Check List

NOTES ON GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Check List 16 (6): 1695–1701 https://doi.org/10.15560/16.6.1695 New records and potential geographic distribution of Elongated Caecilian, Ichthyophis elongatus Taylor, 1965 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona, Ichthyophiidae), endemic to West Sumatra, Indonesia Try Surya Harapan1, Ade Prasetyo Agung2, Heru Handika3, Wilson Novarino1, Djong Hon Tjong1, Kyle W. Tomlinson4 1 Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Andalas, Jl. Universitas Andalas, Limau Manis, Padang 25163, West Sumatra, Indonesia. 2 Landscape Ecology Group, Center for Integrative Conservation, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Menglun, Mengla, Yunnan 666303, China. 3 Museum of Natural Science and Department Biological Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA. 4 Community Ecology and Conservation Group, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Menglun, Mengla, Yunnan 666303, China. Corresponding author: Try Surya Harapan, [email protected] Abstract We present new records of Ichthyophis elongatus Taylor, 1965 in West Sumatra. These records extend the known distribution of the species which was previously only known from the type locality in Padang, West Sumatra. We assess the morphology and habitats of this species and estimate its distribution. Predicted distribution based on maximum entropy modeling suggests a highly suitable habitat for the species throughout the Barisan Mountains at 500–1000 m above sea level. Our models suggest swamps, paddy fields, and secondary forests that are 100–150 m from rivers as the highest possible habitats for the species. Further surveys in two predicted areas based on the models discovered new populations of the species. Keywords Conservation, herpetofauna, spatial distribution model Academic editor: Jesse Grismer | Received 9 October 2020 | Accepted 18 November 2020 | Published 16 December 2020 Citation: Harapan TS, Agung AP, Handika H, Novarino W, Tjong DH, Tomlinson KW (2020) New records and potential geographic distribution of Elongated Caecilian, Ichthyophis elongatus Taylor, 1965 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona, Ichthyophiidae), endemic to West Sumatra, Indonesia. Check List 16 (6): 1695–1701. https://doi.org/10.15560/16.6.1695 Introduction Caecilians are the most poorly known group amongst all the members in the class Amphibia. Due to their fossorial habits, caecilians are challenging to find and, therefore, we lack comprehensive knowledge about their natural history and abundance (Wilkinson and Nussbaum 1999; Kupfer et al. 2004; Gower and Wilkinson 2005; Wang et al. 2015). Caecilians belong to the order Gymnophiona and are characterized as follows: legless, worm-like body, smooth skin, reduced eyes, a pair of tentacles between the eyes and nostrils, and mostly restricted to tropical forest areas (Gudyna et al. 1988). The general morphology of caecilians shows adaptations to fossorial life. However, some species are semi-aquatic, such as Chthonerpeton indistinctum (Reinhardt & Lütken, 1862) (Measey and Di-Bernardo 2003), or fully aquatic, such as the members of the genus Typhlonectes Peters, © The authors. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 1696 1880 and Potomotyphlus Taylor, 1968. In Sumatra, there are currently six described species, all belonging to the genus Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826: I. elongatus Taylor, 1965, I. nigroflavus Taylor, 1960, I. paucidentulus Taylor, 1960, I. paucisulcus Taylor, 1960, I. sumatranus Taylor, 1960 and I. billitonensis Taylor, 1965 (Taylor 1960, 1965; Amphibian Species of the World 2020; AmphibiaWeb 2020). Ichthyophis elongatus Taylor, 1965, is only known from the type locality in Padang, West Sumatra. The species is considered Data Deficient by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2018). In addition, no single occurrence is available in Global Biodiversity Information Facility (https://www.gbif.org/) and the publications about the species has no geographic coordinates (Teynie et al. 2010). To support field sampling efforts, the maximum entropy algorithm (Phillips et al. 2006; Elith et al. 2011) was used to identify the potential distribution of Ichthyophis elongatus. The software MaxEnt was chosen as it gives satisfactory prediction with small numbers of occurrences (Yi et al. 2016; Ramos and Torres 2011; Adhikari et al. 2012; Yang et al. 2013; Padalia et al. 2014; Remya et al. 2015; Yuan et al. 2015; Pranata et al. 2019). The generated map from MaxEnt could be useful for future studies on I. elongatus specifically, and other Sumatran caecilians in general. Check List 16 (6) Methods Field surveys and recording of ecological parameters. We conducted field surveys in four localities in West Sumatra: Padang (5–8 August 2017), Solok (20 December 2018), Tanah Datar (6–9 March 2019), and Pasaman (20–24 February 2020). We actively searched for caecilians by digging in soil with hoes, flipping rocks, leaf litter, and decaying plants, during daytime (09:00 AM–04:00 PM). The targeted habitats were trash dumps, paddy fields, riverbanks, and secondary forests. All the habitats were affected by low to high anthropogenic activities. Geographic coordinates (recorded with a Garmin GPS 64s), pH, and soil moisture (measured with a Takemura Soil tester dm 15) were recorded for each site where an individual was found (Table 1). Morphological measurements. We euthanized the specimens with tricaine methanesulfonate (MS-222), fixed with 10% formalin and stored them in 70% ethanol. We followed the morphological measurements and diagnosis established by Taylor (1965) to identify the species as I. elongatus (Fig. 1). The characters are as follows: number of transverse folds (TF), number of maxillary-premaxillary teeth (MT), number of splenial teeth (ST), total length (TL), tail length (TAL), body width (WB). All the specimens were deposited in the Zoology Museum of Andalas University Padang, West Sumatra (MZA.Amph.0188-0189; 0311-0326). A B Figure 1. A. Ichthyophis elongatus Taylor, 1965 from Pasaman, West Sumatra, Indonesia. B. Yellow stripe broken on collar region (MZUA. Amph.0325). Photo: Thoriq Alfath. Harapan et al. | Geographic distribution of Ichthyophis elongatus 1697 Table 1. Mensural and meristic data of Ichthyophis elongatus specimens collected in West Sumatra. Transverse folds (TF), number of maxillary–premaxillary teeth (MT), number of splenial teeth (ST), total length (TL), tail length (TAL), width of body (WB). Voucher code TL (mm) TF MT ST Latitude Longitude MZA.Amph.0311 208 TAL (mm) WB (mm) 2.29 8.01 311 64 28 −00.3716 100.6022 Tanah Datar 1 MZA.Amph.0312 242 2.07 9.24 287 64 32 −00.3716 100.6022 Tanah Datar 1 MZA.Amph.0313 282 2.46 9.79 317 64 28 −00.3716 100.6022 Tanah Datar 1 MZA.Amph.0314 224 2.30 8.31 309 62 32 −00.3716 100.6022 Tanah Datar 1 MZA.Amph.0315 237 1.96 8.20 309 66 32 −00.3716 100.6022 Tanah Datar 1 MZA.Amph.0316 285 2.67 9.85 309 64 32 −00.3716 100.6022 Tanah Datar 1 MZA.Amph.0317 248 2.36 9.33 317 64 28 −00.3716 100.6022 Tanah Datar 1 MZA.Amph.0318 239 2.52 9.80 311 64 28 −00.3716 100.6022 Tanah Datar 1 MZA.Amph.0319 181 1.97 6.96 311 64 28 −00.3716 100.6022 Tanah Datar 1 MZA.Amph.0320 256 3.40 10.65 307 64 28 −00.3716 100.6022 Tanah Datar 1 MZA.Amph.0321 247 2.09 8.35 295 64 32 −00.3716 100.6022 Tanah Datar 1 MZA.Amph.0322 205 1.70 7.03 302 64 32 00.0288 100.1434 Pasaman 2 MZA.Amph.0323 154 0.97 5.86 297 64 28 00.0295 100.1426 Pasaman 2 MZA.Amph.0324 216 1.79 7.13 299 64 32 00.0288 100.1434 Pasaman 2 MZA.Amph.0325 235 1.89 9.10 312 66 32 00.0288 100.1434 Pasaman 2 MZA.Amph.0189 181 1.52 4.86 306 60 28 00.0288 100.1434 Pasaman 2 MZA.Amph.0188 168 1.67 4.68 268 64 28 −00.9055 100.6674 Solok MZA.Amph.0326 299 2.18 10.21 319 64 32 −00.9092 100.4615 Padang — N.M.W.No.9094 290 3.40 7.60 274 64 28 — — Padang (Taylor 1965) — N.M.W.No.9092 270 3.50 8.00 287 57 32 — — Padang (Taylor 1965) — Species distribution modelling (SDM). We used a total of 18 occurrences recorded from our field surveys and unpublished records from surveys conducted by students at Andalas University, West Sumatra. The following spatial variables were included as predictors into the model: elevation, distance to the nearest river, land cover, and climatic variables. Elevation was derived from a digital elevation model (DEM) was obtained from SRTM (2020), distance from rivers was obtained from Indonesia Geospatial Portal (2020), land cover was obtained from Global Forest Watch (2020), and climatic variables were downloaded from Worldclim (2020). We used PCA to exclude highly correlated environmental variables. If two environmental variables were significantly correlated (value >0.8), only one was selected as a predictor. Raster data were resampled into the same dimension and were clipped to latitude −03.3500 to 00.9074 and longitude 098.5967 to 101.8929 using the Raster package (Hijmans 2015). We followed the recommended default values that were used for the convergence threshold (<10 -5) and a maximum number of 500 iterations (Pearson et al. 2007). On MaxEnt configurations, background samples were used for determining a good species location (Merow et al. 2013) with 10 replications based on subsamples. We used the GeoCat Redlisting tool (Bachman et al. 2011) to assess the extinction risk of I. elongatus based on our combined field survey data. The analysis focuses on two aspects of the geographic range of a taxon: the extent of occurrence (EOO) and the area of occupancy (AOO). We used the standard IUCN cell size of 4 km2 to derive AOO of this species. After we generated a prediction map for I. elongatus, we undertook ground validation of the species distribution model by conducting further sampling at two Locality New record site 3 locations predicted to be within the suitable range of the species (Sangir in Solok Selatan District and Surian in Solok District). Results Ichthyophis elongatus Taylor, 1965 New records. INDONESIA • 11 adults; Tanah Datar District, Sungayang; −00.3716, 100.6022; alt 475 m; 6–9 Mar. 2019; T.S Harapan et al. leg.; observed under rotten vegetation, local’s garden, trash dumps, river; MZA. Amph.0311, MZA.Amph.0312, MZA.Amph.0313, MZA. Amph.0314, MZA.Amph.0315, MZA.Amph.0316, MZA. Amph.0317, MZA.Amph.0318, MZA.Amph.0319, MZA. Amph.020, MZA.Amph.021 • 5 adults; Pasaman District, Jorong Simpang; 00.0288, 100.1434; alt 475 m; 20– 24 Feb. 2020; T.S Harapan et al. leg.; observed in human settlement nearby paddy field; MZA.Amph.0322, MZA. Amph.0323, MZA.Amph.0324, MZA.Amph.0325, MZA. Amph.0189 • 1 adult; Solok District, Koto Anau; −00.9055, 100.6674; alt 475 m; 20 Dec. 2018; M.J Putra leg.; observed in paddy field; MZA.Amph.0188. Identification. The diagnostic characters of I. elongatus are the head a little wider than the body, a narrow lateral yellow stripe broken on the collar region (Fig. 1B), and acuminate tip of tail. In our specimens, the number of maxillary–premaxillary teeth was 62–66; the number of splenial teeth was 28–32; the number of transverse folds ranged from 287–319, and tail length ranged from 0.97– 3.50 mm. These values are consistent with I. elongatus from Taylor (1965). Comparison to related species indicates that the presence of splenial teeth distinguishes I. elongatus from I. paucidentulus, the number of transverse folds 1698 Check List 16 (6) distinguishes I. elongatus from I. paucisulcus (250) and I. nigroflavus (416), and the presence of lateral stripes distinguishes I. elongatus from I. sumatranus and I. billitonensis. The stripe is broken at the neck similarly to I. glutinosus, but I. elongatus differs by the following characters: I. glutinosus has a longer tail length at 5.4 mm, and has a greater number of transverse folds (359) (Taylor 1960, 1965). All the mensural and meristic trait data and locations data for our specimens are provided in Table 1. Habitats. The specimens were found in human-dominated landscapes. During the field surveys, I. elongatus was found under rotten stumps of Musa × paradisiaca L. in a house yard near a paddy field, in trash dumps, and some individuals were found under a flower pot in a garden (Fig. 2). The soil at each location where I. elongatus was found was slightly acidic (5–6.5) and moist (1.5–8) (Table 2). Distribution map. The performance of the generated distribution model was rated good based on an AUC value = 0.808. The most important predictors were elevation (66.7%), land cover (17.4%), and distance from rivers (8.3%) (Table 3). Based on MaxEnt analysis, the suitable habitat for I. elongatus was about 500–1000 m above sea level and 100–150 m distance from rivers. A B C D E Figure 2. Microhabitats of Ichthyophis elongatus A. Human settlements (under flowerpot). B. Under leaf litter. C. Rotten vegetation. D. Trash dumps. E. House yard nearby paddy field. Harapan et al. | Geographic distribution of Ichthyophis elongatus Table 2. Soil parameter for habitats where Ichthyophis elongatus were captured. Soil pH (scale 3–8) Soil moisture (scale 1–8) Land use 8.0 ± 3.3 House yard 5.0 ± 0.3 8.0 ± 3.1 Rotten vegetation 6.0 ± 0.4 8.0 ± 0.8 Trash dumps 5.8 ± 0.1 1.5 ± 0.3 Pile of soil 6.5 ± 0.1 6 ± 1.5 River banks 5.2 ± 0.2 Table 3. Estimates of relative contributions to the potential distribution of Ichthyophis elongatus. Variable Percent contribution (%) Elevation 66.7 Land cover 17.4 Distance from rivers 8.3 Temperature seasonality 5.2 Mean diurnal range 2.4 Our SDM also found the highest presence of I. elongatus in swamps, paddy fields, and secondary forests. Our model suggested a highly suitable habitat for this species (>0.8) throughout the Barisan mountain range and along the border between West Sumatra and North Sumatra (Siabu, Panyambungan, and Nopan). Lima Puluh Kota 1699 and Solok Selatan (Sangir) were indicated as new sites with high probability distribution value. The extent of occurrence of I. elongatus is approximately 4,627 km 2 and the area of occupancy is 4 km 2. According to the GeoCat assessment, I. elongatus might be considered as Endangered. Field survey validation. In this study, after the prediction map was generated, we conducted a field survey to the south. After three days of survey, we discovered a species of unstriped caecilian, with 14 individuals caught in Sangir (P1) and four individuals caught in Surian (P2) (Fig. 4). These individuals were found on the banks of a waterway and in a paddy field. Our initial assessment suggests that these caecilians are a different species from I. elongatus, and they are tentatively identified as I. cf. sumatranus, which is the only completely unstriped Ichtyophis species presently known from mainland Sumatra. More detailed studies will be conducted to ascertain the identity of these populations that are presently identified as I. cf. sumatranus. Discussion Our surveys indicated that Ichthyophis elongatus are well adapted to living in human-dominated landscapes, Figure 3. The recorded and predicted geographic distributions of Ichthyophis elongatus. Inset map shows the location of the sampling region on Sumatra Island, Indonesia. Symbols indicate collections sites: stars are previously known sites (Padang); triangles are new location records were collected (site 1: Tanah Datar; site 2: Pasaman; site 3: Solok); yellow circles are recorded occurrences from the field survey where specimens were not collected. Sites indicated by the yellow circles and the triangles were used to generate the SDM model. The SDM generated prediction map is provided in red (potential probability value ≥80%). Open yellow rectangles represent areas that were sampled based on the prediction map: P1 - Surian, P2 - in Sangir. 1700 Check List 16 (6) A B Figure 4. Unstriped Ichthyophis cf. sumatranus. A. From Sangir Solok Selatan District (P2 in Fig. 3). B. From Surian, Border between Solok and Solok Selatan Districts (P1 in Fig. 3). Photos: Ade Prasetyo Agung. which is similar to the findings of Measey et al. (2006), who noted that Uluguru African Caecilian, Boulengerula uluguruensis Barbour & Loveridge, 1928, is more abundant in agricultural areas than native forests. Several studies have shown that caecilians are sparse in natural forests (Hebrard et al. 1992; Haft and Franzen 1996). The soil pH range we recorded suggests that I. elongatus may prefer mildly acidic soils, which concurs with previous studies that have recorded caecilians in soils with a pH range of 4–7 (Gundappa et al. 1981; Wake et al. 1994; Oommen et al. 2000; Kupfer et al. 2005). Many studies use SDMs to predict species distributions but do not validate the model with further species sampling (e.g. Padalia et al. 2014; Remya et al. 2015; Pranata et al. 2019). The updated species distribution map for I. elongatus (Fig. 3) not only generated predictions of suitable habitat for the distribution of I. elongatus but also apparently predicted the distribution of a different caecilian species. This suggests that SDM models may be useful for finding suitable areas to look for new caecilian populations and new caecilian species. The conservation of most species of caecilians is rarely mentioned, and about 92% of caecilians in Southeast Asia are listed as Data Deficient (Gower and Wilkinson 2005). In West Sumatra, caecilians are threatened by car traffic and direct killing by locals due to their resemblance with snakes. Acknowledgements We thank Evan Quah and Sabina E. Vlad for providing valuable comments that improved this manuscript. We thank The Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund (project no. 190522254) for supporting this research. Thanks to Ardea Musfar, Yeni Gusma Yanti, Rezi Rahmi Amolia, Muhammad Anshari, Thoriq Alfath, Syifa Rahmadilla, Ahmad Mursyid, Firham Yasra, Gusra Wahyudi, and Faradilla Syafira for helping in the field and laboratory. Thanks to Joachim Nerz for comments and suggestions. We also thank Tengku Lidra and Morro Alan from SINTAS Indonesia for providing species occurrences. Authors’ Contributions TSH conceived the study, conducted field survey, and performed data analyses. APA wrote the manuscript, photographed the specimens, and supported the field survey. HH wrote, commented on, and revised the manuscript. DHT and WN advised for study design, commented on the manuscript, and revised the museum collection. KWT coordinated sampling design and commented on and revised the manuscript. References Adhikari D, Barik SK, Upadhaya K (2012) Habitat distribution modelling for reintroduction of Ilex khasiana Purk., a critically endangered tree species of northeastern India. Ecological Engineering 40: 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.12.004 Amphibian Species of the World (2020) http://amphibiansoftheworld. amnh.org. Accessed on 2020-11-20 AmphibiaWeb (2020) http://amphibiaweb.org. Accessed on 2020-7-21. Bachman S, Moat J, Hill AW, De La Torre J, Scott B (2011) Supporting Red List threat assessments with geocat: geospatial conservation assessment tool. ZooKeys 150: 117–126. https://doi.org/10.3897/ zookeys.150.2109 Barbour T, Loveridge A (1928) A comparative study of the herpetological faunae of the Uluguru and Usambara Mountains, Tanganyika Territory with descriptions of new species. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 50: 87–265. https://doi.org/ 10.5962/bhl.title.49344 Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T, Dudík M, Chee YE, Yates CJ (2011) A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Diversity and Distributions 17 (1): 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010. 00725.x Fitzinger LJ (1826) Neue Classification der Reptilien nach ihren natürlichen Verwand-tschaften nebst einer Verwandschaftstafel und einem Verzeichnisse der Reptiliensammlungen des K. K. zoologischen Museums zu Wien. J. G. Heubner, Wien, 66 pp. https:// doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.4683 Harapan et al. | Geographic distribution of Ichthyophis elongatus Global Forest Watch (2020) http://www.globalforestwatch.org/. Accessed on: 2020-5-1. Gower DJ, Wilkinson M (2005) Conservation biology of caecilian amphibians. Conservation Biology 19: 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1523-1739.2005.00589.x Gudynas E, Williams JD, De Las Mercedes Azpelicueta M (1988) Morphology, ecology and biogeography of the South American caecilian Chthonerpeton indistinctum (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Typhlonectidae). Zoologische Mededelingen 62 (2): 5–28. Gundappa KR, Balakrishna TA, Shakuntala K (1981) Ecology of Ichthyophis glutinosus (Apoda: Amphibia). Current Science 50: 480–483. Haft J, Franzen M (1996) Freilandbeobachtungen, Verhalten und Nachzucht der São Tomé-Blindwuhle Schistometopum thomense (Bocage, 1873). Herpetofauna 18: 5–11. Hebrard J, Maloiy G, Alliangana D (1992) Notes on the habitat and diet of Afrocaecilia taitana (Amphibia, Gymnophiona). Journal of Herpetology 26: 513–515. https://doi.org/10.2307/1565136 Hijmans RJ (2015). Package: Raster. https://cran.rproject.org/web/ packages/raster/raster.pdf. Accessed on: 2020-7-1. Indonesia Geospatial Portal (2020) https://tanahair.indonesia.go.id/ portal-web. Accessed on: 2020-5-18 IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2018) https://doi.org/10.2305/ iucn.uk.2018-1.rlts.t59616A95837672.en. Accessed on: 2020-5-7. Kupfer A, Nabhitabhata J, Himstedt W (2004) Reproductive ecology of female caecilian amphibians (genus Ichthyophis): a baseline study. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 83 (2): 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00382.x Kupfer A, Nabhitabhata J, Himstedt W (2005) Life history of amphibians in the seasonal tropics: Habitat, community and population ecology of a caecilian (genus Ichthyophis). Journal of Zoology 266 (3): 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836905006849 Measey GJ, Di-Bernardo M (2003) Estimating juvenile abundance in a population of the semiaquatic caecilian, Chthonerpeton indistinctum (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Typhlonectidae), in southern Brazil. Journal of Herpetology 37 (2): 371–373. https://doi.org/ 10.1670/0022-1511(2003)037[0371:ejaiap]2.0.co;2 Measey GJ, Mejissa J, Müller H (2006) Notes on the distribution and abundance of the caecilian Boulengerula uluguruensis (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Caeciliidae) in the Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 44 (1): 6–13. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2006.00569.x Merow C, Smith MJ, Silander Jr JA (2013) A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter. Ecography 36 (10): 1058–1069. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.x Oommen OV, Measey GJ, Gower DJ, Wilkinson M (2000) Distribution and abundance of the caecilian Gegeneophis ramaswamii (Amphibia: Gymnophiona) in southern Kerala. Current Science 79 (9): 1386–1389. Padalia H, Srivastava V, Kushwaha SPS (2014) Modeling potential invasion range of alien invasive species, Hyptis suaveolens (L.) Poit. in India: Comparison of MaxEnt and GARP. Ecological Informatics 22: 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2014.04.002 Pearson RG, Raxworthy CJ, Nakamura M, Townsend PA (2007) Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. Journal of Biogeography 34 (1): 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652699.2006.01594.x Peters WCH (“1879” 1880). Über die Eintheilung der Caecilien und insbesondere über die Gattungen Rhinatrema und Gymnopis. Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussische Akademie des Wis- 1701 senschaften zu Berlin 1879: 924–945. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecological modelling 190 (3–4): 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolmodel.2005.03.026 Pranata S, Sulistijorini S, Chikmawati T (2019) Ecology of Rafflesia arnoldii (Rafflesiaceae) in Pandam Gadang West Sumatra. Journal of Tropical Life Science 9 (3): 243–251. https://doi.org/ 10.11594/jtls.09.03.05 Ramos LT, Torres AM (2011) Developing a georeferenced database of selected threatened forest tree species in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Science 141 (2): 165–177. Reinhardt J, Lutken CK (1862) Bidrag til Kundskab om Brasiliens Padder og Krybdyr. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra den Naturhistoriske Forening i Kjøbenhavn (Serie 3) 1861 (10–15): 143–242. Remya K, Ramachandran A, Jayakumar S (2015) Predicting the current and future suitable habitat distribution of Myristica dactyloides Gaertn. using MaxEnt model in the Eastern Ghats, India. Ecological Engineering 82: 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecol eng.2015.04.053 SRTM (2020) http://www.srtm.csi.cgiar.org. Accessed on: 2020-5-1. Taylor EH (1960) On the caecilian species Ichthyophis glutinosus and Ichthyophis monochrous, with description of related species. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 40: 37–120. https://doi. org/10.5962/bhl.part.18735 Taylor EH (1965) New Asiatic and African caecilians with redescriptions of certain other species. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 46: 253–302. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.20077 Taylor EH (1968) The caecilians of the world: a taxonomic review. University of Kansas Press, Kansas, 848 pp. Teynie A, David P, Ohler A (2010) Note on a collection of amphibians and reptiles from Western Sumatra (Indonesia), with the description of a new species of the genus Bufo. Zootaxa 2416 (1): 1–43. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2416.1.1 Wake MH, Murphy JB, Adler K, Collins JT (1994) Caecilians (amphibia: gymnophiona) in captivity. In: Murphy JB, Adler K, Collins JT (Eds) Captive management and conservation of amphibians and reptiles. SSAR Publications, Ithaca, New York, 223–228. Wang H, Luo X, Meng S, Bei Y, Song T, Meng T, Li G, Zhang B (2015) The phylogeography and population demography of the Yunnan caecilian (Ichthyophis bannanicus): Massive rivers as barriers to gene flow. PLoS ONE 10 (4): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0125770 Wilkinson M, Nussbaum RA (1999) Evolutionary relationships of the lungless caecilian Atretochoana eiselti (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Typhlonectidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 126: 191–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1999.tb00153.x Worldclim (2020) http://www.worldclim.org. Accessed on: 2020-5-1. Yang XQ, Kushwaha SPS, Saran S, Xu J, Roy PS (2013) Maxent modeling for predicting the potential distribution of medicinal plant, Justicia adhatoda L. in Lesser Himalayan foothills. Ecological Engineering 51: 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng. 2012.12.004 Yi Y, Cheng X, Yang ZF, Zhang SH (2016) Maxent modeling for predicting the potential distribution of endangered medicinal plant (H. riparia Lour) in Yunnan, China. Ecological Engineering 92: 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.04.010 Yuan HS, Wei YL, Wang XG (2015) Maxent modeling for predicting the potential distribution of Sanghuang, an important group of medicinal fungi in China. Fungal Ecology 17: 140–145. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2015.06.001