A review on status of mammals in Meghalaya, India

In this paper we present an updated checklist of mammals found in Meghalaya. Using online databases and search engines for available literature, we provide the scientific names, accepted English names, conservation status as per IUCN Red List, Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act schedules, appendices in CITES, local distribution status, endemism, last reported sighting, an account of previous studies carried out relative to mammals and a tentative bibliography of the mammalian species found in Meghalaya. A total of 162 species were found to be existing in the state with Chiropterans forming the largest group and 27 species found to be threatened, seven Near Threatened and seven Data Deficient.


INTRODUCTION
The global mammalian fauna is represented by 6,495 species, of which 6,399 are extant and 96 are extinct (Mammal Diversity Database 2019). India has a total of 423 species, which accounts for 7.81% of the global mammalian species (Sharma et al. 2015). A majority of these species are distributed in the four biodiversity hotspots of India-the Western Ghats and Sri Lanka, the Himalaya, Indo-Burma, and Sundalands biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000;CEPF 2016). The state of 89.5-93 o E; Figure 1) is part of the Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot along with other parts of northeastern India south of the Brahmaputra River. This hotspot also includes parts of Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos PDR, southern China and touches a small portion of peninsular Malaysia and extends over two million square kilometers (Myers et al. 2000;Mittermeier et al. 2004). The Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot has been considered to be one of the most important regions in the world and is ranked among the top 10 hotspots for irreplaceability due to high species diversity and endemism (Myers et al. 2000;Mittermeier et al. 2004). Its forests, freshwater and coastal ecosystems not only support many globally threatened species but also the region's human population. It houses about 430 mammalian species of which 73 species are endemic to the hotspot. Its natural habitat has been reduced to about 5% of its original extent due to human activities such as shifting cultivation, conversion to farmland, plantations, logging, deliberate forest fires, mining, damming and poaching (Tordoff et al. 2012). This has earned the hotspot a rank in the top five for most threatened (Mittermeier et al. 2004;Tordoff et al. 2012).
Meghalaya, nestled in the northeastern India biogeographic zone is a conflux of the Indo-Malayan and Indo-Chinese biogeographic realms (Palni et al. 2011) and as such is considered one of the richest habitats of Asia with a high diversity of mammals, birds, and plants (Rodgers & Panwar 1988, as cited in WWF 2019). Its diverse landscapes with gentle slopes in the north, steep slopes in the south forming deep valleys and a central plateau (Mani 1974;MBSAP 2017) has resulted in a diversification of its forests and wildlife. About 76.45% of its total geographic area is under forest cover (ISFR 2017) and is composed of tropical evergreen forests, tropical semi-evergreen forests, tropical moist and deciduous forests, grasslands and savanna, temperate forests and subtropical pine forests (Haridasan & Rao 1985). Meghalaya is also a part of the Meghalaya subtropical forests ecoregion and has been described as the gateway to the Malayan fauna and as such houses closely related species with different distributional ranges such as the Indian and Chinese pangolins (WWF 2019). In recognition of its important position of harbouring diverse mammalian species, we attempt to update the list of mammalian species found in the region.
One of the earliest accounts of mammals in the state of Meghalaya dates back to the 19 th century surveys that covered British India and other neighbouring regions (Harlan & Burrough 1834;McClelland 1841;Blyth 1852;Dobson 1874;Jerdon 1874;Sterndale 1884;Blanford 1888-91). Between 1847 and 1875, numerous collectors had also visited the region and documented the mammals found in the state (Alfred 1995). During the early decades of the 20 th century, many mammalian specimens were collected from various parts of the state and a description of some of the species was done (Allen 1906;Kemp 1924;Hinton & Lindsay 1926). From the second half of the century, the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) has also published numerous works on the fauna of the state (Alfred 1995). Apart from the work done by ZSI, other authors have also compiled lists of mammals found in Meghalaya as part of a wider effort to document mammals of the entire Indian subcontinent (Pocock 1939(Pocock , 1941Ellerman & Morrison-Scott 1951;Ellerman 1961;Prater 1965;Corbett & Hill 1992).
Between 1989-94, ZSI conducted a systematic survey of all fauna in the state including mammals through specimens available in its repository and secondary literature, and published a checklist of mammals (Das et al. 1995). A total of 139 mammal species were reported, representing 83 genera and 27 families in the state. This list, however, had also erroneously cited species that were not historically found in the region. Since then, many mammalian species have been discovered and an updated checklist is warranted. Recently, Choudhury (2013) compiled a comprehensive checklist and systematic review of all mammals found in northeastern India including Meghalaya based on primary as well as secondary sources, which serves as an important source of information for the mammals of northeastern India. Kakati and Kabra (2015) reported 51 mammalian species in Balpakram-Baghmara Landscape, Garo Hills, while Goswami (2015) documented 20 mammalian species in Jaintia Hills. Meghalaya's extensive karst topography provided the ideal settings for the diversification of bats with a tentative list of about 65 bat species having been reported from the state

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of 162 species of mammals belonging to 31 families were reported from the state of Meghalaya (Table 1; Figure 2). Chiropterans formed the largest group of mammals with 65 species (40%). This was followed by rodents with 35 (22%) and carnivores with 34 species (22%). The rest of the groups constituted less than 20% of the total mammal diversity in the state

14958
( Figure 3). Evening bats formed the largest group at 35 species, followed by murids at 21, sciurid and mustelids at 10 each. Among the 162 species, 27 are threatened (one Critically Endangered, nine Endangered, 17 Vulnerable) and seven species each as Near Threatened and Data Deficient ( Figure 2, Table 2). None of the species, however, are endemic to Meghalaya.

Mammals excluded from the Meghalaya list
A few species have been excluded from this list because they could be locally extinct, erroneously mentioned in the literature or have not been formally recognized as a separate species. A description of their past and current distribution in northeastern India is also summarized here in support of their exclusion from this list.
Barasingha Rucervus duvaucelii was stated to be present in East Khasi Hills of Meghalaya (Das et al. 1995) although no record of its existence is available except for a hunting report in 1894 on three Barasinghas shot on the border of East Garo Hills of Meghalaya and Goalpara District of Assam (Choudhury 2001;Choudhury 2013). In northeastern India, the species' past range extended along the foothills of the Himalaya from upper Assam and were common in the Brahmaputra Valley with many having still existed in a few districts of Assam till as late as 1934 (Blanford 1888-91;Lydekker 1915;Bhadian 1934;Schaller 1967). Since then, however, their numbers have drastically dwindled and their current distribution in northeastern India is now restricted to only a few pockets of Assam in Kaziranga NP and Manas NP (Schaller 1967;Choudhury 2001a;Srinivasulu et al. 2012;IUCN 2019).
Chital Axis axis was stated to be present in Ri-Bhoi and East Khasi Hills districts of Meghalaya (Das et al. 1995). It is, however, unlikely to have occurred as there is no historical record of the species occurring south of the Brahmaputra River (Choudhury 2001a). In northeastern India, Chital is restricted to the western part of Assam, north of the Brahmaputra River (Choudhury 2001a;IUCN 2019) with its most recent record at Manas NP (Bhatt et al. 2018). Its easternmost record was at Dhunsiri River in Darrang District reported in 1935 by A.J.W. Milroy (De

1935).
Chousingha Tetracerus quadricornis was reported to be present in West Garo Hills although it could be a misidentified Naemorhedus goral (Das et al. 1995). This species is endemic to peninsular India and parts of lowland Nepal (Leslie et al. 2009;Srinivasulu et al. 2012;IUCN 2019).
Himalayan Serow Capricornis thar in this paper is reported as Capricornis rubidus. Due to the lack of information on the taxonomic status of the Capricornis sp. in northeastern India, some reports have considered them as C. thar (Srinivasulu et al. 2012;IUCN 2019) although others have reported it as C. rubidus (Choudhury 2013;Kakati et al. 2015).
Indian Crested Porcupine Hystrix indica was reported from Meghalaya (Goswami 2015); however, this species is not distributed in northeastern India (IUCN 2019).
Dormer's Bat Scotozous dormeri was reported by Sinha (1995) based on a damaged male specimen from Shillong but examination of its teeth and external characteristics suggested it to be of another species, Hypsugo cadornae .
Dusky Leaf-nosed Bat Hipposideros ater reported in Meghalaya from a single record that is doubtful, and is excluded from this list (Kurup 1968;Choudhury 2013;Saikia et al. 2018).
A new species of bat, Hipposideros khasiana was reported in Meghalaya based on the differences in call frequencies of the bats from their closely related species H. larvatus (Thabah et al. 2006). Due to the lack of type material, however, this species has not yet been formally recognized as a distinct species from H. larvatus (Saikia 2018;Saikia et al. 2018).
Specimens collected from Siju Cave in Meghalaya and identified as the Eastern Bent-winged Bat (Miniopterus fuliginosus) (Sinha 1999) were found to be that of M. magnater . M. fuliginosus although likely to be found in the state is yet to be formally identified .

A note on natural history of other species
Elephants: Numerous studies on Asian Elephants Elephas maximus have been carried out in Meghalaya (Johnsingh 1996a,b;Choudhury 1999Choudhury , 2004Choudhury , 2007Johnsingh & Williams 1999;Williams & Johnsingh 2004;Datta-Roy et al. 2008, 2009Marak 2009;Kaul et al. 2010;Marcot et al. 2011;Goswami et al. 2014 Williams & Johnsingh 1996a). The first state-wide Elephant census was conducted in 1993 which estimated Elephants to be numbering 1,850 (William & Johnsingh 1996a;Choudhury 1999). The number increased slightly to 1,868 Elephants in 2002 (Marcot 2011). Fourteen distinct populations of Elephants were identified throughout northeastern India (Choudhury 1999). Two of the populations are shared between Assam and Meghalaya. These two populations form a sizeable portion of the estimated 11,000 Elephants found in northeastern India (> 50%). One large population was found in Ri-Bhoi and Jaintia Hills districts and another in West Khasi Hills, Ri-Bhoi, and Garo Hills districts. Populations in western Khasi Hills are around more than 800 and in Garo Hills around 1,800, with the latter having a density of 0.74 km -2 . A smaller population of Elephants exist in some parts of Jaintia Hills (Choudhury 1999). Areas in and around Nokrek NP and Balpakram-Baghmara Landscape in Garo Hills have been reported to have the highest potential for long term conservation of Elephants in the region (William & Johnsingh 1996a) and as such warrant greater conservation efforts. Three critical Elephant corridors were identified in Garo Hills, one of them faced tremendous anthropogenic pressure and another one was at risk of being overexploited for timber and coal as most of the corridor is private or community owned land and does not come under the control of the Forest Department (William & Johnsingh 1996b). In 2003, six corridors (five in Garo Hills and one in Jaintia Hills) were identified by the Wildlife Trust of India for the long-term conservation of Elephants in the state (Kaul et al. 2010).
Human-Elephant interaction is intense in some parts of Garo Hills. This is mainly attributed to disturbances caused by 'jhum' (slash and burn regime) and coal mining (William & Johnsingh 1996a). Retaliatory killing due to crops being raided and poaching of Elephants has also increased over the years (Johnsingh & William 2004). The presence of Elephants in human-occupied areas and intensity of conflicts with humans varies highly across the landscape. Various factors such as sowing and harvesting season of crops and availability of wild forage had an influence on the Elephant visits (Datta-Roy et al. 2008, 2009; however, in most cases, these Elephant visits were not negative in nature. Elephants have also been observed to use sites close to PAs more intensely than sites away from the PAs. The presence of humans further augmented this trend (Goswami et al. 2014). A few Elephants (40-50) from South Garo Hills have been reported to cross the border annually to Bangladesh and lone males in Jaintia Hills have also been observed to cross the International boundary occasionally (Choudhury 2007). Primates: The distribution and status of different primate species were mapped, and the forest status and human pressures in northeastern India were assessed by Srivastava (2006). Extensive surveys were carried out throughout the region between 1994 and 1999. The survey reported the presence of Rhesus Macaque Macaca mulatta, Assamese Macaque Macaca assamensis, Northern Pig-Tailed Macaque Macaca leonina, Stump-Tailed Macaque Macaca arctoides, Capped Langur Trachypithecus pileatus, Western Hoolock Gibbon Hoolock hoolock, and Bengal Slow Loris Nycticebus bengalensis in Meghalaya. All the species were observed to occur in very low densities. Habitat loss and hunting were reported to be the main threats to the primates. In some cases, indiscriminate hunting had extirpated local populations despite the availability of large tracts of primary forest. Interactions with humans due to crop raiding have led to retaliatory killing of macaques and langurs (Srivastava 2006 (Biswas 1977;Molur et al. 2003). Rhesus Macaque was reported to occur in Garo and Khasi hills, Assamese Macaque in Balpakram NP, Songsek Tasek RF and Siju WS, and Capped Langur in Garo Hills (Molur et al. 2003). Habitat destruction and hunting were stated to be the main threats for all the species.
Preliminary investigations have reported the occurrence of the Bengal Slow Loris in Meghalaya (Radhakrishna et al. 2006;Nandini et al. 2009;Radhakrishna et al. 2010). The species occurs in very low numbers and its population may have reduced over the years owing to threats such as forest fragmentation, vehicle collision, and hunting (Radhakrishna et al. 2006). Sources: 1-IUCN Red List | 2- Das et al. (1995)  Other major threats to the species were hunting for bushmeat, capture for pets, man-made fires, mining and conversion of forests to plantations (Radhakrishna et al. 2010). The species has been sighted in Nongkhyllem WS, Narpuh RF, Baghmara RF, Balpakram NP, and Nokrek NP although its density is very low (Molur et al. 2003;Kakati et al. 2009;Radhakrishna et al. 2010).
The occurrence of Western Hoolock Gibbons has been reported in East Garo Hills, South Garo Hills, Ri-Bhoi, and Khasi Hill districts (Baskaran 1975;Molur et al. 2003). Hoolock Gibbon also occurs in 32 localities in West Garo Hills ). Hoolock Gibbon populations in West Garo Hills had declined between 2007 and 1985-87 by 26.2% owing to human disturbances such as tree felling, jhum, livestock grazing, and poaching Sati 2011). It was observed that the rate of survival might have been severely affected and establishment of new colonies was not happening.
Rodents: Rodents have hardly been studied in Meghalaya, except for a couple of studies that reported on the partial albinism of White-Bellied Rat Rattus niviventer (Rajagopal & Mandal 1965). A faunal account of all rodent species found in India was provided through an extensive collection available at the British Museum (Ellerman 1961). Accounts of all mammalian species including a few rodent species found in the Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo hills region was also provided by Hinton & Lindsay (1926).
Chiropterans: Bats have been well documented in Meghalaya. About 65 species have been reported in the state . One of the first scientific records of bats in Meghalaya was of the description of Scotomanes ornatus done by Blyth in 1851 . Since then bats have been documented throughout the Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo hills (Dobson 1871(Dobson , 1872(Dobson , 1874Thomas 1921;Kemp 1924;Hinton & Lindsay 1926;Topal 1970;Lal 1977;Sinha 1990Sinha , 1994Sinha , 1995Sinha , 1999Thabah & Bates 2002;Thabah et al. 2006Thabah et al. , 2007Ruedi et al. 2012aRuedi et al. ,b, 2014Thong et al. 2017;Saikia et al. 2017Saikia et al. , 2018Korad 2018). Most of the studies reported only the taxonomic status and distribution of Schedule V 23 Not assessed 65

Appendix II 12
Appendix III 13 the bat species. One of the few studies that focused on the ecology of bats (Thabah et al. 2007) reported on the feeding and echolocation behavior of the Great Evening Bat Ia io. The authors found that the species preyed on birds, although coleopterans formed the main constituent of their diet. Unregulated mining activities for limestone and coal near cave systems pose a threat to the caves and the fauna they harbour (Saikia 2018). Expansion of plantations, demand for firewood and deforestation associated with mining activities threaten the survival of bat species as well as all other forest-dwelling species (Ruedi et al. 2012a(Ruedi et al. , 2014. Hunting of bats for a supplementary source of protein is another threat. Improvised techniques are employed for their capture from caves by locals, and the number of captured bats has been reported to go as high as 100 on a single night. Some of the bat meat is sold in local markets (Ruedi et al. 2012b;Saikia et al. 2018). This overharvesting has led to a decline in the bat population, with some colonies retreating to inaccessible cliffs and caverns .
Dhole: A questionnaire-based survey reported that Dhole Cuon alpinus was still common in Garo Hills although throughout the state it had become very rare (Johnsingh 1985). The species was last sighted in Garo Hills (Kakati & Kabra 2015).
Bears: A few studies have reported the occurrence of three bear species in Meghalaya, viz (Kakati & Kabra 2015). The occurrence of Sloth Bear in Meghalaya was confirmed through a specimen acquired from Khasi Hills and preserved at the Zoological Survey of India as well as by local hunters who were familiar with all three species (Choudhury 2011). Choudhury (2011) also reported the sighting of a Malayan Sun Bear pelt from Balpakram NP in the early 1980s; however, no systematic study has been carried out till date for any of the bear species.
The major threats faced by these species are habitat loss, construction of linear infrastructure and dams, coal mining and shortening of jhum cultivation cycles (Sathyakumar 2001;Choudhury 2011). Asiatic Black Bear also faces pressure from poaching for its bile (Choudhury 2011).
Mustelids: Specimens of Yellow-bellied Weasel Mustela kathiah and skins of Burmese Ferret-badger Melogale personata were acquired from Khasi and Jaintia hills (Pillai & Biswas 1971). The authors stated that the Khasis ascribed magical properties to the teeth of the weasel and used it to remove fish bone stuck in the throat. The Burmese Ferret-badger and Small-toothed Palm Civet Arctogalida trivirgata were camera-trapped for the first time by Kakati et al. (2014aKakati et al. ( , 2014b in Garo Hills. The Burmese Ferret-badger had earlier only been recorded in Khasi Hills (Choudhury 2013).
Red Panda: A disjunct population of Red Panda Ailurus fulgens, locally known as Matchibel, was reported in Meghalaya through four skins of the species collected from Nokrek and Balpakram in Garo Hills in the 1960s and 1980s (Choudhury 1997(Choudhury , 2000a. The largest known specimen was shot in the early 1960s in Nokrek NP (Choudhury 2000a). This was the first record of the species in a tropical forest. It also holds the record for the lowest elevation reported for the species at 200m. This population was thought to have migrated through the Patkai and Naga ranges to the Garo Hills. It was also stated to be found in the Khasi Hills (Choudhury 2000b) although no evidence was provided.
Ungulates: Populations of Wild Water Buffalo Bubalus arnee have declined in Meghalaya as well as in the whole of northeastern India owing to the destruction of habitat through the conversion of elephant-grass jungles to farmland, hunting pressure and transmission of diseases by livestock. In Meghalaya, there currently exists only a small population in Balpakram NP (Choudhury 1994).
The Gaur Bos gaurus is mainly found in South Garo Hills and West Khasi Hills although a small population is also found in Ri-Bhoi District (Choudhury 2002

CONCLUSION
Meghalaya being part of the Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot and also hosting a diverse array of Indo-Malayan species is an important landscape for the conservation of many of the mammalian species that exist in the subcontinent. With about 38% of all Indian mammals found in the state, it is worthwhile to emphasize the need for greater conservation efforts in this region. Although a decent number of studies have been conducted, most have focused only on Asian Elephants and only in the Garo Hills region while hardly a handful of studies have focused their attention on other species and in other parts of the state; most of the studies on other species have been limited to preliminary investigations and provide only a synoptic view of species distribution, occurrences and threats. Certain taxa such as the chiropterans have in recent years been well documented, but are restricted only to the taxonomic field. Other taxa such as the rodents, although representing the second largest group in the state, have hardly been studied. A wider concerted effort in conducting additional studies on other lesser appreciated groups and lesser known species and tackling both ecological as well as humanwildlife questions would provide a firm foundation for undertaking holistic conservation actions to ensure the persistence of the mammalian fauna in the state.