Authorities in Singapore seize largest ever shipment of Rhinoceros horn.

A consignment of 20 Rhinoceros horns weighing 35.7 kg and with an estimated value of US$870 000 has been seized at Singapore Changi Airport, according to a press release issued by the Singapore National Parks on 18 November 2025. The consignment was discovered on 8 November by Vengadeswaran Letchumanan, an employee of air cargo handling company SATS, who noticed a strange smell coming from a package labelled 'furniture fittings' which was being shipped from South Africa to Laos.

Rhinoceros horns seized at Singapore Changi Airport on 8 November 2025. Singapore National Parks.

Concerned by the smell, Mr Vengadeswaran, contacted his line manager, who intern contacted SATS Security, who opened the package. Upon discovering the contents of the first package, three other packages from the same consignment were X-rayed, revealing similar contents. As well as the Rhinoceros horns, the packages contained 150 kg of other Animal parts, which have yet to be identified, including bones, teeth and claws.

Animal parts seized at Singapore Changi Airport on 8 November 2025. Singapore National Parks.

The Rhinoceros horns have been identified by the Centre for Wildlife Forensics as having originated from White Rhinoceros, Ceratotherium simum, a species currently listed as Near Threatened on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species. The international trade in Rhino horn was banned in 1977 under the terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, to which Singapore is a signatory.

South Africa is home to more than half of the world's surviving Rhinoceros population, but has (like many other countries) faced significant problems from poaching of the Animals for their horns. This reached a peak between 2013 and 2017, with more than a thousand Rhinos being killed each year in South Africa, according to Save the Rhino, although the number fell each year from 2015 until 2020. During the COVID 19 pandemic there was an increase in poaching, with the number killed rising slowly each year until 2023. There was a drop of about 15% in 2024, although this still resulted in 420 known Rhinoceros poaching incidents. The majority of Rhino poaching is thought to be carried out by organised crime syndicates, rather than opportunistic local hunters. 

See also...

Protohermes sirindhornae: A new species of Dobsonfly from Thailand and Laos.

The Megaloptera, (Alderflies, Dobsonflies and Fishflies) are a small group (about 300 species) of Holometabolan (fully metamorphosing) Insects, thought to be one of the earliest branching members of the group. Although they are typically quite large, most species are poorly known, as they spend most of their life as aquatic larvae, with an adult stage that often emerges for less than a day. The Dobsonflies, Corydalinae, are probably the best known members of the group, as there are a large number of species in North America, where their larvae are often used as bait for angling. Male Dobsonflies have large, tusk-like mandibles, although these are for display only and the Insects are quite harmless.

In a paper published in the journal Tropical Natural History on 14 October 2025, Kanyakorn Piraonapicha of the Queen Sirikit Botanic Garden, Narin Chomphuphuang of the Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology at Khon Kaen University, Kanuengnit Wayo of the Futuristic Science Research Center at Walailak University, Yuezheng Tu of the  Department of Entomology at the China Agricultural University,  Fumio Hayashi of the Department of Biology at Tokyo Metropolitan University, and Xingyou Liu of the State Key Laboratory of Animal Biodiversity, Conservation, and Integrated Pest Management at the Institute of Zoology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, describe a new species of Dobsonfly from Thailand and Laos.

The new species is named Protohermes sirindhornae, in honour of Her  Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn in commemoration of her 70th birthday anniversary. The species is described from three male and one female specimens collected from a site in Bo  Kluea  District in Nan Province, Thailand, by Kanyakorn Piraonapicha in April 2021, and one male specimen collected in Ban Muang District in Xieng Khouang Province, Laos, by Japanese entomologist Hiroyuki Yoshitomi.

Protohermes sirindhornae, living specimens in dorsal view. (A) Male; (B) Female. Scale bars are 1 cm. Piraonapicha et al. (2025).

The male specimens of Protohermes sirindhornae range from 21.06 to 37.3 mm in length, with forewing lengths of 25.4 to 36.6  mm, while the female is 43.1 mm long with a forewing length of 44.7 mm. Both sexes have a yellowish brown and brown colouration. 

See also...

Investigating the illegal trade in Clouded Leopards.

The Sunda Clouded Leopard, Neofelis diardi, and Indochinese Clouded Leopard, Neofelis nebulosa, are medium-sized Felids native to tropical South and Southeast Asia. The Indochinese Clouded Leopard is found from Nepal, through Southeast Asia as far east as Vietnam and south into the Malay Peninsula, while the Sunda Clouded Leopard is found on Borneo and Sumatra. 

Both species are thought to be primarily arboreal, inhabiting tropical forests across their range, particularly lowland Dipterocarp forests, though limestone forests, upland tropical evergreen and deciduous forest, lowland seasonal and mixed deciduous forest, and peat swamp forest, all also appear to be suitable habitats. They can also survive to a degree in fragmented forests and forests with selective logging, but not Oil Palm plantations or similar environments. They are threatened by deforestation, indiscriminate hunting techniques such as hunting, as well as targeted hunting for their skins or other body parts. Both species are listed under Appendix I of the CITES Treaty, which bans trade in either live animals of their body-parts without a permit from the government of a country which forms part of the natural range. 

In a paper published in the Journal of Threatened Taxa on 26 June 2023, Anthony Giordano and Leah Winstead of the Society for the Preservation of Endangered Carnivores and their International Ecological Study, Muhammed Ali Imron, also of the Society for the Preservation of Endangered Carnivores and their International Ecological Study, and of the Department of Forest Resource Conservation at Universitas Gadjah, Rustem, again of the Society for the Preservation of Endangered Carnivores and their International Ecological Study, and of the Wildlife Ecology and Biodiversity Laboratory at Mulawarman University, Jephte Sompud of the Agroforestry and Forest Plantation Program at the Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Jayaraj Vijaya Kumaran again of the Society for the Preservation of Endangered Carnivores and their International Ecological Study, and of the Faculty of Earth Science at the  Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, and Kurtis Jai-Chyi Pei, once again of the Society for the Preservation of Endangered Carnivores and their International Ecological Study, and of the Institute of Wildlife Conservation at the National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, present the results of an investigation into the trade in Clouded Leopards, and their body parts, inspired by a social media post about a Sunda Clouded Leopard being kept by an exotic pet dealer in Indonesia in 2019.

Screen grab of a ‘pet’ Sunda Clouded Leopard Neofelis diardi on Facebook in Indonesia. Giordano et al. (2023).

Giordano et al. subsequently discovered a number of social media and local language news articles concerning the trade in Clouded Leopards, apparently without concern to the laws and government policies regulating this trade. On the basis of this, they believe that there is an active illegal trade in Sunda Clouded Leopards in Indonesia. A number of these reports included photographs of Clouded Leopards in small cages, of a kind often used at wildlife markets in Indonesia. They also discovered one incident involving an Indochinese Clouded Leopard, which was confiscated at the border between Thailand and Myanmar, having apparently been sourced from Laos. 

Screen grabs of Facebook postings: (a) Wildlife seized by Jakarta Police, including a Sunda Clouded Leopard and a Sun Bear. ( b) A posting purportedly showing a Sunda Clouded Leopard kitten for sale in Europe. Giordano et al. (2023).

Other recent studies of the trade in Clouded Leopard and wild Carnivores in general have indicated a change in the purpose for which these species are hunted, with their apparently becoming more specifically targeted for commercial reasons. Giordano et al.'s work builds upon this, providing evidence of Sunda Leopards being actively traded in Indonesia and Southeast Asia. Other species which have not historically been traded as live Animals also appear to be entering the exotic pet trade, including Small-clawed Otters, Aonyx cinereus, Smooth-coated  Otters, Lutrogale perspicillata, and Otter Civets, Cynogale bennettii. This trade appears to be at least in part driven by popular social media posts depicting these Animals as interesting 'novelty pets'. 

Two Clouded Leopards confiscated by Thai authorities en route from Laos. Here they are being temporarily cared for by the local zoo. Terry Whittaker in Giordano et al. (2023).

Interestingly, Giordano et al. only came a across a single instance of trade in the Indochinese Clouded Leopard. This is surprising, as there is known to be an active trade in other Felid species, such as Leopards and Tigers in Southeast Asia, and may indicate that the trade exists and has not been detected by this study.

The trade in large Felids has its origins in traditional practices in some parts of the world, for example in the Middle East, where Cheetahs have long been captured for use as hunting Animals, but the trade in Clouded Leopards in Indonesia appears to be a new development, and may be linked to opportunistic hunting. Widespread deforestation in Borneo has led to more conflict between Humans and forest species, and the killing of (aggressive) adult female Clouded Leopards could well result in kittens becoming available for trade as a biproduct. Whatever the source of the Animals being traded, their normalization as an exotic pets is clearly an additional threat to the species, as well as potentially to Humans handling them.

Giordano et al. recommend that governments and conservation organisations pay more attention to this trade, and focus more attention on monitoring and combating the illegal trade in Clouded Leopards. They also note the dangers to public health caused by the trade in exotic pets, observing that wild Felids are known to have the ability to carry a variety of infections potentially harmful to Humans, including Coronaviruses.

See also...

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Facebook.

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Twitter.

Evidence from Tam Pà Ling in northern Laos suggests Modern Humans reached Southeast Asia by 86 000-68 000 years ago.

Both genetic and fossil evidence suggests that Modern Humans emerged in Africa about 300 000 years ago. The timing of subsequent dispersals into Eurasia, however, is much less well defined, with numerous models having emerged, which nevertheless can be split into two broad groups; an early dispersal during Marine Isotope Stage 5 (roughly 130 000-80 000 years ago), and a late dispersal, after Marine Isotope Stage 5. Most genetic evidence supports the ancestors of all modern non-African populations having left the continent between 50 000 and 60 000 years ago, and subsequently diverged from one-another, with some groups moving east into Asia and others west into Europe. There is, however, some genetic evidence supporting the idea that modern Australasians are at least partly descendent from a Modern Human population which left Africa earlier, although the DNA of this group makes up less than 1% of that of modern Austrolasian populations.

A number of sites in the Middle East and around the eastern Mediterranean Basin have yielded fossils considered to be Modern Humans, dating to between 210 000 and 90 000 years ago, supporting the idea of an early dispersal at least a small way out of Africa. There are also a number of fossils from China, which have been considered to Modern Humans between 127 000 and 70 000 years old, although recent re-examination of these has shown that all suffer with problems with their dating and/or their assignment to Modern Humans. Further south, material attributed to Modern Humans at Lida Ajur in Sumatra has been dated to 73 000-63 000 years before the present, and at Tam Pà Ling in northern Laos has been dated to 70 000-46 000 years before the present, while Madjedbebe, the oldest archaeological site in Australia (which only Modern Humans are thought to have reached), has been dated to 65 000 years before the present. It these findings are correct, then they apparently represent an older Human excursion into Southeast Asia and beyond, possibly by a group with no living ancestors.

In a paper published in the journal Nature Communications on 13 June 2023, a team of archaeologists led by Sarah Freidline of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Central Florida, and the Department of Human Origins at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, describe new fossil  material from Tam Pà Ling site, and provide an updated chronology for the site. 

The Tam Pà Ling site was discovered in 2009, when a partial cranium (TPL 1) was unearthed in a cave on the Pà Hang karstic tower, on the southeasterd flank of P’ou Loi Mountain, in Houaphanh Province, northeastern Laos. Further excavations yielded two mandibles (TPL 2 & TPL 3), a rib (TPL 4), a phalanx (TPL 5), and most recently a partial frontal bone (TPL 6) and tibia (TPL 7), which Freidline et al. describe for the first time. 

Photograph of the TPL 6 frontal bone. (a) Anterior view of the left superciliary arch and supraorbital margin, and portions of the frontal squama and temporal line; (b) endocranial surface including some of the left orbital plate and frontal crest; (c) left lateral view. Freidline et al. (2023).

A combination of radiocarbon and uranium series dating has been used to date the previous finds from Tam Pà Ling, establishing a chronological sequence in which the first discovered skull (TPL 1) and mandible (TPL 2), both from the upper 25 cm of sediment, are about 46 000-years-old. Two soil samples collected from depths of 4.0 m and 5.0 m yielded dates of 48 000 years before the present. This short time interval/large increase in depth combination has caused questions to be asked about the accuracy of the dating methods used.

Sedimentation in the Tam Pà Ling cave is thought to have been linked to the annual monsoon cycle, with contiguous fine-grained layers across the site and no sign of secondary disturbance. The cave is thought to have opened gradually, during a period of drier conditions during which slabs of limestone fell from the cave roof, and the fine sediments being deposited onto these. The South Asian Monsoon is believed to have been continuous since Marine Isotope Stage 5, giving a minimum age for this dry period. Freidline et al. used a combination of dating techniques to obtain new dates for strata below 5.0 m within Tam Pà Ling cave, extending the age range to 7.0 m and an age of 86 000 years.

Stratigraphic sections of the main excavation (trench 3) at Tam Pà Ling. Profile 1 on the right is located at the base of the slope directly facing the entrance of the cave, and Profile 2, which is about 5 m adjacent to the east wall. Freidline et al. (2023).

Next, Freidline et al. carried out a morphometric analysis, comparing the Tam Pà Ling fossils to similar bones from a selection of other Humans and Hominins. 

TPL 6 is a partial left frontal bone that is broken at one-third of its total length and shows a fracture on its upper right side. A principal component analysis of its shape placed it firmly among Modern Human specimens from the Holocene and Late Pleistocene, including the Minatogawa individuals from Okinawa, Japan, which are dated to between 22 000 and 20 000 years ago, the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave individuals, from Beijing, China, dated to between 20 000 and 10 000 years ago, and the Wadjak (37 000-28 000-years-old), and Lake Mungo individuals (about 40 000 years old) of Australia, the  Salkhit individual (34 950-33 900-years-old) from Mongolia, and Holocene Individuals from Southeast Asia.

The previously described skull, TPL 1, is larger and more robust that TPL 6, but also plots with Late Pleistocene and Holocene Modern Humans. This more complete skull has a maxilla (upper jaw), a highly distinctive feature for separating Neanderthals, early Modern Humans, and later Modern Humans, with this feature clearly grouping with later Modern Humans such as Liujiang Man, from Guangxi in China, dated to between 159 000 and 60 000 years before the present (although these dates have been questioned), the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave individuals, and Laetoli Hominin 18, about 120 000-years-old from Kenya. The subnasal region of this skull is sloping and its palate broad, also Modern Human traits, with the shape of these features placing TPL 1 close to the Qafzeh 6 individual, about 100 000-years old, from Israel, Liujiang Man, and a number of Late Pleistocene and Holocene specimens. Other features of this skull fall within the overlap of early and later Modern Human morphologies.

The first of the two isolated mandibles found at Tam Pà Ling cave, TPL 2, was found to  map with Late Pleistocene and Holocene Modern Humans, being closest to the Tianyuandong individual, from Zhoukoudian and dated to between 42 000 and 39 000 years before the present. and the Tam Hang South individuals, from northern Laos and dated to about 15 700 years before the present.

The second isolated mandible, TPL 3 has a pronounced chin (a feature unique to Modern Humans), and is morphologically most similar to Late Pleistocene Humans, such as the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave individuals, and the Minatogawa individuals.

Freidline et al.'s new data extends the known Human presence at Tam Pà Ling cave 10 000 years further into the past, increasing the known period of residence to about 56 000 years. The new specimens, frontal TPL 6 and tibia TPL7, indicate that Modern Humans have been present in Southeast Asia for at least 68 000 years. These skeletons are of a gracile (slender) type, inconsistent with more archaic Human types, though it is unclear if their ancestors were recent arrivals from Africa or the Middle East, or were part of an unknown local population. The earliest known Modern Humans in Asia are found at Misliya Cave in Israel, and are dated to between 194 000 and 179 000 years before the present, with a number of slightly younger sites known from elsewhere in the Middle East, but the main Modern Human expansion into Asia seems not to have happened till about 65 000-45 000 years ago, when almost all non-African populations rapidly distributed across the Eurasian landmass. The oldest known Human genomes all date to between 45 000 and 35 000 years before the present. Available genetic data from Southeast Asia is much more recent, but shows that a hunter-gatherer population was largely replaced by an incoming farming population about 4000 years ago, although both of these populations seem to have been part of the rapid expansion from Africa 45 000-35 000 years ago. The later fossils from Tam Pà Ling cave fall within the range of this rapid expansion phase, but the new material, TPL 6 and TPL 7, are much older, dated to between 73 000 and 67 000 years before the present. This raises two possibilities; either the Tam Pà Ling fossils represent an older, Human dispersal into Southeast Asia, which has not contributed to the DNA of living Humans, or they represent part of an older successful Human migration into Asia, which has contributed to the DNA of living Humans, but which has not previously been identified. Unfortunately, attempts to recover DNA from the molars of TPL 1 and TPL 3 were unsuccessful, leaving the question unanswered at this time.

Morphometric analysis of the specimens, identifies them firmly as Modern Humans, being close in form to a number of Late Pleistocene individuals from East Asia, notably Zhoukoudian Upper Cave 101, from Beijing (China), Minatogawa 2, from Okinawa (Japan), Liujiang Man, from Gunagxi (China), Tabon Man, from Palawan (Philippins), and Tianyuandong 1, also from Beijing. The Tam Pà Ling individuals show quite a lot of variation, something previously recorded in the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave and Minatogawa populations, and supporting the hypothesis that these Late Pleistocene populations were quite heterogeneous. The frontal bone TPL 6 and mandible TPL 2 are notably slender, more so than any other specimens in the database, with the exception of the (much smaller) Homo floriensis fossils. The partial cranium, TPL 1, and second mandible, TPL 3, are more robust, falling within the general range of Late Pleistocene populations. Curiously, the later fossils appear more robust than the gracile early frontal TPL 6, against a general tendency for more modern Homo sapiens to be more gracile, while more archaic forms are more robust. If their is a line of decent through these fossils, then this suggests that the more robust traits were acquired locally through genetic drift or as an adaptation to local conditions, challenging the assumption made in other parts of the Eurasia that the appearance of more robust features is a sign of interbreeding with more archaic populations.

The TPL 6 frontal is closest in form to Minatogawa 2, another frontal from Okinawa in Japan, dated to about 20 000 years before the present. Of the three sets of remains at Minatogawa, the more complete skeleton, Minatogawa 1, is more robust, and considered to be male, while the two more fragmentary sets of remains, frontal Minatogawa 2 and mandible Minatogawa 3, are more gracile and thought to be female. Collectively, these individuals have been suggested to be closer to southern Australo-Melanesian populations than to more northern, Asian populations, along with other fossils from Liujiang, in Guangxi, South China, Niah Cave, in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo, and Wadjak, East Java. The differences in size and robustness between TPL 1 and TPL 6 are similar to those between Minatogawa 1 and Minatogawa 2, though while the latter two are thought to be roughly contemporary, TPL 1 and TPL 6 are thought to be separated by about 30 000 years. The differences between the remains could, therefore, represent sexual dimorphism, changes in the stature of the population over time, or interbreeding with members of a more robust Human population. It is also possible that the assessment of TPL 6 as an adult is incorrect, and that this individual was in fact an adolescent member of a population with a slightly different development than living Humans. Nevertheless, Freidline et al. believe that the similarity of TPL 6 to later remains from Tam Pà Ling combined with the absence of any evidence of genetic continuity from Marine Isotope Stage 5 to the current day in Asia, means that the most likely explanation is that the Tam Pà Ling population comprises members of an earlier Human expansion into Southeast Asia, which has left no survivors. The oldest Human remains in Southeast Asia from which DNA has been extracted, the 7800-year-old remains from Pha Faen, also in Laos, produced no genetic evidence of descent from an earlier dispersal.

The second oldest fossil form Tam Pà Ling is the partial mandible, TPL 3, which has been dated to about 70 000 years before the present, and which a previous morphometric analysis placed close to Pleistocene Archaic Humans, including Neanderthals and Middle Pleistocene Hominins, but outside the range of even early Modern Humans. this was due to a wide bi-mental breadth (i.e. the breadth of the front of the jaw), which is in turn associated with a wide ramus (the hinge which connects the lower jaw to the skull), a feature associated with Archaic Humans. However, TPL 3 has a well-developed chin, a feature otherwise exclusively associated with Modern Humans.

The Zhiren 3 mandibular corpus, from Guangxi in South China, which has been dated to about 100 000 years ago (although this date has recently been challenged), also has a combination of a large width and a chin (albeit less well developed than in TPL 3), combined with an apparently modern dentition. This specimen has been suggested to possibly represent a hybridization between early dispersing Modern Humans and a local Archaic Human population. Freidline et al.'s study suggests that there is a considerable overlap in shape between the anterior symphysis of the mandible in Modern Humans and Neanderthals, while other Archaic Humans, including Homo erectus, Homo floriensis, and Denisovans, have more distinct shapes. Zhiren 3 is more archaic in its structure than TPL 3, but both are decidedly more modern than the Denisovan Xiahe mandible, which is very robust, lacks a chin, and has a receding symphysis. Neither Zhiren 3 nor TPL 3 show any affinity to the Xiahe mandible; both are more similar to the mosaic structures of early Modern Humans from Africa. Zhiren 3 appears most similar to specimens from Minatogawa, Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, and Border Cave in South Africa. It is also small, a feature shared with the Minatogawa, Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, Border Cave, and Tam Pà Ling remains, as well as the Klasies River Mouth remains (also South Africa). This suggests that Zhiren 3 could either represent a member of an early, unsuccessful dispersal of Modern Humans into Asia, or one of the earliest members of a late dispersal.

The TPL 2 mandible is younger, smaller, and in some ways morphologically more modern than TPL 3. Despite this it has a notably robust lateral corpus, more so than seen in Homo erectus skulls, although all other features point to it being a Modern Human jaw. Notably, TPL 2 is small, smaller than any other apparently adult mandible in Freidline et al.'s study, with the exception of one assigned to Homo floriensis. Morphologically, TPL 2 is closest to mandibles from the Tam Hang Rockshelter (northern Laos) thought to be from young adult women, and dated to about 15 700 years ago. These individuals are estimated to have been between 140 cm and 153 cm tall, which is short by modern Western standards, but not exceptionally so, and is also comparable to the Minatogawa individuals, and many Holocene populations from East and Southeast Asia. Notably, among living and recent Humans, populations with short statures are often found in tropical forests, and the Late Pleistocene environment at Tam Pà Ling has been reconstructed as a tropical forest, much as it is today. Furthermore, a study of carbon isotopes from two of the teeth of TPL 1 suggested that that individual had forest-associated diet.

TPL 1 was found in the same layer as TPL 2, with both being dated to between 52 000 and 40 000 years ago. TPL 1 resembles other Late Pleistocene Modern Humans from Asia, notably the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave and Palawan individuals. The Zhoukoudian Upper Cave individuals have been suggested to show affinities with Upper Palaeolithic individuals from Europe, and earlier Modern Humans from Africa and the Levant, and appear to have retained some archaic traits rather than acquired them by interbreeding with a more archaic population.

The fossils from Tam Pà Ling give an insight into Human variability during the Late Pleistocene of Southeast Asia. The site shows a Human presence in the region between 86 000 and 42 000 years ago, including the oldest confidently assigned Modern Human cranial remains in Southeast Asia. The TPL 6 frontal bone shows a dispersal into Southeast Asia by a Modern Human population by 70 000 years ago, although it is by no means certain that this population has living descendants. This cranial has a remarkably slender form, making it highly probable that it is a representative of a group migrating into the area for the first time, and highly unlikely that it is descended from or admixed with a local Archaic Human population. These fossils add to our understanding of a region which appears to have had a rich and diverse Human and Hominin population during the Middle and Late Pleistocene, including Homo erectus, Homo floriensis, Homo luzonensis, Denisovans, and Modern Humans.

See also...

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Facebook.

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Twitter.

Nemacheilus pullus: A new species of Stone Loach from central Laos.

Stone Loaches, Nemacheilidae, are freshwater Cypriniform Fish found throughout Eurasia, with one genus occurring in Ethiopia. They favour fast moving stretches of small streams, but are occasionally found in larger rivers, and even caves. The group currently contains about valid 790 species in 53 genera, with new species being described on a regular basis, particularly from Southeast Asia. The genus Nemacheilus currently includes 36 species from the Chao Phraya, Mae Khlong, and Mekong river drainages, the Malay Peninsula, and the islands of Sumatra, Java and Borneo. Members of this genus tend to be found in streams and rivers with slow to moderate flows and sand, gravel, or pebble bottoms.

In a paper published in the Raffles Bulletin of Zoology on 20 February 2023, Maurice Kottelat of the Lee KongChian Natural History Museum at the National University of Singapore, describes a new species of Nemacheilus from central Laos.

The new species is named Nemacheilus pullus, where 'pullus' is intended to mean dark yellow to blackish. The species is described from populations living in the Nam Ngiep and Nam Xan watersheds of the the Mekong drainage in central Laos, which were previously assigned to the species Nemacheilus platiceps.

Nemacheilus pullus, Laos: Mekong drainage: Nam Ngiep watershed; (a) CMK 27518, paratype, male, 37.7 mm; (b) MHNG 2787.091, holotype, male, 41.5 mm; (c) CMK 27518, paratype, female, 64.1 mm. Note that in b the specimen is slightly tilted laterally and the eye appears more distant from the dorsal profile than in reality. Kottelat (2023).

Nemacheilus pullus shares with Nemacheilus platiceps an incomplete lateral line, whereas in almost all other members of the genus the lateral line is complete. However Nemacheilus pullus lacks the clear flank bars of Nemacheilus platiceps, instead being a plain yellowish grey in colour (juveniles, and some adult females, do have faint bars, but these are much less clear than in Nemacheilus platiceps). 

Nemacheilus platiceps; (a) CMK 21392, 27.8 mm; Laos: Mekong drainage: Xe Kong watershed; (b)–(d) CMK 7927, Vietnam: Dong Nai drainage, 36.2 mm, (b) reversed) 40.8 mm, 54.4 mm, (d) reversed; and (e) NRM 15095, holotype, 40.1 mm; Vietnam Dong Nai drainage (reversed). Kottelat (2023).

See also...

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Facebook.

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Twitter. 

Orcaella brevirostris: Irrawaddy River Dolphin extinct in Laos, less than 90 surviving in Cambodia.

The Irrawaddy River Dolphin, Orcaella brevirostris, is now officially extinct in Laos after the last surviving member of the species inhabiting a trans-border pool shared with Cambodia, died in February this year. The Dolphin, a male identified as ID#35, was found on a shore of the Chheuteal Pool in Stung Treng Province, Cambodia, having apparently died of injuries sustained when he became entangled in fishing nets on the Laos side of the pool. Irrawaddy River Dolphins are (or were) officially protected in both Laos and Cambodia, with a ban on gill nets, which are notoriously dangerous to small Cetaceans, in environments where they are found. However, while this rule was enforced on the Cambodian side of the border, where there are patrols by river guards and a public education program, part of Chheuteal Pool lies within Laos, where the rules were not enforced, and where Cambodian river guards are unable to operate.

 

ID#35, the last Irrawaddy River Dolphin living in the Chheuteal Pool spanning the border between Laos and Cambodia, found dead in February 2022. Phnom Penh Post.

In 1993 there were 17 Irrawaddy River Dolphins living in Chheuteal Pool, by 2009 this number had fallen to seven, by 2012 there were only six, in 2018 three Dolphins were recorded, and since 2021 ID#35 had been on his own. The Dolphin had been visibly unwell since becoming entangled in fishing gear in January, and was about half of his normal bodyweight when he died. Officials from the Cambodian Fisheries Administration and WWF Cambodia had considered moving him to a site lower in the Mekong Valley in Cambodia, where there is another population, but concluded that they lacked the expertise to do so. 

 

An Irrawaddy River Dolphin, Orcaella brevirostris, in a deep-water pool in Cambodia. Lor Kimsan/WWF Cambodia.

The Mekong Valley population in Cambodia is now thought to comprise only 89 individual Dolphins, with few other populations, in the Irrawaddy River in Myanmar, the Mahakam River in Indonesian Borneo, in Chilika Lagoon in India, in Malampaya Sound in the Philippines, and on the Trat coast in Thailand, each now thought to be less than 100 individuals, although a much larger population is present in the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest of Bangladesh, possibly numbering as many as 6000 individuals. The species is currently classified as Endangered under the terms of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species. 

See also...

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Facebook.

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Twitter.