5 thoughts on “Sierra Leone Prinia (Schistolais leontica)”
While the population could plausibly be above 1000 individuals, some estimation based on the available information seems possible. This is still evidently a rare bird, with only 33 observations on eBird, for example. In part, this reflects the region in which it is found, which presents difficulties of security and access for bird observers, but it is also evidently quite local within the mapped range (both “native resident” and “possibly extant”). For example, Gatter (1997) who conducted years of ornithological research in Liberia, knew the bird only from Mts. Nimba, Kitoma, Bele and “probably” Mt. Wuteve.
Incidentally, Gatter estimated densities of as many as 30 birds per ha, and recorded “Noisy groups of up to 9 together” (presumably in the 1990s) at Mt Nimba, Liberia. The species had previously been recorded at Mt. Nimba in the 1960s – four specimens collected by Forbes-Watson and mentioned by Colston & Currey-Lindahl (1986). In 2011, fieldwork by me and Dowsett-Lemaire found far fewer birds and family groups than Gatter’s account would have suggested to occur, hinting at potentially a decline in that population since the 1990s, perhaps linked to mining activities and uncontrolled burning of the mountain.
If I interpret correctly, 16 locations are mentioned in the species account, with counts of c. 10-60 individuals estimated at three of those locations (assuming at least two mature individuals per pair/family group; counting, for example, Mt Nimba as three locations within the three countries; and counting Dalabé as one location).
Assuming all known locations hold a similar number, on average, that would generate an estimated global population of 160-960, within the bounds for VU or even EN by criterion D1. If the true number of occupied sites is double that mentioned here (i.e., 32), the same calculation would take the population estimate to 320-1920, still encompassing the value for VU D1.
My suggestion would be to take a precautionary approach until this species’ populations are better surveyed, revise the population estimate to include a smaller lower bound, and list as VU under criterion D1.
I would also suggest to update the map to restrict areas of potential occurrence to those within the species’ known elevational range, given by Ryan & Sharpe (Birds of the World) as 600–1600 m, and “mainly above 1000 m”.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 2 February 2026. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 2 February 2026, when discussions will re-open.
We thank Ben Phalan for his comment. Additional thanks for the email received by Paul Robinson, Hazell Shokellu Thompson, and Momoh Sesay for their comments; their response is attached here for reference.
The confirmation of the Sierra Leone Prinia at Outamba Kilimi National Park (OKNP) at elevations as low as 87 m significantly increases the species’ known elevational range. This finding, combined with observations of individuals using highly degraded forest edge habitats, including off the side of roads, does suggest the occupied area is not as restricted by elevation or habitat quality than previously assumed. Lenrumé (2024) also noted detectability was far higher during a short period of the year during the rains, potentially explaining very patchy detection in other areas if these are typically visited at other times of the year.
This new information undermines the assumptions on which the previous population estimate was based. It occurs over a much wider elevation range in at least parts of the distribution, and the amount of suitable habitat present within the range is unclear but seems most likely to be much larger than assumed previously. While we attempt to quantify population sizes using available information wherever possible, the previous population size cannot be considered a reliable estimate. The conditions under which the species occurs are now understood to be significantly different from what was known before, its elevational range is broader, it tolerates much more degraded habitat, and it is likely overlooked in areas previously considered unsuitable. Considering this, the population size would be suspected, not estimated.
The new information also undermines the reliability of the MAXENT model previously used to delineate Possibly Extant areas. Consequently, the previously mapped Possibly Extant range will be edited in light of the new data. However, the species is still considered likely to occur in additional areas beyond that currently mapped as Extant. The occurrence around Dalaba was known previously, but there are now documented records that indicate this is not a tiny patch of remnant occupied habitat, but occurrence widely in this area. The lack of records between Dalaba and Outamba Kilimi could be genuine absence, but there are also no records of abundant species such as Common Bulbul Pycnonotus barbatus in April and May (when detectability is highest around Dalaba), indicating inadequate coverage is a more likely explanation.
Overall, the evidence indicates that the species is less restricted by elevation or habitat than previously thought, suggesting that earlier estimates based on these assumptions are likely inaccurate. Further targeted surveys or general observer effort (as around Dalaba) in degraded habitats and during the rainy season would greatly benefit understanding of the range and abundance of this species.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2026 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 8 February 2026, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2026 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 16 February 2026.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Sierra Leone Prinia is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching thresholds under Criterion C2a(i).
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to the 2026.1 GTB Forum process. The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
While the population could plausibly be above 1000 individuals, some estimation based on the available information seems possible. This is still evidently a rare bird, with only 33 observations on eBird, for example. In part, this reflects the region in which it is found, which presents difficulties of security and access for bird observers, but it is also evidently quite local within the mapped range (both “native resident” and “possibly extant”). For example, Gatter (1997) who conducted years of ornithological research in Liberia, knew the bird only from Mts. Nimba, Kitoma, Bele and “probably” Mt. Wuteve.
Incidentally, Gatter estimated densities of as many as 30 birds per ha, and recorded “Noisy groups of up to 9 together” (presumably in the 1990s) at Mt Nimba, Liberia. The species had previously been recorded at Mt. Nimba in the 1960s – four specimens collected by Forbes-Watson and mentioned by Colston & Currey-Lindahl (1986). In 2011, fieldwork by me and Dowsett-Lemaire found far fewer birds and family groups than Gatter’s account would have suggested to occur, hinting at potentially a decline in that population since the 1990s, perhaps linked to mining activities and uncontrolled burning of the mountain.
If I interpret correctly, 16 locations are mentioned in the species account, with counts of c. 10-60 individuals estimated at three of those locations (assuming at least two mature individuals per pair/family group; counting, for example, Mt Nimba as three locations within the three countries; and counting Dalabé as one location).
Assuming all known locations hold a similar number, on average, that would generate an estimated global population of 160-960, within the bounds for VU or even EN by criterion D1. If the true number of occupied sites is double that mentioned here (i.e., 32), the same calculation would take the population estimate to 320-1920, still encompassing the value for VU D1.
My suggestion would be to take a precautionary approach until this species’ populations are better surveyed, revise the population estimate to include a smaller lower bound, and list as VU under criterion D1.
I would also suggest to update the map to restrict areas of potential occurrence to those within the species’ known elevational range, given by Ryan & Sharpe (Birds of the World) as 600–1600 m, and “mainly above 1000 m”.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 2 February 2026. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 2 February 2026, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
We thank Ben Phalan for his comment. Additional thanks for the email received by Paul Robinson, Hazell Shokellu Thompson, and Momoh Sesay for their comments; their response is attached here for reference.
The confirmation of the Sierra Leone Prinia at Outamba Kilimi National Park (OKNP) at elevations as low as 87 m significantly increases the species’ known elevational range. This finding, combined with observations of individuals using highly degraded forest edge habitats, including off the side of roads, does suggest the occupied area is not as restricted by elevation or habitat quality than previously assumed. Lenrumé (2024) also noted detectability was far higher during a short period of the year during the rains, potentially explaining very patchy detection in other areas if these are typically visited at other times of the year.
This new information undermines the assumptions on which the previous population estimate was based. It occurs over a much wider elevation range in at least parts of the distribution, and the amount of suitable habitat present within the range is unclear but seems most likely to be much larger than assumed previously. While we attempt to quantify population sizes using available information wherever possible, the previous population size cannot be considered a reliable estimate. The conditions under which the species occurs are now understood to be significantly different from what was known before, its elevational range is broader, it tolerates much more degraded habitat, and it is likely overlooked in areas previously considered unsuitable. Considering this, the population size would be suspected, not estimated.
The new information also undermines the reliability of the MAXENT model previously used to delineate Possibly Extant areas. Consequently, the previously mapped Possibly Extant range will be edited in light of the new data. However, the species is still considered likely to occur in additional areas beyond that currently mapped as Extant. The occurrence around Dalaba was known previously, but there are now documented records that indicate this is not a tiny patch of remnant occupied habitat, but occurrence widely in this area. The lack of records between Dalaba and Outamba Kilimi could be genuine absence, but there are also no records of abundant species such as Common Bulbul Pycnonotus barbatus in April and May (when detectability is highest around Dalaba), indicating inadequate coverage is a more likely explanation.
Overall, the evidence indicates that the species is less restricted by elevation or habitat than previously thought, suggesting that earlier estimates based on these assumptions are likely inaccurate. Further targeted surveys or general observer effort (as around Dalaba) in degraded habitats and during the rainy season would greatly benefit understanding of the range and abundance of this species.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2026 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 8 February 2026, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2026 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 16 February 2026.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Sierra Leone Prinia is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching thresholds under Criterion C2a(i).
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to the 2026.1 GTB Forum process. The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.