Scientists studied pangolin DNA from seven countries and rediscovered Himalayan species that had been ignored since 1836
In 1836, a young British diplomat and naturalist named Brian Houghton Hodgson was stranded in the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal, far from the great museums of Europe but close to the forests and hills where many strange and unseen animals still lived. One day, he encountered a creature that looked almost like a pangolin, but not quite.It is covered from head to tail in armor-like scales, just like French zoologist Georges Cuvier’s description of the pangolin. But the animal has clearly visible external ears and its trunk has far more scales than any known species. For Hodgson, then 35 and hungry for discovery, it was more than a curiosity; Here’s the question: Did he stumble upon a new species, or is this just a special individual?Convinced he was seeing something undescribed, he named it Manis auritus – “auritus” means “with big ears” in Latin. He wasn’t entirely sure, though, so he hedged his bets with another option: Plurisquamis, “multiple scales,” just in case the ears weren’t unique after all. He then sent the samples to London, wrote up his findings, and moved on. The world has almost forgotten auritus.Nearly two centuries later, scientists have finally solved his problem, Mongabay reports.
A forgotten name, rediscovered among smuggled scales
Fast forward to 2016-2017 and the China-Myanmar border. A Chinese research team led by Hu Jiangyong is sequencing DNA from pangolin scales seized from smugglers. They believe most of the scales belong to the Chinese pangolin (Manis pentadactyla), the only species believed to live in the area.But when they analyzed the genetics, the scales split into two distinct lineages. One matched a known Chinese pangolin. Another species labeled “MPB” did not match any recorded species.The question that troubled Hodgson in 1836 resurfaced: Is this something new?Around the same time, in Nepal’s Kathmandu Valley, researcher Narayan Prasad Koju was independently studying pangolins. He sets camera traps at night, collects feces and conducts DNA tests. His results show that pangolins in Nepal are genetically different from those in China. He wrote a report to Nepal’s Ministry of Education, Science and Technology in 2018, but due to limited funding and sample size, he did not have enough evidence to make a formal claim.For a while, the two leads—Burma’s mysterious MPB lineage and Nepal’s unusual pangolin genetics—remained separate stories.
Connecting Nepal and Myanmar: ‘We realize they are the same’
The connection came from Kai He, a biologist who had known Koju for many years. In 2020, there was little genetic information about pangolins in western Myanmar, Nepal, and northeastern India. When Koju sent him genetic sequences from Nepal, Kai compared them with MPB sequences from scales smuggled across the border in Myanmar.They are a good match.This is a critical moment. The same genetic lineage is also present in scales seized in Myanmar and in wild pangolins in Nepal. He and Koju suspected that what they were seeing was not a strange variant of the Chinese pangolin—they were seeing a unique species.To prove this, they turned to museums.They contacted major collections in the United States and Europe to request images and measurements of pangolin specimens. A photo in a London museum had a label neither of them recognized: Manis aurita.Until then, Koju said, they were unaware that Hodgson had described a “new” pangolin species from Nepal nearly 200 years ago.
Read Hodgson’s words in a new light
Out of curiosity, they searched for the name online and found Hodgson’s original 1836 description in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. He has two standout features: distinct external ears and an unusually large number of scales.“The external ear, although small, is very distinct,” Hodgson wrote, noting that the specimen had “23 [scales] Just for the neck and body; 10 on the head and 19 on the tail” – more than any pangolin known at the time. On this basis he named it auritus, and inserted Plurisquamis into the same passage as a backup.Later zoologists changed the name to aurita to accommodate Manis’ female gender. But by 1918, the animal was downgraded to a subspecies. By 1951, it had been quietly merged into the Chinese pangolin and lost its independent identity. Its name and description remain buried in old journals and museum drawers, absent from modern databases and conservation lists.For Kai, Koju and their colleagues, Hodgson’s forgotten observation suddenly became very relevant.
Five years of DNA, skulls and skin
However, a dusty name is not enough. They want hard evidence.From 2019 to 2024, the team, which currently consists of 20 researchers from 12 institutions in seven countries, began collecting this data. them:– DNA was extracted from museum specimens in London, Chicago and Kunming, including skins sent to London by Hodgson in the 19th century.– Collected the complete genomes of 55 pangolins, and the mitochondrial DNA (mitochondrial genome) of another 70 pangolins.– Special focus on samples of the MPB lineage – seven of them, including Hodgson’s sample.– 44 skulls and 26 furs were measured and compared, of which 7 skulls and 6 furs belonged to the same lineage.They wanted to answer two questions:– Is this lineage genetically distinct from the Chinese pangolin and other known species?– Do the animals look different enough to be clearly identified as a separate species?The answer to both is yes.Genetically, the MPB/Himalayan lineage forms its own branch, separate from the Chinese pangolin and six other recognized species worldwide. Morphologically, it also showed consistent differences – confirming that what Hodgson described was not just an oddball individual, but represented a distinct species.
The naming contest—and the controversy
Of course, science rarely develops in a straight line. While Koju and Kai’s teams were still awaiting full DNA results from Hodgson’s specimen (delayed by the museum’s move to a new facility), another team came to its own conclusion.In early 2025, researchers led by Lenrik Konchok Wangmo published a paper describing what they believed to be an entirely new species, Manis indoburmanica, or the “Indo-Burmese pangolin,” based on mitochondrial DNA from confiscated scales. They didn’t mention aurita; The name exists only in old texts, and there is a lack of public DNA sequences linking it to modern samples.Mukesh Thakur, a co-author of the study, later explained that their choices reflected the limitations of the available information. Aurita is not in the major databases, is not recognized by IUCN, and no genetic data associated with the name is publicly available. “How can we say this is an aurita when we don’t know what an aurita looks like?” he argued.However, naming rules give priority to the oldest valid name. Mammalogist Jelle S. Zijlstra wrote a commentary stating that if Hodgson’s aurita could be shown to refer to the same species, it should take precedence. Thakur’s team defended their account in a reply, sparking controversy.It all hinges on a specimen in a museum drawer.
Moment of evidence: Hodgson’s animals speak through DNA
When the collection transfer was completed and DNA could finally be extracted from Hodgson’s original skin, the results were conclusive. Its genetic profile matches that of MPB lineages in Myanmar and Nepal.This means:– The animal described by Hodgson in 1836 as Manis aurita was of the same different lineage as those found in modern smuggling seizures and field surveys.– This lineage is a separate species and not just a variant of the Chinese pangolin.According to the nomenclature rules, Manis aurita (now known as the Himalayan pangolin) took precedence, while Manis indoburmanica became a secondary synonym: this name is still recorded in the literature, but is no longer in use.The “Himalayan pangolin” label reflects more than just Nepal. Koju likes it because the species’ range is likely to extend along the wider Himalayan foothills—from Nepal to western Myanmar and northeastern India—rather than being restricted to one country.
What this means for conservation and for pangolins themselves
For conservationists, this is more than a taxonomic victory. It changes the way conservation is planned.There are officially two species of pangolins in South Asia: the Chinese pangolin and the Indian pangolin. Now, there’s strong evidence for the existence of a third species of pangolin. Each has different ranges, threats and genetic signatures, so putting them together may hide real risks.The Chinese pangolin has been listed as “critically endangered” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Given their limited range and intense pressure from illegal trade, the Himalayan pangolin may be granted the same status once formally assessed.The new study also raises a warning: Himalayan pangolins in the Kathmandu Valley exhibit unusually high levels of inbreeding — signs that individuals are breeding with close relatives. This reduces genetic diversity, making the population more susceptible to disease, environmental changes and random shocks.To solve this problem, Koju recommends:-Make protection of existing Kathmandu population a priority.– Where possible, introduce individuals from other parts of the species’ range to increase genetic diversity.– More fieldwork in western Nepal and along the Myanmar border, areas that remain inaccessible but may host important populations.The IUCN Pangolin Specialist Group has not officially recognized the Himalayan pangolin as a new species; this process takes time. Meanwhile, other research groups are already working to document at least two potential new pangolin species in Southeast Asia. In other words, the pangolin family tree may be missing a branch.
Aurita, Plurisquamis – and what Hodgson got right
Brian Hodgson died in 1894, never knowing whether his “aurita” would stand the test of time or whether his backup Plurisquamis (“multiscale”) would one day be needed. For nearly 200 years, the name he chose has been quietly buried, absorbed by the Chinese pangolin, and forgotten in modern catalogs.Scientists later discovered that Cuvier had gotten it wrong on a key detail: Asian pangolins do have external ears, not just Hodgson’s specimen. The features Hodgson considers “extraordinary” are not unique. In this sense, his defense of aurita is flawed.But he noticed something really important: the animal’s scales. The Himalayan pangolin has more scales than other species, and this unique “multi-scaly” nature has proven to be one of its distinctive features.Ultimately, Plurisquamis remains what Hodgson originally intended it to be – a quiet hedgerow and a private recognition of the true uniqueness he felt. The species is now officially named Manis aurita, or Himalayan pangolin. Unofficial theory is that his second choice may be closer to what makes this animal special.A young naturalist’s premonition, a forgotten label in a museum, smuggled scales on a modern frontier, and years of patient genetic work have come together to restore a species nearly erased from science.When you think about this story, what strikes you most as one man’s persistent observation in the 19th century, or is it the combination of illegal trade and modern technology that has brought hidden species back into view?
