Presumed M. gongshanensis has been camera-trapped between 1,250 and 2,750 m asl in Northern Myanmar (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008, based on WCS Myanmar Programme unpublished data, Than Zaw pers. comm. 2006). A paratype was collected at 3,000 m asl in northwestern Yunnan (Ma et al. 1990). Specimens in the NHM and FMNH from northern Myanmar were reportedly taken between 900 and 1,850 m asl. Wang (1998) gave the species' elevation as 2,000 m asl, in alpine broadleaf forests, coniferous forests and mixed forests, and in Tibet it occurs at 1,800–2,600 m asl. Presumed Camera-trapped animals in Myanmar have been found from subtropical forests through temperate thick mountain forests up to Himalayan alpine shrubland (Than Zaw pers. comm. 2006). It is uncertain if M. gongshanensis is widely syntopic with other muntjac species. Camera-trap results from northern Myanmar suggest that it occurs largely above the altitudinal ranges of other species there (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008, based on WCS Myanmar Programme unpublished data). No ecological separation between Gongshan and Northern Red Muntjacs in the Gaoligongshan was discussed by Ma et al. (1994), but Schaller and Rabinowitz (2004) considered that Red Muntjac generally lived at lower altitudes than presumed Gongshan Muntjac in south-east Tibet. Gongshan Muntjac’s use of degraded and fragmented forest has not been assessed.

Muntiacus gongshanensis was described from Yunnan province, south-western China (Ma et al. 1990), within which its distribution spans the latitudinal range of about 25°–28°10′N (Ma et al. 1994). It also occurs in Kachin state, northern Myanmar: there are several specimens over the latitudinal range of 26°46′N–28°10′N in NHM and FMNH (note specimens are not catalogued under the name M. gongshanensis, R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008). Recent reports by Rabinowitz et al. (1998) and Amato et al. (1999b, 2000), where M. gongshanensis was considered synonymous with M. crinifrons, presumably refer to this species (Grubb 2005), although insufficient morphological characters are given to allow a firm identification. However, from the same area come many recent camera-trap photographs morphologically consistent with M. gongshanensis, specifically from Hkakaborazi National Park and Hponkanrazi Wildlife Sanctuary, which lie within the specimen-validated latitudinal range (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008, based on WCS Myanmar Programme unpublished data).

Gongshan Muntjac also probably inhabits southeastern Tibet: Chen et al. (2007) reported animals from Modog and Damu counties, close to the China, India and Myanmar border, in the range 28°33′–29°29′N, 95°20′–97°05′E. They based their identification (as M. crinifrons) solely on mtDNA and no morphological voucher seems to be available (small pieces of pelt may have been preserved), and no characters were discussed other than that the pelt was dark. Specimen-based records, again as M. crinifrons with M. gongshanensis explicitly considered a synonym, from this general area were reported by Schaller and Rabinowitz (2004), from the rivers Pailong and Yigong (30°07′N, 95°02′E) and the Modog area to the south, and from near Zayu at 29°56′N, 94°48′E, again, no morphological characters were given sufficient to allow identification to species. Inglis (1952) referred to melanistic (“very dark brown”) muntjacs, sometimes almost black, in the Darjeeling district (27°02′N, 88°16′E), one was at this time mounted in the Darjeeling museum. Whether this specimen is still extant is unclear, and no analysis more substantial seems to have been published on these animals. However recently such animals have apparently been camera-trapped in the Senchal Wildlife Sanctuary, Darjeeling, with speculation that they could be M. crinifrons or M. gongshanensis (Mukherjee 2013). A search of the internet revealed a number of photographs of captive ‘black’ muntjacs from the Darjeeling and adjacent Sikkim region of India, these animals are completely blackish all over including the underside of the tail, and essentially have no features in common with M. gongshanensis or M. crinifrons, it seems most probable that they are melanistic M. vaginalis (R. J. Timmins pers. comm. 2015). Unfortunately creating further confusion (as of November 2015) images of one of these presumed melanistic muntjacs from Sikkim was used to illustrate the species M. crinifrons on the website “http://www.arkive.org/” (R. J. Timmins pers. comm. 2015 based on information from G. Cubitt in litt. 2014).

Also in India, Johnsingh (2004) stated that Muntiacus crinifrons was discovered in Arunachal Pradesh, the actual location and basis for identification remain unpublished, but this seems more likely to refer to M. gongshanensis than to M. crinifrons (but again could also potentially refer to some other taxon such as one of the M. rooseveltorum species-complex). Likewise M. crinifrons was reported from Namdapha National Park in Arunachal Pradesh (Datta 2003), but the authors make no mention of M. gongshanensis. And apparently a new field guide to Indian mammals (Menon 2014) refers to “Gongshan Muntjac and Black Muntjac as a same species” (Aiyadurai and Meme 2015). M. gongshanensis has been reported from the Mishmi hills, Arunachal Pradesh based on skin and skull remains (Choudhury 2003, 2009, 2013), but seemingly not Pangsha village, Nagaland, as reported by Aiyadurai and Meme (2015). However, the certainty of identification is hard to verify as M. gongshanensis has morphological similarities with the M. rooseveltorum species complex (which includes M. putaoensis, also reported from North-east India), including small antlers, a photo (Choudhury 2009) of a “Leaf Muntjac” trophy arguably has more similarity with M. gongshanensis, whilst another photo  (Choudhury 2013) of purportedly of a male “M. gongshanensis” skull arguably has more similarity with an animal of the M. rooseveltorum species complex.

Camera-trapping studies in Lao PDR and Viet Nam have many images not referable to Northern Red Muntjac M. vaginalis or to Large-Antlered Muntjac M. vuquangensis. Many are certainly of the M. rooseveltorum complex of species, but given the external similarity of some specimens of the later to M. gongshanensis, some photographs may in fact be M. gongshanensis or a closely related taxon (R.J. Timmins pers. comm. 2008, based on extensive examination of various camera-trapping programmes’ images). No certain specimen evidence has yet come to light which would support this.

In sum, if these records in Tibet, India and even Lao PDR and Viet Nam do refer to M. gongshanensis, they indicate a much wider geographic range than the so-far specimen-validated distribution in Gaoligongshan (Yunnan, China) and Kachin state (Myanmar).

Animals presumed to be M. gongshanensis have been found within two large protected areas in Myanmar, Hkakaborazi National Park and Hponkanrazi Wildlife Sanctuary (Than Zaw pers. comm. 2006); other areas of suitable habitat exist outside the protected area system in Myanmar but have not been surveyed using suitable methods. Neither have tracts of potentially suitable highlands in other proposed or declared protected areas such as Hukaung Tiger Reserve and Bumphabum Wildlife Sanctuary. The protected areas of Myanmar’s ‘Northern Forest Complex’ are evolving their management and full support is needed to ensure their success. This needs to tackle the issue of professional hunting parties as an urgent priority, and hunting by local inhabitants with sensitivity. It is known from two protected areas, Nujiang and Gaoligong reserves, in China, although it is not protected as a species there (Wang 1998).

An immediate need is to dispel the confusion surrounding this species' taxonomic validity, generated through inspection of part of its mtDNA, compounding the, to date, only weak discussions of its morphological distinctiveness, and to establish and communicate the diagnostic characteristics of the species. This requires re-evaluation of the types and other specimens in China, a review of as much modern material is available in Myanmar (specimens and photographs), and analysis of specimens held in internationally-accessible institutions (most or all of which are still catalogued under other names).

An analysis of sensitivity to hunting is needed, which should focus on the relative abundance of this and other muntjac species within heavily hunted areas.