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 strange animals still lived largely invisible. One day, his eyes fell on a creature that looked almost like a pangolin – and yet, not at all.It was covered from head to tail with armour-like scales, similar to those described by the French zoologist Georges Cuvier for pangolins. But this animal’s external ears were clearly visible, and it had more scales on its trunk than any other known species. For Hodgson, who was 35 at the time and hungry for discovery, this was not just a curiosity; It begged a question: Had he stumbled upon a new species, or was it just a unique individual?Convinced that he was looking at something indescribable, he named it Manis auritus – “auritus” in Latin means “with big ears”. Still, he wasn’t entirely convinced, so he hedged his bets with an alternative: Plurisquamis, “many-scaled”, if the ear did not ultimately turn out to be unique. He then sent a sample to London, wrote up his findings and moved on. The world mostly forgot about Auritas.After nearly two centuries, scientists are finally understanding their question, Mongabay reports.
A forgotten name, rediscovered in the smuggling scales
Fast forward to 2016-2017 on the China-Myanmar border. A team of Chinese researchers led by Jiang-Yong Hu were sequencing DNA from pangolin scales seized from smugglers. He assumed that most of the scales belonged to the Chinese pangolin, Manis pentadactyla, the only species living in the area.But when they analyzed the genetics, the scales split into two distinct lineages. Matched a known Chinese pangolin. The other – labeled “MPB” – does not match any recorded species.The question that had been troubling Hodgson in 1836 resurfaced: was this something new?Around the same time, researcher Narayan Prasad Koju was independently studying pangolins in the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal. They set up camera traps at night, collected feces and ran DNA tests. Their results showed that pangolins in Nepal were genetically different from those found in China. They wrote a report to Nepal’s Ministry of Education, Science and Technology in 2018, but with limited funding and sample size, they did not have enough evidence to make a formal claim.For some time, these two threads – Myanmar’s mysterious MPB lineage and Nepal’s unusual pangolin genetics – remained separate stories.
Linking Nepal with Myanmar: “We realized they were the same”
The link came through Kai He, a biologist who had known Koju for years. In 2020, there was almost no genetic information about pangolins from western Myanmar, Nepal, and northeastern India. When Koju sent him the gene sequences from Nepal, Kai compared them with the MPB sequences of the scales smuggled across the Myanmar border.They matched.This was a defining moment. The same genetic lineage was present in scales seized from Myanmar and wild pangolins from Nepal. He and Kozu suspected that they were not looking at some strange variant of the Chinese pangolin – they were looking at a distinct species.To prove this he turned to museums.He contacted major collections in America and Europe and asked for photographs and measurements of pangolin specimens. An image from the London Museum arrived with a label that neither of them recognized: Manis Aurita.Until that moment, Koju said, he had no idea that Hodgson had once described a “new” pangolin species from Nepal nearly 200 years earlier.
Reading Hodgson’s words with new eyes
Out of curiosity, he searched the name online and found Hodgson’s original 1836 description in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Two of its characteristics stood out: the presence of distinct external ears, and an unusually high number of scales.“The external ear, though small, is entirely distinct,” Hodgson wrote, adding that the specimen had “23 (scales) for the neck and body alone; there were also 10 for the head and 19 for the tail” – more scales than any pangolin known at the time. On that basis, he named it Auritus, and included Plurisquamis in the same paragraph as a backup.Later zoologists modified the name to Aurita to suit the female gender of Manis. But by 1918, the animal was demoted to a subspecies. By 1951, it was quietly transformed into the Chinese pangolin and lost its distinct identity. Its name and description are buried in old magazines and museum drawers, absent from modern databases and conservation lists.For Kai, Koju, and their colleagues, Hodgson’s forgotten observation suddenly seemed very relevant.
Five years of DNA, skulls and skins
However, a dusty name was not enough. They needed solid evidence.From 2019 to 2024, the team – which now includes 20 researchers from 12 institutions in seven countries – started collecting it. They:– DNA was extracted from museum specimens in London, Chicago and Kunming, including skin that Hodgson sent to London in the 19th century.– Complete genomes from 55 pangolins, as well as mitochondrial DNA (mitogenomes) from 70 others, were collected.– focused specifically on samples of the MPB lineage – seven of them, including Hodgson’s sample.– 44 skulls and 26 skins, seven skulls and six skins belonging to the same genus, were measured and compared.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 was yes.Genetically, the MPB/Himalayan lineage forms its own branch distinct from the Chinese pangolin and six other recognized species worldwide. Morphologically, it also showed consistent differences – confirming that what Hodgson described was not just a bizarre individual, but a representative of a distinct species.
Naming race—and a controversy
Of course, science rarely moves in a straight line. While Koju and Kai’s team were still waiting for full DNA results from Hodgson’s sample – delayed due to the museum’s move to a new facility – the second group reached their own conclusions.In early 2025, researchers led by Lenrik Konchok Wangmo published a paper describing what they believed to be an entirely new species, Manis indoburmanica, the “Indo-Burmese pangolin”, based on mitochondrial DNA from seized scales. He did not reference Aurita; The name existed only in older texts and lacked public DNA sequences to link it to modern specimens.Mukesh Thakur, a co-author of that study, later explained that his choice reflected the limitations of the available information. aurita was not in major databases, was not recognized by the IUCN, and no genetic data was publicly associated with that name. “How could we tell if it was an Aurita when we didn’t know what an Aurita looked like?” he argued.However, naming rules give priority to the oldest valid name. Mammalologist Jelle S. Zijlstra has written a commentary stating that if Hodgson’s aurita can be shown to refer to the same species, it should be preferred. Thakur’s team defended its description in a reply and the debate raged.Everything depended on a specimen kept in a museum drawer.
Moment of proof: Hodgson’s animal speaks through its DNA
When the transfer of the collection was complete, and DNA could finally be extracted from Hodgson’s original skin, the results were conclusive. Its genetic profile matches the MPB lineage from Myanmar and Nepal.This meant:– The animal described as Manis aurita by Hodgson in 1836 belongs to the same distinct lineage identified in modern smuggling busts and field surveys.-The genus is a separate species, not simply a type of Chinese pangolin.Under naming rules, Manis aurita – now called the Himalayan pangolin – is given priority, while Manis indobermanica becomes a junior synonym: a name that remains recorded in the literature but is no longer used.The “Himalayan Pangolin” label refers to more than Nepal alone. Koju supported this because the range of the species probably extended across the extensive Himalayan foothills – from Nepal to western Myanmar and northeastern India – rather than being limited to one country.
What does this mean for conservation and for the pangolins themselves
For conservationists, this is not just a victory for taxonomy. This changes how security is planned.There are officially two species of pangolins in South Asia: the Chinese and the Indian pangolins. Now, thirdly, there is strong evidence for the Himalayan pangolin. Each has different limitations, dangers, and genetic profiles, so mixing them together may hide real risks.The Chinese pangolin is already listed as “Critically Endangered” by the IUCN. Given its limited range and heavy pressure from illegal trade, the Himalayan pangolin would probably qualify for the same status if formally assessed.The new study also comes with a warning: Himalayan pangolins in the Kathmandu Valley show unusually high levels of inbreeding – a sign that individuals are breeding with close relatives. This reduces genetic diversity, making populations more vulnerable to disease, environmental change, and random shocks.To combat this, Koju recommends:– Prioritizing the safety of the existing population of Kathmandu.– Where possible, the inclusion of individuals from other parts of the species’ range to increase genetic diversity.– Conducting more field surveys along the western Nepal and Myanmar border – areas that are difficult to reach but may have large populations.The IUCN Pangolin Specialist Group has not yet formally recognized the Himalayan pangolin as a new species; That process will take time. Meanwhile, other research teams are already working on documenting at least two more potential new pangolin species in Southeast Asia. In other words, there may still be branches missing in the pangolin family tree.
Aurita, Plurisquamis—and what Hodgson said right
Brian Hodgson died in 1894, never knowing whether his “Aurita” would stand the test of time, or whether his backup, Plurisquamis (“many-scaled”) might someday be needed. For nearly 200 years, their chosen name was quietly suppressed, subsumed into Chinese pangolin and forgotten by modern catalogues.As scientists later discovered, Cuvier was wrong about one key detail: Asian pangolins, not just Hodgson’s specimen, have external ears. The feature Hodgson considered “remarkable” was not unique. In that sense, his justification for Aurita was flawed.But he had noticed one really important thing: the animal’s scales. The Himalayan pangolin has more scales than other species, and this distinctive “many-scale” nature is one of the traits that marks it as different.In the end, Plurisquamis remained what Hodgson intended – a quiet defense, a private nod to the genuine uniqueness he felt. Officially, this species now has its own native name: Manis aurita, the Himalayan pangolin. Unofficially, their second choice may have been closer to the truth about what made this animal special.A young naturalist’s thinking, a forgotten label in a museum, smuggled scales across a modern border, and years of patient genetic work have worked to restore a species that was nearly wiped out by science.When you think about this story, what strikes you most – the tenacity of one man’s 19th-century observations, or the way illegal trade and modern technology combined to bring a hidden species back to the fore?