The Naturalist Volume 124 (4) August 2007 Invertebrate conservation special issue Published by The Field Naturalists Club of Victoria ,?/>?ce 1884 Volume August The Victorian Naturalist 124 ( 4) 2007 Editors: Anne Morton, Gary Presland, Maria Gibson Editorial Assistant: Virgil Hubregtse From the Editors Contributions Introduction: Invertebrate species conservation in Victoria, by Alan L Yen and TR New^ 191 193 The Trafalgar millipede Lissodesmus johnsi Mesibov, 2006 (Diplopoda: Polydesmida: Dalodesmidae), by Robert Mesibov 197 Habitat preferences of the Otway Black Snail Victaphanta compacta (Cox and Hedley, 1912) (Rhytididae), bv Carolyn Burrell, Bronwen Scott and Alan L Yen 204 Freshwater and terrestrial erayfish (Decapoda, Parastacidae) of Victoria: status, conservation, threatening processes and bibliography, by Martin B O'Brien 210 Distribution and conservation status of two amphipods in the Dandenong - Austrogammariis australis (Sayce) and Aiistrogammarus haasei (Sayce), by Phil Papas and Diane Crowtber 230 The Eltham Copper Butterfly Paraliicia pyrodiscus lucida Crosby (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): local versus state conservation strategies in Victoria, by AA Canzano, TR New and Alan L Yen 236 Victoria’s butterflies in a national conservation context, by TR New, RP Field and DP A Sands 243 The conservation of the Giant Gippsland Earthworm Megascolides australis in relation to its distribution in the landscape by Beverley D Van Praagh, Alan L Yen and Neville Rosengren 249 The Golden Sun-moth Synemon plana (Castniidae) on Victoria’s remnant southern native grasslands, by TR New, L Gibson and BD Van Praagh 254 The Lord Howe Island Stick Insect: an example of the benefits of captive management, by Patrick Honan 258 The Hemiphlebia damselfly, Hemiphlebia mirabilis Selys (Odonata, Zygoptera) as a flagship species for aquatic insect conservation in south-eastern Australia, by TR New 269 Conservation of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) especially Coloburiscoides in the Victorian Alps: impediments and threats, by PJ Suter and P McGuffie 273 Naturalist Notes More animals seen on Thryptomene, by Virgil Hiibregtse 262 Invertebrate herbivory of the Soft Tree-fern Dicksonia antarctica, by Dustin Lehr, Jo North and Michelle Cathie 265 Book Reviews A Guide to Australian Moths by Paul Zborowski and Ted Edwards, reviewed by Peter Marriott 278 Melbourne ’s Wildlife:a field guide to the fauna of Greater Melbourne by Museum Victoria, reviewed by Ian Endersby 280 ISSN 0042-5184 From the Editors Invertebrate species are vastly more numerous and incredibly more diverse than animals with backbones. As to the first, they make up about 95% of all known animal species. Perhaps because of the second, invertebrate species, particularly the insects, are of enor- mous importance to the earth’s ecosystems. Pulitzer Prize-winning biologist EO Wilson has observed that Tf insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos.’ This sentiment was echoed by David Attenborough in his recent natural history series Life in the Undergrowth. Despite their numbers and importance, however, invertebrates generally receive far less attention than other animals, from both the nature-loving public and conservationists. Butterflies are perhaps the best-studied group of invertebrates, but the extent of attention focused on them is not matched in the case of most others of their kind. It seems the aver- age fly (May-, Damsel- or otherwise) or stick insect does not rate well against the larger — and more readily apparent — mammal, bird, or even snake or lizard. This Special Issue of The Victorian Naturalist collates contemporary conservation data on this somewhat neglected but vitally important range of species. The Editors are pleased, as ever, to provide this opportunity to focus on invertebrate conservation. The issue addresses questions related to invertebrates and their conservation, as well as pro- viding a good summary of current conservation strategies applied to particular species. While the preparation of ‘special’ issues such as this involves some production difficul- ties, these are greatly outweighed by the value contained between the covers. Front cover: Candalides absimilis (female), a distinct form of this species found at Buchan and Mitchell River NP. Photo supplied by Ross Field. Back cover: Gippsland Burrowing Crayfish. Photo by Greg Hollis, DSE Noojee. Invertehrate Conservation Issue Male (upper) and female (lower) Golden Sun-moth Synemon plana. Photographs supplied by Lucy Gibson. Sec article on p. 254. 192 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Introduction: Invertebrate species conservation in Victoria Alan LYen' and TR New- 'Primary Industries Research Victoria, 621 Burwood Highway, Knoxfield, Victoria 3156 ' Email: Alan.Yen@dpi.vic.gov.au) -Department of Zoology, La Trobe University, Victoria 3086 This dedicated issue of The Victorian Naturalist is about invertebrates, that mas- sive variety of animal life so important in sustaining ecosystems, yet disregarded by most people, to whom the need for their conservation and very existence is not apparent. Without invertebrate participa- tion in processes such as pollination, decomposition and recycling, as predomi- nant members of food webs, and as con- trollers of pests in crop and commodity protection, the world would differ greatly from that which we see and use, and human interests would be compromised severely. An earlier special issue of this journal (Yen and New 1995) gave a broad perspective of invertebrate conservation needs in Victoria, and this issue examines more recent progress with greater focus on individual species and their needs. Some of these species have been studied for many years, and summaries of their conservation programs are given; others are more novel and indicate the continuing need and expansion of interests in invertebrate con- servation in the state. Invertebrates were amongst the earliest nominated candidates for scheduling as threatened species under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG), and the ecologically diverse trio of the Giant Gippsland Earthworm, the Hemiphlebia Damselfly and the Eltham Copper Butterfly were an important collective flagship in demonstrating the great variety of invertebrate ecology to people to whom such animals were strangers, and to whom their conservation and wider evolutionary importance were novel (Yen et al. 1990). Since then, a considerable variety of insects, snails, freshwater crayfish and oth- ers have been added to the FFG schedules, so that (at 20 July 2006) 71 invertebrates are listed for attention in the state. This special issue presents short accounts of some of these species (mainly those which have inspired the pioneering and establish- ment of the discipline of invertebrate con- servation in Victoria), to demonstrate recent increases in knowledge and man- agement related to their conservation needs. The species listed so far are but a tiny fraction of possible deserving candi- dates. Some of the species discussed below are not yet listed for formal conservation significance, and exemplify the variety of possible future requirements. Unlike the major vertebrate groups, for which FFG schedules of threatened species are rela- tively complete, the listed invertebrates are simply those for which some case of need has been made and adjudged valid. Numerous vast groups of insects and oth- ers are not represented by listed species. This does not reflect lack of equivalent need but simply lack of capability to evalu- ate their conservation status, and lack of specialists versed in the biology of those creatures. The inevitable wider conse- quence is that invertebrate conservation has been progressed mainly by attention of members to a few ‘well-known’ groups, amongst which butterflies are paramount, and (more rarely) through the zeal of indi- vidual proponents for members of less familiar groups. Elsewhere in the world, two other con- trasting perspectives on how best to pursue invertebrate conservation occur. First, in parts of the northern temperate zone, pre- dominantly in the United Kingdom and parts of western continental Europe, taxo- nomic, biological and distributional knowl- edge of many invertebrate groups is suffi- cient for finely honed species-focused con- servation programs based on very detailed knowledge as a foundation for effective management and recovery (Stewart and New 2007). Programs on the British but- terflies, for example, draw on well over a century of collector interest and detailed historical records of incidence and abun- Vol. 124 (4) 2007 193 Invertebrate Conservation Issue dance, which allow trends in distribution and abundance to be found and interpreted (see Asher et al. 2001 ). Second, the vast diversity of inverte- brates over much of the tropics renders any such equivalent focus on individual species very difficult, because of poor taxonomy (with most species undescribed), poor eco- logical understanding and. as importantly, the lack of resident expertise and potential support for conservation in relation to the needs of burgeoning human populations (Lewis and Basset 2007). Australia mani- fests an intermediate position: our butter- flies. and some other insects, are indeed reasonably well-known through hobbyist interests, but most other invertebrate groups remain more intangible as the province of very limited interest by few people. Whereas the need for conservation of many a fly, snail or worm may be real, the transfer of 'a name on a list' to a prac- tical and successful management program for such species is an enormous step, par- ticularly when based on very limited knowledge. However, and as emphasised in a major overview of non-marine inverte- brate conservation needs in Australia (Yen and Butcher 1997), the vast diversity of invertebrates ensures that only a tiny pro- portion of species can ever be considered individually. For most, the only practical avenue to their security is to protect the habitats they frequent. We have deliberately limited this issue to representative terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates in Victoria, simply because many of these are better known than many of their marine counterparts, and not in any way to diminish the importance of marine invertebrates or the need to conserve them. Animals such as butterflies, dragonflies, and some moths and beetles, are far better known, so that their conservation needs and priorities can be assessed more realis- tically, on a scale of "secure’ to "critically endangered’ to reflect urgency of the atten- tion needed. Allocating invertebrates con- vincingly to a particular category of threat is a complex task, but necessary as a means to give priority to the most needy species in a work climate in which support is inadequate for all needs to be met. Only for butterflies has a national Action Plan been formulated (Sands and New 2002) to appraise the needs and priorities for a whole invertebrate group in Australia. Similar exercises w'ould be feasible for dragonflies and damselflies, and a few select groups of other invertebrates, but the conclusions by Butcher and Doeg (1995) that "Current information on aquatic inver- tebrates in Victoria is insufficient for most approaches to conservation’ and "While a few species of conservation significance have been identified, concentration on the single-species approach will leave many others open to further decline’ are equally true for most terrestrial taxa. The act of listing a species under FFG, or equivalent legislation elsewhere, implies concern for its future usually because of evident decline in abundance or distribu- tion, including loss from sites changed by human activities, and commonly accompa- nied by definition of the ‘threats’ causing such concerns. It is relevant to emphasise here that simple ‘rarity’ is not alone evi- dence for conservation need. Vast numbers of invertebrate species are indeed "rare’, in some combination of occurring in low numbers, or in very limited areas, and in being ecologically specialised. However, many such species are not "threatened’, and may continue to thrive unless condi- tions change. Many are known from only single sites, or very few such places, but may need only a hectare or less of suitable habitat in order to persist - small habitat areas that could not support an effective population of larger animals such as most vertebrates. Such sites may indeed merit monitoring to detect any threats that arise, but it is usually not feasible (other than by improved buffering of important habitat to prevent loss and degradation) to plan to protect them from chance events such as wildfire or flooding. The more focused basis for conservation concern is ‘threat’, not least because detection and definition of threat(s) dictates a path to constructive management through threat removal and ameliorative measures to conserve the pop- ulation or species affected. Site (broadly, physical habitat) security is the foundation of this; without a ‘place to live’ a species or population is doomed. Simply safe- guarding a site does not guarantee conser- vation, however, and continuing manage- ment is commonly needed to sustain the 194 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue resources and conditions needed by any particular species. This paragraph exempli- fies the twin conservation paradigms dis- tinguished by Caughley (1994), namely (1) the ‘small population paradigm’ for which conservation concerns arise simply from the population being small, and so subject to adverse genetic effects such as inbreed- ing and the possible effects of habitat limi- tation, so that the population could be extirpated by a single catastrophe, and (2) the ‘declining population paradigm’ for which the causes of decline (i.e. threats) define parameters for management. Invertebrate conservation concerns in Victoria exemplify both these schools of thought. A number of species have been listed under FFG simply because they are rare, some of them narrow range endemics, but with little specific evidence of threat. The number of discrete populations is one of the criteria incorporated into the World Conservation Union’s categories of threat. Other species are truly threatened, predom- inantly through loss of (or major changes to) their habitats and critical resources. The initial act of listing such poorly-understood species under FFG ideally leads to accu- mulation of knowledge that, in turn, reveals either (T) that management for greater ecological understanding, threat amelioration and recovery is needed, and definition of the specific components of a convincing management plan, or (2) that the initial concerns were misplaced and that the species is more abundant, wide- spread and/or secure than earlier supposed. The latter, as well as successful manage- ment leading to demonstrated recovery, may be grounds for delisting the species, not least to refocus support for more deserving taxa on the list. Two other grounds for delisting a taxon, both rare but noted here for completeness, are (1) if the species is known to have become extinct, for example through monitoring of the last or only known population, and (2) if taxo- nomic changes reveal it not to be a distinc- tive entity, but synonymous with a non- threatened taxon. However, isolated or other ‘significant’ populations may still be eligible for conservation attention. In this issue of The Victorian Naturalist, authors have been invited to review and comment on the status of and progress to understanding conservation needs for a variety of Victoria’s threatened (or pre- sumed threatened) invertebrates. A further paper exemplifies how a Victorian institu- tion is supporting wider invertebrate con- servation within Australia through a cap- tive breeding programme of the Lord Howe Island Stick Insect - the only non- Victorian species included, but one to whose well-being State expertise is con- tributing significantly. These cases include some species that have attracted attention over the last 20 years. Collectively these accounts demonstrate changing attitudes to invertebrates in Australia, and the ways in which objective scientific evidence is play- ing important roles in formulating conser- vation protocols. The consequences of FFG listing, noted by Clunie and Reed (1995) include (1) protection from take, an action with very mixed benefits for conser- vation (Greenslade 1999); (2) construction of an Action Statement, to elaborate on what is known and what needs to be known to ensure long-term survival in the wild ; (3) moves to protect habitat and critical resources from further despoliation and loss; (4) becoming foci for funding, com- monly with additional support by formation of community groups; (5) elevated public profile through a variety of advisory and media exposure; and (6) obligations to con- sider the species in planning decisions for land or water management. In these steps, some of the invertebrates listed for conser- vation protection under FFG have become some of the best-known non-pest inverte- brates in the State. For others, no such plan is currently possible. The above ‘conse- quences’ are all evident in the examples we summarise here. Collectively they help to advance wider knowledge of the conserva- tion needs of these intriguing animals. Many uncertainties and challenges remain. The over-arching effects of future climate change have as yet been scarcely defined, for example, but may markedly influence the vulnerability of many inver- tebrate species (including a variety of alpine region endemics) that already sur- vive in only small areas of marginally suit- able habitat that may be changed dramati- cally within a few decades. Vol. 124 ( 4 ) 2007 195 Invertebrate Conservation Issue References Asher J. Warren M. Fox R. Hardy I\ JelTcoate G and Jeffcoate S (2001 ) The Millenium Allas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. (Oxford University Press: Oxford). Butcher R and Doeg TJ (1995) Conservation of fresh- water invertebrates. The Victorian Naturalist 112, 15 - 19 . Caughley G (1994) Directions in conservation biology. Journal of Animal Ecolog\- 63, 2 1 5-244. Clunie P and Reed J (1995) Protection of invertebrates in Victoria: the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. The Victorian Naturalist 1 12, 32-35. Greenslade P (1999) What entomologists think about listing species for protection: a survey of bulterny specialists in Australia. In The other 99%. The con- servation and biodiversity of invertebrates. Eds W Ponder and D Lunney pp. 345-349 (Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales: Mosman). Lewis OT and Basset Y (2007) Insect conservation in tropical forests. In Insect Conservation Biology, pp. 34-56. Eds AJA Stewart. TR New and OT Lewis. (CABI: Wallingford, UK) Sands DPA and New TR (2002) The action plan for Australian butterflies. (Environment Australia: Canberra). Stewart AJA and New FR (2007) Insect conservation in temperate biomes: issues, progress and prospects. In Insect Conservation Biolog)', pp. 1-33. F^ds AJA Stewart. TR New and OT Lewis. (CABI: Wallingford, UK) Yen AL and Butcher R.I ( 1997) .in overview of the con- servation of non-marine invertebrates in Australia. (Environment Australia: Canberra) Yen AL and New TR (eds) (1995) Conservation of invertebrates. The Victorian Naturalist 112, 4-65. Yen AL, New TR. Van Praagh BD and Vaughan PJ {1990) Invertebrate conservation: three case histories Irom south eastern Australia. In Management and conservation of small populations. Eds TW Clark and JH Secbcck. pp. 207-224. (Chicago Zoological Society: Chicago. Illinois) Received 15 March 2007; accepted 12 Julv 2007 Female Golden Sun-moth Synemon plana. Photograph supplied by Lucy Gibson. 196 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue The Trafalgar millipede Lissodesmus johnsi Mesibov, 2006 (Diplopoda: Polydesmida: Dalodesmidae) Robert Mesibov Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Wellington Street, Launceston, Tasmania 7250 Email: mesibov@southcom.com.au Abstract Lissodesmus johnsi, L. dignomontis and L. tarrabidga are endemic to the Strzelecki Ranges in Gippsland, Victoria, where the three species may once have formed a distribution mosaic. Lissodesmus johnsi now appears to be restricted to c. 60 ha over three sites in the western Strzelecki hills, which were almost entirely cleared of their forest cover in the late 19th and early 20th cen- turies. {The Victorian Naturalist 124 (4), 2007, 197-203) Introduction Some time in August 1890, the 70-year- old William Kershaw - Victorian entomol- ogist and field naturalist - collected sever- al species of millipedes ‘near Trafalgar’ in Gippsland. He preserved the specimens in alcohol and deposited them in the National Museum of Victoria. Seventy-odd years later, the specimens were carefully examined by the visiting New Zealand specialist Peter Johns. Although Johns was reasonably certain that one of the Trafalgar millipedes was in the same genus as a species earlier described from Melbourne, he decided not to name it as a new species. Instead, he described and illustrated it as ' Pseudoprionopeltis (Australopeltis) sp.’ (Johns 1964) Another 40 years passed, and Australopeltis had meanwhile been Fig. 1 . Lissodesmus search sites (yellow squares) in west and south Gippsland. Background is natur- al-colour Landsat image from 2000. Dark green patches are forest plantations and native forest; remainder is farmland and urban and industrial clearings. T = Trafalgar. Vol. 124 (4) 2007 197 Invertebrate Conservation Issue replaced by the older name Lissodesmus (Jeekel 1983). I was examining specimens for a revision of Lissodesmus w'hen I came across the Kershaw material in Museum Victoria in Melbourne. The Trafalgar species was most unusual, evidently a Lissodesmus but apparently a highly derived one. I needed a few more speci- mens for a proper description. Was the millipede still living, 1 wondered, ‘near Trafalgar'? The short answer was ‘yes' and I obtained my specimens, later naming the species Lissodesmus johnsi (Mesibov 2006). However, the taxonomic and con- servation issues arising from this study were more complicated than 1 anticipated. The Trafalgar millipede is one of three remarkable species confined to Gippsland’s Strzelecki Ranges. It is also, 1 suspect, closer to extinction than any other Victorian millipede. Millipede hunting Between September 2004 and July 2006 I spent 26 field days searching for Lissodesmus at 86 sites in west and south Gippsland (Fig. 1 ). Unlike the familiar Portugese millipede and many native millipedes. Lissodesmus species require constant high humidity. They live in wet rotting wood and moist humus-rich soil. In Victorian wet forest where lyrebirds are absent, Lissodesmus species can be found in deep leaf litter on the forest floor. Where lyrebirds regularly disturb this microhabitat by raking, Lissodesmus are very hard to find outside of logs. Victoria has 1 I known Lissodesmus species, i.e. the 10 described or redescribed in Mesibov (2006) and a new species dis- covered in the Grampians in 2005. Most are pink or reddish in colour and up to 20 mm long as adults. Like most of the 18 known Tasmanian Lissodesmus species, the Victorian species typically have fairly small ranges, but L. martini is widespread and abundant from Melbourne’s eastern suburbs to Dargo. I found L. martini as far south as Yinnar in the Morwell River valley, but in the Strzelecki Ranges it is replaced by a closely related species, L. gippslandicus. The two Fig. 2. Localities fox Lissodesmus gippslandicus (squares) and L. martini (crosses) in west and south Gippsland. Map extent is the same as in Fig. 1. Contours are at 100 m intervals. WS = western hills of Strzelecki Ranges, ES = eastern hills of Strzelecki Ranges, MS = Moe Swamp, T = Trafalgar. 198 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue distributions meet but overlap only slightly (Fig. 2). This spatial arrangement, known as parapatry, is common in millipedes, and many genera, such as Lissodesmiis, form species mosaics in the landscape (Mesibov 2003). The johnsi group Three closely related Lissodesmus species are remarkably different from other Victorian and Tasmanian Lissodesmus. The three are here called the johnsi group, and comprise L. dignomontis^ L. johnsi and L. tarrabidga (Mesibov 2006). Adults in this group are small, pale and oddly juve- nile in some anatomical details (Fig. 3). The johnsi group are also set apart geo- graphically, occurring only in the Strzelecki Ranges, where their distribu- tions may once have formed a mosaic (Fig. 4). The boundaries between mosaic tiles can be remarkably narrow in millipedes, with overlap zones less than 100 m wide. I was fortunate to find a sharp boundary of this kind between L. dignomontis and L. johnsi in a bush remnant at Yarragon South, just southwest of Trafalgar. To a greater degree than in most other Victorian millipedes, the johnsi group are microhabitat-specific. They appear to be much less tolerant of dry conditions than the co-occurring L. gippslandicus (Fig. 3), and have not yet been found in forest where rotting logs are absent, or where repeated hot burning has greatly reduced organic matter in the topsoil. Local history Twenty years before William Kershaw’s visit, the western Strzelecki hills were cov- ered in tall, wet eucalypt forest, with a dense understorey of smaller trees, shrubs and treeferns, or of tall sedges (Adams 1978; TJ Coverdale in Shire of Korumburra 1966). Travellers through this hill forest often noted the presence of huge eucalypt logs lying on the ground (Adams 1978).' The Moe Swamp, north of the hills, was at least partly covered in tea-tree species, with scattered eucalypts (Adams 1978). Between the Swamp proper and the hills were broad wooded flats. ^ A very large area ‘near Trafalgar’ was good L. johnsi habitat in 1870. A few years later the first settlers arrived. The subsequent clearing of the forested hills of south Gippsland has been docu- mented in extraordinary detail in a collec- tion of first-hand reminiscences, The Land of the Lyre Bird (Shire of Korumburra 1966). First, the forest understorey and the younger eucalypts were felled, an opera- tion called ‘scrub cutting’. On a suitable day the following summer, the felled mate- rial was burned, and ‘picking up’ began, i.e. the collection and burning of ‘every- thing in the shape of timber except the standing stumps’ (WHC Holmes in Shire of Korumburra 1966). Clearing and burning were very thor- ough.’’ Clearing often began along creek- lines and proceeded upslope, and creek gullies, which might have served as litter fauna refuges during natural wildfires, were used as kilns to burn logs (WHC Holmes in Shire of Korumburra 1966; G. Matheson in Shire of Korumburra 1966). In the exceptionally hot and dry summer of 1898, west and south Gippsland were swept by intense bushfires. Many of the large eucalypts which had been ringbarked and left standing on the developing farm- lands were burned down. Although lives, livestock, buildings, fences and sown pas- tures were lost in the fire, ‘it had done some good in clearing up a lot of old logs and undergrowth, and in burning down and burning away thousands of big trees’ (TJ Coverdale in Shire of Korumburra 1966).’ Settlers took advantage of the 1898 fires to do further ‘picking up’.^ Rabbits arrived in the district at about the same time (Adams 1978), and rabbit control included burning the stumps and logs used by rabbits for shelter. Earlier in the 1890s, work began on clearing and draining the Moe Swamp, and settlement on the formerly wet flats proceeded quickly.'^ For a social and economic history of the settlement of the northern portion of the johnsi group range, see Adams (1978). The key point is that much of the formerly forested area had been cleared, burned and converted to mainly treeless, logless farm- land within 30 years of settlement.^ By the 1920s, some of that land had become ‘densely covered with bracken fern and blackberry bramble’ (report quoted in Adams 1978), but very little was allowed Vol. 124 (4) 2007 199 Ifiverfehrate Conservation Issue Fig. 3. Adult females of Lissodesmus gipps/andicus (top) and L. Jo/msi (bottom). to regenerate to native forest in the follow- ing decades. Instead, steep or derelict farmland was planted with Finns radiata and, more recently, Eucalyptus globulus. Although some other native millipedes have successfully colonised the older plan- tations. 1 have not yet found any of the jolmsi group in plantation litter. Lissodesmus johnsi today Over the past 50 years, as evidenced by aerial photographs, native forest cover has increased in the farmed landscape of the western Strzelecki hills. Much of this increase has been in and adjoining deep gullies from which stock are now largely excluded. 1 have carefully searched a num- ber of these ‘new’ wet forest patches near Trafalgar without finding L. johnsi. The most likely explanation is that the species became locally extinct when its log and topsoil shelters were burned away in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Dispersal of L. johnsi to these ‘new’ patch- es is blocked by wide barriers of pasture. I have so far located only three popula- tions of L. johnsi. all ‘near Trafalgar’ (Fig. 5). A small population occurs on a few hectares of privately owned wet forest near an old sawmill site at Yarragon South, on a steep south-facing slope above a farm dam. A second small population occupies a portion of an 8 ha patch of privately owned riparian forest, also at Yarragon South; L. johnsi occurs here in parapatry with L. dig- nomontis. The largest known population is in Uralla Nature Reserve (UNR) in Trafalgar. The 45 ha Reserve is owned by Trust for Nature and managed by a committee of volunteers under the auspices of Baw Baw Shire. A detailed history of the property is not yet available, but it is known to have been used by charcoal burners and may thus have been an informal timber reserve. Within UNR, L. johnsi is found in rotting logs both in shady wet forest close to fiow- lines and in open forest on ridgelines. The UNR forest is contiguous with pri- vately owned forest to the south and east and with Shire forest on the Trafalgar tip site to the west. I have searched these sur- rounds for L. johnsi without success, although L. gipplandicus and other native millipedes are present. The surrounding forest appears to have far fewer rotting logs than UNR, and may be largely ‘new’ forest in the sense noted above, i.e. forest regenerated on formerly cleared land. UNR and the other two known L. johnsi sites, although burned in the past, were apparently never completely cleared for agriculture. Conservation recommendations The UNR forest is probably large enough to support the existing population of L. johnsi indefinitely. The eucalypt over- 200 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Fig. 4. Localities for Lissodesmus dignomontis (circles), L. johnsi (trian- gles) and L. tarrabiilga (stars) in west and south Gippsland. Map extent is the same as in Fig. 1. Contours are at 1 00 m inter- vals. WS = western hills of Strzelecki Ranges, ES = eastern hills of Strzelecki Ranges, MS = Moe Swamp, T - Trafalgar. Fig. 5. Localities for Lissodesmus dignomontis (red squares) and L. johnsi (yellow squares) near Trafalgar (T). Background is natural-colour Landsat image from 2000. Dark patches are forest plan- tations and native forest, remainder is farmland and urban clearings. Uralla Nature Reserve (UNR) occupies the north-central portion of its forest patch. Lissodesmus dignomontis and L. johnsi occur in parapatry in the forest remnant marked with an arrow, south of Yarragon (Y). Vol. 124 (4) 2007 201 Invertebrate Conservation Issue storey is uneven-aged, and natural treefalls and gap- or fire-promoted regeneration should provide an ongoing source of rot- ting logs for L. jolwsi microhabitat. Clearing trees and removing firewood from any part of UNR would reduce this critically important rotting wood resource. The rotting wood resource is also at risk from an intense ground fire. The best pro- tection against such a fire is periodic fuel reduction burning of standing shrubs, grasses and sedges, carried out under con- ditions when ground-surface litter and logs are moist enough not to burn. I am reluctant to recommend transloca- tion of L. johnsi to small forest patches elsewhere in the western Stzrelecki hills. It is not yet clear how mosaic parapatry is maintained in millipedes (Mesibov 2003), and it is possible that translocation will either fail because of the presence of the sister species L. dignomontis, or will suc- ceed to the detriment of the latter. Conclusion It is a lucky historical accident that the Trafalgar millipede Lissodesmtis johnsi is still extant, c. 115 years after its discovery. Virtually the whole of what is likely to have been its former range, north, south and east of Trafalgar, was cleared for agriculture and is now pasture, cropland or forest planta- tion. While its sister species L dignomontis and L. tarrahidga are likely to persist in large blocks of native forest elsewhere in iht johnsi group mosaic, L. johnsi will avoid extinction only if the core of its remaining range, Uralla Nature Reserve, is managed so as to maintain a well-dispersed stock of rotting logs within standing native forest. Acknowledgements I am very grateful to the many landowners in west Gippsland who gave me access to their properties, and especially to Geoff and Jackie Tims, Ken and Wendy Savage, and John Poppins of Yarragon South for their support, hospitality and local knowledge. Historical information was sourced with the assistance of Jean Huffer of the Trafalgar and District Historical Society, and of staff at the State Library of Victoria and the Royal Historical Society of Victoria. A number of G!S layers and a 20 m DEM for my study area were kindly pro- vided by the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria. The Landsat image in Fig. 1 is from an image layer in the National Carbon Accounting Toolbox and Data Viewer, Australian Greenhouse Office. The contours in Figs. 2 and 4 were generated from the 9 second digital elevation model of Australia, version 2.1, Geoscience Australia. 1 thank an anonymous referee for helpful comments on a draft of this paper. The L. johnsi study was funded by the author. References Adams J (1978) So Tall the Trees. A Centenary Uistoiy of the Southern Districts of the Shire ofNarracan. (Narracan Shire Council: Trafalgar) Back to Yarragon Conimiltee (1978) From the Dawning. A History of Yarragon and District. (Back to Yarragon Committee: Traralgon) Daley C (I960) The Story of Gipp.sland. (Whilcombe and Tombs Ply Ltd: Melbourne) Jeekel CAW (1983) Millipedes from Australia, 8: A new genus and species of the family Dalodesmidae from Victoria (Diplopoda, Polydesmida). Bulletin Zodlogisch Museum. Universiteit van Amsterdam 9, 145-151. Johns PM (1964) The Sphaerotrichopidae (Diplopoda) of New Zealand. 1. Introduction, revision of some known species and description of new species. Records of the Canterbury Museum 8, 1-49. Mesibov R (2003) Lineage mosaics in millipedes. African Invertebrates 44, 203-212. Mesibov R (2006) The millipede genus Lissodesmus Chamberlin. 1920 (Diplopoda: Polydesmida: Dalodesmidae) from Tasmania and Victoria, with descriptions of a new genus and 24 new species. Memoirs of Museum Victoria bl, 103-146. Shire of Korumburra (for the South Gippsland Development League) (1966) The Land of the Lyre Bird. A Story of Early Settlement in the Great Forest of South Gippsland. Melbourne: Shire of korumburra. [Republication of the 1920 book pub- lished by Gordon & Gotch for the Committee of the South Gippsland Pioneers’ Association.] Smith J (1905) The Cyclopedia of Victoria: an histori- cal and commercial review: descriptive and bio- graphical, facts, figures and illustrations: an epitome of progress. Vol. III. (Cyclopedia Co: Melbourne) Notes ‘ ‘After a few days we started off one morning to visit our selection, about two miles further on. We followed a survey line (now Sanders’s lane), running in the direction we wished to go. Through the dense forest we pushed our way - we walked along logs, climbed over logs, crept under logs, crawled through logs, but seldom or never did our feet touch the ground.’ (W. Johnstone in Shire of Korumburra 1966, p. 213) - ‘The Northern Gippsland railway line, after passing through Warragul, runs into a stretch of rich grey soil flats, the timber being mostly white gum, with occasional specimens of blackwood. Settlement in this district, which has railway centres at Darnum, Yarragon and Trafalgar, on what is known as ‘the flats’ is of comparatively recent date.’ {Trafalgar and Yarragon Times, 19 August 1902, p. 1) ^ Tt was perhaps a grave error to destroy all this valuable timber... Yet most of us deemed it inadvisable to leave even one acre of standing 202 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue timber.’ (M. Hansen in Shire of Korumburra 1966, p.218) * ‘Total clearing of the land was made easier when ‘stoving’ was found to be an effective way of getting rid of tree stumps. This method was to remove the earth from the base, build a stack of wood around and set fire to it. The resulting heap of glowing coals was complete- ly covered with tightly packed earth, and kept covered. This produced a hot, slow burning fire which incinerated a great part of the stand- ing trunks and gradually crept along under- ground destroying most of the giant root sys- tem. This would take months, and the selector, carrying a lantern in his hand, would go around them at night when he was able to see if any needed covering with more earth.’ (Back to Yarragon Committee 1978, p. 10) ^ ‘The only benefit the [1898] fires did was to sweep many paddocks clean of timber that would otherwise have taken years to clear.’ (F.P. Elms in Shire of Korumburra 1966, p. 341) ^ ‘Deprived of the more profitable timber indus- try [following the 1898 bushfires], settlers were perforce compelled to give more atten- tion to agriculture. To this end the task of clearing the land of blackened butts and trunks, by bringing together the charred timber and remains in heaps around the bases of dead trees, and lighting covered fires until every- thing was burned, was vigorously pursued.’ (Daley 1960,p. 137) ’ ‘Trafalgar is beautifully situated almost at the foot of the Strzelecki Ranges, and a fine view can be obtained from the summit of one of them, for as the tourist looks out from his exalted position over the great expanse of country spread out before him, and sees the numerous square cultivation paddocks, green as a leek, and the numbers of brightly-painted homesteads dotted about in all directions, he can scarcely realise its former wildness, when it was a vast morass, covered with rough grass and impenetrable scrub, presenting a striking contrast to the aspect of the place to-day...’ (Smith 1905 , p. 574) ** ‘What a pleasing contrast was presented between the first original homestead of the veteran pioneer (surrounded by forest, inhabit- ed by dingoes, lyre birds, wallaby’s, [sic] and other wild animals and birds, with no means of ingress and egress save a narrow pack track winding over gullies and wooded ranges...) and the smiling homestead of the prosperous farmer or dairy-man of to-day. Greenfields, studded with contented dairy cattle, is to-day the prevailing order of things, with comfort- able cow-sheds and dairy houses fitted with up-to-date modern appliances, all trending to show the marked progress and wonderful developements [sic] which has [sic] taken place under the steadfast and persistent efforts of the old and new pioneer, a complete trans- formation from non-productive country to a prosperous community.’ (Report of a lantern- slide lecture by pioneer settler Frank Geach in the Mechanics Institute, Trafalgar; Trafalgar and Yarragon Times, 1 1 November 1902, p. 4) Received 22 March 2007; accepted 3 May 2007 One hundred Years Ago THE MOSQUITO ... When a mosquito bites, it places the end of the lower lip on the victim's hand, and shakes its head, thus sawing through the skin. The lower lip now bends up near the head, and so the end of it is raised, while the six piercers sink into the flesh. The muscular throat now acts as a pump, and the blood is speedily pumped up. In return for our kindness in giving the mosquito blood, she gives us with the saliva two things we decidedly object to. First there is poison, which produces a most irritating effect on some peo- ple, while others seem to be immune to it. Secondly, there are very tiny microscopic animals, which give rise to the deadly diseases already mentioned. The mosquito is the involuntary, but necessary, agent in the transmission of these animals; but why she has poison, which apparently serves no useful purpose, is a puzzle. From The Victorian Naturalist XXIII, p 216, March 1907 Vol. 124 (4) 2007 203 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Habitat preferences of the Otway Black Snail Victaphanta compacta (Cox and Hedley, 1912) (Rhytididae) Carolyn Burrell'. Bronwen Scott' - and Alan L Yen’ Sustainability Group. Victoria University, McKcchnic Street, St Albans, Victoria 3021 Current address; School of Molecular Sciences, Victoria University, Hoppers Lane, Werribee, Victoria 3030 Primary Industries Research Victoria, Department of Primary Industries 621 Burvvood Highway, Knoxfield, Victoria 3156 Abstract A survey in August-October 2004 determined the distribution of the Otway Black Snail Victaphanta compacta at three locations in the Otway Ranges. V. compacta was found in Temperate Rainforest (gullies). Wet Forests (ridges) and the ecotone between these two (slope) and was found predomi- nantly around the base of trees and in leaf litter, and fewer were found associated w'ith logs and or the tree trunks. {The Victorian Naturalist 124 (4) 2007. 204-209) Introduction The Otway Black Snail Victaphanta com- pacta Cox and Hedley, 1912 is a land snail endemic to the Otway Ranges, Victoria. V. compacta belongs to the family Rhytididae, carnivorous land snails found in southern Africa, the western islands of the Pacific, New Guinea, New Zealand and Australia (Smith 1971, 1977, 1998; Smith and Rershaw 1979; Meads et af. 1984). The four species in the genus Victaphanta are characterised by thin, light shells primarily made of conchin (a protein matrix) with very little calcareous material (Smith and Kershaw 1979). The shapes of their shells range from spherical to sub- spherical and the shell colouring ranges from black, dark brown, through to light yellow (Smith and Kershaw 1979). The body is predominantly black, with three of the species exhibiting orange colouration on the foot ( Victaphanta milligani Pfeiffer, 1853), mantle frill (Victaphanta atramen- taria Shuttleworth, 1853, V. milligani and Victaphanta lampra Reeve, 1854) or in the mucus ( V. atramentaria and V. lampra) (Smith and Kershaw, 1979). Victaphanta is restricted to south-eastern Australia occurring within the Wet Forests and Cool Temperate Rainforests of Victoria and Tasmania; all four species are found in leaf litter (Smith and Kershaw 1979). Victaphanta compacta is aptly named the Otway Black Snail (Figs. 1 and 2) as its shell colour is predominantly a glossy Fig. 1. Otway Black Snail Victaphanta com- pacta. Fig. 2. Otway Black Snails Victaphanta com- pacta., mating. 204 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue black in the outer whorls with a small patch of yellow/white on the inner whorl (Smith and Kershaw 1972, 1979). The shell colour can vary between individuals ranging from yellow to dark brown (Smith 1970) as well as black. TJie diameter of the shell ranges from 20 to 28 mm (Gabriel 1930; Smith 1970; Smith and Kershaw 1979). The colour of the body of the snail is also black (Smith 1970; Smith and Kershaw 1979). Victaphanta compacta is easily diag- nosed by its lack of orange pigmentation anywhere on the body or in the mucus (Smith 1970) and distinguished from its closest relative Victaphanta atramentaria by a smoother and more spherical shell (Gabriel 1930; Smith 1970). Little is known on the biology of V. com- pacta except that the snail is carnivorous (Smith 1971) and lays white eggs with a diameter of 2-3 mm (Smith 1970). It is not known how long these snails live. No information on the behaviour of Victaphanta compacta is available. Victaphanta compacta is endemic to the Otway Ranges of southern Victoria (Smith 1977; Smith and Kershaw 1979) and is found in Wet Forests and Cool Temperate Rainforests (Smith 1977). Cool Temperate Rainforests have a patchy distribution within the Otway Ranges, being restricted to deep, sheltered gullies with moist condi- tions and at the headwaters of creeks and rivers throughout the region (VEAC 2003). Wet Forests occur on mountain sides with high rainfall and in wet valleys (Conn 1993) . Wet Forests are also found emerg- ing from the Cool Temperate Rainforests, called Mixed Forests as they contain a mix of Wet Forests and Cool Temperate Rainforests flora (Ashton and Attiwill 1994) . Cool Temperate Rainforest has an overstorey of Myrtle Beech Nothofagus cunninghami and Blackwood Acacia melanoxylon, while the Wet Forests are dominated by Mountain Ash Eucalyptus regnans. Mountain Grey Gum E. cypel- locarpa and Messmate E. obliqua. Both vegetation types have tree-ferns. The lUCN Species Commission Mollusc Specialist Group listed Victaphanta com- pacta with the lUCN as Endangered in 1996. It was given a Red listed category of E A2c, due to a potential for the species to experience a 50% reduction in population within the next ten years because of habitat loss (World Conservation Union 2003). It is listed as Threatened under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (SAC 2001) because of possible popula- tion decline due to loss of habitat caused by Myrtle Wilt destroying the canopy layer, and human activities, and because the species is endemic with a limited distri- bution and low abundance. Part of the requirement of a listing under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 is the preparation of an Action Statement that includes background information and species description, the distribution, habi- tat and life history of the species, and rec- ommendations for conservation (Butcher et ai 1994). Before any actions can be rec- ommended for the conservation of V. com- pacta, information is required on its distri- bution, abundance, age structure of popula- tions, and reproductive rates and success. This survey is part of a study that investi- gated some of the information that is lack- ing for Victaphanta compacta (Burrell 2004). It assessed the habitat and shelter site preferences of V. compacta by deter- mining whether: 1. It is found in Wet Forest (ridge), Cool Temperate Rainforest (gully), or the Mixed Forest (the ecotone on the slope between the ridge and gully) habitats. 2. It has a preferred shelter site between habitat types and overall shelter site preferences. The shelter types are defined as base (of trees and tree ferns), leaf litter, logs or vertical (trunk). This will determine whether V. compacta shelters in specific areas within its habi- tat or if the species is a generalist in microhabitat choice. Study Area The Otway Ranges are located on the south coast of Victoria and are approxi- mately 2110 km“ in area (Conn 1993). Elevations range from 670 metres at Mt Cowley (VEAC 2003) down to sea level along the coast. The geology of the area is primarily of non-marine sandstones and shales, and the soils consist of fertile loams, which support extensive forests (Conn 1993). The average rainfall for the area is between 1750 mm and 2000 mm Vol. 124 (4) 2007 205 Invertebrate Conservation Issue with the highest rainfall period from May to September. Temperatures vary from the mid-summer maximum of 20-27°C to the mid-winter minimum of 3-4°C. The Ranges can also receive light snowfall at the higher elevations during winter (VEAC 2003). The area investigated in this study includes from west of Lavers Hill, up to Beech Forest, Forrest, across to east of Lome, to Apollo Bay and along the coast back to Lavers Hill Methods One of the most common forms of survey method used to investigate mollusc diversi- ty, habitat preferences, abundance, distribu- tion and biology is the quadrat survey method. It is thought that measured searches such as quadrat surveys provide the most accurate snail counts when compared to casual searches (Mesibov 1998; Stringer and Montefiore 2000). In the present study, quadrat surveys were used as habitat prefer- ences were being investigated. Quadrat survey method The method used for this study was adapted from Taylor et at. (1994) who used timed searches of one hour per 10 x 10 m plot, focusing on potential shelter sites of land snails. In this study, 10 x 10 m quadrats also were used and searched for a total of one hour in all potential snail shelter sites. Smith and Kershaw (1979) reported that Victaphanta compacta is found in leaf litter, and Taylor (1991) and Taylor et al. (1994) list other potential mollusc shelter sites such as logs, the leaf litter around trees and tree- ferns and the tops of ferns. The shelter sites where live snails and dead shells were recorded and classed into four categories included: 1. Leaf litter: snails found on top and underneath open leaf litter; 2. Tree/tree-fern base: snails found around the bases of trees and tree-ferns; 3. Logs: snails found on, around and underneath logs; and 4. Vertical shelter sites: snails found in the crowns of tree-ferns and in the crevices of trees less than two metres in height. Quadrats were first visually scanned to locate any active snails, then searches for live snails were conducted by overturning leaf litter and logs by hand and by using small gardening forks. The crowns of ferns were searched gently by hand, and logs were overturned by hand. Everything was replaced after searching and it was thought that no snail would be injured or killed by this method. Shell diameters of all live snails were recorded as a measure of age class. Site selection Quadrat surveys were conducted in three sites in each of three locations. The loca- tions were chosen by consulting 1:100 000 BIOMAPs and 1:25 000 Topographic maps of the Otway Ranges. Locations were selected first for their suitability of habitat for the snails (Wet forest and Cool Temperate Rainforest) and for their simi- larity in elevation and aspect. Similar ele- vation and aspect were needed so that the three locations would be statistically com- parable. The three locations chosen for the quadrat surveys were: Mt Sabine Falls (38°37’58"S 143°44’58"E), Beauchamp Falls (38°39’04”S 143°36’25”E), and Grey River Road (38°38’45”S I43°46M0”E). The elevation at Mt Sabine Falls is 490 m on the ridge, and the location has a SSW aspect. Mt Sabine Falls was surveyed on 28 August, 9 September and 1 1 September 2004. Beauchamp Falls has an altitude of 440 m on the ridge and a SSE aspect; it was surveyed on 11-12 September 2004. Grey River Road has an elevation of 520 m on the ridge and a SSW aspect; it was sur- veyed on 21-22 October 2004. Three habitats were surveyed within each location: ridge, slope and gully habitat. Site 1 - ridge habitat included the ridge top and slope down to 50 metres. Site 2 - slope habitat included the area between the ridge and gully sites and Site 3 - gully habitat included the valley floor, riparian zones and slope up to 50 metres. Five quadrats were surveyed in each site for a total of 15 quadrats for each location. In each site the quadrats were placed ran- domly. Forest types were recognised using the criteria set out by Cameron (1992). Statistical analysis Univariate ANOVAs were performed using the SPSS 1 1.0 for Windows program to investigate individual location habitat and shelter site preferences, and the post hoc Tukey test was used to detect where 206 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue any significant difference lay. Analysis was performed with the guidance of Kirkpatrick and Feeney (2003). Some of the data were recorded as zeros or low numbers; therefore, to normalise the data before statistical analysis, log transforma- tion was used, X’ = Log (x + 1) (Zar 1999). Results Habitat preferences A total of 148 live snails was recorded on the ridges, slopes and gullies at the three locations. Fifty-nine snails were recorded at Mt Sabine Falls with 12 (20.3%) on the ridge, 17 (28.8%) on the slope, and 30 (50.9%) in the gully. At Beauchamp Falls, 49 snails were recorded with 19 (38.8%) on the ridge, 13 (26.5%) on the slope, and 17 (34.7%) in the gully. Grey River Road had 40 snails, with 27 (67.5%) on the ridge, eight (20%) on the slope, and five (12.5%) in the gully. The data from the three locations was pooled and statistically analysed. No sig- nificant difference was detected (P=0.434) between locations and between habitat types. This suggests that the locations were statistically similar in the numbers of snails per habitat type and that Victaphanta compacta has no distinct preference for habitat (Wet Forest on ridges, Mixed Forest on slopes, and Cool Temperate Forest in the gully. Shelter site preferences The numbers of live V. compacta found in each shelter site (base, litter, logs or verti- cal shelter sites) for the three habitats at the three locations are provided below. Mt Sabine Falls In the ridge habitat a total of six (50%) snails was found in the base shelter site, three snalis (25%) were found in leaf litter, two (16.7%) were found in the log shelter site and one (8.3%) was found in the verti- cal shelter site. In the slope habitat a total of seven (41.2%) snails was recorded for the base shelter site, seven snails (41.2%) were found in leaf litter and three (17.7%) were found in the log shelter site; no snails were recorded in the vertical shelter site. In the gully habitat a total of 16 (53.3%) snails was recorded for the base shelter site, five snails (16.7%) were found in leaf litter, eight (26.7%) were found in the log shelter site and one (3.3%) was found in the vertical shelter site. Beauchamp Falls In the ridge habitat a total of 1 1 (57.9%) snails was recorded in the base shelter site, seven snails (36.8%) were found in the leaf litter and one (5.3%) was found in the log shelter site; no snails were found in the vertical shelter site. The slope habitat had a total of nine (75%) snails in the base shel- ter site and three (25%) in the leaf litter; no snails were found in the log and vertical shelter sites. The gully habitat had a total of seven (53.9%) snails in the base shelter site and six (46.2%) in the leaf litter; no snails were found in the log and vertical shelter sites. Grey River Road The ridge habitat had a total of 1 1 (40.7%) snails in the base shelter site, 13 (48.2%) in the leaf litter and three (11.1%) in the log shelter site; no snails were found in vertical shelter site. The slope habitat had a total of three (42.9%) snails in the base shelter site and four (57.1%) in the leaf lit- ter; no snails were recorded for the log and vertical shelter sites. The gully habitat had a total of two (40%) snails in the base habitat and three (60%) snails in the leaf litter; no snails were found in the log and vertical shelter sites. Analyses of the pooled raw data for the three locations showed that Victaphanta compacta occurred equally in base shelter sites and leaf litter shelter sites and then log shelter sites and rarely in vertical shel- ter sites as only two individuals were recorded in this shelter site. Statistical analysis of the pooled data from the three locations showed a signifi- cant difference (P<0.001). A post hoc Tukey test revealed that the difference lay between the overall preferences between shelter sites. Base shelter sites did not sig- nificantly differ from leaf litter (P=0.621), base shelter sites significantly differed from logs (P<0.001), base shelter sites sig- nificantly differed from vertical shelter sites (P<0.001), leaf litter significantly dif- fered from logs (P=0.006) and from verti- cal shelter sites (P<0.001). No significant difference was detected between logs and Vol. 124 (4) 2007 207 Invertebrate Conservation Issne vertical shelter sites. This suggests that the number of snails within each shelter site did not differ between ridge, slope and gully and between the three locations. However Victaphanta compacta showed an overall preference between shelter sites, preferring base and leaf litter shelter sites to log and vertical shelter sites Discussion Habitat Statistical analysis showed that V, com- pacta occurred equally between the three habitats, suggesting that the species has no preferred habitat type between Wet Forest, Mixed Forest and Cool Temperate Rainforest. Smith (1977) listed the habitats for Victaphanta compacta as the Wet Forests and Cool Temperate Rainforests of the Otway Ranges, whereas all other refer- ences list the species as only occurring within the Cool Temperate Rainforests including Gabriel (1930), Smith (1970), Smith and Kershaw (1979) and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (SAC 2001) under which the species is listed as ‘Threatened' because of its restricted habi- tat (i.e. Cool Temperate Rainforests in the Otway Ranges). However the present study has not only supported Smith’s (1977) recording of Wet Forests as well as Cool Temperate Rainforests in the Otway Ranges as V. compacta ’s habitat, but it has also suggested that the species occurs equally within these habitat types and in the boundaries between the two (i.e. Mixed Forests). Shelter Sites Statistical analysis of the combined data revealed that Victaphanta compacta showed a preference between the four shelter sites surveyed in this study. The species was found to be equally occurring around the bases of trees and tree ferns as well as leaf litter and was less likely to be found in the log shelter sites. The study recorded that V. compacta is unlikely to be recorded in sites that are above the ground up to two metres suggesting that the species is not arboreal. Smith and Kershaw (1979) reported that Victaphanta compacta could be found in the leaf litter in the Cool Temperate Rainforests of the Otway Ranges. The pre- sent study found this to be true and expanded it to include areas around the base of trees and tree ferns and to a lesser extent logs in both Cool Temperate Rainforests and Wet Forests of the Otway Ranges. The present study found that V. compacta prefers the base of trees and tree ferns and leaf litter, rather than log shelter sites and rarely vertical heights. The endangered New Zealand carnivorous land snail, Paryphanta bushyi watti, also hides under leaf litter in dense vegetation during the day (Stringer et ai 2003). That the logs are not a significant shelter site for V. com- pacta ij- interesting, as for most inverte- brates, logs are an important aspect of their habitat requirements (Taylor 1991; Taylor and Doran 2001). In the case of V. com- pacta, it is still unknown whether logs may affect environmental conditions that enable this species to inhabit these forests. Other observations Most Rhytididae snails are nocturnally active (Smith 1998), but some are active during the day in wet weather (Meads et al. 1984). Victaphanta compacta IS primar- ily nocturnal, but during this study 62 indi- viduals were found to be active during the day; however, all observations were on days of wet weather. The mating behaviour of some carnivorous land snails can take several days (Stringer et al. 2003); four pairs of mating V. compacta were observed during September in this study, and Fig. 2 shows a mating pair connected by their everted reproductive organs. Conclusions This project assessed the distribu- tion of the Otway Black Snail in differ- ent topographies in the Otway Ranges. It was found in Temperate Rainforest (gul- lies), Wet Forests (ridges) and in the eco- tone between these two (slope). Within these areas, V. compacta was found pre- dominantly around the base of trees and in leaf litter. This suggests that leaf litter is an important microhabitat for this species, and factors that threaten the leaf litter layer could have adverse effects on V. compacta. 208 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Acknowledgements This project was completed by Carolyn Burrell as part of a BSc (Hons) degree. The work was conducted under the authority of DSE permit No. 10002911. The authors wish to thank Chris Rowley (Museum Victoria) for allowing access to the collections; Parks Victoria Rangers at Apollo Bay and Lome for allowing access to field sites and for anecdotal information on Victaphanta compacta; David Rourke, Stewart Gardner and Steve McDougall from the Forestry Department for allowing access to the State Forests and for interesting insights into V. com- pacta', and Graeme Newell (Arthur Rylah Institute, DSE) for his help in the BIOCLIM/ BIOMAP analysis. The laboratory manager at Victoria University, Nickola Popovik and the laboratory technicians, especially Heather Altimari, deserve a big thank you for organising equipment and supplies for field trips. Thank you to all those who helped on field trips: Randall Robinson, Matt Hatton, Lucy Cassar, Michael Burrell, Dwayne Deprez, Mark Scarr, Nicole Pancer, Richard Lee, David King and especially Craig Dodson. References Ashton DH and Attiwill P (1994) Tall open forests. In Australian vegetation 2nd Ed. pp 156-196. Ed RH Groves (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge) Burrell C (2004) BIOCLIM distribution, habitat prefer- ences, population and field observations of the threat- ened Otway Black Snail Victaphanta compacta (Cox and Medley, 1912) in the Otway Ranges, Victoria. (Unpublished BSc Hons thesis, Victoria University) Butcher RJ, Clunie PE and Yen AL (1994) The Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. flagship legislation for invertebrate conservation? Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 36, 13-19. Cameron D (1992) A portrait of Victoria’s rainforests; distribution, diversity and definition. In Victoria's Rainforests: Perspectives and Definitions, classifica- tion and Management, pp. 13-50. Eds. P Gell and D Mercer. (Department of Geology and Environmental Science, Monash University: Clayton). Conn BJ (1993) National Regions and Vegetation of Victoria. In Flora of Victoria Volume I: Introduction, pp 79-158. Eds DB Forman and NG Walsh. (Inkata Press: Melbourne). Gabriel CJ (1930) Catalogue of the land snails of Victoria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 43, 62-88. Kirkpatrick LA and Feeney BC (2003) A Simple Guide to SPSS for Windows: for versions 8.0, 9.0, 1 0.0 and IJ.O, rev ed. (Wadsworth/Thomson Learning: Belmont, California). Meads MJ, Walker KJ and Elliot GP (1984) Status, conservation and management of the land snails of the genus Powelliphanta (Mollusca: Pulmonata). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 11, 277-306. Mesibov R (1998) Species-level comparison of litter invertebrates at two rainforest sites in Tasmania. Tasforests 10, 141-157. SAC (2001) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing: Victaphanta compacta (Cox & Medley, 1912) - Otway Black Snail (Nomination 522). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Scientific Advisory Community. (Department of Natural Resources and Environment: Melbourne). Smith BJ (1970) Notes on the anatomy of Victaphanta atramentaria (Shuttleworth) and V. compacta (Cox & Medley) and the designation of a neotype for V. atramentaria. Journal of the Malacological Society of Australia 2, 13-21. Smith BJ (1971) Carnivorous snails of the family Paryphantidae. Australian Natural History 17, 55-58. Smith BJ (1977) The non-marine mollusc fauna of the Otway region of Victoria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 89, 147-155. Smith BJ (1998) Family Rhytididae. In Mollusca: The Southern Synthesis. Fauna of Australia vol 5, pp. 109M093. Eds PL Beesley, GJB Ross and A Wells. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne). Smith BJ and Kershaw RC (1972) Tasmanian Snail Referred to the Genus Victaphanta (Stylommato- phora: Paryphantidae). Memoirs of the National Museum of Victoria 33, 111-114. Smith BJ and Kershaw RC (1979) Field Guide to the Non-marine Molluscs of South-eastern Australia. (Australian National University Press: Canberra) Stringer lAM, Bassett SM, McLean MJ, McCartney J and Parrish GR (2003) Biology and conservation of the rare New Zealand land snail Pary’phanta biisbyi watti (Mollusca, Pulmonata). Invertebrate Biology 122, 241-251. Stringer I and Montefiore R (2000) Distribution and biology of the endangered Kauri snail Paryphanta busbyi watti. Science for Conservation 163, 5-35. Taylor RJ (1991) Distribution habitat of Helicarion rubicundis (Pulmonata: Helicarianidae), a rare land snail. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 125, 27-28. Taylor RJ and Doran N (2001) Use of terrestrial inver- tebrates as indicators of the ecological sustainability of forest management under the Montreal Process. Journal of Insect Conservation 5, 22 1 -23 1 . Taylor RJ, Mesibov R and Growns I (1994) Local dis- tribution patterns of land snails in relation to vegeta- tion: implications for reserve design. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 36, 215-220. VEAC (2003) Angahook - Otway Investigation Discussion Paper. (Victorian Environmental Assessment Council: East Melbourne). World Conservation Union (lUCN) (2003) Victaphanta compacta. www.redlist.org/search/details.php7species =22951 Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical Analysis 4 ed. (Prentice- Hall: New Jersey). Received 22 March 2007; accepted 19 April 2007 Vol. 124 (4) 2007 209 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Freshwater and terrestrial crayfish (Decapoda, Parastacidae) of Victoria: status, conservation, threatening processes and bibliography Martin B O’Brien' ‘Department of'Sustainability and Environment, PO Box 500, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002 Email: martin. o'brien@dse. vie. gov.au Abstract The freshwater crayfish of Victoria are identified and their current conservation status updated. Literature references on Victorian crayfish taxa and their conservation and taxonomy are identified. The distribution and status of each species is indicated for Victoria. Known and potential threats act- ing on Victorian crayfish are discussed. Distribution maps of crayfish species occurring in the state are provided for most taxa. {The Victorian Naturalist 124 (4), 2007, 210-229) Introduction Over 85% of the known species of parastacid crayfish have been recorded from Australia, with more than 100 species currently recognised in nine genera (Horwitz 1995a; Jones and Morgan 2002; Davie 2002; Austin et at. 2003; Van Praagh 2003a). Biologists know that cray- fish play an important role in the break- down of organic matter in aquatic ecosys- tems (Lorman and Magnuson 1978). Crayfish also are a major food source for vertebrates higher up in the food chain, e.g. fish and platypus (Zampatti and Close 2000). South-eastern Australia has been recognised as a 'biodiversity hotspot’ for endemic freshwater crayfish (Reik 1969; Whiting et al. 2000; Harvey 2002) with some habitats holding multiple species within small geographic ranges (e.g. Morey and Hollis 1997). The reasons for this high level of short-range endemism among crayfish include: poor powers of dispersal, low recruitment, confinement to discontinuous habitats, and slow matura- tion rates (Harvey 2002). Merrick (1995) made management recommendations to address the conservation of a number of New South Wales freshwater crayfish. Many of these recommendations are equal- ly relevant to Victoria. The current paper is essentially a review of current information and aims to (i) review the current distribu- tion of Victorian crayfish, (ii) indicate the status and conservation information of Victorian crayfish, (iii) update previous conservation assessments for Victorian crayfish species mentioned in Horwitz (1990a) and Merrick (1995) and (iv) pro- vide Victorian distribution maps of cray- fish species occurring in Victoria. Merrick 0993, 1995) looked at freshwater crayfish in New South Wales and Zeidler (1982) provided information on crayfish occurring in South Australia. Yet there is no recent paper covering the crayfish fauna of Victoria. This paper addresses only the Victorian crayfish fauna. Freshwater crabs and other Crustacea are not included. Victorian crayfish diversity The broad types of land and aquatic cray- fishes recorded from Victoria have been well known since at least the 1930s (Clark 1936a, 1936b, 1938). Victorian freshwater crayfish comprise the following genera (number of Victorian species in brackets): Cherax (‘smooth yabbies’, two species), Engaeiis (‘burrowing crayfish’, 22 species), Euastacus (‘spiny crayfish’, 1 1 species), Geocharax (‘land crayfish’, two species) and Gramastacus (‘swamp cray- fish’, two species). The Engaeiis and Euastacus genera share the bulk of the crayfish species recorded from Victoria (Table 1). Crayfish are heavy-bodied crustaceans with their first pair of legs enlarged and pincer-like. They belong to the Order Decapoda and family Parastacidae and are commonly known as ‘yabbies’, which usu- ally only refers to Cherax species, but this term actually covers the above five groups. Victorian freshwater crayfish species can be divided into three main groups accord- ing to their habits, aquatic, semi-aquatic and terrestrial (Clark 1938; Rogan 1972) 210 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Table 1: Victorian crayfish genera and main taxonomic/distribution references to 2005. Parastacid group Common No. spp. name in Victoria Major taxonomic papers (* = these papers provided illustrations of some species) Cherax yabbies 3 Smith 1912*, Reik 1969*, Sokol 1988, Austin 1996, Lawrence et al. 2002, Austin and Ryan 2002 (Matron), Austin et al. (2003), Munasinghe et al (2004), Nguyen et al. 2004. Engaeus burrowing crayfish 22 Smith and Schuster 1913*, Reik 1969*, Horwitz 1990a, 1995b Euastacus spiny crayfish 11 Smith 1912*, Clark 1941a, b*; Reik 1969*, Morgan 1986*, 1997* Geocharax land crayfish 2 Clark 1941b Gramastacus swamp crayfish 2 Clark 1941b*, Reik 1972*, Zeidler & Adams 1990* as well as their habitats (see Table 2). The aquatic forms inhabit running water and are the spiny freshwater crayfish (genus Euastacus), whieh are found across most of the state. The best known species of this genus is probably the Murray Spiny Crayfish Euastacus armatus. They are characterised by sharp spines on the body and claws of the adults. Claws are also white in adult E. armatus. Spiny freshwa- ter crayfish can be further divided ecologi- cally into two broad groups (Morgan 1997), one comprising species occurring at lower altitudes (typically the lowlands e.g. Murray Spiny Crayfish) and the second group which tends to occur at much higher altitudes (in cool, clear waters often with an associated thick riparian vegetation (e.g. Alpine Spiny Crayfish E. crassus). Most spiny crayfish have extremely localised ranges (Harvey 2002), often restricted to single catchments or sub-catchments. Semi-aquatic crayfish inhabit streams, lakes, dams etc. and are adapted to the nat- urally unpredictable nature of water avail- ability in Australia, so that when water bodies become dry they burrow under- ground to reach moister conditions until the next rains. This group can live for some time out of water and also travel overland to other water bodies. They tend to be smaller than the true aquatic forms (125-150 mm when fully grown) and lack spines on the body. The best known exam- ple of this group are the yabbies (genus Cherax) (Kailola et al. 1993). In this paper the term ‘yabby’ refers only to the Cherax species. Terrestrial forms live in burrows or shafts in marshy ground, river banks or hilltops. Shafts can be a metre or more deep and often the entrance is marked by a conical heap of excavated soil or mud. The shafts end in underground cavities that are partly or fully filled with water or liquid mud. The terrestrial forms are the smallest of the freshwater crayfish with the length of a fully grown adult around 50-75 mm. In Victoria, this group comprises the burrow- ing crayfish (genus Engaeus) and the land crayfish (genus Geocharax). A number of Victorian crayfish (mainly the larger species i.e. crayfish growing to more than a kilogram in weight) are the target of recreational fishing, e.g. Murray Spiny Crayfish, (Clark 1936a); Gippsland Spiny Crayfish, (Morey 1998) and Glenelg Spiny Crayfish, (Van Praagh 2003a). These species tend to be slow-maturing and long-lived (Barker 1990) and are well known amongst anglers for their eating qualities. For example, the Murray Spiny Crayfish has been sold in the Melbourne market since the early 1900s and has been reported as ‘...superior in flavour and tex- ture..’ compared to its marine cousins (Smith 1912). The Murray Spiny Crayfish has declined in range and abundance since the 1940s. Habitat degradation is the main cause for this decline (Barker 1990; Suter and Hawking 2002) although recent over- fishing has also taken a substantial toll (Sharp 1995). It is thought to have disap- peared downstream of Mildura (with increasing salinity implicated in its decline) and is possibly extinct in South Australia (Walker 1982; Jackson 1997). Geddes and Mitchell (1987) published a paper on reintroduction of Murray Crayfish to river stretches whence they had Vol. 124 (4) 2007 211 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Table 2: Victorian freshwater and terrestrial crayfish species: 2005 taxonomy, distribution and con- servation status (updated information, sourced from: Horwitz 1995b, Horwitz pers. comm., Raadik pers. comm.; International Union for the Conservation of Nature data). Key: underlined species = on the list of threatened taxa under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee (FFG) Act; bold - endemic Victorian taxa; R? = not classified but suspected to be rare and/or threatened (N.B. No Victorian crayfish have so far been nominated for listing under the Commonwealth EPBC Act.); RRS = restricted (limited distribution) range species; B - broad range species (wide geographical distribu- tion). Conservation status - Lower case (in Victoria): e = endangered, v = vulnerable, r = rare, k = insufficiently known (suspected rare, vulnerable or endangered) (source: CNR 1995a). Upper case (in Australia, lUCN categories): E = endangered, V = vulnerable (-) status unknown or not assessed (source: Department of Environment and Heritage web site 2007). Conservation status Scientific name Common name General locality Viet Range Aust and reference Genus Cherax Cherax rotundus (Barmah) Clark 1963a Austin et a/. 2003 Cherax destructor albidus Austin et al. 2003 Cherax tenuimanus Smith 1912 Murray Swamp Yabby Common Yabby Marron Genus Gramastacus Gramastacus insolitus Western Swamp Riek 1972, Crayfish Zeidler & Adams 1990 Gramastacus sp. Crayfish species (undescribed) Horwitz 1995b Genus Geocharax Geocharax falcata Western Crayfish Clark 1936b Geocharax gracilis Otways Crayfish Clark 1936b Central northern Victoria and k/R? RRS possibly Southern NSW adjacent to Murray River South-western Victoria and far South- - B V eastern SA, and translocations Natural range is Western Australia, a - - - recent record of an introduction to Victoria South-western Victoria and far v RRS South-eastern SA Central northern Victoria - RRS (Shepparton/Barmah region) South-western Victoria, North-western - RRS Tasmania, western Bass Strait islands South-western Victoria (Otway Ranges), - RRS North-western Tasmania, western Bass Strait islands Burrowing Crayfish (22 species) Genus Engaeus Engaeus afflnis Smith and Schuster 1913 Central Highlands Burrowing Crayfish Central eastern Victoria ■ RRS Engaeus australis Riek 1969 Lilly Pilly Burrowing Crayfish Wilsons Promontory r RRS E Engaeus cunicularius Erichson 1846 Granular Burrowing Crayfish South Gippsland, Bass Strait, including islands, Tasmania - B - Eneaeus curvisuturus Horwitz 1990a Curve-tail Burrowing Crayfish Central eastern Victoria R? RRS E Engaeus cymus Clark 1936a North-eastern Burrowing Crayfish Central eastern Victoria, to ACT and adjacent NSW districts B ■ Engaeus fultoni Smith and Schuster 1913 Otway Burrowing Crayfish restricted to Otway Ranges R? RRS Engaeus hemicirratulus Smith and Schuster 1913 Gippsland Burrowing Crayfish South and central Gippsland RRS Engaeus karnanga Horwitz 1990b South Gippsland Burrowing Crayfish South Gippsland R? RRS - Engaeus laevis Clark 1941b Richards Burrowing Crayfish South and East Gippsland, Tasmania ■ RRS 212 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Table 2. cont’d Scientific name & reference Common name General locality Conservation status Viet Range Aust Engaeus lyelli Clark 1936 Engaeus mallacoota Horwitz 1990a Engaeus merosetosus Horwitz 1990a Engaeus orientalis Clark 1941 Engaeus nhvllncercus Smith and Schuster 1913 Engaeus quadrimanus Clark 1936a Engaeus rostroealeatus Horwitz 1990b Engaeus sericatus Clark 1936a Engaeus sternalis Clark 1936a Engaeus striciifrons Clark 1936a Engaeus tuberculatus Clark 1936a Engaeus urostrictus Riek 1969 Engaeus victoriensis Smith and Schuster 1913 Upland, Burrowing Crayfish Mallacoota Burrowing Crayfish Western Burrowing Crayfish East Gippsland Burrowing Crayfish Narracan Burrowing Crayfish Central and Western Victoria Far eastern Victoria (and probably far Southern NSW) Corangamite/Otways district B R? RRS R? RRS - RRS Eastern Victoria (East Gippsland and far Southern NSW) Warragul/Narracan districts R? RRS * Lowland Burrowing Crayfish Melbourne to Mallacoota B - Strzelecki Burrowing Crayfish Strzelecki Ranges r RRS E Hairy Burrowing Crayfish Otways and Portland districts - RRS - Warragul Burrowing Crayfish Portland Burrowing Crayfish Only at Tarago, South Gippsland e RRS E South-western Victoria - RRS - Tubercle Burrowing Crayfish South Gippsland - RRS - Dandenong Burrowing Dandenong Ranges r^rQ\/-ficli R? RRS E Foothill Burrowing Crayfish South Gippsland - RRS - Spiny Crayfish (11 Species) Genus Euastacus Euastacus armatus von Martens 1 866 Euastacus bidawalus Morgan 1986 Euastacus bispinosus Clark 1936a Euastacus claytoni Riek 1969 Euastacus crassus Riek 1969 Euastacus diversus Riek 1969 Euastacus kershawi Smith 1912 Euastacus neodiversus Riek 1969 Euastacus woiwuru Morgan 1986 Euastacus yanga Morgan 1997 Euastacus yarraensis McCoy 1888 Euastacus sp. nov. (Edney pers. comm.) Murray Spiny Crayfish East Gippsland Spiny Crayfish Glenelg Spiny Crayfish Clayton’s Spiny Crayfish Alpine Spiny Crayfish Orbost Spiny Crayfish Gippsland Spiny Crayfish South Gippsland Spiny Crayfish Central Victorian Spiny Crayfish Variable Spiny Crayfish Southern Victorian Spiny Crayfish ‘Buffalo Spiny Crayfish’ Northern Victoria, South-eastern SA, k B V ACT and central southern NSW East Gippsland and far south-eastern - RRS NSW Far south-western Victoria and south- k RRS V eastern SA East Gippsland (Bendoc?) and South- - RRS eastern NSW (Craigie area) Australian Alps, (ACT, south-eastern r RRS E NSW and northern Victoria) East Gippsland v RRS E South-eastern Victoria (La Trobe River r B to East Gippsland) Far South Gippsland r RRS V South-eastern Victoria - q Far East Gippsland (Genoa River) - RRS and NSW Tarago River to Otways - RRS Buffalo River catchment . RRS VoL 124 (4) 2007 213 Invertebrate Conservation Issue disappeared. Other Victorian crayfish sub- jected to angling pressure are the Yarra River Spiny Crayfish Euastacus yarraensis and the East Gippsland Spiny Crayfish E. hidawahis (Barker 1990). No recreational take figures are kept or gathered for Victorian crayfish, but by far the main tar- get of many crayfish anglers has been the widely-distributed Yabby Cherax destruc- tor, which occurs across most of lowland Victoria (Kailola et at. 1993; DSE 2006). Some figures for yabbies sold at the Melbourne Fish Market are, 1979 - 10.92 tonnes, 1980 - 17.92T, 1981 - 13.4IT (Department of Sustainability and Environment unpublished data, DSE file 84-3692), many of these may have been artificially grown in ponds. The commer- cial catch of yabbies has also been increas- ing (ENRC 2000) viz. 1994 - 6.3T, 1995 - 6. IT, 1996 - 17. 3T and 1997 - 25. 5T. Aquaculture production for yabbies is far greater than the wild harvest, but the wild harvest is also growing (ENRC 2000). Accounts of Australian crayfish biology (limited morphology, habitat and distribu- tion information) are provided for some species by Smith and Schuster (1913), Clark (1936b, 1938), Barker (1990), Merrick (1993), Gooderham and Tsyrlin (2002) and Jones and Morgan (2002). Many detailed (mainly taxonomic) accounts have also been published for the various genera and species (Table 1). Crandall et. a/. (1999) provide general dis- tribution maps for all the Australian parastacid groups. Jasinka et al. (1993) looked at the spread of the Yabby in Western Australia. Doran (1999) and Doran and Richards (1996) looked at rare and threatened Tasmanian crayfish. The crayfish taxonomy used in this paper follows that described by Horwitz (1995b) and Davie (2002). Horwitz (1995b) recognised the fol- lowing number of taxa in Australia: Cherax (22 species), Engaeus (35), Euastacus (37), Geocharax (2), Gramastacus (2). Until fur- ther electrophoretic studies are carried out to decipher all Australian freshwater crayfish, this is unlikely to be the final list for Victorian species. The biology of most indigenous parasta- cid crayfishes currently known to occur in Victoria is still poorly known. Many species have highly restricted geographic ranges and are good examples of ‘short- range-endemics’ (SREs) (Harvey 2002) (Table 3). Most studies on Australian cray- fish have been directed at their taxonomy (see references in Table 1). The ecology of some species of Victorian freshwater cray- fish have been described (e.g. Hoey 1990; Roster et al. 1999; burrow classification, Horwitz and Richardson 1986) but much remains unknown about this diverse group of native crustaceans. To date, an analysis of most Victorian freshwater crayfish dis- tributions in relation to conservation reserves has not been carried out (Van Praagh and Hinkley 1999) and most species are not adequately protected within any National or State Park or any stream- side conservation reserve. Horwitz (1990a, 1990b, 1995b) assessed the conservation status of many Australian parastacids, including south-east Australian taxa. In Victoria, a small num- ber of invertebrates were most recently addressed with formal conservation classi- fications in 1995 (CNR 1995a) while Butcher and Doeg (1995) specifically assessed aquatic Victorian invertebrates 214 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Table 3: Distribution and general habitat of Victorian freshwater crayfish genera. Genus Group Size Victorian Example General habitat name distribution Aquatic Euastacus spiny large across Victoria Murray and Cool water and crayfish tributaries, Glenelg, strong flowing Yarra and Gippsland Rivers streams Gramastaciis swamp medium isolated occurrence. southern Grampians Freshwater crayfish - large Western Victoria swamp margins Semi-aquatic Warm water of Cherax yabbies medium across mainly inland Billabongs and - small Victoria, widely backwaters of slow-flowing distributed and northern river streams, active translocated floodplains in warmer months Terrestrial Engaeus burrowing small Southern, mainly Dandenong Ranges, Damp soil in crayfish coastal, Victoria Healesville/ riparian habitats Warburton area, Warragul district, Otway Ranges and forest Geocharax land crayfish small restricted to south- Grampians Freshwater western Victoria swamps (including some crayfish). Since 1995 a number of Victorian crustaceans have been added to the list of threatened taxa under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG) (SAC Database 2007). All the cur- rently known rare or threatened Victorian crayfish species are now listed (Table 4). As a result of these listings most crayfish species listed in Victoria now have a pub- lished management plan (or Action Statement). There are no recently published accounts or comprehensive summaries of Victorian crayfish, their conservation status, processes threatening their existence or the manage- ment actions directed at specifie taxa. Horwitz (1995b) is the only researcher who has summarised the conservation status of selected Australian freshwater crayfish, but the information published is now over 10 years old. Though now dated, Merrick (1991) provided a bibliography of Australian erayfish eonservation. Both the Horwitz and Merrick papers are now dated and their information limited, covering only a few of the Victorian species. Victorian crayfish species There are no recent papers which identi- fied all the known Victorian crayfish species nor is there any account of the con- servation status of Vietorian crayfish. However, Yen and Butcher (1997) exam- ined the conservation of non-marine inver- tebrates in Australia, and a number of Victorian crayfish taxa with their conser- vation status were addressed in that report. There are currently (2007) 39 species of freshwater or land crayfish recorded for Victoria, of which 23 are endemic (Table 3). There also is at least one undescribed species known to occur in the state [Murray Swamp Yabby (Barmah) Cherax rotundus]. The taxonomy of Cherax has been the subject of much discussion amongst crayfish researchers (e.g. Cherax occurring in northern Victoria, Austin et al 2003). There are recent records of the West Australian Marron Cherax tenuimanus from illegal introductions into Victoria (Raadik pers. comm.). This is cur- rently the only known exotic species in Victoria. Marron has been declared a nox- ious species in Victoria (DPI 1998). Conservation status of Victorian Crayfish In Victoria, the key piece of legislation for the identification, assessment and listing of threatened species is the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Threatened species and communities of flora and fauna were added to schedule 2 of the Act after an independent advisory committee (the Scientific Advisory Committee or SAC, which comprises various scientific experts) assesses the public nominations. In addi- tion to this Act, the (Victorian) Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) VoL 124 (4) 2007 215 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Distribution maps of Engaeus species, a. Engaeus australis, b. Engaeus cunicularius. c. Engaeus curvisuturus. d. Engaeus cymus. e. Engaeus fultoni. f. Engaeus hemicirratulus. g. Engaeus karnanga. h. Engaeus laevis. 216 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Distribution maps of Engaeus species, i. Engaeus lyellL j, Engaeus mallacoota. k. Engaem merose- Vol. 124 (4) 2007 217 Invertebrate Consen’ation Issue maintains management lists of threatened flora and fauna, including terrestrial, fresh- water and marine taxa (DSE 2003) although there is currently no similar list maintained for invertebrates. Most Australian states and territories do not have a list of threatened invertebrate species (Jackson 1997). The last official Victorian Government list that included crustaceans and/or invertebrates is now over 10 years old (CNR 1995a). A new threatened invertebrate list is in prepara- tion in Victoria (DSE in prep.). These lat- ter lists are primarily used as a guide for crown land managers and the public and have no associated legislative requirements with respect to conservation programs to address threatened species. Distribution maps of Engaeiis species, q. Engaeus sternalis. r. Engaeus strictifrons. s. Engaeus tuberculatus. t. Engaeus urostrictus. u. Engaeus victoriensis. Many invertebrate researchers believe that to conserve threatened invertebrate fauna the emphasis on legislation should be in habitat conservation and reduction in threatening processes rather than focusing on individual taxa (e.g. Butcher and Doeg 1995; Yen and Butcher 1997). A number of workers recognise the merit in identify- ing 'flagship’ species (Butcher and Doeg 1995; Horwitz 1995a) as a means of focus- ing conservation efforts on those taxa that share similar habitat types and experience similar threatening processes. The distribu- tion of and threats to most of Victoria’s crayfish fauna have been documented, but little is published. Few attempts have been made to con- serve crayfish habitat. The only reported 218 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue instance of this occurring in Victoria was the nomination and subsequent listing of Warragul Burrowing Crayfish Engaeiis sternalis habitat under the National Estate assessment process more than a decade ago (Greenslade 1994). This habitat con- servation assessment was directed mainly at a small part of E. sternalis habitat (a creek bank in a council reserve), but was useflil in raising public awareness of native crayfish and their conservation in Victoria (CNR 1995b). There has not been any sim- ilar conservation assessment examining the habitat of any other Victorian terrestrial/ freshwater invertebrates. Crayfish management issues in Victoria Government policies on crayfish manage- ment in Victoria have changed over the years. In the late 1980s the Department of Conservation Forests and Lands (now DSE) advised people experiencing prob- lems with burrowing crayfish on their properties as follows; ‘Burrowing crayfish are generally regarded by the public as a nuisance and treated accordingly. To a large extent this attitude is reflected by (the) department and we have no policies on them (crayfish). We issue advice on methods of extermination’ (Horwitz 1990b, p. 24). This advice has included the use of tar creosote, carbon bisulphide, malathion or caustic soda being poured into crayfish burrows. In recent years many Victorian crayfish species have been added to the list of threatened fauna under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. This has resulted in a number of controls on the take of cray- fish being implemented in Victoria under the Fisheries Act 1995 (e.g. Fishing [Spiny Freshwater Crayfish] Regulations 1991, see Fisheries Notice 5/2000 in references). Such regulations specify the minimum allowable size of Spiny Freshwater Crayfish that can be taken in Victoria and also what species can be taken and how (i.e. gear used) and when crayfish may be taken (collected by anglers). Land subsidence Burrowing crayfish Engaeus species occurring in some urban areas have been recorded as the cause of major land subsidence (Clark 1936a, 1936b, 1938; Rogan 1972), particularly in the highland areas east of Melbourne (e.g. Dandenong Ranges) where there have been calls from land owners and develop- ers about burrowing crayfish undermining house foundations and causing the sinking or subsiding of agricultural lands. The Melbourne Museum has published an information sheet for the public on this issue (Museum Victoria 2005). Yabbies Problems caused by yabbies also have been reported historically from rural Victoria where crayfish (most likely Cherax species) have been recorded in some pastoral districts ... large communal burrows are numerous and collapse under the weight of cattle and horses. At Whitegate, a few miles from Benalla, some areas riddled by yabbies (holes) are practically useless and are known as ‘crab- hole country’ (Clark 1936b). Land subsi- dence issues caused by crayfish activity in lowland areas of the state have declined in recent years, presumably caused by agri- cultural practices causing local extinctions of those burrowing species. Decline of crayfish In the 1990s, Horwitz (1990b) identified 33 species of crayfish as threatened in Australia; this included a few Victorian species. To date, no formal conservation assessment has been done on all Victorian crayfish species. The number of crayfish now recognised as threatened in Australia is now likely to be higher sinee both Victoria and Tasmania have recently assessed many spiny and burrowing species for listing under their threatened species legislation (Horwitz 1994). A number of Victorian crayfish have expe- rienced declines in both range and abun- dance. One well documented is the Murray Spiny Crayfish Euastacus armatus. The species used to occupy a range of about 800 km, which included most of the Murray River and its tributaries in NSW, Victoria and South Australia (Clarke and Spier- Ashcroft 2003). This was the widest range of any crayfish in the genus. The species is possibly extinct in South Australia (Walker 1982; Barker 1990; Jones and Morgan 2002), and recent records of the taxon in Victoria have been only from upper sections of north-flowing streams (DSE 2006). Vol. 124 (4) 2007 219 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Distribution maps Euastacus species, a. Euastacus armatus.b. Euastacus bidawalus. c. Euasiacus bispinosus. d. Euastacus claytoni. e. Euastacus crassus. f. Euastacus diversus. g. Euastacus ker- shawi. h. Euastacus neodiversus. 220 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Populations of the Gippsland Spiny Crayfish E. kershawi have been reduced by overfishing and land development (Jones and Morgan 2002) while popula- tions of the Glenelg Spiny Crayfish E. bispinosus have been severely reduced by overfishing, riparian degradation and silta- tion (Jones and Morgan 2002). The impacts of drought, pollution and increas- ing salinity are also likely to have con- tributed to the decline of some riverine crayfish. Table 4 indicates the various threats known to be operating on certain freshwater crayfish in Victoria. Crayfish species of particular conserva- tion concern Many native crayfish are naturally rare, i.e. they have a small/restricted geographi- cal range. For example 18 species of bur- rowing crayfish (e.g. Engaeus mallacoota) occur in very narrow geographic ranges (Horwitz 1995a, Table 2), which makes them vulnerable to man-made distur- bances, particularly those activities affect- ing water quality and availability of water (e.g. earth works and movements, cultiva- tion, effects of stock, clearing of riparian vegetation). Other species (e.g. Warragul Burrowing Crayfish) appear to have very specific habitat requirements that may restrict them to certain localities . Vol, 124 (4) 2007 As part of a community education and awareness program implemented by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources in 1995 (CNR 1995b), an infor- mation brochure on the Warragul Burrowing Crayfish was distributed to all landholders within the Labertouche Creek catchment in Gippsland, and meetings were held with landholders and the local Labertouche Landcare group (Morey 1999). One of the outcomes of this project was the fencing of crayfish habitat (Morey 1 999). One site with some remnant vegeta- tion known to support the species was rec- ommended for reservation as an 'area of natural interest’ by the Land Conservation Council in 1994 (Morey 1999). This was supported by Shaw (1996) and Morey (1999). However, to date, this proposed Labertouche Creek Flora and Fauna Reserve has not been formally gazetted. The habitat ranges of spiny crayfish are often separated by either steep ridges or areas of lower, flatter country (Morgan 1997). Crayfish found at low altitudes (all species) are susceptible to changes occur- ring in lowland riverine habitats (clearing, salinisation, pollution/urbanisation impacts, recreational fishing and river reg- ulation) while the highland taxa are often threatened by the impacts of forestry and 221 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Table 4: Status of threatened Vieiorian freshwater crayfish listed under the Flora ami Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 only species recommended for listing under the Act as at 2007. Key: SAC = Scientific Advisory Committee; A - agriculture; B =" burning; D wetland drainage; F = forestry/loss of riparian vegetation; RF = recreational Ushing; S ^ instream structures/river regula- tion; P = introduced predators; R = rarity. Scientific name Common name Criteria for Listing advice Action listing/main (reference) Statement threats prepared (reference) Engaeus species Engaeus australis Engaeus curvisuturus Engaeus mal/acooia Engaeus phyllocercus Engaeus rostrogaleatus Engaeus sternalis Engaeus urostrictus Euastacus species Euastacus armatus Euastacus hispinosus Lilly Pilly Burrowing Crayfish Curve-tail Burrowing Crayfish Mallacoota Burrow ing Crayfish Narracan Burrowing Crayfish Strzelecki Burrowing Crayfish Warragul Burrowing Crayfish Dandenong BuiTow'ing Crayfish Murray Spiny Crayfish Glenelg Spiny Crayfish Euastacus crassus Alpine Spiny Crayfish Euastacus diversus Euastacus kershawi Euastacus neodiversus Gramastacus species Gramastacus insolitiis Orbost Spiny Crayfish Gippsland Spiny Crayfish South Gippsland Spiny Crayfish Western Sw^amp Crayfish (not listed) SAC (2()00a) No F. R SAC (2005a) No R SAC (1993b) Van Praagh 2003b A, F. R SAC (1993c) Van Praaiih 2003a F, R SAC (2000b) Van Praagh 2003d A, R SAC (1993a) Morey 1999 R SAC (2005b) No RF, S SAC (2001 d) Van Praagh 20031' S, R (RF & F) SAC (2001c) Van Praagh 2003a A, B, S, P, R SAC {20010 Van Praagh 2002 F, R SAC (1992) Murray 2003 - (not listed) SAC (200le) No F, R SAC (200 la) Van Praagh 2003e A, S, F, R SAC (2001b) Van Praagh 2003c agricultural practices. Forestry activities in highland catchments have been recognised as the main threat to crayfish taxa found in the highlands in Australia (F4orwitz 1990b). Removal of trees in lowland catchments has also been identified as a threat to the Geocharax gracilis and Engaeus sericatus (March and Robson 2005). Morgan (1997) noted that habitat modification by man will contribute to fur- ther isolation of crayfish populations in Australia. To date, most active management direct- ed at conserving crayfish in Victoria has been directed at the larger species, e.g. Murray and Glenelg Spiny Crayfish, (Barker 1990). Following the listing of a number of native crayfish under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, the Victorian government addressed the con- servation of these species by compiling a series of management strategies or Action Statements (see Table 4) and instituting angling regulations, bag and size limits, restrictions on collection methods and a ban on the taking of berried (carrying eggs or juveniles) female crayfish at any time (Government of Victoria 2002). Those Victorian crayfish that have a pub- lished Flora and Fauna Guarantee (FFG) Action Statement are indicated in Table 4. Action Statements must be compiled for all threatened species and communities as well as potentially threatening processes listed under the FFG Act. Action Statements are basically brief management plans to address the conservation of the species. All but two of the crayfish listed in Victoria now have a published Action Statement but, apart from some limited work on three spiny crayfish in the 1990s that investigated conservation of these crayfish for angling purposes (Barker 1990), there has been little or no monitor- ing of crayfish populations in the state. The long-term conservation of taxa known to be threatened or declining may be prob- lematic if threatening processes are not addressed. Threatening processes In his conservation assessment of Australian crayfish, Horwitz (1995a) noted that A., parastacids in Australia occur in areas where the activities of urbanisation, agriculture, forestry and mining, are liable to have affected their ability to maintain population levels at what they were prior to European invasion.’ Given this scenario and the fact that crayfish play a major role 222 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Distribution maps of Geocharax species, a. Geocharax falcata. b. Geocharax gracilis. b Distribution map of Gramastaciis insolitus. in aquatic ecosystems (Lorman and Magnuson 1978), a conservation assess- ment or summary of the conservation of Victorian crayfish taxa is appropriate. Table 4 shows the threatened parastacids recorded in Victoria and the main reasons identified for their listing. There are a number of threats acting on many Victorian crayfish species (Table 4). Most taxa are rare due to loss of habitat and impacts caused by agricultural devel- opment. In addition to the natural preda- tors of crayfish (Kailola et al. 1993) e.g. fish. Water Rats Hydromys chrysogaster, freshwater tortoises Chelonia species and waterbirds, particularly cormorants Phalacrocorax species, predation by intro- duced carnivores e.g. Red Fox Vidpes vulpes, has been identified as a threat for the Alpine Spiny Crayfish (Green and Osborne 1981, 1994). Habitat degradation or destruction, partic- ularly in forested catchments, has been shown to be detrimental to the conserva- tion of crayfish populations in other states (e.g. Tasmania) (Growns 1995) and over- seas, but few similar studies on the impacts of forestry operations (or other man-made impacts) have been undertaken on any Victorian crayfish. Edney et al. (2002) found that land development and cattle grazing affected the density and occurrence of the ‘Swamp Yabby’ and suggested that much of the former range of this species is now under agriculture or affected by river regulation. March and Robson (2005) found that two species of burrowing freshwater crayfish (Engaeus sericatus and Geocharax gracilis) were adversely affected by land uses that degraded soil conditions and vegetation cover. They also found that forested areas had more than twice the densities of fresh- water crayfish burrows as in areas of other land uses. In particular their work suggested that cattle grazing may have reduced bur- rowing crayfish populations in certain streams in south-western Victoria and that fencing to reduce the impact of grazing may be insufficient to ameliorate these effects. Robson (pers. comm. March 2006) sug- gested that soil compaction arising from stock grazing underlies the lower number of crayfish in non-forest areas of western Victoria. Remnant forest in riparian habi- tats may therefore act as important refuges for burrowing crayfish in agricultural areas. The limited conservation work done on Australian freshwater crayfish suggests that loss of riparian vegetation (SAC 1996), bank erosion and smothering of instream habitat by increased siltation are the major threats to at least the spiny cray- fish and also to some burrowing crayfish species in southern Victoria. Horwitz (1995a) regarded the following major threatening processes as acting on Vol. 124 (4) 2007 223 Invertebrate Conservation Issue various Australian parastacids: agriculture (A) (mainly earth moving and cultivation but including cattle trampling): fire or burning (B); swamp and wetland drainage (W); clearing and loss of native riparian vegetation (including forestry activity) (F); recreational fishing (R); channelisation and other instream alterations such as de- snagging, culverts, weirs and river regula- tion (S); translocations (mainly for aqua- culture) (T) and urbanisation (U). Additional criteria used in this paper for the status of Victorian taxa are rarity or restricted distribution (RRS) and intro- duced predators (foxes, trout) (P) (see Table 4). There have been no studies in south-eastern Australia looking into the impacts that drought or the effect exten- sive wildfires have had on crayfish popu- lations. The Glenelg River in south-west Victoria was closed to crayfish fishing between March 2007 and February 2008 due to drought. The conditions produced very low or no river flows, which led to pooling in sections of the river, which in turn led to increased mortality of Glenelg Spiny Crayfish populations. The 2005 Grampians fires resulted in greater access for recreational anglers, thus increasing the risk of over fishing of the Glenelg Spiny Crayfish (DPI 2007). Environmental perturbations At least two crayfish species (Murray Spiny Crayfish and Common Yabby) have experi- enced a number of so-called 'blackwater’ episodes in their riverine habitats over the years, mainly in the Murray River and its tributaries (e.g. Sunday Herald Sim 1995, McKinnon 1995). The term ‘blackwater’ refers to flood events that bring stagnant water from the adjacent floodplain into the river, leading to decreased oxygen levels in the water column and resulting in anoxic conditions for instream fauna. Crayfish may then be forced to the surface and many climb out of the water on to stream banks and above-water woody debris, becoming vulnerable to the take by humans and, prob- ably, predation by foxes. McKinnon (1995) estimated that 500 kg of Murray Spiny Crayfish were taken by recreational fishers in 1993 as a result of a blackwater event. McKinnon and Shepheard (1995) recorded over 1000 yabbies and large numbers of shrimp {Macrobrachium and Paratya sp.) being killed in a 1993 Murray River 'blackwater' incident. McKinnon (1995) also noted that some water control devices (e.g. earthen block banks) used in Murray River forests may actually contribute to blackwater events, and therefore manage- ment approaches for the provision of 'environmental Hows’ need to consider crayfish as well. Such environmental events have led to temporary closures of the fishery for the species (e.g. in 2000, Fisheries Notice 5/2000). This has also lead to enforcement directed at the illegal take of Murray Spiny Crayfish during these events {Seymour Telegraph. 6 September 1995). In the early to mid 1990s, up to 100 infringement notices were issued for the illegal take of Murray Spiny Crayfish at Lake Nagambie {Seymour Telegraph 6 September 1995). The use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals may be involved as well, but there is currently little information about these contaminants in the aquatic environment of crayfish. Concern about the depletion of the Murray Spiny Crayfish was raised by vari- ous biologists and conservation and recre- ational fishing groups in the 1990s (e.g. DSE unpublished information). This led to the closure of the Victorian Murray Spiny Crayfish fishery between 1984 and 1991 (Sharp 1995). Crayfish conservation - future needs The basic ecology (distribution, threats etc.) of most Australian freshwater cray- fish species is poorly known. This infor- mation is required for at least all the restricted-range species if they are to be appropriately managed for the future. Victoria has a high number of short- range endemic (SRE) crayfish (SAC Database 2007), and various workers believe that human-induced changes in the abundance and geographic ranges of species is actively creating SREs. Invertebrate conservation in Victoria draws upon this pool of species for listing and particular conservation management attention must be paid to these taxa because habitat loss and degradation further worsen their prospects for survival (Harvey 2002). The conservation of 224 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue ‘hotspots’ e.g. Tarago Creek Gippsland (Morey and Hollis 1997) where SREs occur, will ensure that the maximum num- ber of these taxa are preserved. Merrick (1995) identified the most important threat to NSW spiny crayfish as clearing for agriculture (specifically dairy- ing) or forestry with the attendant changes to water quality and eutrophication these activities bring. Agriculture and man-made pollutants also emerged as significant problems for crayfish populations in that state. It can be expected that Victorian waters would be experiencing similar impacts. Horwitz (1990c) highlighted transloca- tion of crayfish as one of the most crucial processes threatening freshwater crayfish in Australia. This process could lead to the introduction of exotic diseases, displace- ment of native species, habitat alterations, loss of unique combinations of characteris- tics by hybridisation, and loss of epibiotic species (those species using crayfish bur- rows). The potential disease risk for fresh- water crayfish in Australia via imported crayfish was recognised almost 100 years ago (Smith 1912). Horwitz (1990c) recom- mended that more be spent on crayfish dis- ease research, education programs and maintaining bans on imported crayfish. Fortunately, Australia has so far remained free of fungal crayfish disease, but there have been instances of invertebrate para- sites attacking some crayfish in Australia (Carroll 1981). Conclusions Recommended actions for addressing cray- fish conservation in Victoria are as follows (based on Merrick 1995); 1. Baseline biological crayfish surveys: Biological research programs should be commenced and followed through to determine baseline biological data, habi- tat preferences and interactions between native crayfish and introduced salmonids, particularly those crayfish with restricted ranges. There is some recent basic research being done on the Glenelg Spiny Crayfish and some of the Gippsland Spiny Crayfish. 2. Restoration of aquatic habitat: No further de-snagging, channelisation or impoundment of headwaters should be permitted. Redundant or unsound impoundments should be removed. Although the development of water resources in terms of large engineering projects has now largely stopped in Victoria, there are still calls for further dam construction and river diversion works that would affect riverine crayfish species. 3. Improve water quality: Poor water quality must be addressed, and also potential polluted sites, particu- larly near or adjacent to species with known small ranges. Urbanisation increases the threat of siltation in streams and should be controlled. Poor water quality remains a problem in most non-forested catchment streams in Victoria. 4. Prevent non-indigenous introductions: Prohibit stocking of non-indigenous aquatic species to headwaters, especially where endemic, limited-range crayfish are known to occur. Stocking of trout above natural barriers should cease. Victoria is generally fairly lucky in teniis of introduced aquatic species. 5. Restoration of riparian habitats: Restoration of damaged or cleared streambanks should commence. There is much scope for restoration of riparian habitats through revegetation and removal of stock access. 6. Manage crayfish fisheries: Strict controls on all recreational fish- eries for rare and/or threatened species. The recent controls on take of Murray River and Glenelg Spiny Crayfish shows what needs to be done to carefully man- age these long-lived angling species. 7. Manage aquaculture industries: Further culture of non-indigenous cray- fish should be discouraged and a more effective translocation policy should be developed. The illegal introduction of Marron to Victoria indicates that fish- eries managers need to be vigilant when looking into the expansion of crayfish aquaculture industry in Victoria. Mitigation of all the known threats acting on crayfish need to be addressed if Victorian species are to remain as part of the inverte- brate fauna in the state. If no active conser- vation management is undertaken to con- serve crayfish habitats and address water Vol. 124 (4) 2007 225 luverlebrate Conservation Issue quality issues of these habitats, then it is pos- sible that a number of Vietorian crayfish species (especially those with restricted ranges) may be threatened with extinction. Limited understanding of most species' basic biology means we cannot predict with any certainty the long-term conservation of most Victorian crayfish taxa. Acknowledgements This paper could not have been compiled with- out the advice, assistance and support of the fol- lowing people: Susan Lawler (La Trohe University, Wodonga), Pierre Horwitz (Edith Cowan University, Western Australia). Alastair Richardson (School of Zoology, University of Tasmania). Belinda Robson (Deakin University, Warrnambool), Tarmo Raadik (Arthur Rylah Institute. Heidelberg). .lustin O'Connor (Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg) and Bill (TConnor (Department of Sustainability and Environment. East Melbourne). Michelle Sanders and Bojun Chiswell assisted in transferring freshwater crayfish records from Museum Victoria data into the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife. Vanessa Stubbs and Scott Leech (DSE East Melbourne) assisted in the production of distribution maps and input of museum records into the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife. A draft of this paper was improved by the comments of two anonymous referees. References Austin CM (1996) Systematics of the Freshwater Crayfish Genus Chera.x Erichson (Decapoda: Paraslacidae) in Northern and Eastern Australia; Electrophoretic and Morphological Variation. Australian Journal of Zoology 44. 259-296. Austin CM. Nguyen, TTT. Meewan MM and Jerry DR (2003) The taxonomy and phylogeny of the X'hera.x destructor' complex (Decapoda. Parastacidae) exam- ined using mitochondrial 16S sequences. Australian Journal of Zoology' 51. 99-1 10. Austin evi and Ryan SG (2002) Allozyme evidence for a new species of freshwater crayllsh of the genus Chera.x Erichson (Decopa:Parastachidac) from the south-west of Western Australia. Invertebrate Systematics 16: 357-367. Barker J (1990) Spiny Freshwater Crayfish Management Strategy in Victoria. Freshwater Fish Management Branch. Fisheries Division. Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne. Fisheries Management Report Number 34. Butcher R and Doeg TJ (1995) Conservation of Freshwater Invertebrates. The Victorian Naturalist 112(1), 15-19. Carroll P N (1981) Aquaculturists' enthusiasm for yab- bies highlights potential beyond the problems. Australian Fisheries June 1981. Clark E (1936a) The freshwater and land crayfishes of Australia. Memoirs of the Museum Victoria 10. 5-58. Clark E (1936b) Notes on the habits of land crayfishes. The Victorian Naturalist 53 (4), 65-68. Clark E (1938) The freshwater crayfishes and yabbies of Victoria. Victorian Year Book 1936-37. 57, 33-38. Clark E (1941a) Revision of the genus Euastacus (crayfishes family Parastacidae) with notes on the distribution of certain species. Memoirs of the National Museum \ ictoria 12. 7-30. Clark E ( 1941b) New species of Australian frc.shwater and land crayfishes (family Parastacidae). Memoirs of the National Museum Victoria 12. 31-41. Clarke GM. and Spier-Ashcroft F (2003) A Review of the Conservation Status of Selected Australian Non- Marine Invertebrates. Natural Heritage Frust, Department of Environment and 1 lerilage. C'anberra. CNR (1995a) Threatened Fauna in Victoria /99.5. A .systematic fist of fauna considered e.xiinct. at risk of extinction or in major decline in Victoria. Department of C'on.scrvation and Natural Resources. Melbourne. C'NR (1995b) The H'arragul Burrowing Crayfish, Habitat Protection for one of Australia's Rarest Crayfish (A4 brochure). Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Traralgon. Crandall KA, Fetzner JW’, Lawler SI I. Kinnersley M and Austin CM (1999) Phylogenetic relationships among the Australian and New Zealand genera of freshwater crayfishes (Decapoda, Parastacidae). Australian Journal of Zoology Al. 199-214. Davie PJF (2002) Crustacea Malacostrala, Phyllocarida, lloplocarida. Eucarida (Vol. 19.3A Part 1 ). In Zoological Catalogue of Australia, pp 393-418 Eds A W'ells and WWK Houston.. (CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne). Doran N (1999) Burrowing Crayfish Recovery Plan 2001 - 2005. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Doran N and Richards K (1996) Management require- ments for rare and threatened burrowing crayfish in Tasmania. Report to the Fasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, Fhivironinent and Heritage Technical committee, November 1996. DPI (1998) Policy Statement. No.xious Fish - Matron (05-20-0 106-1 ). Fisheries Notes ()0()9, Department of Primary Industries. Victoria, (web document at URL htlp://www. dpi. vie. gov.au) DPI (2007) Fisheries Victoria Fish-e-Fax Issue 190 (1) March 2007. Department of Primary Industries, Victoria. (web document at URL h tt p : //w wvv . dpi . vi c . gov . au ) DSE (2003) Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria - 2003. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne, (web document at URL, hltp://www. dse.vic.gov.au) DSE (2006) Atlas of Victorian Wildlife (electronic fauna database). Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. DSE (in prep.) Advisory List of Threatened Invertebrates in Victoria. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Division. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Edney GN, McNeil DG and Lawler SH (2002) The Swamp Yabby (Chera.x sp.) of the Murray River Catchment. The Victorian Naturalist 1 19 (4), 2(K)-2()4. ENRC (2000) Utilisation of Victorian Native Flora and Fauna - Impdry Report. Environment and Natural Resources Committee. Parliament of Victoria. Melbourne. Erichson WF ( 1 846) Verberischt der Arten der Gattung Astaciis. Archives fur Naturgeschichte. 12, 86-103. Fisheries Notice 5/2000. Fisheries Act 1995, Fisheries (Spiny Freshwater Crayfish Regional Closure) Notice No. 5/200(). Geddes MC and Mitchell BD (1987) Murray crayfish restocking. A revised proposal for a pilot study earli- er submitted to the River Murray Commission March 1987. [Unpublished, November 1987] Gooderham J and Tsyrlin E (2002) The Waterbiig Book. A Guide to the Freshwater Macroinvertehrates 226 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue of Temperate Australia. Melbourne Water, Hydro Tasmania and Environment Protection Authority, Melbourne. (CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood). Government of Victoria (2002) Flora and Fauna Guarantee (Taking or keeping of Spiny Freshwater Crayfish) Order No. 1/2002. Victorian Government Gazette G13 p. 603, 28 March 2002. (Craftsman Press, Melbourne). Green K and Osborne W (1981) The diet of Foxes, Vulpes vulpes (L.) in relation to abundance of prey above the winter snowline in New South Wales. Australian Wildlife Research 8, 349-360. Green K and Osborne W (1994) Wildlife of the Australian Snow-country. (Reed, Sydney). Greenslade P (1994) Heritage listing of invertebrate sites in southeastern Australia. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 36 ( 1 ), 67-76. Growns 10 (1995) Astacopsis gouldi Clark in streams of the Gog Range, northern Tasmania, The effects of catchment disturbance. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 129. 1 -6. Harvey MS (2002) Short-range endemism among the Australian fauna, some examples from non-marine environments. Invertebrate Systematics 16, 555-570. Hoey JA (1990) The biology of the freshwater cray, E. bispinosus (Decapoda, Parastacidae), and its manage- ment in the Lower Glenelg River drainage. Unpublished MSc Thesis, Faculty of Applied Science and Technology. Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education. Horwitz P (1990a) The conservation status of Australian freshwater Crustacea, With a provisional list of threatened species, habitats and potentially threatening processes. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service Report Series No. 14. Horwitz P (1990b) A taxonomic revision of species in the freshwater crayfish genus Engaeus Erichson (Decapoda, Parastacidae). Invertebrate Taxonomy 4, 427-614. Horwitz P (1990c) The translocation of Freshwater Crayfish in Australia, Potential impact, the need for control and global relevance. Biological Conservation. 54. 291-305. Horwitz P (1994) Distribution and conservation status of the Tasmanian Giant Freshwater Lobster Astacopsis gouldi (Decapoda, Parastacidae). Biological Conservation 69, 199-206. Horwitz P (1995a) A preliminary key to the species of Decapoda (Crustacea, Malacostraca) found in Australia inland waters. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology Identification Guide No. 5, Murray Darling Freshwater Research Centre, Albury, NSW. Horwitz P (1995b) The conservation status of .Australian freshwater crayfish, review and update. Fre.shwater Crayfish 10, 70-80. Horwitz P and Richard.son AMM (1986) An ecological classification of the burrows of Australian freshwater crayfish. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 37, 237-242. Jackson J ( 1 997) State of habitat availability and quali- ty in inland waters, Australia, State of the Environment Technical Paper Series (Inland Waters). Department of the Environment. Canberra. Jasinka EJ, Knott B and Poulter N ( 1 993 ) Spread of the introduced yabby, Cherax sp. (Crustacea, Decapoda, Parastacidae), beyond the natural range of freshwater crayfishes in Western Australia. .lournal of the Royal Society of Western Au.stralia l(i, 67-69. Jones bS and Morgan GJ (2002) A Field Guide to Crustaceans of Australian Waters. Western Australian Museum. (Reed New Holland, Sydney). Kailola PJ. Williams MJ, Stewart PC, Reichclt RE, McNee A and Grieve C [Eds.] (1993) Australian Fisheries Resources. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, and Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, Au.stralia. Koster WM. Raadik TA and Kefford BJ (1999) Observations on the distribution, habitat require- ments. and aspects of the biology of the Central Highlands Spiny Cray. Southern Victorian Spiny Cray and South Gippsland Spiny Cray. Freshwater Ecology Section, Arthur Rylah institute for Environmental Research. Heidelberg. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. Lawrence CS, Morrissy NM, Vercoe PE, and Williams IH (2002) Cherax of south ewastern and central Australia. Part I: A review of taxonomy and distribu- tion. Thirteenth symposium of the International Association of Astacolog}’, Australia, International Association ofAstacology 13: 555-569 Lorman JG and Magnuson JJ (1978) The role of cray- fishe.s in aquatic ecosystems. Fisheries (Bethedsa) 3 ( 6 ), 8 - 10 . March TS and Robson BJ (2005) Association between burrow densities of two Australian freshwater cray- fish {Engaeus sericatus and Geocharax gracilis, Parastacidae) and four riparian land uses. Aquatic Conservation, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 16(2). 181-191. Martens E von (1866) On a new species of Astaciis. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 3, 17.359-360. McCoy F (1888) Astacopsis serratus (Shaw sp.) var. yarraensis. Prodromus Zoolog}' Victoria 2, 225-227. McKinnon L (1995) Emersion of Murray Crayfish. Euastacus armatus (Decapoda, Para.stacidae), from the Murray River due to post-flood water quality. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 107, 31-37. McKinnon L and Shepheard N (1995) Factors con- tributing to a fish kill in Broken Creek. The Victorian Naturalist 112 (2), 93-99. Merrick JR (1991) The biology, conservation and man- agement of Australian freshwater crayfishes, a Bibliography. Graduate School of the Environment, Macquarie University, Sydney, Merrick JR (1993) Freshwater Crayfish of New South Wales. Linnean Society of NSW. (Southwood Press, Marrickville). Merrick JR (1995) Diversity, distribution and conser- vation of freshwater crayfishes in the Eastern Highlands of New South wales. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 1 15, 247-258. Morey JL (1998) (jrowth, catch rates and notes on the biology of the Gippsland Spiny Freshwater Cray, E. kershawi (Decapoda, Parastacidae), in West Gippsland, Victoria. Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of New South Wales 1 19, 55-69. Morey JL (1999) Action Statement No. 91. Flora and Fauna Guarantee - Warragul Burrowing Crayfish Engaeus sternalis (web document at URL http://www.dse.vic.gov.au). Biodiversity and Natural Resources Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Morey JL and Hollis G ( 1997) Australia's most diverse crayfish habitat? Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria 65 (2), 667-669. Morgan GP (1986) Freshwater crayllsh of the Genus Euastacus Clark (Decapoda, Parastacidae) from Victoria. Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria 47 (1), Morgan GP (1997) Freshwater crayfish of the Genus Euastacus Clark (Decapoda, Parastacidae) from New South Wales, with a key to all Species of the Genus. Records of the Australian Museum Supplement 23. Munasinghe DHN, Burridge CP and Austin CM (2004) The systematics of the crayfish genus Cherax Erichson (Decapoda. Parastacidae) in eastern Vol. 124 (4) 2007 227 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Australia re-exainined using nucleotide sequences froin I2S rRNA and J6S rRNA genes. Invertebrate Sy.stcmatics 18. 215-22.5. Murray A (2003) Action Statement No. 128. Flora and Fauna Guarantee - Orbost Spiny C'rayfish Euastacus iliversus. Biodiversity and Natural Resources Division. Department ol' Sustainability and F.nvironment. Melbourne, (web document at URl. http://www.dse.\ ic.gov.au). Museum Victoria (2005) Information Sheet No. 10309. WVjo’.v Jigging in my lawn? Melbourne Museum. C'arlton. (web document at URL http:/7www.muse- um.vic.gov.au/infosheets/ 10309.pdn Nguyen TTT. .Austin CM. Meewan MM, Schultz MB and Jerry DR (2004) Phylogeography of the freshwa- ter crayllsh Cherax destructor Clark (Parastacidae) in inland Australia, historical fragmentation and recent rantie expansion. Biological Journal of the Linnaeun Soc/>rv83 (4), 539-550. Reik HF (1969) The Australian Freshwater Crayfish (Crustacea. Decapoda. Parastacidae), with de.scrip- tions of new species. Australian Journal oj Zoolog}' 17.855-918. Reik LF (1972) The Phylogeny of the Parastacidae (Crmstacea, Astacoidea). and a description of a new genus of Australian Freshwater Crayfishes. Australian Journal of Zoology 20. 369-89. Rogan PL (1972) The crayfish family - Parastacidae. Freshwater Fisheries Newsletter (Aust.) 3, 8-9. SAC (1992) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing. Euastacus diversus Orbost Spiny Crayfish (nomination no. 198). Flora and Fauna Guarantee, Scientific Advisory Committee. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Melbourne. SAC (1993a) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing. Engaeus siernalis Warragul Burrowing Crayfish (nomination no. 264). Flora and Fauna Guarantee. Scientific Advisory Committee. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Melbourne. SAC (1993b) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing, Engaeus mallacooia Mallacoota Burrowing Crayfish (nomination no. 265). Flora and Fauna Guarantee, Scientific Advisory Committee. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Melbourne. SAC (1993c) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing, Engaeus phyllocercus Narracan Burrowing Crayfish (nomination no. 266). Flora and Fauna Guarantee. Scientific Advisory Committee. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, .Melbourne. SAC (1996) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing. Degradation of native vegetation along Victorian rivers and streams (nomination no. 354). Flora and Fauna Guarantee, Scientific Advisory Committee. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Melbourne. SAC (2000a) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing, Engaeus australis Lilly Pilly Burrowing Crayfish (nomination no. 517). Flora and Fauna Guarantee, Scientific Advisory Committee. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. SAC (2000b) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing, Engaeus rostrogaleatus Strzelecki Burrowing Crayfish (nomination no. 504). Flora and Fauna Guarantee, Scientific Advisory Committee. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. SAC (2001a) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing, Euastacus neodiversus South Gippsland Spiny Crayfish (nomination no. 523). Flora and Fauna Guarantee, Scientific Advisory Committee. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. SAC (2001b) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing. Grainasiacus insolilus Western Swamp Crayfish (nomination no. 521). Flora and Fauna Guarantee, Scienti lie Advisory Committee. Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Melbourne. SAC (2()()lc) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing, Euastacus hispinosus Glenelg Spiny Crayfish (nomination no. 519). Flora and Fauna Guarantee, Sclent i fic Advisory Committee, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. SAC (200 Id) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing, Euastacus armatus Murray Spiny Crayfish (nomination no. 520). Flora and Fauna Guarantee, Scientific Advisory Committee. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. SAC (200 le) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing, Euastacus kershawi Gippsland Spiny Crayfish (nomination no. 533). Flora and Fauna Guarantee. Scientific Advisory Committee. Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Melbourne. SAC (2001 f) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing, Euastacus crassus Alpine Spiny Crayfish (nomination no. 537). Flora and Fauna Guarantee. Scientific Advisory Committee. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. SAC (20()5a) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing, Engaeus curvisuturus Curve-tail Burrowing Crayfish (nomination no. 740). Fk>ra and Fauna Guarantee, Scientific Advisory Committee. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. SAC (2005b) Final Recommendation on a nomination for listing, Engaeus urostrictus Dandenong Burrowing Crayfish (nomination no. 742). Flora and Fauna Guarantee, Scientific Advisory Committee. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. SAC Database (2007) Scientific Advisory Committee Listing Database - 2007 (electronic database). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. Scientific Advisory Committee. Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne. Seymour Telegraph, 6 Sept. 1995. p 5. 'Warning on crayfishing at Nagambie'. (Reporter Mark Nunan). Sharp G (1995) fhe Murray Cray. Freshwater Fishing Australia Autumn 1995, Issue 30, 1 l(i-l 18. Shaw J (1996) Australia's rarest crayfish? - A survey of the Lahertouche Ck and tributaries in West Gippsland to extend the known range of the Warragul Burrowing Crayfish {Engaeus siernalis). Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Traralgon. Smith G ( 1912) The freshw'ater Crayfishes of Australia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1912,144-170.' Smith G and Schuster EHJ (1913) The genus Engaeus, or land-crayfishes of Australia. Proceedings of the Zoological Societ}’ of London 1913, 12-127. Sokol A (1988) Morphological variation in relation to the taxonomy of the destructor group of the Genus Cherax. Invertebrate Taxonomy 2, 55-79. Sunday Herald Sun (1995) ‘Day the crays went crazy’, p. 30. Sunday 8^^ October 1995. Sutcr PJ and Hawking JIl (2002) Aquatic Macroinvertebraies of the Murray River. The Victorian Naturalist 1 1 9 (4), 1 86-200. Van Praagh B (2002) Action Statement No. 136, Flora 228 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue and Fauna Guarantee - Alpine Spiny Crayfish Euastacus crassus. (web document at URL http://www.dse.vic.gov.au). Biodiversity and Natural Resources Division. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Van Praagh B (2003a) Action Statement No. 1 84, Flora and Fauna Guarantee - Glenelg Spiny Crayfish Euastacus bispinosus and Murray Spiny Crayfish Euastacus armatus (web ‘document at URL http://www.dse.vic.gov.au). Biodiversity and Natural Resources Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Van Praagh B (2003b) Action Statement No. 153, Flora and Fauna Guarantee - Mallacoota Burrowing Crayfish Engaeus mallacoota (web document at URL http://www.dse.vic.gov.au). Biodiversity and Natural Resources Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Van Praagh B (2003c) Action Statement No. 172, Flora and Fauna Guarantee - Western Swamp Crayfish Gramastacus insolitus (web document at URL http://www.dse.vic.gov.au). Biodiversity and Natural Resources Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Van Praagh B (2003d) Action Statement No. 173, Flora and Fauna Guarantee - Strzelecki Burrowing Crayfish Engaeus rostrogaleatus (web document at URL http://www.dse.vic.gov.au). Biodiversity and Natural Resources Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Van Praagh B (2003e) Action Statement No. 176, Flora and Fauna Guarantee - South Gippsland Spiny Crayfish Euastacus neodiversus (web document at URL http://www.dse.vic.gov.au ). Biodiversity and Natural Resources Division, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Van Praagh B (2003 f) Action Statement No. 127, Flora and Fauna Guarantee -Narracan Burrowing Crayfish Engaeus phyllocercus). Biodiversity and Natural Resources Division. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Van Praagh B and Hinkley S (1999) Distribution of four species of burrowing crayfish, Warragul Burrowing Crayfish Engaeus slernalis Clark; Narracan Burrowing Crayfish E. phyllocercus Smith and Schuster; Strzelecki Burrowing Crayfish E. ros- trogaleatus Horwitz and Lilly Pilly Burrowing Crayfish E. australis Riek in the Gippsland Regional Forest Agreement Area. Unpublished report for the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. Walker KF (1982) The plight of the Murray Crayfish in South Australia. Redgum 6, 2-6. Whiting AS, Lawler SH, Horwitz P and Crandall, KA (2000) Biogeographic regionalization of Australia, assigning conservation priorities based on endemic freshwater crayfish phylogenetics. Animal Conservation 3 (2), 155-163. Yen A and Butcher RJ (1997) An overview of the con- servation of Non-marine Invertebrates in Australia. Endangered Species Program, Environment Australia, Canberra. Zampatti BP and Close PG (2000) An assessment of environmental flow requirements for the Kiewa River, a component of the Kiewa River Streamflow Management Plan. Arthur Rylah Institute, Flora Fauna and Freshwater Research, Heidelberg. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. Zeidler W (1982) South Australian Freshwater Crayfish. South Australian Naturalist 56 (3), 36-43. Zeidler W and Adams M (1990) Revision of the Australian Crustacean genus of Freshwater Crayfish Gramastacus Riek (Decapoda, Parastacidae). Invertebrate Taxonomy 913-924. Received 22 March 2007: accepted 28 June 2007 Central Highlands Spiny Crayfish. Photographed by Greg Hollis, DSE Noojee. Vol. 124 (4) 2007 229 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Distribution and conservation status of two amphipods in the Dandenong Ranges - Austrogammarus australis (Sayce) and Austrogammarus haasei (Sayce) 1. 2 1 Phil Papas and Diane Crowther Arthur Rylah Institute lor Hnvironmental Research, Department of Sustainability and ruivironment. PO Box 137. Heidelberg, Victoria 3084 Corresponding author Abstract Austrogammarus australis (Sayce) and A. haasei (Sayce) (Amphipoda: Paramelitidae) are two amphipod species of conservation significance located in the Dandenong Ranges, Victoria. Original type localities for the species were in and near the Dandenong Ranges. Subsequent surveys have revealed that both species are no longer found at their type localities (most likely due to impacts associated with urbanisation), however they do occur at other sites in the Dandenong Ranges. As the species have a limited distribution in Victoria, they are listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. The Draft Advisory List of Threatened Invertebrates classifies A. australis as ‘Vulnerable* and A. haasei as ‘Critically Endangered'.This paper sumarises results from three surveys for both species with additional notes on changes in their distribution over time. A slight increase in the num- ber of sites at which both species were found was evident from surveys for the species in 1995 and 1999. A surx'ey for the species in 2001 in the Yarra Ranges, an area located close by with similar topography, stream types and vegetation, failed to locate any specimens of either species, highlight- ing the limited distribution of the species. There have been no taxon-specific surveys for either species across the Dandenong Ranges since 1999. Introduction Background Amphipods are an ancient crustacean group consisting of small, laterally flat- tened animals, usually between one and two centimetres long (Williams 1980). A diverse fauna of amphipods inhabits Australian freshwaters, particularly in Tasmania, south-eastern and south-western Australia (Williams and Barnard 1988). They occur in a wide range of permanent and ephemeral habitats, including streams, wetlands, caves and crayfish burrows (Horwitz 1990). Australia has a higher density of freshwater amphipod genera (per km- of habitat) than other continents and this is thought to reflect the age of the group, their primary adaptation to perma- nent and non-tropical freshwater and the large scale changes that have occurred in the nature of the Australian climate over geological time (Williams and Barnard 1988). The Dandenong Amphipod ~ Austrogam marus australis and Sherbrooke Amphipod - Austrogammarus haasei A. australis (family Paramelitidae) was originally described as Gammarus aiis- {Tbe Victorian Naturalist 124 (4), 2007, 230-235} trails by Sayce in 1901. A. haasei (family Parameltitidae) was originally described as Gammarus haasei by Sayce in 1902. Both species were placed in a new genus, Austrogammarus, erected by Barnard and Karman (1983). Austrogammarus is regarded as the most primitive genus of the Australian paramelitids (Williams and Barnard 1988) and now includes seven species; A. australis, A. haasei, A. smithi, A. saycei, A. spinatus and A. multispinatiis and another, A. telsosetosus, described by Barnard and Williams (1995). A. smithi is found in Tasmania, A. telsosetosus is known only from South Australia, while the other species occur to the east of Melbourne in Victoria. Recent findings suggest there are new species and exten- sions of the range of current species in other parts of Victoria (J Bradbury 1999 pers. comm. May). Distribution and survey history The type locality for^. australis was given as Dandenong Creek near Bayswater, but other locations where the species was sub- sequently located were given as: ‘a tribu- tary of Monbulk Creek’ and ‘in a gully 230 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue halfway to Sassafras’. The last known record of the species (prior to surveys commencing in 1995, reported in this paper) was in 1911 (Williams and Barnard 1988). The type locality is extremely mod- ified (urban drains) and the species has not been recorded from there since (Williams and Barnard 1988). On the basis of the lack of new records and the modification to streams around the type locality, the species was classified as ‘Presumed Extinct’ by Horwitz (1990) and Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (1993). The species was listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and an Action Statement was pro- duced recommending the surveying of creeks in the Dandenong Ranges to deter- mine the existence of the species in the area (Department of Conservation and Environment 1991). The Action Statement was later updated (Doeg and Papas 2003) to incorporate findings from these surveys (Doeg et ai 1996; Papas et al. 1999). The species is presently classified as ‘Vulnerable’ in the Draft Advisory List of Threatened Invertebrate Fauna (Department of Sustainability and Environment unpubl.). The type locality for A. haasei was given as Monbulk, Vic., 250 m altitude (Williams and Barnard 1988) - suggesting it may have been in Sassafras or Emerald creeks above the town of Monbulk (Doeg et al. 1996). The species was listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 after recommendations made following the 1995 survey (Doeg et al. 1996) and is presently classified as ‘Critically Endangered’ in the Draft Advisory List of Threatened Invertebrate Fauna (Department of Sustainability and Environment unpubl.). An Action Statement was produced recommending the surveying of creeks in the Dandenong Ranges to determine the existence of the species in the area (Doeg and Papas 2004). Dandenong Ranges survey - 1995 Following recommendations made in the Action Statement (Department of Conservation and Environment 1991), a survey for the Dandenong Amphipod was conducted in June, 1995. Forty-six sites were surveyed in the Dandenong Ranges, east of Melbourne (Doeg et al. 1996). Samples were captured with a sweep net of mesh size 300 microns that was swept through organic debris, along stream banks, kicked under rocks and the streambed and scraped against large woody debris. Individual rocks and wood debris were also lifted and examined by eye for the presence of amphipods. A. aus- tralis was found at nine sites in the upper reaches of Olinda, Dandenong and Monbulk Creeks, and A. haasei was found at two sites (Doeg et al. 1996) (Fig. 1). Dandenong Ranges survey - 1999 A second survey for A. australis and A. haasei was conducted in May and June 1999 (Papas et al. 1999). Forty-four sites were sampled using the same method as Doeg et al. (1996). A sweep net of mesh 300 |im was used to capture a sample by sweeping the net through organic debris, along stream banks, kicking under rocks and the streambed and scraping large woody debris - 10 m of stream was sam- pled this way. Material collected was placed in a large sorting tray and all amphipods seen in the sample over a period of 0.5 person hours were collected. Thirty- six of these sites had been sampled during June 1995 and the remainder were new sites thought to be suitable for A. australis or A. haasei. Some of the 1995 sites were considered too disturbed/impacted to sup- port A. australis or A. haasei and hence were not included in the 1999 survey (Papas et al. 1999). Sites were located throughout the Dandenong Ranges, from all major drainage basins and included sites within the Dandenong National Park, as well as streams from the suburbs of Bayswater, Ferntree Gully, Belgrave, Monbulk, Kallista, Kalorama, Lilydale, Mt Evelyn and Upwey. In the 1999 survey, A. australis was recorded at 17 sites and A. haasei at five sites (Fig. 2). All sites containing amphipods were located in the least dis- turbed areas, with no amphipods found in the more disturbed, lowland sections of streams. Of the 38 sites common to both the 1995 and 1999 surveys, in 1999, A. australis was found at 12 sites compared to nine in 1995 and A. haasei at five sites compared to two in 1995. This represents VoL 124 (4) 2007 231 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Fig. 1. Map showing the location of sites where Austrogammarus australis and A. haasei were collect- ed in the 1995 survey {Doeg etal. 1996); reproduced and modified with permission from the author. an apparent increase in the distribution of these species between 1995 and 1999 (Papas et al. 1999). Abundances of A. aits- tralis were generally higher in 1999 (Fig. 3) and there was an increase in abundance of A. haasei at some sites in 1999 (Fig. 4). Subsequent to the 1999 survey, the Action Statement for A. australis was updated to include the new distribution and population information (Doeg and Papas 2000; Doeg and Papas 2003). It was rec- ommended that the conservation status of the species be changed to ‘Vulnerable’ pending the outcome of surveys of other forested areas surrounding the Dandenong Ranges for the presence of A. australis, as it was considered that the species might be present in these areas. Two streams sampled previously by Doeg et al. (1996) and Papas et al. (1999) were surveyed for A. australis in 2002 and 2003 for an honours project that examined the effect of stormwater runoff on the dis- tribution and abundance of the amphipod (Kerr 2004). A, australis was present in relatively high abundance at sites in both streams. Yarra Ranges survey Following the recommendations in the A. australis Action Statement (Doeg and Papas 2000), a survey was subsequently undertaken in the Yarra Ranges, approxi- mately 80 km east of Melbourne, in an area ecologically similar to the Dandenong Ranges. Sites were located in the Yarra Ranges National Park, Melbourne Water closed catchments and State Forest, bound- ed by the Moorondah Catchment to the north-west, Armstrong Creek Catchment to the north-east and Starvation Creek Catchment to the south. 232 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Fig. 2. Map showing the location of sites where Austrogammarus australis and A. haasei were collected in May and June 1 999 (Papas et al. 1 999); reproduced and modified with permission from the author. Thirty sites of similar altitude and stream order to those sampled in the Dandenong Ranges in 1995 and 1999 were inspected in this area during May 2002 (Papas and Crowther 2002). Of these sites, nine were deemed suitable for sampling as they approximated stream types in the Dandenong Ranges that contained A. aus- tralis and/or A. haasei. Unsuitable sites were generally those occurring in faster- flowing, larger streams, or streams that were dry. Sites were sampled using the same method as Doeg et al. (1996) and Papas et al. (1999). No Austrogammarus specimens were collected at the nine sam- ple sites. It is unlikely the absence of Austrogammarus from these sites is a result of human-induced disturbance as all sites were relatively undisturbed (Papas and Crowther 2002). Changes in distribution A. australis is no longer found at its type locality, Bayswater (a Melbourne suburb), most likely due to impacts associated with urbanisation (particularly stormwater runoff) (Walsh 2000; Walsh et al. 2004; Kerr 2004). A. haasei has also not been recorded at locations near its type locality, Monbulk Creek, again, most likely due to human-induced impacts associated with urbanisation. Note that the exact location of the type locality is unknown. The known distribution of A. australis and A. haasei increased between 1995 and 1999. However, this was not a large area increase and these species remain restrict- ed to the Dandenong Ranges. In the 1999 survey, A. australis was recorded from five additional sites and A. haasei from three additional sites. Numbers also increased up to ten-fold for both species (Papas et al. Vol. 124 (4) 2007 233 Invertebrate Conservation Issue 1.8 0 ) o c OJ T3 c < 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 Year_1995 Year_1999 Fig. 3. Box plot comparing abundance of Austrogannnarus australis from 1 995 and 1 999 surveys. Abundance data were transformed using [log,o(y+l)]. The middle 50% of data lie within the box, with the median represented by a solid line. Whiskers indicate minimum and maximum values. Fig. 4. Box plot comparing abundance of Austrogammarus haasei from 1 995 and 1 999 surveys. Abundance data were transformed using [logj nCy+l)]. The middle 50% of data lie within the box, with the median represented by a solid line. Wniskers indicate minimum and maximum values. 234 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue 1999). The reasons for this increase are uncertain; however, some possibilities include natural annual variation in population size, unusually dry conditions between 1996 and 1999 and small varia- tions in the sampling effort and/or strategy. Annual variation in aquatic macroinverte- brate populations has been suggested as an important factor in explaining population changes over time (Resh et al 1987; Clements et al. 1989). The sampling effort/strategy employed in 1999 may have resulted in the collection of more amphipods as areas of organic debris were targeted; these areas were known to be a favourable habitat for Austrogammarus species (J Bradbury 1999 pers. comm. May). All sites where A. australis was located were characterised by undisturbed, riparian zones with native vegetation, and 14 (66%) of these sites were located within national park or other reserves. A. haasei was simi- larly located at sites with riparian zones of relatively undisturbed, native vegetation. Four of these sites (80%) were located with- in the Dandenong Ranges National Park. Additional information on the ecological requirements of A. australis is provided in Kerr (2004). A new survey in the Dandenong Ranges, targeting sites from the 1999 survey and new sites that may contain either species, is now needed to determine the present distribution of both species. Acknowledgements Tim Doeg is thanked for editing the manuscript. References Barnard JL and Karman GS (1983) Australia as a major evolutionary centre for Amphipoda (Crustacea). Memoirs of the Australian Museum 18. 45-61. Barnard JL and Williams WD (1995) The taxonomy of Amphipoda (Crustacea) from Australian fresh waters; Part 2. Records of the Australian Museum 47, 161-201. Clements WH, Van-Hassel JH, Cherry DS and Cairns J (1989) Colonisation variability and the use of sub- stratum-filled trays for biomonitoring benthic com- munities. Hydrobiologia 173, 45-53. Department of Conservation and Environment (1991) Dandenong Freshwater Amphipod Austrogammarus australis. Action Statement No. 3. Department of Conservation and Environment, East Melbourne. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (1993) Threatened fauna in Victoria. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, East Melbourne. Doeg T and Papas P (2000) Action Statement No 3, The Dandenong Freshwater Amphipod Austrogammarus australis. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne. Doeg T and Papas P (2003) Action Statement No 110, Sherbrooke Amphipod Austrogammarus haasei (First published in 2000). Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne. Doeg T and Papas P (2004) Action Statement No 03, The Dandenong Freshwater Amphipod Austrogammarus australis (Revised in 2000). Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne. Doeg TJ, Tsyrlin E and van Praagh B (1996) A survey for the Dandenong Freshwater Amphipod Austrogammarus australis (Sayce) (Unpublished report). Flora and Fauna Branch, Department of Natural Resources and Environment. East Melbourne. Horwitz P ( 1 990) The conservation status of Australian freshwater Crustacea. Report No. 14, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra. Kerr D (2004) Factors affecting the distribution and abundance of an endangered freshwater amphipod {Austrogammarus australis). (Unpublished Honours Thesis, Monash University) Papas PJ, Crowther D and Kefford BJ (1999) Second survey for the Dandenong Freshwater Amphipod Austrogammarus australis (Sayce) with observations on the effect of the William Ricketts Sanctuary carpark oil spill on the amphipod (Unpublished report). Freshwater Ecology, Parks. Flora and Fauna, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Heidelberg. Papas P and Crowther D (2002) Yarra Ranges survey for the Dandenong Freshwater Amphipod Austrogammarus australis (Sayce). (Unpublished report). Freshwater Ecology, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria. Resh VH, Jackson JK and McElravy EP (1987) The use of long-term ecological data and sequential deci- sion plans in monitoring the impact of geothermal energy development on benthic macroinvertebrales. Congress in New Zealand Proceedings, 1988. Sayce OA (1901) Description of some new Victorian freshwater Amphipoda. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 13, 225-242. Walsh CJ (2000) Urban impacts on the ecology of receiving waters: a framework for assessment, conser- vation and restoration. Hydrobiologia 431, 107-1 14. Walsh CJ, Papas, PJ, Crowther, D, Tai Sim P and Yoo J (2004) Stormwater drainage pipes as a threat to a stream-dwelling amphipod of conservation signifi- cance, Austrogammarus australis, in south-eastern Australia. Biodiversity and Conservation 13,78 1-793. Williams WD (1980) Australian Freshwater Life. 2nd edition. (MacMillan: South Melbourne). Williams WD and Barnard JL (1988) The taxonomy of crangonyctoid Amphipoda (Crustacea) from Australian freshwaters: foundation studies. Records of the Australian Museum. Supplement 10. Received 22 March 2007: accepted J June 2007 Austrogammarus australis photographed by Phil Papas Vol. 124 (4) 2007 235 Invertebrate Conservation Issue The Eltham Copper Butterfly Paralucia pywdiscus hicida Crosby (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): local versus state conservation strategies in Victoria AA Canzano,' -’ TR New' and Alan L Yen’ Department of Zoology, La Trobc University. Bundoora, Victoria 3086 Department of Primary Industries. 62 1 Burwood Highway. Knoxfieid. Victoria 3156 ’Corresponding author Abstract This paper summarises some aspects of the practical conservation needs of the Eltham Copper Butlerny Paralucia pyrodisciis lucida. a small threatened subspecies of buttertly endemic to Victoria. Australia. The buttertly is located in three disjunct regions, separated by hundreds of kilo- metres across the state as a result of habitat removal and degradation. The three areas of ECB occur- rence each have distinct characteristics affecting the needs and intensity of conservation manage- ment on the various sites given their urban, regional and rural settings. Butterlly populations have been monitored nearly every year since 1988 with the active support of volunteers. 'Friends of Eltham Copper Butterfly*, local councils and government agencies. This information has contributed to a more holistic management regime for the butterlly, and further research aims to elucidate the more intricate details of the butterfly’s biology, to continue to refine the current monitoring process across the state of Victoria. {The Victorian Naturalist 124 (4), 2007, 236-242) Introduction The Eltham Copper Butterfly Paralucia pyrodisciis lucida Crosby (ECB) is a Victorian endemic subspecies of the dull copper. In common with many other Australian Lyeaenidae, it has declined in range, and has become one of the best- known buttertly taxa in Victoria since a thriving colony was discovered in Eltham, outer Melbourne, in 1987. Before that, it had been believed by many people to have become extinct through site loss caused by urban development since it was described from Greensborough in 1951. ECB was amongst the first invertebrates to be listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, and has become a powerful ambas- sador for insect conservation in the state. It is one of few Australian butterflies for which dedicated reserves have been desig- nated for its conservation. The butterfly’s biology, outlined by Braby (1990) and Braby et at. (1992, 1999), is reasonably well understood. Endersby (1996) also contributed to the biology and behaviour of ECB with detailed field observations of each of its life history stages. The senior author of this paper is currently completing more detailed research on the ECB as part of a higher degree dissertation. Caterpillars feed nocturnally on Bursaria spinosa^ and are tended by ants of the genus Notoncus. They are harboured in the ant subterranean nests by day, around the base of the food plant. ECB is unusual in that populations have been monitored nearly every year since 1988 with the active support and par- ticipation of community volunteers, such as the 'Friends of the Eltham Copper’, and parallel groups associated with reserves in Castlemaine and Kiata. With their help, counts have been made both of caterpillars and adult butterflies each season. In this note, we summarise some aspects of the practical conservation needs of the subspecies, and draw attention to (a) differ- ences between the management needs of ECB in three disjunct regions in which the butterfly occurs and (b) differences between the various sites in the Eltham area, for which different agencies have pri- mary management responsibility. Early conservation management plans and status evaluations (Crosby 1987; Vaughan 1988) have continued to form the basis for more recent advances, and enabled progress toward more holistic management. The conservation of the ECB is overseen by the Eltham Copper Butterfly Working Group, which comprises representatives of the var- ious management agencies for the different ECB sites, entomologists, scientists from other relevant disciplines, and the relevant Friends groups. 236 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Consef^ation Issue Fig. I. The Eltham Copper Butterfly locations at Kiata. The Kiata Flora Reserve has two sites, one by the highway (1) and the other in the centre of the reserve (2). There is a small colony at the Salisbury Flora Reserve (3). Distribution and its conservation implications The current distribution of the Eltham Copper Butterfly is believed to represent the outcome of considerable range reduc- tion and habitat loss and fragmentation, to leave three highly disjunct areas where the butterfly now occurs (Figs. 1-3). Within each region, the butterfly exhibits charac- teristic patterns of seasonal development, and within each the distribution is patchy and far less extensive than that of either the larval food plant or the host ant. Phenology and development differs some- what in the different regions, reflecting cli- matic differences, and leading to different monitoring needs in each area. At Eltham, a clear univoltine pattern occurs, but with late emergences of adults in some years giving the appearance of a second genera- tion. Adults are present from November to March, occasionally later. Eggs are laid from November, and young caterpillars eclose in December, foraging little during the winter months but resuming regular activity as the weather warms in early spring. In contrast, two distinct generations occur in the Kiata area, where adults of the first generation appear from mid-October, and of the second generation, in February. Phenology at Castlemaine also implies that only one generation may occur. Different species of Notoncus host the caterpillars in different parts of the range: A. capitatus at Eltham and Castlemaine, and A. ectatom- moides at Kiata. The three areas of ECB occurrence each have distinct characteristics affecting the needs and intensity of conservation man- agement on the various sites. (a) Kiata and Salisbury, in north-western Victoria, harbour populations on sever- al rural sites with patchy Bursar'ia, within a largely pastoral area. Three small colonies of the butterfly are known on large flora reserves (Fig. 1 ). (b) Castlemaine. Two peri-urban sites sup- port butterfly colonies, one within the Botanic Gardens, and others, more recently discovered, in Kalimna Park. These sites represent an urban/rural transition, and are surrounded by a mix- Vol, 124 (4) 2007 237 Invertebrate Conservation Issue ture of residential development, natural bushland and grazing lands with ongo- ing subdivision for urban development (Fig. 2). (c) Eltham/Greensborough, in outer north eastern Melbourne, where the butterfly occurs on several small (1-3 ha) urban remnant patches, surrounded and iso- lated by housing. Six major colonies are known, some of them small (Fig. 3). The largest population, at the Western Colony, comprises fewer than 800-1000 individuals. All sites are nominally protected, some as dedicated reserves, and some by being within reserves with wider conservation responsibility. The sites thereby span the range from large rural sites to small urban ones. These are associated with different threats and different opportunities for the butterfly to disperse and track resources. Thus the larger sites afford opportunity for population movement impossible on the small Eltham sites. Systematic annual larval and adult counts have been made at all three locations since 1993. These have been conducted by pro- fessional entomologists (Van Praagh 1996; Canzano, unpubl. data), Department of Susutainability and Environment, Parks 238 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Victoria, and the Friends groups (Friends of the Eltham Copper Butterfly and Friends of Kalinina Park). These annual counts have provided significant informa- tion on distribution and relative abun- dances of ECB, but the nature, intensity and frequency of counts required to pro- vide reliable quantitative data on ECB in these reserves remains uncertain. The results are influenced by weather condi- tions and differences in individual observer acuity. Progress toward effective conservation As for other butterflies in Victoria, surveys continue to yield new information, both of detail and scale, with recent discoveries of ‘new’ colonies in Kalimna Park of consid- erable interest. Only through community awareness can such events be effectively documented and publicised. ECB conser- vation is broadly overseen by a statewide management group, with representation from all range areas, state and municipal agencies, and independent scientists, and which acts as a clearing house and coordi- nator of information accruing. Management needs, and the capacity to undertake effective management, differ substantially across the different areas. At Kiata/Salisbury and Castlemaine the potential habitat and sites are sufficiently extensive to facilitate a mosaic of condi- tions within the area, and for the butterfly populations to track these as they change, so that the butterfly presence and distribu- tion may differ from year to year, or across a longer time scale. Thus, the major colony in the Castlemaine Botanic Gardens has moved from its stronghold in the early 1990s to another site some hundreds of metres away. Such microscale population movements are by no means unusual in butterflies as conditions change, with some species surviving continuously in a suite of habitat patches, only some of which are occupied at any time, on a site and with the population sustained through a series of ‘colonisation-extinction-recolonisation’ Fig. 3. The Eltham Copper Butterfly sites at Greensborough (1) and Eltham (2-6). The Greensborough site is Yandell's Reserve, while the Eltham sites are the Pauline Toner Reserve (2), the Western colony (3), the Eastern colony (4), the former Yarra Valley Water land (5) and Hohne's Hill (6). The Pitt St Reserve is on the south side of Pitt St adjacent to the Pauline Toner Reserve. Vol. 124 (4) 2007 239 Invertebrate Conservation Issue sequences across the landscape: part of the system constituting a possible 'metapopu- lation' structure. This may be particularly pronounced at Kiata/Salisbury, where the Bursuria is very patchy on the sites, and movement between food plant patches (which are also a nectar source for adults) is necessary. In contrast, this process and population structure is thwarted on small sites. At Eltham. for example, there seems little, if any. chance that butterflies can disperse between the major site-based colonies, because the intervening terrain is highly altered to comprise houses and roads, so that all population processes have to occur (and be sustained) within the confines of single small sites, each of which harbours a discrete population. There is currently lit- tle or no opportunity for genetic exchange between those demographic units. Mark- release-recapture studies have not shown exchange of individuals between colonies. However, enhancement of habitat connec- tivity through carefully planned revegeta- tion of roadside verges and residential properties with the host plant, to allow for 'corridors' for the butterfly, may thereby facilitate movement between habitat patch- es. Undiscovered colonies may still occur, even in the highly urbanised Eltham loca- tion, where additional dedicated reserves lor the ECB have been identified over the last five years. These include a block at Pitt Street at the top end of the Pauline Toner Reserve (Yen 2002) and the Yarra Valley Water property that abuts the Eastern Colony. It may be possible to 'link' some of these Eltham reserves with appropriate planting of Biirsaria in private gardens between them. Management must thus focus on sustaining critical resources in exploitable form in the same small areas, rather than in a wider landscape mosaic, and must therefore counter natural processes (such as succession) to a greater extent than on larger sites. The underlying ecological differences between the larger and smaller sites dictate in part the nature of threats and the emphasis of alleviative management. Management is necessarily more intensive on small sites, to counter ecological processes and the more proximal anthro- pogenic threats wrought by edge effects on small areas and by urbanisation on essen- tially isolated populations. Factors such as runoff, rubbish dumping, weed invasion vandalism and general human traffic con- tribute severally and collectively to habitat degradation. Issues of human concern from neighbouring residents also occur. For example, accumulation of fuel on the sites is perceived to increase the risks of wild- fire to property. Many of these anthro- pogenic effects are of minimal importance on the more rural sites, in the context of sustaining critical resources for the butter- fly. At Kiata, encroachment of agricultural crops on to ECB habitat, and rabbit/hare grazing on Biirsaria are concerns. At Castlemaine, activities such as trail-bike riding have caused some concerns at Kalimna Park, in addition to weed invasion and rabbit grazing. Differences in site scale are linked with threat intensity. Almost inevitably, details of the management needed are site-specif- ic, but the additional implication is that on very small sites, the butterfly is ‘conserva- tion dependent’ and that continuing man- agement on each site is necessary and must be assured. Long term agency commitment is therefore needed, and can be very diffi- cult to obtain, despite considerable good- will. Elsewhere, more sporadic manage- ment to address particular threats may be a less intensive (i.e. cheaper) but viable option. Again, the interest of individual people is a vital component of ensuring effective monitoring and management of these sites. At all sites, monitoring is a fun- damental component of assessing manage- ment need by tracking changes as they occur and adapting management accord- ingly. For example, grazing of Biirsaria hy hares at Kiata led to the erection of fencing to protect critical bushes. Vehicular tracks at Kalimna Park have been blocked or ren- dered inaccessible to casual visitors. Continuing management needs around Eltham include: (a) control of exotic weeds and main- tenance or enhancement of Biirsaria\ (b) maintenance of conditions suitable for Notonciis\ (c) prevention of overshading, for example by canopy closure; (d) removal of fallen debris, as a fuel reduction measure; 240 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue (e) minimising inappropriate inputs, such as diverted water runoff, into the reserves; (f) undertaking any such measures in concert wdth conservation needed for other significant species^ on each site; (g) continuing to foster interest of local people in the conservation process, through volunteer programmes and education. Other management measures include coppicing of old Bursaria to promote fresh growth, enhancement of Bursaria by plant- ing (using plants from local seed stocks), and hand removal of weeds (particularly on sites where rare orchids and other plants occur). The last is important on a few sites, on which even moderate human trampling pressure or less sensitive control measures such as herbicide use could prove harmful. Some such management has been highly experimental, even risky, as with the deci- sion to bum two major butterfly sites (the 'Western Colony’ and 'Eastern Colony’) at Eltham to ‘rejuvenate’ them and help reduce canopy closure and weed popula- tions. Such drastic intervention was con- sidered necessary as the major avenue to counter continuing decline in site quality, and in site capacity to host the butterfly (New et at. 2000). A ‘hot fire’ in April 1998, a time when the caterpillars were already present and moderately grown, involved numerous people and fire brigade units, and also involved considerable risk to the butterfly population, but was endorsed on the grounds that should the site become inhospitable that population was in any case doomed. Needs for plan- ning the burn were for it to be as hot as possible (to open canopy and destroy exot- ic weed seedbanks), as late in the summer as possible (to allow caterpillars maximum feeding time before their food supply was lost), during the day (when caterpillars are underground so not exposed directly to the flames and heat), undertaken only under ‘safe’ weather conditions, and to extend over much of the site, except for small damped down areas in which caterpillars were particularly abundant. Most caterpil- lars indeed survived, and the ensuing adult population was not conspicuously dimin- ished. Timing and intensity of all management is informed by monitoring of the butterfly, both as adults and caterpillars. Intensive monitoring was initiated by Van Praagh (1996), augmented by some student pro- jects on coppicing of Bursaria spinosa by the Eltham Copper butterfly (Carroll et al. 1998) and observations on larval feeding behaviour as well as germination of Bursaria spinosa seeds (O’Sullivan et al. 1999) . Recent studies on caterpillar mobil- ity, feeding behaviour and frequency, and adult dispersal involving marking individ- uals and tracking them in their environ- ments (Canzano, unpubl. data) are aiding refinement of the monitoring process, and may help to reduce some of the current uncertainties over interpretations of inter- generational changes in numbers (Johnson 2002) and increase predictive capability. Such recent biological insights will feed directly into a refined plan for conserva- tion of the Eltham Copper, in which the biological differences and opportunities in the different sectors of its range will be treated both individually and in concert for a more holistic overview of management for its future. Without them, or without appreciating the influences of the different sites on the butterfly’s potential for sur- vival, management may be severely impoverished through inadequate ecologi- cal focus. A prime purpose of the Eltham Copper Butterfly Working Group is to address such issues, and to hone manage- ment so that the best possible options are understood and available, both now and for application in the future, perhaps to addi- tional populations should they be discov- ered or founded deliberately. Whilst these notes have been confined to field popula- tions, a captive breeding programme for the butterfly is also contemplated by the Melbourne Zoo, as an investment in the future of this notable Victorian insect. Further research on the ECB is necessary because of the need for information on the biology and ecology of Notonciis ants in relation to the ECB, the genetics of the ECB, and ^CB-Bursaria interactions to assist its conservation. Acknowledgements This paper is written on behalf of the ECB Working Group and the authors wish to acknowledge the input of the members of this VoL 124 (4) 2007 241 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Group. The Group is indebted to the many \olunteers. environmental oflleers and scientific researchers, whose enthusiasm and hard work has contributed to the successllil monitoring and management of the Eltham Copper Butterfly populations in Victoria. Michael Braby, David Crosby and Patrick Vaughan are commended for their early biological research and establish- ment of the Conservation Management Plan. Thanks to Beverley Van Praagh for leading long term monitoring and reassessment of the moni- toring programme at all Victorian sites, Steve Anderson for his work as the first Parks ranger involved in managing the Eltham reserves and Leigh Ahern for initially co-coordinating the ECB Working Group. The support of past and present staff of the various management authorities is gratefully acknowledged. In partic- ular, we would like to thank Alan Webster. David Venn, Peter Johnson and Glenn Rudolph (Department of Sustainability and Environment), David Avery and Cam Beardsell (Parks Victoria), Jonathon Miller (Nillumbik Shire Council). Patrick Vaughan (City of Banyule) and Jenni Thomas (formerly NC CMA). David Cameron (DSE); Patrick Honan and Robert Anderson (Melbourne Zoo) also contributed to the ECB programme in their areas of expertise. Many volunteers have dedicated their time and enthusiasm to monitoring both the larval and adult stages of the ECB, as well as habitat management works through weed and rubbish removal and replanting host plants. Many thanks to Mary Argali and the Friends of Kiata Flora Reserve; Geoff Hannon and the Friends of Kalimna Park; Anna Richtarik; and Wayne Kinrade and the Friends of the Eltham Copper Butterfiy. References Braby Mb (1990) The life history and biology of Parahtcia pyrocUscus lucida Crosby (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 29, 41-50. Braby MF, Crosby DF and Vaughan PJ (1992) Distribution and range reduction in Victoria of the Eltham Copper Butterfly Paralucia pvrodiscus luci- da Crosby. The Victorian Naturalist 109, 1 55-161. Braby MF, Van Praagh BD and New TR (1999) The dull copper Paralucia pyrodiscus. In Biology of Australian Butterflies (Monographs of Australian Lepldoplem) Vol (i pp. 247-260. Eds RL Kiid,i„g |. Scheermeyer, RE Jones and NE Pierce trsiDn Publishing: Melbourne) Carroll E, Cleary S, Goddard B and Mumby K MQOfi, Melbourne's butterfly and moth communitic Horticultural Research Report, Burnley CoIIlm.,- University of Melbourne. Crosby DF (1987) The national conservation status m the Eltham Copper Butterily {Paralucia pnodhl lucida Crosby) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Anh Rylah Institute for Environmental Researcli Department of Conservation, Forests and Land Technical Report Series No. 81 (Deparimeni of Conservation, Forests and Lands: Melbourne) Endersby ID (1996) Some aspects of the biolopy and behaviour of Paralucia pvrodiscus lucida Crosbv (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) at Eltham, Victoria Proceedings of the Roval Society of Victoria 10 ) Johnson C (2002) Investigation of the Monitors I Methods and Larval Biology’ o/Paraliicia pyrodiscus lucida (Eltham Copper Butterfly). Unpubli.shed BSc Hons Thesis, Department of Forest Science University of Melbourne. New TR, Van Praagh BD and Yen AL (2000) Fire and the management of habitat quality in an Australian Lycaenid butterfly, Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida Crosby, the Eltham Copper. Metamorphosis 11, 154 . O’Sullivan C, Thompson J, and Whitelaw A (1999) The return of the Lepidopterans: The establishment and management of plants and habitats for the recre- ation of Melbourne’s Lepidopteran communities Horticultural Research Report, Burnley College, The University of Melbourne. Van Praagh BD (1996) Adult and Larval Counts of the Eltham Copper Butterfly, Paralucia pyrodiscus luci- da Crosby. 1993-1995. Flora and Fauna Technical Report No. 144. (Department of Natural Resources and Environment: Melbourne) Vaughan PJ (1988) Management Plan for the Eltham Copper Butterfly {Paralucia pvrodiscus lucida Crosby) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidk). Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Conservation Forests and Lands - Technical Report Series No. 79. (Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands: Melbourne) Yen AL (2002) The Status of the Eltham Copper Butterfly, Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida Crosby (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae), and Significance of Colonies at 220 Pitt Street. Eltham. Unpublished Report to the Shire of Nillumbik. Received 29 March 2007: accepted 31 Mav 2007 One hundred and One Years Ago Mr F.G.A. Barnard made some remarks on the larvae and perfect beetles of the Golden Beetle, Lampnma rutilans, which he had recently taken from a red gum verandah post at Kew. The post had been in its present position lor more than twenty years, and therefore the larvae of the beetle must have got into it since it was placed in its present position. Over twenty larvae and perfect beetles were obtained, the larvae resembling very closely those usually regarded as the larvae of UK Cockchafer, Anoplognathiis. sp. The perfect beetles were all of small size, but very highly From The Victorian Naturalist. XXIII p 1 1 6, October 4, 1906 242 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Victoria’s butterflies in a national conservation context TR New*, RP Field- and DPA Sands** ' Department ofZ;>ology, La Trobe University, Victoria 3086 (T.New@latrobe.edu.au) ^ Department of Primary Industries Victoria. 1 Spring Street, Melbourne. Victoria 3000 ’ CSIRO Entomology. 1 20 Meiers Road, Indooroopilly. Queensland 4068 Abstract Comments are given on the conservation status of Victoria’s butterflies, summarising and bringing up-to-date the information previously available in published documents. {The Victorian Naturalist 124 (4). 2007, 243-249) Introduction The Action Plan for Australian Butterflies (henceforth Butterfly Action Plan. BAP) (Sands and New 2002) is the only pub- lished attempt to assemble and assess information on the conservation status and needs of an entire natural group of inverte- brates in Australia. It contains dossiers on 220 species or subspecies flagged for some conservation interest in Australia, and reviews all species and subspecies occur- ring in the region. The information was derived from published sources and from wide consultation, including workshops in all States and Territories, which were attended by many of the country’s most experienced and knowledgable butterfly enthusiasts. This broad treatment allows us to consider the current status of the butter- flies flagged for conservation significance in Victoria, some listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, in the wider national context. We indicate more recent information on a few taxa, and note also the account by Field (1995) in which he commented on 21 Victorian taxa that he believed to have declined in the state over the previous century. The butterflies The 12 taxa reported in BAP as threatened in Victoria (Table 1) are all members of major endemic butterfly radiations in Australia (New 1999), within the Hesperiidae (4 taxa), Nymphalidae (1) and Lycaenidae (7). Several of these are dis- tributed far more widely in Australia, and their conservation interest in Victoria is essentially state-based. The Small Ant- blue Acrodipsas myrmecophila, for exam- ple, occurs widely elsewhere but is known currently from only one isolated colony in Victoria, at Mount Piper, Broadford (Jelinek 1995; New and Britton 1997). This population appears to be separated from any other by at least several hundred kilometres, and merits conservation as an isolated outlier of the species in a region where other colonies are known to have become extinct due to loss of habitat. This situation differs markedly from a ‘politi- cally isolated’ population simply marking the edge of a large continuous range by extending narrowly into the state. It is important to note that these 12 taxa were categorised on the basis of definable threats, rather than simply for their rarity, even though rarity may be a predisposition to threat in some cases. Other taxa, such as Oreixenica laticdis theddora, endemic to the Mount Buffalo plateau, were reported as ‘Lower Risk (Near threatened)’, because tangible threats were not easily definable. This butterfly is abundant and widespread on Buffalo, itself a national park in which butterfly management (if needed) could be undertaken within a secure habitat. Flowever, for any such iso- lated species, stochastic events such as bushfires may be devastating, but their effects very difficult to predict. Other than fire (with the outcomes of recent fire on the plateau not yet known) the main possi- ble threat to O. 1. theddora may result from contraction of the alpine area through global warming. Contraction of range is an important potential indicator for such changes on the plateau, but it is indeed dif- ficult to formulate constructive conserva- tion management for such an eventuality for species that appear already to be on the ‘extreme edge’ of their potential range. Vol. 124 (4)2007 243 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Tahle 1. Bultcrtlics in Victoria ranked as threatened at either national or state level in BAP Taxon Conservation status FF(i listed IIFSPFRIIDAF liespehlla flavcscens fJavescens Vulnerable Yes II. uhlhea clara Vulnerable in South Australia No Telicota curvchlora Threatened in Victoria Vulnerable in Qacensland Yes Trapezites phiyalia Vulnerable in South Australia No NYMPHALIDAE Ileieronympha cordace wi/soni Critically endangered Yes LYCAENIDAE Acrodipsas brisbanensis cvrilus Vulnerable Yes A. mvrmecophila Endangered in Victoria Yes Candalides noelkeri Endanaered Yes ()g\ris idmo halma/uria Endangered Yes (). oleines Endangered in Victoria Yes 0. subterrestris subterrestris Vulnerable in South Australia and Victoria Yes Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida Vulnerable Yes Table 2. Buttertlies recorded in Victoria but which are regarded as of 'Lower risk’ (LR), ’Data defi- cient' (DD). or for which main conservation concerns are elsewhere. Range states/te'rritories arc given by initial letters. Taxon Range Conservation concern FF listed HESPERIIDAE Ilesperilla chrysotricha leucosia SA,V LR (SA) No Trapezites eliena 0,NSW, ACT, SA,V LR (SA) No T. luteus luteus SA. V LR(SA) Yes T symmomus soma SA, V LR(SA) No NYMPHALIDAE Oreixenica kershawi kanunda SA, V LR; Vulnerable No 0. latialis iheddora V in SA LR Yes 0. lafhoniella herceus NSW, ACT, SA, V DD(SA) No LYCAENIDAE Acrodipsas brisbanensis brisbanensis WA, 0, NSW, ACT, V DD(WA) Yes (as species) I lypochrysops ignitus ignitus Q,NSW, SA, V LR (SA,V) Yes Jalmenus icilius WA, Q,NSW, ACT, SA,V LR(V) Yes Nacaduba biocellata biocellata WA,NT,0,T,NSW,SA,V DD (T) No Pseudalmenus chlorinda zephyr us T, NSW, ACT, V LR(T) No Theclinesthes albocincta WA, NT, Q, NSW. SA,V DD(Q) Yes cient taxa (the latter being those for which available information is insufficient to for- mulate sound inference) are noted in Table 2: most are of little current concern in Victoria. All are members of the same tax- onomic groups represented in Table 1. In this note, we comment on several of the threatened species in Victoria, to exem- plify the range of concerns arising from BAP, and to note some advances from that time. One of the taxa, the Eltham Copper Paralucia pyrodiscus liicida (a subspecies endemic to Victoria) is treated separately in this issue of The Victorian Naturalist (Canzano et a/., this issue). The Eltham 244 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Copper is an important flagship for inver- tebrate conservation in the state. The threat categories noted in Table 1 are ‘critically endangered’ (most serious), ‘endangered’, and ‘vulnerable’. Notes on selected taxa Critically endangered Heteronympha cordace wilsoni. This nar- rowly distributed satyrine is the only Victorian butterfly given this status. It is known only from the far south west of Victoria (around the mouth of the Glenelg River) and a small abutting area of far south-eastern South Australia, and at the time of BAP had not been recorded for some time - the most recent records were in 1980 (Victoria) and 1976 (South Australia), and there were fears that it might have become extinct as a conse- quence of continued habitat degradation in the area. Caterpillars feed on species of Carex, and the major factor in the butterfly decline has been drainage and clearing of the wetlands in which the host plant grows, with subsequent further degradation through overgrazing by cattle. This has led to some former sites being unlikely to host the butterfly in the future. Historically- extant populations were generally small, localised, and presumed to be closed, as adult butterflies appeared to disperse little, so that small dedicated reserves may be the key for conservation. The major recom- mendation of BAP was to instigate surveys throughout its historical range to determine whether H, c. wilsoni still exists, as a pre- lude to providing effective protection for any populations found. A small colony was discovered in South Australia in 2004-2005, with its presence described as ‘precarious’ (Grund 2006) and reported formally by Haywood and Natt (2006). Grund (2006) noted also that the butterfly has reappeared within the last two seasons at formerly occupied Carex marsh sites, in both southeastern South Australia and western Victoria. Further investigations may lead to downgrading of status to ‘endangered’. Endangered Candalides noelkeri, known from two small saline sites in inland western Victoria, is (as noted above) significant as the state’s only endemic butterfly species. Before its recent formal description (Braby and Douglas 2004), it was referred to (e.g. in BAP) as Candalides heathi ssp. ‘Wyn Wyn’ or ’Wimmera form’. The two known breeding sites are about 3 km apart, and they occupy collectively about 3 ha. Both sites are now conservation reserves: Lake Wyn Wyn Wildlife Reserve is managed by Trust for Nature, Victoria, and Oliver’s Lake Flora Reserve by Parks Victoria and private landowners. Caterpillars of C. noelkeri feed only on Myoporum parvifoli- um in small areas of floodplains between saline lakes and adjacent woodland. Major threats are site invasions by Melaleuca halmaturonim, creating dense shade and reducing the habitat occupied by Myoporum and (at Wyn Wyn) also by Horehound Marruhium vulgare. Although Sands and New (2002) suggested that ris- ing salt levels pose a further threat, this was not considered likely by Braby and Douglas (2004). However, with such nar- row distribution, and additional searches not yet revealing any further populations, intensive site management may be needed to conserve the butterfly. Ogyris idino halmaturia (possibly a dis- tinct species, rather than a subspecies) is known from South Australia and Victoria. Other than a sighting in the Grampians in 1970 (Douglas 1995), it has not been seen in the State since 1945, with the only known colony (near Kiata, Little Desert) lost by clearing vegetation for agriculture. It was rediscovered in South Australia only in the mid 1990s (Hunt et al. 1998), with three colonies reported. It is Endangered in both range states. Surveys are needed to attempt to confirm whether the butterfly still exists in Victoria. The caterpillars associate with Camponotus ants nesting around the base of eucalypts and other trees. However, unlike most other species of Ogyris, these larvae may be entirely predatory, and feed on the ant brood rather than on mistletoes, which are generally absent from trees sup- porting Camponotus nests. Ogymis otanes. This species has a wider geographical range than most taxa noted here, but the South Australia/Victoria pop- ulations constitute a distinct ‘form’ (Dunn and Dunn 1991; Williams and Hay 2001). VoU24 (4) 2007 245 Inverlchrafe Conservation Issue In South Australia- it occurs sporadically in the southern temperate mainland areas, mainly in malice country where the larval food plant Choretrum glomeratwn grows, and on Kangaroo Island. It has become rare on the mainland due to vegetation clearing. Although apparently secure on Kangaroo Island, it is Vulnerable on the mainland {Grund 2002). In Victoria, the food plant is Choretrum spicafum and, as elsewhere, the caterpillars associate with Camponotus ants. Its persis- tence in Victoria needs confirmation. The main known population (in the Big Desert) may be extinct, and buttertlies have not been seen there since 1977. The few other Victorian records are also from the Big Desert region. Increased targeted surveys, perhaps focusing on the scattered patches of C. spicatum (as recommended by Douglas 1995), are needed to confirm its presence. Acrodipsas hrishanensis cyrilus is another lycaenid known only from South Australia and Victoria. Its separation from the nomi- nate subspecies is regarded as questionable by some workers, because of substantial individual variation in the adult butterflies. The few populations regarded as this sub- species occur in remnant woodland/forest patches, some close to Melbourne, but very little is known of its developmental biolo- gy. As with A. myrmecophilcr caterpillars associate with Papyrhis ants, and live with- in the nests. Many of the records are of hill- topping adults, and their breeding sites remain unknown. The single known site in south-eastern South Australia is said to be secure. How'ever, the butterfy has not been seen there since its original discovery, and burns of nearby areas have created some uncertainty over its continued existence (Grund 2004). The major Victorian popu- lation is within the Little Desert NP (Douglas 1995). An apparently well-estab- lished colony there may afford the best opportunity for study to clarify basic biology. Several former colonies of the butterfly elsewhere have been lost, includ- ing some close to Melbourne that have succumbed to urban development (New and Sands 2002). Acrodipsas myrmecophila was noted ear- lier. It was regarded in BAP as secure over most of its extensive Australian range, but [)ata Deficient in the Northern Territory and Endangered in Victoria. It is thus of considerable state significance. Caterpillars live within nests of Papyrhis ants ('coconut ants’) and feed on the ant brood. Most knowledge of the species in Victoria is derived from a now extinct colony at Ocean Grove and more recently from a population at Mount Piper. The lat- 1 ter led to some innovative suggestions for ' management, such as the use of w^ooden trap nests to enhance ant colonies and for use as possible translocation units for the butterfly (Britton 1997). In the future, ii may be practicable to use knowledge of the butterfly from studies elsewhere in its range to improve conservation manage- ment in Victoria. Vulnerable Three butterfly taxa are listed as Vulnerable in Victoria in BAP. Hesperilla fiavescens flavescens is one of two subspecies of an endemic skipper, itself a member of a species complex, in common with the South Australian H. f flavia, it is associated with small wetland sites supporting the larval food plant sedge Gahnia filum. The subspecies name is applied to the distinctive clinal 'yellow form’ characteristic of a few populations near Melbourne, with the common epithet of 'Altona skipper’ emphasising this localised distribution over a few swamps from Point Cook to the Altona region. Threats have broadly reflected urbanisa- tion (New and Sands 2002), and a variety of conservation needs were summarised by Crosby (1990) and in BAP. Recent man- agement at two key localities, Point Cook and Truganina Swamp, has included plant- ings of Gahnia to extend the range and counter the slow natural recruitment of the host plant population (Savage 2002). Ogyris suhterrestris siibterrestris has his- torically been confused with O. idmo. and is known from Victoria, New South Wales (a single record near Broken Hill) and South Australia (three sites). Pending its | recent description (Field 1999) it was list- ; ed in Victoria as 'Ogyris sp. aff. idmo\ A second subspecies occurs in Western Australia. In Victoria it is restricted to the far north-west, around Mildura and in the Hattah-Kulkyne and Murray-Sunset NPs, 246 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue where it is associated with Camponotus ants. It appears always to have been scarce, with probable declines due to vegetation clearing and overgrazing by sheep {Douglas 1995), as well as wider general disturbance which might lead to loss of Camponotus. A broad current biological knowledge could form the foundation for constructive conservation based on restric- tion of vegetation clearing around known sites and further targeted searches in the north-west. Paralucia pyrodiscus liicida occurs in three widely separated areas of Victoria, most famously around Eltham in outer north-eastern Melbourne, where the small isolated occupied sites are important urban remnants demanding continuing manage- ment to retain their suitability. The Eltham Copper has received more dedicated con- servation attention than any other butterfly in Victoria (see Canzano et at. this issue). The taxa listed in Table 2 are predomi- nantly those whose wide range is associat- ed with greater conservation importance elsewhere than in Victoria. Only Oreixenica /. theddora , noted earlier, is restricted to the state. Two others are noted as 'Lower Risk, near threatened’ for Victoria, and are noted briefly below. Hypochysops ignitus ignitiis. The ‘Lower risk’ status evaluation is shared with South Australia, but this butterfly is one of the most widely distributed Hypochrysops in Australia. Substantial habitat loss has occurred in South Australia and Victoria, leading to concerns in those states, with evaluations up to ‘Vulnerable’ (Grund 2005). Further surveys are needed in Victoria to ensure that sufficient popula- tions are included in major reserves such as national parks, and to secure these ade- quately against disturbance. Jalmeniis icilius. This species is very widely distributed in many open woodland and mallee communities but is extremely scarce in Victoria, where it occurs only as putative remnant populations following extensive clearing of natural vegetation for agriculture. Douglas (1995) knew of only five Victorian localities, and ranked / iciC ins as ‘Endangered’. The major initial need is for more extensive surveys and, in par- ticular, to confirm (and, if found, secure) its existence in the Grampians NP. Discussion Evaluating the status of butterflies for con- servation need is never easy, except in clearcut cases of single (or few) popula- tions clearly threatened by tangible imposi- tions whose abatement can be a focus for management. Such management is usually based also on sound biological understand- ing of the focal taxa, so that good basic research is often a precursor to effective conservation. However, because major gaps in knowledge persist, practical conservation must commonly proceed in its absence. In this case the focus is necessarily often to conserve the habitat or site at which a species occurs as a basis for pursuing more detailed management, should this be need- ed. Several of the 18 Victorian butterflies listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (at July 2006) were not considered threatened in BAP; and no Victorian butterflies are listed for national protection under the Federal Endangered Species and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999. The anomalous Victorian taxa are the skippers Antipodia atralba and Telicota eurychlora, the satyrine Hypocysta adiante, and the lycaenids Ogyris genoveva araxes and Theclinesthes albocincta. Field (1995) listed several other taxa, but all of those appear to be secure in reserves, or locally well-established. Antipodia atralba is regarded as naturally rare, but with current distribution suggest- ing decline (Douglas 1993). It can become common following vegetation regrowth after fires (Braby 2000). Telicota eiaychlo- ra is known from only one location in Victoria, at the mouth of the Thurra River, where the small isolated population is secure in the Croajingolong NP. Hypocysta adiante is common along much of the east coast of Australia, but probably only a ‘political vagrant’ in Victoria, where it has been reported only from a single record at Cudgewa, close to the northern State bor- der: it has not been confirmed as a breed- ing resident in Victoria. Ogyris genoveva araxes has apparently diminished in abun- dance and some populations have been lost. However, BAP workshop participants implied that the butterfly is not threatened at present, not least because a number of populations are in reserves. Finally, T. Vol. 124 (4) 2007 247 Invertebrate Conservation Issue alhocincta has been ranked as ’Vulnerable' (Douglas 19^)5), but conservation may be needed only over parts of the species’ extensive range. In Victoria, some key habitats may have succumbed to vegeta- tion clearing and subsequent sheep and rabbit grazing of foodplants. Other species worthy of note include the skipper Nefrocorvne repanckt repanda. which until recently was known in Victoria from only one specimen. It is now known to be breeding in the Buchan Caves reserve. A distinct form of the lycaenid Candalides absimilis is restricted to the south-east corner of Australia, with breed- ing colonies in the Mitchell River NP and at Buchan. Both these taxa have been found on remnant vegetation and street trees at Buchan. ’Conservation status’ is a dynamic condi- tion, often very difficult to confirm and justify, and the criteria used by various workers and in different contexts vary con- siderably; it can also change rapidly with human influences in the environment. Many other butterflies in Victoria could eas- ily become threatened. For example, recent widespread fires may have caused losses of isolated butterfly populations in many parts of Victoria, but the extent of these effects is at present unknown. The above appraisal is thus open to severe revision. Any such eval- uations of threat should be subject to period- ical critical review, in order to facilitate adaptive management and the most rational allocation of priority. Butterflies are unusual amongst invertebrates in that such review is indeed possible. Acknowledgement We appreciate comments from a reviewer of an earlier draft of this paper. References Braby MF (2()()0) BiUterjUes of Australia: their identi- fication, biolog\umd distribution. CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne. Braby MF and Douglas F (2004) The taxonomy, ecolo- gy and conservation status of the Golden-rayed Blue: a threatened bulterHy endemic to western Victoria, Australia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 81,275-299. Britton DR (1997) Ant trap nests enable detection of a rare and localized butterfly, Acrodipsas mynnecophUa (Waterhouse and Lyell) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in the field. Memoirs of Mivieum Victoria 56, 383-387. Canzano A, New TR and Yen AL (2007) The Ellham Copper ButterHy, Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida (Lycaenidae): local versus state conservation strategies in Victoria. The Victorian Naturalist 124. 236-242. C'rosby DF (1990) A management plan for the Altona Skipper butterfly Hesperilla Jlavescens Waterhouse (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) 65 pp. Technical Report Scries No. 98, (Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Melbourne) Douglas F (1993) The conservation status, distribution and habitat requirements of diurnal Lepidoptera in central and western Victoria. Part 3: Family Hesperiidae. 62 pp. Report to the Victorian Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Melbourne. Douglas F (1995) Recovery plan for threatened diurnal Lepidoptera in western Victoria. Part 2: Family Lycaenidae. 100 pp. Report to the Victorian Department of Conservation and Natural Resources: Melbourne. Dunn KL and Dunn LE (1991) Review of Australian butterflies: distribution, life history and taxonomy, Parts 1-4. 600 pp. Published privately: Melbourne. Field RP (1995) Conservation of Victorian butterflies. The Victorian Naturalist 112, 43-46. Field RP (1999) A new species of Ogyris Angas (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) from southern arid Australia. Memoirs of Museum Victoria 57. 251-259. Grund R (2002) South Australian butterflies data sheet. Ogyris otanes C.and R. Felder) (Small Bronze Azure), -rtbg/otanes ds.htm Grund R (2004) South Australian butterflies data sheet. Acrodipsas brisbanensis (Miskin) (F3ronze Ant-blue). -rtbg/acrodipsas ds.htm Grund R (2005) South Australian butterflies data sheet. Hypochrysops ignitus ignitus (Leach) (Fiery .lewel). -rtbg/ignitus ds.htm Grund R (2006) South Australian butterflies data sheet. Heteronympha cordace wilsoni Burns (Bright-eyed Brown), -erg/cordace ds. htm Haywood BT and Natt V (2006) First confirmed obser- vation of Heteronympha cordace wilsoni Burns (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae; Satyrinae) in South Australia. The Australian Entomologist 33. 5-7. Hunt L, Moore M and Moore D.(1998) Rediscovery of Ogyris halmaturia (Tepper, 1890). Victorian Entomologist 28, 113-1 16. Jelinek A ( 1 995) Conservation strategy for a threatened ‘butterfly community'. The Victorian Naturalist 112. 47-50. New TR (1999) The evolution and characteristics of the Australian butterfly fauna. In Kitching RL, Scheermeyer E, .lones RE and Pierce NE (eds) Biology of Australian butterflies. Pp. 33-52 CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood) New TR and Britton DR (1997) Refining a conserva- tion plan for an endangered lycaenid butterfly. Acrodipsas mynnecophUa, in Victoria, Australia. Journal of Insect Conservation 1 , 1-8. New TR and Sands DPA (2002) Conservation concerns for butterflies in urban areas of Australia. Journal of Insect Conservation 6, 207-2 1 5. Sands DPA and NewTR (2002) The Action Plan for Australian Butterflies. (Environment Australia. Canberra) Savage E (2002) Options and techniques for manag- ing Chaffy saw-sedge {Gahnia fdum) as habitat for the Altona Skipper butterfly (Hesperilla Jlavescens flavescens). Occasional Paper Series. (Conservation and Environmental Management, Parks Victoria) Melbourne. Williams MR and Hay RW (2001) Two new sub- species of Ogyris otanes C. & R. Felder (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) from Western Australia. The Australian Entomologist 28, 55-63. Received 22 March 2007; accepted 05 July 2007 248 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue The conservation of the Giant Gippsland Earthworm Megascolides australis in relation to its distribution in the landscape Beverley D Van Praagh', Alan L Yen- and Neville Rosengren’ ' 25 Jacaranda Place, Craigieburn, Victoria. 3064. ■ Primary Industries Research Victoria, Department of Primary Industries, 621 Burwood Highway, Knoxfield, Victoria 3156. alan.yen@dpi.vic.gov.au ’ Department of Physical Sciences and Engineering, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria. Abstract It is difficult to identify the main factors that determine the distribution of the Giant Gippsland Earthworm because of the completely subterranean nature of this species. Past emphasis has involved research on soil factors (such as texture and chemical composition) and topography (slope, aspect, proximity to water). More recent research indicates that its distribution results from a combi- nation of many interrelated factors, most importantly, underground hydrological processes. The pre- European settlement environment for the Giant Gippsland Earthworm was predominantly tall wet for- est, but it has survived in pockets of exotic pastures and riparian zones. However, some of the revege- tation programmes established to address degraded habitat may ultimately be detrimental to surviving populations of the Giant Gippsland Earthwonn. {The Victorian Naturalist, 124 (4), 2007, 249-253) Introduction The Giant Gippsland Earthworm Megascolides australis is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and ‘Threatened’ under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. The development of conservation strategies for this species has not been straightforward because of its totally subterranean nature and the diffi- culty involved in identifying its habitat without detailed surveys that involve destruction of habitat and death of individual worms. The subterranean nature of M. australis and its presence in landscapes without native vegetation often results in its neglect from consideration in planning applica- tions. Conservation decisions in the terres- trial environment are based very much on the presence of vegetation and its condition (relative to its supposed condition at the time of European settlement). Vegetation is used as a surrogate for many threatened species, and improvement in vegetation condition is often viewed as part of the solution required to conserve threatened species. Problems arise when a threatened species such as M. australis is not neces- sarily associated with native vegetation. Distribution of the Giant Gippsland Earthworm in relation to altered landscape Megascolides australis has co-existed with agricultural land use since European settle- ment of South Gippsland in the 1870s, and has survived major changes to its habitat, mostly associated with agricultural devel- opment and expansion. However, the over- all effects of these habitat changes on M. australis populations and their distribution are not clearly understood. Megascolides australis is confined almost entirely to pri- vately owned agricultural land with only small pockets of remnant vegetation remaining along some stream banks, gul- lies and road sides. Mt Worth State Park is the only area within the species’ range that has remnant vegetation and M. australis\ it is located at the eastern extreme of the range of this species. The reduction in M. australis range has generally been attributed to post-European settlement tree clearing and subsequent agriculture practices. Within this present agricultural landscape, M. australis is gen- erally associated with stream banks, wet gullies/soaks, and south facing hillslopes with terracettes. Its distribution appears to be primarily correlated with hydrological conditions that remain to be identified. Vol. 124 (4) 2007 249 Invertebrate Conservation Issue rhere is no historical information available on the distribution of A/, australis at the time of European settlement. It is thought that before European settlement, the area w as co\ered by wet forest with continuous canopy cover, but old forests w-ere proba- bly dominated by fewer larger trees with a more open understorey. The ground layer was more grassy and with more logs and coarse woody debris. The thick regrowth often associated with this type of wet for- est was due to tires, but the area did not e.xperience many tires, and most of the for- est was thought to be mature. The lower slopes were dominated by Eucalyptus strz- eleckii and higher slopes probably by Eucalyptus regnans (David Cameron and Josh Dorrough, pers. comm. 2004). Since the 1870s. extensive forest clear- ing, introduction of grazing animals and the maintenance of a more-or-less continu- ous ground cover of sown pasture has greatly altered the surface and sub-surface hydrology. The effects of initial vegetation clearance on soil habitat would have been pronounced in the upper soil horizon where increased exposure after tree removal w'ould have resulted in decreased moisture levels. This may have resulted in fragmentation of M. australis populations and local extinctions. However, the deeper soil horizon primarily occupied by M. aus- tralis would have been somewhat buffered from the initial changes in soil microcli- mate and may have experienced increase in available moisture due to the absence of large trees transpiring and removing soil moisture. Megascolides australis habitat would also have been reduced by the loss of topsoil over time through increased run- off (Van Praagh et al. 2004, 2005). Giant Gippsland Earthworms are non-selective, geophagous feeders, relying on organic matter, bacteria and fungi digested from soil passed through the gut (Van Praagh 1994). This generalised diet and their depth in the soil profile may have allowed them to cope with the change from forest to permanent pasture and in time, adapt to the changed conditions. Past research on the factors determining distribution of the Giant Gippsland Earthworm has emphasised soil and topo- graphical factors (slope, proximity to water) (Van Praagh ei al. 1989; Van Praagh 1992). More recently, the distribution of M. aus- tralis was assessed at two locations, Jumbunna at the southern end of its distribu- tion and Ellinbank towards the northern end of its distribution (Van Praagh et al. 2004. 2005). Megascolides australis was found in four distinct habitats at Jumbunna: minor creek and drainage lines, flat to gentle slop- ing alluvial terraces above present flood lev- els, steep south facing hillslopes with ter- racettes and colluvial footslopes without ter- racettes. The landscape features at Jumbunna that are thought to influence M. australis distribution are the nature and depth of the soil, slope, micro-topography and aspect of the steep hillslopes, in addition to site soil and surface hydrology. Megascolides australis was found in only one main habitat at Ellinbank, the lower slopes and colluvial and alluvial terrain adja- cent to the stream channels and Just above the level reached by moderate flooding. This is in contrast to the four habitats for M. aus- tralis at Jumbunna and may be due to dif- ferences in geomorphology between the two sites. The slopes at Ellinbank are morpho- logically simple and lack the distinct seg- mentation observed at Jumbunna in the steeper, higher terrain of the Strzelecki Ranges. There are no major differences in slope form between the upper and lower slopes in the Ellinbank study area, and the ridge crests are broad and gently rounded. The slopes also lack the distinctive tread and riser terracing (‘sheep tracks’), that is a char- acteristic of the steeper terrain developed on sedimentary rocks, and soils were more coherent and with lower moisture content than the terraced features. This morphologi- cally simpler landscape appears to provide fewer areas of suitable M. australis habitat with the appropriate hydrological parame- ters. Whether these features are characteris- tic of the broader geomorphology of the basalt-derived soil landscapes in the north of the species’ range requires further investiga- tion. This comparison illustrates the com- plexity of factors that determine distribution of M. australis. Current thoughts on revegetation and the Giant Gippsland Earthworm Revegetation programs are widely advo- cated for a variety of reasons including to control for soil erosion, to reduce water- 250 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue logging and to protect water quality of streams, and to provide shade and shelter for stock (Thompson et al. 2003; G. Trease pers.com. 2005). Increasing the nature conservation value of an area may also be included, and for the pastJO years revege- tation of M australis habitat has been one of the key recommendations for the con- servation of M australis on private land (e.g. Van Praagh 1991; Taylor e/ a/. 1997). Plantings are used in a variety of situations including riparian strips, gullies, landslips, windbreaks and as linkages between rem- nant vegetation. The current recommenda- tions for revegetation in the south Gippsland region include approximately 2000 plants per ha with a species composi- tion of 15-25% trees, 40% mid-storey and the remainder understorey and grasses. However, the proportion of tree species in the area has been as high as 40% (G. Trease pers. com. 2005). Results of research into distribution of M. australis at Mt Worth State Park, the only area within the species’ range to support remnant vegetation, first brought attention to the possibility that dense revegetation of habitat occupied by M. australis may not necessarily be of benefit to the species and may indeed be harmful (Van Praagh and Hinkley 1999). During this survey work, populations of M australis were found to occur predominantly in open pas- tured areas within the Park and on clay management vehicle tracks, and distribu- tion was limited to the edges of more densely vegetated areas. It is possible that major alteration to soil hydrology in the current landscape, such as extensive tree planting, may pose a threat to populations of M australis. These plant- ings may impact on the sub-surface area available for M. australis habitat by filling potential occupation space with tree roots and woody debris. There is also the likely impact on the water table, whereby increased transpiration rates will lower water tables, leading to drying of soils in potential worm habitat on the lower slopes, colluvial slopes and floodplains, thereby decreasing suitable habitat for M. australis. Whilst not all factors influencing the distri- bution of M. australis are known, one of the most important is related to soil hydro- logical factors. Active populations are always found in moist soils and the bur- rows are very wet, often with a significant amount of free water flow in them. For example, where M australis occurs on the steep mid to lower slopes of south facing steeper hillslopes, they are usually associ- ated with areas of groundwater seepage zones that can be identified by the pres- ence of terracettes. The presence of ter- racettes indicate that the land surface is wetter than the surrounding area, which may be important in sustaining conditions required for M australis survival. The ter- racettes provide increased soil moisture through temporary pondage during run-off, thus allowing retention and recharge of soil moisture. Future research needs for the conserva- tion of M, australis At present the effect of revegetation on M australis habitats is unknown and remains speculative. However, the absence of M australis from heavily vegetated sites at Jumbunna (Van Praagh et al. 2004), Ellinbank Research Station (Van Praagh et al. 2005) and their presence in pasture adja- cent to native forest and clay service vehi- cle tracks at Mt Worth State Park (Van Praagh and Hinkley 1999) suggest that rec- ommendations to revegetate M. australis habitat for its conservation need reassess- ing. In a recent report on Best Management Practices for riparian habitats in Gippsland dairy regions, Thompson et al. (2003) found that their suggested index of riparian condition indicated that an excellent condi- tion score required vegetation 30 metres wide on either side of a stream. Whilst the broader benefits of revegetation of riparian zones are acknowledged, the effects of dense replanting of areas occu- pied by M australis require investigation. Vei 7 few stream areas in South Gippsland currently have 30 metres of vegetation on either side, and if revegetation projects aim to recreate buffers of this width, then the effects on M. australis have to be consid- ered. Despite the preliminary nature of these findings, given the scale of revegeta- tion in the region, and in particular the often very dense planting of riparian M australis habitat, revegetation may repre- sent one of the most important potential impacts on populations of M. australis. Vol. 124 (4) 2007 251 Invertebrate Conservation Issue With the increasing rate of land use changes within the distributional range of the Giant (jippsland Earthworm, there is an urgent need to address this situation. Two immediate research requirements to assist its conservation can be identified. First, a program to determine the impacts of revegetation on factors such as soil moisture, hydrological patterns and water table levels, and how these might impact on populations of A/, australis. This is not a criticism of revegetation as a form of habitat restoration, but in the case of M. australis the appropriate levels and meth- ods of revegetation need to be assessed. Second, the inappropriate use of native vegetation cover as a surrogate for habitat for threatened species such as M. australis needs to be addressed. Research is required to identify high priority Giant Gippsland Earthworm habitat using non-destructive techniques, such as digital elevation mod- elling, followed by ground truthing. Without these, the land use changes in South Gippsland may result in a rapid destruction of the remaining M. australis populations. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the many people w'ho have assisted them in undertaking work on ihe GGE: Annette Muir, Susan Taylor, Geoff Trease, the Enbom family at Jumbunna and DPI at Ellinbank for allowing access to their proper- ties. Some of the work undertaken was funded by the DSE/DPI ESAI. References Taylor S. Croslhwaile J and backhouse G (1997) Giant Gippsland I^arthworm, Mi'gascolide.s aiisfnilis. Action Statement No. 77, Department of Natural Resources and Rnvironment. Thompson L. Robertson A, Jansen and Davies P (2003) Identifying best management practices for riparian habitats in (iippsland dairy regions: Riparian condi- tion and relationships with farm management. Charles Sturt University Johnstone Centre Report No. 178. Van Praagh B (1991) Giant Gippsland Rarlhworm. Land for Wikilife Note No. 1 1 . Van Praagh B (1992) The ecology, distribution and conservation of the Giant Gippsland Earthworm. Megascoliiies australis McCoy KS78. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 24, 1 363- 1 367. Van Praagh B (1994) The biology and conservation of Megascolides australis (McC'oy 1878). (Unpublished Phf) thesis. La Trobe University) Van Praagh B and Hinkley S (1999) Distribution of the Giant Gippsland Earthworm, Megascolides australis McCoy within the Gippsland Regional Forest Agreement Area. (Unpublished report for the Department of Natural Resources & Environment) Van Praagh B D, Yen AL and Lillyvvhite P K (1989) Further information on the Giant Gippsland Earthworm Megascolides australis (McCoy 1878), The Victorian Naturalist 106, 197-201. Van Praagh B D, Yen AL and Rosengren N (2004) Giant Gippsland Earthworm case study: Management of farm habitats for Earthworm conservation in South Gippsland. Part I. Jumbunna. Report for Ecologically Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (ESAI) sub-project 051 18. Van Praagh B D, Yen AL and Rosengren N (2005) Giant Gippsland Earthworm case study: Management of fann habitats for Earthworm conservation in South Gippsland. Part 2. Ellinbank. Report for Ecologically Sustainable Asriculture initiative (ESAI) sub-project 05118. Received 7 June 2007; accepted 1 9 July 2007 Egg capsule of Giant Gippsland Earthworm Megascolides australis. Photograph supplied by Alan L Yen 252 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Treeless habitat of the Giant Gippsland Earthworm: south facing terraced hillslope and creek banks above an active flood plain. Photograph by Beverley van Praagh. Giant Gippsland Earthworm Megascolides australis, in situ. Photograph by Beverley van Praagh. Vol. 124 (4) 2007 253 Invertehixite Conservation Issue The Golden Sun-moth Synemon plana (Castniidae) on Victoria’s remnant southern native grasslands TR New, L Gibson and BD Van Praaglv Department of Zoology, La Trobe University, Victoria 3086. Email T.New@latrobe.edu.au Museum Victoria, GPO E3ox 666, Melbourne, Victoria 3001 '25 Jacaranda Place, Craigiebum. Victoria 3064 Abstract The complex adult biology of the Golden Sun-moth Synemon plana Walker is outlined, and the diffi- culties of appraising its conservation status and needs in Victoria are discussed. (The Victorkw NaturoUsf 124 (4), 2007, 254-257) Introduction The day-tlying Golden Sun-moth Synemon plana Walker now occurs on a number of remnant patches of native grassland in south-eastern Australia, with a range encompassing parts of Victoria, New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). It has become an important invertebrate flagship for this endangered ecosystem. S. plana is a mem- ber of a distinctive endemic genus of Castniidae, many species of which are scarce and highly localised (Douglas 1993). Several studies in Victoria have been important in elucidating its biology and conservation needs. Genetic studies (Clarke and O’Dwyer 2000; Clarke 2000) imply that Victorian populations may be rather distinct from the remainder of the species. Biology and incidence Synemon plana is associated with grassland sites with a high cover of Austrodan- thonia, low growing wallaby grasses, sev- eral species of which have been inferred to be food plants for the subterranean caterpil- lars. The duration of the life cycle remains uncertain: although there are strong impli- cations that it may be univoltine, develop- mental periods of two or three years have also been suggested. Eggs are laid at the base of grass tussocks, and the caterpillars feed on the grass roots. In southern Victoria, the adult flight season extends over about two months in late spring and early summer, with variations reflecting temperature and locality. Adult moths live for only a few days, and do not feed. Males patrol actively in search of mates, but females are relatively inactive. They are regarded as 'semi-tlightless’ and tend to rest on the ground, exposing their brightly coloured hind wings in response to males flying overhead. Males then land, and mat- ing occurs. However, most males are active only at temperatures above about 22“ C, on calm days in bright sunlight, and for a few hours in the middle of the day. Under other conditions, and at other times, their num- bers can not be assessed. At least part of the reason for the putative scarcity of the moth reflects this aspect of the moth’s activity. Some past surveys may have been undertaken under conditions or at times at which the moth would be unlikely to have been detected. Likewise, comparisons of abundance across sites are difficult to vali- date, and no more than a very few sites may be assessable by a single observer on any day because of the short daily flight period. Under suitable conditions, counts of active moths can be based on either tran- sect walks or point surveys (Gibson and New 2007). The short adult life also renders it impos- sible to obtain sound population estimates on any single visit to a site. All adults pre- sent on that visit are likely to be replaced by others by the following week, and not to have been present in the previous week: any single count can represent only the restricted emergence cohort present at that time, and this can not be reflective of the entire resident population present. Likewise, distribution patterns are equally hard to determine. Braby and Dunford (2006) and others have shown, by repeated visits spanning the whole flight season to 254 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue sites near Canberra, that the distribution of the moth may change dramatically as the season progresses. Rather than movement, this pattern may reflect differences in aspect and insolation across a site, so that emergences are earlier or later in different areas as a consequence of soil temperature. Local ‘hotspots’ of abundance may simply be ‘hot spots’! Recent surveys throughout the moth’s range, and increasing biological understand- ing, particularly of its adult behaviour as above, are progressively leading to improved approaches to assessing its con- servation needs, and dependence on particu- lar habitat features and native grass food plants. Thus, following pioneering study of a population at Mount Piper, Broadford, O’Dwyer and Attiwill (1999, 2000) partial- ly characterised favourable habitat for the moth and quantified some parameters of the needs for restoration of native grasses on degraded sites, as an initial model for wider appraisal In short, S. plana can be elusive in sur- veys, and its numbers difficult to quantify. This elusiveness, rather than genuine absence, has probably led to a misleading impression of its scarcity. It has often been declared absent (equated to population loss) on grassland patches, and to have dis- appeared from sites on which it has histori- cally been reported. Some such losses are undoubtedly genuine, but others may not be, as improved searching capability con- tinues to reveal additional populations throughout its range. Conservation status Synemon plana is listed federally as ‘Critically Endangered’, under the ACT and NSW acts as ‘Endangered’, and as a ‘threatened species’ in Victoria. These list- ings collectively cover the species’ entire range. At the time of Clarke’s (2000) summary, S. plana was known to occur at few Victorian localities, with information sug- gesting that it had been lost from 48 of the 60 historically recorded localities in the state. Braby and Dunford (2006) noted its current presence on 3 1 sites in ACT and 42 in NSW. About 8 extant Victorian popula- tions were known to Clarke (2000), but many more have since been reported (for example by Van Praagh [2004] and Endersby and Koehler [2006]). Many of the occupied sites are very small, of a few hectares or less, and many are indeed iso- lated grassland remnants. Threats to the moth noted for New South Wales include loss and degradation of habitat from agri- cultural and urban development, pasture enrichment with replacement of native grasses by exotic species, overstocking and overgrazing by domestic stock, weed inva- sion, and general fragmentation and isola- tion of remaining patches from a variety of developments. Similar threats and losses have occurred in Victoria and the ACT. Conservation management throughout the moth’s range emphasises protection of the sites on which it is known to occur, partic- ularly those on which the moth is adjudged abundant, so that S. plana is an important umbrella for less heralded taxa of native grasslands, as one of the few notable inver- tebrates characteristic of these ecosystems. Despite obligations to conserve popula- tions of listed threatened species, recent cases near Melbourne have given the moth some notoriety because of its presence on sites scheduled for housing or industrial development, and the needs to seek ade- quate compromise between conservation and development. Decisions to sacrifice the habitat of some (or parts of some) colonies have been justified by the moth’s presence on other sites, but the wider view that the remnant grasslands themselves are now sufficiently scarce and vulnerable to merit total conservation is difficult to assert in the face of strong economic oppo- sition. Many such sites are very small. Nevertheless, one outcome of this pressure from developers has been to stimulate fur- ther and more comprehensive surveys for the moth around Melbourne. However, in common with other listed threatened species, there is currently no formal ‘cen- tralised’ system in which records of inci- dence of S, plana are progressively deposited, and many such records remain informal or in reports of very limited avail- ability or circulation. Recent conservation interest has also been fostered by the dis- covery of the moth on a much larger suite of grasslands, the Craigiebum Grasslands Reserve and nearby Cooper Street grass- lands, in work stimulated by plans for a Vol. 124 (4) 2007 255 Invertebrate Conservation Issue nearby freeway/ bypass (see Van Praagh 2004), where the moth is distributed over several square kilometres. Craigieburn Grasslands is the largest known habitat patch for S. plana in Victoria, and study of the moth there has been organised through the Merri Creek Management Committee and Parks Victoria. The site has potential to be a major reserve for the moth, and is sufficiently large to facilitate study of its populations and to trial manipulative man- agement on a scale impossible on the more numerous small sites. Much of the survey protocol noted earlier (Gibson and New 2007) was based on observations at Craigieburn, for example. Because of its proximity to numerous other (small) grass- land remnants in the outer Melbourne region, monitoring the flight period of S. plana at Craigieburn may be a valuable indicator of when to search for it else- where, so increasing the efficiency of fur- ther exploration. Two additional inferences from recent studies are important contributions to the debate over the conservation status and needs of S. plana. (a). Improved search methods are yielding new populations every season, and there now appear to be many more popula- tions than earlier supposed. Whilst many of these may be vulnerable, a number are also in reserves, and there is consid- erable potential for practical conserva- tion management to be instituted. Most of the work leading to knowledge of the moth’s distribution flowed directly from its formal election as an endangered species. The major grounds for listing involved the fragmentation of habitat, and the progressive isolation of popula- tions, with attendant vulnerability from continuing changes and disturbance to grassland habitat extent and quality. The advice to the federal Minister for the Environment from his Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2005) supporting the nomination for listing S. plana under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act emphasised also the lack of information on population sizes and dynamics of the moth, and acknowledged its very high abundance in places - but that many of those places were indeed vulnerable to fire and stochastic events, as well as to more predictable influences of weed invasion and other edge effects. This scenario remains valid, but the higher number of populations now known may lead to some downward revision of con- servation status through affording greater collective security. (b). The moth has been presumed to depend entirely and obligately on native grasses, predominantly Austrodanthonia spp. for larval food, so that the presence of these grasses, and their maintenance at high levels (O’Dwyer and Attiwill [2000] implied need for at least 40% cover of Austrodanthonia at Mount Piper) is a fundamental plank in the cur- rent conservation platform. However, Braby and Dunford (2006) have raised the intriguing possibility that S. plana caterpillars might also feed on the roots of Chilean needle grass Nassella neesiana, an exotic weedy grass intro- duced from South America. The evidence is currently circumstantial, based on pres- ence of pupal shells close to this plant in the ACT. This grass is present at Craigieburn and on some other Victorian sites. It is aggressive, and is a target for suppression to control its competition with native grasses. As Braby and Dunford (2006) have noted, further work is needed to clarify this possible association and the extent to which this weed is indeed used by S. plana. Some of the sites on which S. plana has been discovered recently near Melbourne appear to be substantially degraded, with relatively little Austrodan- thonia present. Should its association with Nassella (or other exotic species) be found to be significant, the novel prospect may exist of needing to conserve selected popu- lations of Nassella on sites where Austrodanthonia is sparse, at least as an interim measure to host the moth until more natural foods are plentiful. References Braby MF and Dunford M (2006) Field observations on the ecology of the golden sun moth, Synemon plana Walker (Lepidoptera: Castniidae). Australian Entomologist ZZ, 103-1 10 Clarke G (2000) Inferring demography from genetics - a case study of the endangered golden sun moth Synemon plana. In Genetics, demography and viabil- ity of fragmented populations, pp 213-225. Ed AG Young and GM Clarke. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge) 256 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Clarke G and O’Dwyer C (2000) Genetic variability and population structure of the endangered golden sun moth, Synemon plana. Biological Conservation 92, 371-381 Douglas F (1993) The conservation status, distribution and habitat requirements of diurnal Lepidoptera in central and western Victoria (Part 1: Family Castniidae). (Unpublished Report, Department of Natural Resources and Environment ,Victoria). Endersby I and Koehler S (2006) Golden sun moth Synemon plana: discovery of new populations around Melbourne. The Victorian Naturalist 123, 362-365 Gibson L and New TR (2007) Problems in studying populations of the golden sun-moth, Synemon plana (Lepidoptera: Castniidae) in south-eastern Australia. Journal of Insect Conservation 11, 309-313. O’Dwyer C and Attiwill PM (1999) A comparative study of the habitats of the golden sun moth, Synemon plana Walker (Lepidoptera: Castniidae): implications for restoration. Biological Conservation 89, 132-141. O’Dwyer C and Attiwill PM (2000) Restoration of a native grassland as habitat for the golden sun moth Synemon plana Walker (Lepidoptera: Castniidae) at Mount Piper, Australia. Restoration Ecology 8, 170- 174 Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2005) Synemon plana (Golden Sun Moth). Advice to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) on Amendments to the list of Threatened Species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), www.environ- ment. gov.au/biodi versity/threatened/spec ies/s- plana/html. Van Praagh BD (2004) New sightings of the golden sun moth, Synemon plana (Lepidoptera; Castniidae) at Craigieburn and Cooper Street Grasslands, Melbourne, Victoria. (Report to Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria). Received 22 March 2007; accepted 31 May 2007 Museum specimen of a male Golden Sun-moth Synemon plana. Photograph supplied by Lucy Gibson. Vol. 124 (4) 2007 257 Invertebrate Consef^ation Issue The Lord Howe Island Stick Insect: an example of the benefits of captive management Patrick Honan Melbourne Zoo, PC Box 74, Parkville. Victoria 3052. (email: invertebrates@zoo.org.au) Abstract Captive breeding is an underrated aspect of invertebrate conservation programs, sometimes seen as expensive and of little value to the overall conservation goal. The Lord Howe Island (LHI) Stick Insect project demonstrates the benefits of captive breeding, despite the inherent difficulties in deal- ing with a species about which nothing was known, which began in captivity with a small founder population, which has required a number of veterinary treatments and which has demonstrated apparent inbreeding depression requiring ongoing genetic management. Ex situ breeding at Melbourne Zoo has so far grown the captive population to more than ten times the wild population with very little financial contribution from participating organisations, ensuring a more secure future whilst in situ conservation measures are undertaken. (The Victorian Naturalist 124 (4), 2007, 258-261) Introduction In recent decades, habitat preservation has been increasingly recognised as an effee- tive means of conserving threatened popu- lations of invertebrates in situ (Hutchings and Ponder 1999; Yen and Butcher 1997), preserving not only the threatened species but others that may be vulnerable now or in the future (Samways 1999). As one part of this trend, some authors have suggested that captive breeding has little or no role to play in effective conservation programs (Collins 1990). Present day recovery plans emphasise the importance of further biological research and the need for eommunity involvement, protecting wild populations and threat abatement (e.g. Sands and New 2002), often without the need for captive breeding (e.g. Crosby 1990; Sant and New 1988). Those recovery plans that do include a captive breeding component often place it last in a long list of recommendations, and rarely is any serious attempt made to undertake this component. However, there are many examples of threatened invertebrate species that would no longer exist in the wild or would not survive in their natural habitat long term, but for ongoing ex situ conservation pro- grams (New 1995; Pearce-Kelly et al 2007). There are a number of advantages of captive breeding programs, including the collection of biological data more easi- ly than in the wild, and management of the genetics of a threatened population/species to prevent inbreeding and maintain genetic viability (Pearce-Kelly et al 2007). Some authorities recognise both ex situ captive breeding, including genetic man- agement, as well as habitat preservation and threat abatement as the best means of ensuring the long-term security of threat- ened species (Clarke 2001; New 1995). The Lord Howe Island Stick Insect (LHI Stick Insect) Dryococelus australis recov- ery program provides a salient example. The Lord Howe Island Stick Insect The LHI Stick Insect (Fig. 1) was once common on Lord Howe Island, 700 km off the coast of New South Wales, Australia. The species became extinct on Lord Howe Island a few years after rats were acciden- tally released in 1918 (Gurney 1947), but was rediscovered in 2001 living on a small group of Melaleuca bushes on a rocky out- crop, called Balls Pyramid, 25 km off Lord Howe Island (Priddel et al 2003). LHI Stick Insects were classified at the time as endangered under the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and presumed extinct in the lUCN Red Data List (lUCN 1983). A Draft Recovery Plan was developed by the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSWDECC) (Priddel et al 2002), and in 2003 two adult pairs were removed from Balls Pyramid for captive breeding. One pair went to Insektus, a private breeder in Sydney, the other pair to Melbourne Zoo. 258 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Fig. 1. The original female LHI Stick Insect brought to Melbourne Zoo, feeding on Lord Howe Island Melaleuca Melaleuca howeana. At that point almost nothing was known of their biology and ecology, other than observations made by Lea (1916). The remaining wild population is now thought to be less than 40 individuals, living on a few bushes on the side of a cliff on Balls Pyramid (Priddel et al 2003). Captive management LHI Stick Insects at Melbourne Zoo are kept under temperature and humidity regimes as close as possible to those of Lord Howe Island. The eggs are usually deposited in sand or crevices by the female (Fig. 2), and the nymphs emerge after 6-9 months (unpubl. data). In order to collect as much data as possible, each egg is removed from the sand, weighed, mea- sured and placed in one of a range of incu- bation media. Given that the biology of this species was virtually unknown upon its arrival at Melbourne Zoo, and there has since been no opportunity to make any effective observations of the wild population, there have been a number of difficult husbandry issues, including the near-death of the orig- inal female within a fortnight of her enter- ing captivity. For the first two years of the Fig. 2. LHI Stick Insect eggs. These are gener- ally buried by the female during oviposition. project, there were no more than 30 indi- vidual LHI Stick Insects at Melbourne Zoo at any time, and ongoing attempts were made to rectify the low breeding and rear- ing success, focusing largely on husbandry and diet (as their natural diet on Lord Howe Island remains unknown). The captive LHI Stick Insect population began to increase significantly in early 2006, and as of February 2007, the popula- tion at Melbourne Zoo is in excess of 500 individuals. This dramatic increase appears to have a genetic origin. Genetic management Many LHI Stick Insect specimens, particu- larly early in the breeding program, showed signs suggesting inbreeding prob- lems. Eggs produced by the FI generation were smaller in length, volume and weight than those produced by the wild-caught female, and had a lower hatching rate (unpubl. data). The nymphs were smaller and had a significantly lower survival rate, and adults showed morphological deformi- ties, particularly in the final segments of the abdomen, consistent with inbreeding deformities seen in other insect species (pers. obs.). These trends continued for the next two generations. Inbreeding was con- sidered as a factor but, due to the excep- Vol. 124 (4) 2007 259 Invertebrate Conservation Issue tionally small founder wild population, dietary and husbandry problems were con- sidered to be more likely. In June 2004, four adult males were swapped with those being reared at Insektus. In succeeding generations, the eggs increased in length, volume and weight; hatching rale increased and the nymphs were larger on hatching; and the morphological deformities no longer occurred (unpubl. data). A population increase followed in the next generation and a further, more dramatic increase in the following generation (Fig. 3), presum- ably due to the genetic input from the unrelated males. However, the evidence for inbreeding is still circumstantial and can only be confirmed by future genetic studies. Conclusion The LHI Stick Insect recovery program utilises both in situ and ex situ conserva- tion measures, the captive management component being particularly important due to the perilous state of the wild popu- lation. Reproductive management, via crossbreeding of different gene lines using individuals identified with ‘bee markers’ (Fig. 4) is also essential to prevent inbreed- ing depression. Although invertebrate conservation pro- grams are now tending away from the sin- gle species approach to a more holistic habitat approach (Yen and Butcher 1997), there is merit in attacking the problem at both levels (Clarke 2001). However, this is not a widely accepted view. A conserva- tion workshop on threatened invertebrates concluded that ‘invertebrates can benefit from ex-sitii conservation and re-introduc- tion, but this is expensive and should be seen as the last resort.’ (Hutchings and Ponder 1999). However, depending on how it is conducted, captive breeding can be relatively inexpensive and resource- efficient (Pearce-Kelly et al 2007). Two glasshouses at Melbourne Zoo easily house a population of LHI Stick Insects more than ten times the known population in the wild (Priddel et al 2003, D.Priddel pers. comm.), with very little financial contribu- tion from either Melbourne Zoo or NSWDECC. Once the appropriate approvals are obtained, LHI Stick Insects will be distrib- uted to other institutions to further ensure the ongoing survival of the species. They will remain in captivity until the rodent eradication program, currently in the plan- ning stage, is completed on Lord Howe Island. The LHI Stick Insect breeding pro- gram also illustrates that some invertebrate conservation programs are closely analo- gous to vertebrate programs when the species, such as the LHI Stick Insect, is high profile. It has the advantage that the project can act as a taxonomic surrogate for a number of vertebrate and invertebrate species within the same habitat, and as a flagship for threat abatement programs. Acknowledgements The LHI Stick Insect captive breeding program is currently being undertaken by Rohan Cleave, Date Fig. 3. Cumulative total of LHI Stick Insects hatched at Melbourne Zoo. Note that four new males were introduced in June 2004 (a); subsequent eggs began hatching six months later (b); and the next generation began hatching one year thereafter (c), leading to a dramatic population increase. 260 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Norman Dowsett, Robert Anderson, Zoe Marston and other invertebrate keepers at Melbourne Zoo. References Clarke GM (2001) Invertebrate conservation in Australia: past, present and future prospects. Antenna April 2001, 1-24. Collins NM Ed (1990) The Management and Welfare of Invertebrates in Captivity. (National Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland: London) Crosby DF (1990) A Management Plan for the Altona Skipper Butterfly Hesperilla flavescens flavescens Waterhouse (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). (Technical Report Series No. 98, Department of Conservation and Environment: Melbourne) Gurney AB (1947) Notes on some remarkable Australian walkingsticks, including a synopsis of the genus Extatosoma (Orthoptera: Phasmatidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 40, 373- 396. lUCN (1983) The lUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book. (lUCN: Gland, Switzerland) Hutchings PA and Ponder WF (1999) Workshop: Criteria for assessing and conserving threatened invertebrates. In The Other 99%: The Conservation and Biodiversity of Invertebrates, pp. 297-315. Eds W Ponder and D Lunney. (The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales: Sydney) Lea AM (1916) Notes on the Lord Howe Island phas- ma, and on an associated longicorn beetle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of South Australia 40,145-147. New TR (1995) Introduction to Invertebrate Conservation Biology. (Oxford University Press; Melbourne) Pearce-Kelly P, Honan P, Barrett P, Morgan R, Perrotti L, Sullivan E, Daniel BA, Veltman K, Clarke D, Moxey T and Spencer W (2007) The Conservation value of insect breeding programmes: rationale and example case studies. Royal Entomological Society Biolog)’ Symposium, in press. Priddel D, Carlile N, Humphrey M, Fellenberg S and Hiscox D (2002) Interim Recovery Actions: The Lord Howe Island Phasmid Dryococelus australis, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service unpub- lished report, Sydney. Priddel D, Carlile N, Humphrey M, Fellenberg S and Hiscox D (2003) Rediscovery of the ‘extinct’ Lord Howe Island stick-insect {Dryococelus australis (Montrouzier)) (Phasmatodea) and recommendations for its conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 1391-1403. Sands DPA and New TR (2002) The Action Plan for Australian Butterflies. (Environment Australia: Canberra) Sam ways MJ (1999) Landscape triage for conserving insect diversity. In The Other 99%: The Conservation and Biodiversity of Invertebrates, pp. 269-273. Eds W Ponder and D Lunney (The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales: Sydney) Sant GJ and New TR (1988) The Biology and Conservation of Hemiphlebia mirabilis Selys (Odonata, Hemiphlebiidae) in Southern Victoria, Technical Report Series No. 82, Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, Melbourne. Yen AL and Butcher RJ (1997) An Overview of the Conservation of Non-Marine Invertebrates in Australia. (Environment Australia: Canberra) Received 22 March 2007; accepted 21 June 2007 Fig. 4. A pair of adult LHI Stick Insects in their daytime retreat. Note the numbered yellow plastic ‘bee markers’ glued to the back of the thorax. The male (lower) is facing the opposite way to, and with his legs over, the female. VoL 124 (4) 2007 261 Invertebrate Conservation Issue More animals seen on Thryptomene Introduction In The Victorian Naturalist \o\umQ 122 (4), I gave an account of arthropods and birds observed on a Thryptomene shrub between September 2003 and the end of August 2004 (Hubregtse 2005). This plant has con- tinued to be a source of interest. I have found out a little more about some of the animals I recorded in my initial study, and observed an additional 36 species using the plant. Nineteen of these were seen between 1 September and 31 December 2004. Subsequently, with the continuing dry weather, the number of arthropods seemed to decrease, and at the time of writing (10 March 2007) the shrub is under stress. Animals seen The animals I found included arthropods from three additional orders (Odonata, Blattodea and Neuroptera), and three more species of passerine birds. Arthropods Araneae Another four types of very small spider were noted. One of these was a tiny brown flower spider with a triangular-shaped abdomen that had a small projection at each point of the ‘triangle’. When alarmed, this spider tucked its legs under its body and stayed very still, looking just like one of the dead Thryptomene flowers - a dis- guise that no doubt helped it avoid being captured by marauding wasps. There were two more types of spiny-legged lynx spi- der (Ixyopidae): one was pale yellow, while the other had brown legs and cream and dark brown markings on its body. There was also a light orange-brown spider with a very smooth body and smooth legs. Odonata A medium sized dragonfly with a brown body and brown edges on its wings alight- ed on the shrub on 10 October 2004 but flew away as soon as I approached it. Blattodea A species of brown cockroach was seen in the shrub on 1 1 December 2004. Mantodea Both the brown and green mantids have been present each year, and were seen eat- ing Honey Bees Apis meUifera in March 2006. During January 2006, there were also some larger, paler green mantids with short antennae and transverse yellow stripes on the underside of the abdomen. One unfortu- nate individual climbed on to a window frame and was squashed when a sudden gust of wind slammed the window shut. Orthoptera A green katydid spent some time in the shrub at the end of November 2004. Phasmatodea In February 2005 I found what looked like a piece of curled up dry grass hanging on one of the twigs. Close examination revealed the remains of a young stick insect bound in spiderweb. I hadn’t seen a stick insect anywhere in our garden since January 2004; nor had I realised that spi- ders prey on them. Hemiptera In mid December 2004, a cotton wool-like substance appeared on a couple of the twigs, probably indicating the presence of mealy bugs. At the end of December I dis- covered that the wings of the grey leaf hopper (Ricaniidae), seen previously, can be creamy-coloured. I thought I had found another type, but within four hours the wings had turned grey. On 26 January 2005, a black and orange assassin bug (Reduviidae) (Fig. 1) clambered about on the twigs, searching for prey. Neuroptera I found a lacewing egg on 21 December 2004 and a larva, camouflaged in bits of plant debris, on 19 January 2005. Coleoptera Two more types of beetle, a black and yel- low ladybird beetle (Coccinellidae) and a big brownish grey longicorn beetle (Cerambycidae) (Fig. 2) with orange col- oration at the base of its antennae, were seen. The longicorn beetle had been injured. 262 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Fig. 2. Injured longicom beetle Diptera Three additional members of this order paid a brief visit to the plant; a cranefly, larger than the species seen in 2003-4; a blowfly with a creamy-coloured end to its abdomen; and a brownish grey bee fly with three yellow stripes on its abdomen. Lepidoptera Nine more types of moth and three more types of butterfly were observed. Five of the moths belonged to the family Oecophoridae; Eochrois pulverulenta, pinkish brown in colour; two Thema species, looking like scraps of dead leaf; and two Tortricopsis species {T. uncinella, shaped like a buff-coloured isosceles trian- gle, and a Tortricopsis species that was pinkish with brown markings). Also present were Hellula hydralis (Pyralidae) and three unidentified moths. At rest, one of these resem- bled a tiny, thin, yellowish bit of stick; another was slender and dull brownish grey; while the third, not observed until February 2007, was dark brown, shaped a bit like a Light Brown Apple Moth Epiphyas postvittana but smaller, and was seen only after sunset. A Cabbage White Pieris rapae paid a brief visit to the flowers on 17 January 2005. This was the first time 1 had seen this butterfly land on the shrub, although one or more usually flew past it several times per day during spring, summer and autumn. On 2 February 2005, 142 mm of rain fell, followed by a further 7 mm the next day. On 4 February, a Cabbage White spent quite some time visiting the flowers, perhaps because they produced more nectar after the rain. On March 2005, a small dark brown butterfly with three creamy white spots on each forewing landed on a twig. A Caper White Belenois java did like- wise on 18 October 2006. There were no flowers by this time because, for the first time ever, flowering finished at the begin- ning, rather than the end, of October. Hymenoptera There were another six species in this order: a Braconid wasp (Braconidae) with a black head and abdomen and brown tho- rax; a slender black wasp (Vespidae) with four yellow stripes on its abdomen; a small black wasp (Sphecidae) dragging a paral- ysed orange-brown spider - the smooth- bodied one “ along a twig; a very tiny bee, rather like a miniature Honey Bee; a small bee with several narrow stripes on its abdomen; and a Bluebanded Bee (Anthophoridae) (Fig. 3), not seen before January 2007. Arthropods in cocoons The contents of most cocoons present in Vol. 124 (4) 2007 263 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Fig. 3. Bluebanded Bee on Lemon Balm. 2004-5 were eaten (see below). I once saw a caterpillar poke its head out of a cocoon, so I think some of these structures were being used as shelters. I suspected as much when, in my original study, I found cater- pillar frass in one of the cocoons. Birds Passeriformes By the end of November 2004 Little Wattlebirds Anthochaera chrysoptera had taken over the territory from the Red Wattlebirds A. carunculata, though the lat- ter were still seen from time to time. From 28 December 2004 to 15 January 2005, and again on 15 February 2005, a Little Wattlebird devoured the contents of cocoons on the shrub. It also fed from the flowers and pecked at something on the twigs. Two New Holland Honeyeaters Phylidonyris novaehollandiae fed briefly from the flowers on 12 February 2006. Interestingly, these birds were using the plant principally for concealment as they quietly approached the adjacent Grevillea ‘Robyn Gordon’, remaining undetected by the wattlebirds for Just long enough to consume some nectar before being discovered and chased away (Hubregtse 2006). On 9 January 2007 a male Common Blackbird Turdus merula perched on a branch and looked around for anything edible. Conclusion Having now seen about 130 types of animals from 15 different Orders, I continue to be amazed at this plant’s ability to attract such a wide variety of creatures. Regrettably, the dry weather is taking its toll and the shrub has been under stress for some time. Although there are many flower buds, most are drying up and going brown before they open, so they are not attracting insects. There are now few spi- ders, hardly any wasps, and I have seen only two praying mantids this year. I sup- ply water at legal intervals in hope of sav- ing this shrub, which has been such a source of pleasure and fascination during the past 12 years. Acknowledgements 1 am indebted to the Discovery Centre staff at Museum Victoria, for answering many queries about the arthropods seen. References Hubregtse V (2005) Bush creatures: animals observed on a Thryptomene shrub. The Victorian Naturalist 122, 204-208. Hubregtse V (2006) Silence pays off for honeyeaters. The Melbirdian 49, 9. Virgil Hubregtse 6 Saniky Street Netting Hill, Victoria 3168 264 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Invertebrate herbivory of the Soft Tree-fern Dicksonia antarctica There are few studies detailing the inverte- brates found on the -Soft Tree-fern Dicksonia antarctica^ particularly in Australia. This Naturalist Note reports on observations made from Soft Tree-ferns growing at Baw Baw National Park in a Cool Temperate Rainforest pocket along the Mt Erica Road. Observations were made on 18 April 2005 from about 1 1 a.m. to 2 p.m. on a clear day. A 30 m buffer zone from the road was allowed so that any possible edge effects were minimised. Every Soft Tree- fern along a 45 m transect running parallel to a small stream was carefully examined for the presence of any invertebrates on the fronds and for any sign of damage on the fronds. Damage was designated three lev- els: low - where only tips of secondary pinnae were damaged; moderate - where signs of damage occurred anywhere along the length of secondary pinnae; high - where only the rachis of the frond and the mid veins of primary pinnae remained. The trunk height of each Soft Tree-fern was measured, number of fronds counted and each frond designated a level of dam- age. Whether or not Soft Tree-ferns were in an ‘open’ or ‘closed’ habitat was noted. An ‘open’ habitat meant that the tree-fern did not have other trees, debris or boulders beside it, i.e. one could walk around it unhindered. A ‘closed’ habitat meant that one could not walk unobstructed around the trunk. Finally, leaf litter accumulation within the depression formed at the top of the trunk by the emergence of the fronds was measured. Invertebrates often live within litter but move from it to feed, thus it was thought that if more litter was pre- sent, more invertebrates might occur. Seventeen Soft Tree-ferns were exam- ined. All exhibited herbivory by inverte- brates. Twelve invertebrate species were identified (Table 1). All were herbivorous except the trapdoor spider and ants. Seven were chompers, two were stem borers and one was a sap sucker (Table 1). The trap- door spider was carnivorous while the ants ‘farmed’ the treehoppers, feeding on the sugary substance they secreted. The trap- door spider and snail were found on the trunk of one of the tree-ferns, the Darkling Beetle within the litter, and all other species on the fronds. Tree-ferns ranged from 45 to 190 cm with a mean height of 105 cm. The number of fronds ranged from 7 to 28 with a mean of 16. There was a positive correlation between height and the number of fronds (Fig. l)(r = 0.77, df= 16, p < 0.01). There also was a significant correlation between tree-fern height and the degree of frond damage (Fig. 2) (F2,31 - 7.83, p - 0.002). A Post hoc test showed that taller Soft Tree-ferns had lower levels of damage than shorter Soft Tree-ferns. This was not related to the number of invertebrate species per tree. Similarly, there was no significant difference between the number of fronds on a tree-fern and the degree of frond damage (F2,31 = 1.36, p = 0.27) although trees with fewer fronds tended to have higher levels of damage (Fig. 3). This Table 1. Invertebrates on the Soft Tree-fern Common name Order Family Feeding strategy Bug Nymph Hemiptera Acanthosomatidae Chewing Crane Fly Diptera Tipulidae Chewing Darkling Beetle Coleoptera Tenebrionidae Chewing Psyllid Hemiptera Psyllidae Chewing Treehopper Hemiptera Membracidae Sapsucking Weevil (sp. 1) Coleoptera Curculionidae Stem-boring Weevil (sp. 2) Coleoptera Curculionidae Stem-boring Snail Class: Gastropoda 9 Chewing Slug Class: Gastropoda 7 Chewing Caterpillar 7 7 Chewing Ants Hymenoptera 7 Farm treehoppers Trapdoor Spider Arachnidae Nemesiidae Insectivorous Vol. 124 (4) 2007 265 Number of fronds Invertebrate Conservation Issue 40 . 30 20 10 50 100 150 200 Soft Tree-fern Height (cm) Fig. 1 . Comparison of Soft Tree-fern height with the number of fronds. 160 - 140 - £ 120 - o § 100 - 0 ji: c 80 - u 1 60 - u H 40 - o c/^ 20 - I — Low I Moderate Frond damage 6 High Fig. 2. Variation in frond damage with Tree-fern height 266 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue 25 20 a o (D X) 6 3 Z 15 10 Low 1 1 — Moderate High Frond damage Fig. 3. Comparison of the number of fronds per tree with degree of damage. 9 a o =s o o 03 8 7 6 6 Open Habitat Closed Fig. 4. Variation in litter accumulation at the base of fronds with habitat type. Vol. 124 (4) 2007 267 Invertebrate Conservation Issue is understandable as trees with fewer fronds were shorter than trees with higher numbers of fronds. There was no signifi- cant difference between the number of invertebrates and the degree of frond dam- age (F2,31 = 0.63, p = 0.54). Shorter trees are more accessible to ground dwelling invertebrates, possibly explaining why they could show higher levels of damage than taller trees in spite of there not being a significant correlation with number of invertebrates. Ferns in an ‘open' habitat had signifi- cantly higher amounts of leaf litter in the depression caused by emergence of fronds from the trunk than ferns in ‘closed' habi- tats (Fig. 4). Litter depth within the depres- sion caused by emergence of the fronds from the trunk ranged from 2 to 1 1 cm but there was no significant correlation between the number of invertebrate species and litter depth. Neither was there a signif- icant difference between fern habit and the number of invertebrates recorded. Conclusion Observations for this note were taken over a three hour period on a single day. It often is perceived that ferns are not particularly edible but the extent of damage to some fronds, i.e. only stalks left, shows that this is not the case. Whether or not this was caused by the types of invertebrates found is unknown and would require further study. However, it is amazing how much information can be gleaned over such a short time period. Hopefully this note encourages others to look more closely when they wander out into the bush, and to publish their short term observations. Acknowledgements Grateful thanks go Maria Gibson for helpful suggestions and comments on this small project and to Cuong Huynh for identification of the invertebrates. Both belong to the School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University. Dustin Lehr, Jo North and Michelle Cathie School of Life and Environmental Sciences Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway Burvv'ood, Victoria 3125 One hundred Years Ago ICHNEUMON MAIMED BY SAW-FLY. - During the end of April and beginning of May I had under observation a saw-fly, Perga lewisii, Westw., guarding its larvae on a branch of Eucalyptus amygdalina. On the 6th ot May I noticed an ichneumon amongst the larvae, while the saw-ily was on the leaf, apparently contentedly watching. Mr. Edmund Jarvis and myself examined the ichneumon, and found that its antennae and ovipositor were missing. While it was under the influence of a dose of cyanide of potassium Mr. Jarvis noticed it eject some eggs through the remaining stump of the ovipositor. The incident is interesting, as it is probably the first case recorded ot this species of Perga having rendered the parasite harmless. In the accompanying exhibit the ichneumon minus its antennae and ovipositor is shown; the eggs can hardly be seen, as they have shrivelled, but an enlarged drawing is shown. - J.P. M'LENNAN. Emerald, Victoria, 8/6/07. From The Victorian Naturalist XXIV, p 60, July 4, 1907 268 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue The Hemiphlebia damselfly Hemiphlebia mirabilis Selys (Odonata, Zygoptera) as a flagship species for aquatic insect conservation in south-eastern Australia TR New Department of Zoology, La Trobe University, Victoria 3086 T.New@latrobe.edu.au Abstract The endemic damselfly Hemiphlebia mirabilis Selys has been a focus of conservation attention since its rediscovery in Victoria was publicised in the mid 1980s. It was listed under the state’s Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (FFG) in 1991. Discovery of additional colonies has indicated that Hemiphlebia is far more widespread than earlier supposed, and continued study indicates that it is variously secure or vulnerable in different places - rather than ‘endangered’, as previously thought. The history of study of the species is summarised briefly, and its values in promoting awareness of insect conservation as a ‘flagship species’ in southern Australia are discussed. {The Victorian Naturalist 124 (4) 2007, 269-272) Introduction The Hemiphlebia damselfly Hemiphlebia mirabilis (Fig. 1) is now' also known as the ‘Ancient Greenling’ (Theischinger and Hawking 2006). It is well known as one of Australia’s most unusual endemic dam- selflies. It is commonly referred to as a ‘liv- ing fossil’, and is treated conventionally as the only extant member of the superfamily Hemiphlebioidea, implying that it is taxo- nomically isolated within the order Odonata. Indeed, Trueman (1996) believed that it was the sister-group to all other Odonata. This isolated position, rendering it a dis- tinct ‘oddity’ within the order, is implied by unusual wing venation and the form of the larval labium. Trueman (1999) reap- praised both characters and suggested that they may in fact be derived, rather than primitive as commonly presumed. Hemiphlebia mirabilis is also of interest for its elaborate display behaviour, and is one of the smallest Odonata. Fig. 1. Male Hemiphlebia mirabilis, Wilsons Promontory, Victoria. Vol. 124 (4) 2007 269 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Much of its conservation interest arises from its putative isolated phylogenetic position, coupled with the belief that it might have become extinct in the mid 1970s. due to habit loss through agricultural intensification in the Yarra and Goulburn valleys. Victoria. Over that period, a num- ber of searches failed to yield the insect, which appears always to have been highly localised and known from few places. Thus. Wells et ai ( 1983) categorised it as ‘endangered', at a time when it was believed to be extinct, and Moore (1982) placed it as the highest global priority for conservation of the then newly formed Odonata Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union’s Species Survival Commission. Hemiphlebia was thus something of a ‘holy grail' for Australian dragonfly enthusiasts, but it was not until Davies (1985) publicised a record by Garrison from Wilsons Promontory and established its presence there for himself, that its continued existence was confirmed, and the conservation status and biology of Hemiphlebia could be appraised in more detail. In this note, I recapitulate briefly the sequence and extent of data accumulation on Hemiphlebia^ and indicate how this has led to more realistic appraisal of its conser- vation needs, and also explore the wider context of Hemiphlebia^^ importance in developing insect conservation awareness in Australia. The species is amongst the few invertebrates already the focus of con- servation interest at the time FFG came into force, and has remained so ever since. Biology and Conservation Although H. mirabilis was stated to have been described from Port Denison, Queensland, this locality citation is now accepted generally as erroneous for Lake Denison, Victoria, which has long been drained but is in the same general area as all other mainland distribution records. Davies (1985) documented a strong colony in Wilsons Promontory National Park, which was explored further in 1987-1988 (Sant and New 1988), to clarify its life history further, to characterise its habitat as far as possible, and to explore its distribu- tion on the northern part of the park. Wilsons Promontory was then the only place known to support Hemiphlebia^ but subsequent searches showed it to occur in the Goulburn Valley as well, both at Yea and near the billabong at Alexandra, from where Tillyard described the larva and found the damseltly over a long period (1906-1931: ANIC records, see Watson 1995) (Trueman et ai 1992). Hemiphlebia was also found to he quite abundant at localities in north-east Tasmania and on Flinders Island (Endersby 1993: Trueman ei ai 1992). with the implication that it formerly may have occurred more exten- sively across the eastern land bridge that linked Tasmania with south-eastern Victoria. Hemiphlebia is univoltine, with adults present from late November to late February. Adults are very cryptic, and are inconspicuous when they rest on dense vegetation. The usual habitat is densely vegetated seasonal swamps/ billabongs/ lagoons, with shallow (often 20-60 cm deep) water and with the margins seasonal- ly dry. Many formerly suitable habitats, particularly in the Goulburn and Yarra val- leys, have been destroyed or degraded severely by drainage and cattle trampling. Fringing areas with dense reeds or other emergent vegetation appear to be critical habitat components, with seasonal desicca- tion suggesting strongly that Hemiphlebia has a well-developed mechanism for over- coming periods of drought, possibly as the egg stage. Larvae are small in early spring, and their main growth phase is from August to November: there appear to be 9 or 10 instars. Hemiphlebia was a natural candidate for early nomination for protection under FFG, as a formal prelude to preparing an Action Statement on its conservation status and needs. Grounds included in the nomi- nation (April 1990) were that (1) it had disappeared from localities in the state where it previously occurred; (2) is primar- ily threatened by habitat degradation, par- ticularly involving drainage, damage by cattle, and river regulation: (3) that the Wilsons Promontory population was threatened by park management practices; and (4) that the species is rare in ternis of abundance and distribution. Together with uncertainties over the recovery from a major bum of the largest known colony on 270 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Wilsons Promontory (1987), Hemiphlehia was a strong candidate for listing, and it was formally listed in May 1991 as one of the first batch of non-marine invertebrates to be so designated. Progressive accumulation of information on Hemiphlehia has led to informal down- grading of conservation status, with vari- ous sites now regarded as secure or vulner- able, notwithstanding Watson’s (1995) comment that ‘its future can be regarded as secure’. The major concern for its welfare in the late 1980s centred on the outcomes of a fire at Wilsons Promontory. The main habitat of Hemiphlehia, on Five Mile Road, abutted a fire break mown along a road, and a control bum (part of the man- agement strategy to regenerate heathland along the northern part of the National Park, to reduce ground fuel loads, and to provide a barrier to passage of more severe uncontrolled blazes) got ‘out of control’ and swept through the swamp, with poten- tially severe consequences; it was feared that the damselfly might have been extir- pated. In fact, the mown area, across about half the swamp area, remained green. However, the very dry summer and autumn also led to concentration of cattle seeking water - at this time, the region was part of a long-term grazing lease, phased out in 1992 - which led to considerable trampling of the swamp. Factors causing concern for the colony were (1) loss of emergent vegetation, increasing exposure of the water; (2) deposition of ash on the water; and (3) increased cattle access, trampling and dung deposition. Subsequently the area was fenced by the parks staff to exclude cattle. The fence was left in place for some seven years, whilst the area had a chance to recover. Subsequent monitoring (New 1993) showed gradual recovery of Hemiphlehia, apparently reflecting that the mown part of the habitat constituted a refuge for part of the population, and numbers of adults gradually increased in the entirely burned area. Recovery from severe habitat distur- bance is clearly possible, and it is likely that Hemiphlehia may have experienced numerous similar catastrophes during its long history. Indeed, if we categorise the major threats to native invertebrates in Australia, the top concerns would be habitat change through vegetation clearing, impacts of exotic (often, invasive) organisms, and agricultur- al practices. All are relevant to Hemiphlehia, with the last-named the most significant impetus for habitat degradation. Nevertheless, and despite evidence of its widespread survival, Hemiphlehia does appear to have been lost from some fomier inhabited sites, with agriculture and cattle clearly implicated in this decline. The small number and dispersion of colonies currently known merits its retention as a species of conservation significance. Some colonies in both range-states are in National Parks, so that opportunity for practical management is present, and methods of habitat maintenance are rea- sonably clear - with ambiguities over the extent of disturbance that may be tolerated. It is likely that Hemiphlehia will be more widespread than the few current disjunct records imply, although searches have so far failed to confirm this and more detailed surveys, particularly through the Goulburn Valley, are warranted. Discussion As well as being a species of significant conservation interest as a ‘target’, Hemiphlehia also has become a notable flagship species, as a wider conservation ‘tool’. As a member of a small portfolio of ecologically disparate invertebrates target- ed for conservation in Victoria, all of which were promoted under FFG in its early years, it has helped to make many people aware of the ecological variety of invertebrates and their conservation needs. Flagship species are ‘ambassadors’, help- ing to communicate importance and con- servation lessons to a wider audience and to increase appreciation of the ‘place’ of invertebrates in natural systems. Because of its presence in National Parks, Hemiphlehia has had a special role in help- ing to get invertebrates included in park conservation agendas. Particularly at Wilsons Promontory it has been accepted by staff as one of ‘their’ special species, with staff being aware of where it occurs and its significant interest. This increased awareness has had a wider impact. In Vol. 124 (4) 2007 271 Inverfebrafe Conservation Issue Australia we have no coordinated inventory program to document invertebrates in high quality reserves, and most records are sim- ply serendipitous. Odonata, thanks to recent handbooks (Watson et al. 1991: Theischinger and Hawking 2006) are largely identifiable to species level as adults and larvae, and an increasing num- ber of park surveys is being instigated as a basis for evaluating species' representation on reserves, to provide a sound template for future complementarity of protected areas. The cryptic nature of Ilemiphlehia means that, unlike more conspicuous insects such as butterflies, most people who support its conservation strongly have never seen it alive, but nevertheless accept it as important. Whereas Hemiphlehia is now known from two states, with the strong implica- tion that it has been distributed more wide- ly in the past (so that present colonies are remnant populations), it is still known from relatively few localities and has not been found west of Melbourne, on King Island or north-western Tasmania, so that it may never have occurred on the western land bridge region. It may well occur else- where. but is elusive, and has successfully evaded detection during numerous com- prehensive surveys of aquatic invertebrates throughout the state undertaken through Museum Victoria. It is clearly resilient to disturbance, but not to loss of habitat, and appears to fly weakly and thus to be a fee- ble disperser. Individual site/colony man- agement is thus the key to practical conser- vation but, as for many other invertebrates, ‘management’ may mean prevention of major change or intrusion, and - in some cases - possibly changing land tenure to help meet this basic need. Its conservation needs thereby reflect it satisfying both the ‘small population’ (thereby being suscepti- ble to stochastic effects in small areas) and the ‘declining population’ (implied, with- out solid population data, and reflected in overall decline in range) of Caiighley (1994). References Caughicy G ( 1994) Direclioiis in conservation biology. Journal of Animal Ecology 63, 215-244. Davis DAL, (1985) Hemiphlehia mirahilis StHys: some notes on distribution and conservation status (Zyaoptcra: Hemiphlebiidae). Odonatologica 14 . 3342331;. Endersby ID (1993) A new locality for Hemiphlehia mirahilis Selys (Odonata, Hemiphlebiidae). Viclorian Entomologist 23, 4-5. Moore NW (1982) Minutes of the second meeting of the lUCN Odonata Specialist Group (1981) (lUCN: Gland). New TR (1993). Hemiphlehia mirahilis Selys: recovery from habitat destruction at Wilsons Promontory, Victoria, Australia, and implications for conservation management. Odonatologica 22, 495-502. Sant GJ and New TR (1988). The biology and conser- vation of Hemiphlehia mirahilis Selys (Odonata: Hemiphlebiidae) in southern Victoria. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Technical Report 82. Theischinger Cj and Hawking J (2006). The complete field guide to dragonllies of Australia (CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood) Trueman .IWH (1996) A preliminary cladistic analysis of odonate wing venation. Odonatologica 25, 59-72. Trueman JWH (1999). The enigmatic Australian species Hemiphlehia mirahilis Selys (Zygoptera: Hemiphlebioidea): four short observations and a new' record. International Journal of Odonatolog\' 2, 115- 121 . Trueman JWH. Hoye GA. Hawking .IH. Watson JAL and New' TR (1992). Hemiphlehia mirahilis Selys: new' localities in Australia and perspectives on conservation (Zygoptera: Hemiphlebiidae) Odonatologica 21. 367-374. Watson JAL (1995). The conservation status of the enigmatic Australian dragontly Hemiphlehia mirahilis Selys. pp. 16-18 in Corbet PS. Dunkle SW and Ubukata H (eds) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Conservation of Dragonllies and their Habitats (Japanese Society for the Preservation of Birds: Kushiro) Watson JAL, Theischinger G and Abbey HM (1991). The Australian dragonflies. A guide to the identifica- tion. distributions and habitats of Australian Odonata (CSIRO: Canberra and Melbourne). Wells SM, Pyle RM and Collins NM (1983). The lUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book (lUCN: Gland and Cambridge). Received 22 March 2007; accepted 28 June 2007 111 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue Conservation of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) especially Coloburiscoides in the Victorian Alps: impediments and threats PJ Suter and P McGuffie Department of Environmental Management and Ecology, La Trobe University PO Box 821, Wodonga, Victoria 3689 Abstract The aquatic insects are still poorly represented in terms of conservaiton and protection in Victoria. The main impediments for this were identified over a decade ago and all remain valid today. Recent national collections of aquatic invertebrates have been used to determine distribution and habitat requirements for more than 200 macro-inveterbrates, and this has enabled the identification of a number of species that have restricted distributions and may be candidates for conservation listing. An example, using the mayfly genus Coloburiscoides, highlights how the perception that these ani- mals are widespread and common may mask the reality of individual species being rare and restrict- ed in their distribution, and that the effects of climate change may hasten their decline. {The Victorian Naturalist \U (4) 2007, 273-277) Introduction The aquatic insects, although highly diverse in Victoria, are very poorly repre- sented in terms of conservation and protec- tion. Under the Flora and Fauna Guar- antee Act there are only 13 species of aquatic insect classified as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Threatened, Vulnerable or Data Deficient. Only caddis- flies (Trichoptera) and stoneflies (Plecoptera) have a conservation status under the Act. This implies that aquatic insects are not of major concern for con- servation, but there are a number of impor- tant reasons for the absence of many of the other insect orders. Butcher and Doeg (1995) identified a number of reasons for this including poor taxonomic knowledge, the incomplete knowledge of insect life cycles, poor systematic collections that give good knowledge of distributions, and the lack of coordination between organisa- tions that collect from the aquatic habitats. All these impediments still exist today even though there has been considerable effort to rectify these shortcomings. The Cooperative Research Centre for Fresh- water Ecology held taxonomic workshops that targeted many of the aquatic insect groups and other aquatic invertebrate groups to provide reliable keys to ‘vouch- er’ taxa based on morphological character- istics of the nymphal and larval stages. This recognised that much of the taxonomy of the aquatic insects was based on the short lived adult stages, but the biological assessment of rivers throughout Australia was dealing with the juvenile stages, which are long-lived, but not associated with adults. These workshops increased the taxonomic work on the aquatic insects’ nymphs and larvae, and addressed the coor- dination issue by providing a voucher name or number based on the best taxonomy available. Also, since the paper by Butcher and Doeg (1995), there has been a series of national collections (e.g. Monitoring River Health, First National Assessment of River Health) which have provided systematic collections using standard methods. These programmes used rapid biological assess- ment methods and the collections were identified only to Family level, thus limit- ing their value in providing distributional data for any particular taxon. However, a project to use these collections and identify some of the aquatic insects to the lowest taxonomic level (morphological voucher species) was undertaken by the Australian Biological Resources Study and the Natural Heritage Trust (Suter et al 2006). This has enabled an assessment of the dis- tribution, ecology and habitat use by some 200 taxa. This work has highlighted some conservation issues with a number of taxa that are only rarely recorded or are restrict- ed in their distribution in Victoria. Vol. 124 (4) 2007 273 Invertebrate Conservation Issue Suter et al. (2006) recorded at least eight maytly species {Eclmunclsiops MVsp. 9, Pseiuiocloeon hypodelum Lugo-Ortiz, Wunciacaenis flabeUiim Suter, Atalophlehia AV2, Atalophlehia AV6, Ameletoides sp., Tasmanophlehia AV2 and Coiohiiriscoides sp.) and five caddislly species {Dateniomina AVI I, Ecnomina AV3, Ecnomina AV22, Ecnomus nihhor Cartwright and Hydrohiosella AV4) that were restricted to less than five locations in Victoria. Only three of these species have been formally described and named, with all the others known only by their Australian Voucher Number. This high- lights the taxonomic impediment that exists with the freshwater insects. Even though the taxonomic workshops enabled the identification of nymphs and larvae of the major insect Orders with illustrated keys, complete descriptions and formal naming has been limited, due to inadequate funding for taxonomic research. Consequently, there may be a number of extinctions that have already occurred but the species have never been recognised (Strayer 2006). Coiohiiriscoides - perception may not be reality The Family Coloburiscidae includes a sin- gle genus Coiohiiriscoides that currently consists of three described species and appears widespread throughout the Australian Alps in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria (Campbell 1981; Marchant and Ryan 2006; Suter et al. 2006). Records also exist from streams in the Otway Ranges in Victoria (Suter et al. 2006) (Fig. 1). Nymphs of this genus occur in high alti- tude streams and in the foothill streams draining the Alps. Nymphs have been recorded at a wide range of altitudes from 10 m to 1860 m. They occur in fast flow- ing water in streams with a substrate domi- nated by pebbles, cobbles and boulders (Suter et al. 2006). They use their elabo- rate ornamentation of spines on their body and gills (Fig. 2a) to maintain their posi- tion between rocks, and the fine hairs that line the femora and tibiae of the forelegs and femora of the mid legs to filter fine particulate organic material from the flow- ing water. The nymphs live for at least a Fig. 1. Distribution of all species o'i Colohuriscoides in Australia based on collections made during the Monitoring River Health and First National Assessment of River Health. 274 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue year (maybe two years) (Campbell 1986) before they emerge as subimagoes (the Kosciuszko dun) but the imagoes or adults are rarely seen even though they are large (Fig. 2b). Although evidence of’this widespread distribution would suggest these animals are common and abundant there is a major concern in that the species can only be identified from the adults, and not from the more commonly collected nymphs. No reliable characteristics have been found to distinguish the different species in the nymphal form. Consequently, in ecological and biogeographical studies (Campbell 1981) all species are combined at the generic level, which provides the percep- tion that this genus is widespread and com- mon and that each species is also common. However, as with all combined data, there is a loss of information, and individual species may not be common or widespread but, in fact, be potentially endangered. A recent study (McGuffie 2005) used mitochondrial DNA (cytochrome c Oxidase Subunit I gene; COI) to distin- guish species of Coloburiscoides nymphs from numerous locations within the Australian Alps. These analyses indicated four distinct species based on the COI gene. Of these, at least two species had a very restricted distribution, limited to two or three locations. In addition these loca- tions were at altitudes above 1000 m asl with most in mountain top streams above the tree line. The two species which are of major con- servation concern are both endemic species; Coloburiscoides giganteus (Tillyard) from the Mt Kosciuszko area in New South Wales and an undescribed species currently known only from the Bogong High Plains. Both of these species are large (body size in adults and mature nymphs >20 mm) and occur in association with larger substrate particle sizes (cobbles and boulders). The smaller species (body size in adults and nymphs <18 mm) were associated with pebbles, sand and logs (McGuffie 2005). These two species have the potential of being listed as Vulnerable, Rare or Threat- ened. Coloburiscoides giganteus has been recorded from only three locations in New South Wales: Diggers Creek (Kosciuszko National Park, KNP) Thredbo River at Dead Horse Gap (KNP) and Leather Barrel Creek (confirmed by adult and DNA analysis). There are unconfirmed records (adults only) from the Upper Macalister River and upper Western Tyers River in Victoria (Campbell 1983). The second species recorded from the Bogong High Plains is common in streams within the National Park and Falls Creek resort, but it appears restricted to this area above 1200 m ASL. Threatening Processes Butcher and Doeg (1995) gave a prelimi- nary list of threatening processes for aquatic invertebrates (i.e. flow alteration, tempera- ture changes, sediment input, removal of wood debris, inputs of toxic substances). In recent years, two major threatening process- es have become apparent particularly in the Australian Alps: fire caused by lightning strikes, and climate change. Clunie and Reed (1995) noted that the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 gave the ability to list communities as threatened and there- by protect numerous species rather than individual species. The alpine habitats are so listed, but the threats of fire and climate change are still relevant. Following the 2003 fires in the Australian Alps, the abundance of filter feeding aquatic invertebrates declined dra- matically and Coloburiscoides nymphs in the foothills streams became rare to absent following runoff from burnt catchments. In the Tallangatta Valley where Coloburis- coides nymphs were abundant in the late 1990s only a solitary animal at one site was found following ash laden runoff in 2003 (Suter, pers. obs.). Similar reductions were recorded downstream of the Buckland River in the Ovens River catch- ment following a flash flood in 2003 (Anon 2003) with reductions in the macroinvertebrates and Coloburiscoides (raw data provided by the Victorian EPA). Other studies by the EPA (Anon 2004, 2006) also compared the river health changes post fire and noted that the impact of fire was related to the subsequent rain- fall and runoff, patchiness of the fires and the sources of recolonisation (Anon 2006). The raw data from the EPA monitoring of the fire impacts indicated that Coloburis- Vol. 124 (4) 2007 275 Invertebrate Conservation Issue \ t V Fig. 2. Nymph of Coloburiscoides giganteus from PCosciuszko National Park (above), and female imago of Coloburiscoides sp (below) from the Bogong High Plains. coides numbers did recover over an 18 month period after the fires. Crowther and Papas (2005) compared the macroinverte- brate communities of burnt and unburnt streams on the Bogong High Plains but Coloburiscoides was not mentioned as an indicator of river health change. Intense fire and runoff into streams of the alpine zone has the potential of eliminating some populations of Coloburiscoides from the limited locations where they occur. The threat of fires in the Australian Alps is likely to be increased with the second major threatening process, climate change. With predictions of between 2“ C and 6" C increase in global temperature this century, the possible impacts on the alpine environ- ment include a decrease in snow cover dur- ing winter, an increase in extreme frost events, altitude rise in the subalpine zone and a decline in the area of the alpine zone (Good 1998). Snow cover insulates the ground (Green 1998) and allows streams to flow beneath. Estimates of between 18% and 66% reduction in the area covered by snow by 2030 have been made by the Australian Greenhouse Office (Common- wealth of Australia 2002). Under reduced snow cover, the streams and peatlands may be exposed to freezing and thawing (periglacial activity) and a greater intensity of frost crystal formation and frost-heaving (Good 1998) leading to increased sedimen- tation (Ritter 2006) and reduction of avail- able habitat for the long-lived aquatic fauna. A reduced runoff from snow melt 276 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue would also reduce the fast flowing condi- tions required by many of the aquatic invertebrates (Green and Osborne 1998). Animals that have long life cycles and are filter feeders, such as Coloburiscoides giganteus and Coloburjscoides sp., would be unlikely to survive such extreme condi- tions. In addition, another undescribed endemic mayfly Ameletoides sp. is also found in some streams on the Bogong High Plains and is subject to the same threats as Coloburiscoides sp. Strayer (2006) considered that conserva- tion of freshwater invertebrates, including insects, face five challenges: 1. thousands of species may already be extinct or imperilled 2. human pressures on water resources are intense and increasing 3. scientific knowledge of invertebrates is significantly poorer than for vertebrates 4. freshwater systems are part of a larger catchment and conservation should focus on all the catchment upstream and not on an individual site 5. society spends little on invertebrate con- servation. The habitat occupied by Coloburiscoides giganteus and Coloburiscoides sp. are at the top of catchments that are protected in national parks and are therefore not exposed to major human pressures, toxins or land clearance and subsequent erosion. However, despite having some protection these two species of Coloburiscoides are still under threat from lack of scientific knowledge, inadequacies of funding for invertebrate conservation and fire caused by lightning strikes and climate change, all of which increase their chances of becom- ing extinct or critically endangered. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank John Dean and the Victorian EPA for providing the raw data for Coloburiscoides numbers at locations affected by the 2003 bushfires. References Anon (2003) The impacts of bushfires following a flash flood event in the catchment of the Ovens River: Ovens Catchment Report. Ovens Catchment Report. EPA Victoria, Melbourne. Anon (2004) River health: A snapshot of the effects of the 2003 bushfires. EPA Victoria, Melbourne. Anon (2006) The health of streams in north-eastern Victoria in the three years following the 2003 bush- fires. Information Bulletin. EPA Victoria, Melbourne. Butcher R and Doeg TJ (1995) Conservation of fresh- water invertebrates. The Victorian Naturalist 112 , 15-19. Campbell 1C (1981) Biogeography of some rheophilous aquatic insects in the Australian region. Aquatic Insects 3, 33-43. Campbell IC (1983) Studies on the taxonomy and ecol- ogy of the Australian Siphlonuridae and Oligoneur- iidae (Insecta: Ephemeroptera). (Unpublished PhD thesis, Monash University). Campbell IC (1986) Life histories of some Australian Siphlonurid and Oligoneuriid mayflies (Insecta: Ephemeroptera). Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 37, 261-288. Clunie P and Reed J (1995) Protection of invertebrates in Victoria; the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. The Victorian Naturalist 112 , 32-35. Commonwealth of Australia (2002) Australia's third national communication on climate change. A report under the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra. Crowther D and Papas P (2005) Determining the impact of fire on invertebrate communities in alpine streams in north-east Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Technical Report Series No. 156. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Heidelberg. Good R (1998) Changing snow regimes and the distrib- ution of alpine vegetation. In Snow; a natural histo- ry, an uncertain future, pp 98-1 12. Ed K Green. (Australian Alps Liaison Committee, Surrey Beatty & Sons: Canberra) Green K (1998) A winter niche: the subnivean space. In Snow; a natural history, an uncertain future, pp 125-140. Ed K Green. (Australian Alps Liaison Committee, SuiTey Beatty & Sons: Canberra) Green K and Osborne WS (1998) Snow as a defining character of the alpine/subalpine fauna. In Snow; a natural history, an uncertain future, pp 141-164. Ed K Green. (Australian Alps Liaison Committee, Surrey Beatty & Sons: Canberra) Marchant R and Ryan D (2006) Distribution maps for aquatic insects from Victorian rivers and streams: Ephemeropteran and Plecopteran nymphs and Trichopteran larvae. Museum of Victoria Science Reports 8, 1-171. McGuffie PJ (2005) The systematics of the Australian mayfly genus Coloburiscoides (Ephemeroptera: Coloburiscidae). (Unpubished Honours thesis. La Trobe University). Ritter ME (2006) The Physical Environment; An intro- duction to physical geography. Accessed 21 May 2007. http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/ geog 1 0 1 /textbook/title_page.html. Strayer DL (2006) Challenges for freshwater inverte- brate conservation. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25 , 271-287. Suter PJ, Cartwright D, Dean J, Sutcliffe K, Bryce C, Davies P and Pinder A (2006) Habitat profiles of selected Australian aquatic insects. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publica- tions/electronic-books/aquatic-insects.html. Received 19 April 2007; accepted 31 May 2007 Vol. 124 (4) 2007 111 J I Invertebnite Conservation Issue DxdigonWy Aeshna sp. (Photograph from FNCV files). Dainty Swallowtail Papilio anactus (Photograph from FNCV files). 278 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue A Guide to Australian Moths by Paul Zborowski and Ted Edwards Publisher: CSIRO Publishing, 2007. 214 pages, paperback; about 400 colour photographs. ISBN 9780643091597. RRP approximately $40. 00 If you put together Ted Edwards, arguably the foremost authority on Australian Lepidoptera, and Paul Zborowski, a lead- ing nature photographer, it should be enough to ensure an accurate and superbly illustrated book - and that is what you get for this reasonably priced publication. However, don’t expect to be able to go out on to your verandah, check your lights and be able to identify every moth you see bat- tering itself against the globe. That is not the purpose of the book and you will be disap- pointed. With over three hundred and fifty adult species depicted you will recognise some, but with more than 20 000 species of moth in Australia and thousands in Victoria alone you can see the logistical problem. Instead, the authors have chosen to pre- sent the range of moth families found in Australia. Some families with few represen- tatives of rarely seen moths are excluded but every family we regularly see around Victoria is there. The sixty-nine families included are clearly and beautifully repre- sented. Butterfly families (which any real Lepidopterist regards as day flying moths) are not included as they are covered by plenty of good publications already. Getting to know any group, be it orchids, songbirds or beetles, is a challenge. You need to get your eye in and you need to know which bits to look at. Each family in this book has its own section with features to help the reader develop those skills. Heading up each family section is a list of between five and ten identifying points that give you a clue about the features requiring close scrutiny. A few technical words are used but there is a functional glossary where they are defined. Next follows a brief note on the family, with information and superb colour pho- tographs of the moths and sometimes the caterpillars. The photographs chosen illus- trate the resting posture and general outline of the adult members of the families. Very large families such as the Noctuids and Geometrids have more photographs show- ing a representative cross-section. Each photograph is accompanied by an informa- tive note on the biology of the species. The extensive introduction gives consid- erable information about moths and their general biology. It is written in an easily understood style lightened by the occa- sional wry comment. (Adult moths have a ‘short but not-so-sweet life’.) But that’s not all . . . Scattered through the pages are some gems - short articles on related subjects that give some great angles on the group. For example there is infor- mation on the moths that use wombat poo to fatten up before pupating. A fascinating discussion on the role of moths on bushfire moderation is a must-read for anyone who is concerned about the proper management of our forests. This book is to be recommended. It is an intelligent and clear introduction to the moth fauna of Australia, suited to those who would like to understand more about this order of insects. For a precise identifi- cation the reader will need to go elsewhere (the book even gives places to go). Using this text will provide a much sounder basis for managing the search. Peter Marriott 8 Adam Street Bentleigh, Victoria 3204 Vol. 124 (4) 2007 279 luvertebrate Conservation Issue Melbourne’s Wildlife: a field guide to the fauna of Greater Melbourne By Museum Victoria Publisher; CSIRO Publishing, 2006. xii + 348 pages, paperback; ISBN 100643092544. RRP $39.95 In his foreword to this book, John Landy says it is a distillation of the knowledge of the museum’s science department’ and nineteen authors have contributed, most of them currently or previously with the Museum. Scope Planned to be the Victorian counterpart to similar books published by the Queensland Museum, its purpose is to allow identifica- tion of a large selection of species through the use of photographs and text. Each entry includes identification, habitat and range, and notes. Terrestrial and freshwater envi- ronments and marine environments are covered. The first section consists of insects and other invertebrates, fish, frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals. Marine crea- tures are divided into sections for sessile invertebrates, jelly-like or free-floating, worms, echinoderms, molluscs, crus- taceans, fish and mammals. With usually three species to a page, identifications are offered for 522 terrestrial and freshwater taxa and 186 marine taxa. Greater Melbourne is defined as the 14 200 sq. km reaehing from Bacchus Marsh and Lerderderg State Park in the west to Toolangi in the north-east, all of Phillip Island in the south-east and Torquay in the south-west. Separate maps show reserves and places of interest for the terrestrial and marine sections. Well-known groups - 280 The Victorian Naturalist Invertebrate Conservation Issue birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians - are chosen comprehensively. By neces- sity, invertebrates have had to be restrict- ed to the common, the spectacular or the unusual. The marine section is restricted to the littoral and shallaw water. Does it Work? The tests of the book will be how com- prehensive and useful is the species’ coverage and does it enable quick and accurate identifications. Let us start with the birds as they are the most easily observed group; 180 species are includ- ed. Of these, the inclusion of the Red- browed Treecreeper and the Southern Emu-wren, while omitting recent influx- es of Grey Currawongs and Little Corellas, came as a bit of a surprise for modern Melbourne. In my bit of Melbourne the changes in the backyard bird list over the last ten years demon- strate the enormous changes in vegeta- tion cover and altered hydrology that comes from intensive population growth. It would now be a great chal- lenge to try and see all 180 species within a year in the area covered by the map on page xii. This book would be field guide enough as the photographs and descrip- tions are unambiguous. The notes are worth a browse to pick up interesting bits of information such as Great Crested Grebes eating their feathers to aid diges- tion, but to describe the call of the Little Wattlebird as ‘mellow’ is stretching it a bit; to me it is a raucous ‘cooked apples’. Two monotremes, twenty marsupials, seventeen bats and thirteen other placentals (nine of which are introduced) are the mammal complement. For most of them where they may be found in Greater Melbourne is listed and we are warned of two additional Antechimis that might be encountered. In the absence of any caution about catching or handling, do we need to examine them in the hand for identifica- tion? For the bats, yes; for the rest, mostly no. The Sugar Glider usually has a white tip to its tail, beautifully shown in the pho- tograph on p. 227 and, from other sources, we read that this is a good field character to distinguish it from the Squirrel Glider, not a Greater Melbourne resident. 1 have stared long and hard at the book’s front cover wondering whether that tail tip is tending towards white, but it is a Squirrel Glider. When we realise the number of freshwater fish (30), frogs (15), freshwater turtles (3), lizards (28) and snakes (9) listed for the Melbourne area we are surely surprised. Each native fish family has an introduction, which includes a fin formula or description that distinguishes it, and individual descrip- tions separate the species. Nine species accidentally or deliberately introduced into Victorian waters are included. In the absence of any specimens I used pictures from another field guide as a surrogate and was able to identify species. As their names suggest, Crinia signifera and C. parin- signifera are two very similar frogs which require experience to separate. Field marks, combined with the photographs, should be adequate to give you a high degree of suc- cess with the others, but read the descrip- tions carefully, being alert for the comment ‘usually present’. Litoria ewingi and L. ver- reaiixii might prove tricky. Because they are so hard to translate into English, a web- site address is given where frog calls may be heard. There are sixteen species of small brown skinks with subtle differences in their Vol. 124 (4) 2007 281 Invertebrate Conservation Issue stripes, colours and types of scale. You won't identify them if you just get a fleet- ing glance, and even a photograph would need to be carefully oriented; you really need a specimen in the hand and in some cases some magnification to check the scales. The best technique will be to elimi- nate the obviously wrong species; the pho- tographs are a great help with that. Then a slow and cautious stripe by stripe compari- son should get you there. Nomenclature is up to date and the results of recent genetic work are given. All of the venomous snakes carry a warning (in the book) but the descriptions include scale counts and other features which need close examina- tion; OK for road kills or sloughed skins but a bit dangerous otherwise. Again, very careful observation and reference to the descriptions and photographs are needed but juveniles will cause confusion. When asked about the nature of God, biologist and atheist JBS Haldane replied that Mf He exists. He has an inordinate fondness for beetles’. One-third of Australia’s named insect species are bee- tles, but this ratio is not replicated in the guide. Butterflies are overly represented and yet they have their own field guide. This brings us to the insects and other invertebrates. Freshwater insects have a section of their own and it is here I have found the first serious error in the book. Notoaeschna sagittata is a very poor choice for a Greater Melbourne dragonfly, being found in the north-east of the State, and the photograph of the adult is really a Diplacodes, which is common throughout suburban Melbourne. Within the terrestrial insects there are the big groups (flies, bugs, beetles, wasps and moths) and the lesser known (lacewings, termites, web-spinners scorpion-flies, thrips and booklice). With so many to choose from, selection of species to include would not have been easy. The selectors have done a good job but I would willingly trade a few of the rarer butterflies for some more beetles. It would have been useful for family names to be included, particularly in what I have called the big groups, so that relationships might be more easily seen. Identification of insects, even to just family, is rarely easy, especially from photographs. Nevertheless, for most of the species in the guide you should have a fairly high degree of success at least to the ‘almost like' identification level. But look at the photograph of the ked on p. 84 and tell me how it differs from Tapeigaster, the fly which establishes a territory on toadstools where the females lay their eggs. Information about terrestrial inverte- brates other than insects is even harder to find, so it is good to have a few worms, molluscs, crustaceans, spiders and scorpi- ons. Typical species have been chosen and, with usual caveats of the need for careful observation and the fact that there can be hundreds of others within the same group, identification from the photographs and descriptions should be successful. And finally, to the most pleasant discov- ery of all, a section on the marine and lit- toral species of near Melbourne beaches, groups whose information is spread widely and in obscure places. Like their terrestrial counterparts some species will be unequiv- ocally identified from their photographs, some will need very careful scrutiny, and some will be ‘possibly similar to’ because of the great diversity. Over one hundred invertebrate descriptions cover the range nicely and complement those species mapped in the Coastal Invertebrates of Victoria Atlas. Fifty-seven fish and three mammals complete the survey. Who Should Buy? If you are visiting the area, are weight- restricted, but want to know what you are seeing, try to squeeze a copy into your day luggage. If you are starting to notice nature while there is still some left, or are asked awkward questions by children but have only a small book collection, this could be the ideal starter pack. If your library is stocked with well thumbed copies of Pizzey, Simpson, Menkhorst, Cogger and even, perhaps, Zborowski, what then? In the contemporary scheme of things it is not an expensive book, it's nice to have it all in one place, and you will learn something new from the notes and the taxa you have glossed over up until now. Ian Endershy 56 Looker Road Monlmorcncy, Victoria 3094 282 The Victorian Naturalist * The Victorian Naturalist is published six times per year by the Field Naturalists Club of Victoria Inc. Registered Office: FNCV, 1 Gardenia Street, Blackburn, Victoria 3130, Australia. Postal Address: FNCV, Locked Bag 3, Blackburn, Victoria 3130, Australia. Phone/Fax (03) 9877 9860; International Phone/Fax 61 3 9877 9860. email: fncv@vicnet.net.au www.vicnet.net.au/~fncv Address correspondence to: The Editors, The Victorian Naturalist, FNCV, Locked Bag 3, Blackburn, Victoria Australia 3130. Phone: (03) 9877 9860. Email: vicnat@vicnet.net.au All subscription enquiries should be sent to FNCV, Locked Bag 3, Blackburn, Victoria Australia 3130. Phone/Fax:61 3 9877 9860. Email fncv@vicnet.net.au Yearly Subscription Rates - The Field Naturalists Club of Victoria Inc. Membership Metropolitan $60 Concessional (pensioner/student/unemployed) $49 Country (more than 50 km from GPO) $49 Junior $17 Family (at same address) $77 Institutional Libraries and Institutions (within Australia) $110 Libraries and Institutions (overseas) AUS$120 Schools/Clubs $60 Vol. 124 (4) 2007 283 I /. /