Schomburgk’s deer — Could it still exist?

The riddle of Schomburgk’s deer

“No one seems ever to have seen this animal; all that we think we know about it is the existence of its antlers”, noted Phya Jolamark Bhicharana wrote in 1932 about Schomburgk’s deer. The American biologist Francis Harper also wrote in 1945 that this deer—which no European had ever seen alive in the wild—was hardly known outside Siam, present-day Thailand.

Today, Schomburgk’s deer is officially considered extinct. Until 1932, it is said to have still roamed the floodplains of central Thailand. Then the last known stag was shot by an officer of the Thai police near Sai Yoke and Kwae Yai. The last living specimen in human care died in 1938 in a temple in Samut Sakhon—killed by a drunken local. It was a tame deer that was apparently kept there as a pet.

Since 1994, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has listed Schomburgk’s deer among the extinct species. But a find from Laos in the early 1990s cast doubt on that final verdict—and to this day fuels the idea that somewhere in the jungles of Southeast Asia a small, hidden remnant population might have survived.

It was a truck driver who, in Laos, happened upon two loose antlers, presumably a pair. They eventually ended up in a Chinese medicine shop in Phongsali Province in the far north of Laos. There, in February 1991, they were discovered by UN agronomist Laurent Chazée. He believed the find to be the antlers of a Schomburgk’s deer and took several photos of the intricately branched tines.

Gerard B. Schroering followed up on this lead in 1995 in his report Swamp Deer Resurfaces. The shop owner allegedly told him the deer had been killed only a year earlier nearby. Schroering therefore interpreted the find as an indication that Schomburgk’s deer might have survived into the 1990s and that they had in fact occurred in Laos as well. The zoologists Ross D. E. MacPhee and Clare Flemming (1999) even saw it as sufficient evidence that the species had never gone extinct.

But how robust are these hints really? Could it be that Schomburgk’s deer actually existed for more than half a century after its supposed disappearance? Or were the antlers merely a relic from old hunting times that, after decades of circulation in Indochina’s markets, resurfaced once again?

Schomburgk’s deer – fact sheet

alternative name	sa-man
scientific names	Rucervus schomburgki, Cervus schomburgki, Cervus duvaucelii schomburgki, Thaocervus schomburgki
original range	Thailand
time of extinction	1938
causes of extinction	habitat loss, hunting
IUCN status	extinct

IUCN doubts — no evidence of survival

The IUCN views the discovery of the antlers in Laos in 1991 with great skepticism. Despite this spectacular find, it sees no indication that Schomburgk’s deer still existed at that time. As early as 1941, Leigh Williams wrote in his book Green Prison. Twenty Years in Thailand that Schomburgk antlers were regularly brought to Bangkok together with ordinary deer antlers from Paknampo and Korat—antlers that were probably already many decades old at the time. The 1992 report Wildlife trade in Lao P.D.R. and between Lao P.D.R. and Thailand also documents that Schomburgk’s deer antlers continued to circulate in Thai markets.

The daughter of the shop owner in whose business the antlers were discovered in 1991 later explained that her father had merely been a middleman for wildlife products from all over Indochina. For the IUCN, these are clear indications that the antlers found in Laos did not come from a living population, but are remnants of an active trade in deer antlers. In addition, the shop owner—who in 1991 initially claimed the antlers came from a freshly killed animal—denied any knowledge of the antlers’ origin when re-interviewed in 1996, according to Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 Status Report.

According to the IUCN, the hint of a possible remnant population of Schomburgk’s deer was followed up independently by several researchers who conducted both field studies and interviews in Phongsali Province. However, they were unable to find any new evidence of the species’ presence, nor could they clarify where the antlers discovered in the early 1990s actually came from.

But even if the IUCN rejects all speculation, a new analysis from 2019 has revived the mystery. This study brings intriguing details to light, suggesting that Schomburgk’s deer may have survived longer than previously assumed.

New evidence — the riddle lives on

In 2019, Gerard B. Schroering and bioscientist Gary J. Galbreath took a fresh look at the photos Laurent Chazée had taken in 1991 of the two antlers in Laos. Their analysis confirmed Chazée’s original assessment: The striking, basket-like, heavily branched structure of these antlers is unique among Asian deer—it undoubtedly belongs to Schomburgk’s deer.

But the shape alone is not proof that this deer was actually still alive in the 1990s. Perhaps the antlers came from animals that had died decades earlier. Schroering and Galbreath wanted to know more. They looked for indications that could support a younger age. And indeed, on the photos they noticed details that raised doubts: The bone marrow looked surprisingly fresh, and the blood on the antlers had not yet completely dried. Normally, blood turns black over time, but here it still appeared in a reddish-brown hue—a sign that the antlers could not have been old.

Galbreath also explained that in the humid tropics, antlers would remain that fresh for only a few months before the blood turned black and the bone marrow became brittle. In addition, the clean cut suggested that the antlers had been taken directly from the head of a freshly killed deer.

For Schroering and Galbreath, all these clues were a strong signal: Schomburgk’s deer might indeed have been alive in the early 1990s—and perhaps might even still exist. Some experts today suspect that previous search expeditions for the species took place in the wrong regions. And so the riddle of Schomburgk’s deer continues.

When Schomburgk’s deer became rare

At the end of the 19th century, Schomburgk’s deer were still a familiar sight in the vast floodplains of central Thailand. Entire herds moved through the swamps between 1900 and 1910 around the city of Rangsit, Francis Harper reported in 1945 in Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the Old World. But hardly two decades later, Schomburgk’s deer had suddenly almost vanished.

The IUCN notes today that European observers such as Arthur S. Vernay, who specifically searched for these deer, never saw them in the wild. This was less because the animals were truly invisible or absent, and more because encounters were rarely documented. Engineers and workers helping to build the Paknampo railway likely knew the deer well—and they were probably hunted too—but reports are missing. Much therefore remains unclear, making it difficult even today to reconstruct the original range of this species without gaps.

Phya Jolamark Bhicharana, a Thai scholar, was one of the few who, from 1914 onward, systematically tracked down traces of Schomburgk’s deer. In his 1932 report Notes on the Schomburgk deer, he described how he first had to find out what name locals used for the deer—”sa-man”. He then turned to old surveyors, who told him about herds they had seen in large numbers—especially in the area between the Suphan and Menam Noi rivers.

In 1926, Bhicharana sent search parties to this region, but the reports were sobering: Rice fields had replaced what had once been dense bamboo jungle, and the animals seemed to have disappeared. Two years later, he heard of a single surviving deer, but even that one could no longer be found in 1930.

Bhicharana nevertheless collected traces: deformed antlers found deep in the jungle, Schomburgk antlers in local residents’ houses, and statements from district heads confirming that the species had once lived there. One headman even showed him antlers from a deer that had been killed only three years earlier.

All these clues led Bhicharana to an interesting conclusion: Perhaps, he wrote, there might still be a few last Schomburgk deer in remote regions between Mae Nam Suphan and Mae Nam Mae Klong, or in the Aranya Pradesa area. His report remains a valuable source to this day—not only because it preserves the last traces of this species, but also because it shows how severely human interventions destroyed its habitat—and how long hope nevertheless survived that somewhere, the deer might still exist.

In 1931, finally, the Siam Society officially recommended placing Schomburgk’s deer under full protection. But by then it was far too late.

Why Schomburgk’s deer went extinct

Once, Schomburgk’s deer roamed the vast, marshy plains of central Thailand, especially the river lowlands of the Chao Phraya near Bangkok. They were nocturnal animals that moved in small herds: one adult male, several females, and the young. They apparently avoided denser vegetation—presumably to keep their powerful antlers from getting caught.

But in the late 19th century, this landscape changed irreversibly. Thailand began transforming the marshy grasslands into vast rice fields. Irrigation canals soon crisscrossed the once untouched floodplains; railway lines cut through the wetlands. Where dense islands of grass had once concealed the deer, rice plants now grew in perfectly straight rows. The habitat of Schomburgk’s deer became ever smaller, and ever more frequently entered by humans.

As their habitat shrank, hunting pressure increased. Especially during the rainy season, when floodwaters pushed the animals onto a few dry islands, they became easy targets. Witnesses described how hunters approached by boat, drove the deer together and killed them with spears.

But it was not only hunting for food. The antlers of Schomburgk’s deer were also highly valued for their supposed healing powers—especially in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Francis Harper later suspected that these antlers were even more sought after than those of sambar deer (Rusa unicolor) or Eld’s deer (Rucervus eldii). There are no surviving records of what specific effect was attributed to Schomburgk antlers. But from other deer species we know that antler is considered a tonic for blood, vitality, and endurance—and is in high demand on black markets in China, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Japan.

Demand for remedies made from wildlife products remains unbroken to this day: An estimated 1,500 animal and 5,000 plant species are used in traditional medicine. Seahorses are said to cure impotence, deer, snakes and bears to increase potency, rhinoceros horn to drive away cramps and insomnia. The kouprey and the Vietnamese Javan rhinoceros also fell victim to this greed for “natural medicine” in Southeast Asia—both species are extinct today.

In the end, Schomburgk’s deer became yet another victim of habitat destruction, intensive hunting, and unchecked demand for wildlife products.

On the range of Schomburgk’s deer

For many decades, it was considered certain: Schomburgk’s deer was a purely Thai species, firmly rooted in the floodplains of Thailand’s central plain. It lived amid grass islands and river arms—and nowhere else. At least, that was the zoological consensus.

But then, in the early 1990s, two antlers unexpectedly surfaced in Laos. A find that caused a stir—and speculation: Could it be that, against all expectations, these deer had survived in remote Lao forests? Or were the antlers simply remnants of a centuries-old trade in deer antlers that extended far beyond Thailand’s borders?

The IUCN sticks to its cautious assessment. It emphasizes: There are no convincing proofs that Schomburgk’s deer was ever native outside Thailand. It is therefore considered endemic to the kingdom—and certainly extinct there.

As early as 1945, Francis Harper reported in Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the Old World isolated but hardly reliable hints of occurrences in Yunnan, the Shan States (present-day Myanmar), or Indochina. Such reports were mostly based on oral tradition and could never be clearly verified. Harper himself judged the hints to be “highly inaccurate” or even “false”.

Decades later, in 2008, zoologist Gary Galbreath confirmed these doubts in a reassessment for the IUCN. He suspected that many of these stories were simply due to confusion with the similar Hainan Eld’s deer (Panolia siamensis). Thus—despite all the rumors—only the central Thai plain remained as the confirmed habitat of Schomburgk’s deer.

Still, the researchers did not let go. Leads from Schroering (1995), MacPhee and Flemming (1999), and others were re-examined. Teams such as J. W. Duckworth’s traveled to remote provinces like Phongsali in Laos, conducted interviews, and combed the forests. But their efforts produced no new evidence, no living deer, no unambiguous traces.

Given that these floodplains have been almost completely converted to farmland over the last 150 years, the IUCN considers survival of Schomburgk’s deer extremely unlikely. Nevertheless, it urges vigilance: Every new hint, no matter how small, should be examined with the greatest care. And if it should one day turn out that somewhere a last Schomburgk’s deer still lives, one thing would be clear—then every effort would have to be made to protect it and its species.

Schomburgk’s deer: discovery, origin and taxonomy

In 1863, zoologist Edward Blyth studied several antlers that had made their way from distant Siam—present-day Thailand—to London. Once presented to Queen Victoria by a Siamese delegation, these antlers eventually found a place in the South Kensington Museum. Blyth recognized a previously unknown deer species in them and described it scientifically. He named it Schomburgk’s deer, in honor of the German explorer Robert Hermann Schomburgk, who served as British Consul General in Bangkok from 1857 to 1864.

But the origin and classification of this deer continued to occupy zoologists for a long time afterward. In 1937, Francis H. Giles published a paper with the telling title The Riddle of Cervus Schomburgki. In it, he explored how closely related this deer was to the barasingha (Rucervus duvaucelii). Reports by Alfred Brehm had once caused confusion: Brehm initially considered the Schomburgk deer that reached Europe to be barasinghas as well. Other zoologists followed this assumption and argued it was merely a local variant—adapted to Siam’s wetlands, but not a distinct species.

Giles relied primarily on similarity in antler structure. Differences in branching or in the number of points were not fixed traits, he argued, because such differences could also arise naturally within a species. In this view, Schomburgk’s deer would not be its own species, but a regional expression of the known barasingha.

But Giles went further and developed a theory for how Schomburgk’s deer might have come to Siam in the first place: He suspected Indian colonists or princes had brought these animals as prestige objects or pets. Over generations, the deer would then have adapted to Siam’s swampy landscapes and eventually formed a stable population. Historical traces of Indian settlements in the valleys of the Mekong and Bassac rivers underpin this idea—regions that later became known as habitat for Schomburgk’s deer.

Not everyone shared this view. In Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia (1967-72), Schomburgk’s deer was classified as a subspecies of the barasingha—an assumption that now seems questionable given the differing localities and clearly visible differences in body build. Instead, many zoologists today place Schomburgk’s deer in the genus Rucervus, which also includes the barasingha. British zoologist Reginald Innes Pocock went as far as 1943 to place it in its own monotypic genus—Thaocervus.

In the specialist literature between 1945 and 2015, however, a different classification was common: Schomburgk’s deer was assigned to the red deer genus (Cervus) —a view that served as the standard for a long time. Today, though, the placement in the genus Rucervus has largely prevailed, where it has found its place as a close relative of the barasingha.

Schomburgk’s deer in zoos and museums

Although Schomburgk’s deer was once widespread in Thailand, today only a single fully preserved specimen bears witness to the existence of this species: It stands in the Grande Galerie de l’Évolution at the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle in Paris. This male specimen, presumably a gift from the Siamese king, was brought to Paris as early as 1862 and lived there until 1868 in the Zoo at the Jardin des Plantes.

In 1952, zoologist Jean Dorst reported in his work Notice sur les spécimens naturalisés de Mammifères éteints existant dans les collections du Muséum that there was once another specimen in Paris. This one came from the London Zoo and was transferred to Paris in 1880, where it lived in the Ménagerie of the Jardin des Plantes until its death on October 12, 1883. The animal was labeled as “Cervus schomburgki“, but displayed antlers that were less developed and more reminiscent of the barasingha. It was probably in fact a barasingha, which is why today people always speak of only one preserved specimen of Schomburgk’s deer.

Besides this single specimen, museums and private collections worldwide still hold about 300 to 400 antlers, skulls, and a few bones. Hardly anything is known about the females—only that they did not carry antlers. While the males’ antlers were prized trophies, females were likely hunted at least occasionally as a source of meat.

Especially fascinating is a curious belief that once spread among the local population: Female Schomburgk deer were said to resemble the Hainan Eld’s deer so closely that people thought there were no female Schomburgk deer at all. Instead, they believed the males mated with female Eld’s deer and that the offspring became either a Schomburgk deer or an Eld’s deer.

From a Schomburgk deer that lived in the Berlin Zoological Garden between 1899 and 1911, at least seven photographs have also been preserved—they show the last known animal of this species in a zoo. In fact, Schomburgk’s deer was kept only in European zoos: in Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne, Paris, and London. In North America, by contrast, it was never on display.

Because all hints, traces in museums, in old reports, and in collections have so far not been sufficient to confirm the survival of Schomburgk’s deer, the mystery of its possible survival remains. Perhaps somewhere in the remote forests of Southeast Asia there is still a small, hidden herd—or perhaps Schomburgk’s deer is truly lost forever.

---

Sources

• Bhicharana, P. J. (1932). Notes on the Schomburgk Deer. Journal of the Siam Society of Natural History, 8, 311–313.
• Day, D. (1981). The Doomsday Book of Animals. London: Ebury Press.
• Dorst, J. (1952). Notice sur les spécimens naturalisés de Mammifères éteints existant dans les collections du Muséum. Bulletin du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 2° Série, 24(1), 63–78.
• Duckworth, J. W., Salter, R. E., & Khounboline, K. (1999). Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 status report. Vientiane: IUCN.
• Giles, F. H. (1937). The riddle of Cervus schomburgki. Journal of the Siam Society of Natural History, 11(1), 1–34.
• Harper, F. (1945). Extinct and Vanishing Mammals of the Old World. New York: American Committee for International Wildlife Protection.
• Irving, M. (2019, September 9). Fresh antlers suggest “extinct” deer species lived on. New Atlas.
  https://newatlas.com/science/antlers-extinct-deer-species-alive/
• MacPhee, R. D. E., & Flemming, C. (1999). Requiem aeternam: The last five hundred years of mammalian extinctions. In R. D. E. MacPhee (Ed.), Extinctions in Near Time (pp. 333–371). New York: Springer.
• Morris, A. (2019, September 6). Evidence suggests rare deer lived 50 years beyond ‘extinction’. Northwestern Now. https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2019/09/evidence-suggests-rare-deer-lived-50-years-beyond-extinction/
• Schroering, G. B. (1995). Swamp deer resurfaces. Wildlife Conservation, 98(6), 22.
• Schroering, G. B., & Galbreath, G. J. (2019). Evidence of late survival of Schomburgk’s deer (Rucervus schomburgki) in Central Laos. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 116, 49–50.
• Srikosamatara, S., Siripholdej, B., & Suteethorn, V. (1992). Wildlife trade in Lao P. D. R. and between Lao P. D. R. and Thailand. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society, 40, 1–47.
• Williams, L. (1941). Green Prison: Twenty Years in Thailand. London: Jarrolds Publishers.