The Tasmanian Naturalist Number 135 2013 Published by Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc. VOLUME 135 (2013) ISSN 0819-6826 The Tasmanian Naturalist CONTENTS Editorial note Mark Wapstra.1 Contributed articles Successful incubation of eggs for a free-ranging invasive turtle (Testudines: Chelidae Chelodina longicollis) in Tasmania Simon Fearn .2 Orgy at Blackmans Bay: mass sea anemone spawning, April 2013 Jane Elek .9 The great backyard invertebrate survey - what was I thinking? Simon Fearn & David Maynard...i.17 Are invertebrate pedestrians threatened? Observations of Hoplogonus simsoni from road line transects in northeastern Tasmania Chris P. Spencer & Karen Richards .28 Jimbles in the Derwent! Simon Grove. 41 Further ornithological and other observations from Goose Island, Bass Strait, 2012 Els Wakefield & Bruce Robertson.43 Ecology of the endangered dense leek-orchid Prasophyllum crebrijlorum immediately following a burn at Surrey Hills grasslands, northwest Tasmania Phil Collier .46 A king-cricket in Tasmania...not Simon Grove .56 A checklist of the macrofungi at the Wood vine Nature Reserve Genevieve Gates & David Ratkowsky .:.58 Highlights of pelagic seabirding for 20 1 3 Els Wakefield & Paul Brooks .67 Further notes on the occurrence of fairy lanterns Thismia rodwayi F.Muell. (Thismiaceae) in Tasmania: vegetation associations Vincent S.F.T. Merckx & Mark Wapstra.71 (continued....) (continued....)- - .• - - An update on the distribution, reservation and conservation status of fairy lanterns Thismia rodwqyi F.Muell. (Thismiaceae) in Tasmania Mark Wapstra & Anne Chuter.....79 A revised list of the exotic land molluscs of Tasmania Kevin Bonham.90 Observations of a fishing tiger snake and a mass death of beetles in Tasmania Keith Corbett 98 Diurnal clustered perching behaviour in immature dusky woodswallows Don Hird & Geoff Carle.........102 Observations of the Miena jewel beetle Castiarina insculpta (Carter, 1934) in the summer of 2012-13 Kevin Bonham, Karen Richards, Chris P. Spencer, Simon Grove, Craig Reid, Catherine Byrne, Don Hird & Abbey Throssell.104 Reviews Flora of the Otway Plain & Ranges 2 (Enid Mayfield) review by Mark Wapstra.110 Stung! On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean (Lisa-ann Gershwin) review by Simon Grove.111 Australian Bird Names: A Complete Guide (Ian Fraser & Jeannie Gray) review by Mark Wapstra...112 A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia (Steve Wilson & Gerry Swan) review by Alex Dudley.113 Pathfinders in Tasmania Botany (Dick Burns) review by Mark Wapstra.115 The Overland Track ( Warwick Sprawson) review by David Ratkowsky.116 Orchids of Tasmania (Bill Higham & Malcolm Wells) review by Mark Wapstra.117 Endpieces At point of lay by Els Wakefield.119 Tasmanian nature through the looking-glass by Simon Grove.120 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 author(s) and are not necessarily those of the Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc. The Tasmanian Naturalist 13^feS EDITORIA] Mark , 5 2 014 Editor, The TasmarOan Naturalist Despite hardly attending a Committee meeting, I 'S^unito na v e inaiin aineanyreign as Editor! Thank you to everyone who has supported me and for some very nice feedback on the format and presentation. Of course, apologies for the very late delivery of the 2013 edition, I’m recruiting assistant editors for 2014! I’ve had cause to spend a lot more time “out bush” this year and have been struck many times by the sheer beauty of our natural world. As Tasmanians we really are so lucky to have nature on our doorstep - drive for an hour or so and we’re in the “wilderness”! The variety of articles in this year’s edition of the Naturalist reflects this beauty and wonder. But we also have articles on invasive plants and animals, a genuine and continuing threat to our natural values. It is interesting to note that I wrote that last paragraph before I received the contributions that appear as the Endpieces in this edition. Both articles put into words, much better than I did above or could in a piece of my own, the wonder of Tasmanian nature seen through the eyes of keen observers who have taken time to reflect on our little place on the globe. It is not my job as Editor to dictate the content of the journal. But the job is easier when a natural balance of contributions find my inbox. The journal is about publishing observations on the natural history of Tasmania: these articles can be packed with data and statistics, or “simply” short write-ups of one-off observations. Getting these observations down for all time is really important - I have frequently delved into our Naturalist and similar journals while researching a particular species and found “naturalist notes” to be extremely useful. I hope that this edition has once again managed to include articles that appeal to you all. This year the Club gratefully acknowledges the sponsorship by Australian Entomological Supplies (www.entosupplies.com.au) for contributing to the cost of producing the 2013 volume, which contains high quality colour digital images (and some truly spectacular ones), which I hope everyone agrees adds considerably to the readability, presentation and interest of the articles. This generous support allows us to keep membership fees low and still produce a quality bound and printed journal. 1 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) SUCCESSFUL INCUBATION OF EGGS FOR A FREE- RANGING INVASIVE TURTLE (TESTUDINES: CHELIDAE CHELODINA LONGICOLLIS) IN TASMANIA Simon Fearn Invasive Species Branch. Department of Primaryt Industries, Parks , Water & Environment, Level 1 171 West bury Road, Prospect, Tasmania 7250; simon fearn@dpipwe. tas.gov. au INTRODUCTION Chelodina longicollis (eastern long-necked turtle) is common and widespread throughout freshwater habitats in eastern Australia south of the tropic of Capricorn (Kennet et al. 2009). While river systems and associated wetlands arc core habitat, C longicollis appears to be highly adaptable and commonly colonises artificial waterbodies constructed for agricultural and pastoral purposes (Doody ct al. 2006; Rennie 2002 cited by Kennet et al. 2009). Detailed overviews of taxonomy, distribution and biology are provided by Cann (1998) and Kennet et al. (2009). There is a long history of freshwater turtle importations into Tasmania dating back to at least the turn of the 19 ,h century when these animals, but especially C. longicollis , were considered novelty pets and commonly kept in backyard fish ponds (Anon. 1910, 1937a; Sharland 1953). For many years the duck pond in Launceston City Park was home to varying numbers of C. longicollis (Anon. 1937b; pers. obs.). Prior to universal mainland Australian legislation preventing unregulated collection of reptiles from the wild in 1974, a range of freshwater turtles, but particularly C. longicollis , were harvested commercially in New South Wales and Queensland to supply the pet shop trade in southern capital cities (Worrell 1966; Frauca 1976). Freshwater turtles were sold throughout Tasmania in pet shops from at least the 1950s until the mid-1970s (I. Norton, pers. comm., pers. obs.). In Tasmania it became illegal to import turtles into the State without a permit under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1971. All freshwater turtle taxa are currently classed as Restricted Animals in Tasmania under the Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010 under the Nature Conservation Act 2002. Freshwater turtles continue to be illegally imported into Tasmania, either through ignorance of the law (captive bred turtles are legally sold in pet shops throughout mainland Australia) or by deliberate smuggling for the illegal reptile trade. Since 2006 when accurate records were kept, 26 turtles (6 exotic red-eared sliders Trachemys script a, 1 Macquarie turtle Emydura maccjuarii , 12 C. longicollis and 7 unidentified) have been seized by or voluntarily surrendered to Tasmanian Wildlife Management Officers and examined at the Animal Health Laboratories (AML) in Launceston (AHL 2013; C. Spry pers. comm.). Prior to 2006, freshwater turtles were infrequently but persistently seized by Tasmanian Wildlife Officers over many years (C. Spry pers. comm.). FREE-RANGING SPECIMENS IN TASMANIA Chelodina longicollis appears to be widespread in Tasmania (Figure 1). AHL (2013) has records of 37 C. longicollis discovered in the wild and delivered to that facility by Tasmanian wildlife authorities between 2006 and 2013 from throughout 2 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) eastern Tasmania and the northwest coast, as well as Flinders Island in the Fumeaux Group to the north of mainland Tasmania. The Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG) in Launceston has a further seven specimens collected from various localities in the north of state. However, throughout the 1980s additional specimens of C. longicollis were delivered to QVMAG by members of the public but were rarely retained on the assumption that they represented escaped pets (T. Gordon pers. comm.). The Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery (TMAG) have no specimens of C. longicollis with collection data (N. Zehntner pers. comm.). Templeton (1972) records tortoises at Pass River, Camp Creek and Egg Lagoon on King Island in western Bass Strait. In addition to a specimen collected at Whitemark, Flinders Island, and examined at AHL, C. Spry (pers. comm.) observed several in Pats Rivulet, Whitemark, Flinders Island. An adult female containing 15 eggs is present in the QVMAG collection (Registration No. 1988:3:4) that was collected crossing a track on the 239 ha Swan Island off northeast Tasmania. A record of a C. longicollis held in the Western Australian Museum (Registration No. 12049) from Mt Chappell Island in the Fumeaux Group (Kennet et al. 2009) is somewhat curious in that the 323 ha island has no free standing water of any kind. L. Umbrello (pers. comm.) reports that this specimen was donated by Eric Worrell in 1956 and originally identified by L. Glauert as C. expansa. The original entry in the museum catalogue has no collection data listed for the specimen but Worrell also donated a Chappell Island tiger snake and this entry is the one immediately before the turtle. It may be that the turtle was also collected on Chappell Island, and that the location was left blank as the previous entry for the snake had it already entered, or alternatively, the entry was left blank as the collection location was unknown. There is sufficient uncertainty surrounding the origins of this specimen that the author suggests it be disregarded unless further details become available. Plate I. Anthropogenic dam at Tarlcton, central north Tasmania where a fertile clutch of Chelodina longicollis eggs was discovered as well as eight adults (at least one male and one female): the oviposition site was unearthed while digging the shallow stormwater pipe trench in foreground 3 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Figure 1. Chelodina longicollis records from specimens held in the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG) and processed by the Government Animal Health Laboratory (AHL) 4 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) REPRODUCTIVE STATUS The exact status of C. longicollis in Tasmania has been difficult to determine due to a lack of evidence of successful incubation of eggs under natural conditions. Several heavily gravid female turtles have been collected from the wild and either lodged with QVMAG (Registration No. 1988:3:4) or examined for gross pathology at AHL. However, laying eggs in a shallow' subterranean burrow and having them successfully incubate in Tasmania’s cool and variable climate are two very different events. Successful incubation and the emergence of healthy hatchlings under wild conditions would be the minimum requirement to establish the existence of a wild breeding population in Tasmania. Until very recently such data was lacking and no hatchlings or small juveniles had ever been collected in the wild. Confounding the issue further is the slow growth of this species, particularly after sexual maturity is obtained (Rennet et al. 2009). Records from captive animals and a long-term mark-recapture study at Jervis Bay, NSW, indicate minimum lifespans of 31-37 years (Goode 1967; Roe 2007 cited in Rennet et al. 2009). It could reasonably be anticipated that in the much cooler climate of Tasmania that C. longicollis growth rates would be even slower resulting in specimens liberated during the era of the unregulated pet trade continuing to be discovered in the wild decades later up to the present. A RECORD OF SUCCESSFUL INCUBATION On 26 March 2013 a resident of Tarleton (4 km from Spreyton), central north Tasmania, was excavating a ditch to run a stormwater pipe to a dam (Plate 1) when five oval shaped eggs were excavated from below' soil level. One of the eggs had been sliced in half by the spade and was destroyed. The remaining four eggs were placed on top of some nearby building materials while the rest of the ditch was excavated. When the eggs were checked some time later all four had hatched. Two hatchling turtles were still present and two were unaccounted for and presumably decamped from the scene. The hatchlings were reported to the Tasmanian Wildlife Management Branch and subsequently to the Invasive Species Branch (1SB). The hatchlings were photographed (Plate 2) and delivered to AHL where they were identified as C. longicollis. The nest site (-41° 13' 51.912" 146° 22' 24.478") was situated 25 m from a permanent dam with well vegetated margins (Plate 1). The nest hole had been excavated on gently sloping hard-packed ground with continuous short grass cover in an exposed situation. ISB field officers placed turtle traps in the dam and captured an adult female C. longicollis on 4 April 2013. An adult male was captured at the same location on 29 April 2013 and a further six adult specimens (as yet unsexed) on 20 May 2013 (Plate 3 depicts an adult). This is the first known positive proof that C. longicollis is capable of successful reproduction on the main island of Tasmania. DISCUSSION Chelodina longicollis has many pre¬ adaptations that make it an ideal invasive animal including the ability to engage in extended overland travel to colonise new waterbodies. Overland movements of more than two kilometres have been documented and a period of up to 40 days out of water (Graham et al. 1996; Stott 1987; Roe & Georges 2008; Roe et al. 2009). Critical to this colonising potential is low rates of desiccation, an ability to drink pooled water, absorb free water through the cloaca and the ability to physiologically adjust 5 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Plate 2. Hatchling Chelodina longicollis shortly alter hatching from eggs excavated from nest burrow at Tarleton, central north Tasmania urine composition thus retaining salts and reducing desiccation (Roe 2008; Roe et al. 2008 cited in Kcnnet et al. 2009). This remarkable resilience and dispersal ability coupled with a generalist carnivorous diet of planktonic, nektonic, benthic macro- invertebrates and carrion (Chessman 1984; Georges et al. 1986) has undoubtedly assisted the survival and spread of individuals in the Tasmanian environment. The confirmation that C. longicollis eggs can successfully incubate in the Tasmanian environment, at least at some locations in some years, as well as the apparent wide distribution of this species, would suggest that it may not be practicably feasible to eradicate or even effectively control these cryptic and largely aquatic organisms. Response efforts should focus on providing specimens for more detailed study of population densities at a local scale as well as determining growth rates, reproductive output and trophic ecology specifically related to Tasmanian freshwater ecosystems. Turtles are long lived and demographic data to allow estimates of age, growth, fecundity and survival will be central for informed management. Counts of laminar growth rings on the carapace of turtles has been used to age individuals in numerous studies around the world but its accuracy has been questioned for populations that do not experience a complete cessation of growth in extended cool periods requiring torpor (Stott 1988; Spencer 2002). It would be anticipated that C. longicollis in Tasmania would be ideal candidates for laminar growth ring ageing due to a cool, variable and strongly seasonal climate with a w r ell-defined winter season. While widespread in Tasmania, anecdotal evidence suggests that C longicollis is nowhere common. However, this situation may reflect nothing more than inadequate sampling. Historically, Tasmania’s climate may have be an ameliorating factor in the range and abundance of C. longicollis but it may only require a modest mean temperature rise through climate change for this species to rapidly increase in numbers. 6 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sincere thanks to Tammy Gordon (Collections Officer, QVMAG), Linette Umbrello (Collections Database Officer, Western Australian Museum) and Nicole Zehntner (TMAG) for museum records. Thanks also to Ian Norton and Colin Spry for turtle observations. REFERENCES AHL (Animal Health Laboratories) (2013). Unpublished records of turtles submitted for gross pathology between 2006 and 2013. Animal Health Laboratories, Launceston. Anon. (1910). Current topics: a strange visitor. The Examiner Monday 31 January 1910 (page 4). Anon. (1937a). Tortoises and turtles. The Mercury Saturday 26 June 1937 (page 5). Anon. (1937b). How spring has come to City Park. The Examiner Friday 3 September 1937 (page 8.) Cann, J. (1998). Australian Freshwater Turtles. Beaumont Publishing. Singapore. Chessman, B.C. (1984). Food of the snake¬ necked turtle, Chelodina longicollis (Shaw) (Testudines: Chelidae) in the Murray Valley, Victoria and New South Wales. Australian Wildlife Research 11: 573-578. Doody, S., Osborne, W., Bourne, D., Rennie, B. & Sims, R. (2006). Vertebrate Biodiversity on Australian Rice Farms: An Inventory of Species, Variation among Farms, and Proximate Factors Explaining that Variation. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Publication No. W05/198 Project No. UCA-6A, Canberra. Frauca, H. (1976). Adventures with Australian Animals. Rigby, Sydney. Georges, A., Norris, R. H. & Wensing, L. (1986). Diet of the freshwater turtle Chelodina longicollis (Testudines: Chelidae) from the coastal dune lakes of the Jervis Bay Territory. Australian Wildlife Research 13: 301-308. Goode, J. (1967). Freshwater Tortoises of Australia and New Guinea. Lansdowne Press Pty Ltd., Melbourne. Graham, T., Georges, A. & McElhinney. N. (1996). Terrestrial orientation of the eastern long-necked turtle, Chelodina longicollis , from Australia. Journal of Herpetology* 30(4): 467-477. Kennett, R., Roe, J., Hodges, K. & Georges, A. (2009). Chelodina longicollis (Shaw 1794) - eastern long- necked turtle, common long- necked turtle, common snake-necked turtle. IN: A.G.J. Rodin, P.C.H. Pritchard, P.P. van Dijk, R.A. Saumure, K.A. Buhlmann, J.B. Iverson & R.A. Mittermeier (Eds.) Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs 5:031.1-031.8. Rennie, B.A. (2002). Habitat Use and Movement Patterns of the Eastern Long-necked Turtle (Chelodina longicollis) in Rice Agroecosystems of NSW. Unpublished Honours thesis, University of Canberra, Canberra. Roe, J.H. (2007). The Terrestrial Ecology of a Fresh Water Turtle , Chelodina longicollis, in Booderee National Park, Australia. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Canberra, Canberra. Roe, J.H. (2008). Chelodina longicollis (eastern long-necked turtle). Drinking behavior. Herpetological Review 39:212-213. Roe, J.H. & Georges, A. (2008). Terrestrial activity, movements and spatial ecology of an Australian freshwater 7 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) turtle, Chelodina longicollis, in a temporally dynamic wetland system. Austral Ecology 33: 1045-1056. Roe, J.H., Georges, A. & Green B. (2008). Energy and water flux during terrestrial estivation and overland movement in a freshwater turtle. Physiological and Biochemical Zoo log}’ 81: 570-583. Roe, J.H., Brinton, A.C. & Georges, A. (2009). Temporal and spatial variation in landscape connectivity for a freshwater turtle in a temporally dynamic wetland system. Ecological Applications 19(5): 1288-1299. Sharland, M. (as “Peregrine”) (1953). Tortoise and turtle. The Mercu/y Saturday 28 February 1953 (page 13). Spencer, R-J. (2002). Growth patterns of two widely distributed freshwater turtles and a comparison of common methods used to estimate age. Australian Journal of Zoology’ 50: 477-490. Stott, P. (1987). Terrestrial movements of the freshwater tortoise Chelodina longicollis Shaw as monitored with a spool tracking device. Australian Wildlife Research 14: 559-567. Stott, P. (1988). Use of growth rings to determine age on the freshwater tortoise Chelodina longicollis: a cautionary note. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 112: 179-180. Templeton, M.T. (1972). Reptiles of King Island. The Tasmanian Naturalist 31: 1-2. Worrell, E. (1966). Australian Snakes, Crocodiles , Tortoises, Turtles , Lizards. Angus & Robertson. Sydney. Plate 3. Adult Chelodina longicollis 8 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) ORGY AT BLACKMANS BAY: MASS SEA ANEMONE SPAWNING, APRIL 2013 Jane Elek 240 Tinder box Road, Tinderbox, Tasmania 7054; janeelek@netspace.net.au It was a lovely, still autumn morning on 3 April 2013, so I thought of walking the dog around the Blackmans Bay headland at the southern end of the beach, on the River Derwent estuary. After parking the car and starting off along the footpath, I noticed that it was a REALLY low tide combined with a very calm sea, so the rock platform (see Plate 6) was well exposed (Hobart low tide 0.26 m at 0844 AET). Too good a chance to miss for browsing on the rock platform, so we headed down the path behind the old boathouse. We walked all the way to the end of the point and peeked around the comer, noticing waratah anemones looking like shiny red plums out of water and bubble anemones hanging listlessly above the water level. Only when heading back did I notice some milky white stuff in one of the rock crevices - perhaps some decomposing material? And then I saw some more. And when I looked around I saw lots of white stuff in the rock crevices associated with the shell-grit anemones, Oulactis muscosa , so-called because they attach lots of small shells and fragments onto their columns for camouflage. This was definitely not a random event. Not all the anemones had white stuff near them but many did - perhaps they were spawning and the white masses were SPERM? And then I noticed that some of the anemones had a pinky-brown mucousy mass covering their oral disc, which was easily broken up into lot of tiny spheres - perhaps these were EGGS? I had thought that coelenterates (phylum Cnidaria) were hermaphrodites - both male and female, but the anemones I saw were definitely producing either eggs OR sperm. I noticed that in one crevice most anemones were spawning sperm and in another mostly eggs (Plates 1 & 2). I collected some of the sperm and eggs in a piece of plastic rubbish I had collected. I had no camera with me, but remembered I had my phone in the car. I hurried back to the car to collect it, and then back to the rock platform, to the dog’s delight! I photographed some of the anemones spawning eggs and sperm. One large anemone was all alone in a deep rock pool high on the rock platform: I could see the sperm being pumped out of its mouth/anus in waves, which then overflowed out of its disc into the pool. Since the tide was so low, there was no water movement at all in the crevices or pools to flush away the gametes. 1 presume they were waiting for the tide to turn to mix the sperm and eggs. This was all happening at about 1100 in the morning (1000 AET). By noon I was home with my precious sample. I got out my father’s old compound microscope to look at a drop of water on a slide under a coverslip. At 50x magnification there were dozens of pinky- brown spheres, and at 200x 1 could see that they were covered with short spikes - definitely eggs (Plate 3). The sperm were too small to be seen clearly even when magnified 400x, although I imagined I could see heads with a wiggling tail over 10 times longer - or was I imagining them? It all smelt very fishy. I transferred the small sample of seawater and gametes into a plastic petri dish and left it on the kitchen bench, at room temperature out of the sun. At 5 pm next day, 30 hours after collection, 1 had another look at a drop of water from the petri dish. The eggs were 9 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Plate 1. Male anemone spawning into pool Plate 2. Female anemone spawning 10 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Plate 3. Eggs through the microscope 400x magnification still there, and some could be seen in early stages of development - e.g. 4 cell stage - but some had changed shape to a rounded oval, and I could see water currents moving around them. Under 400x I could see the water was propelled by beating cilia, short hair-like structures; there appeared to be an entrance into an internal cavity. How exciting! The eggs had been fertilised and developed into larval anemones, free- swimming planulae, but they weren’t swimming very fast. The dividing eggs and the planulae were already four times the size of the unfertilised eggs (Plate 4). By noon on 5 April, 48 hours after collection, the planulae were whizzing around on the slide, too fast to be kept in focus at 400x. At 5 pm the following day, 6 April, they were still whizzing around, and lots of single-celled organisms (protozoans?) were also swimming around in the dish, all presumably feeding on the unfertilised eggs and sperm. On 7 April, 4 days after spawning, the planulae were still feeding actively; longer tufts of cilia/spines could be seen at both ends and a string of mucous used for feeding was also visible on some. The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Plate 4. Planula larva 5 days after spawning I collected some fresh seawater and stored it in the fridge. Each day I decanted some water from the dish and replaced it with fresh sea water, after shaking it up to aerate it. On day 6, the planulae were still swimming actively in the petri dish, with a distinct narrow tuft of long straight cilia probing from their aboral end. The planulae continued swimming and actively feeding until 14 April, 11 days after spawning. There was a cluster of eleven larvae loosely attached to the base of the dish by mucous, some rotating or moving slightly, and they had changed shape. Looking down onto the oral surface at lOOx magnification, one appeared to have a muscular ring surrounded by four bulges (Figure 1). From the side, another larva had at least three bulges (Figure I). Could these be the beginnings of tentacles? By now there were very few unicellular organisms swimming around; it looked as if the culture was dying. The next day the 12 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) larvae were no longer moving and appeared to be starting to disintegrate. So, sadly, 1 did not witness any further development. Figure 1 . Eleven-day-old larvae lOOx, budding tentacles: oral and lateral views Two days alter the spawning, on 7 April, a day with similar weather (22°C, light overcast, very light wind and very calm sea), I returned to the rock platform. There was no sign of any further spawning at Blackmans Bay or nearby Kingston Beach rock platforms. At about 4 pm when the tide had turned and was slowly rising, I measured the water temperatures in the sea and some of the pools and crevices that had had no water How for several hours since the tide went out. The temperature of the sea ebbing and flowing at the edge of the rock platform was 17.5-18°C. The temperatures of the isolated crevices and pools ranged from I9°C for deep crevices lower down the rock platform that had not been isolated for as long as those higher on the platform, to a high of 23°C in a large shallow pool. The deep rock pool high on the platform in which a single male anemone (Plate 5) had spawned was 20.5°C next to the anemone. Since it was late afternoon, these temperatures may have been a bit higher than they would have been in the morning of 3 April. Water temperature had already passed its peak by 3 April, according to recordings in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel by the Woodbridge Marine Discovery Centre (A. Walsh pers. comm.). The equinox occurred on 22 March and a full moon on 27 March. The lowest Hobart tide for this period was on 2 April (0.25 m at 0750 AET), but it was still very low on 3 April (0.26 m at 0844 AET) and the moon was entering its last quarter (Australian Bureau of Meteorology). I checked the literature to find what was documented about sea anemone reproduction. Anemones can reproduce by almost any method possible (Shepherd & Thomas 1982; Edgar 2008; TMNA 2010). They can reproduce asexually, budding off pieces of tissue that grow into a clone, or sexually. Anemones can be hermaphrodite (producing both eggs and sperm at different times), or dioecious (with separate sexes). They can release the eggs and sperm to be fertilised in the sea where they develop into swimming planulae that can disperse some distance, or be viviparous, retaining the fertilised eggs within their bodies where they develop into miniature adults. A website, A Snail’s Odyssey, summarises research on marine invertebrates found on the west coast of USA (Carefoot 2010). Most sea anemones investigated reproduce sexually, generally spawning late summer/ autumn coinciding with high or peak water temperatures. Release of eggs by females is thought to be stimulated by release of sperm 13 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Plate 5. Male Oulactis muscosa two days alter spawning (same animal that spawned in Plate I ) by the males. Several studies have described the feeding behaviour of the planula larva: it catches plankton by trapping it on a string of mucous trailing from its mouth as it swims. The planula also has tufts of longer sensory cilia at its oral and apical (aboral) ends that may help it select food and find a suitable substrate to settle. The tufts of longer cilia at each end and the mucous string were visible in the swimming planulae in my culture by the third day after spawning. Larvae can be free-swimming for a few days to several weeks before settling; many anemones preferentially settle in mussel beds. Edgar (2008) notes that the shell grit anemone mainly feeds on small mussels that have been dislodged by wave action (or human traffic at low tide). The familiar Australian intertidal red waratah anemone. Actinia tenebrosa , has been found to have considerable variation among but not within the populations along the east coast of Australia, suggesting that they reproduce both sexually and asexually (Ayrc et al. 1991). It is known to give birth to fully formed miniature adults from its mouth, presumably by asexual reproduction (Edgar 2008). Similarly, the common subtidal white-striped anemone Anthothoe albocincta reproduces both sexually through broadcast spawning and asexually through fission. Local populations consist of dense, clonal aggregations that vary among clones in the colour of their tentacles and oral discs. Dissection showed that the anemones are dioecious and the clones unisexual. There is substantial genetic variation among regional A. albocincta populations in southeastern Australia, suggesting limited larval dispersal although the species is very widely dispersed (Billingham & Ayrc 1996). 14 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Dissections of the shell grit anemone, Oulactis muscosa , showed that it is dioecious and reproductiveiy mature all year (Junt & Ay re 1989). There was very little variation within the eastern Australian populations. One spawning event by this anemone has been investigated in Victoria (Marshall et al. 2004). At Barwon Heads, anemones on only one area of the bluff spawned on 15 December 2002, during a calm low tide of 0.42 m at 1432 AET, when sea surface temperature was about 18°C, and the moon was between first quarter and full. During that spawning event, 67 of 107 anemones spawned in the one area, with almost equal numbers of males and females. As 1 had observed at Blackmans Bay, the authors demonstrated that male and female anemones were distinctly clustered - 65% of the pools were ‘single¬ sex’ pools. Even within larger pools, males and females were clustered, suggesting they were clones. The authors collected eggs before the incoming tide inundated the pools, and determined the proportion that were fertilised. Unsurprisingly, that proportion was related to the proximity of spawning males within or in adjacent pools, and was very low in all-female pools. The authors proposed that releasing gametes in the pools with no water flow has the advantage that they suffer little dilution but the disadvantage that the flow of gametes among pools and hence gene flow within the population is restricted. I would expect that most of the gamete mixing and fertilisation occurs with the first wave of the incoming tide, before too much dilution takes place. However, the authors did not test this hypothesis since the rising tide immediately dispersed the gametes. The mass spawning of other cnidarians, hard coral species on coral reefs, has been recorded widely (NOAA 2012). Of the 400 species of coral on the Great Barrier Reef, 100 are synchronised to spawn on a few nights of the year in spring or early summer. Preparation (maturation of gonads) for spawning appears to be related to seasonal moon phases but the actual spawning by males and females may be synchronised by day length, time of sunset or a range of environmental events. Spawning of the intertidal shell grit anemone does not appear to be related to moon phases or day length since the same species in Victoria and Tasmania spawned during different months and moon phases. The events in common with these two spawnings are suitable water temperatures (about 18°C) associated with very low tides and calm seas. However, I have to wait another year to test this hypothesis. If I am lucky enough to be able to witness this amazing ever again, I will be better prepared to collect data such as distribution of the sexes, the size of spawning anemones and the environmental conditions. If we all keep a regular watch on the rock platforms during low tides next summer, perhaps we can learn more about the sex life of these simple yet complex animals. REFERENCES Ayre, D.J., Read, J. & Wishart, J. (1991). Genetic subdivision within the eastern Australian population of the sea anemone Actinia tenebrosa. Marine Biology; 109: 379-390. Billingham, M. & Ayre, D.J. (1996). Genetic subdivision in the subtidal, clonal sea anemone Anthothoe albocincta, Marine Biology> 125: 153— 163. Carefoot, T. (2010). A Snail’s Odyssey website [www.asnai lsodyssey.com/ LEARN ABOUT/ANEMONE/anemSe xu.php]. Edgar, G.J. (2008). Australian Marine Life: The Plants and Animals of Temperate Waters. New Holland Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd., Sydney. 15 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Hunt, A. & Ayre, D.J. (1989). Population structure in the sexually reproducing sea anemone Oulactis muscosa. Marine Biology 102: 537-544. Marshall, D.J., Semmens, D. & Cook, C. (2004). Consequences of spawning at low tide: limited gamete dispersal for a rockpool anemone. Marine Ecology Progress Series 266: 135-142. NO A A (2012). CORIS: Coral Reef Information System [http://coris.noaa.gov/about/biology/]. Shepherd, S.A. & Thomas, I.M. (eds) (1982). Marine Invertebrates of Southern Australia Part 1. Government Printer, South Australia. TMNA (Tasmanian Marine Naturalists Association) (2010). Between Tasmanian Tidelines. Tasmanian Marine Naturalists Association Inc. and Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart. © Jane Elek Plate 6. The site of the spawning event on the rock platform at Blackmans Bay 16 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) THE GREAT BACKYARD INVERTEBRATE SURVEY- WHAT WAS I THINKING? Text by Simon Fearn l Denis Drive, Riverside , Tasmania 7250; simonfearn@iprimus.net. an Photographs by David Maynard Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery, Launceston, Tasmania 7250; david. maynard@launceston. tas.gov. au INTRODUCTION The idea of attempting a more or less complete collection of all the invertebrates I could actually see on my typical quarter acre block had been percolating in my mind for several years. The catalyst to get me stalled on the project was discussions with the natural history staff of the Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery (QVMAG) in Launceston about the need for some sort of informal workshop process to get children interested in science, specifically biology through insect collection/study. The key to this was getting people interested in the invertebrates they shared their homes with. Most people have a backyard and most people have no idea of the invertebrate diversity and abundance in their own environment. I began to wonder just how many species might be involved. I set myself some fairly rigid parameters or guidelines for my proposed project. These were: • strictly limiting collecting to my block and adjoining nature strip; • collecting examples of everything regardless of how common it was; [Regional abundance does not necessarily equate with taxonomically well known. I also wanted to ensure the collection w'as as comprehensive as possible in order to provide a good ‘snapshot’ of the invertebrate diversity in urban Launceston at the beginning of the 21 st century]. • housing all the specimens at QVMAG as a standalone backyard project readily available to any researchers; and • not retreating in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds and seeing the project through until it was very rare for me to record a new species. THE COLLECTING SITE My house block is on a northeast facing slope in Riverside, Launceston, and is a fairly typical example of a late 1960s house and land package. When I moved to the address four years ago, the yard consisted almost entirely of degraded lawns with no “garden” to speak of at all. Only three established trees were present: a 40 year old lemon and apricot tree and a mature ‘snow in summer’ Melaleuca linariifolia. 1 have since extensively planted it out with a wide range of both Tasmanian and mainland Australian trees, shrubs and ground covers. My aim was to have something flowering all year round to actively assist in boosting invertebrate biodiversity. Before proceeding to the details of the collecting it is necessary to point out that there is no doubt that a native garden had a distinct bearing on the enormous diversity of invertebrates that I was able to collect in such a short time. Critical in this regard were native flowering trees and shrubs, rich in nectar, through 17 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) spring and summer. The most important of these were Leptospermum laevigatum , L. rotundifolium , L. lanigerum, L. morrisonii , L petersonii, L. scoparium , Kunzea ambigua, Baeckea virgata , Callistemon citrinus , C. lateritia and several species of small mallee eucalypts {Eucalyptus pauciflora , £. leucoxylon , E. wimmerensis , £. victrix ). These plants when in flower were responsible for attracting and concentrating for easy collection a galaxy of Diptera, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera and Hemiptera. Other native plants turned out to be very productive for different reasons. The eucalypts £. olivacea (marketed as ‘Summer Scentsation’), £. erythronema and the dwarf multi-stemmed form of E. globulus attracted a wide range of leaf eating Coleoptera, particularly chrysomelids, as well as a wide variety of Hemiptera and moth larvae. This diversity in turn appeared to attract a wide variety of parasitic wasps (Ichneumonidae) (Plate 1). A range of Banksia species were less productive, even in flower, but one species ( B . robur) displays very large, thick leathery leaves that appeared to act as the perfect basking pad for a wide range of wasps and flies early in the morning or during cool or overcast weather. In addition, these leaves appeared to be the ideal stage for male long legged flies (Dolicopodidae) (Plate 7) of at least three species to disport themselves in the hope of enticing females. GETTING STARTED A project such as this based at one’s place of residence has several excellent advantages. Firstly there is no expensive field kit or logistical difficulties to overcome as is often the case with extended field expeditions, there are no additional food or fuel costs and just as importantly no real time constraints. Another enormous advantage is ease of labeling. As all the specimens were being collected at one discrete locality 1 simply printed off hundreds of identical labels bearing the latitude, longitude, my address and name. A small gap was left to hand write in the date. As it turned out that very large numbers of species could be collected from single species of flowering plants, it was also very convenient to print out large numbers of a second label stating for example ‘On Kunzea ambigua blossom 1 . The only real expense in the project was large numbers of entomological pins of various sizes and industrial quantities of poly strips for staging small specimens transfixed with micro-pins. I am fortunate in having very steady hands and always prefer pinning even the smallest insects in preference to wet preservation. Having purchased some pins, made some setting boards and cleaned up some empty store boxes, in the second week of September 2012 I boldly stepped outside my back door with a pocket full of 50 ml specimen vials to begin the project. It is at this point that I wish I had reconsidered. By mid-October I had hundreds of specimens and had nearly filled a large store box. Several things became abundantly clear. The moth diversity appearing at my black light surprised me as well as the impressive array of spiders that were appearing everywhere with the onset of warmer weather. I quickly decided that I could only realistically hope to cope with collection and curation in my spare time if I left micro¬ moths, spiders and other arachnids until the following season. All the other insect groups I felt I could cope with as well as larger moths that were much quicker to set. At the back of my mind I knew that initially in the project, all species would be new to me but as time went by I would be collecting less and less material. This certainty prevented early onset insanity at times. 18 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Plate I. A selection of parasitic wasps (Ichneumonidae) from the author’s backyard: at least 31 species have so far been collected from a single quarter acre suburban block COLLECTING THROUGH THE SEASONS Early in the spring the most obvious and diverse group was the Diptera, particularly hover Hies (Syrphinae) in the genus Melangyna and Simosyrphus , soldier (lies (Stratiomyidae) in the Odontomyia genus, the first of several species of long legged flies (Dolicopodidae) in the genera Heteropsilopus and Parentia as well as the ubiquitous Calliphoridae (blowflies and bluebottles). Also present were a diverse range of small flies collected sitting on low foliage in the sun including a range of lauxanid and platystomatid taxa. The 19 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) collecting quickly went up a gear when the first Leptospermum flowered in mid- October. The first to go was L. laevigatum , which on warm days attracted swarms of several species of native bees, potter wasps (Paralastor spp.) as well as males of the large yellow' and black flower wasp Thvnnus zonatus. A range of nectar-feeding Coleoptcra also began to appear at this time including several species of pollen feeding beetles (Oedemeridae) and the wasp mimicking longicorn beetle Enchoptera apicalis. From mid-November until nearly Christmas the collecting went into overdrive with the blossoming of several specimens of Kunzea ambigua. The blossom of this species appears to be irresistible to all nectar-feeding insects and I added dozens of species to my tally. A range of additional native bee species suddenly put in an appearance including a big (15 mm) furry leaf cutter bee with a bronze face ( Megachile spp.) (Plate 2, row 2, far left) and the large orange and black wasp mimicking bee Hyleoides concinna (Plate 2, row r 3, far right). The species diversity of flies surprised me and additional species were being added on a daily basis. The most impressive were at least five species of the big bristly parasitic flies in the family Tachinidae (Plate 3). The largest in the Rutilia genus (female, Plate 3, top row, left; male, top row, right) were nearly big enough to saddle, and close behind were the distinctive black and white Amphibolia sp. (Plate 3, third row, middle). Towards the end of December the first jewel beetles turned up with several specimens of the black and yellow Castiarina australasiae being collected on the highest blossom on the uppermost shoots. The Kunzea also attracted very large numbers of ubiquitous Coleoptera such as soldier beetles Chauliognathus lugubris (Cantharidae), nectar scarabs Phyllotocus nifipennis (Melolonthinae) and orange longicorns Stenoderus suturalis (Cerambycidae). It goes without saying that it is also worth checking the same flowering shrubs at night. Clouds of two-tone nectar scarabs Phyllotocus macleayi (Melolonthinae) were typically present but also a wide diversity of noctuid moths, which were so intent on lapping up the nectar with their long proboscis, that they were unconcerned at being watched by torch light. 1 was beginning to panic a little at this stage because I was struggling to keep up with setting and labeling all these specimens. But again, the advantages of a home-based project came to the fore. I was killing and storing the specimens in my freezer, which meant that the only real pressure was self- inflicted in that I very much wanted to complete the bulk of the project in a single season. If kept in suitably sealed containers, insects will remain viable in a freezer for at least a decade. 1 recently thawed, gutted and set a large series of giant burrowing cockroaches ( Macropanesthea rhinoceros) that I have carted around with me from freezer to freezer all over eastern Australia after drowning in their thousands on Magnetic Island, north Queensland, during a cyclone in 1998. By the end of December the Kunzea had finished flowering and I appeared to have plateaued in terms of new nectar feeding species being collected during the day. Nocturnal collecting, however, was a different matter. Light trapping I conducted my light trapping with a 1.2 m fluorescent black light run off mains power. I just stood the light baton on its end and lent it up against my back wall. A black light is essential for understanding the insect fauna active in and around your property at night. Some groups cannot be properly sampled or the species diversity even appreciated without light trapping. A good example is the ground beetles in the family Carabidac. 20 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) 41 g 2S’ia 1SS _ I k|, RiWrud*.LiunctstOA, T»i. S. F«m 41*2yi3.m ^ 147*06'28.S9E Tjj. S. Feam Taj. S. Feam Tas- 5. Feam 41 # 2S'13.18S .. I S Riverside, Launcciton, TaJ. S. Feam 4i*2sa3.ias In I Riverside, Launceston, Tas. S. Feam Plate 2. Eighteen species of native bee collected from the author’s garden: since this photograph was taken, two further species have been identified bringing the total number of species collected so far on a single quarter acre suburban block to 20 On the few hot nights each summer a whole range of otherwise very cryptic, small and elusive species disperse in large numbers and can be sampled with relative ease. I turned the light on every night I was home to make sure I captured as many different species as possible as there are some species (e.g. the large orange parasitic wasps in the Ophion genus (Plate 1, top row, middle)) that appear to favour relatively cool nights to fly when not much else is active. However, it is on the handful of really hot, humid nights in summer and early autumn that insect bonanzas take place. In only a few hours on single nights I have collected dozens of additional species, mainly Coleoptera and Hemiptera with at least five species of lace wings (Neuroptera), crane flies (Tipulidae), winged ant alates of a range of species, mantids and the occasional male stick insect (Ctenomorpha marginipennis) thrown into the mix. As mentioned earlier in this article, 1 was trying to ignore all but the largest moths until next season. It is just as well that I decided on this course of action because the moth diversity was much greater than I envisaged at the start of the project and I 21 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) 4: 23-38. Hobday, AJ. & Minstrell, M.L. (2008). Distribution and abundance of roadkill on Tasmanian highways: human management options. Wildlife Research 35: 712-726. Jones, M.E. (2000). Road upgrade, road mortality and remedial measures: impacts on a population of eastern quolls and Tasmanian devils. Wildlife Research 27: 289-296. Kamoun, S. & Hogenhout, S.A. (1996). Flightlessness and rapid terrestrial locomotion in tiger beetles of the Cicindela L. subgenus Rivacindela van Nidek from saline habitats of Australia (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). The Coleopterists Bulletin 50(3): 221-230. Meggs, J.M. (1997). Simsons Stag Beetle, Hoplogonus simsoni, in North-east Tasmania: Distribution , Habitat Characteristics and Conservation Requirements. An unpublished report to the Forest Practices Board and Forestry Tasmania. Meggs, J.M., Munks, S.A. & Corkrey, R. (2003). The distribution and habitat characteristics of a threatened lucanid beetle, Hoplogonus simsoni , in north¬ east Tasmania. Pacific Conservation Biology’9(3): 172-186. Meggs, J.M., Munks, S.A., Corkery, R. & Richards, K. (2004). Development and evaluation of predictive habitat models to assist the conservation planning of a threatened lucanid beetle, Hoplogonus simsoni , in north-east Tasmania. Biological Conservation 118: 501-511. Mesibov, B. (1988). Tasmanian Onychophora. Unpublished report to the Department of Land, Parks and Wildlife, Hobart. 39 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Mooney, N. & Spencer, C. (1999). Why did the platypus cross the road? Australian Mammalogy’ 21 (2): 264. Rink, M. & Sinsch, U. (2011). Warm summers negatively affect duration of activity period and condition of adult stag beetles ( Lucanus cervus). Insect Conservation and Diversity / 4: 15-22. Taylor, B.D. & Goldingay, R.L. (2010). Roads and wildlife: impacts, mitigation and implications for wildlife management in Australia. Wildlife Research 37: 320-331. Threatened Species Section (2012). Listing statement for Hoplogonus simsoni (Simsons Stag Beetle). Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania. 40 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) JIMBLES IN THE DERWENT Simon Grove Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery, GPO Box 1164, Hobart, Tasmania 7001; simon.gr ove@tmag. tas.gov. au On Saturday 24 th February 2013, a fine summer afternoon, I went snorkelling with my family at Minsby Beach, Taroona. The sea was calm and the water was clear, but still cold enough for me to don my wetsuit and gloves. 1 had only just reached water that was too deep for standing in when I spotted a box-jelly, actively zig-zagging backwards and forwards, within a metre of the surface. Within the space of ten minutes or so, we had spotted at least another two. All were within about ten metres of each other, swimming over a sandy seabed. I cornered one between my gloved hands and managed to escort it to shore, where I transferred it to a plastic water-bottle. 1 then swam the entire length of the beach at a similar distance from the shore, but failed to find any more. At home, I transferred the box-jelly to a small sea-water aquarium. It continued to swim actively for the rest of the day, always heading towards the light. It was still busy the following day, though looking a bit leaner and less active towards the evening. I tried feeding it scraps of tuna, but it didn’t seem interested. The following morning I brought the now rather tired and battered-looking animal in to my workplace at Rosny, and invited our local jellyfish expert, Lisa Gershwin, to take a look at it prior to me photographing it (Plate 1) and preserving it for the Tasmanian Museum’s scientific collections. She confirmed that it was indeed a southern box-jelly, Carybdea rastoni (Haacke, 1836), also known as a jimble. She explained that when adult, the species has a bell diameter of about 30 mm, and so my specimen, at about half that diameter, was probably still juvenile. However, she also explained that in the absence of food, they digest their own bodies and shrink accordingly. Box-jellies are cubozoans and only distantly related to the scyphozoan moon- jellies and their ilk which are often abundant in Tasmanian waters. Unlike scyphozoans, which tend to drift with the currents, box-jellies are very active predators, with a level of nous that you wouldn’t expect in a lowly cnidarian. Jimbles have a pair of amazingly complex eyes on each of the four sides of the bell. They also seem to have enough neural processing power - despite lacking an obvious centralised brain - to make sense of the information that the eyes provide. They use this to avoid obstacles and perhaps to help them hunt small crustaceans and fish. They ensnare their prey in their venomous tentacles, of which they have only four - one at each corner of the bell. Nearly all species of box-jelly are coastal, and tropical or sub-tropical. The genus Carybea is unusual in that some of its member species occur in more temperate waters such as the Mediterranean, California, South Africa and New Zealand. The range of Catybdea rastoni is currently considered to extend from the north Pacific into southern Australian waters, including the Bass Strait coast of Tasmania. According to local expert Graham Edgar (pers. comm.), they have once been spotted at Bicheno, but neither he nor Lisa Gershwin was aware of them having previously been found any further south. Along the southern coast of mainland Australia, they can occur in dense aggregations of hundreds of individuals. 41 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Fortunately for us southerners, jimbles are not normally considered dangerous, unlike some of their tropical cousins whose venom induces severe pain and even death. However, jimbles can inflict a nasty sting on naked flesh whose pain may endure for a couple of hours and may be followed by a red welt that can last for weeks. The recommended treatment for stings is to apply vinegar (because the acid denatures the stinging-cells), but not to brush the wound site if the tentacle is still embedded, as this can set off more stings. I returned to Hinsby Beach to look for more jimbles on two occasions during the subsequent week. The second occasion was an early morning visit, because elsewhere this species is known to show peaks in activity around dawn and dusk. However, neither visit produced any further specimens. Neither did I spot any on subsequent snorkelling trips at Taroona later into the summer or autumn. Nevertheless, assuming that the Derwent jimbles are recent arrivals and haven’t merely been overlooked, their presence conforms to a pattern of increasing numbers of warmer-water species sighted in southern Tasmania (seasnake: Cube & Ling 2012; turtles: Bauer 2011). Together, these observations lend support to the idea that our southern waters are becoming unusually warm - a pattern consistent with climate-change predictions. For further information on the fascinating biology and physiology of jimbles - including why my jimble wouldn’t feed but kept swimming towards the light, and perhaps why I didn’t encounter any more when out snorkelling in a dark wetsuit - I recommend tracking down a copy of Matsumoto (1995) (as Lisa Gershwin kindly did for me). ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I thank Lisa Gershwin for showing such willingness and enthusiasm in sharing her knowledge of jimbles and other jellies with me. REFERENCE Bauer, B. (2011). Marine turtle occurrences in Tasmanian waters: 1846-2010. Kammnah 4: 48-58. Cube, C. & Ling, H. (2012). Observation of a yellow-bellied seasnake ( Pelamis platurus) on Maria Island. The Tasmanian Naturalist 134: 92-94. Matsumoto, G.I. (1995). Observations on the anatomy and behaviour of the cubozoan Carybdea rastonii Haacke. Marine and Freshwater Behavioural Physiology 26: 139-148. Plate 1. The Taroona jimble specimen, photographed in a dish of sea-water two days after capture, by which time it was looking rather tired and battered and had lost two of its four tentacles 42 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) FURTHER ORNITHOLOGICAL AND OTHER OBSERVATIONS FROM GOOSE ISLAND, BASS STRAIT, 2012 Els Wakefield 1 & Bruce Robertson 2 1 12 Altna-Craig Avenue, Mount Stuart, Tasmania 7000; elsandbill@iprimus.com.au; 2 School of Life Sciences, Department of Environmental Management & Ecology (Marine Ornithology Group), La Trobe University, PO Box 821, Wodonga, Victoria 3689 This article follows the initial report by Wakefield et al. (2010) of ornithological and botanical observations from Goose Island. Dr Bruce Robertson and Els Wakefield visited Goose Island during October and November 2012 for over three weeks to continue their research into the birds and plants on the island. This is the 6 ,h visit to Goose Island since the research hut was built there in 2003. More on the Pacific Gulls In 2011, we looked at the three breeding strategies adopted by the Pacific Gull: nesting as solitary pairs, nesting in a loose colony or nesting as a tight colony (Wakefield & Robertson 2012). The results for 2012 have confirmed that the preferred strategy by the gulls appears to be to nest as a tight colony. The gulls nesting in the tight colonies have been the first to lay eggs for the past two years. When we arrived this year, it appeared that the birds were nesting earlier than in previous years. The vegetation and other evidence around the island suggested that it was drier than many of the previous seasons. On our first day in the field, we found twelve nests already with eggs. The season appeared to be off to a Hying start. We found more nests with three eggs in our first eight days than we did for the whole of the previous season but then things started to change: • the number of new nests found each day with an egg never really hit the same high daily peak that they did in previous years; • the interval between eggs being laid is usually two days - we soon noticed that birds were taking three, four and even five days to lay a subsequent egg; • the number of nests with three eggs slowed after the first week of breeding; • the number of nests with only one egg increased steadily as the season progressed; • the number of pairs nesting as loose colonies and as isolated pairs was significantly down on previous years: the birds were present, they were making their nests but they were failing to lay any eggs; and • the average clutch size for the birds on the study transect this season was 1.90 eggs (this is about the same as it has been for the past two breeding seasons but is down on what was found for the 2005-6 season). We cannot be sure of the reasons behind what we have observed here but we suspect that it will be related to the food supply (both quality and quantity) for the Pacific Gulls on the island. Judging by observations of debris around nest sites, the main food for the gulls seems to be squid although there are also fish bones, crab shells and other leftovers. Pacific Gulls on Goose Island are most active at night when 43 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) the squid come to the surface. Blackening around the heads of the gulls, personal observations of squid regurgitation and the number of squid beaks around nests are further evidence. We did a simple exercise of measuring fifteen fresh Pacific Gull nests that were on the point of egg lay. This is to complement work done in the late 1970s and early 1980s on Green Island, near Hobart, and Chalky Island in the Furneaux Group. We also did a lot of work to investigate the amount of weight loss of the Pacific Gull eggs during incubation. All bird eggs must lose some water (between 5-10% of the original egg mass) during the incubation period. If an egg loses too much moisture, then the chick dries out and dies before hatching. If the egg loses too little moisture, then the chick hatches with water in its muscles. It cannot stand and it will die. Nobody has previously looked to see how much water Pacific Gull eggs lose during incubation. While in close contact with a breeding colony of Pacific Gulls for an extended time, we have an ideal opportunity to observe their calls and behaviour. We have learnt to distinguish between the various cries of the birds including the specific calls they make just before and during coitus, which occurs only once each breeding season. This enabled us to take a distant photograph of a mating pair, probably the first image of such an event (Plate 1). Other birds We kept daily records of all the birds and vegetation on the island. Some unusual bird observations included both male and female Satin Flycatchers as well as two Blue¬ winged Parrots, all on a stopover. Two Mountain Duck were recorded flying down the island. It sounded as if there were other interesting birds in the area of the hut until we realised that a Starling outside the doorway was doing some excellent bird imitations including a Lewin’s Rail and various cuckoos! However, positive proof of the presence of Lewin’s Rail was the discovery of a tiny, black chick found dead under a bush. Apart from the Lewin's Rail and the Pacific Gulls, we now also have positive breeding records for 2012 of Masked Lapwing, White-fronted Chat, Sooty Oystercatcher, Cape Barren Goose, European Goldfinch, Little Grassbird, Brown Quail and Starling. There was a single young female Kelp Gull observed for a few days near the main Pacific Gull colony possibly having a stopover before flying on. A badly decomposed gull carcass was taken to the Tasmanian Museum for identification as it was difficult for us to identify and looked unusual. It appears to have been another young Kelp Gull. Botanical notes Regarding the vegetation, two new plants were taken to the Tasmanian Herbarium for positive identification and registration. These were Spergularia tasmanica (greater seaspurrey) and Mimulus repens (creeping monkeyfiower). The Alyxia buxifolia (seabox) is still to flower so that it can be registered with the herbarium. Judging by its slow growth, this may take a few years. Other notes The absences from Goose Island are intriguing. There are no historical or current records of snakes despite the close proximity of Chappell Island, which is renowned for the largest tiger snakes in Australia. Could the strong currents and prevailing winds be prohibiting colonisation? There is certainly food for them in the ground nesting species on the island. There are no rabbits, rats, mice or cats despite the previous occupation of lighthouse keepers. There are no large ants. However, the image of a paradise is slightly 44 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) marred by the presence of penguin fleas and sandflies so even Goose Island is not perfect! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to thank everyone on Flinders Island who helped to make this visit such a success and we look forward to returning again next year for an extended period on Goose Island. REFERENCES Wakefield, B., Hayward, E. & Robertson, B. (2010). Observations of avian and botanical species on Goose Island, November 2009. The Tasmanian Naturalist 132: 20-22. Wakefield, E. & Robertson, B. (2012). Further ornithological observations from Goose Island, Bass Strait, 2011-2012. The Tasmanian Naturalist 134: 50-52. 45 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) ECOLOGY OF THE ENDANGERED DENSE LEEK-ORCHID PRASOPHYLLUM CREBRIFLORUM IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING A BURN AT SURREY HILLS GRASSLANDS, NORTHWEST TASMANIA Phil Collier Rubicon Sanctuary’, PO Box 261, Port Sorell, Tasmania 7307; all@rubicon.org.au INTRODUCTION Threatened Plants Tasmania (TPT) has embarked on several orchid monitoring projects around the State. Teasing out population dynamics for threatened orchid species, in terms of individual plant life-history or population stability, is a long-term project that requires laudable attention to detail from the volunteers involved. In the meantime, opportunities can arise to learn about specific aspects of a population and/or site. This paper details one such opportunity that arose from “early season’' monitoring of monitored Prasophyllum crebrijlorum and Prasophyllum mimulum populations at Westwing Plain (Plates 1 & 2), part of the Surrey Mills Estate in northwest Tasmania. The “early season” monitoring followed a bum of Westwing Plain, and was mainly for the purpose of re-finding all the monitored plants in the blackened landscape. This monitoring has also enabled us to characterise differences in plant regeneration in burnt versus unburnt sites and related grazing effects. This paper provides a background to the monitoring project, an overview of our methods and presentation of our results. BACKGROUND Prasophyllum crebrijlorum (Plate 3a) was discovered in 1999 by botanists on a field day looking at grassland management, and was subsequently described (Jones 2003) after the publication of the comprehensive book The Orchids of Tasmania (Jones et al. 1999). The type location for the species is at Westwing Plain, part of Gunns Ltd's Surrey Hills Estate. Prasophyllum crebrijlorum is listed as endangered under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 , and Critically Endangered under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Many new populations of Prasophyllum crebrijlorum have been found since 1999, including some populations with contentious identity south of the Great Lake (that is a story for another occasion). Westwing Plain is classified as ^Highland Poa Grassland' (Harris & Kitchener 2005), a TASVEG vegetation community that is listed as threatened on Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Consolation Act 2002. These grasslands are subject to invasion by native shrubs, most notably Hakea microcarpa , especially given a lack of disturbance by fire. Consequently the management plan for Westwing Plain (Gunns 2010) requires regular burning of the grassland. Because the Plain also supports a population of the Ptunarra Brown Butterfly, also listed as threatened, any fires have to be timed to support orchids that flower in summer and butterflies that fly in autumn (Gunns 2010). Winter or spring burning makes control of the fires easier because the open grassland dries out much more quickly than the shady 46 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Plate 1. Preparing for Prasophyllum crebriflorum monitoring at Westwing Plain, January 2012, prior to the August 2012 burn Plate 2. Westwing Plain on 1 August 2012, following a patchy bum on 5 June 2012 47 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Plate 3a. Prasophyllum crebriflorum 22 Jan. 2010, Westwing Plain Plate 3b. Prasophyllum mimulum 22 Jan. 2010, Westwing Plain understorey of the surrounding forest at this time of year. In recent times, the Plain was burnt in August 2008 and June 2012. In common with most of Tasmania’s threatened orchid species, very little is known about the ecology of Prasophyllum crebriflorum. Plants in this genus are generally perennial, emerging from an underground tuber each year, or possibly dormant in some years. The life-span of individual plants, recruitment of new plants, population size and stability are all unknown. A common question that arises for terrestrial orchids is the need for disturbance, and, if needed, the frequency of disturbance. Again nothing is known in detail. To gain some insights into these questions, a program of demographic monitoring (Duncan & Coates 2006; Coates et al. 2006) was commenced at Westwing Plain in January 2009, following the August 2008 bum. A complication for demographic monitoring at Westwing Plain is that a second related species of orchid, Prasophyllum mimulum (Plate 3 b), co-occurs with Prasophyllum crebriflorum. While Prasophyllum mimulum is not a listed species, it is retained in our monitoring program for the purpose of comparison between two related species. Il also provides us with sufficient aggregated 48 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) data to use the statistical tests described in this paper. At the start of the monitoring at Westwing Plain, infertile plants of the two species were indistinguishable to human observers, and even now, having collected five years of measurements, we cannot reliably distinguish plants of these two species in the absence of open flowers. METHODS The demographic monitoring method tracks the same individual plants over successive years and records their emergence and/or reproductive effort each year. The precise details of how this is achieved are beyond the scope of this paper (available on request). In summary, Westwing Plain has been visited each summer from 2009/10 to 2012/13 to examine plants previously found and tagged, and optionally add to the existing collection of tagged plants. In January 2009, an initial population of 80 plants was found and tagged prior to the completion of flowering. Subsequent visits later in January and early February enabled further plants to be identified in flower, but also bore witness to considerable grazing pressure on the tagged plants (Larcombe 2009), meaning that many tagged plants are of unknown identity. Over the following three flowering periods from 2010 to 2012, Threatened Plants Tasmanian (TPT - note 1) volunteers visited Westwing Plain on or around 25 January to inspect previously tagged plants and record any above ground growth. Each year it was also possible to find previously untagged plants in full flower, some of which were tagged and added to the collection of known plants. By January 2012, the flowering rate of previously known Prasophyllum crebriflorum plants had declined from 26.2% in 2010 to 3.2%, i.e. 2 out of 63 previously known plants (Table 1). The 2011-12 Monitoring Report (Collier 2012) recommended a burn of the Plain in an effort to determine whether disturbance would restore the flowering rates and thereby contribute to our understanding of the population dynamics through a disturbance cycle. In response to the report, staff from Gunns Ltd burnt the Plain in June 2012, a burn which was patchy partly because the grass tussocks were damper than expected (Plate 2). The method in summer 2012-13 differed from the previous three seasons. A visit to the Plain in early December 2012 aimed to re-find all the tags in the burn and provide a record of observed leaf emergence much earlier in the season than previously. We also noted whether plants were in a burnt or unburnt area, and measured the height of stubble for those in burnt places. The annual field trip to observe and measure plants at flowering time was on approximately the same date as in previous years. RESULTS OF MONITORING For presentation of results, we always focus on the number of tagged plants that were known in the previous season. This limits any bias in the results from plants that are newly found and tagged, which in every season after 2008-9 were flowering plants. Table 1 presents a summary results for each of the years 2010 to 2013, reiterating that these results report on plants that had been known and monitored for at least two seasons. The bottom row of this table reveals a result contrary' to our expectations: the burn resulted in the lowest overall proportion of tagged plants in flower by January 2013 and, in particular, a lower proportion than in January 2012. This overall result is mirrored in the January 2013 results for Prasophyllum crebriflorum , which has an unbroken decline in emergence and flowering over all the years of monitoring (Figure 1). 49 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Table 1. Observations of emergence events, at least one year after plants were first tagged [in 2013, an additional Prasophyllum crebriflorum plant had an aborted flower stem, and one plant with unknown identity had a flower stem in bud enclosed within the leaf] P. mini. P. creb. Unknown Total Tagged plants in 2009, current ID 20 23 35 78 Plant emerged in January 2010 6 (30%) 7 (30.4%) 4 17(21.8%) and flowered 2 (10%) 6 (26.1%) / 9 (11.5%) Tagged plants in 2010, current ID 22 43 35 100 Plant emerged in January 2011 4(18.2%) 10(23.3%) 4 18(18.0%) andflowered 1 (4.5%) 6(14.0%) 2 9(9.0%) Tagged plants in 2011, current ID 22 63 36 121 Plant emerged in January' 2012 1 (4.5%) 6 (9.5%) 4 11 (9.1%) andflowered 0(0%) 2 (2.2%) 2 4 (3.3%) Tagged plants in 2012, current ID 23 11 36 136 Plant emerged in December 2012 11 (47.8%) 27(35.1%) 14 52 (38.2%) Plant emerged in January 2013 5(21.7%) 5 (6.5%) 3 13 (9.6%) and flowered 0(0%) 2 (2.6%) / 3 (2.2%) In contrast, the proportion of previously tagged plants that we observed as emerged in December 2012 is the highest that we have seen, but we have not previously looked this early in the season. The additional data that we collected in December 2012 provides an opportunity to look for reasons for the stark difference in recorded leaf emergence compared with January 2013. Figure 2 shows comparisons between the proportion of Prasophyllum spp. leaves that were found in December 2012 and those found in January 2013, partitioned by whether a plant was in a burnt or unbumt site (note 2). If we make the plausible assumption that leaves that had disappeared between the two field trips were grazed, then Figure I suggests that leaves in burnt sites were preferentially grazed. A y 2 test indicates that there is a significant change in the distribution of plants with grazed leaves between December 2012 and January 2013 (p<0.05) (note 3). In a previous experiment at Rubicon Sanctuary, involving caged and uncaged Prasophyllum rostratum plants in a recently burnt site, we found that caged plants were significantly more likely to flower and fruit than uncaged plants. This adds to the evidence that grazing by herbivores is likely to be a cause of this decline in the more open burnt sites. An indication of a more vigorous plant is a fatter leaf, as measured by maximum width of the tubular Prasophyllum spp. leaf, sufficient to enclose a flower stem (note 4). Prasophyllum plants of some species can be observed to respond to a fire with more vigorous emergence (note 5). We examine the widths of emerged leaves in December 2012, comparing those in burnt sites with those in unbumt sites (Figure 3) (note 6). In 2012/13 at Westwing Plain, leaves in a burnt site had average width of 3.9 mm, while those in an unbumt site had average width of 2.6 mm; as expected the fatter leaves are in burnt sites. Comparing these 50 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year Figure 1. Percentage of known Prasophyllum crebrijlorum plants that were observed to have emerged and flowered in January each year C (D to QJ k_ Q. to CD > CD CD O CD CUO CU 4-» c CD u CD Q. Date of observation Figure 2. The proportion of leaves that were observed to have emerged in December 2012 compared with those in January 2013, partitioned by whether a plant was in a burnt or unburnt site 51 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Leaf width (mm) Figure 3. The distribution of leaf widths for those leaves that had emerged in burnt or unburnt sites in December 2012 E E ~a 5 H- ro 0.05, P. mimulum p>0.05 and Unknown p<0.05. In all cases the number of plants that we observed to be emerged in January 2013 is five or less ( Table 1). In each classification, two or three cells in the 2x2 contingency table contain values less than 5. This is often viewed as being below the threshold for reliable use of the x test, and also makes the results highly dependent upon completely accurate data. In contrast, when aggregating all three classifications, all four cells in the contingency table contain values that are >5. Note 4 . We have examined all years of monitoring data from 2009 to 2013, which tends to confirm the association between leaf width and the likelihood of a plant flowering. For flowering plants, the mean width of P. crebriflorum leaves is 3.4 mm (n=85), while that of non-flowering plants is 2.3 mm (n=l0). A two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance of the two samples leads to a conclusion that the observed difference in leaf widths is highly significant (p<0.01). For P. mimulum flowering plants, the mean width of leaves is 3.2 mm (n=26) and while for non¬ flowering plants, the mean leaf width is 2.8 mm (n=13). The difference here is non-significant, but there is an observed leaf width of 5 mm in the non-flowering partition that is a clear outlier. Given that very careful observation is required to distinguish between a flowering and non¬ flowering plant that has been heavily grazed, we exclude this observation, and the t-test then becomes significant (p<0.0l). Note 5. P. crebriflorum plants may be an exception to this observation. Every year between 2009 and 2013 it has been possible to find untagged flowering plants within the transect. In most years we tagged a representative sample of the newly discovered plants, so it is unlikely that these were the same untagged plants each year. There may be additional unknown triggers at Westwing Plain for vigorous emergence that leads to flowering. Note 6. In all years of monitoring at flowering time from 2009 to 2013, the maximum leaf width measurement is 5.5 mm. 'There arc six leaf measurements that are greater than this in the December 2012 data, but none greater than 5 mm by January 2013. There is only one instance of a leaf that was measured to be greater than 5 mm in December 2012 (measured to be 7 mm) and surviving until January 2013 (then measured to be 5 mm). We do not have access to relevant theory or to sufficient data to be able to draw any conclusions about this. 55 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (201 j) A KING-CRICKET IN TASMANIA...NOT Simon Grove Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery, GPO Box 1164, Hobart, Tasmania 7001; simon.grove@tmag. tas.gov. au In 1977, The Tasmanian Naturalist carried an article by Alison Green, then zoology curator at the Tasmanian Museum, entitled A king cricket in Tasmania (Green 1977). 1 he article recounted the extraordinary discovery in Hobart's Lenah Valley ol a king-cricket Australostoma (now Anostostoma) species (Orthoptera: Stcnopelmatidae). According to brothers Carl and Zane Cazaly, who donated the live cricket to the Museum, the animal had been found the previous day, 6 February, in bushland near their home in Brushy Creek Road ‘about three feet underground, among loose, shaly rock, near eucalypt trees . There are several species of Anostostoma, all confined to eastern Australia but none otherwise known from further south than Eden in New South Wales. Alison noted in her article that ‘no previous record of a king cricket in Tasmania has been traced’, and that it was indeed surprising that ‘such a spectacular insect had escaped notice until now’. She suggested that the specimen might be A. australasiae Gray, 1837, the largest species, whose known distribution takes in coastal Southeast Queensland and Northern New South Wales. She preserved the specimen in a jar of ethanol and added it to the museum’s collections (registration number F495 - Plate 1). Plate 1. Anostostoma australasiae, specimen F495 Thirty-five years later I received an enquiry, via Bob Mesibov, from Peter Johns, an expert on wetas (close cousins of king-crickets) in New Zealand. Peter had stumbled on The Tasmanian Naturalist article and, intrigued, requested further information on the specimen’s provenance and identity. After all, while some of New Zealand’s wetas are very cold-tolerant, this wasn’t considered to be the case for Australia’s king-crickets, so what was one doing in southern Tasmania? I found the specimen in good condition, still in its original jar. It’s an impressive-looking insect (Plate 1) - at 75 mm, much bigger than Tasmania’s otherwise superficially similar raspy-cricket Kinemania ambulans (Erichson, 1842). My personal attempts to identify it beyond the generic level got no further than Alison’s, and so I sent a 56 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) photograph to Peter. He felt that the animal was almost certainly A. australasiae , probably a late-instar male. Peter suggested that, for a definitive identification, 1 should contact Geoff Monteith, a retired entomologist from the Queensland Museum with more than a passing interest in king-crickets (Monteith & Field 2001). Geoff s response confirmed the identity of the Lcnah Valley specimen as an adult male A. australasiae. But in his expert opinion, it was ‘not feasible that something like that could be in Tasmania naturally without being noticed previously'. Geoff went on to consider that the most likely scenario was that someone had taken a live one back to Tasmania from its native range, perhaps as a curiosity, and subsequently lost it or released it. He said that he was aware of ‘cowboy' live pet dealers who trade in them, selling them to bikies and others who like to buy them to ‘scare their mates'. I do not know if there were bikies living in Lenah Valley in 1977; but 1 think that we can now be quite sure that Tasmania’s only known king-cricket specimen was not part of a resident population. Case closed. REFERENCES Green, A. (1977). A king cricket in Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist 49: 7. Monteith, G.B & Field, L.H. (2001). Australian king crickets: distribution, habitats and biology (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae). pp.79-94. IN: L.H. Field (ed.) The Biology of Wetas, King Crickets and Their Allies. CAB I Publishing, Wallingford, UK. 57 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (20 1j) A CHECKLIST OF THE MACROFUNGI AT THE WOODVINE NATURE RESERVE Genevieve Gates & David Ratkowsky Schools of Agricultural Science & Plant Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001; genevieve.gates@utas.edu.au, d.ratkowsky@utas.edu.au INTRODUCTION The Woodvine Nature Reserve is a 377 hectare property situated in southeast Tasmania, about 45 kilometres east of Hobart and c. 8 kilometres from Forcett. 1 he most recent owner of the property was H.E. ‘Ernie’ Shaw, his great-grandparents having settled there in 1861. Desirous of protecting the animals that lived there, and wishing to preserve its unique vegetation, Mr Shaw donated the property to the Crown in 1998, and because of its relatively low levels of clearing and very' low grazing pressure, its high order of natural values resulted in it being proclaimed as a nature reserve in 2001. In contrast with much of the neighbouring land, the reserve retains an extensive cover of native vegetation (c. 85% of its area) that is deemed to be important for the conservation of rare and threatened species of plants and animals and vegetation communities at the local, regional State and national level. The reserve supports representative examples of vegetation communities that have now been extensively cleared in southeastern Tasmania. In particular, it has three vegetation communities considered significant, namely Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and woodland on sandstone, Eucalyptus ovata heathy woodland, and Themeda triandra lowland grassland. Its areas of buttongrass (Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus ) and wetland with sphagnum moss species occur below the minimum rainfall levels for their expected range, the mean annual rainfall for this area of subhumid climate being about 500 mm. Figure 1. Location of Woodvine Nature Reserve (grids = 1 km; red dot = entrance/homestead) 58 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) The first week of 2013 in southern Tasmania was noteworthy for its extreme hot weather. A record high temperature of 41.8°C was recorded in Hobart during the afternoon of 4 January. The accompanying extreme drying conditions throughout the whole of southern Tasmania resulted in devastating bushfires on that day, leading to the destruction of 65 properties at Dunalley and some other communities in Tasmania’s southeast. In the path of that destruction, the fire swept through the settlements of Forcett and Copping, burning out much of the vegetation at the Woodvine Nature Reserve (Plate 1). This provided us with the opportunity to monitor the macrofungi of that reserve, by making periodic visits and recording the species that were the first to reappear as the vegetation and the habitat recovered after the fire. The authors have conducted surveys of the macrofungi of Tasmania on a continuous basis since April 1998, the majority of them being best described as 'casual’. That is, in contrast to scientific surveys where formal transects are laid out, usually in a limited area of a plot, we followed existing walking tracks and recorded in a notebook the species of fungi that were observed along the track. These forays, as we prefer to call them, resulted in species lists being prepared for 91 individual locations throughout Tasmania (Ratkowsky & Gates 2005). As a result of that experience, we felt that this casual approach would be suitable to use at Woodvine, rather than a transect method, the latter restricting the area of the reserve that could be visited. METHODS A map of the location of the Woodvine Nature Reserve is given in Figure 1. The carpark and entrance to the reserve, near the location of the old homestead, is shown in Figure 1 as a red dot. For the fungal survey, a track (being the remnants of an old road) was followed in an easterly direction for a distance of approximately 2 km, terminating at a swampy area situated at the base of Mother Browns Bonnet, whose elliptical contours are visible in the upper right-hand corner of Figure 1. Any macrofungi that were observed during the walk were recorded in a notebook. Representative samples of any species unknown to us were collected and taken back to Hobart for microscopic examination and study. Voucher collections were made of each species when it was recorded for the first time during this survey and will be deposited in the National Herbarium of Victoria (MEL). Nine visits were made to the reserve in the year 2013, on the following dates: 21 April, 30 April, 21 May, 4 June, 20 June, 7 July, 25 July, 8 August and 22 August. We were aided in the surveying by members of the Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club (TFNC) and on 7 July we had a ‘fungi blitz’ as part of a TFNC monthly excursion. RESULTS & DISCUSSION In total, 57 species were identified from the reserve (Table 1), ranging from species that appeared once only to others that were observed on as many as eight visits. No species was recorded during all nine visits. One of the ways of displaying and interpreting the information in Table 1 is to focus attention on each of the dates on which visits were made. Thus, Figure 2 shows the species richness (number of species observed) at each visit. The pattern seen in Figure 2 is typical of the pattern of fungal emergence from other surveys in Tasmania. Once the season began in response to the autumn rains after the dryness of summer, the observed species richness increased to a maximum (which occurred here with 30 species observed on 20 June) and then fell off to lower values at winter’s end. The slight ups and downs experienced from visit to visit may or may not reflect autumn and winter rainfall events. To investigate this, we examined 59 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Tabic 1. Macrofungal species observed at Woodvine Nature Reserve, and the number of visits (max. 9) at which each species was observed Species name and authority No. of records Amanita cf. luteofusca Cleland & E.-J. Gilbert 1 Anthracobia aff. muelleri (Berk.) Rifai PLATE 2 8 Cantharellus concinnus Berk. PLATE 9 1 Castoreum radicatum Cooke & Massee 2 Cortinarius C 374 'ruby Phlegmaciuni PLATE 4 1 Cortinarius C 375 'orange brown' 1 Cortinarius C 377 'frosted brown' 3 Cortinarius C 378 'brown Dermocybe with umbo' 3 Cortinarius C 379 'glutinous ochre' 1 Cortinarius 'orange-brown, white bloom to stipe' 8 Cortinarius 'small brown Dermocybe with reddish fibrils on stipe' 1 Cortinarius 'sticky ochre yellow' 2 Dacrymyces sp. 1 Descolea recedens (Sacc.) Singer 8 Discinella terrestris (Berk. & Broome) Dennis 1 Endogone sp. EB 243 1 Entoloma conferendum (Britzelm.) Noordel. 1 Entoloma convexum G. Stev. 1 Entoloma percrinitum G.M. Gates & Noordel. PLATE 10 1 Entoloma sericeum Quel. 1 Fistulina hepatica (Schaeff.) With. 2 Fistulinella mollis Watling 1 Gymnopus 'pale brown on wood' 1 Gymnoptis 'small, yellow' PLATE 5 8 Hebeloma 'large viscid, vinaceous' 1 Hydnum repandum L. 1 Hygrocybe firma (Berk. & Broome) Singer 2 Hygrocybe graminicolor (E. Horak) T.W. May & A.E. Wood 1 Laccaria sp. 8 Lactarius clarkeae Cleland 1 Lactarius wirrabara Grgur. 1 Laetiporusportentosus (Berk.) Rajchenb. 2 Lichenomphalia chromacea (Cleland) Redhead, Lutzoni, Moncalvo & Vilgalys PLATE 7 7 Lyophyllum ’stout, with white frosting' 3 Mycena austrofdopes Grgur. 1 Mycena kurramulla Grgur. 1 Mycena kuurkacea Grgur. 1 Mycena M 214 'pellucid black cap, radicating stipe' 1 60 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Species name and authority No. of records Mycena M 215 'black with radish odour, on wood' 3 Mycena M 217 'dark brown, pellucid on soil' 2 Peziza tenacella W. Phillips 2 Phaeocollybia tasmanica B.J. Rees & A.E. Wood PLATE 8 1 Pholiota highlandensis (Peck) Quadr. & Lunghini 1 Phot iota squarrosipes Cleland 1 Pisolithus microcarpus (Cooke & Massee) G. Cunn. PLATE 3 8 Postia dissecta (Cooke) Rajchenb. 1 Postiapellictdosa (Berk.) Rajchenb. PLATE 6 6 Psathyrella sp. 1 Psilocybe sp. (on dung) 4 Pulvinula archeri (Berk.) Rifai 4 Ramaria capi/ata var. ochraceosalmonicolor (Cleland) A.M. Young & N.A. Fechner 2 Russula clelandii O.K. Mill. & R.N. Hilton 1 Russula lenkunya Grgur. 1 Scleroderma cepa Pers. 2 Serpula himantioides (Fr.) P. Karst, (on Pintis radiata) 1 Suillus sp. (under Pi mis radiata) 1 Tephrocybe 'brown' 8 Total 140 the Bureau of Meteorology records available online for Hobart Airport, the closest weather station to Woodvine. The rainfall in the months preceding and during the survey in which greater than 10 mm were observed in a single day occurred on Feb. 1 (12.2 mm). Mar. 17 (15.4 mm), Mar. 22 (19,6 mm), Jul. 6 (14.8 mm), Jul. 22 (44.4 mm), Aug. 14 (10.4 mm) and Aug. 15 (18.0 mm). Note that no heavy falls occurred in the three-month period April to June, although there was some rain recorded on the eight consecutive days between 13-20 June, cumulatively totalling 20 mm. We conclude that the maximum species richness that occurred on 20 June was not a response to a single rainfall event, but is more or less what is expected during a standard fungal season when rainfall has been spread out over a sufficient period to allow mycelial growth and subsequent fungal fruiting to proceed at a normal pace. An alternative way of viewing the observed data in Table 1 is to focus attention on individual species rather than on the individual visits. Figure 3 shows a graph from the point of view of highlighting how frequently each species occurred, being a plot of the number of species that occurred once only during the survey, or occurred twice, or thrice, or four times, and so on. The resulting graph, plotted against the number of visits on the x-axis, has a reverse J-shaped frequency distribution that is typical for almost any biological species. However, at x=5 visits, the frequency distribution, having fallen to zero, thereafter eventually rises to a spike with seven species recorded during eight visits. 61 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Figure 2. Number of macrofungal species observed at each of the nine visits to the Woodvine Nature Reserve Number of visits, X Figure 3. Frequency distribution for individual fungal species, giving the number of species observed at exactly X visits, where X=l, 2,... 9 62 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Plate la. Woodvine Nature Reserve after fire (image taken 7 July 2013) Plate lh. Woodvine Nature Reserve after fire (image taken 20 June 2013) 63 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) This group of seven species, comprising Anthracobia aff. muelleri (Plate 2), Descolea recedens , Pisolithus microcarpus (Plate 3), and one undescribed species each of Cortinarius (Plate 4), Gymnopus (Plate 5), Laccaria and Tephrocybe , perhaps together with two others, viz. Postia pelliculosa (Plate 6) and Lichenomphalia chromacea (Plate 7) that were recorded six and seven times, respectively, may represent the "early colonisers’, the first species to reappear after fire in a low rainfall, dry sclerophyll environment. Plate 2. Anthracobia aff. muelleri Plate 3. Pisolithus microcarpus It is of interest to compare these fungi at Woodvine with a list of species obtained from an area at the intersection of Bennetts Road and Arve Road (hereafter referred to as ‘Bennetts Road’) devastated by wildfire on 1 April 2005 after a forestry operation. Monitoring of that site took place fortnightly for a period of 14 months (see Ratkowsky & Gates 2009). We are aware that there are substantial differences between the sites. For example, Bennetts Road has higher rainfall than Woodvine and therefore has wet sclerophyll vegetation compared with Woodvine’s dry sclerophyll vegetation. Also, abundant coarse woody debris (CWD) was present at Bennetts Road, lying unburnt or partially burnt amongst dense vegetation compared to a paucity of CWD at Woodvine, where most woody material on the forest floor was consumed in the wildfire. The comparison between the species in Table 1 and those at Bennetts Road (Appendix 1, Ratkowsky & Gates 2009 ) reveals that not only was there a small commonality of species, with only 11 species recorded at both sites, but that there were major differences in the species themselves. The most notable difference was between the life mode of the 57 species of Woodvine (Table 1) and that of the 76 species at Bennetts Road. Woodvine tallied 18 mycorrhizal species (1 Amanita , 8 Cortinarius , 1 Hebeloma , 1 Laccaria , 2 Lactarius , 1 Phaeocollybia , 1 Ramaria , 2 Russula , 1 Suillus) compared with only 4 at Bennetts Road (1 Cortinarius , 1 Laccaria , 1 Ramaria , I Russula). The difference between the percentages of species that are ectomycorrhiza! (31.6% vs. 5.3%) is highly statistically significant (PO.OOO 1). The question of whether or not this finding applies to other comparisons of wet vs. dry sclerophyll areas must await further surveys. Plate 4. Cortinarius C 374 'ruby Phlegmacium' 64 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Plate 6. Post ia petti cut osa Plate 7. Lichenomphalia chromacea Of the small group of species common to both sites, only Anthracobia aff. muelleri was observed frequently at both sites. In addition, Pulvinula archeri occurred four times at both sites. Other species that were recorded often during the fortnightly visits to Bennetts Road included Coprinellus angulatus, Hypocrea rufa , Loreleia marchantiae, Melanotus hepatochrous , Omphalina chromacea and an unnamed reddish brown Psathyrella , none of which were observed at Woodvine. Another common species at Bennetts Road was Pholiota highlandensiSy for which there was only a single record at Woodvine. Generally, species that were observed frequently at Bennetts Road were absent or sparsely observed at Woodvine, and vice versa, there being only a small overlap of frequently recorded species at both sites. The reasons for this may result from differences between the wet sclerophyll vegetation at Bennetts Road and the dry sclerophyll vegetation at Woodvine, and like the question of mycorrhizality raised in the previous paragraph, would require further studies and surveys in other sites to resolve. The appearances of Phaeocollybia tasmanica (Plate 8) and Cantharellus concinnus (large pink form) (Plate 9) were two surprises as the former had only previously been found by us in wet sclerophyll forest, and the large pink form of the latter has been rarely encountered by us. The vinaceous Hebeloma species appears to be new as it doesn’t match any of the species currently described from Australia. Three of the Entoloma species were found in the pasture around the old homestead, and it was of particular interest to note that E. percrinitum (Plate 10) and E. sericeum were being faithful to this habitat as they have only been found previously in marsupial lawns, pastures and disturbed areas (see Noordeloos & Gates 2012 ). Two truffle-like species of fungi, Castoreum radicatum and an unnamed Endogone species, were found at Woodvine (Table 1). We also observed abundant animal diggings at Woodvine during our survey. In southern Tasmania, the long- nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactyl us) and the Tasmanian bettong (Bettongia 65 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) gaimardi ) are known only from the eastern half of the State, and it is likely that one or both of these species occur at Woodvine, as the dry sclerophyll forest of Tasmania’s southeast is the preferred habitat for these animals. Nevertheless, no potoroos or bettongs were recorded in a small mammal survey conducted in June 2001 at Woodvine (Parks & Wildlife Service 2010). However, the presence of suitable food for these animals, in the form of hypogeous fungi, suggests that these species may be found there, if future surveys make an effort to find them. Plate 8. Phaeocollybia tasmanica Plate 9. Cantharellus concinnus CONCLUDING REMARKS This article provides a first checklist of fungi from the Woodvine Nature Reserve. It would be valuable to keep monitoring the fungi for several years as the vegetation regenerates. Interestingly, the visit on which we had the ‘fungi blitz’ (7 July 2013) was not the one where we found the most number of species, that having occurred on 20 June 2013 (Figure 2). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank members of the TFNC for helping with observations, in particular Geoff Carle, Christine Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Bicevskis. REFERENCES Noordeloos, M.E. & Gates, G.M. (2012). The Entolomataceae of Tasmania. Fungal Diversity Research Series, Vol. 22, Springer, Dordrecht. Parks & Wildlife Service (2010). Woodvine Nature Reserve Management Statement. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment, Hobart. Ratkowsky, D.A. & Gates, G.M. (2005). An inventory of macrofungi observed in Tasmanian forests over a six-year period. Tasforests 16: 153-168. Ratkowsky, D.A. & Gates, G.M. (2009). Macrofungi in early stages of forest regeneration in Tasmania’s southern forests. Tasforests 18: 55-66. Plate 10. Entoloma percrinitum 66 _ The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) _ HIGHLIGHTS OF PELAGIC SEABIRDING FOR 2013 Els Wakefield 1 & Paul Brooks 2 1 12 Altna-Craig Avenue, Mount Stuart, Tasmania 7000, elsandbill@iprimus .com.au; - 4 Duke Street, Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7005, theleadboots@gmail.com INTRODUCTION In 2013 the same group ol keen birders who organised the pelagic trips to the Continental Shelt from Eaglehawk Neck last year (Wakefield 2012), decided to reduce the excursions to one every couple of months in addition to the regularly scheduled trip organised by Rohan Clarke and others. The Pauletta , skippered by John Males, was hired and there was no trouble attracting participants, perhaps because of the major highlights we had enjoyed the previous year. January to July The first trip left on 20 January 2013 after being postponed for a week as a result of road closures enforced due to the bushfire situation on the Forestier and Tasman peninsulas in the preceding weeks. While everyone was excited to finally be getting out, it was a sobering experience to drive through some of the affected towns on the way to Pirates Bay and to see the destruction to property and habitat. The highlight of the day was a single Salvin’s Albatross (Thalassarche salvini). There were noticeable good numbers of White¬ faced Storm Petrel (Pelagodroma marina) throughout the day as well as three Southern Royal Albatross (Diomedea epomophora) in the berley slick at once, which was a thrill especially for the three new first-timers on board. The second trip was held on 17 February 2013 and immediately we struck success with Cook’s Petrel (Pterodroma cookii). There were three different individuals that were all photographed as flybys. Although it passed through fairly quickly, the first bird provided excellent views as it was picked up at a distance, then proceeded to fly right into the back of the boat before continuing on (Plate 1). The other birds were less accommodating. These are the third summer records we have had off Eaglehawk Neck since 2010. Plate 1 . Cook’s Petrel, Pterodroma cookii , one highlight of the pelagic of 17 February That same day we had a steady stream of 30 Gould’s Petrel (Pterodroma leucoptera) flying past at each of the berley stops with a few making two to five passes through the berley trail. There was an additional individual in offshore waters in the afternoon. 67 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) There were also 18 Mottled Petrel (Pterodroma inexpectata) mostly in the pelagic berley points but two in offshore waters in the afternoon. On 23 March 2013 there were no standout species but a highlight was a single Brown Skua (Stercorarius lonnbergi ) landing behind the boat to allow for some excellent photos. This bird breeds in the subantarctic and Antarctic zones and moves further north when not breeding. The excursion on 5 May 2013 was more exciting as we had no less than three Westland Petrel (Procellaria westlandica) just beyond the shelf before we had stopped to lay berley. A Procellaria petrel that had been following for a while came close enough to show what looked like a distinctly dark bill- tip. After several more close passes and photographs, it was thought that the bird was not a White-chinned Petrel (Procellaria aequinoctialis) but a Westland Petrel. We pulled up to toss some berley over and the bird obliged us by sitting in the slick and allowing great photo opportunities (Plate 2), which helped to clinch the identification. It was then that another Westland Petrel was noticed flying around, followed soon after by a third! All three birds sat in the slick at some point, sometimes together, and they even followed us when we moved well to the north to lay a new slick later in the morning. A very exciting record for all on board with a Birdlife Rarities Committee (BARC) submission pending, though this is a formality given the close and extended views we had. It is easy to understand the confusion between the two species as many White-Chinned Petrel do not always have a white chin! Nevertheless, the obvious black bill-tip on the Westland Petrel made it easy to separate the two. That same day we photographed an Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea ), a good record for Tasmania (Plate 3). Coincidentally one was seen on the same weekend in Western Australia. Plate 2. Westland Petrel, Procellaria westlandica , a highlight of the pelagic of 5 May The final highlight was a Soft-plumaged Petrel (Pterodroma mollis ), appearing from the south in the teeth of a southwesterly squall. A highlight of the trip on 22 June 2013 was a White-bellied Sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) being harassed from its perch on Hippolyte Rock by the resident Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus). Further out to the shelf, another highlight was the Northern Royal Albatross (Diomedea sanfordi). July is always very cold but we were all hopeful of seeing some rarities such as Sooty Albatross or Southern Fulmar that sometimes appear in these winter months. However, we were disappointed. Two trips were organised for 27 & 28 July 2013. The Saturday included good but brief views of White-headed Petrel (Pterodroma lessonii), excellent views of a Brown Skua and a group of White-fronted Tern (Sterna striata). On Sunday, there were only 19 species beyond Pirates Bay, which indicates the low diversity. As Rohan Clarke commented “we didn’t even record a Silver Gull!”. 68 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) © Dan Giselsson Plate 3. Arctic Tern, Sterna paretdisaea, another highlight of the pelagic of 5 May Highlights were excellent views of Southern Royal Albatross, White-fronted Tern, both the Southern Giant Petrel (Macronectes giganteus) and the Northern Giant Petrel {Macronectes halli) and the more common species of albatross. August to October Interestingly, the onset of spring saw the water temperature drop lower than it had been throughout winter and the period also produced some excellent seabirding trips. A double-header organised by Nikolas Haass on 31 August 2013 and 1 September 2013 produced a mega-rarity for an Eaglehawk trip: Broad-billed Prion (Pachyptila vittata ), BARC submission pending). The bird was picked out of a vast flock of Fairy Prions (Pachyptila turtur ), not an easy task. Other highlights from these trips included Sooty Albatross (Phoebetria fuse a). Northern Royal Albatross, Salvin’s Albatross, Soft-plumaged Petrel and Providence Petrel (Pterodroma solandri). The Birdlife Australia trips, led by Rohan Clarke, ran on the 14 & 15 September 2013. While they didn’t pick up a major rarity, the diversity and sheer numbers of cold water specialist birds that were seen over the weekend was astonishing. Eleven different taxa of albatross were recorded, including multiples of the much sought after Grey¬ headed Albatross (Thalassarche chrysostoma), Sooty Albatross and Light- mantled Albatross (Phoebetria palpebrata). Over 30 Blue Petrels (Halobaena caerulea) were seen on both days, as well as several Grey Petrels (Procellaria cinerea) and hundreds of White-headed Petrels (Pterodroma lesson'd). Additionally, four species of prion were recorded: Salvin’s (Pachyptila salvini), Antarctic (Pachyptila desolata) and Slender-billed (Pachyptila belcheri), as well as the more common Fairy. Even the most experienced of seabirders aboard these trips felt very lucky to be present for such a spectacle. A few theories were bandied around as to the reasons behind the unusual aggregation of subantarctic birds. There had been extremely cold weather in southern Tasmania the week prior to the trips, with snow settling at low altitude, which is 69 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) generally indicative of a southerly airstream. Indeed, most of the birds were observed to be flying south, as if they had followed the cold air north and were returning. There were most likely more complex elements at play, however, including water temperature and movements of prey species, and the reasons behind these unusual occurrences are largely a subject of conjecture until more study into seabird biology can be undertaken. All of this excellent seabirding action was sure to attract a crowd and, sure enough, another two trips were organised for the next weekend (21 & 22 September 2013). Unfortunately, any sign of the previous weekend’s glory had disappeared completely and the trip on the Saturday was (perhaps unsurprisingly!) one of the quietest on record. Sunday’s trip was a bit more lively but still not a patch on the week before. Highlights for the weekend were a Northern Royal Albatross, a Salvin’s Albatross, a White-headed Petrel and several White-fronted Terns (Sterna striata). October’s trip (12 October 2013) went ahead in very rough conditions with a depleted complement of seabirders on board for a variety of reasons. The highlight of the day was a Northern Royal Albatross (Diomedea sanfordi) and, for some, setting foot on dry land again. There are two trips remaining for 2013. Both are in summer and are expecting to encounter a much different suite of species than those seen in September. The trip on 30 November 2013 was another memorable one bringing in a good variety of species, the highlight being a Cook’s Petrel and a close view of a Grey-headed Albatross landing behind the boat (Plate 4). There is one more trip remaining for 2013. This is in summer and is expecting to encounter a much different suite of species than those seen in September THE FUTURE Due to popular demand, we hope to continue to schedule regular trips all year round to the edge ol the Continental Shelf in 2014 and beyond. In addition, a longer adventure is planned with skipper Morrie Wolf on the crayboat La Golondrina involving six straight days at sea! We leave from Kettering for Pedra Branca, the Mewstone, Maatsuyker Island and Port Davey, not necessarily in that order, depending on prevailing winds and conditions. The first trip is scheduled for March 2014 with hopefully others to follow. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to thank Rohan Clarke for his excellent trip reports from which we have often quoted in this article. REFERENCES Gill, F & D Donsker (eds). (2013). IOC World Bird List (v 3.5). doi: 1 o. 14344/IOC.ML.3.5. [nomenclature] Wakefield, E. (2012). Highlights of pelagic seabirding for 2012. The Tasmanian Naturalist 134: 32-34. Plate 4 Grey-headed Albatross, Thalassarche chrysostoma , a highlight of the September and November pelagics, showing the diagnostic underwing and bill patterning 70 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) FURTHER NOTES ON THE OCCURRENCE OF FAIRY LANTERNS THISMIA RODWAYI F. MUELL. (THISMIACEAE) IN TASMANIA: VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS Vincent S.F.T. Merckx 1 & Mark Wapstra 2 'Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden University, PO Box 9514, 2300RA, Leiden, The Netherlands, vincent.merckx@naturalis.nl; 2 Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania, 28 Suncrest Avenue, Lenah Valley, Tasmania 7008, mark@ecotas.com.au INTRODUCTION The flowering plant Thismia rodwayi F. Muell. (‘Fairy lanterns’ - Plate 1) belongs to the family Thismiaccae (Merckx et al. 2013). Thismiaceae have often been included in Burmanniaceae but molecular data indicates that the two families are not closely related (Merckx et al. 2006). Thismiaceae comprise about 63 species in five genera (Merckx et al. 2013). Most species occur in tropical rainforest, but a few occur in subtropical and temperate regions. Thismia rodwayi is such a temperate species. It was described in 1890 by Ferdinand von Mueller based on a specimen collected near Hobart, Tasmania, by Leonard Rodway (von Mueller 1890). The species has subsequently been found at several other localities in Tasmania, and is also known from Victoria, New South Wales, southern Queensland, and the north island of New Zealand (Jonker 1938; Roberts et al. 2003). In Tasmania Thismia rodwayi is presently listed as ‘rare’ under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995.' Plate 1. Thismia rodwayi from near the Myrtle Gully track on the lower slopes of Mount Wellington 71 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Like all species of Thismiaceae, Thismia rodwayi has a fully mycoheterotrophic mode of life: the plant is leafless and achlorophyllous, and obtains all of its nutrients and sugars from fungi. These fungi are obligate mycorrhizal partners of surrounding trees, from which sugars are obtained in exchange for mineral and water from the soil. Thus, Thismia ultimately obtains carbohydrates from surrounding trees through shared mycorrhizal fungi. Recently, the mycorrhizal fungus of two specimens of Thismia rodwayi from the Meander area in Tasmania was identified with molecular methods (Merckx et al. 2012). The detected fungus belongs to the Glomus Group A clade, which confirms earlier morphological observations that Thismia rodwayi exploits an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus (McLennan 1957). Interestingly, the fungal DNA sequences that were obtained from several root segments of both specimens were all identical. This suggests that Thismia rodwayi plants, like many other mycoheterotrophic plants and generally unlike chlorophyllous plants, exhibit exceptional specificity towards their fungal associates (Bidartondo ct al. 2002; Merckx & Bidartondo 2008). Extreme mycorrhizal specificity may limit the occurrence of plant species, particularly if the associated mycorrhizal fungus is rare. A particular mycorrhizal fungus may only occur in a particular vegetation type, or may even show specificity towards a particular green plant species. This limits the distribution of the fungus and that of the mycoheterotrophic plant that needs this particular fungus to survive. Such an extremely specific three-partite relationship occurs, for example, between the underground orchid Rhizanthella gardneri, Melaleuca shrubs from the Melaleuca uncinata complex, and their shared ectomycorrhizal Ceratobasidium fungus (Bougoure et al. 2009). The potential fungus-plant specificity thus may explain the rarity of some plant species (Swarts & Dixon 2009), mycoheterotrophic plants in particular (see for example Hazard et al. 2012 ). To investigate whether Thismia rodwayi has a tendency to co-occur with particular plant species, we analysed the vegetation community associated with Thismia plants that were sampled across its distribution range in Tasmania. The findings reported herein formed part of a broader study of mycoheterotrophic plants from around the world being undertaken by VM (and various colleagues): further results will be progressively published on both Thismia rodwayi and other species. The present paper “sets the scene” for the sampling regime for subsequent research findings on Thismia rodwayi in particular. METHODS In October and November of 2012 the authors systematically searched for Thismia rodwayi in Tasmania. Both knowm sites, based on records included in DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas and described in TSS (2007), and potential sites, which included sites in similar vegetation close to known sites and parts of the State predicted to support the species (Wapstra et al. 2005), were surveyed. Searches primarily focused on wet sclerophyll forest, which is known to be the preferred habitat of Thismia rodwayi (Roberts et al. 2003; Wapstra et al. 2005). Wet sclerophyll forest is a common vegetation type in Tasmania and generally consists of a tall eucalypt overstorey, a secondary layer of soft broad-leaved shrubs and small trees such as O/earia argophylla (‘musk daisybush’, Asteraceae), Bedfordia salicina (‘tastnanian blanketleaf, Asteraceae) and Pomaderris apetala (‘common dogwood’, Rhamnaceae), and a dense understorey of ferns. Thismia rodwayi can only be detected during the flowering period, when small orange 72 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) flowers protrude from the forest floor (Plate 1). However, these flowers generally remain covered by leaf litter and are thus difficult to find. Therefore searches consisted of carefully removing leaf litter at potential Thismia patches as described by Wapstra et al. (2005). When a Thismia plant was found the wider area (up to c. 300 m radius) was subsequently scanned for more plants, growing at least a few metres from each other. The search was stopped after five such plants were found (because only five individuals were required for DNA/fungal studies). For each Thismia plant we recorded all vascular plants roughly growing within a 3 m radius. It is important to note that what we assign here as a Thismia ‘plant’ may refer to an individual or a cluster of multiple Thismia rodwayi flowers found within close proximity (e.g. within c. 10 cm). In the latter case subsequent dissection of the root system often revealed that the flowers emerged from unlinked root systems, and thus are part of different Thismia rodwayi individuals. To compare the species diversity of green plants growing close to Thismia between the sites we calculated Jaccard distances using the R package ‘vegan’ (Oksanen et al. 2012). Jaccard distances (measurements of dissimilarity) were used to cluster sites based on their species similarity. RESULTS & DISCUSSION We recorded Thismia rodwayi from ten different sites, listed here as ‘TAST to ‘TAS10’ (Table 1, Figure 1). No major range extensions were made. However, an additional site on each of the Forestier and Tasman peninsulas, and an additional site near each of the previously known Franklin, South Sister and Warners Sugarloaf locations, were recorded. In addition to the ten sites sampled as part of the present study, a single Thismia flower was observed near the Myrtle Gully track on the lower slopes of Mount Wellington (Plate I) - this locality has not been included in vegetation analyses presented herein (single plant only). A/ TAS9 •TAS10 TAS8* TAS7 TASl * ~ TAS2 TAS6 - Jr ac„ TAS3»%TAS5 #TAS4 Figure 1 . Map of Tasmania showing the location of the sites where Thismia rodwayi was sampled as part of the present study Potential sites where no Thismia was found included South Bruny Island, Maria Island, Tooms White Gum Forest Reserve, Mount Arthur, Mount Barrow, Hoi well Gorge and Notley Gorge. The failure to find Thismia at these sites is no proof of its absence. In fact, the species has been previously observed at Mount Arthur (late 1960s) and Holwell Gorge (2009). At sites where Thismia rodwayi was found it generally took less than 15 minutes to locate five plants that were several metres apart. When this was achieved the formal search was stopped to undertake sampling, but it is possible that at these sites many tens or even hundreds of plants were present, based on informal cursory searches. For example, over 50 flowers were detected in less than 1 hour of searching across approximately 1 ha at the 73 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Table 1. Site information Site name Location Coordinates Elevation (m a.s.I.) Number of Thismia 1 TAS1 Sandspit River, Wielangta State Forest -42° 42’ 42.52"N 147° 50' 29.86"E 220 >5 TAS2 Hylands Road, Forestier Peninsula -42° 56' 7.06"N 147° 54’ 9.83E" 195 >5 TAS3 Edwards Road, west of Huon River -43° 4' 21.20"N 146° 48' 33.29E" 90 >5 TAS4 Pirates Road, Tasman Peninsula -43° 3’ 3.00"N 147° 54' 26.66"E 340 >5 TAS5 Hills Road, Franklin -43° 5' 15.64"N 146° 58' 34.09"E 410 1 TAS6 New Road, west of Franklin -43° 4' 35.63"N 146° 56’ 33.72"E 450 >5 TAS7 Styx Valley -42° 45' 54.40"N 146° 47' 3.75”E 265 4 TAS8 South Sister, north of St Marys -41° 32’ 34.I2"N 148° 10' 23.19”E 605 5 TAS9 Meander (Warners Sugarloaf North) -41° 40' 27.42"N 146° 38' 37.01 "E 435 >5 TAS10 Meander (Warners Sugarloaf South) -41° 40’ 31.94"N 146° 38’ 27.29"E 435 >5 1 this refers to a clump of Thismia plants, which may contain a single or many plants (see text) Sandspit River site, and similarly high numbers were detected at the Warners Sugarloaf North site in less than 15 minutes of searching less than 0.5 ha. Only at TAS5 could we find just a single clump of Thismia (3 flowers) - this is one of the most anthropogenically disturbed sites ever recorded for the species with introduced Rubus sp. (‘blackberry’) and Finns radiata (‘radiata pine’) present nearby. We also failed to detect a fifth plant at TAS7 (Styx), although potential habitat was widespread and seemingly ideal. In total we recorded 31 different vascular plant species growing in close proximity to Thismia plants (Figure 2). Pomaderris apetala , Coprosma quadrifida (‘native currant’, Rubiaceae) and Beyeria viscosa (‘pinkwood’, Euphorbiaceae) were most commonly encountered. Nearly all Thismia plants recorded were growing in proximity of Pomaderris apetala. Only near two Thismia plants was Pomaderris apetala not present: the single plant found at TAS5, and a Thismia at TAS7. However, in both of these plots, Coprosma quadrifida was present, which is the second most common plant found near Thismia plants (Figure 2). Interestingly, Pomaderris apetala was recently found to associate with ectomycorrhizal fungi (Tedersoo et al. 2008). However, it is not uncommon for 74 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Pomaderris ape tala Coprosma quadrifida Beyeria viscosa Pteridium esculentum Gahnia grandis Polystichum prolifemm Cyathodes glauca Correa lawrcnceana Blechnum nudum Lepidosperma elatius Dicksonia antarctlca Olearia argophylla Atherosperma moschatum Acacia verticillata Zleria arborescens Tasmannla lanceolata Nematolepis squamea Pimelea drupacea Lomatia tinctoria Lepidosperma ensiforme Eucalyptus obliqua Eucalyptus globulus Bedfordia salicina Acacia melanoxylon Stellaria flaccida Pultenaea Juniperina Pittospomm bicolor Monotoca glauca Cyathodes platystoma Acacia deal bat a Clematis aristata number of specimens recorded Figure 2. List of vascular plants species recorded growing in close proximity to Thismia rodwayi (bars represent the number of times each species was recorded growing near sampled individuals of Thismia rodwayi) ectomycorrhizal plants to form arbuscular mycorrhizas as well (Smith & Read 2008). Thus this does not exclude the possibility that Pomaderris apetala is linked to the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Thismia is using to grow. Similarly, species of Eucalyptus and Acacia can form both ecto- and arbuscular mycorrhizas (Smith & Read 2008) and thus may be symbiotic with the Glomus fungus Thismia is using as well. All other species recorded at the Thismia sites are likely exclusively arbuscular mycorrhizal (Wang & Qiu 2006) and are thus also potential hosts for the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus that is targeted by Thismia. The differences in species diversity between the Thismia sites are fairly small, resulting in low Jaccard distances (Table 2). The sites at New Road near Franklin (TAS5&6) were found to differ most from 75 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Tabic 2. Jaccard distance between each pair of sites (the diagonal shows the total number of recorded vascular plant species for each site) TASI TAS2 TAS3 TAS4 TASS TAS6 TAS7 TAS8 TAS9 TAS10 TASI 10 0.636 0.667 0.769 0.769 0.750 0.714 0.750 0.733 0.733 TAS2 5 0.625 0.778 0.900 0.846 0.700 0.750 0.833 0.833 TAS3 6 0.800 0.800 0.933 0.727 0.769 0.846 0.846 TAS4 6 0.909 0.769 0.600 0.857 0.750 0.750 TAS5 6 0.857 0.833 0.857 0.846 0.846 TAS6 10 0.800 0.889 0.733 0.813 TAS7 8 0.800 0.692 0.692 TAS8 10 0.733 0.538 TAS9 9 0.500 TASIO 9 CO O LO O Figure 3. Hierarchical cluster plot of plant species similarity between the sites based on Jaccard distances the other sites (Figure 3), mainly because these were the only sites where Atherosperma moschatum (‘sassafras’, Atherospermataceae), Tasmannia lanceolata (‘native pepper’, Winteraceae), and a few other species were recorded. The northern sites (TAS8 to TAS10) were also found to have very similar species diversity compared to the southern sites, mainly due to presence of Blechnum nudum (‘fishbone waterfern’, Blechnaceae), Pimelea drupacea (‘cherry riceflowcr’, Thymelaeaceae), Polystichum proliferum (‘mother shieldfern’, Dryopteridaceae) and the absence of Bey>eria viscosa. These dissimilarities in diversity are thus mostly due to species that were only occasionally recorded (Figure 2), and it must be noted that the absence/presence of particular species at a site is relative: at some sites, 76 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) ‘absent’ species were observed to occur in the wider area but not immediately close to the sampled individuals of Thismia rodwayi. This is particularly relevant for species of Eucalyptus. Thus, species diversity between Thismia sites is probably more similar than suggested by the Jaccard distances presented here. Our observations indicate that Thismia rodwayi seems to have a strong preference for habitats that include Coprosma quadrifida and Beyeria viscosa , but particularly Pomaderris apetala , which is supported by previous studies (Roberts et al. 2003; Wapstra et al. 2005). However, none of these species have to be present for Thismia to occur. This suggests that Thismia rodwayi and its associated mycorrhizal fungus have a strong preference for a particular vegetation type, but not for specific plant species. This vegetation type, wet sclerophyll forest, is common in Tasmania and thus Thismia rodwayi may be quite common as well, as suggested by this and previous surveys (Roberts et al. 2003; Wapstra et al. 2005). During our field study, genetic samples of the Thismia plants, their roots, and the roots of surrounding plants were sampled. In further research, these samples will be used to investigate the population genetics of the Tasmanian Thismia populations, patterns of mycorrhizal specificity, and the identity of the chlorophyllous species that are linked to the mycorrhizal network, with an emphasis on comparing the Tasmanian results to those obtained for sites sampled, or material obtained, from Victoria, New South Wales and New Zealand. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank Brian French, James Wood, Neill Klaer and Constantijn Mennes for their assistance. We thank the staff at the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens (Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre) for their hospitality and use of laboratory/storage facilities. We are also grateful to Wendy Potts and Micah Visoiu (Department of Primary' Industries, Parks, Water & Environment), and Tim Wardlaw and Daniel Hodge (Forestry Tasmania), for facilitating issue of collection permits. Anne Chuter provided useful comments on the draft manuscript. This research is supported by a Veni grant from NWO to VM (863.11.018). REFERENCES Bidartondo, M.I., Redecker, D., Hijiri, I., Wiemken, A., Bruns, T.D., Dominguez, L.S., Sersic, A., Leake, J.R. & Read D.J. (2002). Epiparasitic plants specialized on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Nature 419: 389- 392. Bougoure, J.J., Ludwig, M., Brundrett, M. & Grierson, P.F. (2009). Identity and specificity of the fungi forming mycorrhizas with rare, mycoheterotroph ic Rhizanthella gardneri (Orchidaceae). Mycological Research 113: 1097-1106. Hazard, C., Lilleskov, E.A. & Horton, T.R. (2011). Is rarity of pinedrops (Pterospora andromedea) in eastern North America linked to rarity of its unique fungal symbiont? Mycorrhiza 22: 393-402. Jonker, F.P. (1938). A monograph of the Burmanniaceae. Meded. Bot. Mus. Herb. Rijksuniv . Utrecht 51: 1-279. McLennan, E.I. (1958). Thismia rodwayi F. Muell. and its endophyte. Australian Journal of Botany 6: 25-37. Merckx, V. & Bidartondo, M.I. (2008). Breakdown and delayed cospeciation in the arbuscular mycorrhizal mutualism. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 275:1029-1035. Merckx, V.S.F.T., Janssens, S.B., Hynson, N.A., Specht, C.D., Bruns, T.D. & 77 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Smets E.F. (2012). Mycoheterotrophic interactions are not limited to a narrow phylogenetic range of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Molecular Ecology’ 21: 1524-1532. Merckx, V.S.F.T., Smets, E.F. & Specht C.D. (2013). Biogeography and conservation. IN: My coheterotrophy: The Biology’ of Plants Living on Fungi (Ed. V.S.F.T. Merckx), Springer, New York. Roberts, N., Wapstra, M., Duncan, F., Woolley, A., Morley, J. & Fitzgerald, N. (2003). Shedding some light on Thismia rodwayi F. Muell. (fairy lanterns) in Tasmania: distribution, habitat and conservation status. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 137: 55-66. Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F.G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P.R., O'Hara, R.B., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., Stevens M.H.H. & Wagner H. (2012). Vegan: Community’ Ecology Package. R package version 2.0-5. http://CR.AN.R-project.org/package= vegan. Smith, S.E. & Read, DJ. (2008). Mycorrhizal Symbiosis (3rd edition). Academic Press, London. Swarts, N.D, & Dixon, K.W. (2009). Terrestrial orchid conservation in the age of extinction. Annals of Botany 104: 543-556. Tedersoo, L., Jairus, T., Horton, B.M., Abarenkov, K., Suvi, T., Saar, I. & Koljalg, U. (2008) Strong host preference of ectomycorrhizal fungi in a Tasmanian wet sclerophyll forest as revealed by DNA barcoding and taxon- specific primers. New Phytologist 180:479-490. TSS (Threatened Species Section). (2007). Listing Statement for Thismia rodwayi (Fairy’ Lanterns). Department of Primary Industries & Water, Tasmania. von Mueller, F. (1890). Notes on a new Tasmanian plant of the order Burmanniaceae. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 1890-1891: 232-235. Wang, B. & Qiu, Y.-L. (2006). Phylogenetic distribution and evolution of mycorrhizas in land plants. Mycorrhiza 16: 299-363. Wapstra, M„ French, B., Davies, N., O’Reilly-Wapstra, J. & Peters D. (2005). A bright light on the dark forest floor: observations on fairy lanterns Thismia rodwayi F. Muell. (Burmanniaceae) in Tasmanian forests. The Tasmanian Naturalist 127: 2-18. 78 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) AN UPDATE ON THE DISTRIBUTION, RESERVATION AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF FAIRY LANTERNS THISMIA RODWAYI F.MUELL. (THISMIACEAE) IN TASMANIA Mark Wapstra 2 & Anne Clutter 2 Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania, 28 Suncrest Avenue, Lenah Valley, Tasmania 7008, mark@ecotas.com.au; 2 Forest Practices Authority, 30 Patrick Street, Hobart , Tasmania 7000, anne.chuter@fpa.tas.gov.au ABSTRACT Thismia rodwayi (fairy lanterns) is an elusive virtually subterranean plant that occurs in the wet sclerophyll forests of Tasmania. Its ephemeral and cryptic flowering habit has resulted in a discontinuous collecting history and little information on the population status of the species. In this paper, we provide an update on the distribution of the species with notes on the collection history and effect of survey intensity in the last decade or so. Notes are also provided on the reservation and conservation status of the species, with particular reference to forest management practices. INTRODUCTION Thismia rodwayi F.Muell. (Thismiaceae), commonly known as the ‘fairy lanterns’, is one of Tasmania’s most fascinating and enigmatic plants. When first discovered in the late 1800s by Tasmania’s “first botanist”, Leonard Rodway (on the lower slopes of Mount Wellington, probably from somewhere near the Cascades Brewery, very close to modern-day known sites), the presence of a temperate zone member of the then otherwise subtropical-tropical family sent shockwaves through the botanical community. Following the rapid description of the species by Mueller, Thismia rodwayi went into apparent hiding until 1923, when Rodway once again collected the species from near Mount Field. It would be even longer until the next sightings in the late 1960s, from either end of the State. Why so long between sightings? The species is virtually subterranean, the flowers only emerging above the soil surface (but usually staying hidden amongst the dense leaf litter) for a short period, meaning unless one is very lucky, survey work can be time-consuming and unrewarding. In 2002, Thismia rodwayi was encountered by Sapphire McMullen-Fisher while undertaking surveys in the wet forests behind Lenah Valley near Hobart. That sighting went relatively unheralded but when the species turned up in a proposed forestry coupe on State forest at Archers Sugarloaf near Meander about one week later, there was much greater interest. Would the species be deleteriously affected by native forest silviculture? This was a hard question to answer because we simply did not know a lot about the species. With funding from Forestry Tasmania, staff of the Forest Practices Authority in collaboration with many others drawn into this interesting story, undertook Statewide surveys and established long-term monitoring sites in the forestry coupe at Archers Sugarloaf. Since 2002, the species has remained in focus for many field botanists, with it now known to be substantially more widespread than previously thought (see Wapstra et al. 2005). This paper presents an update on the distribution of Thismia rodwayi in Tasmania, with notes on its reservation status, and an analysis of its formal 79 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) conservation status. We also present data collected from around a decade of monitoring at several sites, revealing information on how the species responds to forestry activities. METHODS Data collation The Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment’s Natural Values Atlas database was interrogated using the Observation Search function with “Thismia rodwayi” as the search term, producing a data file of all records of the species in Tasmania (as at 17 Jul. 2013). This file was used to undertake the following analyses. Collection history Data records were sorted by year of collection, and the number of records per decade plotted against decade since 1890, with the aim of demonstrating the variation in recording of the species. Similarly, the number of sites known per decade was collated. A site was defined as a record, or cluster of records, greater than 500 m from any other (see Figure 1 for example of the concept of “site” and “record”). Reservation status Data points were cross-referenced to the Statewide reserve data layer (public and private land). Where records were within a reserve, the reserve type (status under legislation) and name was noted. Data points were also cross-referenced to the proposed new forest reserve layer developed as a consequence of the Interagency Forestry Agreement. While the authors recognise that the status of the agreement was not finalised at the time of writing, the analysis is nonetheless interesting in terms of the potential impact of the revised reserve system on the reservation status of Thismia rodwayi. Conservation status Data points were used to calculate variables utilised in the assessment of the conservation status of species under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 , using guidelines issued by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment (DPIW 2002, updated by DPIPWE 2008). These were: • extent of occurrence, calculated as a minimum convex polygon created around the outermost records; and • linear extent, calculated as a maximum linear extent between the farthest pair of records. The extent of occurrence and linear extent variables were calculated for each year in which a new site was detected since 1892, using the same definition of site described for the analysis of collection history. Long-term monitoring One of the conditions of allowing native forest silviculture to proceed in HU302D at Archers Sugarloaf was that the population of Thismia rodwayi needed to be taken into account. Under the Forest Practices Code (Anon. 2000), this was achieved by the development of in-coupe management prescriptions through cooperative consultation between Forestry Tasmania, the Forest Practices Authority and the then Department of Primary Industries & Water. The majority of sites supporting the species were excluded from forestry activities, one site was incorporated into an in-coupe habitat island (known as a Wildlife Habitat Clump) and one was allowed to be included in areas to be harvested and regenerated, without any special restrictions (Figure 2). A critical component of this agreement was the establishment of long-term monitoring in coupe HU302D, which has been undertaken twice since the detection of the species in November 2002. Importantly, 80 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Figure 1. Illustration of the concept of a “site” (collection of “records” (black points buffered by 500 m radius circles) for the Meander River area (grids are 1 km) Figure 2. State forest coupe HU302D indicating sampling sites for Thismia rodwayi relative to other features (from Roberts et al. 2003b): sites “8”, “4” and “a” were monitored, as were a cluster of sites around “” 10”, “ 11 ”, “b” and “c” referred to as the “water reserve (an area set aside to protect local water quality downstream of the coupe) 81 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) additional sites unassociated with the forestry operation have also been monitored, allowing some degree of comparison between disturbed and undisturbed sites. During the flowering season, as many sites as practical in HU302D, the greater Meander area, and further afield (mainly forestry areas in the Southern Forests), have been re-assessed by people who knew of the original sites of detection of Thismia rodwayi. Many sites were marked with a metal pin and blue plastic label, others with flagging tape crossed between trees over the approximate centre of the original I x 1 m search quadrat. At each site, the original 1 x 1 m quadrat over the centre of the pin was resurveyed by the recognised method (described in Wapstra ct al. 2005) i.e. shifting the covering leaf litter care fully, and searching the soil surface for flowers, buds and fruit of Thismia rodwayi. Less formal monitoring of some known sites have also been undertaken by the first author at several sites over the last decade, also allowing trends in population demographics to be loosely examined. RESULTS & DISCUSSION Nugent area, the St Marys area, several sites on both the Forest ier and Tasman peninsulas, additional sites in the Southern Forests (including at Hastings Caves) and several additional sites in the central north including at Holwell Gorge. This provides support for continued searching in the areas highlighted by the model of Wapstra et al. (2005). Of greater note is the detection of the species from the far northwest near Togari in 2013, a linear range extension of c. 110 km (Figure 3). V > X V . n X ) * / ? & 04 Figure 3. Distribution of Thismia rodwayi in Tasmania Distribution Wapstra et al. (2005) provided a model of the most likely areas of Tasmania to support Thismia rodwayi. At that time, these authors highlighted the Florentine Valley, further areas in the Southern Forests, parts of the east coast (including southern Bruny Island, northern Maria Island, the Wielangta forests and parts of the Eastern Tiers), the northeast forests and further sites around the northern base of the Western Tiers as probable areas for the species to be detected. While limited surveys (e.g. Merckx & Wapstra 2013) have failed to detect the species on either Bruny or Maria islands, since 2005 the species has now been detected from the Wielangta- Thismia rodwayi has benefited from an increase in its profile amongst the botanical, forestry and naturalist community, with substantial increases in the number of sites since the initial discovery (Figure 4), with a concomitant increase in the extent of occurrence (Figure 5) and linear range (Figure 6). Annual population changes and impacts of forestry practices Over three sampling years, representing an II-year period, the number of Thismia plants found in the four monitored sites within and adjacent to coupe HU0302D changed from 56 (2002) to 23 (2003) to 52 (2013). When expressed as “density” 82 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) (i.e. number of Thismia per square metre, based on the number of 1 x 1 m sampling quadrats per site), a decrease in density is observed for two sites (both well outside the harvesting boundary) and an increase in density lor two sites (including one within coupe WHC and one boundary WHC located close to the harvesting boundary) (Figure 7). All plants were found within wildlife habitat clumps or other areas set aside from timber harvesting, although it is noted that the species was detected in the middle of a snig track amongst harvested forest in 2004 (A. Chuter & D. Bowden pers. obs.). Although the total population of Thismia within HU0302D appeared to fluctuate by 50% from 2002 to 2003 and from 2003 to 2013, this is more likely to be a result of sampling regime (number of quadrats, time of year) rather than any real changes in population across the coupe due to timber harvesting. Population dynamics at individual sites appear to decrease (site 8), increase (site a) or remain relatively constant (sites 4 and water reserve). However, three years of sampling does not provide enough replication to determine a population trend within HU0302D. It is worth noting that in 2013 Thismia was found in high numbers at site k a’, which is an internal wildlife habitat clump. Thismia was located on the edge of this clump, in areas subject to edge effects (drying, wind throw) from the timber harvesting operations. In other sites around Tasmania, Thismia rodwayi occurs in quite heavily disturbed forest settings (Merckx & Wapstra 2013), including clearfelled and regenerated native forest (see Plate 1). Population numbers are difficult to infer from database information: certainly we have observed the species to occur in locally high numbers (e.g. 30 in a few square metres) in HU302D (Plate 2) and evidence from other parts of the State also indicate locally high numbers. For example, at South Sister, the population is estimated as “hundreds” (Plate 3). Plate 1. Habitat of Thismia rodwayi on the Forestier Peninsula: at this site, the species was found abundantly in this even-age regrowth wet sclerophyll forest on the Forestier Peninsula, often growing adjacent to cut stumps and on old snig tracks Plate 2. Dense cluster of Thismia rodwayi (circled) in HU302D (2013): this site was just outside a formally retained Wildlife Habitat Clump (WHC) within harvested forest Reservation status Thismia rodwayi is a well reserved species by the application of most criteria and thresholds commonly used in Tasmania (e.g. Lawrence et al. 2008). The species occurs in the following formal reserves: Hastings Caves State Reserve, Wellington Park, Mount Field National Park, Sandspit River Forest Reserve, Meander Forest Reserve, Jackeys Marsh Forest Reserve, 83 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) 35 30 25 QJ •S 20 i— QJ SI 15 E D Z 10 9 0 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year Figure 4. Number of sites (subpopulations) of Thismia rodwayi between 1890 and 2013 Year Figure 5. Increase in extent of occurrence of Thismia rodwayi since 1890 (this trend is unlikely to continue, unless significant range extensions into the far northeast, west/southwest and Bass Strait island occur) 84 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) 350 J 300 S 250 4 -* X " 200 ra O) £ 150 E | 100 re 50 0 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year Figure 6. Increase in linear range of Thismia rodwayi since 1890 (thee is unlikely to be significant increases to the linear extent of the species, which is now known from as far south as Hastings Caves and as far northwest as Togari near Smithton) fN 2.00 1.60 E i/) O) 1.20 2 o •4- 6 0.80 c >- 4-* ‘Co 0.40 c (D o 0.00 Density 2002 Density 2003 Density 2004 8 (ext. WHC) 4 (ext. WHC) a (int. WHC) water reserve Site Figure 7. Variation on population density between monitoring sites in HU302D 85 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Holwell Gorge State Reserve. Two subpopulations, one in the central north of the State, and the other just south of Hobart in the foothills of Mount Wellington, are on private properties subject to conservation covenants under the Nature Conservation Act 2002. Plate 3. Numerous Thismia rodwayi flowers at a site near South Sister where hundreds of flowers occur over a relatively small area Several subpopulations occur on State forest subject to protective conservation management under Forestry Tasmania’s Management Decision Classification (MDC) planning system (Orr & Gerrand 1998), either serendipitously due to location (e.g. riparian habitat) or deliberately (e.g. active management in coupe HU302D (Roberts et al. 2003a&b), several other coupes in the Huon and Meander areas). Many sites supporting the species on public land become reserved as part of the Interagency Forestry Agreement, currently being negotiated for Tasmania, including all sites in the Wielangta area, many in the central north but less in the Southern Forests. Conservation status Thismia rodwayi has been listed as rare (Schedule 5) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 since the promulgation of the Act in 1995. At the time of listing, it was known only from a sporadic collecting history, with virtually nothing known about the extent of occurrence, area of occupancy, population abundance, threats, or management requirements. There is an argument to be made that a species should not be listed formally in the absence of sufficient information: some legislators manage such species by using terms such as ‘data deficient’. Thismia rodwayi may once have been such a ‘data deficient’ species but we argue that this is no longer the case: we have sufficient information to make a considered decision on the formal conservation status of the species. The Scientific Advisory Committee, established under the provisions of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 , published Guidelines for Eligibility for Listing under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 , which were updated in 2008 (DPIW 2008). Following are the criteria for Schedule 5 (rare), copied verbatim, with our comments on their specific application to Thismia rodwayi in square brackets below each. A taxon of native flora or fauna may be listed as rare if it has a small population 86 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) in Tasmania that is not endangered or vulnerable but is at risk. (Section 15(4) of the Act). [On the face ot it, this statement appears to not require comment. However, it may be argued that Thismia rodwayi is not represented by a “small population” that is “at risk”. The species certainly does not quality under the criteria for a higher status i.e. vulnerable or endangered, but it does not automatically follow that it therefore qualifies as rare]. The following criteria may provide evidence of the level of threat. In order to be considered as rare at least ONE of the criteria A-B should apply. (A) A taxon of limited distribution or numbers, threatened by existing on¬ going processes occurring over sufficient of their range to suggest that they would satisfy the indicative criteria for vulnerable unless the threatening process was abated based on (and specifying) any one of the following: 1. the extent of occurrence is less than 80 x 80 km or 2,000 km 2 ; [Thismia rodwayi has an extent of occurrence of c. 30,900 km 2 . This value is estimated by a minimum convex polygon around all known sites. The east-west and north-south linear extent of the species is 279 km and 324 km, respectively, both of which exceed the 80 x 80 km threshold. Significant range extensions have occurred in recent years, the most notable being c. 110 km in 2013, when the species was detected in the far northwest]. 2. the area of occupancy is not more than 0.5 km 2 (50 hectares); [Estimating the area of occupancy of Thismia rodwayi is difficult because many sites are one-off serendipitous discoveries or the results of surveys that ceased as soon as the species was detected. Recent surveys in the Wielangta area indicated that the species occurs across approximately 1-2 ha, with more and more individuals being detected as the survey radiated out from a known site (Merckx & Wapstra 2013). Similarly, at New Road near Franklin, the population extends across about 150 m of slope for approximately 500 m, providing an area of 7.5 ha. The species is scattered through this area and represented now by perhaps 20-30 individual sites. The question is whether the “area of occupancy” is best regarded as the larger area (i.e. 7.5 ha) or as 20-30 times a nominal 1 x 1 m area around each individual or clump of individuals (i.e. 0.002-0.003 ha). This discussion can be applied to many of the ‘locations' supporting the species. On this basis, the species either has an area of occupancy well below 50 ha (probably closer to 15-20 ha) or well in excess of 50 ha. In our opinion, the application of this subcriterion is problematic for a species such as Thismia rodwayi and should be used with caution but the larger “area of occupancy” concept better describes the distribution of the species at a particular location]. 3. taxa that are not A1 or A2 above, but that have very small and localised subpopulations wherever they occur (generally no subpopulation with an area of occupancy greater than 0.01 km 2 (1 hectare) and no more than 1,000 mature individuals). [Technically, this criterion may or may not apply, depending on how A2 is interpreted. On the basis that we argue that Thismia rodwayi does not meet either A1 or A2, the question is whether 87 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) it meets A3. The key term, to us at least, is “wherever”, meaning the subcriterion refers to all known subpopulations and not just a small number that may fall within the threshold. For some threatened species we have absolute counts of abundance (or at least quite good estimates with upper and lower confidence limits). Unfortunately, for Thismia rodwayi we do not have this because, as mentioned, most surveys have not been undertaken with the intention of counting individuals within a particular area. The only exception is the estimate of population abundance in and around State forest coupe HU302D, where Roberts et al. (2003) estimated a population abundance of over 70,000 across 15 ha. Less formal surveys in locations such as Wielangta, Hylands Road (Forestier Peninsula), Warners Sugarloaf and South Sister suggest that this estimate is likely to hold true, with some sites supporting 10s to 100s of individuals over small areas amongst otherwise large tracts of ideal potential habitat, where additional surveys continue to expand the localised range into this potential habitat Therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that subcriterion A3 is not met]. (B) Total population small or restricted and at risk in the form of EITHER of the following: 1. the total population consists of fewer than 10,000 mature individuals, and no more than 2,500 mature individuals occur on land that is in an area free from sudden processes capable of causing largely irreversible loss of individuals or habitat; OR [The term “and at risk” is critical to a species meeting criterion B. Roberts et al. (2003) and Wapstra et al. (2005) concluded that Thismia rodwayi is unlikely to be “at risk” from predictable threats, apart from conversion of native forest to monoculture plantation. This practice has now effectively ceased in Tasmanian public and private forests. This leaves stochastic events as the main threatening process, which by definition are unpredictable. For some species that occur as a single population, stochasticity can come into play. An example is Azorella macquariensis (Macquarie cushion), which occurs on subantarctic Macquarie Island, where it was assumed to be quite secure, before being devastated by a disease, an event that caught everyone by surprise 1. e. genuinely stochastic. In the case of Thismia rodwayi , the potential impact of a stochastic event is unlikely to manifest as a Statewide whole-of- population crash because of the widespread and geographically separated subpopulations. Criterion Bl is not met on the grounds that the total population is estimated at more than 10,000 mature individuals (see discussion under A3) and probably most populations (and therefore more than 2,500 mature individuals) occur in secure areas free from risk of irreversible loss of individuals or habitat). It is noted that reservation status perse does not form part of these criteria. However, for some species such as Thismia rodwayi , which occur in forests of various ages not requiring specific management intervention to ensure persistence, occurrence in reserves contributes significantly to the concept of “security from risk”]. 2. 90% of mature individuals occur in 15 or fewer subpopulations or locations and no more than 5 of these occur in an area that is free from sudden processes capable of causing largely irreversible loss of individuals or habitat. [This criterion is based on the same risk of stochastic events causing an 88 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) irreversible loss of individuals or habitat - see discussion under criterion B1. Thismia rodwayi is represented by c. 35 subpopulations, many of which occur in secure sites]. The conclusion from this discussion is that while the original listing of Thismia rodwayi as a threatened species under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 is understandable, the species no longer qualifies as “rare” due to its extent of occurrence, number of subpopulations, estimated population abundance, and persistence in its wet forest habitat subject to various natural and anthropogenic disturbances. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the numerous people who have assisted with surveys of Thismia rodwayi since 2003. Arthur Progly provided detailed information on the populations of Thismia rodwayi in the South Sister area and kindly allowed the use of his images. Kevin Bonham supplied details of the recent range extension to the northwest forests. Lori lee Yeates commented on a draft of the manuscript. REFERENCES Anon. (2000). Forest Practices Code 2000. Forest Practices Board, Hobart. DPIW (Department of Primary Industries & Water) (2008). Guidelines for Eligibility for Listing under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. Department of Primary Industries & Water, Hobart. Lawrence N., Storey D. & Whinam J. (2008). Reservation Status of Tasmanian Native Higher Plants. Biodiversity Conservation Report 07/1, Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart. Merckx, V.S.F.T. & Wapstra, M. (2013). Further notes on the occurrence of fairy lanterns Thismia rodwayi F. Muell. (Thismiaceae) in Tasmania: vegetation associations. The Tasmanian Naturalist 135: 71-78. Orr, S., and Gerrand, A.M. (1998). Management decision classification: a system for zoning land managed by Forestry Tasmania. Tasforests 10: 1-14. Roberts, N., Duncan, F., Wapstra, M. and Woolley, A. (2003a). Distribution, Habitat Characteristics and Conservation Status of Thismia rodwayi F. Muell. in Tasmania. A Report to Forestry Tasmania Conservation Planning Branch and the Forest Practices Board, Hobart. Roberts, N., Wapstra, M., Duncan, F., Woolley, A., Morley, J. and Fitzgerald, N. (2003b). Shedding some light on Thismia rodwayi F. Muell. (fairy lanterns) in Tasmania: distribution, habitat and conservation status. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 137: 55-66. Wapstra, M., French, B., Davies, N., O’Reilly-Wapstra, J. & Peters, D. (2005). A bright light of the dark forest floor: observations of the fairy lanterns Thismia rodwayi F. Muell. (Burmanniaceae) in Tasmanian forests. The Tasmanian Naturalist 127: 2-18. Note: The first author is a member of both the Scientific Advisory Committee and Community Review Committee established under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. This article reflects the personal opinions of the authors, not of any particular government agency or committee. 89 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) A REVISED LIST OF THE EXOTIC LAND MOLLUSCS OF TASMANIA Kevin Bonham Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University / of Tasmania, Hobart & 410 Macquarie Street, South Hobart, Tasmania 7004; k_bonham@tassie.net.au ABSTRACT The Tasmanian exotic land mollusc fauna is reviewed including the revision of names and the addition of recent records. The fauna includes 28 species introduced since European settlement, of which one has not been recently recorded. Notable recent introductions include Cernuella virgata (Da Costa, 1778) and Arion ater Linneaus, 1758. The taxonomy of the genus Paralaoma , which includes both exotic and native species, is discussed. The first Australian record of Arion silvaticus Lohmander 1937 is published. Introduced carnivorous Oxychilus species are a probable threat to some native land snail species. INTRODUCTION This paper provides a full listing of the current known exotic land snail and slug fauna in Tasmania with some comments on the distributions, invasiveness and in some cases possible impact of the species listed. In recent years, several previously unrecorded species have been recorded and many names in previously common use have changed. This paper follows the taxonomy of Stanisic et al. (2010) for convenience, except where otherwise indicated. While the author maintains a database of native land snail records, records of most exotic species are not being compiled on a systematic basis and the full distributions of common exotic snails arc not well mapped. There is a great degree of selection bias affecting which exotic species arc most likely to be reported to biosecurity authorities or lodged in museum collections. The last detailed review of the exotic fauna was by Kershaw (1991). This paper adds ten species to that review. Of those ten, at least four were already present in 1991 but had not been identified (or in one case recognised as exotic). It is possible another three had been long present before 1991 and overlooked. Only Cochlicopa lubrica in the mid-1990s, and Cernuella virgata and Arion ater in the late 2000s clearly appear to be fresh introductions in the last few decades. However, the last two are potentially major introduction events in terms of their possible agricultural and ecological impacts. This paper mainly concerns species apparently introduced since European settlement. However two species, Tornatellinops jacksonensis (Cox 1864) (Achatinellidae) and Omegapilla australis (Angas, 1864) (Pupillidae; previously known as Pupilla australis) may have been introduced accidentally by indigenous people. T. jacksonensis is recorded reliably from Preservation Island where it was collected in the late 1970s (Whinray 2009) and Schouten Island (Bonham 2006). Many government documents report the species as also recorded on Deal Island prior to 1994 but no specimen or primary source for this record has yet been found. O. australis occurs on several islands in the Furneaux Group and intermittently on the eastern Tasmanian coast with the southernmost record at Plain Place Beach near Triabunna (K. Bonham, 3 Sep. 1994). The pattern of occurrence of species in 90 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) localised very dense colonies is compatible with accidental introduction. There are rare cases of common Tasmanian land snails being collected well outside their range within the State, suggesting they may have been introduced to areas of the State they are not native to. However, most of these involve single specimens or collection events. One possible exception is the widespread presence of what appears to be Oreomava johnstoni I redale, 1930 in the Florentine Valley and around Lake Gordon, a disjunction of 90 km from the species' core range in the northwest and central north. However, the species may have a naturally disjunct range or the southern population may represent a cryptically distinct species, so it is not clear that this represents an introduction. The following exotic species all appear to have become introduced to the State since European settlement. FAMILY COCHLICOPIDAE Coc/tlicopa lu brie a (Muller, 1774) Formerly known as Cionella lubrica. The first Tasmanian record of this species was at Burnie Park in around 1995 (R. Mesibov, pers. comm.). It is now recorded from Hobart (first record K. Bonham in 2000) and Trevallyn, Launceston (first record K. Bonham in 2011). In Hobart it is now widespread and locally abundant in the inner city suburbs - West Hobart, South Hobart and upper Sandy Bay especially - and spreading. It is commonly recorded in native bushland in New Zealand (Mahlfeld 2000) and will probably invade disturbed bush areas in Tasmania over time. FAMILY VALLON1IDAE Vallonia excentrica Sterki, 1893 This species was previously misidentifled as Vallonia pulchella but is distinguished from that species by the off-centre coiling of the umbilicus. V. excentrica is common in Hobart and also present in Launceston, Dover, Maydena and probably many small towns. It does not invade bushland. Excluded: Cotton (1954) listed Vallonia costata as present in Tasmania but appears to have mixed up some text between this species and his text for V excentrica (as V pulchella). No evidence supporting the presence of the species in the State is known. FAMILY FERUSSACIIDAE Cecilioides acicula (MUller, 1774) First recorded from Macquarie Street, South Hobart in 2004 (Bonham 2005). Also now known from Goulburn Street, West Hobart. Probably widespread in Hobart but overlooked because of its subterranean habitat. FAMILY PUNCTIDAE Paralaoma servilis (Shuttleworth, 1852) This species is native to New Zealand, but it is a global introduction that was first validly described from the Canary Islands (Falkner et al. 2002). The species accounts for a significant portion of past Tasmanian records of Paralaoma caputspinulae (Reeve, 1852), which is a slightly junior synonym of the species. Tasmanian records of P. caputspinulae (e.g. by Smith & Kershaw (1981)) include records of P. servilis and also records of the following. • The native punctids Paralaoma halli (Legrand 1871) and Paralaoma discors (Petterd, 1902), considered by Smith & Kershaw (1981) to be synonyms of P. caputspinulae without any stated reason, but actually very distinct. (Among other differences, P. halli has a much narrower umbilicus and P. discors has a Hatter shell, usually a lateral keel, an angled aperture and much stronger blade-like ribbing). 91 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) • The native charopid originally described as Helix sitiens (Legrand, 1871), which resembles the Punctidae based on shell features, but is assigned to the Charopidae based on having a tricuspid radula, and is awaiting placement in a new genus (in preparation). • At least two common and possibly undescribed native punctids. One of these resembles P. servilis but typically has a flatter spire, a wider umbilicus and bolder radial ribbing, although specimens from some populations are difficult to assign clearly based on shell features. Another resembles P. halli but with a more compact, turbinate shape and typically lower and closer ribbing. Determining whether any of the many 19 th century names available apply to these species is difficult because of the lack of detail in descriptions, and frequently the lack of holotypes. P. servilis (Plates 1-3) is widespread in disturbed areas in the eastern half of the State and along the western north coast, as well as the Bass Strait islands, but there are no reliable records from the central west or southwest of the State as yet. It is most common in disturbed habitats including urban gardens and parks, pasture, quarries and dune scrub, and occurs patchily but is highly invasive. It is even present on the remote He des Phoques. Paralaoma sp. A high-spired punctid with a small umbilicus occurs sporadically in disturbed areas in Tasmania, where it is sometimes found in moderate numbers, usually associated with rock walls. It is distinguished from a similar undescribed native species by its larger size (c. 2 mm) and rich brown colour and by having a sculpture in which the irregular sharp ribbing present on the earlier whorls grades to low blunt indistinct ribbing on about the last half-whorl. The earliest certain collection is from a wall on the Southern Outlet near the Mt Nelson turnoff in 2002 but a punctid collected at Bothwell in 1968 (QVM:9:10508) may be this species, and it is likely to have been long present in the State but overlooked because of its small size in any case. Other localities include walls in Battery Point and West Hobart, a garden in Taroona, kerbs of the TMAG car¬ park at Rosny Park, High Street in Launceston, a park wall in Dover, a paddock near Richmond, and old stonework at the New Road abandoned mill site near Franklin. Attempts to identify this species, assumed to be exotic given the list of localities stated, have thus far failed. Photographs are published here (Plates 4-5) and any suggestions as to its identity and origin are welcome. FAMILY ZONITIDAE Oxychilus alliarius (Miller, 1822) Oxychilus celt anus (M tiller, 1774) Oxychilus draparnaudi (Beck, 1837) These three species of Oxychilus are recorded in Tasmania though it is possible there are others and there is a need for more dissections to establish this. O. draparnaudi (sometimes misspelled draparnaldi) occurs sporadically, and Tasmanian specimens are usually around 14 mm wide, compared to the widely quoted adult size of 16 mm. It is probably more common around Launceston compared to Hobart. O. cellarius is very common and widespread while O. alliarius is very widespread, but more common in the north and east of the State than around Hobart and further south. Oxychilus species arc carnivorous and very readily invade bushland. They have not been seen eating snails in the wild in Tasmania but have been recorded consuming native charopids and other small 92 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Plates 1-3. Paralaoma servilis from the author’s backyard; shell width 2.2 mm (images: K. Bonham) native snails and/or their eggs elsewhere, including in New Zealand (e.g. Barker 1999) and Hawaii (Curry & Yeung 2013). A decline in native land snail diversity at several sites in New Zealand has been attributed to exotic molluscs including Oxychilus (e.g. Mahlfeld 2000). In Tasmania, bushland sites with very high densities of Oxychilus typically have few or no native charopids even when distant from Plates 4-6. Paralaoma sp. (assumed exotic but unidentified) from Rosny Park; shell width 2.1 mm (images: K. Bonham) 93 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) other sources of apparent severe disturbance. However, native punctid diversities can remain high in areas that arc infested by these predators. Proving causation in a natural setting is notoriously difficult, but there is strong prima facie reason for concern that Oxychilus species are a major threat to the highly endangered native charopid Discocharopa vigens (Legrand, 1871) and that they may also in time threaten other localised charopid species. Indeed, it is possible that Oxychilus predation was the real cause of apparent local extinctions of D. vigens from localities where only dead shells have been found. Vitrea crystallina (Muller, 1774) Known from Hobart (frequent in older western shore suburbs), Launceston, Recherche Bay, Longley, Crabtree and the garden of the thermal pool near Hastings Caves. Likely to be very widespread. Zonitoides urboreus (Say, 1816) The very few records of this species (recorded as Z. nitidus) have all been from gardens where it has been found on orchid roots, of which it is a known pest. There is no evidence of the species becoming established outside such situations. FAMILY VITRINIDAE Vitrina pellucida (Muller, 1774) Some records of this widespread and fairly invasive introduction were given by Bonham (2002). It has since been found at several other localities including Orford, Buckland, Crabtree and Dysart (but not yet, despite persistent searching, Burnie). FAMILY AGRIOLIMACIDAE Deroceras reticulatum (Muller, 1774) Derocerus invadens Reise et al, 2011 Both these slugs arc very widespread and common, and sometimes invade bushland. The name D. invadens refers to the species formerly known as D. panormitanum (Lessona and Pollonera, 1882) and D. caraunae (Pollonera, 1891). However, Reise et al. (2011) established that the global tramp species for which the name D. panormitanum was in use was in fact undescribed and D. panormitanum is a localised European species. A further species, D. laeve (Muller, 1774) is not yet recorded from Tasmania but it would not be surprising to record it here. FAMILY LIMACIDAE Limacus flavus (Linnaeus, 1758) The large and well-known “yellow slug” is often recorded in Hobart and Launceston but does not appear to be invasive. Formerly known as Lehmannia/Java. Umax maximus Linnaeus, 1758 The very large “leopard slug”, on the other hand, is widespread and frequently invades bushland and forestry plantations. It can be found well away from apparent disturbance. That said, the species tends to occur singly or in small numbers only in all but the most disturbed bushland settings. The description of the species as “extremely abundant all over the island” by Petterd & Hedley (1909) may have been exaggerated. Lehmannia valentiana (Ferussac, 1823) Lehmannia nyctelia (Bourguignat, 1861) These two striped field slug species cannot be distinguished from each other on sight and must be partially dissected to confirm identification (the penis of L. valentiana has a prominent flagellum; that of L. nyctelia has none). Ten specimens collected from South Hobart, one from the Queens Domain and one from Crabtree all proved to be L. valentiana when dissected. However, an undatabased sample from near Scottsdale in the TMAG collections was found to contain 94 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) several L. nyctelia. Therefore both species are present in Tasmania and more study will be needed to establish their respective distribution patterns. Between them, the two species are widespread. FAMILY MILACIDAE Milax gagates (Draparnaud, 1801) Widespread and common. There is significant colour variation between populations but as yet no evidence that any other species is present. FAMILY TESTACELLIDAE Testacella haliotidea Draparnaud, 1801 Recorded by Cotton (1954) and Smith (1992); the latter advised me that he had seen old museum specimens from Hobart. There are no reliable records of this species in at least the last 30 years. However, as this species (a very recognisable slug with a small shell on its tail) lives underground it is possible it is still present but being overlooked. FAMILY HELICIDAE Cornu aspersum (Muller, 1774) This is one of three competing new names for the common garden snail, usually known until recently as Helix aspersa. Remarkably, this well-known pest species was first introduced to Tasmania (a gully in Queenborough) deliberately by malacologist C.E. Beddome in the 1870s, apparently as an experiment to see if it would survive (Petterd 1879). It was probably accidentally introduced to the north of the State not long after that. Theba pisana (Muller, 1774) This species is very common on King Island (first recorded 1971) and also present on Deal Island and parts of Flinders Island. On the Tasmanian mainland it is established on the South Arm peninsula. extending to Lauderdale (where first recorded in 1981) and Seven Mile Beach. There have been rare single collections from the north-east as well. No longer present: Petterd & Hedley (1909) recorded Eobcmia vermiculata (Muller, 1774) from Ulverstone and Cantareus apertus (Born, 1778) from Hobart. No further report of either species in Tasmania is known and it is believed both species failed to establish. FAMILY HYGROMIIDAE Cernuella virgata (Da Costa, 1778) This agricultural pest species was first recorded in Tasmania around 2007 in a spate of contaminated grain events. The infestations were eradicated but in the meantime the species had established at other sites. It is now present at Campania, Cooee Beach, Hagley, Giblin Street quarry (Lenah Valley), Hobart tip (McRobies Gully) and Tea Tree. There is no realistic prospect of eradicating it from all these sites. Prietocella barbara (Linneaus, 1758) Also known as Cochlicella barbara. Widespread and very common. Microxeromagna lowei (Potiez and Michaud, 1838) This is the correct name for the species formerly known as Cernuella vestita and Microxeromagna armillata. Widespread and very common. Excluded: Cochilicella acuta (Muller, 1774) and Candidula intersecta (Poirot, 1801) have been reported sometimes but all such reports that can be matched to specimens are misidentifications of the above two species respectively. FAMILY ARIONIDAE Arion intermedins (Normand, 1852) The small “hedgehog slug” is the most invasive introduced land mollusc in 95 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Tasmania. Almost any form of disturbance has the capacity to introduce it and it is commonly found associated with logging (old or new), at picnic shelters, at construction sites, even at rafting camps on remote rivers. Avion hortensis (Ferussac, 1819) Smith & Kershaw (1981) mapped only a small number of records of this species - the inaugural record from Mt Nelson (R. Mesibov in 1975) and records from Great Lake and Zeehan. The species is now widespread and common in greater Hobart and moderately invasive in disturbed native bushland. It is also widely recorded in the central north and parts of the north-west but there is a need to re-examine museum records as there is a fairly high rate of misidentification (sometimes resulting from striped specimens of A. intermedins, but also perhaps from A. silvaticus and potentially other unrecognised Arion species). Arion ater Linneaus, 1758 This very large black slug was first recorded in Tasmania at Somerset in December 2009 (L. Hill pers. comm.). Records since have shown it is now established in several parts of the State. There is a cluster of locality records in the Somerset-Wynyard area in the north-west and another in the Crabtree-Ranelagh area in the south. It is also now recorded from Zeehan (multiple sightings) and Howrah. It is likely to be recorded more widely in coming years. Arion silvaticus Lohmander, 1937 This slug was first recorded by the author at Crabtree (GR 504354 5246699) on 24 April 2012 while verifying a record of Arion ater. Three specimens were found in leaf litter on the roadside verge near a garden. It may occur elsewhere but have been overlooked. However, attempts to find it in the Hobart suburbs and surrounding bushland following the initial record failed. A photograph is published (Plate 7). Plate 7. Arion silvaticus from Crabtree; length 22 mm (image: K. Bonham) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank the following: Lionel Hill and Jamie Davies (DPIPWE) for information on records; Craig Reid (QVM), Simon Grove and Catherine By me (TMAG) and Liz Turner (formerly TMAG) for assistance with museum specimens, records and facilities; Bob Mesibov, Amanda Thomson, Leanne Fewings and others for records and specimens; Simon Grove also reviewed a draft of the manuscript. REFERENCES Barker, G.M. (1999). Naturalised terrestrial Stylommatophora (Mollusca: Gastro¬ poda). Fauna of New Zealand Ko te Aiutanga Pepeke o Aotearou 38, Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, Canterbury. Bonham, K. (2002). Vitrina pellucida (Muller, 1774)(Pulmonata: Vitrinidae), another land snail introduced into Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist 124:31-34. Bonham, K. (2005). Cecilioides acicula (Muller 1774) (Pulmonata: Ferussaciidae), a burrowing land snail introduced into Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist 127: 42-44. Curry, P.A. & Yeung, N.W. (2013). Predation on endemic Hawaiian land snails by the invasive snail Oxychilus alliarius. Biodiversity and 96 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Conservation. Published online 25 Oct 2013. Falkner G., Ripken T.EJ. & Falkner, M. (2002). Mollusques Continental^ de la France: Liste de Reference Anno tee et Bibliographic. Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. Kershaw, R.C. (1991). Snail and Slug Pests of Tasmania. Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Launceston. Mahlfeld, K. (2000). Impact of introduced gastropods on molluscan communities, northern North Island. Conservation Advisory Science Notes No. 277, Department of Conservation, Wellington. Petterd, W.F. (1879). A Monograph of the Land Shells of Tasmania. The Examiner, Launceston. Petterd, W.F. & Hedley, C. (1909). A revised census of the terrestrial molluscs of Tasmania. Records of the Australian Museum 7: 283-304. Reise, H., Hutchinson, J.M.C., Schunack, S. & Schlitt, B. (2011). Deroceras panormitanum and congeners from Malta and Sicily, with a redescription of the widespread pest slug as Deroceras invadens n. sp. Folia Malacologica 19 (4): 201-233. Smith, B.J. (1992). Non-Marine Molluscs. IN: Zoological Catalogue of Australia. (Ed. W.W.K. Houston.), Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Smith, B.J. & Kershaw, R.C (1979). Field Guide to the Non-Marine Molluscs of South-Eastern Australia. ANU Press, Canberra. Smith, B.J. & Kershaw, R.C. (1981). Tasmanian Land and Freshwater Molluscs. Fauna of Tasmania Handbook 5, University of Tasmania, Hobart. Whinray, J. (2009). Some records of non¬ marine molluscs for Banks and Eastern Bass Straits, Tasmania. Victorian Naturalist 126(6): 203-206. 97 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) OBSERVATIONS OF A FISHING TIGER SNAKE AND A MASS DEATH OF BEETLES IN TASMANIA Keith Corbett 35 Pillinger Drive. Fern Tree, Tasmania 7054; keith.corbett@bigpond.com INTRODUCTION This article records the observations made by the author and his wife of two unusual natural phenomena, the first being that of a tiger snake fishing for, and catching, a native trout in the Central Highlands, and the second being a mass death, and washing up, of millions of cockchafer beetles on Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania. TIGER SNAKE CATCHING NATIVE TROUT The following observations were made by the author and his wife while walking along the Little River, on the Central Plateau some 14 km north of Bronte Park, in early March 2013. It was a warm afternoon, and conditions were very dry, after a long hot summer. The river was reduced to a series of shallow pools separated by stretches of dolerite boulders. The general landscape was of grassy flats and open woodland. We noticed movement in the water at one of the pools, and closer inspection revealed a medium-sized tiger snake swimming around the rocks, mostly with its head under water. Occasional small fast-moving ‘bow waves’ across the pool (about 5 m across) were made by small native trout darting from rock to rock. We realised that the snake was actually fishing for the trout. After about 15 minutes we saw the snake lunge under the side of a boulder in the middle of the pool, and a second later the snake’s head emerged above the water holding the small trout (12-15 cm long) sideways in its mouth. The fish continued to kick for a short time, but soon subsided, and we presumed was dead, having been injected with venom. Rather than eating the fish, the snake laid it gently on the bottom in the shallow water, and as there was no current to speak of, the body stayed there, upside down (Plate 1). The snake resumed its (rather lazy) hunting soon after (Plate 2). By now we had a camera to hand, and were able to photograph the snake and the (presumably) dead fish. We had to leave soon after, with the snake still hunting slowly, and the fish still waiting to be eaten. As a comment, we were impressed with how the snake seemed perfectly at home in the water, and was able to hunt with its head under water for many minutes without the need to breathe. The fishing process seemed quite routine. An excellent recent article on the diets of Tasmanian snakes by Simon Fearn (Fearn 2013) notes that tiger snakes commonly forage underwater in streams and shallow lakes for fish, but we’ve not heard of them being observed actually catching fish. MASS DEATH OF BEETLES AT LIME BAY, SEPTEMBER 2013 On a visit to Lime Bay, Tasman Peninsula, on 15 September 2013, my wife and I were surprised to find the eastern beach partly covered by a mass of small black beetles that had clearly been washed up by the tide. The ‘deposit’ of beetles extended the full length of the beach, some 700 m, and was of the order of 1-1.5 m wide (Plate 3). The depth ranged from ‘one beetle’ on the margins to ‘many beetles’ in the central part. Towards the eastern end of the beach, 98 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 (2013) Plate 1 . Tiger snake beside recently caught fish Plate 2. Snake resumes hunting, leaving fish to ‘marinate’ 99 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) where some longshore drift had concentrated the beetles, the deposit was much deeper, of the order of 10-15 cm. The total number of beetles involved must have been many millions. Some of the beetles were still just alive, and crawling around slowly, suggesting the wash-up might have occurred a few days previously, but most were dead. Feeding on the beetles, and making a considerable noise, was a large number of forest ravens, and many seagulls. On our return walk along the track just inland of the beach we noted a number of what appeared to be regurgitations of beetle masses (Plate 4), presumably from the ravens. The number and size of the regurgitations suggested that the beetles may not have been particularly palatable. We did not see any currawongs. The western part of Lime Bay beach also had a large number of the beetles along most of its length, but not nearly as many as to the east. We photographed the phenomenon, and forwarded a photo and description to the Tasmanian Museum. We received an excellent reply from Dr Simon Grove as follows: “ They're called red-headed cockchafers, Adoryphorus couloni. They ve become a common species in southern Tasmania over the past decade or so; before that, they were only really common further north. The larvae feed in the soil, on grass roots. They pupate there and the adults emerge en masse in late winter or early spring; their chief purpose in life is to find mates and reproduce - swarming is presumably part of this mate¬ seeking behaviour. But like many insects, the adults seem to be attracted not just to each other but to light and to bright shiny surfaces - such as the sea. /'m not sure why they are so attracted, but it's probably why so many of them end up being drowned if they happened to emerge from the soil near the sea. The wind, waves and currents then sometimes conspire to cast them ashore in their millions, as at Lime Bay ". Simon has also noted, and illustrated, a wash-up of these same beetles, on a southern Tasmanian beach (Taroona, so Simon tells me), in the last issue of The Tasmanian Naturalist (Grove 2012). REFERENCES Feam, S. (2013). The diverse diets of Tasmania's snakes. 40 [Degrees] South 68: 54-58. Grove, S. (2012). A picture’s worth sixty words. The Tasmanian Naturalist 134:2-10. 100 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Plate 3. Part of the beetle deposit on Lime Bay beach (red pocket knife for scale) ■a Plate 4. Detail of the beetles Plate 5. Beetle regurgitation. Lime Bay 101 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) DIURNAL CLUSTERED PERCHING BEHAVIOUR IN IMMATURE DUSKY WOODSWALLOWS Don Hire! 1 & Geo ff Carle 2 l 27 Gatehouse Street. Moonah, Tasmania 7009, donhJ952@gmail.com; 2 80 East Denvent Highway. Lindisfarne, Tasmania 7015, gacarle@ozemail.com.au On February 9 2013 the Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club’s monthly excursion was to the Woodvine Nature Reserve, around 10 km north of Forcett in southeast Tasmania. One of the reasons for this visit was to inspect the aftermath of the bushfire that burnt much of the area around a month earlier. Woodvine consists of a range of habitats including former farmland, dry sclerophyll woodlands and extensive areas of sedgeland. At ground level, the woodlands support grassy, heathy and shrubby layers that reflect soil type and moisture levels. The Dusky Woods wallow, Artamus cyanopterus , is, despite its common name, more closely related to Australian magpies, butcherbirds, and currawongs in the family Artamidae. It ranges from Tasmania to the Atherton Tableland in Queensland and west to South Australia, with a separate population in Western Australia. Habitats described for Woodvine are typical of those utilised by the species. In Tasmania this species is common as a summer visitor, with most of the population migrating north in winter months. Woodswallows were observed hawking over areas of buttongrass moorland. On closer approach, groups of from 8 to 15 individuals were observed to be perching shoulder to shoulder on dead branches of black peppermint (Eucalyptus amygdalina ) trees. The perching birds carried mottled downy feathers, apparently recently fledged juveniles and were being fed by the hawking adults. During some 45 minutes of observation several such groups were observed on different perches (see Plates 1 & 2). Communal roosting at night in dusky woodswallows has been widely reported, as has communal nesting and cooperative efforts to repel nest predators such as kookaburras (e.g. Rowley 2000). Diurnal clustered perching in southern Tasmania has been reported by Wall (1976) and on mainland Australia by Cooper (1972), but no reports of the diurnal behaviour of juvenile/adult interactions reported here have been found. It is suggested that the behaviour observed may be a prelude to the formation of flocks, in which dusky woodswallows are usually observed. This in turn may anticipate the usual migration of the birds from Tasmania in April. It may also have an anti-predator function. REFERENCES Cooper, R. (1972). Daylight clustering of the dusky woodswallow. Australian Bird Watcher 4: 112-116. Rowley, I. (2000). Cooperative breeding by dusky woodswallows. Canberra Bird Notes 25(2): 49-58. Wall, L.E. (1976). Dusky woodswallows clustering in Tasmania. Australian Bird Watcher 6: 148-150. 102 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Plate 1. Juvenile Dusky Woodswallows waiting for adults to bring insects caught on the wing by adults Plate 2. Clustered juvenile Dusky Woodswallows: aggregations like this were being formed but re-arranged (both within clusters of individuals and between different perches) in the 30 minutes of observation 103 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) OBSERVATIONS OF THE MIENA JEWEL BEETLE CASTIARINA INSCULTPA (CARTER, 1934) IN THE SUMMER OF 2012-13 Kevin Bonham 17 , Karen Richards 2,3 , Chris P. Spencer 3 , Simon Grove 4 , Craig Reid 3 , Catherine Byrne 4 , Don Hird 6 & Abbey Throssell 7 department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, k_bonham@tassie.net.au (corresponding author); 2J Threatened Species & Marine Section, Biodiversity> Conservation Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Parks. Water & Environment, GPO Box 44. Hobart. Tasmania 7000; 3 INTA ’FA UNA Ecological Consultants. 141 Valley Road, Collinsvale. Tasmania 7012; 4 Tasmania Museum and Art Gallery>, GPO Box 1164, Hobart, Tasmania 7001; 5 Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, 2 Wellington Street, Launceston, Tasmania 7250; 6 27 Gatehouse Street, Moonah, Tasmania 7009; 7 410 Macquarie Street, South Hobart, Tasmania 7004 ABSTRACT The Miena jewel beetle Castiarina insculpta (Carter, 1934) is classified as endangered on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and has been infrequently recorded since its re-discovery in 2004. Multiple searches during February 2013 resulted in observations of large numbers of live individuals of the species at several sites on Tasmania's Central Plateau. These finds resulted in a moderate range extension, recognition of Ozothamnus hookeri Sond. as the species’ host plant, and increased life history knowledge of the beetle. Only further searching will determine whether the species was unusually abundant in 2012-13, or whether INTRODUCTION & PAST RECORDS The Tasmanian jewel beetle fauna includes at least 50 species, several of which have poorly known distributions or have been seldom recorded (Cowie 2001; Grove & Yaxley 2004). One of the most diverse genera, Castiarina Gory and Laporte 1838, includes several apparently endemic species, some of which are confined to high altitudes and are poorly known (Barker 2006). The Miena jewel beetle, Castiarina insculpta (Carter, 1934) is a striking species recognisable by its bright metallic blue- green colour with yellow elytral patches and distinctive inwardly curved spines at the posterior elytral margins. The original description referred only to the species' collection by Critchley Parker in the “Great Lake district 1 ” and to the holotype specimen had been overlooked in previous years. (which is held in the collections of the British Museum of Natural History). A second specimen, held by the South Australian Museum, was collected in 1965. However this record was overlooked, and in the absence of further records despite some searching, the species was prematurely classified as presumed extinct on the inaugural schedules of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (Bryant & Jackson 1999). The species was re-discovered in 2004 when two specimens were collected (Smith et al. 2004). In 2008 and 2010 there were a further two confirmed collections of single dead specimens. The records between 2004 and 2010 were made in February with the exception of one dead specimen collected in mid-March. Notably, the records typically resulted from accidental collection by members of the general public 104 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) rather than naturalists specifically searching for the species, and all specimens collected were female. Table 1 summarises the pre-2013 collecting history. The discovery of a dead specimen at Lake Augusta by Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club member James Wood in 2008 resulted in great interest in the species among members of the Club. Club outings organised by DH to search for the beetle were conducted on 18 January 2009 and 29 January' 2012 without success although the latter resulted in two records of Castiarina rudis (Carter, 1934), a seldom-recorded and apparently rare species. Table 1. Castiarina insculpta sites where records occurred prior to 2013 Site Location Tenure 1:25000 mapshcct Year(s) recorded Abundance 1 Great Lake' Unknown Miena pre-1934 1 2 Miena 2 Unknown Miena 1965 1 3 Miena 3 Private property Miena 2004 1 (dead) 4 Little Pine Lagoon or Lake Fergus 4 Public Reserve or Central Plateau Conservation Area Miena 2004 1 5 Lake Augusta near Carter Lakes Central Plateau Conservation Area Ada 2008, 2013 1 (dead), 2 6 Lake Augusta or Great Lake (Brandum Bay) 5 Unknown Ada or Miena 2010, 2013 1 (dead), moderate 6 'Carter (1934) described the Miena Jewel Beetle from a specimen collected by Critchley Parker from the “Great Lake district" (holotype. Natural History Museum, London) but the date is not stated; 2 single specimen, attributed to K. LeSouef, collected from the Miena area and held at the South Australian Museum (Cowie 2001; Smith et al. 2004); 3 the “re-discovery" specimen “collected" in the back of a ute, having been driven through Miena; Reported in Smith et al. (2004), based on a specimen from an angler, who had visited the Little Pine Lagoon or Lake Fergus area; Reported by an angler who found a dead beetle in the bottom of his fishing boat after angling at Lake Augusta and Brandum Bay (Great Lake) on the same day (Tabor & Bowden 2010); 6 moderate abundance refers to Brandum Bay THE 2013 RECORDS A review of record dates conducted by KB suggested we may have been searching too early in the year. Thus in 2013, the first search by the Club (this trip including KB, AT, DH & CR) did not occur until 3 February. A follow-up expedition on 6 February produced more specimens and records, and this was followed by multiple successful searches in other locations by KR and CS and, independently, by CR as well as a trip by James Wood. The first sighting during the 2013 search occurred around the junction of the Lake Highway and Lake Augusta Road. The site had been thoroughly searched by the Club during the late January 2012 trip, with no jewel beetles of any species observed, but during the February 2013 visit the first specimen of Castiarina insculpta was found within a few minutes. More soon followed. In all about 25 specimens were observed by about a dozen searchers over a period of about 70 minutes. Beetles were active on Ozothamnus hookeri (scaly 105 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) everlasting bush) blossom (Plates 1-3) or flying between the shrubs. In two cases, loose groups of several specimens were observed together on vegetation. Other flowering shrubs in the area including other species of Ozothamnus were not generally visited by the beetles. One live specimen was found entangled in a spider web amongst Ozothamnus hookeri foliage (CR). On 10 February at the same site, a coupled pair was photographed on the flowerhead of an Ozothamnus hookeri. Plate 1. Castiarina insculpta on flowerhead of Ozothamnus hookeri Plate 2. Castiarina insculpta feeding on Ozothamnus hookeri Plate 3. Close-up of Castiarina insculpta feeding on Ozothamnus hookeri Searches at other sites around the western side of Great Lake and around Lake Augusta over following weeks were usually successful, except in conditions of unsuitable weather (including high wind), provided that Ozothamnus hookeri was present in significant quantities. Weather conditions did not need to be unusually warm for the beetle to be found. Numbers varied considerably among sites. Vegetation types ranged from alpine moorland to subalpinc eucalypt forest, provided that the host plant was present. Surveys conducted along the Marlborough Highway identified significant stands of Ozothamnus hookeri and presence of Castiarina insculpta as far as the Little Pine Lagoon Dam wall. At Skittleball Plains amid an ocean of Ozothamnus hookeri with many attendant beetles, a pair of Castiarina insculpta opportunely mated on a researcher’s hand (Plate 4). On a subsequent search conducted in late February, CS and KR extended the species’ range to Tods Corner where a significant area of Ozothamnus hookeri exists across Ellis Plains. A further sighting was made beside the Lake Highway 2 km north of the Tods Corner Road turnoff (CR). Additional searches of suitable habitat in the vicinity of Arthurs Lake, Penstock Lagoon, Cramps Bay and on Poatina Road near Jonah Bay Road (KR & CS) failed to locate Castiarina insculpta. However, on 2 March, an empty pronotal segment of an unidentified Castiarina species, possibly Castiarina insculpta , was found in a spider web amongst Ozothamnus hookeri foliage beside Poatina Road at its junction with Poatina Intake Road (CR). The site where the beetles were most readily observable on 6 February was around the junction of Highland Lakes Road and Lake Augusta Road. It was here that a female was observed (by SG & CB) behaving rather differently after alighting 106 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) near the tip of a flowering Ozothamnus hookeri plant. Most individuals observed up to that point had tended to remain feeding amongst the flowers, or to take to the wing again soon after alighting. Instead, this female began a purposeful rearwards crawl down the woody stem of the plant. As the stem became thicker, she increasingly probed fissures in the bark with the tip of her abdomen. She continued this behaviour for several minutes, as several of us took photos. On at least two occasions her probings seemed to have found the right spot for oviposition, as her abdomen remained in position for perhaps ten or fifteen seconds (Plate 5). From this behaviour, and from finding Castiarina- sized and shaped emergence-holes in similar stems nearby (Plate 6), we conclude that Ozothamnus hookeri is a (the?) larval host-plant for Castiarina insculpta. A more detailed paper on the species' life history is currently being prepared by CS & K.R. Table 2. 2013 records of Castiarina insculpta Site Location Tenure 1:25000 niapsheet Number recorded 1 Liawenee, Lake Augusta Road Private property Central Plateau Conservation Area Split Rock >60 2 Mickeys Creek Central Plateau Conservation Area Breona 1 3 Pine Tree Rivulet, Great Lake HEC Breona 10 4 north of Liawenee Rainbow Point Conservation Area Split Rock 12 5 Lake Augusta Road Private property Split Rock 1 6 Little Pine Lagoon, southwestern end Little Pine Lagoon Lakeside Reserve Monpeelyata 5 7 Marlborough Highway, Little Pine Lagoon Private property Miena 8 8 Tods Corner Private property Arthurs Lake 15 9 Camerons Lagoon Private property Central Plateau Conservation Area Miena 2 Over this survey period, CS & KR recorded two additional Castiarina species, Castiarina flavopicta and Castiarina wilsoni. Both were found on Ozothamnus ericifolia (heathy everlastingbush) blossom. K.B collected one specimen of Castiarina virginea from a spider's web. Table 2 summarises the 2012-2013 collecting history of Castiarina insculpta. Plate 4. Mating pair of Castiarina insculpta 107 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) DISCUSSION The principal question raised by finding Castiarina insculpta in such numbers is why there have not been similar finds before. Possible hypotheses include: (i) that the species is often this common, or nearly so, and has been overlooked because incorrect tree species were targeted as prospective host-plants (for instance, species of Leptospermum , visited by many other buprestids); (ii) that this was a season of unusual plenty for Castiarina insculpta and it is normally genuinely scarce; or (iii) some previous surveys were undertaken outside of the flight period of Castiarina insculpta and/or the flowering period of Ozothamnus hookeri (see Plate 7 for image of plant). Plate 5. Ovipositing female Castiarina insculpta Attempts to repeat our results during following summers will be necessary to establish which of these (if any) is correct. Concerning (ii), the summer of 2013 was considered unusually warm, with Hobart's hottest ever day recorded on 4 January and many other hot days at sea level. Bureau of Meteorology records, however, show that average temperatures at Liawenee through 2012-13 were just slightly warmer than normal, with most months up to around 1 degree per day warmer than average. This seemingly minor temperature difference may in fact have a major impact on a species adapted to alpine conditions. No live specimens were observed by CR during searching on 2 March. Plate 6. Putative emergence hole of Castiarina insculpta CONSERVATION STATUS The Miena jewel beetle was listed in 1995 as presumed extinct on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 , on the basis that no individuals had been collected in the wild since at least 1934 (the 1965 collection only came to light in 2004). Following the “re-discovery” of the species (Smith et al. 2004), it was downgraded to endangered. The beetle was considered to meet criterion D in the guidelines used by the Scientific Advisory Committee to 108 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) inform recommendations on listing, specifically D1 (total population estimated to number fewer than 250 mature individuals) and D2 (total population with an area of occupancy less than 0.01 km 2 (1 hectare), and typically in five or fewer locations that provide an uncertain future due to the effects of human activities or stochastic events, and thus capable of becoming extinct within a very short time period). Following the recent discoveries of robust subpopulations the listing has been reviewed. The species still qualities for listing as endangered, as it is possible that it meets criterion C, specifically C2b (total population estimated to be fewer than 2,500 individuals in years of lowest abundance with extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals). This could apply if 2013 was an unusually good year for the species and it was normally much less common. However, if further surveying demonstrates that there are not extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals, or that the total population in years of lowest abundance exceeds 2,500 individuals, then the species' endangered status will need to be reassessed. We recommend that further seasonal surveys to assess the relative abundance of the species be conducted to inform future consideration of downlisting or delisting Castiarina insculpta. REFERENCES Barker, S. (2006). Castiarina: Australia's Richest Jewel Beetle Genus. ABRS, Canberra. Bryant, S.L. & Jackson, J. (1999). Tasmania's Threatened Fauna Handbook: What , Where and How to Protect Tasmania's Threatened Animals. Threatened Species Unit, DPI WE, Hobart. Carter, HJ. (1934). Australian and New Guinea Coleoptera. Notes and new species. No. III. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 598: 252-269. Cowie, D. (2001). Jewel Beetles of Tasmania: A Field Naturalist's Guide. Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club, Inc., Hobart. Grove, S.J. & Yaxley, B (2004) A species of jewel beetle (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) new to Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist 126: 29-30 Smith, B.J, Reid, C. & Gordon, T. (2004). Rediscovery of the Miena jewel beetle (Castiarina insculpta Carter, 1934), formerly listed as extinct. The Tasmanian Naturalist 126: 31-34. Tabor, J. & Bowden, D. (2010). Fishing for a jewel beetle. Forest Practices News 10 ( 2 ): 1-2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The late David Cowie's work and book on the Tasmanian jewel beetle fauna played a major role in increasing the Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club's interest in jewel beetles, and greatly encouraged the research discussed in this paper. Plate 7. Ozothamnus hookeri 109 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) BOOK REVIEWS colour line drawings of numerous genera, many of which will be familiar to people. Flora of the Otway Plain & Ranges 2: Daisies, Heaths, Peas, Saltbushes, Sundews, Wattles and Other Shrubby and Herbaceous Dicotyledons by Enid Mayfield ' CSIRO Publishing (2013), softback, 219 pages (ISBN 9780643098060) REVIEWED BY: Mark Wapstra, 28 Suncrest Avenue, Lenah Valley, Tasmania 7008 As long awaited as the third season of Game of Thrones , volume 2 of Enid Mayfield’s promised follow-up to the Flora of the Otway Plain & Ranges /, which covered the petaloid monocotyledons, has been worth the wait. In 2011 I waxed lyrical about volume 1 and how useful it would be to Tasmanian naturalists and botanists, despite being focused on just one region of Victoria. Volume 2 is better, if that is possible. Where do I start? The book is visually superb, brilliantly presented, quality-bound and printed, and worth every cent of the $60 shelf price (don’t baulk in the slightest at the cost - there won’t be a second of regret). There are some brilliant things about the book. First, the illustrated family “key” is unique and covers 75 families and over 200 genera. Starting from first principles in working out what the plant in front of you is has never been easier: let’s face it, we all prefer a pictorial key over a bland technical text-based key. The “key” is more a summary of the key features of each family, with each family illustrated by the typical member genera that display the important features. So for example, the numerous flowerhead types in the Asteraceae are amply illustrated by precise and accurate I r, : U n FLORA l0 ‘ ; OF THE OTWAY PLAIN & RANGES 2 j k MtAtMS PUS SAlTBUSHfcS AND WAUIWY AND Enid Mayfield What then follows are the family accounts. For the record, Mayfield has chosen to use, in the main, the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group’s classification rather than the older Cronquist system most Tasmanians are familiar with so you’ll find Samhucus in Adoxaceae not Capri foliaceae, Mazus in Phyrmaceae not Scrophulariaceae, Denventia , Gratiola and Veronica in Plantaginaceae not Scrophulariaceae, Lasiopetalum in Malvaceae not Sterculariaceae, and Euphrasia in Orobanchaceae not Scrophulariaceae, to name just a few. The family accounts are where this book goes from great to brilliant, because of the coverage of 480 species (many of which do occur in Tasmania) with detailed colour line drawings (there is something “better” about line drawings for identifying plants that can be easier than even brilliant colour photographs). The drawings are excellently labelled with the main identifying features relevant to the genus or species. Each genus is accompanied by a brief opening description, and species are usually 110 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) illustrated side by side, making comparison of features very easy. As with the first volume, there are many interesting “asides” placed in boxes such as “Atriplex plants are designed to live with salt water”, which describes how these plants accumulate salt in leaves and expel it through bladder-like hairs, or “Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM)’, which describes how species of Crassula taste bitter in the morning but are tasteless by noon due to the accumulation of malic acid during the night, which is broken down in the cells during the day. Any professional or budding botanist or naturalist will want Volume 2 of the Flora of the Otway Plain & Ranges to slide in next to Volume 1 - I urge you do go and order a copy immediately! Stung! On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean by Lisa - ann Gershwin , The University of Chicago Press (2013), 592 pages (ISBN 9781921517280) REVIEWED BY: Simon Grove, Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery, GPO Box 1164, Hobart, Tasmania 7001 If you’ve ever been stung or otherwise inconvenienced by jellyfish, then this book is for you. If you haven’t, read this book anyway. Because its message is for us all. While some of us worry that cockroaches will inherit the land once we have completely fouled our own nest, out in the oceans the extent of our fouling has already elevated jellyfish to this position. That, at least, is Gershwin’s thesis. Anyone who has seen her speak on jellyfish - at a field naturalists’ meeting or in the media - will appreciate that her opinions are delivered with conviction and authority. And humour, and a certain Gershwinesque style that is all her own. If you like that style, you’ll love this book - she delivers it in spades. If you don’t, then do persevere because there is much to learn from this well-researched tome that is part science, part edutainment and part clarion- call for action. As the book progresses, Gershwin draws you in. In the early chapters, the jellyfish are the villains, and humans the victims - of stings, of clogged fishing-nets, of blocked power-station intake-pipes, of collapsed economies. Later on, we learn that the jellyfish are only doing what they have done for hundreds of millions of years - seizing the moment and hijacking the food-chain, conscripting it into producing more and more jellyfish. It’s just that our activities - overfishing, dredging the sea-floor, polluting, over- fertilising, introducing non-native species, and so on - are providing all the opportunities that jellyfish need to monopolise the ocean’s dwindling resources - and to do so at the expense of our infrastructure, our fisheries, our economies, and indeed entire marine ecosystems. The tipping-point concept seems tailor-made for explaining how jellyfish take advantage of humanity’s The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) mismanagement of the oceans: once an ecosystem heads down a trajectory leading to domination by jellyfish instead of fish, there’s really no easy way back. Though ultimately a sobering storyline, along the way we are treated to a wonderful array of potted histories and anecdotes. These range from fascinating jelly trivia to profound insights into the natural and cultural world, told largely through the medium of jellyfish. The accompanying colour plates, illustrating both the jellies and the stories, are excellent. Many of the stories relate to North America - as befits both Gershwin’s origins and her biggest target audience. But Australia - including Tasmania, Gershwin’s adopted home - also features prominently. This isn’t necessarily something that we should be proud of. Of course, not all jellies are trouble, and not everywhere is facing the kind of ecological collapse that preoccupies Gershwin. Tasmanian jellyfish are generally benign (so far!), and Tasmanians have certainly had much less exposure to ‘bad’jelly issues than, say, those living around the Black or Caspian seas, or the Mediterranean, or the Yellow Sea. But the number of places around the world where jellies are causing trouble is growing, and even in Tasmania there have been major changes to the jellyfish fauna in recent years - of which the apparently recent arrival of box-jellies (Grove 2013) is but one example among many. Has Gershwin got a case? Definitely. Has she overstated her case? Put it this way: scientists tend to be a cautious, circumspect lot, and few would be prepared to stick their necks out to the extent that Gershwin has. Without doubt, some will seek to distance themselves from what she has written. But I have a feeling that Gershwin will be proven right, in the end. In the end - what an ominous phrase. The title of Gershwin’s final chapter - one of her best in a literary sense - is The rise of slime. I don’t want our wonderful world to end like this. I would much rather she were proven wrong. Reference Grove, S.J. (2013). Jimbles in the Derwent! The Tasmanian Naturalist 135: 41-42. Australian Bird Names: A Complete Guide by Ian Fraser & Jeannie Gray , CSIRO Publishing (2013), softback , 336 pages (ISBN 9780643104693) REVIEWED BY: Mark Wapstra, 28 Suncrest Avenue, Lenah Valley, Tasmania 7008 I knew I was waiting for this book because I wanted to write it myself] After getting into the language of scientific and vernacular plant names with our own book Tasmanian Plant Names Unravelled , my interest began to extend to Tasmanian animals. Birds especially seem to end up with a plethora of names reflecting their calls, habitat, perceived threat to a crop, behaviour but most usually their appearance. Many names also reflect our cultural background - ‘robins’, ‘jays’, ‘larks’ are all names we brought over from Europe and applied to superficially similar species. There are also a few Aboriginal names we’ve adopted. Australian Bird Names is a work of some magnitude. It is detailed in all its parts. The knowledge of both birds and language displayed by the authors is amazingly well presented in a style that is anything but dull. Books on scientific language could be boring but the authors have chosen a style that is fun but not frivolous while at the same time providing a level of information that goes beyond a short dictionary-style entry. The book is a joy to read. Perhaps it is not the sort of book one would read cover to 112 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) cover (although I have), rather using the index (separate index for scientific and common names) to find a familiar species. I did this for one of Tassie’s favourite endemics, the ‘bush chook’ or ‘turbo chook\ otherwise known as the ‘Tasmanian Native Hen’. Unfortunately these two widely used vernaculars were not included. And ‘rain bird’ seems to be missing for the Yellow-tailed Black- cockatoo, a vernacular I’ve heard many times in the agricultural and forestry parts of Tasmania. But under other entries I checked I found all the expected names such as ‘Summer-bird’ for the Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike. The authors do not shy from presenting information that is obscure, unexplained or controversial. They have a go at explaining every name they’ve encountered but don’t make the mistake of perpetuating possible etymologies, preferring to be clear in being uncertain. Ian Fraser and Jcannic AUSTRALIAN ' Bin/.- NAMES A COMPLETE GUIDE I’m sure working out a format for the book would have been difficult: order by family, scientific name, common name, alphabetically? The authors settled on ordering by family using the sequence most commonly applied i.e. as per Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds by Christidis & Boles (2008), which makes a lot of sense. Genera are then explained, followed by species, the latter headed by the most recently accepted vernacular name agreed by BirdLife Australia. To a botanist, ordering by vernacular name and not scientific name seems a little unscientific but to the birding world this is completely appropriate (and it gives the work a broader readership I suspect). 1 strongly recommend this book but it may need to be special order as it does not seem to be on shelves of “all good book stores”. The $50 price tag is very reasonable for the level of research and detail and its applicability across the w hole of Australia and offshore territories. This is a book for the lovers of birds, language and books. A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia by Steve Wilson & Gerry Swan, New Holland Publishers (2013), softback, 592 pages (cloth: ISBN 978-0-226-02010-5) REVIEWED BY: Alex Dudley, 24 Warialda Road, Coolatai, New South Wales 2402 For many years. Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia by Harold Cogger was the definitive guide for anyone wanting to identify a reptile in the field. Unfortunately, it was a large heavy book and not what someone would be likely to slip into a backpack. The last edition was printed in 2000, and as great as this tome was, it is now seriously out of date. The purchase of a second-hand copy of Hal Cogger's work can now set one back $300 or more. However, since the first edition of A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia was produced in 2003, naturalists have had a less comprehensive, but more portable, alternative. The fourth edition of A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia was published in 2013, hitting the shelves 113 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) in July at a retail price of $49.95. It is already out of date, with a publication splitting Eremiascincus fasciolatus (Squamata: Scincidae) into several species produced within months of its production. Nonetheless, it is a great tool for natural historians and herpetologists, and covers the 946 species of Australian reptiles described at the end of 2012. However, with that number of species being covered, the fourth edition of this book is not as easily portable as the l sl edition. REPTILES OF AUSTRALIA The book is well bound with a soft cover reinforced with a transparent plastic cover. I have used all previous editions in tough field conditions and the book has stood up well to being bumped about in a glovebox or backpack. A 19.5 cm scale is printed on each of the inside end covers (under the clear plastic) which is a tool for measuring animals in the field. The book contains a comprehensive glossary of terms, and illustrations of the position of identifying characteristics between pages 12-17. There are plates of a variety of habitats, followed by species descriptions divided amongst the 21 families of reptiles presently recognised. There are no dichotomous keys as such but many distinguishing characteristics are further illustrated under generic headings and printed in bold type in the species description, which can prove very useful. The species descriptions contain the common name, the scientific name (but not the authority), notes on habitat and distribution, and in those cases where the identification may be confused, users are advised to "see also" in bold type. Amongst those species that have a listed conservation status, the status is indicated. Each description is accompanied by a photograph of a living animal, with few exceptions where museum specimens have been photographed. The photographs are generally of excellent quality although some which have been carried over from previous editions and enlarged in this edition appear slightly soft, as if they were upsized without being resampled. In species demonstrating regional variation or sexual dimorphism this variation is often illustrated, although there seems to have been no effort made to obtain photographs from type localities or identify "topotypic" photographs. Many recently described taxa have been split from what was previously regarded as a single species, so an indication of whether the photograph illustrates the form from the type locality would be useful as this is likely to continue. Each species has its own map of where it is known occur in Australia, and all though the maps are relatively small, they appear fairly accurate within the limits imposed by the paucity of data over much of Australia. The lack of dichotomous keys makes identifying an unfamiliar species more difficult for the novice so someone with little experience may find themselves simply flicking through the pages until they find a reptile that looks similar, but in conjunction with the distribution maps, the 114 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) "see also" and the descriptions that focus on identifying characteristics, most animals are readily identified. The fact that there has been (and will continue to be) changes in the taxonomy of Australian reptiles as effort is made to align nomenclature with phylogeny means that there has been some generic reshuffling, so animals do not always appear where you expect them to be. The genera and species are arranged alphabetically within families. Personal vendettas amongst herpetologists claiming naming rights cloud the issues of taxonomy even further. This book is a must-have for anybody venturing outside of Tasmania and wanting to know about the local reptile fauna. It is likely that this book will soon be available as an iPad app available through the iTunes Store (according to a note on the back cover), where it will be arguably even more useful. The demand for field guides carried on smart phones and tablets is growing, and already UgMedia has produced "Snakes of Oz", an excellent guide for Australian snakes that uses location services to rapidly narrow the search. A similar porting of this book will make what is presently the most up-to-date guide to reptiles for the whole of Australia even more useful. Pathfinders in Tasmanian Botany: An Honour Roll of People Connected through Naming Tasmanian Plants by Dick Burns, Tasmanian Arboretum Inc. (2012), softback , 259 pages (ISBN 9780646580388) REVIEWED BY: Mark Wapstra, 28 Suncrest Avenue, Lenah Valley, Tasmania 7008 I suppose book reviews should be written soon after publication but one of the problems with an annual journal such as The Tasmanian Naturalist is that sometimes reviews seem a bit late. But I wasn’t going to let that stop me writing the review for Dick Bums’ new production, simply because it deserves to be promoted to anyone who hasn’t gone out to get it yet. PATHFINDERS IN . TASMANIAN Taxiunun Arboretum Inc. Dick Burns is of course well known in Tasmanian naturalist circles, especially by the botanical fraternity. After “retiring” from teaching, Dick has been the curator of the Tasmanian Section at the Tasmanian Arboretum, a beautiful botanical haven near Eugenana in northern Tasmania. If you haven’t dropped in, do so, but leave enough time to properly enjoy the place. The Arboretum is run and maintained by volunteers and sales of the new book go towards supporting the Arboretum. Pathfinders in Tasmanian Botany is illustrated and written for a wide audience, from the scientist to the naturalist: anyone with an interest in history and botany will find themselves delving into this book frequently. Most readers would know of my own interest in the etymology of plant 115 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) names: Dick has brought to life many of the background stories, and his love of history is evident in the depth of research and faithful representation of facts. The book is divided into several sections, with the core of the book illustrated accounts of botanists and collectors, with biographical information woven into the story of the names of plants associated with these people. While some of the obvious people are covered (such as Darwin, Banks, Labillardiere, Brown, the Hookers, von Mueller, Archer, Gunn and Cunningham), Burns has also covered some more obscure contributors (such as Riche, Dickson and Persoon), and more modern faces (such as Rodway, Moscal, Stones, Curtis, and Morris). This book is thorough, with a miscellaneous section of other plant names bearing honorific epithets also explained. It is also a good guide to the classification and nomenclature of plants, with good chapters on these sorts of topics. A guide to public gardens displaying Tasmanian plants, including the Tasmanian Arboretum, is also a good adjunct to the book. The illustrations and plates are a pleasing mixture of historical portraits, line drawings and maps, and digital colour images of people and plants. Pathfinders in Tasmanian Botany is a valuable addition to the compendium of natural history books about Tasmania. It is a valuable companion to other books such as Tasmanian Plant Names Unravelled (apologies for the blatant self-promotion), Janet Somerville*s Botanical History of Tasmania 1642-1820 (Potts, Kantvilas & Jarman, eds) and Australian Botanist's Companion (Alex George) but will find a place in your shelves in its own right as a scholarly work of historical research and botanical study. I strongly commend this book to all readers. The Overland Track, Cradle Mountain to Lake St Clair: A Complete Guide to Walking, Flora, Fauna and History by Warwick Sprawson, Red Dog Books (2010), softback , 188 pages (ISBN 9781742035116 REVIEWED BY: David Ratkowsky, 20 York Street, Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7005 This book is of a very convenient size (184 x 126 mm) to be placed in the backpack of anyone doing Tasmania’s iconic Overland Track. It is divided into seven unequal pails, the largest being the Track Notes of Part 5, comprising 53 pages of notes arranged in the most common hut-to-hut sequence that walkers would use in doing this 6-7 day trip. These notes describe the features of each day’s walk, and detail the various side trips that are available in each trip section. Even those walkers who have no interest in natural history are likely to find valuable information in those 53 pages and in the map inserted into the inside back cover. There are c. 12 pages on history and geology, but the 37 pages on the flora and 30 pages on the fauna are the ones likely to appeal to those who will buy the book for its natural history content. Other parts of the book include information on the equipment, water and food that walkers intending to do the Overland Track should take with them, and there are also some pages detailing the transportation and accommodation options getting to and from the Cradle Mountain- Lake St Clair National Park. Of course, a book of this size can make no pretensions at being complete, and the section devoted to the flora (Part 6) deals with only 65 plant species out of an estimated total of more than 450 growing within the national park. These arc arranged 116 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) into five simplified vegetation communities: alpine/subalpine, buttongrass moorland/heath, eucalypt forest, grassland and rainforest. This has the benefit of aiding the walker in identification (provided, of course, that walkers can classify the communities they walk through) but it has two downsides, one being that some species grow in more than one of the communities, and the other being that species of the same genus are often far apart from each other in the guide. Nevertheless, good photos have been used to illustrate the species, and the currently accepted common names for Tasmanian plants have been used in all cases, which is much to be commended. The section devoted to the fauna (Part 7) will satisfy those who love mammals and snakes, and perhaps some birdwatchers (with 24 bird species illustrated and described), but will do nothing for those who have an interest in invertebrates, as there is no mention of insects, mites, snails and annelids (unless one includes the section entitled “Hassles and dangers posed by creatures" where walkers are urged to protect themselves against march Hies, leeches, mosquitoes, jack jumpers, etc.). This omission is not surprising, as ‘creepy- crowlies’ and the like are often overlooked, but since beetles account for more than a quarter of all known species of plants and animals on this planet, and since there are about as many species of ants as there are birds, some enthusiasts for these life forms may be disappointed. However, perhaps to compensate, there is a page on fungi (including a slime mould) and a few additional photographs of fungi dispersed throughout the book. The book was originally published by Red Dog Books in 2010, but can be purchased for $19.95 directly from the author’s website http://www.overlandguide.com. Anyone contemplating walking the Overland Track will find the book to be a useful companion for the journey. Orchids of Tasmania by Bill Higham & Malcolm Wells (2013), iPad and iPhone app REVIEWED BY: Mark Wapstra, 28 Suncrest Avenue, Lenah Valley, Tasmania 7008 If you’re into Tasmania’s native orchids then you probably know something of the problems faced by many of us in identifying many species. Those of us old enough to remember the “good old days" of M.J. Firth’s Native Orchids of Tasmania (1965) or W.M. Curtis’ The Student's Flora of Tasmania Part 4a Orchidaceae (1979) also remember breathing a welcome sigh of relief when The Orchids Of Tasmania (Jones, Wapstra, Tonelli & Harris) was released in 1999. That work arose out of some serious specimen collection, data cleaning and taxonomic reviews by several people, the latter most notably undertaken by David Jones of the Australian National Botanic Gardens. Almost on release of the book, however, a new species for the State, Thelymitra benthamiana , was detected on 117 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Flinders Island, and experts decided we no longer had Chiloglottis trilabra . No book on orchids will ever be up-to-date and many of us for a while now have known the limitations of The Orchids of Tasmania , especially in the Thelymitra genus (sun-orchids), despite the inclusion of the innovative 2-page spread of close-up images of columns, so critical in their identification. In 2006, David Jones released his epic tome A Complete Guide to Native Orchids of Australia including the Island Territories. That work is more up-to-date than The Orchids of Tasmania but uses a nomenclature not agreed by all and is applicable to all of Australia. So where is the Tasmanian-based identification guide? Two years ago I raved about the Common Orchids of Tasmania , the 2010 re-released and substantially updated edition last printed in 1993 by the Australian Plants Society Tasmania Inc. (and for the record, will continue to rave about this excellent guide). This is a great field guide: convenient, accurate, succinct. For a while now a few of us have been cogitating on the way to get a modern guide up and running, one that uses the latest that technology has to offer in 2013. Malcolm Wells, one of the trio of expert macro photographers responsible for the UpClose web site of brilliant orchid images, went one better than just ruminating on an idea - he actually turned the idea into an iPad and iPhone app (soon on android I'm told). Several photographers have allowed the use of their images, and the app is based on Bill Higham’s format for his Flowering Plants of Tasmania app. The app works best on iPad (simply because of the larger screen) but is also perfectly functional on iPhone (the device most people are likely to carry around out bush these days). I could get all finicky about some pedantic detail on format and style but I won’t because it would detract from what I really think of this app. It is brilliant. At present it covers over 180 of the c. 215 species, with Malcolm Wells actively seeking images of some of the missing species (mostly species the naturalist is unlikely to come across frequently), so soon enough it will coverall species. The easy-to-use index of generic names works well, the colour images are crystal clear and extremely detailed, and the descriptions and ecological information succinct and accurate. Useful search functions are included with the app. The app is $2.99 from the iTunes store. The developers, authors and photographers do not receive any dollars for the app: the cost is just the iTunes delivery fee. While I still think we need the definitive guide to Tasmanian orchids in hard copy form that includes scientific keys and ecological, distributional, biological and management information (i.e. and updated version of The Orchids of Tasmania ), the realists amongst us know this is some way off. In the meantime, apps like Orchids of Tasmania fill the gap very nicely, and bring Tasmania’s native orchids to the forefront of the naturalist world again. 118 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) AT POINT OF LAY Els Wakefield 12 Altna-Craig Avenue, Mount Stuart, Tasmania 7000, elsandbill@iprimus. com. au There are some things in nature that are difficult to quantify and the nest building of Pacific Gulls on Goose Island is one of those things that are perhaps best analysed photographically. While Dr Bruce Robertson and I were doing daily transects of these breeding areas, we noticed that some pairs were preparing up to four nests. These would at first just look like a scrape on the ground surrounded by some grass or pigface and to the untrained eye, would not look like a nest at all. Gradually perhaps one or two of these nests would be added to with more vegetative material, some eventually becoming quite high and elaborate as if to coax the female to choose. Eventually one of the nests was chosen for more attention, the others being abandoned and left to disappear. The chosen nest became neater in form, the birds taking turns to sit in it, turning about and wriggling their bodies to align the grasses into a neat v - *■ circular cup. The day interesting the nest by encourage This dummy up small short before the first egg was laid, something happened: a dummy egg was placed in the male bird, presumably to the female to make her final choice, would take the form of perhaps a torn mass of grass root, a single flower or a flowering branch of pigface or fireweed, a small stone, a shell, a tiny skull, a feather, a cuttlefish bone or even a Little Penguin wing! The following day after such an event, we knew that the first egg would be there in the morning. After making these observations over the years, we realised that it was important to record them as well so one day in 2012 we decided to photograph every single nest we were visiting! In addition to this we measured their width and depth. Now we not only have a catalogue of photographs but also a file of the nest dimensions. Will these be used for statistical analysis in a scientific paper? Would that spoil the romance of the behaviour of this magnificent Australian endemic species in all its quirkiness? Probably. But I am not proposing to reduce this phenomenon to statistics! I just want to take more photos! [all images: Els Wakefield) 119 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) TASMANIAN NATURE THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS Simon Grove 25 Taroona Crescent, Taroona, Tasmania 7053; groveherdl@bigpond.com It was a typical sunshine-and-showers spring afternoon in Tasmania and I was out for a walk, looking for inspiration for an article for The Tasmanian Naturalist. The wind had recently picked up from the south-west, and rain-clouds scudded across the sky, threatening to drop their cargo at any moment. Intent on dodging the impending squall, I sought the shelter of the great blue-gum tree in the park. I laid my coat out on the leaf- litter and curled up on it, hoping that the pause in my perambulations might help me compose my thoughts. What makes Tasmania such a special place to live, especially for a naturalist? Was it something to do with the four seasons, or this changeable weather? The slow pace of life? The insularity? The unique wildlife? The sense of being on the edge of the world? Or was this romantic view all just a delusion, with 21 st - century Tasmania being just as much a product of humanity’s inroads into the natural world as elsewhere? My mind wasn’t in a particularly cooperative mood, and my thoughts began to wander hither and thither. Maybe it was the sudden cold, or the ever-increasing drip-drip-drip of raindrops falling all around me, or the crashing of waves whipped up on the shore nearby. Rolling over to face the tree only a metre or so in front of me, my eyes focused on a straw-brown Tasmanian tree-trunk snail inching its way purposefully down the gum-tree’s massive bole, leaving a trail of glistening slime in its wake. Its slow-motion deliberations were strangely mesmerising, and I felt myself sinking into a stupor. The snail must have been reading my thoughts. ‘Ask not what nature means for living here, ask what living here means for nature’. Well now, I thought, that could have come straight out of Alice Through the Looking-glass , but far be it for me to interrupt a pontificating snail in its stride. It continued, somewhat obtusely in the circumstances: ‘I’m not sure I’m the best one to answer that question. All I know is what you can see in front of you here - this tree, essentially. But I've been long enough in this world - a couple of years now - to know my way around this place and to know that it offers all of life’s necessities. That’s all your average snail wants in life’. 120 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Intrigued by the possibilities of communing with nature in this way, I asked the snail about his-her likes and dislikes (snails being hermaphrodites). ‘What 1 really like is living so close to the sea that you can smell the salt on the breeze. I wouldn’t have it any other way. Also, this spring weather. I love it when it’s warm and sunny one minute and cool and wet the next. Just great for getting the juices flowing - you feci so alive. And it’s on days like this that I’m in with a chance of a romantic encounter with another girl-boy, though the best action happens after dark of course. In fact I’ve been putting my feelers out and...’ I considered it best to forestall this line of enquiry. ‘And what about dislikes?’ I asked. ‘That’s a hard one, but hey, no question’s too curly for a snail. If I had to pick one thing, it would be drought. Luckily, we don’t get many really bad ones around here, but when they hit, they can be deadly. We tree-trunk snails can readily seal ourselves into our shells to while away a few dry days, but if it stays that way for weeks we’re in real trouble. My dad was broken by the last drought - ended up a mere empty shell of his former self. When the rains finally came, we found his hollow remains at the foot of the tree, cast callously aside like all those seashells along the strand-line over there’. ‘That sounds grim’, I said, although I secretly preferred to think of beached seashells as symbols of the natural world’s richness and beauty rather than of death. ‘More generally, we prefer to live life at, er, a snail’s pace, so we find it hard to keep up to speed with the rate at which things change around here. Take this tree-trunk for example. Last week this bit was all flaky and covered in tiny little moist blue and green blobs of algae and lichen, enough for several night’s binge-dining for me and my mates. But then the wind got up and the whole lot peeled off in one big long strip, leaving this bare, shiny surface that’s so clean you could...’ ‘eat your dinner off it?’ I suggested. ‘...fall to your death just trying to crawl across it’. The sun was coming out now, and the snail was clearly too busy retracting into his-her shell and gluing him-herself to the bark for further conversation. A strange thought occurred to me. If I really was watching this snail through a looking-glass, then surely its shell should be coiled sinistrally and not dextrally. Glancing up, I spotted a noisy group of New Holland honeyeaters in the crown of the great gum-tree. They seemed agitated, on edge, as though alert to some hidden threat like an arboreal tiger-snake. 121 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) ‘What’s up?’ I asked. i’ll tell you what’s up’, one of them replied, somewhat aggressively 1 thought. ‘We are no longer alone up here. There are interlopers. You may not be able to discern them, but we certainly can. Suffice to say’, he continued conspiratorially, ‘that not everything green up here is a gum-leaf. And we’re going to keep up this cacophony until the enemy is flushed out’. At that point, a ringing cry of protest broke out overhead, as one by one, ten swift parrots made themselves both seen and heard. With a vivid crimson patch of feathers now starkly visible above the beak of every bird, it’s a wonder I hadn’t spotted them earlier. ‘Those honeyeaters are so rude’, one of them peeped indignantly. ‘Whenever we come down here for the summer, you can guarantee that they’ll be here too, spoiling our picnic’. ‘But there’s plenty of flowering gums to go around’, implored the honeyeater. ‘If only you’d find your own tree to feed in then we’d all get along just sweet as honey. We birds all like a nice tune don’t we? Well, for us, life’s just like in that song - “share it fairly but don V take a slice of my pie ”2 ‘You’re missing the point’, retorted Swiftie, and the rest of his party clearly agreed. ‘It’s like a birth-right thing. Blue-gum blossom belongs to us - it makes us who we are. It makes Tasmania what it is - it’s why we bother making the perilous journey down here every year. There’s something just not right about being knocked off one’s perch just for the crime of trying to tongue-brush up a bit of pollen for your tea. It’s not as though you honeyeaters even eat much pollen. You’re just part of the nectar-sipping set and being very dog-in-the- manger about it, given that you could equally get your sugar fix from all those garden bottlebrushes and grevilleas over there’. At this, the honeyeaters fluffed up their humbug plumes and stuck out their long, flexible tongues. 1 couldn’t tell whether it was a purposeful act of rudeness towards the parrots, or perhaps they were just tucking into the nectar while they could. The parrots clearly sensed that they weren’t going to get anywhere with this line of argument. A change of tactic was called for. ‘Well you must admit that, when it comes to aerodynamics and manoeuvrability, we swift parrots leave you honeyeaters standing. In fact, if we can ever get away from you, that’s one of our great joys in life. One minute we’re having a nice sing-song gossip amongst ourselves, hidden in the foliage; and the next, we’re dashing through the canopy, swift as parrots, if not swifter. It’s so exhilarating you’ve just got to trill with the thrill! A decent bit of bush makes the perfect setting for our antics’. 122 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) Turning to me now, he continued: ‘This park’s tame by comparison, but sometimes we just can’t help ourselves. It drives the honeyeaters mad - not that that’s hard to do’. ‘Isn’t it rather dangerous?’ I asked. ‘I’ve never had any trouble. Having said that, there used to be another mob of swift parrots around here but I haven’t seen them this year. They loved living life in the fast lane, and would careen through the streets at breakneck speed, dodging the overhead wires, cars and reflective windows. Perhaps their luck ran out and they’re now ex-parrots, to coin a phrase’. ‘You ask me what else is good about living in Tasmania’, said Swiftie. I hadn’t, but decided to let that pass. ‘For me it’s the day-length. Whenever we’re on the mainland, the days seem horribly short. By the time you’ve had breakfast it’s almost time for lunch and then dinner - if you can find anywhere to stop for something to eat in that wide, brown land. But down here, there’s time in the day not only for feeding - I just love those psyllid bugs you get here - but for raising a family too. And for messing around with your mates, as I just described’. ‘What about the weather?’ I asked, feeling a little cool and damp myself. ‘Yes, it can be a bit ordinary, can’t it? Four seasons in a day and all that. The unpredictability certainly makes it challenging, especially when you’ve got kids. That’s why we always try and find a good nest-hole that’s sheltered from the elements. We couldn’t find the right spot last year - the blue-gums weren’t flowering in our usual haunts. We lost our entire brood to the weather. The year before it was the sugar-gliders. Don’t believe anyone who says they’re cute and innocent - they’re born killers’. Swiftie’s inner pain was palpable, but swift parrots are born conversationalists and the silence only lasted a moment. ‘But talking of raising a family, when we come here, we do expect to find decent places to nest. Not too much to ask, is it? I was told that trees tend to get older and older over time, like the rest of us. But my experience is that in our old haunts they’re getting younger and younger on average - and young trees just don’t have the same nesting appeal. What’s more, some of the holes you find in those paddock trees, you wouldn’t want to stick your head in them, let alone settle down to nest. Why? Starlings. Horrible, loutish, uncouth birds and very messy. I hate ferals. What gives them the right to take up residence in our land?’ I had always had a soft spot for swift parrots, and hadn’t expected them to display this level of vehemence and antipathy towards their feathered congeners. Swiftie continued his tirade: ‘See that swanky gang of them loitering over there by the car-park? Looking for trouble, no doubt. You should hear them trying to parrot our calls. It’s pathetic. They may impress each 123 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) other, but that’s as far as it goes. They should go somewhere else as far as we’re concerned, like back to wherever it is they came from. It’s a wonder they were ever let in to the country in the first place’. ‘You’re a fine one to talk: you swift parrots are just blow-ins too’. Hmm, more avian xenophobia. This time it was emanating from one member of a party of green rosellas that I had hitherto overlooked, as they strolled unassumingly amongst the mosses and bark-litter beneath the tree, pecking nonchalantly at grass-shoots and oxalis. In that setting, their muted, marbled green, blue and yellow plumage served to keep them almost invisible to the untrained eye. 4 You come over to enjoy our long summer days, our wild, forested landscapes and our fine local foods. But you’re not prepared to put down roots here - it’s as though for you the trees are always greener on the other side. Have you ever stopped to wonder what life’s like for the rest of us who have never ever left? Not that I would know what to do with myself if I did - I know what I like and I like what I know and I can find it all right here’. ‘Go on’, I said, intrigued. ‘Well, for us it’s a matter of having a little bit of everything at hand - trees for nesting, bushes for foraging for berries and seeds, and some open ground so we can do what we’re doing now’. The rosellas continued their apparently rather unfocused pecking at the grasses, waddling along and chortling amiably amongst themselves as they did so. ‘You can find spots like this all over the place - rainforest glades, gullies, even parks and gardens. The main thing is that there has to be enough rain to bring a decent bit of cover’. I could only agree with them that ample rainfall lay behind much of the clean, green image of Tasmania. ‘We’re not the sort to make a fuss - fussing just brings you notoriety around here, where everyone knows each other. But we’re no pushover either. Come the autumn, we’ll be in there gorging ourselves amongst the garden fruit trees with the Easterns and muskies. Luckily, they tend to get all the blame, while we just melt quietly into the background’. Talking of melting into the background, a slight movement caught my eye amongst the strips of fallen bark - the same strips whose detachment from the tree-trunk had so bothered the snail. Realising that his cover had been blown, the mountain-dragon stepped forward. ‘Took you a while to spot me though, didn’t it?’ he taunted, with a twinkle in his eye and a slight twitch of his tail. ‘That’s one of my favourite tricks, and not just for eavesdropping. You can use this technique to creep up on crunchy crickets and nab them before they leg it. 124 The Tasmanian Naturalist 135 ( 2013 ) With camouflage like mine, you can even hide among the leaf-litter from the beady eye of a hungry butcher-bird’. The dragon glanced around warily. ‘But there are limits. Deep shade and damp may be good for green rosellas, but it’s no good for us - we need a bit of sun to warm up. Real dragons don’t breathe fire unfortunately. That makes it hard to keep going through the winter here. At the same time, we don’t like it too open either. I have rellies who tried their luck hunting for crickets just over there in that garden, but there wasn’t enough cover and they never returned. I’ve got a feeling it was a cat that got them in the end - lots more of those around these days’. ‘But don’t cats just eat cat-food?’ I asked. ‘That’s what they’d like you to think. I’m sure. But the moment your back’s turned they’ll be out here looking to demonstrate their hunting prowess. Don’t get me wrong, everyone’s got to live - but there are always winners and losers in nature, and in this sort of place, the cats - and the starlings and New Holland honeyeaters, for that matter - are increasingly the winners. I worry for my kids because it looks as though there are going to be more and more tidied-up parks and gardens and rather less bush where we can just be who we want to be’. This dragon was clearly wise beyond its age and looks, I mused. Then, before I could probe its mind further, it fixed its gaze on a strip of bark, from beneath which protruded two waving filamentous antennae. In an instant, it had dashed off - in hot pursuit, I assumed, of a crunchy cricket. I was really quite enjoying these strange encounters. It was always good to get fresh perspectives on life. What was it that snail had said? "Ask not what nature means for living here, ask what living here means for nature'. But thinking about it, they were very strange encounters, weren’t they? Chatting honeyeaters? Talking lizards? At that moment, I became dimly aw'are of a fly probing the moist skin around my lips - and it wasn’t a talking fly. I flicked it away and sat up. Through bleary eyes I noticed that the ground was now dry and the great gum-tree’s long shadows stretched out across the park in front of me. My back ached and one of my legs had gone to sleep. Seems as though I might have nodded off. Maybe that Tasmanian Naturalist article will have to wait for another year. [images: blue gum. New Holland honeyeater, green rosella, dragon lizard - Mark Wapstra; swift parrot - Mick Brown; snail - Simon Grove] 125 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 tax a 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, Tasmania 7001 Founded 1904 Objectives The Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club aims to encourage the study ot 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 (details on website), or visit our website 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] S-t l 59