More at http://www.sanctuaryasia.com | In The Field
taxonomical reassessment that followed,
the latter was accommodated as the
Kerala shieldtail Uropeltis ceylanica, but
when Gower, Captain & Thakur revived
Uropeltis bicatenata from the synonmy
of Uropeltis ceylanica in 2008, they
demonstrated the potential existence
of several other valid species hidden as
synonyms within the U. ceylanicus group.
Today this species has been re-examined
and renamed Uropeltis shorttii or Short’s
shieldtail – the nomenclature resurrected
from a synonym last used by Theobald
in 1876 (http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.
o3636.5305-14).
The other interesting species
collected as a road kill was a Beddome’s
coral snake Calliophis beddomei. A
venomous Elapid readily distinguished
by its black upperparts and bright
red underparts, it grows to a length
of approximately half a metre. The
species was originally described from
two specimens from the Natural
History Museum in London collected
by Beddome himself in the Shevroys,
and the other from Koppa and in the
collection of the Zoological Survey of
India, Calcutta. Beddome collected three
more specimens from the Shevroys and
Mudumalai, which
are now housed
at the California
Academy
of Sciences
Herpetology
Museum. Hence,
the specimen
collected and
housed in Chennai
Snake Park is only
the sixth specimen
known to science
(http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/JoTT.
o3639.5580-2).It would be an anticlimax to describe
other fi ndings concerning reptiles, but
suffi ce it to say both species of rock
agamas Psammophilus dorsalis and P.
blandfordanus existed sympatrically, as
did three species of Calotes (C. rouxii, C.
versicolor and C. calotes). Some gekkonid
lizards such as the Indian slender gecko
Hemiphyllodactylus aurantiacus that
we meticulously searched for, were not
sighted in forests, but was seen on a lamp
post opposite the hotel where we dined
one night. It was a unique fi nd, as this
species was fi rst discovered and described
from Shevroys itself, back in 1870! Other
snakes we encountered were the montane
trinket snake, checkered keelback and
Indian rat snake. We also encountered
a small specimen of the hill form of the
Indian terrapin or Indian black turtle. We
did not have much luck with amphibians
since we were not around when they bred
en masse in the post-monsoon seasonal
waterbodies, but we did see some hill-
forms such as the direct-developing bush
frog Raorchestes sp. and golden-backed
frog Indosylvirana sreeni.
The large mammals, as mentioned
earlier seemed to be habituated to
human presence – the gaur were not
at all shy, quite unlike their brethren
in the Western Ghats. According to a
tourist guide book by the Rotary Club of
Yercaud, the gaur population has grown
to such an extent that there are frequent
problems of people being attacked. There
are also instances when lone bulls refuse
to move from plantation areas and
become a big hindrance to cultivation. At
the place in which we sometimes went
for night walks we saw gaur elegantly
leaping 1.8 m.-high barriers as if in slow
motion. Wild pigs too are common in the
valley and plantations surrounding it. We
did sight the Indian giant squirrel several
times, but in spite of all of Preston’s
endeavours we could not catch a glimpse
of the Madras tree shrew, though the
locals were quite conversant with it and
called it ‘moong anil’. We were often
asked if we wanted dead specimens, but
we had to decline.
One of the conditions for undertaking
the survey was that we were not to
trap and handle live animals and this
eff ectively put an end to mist netting
and live trapping for small mammals
(especially rodents). It was dicey using
camera traps since the areas in which
they were to be used were not secureand human presence
was a recurring
factor, which
made security of
our equipment a
major issue. It was
interesting to note
that tribals comprised
over 60 per cent of
the local population.
These tribals, called
Malayalis (hill men)
or Vellalas, are not
of aboriginal stock
but migrated from
Kancheepuram
500 years ago.
The ban on trapping did hit us below
the belt, especially me, who is dependent
on small mammal (especially rodent)
taxonomy, but there was no way out
of it. Suffi ce it to say that, as far as
mammals go we have barely scratched
the surface. For most mammals such
as rodents and bats, their identifi cation
can only be confi rmed by handling them
and collecting morphometrical data.
Nevertheless, there was some interesting
indirect evidence pointing to the fact
that there is more wildlife than meets
the eye: while walking through tribal
homesteads we frequently came upon
dogs with porcupine quills adhering to
them and were told that the porcupine
is a delicacy in these regions (I am apt
to believe anywhere where the species
occurs, even in the plains). The dogs
were a unique mix with never the lack
of ‘hound’ in their makeup. Some of
them were really nasty creatures and
strove their best to shoo us away, but
did not actually attack – this leads us to
surmise that Ogden Nash was absolutely
spot on when he quipped “Any hound a
porcupine nudges, can’t be blamed for
harboring grudges”. BShortt’s shieldtail based on a photograph
Bamboo pit viper by Dr. S. R. Ganesh.
Common vine snakeGaur