<~~BACK to home page

Small Carnivore TAG Regional Collection Plan

I. Definition of the TAG:

The overall objective of the Small Carnivore Taxon Advisory Group (TAG) is to assist and promote the conservation of all species under our umbrella through education programs, research, appropriate exhibits and scientific captive breeding of threatened and endangered species.

The Small Carnivore TAG is comprised of several taxa: Mustelidae (64 species), Viverrridae (44 species), Procyonidae (20 species), Herpestidae (39 species) , and Ailuridae (1 species). For a complete list, refer to recommendation tables (Tables 1 through 3). The species under the TAG umbrella are particularly diverse with a variety of social, taxonomic and behavioral characteristics. Table 4 outlines a few of the attributes exhibited by recommended species.

II. Space Analysis:

The eighty TAG member institutions were surveyed in order to determine trends in small carnivore population holdings and assist us in the selection of species for management. A sample survey is included in this volume which outlines the direction and definitions used by the respondents to complete the form. Forty-two institutions responded. Tables 5 and 6 outline the direct survey responses for space, both currently and estimated for five years in the future. Due to the limited number of survey respondents, we felt it would be valuable to secondarily assess the populations utilizing data available through ISIS. Tables 7 and 8 outline estimated space based on both survey responses and 1999 ISIS data. The method by which these numbers were estimated is described in detail below. Figure 1 illustrates current and future trends in the number of animals held with respect to management level. Figure 2 illustrates current and future trends in the number of enclosures devoted to species given these same management levels. Both Figures demonstrate positive growth in actively managed programs and DERP's and decreasing trends in Phase Out species. As survey response was limited to 52% of the TAG member institutions and most of the non-SSP small carnivore programs are in their infancy, target population sizes cited in this document will certainly need re-evaluation. Subsequent revisions of the Regional Collection Plan (RCP) will provide this opportunity as more detail on the genetic and demographic status of these populations becomes available.

Explanation of Space Analysis Estimates

Estimated Carrying Capacity (Current): The numbers used were obtained from the returned space survey and ISIS data. The reported carrying capacity was divided by the reported # of animals for each species. The actual ISIS number was then multiplied by this result to give the Estimated Carrying Capacity (ECC) for that particular species.

Example: Cacomistle: 9 animals reported held/10 carrying capacity

= 1.1 x 36 (ISIS reported number)

= 40 animals ECC

Estimated Carrying Capacity (2004): The same formula as above applies with one exception. Instead of using the 1999 ISIS numbers, the "calculated population" result (see below) was used.

Enclosure Spaces Currently Used (1999) and Enclosure Spaces Needed (2004): These numbers were derived by using the reported ISIS numbers and assessing the number of enclosures needed to support the species population based on the housing needs of that species. For the 2004 population the same formula applies except that the "calculated population" was used instead of ISIS.

Example: Cacomistle: 36 animals (ISIS)

"Species Needs" chart = socially tolerant

Therefore we assumed one pair of animals per enclosure.

36 animals paired = 18 enclosures

In addition, we also looked at the reported carrying capacity of animals vs. the reported numbers of enclosures to help determining housing situations.

Example: Dwarf mongoose: 45 reported carrying capacity/9 enclosures

"Species Needs" chart = family groups, socially tolerant

45/9 = 5 animals per enclosure

 

 

Maximum Enclosure Spaces Available: This was derived in a similar method as above but instead used the calculated ECC. Housing needs were then based on the "Species Needs" chart (Table 4.)

Example: Cacomistle: 40 animals = ECC

"Species Needs" chart = socially tolerant

Therefore again assume pairs of animals per enclosure.

40/2 = 20 maximum enclosures available

Calculated Population (2004): First we determined the ratio of change in a population using the reported survey results. The current ISIS number was then multiplied by this number to calculate the increase/decrease in the 2004 population.

Example: Cacomistle: 9 reported animals, 15 reported for the 2004 population

15/9 = 1.666

1.666 x 36 (ISIS 99) = ~ 60 animals

Therefore the calculated cacomistle population for 2004 is 60 animals.

Target Population for 2004: Due to the current status of many of the small carnivore programs (most are new, as yet untested with respect to population management) target populations were set only until the year 2004. In this way, the management group can provide direction to participant zoos, yet still leave room for further assessment, based on future scientific evaluation. The 2004 population numbers were based on the trends exhibited in the space survey, as well as current population sizes and trends.

III. Species Selection Criteria:

In this RCP the TAG utilized two phases of selection criteria. In the first phase we reviewed all 168 species of small carnivores and heavily weighted one selection criterion, existence of captive population in North America. This, in effect, eliminated those species not currently held in North American collections. This is not to say that the TAG rejects future management of these species. We merely wished to focus our limited resources on those species within our current collections for management programs. As per the American zoo and Aquarium Association/Wildlife Conservation management Committee (AZA/WCMC) guidelines, the plan will be updated every 3-5 years. This will allow additional species to be identified for management by North American zoos and added to future RCP's. The second phase of selection utilized nine criteria, conservation status, population viability, husbandry expertise, availability of potential founders, potential for affecting conservation in the wild, scientific/research value, exhibit value, education value, and taxonomic uniqueness. These criteria were further defined and assigned numerical values (Table 9). Tor each species remaining after the first selection phase, values were assigned for the nine criteria and then summed. The numerical sum for each species was then used to assign its management category Rank of 24 or higher = SSP; Rank of 20-23 = PMP; Rank of 14 - 19 = DERP; Rank of 0-13 = Phase Out (Table10). Species Roles within North American collections were then assigned based on the primary function the species to zoological collections. These roles are defined below and listed for recommended species in Table 1. Assignment of these primary roles does not preclude the species from having a secondary or alternate role in North American zoos.

Definition of Management Levels and Terms

SSP - Species Survival Plan: population requires intense management, studbook is necessary, MOP required for participation in program, compliance by participating institutions is expected, breeding recommendations and a master plan are required.

PMP - Population Management Plan: population requires moderate management, studbook is necessary, no MOP required, compliance by participating institutions is encouraged, breeding recommendations are offered , no master plan is required.

DERP - Display, Education, Research Population: no studbook is required, long term genetic/demographic management is not required. These populations are frequently native species, donated animals, subjects of short term research, or otherwise maintained in collections in small number.

Phase Out - a breeding moratorium is in effect for the population, progress toward phase out is monitored.

Phase In - species is not currently in AZA institutions, import of founders is planned, once population exists in North America, species will be assigned to another category.

 

Status:   E              = Endangered Species, Endangered Species Act; Dept. of Interior

T             = Threatened Species, Endangered Species Act; Dept. of Interior

I               = Appendix I (CITES), Dept. of Interior

II             = Appendix II, (CITES), Dept. of Interior

III            = Appendix III, (CITES), Dept. of Interior

Inj.          = Injurious Wildlife, Lacey Act, Dept. of Interior

After the second selection phase, each species was then assigned a role in North American collections as defined below:

Definition of SCTAG Species Roles

Genetic Reservoir - may be an Appendix I species; conservation/breeding of a captive population to maximize potential for retention of genetic diversity

Display - species is popular with the public or provides entertainment/recreational value

Education - species meets educational goals related to its own biology and /or conservation or serves as a representative of broader issues or taxa

Reintroduction - species is or has the potential to be part of a cooperative reintroduction program to its native habitat

Research - species has potential contribution to both applied and theoretical research; research is planned or ongoing that is directed at understanding aspects of the taxa's biology, husbandry, or the development of relevant technologies that will ultimately contribute to conservation efforts

Flagship Species - species provides for fund-raising/public relations opportunities that can link living collections in North American zoos directly to conservation efforts/projects in zoos

Regional Priorities/Initiatives - species conservation is a priority in its region, resulting in cooperative efforts

Summary of Small Carnivore TAG species selection:

Step 1. Is the species found in North American Collections? "Yes", go on to Step 2.; "No", Species Not Recommended.

Step 2. Species evaluated by nine Species Selection Criteria listed in Table 9.

Step 3. Management levels assigned based on numerical sum of nine criteria values: Rank of 24 or higher = SSP; Rank of 20-23 = PMP; Rank of 14 - 19 = DERP; Rank of 0-13 = Phase Out.

Step 4.    Species Roles within North American collections assigned based on determination of the primary function the species to zoological collections.

Step 5. List was distributed among all institution representatives for comment period (two AZA Regional meetings and list serve were used as distribution vehicles), exceptions to the management designation were made based upon received commentary as follows:

American marten - upgraded to a DERP due to it's regional nature, therefore high educational value and readily available founder population.

Banded mongoose - down listed to Phase Out due to the need to concentrate on other members of this family which are currently being managed in North America. This will facilitate a decrease in pressure for enclosure space and other resources directed toward the family Herpestidae.

European otter and Spotted-neck otter - both species were down listed to Phase Out. Several other otter species are currently represented in North America and have greater potential for maintaining genetic and demographic health. A Phase Out of these two species will facilitate a decrease in pressure for enclosure space and other resources directed toward otters.

Fossa - down listed to DERP due to the small size of the population. As the population increases (likely due to increased interest in the species by member institutions), an upgrade to PMP may be recommended.

Raccoon - down listed to DERP as the requirement of a formal studbook for PMP populations was not currently feasible. The population is largely rehabilitated and/or confiscated animals with no pedigree data. As more information is gathered, an upgrade may be recommended.

Tayra - down listed to Phase Out based on Small Carnivore TAG's survey of holding institutions, which indicated the population was moving toward senescence.

Step 6. Final list published in this RCP with the statement that any and all of these species designations will be reviewed every three years.

IV. TAG recommendations:

SURPLUS ANIMALS

For those small carnivore species managed by an SSP, the individual SSP's should be contacted in the context of all acquisitions, dispositions, and breeding recommendations.

The Small Carnivore TAG recommends that surplus animals be transferred to other AZA-accredited institutions. Alternatively, the Small Carnivore TAG recommends that animals sent to a non-AZA institution (1) should encourage the receiving institution to cooperate with the studbook keeper and any existing management program (e.g.. DERP, PMP, SSP) to allow for continued monitoring of the animals, and (2) the receiving facility should be inspected by the holding institution to assure adequate quality of care and/or the holding institution should have a recipient organization file. All animal transfers must be carried out in accordance with the AZA Code of Professional Ethics. Managerial euthanasia of healthy animals is at the discretion of the holding institution. The TAG recommends that this is a method of last resort and should be used only after all other alternatives have been exhausted. Medical euthanasia should be considered on a case-by-case basis for life-threatening or quality of life reasons.

IMPORTATION/CONFISCATION OF SMALL CARNIVORE SPECIES

As stated previously, those small carnivore species managed by an SSP, the individual SSP's should be contacted in the context of all acquisitions, dispositions, and breeding recommendation. In order to most effectively manage those populations not under an SSP umbrella, and to appropriately assist range country conservation efforts the TAG recommends that all importations and/or confiscations of non-SSP species be discussed on a case-by-case basis on the TAG list serve (sctag@lists.aza.org). The Steering Group will then make a determination by vote as to whether the TAG supports the importation and/or confiscation.

V. Action Plans:

Small Carnivore TAG Action Plan for 1999-2001

 

 

 

Small Clawed Otter SSP Action Plan for 1998-2000

Black-footed Ferret SSP Action Plan 1998

Three - Year Action Plan For Priority Projects - The following list of priority projects was developed by the Black-footed Ferret SSP Management Group and is based upon discussions and recommendations from working meetings and conference calls addressing potential projects. All institutional representatives of the SSP Management Group voted on the priority of projects. In the collective judgement of the Group, these projects are priority for the captive breeding -reintroduction link upon which black-footed ferret recovery depends. In our judgement , they 1) are fiscally, logistically and technically sound; 2) improve management of black-footed ferrets both in situ and ex situ; 3) are collaborative; 4) are currently un- or under-funded; 5) are less likely to receive alternative funding than other projects; and 6) have potential for positive impacts on several other species.

Top Priority

Other Priority Projects, Not Ranked

            Red Panda SSP Action Plan/Annual Report 1998

Introduction

There are presently estimated to be 150 enclosures for red pandas in 57 North American zoos. The trend of previous years, for most participating institutions to make a commitment to holding only a single a pair of red pandas and their most recent litter, continues to change slowly. Several institutions have recently committed to three or more breeding enclosures, a housing arrangement that significantly improves management flexibility and economies of scale for the SSP program. This trend is strongly supported by the SSP because, historically, institutions holding larger populations have had significantly higher breeding rates, better survivorship and greater longevity than institutions holding single pairs. We believe this is due to the in-creased management and breeding flexibility of having a small nucleus population. The SSP has also encouraged the "hub" zoo management concept in which a group of geographically proximate zoos are asked to work together with a genetically diverse sub-population of animals. The SSP has also encouraged institutions with experience in red panda management to "sponsor" smaller nearby institutions to create a local network of collaborating institutions that can freely exchange animals, ideas and expertise.

Current Population Status

Based on population genetic analyses, our estimate of the minimum viable population size (MVP) for maintenance of 90% of original genetic diversity for 200 years is approximately 600 animals per subspecies. This is about six times the current fulgens population size and 12 times the current styani population size. Under prevailing conditions, approximately 180 holding institutions and 400 enclosures per subspecies would be required to meet the "90%/200 year" criterion. The maintenance of 1,200 red pandas in North America is clearly impossible. Improvements in the genetic and demographic performance of the population would reduce the population holding requirement somewhat, but even under a "best case scenario" the numbers required would still exceed the number of holding spaces that could be made available. For example, improving the annual population growth rate from 0.091 to 0.14 (50% improvement), increasing the number of founders from 23 to 27 (17% improvement) and increasing the Ne/N from 0.33 to 0.5 (50% improvement) reduces the MVP requirement to 530 animals per subspecies, still far beyond estimated carrying capacity. Accordingly, we have changed the rules of the game somewhat. We have set an attainable carrying capacity goal of 200 individuals per subspecies to enable us to maintain 90% heterozygosity for 50 rather than 200 years. We have also made the problem a global one. By so doing, the issue of how to manage populations on the "90%/50" basis becomes somewhat more tract-able, as the total population required is approximately 400 rather than 1200 animals. At this time, there are approximately 660 red pandas in 157 zoos internationally. This represents an increase of 3 fulgens and 18 styani in the last year. As reported last year, this number suggests that the international population is at a sufficiently large size to meet the "90%/50" criterion.

At present the SSP populations of both subspecies appear to be secure. Competition for space between the two subspecies is occurring to some degree and it is possible there will be some animal placement difficulties in the future as the a pool of non-breeding animals (i.e. those from over-represented founder lines) increases. Approximately 50% of the fulgens population is now considered "exhibit only" on the basis of genetic and demographic considerations. Recruitment of new institutions in North America and the export of over-represented animals (in the SSP) to other regional programs is expected to provide a satisfactory outlet for this "surplus" pool for the short term. The SSP has representation from 23 of the30 internationally available fulgens founder lineages and, therefore, recruitment of new founders will not be possible unless animals are obtained from wild populations, a situation that is considered extremely unlikely in the short term.

The SSP styani population includes a relatively large number of founders and, for the foreseeable future, there is no specific need to import new founders in order to maintain a genetically health population. However, the SSP is currently discussing the possibility of exchanging animals from over-represented founder lineages with the Japanese region. Japanese zoos are currently holding 199 styani, representing 32 founder lineages, most of them not represented in North America. Similarly, most of the 21 founder lineages in North America are not represented in the Japanese region. Consequently, the SSP has started discussions with the Japanese regional management program to undertake a series of exchanges in the near future.

Breeding and management priorities for both subspecies are well established and the population is reviewed twice each year (March and September) to determine new pairings and moves. The breeding population was restructured in 1995 by improving pairings and situating the highest priority breeding animals at the best available facilities. This combined with the development of the Red Panda Management Training Workshop, sponsored by the Knoxville Zoo and the SSP, made it possible to provide the best possible facilities and care for the most genetically and demographically important animals in the population.

Demographic Trends

The fulgens population increased by 7.5% in 1997-98 (from 106 to 114 animals, net) while the styani population increased by 1.7% (from 56 to 57 animals). This was a significant net increase for the fulgens population and is attributable largely to increased cub survival.

Twenty-five fulgens and eight syani were born in 1997-98 with survivorship rates of 60% and 86%, respectively. This was a significant improvement in survivorship, especially for the fulgens population (30% survivorship of cubs in 1996).

Nineteen fulgens and 11 styani were relocated within the region during the last 12 months. There were no inter-regional transfers and no recruitment of new founders during the year.

Population Genetics

No new founders are required for the fulgens population. Currently, there are plans to import two new styani founders from Japan.

Special Concerns

The greatest challenge facing the SSP is resolving the issue of how to distribute available institutional resources to supporting both fulgens and styani populations. The International Red Pandas Management Group (IRPMG) has placed a priority on meeting the genetic and demographic requirements for the more severely endangered fulgens population. Each of the six international management regions, except North America, has concentrated almost exclusively on one of the two subspecies. The North American regions (i.e. the SSP populations) has, for historical reasons, worked with both subspecies. While resources are not overly taxed now, it is only a matter of time before difficult decisions will have to be made with regard to the appropriate mix of the two subspecies in the SSP management scheme.

A recent survey of the distribution, status and conservation of red pandas in China (Wei, Feng and Wang, in press) estimates that the range of the red panda in China has declined by over 40% in the last 50 years due to massive deforestation and habitat alteration. There are currently an estimated 6000-7000 red pandas, primarily styani, in China residing primarily in the 31 wildlife conservation reserves recently established. Recent assessments of the fulgens range suggests even more dramatic habitat diminution for that subspecies. Under the circumstances, the development of self-sustaining captive populations for both subspecies in more than warranted. However, it is clear that there is a sufficiently large number of styani founder lineages (approximately 53) to continue recommending that no new wild caught styani be brought into the SSP population.

A source of special concern is the number of institutions still do not have backup facilities for animals surplus to their needs. The lack of adequate holding space at some institutions has occasionally placed unnecessary strain on the system requiring the hasty and sometimes suboptimal relocation of animals. Consequently, the SSP will place a higher priority on institutions that can accommodate more than one or two groups of animals than on institutions that can accommodate only one.

The vast majority of SSP move and pairing recommendations are executed in a timely and cooperative manner, but a small, but still unacceptable, number of recommendations are still delayed unduly for reasons that are not consistent with the spirit of a collaborative captive management program. For example, in the last year, four styani were sent to a non-SSP (i.e. private) institution without SSP consultation and three other move recommendations were not carried out due to ownership issues. While not a cause for alarm, this matter is cause for concern and the SSP is moving to improve compliance with recommendations for the benefit of the management program and all participating institutions.

Research:

1. Red panda habitat and population estimates in eastern Singalila National Park (Darjeeling District, West Bengal, India) (Sunita Pradhan, Darjeeling College).

2. Studies by the Knoxville Zoological Gardens and San Diego Zoo to characterize the reproductive cycle of female red pandas by correlating changes in behavior, vaginal cytology and urinary/fecal hormone assays (Greta McMillan and University of Tennessee collaborators; Michael Jurke and Nancy Czekala, San Diego Zoo).

3. A study of growth rates and weight dynamics to determine optimum age specific body mass as a management aid (Miles Roberts with input from participating institutions).

4. SPARKS documentation of complete institutional and reproductive histories of all living red pandas to assist in "fine tuning" management recommendations for the upcoming year (Frank Kohn, National Zoological Park).

5. A study of the morphological correlates of body mass in red pandas to develop measures of "body condition" (Miles Roberts, National Zoological Park).

Field Conservation:

1. Red panda habitat and population estimates in eastern Singalila National Park (Darjeeling District, West Bengal, India) (Sunita Pradhan, Darjeeling College).

Progress Towards Goals:

1. Virtually all proposed pairings and transfers proposed for 1997-98 were accomplished according to masterplan recommendations and semi-annual population reviews.

2. The SSP Management Group met at the National Zoological Park in April.

3. Greta McMillan (Knoxville Zoo) organized a Red Panda Management Training Course for keeper level staff to be held in October at the Knoxville Zoo.

4. The SSP Species Coordinator created the Red Panda SSP web site (www.si.edu/natzoo/redpanda/)

5. Discussions have been initiated between the SSP and the Japanese regional management program to exchange styani.

Goals for the Upcoming Year:

1. Provide financial support for the continuation of field work in Singalila National Park, West Bengal.

2. Arrange a technical training visits for Indian zoo curators or veterinarians who are in a position to help the red panda program go forward. Veterinarians and/or directors of the Sikkim or Arunachal Pradesh zoos would be the likely candidates for a 3-4 week work study stint at a North American or European zoo.

3. Revise North American Red Panda Management Masterplan (3rd edition).

4. Conduct red panda management training workshop at Knoxville Zoo.

5. Revise Red Panda SSP website.

6. Reduce the number non-recommended moves and pairings to zero and reduce the rate of non-compliance with recommendations to zero.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Species Recommended for Management in North America SCTAG 1999

           

Common name

Scientific name

Management level

Status

Role

black-footed ferret

Mustela nigripes

SSP

E, I

Reintroduction

Oriental small-clawed otter

Aonyx cinerea

SSP - Otter SSP umbrella

II

Genetic Reservoir

red panda

Ailurus fulgens

SSP

I

Genetic Reservoir

cacomistle

Bassaricus astutus

PMP

III

Display

Southern coati

Nasua nasua

PMP

III

Display

Northern coati

Nasua narica

PMP

III

Display

kinkajou

Potos flavus

PMP

III

Education

binturong

Artictis binturong

PMP

III

Education

dwarf mongoose

Helogale parvula

PMP

Inj.

Display

meerkat

Suricata suricatta

PMP

Inj.

Flagship

wolverine

Gulo gulo

PMP

 

Regional

North American otter

Lutra canadensis

PMP - Otter SSP umbrella

II

Regional

 

raccoon

Procyon lotor

DERP

 

Education

giant otter

Pteronura brasiliensis

DERP - Otter SSP umbrella

E, I

Regional

banded linsang

Prionodon linsang

DERP

II

Display

African clawless otter

Aonyx capensis

DERP - Otter SSP umbrella

 

Display

fossa

Cryptoprocta ferox

DERP

II

Regional

cusimanse

Crossarchus obscurus

DERP

 

Education

polecat

Mustela putorius

DERP

 

Education

fisher

Martes pennanti

DERP

 

Education

American marten

Martes americana

DERP

 

Education

American badger

Taxidea taxus bherlandieri

DERP

 

Display

striped skunk

Mephitis mephitis

DERP

 

Display

Eastern spotted skunk

Spilogale putorius

DERP

 

Regional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Species Recommended for Phase Out in North America SCTAG 1999

 

Common Name

Scientific Name

Management level

African civet

Civettictis civetta (Viverra civetta)

Phase Out

small Indian civet

Viverricula indica

Phase Out

Abyssinian genet

Genetta abyssinica

Phase Out

small-spotted genet

Genetta genetta (+subsp)

Phase Out

large-spotted genet

Genetta tigrina

Phase Out

banded mongoose

Mungo mungo (taenianotus)

Phase Out

yellow-throated marten

Martes flavigula

Phase Out

ermine

Mustela erminea (+subsp)

Phase Out

long-tailed weasel

Mustela frenata (+subsp)

Phase Out

American mink

Mustela vison

Phase Out

steppe polecat

Mustela (putorius) eversmanni

Phase Out

South American grison

Galictis vittata

Phase Out

zorilla

Ictonyx striatus

Phase Out

Eastern spotted skunk

Spilogale putorius

Phase Out

hooded skunk

Mephitis macroura

Phase Out

tayra

Eira barbara

Phase Out

European otter

Lutra lutra (+subsp)

Phase Out

spotted-necked otter

Lutra maculicollis

Phase Out

Central American cacomistle

Bassariscus sumichrasti

Phase Out

African palm civet

Nandinia binotata

Phase Out

three-striped palm civet

Arctogalidia trivirgata

Phase Out

common palm civet

Paradoxurus hermaphroditus

Phase Out

masked palm civet

Paguma larvata

Phase Out

banded palm civet

Hemigalus dervyanus

Phase Out

Table 3. Species Not Recommended for Management in North America SCTAG RCP 1999

Common name

Scientific name

Management level

Status

 

Procyon maynardi

Not Recommended

Cozumel raccoon

Procyon pygmaeus

Not Recommended

 

Guateloupe raccoon

Procyon minor

Not Recommended

 

 

Procyon lotor incautus

Not Recommended

 

 

Procyon lotor auspitaltus

Not Recommended

 

Tres Marias raccoon

Procyon insularis

Not Recommended

 

 

Procyon cancrivorous

Not Recommended

 

Cozumel coati

Nasua nelsoni

Not Recommended

 

Little coatimundi

Nasuella olivacea

Not Recommended

 

olongo

Bassaricyon alleni

Not Recommended

 

bushy-tailed olingo

Bassaricyon gabbii

Not Recommended

III

Chiriqui olingo

Bassaricyon pauli

Not Recommended

 

Harris olingo

Bassaricyon lasius

Not Recommended

 

olingo

Bassaricyon beddardi

Not Recommended

 

Congo water civet

Osbornictis piscivora

Not Recommended

 

Owston's palm civet

Chrotogale owstoni

Not Recommended

 

falanouc

Eupleres goudot major

Not Recommended

 

large Indian civet

Viverra zibetha

Not Recommended

III

large spotted civet

Viverra megaspila

Not Recommended

E,III

 

Viverra civettina

Not Recommended

 

Malay civet

Viverra tangalunga

Not Recommended

 

 

Genetta thierryi

Not Recommended

 

Johnston's genet

Genetta johnstoni

Not Recommended

 

 

Genetta servalina bettoni

Not Recommended

 

servaline genet

Genetta servalina servalina

Not Recommended

 

giant forest genet

Genetta victoriae

Not Recommended

 

 

Genetta cristata

Not Recommended

 

Angolan genet

Genetta angolensis

Not Recommended

 

rusty-spotted genet

Genetta rubignosa

Not Recommended

 

 

Genetta bini

Not Recommended

 

 

Genetta deorum

Not Recommended

 

 

Genetta aequatorialis

Not Recommended

 

African linsang

Poiana richardsoni

Not Recommended

 

spotted linsang

Prionodon pardicolor

Not Recommended

E,I

golden palm civet

Paradoxurus zeylonenisis

Not Recommended

 

Jerdon's palm civet

Paradoxurus jerdoni

Not Recommended

III

 

Paradoxurus lignicolor

Not Recommended

 

 

Paguma lanigera

Not Recommended

 

brown palm civet

Macrogalidia muschenbroekii

Not Recommended

 

 

Dipogale hosei

Not Recommen