The

Tasmanian

]\aturalist

Published by
Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc.

VOLUME 127 (2005)

ISSN 0819-6826

ASMANIAN

Naturalist

EDITOR: SIMON GROVE

The

T.F.N.C.

Contents

Observations on fairy lanterns Thismia rodwayi F.Muell. (Burmanniaceae) in
Tasmanian forests. Wapstra, M, French, B., Davies, N., 0;Reilly-Wapstra, J.
and Peters, D. 2

Hermit crab. Thomson, A. 19

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist . Harris, J. 20

Cecilioides acicula (Muller, 1774) (Pulmonata: Ferrussaciidae), a burrowing
land snail introduced to Tasmania. Bonham, K. 42

Mount Wellington huts - an introduction. Grist, J. 45

Significant range extension for the freshwater mussel Hyridella (Hyridella)
narracanensis in Tasmania. Smith, B. 49

Groundsels and fireweeds. Watson, P. 54

Winkles, whelks and warreners: a year of shelling at Taroona. Grove, S. 57

Floristic composition of a six-year-old clearfelled coupe in the Weld/Huon val¬
ley. Courtney, T., Clark, S. and Hickey, J. 72

March Federation weekend 4-6th March 2005, held at Kaloma Scout Camp,
Wynyard. Gates, G. 86

Book Reviews: A plethora of books on fungi? Ratkowsky, D. 91

Published annually by The Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc., G.P.O.
Box 68A, Hobart, Tasmania 7001

2

The Tasmanian Naturalist ( 2005 ) 127 : 2-18

A BRIGHT LIGHT ON THE DARK FOREST FLOOR: OBSERVATIONS
ON FAIRY LANTERNS THISMIA RODWAYI F.MUELL.
(Burmanniaceae) in Tasmanian forests

Mark Wapstra 1 , Brian French', Noel Davies 2 , Julianne O 'Reilly- Wapstra 3

and David Peters 4

'Forest Practices Authority, 30 Patrick Street, Hobart, Tasmania 7000. Email: mark.
wapstra@fpa.tas.gov.au; 2 Central Science Laboratory, University of Tasmania, Private Bag
74, Hobart, Tasmania 7001; 3 School of Plant Science, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 55,
Hobart, Tasmania 7001; 4 Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, GPO Box

44, Hobart, Tasmania 7001.

Introduction

Thismia rodwayi is one of Tasmania’s most cryptic flowering plants.
It is our only virtually subterranean species (Curtis and Morris, 1994)
and until 2002 had seldom been recorded since European settlement.

The common name ascribed to T. rodwayi is ‘fairy lanterns’. This name aptly de¬
scribes the appearance of the small orange and red fleshy flowers that barely emerge
from the soil surface and are typically covered by leaf-litter. These brightly coloured
flowers are about 10-22 mm in length and have an obovate longitudinally striped flo¬
ral tube (the ‘lantern’), surmounted by six perianth lobes - the inner three arching in¬
ward and cohering at the top, and the outer lobes spreading (Figure 1, Figure 2). The
vegetative part of the plant is white and entirely subterranean. The roots are about
1-1.5 mm thick and spread 4-15 cm. They give rise to erect flower stems (0.5-3 cm),
which bear about six colourless bracts (these are the ‘leaves’), which increase in size
toward the terminal flower. The plant lacks chlorophyll and is therefore incapable
of photosynthesis. It is considered a saprophyte, although this term is slightly mis¬
leading as it derives its energy from a fungus, the fungus being the true saprophyte.

T. rodwayi was first recorded in Tasmania (near Hobart) in 1890 and at that time
caused quite a stir amongst botanists around the world (von Mueller, 1890a,b) because it
was one of the first species in the family to be found in temperate climates (most species
are tropical and subtropical). Since that first collection, the species had until recently
only been found on five other occasions: from the Mt Field area, the Little Denison River
area, somewhere in the northeast and a further site on the lower slopes of Mt Wellington.

Fairy lanterns in Tasmanian forests

3

Figure 1 . Line drawing of Thismia rodwayi drawn from dissected fresh specimens.
Drawing by Brian French. Scale bar indicates 1 cm.

4

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Figure 2. Thismia rodwayi in situ, showing growth habit (note: leaf litter has been
removed). Photo: H & A Wapstra

But in 2002, the profile of this diminutive species changed: it was discovered
on the lower slopes of Mount Wellington by Sapphire McMullen-Fisher (as part
of fungus surveys) and in the same year in the Meander area by Sandy Tiflen and
Nick Fitzgerald (in a proposed forestry coupe). These discoveries, combined
with the conservation status of the species (listed as rare on the Tasmanian
Threatened Species Protection Act, 1995) and the imminent forestry ac¬
tivities near the new site at Archers Sugarloaf, prompted research and fur¬
ther surveys by the Forest Practices Authority (then Board), the results of
which were presented in Roberts et al. (2003a,b) and Wapstra et al. (2004).

This work indicated that the species occurs in wet and damp sclero-

Fairy lanterns in Tasmanian forests

5

phyll forest in seven disjunct areas of Tasmania (1. Ben Lomond region: 1
site, exact location unknown, 1980s; 2. Mt Wellington area: 3 sites, 1890,
1980s, 2002; 3. Mt Field area: 1 site, 1923; 4. Little Denison River area: 1
site, 1968; 5. Meander area: 18 sites from 5 locations separated by c. 5 km,
2002-2004; 6. Cluan Tier: 1 site, 2004; 7. Black Sugarloaf: 1 site, 2004).

The specific aims of this paper are to present:

1. Information on new sites for Thismia rodwayi in northern Tasmania,
including the results of annual monitoring of populations of the species
since 2002.

2. A systematic surveying and sampling method.

3. Information on the biology and morphology of the species.

4. Results of a preliminary analysis of the volatile chemical compounds
associated with flowers of the species (during the course of sampling, a
distinct pungent odour was noticed from flowers wrapped in moist paper
stored in plastic containers for storage prior to curation, indicating a
potential connection to pollination and/or dispersal vectors).

5. Results of bioclimatic modelling based on known sites for the species
in Tasmania.

The broader objective of this paper is to improve the profile of This¬
mia rodwayi in the scientific and naturalist community with the intention of
heightening interest in the species, hopefully leading to the discovery of fur¬
ther sites. The paper concludes with some suggested research priorities for
the species with the intention of attracting post-graduate student interest.

Methods

Survey sites

Many of the known sites recorded in December 2002 and reported in Rob¬
erts et al. (2003b) were resurveyed in 2003 and 2004, using the sampling
method described above. Most previously recorded flowers have been pegged
using a metal stake with a label indicating the date of the survey, how many
flowers were present, the stage of anthesis (e.g. bud, mature flower, decaying
flower) and whether specimens were taken (usually only taken if flowers broke
off during sampling). The pegged site was used as the centre point for the plot.

Additional surveys were conducted in the vicinity of previously recorded sites
in apparently suitable habitat (i.e. wet sclerophyll forest dominated by Eucalyp¬
tus obliqua , E. delegatensis, E. viminalis , E. globulus or E. regnans with an un-

6

The Tasmanian Naturalist

derstorey with one or more of Bedfordia salicina , Pomaderris apetala and Olear-
ia argophylla). Three new sites have been reported (all in 2004) from the Black
Sugarloafarea (S. Lloyd, pers. comm.), the Meander area near Sales Rivulet (M.
WapstraandA. Chuter,pers. obs.) and the Cluan Tiers (R. Barnes, pers. comm.).

Sampling method

Since 2002, a standard survey method has been used for both long-term
monitoring of known sites and surveying of potential habitat. At each site,
several 1 m 2 quadrats (a metre ruler or other metre measure is used to define
the search area) are searched by hand. Coarse debris such as logs and rocks
arc first carefully lifted from the leaf litter. The top layer of leaf litter is then
manually shifted to expose the lower leaf litter / soil surface interface. At this
point, careful manual shifting of the remaining leaf litter and loosening of the
top few centimetres of soil is undertaken. When at full anthesis, flowers of T.
rodwayi are obvious because of their colour but do break easily from the under¬
ground stem, so care is needed (gloves or digging implements have been found
to be too coarse in most cases). Buds and decaying flowers are less obvious
but, with experience, are rarely missed. If specimens are found, leaf litter is
carefully replaced over the sample site to prevent desiccation. Approximately
5 minutes is needed to search each quadrat and usually about 30 minutes is
spent at each site (depending on the number of observers). This method allows
a crude comparison of relative density among sites to be made. If specimens
are located, it is often prudent to search carefully the immediately surround¬
ing leaf litter because flowers are often clustered within less than 2 metres of
each other. Following a “line” such as a decayed log can also prove fruitful.

Description

Specimens were dissected under a binocular microscope to pro¬
duce transverse and longitudinal sections of the flower. Digital imag¬
es of each part of the plant including roots, corolla and reproductive or¬
gans were taken. A line drawing representing the plant was produced.

An approximate 10 x 10 x 10 cm cube of soil, associated with two flow¬
ers growing close to each other that had almost perished, was excavated to
determine the extent of the vermiform root system associated with each flower.

Chemical analysis of plant

Two mature flowers (that broke off during survey) were collected from the
Meander area from a site supporting c. 25 flowers in a c. 3 x 3 m area. These
were placed in separate 5 ml headspace glass vials, capped and stored on ice for

Fairy lanterns in Tasmanian forests

7

transport to the laboratory. Flower volatiles were analysed by combined Gas
Chromatography - Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) on a Varian CP-3800 GC cou¬
pled to a Varian 1200 GC. In one protocol 0.5 mL of headspace air was injected
in split mode onto a 30 m Varian VF-5 MS capillary column running an oven
temperature program from 15°C to 170°C at 10 degrees per minute. In the second
protocol a Solid Phase Micro Extraction (SPME) needle was used to collect flow¬
er volatiles for 10 minutes, before desorbing these in the GC-MS injection port.

Potential distribution

Based on the distribution of T. rochvayi records and its apparent pref¬
erence for certain forest types, it is possible to estimate the extent of poten¬
tial habitat in Tasmania. Using recognised vegetation mapping units known
or likely to support the species, the area potentially occupied by the species
was calculated. The mapping units used for this analysis were the RFA (Re¬
gional Forest Agreement) vegetation units: tall E. obliqua forest (OT), tall E.
delegatensis forest (DT), E. viminalis wet forest (VW), E. regnans forest (R)
and the damp sclerophyll complex DSC. In using these vegetation types, it
should be noted that T. rochvayi tends to occur in the wet sclerophyll phase
of the communities rather than the mixed forest (in the case of the first four
communities) or the dry sclerophyll phase of the damp sclerophyll forest.
However, more detailed mapping is not available and it is argued that the
values used are indicative of the proportion of potential habitat in reserves.

CORTEX was used to map the potential range of T. rochvayi. This mod¬
elling tool is described in Peters and Thackway (1998). It is derived from
BIOCLIM, a climate-based modelling approach inspired by Henry Nix of
the Australian National University (Nix, 1986), and GARP, a rule-based ge¬
netic algorithm devised by David Stockwell (Stockwell and Peters, 1999).

The models are based on the concept of species-environmental en¬
velopes (which are implemented as preconditions of rules). The model
works at discovering the envelope that “contains” most (or all) of the ob¬
servations in the smallest possible area. Environments are expressed as
conjunctions of environmental variable ranges or categories (e.g. doler-
ite with slopes between 7% and 18% elevations between 100 and 900 m).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Plant description (growth habit)

Figure 1 presents a detailed line drawing of dissected specimens of T. rod-
wayi and Figure 2 shows the growth habit of the species. In both graphics, the

8

The Tasmanian Naturalist

vermiform root system is clearly discemable. Approximately 75 cm of roots
were extracted from a 10 x 10 x 10 cm clod of soil that supported two flowers
of T. rodwayi (about 5 cm apart at the soil surface). There was no evidence
that the flowers arose from the same root system. However, the 75 cm of root
excavated was made up of numerous small sections (most c. 5 cm long) with
tapered ends: whether this observation indicates the species is perennial arising
from the same root stock each season or whether it simply indicates that the
fragile roots are broken by soil perturbations (e.g. by worms) is not known.

Flowering habit and abundance

In Tasmania, mature (i.e. fully-formed) flowers of T rodwayi have been
recorded from as early as 12 October to as late as 19 December, indicating
a flowering period of at least 3 months. Often, flowers are present in vari¬
ous stages of anlhesis from early buds (appearing just above the soil surface)
to fully mature flowers and often even “drying” flowers in a state of decay.

Long-term monitoring of known sites indicates that flowers are consist¬
ently present at most sites, although the abundance of flowers varies from
year to year. This latter observation is more likely the result of incomplete
sampling of all leaf litter at a site (which is near impossible) and the sam¬
pling of slightly different areas in each year. For example, at a site in the
Meander area that supported 3 flowers in 2002 (from 12 m 2 ) and no flow¬
ers in 2003 (from 20 m 2 ), 25 flowers were observed in 2004 (from 5 m 2 ). In
2004, the original plot locations of 2002 were resampled (with flowers at one
of three plots only) but additional searching only about 50 m downslope re¬
vealed a small densely clustered patch in an area of about 3x2 metres.

Chemical analysis

Using the first protocol (headspace air injected directly onto the column)
two dominant volatiles were detected: 1-hcptenc and a-heptadiene (Figure
3). Protocol two (SPME) detected additional volatiles: 3-octanone, 3-oc-
tanol, myrtenal and myrtanol. Other volatiles were also detected by these
two methods; however, they remain unidentified. It is unknown at this stage
whether the identified volatiles contribute to the pungent odour of the flowers.

Fairy lanterns in Tasmanian forests

9

: iDC’Ut 104 13CJ

1C. : 1l>w«r air ljun* lone; 20 J :1C0 0-1* O-Ji J

1-hepten<

a-heptadiene

X 1 n

Figure 3. Chromatogram of GCMS analysis of flower volatiles. For the purposes of
this paper, the small text can be ignored; the main point to note is the presence of two
peaks in detection corresponding to the labelled volatiles 1-heptene and a-heptadiene.

Distribution

Thismia rodwayi is known from about 26 sites from 7 disparate locations around
Tasmania. This widespread distribution appears to be reflective of the distribution
of potentially suitable forest types (Figure 4) and probably indicates that with addi¬
tional intensive survey the species might be discovered in other locations. Lending
support to this postulation is that since the work of Roberts et al. (2003b), two ad¬
ditional sites have been located several kilometres from the previously recorded loca¬
tions. The recent record fron\CIuan Tiers extended the range in the central north of
Tasmania by 12 km to the northeast of the previously recorded sites in the Meander area.

The record from the Black Sugarloaf area north of Westbury extended the range
by 34 km to the north-northeast of the Meander sites. Interestingly, both these sites,
while in extensive areas of native forest, are separated from the previous sites by
relatively large areas of cleared land. Having said that, several searches in appar¬
ently suitable habitat close to known sites proved fruitless (e.g. the species was not
recorded from 80 1 m 2 plots over about 10 ha in the Jackeys Creek area about 1 km
from several “reliable” sites). The environmental envelope suggested by the COR¬
TEX model for T. rodwayi is defined by topography, rainfall and geology (Figure 5).

10

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Figure 4. Map of Tasmania showing Thismia rodwayi records (black triangles) in
relation to the distribution of wet and damp eucalypt forest (grey shading). Base data
supplied by DPIWE; vegetation mapping based on TASVEG.

Fairy lanterns in Tasmanian forests

11

%

Figure 5. CORTEX model of predicted range of Thismia rodwayi in Tasmania.

Slopes are moderate to steep, curvature both down slope and across slope
is concave and relief is moderate to high. Rainfall is low to moderate (ap¬
prox. 320-820 mm/annum) and there is a marked preference for soils derived
from Parmeneer sediments especially glacio-marine sediments. Note that
these values refer in this case to those that characterise the 1000 m grid square.

The CORTEX model indicates that T. rodwayi may occur around much

12

The Tasmanian Naturalist

of the northern base of the Western Tiers, the Wellington Range extend¬
ing west through to the Florentine Valley, parts of the Southern Forests and
the wetter parts of the east coast including the Wiclangta area and the hin¬
terlands behind the Swansea-St Helens area. The fact that T. rodwayi has
not been recorded from some of these areas probably indicates a lack of
intensive survey (although some relatively intensive leaf-litter inverte¬
brate surveys have been conducted in many parts of this predicted range).

A comparison of the broad vegetation map and the CORTEX model map
indicates some overlap of areas potentially suitable for T. rodwayi. Of note,
however, is that the CORTEX model does not predict extensive areas of po¬
tential habitat in the northeast, on the Tasman and Forestier Peninsulas, Maria
Island, southern Bruny Island or the northwest wet eucalypt forests. These ar¬
eas support very similar forest types at similar altitudes and on similar sub¬
strates to the known sites and so should not be discounted from further surveys.
The CORTEX model excluded a record from northeast Tasmania because of
a very low degree of precision: that a specimen has been found somewhere
in the northeast is almost certain because it is apparently from this specimen
that the line drawing in Curtis and Morris (1994) is based (A. Buchanan, pers.
comm.), confirming the predictions of the model for this part of the State.

This bioclimatic model map may be useful for focussing further targeted
searches for T. rodwayi in Tasmania, particularly when combined with the broad
vegetation map. One note of caution is that although several of the records of
T. rodwayi are in forests mapped as damp sclerophyll forest, all of these sites
actually occur in the wet sclerophyll facies of this broad community: the site
in Cluan Tiers is actually Eucalyptus ovata wet sclerophyll forest and the sites
at Black Sugarloaf and Archers Sugarloaf arc E. obliqua wet sclerophyll for¬
est. Evidence from the Archers Sugarloaf area suggests that T. rodwayi is not
present in the drier facies of damp sclerophyll forest (Roberts et al. 2003b).

Table 1 shows the extent and level of reservation at a Statewide level of
five forest types associated with T. rodwayi. It is clear that while these veg¬
etation types are targeted for clearing (for conversion to plantation) and
other intensive forest management practices (such as clearfelling followed
by high intensity regeneration bums), extensive areas of both the regrowth
and oldgrowth phases of the communities are protected in formal reserves
throughout the State. To date, T. rodwayi has been located in several formal
reserves throughout its range and other known sites in wood production for¬
ests are being managed by prescription during harvesting operations (gener¬
ally exclusion of the known site with a buffer of undisturbed native forest).

Fairy lanterns in Tasmanian forests

13

Tabic 1 . Current Statewide extent and reservation levels of the five main forest
types with which Thismia rodwayi is associated 1 Bracketed values indicate
extent and reservation levels of oldgrowth component of the community;
data on new reserves to be created under the Supplementary Regional Forest
Agreement of 13 May 2005 have not been included.

Community 2

Current Extent (ha)

Reservation (ha)

% Reservation

E. viminalis wet forest 3

6983

1326

19%

(300)

(157)

(52%)

E. regnans forest

76587

18212

24%

(12614)

(5960)

(47%)

Tall E. obliqua forest

450856

118018

26%

(89791)

(51080)

(57%)

Tall E. delegatensis forest

294399

115335

39%

(108389)

(67821)

(63%)

Damp sclerophyll complex 4

43963

11264

26%

(2198)

(1549)

(70%)

'Values are derived from TASVEG mapping and taken from those used by CARSAG (the
scientific advisory group to the Private Forest Reserves Program, Department of Primary
Industries, Water and Environment, used with permission.

Community names as used in the Regional Forest Agreement

Community is protected from further clearing on public and private land by State/
Commonwealth policy

4 01dgrowth areas of this community protected on public land under the Regional Forest
Agreement

Postulations on pollination and seed dispersal

Flow T. rochvayi is pollinated is a mystery. Some members of the family
Burmanniaceae are self-pollinating, which is facilitated by the close proxim¬
ity of anthers and stigma (Maas-van dc Kamer 1998). However, some ob¬
servers have postulated that several species of Thismia may be pollinated by
small flies (Diptera) attracted by scent and falling into the urceolate flowers
(Stone 1980; Vogel 1962 cited in Maas-van de Kamer 1998). Vogel 1978
(cited in Maas-van de Kamer 1998) suggested that Thismia fungiformis may
be pollinated by fungus gnats tricked into laying eggs in the fungus-mimick¬
ing flower. Fungus gnats arc responsible for pollination is some Orchidace-
ae (e.g. the greenhoods, Pterostylis species), which has a superficially sim¬
ilar trap-like structure to the perianth. Comparison to other subterranean or
near-subterranean flowering plants such as Rhizanthella (in the Orchidace-

14

The Tasmanian Naturalist

ae) may provide some answers: ants are implicated in the pollination of this
genus that has a superficially similar growth habit to species of Thismia .

What do our own observations suggest? Two observations made over the last
4 years of research on the species may provide a clue. The first is that speci¬
mens of T. rodwayi stored in moist conditions in a closed container (to prevent
drying out during transport) begin to give off a detectable odour after only a
few hours. This odour (to some people) is of rotten fish, which immediately
brings to mind the fly-attracting tropical species of flowering plants such as the
giant Rafflesia of southeast Asia. Blume (1849, cited in Coleman, 1936) also
reported a smell of decaying fish about the root of Sarcosiphon (now Thismia)
clandestine . In species of Rafflesia, both olfactory and visual clues are impor¬
tant in attracting flies to flowers: pollination is by deception with the pollina¬
tors receiving no reward but an apparent offering of food and a possible brood
place (Beaman et al. 1988) — a similar syndrome might occur in species of
Thismia. Stone (1980) postulated that myophily (pollination by flys) occurred
in species of Thismia because of the mitriform (cap-like) perianth apex of T.
clavigera , although he noted no noticeable odour associated with this species.
The second observation is that mature flowers of T. rodwayi are often “holed”
in the wall of the flower and the flower itself often contains small particles of
soil or faecal matter, presumably from small insects (M. Wapstra and B. French
pers. obs.; A. Buchanan and Sarah Lloyd pers. obs.). Rubsamen (cited in
Maas-van de Kamer 1998) twice found an egg or larva inside the nectaries of a
Gymnosiphon flower (similar to Thismia in flower structure and growth habit).

The resultsofour preliminary chemical analysis did not indicate volatile chem¬
ical compounds usually associated with a fishy odour. Interestingly, the com¬
pounds 3-octanone, 3-octanoI, 1-hcptcne, mrytcnal and myrtanol were detected
and these have been implicated in various behavioural responses in ants (Cam-
maerts and Mori, 1987), termites (Reinhard et al 2003), nematodes (Matsumori
et al ., 1989), beetles (Pierce et al 1991), wasps (Rains et al. 2004), springtails
(Bengtsson et al., 1991) and flies (Birkett et al., 2004). Clearly a more detailed
chemical analysisofthevolatilecomponentofflowersof T. rodwayi would beneed-
ed to further elucidate the role of different chemicals in the life cycle of the plant.

We have not personally observed the seeds of T. rodwayi ; however, the seeds
of other species of Thismia are numerous, minute and well-adapted for dispersal
by air or water (Maas-van de Kamer 1998). Wind dispersal of seeds of T. rodwayi
seems unlikely because the flowers usually mature at the interface of the soil and
dense layer of leaf litter, where air movement would be slight. A possible disper-

Fairy lanterns in Tasmanian forests

15

sal mechanism may be water, either flow over ground and through the layer of
leaf litter and upper soil surface, or by rain splash out of the fruit cup. This latter
mechanism was postulated by Stone (1980) for T. clavigera but both mecha¬
nisms are possible in the moderate rainfall habitat of T. rodwayi in Tasmania.

Flowers of T. rodwayi arc also distinctively bright orange-red. While
the flowers are rarely exposed above the leaf litter, digging by native ani¬
mals such as potoroos and wombats would occasionally expose flowers,
which might be attractive to birds or mammals, especially those that for¬
age for fungi (such as potoroos). Whether the seeds of T. rodwayi can sur¬
vive digestion by animals is not known. Beccari (1890 cited in Maas-van
de Kamer 1998) supposed that the seeds of Burmanniaceae might also be
dispersed by birds that have eaten earthworms that had ingested seeds.

It is interesting to note that flowers of T. rodwayi are usually found very
close together, often clustered in small “colonics”, which might support the
notion of dispersal by raindrop splash or mechanical action of foraging ani¬
mals. At one site, wc observed flowers of T. rodwayi in a “line” perpendicu¬
lar to the slope, which might support the notion of dispersal by over-ground
water. Clustering of flowers has also been observed in T. clavarioides
from Queensland (Thiele and Jordan, 2002): whether such clustering is re¬
lated to the genetics of the plant (e.g. do the plants in a single patch com¬
prise a single clone) or the method of pollination/dispersal is not known.

Research directions

For many of our rare plants, we know very little about their biology, ecol¬
ogy, distribution and habitat characteristics. With cryptic and ephemeral spe¬
cies such as T. rodwayi , we know even less because our ability to improve our
knowledge is hampered by the logistics of finding enough material to work
on. However, observations over the last 4 years have confirmed that several
of the known populations of T. rodwayi in both the north and the south of the
State “flower” consistently each year. Furthermore, several sites supporting
10+ flowers (with up to 25 flowers at one site) have been recorded, meaning that
sampling need not “destroy” whole populations. The majority of the surveys re¬
ported in Roberts et al. (2003b) and this present paper are best regarded as cur¬
sory because at most sites only about 20 m 2 of leaf litter was excavated, indicat¬
ing that perhaps the species is more widespread (but not necessarily abundant).

With this in mind, the following research directions

are suggested with the intention of attracting post-gradu¬

ate student interest in some or all of these aspects of the species:

16

The Tasmanian Naturalist

• More detailed examination of the macro-habitat (e.g. forest
type, geology, slope, aspect, altitude, etc.) and micro-habitat
(e.g. leaf-lilter depth and composition, soil type, moisture levels,
associated vascular species, etc.) variables associated with the
species through statistical modelling.

• Field-testing of the bioclimatic model presented in this current
paper, examining the range of altitudes, geologies and forest types
potentially supporting the species around Tasmania: suggested
areas for focus include the Florentine Valley, further areas in the
Southern Forests, parts of the east coast (including southern Bruny
Island, northern Maria Island, the Wielangta forests and parts of
the Eastern Tiers), the northeast forests and further sites around the
northern base of the Western Tiers.

• Estimates of population numbers at each site with a more
stratified random sampling method and assessment of the
characteristics of the flowers (e.g. “life span” of individual flowers,
how many buds mature, etc.).

• On-going long-term monitoring of known populations to
examine how often the species flowers, whether it flowers in the
same site eveiy year and what factors might influence flowering
(such as climate factors like rainfall, soil and air temperature,
etc.).

• Examination of the pollination and dispersal mechanisms of
the species through a combined field experiment assessing possible
pollinating organisms (through insect trapping methods and
possibly time-delay photography) and a more detailed analysis of
the chemical compounds present in the flowers at different stages
of maturity.

• Genetic relationships among populations within Tasmania
and a comparison with specimens from Victoria and New Zealand
(specimens of T. rodxvayi from northern and southern Tasmania
were provided in 2003 to Vincent Merckx and Peter Schols from
the Laboratory of Systematics at the Institute of Botany and
Microbiology (Belgium) to conduct DNA phylogenetic research
on members of the Burmanniaceac family).

Fairy lanterns in Tasmanian forests

17

References

Bengtsson, G., Hedlund, K. and Rundgren, S. (1991). Selective odor
perception in the soil collembolan Onychiurus armatus. Journal of
Chemical Ecology 17(11): 2113-2125.

Beaman, R.S., Decker, RJ and Beaman, J.H. (1988). Pollination in Rafflesia
(Raffiesiaceae). American Journal of Botany 75(8): 1148-1162.

Birkett, M.A., Agelopoulos, N., Jensen, K.M.V., Jespersen, J.B., Pickett, J.A.,
Prijs, H.J., Thomas, G., Trapman, J.J., Wadhams, L.J. and Woodcock, C.M.
(2004). The role of volatile semiochemicals in mediating host location and
selection by nuisance and disease-transmitting cattle flies. Medical and
Veterinary Entomology 18(4): 313-322.

Cammaerts, M.C. and Mori, K. (1987). Behavioral activity of pure chiral
3-octanol for the ants Myrmica scabrinodis NYL and Myrmica rubra L.
Physiological Entomology 12(4): 381-385.

Coleman, D.G. (1936). Sarcosiphon rodwayi in Australia. The Victorian
Naturalist 52: 163-166.

Curtis, W.M. and Morris, D.I. (1994). The Student s Flora of Tasmania Part
4b Angiospermae: Alismataceae to Burmanniaceae. St. David’s Park
Publishing, Hobart.

Maas-van de Kamer, H. (1998). Burmanniaceae. In The families and genera
of vascular plants, monocotyledons. Lilianae (except Orchidaceae).
Kubitzki, K. (ed.) Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Matsumori, K., Izumi, S. and Watanabe, H. (1989). I lormone-like action
of 3-octanol and l-octen-3-ol from Botrytis cinereaon the pine wood
nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. Agricultural and Biological
Chemistry 53(7): 1777-1781.

Nix, H.A. (1986), A biogeographic analysis of Australian elapid snakes. In
Atlas of Elapid Snakes ofAustralia P. Longmore (ed.), Australian Flora
and Fauna Series Number 7, Australian Government Publishing Service:
Canberra), pp. 4-15. %

Peters, D. and Thackway, R. (1998). A new biogeographic regionalisation
for Tasmania. Report prepared for the National Reserve System Program
Component of the Natural Heritage Trust. Project NR 002: Undertake
biophysical regionalisation for Tasmania, http://www.gisparks.tas.gov.
au/dp/newibra/home.html.

Pierce, A.M., Pierce,H.D., Borden, J.H. and Oehlschlager, A.C. (1991).
Fungal volatiles —semiochemicals for stored-product beetles (Colcoptera,
Cucujidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology 17(3): 581-597.

18

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Rains, G.C., Tomberlin, J.K., D’Alessandro, M. and Lewis, W.J. (2004).
Limits of volatile chemical detection of a parasitoid wasp, Microplitis
croceipes , and an electronic nose: a comparative study. Transactions of the
ASAE 47(6): 2145-2152.

Reinhard, J., Quintana, A., Sreng, L. and Clement, J.L. (2003). Chemical
signals inducing attraction and alarm in European Reticulitermes termites
(Isoptera, Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology 42(3): 675-691.

Roberts, N., Duncan, F., Wapstra, M. and Woolley, A. (2003a). Distribution,
habitat characteristics and conservation status o/Thismia rodwayi F
Muell. in Tasmania. A Report to Forestry Tasmania Conservation Planning
Branch and the Forest Practices Board.

Roberts, N., Wapstra, M., Duncan, F., Woolley, A., Morley, J. and Fitzgerald,
N. (2003b). Shedding some light on Thismia rodwayi F. Muell. (fairy
lanterns) in Tasmania: distribution, habitat and conservation status. Papers
and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 137: 55-66.

Stockwcll, D.R.B. and Peters, D.P. (1999). The GARP modeling system:
problems and solutions to automated spatial prediction. International
Journal of Geographic Information Systems 13: 143-158.

Stone, B.C. (1980). Rediscovery of Thismia clavigera (Becc.) F v. M.

(Burmanniaceae). Blumea 26: 419-425.
von Mueller, F., (1890a). Notes on a new Tasmanian plant of the order

Burmanniaceae. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 1890-1891:
232-235.

von Mueller, F. (1890b). Descriptions of new Australian plants, with other
annotations. The Victorian Naturalist 8: 114-116.

Wapstra, M., Woolley, A., Duncan, F. and Roberts, F. (2004). A bright light
on our forest floor - Thismia rodwayi (fairy lanterns). Forest Practices
News 5(4): 10-12.

Acknowledgements

The following people provided assistance in field surveys: Tony Allwright,
Janine Bercheree, Shane Burgess, Anne Chuter, Rebecca Dillon, Charlie Fisher,
Peter Garth, Amy Hallam, Eve Lazarus, Steven Reeve, Kerri Spicer, Annie Wap¬
stra, Hans Wapstra. Birgitt Kruse (Forest Practices Authority) assisted with the
production of Figure 4. Richard Barnes recorded one of the new known sites
as part of routine Forest Practices Authority work; Sarah Lloyd is thanked for
details on the new site on her property at Birralce. Alex Buchanan (Tasmanian
Herbarium) provided useful comments on the draft manuscript. Specimens were
collected, examined and chemically analysed under perm it TFL03253 (DPIWE).

The Tasmanian Naturalist ( 2005 ) 127 : 19

19

Hermit crab

Amanda Thomson

22 Coolamon Road, Taroona, 7053 Tasmania. Email: holsum@southcom.com.au.

The Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club’s February 2005 excursion to Marion Bay
followed storm activity which resulted in numerous debris, including large numbers
of molluscs and crabs, being washed up on the shore. The gulls were enjoying the
offerings. Quite a few hermit crabs were found. The one that I have drawn be¬
low ( Trizopagurus strigimanus) is shown trying to upright and manoeuvre itself -
fascinating to watch. According to Graham Edgar, the species in question is unu¬
sual in having a ridged, sound-producing organ on the palm of both claws. It is
in the family Diogcnidae, members of which have an asymmetrical soft abdomen
partly coiled to fit the empty gastropod shell that they inhabit; and a left claw equal
in size to, or larger than, the right claw. Their colouring is striking, being bright
red in the body with blue eyes. This shell appears to be from a great whelk Pen-
ion maxima , a species which normally resides in deep waters but enters compara¬
tively shallow waters in southern Tasmania, where Trizopagurus strigimanus resides.

20

The Tasmanian Naturalist (2005) 127 : 20-41

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist

Jamie M Harris

Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales 2480.

Email: jharril l@s

Summary

In this report, I examine records of native and introduced Tasmanian
mammals contained in the volumes of The Tasmanian Naturalist. Eighty-
eight papers were identified with mammalian records, and these highlight
the important work of naturalists in contributing to knowledge of species
occurrence and ecology. This work provides an index of mammal
records published in this journal through the years, and may be useful for
researchers who are seeking primary source observations on Tasmanian
mammals.

Methods

All volumes of The Tasmanian Naturalist were searched for records of mam¬
mal species, including the old series: Vol. 1, no. 1 (April 1907) to Vol. 2, no. 4
(April 1911), a subsequent ‘new series’ published as Vol. 1, no. 1 (October 1924)
to Vol. 2, no. 4 (June 1928), and the contemporary series: no. 1 (1965) to no.
126 (2004) (also see Fenton 2004: 143). Records were collated separately for each
terrestrial non-flying mammal species and a short description of the records for
these species was assembled. Records for bats, seals, dolphins and whales were
grouped and tabulated. The review of records was confined to mammal species
occurring in Tasmania, and does not include the mammal records for New Zealand
which have been published in this journal (i.e. Bryant 1995) or the fossil records
(i.e. Scott and Harrisson 1911). Common names used follow Strahan (1995).

Results

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist were found in 88 arti¬
cles published between 1926 and 2004. Only 3 articles (3 %) from <1960 con¬
tained mammal records, whereas 13 (15 %) were from 1961 to 1969, 10 (11 %)
from 1970-1979, 26 (30 %) from 1980-1989, 24 (27 %) from 1990-1999, and
12 (14 %) were from 2000 to 2005. There is mention of all Tasmanian species
of non-flying terrestrial mammals, with records appearing in >10 articles for
platypus, Tasmanian devil, southern brown bandicoot, eastern barred bandicoot,
common brushtail possum, common ringtail possum, red-necked wallaby, ru-

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist

21

fous-bellied pademelon, house mouse, swamp rat, and European rabbit (Table 1).

The table indicates that, over the years ,there has been a prepon¬
derance of records towards the larger ubiquitous mammals and the in¬
troduced species such as the rabbit. Records of inconspicuous small
mammals such as the dusky antechinus, swamp antechinus, white-foot¬
ed dunnart, eastern pygmy-possum, New Holland mouse, long-tailed
mouse, brown rat, and brown hare occur in fewer than five articles each.

; King Island

j

Flinders Island

Prime Seal Island «r

'V

A

JX’l

C

. —,/\

A O

£ K

£ape Poitland

v...

Asbestos Range
National Park

Fern Glade Reserve•“Chasm Creek
Ulverstone*"

Bridport Mount William*

National Park <(

X %

Surrey Hills'

Hobart inset

launston
"t'V ,Cwon Point
ExeleX^” ar ’ Bay
Gieiiyany* °«founamarta

Duck Reach Power Station-^^Mayfield
Elisabeth Town* flLstrothroy Bridge

.. •Deloraine/1 Launceston

Merse? River / Cataract Gorge

Trevallyn Stale Recreation Area
Tifley

Maggs Mountain*

Central Plateau* Lakes

S'

<7

Roatrevor ,

Domain^. t ^ ^

Siopen ;-y^ oban

MountainPara*. / _ •Howrah
\ •KnocWoffy -

j • Bay

' ri

Bmwm Rtvei* ■tdriflslnrt&r.veh

Bjiwid -

Mt

KJi Br.V.-h

cvjcuf>ca mil#

Wellington * p »' , ' rr Mu " (M|

StmRntWL },

Nebraska BesCh*

■•Betsey

Wand

•^•Oarneii Hm

S’ w*wprtc* Pwrt

< ' •NorjhBruny Island
(Channel IjligljWay

\ S \

\

Ja

•Tyndall Range
Mount Huyel*

Mount Connection.

•Lake St. Clair

• Bichpno

\

f -*;Cole$ Ba

i

Oatlands*

V

<XJk

'~'vl

Mount Field National Park

Gordon River. \ •Oonaghys HHI
•• ... Strathgordan.

Serpentine Rivet*

McPartlan Pass*

Lake Pedder*

Levendale,

• Maria Island

Mount Dromedary

Maydena-Oerwent Valle y- • , Copping

Trestle Mountain.

r^*

; < v -..^Safety Cove

f ? *'

Stephens Bay V! v

' *,Window Pane Bay ,'J

South West Cape* ‘Wilson Bight ' .

>: K

Lune Rivet A t, w*? buth Brur, y lc,and

unt Arthur

Ms? r>>- Gr*g lu*«r 6CU GJ5 Ut>. JW2001

Figure 1: Localities mentioned in the text. Co-ordinates were sourced from
the Geoscience Australia online place-name search. Locations are accurate to
approximately one minute of latitude/longitude, which is approximately 1.8 km.

22

The Tasmanian Naturalist

.«o

5S

2

£

•2

2

a

2

£

S

J3

a

«-•

C

>

O

CN

•vO

i

On

NO

■<3-

r">"

co

•o

co

CN

■r}-

r-

VO

o

NO

i

CN

CN

NO

■'tf'

CO

1

ft

CO

oo

N"

0_

o

Tf-

Tj-

o

»r>

o"

CN

•/-T

oo

CN

■’=3-

ft

r.

CN

ft

CN

CO

CO

CN

1

CO

„

NT)

r*H

co

0 ,

•t

*o

CO

co

OO

*T)

NO

oo"

o

r^

■<3-

oo

co

ft

f—H

m

co

CN

CN

CN

r~~

o

ft

—H

i n

„

«

r.

oo

CN

CO

*—•

u-»

CN

•—4

oo"

oo"

CN

C—

ft

ft

r-4

„

Tf

•—«

0—1

CN

CN

OO

t—

ft

VO

co

n

m

On

•—

CN

On

CN

*/">

ro"

ON

On

ON

■'T

o

„

f,

f,

„

co

ro

«—■

•—•

r~-

r-

ON

r-

ON

o

r-"

r^"

r-"

■>

ft

ro

n

ft

Tf

O

„

CO

On

ON

r,

On

o

VO

VO

r-~

VO

On

r-

CN

VO

NO

NO"

CN

i

r.

CN

NO

n

CO

Tf

Tj-

„

CN

NO

ft

CN

r-

.s

1

*/->

NO

f,

IT)

CN

r-~

•/->"

O

*

*—C

ft

VO

f.

vo —'

ft

OO

CN

NO

On

NO

CN

v£>

CO Tf

•—I

»—•

»n

«o

i—«

»—i

»—i

cocooncncn»o»-h^

(N oo »n

On ON

Table 1 contd.

Common Name No. of papers Sources (see page following table)

Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus 1 61

Red-necked Wallaby Macropus rufogriseus 10 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11,20, 27, 28, 49

Rufous-bellied Pademelon 10 2,5,7,9,20,27,28,31,37,62

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist

23

NO

1

in

N"

i

o

„

VO

CO

NO

CN

C'-

Tj-

NO

r.

N-

<n

m

ON

VO

CN

N"

C"

oo

NO

co

N’

CO

oo

1

r>

CN

0,

..

0t

NO*"

CN

ON

oo

r—<

CO

O

ON

N"

r-

<N

0,

h*

Tf

NO

r.

r.

CO

in

NO"

VO

CO

t^-

ON

On

CN

"3-

CO

r-

r.

co

rr

NO

CO

rf

On

#,

OO

«v

»,

0,

NO

CO

Tf

r—

*—<

•-'

in

o

o

■—1

•H

„

CO

CN

CN

t"-

OO

1

oo

r.

CO

N -

CO

CO

in

1""

„

„

CO

CO

OO

oo

m

m

On

NO

> «

oo

ON

ON

NO

oo

CN

CO

VO

oo

oo

n

CN

CO

CO

CN

CN

oo*'

N"

„

•n

ON

•,

C-*

n

0 ,

H

oo

t-*

N"

■*3*

*

•n

n

oo

NO

On

OO

oo

oo

»n

CO

CO

oo

CO

VO

#>

r—

» <

n

CN

CN

r—>

.—1

r-~

„

»0

NO

CO

t>

„

0 ,

r%

O

n

1—1

n

n

n

O

N-

o

in

CO

NO

CO

in

m

NO

VO

CO

• <

in

no"

*n" no

co

co

CO

fN On ^ (N m

*n (N On

CN

CO m

I

o

-5!

O

I

4

£

d 1 <2 S

a, oj

TTi -Q

a>

c

Q

g

:§

o

*«:

>

o

c

I

•8

CD

£

>>

I

1

o

o

2

i

s

'O

T3 £

<y o

•5 2

go

.go

-s:

a

I

o*

£

03

gP rt

£ P
J CQ w ffl

C/2

.£ w

CX c3

o §
Q £

24

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Sources for Table 1: I Briggs 1965; 2 Milledge 1969; 3 Ziegeler 197J; 4 Hird 1993;
5 Taylor and McQuillan 1994; 6 Hird 1995; 7 Taylor et al 1997; 8 Wapstra et al 2000; 9
Hird 2000; 10 Wall 1979; 11 Wall and Wall 1972; 12 Tyson 1980; 13 Taylor et al 1991;
14 Taylor and McQuillan 1994; 15 Ilird and Paterson 1995; 16 Otley and le Mar 1998;
17 Rakick et al 2001; 18 Driessen 2003; 19 Munks et al 2004; 20 Crowther 1926; 21
Anon 1966a; 22 Sharland 1975; 23 Bryant and Harris 1994; 24 Anon 1966c; 25 Sharland
1967; 26 Mumbray 1992; 27 Hird and Hammer 1995; 28 Brereton et al 1996; 29 Wal¬
lis et al 1977; 30 Ziegeler 2004; 31 Green and Scarborough 1990; 32 Anon 1982; 33
Klettenheimer and Salamon 1997; 34 Grove 2004; 35 Ziegeler 1970; 36 Andrews 1967;
37 Whinray 1971; 38 Scarborough and Green 1989; 39 Driessen and Comfort 1991; 40
Driessen et al 2002; 41 Linton 1928; 42 Green and Rainbird 1985; 43 Green 1965; 44
Anon 1966b; 45 David 1982; 46 Green 1982; 47 Brown et al 1999; 48 Hird 1986; 49
Thomas and Wall 1966; 50 Murray 1977; 51 Neyland 1999; 52 Duncan 2000; 53 Wall
1985; 54 Green et al 1988; 55 Green et al 1986; 56 Wall 1994; 57 Munks 1999; 58
Munks 2000; 59 Munks and Taylor 2000;60 Driessen and Hocking 1990; 61 Duncan
1992; 62 Barker 1983; 63 Green 1966; 64 Tyson 1981; 65 Woinarski 1986; 66 Roun-
sevell 1980; 67 Green and Rainbird 1984; 68 Jones 1984; 69 Green 1967; 70 Dartnall
1969; 71 Pye 1984; 72 Spencer 2004; 73 Bryant 1992; 74 Sharland 1966; 75 Shepherd
1975; 76 Rounsevell 1984a; 77 Skira 1984; 78 Feam 1988; 79 Ingham 1984; 80 Fletch¬
er and Shaughnessy 1984; 81 Rounsevell 1984b; 82 Dartnall 1971; 83 Burton 1986; 84
Green and Scott 1985; 85 Wapstra 1991; 86 Wall 1981; 87 Lord 1924; 88 Biyant 1995..

Supplementary information for terrestrial non-flying mammals
Note: Localities mentioned in the text are shown in Figure 1.
Short-beaked Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus)

Records of the echidna from The Tasmanian Naturalist include mention
of its occurrence on Flinders Island (Milledge 1969), North Bruny Island
(Ziegeler 1971; Hird 2000) and Mount Wellington (Taylor and McQuillan
1994). According to Briggs (1965), the echidna is ‘common’ at Safety
Cove and ‘seem very numerous’ at ‘Slopen Main’. Wall (1979) reported
on an echidna unconcerned at the smell of humans. Hird (1993) reported
that an echidna which had almost drowned was rescued from part of
an estuary at an undisclosed location in south-eastern Tasmania. They
are ‘regularly sighted’ in the Mount Nelson area (Hird 1995) and have
been reported from Cataract Gorge Reserve (Taylor et al 1997). The
most recent record is provided by Wapstra et al (2000), who reported
observations of echidnas using tree hollows.

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist

25

Platypus (Ornithoriiynchus anatinus)

Platypuses can be seen at Lake St. Clair occasionally, and one has been
seen at Shadow Lake near Mount Hugcl (Wall and Wall 1972). Road-
killed platypuses have been found near Nunamarra, Strathroy Bridge
near Launceston, near Glengarry and near Exeter (Tyson 1980). Taylor
et al. (1991) provide 22 records and observations of the platypus from
various localities including Plenty River in the Derwent Valley, Mount
Field, and Carter Lakes on the Central Plateau. These records included a
roadkill specimen from the Dcloraine bypass, and a dead platypus which
had apparently been fed upon by wedgetailed eagle Aquila audax. They
are also known from Mount Wellington (Taylor and McQuillan 1994),
Sandy Bay (Hird 1995), King Island (Hird and Paterson 1995), near Duck
Reach Power Station (Taylor et al 1997), Surrey Hills area (Otley and le
Mar 1998), Chasm Creek, northeast of Burnie (Rakick et al 2001) and
in Browns River ‘near the Lea’ (Driessen 2003). Hird (1993) reported
observations of platypus utilising estuarine habitats, and Munks et al.
(2004) report on the structure of platypus nests found in a cave.

Thylacine ( Tiiylacinus cyanocephalus)

Anon (1966a) reported that ‘from the back country reports continue to
filter in about the supposed occurrence’ of the thylacine. It was stated that
recent reports from the West Coast had been ‘accepted by game authorities
as indicating that in this wild region the thylacine is still living’. Sharland
(1975) made some remarks on the old Battery Point zoo in Hobart which
apparently had ‘a number of thylacines’ in the 1920s. The most recent
mention of the thylacine was by Bryant and Harris (1994), who attributed
its demise to the ‘persecution and hunting pressure from settlers’.

Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisu)

Sharland (1967) discusses how the devil got it name, and Sharland (1975)
made some remarks on the old Battery Point zoo in Hobart (circa 1925-
1933) which apparently was the first to successfully breed the Tasmanian
devil in captivity. Anon (1966c) states that the Tasmanian devil ‘is
common among wooded ranges, in parts of lowland scrub, and about the
fringe of farms’. At Mount Wellington, devils ‘appear to be rare’ (Taylor
and McQuillan 1994) and found only in ‘small numbers’ at Gumtop Spur,
northwest of Wellington Park (Hird 1995; I Iird and I lammer 1995). They
have also been recorded at Howrah Hills (Brereton et al. 1996), Cataract
Gorge Reserve (Taylor et al. 1997) and Bruny Island (Hird 2000).

26

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Spotted-tailed Quoll {Dasyurus maculatus)

Green and Scarborough (1990) provided a detailed review ol the literature
on spotted-tailed quoll, and made an appraisal of the specimens in the
Queen Victoria Museum. They presented a distribution map, which was
based on their tabulation of 104 previously unpublished records. This
valuable work also detailed many observations on spotted-tailed quoll life
history. ‘Its most favoured habitat’ was reported to be ‘sclerophyll forest
and the edges of rainforest’, but populations are also known from ‘dry
coastal heathlands of the north-east’. Hird (2000) cited that a resident of
North Bruny Island ‘had trapped a spotted-tail quoll near Dennes Hill in a
possum cage’, while noting that other evidence for the species on Bruny
Island is lacking. It is also noted that Wallis et al. (1977) found quoll
scats on Strathgordon Road, although whether they were spotted-tailed
quoll or its congener the eastern quoll was not ascertained.

Eastern Quoll ( Dasyurus viverrinus)

Eastern quolls have been found at Pandani Hut at Mount Field National
Park (Anon 1982), Porter Hill (Hird 1995), Howrah Hills (Brereton et al.

1996), and North Bruny Island (Hird (2000). Klettenheimer and Salamon
(1997) caught eastern quolls at Mount Dromedary near Hobart, and
observed them ‘climbing trees up to six metres high quite effortlessly’.
Taylor et al. (1997) stated that eastern quoll scats ‘were abundant on the
southern side’ of Cataract Gorge Reserve. Taylor and McQuillan (1994)
reported that eastern quolls are known from Mount Wellington, although
this record has since been acknow ledged as erroneous (Hird and Hammer
1995). However, at Gumtop Spur, 20 eastern quolls were caught in April
1995. Recent member observations include one (roadkill) found 3km SE
of Copping on Tasman Highway (3 May 2004); and another roadkill quoll
(presumably eastern quoll) 1.5km S of Copping on Arthur Highway (17
May 2004) (see Grove 2004).

Dusky Anteciiinus {Ant echinus swainsonu)

Dusky Anteciiinus are known from Mount Wellington (Taylor and
McQuillan 1994) and from Porter Hill (Hird 1995). The loss of this
species ‘in bushland in near-urban areas appears to be the norm in southern
Tasmania over a range of lowland habitats’ (Tas. Field Nats, unpubl.
data; cited by Hird 1995), although the species occurs near disturbed
habitats in the Cygnet district’ (Hird 1995). It has also been suggested that
‘predation by feral and ranging domestic cats, and possibly competition

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist

27

from introduced rodents’ are the most likely explanation for such losses
(Hird 1995).

Swamp Antechinus (Antechinus minimus)

A significant record of swamp antechinus is provided by Andrews (1967)
who captured an albino individual in the vicinity of the junction of the
Gordon and Serpentine Rivers, in the south west of the State. Whinray
(1971) detailed an old record from Prime Seal Island which was lodged
with the British Museum (Natural History) in 1858. Scarborough and
Green (1989) extended knowledge of swamp antechinus distribution
and habitat preference, and provided records from Bridport, Swan Bay,
Dilston, Bruny Island, King Island, Maggs Mountain, Mount Arthur
and Elizabeth Town. More recently, this species has been captured at
McPartlan Pass in southwest Tasmania (Dricssen and Comfort 1991) and
at Tyndall Range (Dricssen el al. 2002).

White-footed Dunnart (Sminthopsis leucopus)

Early portrayals of white-footed dunnart were made by Linton (1928) but
there have been no records in the volumes of The Tasmanian Naturalist
of captures or observation of the species since then.

Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus)

Green (1965) described fluctuating populations of southern brown
bandicoots (and other mammalian species), following changes in predator
abundance. Anon (1966b) credits this species as a predator of grass¬
eating insects (Corbie: Oncopera sp.). Anon (1966b) also comments that
‘the greatest number of bandicoots seen by the average observer are dead
ones, killed on the roads. Others are killed by dogs and cats and birds
of prey’. Records of southern brown bandicoots are from Safety Cove
(Briggs 1965), Knocklofty, West Hobart (Ziegeler 1970), Swan Point
(Davis 1982), Mount Wellington (Taylor and McQuillan 1994), Mount
Nelson (Hird 1995), Cataract Gorge Reserve and adjoining areas of
Trevallyn State Recreation Area (Taylor et al. 1997), South Bruny Island
(Hird 2000), Tyndall Range (Driessen et al. 2002), Kingston Beach and
at Browns River (Driessen 2003). This species is also recorded from
masked owl Tyto novaehollandiae pellets (Green and Rainbird 1985).

Eastern Barred Bandicoot (Perameles gunnii)

Like the southern brown bandicoot (and other mammals), populations
of eastern barred bandicoot are impacted upon by predator abundance

28

The Tasmanian Naturalist

(Green 1965), praised for limiting grass-eating insects (Anon 1966b), and
recorded from the pellets of the Masked Owl (Green 1982). Similarly there
are records of eastern barred bandicoots from Knocklofty, West Hobart
(Ziegeler 1970), Swan Point (Davis 1982), Mount Wellington (Taylor and
McQuillan 1994), Mount Nelson (Hird 1995), north of Cataract Gorge
Reserve (Taylor et al. 1997), and Kingston Beach (Driessen 2003). Hird
and Hammer (1995) caught one barred bandicoot on Gumtop Spur, and
reported that this species is ‘regularly observed killed on Boyer Road’
in that area. They also reported two further records of this species from
Mountain Park on Mount Wellington, one in Eucalyptus obliqua forest
200 m below Shoobridge Bend and the other in E. johnstonii forest 1.8
km above The Springs. This species is considered ‘nationally vulnerable’
and, in Tasmania, ‘distributed mainly in the north-west, south-east and
localised pockets in the north-east, but is largely absent from the midlands’
(Brown et al. 1999).

Common Wombat ( Vombatus ursinus )

The common wombat is reported from Safety Cove (Briggs 1965),
Asbestos Range National Park (Hird 1986), Mount Wellington (Taylor
and McQuillan 1994), Gumtop Spur (Hird and Hammer 1995), Cataract
Gorge Reserve (Taylor et al. 1997), North Bruny Island (Hird 2000),
South West Cape, Window Pane Bay, and Stephens Bay in the far south¬
west (Ziegeler 2004). This species is reportedly scavenged upon by
spotted-tailed quoll (Green and Scarborough 1990).

Common Brushtail possum ( Tricuosurus vulpecula)

Crowther (1926) reported that in the years 1923-25 there were 71,576
common brushtail possum skins processed for the fur trade. However,
populations survived and in 1965 it was reported that they were common
at Safety Cove (Briggs 1965). Furthermore, at Lake St. Clair, Wall and
Wall (1972) record a population size increase between 1952 and 1972
(Wall and Wall 1972). Other brushtail records are from Lune River
(Thomas and Wall 1966), Knocklofty (Ziegeler 1970), Prime Seal Island
and Flinders Island (Whinray 1971), Levendale (Duncan 2000), Mount
Wellington (Taylor and McQuillan 1994), MountNelson area (Hird 1995),
Gumtop Spur (Hird and Hammer 1995), the Domain in Hobart (Brereton
et al. 1996), Cataract Gorge Reserve (Taylor et al. 1997), Oatlands
(Neyland 1999), North Bruny Island (Hird 2000), and Browns River
(Driessen 2003). A remarkable observation of the brushlail’s predatory

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist

29

behaviour on a blowfly was described by Murray (1977). This species is
scavenged upon by spotted-tailed quoll (Green and Scarborough 1990)
and preyed upon by masked owl (Green 1982).

Little Pygmy-Possum ( Cercartetus lep/dus)

Linton (1928) states that the ‘Little Dormouse Phalanger’occurs Tower
down the slopes, where a water course nourishes fuller vegetation’. She
also describes nesting and torpor of the species. Briggs (1965) states this
species is ‘found occasionally’ at Safety Cove, and ‘are numerous now that
the fires are properly controlled’. Wall (1985) observed four little pygmy-
possums about 2 m above ground on a snow gum Eucalyptus coccifera
whilst on a excursion to Mount Connection on 16 December 1983, also
in the Lower Gordon River in 1977, and on 9 March 1984 in a small plant
of Richea dracophylla on Trestle Mountain. He stated that this species
generally occurs in dry forests and heathland. Little Pygmy-Possums are
known from Mount Wellington (Taylor and McQuillan 1994). Taylor et
al. (1997) stated that this species ‘will almost certainly occur’ at Cataract
Gorge Reserve, despite the failure to capture or detect the species during
their survey. Similarly, Driessen (2003) did not find pygmy-possums
at Kingston Beach, but stated that ‘they may also occur in the area but
specialised techniques are required to confirm their presence’. Green
et al. (1988) found this species in the stomach contents of a laughing
kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae and they have been found in dasyurid
scats (either Tasmanian devil or spotted-tailed quoll) at Donaghys Hill
(Mumbray 1992).

Eastern Pygmy-Possum ( Cercartetus nanus)

Wall (1985) states that the eastern pygmy-possum is found in ‘rainforest
country’ in Tasmania and Green et al. (1986) notes the recording of
eastern pygmy-possum in the preserved gut of a southern boobook
owl Ninox novaehollandiae. This species reportedly occurs on Mount
Wellington (Taylor and McQuillan 1994). Driessen et al. (2002) noted
that this species has been trapped in buttongrass moorlands. Wallis et al.
(1977) found fur of pygmy-possum species in quoll scats, but whether it
was the eastern or little pygmy-possum was not determined.

Sugar Glider {Petaurus breviceps)

Wall (1994) reported remains of a sugar glider from Pinnacle Road,
Mount Wellington, and in an accompanying editors note it was added

30

The Tasmanian Naturalist

that it was highly likely that the masked owl was responsible. Green
and Rainbird (1985) also record this species from masked owl pellets.
Taylor and McQuillan (1994) stated that sugar gliders are known from
Fern Glade, Mount Wellington. Klettenheimer and Salamon (1997)
released 31 sugar gliders, 2/3 bred in captivity, in an area close to Mount
Dromedary, and subsequently caught several of these released gliders
and also six resident gliders during a monitoring program.

Common Ringtail Possum ( Pseudocheirus peregrinus)

Crowther (1926) stated that ‘the Ring-tailed Opossum is being wiped
out. In the old days of the ’possum dog and moonlight shooting it had
some chance; now with the deadly spot light it is a systematic massacre’.
In 1923-25 there were 1,457,125 ringtail skins processed, and Crowther
(1926) anticipated that ‘over 250,000’ would go through in 1926. In
1949 the ringtail was believed to be ‘fairly common’ at Lake St. Clair,
although there may have been a ‘drastic reduction in the population’ in
that area during the subsequent 20 years (Wall and Wall 1972). I Iowever,
it has been reported as ‘plentiful’ at Safety Cove (Briggs 1965) and there
are records from Mount Wellington (Taylor and McQuillan 1994), Mount
Nelson (Hird 1995) and Cataract Gorge Reserve (Taylor et al. 1997).
Dead specimens have been reported from Knocklofty (Ziegeler 1970),
and from ‘Victoria Street, Kingston Beach’ and ‘the Channel Highway’
(Driessen 2003). It has also been recorded as prey of the masked owl
(Green 1982) and spotted-tailed quoll (Green and Scarborough 1990).
This species has been found in dasyurid scats (either lasmanian devil or
spotted-tailed quoll) at Donaghys Hill (Mumbray 1992). Island records
are for North Bruny (Hird 2000) and Flinders (Munks 1999; 2000; Munks
and Taylor 2000), the latter representing a series of detailed ecological
studies.

Southern Bettong (Bettungia gaimardi)

Driessen and Hocking (1990) reviewed information on distribution,
habitat and status of bettongs in Tasmania including consideration of the
impact of land management practices on populations. They reported that
it occurs as far west as the Mersey River in the north, Derwent Bridge in
the Central Highlands and National Park, Judbury and Geeveston in the
south. Records of this species from The Tasmanian Naturalist are for
Pawlenna (Anon 1982); Mount Wellington Range (Taylor and McQuillan
1994; Hird and Hammer 1995); Mount Nelson (Hird 1995); Cataract

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist

31

Gorge Reserve (Taylor et al. (1997), Bruny Island (Hird 2000); Browns
River (Driessen 2003); Wilson Bight, Stephens Bay and Window Pane
Bay (Ziegeler 2004).

Long-nosed Potoroo (Potorous tridactylus )

The long-nosed potoroo is ‘widespread and common in areas of forest,
woodland and heath in Tasmania’ (Hird and Hammer 1995). However,
Briggs (1965) found it to be ‘uncommon’ at Safety Cove, and Ziegeler
(1970) states that he recorded this species only once in a small gully
at Knocklofty, commenting also that it was ‘probably wiped out by the
[1967] fires’ in that area. Green (1982) recorded this species in masked
owl pellets, and Taylor and McQuillan (1994) state that they are known
from Mount Wellington. Hird (1995) found that long-nosed potoroos
were ‘common and widespread’ at Mount Nelson, and Hird and Hammer
(1995) caught a potoroo at Gum top Spur. Taylor et al. (1997) stated that
‘this species was trapped in grassy forest on the northern side’ of Cataract
Gorge Reserve, and that ‘it prefers areas with a dense ground cover’. Hird
(2000) captured 13 potoroos at Dennes Hill on North Bruny Island, and
provided three further records: a male found killed on the road, another
seen on a road, and a sighting at Marks Point. Driessen (2003) caught
three long-nosed potoroos at Kingston Beach, and one at Browns River.
He stated that they appear ‘to be relatively common’ in the Kingston area
as he has had ‘high captures rates at Boronia Hill Reserve and at the Peter
Murrell Reserve’. He also remarked that ‘the public does not often see
this species, as it prefers to forage and live where there is good ground
cover, rarely venturing out into the open’.

Eastern Grey Kangaroo {Macropus giganteus )

Duncan (1992) studied the diet of eastern grey kangaroos in the midlands
through faecal analysis and found that grasses such as Holcus lanatus,
Vulpia spp., Danthonia spp. and Poa spp. made up a major component
of the diet.

Red-necked Wallaby ( Macropus rufogriseus )

Crowther (1926) reported that in 1923-25 there were 281,663 red-necked
wallaby skins processed for the fur trade. ‘Huge populations’ have been
reported for Flinders Island (Milledge 1969), although it is apparently
‘very rare’ on Mount Wellington ‘despite suitable habitat and its presence
being recorded in the early days of settlement’ (Taylor and McQuillan

32

The Tasmanian Naturalist

1994). Red-necked wallaby are also known from Gumtop Spur (Hird
and Hammer 1995), Howrah I fills (Brereton et al 1996), Cataract Gorge
Reserve (Taylor et al. 1997) and Dennes Hill (Hird 2000).

Rufous-bellied Pademelon ( Thylogale billardierji)

The rufous-bellied pademelon was first recorded for Prime Seal Island
as early as 1828, and Whinray (1971) reported they were plentiful there
during his visits to this island in 1965 and 1966. He further states that
he was ‘given the heads of 22 pademelons shot during one of the 1966
visits’ and these were deposited with the Monash University Zoology
Department and Museum Victoria. This species has also been reported
at Flinders Island (Milledge 1969), Dennes Hill, North Bruny Island, and
South Bruny (Hird 2000), Cape Portland (Barker 1983), Mount Wellington
Range (Taylor and McQuillan 1994; Hird and Hammer 1995), Howrah
Hills (Brereton et al. 1996) and Cataract Gorge Reserve (Taylor et al.
1997). This species is recorded as prey of spotted-tailed quoll (Green and
Scarborough 1990) and forest raven Corvus tasmanicus (Barker 1983).

Water Rat (Hydromys chrysogaster)

The first specimens of the water rat known to science are reported to
have been collected from Bruny and Maria Islands (Dartnall 1969). This
species was present on Prime Seal Island in the 1920s and 1930s, and
Whinray (1971) believed that it should still occur there. Briggs (1965)
stated that water rats were ‘plentiful’ at Safety Cove, and Taylor et al
(1997) stated that they are ‘reported to occasionally occur’ near the Duck
Reach Power Station. Hird (2000) found footprints of the water rat on the
coast near ‘Lauriston’ on North Bruny Island, and also reported that this
species raided poultry at ‘Nebraska’. Driessen (2003) believed that water
rats may be present in the Browns River ‘as they are known to occur
throughout the Derwent estuary’. Other records of water rats in The
Tasmanian Naturalist include a record from masked owl pellets (Green
and Rainbird 1985) and an observation of a water rat being chased by a
platypus (Rakick et al 2001).

House Mouse (Mus musculus)

Records of the house mouse are from Knocklofty (Ziegeler 1970), Prime
Seal Island (Whinray 1971), Macquarie Island (Pye 1984; Jones 1984),
Porter Hill (Hird 1995), Domain, in Hobart (Brereton et al. 1996),
Kingston Beach area (Driessen 2003), Mayfield and Rostrevor (Green
et al 1986). Records of predation on the house mouse include those

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist

33

by masked owl (Green 1982; Green and Rainbird 1985), feral cat (Jones
1984), southern boobook owl (Green et al. 1986), laughing kookaburra
(Green et al. 1988), spotted-tailed quoll (Green and Scarborough 1990),
and bluetongue lizard Tiliqua nigrolutea (Spencer 2004).

New Holland Mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae )

The only mention of new Holland mouse in The Tasmanian Naturalist
is by Brown et al. (1999). They stated that this species is ‘rare’ and
is ‘restricted to coastal areas in pockets from Asbestos Range National
Park to Cape Portland, and also occurs in Mount William National Park,
Bicheno and Coles Bay.

Long-tailed Mouse (PsEUDoms higginsi)

Green (1967) states that this species is ‘an endemic Tasmanian animal
and occurs only in the rain-forests and near similar habitat’. Taylor and
McQuillan (1994) reported that it ‘is widely distributed across a range of
habitats’, but the highest densities are reached in ‘mountain and alpine
regions, particularly where boulder screes and rocky ground are present’
(citing Stoddart and Challis 1993). The rocky high altitude areas of
Mount Wellington were thus identified as providing optimal habitat for
long-tailed mouse. This species has also been captured at McPartlan Pass
in southwest Tasmania (Driessen and Comfort 1991), and it was noted
by Driessen et al (2002) that long-tailed mice have been trapped in
buttongrass moorlands. Mumbray (1992) records this species in dasyurid
scats at Donaghys Hill.

Broad-toothed Rat (Mastacomys fuscus)

This species has as its main stronghold ‘the buttongrass areas of the
western hair of Tasmania (Green 1967; Driessen et al. 2002), and
heathland copses in the World Heritage Area (Bryant 1992). Records
of this species include Shoobridge Bend in 1968 (Taylor and McQuillan
1994) and McPartlan Pass (Driessen and Comfort 1991). Wallis et al.
(1977) reported that they found a jaw bone of broad-toothed rat in quoll
scats by the Strathgordon road, near the start of the old Lake Pedder
walking track.

Swamp Rat ( Rattus lutreolus )

The swamp rat (or velvet rat) occurs ‘in a wide range of habitat including
coastal heath, swamp land, subalpine rain-forest and sedgeland’ (Green
1967). A number of authors have commented on its occurrence at

34

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Mountain Park, Mount Wellington and near-urban areas such as Porter
Hill and Lambert Park (Taylor and McQuillan 1994; Hird 1995; Hird
and Hammer 1995). It has also been found at Donaghys Hill (Mumbray
1992), in sedgeland at McPartlan Pass (Driessen and Comfort 1991), in
buttongrass moorlands at Tyndall Range (Driessen et al 2002) and at
Kingston Beach (Driessen 2003). Swamp rats have also been recorded as
prey of masked owl (Green 1982; Green and Rainbird 1985) and spotted¬
tailed quoll (Green and Scarborough 1990).

Black Rat (Rattus rattus)

Records of the introduced black rat in The Tasmanian Naturalist are from
Macquarie Island (Pye 1984), from spotted-tailed quoll and masked owl
prey remains (Green and Rainbird 1985; Green and Scarborough 1990),
the Domain (Brereton et al. 1996) and Cataract Gorge Reserve (Taylor
et al. 1997). More recent records are provided by Driessen (2003),
who made three captures at Kingston Beach and two at Browns River.
He stated that they ‘typically occur where there is disturbance to native
habitat or in areas close to human dwellings’. An unidentified Rattus
sp. was found in the pellets of boobook owl by Green et al. (1986) at
Mayfield, which may have been this species.

Brown Rat (Rattus norvegicus)

Records of the brown rat include Knocklofty (Ziegeler 1970), Trevallyn
State Recreation Area (Taylor et al. 1997), Porter Hill (Hird 1995) and the
Kingston Beach area (Driessen 2003).

House Cat (Feus catus)

Briggs (1965) records a cat chasing a southern brown bandicoot, and
Green (1965) described fluctuating populations of this species, following
changes in prey abundance. Other records of feral cats are for Prime Seal
Islands (Whinray 1971), Macquarie Island (Jones 1984; Pye 1984; Bryant
and Harris 1994), and also Patenna (Green 1982) and from Trevallyn State
Recreation Area (Taylor et al. 1997).

European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus )

Green (1965) describes the drastic reduction of the rabbit in the Tasmanian
midlands in 1953, following the introduction of myxomatosis. Sharland
(1966) states that the rabbit is ‘well established’ on Macquarie Island, and
blames it for ‘eating out natural vegetation’ (also see Jones 1984; Pye 1984;
Skira 1984; Bryant and Harris 1994). It has been reported as ‘fairly common’

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist

35

at Knocklofty (Ziegeler 1970), present on Betsey Island (Shepherd (1975),
‘extremely common’ in the Liffey Valley (Fcam 1988), present at Mount
Nelson (Hird 1995) and Cataract Gorge Reserve (Taylor et al. 1997),
and ‘very common’ throughout the Kingston Beach area (Driessen 2003).
Bryant (1992) made mention of a rabbit eradication program undertaken
in the Strathgordon / Maydena area in 1993. Taylor and McQuillan (1994)
noted that ‘grazing by rabbits in the alpine areas can cause loss of plant
cover, degrade uncommon cushion plants and result in erosion’. Rabbit
has also been identified from pellets of masked owl (Green 1982; Green
and Rainbird 1985) and southern boobook (Green et al. 1986), from the
stomach of a tiger snake Notechis ater humphreysi (Feam 1988), and from
scats of carnivorous mammals (Taylor et al. 1997)

Brown Hare ( Lepus capensis )

Green (1965) described fluctuating populations of brown hare, following
changes in predator abundance. It ‘occurs in small numbers’ at Knocklofty,
West Hobart (Ziegeler 1970) and has been captured at Mount Nelson (Hird
1995). Spencer (2004) noted a rather large bluetongue lizard Tiliqua
nigrolutea feeding on a juvenile brown hare.

Goat (Capra hircus )

Bryant (1992) stated that feral goats ‘are causing widespread damage
through browsing, soil erosion and spread of disease in a number of regions,
particularly the Central Plateau Conservation Area’, and also mentioned
a control program underway at that time. Taylor and McQuillan (1994)
identify that the goat was having serious impact on Mount Wellington and
could ‘dramatically alter the composition of plant communities’.

Fallow Deer (Dam a dama)

Duncan (1992) studied the diet of this species in the midlands and found
that dicotyledons (e.g. low-fibre herbs such as Trifolium spp., Viola spp.
and Geranium spp. and high fibre browse species such as Acacia spp.,
Banksia spp. and Leucopogon sp.) occurred consistently in their faeces.

Fox ( VULPES VULPES )

Bryant (1995) commented that ‘As a state we live in constant fear of the
introduction of the fox, one species which could potentially cause massive
decline of all our small mammals’. Unfortunately this fear might well be
realised since one fox was recently seen trotting across farmland at West
Gawler Creek, south of Ulverstone (Grove 2004).

36

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Conclusion

This review highlights the wealth of information on mammalian species in The
Tasmanian Naturalist and illustrates the significance of the work of naturalists.
It also provides an index of records published in the journal, and should prove
to be a useful starting point for researchers seeking information on Tasmanian
mammals in the future. However, this review should not be taken as a summary
of the state of knowledge concerning Tasmanian mammals, since much important
work has been published in many other journals as well as books and published
and unpublished reports. For instance, Rounsevell et al. (1991) presented com¬
prehensive distribution maps for 34 terrestrial mammal species native to Tas¬
mania. Significant papers dealing with Tasmanian mammals can also be found
in the volumes of the Records of the Queen Victoria Museum and Papers and
Proceedings of the Royal Society ofTasmania, and also in the references cited in
Watts’ (1993) Tasmanian Mammals and Strahan’s (1995) Mammals of Australia.

The desirability of further community-based mammal distribution research
in Tasmania modelled on the highly successful Mammal Survey Groups in
Victoria has been canvassed by Hird (1996). While some of the publications
cited here have been based on that model, further mammal research activity in
Tasmania has been limited by lack of access to basic survey equipment that in
other states (such as Victoria) would be provided by wildlife agencies. This is
despite the obvious ongoing, but poorly documented, impact on many mammal
species of habitat loss brought about by land clearing and forestry practices.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the staff at the State Library of Victoria, University of
Melbourne Library and Australian Museum Library for access to journal vol¬
umes associated with this research. Don Hird and Teresa du Bois comment¬
ed on an earlier draft. However, any mistakes or omissions in compiling the
records remain the responsibility of the author. I am grateful to Greg Luker of
the Southern Cross University GIS Lab for generating the map used in Figure 1.

References

Andrews, A.P. (1967). Albinism in marsupials. The Tasmanian Naturalist
10:4.

Anon. (1966a). Thylacine. The Tasmanian Naturalist 4:2.

Anon. (1966b). Bandicoots fight grass pests. The Tasmanian Naturalist 5: 1.
Anon. (1966c). The Tasmanian devil. The Tasmanian Naturalist 7:3.

Anon. (1982). Club excursions. The Tasmanian Naturalist 71: 6-7.

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist

37

Barker, H.D. (1983). The death of a pademelon. The Tasmanian Naturalist
72: 6.

Brereton, R.N., Taylor, R.J. and Rhodes, M. (1996). Vertebrates of the
Domain, an urban bushland remnant in Hobart. The Tasmanian Naturalist
118:31-40.

Briggs, A.L (1965). Wild life at Safety Cove. The Tasmanian Naturalist 3: 3.

Brown, M., Bryant, S., Edgar, G., Kantvilas, G., Kirkpatrick, J., McQuillan,

R and Richardson, A. (1999). Delineation of critical habitat for threatened
species. The Tasmanian Naturalist 121: 48-56.

Bryant, S.L. (1992). Fauna management in the world heritage area. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 111: 23-27.

Bryant, S.L. (1995). New Zealand’s wildlife crisis: lessons for Tasmania.

The Tasmanian Naturalist 117: 8-14.

Bryant, S.L. and Harris, S. (1994). Evaluating Tasmania’s rare and
threatened species. The Tasmanian Naturalist 116: 52-57.

Burton, H. (1986). A substantial decline in numbers of the southern elephant
seal at Heard Island. The Tasmanian Naturalist 86: 4-8.

Crowther, W.L. (1926). The conservation of Tasmania’s native fauna. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 2: 3-6.

Dartnall, J.A. (1969). The golden furred water-rat. The Tasmanian Naturalist
17: 4.

Dartnall, J.A. (1971). A note on the elephant seal {Mirounga leonina). The
Tasmanian Naturalist 24: 6-7.

Davis, G. (1982). The bereavement of a bandicoot. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 71: 8.

Driessen, M. (2003). Mammal trapping in remnant native bush at Kingston
Beach, an area used for off-leash dog exercise. The Tasmanian Naturalist
125: 32-34.

Driessen, M.M. and Comfort, M.D. (1991). Small mammal trapping in
sedgeland at McPartlan Pass: a new location for Mastacomys fuscus . The
Tasmanian Naturalist 107: 1-5.

Driessen, M.M. and Hocking, G. (1990). The habitat and conservation status
of the Tasmanian bettong. The Tasmanian Naturalist 102: 1-6.

Driessen, M., Pigott, K. and Reid, T. (2002). Small mammal habitat use in
buttongrass moorlands, Tyndall Range, western Tasmania. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 124: 38-48.

Duncan, A. (1992). The winter diets of fallow deer {Dama dama) and

forester kangaroos {Macropus giganteus ) in the midlands of Tasmania. The

38

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Tasmanian Naturalist 110: 1-6.

Duncan, F. (2000). If the cap fits. The Tasmanian Naturalist 122: 42-46.
Feam, S. (1988). Predation on introduced animals by the Tasmanian tiger
snake. The Tasmanian Naturalist 94: 3-4.

Fenton, J. (2004). A century afield: a history of the Tasmanian Field
Naturalists Club. Hobart, Tasmania: Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club.
Fletcher, L. and Shaughnessy, P. (1984). The current status of seal
populations at Macquarie Island. The Tasmanian Naturalist 79: 10-13.
Green, R.II. (1965). Impact of rabbit on predators and prey. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 3: 1-2.

Green, R.H. (1966). Notes on Tasmanian bats. The Tasmanian Naturalist 7:
1 - 2 .

Green, R.H. (1967). Tasmania’s native rats. The Tasmanian Naturalist 9:

1 - 2 .

Green, R.II. (1982). Breeding and food of the masked owl, Tyto
novaehollandiae. The Tasmanian Naturalist 69: 4-6.

Green, R.H. and Rainbird, J.L. (1984). The bat genus Eptesicus Gray in
Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalistic: 1-5.

Green, R.H. and Rainbird, J.L. (1985). Food of the masked owl, Tyto
novaehollandiae. The Tasmanian Naturalist 82: 5-7.

Green, R.H. and Scarborough, T.J. (1990). The spotted-tailed quoll,
Dasyurus maculatus (Dasyuridac, Marsupialia) in Tasmania. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 100: 1-15.

Green, R.H. and Scott, E.O.G. (1985). A common dolphin at Launceston.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 80: 1-3.

Green, R.H., Rainbird, J.L. and McQuillan, P.B. (1986). Food of the
southern boobook Ninox novaeseelandiae. The Tasmanian Naturalist 86:
1-3.

Green, R.H., Scarborough, T.J. and McQuillan, P.B. (1988). Food and

feeding of the laughing kookaburra and tawny frogmouth in Tasmania. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 93: 5-8.

Grove, S. (2004). Members’observations, August 2003-July 2004. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 126: 66-67.

Hird, D. (1986). Notes on the wombat. The Tasmanian Naturalist 84: 2.
Hird, D. (1993). Estuarine platypus activity. The Tasmanian Naturalist \\A:
7-8.

Hird, D. (1995). Vertebrates of Lambert Park / Skyline Reserve on Mt.
Nelson in southern Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist 117: 52-66.

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist

39

Hird, D. (1996). Tasmania’s Mammal Atlas: How Much Do And Should We
Know? Bulletin of the Australian Mammal Society .

Hird, D. (2000). Terrestrial mammals of Denne’s Hill, north Bruny Island.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 122: 9-14.

Hird, D. and Hammer, T. (1995). Mammals of Gumtop spur in the northwest
Wellington Park with comments on a new habitat type for the barred
bandicoot. The Tasmanian Naturalist 117: 32-38.

Hird, D. and Paterson, J. (1995). The platypus on King Island. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 117: 49-51.

Ingham, S.E. (1984). A history of Macquarie Island biological research up to
1971. The Tasmanian Naturalist 78: 3-5.

Jones, E. (1984). The feral cat on Macquarie Island. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 79: 16-17.

Klettenheimer, B.S. and Salamon, M. (1997). Release of captive-bred sugar
gliders in southern Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist 119: 59-69.

Linton, E.H. (1928). Autumn by the plains. The Tasmanian Naturalist 2:
10-15.

Lord, C. (1924). Some notes on whales. The Tasmanian Naturalist 1: 26-27.

Milledge, D. (1969). The Fumeaux Islands. The Tasmanian Naturalist 17: 3.

Mumbray, T. (1992). A note on the analysis of a series of dasyurid scats. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 109: 1-4.

Munks, S.A. (1999). Nest use by the common ringtail possum Psuedocheirus
peregrinus in coastal tea-tree on Flinders Island. The Tasmanian Naturalist
121:33-41.

Munks, S.A. (2000). Diet of the common ringtail possum Psuedocheirus
peregrinus in coastal tea-tree on Flinders Island. The Tasmanian Naturalist
122: 34-41.

Munks, S.A. and Taylor, R. (2000). Vocalisations of the common ringtail
possum, Psuedocheirus peregrinus. The Tasmanian Naturalist 122: 32-33.

Munks, S., Eberhard, R. and Duhig, N. (2004). Nests of the platypus

Omithorhynchus anatinus in a Tasmanian cave. The Tasmanian Naturalist
126:55-58.

Murray, P. (1977). Insect predation in the brushtail possum. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 49: 5-6.

Neyland, M.G. (1999). A review of factors implicated in tree decline in
Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist 121: 13-25.

Otley, H.M. and le Mar, K. (1998). Observations on the avoidance of
culverts by platypus. The Tasmanian Naturalist 120: 48-50.

40

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Pye, T. (1984). Biology of the house mouse (Mus musculus) on Macquarie
Island. The Tasmanian Naturalist 79: 6-10.

Rakick, R., Rakick, B., Cook, L. and Munks, S. (2001). Observations of a
platypus foraging in the sea and hunting of a platypus by a wedge-tailed
eagle. The Tasmanian Naturalist 123: 2-4.

Rounsevell, D.E. (1980). The first record of the bat Eptesicus sagittula in
Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist 62: 15-16.

Rounsevell, D.E. (1984a). Summary of biological research on Macquarie
Island 1972-1982. The Tasmanian Naturalist 78: 6-7.

Rounsevell, D.E. (1984b). Leopard seals. The Tasmanian Naturalist 79: 13-
14.

Rounsevell, D.E., Taylor, R.J. and Hocking, G.J. (1991). Distribution records
of native terrestrial mammals in Tasmania. Wildlife Research 18: 699-717.

Scarborough, T.J. and Green, R.H. (1989). Swamp antechinus - extension
to recorded distribution, habitat preference and body size. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 97: 2-4.

Scott, H.H. and Harrisson, K.M. (1911). On the discovery of a nototherium
in Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist 2: 61-68.

Sharland, M. (1966). Macquarie Is. - a southern sanctuary. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 4: 4.

Sharland, M. (1967). Devil’s name. The Tasmanian Naturalist 8: 4.

Sharland, M. (1975). Reminder of old Battery Point Zoo. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 41: 8.

Shepherd, R.R. (1975). Notes on Betsey Island. The Tasmanian Naturalist
42: 1-7.

Skira, I. (1984). The rabbit on Macquarie Island. The Tasmanian Naturalist
79: 14-15.

Spencer, C.P. (2004). Bluetongue attacks hare. The Tasmanian Naturalist
126: 18-19.

Stoddart, D.M. and Challis, G. (1993). Habitat use and body form of the
long-tailed mouse (Pscudomys higginsi). Wildlife Research 20: 733-738.

Strahan, R. (Ed.) (1995). Mammals of Australia. Reed Books, Sydney.

Taylor, R.J. and McQuillan, P.B. (1994). Fauna of Mount Wellington. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 116: 2-19.

Taylor, R., Mooney, N. and Lange, K. (1991). Observations on platypus.

The Tasmanian Naturalist 105: 1-3.

Taylor, R., Mcsibov, R., Brercton, R. and Bonham, K. (1997). Terrestrial
fauna of Cataract Gorge Reserve, Launceston. The Tasmanian Naturalist

Mammal records from The Tasmanian Naturalist

41

119: 46-58.

Thomas, D.G. and Wall, L.E. (1966). Lune River Easter camp report. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 5: 3-4.

Tyson, R.M. (1980). Road killed platypus. The Tasmanian Naturalist 60: 8.

Tyson, R.M. (1981). Strange bat deaths at St Leonards, northern Tasmania.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 66: 2-3.

Wall, L.E. (1979). Has the echidna a good sense of smell? The Tasmanian
Naturalist 58: 12.

Wall, L.E. (1981). The west coast monster, 1962. The Tasmanian Naturalist
68 : 2 - 6 .

Wall, L.E. (1985). Little pigmy possum Cercartetus lepidus. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 80: 10-11.

Wall, L.E. (1994). A sugar glider on Mt. Wellington. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 116: 58.

Wall, L.E. and Wall, M. (1972). Easter camp, 31st March-4th April 1972
Cynthia Bay, Lake St. Clair. The Tasmanian Naturalist 30: 1-3.

Wallis, R.L., Drew, R.N., Duke, G.F. and Forbes, S.J. (1977). The prey of a
native cat in south-west Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist 48: 4.

Wapstra,J.E. (1991). Dolphin stranding due to killer whales. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 107: 5-8.

Wapstra, M., Thompson, V. and Hudler, R (2000). Observations on echidnas
using tree hollows in Tasmania’s forests. The Tasmanian Naturalist 122:
29-31.

Watts, D. (1993). Tasmanian Mammals. A Field Guide. Peregrine Press,
Kettering.

Whinray, J.S. (1971). A note on Prime Seal Island. The Tasmanian Naturalist
27: 1-4.

Woinarski, J.C.Z. (1986). Sharing of a small hollow by roosting bats and
nesting forty-spotted pardalotes. The Tasmanian Naturalist 84: 1.

Ziegeler, D. (1970). Wildlife of West Hofcfort. The Tasmanian Naturalist 20:
3-4.

Ziegeler, D. (1971). 1971 Easter camp — Denne’s Point. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 26: 1-2.

Ziegeler, D. (2004). Records of birds and other vertebrates from Tasmania’s
far south-west coast. The Tasmanian Naturalist 126: 12-27.

42

The Tasmanian Naturalist ( 2005 ) 127 : 42-44

CecILIOIDES ACICULA (MULLER, 1774) (PuLMONATAI
Ferrussaciidae), a burrowing land snail introduced to

Tasmania

Kevin Bonham 12

'Honorary research associate, School of Geography and Environmental Studies,
University of Tasmnia; 2 410 Macquarie Street, South Hobart Tas 7004. Email:

k_bonham@tassie.net.au.

Abstract

This paper gives the first definite Australian record for the blind awlsnail
Cecilioides acicula (Muller, 1774), the first ferrussaciid recorded from
Tasmania.

Identification

Cecilioides acicula has a small, very thin needle-shaped shell of 5.5-6 whorls,
4-5 mm high and 1-1.3 mm wide. The shell is glossy, pale yellow to off-white,
with a sculpture of irregular low radial corrugations. The body whorl accounts
for around half the shell height and the aperture is elongate, around 1.5 mm high
by 0.5 mm wide. Cecilioides acicula cannot easily be mistaken for any other
Tasmanian land snail, native or introduced. There is some resemblance in size
and shape to the truncated ids present in saltmarshes in the north of the state
but these have much less pointy spires, more rounded apertures and are oper-
culate. The species is known by a variety of common names including blind
snail, European blind snail, blind awlsnail, blind pin snail and blind while snail.

Figure 1. Cecilioides acicula. Horizontal line represents 1 mm. Line drawing by the

author.

Blind Awlsnail introduced to Tasmania

43

Cecilioides acicula in Tasmania

The house where I live, at 410 Macquarie Street, South Hobart, was built
in the 1850s and has an excavated backyard courtyard bounded by a rock wall
approximately 1.4 metres high and constructed of loose boulders with gaps be¬
tween them. Behind the rock wall is a bank of deep soil covered by lawn.
Seepage from this earthen bank into the rock wall, sometimes causing parts of
the wall to collapse, occurs in times of heavy rain or as a result of hosing. The
soil is calcium-rich and includes mammal bones from nineteenth-century farms.

On 15 Feb 2003 1 collected a single dead specimen of C. acicula from a
ledge on the rock wall approximately 60 cm below the soil surface. On 30 June
2003, I collected a second dead specimen in debris washed out from behind
the wall following a partial collapse, and on 26 Oct 2003 I collected a broken
shell from mud in a gap in the rock wall approximately 40 cm below the soil
surface. No further specimens have yet been seen (perhaps because more of
the wall is now covered in vegetation, or because water flow through the yard
from the adjacent Adult Education Centre car park has been greatly reduced)
and limited attempts to find the snail in similar environments elsewhere in Ho¬
bart have failed. All three specimens collected are worn and were presumably
dead for some time prior to collection, so the finds do not guarantee an ex¬
tant population, although there is no particular reason to doubt that one exists.

Discussion

This species, widespread as a native in Europe, is a burrowing snail
that lives underground typically 40-70 cm below the soil surface. Dead
shells are most commonly exposed in ant or mammal diggings or in soil
washed away, in small floods (Grego, pers. comm). The species may have
been present in Hobart for a long time. Its discovery was serendipitous
and the population could easily havo gone undetected for much longer.

Cecilioides acicula has been recorded from New Zealand (Barker,
1999). There is no previous known confirmed record from Australian terri¬
tory. Varman (1998) illustrates a snail that looks identical to C. acicula from
Norfolk Island but writes: “Another mystery but these have been found in
archaeological contexts dating from the 1790s but also in fossiliferous de¬
posits, so has to be indigenous.” As noted by Evans (1972), C. acicula is
very capable of burrowing into fossil deposits; therefore the Norfolk Is¬
land specimens are not necessarily native and could well be this species.

Because C. acicula is subterranean and hence easily overlooked, it is likely

44

The Tasmanian Naturalist

to be some time before sufficient records are available to give a useful picture
of how widespread and common it is (or has been) in the Hobart area, or to
comment on any environmental impact it might have. I would appreciate any
further records or suspected records of the species. In particular, archaeolo¬
gists excavating historic sites, including grave sites, may encounter this snail.

This is the second species from this family to be recorded from Austral¬
ia. The other species, Ferrussacia folliculus (Ferussac, 1819), has been re¬
corded from suburban gardens in Adelaide, South Australia (Venmans, 1957).

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Josef Grego (Slovakia) for comments about
the species and reference specimens, and my landlord Chris
Gurney for information about the history of the property.

References

Barker, G. M. (1999) Naturalised terrestrial Stylommatophora (Mollusca:

Gastropoda). Fauna of New Zealand 38, Landcare Research 253 pp.

Evans, J.G. (1972) Land Snails in Archaeology. Academic Press 436pp.
Varman, R. J. P. (1998) Norfolk Island Snail Species List. http://www.

geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/6559/scc40.html.

Venmans, L. A. W. C. (1957) A species of Ferusaccia in South Australia
Journal of the Malacological Society of Australia 1: 36-44.

The Tasmanian Naturalist ( 2005 ) 127 : 45-48

45

Mount Wellington huts - an introduction

John Grist

298 Liverpool Street, Hobart 7000, Tasmania. Email: jandmgrist@bigpond.com.

Mount Wellington, on the western fringes of Hobart, offers the local
natural historian all sorts of delights and frequently features in the pages of
The Tasmanian Naturalist. However, one aspect that has received rela¬
tively little attention is its huts - or, in most cases, its hut remains. This ar¬
ticle introduces the reader to the fascinating story of the Mountain’s huts.

Early Hobart was heavily dependent on local timber for heating, cooking,
building, and for export income. Knocklofty (formerly known as Woodcut¬
ters Hill) was soon denuded; some early drawings show a hill scarred with the
tracks made by wood harvesters and stone gatherers. Attention then turned to
the tall timber on the lower slopes of the Mountain. Trees were energetically
cut until about 1855, when the supply of profitable timber was exhausted. The
water-powered mills belonging to Stace and Degraves, which were situated on
the upper Hobart Rivulet, had the lion’s share of the timber, and from these
mills an extensive network of timber tracks and timber haulage-ways radiat¬
ed up the lower slopes, to about the altitude of the Sphinx Rock. The Lower
Sawmill Track (which was reopened in 1985) is in fact a timber haulage track.

These timber routes, which were consequently abandoned and not yet com¬
pletely overgrown, were used by Hobartians for access to secluded sites in the
many small steepish valleys in the mountain foothills. It is a rare hut site on Mount
Wellington that is not close to an old timber route and its accompanying group
of sawpits. Some of the timber trails had^the advantage of being dead-end tracks,
with the added benefit to hut builders of privacy and security from vandalism. The
timber trails were vital to the hut builders, who had to carry all of their hardware,
supplies and tools to their site in the short time available to them at weekends.

It is possible that the craze of mountain hut building was in part a reac¬
tion to the long hours and somewhat miserable industrial working conditions
at the close of the 19th century. Some photos show men posing with axes in
“macho” style, perhaps trying to recapture the pioneer spirit of the early settlers

46

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Figure 1. The Ellis and Sansom hut - whose design exemplifies late 19th Century
utilitarianism.

Figure 2. The bridge at the Clematis and Falls hut exemplifies a certain elegance in

late 19th Century design.

Mount Wellindton huts

47

The design of these recreational huts ranged from the plain utilitarianism
of the Ellis and Sansom hut (Figure 1) to the elegant Disneyesque complex at
the Clematis and Falls Hut site, with its impossibly ornate decoration, fairy¬
tale high level bridges (Figure 2) and cleared landscaped areas near the water.

The employees of the Cascade Brewery were also hut builders; around the
1880’s they built huts within easy range of the brewery which have now been ei¬
ther built over, or covered by the ever-growing McRobies tip. To date, no Cascade
Company employee hut site has been identified, probably due to site disruption
in the area, and the increased fire frequency on the lower slopes of the mountain.
Interestingly there have been no written accounts yet discovered of visits to these
particular huts; perhaps these huts were not attractive enough to inspire eloquence.

The Mountain has quite a history of exploitation since the Collins settle¬
ment was established on the Hobart Rivulet. Apart from the timber industry,
immense quantities of building-quality sandstone were mined, and dozens of
stone quarries can be discovered, many in the Waterworks Reserve. A slate¬
like stone was quarried near the Breakneck Track. The Cascade Prospecting
Company operated a gold mine near Gentle Annie spur. Water was gathered
from springs and mountain streams into pipes and aqueducts. Trappers and
charcoal burners also operated on the lower slopes. Convicts were housed in a
stockade above Ferntree to work at road building, and, of course, the bushrang¬
er Rocky Whelan rampaged in the area. Huts were also built for science and
for surveying purposes at the summit (Thark hut and Wraggc’s observatory).

An examination of early hut photographs reveals the prevalence of the
tree fern Dicksonia antarctica growing luxuriantly around most of the huts;
however, site visits reveal that they have been much reduced in number since
then. For example. Fern Tree hut (not near Ferntree) now has no tree ferns
growing in the vicinity at all. It is possible that the water table on the low¬
er slopes has lowered somewhat, perhaps as a result of more vigorous - and
thirsty - regrowth forest arising from the ashes of the 1967 bushfires. An¬
other pointer to a drier environment is the present day lack of water at some
of the hut sites; Wattle Grove 2 and Webber and league huts, built on trib¬
utaries of the Guy Fawkes and McRobies Gully streams, now have no vis¬
ible water available at all. The reduced water flow has been restricted to a
trickle underneath the moss covered dolcrite boulders in the stream bed.

There is happily at least one example of the original fern cover at the
Falls/Clematis complex. The streamside promenade area has some impres¬
sive tree fern remnants, although the three central ferns have been burnt out.

48

The Tasmanian Naturalist

There is so much still to be discovered regarding the history of our mountain.
For example, where is Surveyor Hutchinson’s hut on Snake Plains? The moun¬
tain reluctantly gives up its secrets. Almost any venture off-track reveals signs of
past human activity. The ephemeral nature of these sites is quite evident, with, for
example, plant growth dislodging rock foundations at the Wattle Grove Two hut
site. A set of stone steps near the Sandy Bay Rivulet above the reservoirs seems
to have disappeared in recent flooding, and the remains of Stace’s watermill dam
and sluice gate in the Hobart Rivulet have suffered much flood damage also.

Many of the abandoned recreational hut sites are very pleasant places to
visit, and to spend a little time where so many people now long gone once
had so much enjoyment. For example, the large beehive-type rock chimney at
Musk Hut (Figure 3) is still in good condition, and is quite a sight to behold.
The large hut platform at Wattle Grove 2 has enough room for the largest picnic
party, and, of course, the three huts Sama, Retreat and Kara still stand, hidden
from view at the end of obscure trails, hopefully safe for many years to come.

Figure 3. Musk hut, in its late 19th Century prime, loday, the rock chimney remains
as the main evidence of its former glory.

Editor’s note: readers might care to view John and Maria Grist’s web site (www.
users.bigpond.net.au/jandmgrist/index.htm) for further information on Mount Welling¬
ton’s huts.

The Tasmanian Naturalist (2005) 127: 49-53

49

Significant range extension for the freshwater mussel
Hyridella (Hyridella) narracanensis in Tasmania.

Brian J. Smith

Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery, 2 Wellington Street, Launcenston, Tasmania 7250.

E-mail: Brian.Smith@qvmag.tas.gov.au

Abstract

Specimens of the freshwater mussel, Hyridella (Hyridella) narracanensis
(Cotton & Gabriel, 1932), were recently found in the Boobyalla River in
North East Tasmania. This is a significant range extension as, until this
discovery, the species was only known from the South Esk catchment in
Tasmania. Some possible impl ications of this record are discussed.

Introduction

A prominent component of the invertebrate fauna of many of the major rivers
in Australia are large, black or brown freshwater mussels belonging to the fam¬
ily Hyriidae. Eighteen species are recognised for Australia as a whole with two
of these being known from Tasmania (Smith, 1992). Until now, both the Tasma¬
nian species were thought to be confined to the South Esk catchment (Smith &
Kershaw, 1979). The larger of the two species, Velesunio moretonicus (Sowerby,
1865), is known from many parts of the catchment and is endemic to Tasmania.
It has a heavy, black shell and can reach over 120 mm in length. The smaller
one is Hyridella (Hyridella) narracanensis (Cotton & Gabriel, 1932) which has
a thin brown shell and reaches about 60 mm in length. Hyridella narracanensis
was originally described from the Narracan River, South Gippsland, Victoria
and was recognised as the species found in the northern part of the South Esk
in the major revision of the family published by McMichael & Hiscock (1958).

Hyriids have a complex life-cycle (Walker, 1981). After fertilisation, the
developing larvae are held in a modified gill pouch (or marsupium) of the
female until they form into shelled larvae called glochidia.. These are liber¬
ated and become parasitic on the gills of freshwater fish (or more rarely tad¬
poles or invertebrates), where they can stay for several weeks. They then
detach and fall to the bottom and develop into juvenile mussels. This para¬
sitic stage appears to be necessary to further the development of the larva,
which can be transported great distances by the fish in that time. A defini-

50

The Tasmanian Naturalist

tive list of the possible host species for the two Tasmanian species of mus¬
sels is not available, but it is known that several species of galaxiids are
used, together with other native fish species (Walker, 1981; Playford, 2004).

The adult mussels are filter-feeders, living in shallow, fairly swiftly flow¬
ing streams, usually in a sandy gravel substrate. They burrow using their
strong muscular foot and then lie buried with only the posterior shell mar¬
gins exposed, through which their short siphons extend into the stream flow.
Water is drawn over the gills by ciliary action and food particles strained
from the water. The species favours flowing water with little silt load.

Before the present study, Tasmanian records of H. narracanensis were
from the Liffcy River at Bishopsboume, the South Esk River below Ben Lo¬
mond and the Cataract Gorge, Launceston (McMichael & Hiscock, 1958).

Observations

In May 2004, a dead valve of a small freshwater mussel was found by Sean
Blake on the banks of the Boobyalla River, close to the junction with the Lit¬
tle Boobyalla River (Grid Ref. 572100 5468600). About a year later, on 17th
May 2005,1 went back to that site with Scan to look in the same area for further
signs of the species. After a search of the area, a second single valve of the
same species was found. Several stretches of the river were examined, but there
was severe degradation of the riverine habitat with high silt loads in the water
and disturbance of the banks and bed of the stream due to cattle trampling.

Figure 1. Hyridella (Hyridella) narracanensis . Left: Inside the valve of specimen
no. QVM:9:22333, showing the arrangement of hinge teeth. Right:a live specimen
(QVM:9:22335) showing the large muscular foot and the two mantle siphons protruding
from the posterior end of the animal (on the right). Photos: Tammy Gordon.

HYR1 DELLA NARRACANENSIS IN TASMANIA

51

A little further upstream a small section of the stream surrounded by
dense scrub was found where cattle had been fenced out (Grid Ref. 571500
5468200). Here the water was clear and running over a bed of clean sandy
gravel. The stream was flowing fairly rapidly and the water was only
about 25 - 30 cm deep. Sieving through the surface of the gravel with a
coarse net eventually yielded 2 live specimens of the small mussel. These
were transferred to a container of clean water where they were observed to
open the gap and extend their siphons. They also extended their white,
muscular foot and attempted to move over the bottom of the container.

The 4 specimens (2 dead valves and 2 live collected animals) have been
registered into the reference collections of the Queen Victoria Museum & Art
Gallery. The measurements of these specimens are given in Table 1. The speci¬
mens (see Figure 1) were identified as Hyridella narracanensis as they were
consistent with the description given in McMichael & Hiscock (1958) and with
other Tasmanian and Victoria reference specimens held in the Museum’s col¬
lections. The ratio of shell height (I I) to length (L) for this species is 55 - 65%

Tabic 1. Measurement of the shells of the specimens found

Specimen

State

Height
(H) mm

Length
(L) mm

Ratio
H/L %

QVM:9:22333

dead

29

50

58

QVM:9:22334

dead

28

52

54

QVM:9:22335

live

20

31

64

QVM:9:22336

live

24

40

60

Discussion

Before this study the two species of hyriid mussels were only known in Tas¬
mania from the South Esk catchment. This is still true of Velesunio moretonicus ,
but the finding of a population of Hyridella narracanensis living outside that
catchment is significant and throws into doubt several of the assumptions about
the species. The identification of populations of the same species of freshwater
mussel on both sides of Bass Strait has always been a matter of some speculation.
Have they been isolated since the last time a land bridge occurred between Tas¬
mania and Victoria and if this is true are they tending towards becoming separate

52

The Tasmanian Naturalist

species? Work on a sister species, Hyridella glenelgensis , with reference to this
species, was recently reported on by Playford (2004). Pie compared the biology
and conservation status of these two small mussels in southern Victoria and some
of his conclusions may be applicable to Hyridella narracanensis in Tasmania.

Another question that arises is - have these mussels always lived in other
coastal rivers outside the South Esk system, or is this somehow a new occurrence?
These two questions could be related when one remembers that these mussels
go through a parasitic stage on the gills of fish. Some of the fish species that are
known to carry mussels also occur in coastal streams on both sides of Bass Strait
and they are also known to have a marine stage as part of their life history. Could
it be that some fish migrate from a freshwater environment in Victoria, cross
Bass Strait, and enter the fresh water of a coastal river in northern Tasmania? If
this were to happen, then it might be that some of these fish could be carrying the
glochidia larvae of a freshwater mussel on this migration. If this could happen,
then are there populations of these mussels established in any other coastal rivers
along the north coast of Tasmania? Why haven’t such populations been found
before? Is this another indicator of global warming and a changing climate?

Consequently, this find stimulates a whole series of questions to be asked.
Are there any other populations of this mussel to be found in other north-flow¬
ing rivers along the Bass Strait coast of Tasmania? Which fish carry the glo¬
chidia larvae and is there any evidence that they can carry the larvae while
at sea? Do we know if fish from a freshwater habitat in Victoria migrate to a
freshwater habitat in Tasmania (or vice versa)l It might even be that this popu¬
lation, in a coastal river of North East Tasmania, has been established via a
fish host from the known populations in the South Esk system. This may have
occurred naturally through a short marine migration along the coast from the
Tamar, or artificially by direct human agency. I feel that this latter possibil¬
ity is the least likely as these are not fish species of interest to anglers and
the locality is not near any angling locality. The river is small and shallow
and mainly runs through agricultural land. Of even smaller possibility is the
direct human translocation of the mussels themselves. It is hard to envisage
any reason for such an act. To further this study, I would be very interested in
seeing any other specimens of freshwater mussels from anywhere in the State.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Sean Blake and Peter Duckworth for bringing the initial
specimen to my attention and to Sean for guiding me to the locality and assisting
with the collection of the specimens. Thanks are also due to Tony Seymour the

HYRIDELLA NARRACANENS1S IN TASMANIA

53

owner and Thomas Purcell the Manager of Boobyalla Vale property for permis¬
sion to search for the animals. I would also like to thank Tammy Gordon of the
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery for taking the photographs and Profes¬
sor Keith Walker of the University of Adelaide and Tarmo Raadik of the Arthur
Rylah Institute for Environmental Research in Victoria for helpful suggestions.

References

McMichael, D.F. & Hiscock, I.D. (1958). A monograph of the freshwater
mussels (Mollusca : Pelecypoda) of the Australasian region. Australian
Journal of Marine & Freshwater Research 9: 372-508.

Playford, T.J. (2004). Conservation status of the endangered Glenelg River
Mussel Hyridella glenelgensis (Dennant, 1898) (Unionoida: Hyriidae).
Unpublished honours thesis: University of Adelaide.

Smith, B.J. (1992). Non-Marine Molluscs. In Houston, W.W.K. (ed.)

Zoological Catalogue of Australia. Canberra: AGPS Vol. 8 xii 405pp.
Smith, B.J. (1998). Order Unionida. Pp. 294-298 in: Beesley, P.L., Ross,
G.J.B. & Wells, A. (eds.) Mollusca: The Southern Synthesis. Fauna of
Australia. Vol. 5. CSIRO Publishing : Melbourne, Part A xvi 1-563pp.
Smith, B.J. & Kershaw, R.C. (1979). Field Guide to the Non-marine
Molluscs of South-eastern Australia. Canberra: A.N.U. Press 285 pp.
Walker, K.F. (1981). Ecology of freshwater mussels in the River Murray.
Australian Water Resources Council Technical Paper 63, 119pp.

54

The Tasmanian Naturalist ( 2005 ) 127 : 54-56

Groundsels and Fireweeds

Phil Watson

222 Mount Rumney Road, Mount Rumney, Tas 7170.
Email: pajwa@southcom.com.au

With over 1500 species worldwide, the herbaceous groundsels and firew¬
eeds of the genus Senecio make up a significant portion of the daisy (Aster-
aceae) family. This genus has many interesting features and relationships,
including two intriguing stories. The first explores how the hardy South Af¬
rican sticky groundsel (, Senecio viscosus) imposed grief and extensive heart¬
ache up on the ‘Imperial Bushmen Contingent’ troops during the Boer War
and the second describes the strange but painful exploding trousers prob¬
lem arising from efforts to control the rampant ragwort weed (?. jacohaea i.

Groundsels exhibit attractive floral displays

Before exploring further the above two stories, let’s highlight some of the
fascinating attributes of the numerous groundsels and fireweeds species. Many
species are horticultural gems appreciated for their contributions towards colour¬
ful garden displays. Well known are the reliable winter flowering, shade loving
florists cineraria’, S. cruenta and the old fashioned grey-leaved ‘dusty miller’,
S. cineraria. Others include the garden gem, California geranium S. petasitis
with its distinctive lobed foliage enveloping delightful yellow panicles and the
bold bright yellow flowering trusses of the big-leaf groundsel S. grandiflorus .

Alpine and woodland groundsels abound

Tasmania is privileged to have 23 indigenous species including a suite
of alpine Groundsels such as the single flowering yellow and cream forms
of S. pectinatus , the floriferous S. leptocarpus and the showy S. primulae -
fohus. Common woodland species include the shrubby and common firew¬
eeds, S.minimus and S. linearifolius and the differing forms of the variable
groundsel S. lautus . These grow prolifically with their characteristic yellow
daisy flowers, often dominating any bare soil. The more drought-tolerant na¬
tives, such as the silvery cotton fireweed, S. quadridentatus , hill fireweed, S.
hispidulus and the annual fireweed S. glomeratus (with its distinctive cover¬
ing of soft cobweb-like hairs), carry out a scab-likc protective role particu-

Groundsels and fireweeds

55

larly after bush fires and vegetation clearing. By temporarily protecting the
soil from water erosion, they contribute significantly towards re-establishing
the original woodland community and its delicately balanced interrelationships.

Butterfly-attracting flowers produce fluffy grey bearded seed
HEADS

Most species develop a characteristic fluffy grey or white parachute-like seed
heads (pappus). Since these resembled an old man’s beard this feature resulted
in the botanical name Senecio , derived from the Latin for old man c Senex\ Their
common name, groundsel, came from ‘grundeswyle ’, Old German for ‘Earth
glutton’. It reflects upon the ability of its wind-blown seed to germinate freely,
enabling them to act as pioneering colonisers. Close examination of their yel¬
low flower heads, reveals many tiny ray and disc shaped florets, packed tightly
together to resemble a single flower. I his flower form evolved to provide a won¬
derfully simple way for nectar seeking insects to easily pollinate many flowers
during only one visit. Hence it is not uncommon to observe them enveloped in
a cloud of insect pollinators such as beetles, hoverflies, moths, native bees, flies,
flower spiders and lady birds. The chaostola and donnysa Skippers along with
the white grass dart and yellow banded dart butterflies take advantage of this
feature, collecting nectar in exchange for their pollination services. Under pro¬
tection of darkness their larva browses on native grasses or sedges and finally pu¬
pates by forming cylindrical cells, out of the leaves that they tie and roll together.

These butterflies are very territorial towards their groundsels, displaying ag¬
gression against other males or insects with buffeting and spiralling flight pat¬
terns. Their orange, brown and black colourations send a clear message to po¬
tential predators that they contain a highly toxic alkaloid (pyrrolizidine). In fact
they have absorbed substantial amounts whilst feeding on the groundsel’s pollens
and flower parts. This same alkaloid has been linked to irreversible liver damage
and death of stock. Flour (grain crops), milk (grazing cows) or honey (foraging
bees) contaminated by groundsel are constant concerns to primary producers.

Sticky groundsel and ragwort caused disastrous impacts

Unfortunately, the Senecio genus contains a number of environmental
weeds including the highly toxic ragwort S. jacobaea and the pretty pur¬
ple groundsel S. elegans . Ragwort, being a prolific weed confronting pasto-
ralists both in Australia and New Zealand was the focus of a major control
program in the 1930’s, using the unstable but effective potassium chlorate.
However, the dust from this chemical trapped itself within the cotton fibres

56

The Tasmanian Naturalist

of horsemen’s trousers. Once heated by riding friction it dramatically ex¬
ploded causing severe burns and major loss of dignity to many devastated
horsemen. It was soon replaced by another safer herbicide by the late 1930’s.

Sticky groundsel is the most toxic of all groundsel weeds and this fact brings
us back to our Boer War story. The trouper’s horses making up the ranks of
the Light-Horse Regiment were decimated by this toxic little South Africa na¬
tive. This situation was described vividly in a quote by Adamson in the book
The Private Capital. “Horse sickness , a disease particular to South Africa ,
is doing its work: a horse starts out perfectly well and is dead by noon”. No
wonder its war record had an enormous impact on the moral of the Aussie
Light Horsemen, whose horses had accompanied them all the way from home.
Beyond this strong bonding, their survival was a tribute to their trusty steeds.

As an aside, its succulent leaves have enabled to flourish, as a weed
on gravel bedding along railway lines in the USA. Its fine roots clam¬
ber over the stone surfaces, scavenging moisture that condenses in the
cool of the night between the stones. With its ability to kill most leaf¬
feeding insects, its insecticidal qualities are attracting research dollars.

Parrot’s favourite treat

On a happier note, the common groundsel S. vulgaris often revives memories
of those by-gone days when one’s pet parrot, canary or finch was given a fresh
sprig as a treat. Many of our feathered friends also enjoy without ill effects, peck¬
ing the developing seed heads from our native groundsels. These birds include
the introduced European goldfinch, the greenfinch, the beautiful firetail (Tassie’s
only native finch) along with our colourful blue-winged parrot. Eastern and green
rosellas and musk lorikeets. As gardeners feeding the birds is one of the many great
reasons for growing a selection of hardy but cheery groundsels and fireweeds!

The Tasmanian Naturalist ( 2005 ) 127 : 57-71

57

Figure 1 . A view along Taroona Beach from its southern end. Sandy patches
amongst the rocks in the foreground (where in this photo a group of marine naturalists
are searching for shells) have yielded the highest proportion of seashcll species on the
Taroona foreshore list to date. Photo: Simon Grove.

Taroona is the northernmost suburb in Kingborough, on the western
shore of the Derwent estuary, between Sandy Bay and Kingston. If one
were to travel southwards down the estuary towards the ocean, one would
travel along a gradient of increasing salinity, increasing tidal amplitude, de-

Winkles, whelks and warreners: a year of shelling at

Taroona

Simon Grove

25 Taroona Crescent, Taroona, Tasmania 7053. Email: groveherd@bigpond.com

58

The Tasmanian Naturalist

creasing exposure to river-borne pollutants and increasing exposure to oce¬
anic influences. Taroona is situated at a point along this continuum where
lower-energy estuarine influences give way to higher-energy conditions
typical of the open coastline. Depending on the aspect, the bedrock and the
distance from the River Derwent, one can find along Taroona’s foreshore
exposed wave-cut platforms (Alum Cliffs), semi-exposed sandy beaches
(Taroona and Hinsby Beaches), semi-exposed boulder shorelines (Crayfish
Point, Cartwright Point) and sheltered sandy-muddy beaches (School Beach).

I moved to Taroona four years ago, and was soon struck by the diversity
of marine life that could be seen along the foreshore. The suburb’s name is
thought to be derived from an aboriginal word for chiton (a group of 8-plated
molluscs, for which local rocky shores host many species). One of my favourite
spots is at the southern end of Taroona Beach (Figure 1), where the shoreline
topography and aspect combine to deliver fresh drifts of small shells with al¬
most every tide. Last year I began systematically recording the seashells that
I encountered on my frequent walks along various sections of this shoreline.
For a full year (from 22nd May 2004 to 11th July 2005 - 39 visits) I databased
every record of every species that I saw on a particular visit. Thereafter, I
have chiefly kept a record of species for which I have retained specimens in
my ever-expanding collection of Tasmanian seashells. This article summarises
my findings to date. It is not intended as a guide to the natural history of lo¬
cal marine molluscs or their habitats: Graham Edgar’s two volumes on ma¬
rine habitats (Edgar 2001) and marine life (Edgar 2000) amply fulfill this role.

Winkles, whelks and warreners (or turban shells) are amongst the better-
known of Tasmanian seashells — hence the title of this paper. Taroona hosts all
the typical species that fit this description. But it turns out that these are just the
tip of the iceberg. Almost every additional visit I make reveals further species
that I had not previously recorded in Taroona. Indeed, for reasons which I will
expand on later, the rate of discovery shows every sign of increasing (Figure 2),
and at the time of writing had reached 215 species (Appendix 1). As is often the
case with biological inventory data, the species list is dominated by species that
were individually rarely recorded. For instance, during my fourteen months of
intensive recording, there were thirty species that I only ever encountered once,
with a further fifteen species recorded just twice each (Figure 3). This does not
necessarily mean that they are genuinely rare. For many, it is just as likely that
Taroona is not optimal habitat. For instance, the bivalves Paphies erycinaea, An-
apella cycladea and Spisnla trigonella , and the mud-snail Nassarinspauperatiis
are more typical of lower-energy shorelines: they are more common at Sandy Bay.

Winkles, whelks and warreners

59

Figure 2. Species accumulation curve for marine molluscs, based on my recent visits
to the Taroona foreshore. The recent upturns in the rate of accumulation, indicated by
the three arrows, can be attributed to my starting to sample shell-grit.

Number of records May 2004 to July 2005

Figure 3. The frequency with which I have recorded seashell species along the
Taroona foreshore over 39 visits between May 2004 and July 2005.

60

The Tasmanian Naturalist

By contrast, the necklace-shell Polinices tasmanica , the file-shell Limatula
strangei , the white rock-shell Cleidothaerus albidus and the murex Agnewia
tritoniformis are typical of more oceanic conditions and are commoner south
of Taroona. Other species may be common in deeper waters in the mouth
of the Derwent, but rarely beached. These would include the large volutes
Livonia mammilla and Ericusa sowerbyi and the whelk Penion maximus.

Yet other species on the list are so small that their apparent rarity may merely
reflect the difficulty of actually spotting them. The tiny bivalve Lasaea australis
is one such species that I had only encountered in small numbers until recently,
and had been pleased to do so because of its attractive purple colouration. I knew it
wasn’t rare - it lives intertidally amongst the byssus threads of mussels or wedged
into empty barnacle shells. But what really brought home to me the scale of its
abundance was examining under a microscope several dried scoops of shell grit
from various spots along the foreshore. Instantly, a whole new world of micro¬
molluscs was revealed. What had seemed likely to contain only broken bits of
limpets and topshells in fact contained dozens of species of seashells each no big¬
ger than a grain of rice - and many of them considerably smaller. Lasaea austra¬
lis is actually one of the more abundant and larger species in this mix (Figure 4).

Figure 4. A typical sample of micromolluscs from Taroona. These specimens were
extracted from a handful of shell grit from the School Beach. The white arrow is
about 5 mm long and points to a valve of the bivalve Lasaea australis .

Winkles, whelks and warreners

61

Identifying the smaller species is no easy task. For the larger species
Margaret Richmond’s two volumes (Richmond 1992; 1997) generally suf¬
fice, as would the field guide by the Tasmanian Marine Naturalists Associa¬
tion (TMNA 2003). However, for the smaller species the standard work on
Tasmanian molluscs (May & Macpherson, 1958) is both difficult to obtain
and difficult to use - and many of the scientific names are outdated. My pros¬
pects of identifying the smaller species have been boosted enormously by be¬
ing granted occasional access by the Tasmanian Museum to their new Collec¬
tions and Research Facility at Rosny. The Facility hosts important collections
of molluscs from around Tasmania, including many type specimens. Under
Liz Turner’s guidance, I have thus been able to put names to most of what 1
have found so far, but doubtless many further species await local discovery.

Figure 5 demonstrates that as my quest for novelty in the Taroona sea-
shell fauna continues, so the average size of the additional species en¬
countered decreases. Whereas for the first few months of this survey I
could expect to find additional species in the 10-100 mm size-range, in
the last few months this had dropped to the 1-10 mm range - although
there are still much larger additional species turning up occasionally.

Figure 5. Relationship between date of first record and typical shell length for the
species in question, for all 215 species of shells that I have recorded to date on the
Taroona foreshore. Note that a logarithmic scale is used for the y-axis.

62

The Tasmanian Naturalist

At the other end of the abundance scale are species that 1 found almost every
time I went down to the beach -but they are few i n number. The three most consist¬
ently recorded species are the kelp-snail Phasianotrochus irisodontes, the false-
cockle Venericardia bimaculata and the margin-shell Mesoginellapygmaeoides.
Because of their small size (4-12 mm), none of these species would be apparent
to the casual visitor to the beach, but are there to be seen for those willing to get
down on hands and knees and explore the drifts of shells that accumulate along
the strandline or in the lee of intertidal rocks adjacent to Taroona’s sandy beaches.

It is encouraging that nearly all the species on the list are native. The chief ex¬
ceptions are the Pacific oyster Crassostreagigas, the New Zealand clam Venerupis
largillierti, the green chiton Chiton glaucus and the New Zealand screw shell
Maoricolpus roseus. The first is a native of the temperate North Pacific, while
the other three come from New Zealand and may have inadvertently been trans¬
planted from there with stock of oysters imported for on-growing. All are now
fairly common atTaroona, and one must wonder whether they have ousted native
species. For instance, I have only ever found extremely worn (and presumably
old) specimens of the native screw shell Gazameda gunnii, while the vast ma¬
jority of beached native mud oyster Ostrea angasi shells are also old and worn.

For a small proportion of species, I remain unsure as to whether the pres¬
ence of empty shells on the beach implies the presence of living animals in
the vicinity, or whether they have been washed in from afar. However, major
and consistent declines in shell abundance and richness over recent decades
have been recorded from sediment cores taken at a range of locations in the
Derwent estuary and the D’Entrecasteaux Channel (Edgar and Samson, 2004).
It seems that continued urbanisation and concomitant pollution issues due to
stormwater runoff, sewage discharge and factory discharge, coupled with shell¬
fish trawling and overfishing, mean that the health of the local marine environ¬
ment is far worse than its pre-European condition (Edgar et al. 2005). That
being the case, one can only marvel at the resilience of the species that are
still present at Taroona, and wonder at what additional species one might have
encountered a century or two ago. I hope that this article will at least find
use as a baseline against which to compare any future changes to our fore¬
shores and to the outstanding marine life that exists beyond the breaking waves.

I am also unsure of the current local status of the large whelk Pen/on manda-
rinus. All specimens that I have noted have borne large holes in the main body
whorl, and at least one of these was found on the strand-line in the vicinity of a
recognised aboriginal midden site near the Taroona High School. Maybe they

Winkles, whelks and warreners

63

represent the ancient remains of an aboriginal meal - though I doubt that whelks
would have been as favoured as the more abundant warreners and oysters. On the
other hand, I can see no clear reason why the species should not still occur here.

Two further species deserve a mention — though 1 have not included them in
Appendix 1. One is a venerid clam Antigona sp, probably A. clathrata. This is a
tropical Indo-Pacific species, which in Australia is confined to the Great Barrier
Reef and vicinity. Yet in September 2005 I found a single very worn specimen
near the boat-ramp on Taroona Beach. At this stage 1 assume it was jettisoned
from a child’s bucket. An alternative possibility is that it is an old specimen
of a species that once occurred here hundreds or thousands of years ago. Ex¬
amples of warmer-water species (such as the bivalves Anadara trapezia) may
occasionally get washed up on beaches in southeast Tasmania from offshore
deposits near Clifton and Seven Mile Beach, dating from a period in south¬
east Tasmania’s history when water temperatures were higher. However, to my
knowledge not even these deposits contain tropical species {Anadara trapezia is
cold-tolerant enought to still live in Victoria), and in any event I have no other
evidence of shells from these deposits being washed up at Taroona. The second
species of dubious origin is the greenlip abalone Haliotis laevigata. Though
common on the north coast of Tasmania it is generally absent from the cooler
waters further south, and I believe the source of the single large shell that I
found on Taroona Beach is once again more likely to have been a child’s bucket.

Acknowledgements

I would not have been able to figure out the identity of many of the shells
listed here had Graham Edgar not lent me his comprehensive collection of shell
identification books, and had Liz Turner not given freely of her time and malaco-
logical expertise in her position at the Tasmanian Museum’s Rosny Collections
and Research Facility. Between them, they have set me on a path that intrigues
and fascinates me more by the day. My wife Chris and sons James and Ben have
frequently accompanied me on shelling forays, and even when they haven’t they
have (usually) accepted my passion for shelling with grace and good humour.

References

Edgar, G.J. (2000). Australian marine life: the plants and animals of

temperate waters. Reed New Holland, Frenchs Forest, NSW. 544 pages.
Edgar, G.J. (2001). Australian marine habitats in temperate waters. Reed

New Holland, Frenchs Forest, NSW. 224 pages.

Edgar, G.J. and Samson, C. R. (2004). Catastrophic decline in mollusc

diversity in Eastern Tasmania and its concurrence with shellfish fisheries.

64

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Conservation Biology 18 (6): 1579-1588.

Edgar, G.J., Samson, C.R. and Barrett, N.S. (2005). Species extinction in the
marine environment: Tasmania as a regional example of overlooked losses
in biodiversity. Conservation Biology 19 ( 4 ): 1294-1300.

May, W.L. & Macpherson, J.H. (1958). An illustrated index of Tasmanian
shells. Government Printer, Hobart, TAS. 72 pages.

Richmond, M.H. (1992). Tasmanian sea shells, volume 2. Richmond Printers,
Devonport, TAS. 112 pages.

Richmond, M.II. (1997). Tasmanian sea shells common to other Australian
states. Richmond Printers, Devonport, TAS. 80 pages.

TMNA (2003). Between Tasmanian tide lines: afield guide. Tasmanian Field
Naturalists Association and Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, 123 pages.

Appendix 1. Taxonomic listing of seashells that I have recorded along the
Taroona Foreshore. Taxonomy is based on my ongoing review of the recent
literature. Numbers refer to the number of visits on which I have recorded
the species, and serve as a guide to their relative frequency of occurrence
at Taroona. However, as explained in the text, I only recorded species
systematically for just over a year (39 visits) while the numbers in this list
also include records made over about a dozen subsequent visits in which only
retained shells were recorded.

Species

CHITONIDAE

No. of records

Chiton glaucus Gray, 1828

Sypharochi ton pelliserpentis (Quoy & Gaimard, 1836)
NUCULANIDAE

Nuculana (Scaeoleda) crassa (Hinds, 1843)

MYTILIDAE

Brachidontes (Brachidontes) rostratus (Dunker, 1857)
Musculus impactus (Hermann, 1782)

Mytilus (Mytilus) galloprovincialis Lamarck, 1819
Trichomusculus barbatus (Reeve, 1858)

Xenostrobus inconstans (Dunker, 1856)?

Xenostrobus pulex (Lamarck, 1819)

GLYCYMERIDAE

Glycymeris (Glycymeris) striatularis (Lamarck 1819)
PTERJIDAE

Electroma (Electroma) georgiana (Quoy & Gaimard, 1834)
LIMIDAE

Limatula strangei (Sowerby, 1872)

1

9

13

17

10

28

1

1

30

24

9

3

Winkles, whelks and warreners

65

Species

OSTREIDAE

Crassostrea gigas Thunberg, 1793
Ostrea (Eostrea) angasi Sowerby, 1871
PECTINIDAE

Equichlamys bifrons (Lamarck, 1819)

A dimachlamys asperrima (Lamarck, 1819)

Pecten fumatus Reeve, 1852
TRIGONIIDAE

Neotrigonia margaritacea (Lamarck, 1804)
LUCINIDAE

Divalucina cumingi (A. Adams & Angas, 1863)
Epicodakia tatei (Angas, 1879)

Wallucina assimilis (Angas, 1868)

UNGULINIDAE

Fellaniella (Zemysia) globularis (Lamarck, 1818)

GALEOMMATIDAE

Lasaea australis (Lamarck, 1818)

My Hit a (Myllita) tasmanica Tenison Woods, 1875
My sella lactea Hedley, 1902?

CYAMI1DAE

Cyamiomactra mactroides Tate & May, 1900
GAIMARDIIDAE

Gaimardia (Neogaimardia) tasmanica (Beddome, 1882)
CARDITIDAE

Cardiocardita (Bathycardita) raouli (Angas, 1872)
Cardita excavata Deshayes, 1854
Hamacuna hamata (Hedley & May, 1908)

Venericardia bimaculata (Deshayes, 1854)
CONDYLOCARDIIDAE
Condylocardia limaeformis Cotton, 1930
Condylocardia pectinala (Tate & May, 1900)
Condylocardia rectangnlaris Cotton, 1930
Cuna concentrica Hedley, 1902
Cnna delta (Tate & May, 1900)

Ovacuna atkinsoni (Tenison Woods, 1877)
CARDIIDAE

Fulvia tenuicostata (Lamarck, 1819)

Nemocardium (Pratulum) thetidis (Hedley, 1902)
MACTRIDAE

Mactra (Anstromactra) rufescens Lamarck, 1819
Mactra (Electomactra) antecedens Iredale, 1930
Spisula (Notospisula) trigonella (Lamarck, 1818)

No. of records

19

25

11

14

23

3

12

2

8

5

28

1

1

1

4

1

8

1

33

1

3

1

1

1

1

22

5

6
14

2

66

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Species

MESODESMATIDAE
Anapella cycladea (Lamarck, 1818)

Paphies (Amesodesma) elongata (Reeve, 1854)

Paphies (Atactodea) ery’cinaea (Lamarck, 1819)
TELLINIDAE

Pseudarcopagia botanica Hedley, 1918
Tellinella albinella (Lamarck, 1818)

PSAMMOBIIDAE

Gari (Psammobia) livida (Lamarck, 1818)

Soletellina (Soletellina) biradiata (Wood, 1815)
VENER1DAE

Bassina (Callanaitis) disjecta (Perry, 1811)

Callista (Notocallista) diemenensis (Llanley, 1844)

Dosinia caerulea Reeve, 1850
Eumarcia fumigata (Sowerby, 1853)

Irus (Irus) carditoides (Lamarck, 1818)

Irus (Noiopaphia) griseus (Lamarck, 1818)

Katelysia scalarina (Lamarck, 1818)

Placamen placidum (Philippi, 1844)

Tawera gallinula (Lamarck, 1818)

Tawera lagopus (Lamack, 1818)

Timoclea (Chioneryx) cardioides (Lamarck, 1818)

Venerupis (Paphirus) largillierti (Philippi, 1849)

Venerupis (Venerupis) anamala (Lamarck, 1818)
PETRICOLIDAE

Petricola (Velargilla) rubiginosa (A. Adams & Angas, 1864)
HIATELLIDAE

Hiatella australis (Lamarck, 1818)

PHOLADIDAE

Barnea (Anchomasa) obturamentum Hedley, 1893

Pholas (Monothyra) australasiae Sowerby, 1849

MYOCHAMIDAE

Myadora brevis Sowerby, 1829

CLEIDOTHAERIDAE

Cleidothaerus albidus (Lamarck, 1819)

SEPIIDAE

Sepia (Mesembrisepia) novaehollandiae Hoyle, 1909
PATELLIDAE

Patella (Scutellastra) peronii Blainville, 1825
NACELLIDAE

Cellana solida (Blainville, 1825)

LOTTIIDAE

Notoacmea corrodenda (May, 1920)

No. of records
1

15

1

9

1

10

12

8

18

11

1

7

24

1

22

14

1

10

14

22

4

27

9

4

1

3

1

20

24

12

Winkles, whelks and warreners

67

Species

LOTTIIDAE

Notoacmea flammea (Quoy & Gaimard, 1834)

Notoacmea mayi (May, 1923)

Notoacmea petterdi (Tenison Woods, 1876)

Patelloida alticostata (Angas, 1865)

LOTTIIDAE

Patelloida ins ignis (Menke, 1843)

Patelloida latistrigata (Angas, 1865)

Patelloida profunda (Crosse & Fischer, 1864)

Patelloida victoriana (Singleton, 1937)

SCISSURELLIDAE
Sinezona pulchra (Petterd, 1884)

HALIOTIDAE

Haliotis (Notohaliotis) ruber Leech, 1814
FISSURELLIDAE

Amblychilepas javanicensis (Lamarck, 1822)

Amblychilepas nigrita (Sowerby, 1834)

Emarginula (Emarginula) Candida (A. Adams, 1851)
Hemitoma (Montfortia) subemarginata (Blainville, 1819)
Macroschisma tasmaniae Sowerby, 1866
Montfortula rugosa (Quoy & Gaimard, 1834)

Scutus (Scutus) antipodes Montfort, 1810
TURBINIDAE

Astralium aureum (Jonas, 1844)

Phasianella australis (Gmelin, 1791)

Turbo (Subninella) undulatus Lightfoot, 1786
TROCHIDAE

Austrocochlea brevis Parsons & Ward, 1994
Austrocochlea concamerata (Wood, 1828)

Austrocochlea constricta (Lamarck, 1822)

Austrocochlea odontis (Wood, 1828)

Bankivia fasciata (Menke, 1830)

Cantharidella tiberiana (Crosse, 1863)

Clanculus aloysii Tenison Woods, 1876
Clanculusflagellatus (Philippi, 1848)

Clanculus limbatus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1834)

Clanculusplebejus (Philippi, 1851)

TROCHIDAE

Clanculus undatus (Lamarck, 1816)

Fossarina (Fossarina) petterdi Crosse, 1870
Fossarina (Minopa) legrandi Petterd, 1879
Gibbula (Hisseyagibbula) hisseyana (Tenison Woods, 1876)
Phasianotrochus eximius (Perry, 1811)

No. of records

24

3

8

22

21

21

27

9

1

19

2

2

9

5
15

27
8

13

17
22

3

10
21

28

18
1

15

1

15
28

2

6
8
1

16

68

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Species

TROCfflDAE

Phasianotrochus irisodontes (Quoy & Gaimard, 1834)
Phasianotrochus rutilis (A. Adams, 1853)
SKENEIDAE

Cirsonella weldii (Tenison Woods, 1876)?

TROCHACLIDIDAE

Acremodontina translucida (May, 1915)

CERITHIIDAE

Cacozeliana granarium Kiener, 1842
DIAL ID AE

Diala suturalis (A. Adams, 1853)

LITIOPIDAE

Alaba monile (A. Adams, 1862)

TURRITELLIDAE
Gazameda gunnii (Reeve, 1848)

Maoricolpus roseus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1834)
SILIQUARIIDAE

Stephopoma nucleocostata May, 1915
PLESIOTROCHIDAE

Plesiotrochus monachus (Crosse & Fischer, 1864)
L1TTORIN1DAE

Afrolittorina practermissa (May, 1909)

Austrolittorina unifasciata (Gray, 1826)

Bembicium melanostomum (Gmelin, 1791)

Bembicium nanum (Lamarck, 1822)

Risellopsis mutabilis May, 1909
Rufolacuna bruniensis (Beddome, 1883)
EATONIELLIDAE
Crassitoniella erratica (May, 1912)

Eatoniella (Eatoniella) melanochroma (Tate, 1899)
ANABATHRONIDAE
Anabathron (Scrobs) luteofuscus May, 1919
Badepigrus badia (Petterd, 1884)

RISSOIDAE

Alvania (Alvania) fasciata (Tenison Woods, 1876)
Lironoba australis (Tenison Woods, 1877)

Merelina gracilis (Angas, 1871)

Rissoina (Rissoina) fasciata (A. Adams, 1853)
Rissoina (Rissoina) rhyllensis Gatliff & Gabriel, 1908
HYDROBIIDAE
Tatea rufilabris (A. Adams, 1862)

HIPPONICIDAE

Antisabia foliacea (Quoy & Gaimard, 1835)

No. of records

31

10

1

2

26

4

18

6

26

1

26

26

27

17

16

3

1

1

3

3

3

1

3
1
1
1

4

1

Winkles, whelks and warreners

69

Species

HIPPONICIDAE

Sabia australis Lamarck, 1819

CALYPTRAEIDAE

Calyptraea calyptraeformis Lamarck, 1822
Zeacrypta immersa (Angas, 1865)

CYPRAEIDAE

Cypraea (Nolocypraea) angustata Gmelin, 1791
Cypraea (Notocypraea) comptoni Gray, 1847
Cypraea (Notocypraea) declivis Sowerby, 1870

TRIVIIDAE

Trivia (Ellatrivia) merces (Iredale, 1924)

NATICIDAE

Eunaticina umbilicata (Quoy & Gaimard, 1833)
Friginatica beddomei (Johnston 1884)

Pol inices (Conuber) conicus (Lamarck, 1822)

Polinices (Conuber) tasmanica (Tenison Woods, 1876)
Sinum zonale (Quoy & Gaimard, 1833)

CASSIDAE

Semicassis (Antephalium) semigranosum (Lamarck, 1822)
Semicassis (Semicassis) pyrum (Lamarck, 1822)
RANELLIDAE

Argobuccinum pustulosum (Lightfoot, 1786)

Cabestana spengleri Perry, 1811
Cabestana tabulata (Menke, 1843)

Ranella australasia (Perry, 1811)

Sassia (Cymatiella) eburnea (Reeve, 1844)

Sassia (Cymatiella) verrucosa (Reeve, 1844)
TRIPIIORIDAE

Hedleytriphora scitula (A. Adams, 1851)
CER1THIOPS1DAE

Ataxocerithium serotinum (A. Adams, 1855)
EPITONIIDAE

Epitonium (Hyaloscala) jukesianum (Forbes, 1852)
Epitonium (Hyaloscala) taciturn (Iredale, 1936)?

Opalia (Granuliscala) granosa (Quoy & Gaimard, 1834)
Opalia (Opalia) australis (Lamarck, 1822)

ACLIDIDAE

Austrorissopsis brevis (May, 1919)

EULIMIDAE

Melanella injlata (Tate & May, 1900)?

MURICIDAE

Agnewia tritoniformis (Blainville, 1832)

Bedeva paivae (Crosse, 1864)

No. of records

13

17

1

15

1

2

2

3

6

25

2

1

17

2

10

21

5

1

7

21

1

1

1

10

1

1

13

1

1

3

13

70

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Species

MURICIDAE

Lepsiella (Lepsiella) vinosa (Lamarck, 1822)

Litozamia brazieri (Ten ison Woods, 1876)

Litozamia petterdi (Crosse, 1870)

Phycothais reticulata (Blainville, 1832)

Prototypes angasi (Crosse, 1863)

Thais (Dicathais) orbita (Gmelin, 1791)

BUCCINIDAE

Cominella (Cominella) lineolata (Lamarck, 1809)
Penion mandarinus (Duelos, 1831)

Penion maximus (Tryon, 1881)

Tasmeuthria clarkei (Tenison Woods, 1876)
COLUMBELLIDAE
Anachis atkinsoni Tenison Woods, 1875
Mitrella (Dentimitrella) legrandi (Tenison Woods, 1876)
Mitral la (Dentimitrella) pulla Gaskoin, 1852
Mitrella (Dentimitrella) semiconvexa (Lamarck, 1822)
Mitrella (Dentimitrella) tayloriana (Reeve, 1859)
Mitrella (Dentimitrella) vincta (Tate, 1893)

Pseudamycla dermestoidea (Lamarck, 1822)
NASSARI1DAE

Nassarius (Niotha) nigellus (Reeve, 1854)

Nassarius (Niotha) pauperatus (Lamarck, 1822)
FASCIOLAR1IDAE

Fusinus (Fusinus) novaehollandiae (Reeve, 1847)
Pleuroploca australasia (Perry, 1811)

VOLUTIDAE

Amoria undulata (Lamarck, 1804)

Ericusa sowerbyi (Kiener, 1839)

Livonia mammilla (Sowerby, 1844)

OLIVIDAE

Alocospira marginata (Lamarck, 1811)

Belloliva leucozona (A. Adams & Angas, 1864)
MARGINELIJDAE

Austroginel/a formicula (Lamarck, 1822)

Mesoginellapygmaeoides (Singleton, 1937)

Mesoginella turbinata (Sowerby, 1846)

M1TRIDAE

Mitra (Mitra) carbonaria Swainson, 1822

VOLUTOM1TR1DAE

Waimatea obscura (Hutton, 1873)

COSTELL A R11 DA E

Austro mitra analogica (Reeve, 1845)

No. of records

13

11

5

15

4

23

22

2

1

13

3
2
1

13
29
17

27

28
1

24
17

8

1

1

4

5

14
32

6

3

6

13

Winkles, whelks and warreners

71

Species

COSTELLAR1TDAE

Austromitra tasmanica (Tenison Woods, 1876)

Cancellaria (Sydaphera) lactea Deshayes, 1830
TURRIDAE

Epidirona quoyi (Desmoulins, 1842)

Etrema bicolor (Angas, 1871)

TURRIDAE

Guraleus (Eugaraleus) tasmanicus (Tenison Woods, 1876)
Guraleus (Guraleus) pictus (A. Adams & Angas, 1864)
Guraleus (Mitraguraleus) mitralis (A. Adams & Angas, 1863)
TEREBRIDAE

Duplicaria ustulata (Deshayes, 1857)

Terebra tristis Deshayes, 1859
CONIDAE

Conus anemone Lamarck, 1810
PYRAMIDELLIDAE
Odostomia deplexa Tate & May, 1900
Syrnola bifasciata Tenison Woods, 1875
Turbonilla (Chemnitzia) fusca (A. Adams, 1855)

Turbonilla (Turbonilla) mariae Tenison Woods, 1876
SIPHONARIIDAE

Siphonaria (Pachy siphonaria) tasmanica Tenison Woods, 1876
Siphonaria (Siphonaria) diemenensis Quoy & Gaimard, 1833
Siphonaria (Siphonaria) funiculata Reeve, 1856
ELLOBIIDAE

Marinula xanthostoma A. Adams & H. Adams, 1855

No. of records

1

5

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

4

3

1

3

6

5

26

25

6

72

The Tasmanian Naturalist ( 2005 ) 127 : 72-85

Floristic composition of a six-year-old clearfelled
COUPE IN THE WeLD/HuON VALLEY

Tessa Courtney 1 , Shannon Clark 1 and John Hickey 2 3

’Formerly Forestry Tasmania; forestry Tasmania, GPO Box 207, Hobart, Tasmania
7001. 3 Email: john.hickey@forestrytas.com.au.

Summary

The floristic composition of a 160 ha coupe, Warra 01 IB, was sur¬
veyed six years after it was clearfelled, burnt and sown (CBS) and com¬
pared with a pre-harvest survey to determine the change in species compo¬
sition due to the silvicultural treatment. The comparison is limited because
the pre-harvest survey was based on a planned walk that sampled a range
of environments and maximised species richness information whereas the
post-harvest survey was based on 9 randomly located 100 m 2 plots plus a re¬
connaissance walk across the coupe. Additional uncertainty resulted from
different botanical skill levels in pre-harvest and post-harvest surveyors.

The pre-harvest survey recorded 54 species. Of these, 31 species (57%)
were also recorded in the regeneration at age 6. Fifty-seven native vascu¬
lar plant species were present in the regeneration, which included 26 spe¬
cies that had not been recorded in the coupe before harvest. Twenty-three
species that had been recorded before logging were not found in the regen¬
eration. Eleven of these were epiphytic ferns, which may re-establish as
moist microhabitats develop within the growing forest. Although the CBS
treatment has changed species assemblages, the regeneration includes
a diverse flora with a high representation ol early successional species.

A weak negative relationship was found between distance from the mature for¬
est edge and the richness of rainforest species, which suggests that retained mature
forestedges facilitate the recolonisation of rainforest species. There was nosignifi-
cant relationship between edge distance and the richness ofnon-rainforest species,
which suggests that the distribution of propagules forthese species was more even.

ihe results will be used to inform guided visitors to the coupe, which
currently number about 300 people annually. An ongoing study at the near¬
by Warra Silvicultural Systems Trial, based on multiple measurements of

Floristic composition of a clearfelled coupe

73

permanent plots established prior to harvesting, should more precisely de¬
termine the long-term effects of clcarfell, bum and sow, and alternative sil¬
vicultural practices, on the floristic composition of wet eucalypt forests.

Introduction

Warra 01 IB (GDA 476000E 5232500N) is a 160 ha coupe (Figure 1) with
an altitudinal range of more than 200 m. It is accessed via Warra Road and is
often used visited on guided tours to the Warra Long Term Ecological Research
Site (www.warra.com). About 300 people are guided through the Site annually.
An informal lookout above a quarry at Warra 01 IB provides excellent views of
the Weld Valley, Snowy Range, Barn Back and, in the distance, Mt Wellington.

Figure 1 . Aerial view of Warra 01 IB in 1998. Note Weld Ridge in the background
and Warra 012E (clearfelled, burnt and sown in 1989) to the right. The informal
lookout is located above a quarry near the centre of the coupe.

A pre-harvest botanical survey (Williams 1986) resulted in a list of com¬
munities and vascular plant species for the coupe. Harvesting of special tim¬
bers commenced in 1985 and clearfelling was carried out over the period from
1991 through to 1996. The coupe was enlarged due to the lengthy delay in
approval of annual woodchip licences for new coupes while the Australian
and Tasmanian Governments negotiated arrangements for the Comprehensive
Regional Assessment process that led to the 1997 Regional Forest Agreement.
The coupe was burnt and sown in March 1998 with a mixture of Eucalyp-

74

The Tasmanian Naturalist

tus obliqua and E. delegatensis (sowing mix 38% and 62% respectively).

A short study was undertaken in December 2004 to record vascular species
richness and abundance in the six-year-old regeneration and compare it with the
species recorded from the pre-harvesting survey. The main purpose was to pro¬
vide information for mooted interpretation development at the informal lookout.
A secondary aim was to compare the local floristic changes after clearfelling
at Warra 01 IB with broader studies conducted elsewhere, e.g. Hickey (1994).
It was also of some interest to compare findings at Warra 01 IB with a report
(Green et al. 2004) of another regenerated coupe in the Weld Valley (Warra
15H) where the authors reported only 12 vascular species in the regeneration.

Methods

Pre-harvest survey

A pre-harvest botanical survey was carried out over Warra 012A and
011A (Williams 1986). Warra Oil A was since integrated into the larger
01 IB coupe. Species found in 012A but not in 011A were excluded from
the comparison. Williams undertook a planned walk that encompassed a
range of environments to maximise species richness information. The low¬
er elevations of 01 IB, with tall E. obliqua mixed forest were not included in
the sampling area. Some 54 vascular species were recorded within Warra
01 IB, including 44 classified as rainforest species (after Jarman et al. 1991).

Three forest communities were recorded by Williams (1986):

Tall E. delegatensis over Nothofagus cunninghamii , Phyllocladus
aspleniifolius , Eucryphia lucida and Atherosperma moschatum thamnic
rainforest.

Tall E. delegatensis forest over A therosperma moschatum, Eucryphia
lucida and Nothofagus cunninghamii with a predominant Dicksonia
antarctica understorey.

Tall E. nitida forest over Phyllocladus aspleniifolius implicate
rainforest.

Post harvest survey:

Species frequency and abundance was determ ined from nine 10 m by 10 m plots
previouslyestablishedforastudyofE.oW/c/wtf— E. delegatensis SQedWngdomm&ncQ
(Neyland and Dingle 2000) which stratified the coupe into three altitude zones:

Floristic composition of a clearfelled coupe

75

• High (approx 520-450 m)

• Middle (approx 450-380 m)

• Low (approx 380-300 m)

Three plots within each altitude zone were randomly selected us¬
ing a random number table. The plots were sampled in December
2004 for landform, drainage, slope, aspect, rock cover and floristics.
All vascular species present at each plot were noted and recorded us¬
ing the Braun-Blanquet scale (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974).

A reconnaissance walk through the coupe, covering all three altitudinal zones,
was carried out in January 2005 to identify species that may have been present in the
coupebutabsentfromthcninesampleplotsduetotheirlowfrequency inoccurrence.

Data analysis

The data were used to compile a list of species present before and after logging,
species present before logging and absent after, and previously unrecorded spe¬
cies that had colonised the disturbed area. Species richness was considered with¬
in life-form classes: trees, tall shrubs, low shrubs, ground ferns, epiphytic ferns,
herbs and sedges and climbers, based on the dominant form of the mature plant.

Mean frequency (the number of plots with a particular species as a percent¬
age of the total number of plots) and mean percent cover was calculated for each
species. In order to establish mean percent cover, the Braun-Blanquet class¬
es were transformed to their midpoints as follows: <1= 0.5%, 2=3%, 3=15%,
4=37.5%, 5=62.5%, 6=87.5% and then meaned across the nine sample plots.

Edge effects on floristics were determined by categorising plots into two
classes, up to 100 m from the mature forest edge (3 plots) and those beyond 100
m from the forest edge (6 plots). Rainforest species, non-rainforest species and
total vascular species richness all were compared between classes using t tests.
The effect of edges on the life-form of species present was also considered, using
the divisions of <100 m and >100 m from the mature forest edge. Herbs and sedg¬
es, ground ferns and climbers were not analysed due to very low species counts.

Results

Total vascular species richness increased slightly from 54 spe¬
cies prior to treatment to 57 species at six years post-harvest (Table 1).

76

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Tabic 1. Species richness prior to (Oldgrowth), and six years after (Regeneration), at a
clearfell, bum and sow treatment at Warra 01 IB.

Life-form

Mean Species Richness
Old growth Regcncratior

Trees

8

13

Tall Shrubs

13

19

Low shrubs

9

16

Herbs & sedges

5

3

Epiphytic ferns

11

0

Ground ferns

6

5

Climbers

2

1

Total

54

57

Twenty-three of the 54 species recorded at the site in 1986 were not found
in regeneration at WR01 IB. The number of tree species, tall shrubs and low
shrubs increased, while the number of herbs and sedges, ground ferns, epiphytic
ferns and climbers decreased. No species of epiphytic fern persisted in any of
the areas surveyed, accounting for 48% of all species that failed to be detected.

Table 2 shows species recorded at either the pre-harvest, post-harvest or both
surveys. Some 43% (23 species) of species identified in the pre-harvest survey
were not recorded in the regeneration. Conversely, 46% (26 species) of species
identified in the regeneration had not been recorded in the pre-harvest survey.
Several Acacia and Leptospermum tree species were recorded in the regenera¬
tion but not in the oldgrowth forest. The absence of Eucryphia milliganii in the
regeneration may reflect a localised occurrence in the oldgrowth forest, because
its congeneric, Eucryphia lucida was found at both surveys. The apparent ab¬
sence of Eucalyptus obliqua in the oldgrowth forest is an obvious anomaly and
reflects the fact that the pre-harvest survey did not sample the lower elevations
of the coupe. The sclerophyllous tall shrubs Banksia , Cassinia, Notelaea , Pros-
tanthera and Zieria were found in the regeneration, but not recorded in the old¬
growth forest. The sclerophyllous low shrubs Bauer a, Correa and Lomatia were
recorded in the regeneration but not in the oldgrowth. Although Coprosma nitida
appears to be absent from the regeneration this may be a result of some confusion
with the similar species Coprosma quadrifida, which was recorded after logging.

Floristic composition of a clearfelled coupe

77

Table 2. Species list, grouped by life-form and survey. # indicates found only
on reconnaissance walk, not on plots.

Species

Survey

Species

Survey

Trees

Low Shrubs

Acacia dealbata

Post

Aristotelia peduncularis

Both

Acacia mclanoxylon

Post

Bauera rubioides

Post

Acacia rice ana

Both

Coprosma nitida

Pre

Acacia verticil lata

Post

Coprosma quadrifida

Post

Atherosperma moschatum

Both

Correa lawrenceana

Post

Eucalyptus delegatensis

Both

Cyathodes glauca

Both

Eucalyptus nitida

Both

Gaultheria hispida

Post#

Eucalyptus obliqua

Post

Leptecophylla juniperina

Both

Eucryphi a lucida

Both

Lomatia tinctoria

Post

Eucryphia milligani{

Pre

Monotoca submutica

Both#

Leptospermum lanigerum

Post

Olearia persoonioides

Both#

Leptospermum scoparium

Post

Oxylobium arborescens

Post#

Nothufagus cunninghamii

Both#

Pimelea cinerea

Post

Phyllocladus aspleniifolius

Both

Pimelea drupacea

Post

Tall Shrubs

Senecio spp

Post

Agastachys odorata

Both#

Telopea truncata

Pre

Anodopetalum biglandulosum

Both#

Trochocarpa cunninghamii

Both#

Anopterus glandulosus

Both

Trochocarpa gunnii

Both

Banksia marginata

Post

Zieria arborescens

Post

Cassinia aculeata

Post

Herbs and sedges

Cenarrhenes nitida

Both

Acianthus viridis

Pre

Hakea lissosperma

Post#

Calorophus elongatus

Pre

Leptospermum glaucescens

Both#

Drymophila cyanocarpa

Both

Leptospermum nitidum

Both#

Gahnia grandis

Both

Monotoca glauca

Both

Gnaphalium collinum

Post

Notelaea ligustrina

Post

Uncinia tenella

Pre

Olearia argophylla

Both#

Epiphytic ferns

Orites diversifolia

Pre

Asplenium bulbiferum

Pre

Persoonia spp

Both#

Asplenium flaccidum

Pre

Nematolepis squamea

Both

Grammitis billardierei

Pre

Pittosporum bicolour

Both

Hymenophyllum australe

Pre

Pomaderris apetala

Both

Hymenophyllum fiabe datum

Pre

Prostanthera Iasi anthos

Post

Hymenophyllum peltatum

Pre

Tasmannia lanceolata

Both#

Hymenophyllum rarum

Pre

78

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Tabic 2 contd.

Epiphytic ferns (contd.)

Microsorum pustulatum

Pre

Polyphlebium venosum

Pre

Rumohra adiantiformis

Pre

Tmesipteris obliqua

Pre

Ground ferns

Dicksonia antarctica

Pre

Pteridium esculentum

Post

Polystichum proliferum

Pre

Histiopteris incisa

Both

Ground ferns (contd.)

Blechnum wattsii

Both

Sticherus tener

Pre

Hypolepis rugosula

Both#

Gleichenia microphylla

Post#

Climbers

Clematis ar is tat a

Pre

Billardiera longiflora

Post

Prionotes cerinthoides

Pre

Three species of herbs and sedges, Acianthus , Calorophus and Uncinia , ap¬
peared to be absent at the post-harvest survey, but this may be attributable to lo¬
calised occurrences or the relevant inexperience of the post-harvest survey team,
compared to the pre-harvest surveyor. Of the ground ferns, Blechnum wattsii,
Histiopteris incisa and Hypolepis rugosula persisted within the coupe. Three
species of ground fern were not recorded in the post-harvest survey, includ¬
ing Dicksonia antarctica , which is an important substrate for epiphytic species.
None of the 11 epiphytic fern species recorded in the oldgrowth forest were found
in the regeneration. Of the climbers, Prionotes and Clematis were not found in
the regeneration whereas Billardiera appeared to be an early colonising species.

Mean frequency and percent cover is presented in Table 3 for the post-harvest
survey. Four species. Eucalyptus delegatensis , Eucalyptus obliqua , Nematolepis
squamea 3nd Gahniagrandis were found on all plots. Only ten species (four trees,
threetallshrubs,twolowshrubsandonesedge)hadapercentcoverofgreaterthanl%.

Edge Effects on Floristics

Vascular species richness was found to be significantly greater up to 100 m from
a mature forest edge, compared to beyond 100 m (t test: t=4.23, df= 7, P=<0.01).
The rainforest species richness was significantly different between the two dis¬
tances, up to 100 m had a mean rainforest species richness of 11.3, compared with
6.2 for d istances greater than 100 m from an edge (t test; t=3.54, df = 7, P=<0.01).

A line was fitted to the data to model a linear relationship between dis¬
tance from edge and rainforest species richness (Figure 2). Other models
may have provided a better fit but a simple approach was adopted because of
the small data set. The regression coefficient R 2 was determined to be 0.39

Floristic composition of a clearfelled coupe

79

(P = 0.07), indicating a weak negative relationship between edge distance
and rainforest species richness. Figure 2 indicates an outlying point 130
m from the mature forest boundary. When this particular point is removed
from the analysis, R 2 increases to 0.58. It is suggested that the point is an
unusual observation and a larger sampling may have resulted in a stronger
negative correlation between edge distance and rainforest species richness.

Figure 2. Relationship between edge distance and rainforest species richness

The species richness for non-rainforest species (including those species clas¬
sified as unlikely rainforest species by Jarman et al. 1991) was not significantly
related to distance from the forest edge (t test: t = 2, df = 7, P>0.05). Furthermore,
only low shrubs showed a significant difference in the number of species present
up to 100 m of the forest edge in comparison with the count found beyond 100
m, with a greater number of shrubs occurring up to 100 m from the boundary.

80

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Table 3. Mean frequency and percent cover for vascular species at Warra 011B

Species

Frcq

Cover

Species

Freq

Cover

Trees

%

Low shrubs

%

Acacia dealbata

0.1

0.3

Aristotelia pcduncularis

0.2

0.1

Acacia melanoxylon

0.4

0.2

Bauera rubioides

0.1

1.7

Acacia riceana

0.6

3.5

Coprosma quadrifida

0.2

0.1

Acacia verticil lata

0.2

2

Correa lawrenceana

0.1

<0.01

Atherosperma moschatum

0.2

0.1

Cyatbodes glauca

0.8

1.2

Eucryphia lucida

0.3

0.2

Leptecophylla juniperina

1

4.6

Eucalyptus delegatensis

1

47.8

Lomatia tinctoria

0.1

1.7

Eucalyptus nitida

0.1

<0.01

Pimelea cinerea

0.1

<0.01

Eucalyptus obliqua

1

25.8

Pimelea drupacea

0.3

0.2

Leptospermum lanigerum

0.3

0.17

Senecio spp

0.7

0.3

Leptospermum scoparium

0.4

0.5

Trochocarpa gunnii

0.7

0.3

Phyllocladus aspleniifolius

0.7

0.3

Herbs and sedges

Tall shrubs

Drymophila cyanocarpa

0.1

<0.01

Anopterus glandulosus

0.3

0.17

Gahnia grandis

1

18.2

Banksia marginata

0.2

0.1

Gnaphalium collinum

0.1

0.06

Cassinia aculeata

0.2

0.1

Ground ferns

Cenarrhenes nitida

0.2

0.1

Blechnum wattsii

0.7

0.3

Monotoca glauca

0.9

15.4

Histiopteris incisa

0.4

0.2

Notelaea ligustrina

0.1

<0.01

Pteridium esculentum

0.1

0.3

Nematolepis squamea

1

5.9

Climbers

Pittosporum bicolour

0.3

0.2

Billardiera longijlora

0.6

0.3

Pomaderris apctala

0.4

8.7

Prostanlhera lasianthos

0.1

<0.01

Zieria arborescens

0.2

0.1

Floristic composition of a clearfelled coupe

81

Discussion

Species richness was found to have marginally increased at Warra
01 IB following the CBS treatment. This finding accords with many stud¬
ies that reported an increase in species richness after logging in dry euca-
lypt forest (e.g. Dickinson and Kirkpatrick 1987), wet sclerophyll forest
(eg. Wapstra et al. 2003) and mixed forest (eg. Hickey 1994). Green et
al. (2004) implied a reduction in species diversity and reported only 12 vas¬
cular species in regeneration in a nearby clearfelled coupe in the Weld Val¬
ley. However they provide few details of their sampling methodology.

An increase in vascular species richness immediately following the logging
period is often due to the increased abundance and frequency of species able
to colonise disturbed environments (Wapstra et al. 2003). If Warra 011B had
been surveyed at an earlier stage after harvesting, a greater increase in spe¬
cies richness may have been observed. Harris (2004) showed the early in¬
crease in vascular plant richness after logging in the Victorian Otway ranges
was due to an influx of herbaceous species. Most of these species had their
maximum occurrence two or three years after treatment. Many were not re¬
corded after 5 years post harvest, leading to an overall decline in floristic di¬
versity after three years. Six years after the regeneration burn at Warra, her¬
baceous species that may have been initially present would have declined due
to reduced light intensity as the cover of woody species increased. Species
richness therefore may have been even higher immediately following the burn
and sow, stabilising at six years at a level that is similar to pre-harvest records.

The mean number of rainforest species fell from 44 pre-harvest to 30, six years
after the regeneration bum. This accounted for the majority of species that were
not recorded in the regeneration. The most significant loss was that of the epi¬
phytic ferns. All 11 species recorded prior to treatment had failed to regenerate
in any of the sample areas. Such a finding is consistent with numerous studies
(Hickey 1994, Ough 2001, Wapstra et al. 2003, Harris 2004) that have found that
the single most significant loss after clearfelling is that of epiphytic fem species.

Three ground fern species including Dicksoniaantarctica failed to be detected
both within the sample plots and along the reconnaissance walk across the cou¬
pe. Tree ferns can rapidly resprout from protected growing points on the top of
their trunks after fire. However extensive mechanical disturbance from logging
may have removed mature stems so that recolonisation would largely depend on
spores from offsite sources. Moist stable conditions conducive to spore regenera¬
tion may not develop for decades after logging has occurred (Smith et al. 2004).

82

The Tasmanian Naturalist

However, usually some Dicksonia individuals resprout after a regeneration bum
and it has been suggested that Warra 011B had few mature tree ferns prior to the
CBS treatment. This may account for the failure to locate surviving individuals.

The lack of Dicksonia in the regeneration has implications for the recovery of
epiphytic ferns, because tree fern trunks provide ideal substrates for colonisation
by epiphytes. Peacock and Duncan (1994) showed that some vascular epiphytes
may take 50 years to recolonise rcgrowth after clearfelling. The availability of
suitable micro-habitats and substrates within Warra 011B will play a pivotal role
in determining the rate at which epiphytic ferns will be able to recolonise the area.

Twenty-six additional species colonised Warra 01 IB after logging, in¬
cluding three Acacia species (A. melanoxylon , A. dealbata , A. verticillata).
Howard (1974) reported acacias germinating from viable ground stored seed
in rainforest stands where they had been absent previously. Many of the spe¬
cies now occupying Warra 01 IB regenerate profusely from ground-stored
seed and protected root-stocks following disturbance. However excessive
disturbance by machinery or intense fire can kill ground-stored propagules.
Where the humus has been destroyed, regeneration frequencies are gener¬
ally smaller (Duncan 1985). This effect was evident in some parts of Warra
01 IB, particularly on snig tracks which are now largely colonised by the har¬
dy sedge Gahnia grandis , which has bird-dispersed and ground-stored seed.

Low frequencies were observed for three of the four major rainforest, trees
(Atherosperma moschatum , Nothofagus cunninghamii and Eucryphia lucida).
The other, Phyllocladus aspleniifolius , is capable of regeneration from ground-
stored and bird-dispersed seed and was the most commonly occurring rainfor¬
est tree, at a frequency of 0.7. Nothofagus cunninghamii , which regenerates
mainly from seed from adjacent mature trees, was absent from the sampled
plots. A small individual was found persisting on a road side verge during
the reconnaissance walk. Nothofagus cunninghamii may be slow to re-estab¬
lish on large clearfelled areas due to limited dispersal capabilities (Hickey et
al. 1982, Lindenmayer et al. 2000). Therefore distances from viable seed
sources and dispersion capabilities are crucial factors in ensuring successful
rainforest regeneration after logging. Leatherwood (Eucryphia lucida ), which
regenerates from wind-blown seed and by coppicing, was only found up to 100
m of a mature forest edge. These results are consistent with those of Tabor
(2004), who investigated edge effects on the regeneration of the four major
rainforest trees. He concluded that by 200 m from a suitable seed source, the
frequency of Nothofagus cunninghamii , Eucryphia lucida , and Atherosperma

Floristic composition of a clearfelled coupe

83

moschatum was much reduced. The ability of Phyllocladus aspleniifolius to
regenerate from ground-stored seed allowed it to persist throughout coupes.

Distances from the edge of the surrounding mature forest were found to
have a significant impact on the number of rainforest species able to regen¬
erate within the coupe. Non-rainforest species with long-lived ground stored
seed such as Acacia deal bat a and Nematolepis squamea were advantaged by
the burning treatment and regenerated in large numbers. There was no sig¬
nificant difference in the number of non-rainforest species and distance from
forest edge, indicating a fairly even distribution of propagules, i.e. seed or
rootstocks. In a clearfelled coupe, the majority of species regenerate by
seed rather than by vegetative reproduction (Murphy and Ough 1997).

The presence of weeds was confined to an internal quarry and on road verges.
Although no weeds were found on the sample plots, Erica lusitanica , Hypochoeris
radicata and Centaurium erythraea were all noted during the coupe walk. Weed
species were not included on the species list, so as to avoid giving a false impres¬
sion of the species richness of the coupe. They were not seen to be a major concern
within Warra 11B, as they only persisted in isolated areas along roadside cuttings.

Several limitations of this study must be acknowledged. The sample
plots constituted 900 m 2 of area whereas the pre-harvest survey was carried
out over a planned transect, designed to incorporate several smaller sub-envi¬
ronments within the coupe such as riparian zones, to maximise species rich¬
ness. This issue was partly addressed by the post-harvest reconnaissance
walk through the coupe after sampling the plots, to integrate such areas and
locate species that had lower frequencies within the coupe. This increased the
post-harvest species list by some 36 percent, which highlights the difficulty
of comparing pre- and post harvest species richness that are based on differ¬
ent sampling techniques. Also arising is the question of accurate identification
of species, especially where pre- and post surveys are undertaken by differ¬
ent observers and with varying botanical expertise. For example, Coprosma
nitida was recorded pre-harvest, yet Coprosma quadrifida was identified
later. It must be questioned whether this is a true representation of ecologi¬
cal processes within the coupe, or is it more likely to be due to differences
in observers. These difficulties can be partly overcome through the acquisi¬
tion of voucher specimens that can be referenced by subsequent surveyors.

The species list from this study is by no means absolute. It is a compila¬
tion of the minimum number of species persisting at Warra 01 IB and a larger
sampling may have yielded several other species. It is clear however, that the

84

The Tasmanian Naturalist

CBS treatment has changed species assemblages and resulted in a diverse flo¬
ra with a high representation of early successional species. Further study on
the impact of silvicultural practices on Tasmanian tall eucalypt forests (Hick¬
ey et al. 2001) and based on precisely located permanent plots established
prior to harvesting (Neyland 2001) should help determine the long-term ef¬
fects of clearfell, bum and sow practices on understorey floristic composition.

References

Dickinson, KJ. and Kirkpatrick, J.B (1987) The short term effects of
clearfelling and slash burning on the richness, diversity and relative
abundance of higher plant species in two types of eucalypt forest on dolerite
in Tasmania. Australian Journal of Botany 35: 601-16
Duncan, F. (1985) Tasmania s Vegetation and its response to forest
operations. Working paper 6. Background information additional to
Environmental Impact Statement on Tasmania’s woodchip exports beyond
1988. Tasmanian Woodchip Study Export Group, Hobart.

Green, G., Gray, A. and McQuillan, P. (2004) Biodiversity impacts and
sustainability implications of clearfell logging in the Weld Valley, Tasmania.
19 pp. Timber Workers for Forests <www.twff.com.au/weldreport>,
Kingston.

Harris, S.G. (2004). Regeneration of flora following timber harvesting in the
wet forests of the Otway Ranges, Victoria. Department of Sustainability
and Environment, Melbourne.

Hickey, J.E .(1994). A floristic comparison of vascular species in Tasmanian
oldgrowth mixed forest with regeneration resulting from logging and
wildfire. Australian Journal of Botany 42: 383-404.

Hickey, J. E., Blakesley, A. J. and Turner, B. (1982). Seedfall and

germination of Nothofagus cunninghamii (Hook.) Oerst., Eucryphia lucida
(Labill.) Baill. and Atherosperma moschatum Labill. Implications for
regeneration practice. Australian Forest Research 13 (1): 21-28.

Hickey, J.E., Neyland, M.G and Bassett, O.D. (2001). Rationale and design
for the Warra silvicultural systems trial in wet Eucalyptus obliqua forests in
Tasmania. Tasforests 13 (2): 155-177
Howard EM. (1974). Nothofagus cunninghamii ecotonal stages. Buried
viable seed in north west Tasmania. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Victoria 108: 137-142.

Jarman, S.J., Kantvilas, G. and Brown, M.J. (1991) Floristic and ecological
studies in Tasmanian Rainforest. Tasmanian NRCP Report 3. Forestry
Commission, Tas and the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment,

Floristic composition of a clearfelled coupe

85

Tourism and Territories, Canberra.

Lindenmayer, D.B., Mackey, B.G., Cunningham, R.B, Donnelly, C.F.,

Mullen, I.C., McCarthy, M.A. and Gill, A.M. (2000). Factors affecting the
presence of the cool temperate rain forest tree myrtle beech ( Nothofagus
cunninghamii) in southern Australia: integrating climatic, terrain and
disturbance predictors of distribution patterns. Journal of Biogeography 27
(4): 1001-1009.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and Ellenberg, H.. (1974). Aims and methods of
vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.

Murphy, A. and Ough, K. (1997). Regenerative strategies of understorey flora
following clearfell logging in the Central Highlands, Victoria. Australian
Forestry 60: 90-98.

Neyland, M.G. (2001). Vegetation of the Warra silvicultural systems trial.
Tasforests 13(2): 183-192.

Neyland, M. and Dingle, J. (2000). Establishment Report. R.R 307. Warra
11B E. obliqua - E. delegatensis seedling dominance trial (unpublished
report).

Ough, K. (2001). Regeneration of wet forest flora a decade after clear-felling
or wildfire- is there a difference? Australian Journal of Botany 49: 645-664.

Peacock and Duncan, F. (1994). Impact of logging on Dicksonia antarctica
and associated epiphytes in Tasmanian wet eucalypt forests. In:

International Forest Biodiversity Conference: Conserving Biological
Diversity in Temperate Forest Ecosystems- Toward Sustainable
Management. Canberra 4-9 December 1994. Department of Environment,
Sport and Territories, Canberra pp 171-172.

Smith, G.C, Taylor, R., Loyn, R., Turner, V., Kavanagh, R., Catling, P. (2004).
Identification of species and functional groups that give early warning
of major environmental change (Indicator 1.2c). Part A: Draft review of
species and functional groups with potentially sensitive attributes, including
an annotated preliminary list of likely indicator species or groups. Forest
and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, Vic.

Tabor, J. (2004). Colonisation of clearfelled coupes by rainforest tree species
from mixed forest edges (Honours thesis).

Wapstra, M. Duncan, F., Williams, K. and Walsh, D. (2003). Effect of
silvicultural system on vascular flora in wet sclerophyll forest in south¬
eastern Tasmania. Australian Forestry 66 (4): 247-257.

Williams, K. (1986). Pre-logging Botanical Survey Report 4. Southern Forest
Coupes WR12A and WR11A (unpublished report).

86

The Tasmanian Naturalist ( 2005 ) 127 : 86-90

March Federation weekend 4-6th March 2005, held at
Kaloma Scout Camp, Wynyard

Compiled by Genevieve Gates

Introduction by Deb Hill , Central North Field Naturalists Club (with additional
comments by Margaret Kinsey, Burnie Field Naturalists Club)

“Discovering Wynyard” was the theme for the weekend and we began with a
walk along the Inglis River where there were sightings of an azure kingfisher, a platy¬
pus and a water rat. More abundant were the white-faced herons, grey fantails and
scarlet robins. The range of saltmarsh plants at the mouth of the small tidal
creeks running into the Inglis River was also of special interest. Blechnum
minus and Blechnum nudum were identified in many wet areas along the
track. The unusually large size of these ferns made us wonder at their age.

We also visited Fossil Bluff at Wynyard to view the amazing geologi¬
cal features. The different climatic conditions that occurred during the Oli-
gocene period (about 38 million years ago) when the bluff was beneath the
sea are indicated by the layers of sandstone some of which arc rich in fos¬
sils. Exposed beds of tillite lie beneath the sandstone. The tillite origi¬
nated about 275 million years ago from glacial deposits. There are many
rock types contained in the tillite including quartzite, jasper and agate.

Richard Donaghcy gave an after dinner lecture on birds and how they
can be indicators of the health of the bush in agricultural areas in North-
West Tasmania. Richard is about to release the book he has written on this
subject and it will be available at the North West Environment Centre. It
will be attractively priced and contain important information on species.

The weekend concluded with a walk on Table Cape from the look¬
out to the lighthouse where a sea eagle was spotted. Tasmanian dev¬
il scats were quite abundant along the track as we continued towards
the lighthouse, and we noted the extensive stands of Melaleuca ericifo-
lia near the lighthouse. A steep scramble down the side of Table Cape (we
missed the track) was rewarded with a cuppa at Mary Kille’s home.

Federation weekend at Wynyard

87

Table 1. Fungus list, compiled by Genevieve Gates and David Ratkowsky,
Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club. I: Inglis River Walk, Wynyard (including
York Street Reserve), 5 March 2005. T: Table Cape, 6 March 2005.
Dictyopanuspusillus was the only Fungimap target species recorded.

Bolbitius sp. (T) Dictyopanus pusillus (I, T)

Boletus sp. with yellow trama (I) Fomes hemitephrus (1)
Calocera guepinioides (I) Ganoderma applanatum (I)

Corticioid species-grcy (I) Heterotextus peziziformis (I)

Marasmiellus affixus (I)
Marasmiellus sp. “cream” (I)
Melanotus hepatochrous (I)
Tricholomopsis rutilans (I)

Table 2. Vascular plant list for Fossil Bluff, 5 March 2005, compiled by
Margaret Kinsey, Bumie Field Naturalists Club.

A1ZOACEAE
Carpobrotus rossii?
APIACEAE
Apium prostratum
ASTERACEAE
Senecio lautus
Senecio linearifolius
CAMPANULACEAE
Lobelia anceps

EPACR1DACEAE
Leucopogon australis
MIMOSACEAE
Acacia melanoxylon
Acacia sophorae
MYOPORACEAE
Myoporum insulare

MYRTACEAE
Melaleuca ericifolia
PITTOSPORACEAE
Bursaria spinosa
PRIMULACEAE
Samolus repens
ROSACEAE
Rubus parvifolius

Table 3. Vascular plant list for Table Cape, 6 March 2005, compiled by
Margaret Kinsey, Bumie Field Naturalists Club.

AIZOACEAE
Tetragonia expansa
APIACEAE
Hydrocotyle sp.
ASTERACEAE
Cassinia aculeata
Olearia lirata
Senecio lautus
Senecio linearifolius
CAPRIFOLIACEAE
Sambucus gaudichaudiana

CARYOPIIYLLACEAE
Stellaria pungens?
EPACRIDACEAE
Leucopogon parviflorus?
MIMOSACEAE
Acacia melanoxylon
Acacia verticil lata
MYRTACEAE
Eucalyptus ovata
Eucalyptus viminalis
Melaleuca ericifolia

RUAMNACEAE
Pomaderris apetala
SAPINDACEAE
Dodonaea viscosa
MONOCOTS
Lomandra longifolia
Poa sp.

FERNS

Dicksonia antarctica
Hypolepis sp.
Pteridium esculentum

88

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Table 4. Vascular plant list for Inglis River, 5 March 2005, compiled by
Margaret Kinsey, Bumie Field Naturalists Club.

ASTERACEAE
Cassinia aculeata
Cotula sp.

Olearia argophylla
Ole aria lirata
Senecio linearifolius
Senecio odoratus?
CAMPANULACEAE
Lobelia anceps
CASUARINACEAE
Allocasuarina monilifera
DILLENLACEAE
Hibbertia procumbens
DROSERACEAE
Drosera pellata ssp auriculata
Drosera pygmaea
EPACRIDACEAE
Astroloma humifusum
Epacris impressa
Leucopogon australis
Leucopogon ericoides
Leucopogon parvi/lorus
Leucopogon virgalus
Monotoca glauca
EUPHORBIACEAE
Ampere a xiphoclada
Phyllanthus gunnii
FABACEAE
Aotus ericoides
Daviesia ulicifolia
Dillwynia sp.

Pultenaea daphnoides
Pultenaea juniperina

HALORAGACEAE
Gonocarpus sp
LAURACEAE
Cassytha sp.
MALVACEAE
Gynatrix pulchella
MIMOSACEAE
Acacia dealbata
Acacia melanoxylon
Acacia myrlifolia
Acacia stricta
Acacia verniciflua
Acacia verticil lata
MYRTACEAE
Eucalyptus amygdalina
Eucalyptus obliqua
Eucalyptus ovata
Eucalyptus viminalis
Euromyrtus ramosissima
Leptosperm um glaucescens
Leptospermum scoparium
Melaleuca ericifolia
Melaleuca squarrosa
PITTOSPORACEAE
Billardiera longijiora
Bur sari a spinosa
Pittosporum bicolor
POLYGONACEAE
Comesperma volubile
PRIMULACEAE
Samolus repens
PROTEACEAE
Banksia marginata
Lomatia tinctoria
Persoonia juniper ina

RANUNCULACEAE
Clematis aristata
RHAMNACEAE
Pomaderris apetala
ROSACEAE
Acaena novaezelandiae
RUBIACEAE
Coprosma quadrifida
RUTACEAE
Zieria arborescens
SANTALACEAE
Leptomeria drupacea
SOLANACEAE
Solanum laciniatum
THYMELAEACEAE
Pimelea drupacea
Pi me lea linifolia
MONOCOTS

Cheiloglottis gunnii (leaves)
Dianella tasmanica
Diplarrena moraea
Gahnia sp.

Lepidosperma sp.

Lomandra longifolia
Poa sp.

FERNS

Blechnum minus
Blechnum nudum
Blechnum wattsii
Dicksonia antarctica
Histiopteris incisa
Uypolepis sp.

Pellaea falcata
Polystichum prolife rum
Pteridium esculenlum

Federation weekend at Wynyard

89

Table 5. Taxonomic list of seashells from Fossil Bluff (F) and/or Johnson’s
Beach (J), 5-6 March 2005, collected by Genevieve Gates and identified by
Simon Grove, August 2005. An asterisk denotes species that are of interest to
‘southerners’ because of their rarity in Tasmania beyond the North coast.

Species

MYTILIDAE

Common name

Loc

Xenostrobus pulex (Lamarck, 1819)

ARCIDAE

Little black horse-mussel

F,J

Barbatia pistachio (Lamarck, 1819)

MACTRIDAE

Hairy ark

F, J

Mactra rufescens Lamarck, 1819

TELLINIDAE

Reddish trough-shell

J

Pseudarcopagia botanica (Medley, 1918)

VENERIDAE

Decussated tell in

F,J

Irus carditoides (Lamarck, 1818)

Cardita-Iikc boring-venus

F

Placamen placidum (Philippi, 1844)

NACELLLDAE

Placid vcnus

F

Cellana solida (Blainville, 1825)

LOTTIIDAE

Orange-edged limpet

J

Patelloida alticostata (Angas, 1865)

Tall-ribbed limpet

F, J

Patelloida ins ignis (Mcnke, 1843)

HALIOTIDAE

Maltese-cross limpet

F, J

*Haliotis emmae Reeve, 1846

FISSURELL1DAE

Emma’s abalone

F, J

Scutus antipodes Montfort, 1810

TURBINIDAE

Elephant snail

J

Astralium aureum (Jonas, 1844)

Golden star-shell

F, J

*Phasianella ventricosa Swainson, 1822

Swollen pheasant-shell

F,J

Turbo undulatus Lightfoot, 1786

TROCHIDAE

Wavy turban-shell

F,J

Austrocochlea adelaidae (Philippi, 1849)

Adelaide top-shell

F

Austrocochlea concamerata (Wood, 1828)

Wavy top-shell

F,J

Austrocochlea constricta (Lamarck, 1822)

Ribbed top-shell

F, J

*Herpetopoma aspersa (Philippi, 1846)

Pearled top-shell

F

Phasianotrochus eximius (Perry, 1811)

Choice kelp-shell

F

Phasianotrochus irisodontes (Quoy & Gaimard, 1834)
NERITIDAE

Rainbow kelp-shell

F

Nerita atramentosa Reeve, 1855

L1TTORINIDAE

Black nerite

J

Bembicium nanum (Lamarck, 1822)

Striped-mouth conniwink

J

Austrolittorina unifasciata (Gray, 1826)
IIIPPONICIDAE

Banded australwink

F

Antisabia foliacea (Quoy & Gaimard, 1835)

Foliaceous bonnet-limpet

F,J

Hipponix australis (Lamarck, 1819)

Southern bonnet-limpet

J

90

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Table 5 contd.

Species

CYPRAEIDAE

Common name

Loc

Cypraea comptoni Gray, 1847

Compton’s cowrie

F

*Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825

NATICIDAE

Peppered cowrie

F

Polinices conicus (Lamarck, 1822)

RANELLIDAE

Conical sand-snail

J

Sassia eburnea (Reeve, 1844)

Common sand-whelk

F

* Sassia sub distort a (Lamarck, 1822)

Distorted sand-whelk

F

Sassia verrucosa (Reeve, 1844)

EPITONITDAE

Warted sand-whelk

F

Opalia australis (Lamarck, 1822)

Southern wentletrap

F, J

Opalia granosa (Quoy & Gaimard, 1834)
MURIC1DAE

Granulated wentletrap

F,J

Lepsiella vinosa (Lamarck, 1822)

Wine-mouthed rock-snail

F

*Muricopsis umbilicatus (Tcnison Woods, 1876)

Umbilicated murex

J

Thais orbita (Gmclin, 1791)

BUCC1NIDAE

Cart rut shell

F,J

Cominella lineolala (Lamarck, 1809)

Lineatcd whelk

F,J

*UCominella tasmanica (Tcnison Woods, 1878)

Tasmanian whelk

J

Tasmeuthria clarkei (Tcnison Woods, 1876)
COLUMBELLIDAE

Clarke’s whelk

F

Mitrella semiconvexa (Lamarck, 1822)
NASSARI1DAE

Scm icon vex dove-shell

F

Nassarius nigellus (Reeve, 1854)

Little mud-snail

F

Nassarius pauperatus (Lamarck, 1822)
FASCIOLAR1IDAE

Impoverished mud-snail

F

*Fusinus undulatus (Perry, 1811)

Wavy spindle-shell

F

Pleuroploca australasia (Perry, 1811)

OLIVIDAE

Australian tulip-shell

F, J

Alocospira marginata (Lamarck, 1811)

MITRIDAE

Margined olive

F

Mitra glabra Swainson, 1821

VOLUTOMITRJDAE

Smooth mitre

F

Waimatea obscura (Hutton, 1873)

TURRIDAE

Magpie volute-mitre

F

* Marita compta (A. Adams & Angas, 1864)

CONI DAE

Margin-like turrid

F

Conus anemone Lamarck, 1810

SIPHONAR11DAE

Anemone cone-shell

F,J

Siphonaria diemenensis Quoy & Gaimard, 1833

//Provisional identification only: very worn specimen.

Van Diemen’s Land siphon-
shell

F,J

The Tasmanian Naturalist ( 2005 ) 127 : 91-94

91

Book Reviews: A plethora of books on fungi?

Reviewed by David Ratkowsky

A Field Guide to Australian Fungi, by Bruce Fuhrer. Published by

Bloomings Books, Melbourne, 2005. 360 pages. ISBN 1 876473 51 7.

Fungi Down Under: the Fungimap Guide to Australian Fungi, by Pat

Grey and Ed Grey. Published by Fungimap, c/- Royal Botanic Gardens,

Melbourne, 2005. 146 pages. ISBN 0 646 44674 6.

A Field Guide to the Fungi of Australia, by A.M. Young. Published

by the University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2005. 240 pages.

ISBN 0 86840 742 9.

Never before have Australian naturalists with an interest in fun¬
gi had such a choice of guide books, with three new field guides pub¬
lished in 2005 at about the same time. The books are different in range
and scope but all will be welcomed by those who aspire to put a name
to a fungus that they may have seen in the bush or suburban garden.

Probably the most extensive and comprehensive of the three books that were
launched this year is the one by Bruce Fuhrer, which covers ca. 500 species,
all beautifully photographed with the care and attention to detail that we have
come to expect from this author. Bruce’s renown extends well beyond people
with an interest in fungi, as he is the author and/or photographer of a diverse
range of biological groups, such as Banksias, bryophytes and the marine life
at seashores. The present book goes far beyond the content of his previous
books on fungi (Fuhrer and Robinson 1992; Fuhrer 2001), whose text rarely
contained more than a single sentence describing each species. The new book,
which re-uses some of the same photographs in his Field Companion , contains
more detail to help the reader identify the species, almost always providing
information on spore print colour, spore size, shape and surface ornamentation,
if any. The other engaging feature was the author’s willingness to include large
numbers of the more unfamiliar, less commonly photographed species, even if
some could not always be named to species level. Thus, the Fuhrer book cov¬
ers representatives of all the various kinds of fungi, i.e. gilled fungi, fleshy and
woody pore fungi, coral- and club-fungi, puffballs, spine fungi, shelf fungi, jelly
fungi, disc- and cup-fungi, with a few slime moulds thrown in to round off the

92

The Tasmanian Naturalist

work. It is a highly successful effort and is likely to be the one work that the
field mycologist will want to consult most frequently in search of a name. No
book is error-free, and the publisher has probably not served the author well
by allowing a production editor to misname the beautiful cover photograph of
Mycena nargan , a purplish black species, as Mycena nivalis , which is a species
with a snow-white cap. Cystidia is also misspelled in the inside front and back
covers, and the photograph of Coprinus comatus facing p. 1 is misidentified as
Coprinus air ament arius. Publishers must learn that authors need to be given
the whole book to proof-read, not just the text material from p. 1 onwards.

The scope of Fungi Down Under is entirely different, being confined only
to the 100 target species of the Fungimap project. This special project was
initiated jointly in 1995 by the Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne and the
Field Naturalists Club of Victoria as a means of providing Australia-wide dis¬
tribution maps for this continent’s larger fungi. As the majority of Australian
macrofungi are yet to be named and described, the project had to be confined
to a fixed number of target species, chosen for their ease of identification in
the field, without recourse to microscopic examination. Volunteers through¬
out Australia, mainly amateurs, were encouraged to send in records of these
target species, and many thousands of records were received. For the produc¬
tion of the book, and for a CD-ROM that preceded it, people were asked to
contribute photographs, habitat information and the precise location where the
specimen was found. This provided Pat and Ed Grey with a lot of choice of
photographs to select, and they skilfully compiled the text and species descrip¬
tions at their disposal. Leon Costermans, who designed and edited the book,
digitally prepared the photographs and artwork for printing, resulting in an
attractive layout, with each of the 100 target species assigned a whole page
of the book. Often, each species is allotted more than one photo, and each
has a distribution map of Australia with red dots indicating the localities at
which the species was recorded. The book is informative, pleasant to look at
and to read, and thoroughly achieves its objective, and should inspire natural¬
ists who have not as yet become involved in Fungimap to do so in the future.

The third book under review, the field guide by A.M. (Tony) Young, is a
thoroughly revised version of his previous book, Common Australian Fungi ,
the last revision of which appeared in 2000. This is a substantially different
effort, and much more successful than that one, bringing the nomenclature up-
to-date so that the species names now conform largely to those that appear in
the other two books under review and to the names that are generally found in
the mycological literature. For this book, Tony collaborated with Kay Smith,

Book reviews

93

who painted 23 watercolours and prepared more than 260 line drawings. While
these paintings and drawings certainly help contribute to species identification,
those of us who believe that a good photograph is hard to beat would like to
have seen more than the 36 colour photos that were included in this work and
confined to a section in the centre of the book. Generally, the treatment of each
species ends with a distribution giving the Australian States in which the species
are known to appear. It is lamentable to see Tasmania “left o ff the map” as fre¬
quently as it is in this book. While the author may be forgiven for overlooking
two papers on the fungi of Mt. Wellington that appeared in the Papers & Pro¬
ceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania in 2002 and 2004, there is less excuse
for his not obtaining access to the extensive Fungimap records prior to publica¬
tion, which would have showed that the target species Amanita xanthocephala,
Fistulina hepatic a, Hericium corallo ides. Mar as mins elegans , Mycena vis-
cidocruenta , Plectania campylospora , Tremella fuciformis , T. mesenterica and
Xerula radicata have been frequently reported from this island. Hopefully,
these and other omissions can be corrected in the next revision of the book

Together with Ian McCann’s field guide and the little “Bush Book” of Ri¬
chard Robinson, both published in 2003, the Australian fungus enthusiast now
has a big choice of recent books to choose from. Is there a plethora of choice,
i.e. a surfeit, an excess of these books? For those of us for whom fungi are
the main subject of interest in the natural environment, the choice is extremely
welcome, especially when compared to the situation a decade ago. The three
books on offer here may appeal to different markets, at least to some extent.
Bruce Fuhrer’s book is certainly the most comprehensive, but is focussed on
the regions of Australia that experience high autumn and winter rainfall. Tony
Young’s book will be relevant to residents of Queensland and northern New
South Wales, as it includes many species that are found mainly or exclusively
in that part of Australia. Fungi Down Under will be sought after by those who
wish to be part of the Fungimap project, but whose interest in fungi doesn’t ex¬
tend beyond that project. Surely it is a welcome situation to have such a choice.

REFERENCES

Fuhrer, B.A. (2001). A Field Companion to Australian Fungi. Revised

Edition, Bloomings Books, Hawthorn, Victoria. 162 pp.

Fuhrer, B.A. and Robinson, R. (1992). Rainforest Fungi of Tasmania and

South-East Australia. CSIRO, Australia and the Forestry Commission,

Tasmania. 95 pp.

McCann, I.R. (2003). Australian Fungi Illustrated. Macdown Productions,

94

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Vermont, Victoria. 128 pp.

Robinson, R. (2003). Fungi of the South-West Forests. Department of
Conservation and Land Management, Kensington, Western Australia. 72

pp.

ADVICE TO CONTRIBUTORS

The Tasmanian Naturalist publishes papers and articles on all aspects of natural
history and the conservation, management and sustainable use of natural re¬
sources, with a focus on Tasmania and Tasmanian naturalists. They need not be
written in a formal scientific format unless appropriate for the content. A wide
range of types of articles is accepted, including poems and stand-alone illustra¬
tions. The journal will publish papers and articles that: summarise or review
relevant scientific studies, in language that can be appreciated by field natural¬
ists; stimulate interest in, or facilitate in identifying, studying or recording par¬
ticular taxa or habitats; record interesting observations of behaviour, phenology,
natural variation or biogeography; stimulate thinking and discussion on points
of interest or contention to naturalists; put the study of natural history today
into context through comparisons with past writings, archives, etc.; or review
recent publications that are relevant to the study of Tasmanian natural history.

Submission of manuscripts

Manuscripts should be sent to the editor, Simon Grove, preferably electroni¬
cally (email: groveherd@bigpond.com) as Word documents. Alternatively
they can be mailed to 25 Taroona Crescent, Taroona, Tasmania 7053. Graphs,
illustrations or maps should also be provided electronically by preference,
generally in TIFF or EMF fonnat (i.e. not embedded in the Word document).

Articles should follow the style of similar ones in recent is¬
sues of The Tasmanian Naturalist. References cited in the text

should be listed at the end of the paper in the following format:

Ratkowsky, A.V. and Ratkowsky, D.A. (1976). The birds of the Mt. Welling¬
ton Range, Tasmania. Emu 77: 19-22.

Watts, D. (1993). Tasmanian Mammals. A Field Guide. Peregrine Press, Ket¬
tering.

Ponder, W.F. (1993). Endemism in invertebrates in streams and rivers as dem¬
onstrated by hydrobiid snails. In: Tasmanian Wilderness: World Heritage
Values. Eds. S. Smith and M. Banks. Royal Society of Tasmania, Hobart.
Bryant, S.L. (1991). The Ground Parrot Pezoporus wallicus in Tasmania: Dis¬
tribution, Density and Conservation Status. Scientific Report 1/91. Depart¬
ment of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage, Hobart.

Formal papers are normally sent to at least one independent referee for com¬
ment. This is undertaken to try to ensure accuracy of information and to im¬
prove the quality of presentation. Additionally, the editor is willing to assist
any prospective authors who have little experience in this style of writing.

Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club

G.P.O. Box 68, Hobart, Tas. 7001

Founded 1904

OBJECTIVES

The Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club aims to encourage the study
of all aspects of natural history and to advocate the conserva¬
tion of our natural heritage. The club is comprised of both amateurs
and professionals who share a common interest in the natural world.

ACTIVITIES

Members meet on the first Thursday of each month in Life Sciences Lecture
Theatre 1 at the University of Tasmania at Sandy Bay. These meetings include a
guest speaker who provides an illustrated talk. An excursion is usually held on the
following weekend to a suitable site to allow field observations of the subject of
that week s talk. The Club’s committee coordinates input from members of the
Club into natural area management plans and other issues of interest to members.

THE TASMANIAN NATURALIST

The Club publishes the journal The Tasmanian Naturalist. This annual journal
provides a forum for the presentation of observations on natural history, and
views on the management of natural values,in both formal and informal styles.

MEMBERSHIP

Membership of the Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club is open to any person inter¬
ested in natural history. Members receive The Tasmanian Naturalist annually,
plus a quarterly bulletin with information covering forthcoming activities; the
Club s library is also available for use. Prospective members should either write
to he Secretary at the above address, phone Janet Fenton on (03) 6239 6443, or
visit our web site at http://www. tasfieldnats.org.au/tasonline/tasfield/tasfield.htm.

Membership rates

Subscription rates for

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Adults

$25

Families

$30

Individuals

$15

Concession

$20

Libraries

$20

Junior

$20

Overseas

$25

5 1 / 5 *)