No abstract

Of the 10,272 currently recognized reptile species, the trade of fewer than 8% are regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the European Wildlife Trade Regulations (EWTR). However, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List has assessed 45% of the world's reptile species and determined that at least 1390 species are threatened by “biological resource use”. Of these, 355 species are intentionally targeted by collectors, including 194 non-CITES-listed species. Herein we review the global reptile pet trade, its impacts, and its contribution to the over-harvesting of species and populations, in light of current international law. Findings are based on an examination of relevant professional observations, online sources, and literature (e.g., applicable policies, taxonomy [reptile database], trade statistics [EUROSTAT], and conservation status [IUCN Red List]). Case studies are presented from the following countries and regions: Australia, Central America, China, Galapagos Islands (Ecuador), Germany, Europe, India, Indonesia (Kalimantan), Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Madagascar, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Western Africa, and Western Asia. The European Union (EU) plays a major role in reptile trade. Between 2004 and 2014 (the period under study), the EU member states officially reported the import of 20,788,747 live reptiles. This review suggests that illegal trade activities involve species regulated under CITES, as well as species that are not CITES-regulated but nationally protected in their country of origin and often openly offered for sale in the EU. Further, these case studies demonstrate that regulations and enforcement in several countries are inadequate to prevent the overexploitation of species and to halt illegal trade activities. (Résumé d'auteur

No abstract

This study investigated the systematics and phylogeography of a threatened tortoise of South Africa, the speckled padloper Homopus signatus. Sixty three specimens were collected from 17 localities that covered the distributional range of the two subspecies in western South Africa and a north-eastern population that was recently discovered near Pofadder. The Pofadder sample could not be assigned to either subspecies based on morphology. The samples were sequenced for two partial mtDNA fragments, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide dehydrogenase component four and cytochrome b, which yielded $1.1 kb, while a subset of the samples were sequenced for a 390 bp nuclear DNA (nDNA) fragment of prolactin. Phylogenetic analyses of mtDNA using minimum evolution, maximum parsimony and Bayesian inferences supported the monophyly of H. signatus and revealed that the Pofadder specimen was basal in the topology and sister to the remainder. The phylogenetic analyses did not support the recognition of two subspecies; there was statistical support for a Homopus signatus signatus clade but Homopus signatus cafer was not monophyletic. The nDNA analysis showed no difference between the subspecies and placed the Pofadder sample distant but not distinct from H. s. signatus. The mtDNA and the nDNA data suggest that the subspecies are invalid taxonomic units. The structure of the mtDNA network corresponded to the geographical distribution of populations. The north-western populations formed one haplocluster, corresponding to H. s. signatus, whereas the south-western populations formed three haploclusters, corresponding to H. s. cafer. The Pofadder sample was unconnected to the network. The morphology of the northern and southern morphotypes probably reflects selection for crypsis on the different substrate types of the regions, granites and sedimentary rocks, respectively. These results highlight that subspecies designations should be authenticated by molecular techniques because morphological plasticity can obfuscate phylogenetic relationships. We consider the western H. signatus populations as one taxonomic unit and recommend wider sampling of the Pofadder locality to clarify the taxonomic status of this lineage.

No abstract