American Society of Mammalogists

Biology of the Indian Mongoose in Puerto Rico

Author(s): David Pimentel
Source: Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Feb., 1955), pp. 62-68
Published by: American Society of Mammalogists
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1375723
Accessed: 03-10-2016 16:16 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1375723?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press, American Society of Mammalogists are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Mammalogy

This content downloaded from 136.145.210.3 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:16:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

62

JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY

Vol. 36, No. I

RHOADS, S. N. 1903. The mammals of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Philadelphia.

266 p.
ROBERTS, H. A. AND R. C. EARLY. 1952. Mammal survey of southeastern Pennsylvania.
Final Rept. Pittman-Robertson Proj. 43-R. 70 p.
ROWLEY, J. 1902. The mammals of Westchester County, New York. Abst. Proc. Linn.
Soc. N. Y., 13-14: 31-60.
SAUNDERS, W. E. 1932. Notes on the mammals of Ontario. Trans. Royal Canadian
Inst., 18: 271-309.
SCHMIDT, F. J. W. 1931. Mammals of western Clark County, Wisconsin. Jour. Mamm.,
12: 99-117.

SIM, R. J. 1934. Small mammals as predators on Japanese beetle grubs. Jour. Econ.
Ent., 27: 482.

STICKEL, LUCILLE F. 1948. Observations on the effect of flood on animals. Ecology, 29

505-507.

WERNER, W. E. 1951. A report on the activity cycles of New York State voles. Unpublished report, N. Y. S. Coll. for Tchrs., Albany, Dept. of Biology, 17 p.
Department of Biology, New York State College for Teachers, Albany, New York. Received February 26, 1954.

BIOLOGY OF THE INDIAN MONGOOSE IN PUERTO RICO

BY DAVID PIMENTEL

At present the wild mammalian land fauna of Puerto Rico is limited to a fe

species of bats, rodents, and the Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus
auropunctatus). In 1877 the mongoose was introduced into Puerto Rico (Colo
1930) from Jamaica, British West Indies, for rat control, since at that time th
methods of rat control employed on sugar plantations were inadequate to cop
with the severe problem that existed. Only at first did the mongoose appear
give effective control of rats. This limited benefit was soon offset by complaints

of damage to agricultural interests. Recently, the mongoose has been incrimi

nated as a reservoir and vector of rabies.

In Puerto Rico during the period from 1911 to 1933 only 21 cases of rabie
were diagnosed in dogs and farm animals, and none were found in mongoos
(Tierkel et al., 1952). From 1933 to 1950, the island was considered one of th
few rabies-free areas in the world. In the early part of 1950, studies by the Com-

municable Disease Center and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Department

of Health showed that the mongoose was the important reservoir and vector
rabies in Puerto Rico (Tierkel et al., loc. cit.). This was the first time rabies h
been reported in the Indian mongoose. In South Africa, however, the yellow
mongoose (Cynictis penicillata) has been recognized as a vector of rabies sinc
1928 (Snyman, 1940).
The mongoose has also been shown to have a high incidence of infection o
the human leptospiral organism (Yeager, 1952). The danger of mongooses to
human health and safety warranted the prompt action of the Public Health
Service to find a method for controlling this animal (Pimentel, ms.). A study o
the biology of the mongoose was undertaken to provide guidance in plannin

This content downloaded from 136.145.210.3 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:16:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

PIMENTEL-MONGOOSE IN PUERTO RICO

Feb., 1955

63

the control project. During the study, which was carried on betwee
and November 1952, a total of 398 mongooses were live-trapped; 2
were taken into the laboratory and held for various periods of tim
TRAPS AND BAIT

For live trapping of mongooses during this study, two types of local box
inches wide, 8 inches high, and 20 inches long were used. The Javio trap h
frame covered with 4-mesh hardware cloth. The St. Croix trap was constru
After the addition of a lock-catch to the St. Croix trap to prevent the mo
trapped, from opening the door, no difference was found between the two
effectiveness in capturing mongooses.
The most economical meat-type bait for this carnivore was found to be fish
under the tropical conditions decomposed in two days and the mongooses r
the rotting fish after the second day. To find a long-lasting bait, salted c

codfish, sun-dried desalted codfish, and sun-dried fresh fish were tested both
tory and in the field.
In the laboratory test the mongoose refused to eat heavily salted fish. T
desalted codfish and sun-dried fresh fish were compared. Five adult male a

mongooses were caged separately. Preliminary observations in the laborato

cated that an adult mongoose consumed about two ounces of fish per day.
five ounces of sun-dried fresh fish, and five ounces of sun-dried desalted codfish

were placed in each cage daily to insure each animal having a choice from an

ample amount of bait. The bait was replaced with fresh material daily during a one-week
test, and a daily weight record of the uneaten portion was kept.
The average amount of sun-dried fresh fish and sun-dried desalted codfish consumed
in one week was 9.5 and 5.6 ounces, respectively. The quantity of sun-dried fresh fish consumed was significantly greater at the 1 per cent level (Snedecor, 1946) than the amount
of sun-dried codfish eaten. Two of the ten test animals preferred codfish to fresh fish, however.

In the field trapping test, half of the traps used were baited at ra
fresh fish and the other half with sun-dried desalted codfish. There
ference between the number of animals trapped with either bait.
in the field the mongoose is not as particular as when caged and t

to and eat either of the baits. Sun-dried fresh fish was used in a
tests, however, since it was more economical than the codfish.
HABITAT

Puerto Rico has many diversified areas which include: the arid south and
portions of the island; seacoasts, mountains, grasslands, and forests; sug
apple, coffee, dairy, fruit, and poultry farms; and suburban and urban are
were found in all the above-mentioned habitats, except in forested and in
The mongoose, which is not a tree climber, apparently avoids forested area
offer poor shelter and little chance to obtain food. In the Dominican Repu

sion of the mongoose to forests is such that the natives keep their hens with

in the cocoa groves (Seaman, 1952). The largest mongoose population was f
grass, two to seven feet high, especially near the borders of small stream
In this type of habitat population studies indicated there was a density
mongoose per acre.

SEX CHARACTERISTICS AND REPRODUCTION

The sex ratio of a group of 279 trapped mongooses was 144 males to 135 fema

results differ from those reported by Baldwin et al. (1952), who found

excess of males over females trapped in Hawaii. When a population of mongo

This content downloaded from 136.145.210.3 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:16:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

64

JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY

Vol. 36, No. 1

TABLE 1.-Results of trapping mongooses on a 70-acre plot in Puerto Rico for 1I

100 traps
Week

Male

Female

Total

1
16
15
31
2
7
7
14
3
1
3
4
4
6
3
9
5
0
1
1
6
1
1
2
7
0
8
0
9
2
10
2
11
1

Total

2
2
2
1
0

36

2
2
4
3
1

37

73

trapped
out
of
an
of
the
group
of
an
mongooses
were
tr
between
the
males
The
adult
male
m
14
inches),
an
aver
age
weight
of
21.2
smaller.
She
had
an

length

of

9.3

Five

inc

ounces
(range
from
The
breeding
seaso
of
pregnant
and
la
March
and
April,
ably
produce
two
From
a
total
of
52

to

4.

sets

young
were
born
w
the
only
indication
days.
In
the
labora
young
were
not
d
third
case
a
female
the pups.
GENERAL HABITS

The mongoose was observed to be diurnal, with little or no activity at night.

two-month test in which trapping was carried on from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and
were checked approximately every hour and a half, the greatest feeding activit
tween the hours from 11:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. The animals sought shelter when i
and did little or no hunting for two or three days if the rains continued for that
of time. Animals trapped during the second or third day of a rainstorm aways ha

stomachs.

The mongoose was observed to occupy burrows, some of which were in crevices of lim

stone rocks and in spaces under large boulders. The mongoose probably also took ad
vantage of spaces around roots and logs.

This content downloaded from 136.145.210.3 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:16:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Feb., 1966

PIMENTEL-MONGOOSE IN PUERTO RICO

65

SOCIAL HABITS

In the laboratory two newly trapped adult females were placed in separ
of which already housed a mongoose that had been in the laboratory for
soon as the animals were introduced into the inhabitated cages, a bitter b
between the male in the cage and the introduced female, and in the other
occurred between the female in the cage and the introduced female. In les
both introduced females were lying unconscious on the bottom of the cage a
they were dead. Both of these dead animals were left in the cage for 24 hou
if hunger motivated the savage attack, even though both caged animals h
larly receiving about two ounces of fresh fish daily. The male mongoose a
leg of the killed female, but no other feeding was noted. This substantia
that both animals were amply fed and had killed for other reasons. It is p
caged animals were protecting their established homes.
In further studies, newly trapped adult animals were placed in cages t
following combinations: Female with a female, male with a female, and m
These animals got along well without fighting for over three months. The
to this occurred at feeding time when one animal would snap at the other

fish were given.

In the field, two mongooses were seen fighting savagely, but when the sit

was examined no indications were found as to motivating cause. The on

mongooses seen peaceably hunting together were mothers with young, or tw

young animals hunting together.
HOME RANGE

There are many conflicting observations about the migratory habits of the
Spencer (1950) reported that the mongoose is largely migratory with no spe
range, and that the estimated average daily foraging range was % to x of a
win et al. (1952) observed that in some areas small groups of individuals mov
however, in another area where food was plentiful mongooses were found to re
immediate vicinity for six months. Reports by Seaman (1951) at St. Croix, U
Islands, and Diaz (1951) in Puerto Rico indicated the mongoose is not migrato
a home range.
Support for the theory that the mongoose has a home range instead of being
was obtained in this study from the trapping records. At Carolina, 90 per cent
mals trapped in a 60-acre test plot were taken in the first eight days of a fiveping period. More evidence was collected at Roosevelt Roads where 62 per
mongooses trapped in a 70-acre plot were taken from the area in the first two
eleven-week trapping period (Table 1).
The diameter of the home range of the mongoose was needed to give guid
setting of poison bait stations in field control studies. A heavily grassed area

feet square at Roosevelt Roads was selected for the home range stud

of 100 Javio traps baited with sun-dried fresh fish were set at 100-foot interv
out the plot. The traps were checked once a day for a period of eighteen day
gooses captured were marked and then released immediately.
The toe-clip method was used to mark each animal captured. This entailed f

ing the animals from the Javio trap into a specially constructed cage 9 inch

inches high, and 20 inches long. The sliding front door of this cage was closed.
like arrangement was then moved forward, forcing the mongoose to the front s
The front door was opened wide enough to allow the investigator to reach in w

and draw out one leg so the toes could be clipped.

Forty-seven mongooses were taken a total of 83 times during the eighteen
There was a definite indication of trap-shyness after an animal had once bee
released. Eleven mongooses, however, were trapped from three to seven tim

This content downloaded from 136.145.210.3 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:16:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

66

JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY

Vol. S6, No. I

diameter of the home range of the mongoose was estimated by measuring

diameter between catches. The average home range diameter for these anim

feet, varying from 100 to 700 feet. The average home range of the male was 41
ing from 300 to 500 feet) while the average home range of the female was 267
ing from 100 to 700 feet).
From the data obtained it was calculated there was about one mongoose per
test plot.
PARASITES AND ENEMIES

Of the total of 396 mongooses trapped, 210 were examined for ectopara
tinal helminth parasites. One animal was infested with cat fleas (Ctenoc
and another appeared to have a light case of mange, but when skin scra
amined no mites were found. The skin condition may possibly have bee
fungal infection. No intestinal helminth parasites were found. A hair ba
ameter was taken from the stomach of one mongoose.
The main enemies of the mongoose in Puerto Rico are humans, dogs, ca
ants. Man is the most important enemy. Dogs kill a few animals, but the
mongooses escape easily by moving swiftly into dense cover. There are so few
cats in Puerto Rico that their effect upon the mongoose population is considered negligible. The fire ant (Solenopsis geminata) has been observed killing young rats, and therefore is presumed to be capable of killing very young mongooses in burrows.
FOOD HABITS

A total of 56 mongooses were trapped at Roosevelt Roads in a habitat tha

grass cover with scattered brush areas. The stomachs of the mongooses w
for the foods they contained. Of a total of 315 specimens in the 56 stomachs
were animal, and 11.1 per cent plant material. Insects made up 56.4 per cent o
specimens, and the remainder included: reptiles, 17.1; myriapods, 12.1; a
mammals, 2.9; crustaceans, 1.4; asteroids, 1.1; and amphibians, 1.1 per cent.
of the order Orthoptera were consumed than of the other insect orders. This

due to the large size and availability of the Orthoptera. The maggots, ants
small insects may have been on the fish bait used to trap the animal. Some
remains may also have come from insects that the ingested reptiles and am
consumed (Wolcott, 1948).
No remains of birds were found in the stomachs, but this does not mean th
does not prey upon birds when it has the chance. There are relatively few bir
Rico, and the majority dwell above the reach of the mongoose. Farmers th
island complain that they are unable to let poultry run loose in their yards b
mongoose's depredations upon the flocks.
The evidence obtained in support of the mongoose as an effective predat
the type of area trapped was not encouraging. Only 2.5 per cent of the stom
were rat remains. All of the rats identified in the stomach contents were hal
rats (Rattus rattus).
The mongoose was found to prefer fresh meat to carrion. Fish that had
to spoil for 24 hours was hardly touched by the mongoose. The animals also s
selves for 24 to 48 hours before eating starchy foods such as bread.
DISCUSSION

The presence of the mongoose is clearly disadvantageous to human healt

in Puerto Rico. Since 1950, when the animal was shown to be the important r
vector of rabies on the island, efforts have been aimed at its eventual exterm
Concerning agriculture, the status of the mongoose is still questionable.
years after 1870, when the mongoose was introduced into the West Indies,
great publicity regarding its effectiveness against rats. Since all the report

This content downloaded from 136.145.210.3 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:16:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Feb., 19665

PIMENTEL-MONGOOSE IN PUERTO RICO

67

were in favor of the mongoose, the animal probably had a marked initial
large rat population.
The exact date when the tree rat and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) w
into the West Indies is not known. The tree rat is believed to have been intr
Trinidad, British West Indies, about 1658 (Myers, 1931), and was broug
Rico soon after that date. The Norway rat was introduced some years later.
the mongoose was introduced into Puerto Rico, there is little doubt that
tion on the island consisted both of R. rattus and R. norvegicus. The Norwa
ably the dominant species, for wherever the Norway rat has gone, reported
"it has driven out the black rat and all rival rodents that compete with
The mongoose had ample opportunity to attack and control the Norway
urban and farm areas of Puerto Rico, since the Norway rat is a ground
Rats trapped during this study in suburban and farm areas have been only
in an urban area of San Juan trapping indicated that the rat population
ratio of two Norway rats to one tree rat. To what extent the mongoose r
rat population is not known. Since the mongoose exterminated the tre
competitor, however, there is the possibility the tree rat population ma
increased in some areas because of the mongoose.
Another example of this competition between the two rat species existed
of Hawaii. On Kauai Island where the mongoose had not been introduced
lation consisted predominantly of the Norway rat; while on Maui and Oah
the mongoose was liberated, the predominant species was the tree rat (Bar
In the most desirable mongoose habitat in Puerto Rico, which as previo
was dense grass 2-7 feet high, the ratio of mongooses trapped to tree rat
to 1. While on the borders of brush and forested areas, which is poor m
but good tree rat habitat, the ratio of mongooses to rats taken was 1 to
is able to prey upon the tree rat population in the densely grassed are
are no trees or bushes for the tree rat to climb and thus escape.
The activity paths of the mongoose and the tree rat do not cross frequ
mongoose is most active in mid-day, while the rat is mainly a nocturnal
duces the chances for the mongoose to affect the rat population. The tot
of the mongoose against the tree rat might also be questioned because of
potential of the latter animal.
As shown in the study of food habits, the mongoose consumed some d
dangerous arthropods and also some beneficial ones. In general, this seem
economic significance.
The leaf lizard, Anolis spp., made up a large portion of the diet of the
mongoose apparently affects the leaf lizard population, for in areas wher
scarce there are tremendous numbers of Anolis spp. The mongoose also h
able effect upon the other members of the class Reptilia, as substantiated b
ducted on two islands of Puerto Rico by Schmidt (1928). He found the ground
lizard (Ameiva exsul) abundant on Culebra Island where the mongoose had not been
introduced, while on Vieques Island the mongoose was said to have exterminated the

ground lizard and snakes. The mongoose has had similar disastrous effects upon

the ground lizard in the other islands of the West Indies where the mongoose has been
introduced and has thrived (Myers, 1931).
In general, however, wildlife is relatively limited in Puerto Rico. This is probably not
due to the mongoose, but more to predation on wildlife by man, since the island has some
715 humans per square mile.
SUMMARY

A biological study was made of the Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropun

auropunctatus), an important reservoir and vector of rabies in Puerto R
During the progress of the study a total of 398 mongooses were live-tr

This content downloaded from 136.145.210.3 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:16:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

68

JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY

Vol. 36, No. 1

260 of these were taken into the laboratory and held for various periods

Adults were found to weigh slightly more than one pound. Females
yearly average of two litters of two pups each. The animal has a ho
varying from 100 to 700 feet in diameter. The mongoose was obser
diurnal, preferring a habitat of dense grass near small streams, and
rous, preferring fresh meat to carrion. Insects and reptiles are the m
eaten in the wild. Sun-dried fresh fish was found to be satisfactory b
animal. Evidence was obtained that the mongoose is not an effectiv

of rats in Puerto Rico.

LITERATURE CITED

BALDWIN, P. H., C. W. SCHWARTZ, AND ELIZABETH R. SCHWARTZ. 195

and economic status of the mongoose in Hawaii. Jour. Mamm., 33
BARNUM, C. C. 1930. Rat control in Hawaii. Hawaiian Planters' Record,
COLON, E. D. 1930. "Datos Sobre la Historia de la Agricultura de Puerto
1898." 302 p. Privately printed, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
DIAZ, F. M. 1951. Personal communication of November 14, 1951.
MYERS, J. G. 1931. A preliminary report on an investigation into the
trol of West Indian insect pests. Empire Marketing Board, Lon
1-178.

PIMENTEL, D. 1953. In manuscript.

SCHMIDT, K. P. 1928. Amphibians and land reptiles of Porto Rico, with

reported from the Virgin Islands. In Scientific survey of Porto Rico an

Islands, 10(1): 3-160, New York Academy of Science, New York.

SEAMAN, G. A. 1951. Personal communication of October 16, 1951.
SEAMAN, G. A. 1952. The mongoose and Caribbean wildlife, Virgin Isla
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Investigations, April, 1952, 16 p., Mim
SNEDECOR, G. W. 1946. Statistical methods. Ed. 4. Collegiate Press, Inc
SPENCER, H. J. 1950. Mongoose control research project, Virgin Islands,
Nov. 1950. U. S. D. I., Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 p., Mimeo.
SNYMAN, P. S. 1940. The study and control of vectors of rabies in Sou
derstepoort Jour. Vet. Sci. and Anim. Industry, 15(1, 2): 9-140.
TIERKEL, E. S., G. ARBONA, A. RIVERA, AND A. DE JUAN. 1952. Mong
Puerto Rico. Publ. Health Repts., 67: 274-278.
WOLCOTT, G. N. 1948. The insects of Puerto Rico. Jour. Agr. Univ. Puer
1-976.

YEAGER, R. H. 1952. Personal communication of June 2, 1952.

ZINSSER, H. 1935. Rats, lice and history. Little, Brown and Company,

Communicable Disease Center, Public Health Service, U. S. Department o

cation, and Welfare, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Received January 0S, 1954.

This content downloaded from 136.145.210.3 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:16:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms