Feedback.....

Dear Feedback,

I read with concern the article "Illegal Mammal Traps" in Porcupine! 15 p.l0 which reports that "a considerable number of illegal cage traps for large mammals have been found near villages in the New Territories". The article correctly points out that, under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance, it is illegal to possess animal traps or to trap wild animals in Hong Kong and that illegal trapping of wild animals is less widespread than it was in the past.

Nature Wardens of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department (AFD) regularly patrol the Hong Kong countryside with a view to detect and to deter illegal hunting. Since November 1996 (when the new Ramsar and Fauna Conservation Section was established and took over wild animal protection work), 101 pieces of mist net, 27 cage traps, 7 gin traps and one wire snare were discovered and seized, and one person was caught red-handed while setting up gin traps[as of 10 March 1997]

Some of the above seizures were the result of more frequent deployment of Nature Wardens to patrol the villages mentioned in the above article.

While I can assure your readers that AFD will continue its efforts in law enforcement to protect local wild animals, the assistance of the general public, in particular natural history enthusiasts such as Porcupine! readers, is indispensable to increase the effectiveness of such action. The simplest way to help us (and the wild animals in Hong Kong) is to inform us of the date, time and location (preferably with a grid reference) of illegal traps found or suspected, by calling the Mai Po Nature Warden Office (tel. 2471 4411) or myself on tel. 2733 2368. This direct flow of information will speed up our efforts to protect Hong Kong wild animals.

With more effective law enforcement as a result of the assistance of the public, I share the hope that "such illegal activities will continue to decline".

P. M. SO
Conservation Officer
Agriculture and Fisheries Department

P.7

Dear Feedback,

The generic name "Prionailurus" for the leopard cat Felis bengalensis is hardly new (contra Lew Young, Porcupine! 15 p.9). The name was coined by Severtzow in 1858. This generic name was rejected by Simpson (1945, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85) but accepted by Guggisberg (1975, Wild Cats of the World, Taplinger, New York). Guggisberg recognized 15 genera of interfertile cat species! Novak (1991, Walker's Mammals of the World, 5th Edition, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London) provides a thorough and authoritative review of felid taxonomy but grants "Prionailurus" no more than subgeneric rank. This seems wonderfully generous in view of the fact that this putative genus cannot be defined or diagnosed morphologically and (as Lew notes) is interfertile with Felis catus.

There will always be splitters and lumpers in taxonomy, but most rational people seem to acknowledge that species which interbreed are about as closely related as species can possibly be, and still be regarded as full species. Putting interbreeding species in separate genera makes no sense biologically (Simpson, 1961, Principles of Animal Taxonomy, Columbia University Press, New York; Van Gelder, 1977, American Museum Novitates 2635; Lazell, 1988, American Scientist 76(2): 193).

I would never use the name "Prionailurus".

SKIP LAZELL
President, The Conservation Agency
Rhode Island, USA

The history of felid taxonomy is summarised by Werdelin (1996, in Nowell & Jackson's Wild Cats, IUCN), who concludes that most specialists agree on splitting the genus Felis; incorporating the molecular data, O'Brien (op. cit.) places Prionailurus closer to the big Panthera cats than to 'true' Felis. To non-specialists, though, the interfertility argument seems compelling, and subgenus rank seems adequate to highlight the relatedness of species. Thus we'll follow Skip and revert to Felis bengalensis until persuaded otherwise!

- Eds.

P.7

Dear Feedback,

I can add a footnote to Michael R. Leven's note on "Blue Magpie Catching Tree Sparrow" (Porcupine! 15 p.l1). Some years ago I was driving up Mount Nicholson Road but was forced to stop my car as a party of four or five Blue Magpies were totally preoccupied by something on the carriageway. I left my car and approached the Blue Magpies. They reluctantly flew to adjoining shrubbery leaving a Hwamei cowering on the road. The Hwamei was alive but seemingly in shock and did not object when I picked it up. I left it in a covered box for an hour or two, when it flew away strongly. I have little doubt that the Blue Magpies were intent on killing the Hwamei, presumably as a food item.

CLIVE VINEY
Portugal

P.7

Dear Feedback,

The note by Reels and Lau (Porcupine! 15 p.l2) regarding birds feeding on termite swarms brings to mind an observation at the Mai Po Scrape in early May 1996. Following heavy rain (indeed it was still raining at the time) large numbers of termites were flying above the Scrape. Many individuals were "grounded", having fallen helplessly into the soft mud or shallow water. This abundance of food was being utilized by approximately 200 shorebirds of several species including Grey Plover, Greater Sand Plover, Spotted Redshank, Terek Sandpiper, Whimbrel and Red-necked Stint. All these species were picking termites off the surface of the mud or water. However, a party of about 20 Red-necked Phalaropes was "flycatching"; in all cases rising from the water surface and seizing the termites in flight. Since Red-necked Phalaropes generally feed on very small arthropods taken either on or just below the water surface the termite swarm presumably represented an exceptionally rewarding food source rendering the extra effort involved in aerial feeding worthwhile.

A further instance of birds feeding on termites in Hong Kong is recorded by Galsworthy (Hong Kong Bird Report 1989 ppl51-2) who observed aerial feeding by Crested and Chinese Bulbuls, Blue Magpies and Black Kites.

MICHAEL R. LEVEN

P.7-8

Dear Feedback,

A certain Raymond Ho Chung-tai, Chairman of the Association of Engineers in Society and provisional legislator is advocating housing for more than a million people on Lantau (SCMP, 10.6.97). Mr Ho is quoted as saying "Country parks take up about 40 percent of land in Hong Kong. Why do we need to allocate so much land for parks? How many times do people visit them anyway?" Mr Ho may just be testing the water at this stage but it is crucial for the survival of country parks as they are today, that such an idea not be allowed to gain momentum. Mr Ho and all those who would happily concrete Hong Kong over must be shouted down, and it may well be left to green groups and those with specialist knowledge such as members of this department to do just that. Failure will no doubt mean development within existing country parks on a scale that will make Park View seem like a rural village.

ANDY CORNISH

P.8

Back to Contents
Back to Porcupine Homepage
Go to Departmental Homepage