1821 BrR L1 g 

ANATIDAE 

( E: Lesser Whistling-duck. S: Heen Thamba-seruwa ) 

12. Anser anser (Linnaeus) 1758 WVa L2 w g p 

( E: Greylag Goose. S: Karalu Paththaya ) 

13. Tadorna ferruginea (Pallas) 1764 WV L1 g 

( E: Ruddy Shelduck. S: Rath Sakwalaya ) 

14. Sarkidiornis melanotos (Pennant) 1769 SU L1 g 

( E: Comb duck. S: Kabaliththiya ) 

15. Nettapus coromandelianus (Gmelin) 1789 BrR L1 g 

( E: Cotton Pygmy-goose. S: Mal-seruwa ) 

16. Anas strepera Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 w g t p 

( E: Gadwall. S: Gadwal Seruwa ) 

17. Anas penelope Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 g t p 

( E: Eurasian Wigeon. S: Eurasiya Wijana Seruwa ) 

18. Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus 1758 WVa L3 

( E: Mallard. S: Mallard Seruwa) 

19. Anas poecilorhyncha Forster, JR 1781 WV L1 g p 

( E: Spot-billed Duck S: Thith-hota Seruwa ) 

20. Anas clypeata Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 g 

( E: Northern Shoveler S: Uthuru Saval Seruwa ) 

21. Anas acuta Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 g 

( E: Northern Pintail S: Uthuru Ulpenda Seruwa ) 

22. Anas querquedula Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 g 

( E: Garganey S: Garganey Seruwa ) 

177


23. Anas crecca Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 g 

( E: Common Teal S: Podu Seruwa ) 

24. Marmaronetta angustirostris (Menetries) 1832 WVa L3 

( E: Marbled Duck S: Garandu-sera) 

25. Rhodonessa rufina WVa L3 

( E: Red-crested Pochard S: Rathu Kudumbi-seruwa ) 

26. Aythya ferina (Linnaeus) 1758 WVa L3 

( E: Common Pochard S: Podu Mada-sera ) 

27. Aythya fuligula (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L2 g p 

( E: Tufted Duck S: Kudumbi Mada-sera ) 

TURNICIFORMES 

TURNICIDAE 

28. Turnix sylvatica (Desfontaines) 1789 WVa L3 

( E: Little Button-quail S: Punchi Bola-watuwa ) 

29. Turnix suscitator (Gmelin) 1789 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Barred Button-quail S: Bola Watuwa ) 

PICIFORMES 

PICIDAE 

30. Jynx torquilla Linnaeus 1758 WVa L2 

( E: Eurasian Wryneck S: Eurasiya Gelanamiya 

31. Dendrocopus nanus [Dendrocopos moluccensis] (Gmelin) 1788 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Brown-capped Pygmy Woodpecker S: Bora Esasi Gomara-karela ) 

32. Dendrocopos mahrattensis (Latham) 1802 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Yellow-crowned Woodpecker S: Kaha-silu Gomara-karela ) 

33. Celeus brachyurus (Vieillot) 1818 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Rufous Woodpecker S: Borath Koda-karela ) 

34. Picus chlorolophus (Vieillot) 1818 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Lesser Yellow-naped Woodpecker S: Heen Kaha-gelasi Karela ) 

35. Picus xanthopygaeus (Gray, JE & Gray, GR) 1846 BrR L1 w 

( E: Streaked-throated Woodpecker S: Punchi Kawuru Karela ) 

36. Dinopium benghalense (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Black-rumped Flameback S: Rath-karela ) 

37. Chrysocolaptes lucidus (Scopoli) 1786 BrR L1 w g 1 

( E: Greater Flameback S: Lepita Maha-karela ) 

38. Chrysocolaptes festivus (Boddaert) 1783 BrR L1 w g 

( E: White-naped Woodpecker S: Kahapita Maha-karela ) 

1 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Chrysocolaptes lucidus stricklandi upgraded to endemic species level under “taxonomic 

dependent” as Chrysocolaptes stricklandi 

178


MEGALAIMIDAE 

39. Megalaima zeylanica (Gmelin) 1788 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Brown-headed Barbet S: Polos Kottoruwa ) 

40. Megalaima flavifrons (Cuvier) 1816 END BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Yellow-fronted Barbet S: Sri Lanka Ranmunatha Kottoruwa ) 

41. Megalaima rubricapilla (Gmelin) 1788 BrR L1 w g 2 

( E: Crimson-fronted Barbet S: Rathmunath Kottoruwa ) 

42. Megalaima haemacephala (Muller) 1776 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Coppersmith Barbet S: Rathlaye Kottoruwa ) 

BUCEROTIFORMES 

BUCEROTIDAE 

43. Ocyceros gingalensis (Shaw) 1811 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Grey Hornbill S: Sri Lanka Alu Kandaththa ) 

44. Anthracoceros coronatus (Boddaert) 1783 BrR L1 g 

( E: Malabar Pied Hornbill S: Poru-Kandaththa ) 

UPUPIFORMES 

UPUPIDAE 

45. Upupa epops Linnaeus 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Common Hoopoe S: Podu Poroluwa) 

TROGONIFORMES 

TROGONIDAE 

46. Harpactes fasciatus (Pennant) 1769 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Malabar Trogon S: Lohawannichchiya ) 

CORACIIFORMES 

CORACIIDAE 

47. Coracias benghalensis (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Indian Roller S: Dumbonna ) 

48. Eurystomus orientalis (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g t 

( E: Dollarbird S: Dumkawa ) 

ALCEDINIDAE 

49. Alcedo atthis (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Common Kingfisher S: Mal Pilihuduwa ) 

50. Alcedo meninting Horsfield 1821 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Blue-eared Kingfisher S: Nilkan Pilihuduwa ) 

51. Ceyx erithacus (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 g 

( E: Oriental Dwarf Kingfisher S: Peradiga Ran-pilihuduwa ) 

2 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Confirms endemic species status 

179


HALCYONIDAE 

52. Halcyon capensis BrR L1 w g 

( E: Stork-billed Kingfisher S: Manathudu Madi-pilihuduwa) 

53. Halcyon smyrnensis (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: White-throated Kingfisher S: Layasudu Madi-pilihuduwa ) 

54. Halcyon pileata (Boddaert) 1783 WV L1 w g t 

( E: Black-capped Kingfisher S: Kalu Esasi Madi-pilihuduwa ) 

CERYLIDAE 

55. Ceryle rudis (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Pied Kingfisher S: Gomara-pilihuduwa ) 

MEROPIDAE 

56. Merops orientalis Latham 1802 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Green Bee-eater S: Punchi Binguharaya ) 

57. Merops philippinus Linnaeus 1766 WV L1 w g 

( E: Blue-tailed Bee-eater S: Nilpenda Binguharaya ) 

58. Merops apiaster Linnaeus 1758 WV L2 

( E: European Bee-eater S: Europeeya Binguharaya ) 

59. Merops leschenaulti Vieillot 1817 rR L1 w g 

( E: Chestnut-headed Bee-eater S: Thambala-hisa Binguharaya ) 

CUCULIFORMES 

CUCULIDAE 

60. Clamator jacobinus (Boddaert) 1783 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Pied Cuckoo S: Gomara Kondakoha ) 

61. Clamator coromandus (Linnaeus) 1766 WV L1 w g t 

( E: Chestnut-winged Cuckoo S: Thambala-piya Kondakoha) 

62. Hierococcyx varius BrR /UWV L1 g 

( E: Common Hawk Cuckoo S: Ukusukoha ) 

{Cuculus varius Vahl 1797 

63. Cuculus micropterus Gould 1838 SU L1 w g t 

( E: Indian Cuckoo S: Indu Kookilaya) 

64. Cuculus canorus Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 w t 

( E: Eurasian Cuckoo S: Podu Kookilaya ) 

65. Cuculus poliocephalus Latham 1790 WV L1 w g 

( E: Lesser Cuckoo S: Punchi Kookilaya ) 

66. Cacomantis sonneratii (Latham) 1790 BrR L1 g 

( E: Banded Bay Cuckoo S: Vayira Gurukoha ) 

67. Cacomantis passerinus (Vahl) 1797 WV L1 w g 

( E: Grey-bellied Cuckoo S : Kusalu Gurukoha ) 

68. Chrysococcyx maculatus (Gmelin) 1788 Wva L1 w g t 

( E: Asian Emarald Cuckoo S: Asia Marakoha ) 

180


69. Surniculus lugubris (Horsfield) 1821 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Drongo Cuckoo S: Kawudukoha ) 

70. Eudynamys scolopacea (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Asian Koel S: Kowula ) 

71. Phaenicophaeus viridirostris (Jerdon) 1840 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Blue-faced Malkoha S: Wathanil Malkoha ) 

72. Phaenicophaeus leschenaultii (Lesson) 1830 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sirkeer Malkoha S: Pathan Malkoha / Atikukula ) 

73. Phaenicophaeus pyrrhocephalus (Pennant) 1769 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Red-faced Malkoha S: Sri Lanka Watha-rathu Malkoha) 

CENTROPODIDAE 

74. Centropus sinensis (Stephens) 1815 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Greater Coucal S: Ati-kukula ) 

75. Centropus bengalensis (Gmelin) 1788 Va L2 w g t p 

( E: Lesser Coucal S: Heen Ati-kukula ) 

76. Centropus chlororhynchus Blyth 1849 END BrR L1 w g 

( E : Sri Lanka Green-billed Coucal S: Sri Lanka Bata Ati-kukula ) 

PSITTACIFORMES 

PSITTACIDAE 

77. Loriculus beryllinus (Forster, JR) 1781 END BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Hanging Parakeet S: Sri Lanka Giramaliththa ) 

78. Psittacula eupatria (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Alexandrine Parakeet S: Labu Girawa ) 

79. Psittacula krameri (Scopoli) 1769 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Rose-ringed Parakeet S: Rana Girawa ) 

80. Psittacula cyanocephala (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Plum-headed Parakeet S: Pandu Girawa ) 

81. Psittacula calthropae (Blyth) 1849 END BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Layard’s Parakeet S: Sri Lanka Alu Girawa ) 

APODIFORMES 

APODIDAE 

82. Collocalia unicolor (Jerdon) 1840 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Indian Swiftlet S: Indu Upa-thurithaya ) 

83. Hirundapus giganteus (Temminck) 1825 BrR L1 g 

( E: Brown-backed Needletail S: Pitabora Katupenda-thurithaya) 

84. Cypsiurus balasiensis (Gray, JE) 1829 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Asian Palm Swift S: Asiaa Thal-thurithaya ) 

85. Tachymarptis melba (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w 

( E: Alpine Swift S: Alpine-thurithaya ) 

181


86. Apus pacificus (Latham) 1802 WVa L3 

( E: Fork-tailed Swift S: Debal –waliga Thurithaya 

87. Apus affinis (Gray, JE) 1830 BrR L1 w g 

( E: House Swift S: Punchi Thurithaya ) 

88. Apus acuticauda (Jerdon) WVa L3 

( E: Dark-rumped Swift S: Nithamba-anduru Thurithaya ) 

HEMIPROCNIDAE 

89. Hemiprocne coronata (Tickell) 1833 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Crested Treeswift S: Silu Ruk-thurithaya ) 

STRIGIFORMES 

TYTONIDAE 

90. Tyto alba (Scopoli) 1769 BrR L1 g t 

( E: Barn Owl S: Atu Wesbassa ) 

PHODILINAE 

91. Phodilus badius (Horsfield) 1821 BrR L1 w g t 3 

( E: Oriental Bay Owl S: Peradigu Gurubassa ) 

STRIGIDAE 

92. Otus sunia (Hodgson) 1836 BrR L1 g 

( E: Oriental Scops Owl S: Peradigu Kanbassa ) 

93. Otus bakkamoena Pennant 1769 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Collard Scops Owl S: Karapati Kanbassa ) 

94. Otus thilohofmanni Warakagoda & Rassmusan 2004 END BrR L1 d 

( E: Serendib Scops Owl S: Panduwan Kanbassa) 

95. Bubo nipalensis Hodgson 1836 BrR L1 w g t 

( E: Spot-bellied Eagle Owl S: Ukusu Bakamoona / Ulama) 

96. Ketupa zeylonensis (Gmelin) 1788 BrR L1 g 

( E: Brown Fish Owl S: Bora Kewul-bakamoona) 

97. Strix leptogrammica Temminck 1832 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Brown Wood Owl S: Bora Wana-bakamoona ) 

98. Glaucidium radiatum (Tickell) 1833 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Jungle Owlet S: Wana Upabassa ) 

99. Glaucidium castanonotum (Blyth) 185 END BrR L1 g 

( E: Sri Lanka Chestnut-backed Owlet S: Sri Lanka Pit-a June thambala Upabassa)) 

100. Ninox scutulata (Raffles) 1822 BrR L1 g 

( E: Brown Hawk Owl S: Bora Ukusu-bassa) 

101. Asio flammeus (Pontoppidan) 1763 WV L1 w g t 

( E: Short-eared Owl S: Keti Kan-Bakamoona) 

3 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Phodilus badius assimilis upgraded to species level Phodilus assimilis 

182


BATRACHOSTOMIDAE 

102. Batrachostomus moniliger Blyth 1849 BrR L1 w g t 

( E: Frogmouth S: Madi-muhuna ) 

CAPRIMULGIDAE 

103. Caprimulgus indicus Latham 1790 BrR L1 g 

( E: Grey Nightjar S: Alu Bimbassa ) 

104. Caprimulgus atripennis Jerdon 1845 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Jerdon’s Nightjar S: Jerdon Bimbassa ) 

105. Caprimulgus asiaticus Latham 1790 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Common Nightjar S: Indu Bimbassa ) 

COLUMBIFORMES 

COLUMBIDAE 

106. Columba livia Gmelin 1789 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Rock Pigeon S: Podu Paraviya ) 

107. Columba torringtoni Bonaparte 1854 END BrR L1 w g t 

( E: Sri Lanka Wood Pigeon S: Sri Lanka Mayila Paraviya ) 

108. Columba punicea Blyth 1842 WV L2 w t p 

( E: Pale-capped Pigeon S: La-esasi Paraviya ) 

109. Streptopelia orientalis (Latham) 1790 WV L1 w g 

( E: Oriental Turtle Dove S: Peradigu Kayuru Kobeiyya ) 

110. Streptopelia chinensis (Scopoli) 1786 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Spotted Dove S: Alu Kobeiyya ) 

111. Streptopelia tranquebarica (Hermann) 1804 WV L1 w g p 

( E: Red Collared Dove S: Rathmala Kobeiyya ) 

112. Streptopelia decaocto (Frivaldszky) 1838 BrR L1 w g 

( E : Eurasian Collard Dove S: Mala Kobeiyya ) 

113. Chalcophaps indica (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Emerald Dove S: Neela-Kobeiyya ) 

114. Treron bicincta (Jerdon) 1840 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Orange-breasted Green-pigeon S: Laya-ran Batagoya ) 

115. Treron pompadora (Gmelin) 1789 BrR L1 w g 4 

( E: Pompadour Green-pigeon S: Pompadoru Batagoya ) 

116. Treron phoenicoptera (Latham) 1790 BrR/UWV L1 g t 

( E: Yellow-footed Green-pigeon S: Seepadu Batagoya ) 

117. Ducula aenea (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Green Imperial Pigeon S: Neela Mahagoya ) 

4 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Treron pompadora pompadora upgraded to endemic species level under “taxonomy 

dependent” as Treron pompadora 

183


GRUIFORMES 

RALLIDAE 

118. Rallina eurizonoides (Lafresnaye) 1845 WV L1 w g t 

( E: Slaty-legged Crake S: Alu-pa Keraliya ) 

119. Gallirallus striatus (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Slaty-breasted Rail S: Layaalu Pati-reluwa ) 

120. Rallus aquaticus Linnaeus 1758 WV L2 w g p 5 

( E: Water rail S: Diya Reluwa ) 

121. Crex crex (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L2 g p 

( E: Corn Crake S: Goda-keraliya ) 

122. Amaurornis phoenicurus (Pennant) 1769 BrR L1 w g t 

( E: White-breasted Waterhen S: Laya-sudu Korawakka ) 

123. Porzana pusilla (Pallas) 1776 WV L1 g 

( E: Baillon’s Crake S: Baillon Wil-keraliya ) 

124. Porzana fusca (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Ruddy-breasted Crake S: Laya-rathu Wil-keraliya ) 

125. Gallicrex cinerea (Gmelin) 1789 BrR L1 g 

( E: Watercock S: Kora ) 

126. Porphyrio porphyrio (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Purple Swamphen S: Podu Dam-kithala ) 

127. Gallinula chloropus (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 g 

( E: Common Moorhen S: Podu Gallinuwa ) 

128. Fulica atra Linnaeus 1758 BrR L1 w g t 

( E: Common Coot S: Podu Kalu-kithala ) 

CICONIIFORMES 

SCOLOPACIDAE 

129. Scolopax rusticola Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 g 

( E: Eurasian Woodcock S: Eurasiya Arathuduwa ) 

130. Gallinago nemoricola Hodgson 1836 WVa L3 

( E: Wood Snipe S: Wana Kaswatuwa ) 

131. Gallinago stenura (Bonaparte) 1831 WV L1 w g 

( E: Pintail Snipe S: Ulpenda Kaswatuwa ) 

132. Gallinago megala Swinhoe 1861 WV L2 w g p 

( E: Swinhoe’s Snipe S: Swainhoo Kaswatuwa ) 

133. Gallinago media (Latham) 1787 WV L1 w g p 

( E: Great Snipe S: Maha Kaswatuwa ) 

134. Gallinago gallinago (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 g t 

( E: Common Snipe S: Podu Kaswatuwa ) 

135. Lymnocryptes minimus (Brunnich) 1764 WV L1 g p 

( E: Jack Snipe S: Heen-kaswatuwa ) 

5 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Rallus aquaticus indicus upgraded to species level Rallus indicus 

184


136. Limosa limosa (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 w g 

( E: Black-tailed Godwit S: Kalu-penda Gohuduwiththa ) 

137. Limosa lapponica (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 w g 

( E: Bar-tailed Godwit S: Waira-penda Gohuduwiththa ) 

138. Numenius minutus (Gould) 1841 WVa L3 

( E: Little Curlew S: Heen Kalikaya ) 

139. Numenius phaeopus (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 w g 

( E: Whimbrel S: Wimburali Kalikaya ) 

140. Numenius tenuirostris Vieillot 1817 WVa L3 

( E: Slender-billed Curlew S: Heen-thudu Kalikaya) 

141. Numenius arquata (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 w 

( E: Eurasian Curlew S: Eurasiya Kalikaya ) 

142. Tringa erythropus (Pallas) 1764 WV L1 w g p 

( E: Spotted Redshank S: Tith Rathpa Silibilla ) 

143. Tringa totanus (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 w g 

( E: Common Redshank S: Podu Rathpa Silibilla ) 

144. Tringa stagnatilis (Bechstein) 1803 WV L1 g 

( E: Marsh Sandpiper S: Waguru Silibilla ) 

145. Tringa nebularia (Gunnerus) 1767 WV L1 w g 

( E: Common Greenshank S: Podu Palapa Silibilla ) 

146. Tringa guttifer (Nordmann) 1835 WVa L3 

( E: Nordmann’s Greenshank S: Thith Palalpa Silibilla ) 

147. Tringa solitaria Wilson, A 1813 WVa L3 

( E: Solitary Sandpiper S: Thanikada Silibilla ) 

148. Tringa ochropus Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 g 

( E: Green Sandpiper S: Kola Silibilla ) 

149. Tringa glareola Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 w g 

( E: Wood Sandpiper S: Wana Silibilla ) 

150. Xenus cinereus (Guldenstadt) 1775 WV L1 g 

( E: Terek Sandpiper S: Terek Silinna ) 

151. Actitis hypoleucos (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 w g 

( E: Common Sandpiper S: Podu Siliththa ) 

152. Tringa macularia (Linnaeus) 1766 WVa L3 

( E: Spotted Sandpiper S: Pulli Silibilla ) 

153. Arenaria interpres (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 g 

( E: Ruddy Turnstone S: Rath Galperaliya ) 

154. Limnodromus semipalmatus (Blyth) 1848 WVa L3 

( E: Asiatic Dowitcher S: Asiya Siliwatuwa ) 

155. Calidris tenuirostris (Horsfield) 1821 WVa L3 

( E: Great Knot S: Mahanott Hinna ) 

156. Calidris canutus (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 w g p 

( E: Red Knot S: Rathu Not Hinna) 

185


157. Calidris alba (Pallas) 1764 WV L1 w g 

( E: Sanderling S: Wali Hinna ) 

158. Calidris pygmeus WV L2 

( E: Spoon-billed Sandpiper S: Handi Hinna ) 

159. Calidris minuta (Leisler) 1812 WV L1 w g 

( E: Little Stint S: Punchi Hinna ) 

160. Calidris ruficollis (Pallas) 1776 WV L2 

( E: Rufous-necked Stint S: Dumburu-gela Hinna ) 

161. Calidris temminckii (Leisler) 1812 WV L1 w g 

( E: Temminck’s Stint S: Temminck Hinna ) 

162. Calidris subminuta (Middendorff) 1853 WV L1 g 

( E: Long-toed Stint S: Digaangili Hinna) 

163. Calidris fuscicollis (Vieillot) 1819 WVa L3 

( E: White-rumped Sandpiper S: Nithamba-sudu Hinna ) 

164. Calidris acuminata (Horsfield) 1821 WV L1 g p 

( E: Sharp-tailed Sandpiper S: Ul-penda Hinna ) 

165. Calidris alpina (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L2 

( E: Dunlin S: Dumbulu Hinna ) 

166. Calidris ferruginea (Pontoppidan) 1763 WV L1 w g 

( E: Curlew Sandpiper S: Kalika Hinna ) 

167. Tryngites subruficollis (Vieillot) 1819 WV L2 g p 

( E: Buff-breasted Sandpiper S: Layapandu Sili-hinna ) 

168. Limicola falcinellus (Pontoppidan) 1763 WV L1 w g 

( E: Broad-billed Sandpiper S: Mathudu-hinna ) 

169. Philomachus pugnax (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 w g 

( E: Ruff S: Lowichchiya ) 

170. Steganopus tricolor Vieillot 1819 SU L3 

( E: Wilson’s Phalarope S: Wilsonge Diyawatuwa ) 

171. Phalaropus lobatus (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L2 

( E: Red-necked Phalarope S: Rathgela Diyawatuwa) 

172. Phalaropus fulicaria (Linnaeus) 1758 WVa L3 

( E: Red Phalarope S: Rathu Diyawatuwa ) 

ROSTRATULIDAE 

173. Rostratula benghalensis (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Greater Painted-snipe S: Raja Ulu-kaswatuwa ) 

JACANIDAE 

174. Hydrophasianus chirurgus (Scopoli) 1786 BrR L1 g 

( E: Pheasant-tailed Jacana S: Savul-penda Diyasaana ) 

186


BURHINIDAE 

175. Burhinus oedicnemus (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Eurasian Thick-knee S: Eurasia Golukiraluwa ) 

176. Esacus recurvirostris (Cuvier) 1829 BrR L1 g 

( E: Great Thick-knee S: Maha-Golukiraluwa ) 

CHARADRIIDAE 

177. Haematopus ostralegus Linnaeus 1758 WV L2 

( E: Eurasian Oystercatcher S: Eurasia Bolugulla ) 

178. Himantopus himantopus (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Black-winged Stilt S: Kalupiya Ipalpawa ) 

179. Himantopus leucocephalus Gould 1837 WV L2 

( E: Australian Stilt S: Australiyanu Ipalpawa ) 

180. Recurvirostra avosetta Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 w g 

( E: Pied Avocet S: Gomara Avasatha ) 

181. Pluvialis fulva (Gmelin) 1789 WV L1 w g 

( E: Pacific Golden Plover S: Sethkara Ran Maha-oleviya ) 

182. Pluvialis squatarola (Linnaeus) 1758 W V L1 w g 

( E: Grey Plover S: Alu Maha-oleviya ) 

183. Charadrius hiaticula Linnaeus 1758 WV L2 

( E: Common Ringed Plover S: Loku Mala Oleviya ) 

184. Charadrius placidus Gray, JE & Gray, GR 1863 WVa L3 

( E: Long-billed Plover S: Dick-thuda Oleviya ) 

185. Charadrius dubius Scopoli 1786 BrR & WV L1 w g 

( E: Little Ringed Plover S: Punchi Mala Oleviya ) 

186. Charadrius alexandrinus Linnaeus 1758 BrR & WV L1 w g 

187. ( E: Kentish Plover S: Kenti Oleviya ) WV L1 w 

( E: Lesser Sand Plover S: Heen Wali Oleviya ) 

188. Charadrius leschenaultii Lesson 1826 WV L1 g 

( E: Greater Sand Plover S: Raja Wali Oleviya ) 

189. Charadrius asiaticus Pallas 1773 WV L1 g p 

( E : Caspian Plover S: Caspia Oleviya ) 

190. Charadrius veredus Gould 1848 WVa L3 

( E: Oriental Plover S: Peradigu Oleviya ) 

191. Vanellus malabaricus (Boddaert) 1783 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Yellow-wattled Lapwing S: Kaha-yatimal Kirella ) 

192. Vanellus cinereus (Blyth) 1842 WVa L3 

( E: Grey-headed Lapwing S: Hisa-alu Kirella ) 

193. Vanellus indicus (Boddaert) 1783 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Red-wattled Lapwing S: Rath-yatimal Kirella ) 

194. Vanellus gregarius (Pallas) 1771 WV L2 g 

( E: Sociable Lapwing S: Ranchu Kirella ) 

187


GLAREOLIDAE 

195. Dromas ardeola Paykull 1805 SU L1 w g 

( E: Crab-plover S: Kakulu-oleviya ) 

196. Cursorius coromandelicus (Gmelin) 1789 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Indian Courser E: Indu Javalihiniya ) 

197. Glareola pratincola (Linnaeus) 1766 WV L1 g p 

( E: Collared Pratincole S: Karapati Javasariya ) 

198. Glareola maldivarum Forster, JR 1795 BrR L1 g 

( E: Oriental Pratincole E: Peradigu Javasariya ) 

199. Glareola lactea Temminck 1820 BrR L1 g 

( E: Small Pratincole S: Punchi Javasariya ) 

LARIDAE 

200. Catharacta lonnbergi Mathews 1831 SV L2 g t 6 

( E: Brown Skua S: Dumburu Piri-vilumbuwa ) 

201. Catharacta maccormicki (Saunders) 1893 SU L3 t 7 

( E: South Polar Skua S: Dakunu-drava Piri-vilumbuwa ) 

202. Stercorarius pomarinus (Temminck) 1815 SV L1 w g t p 

( E: Pomarine Jaeger S :Pomarine Vilumbuwa ) 

203. Stercorarius parasiticus (Linnaeus) 1758 SU L3 

( E: Parasitic Jaeger S: Paraputu Vilumbuwa ) 

204. Larus hemprichii (Bruch) 1853 SU L3 

( E: Sooty Gull S: Dumbutu Galuviya ) 

205. Larus argentatus Pontoppidan 1763 WV L3 

( E: Herring Gull S: Herring Galuviya ) 

206. Larus heuglini Bree 1876 WV L1 w g t 

( E: Heuglin’s Gull S: Heuglin Galuviya ) 

207. Larus cachinnans Pallas 1811 SU L2 

( E: Yellow-legged Gull S: Kahapa Galuviya ) 

208. Larus fuscus Linnaeus 1758 WV L3 

( E: Lesser Black-backed Gull S: Heen Pita-kalu Galuviya ) 

209. Larus ichthyaetus Pallas 1773 WV L1 g 

( E: Pallas’s Gull S: Maha Kalu-hisa Galuviya ) 

210. Larus brunnicephalus Jerdon 1840 WV L1 w g 

( E: Brown-headed Gull S: Bora-hisa Galuviya ) 

211. Larus ridibundus Linnaeus 1766 WV L3 

( E: Black-headed Gull S: Kalu-his Galuviya ) 

212. Larus genei Breme 1839 SU L3 

( E: Slender-billed Gull S: Heen-thudu Galuviya ) 

6 

Originally identified as C.antarctica (Legge 1983 and Wait 1931). Error corrected by De Silva (1989d) 

7 

Specimen originally identified by Wait (1931) was an error, corrected by De Silva (1989) 

188


213. Gelochelidon nilotica SU L1 g 

( E: Gull-billed Tern S: Galuthudu Sayurulihiniya ) 

214. Sterna caspia Pallas 1770 WV L1 g t 

( E: Caspian Tern S: Caspia Muhudulihiniya ) 

215. Sterna bengalensis Lesson 1831 WV L1 w g 

( E: Lesser Crested Tern S: Heen Konda Muhudulihiniya ) 

216. Sterna bergii Lichtenstein 1823 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Great Crested Tern S: Maha Konda Muhudulihiniya ) 

217. Sterna sandvicensis Latham 1787 WV L1 g 

( E: Sandwich Tern S : Sandwich Muhudulihiniya ) 

218. Sterna dougallii Montagu 1813 SV/BrR L1 w g 

( E: Roseate Tern S: Arunu Muhudulihiniya ) 

219. Sterna sumatrana Raffles 1822 SU L3 

( E: Black-naped Tern S: Kalu-gelasi Muhudulihiniya ) 

220. Sterna hirundo Linnaeus 1758 WV/UBrR L1 w g t 

( E: Common Tern S: Podu Muhudulihiniya ) 

221. Sterna albifrons Pallas 1764 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Little Tern S: Punchi Muhudulihiniya ) 

222. Sterna saundersi Hume 1877 BrR L1 g 

( E: Saunders’s Tern S: Saunders Muhudulihiniya ) 

223. Sterna repressa Hartert 1916 Va L3 

( E: White-cheeked Tern S: Kopula-sudu Muhudulihiniya ) 

224. Sterna anaethetus Scopoli 1786 SU L1 g t 

( E: Bridled Tern S: Kadiyalam Muhudulihiniya ) 

225. Sterna fuscata Linnaeus 1766 PM L1 g t p 

( E: Sooty Tern S: Dumbutu Muhudulihiniya ) 

226. Chlidoniasus (Pallas) 1811 WV L1 w g 

( E: Whiskered Tern S: Alupiya Kangul-lihiniya ) 

227. Chlidonias leucopterus (Temminck) 1815 WV L1 w g t 

( E: White-winged Tern S: Sudupiya Kangul-lihiniya ) 

228. Chlidonias niger (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L3 

( E: Black Tern S: Kalu Kangul-lihiniya ) 

229. Anous stolidus (Linnaeus) 1758 Va L1 g t 

( E: Brown Noddy S: Bora Nidilihiniya ) 

230. Anous minutus Boie 1844 SU L3 

( E: Black Noddy S: Kalu Nidilihiniya ) 

231. Anous tenuirostris (Temminck) 1823 Va L1 g 

( E: Lesser Noddy S: Heen Nidilihiniya ) 

ACCIPITRIDAE 

232. Pandion haliaetus (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L2 

( E: Osprey S: Kuralaya ) 

189


233. Aviceda jerdoni (Blyth) 1842 BrR L1 g 

( E: Jerdon’s Baza S: Jerdon Saratakussa ) 

234. Aviceda leuphotes (Dumont) 1820 WV L1 g 

( E: Black Baza S: Kalu Saratakussa ) 

235. Pernis ptilorhyncus (Temminck) 1821 BrR & WV L1 g 

( E: Oriental Honey-buzzard S: Silu Bambarakussa ) 

236. Elanus caeruleus (Desfontaines) 1789 BrR L1 g 

( E: Black-shouldered Kite S: Uris-kalu Pathannkussa ) 

237. Milvus migrans (Bonddaert) 1783 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Black Kite S: Bora Parakussa ) 

238. Haliastur indus (Boddaert) 1783 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Brahminy Kite S: Bamunu Piyakussa ) 

239. Haliaeetus leucogaster (Gmelin) 1788 BrR L1 w g 

( E: White-bellied Sea-eagle S: Kusa-ali Sayurukussa ) 

240. Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus (Horsfield) 1821 BrR L1 g 

( E: Grey-headed Fish-eagle S: Raja Alu-his Masukussa ) 

241. Neophron percnopterus (Linnaeus) 1758 WVa L1 w g t p 

( E: Egyptian Vulture S: Ejupthu Gijulihiniya ) 

242. Spilornis cheela (Latham) 1790 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Crested Serpent Eagle S: Silu Sarapakussa ) 

243. Circus aeruginosus (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 w g 

( E: Western Marsh Harrier S: Batahira Waguru Harikussa ) 

244. Circus macrourus (Gmelin, SG) 1770 WV L1 w g 

( E: Pallid Harrier S: Sudumali Harikussa ) 

245. Circus melanoleucos (Pennant) 1769 WV L1 w g 

( E: Pied Harrier S: Gomara Harikussa ) 

246. Circus pygargus (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 w g 

( E: Montagu’s Harrier S: Montegu Harikussa ) 

247. Accipiter trivirgatus (Temminck) 1824 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Crested Goshawk S: Silu Ukussa ) 

248. Accipiter badius (Gmelin) 1788 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Shikra S: Ukussa ) 

249. Accipiter virgatus (Temminck) 1822 BrR L1 g 

( E: Besra S: Besra Ukussa ) 

250. Accipiter nisus (Linnaeus) 1758 WVa L3 

( E: Eurasian Sparowhawk S: Eurasiya Ukussa ) 

251. Buteo buteo (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 w g 8 

( E: Common Buzzard S: Urasiya Lasikussa ) 

252. Buteo rufinus (Cretzschmar) 1829 WVa L3 

( E: Long-legged Buzzard S: Dikpa Lasikussa ) 

8 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Buteo buteo burmanicus upgraded to species level Buteo burmanicus 

190


253. Ictinaetus malayensis (Temminck) 1822 BrR L1 g 

( E: Black Eagle S: Kalukussa ) 

254. Hieraaetus fasciatus (Vieillot) 1822 SU L1 w g p 

( E: Bonnelli’s Eagle S: Bonelli Rajaaliya ) 

255. Hieraaetus pennatus (Gmelin) 1788 WV L1 w g t p 

( E: Booted Eagle S: Kesarupa Rajaaliya ) 

256. Hieraaetus kienerii (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, I) 1835 BrR L1 w g t 

( E: Rufous-bellied Eagle S: Kusarath Rajaaliya ) 

257. Spizaetus cirrhatus (Gmelin) 1788 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Changeable Hawk Eagle S: Perali Kondakussa ) 

258. Spizaetus nipalensis (Hodgson) 1836 BrR L1 g 

( E: Mountain Hawk Eagle S: Hela Kondakussa ) 

FALCONIDAE 

259. Falco naumanni Fleischer 1818 WVa L3 

( E: Lesser Kestrel S: Heen Kurulugoya ) 

260. Falco tinnunculus Linnaeus 1758 BrR/UWV L1 w g t 

( E: Common Kestrel S: Podu Kurulugoya ) 

261. Falco chicquera Daudin 1800 WVa L3 

( E: Red-necked Falcon S: Rathuhis Kurulugoya ) 

262. Falco amurensis Radde 1863 WVa L1 w g t p 

( E: Amur Falcon S: Amur Kurulugoya ) 

263. Falco severus Horsfield 1821 WV L2 w g p 

( E: Oriental Hobby S: Peradigu Hobby Kurulugoya ) 

264. Falco peregrinus Tunstall 1771 BrR/UWV L1 w g 

( E: Peregrine/ Shaheen Falcon S: Peri/shahin Kurulugoya ) 

265. Microhierax fringilarius Va L3 

(E: Black-thighed Falconet S: Kalu-kalawa Kurulaya ) 

PODICIPEDIDAE 

266. Tachybaptus ruficollis (Pallas) 1764 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Little Grebe S: Punchi Gembithuruwa ) 

PHAETHONTIDAE 

267. Phaethon aethereus Linnaeus 1758 SV L1 g p 

( E: Red-billed Tropicbird S: Raththudu Gimwalaya ) 

268. Phaethon lepturus Daudin 1802 SU L1 w g t p 

( E: White-tailed Tropicbird S: Kahathudu Gimwalaya ) 

SULIDAE 

269. Sula dactylatra Lesson 1831 SU L1 w g t p 

( E: Masked Booby S: Wes Sulaviya ) 

191


270. Sula sula (Linnaeus) 1766 SU L1 g p 

( E: Red-footed Booby S: Rathpa Sulaviya ) 

271. Sula leucogaster (Boddaert) 1783 Va L1 g p 

( E: Brown Booby S: Bora Sulaviya ) 

ANHINGIDAE 

272. Anhinga melanogaster Pennant 1769 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Darter S: Peradigu Ahikava ) 

PHALACROCORACIDAE 

273. Phalacrocorax niger (Vieillot) 1817 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Little Cormorant S: Punchi Diyakava ) 

274. Phalacrocorax fuscicollis Stephens 1826 BrR L1 w g t 

( E: Indian Cormorant S: Indu Diyakava ) 

275. Phalacrocorax carbo (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 g 

( E: Great Cormorant S: Maha Diyakava ) 

ARDEIDAE 

276. Egretta garzetta (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 g 

( E: Little Egret S: Punchi Ali-koka ) 

277. Egretta gularis (Bosc) 1792 BrR L1 g 

( E: Western Reef Heron S: Batahira Pera Ali-koka ) 

278. Ardea cinerea Linnaeus 1758 BrR L1 g p 

( E: Grey Heron S: Alu Koka ) 

279. Ardea goliath Cretzschmar 1829 WVa L1 w g t 

( E: Goliath Heron S: Yoda Koka ) 

280. Ardea purpurea Linnaeus 1766 BrR L1 g 

( E: Purple Heron S: Karawal Koka ) 

281. Casmerodius albus (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Great Egret S: Maha Sudu-koka ) 

282. Mesophoyx intermedia Wagler 1829 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Intermediate Egret S: Sudu Madi-koka ) 

283. Bubulcus ibis (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Cattle Egret S: Gava-koka ) 

284. Ardeola grayii (Sykes) 1832 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Pond Heron S: Kana-koka ) 

285. Ardeola bacchus (Bonaparte) 1855 WVa L3 

( E: Chinese Pond Heron S: Cheena Kana-koka ) 

286. Butorides striatus (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Little Heron S: Pala-koka ) 

287. Nycticorax nycticorax (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Black-crowned Night Heron S: Ra-koka ) 

192


288. Gorsachius melanolophus (Raffles) 1822 WV L1 w g 

( E: Malayan Night Heron S: Malaya Thambala-koka ) 

289. Ixobrychus sinensis (Gmelin) 1789 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Yellow Bittern S: Kaha Mati-koka ) 

290. Ixobrychus cinnamomeus (Gmelin) 1789 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Cinnamon Bittern S: Kahabora Mati-koka ) 

291. Dupetor flavicollis (Latham) 1790 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Black Bittern S: Kalu Pili-koka ) 

292. Botaurus stellaris (Linnaeus) 1758 WVa L2 

( E: Great Bittern S: Eurasiya Pan-koka ) 

PHOENICOPTERIDAE 

293. Phoenicopterus ruber Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 g 

( E: Greater Flamingo S: Raja Siyakkaraya ) 

294. Phoenicopterus minor Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E 1798 WVa L3 

( E: Lesser Flamingo S: Heen Siyakkaraya ) 

THRESKIORNITHIDAE 

295. Plegadis falcinellus (Linnaeus) 1766 WV L1 g 

( E: Glossy Ibis S: Silutu Dathuduwa ) 

296. Threskiornis melanocephalus (Latham) 1790 BrR L1 g 

( E: Black-headed Ibis S: Indu Sudu Dakaththa ) 

297. Platalea leucorodia Linnaeus 1758 BrR L1 g 

( E: Eurasian Spoonbill S: Eurasiya Handialawa ) 

PELECANIDAE 

298. Pelecanus onocrotalus Linnaeus 1758 SU L3 

( E: Great White Pelican S: Maha Sudu Pasthuduwa ) 

299. Pelecanus crispus Bruch 1832 SU L3 

( E: Dalmatian Pelican S: Dalmatian Pasthuduwa ) 

300. Pelecanus philippensis Gmelin 1789 BrR L1 g 

( E: Spot-billed Pelican S: Thithhota Pasthuduwa ) 

CICONIIDAE 

301. Mycteria leucocephala (Pennant) 1769 BrR L1 g 

( E: Painted Stork S: Lathuwakiya ) 

302. Anastomus oscitans (Boddaert) 1783 BrR L1 g 

( E: Asian Openbill S: Asia Vivarathuduwa ) 

303. Ciconia nigra (Linnaeus) 1758 SU L3 

( E: Black Stork S: Kalu Manawa ) 

304. Ciconia episcopus (Boddaert) 1783 BrR L1 g 

( E: Woolly-necked Stork S: Padili Manawa ) 

193


305. Ciconia ciconia (Linnaeus) 1758 SU L2 w 

( E: White Stork S: Sudu Manawa ) 

306. Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus (Latham) 1790 BrR L1 g 

( E: Black-necked Stork S: Ali-manawa ) 

307. Leptoptilos javanicus (Horsfield) 1821 BrR L1 g 

( E: Lesser Adjutant S: Heen Bahuru-manawa ) 

FREGATIDAE 

308. Fregata minor (Gmelin) 1789 Va L2 w t p 

( E: Great Frigatebird S: Maha Sahasiya ) 

309. Fregata ariel (Gray, GR) 1845 Va L1 p 

( E: Lesser Frigatebird S: Singithi Sahasiya ) 

310. Fregata andrewsi Mathews 1914 SU L2 t 

( E: Christmas Island Frigatebird S: Naththal Diw Sahasiya ) 

PROCELLARIIDAE 

311. Daption capense (Linnaeus) 1758 SU L2 w g t p 

( E: Cape Petrel S: Keppa Pita-raleya ) 

312. Pterodroma baraui (Jouanin) 1964 SU L3 

( E: Barau’s Petrel S: Barau Raleya ) 

313. Pterodroma lessonii (Garnot) 1826 SU L3 

( E: White-headed Petrel S: Hisa-sudu Raleya ) 

314. Pterodroma mollis (Gould) 1844 SU L3 

( E: Soft-plumaged Petrel S: Sumudu Pill Raleya ) 

315. Bulweria bulwerii (Jardine & Selby) 1828 SU L3 

( E: Bulwer’s Petrel S: Bulwer Heen-raleya ) 

316. Bulweria fallax Jouanin 1955 SU L1 g 

( E: Jouanin’s Petrel S: Jouanin Heen-raleya ) 

317. Calonectris leucomelas (Temminck) 1835 SU L1 w t p 

( E: Streaked Shearwater S: Kadiiri Pirilavakaya ) 

318. Puffinus pacificus (Gmelin) 1789 Va L2 w g t p 

( E: Wedge-tailed Shearwater S: Kungnapenda Diyalavakaya ) 

319. Puffinus carneipes Gould 1844 PM L1 w g t p 

( E: Flesh-footed Shearwater S: Palolpa Diyalavakaya ) 

320. Puffinus griseus (Gmelin) 1789 SU L3 

( E: Sooty Shearwater S: Dumbutu Diyalavakaya ) 

321. Puffinus tenuirostris (Temminck) 1835 SU L1 g p 

( E: Short-tailed Shearwater S: Ketipenda Diyalavakaya ) 

322. Puffinus lherminieri Lesson 1839 SU L3 

( E: Audubon’s Shearwater S: Audubon Diyalavakaya ) 

323. Oceanites oceanicus (Kuhl) 1820 SV L1 w g t 

( E: Wilson’s Storm-petrel S: Wilson Sadawasuruwa ) 

194


324. Pelagodroma marina (Latham) 1790 WV L3 

(E: White-faced Storm-petrel S:Watha Sudu Sadawasuruwa) 

325. Oceanodroma monorhis (Swinhoe) 1867 SU L1 w g p 

( E: Swinhoe’s Storm-petrel S: Swinhoe Kunatusuruwa ) 

PASSERIFORMES 

PITTIDAE 

326. Pitta brachyura (Linnaeus) 1766 WV L1 w g 

( E: Indian Pitta S: Avichchiya ) 

IRENIDAE 

327. Irena puella (Latham) 1790 WV L2 w g p 

( E: Asian Fairy Bluebird S: Asia Neelarajaya ) 

328. Chloropsis cochinchinensis (Gmelin) 1789 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Blue-winged Leafbird S: Nilpiya Kolarisiya ) 

329. Chloropsis aurifrons (Temminck) 1829 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Golden-fronted Leafbird S: Rannalala Kolarisiya ) 

LANIIDAE 

330. Lanius cristatus Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 w g t 

( E: Brown Shrike S: Bora Sabariththa ) 

331. Lanius vittatus Valenciennes 1826 WV L2 

( E: Bay-backed Shrike S: Pita-alu Sabariththa ) 

332. Lanius schach Linnaeus 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Long-tailed Shrike S: Dikpenda Sabariththa ) 

333. Lanius meridionalis Temminck 1820 WVa L3 

( E: Southern Grey Shrike S: Alu Sabariththa ) 

CORVIDAE 

334. Urocissa ornata (Wagler) 1829 END BrR L1 g 

( E: Sri Lanka Blue Magpie S: Sri Lanka Kahibella ) 

335. Corvus splendens Vieillot 1817 BrR L1 w g 

( E: House Crow S: Kolamba Kaputa ) 

336. Corvus macrorhynchos Wagler 1827 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Large-billed Crow S: Kalu Kaputa ) 

337. Artamus fuscus Vieillot 1817 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Ashy Woodswallow S: Alu Wanalihiniya ) 

338. Oriolus oriolus (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 g p 9 

( E: Eurasian Golden Oriole S: Eurasiya Ran Kahakurulla ) 

9 

Rassmussen and Anderton 2005 - Oriolus oriolus kundoo upgraded to speciel level Oriolus kundoo, both Oriolus oriolus and 

Oriolus kundoo present in Sri Lanka 

195


339. Oriolus chinensis Linnaeus 1766 WV L1 w g t p 

( E: Black-naped Oriole S: Kalu-gelasi Kahakurulla ) 

340. Oriolus tenuirostris Blyth 1846 WVa L3 

( E: Slender-billed Oriole S: Heen Thudu Kahakurulla) 

341. Oriolus xanthornus (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Black-hooded Oriole S: Kahakurulla ) 

342. Coracina macei (Lesson) 1830 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Large Cuckooshrike S: Maha Kovul-saratiththa ) 

343. Coracina polioptera (Sharpe) 1879 WVa L3 

( E: Indochinese Cuckooshrike S: Induchina Kovul-saratiththa ) 

344. Coracina melanoptera (Ruppell) 1839 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Black-headed Cuckooshrike S: Kalu-his Kovul-saratiththa ) 

345. Pericrocotus cinnamomeus (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Small Minivet S: Punchi Miniviththa ) 

346. Pericrocotus flammeus (Forster, JR) 1781 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Scarlet Minivet S: Dilirath Miniviththa ) 

347. Hemipus picatus (Sykes) 1832 BrR L1 w g t 

( E: Bar-winged Flycatcher-shrike S: Wairapiya Masi-saratiththa ) 

348. Rhipidura aureola Lesson 1830 BrR L1 w g 

( E: White-browed Fantail S: Bama-sudu Pawanpenda ) 

349. Rhipidura javanica (Sparrman) 1788 WVa L3 

( E: Pied Fantail S: Gomara Pawanpenda ) 

350. Dicrurus macrocercus Vieillot 1817 BrR L1 w g t 

( E: Black Drongo S: Kalu Kawuda ) 

351. Dicrurus leucophaeus Vieillot 1817 WV L1 g t 

( E: Ashy Drongo S: Alu Kawuda ) 

352. Dicrurus caerulescens (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: White-bellied Drongo S: Kawuda ) 

353. Dicrurus paradiseus (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 10 

( E: Great Racket-tailed Drongo S: Maha Kawuda ) 

354. Hypothymis azurea (Boddaert) 1783 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Black-naped Monarch S: Kalu-gelasi Radamara ) 

355. Terpsiphone paradisi (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR & WV L1 w g 

( E: Asian Paradise- flycatcher S: Asia Rahanmara ) 

356. Aegithina tiphia (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Common Iora S: Podu Iorawa ) 

357. Aegithina nigrolutea (Marshall, GFL) 1876 SU L 2 11 

( E: Marshall’s Iora S: Marshallge Iorawa) 

10 

Rassmussen and Anderton 2005 - Dicrurus paradiseus lophorinus, upgraded to endemic species level as Dicrurus lophorinus under 

“taxonomy dependent”. Both Dicrurus lophorinus and Dicrurus paradiseus occur in Sri Lanka 

11 

Rassmussen and Anderton 2005 - A male specimen (BMNH; previously considered an abberent common) from Uva (SE Sri 

Lanka) is this species but shows slight tendency towards tiphia 

196


358. Tephrodornis pondicerianus (Gmelin) 1789 BrR L1 w g t 12 

( E: Common Woodshrike S: Podu Wana-saratiththa ) 

MUSCICAPIDAE 

359. Monticola solitarius (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 g 

( E: Blue Rock Thrush S: Nil Gal-thirasikaya ) 

360. Myophonus blighi (Holdsworth) 1872 END BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Whistling Thrush S: Sri Lanka Uruwan-thirasikaya ) 

361. Zoothera wardii (Blyth) 1842 WV L1 w g 

( E: Pied Thrush S: Gomara Thirasikaya ) 

362. Zoothera citrina (Latham) 1790 WV L1 w g 

( E: Orange-headed Thrush S: Hisaran Thirasikaya ) 

363. Zoothera spiloptera (Blyth) 1847 END BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Spot-winged Thrush S: Sri Lanka Thithpiya Thirasikaya ) 

364. Zoothera dauma (Latham) 1790 BrR L1 g 13 

( E: Scaly Thrush S: Kayuru Thirasikaya ) 

365. Turdus merula Linnaeus 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Eurasian Blackbird S: Urasia Kalu Bimsariya ) 

366. Turdus obscurus Gmelin 1789 WV L2 

( E: Eyebrowed Thrush S; Ahibami Bimsariya ) 

367. Muscicapa striata (Pallas) 1764 WVa L3 

( E: Spotted Flycatcher S: Pulli Masimara) 

368. Muscicapa daurica Pallas 1811 WV L1 g 

( E: Asian Brown Flycatcher S: Asia Bora Masimara ) 

369. Muscicapa muttui (Layard, EL) 1854 WV L1 w g t 

( E: Brown-breasted Flycatcher S: Layabora Masimara ) 

370. Ficedula zanthopygia (Hay) 1845 WVa L3 

( E: Yellow-rumped Flycatcher S: Nithamba-kaha Rath-masimara ) 

371. Ficedula parva (Bechstein) 1792 Va L3 

( E: Red-throated Flycatcher S: Rathu-gela Rath-masimara ) 

372. Ficedula subrubra (Hartert & Steinbacher) 1934 WV L1 w 

( E: Kashmir Flycatcher S: Kashmira Rath-masimara ) 

373. Ficedula tricolor (Hodgson) 1845 WVa L3 

( E: Slaty-blue Flycatcher S: Neelawan Rath-masimara) 

374. Ficedula nigrorufa (Jerdon) 1839 WVa L2 

( E: Black-and-Orange Flycatcher S: Kalu-thambili Rath-masimara ) 

375. Eumyias sordida (Walden) 1870 END BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Dull Blue Flycatcher S: Sri Lanka Neelan-masimara ) 

12 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Tephrodornis pondicerianus affinis upgraded to endemic species level as Tephrodornis affinis 

under “taxonomy dependent” 

13 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Zoothera dauma imbricata upgraded to endemic species level Zoothera imbricata, under 

“taxonomy dependent” 

197


376. Cyornis pallipes (Jerdon) 1840 WVa L3 

( E: White-bellied Blue Flycatcher S: Sudu-udara Nil-masimara ) 

377. Cyornis rubeculoides (Vigors) 1831 WV L1 g 

( E: Blue-throated Flycatcher S: Neelagela Nil-masimara ) 

378. Cyornis banyumas (Horsfield) 1821 WVa L3 

( E: Hill Blue Flycatcher S: Kandukara-neela Nil-masimara ) 

379. Cyornis tickelliae Blyth 1843 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Tickell’s Blue Flycatcher S: Tickel Nil-masimara ) 

380. Culicicapa ceylonensis (Swainson) 1820 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Grey-headed Canary Flycatcher S: Aluhis Kaha-masimara ) 

381. Luscinia svecica (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 g t p 

( E: Bluethroat S: Nilgela Sitikichcha ) 

382. Luscinia brunnea (Hodgson) 1837 WV L1 w g 

( E: Indian Blue Robin S: Indu Nil Sitikichcha ) 

383. Cercotrichas galactotes (Temminck) 1820 WVa L2 

( E: Rufous-tailed Scrub Robin S: Rathpenda Chatasikaya ) 

384. Copsychus saularis (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Oriental Magpie Robin S: Polkichcha ) 

385. Copsychus malabaricus (Scopoli) 1786 BrR L1 w 

( E: White-rumped Shama S: Wana Polkichcha ) 

386. Saxicoloides fulicata (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w 

( E: Indian Robin S: Indu Kalukichcha ) 

387. Saxicola caprata (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Pied Bushchat S: Gomara Sitibichcha ) 

388. Oenanthe pleschanka (Lepechin) 1770 WVa L3 

( E: Pied Wheatear S: Gomara Kateesithaya ) 

389. Oenanthe deserti (Temminck) 1825 WVa L3 

( E: Desert Wheatear S; Kathara Kateesithaya ) 

390. Oenanthe isabellina (Temminck) 1829 WVa L3 

( E: Isabelline Wheatear S: Isabelline Kateesithaya ) 

STURNIDAE 

391. Sturnus albofrontatus END BrR L1 g 

( E: Sri Lanka White-faced Starling S: Sri Lanka Wathasudu Sharikawa ) 

392. Sturnus malabaricus (Gmelin) 1789 WVa L3 

( E: Chestnut-tailed Starling S: Thambala penda Sharikawa ) 

393. Sturnus pagodarum (Gmelin) 1789 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Brahminy Starling S: Bamunu Sharikawa ) 

394. Sturnus sturninus (Pallas) 1776 WVa L3 

( E: Purple-backed Starling S: Dampita Sharikawa) 

395. Sturnus roseus (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 g 

( E: Rosy Starling S: Rosa Sharikawa ) 

198


396. Sturnus contra Linnaeus 1758 WVa L3 

( E: Asian Pied Starling S: Asia Gomara Sharikawa) 

397. Acridotheres tristis (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Common Myna S: Mayna ) 

398. Gracula ptilogenys Blyth 1846 END BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Myna S: Sri Lanka Salalihiniya ) 

399. Gracula religiosa Linnaeus 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Hill Myna S: Salalihiniya ) 

SITTIDAE 

400. Sitta frontalis Swainson 1820 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Velvet-fronted Nuthatch S: Villuda Nalal Yatikuriththa ) 

PARIDAE 

401. Parus major Linnaeus 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Great Tit S: Maha Tikiriththa ) 

HIRUNDINIDAE 

402. Riparia riparia (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L2 

( E: Sand Martin S: Karapati Ivurilihiniya ) 

403. Hirundo fuligula Lichtenstein 1842 WVa L3 

( E: Rock Martin S: Gal Wahilihiniya ) 

404. Hirundo concolor Sykes 1832 WV L2 

( E: Dusky Crag Martin S: Anduru Wahilihiniya ) 

405. Hirundo rustica Linnaeus 1758 BrR L1 w g p 

( E: Barn Swallow S: Atu Wahilihiniya ) 

406. Hirundo tahitica Gmelin 1789 BrR L1 g 

( E: Pacific Swallow S: Sethkara Wahilihiniya ) 

407. Hirundo smithii Leach 1818 WVa L3 

( E: Wire-tailed Swallow S: Kurupenda Wahilihiniya ) 

408. Hirundo daurica Linnaeus 1771 BrR L1 w g 14 

( E: Red-rumped Swallow S: Nithamba rathu Wahilihiniya ) 

409. Hirundo fluvicola Blyth 1855 WVa L3 

( E: Streak-throated Swallow S: Irigela Wahilihiniya ) 

PYCNONOTIDAE 

410. Pycnonotus melanicterus (Gmelin) 1789 BrR L1 w g 15 

( E: Black-crested Bulbul S: Kalu Hisasi Kondaya ) 

14 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Hirundo daurica hyperythra upgraded to endemic species level as Hirundo hyperythra, under 

“taxonomy dependent”. Both Hirundo hyperythra and Hirundo daurica occur in Sri Lanka. 

15 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Pycnonotus melenecturus melenecturus upgraded as an endemic species Pycnonotus 

melenicturus under “taxonomy depemdent” 

199


411. Pycnonotus cafer (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Red-vented Bulbul S: Kondaya ) 

412. Pycnonotus penicillatus Blyth 1851 END BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Yellow-eared Bulbul S: Sri Lanka Kahakan Kondaya ) 

413. Pycnonotus luteolus (Lesson) 1841 BrR L1 w g 

( E: White-browed Bulbul S: Bamasudu Kondaya ) 

414. Iole indica (Jerdon) 1839 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Yellow-browed Bulbul S: Bamakaha Guluguduwa ) 

415. Hypsipetes leucocephalus (Gmelin) 1789 rR L1 w g 

( E: Black Bulbul S: Kalu-kondaya ) 

CISTICOLIDAE 

416. Cisticola juncidis (Rafinesque) 1810 BrR L1 w 

( E: Zitting Cisticola S: Iri Pawansariya ) 

417. Prinia rufescens Blyth 1847 WVa L3 

( E: Rufescent Prinia S: Rath Priniya ) 

418. Prinia hodgsonii Blyth 1844 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Grey-breasted Prinia S: Laya-alu Priniya ) 

419. Prinia sylvatica Jerdon 1840 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Jungle Prinia S: Wana Priniya ) 

420. Prinia socialis Sykes 1832 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Ashy Prinia S: Alu Priniya ) 

421. Prinia inornata Sykes 1832 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Plain Prinia S: Sarala Priniya ) 

ZOSTEROPIDAE 

422. Zosterops ceylonensis Holdsworth 1872 END BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka White-eye S: Sri Lanka Sithasiya ) 

423. Zosterops palpebrosus (Temminck) 1824 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Oriental White-eye S: Peradigu Sithasiya ) 

SYLVIIDAE 

424. Cettia pallidipes (Blanford) 1872 WVa L3 

( E: Pale-footed Bush Warbler S: Lapaya Pandururaviya ) 

425. Bradypterus palliseri (Blyth) 1851 END BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Bush Warbler S: Sri Lanka Wanaraviya ) 

426. Locustella lanceolata (Temminck) 1840 WVa L3 

( E: Lanceolated Warbler S: Lansa Piliraviya ) 

427. Locustella naevia (Boddaert) 1783 WVa L3 

( E: Grasshopper Warbler S: Palangati Piliraviya ) 

428. Locustella certhiola (Pallas) 1811 WVa L1 p 

( E: Rusty-rumped Warbler S; Nithamba Rathbora Piliraviya ) 

200


429. Acrocephalus dumetorum Blyth 1849 WV L1 g 

( E: Blyth’s Reed Warbler S: Blyths Panraviya ) 

430. Acrocephalus stentoreus (Hemprich & Ehrenberg) 1833 BrR/UWV L1 w g t p 

( E: Clamorous Reed Warbler S: Gosa Panraviya ) 

431. Hippolais caligata (Lichtenstein) 1823 WV L1 w g t 16 

( E: Booted Warbler S: Kesarupa Rukraviya ) 

432. Orthotomus sutorius (Pennant) 1769 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Common Tailorbird S: Battichcha ) 

433. Phylloscopus fuscatus (Blyth) 1842 WVa L3 

( E: Dusky Warbler S: Anduru Gassraviya ) 

434. Phylloscopus trochiloides (Sundevall) 1837 WV L1 w g 17 

( E: Greenish Warbler S: Kola Gassraviya ) 

435. Phylloscopus magnirostris (Blyth) 1843 WV L1 w g 

( E: Large-billed Leaf Warbler S: Mathusu Gassraviya ) 

436. Seicercus burkii (Burton) 1836 WVa L3 

( E: Golden-spectacled Warbler S: Ran Upasraviya ) 

437. Schoenicola platyura (Jerdon) 1844 WVa L2 w g t p 

( E: Broad-tailed Grassbird S: Mapenda Thanaraviya ) 

438. Garrulax cinereifrons Blyth 1851 END BrR L1 g 

( E: Sri Lanka Ashy-headed Laughing –thrush S; Sri Lanka Alu-demalichcha) 

439. Pellorneum fuscocapillum (Blyth) 1849 END BrR L1 w g t 

( E: Sri Lanka Brown-capped Babbler S: Sri Lanka Boraga-demalichcha) 

440. Pomatorhinus horsfieldii Sykes 1832 BrR L1 w g 18 

( E: Scimitar Babbler S: Da-demalichcha ) 

441. Dumetia hyperythra (Franklin) 1831 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Tawny-bellied Babbler S: Kusakaha Landu-demalichcha ) 

442. Rhopocichla atriceps (Jerdon) 1839 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Dark-fronted Babbler S: Wathanduru Panduru-demalichcha) 

443. Chrysomma sinense (Gmelin) 1789 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Yellow-eyed Babbler S: Nethkaha Thana-demalichcha ) 

444. Turdoides rufescens (Blyth) 1847 END BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Orange-billed Babbler S: Sri Lanka Rathu Demalichcha ) 

445. Turdoides affinis (Jerdon) 1845 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Yellow-billed Babbler S: Demalichcha ) 

446. Sylvia curruca (Linnaeus) 1758 WV L1 w t 19 

( E: Lesser Whitethroat S: Heen Gelasudu Rusiraviya ) 

16 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Hippolais caligata rama upgraded to species level Hippolais rama. Hippolais caligata and 

Hippolais rama both occur in Sri Lanka. 

17 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Phylloscopus trochiloides nitidus upgraded to species level Pylloscopus nitidus, both species 

Phylloscopu trociloides and Phylloscopus nitidus occur in Sri Lanka 

18 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Pomatorhinus schisticeps horsfieldii upgraded to endemic species level Pomatorhinus 

horsfieldii, under “taxonomy dependent” 

19 

Rasmussen and Anderton 2005 - Sylvia curruca althaea upgraded to Sylvia althaea species level. Both Sylvia curruca 

halimodendri and Sylvia althaea occur in Sri Lanka 

201


ALAUDIDAE 

447. Mirafra assamica Horsfield 1840 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Rufous-winged Bushlark S: Rathpiya Akul-thulikawa ) 

448. Eremopterix grisea (Scopoli) 1786 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Ashy-crowned Sparrow Lark S: Kirulalu Gekurulu-thulikawa ) 

449. Alauda gulgula Franklin 1831 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Oriental Skylark S: Peradigu Ahas Thulikawa) 

NECTARINIIDAE 

450. Dicaeum agile (Tickell) 1833 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Thick-billed Flowerpecker S: Mathudu Pililichcha ) 

451. Dicaeum vincens (Sclater, PL) 1872 END BrR L1 w g 

( E: Sri Lanka Legge’s Flowerpecker S: Sri Lanka Pililichcha ) 

452. Dicaeum erythrorhynchos (Latham) 1790 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Pale-billed Flowerpecker S: Lathudu Pililichcha ) 

453. Nectarina zeylonica (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Purple-rumped Sunbird S: Nithamba Dam Sutikka ) 

454. Nectarina minima (Sykes) 1832 SU L3 

( E: Crimson-backed Sunbird S: Rathpita Sutikka ) 

455. Nectarina asiatica (Latham) 1790 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Purple Sunbird S: Dam Sutikka ) 

456. Nectarina lotenia (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Loten’s Sunbird S: Lotenge Sutikka ) 

PASSERIDAE 

457. Passer domesticus (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w 

( E: House Sparrow S: Gekurulla ) 

458. Petronia xanthocollis (Burton) 1838 WVa L2 t p 

( E: Chestnut-shouldered Petronia S: Pingu-uris Kuruliththa ) 

459. Dendronanthus indicus (Gmelin) 1789 WV L1 g 

( E: Forest Wagtail S: Wana-halapenda ) 

460. Motacilla alba Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 w g p 

( E: White Wagtail S: Sudu Halapenda ) 

461. Motacilla maderaspatensis Gmelin 1789 WV L1 w g p 

( E: White-browed Wagtail S: Gomara Halapenda ) 

462. Motacilla citreola Pallas 1776 WVa L3 

( E: Citine Wagtail S: Kaha-his Halapenda ) 

463. Motacilla flava Linnaeus 1758 WV L1 g 

( E: Yellow Wagtail S: Kaha Halapenda ) 

464. Motacilla cinerea Tunstall 1771 WV L1 w g 

( E: Grey Wagtail S: Alu Halapenda ) 

465. Anthus richardi Vieillot 1818 WV L1 w g 

( E: Richard’s Pipit S: Richard Varatichcha ) 

202


466. Anthus rufulus Vieillot 1818 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Paddyfield Pipit S: Keth Varatichcha ) 

467. Anthus campestris (Linnaeus) 1758 WVa L3 

( E:Tawny Pipit S: Thani Varatichcha) 

468. Anthus godlewskii Taczanowski 1876 WV L1 w g p 

( E: Blyth’s Pipit S: Blyth Varatichcha ) 

469. Anthus hodgsoni Richmond 1907 WVa L3 

( E: Olive-backed Pipit S: Olivepita Varatichcha ) 

470. Anthus cervinus (Pallas) 1811 WVa L3 

( E:Red-throated Pipit S: Rathgela Varatichcha) 

471. Ploceus manyar (Horsfield) 1821 BrR L1 g 

( E: Streaked Weaver S: Pan Wadukurulla ) 

472. Ploceus philippinus (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Baya Weaver S: Ruk Wadukurulla ) 

473. Amandava amandava (Linnaeus) 1758 SU L2 g 

(E: Red Avandavat S; Rathu Amnadavatha) 

474. Lonchura malabarica (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Silverbill S: Sarala Weekurulla ) 

475. Lonchura striata (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: White-rumped Munia S: Nithamba Sudu Weekurulla ) 

476. Lonchura kelaarti (Jerdon) 1863 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Black-throated Munia S: Gelakalu Weekurulla ) 

477. Lonchura punctulata (Linnaeus) 1758 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Scaly-breasted Munia S: Laya Kayuru Weekurulla ) 

478. Lonchura malacca (Linnaeus) 1766 BrR L1 w g 

( E: Black-headed Munia S: Hisakalu Weekurulla ) 

479. Lonchura oryzivora (Linnaeus) 1758 SU L2 g 

( E: Java Sparrow S: Ja Weekurulla ) 

FRINGILIDAE 

480. Carpodacus erythrinus (Pallas) 1770 WVa L3 

( E : Common Rosefinch S: Podu Rosa Pincha) 

481. Emberiza melanocephala Scopoli 1769 WVa L3 

( E: Black-headed Bunting S: Kalu hisa Buntiya) 

482. Emberiza bruniceps Brandt 1841 WVa L3 

(E: Red-headed Bunting S: Rathu hisa Buntiya) 

203



Status of Waterfowl in Sri Lanka 

Deepal Warakagoda and Udaya Sirivardana 

Ceylon Bird Club, 39, Chatham Street, Colombo 1 

Abstract 

Based on the annual waterbird census conducted by the Ceylon Bird Club, approximately 155 

species belonging to 21 families have been identified in Sri Lanka. These birds reside in a wide 

variety of wetlands ranging from sea level to c. 1,900m, with a large concentration found in the 

coastal and inland wetlands of the dry zone. Over the past century researches have documented 

significant changes to the actual and known status of several species. The continued survival of 

waterbirds is largely dependent on the maintenance of wetlands which provide the habitat niche. The 

paper also highlights the spatial and temporal trends of waterbird populations in Sri Lanka. 

Keywords: Waterbirds, Wetlands, Conservation, Distribution 

Background 

Today the word ‘waterbirds’ has generally replaced ‘waterfowl’ used in the title above provided by IUCN. 

The Ramsar Convention defines ‘waterbirds’ as birds ‘ecologically dependent upon wetlands’. Wetlands 

International (WI) uses a more precise working definition, viz., all species in 33 Families which are stated 

(WI 2002). Among these the 21 Families listed below are represented in Sri Lanka (Henry 1998). In 

general use today ‘waterbirds’ approximates to but does not exactly match this definition, referring to a 

few species not in the stated Families and leaving 

out a few species that are in them. 

A large part of the information in this paper is 

derived from the annual waterbird census in Sri 

Lanka conducted in January-February during the 

northern winter migrant season. This has been 

carried out every year since 1983 to date except 

one, by the Ceylon Bird Club (CBC) in association 

with WI and its predecessor. The data from this 

have been published in Hoffmann (1983 to 1998), 

Gunawardena (1999 to 2001), Sirivardana (2002, 

2003a), and in further detail in a series of books by 

WI on the waterbird census in Asia from 1986 to 

2001 including Li & Mundkur (2004). 

As shown in Fig. 1, the island is divided into 10 

regions for the census, demarcated for ecological 

or logistical reasons (Hoffmann 1992b). Eight lie 

along the coast and one is near the coast. The rest 

of the island is treated as one region because the 

number of waterbirds it yields is low. 

Figure 1: Areas of high waterbird density and 

regions for the annual census 

The armed conflict has prevented the census in 

1985 and coverage of certain areas in other years. 

A few rich sites have been excluded in many years 

for this reason. Most of the rich Jaffna region, 

though much affected, has been covered nearly 

every year. 

204

Warakagoda & Sirivardana: Status of Waterfowl in Sri Lanka 

Even if not for this limitation, the data from the census cannot be regarded as a perfect representation of 

the numbers of the various taxa of waterbirds in Sri Lanka at the time it is taken. Several factors can 

significantly affect the figures in a waterbird census. Four of these are: the extent of coverage of each 

region and site, weather conditions, movements of birds among sites, and the degree of visibility of the 

birds being sought. To expand on the last factor, rails and crakes (Family Rallidae), for example, are very 

elusive, hence greatly under-represented in the count; in this example, though, even the actual numbers are 

generally low. 

The data from the census are extremely valuable but not the only source for information in this paper. The 

authors draw on wider experience in sightings and observations and other knowledge, their own and that 

available in Henry (1998) and Ceylon Bird Club Notes (1943 to 2004). 

Waterbirds in Sri Lanka 

As at April 2004 a total of 441 species of birds have been recorded in Sri Lanka by the CBC, which 

maintains the ornithological data and checklists for the country (Wijesinghe 1994; Ceylon Bird Club Notes 

1998: 53, 59; 2004: 109). Following the definition of WI, 155, or 35%, of these species are waterbirds. The 

Appendix gives a complete and annotated list of waterbird species in Sri Lanka. 

202 species of birds are migrants to the island, arriving as winter sets in at their breeding grounds and 

flying back as it ends. The great majority are from northern latitudes, visiting during winter in the northern 

hemisphere, while a small number of pelagic species visit from southern regions during their winter. Of the 

migrant species 92, or 46%, are waterbirds. 

Waterbirds, 

migrant 

92 

Figure 2: Species diversity correlations of resident, 

migrant and wetland birds in Sri Lanka 

Waterbirds recorded in Sri Lanka belong to the 

following families: Podicipedidae (grebes), 

Phalacrocoracidae (cormorants), Anhingidae 

(darters), Pelecanidae (pelicans), Ardeidae 

(herons, egrets), Ciconiidae (storks), 

Threskiornithidae (ibises, spoonbills), 

Phoenicopteridae (flamingos), Anatidae 

(ducks), Rallidae (rails, crakes, coots), 

Jacanidae (jacanas), Rostratulidae (paintedsnipes), 

Haematopodidae (oystercatchers), 

Recurvirostridae (stilts, avocets), Dromadidae 

(Crab Plover), Burhinidae (stone-curlews, 

stone-plovers), Glareolidae (coursers, 

pratincoles), Charadriidae (plovers, lapwings), 

Scolopacidae (stints, sandpipers, etc), Laridae 

(gulls) and Sternidae (terns) (Henry 1998). 

In statistics from the census the Families are grouped as shown in Table 1. The words ‘shorebirds’ or 

‘waders’ are used for all species in the Families Rostratulidae to Scolopacidae in the list above. The census 

figures over the 10 years 1994 to 2003 show that the most numerous waterbirds in Sri Lanka are ducks 

and shorebirds. (See Table 1 and Fig. 3). The majority of these belong to gregarious migrant species. 

205


Table 1 and Figure 3: Composition by bird groups in census statistics for the ten years 1994 to 2003. 

‘Raptors’ refers to species of raptors associated with wetlands. 

General distribution and habitats 

Waterbirds inhabit a wide variety of wetlands throughout Sri Lanka from sea level to c. 1,900 m. Large 

concentrations are found in the coastal and inland wetlands of the dry zone: (See Fig. 1). The crosshatching 

on the map shows the richest areas. Much useful information on waterbird habitats in the country 

including detailed lists of wetlands is presented by Scott (1989) and Hoffmann (1982, 1993b). 

Table 2 and Fig. 4 reflect the predominance in numbers along and near the coastal areas. Among these 

their preference is clearly seen for sites less populated and altered by humans, with the exception of 

salterns. The coastal systems favoured in Sri Lanka by waterbirds are lagoons, marshes, estuaries, 

mangroves, the seashore, islets in the sea, sand and mud flats, and salterns. Large numbers of birds in 

these habitats belong to Families Anatidae, Charadriidae, Scolopacidae, Laridae and Sternidae. Locally 

numerous at these sites are species in Ardeidae, Ciconiidae, Threskiornithidae and Phoenicopteridae. Most 

of the coastal waterbird species, including all the forms found in large numbers, are migrants. 

The favoured systems inland are paddy fields and marshes, reservoirs and their associated wetlands. 

Waterbirds inland are much less numerous. Large populations, however, are seen of species in 

206


Phalacrocoracidae and Ardeidae. Locally common are species in Anatidae, Rallidae and Ciconiidae. A 

number of species in Rallidae are of a retiring nature, and hence the figures in the census and other records 

of inland birds tend to under-represent their already relatively low populations and their species diversity. 

Most of the inland species are residents. 

Table 2: Waterbird census, 2003: groups of waterbirds by region 

Table 2 is part of the last full set of data published of a census and relates to 2003 (Sirivardana 2003a). 

The records of the CBC for the 2002-2003 migrant season within and out of the period of this count 

demonstrate a deficiency in such censuses explained by the factors listed earlier. In September 2002 a 

concentration of 80-100,000 waders was seen in the Batticaloa area (Gunawardena & Wikramanayake 

2002), but the total number of waders counted in Sri Lanka during the census (as the table shows) is c. 

27,000, although the area in question was covered well. 

Figure 4: Distribution of waterbirds among regions, from census data, 1993 to 2004 

207


Temporal trends in populations 

Instances of changes in the populations of certain species are given in the section on ‘Changes in Status’ 

below. Other than these no significant long-term trends of changes in numbers have been noted in a 

species or the total of waterbirds counted in the census. This is illustrated by Figs. 5 and 6. The variations 

seen in these are explained by the factors listed in the section on ‘Background’ above. There has been no 

large fluctuation noted in the numbers of any common migrant waterbird species from year to year, as has 

been observed in a few other common migrant species. 

Figure 5: Variations in total number of waterbirds in census, 1983 - 2004. 

Figure 6: Variations in totals of selected groups of waterbirds in census. 

208


Species ‘globally threatened’ according to IUCN 

In the IUCN 2004 global red list (IUCN 2004) among ‘globally threatened’ waterbirds in the ‘Critically 

endangered’ category is one species found in Sri Lanka, the Sociable Plover Vanellus gregarius. In the 

last half-century the only records of it in the island have been a large flock in 1960, one bird in 1962 and a 

flock of 12 in 1972 (Henry 1998). The ‘Endangered’ category also holds one species for Sri Lanka, the 

Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus. It has been recorded in the island only once, in 1978 

(Henry 1998). 

The ‘Vulnerable’ category lists three waterbird species pertinent to Sri Lanka. 

• The Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis occurs in South and South-East Asia and is reckoned 

to total 12-15,000 in its range (Wetlands Inernational: in press). The authors estimate its population in 

Sri Lanka at over 3,000. This appears to be increasing over the long term. From records it is wholly 

resident. A major nesting colony in Ruhuna East National Park was destroyed when the Park was 

abandoned during the armed conflict but is regenerating well, according to an official of the 

Department of Wildlife Conservation who has been familiar with the area across several decades 

(Perera S 2004: pers. comm.). The Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus breeds in Sri Lanka, the 

rest of South Asia, and South-East Asia. Its world population is estimated at c. 5,000 (WI: in press). 

In the island it is recorded only in very small numbers except when congregating for water in drought 

(Ceylon Bird Club Notes 1943 to 2004). The population in Sri Lanka of each of these two species 

appears to be stable. 

• The Wood Snipe Gallinago nemoricola had been reported in Sri Lanka when snipe shooting was 

prevalent in the island but there is no definite record (Henry 1998). 

In the ‘Near Threatened’ category are six species of waterbirds in Sri Lanka. 

• The Black-necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus has a very small population in the island, 

estimated by the authors as 10-15. This appears to be stable, as for many decades about six birds in 

total have been regularly seen in Ruhuna and Ruhuna East National Parks, and young birds are noted 

there from time to time (Ceylon Bird Club Notes 1965 to 2004). 

• The Indian Darter Anhinga melanogaster, Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala and White Ibis 

Threskiornis melanocephalus have stable resident populations with quite satisfactory numbers 

(Hoffmann 1983 to 1998; Gunawardena 1999 to 2001; Sirivardana 2002, 2003a). 

• The Great Snipe Gallinago media has been recorded very few times in the island and the Asiatic 

Dowitcher Limnodromus semipalmatus twice (Henry 1998; Ceylon Bird Club Notes 2002: 215). 

Changes in status 

There have been significant changes in the actual or known status of several species of waterbird during 

the past half-century. 

The Common Tern Sterna hirundo and Bridled Tern Sterna anaethetus were considered migrants, the 

latter offshore on passage, until 1980 and 2003 respectively. The two species were then found to breed on 

islands in the sea off Sri Lanka, the former by the east, and subsequently north-west, coasts and the latter 

north-west (Hoffmann 1980; Perera L 2003). Until very recently the Spot-billed Duck Anas 

poecilorhyncha was a very rare migrant in Sri Lanka. In 2003 it was found to be established as a breeding 

resident, in the north-west and north of the island, where the armed conflict has restricted access by 

observers (Sirivardana et al. 2003; Gunawardena et al. 2003). 

Until very recently the Common Coot Fulica atra was recorded as a scarce breeding resident and only in 

northern areas of the island. There has now been a great increase in the number of birds and of sites 

where it is noted, a few 1,000s of birds being observed during migrant seasons and a few 100s with young 

at other times of year. (Ceylon Bird Club Notes 1943 to 2004; Sirivardana 2003b). 

209


The two migrant species Wigeon Anas penelope and Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa were very rarely 

recorded in Sri Lanka until a few decades ago. Since then during most seasons they have been recorded in 

the 1,000s (Ceylon Bird Club Notes 1943 to 2004). 

The Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus and Comb Duck Sarkidiornis melanotos are recorded as having 

been breeding residents in Sri Lanka. About a century ago they became extinct in the island. They have 

reappeared as migrants, scarce and rare respectively (Henry 1998; Bavinck 2002, 2003; Prasad 2003). 

Conservation of waterbirds 

The habitat niches of waterbirds are provided by wetlands, and the protection of these is essential for their 

survival. Wetlands in Sri Lanka are of a special importance in being the final destination each year for tens 

of thousands of migrant birds flying southward along the broad Central-South Asia ‘flyway’. Conversely, 

waterbirds form a chief part of the ecology of wetland ecosystems, hence the conservation of waterbirds 

is essential for the continuance of wetlands. Waterbirds are an important measure of the health of a 

wetland system, for their presence is an indicator of food availability and habitat conditions. 

Several wetlands in the island are Protected Areas, for example the Kalametiya, Anavilundawa and 

Chundikkulam Santuaries. Several are within Protected Areas such as the Bundala, Ruhuna, Ruhuna East 

and Maduru Oya National Parks. 

Wetlands throughout the island constantly face threats, among which are filling, other transformations by 

humans, pollution, alteration of water level, loss of nesting sites, hunting (despite a total ban) and raiding of 

heronries. Many wetlands have already been destroyed or badly damaged. Threats and harm in recent 

years have been described in detail, and remedies suggested, by many parties, e.g. by the CBC in its journal 

(Ceylon Bird Club Notes 1995 to 2004) and by the CBC and other bodies in other media (Hoffmann 1995, 

1996, 1998; Warakagoda & Gunawardana 1999; Gunawardena 1999 to 2001; Sirivardana 2002, 2003a). 

The CBC has taken by far the leading role in providing authentic information and applying effective 

persuasion to Governments to afford Protected and Ramsar Site status to such sites. 

A case of current relevance is the lagoon Karagan Lewaya, a prime site for waterbirds in the south-east 

of Sri Lanka. In the past several years a larger area which includes this site has been the subject of 

proposals by the State for development in various forms, the most recent being a harbour, by which it would 

be lost to the birds. The data compiled for the site in the recently conducted census for 2004 included, as 

conservative estimates: c. 15,000 Pintail Anas acuta, 8,000 Garganey Anas querquedula, 10,000 Curlew 

Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea, 8,000 Little Stint Calidris minuta, 8,000 Marsh Sandpiper Tringa 

stagnatilis, 3,500 Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus and 200 Kentish Plover Charadrius 

alexandrinus. (Seneviratne et al. 2004). It is a prime feeding site in the south-east for Greater Flamingo 

Phoenicopterus ruber during their stay in Sri Lanka. 

Hoffmann (1998) proposes thirteen more Ramsar Sites listed in order of importance. The first, Kalametiya 

has only suffered further. Anavilundava was declared but then faced human-caused problems now being 

addressed by the authorities. Listed next are the Mannar mainland, the Sri Lankan side of Adam’s Bridge, 

and Giant’s Tank. The next seven sites are in the Jaffna region, and the last on the east coast. The present 

lessening of the armed conflict allows meaningful work to begin on these. 

The site which the CBC at present considers to be of the highest priority for receiving Protected Area 

status and effective protection is the ‘Vankalai Triangle’ in the Mannar area. (Gunawardena et al. 2003; 

Warakagoda & Sirivardana 2003; Sirivardana 2003b). It qualifies for Ramsar Site status and this too is 

urged. A preliminary proposal has been submitted to the Department of Wildlife Conservation by the club. 

Presently receiving the club’s attention for similar proposal is Navadankulama Tank in the North Western 

Province. 

210



We thank Dr Channa Bambaradeniya for suggesting re-arrangements and additions which have improved 

this paper, and Mr Sarath Seneviratne for help in referring to several issues of the Ceylon Bird Club Notes. 

References 

Bavinck C B (2002, 2003) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes. 2002: 64, 2003: 32 

Ceylon Bird Club Notes (1943 to 2004) [Monthly] 

Gunawardena K (1999 to 2001) The [current year in numerals] Waterbird Census in Sri Lanka. Loris 

Gunawardena K & Wikramanayake T (2002) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 184 

Gunawardena K, Sirivardana U & Warakagoda D (2003) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 36-39 

Henry G M (1998) A Guide to the Birds of Sri Lanka. Third edition, revised by T W Hoffmann, D 

Warakagoda & U Ekanayake. KVG de Silva and Sons (Kandy) & Oxford University Press 

Hoffmann T W (1980) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 27 

Hoffmann T W (1982) Provisional Inventory of Wetlands In Sri Lanka. Loris December 1982 

Hoffmann T W (1983 to 1998) [Title denoting report of annual waterfowl census for current year]. Loris 

[Twice-yearly] 

Hoffmann T W (1992b) Detailed map of main wetland sector with description of sites Ceylon Bird Club 

Notes [Four maps: pp. 89, 99, 103, 109] 

Hoffmann T W (1993b) Wetland Birds in Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the Conference of the Ecology of 

Freshwaters in Sri Lanka 

Hoffmann T W (1998) More Ramsar Sites Needed. Loris June 1998 

IUCN (2004) 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Species Survival Commission 

Li Z W D & Mundkur T (2004) Numbers and Distribution of Waterbirds and Wetlands in the Asia-Pacific 

Region. Results of the Asian Waterbird Census 1997-2001 Wetlands International 

Perera L (2003) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 127 

Perera, Shirley (2004) Interview with U S 

Prasad W K L (2003) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 89 

Scott D A (1989) A Directory of Asian Wetlands IUCN 

Seneviratne S, Seneviratne H & Seneviratne S (2004) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 3 

Sirivardana U (2002, 2003a) The [current year in numerals] Waterbird Census in Sri Lanka. Loris 

Sirivardana U (2003b) Report from the Ceylon Bird Club for 2002. Loris 

Sirivardana U, Wijemanne A, Kumaranayagam K & Prasad W K L (2003) In: Ceylon Bird Club Notes: 9 

Warakagoda D & Gunawardana J (1999) Ceylon Bird Club Notes for 1998. Loris 

Warakagoda D & Sirivardana U (2003) AWC News for the Region: Sri Lanka Newsletter of the Asian 

Waterbird Census May 2003 

Wetlands International (2002) Waterbird Population Estimates - Third Edition. Wetlands International 

Wetlands International (in press) Waterbird Population Estimates - Fourth Edition. Wetlands 

International 

Wijesinghe D P (1994) Checklist of the Birds of Sri Lanka Ceylon Bird Club. 

211


Appendix 1: Waterbirds in Sri Lanka, their general distribution and abundance 

Status: 

R - Resident, M - Migrant 

Distribution Zones: 

C - Coastal, I - Inland 

Abundance: 

C - Common (found in fair numbers islandwide within its zone/s 

L - Locally common (occurs in fair numbers locally but is rare or not well distributed elsewhere) 

U - Uncommon (found in small numbers throughout its zone /s or locally) 

R - Rare (occurs in the island only in very small numbers or only occasionally). 

Species Resident/ Zone Abun-dance 

Migrant 

Family Podicipedidae 

Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis R I, C C 

Family Phalacrocoracidae 

Little Cormorant Phalacrocorax niger R I, C C 

Indian Shag Phalacrocorax fuscicollis R I, C C 

Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo R I U 

Family Anhingidae 

Indian Darter Anhinga melanogaster R C, I U 

Family Pelecanidae 

Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis R C, I L 

Family Ardeidae 

Eurasian Bittern Botaurus stellaris M I R 

Yellow Bittern Ixobrychus sinensis R,M I, C C 

Chestnut Bittern Ixobrychus cinnamomeus R I U 

Black Bittern Ixobrychus flavicollis R,M I, C U 

Malay Bittern Gorsachius melanolophus M I R 

Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax R I, C C 

Little Green Heron Butorides striatus R I, C U 

Indian Pond Heron Ardeola grayii R C, I C 

Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus M C, I R 

Median Egret Ardea intermedia R C, I C 

Cattle Egret Ardea ibis R,M? I, C C 

Grey Heron Ardea cinerea R C, I L 

Purple Heron Ardea purpurea R I, C C 

Goliath Heron Ardea goliath M C? R 

Large Egret Egretta alba R C, I C 

Little Egret Egretta garzetta R C, I C 

Indian Reef Heron Egretta gularis M C R 

Family Ciconiidae 

Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala R C, I L 

Openbill Anastomus oscitans R I, C C 

212


Black Stork Ciconia nigra M I R 

White-necked Stork Ciconia episcopus R I, C U 

White Stork Ciconia ciconia M C, I R 

Black-necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus R C R 

Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus R I, C R 

Family Threskiornithidae 

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus M C, I R 

White Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus R C, I L 

Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia R C, I L 

Family Phoenicopteridae 

Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber M C L 

Family Anatidae 

Large Whistling Teal Dendrocygna bicolor M I R 

Lesser Whistling Teal Dendrocygna javanica R I, C C 

Greylag Goose Anser anser M C R 

Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferrugineaI M C R 

Comb Duck Sarkidiornis melanotos M,R? I R 

Cotton Teal Nettapus coromandelianus R I U 

Wigeon Anas penelope M C L 

Gadwall Anas strepera M C R 

Common Teal Anas crecca M C U 

Spot-billed Duck Anas poecilorhyncha R,M? C, I R 

Pintail Anas acuta M C, I L 

Garganey Anas querquedula M C, I L 

Shoveller Anas clypeata M C, I U 

Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula M I R 

Family Rallidae 

Water Rail Rallus aquaticus M I R 

Blue-breasted Banded Rail Gallirallus striatus R,M? I, C U 

Banded Crake Rallina eurizonoides M I U 

Baillon’s Crake Porzana pusilla M I R 

Ruddy Crake Porzana fusca R I, C U 

Corncrake Crex crex M I R 

White-breasted Waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus R I, C C 

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus R I, C U 

Purple Coot Porphyrio porphyrio R I, C C 

Watercock Gallicrex cinerea R I, C U 

Common Coot Fulica atra R I, C L 

Family Jacanidae 

Pheasant-tailed Jacana Hydrophasianus chirurgus R I, C C 

Family Rostratulidae 

Painted Snipe Rostratula benghalensis R I, C U 

Family Haematopodidae 

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus M C R 

213


Family Recurvirostridae 

Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus R,M C, I C 

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta M C R 

Family Dromadidae 

Crab Plover Dromas ardeola R C R 

Family Burhinidae 

Stone-Curlew Burhinus oedicnemus R C, I U 

Great Stone-Plover Esacus recurvirostris R C, I U 

Family Glareolidae 

Indian Courser Cursorius coromandelicus R C R 

Collared Pratincole Glareola pratincola M C R 

Oriental Pratincole Glareola maldivarum R I, C L 

Little Pratincole Glareola lactea R C, I U 

Family Charadriidae 

Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius R,M C, I U 

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula M C, I R 

Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus R,M C, I L 

Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus M C, I C 

Large Sand Plover Charadrius leschenaultii M C R 

Caspian Plover Charadrius asiaticus M C R 

Oriental Plover Charadrius veredus M C R 

Asiatic Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva M C, I L 

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola M C U 

Yellow-wattled Lapwing Vanellus malabaricus R C, I U 

Grey-headed Lapwing Vanellus gregarius M C R 

Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus R I, C C 

Sociable Plover Vanellus gregarius M C R 

Family Scolopacidae 

Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris M C R 

Red Knot Calidris canutus M C R 

Sanderling Calidris alba M C U 

Red-necked Stint Calidris ruficollis M C R 

Little Stint Calidris minuta M C, I C 

Temminck’s Stint Calidris temminckii M C, I R 

Long-toed Stint Calidris subminuta M C R 

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos M I R 

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata M C R 

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea M C, I C 

Dunlin Calidris alpina M C R 

Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus M C R 

Broad-billed Sandpiper Limicola falcinellus M C U 

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis M C R 

Ruff Philomachus pugnax M C U 

Jack Snipe Lymnocryptes minimus M I R 

214


Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago M I, C R 

Great Snipe Gallinago media M C, I R 

Pintail Snipe Gallinago stenura M I, C C 

Swinhoe’s Snipe Gallinago megala M I R 

Wood Snipe Gallinago nemoricola M I R 

Asiatic Dowitcher Limnodromus semipalmatus M C R 

Woodcock Scolopax rusticola M I R 

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa M C, I C 

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica M C R 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus M C U 

Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata M C U 

Spotted Redshank Tringa erythropus M C R 

Common Redshank Tringa totanus M C, I C 

Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis M C, I C 

Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia M C, I U 

Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus M I, C R 

Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola M C, I U 

Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus M C R 

Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos M C, I U 

Turnstone Arenaria interpres M C U 

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus M C R 

Family Laridae 

Sooty Gull Larus hemprichii M C R 

Great Black-headed Gull Larus ichthyaetus M C L 

Common Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus M C R 

Brown-headed Gull Larus brunnicephalus M C L 

Slender-billed Gull Larus genei M C R 

Heuglin’s Gull Larus fuscus M C L 

Yellow-legged Gull Larus cachinnans M C R 

Family Sternidae 

Gull-billed Tern Sterna nilotica M,R C, I L 

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia R,M C, I L 

Large Crested Tern Sterna bergii R C L 

Lesser Crested Tern Sterna bengalensis M C L 

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis M C R 

Black-naped Tern Sterna sumatrana M C R 

Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii R C U 

Common Tern Sterna hirundo M,R C L 

Bridled Tern Sterna anaethetus M,R C R * 

Little Tern Sterna albifrons R C, I L 

Saunders’s Tern Sterna saundersi R C R 

Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybridus M C, I C 

Black Tern Chlidonias niger M C R 

White-winged Black Tern Chlidonias leucopterus M C, I L 

* Common passage migrant off coast 

215



Taxonomic Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka 

D. K. Weerakoon and W. L. D. P. T. S. de A. Goonatilake 

Department of Zoology, University of Colombo, Colombo 3 

Abstract 

According to literature, there are 91 species of indigenous mammals in Sri Lanka, of which 16 

species are endemic to the island. Another 12 species have been introduced to Sri Lanka, of which 

four species, namely Bubalis bubalis, Equus caballus, Equus asinus and Rattus norvegicus have 

well established feral populations. In addition 26 species of marine mammals have been recorded 

from the maritime zone of Sri Lanka. The paper highlights the issues and research gaps related to 

the taxonomy of mammals in Sri Lanka. 

Key words: Mammals, Taxonomy, Research gaps, Conservation 

Introduction 

Many authors have reviewed the taxonomic status of the mammals of Sri Lanka. Some of these reviews 

were on a local scale while others are on a regional scale. Although a number of mammals were described 

prior to the mid nineteenth century, the first systematic account of the mammals of Sri Lanka was given by 

Kelaart (1851). Thereafter, Phillips (1935) wrote an extensive review of the mammals of Sri Lanka which, 

even though somewhat outdated in terms of information remains the standard reference work for the 

mammals of Sri Lanka even at present. 

After Phillips, several attempts have been made to revise the taxonomic status of the country’s mammals. 

Some of these reviews have focused specifically on the Sri Lankan situation (W.C.O.Hill, 1939; Eisenberg 

and Mckay, 1970; J.E.Hill, 1980; Mckay 1984) while others treated the country’s mammals in a regional 

context (Ellerman and Morrison-Scott 1966; Corbet and Hill, 1992). In addition there are number of reviews 

that have focused on specific taxonomic groups (Moore, 1960; Ellerman, 1961; Marshall, 1977; Musser, 

1981; Bates and Harrison, 1997; Sirinivasulu and Pradhan, 2003; Chakraborty et al., 2004; Sirinivasulu and 

Jordan, 2004; Sirinivasulu and Sirinivasulu, 2004; Sirinivasulu et al., 2004a and Sirinivasulu et al., 2004b). 

The taxonomic status of several mammals of Sri Lanka has changed since the last complete revision by 

Mckay (1984). The aim of this paper is to synthesize the information presented in recent literature to 

construct a list of mammals as it stands today. 

The current taxonomy of the mammals of Sri Lanka 

A total of 144 species and subspecies of mammals were described from Sri Lanka from 1758 to1965. Of 

these 24 are currently considered as valid species. According to literature, there are 91 species of 

indigenous mammals in Sri Lanka (annex 1), of which 16 species are endemic to the island. Another 12 

species have been introduced to Sri Lanka (annex 2) by humans of which four species, namely Bubalis 

bubalis, Equus caballus, Equus asinus and Rattus norvegicus have well established feral populations. 

In addition 27 species of marine mammals have been recorded from the maritime zone of Sri Lanka (annex 

3). A summary of the mammalian fauna of Sri Lanka is given in Table 1. 

216

Weerakoon & Goonatilake: Taxonomy Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka 

Table 1: Summary of the mammal species recorded from Sri Lanka 

Order Number of Total Endemic Introduced 

families Genera Species Genera Species Genera Species 

Pholidota 1 1 1 - - - - 

Insectivora 1 4 9 1 4 - - 

Chiroptera 7 15 30 - - - - 

Primates 2 4 5 - 3 - - 

Carnivora 6 9 14 - 1 2 2 

Proboscidea 1 1 1 - - - - 

Perrisodactyla 1 - - - - 1 2 

Artiodactyla 4 6 8 - 2 5 6 

Rodentia 4 14 22 1 6 1 1 

Lagomorpha 1 1 1 - - 1 1 

Total 28 55 91 2 16 10 12 

Cetacea 5 19 26 - - - - 

Sirenia 1 1 1 - - - - 

Total 6 20 27 - - - - 

Eisenberg and McKay (1970) proposed a system for classifying the habitats of mammals in Sri Lanka 

based on the climate map of Muller-Dombois and Sirisena (1967); they recognize seven mammalian zones, 

namely monsoon scrub jungle in the northwest (A1) and southeast (A2), monsoon forest and grassland 

(B), inter monsoon forest (C), rain forests and grasslands below 3000 feet (D1), between 3000-5000 feet 

(D2) and above 5000 feet (D3). However, the distribution of the mammals in the present list follows a 

more recent classification proposed by Wijesinghe et al. (1993), where the country has been divided to six 

bioclimatic zones (Figure 1): 

A. low and mid country 

wet zone, 

B. dry zone, 

C. low and mid country 

intermediate zone, 

D. montane wet zone, 

E. montane intermediate 

zone 

F. arid zone. 

Figure 1: Bioclimatic zones of Sri Lanka 

217


The endemic status of two Sri Lankan shrews has been changed as they have recently been reported 

from equivalent bioclimatic zones in India. In 1997 Pradhan et al. has recorded Kelart’s long-clawed shrew, 

Feroculus feroculus, from Kerala and Tamil Nadu provinces, while the Sri Lanka highland shrew, Suncus 

montanus, was recorded from Upper Nilgiri region by Shankar and Sukumar (1998). At the same time 

two recent revisions of the South Asian murids (Sirinivasulu and Pradhan, 2003), primates (Walker and 

Molur, 2004), and artiodactyls (Groves and Meijaard, 2005) have indicated that the flame striped jungle 

squirrel Funambulus layardi, the red slender loris Loris tardigradus and two species of mouse deer, 

Moschiola meminna and M. kathygre are endemic to Sri Lanka. Therefore, the number of endemic 

mammals in Sri Lanka stands at 16 at present. Revision of the South Asian primates also resulted in the 

change of the species name of the Grey langur found in Sri Lanka to Semnopithecus priam. 

Issues pertaining to taxonomy of the mammals of Sri Lanka 

Most revisions of Sri Lankan mammals have been based mainly on museum collections rather than detailed 

field studies. The work of Phillips therefore remains the only truly reliable source today, even though 

advances in systematics during recent years has made some of his nomenclature obsolete and, as noted 

above, the endemic status of several species of mammals has changed. Other aspects that need to be 

resolved are the sub specific status of some Sri Lankan mammals, the doubtful records of some marine 

mammals, and the status of two species of small mammals described by Deraniyagala (1958 and 1964), 

Gatamiya weragami and Podihik kura. 

Gatamiya weragami and Podihik kura are nowadays omitted from the list of Sri Lankan mammals. 

Corbett and Hill (1992) consider that the former is probably a synonym of Mus booduga, while the 

description of the latter is based on a juvenile of Suncus murinus. However, Deraniyagala placed P. kura 

in the subfamily Soricinae, which possess reddish incisor enamel, while the subfamily Crocidurinae, to 

which Suncus belongs, has white enamel a character unlikely to be mistaken by Deraniyagala. Thus the 

status of Podihik, at least, needs to be re-examined. 

Similarly the Southern bottlenose whale recorded by Deraniyagala (1960), and subsequently by National 

Aquatic Resource Agency as well as Ilangakoon (2002), has been listed as a questionable record by 

Corbet and Hill (1992). According to them this species is confined to the southern polar region, and what 

Deraniyagala recorded was most probably Cuvier’s beaked whale, Ziphius cavirostris. 

All this points to the need to carry out a systematic review of the taxonomy of Sri Lankan mammals based 

on detailed field collections as well as existing museum specimens. 

Research gaps related to the taxonomy of mammals of Sri Lanka 

Most of the research on mammals of Sri Lanka has been biased towards the large charismatic animals 

with little emphasis on the small mammals. Many of the small mammals have not been recorded in recent 

times and their present status remains unknown. Furthermore, many areas of Sri Lanka, such as the north, 

northwest, isolated hills in the dry zone and the montane regions (especially the Knuckles Range, Deniyaya- 

Rakwana hills, Peak wilderness, and the Nuwara Eliya region), have not been properly surveyed and may 

harbour species that are not recorded to date. It is extremely important, therefore, for Sri Lanka to 

establish a systematic survey program for the country’s mammals (for both terrestrial and marine 

mammals), with a special emphasis on small mammals, under the auspices of the national museum or other 

relevant government agency. Such a survey would bring about a wealth of information on the mammalian 

fauna of Sri Lanka as well as provide us the basis to resolve many of the taxonomic issues that we face 

today. 

218


Conservation issues pertaining to mammals of Sri Lanka 

Even though many of the mammals show a wide distribution within Sri Lanka, a majority of the endemic 

and threatened mammals are confined to the wet zone and especially the montane zone, where habitat loss 

and degradation are taking place at a rapid rate. Furthermore, fragmentation of habitats also has a 

detrimental effect on mammal populations, especially small mammals who have low mobility. Expansion of 

human settlements into forested areas has resulted in an influx of pest species, such as house rat and brown 

rat that compete with indigenous species, and domestic predators such as cats and dogs have brought about 

increased predator pressure. A number of small predators, such as the fishing cat and brown mongooses, 

live in small urban forests and marshes which are at risk of being converted to human use, endangering 

these small urban populations. Hunting and killing to avoid conflict also remains a major concern, especially 

for the large charismatic species. 

References 

Bates, P.J.J. and Harrison, D.L. 1997. Bats of the Indian sub continent. Harrison Zoological Museum. 

London. 

Chakraborty, S., Sirinivasalu, C., Sirinivasalu, B., Pradhan, M.S. and Nameer, P.O. 2004. Checklist of 

insectivores (Mammalia: Insectivora) of South Asia. Zoos Print Journal 19 (2):1361-1371. 

Corbet, G.B. and Hill, J.E. 1992 Mammals of the Indomalayan Region: A Systematic Review. Oxford 

University Press, Oxford. 

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1958. Ceylon Administration Reports for 1957 (Part IV) Education E3-E23 Part 1. 

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1960. Some southern temperate zone fishes, a bird and whales that enter the Ceylon 

area. Spolia Zeylanica 29 (1):79-85. 

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1964. Some aspects of the Fauna of Ceylon. Journal Ceylon Branch of the Royal 

Asiatic Society 9 (1):165-220 

Eisenberg, J.F. and Mckay G.M. 1970. An annonated checklist of the recent mammals of Ceylon with keys 

to species. Ceylon Journal of Science 8 (2):69-99. 

Ellerman, J.R. 1961. The fauna of India including Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon: Mammalia, Rodentia. 

Volume 3. 2 nd Edition. Zoological Survey of India, Culcutta. 

Ellerman, J.R. and Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. 1966. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals. 2 nd 

Edition. British museum of Natural History. London. 

Groves, C.P. and Meijaard, E. 2005. Interspecific variation in Moschiola, the Indian chevrotain. The 

Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 12: 413-421 

Hill, J.E. 1980. The mammals of Sri Lanka. Spolia Zeylanica 35:203-211. 

Hill, W.C.O. 1939. A revised checklist of the mammals of Ceylon. Ceylon Journal of Science, 21:139- 

184. 

Ilangakoon, A. 2002. Whales and dolphins of Sri Lanka. WHT publications, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 

Kelaart, E.F. 1852. Prodromus Faunae Zeylanicae: Being contributions to the Zoology of Ceylon. 

Kandy, Sri Lanka. 

Marshall, J.T. Jr. 1977. A synopsis of Asian species of Mus (Rodentia: Muridae). Bulletin of the American 

Museum of Natural History 158:173-220. 

Mckay, G.M. 1984. Ecology and biogeography of mammals. In: Biogeography and Ecology of Sri 

Lanka. Ed. Fernando, C.H. Dr. W. Junk Publishers. 413-429. 

Moore, J.C. 1960. Squirrel geography of the Indian subregion. Systematic Zoology 9:1-17. 

219


Muller-Dombois, D. and Sirisena, V.A. 1967. Climate map of Ceylon. Ceylon Survey Department, 

Colombo, Ceylon. 

Musser, G.G. 1981. Results of the Archbold expeditions number 105. Notes on sytematics of Indo-malayan 

murid rodents, and descriptions of new genera and species from Ceylon, Sulawesi, and the Philippines. 

Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 168:225-234. 

Nekaris, K.A.I. and Jayawardena, J. 2004. Survey of Slender loris (Primates, Lorisidae Grey, 1821: Loris 

tardigradus Linnaeus, 1758 and Loris lydekkerianus Cabrera, 1908) in Sri Lanka. Journal of 

Zoology. 262: 327-338. 

Phillips, W.W.A. 1935. Manual of the Mammals of Ceylon. Ceylon Journal of Science, Dulau and 

Company, London. 

Pradhan, M.S., Sharma, R.M. and Shanker, K. 1997. First record of Kelaart’s Long-clawed Shrew 

Feroculus feroculus (Kelaart) from peninsular India. Mammalia 61:448-450. 

Shanker, K. and Sukumar, R. 1998. Community structure and demography of small-mammal populations in 

insular montane forests in southern India. Oecologia 116:243-251. 

Sirinivasalu, C. and Pradhan, M.S. 2003. Checklist of murids (Mammalia: Rodentia: Muridae) of South 

Asia. Zoos Print Journal 18 (12):1286-1310. 

Sirinivasalu, C. and Jordan, M.J.R. 2004. Checklist of dipodids, myoxids, and hystricids (Mammalia: 

Rodentia: Dipodidae, Myoxidae, and Hystricidae) of South Asia. Zoos Print Journal 19 (2):1346- 

1350. 

Sirinivasalu, C. and Sirinivasalu, B. 2004. Checklist of scandents and pholidots (Mammalia: Scandentia and 

Pholidota) of South Asia. Zoos Print Journal 19 (2):1372-1374. 

Sirinivasalu, C., Chakraborty, S. and Pradhan, M.S. 2004. Checklist of sciurids (Mammalia: Rodentia: 

Sciuridae) of South Asia. Zoos Print Journal 19 (2):1351-1360. 

Sirinivasalu, C., Sirinivasalu, B., Chakraborty, S., Pradhan, M.S. and Nameer, P.O. 2004. Checklist of 

logomorphs (Mammalia: Logomorpha) of South Asia. Zoos Print Journal 19 (2):1375-1380. 

Walker S. and Molur, S. (Compilers) 2003. Summary of the status of the South Asian primates. 

Extracted from the CAMP 2003 report. Zoo Outreach Organisation, CBSG-South Asia and WILD, 

Coimbatore, India. 

Wijesinghe, L.C.A. de S., Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N., Jayawardene, S.D.G., Kotagama, S.W., and Gunatilleke, 

C.V.S. 1993. Biological conservation in Sri Lanka: A national status report. IUCN World 

Conservation Union, Sri Lanka. 

220


Annex 1: List of naturally occurring terrestrial mammals of Sri Lanka 

(Note: endemic species denoted by *) 

ORDER: 

PHOLIDOTA 

FAMILY : MANIDAE 

Manis Linnaeus, 1758 

M. crassicaudata Gray, 1827 [E: Pangolin; S: Kaballewa] 

Distribution: A,B,C,D,F 

ORDER: INSECTIVORA 

FAMILY : SORICIDAE 

Crocidura Wagler, 1832 

C. horsfieldi (Tomes, 1856) [E: Horsfield’s shrew; S: Kunuhik-miya] 

Distribution: A,C,D,E 

*C. miya Phillips, 1929 [E: Sri Lanka long-tailed shrew; S: Sri Lanka Kunuhik-miya] 

Distribution: D1,E 

Feroculus Kelaart, 1852 

F. feroculus (Kelaart, 1850) [E: Kelaart’s long-clawed shrew; S: Pirihik-miya] 


Solisorex Thomas, 1924 

*S. pearsoni Thomas, 1924 [E: Pearson’s long-clawed shrew; S: Sri Lanka Mahik-miya] 

Distribution: A, D 

Suncus Ehrenberg, 1832 

S. etruscus (Savi, 1822) [E: Pigmy shrew; S: Podi Hik-miya] 

Distribution: A,D,F 

*S. fellowes-gordoni Phillips,1932 [E: Sri Lanka pigmy shrew; S: Sri Lanka Podi Hik-miya] 


S. montanus (Kelaart, 1850) [E: Highland shrew; S: Kandu Hik-miya] 

Distribution: D,E 

S. murinus (Linnaeus, 1766) [E: Common musk shrew; S: Podhu Hik-miya] 

Distribution: A,B,C,F 

*S. zeylanicus Phillips, 1928 [E: Sri Lanka jungle shrew; S: Sri Lanka Kele Hik-miya] 

Distribution: A,B 

ORDER: CHIROPTERA 

FAMILY : EMBALLONURIDAE 

Taphozous Geoffrey, 1818 

T. longimanus Hardwicke, 1825 [E: Long-armed sheath-tailed bat; S: Dikba Kepulum- vavula] 


T. melanopogon Temminck, 1841 [E: Black-bearded sheath-tailed bat; S: Ravulkalu Kepulum- vavula] 

Distribution: A,B,C 

T. saccolaimus Temminck, 1838 [E: Pouch-bearing sheath-tailed bat; S: Maha Kepulum- vavula] 

Distribution: A,B,F 

221


FAMILY : HIPPOSIDERIDAE 

Hipposideros Gray, 1831 

H. ater Temleton, 1848 [E: Bicolored leaf-nosed bat; S: Depata Pathnehe-vavula] 


H. fulvus Gray, 1838 [E: Fulvous-leaf nosed bat; S: Malekaha Pathnehe-vavula] 

Distribution: C,F2 

H. galeritus Cantor, 1846 [E: Dekhan leaf-nosed bat; S: Kesdiga Pathnehe-vavula] 

Distribution: A,B,D,E 

H. lankadiva Kelaart, 1850 [E: Great leaf-nosed bat; S: Maha Pathnehe-vavula] 


H. speoris (Schneider, 1800) [E: Schneider’s leaf-nosed bat; S: Kesketi Pathnehe-vavula] 

Distribution: A,B,C,E,F 

FAMILY : MEGADERMATIDAE 

Megaderma Geoffroy, 1810 

M. lyra Geoffroy, 1810 [E: False vampire bat; S: Boru Ley-vavula] 

Distribution: A,B,C,F1 

M. spasma (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Long-eared vampire bat; S: Kandiga Boru Ley-vavula] 


FAMILY : MOLOSSIDAE 

Tadarida Rafinesque, 1814 

T. aegyptiaca (Geoffroy, 1818) [E: Continental wrinkled-lip bat; S: Mahadive Rallithol-vavula] 

Distribution: A,C 

T. plicata (Buchnnan, 1800) [E: Common wrinkled-lip bat; S: Podhu Rallithol-vavula] 


FAMILY : PTEROPODIDAE 

Cynopterus Cuvier, 1824 

C. brachyotis (Muller, 1838) [E: Lesser dog-nosed fruit bat; S: Heen Thala-vavula] 

Distribution: B,C,D,E 

C. sphinx (Vahl, 1797) [E: Short-nosed fruit bat; S: Thala-vavula] 


Pteropus Brisson, 1762 

P. giganteus (Brunnich, 1782) [E: Flying fox; S: Ma-vavula] 


Rousettus Gray, 1821 

R. leschenaulti (Desmarest, 1820) [E: Fulvous fruit bat; S: Rath dumburu pala vavula] 


FAMILY : RHINOLOPHIDAE 

Rhinolophus Lacepede, 1799 

R. beddomei Anderson, 1905 [E: Great horse-shoe bat; S: Maha Ashladan-vavula] 


R. rouxii Temminck, 1835 [E: Rufous horse-shoe bat; S: Borath Ashladan-vavula] 

Distribution: A,B,C,D,E,F 

222


FAMILY : VESPERTILLIONIDAE 

Hesperoptenus Peters, 1869 

H. tickelli (Blyth, 1851) [E: Tickle’s bat; S: Awara-vavula] 


Kerivoula Gray, 1842 

K. hardwickii (Horsefield, 1824) [E: Malpas’s bat; S: Rathbora Kehel-vavula] 


K. pictus (Pallas, 1767) [E: Painted bat; S: Visithuru Kehel-vavula] 


Miniopterus Bonaparte, 1837 

M. schreibersii (Kuhl, 1819) [E: Long-winged bat; S: Dickpiya-vavula] 


Myotis Kaup, 1829 

M. hasseltii (Temminck, 1840) [E: Brown bat; S: Bora-vavula] 

Distribution: B,F2 

Murina Gray, 1842 

M. cyclotis Dobson, 1872 [E: Tube-nosed bat; S: Nalanehe-vavula] 

Distribution: A,D2 

Pipistrellus Kaup, 1829 

P. affinis (Dobson, 1871) [E: Chocolate bat; S: Bora Koseta-vavula] 


P. ceylonicus (Kelaart, 1852) [E: Kelaart’s pipistrel; S: Rathbora Koseta-vavula] 

Distribution: A,B,C,D,E 

P. coromandra (Gray, 1838) [E: Indian pipistrel; S: Indu Koseta-vavula] 


P. tenuis (Temminck, 1840) [E: Pigmy pipistrel; S: Heen Koseta-vavula] 


Scotophilus Leach, 1821 

S. heathii Horsefield, 1831 [E: Great yellow bat; S: Maha Kaha-vavula] 


S. kuhlii Leach, 1821 [E: Lesser yellow bat; S: Heen Kaha-vavula] 

Distribution: B,C,F 

ORDER: PRIMATES 

FAMILY : CERCOPITHECIDAE 

Macaca Lacépéde, 1799 

*M. sinica (Linnaeus, 1771) [E: Sri Lanka toque monkey; S: Sri Lanka Rilawa] 


Semnopithecus Desmarest, 1822 

S. priam Blyth, 1844 [E: Grey langur; S: Eli-wdura] 


223


Trachypithecus Reichenbach, 1862 

*T. vetulus (Erxleben, 1777) [E: Purple-faced leaf monkey; S: Sri Lanka Kalu-wandura] 


FAMILY : LORISIDAE 

Loris Geoffroy, 1796 

L. lydekkerianus Cabrera, 1908 [E: Grey slender loris; S: Alu Unahapuluwa] 

Distribution:,B,C,D,F 

*L. tardigradus (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Sri Lanka red slender loris; S: Sri Lanka Rath Unahapuluwa] 

Distribution: A 

ORDER: CARNIVORA 

FAMILY : CANIDAE 

Canis Linnaeus, 1758 

C. aureus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Jackal; S: Nariya / Hiwala] 


FAMILY : FELIDAE 

Felis Linnaeus, 1758 

F. chaus Gueldenstaedt, 1776 [E: Jungle cat; S: Wal Balala] 


Panthera Oken, 1816 

P. pardus (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Leopard; S: Kotiya/ Diviya] 


Prionailurus Severtzov, 1858 

P. rubiginosus (Geoffroy, 1831) [E: Rusty-spotted cat; S: Kola Diviya / Balal Diviya] 


P. viverrinus (Bennett, 1833) [E: Fishing cat; S: Handun Diviya] 


FAMILY : HERPESTIDAE 

Herpestes Illiger, 1811 

H. brachyurus Gray, 1837 [E: Brown mongoose; S: Bora Mugatiya] 


H. edwardsii (Geoffroy, 1818) [E: Grey mongoose; S: Alu Mugatiya] 


H. smithii Gray, 1837 [E: Black-tipped or Ruddy mongoose; S: Rath Mugatiya / Hothambuwa] 


H. vitticollis Bennett, 1835 [E: Stripe-necked or badger mongoose; S: Maha Mugatiya / Gal Mugatiya] 


FAMILY : MUSTELIDAE 

Lutra Brisson, 1762 

L. lutra (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Otter; S: Diya-balla] 


224


FAMILY : URSIDAE 

Melursus Meyer,1793 

M. ursinus (Show & Nodder, 1791) [E: Sloth bear; S: Walaha] 

Distribution: B,F 

FAMILY : VIVERRIDAE 

Paradoxurus Cuvier, 1821 

P. hermaphoditus (Pallas, 1777) [E: Palm cat; S: Uguduwa] 


*P. zeylonensis (Pallas, 1778) [E: Sri Lanka golden palm cat; S: Sri Lanka Ran Kalawedda] 


Viverricula Hodgson, 1838 

V. indica (Desmarest, 1817) [E: Ring-tailed civet; S: Urulewa] 


ORDER: PROBOSCIDEA 

FAMILY : ELEPHANTIDAE 

Elephas Linnaeus, 1758 

E. maximus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Elephant; S: Etha / Aliya] 


ORDER: ARTIODACTYLA 

FAMILY : BOVIDAE 

Bubalus Smith, 1827 

B. arnee (Kerr, 1792) [E: Wild buffalo; S: Kulu Haraka / Wal Meema] 


FAMILY : CERVIDAE 

Axis Smith, 1827 

A. axis (Erxleben, 1777) [E: Spotted deer; S: Tith Muwa] 


A. porcinus (Zimmermann, 1777) [E: Hog deer; S: Vil Muwa / Gona Muwa] 

Distribution: A 

Cervus Linnaeus, 1758 

C. unicolor Kerr, 1792 [E: Sambur; S: Gona] 


Muntiacus Rafinesque, 1815 

M. muntjak (Zimmermann, 1780) [E: Barking deer; S: Olu Muwa / Weli Muwa] 


FAMILY : SUIDAE 

Sus Linnaeus, 1758 

S. scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Wild boar; S: Wal Ura] 


225


FAMILY : TRAGULIDAE 

Moschiola Hodgson, 1844 

* M. meminna Erexleben, 1777 [E: Sri Lanka mouse-deer; S: Sri Lanka Meminna] 


* M. kathygre Groves & Meijaard, 2004 [E: Sri Lanka pigmy mouse-deer; S: Sri Lanka Kuru Meminna] 

Distribution: A, D 

ORDER: RODENTIA 

FAMILY : HYSTRICIDAE 

Hystrix Linnaeus, 1758 

H. indica (Kerr, 1792) [E: Procupine; S: Ittewa] 


FAMILY : MURIDAE 

Bandicota Gray, 1873 

B. bengalensis (Gray 1835) [E: Mole rat; S: Heen Uru-miya] 


B. indica (Bechstein, 1800) [E: Malabar bandicoot; S: Uru-miya] 

Distribution: A,B,C,E,F 

Cremnomys Wroughton, 1912 

C. blanfordi (Thomas, 1881) [E: White-tailed rat; S: Waligasudu-miya] 

Distribution: B,F 

Golunda Gray, 1837 

G. ellioti Gray, 1837 [E: Bush rat; S: Panduru-miya] 

Distribution: B,C,D,F 

Millardia Thomas, 1911 

M. meltada (Gray, 1837) [E: Soft-furred field rat; S: Kesmudu Keth-miya] 

Distribution: B,C,D,F 

Mus Linnaeus, 1758 

M. booduga (Gray, 1837) [E: Field mouse; S: Wel Heen-miya] 


*M. fernandoni (Phillips, 1932) [E: Sri Lanka spiny mouse; S: Sri Lanka katu Heen-miya] 

Distribution: B,C,F2 

*M. mayori (Thomas, 1915) [E: Sri Lanka spiny rat; S: Sri Lanka Depahe Katu Heen-miya] 

Distribution: A,D,E 

M. musculus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Indian house mouse; S: Ge Heen-miya/ Koseta-miya] 


Rattus Fischer, 1803 

*R. montanus Phillips, 1932 [E: Nelu rat; S: Sri Lanka Nelu Miya] 


R. rattus (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Common rat; S: Podu Ge Miya] 


226


Srilankamys Musser, 1981 

*S. ohiensis (Phillips, 1929) [E: Sri Lanka bicolored rat; S: Sri Lanka Depehe-miya] 

Distribution: A,D 

Vandeleuria Gray, 1842 

*V. nolthenii Phillips, 1929 [E: Sri lanka long-tailed tree mouse; S: Sri Lanka Gas-miya] 

Distribution: A,D,E 

V. oleracea (Bennett, 1832) [E: Long-tailed tree mouse; S: Gas-miya] 


Tatera Lataste, 1882 

T. indica (Hardwicke, 1807) [E: Antelope rat; S: Weli-miya] 


FAMILY : PTEROMYIDAE 

Petaurista Link, 1795 

P. philippensis (Elliot, 1839) [E: Giant flying squirrel; S: Ma-hambawa] 

Distribution: A,D 

Petinomys Thomas, 1908 

P. fuscocapillus (Jerdon, 1847) [E: Small flying squirrel; S: Heen-hambawa] 

Distribution: A,B,C,D 

FAMILY : SCIURIDAE 

Funambulus Lesson, 1835 

*F. layardi (Blyth, 1849) [E: Sri Lanka flame-striped jungle squirrel; S: Sri Lanka Mukalan Leena] 

Distribution: A,B,C,D 

F. palmarum (Linnaeus, 1766) [E: Palm squirrel; S: Leena] 


F. sublineatus (Waterhouse, 1838) [E: Dusky-striped jungle squirrel; S:Punchi Leena] 

Distribution: A,B,C,D,E 

Ratufa Gray, 1867 

R. macroura (Pennant, 1769) [E: Giant squirrel; S: Dandu-leena] 


ORDER: LAGOMORPHA 

FAMILY : LEPORIDAE 

Lepus Linnaeus, 1758 

L. nigricollis Cuvier, 1823 [E: Black-naped hare; S: Wal Hawa] 


227


Annex 2: List of introduced terrestrial mammals of Sri Lanka 

ORDER: 

CARNIVORA 

FAMILY : CANIDAE 

Canis Linnaeus, 1758 

C. familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Domestic dog; S: Balla] 

Distribution: Domestic. Feral in some districts. 

FAMILY : FELIDAE 

Felis Linnaeus, 1758 

F. catus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Domestic cat; S: Balala / Pusa] 

Distribution: Domestic. 

ORDER: ARTIODACTYLA 

FAMILY : BOVIDAE 

Bos Linnaeus, 1758 

B. indicus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Domestic hump-backed cattle; S: Sinhala Elaharaka/ Batu Haraka] 

Distribution: Domestic. A small feral population is present in the Block II of Ruhuna National Park. 

B. taurus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: European cattle; S: Rata Elaharaka] 

Distribution: Domestic 

Bubalus Smith, 1827 

B. bubalis (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Domestic water buffalo; S: Mee Haraka] 

Distribution: Domestic. Feral populations are reported from zones B,C,D2,F. 

Capra Linnaeus, 1758 

C. hircus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Domestic goat; S: Eluva] 


Ovis Linnaeus, 1758 

O. aries Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Domestic sheep; S: Betaluwa] 


FAMILY : SUIDAE 

Sus Linnaeus, 1758 

S. domesticus Brisson, 1762 [E: Domestic pig; S: Gam Ura] 


ORDER: PERISODACTYLA 

FAMILY : EQUIDAE 

Equus Linnaeus, 1758 

E. asinus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Donkey; S: Buruwa / Puttalam Buruwa] 

Distribution: Domestic. Feral populations are reported from zone F1 

E. caballus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Mannar ponies/Delft ponies/Horse; S: Diweldiwa Poniya/Poniya/Ashwaya] 

Distribution: Domestic. Feral populations are reported from zone F1 

ORDER: RODENTIA 

FAMILY : MURIDAE 

Rattus Fischer, 1803 

R. norvegicus (Berkenhout, 1769) [E: Brown rat; S: Bora Miya] 


228


ORDER: LAGOMORPHA 

FAMILY : LEPORIDAE 

Oryctolagus Lilljeborg, 1874 

O. cuniculus (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Domestic rabbit; S: Rata Hawa] 


229


Annex 3: List of marine mammals recorded from the Indian Ocean around 


ORDER: CETACEA 

FAMILY : BALAENOPTERIDAE 

Balaenoptera Lacepede, 1804 

B. acutorostrata Lacepede, 1804 [E: Mink Whale; S: Minki thalmaha ] 

B. edeni Anderson, 1879 [E: Bryde’s Whale; S: Brydige thalmaha ] 

B. musculus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Blue Whale; S: Nil thalmaha] 

B. physalus (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Fin Whale; S: Waral thalmaha] 

Megaptera Gray,1846 

M. novaeangliae (Borowski, 1781) [E: Hump backed Whale; S: Molli thalmaha] 

FAMILY : DELPHINIDAE 

Delphinus Linnaeus, 1758 

D. delphis Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Common Dolphin; S: Sulaba mulla] 

Feresa Gray, 1870 

F. attenuata Gray, 1875 [E: Pygmy killer Whale; S: Kuru minimaru thalmaha] 

Globicephala Lesson, 1828 

G. macrorhinchus Gray, 1846 [E: Short finned pilot whale; S: Ketiwaral niyamu thalmaha] 

Grampus Gray, 1828 

G. griseus (Cuvier, 1812) [E: Rissos Dolphin / Gray Dolphin; S: Malina mulla] 

Lagenodelphis Fraser, 1957 

L. hosei Fraser, 1957 [E: Fraser’s Dolphin; S: Keti hota mulla] 

Orcinus Fitzinger, 1860 

O. orca (Linnaeus, 1758) [E: Killer Whale; S: Minimaru thalmaha] 

Peponocephala Nishiwaki & Norris, 1966 

P. electra (Gray, 1846) [E: Melon headed Dolphin; S: Puhulolu thalmaha] 

Pseudorca Reinhardt, 1862 

P. crassidens (Owen, 1846) [E: False killer Whale; S: Boru minimaru thalmaha] 

Sousa Gray, 1866 

S. chinensis (Osbeck, 1765) [E: Indo-pacific hump-back Dolphin; S: Kabara mulla] 

Stenella Gray, 1866 

S. coeruleoalba (Meyen, 1833) [E: Striped Dolphin; S: Thith mulla] 

S. attenuata (Gray, 1846) [E: Pan tropical spotted Dolphin; S: Wairam mulla] 

S. longirostris (Gray, 1828) [E: Spinner Dolphin; S: Sannali mulla] 

230


Steno Gray, 1846 

S. bredanensis (Lesson, 1828) [E: Rough-Toothed Dolphin; S: Ralu dat mulla] 

Tursiops Gervais, 1855 

T. truncatus (Monotagu, 1821) [E: Bottle nosed Dolphin; S: Digasubu mulla] 

FAMILY : PHOCOENIDAE 

Neophocaena Palmer, 1899 

N. phocaeroides (Cuvier, 1829) [E: Finless Propoise; S: Awaral mulla] 

FAMILY : PHYSETERIDAE 

Kogia Gray, 1846 

K. breviceps (Balainville, 1838) [E: Pygmy sperm Whale; S: Kurumanda thalmaha] 

K. simus (Owen, 1866) [E: Dwarf sperm Whale; S: Miti-manda thalmaha] 

Physter Linnaeus, 1758 

P. macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758 [E: Sperm Whale; S: Manda thalmaha] 

FAMILY : ZIPHIIDAE 

Mesoplodon Gervais, 1850 

M. densirostris (Blainville, 1817) [E: Blainville’s beaked Whale; S: Blainvillege hota-ul thalmaha ] 

M. ginkgodensis Nishiwaki & Kamiya, 1958 [E: Ginko-toothed beaked Whale; S: Japan hota-ul thalmaha] 

Ziphius Cuvier, 1823 

Z. cavirostris Cuvier, 1823 [E: Goose beaked Whale/Cuvier’s beak whale; S: Cuvierge hota-ul thalmaha] 

ORDER: SIRENIA 

FAMILY : DUGONGIDAE 

Dugong Lacepede, 1799 

D. dugon (Muller, 1776) [E: Common Dugong, Sea cow; S: Muhudu ura] 

231



Ecological Traits of Endemic Small Mammals in Rainforests of 

Sri Lanka, and Their Implications for Conservation 

Mayuri R. Wijesinghe* 

*Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka 

Abstract 

Small mammals are of particular interest to Sri Lanka because they form a conspicuous part of the 

mammalian fauna of the country, represented by 31 species of rodents and shrews. Furthermore, 

they contribute significantly to the nation’s endemic faunal component. Many of these endemics 

inhabit the fragmented rainforests of southwest Sri Lanka and are extremely vulnerable to habitat 

destruction. Several ecological traits of endemic small mammals render them more susceptible to 

anthropogenic habitat destruction than the widespread species. The paper elaborates on specific 

ecological traits of endemic small mammals with implications for their conservation. 

Key words: Small mammals, Endemic, Conservation 

Introduction 

Small mammals are generally small sized animals predominantly included in the two orders Rodentia and 

Insectivora. Many of these species are difficult to observe in the wild because of their small size and their 

secretive and/or nocturnal habit. Small mammals play diverse ecological roles that have an impact on the 

structure and function of many ecosystems. In rainforests, rodents and shrews are integral components, 

because they function as prey, predators and seed dispersers. Their disappearance may thus bring about 

changes in the diversity of other faunal and floral elements in such ecosystems. Small mammals can also 

be regarded as excellent subjects to test suppositions about population growth, migration and reproduction, 

and, in particular, to study how human-induced changes in landscape patterns have affected vertebrate 

fauna 

Compared to other groups of mammals, small mammals have been largely neglected as a target group for 

conservation efforts. One reason for this discrepancy is their general r-selective strategy, which makes 

them highly prolific and hence less vulnerable to environmental deterioration and human control. Many of 

the widespread species are also classified as pests. In addition, the taxonomic difficulties in identifying 

species, insufficient knowledge of their distribution patterns, and the lower appeal of rodents to the general 

public, also have been contributory factors (Amori and Zima 1994). Human impact on natural habitats has 

nevertheless affected several native and endemic small mammal species throughout the world with a large 

number of extinctions being recorded (Ceballos and Brown 1995). 

Richness of endemic small mammals in Sri Lanka 

For Sri Lanka, small mammals are of particular interest because they form a conspicuous part of the 

mammalian fauna of the country. Of the 90 species of mammals recorded in the island, 31 species are 

rodents and shrews. Additionally, small mammals are also of considerable biological importance because 

they contribute significantly to the nation’s endemic faunal component. The endemic rodents include Mus 

fernandoni, M. mayori , Rattus montanus, Srilankamys ohiensis,Vandeleuria nolthenii and 

Funambulus layardi while the endemic shrews include Crocidura miya, Solisorex pearsoni, S. 

fellowes-gordoni and S. zeylanicus. Many of these endemics inhabit the fragmented rainforests of 

southwest Sri Lanka and are, hence, extremely vulnerable to habitat destruction. Consequently, a majority 

of these species have been recognized as threatened or endangered at the national level (IUCN 2000). 

They are thus subjects of legitimate concern. 

232

Wijesinghe: Ecological Traits of Endemic Small Mammals is Rainforests of 

Sri Lanka and their Implications for Conservation 

Ecological traits with conservation implications 

Several ecological traits of endemic small mammals render them more susceptible to anthropogenic habitat 

destruction than the widespread species. A study carried out in Sinharaja across habitats representing 

varying levels of disturbance clearly demonstrated that endemic rodents and shrews are incapable of 

utilizing disturbed areas surrounding the natural forest (Wijesinghe 2001). In contrast, the non-endemics 

were seen to be able to utilize both forest and non-forest habitats or were restricted to the disturbed areas. 

In fact, some non-endemics were seen to thrive in plantation and abandoned habitats adjacent to the natural 

forest. 

This difference in the distribution patterns between endemics and non-endemics can be attributed to several 

factors. The habitat usage patterns of selected rat and mice species within the forest have shown that 

endemic species are more specialized in their habitat requirements than the non-endemics (Goodyear 1992). 

Endemic species consistently use closed canopy areas where the undergrowth is relatively sparse. On the 

other hand, non-endemics such as Rattus rattus kandianus displayed an ability to use canopy gaps and 

areas with a dense understorey. Also, the endemic rat Srilankamys ohiensis had a larger home range than 

the non-endemic Rattus rattus (Wijesinghe 2001) suggesting that the endemics have a specialized diet and/ 

or habitat preferences (Mazurkiewickz and Rajska-Jugiel 1998; Tobin et al. 1996; Wijesinghe 2001). 

Furthermore, demographic analysis of murids indicated that the endemics, in contrast to the non-endemics, 

are incapable of surviving and reproducing in disturbed areas that border the natural forest (Alder and 

Wilson 1987). 

In addition to their specialized nature, several lines of investigations suggest that endemics are in fact 

inferior competitors and so may face adverse consequences when competing with widespread nonendemics 

(e.g. Hadfield et al. 1993; Goodman 1995). Negative abundance relationships were recorded 

between endemic and non-endemic rat species in study sites within Sinharaja suggesting that these species 

are competing. Captive experiments further supported the fact that endemic species are inferior 

competitors (Wijesinghe 2001). 

The demography and ecology of the endemic small mammals has many important implications for 

conservation. As many endemics are core-forest species, forest destruction and fragmentation will lead to 

the loss of more habitats for these species than for the species that utilize non-forest habitats. Habitat loss 

also causes habitat fragmentation, which leads to the creation of small isolated patches. Because range 

restricted species generally have a lower population density than those that are widespread, their surviving 

populations will be smaller and hence face greater extinction. As one of the best predictors of persistence 

of non-volant mammals is density (Laurance 1991), the low densities of the endemics may indicate greater 

vulnerability. Fragmented forests also suffer from edge effects, which threaten core-forest species but have 

a favorable impact on habitat generalists, particularly invasive species (Laurance 1991). As the invasion of 

communities is greatly enhanced by habitat disturbance, there is a possibility that the forest-adapted 

endemics would be displaced by such non-endemics. 

Future research directions 

The present status of our knowledge of the ecology of fauna of the wet zone is very poor. Future research 

should include studies that monitor faunal populations at regular intervals to determine changes in 

abundance over time. The viability of species in habitat fragments, ability for species to utilize habitat 

linkages and their dispersal patterns across modified landscapes should also be addressed. Further, 

investigations should also focus on aspects of fine scale habitat usage, as this will remain an important 

component when selecting suitable sites for conservation. Additionally, taxonomic issues of species should 

be resolved. 

If biodiversity is to be protected high priority in conservation strategies should be given to species with 

restricted distributions. Small mammals have been used as experimental model systems to study the effects 

233


of habitat disturbance on the demography and behavior of other vertebrate groups. Thus, knowing the 

ecological and demographic traits of rainforest small mammals, especially those of endemics, might help us 

to assess their capacity to adapt to human-induced changes, and so provide a step in evaluating how 

populations of endemic vertebrates in general react to the loss and fragmentation of their natural habitats. 


Alder, G. H. and Wilson, M. L. (1987). Demography of a habitat generalist, the white-footed mouse, in a 

heterogeneous environment. Ecology, 68, 1785-1796. 

Amori, G. and Zima, J. (1994). Threatened rodents in Europe: Species status and some suggestions for 

conservation. Folia Zoologica, 43, 1-9. 

Ceballos, G. and Brown, J. H. (1995). Global patterns of mammalian diversity, endemism, and 

endangerment. Conservation Biology, 9, 559-568. 

Goodman, S. M. (1995). Rattus on Madagascar and the dilemma of protecting the endemic rodent fauna. 

Conservation Biology, 9, 450-455. 

Goodyear, N. C. (1992). Spatial overlap and dietary selection of native rice rats and exotic black rats. 

Journal of Mammalogy, 73, 186-200. 

Hadfield, M, G., Miller, S. E. and Carwile, A. H. (1993). The decimation of endemic Hawaiian tree snails 

by alien predators. American Zoologist, 33, 610-622. 

IUCN (2000). The 1999 list of threatened fauna and flora of Sri Lanka. IUCN - The World Conservation 

Union - Sri Lanka, Colombo. 

Laurence, W. F. (1991). Edge effects in tropical forest fragments: Application of a model of the design of 

nature reserves. Biological Conservation, 57, 205-219. 

Mazurkiewicz, M. and Rajska-Jurgiel, E. (1998). Spatial behaviour and population dynamics of woodland 

rodents. Acta Theriologica, 43, 137-161. 

Tobin, M. E., Sugihara, R. T., Koehler, A. E. and Ueunten, G. R. (1996). Seasonal activity and movements 

of Rattus rattus (Rodentia, Muridae) in a Hawaiin macadamia orchard. Mammalia, 60, 3-13. 

Wijesinghe, M. R. (2001). Habitat selection of endemic and non-endemic vertebrates in Sinharaja, a 

rainforest in Sri Lanka. Thesis. Cambridge University, U.K. 

234

Abstract 

Miththapala: The Ecology THE FAUNA of OF the SRI Wild LANKA Cats (2006): of Sri 235-256 Lanka 


The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka 

Sriyanie Miththapala* 

*Address for correspondence: IUCN – The World Conservation Union, 

53, Horton Place, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka. Email snm@iuncnsl.org 

The ecology of the four wild cats of Sri Lanka is reviewed in this paper. Their geographical 

distribution, taxonomic status and ecology within the island is discussed. Past and present research 

of each species is reviewed. Their conservation status and threats both globally and in Sri Lanka is 

reviewed and recommendations made for immediate and essential research. 

Keywords: Leopard, Jungle cat, Fishing cat, Rusty spotted cat, Sri Lanka 

Introduction 

Despite its small size, Sri Lanka is an island that boasts of great ecosystem and species diversity (Jansen 

& Soysa 1992; Wijesinghe, 2000; Wijesinghe et al, 1993). Among the 91 species of native mammals found 

in the island are 14 species of the order Carnivora (Weerakoon & Goonatilake, this volume; Phillips, 1984). 

Of these, are four members of the Felid family: the Leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya), the Jungle cat 

(Felis chaus), the Fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus) and the Rusty-spotted cat (Prionailurus 

rubiginosa) (Phillips, 1984). 

Based on their body size, the cat family can be divided into three groups. The leopard is classified as a 

medium sized cat with a body mass of 40-60 kg, which feeds on larger prey ranging from 2 kg to their own 

mass and larger; while the Jungle cat, Fishing cat and Rusty-spotted cat are classed as small cats, less 

than 20 kg in mass, which eat small prey weighing less than 1 kg (Seidensticker, 2002; Emmons, 1991). 

Leopards are sleek medium-sized cats with head and body lengths ranging from 910-1910 cm and an 

average mass of 37-90 kg for males and 28-60 kg for females (Seidensticker & Lumpkin, 1991). There is 

marked sexual dimorphism in leopards, with males varying greatly in size across their geographical range 

(Miththapala, 1992; Van Valkenburg & Ruff, 1987). In Sri Lanka, this dimorphism is pronounced, likely due 

to the absence of competitors (Seidensticker & Lumpkin, 2004). In Sri Lanka, the leopard is distinguished 

easily from the other wild cats by its larger size. (Figure 1) 

Of the three small cat species in Sri Lanka, the Jungle cat is long-limbed, with an average head and body 

length of 739 mm for males and 628 mm for females, and an average mass of 7.9 kg and 4.8 kg for males 

and females respectively (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002); the Fishing cat is the heaviest and stockiest with a 

head and body length of 718 mm for males and 660 for females and a mass of 15 kg for males (Sunquist 

& Sunquist, 2002); the Rusty-spotted cat is the tiniest – in fact it is one of the smallest cats in the world – 

measuring a mere 370 mm in head and body for females and weighing a little over a kilogram for females 

and 1.5kg for males (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002, Phillips, 1984). (See Figure 2) 

Leopard coats are marked with clusters of spots called dark brown/black rosettes and the base colour is a 

golden tawny in Sri Lanka (Phillips, 1984). (Figure 1) The Jungle cat is unmistakable in Sri Lanka because 

its coat is an unpatterned sandy brown or reddish grey, with some stripes on its limbs and with black ear 

tufts (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002) (Figure 3). The Fishing cat is an olive grey in colour, with rows of black 

spots extending from its head to its back; it also has a short tail that is only one third of its head and body 

length (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002) (Figure 4). As its name implies, the Rusty spotted cat’s coat is russet 

coloured with rust coloured blotches patterning its body and stripes on its face. (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). 

235


It has long been accepted that top predators play a critical role in structuring communities (Soulé & 

Terborgh, 1999; Clark et al., 1999; Seidensticker, 2002) as they not only control overabundance of prey, but 

also control medium sized predators (Karanth & Sunquist, 1995, 2000; Palomares & Caro, 1999; 

Seidensticker, 2002). They are also the first to disappear as a result of anthropogenic activities such 

habitat degradation, habitat fragmentation and the proliferation of roads around protected areas 

(Seidensticker, 1986, Kerley et al., 2002, Maehr, 1997). Therefore, top carnivores are pivotal components 

of biodiversity conservation (Seidensticker, 2002). As Seidensticker (2002) succinctly states: 

‘We must shift our thinking from viewing top carnivores as an isolated part of ecosystem management to 

viewing their maintenance as an essential component. . . Top carnivores can be the stars in our ongoing 

efforts to restore and maintain biodiversity. But the star power of top carnivores, their flagship and umbrella 

role, is more than symbolic. Without top carnivores, our efforts to stem the loss of biodiversity will ultimately 

fail. 

Until recently, small cats were given scant attention in the preparation of conservation plans and little is 

known about their ecology and biology (Cat Specialist Group, 2003). Yet, they are important components of 

ecosystems as they prey, inter alia, on rodents and insectivores, which can become serious pests if their 

populations are unchecked. 

In this paper, I review the ecology of the four wild cats of Sri Lanka and discuss their geographical 

distribution, taxonomic status and their distribution and ecology within the island, reviewing also past and 

present research on the species. I examine their conservation status and threats both globally and in Sri 

Lanka, and finally make recommendations for their conservation. 

Distribution 

Leopards are cosmopolitan animals, having one of the largest geographic distributions of all terrestrial 

mammals, and range from the southern cape mountains of South Africa, through most of sub-Saharan 

Africa in a wide range of habitats from humid rainforests to arid desert habitats; through forest and 

Mediterranean scrub of Northwest Iran and the Caucasus; in most of the Indian subcontinent excepting 

the deserts and the mangroves of the Sunderbans; in most of China and even in the Himalayas below the 

timber line; and through the cloud forests of mainland Malaysia (Bertram, 1979; Bothma & Riche, 1986; 

Hamilton, 1986; Hoppe-Dominik, 1984; Illany, 1986; Johnsingh, 1983; Neff, 1981; Schaller, et al, 1985; 

Seidensticker, 1986, Seidensticker, 2002; Seidesticker et al, 1990; Karanth & Sunquist, 1995; Karanth & 

Sunquist, 2000). They are also extant on Java, Zanizibar, Kangea and Sri Lanka (Johnson & O’Brien 

2005). 

Leopards have been reported as living in close proximity to humans, and even around major cities and 

towns such as Nairobi in Kenya, Bombay in India and Kandy in Sri Lanka (Bajoria, 2003; Felidtag, 2003; 

Jayewardene, 2002). Extremely generalist in their prey utilization, leopards prefer small and medium sized 

ungulates, but have been known to eat primates preferentially when the ungulate prey base is low or 

depauperate such as in rain forests or deserts (Hoppe-Dominik, 1984; Illany, 1986). 

The conservation status of leopards is disparate: the IUCN red list (2003) lists selected populations/ 

subspecies in South Arabian, North African and Amur populations of leopards as Critically Endangered; 

and North Chinese, Sri Lankan, Javan and Persian leopards as Endangered; while no other leopard 

populations are noted as being subject to threat. CITES places the entire species on Appendix I, yet permits 

quotas for the export of sport hunting trophies from Botswana, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, 

Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. (CITES, 2003) 

The Jungle cat has a wide distribution ranging from Egypt through the Middle East to central Asia, the 

Indian subcontinent and Sri Lanka and extending to south western China into the Malaysian peninsular and 

Myanmar. 

236

Miththapala: The Ecology of the Wild Cats of Sri Lanka 

In contrast, both the Fishing cat and the Rusty spotted cat have limited geographical distributions, the latter 

with a very restricted range. The Fishing cat is distributed discontinuously in Pakistan and the foothills of 

the Himalayas, in south India (where there are scattered populations), Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, 

northern Thailand and Vietnam as well as on the islands of Sumatra and Java (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). 

The Rusty-spotted cat’s range is even more restricted to an isolated patch in north India in the Kashmir 

region, southern India and Sri Lanka. Recently, photographs of this species have been recorded as far 

east as Panna National Park, in central India, where they are reported from scrubland with the invasive 

Lantana (Seidenstiker & Lumpkin, 2004). 

Resource use 

Leopards are generalists that are among the most adaptable of all cats and can occupy a broad range of 

habitat from forests and scrub to desert and hills (Seidensticker & Lumpkin, 1991). 

Jungle cats use a wide range of habitats, from tall grass, thick brush and desert scrub to riparian habitats 

as well as cultivated areas, indicating that they are generalists in their habitat use (Sunquist & Sunquist, 

2002). In contrast, Fishing cats are habitat specialists, always associated with wetlands and marshes. 

Seidensticker & Lumpkin (2004) note that fishing cats live ‘in a linear, one-dimensional landscape rather 

than in a two-dimensional area, because their home areas stretch along the linear extent of the stream or 

pond bank, not over an area whose boundaries form a polygon.’ Rusty spotted cats in India are found in 

dry and moist deciduous forests, scrub forests and grasslands; in Sri Lanka they are found where there is 

forest cover (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002; Phillips, 1984). 

Taxonomic status 

Molecular genetic analyses have revealed that all modern cats evolved about 10.2 million years ago, during 

the Miocene, and diverged into eight major lineages (Johnson & O’Brien, 2005; Johnson & O’Brien, 1997). 

About 1.8 million years ago, the Panthera lineage diverged giving rise to the Genus Panthera; molecular 

research indicates that leopards originated in Africa, some 470 000825 000 years ago and radiated into Asia 

(Uphyrkina et al, 2001) 

Leopards in Sri Lanka have been isolated from mainland leopards of India since the end of the Pleistocene 

some 10,000 years ago (Bossuyt et al 2004; Jacob, 1949). Molecular biological analyses using three 

different matrices (protein polymorphism, mitochondrial DNA restriction fragment polymorphisms, and 

variation in variable nuclear tandem repeats) and morphometric analysis has revealed that the Sri Lankan 

leopard is a unique and distinct subspecies, one of ten subspecies in the world (Miththapala, 1992; 

Miththapala et al, 1996, Uphyrkina et al, 2001). 

The earliest recorded history of leopards in Sri Lanka is from two main ancient chronicles of history – the 

Mahawamsa and Chulavamsa (Jayewardene, 2002). 

In recent history, one of the earliest records of leopards in Sri Lanka is by d’Oyly (1812, in Jayewardene, 

2002) who writes of a chieftain who kills a leopard. Since then, there have been many incidental records of 

leopards (Jayewardene, 2002). 

During the British occupation of Sri Lanka in the 19th century, leopards were considered vermin, killed 

actively, and trapped, with bounties provided for each skin (Jayewardene 2002). Between 1872 and 1899, 

records reveal that 8,873 leopards were killed (Jayewardene 2002). This killing, now for sport, continued in 

the early 20th century, and here too records reveal a high rate of slaughter. In the British Museum of 

Natural History, are eight skulls of leopards shot by one hunter, in one region of Sri Lanka, during an eightmonth 

period at the turn of the 20th century (Miththapala, personal observation). 

237


Notwithstanding this decimation of the leopard population of Sri Lanka, molecular studies reveal that Sri 

Lankan leopards have retained within-group genetic diversity consistent with an ancient population 

bottleneck less than 10,000 years ago circa 2000 years ago, as compared to other species such as Asiatic 

lions (Panthera leo asiatica) in India that are genetically homogeneous as a result of a recent (100 year 

old) population bottleneck (Miththapala, 1992). Nonetheless, Sri Lankan leopards show markedly less 

genetic variation than their Indian counterparts, indicative of a population insulated from gene flow from 

the mainland (Miththapala, 1992; Miththapala et al., 1996; Uphyrkina et al, 2001). 

About 3.95 million years ago, the Leopard cat lineage diverged in Southeast Asia, giving rise, among other 

cat species, to the Fishing cat (Johnson & O’Brien, 1997). The Rusty spotted cat diverged as far back as 

10 million years ago and no one really knows where it fits into the felid phylogenetic tree (Johnson & 

O’Brien, 1997). 

The Domestic cat lineage also diverged from its common ancestor some 10 million years ago in the 

Mediterranean region and radiated in the Pliocene (6 million years ago) giving rise to several Eurasian and 

African species, including the Jungle cat (Johnson & O’Brien, 1997). 

It is apparent therefore, that each of the Sri Lankan cat species belongs to a different clade or group that 

had its origins in different times and in different regions of the world, and are all, therefore, taxonomically 

unique. 

The validity of the subspecific status and of the smaller Sri Lankan wild cats is is highly questionable as 

rigorous molecular and morphometric analyses have not been carried out. 

Distribution and ecology within Sri Lanka. 

Leopards 

In 1935, Phillips noted that the range of the Sri Lankan leopard at the turn of the century extended from 

sea level to Horton Plains in the central hills (over 2000m) in all forests of the island, but that through 

trophy hunting and loss of forests, it was confined to the national parks of Sri Lanka. Santiapillai (2002), 

nearly 70 years later, echoes these observations and writes that the range of leopards in Sri Lanka includes 

some 624,484 ha, or 78% of the country’s protected areas. He notes that Sri Lankan leopards are found in 

all types of forests: from thorn scrub and dry deciduous forests, to lowland rain forests and montane forests 

(Santiapillai, 2002). 

In the early 1970s, John Eisenberg and his collaborators carried out a seminal study on the ecology of 

leopards in Wilpattu National Park – the key results of which are summarised in Table 1 (Eisenberg & 

Lockhart, 1972; Muckenhirn & Eisenberg, 1973). The 1980s and 1990s saw only a very few and sporadic 

field studies, likely as a result of the then political situation in the island which made field research both 

risky and sporadic. These are: Santiapillai et al, 1982 and Chambers et al, 1983, which preceded island 

wide political unrest, Amerasinghe et al., 1990, Amerasinge and Ekanayake, 1992, de Silva and Jayaratne, 

1994 and Ranawana et al., 1998. The results of these studies are also summarised in Table 1. 

Thankfully, for the future of the Sri Lankan leopard, the mid 1990s and the early years of the 21st century 

saw an increased interest in Sri Lanka’s top carnivore. For several decades now, Lal Antonis has been 

taking still photographs of leopards and in the last decade, Rukshan Jayawardene and Gehan de S 

Wijeratne have focused on photographing the leopard in Yala Block I (Miththapala, personal observation). 

These efforts as well as a BBC documentary initiated by Jehan Kumara in the early years of the new 

millennium put the Sri Lankan leopard in the spotlight and greatly increased awareness of and interest in 

this top carnivore. 

Meanwhile, since 1994, Perera, Kumara, Samarasingha (Kumara & Samarasingha, 2002; Samarasinha, 

2002) have focused on identifying individual leopards in Yala Block I, using spot pattern variation (based on 

238


Table 1: Past and present ecological studies of the leopard in Sri Lanka. 

Area of 

study 

Wilpattu 

National Park 

Researchers Estimated 

population size 

Eisenberg & 

Lockhart, 1972 

20 residents 

Home 

range size 

estimated 29 sq km 

in Villu habitat 

8- 10 sq km 

Wilpattu 

National Park 

Muckenhirn & 

Eisenberg, 1973 

concentrate round 

permanent water 

holes. 

Ruhuna 

National Park 

(Yala Block I) 

Santiapillai et al, 

1982 

25 in Block I 

5.6 sq km 

(rough estimate) 

Wilpattu, 

Ruhuna, 

Wasgamuwa 

Nat. Parks 

Amerasinghe et 

al., 1990 

not estimated 

not estimated 

Ruhuna 

National Park 


Amerasinghe & 

Ekanayake, 

1992 

not estimated 

not estimated 

Home range 

overlap 

Males and female 

Males show little 

overlap 

none 

Considerable 

overlap 

not estimated 

not estimated 

Prey analysis Time of activity 

48.3% Axis; 27.59% Sus; 

3.45% Cervus: 6.90% Presbytis; 

6.90% Lepus; 3.45% Hystrix; 

3.45% Bulbalus (calf) 

0600 - 1000 hr 

1500 -18.30 hr 

called at night 

31.7% Axis; 25.49% Sus; 

5.88% Cervus; 7.84% Presbytis; 

5.88% Lepus; 1.96% Hystrix; 

7.84% Bulbalus; 3.92% Muntiacus; 

3.92% Ratufa; 1.96% Bird; 

3.92% unsure 

mentions Axis as main prey species 

0700 - ‘1100 hr 

1500 - 2100 hr 

with two peaks at 

0700 and ‘1800 

with shift from 

diurnal during 

the dry season 

to nocturnal during 

wet season. 

Wilpattu: 76.5% Axis, 17.7% 

Bubalus 

Yala: 54.3% Axis, 20.7 % Sus 

Wasgamuwa: 50% Lepus, 37.5% 

Tragulus, 12.5 % Axis 

not estimated 

51% Axis; 45% of Bubalus & Sus 

then, Presbytis and/or Macaca, 

and Ratufa in a single scat. 

not estimated. 

239


Area of 

study 

Ruhuna 

National Park 


Horton Plains, 

Hakgala, Peak 

Wilderness 

Ruhuna 

National Park 


Dunumdallawa 

FR (Kandy) 

Researchers Estimated 

population size 

De Silva & 

Jayaratne, 1994 

16 

Ranawana et. 

al., 1998 

not estimated 

Kittle & 

Watson, 2002 

45 total 

33.75 resident 

11.25 transient 

Kittle & 

Watson, 2003 

unpulbished 

data ongoing 

study 

3, 1 inferred 

1 resident male 

1 resident female 

1 cub 

1 resident 

female inferred 

Home 

range size 

Males: Coastal - 10 km 2 

Inner forest - 33 km 2 

Females - Coast: 8 km 2 

Inner forest - 25 km 2 

not estimated 

male = 38.8 sq km, 

core 23.7 

sq km 

female= 6.8 sq km 

Male partially within 

FR but also outside 

female’s within the 

study area 

Home range 

overlap 

Females have 

overlapping ranges 

not estimated 

averaged 5.9 sq km 

(range 2.5-9 sq km) 

not yet estimated 

Prey analysis Time of activity 

not estimated. 

0700-0900 hr 

after 1600 hrs 

Horton Plains: 75.8% Cervus 

Hakgala: 42.8% Cervus 

Peak Wilderness: 64.2% 

Presbytes, 14.2% Cervus 

not estimated 

48% Axis; 22% Sus; 

10% Bulbalus; 7% mixed 

3% Cervus; 4% Presbytes; 

2% Lepus; 4% Hystrix; 

peaks of activity 

at crepuscular 

hours but 

visible all day. 

cubs 8 mnth - 2 yr 

are more visible 

not done yet, but Muntiacus, 

Tragulus, Sus, Hystrix, Lepus, 

Macaca and Jungle fown in 

study area 

not yet estimated 

240


Pennycuik & Rudnai 1970 and Miththapala et al. 1989). Since 1994, Samarasingha has been maintaining a 

‘life history’ file of every leopard that he has sighted in Yala, and information recorded includes individual 

identification, location of sighting, as well as parents and siblings/ cubs where known (Kumara & 

Samarasingha, 2002; Samarasinha, 2002). The result was that in the span of four years, these researchers 

were able to identify and sex 30 different individuals in Yala Block I (Kumara, 2001; Kumara & 

Samarasingha, 2002; Samarasinha, 2002). 

An intensive study that included over 250 sightings and extended over a 20-month period from October 

2000 to June 2002, carried out by Kittle and Watson, began to look at the demography, behaviour and 

ecology of leopards in Yala Block I (Kittle & Watson, 2003). Involving both day and night time fieldwork, 

the research has provided valuable data on a number of important facets for this population of leopards 

(Kittle & Watson, 2002, 2003 and unpublished data). 

Kittle & Watson’s detailed study of the Yala Block I leopards reveals a very high density of leopards with 

35.75 adults residents; an adult resident population density for Yala Block I of 0.15 leopards / km2 per year 

or 6.6 km2/adult leopard (Kittle & Watson, 2002). This reported figure is much higher than densities of 

leopards elsewhere in the world (Norton & Henley 1987; Bothma & Le Riche 1984; Hamilton 1976; 

Schaller 1972 quoted in Kittle & Watson, 2003) and comparable only to densities in South Africa (Bailey, 

1993 quoted in Kittle & Watson, in press). Kittle & Watson (in press) consider this substantially high 

density a result of the conditions in Block I ‘approaching what could be considered ideal for leopards.’ 

They attribute this to many facets of leopard ecology, biology and behaviour and extrinsic factors: the fact 

that leopards are dominant predators in this ecosystem; that there is an abundance of the preferred prey 

species (Wignaraja et al., 1978) but also because they can also easily switch prey, as evidenced by scat 

analysis; that despite the Park being in the arid zone of Sri Lanka (where rainfall is less than 1000mm per 

annum) there are artificially maintained permanent water holes; that their intrinsic behaviour patterns allow 

for maintenance of home ranges within those of others, as well as maintaining tiny home ranges for 

females; and that their reproductive rates are high (litters were observed almost every month of the year). 

Further details of their study in Yala are tabulated in Table 1. 

Ratnayeke and her co-workers have examined the diversity and habitat use of carnivores in Wasgamuwa 

National Park and her initial data reveal high densities for leopards in Wasgamuwa too (Ratnayeke, 

personal communication). 

After completion of their study in Yala, Kittle & Watson (unpublished data) moved to Dunumadallawa 

Forest Reserve in Kandy and in an ongoing study, have estimated three to five individuals resident within 

the area. They note that this forest reserve connects, albeit patchily, to Hantane. There have been other 

reports of leopards in the Hantane area, which is just south of the heavily populated city of Kandy in the 

central hills (Jayewardene, 2002). These patches of forest continue south to Galaha and eventually to 

Pidurutalagala and Nuwara Eliya. The latter connects through Horton Plains National Park to the Peak 

Wilderness Sanctuary. They note that although this ‘corridor’ leads through Pinus plantations, roads, tea 

estates and villages, it provides a link between protected areas and is used by leopards. 

What is critically important in these initial data is that they confirms earlier reports (Jayewardene, 2002) 

that there are leopards outside the protected area system, contrary to Phillips (1984) and Santiapillai (2002) 

who state that leopards would be confined within the protected area system. These data are buttressed by 

other island wide data (Kittle & Watson, unpublished data), again from an ongoing study, which show many 

sightings of leopards on the edge of, or outside protected areas (Figure 5). 

Currently, Bambaradeniya and his associates are carrying out a resource inventory of Wilpattu National 

Park, and their research includes surveys of the leopards, including coordinates of sightings. Samarasinha 

is also carrying out a study of the ecology of leopards in Wilpattu. 

241


Jungle Cats 

According to Phillips (1984), the Jungle cat is limited to the northern monsoon forests of the dry zone, and 

southwards through Puttlam and Chilaw up to Kurunegala. 

The work of current researchers appears to confirm Phillips’ observation that the Jungle cat is largely a 

species of the dry zone, as it has been recorded patchily: wherever there is forest cover, except in the wet 

zone. (See Figure 4; Balagalle et al., unpublished document IUCN, 1997, 2000; Nekaris, 2003; Ratnayeke, 

personal communication;) Ratnayeke et al., find that relative abundances for Jungle cats is higher in 

Wasgomuwa National Park than in Yala Block 1 (Ratnayeke, personal communication). Nekaris sited this 

species in three locations in the dry zone and one in the intermediate zone (See Figure 6.) 

There are no direct studies of the feeding ecology of this species in Sri Lanka. Phillips (1984) records that 

the Jungle cat feeds on small mammals and ground dwelling birds. Nekaris (2003) suggests that Jungle 

cats may prey on the Grey Slender Loris (Loris lydekkerianus) In other countries examination of stomach 

remains of Jungle cats reveal a preponderance of rodents, and ranked next, ‘game’ birds (Sunquist & 

Sunquist, 2002). It has been noted that they will feed opportunistically on reptiles and frogs as well as fish. 

A study in Russia has also revealed that Jungle cats may supplement their winter diets by eating fruit 

(Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). 

Little is known about the breeding biology of this species, except that litters consist usually of one or two 

kittens who are not spotted (Seidensticker and Lumpkin, 1991). 

Again, little is known about its social organization, except for the observation that, like most other cat 

species, it is solitary (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). 

Fishing Cats 

According to Phillips (1984), the Fishing cat is found all over the island, even at high elevations and in the 

forests of both the wet and dry zones, but has not been reported north of the Central province. 

An ongoing study by Balagalle et al., seeks to survey selected urban and suburban habitats to determine 

the presence or absence of Fishing cats and Rusty spotted cats in populated areas, with the expected 

outcome of obtaining their geographical distribution and ensuring that measures for their conservation are 

incorporated in urban planning programmes. Thus far, their study - using camera traps around the suburbs 

of Colombo - has revealed the presence of Fishing cats in the outskirts of Colombo in the Bellanwila- 

Attidiya Sanctuary, which is a wetland habitat and one which also has an ancient Dutch canal running by 

it; and in Nawala, which is a residential suburb of Colombo, but which also has a canal that runs alongside 

the town (Balagalle et al., unpublished document, Seidensticker, 2004) (See Figure 7). They have also 

documented Fishing cats in Wasgomuwa National Park, which is in the dry zone, both in the buffer zone 

area and within the park. 

Nekaris (2003) reports a sighting of a Fishing cat in Polonnaruwa (Figure 7). 

Kittle & Watson (unpublished data) report, as incidental sightings along with their ongoing project on 

leopard ecology, Fishing cats in several dry zone sanctuaries and Wasgomuwa National Park, as well as 

other locations in the north central province (most of which are associated with ancient tanks in the dry 

zone). (See Figure 5.) They also report sightings in the central hills, both in Horton Plains National Park as 

well as in a tea estate (Bogawantalawa) and a forest reserve (Dunumadalawa) (Figure 7). Kittle & 

Watson’s data corroborates Balagalle et al.’s research and report sightings in populated suburbs around 

Colombo (Piliyandala, Kotte, Battaramulla, Attidiya, Panadura) as well as around the towns of Ja-ela and 

Negombo, further north (Figure 7). In all of these towns, there are disused canals, flooded areas or 

wetlands (Ranjit Galappatti, personal communication). It appears, therefore, from these preliminary findings 

that although Fishing cats are considered habitat specialists, they are able to adapt to human presence and 

live in and around human habitation, as long as there is water. 

242


Contrary to Balagalle et al., Ratnayeke et al., in an ongoing study of carnivores in Wasgamuwa National 

Park, do not record any Fishing cats, although they report sightings in Pottuvil and Kantalai (Ratnayeke, 

personal communication, Figure 7). 

Balagalle identified Porcupine (Hystrix indica) remains in the scats of fishing cats, indicating that they are 

supplementing their aquatic prey with terrestrial species (Seidensticker, 2004). These researchers have 

not yet reported densities of this species in the areas they have been photographed. Balagalle et al’s 

research also shows that Fishing cats are both diurnal and nocturnal (Seidensticker, 2004). 

Elsewhere in the world, it has been reported that fishing cats prey primarily on fish, next on water birds 

and on small mammals, although they are known to eat dogs, calves and fawns and even small children 

(Sunquist & Sunquist, 2004). 

Little is known about the social organization or reproductive biology of Fishing cats. 

Rusty spotted cats: 

Phillips (1984) records that the elusive Rusty spotted cat is resident in all forested areas of the island. 

Based on museum records that show the presence in and around Colombo of Rusty spotted cats some 30- 

50 years ago, Balagalle et al., set out to camera trap this species, but so far have not succeeded in 

photographing it in the suburbs of Colombo, Dambulla or Kandalama (Balagalle et al., unpublished document.) 

Nekaris (2003) lists nocturnal sightings in Yala Block 1. Kittle & Watson (in press) also record 30 sightings 

of Rusty spotted cats but only in the southern and central part of Yala Block 1. They attribute the lack of 

sightings in other areas of the park to the floristic composition, which is open scrub in the northern part of 

Block 1, and relate this absence to the need of Rusty spotted cats to use dense vegetative cover. They 

confirm that Rusty spotted cats can live in arid conditions (See Figure 8), as does Nekaris (2003) who 

reports sightings from scrub forests. 

All Kittle and Watson’s sightings were between 19.00 and 6.00 supporting previous reports that the Rusty 

spotted cat is truly nocturnal. Kittle & Watson (in press) report that Rusty spotted cats are more commonly 

sighted in the wet season, close to or on roads. 

Ratnayeke’s ongoing study of carnivores reveals that the densities of this species are higher in Yala than in 

Wasgomuwa (Ratnayeke, personal communication). 

Nekaris (2003) reports one sighting of predation of an Antelope Rat (Tatara indica) by a Rusty spotted cat 

in Yala Block 1. Apart from this sighting, nothing much is yet known about the feeding ecology, social 

organization of this species nor their breeding biology except for Phillips’ (1984) account that there are two 

kittens born per litter. 

In captivity, it has been reported that Rusty spotted cats have prodigious appetites - and they eat more 

than 6% of their body weight each day (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). They are known to have very high 

basal metabolic rates and therefore are very active, and have been dubbed ‘the hummingbirds of the cat 

family’ (Seidensticker & Lumpkin, 2004, Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Elsewhere in the world, their prey 

appears to consist mainly of birds and small mammals (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Phillips (1984) reports 

the same diet in Sri Lanka. 

Conservation status and threats to the wild cats of Sri Lanka 

Leopards 

Leopards are protected by the Flora and Fauna Ordinance of Sri Lanka, where killing or selling leopards or 

leopard parts carries with it a fine of ten to thirty thousand rupees and a possible prison term of two–five 

years (FFPO, 1992). 

243


Notwithstanding this national and global protection (the Asian leopards are on Appendix I of CITES where 

trade is prohibited), there have been reports of leopards caught in wire snares purportedly set for wild boar 

and deer; poisoning of cattle carcasses on which leopards feed; shooting and spearing (Jayewardene, 2002; 

Kittle & Watson, 2002). IUCN Sri Lanka notes that annually the Department of Wildlife Conservation 

records at least five leopard kills and that snares and noose traps set for other species also result in the 

deaths of leopards (IUCN, 2003). A recent report by Kittle and Watson (2002) warns of increased leopard 

poaching that is a ‘mere tip of the iceberg.’ In the course of their 2-year field research, they report having 

seen 26 skins of leopards near national parks (10 from around Wasgamuwa; five from around Udawalewe; 

five from Yala, four from Wilpattu and two from the central hill region) (Kittle & Watson, 2002). It appears 

from their report that although there is a high demand for leopard products in the region, there is an 

additional demand for leopards in Sri Lanka for medicinal purposes (Kittle & Watson, 2002). 

Much more insidious and as debilitating to the population of leopards in Sri Lanka, is habitat loss, habitat 

degradation and habitat fragmentation. Sri Lanka has only 23.8% of area under forest cover, and has lost 

approximately half the area of forests it had in the 1950s (Wijesinghe, 2000). Although there has been an 

island wide moratorium on logging since the 1980s, illicit tree felling and clearing for shifting cultivation (in 

the dry zone) still continues (Wijesinghe 2000, Miththapala, personal observation). Collection of non-timber 

forest products and widespread poaching of ungulates contributes to habitat degradation (Wijesinghe 2000, 

Jayewardene, 2002). 

Sri Lanka boasts of some 70 protected areas in the island (40 of which were declared in the 1990s), and 

has, at least on paper, a reasonably extensive system extending over nearly 14% of its total land area 

(WCMC, 2000, Conservation International 2004). However, these areas are under constant threat of 

illegal/unsustainable extraction of resources and encroachment from a burgeoning population of humans 

(19.2 million in 2000) (Wijesinghe, 2000). It should be noted that except for a few protected areas in the 

Mahaweli region, most Sri Lanka’s protected areas are islands in a sea of human habitation (see Figure 3). 

Jungle Cats 

The Jungle cat is listed in the IUCN Red list of 2003 as a species of least concern, and on CITES Appendix 

II (IUCN 2003, CITES 2003). Hunting of this species is prohibited in Bangladesh, China, India, Israel, 

Myanmar, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Thailand and Turkey (Nowell & Jackson, 1996). 

In Sri Lanka, the Jungle cat is afforded full protection under the Flora and Fauna Protection Ordinance and 

listed as threatened in the National list of flora and fauna (FFPO, 1992; IUCN, 2000). 

Like other species, the Jungle cat is affected by habitat loss, although its generalist habits may confer a degree 

of adaptability that ensures its survival (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). An alarming threat to its survival has 

been the illegal trade in skins, particularly in India, where 306,343 skins were declared when export was banned 

in 1979, and 14,242 skins found in 1980 (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). Way back in 1973, de Alwis stated 

that forest clearing had a ruinous effect on Jungle cat populations, as suitable prey were being decimated 

and that many jungle cats then resorted to killing livestock, and were in turn being killed by farmers (de 

Alwis, 1973). He also reported the alarming rate of killing of twelve jungle cats per month (de Alwis, 1973). 

Bambaradeniya and Amerasinghe (2001) report that feral dogs kill Jungle cats. 

Fishing cats 

The Fishing cat is listed as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List and on Appendix II of CITES (IUCN, 2003; 

CITES 2003). The Red List also estimates the effective global population size at below 10,00 mature 

individuals and recognizes a declining trend in population size. The Felid Taxonomic Group identifies the 

Javan population as Critically Endangered, as there are less than 200 individuals (Felidtag, 2003). Eighty 

fishing cat skins were found in 1991 in North Bengal (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). 

Fishing cats are protected under the FFPO and are considered nationally threatened (FFPO, 1992; IUCN, 

2000). 

244


Balagalle et al. note that conflict with humans is high for this species as they kill chickens (Seidensticker, 

2004). Bambaradeniya & Amerasinghe (2001) list snares and noose traps set for wild boar as threats to 

Fishing cats, as well as accidental falls into uncovered wells in human habited areas. They also note that 

road kills, particularly on the Colombo-Kandy road, are becoming a threat to this species. Kittle & Watson 

(personal communication) observe that in the Hingurangoda/ Kaudulla forest area in the north central 

province Fishing cats are hunted and eaten by villagers. 

Rusty spotted cats 

Rusty spotted cats are listed as vulnerable in the IUCN Red list with a declining global population (IUCN, 

2003). Trade of Indian Rusty spotted cats is prohibited under CITES as this population is listed in Appendix 

I and the Sri Lankan population, on Appendix II. 

Like the other wild cats of Sri Lanka, the Rusty spotted cat is protected in Sri Lanka and is considered 

nationally threatened (FFPO,1990; IUCN 2000). 

De Alwis (1973) reports that this species is killed for its flesh, and that adults are killed mistakenly as 

leopard cubs. Bambaradeniya & Amerasinghe (2001) note road kills in the Hambantota District, and state 

that road kills and feral dogs are beginning to pose threats to this species. Kittle & Watson’s observation 

(in press) that Rusty spotted cat is more commonly found in and around roads in Yala Block 1 during the 

wet season lends support to Bambaradeniya & Amerasinghe’s statement. 

A more insidious threat is Kittle & Watson’s observation (in press) of a mating between a Rusty spotted 

cat and a domestic cat, confirming Phillips’ comment that such matings would be likely. Cross species 

matings could erode the genetic integrity of Rusty spotted cats. Similar events in the recent history of 

Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryii) resulted in genetic introgression, so that certain individuals had 

alleles from two different subspecies (O’Brien et al., 1990). 

Conservation needs for the wild cats of Sri Lanka 

Leopards 

Thankfully, the 1990s and the 21st century have seen several results-driven studies of leopards (Kittle & 

Watson 2003; Kumara & Samarasingha, 2002; Miththapala et al., 1996; Ratnayeke, personal 

communication). 

However, what we have is fragmented knowledge. There are serious gaps in the data available on Sri 

Lankan leopards and we lack a national picture for this species. Data are urgently needed about these 

unique sub-species across its entire range in Sri Lanka, so that a meaningful and effective plan for 

conservation, that transcends park boundaries and ecosystems and one which includes all stakeholders, is 

developed. We need to know these answers because of the reality conveyed in the axiom ‘good 

conservation is based on good science’. Without data, we have no basis for conservation. Without a proper 

road map for conservation, we cannot minimise risks for the species in question. 

Listed below are recommendations for further study of the Sri Lankan leopard that need priority attention. 

• Obtaining the national distribution of leopards. 

A rigorous and standard method should be employed to examine the distribution of leopards in Sri 

Lanka, initially as presence/absence noted with an exact location. This should exclude reports, 

however reliable, and only document, using geographical coordinates for exact locations, actual 

sightings or the presence of scats. Kittle and Watson are developing such a distribution map and their 

work needs to be supported so that they can continue this documentation. Incidental but reliable data 

such as data from the National Conservation Review could be included. 

245


• Estimating populations, densities and home ranges in different habitats and all national parks. 

There is a real danger that Kittle & Watson’s density and population estimates of Yala Block I will be 

extrapolated to estimate the population of leopards in Sri Lanka. In the past, some authors have 

estimated national figures for leopards extrapolating from data that Eisenberg and Lockhart obtained 

in Wilpattu in 1972. 

We cannot fall prey to this trap, as the indisputable fact is that we have insufficient data to estimate 

leopard numbers in Sri Lanka. The necessary data must be obtained from scientific estimates based 

on home range sizes for leopard in all national parks and in different habitats. 

Pabla & Mathur (2001) have recommended monitoring the populations by using pugmarks, but this is 

only good for establishing presence/absence of a species in an area. Karanth et al. (2003) have 

demonstrated that pugmark censuses of tigers in India have not been a reliable means of assessing 

numbers of individuals. Therefore, we should not also resort to census-based studies, but must rely 

on sample-based research. 

Before any national estimates are attempted, home ranges sizes and density estimates for leopards in 

different habitats in different parts of the island must be obtained. 

If, as Kittle & Watson (in press) posit, Yala Block I is a near-ideal habitat for leopards, then would 

population sizes be smaller in wetter areas of lowland rainforest and in central hills? This needs 

examination. 

Particularly important are border areas where there has been ethnic conflict. Kittle & Watson state 

that they were not able to get down in the Vanni area as it was land-mined, but note that all the way 

on the Vavuniya-Mannar road there still was forest (Watson, personal communication). 

As a priority, estimates must be obtained for previously inaccessible conflict areas. In other areas 

occupied by government forces, there has been evidence of poaching of primates and ungulates 

(Miththapala, personal observation.) 

• Examining scats in different habitats. 

Although there is good data on prey utilization in Yala Block I and Wilpattu (in the past), we need scat 

analyses in other protected areas and habitats in both wet and dry seasons to identify the preferred 

prey of leopards as well as other prey species eaten in other habitats. 

• Estimation of ungulate and other potential prey populations in different habitats. 

Top carnivores cannot survive if they do not have adequate numbers of prey. This facet of 

conservation was largely ignored until Karanth (1993) demonstrated quantitatively a correlation 

between tiger (Panthera tigris) and prey densities and Wikramanayake et al., (1998) confirmed that 

suitable patches of tiger habitat existed sans tigers. Since then, empirical data from most of South 

and Far Eastern Asia, has shown that there are no tigers even in sizeable spaces of suitable habitat 

when prey populations have been decimated by poaching (Karanth & Stith, 1999; Miquelle et al., 

1999). 

Although leopards are far more of generalist in feeding as compared to tigers, and have the ability to 

switch prey species and survive on small mammals and insects (Seidensticker, 2002), we cannot be 

complacent, as there are some potential problems if there is prey depletion. Firstly, a shift of prey use 

by leopards from a preferred prey species to smaller sized prey will place an additional demand on 

the prey-base of medium and small sized carnivores, with the result that one or more of these species 

may become threatened with extinction (Seidensticker, 1985). This, in turn, will change community 

structure. Secondly, if prey numbers are not sufficient, then leopards could turn to preying on livestock, 

which, in turn, generates conflict between leopards and humans. 

Thus, an estimation of ungulates and other prey species must be an essential component of the 

conservation of leopards. Again, methods of estimation must be scientific, and consistent methodology 

must be used island wide. 

246


• There is a critical and imminent need to examine leopards living outside protected areas. 

That there are leopards living outside the protected area system of Sri Lanka can be construed as 

good news, as it could be inferred that this is a result of healthy populations that have enough cover 

and prey to survive and reproduce. Their inferred movement between protected areas (Kittle & 

Watson, unpublished data) is also excellent in terms of their genetic diversity as isolated populations 

are also at risk of homogenisation of their genetic variation because they are unable to disperse and 

breed outside their natal areas. 

The other side of this coin is that leopards could be outside protected areas because they do not have 

adequate room within. The leopards in Yala Block I (Kumara & Samarasingha, 2002; Kittle & 

Watson, in press) could easily spill over outside within a few years. Kittle & Watson (in press) have 

noted that sub adults from Yala Block I disappear at the end of two years. This observation begs the 

question: where to? 

The other negative facet of leopards living outside protected areas in that they very easily become 

problem animals. Our neighbour India is struggling with the issue of leopard attacks in Mumbai, which 

is one of the only places in the world where there is a park (which is 103km2) within the city limits, 

housing 40 leopards. In the last two years there have been 22 deaths among 45 attacks by leopards, 

mostly on children (Bajoria, 2003). It has been also reported that leopards forage in garbage bins at 

night (Bajoria, 2003). 

We are hearing of a much smaller scale problem in Hantane where new residents are asked not to 

allow domestic pets, especially dogs, to range free as they will be eaten by leopards (Ranjan 

Brekenridge, personal communication). We cannot permit an escalation of this conflict to the level 

that we learn of in Mumbai. 

It is imperative that leopards living outside national parks are radio collared and their home ranges, the 

routes they take, their dispersal patterns, what prey they are taking are examined. Kittle & Watson’s 

study in the Dunumadallawa Forest Reserve should be expanded and supported to allow these 

researchers to follow leopards as they move. 

Leopards are known to be excellent dispersers, travelling at night across open areas devoid of cover 

as well as across roads (Seidensticker, 2002; Seidensticker et al., 1990; Sunquist, 1983). This ability, 

coupled with their capacity to live in close proximity to human habitation and their adaptability of prey 

utilization, gives them a tremendous survival advantage over other large carnivores such as tigers 

(Seidensticker, 2002). 

However, these leopards are at high risk because they are exposed to new menacing dangers: direct 

conflict with humans and their livestock, exposure to new diseases from livestock and deaths due to 

road accidents. We need to minimise these risks for this species. 

• In order to understand and minimise the direct threat that leopards face, we have to identify exactly 

what they are, and examine whether there are threats specific to particular areas. 

An islandwide survey on the threats to leopards is needed. If measures are to be taken to minimise 

risk to this species in a changing landscape, then we need to identify where poaching is highest, where 

snaring is predominant (whether for other species or not), where leopards are being killed for 

medicinal purposes, where leopards are taking livestock, whether leopards are susceptible to being 

killed by vehicular traffic as they traverse main roads. Kittle & Watson’s report of leopard poaching 

(2002) highlights a specific threat to leopards for medicinal purposes and requires further investigation. 

The Department of Wildlife Conservation and the Forest Department can be requested to assist in 

this survey. It is only when we know where the problems are greatest that we can attempt to find 

solutions to them. 

• Awareness of the need for the conservation of this top carnivore must be created nationally. 

Good science will result in good conservation only if that good science is disseminated in 

understandable language to the general populace. To this end, the publication of books on leopards 

247


and the publication of posters (Jayewardene et al, 2002, de S. Wijeratne, 2004, Kittle & Watson, 2005) 

will help, but only with a select group of the national population. A targeted series of national public 

awareness programmes on the ecologically important role that leopards play in Sri Lanka, as well as 

their genetic, behavioural and ecological uniqueness, is needed urgently in the regions where it lives. 

The small cats 

In 2001, Bambaradeniya & Amerasinghe recommended that the focus of research should shift from 

leopards to small cats. Without shifting the focus, several-pronged research efforts are currently being 

made to study both leopards and small cats (Balagalle et al., ongoing study; Kittle & Watson, ongoing study; 

Ratnayeke et al., ongoing study). Despite these efforts, it should be noted that there are yet very large 

lacunae in our knowledge of these three species. 

We know very little about the national distribution, feeding ecology, habitat use and breeding biology of the 

small wild cats of Sri Lanka. Except for the Fishing cat, for which there are data accumulating of habitat 

use, we know nothing about their specific habitat and prey requirements nor how they interact with each 

other and with other meso-carnivores. All these data are essential if we are to formulate meaningful 

conservation strategies for these wild cats. 

Listed below are recommendations for further study that need attention as a priority. 

• Obtaining the national distribution of these three species. 

An initial picture of the presence/absence nationwide of these three species is essential. 

Balagalle et al.’s study proposes a three-tier focus of camera trapping, first in and around Colombo, 

then Muthurajawala and finally Dambulla in the north central zone. They are poised to begin the 

second phase of their study that entails the use of radio telemetry and comparison of the distribution 

of fishing cats and their densities in suburban/urban versus natural habitats (Seidensticker, 2004). All 

that is needed is augmentation and extension of their camera trapping survey across the country. 

Kittle & Watson (in press) have also provided valuable sightings for two of the three species and if 

their leopard work is supported, then these incidental data will continue. 

Ratnayeke et al.’s ongoing study of carnivore density/ habitat use in Wasgomuwa and Yala should 

yield results that are extremely beneficial to our understanding of these species. 

It is essential however, that these three important studies are supported and expanded to obtain island 

wide distribution data. 

• Assessing habitat use: 

Across its distribution, the Fishing cat has been identified at a habitat specialist associated with riparian 

or wetland habitats, whereas the Jungle cat is known to be a generalist (Seidensticker & Lumpkin, 

2004; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). The distribution map of the Rusty spotted cat in Sri Lanka obtained 

from incidental reports shows that it is found in the dry, wet and arid zones, and in different habitats 

(Figure 6). Does this mean that the Rusty spotted cat is a generalist in habitat use? Why then is it so 

restricted in its geographic range and considered a rare species? 

We need to identify which of these species is sympatric with each other and for this, we need clear 

locational data and GPS positions plotted on habitat overlay maps to identify specific habitat uses of 

each of these species. With these locational data, microhabitat variables such as, inter alia: altitude; 

slope; visibility; percentage cover; weather conditions; number of trees0 to 7 cm dbh; number of trees 

> 7cm dbh; surface area covered by fallen logs and trees; surface area covered by rocks, presence/ 

absence of a known water source; percentage ground cover are needed for comparison among 

species. 

248


• Examining scats of the three different species: 

In order to better understand the ecology of these species, it is imperative that their food habits are 

studied thoroughly. We need to know what their preferred prey species are, as well as to identify 

whether and how they switch prey in lean times. 

We need to understand the feeding habits of Rusty spotted cats. A female at a mere 1.1kg, is possibly 

as small as it can get, given constraints imposed by pregnancy and lactation. Yet, reportedly it has an 

insatiable appetite in captivity (Seidensticker & Lumpkin, 2004) . In the wild, this would mean that it 

has to feed very often, several times a day. In competition with other species, what are they eating, 

particularly in the arid and dry zones, where food is scarce during the drought period? 

• Identifying potential competitors: 

Once habitat use and dietary needs are identified and locational data are obtained, it will be possible 

to assess which species are sympatric with each other. The approximate distribution maps of Jungle 

cats and Fishing cats (Figure 3 & 4) reveal sightings in similar locations. Whether they are indeed 

sympatric or whether there are specific habitat differences that are not reflected in the map, needs 

further study. 

It is also important to identify other carnivore competitors as well as their dietary requirements. 

Balagalle et al.’s camera traps revealed the Ruddy mongoose (Herpestes smithii), the Brown 

mongoose (Herpestes fuscus), the Striped–necked mongoose (Herpestes vitticolis), the Otter (Lutra 

lutra) and the Ring-tailed civet (Viverricula indica), as well as the Golden jackal (Canis aureus) along 

with Fishing cat photographs in Wasgomuwa and Dambulla. 

There are also other potential competitors like raptors and snakes, which must not be overlooked. 

It is particularly important that the four mongoose species are studied, as based on their body sizes, 

they may be the closest in size as potential competitors of the Rusty spotted cat. 

The role of jackals as competitors also needs investigation. 

Many scientists have presented empirical evidence of increased densities of smaller carnivores 

(meso-carnivore release) as a consequence of the absence of the top carnivore in a habitat. The 

eminent mammalogist John Eisenberg believed that leopards preyed on Jungle cats and that accounted 

for their scarcity in Sri Lankan forests (Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002). The absence of leopards and the 

presence of Fishing cats in the suburbs of Colombo is extremely interesting. This presence/absence 

will be studied further by Balagalle et a.l. (Seidensticker, 2004). 

Ratnayeke’s results of carnivore habitat use and densities will come in extremely useful to identify 

sympatric species. 

• Assessing specific threats to survival: 

Reclamation of wetlands is often cited as the main threat to Fishing cats worldwide (Sunquist & 

Sunquist, 2002; Wikramanyake et al., 2003) Yet, initial reports place this species within the heart of 

towns and cities. Does this mean that what it needs is water and adequate prey, not necessarily 

wetlands, and that man-made canals and tanks would suffice? For this, Balagalle et al.’s, telemetric 

study will be invaluable. 

Identifying where human conflict is highest, where direct and accidental snares and poaching is 

highest, where road kills are significant is also essential. 

• Assessing genetic threats to the Rusty spotted cat: 

Kittle & Watson report on cross mating between a domestic cat and a Rusty spotted cat needs 

investigation. Given its phylogenetic uniqueness (it does not really fit into any cat lineage and is a 

very old species) the extent and character of genetic diversity in the Rusty spotted cat need 

examination. 

249


Conclusions 

We need to ensure that the road map for the conservation of Sri Lankan wild cats is not only based on 

good science, but is results-driven, not activity-driven. We need a goal and a vision for the conservation of 

these cats that we should all work towards, using a holistic approach that includes all stakeholders. 

We, as a nation, take responsibility and act to conserve our top carnivore, so that we can minimise risk to 

this species in the face of pressure from human activities. We cannot fall back on global monitors to do so. 

We need also to guarantee that action is taken now. Back in 1982, Santipillai made several 

recommendations for the conservation of leopards inter alia of setting up buffer zones to avoid conflict and 

Jayewardene (2002a) makes an impassioned plea for the conservation of leopards. But there has been no 

national strategy so far. 

Seidensticker & Lumpkin (2004) state concisely the importance of understanding how species are 

distributed in space, estimating their abundance and discerning what their inter connections are: 

‘Conservation biologist Michael Soulé pointed out “…diversity and rarity are synonyms for “everything” in 

ecology.” If ecologists can explain and predict patterns of diversity and rarity in landscapes or regions, they 

understand one of the most fundamental issues in biology.’ 

It is only when we know the true distribution of the wild cats of Sri Lanka, when we truly understand their 

biology and ecology and recognise specific threats to each species, that we can begin to formulate 

meaningful strategies for their conservation. 

Acknowledgements: 

The author is grateful to Andrew Kittle, Shyamala Ratnayeke, Anjali Watson, and Eric Wikramanayake for 

generously providing unpublished data; to Eric Wikramanayake for the initial digitised map of forest cover 

in Sri Lanka; to Gehan de S. Wijeyeratne for supplying a photograph of a leopard and to Janaki Galappatti 

for proof-reading the manuscript. 


Amerasinge, F. P. Ekanayake, U. B. & Burge, R.D.A. (1990) Food habits of the leopard (Panthera 

pardus fusca) in Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci) 21 (1) 17-24. 

Amerasinge, F. P. & Ekanayake, U. B. (1992) Prey hair remains in leopard faeces at Ruhuna National 

Park. Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci) 22 (1) 14-15. 

Bajoria, J (2003). Leopards spread fear in Bombay URL: http://www.bbc.com/south asia. Dec 23 

Bertram, B. C. R. (1979). Serengeti predators and their social systems, pp 221-248 in Serengeti: dynamics 

of an ecosystem. Sinclair, A. R. E ad Norton Griffiths, M. eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. & Amarasinghe, S. (2001) Wild cats in Sri Lanka. Cat News 35: 18-19. 

Balagalle, S. Wikramanayake, E., Padmalal, U. K. G. K. & Seidensticker, J. Meso-caernivores as urban 

conservation flagships: the role of fishing cats in Sri Lanka’s cities. Unpublished manuscript. 

Bossuyt, F., Meegaskumbura, M, Beenaerts, N., Gower, D. J , Pethiyagoda, R. Roelants, K., Mannaert, 

A., Wilkinson, M., Bahir, M. M., Manamendra-Arachchi, K., Ng, P. K. L., Schneider, C. J., Oommen, 

V. O., Milinkovitch, M, C. (2004) Local Endemism Within the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka Biodiversity 

Hotspot Science, 306 (5695): 479-481 

Bothma J. DuP. & Riche, E. A. N. (1986). Prey preferences and hunting efficiency of the Kalahari Desert 

leopard, pp 389-414 in Cats of the World: Biology, Conservation and Management. S. D. Miller 

and D. D. Everett, eds. Washington: National Wildlife Federation. 

250


Brekenridge, Ranjan. Emeritus professor, University of Peradeniya. 

Cat specialist group, Species Survival Commission, IUCN (2003) http://lynx.uio.no/catfolk/planning/ 

planmain.htm 

CITES (2003). http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html 

Clark, T. W., Curlee, A. P., Minta, S. C., & Kareiva, P. M. (1999). Carnivores in ecosystems: the 

Yellowstone Experience. New Haven: Yale University Press. 

De Alwis, w. L. E. (1973) Status of Southeast Asia’s small cats. Pp 198-208 in The World’s Cats Volume 

1. ed. R. L. Eaton, Winston Oregon: World Wildlife Safari. 

De Silva, M. & Jayaratne, B.V.R. (1994). Aspects of population ecology of the leopard (Panthera pardus) 

in Ruhuna National Park, Sri Lanka. J.South Asian nat. Hist. 1(1), 3-13. 

de S. Wijeratne (2004) Leopards of Yala. A selection of articles and images. Compiled & edited by Gehan 

de Silva Wijeyeratne with contributions from various authors. Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Yala Safari 

Game Lodge under the Jetwing Research Initiative. 

Eisenberg, J. F., & Lockhart, M. (1972) An ecological reconnaissance of Wilpattu National Park, Ceylon. 

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 101. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Emmons, L. (1991) Body size and feeding tactics Pp 62 in Great Cats, eds, J, Seidensticker and S. 

Lumpkin. Emmaus, PA: Rodale press. 

Felidtag, (2003). http://www.felidtag.org/pages/Educational%5CfactSheets%5Cfishin_cat.htm 

The Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, amendment (1992). The Gazette of the Democratic Republic 

of Sri Lanka. Colombo: Department of Government Printing. 

Galappatti, Ranjit. Consultant Director, Lanka Hydraulics Limited, Moratuwa . 

Hamilton, P. H. (1986). Status of the leopard in Kenya, with reference to sub-Saharan Africa. Pp 447-458 

in Cats of the World: Biology , Conservation and Management. S. D. Miller and D. D. Everett, eds. 

Washington: National Wildlife Federation. 

Hoppe-Dominik, B. (1984). Etude du spectre des proies de la panthere, Panthera pardus, dans le Parc 

National de Tai en Cote d’Ivoire. Mammalia 48: 477-487. 

Illany, G. (1986). Preliminary observation in the ecology of the leopard (Panthera pardus jarvisi) in the 

Judean desert, pp 199 Cats of the World: Biology , Conservation and Management. S. D. Miller 

and D. D. Everett, eds. Washington: National Wildlife Federation. 

IUCN/WCMC/FAO (1997). Designing an optimum protected areas system for Sri Lanka’s natural forest. 

Volume 2. Unpublished document. 

IUCN, Sri Lanka (2000). The 1999 list of threatened fauna and flora of Sri Lanka. Colombo: IUCN, Sri Lanka. 

Jansen, M. & N. de Zoysa 1992 . Sri Lanka’s biodiversity: a vanishing resource. Tiger Paper 19:(4):18- 24. 

Jacob, K. (1949). Land connections between Ceylon and peninsular India. Proceedings of the National 

Institute of Sciences of India. 15:341-343. 

Jayewardene, R. (2002a) A short history of the leopards of Sri Lanka Pp 42-47 in For the leopard. A 

tribute to the Sri Lankan leopard. Jayewardene, R., Kumara, J., Miththapala, S., Perera, H., 

Samarasingha, R., Santiapillai, C., and J. Seidensticker. Colombo: Harith Perera Trust. 

Jayewardene, R. (2002b) Epilogue. Pp 180-183 in For the leopard. A tribute to the Sri Lankan leopard. 

Jayewardene, R., Kumara, J., Miththapala, S., Perera, H., Samarasingha, R., Santiapillai, C., and J. 

Seidensticker. Colombo: Harith Perera Trust. 

Johnsingh, A. J. T. (1983) Large mammalian prey-predatory relationships in Bandhipur. Journal of 

Bombay Natural History Society. 2 (3): 245-247. 

251


Johnson, W. E. & S. J. O’Brien (1997). Phylogenetic reconstruction of the Felidae using 16S rRNA and 

NADH-5 mitochondrial genes. Journal of Molecular Evolution 44(supplement):S98-S116. 

Johnson, W. E. & S. J. O’Brien (2005). Big cat genomics. Annual Review of Genomics and Human 

Genetics 6:4-7-429. 

Karanth, K. U. (1993) Predator-prey relationships among large mammals in Nagarahole National Park, 

India. Mangalore University, PhD Dissertation. 

Karanth, K. U., & Sunquist, M. (1995). Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical forests. 

Journal of Animal Ecology 64:439-450. 

Karanth, K. U. & Stith, B. M. (1999) Prey depletion as a critical determinant of tiger population viability. 

Pp 100-111 in Riding the tiger: Tiger Conservation in human-dminated landscapes. Eds. J. 

Seidensticker, S. Christie and P. Jackson. Camrbidge England: Cambridge University Press. 

Karanth, K. U., & Sunquist, M. (2000) Behavioural correlates of predation by tiger (Panthera tigris), 

leopard (Panthera pardus) and dhole (Cuon alpinus) in Nagarahole, India. Journal of Zoology, 

London. 250:255-265. 

Kerley, L. L., Goodrich , J. M., Miquelle, D. G., Smirnov, E. N., Quigley, H. B., Hornocker, M. G. (2002) 

Effects Of Roads And Human Disturbance On Amur Tigers. Conservation Biology 16 ( 1) 97. 

Kitchener, A. (1991). The Natural History of Wild Cats New York: Comstock Publishing Associates. 

Kittle, A. M. & Watson A. (2002). Leopard poaching in Sri Lanka. Loris 23(1& 2):42-49. 

Kittle, A. M, & Watson A. (2002) Home range, demography and behaviour of an arid zone population of 

Sri Lankan Leopard (Panthera pardus (kotiya). Final Report to the Ministry of Environment and 

Natural Resources, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka. 

Kittle. A. M., and Watson, A. (in press) A short report of The Leopard Projects’ research in Ruhuna (Yala) 

National Park, Block 1, Sri Lanka. Loris. 

Kittle, A. & A. Watson (in press) Observation of an arid zone population of Rusty spotted cat 

(Prionailurus rubiginosa phillipsi) in Sri Lanka. Cat news. 

Kumara, J. (2001) Island leopards. BBC Wildlife 19(12) 44-53. 

Kumara, J. & Samarasingha, R. (2002) Observations of leopards in Yala. Pp; 72.84 in For the leopard. A 

tribute to the Sri Lankan leopard. Jayewardene, R., Kumara, J., Miththapala, S., Perera, H., 

Samarasingha, R., Santiapillai, C., and J. Seidensticker. Colombo: Harith Perera Trust. 

Maehr, D. S. (1997) The Florida panther. Washington DC: Island Press. 

Miquelle, D. G., Smirnov, E. N., Merrill, T. W., Myslenkov, A. E., Quigley, H. B., Hornocker, M. G., and 

Schleyer, B. (1999). Hierarchical spatial analysis of Amur tiger relationships to habitat and prey. Pp 

71-99 in Riding the tiger: Tiger Conservation in human-dominated landscapes. Eds. J. Seidensticker, 

S. Christie and P. Jackson. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press. 

Miththapala, S. (1992). Genetic and morphological variation in the leopard (Panthera pardus): a 

geographically widespread species. PhD dissertation, University of Florida. 

Miththapala, S., Seidensticker, J., Phillips, L. G., Fernando, S, B. U., and Smallwood, J. A. (1989) 

Identification of individual leopards (Panthera pardus kotiya) using spot pattern variation. Journal 

of Zoology, London 218:527-536. 

Miththapala, S. Seidensticker, J., and O’Brien, S. J. (1996). Phylogeographic subspecies recognition in 

leopards (Panthera pardus): Molecular genetic variation. Conservation Biology: 10:1115-1132. 

Muckenhirn, N. A. & Eisenberg, J. F. (1973). Home ranges and predation in the Ceylon leopard. Pp 142- 

175 in The World’s Cats Volume 1:Ecology and Conservation. Ed. R. Eaton, Portland, Oregon: 

Metropolitan Printing Press. 

252


Nekaris, K. A. I. (2003) Distribution and behaviour of three small wild cats in Sri Lanka Cat News 38:30-32. 

Neff, N. (1981) The big cats: paintings of Guy Coheleach. New York:Harry Adams. 

Norton, P. M. & Henley, S. R. (1987) Home range and movements of male leopards in the Cedarberg 

Wilderness Area, Cape Province. South African Journal of Wildlife 17, (2): 41-48. 

Nowell, K. & P. Jackson (1996) Wild cats. Status survey and conservation Action Plan. Gland 

Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Cat specialist group, IUCN. 

O’Brien, S. J., Roelke, M. E., Yuhki, N., Richards, K. W., Johnson. W. E., Franklin, W. L., Anderson, A. 

E., Bass, O. L., Belden, R. C. & J. S. Martenson (1990). Genetic introgression within the Florida 

panther (Felis concolor corii) National Geographic Research 6(4):485-494. 

Pabla, H. S. & Mathur, V. B. (2001), Planning for conservation of biodiversity: lessons learnt from Sri 

Lanka. Loris: 22(5) 30-36. 

Palomares, F. & Caro, T. M. (1999). Interspecific killing among mammalian carnivores. American 

Naturalist. 153: 492-508. 

Pennycuik, C. J., & Rudnai, J. (1970) A method of identifying individual lions Panthera leo, with an analysis 

of the reliability of identification. Journal of Zoology, London 160:497-508. 

Phillips, W. W. A (1984) Manual of the mammals of Sri Lanka 2nd edition. Colombo: Wildlife Nature 

Protection Society. 

Ranawana, K.B., Bambaradeniya, C.N.B., Bogahawatte, T.D. & Amerasinge, F. P. (1998) A preliminary 

survey of the food habits of the Sri Lanka leopard (Panthera pardus fusca) in three montane wet 

zone forests of Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio. Sci) 25, 65-69. 

Ratnayeke, Shyamala. Assistant Professor, University of Tennessee. 

Samarasinha, R. (2002) Visual identification of leopards. Loris (23) 1 & 2: 5-13. 

Santiapillai, C. (2002) The leopard. Pp 18-31 in For the leopard. A tribute to the Sri Lankan leopard. 

Jayewardene, R., Kumara, J., Miththapala, S., Perera, H., Samarasingha, R., Santiapillai, C., and J. 

Seidensticker. Colombo: Harith Perera Trust. 

Santiapillai, C., Chambers, M. R. and Ishawaran, N. (1982). The leopard Panthera pardus fusca in the 

Ruhuna National Park, Sri Lanka, and observations relevant to its conservation. Biological 


Schaller, G. B. , Hu Jinchu, Pan Wensi, and Zhu Jin (1985). The giant pandas of Wolong. 

Chicago:University of Chicago Press. 

Seidensticker, J. (2002) Tigers: top carnivores and controlling forces in Asian forests. Pp 56-59 in Terrestrial 

Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific- a conservation assessment. Eds. E. Wikramanayake, E. Dinerstein, 

C. J. Loucks, D. M. Olson, J. Morrison, J. Lamoreux, M. McKnight and P. Hedao. Washington DC 

:Island Press. 

Seidensticker, J. (1986). Large carnivores and the consequence of habitat insularization: Ecology and 

conservation of tigers in Indonesia and Bangladesh. Pp 1-80 in Cats of the World: Biology, 

Conservation and Management. Eds.S. D. Miller and D. D. Everett. Washington: National Wildlife 

Federation. 

Seidensticker, J. (2004) http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/SpotlightOnScience/ 

seidenstickerj20030526.cfm 

Seidensticker, J, & S. Lumpkin. (1991). Great Cats: majestic creatures of the wild. Pennsylvania: Rodale Press. 

Seidensticker, J, & S. Lumpkin. (2004). Cats in Question: The Smithsonian Answer Book. Washington DC: 

Smithsonian Books. 

253


Seidensticker, J., Sunquist, M. E., McDougal C. (1990). Leopards living at the edge of Royal Chitwan 

National Park. Pp 415-423 in Conservation in Developing Countries: Problems and Prospects (eds. J. 

C. Daniel and J. S. Serrao). Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay. 

Soulé M. E. & Terborgh, J. (1999). Continental conservation. Scientific foundations of regional reserve 

networks. Washington DC: Island Press. 

Sunquist M. E. & F. C. Sunquist (2002) Wild cats of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago press. 

Uphyrkina, O., Johnson, W. E., Quigley, H., Miquelle, D. Marker. L., Bush, M. and. O’Brien. S. J. (2001) 

Phylogenetics, genome diversity and origin of modern leopard, Panthera pardus, Molecular Ecology 

10:2617-2633. 

Van Valkenburg, B. and Ruff, C. B. (1987) Canine tooth strength and killing behaviour in large carnivores. 

Journal of Zoology, London 212: 379-397. 

Wignaraja, S., Santiapillai, C. & Simms, C. (1978) A preliminary report on the ecology of the spotted deer 

Axis axis ceylonensis (Fischer, 1829) at the Ruhuna National Park, Yala. In Joint Aberdeen and 

Colombo Universities Expedition in Sri Lanka 1978, 172-193. 

Wijesinghe, L. (2000) Forest resources. Pp 153-165 in Natural Resources of Sri Lanka 2000. Ed K. D. 

Arudpragasam. Colombo: National Science Foundation. 

Wijesinghe, L. C. A. de S., Gunatilleke, I. A. U. N., Jayawardene, S. D. J., Kotagama, S. W., & C. V. S. 

Gunatilleke (1993). Biological conservation in Sri Lanka: A national status report. Colombo: IUCN, Sri 

Lanka 

Wikramanayake, E. D., Dinerstein, E., Robinson, G., Karanth, K. U., Rabinowitz, A. R., Olson, D., 

Matthew, T., Hedao, P., Connor, M., Hemley, G., and Bolze, D. (1998). An ecology-based method of 

defining priorities for large mammal conservation: the tiger as a case study. Conservation Biology 

12:865-878 

Wikramanayake, E. D. Senior Conservation Scientist. World Wildlife Fund. 

Wikramanayake, E. D, Balagalle, S., Padmalal, U. K. G. K., & Seidensticker, J (2002). http://natzoo.si.edu/ 

ConservtionAndScience/TropicalEcosystems/Ca…/researchproposal.cf 

254


Figure 1: Leopard, Panthera pardus kotiya 

Photograph by: Gehan de Silva Wijeratne© 

Figure 2: Rusty Spotted Cat, Prionailurus 

rubiginosa 

Photograph by: John Seidensticker 

Figure 3: Jungle cat, Felis chaus 

Photograph by: Jayewardene et al, 2002 (source) 

Figure 4: Fishing cat, Prionailurus viverrinus 

Photograph by: Rod Williams/Howletts and Port 

Lympne Zoo Parks, Kent. Kitchener, 1991 

(source). 

255


Distribution maps of the four wildcat species in Sri Lanka 

Figure 5: Inferred and actual present 

distribution of the leopard in Sri Lanka 

(Map is only approximate) © Miththapala, 2004 

Figure 6: Approximate distribution of 

Jungle cat in Sri Lanka. 


fishing cat in Sri Lanka. 


Rusty spotted cat in Sri Lanka. 

256

Linckia laevigata 

Saman Liyanage 

Dasyatis kuhlii 

Nishan Perera 

Section 3: 

Status of Marine 


Chromodesmus sp. 

Nishan Perera 

Culcita schmideliana 


Stenella longirostris 

Anouk Ilangakoon 

257

258

Abstract 

Coral Associated Invertebrates: 

An Overview of the Current Taxonomic Status 


Sri Lanka Sub-Aqua Club 

This paper provides a detailed description of six groups of coral associated invertebrates; Ascidians, 

Sponges, Sea Anemones, Polychaete worms, jellyfish and Echinoderms. There has been a steady 

increase in interest in these invertebrates, as there is a realization that further to their intrinsic value 

as reef constituents, these species have tremendous commercial value. Lack of research in to this 

group of marine fauna has resulted in a deficit of information with regards to the taxonomy, biology 

and distribution of many groups. The author identifies the underlying causes for the lack of research 

conducted, and provides methods of overcoming the obstacles associated with research. It is 

imperative that information be gathered which will enable the compilation of a definitive checklist 

and identification guide, to ensure the conservation of these species. 

Key words: Marine invertebrates, Coral, Conservation 

Introduction 



Many invertebrates, together with algae, are associated with hard and soft corals, and reef fish to constitute 

a healthy reef. A healthy coral reef is one that is in equilibrium, with a high diversity of hard corals and 

fish and associated invertebrates. These latter animals perform numerous functions in maintaining reef 

health: browsing animals (like some sea urchins and starfish) prevent overgrowth by algae; many 

invertebrates are preyed upon by fish and other invertebrates; filter feeders help in improving water clarity 

by filtering plankton and increasing light falling on corals etc. 

Apart from their intrinsic value as reef constituents some have commercial value - principally for the 

aquarium industry; a fishery for consumption exists only for Holothuria (sea cucumbers) and lobsters. 

There is a risk of over-exploitation as extraction is un-regulated. A few organisms are protected under the 

Fauna & Flora Protection Ordinance (Cap 469) as amended by Acts nos. 44 of 1964, 1 of 1970 and 49 of 

1993 (FFPO). The protected organisms are listed in Schedule IVA [§ 72, 49 of 1993]: List of Invertebrates 

that are Protected. 

Many filter-feeding invertebrates (such as ascidians, sponges and polychaete worms) often respond to 

organic pollution by multiplying and may threaten other organisms, especially corals; these animals can be 

used as indicators of pollution. Others, such as Corallimorpharian anemones, have shown growth 

suggesting that they may be invasive and impact adversely on coral (Christoffelsz et al, 2000). One 

species, the Crown-of thorns starfish, preys on hard corals and is a pest on coral reefs. 

The aesthetic value of invertebrates becomes increasingly important as recreational diving gains in 

popularity – both among Sri Lankans and tourists. Colourful reefs with a variety of life attract visitors and 

are potential money-spinners; beach communities are among the beneficiaries. If visitors understand what 

they see, the value of the experience is enhanced, therefore the taxonomy of reef constituents becomes 

important. 

Very little information is available about the taxonomy, biology and distribution of many groups of marine 

invertebrates occurring in the coastal waters of Sri Lanka. Most information that is available is from papers 

published in the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries. Very little work has been done recently; and very 

259


few scientists are currently engaged in research on them. Many of those engaged in identifying marine 

invertebrates and observing them underwater are non-scientist divers. 

The aquarium trade has been responsible for showcasing many diverse marine animals (such as a number 

of nudibranchs and starfish) that would otherwise have remained unrecognised members of Sri Lanka’s 

marine biodiversity. The identities of many of them have also been established, as they enter the 

international trade lists. A number are recognisable from colour illustrations in guides – but there is a danger 

in relying on guides, especially those prepared from photographs taken in other areas; the species present 

locally may be different, though superficially similar to an illustration. Identification should be based on 

recognised anatomical criteria. 

Some of the literature available relates to the “Indian Ocean”, the coast of India or the “Ceylon Area” that 

encompasses the adjacent coast of India, the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Bay. It is necessary that the 

fauna of the Sri Lanka coastal waters is studied to establish its biodiversity rather than relying on old 

reports from a much wider area or assuming similarity with the coast of a neighbouring country. In the 

three appendices to this paper are lists that have been published by early workers that are reproduced 

without comment; and wherever any identification of recent material has been done, these are indicated. 

Reference is made in the appropriate sections about available literature: these are listed in the Select 

Bibliography. 

Much of the early-published work had been done in connection with the Pearl Fishery in the early part of 

the 20 th century. Collections were made principally using dredges and trawls. Recent collections are by 

divers who generally pick exposed material. Numbers of burrowing forms is therefore likely to be much 

less than from dredge samples. There is a rich variety of material available in the tanks of ornamental fish 

exporters and collectors. This resource is available for the non-diver who wishes to engage in the 

taxonomic study of marine invertebrates. A major drawback is the poor and often unreliable data on locality 

and habitat. But it does make specimens from a wide area available. 

The following groups are discussed in this paper as the author has some familiarity with them: Ascidians, 

Sponges, Sea Anemones, Polychaete worms, Jellyfish and Echinoderms. A number of other groups of 

invertebrates are dealt with by other authors – e.g. molluscs and crustaceans. Readers are referred to the 

Report on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries by W. A. Herdman (1903) and the numerous Supplementary Reports 

upon the Marine Biology of Ceylon by other naturalists that contain descriptions and species lists of many 

invertebrates that are not discussed here. 

Phylum Chordata, Class Ascidiacea - Sea squirts 

Ascidians are placed in the Phylum Chordata (that includes all the vertebrates) on account of the presence 

of a notochord in the larva (the notochord is a rod of cells that develops into the spinal column in higher 

animals). No list of ascidians of the Sri Lanka coast is available. Ascidians are filter feeders that occur as 

solitary individuals or aggregated into colonies that form colourful mats on hard substrates. They respond 

to organic pollution by increased growth and at times may pose a threat to hard corals, by competition for 

food or by smothering. Laksiri Karunaratne and Prasanna Weerakkody reported some years ago that the 

corals at Rumassala were so threatened. They are not exploited. 

Phylum Porifera - Sponges 

There is no distribution list of sponges in Sri Lanka other than those listed by Herdman (1903) in Part III of 

his report. Sponges are filter feeders that occur in many forms of which the encrusting types are important 

from an ecological perspective as these animals too respond to organic pollution by increased growth and 

may threaten corals. Some sponges have been studied in this country for bioactive substances. At least 2 

species of unknown identity are collected for the aquarium trade (Wood, 1996.) 

260

Fernando: Coral Associated Invertebrates: An Overview of the Current Taxonomic Status 

Phylum Cnidaria, Order Actiniaria – Sea anemones 

Sea anemones are polypoid members of the Phylum Cnidaria. They are placed in the order Actiniaria 

(Class Anthozoa; Subclass Zoantharia or Hexacorallia) together with the stony corals (Madreporaria), 

zooanthids (Zooanthidea), black corals (Anthipatharia) and cerianthids (Ceriantharia or Cerianthidea). The 

other subclass (Alcyonaria or Octocorallia) contains the soft corals and sea fans. (Hyman, 1940) 

Many small sea anemones occur on rocky shores and shallow reefs that do not seem to have been studied 

in recent years. E. F. Kelaart (1819-1860) listed 22 species and paintings of many of them are in the UK 

(Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi, 1997; Appendix I). Large sea anemones that host anemone fish 

(Amphiprion spp.) are collected for the aquarium trade; many occur in association with corals on hard 

substrates and others on sandy bottoms. Elisabeth Wood (1996) listed them in her report on the marine 

ornamental fishery in Sri Lanka. These host anemones usually have the sexes separate. They probably 

liberate eggs and sperm for external fertilization. Their reproductive success appears to be low as small 

anemones are seen rarely. Some species may multiply by fission (Fautin & Allen, 1992.) Both small and 

large host anemones are collected and exported – mostly of the genus Stichodactyla. The collection and 

export of these species (particularly large Heteractis) should be considered for regulation, as they are likely 

to be vulnerable to over-collection. Data needs to be gathered. 

A colonial form of anemone with close affinity to corals (Order CORALLIMORPHARIA) has been recognized 

in recent years occurring on reefs. They grow in close-packed sheets and crowd around corals 

(Christoffelsz et al, 2000). The taxonomy is unknown. However, no conclusive evidence has been found to 

suggest that this is an invasive species that is a possible threat to corals. Surveillance should be maintained 

to detect invasive tendencies. Another colonial form that may cover dead coral is Palythoa spp. 

(ZOOANTHIDEA, ZOOANTHIDAE). It does not appear to be invasive (Prasanna Weerakkody, pers. comm.). 

Again, the taxonomy is unknown. 

One tube-dwelling genus occurring on sandy bottoms - Cerianthus spp. (CERIANTHARIA, CERIANTHIDAE) - 

is protected under the Fauna and Flora Protection (Amendment) Act, No. 49 of 1993, Schedule IVA. 

Several species occur in Sri Lanka; the taxonomy of the genus is poorly known (Wood & Rajasuriya, 

1996). (See Appendix I for a list of sea anemones and identification notes for the larger species.) 

Phylum Annelida, Class Polychaeta – Segmented worms 

The first extensive collection of polychaete worms from the coast of Sri Lanka was by Herdman in 1902 

and reported by Willey (Ceylon Pearl Oyster Fisheries, 1905, Supplementary Reports XXX). Three older 

reports of smaller collections were by Schmarda (1861), Grube (1874) and Michaelson (1892) (Willey, 

1905). Willey described 111 species of tube-dwelling and free-living polychaete worms collected from the 

Pearl Banks, Galle Bay, Panadura and Chilaw. Later, Pillai (1970, 1971) published two papers on 

collections of Spirobids and Serpulids from Sri Lanka. There has been no recent work on Sri Lanka 

species, as far as is known. 

Some species of tube-dwelling annelids have been collected for the aquarium trade but are now protected: 

schedule IVA to the FFPO lists the groups as Tube worms and Fan worms (families Serpulidae [calcareous 

tubes] & Sabellidae [mucous tubes] respectively). These annelids are filter feeders and respond to organic 

pollution by increased growth. 

Phylum Cnidaria, Classes Scyphozoa & Hydrozoa - Jellyfish 

Although medusae (Phylum Cnidaria or Coelenterata) are pelagic they generally have vegetative (polypoid 

or hydroid) generations that are attached reef dwellers. They are included in this paper as some of them 

are capable of stinging humans and some forms may have commercial value. The leatherback or leathery 

turtle Dermochelys coriacea (TESTUDINES, DERMOCHELYDAE) feeds on jellyfish. 

261


The earliest reports of the jellyfish of Sri Lanka were by Haeckel (1888) who described the Siphonophora 

(an order of the Class Hydrozoa or Hydromedusae) collected by him (Browne, 1905). In 1905 E.T. 

Browne reported on the jellyfish collected by Herdman in 1902 at the Pearl Banks and in Galle Bay. The 

list published by him is reproduced in Appendix II: many have not been identified to specific rank as the 

specimens were in poor condition. Most of the species listed are Hydromedusae, with a few in the Class 

Scyphozoa or Scyphomedusae and two ctenophores (comb jellies), now considered under the Phylum 

Ctenophora: they do not possess cnidocysts (nematocysts). (Hyman, 1940) These are included in the 

Appendix for completeness. 

We have been able to identify a number of species of Scyphomedusae collected since 1990 – mostly off 

the Colombo beaches. The study was commenced to identify the species responsible for stinging swimmers 

and divers. Specimens were collected on casual encounter during recreational diving and visual searching 

during the southwest monsoon when swarms of them are seen off Colombo. Beach specimens were also 

useful, at times. 

Four venomous species have been identified: Chrysaora quinquecirra (compass jellyfish), Cyanea purpurea 

(lion’s mane jellyfish), Chiropsalmus buitendijki (box jellyfish) and the siphonophore Physalia utriculus with 

a single stinging tentacle (Kramp, 1961; Menon, 1930 & 1932; Peter Fenner pers. comm.) These animals 

occasionally harm bathers and divers (Fernando, 1994 & 2001) but their stings usually cause only transient 

pain. Numerous small hydromedusae of unknown identity are sometimes troublesome for swimmers and 

divers by their irritating stings that, though mild, are repetitive. 

There has been a dramatic reduction of the jellyfish seen off Colombo following the el Niño ocean warming 

event of 1998. Recovery is slow. There is no commercial fishery for jellyfish in Sri Lanka, but this is a 

resource worth investigating. Large numbers are seen off the east coast seasonally but their identity is not 

known to the author. 

Phylum Echinodermata – Featherstars, Starfish, Brittlestars, Sea Urchins 

and Sea cucumbers 

The first publication on the echinoderms of the country was that by F. J. Bell in 1882 where he described 

19 species (excluding holothurians) from Galle. Subsequent workers added to the list. The holothurians 

were dealt with by J. Pearson in 1913 in his paper on the Holothurioidea of the Indian Ocean. Clark & 

Rowe relied on these many papers to write their Monograph of shallow-water Indo-west Pacific 

Echinoderms (1971). A checklist for the “Ceylon Area” has been summarised from this monograph; recent 

records are indicated, together with new records of species not listed by Clark & Rowe (Appendix III). 

The “Ceylon Area” includes Sri Lanka “and the opposing Indian shores of the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay 

including Tuticorin, Rameswaran and Mandapam.” The list relates to forms down to a depth of 20 metres. 

It would be ideal if the checklist were confined to forms occurring in Sri Lankan waters and expanded to 

include animals from deeper water, say to 40 m, a depth reached by divers collecting ornamental fish. 

A few workers have been identifying Sri Lankan echinoderms. Collections are now made by divers: either 

specifically for study or for the marine aquarium export trade or, in the case of holothurians, for beche-demer 

(trepang) manufacture. This contrasts with early collection methods that relied on dredging and trawling. 

Hand collection does not extend to burrowing forms, except tests of dead echinoids lying on the seabed 

and the occasional starfish. Beach seines and bottom-set nets are a good source of sand dwelling asteroids. 

Class Crinoidea (Feather stars) Twenty-six species in 7 families are listed in the checklist with 4 doubtful 

records. There is no current taxonomic work. A few species are collected for the aquarium trade, usually 

in small numbers. An attempt should be made to identify even these. 

Class Asteroidea (Starfish) Forty-six species in 11 families are listed in the checklist with 3 doubtful 

records. We have been identifying asteroids using the key in Clark & Rowe. Specimens have been either 

262


collected personally by diving or from net spoil or else obtained from the tanks of an aquarium fish exporter. 

Twenty-two species have been identified, including 5 new records that include 1 new family. One species 

from water deeper than 20 m has not been identified even to family level; it belongs to a family not included 

in the identification key in the monograph; this has not been taken into account. A species of Pentaceraster 

seen in a display aquarium has also not been counted as no reliable evidence of collection in Sri Lanka 

waters has been obtained. Ten species are exported. With the opening of the northern areas of the country 

to free travel, large numbers of starfish not seen previously have been entering the market. Some of these 

are juveniles and therefore have not been identified to species level. One starfish, Acanthaster planci 

(crown-of-thorns starfish) preys on hard corals and is a pest. Conservation of coral reefs may require 

destruction of these animals at times when their populations increase. 

Class Ophiuroidea (Brittlestars) Forty species in 10 families are listed in the checklist with 1 doubtful 

record. Weerakkody (1998) has surveyed 7 shallow reefs between Akurala and Devundara and has 

recorded 13 species, including 6 new records. He reports that Ophiocoma erinaceus is collected for the 

aquarium trade. 

Class Echinoidea (Sea urchins) Forty-nine species in 17 families are listed in the checklist with 1 doubtful 

record. The author has recorded 15 regular echinoids (with radial symmetry) of which 1 is a new record; 8 

are collected for the aquarium trade. Nine irregular echinoids (with bilateral symmetry) have been 

recorded, 8 from dead tests only; 3 are new records. Seven depressed echinoids (sand dollars) have been 

recorded, 5 from dead tests only. One of these (Echinodiscus bisperforatus) is used at Kirinda by a 

dealer in shell-craft to fashion tails of peacocks. They are collected live from the sandy seabed in waistdeep 

water. 

One regular sea urchin (Heterocentrotus mammillatus - Slate pencil urchin) is protected. It is listed in the 

Schedule as “mammiliatus”. There is a doubtful second species present: some were collected for export, 

detained by the Customs and identified as “not definitely H. mammillatus”, leading to their release. 

Some echinoids are ecologically important: members of the family Diadematidae and Echinometra mathei. 

These algal browsers prevent overgrowth of green algae and allow coral recruitment to take place. 

Population explosions of them (for example by over extraction of fish that prey on them), on the other 

hand, have the opposite effect as newly recruited corals may be killed by the browsing sea urchins. Culling 

of these sea urchins has been resorted to in Kenya as a management option in the rehabilitation of reefs 

(Talbot & Wilkinson, 2001). E. mathei is exported from Sri Lanka; over collection could have deleterious 

effects on reefs. The sand dwelling urchin Tripneustes gratilla is harvested in some South East Asian 

countries for their edible gonads. They are not consumed in Sri Lanka. 

Class Holothurioidea (Sea cucumbers) Fifty-two species in 8 families are listed in the checklist. These 

animals have been fished commercially since historical times from shallow water by wading, breath-hold 

divers or by spearing. They are cured to produce the product known as beche-de-mer or trepang for 

export to the far east. Adithiya (1967) gives an interesting account of the traditional curing process at that 

time. In recent years, collectors of ornamental fish have branched out into collecting holothurians from 

deeper water using diving gear. They are a high value product and collection has been intense. In one 

recently discovered area (1995) off Kalmunai intensive fishing by large numbers of divers resulted in the 

area being fished out within three years causing the fishery to collapse and the promoters (investors) to 

suffer financially (Rajasuriya, 1999). Activity has now moved to Kalpitiya where diving is going on by night 

– when the animals are active and move into the open to feed. 

Unrestricted intensive collection is likely to lead to depletion of this area too – a Protected Area. Reports 

suggest that once a holothurian bed is fished out, recovery to a state where a commercial fishery is viable 

is of the order of 50 years (Bruckner et al, 2003). There is a danger that the absence of the bottom feeding 

holothurians, with their ability to process the surface layers of sand containing detritus, could lead to 

changes in seabed character that may preclude its re-colonisation. 

263


Identification of commercially fished holothurians is being performed by the National Aquatic Resources 

Research and Development Agency (NARA). To date 16 species have been identified (DCT Dissanayake 

pers. comm.). An identification key (Conand, 1998) published by the Food and Agriculture Organisation is 

being used in this project. As a welcome step in the right direction, the Department of Fisheries has initiated 

action to regulate the holothurian fishery to ensure its sustainability. 

One species (Holothuria edulis) is collected for the aquarium trade. One species (Pseudocolochirus sp. 

Royal sea cucumber) is protected. It is listed in the schedule simply as “Royal sea cucumber” without a 

scientific name. 

Conclusion 

The ornamental marine aquarium fish industry, that includes invertebrates, is thriving. It is largely 

unregulated, but collection of certain species is prohibited by law, usually on the assumption that they are 

rare and therefore susceptible to over-exploitation. The fishery for holothurians is poorly regulated and little 

information is available about the species make-up of the catch. There is little information about the 

biodiversity of much of the coastal waters around the Island, making assessment and subsequent 

monitoring of sites identified for development very difficult. 

Not only is there paucity of information about the taxa present, there is a dearth of skilled scientists able to 

generate the information and to provide scientific data that would justify management options such as 

establishing catch restrictions or banning collection. Compounding the lack of personnel is the lack of 

appropriate taxonomic literature within the country. 

Much work needs to be done in compiling definitive checklists and identification guides of the marine 

invertebrates. Without such material, managing marine ecosystems becomes difficult. With increasing 

pressures on reefs and other marine ecosystems by ornamental species collectors, commercial fin fisheries 

using destructive methods (e.g. bottom set nets, trawls and sadly blast fishing) that destroy the habitat the 

need for effective regulation is becoming more and more important. 

Marine biologists should ideally be competent divers and make their own observations and collect their own 

material. Facilities for gaining such competence are readily available in Sri Lanka. But until an ideal state is 

reached, reliance could be placed on diving enthusiasts to enable specimen collection; the aquarium export 

traders are also good suppliers of material. Volunteers from the Sri Lanka Sub-Aqua Club have been 

associated with the Coral Ecology Unit of NARA for many years, helping with reef monitoring. Members 

of this club with an interest in preserving the integrity and biodiversity of Sri Lanka’s marine ecosystems 

would be willing to assist marine biologists in search of specimens for taxonomic studies. 

Select Bibliography 

Adithiya, Lala (1967). Beche-de-mer – The Sea Slug. Loris 11(2): 87-90. 

Bell, F J (1882) Note on the Echinoderm Fauna of the Island of Ceylon, together with some observations 

on heteractinism. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 10: 218-225 

Browne, ET (1905). Report on the medusae collected by Prof. Herdman at Ceylon, in 1902. In WA 

Herdman, Report to the Government of Ceylon on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of 

Manaar, Pt. IV. Suppl. Reps. no. XXVII: 131-166, 4 pls. Royal Society, London. 

Bruckner, AW, KA Johnson & JD Field (2003). Conservation strategies for sea cucumbers: Can a CITES 

Appendix II listing promote sustained international trade? SPC Beche-de-mer Information Bulletin 

#18. Internet, PDF version. 

Chadwick, HC (1904). On the Crinoidea. In WA Herdman, Report to the Government of Ceylon on 

the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of Manaar, Suppl. Reps. No. XI: 151-158. 

264


Christoffelsz, Andrew, Malik Fernando & Arjan Rajasuriya (2000). Reef Check ’99. A new threat to the 

Pigeon Islands’ corals ? Sri Lanka Nature. Vol. 2, no. 4. 

Clark, AM & FWE Rowe (1971). Monograph of shallow-water Indo-west Pacific Echinoderms. 

British Museum (N.H.), London. 

Clark, HL (1915). The Echinoderms of Ceylon (other than Holothurians). Spolia Zeylanica 10(37): 83-102. 

Conand, C (1998). Holothurians. In Carpenter, K. & V. Niem. Eds.: FAO species identification guide. 

The marine resources of the Western Central Pacific, vol. 2 cephalopods, crustaceans, 

holothurians and sharks: 1157-1190. 

Fauna & Flora Protection Ordinance (Cap 469) as amended by Acts nos. 44 of 1964, 1 of 1970 and 49 of 

1993 (FFPO). Schedule IVA [§ 72, 49 of 1993]: List of Invertebrates that are Protected. Government 

of Sri Lanka. 

Fautin, Daphne G. & Gerald R Allen (1992). Anemone fishes and their host sea anemones. (Internet edition). 

Fernando, Malik (1994). First-aid for jellyfish stings (Letter). Ceylon Medical Journal 39: 58-60. 

————————— (2001). Hunting jellyfish. Ceylon Medical Journal 46: 139-140. 

Herdman, WA (1903). Report to the Government of Ceylon on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of 

Manaar. With Supplementary Reports upon the Marine Biology of Ceylon by other naturalists. Royal 

Society, London. 

Hyman, LH (1940). The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora. McGraw-Hill, New York. 

Kramp, PL (1961). Synopsis of the medusae of the world. J. mar. Biol. Assn. UK 40. 

Menon, MGK (1930). The Scyphomedusae of Madras and the neighbouring coast. Bull. Madras Govt. 

Museum N. H. 3(1): 1-28, 3 pls. 

———————— (1932). The Hydromedusae of Madras. Bull. Madras Govt. Museum N. H. 3(2): 

1-32, 3 pls. 

Pearson, J (1913). Notes on the Holothurioidea of the Indian Ocean. Spolia Zeylanica 9(34): 49-101, 10 pls. 

Pethiyagoda, Rohan & Kelum Manamendra-Arachchi (1997). The life and work of Edward Fredric 

Kelaart. J. South Asian nat. Hist. vol. 2 no. 2. 

Pillai, Gottfried (1970). Studies on a collection of Spirobids from Ceylon, together with a critical review 

and revision of Spirobid systematics, and an account of their phylogeny and zoogeography. Cey. J. 

Sci. (Bio. Sci.) 8(2): 100-172. 

———————— (1971). Studies on a collection of marine and brackish water Polychaete Annelids of 

the family Serpulidae from Ceylon. Cey. J. Sci. (Bio. Sci.) 9(2): 88-130. 

Rajasuriya, Arjan (1999). Report on the chank fishery in the Hambantota District. National Aquatic 

Resources Research and Development Agency. Internal Report. 

Talbot, Frank & Clive Wilkinson (2001). Coral reefs, mangroves and seagrasses: A sourcebook for 

managers. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville. 

Weerakkody, Prasanna (1998). Observations on some shallow-water Brittlestars (Ophiuroidea) from the 

south and south-western coasts; with notes on field identification of the observed species. Sri Lanka 

Naturalist II(3): 22-30. 

Willey, Arthur (1905). Report on the Polychaeta collected by Prof. Herdman at Ceylon, in 1902. In W. A. 

Herdman, Report to the Government of Ceylon on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of 

Manaar, Pt. IV. Suppl. Reps. no. XXX: 243-326, 8 pls. Royal Society, London. 

Wood, Elisabeth & Arjan Rajasuriya (1996). Handbook of protected marine species in Sri Lanka. 

Marine Conservation Society (UK) in association with National Aquatic Resources Agency (Colombo). 

Wood, Elisabeth (1996). The marine ornamental fishery in Sri Lanka: current status and management 

needs. Marine Conservation Society, UK. 

265


Appendix I: Sea anemones 

Class Anthozoa 

List of species from the notes and paintings of E. F. Kelaart (1819-1860) 

This list is compiled from Appendix I to The life and work of Edward Fredric Kelaart by Rohan 

Pethiyagoda & Kelum Manamendra-Arachchi (1997). J. South Asian nat. Hist. vol. 2 no. 2. 

ORDER: ACTINIARIA 

Actinia arachnida 

Actinia aurea 

Actinia austinii 

Actinia fluctuosa 

Actinia Indiana 

Actinia meleagrina 

Actinia passiflora 

Actinia pudica 

Actinia refulgens 

Actinia smaraqdana [smaragdana] 

Actinia tranchellana [tranchelli] 

Actinia vermicosa 

Actinia wardiana [wardii] 

Actinodendron argentea 

Actinodendron horologia 

Actinodendron viridis 

Actinodendron zeylanicus 

Capnea (?) blythiana 

Dioscosoma (Actinodiscus) zeylanica 

Dioscosoma ceylonica [zeylanica] 

Peacha gosseana [gossei] 

Zoanthura mamalifera 

List of species used in the aquarium trade. 

This list is based on Elisabeth Wood The marine ornamental fishery in Sri Lanka: current status and 

management needs (1996). Marine Conservation Society, UK. 

Taxonomy and identification after Fautin, Daphne G. & Gerald R Allen (1992). Anemone fishes and their 

host sea anemones. (Internet edition). 

Note: Most adult sea anemones are large – 25 cm to 1 metre in diameter according to the species. Only 

small specimens are usually collected for the aquarium trade. 

ORDER: ACTINIARIA 

FAMILY: ACTINIIDAE 

Entacmaea quadricolor (Rüppell & Leuckart, 1828) Bulb-tentacle sea anemone 1 

STICHODACTYLIDAE 

Heteractis aurora (Quoy & Gaimard, 1833) Beaded sea anemone 2 

H. crispa (Ehrenberg, 1834) Leathery sea anemone, long-tentacled sea anemone 3 

H. magnifica (Quoy & Gaimard, 1833) Magnificant sea anemone 4 

Stichodactyla haddoni (Saville-Kent, 1893) Haddon.s sea anemone 5 

1 

Tentacles with a bulb-like swelling at or just below the tip. The bulb with a white band around its middle. 

2 

Tentacles with a series of swellings on each giving them a beaded look. 

3 

Tentacles long (100 mm), sinuous, evenly tapered to a point, numerous. Column buried in sediment, oral disc lying at the surface 

or the pedal disc attached to branching coral. 

4 

Tentacles finger-like, hardly tapering, blunt or pointed tip, to 75 mm. Typically occupies fully exposed, prominent position on 

hard objects like a coral boulder. 

5 

Lives in sand with the oral disc spread over. Disc slightly to deeply folded, a central tentacle-free area 10-20 mm diameter 

surrounds mouth, usually of a colour contrasting with the disc. When disturbed withdraws rapidly below the sand. 

266


? S. gigantea (Forsskäl, 1775) 6 

? S. mertensii Brandt, 1835 Merton’s sea anemone 7 

Other sea anemones of interest or of ecological importance. 

ORDER: CERIANTHARIA 

FAMILY: CERIANTHIDAE 

Cerianthus spp. Sand anemone. 8 Protected. 

ORDER: CORALLIMORPHARIA 

FAMILY: DISCOMATIDAE? 

Undetermined species 9 

ORDER: ZOOANTHIDEA 

FAMILY: ZOOANTHIDAE 

Palythoa spp. 10 

6 

Deeply folded oral disc covered with short (10 mm) tentacles lies on the surface of sand, the pedal disc attached to a buried object. 

Much of the central oral area devoid of tentacles. In shallow water, often among corals. 

7 

Oral disc diameter may be very large (1 m), often oval in shape. The disc lies evenly spread over the hard substrates on which it 

lives; the small pedal disc often attached in a crevice into which the animal can withdraw (but not rapidly). 

8 

A sand-dwelling animal with very long tentacles that occupies a soft tube into which it can withdraw. The only protected sea 

anemone in Sri Lanka. 

9 

Brown anemones 5-6 cm diameter with numerous short tentacles arranged in concentric circles radiating outwards on the oral disc. 

Occur in colonies of hundreds of individual animals packed together forming extensive sheets, possibly impacting on coral. 

10 

Colonial animals compacted into sheets. Each small anemone-like polyp is buried in a common soft or leathery matrix. Can be 

mistaken for corals when open or for sponges when closed. Not thought to impact on corals. 

267


Appendix II: Medusae 

Classified list of the species described by Edward T. Browne 

This list is compiled from Report on the Medusae (Hydromedusae, Scyphomedusae, and Ctenophora) 

collected by Professor Herdman, at Ceylon, in 1902, by ET Browne. In WA Herdman, Report to the 

Government of Ceylon on the Pearl Oyster Fisheries of the Gulf of Manaar, Pt. IV. Suppl. Reps. no. 

XXVII: 131-166, 4 pls. Royal Society, London. 

HYDROMEDUSAE 

ANTHOMEDUSAE 

Dipurena sp? 

Proboscidactyla minima. n. sp. 

LEPTOMEDUSAE 

Laodice indica n. sp. 

Eutima curva n. sp. 

Irene ceylonensis n. sp. 

Octorchis orientalis n. sp. 

Aequorea conica n. sp. 

Mesonema pensile (Modeer) 

TRACHYMEDUSAE 

Gonionemus hornelli n. sp. 

Liriope tetraphylla (Cham. et Eys.) 

Cytoeis herdmani, n. sp. 

Mitrocomium assimila n. sp. 

Irene palkensis n. sp. 

Irenopsis hexanemalis Goette 

Octocanna polynema (Haeckel) 

Aequorea parva n. sp. 

Olindias sp.? 

NARCOMEDUSAE 

Solmundella bitentaculata (Quoy et Gaim.) 

SIPHONOPHORA 

Diphyes chamissonis Huxley 

Agalmopsis sp? 

Porpita sp? 

SCYPHOMEDUSAE 

Charybdea sp? 

Pelagia sp? 

CTENOPHORA 

Pleurobrachia globosa Moser var. ceylonensis 

Cupulita sp? 

Physalia utriculus Esch. 

Nausithoe punctata Köll 

Crambessa sp? 

Beroe flemingi (Esch.) 

Note: Ctenophora now has Phylum rank. Medusae proper (jellyfish) are members of the Phylum Cnidaria 

(Coelenterata) characterised by the presence of cnidocysts (nematocysts). 

268


List of species recorded by Malik Fernando 

HYDROZOA (HYDROMEDUSAE) 

SIPHONOPHORA 

Physalia utriculus 

Porpita sp. Velella sp. 

SCYPHOZOA (SCYPHOMEDUSAE) 

CUBOMEDUSAE 

CHIRODROPIDAE 

Chiropsalmus buitendijki Horst, 1907. Box jellyfish 

SEMAEOSTOMEAE 

PELAGIIDAE 

Chrysaora quinquecirra (Desor, 1848). Compass jellyfish 

CYANEIDAE 

Cyanea purpurea Kishinouye, 1910. Lion’s mane jellyfish 

Cyanea sp? Giant Lion’s mane jellyfish 1 

RHIZOSTOMEAE (Kolpophorae, Actinomyariae) 

CEPHEIDAE 

Netrostoma coerulescens Maas, 1903 

(Daktyliophorae, Inscapulatae) 

CATOSTYLIDAE 

?Crambionella sp. 

Acromitus sp. 

LYCHNORIZIDAE 

Lychnorhiza malayensis Stiasny, 1920 

1 

Cyanea sp. 30-45 cm diameter occurring in swarms have been identified as C. purpurea based on the canal system of the lappet 

margins. Cyanea sp. 60 cm or more, occurring as solitary individuals have not been examined anatomically. These are thought to 

be a separate species. 

269


Appendix III 

Checklist of the Echinoderms of Sri Lanka 

Summarized from A.M. Clark & F.W.E. Rowe (1971) Monograph of shallow-water Indowest 

Pacific Echinoderms with recent additions to this list and observations. 

** Recent records by Malik Fernando 

* Recent records by Prasanna Weerakkody (Ophiuroidea) 

NR = new record; $ = exported ornamental species; P = protected 

CLASS CRINOIDEA 

FAMILY COMASTERIDAE 

Capillaster multiradiatus 

Capillaster sentosus 

Cornanthina schiegeli 

Comanthus parvicirrus 

Comanthus samoanus 

Cornatella maculata 

Comatella stelligera 

Comatula pectinata (?) 

FAMILY ZYGOMETRIDAE 

Zygometra andromeda(?) 

FAMILY HIMEROMETRIDAE 

Amphimetra ensifera 

Heterometra amboninae 

Heterometra bengalensis 

Heterometra reynaudi 

Himerometra robustipinna 

FAMILY MARIAMETRIDAE 

Lamprometra palmata 

Oxymetra finschi 

Stephanometra echinus (?) 

Stephanometra indica (?) 

Stephanometra spicata 

Stephanometra tenuipinna 

FAMILY COLOBOMETRIDAE 

Cenometra herdmani 

Decametra modica 

Decametra taprobanes 

Oligometra serripinna 

FAMILY TROPIOMETRIDAE 

Tropiometra carinata 

FAMILY ANTEDONIDAE 

Mastigometra micropoda 

CLASS ASTEROIDEA 

FAMILY LUIDIIDAE 

Luidia hardwicki 

Luidia herdmani 

Luidia maculata ** 

Luidia savignyi 

FAMILY ASTROPECTINIDAE 

Astropecten andersoni ** 

Astropecten bengalensis 

Astropecten euryacanthus 

Astropecten hemprichi 

Astropecten indicus 

Astropecten mauritianus (?) 

Astropecten polyacanthus 

Astropecten sarasinorum 

Astropecten vappa ** 

Astropecten velitaris ** 

Astropecten zebra 

FAMILY GONIASTERIDAE 

Anthenea pentagonula 

Anthenea regalis 

Anthenea rudis 

Siraster tuberculatus 

Stellaster equestris 

FAMILY OREASTERIDAE 

Culcita schmideliana ** 

Choriaster granulatus **NR 

Pentaceraster mammillatus **?NR$ 1 

Pentaceraster affinis **?$ 

Pentaceraster multispinus (?) 

Poraster superbus 

Protoreaster linckii **$ 

Protoreaster nodosus 

1 

Three species of Pentaceraster have been collected but not 

identified with confidence. 

270


FAMILY OPHIDIASTERIDAE 

Dactylosaster cylindricus 

Fromia indica **$ 

Fromia milleporella **$ 

F. ?ghadaqana **NR$ 

Fromia nodosa 

Gomophia egyptiaca **$ 

Linckia guildingi ** 

Linckia laevigata ** 

Linckia multifora ** 

Nardoa lemonnieri **$ 

Paraferdina sohariae **NR$ 2 

FAMILY METRODIRIDAE 

Metrodira subulata 

FAMILY ASTEROPIDAE 

Asteropsis carinifera 

FAMILY ASTERINIDAE 

Asterina burtoni ** 

Asterina coronata 

Asterina lorioli 

Asterina sarasini 

Tegulaster ceylanica 

FAMILY ACANTHASTERIDAE 

Acanthaster planci ** 

FAMILY PTERASTERIDAE 

Euretaster cribrosus (?) 

FAMILY ECHINASTERIDAE 

Echinaster callosus 

Echinaster purpurea 

FAMILY VALVASTERIDAE 

Valvaster striatus **NR 4 

CLASS OPHIUROIDEA 

} 

FAMILY OPHIOMIXIDAE 

Ophiomyxa australis 

Ophiomyxa compacta *NR 

**$ 3 

FAMILY GORGONOCEPHALIDAE 

Astroboa clavata 

FAMILY OPHIACANTHIDAE 

Ophiacantha indica 

FAMILY AMPHIURIDAE 

Amphioplus depressus 

Amphiura luetkeni 

FAMILY OPHIACTIDAE 

Ophiactis savignyi 

FAMILY OPHIOTRICHIDAE 

Gymnolophus obscura 

Macrophiothrix aspidota 

Macrophiothrix hirsuta (?) 

Macrophiothrix longipeda * 

Macrophiothrix variabilis 

Ophiocnemis marmorata 

Ophiogymna elegans 

Ophiomaza cacaotica 

Ophiopteron elegans 

Ophiothrix exigua 

Ophiothrix foveolata 

Ophiothrix trilineata 

Ophiothrix proteus 

Ophiothrix purpurea 

Ophiothrix nereidina 

FAMILY OPHIOCOMIDAE 

Ophiarthrum elegans 

Ophiocoma brevipes * 

Ophiocoma dentata *NR 

Ophiocoma erinaceus *$ 

Ophiocoma pica 

Ophiocoma scolopendrina 

Ophiocomella sexradia 

Ophiomastix annulosa * 

FAMILY OPHIONEREIDAE 

Ophionereis dubia * 

Ophionereis porrecta 

2 

Published in 1991. Synonymy, if any, unknown. 

3 

Juvenile specimens of uncertain specific rank 

4 

Known from a single, damaged net spoil specimen. The 

family not reported by Clark and Rowe from this area. 

FAMILY OPHIODERMATIDAE 

Cryptopelta grannulifera *NR 

Ophiarachna incrassata 

Ophiarachnella gorgonia * 

Ophiarachnella macrantha *NR 

271

Ophiarachnella septemspinosa 

Ophiarachnella sphenisci 

Ophiochaeta hoeschmai *NR 

Ophiopeza fallax 

Ophiopeza spinosa *NR 

FAMILY OPHIURIDAE 

Ophiolepis cincta * 

Ophiolepis rugosa 

Ophiolepis superba 

Ophioplocus imbricatus 

Ophiura kinbergi 

CLASS ECHINOIDEA 

FAMILY CIDARIDAE 

Eucidaris metularia 

Phyllacanthus imperialis 

Prionocidaris baculosa 

Prionocidaris bispinosa 

} 

?** 5 

FAMILY ECHINOTHURIIDAE 

Asthenosoma varium 

Asthenosoma intermedium ?**NR$ 6 

FAMILY DIADEMATIDAE 

Astropyga radiata **$ 

Diadema savignyi ** 

Diadema setosum ** 

Echinothrix diadema ** 

FAMILY STOMOPNEUSTIDAE 

Stomopneustes variolaris **$ 

FAMILY TEMNOPLEURIDAE 

Microcyphus ceylanicus ** 

Salmaciella dussumieri 

Salmacis bicolor **$ 

Salmacis virgulata **$ 

Salmacis toreumaticus 

Temnotrema siamense 

FAMILY TOXOPNEUSTIDAE 

Gymnechinus robillardi 

Pseudoboletia indiana 

5 

One species: preserved material insufficient to distinguish 

between these two genera. 

6 

Preserved material insufficient to distinguish between these 

two species with confidence, but specimens have the 

colouration and appearance of A. intermedium though not 

reported from this area. 

Pseudoboletia maculata **$ 

Toxopneustes pileolus **$ 

Tripneustes gratilla ** 

FAMILY ECHINOMETRIDAE 

Colobocentrotus atratus 

Echinometra mathaei **$ 

Echinostrephus molaris ** 

Heterocentrotus mammillatus **P 

FAMILY ECHINONEIDAE 

Echinoneus cyclostomus ** 

Echinoneus abnormalis **NR 

FAMILY CLYPEASTERIDAE 

Clypeaster fervens 

Clypeaster humilis ** 

Clypeaster rarispinus ** 

Clypeaster reticulatus ** 

FAMILY FIBULARIIDAE 

Fibularia cribellum (?) 

Fibularia oblonga (?) 

Fibularia volva (?) 

FAMILY LAGANIDAE 

Laganum depressum ** 

Peronella lesueuri 

Peronella macroproctes ** 

Peronella oblonga 

FAMILY SCUTELLIDAE 

Echinodiscus auritus ** 

Echinodiscus bisperforatus ** 

FAMILY ECHINOLAMPADIDAE 

Echinolampas alexandri 

Echinolampas ovata ** 

FAMILY SPATANGIDAE 

Maretia planulata 

Pseudomaretia alta 

FAMILY LOVENIIDAE 

Lovenia elongata ** 

FAMILY SCHIZASTERIDAE 

Paraster gibberulus ** 

Prymnaster ? investigatoris **NR 

272

FAMILY BRISSIDAE 

Brissus latecarinatus ** 

Metalia latissima 

Metalia sternalis ** 

Metalia dicrana **NR 

Rhynobrissus pyramidalis 

CLASS HOLOTHUROIDEA 

FAMILY HOLOTHURIIDAE 

Actinopyga echinites 

Actinopyga lecanora 

Actinopyga mauritiana 

Actinopyga miliaris 

Actinopyga serratidens 

Bohadschia argus 

Bohadschia marmorata 

Bohadschia tenuissima 

Bohadschia vitiensis 

Holothuria (Halodeima) atra 

Holothuria (Halodeima) edulis 

Holothuria (Lessonothuria) glandifera 

Holothuria (Mertensiothuria) 

fuscocinerea 

Holothuria (Mertensiothuria) 

leucospilota 

Holothuria (Mertensiothuna) pervicax 

Holothuria (Mertensiothuria) scabra 

Holothuria (Microthele) nobilis 

Holothuria (Platyperona) difficilis 

Holothuria (Selenkothuria) erinaceus 

Holothuria (Selenkothuria) moebii 

Holothuria (Semperothuria) cinerascens 

Holothuria (Semperothuria) imitans 

Holothuna (Theelothuria) kurti 

Holothuria (Theelothuria) spinifera 

Holothuria (Thymiosycia) hilla 

Holothuria (Thymiosycia) impatiens 

Hemithyone semperi 

Pentacta armatus 

Pentacta quadrangularis 

Pseudocolochirus tricolor P 

Staurothyone rosacea 

Stolus buccalis 

Stolus conjugens 

Thyone papuensis 

Trachythyone imbricata 

Trachythyone typica 

FAMILY PHYLLOPHORIDAE 

Actinocucumis typicus 

Ohshimella ehrenbergi 

Phyllophorus (Phyllophorella) 

parvipedes 

Phyllophorus (Phyllothuria) cebuensis 

Phyllophorus (Urodemella) brocki 

FAMILY CAUDINIDAE 

Acaudina molpadiodes 

FAMILY SYNAPTIDAE 

Opheodesoma grisea 

Synapta maculata 

Synaptula recta 

Synaptula striata 

FAMILY CHIROTIDAE 

Polycheira rufescens 

FAMILY STICHOPODIDAE 

Stichopus chloronotus 

Stichopus naso 

Stichopus variegatus 

FAMILY PSOLIDAE 

Psolus complanatus 

FAMILY CUCUMARIIDAE 

Havelockia herdmani 

273



Current Status of Taxonomy and Ecology of 

Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka 

Darshani de Silva* 

*United Nations Development Programme, Sri Lanka 

274 

Abstract 

Molluscs make up a major proportion of all marine biodiversity. They are an integral part of marine 

ecosystems and play a number of roles, which help to support the function and stability of the 

ecosystems upon which other organisms rely for their survival and well-being. Their distribution is 

extensive, as remarkable number of adaptations and behaviours has enabled them to live in most of 

the marine habitats. 

This paper describes the current status of taxonomy of marine molluscs and their distribution in Sri 

Lanka, demonstrating that the state of taxonomic, biological and ecological knowledge regarding 

marine molluscs is generally poor within the country. The limited knowledge that is present varies 

with location, habitat and taxonomic group. There are large gaps in our understanding of even the 

relatively well-studied species or groups while many taxa are very poorly known or completely 

unstudied. The paper also gives some basic information regarding the intricate linkages between 

various processes and habitat features that affect the distribution patterns, with some special 

reference to post El Nino years (after 1998) and highlighting areas of interest and research needs to 

obtain a comprehensive understanding of the status of marine molluscs in Sri Lanka. Checklists of 

marine molluscs from post mid-1990s records taken from published and reliable resources are being 

included within the paper, and again referring to post El Nino years. Finally, the paper illustrates the 

issues affecting the taxonomy, ecology and conservation status of marine molluscs in Sri Lanka and 

some concluding remarks including recommendations to address conservation issues. 

Key words: Marine molluscs, Taxonomy, Ecology 

Introduction 

Sri Lanka has a rich and diverse marine invertebrate fauna that has been studied since 1800s and among 

them, marine molluscs had a prominent place (Tennant 1861, Kelaart 1852). As one of the most successful 

forms of animal life, the molluscs have conquered almost every habitat and exist in all the oceans from 

intertidal shores to the deepest trenches. Although, the importance of molluscs to the humankind and their 

significant roles in ecosystems and their functions have been recognized (Kay 1995), in recent time there 

has been an acceleration in terms of loss of biodiversity of marine molluscs due to natural catastrophes 

(Brown 1997, Attrill and Power 2000, Addessi 2001) as well as due to harmful anthropogentic activities 

(Addessi 1994). However, the biological and ecological information available to understand the exact 

impacts of these threats to marine molluscs in Sri Lanka are scanty. 

Marine Molluscs are a taxonomically diverse group, which exhibit a wide range of patterns in body plan 

(Ponder and Lindberg 1997), distribution (Behens-Yamada 1987), abundance (Hawkins and Harnoll 1980), 

habitat (de Silva 1998), mode of feeding (Hughes 1980, Hawkins and Harnoll 1983), behaviour (Bullock 

1953, Branch 1979, Della Santina and Nayor 1994), etc. They are also diverse in their effects on their 

surroundings (Raffaelli and Hawkins 1996). This diversity allows them to coexist successfully within their 

ecosystem. These animals are also known to play an important role in determining the structure of marine 

communities (Morton and Morton 1983). Within the Phylum of Mollusca, evolutionary modifications of the 

internal organs and morphological features are quite extensive (Knight et al., 1960, Taylor 1996, Beiler 

1992, Ponder and Lindberg 1996). Principal changes generally reflect the mode of feeding, predatory 

behaviour, and habitat, and the higher taxonomic orders have been shown to exhibit some degree of 

intelligence (Taylor 1996, Ponder and Lindberg 1996).

De Silva:Current Status of Taxonomy and Ecology of Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka 

Status of taxonomy and ecology 

The marine ecosystem has a much greater taxonomic diversity (phyla, classes and orders) of invertebrates 

than terrestrial or freshwater habitats (WRI 2000-2001). In this section, a brief overview of the diversity 

and state of knowledge of each of the major groups of Sri Lanka’s marine molluscs is provided. This 

includes a brief description of each major group in terms of distribution and trophic roles, and where 

available, numbers of identified and estimated total numbers of species have been provided. This account 

is intended to highlight the diversity of marine mollusc fauna in Sri Lanka, based on the recent (post- mid 

1990s and post-1998) quantitative and qualitative data that have been reviewed (De Bruin et al 1995, de 

Silva 1998, Fernando 2000, de Silva – ongoing study 20 ). 

The molluscs show a wide variety of morphological differences in terms of their body plan (Knight et al 

1960, Taylor 1996) and details of the shells (Linsley 1978). Nevertheless, the basic body plan is one of 

front-to-back bilateral symmetry, with well-defined nerve ganglia, respiratory, blood circulatory, digestive, 

reproductive, and excretory organs (Purchon 1968). Despite sharing these common features, the Mollusca 

is an incredibly diverse group that have radiated into 8 (7) main classes (Taylor 1996) all evolving from a. 

“hypothetical ancestral mollusc”. However, it is now known that molluscan phylogeny is a lot more complex 

than this (Ponder and Lindberg 1997, Wagner 2001). 

There has been a prominent lag in taxonomy related work concerning marine molluscs of Sri Lanka in 

recent time, except for information that have been generated during other marine faunal surveys, which 

too tend to be one-off activities (De Bruin et al 1995). There has been occasional phylogenetic research 

studies based on samples of Sri Lankan marine molluscs. However, the status of those studies is not known 

due to the information accessibility constraints. Therefore, it should be emphasized that the information to 

adequately evaluate their current status is extremely limited. 

Globally approximately 120,000 species of molluscs (Chase 2002) have been described to date, but the 

exact number of described marine molluscan fauna in Sri Lanka is not known. A list of nearly 240 species 

of marine molluscs was compiled (see annex 1) for the current paper, through the review of relevant 

literature. Recent attempts to identify marine molluscs have indicated that there is also a lot more to be 

described. While the diverse, large shelled groups are relatively well known because their shells can be 

collected, a great many smaller species are poorly known. It must be also noted that earlier descriptions 

and distribution records have covered most of Sri Lankan marine waters (Kelaart 1852, NARESA 1989) 

including the intertidal areas (Atapattu 1972, Arudpragasam and Ranatunga 1966), but most recent accounts 

(de Silva 1997) have only concentrated in the southern and western region with more focus towards reef 

associated fauna. 

The molluscs show great structural (Taylor 1996) and ecological variability (Atapattu 1972, de Silva 1998, 

de Silva 2001) and are found in a wide range of habitats. There are 7 (8) classes under the Phylum 

Mollusca including Cephalopoda (octopuses, squids), Gastropoda (snails, limpets, nudibranchs), Bivalia 

(clams, oysters, mussels), Scaphopoda (tusk shells), Polyplacophora (chitons), Monoplacophora and 

Aplacophora (spicule worms) – Solenogadtres and Caudofoveata. In Sri Lanka, 4 out of the 7(8) classes 

representing marine molluscs have been recorded at different times in history. 

Cephalopoda 

Relatively little is known about this class and the systematics are not very clear. The mid-water species 

under this class have been surveyed from by-catch (De Bruin et al 1995). Many species are harvested as 

by-catch and some are specifically targeted as a fishery resource, and others are exploited for its shell 

(e.g. Nautilus). However, much remains to be done on the location of deep-sea species beyond the 

20 

This study mainly focuses on biology and ecology of selected keystone marine organisms on intertidal platform reefs in south and 

west coasts of Sri Lanka. This study also makes an attempt to identify the current status of marine molluscs inhabiting these 

rocky reefs. 

275


continental shelf. This group includes cuttlefish, octopus and squids that falls within dibranchiates and 

nautilus which falls under tetrabranchiates. Cuttlefish are generally neritic, demersal, mainly found over 

mud or silty substrata and sometimes over coral or sandstone, while Octopuses are neritic, benthic, and 

inhabit on hard substrata of coral or sandstone. Squids are pelagic or semi-pelagic, mainly found on silty 

substrata and sometimes on sandstone or in harbours. The tetrabranchiates are pelagic, oceanic, and they 

are occasionally neritic. Nineteen species of cephalopods belonging to 4 orders and 7 families have been 

recorded in Sri Lanka marine waters. 

Gastropoda 

The diversity of this class is considerable. However, accurate figures are not available on the number of 

species or families found in Sri Lanka. The latest classified groups of Gastropods include Patellogastropoda 

(true limpets); Vetigastropoda (top shells, abalones, turban shells, keyhole limpets, etc.), Neritoida (nerites), 

Caenogastropoda (periwinkles, whelks, cowries, cones, etc.) and Heterobranchia (seaslugs and airbreathing 

snails etc.) and all of these groups are represented in the Sri Lankan marine waters. 

Patellogastropoda: Sri Lanka has 2 species of true limpets of 2 families being recorded and they are 

typically present in intertidal rocky shores. The true limpets have an important functional role as grazers 

and scrapers dominating from upper littoral to mid littoral areas (i.e. high to mid tide levels). 

Neritoida: This group is comprised of one family (Nerites) in Sri Lanka and can be found in rocky and 

muddy shores in high intertidal areas. The nerites feed on algae and detritus. 

Vetigastropoda: These are diverse and conspicuous members of the intertidal and subtidal fauna with a 

recent record of 5 families (abalone, top shells, turbins and false limpts). Most of the members of this group 

are grazers specialized to feed on a wide range of substrates including detritus, algae, and colonial animals. 

Caenogastropoda: This is the largest group of marine gastropoda represented in Sri Lanka. There are 

indications of 33 families being observed since post-1995. These molluscs show a wide range of shell 

morphologies (coiled shells, worm-like shells, limpet-forms, etc.), feeding strategies (grazing, predation, 

parasitism, filter feeding) and habits. Most are benthic crawlers, some burrow, others are sessile, and a 

few are permanently attached to the substrate. The group also includes cowries, cones, mitres and murexes 

of interest to shell collectors. Most of the intertidal species, more-prominent subtidal and mid-sea species 

have been recorded, although taxonomically not completely identified. 

Heterobranchia: This group is also morphologically very diverse and includes forms with coiled or limpetlike 

shells to a wide variety of shell-less slugs. This sub-class has been divided into 3 groups: Heterostrophs, 

Opisthobranchs and Pulmonates. Heterostropha species are carnivorous, shallow sand dwelling animals. 

There is one species (sundials) recorded in recent time. The seaslugs including nudibranchs and bubble 

shells comprise the Opisthobranchia. All recorded species are benthic. Few species are detritus feeders or 

herbivores and most are carnivorous, preying upon sessile organisms such as sponges, hydroids, 

actiniarians, and bryozoans. Post-mid 1990s records indicate 10 families out of which 8 families consist of 

nudibranchs. The marine pulmonata that have been identified recently include a family of air breathing 

limpets (Siphonariids) that inhabit the rocky intertidal, and a family of estuarine ear shells. 

Bivalvia 

This class (formerly named Pelecypoda, or Lamellibranchia) is the second largest group of molluscs found 

in Sri Lanka. Although higher phylogeny is not well recorded for this class in Sri Lanka, there are definite 

records under 2 out of the 6 subclasses of Bivalia with post-1995 records indicating about 21 families. 

Scaphopoda 

Recent records do not indicate the presence of this class in Sri Lanka. 

276


Monoplacophora 

The few living species are known from the deep-sea and none are yet recorded from Sri Lankan waters. 

Polyplacophora 

There are records of one grazing species associated with rocky reefs. 

Aplacophora 

There are no records of these molluscs in Sri Lanka. 

General distribution patterns 

Sri Lanka has a coastline of about 1,585 km (GSL 1985) with an area of 230,000 km2. The continental 

shelf around Sri Lanka has an area of about 31,000 km2 and the width ranges from 9 to 45 km with an 

average depth of 66 m (Cooray, 1967). There are fringing and offshore reefs around the country made up 

of live corals, calcareous substances, sandstone and granite (Swan 1983). However, the extent of live coral 

reefs has been reduced drastically since the El Nino event in 1998 (Wilkinson et al. 1999, personal 

observations). Comparatively, reefs made up of sandstone and granite still remains unchanged except for 

their ecological compositions and changes due to regular phsio-chemical factors. Reefs are found from 

near-shore areas to offshore areas to depths more than 50 m. The coastline of Sri Lanka has beaches and 

sand dunes spreading over 300km. Intermittently, there are rocky reefs, salt marshes and muddy (estuarine) 

shores. In general, the members of the Phylum Mollusca can be encountered in all the above habitats with 

varying distribution patterns. 

Ecological studies of marine molluscs are generally based on patterns of macro- and micro-scale taxon 

distribution. However, attempts to understand the ecology and biology of marine molluscan diversity are 

hampered by the small number of key studies and varying level of knowledge on taxonomic details. There 

are hardly any complete reports that allow us to have a good understanding of some of the ecological 

aspects of this group in Sri Lanka. However, based on the availability of information on the extents of 

various geological features around Sri Lanka will allow us to get a broader understanding of the distribution 

of marine molluscs at least at the level of the phylum as described above. 

Ecological understanding of marine molluscs in Sri Lanka (with examples 

from rocky shores) 

Marine mollusc distribution is closely associated with the geographic location, physio-chemical gradients 

which include vertical gradients of tides, temperature and currents, horizontal gradients of exposure to wave 

action, particle size gradients and salinity gradients, geology, topography and ecological features (Raffaelli 

and Hawkins 1996). The last two factors, i.e. topography and ecological features that operates at a smallscale 

have been observed to affect a greater extent on the distribution of low taxon levels (e.g. genera, 

species, etc.) particularly with low abundance (de Silva 1997). 

One of the better-studied distribution patterns comes from rocky intertidal shores of southwest Sri Lanka 

(Arudpragasam and Ranatunga 1966; Atapattu 1972; de Silva 1997). The conspicuous and typical species 

of open rock surface are either attached (e.g. mussels and oysters) or if mobile (e.g. periwinkles, limpets, 

topshells etc.), are nevertheless capable of holding tightly to the surface of the rock or retreating to 

protective crevices as occasion demands. Much less conspicuous are new recruits that tend to live in the 

secondary habitats such as mussel beds, barnacles and algae during the early settling days (de Silva – on-going1). 

Rocky shores such as gently sloping platforms, irregular masses and boulder beaches, which are more 

common in Sri Lanka, and most of the shallow water reefs tend to demonstrate patchy distribution of 

species and overlaps with the physical zones. Many of these shores can be seen as a patchwork or a 

277


mosaic of species or assemblages on various scales on different phases of succession; from cleared bare 

rock to complete cover by a dominant species. There are many positive and negative interactions between 

the various elements in the patches, which make the patches dynamic through time (de Silva 2001, de Silva 

– ongoing1). 

Effects of 1998 El Nino event on marine molluscs 

Although quantitative data are still absent, ongoing research activities indicate that there is a considerable 

drop in the species number, abundance and distribution of subtidal molluscs particularly associated with 

coral reefs (Wilkinson et al. 1999; Pers. comm. with P. Weerakkody) since the occurrence of El Niño. By 

some measures, the 1998 El Niño was the strongest on record. This may be due, at least in part, to it being 

superimposed upon naturally occurring decadal time-scale fluctuations (Kerr, 1999; McPhaden, 1999) and 

anthropogenic global warming (Trenberth, 1998). However, such effect is not very apparent on most of the 

intertidal molluscs, except on some subtidal and shallow water species populations that sometimes inhabited 

pools and depressions of intertidal reefs (personal observations 2001 and de Silva-ongoing1). 

Issues affecting the taxonomy and ecology of marine molluscs 

Similar to most other invertebrate groups, the state of the taxonomic, biological and ecological knowledge 

of marine molluscs are extremely poor and patchy in Sri Lanka, been largely concentrated to a few highly 

visible, relatively common, or commercially important taxa. There are many knowledge gaps even with 

the relatively well-studied groups, whereas many other taxa are very poorly known or almost completely 

unstudied. This lack of knowledge have resulted in a less effort in managing and/or conserving the marine 

molluscs, although this group of marine fauna has proved to be very important for ecosystem functions as 

well as for the well-being of the humankind (Kay 1995, Duarte 2000). 

There are some researches that have been carried out on intertidal, shallow water and coral reef related 

groups, but in many instances unpublished. As there has not been a continuity of these studies, it is not 

possible to identify the changes that may have happened within the phylum including possible extinction 

from Sri Lankan waters, effects of various threats, etc. let alone to predict probable future impacts. Hardly 

any phylogenetic studies have being carried out in recent time to verify the identified taxa, and in present 

day there are no local specialists working on taxonomic work. This has led to many researchers identifying 

mollusc fauna only to higher taxonomic levels and solely using photographic guides. 

There is a need for ecological data, long term monitoring and assessments. However, there is a lack of 

information on basic biology and ecology of most taxa and there are no continuous application of research 

findings and updated research techniques that get developed in other parts of the world. One of the reasons 

for the poor knowledge on biology and ecology are due to the non-progress in taxonomic knowledge 

hindering advances in biological and ecological research. Due to the limited resources allocated 

comparative to the size of the area concerned, many have not attempted to research on marine molluscs. 

Resources have been mainly allocated on studies focusing on fishes, largest and colourful or commercially 

exploitable species. The understanding of their diversity and extent of the marine resource that they 

represent is very limited. Even the accessible intertidal and shallow-water habitats have not been studied in 

recent time. 

Issues of accessibility to marine mollusc habitats have also led to something of a geographical bias, with 

research efforts being largely concentrated in the southwestern region. There is significant lack of data 

from rest of the areas around Sri Lanka and deeper waters. However, even in the better-studied regions of 

Sri Lanka, there are very few locations where the marine mollusc fauna has been sufficiently surveyed to 

enable reasonable baseline data to be obtained. 

Elsewhere in the world, the use of marine molluscs and their habitats for developing and testing ecological 

theory has preceded apace in the 1980s and 1990s (Reise 1985; Paine 1994) as their potential as an 

278


ecological laboratories seem limitless. While there is a justifiable emphasis in contemporary studies on the 

collection of quantitative ecological data, there are very few studies being undertaken on the biology 

covering the natural history of Sri Lankan marine molluscs. With the exception of some commercial 

species, there is very little research on biological aspects such as feeding, life history, life span, role in 

ecosystem, etc. 

Other reasons for non-progress in understanding this faunal group include lack of interest, lack of dedicated 

marine stations or departments in universities, and inaccessibility of available knowledge and information. 

There is a focus of research and conservation efforts towards larger animals rather than small and towards 

terrestrial rather than marine environments. When establishing research and conservation priorities there is 

thus an inherent bias, resulting both from the available knowledge base and from the interests of the 

majority of the people. Therefore, emphasis was never given to establish dedicated institutions to carry out 

the necessary research or coordinate the essential activities. One must not forget that this faunal group 

does not interest the public too. Unlike the larger animals, general public rarely encounter animals such as 

molluscs unless if it has an economic value, and there is also little understanding among the general public 

of why the knowledge and conservation of marine molluscs matter (Collins and Wells 1983). There are 

only very few keys and guides that are useful even for simple identification work in Sri Lanka (Kirtisinghe 

1978; Abbot 1991; Allen and Steene 1994). There is also the issue of availability of these identification 

guides as well as other related information within the country. The knowledge and information that are 

present on marine molluscs of Sri Lanka is very limited and scattered with most documents can be only 

found in private collections. 

There are a number of practical problems that too have contributed to the non-progress in understanding 

these marine organisms that have direct linkages to issues addressed earlier. These include the 

impracticality in studying some of the biological and ecological criteria such as population dynamics, 

recruitment, survival, etc, under natural spatio-temporal variations and difficulty in assessing the extent (in 

terms of population size and distribution) of such widely scattered marine organisms. Therefore, it is 

necessary to identify at least the keystone species in each main habitat and carry out detailed biological 

and ecological research to understand these organisms. 

Research gaps in relation to taxonomy and ecology 

As discussed above, there are a number of research gaps that should be focused as future interventions to 

understand and conserve the marine molluscs in Sri Lanka. These include: 

• Regular surveys on status of marine molluscs and preparation of checklists; 

• Taxonomic studies (phylogentic research) on undescribed taxa; 

• Preparation and/or compilation of guides and keys; 

• Studies on small-scale distribution at habitat level and species level and distribution ranges; 

• Ecological studies (population dynamics, community interactions, etc.) and biological studies (life 

history, which is inclusive of feeding patterns, reproductive dynamics, etc.) at a local context and 

particularly focusing on keystone species; 

• Ecological processes affecting communities/habitats; and 

• Threats to marine molluscs and their habitats. 


There are many threatening processes that although not studied could affect marine molluscs in Sri Lanka. 

However, it is likely that they are vulnerable to the following potential impacts: pollution, sedimentation, 

habitat modification, extraction and reductions in population changes of other organisms that have a direct 

link to the survival of this group. Possible threatening effects due to alien invasive species are unknown, 

279


except for the increase of opportunistic organisms (i.e. organisms that increase their abundance due to 

change of state of habitats) that could be threatening to some of the members of this group (de Silva – 

ongoing1). Accelerating these threats would include lack of management processes and knowledge and 

understanding the fauna as a group and their ecosystem functions. The extents of the impacts are poorly 

understood, except in some localities. This directly connects to the possibility of extinctions at local levels. 

If it is actually happening, the rate or the scale of extinctions are not known due to the scarcity in other 

information such as taxonomy and distribution (Carlton 1996). The sea is not immune to extinctions and 

they are most likely to occur in particular habitats such as estuaries, coral reefs, intertidal shores and 

shallow water habitats (Carlton et al. 1999). 

In Sri Lanka, as it is in most of the other countries of the world, regards marine molluscs as insignificant, 

although it is now a well recognized fact that they contribute considerably together with other invertebrates 

to sustain the most essential ecological processes and systems that we depend on (Kay 1995, Duarte 

2000). It is also a well-known fact that only a limited number of species are ever likely to be of major 

economic importance benefiting humans. Since, in most situations the criteria for conservation of organisms 

are based on possible economic values, conservation of majority of species will not occur. However, one 

must not forget that an important reason for conserving a broad range of biota is to ensure the survival of 

the economically important species that are intricately linked to the survival of the rest of the noncommercial 

or economically unimportant species. Apart from the above reasons, they are also very useful 

organisms to improve scientific research, useful for educational, aesthetic and recreational activities and 

for ethical reasons – i.e. their rights to exist and our moral obligation for conserving these organisms for 

the use of future generations. 

There have been relatively few attempts to list vulnerable marine molluscs and there are barely any 

conservation measures that have been implemented as a group of taxa. There are only 14 species and one 

genus protected under the last amended Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance (Anon 1993) and only 2 

species identified as lower risk/conservation dependent fauna in the IUCN Global Red List (2002). Not 

even a single species of marine molluscs have been identified in the IUCN Sri Lanka Red List (2000). 

Few of the species may have received some protection if present within locations of protected areas such 

as marine reserves or inaccessible habitats. 

A broad range of measures is likely to be necessary for the management and conservation of marine 

molluscs. While species-specific approach might not be feasible for a country-like Sri Lanka except for 

most vulnerable or threatened species, and habitat or landscape conservation strategy (Bowen 1997) can 

be recommended as a better option. Apart from this, it is recommended that the following suggestions be 

also taken into consideration as part of conservation efforts. These include: 

• Policy review and/or reform on conservation and implementation of policies; 

• Effective management of threats through institutional coordination and controlling regulations; 

• Basic research; 

• Education and awareness programmes; 

• Community involvement in conservation efforts; and 

• Improving access to information. 

References 

Abbot, R.T. 1991. Seashells of South East Asia. Tynron Press, Scotland. 135pp. 

Addessi, L. 1994. Human disturbance and long-term changes on a rocky intertidal community. Ecological 

Applications 4: 786-797. 

280


Addessi, L. 2001. Giant clam bleaching in the lagoon of Takapoto atoll (French Polynesia). Coral Reefs 

19: 220. 

Allen, G. and Steene, R. 1994. Indo-Pacific Coral Reef Field Guide. Tropical Reef Research, Singapore. 

Anon. 1993. Fauna and Flora Protection (Amendment) Act, No. 49. of 1993. Government Publication 

Bureau. Colombo. 59pp. 

Arudpragasam, K.D. & Ranatunga, K.W. 1966. On the ecology of sandstone reef in Duwa (Ceylon). 

Ceylon Journal of Science (Bioscience) 6(1): 26-32. 

Atapattu, D.H. 1972. The distribution of molluscs on littoral rocks in Ceylon, with notes on their ecology. 

Marine Biology (Berlin) 16(3): 150-160. 

Attrill, M. J. and Power, M. (2000). Effects on invertebrate populations of drought-induced changes in 

estuarine water quality. Marine Ecology Progress Series 203: 133-143. 

Behens-Yamada, S. 1987. Geographic variation in the growth rates if Littorin littirea and L. saxalis. 

Marine Biology 96: 529-534. 

Beiler, R. 1992. Gastropod phylogeny and systematics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 

23:311-338. 

Bowen, B. W. 1997. Landscape-level conservation in the marine realm. In Principles of conservation 

biology. 2nd edition. G. K. Meffe and Carroll, C. R. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer: 223-225. 

Branch, G.M. 1979. Aggression by limpets against invertibrate predators. Animal behaviour 27: 408-410. 

Brown, B. E. 1997. Coral bleaching: causes and consequences. H. A. Lessios and MacIntyre, I. G., Eds. 

Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium (Vol. 1): 65-74, Smithsonian Tropical 

Research Institute. 

Bullock, T.H. 1953. Predator recognition and escape responses of some intertidal gastropods in the 

presence of starfish. Behaviour 5: 130-140. 

Carlton, J. T. 1996. Marine conservation ecology: Recognizing the roles of invasions and extinctions in a 

long-term era of declining systematics and exploration. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of 

America 77: 70. 

Carlton, J. T., Meller, J. B., Reaka-Kulda, M. L. and Norse, E. A. 1999. Historical extinctions in the sea. 

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 515-538. 

Chase, Ronald 2002. Behavior and Its Neural Control in Gastropod Molluscs. Oxford University Press. 

314 pp. 

Collins, M. and Wells, S. 1983. Invertebrates - who needs them? New Scientist 98: 441-444. 

Cooray, P.G. 1967. An introduction to the Geology of Ceylon. Spolia zeylonica 31: 1 – 324. 

De Bruin, G.H.P., Russell, B.C. and Bogusch A. 1995. FAO species identification field guide for fishery 

purposes. The marine fishery resources of Sri Lanka. Rome, FAO. 400 pp. 

Della Santina, P. and Nayor, E. 1994. Endogenous rhythms in the homing beahviour of the limpet Patella 

vulgata Linnaeus. Journal of Molluscan Studies 59: 87-91. 

de Silva, Darshani 1997. Molluscan Diversity and their Present Distribution Patterns in the Beruwala 

Rockyshore and the Uswetekeiyawa Sandstone Reef. BSc. Zoology Project, Faculty of Natural 

Sciences, The Open University of Sri Lanka. 37pp. 

de Silva, D. 1998. Molluscan diversity and their present distribution patterns in the Beruwala rocky shore 

and Uswetekeiyawa sandstone reef. Abstracts of papers: Fourth Annual Scientific Sessions of 

Sri Lanka Association for Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Session II: Aquatic Biology: 24. 

281


de Silva, Darshani 2001. Reproductive biology and polulation ecology of pulmonate limpet Siphonaria 

zelandica. MSc. Thesis in Environmental and Marine Sciences. School of Environmental and Marine 

Science, Leigh Marine Laboratory, University of Auckland, Auckland. 186pp. 

Duarte, C. 2000. Marine biodiversity and ecosystem services: an elusive link. Journal of Experimental 

Marine Biology and Ecology 250: 117-131. 

Fernando, Malik 2000. Nudibranchs: Snails without Homes. Loris 22(3): 4-12. 

Government of Sri Lanka (GSL) 1985. Second Interim Report of the Land Commission. 

Hawkins, S.J. and Hartnoll, R. G. 198o. Small scale relationships between species number and area on 

rock shores. Est. Coast. Mar. Sci. 10: 201-214. 

Hawkins, S.J. and Hartnoll, R. G. 1983. Grazing of intertidal algae by marine invertebrates. Oceanography 

and Marine Biology Annual Review 21: 195-282. 

Hughes, R.N. 1980. Predation and community structure. (In Irvine, D.E.G. and Franham, W.F. eds. The 

shore environment, Vol 2: Ecosystems) (Sytematics Association Special Volume: No. 173). Academic 

Press, London. 699-728. 

IUCN 2002. 2002 IUCN Red List of Threaded Species. http://www.redlit.org. 

IUCN Sri Lanka 2000. The 1999 list of Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka. Colombo. IUCN 

Sri Lanka viii + 114pp. 

Kay, Alison E. 1995. The Conservation Biology of Molluscs. IUCN SSC Occasional Paper No. 9. 

California. 81pp. 

Kellaart, E. F. 1852. Contributions to the Zoology of Ceylon. 342pp. 

Kerr, R. A. 1999. Big El Ninos ride the back of slower climate change. Science 283: 1108-1109. 

Kirthisinghe, P. 1978. Seashells of Sri Lanka. Tokyo. Charles E. Tuttle Co. Inc. 220pp. 

Knight, J. B., and, Yochelson, E. L.. 1960. Monoplacophora. In Moore, R. C. (ed.) Treatise on 

Invertebrate Paleontology. Part I. Mollusca 1, pp. 77-84. Geological Society of America and Kansas 

University Press, Colorado and Kansas. 

Knight, J. B., Cox, L. R., Keen, A. M., Batten, R. L., Yochelson, E. L., and Robertson, R. 1960. Systematic 

descriptions [Archaeogastropoda]. In Moore, R. C. (ed.) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. 

Part I. Mollusca 1, 169-310. Geological Society of America and Kansas University Press, Colorado 

and Kansas 

Linsley, R. M. 1978. Locomotion rates and shell form in the gastropoda. Malacologia 17, 193-206. 

McPhaden, M. J. 1999. Genesis and evolution of the 1997-98 El Ninos. Science 283:950-954. 

Morton, B. and Morton J. 1983. The Sea Shore Ecology of Hong Kong. Hong Kong University Press. 

NARESA 1989. Mollusca. Faunal Publication Inventory. Zoological Survey of Sri Lanka. 

Nesis, K.N., 1987. Cephalopods of the World. New Jersey, TFH Publications Inc. 

Nixon, M. & Messenger, J.B., 1977. The Biology of Cephalopods. London, Academic Press. 

Okutani, T., O’Dor, R.K. & Kubodera, T., 1993. Recent Advances in Cephalopod Fishery Biology. 

Tokyo, Tokai University Press. 

Paine, R. T. 1994. Marine Rocky Shores and Community Ecology: An Experimentalist’s Perspective. 

Ecology Institute, Nordbruite. 159pp. 

Ponder, W. F. 1998. Classification of Mollusca. In Mollusca: The Southern Synthesis. Fauna of 

Australia. Vol. 5. P. L. Beesley, Ross, G. J. B. and Wells, A. Melbourne, CSIRO Publishing: 1-6. 

282


Ponder, W. F. and Lindberg, D. R. 1997. Towards a phylogeny of gastropod molluscs: an analysis using 

morphological characters. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 119: 83-265. 

Portner, H.O., O’Dor, R.K. & Macmillan, D.L., 1994. Physiology of Cephalopod Molluscs. Basel. 

Gordon & Breach. 

Purchon, R.D., 1968. The Biology of Mollusca. London, Pergamon Press. 

Raffaelli, D. and Hawkins, S. 1996. Intertidal Ecology. Alden Press, Oxford. 356pp. 

Reise, K. 1985. Tidal Flat Ecology. An Experimental Approach to Species Interactions. Ecological Studies 

54. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 

Swan, B. 1983. An introduction to the coastal geomorphology of Sri Lanka. Spolia Zeylanica. Vol. 31 

(Part 1). 182 pp. 

Taylor J.D. 1996. Origin and Evolutionary Radiation of the Mollusca. Oxford University Press. 

Tennant, E. 1861. Natural History of Ceylon. 

Trenberth, K. E. 1998. El Nino and global warming. Journal of Marine Education 15:12-18. 

Wagner, P. J. 2001. Gastropod phylogenetics: progress, problems and implications. Journal of 

Paleontology 75: 1128 – 1140. 

Wilkinson, C.,Linden, O., Cesar, H., Hodgson, G., Rubens, J. and Stong, A. E.. 1999. Ecological and 

socioeconomic impacts of 1998 coral bleaching in the Indian Ocean: an ENSO impact and a warning 

of future change? Ambio 28: 188-196. 

World Resources Institute 2000-2001. People and Ecosystems: The Fraying of Web of Life. Biological 

resources. WRI. 

283


Appendix 1: Checklist of Marine Molluscs in Sri Lanka (post-mid 1990s) 

CLASS: Cephalopoda 

ORDER: NAUTILIDEA 

FAMILY:NAUTILIDAE 

Nautilus pompilius 

ORDER: SPIRULIDA 

FAMILY:SPIRULIDAE 

Spirula spirula 

ORDER: TEUTHOIDEA 

FAMILY:LOLIGINIDAE 

Loligo duvauceli 

Loligo singhalensis 

Sepioteuthis lessoniana 

ORDER: OCTOPODA 

FAMILY:OCTOPODIDAE 

Cistopus indicus 

Octopus aegina 

Octopus cyaneus 

Octopus defilippi 

Octopus globosus 

Octopus membranaceus 

Octopus vulgaris 

FAMILY:ARGONAUTIDAE 

Argonauta argo 

ORDER: SEPIOIDEA 

FAMILY:SEPIIDAE 

Sepia aculeate 

Sepia latimanus 

Sepia pharaonis 

Sepia prashadi 

Sepiella inermis 

FAMILY:SEPIOLIDAE 

Euprymna berry 

CLASS: Gastropoda 

ORDER: PATELLOGASTROPODA 

FAMILY:PATELLIDAE 

Cellana radiata * 

FAMILY:ACMAEIDAE 

Patelloida saccharina 

ORDER: NERITOIDA 

FAMILY:NERITIDAE 

Nerita albicilla * 

Nerita chamaeleon * 

Nerita polita * 

* 

Species that have been also encountered after 1998 El Nino 

event 

ORDER: VETIGASTROPODA 

FAMILY:HALIOTIDAE 

Haliotis varia 

FAMILY:FISSURELLIDAE 

Clypidna notata * 

Diodora mus 

Scutus unguis 

FAMILY:TROCHIDAE 

Euchelus asper * 

Euchelus satratus * 

Trochus maculates 

Trochus radiatus * 

Umbonium vestiarium 

FAMILY:TURBINIDAE 

Astralium rhodostoma * 

Turbo intercostalis * 

FAMILY:PHASIANELLIDAE 

Phasianella solida * 

ORDER: CAENOGASTROPODA 

FAMILY:CERITHIIDAE 

Cerithidea cingulata 

Cerithidea quadrata 

Clypeomorus chemnitzian * 

Rhinoclavis aspera * 

Rhinoclavis sinensis 

FAMILY:POTAMIDIDAE 

Telescopium telesopium * 

FAMILY: TURRITELLIDAE 

Turitella terebra 

FAMILY:LITTORINIDAE 

Littorina scabra 

Littorina undulata * 

Nodilittorina granularis * 

Nodilittorina pyramidalis * 

FAMILY:STROMBIDAE 

Lambis chiragra 

Lambis crocata 

Lambis lambis 

Lambis scorpius 

Strombus canarium 

Strombus listeri 

Strombus mutabilis * 

Strombus plicatus * 

Strombus sp. 

Tibia insulae 

284


FAMILY:XENOPHORIDAE 

Xenophora pallidula * 

Xenophora sp. 

FAMILY:CREPIDULIDAE 

Unidentified species * 

Drupa morum * 

Drupa ricinus * 

Drupella fusconigra * 

Morula granulata * 

Morula marginatra * 

Morula sp. 

Murex haustellum 

Murex racemosa 

Murex ternispina 

Purpura pursica * 

Thais bufo * 

Thais tissoti * 

FAMILY:BUCCINIDAE 

Babylonia spirata * 

FAMILY:FASCIOLARIIDAE 

Pleuroploca trapezium 

FAMILY:NASSARIDAE 

Nassa francolinus * 

Nassarius sp. 

FAMILY:COLLUMBELLIDAE 

Pyrene versicolor * 

Pyrene spp. (3) 

FAMILY:EPITONIIDAE 

Gyroscala perplexa 

FAMILY:HARPIDAE 

Harpa harpa 

FAMILY:MARGINELLIDAE 

Marginella strigata 

Marginella sp. 

FAMILY:MITRIDAE 

Mitra sp. 

Chrysame ferruginea * 

Vexillum sp. 

FAMILY:OLIVIDAE 

Oliva reticulata * 

Oliva textilina 

Oliva miniacea 

Oliva sp. 

FAMILY:VOLUTIDAE 

Unidentified species 

FAMILY:TURBINELLIDAE 

Turbinella pyrum 

Vasum ceramicum 

FAMILY:MAGILIDAE 

Magilus sp. 

Rapa bulbiformis 

Chicoreus virgineus * 

FAMILY:CYPRAEIDAE 

Cypraea annulus * 

Cypraea arabica 

Cypraea argus 

Cypraea asellus * 

Cypraea caputserpentis * 

Cypraea errones 

Cypraea felina * 

Cypraea lynx 

Cypraea mappa 

Cypraea monata * 

Cypraea ocellata * 

Cypraea scurra 

Cypraea talpa 

Cypraea tigris * 

FAMILY:OVULIDAE 

Ovula sp. 

Volva volva 

FAMILY:NATICIDAE 

Natica euzona * 

FAMILY:CASSIDAE 

Cassis cornuta 

Cypraecassis rufa 

Phalium sp. 

FAMILY:BURSIDAE 

Bursa granularis * 

Bursa sp. 

FAMILY:FICIDAE 

Ficus sp. 

FAMILY:CYMATIDAE 

Cymatium muricinum * 

Cymatium cingulatum 

Cymatium pileare 

Cymatium aquatile 

Charonia tritonis 

FAMILY:TONNIDAE 

Tonna sp. 

FAMILY:MURICIDAE 

Chicoreus palmarosae 

Chicoreus ramosus * 

Chicoreus torrfactus 

285


FAMILY:CONIDAE 

Conus abraeus * 

Conus lividus * 

Conus pennaceus 

Conus sulcatus * 

Conus zeylanicus 

Conus tessulatus 

Conus corunatus 

Conus leopardus * 

FAMILY:TERIBRIDAE 

Terebra sp. 

FAMILY:TURRIDAE 

Lophiotoma indica 

Turriella terebra 

FAMILY:VASIDAE 

Turbinella pyrum * 

ORDER: HETEROSTROPHA 

FAMILY:ARCHITECHTONIDAE 

Haliacus variagatus 

ORDER: OPISTHOBRANCHIA 

FAMILY:HAMINOEDAE 

Haminoea cymbalum * 

FAMILY:BULLIDAE 

Bulla ampulla 

FAMILY:CHROMODORIDIDAE 

Chromodoris decora 

Chromodoris fidelis 

Chromodoris geminus 

Chromodoris tennentana 

Glossodoris atromarginatra 

Hypselodoris kanga 

Risbecia pulchella 

Risbecia sp. 

FAMILY:DORIDIDAE 

Jorunna funebris 

FAMILY:POLYCERIDAE 

Tambyja affinis 

FAMILY:PHYLLIDIIDAE 

Phyllidia cf. nobilis 

Phyllidia spp. (6) 

Phyllidia varicose 

FAMILY:GLAUCIDAE 

Pteraeolidia ianthina 

FAMILY:ARMINIDAE 

Arminia sp. 

FAMILY:PLEUROBRANCHIDAE 

Pleurobranchus sp. 

FAMILY:POLYCERIDAE 

Gymnodoris celonica 

ORDER: PULMONATA 

FAMILY:SIPHONARIIDAE 

Siphonaria atra * 

FAMILY:ELLOBIDAE 

Cassidula musterina 

FAMILY:SILIQUARIIDAE 

Siliquaria anguina 

CLASS: Bivalvia 

ORDER: MYTILIODA 

FAMILY:MYTILIDAE 

Brachidontes variabilis 

Modiolus tulipa 

Perna perna * 

Perna viridis * 

Septifer bilocularis * 

Septifer virgatus 

ORDER: ARCOIDA 

FAMILY:ARCIDAE 

Andara troscheri 

Arca lienosa 

Arca sp. 

Barbatia lima 

Barbatia sp. 

Barbatia velata * 

Barbatia virescence * 

Cucullaea labiata 

Trisidos tortuosa * 

FAMILY:GLYCYMERIDAE 

Glycymeris rotunda 

ORDER: PTERIOIDA 

FAMILY:PTERIIDAE 

Pinctada margaritifera * 

Pinctada radiata 

Pinctada vulgaris * 

Pteria penguin 

Pteria sp. 

FAMILY:MALLEIDAE 

Malleus malleus 

FAMILY:ISOGNOMONIDAE 

Isognomon sp. 

FAMILY:PINNIDAE 

Atrina sp. 

Pinna bicolor * 

Pinna muricata * 

286


ORDER: OSTETREOIDA 

FAMILY:OSTREIDAE 

Crassostrea belcheri * 

Crassostrea madrasensis * 

Saccostrea commersalis * 

Saccostrea cucullata * 

ORDER: VENEROIDA 

FAMILY:CARDITIDAE 

Cardita bicolor * 

Cardita variagata * 

FAMILY:CHAMIDAE 

Chama fragum 

Chama sp. * 

FAMILY:CARDIIDAE 

Afrocardium sp. 

Fulvia sp. 

Trachycardium sp. 

Vasticardium sp. 

FAMILY:TRIDACTINIDAE 

Tridacna maxima 

Tridacna squamosa 

FAMILY:MACTRIDAE 

Mactra sp. 

FAMILY:SOLENIDAE 

Siliqua radiata 

Solecurtus sp. 

Solen strictus 

FAMILY:DONACIDAE 

Donax scortum 

FAMILY:PSAMMOBIIDAE 

Unidentified species 

FAMILY:SEMELIDAE 

Semele sp. 

FAMILY:TRAPEZIIDAE 

Diplodonta sp. 

Trapezium rostrata 

FAMILY:VENERIDAE 

Antigona lamellaris 

Callista sp. 

Dosinia sericea * 

Dosinia sp. 

Gafrarium dispar * 

Gafrarium divaricatum * 

Gafrarium tumidum 

Meretrix costa 

Paphia sp. 

Paphia textile * 

Periglypta clathrata 

Peryglypta reticulata * 

Sunetta sp. 

Tapes sp. 

Venus toreuma 

FAMILY:PANDORIDAE 

Pandora ceylonicus 

Pandora sp. 

FAMILY:TELLINIDAE 

Tellina sp. 

CLASS: Polyplacophora 

FAMILY:CHITONIDAE 

Squamopleura imitatar * 

287



The Taxonomy and Status of Offshore Birds (Seabirds) of Sri Lanka 

S.W. Kotagama* and Rex I. De Silva § 

* 

Field Ornithology Group of Sri Lanka, Department of Zoology, University of Colombo, Colombo 3. 

§ 

Seabird Watch (Sri Lanka), 31 Dampe, Madapatha. (Piliyandala). 

Abstract 

A fair proportion of the offshore birds found in Sri Lanka are oceanic species. The checklist 

presented in this paper lists 54 species of seabirds documented so far, all of which belong to the 

order Ciconiiformes, represented by five families. The paper briefly discusses conservation issues 

affecting seabirds, mostly related to fishery and habitat degradation. With regards to the taxonomy, 

while advancements have been made over the recent years, a serious handicap has arisen from the 

lack of specimens for comparative study and the limited access to literature. 

Key words: Seabirds, Offshore birds, Conservation, Taxonomy 

Background 

This paper considers as offshore birds (seabirds) the purely oceanic species, the coastal birds as well as 

those individual wide-ranging species which occur in the coastal waters, continental shelf and inland water 

bodies. All species included here have been recorded from Sri Lanka’s territorial waters (i.e. 12 nautical 

miles or 22.24km from shore). Various workers including Legge (1880), Henry (1955), Phillips (1978), De 

Silva (1990), Harrison (1999) and others have earlier documented the offshore birds of Sri Lanka. The 

current paper seeks to supplement the work of these authors. 

We exclude from this paper those groups usually classified as seabirds but which in Sri Lanka are not 

closely connected with the ocean (eg. Pelecanidae, Phalacrocoracidae, etc.). The taxonomy and 

nomenclature follows Kotagama, De Silva, Wijeyasinghe and Abeygunawardane (in press), which is based 

on the taxonomy and nomenclature of Inskipp, Lindsey and Duckworth (1996) modified where relevant by 

the nomenclature of Bourne and Casement (1996). The birds are identified up to species level only, subspecies 

being excluded. The avifaunal list of Kotagama et al. (in press) separates the species into three 

categories. The first list (L1) includes those species for which specimens have been collected. The second 

(L2) catalogues birds which are recorded from three or more sightings or confirmed by capture and release 

(as in ringing). The third list (L3) records species known from only one or two sightings. In the present 

paper we follow this arrangement in cataloguing the seabird species. All species of offshore birds 

catalogued by Kotagama et al. (in press) are included in the checklist appended here. These include 35 

species from Ll, one from L2 and 18 from L3. 

Species richness of off-shore birds 

Ornithologically Sri Lanka can be considered an oceanic island, thus a fair proportion of the offshore birds 

recorded are oceanic species. The 54 seabird species (Appendix 1) included here all belong to a single 

Order Ciconiiformes, which is represented in our seas by five families. Of these seven (possibly eight) 

species are breeding residents (R). Thirteen species are winter visitors (W) from northern regions. None 

of these breed in Sri Lanka although some may loiter on during the summer months. Six species are 

summer visitors (S) with two of them Sterna dougallii and S. anaethetus breeding here, but note that the 

former species is also believed to be represented by a small resident population. This may well prove to be 

the case for S. anaethetus as well (see below). Three species are regular passage migrants (PM); Sterna 

anaethetus which migrates off the coast in large numbers during the south-west monsoon (De Silva, 1987), 

S. fuscata which does so in small numbers and Puffinus carneipes which migrates annually along the 

288

Kotagama & De Silva: The Taxonomy and Status of Offshore Birds (Seabirds) of Sri Lanka 

west coast on the return journey to its breeding grounds in south-west Australia (De Silva & Perera, 1994). 

A further eight species are believed to be irregular visitors (I) being recorded in very small numbers in 

some years and absent in others, but their actual status is uncertain on account of the lack of adequate 

data. The status of 22 species is uncertain. or unknown (U) at present. This includes 11 species of 

Procellariidae, eight species of Laridae, two species of Sulidae and one species of Fregatidae. Many earlier 

authors classed these birds as “vagrants”, “stragglers” or “accidentals”, which highlights the fact that 

information is lacking. It is important to note that several species fall into two or more categories. For 

example Gelochelidon nilotica is represented by both resident and (winter) migrant populations and 

S. anaethetus which is largely a passage migrant, is also considered by some authors to be a winter visitor 

and recent reports indicate that small numbers may breed on islets off Mannar. This raises the question as 

to whether a small resident breeding population of the species occurs in Sri Lanka. Where the specified 

status of a species is in some doubt, it is indicated in the checklist by a mark of interrogation (?) following 

the presumed status. It is relevant to point out that Sri Lanka has no endemic seabird species. It is 

inevitable that as more data becomes available the status of many species discussed here will be clarified 

and the checklist will require to be amended accordingly. 

Several seabird species from the Antarctic and sub-Antarctic regions visit Sri Lanka. These include 

Catharacta lonnbergi, C. maccormicki and Oceanites oceanicus. Another southern seabird Pterodroma 

mollis recorded recently from Sri Lanka, was the first of its species to be recorded from the tropical Indian 

Ocean. Another of its congeners from the sub-Antarctic regions P. lessonii was the first of the species to 

be recorded from any tropical ocean. 


Sri Lanka’s seabirds are subject to many threats, actual and potential. Many birds are accidentally 

entangled and drowned in fishing nets. Among the species so affected for which information is available 

are Sterna bergii and Sula leucogaster. Seabirds are sometimes foul-hooked on trolling lines, here again 

Sula species appear to be among the victims. A major setback to some species of breeding terns (which 

are ground nesters), is the loss of breeding habitat due to the littoral regions of lagoons in which they nest, 

being converted into ponds for shrimp farming or into evaporation pans for salt production. Habitat 

degradation has increased considerably in the last two decades. Larus brunnicephalus and occasionally 

other wintering gulls are captured for food in a few northern villages. Reports indicate that at present this 

appears to be carried out on a relatively limited scale. The data relating to the effects of marine pollution 

on seabirds is virtually non-existent and the extent of actual or potential threats is therefore unknown. 

Issues related to taxonomy 

The taxonomy of offshore birds has undergone considerable revision in recent years. Regrettably in some 

instances this has not clarified matters, as an element of disagreement exists among the different 

authorities. A source of some confusion is the Larus argentatus / L. cachinnans / L. fuscus / L. heuglini 

group. These have been considered by some authors as individual species in their own right, others 

consolidate them into two (or more) species, a minority consider them to be conspecific, while some 

authorities treat them as sub-species. Since each one has at some time been recorded from Sri Lanka and 

the taxonomy continues to remain rather confused, we provisionally treat these as separate species, 

realizing clearly that this treatment may be subject to revision in the light of new information. This also 

illustrates a major drawback to workers in Sri Lanka where a lack of specimens for comparative study and 

limited access to literature often proves to be a serious handicap. 

289


References and Related Literature 

Bourne, W.R.P and Casement, M.B. (1996). RNBWS Checklist of seabirds (Revised). Supplement to Sea 

Swallow 45. 

De Silva, R. I. (1987). Observations on the annual mass migration of Bridled Terns Sterna anaethetus off 

the coast of Colombo. Ibis 129(1): 88-92. 

De Silva, R.I. (1990). The Seabirds of Sri Lanka: an annotated checklist. Cey. Journ. of Sci. (BioI. Sci.) 

21(1):28-33. 

De Silva, R.I. (1991). Status and conservation of the breeding seabirds of Sri Lanka in J. P. Croxall (ed.) 

Seabird status and conservation: a supplement. London. ICBP (Technical Publication 11): 205-211. 

De Silva, R.I. (1994). Identity of the home ranges of Brown Skuas Catharacta (antarctica) lonnbergi 

(AVES: STERCORARIDAE) collected in the northern Indian Ocean. Cey. Journ. of Sci. (BioI. Sci.) 

23(1):52-55. 

De Silva, R.I. and Perera, L. (1994). Shearwater migration off the coast of Sri Lanka. Loris 20(3): 97-100. 

Harrison, J. (1999). A field guide to the birds of Sri Lanka. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 

Henry, G.M. (1955). A guide to the birds of Ceylon. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 

Inskipp, T., Lindsey, N. and Duckworth, W. (1996). An annotated checklist of the birds of the Oriental 

Reqion. Sandy. Oriental Bird Club. 

Kotagama, S.W., De Silva, R.I., Wijeyasinghe,A. and Abeygunawardane, V. (in press). Avifaunal list of Sri 

Lanka. Colombo. IUCN. 

Legge, W.V. (1880). A history of the birds of Ceylon. (Reprint edition 1983). Dehiwela. Tisara 

Prakasakayo. 

Phillips, W.W.A. (1978). Annotated checklist of the birds of Ceylon (Sri Lanka). Wildlife and Nature 

Protection Society of Sri Lanka. (Rev. edition). 

290


Appendix 1: Checklist of Sea Birds of Sri Lanka 

ORDER CICONIIFORMES 

FAMILY LARIDAE 

1. Catharacta lonnbergi Mathews, 1941. 

Brown Skua. (S) 

2. C. maccormicki (Saunders, 1893) 

South Polar Skua. (U) 

3. Stercorarius pomarinus (Temminck, 1815) 

Pomarine Jaeger. (S) 

4. S. parasiticus (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Parasitic Jaeger. (U) 

5. Larus hemprichii (Bruch, 1853) 

Sooty Gull. (U) 

6. L. heuglini Bree, 1876 

Heuglin’s Gull (I) 

7. L. argentatus Pontoppidan, 1763 

Herring Gull (W?) 

8. L. cachinnans Pallas, 1811 

Sooty Gull. (U) 

9. L. fuscus Linnaeus, 1758 

Lesser Black-backed Gull. (I) 

10. L. ichthyaetus Pallas, 1773 

Pallas’s Gull. (W) 

11. L. brunnicephalus Jerdon, 1840 

Brown-headed Gull. (W) 

12. L. ridibundus Linnaeus, 1766 

Black-headed Gull. (W) 

13. L. genei Breme, 1839 

Slender-billed Gull. (U) 

14. Gelochelidon nilotica (Gmelin, 1789) 

Gull-billed Tern. (W/R?) 

15. Sterna caspia (Pallas, 1770) 

Caspian Tern. (R/W) 

16. S. bengalensis Lesson, 1831 

Lesser Crested Tern. (W) 

17. S. bergii Lesson, 1831 

Great Crested Tern. (R) 

18. S. sandvicensis Latham, 1787 

Sandwich Tern. (W) 

19. S. dougallii Montagu, 1813 

Roseate Tern. (S/R) 

20. S. sumatrana Raffles, 1822 

Black-naped Tern. (U) 

Ll 

L3 

Ll 

L3 

L3 

Ll 

L3 

L2 

L3 

Ll 

Ll 

L3 

L3 

Ll 

Ll 

Ll 

Ll 

Ll 

Ll 

L3 

291


21. S. hirundo Linnaeus, 1758 

Common Tern. (W/R) 

22. S. albifrons Pallas, 1764 

Little Tern. (R) 

23. S. saundersi Hume, 1877 

Saunders’s Tern. (R) 

24. S. repressa Hartert, 1916 

White-cheeked Tern (U) 

25. S. anaethetus Scopoli, 1786 

Bridled Tern. (PM/W?/R?) 

26. S. fuscata Linnaeus, 1766 

Sooty Tern. (PM) 

27. Chlidonias hybridus (Pallas, 1811) 

Whiskered Tern. (W) 

28. C. leucopterus (Temminck, 1815) 

White-winged Tern. (W) 

29. C. niger (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Black Tern. (W?) 

30. Anous stolidus (linnaeus, 1758) 

Brown Noddy. (S) 

31. A. minutus (Boie, 1844) 

Black Noddy. (U) 

32. A. tenuirostris (Temminck, 1823) 

Lesser Noddy. (I) 

Ll 

Ll 

Ll 

L3 

Ll 

Ll 

Ll 

Ll 

L3 

Ll 

L3 

Ll 

FAMILY PHAETHONTIDAE 

33. Phaethon aetherus Linnaeus, 1758 

Red-billed Tropicbird. (S) 

34. P. lepturus Daudin, 1802 

White-tailed Tropicbird. (I) 

Ll 

Ll 

FAMILY SULIDAE 

35. Sula dactylatra Lesson, 1831 

Masked Booby. (U) 

36. S. sula (Linnaeus. 1766) 

Red-footed Booby. (U) 

37. S. leucogaster (Boddaert. 1783) 

Brown Booby. (I) 

Ll 

Ll 

Ll 

FAMILY FREGATIDAE 

38. Fregata minor (Gmelin, 1789) 

Great Frigatebird. (I) 

39. F. ariel (Gray, 1845) 

Lesser Frigatebird. (I) 

Ll 

Ll 

292


40. F. andrewsi Mathews. 1914 

Christmas Island Frigatebird. (U) 

L3 

FAMILY PROCELLARIIDAE 

41. Daption capense (Linnaeus. 1758) 

Cape Petrel (U). 

42. Pterodroma baraui (Jouanin, 1964) 

Barau’s Petrel. (U) 

43. P. lessonii (Garnot. 1826) 

White-headed Petrel. (U) 

44 P. mollis (Gould. 1844) 

Soft-plumaged Petrel. (U) 

45. Bulweria bulwerii (Jardine & Selby. 1828) 

Bulwer’s Petrel. (U) 

46. B. fallax Jouanin, 1955 

Jouanin’s Petrel. (U) 

47. Calonectris leucomelas (Temminck, 1835) 

Streaked Shearwater. (U) 

48. Puffinus pacificus (Gmelin. 1789) 

Wedge-tailed Shearwater. (I) 

49. P. carneipes Gould, 1844 

Flesh-footed Shearwater. (PM) 

50. P. griseus (Gmelin, 1789) 

Sooty Shearwater. (U) 

51. P. tenuirostris (Temminck. 1835) 

Short-tailed Shearwater. (U) 

52. P. Iherminieri Lesson, 1839 

Audubon’s Shearwater. (U). 

53. Oceanites oceanicus (Kuhl, 1820) 

Wilson’s Storm-petrel. (S) 

54. Oceanodroma monorhis (Swinhoe, 1867) 

Swinhoe’s Storm-petrel. (U) 

Ll 

L3 

L3 

L3 

L3 

Ll 

Ll 

Ll 

Ll 

L3 

Ll 

L3 

Ll 

Ll 

293



Taxonomy and Status of the Sharks and Rays of Sri Lanka 

Rex I. De Silva* 

*31 Dampe , Madapatha 10306, (Piliyandala) 

Abstract 

This paper presents checklists, for the 61 species of sharks and 31 species of rays found both in the 

territorial waters and exclusive economic zones belonging to Sri Lanka. Conservation concerns have 

arisen primarily from the fact that most selachians are rather slow breeders, and as such are very 

easily affected by a variety of natural and anthropogenic threats, including intense fishing. To 

implement successful conservation initiatives further research will be required for threat analysis on 

a species by species basis. Furthermore the author describes some of the existing taxonomic issues 

faced by selachian biologists in Sri Lanka. 

Key words: Sharks, Rays, Skates, Conservation 

Background 

Sharks have been relatively neglected by Sri Lanka’s naturalists, possibly on account of the difficulties 

inherent in identifying many species, as well as the paucity of accessible literature. Until recently the 

taxonomy was also in a rather confused state. 

Various authors have from time-to-time attempted to catalogue the Sri Lanka sharks. Mendis (1954) listed 

15 species, which included a doubtful species - Lamna spallanzani. In his list of 22 species Munroe (1955) 

included Lamna spallanzani and listed Nebrius ferrugineus twice, once under its correct taxon and again 

under a synonym, hence the actual number was 20 species. De Silva (1988) listed 44 confirmed and 11 

unconfirmed species in his checklist. Several of these unconfirmed species have subsequently been 

recorded in Sri Lankan waters. Amarasooriya and Dayaratne (1994) listed 44 species from the west and 

south-western coasts. De Bruin, Russel and Bogusch (1994) included 43 species as being of interest to the 

marine fisheries industry. In a more recent paper, De Silva (1995) has listed 51 species. Weerakkody and 

Fernando (2000) added a single species Centrophorus squamosus and also proposed the acceptance of 

Isistius braziliensis on a provisional basis. The latter species is excluded from the checklist as evidence 

for its occurrence in Sri Lanka waters is circumstantial. It is relevant to note that a few species of sharks 

caught extra-territorially are sometimes unloaded in Sri Lankan ports. Care was taken therefore to ensure 

that such species were not inadvertently included in the Sri Lanka checklist. 

Sri Lanka’s skates and rays have received considerably less attention than their relatives the sharks. 

Munroe (1955) included 29 species. De Bruin, Russel and Bogusch (1994) accepted 30 and also updated 

the taxonomy. 

Species richness of sharks and rays 

The present paper accepts 61 species of sharks belonging to 5 orders and 17 families (Appendix 1). These 

comprise the currently known shark species from both the territorial waters of Sri Lanka and the exclusive 

economic zone. Since Jonklaas first reported Notorhynchus cepedianus in the 1970’s (De Silva, 1995) 

there have been no further records of the species. There have also been no records of Carcharodon 

carcharias and Sphyrna mokarran since they were first documented a few decades ago. Compagno (in 

litt. 1989) clarified that C. carcharias is primarily a temperate zone species which seldom enters the 

tropics. The paucity of records for S. mokarran however has no ready explanation. Other species for 

which there are relatively few recent records include Carcharhinus amboinensis, C. plumbeus, 

Odontaspis noronhai, O. ferox, Negaprion brevirostris, Hexanchus griseus and Lamiopsis temmincki. 

294

De Silva: Taxonomy and Status of the Sharks and Rays of Sri Lanka 

The skates and rays documented from Sri Lanka waters include a total of 31 species from four orders and 

nine families (Appendix 2). However, this is an under-representation of the true species richness, as many 

species of rays remain to be documented from Sri Lanka’s waters. This is a lacuna that future workers 

could fill. 


Most selachians are rather slow breeders. They take a long time to attain sexual maturity, have long 

gestation periods and produce relatively few young. For example in two of the more prolific breeders 

Prionace glauca and Galeocerdo cuvier sexual maturity takes approximately four to five years and litters 

vary from 4 to 135 for the former and 10 to 82 for the latter. The gestation periods for these species vary 

from 9 to 12 months. Many other species however are less fecund; Eugomphodus taurus produces only 

two young at a time. Carcharhinus wheeleri and Triaenodon obesus have litters of from one to five. In 

comparison bony fish produce several tens of thousands of eggs at a time and a few species produce as 

many as a million. It is clear therefore that selachian populations, on account of their slow reproductive 

rate, can easily be adversely affected by a variety of threats both natural and those resulting from human 

intervention. 

Intensive fishing activity using modern equipment, coupled with the proliferation of large-scale fisheries has 

resulted in greatly increased catches. Sharks are particularly affected as their flesh has recently become 

more acceptable as a source of protein. Many sharks are captured as by-catch, by fishing gear set for 

other species. The very large demand for shark fins has resulted in the cruel and wasteful practice of 

“finning”. Pelagic species like Caraharhinus falciformis, C. longimanus, the three Alpoias species, 

Sphyrna zygaena, S. lewini etc. are taken in large numbers. Many of these are slow breeders, hence it is 

not clear how much longer these (and other pelagic species) can survive in commercially viable populations. 

Some reef sharks have declined in numbers in recent years. For example Stegostoma fasciatum, which 

was never very abundant, has all but disappeared from many of its former haunts. Nebrius ferrugineus 

and Triaenodon obesus, both largely nocturnal species, have also decreased in numbers although reasons 

for this are difficult to determine. The skates and rays are mainly taken by artisan fisheries, hence they 

appear to have fared somewhat better, although once again precise data is lacking. In addition to direct 

impact of the fisheries industry, there is the potentially adverse effect of marine pollution on selachians, 

although precise data relating to the Sri Lanka condition is not available. Due to the lack of data it is not 

possible to determine the exact status of many of the species in the checklist and whether any are at risk. 

There is an urgent need therefore for threat-evaluation on a species-by-species basis. 

Taxonomic issues 

The taxonomic validity of Eugomphodus tricuspidatus (included by De Bruin et al., 1994), needs to be 

re-evaluated. The status of the species described as Lamna spallanzani and Carcharhinus menisorrah, 

recorded by many earlier writers as being present in Sri Lanka waters, as well as the two Gymnura 

species periodically reported from our seas need to be reconsidered. In the past most small manta rays 

were ascribed to Mobula diabolus which is no longer thought to occur in Sri Lanka waters. Whether this 

species is actually present along with its large relative Manta birostris, as anecdotal evidence suggests, is 

a matter for future research to clarify. This highlights a problem faced by selachian biologists in Sri Lanka, 

viz. the lack of specimens for comparative studies and the restricted access to literature: a problem faced 

by many workers in developing countries. 


I thank Professor S.W. Kotagama for reading the manuscript and making several useful suggestions. 

295


References 

Amarasooriya,A. & Dayaratne,P. (1994): A species identification of the shark catches landed in the West 

and the South West coasts of Sri Lanka. NARA Annual Report. Colombo. NARA. 

De Bruin, G.H.P., Russel, B.C. and Bagusch, A. (1994): The Marine Fishery Resources of Sri Lanka. 

Rome. FAO. 

De Silva,R.I. (1988): The sharks of Sri Lanka, a key to the different species and a preliminary checklist. 

Ceylon Journal of Science (Bio.Sci.) 17 & 18: 56-64. 

De Silva,R.I. (1995): A history of the sharks of Sri Lanka. Sesquicentennial Commemorative Volume. 

Colombo. Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka. 

Mendis,A.S. (1954): Fishes of Ceylon. Bulletin No.2. Fisheries Research Station. 

Munroe,I.S.R. (1955): The marine and freshwater fishes of Ceylon. Canberra. Department of External 

Affairs. 

Weerakkody, P. and Fernando, S. (2000): Leaf scale Gulper Shark Centrophorus squamosus (Bonnaterre, 

1788): The First record from Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Naturalist III. 44-45. 

296


Appendix 1: Checklist of shark species recorded from the territorial waters 

of Sri Lanka 

ORDER HEXANCHlFORMES 

FAMILY HEXANCHIDAE 

1. Hexanchus griseus (Bonaterre, 1788). B1untnose sixgill shark. 

2. Notorynchus cepedianus (Peron, 1907). Broadnose sevengill shark. 

ORDER SQUALlFORMES 

FAMILY ECHINORHINIDAE 

3. Echinorhinus brucus (Bonaterre, 1788). Bramble shark. 

FAMILY SQUALIDAE 

4. Centrophorus squamosus (Bonaterre, 1788). Leaf scale gulper shark. 

5. Centroscyllium ornatum (Alcock, 1889). Ornate dogfish. 

6. Dalatias licha (Bonnaterra, 1788). Kitefin shark. 

ORDER ORECTOLOBlFORMES 

FAMILY HEMISCYLLIIDAE 

7. Chiloscyllium griseum (Muller & Henle, 1838). Grey bambooshark. 

8. C. indicum (Gmelin, 1789). Slender bamboo shark. 

9. C. plagiosum (Bennet, 1830). Whitespotted bamboo shark. 

FAMILY STEGOSTOMATIDAE 

10. Stegostoma fasciatum (Hermann, 1783). Zebra shark. 

FAMILY GINGLYMOSTOMATIDAE 

11. Nebrius ferrugineus (Lesson, 1830). Tawny nurse shark. 

FAMILY RHINIODONTIDAE 

12. Rhiniodon typus (Smith, 1828). Whale shark. 

ORDER LAMNIFORMES 

FAMILY ALPOIIDAE 

13. Alopias vulpinus (Bonnaterre, 1788). Thresher shark. 

14. A. superciliosus (Lowe, 1839). Bigeye thresher shark. 

15. A. pelagicus (Nakamura, 1935). Pelagic thresher shark. 

FAMILY ODONTASPIDIDAE 

16. Odontaspis noronhai (Maul, 1955). Bigeye sandtiger. 

17. O. ferox (Risso,1810). Smalltooth sandtiger. 

18. Eugomphodus taurus (Rafinesque, 1810). Sandtiger shark. 

297


FAMILY PSEUDOCARCHARIIDAE 

19. Pseudocarcharias kamoharai (Matsubara, 1936). Crocodile shark. 

FAMILY LAMNIDAE 

20. Carcharodon carcharias (Linnaeus, 1758). Great white shark. 

21. Isurus oxyrinchus (Rafinesque, 1809). Shortfin mako shark. 

22. I. paucus (Guitart Manday, 1966). Longfin mako. 

ORDER CARCHARHINIFORMES 

FAMILY SCYLIORHINIDAE 

23. Atelomycterus marmoratus (Bennet, 1830). Coral catshark. 

24. Halaelurus hispidus (Alcock, 1891). Bristly catshark. 

FAMILY PROSCYLLIIDAE 

25. Eridacnis radcliffei (Smith, 1913) Pygmy ribbontail catshark. 

FAMILY TRIAKIDAE 

26. Mustelus manazo (Bleeker, 1854). Starspotted smoothhound. 

27. M. mosis (Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1899). Arabian smoothhound. 

FAMILY HEMIGALEIDAE 

28. Chaenogaleus macrostorna (Bleeker, 1852). Hooktooth shark. 

29. Hemigaleus microstorna Bleeker, 1852. Sicklefin weasel shark. 

30. Hemipristis elongatus (Klunzinger, 1871). Snaggletooth shark. 

FAMILY CARCHARHINIDAE 

31. Carcharhinus albimarginatus (Ruppel, 1837). Silvertip shark. 

32. C. altimus (Springer, 1950). Bignose shark. 

33. C. amblyrhynchoides (Whitley, 1934). Graceful shark. 

34. C. amblyrhynchos (Bleeker, 1856). Grey reef shark. 

35. C. amboinensis (Muller & Henle, 1839). Pigeye shark. 

36. C. brevipinna (Muller & Henle, 1839). Spinner shark. 

37. C. dussumieri (Valenceiennes, 1839). Whitecheek shark. 

38. C. falciformis (Bibron, 1839). Silky shark. 

39. C. hemiodon (Valenciennes, 1839). Pondicherry shark. 

40. C. limbatus (Valenciennes, 1839). Blacktip shark. 

41. C. 1ongimanus (Poey. 1861). Oceanic whitetip shark. 

42. C. macloti (Muller & Hen1e, 1839). Hardnose shark. 

43. C. melanopterus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824). Blacktip reef shark. 

44. C. plumbeus (Nardo, 1827). Sandbar shark. 

45. C. sealei (Pietschmann, 1916). Blackspot shark. 

46. C. sorrah (Valenciennes. 1830). spot-tai1 shark. 

47. C. wheeleri (Garrick, 1982) .Blacktail reef shark. 

298


48. Galeocerdo cuvier (Peron & Lesuer, 1822). Tiger shark. 

49. Lamiopsis temmincki (Muller & Henlei. 1839). Broadfin shark. 

50. Loxodon macrorhinus (Muller. Hen1e. 1839). Sliteye shark. 

51. Negaprion acutidens (Ruppell, 1837). Sicklefin lemon shark. 

52. N. brevirostris (Poey. 1868). Lemon shark. 

53. Prionace glauca (Linnaeus, 1758). Blue shark. 

54. Rhizoprionodon acutus (Ruppell, 1837) .Milk shark. 

55. R. oligolinx Springer. 1964. Grey sharpnose shark. 

56. Scoliodon laticaudus Muller & Henle, 1838. Spadenose shark. 

57. Triaenodon obesus (Ruppell, 1837). Whitetip reef shark. 

FAMILY SPHYRNIDAE 

58. Eusphyra blochii (Cuvier. 1817). Winghead. 

59. Sphyrna lewini (Griffith & Smith, 1834). Scalloped hammerhead. 

60. S. mokarran (Ruppell. 1837). Great hammerhead. 

61. S. zygaena (Linnaeus. 1757). Smooth hammerhead. 

299


Appendix 2: Checklist of skates and rays recorded from the territorial waters 

of Sri Lanka 

ORDER PRISTIFORMES 

FAMILY PRISTIDAE 

1. Anoxypristis cuspidatus (Latham, 1794). Narrow sawfish. 

2. Pristis microdon Latham, 1794. Largetooth sawfish. 

3. P. zijsron Bleeker, 1851. Longcomb sawfish. 

ORDER TORPEDINIFORMES 

FAMILY NARCINIDAE 

4. Narke dipterygia (Bloch & Schneider, 1801). Numb fish. 

5. N. brunnea Annandale, 1909. Brown electric ray. 

6. N. timlei (Bloch & Schneider, 1801). Spotted electric ray. 

ORDER RAJIFORMES 

FAMILY RHINOBATIDAE 

7. Rhina ancylostoma Bloch & Schneider, 1801. Shark ray. 

8. Rhinobatos annandalei Norman, 1926. Annandale’s guitarfish. 

9. R. granulatus Cuvier, 1829. Granulated guitarfish 

10. Rhynchobatus djiddensis (Forsskal, 1775). Whitespotted guitarfish. 

FAMILY RAJIDAE 

11. Raja mamillidens Alcock, 1889. Prickly skate. 

ORDER MYLIOBATIFORMES 

FAMILY DASYATIDIDAE 

12. Dasyatis kuhlii (Muller & Henle, 1841). Bluespotted stingray. 

13. D. marginatus (Blyth, 1860). Blackedged stingray. 

14. D. pastinacus (Linnaeus, 1758). Stingray. 

15. D. zugei (Muller & Henle, 1841). Pale-edged stingray. 

16. Himantura bleekeri (Blyth, 1860). Whiptail stingray. 

17. H. gerrardi (Gray, 1851). Sharpnose stingray. 

18. H. imbricatus (Bloch & Schheider, 1801). Scaly stingray. 

19. H. uarnak (Forsksk.al, 1775). Honeycomb stingray. 

20. Pastinachus sephen (Forsskal, 1775). Cowtail stingray. 

21. Taeniura lymma (Forsskal, 1775). Bluespotted ribbon ray. 

22. T. meyeni Muller & Henle, 1841. Blotched fantail ray. 

23. Urogymnus asperrimus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801). Porcupine ray. 

FAMILY GYMNURIDAE 

24. Gymnura poecilura (Shaw, 1804). Butterfly ray. 

300


FAMILY MYLIOBATIDIDAE 

25. Aetobatus narinari (Euphrasen, 1790). Spotted eagle ray. 

26. Aetomylaeus maculatus (Gray, 1834). Mottled eagle ray. 

27. A. nichofii (Bloch & Schneider, 1801). Banded eagle ray. 

FAMILY RHINOPTERIDAE 

28. Rhinoptera adspersa (Muller & Henle, 1841). Rough cownose ray. 

29. R. javenica (Muller & Henle, 1841). Javanese cownose ray. 

FAMILY MOBULIDAE 

30. Mobula eregoodootenkee (Cuvier, 1829). Lesser devil ray. 

31. M. kuhlii (Valenciennes, 1841). Pygmy devil ray. 

301



Taxonomy and Current Status of Marine Mammals in Sri Lanka 

A. D. Ilangakoon* 

*Cetacean Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission 

Abstract 

Based on published literature and the current state of knowledge, 28 species of marine mammals 

have been identified in Sri Lanka’s waters. Of these, 27 species - under two sub-orders and five 

families - belong to the order Cetacea, and one species belongs to the order Sirenia. Cetacean 

taxonomy is still evolving globally and the ecological needs and parameters for many of these species 

have not yet been defined clearly. Even in the 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species the 

majority of even common species of small cetaceans are still listed as data deficient or not assessed. 

Although there has been a long-term research focus on many terrestrial mammal species, dedicated 

long-term research on marine mammals in Sri Lanka is lacking. As a result, there are many research 

gaps in relation to this faunal group and our knowledge on population trends, distribution and species 

and/or populations at risk is still very meager. As a group, marine mammals also face many threats 

as a result of human activities in both near-shore and offshore marine areas. 

Key words: Marine mammals, Taxonomy, Issues, Ecology, Gaps 

Introduction 

Sri Lanka’s territorial waters are rich in marine mammal fauna with high species richness and year-round 

abundance. However, present knowledge about this diverse segment of mammalian fauna is still very 

limited due to a lack of dedicated research on the subject. In scientific literature, there are records of 

stranded whales and museum specimens from as far back as the 1889 (Fernando, 1912; Deraniyagala, 

1960). In the mid-20th century, interactions with fisheries are mentioned for the first time (Lantz and 

Gunasekera, 1955). Although travelers and historians have referred to whales in the waters around the 

island as far back as the 14th century, the first scientific records of live cetaceans are documented only 

after about 1980. Research carried out in the last two decades has resulted in most of what is known 

about species diversity, threats and conservation issues of Sri Lankan cetaceans. The occurrence and 

hunting of the dugong in Sri Lanka’s waters appears in the literature in the late 19th century (Haley, 1884; 

Nevill 1885), but there has been very little recent work done on this globally threatened species. 

Taxonomic classification for species in Sri lanka’s waters 

Based on current taxonomy, 28 species of marine mammals within the two Orders of Cetacea and Sirenia 

have been recorded from the waters around Sri Lanka (Table 1 below). This species list is based on 

specimens obtained from strandings on the coastline (Deraniyagala, 1948, 1960, 1963, 1965b; Leatherwood 

and Reeves, 1989, Ilangakoon, 2002), specimens from the fisheries bycatch and direct take (Prematunga 

et. al., 1985; Leatherwood and Reeves 1989; Leatherwood, 1990, Dayaratna and Joseph, 1993; 

Ilangakoon, 1997, 2002; Ilangakoon et. al., 2000a, 200b) and sightings from offshore surveys (Leatherwood 

et. al. 1984; Alling, 1986; Alling et. al., 1991; Ilangakoon, 2000b, 2002; Anonymous, 2003). The list is by no 

means complete as a new species for our waters - Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) 

- was identified as recently as 2002 (Ilangakoon, 2002; Ilangakoon and Perera, 2002). 

Of the total of 28 species, 27 belong to the Order Cetacea, and are placed within the two Suborders 

Mysticeti and Odontoceti, and come under the six families of Balaenopteridae, Physeteridae, Kogiidae, 

Ziphiidae, Delphinidae and Phocoenidae. The single species in the Order Sirenia is the Dugong (Dugong 

dugon), belonging to the family Dugongidae. 

302

Ilangakoon: Taxonomy and Current Status of Marine Mammals in Sri Lanka 

Table 1: Taxonomic Classification of Species in Sri Lanka’s Waters 

Order Suborder Family No. of Genera No. of Species 

Cetacea Mysticeti Balaenopteridae 2 5 

Odontoceti Physeteridae 1 1 

Kogiidae 1 2 

Ziphiidae 3 4 

Delphinidae 12 14 

Phocoenidae 1 1 

Sirenia - Dugongidae 1 1 

Total 21 28 

Issues pertaining to taxonomy and ecology 

In a global context, the taxonomy of cetaceans is still evolving and species are being split and lumped based 

on new advances in molecular biological research; new species are also being added based on discoveries 

from expanding field research. A good example of splitting is Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni). This 

species is being currently split into two species based on genetic differences and skull morphometrics 

(Wada et. al., 2003). Once the original type specimen is re-examined, these two new species will very 

likely be named B. edeni and B. brydii. However, the problem of field discrimination of these two species 

is yet to be resolved, because they are outwardly similar in appearance and are not geographically isolated, 

occurring side by side. [This has been empirically proven in in the waters off Thailand where both are 

present (personal communication S. Chantrapornsyl)]. In Sri Lanka’s waters, what was originally named 

B. edeni is common, but recent evidence indicates that both species may occur here as well. 

In contrast, the rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis, found in Sri Lankan waters, was placed 

originally in a separate family called the Stenidae. However, a captive specimen in a dolphinarium in 

Hawaii bred successfully with a common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and produced a calf that 

lived for four years (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1982). As a result of this, and similar observations from the 

wild, this species was moved to the family Delphinidae. Meanwhile new species of cetaceans are also still 

being discovered in little studied families such as the Ziphiidae. For example, the Pygmy beaked-whale 

(Mesoplodon peruvianus) was discovered in the South Pacific Ocean and named as recently as 1991. 

Ecology 

The ecological needs of many of the species occurring in Sri Lanka’s waters are not defined clearly or 

even known at present. However, what is known is that the great diversity of species in the waters around 

the island inhabit all available niches in both coastal and offshore waters with a few even entering coastal 

lagoons (Ilangakoon, unpublished data). 

Research gaps 

There has been little dedicated, long-term research on marine mammals in Sri Lanka. This is mostly a result 

of a lack of both financial resources (since research at sea is costly) and trained personnel to carry out the 

work. Whatever studies have been carried out have been short-term projects, when funds became 

available and through the use of platforms of opportunity despite he unavailability of a dedicated research 

vessel. Therefore, marine mammal research has been discontinuous and as a result, what we know about 

Sri Lankan marine mammals is still very incomplete. 

303


• We do not know which species/population are particularly at risk in Sri Lanka. 

• We still know little about distribution, migration patterns, population trends or species/populations at 

particular risk. 

• No molecular biological work has been conducted to assess stock affinities or population structure of 

any species in our waters. 

• Because species identification has been based largely on external morphology, there is a need for 

trained marine mammal taxonomists in the country. 

• Even less is known about the dugong population in the waters of the Gulf of Mannar because little 

focused research has been carried out for decades. 

Threats and conservation issues 

Marine mammals face a multitude of threats due to various human activities. In Sri Lanka’s waters, the 

principle threat is the fisheries industry, because it causes both direct and indirect mortality of small 

cetaceans and dugongs in large numbers each year (Ilangakoon, 1989, 1997, 2002; Ilangakoon et. al. 2000a, 

2000b). For small cetaceans, accidental bycatch in commonly used synthetic gillnets is a major problem. 

This causes the death, by drowning, of thousands of animals. Although direct hunting is not as widespread 

as bycatch in Sri Lanka, in certain areas the use of hand-held harpoons to kill small cetaceans does take 

place (Ilangakoon 1997, 2002; Ilangakoon et. al., 2000a). Within the past two decades, this practice has 

spread to new areas and the numbers being killed annually in this way continue to increase (Ilangakoon et. 

al., 2000a; Ilangakoon, 2002). Dugongs too are often caught accidentally in nets and are also hunted 

deliberately whenever sighted by fishermen. 

Although increased shipping traffic is a threat that affects all marine mammals, it much more of a direct 

threat to large whales in the waters around the island. Recently, there has been evidence that several 

large whales have been killed in our waters due to ship strikes (Ilangakoon, unpublished data). Increased 

shipping also causes increased marine pollution (both acoustic and chemical) as well as the likelihood of oil 

spills, which that can be extremely detrimental to marine mammals. Habitat destruction in the form of 

pollution of coastal waters - through land-based and marine-based sources - also poses a threat to marine 

mammals which have a restricted habitat or specialized ecological needs such as the dugong and coastal 

dolphins. For instance, based on current research the range of the small cetacean Indo-pacific humpback 

dolphin (Sousa chinensis) in Sri Lanka’s waters appears to be restricted to a small nearshore area off the 

north-west of the island (Ilangakoon, unpublished data). Disturbance or pollution of their habitat can 

become a threat to the very existence of this population and its long-term viability. However, because 

detailed long-term research on this species and therefore sound scientific data are lacking, it is not possible 

to formulate or enforce any protective measures based on sound scientific data. 

Another conservation issue that affects the marine mammals of Sri Lanka is that marine protected areas 

(MPA’s) are not given priority in the protected area system of the country (Ilangakoon, 2001). To date only 

four MPA’s have been declared in the waters around the island and both have been declared with the aim 

of protecting coral reefs. Even in these two marine protected areas, enforcement and management are 

almost non-existent. Some marine mammal species, such as the vulnerable dugong with its specialized 

ecological needs and restricted habitat, would indubitably benefit from well-managed protected areas 

declared specifically for its protection. However, protection of marine mammals has been given priority or 

even taken into consideration when marine protected areas have been declared in Sri Lanka. 

Nature tourism, although not yet a threat to marine mammals in Sri Lanka, is potential threat. This could 

become a major problem to marine mammals, as there are no regulations in place to control or monitor 

such activities in this country. Even if regulations were put in place through the law, enforcement would be 

very difficult at sea due to the same constraints that cause the lack of enforcement in MPA’s. In many 

parts of the world today, where whale and dolphin watching is a well-developed part of the tourist industry, 

304


adverse impacts - especially on species and populations inhabiting coastal waters - have become proven 

(Constantine et. al., 2004; Lusseau, 2003). Such adverse impacts occurred even where strict regulations 

are in place (Garrod and Fennel, 2004). 

From an international perspective, of the species in Sri Lanka’s waters, the 2002 IUCN Red List of 

Threatened Species lists two as endangered and three as vulnerable. Another seven are listed as low risk, 

but of these six are conservation dependent and one is near threatened (Table 2, below). However, the 

most for Sri Lankan marine mammals is that, of the rest, 11 are listed as data deficient, while five are not 

listed at all. 

Table 2: Status of Species in Sri Lanka’s Waters According to IUCN Red List 

Order Suborder Family IUCN 2002 Red List Categories 

CR EN VU LR DD NL* 

Cetacea Mysticeti Balaenopteridae - 2 1 1nt 1 - 

Odontoceti Physeteridae - - 1 - - - 

Kogiidae - - - - - 2 

Ziphiidae - - - 1cd 3 - 

Delphinidae - - - 5cd 6 3 

Phocoenidae - - - - 1 - 

Sirenia - Dugongidae - - 1 - - - 

Total 0 2 3 7 11 5 

CR: Critically Endangered; EN: Endangered; Vu: Vulnerable; Low Risk: LR; DD: Data Deficient; NL: 

notlisted; nt: Near threatened; cd: Conservation dependent 

Conclusions 

It is important to recognize that much more research is necessary before a clear understanding of the 

marine mammal fauna in the waters around Sri Lanka can be obtained. This also means that there is an 

urgent need for the allocation of resources for the specific study of marine mammals in Sri Lanka. As 

marine mammals, except for a few species, are largely transient animals, with some species undertaking 

long annual migrations, it is important that links for research and conservation are forged and collaborations 

established with other regional countries and organizations. These linkages will also help fill resource gaps 

through the use of platforms of opportunity, such as shared use of research vessels from both outside and 

within the region. 


My special thanks go to Dr. Hiran Jayewardene of the Indian Ocean Marine Affairs Co-operation for 

initiating marine mammal research in Sri Lanka and providing constant support and encouragement in the 

past two decades. I also wish to thank the late Dr. Stephen Leatherwood for imparting his extensive 

knowledge and providing me with the initial training and basic knowledge in cetology. I also acknowledge 

all the research assistants who have worked with me over the years and the numerous funding agencies 

that have provided resources for marine mammal research in Sri Lanka’s waters. 

305


References 

Alling, A. (1986); Records of Odontocetes in the Northern Indian Ocean (1981-1982) and off the coast of 

Sri Lanka (1982-1984). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 83 (2): 376-394. 

Alling, A., Dorsey, E. M. and Gordon, J. C. D. (1991); Blue Whales (Balaenoptera musculus) off the 

Northeast Coast of Sri Lanka: Distribution, Feeding and Individual Identification. United Nations 

Environment Programme, Marine Mammal Technical Report Number 3: 247-258. 

Anonymous (2003). Voyage of the Odyssey, Sri Lanka: Regional Report, 29 March to 17 June, 2003. 

Report of the Ocean Alliance. 17pp. 

Constantine, R., Brunton, D. H., and Dennis, T. (2004); Dolphin-watching tour boats change bottlenose 

dolphin behaviour, Biological Conservation 117: 299-370. 

Dayaratna, P. and Joseph, L. (1993); A study on dolphin catches in Sri Lanka, Bay of Bengal Programme, 

India. 

Deraniyagala, P. E. P. (1948); Some Mystacetid Whales from Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica, 24 (2): 61-63. 

Deraniyagala, P. E. P. (1960); Some Southern Temperate Zone Fishes, a Bird and Whales that enter the 

Ceylon Area. Spolia Zeylanica, 29 (1): 79-85. 

Deraniyagala, P. E. P. (1963); Mass Mortality of the New Subspecies of Little Piked Whale Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata thalmaha and a New Beaked Whale Mesoplodon hotaula from Ceylon. Spolia Zeylanica, 

30 (1): 79-84. 

Deraniyagala, P. E. P., (1965b); Zoological Notes: Carcase of Balaenoptera sp. Cast ashore at Kokkilai. 

Spolia Zeylanica, 30 (2): 263-264. 

Fernando, H. F., (1912); Whales washed ashore on the coast of Ceylon from 1889 to 1910. Spolia 

Zeylanica, 8 (29): 52-54. 

Garrod, B., and Fennel, D. A. (2004); An analysis of whale watching codes of conduct, Annals of Tourism 

Research, Vol. 31, No.2: 334-352. 

Haley, A., (1884); Report of the Director of the Colombo Museum for 1883. 

Ilangakoon, A. (1989); A Socio-Economic Study of Cetacean Harvesting in Sri Lanka, In: Marine Mammal 

Research and Conservation in Sri Lanka 1985-1986 (Edited by Stephen Leatherwood and Randall 

R Reeves), United Nations Environment Programme, Marine Mammal Technical Report No.1. 

Ilangakoon, A. (1990); Small Whales and Dolphins Threatened in Sri Lanka’s Waters, Loris, Vol.XIX, 

No.2. 

Ilangakoon, A. (1997); Species Composition, Seasonal Variation, Sex Ratio and Body Length of Small 

Cetaceans Caught off the West, South-West and South Coasts of Sri Lanka, Journal of the Bombay 

Natural History Society, Vol.94, No.2. 

Ilangakoon, A. D., Ratnasooriya, W. D., and Miththapala, S. (2000a); Species Diversity, Seasonal Variation 

and Capture Method of Small Cetaceans on the West Coast of Sri Lanka, Vidyodaya Journal of 

Science Vol.9: 37-52. 

Ilangakoon, A. D., Miththapala, S., and Ratnasooriya, W. D. (2000b); Sex Ratio and Size Range of Small 

Cetaceans in the Fisheries Catch on the West Coast of Sri Lanka, Vidyodaya Journal of Science 

Vol. 9: 25-35.. 

Ilangakoon, A. (2001); Management of Marine and Coastal Resources in Sri Lanka., Loris, Vol.22, No.6, 

December 2001. 

Ilangakoon, A. (2002); Whales and Dolphins, Sri Lanka: a guide to the cetaceans in the waters 

around Sri Lanka, WHT Publications Ltd., Colombo, Sri Lanka. 

306


Ilangakoon, A., and Perera, L. (2002); Blainville’s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon densirostris): A new 

species identified and added to the list of Cetaceans in Sri Lanka’s waters, Loris, Vol.23, No.1, June 

2002 (In press). 

Leatherwood, S., and Reeves, R. R. (1983); The Sierra Club Handbook of Whales and Dolphins, Sierra 

Club, California, USA. 

Leatherwood, S., Peters, C. B., Santerre, M. and Clarke, J. T. (1984); Observations of Marine Mammals 

in the Northern Indian Ocean Sanctuary, 1979-1983. Report of the International Whaling 

Commission, 34: 509-520. 

Leatherwood, S. and Reeves, R. R. (1989); Marine Mammal Research and Conservation in Sri Lanka 

1985-1986. United Nations Environment Programme Marine Mammal Technical Report, Number 1: 

91-105. 

Lusseau, D. (2003); Effects of tour boats on the behaviour of bottlenose dolphins: using Markov Chains to 

model anthropogenic impacts, Conservation Biology, Vol. 17, No.6: 1785-1793. 

Nevill, H., (1885); “Dugong”. The Taprobanian, 1 (1): 2 

Wada, S., Oishi, M., and Yamada, T. K. (2003); A newly discovered species of living baleen whale, Nature, 

Vol.426: 278-281. 

307


Appendix 1: Checklist of Marine Mammals Recorded in Sri Lanka’s Waters 

ORDER CETACEA 

SUB-ORDER MYSTICETI 

FAMILY: BALAENOPTERIDAE 

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) 

Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 

Bryde’s Whale (Balaenoptera edeni) 

Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) 

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

SUB-ORDER ODONTOCETI 

FAMILY: PHYSETERIDAE 

Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) 

FAMILY: KOGIIDAE 

Pygmy Sperm Whale (Kogia breviceps) 

Dwarf Sperm Whale (Kogia sima) 

FAMILY: ZIPHIIDAE 

Cuvier’s Beaked Whale (Ziphius cavirostris) 

Ginkgo-toothed Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon ginkgodens) 

Blainville’s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) 

Southern Bottlenose Whale (Hyperoodon planifrons) 

FAMILY: DELPHINIDAE 

Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) 

False Killer Whale (Pseudorca crassidens) 

Pygmy Killer Whale (Feresa attenuata) 

Melon-headed Whale (Peponocephala electra) 

Short-finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala macrohynchus) 

Risso’s Dolphin (Grampus griseus) 

Rough-toothed Dolphin (Steno bredanensis) 

Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis) 

Common Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 

Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis) 

Fraser’s Dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) 

Long-snouted Spinner Dolphin (Stenella longirostris) 

Pantropical Spotted Dolphin (Stenella attenuata) 

Striped Dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) 

FAMILY: PHOCOENIDAE 

Finless Porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides) 

ORDER SIRENIA 

FAMILY: DUGONGIDAE 

Dugong (Dugong dugong) 

308

The Fauna of Sri Lanka - IUCN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?