The

Tasmanian

Vaturalist

Published by
Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc.

VOLUME 133 (2011)

ISSN 0819-6826

The

Tasmanian

~ 'ATURALIST

DITOR: MARK WAPSTRA

T.F.N.C

CONTENTS

Dr William Charles Wakefield (Bill) M.B., Ch.B. Els Wakefield.1

Editorial note Mark Wapstra.3

Contributed articles

A walk to the beach Simon Grove.4

A rich and varied canvas: scale variations and scarring on Tasmanian tiger snakes
Notechis scutatus (Serpentes: Elapidae) Simon Fearn.8

Prasophyllum limnetes D.L Jones in Tasmania: further evidence Phil Collier.15

Common mass movement caves of Tasmania Adrian Slee..22

Two crippling lifers and a first: observations of the Chatham Albatross and
Wandering Whistling-duck in Tasmania Els Wakefield.29

Whodunnit and why? Chris P. Spencer.33

Observations on platypuses in Tasmanian caves Rolan Eberhard.36

Ornithological observations from the 2010/2011 season of the The Maria Island Walk

Bill & Els Wakefield.44

The mammal fauna of the Peter Murrell reserves , Tasmania , as revealed by truffle-
baited camera- traps Karl Vernes & Peter Jarman.50

w

The private butterfly collection of Sydney Angel (1876 - 1966) Richard Bashford.62

Collecting history, distribution, habitat and and conservation status of Senecio
campylocarpus (bulgingfireweed) in Tasmania Mark Wapstra.68

(continued....)

(continued....)

Six confirmed records (five in Tasmania): the Eastern Rockhopper Penguin Eudyptes
chrysocome filholi is a rarity in continental Australia Ken N.G. Simpson.74

Book reviews

Moby-Duck (Donovan Hohn) review by Anna McEIdowney. 90

Common Orchids of Tasmania - Plant Identikit (Australian Plants Society Tasmania
Inc.) review by Mark Wapstra.91

Flora of the Otway Plain & Ranges (Enid Mayfield) review by Mark Wapstra.92

The Seashells of Tasmania: a Comprehensive Guide (Simon Grove) review by

Kevin Bonham.94

Endpiece

Waiting on an island by Els Wakefield.97

Published annually by the Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc., GPO Box 68,

Hobart, Tasmania 7001

*

Printed by Monotone Art Printers using 120 gsm Mondi paper.

Views and opinions expressed in papers in this volume reflect those of the authors) and are not necessarily those
of the Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc.

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Dr William Charles Wakefield (Bill) M.B., Ch.B.

30-Jun-1937 to 28-July-20I I

Bill Wakefield’s interest in ornithology began when he was a child living in Yorkshire.
His ornithological research as a bird bander carrying out demographic and population
studies began in the early 1950s and continued till July 2011.

Bill was a founding member of conservation areas of ornithological importance in
England and Scotland, three of which are now RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds) Reserves. While working as a busy medical practitioner in Scotland, in addition to
being a husband and father of three boys, Bill acted as volunteer warden of an RSPB
Nature Reserve and organised a one-kilometre square survey of the birds of north
Ayrshire, which was published in 1974.

That was the year Bill migrated to Tasmania with his family. Since his arrival, he has
been researching the recent introduction of the Kelp Gull and its interactions and
influence on the native Pacific Gull and other bird species plus their populations. This
involved regular visits to all the shore bird breeding colonies on islands around the south
east of Tasmania throughout the breeding season. While working as a doctor at
Claremont for 30 years, during the bird breeding season, he was off every weekend to
count the nests, count, weigh and measure the eggs, band the chicks and monitor the
botany and the various species on
the breeding colonies. Before work
he would monitor the birds on the
tip sites, noting the banded birds.

All this work was self-funded and
involved large amounts of reports,
permit applications and paper work
as well as many hours of entering
and checking the data.

In the late 1970s Bill joined Dr
Bruce Robertson, a vet, in studying
the birds of the Flinders group,
particularly the White-faced
Storm-Petrel and its predator, the
Pacific Gull. In 1983 Bill set up a
study trans-Bass Strait migration. This station is now the second longest running in
Australia. Bill also helped set up the Patriarchs Sanctuary for the protection of the Cape
Barren Goose. On Flinders, he helped to build the A-frame hut as a centre for studying
birds in the area. Bill and Els have assisted Bruce with his PhD work on Pacific Gulls in
Tasmania including his work on their largest colony in the world on Goose Island.

From 1994 to 2004 Bill was Tasmania’s recorder for birds, compiling the annual report
on their status. He was on the executive and conservation committees of Birds Tasmania,
often acting as Vice President. He was instrumental in educating members on the
identification of birds, presenting short talks and images of birds at almost every meeting
and frequently leading outings in the field. He had articles published in The Tasmanian
Naturalist , Yellow Throat and Corella as well as providing unusual sightings records for

co-operative banding station on Flinders Island to

1

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Twitchers Comer in Wingspan. For many years Bill was also on the rarities committee
for Birds Australia.

Bill was a regular participant in all pelagic trips to the Continental Shelf off Tasmania.
His organisation and participation in seabird studies around our coastline have assisted in
developing our knowledge of the species, races and their age groups utilising this habitat.

Bill lectured at the University of Tasmania on various occasions including for the post¬
graduate course in ornithology. He gave talks to the University of the Third Age and
other groups on request. Bill and Els assisted various PhD students with their research. In
addition they have acted as teachers and advisors to the guides and managers of The
Maria Island Walks , writing an annual report on the bird sightings for The Tasmanian
Naturalist.

In addition to assisting the Commonwealth Government in trapping and testing birds for
avian influenza. Bill and Els have freely assisted various government bodies at all levels
with management and conservation issues involving birds, using their database of
observations and photographs of all bird species in Tasmania and Macquarie Island from
historical times to the present.

Bill was respected throughout Australia as well as internationally for his exceptional
ornithological skills. Bill had a great sense of humour, a deep intelligence and
understanding of people, celebrating those with character. A great listener, he spoke with
a lovely rich voice and a slight Yorkshire accent. His enormous knowledge and
understanding of birds and his love for the environment made his contribution to the
conservation of birds a wonderful gift for the future.

Els Wakefield
1 September 2011

It is with great admiration and respect that the Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club
dedicates this issue of The Tasmanian Naturalist to the memory of Bill Wakefield.

2

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

EDITORIAL NOTE

Mark Wapstra

Editor, The Tasmanian Naturalist

During 2011 I completed the compilation of an index to the The Tasmanian Naturalist ,
which has now been made available in tabulated form on the Club’s website. The
indexing project has been a long time in the undertaking and in the absence of success in
obtaining a grant for the project (especially the scanning of old volumes to create pdf
files of each article), I also started the scanning work. Approximately two-thirds of the
articles published in the Naturalist since its inception in 1907 are now also downloadable
as pdf files. Thanks go to Geoff Fenton for doing the web design and uploading of files.
Prior to the placement of the files on our website, I had already received several requests
for older articles, which I was able to supply as pdf files. Now, visitors to our site need
only send a request to me via the email link for any missing articles and I will scan and
provide the article and then upload to the website. Hopefully by my next editorial in the
Naturalist I can report that the whole history of The Tasmanian Naturalist is available
electronically and for free to the world.

As 1 write this editorial with the contents page in front of me it strikes me that the
Naturalist is an excellent forum for the publication of local scientific work and
observations of natural history. This edition has a wide range of subjects covered:
especially pleasing again are articles on the diversity of the natural world, and the
interaction of the biological with the physical world. The earliest editions of the
Naturalist in the first half of the 1900s (that sounds so long ago!) had numerous articles
on geology and earth processes, as well as many on the biological aspects of natural
history. Perhaps soon we’ll even see a new species once again described in our journal
(the first ever issue of the Naturalist had descriptions of new species of beetles).

The book review section has been padded out this year, which is pleasing, and we also
have some essay-like contributions celebrating what it means to be a naturalist in
Tasmania. The images throughout this volume really do present a “rich and varied
canvas”: take a close look at the intricacy of the scales of the tiger snakes in the article of
the same name, the delicate beauty of the flowers of leek-orchids, the vividness of the
flame robin, the sleek lines of a snares penguin - and contrast these with the rawness of
rocks and caves, the here and now of platypus evidence smeared here and there, the
angry look of an owlet-nightjar, or the defiant stand of the Tasmanian devil as it tries to
hold its ground in more ways than one.

Colour images add some cost to production but everyone seems to think they add a lot to
the articles: this year we received a small donation to support the higher cost of
production from Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania.

As always, I wish you happy reading of this year’s edition of The Tasmanian Naturalist.

3

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

A WALK TO THE BEACH

Simon Grove

25 Taroona Crescent, Taroona, Tasmania 7053 , email: groveherdl@bigpond.com

Two hundred and forty steps - the distance between my front door and the beach at
Taroona. Under normal circumstances, my taking those steps would have been the
hurried prelude to a brisk walk from one end of the suburb to the other to shake off the
day’s stresses and tensions, or perhaps to a pleasurable potter amongst the rocks to look
for shells. But last year was different. Under doctors’ orders, I was confined to base for
month after month as intensive treatment for leukaemia gave way to gradual
convalescence. Comprising the route of my daily constitutional (and the totality of it
during my initial recovery), I got to know those two hundred and forty steps very well.
Familiarity did not breed contempt. As the months rolled by and the seasons progressed,
I learnt to appreciate what every metre had to offer by way of encounters with nature.
Having a compromised immune system, I could not touch, but I could observe and
absorb. I took solace and inspiration from the natural world, living in a timeless present
and submitting to a level of mindfulness that is denied most of us in our normal lives as
we hurry from one essential task to the next.

Taroona is not the sort of organically-grown settlement that has an easy relationship with
the natural world. It’s more of an imposition on nature: a middle-class, post-war suburb
by the sea. It hasn’t experienced centuries of co-evolution of the built environment with
the natural environment, which in other parts of the world can make it hard to see where
man’s domain ends and nature’s begins. But through my wanderings I learnt that neither
does Taroona fit the stereotype of the bland, anodyne Australian suburb caricatured in
daily episodes of Neighbours. Nature is all around us: it permeates the Tasmanian
suburbs just as surely as the electronic signals aimed at our TVs, cellphones and
computers. Best of all, tuning into nature is free - no pay-as-you-view, no up-front fees
and no built-in obsolescence.

I could see Taroona’s stag-headed blue-gums in the park by the sea the moment 1 stepped
out the front door. They are old enough to have borne witness to the lives of Taroona’s
aboriginal peoples, when the built environment here consisted of little more than a few
temporary bark-and-branch shelters, and the visible trappings of daily life were confined
to piles of the discarded shells of oysters, the original pre-packaged takeaway meals, that
we now value as aboriginal middens. These trees would have continued to stand tall as
the first sailing-ships arrived, and as human affairs shaped their neighbourhood in
unprecedented ways. The nooks and crannies in their gnarled trunks now host as many
nesting feral starlings as native rosellas, and while their open canopies continue to
provide dappled shade against the harsh summer sun, it’s for the new Australians
picnicking among Italian ryegrass rather than aborigines seeking tinder among silver
tussock-grasses. Still they live on, aloof and defiant against drought, storms and tree
surgery and marking an ever-more tenuous connection with a more sympathetic past.
Over the months, I developed a sense that their looming presence defines our suburb
today more strongly than the achievements of any town planner.

Autumn is a season that we traditionally characterise as one of death and decay. But my
own convalescence began in autumn, and I was not going to let maudlin thoughts, hair-
loss, the shortening days and falling temperatures put my recovery back to good health
on hold. The leaves may have been falling from the suburban cherry-trees, invoking a

4

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

mustiness to the still autumn air and a slipperiness to the footpaths I trod, but life
continued apace. As 1 shuffled down Devon Walk, corpulent, wingless soldier-flies, a
speciality of the season around here, dragged their egg-filled bodies across the tarmac at
my feet to some unknown but apparently desirable destination on the other side of the
road. Nearby, jackjumper ants were still out and about tending to their gravel nest-
mounds, albeit - like me - working in jerky slow motion compared to the frenetic pace
of the previous summer. Drone-flies - superb mimics of honeybees - foraged
lackadaisically for nectar on the last of the late-flowering asters that had gained a
foothold among the crumbling mortar of a roadside stone wall, their feeding periodically
interrupted by their overwhelming desire to chase off drifts of the asters’ airborne, downy
seedheads.

The blue-gun\s, however, were exploding into life, as the flower-buds that had begun to
develop on the trees in spring rapidly swelled and burst. Throughout the autumn and
ensuing winter, the heady, pungent, cat-pee aroma of their blossoms permeated the air
around Taroona Crescent, and for me it will forever conjure up this period of my life.
Sunning myself on the front door-steps and taking the vapours, 1 could hardly have
wished for a clearer affirmation of life’s exuberance. This unseasonal flowering was of
no benefit to the swift parrots, who normally tie the rhythm of their lives to the flowering
of the blue-gums: they had long since headed north in search of warmer climes. But it
suited the cheeky and pugnacious crescent honeyeaters (for me, Crescent with a capital
‘C’), who descended in their hundreds from the hills of their summering grounds to feast
on this sugary bonanza. Tichoo! Tichoo! they
cursed belligerently from the treetops, if not
exactly in harmony then at least in discordant
unison. Woe betide any other small bird who
disregarded their proprietorial cries and
attempted to join the party. Despite the apparent
surfeit of flowers, they weren’t for sharing with
any old gatecrasher, as the honeyeaters’ darting
antics, bill-snapping and sallying flights into the
surrounding airspace made all too clear.

Winter was cold and damp, the days all-too short. Yellowed and shrivelled, the wasted
flowerheads of blue-gums rained down on parked cars, and the flattened remains of their
aborted seed-capsules littered the roadside gutters and stained the stormwater. Our
backyard chooks looked depressed, and scarcely ventured out of their hutch. Yet down
by the sea, the sharp tingle of winter rain on my still-bald pate felt invigorating despite its
chill. Rain may not be alive, but it brings life. This winter, as my recovery gathered
momentum, the rains heralded a resurgence of brown tree-frogs. 1 low they had eked out
the previous years of drought remains a mystery, but as the creeks in the gullies filled
with turbid, foaming water, they made their presence felt throughout the neighbourhood
with their crepuscular shree-shree-shree calls. Rain also breathed life into the most
unlikely objects. On daily visits, I watched as fine hair-like fungal filaments colonised a
pile of dog-droppings beside the Alum Cliffs footpath. 1 saw the spore-capsules take
shape and their stalks lengthen telescopically. It took four months for the scene to be
reduced to a pile of powdered white fragments of bone. In wanner weather, blowfly
larvae would have denied these fungi the chance of nourishment, and denied me the
pleasure of observing this slow-motion miniature spectacle of nature.

5

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

In the low winter sunlight, the outwash on the beach below the main creek sparkled with
zillions of tiny black zircon crystals brought down from the weathered dolerite hills
above. The nearby shore was lined with drifts of soapy foam, manufactured in the
turbulent creek from saponin-rich rainwater filtering down through the eucalypt canopy
upstream. Gusty onshore winds detached billowing masses of bubbles and redistributed
them in ungainly dollops on beached kelp and beachwalkers alike. Footprints in the sand
told of the nocturnal wanderings of bandicoot and water-rat. Shattered shells of rock-
whelks scattered liberally across the concrete roof of the pump-house told of the
successful shell-dropping feeding ploy of the local kelp gulls. While I didn’t generally
want to dwell on the fragility of my own condition, I couldn’t help comparing the gulls’
strategy to that of bearded vultures extracting bone marrow from long-dead antelopes.
Spring brought a welcome return of longer days, laying chooks, the buzz of insects, and a
flush of new green growth. The wake-up call of the kookaburra now began at four in the
morning. Council workers enlisted whipper-snippers into action to keep the shoreline
path clear of invasive grasses. Despite the scene of destruction, I savoured this new
encounter on my daily perambulations - the sweet smell of fresh-cut grass is hard to
beat. My hair also began to re-sprout with greater vigour, though it would need no
snipping back for a while. Three species of cuckoo and two of pardalote began to call
from the narrow fingers of gulley woodland that had been spared during the post-war
expansion of suburbia. From my front garden, I could sit riveted as a male fairy wren
battled incessantly and with obvious indignation with its rival reflected in the wing-
mirror of the neighbour’s car, watched also by a very disdainful ginger tomcat secreted in
the shrubbery.

Explosive and piping calls heralded the return of the swift parrots to the park. But they
couldn’t stay long this year because, unusually, their favoured blue-gums had already
finished flowering. One unfortunate bird, having survived two epic crossings of Bass
Strait since last autumn, met its match when it hit an overhead wire as it dashed between
park and beachside gum-trees. By the time my son and I found it on the grass next to the
road, the glint had gone from its still-open eyes but its body was warm to the touch.
Beautiful in death as well as in life, its sleek and unexpectedly lightweight frame was
cloaked in stunning leaf-green feathers, while opening its perfect little wings to their full
extent revealed gorgeous patches of crimson and deep blue that are usually only
glimpsed in life as the bird dashes overhead. How the tenacity of nature as a whole
stands in contrast to the fragility of individual lives.

The first warm day of spring brought the first butterfly - a cabbage white, drifting over
the golden capeweed flowers in the park like a discarded tissue. Though merely a feral
insect foraging on feral weeds, it knows nothing of such human prejudices, and so I
welcomed its arrival all the same as a harbinger of the season ahead. The next day, on the
sheltered north-facing bank of a shoreline midden long covered by windblown sand and
seaside plantains, 1 watched the First basking male meadow argus soak up the heat before
rising into the air to give chase to a plump queen bumblebee that had had the audacity to
pass overhead. Returning home energised, 1 spotted a minuscule grass blue performing a
zig-zag patrol across the lawn in search of a mate. Though it was flying over nothing but
short green turf, it nevertheless managed to periodically vanish into thin air whenever the
azure-blue sky was reflected in the shiny-new leaves over which it flew. Meanwhile, a
scan of the ragged, twiggy skyline on the hills behind Taroona told of the feeding frenzy
engaged in by unprecedented armies of pale cup-moth caterpillars on the foliage of our

6

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

white peppermints. As the leaf-browning spread across the hills, 1 sensed that the concept
of nature in perfect balance missed the mark somewhat when the impact of their
chewings was so visible from a kilometre distant. Or was this outbreak not entirely
natural after all - a manifestation of our increasingly brazen tinkering with the climate?
One memorable spring nature encounter was savoured by half of the residents of
Taroona, not just those in convalescence. A female southern right whale and her calf
appeared just off Niree Parade. They patrolled the suburb’s coastline for several days,
and at times were close enough for those of us on the foreshore to hear their exhalations
and catch a whiff of their breath as they lolled in the shallows. A rancid, fishy-smelling
oily slick of whale poo on the water’s surface in their wake was a reminder that in the
days before whaling, the Derwent’s lush beds of giant kelp would have received regular

inputs of nourishing organic fertiliser
from the visiting whales.

Fledging birds were everywhere in
spring, providing tempting targets for
predators. Native species hid
themselves in the heart of bushes, but
starlings, blackbirds and chooks
seemed either more foolhardy, or
perhaps just naive. Cats had a field-
day, as - unwittingly - did cars. One
evening, as I took a breather under the
gum-trees, I had the sense that I was
being watched. Peering through the
overhead branches, I spotted a pure-
white goshawk watching me through
piercing orange eyes, with what seemed
to be an expression of intense aloofness. I wondered whose avian offspring would
provide its next meal, and hurried back to lock up our own chooks for the night.

Spring was apparently not a season of bounty for every species. It was at this time that
Taroona hosted its usual invasion of black-cockatoos. In the morning they would float
down from the hills on strangely buoyant wing-beats, as if put under a spell that
commanded them to travel in slow motion. They would rest together in the beachside
blue-gums and chat amicably amongst themselves, sotto voce, before flying off noisily.
For me, the eerie, screaching flight-call of these birds evokes wild places, and their
presence in suburbia was disconcerting. Did they have a collective memory of what this
place used to be like - all gum-trees, banksias and casuarinas? Or did their presence
signal something more prosaic - perhaps a shortage of food or nesting-places in their
usual haunts? Whatever the reason, they departed at the end of every day. But then one
day, they came no more, though their calls lived on in the mimetic evocations of our
local stafiings.

I hoped the black-cockatoos’ seasonal peregrinations had led them to what they were
looking for. What I had found in my own daily wanderings around Taroona, I had not
been intentionally seeking at all. It just happened. The natural world had been my
constant companion. It inspired me and nourished my spirit. It offered solace and gave
purpose. It helped in my healing as it has healed others before me. Long may we
continue to Find a place and space for it in our suburban lives.

A shadow of my former self on Taroona beach - but who
needs real hair anyway when there's all this seaweed
around (image: James Grove)

7

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

A RICH AND VARIED CANVAS: SCALE VARIATIONS AND
SCARRING ON TASMANIAN TIGER SNAKES NOTECHIS
SCUTATUS (SERPENTES: ELAPIDAE)

Simon Fearn

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, 167 West bury Road,
Prospect, Tasmania 7250, email: simon.fearn@dpipwe.tas.gov.au

The tiger snakes ( Notechis scutatus) of Tasmania and its many offshore islands, display a
range of regional morphological variations reflecting local selection pressures based on
prey type, seasonality and size, local climate regimes, local predators (or the absence of)
and habitat structure. While many of these variables are poorly studied in relation to
selection pressure on tiger snakes, it would be anticipated that all these factors acting in
tandem play a role in shaping the physical characteristics observed in the various
populations. Tiger snakes are large, generalist carnivores with a lot of variation in their
genetic ‘kit bag’. This has enabled them to thrive in a range of contrasting habitats from
lush upland sub-tropical rain forests in southern Queensland to small, waterless, wind
swept islands in Bass Strait. Local selection pressures throughout their geographic range
from southern western Australia and throughout mesic southern Australia as far north as
the mountains west of Brisbane, has resulted in significant regional variations in average
and maximal body size, sexual dimorphism, clutch and neonatal size as well as
morphological variables such as colouration, and scalation. So extreme are the
differences between some of these populations (particularly offshore islands) that they
were assigned sub-specific status. However, recent molecular research clearly
demonstrates that all tiger snakes in the Tasmanian region and throughout eastern
Australia are very closely related and constitute a single, highly variable species that can
respond rapidly to intense selection pressures (Keogh ct al. 2005). This is not so
surprising perhaps when it is considered that it was only
10 000 years ago that all these tiger snake populations were linked when sea levels were
lower than they are today.

Possibly because Tasmania has such a
wide array of habitat types and climate
regimes crammed into a relatively small
geographic area, even on the main island
it is possible to see almost endless
variation. Not only do Tasmanian tiger
snakes vary greatly in colour and
markings (Fearn 1993, 2006) but they also
display the most peculiar scalation, which
means that literally no two snakes are the
same. Bass Strait Island and mainland
tiger snakes tend to have uniform dorsal
scales, consistent in size and shape and
arranged in perfectly ordered rows (Plate
1). While similar snakes can be found on
the main island of Tasmania they are in
the minority. It is normal for many

Tasmanian specimens to display varying
degrees of disordered ‘jumbling’ in their
dorsal scale rows with odd overly large or
small scales seemingly jammed at random
into the basic plan. Some populations
exhibit this trait to a very high degree.
The normal mid-body scale counts for
tiger snakes over much of their offshore
island and mainland range is 17-21 with
17 being the norm. On the main island of
Tasmania mid body scale counts of 17 are
common but so are counts of 15. Some
specimens have such chaotically ordered
scale rows that counts of 15-19 can be
scored from the mid-body region of the
same snake depending on which row you
choose. In the Central Highlands, mid

8

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

body scale counts of 15 are common but
can be as low as 13. Such low scale
counts are unprecedented in any
Australian elapids and are more typical of
arboreal colubrids on mainland Australia
such as common tree snakes
(Dendrelaphis punctulatus ). Specimens
with such low scale counts have a
‘shingled' appearance simply because
they have fewer but much larger scales
than typical tiger snakes (Plates l & 2.).

The reasons for this are obscure and
poorly studied. Traditional thought on this
topic suggested that large snakes (e.g.
pythons) needed more scales to cover
their much larger bodies or to allow
greater elasticity in the skin to
accommodate very large prey items. This
pattern appears to hold true for Australia’s
venomous snakes. Both death adders
(Acanthophis spp.) and taipans
(Oxyuranus spp.) have relatively high mid
body scale counts (21-23) and both
routinely prey on relatively large
mammalian prey. However, the situation
is undoubtedly more complicated than a
simple correlation between mid-body
scale counts and the mean size of prey
consumed by any particular species of
snake.

In a recent study (Shine 2002) three
processes that might generate a
correlation between dietary composition
and scale counts were postulated:

(1) dietary divergences between species
involving relative sizes of prey taken
might have imposed selection on higher
scale row numbers to ingest larger prey;

(2) the correlation between scale counts
and dietary composition might be an
artefact of phylogenetic inertia where
ancestral traits (such as scale counts)
persist in a population in the absence of
selective pressure to bring about
adaptation; and (3) the mean adult size of
any particular snake species is known to
correlate with both dietary habits and

scale counts in that a shift towards larger
prey could favour selection for larger
body size which could result in higher
scale counts simply because larger snakes
tend to have more scales.

The far flung and highly variable tiger
snake populations with their widely
varying scale counts may be an ideal
model species to test the prey size/scale
count hypothesis. In a recent study from
Western Australia (Fabien et al. 2004),
two genetically identical tiger snake
populations were compared, one from the
mainland where frogs were the dominant
prey, and one from a nearby offshore
island where sea bird chicks were the
dominant prey. Results indicated that the
island population (eating large prey)
displayed higher mid-body scale counts
and longer jaws than the mainland
population eating small prey. However,
the low scale count highland tiger snakes
in Tasmania may prove that other factors
are at work as well as their diets do not
appear to be markedly different from tiger
snakes in other areas on the main island of
Tasmania with more typical scale rows
(S. Feam, unpubl. data). To confuse
matters even more, it has been
demonstrated in North American snakes
(Fox 1948; Osgood 1978) that exposure to
low temperatures during embryonic
development results in an increase in the
variability in scale number.

Could this be an explanation for the low
scale counts in Tasmania’s highland tiger
snakes? Unfortunately such a clear cut
answer appears to be illusive. Highland
tiger snakes with low scale counts
maintained in captivity outdoors in
warmer coastal climates still produce
offspring with very low scale counts
(S. Fearn, unpubl. data), indicating that
this characteristic is genetically ‘fixed’ in
these populations. There are a range of
possible explanations that have not been
explored in any tiger snake populations.

9

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Plate 1. Chappell Island tiger snake (outer specimen) and Tasmanian highland tiger snake from
Lake Sorell (inner specimen) showing large difference in scale size

Plate 2. Shed skins from the same two snakes (Lake Sorell on left, Chappel Island on right)
showing disordered jumbling of scale rows and enlarged scales on the highland snake

10

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Could large, shingled scales aid basking
and hence thermoregulation in cool
highland climates with short and
unpredictable summers? The low scale
count highland tiger snakes of Tasmania
are intriguing and are crying out for an
Honours or PhD project to begin to
quantify whether abiotic or biotic (or a
combination of both) factors are
responsible. These unique populations
may be under threat from climate change
in the future if climatic variables
(particularly elements of coldness) are
altered long term.

Another commonly observed
phenomenon associated with the skin of
tiger snakes is the presence of rodent bite
scars. Introduced rats ( Rattus rattus and
Rattus norvegicus) as well as some native
rodents (e.g. Rattus lutreolus) are
particularly savage when attacked. Tiger
snakes strike prey and typically hold on
while it succumbs to the venom. Large
rats however often retaliate violently
before they succumb and inflict extensive
wounds on the attacking snake (Plate 3).
Female black rats {Rattus rattus) have
also been observed savagely defending
nests of young from foraging tiger snakes,
rushing forward to bite the snake at the

extremity of its strike (Fearn & Spencer
1995). Large mature tiger snakes from
rural habitats with high rodent densities
are often covered in healed rodent bites
(Plate 4). Some of these wounds are so
extensive that it is surprising the snakes
involved survive. On one occasion I
captured a snake with several gaping
wounds in its flanks that exposed
underlying sinew and even ribs. The
wounds were infected and writhing with
maggots. The snake contained a large
recently ingested black rat. Remarkably
such wounds scab over and heal rapidly.
Each successive skin slough results in
progressive healing but scales are
typically permanently deformed and form
a characteristic appearance on the skin of
the snake (Plates 5-7).

Tasmania’s other large elapid snake, the
lowlands copperhead Austrelaps superbus
is a frog and lizard specialist even at
maximal sizes (Fearn 1994) and so rodent
bite scars from large rats on these snakes
are extremely rare.

Next time you encounter a tiger snake in
the bush or find a shed skin, have a closer
look at the scalation and perhaps a history
of rodent predation will be etched onto
the surface as well.

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Plate 5. Healed rodent bite scar on large tiger snake from rural habitat on the outskirts of Burnie,

Tasmania

Plate 6. Healed rodent bite scar on large tiger snake from rural habitat at Western Creek, Tasmania

Plate 7. Healed rodent bite scar on large adult tiger snake from Lake Sorell, Tasmania

12

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

h-

Plate 4. A large adult tiger snake from Lake Sorell, Tasmania displaying many healed rodent bite

scars

13

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

REFERENCES

Fabien, A., Bonnet, X., Maumelat, S.,
Bradshaw, D. & Schwaner, T. (2004).
Diet divergence, jaw size and scale
counts in two neighbouring
populations of tiger snakes (Notechis
scutatus). Amphibia-Reptilia 25: 9-17.

Feam, S. (1993). The tiger snake
Notechis scutatus (Serpentes:
Elapidae) in Tasmania. Herpetofauna
23(2): 17-29.

Feam, S. (1994). Some observations on
the ecology of the copperhead
Austrelaps superbus (Serpentes:
Elapidae) in Tasmania. Herpetofauna
24(2): 1-10.

Fearn, S. (2006). The other Tasmanian
tiger. Reptiles Australia Magazine
2(3): 32-37.

Feam, S. & Spencer, C.P. (1995). New
prey records and relationships for the
tiger snake Notechis scutatus
(Serpentes: Elapidae) in Tasmania.
Herpetofauna 25(2): 23-27.

Fox, W. (1948). Effect of temperature on
development of scutellation in the
garter snake, Thamnophis elegans
atratus . Copeia 1948(4): 252-262.

Keogh, J.S., Scott, I.A.W. & Hayes, C.
(2005). Rapid and repeated origin of
insular gigantism and dwarfism in
Australian tiger snakes. Evolution
59(1): 226-233.

Osgood, D.W. (1978). Effects of
temperature on the development of
meristic characters in Natrix fasciata.
Copeia 1978(1): 33-47.

Shine, R. (2002). Do dietary habits
predict scale counts in snakes?
Journal of Herpetology 36(2): 268-
272.

14

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

PRASOPHYLLUM LIMNETES D.L.JONES IN TASMANIA:
FURTHER EVIDENCE

Phil Collier

PO Box 261, Port Sorell, Tasmania 7307, email: phil@rubicon.org.au

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

When we purchased Rubicon Sanctuary (RS) near Port Sorell, one of its claims to
“fame” was a species of orchid recently described as Prasophyllum limnetes
D.L.Jones, the marsh leek-orchid (Wapstra et al. 2005). This species was first
discovered by-Peter Tonelli in the 1990s; he felt that it was different from other species
in the local area that he knew well. At present, it is known with certainty only from our
property.

Prasophyllum limnetes was described
(Jones & Rouse 2006, p. 151) as
differing from P. pyriforme in various
ways, a species that is not present in
Tasmania. Being described after
publication of The Orchids of Tasmania
(Jones et al. 1999), P. limnetes does not
appear in any botanical key that would
help to identify it from the other 304-
species of Prasophyllum in Tasmania.
Nor are there pressed specimens of
P. limnetes at the Tasmanian Herbarium,
which would act as a reference for future
collections. However, a succinct
statement about how to recognise plants
of this species is provided: “Flowers
crowded, greenish with pink-mauve
labellum; lateral sepals free; labellum
with broadly flared basal margins then
constricted and with tail-like apex”
(Jones 2006, p. 209).

The few known images of the species,
including in Jones (2006), reveal some
similarity to P. rostratum , which is also
present at Rubicon Sanctuary (RS). In
fact, both species are members of a large
group of “green-brown” species of
Prasophyllum in Tasmania: plants in this
group often require expert help for
accurate identification. Prasophyllum
rostratum Lindl. was described by
Lindley (1840, p. 516) in Latin. Lindley
noted that flowers are “apparently

brown, very slender and distant. The
form of the lip [labellum?] is
remarkable.” The latter is one of the key
characters for P. rostratum , described as
“Labellum abruptly contracted medially
to a slender tail-like portion” (Jones
et al. 1999, p. 180). Lindley’s
description is much less detailed than
contemporary works, with no detailed
measurements included at all. Much
later, Jones et al. (1999, p. 202) provide
considerable detail, although not always
completely consistent with Lindley’s
description, for example the spike is
described as “moderately crowded”.

During our tenure at Rubicon Sanctuary
from 2008 to 2011, we have sought to
rediscover the population(s) of
P. limnetes during each flowering
season. In 2007 and 2008 we scoured the
flowering specimens of P. rostratum
looking for variations, but with no
sustained feeling of success. In autumn
2009, we burnt an area that Peter Tonelli
advised us was where the type specimen
of P. limnetes had been collected. Spring
2009 heralded a large number of
Prasophyllum leaves in this area.
Flowering specimens revealed a mixed
population of P. rostratum and
P. australe. Elsewhere, two areas that we
had also burnt in April 2009 revealed
green-brown Prasophyllums flowering in

15

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

December 2009 up to one month later
than nearby specimens of P. rostratum.
It is these plants that we believe to be
P. limnetes.

The purpose of this paper is to set out the
evidence that we have for our discovery
of P. limnetes. We also aim to
characterise P. limnetes and to
distinguish it from P. rostratum so that
its identity is more easily known to
others who may find similar plants in
northern Tasmania or elsewhere.

METHODS

A primary method for recording of
features of orchid plants is by
photography and associated comments.
This is especially useful for recording
colour and morphology information that
is difficult to measure systematically. At
Rubicon Sanctuary, additional
systematic data is collected annually to
enable demographic monitoring of
orchid populations, with an emphasis on
threatened and poorly known species.
These observations and measurements
are based on those used in related studies
of demographic monitoring (Coates et al.
2006; Coates & Duncan 2007), with
additions that respond to the statement of
recognition for P. limnetes.

Both P. rostratum (poorly known with
respect to P. limnetes at least) and
P. limnetes (critically endangered) are
being monitored. As a poorly known
species with a moderate-size population
at RS, a selection of specimens of
P. rostratum was recruited into our
monitoring program in 2008, 2009 and
2010. Some specimens were recruited at
the emerging leaf stage, others were
recruited as a “typical” sample from
those plants seen to be flowering. As an
endangered species, all known
specimens of P. limnetes at RS have
been recruited in 2009 and 2010. Detail

about how plants are individually tagged
is omitted as only one year’s data is used
in this study.

The notions of crowded (P. limnetes) or
distant or “moderately crowded”
(P. rostratum) flowers are relative terms,
and are not quantified in known
descriptions. In 2009, our monitoring
protocol included a count of the total
number of flowers, height of flower stem
to the bottom flower and total height of
flower stem (this measurement was
added specifically to examine the density
of flowers in these two species). With
this information we were able to
calculate the flower spike length and
density of flowers in each spike. At this
time, wc also observed that the top of the
flower spike tends to be much denser
than the base of the flower spike
particularly in P. limnetes , with spikes
sometimes having a basal flower
distinctly remote from the flowers
above. In 2010 we measured the length
of flower stem that supports the top 10
flowers as possibly being more
discriminating than overall flower
density.

RESULTS

In their statements about how to
recognise P. limnetes , Jones & Rouse
(2006) and Jones (2006) (reproduced in
the Introduction above) focus on few
characters: flower colour and

morphology, and “crowded” flowers. We
use digital photography and associated
comments to examine the flower colour
and morphology of monitored specimens
at RS. This evidence shows that neither
character is able to distinguish clearly
between populations of P. limnetes and
P. rostratum. In both populations it is
possible to find flowers that range in
colour from yellow-green, through
green-brown to burgundy red. The
extreme pale green and burgundy colour

16

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

forms of flowers are replicated in the
stem colour. All flowers have lateral
sepals free, but this is shared with many
other species of Prasophyllum. The
degree of constriction in the labellum
also varies in different plants in the two
populations. It appears that authors of
the descriptions of these two species
have not seen the full range of variability
in the populations when it comes to
flower colour and labellum morphology.

For the purpose of the following
analysis, we use systematic data
collected only in 2010 to control for
seasonal differences. Standard
demographic monitoring includes
measurements of plant attributes that are
not explicitly mentioned in the statement
of recognition for P. limnetes or
Lindley’s notes about P. rostratum.
These measurements are also examined
for their utility in distinguishing
P. limnetes and P. rostratum.

In 2010, our demographic monitoring
included 73 plants that are classified as
P. rostratum and 51 plants classified as
P. limnetes. Of these, 12 and 2,
respectively, as flagged were not usable
because they had been dug up or their
classification not confirmed. In 2009, we
conducted a caged-uncaged experiment
to determine whether caging results in
significantly more flowers and fruits. For
this experiment, plants were tagged at
early leaf stage, and plants that failed to
flower have unconfirmed classifications
that are based on classification of
neighbouring plants. Twenty-seven and
6 specimens, respectively, were infertile
in 2010. A further 2 and 3 plants,
respectively, had their flower stem
grazed or aborted in 2010. Finally, 6
specimens of P. limnetes suffered from
shrivelled flowers in 2010. All of these
specimens are excluded from
consideration, leaving a total of 32

specimens of P. rostratum and
33 specimens of P. limnetes that were
used for the analysis. The results of the
analysis are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 provides an analysis of whether
the observations from the two species
come from the same underlying
population, using a 2-tailed t-test
assuming unequal variance in the
samples. Significant differences are
found in several characters. Flowering
date, flower density, total number of
llowers and ovary length are starkly
different. In summary, P. limnetes
flowers later, and has more flowers that
are more densely crowded but with
smaller ovaries. Unsurprisingly, leaf
width and length alone are not sufficient
to distinguish the two species. The
height of the flower stem is also
sufficient to distinguish between the two
species under certain assumptions.
Flower stems of P. rostratum are taller
than those of P. limnetes , despite
supporting fewer flowers. If the
5 specimens of P.rostratum with fewer
than 10 flowers are excluded from the
data set, then the two species have
significantly different stem heights, but
the lengths of the flower spike are still
not significantly different. There are no
specimens of P. limnetes in the data set
with less than 10 flowers.

Table 2 compares mean measurements
for characters that are significantly
different (Table 1) against recently
published descriptions of P . limnetes
(Jones & Rouse 2006) and P. rostratum
(Jones et al. 1999). This analysis
provides strong evidence that the two
populations are a reasonable match to the
respective published descriptions.

Plates 1 & 2 provide several images of
P. limnetes and P. rostratum from RS
that illustrate the discussion in this
paper.

17

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Table 1. Comparison of data from populations of P. rostratum and P. limnetes using a 2-tailed
t-test assuming unequal variance in the samples

Character (mean
value is shown)

P. rostratum

(n=32)

P. limnetes
(n=34)

t-test: probability that
measurements come from
the same underlying
population

flowering date

20/11/2010

12/12/2010

p<0.00i

leaf width (mm)

4.5

4.9

p>0.1

leaf length (mm)

304.1

323.1

p>0.1

height of stem to first
flower (mm)

324.6

279.4

p<0.01

total stem height
(mm)

454.2

416.8

p>0.1

length of flower spike
(mm)

129.6

137.4

p>0.1

flower density (mm of
stem per 10 flowers)

85.5

55.4

p<0.001

length of stem, top 10
flowers (mm)

57.3 (n=27+)

29.4

p<0.001

total number of
flowers

15.6

25.2

p<0.001

ovary length (mm)

5.0

4.1

p<0.001

lateral sepal length
(mm)

7.6

7.2

p<0.1

t 5 plants of P. rostratum had less than 10 flowers in 2010 and are excluded from the calculation of mean

length of the top 10 flowers

Table 2. Comparison of the mean observations from 2010 specimens at Rubicon Sanctuary with

published descriptions

P. rostratum

P. limnetes

Character

Published

description

Mean observed
(n=32)

Published

description

Mean

observed

(n=34)

flowering

late October to
December

20/11/2010

17/12/1999
(type specimen)

12/12/2010

total number
of flowers

1-30

15.6

15-35

25.2

density of
flower spike

moderately

crowded

85.5 mm per 10
flowers

dense

55.4 mm per

10 flowers

ovary length

5-7 mm

5.0 mm

3—4 mm

4.1 mm

lateral sepal
length

7-9 mm

7.6 mm

6—7.5 mm

7.2 mm

18

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

CONCLUSION

The population-based analysis presented
in this paper provides robust evidence
that P. rostratum and P. limnetes are
significantly different on several
characters and that they match recent
descriptions of the two species. While
flowering date may vary at other sites,
especially when separated by altitude,
the number of flowers, density of
flowers and .ovary length are robust
characters that separate P. limnetes
plants from the similar-looking
P. rostratum plants. At RS these
differences are echoed in slightly
different habitats for the two species that
grow in non-overlapping areas. Both
species favour peaty sedgeland, with
P. limnetes having a stronger association
with Lomandra longifolia than
P. rostratum.

FUTURE WORK

It is desirable to include additional
populations of P. rostratum from other
sites in an extended analysis to that
presented in this paper. Should this
analysis break down the clear
distinctions evident in the analysis from
RS data, then a re-examination of the
taxonomy may be needed. A visual
examination of all the pressed specimens
of P. rostratum at the Tasmanian
Herbarium on 13 May 2011 revealed no
“obvious” specimens of P. limnetes
mixed in, but detailed measurements
were not made.

With a better method for distinguishing
P. limnetes from P. rostratum , it is
timely to search for additional
populations of P. limnetes. Once again
these could be used to broaden the data
set and test the analysis for robustness.

The method in this paper is fairly
straightforward, and it could usefully be
applied to the many species in the group

of “green-brown” species of

Prasophyllum , with the aim to provide

more robust methods for identification.

But here, we may be living more in hope

than reality!

REFERENCES

Coates, F. & Duncan, M. (2007).
Recovery of Caladenia oriental is
(Eastern Spider-orchid) at Wonthaggi
Heathland Reserve 2000-2006.
Arthur Rylah Institute for
Environmental Research, Department
of Sustainability & Environment,
Heidelberg, Victoria.

Coates, F., Lunt, I.D. & Trembley, R.L.
(2006). Effects of disturbance on
population dynamics of the threatened
orchid Prasophyllum correction
D.L.Jones and implications for
grassland management in south¬
eastern Australia. Biological
Conservation 129(1): 59-69.

Jones, D.L. (2006). A Complete Guide to
the Native Orchids of Australia
Including the Island Territories. New
Holland Publishers, Sydney.

Jones, D.L. & Rouse, D.T. (2006).
Fourteen new species of
Prasophyllum from eastern Australia.
Australian Orchid Research 5: 143—
168.

Jones, D., Wapstra, H., Tonelli, P. &
Harris, S. (1999). The Orchids of
Tasmania. Melbourne University
Press and the Miegunyah Press,
Carlton South, Victoria.

Lindley, J. (1840). The Genera and
Species of Orchidaceous Plants.
Ridgways Piccadilly, London.

Wapstra, H., Wapstra, A., Wapstra, M.
& Gilfedder, L. (2005). The Little
Book of Common Names for
Tasmanian Plants. Department of
Primary Industries, Water &
Environment, Tasmania.

19

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Plate 1. Prasophyllum limnetes from Rubicon Sanctuary (images: Phil Collier)

20

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Plate 2. Prasophyllum rostratum from Rubicon Sanctuary (images: Phil Collier)

21

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

COMMON MASS MOVEMENT CAVES OF TASMANIA

Adrian Slee

Forest Practices Authority, 30 Patrick Street, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, email:
adrian. slee@fpa. tas. go v. au

ABSTRACT

Caves and ‘sinkholes’ formed in non-carbonate rocks that are not susceptible to rapid
dissolution can form by geomorphic processes involving mass movement. Although
mass movement caves and ‘sinkholes’ are common Tasmanian landforms and can
present significant management issues, their distribution, development and significance
have received little study from Tasmania’s science community. This paper discusses
several different processes that can lead to cave development and describes caves that
have been recently documented within Tasmania’s forest estate.

INTRODUCTION

Caves and sinkholes formed by
processes other than the dissolution of
carbonate bedrock (i.e. karst) can
develop in rock types including granite,
dolerite, quartzite, thick soil profiles and
glacial till. The caves form largely by
physical weathering processes rather
than chemical dissolution. In most cases
these landforms are relatively small
compared to normal caves and sinkholes.
They may be formed by unusual
landscape processes or climatic factors
such as intense rainfall events or past
paleoclimatic influences. There are a
number of different cave types that have
been identified by the international
speleological community:

• rheogenic caves (lava tubes)

• piping (tunnel) caves

• permafrost caves

• talus caves

• tectonic fissure caves

• compaction caves.

Of these types, piping, talus and fissure
caves are relatively common in
Tasmania. These caves have developed
through one of a range of dominant
geomorphic process. Consequently a

site-specific assessment is required to
determine the formation process
resulting in the development of a
landform and identify any hazards or
management priorities for the site.

PIPING CAVES

Gully erosion happens when channelised
water removes unconsolidated soil by
physical erosion cutting down into
sediment and forming an incised
channel. In extreme cases of tunnel gully
erosion a stream channel erodes a soil
horizon that lies beneath more robust
horizons, forming tunnels within the soil
profile that over time propagate and
eventually collapse. The same process
leads to the formation of piping caves
but the caves have formed in more
consolidated material so can develop
significantly larger passages and may be
much more stable than normal tunnel
gully landforms. Several large piping
landscapes are found in Tasmania. They
include two sites in the Picton Valley
where stream swallets (streams flowing
into caves), small caves and sinkholes up
to 3 m deep have formed, and one site on
the Lune Plains where a cave complex
has developed consisting of surface
sinkholes and stream swallets as well as
large passages containing fauna

22

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

including spiders and glow worms
(Clarke 1990).

Example: Dog Hole

fc Dog Hole’ was recently discovered
within a plantation near Guildford south
of Burnie by a forester whose dog ran
into a cave entrance. The cave consists
of a large collapse sinkhole formed
entirely in thick well-developed basalt
soil. The cave has a 1 m wide entrance
into an elliptical passage approximately
1.5 m wide and 1 m tall, which then
extends out of sight. An investigation
adjacent to a stream north of the feature
revealed two small entrances in the
stream bank aligned with the cave
passage and a small enclosed sinkhole.
The holes in the stream bank are likely
to be the efflux points for flood waters
entering the cave (Figures 1 & 2).

The cave contains a population of the
Tasmanian cave spider (Hickmania
troglodytes) and appears to be a stable
long lived landform that is possibly a
relict feature dating to a time before a

small stream upslope was diverted by
catchment disturbance. With an
estimated 30 m of passage this feature is
an interesting example of a small piping
cave (Figure 3).

Figure 1. Map of‘Dog Hole’ sinkholes and
cave entrances

Figure 2. View into ‘Dog Hole’ (the tunnel is about 1 m high) - note the large cave spiders

hanging from roof

23

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

TALUS/BOULDER CAVES

Boulder caves consist of interlinked
voids between large boulders in cliff fall
or periglacial talus deposits. Boulder
caves are common land forms in
Tasmania due to extensive dolerite
boulder scree slopes found at altitudes
above 600 m that have formed by
periglacial conditions during the
Quaternary. In areas with dolerite
bedrock topples and talus slopes,
moderately extensive cave complexes
may be present. The most extensive
documented boulder caves in Tasmania
are located at the Lost World on Mt
Wellington, which are nearly 360 m long
and more than 40 m deep (R. Eberhard
pers. comm.). Other potentially large
complexes can be found on Snowy
South, Stacks Bluff and Mt Emma.
Another common boulder cave
formation process within Tasmania is
when landslides occur, particularly
within steep river gorges. An example is
the Blythe River in the northwest, which
flows underground for approximately

2 km through granite boulders that may
have been emplaced by major slope
failure of the surrounding gorge. A
similar feature occurs in the Ringarooma
River at Herrick Gorge in the State’s
northeast. The Denison River in the
southwest flows entirely underground
for a short distance beneath a single
massive block failure.

Example: TheArve Valley Arch

At this site an accumulation of very large
sandstone monoliths up to 14 m long and
8 m tall lie on the floor of a tributary
valley of the Arve River. From the south
a stream flows over a small cascade and
into a circular hollow between boulders
before flowing between two boulders
that have formed a 5 m long and 6 m tall
arch over the stream channel (Figures

3 & 4). The site is a visually impressive

example of a small boulder cave formed
within a very old landslide deposit that
has been eroded by the stream. Evidence
of past high stream flow levels are
recorded on the walls of the arch in the
form of erosion notches and pitting on
exposed sandstone faces.

Figure 3. View out of the Arve Valley Arch

24

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

TECTONIC FISSURE CAVES

Tectonic fissure caves form as a result of
bedrock tectonic processes. The tectonic
forces may be movement of a scarp face
where a section of bedrock escarpment
slowly pulls away from a cliff line and
slides down the hill. At Pilchers
Mountain in New South Wales a large
complex mass movement is leading to
parts of a sandstone escarpment shearing
away and slowly moving down slope. As
a result the intervening displacement
ravines (Figure 5) have propagated
horizontally and vertically along the hill
slope leading to the formation of several
large fissure caves up to 46 m deep in
the floors of the ravines (Smith 2007).
Fissure cave complexes can be extensive
with the Nangwarry Caves
near Nowra in southern
New South Wales being
an extensive Australian
example with several
hundred meters of passage
formed by sandstone
fissures (Manned 1973).

Tasmanian displacement
ravines and fissure caves
are of far more modest
size. Small mass

movement depressions
and ravines can be found
along the entire Great
Western Tiers where
several very large

displacement ravines are
located; however, no
caves have been

documented. Fissure
landforms are also
common in parts of the
Eastern Tiers including
Ben Lomond (Caine

1983). On Fingal Tier
numerous “sinkholes” are
mapped on the 1:25000

topographic maps: these features were
formed either by tectonic processes or
related to peri-glacial deposits. The best
developed mass movement complex in
Tasmania lies on the western and
northern flanks of mounts Punter and St
John near Fingal (Figure 6). Kiernan
(1991) and Sharpies (1995) have
documented numerous large enclosed
depressions forming boulder sinkholes
related to massive block slides of
dolerite bedrock. Fissure caves and
block slides appear to be less common in
southern and western Tasmania, possibly
because this part of the State was
glaciated during the Quaternary, and
erosion by ice may have destroyed mass
movement deposits. A small 17 m deep
fissure cave first described by

25

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Fissure caves are also known on Marble
Hill where they have formed in Permian
rocks overlying intensely karstified
Ordovician limestone and in quartzite
near Frenchmans Cap and on The
Needles near Maydena. In 1968 a boy
was rescued from a fissure cave known
as the ‘Devils Den’ on the slopes of Mt
Faulkner north of Hobart (White 2010).

PERI-GLACIAL FREEZE-THAW
(TALUS) CAVES

Several caves located high on the slopes
of mountains in northeast Tasmania
appear to have formed by peri-glacial
processes. A cave located on Mt Barrow
was entered by a small sky hole and a
2 m shaft into a spacious 2 m wide and
8 m long chamber between massive
dolerite columns (Figure 8).

Figure 6. ‘Sinkholes’ formed by mass
movement Mt Punter, Fingal Tier

R. Eberhard and reported by (Sharpies
1997) is located in the Styx Valley and
recently located a second fissure cave
entrance adjacent to a possible fault in
the same area (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Unexplored fissure cave entrance
Styx Valley

26

Figure 8. Plan of Mt Barrow cave

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Figure 10 (above). Entrance to the Mt
Victoria cave

Figure 11 (right). The passage of the Mt
Victoria main cave displays a distinct
cylindrical shape somewhat reminiscent
of a phreatric tube. Seasonal snow and ice
accumulation within this cavity is the
most likely cause for this circular form.

At Mt Victoria a similar cave lies
adjacent to the summit track having a
length of around 15 m (Figures 9 & 10).
Both caves have smooth curved walls
reminiscent of phreatric tubes in typical
karst situations (Figure 11).
Approximately 20 m below the Mt
Victoria cave a small spring rises from
under a bedrock bluff. It appears the
most likely process forming these high
altitude caves may be freeze-thaw action
during cold glacial climates where snow
and ice have accumulated along cracks
in massive dolerite outcrops and frozen
slowly prizing the joints within the
dolerite apart while gouging out the
sides of the cave passages the hexagonal
profile of the Mt Victoria cave suggests
that frost action may have displaced or
completely removed a dolerite column.

Figure 9 (above). Map of dolerite boulders
and caves, Mt Victoria

n\ODACtfwC

27

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

IMPLICATIONS FOR LAND
MANAGEMENT

The identification of mass movement
caves and sinkholes can be important in
determining management priorities
within a landscape. While only the most
well-developed and extensive landforms
may be of specific geoconservation
significance, the geomorphic processes
that have led to the formation of non-
karstic caves and sinkholes may be
impacted by land development during
forest harvest, road building or
agricultural activities.

As a rule, the presence of these
landforms indicates ongoing land
instability within an area. Active stream
conduits likely to form tunnel gully
erosion and collapse sinkholes may
present hazards to machinery and
workers. Caution should prevail and
machine use close to features may need
to be controlled where well-developed
mass movement caves are present. Some
large areas may need to be excluded
from operations where machinery
disturbance on unstable landforms are an
obvious safety risk.

SUMMARY

Caves formed by mass movement
processes are a widespread suite of
landforms in Tasmania, some of which
are of high geoconservation and faunal
significance. Such caves are commonly
associated with Quaternary periglacial
deposits and areas prone to landslide and
tunnel gully erosion. These landforms
they also indicate potentially unstable
landscapes where personal safety and
erosion are issues.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Peter McIntosh and Amy Koch provided

commentary on earlier drafts of the

article.

REFERENCES

Caine, N. (1983). The Mountains of
Northeastern Tasmania: A Study of
Alpine Geomorphology. A.A.
Balkcma, Rotterdam.

Clarke, A. (1990). Lime River Valley
Karst Inventory-Phase 1: Tasmanian
Karst Atlas Project. Consultancy
report to the Forestry Commission of
Tasmania, June 1990.

Halliday, W.R. (2007). Pseudokarst in
the 21 st century. Journal of Cave and
Karst Studies 69(1): 103-113.

Kieman, K. (1991). Slope Stability and
Alluviation in the Eastern Tiers,
Tasmania. Unpublished report,
Forestry Commission, Tasmania.

Manned, R. (1973) Nangwarry
Sandstone Caves, Labrinth 3. New
South Wales Institute of Technology
Speleological Society.

Sharpies, C. (1995). A Reconnaissance
of Landforms and Geological Sites of
Geoconservation Significance in the
State Forests of Eastern Tasmania,
Volume 2 - Description. A report to
Forestry Tasmania, Hobart.

Sharpies, C. (1997). A Reconnaissance
of Landforms and Geological Sites of
Geoconservation Significance in the
Western Derwent Forest District. A
report to Forestry Tasmania, Hobart.

Smith, G.K. (2007). Tectonic and talus
caves at Pilchers Mountain, New
South Wales. Helictite 40(1): 11-20.

White, S. (2010). A blast from the past,
the 1968 Devils Den rescue,
Tasmania. Caves Australia 181: 7-10.

28

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

TWO CRIPPLING LIFERS AND A FIRST: OBSERVATIONS
OF THE CHATHAM ALBATROSS AND WANDERING
WHISTLING-DUCK IN TASMANIA

Els Wakefield

12 Altna-Craig Avenue, Lenah Valley, Tasmania 7000, email:
elsandhill@iprimus. com. au

According to Bill Oddie’s Little Black Bird Book , “a lifer” means the first time you
have seen a certain species. “A first” means a first for Tasmania, not just the first time
you see it but the first time anybody has seen it in Tasmania. “A crippler” is a term I
learnt from Bill Wakefield meaning something rare and wonderful you may never see
again. Imagine the excitement of having two of these in September this year!

CHATHAM ALBATROSS
THALASSARCHE EREMITA

I was given the tip off by Paul Brooks
that there were vacancies on two
pelagics (sea bird trips) leaving on 3 rd
and 4 th September 2011 from Pirates Bay
to the Continental Shelf drop off.The
trips were led by Dan Mantle from
Canberra with some very experienced
mainland birders as well as a few from
Hobart. Many of the
birders had done
hundreds of trips but
they all declared that
the one on Saturday
was the best ever with
a huge variety of
birds around the drop
off and just beyond.

John Males, the
skipper of the
Pauletta , was

expecting stong

winds so it was
decided to head straight out
to the Shelf. On arrival,
burley was tossed out and the birds came
round the boat. Viewing conditions were
perfect.

The great highlight of the day caused
everyone to shout and rush to the side of
the boat. This was a “crippler” and

“lifer” and was thought to be a “first”!
The bird was a Chatham Albatross,
Thalassarche eremita , also known as a
“banana bill bird” as it has an enormous,
uniformly bright yellow bill sporting a
large black dot at the tip of its lower
mandible (Plate 1 & 2). This contrasted
strongly against the dark grey head and
neck as it approached. A small white
patch behind the eye is another
interesting feature.

Plate 1 . The banana bill bird

As the name suggests, the Chatham
Albatross breeds on Pyramid Rock off
Chatham Island east of New Zealand,
returning to the colony in August to
September, usually dispersing only to
adjacent seas. It was previously
Diomedea cauta subsp. eremita a form

29

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

of the Shy Albatross but has recently
been given full species status and is no
longer a subspecies of the Shy. As it
appeared in the distance, most on board
were taking photos to be able to
positively identify the bird. Imagine
everyone’s delight when it landed right
behind the boat enabling fantastic views
and photographs for everyone as
evidence. Eventually it lifted from the
water and disappeared from view (Plates
3-8).

During all the excitement, John Males
phoned Chris Lester, a birder who with
Bill, frequently organised trips to the
Shelf. Unfortunately Chris was overseas
but his daughter took the message to
pass on. The following day we were all
hoping to see the same bird but without
success. The swell was much larger and
the wind stronger with many other
species from the previous day showing
up again.

According to Rohan Clark, an
ornithologist and experienced sea birder
who regularly organises pelagics, there

off the east coast of Australia including
an adult ashore on Albatross Island
paired with a Shy Albatross. This means
that the bird seen on September 3 rd 2011
was not the first for Tasmania but
possibly the second.

Most records have been mentioned on
the birding-aus website since this recent
sighting. These are:

• adult; Cape Schank, Vic.; 60/70s

• sub-adult; Eden, NSW; 60/70s

• adult; Albatross Island, Tas.; 60/70s

• adult; Batemans Bay, NSW; 7 August
1999

• adult; Wollongong, NSW; 22 August
1999

• adult; Wollongong, NSW; 12 July
2002

• adult; Sydney, NSW; 12 August 2002.

It was certainly not ticked in our bird
book so I know that Bill had never seen
one. He would have been so excited! As
the skipper said, he probably sent it over
to us!

Plate 2. The distinctive bill of Chatham Albatross

30

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Plates 3-8. The Chatham Albatross flying in and landing behind the boat, giving everyone a
perhaps once in a lifetime photo opportunity to capture the banana bill bird
(images: © Els Wakefield)

31

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

WANDERING WHISTLING-DUCK
DENDUROCYGNA ARCAUTA

On September 13 2011, Paul Brooks sent
me an email alerting me to the fact that
there were three Wandering Whistling-
ducks at Lake Dulverton, Oatlands. A
chap called Ian Lundy had posted on the
Eremaea Birds birdline that he'd seen
them there but was unsure if his
identification was correct and was
unable to take a photograph.

The following morning, 1 drove up
although the weather was overcast with
occasional showers. As I arrived, I met
Alan Fletcher who had already
photographed the trio on the edge of the
lake before they had been disturbed
(Plate 9).

Despite waiting a few hours and even
returning two days later hoping they
might come towards the shore, the ducks
remained in the middle of the top dam,
their heads tucked under or preening
between snoozes! 1 managed some
distant shots but was disappointed with

the results.

Nevertheless, this was an important
sighting of a duck that had never
previously been recorded in Tasmania. It
is thus “a first” according to birding
definitions. As the birds were fairly
flighty, it is unlikely that they have
escaped from captivity and are probably
wild. In the Field Guide to the Birds of
Australia by Graham Pizzey and Frank
Knight, they are described as “black
crown and nape contrast with plain
yellow-buff face and neck: shoulders
chestnut; short cream flank plumes”.

They are usually found in tropical and
subtropical north Australia having been
sighted as a casual visitor to NSW, Vic.
and southwest WA. Perhaps they have
been blown to Tasmania with the recent
strong winds or they have needed to find
new feeding sites after the recent floods
on the mainland. With their pale orange
chests they stood out amongst the dark
reeds on the lake and could be easily
spotted with the naked eye.

Plate 9. The trio of Wandering Whistling-ducks at Lake Dulverton (image ©: Alan Fletcher)

32

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

WHODUNNIT AND WHY?

Chris P. Spencer

141 Valley Road, Collinsvale, Tasmania 7012, email: spenric@gmail.com

I first became acquainted with platypus faeces while fishing as a young boy. The rather
unorthodox method of catching fish (known to me as tickling) that I employed brought
me close to the excrement, as 1 lay across emergent rocks feeling around for the
unsuspecting trout sheltering beneath.

The pungent material intrigued me and 1
was puzzled as to its origin; clearly it
was not deposited by fish. I was familiar
with native hen droppings and a lack of
the characteristic ‘white’ component of
urinary waste convinced me that it was
not of avian origin. Though platypus did
cross my mind, I was puzzled as to why
the animals would leave the safety of the
water to defecate.

Some years passed before my question
was answered one day as I sat quietly in
the shade watching a platypus feeding in
my favourite swimming hole. After a
lengthy period of foraging, the large
individual swam to the edge of the pool,
where it climbed out of the water and

ascended a sloping, moss-covered
boulder on the river’s edge. Between
bouts of vigorous scratching it appeared
to be exploring the expanse of soft
greenery, its bill executing similar lateral
movements to those employed while
feeding.

Having completed its explorations, the
animal slid back into the water and in the
style of any keen young naturalist, I
rock-hopped and waded across the
stream to investigate. The case was
solved, for there on the moss lay a dark
cylinder of wet excrement (Plate I),
quite warm and strongly odoriferous! I
was overjoyed at the discovery; however
no one that I enlightened appeared to be

Plate 1. Typical boulder latrine site, Liffey River

33

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

at all impressed, not even my family.

Description and comments

When solid, platypus scats appear waxy,
like graphite paste; usually cylindrical,
as if squeezed from a tube, but
sometimes smeared (flattened) by the tail
(Plates 2 & 3). Often the solid matter is
accompanied by a viscous liquid
component. Dark green to dark brown or
black in colour (Plate 4), the substance
invariably emits a strong and pungent
odour that diminishes with the passing of
time.

Faeces are most often deposited on
favoured runways, on the banks of farm
dams and along the stream or soak
connecting them to a major watercourse.
They are often liberally smeared on or
near the entrance to occupied burrows.

Deposition of faecal material appears not
to be random, as favoured sites are re¬
marked on a fairly regular basis
throughout the year. Emergent river
rocks in an individual’s home range are
periodically marked with faeces and
urine; those clothed with mosses seem to
be favoured over smooth, naked ones,
perhaps the moss cover aids in the
retention of the material when
inundation occurs. Whether or not they
target mossy rocks, or the mosses grow
prolifically on
the rocks they
have chosen due
to the increased
nutrient level is
still a mystery to
me. There is a
definite seasonal
variation in the
height above
water level at
which sites are
marked, perhaps
to make

allowance for increased water flow and
inundation during flood events.

The advertising of one’s presence and
territorial claim with urine and scat
material is accepted for many mammal
species and has been recorded for the
only other monotreme, the echidna,
Tachyglossus aculeatus (Grove et al.
2006; Sprent et al. 2006; Spencer &
Richards 2009). I therefore conclude that
the platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus ,
is also using waste products to advertise
its presence in a landscape that is
subjected to extreme seasonal variation.

REFERENCES

Grove, S., Richards, K., Spencer, C. &
Yaxley, B. (2006). What lives under
large logs in Tasmanian eucalypt
forest? The Tasmanian Naturalist 128:
86-93.

Spencer, C.P. & Richards, K. (2009).
Observations on the diet and feeding
habits of the short-beaked echidna
(Tachyglossus aculeatus) in
Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist
131:36-41.

Sprent, J.A., Andersen, N.A. & Nicol,
S.C. (2006). Latrine use by the short-
beaked echidna Tachyglossus
aculeatus. Australian Mammalogy
28(1): 131-133.

34

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Plate 3. Fresh platypus faeces, on edge of farm dam, Liffey (ignore the cow pats!)

Plate 4. Fresh platypus faeces on well used runway, Salmon Ponds

35

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

OBSERVATIONS ON PLATYPUSES IN TASMANIAN CAVES

Rolan Eherhard

Land Conservation Branclh Resource Management & Conservation Division,
Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water & Environment t, Hobart 7000
email: rolan. eberhard@dpip\ve, tas.gov. au

INTRODUCTION

A variety of evidence suggests that platypuses frequent certain karst caves, are capable of
travelling underground for considerable distances and on occasion will nest inside caves.
This paper (1) collates published and unpublished records of platypuses in Tasmanian
caves, (2) reports on aspects of platypus behaviour in caves, and (3) describes
characteristic signs of platypus presence in caves, with reference to a selection of
photographs. The sources include reports in the literature, discussions with cavers, show
cave staff and my own observations. The latter are essentially incidental observations
made over several decades during recreational and work-related caving trips. The number
of such records is not large, although it is possible and indeed likely that in some cases I
failed to recognised evidence of platypuses, which I became more aware of in 2004
following the discovery of platypus nests in Riveaux Cave.

OBSERVATIONS

Direct or indirect evidence of platypuses
has been obtained from twelve Tasmanian
caves (Table 1). Well-meaning cavers
removed a live platypus from Croesus
Cave in the 1960s, apparently under the
misapprehension that it could not survive
there. How (1994) provides the following
information regarding this incident:

Platypus in residence seems to be a recent
addition to the cave as there were no
recollections or sign of the animals or the
droppings during these 1960s trips. On one
occasion around 1966, caverneers captured a
16” female platypus 100 m in and released it
outside the entrance in an injured condition. As
far as I know, the present residents arrived in
the cave in the early 1980s.

Gunns Plains Cave, a show cave, has been
frequented by platypuses since at least the
early 1980s (Blanden 1999). The current
operators of the cave, Trish and Geoff
Deer, report that platypuses are often seen
along the initial section of streamway
inside the cave, but less frequently than in
the 1980s when Trish commenced

guiding there. At that time platypus
sightings were made every day, especially
on the 1.30 pm tour, which became
known as the ‘platypus tour’
(T. Deer pers. comm.). Trish attributes the
decline in platypus sightings to lower
water levels in the cave, while noting that
contractors upgrading the lighting system
in the cave in 2008 claim to have seen
platypuses every day during their 3-11
pm shifts. Platypuses are reported to
tolerate the switching on of artificial
lighting at the start of cave tours, but
disappear from view if an approaching
tour party makes noise.

The Deers recall seeing a platypus out of
water inside the cave on only one
occasion. This occurred in 2005 during a
period when the cave had been closed for
several weeks for maintenance. They had
entered the cave on a routine check when
they encountered a platypus lying in a
shallow depression scraped out on a
sediment bank beside the tourist path. The
animal was in a curled position and
apparently asleep, remaining so while

36

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Table 1. Platypus records from Tasmanian caves

Cave

Catchment

Date

Evidence

Reference

Croesus Cave

Mersey

Pre-1966

Female 100 m inside
cave (captured and
released outside
cave)

How (1994)

1988-

1996

Scats

Lichon (1999)

1993

Sighting at cave
entrance

This paper

1999

Scats

Eberhard

(2000)

Cyclops Cave

Mersey

1999 or
earlier

Scats

Lichon (1999)

c. 2002

Sighting inside cave

This paper

Un-named cave
(MC228)

Mersey

1999 or
earlier

Scats

Lichon (1999)

Wet Cave

Mersey

1999 or
earlier

Scats

Lichon (1999)

Marakoopa

Cave

Mersey

2000+

(several

occasions)

Sightings (Zambesi
Falls)

Scats (Short Creek)

P. Flood (pers.
comm.)

2010

summer

Sightings (Zambesi
Falls)

H. Stedman
(pers. comm.)

Gunns Plains
Cave

Leven

early

1980s

Sightings in show
cave

D. Wing (pers.
comm, cited in
Blanden 1999)

1980s to
present

Sightings in show
cave

T. Deer (pers.
comm.)

mid 1990s

Burrows and
sightings in
stream way upstream
of show cave

S. Blanden
(pers. comm.)

Julius River
(cave not
specified)

Arthur

1999 or
earlier

Sighting(s)

Lichon (1999)

lldensala (cave)

Florentine

ca. 1984

Sighting at cave
entrance

This paper

Riveaux,Cave

Huon

2000

Nests

Munks et al.
(2004)

Rotuli Cave
(Bill Neilson
Cave)

Gordon

2005-

2011

Scats, scratchings,
burrows

This paper

Exit Cave

D’Entrecasteaux

April

2011

Scats in Wind Tunnel
and main streamway
near The Ballroom

This paper

Damper Cave

New

May 2011

Scats, scratchings,
burrows, nest

This paper

37

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

they watched it for several minutes.
Eventually the animal became disturbed
and moved off when they attempted to
take photographs. Caving parties have
encountered platypuses in the stream
deeper into the cave, beyond the tourist
section (S. Blanden pers. comm.).
Platypus burrows in Gunns Plains Cave
were inundated by floods in January 2011
and potentially silted up, but showed
signs of being in use again within a few
weeks (T. Deer pers. comm.).

Platypuses have been seen on a number of
occasions in another show cave,
Marakoopa Cave at Mole Creek, but are
more often observed in surface
watercourses just outside the cave
(P. Flood, pers. comm.). Staff at the cave
report that Anaspides normally present in
an area of riffles known as Zambesi Falls
disappear following visits to the cave by
platypuses. They interpret this as
evidence of platypus predation. A
platypus was observed at Zambesi Falls
for several hours in 2011. The animal
appeared unconcerned by cave tours
underway at the time (H. Stedman, pers.
comm.).

Three sightings of platypuses in caves by
the author involved single animals. All
were made during daylight hours, which
of course made no difference to ambient
light conditions deep inside the caves,
although the Croesus Cave sighting was
at the cave entrance and for all practical
purposes in full daylight. This animal was
observed over a period of several minutes,
swimming rapidly upstream and
downstream along a narrow, fast flowing
channel before disappearing inside the
cave along the same watercourse. The
animal appeared oblivious to the presence
of the observer less than a metre away
and could be seen ‘shuffling’ its head
from side to side in a manner suggestive

of foraging. The platypus encountered in
Cyclops Cave was moving about in a
shallow pool several hundred metres into
the cave and was not observed at close
range. At Udensala I nearly trod on a
platypus at a narrow point in the stream
passage just inside the cave entrance.
Platypuses have not been seen inside
Rotuli Cave, but I have observed them
directly outside on the Gordon River, into
which the cave stream discharges.

Whereas platypuses typically nest within
burrows in consolidated earth river banks
(Grant 2007), nests outside of burrows
have been found on the banks of a stream
running through Riveaux Cave (Munks et
al. 2004). This cave lacks suitable
sediment banks for burrowing. In Damper
Cave, which does contain suitable
sediment suitable for burrowing, a
presumed open nest comprising a scatter
of leaves and other plant material was
noted in a natural alcove off the main
stream passage. The nest lacked structure
and appeared to be in a degraded
condition. At Damper Cave, Rotuli Cave
and Gunns Plains Cave, multiple burrows
have been excavated into riparian banks
at various points along the respective cave
streamways, often hundreds of metres
from cave entrances. The burrows have
elliptical openings, typical of platypus
burrows, well above the level ol most
floods. Many of the excavations
commence at the point of contact between
the cave ceiling and sandy riparian
deposits banked against it. These
locations exploit the quarriable nature of
the softer sediment and the possibility of
natural cavities at the top of the sediment
pile, while benefitting from the structural
competence of the solid limestone above.
Although caves would appear to provide
ready-made safe environments for rearing
young, potentially reducing the need for
platypuses to expend energy constructing

38

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

elaborate burrows (S. Munks pers.
comm.), the evidence suggests that
platypuses generally still create burrows
in caves where suitable riparian deposits
are present.

Slopes below cave burrows are often
marked by fans of rounded clayey pellets,
representing a lag of excavated material.
It is unclear whether particles of clay
merely become * balled up under
platypuses as they enlarge their burrows,
or whether platypuses form the excavated
material in this way to facilitate its
removal. It is not known whether similar
features have been observed in
association with platypus burrows in
surface settings, although burrows
illustrated by Munks et al. (2007) show
no evidence of balled up material.
Although open nests have not been found
in Rotuli Cave, occasional scraps of
vegetation (tree-fern, leaves, Milligania
spp. fronds) outside burrows suggest
material carried in for nesting, as at
Riveaux Cave. Some burrows are quite
shallow, while others evidently extend for
some distance, implying that these may
comprise both resting and nesting types of
burrows (Grant 2007).

The majority of records of platypuses in
caves involve horizontal stream caves
where the nearest and in some cases only
known entrance to the cave is an outflow
i.e. the stream flows out of the cave
entrance not into it. Some of these caves
do contain additional entrances of a
vertical or steeply descending nature, but
it is clear'that these are not utilised as
entry points by platypuses. The cave
streams are generally perennial
watercourses that discharge into larger
streams or rivers not far downstream. In
this context the presence of platypuses in
tributary streams within caves is a natural
extension of their colonisation of adjacent
larger surface water bodies. However, the

presence of a perennial stream may not be
essential for a cave to be suitable for
platypuses, as Koch et al. (2006) found
that platypuses use headwater streams
even when they were dry. Udensala is
atypical in being an inflow cave
comprising a rocky streamway that
descends steeply underground via
cascades and waterfalls. The platypus
observation was made very close to the
cave entrance and it is doubtful that the
animal was ‘in residence’, as the steep
gradient of the streamway and lack of
sediment banks suggests that this site
would not be ideal habitat for platypuses.

Although not documented in this paper, I
have occasionally seen skeletal remains of
platypuses inside caves with vertical
entrances. Such caves act as natural pitfall
traps and often contain bone material
from a range of species.

CHARACTERISTIC SIGNS OF THE
PRESENCE OF PLATYPUSES IN
CAVES

The evidence that the features described
below are attributable to platypuses is
circumstantial, as platypuses were not
observed making them. However, the
conclusion that platypuses are responsible
is reasonable, because the features are
consistent with known platypus behaviour
(Munks et al. 2006; Grant 2007) and
cannot readily be accounted for with
reference to other species.

Scats

Fresh platypus scats look like extrusions
of mud-coloured toothpaste (Plates 1 &
2). Older scats tend to lose definition and
become amorphous dark masses,
sometimes furry in appearance where
affected by bacterial growth. They can
occur in isolation but are more typically
present as clusters on riparian sediment
banks or bedrock surfaces on the margins

39

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

of cave streams. Scats are sometimes
smeared or squished out of shape. This
does not match platypus scats illustrated
by Triggs (1996), although her
description of them as ‘uneven, mud-like
pellets’ is broadly consistent with cave
examples, which agree with Munks et al.
(2007, fig. 6).

Plate 1. Fresh scat in Rotuli Cave (indicated)
with older scats above and right (image:

R. Eberhard)

Plate 2. Older scats in Rotuli Cave
(image: R. Eberhard)

Burrows and scratchings

Burrows are generally elliptical openings
in the order of 100 mm high by 150-200
mm wide (Photos 3 & 4). They are
commonly located no more than a few

metres from the cave stream at the point
of contact between sandy or clayey
riparian sediment banks and the bedrock
wall or ceiling of the cave. At Damper
Cave, some burrows are located in free¬
standing sediment banks which are not
hard up against a bedrock surface. In this
case the sediment has a harder upper crust
which provides a degree of structural
support for cavities excavated within it
(Photo 5). The ends of most burrows
cannot be seen from their surface
openings and their depth is unclear. A
limited number of excavations can be
seen to terminate after a distance of only a
few hundred millimetres, and may
constitute Testing’ burrows. Scratch
marks may be evident on approach slopes
and walls of newer burrows.

Plate 3. Burrow in Rotuli Cave
(image: R. Eberhard)

Plate 4. Burrow in Damper Cave - the whitish
coating on the sediment suggests that the
burrow has not been occupied for some time,
although the approach slope shows some
evidence of recent scratching and other
disturbance (image: R. Eberhard)

40

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Plate 5. Shallow excavation beneath weakly
consolidated capping layer, Damper Cave
(image: R. Eberhard)

Rounded clayey pellets

Burrows are sometimes surrounded by
fans of excavated material comprising
rounded clayey balls approximately 10-50
mm in diameter (Plates 6 & 7).

Plate 6. Clayey pellets, Damper Cave
(image: R. Eberhard)

On flatter sites the pellets accumulate as
mounds outside the burrow; on sloping
sites they may form a swathe that extends
downslope for several metres. Clay
pellets can develop through a variety of
natural processes, but are not common in
Tasmanian caves and are unlikely to
occur in similar contexts as the examples
shown here (i.e. high on riparian banks)
unless platypuses are involved.

Plate 7. Clayey pellets mounded outside
burrow, Rotuli Cave (image: R. Eberhard)

Slides and runways

Sediments on slopes proximal to burrows,
nesting sites and otherwise frequented by
platypuses become smoothed, compacted
or entrenched (Plates 8 & 9).

Plate 8. Entry to nesting alcove in Damper
Cave (image: R. Eberhard)

As undisturbed sediment may develop a
whitish bacterial coating, platypus
pathways sometimes stand out from
adjacent surfaces as darker muddy
smears. Their alignment is typically a
beeline between the burrow and the
nearest accessible point on the cave
stream. Slides and runways are commonly
reported in non-cave settings (S. Munks
pers. comm.).

Open nests

Based on observations at Riveaux and
Damper Cave, open nests may be

41

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

constructed on natural terraces or partially
enclosed alcoves adjacent to active
stream ways (Plate 9). Munks et al. 2004
describe the structure of a nest at
Riveaux, which comprised an inner cavity
lined with leaves and surrounded by a
generous layer of stringy fibre obtained
from the trunks of tree ferns. This nest
was a coherent rounded mass of plant
material about 300 mm in diameter (see
Munks et al. 2004 for photos). Older nests
no longer in use evidently degrade to
more amorphous mounds or scatters of
plant debris (Plate 10).

Plate 9. Runway to stream in Damper Cave
(image: R. Eberhard)

CONCLUSIONS

1. Use of caves by platypuses appears to
be relatively widespread in Tasmania.
Platypuses clearly frequent certain
caves and in doing so leave

considerable evidence of their

presence. The distinctive scats, burrows
and associated fans of clayey pellets
produced by platypuses are unlikely to

Plate 10. Remains of nest in Riveaux Cave
(image: R. Eberhard)

be confused with signs made by other
animals.

2. Direct observations of platypuses in
caves are not particularly common.
Gunns Plains Cave is an exception in
this regard, providing an unusual
example of interaction between
platypuses and a cave-based tourism
operation over a period of decades.

3. The majority of evidence for platypuses

in Tasmanian karst caves comes from
horizontal outflow stream caves located
close to larger perennial water bodies.
Caves containing soft riparian

sediments suitable for burrowing

appear to be favoured, although other
caves may be used in their absence.

Few caves will posses these

characteristics in any given karst area;
however, where such caves are present,
they provide potential habitat for
platypuses.

4. Platypuses are vigorous diggers and
constitute locally significant sources of
bioturbation to riparian sediments in
otherwise low energy stream caves. In
the absence of platypuses, the same
deposits may not be reworked by
natural process for extended periods of
time. Affected sediments may show a
range of distinct microtopographic
features.

42

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to Steve Blanden, Michael

Comfort, Trish Deer, Michael Driessen,

Paul Flood, Sarah Munks, Cathie

Plowman and Haydn Stedman for

observations or comments.

REFERENCES

Blanden, S. (1999). The Darkness
Beneath: Ganns Plains Caves and
Karst. Self-published, Gunns Plains.

Eberhard, S. (2000). Reconnaissance
Survey of Cave Fauna Management
Issues in the Mole Creek Karst
National Park, Tasmania. Nature
Conservation Report 2000/1,
Department of Primary Industries,
Water & Environment, Hobart.

Grant, T. (2007). Platypus. CS1RO
Publishing, Collingwood.

How, R. (1994). A history of Croesus
Cave MCI 3/43/51. Illuminations
(Journal of the Mole Creek Caving
Club) 3:6-11.

Koch, N., Munks, S.A., Utesch, M.,
Davies, P.E., & McIntosh, P.D. (2006).
The platypus Ornithorhynchus anatinus
in headwater streams, and effects of
pre-Code forest clearfelling, in the
South Esk River catchment, Tasmania,
Australia. Australian Zoologist 33(4):
458-473.

Lichon, M. (1999). Platypus in
Tasmanian caves, and particularly in
Croesus Cave. Illuminations (Journal
of the ' Mole Creek Caving Club)
4:21-27.

Munks, A., Eberhard, R. & Duhig, N.
(2004). Nests of the platypus
Ornithorhynchus anatinus in a
Tasmanian cave. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 126: 55-58.

Munks, S., Spencer, C., Tonelli, P.,
Wiersma, J. & O’Connor, K. (2007).
Platypuses at the Ponds. A Report to
the Inland Fisheries Service and the
Lessee of the Salmon Ponds, June
2007.

Triggs, B. (1996). Tracks, Scats and
Other Traces: A Field Guide to
Australian Mammals. Oxford
University Press, Melbourne.

43

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

ORNITHOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS FROM THE
2010/2011 SEASON OF THE MARIA ISLAND WALK

Bill & Els Wakefield

12 Ahna-Craig Avenue, Lenah Valley, Tasmania 7000
email: elsandbill@iprimus.com.au

INTRODUCTION - THE MARIA ISLAND WALK

This is the second year that a report has been prepared from the bird records collected by
the guides and the guests of The Maria Island Walk - see Wakefield & Hayward (2010).
This report covers the period of the 2010/2011 season, which went from the 12 October
2010 to the 22 nd April 2011. As recordings were made over a period of four days for each
walk, on 69 trips with up to 8 guests and 2 guides per trip, this has been a wonderful
combined effort, which has produced a very valuable record for the future.

The aims of The Maria Island Walk include the long-term conservation of the island.
These records are a useful indicator of the health of the island, enabling the detection of
any unusual species or changes in status of species. Special thanks must go to the guides
who, in addition to their normal duties, have taken the time to keep notes at the end of
each day.

For ease of reference we have placed the species in alphabetical order rather than in the
customary taxonomic order found in bird books (e.g. Christidis & Boles 2008).

ANNOTATED LIST OF SPECIES’
OBSERVATIONS

Antarctic Prion (Pachyptila desol at a)

A beach-washed bird was picked up on
9-Feb-ll, which, if adequate details or
photographs were available, would be the
first record of the species for the island.
Occasionally sightings of this species
have been recorded further south along
the Continental Shelf edge generally
during the winter months.

Arctic Jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus)

Three were reported in the second week
of Mar-11 at a time of year when the
species is generally present in small
numbers off our coastline
kleptoparasitising our Crested Terns.
They are not often recorded around Maria
Island.

Australasian Gannet (Monts senator)

Seen from Oct-10 to Apr-11 with
maximum numbers in Mar-11 when there
were probably good schools of fish
around the island.

Australian Magpie ( Cracticus tibicen)

The introduced Magpie population seems
stable with more than 20 sighted,
although no colour bands or stainless steel
bands were recorded. These would have
been placed on the birds during the
research programme that was started in
the late 1970s and continued into the late
1990s. The absence of banded birds gives
some indication of the life expectancy of
the species on the island.

Australian Owlet-nightjar (Aegotheles
crist at us) [Plate 1]

Not previously recorded on Maria Island.

44

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Two birds were present at one of the
camps in the first week of Feb-11 and a
single bird in the 2 nd week of Mar-11.
Rarely heard and even more rarely seen
whereever it occurs in Tasmania.

Plate 1. An Australian Owlet-nightjar in a
hollow tree stump (image: Robyn Gates)

Australian Pied Oystercatcher
(Haenwtopus longirostris )

Numbers ranged from a low of 2 birds
and reaching as many as 22 in the 3 rd
week of Mar-11, after which numbers
tended to fall away.

Black Currawong (Strepera fuliginosa )

Present throughout the season in numbers
varying from one to thirty unlike the Grey
Currawong, which was far less frequently
reported and in smaller numbers. Birds of
Maria Island (Rounsevell et al. 1977)
suggests that although the Black
Currawong is a common and widespread
resident that lives in open forest and
subalpine shrubland, also forages on
grassland'and beaches. The species is
nomadic, particularly in winter when it
regularly commutes to the coastline of
mainland Tasmania. The Grey Currawong
was regarded in that report as uncommon
and it was suggested that they might
reside on the island with Black
Currawongs. It is still not known whether
the Grey Currawong breeds on the island,

however, we certainly have recorded the
Black Currawong as breeding in the
Darlington area.

Black-browed Albatross (Tlialassarclte
melanophris) [Plate 2]

Reported in mid February 2011. This is a
species along with others of this family
that should be recorded much more
frequently as at least five species of
albatross are expected to be encountered
on seabird trips out towards the edge of
the continental shelf and visible in the
distance from shore. Definite
identification at these distances is not
possible though many do come in close in
bad weather.

Plate 2. Black-browed Albatross (image: Bill
& Els Wakefield)

Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike (Coracina
novaehoUandiae)

This species presence still seems to be
restricted to the months between
November and January although they
were recorded as late as March in Birds of
Maria Island (Rounsevell et al. 1977).
Suspected of breeding on Maria Island
and then migrating north for the winter.

Blue-billed Duck (Oxyura australis)

Only the 2 nd record for the island though
some of the evanescent lagoons provide
what would appear to be good habitat for
the species. It should be noted, however,

45

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

that the only locality in the State where
the species occurs with any regularity is
the Rostrevor Lagoon just to the north of
nearby Triabunna.

Brown Falcon (Falco berigora)

Only one was sighted on the island this
season and it may be that they are
becoming scarce on Maria Island. Birds of
Maria Island reported several pairs
suspected of breeding there.

Caspian Tern ( Hydroprogne caspia)

Twelve sightings this season with a
maximum of 6 in the 1 st week of Feb-11
and the last reported in the 2 nd week of
Mar-11.

Common Starling ( St urn us vulgaris)

With only one plus sighted, on the one
visit to the island, this introduced species
does not seem to be gaining a foothold
which is interesting because there is no
known eradication programme for
Starlings or other European species in
place.

European Goldfinch ( Carduelis
carduelis)

Only reported on two occasions, once
with a single bird on 07-Apr-ll.
Following their self-introduction in 1968,
the species appears to have become much
more scarce on the island and never found
to be common here.

Feral Hybrid Ducks
(Mallard X Black Duck)

Two birds recorded in mid November
2010 and two in the second week of
January 2011 in the Darlington area. It
would be preferable that they be removed
from the island particularly if they have
become resident as they readily hybridise
with Pacific Black Duck and sometimes
with other species.

Flame Robin

(Petroica phoenicea) [Plate 3]

Recorded on most visits from November
2010 to April 2011 with a maximum of
three in the first week of November 2010
and the last week of February 2011.

Plate 3. Flame Robin (image: Bill & Els
Wakefield)

Forty-spotted Pardalote ( Pardalotus
quadragintus)

Apart from 10+ in late Nov-10 most
parties visiting the island recorded the
species in small numbers.

Golden Whistler (Pachycephala
pectoralis)

Reported on only six visits despite the
fact that its call, for those familiar with it,
is distinctive and easy to identify. We are
sure that this is just a case of the species
being overlooked rather than its
intermittent presence.

Grey Currawong (Strepera versicolor)

This species prefers the higher forested
areas during the walking season and that
would account for the fact that it was only
recorded in the last week of Feb-11 and
2nd week of Mar-11 with a maximum of
two birds. It is possible that most birds
recorded on the island are visitors from

46

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

mainland Tasmania where the species is
resident, though not abundant (see the
comments above for Black Currawong).

Grey Shrike-thrush (Colluricincla
harmonica)

In Birds of Maria Island (Rounsevell et
al. 1977), this species was recorded as
only having been observed once and it
stated that no population was known to
occur on the island.

In the 2009/2010 season, however, the
species was recorded on four different
occasions and now in 2010/2011 there
were eight visits on which the species was
recorded with a maximum of 6 birds in
the 2 nd week of Jan-11. This tends to
indicate a change in status.

Hardhead (Ay thy a australis)

One was seen in the 2 nd week of Feb-11,
only the second record for Maria Island.

Hooded Plover (Thinornis rubricollis)

Numbers ranged from 2 reaching a
maximum of 33 in the 1 st week of Apr-11
and 20 on three other occasions plus 25 in
the l sl week of Jan-11. Generally numbers
were much lower with 10 or less on most
visits.

House Sparrow (Passer domestic us)

The only records were of 2 in early Nov-
10 and 4 in the 2nd week of Jan-11. This
is another probably self-introduced
species that was first sighted in 1962.
These birds are only recorded on Maria
Island in low numbers of less than 10 and
there are years when they have not been
recorded there at all. There are no known
attempts to eradicate them from the island
making their presence of interest.

Kelp Gull (Larus do mink anus)

Only reported on twelve visits this season
despite the fact that nearby Lachlan Island

holds one of the State’s largest colonies of
the species.

Laughing Kookaburra (Dacelo
novaeguineae)

This is an introduced species that is doing
exceptionally well on the island. Its
presence must have a marked impact on
the resident species’ reproductive success.

Little Wattlebird (Anthocliaera
chrysoptera)

Absent from the Birds of Maria Island
report. One observation in the 3 rd week of
Mar-11 ideally requires further details for
it to be fully accepted.

Masked Lapwing (Vanellus miles)

Far less common on the island than one
would expect with only ten visits
recording the species this year.

Musk Duck (Biziura lobata)

Recorded intermittently over the whole of
the Walk's season with a maximum of
eight in mid Dec-10.

Musk Lorikeet (Glossopsitta concinna)

Twenty birds were recorded in Nov-10.
This is a species that can easily be
confused with Swift Parrots but has a
distinctly different call and flight habit,
seeming much more relaxed than the
dashing flight of the Swifts.

Olive Whistler (Pachycephala olivacea)

A secretive species, generally sticking to
thick vegetation in the wet gullies, it was
recorded between early Nov-10 and the
end of Mar-11 with a maximum of 6 in
the 1 st week of Mar-11.

Pacific Gull (Laruspacificus) [Plate 4]

There was a maximum of 50 in the 2nd
week of Nov-10 with a few present
throughout the monitoring period. Often a

47

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

roost forms around Darlington Harbour
area in the late afternoon and early
evening.

Plate 4. Pacific Gull (image: Bill & Els
Wakefield)

Pallid Cuckoo (Cacomantis pallidus)

Never common on the island and only
noted as a single bird over the season on
three occasions between Dec-10 and
Jan-11.

Pink Robin (Petroica rodinogaster)

Remains as a species infrequently
reported with only three single sightings
noted and those between 11-Feb-11 and
14-Mar-11 after the breeding season.

Rcd-capped Plover (Charadrius
ruficapillus)

Surprisingly only one reported in 2011
and that in the 2 nd week of April-11.

Red-necked Stint (Calidris rujicoltis)

There were 3 in the 2 nd week of Apr-11 as
the only record.

Satin Flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca)

One was recorded in Nov-11. This species
migrates north for the winter but returns
to breed mostly in southeast Australia and
Tasmania. Nests have been sighted on
Maria Island (Rounsevell et al. 1977) and
as they regularly return to the same
locality to breed, it is a species to look out
for. A regular breeding spot for several
pairs is along the track leading up
Bemachis Creek to the reservoir.

Males are uniformly glossy blue-black,
cut off sharply across the breast by white
underparts. Females are slightly glossy
dusky blue-grey above with the throat and
upper breast a rich orange-buff and
underparts white. The bird has a loud
almost buzzing call and is quite active in
the upper branches. When landing, it
quivers its tail rapidly, usually up and
down and sometimes sideways. The male
raises its crown feathers in an angled
peak. See The Field Guide to the Birds of
Australia (Pizzey & Knight 2007) for
more details.

Scrubtit (Acant/iornis magna)

The report of a single bird in the 2 nd week
of Mar-11 cannot be accepted without
supporting evidence, as it would be a new
species for the island. If correctly
identified, this would be a very important
record telling us that they are able to cross
small bodies of water. In Tasmania’s
Offshore Islands: Seabirds and Other
Natural Features (Brothers et al. 2001),
Nigel Brothers mentions Scrubtit as being
present on Kathleen Island in December
1981. Kathleen Island is in the Breaksea
Island Group off the west coast at the
mouth of Port Davey. This is about 0.5
km from the mainland, with a chain of
small islets leading across to it. Whether
this was a relic resident or whether the
bird had moved across from nearby
mainland habitat, is unknown. Kathleen
Island is 11.35 ha in size with what would
appear to be less than 100 square metres
of potential habitat on googling and
searching of what maps we have
available.

Shining Bronze-Cuckoo (Chalcites
lucid us)

There is only one record and that in the
last week of Jan-11 at a time when we
would expect the species to be present on
the island.

48

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Short-tailed Shearwater (Adrenna
tenuirostris)

Very large numbers were washed up on
beaches here and round the State with
huge wrecks in Sep-10 and Oct-10.

Shy Albatross (Thai ass arc he cauta)

One was seen late in 2010 and one in
Apr-11. This is a species that should be
regularly seen flying low to the water
when looking eastward along the horizon
from such places as Riedle Bay and
Haunted Cove.

Sooty Oystercatcher (Haematopus
fuliginosus)

The numbers varied from 1 to 6, which is
about normal as generally only small
numbers are recorded along the rocky
coastline where they prefer the rock
shelves rather than the sandy beaches.

Southern Boobook (Ninox
novaeseelandiae )

This was regularly recorded from Oct-10
to Apr-11 and should be listened for two
hours after dusk and before dawn.

Sulphur-crested Cockatoo (Cacatua
galerita)

An infrequently recorded species on the
island: only two were recorded in Feb-11.

Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor)

These were present over the winter of
2010 on Maria Island. There were up to
40 in Nov-10 with the last sighting in
Mar-11 so it appears that rather than
staying on they may have left for the
mainland of Australia this winter.

Tasmanian Native Hen (Tribonyx
mortierii)

The population, which was introduced to
the island, appears to be stable with a
maximum of 30 recorded.

Wedge-tailed Eagle (Aquila an dux)

Up to 4 birds were seen over the island
with regular sightings throughout the
season.

White-bellied Sea-Eagle (Haliaeetus
leucogaster )

Up to 7 birds were seen this season with
frequent sightings from Oct-10 to Apr-11.

White-throated Needletail (Hirundap us
caudacutus)

This aerial feeding bird is often seen
along ridgelines where insects are carried
in updraughts along the edges of passing
fronts. For a migrant that breeds in Japan,
the record for Maria Island in Dec-10 was
one of the earlier ones for the State as
they are most abundant and most widely
distributed around Tasmania in March
and into the first two weeks of April.

Yellow Wattlebird (Anthrochaera
paradoxa)

This Tasmanian endemic honeyeater is
obviously well represented on Maria
Island with a maximum of 20 birds
recorded in the 2 nd week of Nov-10 and
numerous sightings throughout the
season. It is interesting to note that
although there are so many Yellow
Wattlebirds present, we have been unable
to trace or authenticate any records of
Little Wattlebirds by experienced
observers on the island.

Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo
(Calyptorhyncli us funereus)

There are many records for this species
throughout the season demonstrating that
a large, noisy parrot is very obvious to the
guides and tourists and receives plenty of
attention. Although not recorded as
breeding there, on Maria Island there is
obviously the right feeding habitat with
plenty of coastal heathland, woodland,
open forest and semi-alpine shrubland.

49

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

CONCLUDING REMARKS

There may have been a few first records
for Maria Island this season if only they
can be authenticated with a little more
substantiating evidence. They include an
Antarctic Prion, an Australian Owlet-
nightjar and a Scrubtit. Blue-billed Duck
and Hardhead have been reported only
once before and also need authentication.
Little Wattlebirds have been reported
several times previously but never fully
authenticated.

The low numbers of introduced European
species on the island presents an
interesting observation in itself. House
Sparrows are intermittently recorded on
the island and seem to remain a presence
in very low numbers, as do European
Greenfinch, European Goldfinch,
Common Starlings and Common
Blackbirds. Even though there is no
programme to cull them as far as we are
aware they have not been able to securely
establish themselves. In contrast, all these
species occur in large numbers on the
islands of the Furneaux group in Bass
Strait, nesting and roosting in boxthom
that provides plenty of shelter and cover
from predators.

The introduced native species such as
Cape Barren Goose, Australian Magpie
and Tasmanian Native Hen all seem to
remain stable in numbers but the
Laughing Kookaburra has expanded
rapidly, which causes some concern for
the population of smaller passerines,
nestlings and reptiles on the island.

We remain concerned about the possible
effects of the proposed introduction of
Tasmanian Devils (Plate 5) to Maria
Island, making future observations and
records more important than ever,
particularly in regard to ground-nesting
species such as Hooded Plover and Little

Penguin, not forgetting the Forty-spotted
Pardalote.

Plate 5. Tasmanian Devil (image: Bill & Els
Wakefield)

REFERENCES

Brothers, N., Pemberton, D., Pryor, H. &
Halley, V. (2001). Tasmania's Offshore
Islands: Seabirds and Other Natural
Features. Tasmanian Museum and Art
Gallery, Hobart, Tasmania.

Christidis, L. & Boles, W.E. (2008).
Systematics and Taxonomy of
Australian Birds. CSIRO Publishing,
Collingwood.

Pizzey, G. & Knight, F. (2007). Graham
Pizzey & Frank Knight: The Field
Guide to the Birds of Australia. Harper
Collins Publishers, Sydney.

Rounsevell, D.E., Blackhall, S.A. &
Thomas, D.G. (1977). Birds of Maria
Island: Results of a Field Survey and
Literature Review. Wildlife Division
Technical Report 77/3, National Parks
& Wildlife Service, Tasmania.

Wakefield, B. & Hayward, E. (2010).
Ornithological observations from the
2009/2010 season of the Maria Island
Walks. The Tasmanian Naturalist 132:
48-62.

50

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

THE MAMMAL FAUNA OF THE PETER MURRELL
RESERVES, TASMANIA, AS REVEALED BY TRUFFLE-
BAITED CAMERA-TRAPS

Karl Vernes 1 & Peter Jarman 2

Ecosystem Management, University of New England, Ar midale, New South Wales 2351;
Honorary Research Associate, School of Zoology, University of Tasmania, Hobart,

Tasmania 7001

ABSTRACT

We conducted a camera-trapping study in the Peter Murrell Reserves, southeastern
Tasmania, in October and November 2010 with the aims of (1) identifying what mammal
species in the Reserves would be attracted to ‘truffles’ or truffle-oil baits, and (2)
investigating whether animals were more or less likely to visit baits in areas with
dilferent tire histories. We detected eight species of mammal in the Reserves; the most
commonly detected mammal was the long-nosed potoroo ( Potorous tridactylus),
followed by the southern brown bandicoot ( Isoodon obesulus) and the eastern barred
bandicoot ( Perameles gunnii). There was no difference in visitation rates by the long-
nosed potoroo to cameras in unburnt versus burnt sites, or to cameras baited with either
truffles, truffle oil, or both truffles and oil. Mammals spent less time at each camera as
the study progressed, possibly indicating a declining interest in the bait. Similar to a
previous trapping study in the Reserves, our results indicate an abundance of small native
marsupials, including several that are either rare or extinct on mainland Australia.
However, camera-trapping failed to show the rodents revealed by trapping.

INTRODUCTION

The Peter Murrell Reserves (i.e. the
combined State Reserve and Conservation
Area) form a 275 ha area, in the
Kingborough municipality of southeast
Tasmania, dedicated to biodiversity
conservation and permitting several
compatible recreational activities. The
dominant vegetation of the Reserves is
Eucalyptus amygdalina woodland with a
heathy understorey, and heath (see
Kirkpatrick & McQuillan (1996 for a
description of vegetation of the Reserves).
The fire-prone nature of the vegetation,
and the fact that the Reserves are partly
bordered by suburban development,
requires the Parks & Wildlife Service to
maintain a program of fuel-reduction
burns. It is relevant to understand what

effect, if any, prescribed burning has on
biodiversity values in the Reserves.

The mammal fauna of the Reserves is
quite rich, eleven native and two exotic
terrestrial mammal species having
previously been detected there (Driessen
& Jarman 2010). In March 2010 the
Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club, as part
of a study of the responses of biota to fire
in the Peter Murrell Reserves (Driessen et
al. 2010), trapped mammals, using box-
traps baited with peanut butter and rolled
oats and cage-traps baited with peanut
butter sandwiches. The traps caught long-
nosed potoroos Potorous tridactylus ,
eastern barred bandicoots Perameles
gunnii , southern brown bandicoots
Isoodon obesulus , swamp rats Ra/tus
lutreolus , house mice Mus domesticus.

51

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

and brown rats R. norvegicus (Driessen &
Jarman 2010).

Tasmanian bettongs Bettongia gaimardi
are thought to occur (from signs of
digging) in parts of the grassland-
bordered west and southwest of the
Reserves (areas not sampled by the
trapping). Scats of brushtail possums
Trichosurus vulpecula are found only
rarely in the Reserves, whereas red-
bellied (Tasmanian) pademelons
Thylogale billardierii and Bennetts (red¬
necked) wallabies Macropus rufogriseus
are common (PJ pers. obs.); these three
species were not trapped in the mammal
survey.

METHODS

Overview of Aims

We conducted two trials using remote
cameras (Scoutguard SG-550 (Faunatech,
Victoria); hereafter ‘camera-trap’) that
would be triggered by animals visiting
baited sites. The first was intended
primarily to identify what mammal
species in the Reserves would be attracted
to ‘truffles’ (the hypogeal (below-ground)
fruit-bodies of mycorrhizal fungi) or
truffle-oil baits (see below for details).
We also wanted to investigate whether
animals were more or less likely to visit
baits in an area burned 18 months
previously compared with baits in an area
burned at least four years previously. The
second trial aimed to compare the
efficacy of truffles and truffle-oil as
attractants. Finding truffles to use as
attractants is unpredictable and time-
consuming. Truffle oil (oil infused with
exotic truffle) is readily available and can
be administered consistently, but its
attractiveness relative to native truffles is
untested. We aimed to make that
comparison. This trial was conducted in
an area last burned more than seven years
previously, thus providing another

opportunity to relate animal visitation
rates to recent history of fire.

Trial 1: Comparison of Unburnt and
Burnt Areas

The first trial used six cameras, three in
each of recently burned and longer-
unbumed E. amygdalina woodland with
heath understorey. Locations of
prescribed bum Blocks in the Reserves
are shown in Figure 1 of Driessen et al.
(2010). Three cameras were set in the
eastern side of Buttongrass Block FRB2,
which had been burned in April 2009; and
two cameras were set in Orchid Trial
Block ECOl (last burned May 2006) and
one in the southeastern comer of Middle
Block FRB5 (not burned since at least
1998). Each camera was located at least
100 m from any other camera. These
cameras were in part of the area
previously trapped in March 2010 (see
Driessen & Jarman 2010).

All cameras were set within 30 cm of the
ground, attached to the base of a small
tree, with a cleared field of view to the
attractant placed c. 0.5-1 m away. Each
camera recorded data on a 2 GB flashcard
and was set to record a 1-minute video
(daytime: approximately 25-35 MB,
nighttime: approximately 50-70 MB)
when triggered by heat or movement.
Trigger sensitivity was set to ‘high', with
the camera set with a 2-second trigger
delay after the preceding 1-minute event
had been recorded. Cameras could operate
with ambient light in the daytime and
with in-built infra-red LEDs, switched on
when the camera was triggered by
movement, at night. In this way, cameras
could, theoretically, sample the
environment in front of the camera
continuously over a 24-hour period and
record any movement that occurred there.
Cameras took colour videos in daytime
and monochrome in low light conditions

52

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

with infra-red LEDs. Cameras were active
24 hours per day.

Two kinds of bait were used at each
camera. One consisted of 8-10 fresh
truffles that we had collected from
elsewhere within the Reserves or nearby
private land (tmlfles collected under Flora
Permit No. FL10180 issued by the
Tasmanian Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water & Environment).
The truffles used were a random mix of
native species from the genera
Hysterangium and Descomyces, as well as
a number of genera from the Russulaceae.
All truffles, regardless of species used,
were small (5-15 mm), with a soft
peridium, and all are palatable to
mycophagous mammals and known to be
consumed by them (see Claridge & May
1994). Truffles were pressed into the
loosened sandy soil until flush with the
soil surface and covered with a light
scattering of soil and leaves. The second
bait was a 2 ml scintillation vial
containing cotton wool soaked with a few
drops of white truffle (Tuber magnatum)
oil (Essential White Truffle Oil,
Wursthaus Kitchen, Hobart). One vial
was set at each camera, beyond the
truffles, inserted into the soil with its top
open. Cameras for the first trial were set
on 23 rd October 2010, checked on the
fallowing day, and deployed for 6 trap-
nights.

Trial 2: Comparison of Camera-trap
Bait

III

In the second trial 12 cameras were set in
E. amygdalina woodland with a dense
heathy understorey in Southeast Block
(Block 5), last burned in May 2003.
Cameras were set at least 50 m from the
mown eastern and southern perimeter of
that block and at least 100 m from other
cameras. Cameras were set the same as in
Trial 1. Two bait types (eight truffles; and

truffle oil on cotton wool in an open vial)
were compared in a randomised design,
four randomly chosen baited with truffles
only, four with truffle oil only, and four
with both. Cameras and baits were set in
daylight on 29 th October, and checked
daily for three trap nights.

Terminology

Most mammal activity was expected to
occur at night (as, indeed, it did); so,
despite the cameras also monitoring
daytime activity, throughout the paper,
the term ‘camera-trap night’ refers to a
single camera-trap being set for one night.
So, for example, six camera-traps set for a
single night would translate to a sampling
effort of six camera-trap nights, as would
one camera set for six nights.

A detection of an animal at a camera-trap
in a video clip is denoted as a ‘record’;
however, multiple triggers of the camera-
trap by the same animal within the same
time period (considered arbitrarily to be a
consecutive sequences of records within
5 minutes of one another) is recorded as a
‘visit’. No attempt was made in this study
to assign identities to animals that might
have been recorded at camera-traps
during different visits, but the short time-
interval between records that make up a
visit (tens of seconds) and the position
and location of the animal in consecutive
records suggests strongly that records in
any one visit relate to the same individual
animal.

RESULTS

Overview of Sampling Effort

We operated six cameras over six nights
for Trial l, and 12 cameras over three
nights for Trial 2. In Trial 1, some
cameras failed to be operational for the
full 6 nights because excessive triggering
of cameras at some sites (mostly by wind)

53

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

filled the flash data cards before the trial
was complete (see Table 1). This resulted
in just 27 camera-trap nights (from a
possible total of 36 camera-trap nights).
In Trial 2, we checked cameras daily to
download data and reformat cards, which
resulted in all 12 cameras operating for
the full three nights of the trial, which
yielded 36 camera-trap nights. Overall,
the study yielded 63 camera-trap nights,
amounting to more than 1500 hours of
round-the-clock monitoring. This
sampling effort yielded 207 individual
records of wildlife (118 in Trial 1, and
89 in Trial 2).

Species detected

Using camera-traps, we detected eight
species of mammals in the Peter Murrell
Reserves (Table 1; Plate 1). In both trials,
the most commonly detected species was
the long-nosed potoroo (72% of records
in Trial 1, and 84% in Trial 2), followed
by the southern brown bandicoot (2.5% of
records in Trial 1, 9% of records in Trial
2) and the eastern barred bandicoot
(5% of records in Trial 1, not detected in
Trial 2). The least commonly detected
species were the brushtail possum (1.9%
of records), Bennetts wallaby (1.4% of
records), echidna Tachyglossus aculeatus
(1% of records), Tasmanian pademelon
(0.5% of records), and feral cat Felis
catus (0.5% of records).

In addition to mammals, in daylight hours
we detected four bird species, these being
common blackbird ( Turdus merit la, 6.3%
of records), grey currawong ( Strepera
versicolor , 1.4% of records), brown quail
(Coturnix ypsilophora , 1% of records),
and silvereye ( Zosterops lateralis , 0.5%
of records).

Changes in visitation rates over time and
between treatments

Because more than 87% of all mammal
records (and 76% of mammal visits) were

of long-nosed potoroos, we focused on
this species to determine whether rates of
visitations to camera-traps changed over
time. For Trial 1, the change in rate of
visitation (number of visits per camera-
trap night) appeared to decline over time,
but this change was not statistically
significant (2-way ANOVA: Fj^o = 3.6,
P = o.07), and nor was there any
difference in visitation rate between burnt
and unbumt sites (Fj^o = (1-24, P = 0.39).
For Trial 2, there was no change in the
number of visits over the three nights of
the study (2-way ANOVA: Fi. 30 = 1.3,
p = 0.26), nor was there any difference in
number of visits between the different
treatments (F|, 3 o= 1.5, P = 0.23; see Table
2 for data).

However, the number of records per visit
did decline over the study (Figure 2),
suggesting that potoroos were spending
less time at each camera-trap as the study
progressed. During Trial 1, the number of
records per visit (for a camera-trap where
a visit was recorded) declined
significantly (Fug = 15.0, P = 0.002),
from a high of 2.05 records/visit on Night
1, to a low of 1.0 records/visit on Night 6.
During Trial 2, the ratio of records per
visit (again, for a camera-trap where a
visit was recorded) declined from

3.4 records/visit on Night 1, to
1.7 records/visit on Night 2, then to

1.4 records/visit on Night 3, a difference
that again was statistically significant
(FU6 = 10.9, P = 0.005). There was no
difference in the ratio of records to visits,
however, between the different treatments
either for Trial I or Trial 2.

Temporal changes in visitation

Because camera-traps were operating
24 hours per day, the data we obtained
were used to examine changes in
visitation of different fauna to cameras
over a 24 h period. We chose the start and

54

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

Table 1 . Mammals detected at camera-trap locations during Trial 1 at experimental (burnt) and
control (unburnt) sites in the Peter Murrell Reserves (values are number of visits per night over the
6-night study; N refers to the number of nights the camera was recording data - see text for details)

Table 2. Mammals detected during Trial 2 at camera-trap locations in the Peter Murrell Reserves
baited with truffle oil (O), fresh truffles (T), or a combination of truffles and oil (B); values are
number of visits detected over the 3-night study

Mammal

Species

Truffle Oil

Fresh Trutile

Truffle Oil and

Fresh Truffle

01

02

03

04

T1

T2

T3

T4

B1

B2

B3

B4

Southern

brown

bandicoot

5

2

1

Bennetts •
wallaby

1

Long-nosed

potoroo

6

2

1

3

2

4

2

3

4

4

6

Echidna

1

Brushtail

possum

2

55

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

end of civil twilight (0500 h and 1950 h,
respectively) as demarcation points for
‘night’, because during these times
terrestrial objects are difficult to discern
without artificial illumination, which is
probably a more important cue for
nocturnal animals than official sunrise
and sunset times. Not surprisingly, most
mammal visits occurred during the night
(Figure 1); however, there were a
considerable number of visits by
mammals during daylight hours
(Figure 1). For potoroos, nearly one fifth
(17 of 87; 19.5%) of all visits occurred
outside the nocturnal period. Most (11) of
these visits occurred between the end of
twilight and sunrise (0500-0530 h), or
between sunset and the start of twilight
(1920-1950 h); however, six visits
occurred in full daylight, the latest
morning visit being at 0840 h (more than
3 hours after sunrise), and the earliest
evening visit being at 1838 h (about an
hour before sunset).

Comparison with results of conventional
trapping survey

The results of the March-2010
conventional trapping by the Tasmanian
Field Naturalists Club (246 trap-nights
with 11 x 11 x 33 cm Elliott aluminium
box-traps baited with peanut butter and
rolled oats and 120 trap-nights with
20 x 20 x 56 cm Mascot wire cage-traps
baited with peanut butter sandwiches) can
be compared to our camera-trapping. The
field naturalists’ trapping (Driessen &
Jarman 2010) detected three rodent
species (swamp rat 22 times, house mouse
22 times, and brown rat once) that the
camera traps did not detect, but failed to
detect five species (brush-tailed possum,
Bennetts w'allaby, Tasmanian pademelon,
echidna and feral cat) that the camera-
traps did detect. The relative rates of
detection of species susceptible to both
techniques differed little between

conventional trapping and camera¬
trapping. Long-nosed potoroo were
trapped in 31 of 120 cage-trap-nights, but
in 50 visits captured on video over
27 camera-nights; southern brown
bandicoot were caught in traps seven
times but on video 11 times; and eastern
barred bandicoot were caught in cage-
traps twice but on video six times. Thus
the ratios of detections of potoroo to
southern brown bandicoot to eastern
barred bandicoot were 0.746 to 0.164 to
0.090 for camera-trapping, and 0.775 to
0.175 to 0.050 for cage-trapping.

DISCUSSION

Effect of fire history and type of
attractant on visitation rates

Driessen & Jarman (2010) demonstrated
that fire history had little or no effect on
the trappability of medium-sized
mammals in the Peter Murrell Reserves,
and our results support that work,
showing no differences in detection rate
of mammals at camera trap sites that were
positioned in areas with differing times
since fire. While these results should not
be extrapolated beyond the context of the
Peter Murrell Reserves and their recent
fire history, our results, and those of
Driessen & Jarman (2010) would suggest
that recent fuel-reduction burning in the
Reserves does not affect the way
medium-sized mammals use the
landscape. However, it should be pointed
out that our ‘burnt’ sites had all been
burned more than one year prior to our
study, so vegetation had recovered
substantially.

There was no significant difference in the
type of attractant used (truffles, or truffle
oil) at camera-traps, suggesting that
commercial truffle oil was just as
successful as fresh native truffles at
attracting potoroos, which consume
truffles as part of their normal diet

56

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

Plate 1. Examples of images of wildlife captured during the camera-trapping study at the Peter
Murrell Reserves, 2010. A. eastern barred bandicoot (Peramelesgunnii); B. southern brown
bandicoot ( Isoodon obesulus); C. echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus ); D. long-nosed potoroo
(Potorous tridactylus) - daytime capture; E. long-nosed potoroo - night capture; F. common
brushtail possum ( Trichosurus vulpecula); G. Tasmanian pademelon {Thy la gale billardierii );

H. Bennetts wallaby {Macropus rufogriseus).

57

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

CO

>

CD

-O

E

3

50-i

45-

40-

35-

30-

25-

20 -

1201 - 1950

□ Birds
I I Potoroo
I I Bandicoots
I I Other Mammals

Time Period (h)

Figure 1. The number of visits recorded for birds and mammals at different time periods of the 24
hour cycle (at the time of the study, sunrise occurred at approximately 0500 h, and sunset at

approximately 1900 h)

(Claridge & May 1994). Because truffle
oil is readily available and can be
administered efficiently and consistently,
it represents an attractant that potentially
has great utility in mammal camera¬
trapping studies; however, its
attractiveness relative to native truffles
was previously untested. This finding also
has importance to surveys that target
potoroos, and possibly other medium¬
sized mycophagous mammals such as
bandicoots. Because potoroos in our study
readily detected truffles in the absence of
any other attractant, it might be possible
to target them using just truffles, thereby
reducing the ‘by catch’ of non-target
mammals and other wildlife.

Comparison with previous surveys

Cameras baited with native truffles and/or
commercial truffle oil detected terrestrial
mammal species that were not detected by

conventional box- or cage-trapping with a
bait of peanut butter and cereal (oats or
white bread), and vice versa.
Conventional trapping revealed
substantial populations of two rodent
species, and the presence of a third,
whereas camera-traps detected none.
Given the apparent abundance of rodents
in the Reserves, the inability of camera-
traps to detect rodents is puzzling;
previous trapping with these same
cameras using truffle oil as a bait has been
successful at routinely detecting rodents
(Rattus fascipes 9 R. rattus and Melomys
cervinipes) and the diminutive brown
antechinus (Antechinus stuartii) in
northeastern New South Wales, as well as
a range of rodents and shrews (smaller
than ‘mouse-sized’) in Canada
K. Vemes, unpubl. data). Claridge et al.
(2010) also detected native Rattus in a
camera-trap study conducted in south-

58

Mean number of records per visit Mean number of records per visit

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

Night of Study

6n

5-

4-

3-

2 -

1 -

(B)

□ Oil

□ Truffle

□ Truffle & Oil

■

JO.

JL

±L

Night of study

Figure 2. Decline in the number of long-nosed potoroo records per visit over time, during (A) Trial 1, and
(B) Trial 2 at the Peter Murrell Reserves (error bars represent standard error of mean)

59

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

eastern New South Wales where truffle
oil was also used as the lure. We have no
plausible explanation of the non-detection
of rodents, and this issue needs further
exploration in Tasmania to determine the
generality of our findings. On the other
hand, the cameras captured video of
several species (Bennett’s wallaby,
Tasmanian pademelon, echidna and feral
cat) that were unlikely to enter the cage-
traps. However, all those species were
detected infrequently and on video did not
appear to search for truffles, although
they may have investigated either the
disturbed ground where truffle baits were
buried or the camera as a novel object.
Brushtail possums were twice detected
when exploring the camera, but were not
cage-trapped despite those cages and baits
having trapped possums successfully at
other sites. These findings suggest that
camera-traps and conventional traps (as
baited in the two surveys) detect
terrestrial mammal species with different
probabilities but that the species
detectable by both methods are detected
with similar probability. The consistency
of these findings should be tested in
further comparisons.

Mammal abundance and diversity in the
Peter Murrell Reserves

The work by Claridge et al. (2010) in
southeastern New South Wales offers a
chance to compare our camera-trap data
with a recently-conducted study
undertaken with camera-traps as a
detection tool and truffle oil as an
attractant. Furthermore, the study sites
used by Claridge et al. (2010) have a
similar range of mammals to the Peter
Murrell Reserves, with each location
having the long-nosed potoroo as their
most commonly occurring potoroid. In
terms of rate of detection, however, the
two studies differ widely. Potoroos were

detected at between 17 and 23%
(4-7 camera-traps from a total of 30) of
camera-trap sites in the study by Claridge
et al. (2010), whereas potoroos were
detected at 94% (17 camera-traps from a
total of 18) of camera-trap sites in our
study. Furthermore, we detected multiple
potoroo visits at most nights for any one
camera, suggesting that this species has a
very high density in the Peter Murrell
Reserves. There was also a difference
(although less dramatic) in southern
brown bandicoot ‘hits’ between the two
studies; in Claridge et al.’s (2010) study
southern brown bandicoots were detected
at between 13 and 17% of camera-trap
sites, while in the current study, we
detected this species at 27% of camera-
trap sites.

Such comparisons serve to illustrate the
very real difference in mammal density
between mainland Australia - where
foxes (Vidpes vulpes) are a powerful
regulating force on small, critical-weight-
range mammals (mammals between
50 and 5500 g) (Johnson & Isaac 2009),
and Tasmania - where foxes have yet to
establish strong populations (Parkes &
Anderson 2009). Given that the Peter
Murrell Reserves are surrounded by
suburban development, the fact that such
mammal diversity occurs in the Reserves,
and that they occur at such high densities,
is worthy of note. The work undertaken in
this study, and previous work by Driessen
& Jarman (2010) provide useful baseline
data against which to measure changes in
mammal diversity and abundance that
might occur should foxes become
established, or as a result of urban
encroachment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Dr Margaret Brock who
provided valuable input into the
experimental design of the study, Alison

60

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

Howman and Amanda Bezuidenhout for
allowing us to collect truffles on their
property adjacent to the Peter Murrell
Reserves, and the Tasmanian National
Parks & Wildlife Service (Department of
Primary Industries, Parks, Water &
Environment) for allowing us to
undertake this study in the Reserves. We
thank two referees for comments and
suggestions that greatly improved an
earlier draft of this manuscript. The work
was supported in part by a Hermon Slade
Foundation Grant (HSF086) and by a
University of New England Study Leave
bursary awarded to Karl Vemes.

REFERENCES

Claridge, A.W. & May, T.W. (1994).
Mycophagy among Australian
mammals. Australian Journal of
Ecology 19:251-275.

Claridge, A.W., Pauli, D.J. & Barry, S.C.
(2010). Detection of medium-sized
ground-dwelling mammals using
infrared digital cameras: an alternative
way forward? Australian Mammalogy
32: 165-171.

Claridge, A.W. & May, T.W. (1994).
Mycophagy among Australian
mammals. Australian Journal of
Ecology> 19: 251-275.

Driessen, M. & Jarman, P. (2010). The
response of mammal populations to fire
in the Peter Murrell Reserves: initial
survey. The Tasmanian Naturalist 132:
96-100.

Driessen,'M., Forster, L., Bonham, K.,
Throssell, A. & Rutherford, R. (2010).
Biodiversity monitoring in the Peter
Murrell reserves. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 132: 78-82.

Johnson, C.N. & Isaac, J.L. (2009). Body
mass and extinction risk in Australian
marsupials: the ‘Critical Weight
Range’ revisited. Austral Ecology 34:
35-40.

Kirkpatrick, J.B. & McQuillan, P.B.
(1996). Biological Resources,
Reservation and Management of the
Huntingfield Estate . Tasmania.
Huntingfield/CofTee Creek Landcare
Group, Department of Geography &
Environmental Studies, University of
Tasmania.

Parkes, J. & Anderson, D. (2009). Review
of the Program to Eradicate Foxes
('Vulpes vulpes^ from Tasmania. Report
prepared for the Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water &
Environment Tasmania. Landcare
Research Contract Report:
LC0809/176.

61

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

THE PRIVATE BUTTERFLY COLLECTION OF SYDNEY

ANGEL (1876-1966)

Richard Bashford

Forestry Tasmania, 79 Melville Street, Hobart, Tasmania 7000
email: dick. bashford@forestrytas. com. au

INTRODUCTION

Sydney Angel was an avid butterfly collector for thirty years following his arrival in
Tasmania in 1931. His collection contains most species recorded from Tasmania and
includes a number of paratype specimens, including the subspecies named after him,
Oreixenica ptunarra subsp. angeli Couchman.

SYDNEY ANGEL

Sydney and his twin brother Frank were
bom in Adelaide on 1 st July 1876. They
had eight brothers and sisters. Sydney
moved to Tasmania in 1931 to manage
the Hobart Branch of the Commercial
Bank of Australia. Previous to that he had
moved from Adelaide to New Zealand to
manage the Dunedin Branch, a position
he held for 12 years. He retired from the
Bank in 1941 after 50 years of service.
Sydney passed away at his home in
Moonah at the age of 91 in November
1966.

Sydney and his brother were keen
collectors of butterflies from an early age.
His brother Frank joined forces with his
great friend Frank Parsons and they
travelled over much of Australia
collecting specimens. These were
carefully prepared and mounted and
eventually became one of the great
collections of Lepidoptera. This collection
became the property of the South
Australian Museum in 1969. We do not
know the input by Sydney into this
collection except that he accompanied his
brother on many collecting trips in South
Australia until he moved to New Zealand
in 1919.

Once settled in Tasmania Sydney
collected enthusiastically often

accompanying visiting collectors from the
mainland. Specialist lepidopterists, such
as G.A Waterhouse, A.J.Tumer, and
L.E. Couchman, frequently enlisted
Sydney to guide them on local collecting
trips, especially in central eastern
Tasmania. At the same time Sydney
frequently loaned specimens for
taxonomic description. Two female
lycaenid specimens, collected at Lake
Leake in 1947, led Couchman (1953) to
describe a new subspecies of Oreixenica
ptunarra as O. ptunarra angeli subsp. n.
In recent times McQuillan & Ek (1997)
have proposed that the subspecies angeli
and roonina be reduced to synonymy with
ptunarra. They suggest that variation is
due to climate and elevation with little
variation in the male genitalia between
the subspecies.

THE ANGEL COLLECTION

The collection is housed in three
Tasmanian blackwood cabinets
containing forty-one drawers. The
collection is mainly Tasmanian species
but also contains some mainland material
collected by Frank Angel or traded with
other mainland collectors. There are also
two drawers of butterflies from New
Guinea that were collected by Sydney’s
son Frank while serving in the RAAF
during the Second World War. The

62

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

collection is currently cared for by
Sydney’s grandson and is housed in the
attic of his home at Mornington, a suburb
of Hobart. The specimens in the
collection are in excellent condition
although there is some considerable
fading of ink labels. The list of species
and numbers of specimens has been
scanned from an original undated typed
list housed with the collection.

INVENTORY OF THE ANGEL
BUTTERFLY COLLECTION

Table 1. Listing of specimens held in each
drawer and number of specimens of each
species

Species

No

DRAWER 1

Tisiphone abeona abeona

2

Geitoneura acantha acraea

6

G.klugii fdugii

2

Heteronympha merope salazar

1

Mycalesis terminus terminus

2

M. perseus perseus

8

M. sirius sirius

1

Ypthima arctous

8

Hypocvsta euphemia

12

DRAWER 2

Oreixenica kershawi elia

5

0 . k. kershawi

12

0. orichora orichora

15

0. o.flynni

17

Hvpocysta pseudirius

13

H.irius

3

Hmetirius

9

H. adiante adiante

23

H. adiante autirius

6

DRAWER 3

Cressida cressida cressida

4

Papilio demoleus

6

P. anactus

2

Danaus chrysippus

1

Tellervo zoilus

6

Euploea core corrina

2

Delias mysis ?

1

Elodina padusa

7

Species

No

DRAWER 4

Caudal ides xanthospilus

16

C. cyprotus

7

C. acas/a

18

Pseudodipsas brisbanensis

9

brisbanensis

Thysonotis danis sysine

9

T. hymetus talelum

8

T. h. taygetus

15

T. cyanea arenia

2

Nacaduba perusia parma

3

N. ancyra jlorinda

7

N. berenice berenice

11

N. lineata

15

DRAWER 5

Delias harpalyce

22

DRAWER 6

Zizeeria labradus labradus

30

Z. alsulus

3

Z. gaika attenuata

2

Z. lysimon conformis

4

Lampides boeticus

25

Syntarcus plinius pseudocassius

23

Neolucia sulpitius sulpitius

6

N. agricola agricola

26

N. sulpitius obscura

1

N. hobartensis hobartensis

22

N. matthewi

5

N. agricola ?

3

DRAWER 7

Papilio aegeus aegeus

3

Danaus hamata hamata

2

Graphium sarpedon choredon

1

Hypolimnas bolina nerina

22

Tisiphone sp.

blank

Danaus chrysippus

1

Anaphaeis java teutonia

3

Cressida cressida cressida

1

Vindula arsinoe

1

DRAWER 8

Beetles etc.

DRAWER 9

Jalmenus lithoerhroa

21

J. evagoras eubulus

1

J. e. evagoras

33

63

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

Species

No

Anthene emolus affinis

2

Jamides aleuas coelestis

3

Jamides sp.

3

Catachrysops platissa

1

Euchrysops cnejus cnidus

7

Nacaduba ancyra halys

1

N. dubiosa

2

N. felderi

2

N. biocellata

6

Everes argaides

2

DRAWER 10

Spiders

DRAWER 11

Pseudalmenus chlorinda zephyrus

37

P. c. chlorinda

3

P. c. barringtonensis

2

Eurema hecabe phoebtis

5

Arhopola amytis amp his

4

A. a. amydon

2

A. centaurus asopus

1

Cepora perimale

1

Miscellaneous: Lycaenids

24

Tisiphone sp.

1

Delias sp.

1

Pantoporia sp.

2

DRAWER 12

Miscellaneous

Heteronyrnpha me rope salazar

3

H. merope merope

3

Paralucia aurifer

3

Cynthia kershawi

1

Geitoneura klugii klugii

3

Precis villida

2

Cynthia kershawi

1

Papilio anactus

1

Cressida cressida

1

Lycaenid

1

DRAWER 13

Suniana sunias rectivitta

10

Anisynta dominula drachmophora
Vic.

3

Anisynta dominula drachmophora
N.S.W.

2

A. d. pria

12

A. d. dominula

17

Species

No

DRAWER 14

Suniana lascivia

17

S. sunias

8 '

Anisynta cynone gracilis

14 "

A. c. grisea

9

A . c. gunned a

8 ’

A. sphenosema

1

Anisynta sp.

13

DRAWER 15

Oreixenica correae

35

DRAWER 16

Empty

DRAWER 17

Empty

DRAWER 18

Empty

DRAWER 19

Oreixenica paludosa nama

9

O. p. theddora

18

O. latialis

12

Miscellaneous Hesperiidae

13

DRAWER 20

Ocybadistes walkeri sonia

17

O. w. hypochlora

21

O. w. sothis

13

Taractrocera papyria

31

DRAWER 21

Anisyntoides argentia

3

Pasma tasmanicus

18

Toxidia rietmanni

1

T. doubledayi

8

T. parvula

35

Anisymta albovenata

5

DRAWER 22

Oreixenica ptunarra ptunarra

26

O. kershawi

14

DRAWER 23

Geitoneura klugii klugii

17

G. acantha

15

Oreixenica sp.

4

DRAWER 24

Heteronyrnpha merope

9

H. sp.

10

Tisiphone sp.

2

Cynthia kershawi

1

64

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

Species

No

Species

No

DRAWER 25

Pier is rapae rapae

12

Heteronympha sp.

12

Miscellaneous: Catopsilia sp.

10

Oreixenica sp.

2

Elodina sp.

3

Precis villida

3

Eurema sp.

25

DRAWER 26

Eurema hecabe phoebus

11

Omithoptera priamus poisedon

5

E. drona australis

2

O. p. euphorion

4

E. smilax

7

Papilio aegeus aegeus

9

E. sana

4

P. a. eg ip i us

2

E. laeta harla

9

P. ulysses joesa

2

Elodina parthia

6

P. fuscus canopus

1

E. perdita walkeri

2

P. f. capaneus

1

E. egnatia anulipennis

2

DRAWER 27

E. padusa

11

Papilio demoleus sthenelus

3

DRAWER 30

P. polydorus queenslandicus

1

Danaus plexippus plexippus

6

P. anactus

9

D. chryssipus pet ilia

6

Graphiurn macleayanus

8

D. affinis affinis

3

(N.S.W./Vic.)

D. hamatua hamatus

4

Graphiurn macleayanus Tas.

7

Heteronympha mirifica

11

G. sarpedon choredon

6

Euploea Sylvester Sylvester

2

G. eurypylus lycaon

2

E. s. pelor

1

G. aristeus parmatus

1

E. tulliolus tulliolis

4

G. agamemnon ligatus

3

E. t. darchia

1

Protographiurn leosthenes

2

E. darchia niveata

2

Cressida cressida cressida

9

E. core corinna

10

Hypolimnas bolina nerina

3

Tellervo zoilus zoilus

6

Tisiphone sp.

5

Neptis consimilis pedia

3

Vindula arsinoe ada

1

Acraea andromacha andromacha

11

Polyura pyrrhus sempronius

1

Delias sp.

2

Precis hedonia

1

DRAWER 31

DRAWER 28

Hypolimnas bolina nerina

5

Delias my sis my sis

4

H. misippus

4

D. argenthona argenthona

10

Polyura pyirhus sempronius

3

D. nysa nysa

3

Vagrans egista propuqua

3

D. aganippe

6

Cupha prosope prosope

2

D. harpalyce

14

Vindulk arsinoe ada

2

D. nigrin'a

8

Melanitis leda bankia

8

Catopsilia scylla etesia

1

Cethoeia ovdippe chrysippe

2

C. pomona pomona & other species

27

C. penthesilea paksha

1

DRAWER 29

Tisiphone abeona abeona

3

Appias paulina ega

10

T. a. albifascia

4

A. melania

2

T. a. morrisi

2

Cepora perimale scyllara

10

T. a. Joanna

1

Anaphaeis java teuton ia

12

T. a. raw ns ley i

1

Catopsilia pyranthe pythias

3

T. helena

1

65

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

Species

No

Precis villida calybe

13

P. hedonia zelima

3

Doleschalia bisal tide australis

1

Mynes geoffreyi guerini

1

Bassaris itea

6

Cynthia kershawi

9

DRAWER 32

Heteronympha banksi

10

H. solandri

4

H. paradepha

3

H. penelope penelope

1

H. p. panope

2

H. p. alope

10

H. P. sterope

6

H. P. diemeni

35

H. cordace (Vic.)

11

H. c. kurena

7

H. c. comptena

2

H. c. legana

21

DRAWER 33

Heteronympha merope merope

6

N.S.W.

Heteronympha merope merope Vic.

4

Heteronympha merope merope

3

S.A.

Heteronympha merope merope

3

Qld.

H. m. salazar

19

H. m. duboulayi

4

H. cordace comptena

11

Geitoneura acantha acantha

6

G. a. ocrea

23

G. minyas minyas

4

G. klugii klugii (Tas.)

22

G. klugii klugii Vic. & N.S.W.

6

DRAWER 34

Nesoxenica leprea leprea

40

N. 1. elia

6

Argynnina cyrila

7

A. hobartia hobartia

73

A. h. tasmanica

56

DRAWER 35

Oreixenica ptunarra angeli

100

O. P. roonina

19

O. P. ptunarra

21

Species

No

O. lathoniella lathoniella

74

O. 1. lavara

20

O. 1. herceus

25

Oreixenica sp.

12

DRAWER 36

Hesperilla chrysotricha plebeia

5

H. chrysotricha lunaxvanna

2

H. idothea idothea

11

H. sp.

1

H. chaostola leucophaea

2

H. donnysa aurantia

17

DRAWER 37

Hesperilla idothea clara

1

H. donnysa samos

13

H. donnysa patmos

9

H. donnysa diluta

1

H. chrysotricha leucosia

3

H. ornata ornata

12

H. picta

2

H. c. cyclospila

2

DRAWER 38

Ogyris genoveva genua

2

O. abrota

5

O. olane ocela

9

O. amaryllis meridionalis

37

DRAWER 39

Trapezites symmomus symmomus

10

T. s. soma

9

T. eliena eliena

27

T. phigalia

19

T. phigalioides

3

T. iacchus

2

T. lacchoides

2

T. sciton

6

T. maheta praxedes

2

T. luteus luteus

10

T. 1 . glaucus

18

T. I. leucon

16

Miscellaneous

4

DRAWER 40

Trapezites petalia

11

Borbo agua dingo

2

Signeta flammeata

18

S. tymbophora

5

Notocrypta isaigensis proserpina

10

66

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

Species

No

Toxidia peron

20

T. andersoni

4

T. melania

3

Mesodina aeluropis

4

M. halyzia halyzia

10

Motasingha atralba atralba

25

M. dirphia (Vic.)

10

M. d. dilata

4

M. d. dirphia

8

M. d. trimaculata

10

Oreisplanus munionga

12

O. perornatus

28

Hesperilla ornata ornata

13

Miscellaneous

3

DRAWER 41

PNG butterflies

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My thanks to Graham Angel for allowing
me access to the collection in 1995 and
providing a copy of the species list.

REFERENCES

Couchman, L.E. (1953). Notes on some
species of Oreixenica Waterhouse and
Lyell (Lepidoptera: Satyridae), with
descriptions of new forms. Proceedings
of the Royal Society of London (Series
B) 22 (5/6): 73-84.

McQuillan, P.B. & Ek, C.J. (1997). A
biogeographical analysis of the
Tasmanian endemic ptunarra brown
butterfly, Oreixenica ptunarra
Couchman (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae:
Satyrinae). Australian Journal of
Zoology 45(1): 21-37.

67

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

COLLECTING HISTORY, DISTRIBUTION, HABITAT AND
CONSERVATION STATUS OF SENECIO
CAMPYLOCARPUS (BULGING FIREWEED) IN TASMANIA

Mark Wapstra

Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania, 28 Suncrest Avenue, Lenah Valley,
Tasmania 7008, email: mark@ecotas.com.au

ABSTRACT

Senecio campylocarpus (bulging fireweed) is a poorly known native species of Senecio ,
known only in recent times from the Elizabeth River in Cambell Town and the North Esk
River in Launceston, and in earlier times from somewhere near Launceston and the
Cressy area. It also occurs in Victoria, ACT and NSW. The species inhabits poorly-
drained flood-prone sites such as river flats and banks. The limited extent of occurrence,
area occupied by the extant populations, and presumed low population numbers,
combined with historical and contemporary threats that include land clearing, and
modifications to major river systems and associated riparian habitats, suggests a threat
status of ‘endangered’ on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 is

warranted.

INTRODUCTION

There are now thirty-seven native taxa
(including infrataxa such as varieties and
subspecies) and four exotic taxa of
Senecio recognised in Tasmania (see
Thompson 2006 and references therein;
Duretto & Baker 2011), which is
significantly more than the eighteen
recognised in The Student ’s Flora of
Tasmania (Curtis 1963).

During the production of a State-based
key to Senecio (Wapstra et al. 2008),
which included a review of specimens
held by the Tasmanian Herbarium, it
became apparent that several species were
represented by very few formal
collections. This is probably a reflection
of both a limited number of collections of
the genus from some habitat types (e.g.
swampy areas on private land) and the
close similarity of some species to one
another. However, familiarity with the
revised taxonomy by several field
botanists, and re-examination of the

collection held at the Tasmanian
Herbarium by the author, is leading to a
better understanding of the distribution of
many species.

Some of these poorly known species are
already recognised with a legislated
conservation status on the Tasmanian
Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
and/or the Commonwealth Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act 1999. However, most other species
have not been formally assessed against
conservation status criteria since their
recognition in the Tasmanian census
(Duretto & Baker 2011).

This is the third in a series of papers (see
also Wapstra 2010a, 2010b) on the
species of Senecio represented by a low
number of collections in Tasmania, and
describes the collecting history,
distribution and habitat of Senecio
campylocarpus , a species only recently
“re-discovered” (2006) after a long period
(61 years) of no collections.

68

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

TAXONOMY, NOMENCLATURE &
ETYMOLOGY

Senecio campylocarpus has also been
known as Senecio glandulosus (see
Thompson (2004a, 2004b) for a

discussion of the synonomy). Prior to the
resurrection of the species by Thompson
(2004a), the species was not recognised as
present in Tasmania, and was not
included in any State floras (e.g. Hooker
1858; Rodway 1903; Curtis 1963).
Thompson (2004b) applied the name
epithet campylocarpus when it was
recognised that the earlier name was
illegitimate.

Senecio campylocarpus is commonly
known as the ‘bulging fireweed’ (Wapstra
et al. 2005), a reference to the
flowerheads that bulge out at the base to
accommodate the ripening seeds. The
term ‘fireweed’ is applied to many
species of Senecio , native and exotic, and
refers to the ability of many of the species
to rapidly exploit disturbed ground (e.g.
after fire). The specific epithet is derived
from the Greek campylos (bent, curved)
and carpos (seed), alluding to the curved
marginal seeds (fruit) that are typical of
the species, and are more curved that in
any closely related species (the curvature
of the dark seeds is apparent to the naked
eye in mature flowerheads).

IDENTIFICATION

Wapstra et al. (2008) provides a key to
Tasmanian species of Senecio. Thompson
(2004a) provided a detailed description of
S. campylocarpus (as S. glandulosus).
The species is most similar to the
widespread and common Senecio

quadridentatus (and indeed earlier
collections were attributed to that species)
but differs by its sparsely haired to

glabrous leaves and stems

(S. quadridentatus is usually dense-white
cottony), broader leaves tapering

distinctly to each end, broader phyllaries
refexed rather than spreading at maturity
(Plate 1), shorter florets with more
corolla-lobes, curved fruits (this is one
key character), and the smaller taproot
and fleshier secondary roots (Thompson
2004a). The receptacle undergoes
relatively little expansion as the achenes
develop and, because of this, the capitula
become slightly more uceolate (urn-
shaped, bulging) than those of other
species (Thompson 2004a). Of note, also,
is that Senecio campylocarpus often has
its “feet wet”, growing in poorly-drained
sites, a habiat occupied by only a small
number of superficially similar, and all
equally rare, species of Senecio.

Plate 1. Mature capitulum of Senecio
campylocarpus - note the very dark curved
outer achenes (image: M. Wapstra)

COLLECTING HISTORY AND
DISTRIBUTION IN TASMANIA

Senecio campylocarpus occurs in
Tasmania, Victoria, southern New South
Wales and the Australian Capital
Territory (Thompson 2004a, 2004b).
Within Tasmania, the species is known
from only four confirmed collections
(Table 1). The first collection was in 1888
from “near Launceston” by an unknown
collector. The species then went
uncollected until 1943, when 2 separate

69

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

collections from a “swamp near Cressy”
were made. Another period of non¬
collection ensued, until it was collected
along the Elizabeth River in the heart of
Campbell Town in 2006 (Wapstra et al.
2006), followed by additional collections
from the same section of river bank in
2008 (collection of seed for the
Millenium Seed Bank project), and 2011
(slight range extension downstream of the
public park made by the author). Only
one additional site outside the Cressy and
Campbell Town area has been made,
along the North Esk River near
Launceston in 2010.

HABITAT

Thompson (2004a) described the habitat
of Senecio campylocarpus as “loam to
clay soils in forest and woodland, usually
in seasonally inundated areas”. While the
specific habitat of the sites of older
Tasmanian collections is not known
(although one is described as a “swamp”,
the more recent sites are both from
riparian habitats.

The population along the Elizabeth River
in Campbell Town occurs on the
immediate banks of the river subject to
periodic flooding and amongst river rocks
forming small shallow rapids (Plates
2 & 3).

Plate 2. Habitat of Senecio campylocarpus
along the banks of the Elizabeth River in
Cambell Town - the species occurs amongst
the sedges and grasses on the river bank
(image: M. Wapstra)

The fringes of the river are all grassy and
weedy including willows, blackberries,
slashed old pasture and mown lawns of a
public park.

Plate 3. Habitat of Senecio campylocarpus
along the banks of the Elizabeth River in
Cambell Town - the species occurs amongst
river rocks forming a small series of rapids in
drier times (image: M. Wapstra)

The habitat of the site near the North Esk
River was described as “overgrown
paddock” and was on a broad grassy
floodplain of a major river subject to
periodic inundation. It is reasonable to
assume that the historic collections from
“near Launceston” and “swamp near
Cressy” were from similar habitats
because both areas are dissected by major
flood-prone rivers through low-lying
pastoral lands.

RESERVATION STATUS

Senecio campylocarpus is not known
from any gazetted reserves. No
populations are subject to active
management.

THREATENING PROCESSES AND
MANAGEMENT

Extensive areas of the low-lying poorly-
drained parts of Tasmania, especially
through the Northern Midlands, have
been developed for primary production
since the earliest times of European
settlement. It is likely that such habitat

70

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

Table 1. Collection details of Senecio campylocarpus in Tasmania
[HO = Tasmanian Herbarium; MEL = National Herbarium of Victoria]

Site

No.

Location
|as per
HO/MEL
label]

Collector

Date

Tenure

Comments

1

“Near

Launceston”

(MEL)

unknown

21 Mar.
1888

unknown

No population details known

2

“Cressy” (HO)

H.D.

Gordon

18 Jan.
1943

unknown

No population details known

3

“swamp near
Cressy” (HO)

J.H. Wilson

Feb.

1843

unknown

No population details known

4

“Elizabeth
River,
Campbell
Town” (HO)

M. Wapstra

12 Apr.
2006

Council

Several (20+) discrete patches
of c. 1 -20 plants along c. 200-
400 m of river bank, either side
of the Midland Highway
bridge

5

“Campbell
Town, banks
of Elizabeth
River near
Lions Club
Park” (HO)

M. Visoui,

J. Wood,

M. Van
Slagaren

8 Jan.
2008

Council

Same sites as above; c. 50
plants noted; seed collected as
part of the Millenium Seed
Bank project

6

“near Hoblers
Bridge, close
to N. Esk
River, sth of
Distillery
Creek” (HO)

A. North

30 Apr.
2010

Council?

Collected from “overgrown
paddock”; no population
details provided

modification, which has included
vegetation clearing, hydrological changes,
fertilising and cultivation, and stock
grazing to river banks and in swampy
areas, has resulted in the elimination of
some population, although there is no way
of quantifying this impact. However, the
persistence of the species along the banks
of the Elizabeth River and North Esk
River elope to agricultural and residential
areas suggests that there may be
additional populations in Tasmania in
similar situations.

Contemporary threats probably include
similar agricultural practices, inadvertent
disturbance from activities such as weed
removal along river banks) and
inundation of potential habitat. On this
latter point, the call by the Tasmanian

government to “make Tasmania the food
bowl of the nation” involving several
major irrigation developments, may result
in the flooding of relatively large areas of
potential habitat and hydrological changes
to sites downstream of impoundments and
irrigated areas. Having said this, such
development proposals are subject to
intense pre-disturbance botanical
assessment.

Even though Senecio campylocarpus is
not currently listed as a threatened
species, such that detection would not
have necessarily resulted in permit
conditions to mitigate loss of individuals
and/or habitat, I have not been made
aware of any new populations of the
species by botanical colleagues related to
such dam proposals (many botanists do

71

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

send me material to examine and 1
frequently examine submitted material to
the Tasmanian Herbarium).

A warmer climate and longer periods of
drought may deleteriously impact on the
habitat of Senecio campy locarpus,
through effects such as drying out of low-
lying areas and competition with weeds.

Lack of knowledge on the distribution of
the species is also a concern because
many potentially suitable sites are
probably subject to ongoing intensive
primary production activities. It is likely
that minor modifications to agricultural
practices would result in a significantly
higher level of security for the species: as
with most species of Senecio , some level
of disturbance is acceptable, if not
necessary, for persistence of populations.
Small populations separated by long
distances supporting unsuitable habitats
are also not conducive to genetic
exchange and potentially exacerbate the
risk of stochastic events eliminating
populations of Senecio campylocarpus in
Tasmania.

CONSERVATION STATUS

Senecio campylocarpus is not currently
listed as threatened on the Tasmanian
Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
or the Commonwealth Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act 1999.

While the species may meet the criteria
for listing on the Tasmanian Threatened
Species Protection Act 1995 , formally
listing the species should be approached
with caution, as was suggested by
Wapstra et al. (2010) in relation to many
other species of recently recognised
species of Senecio , where familiarity is
leading to additional collections. Potential
habitat for Senecio campylocarpus
(poorly-drained habitats such as flood-
prone pastures, grasslands and river

banks) is still relatively common and the
species appears to have a widespread
distribution so range extensions and
infillings are likely. However, the species
technically meets the criteria for
endangered on the Tasmanian Threatened
Species Protection Act 1995 , and a
conservative approach to conservation
management is warranted.

The extent of occurrence of
S. campylocarpus is c. 600 km 2 , based on
a minimum convex polygon that includes
three nominal sites at Cressy, Campbell
Town and Launceston, but this is reduced
to an estimate of linear extent of about
just 60 km if only the confirmed extant
sites at Cambell Town and Launceston
are used. The area of occupancy is
presumably less than 1 ha, but this is
based on limited surveys. On present
estimates, the total population of mature
individuals is less than 100, but again this
is based on limited surveys.

Senecio campylocarpus meets the criteria
for listing as endangered, meeting
criterion B (extent of occurrence
realistically estimated to be less than
500 km 2 ), specifically, Bl (severely
fragmented) and B2c (continuing decline
in area, extent and/or quality of habitat);
and criterion D (total population
extremely small or area of occupancy
very restricted), specifically D1 (total
population estimated to number fewer
than 250 mature individuals).

DISCUSSION

The recent taxonomic changes to the
Senecio flora of Tasmania (e.g. see
Wapstra et al. (2008) for a summary)
makes it difficult to determine the
contemporary conservation status of
many species, especially those
represented by few collections. Listing
species as “presumed extinct” before the
botanical community has had an

72

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

opportunity to come to grips with so
many similar species is perhaps pre¬
emptive but at the same time
conservative, if it turns out that some of
the species are indeed long gone.

Further collections of specimens of
Senecio from poorly-drained low-lying
terrain throughout Tasmania (particularly
the northern Midlands, but also coastal
hinterlands and Bass Strait islands) are
needed to further clarify the status of
species such as S. campylocarpus ,
S. tasmanicus (one collection from the
mid 1800s), S. psilocarpus (Wapstra
2010a), S. macrocarpus (one 1800s
record) and S. longipilus (three records,
only one from the 1800s with collection
details, which suggests a lowland
distribution). Of these, only
S. macrocarpus and S. psilocarpus are
formally listed as threatened on both the
State and Commonwealth legislation.
Targeted survey of potential habitat
radiating out from known locations at an
appropriate time of year (e.g. late
summer) is likely to be a productive
method of detecting further sites for
species such as Senecio campylocarpus,
A kayak-based assessment of the banks
and flood levees of major rivers of the
broader Midlands region such as the
South Esk, North Esk, Macquarie,
Elizabeth, Clyde, Ouse and Derwent is
likely to yield many records of poorly-
collected species.

REFERENCES

Baker, M.L. & Duretto, M.F. (2011). A
Census of the Vascular Plants of
Tasmania and Index to The Student’s
Flora of Tasmania. Tasmanian
Herbarium, Hobart.

Curtis, W.M. (1963). The Student's Flora
of Tasmania Part 2 Angiospermae:
Lythraceae to Epacridaceae.
Government Printer, Hobart.

Hooker, J.D. (1858). The Botany of the
Antarctic Voyage of H.M. Discovery
Ships Erebus and Terror. Part III.
Flora Tasmaniae Volume II.
Monocotyledones and Acotyldones.
Lovell Reeve, London.

Rodway, L. (1903). The Tasmanian
Flora. Government Printer, Hobart.

Thompson, I.R. (2004a). Taxonomic
studies of Australian Senecio
(Asteraceae): 1. the disciform species.
Muelleria 19: 101-214.

Thompson, l.R. (2004b). A new name for
Senecio glandulosus (Asteraceae).
Muelleria 20: 139-140.

Thompson, I.R. (2006). A taxonomic
treatment of tribe Senecioneae
(Asteraceae) in Australia. Muelleria 24:
51-110.

Wapstra, M. (2010a). Collection history
of Senecio psilocarpus (swamp
fireweed) in Tasmania. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 132: 2-8.

Wapstra, M. (2010b). The status of
Senecio georgianus (grey Fireweed) in
Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist
132: 9-14

Wapstra, M., Duncan, F., Buchanan, A. &
Schahinger, R. (2006). Finding a
botanical Lazarus: tales of Tasmanian
plant species ‘risen from the dead’. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 128: 61-85.

Wapstra, M., Thompson, I.R. &
Buchanan, A.M. (2008). An illustrated
and annotated key to the Tasmanian
species of Senecio and allied taxa
(Asteraceae). Kanunnah 3: 49-90.

Wapstra, H., Wapstra, A., Wapstra, M. &
Gilfedder, L. (2005). The Little Book of
Common Names for Tasmanian Plants.
Department of Primary Industries,
Water and Environment, Hobart.

73

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

SIX CONFIRMED RECORDS (FIVE IN TASMANIA): THE
EASTERN ROCKHOPPER PENGUIN EUDYPTES
CHRYSOCOME FILHOLI IS A RARITY IN CONTINENTAL

AUSTRALIA

Ken N.G. Simpson

Penguin Study Group , Victorian Ornithological Research Group, PO Box 420, Yarra
Junction Victoria, 3797, email: spinebill4@bigpond.com

SUMMARY

Six records of the Eastern Rockhopper Penguin Eudyptes chrysocome fdholi Hutton 1879
existing for southeast Australia (one in Victoria; five in Tasmania) are presented,
illustrated, and discussed. With no known records of E. c. fdholi in Western Australia,
South Australia or New South Wales, the six are, to date, the only confirmed individuals
for continental Australia over a period that stretches from 1773 to the present. Only one
penguin (Strahan 1972) is a winter storm casualty; all five others were arriving for the
summer moult. All five of the Tasmanian records were recently submitted to BARC.

The first authenticated continental individual of E. c. fdholi for Australia was a living
penguin from Portland, southwest Victoria, received at the [then] National Museum of
Victoria on 18 February 1936 (now skin MV B196). Of the five Tasmanian individuals,
one is a specimen (QVM 1972-41), three are well-documented reports of penguins taken
into care (1978, 2007, 2010), and one is a clearly photographed sight record (also 2010).

Three possible E. c. fdholi individuals are under further investigation. Two are
Tasmanian, being a skull, 1961 (MV B17238), and a beach-washed body, 1999,
apparently not collected. A rockhopper penguin from Bunbury, Western Australia, in
1951 (WAM A6822), is also under review.

With relatively few confirmed records, the Eastern Rockhopper Penguin should currently
be treated as a rarity to continental Australia.

INTRODUCTION

Further results are presented from a
review by this author of all rare penguin
species and/or subspecies recorded in
Australia. The initial compilation of
records for a ‘Catalogue of Rare Penguins
in Australia’ (as yet unpublished)
commenced in 1967. Of necessity, a large
part of the overall review examines the
genus Eudyptes , where most recognition
problems exist. The end purpose is to
provide better field recognition criteria for
individuals of the genus, especially of the
predominant juvenile and immature age
classes that reach Australian shores
naturally.

The first Eastern Rockhopper Penguin
reported in Australia is briefly discussed,
its photograph (Plates la & lb) is
provided but it will be dealt with in detail
in another paper. The first Tasmanian
(2 nd Australian) specimen was found dead
on 1 July 1972 at Ocean Beach, Strahan,
on the central west coast of Tasmania, a
mid-winter foraging casualty (QVM
72-41) and it is described in considerable
detail. Three more recent rockhopper
penguins came ashore alive and moulted
in care (1978, 2007, 2010). In late 2010
came a sight record of a juvenile fdholi
from Gordon, south of Hobart, making a

74

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (201 1)

total of five for Tasmania. All are
illustrated herein, but other than the
identification essentials, less formal
physical detail is given for these.

In the only two major compilations of
Tasmanian penguins, a total of
approximately 15 rockhopper penguins
was listed by Marchant & Higgins (1990),
and 19 by Woehler (1992), who excluded
two others for lack of an identification.
Neither author allocated any Tasmanian
rockhopper penguins to subspecies.
However, while neither was prepared
with the same purpose as this paper, these
two publications, each a ‘landmark’
source of data, have been crucial to this
author’s own research.

METHODS

The Eastern Rockhopper Penguin is
treated in this paper as subspecies filholi
of the nominate Southern Rockhopper
Penguin Eudyptes chrysocome following
genetic determinations of Christidis &
Boles (2008), but Moseley’s (or
Northern) Rockhopper Penguin
E. moseleyi is treated as a fill I species,
following Jouventin et al. (2006), Banks
et al. (2006), and NZ Checklist
Committee (2010).

For unambiguous reporting, it is
preferable to use the English names:
Eastern Rockhopper Penguin, Moseley’s
Rockhopper Penguin or (if it ever
becomes applicable to individuals
reaching Australia) Southern Rockhopper
Penguin. ,

Acronyms and terms
Institutions

BARC Birds Australia Rarities Committee

BOAT Bird Observers’ Association of
Tasmania (now Birds Tasmania)

DPIPWE Department of Primary Industry,
Parks, Water & Environment,
Hobart

MV Museum Victoria, Melbourne

QVM Queen Victoria Museum & Art

Gallery, Launceston

TMAG Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery,
Hobart

TNPWS Tasmanian National Parks &
Wildlife Service (now DPIPWE),
Hobart

WAM Western Australian Museum, Perth

Biological and physical terms

B/WDL

Black/White Demarcation Line
[between throat and breast of any
Eudyptes penguin]

OUFP

Observable Underflipper Pattern [of
live, freshly dead, frozen or spirit
specimens of any penguin]

RUFP

Residual Underflipper Pattern
[dried museum skins or mummified
beach specimens of any penguin]

SS/C

Superciliary Stripe/Crest [the
yellow lateral crests of Eudyptes
penguins]

SST

Sea Surface Temperature

STC

Subtropical Convergence

Limitations for specimen examination
and comparisons

The following discussion entirely
precludes all Eastern Rockhopper
Penguins deliberately imported into
Australian museums, zoos or for other
institutions, from any subantarctic
sources. Museum exchange specimens are
also excluded. This paper deals only with
birds that are believed to have arrived
naturally.

The following breeding distributions are
drawn from Marchant & Higgins (1990),
Robertson & Heather (1999), BirdLife
International (2000) and NZ Checklist
Committee (2010).

BREEDING POPULATIONS

Nominate E. c. chrysocome is confined to
the Falkland Islands, Staten Island and
Isla Penguino, off Argentina, and some
Magellan Straits islands, including Isla
Solitario, Chile. Australia is bracketed by
E. c. filholi breeding populations: to the

75

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

southeast at New Zealand’s Antipodes,
Auckland, and Campbell Islands and
Australia’s Macquarie Island, to the
southwest on Heard and associated
McDonald Islands and the Kerguelen
Islands not far northwest of them. It also
breeds on other Southern Ocean
subantarctic islands farther west still:
Crozets, Marion, and Prince Edward
Islands.

All these locations are normally to the
south of the Subtropical Convergence
(STC), ‘an ocean region where warmer
water of tropical origin interfaces with
water originating in colder regions; in the
southern hemisphere in the general
vicinity of latitude 40°S’ (WorldFish
Center 2004: FishBase.org.) .The
temperature variation is usually regarded
as being in the range of about 10°C. The
front of the STC is affected by land
masses but its average location is 40°S.

E. moseleyi breeds to the north of the
STC, on islands around Tristan da Cuna
(South Atlantic Ocean), and on
Amsterdam and St Paul Islands (Indian
Ocean).

THE CONFIRMED RECORDS OF
EUDYPTES CHRYSOCOME FILHOLI
IN AUSTRALIA

Australian records

1936 Portland, Victoria /38°20'50 "S
141°36'47'E/ [l sl for Aust., 1 st for Vic.]

A live individual of the Eastern
Rockhopper Penguin Eudyptes
chrysocome filholi , reported by
Mr Charlie F. Kurtze, as ‘found on a
beach at or near Portland, southwest
Victoria’, was despatched by train on
17 Feb. 1936, for donation to the (then)
National Museum of Victoria. Entered in
the museum register on 18 Feb. 1936, it
was held alive until moult completion,
and soon after was put down for addition
to the Museum’s collections. The penguin

skin MV B196, determined as female by
the ' Museum, is illustrated (Plates
la & lb). It is the first known record and
specimen of this partially circumpolar
subspecies in an Australian museum
collection that had naturally reached
southern Australian seas and shores. This
record will be dealt with in detail in
another paper.

Tasmanian records

The first of the five Tasmanian records is
described in ‘formal detail. The
following four records have abbreviated
descriptions but include all relevant
information. All five have accompanying
colour plates, for immediate verification
of identity, and for fiiture comparison
with other penguins.

/ July 1972 , Ocean Beach , Strahan , west
coast , Tas . !42°08'41 ”S 145°15 47'Ej
[2 nd for Aust., 1 st for Tas.]

‘Beachwashed’. ‘Adult’. Finder/Collcctor ‘NS’
(N. Sheppard)’ (Newman, 1973). Museum
accession 7.7.1972. Skin: QVMAG]

1972-2-41.; Label data (face): ‘1972-2-4 T.
Eudyptes chrysocome'. *Ad. Strahan,

west’coast, Tas.’.; ‘Coll’d N. Shepperd’ (sic.).
Prep. R.H. Green. Det. R.H. Green.; Label data
(reverse): Wt -; TL ‘550 ; Tail ‘57’; Beak
‘tan’; Legs ‘pink and black’; Eyes ‘?’;
Stom[ach] content] ‘Empty’; Condition ‘very
poor’; parasites ‘not vis[ible]'.

Listed by Marchant & Higgins (1990)
without being distinguished from other
Rockhopper Penguins: ‘Tas.: at least six
[individuals], Strahan, 1972-74
(N. Sheppard, QVM), and by

Woehler (1992): ‘Beachwashed adult
female’ (sic), included under heading
E. chrysocome .

Collected in mid-winter, this penguin was
seemingly a foraging casualty, and also
the first one found, as part of a
widespread, mixed-species winter wreck
comprising Eudyptes penguins, in a
collection of specimens from the shores

76

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Plate la. (bottom) Left face of Eastern Rockhopper
Penguin MV B196, found Portland, Vic. on (or
before?) 17 Feb. 1936 and in 2 nd year plumage
following its moult; Plate lb. (top) Right face of
the same penguin (images: K. Simpson)

Plate 2a. (bottom) Left face of Eastern
Rockhopper Penguin QVM 1972-41, found
Ocean Beach, Strahan, Tas., 1 July 1972;
Plate 2b. (top) Right face of the same
penguin (images: K. Simpson)

77

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

of central western Tasmania and western
King Island (Woehler 1992; Simpson
2007). The author did not know of this
1972 Strahan record before about 1976,
and certainly did not examine it properly
until 2006.

Description : Body was in ‘poor

condition', but sufficient to determine
female sex by dissection, and to obtain a
good skin; sex is supported by the later
culmen measurement of 36.8 mm.
Dorsum essentially black; ventrum white;
underflipper pattern mainly white. A
well-developed tail indicates a penguin
post-moult by several months, in full
plumage for its age class and thus ideal
for identification.

Head and face : Essentially black chin,
throat, cheeks, lores, frons, crown, nape,
back to tail, and dorsal flipper surfaces
(but with the typical narrow white trailing
edges of the genus). The eyes were
missing.

Bill : Culmen 36.8; culmen width 8.1; bill
depth 18.5 mm; giving a bill size index of
551.448, using the method of Warham
(1972). Bill profile was traced.
R.H. Green nominated bill colour as ‘tan';
this author noted it as ‘brick-red’. Label
data does not mention a pale gape or
lower mandibular skin. Close examination
found no visible mandibular skin on
either side, but at the extreme proximal
end, running into the gape, was a few
millimetres of pale horn-coloured tissue.
What remains of the gristle of the gape
itself is similarly pale. This is exactly the
same situation as in most of the New
Zealand skin specimens of
E. c. fdholi examined from their various
islands (Antipodes, Auckland and
Campbell) and also in some Snares
Penguin E. robustus skins (Snares
Islands) and Erect-crested Penguins
E. sclateri (Bounty Islands). Some of the

more recent skins of these three taxa do
show the whole marginal edge quite well.

SS/C: Is in its correct position (following
taxidermy) and is prominent. Anterior
section before eye is small, narrow and
‘shallowly dished’; above eye largely
obscured because of orbit reconstruction,
but in life is always narrow at that point;
the posterior plumes are well developed.
The fibrous nature of these lemon-yellow
feathers is well displayed. The same
plume measuring technique for Eudyptes
penguins was used as described for the
Snares Penguin (see Fig. 1, Simpson
2009).

SS/C Total Length (Right) = 95.1 mm;
TL (L) = 95.0 mm.

SS/C plume pulled down at 45° (R) =
66.8 =+ 15.8 mm approx; (L) 65.0 =h-
24.1 mm approx, beyond B/WDL.

RUFP : White, with the large black
‘trailing’ proximal patch (close to axilla)
common to all Eudyptes penguins. A very
pale grey leading edge and a small black
distal tip mark, typical of fdholi and
chrysocome. Right flipper was traced at
natural size: ventral length 139; dorsal
166; prox. width 46; distal width 34 mm.

Age : Estimated from facial feathering, bill
measurements, evidence of pale gape
skin, and length of SS/C plumes, to be
certainly beyond its juvenile year. The
plume tips of the SS/C are well across the
B/WDL line (right: approx. 15.8 mm; left:
approx. 24.1 mm), indicating it is older
than a yearling, and is also a strong reason
for suspecting it to be a 3rd year penguin.
Compare its appearance with a
E. moseleyi caught at sea off Stanley,
Tas., 1959 (Simpson 1972, 2002), which
has plume tips beyond the B/WDL and
therefore may also be a 3rd year penguin.

This specimen represents the first
confirmed record of E. c. fdholi in

78

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Tasmania, is the second confirmed for
Australia since MV B196, Portland, Vic.,
1936, and also second of the only two
naturally-occurring specimens of this
subspecies found in any Australian
museum up to 1972, or since. During its
initial examination at QVM in 2006, and
with reference to the rarity to that date of
E. c. filholi , it was mentioned in the
author’s notes as being ‘Most unusual’.
Record submitted to BARC on 11/1/2011.

4 April 9 1978; exact provenance
unknown; released 4 April 9 1978 at
Boronia Bay Beach, Hobart, Tas.
/42°59 / 26*S 147° 19'45 "E]

[3 rd for Aust.; 2 nd for Tas.]

Despite being sub-adult this 2 nd year
penguin clearly exhibits most of the
external characteristics of an ‘adult’ of
E. c. filholi (and see statement from
Warham (1974) regarding such
phenotypic appearance of sub-adult
Snares Penguins E. robustus , in Simpson
2009). It has a ruby red eye, a short bill
by comparison with any E. moseleyi of
comparable age, with very prominent pale
skin of gape and edging of lower
mandible, and a pale proximal surface of
the latericorn. The yellow SS/C plumes
are not quite long enough to reach the
B/WDL (as measured on photos). A
typically small dark distal mark on the
underflippers (OUFP) was present. Based
on the photographs, this penguin was in
its 2 nd year. No mass or body
measurements seem to have been taken.

in

The exact provenance of this penguin is
unknown, but is believed to be from the
area of the Tasman Peninsula, SE
Tasmania. It was taken into care by
TNPWS staff, firstly by David
Rounsevell, then handed on to Hans
Wapstra for final care and release
following its moult. The normal period of
moulting could not be much less than two
weeks at best, and probably a little longer,

therefore its date of capture was probably
in mid to late February or early March
1978, which would also be consistent
with the penguin being older than a
yearling. Yearlings of both rockhoppers,
filholi and moseleyi , are most likely to
come ashore in southern Australia from
late November to early December
onward, and to moult in January (based
on results in this review).

Release took place at Boronia Bay Beach,
south of Hobart, during ‘April’ 1978, and
probably early in April. A set of
photographs was taken by Hans and
Annie Wapstra. These were the only ones
available for scrutiny. Three were
supplied to the author in 2008
(Plates 3a & 3b). This record submitted to
BARC on 15 Sep. 2011.

Of note is that the only other ‘rockhopper’
reported anywhere in Tasmania during
1978 was recorded as being alive at
Turners Beach, east of Ulverstone, on the
northern central Tasmanian coast [LL], on
5 Sep. 1978, and listed by Woehler
(1992). No identification qualification
was given. Although theoretically
possible, it was most unlikely to be same
individual, and by virtue of being at the
end of winter, it may well have been
either E. c. filholi or E. moseleyi. It
remains as being unconfirmed: just one of
many such in Tasmania.

11 Feb 2007, through to 20 or 22 Mar.
2007; Lufra Cove, northern-most end of
Pirates Bay Beach, Eaglehawk Neck,
Tasman Peninsula, SE Tas. /43°00'26"S
147°56'05"EJ [4 th for Aust., 3 rd for Tas.]

This penguin was first found alive on
11 Feb. 2007 and reported by Mrs Jan
Field, member of Eaglehawk Neck
Coastcare Group. It was taken into care
and photographed by registered wildlife
carer Lesley Kurek. Once its existence
was made known, a long series of

79

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Plate 3a. (left) Second year Eastern Rockhopper Penguin about to be released from care at Boronia
Bay Beach, Hobart, Tas., ‘early April’, 1978 (note pale proximal surface of the latericorn sheath -
see also the next penguin in Plate 4 (Lufra Cove, 2007) that has the same feature)

Plate 3b. (right) An attempt to enhance the small distal underflipper mark failed as it was too
heavily shaded (images: © Hans & Annie Wapstra)

enquiries, coaching and responses began.
The author identified it as a late juvenile
(yearling) Eastern Rockhopper Penguin
E. c. filholi , from the first two (Plate 4a)
of four photographs; the second pair,
taken later, are post-moult and show it as
a 2 nd year (Plate 4b). No measurements
were taken, but body masses were
obtained from 11 Feb. 2007 until
18 Mar. 2007, and some notes of nutrition
and veterinary treatment were received.
All following observations are based on
this information.

Description : This penguin has the ruby-
red eye typical of all three rockhopper
species/subspecies from about their late
juvenile period and in later life. Pinkish-
white skin strongly delineates the edge of
the lower mandible (ramicom) and the

gape (rictus) is highly visible following
its juvenile year, classically a principle
identification feature of E. c. filholi
(Plate 4b). The proximal portion of the
latericorn and ramicom also shows a
strong pinkish-white colouration on the
sheath of the bill at these points, a feature
that may be seen in varying intensity in
many Eastern Rockhopper Penguins.

The SS/C was short before moult
(Plate 4a), but subsequently had
lengthened and become more obvious,
although clearly not reaching the B/WDL
(Plate 4b). The very slender SS/C and the
position of its anterior tip touches and
exactly bisects a line drawn from the
angle of the gape to the central proximal
base of the culmen, the author’s
‘gape/culmen baseline’ or ‘g/c baseline’

80

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Plate 4a. (left) Eastern Rockhopper Penguin juvenile (yearling) about to moult while in care; found
Lufra Cove, Eaglehawk Neck, Tasman Peninsula, Tas., on 11 Feb. 2007 - remnants of the
subterminal pale bill tip mark can be seen; note also the shortness of the SS/C (image Lesley Kurek)

Plate 4b. (right) The same penguin after moult to 2 nd year plumage - the grey cheeks are reflecting
the flash and are normally black c.f. Plates 3a & 3bl note the red eye (typical of all rockhoppers),
and strengthened paleness of gape and mandibular skin; the subterminal pale bill tip mark is
receding; the SS/C plumes now closer to reaching the B/WDL (image Lesley Kurek)

(Simpson 1985). It is an absolute feature
of Southern and Eastern Rockhoppers
beyond the juvenile year. In Moseley’s
Rockhopper, the SS/C tends to project
some 2-3 mm farther forward from this
anterior point, something discovered since
the 1985 paper. Prior to and during moult
this feature becomes distorted due to
feathers being pushed out. The black
erectile feathers across the occipital
crown at 90° to the head’s axis are clearly
more visible in the photo (Plate 4b) of the
Lufra Cove rockhopper than in the next
(Margate) penguin in this paper.

The typically very small amount of black
at the distal underflipper tip (OUFP) was
visible in the other post-moult photo
taken but it is not presented here.

On completion of its moult this penguin
had entered its 2 nd year (Plate 4b). It was
probably a male from its behaviour,
which included a greeting display to
Lesley Kurek each time she entered its
aviary: ‘... by leaping onto a rock and
serenading me with squawks - loud they
certainly were but not melodious’
(L. Kurek pers. comm.).

On conclusion of moult, this penguin was
released between 20-22 Mar. 2007 by
DPIPWE officer Andrew Irvine on the
beach beside the South Bruny Island
lighthouse [L/L], together with a
rehabilitated Royal Penguin

E. ( chrysolophus ) schlegeli , also from
Kurek’s care. No publication reporting
this rockhopper penguin has yet been

81

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

On or about 9 or 10
Feb. 2010, this
penguin was found in
early moult at the
back of a pump shed
on an old wharf, the
property of

Tasmanian Sea Foods
Pty Ltd, Gemalla
Road, Margate, south
of Hobart, Tas. It was
initially discovered
by company workers
Shayne Hill, Kevin
Lawler and Doug
Wickham. Wisely,
they left it there. Only
when instructions
came from

management to
commence a pre-planned
demolition of the shed and the
entire jetty on which it stood, to
make way for a new wharf, was
there a need to move it. Except
that work had to begin

Plate 5. Eastern Rockhopper Penguin juvenile (yearling)
in mid-moult at Margate, south of Hobart, Tas., on 19
Feb. 2010 - note red eye, clarity of pale gape and
mandibular tissue, uneven SS/C plumes due to
incomplete moult, and the typical small underflipper
mark (image: Doug Wickham)

immediately, it is probable that the
penguin would have been have left to
finish moulting and to slip away without
any knowledge of its existence.

On 19 Feb. 2010 the penguin was brought
from the shed. It was photographed by
Doug Wickham, partly because of their
own interest, and because DPIPWE had
been called to take it into care. It was duly
collected and taken to Gales’ home for
care.

Photographs received (Plate 5)

Four photos had been taken by Doug
Wickham, using a mobile phone. At the
author’s urgent request, Shayne Hill

found. This record was submitted to
BARC on 7 Oct. 2010.

9 or 10 Feb . 2010 to at least 24 Feb.
2010; on a waterfront wharf Margate ,
south of Hobart , Tas. [43°02'1S'S
I47°16'29"E/ [5 111 for Aust., 4* for Tas.]

On 21 Feb. 2010, Lesley Kurek, fauna
carer at Nubeena, Tasman Peninsula,
contacted the author to say she was about
to receive a moulting rockhopper penguin
from Dr R. Gales of DPI PWE. Efforts
then commenced to establish the
penguin’s identity, locate its initial
whereabouts, to establish contact with the
finders, and to obtain any other
information possible. Some six hours
later, contact with the
seafood company was
established and
details emerged.

82

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

transferred the images to his computer for
safe-keeping. As received, the pictures
were very dark and details not clear,
although identity was never in doubt. Zoe
Wilson scanned and enhanced two, one of
which (Plate 5) best showed all the
features of an Eastern Rockhopper
Penguin.

At first sighting of the photos on 19 Feb.
2010, the penguin looked healthy and
satisfactorily ‘fat’, i.e. of good mass, and
coping well with its moult, which was
probably just beyond halfway through its
period. Remaining feathers were visible
on breast, belly, legs, some on head and
back (and more difficult to see), perhaps
also on the dorsal Dipper surfaces and
under the chin.

Much of the head was in moult, the
juvenile feathers still largely present and
little of the future jet black of lores,
crown, nape, chin, throat or face yet
showing (c.f. Plates 3a & 3b Boronia Bay
Beach, 1978). Enhancement showed the
red eye. The bill was also red and
appeared evenly-toned, with little in the
way of scattered dark smudges, as
yearlings frequently have. The stand-out
feature was the presence of the prominent
pale gape and marginal mandibular skin
of this individual. Both nominate
E. c. chrysocome and E. moseleyi were
immediately excluded from further
consideration because that feature is not
shared. Instead, these other rockhoppers
have a dark-skinned gape and margin to
the lower mandible. They therefore
appear ‘dark-faced’ by comparison with
E c.filholi, which was regarded as ‘light-
faced’ (to follow the terminology of
Carins 1974).

As a published field example, at least two
vagrant ‘dark-laced’ Rockhopper
Penguins, considered to be nominate
E. c. chrysocome , were reported as
‘visiting or residents’ on the Snares

Islands, New Zealand, during monitoring
visits to the islands between 1985 and
2000 (Tennyson & Miskelly 1989;
Miskelly et. al. 2001). The overall point is
that the pale-skinned facial decoration of
filholi is very distinctive in the field,
certainly from pre-moult (yearling age)
onward (e.g. Plate 4a; also Plates

6a & 6b).

The SS/C on the right side of the head is
short, most of the plume feathers having
fallen from there. Its colour appeared to
be a very pale lemon yellow. On the left
side, SS/C plumes seem to be still
pushing out (but a poor angle; therefore
some conjecture involved).

Because the bird was alive, the
underflipper pattern comes under the
category of ‘OUFP’, i.e. ‘observable’.

The very small black distal underflipper
tip mark is certainly in the range of, and
typical for E. c. filholi and

E. c. chrysocome , but not that of
E. moseleyi, in which the black under tip
mark is almost always of greater extent.

It is known that it was still alive up to
24 Feb. 2010 when the care offer to
Kurek from Gales was suddenly

withdrawn, along with opportunity to get
further useful data. It is assumed it was
released alive a few days after
24 Feb. 2010, at DPIPWE’s normal
release site for penguins at the southern
tip of South Bruny Island, Tasmania.

The record was submitted to BARC on
7 Oct. 2010, becoming Submission No.
655. Notification of unanimous
acceptance of the record as ‘Southern
Rockhopper Penguin (Eastern subspecies)
E. c.filholi ’ was received on 2 Aug. 2011.

The notification stated that ‘The
submission also makes mention of four
other records of E. c. filholi , [i.e. those in
this paper] ... However, these are yet to
be reviewed making this the first record
of E. c.filholi to be accepted by BARC’.

83

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Unfortunately, this statement could be
taken as misleading and could easily
become ‘their first for Australia’ if not
used in correct context at any later date,
since the present paper clearly establishes
the Eastern Rockhopper Penguin, 1936,
Portland, Vic., as the first known for
Australia.

17 Dec . 2010, Gordon , Tas.; on Channel
Highway, opposite the jetty at Gordon>,
approx . 40 km south of Margate , Tas.
[43°15'42"S 147°1431"E/ [6 th for Aust.,
5 th for Tas.]

Driving to work at dawn (before 5 am
AEDST), Kevin Lawler turned left
(northward) from his residential road onto
the Channel Highway opposite the
adjacent beach and jetty at Gordon,
approx. 40 km south of Margate, his place
of employment. His headlights

immediately picked out a penguin
standing in the landward gutter and he
recognised it as different from the local
Little Penguins Eudyptula minor.

He U-tumed his vehicle, went back, then
on foot followed the penguin, which ran
into piles of lopped branches from
conifers on the same side of the highway
He took five photos on his mobile phone
see Plates 6a & 6b for two of these). The
penguin then crossed the highway,
heading toward the sea and the Gordon
jetty area just nearby and was quickly lost
to sight. The coast at this locality is on the
western side of the D’Entrecasteaux
Channel, and opposite Simpsons Point, on
South Bruny Island.

On his arrival at work, his colleague
Shayne Hill immediately emailed the
photos to me.

Plate 6a. (left) Note short SS/C, partly-developed pale lower bill margin, subterminal bill marks and
virtual absence of principle tail feathers (rectrices)

Plate 6b. (right) Juvenile (yearling) Eastern Rockhopper Penguin before dawn, on side of Channel
Highway, opposite the jetty at Gordon, south of Hobart, Tas., on 11 Dec. 2010
Images: taken on a mobile phone by Kevin Lawler

84

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

In response to my phone calls, Kevin
Lawler went back after work (mid-
afternoon) and searched the beach, scrub
and jetty for 35 minutes without success.
Els and Bill Wakefield also went to
search the beach on the same day, but it
was not found again.

The penguin’s left face appears greyish
(perhaps emphasised by the flash), as the
faces of juvenile Eudyptes are normally
greyer rather than blacker. The line of
dark feather tips across the occipital
crown is sharp. Enhancement of the two
chosen photos shows enough to clearly
see pale tissue at the gape and along the
lower mandible edge, well established as
being diagnostic of E. c. filholi , a bright
red eye and a short (‘juvenile length’),
faintly creamy SS/C.

The bill is a fairly even dull red, with a
pale tip and a narrow but strong black
subterminal mark just behind it; a two-
component mark which is another strong
indicator of the penguin being a juvenile.
The right face provides a better view of
the SS/C, gape and bill tip mark. None of
the photos showed the underflipper
pattern. The tail is also noticeably short.

The satisfying aspect to this record is that
a lucky observation by a person already
‘groomed to rare penguins’ from personal
contact with the Margate bird (and
author) earlier in the year, discovered a
late juvenile E. c. filholi , which would
have certainly gone back to sea, and
remained foraging until the moulting
imperative drove it shore again, probably
latej; in December or early January 2011.
This record submitted to BARC on
15 Sep. 2011.

THREE UNCONFIRMED RECORDS
OF EASTERN ROCKHOPPER
PENGUIN E. C FILHOLI IN
AUSTRALIA

Three possible E. c. filholi individuals are
under further investigation (two from

Tasmania) and will be submitted to
BARC once an identity is allocated.

A rather small-billed skull, less its bill
sheaths, was collected by D.L. Serventy
on Fisher Island (40°13’S I48°14’E), off
Flinders Island, Tas. on 21 Mar. 1961. It
is in the skeletal collection of Museum
Victoria (B17238) and requires a final
determination.

‘An immature Rockhopper Penguin
(subspecies filholi [sic]) was found
beachcast at Hope Beach, South Ann
(near Hobart), Tas. on 9 February 1999’
(Eades 1999). Wakefield & Wakefield
(2001) reported: ‘One Rockhopper
Penguin beach-washed’. [Finder/?
Collector] ‘TR’ [Tim Reid]. No additional
data was provided. The body does not
appear to have been collected.

A single Rockhopper Penguin from
Bunbury, Western Australia, 2 Mar. 1951
(WAM A6822), is also under review by
this author and WA Museum staff, and
will be dealt with elsewhere in another
paper. If these two Tasmanian records are
validated, and if the 1951 Bunbury
specimen is identified with certainty as
E. c. filholi , then a total of nine Eastern
Rockhopper Penguins will have been
located for continental Australia.

AUSTRALIAN OCCURRENCE OF
EASTERN AND SOUTHERN
ROCKHOPPER PENGUINS

From all available Australian continental
sources, areas, and seasons, and despite
the reasonable proximity of the encircling
breeding colonies, and the uncertainty
caused by some unidentified records,
E. c. filholi is clearly a rare vagrant, based
on the results of the current review.
Similarly in New Zealand, E. c. filholi is
regarded as a ‘low-level’ vagrant to the
North and South Islands, to Stewart
Island, and to the Chathams (Tennyson
1989; NZ Checklist Committee 2010).

85

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

Whilst one or two have been suspected,
no nominate individual of Southern
Rockhopper E. c. chrysocome has yet
been confirmed in Australian continental
seas, although two records exist for the
Snares Islands, New Zealand (Tennyson
& Miskelly 1989; Miskelly et al. 2001).
But if the Bunbury 1951 penguin should
prove to be a nominate E. c. chrysocome ,
it would be the first record for Australia.

Tasmania

Concentrating on Woehler’s (1992) list of
19 individuals of ‘Rockhopper Penguins
Eudyptes chrysocome ’, and remaining
within his time frame, the author made
the following observations and decisions.

• Seven of the QVM specimens listed
were identified: one is E. c.filholi (this
paper) and six are E. moseleyi.

• Penguins not yet satisfactorily
identified in his list are the following:
Nov. 1887; Jul. 1925; 21 and 31 Jul.
1972; 12 Aug. 1972 (two of the three
birds on that day); 23 Jun. 1974;
11 Feb. 1977; 5 Sep. 1978; 12 Feb.
1990; 16 Apr 1991.

• To Woehler’s original list, ten more
‘rockhopper’ records are added,
bringing his list up to 29. Eight are
identified as moseleyi [n.d.] (Mathews
1917): ‘One definite [Rockhopper]
occurrence Hobart, Tasmania (Macleay
Museum)’ and similarly mentioned by
Sharland (1945), Skemp (1954) [that
specimen was examined by the author
during 1970 and assigned in his notes
at the time to E. c. moseleyi on the
basis of culmen length, grey facial
feathering, length and ‘style’ of SS/C,
and more extensive dark area of the
RUFP than normally exhibited by E. .c.
filholi]; ‘September’ 1913, collected by
S. Dove; 25 Feb. 1959, off Stanley,
MV B7391 (Simpson 2002);
4 Aug. 1970 (QVM 1970-58, spirit
specimen); 15 Jul. 1972, a headless

body in QVM 1972-55, identified from
body size and RUFP; 20 Aug. 1972
(skull, QVM 1972-77); 26 Jan. 1990
(Trial Harbour, photo).

• Unidentified are a ‘rockhopper’
penguin from ‘1944’ ‘Tas.’ (Sharland
1958), and two others, 31 Jan. to
11 Feb. 1981 (Maria Is.) and 21 Feb. to
8 Mar. 1981 (Point Puer, Port Arthur).
With a summer ‘moulting interval’
clearly stated, these last two penguins
were probably taken into care at the
time.

• Since Marchant & Higgins (1990) and

Woehler (1992), 13 additional

rockhopper penguins have been
reported in Tasmania (BOAT annual
bird reports, rehabilitators and other
sources listed herein). Of these, three
were E. c. filholi (this paper), and five
more (all in 1999) were nominated as
moseleyi , but without detail and are as
yet unconfirmed. A sixth penguin
(Hope Beach, 9 February 1999) was
nominated as E. c. filholi but not yet
proven (this paper). Three additional
‘rockhopper’ penguins were found in
2000; one of which was later
determined as a Snares Penguin
(Simpson 2008a). Another unidentified
rockhopper was found in 2002. On
22 July 2011, a juvenile E. moseleyi
was found at Pirates Bay, Tasman
Peninsula, and died next day; since
donated to TMAG and currently in its
freezer. The culmen length was
measured [46.4 mm] and several
photos supplied by L. Kurek, showing
a very strong dark OUFP consistent
with E. moseleyi.

• To 2011, Tasmania’s total number of
‘rockhopper penguin’ records is
therefore raised from 19 to 42. Of
these, 18 are identified to species or
subspecies, with a further 24 of them
unidentified and therefore unconfirmed
for the overall purposes of this review.

86

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

The large total of unidentified records for
Tasmania is a significant block of
penguins, and creates additional problems
for analysis in relation to overall
provenance of those rockhoppers and
therefore how their temporal and spatial
patterns fit in relation to the already
identified rockhopper penguins known
from continental Australia. If a high
percentage of those unknown rockhoppers
in Tasmania were in fact E. c.filholi , then
the entire scenario could radically change.

Australia

This paper demonstrates that there are six
confirmed Australian records of Eastern
Rockhopper Penguins. The imbalance in
apparent numbers is striking, when
compared to the total compilation (n =
approx. 140+: Simpson; a 2007 count;
unpublished) of Moseley’s Rockhopper
Penguin E. moseleyi, from four States
(Western Australia, South Australia,
Victoria, Tasmania). Most are
substantiated by publications, skeletons,
skins, rehabilitation and zoo records, good
field descriptions or photographs. They
range from many single records, to a few
larger wrecks (1959, 1972), and a few
small ones (1993, 71999). The number of
unidentified rockhopper records in each
of the other States appears to be relatively
low compared with those in Tasmania.
Clearly, Tasmania’s latitude is
contributing to the accumulation of
penguin records (Woehler 1992) and can
reasonably be predicted to continue to do
so into the future.

Appeal

Beachwalkers are reminded that any
rockhopper penguin found alive or dead
on Australian shores, and believed to be
E. c. filholi , E. moseleyi , any other
penguins with crests, or any other
‘strange-looking’ penguins, should
therefore be regarded as important and
potentially an extremely rare vagrant. All

care should be taken to fully record the
event, including close-up photography,
and/or to quickly report living birds to
your local wildlife carer or the museums.
If dead on beach, or dies in care, safely
preserve the body no matter what its
condition. Treat likewise, any Little
Penguins Eudyptula minor carrying
flipper bands, markings, back-mounted
loggers, etc. (see also Simpson 2008b).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I sincerely thank David Rounsevell, Hans,
Annie & Mark Wapstra, Lesley &
Richard Kurek, Els Wakefield and the late
Dr Bill Wakefield, all of whom variously
supplied penguin rehabilitation care,
photos, discussion, clarification, and
above all, their effort and time. Museum
Collection Managers and staff in
Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia
permitted access to specimens for this
paper, and 1 am grateful for their
assistance over many years. My partner
Zoe Wilson scanned and enhanced
photographs as required, and assisted with
early drafts. Eric Woehler refereed the
paper, tightening my text and making
many constructive improvements. Tony
Johnston, Manager, Tasmanian Seafood
Company at Margate, gave willing co¬
operation to my enquiries. Finally, I most
sincerely thank his three employees and
have it noted that Shayne Hill, Kevin
Lawler and Doug Wickham, on their own
admission having no great ornithological
experience between them, fortuitously
have found some 33% of the nation’s
currently confirmed Eastern Rockhopper
Penguins within a single year!

REFERENCES

Banks, J., Van Buren, A., Cherel, Y. &
Whifield, J.B. (2006). Genetic evidence
for three species of rockhopper
penguins, Eudyptes chrysocome. Polar
Biology 30: 61-67.

87

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

BirdLife International (2000). Threatened
Birds of the World. Lynx Edicions and
BirdLife International, Cambridge.

Carins, M. (1974). Facial characteristics
of Rockhopper Penguins. Emu 54:
55-57.

NZ Checklist Committee (2010).
Checklist of the Birds of New Zealand,
Norfolk and Macquarie Islands, the
Ross Dependency, Antarctica. Fourth
edition, Ornithological Society of New
Zealand, Te Papa Press, Wellington.

Christidis, L. & Boles, W.E. (2008).
Systematics and Taxonomy of
Australian Birds. CSIRO Publishing,
Collingwood.

Dove, H.S. (1915). The Crested Penguin
(Catarrhactes chrysocome Forster) in
Australian waters. Ibis 10(3): 86-88.

Dove, H. S (1925). The Devonport
Crested Penguin. Emu 25: 39-40.

Eades, D.W. (compiler) (1999).
Twitchcrs’ comer. Wingspan (2): 29.

Jouventin, P., Cuthbert, R.J. & Ottvall, R.
(2006). Genetic isolation and
divergence in sexual traits: evidence for
the Northern Rockhopper Penguin
Eudyptes moseleyi being a sibling
species. Molecular Ecology 15:
3413-3423.

Marchant, S. & Higgins P. (editors)
(1990). Handbook of Australian, New
Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Vol. I,
Part A, Ratites to Ducks. Oxford
University Press, Melbourne.

Miskelly, C.M., Sagar, P.M., Tennyson,
A.J.D. & Scofield, R.P. (2001). Birds
of the Snares Islands, New Zealand.
Notornis 48: 1-40.

Miskelly, C.M. & Bell, M. (2004). An
unusual influx of Snares crested
penguins (Eudyptes robustus) on the
Chatham Islands, with a review of
other crested penguin records from the
islands. Notornis 51: 235-237.

Moors, P.J. & Merton, D.V. (1984). First
records for New Zealand of Moseley’s
Rockhopper Penguin (Eudyptes
chrysocome moseleyi). Notornis
31:262-265.

Robertson, H. & Heather, B. (1999). The
Hand Guide to the Birds of New
Zealand. Penguin Books (NZ),
Auckland.

Sharland, M.S.R. (1945 1st edit.; 1958
2nd edit.). Tasmanian Birds. Angus &
Robertson, Sydney.

Skemp, J.R. (1954). Dimensions of a
‘Crested Penguin’ at the Queen
Victoria Museum, Launceston,
Tasmania. Emu 54: 67-68.

Simpson, K. (1972). Birds in Bass Strait.
A.H. & A.W. Reed, Sydney, for BHP.

Simpson, K.N.G. (1985). A Rockhopper
X Royal Penguin hybrid from
Macquarie Island. Australian Bird
Watcher 11(2): 35-45.

Simpson, K.N.G. (2002). Notes on a
Moseley’s Rockhopper Penguin
Eudyptes chrysocome moseleyi
captured at sea off north-west
Tasmania in 1959. Australian Bird
Watcher 19(6&7): 178-183.

Simpson, K.N.G. (2007). 1972 winter
wreck of Eudyptes penguins near Bass
Strait. In: Abstracts of Oral and Poster
Presentations, 6 th International
Penguin Conference, Hobart ,
Australia, 3-7 September 2007.
Ed. E.J. Woehler.

Simpson, K.N.G. (2008a). The ‘Mystery
Penguin’: an additional Snares Penguin
Eudyptes pachyrhynchus robustus for
Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist
130:42-51.

Simpson, K.N.G. (2008b). Tasmanian
Rare Penguins: Request for

photographs and field notes, 1945 to
2008. The Tasmanian Naturalist
130: 52-54.

88

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

Tennyson, A.J.D. (1994). First record of
an Eastern Rockhopper Penguin at the
Chatham Islands. Notornis
41 (supplement): 38.

Tennyson, A.J.D. & Miskelly, C.M.
(1989). ‘Dark-faced’ Rockhopper
Penguins at the Snares Islands.
Notornis 36: 183-189.

Wakefield, W.C. & Wakefield, M.J.
(compilers) (2001). Tasmanian bird
observations 1999. Tasmanian Bird
Report 28: 34.

Warham, J. (1972). Aspects of the
biology of the Erect-crested Penguin
Eudyptes sclateri. Ardea 60: 145-184.

Warham, J. (1974). The breeding biology
and behaviour of the Snares Crested
Penguin. Journal of the Royal Society
of New Zealand 4: 63-108.

Woehler, E. (1992). Records of vagrant
penguins from Tasmania. Marine
Ornithology 20: 61-73.

89

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

BOOK REVIEWS

Moby-Duck by Donovan Hohn,
Scribe Publications Pty Ltd
(2011), softback , 402 pages (ISBN
978 1 921844 34 8)

REVIEWED BY: Anna

McEldowney, ‘Abcrdale’, Longley,
Tasmania 7150

I’m a sitting duck for a catchy title so
when I was offered a review copy of the
environmental detective story Moby-Duck
I immediately requested a copy. I also
realised that the book explored an issue
the field naturalists had looked at earlier
this year in our talk from Jennifer Lavers
from TMAG, when she described the
problems created by the degrading of
waste plastics in the world’s oceans, a
problem we saw for ourselves when we
collected plastic on Howrah Beach on our
Club outing.

the true story of 28,800 bath toys
lost at sea and of the beachcombers,
oceanographers, environmentalists,
and fools, including the author, who
went in search of them

Donovan Hohn, a former teacher, was
inspired by the story of a shipping
container of plastic bath toys being lost
overboard in a storm in the North Pacific.
Described as “the true story of 28,000
bath toys lost at sea and of the
beachcombers, oceanographers,

environmentalists and fools, including the
author, who went in search of them”
Moby-Duck outlines Hohn’s search for
the plastic frogs, beavers, turtles and
yellow ducks lost in the spill. He followed
reports of them turning up along the
Canadian and Alaskan coast, having
travelled east then north with the North
Pacific Subpolar Gyre, and on his travels
met some of the characters of the Alaskan
environmental movement. From Curtis
Ebbesmeyer, a retired oceanographer
turned publisher of a newsletter called
Beachcombers' Alert! to Chris Pallister
from GoAK who organised ambitious
cleanups of the southern Alaskan
coastline, Hohn met some fascinating
people representing the full range of
viewpoints on environmental politics.

He travelled to the waters south of Hawaii
with Charles Moore on his boat Alguita to
investigate the area known as the “North
Pacific Garbage Patch” and explored the
southern-most beaches of Hawaii to
observe how the currents sift and sort the
plastic rubbish by size until he reached
Kamilo Beach where the ‘sand’ consists
of multicoloured plastic grains.

Hohn journeyed to the Pearl River Delta,
home to a large proportion of China’s
plastics factories where he believed the
lost shipment of bath toys had originated.
In an attempt to find out if a plastic duck
found on a beach in Maine on the eastern
seaboard of America could possibly have
arrived there from the Pacific via the
Bering Strait and the frozen North West
Passage he travelled on a Canadian
icebreaker north of the Labrador coast to

90

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

the isolated settlements of Resolute and
Cambridge Bay.

All this travelling made me get out my
atlas and look for the places Hohn visited
that 1 had never heard of. Mis description
of the physics of container shipping was
enthralling and if a writer can do that he
must be doing something right.

Moby-Duck is a travelogue; a collection
of the flotsam and jetsam of a search the
author undertook over several years in
which oceanography and marine science
sound interesting, fun and worthwhile.

It is also a social commentary about our
attitude to waste and the far-reaching
effects that our thoughtless disposal of
plastic rubbish has on the worlds’ oceans
and marine life. It is fascinating and
readable and describes an environmental
problem that should be easy to solve, and
yet we show no signs of solving it.

Common Orchids of Tasmania
- Plant Identikit by Australian
Plants Society Tasmania Inc.
Hobart Group , self-published
(2010), softback, 65 pages (ISBN
978 0 909830 64 9)

REVIEWED BY: Mark Wapstra,
28 Suncrest Avenue, Lenah Valley,
Tasmania 7008

During 2010 I presented courses on the
identification and management of native
orchids for the forest industry. My job
vyas made a lot easier because the
Australian Plants Society Tasmania Inc.
(Hobart Group) had just released the fully
revised edition of their 1993 version of
the same name.

The Plant Identikit series is excellent and
well-loved by the Tasmanian naturalist
community. The booklets are small (they

actually fit comfortably in a back pocket),
inexpensive (I avoided the word ‘cheap’
because, well, it sounds cheap, but putting
it frankly, the booklets are cheap at less
than $10), and comprehensive.

A revision of the 1993 edition was long
overdue and therefore all the more
welcome. There have been so, so, so
many taxonomic and nomenclatural
changes to Tasmanian orchids that even
specialists have been known to throw up
their hands and mutter obscenities to
themselves as they ignore just one more
Thelymitra that looks a bit odd. This 2010
edition illustrates 73 species with line
drawings, including virtually all species
likely to be commonly encountered and
several of the rarer species.

The introductory text is succinct, well-
written and very well-structured,
providing a superb overview of orchids as
a whole, orchidology in Tasmania, and
orchid biology and ecology. The
descriptions of species are remarkably

91

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

detailed and well-laid out, considering the
amount of information included.
Illustrating every species would have
changed the pocket-sized booklet to a
small coffee table book (which already
exists in the form of the now slightly out-
of-date The Orchids of Tasmania from
1999). However, similar and closely
related species are well-covered in
sections on ‘Distinguishing Features’,
‘Description’, ‘Flowering Period’,
‘Distribution’, ‘Locality’ and ‘Related
Species’. In many cases, the line drawings
illustrate one or more closely related
species.

the drawings - the colours are correct, the
dimensions precise and the habit of the
species true.

Common Orchids of Tasmania - Plant
Identikit was obviously a well-
coordinated project and a labour of love
of the producers (which included, in
addition to the illustrators already listed,
Gladys Dodson, Robin Garnett and Phil
Collier, the latter responsible for the
excellent text). A well-balanced book
review should include the negatives of the
book as well as the positives. I think I
have done that as best I can - it is not my
fault that 1 can’t find a fault.

Pterostylis aphylla leafless greenhood

Pterostylis atriola Snug greenhood

Pterostylis parviflora tiny greenhood

P. atriola

Distinguishing Features
A spike of small green-brown hooded
flowers facing into the flower stem.

P aphylla The flower spike is crowded.
P. atriola: elongated flower spike, with
flowers slightly sandpapery to the
touch. P. parviflora: Flowers mostly
green and smooth to the touch.

Description

Flowers of these greenhoods are rarely
more than 1 cm long. The flowers have
a compact hood with the Joined lateral
sepals closely oppressed and a very
small opening for pollinators.

Flowering Period

P aphyllo Late spring to early summer.
P. atriola: Late summer to earty
autumn P parviflora: Autumn.

Distribution

P aphylla : Widely scattered P. atriola:
Rocky places In the east and north.

P, porvifloro: Sandy soils near the
south-east, east and north coasts.

Locality

P. aphylla Arthur River.

P. atriola: Douglas-Apsley NP.

P. parviflora: Freydnet NP.

Ralutrd Specie*

P. vliginma n another green-flowered
species known from a few peaty locations
in the east and southeast, flowering
in midsummer.

46

At this stage of the review, I have almost
run out of superlatives to describe this
book. But I need some additional ones to
indicate something about the line
drawings. The artists are Elizabeth Ellis,
Christine Howells, Pat Hudspeth and Pat
Kerrison, and an excellent job they have
done! As someone familiar with our
orchid flora I can attest to the accuracy of

I wholeheartedly recommend this fully
revised edition of the Common Orchids of
Tasmania to the naturalist community.
Get one and put it in your back pocket
each and every time you go bush.

Flora of the Otway Plain &
Ranges 1: Orchids, Irises, Lilies,
Grass-trees, Mat-rushes and
other Petaloid Monocotyledons

by Enid Mayfield, CSIRO
Publishing (2010), softback , 219
pages (ISBN 9780643098046)

REVIEWED BY: Mark Wapstra,
28 Suncrest Avenue, Lenah Valley,
Tasmania 7008

Why review a book about the flora of just
one part of Victoria for a largely
Tasmanian audience? Pick up this book
and you’ll know why. I bought the book
on the back of an advertisement slip in
another natural history book I’d bought -
a page showing exquisite colour line
drawings of monocotyledons, which are
usually regarded as the boring plants
compared to their showy dicotyledon
relations. I got properly interested in
monocotyledons several years back when

92

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

a colleague opened my eyes to the delight
of teasing open the spikelets of
wallaby grasses and identifying the
species by the arrangement of hairs. Put
the florets under a microscope and they
are even more spectacular.

I digress...this book is actually about the
petaloid monocotyledons - the ones
usually with brightly coloured petals and
sepals.

series. But the Flora of the Otway Plain
& Ranges goes well beyond scientific
illustration - it combines an obviously
precise observational skill with an artistic
talent that needs to be seen to be
appreciated. The book retails for around
$50, which is inexplicably good value for
what was apparently only 8 years of high
quality research, botany, entomology and
artistry.

The book goes one step further than
virtually all flora guides. As the foreword
states: “This superb production sets a new
standard in popular books on native
flora...[The] illustrations bring to life the
often tiny distinguishing botanical details
and make for easy identification of plants
by the untrained botanist. The text and
illustrations constantly draw attention to
the relationship of plants with the broader
environment, the effects of fire, the role
of pollinators and the importance of
fungi”. And it is this latter point that
frequently draws me back to this book.
The additional information presented on
topics such as pollination, often
accompanied by drawings of the
pollinator and the relevant parts of the
flower, are not only biologically and
ecologically factual but amusing and
fascinating.

Each species included in this book (and
there are at least 140) has a page
dedicated to it. Each one is described
simply and accurately using sensible
subheadings typical of most flora guides.
But it is the drawings that make this book
so superb. Each species is drawn in great
detail, and each part of the plant is drawn
- not just the flowers, but the leaves,
bracts, bulbs, roots, habit, and the fine
detail of the floral parts. Enid Mayfield is
an illustrative researcher based at the
Geelong Botanic Gardens and many of us
are familiar with her scientifically precise
line drawings in publications such as the
Flora of Victoria and Flora of Australia

The book also includes one of the easiest
to use pictorial keys to the oft-feared
monocotyledons I have come across.
Forget complex terminology and
dissecting microscopes - a good pair of
eyes (assisted by a hand lens in some
cases) and an ability to count and see
colour will allow the reader to put a name
to a plant. For those into taxonomy and
nomenclature, you’d be pleased (or
displeased, depending on your particular
view) to know that the Flora of the Otway
Plain & Ranges uses the more recent
familial division of the now virtually
defunct Liliaceae (Tasmania has no native
species left in the family, that is now

93

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

regarded as several quite unrelated
families).

Fungus gnat pollinators (Mycomya sp.) crawl up
the labellum to get nectar secreted by glands
at the base. Flowers also selF pollinate when

pollen falls from the anther onto the stigma.

So why review a book on Victorian flora
for The Tasmanian Naturalist ? Because
of the c. 140-150 species illustrated, 131
occur in Tasmania. You won’t find a
better, easier to use and fascinating guide
to the petaloid monocots in Tasmania. I
don’t know what the promised number 2
in the series will include and when it it
due but I am eagerly awaiting its arrival
to complement this first volume.

Reflections on “the seashells of
Tasmania a review of The
Seashells of Tasmania: a
Comprehensive Guide by Simon
Grove , Taroona Publications
(2011), softback, 82 pages (ISBN
9780646551173)

BY: Kevin Bonham, 410 Macquarie
Street, South Hobart, Tasmania 7004

Identifying Tasmanian seashells hasn’t
always been so easy. When my family
moved here from warmer waters in the
early 1980s, the only readily available
guides in bookshops were the Wilson &
Gillett field guides, which focussed on the
larger, showier gastropods. The locally
specific Illustrated Index of Tasmanian
Shells by May & Macpherson (1958 -
really Macpherson’s minor update of a

much rarer 1923 edition by May) was not
too hard to get hold of but the little black
and white drawings accompanied by only
very skimpy information, plus the
outdatedness of the names and the
exclusion of some obvious suspects, made
that a difficult work to use. The situation
was improved with Margaret Richmond’s
two large volumes in the 1990s but there
has still been a need for a single,
comprehensive, informative and thorough
coverage of the species most likely to
interest beachcombers, collectors and
naturalists.

As a club committee member observing
the creation of this book, it was
remarkable how quickly it seemed to
come together. Seemingly in the space of
only a handful of committee meetings, it
had gone from being a proposal to
appearing on the table in front of us in a
stack of photocopies. Yet these were not
easy times for the book’s author, working
on the volume as he recovered from the
impacts of (and treatment for) a major
medical condition.

By way of basic description, the book
illustrates 350 species with colour photos
of representative beach specimens;
another 100 species are mentioned in text.
The mission statement is to cover “all
species over 10 mm in length that arc
likely to be encountered on shore.” A fair
few slightly smaller species make the
grade as well, including a plate of
representative micromolluscs. The notes
on each species generally cover suggested
common names, habitat, frequency,
distribution within and outside the State,
and notes on identification features, as
well as useful cautions about variation
within species and the effects of wear and
tear on specimens.

Browsing the book it is interesting to
come across some old favourites from
decades past and see what has become of

94

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (201 1)

them in the science of today. For instance,
on p. 49 (pi. 22, fig. 10) we see an odd¬
looking elongate reddish shell. I first
encountered a very fresh specimen at the
Tessellated Pavement - a good place to
look for it, by the way - sometime in the
1980s and was stunned by the prettiness
and delicacy of what seemed to be some
kind of strange volute or mitre. I took it
into the Tasmanian Museum, where Liz
Turner identified it as the then Ratifusus
mestayerae. At the time it was placed as a
triton (Cymatidae) or a “whelk” of sorts
(Buccinidae). Simon’s book gives its new
family name, Colubrariidae, and its new
genus name, Cumia. I was curious about
the colourful name “Bloodsucker whelks”
for this family. It turns out that at least
some of the few dozen worldwide species
make their livings by conducting vampire
attacks (without even a radula!) on fish. I
don't know whether this species is one of
those, but I’ll never be able to pick little
Cumia up again without imagining it
lurking in the shadows to pounce
savagely on some unsuspecting blenny or
baby flounder.

An oddity in the May books was the
diversity of tiny marginellids (pp. 56-7 in
Simon’s book). I remember coming
across the pages of them and thinking that
they all looked much the same. Familiar
only with the Marion Bay favourite
Austroginella muscaria and a couple of
smaller species, to my teenage eyes this
looked like splitterdom run rampant;
surely at most five of these were real?
Simon’s book shows some of the
commoner species and the genuine
variety of forms in what is actually a
diverse grouping in our waters (though
doubtless some of the more obscure old
names need work). Using Simon’s
website (www.molluscsoftasmania.net) -
which, by the way, is an excellent
companion to the book for full
distribution details - it can be seen that

some of these even occur as far upriver as
Howrah Beach, a place I never realised
was of any malacological interest.

The seashells of Tasmania:
a comprehensive guide

Taroonj Publications

Plate 29 (p. 63) includes a few of the
“saltmarsh snails” also often included in
guides of non-marine mollusca such as
Smith & Kershaw (1981) Here the old
gang I knew as Salinator fragilis and
S. solida , two very similar-shaped
estuarine crawlers that are often
ludicrously abundant, have parted ways
into separate families, and the reader can
only wonder (until they find Golding et
al. 2007) what oddity has earned the latter
the new genus name Phallomedusa. The
species picture has not stood still either,
with new species in both genera added
from the northwest coast.

Even as a fairly experienced collector of
Tasmanian shells, there are plenty of
things I have learned from having this
book. Another of my favourites, as one of
the petite outliers of more tropical groups
that we get down here, is the little yellow
sundial Phillipea lutea (pp 62-3). I wasn’t

95

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 ( 2011 )

aware that we have more than one
sundial, with the larger Adelphotectonica
reevei (which I thought of as a much
warmer water species) being now and
then recorded.

An advantage of this release is you can
now go to any coastline in Tasmania and
be very confident of identifying whatever
shells have washed up there. So, for
instance, one day on impulse I got off a
bus going through Sandy Bay and walked
over to the tiny beach in the comer by the
Casino. I was able to use Simon’s book to
identify one of the few shells present as
the tranquilly named placid venus
(Placamen placidum - pp. 22-3). After
failing despite persistent attempts to open
the two halves of this rather striking, if
common, bivalve, 1 concluded it was alive
and returned it the water to hopefully
continue its peaceful existence.

Lastly 1 can’t help mentioning that this is
the first popular guidebook to include as a
full species the endcmic-or-nearly-so
Notocypraea subcarnea (pp. 42-3), the

«n iMMUliinHilUlfmtt
■edts WxMiinMMnr^imHRIMH
litnfMrtmW

•iM>< nwwi ity TrMM„|

r rtsr•m m«i Mark*'
'•Mom il— umnMM>|

M r*ct*

.':.u

spots OK i l *n l «•!» 1 to* ta tmrurt to* ■"'»>

Mueu^roMMiujniAiKH

WW«prM4 K4 a — U V ■««#> PtMl |tpm»y Nip**«>)»•I

f* «.IU—, toriGmtot

«» II—. I—•

5 MMoannym «* lO*t UU 1 of KM— * Ot* Bjrtsr, .trmx k—I

• »m vnaoaUM neodnsexlM*t»Mam*• aw* n*>*

wtw Dm»a<W>i»<nM«n0M OMprsMtiScaMiW

Mp*a*», W IIW W MOW, US, VC, 1A to* W*

MMral avf" b**t —«y nor, — to.

•pots atkOM m tkosi. wtmo U*w*o*9 oottn* <Utowtf . m*l

Wtowitinoww •OW.ttS.WC.U V^rtW, k—tonpto 11m 1—1
Mdwt n—0«N MM to Oto IMU Ot—H

«. watooym untw |l»d«o—. UXi w r* * us vc. so w* —

N«mp 1 WM 90 m M Hlw rto,

moderately rare “plump cowrie” (or
cowry) that has caused quite a bit of
excitement (and even more confusion) in
the global cypraeid-collecting world since
being recognised as a full species over
100 years after it was described.

In conclusion, the Club can be very proud
of contributing to this milestone in
Tasmanian malacology. May no shack be
without it!

REFERENCES

Golding R.E., Ponder W.F. & Byrne M.
(2007). Taxonomy and anatomy of
Amphiboloidea (Gastropoda:

Heterobranchia: Archaeopulmonata).

Zootaxa 1476: 1-50.

May, W.L. & Macphcrson , J.H. (1958).
An Illustrated Index of Tasmanian
Shells. L.G. Shea, Government Printer,
Tasmania, Australia.

Smith, B.J. & Kershaw, R.C. (1981).
Tasmanian Land and Freshwater
Molluscs. Fauna of Tasmania
Handbook Series 5: 1-148.

96

The Tasmanian Naturalist 133 (2011)

WAITING ON AN ISLAND

Els Wakefield

[This piece was written on 25 November 2004 by Els Wakefield (Hayward) in a field notebook on Big Spectacle
Island while trying to keep a low profile so as not to disturb the birds as Bill (Wakefield) banded some chicks and
counted the nests. It captures a beautiful day, of lives enriched, and we thank Els for sharing this intimate moment

of nature and love with our readers].

Waiting on an island surrounded by Terns and Silver Gulls on nests. Keep a low profile.
If you stay low and sit still they stay on their eggs and chicks, keeping a wary eye on
you. There are Silver Gulls at the edge of the colony waiting for an opportunity to catch
any fish the adults drop or the chicks regurgitate. It is a symbiotic relationship. The Terns
defecate onto the eggs of the Silver Gulls, the chicks die in the eggs. But the benefit to
the Silver Gulls is they get a free feed. If you stand, calls of alarm ring in your ears,
blocking out any other sound. We should be using ear-plugs. Waiting for Bill. He is
squatted not far away, searching out chicks. They hide under the low plants. He picks
them up, holds them gently and places a metal band around their right leg. Just above the
back toe. With special pliers he bends the band - not too tightly, making sure of the
smooth edge where it closes. The chicks are downy soft, fawn with speckles. So fragile,
some only days old, just out of the shell. The tide is low. The bright green algae on the
exposed rocks look like a fresh lawn out on the water. Strange, I wander down to the
water’s edge. Anemones, a giant shell, live, clinging in a fissure. Dark green and brown
seaweed swaying gently to expose mussels, starfish and limpets. The sun sparkles on the
white crests of the waves blown by the cool sea breeze. It glints off a plane. So many
people flying about. Here it is so busy too, like an airport with crowds of birds raising
their offspring, bathing, feeding. A Sooty Oystercatcher turns over limpets and eats the
slug inside holding the shell with its foot to the ground. It walks among the velvety green
seaweed lying flat on the rocks. A piece of kelp rolls over. The tide is coming in. The
Terns are carrying food. They hover with long side feathers on their tails. Strong yellow
bills have a sharp point. Their wings point back. Such an elegant bird. Cheeky “spiked”
crests of black punk feathers and grey wings that look like shoulders when they sit on
their nest. Bill has caught an adult and brings it down to me to record the band. A short
break for Bill’s aching knees - then back to do more while we have the opportunity. He
suggests I might like to band some but I know he is faster and will get more done. A
Sooty Oystercatcher lands and walks towards me. The binoculars almost reach their limit
of closeness. I see its black pupil, red eye and orangey peri-orbital ring matching its
orange-red beak and legs. It is quite a
large bird close up. It hastens past to its
nest. I know there are chicks - we saw
one earlier feeding by the shore close to
the parents. The Pacific Gulls are wary
too. One immature one with grey feathers
around its head and neck, stands on a rock
watching me. Its tail feathers have not yet
developed the defined black band before
the white tip. The adults land in heraldic
pose.

2000 chicks. 1 in 8 banded.

A Peregrine flies in- all the birds drop in a white blanket onto the water.

97

Advice to contributors

The Tasmanian Naturalist publishes articles on all aspects of natural history and the
conservation, management and sustainable use of natural resources, with a focus on
Tasmania and Tasmanian naturalists. These can be either in a formal or informal style.
Articles need not be written in a traditional scientific format unless appropriate for the
content. A wide range of types of articles is accepted. For instance, the journal will
publish articles that:

• summarise or review relevant scientific studies, in language that can be
appreciated by field naturalists;

• stimulate interest in, or facilitate in identifying, studying or recording
particular 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.;

• review recent publications that are relevant to the study of Tasmanian natural
history.

Book reviews, web site reviews, poetry and prose and other informal natural-history
related content are also accepted. If you are thinking of submitting such material, please
check with the Editor first (to avoid duplication of items such as book reviews and for
appropriateness of content).

Submission of manuscripts

Manuscripts should be sent to the editor, either emailed to nat.editor@tasfieldnats.org.au
or mailed to the Club’s address. Feel free to contact the editor (see the Club’s website for
current contact details) prior to submission to discuss the format, style and content, or
any particular submission issues (such as provision of large illustrations). Formal articles
should follow the style of similar articles in recent issues. Informal articles need not fit
any particular format (abstract needed only for formal articles). Please refer to the
Guidelines for Authors, available on the Club’s website.

Submissions should be provided in standard word processing format (i.e. .doc file).
Please ensure all pages are numbered. Graphs, illustrations or maps should also be
provided electronically by preference, generally in TIFF or JPEG format. Figures,
especially photographs, should be supplied in high resolution (ideally 300 dpi) to ensure
high quality reproduction. The Editor can assist with scanning of illustrations if originals
are provided.

The Tasmanian Naturalist is printed in October and distributed to the Club membership
and libraries during November/December. Articles, especially those that may require
formal review by an external referee, need to be submitted by the end of July to ensure
inclusion in the current year’s edition. Please contact the Editor to discuss possible
articles and the need for review, which may affect how much time is available.

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 conservation 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 the 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
interested in natural history. Members receive The Tasmanian Naturalist
annually, plus a quarterly bulletin with information covering forthcoming
activities, and the Club’s library is available for use.

Prospective members should either write to the Secretary at the above address,
phone our President Michael Driessen on (03) 62 29 6382, or visit our web site
at: http://www.tasfieldnats.org.au/.

Membership rates

Subscription rates for

The Tasmanian Naturalist

Adults

$30

Australia $20

Families

$35

Overseas $25

Concession

$25

Junior

$25

[GST is not applicable—ABN 83 082 058 176]