Article

Zoology

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Zoology

Zoology

Zoological research in the Malay Peninsula and Borneo, as documented in the Society’s journals, spans from early-twentieth-century faunal surveys of small islands to mid-century conservation advocacy for large mammals in the interior. The body of work reflects a discipline shaped by colonial administrative structures, museum-based collecting, and the practical pressures of habitat loss. Early contributions were characterised by taxonomic description and species checklists compiled from short expeditions, while later writings shifted toward ecological observation and legislative intervention. Together, these records illustrate how zoological inquiry in the region moved from the cataloguing of insular subspecies to the urgent defence of salt licks and the large fauna that depended upon them.

Taxonomic Description and Insular Fauna

The earliest of the three records exemplifies the taxonomic tradition that dominated Malayan zoology in the 1920s. F. N. Chasen, a naturalist attached to the Raffles Museum in Singapore, published a brief faunal account of Pulau Bulan in the Rhio Archipelago following a ten-day collecting expedition in early April 1924 [1, pp. 58–59]. The paper, issued as Record No. 2 of the Raffles Museum, describes three new subspecies of the striped squirrel (Sciurus vittatus) from the island and its neighbours: S. v. lighti from Penang Island, S. v. stellaris from Bintang Island, and S. v. lunaris from Pulau Bulan itself [1, pp. 58–59]. Chasen noted that the degradation of the black lateral stripe by the colour of the underparts represented “the first step towards their disappearance,” drawing a parallel between the insular populations of the Rhio Archipelago and those of Redang and Perhentian Islands on the east coast of the Peninsula [1, p. 59].

The mammal checklist compiled by Chasen included the pig-tailed macaque (Macaca irus), the dark langur (Presbytes cristata), the banded linsang (Arctogalidia trivirgata fusca), the mouse-deer (Tragulus javanicus stanleyanus), the warty pig (Sus cristatus andersoni), the giant squirrel (Ratufa affinis bulana), the striped squirrel, two species of rat (Rattus concolor and Rattus rattus diardi), the Rhio rat (Rattus rattus rhionis), and several bats, including Scotophilus castaneus, which was recorded for the first time from the Rhio Archipelago [1, pp. 59–61]. The warty pig was described as “very plentiful” on the island, while the large Sus barbatus was confirmed absent [1, p. 60]. Chasen also noted that the tiger, although recorded from neighbouring Bintang Island, had never been known to visit Bulan despite the abundance of pigs—a fact he found somewhat surprising [1, p. 60].

The bird list, by contrast, was described as “of no particular interest being mostly representative of the common lowland fauna of the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra” [1, p. 60]. Pigeons and sunbirds were particularly plentiful, and the Java sparrow (Munia oryzivora) had established itself on the island, though the single specimen shot showed “unmistakable signs of having been kept in captivity” [1, p. 60]. Chasen’s account also recorded the island’s colonial context: the whole island was leased by the Netherlands India Government to a rubber company, and the landscape had been transformed into plantations or impenetrable secondary growth, leaving only a small remnant of timber on the northern slopes of Bulan Peak [1, p. 59].

Conservation and the Large Fauna

By the 1940s, the focus of Malayan zoological writing had shifted decisively from taxonomic description to conservation. Theodore Hubback’s 1941 article on the salt licks of Ulu Pahang, reprinted as a facsimile in the Society’s journal in 2022, represents this transition in its most explicit form [2]. Writing from direct field observation and administrative responsibility as a senior colonial official in Pahang, Hubback argued that salt licks—sulphur springs, saline mud deposits, and related soil exudations—were not incidental features of the Malayan jungle but essential components of the habitat required for the normal life cycle of large mammals including elephant, seladang, rhinoceros, tapir, sambhur, and barking deer [2].

Hubback documented a dozen or more specific licks across the Telom, Serau, Jelai Kechil, and Telang valleys, drawing on personal observation of animal behaviour, trail wear, wallow patterns, and the physical evidence of past use to reconstruct the former abundance of species now in steep decline [2]. At Jenut Lanau, the most important lick in the Telom Valley, he identified eight individual tusker elephants and observed up to five sambhur deer feeding simultaneously [2, p. 134]. At Jenut Briang in the Serau Valley, he counted eighteen old rhinoceros pits, and at Jenut Batu Papan he found fourteen, both testifying to former rhino populations now reduced to a handful of survivors [2, pp. 135–136]. In the Serambun Valley, covering approximately 30,000 acres, Hubback identified only five rhinoceros, including one calf, and applied to have the area designated a rhino reserve—a request he stated was overruled due to gold speculation [2, p. 136].

The article identified two converging threats to the large fauna: the cumulative depletion of breeding populations through poaching, particularly the “infernal pits” set for rhinoceros, and the disruption of normal breeding cycles caused by the presence of gold stealers and jelutong tappers in river valleys [2]. Hubback provided a striking case study at Jenut Stein, where the temporary occupation of a hut by two Chinese tappers caused both seladang and elephants to abandon the lick for over two years, demonstrating how sensitive these sites were to even minor human disturbance [2, p. 135].

The article culminated in a specific legislative proposal: that land within a two-mile radius of all active salt licks be reserved from alienation under the Wild Animals and Birds Protection Enactment (Cap. 193), with a scheduled list of protected licks appended to the law [2, p. 138]. Hubback proposed scheduling nine specific licks for legislative protection: Jenut Lanau, Jenut Misong, Jenut Bliong, Jenut Batu Dada, Jenut Batu Papan, Jenut Briang, Jenut Stein, Jenut Gatak, and Jenut Blimbing [2, p. 138]. He documented several instances where an existing inter-Resident ruling—prohibiting the alienation of land within two miles of a recognised salt lick without Game Warden consultation—had been ignored, including a buffalo farm established directly on Jenut Tersang and prospecting licences granted over areas containing Jenut Misong and Jenut Lanau without such consultation [2, p. 137].

Typographic Conventions in Zoological Writing

A third dimension of zoological practice in the region concerned the conventions of nomenclature itself. J. C. Moulton’s short note, published in 1922, addressed the typographic treatment of trinomial (subspecies) names in zoological literature [3]. Moulton argued that small capitals (or Clarendon) for the genus and species combined, with italics for the subspecies, was preferable to capitals and small capitals because capitals were frequently needed for subfamily names in systematic lists [3, p. 209]. He further advised that authors’ names should be omitted in general writing and reserved for systematic lists or detailed monographs, and that for general purposes it often sufficed to give only the specific name without the subspecific name [3, p. 209]. The note extended the conventional abbreviation system to the subspecific level, yielding forms such as E. m. sumatranus for general use, while the full systematic form ELEPHAS MAXIMUS Linn. sumatranus Temm. was reserved for lists approved by the British Association Committee on Zoological Bibliography and Publication [3, p. 209].

Research and Documentation

The three records collectively trace a discernible arc in the Society’s zoological literature. The 1922 note by Moulton and the 1924 paper by Chasen belong to a period when the dominant mode of zoological writing was taxonomic: the description of new subspecies, the compilation of species checklists, and the establishment of typographic conventions for their presentation. Chasen’s work, conducted on behalf of the Raffles Museum and published as a museum record, was embedded in the infrastructure of colonial natural history, with the island under Dutch colonial administration and the collecting expedition serving the interests of a Singapore-based institution [1, p. 59]. The ecological context was already one of transformation: the island’s primary forest had been replaced by rubber and coconut plantations, and the fauna recorded was that of a degraded landscape [1, p. 59].

By 1941, the tone and purpose of zoological writing had changed markedly. Hubback’s article was as much a conservation brief as a natural history survey, written by an official with direct administrative responsibility for wildlife enforcement and directed at his colonial superiors [2]. The shift from describing what was present to arguing for the legal protection of what remained reflected the accelerating loss of the large fauna. Where Chasen could still record a “very plentiful” warty pig on a small island, Hubback was counting the last five rhinoceros in a 30,000-acre valley and documenting the physical scars of animals that had once been common [2, pp. 134–136]. The legislative proposals that closed his article marked a departure from the purely descriptive tradition and positioned zoological knowledge as a basis for policy intervention.

The records also reveal the institutional frameworks within which this work was produced. Chasen’s paper was a museum record, Hubback’s was originally published in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society before being reprinted in the Society’s journal, and Moulton’s note appeared in the Straits Branch’s own proceedings [1], [2], [3]. The diversity of publication venues reflects the transnational character of colonial-era zoological practice, in which Malayan naturalists contributed to journals across the British Empire and beyond. The facsimile reprint of Hubback’s article in 2022, without editorial commentary beyond a brief note identifying the source publication, preserves the original text as a historical document of conservation advocacy [2].

MBRAS Sources

References

  1. F.N. Chasen (1924). Notes on the fauna of Pulau Bulan, Rhio Archipelago. Records of the Raffles Museum, No. 2 JMBRAS 2(1): 58–62.
  2. T. Hubback (2022). Salt Licks: Their Vital Importance to the Conservation of Wildlife in Malaya. Facsimile reprint JMBRAS 95(2): 133–140.
  3. J.C. Moulton (1922). A new method of writing trinomials JSBRAS 85: 208–209.