1.0

The information consolidated within the project will build up a comprehensive identification guide, as well as mapping the ranges of each species.

SARCA Background.

The SARCA project culminated with the publication "Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. 2014. Edited by Bates, M.F.; Branch, W.R; Bauer, A.M.; Burger, M.; Marais, J.; Alexander, G.J. & de Villiers, M.S. Suricata 1. SANBI, Pretoria." [PDF download: http://biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Suricata_1_2014.pdf]

The following is extracted from the introductory chapter:

South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland comprise a region of exceptional biodiversity, including three of the 34 global biodiversity hotspots identified by Conservation International (www.biodiversityhotspots.org). This region (hereafter referred to as the Atlas region) is well-known for its rich mammal and bird fauna. As impressive, but receiving far less attention, is its exceptional reptile diversity. Levels of endemism in the region are high-45% of the 421 indigenous reptile taxa (species and subspecies) occur nowhere else in the world.

South Africa has a legal obligation to monitor biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity (www. biodiv.org) and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004). Monitoring-recording changes in distribution patterns and population trends--is essential for effective conservation, yet reptiles have largely been ignored in conservation plans. There are a number of reasons for this:

• Existing distribution information was not collated and integrated into a single database and was largely inaccessible.

• Distribution data were patchy, with many areas in the region having no data or inadequate data.

• There were various taxonomic uncertainties regarding the reptiles of the region. The previous Red Data Book (Branch 1988a) is now over 20 years old and the list of recognised reptile taxa has increased by almost 25% since its publication.

• There was a lack of clear conservation priorities with regard to reptiles. Only about 13% of the known taJ<a were previously evaluated according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List Categories and Criteria.

• Reptiles have a poor public image. Reptiles in general, and snakes in particular, tend to be feared and disliked by the general public.

These concerns led to the establishment of SARCA, the Southern African Reptile Conservation Assessment. SARCA's aims were to:

• Compile a comprehensive and integrated database of distribution records of the reptiles of the Atlas region, and use this information to map the distributions of all these taxa.

• Conduct field surveys to fill in gaps in ranges and to test survey methods.

• Collect and bank voucher specimens and tissue samples to serve as a tool for researchers addressing taxonomic issues. Produce summaries of the latest taxonomic information regarding reptiles of the region.

• Produce an updated Red List that includes conservation assessments of all described reptile taxa in the region, using the latest criteria of the IUCN.

• Raise public awareness and appreciation of reptiles and their conservation needs.

The Atlas region consists of South Africa, Lesotho and Eswatini (Swaziland). The region can be divided into 2008 quarter-degree grid cells (QDGCs), each cell measuring 15 minutes of latitude by 15 minutes of longitude. Because lines of latitude converge towards the poles, the grid cells in the north of the Atlas region are larger than those in the south, but the average QDGC area is 676 km2.

All data was referenced to at least the QDGC level of accuracy, but higher resolution data were included where possible. Global Positioning System (GPS) data was referenced to the nearest second.

Data were accessed from approximately 400 people and 14 organisations (Table 1.1). The bulk of the data came from museums and nature conservation agencies. Other data were obtained from private collections, academic institutions, published literature, SARCA field surveys, and members of the general public via an online Virtual Museum.

Twenty-four field surveys were undertaken in priority areas within the Atlas region. These were conducted over three summer seasons from 2005 to 2008 and comprised approximately 270 days of sampling effort. Each survey had a public participation component, where volunteers accompanied the SARCA project herpetologist (Marius Burger) to conduct field work in priority areas.

Field surveys employed a variety of methods to obtain reptile records at a specific site, including trapping, active searching of suitable habitat, road cruising and interviews with local residents. Active searching generally involved searching under rocks and logs, through leaf litter, and often under anthropogenic debris such as bricks, corrugated iron or asbestos sheets. Additionally, active searches for sleeping chameleons took the form of night-time spotlight surveys through vegetation. During a typical road cruise, a suitable stretch of road would be driven slowly at night to search for reptiles. This method provided an effective means of collecting nocturnal reptiles, especially geckos and snakes.

Data limitations:

Despite the good coverage, QDGC-scale data are too course for fine-scale conservation planning. Large numbers of records were supplied without geographical coordinates and these were assigned to a QDGC from the locality information.

Historically, the various efforts to collect herpetological data have not been coordinated, have not been standardised over time, and no record of observer effort has been kept. Using the existing data to interpret t rends in reptile populations or changes in distributions over time is thus problematic. Standardised, regular and repeatable field surveys would add enormously to the conservation value of data.

ReptileMAP data sources and number of records in brackets: (as of 2018-11-02):

ADU-UCT (56396);

American Museum of Natural History (287);

*Bayworld (Port Elizabeth Museum) (10928);

*California Academy of Sciences (1999);

*Cape Fold Mountain Survey and Cunningham & Henderson private records (1807);

*CapeNature (23286);

*Ditsong National Museum of Natural History (formerly Transvaal Museum) (35767);

Durban Natural Science Museum (1438);

Enviro-Insight (152);

Field Museum of Natural History (994);

Gauteng Department of Agriculture Conservation and Environment (1067);

Iziko South African Museum (1);

John Ellerman Museum (3441);

KwaZulu-Natal Museum (Pietermaritzburg) (481);

KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife (Ezemvelo) (1433);

National Museum Bloemfontein (7651);

Private (A. Monadjem) (156);

*Private (A. Turner) (391);

*Private (A.J.L. Lambiris) (726);

*Private (B. Dyer) (265);

Private (Craig Peter) (6);

Private (E. Pietersen) (1361);

Private (Giles Mulholland) (42);

Private (J. Marais) (513);

Private (J.D. Visser) (1099);

*Private (K. Tolley) (1046);

*Private (M.D. Hofmeyr) (79);

*Private (P. Hardy) (112);

Private (S. Kirchhof) (42);

*Private (W. Conradie) (8);

*Private (X. Combrink) (993).

* Indicates non-shareable records.

SANS 1878

FGDC-STD-001-1998