||Heinrich's Nightjar, Satanic Eared-Nightjar, Satanic Nightjar
||del Hoyo, J., Collar, N.J., Christie, D.A., Elliott, A. and Fishpool, L.D.C. 2014. HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World. Lynx Edicions BirdLife International, Barcelona, Spain and Cambridge, UK.
||26-27 cm. Medium-sized, dark nightjar. Greyish-brown upperparts, spotted and speckled brown, buff and tawny. Blackish streaks on crown, continuous with mantle. Brown underparts, barred and spotted cinnamon and pale buff. White band on throat but no white visible in wings or tail. Female has buff band on throat. Similar spp. Great-eared Nightjar E. macrotis is much larger and paler, with longer ear-tufts and pale nuchal collar. Female Grey Nightjar Caprimulgus indicus, female Savanna Nightjar C. affinis and juvenile Sulawesi Nightjar C. celebensis are similar, but smaller and paler. Voice Little known, but flight calls may include weak screams, loud whirrip notes and soft churrs.
|Red List Category & Criteria:
||Butchart, S. & Symes, A.
||Bishop, K., Collar, N. & Hogberg, S.
||Benstead, P., Bird, J., Davidson, P., Mahood, S., Taylor, J., Tobias, J.
Although recent records suggest that this species may be widespread and overlooked rather than rare, and that it tolerates habitat disturbance, it is precautionarily treated as Vulnerable because it is thought to have a small population, which is in decline owing to forest loss and degradation. Fieldwork is required to clarify its status, and this may lead to its downlisting.
|Previously published Red List assessments:|
- 2012 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 2008 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 2004 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 2000 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 1996 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 1994 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 1988 – Threatened (T)
|Population:||The population is estimated to number 2,500-9,999 mature individuals based on an assessment of known records, descriptions of abundance and range size. This is consistent with recorded population density estimates for congeners or close relatives with a similar body size, and the fact that only a proportion of the estimated Extent of Occurrence is likely to be occupied. This estimate is equivalent to 3,750-14,999 individuals, rounded here to 3,500-15,000 individuals.|
Trend Justification: Logging and rattan collection at the most well known site are degrading habitat. This practice is likely to be prevalent throughout its range and as a result the species is suspected to be declining at a moderate rate.
|Current Population Trend:||Decreasing|
|♦ Number of mature individuals:||2500-9999||♦ Continuing decline of mature individuals:||Yes|
|♦ Extreme fluctuations:||No||♦ Population severely fragmented:||No|
|♦ No. of subpopulations:||2-100||♦ Continuing decline in subpopulations:||Unknown|
|♦ Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations:||No||♦ All individuals in one subpopulation:||No|
|♦ No. of individuals in largest subpopulation:||1-89|