What they are doing is ignoring that they are a CITES listed species and simply exporting them as a
Rhampholeon species (without any CITES documents). In general,
Rhampholeon species are not CITES listed and thus, in addition to not requiring CITES permits, are not subject to Tanzania's annual CITES export quotas.
The issue, however, is that CITES has not recognized the reclassification of this species to
Rhampholeon spinosus, so for CITES purposes, they are still considered
Bradypodion spinosum and still very much a CITES species (See the UNEP-WCMC and CITES Species+ profile:
http://www.speciesplus.net/#/taxon_concepts/9976/legal), as it should be given that it is Endangered according to the IUCN Red List (
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/176323/0). Even if CITES were to have accepted the taxonomic change of this species to
Rhampholeon spinosus, however, all that would mean is that you could no longer say no
Rhampholeon species were CITES listed, as a species does not lose its CITES status with a taxonomic change (can you imagine how often rhinos and elephants would be reclassified if that were the case?).
Whether these exporters are doing this intentionally (knowingly) or unintentionally (not knowing the taxonomic history and protection status) isn't clear. Its success, however, depends on enforcement agencies not knowing any better, and more importantly, importers who either also don't know any better or are willing to violate international laws for their own greed and in the process risk their entire shipments being confiscated. Obviously you now know the legal issue of importing this species without CITES documents.
Chris
