Visit to Auroville ... 2nd Conservation Education meet ...

A long journey from Saiha to Auroville came to an end when eyes saw soothing green all around. I guess no discussion over email could have prepared me for this wonderful feel! It was rain-time for the place as we discovered on our first day; making us reschedule our second conservation education meet and begin it with presentations on Auroville and Pitchandikulam.

Auroville, created by a special act of parliament, houses approximately 2,100 people from 50 odd nations. Watershed consciousness was the crux of the ecological restoration efforts at Auroville! While these efforts began during the late sixties serious botanical action took shape only during the nineties. About 150 sacred groves were surveyed with a view to comprehend and later conserve indigenous species, that formed an integral element of the local ecological landscape, and then existed only within their precincts. We saw how a landmass bereft of shade and water was transformed to the green jungle thriving with porcupines and civets besides the numerous birds who vocalized their presence throughout our meet. I found this very interesting and recalled Ransinhbaba temple with its small area of shade providing trees near Agraa. We discussed remnants of other civilizations discovered in the landscape; pointing towards prominence and development of the coast and reminded me how much I revelled in history. Even Romans’ presence has been discovered around Auroville; Tamil kings were special invitees at coronations of Roman emperors!

Pitchandikulam, the group hosting us, was located within Auroville’s green-belt. Pitchandikulam, a bio-resource centre housing around 800 species, worked on environment education towards which it established centres and developed resource material besides the ongoing action with schools and much more. The team was involved with restoration of Adyar Ponga with the Tamil Nadu government. Adyar Ponga, home to one of the first fish breeding plants of India, is located on about 60 acres of prime land in Madras. I found the process very interesting, how the efforts began, their being “government contractors” from a perspective, political flavour of the action including fortnightly - monthly reporting by way of video-clips to the chief minister and Joss’ view that restoration ecology by its very definition has to involve people! All this was besides the manner in which environment education had been ingrained in the entire process and was marching on.

We then went for a walk in the campus. While I do not get much excited in identifying trees and my awareness regarding them too is pathetic; I loved the ambience. As we walked I immersed myself in it. Wood from one of trees, as was pointed out, was applied to make vessels and oil for use in temples! A wooden equipment that was lying was once used to crush groundnuts to oil with help of bulls! We saw different snails, butterflies, birds and while I could confidently identify more than a few I loved exploring my limited abilities with camera. Lots of ants too and what was great was that we were careful not to step over them. We then walked over to where the signages were being developed and found them to be stunning! Eric mentioned that one of them had to be present while the artists were at work and that while they were currently busy with the Adyar Ponga project they also took up projects for other organizations like the Cycus signage for Keystone Foundation. Paintings and carvings on rocks left us gaping; especially a civet! With due respect to tigers, elephants and rhinos, I liked seeing the smaller and lesser glamorous species represented in these efforts. Drizzling made the experience more fun and Joss remarked that while eucalyptus was anyways great it was all the more beautiful then; when it drizzled.

Next day we went for a beautiful drive on the East Coast Road. We saw the estuary and had a boat ride till the coast! I was on a beach after ages and the responded with few minutes of absolute silence. We saw crabs on the beach and I recalled the beach-crabs depicted in Shekar’s film ~ Point Calimere – Little Kingdom by the Coast. Eric pointed out that they moved only till the waterline and that I should refrain from venturing ahead. A little while later as I walked some of them jumped and disappeared in the sand leaving holes, the circumference of a pencil, as reminders. As I munched on yummy chocolate cookies I realized how much I loved being there with the waves, wind and of course the music both of them created! While some of us were discussing oysters and crabs others collected shells or added pictures to their collection.

We then went to a home for children, where we also saw an environment education centre established by Pitchandikulam. Posters were put up at the centre that focussed on coastal issues. Questions on these centres that had been pestering for some time revisited me then! How can these interpretation centres be designed such that they are as lively and interesting during an individual’s second visit as they were during the first visit! This reminded me that I was yet to read on these type of centres. An interesting breakfast consisting of idli, vada and pongal pushed my questions aside. A brief talk by the principal followed.

Another drive, shorter than the previous one and we reached a school in Nadukuppam where we saw a programme by children ~ songs, skit and puppetry focussing on environmental issues. The school, based in a village that lay between 2 reserve forests, has been adopted by Pitchandikulam. I recalled an earlier discussion on the extent to which the participants of such programmes (including teachers) grasped issues that the programme focussed on. We proceeded towards the first floor and had a long discussion. We were told that an intensive 6 month training was undertaken for the teachers before they started sharing with students. Design was to involve people from nearby areas. While the content was designed by Eric for teacher training he was not directly involved with students. As we moved on to discuss solar energy, waste segregation and recycling at the school I recalled our school at Agraa wondering if these actions could be taken up, if there was a need and to what end! We then moved on to talk of the Buckingham Canal; a human made structure aging about 200. We touched one of its ends earlier during the day; the other lay in Andhra Pradesh. We discussed how about 30,000 labourers would have suddenly moved in the vicinity from regions around towards its construction and manner in which they would have impacted natural resources; fuel for cooking, wild meat for diet, timber for shelter and more! And collectively wondered if these impacts are considered while planning “development projects”. I recalled my trip with Raju to Mani Kheda in Shivpuri near Madhav National Park; a dam construction site where wild meat was in great demand, more so on days of weekly payment to labourers.

Post lunch we had presentations. The first one talked of how varied target groups were sensitized, and efforts made to augment their knowledge levels, by undertaking actions that were suited to each of them. This with a view to address the different threats to wildlife that emanated from them. One of the actions talked of how macaques that are arboreal have been spotted coming on to the road, getting killed in the process, and how school going children were asked to put up posters, to make people aware of the issue, at crucial points. Actions like setting up of interpretation centre, involving children in monitoring birds and writing articles in local press were also discussed.

Another presentation talked of a yearly programme with 4 hour sessions held at quarterly intermissions. It shared of being initiated at the invitation of the forest department as also of working on addressing local issues like visits by large number of devotees to a temple, located within the boundaries of a protected area, on select days. Synergies were also established with experts to enthuse school going children; like visits organized to forested areas with bird watchers. One presentation depicted a project that involved setting up of an eco-park which featured walks within a grown forest on private land, non scheduled species for display as also place to indulge in sports besides other attractions.

As we woke up early to indulge in spotting our avian friends, on the final day, we were wished a “wet morning” by the weather gods! Post breakfast we moved in a vehicle to an auditorium to see a film on Auroville and after getting a succinct picture from the film we moved on to the Matri Mandir. Amidst this I was feeling uneasy with the thought that we possibly could be left with less than optimal time, post the exercise, for our deliberations on conservation education.

After visiting the Matri Mandir we all went to the Botanical Garden. It was managed by a Scot who was now enjoying his 18th year at Auroville. We walked and discussed how the garden was compartmentalized into that grown naturally and the compartment that was tempered and which of them received more avian visitors. Here once again I came face to face with my hopelessness in recalling tree names as others in the group mentioned English, Latin and vernacular identities of those standing tall! However I love being amidst trees and guess that’s it. We saw how the garden nurtured saplings such that they could also share them with other places in Auroville and beyond. Also interesting was the maze; plants cultivated such that one could walk through and for a moment feel that could get lost ! This was a part of the efforts towards making the garden a platform for environment education as was the cactus collection. Rushing back to Pitchandikulam for lunch we got on to our sessions.

One of us shared on efforts in Lakshadweep and Kerela portraying how an individual could work on conservation education issues, how partnerships can be brought about with non government organizations, as also the manner in which government bodies can be involved.

Another presentation that focussed on developments in conservation education programme since previous year’s meeting talked of fashion in which local knowledge was being documented and local practices encouraged as part of conservation education efforts. The highlight being short video clips depicting song and dance sequence, all bringing out the intensity of involvement with the programme.

On my part I went back to our discussion on skill sharing by screening Point Calimere – Little Kingdom by the Coast in the manner of our screening at Mizoram. Halting in between, using the white board, sharing field guides and sharing of how we prepared for interpretations and the reactions we received.

We then discussed the dilemmas we faced in course of our efforts, the proposed web book and future plans while our hosts shared their amazing posters.

Thanking Sunita, ATREE, Pitchandikulam and all co-participants.

Occurrence records of the Bengal slow loris Nycticebus bengalensis in northeastern India.

This post features a recent paper of ours that has been published in Asian Primates Journal 1(2), 2009 and can be accessed online at the website of the Primate Specialist Group.

Tables 1 and 2 I have not been able to fit in the post.

Thanking Nandini, Kashmira and Asian Primates Journal.

Occurrence records of the Bengal slow loris Nycticebus bengalensis in northeastern India.

Rajamani Nandini1, Kashmira Kakati2 and Nimesh Ved3

1 National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012

2 Research Associate, WCS-India Program.

3 Samrakshan Trust, Saiha, Mizoram 796901.

Address for correspondence: nandinirajamani@yahoo.co.in

ABSTRACT

The Bengal slow loris Nycticebus bengalensis is a cryptic nocturnal primate whose distribution within India is known only from incidental records and few targeted surveys. We record the occurrence of the slow loris in three states in northeastern India – Meghalaya, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. We report three opportunistic sightings of the species made along nocturnal walks as well as two reports of captive lorises. We also provide photographic documentation of lorises from two of the states to document differences in pelage coloration. Slow lorises are under threat due to deforestation, hunting and the pet trade, and we need more information regarding their occurrence and ecology to aid conservation efforts.

KEYWORDS: Bengal slow loris, Nycticebus bengalensis, occurrence, captive animals, northeastern India.

INTRODUCTION

The Bengal slow loris (Nycticebus bengalensis) is one of seven nocturnal strepsirrhine primates that occur in Asia (IUCN 2008). The genus Nycticebus (Family Lorisidae) is distributed from northeastern India eastward through South and Southeast Asia into the Philippine islands, and N. bengalensis is a wide-ranging species that occurs in northeastern India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Cambodia, southern China, Lao People's Democratic Republic, northern Thailand, and Vietnam (IUCN, 2008). This is the only nocturnal primate in the northeastern Indian states, and is listed in Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Little is known about the ecology of the species across its range and it is categorized as Vulnerable in the IUCN red list (IUCN, 2008). N. bengalensis is reported to occur in evergreen and semi-evergreen forests and is recorded from all seven states of Northeast India (Choudhury 2001). However, Choudhury (2001) does not state the origin of these records, and if they are based on direct sightings or accounts by local residents. Targeted surveys have been conducted only in Meghalaya, Assam (Radhakrishna et al. 2006) and some parts of Tripura (Swapna et al. 2008). Mishra et al. (2006) reported the presence of slow lorises in Arunachal Pradesh based on secondary information.

In this paper, we collate direct sighting records as well as other occurrence information of the Bengal slow loris, which were obtained during field studies for other projects. The records are from Assam, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh and are the most recent records of direct sightings of the Bengal slow loris from these locations. The Bengal slow loris is reported to vary in color across its range (Sindhu Radhakrishna, pers. comm.), and in order to aid in documentation of this variation, we include photographs from three of the records in this manuscript.

METHODS

The paper compiles reports of lorises gleaned from incidental records in the field during nocturnal walks as well as from interactions with the local community. Fieldwork was conducted in different states in Northeast India by the three authors on separate research projects aimed at small carnivores, flying squirrels and small mammals. Trails were walked by one or more investigators and two or more field assistants shortly after dusk and spotlights and flashlights (white light) were used to locate nocturnal mammals. Most effort was focused on the arboreal community and different levels of the canopy were searched for eyeshine. Once eyeshine was detected, more light and binoculars were used to identify the animal. This method has been used in various studies focusing on nocturnal, arboreal mammals (Duckworth 1998, Rajamani 2000). Lorises were detected this way in Assam, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh.

Additionally, occurrences of lorises in Assam and Meghalaya were also documented from the local forest department offices as well as resident communities. Captive lorises were seen in both Assam and Meghalaya and we report first-hand accounts of captive animals seen by the authors of this note.

RESULTS

We sighted three slow lorises in the wild in Assam, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh and observed two captive slow lorises (Table 1, 2, Figure 1). Given the paucity of information on occurrences of slow lorises from the wild in India, we think it is important to provide details about the sighting locations and to list the existing threats present at these individual sites. We also present photographs of lorises from two of the three states – Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh to enable documentation of differences in pelage coloration.

Direct sightings of the Slow loris in the wild from nocturnal walks:

Assam: On 25th May 2007, at 18:45 h, KK and her field team detected a slow loris in the Jeypore Reserve Forest (RF) (area 108 km²) at N 27.20147°, E 95.44476° (altitude ca. 150 m amsl), 900 m west of the Kothalguri Beat Office along the Jeypore-Khonsa road. KK's field assistant Lakhindra Sonowal spotted the animal by its red eye-shine behind a large fork on a free-standing Ficus tree (GBH 143.5 cm, tree not in fruit). The forest here is categorized as Assam valley tropical wet evergreen forest (category 1B/C1) (Champion and Seth 1968), also called the Upper Assam Dipterocarpus - Mesua forest. It was heavily logged in the past, but is now relatively undisturbed. However, there is moderate traffic on the Jeypore-Khonsa road, and occasional incidents of poaching for meat are reported by the local people. The Assamese name for the slow loris is Lajuki Bandor.

Meghalaya: A Bengal slow loris was sighted (by all authors) on 12th March 2007 in Baghmara RF (area 43.92 sq km) over 3 hours of walk between Panda and Ampangre on the Baghmara-Maheshkola road (GPS location of sighting - N 25.20121°, E 90.69569°, altitude ca. 150m). The authors were walking down the road at a speed of 1 km/ hour, and the animal was sighted in the forest interior approximately 20m from the edge of the road. As soon as we spotted the animal it froze, but then subsequently moved into the foliage and onto a neighboring tree. The habitat is a tropical semi-evergreen forest and at the time trees were devoid of mature leaves and new leaf flush and flowers were beginning to appear. Figure 2 is a photograph of the loris sighted here. The slow loris is known in Meghalaya as Gilwe.

Arunachal Pradesh: On 20th November 2007, at 19:57 h, a slow loris (Figure 3) was sighted by Kalyan Varma and three other naturalists in Deban, Namdapha Tiger Reserve, in the forest off the Miao-Vijaynagar Road (N 96.391207°, E 27.497210°, altitude 339m amsl). The loris was sighted on a tree that bent over the trail (approximately 2m from the road). The four naturalists searched the vegetation using flashlights (white light) and were walking through the forest as approximately 1.5 km per hour. The forest type is low elevation tropical evergreen forest. Local communities are reported to hunt wildlife and the forest along the Miao-Vijaynagar road is disturbed by regular movement as well as extraction of timber and other resources by local tribal communities (Datta 2006).

Captive lorises:

We observed two captive lorises, one in Assam and one in Meghalaya. In both cases the animals were released into nearby forest patches.

Assam: A male slow loris caught by a tea estate worker from Namtok, Dirok Forest, part of the Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS), was rescued on the 31st December 2005 and handed over to Mr. Pradipta Barua, Range Forest Officer, Margherita West Range, Digboi Forest Division, Assam. The animal was released the next day into the Dirok Forest (Beat Office location N 27.26 174°, E 95.60 981°, altitude 100 m amsl, area 30 km²). The forest here is Assam Valley Tropical Wet Evergreen forest, previously logged and now with secondary vegetation as well as extensive tall Dipterocarpus macrocarpus (Hollong) plantations. Poaching is suspected to occur at this site also.

Meghalaya: A slow loris (Figure 4) was captured from a jhum field adjoining Balpakram National Park and kept in Gongrot Aking (unit of clan land consisting of one or more hamlets) (N 90.730530°, E 25.263050°), Rongra Block, south Garo Hills district, Meghalaya, between March and April 2005. The loris was kept as a pet in a small bamboo cage for 2-3 weeks in a household within the Aking (size: approximately 50 households). The family initially fed it rice but later they switched to feeding it fruits and insects till it was released. Gongrot Aking shares a border with Balpakram National Park to its north and the loris was released into the Park at night on 17th April 2005 after persuasion from NV and colleagues. The jhum fields had at the time been recently burnt as they were being prepared for cultivation. Local people report that many wild animals come into newly burnt fields to eat the shoots that spring up, making this a good period for hunting animals. A questionnaire survey undertaken across 33 Akings of Rongra block to assess knowledge of 56 large mammals (including slow loris) revealed that 76% of the respondents claimed to have seen the slow loris, indicating that the animal is probably common in the region (Ved and Sangma 2007). The forest type in the region is tropical semi-evergreen forest that is disturbed by human activities.

DISCUSSION

The Bengal slow loris, like the other lorises of the genus Nycticebus, is a cryptic nocturnal mammal whose distribution is known only from occasional accounts and research studies across its range (Nekaris et al. 2008). The occurrence of the slow loris is not well documented across northeastern India, and this study reports occurrence of this species in specific forest patches in three states across the region. Nekaris et al. (2008) report that few studies documented slow loris densities or abundances, and emphasize that this is necessary for effective management. We do not present encounter rates based on hours spent walking or distance as these sightings were opportunistic and not part of a study aimed at estimation of density or abundance of lorises. Systematic studies with repeated transect walks are required to estimate abundance or densities accurately (Buckland et al. 1993, Duckworth 1998). Any encounter rates calculated from this report might not be true representations of the abundance of the loris at these sites. If calculated, our encounter rates (0.28-1 lorises/km) would be higher than other reported studies of the same species (0.22 lorises/km: Swapna et al. 2008, 0.03-0.33 lorises/km: Radhakrishna et al. 2006, 0.10-0.13/km Nekaris and Nijman 2007) as well as other species of the genus (range 0.05-0.74:Nekaris and Nijman 2007). Given that there are no replicates for any of our walks, these rates would be inflated figures.

The distribution and population densities of the Bengal slow loris in Northeast India are known to be affected by a number of factors including habitat destruction, subsistence hunting, and trade (Radhakrishna et al. 2006). However, the lack of information on area of occurrence and its ecology is a major hurdle to monitoring impacts of these factors on slow loris populations throughout its range. A number of other factors – most of them unique to this region, further complicate the matter. Anthropogenic activities are known to have resulted in widespread fragmentation of the forest cover of the northeastern states, and protected areas as well as most of their animal populations are not contiguous (Choudhury 2001). While long-term studies on the Sunda slow loris show that it does not necessarily depend on undisturbed primary forest (Wiens, 1995), the reaction of the Bengal slow loris to such habitat disturbance remains to be examined. Compounding the problem is the fact that several slow loris habitats are outside protected areas. Insurgencies affect many of the states, and the consequent security issues associated with conducting field research at night are a deterrent for researchers to take up detailed studies of nocturnal species like the loris.

In northeast India the Bengal slow loris Nycticebus bengalensis is affected by trade as well as subsistence hunting (Radhakrishna et al. 2006). Local knowledge of lorises is often high due to such activities, as indicated by Ved and Sangma's (2007) survey. Reports of slow lorises being kept as pets in captivity are numerous throughout the range of these animals, including northeastern India. While slow lorises are captured to be kept as pets locally in many tribal communities (Duckworth et al., 1999), they are also captured for trade markets (Nekaris and Nijman 2007). After an assessment of the high volume of unsustainable trade in slow lorises, the genus was moved from Appendix II to Appendix I of CITES (CITES 2008), awarding it the highest level of protection and banning all international trade. Efforts need to be made to document the intensity of trade and capture of the slow loris in northeastern India in order to determine the effect of such activities on local loris populations.

The slow loris is known to vary extensively across its range, and the recent division into five species is based on genetics, morphological differences and pelage characteristics (Nekaris et al. 2008). The importance of documentation of pelage characteristics in Nycticebus was brought to light by Nekaris and Jaffe (2007), who used pelage characteristics to identify source locations of slow lorises recovered from the pet trade circuit. Recent research has shown facial markings to play a role in social communication (Bearder 1999), and isolated populations of nocturnal mammals might have evolved different facial patterns. Given that the slow loris is a commonly traded species, it is important to document pelage variation in both color and facial markings through the range of the species to aid identification of the source of recovered animals/ skins. We provide photographs of the species from two of the states, and while we do not have many replicates from each population to document individual variation, these pictures might prove useful in building photo libraries of animals from different sites. With the advent of powerful digital cameras, it is easier to photograph nocturnal mammals today than it was even a few years ago, and we advocate photographic documentation of populations of lorises. This resource would especially benefit scientists and conservation biologists if these were made available in the public domain.

Conservation efforts for the slow loris must be directed towards identifying the most important habitats, and not only preserving these, but also connecting them with forest corridors. The efforts of conservation-oriented organizations are vital in raising awareness in tribal communities about biodiversity and consumption of natural resources (including subsistence hunting).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge A. Christy Williams, Samrakshan Trust, and T. Karthik for helping with logistics and assistance in Meghalaya; and Pradipta Barua, Range Forest Officer, Jeypore for providing details of the rescued slow loris at Dirok. Kalyan Varma and Divya Mudappa were extremely generous in sharing the details of the sighting in Deban. We thank A. Christy Williams, M.D. Madhusudhan and Kalyan Varma for the photographs of the loris and Sindhu Radhakrishna for her encouragement to publish these sightings. Sindhu Radhakrishna and Robin Vijayan commented on earlier drafts, and reviewers Anna Nekaris, Ulrike Streicher and Christian Roos gave us comments that greatly improved the draft.

REFERENCES

Bearder, S.K. 1999. Physical and Social Diversity Among Nocturnal Primates: A New View Based on Long Term Research. Primates 40(1): 267-282

Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., and Laake, J.L. (1993). Distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. London: Chapman and Hall.

CITES 2008. CITES Online resource. Available at http://cites.org.

Choudhury, A.U. 2001. Primates in northeast India: An overview of their distribution and conservation status. In: Wildlife and Protected Areas, Non-Human Primates of India, A.K. Gupta (ed.), pp. 92-101. ENVIS Bulletin Vol. 1, India.

Datta, A. 2006. Threatened forests, forgotten people. In: Making conservation work: securing biodiversity in this new century, G. Shahabuddin and M. Rangarajan (Eds.), pp.165-209. Permanent Black, Uttaranchal.

Duckworth, J.W. 1998. The difficulty of estimating population densities of nocturnal forest mammals from line transect counts. Journal of Zoology London 246: 466–468.

Duckworth, J.W., Salter, R.E., and Khounboline, K. (eds.) 1999. Wildlife in Lao P.D.R.: 1999 status report. Vientiane: IUCN, WCS and CPAWM.

Champion, H.G. and Seth, S.K. 1968. A revised survey of the forest types of India. The Manager of Publications, Delhi-6.

IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. . Downloaded on 03 July 2008.

Mishra, C., Madhusudan, M.D., and Datta, A. 2006. Mammals of the high altitudes of western Arunachal Pradesh, eastern Himalaya: an assessment of threats and conservation needs. Oryx 40(1): 29-35.

Nekaris, K.A.I. and Jaffe, S. 2007. Unexpected diversity of slow lorises (Nycticebus spp.) within the Javan pet trade: implications for slow loris taxonomy. Contributions to Zoology 76 (3): 187-196.

Nekaris, K.A.I. and Nijman, V. 2007. CITES proposal highlights rarity of Asian nocturnal primates (Lorisidae: Nycticebus). Folia Primatologica 78: 211-214.

Nekaris, K.A.I., Blackham, G.V., and Nijman, V. 2008 Conservation implications of low encounter rates of five nocturnal primate species (Nycticebus spp.) in Asia. Biodiversity Conservation 17:733–747.

Radhakrishna, S., Goswami, A.B., and Sinha, A. 2006. Distribution and Conservation of Nycticebus bengalensis in Northeastern India. International Journal of Primatology 27(4): 971-982.

Rajamani, N. 2000. Ecology and behaviour of the large brown flying squirrel Petaurista philippensis in a rain forest fragment, southern Western Ghats. Masters Thesis. Pondicherry University.

Swapna, N., Gupta, A., and Radhakrishna, S. 2008. Distribution survey of Bengal slow loris Nycticebus bengalensis in Tripura, northeastern India. Asian Primates Journal 1(1): 37-40.

Ved, N. and Sangma, B. 2007. Wildlife Distribution, Hunting and Conflict: A Preliminary Survey. Samrakshan Trust, Meghalaya Field Office, Baghmara.

Wiens, F. 1995. Verhaltensbeobachtungen am Plumplori Nycticebus coucang (Primates: Lorisidae) im Freiland. Diploma Thesis at the Faculty of Biology of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University. Frankfurt a. M., Germany.


Figures

Figure 1: Map of India with focus on the Northeast. Sightings of the Bengal slow loris are plotted on the map.

Figure 2: Bengal slow loris sighted at Balpakram Reserve Forest, Meghalaya. Photo credit: A. Christy Williams.

Figure 3: Bengal slow loris sighted at Deban, Namdapha Tiger Reserve. Photo credit: Kalyan Varma.

Figure 4: Bengal slow loris kept in captivity in Gongrot Aking, Meghalaya in April 2005. Photo Credit: M.D. Madhusudhan.