|Scientific Name:||Bos sauveli|
|Species Authority:||Urbain, 1937|
|Taxonomic Notes:||Some new genetic evidence suggests that Kouprey might have existed under domestication in Cambodia, potentially as hybrid forms with other domestic oxen (Hassanin et al. 2006). However, domestic oxen with Kouprey-like features, if they exist today, must be localized in occurrence, as 'Zebu' types predominate in most areas (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). Partial analysis of mitochondrial DNA has been used to suggest Kouprey could have arisen relatively recently as a result of hybridisation (Galbreath et al. 2006), however, there are many reasons to consider such a scenario the least likely of several more plausible alternatives for the origin of Kouprey (Hedges et al. 2007), and there is little doubt that Kouprey is a valid species (Vidthayanon and Bhumpakphan 2004, Galbreath et al. 2007, Grigson 2007, Hassanin and Ropiquet 2007, Hedges et al. 2007).|
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct) A2d; C1+2a(i); D ver 3.1|
|Assessor(s):||Timmins, R.J., Burton, J. & Hedges, S.|
This species is listed as Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct). The last published records of Kouprey were from: Pfeffer (1974 in litt. to IUCN/CMC); 1964-1970 period by Pfeffer, when photos were taken, (Pfeffer and Ou Kim-San 1967, Pfeffer 1969); 1969 by J. Mellon who saw two female Koupreys in the Chhep/Melouprey area of Cambodia (J. Mellon in litt to D. Ashwell 1993); and 1963/64 by C. Wharton (Wharton 1966). More recent reports have not been confirmed. An assessment of 90% of camera trap photos from the region including the potential range of the Kouprey was made in 2011; this showed no camera trap images of Kouprey. This shows a period of more than 40 years without confirmed recordings. Extensive survey work has now documented where significant wild cattle populations remain within the historical range of Kouprey, and in no area other than eastern Cambodia are wild cattle numbers high. In most areas wild cattle numbers are so low that it is no longer conceivable that Kouprey could survive. This is compounded by the observation that Kouprey naturally occurred at lower densities compared with Banteng, and the habitat specificity of Kouprey and its exceptional value in trade. If a case were to be made for the continued existence of Kouprey it would focus on the fact that none of the landscapes assessed were sufficiently surveyed to rule out the presence of Kouprey because of the scale of effort required, which will be the case for the foreseeable future. Specifically, two sets of camera-trap photos from potentially important areas of eastern Cambodia were not examined.
However, the species is most likely to be extinct. At most, there could only be a few individuals remaining, certainly many fewer than 250 mature individuals, and almost certainly fewer than 50 mature individuals. The high level of hunting in the region has led to a significant decline, suspected at over 80% in the last 30 years (generation length estimated at 8-10 years), with a continued decline in any remaining subpopulations, if in fact it is not already extinct.
|Date last seen:||last absolute confirmed date is 1969/70|
|Previously published Red List assessments:|
|Range Description:||The historical distribution of this species was Cambodia, southern Lao PDR, southeast Thailand, and western Viet Nam (Grubb 2005). However, there is no recent (post-1970) confirmation in any of these countries and because of the obvious major declines in all congeners in this region in this period, this species is now thought to be possibly extinct.|
Possibly extinct:Cambodia; Lao People's Democratic Republic
Regionally extinct:Thailand; Viet Nam
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||At an international workshop, held in Viet Nam in January 1988, reports were presented which suggested that there were about 27 Koupreys in Viet Nam, possibly 40-100 in the Lao PDR, and up to 200 in Cambodia, with perhaps a seasonal presence of a few animals in Thailand. These figures, which were little more than guesses, suggested that a total of about 100-300 Koupreys still existed in the late1980s. Unfortunately, it now seems that these figures were too optimistic, especially for Lao and Viet Nam where surveys in the 1990s were unable to document even large significant populations of other species of wild oxen (Cox et al. 1991, 1992; Duckworth et al. 1994, 1999; Le Xuan Canh et al. 1997; Duckworth and Hedges 1998; Evans et al. 2000; Cox et al. 1991, 1992; Le Xuan Canh et al. 1997). Numbers of wild oxen were, however, much higher in Cambodia, even though, within the vast extents of habitat, their densities were already low as documented during an aerial survey of a large part of eastern Cambodia in 1994 (Olivier and Woodford 1994).|
The last published records of Koupreys are those of C. Wharton, who lead an expedition to capture Koupreys in 1963/64 (Wharton 1966). In 1969, J. Mellon saw two female Koupreys in the Chhep/Melouprey area of Cambodia, and in 1993 he was of the opinion that there might still be Koupreys in the area (J. Mellon in litt to D. Ashwell 1993). Later reports were also received by Pfeffer (1974 in litt. to IUCN/CMC). In the 1964-1970 period, Pfeffer undertook five expeditions to Indochina (each three months long) during which he collected information about kouprey and "took the only reasonable photograph of a wild kouprey" (Kemf 1988, Pfeffer and Ou Kim-San 1967, Pfeffer 1969). None of the evidence for Koupreys since Mellon's time, based on second-hand reports, hearsay, equivocal track identification or trophy horns (found in villages or wildlife markets and which could plausibly date back to Wharton's era) (e.g. MacKinnon and Stuart 1989, Duckworth and Hedges 1998, Duckworth et al. 1999, Timmins and Ou 2001, Timmins et al. 2003), has been particularly convincing in suggesting that viable populations of Koupreys remain; rather it suggests that a very rapid demise occurred. Wharton (1957) observed Koupreys to occur, even in what was considered optimal habitat, in lower numbers than Banteng Bos javanicus (his figures and other observations suggest a ratio of somewhere between 1:2 and 1:10), and suggested that, because of their restricted range and habitat specificity, Kouprey was at elevated risk of extinction compared with the other wild cattle.
Extensive survey work has now documented where significant wild cattle populations remain within the historical range of Kouprey, and in no area other than eastern Cambodia are wild cattle numbers high (Timmins and Ou 2001, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008, AWCSG 2011). In most areas wild cattle numbers are so low (low dozens of individuals scattered through hundreds of square kilometres of habitat) that it is no longer conceivable that Kouprey could survive (Le Xuan Canh et al. 1997, Duckworth and Hedges 1998, Timmins and Ou 2001, Timmins et al. 2003, RJ. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). An assessment of 90% of camera trap photos from the region including the potential range of the Kouprey was made in 2011 (AWCSG 2011). Although Banteng, Wild Water Buffalo Bubalus arnee, and Gaur Bos gaurus were all recorded from the region, there were no camera trap images of Kouprey. A careful gap analysis of potential Kouprey sites was part of the first step of the study, but not all the relevant data could be examined. The majority of images from at least seven projects known to have captured wild cattle were not reviewed. This included two sets of photos from potentially important areas of eastern Cambodia. None of the landscapes assessed were sufficiently surveyed to rule out the presence of Kouprey, and for the foreseeable future, it will be impossible to identify every remaining individual wild ox to species in such areas. But there are no defensible grounds for considering the population of Kouprey to be anything other than negligible in such areas (single individuals or 2-3 animals), primarily because of the naturally lower densities of Kouprey compared with Banteng, the habitat specificity of Kouprey and its exceptional value in trade (Wharton 1957, Timmins and Ou 2001, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008, AWCSG 2011).
In eastern Cambodia there has now been substantial survey work (including observation-based field surveys and camera-trapping) which has documented hundreds of both Banteng and Gaur and even small numbers of Wild Water Buffalo (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. based on WCS and WWF unpublished data; T. D. Evans and T. Clements pers. comm. 2008, Gray and Phan 2011, AWCSG 2011). This, in addition to suggesting Kouprey really has been hunted out, gives good numerical grounds to be confident that kouprey (historically the rarer species) no longer occurs in the ratio found by Wharton and that Kouprey declined significantly faster and was almost certainly less resilient to hunting than are the other species (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). Certainly fewer than 5,000 wild cattle now survive within the historical range of Kouprey, 90% or more of those within Cambodia and the majority of those within the eastern provinces (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). If Kouprey still survives, it is certainly only as individuals (not functional groups) in very low numbers; its extinction, if not yet upon us, is almost certainly sealed. Therefore future recommendations focus on protection of areas with the highest probability of harbouring Kouprey that are also high priority sites for other wildlife species, and further review of camera trap photos; rather than further survey efforts (AWCSG 2011).
|Current Population Trend:||Decreasing|
|Habitat and Ecology:||Little is known of its biology and ecology, the only significant work being that of Wharton (1957). The species travels in small herds, primarily of females and calves, of up to 20 animals, which commonly associate with Banteng. Mature males form bachelor herds. The Kouprey is reported to have a diet of grasses, sedges, and some browse (Wharton 1957).|
The Kouprey was primarily an animal of open deciduous dipterocarp forests, especially those areas with extensive grasslands. Although deciduous dipterocarp forests are extensive in Cambodia, and also in parts of adjoining countries (especially Lao PDR and Viet Nam), the preferred sites of Kouprey are much more localised, and perhaps account for less than 30% of the total area of the lowland mosaic forests dominated by deciduous dipterocarp forest (Timmins and Ou 2001, Tordoff et al. 2005, AWCSG 2011). The species appeared to use patches of mixed deciduous and semi-evergreen forest which also occur in such landscapes. Most of the Kouprey's range lies in a highly seasonal area receiving less than 2,000 mm of precipitation per annum. The terrain in this area is generally flat or undulating lowlands. The presence of pools and mineral licks was certainly important.
|Generation Length (years):||8-10|
|Use and Trade:||Kouprey is probably extinct, but if it persists it faces opportunistic hunting whenever encountered.|
Hunting, both for local consumption and for trade (meat and body parts, especially horns and skulls), is (or, if the species is extinct, was) the major threat throughout the Kouprey's range (Duckworth and Hedges 1998, Timmins and Ou 2001, Tordoff et al. 2005). This trade value pre-dates the meteoric rise in volume and financial value of wildlife trade out of Lao PDR, Viet Nam and Cambodia during the 1990s and 2000s. Salter et al. (1990) found three sets of male and two sets of female Kouprey horns (all reportedly from Cambodia) in a village in southern Champasak Province (southern Lao PDR). The male horns were valued by the owner at USD 4,000 and the female horns at USD 1,600 per set. During a trip to Amphoe Muang (Mukdahan Province, Thailand, on the border with Lao) on 29 March 1991, Kouprey parts were found to be available at one vendor. Horns were not on display but customers could examine photographs in an album: female Kouprey horns were offered at USD 6,000-8,000 per pair and male horns at USD 2,000 per pair. The male horns were polished so that the shredded ends could not be seen. During a second visit (in July 1991) the same vendor's stall was less active and no Kouprey trophies were on offer (although Gaur and Banteng could still be ordered). Wild cattle trophies were on offer at other vendors but no Kouprey horns or skulls were for sale at these stalls (Srikosamatara et al. 1992). During a visit to Ban Mai (Thai/Lao border) by Srikosamatara and his colleagues in April 1993 a vendor of wildlife products claimed to have sold a pair of Kouprey horns to a Thai buyer for USD 800 two years before. He also claimed to have two more sets of Kouprey horns (both old males) for sale at USD 2,800 and USD 12,000 respectively. Three months later (July 1993) another survey (by I. Baird) found no Kouprey trophies for sale at the same vendors (Srikosamatara and Suteethorn 1994). Bounties for Kouprey trophy horns were still believed to circulate in SE Asia as of 2010 (AWCSG 2011).
Diseases from domestic and/or free-ranging livestock could have disastrous consequences given the already severely reduced Kouprey population. Habitat loss as a result of the rapidly increasing land clearance for cultivation (local and commercial), mining and logging, as well as increasing levels of other human disturbances, are also threats, but are insignificant compared with hunting (Tordoff et al. 2005, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008, see also 2008 account for Banteng). Many wildlife species of high monetary value still remain widespread and, relative to neighbouring countries, abundant in the extensive lowland forests of Cambodia, and with the fall of the Khmer Rouge and a rapidly growing free market economy there has been a surge of hunting to supply bushmeat, trophy antler/horn and medicinal markets, which is leading in many cases to very rapid declines in large quarry species (e.g. macaques have declined in some areas by over 90% in as little as five years; Timmins 2006, Bezuijen et al. 2008, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008), thus, however, rare Kouprey becomes it will continually be at risk because, unlike in a single-quarry species system where at certain levels it becomes uneconomic to seek out the last few individuals, hunting levels will remain high, fuelled by returns from the more common species (Duckworth and Hedges 1998, Timmins and Ou 2001, Tordoff et al. 2005, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). Wild Oxen in Cambodia are now low in number and in most areas now rare or already hunted out (see IUCN Red List accounts for Banteng, Gaur and Wild Water Buffalo). Knowledge of the Kouprey is widespread among rural people in Cambodia, concerning its rarity and the value of trophies and perhaps other body parts; as such it is a more desirable target than most in Cambodia.
This species is listed in CITES Appendix I, and is legally protected in all range states. If the species is still extant it is most likely to be in eastern Cambodia in one of four protected areas (Lomphat Wildlife Sanctuary, Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary, Mondulkiri Protection Forest and or Siema Biodiversity Conservation Area) (Timmins and Ou 2001, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008, AWCSG 2011). There are no Kouprey in captivity, one existed in Vincennes Zoo, Paris, in 1937 and survived for about five years. There have been suggestions that domesticated Kouprey may survive in Cambodia (Hassanin et al. 2006). However this seems unlikely (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008) and recent analysis of several nuclear genes revealed that a domesticated specimen was a hybrid between female Kouprey and male Bos taurus (Handschuh and Hassanin 2013).
It is unlikely that specific survey work for Kouprey would produce any better evidence than has already been documented, and the best conservation measures for the species now would be to concentrate on in situ protection activities for large mammal communities in eastern Cambodia, especially building upon and strengthening the existing projects within the Srepok Wilderness Area of the Mondulkiri Protection Forest and the Siema Biodiversity Conservation Area (AWCSG 2011).
AWCSG. 2011. Searching for the last kouprey: Final report to Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. IUCN SSC AWCSG.
Bezuijen, M. R. 1994 (unpublished). Surveys of the Wildlife Trade at Cau Mong Animal Market. Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam.
Bezuijen, M. R., Timmins, R. & Seng Teak (editors). 2008. Biological surveys of the Mekong River between Kratie and Stung Treng Towns, northeast Cambodia, 2006-2007. WWF Greater Mekong – Cambodia Country Programme, Cambodia Fisheries Administration and Cambodia Forestry Administration, Phnom Penh.
Cox, R., Laurie, A. and Woodford, M. 1992. Report of the results of four field surveys for kouprey (Bos sauveli) in Viet Nam and Lao. P.D.R. Unpublished report, Kouprey Conservation Trust.
Cox, R., Sivannavong Sawathvong and Khampaey Louanglath. 1991. Report of a Survey for Kouprey and other wild cattle in the Southern Lao P.D.R. Provinces of Champassak and Attapeu. report to the Kouprey Conservation Trust.
Desai, A.A. and Vuthy, l. 1996. Status and Distribution of Large Mammals in Eastern Cambodia: Results of the First Foot Surveys in Mondulkiri and Rattanakiri Provinces. IUCN/FFI/WWF Large Mammal Conservation Project, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Duckworth, J.W. and Hedges, S. 1998. A Review of the Status of Tiger, Asian Elephant, Gaur, and Banteng in Viet Nam, Lao, Cambodia, and Yunnan (China), with Recommendations for Future Conservation Action. WWF Indochina Programme, Hanoi, Viet Nam.
Duckworth, J.W., Salter, R.E. and Khounboline, K. 1999. Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 Status Report. IUCN, Vientiane, Laos.
Duckworth, J.W., Timmins, R.J., Thewlis, R.C.M., Evans, T.D. and Anderson, G.Q.A. 1994. Field observations of mammals in Laos, 1992-1993. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 42: 177-205.
Evans, T. D., Duckworth, J. W. and Timmins, R. J. 2000. Field observations of larger mammals in Laos, 1994-1995. Mammalia 64: 55-100.
Galbreath, G. J., Mordacq, J. C. and Weiler, F. H. 2006. Genetically solving a zoological mystery: was the kouprey (Bos sauveli) a feral hybrid? Journal of Zoology (London) 270: 561-564.
Galbreath, G.J., Mordacq, J.C. and Weiler, F.H. 2007. An evolutionary conundrum involving kouprey and banteng: A response from Galbreath, Mordacq and Weiler. Journal of Zoology (London) 271: 253-254.
Gray, T. N. E. Phan, C. 2011. Habitat preferences and activity patterns of the larger mammal community in Phnom Prich Wildlife sanctuary, Cambodia. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 59(2): 311-318.
Grigson, C. 2007. Complex cattle: some anatomical observations on the possible affinities of the kouprey: A response to Galbreath et al. (2006). Journal of Zoology (London) 271: 239-241.
Grubb, P. 2005. Order Artiodactyla. In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Handschuh, M. and Hassanin A. 2013. Pure Banteng Bos javanicus Persist in Southern Preah Vihear Province, Central Cambodia, Despite Apparent Hybridisation with Domestic Cattle. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 59(1): 57–60.
Hassanin, A. and Ropiquet, A. 2004. Molecular phylogeny of the tribe Bovini (Bovidae, Bovinae) and the taxonomic status of the kouprey, Bos sauveli Urbain 1937. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33: 896-907.
Hassanin, A. and Ropiquet, A. 2007. Resolving a zoological mystery: the kouprey is a real species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 274: 2849–2855.
Hassanin, A. and Ropiquet, A. 2007. What is the taxonomic status of the Cambodian banteng (Bos javanicus) and does it have genetic links with the kouprey (Bos sauveli)? Journal of Zoology (London) 271: 246–252.
Hassanin, A., Ropiquet, A., Cornette, R., Tranier, M., Pfeffer, P., Candegabe, P. and Lemaire, M. 2006. Has the kouprey (Bos sauveli Urbain, 1937) been domesticated in Cambodia? Comptes Rendus Biologies 329: 124-135.
Hedges, S., Groves, C. P., Duckworth, J. W., Meijaard, E., Timmins, R. J. and Burton, J. A. 2007. Was the Kouprey a feral hybrid? A response to Galbreath et al. (2006). Journal of Zoology (London) 271: 242-245.
Hedges, S. In press. Asian Wild Cattle and Buffaloes: Status Report and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Asian Wild Cattle Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland.
Heng Kimchhay, Ouk Kimsan, Kry Masphal, Sin Polin, Uch Seiha and Weiler, H. 1998. The distribution of tiger, leopard, elephant and wild cattle (gaur, banteng, buffalo, Khting Vor and kouprey) in Cambodia. In: Interm Report: July 1998 (ed.), Wildlife Protection Office. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 04 September 2016).
Kemf, E. 1988. Fighting for the forest ox. New Scientist 118(1619): 51-53.
Laurie, A., Ha Dinh Duc and Pham Trung Anh. 1989. Survey for kouprey (Bos sauveli) in Western Daklak Province, Vietnam. Unpublished report IUCN and The Kouprey Conservation Trust.
Le Xuan Canh, Pham Trong Anh, Duckworth, J.W., Vu Ngoc Thanh and Lic Vuthy. 1997. A survey of large mammals in Dak Lak Province, Viet Nam. Unpublished report to IUCN and WWF. Hanoi, Viet Nam.
Lic Vuthy, Sun Hean, Hing Chamnan and Dioli, M. 1995. A brief field visit to Mondolkiri Province to collect data on kouprey (Bos sauveli), rare wildlife and for field training. Unpublished report to Canada Fund and IUCN.
MacKinnon, J. R. and Stuart, S. N. 1989. The Kouprey: An Action Plan for its Conservation. IUCN/SSC Asian Wild Cattle Specialist Group.
Martin, E.B. and Phipps, M. 1996. A Review of the Wild Animal Trade in Cambodia. TRAFFIC Bulletin 16(2): 45–60.
Neese, H. C. 1976b. Kouprey clues and Rhino news. unpublished report.
Neese, H. C. 1976. The Kouprey (Bos sauvaeli): report on survey in southern laos. Unpublished report.
Olivier, R. and Woodford, M. 1994. Aerial surveys for Kouprey in Cambodia March 1994. IUCN/SSC, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Pfeffer, P. 1969. Considerations sur l'ecologie des fôrets claires du Cambodge oriental. La Terre et la Vie 1: 3-24.
Pfeffer, P. and Ou Kim-San. 1967. Le kouprey, Bos (Bibos) sauveli Urbain, 1937: discussion systematique et statut actuel. Hypothese sur l'origine du zebu (Bos indicus). Mammalia 31(4): 521-536.
Salter, R. E., Bouaphanh Phanthavong, Sivannavong Sawathvong, Sanxay Souriyakan and Khamphay Louanglath. 1990. An assessment of the current status of kouprey and other wild cattle in southern Laos. Forest Resources Conservation Project, Lao/Swedish Forestry Cooperation Programme. Vientiane, Laos.
Srifa La-Ong, Duangrat Pothieng and Bok Sakon. 1997. Survey on wildlife trading at the frontier of Thailand-Cambodia and People's Republic Democratic of Laos. WWF-Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand.
Srikosamatara, S. and Suteethorn, V. 1994. Wildlife conservation along the Thai-Lao Border. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 42: 3-21.
Srikosamatara, S., Siripholdej, B. and Suteethorn, V. 1992. Wildlife trade in Lao P. D. R. and between Lao P. D. R. and Thailand. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 40: 1–47.
Stuart, S. N. 1988. New hope for the kouprey. IUCN Bulletin 19(4-6): 9.
Suvanaborn, P. 1984. Status of kouprey in Thailand. Biotrop Special Publications 21: 33-38.
Timmins, R. J. 2006. An assessment of the biodiversity conservation significance of the Mekong Ramsar site, Stung Treng, Cambodia. . Mekong Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Programme, Vientiane.
Timmins, R.J. and Ou Rattanak. 2001. The importance of Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary and adjacent areas for the conservation of tigers and other key species. WWF Indochina Programme, Hanoi, Vietnam and Phonm Penh, Cambodia.
Timmins, R.J., Pech Bunnat and Prum Sovanna. 2003. An assessment of the conservation importance of the Western Siem Pang area, Stung Treng Province, Cambodia. WWF Cambodia, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Tordoff, A. W., Timmins, R. J., Maxwell, A. Huy Keavuth, Lic Vuthy and Khou Eang Hourt (eds.). 2005. Biological assessment of the Lower Mekong Dry Forests Ecoregion. Final report. WWF Indochina Programme, Cambodia Office, Phnom Penh.
Vidthayanon, C. and Bhumpakphan, N. 2004 . Historical distribution range of the Kouprey from three fossil locality sites in Northeastern Thailand. Journal Wildlife of Thailand 12: 214-216.
Wharton, C.H. 1957. An Ecological Study of the Kouprey (Novibos sauveli Urbain). Monographs of the Institute of Science and Technology, Monograph 5, Manila, Philippines.
Wharton, C. H. 1968. Man, Fire and Wild Cattle in Southeast Asia. Proceedings of the Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 8: 107–167.
|Citation:||Timmins, R.J., Burton, J. & Hedges, S. 2016. Bos sauveli. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T2890A46363360.Downloaded on 18 January 2017.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided|