The Kivu duiker was first described as a subspecies of black-fronted duiker (Cephalophorus nigrifrons) in 1919, and was retained as a subspecies of C. nigrifrons on the basis of morphological characters in the 2011 revision of ungulate taxonomy - even as other montane forms of black-fronted duiker from eastern Africa were provisionally elevated to separate species (i.e., C. (n.) fosteri from Mount Elgon; C. (n.) hooki from Mount Kenya; C. (n.) hypoxanthus from the Itombwe Mountains; and C. (n.) rubidus from the Rwenzori Mountains).

In 2022, a genetic study using duiker dung collected from Kahuzi-Biega National Park, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, determined that the "black-fronted duikers" in the region were genetically distinct from central African C. nigrifrons specimens. Based on location, these specimens were provisionally assigned to C. (n.) kivuensis, although this identification has not yet been confirmed with genetic sequencing of the type specimen. Further genetic work is needed to untangle the relationships of the black-fronted duikers in eatern Africa; it has been hypothesized that several of the other montane forms (including C. (n.) fosteri, C. (n.) hooki, and C. (n.) hypoxanthus) may cluster with this newly-recognized species.

Head and body length: 107 cm (from the type specimen)

Tail length: 8 cm (from the type specimen)

Generally similar to the black-fronted duiker (Cephalophorus nigrifrons). The rusty red coat is thick and coarse; individual hairs have red tips but dark bases, which may give the appearance of black speckling. Hair on the neck is particularly bristly and may reach 2.5-3.0 cm in length. There is no dorsal stripe. The underparts are paler than the body, and the legs are gray-black. The tail is dark above and white below. The face has a broad black blaze from the muzzle to the black tuft of hair at the crown, sharply delineated by fawn-colored stripes above the eyes. The chin is pale red, whiter in animals from higher elevations, and the ears are nearly black on their external surface. Both sexes have short, conical horns; in the female type specimen the horns are 4.0 cm long and have a basal diamter of 1.5 cm.

Similar species

• The Kivu duiker is externally similar to, and easily confused with, the black-fronted duiker (Cephalophorus nigrifrons) and divisions between the species are still being determined. The Kivu duiker is generally described as having more contrasting colors, darker legs and stouter hooves.

No specifics are known about the breeding or development of the Kivu duiker. Its reproductive biology is likely similar to that of other Cephalophorus duikers.

Woodland habitats provide the Kivu duiker with safety and cover, but this species is often observed foraging in open habitats. Foraging activity appears to be centralized around dawn and dusk based on observations from Rwanda and two camera trap images from Kahuzi-Biego National Park (DRC) which were collected in the early morning (0616h) and late afternoon (1709h). Based on dung data in Rwanda, population densities are lowest in bamboo forests (4.7/km²) and highest in Senecia-Hypericum woodland meadows and Hypericum woodland (21.1-21.6/km²).

Family group: Solitary.

Diet: Primarily folivorous: herbs, moss and lichens, grass, vines, roots, and bark.

Main Predators: Likely leopard, African golden cat.

The Kivu duiker is named after Lake Kivu (on the border of Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo), and is thought to be found throughout the Virunga Mountains. It is likely found in southern Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. In Rwanda, it inhabits bamboo forests, Hagenia-Hypericum woodlands, and alpine meadows, and has been observed at elevations greater than 4,000 m. The approximate range is depicted in the map below.

IUCN Red List: Least Concern (not individually assessed, but included within Cephalophorus nigrifons, 2016).

CITES Listing: Not listed (2024).

Threats: Undetermined, but likely hunting and habitat loss.

The uncertain taxonomic position of the Kivu duiker, the challenge of distinguishing the species in the field, and the unknown extent of occurence make assessing its conservation status a challenge.