The MZNP (32°18’S, 25°24’E) is a South African National Park (SANParks) and initially included only the farm ‘Babylons Toren’ which was just 1712 Ha in size (Grobler & Hall-Martin 1982). In 1964, the park increased to 6536 Ha with the acquisition of the farms ‘Zebrahoek’, ‘Pretoriuskraal’, ‘Wildepaardenek’, ‘Sneeuberg’ and a portion of ‘Doornhoek’ (Grobler & Hall-Martin 1982). The park stayed at this size until 1996 when the farms ‘Ingleside’, ‘Welgedacht’, ‘De Rust’, ‘Ebenhaeser’, ‘Jurisdam’, ‘Zeekoeigat’ and the remaining portion of ‘Doornhoek’ were acquired, taking the park to 18 000 Ha (Craig, Hulley & Parker 2005). These newly acquired farms only became available for use by the non-volant animals residing in the park in the early 2000s when they were adequately fenced into the original 6536 Ha portion. In approximately 2002, the farms ‘Toekoms’ (also referred to as ‘Sonnenrust’) on the western boundary and portions of farm numbers 595 and 596 (previously owned by WP Erasmus) on the southern tip were incorporated into the park, taking it to 21 412 Ha (Figure 1, SANParks 2016). Although the park is now officially 28 386 Ha in extent, the additional areas are not located directly adjacent to the existing park and have not yet been gazetted as national park land (SANParks 2016).

The park is situated in a transition zone between the Nama-Karoo, Grassland and Albany Thicket biomes and is characterised by a semi-arid climate (Mucina et al. 2006). The southern section of the park is mountainous with altitudinal peaks of up to 1960 m, whereas the northern section consists of lower lying areas ranging from 1000 m to 1500 m.

Mammal records for the MZNP since its proclamation were collated from (1) relevant published articles, (2) relevant unpublished reports and student theses, (3) unpublished, annual and individual field trip reports submitted to SANParks for the period 2001–2016 under approved projects 2000-11-08RBER and BISC864 and (4) direct observations during field trips not captured under (3).

For published articles, a Google Scholar search was conducted using the search term ‘Mountain Zebra National Park’. This search produced 1200 potential articles which I then screened to determine their relevance. If an article’s title alluded to the manuscript including records for mammals, I read the abstract (where applicable) to ascertain if such records were in fact provided. In cases where mammal records were included in the manuscript, these data were extracted (Table 1). The articles that included mammal records then had their reference lists perused to determine the relevance of any citation which was not included in the list of articles from the original Google Scholar search. In most instances, such citations were unpublished internal reports or student theses. Wherever possible, I attempted to obtain copies of these reports and or theses.

For unpublished reports, student theses and annual and field trip reports, relevant sections (including appendices) were checked and any reliable mammal data were extracted (Table 1). For the unpublished or grey literature, I deemed mammal presence data reliable only when it was supported by firm evidence (i.e. a specimen had been collected, the animal had been reliably observed by the authors or photographic evidence was provided).

The extracted data were then organised taxonomically and chronologically to match the four separate periods of park expansion described above (Table 1). Only in instances where a species had apparently not been recorded during a certain period, but was known to be present in the park, were direct observations used. Typically, the inclusion of such direct observations was for the more charismatic and larger species or those that could not be easily confused with any other species for the period 1999–2002. For example, published and unpublished data demonstrated that porcupines (Hystrix africaeaustralis) were present in the park from 1937 to 1998 but only recorded again between 2003 and 2020, leaving the period 1999–2002 without a confirmed record. However, field trips to MZNP by the Rhodes University Department of Zoology and Entomology began in 2001, and porcupines were sighted fairly regularly on night drives in 2001 and 2002. Thus, porcupines and nine other species (aardvark Orycteropus afer, springhare Pedetes capensis, ground squirrel Xerus inauris, chacma baboon Papio ursinus, vervet monkey Chlorocebus pygerythrus, aardwolf Proteles cristata, meerkat Suricata suricatta, yellow mongoose Cynictis penicillata and Cape grey mongoose Galerella pulverulenta) were recorded as being present between 1999 and 2002. I was confident that these 10 species could not be confused with any other mammal species.

To update and revise the checklist of mammals for MZNP, I assessed the reliability of the time-series data generated using the methods described above (Table 1). I adopted a conservative approach and only included a species on the revised checklist if a specimen had been reliably collected or observed or if there was photographic evidence of its presence in the park. Importantly, during the initial 27 year existence of the park (1937–1964), when the park was just 1712 Ha in size, the only published account of the mammals that might be present was published by the renowned naturalist Jack Skead (1958). However, this publication is essentially a ‘best guess’ estimate of the mammals that could be found in the Cradock district as a whole and was not specific to the park (Skead 1958). Whilst Skead (1958) does rely on museum specimens to a limited extent, many of the species included in his publication were based on ‘….distributional evidence from contiguous districts’ and, in some cases, the diaries and notes of early European settlers. Although such data are valuable from an historical perspective, their reliability can be questionable, especially for non-charismatic and smaller species (Bernard & Parker 2006). Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, all of Skead’s (1958) proposed records (except species which he deemed to be extinct at the time) were initially included in the generation of the time-series data (Table 1). However, if these records could not be corroborated by subsequent (reliable) records, they were not included in the revised checklist (Appendix 1).

At the time of proclamation (1937), the only larger herbivores believed to be present in the park were Cape mountain zebra, klipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragus), steenbok (Raphicerus campestris), common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia), grey rhebok (Pelea capreolus), mountain reedbuck (Redunca fulvorufula) and rock hyrax (Procavia capensis) (Grobler & Bronkhorst 1981; Grobler & Hall-Martin 1982; Penzhorn 1971). The first ungulate re-introduction occurred in the 1940s when a small group of springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis) were translocated from a farm near Bedford (Penzhorn 1971). Re-introductions of blesbok (Damaliscus pygargus phillipsi), black wildebeest (Connochaetes gnou), red hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus), gemsbok (Oryx gazella) and eland (Tragelaphus oryx) followed in the 1960s (Grobler & Hall-Martin 1982; Novellie & Knight 1994; Penzhorn 1971). All of these ungulate re-introductions were successful except for that of the gemsbok. The entire re-introduced gemsbok population was removed in 1981 because ‘they were not doing well’ (Grobler & Bronkhorst 1981). The reason for their failure to thrive is likely because of the poor habitat available to the animals at the time. Till the early 2000s, only the more mountainous, sourveld region of the park was available to the animals, and the overall poor palatability of the grass species in this section, and greater climatic fluctuations in the mountains, could have negatively affected the gemsbok population (Grobler & Hall-Martin 1982). However, with the expansion of the park in the early 2000s, the additional ‘sweeter’ veld became available (Brown & Bezuidenhout 2005), and a second re-introduction of gemsbok to the park in 2004 was much more successful. Gemsbok numbers are now in excess of 200 individuals and they are very seldom sighted in the southern (more mountainous) section of the park (Bissett et al. 2019). More recent, large mammal re-introductions include buffaloes (Syncerus caffer) in 1997, black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) in 2002, cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) in 2007, brown hyaena (Parahyaena brunnea) in 2008 and lion (Panthera leo) in 2013 (Bissett et al. 2019; SANParks 2016). All of these species were re-introduced in accordance with the park’s objective of restoring the historical diversity of large mammals of the region (SANParks 2016) and have been successful (Bissett et al. 2019).

The late 1970s saw the natural immigration of bushpig (Potomochoerus larvatus), greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) and bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) into the park (Grobler & Bronkhorst 1981). The only other non-volant mammal which is believed to have naturally immigrated into the park is the extralimital warthog (Phacochoerus africanus) in approximately 2012 (Parker, Bissett & Craig 2013).

Although thought to be present in the region at the time of establishment of the park (Skead 1958), it was not until mid-1979 that two African clawless otters (Aonyx capensis) escaped from a temporary cage on the Babylons Toren section of the park (Grobler & Bronkhorst 1981). Grobler and Bronkhorst (1981) speculated that as the pair was a male and a female that perhaps they would establish themselves in the park. However, it was not until one of the first intensive camera trapping surveys of the park that African clawless otters were reliably recorded again (Figure 3; Comley 2016).

The number of species within the genus Lepus has been a matter of debate amongst taxonomists for some time (Skinner & Chimimba 2005). Despite some regional differences in skull and ear length, it is now accepted that the only two species to occur in South Africa are L. saxatilis and L. capensis (Skinner & Chimimba 2005). Both of these species have been reliably collected as specimens in MZNP (Grobler & Bronkhorst 1981; Nel & Pretorius 1971). However, all subsequent records have been through direct observations or camera trap photographs. As the most reliable way to distinguish between the two species is by comparison of the incisors (Skinner & Chimimba 2005), direct observations and camera trap photographs of hares, with potentially variable pelage, should be interpreted with caution. Thus, either the collection of museum specimens or the sampling of DNA from captured specimens should be a future research priority.

Cryptic speciation amongst the laminate toothed rats (family Muridae: subfamily Murinae: tribe Otomyini), to which the vlei (Otomys irroratus), bush Karoo (O. unisulcatus) and Sloggett’s ice rat (O. sloggetti) belong, is common, especially in mountainous habitats (Taylor et al. 2019). In fact, recent taxonomic work has demonstrated that O. irroratus senso lato can be confused morphologically with at least one other co-occurring species O. karoensis (Taylor et al. 2019). As such, I recommend that the specific assignment of the three laminate toothed rats putatively present in MZNP be verified through the collection of specimens for morphological and genetic analyses.

Notwithstanding the taxonomic conundrums that require resolution, it is clear that there has been unequal surveying and documenting of the mammals present within the MZNP over time. There has clearly been a bias towards the larger, more charismatic species and less of a focus on the small, more cryptic mammal groups (but see De Graaff & Nel 1970; Kok et al. 2012; Nel & Pretorius 1971). As such, I believe that a concerted effort should be made to comprehensively sample the MZNP for golden moles, elephant shrews, rodent moles, gerbils and bats. Whilst the sampling of the fossorial small mammals can be challenging and labour intensive, recent technological advances in acoustic technology make the sampling of echolocating bats (a notoriously difficult mammal group to sample) much more feasible (Parker & Bernard 2019).