Folia Zool. – 58(3): 248–269 (2009)
European mammals: Red List status, trends, and conservation
priorities
Helen J. TEMPLE1 and Andrew TERRY2,3
1
IUCN Species Programme, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, U.K.;
email: helen.temple@iucn.org
2
IUCN Regional Office for Europe, Boulevard Louis Schmidt 64, Brussels 1040, Belgium
3
Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Les Augrès Manor, La Profonde Rue, Trinity, Jersey JE3 5BP,
Channel Islands
Received 31 March 2008; Accepted 15 June 2009
A b s t r a c t . The status of mammals in Europe was assessed according to IUCN Red List
Criteria and regional Red Listing guidelines. We found that nearly one in six (15%) of Europe’s
231 mammal species were threatened (IUCN categories CR, EN, VU), with a further 9%
considered Near Threatened. Marine mammals faced particularly high levels of threat, with
22% of marine species (n=27) versus 14% of terrestrial species (n=204) assessed as threatened.
More than a quarter (27%) of mammals had declining populations. A further 32% were stable
and 8% increasing; 33% were of unknown population trend. Terrestrial mammal biodiversity
was greatest in south-eastern Europe (the Balkan Peninsula, Hungary, and Romania) and in the
mountainous regions of Mediterranean and temperate Europe. Habitat loss and degradation was
the greatest threat to terrestrial mammals in Europe, although human disturbance, pollution,
accidental mortality (e.g., secondary poisoning, vehicle collisions), overexploitation and invasive
species were also important. The main threats to marine mammals were accidental mortality
(e.g., fisheries bycatch), pollution and overexploitation. EU Member States have committed
to halt biodiversity loss by 2010, but the evidence from this study suggests that this target
is unlikely to be met and significant actions must take place to halt the decline of mammal
biodiversity in Europe. The results presented here provide a baseline against which future
progress can be measured.
Key words: IUCN Red List, threatened species, biodiversity, threats
Introduction
The threatened status of plants and animals is one of the most widely used indicators for
assessing the condition of ecosystems and their biodiversity. It also provides an important
tool in conservation planning and priority setting at multiple spatial scales, from local to
global (C o l l a r 1996, R o d r i g u e s et al. 2004, B i r d L i f e I n t e r n a t i o n a l &
C o n s e r v a t i o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l 2005). At the global scale the most comprehensive
source of information on the conservation status of plants and animals is the IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species (R o d r i g u e s et al. 2006). The Red List provides taxonomic,
conservation status, and distribution information on taxa that have been evaluated using
the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1 (I U C N 2001). This system is
designed to determine the relative risk of extinction, with the main purpose of cataloguing and
highlighting those taxa that are facing a higher risk of extinction (i.e. those listed as Critically
Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable).
The European Mammal Assessment (EMA), the results of which are presented here,
is a comprehensive status assessment of Europe’s mammal species against the IUCN Red
248
List Categories and Criteria. It is the first time that European mammals have been evaluated
according to the Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels
(I U C N 2003) and as such is an important contribution to our understanding of the threats
facing Europe’s mammals, and the action required to improve their status.
Materials and Methods
We assessed the status of all terrestrial and marine European mammals according to the
2001 IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (I U C N 2001) and the IUCN Guidelines for
the Application of Red List Criteria at Regional levels (I U C N 2003). The IUCN Red List
Categories provide an explicit framework for determining a species’ conservation status,
with an emphasis on identifying those at highest risk of extinction. In this context, the term
“threatened” refers to those species classified under the Red List Categories Vulnerable,
Endangered or Critically Endangered. Species are assigned to Red List Categories based
on whether or not they meet quantitative criteria. The five Red List Criteria (A-E) were
developed following a wide review aimed at detecting risk factors across the broad range of
organisms and the diverse life histories they exhibit (M a c e & L a n d e 1991, M a c e et
al. 1992, M a c e & S t u a r t 1994). They measure multiple factors related to the likelihood
of extinction, such as population size, rate of population reduction, range size, area of habitat
occupied, subpopulation structure and fragmentation, and so on. For a species to be listed as
Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable, it must meet at least one of the five Criteria
at the appropriate level (the quantitative thresholds for listing as Critically Endangered are
higher than for Endangered or in turn Vulnerable).
Information on each species was compiled by a small team, in collaboration with IUCN
Specialist Groups and other experts. For each species there following data were collected:
• Species classification
• Geographic range (including a distribution map)
• Red List Category and Criteria
• Population information (size, trend, fluctuations)
• Habitat preferences
• Major threats
• Conservation measures
• Species utilization
• Other general information
• Key literature references
Habitat preferences, major threats and conservation measures were coded according to
IUCN’s standardized Classification Schemes (see http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/authority_
files for more information). Regional assessments were carried out at an assessment
workshop held from 18-22 May 2006 in Illmitz, Austria, and through correspondence with
relevant experts. More than 150 mammal experts from over 40 countries in Europe and
adjacent regions actively participated in the assessment and review process.
The geographical scope of the European Mammal Assessment is shown in Fig. 1. For
terrestrial species, Red List assessments were made at two regional levels: geographical
Europe, and the EU 25 (the Member States of the European Union when the assessment was
initiated in 2005). For marine species, a single assessment was made, which applies to both
geographical Europe and the EU. All terrestrial and marine mammal species native to Europe
249
Fig. 1. Regional assessments of terrestrial species were made for two areas – continental Europe and the EU 25.
For marine species a single regional assessment was made.
or naturalized in Europe before 1500 A.D. were included (see T e m p l e & T e r r y 2007
for a comprehensive list). We used Mammal Species of the World (W i l s o n & R e e d e r
2005) as the default taxonomy for most taxonomic groups, although we departed from this in
a few justified cases.
Results
Detailed assessment data for each mammal species covered can be found online (see: http://
ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/ema/index.htm). Here, we present a
summary of our key findings (for details see Appendix).
Threatened status and demographic trends
At the European regional level, 14.2% of terrestrial mammals were assessed as threatened, with
1.5% Critically Endangered, 3.4% Endangered, and 9.3% Vulnerable. A further 3.4% were
classed as Data Deficient. Within the EU 25, the pattern is similar, with 14.4% of terrestrial
mammals threatened, although a higher proportion of species was Critically Endangered
(2.4%) (Table 1). A higher proportion of marine species was assessed as threatened: 22.2% in
total, evenly split between the threatened categories with 7.4% Critically Endangered, 7.4%
Endangered and 7.4% Vulnerable. The true proportion of threatened species may be even
higher, as a large proportion of marine mammals (44.4%) was assessed as Data Deficient.
250
Table 1. Summary of numbers of species within each category of threat.
IUCN Red List categories
Threatened
categories
No. species
(Europe
terrestrial)
No. species
(EU 25
terrestrial)
No. species
(marine)
No. species
(Europe
terrestrial
and marine)
2
0
0
3
7
19
20
146
7
204
202
2
0
0
4
5
15
19
113
9
167
165
0
0
1
2
2
2
1
7
12
27
26
2
0
1
5
9
21
21
153
19
231
228
Extinct (EX)
Extinct in the Wild (EW)
Regionally Extinct (RE)
Critically Endangered (CR)
Endangered (EN)
Vulnerable (VU)
Near Threatened (NT)
Least Concern (LC)
Data Deficient (DD)
Total number of species assessed*
Total number of extant species*
*Excluding species that are considered Not Applicable.
Overall, considering both terrestrial and marine species at the European regional level,
15.2% of species were threatened. A further 9.1% were considered Near Threatened, and
1.3% were already regionally or globally Extinct. A further 51 species were classed as
Not Applicable: 22 were introduced after 1500 A.D., 27 are of marginal occurrence in the
European region, and two are feral descendants of ancient domesticated animals.
More than a quarter (27%) of European mammals were declining in population. A
further 32% were stable, and only 8% were increasing. Population trend information was not
available for the remaining 33% of species.
Status by taxonomic group
Terrestrial mammals native to Europe belong to eight major groups, or taxonomic orders:
Lagomorpha (rabbits, hares and pikas) and Rodentia (rodents), Erinaceomorpha (hedgehogs
and their relatives), Soricomorpha (shrews and moles), Chiroptera (bats), Artiodactyla
Table 2. Red List Status (European Regional level) by taxonomic order.
Order
Lagomorpha
Rodentia
Erinaceomorpha
Soricomorpha
Chiroptera
Artiodactyla
Cetacea
Carnivora
Total
Total* EX
8
85
4
30
40
14
23
27
231
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
EW
RE
CR
EN
VU
NT
LC
DD
% Threatened
or Extinct
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
5
0
2
0
1
3
0
2
1
9
2
4
0
2
7
1
2
3
21
1
8
0
2
8
0
1
1
21
4
69
4
21
20
11
4
20
153
0
1
0
4
2
0
12
0
19
37.5%
8.2%
0%
10%
25.0%
21.4%
21.7%
22.2%
16.5%
*Does not include species classed as Not Applicable (NA).
251
(even-toed ungulates), Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises), Carnivora (carnivores).
Considerable differences were seen among these groups in both species numbers as well as
threatened status (Table 2). Rodents, bats, and soricomorphs (shrews and moles) constituted
the majority of European mammals. Carnivores, ungulates, bats and lagomorphs (rabbits and
hares) were particularly threatened.
Spatial distribution of species
The geographic distribution of mammal species richness in Europe is presented in Fig. 2.
The mountainous regions of temperate and Mediterranean Europe (including the Cantabrian
mountains, Pyrenees, Massif Central, Alps, Apennines, Carpathians, and the mountains of
the Balkan peninsula) clearly stand out as areas of high species richness. The whole Balkan
peninsula emerges as a hotspot of mammalian diversity. There is a marked latitudinal
gradient in species richness, with southern Europe (especially southeastern Europe)
containing a greater diversity of mammal species than the north. In the marine realm, species
richness is higher in the open Atlantic ocean than it is in the enclosed Baltic, Mediterranean
and Black Seas.
A map showing the distribution of threatened mammals in Europe (Fig. 3) reveals
somewhat different patterns from depictions of overall species diversity. The greatest
concentration of threatened species is found in the Balkan Peninsula, especially Bulgaria.
The Mediterranean islands of Corsica and Sardinia are also highlighted as having a high
number of threatened mammal species, as well as parts of Iberia, the Pyrenees, and the
Fig. 2. Species richness of European mammals.
252
Fig. 3. Distribution of threatened mammals in Europe.
Apennines. The distribution of threatened marine mammals correlates with overall marine
mammal species richness – there is a higher number of threatened species in the Atlantic
than in the Mediterranean, Black and Baltic Seas.
Major threats
Habitat loss and degradation have by far the largest impact on both threatened and
nonthreatened species, affecting 27 of the 29 threatened species, and 94 species in total
(Fig. 4). The number of species impacted by habitat loss and degradation was nearly three
times greater than the next most common threat, pollution (including global climate change).
Human disturbance, accidental mortality (e.g. bycatch or vehicle collisions), invasive alien
species and overharvesting were also identified as significant threats.
The two most frequently recorded major threats to marine species were accidental
mortality (e.g., entanglement in fishing gear and ship strikes) and pollution (see Fig. 5).
These threats are particularly severe in the enclosed seas of the continent such as the
Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the Baltic. Although harvesting (e.g., overexploitation
through unregulated commercial whaling) only ranked third overall when looking at both
threatened and non-threatened species, this study showed it was a highly significant threat
to threatened species. All Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, and Regionally
Extinct species had harvesting listed as a major threat. For a number of these species, historic
overexploitation is the main reason why they are currently listed as threatened; some species
have failed to recover even though their harvest has now ceased.
253
Fig. 4. Major threats to terrestrial mammals in Europe.
Fig. 5. Major threats to marine mammals in Europe.
254
Discussion
Status and population trends of European mammals
Patterns of terrestrial species status were similar at the European and EU 25 level, although
there were some notable differences. The proportion of threatened terrestrial mammals was
nearly identical for Europe and the EU 25 (14.2% and 14.4% respectively), although in the
EU 25 a larger percentage of species were placed in the highest category of threat, Critically
Endangered (2.4% in the EU versus 1.5% in Europe as a whole). Two terrestrial mammal
species qualified as Critically Endangered at the EU 25 level, although they were considered
less threatened at the European regional level. These were the European mink Mustela
lutreola (considered CR in the EU 25 but EN in Europe) and the Arctic fox Alopex lagopus
(considered CR in the EU 25 but LC in Europe). The European mink qualified as threatened at
both levels because of very rapid population declines throughout its range; better information
from the eastern part of its range might result in a future uplisting to Critically Endangered at
the European regional level too. By contrast, the Arctic fox has a tiny and severely threatened
population in the European Union (Sweden and Finland), but is not considered threatened at the
European regional level because of the presence of large populations in the Russian Federation
that are not believed to be declining at a rate approaching the IUCN Red List thresholds.
Birds are the only other taxonomic group that has been subject to a status assessment
at both the European and the EU 25 level. A higher proportion of bird species have
Unfavourable conservation status at the EU 25 level than at the pan-European level
(B i r d L i f e I n t e r n a t i o n a l 2 004b, see T e m p l e & T e r r y 2007 for a discussion
of the important differences between Unfavourable conservation status sensu the EU Habitats
Directive and threatened status sensu IUCN Red List Criteria). Almost half (48%) of the
EU 25’s 448 species were assessed as having Unfavourable conservation status, whereas
only 43% of 524 European species had Unfavourable conservation status (B i r d L i f e
I n t e r n a t i o n a l 2004b).
Marine mammals showed a notably high proportion of Data Deficient species. This
was driven in part by the inclusion in the assessment of six species of the family Ziphiidae
(beaked whales). These rarely-recorded and inconspicuous deepwater species are the most
poorly known of cetaceans; they tend to remain well out to sea, avoid ships, and dive to great
depths and are consequently often missed in surveys (B a r l o w 1999, N o w a k 1999). All
six of these species were classed as Data Deficient.
Data collected on population trends showed that just over a quarter of European mammals
are experiencing population decline whereas only one in 12 are increasing. Our findings are
approximately comparable with population trends recorded for birds in Europe: from 1990 to
2000, 23% of European bird species showed population declines, 51% were stable, 9% were
increasing and 17% were of unknown population trend (B i r d L i f e I n t e r n a t i o n a l
2004a). The status assessment of European bird species benefited from quantitative
population trend data from a well established monitoring network covering the majority of
species and countries in Europe. By contrast, comprehensive and reliable population trend
data are available for very few mammal species. The population trend analysis in this report
is based in many cases on survey data from a small and potentially non-representative part of
the species’ range, or on a subjective assessment of population trend based on known threats.
A task for the future is to strengthen capacity for monitoring mammal populations in Europe,
especially those of threatened, Near Threatened and Data Deficient species.
255
The enlarged EU 27
Our research highlights the importance of the new Member States Romania and Bulgaria
for species conservation in Europe – both of these countries have notably high mammalian
biodiversity, as well as important concentrations of threatened species. The addition of Romania
and Bulgaria to the EU in 2007 has brought three new mammal species that did not previously
occur in the EU. These three species are the Romanian hamster Mesocricetus newtoni and
the Balkan mole-rat Spalax graecus (both Near Threatened at the European regional level),
as well as the Levant mole Talpa levantis (Least Concern). The Romanian hamster and the
Balkan mole-rat are both of conservation concern as they have very restricted ranges and are
believed to be negatively affected by agricultural intensification. The Balkan mole-rat is not
currently listed on Annexes II or IV of the Habitats Directive. One of the main habitats for the
Balkan mole-rat is agricultural land, so it is important that changes to agricultural policies and
practices implemented as a result of EU accession take into account the needs of this species.
Romania and Bulgaria also hold important populations of two species that were previously
only of marginal occurrence in the EU. These are the marbled polecat Vormela peregusna
(Vulnerable at the European regional level), the grey hamster Cricetulus migratorius (Least
Concern at the European regional level). Additionally, Bulgaria holds a significant part of
the global distribution of Roach’s mouse-tailed dormouse Myomimus roachi, a species that is
considered Endangered at the European level. V. peregusna and M. roachi have been added
to Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive. The new Member States significantly enrich
the European Union’s biodiversity, but ensuring that these wildlife riches are conserved and
sustainably managed will be a major challenge for policymakers in the years ahead.
Conservation priorities
Species frequently require a combination of conservation responses to ensure their
continued survival. These responses include legislation, monitoring, research, management of
populations, land acquisition and management, and even captive breeding and translocations
for some of Europe’s most threatened mammal species (e.g., Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus
and European mink). For species threatened across their range, limited or local actions are
unlikely to be sufficiently strong or coherent to prevent extinction, and coordinated action is
required at the regional level. Under the Bern Convention Action Plans have been developed
for certain priority species (all large carnivores, European bison, a number of bats), outlining
specific conservation measures that are urgently needed (B o i t a n i 2000, L a n d a et
al. 2000, L i m p e n s et al. 2000, S w e n s o n et al. 2000, P u c e k et al. 2004). The
implementation of Action Plans is an effective means of improving the status of some of
Europe’s most threatened species (N a g y & C r o c k f o r d 2004), and measures (including
financial incentives) to promote the development and implementation of more Action Plans
should be taken.
The protection of sites plays a key role in any effective conservation strategy. Several
international treaties call for the selection and protection of sites on the basis of their
importance for biodiversity. In Europe, the primary mechanism for site protection is the
Natura 2000 network of protected areas. This paper identifies a number of areas within
Europe that are regionally important for mammalian biodiversity and threatened species
richness. The spatial distribution data gathered for individual species as part of the IUCN
European Mammal Assessment can be used to inform site selection at a finer scale. In
256
particular, it is very important that Natura 2000 sites are rapidly proposed and adopted in the
new Member States of Bulgaria and Romania, to protect the unusually high concentrations
of threatened mammals that are found in these countries.
Europe is the most urbanized and, together with Asia, the most densely populated
continent in the world. Human pressure on the landscape over millennia has produced a
mosaic of semi-natural habitats, and today only about 1% of the surface area of Europe
can be considered as wilderness, with the old growth forests of Poland, Scandinavia, the
Balkans and Russia representing the last pristine areas. As a response to this extensive
habitat modification and fragmentation, conservation planners have developed a number
of tools to increase connectivity between core areas of habitat for the movement of
species. These methods include planning tools such as ecological networks, which aim
to identify core areas, species corridors and mixed land use zones (e.g., buffer zones),
integration of ecological concerns into spatial land use planning and broader approaches
to increase landscape permeability (J o n g m a n & P u n g e t t i 2004, C r o o k s &
S a n j a y a n 2006). Providing increased connectivity is a vitally important aspect of
mammal conservation in Europe and will provide a key tool to allow species to adapt to
current habitat fragmentation and future climate change.
Monitoring of endangered wild mammal populations is now a statutory responsibility
under EU legislation. However, many European countries have no formal schemes for
monitoring even common and widespread species, let alone those that are under threat.
National mammal population monitoring schemes have been initiated in some EU Member
States, for example in the United Kingdom the Tracking Mammals Partnership www.
trackingmammals.org has set up a surveillance and monitoring network that aims to deliver
distribution and population trend information on all UK mammals. At the regional level,
the European Union must report its progress towards the stated aim of halting biodiversity
loss by 2010. If the Red List assessments described in this paper are periodically updated,
it will enable the changing status of European mammals to be tracked through time and will
provide an indicator of the changing fate of biodiversity to 2010 and beyond (B r o o k s &
K e n n e d y 2004, B u t c h a r t et al. 2004, 2005, 2006).
Conclusions
Our research indicates that many mammals are declining in Europe and 15% are threatened
with extinction at the regional level. There is a rich diversity of mammals in Europe, ranging
from highly secretive and rarely seen species to the charismatic large carnivores that have
become flagship species for conservation (L e a d e r - W i l l i a m s & D u b l i n 2000).
Although Europe is associated with lower species richness than other regions of the world, it
is home to the world’s most threatened cat species and species continue to be newly identified
or re-discovered (M u c e d d a et al. 2002, B o n h o m m e et al. 2004, C u c c h i et al.
2006). Conservation of this diversity requires the full implementation of the Natura 2000
network and the development and implementation of Species Action Plans. Essential for many
of these species will be the implementation of landscape management approaches integrated
with other sectoral policies that allow species to disperse and adapt to habitat fragmentation
and climate change. Additional research and monitoring of mammals is required and should
be developed as part of coordinated programmes across Europe. The dynamic nature of
mammal populations means their numbers can change rapidly over relatively short periods
257
of time. Therefore regular updates on the status of Europe’s mammals are essential – both to
assess the effectiveness of conservation efforts and to ensure that the species in most need of
attention receive it promptly.
Acknowledgements
This research was carried out as part of a service contract with the European Commission (Service Contract No.
070502/2005/414893/MAR/B2). The Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry Environment and Water
and Vilda Nature Photography provided additional support. We received extensive expert advice and assistance
from many IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Specialist Groups and Working Groups, and more than
150 mammal experts from more than 40 countries in Europe and adjacent regions contributed to the species
assessments. For a full list of people and organizations that contributed to the European Mammal Assessment,
please see T e m p l e & T e r r y (2007). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed
in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission, the
Austrian Ministry of the Environment or the World Conservation Union (IUCN).
L I T E R AT U R E
Barlow J. 1999: Trackline detection probability for long diving whales. In: Garner G.W. et al. (eds.), Marine
mammal survey and assessment methods. Balkema Press, Netherlands: 209–221.
Birdlife International 2004a: Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends, and conservation status. BirdLife
International, Cambridge, UK.
Birdlife International 2004b: Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. BirdLife International, Wageningen,
The Netherlands.
Birdlife International and Conservation International 2005: Areas Importantes para la Conservacion de las Aves en
los Andes Tropicales: Sitios Prioritarios para la Conservacion de la Biodiversidad. BirdLife International.
Boitani L. 2000: Action plan for the conservation of the wolves (Canis lupus) in Europe. Nature and Environment,
Council of Europe Publishing 113: 1–86.
Bonhomme F., Orth A., Cucchi T., Hadjisterkotis E., Vigne J.-D. & Auffray J.-C. 2004: Découverte d’une nouvelle
espèce de souris sur l’île de Chypre. Comptes Rendus Biologies 327: 501–507.
Brooks T. & Kennedy E. 2004: Biodiversity barometers. Nature 431: 1046–1049.
Butchart S.H.M., Stattersfield A.J., Bennun L.A., Shutes S.M., Akcakaya H.R. et al. 2004: Measuring global trends
in the status of biodiversity: Red List Indices for birds. PLoS Biology 2: e383.
Butchart S.H.M., Stattersfield A.J., Baillie J.E.M., Bennun L.A., Stuart S.N. et al. 2005: Using Red List Indices to
measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B 360: 255–268.
Butchart S.H.M., Akcakaya H.R., Kennedy E. & Hilton-Taylor C. 2006: Biodiversity indicators based on trends in
conservation status: strengths of the IUCN Red List Index. Conserv. Biol. 20: 579–581.
Collar N.J. 1996: The reasons for Red Data Books. Oryx 30: 121–130.
Crooks K.C. & Sanjayan M.A. 2006: Conectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Cucchi T., Orth A., Auffray J.-C, Renaud S., Fabre L., Catalan J., Hadjisterkotis E., Bonhomme F. & Vigne J.-D.
2006: A new endemic species of the subgenus Mus (Rodentia, Mammalia) on the Island of Cyprus. Zootaxa
1241: 1–36.
IUCN 2001: IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN 2003: Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species
Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Jongman R.H.G. & Punghetti G. 2004: Ecological networks and greenways: Concept, design, implementation.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Landa A., Linden M. & Kojola I. 2000: Action plan for the conservation of wolverines in Europe (Gulo gulo).
Council of Europe Nature and Environment 115: 1–45.
Leader-Williams N. & Dublin H.T. 2000: Charismatic megafauna as ‘flagship species’. In: Entwistle A. &
Dunstone N. (eds.), Priorities for the conservation of mammalian diversity: Has the panda had its day?
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 53–84.
258
Limpens H., Lina P.H.C. & Hutson A.M. 2000: Action plan for the conservation of the pond bat in Europe (Myotis
dasycneme). Council of Europe, Nature and Environment Series No. 108.
Mace G.M., Collar N., Cooke J., Gaston K.J., Ginsberg J.R., Leader-Williams N., Maunder M. & Milner-Gulland
E.J. 1992: The development of new criteria for listing species on the IUCN Red List. Species 19: 16–22.
Mace G.M. & Lande R. 1991: Assessing extinction threats: toward a re-evaluation of IUCN threatened species
categories. Conserv. Biol. 5: 148–157.
Mace G.M. & Stuart S.N. 1994: Draft IUCN Red List Categories, Version 2.2. Species 21–22: 13–24.
Muccedda M., Kieffer A., Pidinchedda E. & Veith M. 2002: A new species of long-eared bat (Chiroptera,
Vespertilionidae) from Sardinia (Italy). Acta Chiropterol. 4: 121–135.
Nagy S. & Crockford N. 2004: Implementation in the European Union of species action plans for 23 of Europe’s
most threatened birds. BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Nowak R.M. 1999: Walker’s mammals of the world. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.
Pucek Z. (ed.) 2004: European bison. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Bison Specialist
Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Rodrigues A.S.L., Akcakaya H.R., Andelman S.J., Bakarr M.I., Boitani L., Brookes T.M., Chanson J.S., Fishpool
L.D.C., Da Fonseca G.A.B., Gaston K.J., Hoffmann M., Marquet P.A., Pilgrim J.D., Pressey R.L., Schipper
J., Sechrest W., Stuart S.N., Underhill L.G., Waller R.W., Watts M.E.J. & Yan X. 2004: Global gap analysis:
priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. Bioscience 54: 1092–1100.
Rodrigues A.S.L., Pilgrim J.D., Lamoreaux J.F., Hoffmann M. & Brooks T.M. 2006: The value of the IUCN Red
List for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 71–76.
Swenson J.E., Gerstl N., Dahle B. & Zedrosser A. 2000: Action plan for the conservation of the brown bear (Ursus
arctos) in Europe. Report to the Council of Europe Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and
Natural Habitats T-PVS (2000) 24: 1–68.
Temple H.J. & Terry A. 2007: The status and distribution of European mammals. Office for Official Publications
of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Wilson D.E. & Reeder D.M. (eds.) 2005: Mammal species of the world. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore. Available online at http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/msw/.
259
260
Family
LEPORIDAE
LEPORIDAE
LEPORIDAE
LEPORIDAE
LEPORIDAE
LEPORIDAE
LEPORIDAE
PROLAGIDAE
CASTORIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
Order
LAGOMORPHA
LAGOMORPHA
LAGOMORPHA
LAGOMORPHA
LAGOMORPHA
LAGOMORPHA
LAGOMORPHA
LAGOMORPHA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
Appendix. Red List status of European mammals.
Castor fiber
Allocricetulus eversmanni
Arvicola amphibius
Arvicola sapidus
Chionomys nivalis
Cricetulus migratorius
Cricetus cricetus
Dicrostonyx torquatus
Dinaromys bogdanovi
Ellobius talpinus
Lagurus lagurus
Lemmus lemmus
Lemmus sibiricus
Meriones tamariscinus
Meriones meridianus
Mesocricetus newtoni
Microtus duodecimcostatus
Lepus corsicanus
Lepus granatensis
Lepus europaeus
Lepus capensis
Lepus castroviejoi
Lepus timidus
Oryctolagus cuniculus
Prolagus sardus
Species
LC
LC
LC
NT(VU)*
LC
LC
LC
LC
NT(VU)*
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
NT
LC
VU
LC
LC
LC
VU
LC
NT
EX
IUCN
Red List
Category
(Europe)
B1ab(iii,v)
A2bcde+3bcde
IUCN Red List
Criteria
(Europe)
LC
NE
LC
NT(VU)*
LC
NA
LC
NE
DD
NE
NE
LC
NE
NE
NE
NE
LC
VU
LC
LC
LC
VU
LC
NT
EX
IUCN
Red List
Category
(EU 25)
B1ab(iii,v)
A2bcde+3bcde
IUCN
Red List Criteria
(EU 25)
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Endemic
to
Europe?
(Y/N)
261
Family
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
CRICETIDAE
DIPODIDAE
DIPODIDAE
DIPODIDAE
DIPODIDAE
Order
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
Microtus tatricus
Microtus lusitanicus
Microtus multiplex
Microtus arvalis
Microtus thomasi
Microtus guentheri
Microtus felteni
Microtus bavaricus
Microtus oeconomus
Microtus cabrerae
Microtus savii
Microtus levis
Microtus agrestis
Microtus gregalis
Microtus liechtensteini
Microtus gerbei
Microtus subterraneus
Microtus socialis
Microtus brachycercus
Microtus middendorffii
Myodes rutilus
Myodes rufocanus
Myodes glareolus
Myopus schisticolor
Allactaga major
Allactaga elater
Dipus sagitta
Pygeretmus pumilio
Species
IUCN
Red List
Category
(Europe)
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
CR
LC
VU
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
NA
LC
LC
LC
LC
NT
LC
NA
LC
B2ab(ii,iii)c(iv)
B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii)
IUCN Red List
Criteria
(Europe)
IUCN
Red List
Category
(EU 25)
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
CR
LC
VU
LC
LC
LC
NE
LC
LC
LC
NE
LC
NE
LC
LC
LC
LC
NE
NE
NE
NE
B2ab(ii,iii)c(iv)
B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii)
IUCN
Red List Criteria
(EU 25)
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Endemic
to
Europe?
(Y/N)
262
Family
DIPODIDAE
DIPODIDAE
DIPODIDAE
DIPODIDAE
DIPODIDAE
GLIRIDAE
GLIRIDAE
GLIRIDAE
GLIRIDAE
GLIRIDAE
HYSTRICIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
MURIDAE
SCIURIDAE
SCIURIDAE
Order
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
Sicista severtzovi
Sicista subtilis
Sicista betulina
Sicista strandi
Stylodipus telum
Dryomys nitedula
Eliomys quercinus
Glis glis
Muscardinus avellanarius
Myomimus roachi
Hystrix cristata
Acomys minous
Apodemus alpicola
Apodemus mystacinus
Apodemus uralensis
Apodemus epimelas
Apodemus agrarius
Apodemus sylvaticus
Apodemus flavicollis
Micromys minutus
Mus macedonicus
Mus cypriacus
Mus musculus
Mus spretus
Mus spicilegus
Rattus rattus
Marmota marmota
Marmota bobak
Species
IUCN
Red List
Category
(Europe)
LC
NT
LC
LC
LC
LC
NT
LC
LC
EN
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
B1ab(ii,iii)
IUCN Red List
Criteria
(Europe)
NE
VU
LC
NE
NE
LC
NT
LC
LC
DD
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
NE
IUCN
Red List
Category
(EU 25)
B1ab(iii)
IUCN
Red List Criteria
(EU 25)
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Endemic
to
Europe?
(Y/N)
263
Family
SCIURIDAE
SCIURIDAE
SCIURIDAE
SCIURIDAE
SCIURIDAE
SCIURIDAE
SCIURIDAE
SCIURIDAE
SPALACIDAE
SPALACIDAE
SPALACIDAE
SPALACIDAE
SPALACIDAE
SPALACIDAE
CERCOPITHECIDAE
ERINACEIDAE
ERINACEIDAE
ERINACEIDAE
ERINACEIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
Order
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
RODENTIA
PRIMATES
ERINACEOMORPHA
ERINACEOMORPHA
ERINACEOMORPHA
ERINACEOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
Crocidura canariensis
Crocidura russula
Crocidura ichnusae
Atelerix algirus
Erinaceus europaeus
Erinaceus roumanicus
Hemiechinus auritus
Macaca sylvanus
Spalax arenarius
Pteromys volans
Sciurus vulgaris
Spermophilus citellus
Spermophilus suslicus
Spermophilus pygmaeus
Spermophilus major
Spermophilus fulvus
Tamias sibiricus
Spalax giganteus
Spalax leucodon
Spalax zemni
Spalax microphthalmus
Spalax graecus
Species
EN
LC
DD
LC
LC
LC
LC
NA
EN
IUCN
Red List
Category
(Europe)
DD
LC
VU
NT
LC
LC
LC
LC
VU
LC
VU
LC
NT
B1ab(ii,iii)
B1ab(ii,iii)+
2ab(ii,iii)
D2
B2ab(ii,iii)
B2ab(iii)
A2bc
IUCN Red List
Criteria
(Europe)
EN
LC
DD
LC
LC
LC
NE
NA
NE
IUCN
Red List
Category
(EU 25)
NT
LC
VU
NA
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
LC
NE
NE
NE
B1ab
(ii,iii)
A2bc
IUCN
Red List Criteria
(EU 25)
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Endemic
to
Europe?
(Y/N)
264
Family
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
SORICIDAE
TALPIDAE
TALPIDAE
TALPIDAE
TALPIDAE
TALPIDAE
TALPIDAE
TALPIDAE
Order
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
SORICOMORPHA
Crocidura leucodon
Crocidura sicula
Crocidura suaveolens
Diplomesodon pulchellum
Neomys anomalus
Neomys fodiens
Sorex caecutiens
Sorex coronatus
Sorex tundrensis
Sorex alpinus
Sorex samniticus
Sorex isodon
Sorex minutissimus
Sorex minutus
Sorex araneus
Sorex granarius
Sorex antinorii
Sorex arunchi
Suncus etruscus
Desmana moschata
Galemys pyrenaicus
Talpa romana
Talpa stankovici
Talpa occidentalis
Talpa caeca
Talpa europaea
Crocidura zimmermanni
Species
LC
LC
LC
NA
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
NT
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
DD
DD
DD
LC
VU
NT(VU)*
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
VU
IUCN
Red List
Category
(Europe)
A2bc+4bc
B1ab(i,ii,v)+
2ab(i,ii,v)
IUCN Red List
Criteria
(Europe)
LC
LC
LC
NE
LC
LC
LC
LC
NE
NT
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
DD
DD
DD
LC
NE
NT(VU)*
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
VU
IUCN
Red List
Category
(EU 25)
B1ab(i,ii,v)+
2ab(i,ii,v)
IUCN
Red List Criteria
(EU 25)
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Endemic
to
Europe?
(Y/N)
265
Family
TALPIDAE
MOLOSSIDAE
RHINOLOPHIDAE
RHINOLOPHIDAE
RHINOLOPHIDAE
RHINOLOPHIDAE
RHINOLOPHIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
Order
SORICOMORPHA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
Tadarida teniotis
Rhinolophus ferrumequinum
Rhinolophus hipposideros
Rhinolophus mehelyi
Rhinolophus euryale
Rhinolophus blasii
Barbastella barbastellus
Eptesicus nilssonii
Eptesicus serotinus
Hypsugo savii
Miniopterus schreibersii
Myotis nattereri
Myotis blythii
Myotis myotis
Myotis brandtii
Myotis capaccinii
Myotis dasycneme
Myotis daubentonii
Myotis emarginatus
Myotis punicus
Myotis mystacinus
Myotis bechsteinii
Myotis alcathoe
Myotis aurascens
Nyctalus lasiopterus
Nyctalus azoreum
Talpa levantis
Species
LC
NT
NT
VU
VU
VU
VU
LC
LC
LC
NT
LC
NT
LC
LC
VU
NT
LC
LC
NT
LC
VU
DD
LC
DD
EN
IUCN
Red List
Category
(Europe)
LC
B1ab(iii)
A4c
A4bce
A4c
A2c
A4c
A3c+4c
IUCN Red List
Criteria
(Europe)
LC
NT
NT
VU
VU
DD
VU
LC
LC
LC
NT
LC
NT
LC
LC
VU
NT
LC
LC
NT
LC
VU
DD
LC
DD
EN
IUCN
Red List
Category
(EU 25)
NE
B1ab(iii)
A4c
A4bce
A3c+4c
A4c
A2c
IUCN
Red List Criteria
(EU 25)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Endemic
to
Europe?
(Y/N)
266
Family
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
VESPERTILIONIDAE
BOVIDAE
BOVIDAE
BOVIDAE
BOVIDAE
BOVIDAE
BOVIDAE
BOVIDAE
BOVIDAE
BOVIDAE
CERVIDAE
CERVIDAE
CERVIDAE
CERVIDAE
Order
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
CHIROPTERA
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
Bison bonasus
Bos primigenius
Capra ibex
Capra pyrenaica
Capra hircus
Ovis aries
Rupicapra pyrenaica
Rupicapra rupicapra
Saiga tatarica
Alces alces
Capreolus pygargus
Capreolus capreolus
Cervus elaphus
Nyctalus noctula
Nyctalus leisleri
Pipistrellus pipistrellus
Pipistrellus nathusii
Pipistrellus maderensis
Pipistrellus kuhlii
Pipistrellus pygmaeus
Plecotus kolombatovici
Plecotus auritus
Plecotus austriacus
Plecotus macrobullaris
Plecotus sardus
Plecotus teneriffae
Vespertilio murinus
Species
VU
EX
LC
LC
NA
NA
LC
LC
CR
LC
LC
LC
LC
IUCN
Red List
Category
(Europe)
LC
LC
LC
LC
EN
LC
LC
NT
LC
LC
NT
VU
EN
LC
A2a
D1
B2ab(iii)
B1ab(iii,v)
B1ab(iii,v)
IUCN Red List
Criteria
(Europe)
VU
EX
LC
LC
NA
NA
LC
LC
NE
LC
NE
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
EN
LC
LC
NT
LC
LC
VU
VU
EN
LC
IUCN
Red List
Category
(EU 25)
D1
B2ab(iii)
B2ab(iii)
B1ab(iii,v)
B1ab(iii,v)
IUCN
Red List Criteria
(EU 25)
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Endemic
to
Europe?
(Y/N)
267
Family
CERVIDAE
CERVIDAE
SUIDAE
BALAENIDAE
BALAENIDAE
BALAENOPTERIDAE
BALAENOPTERIDAE
BALAENOPTERIDAE
BALAENOPTERIDAE
BALAENOPTERIDAE
DELPHINIDAE
DELPHINIDAE
DELPHINIDAE
DELPHINIDAE
DELPHINIDAE
DELPHINIDAE
DELPHINIDAE
DELPHINIDAE
DELPHINIDAE
DELPHINIDAE
DELPHINIDAE
DELPHINIDAE
DELPHINIDAE
ESCHRICHTIIDAE
MONODONTIDAE
MONODONTIDAE
PHOCOENIDAE
Order
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
ARTIODACTYLA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
Balaena mysticetus
Eubalaena glacialis
Balaenoptera borealis
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Balaenoptera physalus
Balaenoptera musculus
Megaptera novaeangliae
Delphinus delphis
Globicephala melas
Grampus griseus
Lagenodelphis hosei
Lagenorhynchus acutus
Lagenorhynchus albirostris
Orcinus orca
Peponocephala electra
Pseudorca crassidens
Sousa chinensis
Stenella coeruleoalba
Steno bredanensis
Tursiops truncatus
Eschrichtius robustus
Delphinapterus leucas
Monodon monoceros
Phocoena phocoena
Dama dama
Rangifer tarandus
Sus scrofa
Species
NA
CR
EN
LC
NT
EN
LC
DD
DD
DD
NA
LC
LC
DD
NA
NA
NA
DD
NA
DD
RE
NA
NA
VU
IUCN
Red List
Category
(Europe)
LC
LC
LC
A2cde
D
D
D
IUCN Red List
Criteria
(Europe)
NA
CR
EN
LC
NT
EN
LC
DD
DD
DD
NA
LC
LC
DD
NA
NA
NA
DD
NA
DD
RE
NA
NA
VU
IUCN
Red List
Category
(EU 25)
LC
LC
LC
A2cde
D
D
D
IUCN
Red List Criteria
(EU 25)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Endemic
to
Europe?
(Y/N)
268
Family
PHYSETERIDAE
PHYSETERIDAE
PHYSETERIDAE
ZIPHIIDAE
ZIPHIIDAE
ZIPHIIDAE
ZIPHIIDAE
ZIPHIIDAE
ZIPHIIDAE
CANIDAE
CANIDAE
CANIDAE
CANIDAE
CANIDAE
FELIDAE
FELIDAE
FELIDAE
FELIDAE
HERPESTIDAE
MUSTELIDAE
MUSTELIDAE
MUSTELIDAE
MUSTELIDAE
MUSTELIDAE
MUSTELIDAE
MUSTELIDAE
MUSTELIDAE
Order
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CETACEA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
Alopex lagopus
Canis aureus
Canis lupus
Vulpes vulpes
Vulpes corsac
Felis chaus
Felis silvestris
Lynx lynx
Lynx pardinus
Herpestes ichneumon
Gulo gulo
Lutra lutra
Martes foina
Martes martes
Martes zibellina
Meles meles
Mustela putorius
Mustela sibirica
Kogia breviceps
Kogia sima
Physeter catodon
Hyperoodon ampullatus
Mesoplodon europaeus
Mesoplodon densirostris
Mesoplodon bidens
Mesoplodon mirus
Ziphius cavirostris
Species
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
NA
LC
LC
CR
LC
VU
NT
LC
LC
NA
LC
LC
NA
IUCN
Red List
Category
(Europe)
NA
NA
VU
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
A2cd; C1
C2a(i)
A1d
IUCN Red List
Criteria
(Europe)
CR
NT
LC
LC
NE
NE
NT
NT
CR
LC
VU
NT
LC
LC
NE
LC
NT
NE
NA
NA
VU
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
IUCN
Red List
Category
(EU 25)
D1
C2a(i)
D1, C2a(i)
A1d
IUCN
Red List Criteria
(EU 25)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Endemic
to
Europe?
(Y/N)
269
MUSTELIDAE
MUSTELIDAE
MUSTELIDAE
MUSTELIDAE
MUSTELIDAE
ODOBENIDAE
PHOCIDAE
PHOCIDAE
PHOCIDAE
PHOCIDAE
PHOCIDAE
PHOCIDAE
PHOCIDAE
URSIDAE
URSIDAE
VIVERRIDAE
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
CARNIVORA
Mustela nivalis
Mustela lutreola
Mustela erminea
Mustela eversmanii
Vormela peregusna
Odobenus rosmarus
Cystophora cristata
Erignathus barbatus
Halichoerus grypus
Monachus monachus
Pagophilus groenlandicus
Phoca vitulina
Pusa hispida
Ursus arctos
Ursus maritimus
Genetta genetta
Species
IUCN
Red List
Category
(Europe)
LC
EN
LC
LC
VU
NA
NA
NA
LC
CR
NA
LC
LC
LC
VU
LC
A3c
C2a(ii)
A2c
A2ce
IUCN Red List
Criteria
(Europe)
IUCN
Red List
Category
(EU 25)
LC
CR
LC
EN
NA
NE
NA
NA
LC
CR
NA
LC
LC
NT
NE
LC
C2a(ii)
C2a(i)
A2ce
IUCN
Red List Criteria
(EU 25)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Endemic
to
Europe?
(Y/N)
*Since the European Mammal Assessment was published in May 2007, new information has become available for Galemys pyrenaicus, Arvicola sapidus, and Dinaromys
bogdanovi. All three of these species have been uplisted from Near Threatened to Vulnerable. The analysis presented here uses the original (NT) assessments. See www.redlist.
org for the most up-to-date accounts.
Family
Order