A new genomic and morphological study has formally revalidated Manis aurita<\/em>, a pangolin species first described from Nepal in 1836 by British naturalist Brian Houghton Hodgson, and then effectively forgotten for nearly 189 years. The species, given the common name Himalayan pangolin, was long lumped together with the Chinese pangolin (Manis pentadactyla<\/em>), but the new evidence confirms it as a separate, distinct species.<\/p>\n In 1836, Hodgson, a 35-year-old British diplomat and naturalist confined to Nepal\u2019s Kathmandu Valley, noticed that a pangolin specimen had armor-like scales from head to tail, similar to those described by French zoologist Georges Cuvier. However, it also had distinct external ears and far more scales than any recorded species. Hodgson counted 23 scales on the neck and body, plus 10 on the head and 19 on the tail\u2014more than any known pangolin. He gave the animal the name Manis auritus<\/em> (Latin for \u201cwith large ears\u201d) with a backup name Plurisquamis<\/em> (\u201cthe many-scaled\u201d). English zoologist George Robert Waterhouse later revised auritus<\/em> to aurita<\/em> to match the feminine genus Manis<\/em>. In 1918 the name was demoted to a subspecies, and by 1951 it had vanished entirely, absorbed into M. pentadactyla<\/em>.<\/p>\n Beginning in 2016\u20132017, Chinese researchers led by Jiang-Yong Hu analyzed pangolin scales seized at the China-Myanmar border. They expected to confirm Chinese pangolin, but the samples split into two genetic groups: one matched the known Chinese pangolin, the other (labeled MPB) matched no known profile. Meanwhile, in Kathmandu Valley, Nepali researcher Narayan Prasad Koju was collecting DNA from pangolin droppings and setting camera traps from 2018, noting that local pangolin DNA looked meaningfully different from China\u2019s. He reported this in a 2018 report to Nepal\u2019s Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, but lacked sufficient sample size for peer review. The link came through biologist Kai He (now at Guangzhou University), who compared Koju\u2019s sequences from Nepal against the MPB lineage from Myanmar\u2014they were identical. The team contacted museums across the U.S. and Europe for morphological comparisons. An image from a London museum carried an unfamiliar label: Manis aurita<\/em>. Searching the label online led to Hodgson\u2019s original 1836 description in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal<\/em>. The team extracted DNA and measured skulls and skins from museum collections in London, Chicago, and Kunming from 2019 to 2024. They collected full genomes from 55 pangolins and smaller mitogenomes from 70 more; seven of those samples came from the Himalayan pangolin lineage, including DNA extracted from Hodgson\u2019s very specimen shipped to London in the 19th century. They also examined and measured 44 skulls and 26 skins (seven skulls and six skins were Himalayan pangolins). The effort involved 20 researchers from 12 institutions across seven countries. The results were published in Communications Biology<\/em> in 2026.<\/p>\n Confirming the Himalayan pangolin as a distinct species has immediate conservation implications. All eight pangolin species are endangered\u2014heavily targeted for illegal trade as the most smuggled mammals on Earth, killed for meat and scales used in traditional medicine. Kumar Paudel, South Asia co-chair of the IUCN Pangolin Specialist Group (not involved in the study), said recognition allows for more targeted conservation. The Chinese pangolin is already categorized as Critically Endangered; the Himalayan pangolin would most likely fit that same category. The study also revealed unusually high levels of inbreeding in Kathmandu Valley\u2019s Himalayan pangolins\u2014consistent with breeding between close relatives\u2014which decreases genetic diversity and leaves the population less able to withstand disease or climate change. Koju recommends protecting the existing Kathmandu population and, where feasible, introducing individuals from elsewhere in the species\u2019 range. More field surveys are needed to map the Himalayan pangolin\u2019s full range, particularly in western Nepal and along the Myanmar border. The IUCN Pangolin Specialist Group has not yet recognized the Himalayan pangolin as a new species.<\/p>\n Before Koju and He could publish, a rival team led by Lenrik Konchok Wangmo described what they called a brand-new species, Manis indoburmanica<\/em>, in early 2025 based on mitochondrial DNA from confiscated scales. They published in Mammalian Biology<\/em>. Co-author Mukesh Thakur defended the name, arguing that since no public DNA sequence existed under the name aurita<\/em>, they could not know it was the same. Mammalogist Jan Decher argued in the same journal for priority of the older name. The proof that resolved the dispute came from Hodgson\u2019s own specimen: its DNA matched the MPB samples, confirming they belong to the same species. The 2026 study proposes that Manis indoburmanica<\/em> be relegated to a junior synonym. The common name \u201cHimalayan pangolin\u201d was favored by Koju because the range likely extends across the broader Himalayan foothills, not just Nepal. He noted that French zoologist Cuvier had been wrong about pangolins\u2019 ears\u2014every Asian species carries some form of external ear. Hodgson\u2019s backup name Plurisquamis<\/em> remains his private hedge, but it was the more honest description of what made the Himalayan pangolin truly unique: its many scales.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, teams of researchers are working on documenting at least two other potential new pangolin species in Southeast Asia. The story highlights the importance of museum specimens and historical records in modern taxonomy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" After 189 years, genomic and morphological evidence confirms the Himalayan pangolin as a distinct species from the Chinese pangolin, with immediate conservation implications.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":475,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/test2.cryptofinancewire.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/476","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/test2.cryptofinancewire.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/test2.cryptofinancewire.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test2.cryptofinancewire.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test2.cryptofinancewire.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=476"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/test2.cryptofinancewire.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/476\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":477,"href":"https:\/\/test2.cryptofinancewire.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/476\/revisions\/477"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test2.cryptofinancewire.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/475"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/test2.cryptofinancewire.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test2.cryptofinancewire.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test2.cryptofinancewire.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The 1836 Observation by Hodgson<\/h3>\n
The Genetic and Morphological Evidence<\/h3>\n
Implications for Conservation and Taxonomy<\/h2>\n
The Naming Dispute and Resolution<\/h3>\n