Pangolin Universal Notching System 55


pangolin, weighing .30 kg and measuring 140–180 cm (Hoffman et al., 2020). Few pangolin populations have been quantitatively as-


sessed. This limits our ability to understand the impacts of natural and anthropogenic pressures, particularly in areas where there is high exploitation and/or field personnel and equipment are limited, as is the case formost pangolin species in most range countries. Although the majority of pangolin trade involves scales, live animals are sometimes intercepted (Shepherd et al., 2017; Challender et al., 2020; Bashyal et al., 2021) and need rehabilitation prior to release. Furthermore, although feasible (Gaubert et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2020; Ewart et al., 2021;Tinsman et al., 2023), there is limited access to the genetic methods required to recover information about individuals (live, carcasses or scales) seized from the trade. Effective methods of monitoring and tracking pangolins are essential to understand the extent of population declines and potential recovery following intervention. Efforts are currently underway to address these matters.


One approach involves attaching battery-powered tracking devices such as VHF, satellite and GPS tags. Although all such devices have been utilized, VHF tags are most com- monly used because of their relatively low cost, long battery life, light weight and capability to provide precise location data through triangulation (Willcox et al., 2019; Morin et al., 2020). However, signals from such devices can fluctu- ate in adverse weather conditions, and relocating individuals can be labour-intensive, often necessitating the use of ground vehicles, aircraft or drones to attain proximity to the signal or overcome geographical obstacles (Saunders et al., 2022). Additionally, there is a risk that tagged indivi- duals could stray beyond the study area or venture on to pri- vate property that practitioners do not have authorization to enter. Moreover, as many pangolin species inhabit under- ground burrows, signal ranges can be significantly restricted during daylight hours when tracking is safest for technicians (Pagès, 1975). Given these limitations, supplementing track- ing devices with a sustainable low- or no-technology-based identification system would benefit long-term pangolin monitoring. One non-invasive method of identifying and tracking


live individuals, currently used for a range of animal species (e.g. ungulates: Blair, 1941; amphibians and reptiles: Ferner, 2007; marine mammals: Walker et al., 2012)is notching or marking. This entails using a tool such as a drill, punch or file to remove a portion of tissue, scale or scute to permanent- ly render the individual identifiable. Notching systems are valuable when used in tandem with advanced technologies, such as telemetry, as they persist after these technologies fail, are lost or damaged, run out of battery or reach their functional endpoint (Silvy et al., 2012;Ruden et al., 2024). At present, there is no universal scale-marking method


available for pangolins (Willcox et al., 2019; Morin et al., 2020). Although pangolin scales vary in size across species,


they all exhibit similar structural and mechanical properties (Wang et al., 2016) allowing them to withstand the force and pressures of drilling. Some of the pangolin-tracking pro- grammes we surveyed (see Methods, below) already use a method of scale notching for four species of pangolin: Sunda, black-bellied, white-bellied and Temminck’s pango- lins (Ruden et al., 2024). However, each programme has cre- ated and manages its own notching system, potentially impeding data sharing. Here we overcome this problem by proposing a universal marking code. We created the Pangolin Universal Notching System to


address the lack of a uniform protocol and to streamline ef- forts already underway within the pangolin conservation community. This proposal combines elements of existing systems in a way that accommodates the unique morph- ology and behaviours of pangolins, and is designed to facili- tate the identification of large numbers of individuals and integration via a central data repository. The system could be used by trained researchers, non-technical staff and law enforcement officials.


Methods


During January–September 2023, we conducted a literature review and survey of practitioners to assess tracking meth- ods currently utilized across the pangolin research commu- nity (Ruden et al., 2024). Despite no mention in the literature, eight of 15 respondents to our survey (53%) de- scribed marking or notching pangolin scales for identifica- tion using their own ad hoc secondary marking systems, with seven of those programmes acquiring pangolins from wildlife trafficking and trade. Four of these systems involve drilling a series of holes in the scales, and two other systems drill scales to attach numbered cattle ear tags. One system used a tattoo drill and another used paints (Table 1). Further discussions with practitioners led us to create a pangolin-specific notching code that could be used for long- term marking of individuals and would complement other tracking techniques. During these discussions we considered factors such as interspecific variation in body size, interspecific and anatomical diversity in scalemorphology, ecology, life his- tories and prior experiencewith altering scales.This allowed us to select the most suitable scales on which to place markings, to ensure that they are visible without disrupting normal pan- golin behaviour. Because pangolins engage in burrowing, swimming, tree climbing, and hiding in dense brush areas, we selected an area along the back of the pangolin. This also proved to be an ideal location as juveniles attach themselves to thebaseoftheirmother’s tail, not obstructing the view of any markings. Following meetings with respondents we also consulted the creator of the North American code for hard- shelled turtles (Nagle et al., 2017)todiscuss developing a similar code for pangolins and to gain additional insights regarding best practice.


Oryx, 2025, 59(1), 54–60 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324000656


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140