State of knowledge and continuous assessment to update the IUCN’s country records: the mammals of Rwanda, a case study

State of knowledge and continuous assessment to update the IUCN’s country records: the mammals of Rwanda, a case study | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 29 August 2025 V1 Latest version Share on State of knowledge and continuous assessment to update the IUCN’s country records: the mammals of Rwanda, a case study Authors : Methode Majyambere 0009-0001-1603-1376 [email protected] , Pacifique Niyodushima , Alexis Nsabimana , Philbert Ndahayo , and Simon Muhayimana Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175648089.97141674/v1 573 views 271 downloads Contents Abstract Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Several studies have focused on establishing species checklists of mammals for each country. However, differences and changes in taxonomic names over time, compounded with a lack of research expertise and data mobilization, make it challenging to harmonize checklists and utilize such information in conservation practice. We reviewed the literature and recent field records on the mammals of Rwanda, a country in East Africa, and compared them with the current IUCN records for that country. We identified 38 novel records of mammal species that need to be indicated as existing in Rwanda, including recent records upgraded to the species level from taxonomic work. We identified gaps in the IUCN website data and highlighted how regular assessments and updates from scientists in the field of mammals can fill them, by updating scientific names and country legends. We proposed that the IUCN integrate our observations into its website database. We also urge scientists to update and disseminate similar findings in a timely manner, along with evidence-based records, to support conservation efforts. Our observations and recommendations should extend beyond the mammalian taxon and the country used as a case study. Introduction The taxonomy of mammals is critically important, as many new species have been gradually described over time since the 18th century (Reeder et al., 2007). In Africa, several studies used field surveys to determine and update the taxonomic richness in mammals. Examples include East African mammals (Kingdon, 1974), Southern African mammals (Meester et al., 1986), African small mammals (Denys et al., 2001), African primates (Grubb et al., 2003), African genets (Gaubert et al., 2007), and elephant shrews (Rathbun, 2009). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has been a valuable resource for conservation biologists through its publication of the Red List of species. Several researchers have been interested in assessing how the IUCN Red List is contributing to the conservation of mammals at various scales, such as Amori & Gippoliti (2000), Ceballos et al. (2005), Isaac et al. (2007), Temple & Terry (2009), Craigie et al. (2010), Hayward (2011), Hoffmann et al. (2011), Amori et al. (2012), Do Linh San et al. (2013), Di Marco et al. (2014), Yu & Dobson (2018), Ferguson (2020), Drago & Vrcibradic (2023), and Huynh (2023). The last two centuries marked the peaks of extinctions in mammals over time (Drago & Vrcibradic, 2023). The 21st century will likely be more problematic due to the dire consequences of human actions resulting from the race for development, technology, and the fulfillment of basic needs for an ever-growing human population. Hunting and habitat conversion to agriculture are the major threats to mammals, while reintroduction is among the promising remedial strategies (Hoffmann et al., 2011). Site creation can be an effective means of improving species conservation if complementary interventions, such as hunting restrictions and reintroductions, are considered (Hayward, 2011). The taxonomy of mammals is not static, but has been subject to scientific debates. Some authors considered that large mammals seemed to be over-split, while the small mammals seemed to have been lumped (Castresana, 2001; Amori & Luiselli, 2024). Geopolitical situations influenced the biases in the taxonomy of mammals (Reeder et al., 2007). Research on mammals has often been biased towards large, charismatic species, while smaller species, such as rodents and bats, have received less attention. Furthermore, more research has been conducted in temperate regions, reflecting scientific advances and the availability of facilities, rather than in Afrotropical regions (Amori & Gippoliti, 2000; Yu & Dobson, 2018). Mammals have been frequently surveyed in many regions of Africa, where protected areas and zones considered biodiversity hotspots have received more attention. In Central and Eastern Africa, systematic surveys of mammals began at the start of the 20th century, with scientific expeditions organized by European countries. During the colonial period in Rwanda, there was an interest in surveying the mammals of this small country (26,338 km2) located in East Africa. Rwanda’s first documented systematic survey of mammals was conducted in the early 1920s (Gyldenstolpe, 1928), while mammal surveys in Central and Eastern Africa, such as those in the Belgian Congo, Uganda, and Kenya, had begun slightly earlier (Lonnberg, 1912). About a decade later, Osgood (1936) included records of the shrews of Rwanda in his publication. Allen (1939) compiled checklists of African mammals, including 15 species of mammals from Rwanda. A systematic survey conducted by a scientific mission yielded more records for Rwanda (Frechkop, 1944), and a report on the mammals of Rwanda and Burundi (a colonial territory known then as Ruanda-Urundi) was published (Schouteden, 1943). Following the initial general checklist (Schouteden, 1943, 1948), Verschuren (1987) and Monfort (1992) provided mammal checklists that focused on protected areas. Several other resources, including empirical and secondary data on the mammals of Rwanda and taxonomic changes, have been accessed and evaluated. Overall, Rwanda has a rich history of mammal surveys and older checklists. However, issues related to taxonomy and geographic biases necessitate updates to address key knowledge gaps. Continuous assessment of the status of mammals is necessary to account for changes in assessment criteria, the effects of taxonomic changes, and improved knowledge, among other factors (Hoffmann et al., 2011), to avoid biases, discrepancies, or a paucity of information. Our comprehensive reassessment, based on previous lists and incorporating results from field assessments and an evaluation of IUCN records of mammals for the country, aims to address these gaps. The assessment helps ensure the current and future applications of IUCN mammal data and resources in ecological and conservation science for the country, in the region, and internationally. Materials and Methods We used a sample of publications to explore the historical and local context of mammal taxonomy in general, and particularly in Rwanda. The documentation on the surveys and taxonomy of the Rwandan mammals focused on checklists, new species, and first records. We also consulted with research and biodiversity officers from relevant institutions to cross-check and confirm some records. The main scientific articles we consulted for cross-checking the records of mammals in Rwanda, based on field observations and taxonomic studies, are listed in the Supporting Information. chronologically. Two sources on the list of mammals that draw on primary sources or existing literature, complemented by field observations, are Dowsett & Dowsett-Lemaire (1990) and Monfort (1992). The former focused on the mammals of Nyungwe Forest, while the latter examined all the mammals of Rwanda. Two checklists were focused on secondary sources of data and protected areas, namely Verschuren (1987) and Cockar (2022). The former focused on three countries and targeted only protected areas. Some documents from the 1960s and 1970s were not available online; however, their records were captured by later sources, such as Monfort (1992) and Baeten et al. (1984). Simple reports from the grey literature are also mentioned in the Supporting Information. Most authors focused on checklists of particular mammal groups in Rwanda, such as bats (Baeten et al., 1984; Van Cakenberghe et al., 2017) or shrews (Hutterer et al., 1987). More studies were brief and focused on specific groups and a single site, e.g., Tuyisingize et al. (2013) and Flanders et al. (2022). We also documented the first records of mammal species, such as the Hill’s horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus hilli (Aellen, 1973), the Weyns’s duiker, Cephalophus weynsi (Groves & Grubb, 1974), the Dobson’s epauletted fruit bat, Epomops dobsonii (Bergmans, 1979), the Volcano forest shrew, Sylvisorex vulcanorum (Hutterer & Verheyen, 1985), a species of soft-furred mouse, Praomys degraaffi (van der Straeten & Kerbis Peterhans, 1999), the giant genet Genetta victoriae (Dinets, 2011), and the Central African oyan, Poiana richardsonii (Moore & Niyigaba, 2018). We then reassessed our own records from the studies conducted in Rwanda from 2009 to 2024. Our own field records are either associated with voucher specimens or archived photographs or have been verified through Cytb sequencing (barcoding). The geographic coordinates associated with the records from our studies are available and are currently part of ongoing studies. We generated the list of Rwandan mammals from the IUCN website by filtering by the Mammalia taxon and the country, Rwanda (IUCN, 2025). We cross-checked to ensure that the generated list matched the information on each species. The Mammal Diversity Database (Burgin et al., 2018; Upham et al., 2025) is designed as an authoritative online scientific reference for the taxonomy of the world’s mammals. It was the most decisive source for valid names of mammal taxa. When necessary, we compared our records and distributions with two other online databases, i.e., the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) and Mammal Species of the World (MSW3), and the book “Mammals of Africa”, which discusses African mammal species individually, including maps and taxonomic notes (Kingdon et al., 2013). We also generated a list of mammals recorded by the MDD as occurring in Rwanda, as well as those that are uncertain, allowing us to verify individual species. A combination of published species records, field survey records, and online databases provided insights into a comprehensive assessment of Rwandan mammals. We aggregated species data from the IUCN list, our records, the MDD data, and associated sources of information, including the references cited in those sources, to examine individual records. This allowed us to know the species whose names have changed, those whose Country Legend (as defined by IUCN) status needs to be updated, and the new species that need to be reported to IUCN for consideration. In our results, we document the mammal species in five areas among others: 1) the ones not known to exist in Rwanda while there are recent scientific data confirming them, 2) the ones that are doubtful while we have recent evidence of their presence, 3) the ones for which for various reasons retain old names of species while new valid names exist, 4) the ones that exist because they were split as new species from another species but not yet updated, and 5) the species that should not be counted because recent evidence shows that they do not reside in Rwanda currently or are just locally extinct. Results The current IUCN results indicate a list of 211 mammals for Rwanda, categorized into Country Legend tags as Present (184), Introduced (2), Reintroduced (2), Possibly Extant (1), Presence Uncertain (18), Possibly Extinct (2), and Extinct (2). Considering the valid names of the mammal species according to the MDD, 25 mammal species occurring in Rwanda have been affected (Table 1). Considering the Country Legend tags, our assessment recommends that the IUCN update these tags for 30 species, including six species that will be marked as non-extant in Rwanda, as recent taxonomy revisions have adjusted their distribution to account for species splitting (Table 2). Our reassessment resulted in additions of 38 species of mammals to the Rwanda mammal list, including documented species not yet integrated in the IUCN website database, our newly confirmed records based on field data and advanced taxonomic tools, and the six species mentioned in Table 1 that resulted from the splitting of the past species names (Table 3). Of those additions, these observations on country legend tags were provided: Present (23), Introduced (2), Possibly Extant (6), and Presence Uncertain (7). We noted Lophuromys cinereus as Possibly Extant, as its DNA analysis result matched with a record with the name Lophuromys cinereus, indicating that its reference genotype is not fully confirmed. Table 1: Mammals of Rwanda with need of name updates (* both names exist, but they are different species based on recent taxonomic revision; ** both names exist, but IUCN considers them as synonyms) 1 Afronycteris nanus Neoromicia nana 2 Caracal auratus Caracal aurata 3 Cephalophorus kivuensis Cephalophus nigrifrons* 4 Cephalophorus weynsi Cephalophus weynsi 5 Cricetomys kivuensis Cricetomys emini** 6 Dendromus nyasae Dendromus kivu 7 Euxerus erythropus Xerus erythropus 8 Genetta fieldiana Genetta maculata 9 Gerbilliscus giffardi Gerbilliscus kempi* 10 Giraffa tippelskirchi Giraffa camelopardalis* 11 Laephotis capensis Neoromicia capensis 12 Lepus microtis Lepus victoriae 13 Lophuromys laticeps Lophuromys flavopunctatus* 14 Lupulella adusta Lupulella adustus 15 Lutra capensis Aonyx capensis 16 Lutra congica Aonyx congicus 17 Poemys melanotis Dendromus melanotis 18 Pseudoromicia rendalli Neoromicia rendalli 19 Pseudoromicia tenuipinnis Neoromicia tenuipinnis 20 Rhinolophus acrotis Rhinolophus clivosus* 21 Serengetimys pernanus Mastomys pernanus 22 Suncus megalurus Suncus megalura 23 Thamnomys kuru Grammomys kuru 24 Tragelaphus sylvaticus Tragelaphus scriptus* 25 Vansonia rueppellii Pipistrellus rueppellii Table 2: List of recorded mammals for Rwanda with updated names, where country legend information needs to be examined and then adjusted Present Possibly Extant Presence Uncertain Possibly Extinct Extinct Not present 1 Atelerix albiventris Presence Uncertain √ 2 Caracal auratus Presence Uncertain √ Moore et al. (2019) 3 Cephalophus silvicultor Possibly extinct √ 2025 4 Cephalophorus nigrifrons Present √ 5 Crocidura dolichura Presence Uncertain √ 2009 6 Crocidura hildegardeae Present √ 7 Felis lybica Possibly Extant √ Turikunkiko et al. (2022) 8 Gerbilliscus kempii Present √ 9 Grammomys dolichurus Present √ 10 Grammomys dryas Uncertain √ Bryja et al. (2025) 11 Giraffa camelopardalis Present √ 12 Graphiurus microtis Presence Uncertain √ 2023-2024 13 Kerivoula lanosa Present √ 14 Kerivoula phalaena Present √ 15 Hylochoerus meinertzhageni Possibly Extinct √ 16 Lophuromys flavopunctatus Present √ 17 Mops bemmeleni Present √ 18 Mops midas Present √ 19 Mus musculoides Presence Uncertain √ 2022 20 Otomys angoniensis Present √ 21 Phataginus tricuspis Present √ 22 Philantomba monticola Presence Uncertain √ 23 Poemys melanotis Present √ 24 Protoxerus stangeri Present √ 25 Rhinolophus clivosus Present √ 26 Rhinolophus landeri Present √ Flanders et al. (2022) 27 Scotophilus nux Present √ 28 Thamnomys venustus Presence Uncertain √ 2021 29 Tragelaphus scriptus Present √ 30 Vansonia rueppellii Present √ Counts 8 4 8 1 3 6 Table 3: List of species of mammals found in Rwanda as IUCN additions, considering recent records, relevant literature, and authoritative taxonomic updates 1 Afrosoricida Potamogalidae Micropotamogale ruwenzorii Present LC 2 Artiodactyla Bovidae Cephalophorus kivuensis Present NE 3 Artiodactyla Bovidae Tragelaphus sylvaticus Present NE 4 Artiodactyla Giraffidae Giraffa tippelskirchi Present NE 5 Artiodactyla Suidae Potamochoerus porcus Presence Uncertain LC 6 Carnivora Herpestidae Helogale parvula Present LC 7 Carnivora Herpestidae Ichneumia albicauda Present LC 8 Carnivora Viverridae Poiana richardsonii Present LC 9 Chiroptera Hipposideridae Hipposideros caffer Present LC 10 Chiroptera Miniopteridae Miniopterus natalensis Possibly Extant LC 11 Chiroptera Molossidae Mops ansorgei Present LC 12 Chiroptera Molossidae Otomops harrisoni Presence Uncertain VU 13 Chiroptera Pteropodidae Scotonycteris bergmansi Presence Uncertain LC 14 Chiroptera Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus acrotis Present NE 15 Chiroptera Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus lobatus Presence Uncertain NE 16 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Afropipistrellus macrocephalus Possibly Extant NE 17 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Kerivoula argentata Present LC 18 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Laephotis capensis Present LC 19 Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Scotophilus viridis Possibly Extant LC 20 Eulipotyphla Soricidae Suncus megalurus Present LC 21 Hyracoidea Procaviidae Dendrohyrax dorsalis Present LC 22 Hyracoidea Procaviidae Heterohyrax brucei Possibly Extant LC 23 Perissodactyla Rhinocerotidae Ceratotherium simum Introduced NT 24 Primates Galagidae Galago moholi Presence Uncertain LC 25 Rodentia Anomaluridae Anomalurus derbianus Present LC 26 Rodentia Hystricidae Atherurus africanus Present LC 27 Rodentia Muridae Dasymys medius Present NE 28 Rodentia Muridae Dasymys rwandae Present NE 29 Rodentia Muridae Gerbilliscus giffardi Present NE 30 Rodentia Muridae Grammomys surdaster Present NE 31 Rodentia Muridae Hybomys lunaris Presence Uncertain VU 32 Rodentia Muridae Lophuromys ansorgei Possibly Extant LC 33 Rodentia Muridae Lophuromys cinereus Possibly Extant DD 34 Rodentia Muridae Lophuromys laticeps Present NE 35 Rodentia Muridae Lophuromys luteogaster Presence Uncertain LC 36 Rodentia Muridae Malacomys longipes Present LC 37 Rodentia Muridae Rattus rattus Present LC 38 Rodentia Nesomyidae Cricetomys kivuensis Present NE Overall, our assessment resulted in a list of mammals of Rwanda with Country Legend tags and numbers included as follows: Present (195), Reintroduced (2), Introduced (3), Possibly Extant (15), Presence Uncertain (24), Possibly Extinct (1), and Extinct (5). We highlight Extinct, Possibly Extinct, Introduced, and Reintroduced species. Extinct: Acinonyx jubatus , Atelerix albiventris , Hylochoerus meinertzhageni , Lycaon pictus , and Phataginus tricuspis . Possibly Extinct: Philantomba monticola . Introduced: Ceratotherium simum , Giraffa tippelskirchi , and Suncus murinus . Reintroduced: Diceros bicornis and Panthera leo . If we stop at the level of “Possibly Extant”, we would count 215 mammals that should be considered present in Rwanda, pending further field verification and regular research and monitoring. Those 215 mammals are distributed across 14 orders, 42 families, and 130 genera. The details of the assessment can be read in the Supporting Information. We provide a sample of a photographic illustration from our records, as other evidence tools are available in the records of institutions that we can consult. However, we have not yet been granted the copyright to share these images, as they are part of an ongoing monitoring program (Figure 1). Finally, we indicate the geographic locations of the recent records on the country map, where multiple records were also indicated where applicable (Figure 2). Additional records of Lophuromys cinereus (a total of 5 records) and Malacomys longipes (with more than 30 records since 2009) were omitted because they were found at the same location. More details can also be read from the Supporting Information. Figure 1: Photos of the mammals not yet recognized by public scientific portals, which were documented from our surveys; the years they were recorded are indicated; 1, 4, 6, and 7 were confirmed by phylogenetic analyses (DNA barcodes). Figure 2: Location of the records of mammals from various field studies that were considered unknown in Rwanda or where their presence was uncertain Discussion Our reassessment identified 215 species of mammals that are likely to occur in Rwanda, excluding those classified as “Presence Uncertain”. New records were obtained from the scientific resources, mostly accessed via the MDD. Other new records result from our research involvement, including collaborations in sharing field data, the development of voucher specimens, and phylogenetic results obtained through DNA barcoding in mammal taxonomy, which indicates the growing capacity in taxonomic work on mammals at a local scale. The checklist of mammals, which focused on protected areas and included a few records outside these areas, resulted in 185 species (Monfort, 1992). In comparison to Monfort (1992), a significant increase has occurred over the past 30 years, especially due to increased reassessments of previous records based on existing specimens and advanced modern taxonomic tools, which often reveal more species among cryptic species. Especially, we also documented records outside protected areas. Despite these observations, scientific research on mammals in Rwanda is scarce, as evidenced by the limited number of recent peer-reviewed publications for the country. A recent simple checklist (Cockar, 2022) focused on three national parks (Volcanoes, Nyungwe, and Akagera) and the eastern shore of Lake Kivu, resulting in a total of 205 species. Our evaluation of this most recent checklist proves some gaps that cannot make this recent checklist a genuine recent reference for these main reasons, among others: 1) it is only focused on records from protected areas, while we integrated several records from outside the parks; 2) it focuses on old references to validate the current records, 3) some of the references are from the grey literature and unpublished, 4) three misspellings (e.g., “ Colomys gosling ”, “ Dasymys incomptus ”, “ Heliosciurus ruwenzori ”) as a sample indicate that scientific rigor was minimal, and 5) many updates were missed or confused due to reliance on literature without consultation of local scientists in the field. Furthermore, many changes have been captured after that checklist, following the version of the Mammal Diversity Database (Version 1.6), and affected the bulk of the results of our reassessment. Binomial specific name changes were significant in our observations. For example, Lutra capensis and Lutra congica replace Aonyx capensis and Aonyx congicus according to the most recent revision of the world’s otters (de Ferran et al., 2022). Historically, Lophuromys laticeps has been allied to L. aquilus. However, Lophuromys aquilus was described as a different species from its lineage, and more recent studies agree with this separation (Onditi et al., 2021). Many species are being described, which is necessary for advancing the field of taxonomy and informing conservation biology practice. Mammal researchers must stay current with recent developments and consult authoritative scientific sources to ensure they are informed and up-to-date. The field of animal taxonomy evolves over time as the world around it changes. Recognizing the contribution of the Mammal Diversity Database in disentangling conflicting scenarios around the mammalian taxonomy in the 21 st century, we must accept changes as they appear imperative to respond to timely scientific needs. Possibly, the field of mammals isn’t the toughest in animal taxonomy; therefore, lessons can extend to other taxonomic groups. We only need platforms of communication and knowledge exchange without borders, including systems for notifying changes in specific taxonomic groups. The white-bellied pangolin, Phataginus tricuspis, is believed to still exist in Rwanda by the IUCN and MDD, although it has been missed in long-term monitoring in Nyungwe, where it was previously considered to occur (Monfort, 1992). Future mammal monitoring efforts should continue prioritizing the use of camera traps in wildlife monitoring, as they have proven instrumental in documenting mammals. They helped document new mammal records in Rwanda, such as the African oyan (Moore & Niyigaba, 2018), as well as rare records, including the golden cat spotted between 2014 and 2017, which was subsequently confirmed as existing in Rwanda (Moore et al., 2019). Camera traps in Akagera National Park (shared in September 2024) also confirmed the presence of the white-tailed mongoose Ichneumia albicauda in Rwanda. Cameras also helped to have recent records of the African wildcat in Nyungwe (Turikunkiko et al., 2022). Additional assessments will also help accurately account for the level of rarity of species and the threats they face (Yu & Dobson, 2018). A good example in Rwanda is the sitatunga. This species has been extremely rare in the Rwandan fauna, even in the Akagera National Park, where many ungulates are found. Continuous assessments will assist the goals of the IUCN at local scales. Results from our study suggest that more species may be discovered through additional survey efforts, which could help address gaps and inconsistencies, particularly in species-rich groups such as rodents, shrews, and bats. Some inconsistent records may result from identification mistakes in the field or errors in molecular analysis (Borisenko et al., 2008). The baseline study on rodents or shrews in Rugezi marsh, one of Rwanda’s natural wetlands, proved two species documented with Cytb barcodes: Grammomys surdaster and Graphiurus microtis . Rwanda was one of the African countries where a gap in rodent studies was noted (Amori et al., 2012). No sufficient studies have been conducted to ensure that this gap is filled. A study should be conducted to reevaluate the Tachyoryctes genus, particularly to determine if Tachyoryctes ruandae is a valid species distinct from Tachyoryctes splendens . Given the pace of many countries in the field of mammalian science, it is time to propose effective measures, such as national support for field surveys and the promotion of natural history collections (Costa et al., 2005). More recent information suggests that the continued collection of small mammals from Afrotropical regions for local collections is more than imperative to conserve these species (Ferguson, 2020). Overall, we suggest that further survey efforts could help both find new species and provide sufficient voucher specimen references, especially for small mammals (shrews, rodents, and bats). Collections of voucher specimens hosted in Rwanda would be valuable for resolving identification issues and confirming the existence of new species. The IUCN Red List has undoubtedly improved public awareness of mammals, especially when a mammal’s status changes to a higher-risk category (Van Huynh, 2023), prompting actions and further research on species of special concern. Obviously, as one strives to understand the status of a threatened species, it is also an opportunity to explore non-threatened species, especially those in the same category. One example in Rwanda might include the Rhinolophus hilli , which is critically endangered. Once a researcher or scientist seeks to learn more about the species, they will also become familiar with other Rhinolophus species that occur in Rwanda, particularly in Nyungwe, to reflect on the traits that make these species unique and which ones may drive similar species into the same situation. Afrotropical regions require more attention to mammals, as they have the highest number of endemic species among other zoogeographical regions (Amori & Gippoliti, 2000), or many rare species remain understudied (Yu & Dobson, 2018). Indeed, as defined by geographic theories for all taxa, regions of lower latitudes typically host a greater richness of mammal species, even if their distribution is generally heterogeneous (Ceballos et al., 2005). This calls for redressing the gaps in mammal studies in those regions. Saving mammals would require adopting strategies to complement conservation measures within human-modified landscapes, as some mammals still survive when ecosystems are not completely gone (Ceballos et al., 2005). Different types of data can be combined to produce spatially informative maps that guide future sampling and rewilding efforts across Central African forests (Fonteyn et al., 2023), including those in Rwanda. Recognizing that Rwanda is situated in densely populated areas where pressure on natural resources is further exacerbated by environmental factors such as climate change, the mammals are exposed to multifaceted threats. However, conservation efforts are prevailing, as Rwanda maintains Nyungwe, a large tract of tropical rainforest, the Akagera savannah, and Rugezi marsh, all of which are unique ecosystems with potential for further mammal discoveries. Our additions to IUCN records and information on MDD will not only advance knowledge and the field of mammals in Rwanda but also inspire more mammal researchers worldwide. Conclusion Our reassessment of Rwanda’s mammals, conducted with thorough cross-checking using updated authoritative databases, resulted in a harmonized checklist comprising 215 species likely present in Rwanda. This marks an increase of more than 25 species on the existing IUCN list for the mammals of Rwanda, which are tagged as “Present”. Additionally, several updates have been overdue and need to be implemented on the IUCN website. While this indicates the presence of newer species compared to the previous comprehensives, our list still requires further field-based reassessments. Overall, future research on the mammals of Rwanda should address the following: confirmation of individual species with field records, repeated field checks for long-missed mammal species, increased focus on species-rich groups (rodents and bats), research efforts outside protected areas, including wetlands, reinforcement of wildlife genomics, museum reference specimen collections, and improvement of local wildlife databases. Our study can provide guidance for other researchers to recommend amendments to IUCN’s animal records, extending beyond Rwanda and the mammal taxon. Significance statement This is a unique study that demonstrates how timely updates and dissemination of country list updates to IUCN can contribute directly to the effective conservation goals and practices. The findings are of global interest to various categories of people, including experts and non-experts, and inspire individuals across different taxa; in short, they can be qualified as integrative and inclusive. The authors build on ongoing efforts to understand and value mammalian science in Rwanda, as well as collaborative partnerships. Data archiving statement All the data used in this publication are also being integrated into databases managed by the Center of Excellence in Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management from Rwanda, such as the Rwanda Biodiversity Information System (RBIS, https://rbis.ur.ac.rw/), which are available online to the public. Conflict of interest statement The authors declare no conflict of interest during all stages of this publication. Ethics statement The field research associated with this publication was approved by the local institution responsible for granting research permits in protected areas, the Department of Tourism and Conservation at the Rwanda Development Board. Funding statement There is no funding associated with this review article. References Aellen, V. (1973). Un Rhinolophus nouveau d’Afrique centrale. Periodicum Biologorum, 75, 101–105. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13484252 Allen, G. M. (1939). A checklist of African mammals. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 83, 1–763. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2781971 Amori, G., & Gippoliti, S. (2000). What do mammalogists want to save? Ten years of mammalian conservation biology. Biodiversity and Conservation, 9, 785–793. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008971823774 Amori, G., & Luiselli, L. (2024). Is the general threatened status of four mammal groups affected by taxonomic changes over time? Journal for Nature Conservation, 82, 126736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126736 Amori, G., Masciola, S., Saarto, J., Gippoliti, S., Rondinini, C., Chiozza, F., & Luiselli, L. (2012). Spatial turnover and knowledge gap of African small mammals: using country checklists as a conservation tool. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21, 1755–1793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0275-5 Baeten, B., Van Cakenberghe, V., & De Vree, F. (1984). An annotated inventory of a collection of bats from Rwanda (Chiroptera). Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 98(1), 183–196. Bergmans, W. (1979). First records of Epomops dobsonii (Bocage, 1889) from Tanzania and Rwanda, with a note on its size range (Mammalia, Megachiroptera). Zeitschrift Für Säugetierkunde, 44(4), 239–240. Borisenko, A. V., Lim, B. K., Ivanova, N. V., Hanner, R. H., & Hebert, P. D. N. (2008). DNA barcoding in surveys of small mammal communities: a field study in Suriname. Molecular Ecology Resources, 8(3), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01998.x Bryja, J., Kerbis Peterhans, J. C., Lavrenchenko, L. A., Nicolas, V., Denys, C., Bryjová, A., Šumbera, R., & Mikula, O. (2025). Integrative taxonomic revision of the African thicket rats (Murinae: Grammomys): how genomics decreases the number of currently recognized species. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 203(2), zlae057. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae057 Burgin, C. J., Colella, J. P., Kahn, P. L., & Upham, N. S. (2018). How many species of mammals are there? Journal of Mammalogy, 99(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyx147 Castresana, J. (2001). Cytochrome b phylogeny and the taxonomy of great apes and mammals. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 18(4), 465–471. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003825 Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Soberón, J., Salazar, I., & Fay, J. P. (2005). Global mammal conservation: what must we manage? Science, 309(5734), 603–607. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114015 Cockar, Z. S. (2022). A checklist of the mammals of Rwanda. Journal of East African Natural History, 111(1), 1–17. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/jeanh/article/view/233506 Costa, L. P., Leite, Y. L. R., Mendes, S. L., & Ditchfield, A. D. (2005). Mammal Conservation in Brazil. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 672–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00666.x Craigie, I. D., Baillie, J. E. M., Balmford, A., Carbone, C., Collen, B., Green, R. E., & Hutton, J. M. (2010). Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas. Biological Conservation, 143(9), 2221–2228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.007 de Ferran, V., Figueiró, H. V., de Jesus Trindade, F., Smith, O., Sinding, M. H. S., Trinca, C. S., Lazzari, G. Z., Veron, G., Vianna, J. A., Barbanera, F., Kliver, S., Serdyukova, N., Bulyonkova, T., Ryder, O. A., Gilbert, M. T. P., Koepfli, K. P., & Eizirik, E. (2022). Phylogenomics of the world’s otters. Current Biology, 32(16), 3650–3658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.06.036 Denys, C., Granjon, L., & Poulet, A. (2001). African small mammals. Petits mammifères africains. In C. Denys, L. Granjon, & A. Poulet (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on African Small Mammals (p. 570). IRD Editions. Di Marco, M., Buchanan, G. M., Szantoi, Z., Holmgren, M., Grottolo Marasini, G., Gross, D., Tranquilli, S., Boitani, L., & Rondinini, C. (2014). Drivers of extinction risk in African mammals: the interplay of distribution state, human pressure, conservation response and species biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369, 20130198. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0198 Dinets, V. (2011). First sighting of the giant genet Genetta victoriae in Rwanda. Small Carnivore Conservation, 44, 25–26. Do Linh San, E., Ferguson, A. W., Belant, J. L., Schipper, J., Hoffmann, M., Gaubert, P., Angelic, F. M., & Somers, M. J. (2013). Conservation status, distribution and species richness of small carnivores in Africa. Small Carnivore Conservation, 48, 4–18. Dowsett, R. J., & Dowsett-Lemaire, F. (1990). Les mammifères de la forêt de Nyungwe (Rwanda): état des connaissances. In R. J. Dowsett (Ed.), Survey of the fauna and flora of Nyungwe Forest, Rwanda (pp. 111–121). Tauraco Research Report 3. Drago, M. C., & Vrcibradic, D. (2023). Will future extinctions occur at the same places where the past ones did? A review involving mammals and the IUCN Red List. Nature Conservation Research, 8(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2023.021 Ferguson, A. W. (2020). On the role of (and threat to) natural history museums in mammal conservation: an African small mammal perspective. Journal of Vertebrate Biology, 69(2), 20028. https://doi.org/10.25225/jvb.20028 Flanders, J., Frick, W. F., Nziza, J., Nsengimana, O., Kaleme, P., Dusabe, M. C., Ndikubwimana, I., Twizeyimana, I., Kibiwot, S., Ntihemuka, P., Cheng, T. L., Muvunyi, R., & Webala, P. (2022). Rediscovery of the critically endangered Hill’s horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hilli) and other new records of bat species in Rwanda. Biodiversity Data Journal, 10, e83546. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.10.e83546 Fonteyn, D., Vermeulen, C., Gorel, A.-P., Silva De Miranda, P. L., Lhoest, S., & Fayolle, A. (2023). Biogeography of central African forests: determinants, ongoing threats and conservation priorities of mammal assemblages. Diversity and Distributions, 29(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13677 Frechkop, S. (1944). Exploration du Parc National de la Kagera, Mission Frechkop (1938). Fascicule 1: Mammiferes (S. Frechkop & R. Verheyen (Eds.)). Institut des Parcs Nationaux du Congo Belge. Gaubert, P., Taylor, P. J., & Veron, G. (2007). Integrative taxonomy and phylogenetic systematics of the genets (Carnivora, Viverridae, Genetta): a new classification of the most speciose carnivoran genus in Africa. Proc. 5th Intern. Symp. Trop. Biol.: African Biodiversity: Molecules, Organisms, Ecosystems, 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24320-8_37 Groves, C. P., & Grubb, P. (1974). A new duiker from Rwanda (Mammalia, Bovidae). Revue de Zoologie Africaine, 88(1), 189–196. Grubb, P., Butynski, T. M., Oates, J. F., Bearder, S. K., Disotell, T. R., Groves, C. P., & Struhsaker, T. T. (2003). Assessment of the diversity of African primates. International Journal of Primatology, 24, 1301–1357. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IJOP.0000005994.86792.b9 Gyldenstolpe, N. (1928). Vertebrata. 5. Mammals from the Birunga Volcanoes, north of Lake Kivu. In Zoological results of the Swedish Expedition to Central Africa 1921 (Vol. 20, Issue 4, pp. 70–75). Arkiv for Zoologi. Hayward, M. W. (2011). Using the IUCN Red List to determine effective conservation strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 2563–2573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0091-3 Hoffmann, M., Belant, J. L., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A., Lamoreux, J., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Schipper, J., & Stuart, S. N. (2011). The changing fates of the world’s mammals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366, 2598–2610. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0116 Hutterer, R., Straeten, E. Van der, & Verheyen, W. N. (1987). A checklist of the shrews of Rwanda and biogeographical considerations on African Soricidae. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge, 38(3), 155–172. Hutterer, R., & Verheyen, W. (1985). A new species of shrew, genus Sylvisorex, from Rwanda and Zaire (Insectivora: Soricidae). Zeitschrift Für Säugetierkunde, 50(5), 266–271. Isaac, N. J. B., Turvey, S. T., Collen, B., Waterman, C., & Baillie, J. E. M. (2007). Mammals on the EDGE: conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLOS ONE, 2(3), e296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000296 IUCN. (2025). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2025-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org Kingdon, J. (1974). East African mammals: an atlas of evolution in Africa. Vol. 1 & 6. Academic Press. Kingdon, J., Happold, D. C. D., Butynski, T., Hoffmann, M., Happold, M., & Kalina, J. (2013). Mammals of Africa (6 vols). Bloomsbury Publishing, London. Lonnberg, E. (1912). Mammals collected by the Swedish Zoological Expeditions to British East Africa 1911. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 48(5), 1–188. Meester, J. A. J., Rautenbach, I. L., Dippenaar, N. J., & Baker, C. M. (1986). Classification of the mammals of Southern Africa. Transvaal Museum Monographs, 5(1), 359. Monfort, A. (1992). Mammals of Rwanda: a provisional annotated checklist. Journal of African Zoology, 106, 141–151. Moore, J. F., & Niyigaba, P. (2018). First records of the Central African oyan (Poiana richardsonii) in Rwanda. African Journal of Ecology, 56, 828–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12576 Moore, J. F., Uzabaho, E., Kayijamahe, C., Nyiratuza, M., Kambogo, I., & Mulindahabi, F. (2019). Photographic evidence of the African golden cat in Rwanda. Cat News-IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group, 70, 1–3. Onditi, K. O., Demos, T. C., Peterhans, J. K., Chen, Z.-Z., Bryja, J., Lavrenchenko, L. A., Musila, S., Verheyen, E., Van de Perre, F., Akaibe, B. D., De la Sancha, N. U., & Jiang, X.-L. (2021). Historical biogeography, systematics, and integrative taxonomy of the non-Ethiopian speckled pelage brush-furred rats (Lophuromys flavopunctatus group). BMC Ecology and Evolution, 21, 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-021-01813-w Osgood, W. H. (1936). New and imperfectly known small mammals from Africa. Zoological Series of Field Museum of Natural History, 20(21), 217–256. Rathbun, G. B. (2009). Why is there discordant diversity in sengi (Mammalia: Afrotheria: Macroscelidea) taxonomy and ecology? African Journal of Ecology, 47, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2009.01102.x Reeder, D. M., Helgen, K. M., & Wilson, D. E. (2007). Global trends and biases in new mammal species discoveries. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers, 269, 1–35. http://hdl.handle.net/2440/116115 Schouteden, H. (1943). Catalogue des mammifères du Congo Belge et du Ruanda-Urundi. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 37(1), 102–125. Schouteden, H. (1948). Faune du Congo Belge et du Ruanda-Urundi I. Mammifères. Annales Du Musée Du Congo Belge, 8(1), 1–331. Temple, H. J., & Terry, A. (2009). European mammals: Red List status, trends, and conservation priorities. Folia Zoologica, 58(3), 248–269. Turikunkiko, E., Mulindahabi, F., Gatorano, G., Muvunyi, R., Ntihemuka, P., Niyigaba, P., Ndikubwimana, I., Karegire, N., & Moore, J. F. (2022). Resighting African wildcats (Felis lybica): camera trap photographs in Nyungwe National Park, Rwanda. African Journal of Ecology, 60(1), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12937 Tuyisingize, D., Peterhans, J. C. K., Bronner, G. N., & Stoinski, T. S. (2013). Small mammal community composition in the Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda. Bonn Zoological Bulletin, 62(2), 177–185. Upham, N., Burgin, C., Widness, J., Liphardt, S., Parker, C., Becker, M., Rochon, I., Huckaby, D., & Zijlstra, J. (2025). Mammal Diversity Database (Version 2.2). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15659662 Van Cakenberghe, V., Gembu Tungaluna, G.-C., Musaba Akawa, P., Seamark, E., & Verheyen, E. (2017). The bats of the Congo and of Rwanda and Burundi revisited (Mammalia: Chiroptera). European Journal of Taxonomy, 382, 1–327. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2017.382 van der Straeten, E., & Kerbis Peterhans, J. C. (1999). Praomys degraaffi, a new species of Muridae (Mammalia) from central Africa. South African Journal of Zoology, 34(2), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/02541858.1999.11448492 Van Huynh, A. (2023). Effect of IUCN Red List category on public attention to mammals. Conservation Biology, 37(3), e14050. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14050 Verschuren, J. (1987). Liste commentée des mammifères des Parcs Nationaux du Zaïre, du Rwanda et du Burundi. Bulletin de l’Institut Royal Des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Biologie, 57, 17–39. Yu, J., & Dobson, F. S. (2018). Seven forms of rarity in mammals. Journal of Biogeography, 27(1), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00366.x Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 29 August 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords country checklist iucn mammals rwanda taxonomy update Authors Affiliations Methode Majyambere 0009-0001-1603-1376 [email protected] University of Rwanda College of Science and Technology View all articles by this author Pacifique Niyodushima University of Rwanda Center of Excellence in Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management View all articles by this author Alexis Nsabimana Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Ellen DeGeneres Campus View all articles by this author Philbert Ndahayo Nyungwe Management Company, African Parks View all articles by this author Simon Muhayimana Akagera Management Company, African Parks View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 573 views 271 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Methode Majyambere, Pacifique Niyodushima, Alexis Nsabimana, et al. State of knowledge and continuous assessment to update the IUCN’s country records: the mammals of Rwanda, a case study. Authorea . 29 August 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175648089.97141674/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.175648089.97141674/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'a006ec560c60df88',t:'MTc3OTU2OTMyNA=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();