Suggestions for new topics

Adding a topic

To suggest a topic on a species that is currently not under active discussion on the forums, please post your comments here. A moderator will assess the suitability of the topic and initiate a new discussion if appropriate.

The window for receiving suggestions for new topics for the 2019 Red List update has now closed. Any suggestions that come in now will be reviewed as part of the 2020 Red List update.

This entry was posted in Africa, Americas, Asia, Australia, Caribbean, Central America, Europe & Central Asia, Galliformes, Hawaii, Middle East, North America, Pacific, Parrots, Seabirds, South America, Waterbirds. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Suggestions for new topics

  1. Praveen J says:

    The new splits from Western Ghats, now widely recognized, should be evaluated.

    1. Vigor’s Sunbird (Aethopyga vigorsii) is found only in N. W. Ghats, and extremely rare south of Goa (just 3 recent reports). EOO is expected to fall within 20000km2 and other threats have to be evaluated to see if it falls in any higher threat level.

    2. Nilgiri Thrush (Zoothera nilghiriensis) is a thinly distributed species across the S.W.Ghats – with the entire population centered around Kerala & Tamil Nadu. The bird does not affect plantations or disturbed secondary forests but prefers drying stream beds or sholas with adequate moisture. Its occurrence in low land forests is also very patchy and exact habitat requirements largely unknown. EOO is expected to be within 20000km2 and other parameters have to be evaluated to see if it qualifies for higher threat level.

  2. John Cooper says:

    I suggest the Grey Petrel Procellaria cinerea is due for a revision and may warrant a Vulnerable status . On both Gough Island (Cuthbert et al. 2013) and Marion Island (unpublished data) breeding success is low, probably due to mice. On Gough the population is thought to have decreased and on marion it does not seem to have recovered from predation by the now extirpated cats.

    Cuthbert, R.J. et al. 2013. Low burrow occupancy and breeding success of burrowing petrels at Gough Island: a consequence of mouse predation. Bird Conservation International doi.org/10.1017/S0959270912000494.

    http://www.acap.aq/index.php/en/news/latest-news/1383-differing-fortunes-of-grey-and-white-chinned-petrels-at-south-africa-s-marion-island

  3. Ross MacLeod says:

    Horned Curassow Pauxi unicornis and Sira Curassow Pauxi koepckeae were formally proposed as separate species in 2011 (Gastanaga et al. 2011) with the split accepted after review by SACC (http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop537.html) on 23rd November 2012. Prior to the taxonomic change P. Unicornis was listed as Endangered so should both species now be listed as Endangered or should one or both be listed as Critically Endangered?

    In the 2011 paper Gastanaga et al. provided the following assessment of conservation status “Pauxi unicornis (including in the assessment the Peruvian P. koepckeae population) is currently considered Endangered (MacLeod et al. 2006, Birdlife International 2008). If treated separately both the P. unicornis and P. koepckeae populations will qualify at least as Endangered under criteria A1d, A2d and B1+B2b, 2c & 2e, C2b. Given that the known range of P. koepckeae is very small (all four known sites are separated by less than 30 km and appears to represent a single subpopulation) we believe it could qualify as Critically Endangered under criteria B1+B2a, 2b, 2c, or C1. We also suggest that P. unicornis could qualify as Critically Endangered under criteria A2d since we have observed (2005-–2010) a substantial decrease in the protection offered by the Bolivian National Parks that encompass the range of the entire of this population. This decreased protection has lead to constant infringement of park boundaries due to increased logging, illegal hunting and the growing of coca (RM pers. obs., pers. com. of S. Herzog, R. Soria Azua, & V. Garcia Soles).”

    This above assessment will be exacerbated by loss of habitat due to Amazonian deforestation described in the current Birdlife Fact Sheet for Pauxi unicornis. “Trend justification: This species is suspected to lose 19.8-27% of suitable habitat within its distribution over three generations (44 years) based on a model of Amazonian deforestation (Soares-Filho et al. 2006, Bird et al. 2011). Given the susceptibility of the species to hunting and/or trapping, it is therefore suspected to decline by ≥30% over three generations.” Extensive surveys in the 1990s and 2000s (BirdLife Fact Sheet) suggest both species appear to have been extirpated from many parts of their range by past human hunting. Amazonian deforestation on the suggested scale would likely bring the entire population of each species within easy range of hunters so magnifying the effect of habitat loss.

    Are potential levels of exploitation of one or both species sufficient to predict a >80% decline over 3 generations (44 years) and so trigger critically endangered status under criteria A2d? and are there any other criteria that might suggest Critically Endangered status?

  4. I would like to suggest a review of the status of Grey-breasted Babbler (Malacopteron/Ophrydornis albogulare) (NT) with the possibility of upgrading it to VU or perhaps even EN.

    The status of this species was covered by two papers in Forktail (Sheldon 1987, Dutson et al 1991). They mention that the species may be difficult to observe in the field yet proves numerous when mist-net capture methods are used. They also mention some uncertainty as to preferred habitat, with, in addition to poor-soil forest like peat swamp and kerangas, mixed dipterocarp being used.

    The impression that is is frequently more abundant than is evident to field observers, and of it having catholic habitat requirements may suggest that it is no more threatened than other lowland forest babblers.

    I have had a particular interest in this species since discovering that almost no-one has seen it in Peninsular Malaysia in the past decade. James Eaton mentioned to me that he used to see it in swampy areas of Taman Negara, but that he had not done so for many years. There are very occasional reports of the species from Panti Forest, Johor. James took the only recent photos of the species in Sungai Wain Protection Forest, Kalimantan, in Jan 2010. He mentioned that the species was extremely responsive to playback of the song, which suggested a means by which the species might be surveyed besides mist-netting.

    In 2010 I played the song repeatedly at Kubah National Park, Sarawak, where Stephen Blaber found it to be common below 300m in mist-net studies in 2003. I got no response.

    I have recently returned from 12 days of field surveys in the Lower Belait river plain in Brunei. This contains some extensive intact poor-soil forest, including peat swamp, freshwater swamp, kerangas and kerapah. I played the song at regular intervals in all suitable-looking habitats. I only recorded the species at two locations in the same site – the Badas peat dome, where the peat was deepest. In both cases the birds reacted strongly and obviously to playback of the song, leading me to believe that in other places where I played the song, it was probably absent.

    To my knowledge, Grey-breasted Babbler has not been seen anywhere in Sabah or Sarawak in the last decade, where, particularly in Sarawak, peat swamp forest has been decimated by conversion to plantations.

    I’m not familiar with the situation in Sumatra, but would imagine it is no better.

    This leads me to believe that Grey-breasted babbler is very much rarer than the other Near-Threatened babblers in the Sunda region, and worthy of review.

    Thanks

    Dave

  5. I’m curious why Rufous-bellied Eagle (Lophotriorchis kienerii) has an estimated global population of “1,000-10,000 individuals, roughly equating to 670-6,700 mature individuals”, yet is classed as Least Concern. As a lowland forest-preferring eagle I doubt its population is increasing.

    Having said that, the population estimate seems on the low side. It’s not uncommonly seen in suitable habitat in Peninsular Malaysia and northern Borneo at least.

  6. Some of the population estimates for raptors need rationalizing.

    For example, White-bellied Sea Eagle has an estimated global population of “c.1,000-10,000 individuals equivalent to c.670-6,700 mature individuals” and is (rightly) LC, whereas Grey-headed Fish Eagle has an estimated population of “10,000-100,000 mature individuals, which equates to 15,000-150,000 individuals in total” roughly 10x that of WBSE, yet is (again, rightly in my view) NT.

    Something seems wrong here – the WBSE population estimate is absurdly low in my view.

  7. Karl Westphal says:

    A species that I don’t see listed is the Congo Peafowl (Afropavo congensis). From a captive perspective it is rare in collections (only 113 listed on ZIMS), it is localised in in a small endemic population in the Congo basin and is subject to bushmeat hunting. Although it is listed as vulnerable, it might merit another look?

  8. Jennifer Lavers says:

    Flesh-footed Shearwater (P. carneipes): uplist from Least Concern to Vulnerable? The species was uplisted to Near Threatened in Australia (2011) and to Nationally Vulnerable in New Zealand (2012). A nomination for Vulnerable status in Australia is currently being reviewed under the EPBC Act. The species continues to decline on Lord Howe Island, it’s largest breeding population (Reid et al. 2013). Estimates for Western Australia and NZ have recently been revised down from around 400,000 pairs to less than 65,000 (Baker et al. 2010, Lavers in review)

  9. In 2007-09, I observed considerable population of European Roller in Deccan peninsula of Maharashtra, India, but during 2011-13 did not see the birds. I would like to know whether it is an issue of concern or it is because of under observations?

  10. Ding Li Yong says:

    In response to the limited information of migratory passerines in South-east Asia, I propose a review of the conservation status of some species with a major part of the winter range in South-east Asia. One likely species is the Eye-browed Thrush, a fairly widespread winter visitor that utilises mainly forest, but also move into agricultural areas to feed. 1000s of individuals are harvested every season for food, as revealed in a recent paper (Iqbal et al. 2014) and appears to be quite widespread across Sumatra, which constitutes a key part of the species’ winter range. This is on top of deforestation, which extends from sea-levels to even montane areas in many parts of Sundaic South-east Asia.

    Iqbal et al. (2014) Hunting of a very large aggregation of Eyebrowed Thrushes
    Turdus obscurus in Sumatra. Kukila 17: 68-71.

  11. The 2013 issue of the Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological Society reviews the status of the Tamaulipas Crow. See below. Should this species be uplisted from Least Concern? JCE
    ………………………………………………………………………………………
    IS THE TAMAULIPAS CROW (CORVUS IMPARATUS)
    AN “AT RISK” SPECIES?
    Jack Eitniear
    218 Conway Drive, San Antonio, Texas 78209
    ABSTRACT.—The Tamaulipas Crow occurs from the Texas and Mexico border south into the northern portions of the state of Veracruz. Sightings of this species have steadily declined since the large invasion into Texas in the early 1970s. From an analysis of sightings from 1968 through 2013 based on the author’s field notes, published records, communications with ornithologists conducting studies within the species range, e-bird records, and notes from experienced birders who have visited northeast Mexico, it was concluded that numbers have precipitously declined and that the species should be considered an “at risk” species.

  12. Stacy Siivonen says:

    Wattled Curassow (Crax Globlosa) is breeding by Yanayacu river near the Tamshiyacu reserve near Muyuna Lodge. I was in a Birdquest trip there in 2012 and we were able to locate 3-4 individuals there.

  13. Márcio Efe says:

    One of the remaining taxonomic uncertainties in the Sternini was the classification of the species complex of the Sandwich/Cabot’s/Cayenne tern. Within this complex, there are three forms classified either as subspecies or species: Sandwich tern (T. s. sandvicensis), Cabot’s tern (T. s. acuflavidus) and Cayenne tern (T. s. eurygnathus). However, a mtDNA analysis of this species complex (Efe et al. 2009- Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 52: 263–267) has helped to the phylogenetic relationships of the group. The authors showed, using a molecular
    phylogenetic analysis, that European and American T. “sandvicensis” are distinct species and proposed the treatment of the American acuflavidus/eurygnathus complex as Cabot’s Tern, Thalasseus acuflavidus.
    At Present, the IUCN does not use the classification proposed by Efe et al. (2009) and currently classifies the T. sandvicensis complex as of Least Concern (LC). Then, includes the data from the American populations, which now must be transferred to T. acuflavidus. In view of the new arrangement suggested here, in which the Old
    World and the New World populations are two distinct species, the conservation status of both T. sandvicensis and T. acuflavidus need to be revised.

  14. 2 Species (1) White-bellied Treepie – Dendrocitta leucogastra, (2) Wynaad Laughingthrush – Garrulax delesserti, finding distribution in Western Ghats (India), wherein one population is geographically isolated located in forests of in North Karnataka(Castlerock-Diggi) -Goa (Netravali & Molem) forests do need to be reviewed as a geographical disconnect is notable.

  15. Christoph Zöckler says:

    There seesm to eb sufficient evidence that would justify the Uplisting of Gurney’s Pitta to CR. I propose to discuss this topic:

    According to our analysis form this year’s survey in the remaining range in southern Myanmar and a summary of the previous six survey season from 2010-2015 we conclude that the Gurney’s Pitta is declining at a rapid rate. Gurney’s Pitta are declining faster than initially thought. At the moment we estimate fewer than 500 individuals remaining in the suitable habitats of a declining range of the species. It is now endemic to Myanmar after its last population in Thailand has ceased to exist (Round 2014). With such a small population left and a decline of well over 90% over the past 10 years, down from an estimated 5,152-8,586 pairs (Eames et al 2005) the uplisting to ‘Critically endangered’ is justified. These data are based on an unpublished report from FFI and BANCA (Saw Moses et al. 2015) and a more detailed paper is planned in due course.

    Christoph Zöckler

    Moses, S., Lay Win & C. Zöckler (2015): The Bird Fauna of the Lenya National Park. Unpubl. Rep for Fauna Flora International. 40+ pages

  16. Jurek D. says:

    Houbara Bustard – uplist to Endangered or Critically Endangered?

    Reason: Houbara Bustard, after splitting the McQueen’s Bustard, is resident in Canary Islands and North Africa. Canarian population is very small. In North Africa, this species declined so much that is practically not findable anymore by visiting birdwatchers, except a single site in S Morocco, where houbaras are also erratic. Whatever are estimates of the population, lack of records suggests they are no longer valid. The birds are simply not there.

    The species is intensively hunted by visiting falconers from the Middle East, and is vulnerable to agriculture, disturbance, local hunting etc. There are some reintroduction or release projects in North Africa, but they seem to only provide birds to be hunted, not create viable wild populations.

  17. Philip Round says:

    I would suggest there should be some serious discussion concerning the status of Garganey (Anas querquedula) in this forum. The East Asian Flyway population has crashed to a level which suggests it is now Critically Endangered. This assessment is based on my experience in Thailand, where the numbers wintering have declined by around 90 percent in the past 30 years. The site that held the largest numbers wintering (Bung Boraphet, Nakhon Sawan Province) supported roughly 50,000 Gargeneys in the early 1980s. The numbers wintering at the site now (post 2005) are 5,000 or fewer. Additionally, in the 1980s there were several additional sites where 1,000-10,000 Garganeys could reliably be found wintering. These days, you would be lucky to find a concentration of > 100 Garganeys anywhere in the country apart from Bung Boraphet. This decline in Garganey numbers seems not to have been recognised elsewhere in the E Asian Flyway because there are few observers in countries in the main SE Asian wintering range of the species with a comparable historical perspective. One observer who did possess that perspective, the late Tim Fisher, also commented to me that his experiences of the decline in Garganey numbers in Philippines paralleled my own here in Thailand. I have mentioned my perceptions of this decline both in correspondence and in discussion at international meetings, but have yet to see any reflection of this concern in BirdLife, presumably because the scale of the decline in other, better monitored flyways has been so much less. But when one of 3 or 4 global flyway populations goes critical YOU BETTER WATCH OUT!

  18. Praveen J says:

    Nicobar Scops Owl Otus alius Data Deficient => Near-threatened

    With several photographs and observations pouring out of Great Nicobar on Nicobar Scops Owl, would it be wise to revise the redlist status of this species ?
    http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=30029

    By geography, it would fit the four other Nicobar endemics that are present in good numbers

    Great Nicobar Serpent-eagle Spilornis klossi (NT)
    Nicobar Bulbul Hypsipetes nicobariensis (NT)
    Nicobar Parakeet Psittacula caniceps (NT)
    Nicobar Pigeon Caloenas nicobarica (NT)

    The ease with which several birders have obtained this species since 2014 would warrant the same listing (Near-threatened) for the species ?

  19. Praveen J says:

    Large-billed Reed Warbler Acrocephalus orinus

    Would the new information which has been published from Tajikistan-Afghanistan indicated new breeding colonies.
    http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=30251
    Coupled with the wintering records from Thailand & Bangladesh, dont we have enough information to reassess its status ?
    I do not have a recommendation, but I believe that we have added quite a lot of information in the last several years on this species that makes it less of a ‘Data Deficient’ bird.

  20. J. W. Duckworth says:

    Coral-billed Ground Cuckoo /Carpococcyx renauldi/ currently LC but in a dreadful way in Lao PDR and Viet Nam – seems to be very sensitive to industrial snaring. Depending on what proportion of the population is in Thailand, may well warrant EN

  21. Ben Phalan says:

    Black-headed Rufous Warbler (Bathmocercus cerviniventris)

    Currently NT. Far more restricted and rare than its distribution map suggests. To give an indication of how few records there are, GBIF has 9 in W. Africa (excluding records of B. rufus listed as this species), while Sierra Leone Prinia (EN) has 11. Western Wattled Cuckoo-Shrike, a more cryptic canopy species whose song is unknown, has 36.

    There are no modern records from Ghana. Climate projections (BirdLife species page) suggest it could lose the core of its already small range. In Ivory Coast there are few recent records away from Nimba, all in the west of the country. One of the IBAs in which it was known, Marahoue, was largely destroyed by settlement following conflict (per Lincoln Fishpool).

    In Liberia, most of the known territories will be lost to mountain-top removal mining at Mt Tokadeh and Mt Gangra in West Nimba, and it is poorly (or not at all) represented in protected areas (Dowsett-Lemaire & Phalan 2013). On an expedition to Grand Gedeh County in 2013 we searched in apparently suitable habitat along streams within the range mapped by Gatter (1997), using playback, and found none (Phalan et al. 2013).

    Although information is limited, it suggests that this species may merit being listed as Vulnerable under criteria B2(a,b) and C1.

  22. Hugo Rainey says:

    Shelley’s Eagle Owl – it could trigger Criteria A or C.

  23. Simon Mahood says:

    Pale-throated Wren-babbler

    Reasoning detailed in my two recent comments to the now defunct “Re-assessment of Species against Criterion B1: Red List Implications of the use of Minimum Convex Polygons” topic.

  24. Péter Villányi says:

    Moustached warbler

    Dear Colleagues!
    I am writing in the name of Kiskunsag Society of Protection of Birds (KME)\Hungary.
    Our Society had started to run a standrad bird banding camp in 1999, at Lake-Kolon,Hungary. We are working with a 1.600 meter long mistnet line crossing the lake. We mark between 10.000 to 15.000 individuals of birds yearly. After starting the work back in 1999 we have realized that the Moustached warbler breeds in the area in high numbers. Between 1999 and 2017 we have ringed 26.000 individuals, and we have registered 15.000 recaptures of the species. After investigating the historical data bases, we have started to work with the research of wintering and migrating habits of the species. The project has been running on since 2002 and it is still happening every year. The aim of the research is to discover the migrating and wintering places of the species at the Mediterranean and the Balkans. We have visited 5 countries in 12 different spots within 35 expeditions. During the expeditions we have ringed 7450 Moustached warblers and we have registered 210 recaptures from the Carpathian Basin.
    Our standrad research in the last 19 years clearly shows that the population of the Moustached warbler is decreasing significantly.
    Our oppinion is that the current situation of the species requires at least a VULNERABLE (VU) status for the Moustached warbler instead of LEAST CONCERN (LC).
    With all respect,
    Péter Villányi
    KME

  25. Chris Sharpe says:

    I have mentioned Venezuela’s Arco Minero del Orinoco (Venezuelan Mining Arc) before on BirdLife forums. The project covers 112,000 sq. km (about the size of Cuba, 1.5 x Panama) superimposed on legally designated protected areas and indigenous territories in the world’s largest tropical wilderness, which is an important centre of endemism and a biodiversity hotspot. The Arco Minero is a real game-changer, threatening vast swathes of previously secure Guiana Shield ecosystems with significantly increased deforestation, fragmentation and pollution. Key areas such as the Sierra de Imataca and Cuyuní Basin are already seriously affected. Since the Venezuelan Guayana region has long been presumed to be secure, this will have important consequences – yet to be quantified – on the conservation status of several Neotropical birds. Once detailed analyses are available, this relatively new threat could logically be treated in the same way that BirdLife handled Brazilian infrastructure projections a few years ago (Bird et al. 2011 following Soares-Filho et al. 2006). This will require mapping and modelling work which has not (yet) been carried out. 1/2

  26. Chris Sharpe says:

    2/2. However, even with a cursory look only at non-passerines of the families most likely to suffer the combined impact of deforestation and direct harvest, I can see two species that look likely candidates for imminent category change:-

    Neomorphus rufipennis (Rufous-winged Ground-cuckoo)
    Forest obligate, shuns human disturbance. >40% of current distribution affected by AMO, including core range – suggests LC > NT A3c + 4c

    Amazona (festiva) bodini ([Northern] Festive Amazon)
    Riparian forest obligate, documented target of trapping, population already much reduced. Up to 50% of current distribution affected by AMO – suggests NT > VU A3cd + 4cd

    Sample background press coverage of the AMO here:-
    https://arcominero.infoamazonia.org/
    https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=18e425a6057945af9ad56e8af989a656
    http://www.arcominerodelorinoco.com

  27. Giant Weaver (Ploceus grandis): LC => NT A4b,c,e; B1a,b(iii,v); B2a,b(iii,v); C1

    Justification:
    (https://docs.di.fc.ul.pt/jspui/bitstream/10451/30776/1/ulfc120832_tm_Filipa_Soares.pdf)
    The weaver is as the Vulnerable Giant Sunbird (Dreptes thomensis) and São Tomé Short-tail (Amaurocichla bocagii) (Table S3). However, unlike most endemics, it is less reliant on forest (Fig. 1.4 & 1.6), which arguably might make it even more susceptible to direct human pressure and to habitat changes. I suggest that this species becomes Near Threatened instead of Least Concern, since a decline in the population and/or distribution is likely to qualify it as Vulnerable (criteria A4b,c,e; B2a,b(iii,v); C1), or even Endangered (B1a,b(iii,v)).

  28. São Tomé Thrush (Turdus olivaceofuscus): NT B1ab(ii,iii,v); C2a(ii) => LC

    Justification:
    (https://docs.di.fc.ul.pt/jspui/bitstream/10451/30776/1/ulfc120832_tm_Filipa_Soares.pdf)
    Despite being more reliant on forest habitats (Fig. 1.4 & 1.6), which might be seen as a susceptibility to threat, the thrush is more frequent than the Least Concern São Tomé Paradise-flycatcher (Terpsiphone atrochalybeia – Table S3). Since these single-island endemics occur throughout the island, are fairly frequent and seem to have stable populations, I suggest that both become Least Concern. However, they should be uplisted to Near Threatened as soon as a decline in the population and/or distribution is suspected (A4b,c,e; B1a,b(iii,v); B2a,b(iii,v)).

  29. São Tomé White-eye (Zosterops feae): VU D1 => NT A4b,c,e; B1a,b(iii,v); B2a,b(iii,v); C1

    Justification:
    (https://docs.di.fc.ul.pt/jspui/bitstream/10451/30776/1/ulfc120832_tm_Filipa_Soares.pdf)
    The white-eye occurs across the island, preferring habitats with intermediate human disturbance (Fig. 1.4 & 1.6). It is also fairly frequent, having been detected more often than the Least Concern (here proposed Near Threatened) Giant Weaver (Table S3), and often being found in large groups (e.g. over 10 or even 20 individuals, pers. obs.). I propose that this species is downlisted from Vulnerable, as it is unlikely that it qualifies for that category under the assumption that it has less than 1,000 mature individuals (D1). Instead it should be classified as Near Threatened, since a decline in the population and/or distribution is likely to qualify it as Vulnerable (criteria A4b,c,e; B2a,b(iii,v); C1), or even Endangered (B1a,b(iii,v)).

  30. Príncipe White-eye (Zosterops ficedulinus): VU D1 => EN B1ab(iii,v)

    Justification:
    (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1617138112000489)
    The white-eye is scarce (detected only in 10 out of 177 point counts, less than the Critically Endangered Príncipe Thrush, Turdus xanthorhynchus), and heavily reliant on native forest (Fig. 3 & 4), even though it can also be found in more disturbed ecosystems (https://ebird.org/map/satwhe1?neg=true&env.minX=&env.minY=&env.maxX=&env.maxY=&zh=false&gp=false&ev=Z&mr=1-12&bmo=1&emo=12&yr=all&byr=1900&eyr=2018). Nevertheless, being a small canopy-dwelling species, it might more frequent than what existing records suggests, and also more numerous, since it can occur in flocks of 10+ individuals (Martim Melo pers. comm, pers. obs.). I suggest that this species becomes Endangered, since it is restricted to the 136 sqkm Príncipe Island, and it is likely that the AOO, habitat quality and number of mature individuals are declining (B1a,b(iii,v)), considering recent economic developments and fast-increasing human population.

  31. Príncipe Speirops (Zosterops leucophaeus): NT B1ab(ii,iii,v);C2a(ii);D2 => LC

    Justification:
    (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1617138112000489)
    The speirops is fairly reliant on native and secondary forests, but it is also abundant on plantations (Fig. 3 & 4). Furthermore, it is nearly as frequent and as abundant as all Least Concern single-island endemics, namely Dohrn’s Warbler (Sylvia dohrni), the Príncipe Golden Weaver (Ploceus princeps) and the Príncipe Sunbird (Anabathmis hartlaubii). Since all of these occur throughout the island, are fairly frequent and seem to have stable populations, I suggest that the speirops also becomes Least Concern. However, in case a decline in the population and/or distribution of any of these species is suspected, it should be uplisted to Near Threatened (A4b,c,e; B1a,b(iii,v); B2a,b(iii,v)).

  32. Dwarf Ibis (Bostrychia bocagei): CR C2a(ii) => CR B1ab(iii,v)

    Justification:
    (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270916000241)
    “The ibis is currently classified as ‘Critically Endangered’ due to having a declining population, fewer than 250 mature individuals and being confined to a single location (criterion C2a(ii); IUCN 2001, 2013). The species is restricted to less than 100 km2 during the breeding season and to a single location, with an inferred continuing decline in the area, extent and quality of its habitat, and in the number of mature individuals, so it should retain its status, under different criteria (B1a,b(iii,v)), even if its population is larger than previously assumed.”
    Additionally, the ibis is also under significant hunting pressure, unlike the other two Critically Endangered species.
    Further support:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261116193_International_Action_Plan_For_conservation_of_Critically_Endangered_birds_on_Sao_Tome
    https://dspace.uevora.pt/rdpc/bitstream/10174/16421/1/Francisco_P._Azevedo_Dissertação_MBC_Versão_Final_Oficial.pdf

  33. São Tomé Grosbeak (Crithagra concolor): CR B1ab(iii,v);C2a(ii) => EN B1ab(iii,v)
    Newton’s Fiscal (Lanius newtoni): CR C2a(ii) => EN B1ab(iii,v)

    Justification:
    (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270916000241)
    “The fiscal and the grosbeak are both currently classified as Critically Endangered due to having extremely small population sizes, with fewer than 50 mature individuals (criterion D; IUCN 2001, 2013 ). Our observations, together with those of other authors (Solé et al. 2012, Ndang’ang’a et al. 2014, Lewis 2015), suggest that their population sizes may be higher. If this proves to be the case, the category of ‘Endangered’ will perhaps be more appropriate, due to their extents of occurrence being smaller than 5,000 km2 and restricted to a single location, with an inferred continuing decline in the number of mature individuals and in the area, extent and quality of their habitats (criterion B1a,b(iii,v)).”
    Further support:
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/00306525.2012.724033
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261116193_International_Action_Plan_For_conservation_of_Critically_Endangered_birds_on_Sao_Tome
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aje.12445/full

  34. Simon Mahood says:

    Golden-winged Laughingthrush Trochalopteron ngoclinhense

    Currently VU under criterion D2. However as this http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/golden-winged-laughingthrush-trochalopteron-ngoclinhense/details indicates it has an EOO of 590km2 (of which it occupies far less) and is declining. Aside from the single record from Mt. Ngoc Bok at c. 1500m elevation, all other records are from higher elevations (see xeno-canto for additional records). The bulk of the population must be in Ngoc Linh NP, which although nominally protected is being actively cleared, particularly at “lower” elevations (there is now no forest below 1,500m, so all clearance is within the species elevational range), for ginger, ginseng, and seemingly just to create short-term grazing for buffalo (pers obs). A higher threat category may be warranted, it must be at least as scarce as the closely related Collared Laughingthrush (EN).

  35. New species of chachalaca (Ortalis remota): CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR) A1(a)(c)(e)+B1a+C1 ver 3.1

    https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4306.4.4
    Study recognizes that a newly recognized population of O. g. remota differs consistently from all other Ortalis in plumage and geographic distribution. Therefore, it is now considered as a valid species – Ortalis remota. O. remota has a very restricted range on the upper Paraná River basin and is threatened by deforestation and construction of dams.

    So far there is only the knowledge of a little more than 50 individuals, most found in the basin of the turbid.

  36. Juan Freile says:

    In the recent assessment of birds for the Ecuador red data list, we got different categories for some country endemic species. Most differences are the result of additional, recent data (some unpublished) on species distribution, population and threats.
    We recently emailed our results to BirdLife International, but got no response. Our assessment of endemic species is currently being revised by IUCN, but we will be happy to share it with BirdLife too.
    There are several differences of criteria and subcriteria. However, the most cases are differences in categories. We will be happy to discuss the following cases with BLI:
    -Galapagos Dove (global LC, Ecuador NT).
    -Little Vermilion Flycatcher (global VU, Ecuador NT).
    -Least Vermilion Flycatcher (global EX, Ecuador CR-PE).
    -San Cristobal Mockingbird (global EN, Ecuador VU).
    -Grey Warbler-finch (global LC, Ecuador NT).
    -Vegetarian Finch (global LC, Ecuador NT).
    -Sharp-beaked Ground-finch (global LC, Ecuador NT).

    • Michael Dvorak says:

      Two of these proposed changes to the global red list status have now been documented in a recent paper in Bird Conservation International:

      doi:10.1017/S0959270919000285

      Survival and extinction of breeding landbirds
      on San Cristóbal, a highly degraded island in
      the Galapagos by M. Dvorak, B. Fessl et al. just published two weeks ago

  37. Praveen J says:

    Nilgiri Pipit (Anthus nilghiriensis): uplist to Endangered?

    Please see the pre-print of a new study
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/08/695536.full.pdf

    Criteria met: B2ab(ii,iii)

    AOO is < 400 sq.km. and it is known to occur only in two locations – Munnar-Grasshills & Nilgiris. There is continued decline in AOO (Nilgiris, outside Protected Areas in Munnar Hills, Grass Hills), quality of habitat due to invasive species.

    There may be other criteria met in A or C.

Leave a Reply

You have to agree to the comment policy.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.