THE Tasmanian Naturalist Number 124 2002 Published by Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc. ISSN0819-6826 VOLUME 124 (2002) Naturalist T.F.N.C. EDITOR: OWEN SEEMAN ASSOCIATE EDITOR: HELEN NAHRUNG CONTENTS Keys to the Tasmanian families and genera of gilled Fungi. Ratkowsky, D. and Gates, G. 2 Musings of a northern naturalist in Tasmania. Grove, S. 25 Vitrinapellucida (Muller, 1774) (Pulmonata: Vitrinidae), another land snail introduced to Tasmania. Bonham, K. 31 Increased incidence of endophyte (Neotyphodium lolii ) infected perennial ryegrass observed in Tasmanian pastures. Guy, P. L. and Rowe, B. A. 35 Small mammal habitat use in buttongrass moorlands, Tyndall Range, western Tasmania. Driessen, M. t Pigott, K. and Reid, T. 38 Parasitism of scorpions by mites. Seeman, O. D. and Miller, A. L. 49 Biological differences between mainland and Tasmanian Chrysophtharta agricola , a Eucalyptus leaf beetle. Nahrung, H. F. 56 Opportunistic counts of hooded plovers on Tasmanian beaches. Weston, M. 65 The spider fauna utilising Eucalyptus obliqua at the Warra LTER site in southern Tasmania. Bashford, D. and Boutin, L. J. 70 Book Review: Snakes and lizards of Tasmania 77 rn THE Tasmanian Published annually by The Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc., G.P.O. Box 68, Hobart, Tasman ia 7001 The Tasmanian Naturalist ( 2002 ) 124 : 2-24 KEYS TO THE TASMANIAN FAMILIES AND GENERA OF GILLED FUNGI David Ratkowsky and Genevieve Gates Honorary Research Associates, School of Plant Science University ofTasmania, PO Box 252-55, Hobart 7001 INTRODUCTION The taxonomy of the macrofungi ofTasmania has, in comparison with the members of the Plant Kingdom, been largely neglected. The higher flora of T asmania has had a comprehensive treatment dating back to Rod way (1903). The bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) also received attention in a series of papers and booklets issued by the Royal Society ofTasmania beginning with Bastow (1886-1888); and interest in the study of lichens was also shown in the 19th century (Wilson 1893). There is aconspicuous absence of any concerted taxonomic effort for fungi in both the 19th and 20th centuries. Leonard Rodway, as a keen collector and observer of natural history, might have been expected, as Government Botanist, to study the macrofungi. However, he appears to have confined his written output to about a dozen short papers published between 1898-1929 (see May and Wood, 1997, for a list of these). A consequence of this neglect of systematics is that there do not appear to be any keys available to Tasmanian macrofungi which would enable interested parties, whether they be amateur naturalists, Landcare project participants or professionals such as ecologists, forest managers, plant pathologists, medical practitioners, etc., to classify a given collection to the level of family and genus. For most collections, it would be difficult to go beyond determining the correct genus, since the vast majority of Australian macrofiingi have been neither named nor described. Wood (1979) produced a key to the gilled fungi of Australia (Order Agaricales) but that work was based mainly on material collected in New South Wales and did not group the genera into families. BOUNDARIES OF THE FAMILIES AND GENERA OF AGARICS There has been considerable controversy amongst taxonomists as to which families and genera should be included in the Agaricales. Thus, R. Singer, arguably the most notable agaricologist of his day, included the families Polyporaceae and Boletaceae, which generally have tubes with pores rather than lamellae for their Tasmanian Gilled Fungi 3 spore-bearing surfaces (Singer 1986). Other taxonomists vary in the extent to which they agree with him. In addition to this, the study of ribosomal DNA in fungal genes is resulting in profound changes in the taxonomy of the Agaricales. For example, as a result of recent molecular phylogenetic research, the genus Coprinus has been reduced to a handful of species and transferred to the Agaricaceae, with the majority of species shifted to three other genera, viz. Coprinellus, Coprinopsis and Parasola, which are part of a newly proposed family Psathyrellaceae (Redhead et al. 2001). Other taxonomic upheavals which are supported by molecular research include the notions that (1) Lentinus is more closely related to polypores than to other gilled fungi (Hibbett and Vilgalys 1991), (2) the white-spored family Lepiotaceae is closer to the dark-spored families Agaricaceae and the new Psathyrellaceae (see above) than to other white-spored families (Moncal vo et al. 2000), and (3) the Russulaceae is sufficiently far removed from the Agaricales to be placed in a separate order (see Hawksworth et al. 1995). In Australia, the use of restriction fragment length polymorphisms and more sophisticated molecular techniques is aiding the clarification of generic and subgeneric relationships, for example, in Cortinarius and Dermocybe (Chambers et al. 1999). Nevertheless, it is still early days in the use of these advanced techniques and there may be surprises yet to come. Redhead (2001) has cautioned against a premature adoption of the proposed name changes, recommending a “wait and see” attitude while data are accumulated and theories are tested. In this study, we choose a conservative taxonomic approach and use, in most instances, the traditionally accepted names for families and genera. Opinions about the generic positions in families of the Agaricales change continually, makingdecisionsdifficultas to which family to include some genera. For example, Tubaria has been placed variously in the Crepidotaceae, the Strophariaceae and the Cortinariaceae (Singer 1986; Grgurinovic 1997; Bougher and Syme 1998), depending upon the emphasis placed upon the various macroscopic and microscopic characters. The use of modern techniques of molecular biology may or may not resolve these arguments. The authors have chosen to adopt, with some minor modifications, the classification scheme forgenerawithin families ofBougherand Syme(1998), who mostly follow the eighth edition of the Dictionary of the F ungi (Hawksworth etal. 1995). That limits the Agaricales to 16 families, of which 15 (all but Gomphidiaceae) occur in Australia (see Bougher and Syme 1998, table 10). Mycologists have 4 The Tasmanian Naturalist described more genera than those dealt with in this paper, some of which may contain only a single species or a handful of species, whereas other mycologists recognise fewer genera in some families. For example, in Entolomataceae, the five genera listed in Table 5 are probably the ones most likely to be encountered. Another genus, Alboleptonia, is sometimes used, e.g. by Bougher and Syme (1998, pp. 222-3). On the other hand, some authors (e.g. Singer 1986) recognise only three genera in this family, viz. Entoloma, Clitopilus and Rhodocybe, these genera having widely different spore shape and/or ornamentation. Hygrophoraceae is another example of disagreement amongst mycologists. Some authors, e.g. Young and Wood (1997), recognise only a few genera, these being Hygrophorus (which may be limited to a single species, viz. H. involutus, in Tasmania), Hygrocybe (for the vast majority of species within the family) and Camarophyllopsis (=Hygrotrama, which accommodates a small number of species with a pileipellis that is almost cellular in nature). Conversely, some mycologists (e.g. Horak 1990) split Hygrocybe into segregate genera such as Bertrandia, Camarophyllus, Gliophorus, Humidicutis, and several others. THE KEYS Since the aim here is to provide keys to help the reader identify a given collection to the level of genus, the first step is to determine its correct family. All of the keys are to be seen as “Artificial Keys”, i.e. intended to bring the user to the correct fam ily and genus without making any statement about phy logeny. The family and genus to which a species belongs should be recognised primarily by the physical appearance of the fruit body, rather than by the DNA content of the genome. Thus, a Tricholoma should be identified by its tricholomatoid habit, its white spore mass, and its lackof an annulus (for almost all species). We recognise, however, that macroscopic features cannot give a complete story, and we have included two microscopic characteristics, viz. the type of pleurocystidia, if present, and whether the spores have a germ pore. The keys to the families as presented here are summarised in four tables, viz. Table 1 for spore print colour, Table 2 for species having velar remnants. Table 3 for species havingan obvious germ pore in the spore wall, and Table 4 for species with pleurocystidia. Use of Tables 1 and 2 relies upon macroscopic characters that may be observed with the naked eye or with a hand lens, while use of Tables 3 and 4 requires a good compound microscope. The taking of a spore print from a mature fruiting body is a routine and important aid in taxonomy both for the novice Tasmanian Gilled Fungi 5 and for the experienced. It was at one time almost the sole basis for classification, being the cornerstone of the system devised in the 19* century by the “father of mushroom taxonomy”, Elias Fries, who became Professor of Systematic Botany at Uppsala University, Sweden. Although nowadays it is only one of the tools available, it is still an important indicatorof the correct family position, recognised by Singer (1986), who devotes the opening pages to this character. The presence of partial veil remnants such as an annulus on the stipe can be a useful indicator of family, as can the remains of a universal veil, especially if it leaves a volvaat the base of the stipe. Whilst spore shape, size and ornamentation are critical aids to correct identification, the presence or absence of an obvious germ pore helps narrow the range of choices. The shape, size and nature of the cheilocystidiaand pleurocystidiaoffer additional tools for correct identification. We choose here to base Table 4 on the pleurocystidia, since these are often more obvious than the chei locystidia. After key ingto the correct fami Iy usingTables 1 -4, the reader may then employ Table 5 to determine the correct genus, taking into account the following considerations. Different authors treat Crepidotaceae very variably. Some include Gymnopilus, Galerina and Tubaria in this family (e.g. Courtecuisse and Duhem 1995). In this paper we include only the genus Crepidotus, which has a pleurotoid habit, i.e., occurring on wood with a reduced or absent stipe. In the family Paxillaceae, the genus Tapinella is sometimes recognised, e.g. by Grgurinovic (1997) and Bougherand Syme(1998), but we follow Singer (1986), who places it in synonymy with Paxillus. We have placed the ochraceous-spored Ripartites in the family Cortinariaceae, following Largent and Baroni (1988), but other authors (e.g. Courtecuisse and Duhem 1995) put it into the Tricholomataceae. We have also chosen to put Tubaria in the Cortinariaceae. Although Largent and Baroni (1988) place PsezAfofoeosporaintheLepiotaceae, we followCourtecuisse and Duhem (1995) and Bas (1995) in putting it into the Tricholomataceae. A glossary of mycological terms is given in the Appendix. Additional definitions may be found in mycological dictionaries, e.g. Snell and Dick(l 971) and Ulloaand Hanlin (2000). As the colour of fungi may be an ambiguous character, colour charts are useful. A commonly used one is Kornerup and Wanscher (1978). 6 The Tasmanian Naturalist TABLE 1 Key to the families of Agaricales in Tasmania, based on spore print colour 1 .a) Spore print white (or buff, ochraceous or a shade of lilac) 2 1 .b) Spore print darker than white (i.e. some shade of pink, brown or black, including purple-brown and purple-black) 7 2.a) Universal veil leaving remnants in the form of warts or patches on pileus and/or forming a volva at base of stipe Amanitaceae 2. b) Neither warts nor volva present 3 3. a) Veil present, usually forming an annulus on the stipe, or if not, then stipe scaly below the veil; lamellae typically free from the stipe Lepiotaceae 3. b) Veil absent, or if present, then lamellae not free 4 4. a) Lamellae and/or flesh exuding latex when cut or broken and/or stipe snapping like chalk when pressure is applied; pileus and stipe tissue containing rounded cells called sphaerocysts; spores globose to subglobose with amyloid warts or ridges Russulaceae 4. b) Not combining the above features 5 5. a) Lamellae with a waxy feel or texture, thick and distant; basidia length at least 5.5 times the spore length Hygrophoraceae 5. b) Lamellae not normally waxy; ratio of basidia length to spore length generally less than 5.5 6 6. a) Lamellae decurrent, close, usually forked dichotomously, typically some shade of orange or yellow; pileus and stipe also with some shade of orange oryellow Hygrophoropsidaceae 6.b) Lamellae various, and if decurrent, not repeatedly forked Tricholomataceae 7.a) Spore print pink (or may approach sordid reddish) 8 7. b) Spore print darker than pink (i.e. some shade of brown or black) 10 8. a) Lamellae free at maturity; spores not angled Pluteaceae 8. b) Lamellae attached at maturity; spores angled or not 9 9. a) Spores lacking angles Tricholomataceae 9. b) Spores angled, either in side view or end view (may be bumpy, waited or ridged when seen in side view) Entolomataceae 10. a) Lamellae free from stipe; spore print deep brown, chocolate-brown or purple-brown Agaricaceae lO.b) Lamellae not free; spore print some shade of brown or black, including purple-brown and purple-black 11 Tasmanian Gilled Fungi 7 11 .a) Stipe absent or much reduced, usually growing shelf-like on wood; spore print brown or cinnamon-brown Crepidotaceae 11 .b) Stipe present; on wood or soil; spore print a darker shade of brown or black 12 12.a) Pileipellis typically cellular; spores usually smooth, typically havingagerm pore 13 12. b) Pileipellis typically filamentous (but may be hymeniform, as in Descolea ); spores smooth or ornamented, and may or may not have a germ pore 14 13. a) Spore print medium brown Bolbitiaceae 13. b) Spore print deep brown to black or purplish brown Coprinaceae 14. a) Lamellae typically decurrent, often forked or with cross-veins or pores near the stipe; annulus absent Paxillaceae 14. b) Lamellae rarely decurrent, neither forked nor veined nor with pores near the stipe; annulus sometimes present 15 15. a) Spores mostly elliptical and smooth, typically with a germ pore, although sometimes difficult to discern Strophariaceae 1 5.b) Germ pore absent Cortinariaceae TABLE 2 Key to the families of Agaricales in Tasmania, for species having velar remnants 1 .a) Remnants of partial veil prominent, generally thick, forming a membranaceous annulus on the stipe, sometimes distinctly flaring, persistent 2 1 .b) Remnants of partial veil not membranaceous, often fleeting, although they may be prominent, as in various cortinate veils 9 2.a) Spore print white or yellowish cream 3 2. b) Spore print some shade of brown, black, purple-brown or purple-black 6 3. a) Annulus accompanied by a volva in the form of a sack, collar, concentric scales, a free rim or a swollen, spongy base to stipe Amanitaceae 3. b) Fruiting body lacking a volva at base of stipe 4 4. a) Stipe with lower portion covered by mealy scales Tricholomataceae: Cystoderma 4. b) Stipe without mealy scales 5 5. a) Lamellae typically free Lepiotaceae 5.b) Lamellae attached Tricholomataceae: Armillaria 8 The Tasmanian Naturalist 6.a) Lamellae free; spore print chocolate brown; pileipellis filamentous Agaricaceae 6. b) Lamellae attached; spore print various shades of brown or black 7 7. a) Spores smooth, with a germ pore 8 7. b) Spores neither smooth nor with a germ pore Cortinariaceae: Rozites and Descolea 8. a) Fruiting body autodigestingto form an inky residue Coprinaceae: Coprinus 8. b)Fruitingbodynotautodigesting Bolbitiaceae: Agrocybe and Conocybe 9. a) Spores typically with a germ pore, although it may appear to be indistinct Strophariaceae 9. b) Spores lacking a germ pore 10 10. a) Spores oblong, walls minimally ornamented Cortinariaceae: Galerina and Tubaria 10.b) Spores amygdaliform, walls variously ornamented, rangingfrom minimally to coarsely waited Cortinariaceae: Gymnopilus and Cortinarius (inch Democybe) TABLE 3 Key to the families of Agaricales in Tasmania, for species having spores with an obvious germ pore 1 .a) Spore print white Lepiotaceae 1 .b) Spore print some shade of brown or black, including purple-brown and purple- black 2 2.a) Pileipellis typically filamentous 3 2. b) Pileipellis cellular 4 3. a) Lamellae free (or nearly free) at maturity Agaricaceae 3. b) Lamellae attached, usually adnate to adnexed, rarely decurrent Strophariaceae 4. a) Spore print dull brown, medium brown, cinnamon-brown or rusty brown, never a deep brown or purple-brown or purple-black Bolbitiaceae 4.b) Spore print deep brown to black or purple-brown or purple-black Coprinaceae Tasmanian Gilled Fungi 9 TABLE 4 Key to the families of Agaricales in Tasmania, for species with pleurocystidia 1 .a) Pleurocystidia metuloidal 2 1 .b) Pleurocystidia, if present, not metuloidal 4 2.a) Metuloids often with a crown of blunt projections; spore print pink Pluteaceae: Pluteus 2. b) Metuloids often with apical encrustations of crystals; spore print white or brown 3 3 .a) Fruiting body lacking a stipe, or with a lateral or strongly eccentric stipe; pileus with a gelatinised layer; spore print white Tricholomataceae: Hohenbuehelia 3. b) Fruiting body with a central stipe, pileus usually fibrillose, spore print brown Cortinariaceae: Inocybe 4. a) Pleurocystidia as chrysocystidia (yellowing in alkaline reagents) 5 4. b) Pleurocystidia, if present, not chrysocystidia 7 5. a) Fruiting body with veil, generally forming an annulus Strophariaceae: Stropharia 5. b) Veil may be present in young specimens, but not generally forming an annulus 6 6. a) Spore print purple-brown to purple-black; germ pore obvious Strophariaceae: Hypholoma 6. b) Spore print paler, dull brown, cinnamon-brown to rusty brown; germ pore often indistinct Strophariaceae: Pholiota 7. a) Pleurocystidia may occur in some form, including gloeocystidia(containing oily contents) or pseudocystidia (originating below the hymenium) or thin- walled cystidia, in some species of some genera in the families Bolbitiaceae, Coprinaceae, Cortinariaceae, Entolomataceae, Lepiotaceae, Paxillaceae, Russulaceae, Strophariaceae and Tricholomataceae. 7.b) Pleurocystidia are generally absent in the families Agaricaceae, Amanitaceae, Hygrophoraceae, Hygrophoropsidaceae and Crepidotaceae. 10 The Tasmanian Naturalist TABLE 5 Key to Genera of Agaricales in Tasmania Agaricaceae 1 .a) Spores brown under the microscope, smooth Agaricus 1 .b) Spores pale umber or sepia under the microscope, finely punctate; pileus and stipe granular-mealy Melanophyllum Amanitaceae Pileus usually with warts (remnants of universal veil), dry or slightly viscid; stipe neither viscid nor glutinous Amanita Bolbitiaceae 1 .a) Fruiting body small to medium-sized; pileus often cracked at maturity; stipe usuallypliant Agrocybe 1 .b) Fruiting body small; pileus not cracking; stipe usually slender, fragile and hollow 2 2.a) Pileus viscid, margins striate; stipe white (rarely pink) throughout; annulus absent Bolbitius 2.b) Pi leus diy, often conical or campanulate; stipe often coloured, sometimes with a moveable annulus Conocybe Coprinaceae 1 .a) Lamellae parallel-sided, crowded, autodigesting Coprinus 1 .b) Lamellae wedge-shaped, close, not autodigesting 2 2.a) Spores discolouring in concentrated H 2 SO 4 ; usually wood-inhabitors Psathyrella and Lacrymaria 2.b) Spores not discolouring in H2SO4; usually on dung, enriched soil or grass; lamellae often mottled Paneolus Cortinariaccae 1. a) Spore print dull brown, tobacco brown, milk-coffee brown or ochraceous brown, but not rusty brown 2 1 .b) Spore print rusty brown (although some species of Cortinarius may have pale brown or yellow-brown spores) 8 2. a) Stipe radicating, the base swollen, then gradually tapering; lamellae deeply adnexed to free, often with lilac hues Phaeocollybia 2.b) Stipe not radicating; lamellae more distinctly attached 3 3 .a) Spore print ochraceous or some shade of light brown 4 3 .b) Spore print some shade of dull brown or medium brown 7 Tasmanian Gilled Fungi 11 4.a) Spores globose or subglobose, spiny Ripartites 4. b) Spores oblong, amygdaliform or phaseoliform, surface smooth or warty 5 5. a) Hyphae of the pileipellis forming a cutis Tubaria 5. b) Pileipellis hymeniform, or of cellular structure to some degree 6 6 . a) Stipe with a loose, striate annulus; spores warty-rough Descolea 6 . b) Stipe lacking an annulus; spores smooth Simocybe 7. a) Pileus usually dry, pileipellis fibrillose, radially cracked or with upturned scales; lamella edge usually paler than lamella face due to cystidia; spores smooth or nodulose Inocybe 7. b) Pileus usually viscid; spores usually warty-rough, with a callus at the apex Hebeloma 8 . a) Typically on wood 9 8 .b) Terrestrial, rarely or never directly on wood (except for Galerinapatagonica ) 10 9. a) Spores minimally ornamented; fruiting body fragile, on twigs and small branches Phaeomarasmius 9. b) Spores usually distinctly warty; fruiting body more substantial, on logs and stumps Gymnopilus (inch Pyrrhoglossum ) 10. a) Lamellae adnexed to adnate; cheilocystidia always present Galerina 10.b) Lamellae usually emarginate; cheilocystidia typically absent or inconspicuous 11 11 .a) Partial veil membranaceous Rozites 11 .b) Partial veil absent, or if present, cortinate 12 12.a) Partial veil absent; pileus and stipe usually squamose or squamulose Cuphocybe 12.b) Partial veil cortinate; pileus rarely squamulose Cortinarius and Dermocybe Crepidotaceae Stipe absent or much reduced, usually growing shelf-like on wood; spore print usually brown or cinnamon-brown Crepidotus Entolomataceae 1 .a) Stipe lateral, reduced or absent; largely wood-inhabitors Claudopus 1 .b) Stipe present, usually central; on soil or wood debris 2 2.a) Spores angular in end view only; lamellae usually adnate to decurrent 3 2.b) Spores angular in side view; lamellae variously attached 4 12 The Tasmanian Naturalist 3 .a) Spores longitudinally ridged in side view 3. b) Spores warty or bumpy in side view 4. a) Pileus scaly or hairy and base of stipe strigose 4.b) Not combining the above features Clitopilus Rhodocybe Pouzarella Entoloma Hygrophoraceae 1 .a) Pileipellis of inflated hyphae arranged in a hymeniform layer or palisade, usually dry Camarophyllopsis 1 .b) Pileipellis of non-inflated hyphae, viscid or not 2 2.a) Pileus viscid, stipe dry; lamellar trama divergent Hygrophorus 2.b) Pileus and stipe variably dry to viscid; lamellar trama regular to irregular Hygrocybe Hygrophoropsidaceae Spore print white to yellowish white; lamellae decurrent, close, with some dichotomous forking Hygrophoropsis Lepiotaceae 1 .a) Pileus and stipe mealy; lamellae attached (see Tricholomataceae: Cystoderma ) 1 .b) Pileus and stipe may be squamulose or fibrillose, but not mealy; lamellae free 2 2.a) Spores lacking a distinct germ pore 3 2. b) Spores with a conspicuous germ pore 4 3. a)Pileipellisofbroadly ellipsoidal or spherical inflated cells Cystolepiota 3. b) Hyphae of pileipellis not cell-like Lepiota 4. a) Fruiting bodies large, robust; annulus complex; clamp connections present Macrolepiota 4.b) Fruiting bodies smaller; annulus simple; clamp connections absent Leucocoprinus and Leucoagaricus Paxillaceae 1 .a) Spore print white to yellowish white (see Hygrophoropsidaceae: Hygrophoropsis ) 1 .b) Spore print yellowish brown (clay to ochraceous) or rust-brown 2 2.a) Having the habit of a bolete but with lamellae instead of pores Phylloporus 2.b) Having the habit of a Clitocybe or a Pleurotus, but with lamellae that are often veined or poroid near the stipe Paxillus Tasmanian Gilled Fungi 13 Pluteaceae 1 .a) Lacking a universal veil or volva Pluteus 1 .b) Having a membranaceous volva at base of stipe Volvariella Russulaceae 1 .a) Fresh fruiting body exuding latex when cut or broken; lamellulae present Lactarius l.b) Not exuding latex when damaged; lamellulae often sparse or absent Russula Strophariaceae 1 .a) Chrysocystidia (sterile cells that turn golden yellow in KOH)often present on lamellae faces 2 1 .b) Chrysocystidia typically absent 4 2.a) Fruiting body never on wood; spores elliptical in profile, with strongly distinct, usually truncate, germ pore; acanthocytes often found in mycelium Stropharia 2.b) Not combining the above characteristics 3 3 .a) Lignicolous (on livingor dead wood); spore print rangingfrom deep brown to purple-black; pileus smooth and dry, often with some red colour Hypholoma 3 .b) Mostly on ground or woody debris; spore print dull brown, cinnamon-brown to rusty brown; spore often with indistinct germ pore; pileus usually viscid or scaly Pholiota 4.a) Stipe poorly developed, eccentric and curved, short; on wood Melanotus 4.b) Stipe well developed, central, sometimes turning blue-green when handled; on soil, wood or dung Psilocybe Tricholomataceae l.a) Fruiting body parasitic on other agarics (usually Russulaceae) Asterophora 1. b) Not growing on other agarics 2 2. a) Basidia with siderophilous granules 3 2. b) Not as above 5 3 .a) Fruiting body col lybioid Tephrocybe 3. b) Fruiting body tricholomatoid, fleshy 4 14 The Tasmanian Naturalist 4.a) Fruitingbodies generally dull coloured, often staining when bruised; pigments encrusting hyphae Lyophyllum 4. b) Fruitingbodies generally brightly coloured, but pigments not situated on hyphal walls Calocybe 5. a) Edge of lamella conspicuously serrate or eroded; spores amyloid; on wood or soil Lentinellus 5. b) Not combining all of the above characteristics 6 6. a) Fruiting body lacking a stipe, or stipe typically lateral or strongly eccentric, usually on wood 7 6. b) Stipe present, central or nearly so, on wood or soil 19 7. a) Lamellae appearing to be split lengthwise along the edges and rolled backwards Schizophyllum 7. b) Lamellae not split 8 8. a) Fruiting body luminescent, on wood or near buried decaying wood Omphalotus 8. b) Not luminescent 9 9. a) Pileus with some degree of gelatinisation 10 9. b) Pileus lacking a gelatinised context 14 10. a) Pileus highly gelatinised, rubbery; lamella face with metuloids Hohenbuehelia 10.b) Pileus to some degree gelatinised, but lamellae lacking metuloids 11 11 .a) Spores amyloid (except for P. ligulatus ) Panellus 11 .b) Spores inamyloid 12 12.a) Spores disc-like with spiny ornamentation Conchomyces 12. b) Spores smooth 13 13. a) Fruiting body often grey or fuscous, lamellae well developed Resupinatus 13. b) Fruiting body often whitish or pale grey, lamellae widely spaced, shallow, runningtogether irregularly Campanella 14. a) Stipe greatly reduced or absent; pileus often thin-fleshed 15 14 .b) Fruiting body usual Iy more substantial 17 15. a) Fruiting body brick red Anthracophyllum 15. b) Not as above 16 16. a) Fruiting body pure white, on wood Cheimonophyllum 16. b) Fruiting body off-white, on twigs Marasmiellus 17. a) Subhymenium very reduced or absent Partus 17. b) Subhymenium more substantial 18 18. a) Hyphae of lamellar trama regularly arranged; lamellae often toothed Lentinus 18.b) Hyphae of lamellar trama irregularly arranged; lamella edge entire Pleurotus Tasmanian Gilled Fungi 15 19.a) Pileus and part of stipe below the veil covered with mealy granules Cystoderma 19. b) Not as above 20 20. a) Veil usually forming a distinct annulus on a tough stipe Armillaria 20.b) Veil absent or not forming an annulus on stipe 21 21 .a) Pileipellis cellular or a hymeniform layer; hymenial cystidia absent Dermoloma 21 .b) Not combining the above characteristics 22 22.a) Lamellae thick, fairly distant, sometimes intervenose or forked; spores globose, spiny and inamyloid Laccaria 22. b) Not combining the above characteristics 23 23 .a) Stipe fleshy, fruiting body generally stout 24 23. b) Stipe thin and hollow, or pithy and tough 29 24. a) Spores amyloid 25 24. b) Lamellae various; spores inamyloid 26 25. a) Hyphae with clamp connections Leucopaxillus 25. b) Hyphae lackingclamp connections Melanoleuca 26. a) Lamellae adnatc to decurrent; pileus often centrally depressed Clitocybe and Lepista 26. b) Lamellae typically notched to adnexed, never decurrent; pileus usually convex, never centrally depressed 27 27. a) Spores amyloid; cheilocystidia present Porpoloma 27 .b) Spores inamyloid; cheilocystidia present or not 28 28. a)Cheilocystidiaconspicuous;onwood Tricholomopsis 28. b)Cheilocystidiagenerally absent; on soil Tricholoma 29. a) Pileus convex, conical or campanulate, with a layer of inflated cells directly beneath the pileipellis, margins often pellucid when wet; stipe usually thin, hollow and fragile; Mycena 29. b) Not as above 30 30. a) Fruiting body small to minute, usually centrally depressed; stipe thin but cartilaginous and tough; lamellae typically decurrent 30.b) Not combining all of the above characters 31 .a) Spores amyloid 31 -b) Spores inamyloid 32.a) Cystidiaconspicuous in the lamellae and pileipellis 32. b) Cystidia generally absent 33. a) Pigment found on or in the hyphal wall 33 .b) Pigment in hyphae of the pileipellis intracellular (not found on or in the hyphal wall) Gerronema 31 34 Xeromphalina 32 Rickenella 33 Omphalina 16 The Tasmanian Naturalist 34.a) Fruiting body tall with long, slender stipe with radicating base on earth, or on wood; pileus viscid; lamellae white Oudemansiella (incl. Xerula) 34. b) Not as above 35 35. a) Pileus and/or stipe covered with hairs, scales or warts; on wood 36 35. b) Stipe and pileus not as above 38 36. a) Pileus viscid or sticky due to gelatinous filamentous hyphae underlying a pileipellis of inflated cel Is Flammulina 36. b) Pileus not as above 37 37. a) Pileus and usually stipe covered with dextrinoid or amyloid hairs Crinipellis 37. b) Pileus dry, covered with brightly coloured scales Cyptotrama 3 8.a) Stipe thin but typically tough, pliant and reviving; lamellae usually adnate or, if decurrent, then usually widely spaced; hyphae of pileipellis arranged in a palisade or various other cell-like structures, or containing broom cells or diverticulate-nodulose elements Marasmius 38. b) Not combining all of the above characters 39 39. a) Odour of fish oil or cucumber; pileipellis and lamellae with extremely large cystidia Macrocystidia 39. b) Not as above 40 40. a) Like Marasmius, but pileipellis having a rameales-structure Marasmiellus 40.b) Hyphae of pileipellis arranged in a cutis, lacking a cellular structure 41 41 .a) Fruiting body with a foetid odour when crushed; trama with some degree of gelatinisation Micromphale 41 .b) Odour, if present, not foetid; trama without gelatinisation 42 42.a) Lamellae adnexed to almost free; spores inamyloid Collybia 42. b) Not as above 43 43. a) Lamellae adnexed to sub-free; spores weakly dextrinoid Pseudobaeospora 43.b) Lamellae adnate to decurrent; spores amyloid Clitocybula Tasmanian Gilled Fungi 17 REFERENCES Bas, C. (1995) Flora Agaricina Neerlandica: critical monographs on families of agarics and bolete occurring in the Netherlands, Volume 3. (A.A. Balkena, Rotterdam, Netherlands). Bastow, R.A. (1886-1887) Tasmanian mosses. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania (1885): 318-320,337-341,395-399; (1886): 38- 102 . Bastow, R.A. (1888) Tasmanian hepaticae. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania (1887): 209-289. Bougher, N.L. and Syme, K. (1998) Fungi of Southern Australia. (University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands, W.A.). Chambers, S.M., Sawyer, N.A. and Caimey, J. W.G. (1999) Molecular identification of co-occurring Cortinarius and Dermocybe species from southeastern Australian sclerophyll forests. Mycorrhiza 9: 85-90. Courtecuisse, R. and Duhem, B. (1995) Mushrooms and Toadstools of Britain and Europe. (Harper Collins, London). Grgurinovic, C.A. (1997) Larger Fungi of South Australia. (The Botanic Gardens of Adelaide and State Herbarium and the Flora and Fauna of South Australia Handbooks Committee, Adelaide). Hawksworth, D.L., Kirk, P.M., Sutton, B.C. and Pegler, D.N. (1995 ) Ainsworth and Bisby's Dictionary of The Fungi, 8 Ih Edition (CAB International, Wallingford). H ibbett, D.S. and Vilgalys, R. (1991) Evolutionary relationships of Lentinus to the Polyporaceae: evidence from restriction analysis of enzymatically amplified ribosomal DNA. Mycologia 83: 425-439. Horak, E. (1990) Monograph of the New Zealand Hygrophoraceae (Agaricales). New Zealand Journal of Botany 28: 255-309. Kornerup, A. and Wanscher, J.H. (1978) Methuen Handbook of Colour, 3 rd Edition (E. Methuen, London). Largent, D.L. and Baroni, T. J. (1988) How to Identify Mushrooms to Genus VI: Modern Genera. (Mad River Press, Eureka, California). Macdonald, R. and Westerman, J. (1979) A Field Guide to Fungi of South¬ eastern Australia. (Nelson, Melbourne). May, T.W. and Wood, A.E. (1997) Catalogue and Bibliography of Australian Macrofungi 1. Basidiomycotap.p. (Fungi of Australia, Volume 2A, Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra). Moncalvo, J.-M., Lutzoni, F.M., Rehner, S.A., Johnson, J. and Vilgalys, R. (2000) Phylogenetic relationships of agaric fungi based on nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA sequences. Systematic Biology 49: 278-305. 18 The Tasmanian Naturalist Redhead, S.A. (2001) Bully for Coprinus - a story of manure, minutiae and molecules. Mcllvainea 14(2): 5-14; reprinted with additions and corrections in Field Mycology 2: 118-126(2001). Redhead, S. A., Vilgalys, R., Moncal vo, J.-M., Johnson, J. and Hopple, J.S. (2001) Coprinus Pers. and the disposition of Coprinus species sensu lato. Taxon 50:203-241. Rodway, L. (1903) The Tasmanian Flora. (J. Vail, Government Printer, Hobart). Singer, R. (1986) The Agaricales In Modern Taxonomy. (Koeltz Scientific Books, Koenigstein). Snell, W.H. and Dick, E.A. (197 l)A Glossary of Mycology. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts). Ulloa, M. and Hanlin, R.T. (2000) Illustrated Dictionary of Mycology. (APS Press, St.Paul, Minnesota). Wilson, F.R.M. (1893) Tasmanian lichens. Papers arid Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania (1892): 133-178. Wood, A.E. (1979) A key to the Australian generaof the Agaricales. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 103: 255-273. Young, A.M. and Wood, A.E. (1997) Studies on the Hygrophoraceae (Fungi, Homobasidiomycetes, Agaricales) of Austral ia. Australian Systematic Botany 10:911-1030. Tasmanian Gilled Fungi 19 APPENDIX: A glossary of mycological terms acanthocytes - spine-like or needle-like crystals found amongst the mycelium of Stropharia adnate - of lamellae that are broadly attached to the stipe, often at a right angle adnexed - of lamellae that are narrowly attached to the stipe Agaricales - the order of gilled fungi, popularly known as mushrooms and toadstools amygdaliform-almond-shaped amyloid —of spores or other tissues that become blue in Melzer’s solution annulus - the ring of tissue left around the stipe after rupturing of the partial veil autodigesting- of a fruiting body that becomes liquid with maturity, as in Coprinus basidiumfpl. basidia)-a specialised cell, usually terminal, on which the (basidio-) spores are formed on small pedicels called sterigmata; usually club-shaped (clavate) or almost cylindrical bolete — one of the fleshy fungi looking like agarics but with the lamellae replaced by tubes and terminating in pores broom cell — a cell, usually terminal, with apical appendages giving it a broom¬ like appearance buff- a pale brownish yellow, yellow-brown or creamy grey callus - a broad protuberance found at the distal end of the spores of some species campanulate - bell-shaped cartilaginous-firm, tough, pliant cellular - of hyphae that are globose, subglobose or greatly enlarged, often in thepileipellis cheilocystidia-sterile cells situated at the margins of lamellae chrysocystidia- cystidia with contents that become golden yellow in alkaline solutions clamp connections — a microscopic feature of the cross-walls of hyphae, manifested as swellings, loops or projections linking two adjacent hyphal elements collybioid - having the habit or the stature of a Collybia, i.e. pileus not very fleshy, with margins initially inrolled, lamellae not decurrent and with a slender, cartilaginous stipe 20 The Tasmanian Naturalist context - the flesh of the pileus or stipe cortinate - of a partial veil that is tissue-like or cobwebby cutis - the outer layer of the pileipellis, in which the hyphae are repent and arranged more or less parallel to the surface, giving it a smooth appearance macroscopically cystidium - a sterile cell of unknown function situated between the basidia of the hymenium or, more generally, any specialised sterile cell different from neighbouring cells in various parts of the fruiting body decurrent - of lamellae that extend or descend downwards on the stipe dextrinoid - of spores or other tissues that become red-brown or purplish in Melzer’s solution dichotomous - divided into two approximately equal parts or branches divergent - of lamellar trama that has a central strand of parallel hyphae surrounded by rows of hyphae that turn outwards from the medial line diverticulate-ofhyphaehavingnumerousshort, vertical branchlets or protuberances over their surfaces eccentric - of a stipe that is not attached to the centre of the pileus emarginate - of lamellae that are notched near the stipe fibrillose-havingthin, threadlike, hairy filaments filamentous - of hyphae that are long and narrow foetid-ill-smelling, stinking free - of lamellae that are not attached to the stipe fruiting body - the reproductive unit of a fungus, containing the spore-bearing organs fuscous - dusky, a dark grey, grey-brown, or smoky colour gelatinous-jellylike germ pore - an opening or an area of reduced wall thickness in the apex of the spore globose-spherical glutinous-exuding gluten made up of gelatinous hyphae hyaline - transparent, clear and colourless hymeniform - said of a pileipellis, the terminal cells of which are erect, pear- shaped or club-shaped, and are arranged in the form of a palisade hymenium-the spore-bearing layerofthe fruiting body, situated on the lamellae, containing the basidia as well as various sterile cells such as cystidia hypha(pl. hyphae)-the microscopic filament or thread-like structure that is the basic growth unit of a fungus inamyloid - of spores or other tissues that do not become blue or red-brown in Melzer’s solution Tasmanian Gilled Fungi 21 intervenose - of the condition in which veins are found in the spaces between lamellae lamellae - technical name for the spore-bearing “gills” of a gilled fungus; the lamellae usually extend from the pileus margin to the stipe lamellar trama - the layer of tissue beneath the hymenium lamellulae - shorter than the lamellae, these do not extend all the way to the stipe lateral - of a stipe that is attached to the side or the margin of the pileus latex-an exuded juice, usually of a milky colour macrofungi -fungi that produce aconspicuous fruiting body, such as mushrooms, boletes, bracket and shelf fungi, coral fungi, cup fungi, puffballs, etc. mealy - of the surface of a pileus or stipe, covered with flour-like particles membranaceous - of a veil that is thin and pliant like a membrane metuloids - thick-walled cystidia, usually hyaline, with rounded apices that are often encrusted with crystals mycelium - the thread-like or hair-like mass of hyphae that is the vegetative portion of a fungus usually in the substrate beneath the ground mycology-the scientific study of fungi nodulose - of ornamentation of a knobbly kind palisade - of a pileipellis having rows of parallel structures arranged next to one another like a picket fence in which the terminal elements are inflated cells that more or less reach the same level partial veil - an inner veil extending from the pileus margin to the stipe pellucid - of a pileus that is translucent, such that the lamellae are seen as lines when viewed from above phaseoliform - bean-shaped pileipellis-the outermost layer of the pileus pileus - technical name for the “cap” of a fruiting body pleurocystidia- large, sterile cells situated on the walls of the lamellae pliant - flexible, able to be bent without breaking; not rigid poroid - with pores on the underneath surface punctate-havingsmall, dot-like spots, hollows or spines radicating - of a stipe that has a projection in the soil resembling a root rameales-structure - of a pileipellis whose repent outermost hyphae have short, vertical branches, often lacerate or with knobs, or which are irregularly branched regular - of lamellar trama which have rows of parallel hyphae repent - prostrate siderophilous-ofbasidia that turn purplish black or violet-black in the presence of the reagent acetocarmine 22 The Tasmanian Naturalist sphaerocysts - rounded cells interspersed amongst the hyphae, found in Russulaceae spore print—the spore mass obtained by placing the pileus upside down on a glass slide or flat piece of paper or cardboard squamose - covered with scales squamulose-minutely squamose stipe - technical name for the stalk or stem, which supports the pileus striate - having fine lines or furrows, radiating on the pileus margin, longitudinal on the stipe strigose- having bristles or coarse hairs subglobose - almost globose subhymenium - the layer of hyphae just below the hymenial surface trama- the flesh or interior tissue of a fruiting body tricholomatoid — having the habit or the stature of a Tricholoma, i.e. mushroom¬ like with a fleshy stipe, emarginate lamella attachment, and lacking a volva truncate - said of a spore with a flat end, as if it had been abruptly cut off universal veil — an outer veil that encompasses the entire fungus velar - referring to a veil viscid - sticky, but not slimy or glutinous volva - the remains of the universal veil at the base of the stipe Tasmanian Gilled Fungi 23 A typical mushroom 24 The Tasmanian Naturalist Microscopic Characters B=Basidium; C=Cheilocystidium; P=Pleurocystidium The Tasmanian Naturalist (2002) 124 : 25-30 25 MUSINGS OF A NORTHERN NATURALIST IN TASMANIA Simon Grove 25 Taroona Crescent, Taroona, Tasmania 7053 As a newcomer to Tasmania, I would like to offer my thoughts on why I find Tasmanian natural history so special. Part of coming to terms with moving to a new place is tryingto relate all the new things one finds around one to how things were back "home". In my case, home was cool temperate England: I spent my first three decades of life there. In my fourth decade, in moving from place to place in the tropics - including Uganda, Indonesia and northeast Queensland, I got used to there being precious few biological similarities with "home", and enormous differences. But Tasmania was described as "cool temperate", so, anticipating our move here at the start of my fifth decade, I had naively believed that I could look forward to a lot more simi larities with "home" and a lot fewer differences. But the longer I'm here, the more I appreciate just how wrong I was, and how my preconceptions of what cool temperate ecology means were borne of a Eurocentric view of the natural world that just doesn't work here. Many outsiders imagine - and I was once one of them - that Tasmania is in the Deep South, and not that far short of the Antarctic. Indeed a glance at an atlas shows that it's closer to the Antarctic continent than it is to my previous home in Cairns. Perhaps it's not surprising, then, that even many Australians expect Tasmania to be cold, dark and dangerous: its mountains brooding and frequently snowbound; its forests impenetrable and silent; its seas stormy but alive with penguins and fur-seals. But I've since discovered that Tasmania is only as far south of the equator as Rome is north of it. To those familiar with Mediterranean Europe, such a latitude gives rise to expectations of warmth and harsh sunshine, of rocky hillsides strewn with aromatic shrubs buzzing with cidadas and crickets, and of clear blue seas harbouring octopus, tuna and seahorses. As I now know, both descriptions of Tasmania are reasonably accurate, depending on the day and the location. As a naturalist this, for me, is the island's main paradox. How can a native of northern Europe possibly pigeonhole a place that mixes aspects of the climate and nature of England, southern Italy and even the tropics, yet has so many unique aspects that it's clearly like none of these? I guess I had also imagined that the visual similarities between the Tasmanian 26 The Tasmanian Naturalist farmed countiyside and that of England would have extended to their natural history too. But whereas that of England is truly a "living countryside", rich in species for which agroecosystems are their main habitat, that of Tasmania is closer to an ecological desert, with most native species banished to the fringes. By contrast, life is generally far more bounteous in native Tasmanian ecosystems than in any of the sad remnants that pass for native ecosystems in Europe. I'd like to illustrate my confusion by referring to some of the plant and animal groups whose degree of representation in Tasmania at first surprised me. It's an eclectic list reflecting my own interests, and I'm still on asteep learning curve here, but the closer I look, the more I am amazed. Being a Pom, I'll start with the disappointments - those that seem under-represented. Butterflies. Despite the infamous butterfly-unfriendly weather, England hosts a respectable fifty-plus species, many of them found in "semi-natural" habitats, i.e. agroecosystems. Besides the browns, whites and skippers, there are many colourful blues, hairstreaks, fritillaries and other nymphalids, plus a single swallowtail and a metalmark. In continental Europe at the latitude of Rome, the number of species is several times greater still. Yet Tasmania has no more resident species than England, and nearly all are rather drab-looking browns and skippers - not without their charms, but perhaps not as charismatic as I would have hoped for this latitude. And strangely, the state's only swallowtail is a denizen of cool rainforests, despite belonging to a largely tropical genus and family. Land-birds. These have also been a bit of a disappointment to me, lacking such ubiquitous mainland species as willy-wagtails and magpie-larks. True, there are plenty of endemic species instead and many of these are common, but the diversity is pretty poor, especially in the Europeanised parts of the landscape. England is the opposite - high diversity, arguably higher in the farmed countryside than in the average woodland, but no endemic species at all. Endemic species are scarcely even a feature of the rest of Europe either. Palms. There are some spectacular Phoenix palms in towns and villages around Tasmania, but no native species. Palms are largely tropical, but even Mediterranean Europe has one (admittedly dwarf) species. Mistletoes. Which came first in Australia, the mistletoebird or the mistletoe? More importantly, why are there neither in Tasmania? The common mistletoe of Europe (whose seeds are dispersed by thrushes, in the absence of m istletoebirds) grows throughout lowland Britain, and there are further species towards the Mediterranean. Musings of a Naturalist 27 Now for the pleasant surprises - those groups that seem over-represented. There are more of these than in the previous category: Sea-birds. The Southern Ocean near Tasmania is teeming with sea-birds, making the most of the strong and predictable winds and the nutrient-rich waters near the Antarctic convergence. This is abundantly clear from the proportion of pages that prions, petrels, sheerwaters, albatrosses etc take up in any Australian bird field-guide. The Atlantic coast of Britain is pretty good for seabirds too, but the number of species is much lower compared to what's potential ly twitchable in Tasmanian waters. And the Mediterranean, with its nutrient-poor waters and balmy breezes, is a seabird desert by comparison. Beetles. I did my doctoral research on dead wood associated beetles in the tropical rainforests of northeastern Queensland. I thought I was doing well to be able to include about 350 species in my analyses, but then I come to Tasmaniaand find that Marie Yee's list, from some 66 eucalypt logs in the Southern Forests, is close to topping 500 species. 1 can only suppose that the much slower rate of decomposition of logs on the forest floor here (because of lower temperatures) enables more species to occupy them before they decay away. Whatever the reason, it turns on its head the dogma that the tropics represent the pinnacle of biodiversity. Then consider Tasmania's (mostly dead wood associated) stag- beetles. There are thought to be getting on for fifty species here - far more than northeastern Queensland and twelve times the number found in Britain. It seems the state is criss-crossed by "faunal breaks", which delimit the ranges of different stag-beetles; this same pattern is repeated across numerous other invertebrate groups. Parrots and honeyeaters. Europe has no native parrots; the closest member of the order is the ring-necked parakeet whose range extends to the Middle East (though this species has gone feral in England and is now doing fine). I always associated parrots with the tropics, yet even Tasmania boasts nine native species (including the cockatoos). If Tasmania can have migrant parrots (swift and orange-bellied) which leave the island to escapethe wintercold, one wonders why there aren't any that similarly migrate between Africa and Europe. If it's a lack of suitable flowering shrubs or trees for flower-feeding species such as swift parrots and honeyeaters to feed at, that begs the question why? And surely there's ample grass-seed around the Mediterranean for an analogue of the grass-parrots? Crayfish and amphipods. There is one native crayfish species in England, and not many more in the rest of Europe. Yet Tasmania boasts more than thirty. 28 The Tasmanian Naturalist and that’s before you count the other strange freshwater and terrestrial decapods that are totally unrepresented in the European fauna. Even terrestrial amphipods, which number about forty species here, are absent from the European fauna (apart from one introduced Australian species in England). Marine molluscs. Tasmania boasts a rich marine mollusc fauna, with subtropical as well as cool temperate elements. To start with, there are four species of cowrie - the quintessential tropical mollusc-though only one is common in the south. No species reaches Britain, though there are a couple in the Mediterranean. Tasmania's volute fauna is also impressive, with several large and colourful species. Elsewhere in the world, large volutes are primarily tropical, but they are a distinctive feature of the Australian marine mollusc fauna nationwide. Each of Tasmania's three abalone species dwarfs the single (and rare) northern European one. The native turban shell is as big as many of the tropical species, and common on any rocky shore. Bonnet shells and cone shells are further largely tropical elements found in Tasmania. And Tasmania's brooch shell is one of very few species globally, the others being found in warmer Pacific waters. Yet Tasmania also shares many mollusc genera with northern Europe, including mussels, piddocks, oysters, topshells, mud-whelks, periwinkles and false cowries. How can I explain these apparent paradoxes? At the risk of gross oversimplification, they can be better understood in the context of Tasmania's historical and present biogeography, compared to that of Europe. Australia has drifted north over geological time, and its cool-loving endemic or Gondwanan biodiversity has become more and more ousted or "diluted" by tropical infiltrators. Tasmania, as the southernmost outpost of Australia, remains a hospitable refuge for some of this ancient endemic biodiversity that shuns more tropical parts of the continent. Nevertheless, it is still an island, and (all things being equal), islands generally are only able to support fewer species than are larger land-masses nearby. By contrast, Europe has more or less stayed put over comparable geological timescales, but the climate has varied enormously, sometimes being near-tropical, sometimes ice-bound. There may simply not have been sufficient stability for the evolution and survival of a rich pool of endemic cool-loving biodiversity - especially on an island such as Britain. This difference is evidence in the more recent past too, i.e. in the Pleistocene and Holocene. In Tasmania, climatic conditions during the recent ice ages were never severe enough to smother the land surface with ice, and land bridges connecting Tasmania with Victoria enabled the flow of species north and then Musings of a Naturalist 29 south again, with few north-south mountain barriers. In northern Europe, large chunks of biodiversity were periodically obliterated by ice, and their retreat south was partially blocked by mountains, offeringthem little refuge. England has since been colonised by the limited number of species that have been able to expand their ranges northwards thousands of kilometres over the past ten thousand years, particularly those that got to the land-bridge before it sank beneath the rising waters of the English Channel. By contrast, in Tasmania, refugia were scattered throughout the island, and range changes over the past ten thousand years may only have been in the order of tens of kilometres. Prevailing sea temperatures also help explain some of the differences in climate and biodiversity (terrestrial and marine) between Europe and Tasmania. Being exposed to a succession of weather systems originating over the cool waters of the Southern Ocean only increases Tasmania's suitability for terrestrial organisms that like constant and cool conditions. Considerations of daylengths aside, sometimes it seems that the surest way to know what time of year it is in Tasmania is to look at a calendar, since a cool day in summer can easily be colder than a warm day in winter. There is often more variation in temperature between two consecutive days than there is between the average temperatures of two consecutive seasons. On the other hand, the climate of northern Europe is more seasonal due to its higher latitude, even though the winter cold is ameliorated by weather systems originating over the relatively warm waters of the North Atlantic. The enclosed nature of the Mediterranean basin ensures that its waters are also warm compared to oceanic water at similar latitudes, encouraging mild weather over most of that region even during the winter. As we learnt at school, Mediterranean climates are characterised by the four w's: "warm, wet, westerly winds in winter". Tasmania certainly has the wet westerlies in winter (and summer), but they couldn't often be described as warm. For marine biodiversity, the tables are turned. Warm currents sometimes extend down the East coast of Tasmania, bringing regular sightings of turtles, white pointer sharks, bluebottles and violet snails. They may also explain why so many other "subtropical" forms of life exist in our coastal waters, like the molluscs mentioned earlier. Yet these currents are primarily coastal, and are no more than warm narrow fingers intruding into the vast cold Southern Ocean encircling Antarctica. So while the warm currents enable subtropical species to colonise the coasts, their effect on the regional climate is small compared to that of the colder oceanic water. In summer, it doesn't take much of a warming event over Hobart 30 The Tasmanian Naturalist for the differences in air temperature over land and sea to be great enough for the development of stiff and cooling afternoon sea breezes. Northern Europe also benefits from warm ocean currents (the North Atlantic Drift), which mean that turtles, bluebottles and seahorses occasionally reach English waters too. However, at this latitude, the warm oceanic water quickly cools as it reaches the coastal shallows, and consequently coastal marine biodiversity has more in common with the Arctic than the Mediterranean. The more I try and figure out what makes Tasmanian natural history tick, the more I end up questioning my assumptions about what makes European natural history tick, and the more I stray from my usual haunts of hard science towards philosophy. But phi losophy hasn't been a big part of natural history for a long, long time and it's probably better that way, which suggests to me that it's time to bring these musings to a close. Nevertheless, I would welcome anyone else's views on what I have written, and look forward to revisiting this subject when I've been in Tasmania a bit longer. The Tasmanian Naturalist ( 2002 ) 124 : 31 - 34 . 31 VITRINA PELLUCIDA (Muller, 1774) (PULMONATA: VITRINIDAE), ANOTHER LAND SNAIL INTRODUCED TO TASMANIA Kevin Bonham 20 Grosvenor Street, Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7005 email: k_bonham@tassie.net.au Abstract. This short paper discusses the presence in southern T asmania of a widespread but previously unreported introduced land snail, Vitrina pellucida (Muller 1774), the first vitrinid recorded from Tasmania. The species is considered moderately invasive in both wet and dry forest but is not considered to be likely to be a severe ecological problem. IDENTIFICATION Vitrina pellucida has a small shell which is typically 3.5-5mm wide at 3-3.5 whorls. The shell is very thin and fragile, translucent, usually shiny, and yellow to pale green. The spire is low and the body whorl is rounded. The umbilicus is closed and the aperture is subovate and very wide (c.70% of shell width). The shell is smooth with the exception of a microsculpture of low irregular more or less spiral indentations on the protoconch. The animal is vaguely similar to the native Helicarion in that it has a small mantle lobe which covers the edge of the shell. Few live Tasmanian specimens of V. pellucida have been seen at this stage and the colour of preserved material is unreliable as a guide to actual colour. No Tasmanian land snail closely resembles V pellucida but some care must be taken in distinguishing it from juvenile Helicarion cuvieri Ferussac 1821. H. cuvieri is much larger for a similar number of whorls; a shell of 3-3.5 whorls would be 10-15mm wide, and the aperture is considerably wider. V. PELLUCIDA IN TASMANIA I first saw V pellucida in Tasmania in 1986 but did not realise what it was at the time, having not considered that it might be something not previously recorded 32 The Tasmanian Naturalist from Tasmania. Over time, as I increasingly came across what I had assumed (without close study) were either juvenile Helicarion or baby Helix aspersa Muller 1774, in habitats where neither was present, I realised thatthese specimens were actually an unrecorded introduced species. Comparisons using pictures and descriptions by Forsyth (1999) and specimens from Slovakia, confirmed that Tasmanian specimens are identical in shell features to European and North American specimens of V. pellucida, a species widespread in Europe and introduced widely in North America. This identification is tentative as V. pellucida is identical in shell features to Vitrina angelicae Beck 1837 and no dissections have been conducted, but V. pellucida is most likely due to its frequency in its native range and known ability to be successfully introduced. V. pellucida is widespread on the western shore of Hobart, where it is present (but not especially common) in old gardens (e.g. Fitzroy Gardens), urban wastelands (e.g. the steep weedy areas around the Lynton Avenue underpass in Dynnyme)and rock walls (e.g. rubble in rock and concrete walls surrounding the Information Systems building at the University of Tasmania campus). It has successfully invaded dry woodlands (e.g. the land between the Mount Nelson Signal Station and Marlborough Street, Sandy Bay) and wet forests (Lambert Park, Truganini Reserve, University Reserve, Hobart Rivulet Reserve, bush margins at Lenah Valley Road) up to a distance of about 300 m from houses. It was collected from disturbed dry woodland in an invertebrate survey on Hobart's eastern shore at Knopwood Hill, Howrah, by Peter McQuillan in May 1996. Approximately forty specimens were collected in pitfall traps, making it the commonest land mollusc in that survey. There are two records from outside Greater Hobart. On 24 May 1986,1 found a live specimen crawling on the underside of a brick on the margin between dry woodland and pasture at Humphreys Road, New Norfolk (GR 5055 2618, approximately 23km WN W of the Hobart GPO). On 7 May 1995,1 recorded the species in degraded sand-dune wattle scrub at Marion Bay (GR 5709 2586, approximately 45km. E of the Hobart GPO). DISCUSSION It is likely that increased awareness of this species will lead to more records of it in other parts of the state. The records presented here alone suggest that this species has been present in Tasmania for several decades. V. PELLUCIDA IN TASMANIA 33 V. pellucida is a primarily carnivorous species which "feeds on almost anythingbut vascular plants" (Ellis 1969) butwhich prefers dead prey (Grego, pers comm.). The numbers of the species in bushland locations where it has been seen so far in Tasmania are generally modest (a few specimens per hour of sampling) and the size of the species is relatively small. It is more invasive than some other small introduced species, most notably the apparently city-bound Vallonia pulchella (Muller 1774), and much commoner than a long-standing introduction Vitreacrystallina (Muller 1774). However neither its distance nor its density of invasion are remotely comparable to the ecologically similar Oxychilus cellarius (Muller 1774), which also effectively invades both wet and dry environments. Several slug species are also capable of invading over much longer distances and contributing much more to the total exotic biomass. On this basis V. pellucida is considered likely to cause very little or no ecological harm. Most of the bushland sites where it has been recorded are already heavily degraded by weed infestation, overburning and fragmentation. Very few even have moderate native land snail diversities - while the hardy "native tramp" species Paralaoma caputspinulae (Reeve 1845) is almost invariably present, Lambert Park and Truganini Reserve are the only V. pellucida localities so far recorded where the native snail diversity exceeds five species, and in these cases V. pellucida occurs mainly on the disturbed low-diversity fringes of the reserves. The extent to which exotic snails are agents of environmental change rather than merely symptoms of it in Tasmania is an unresolved issue. At least twenty-three land mollusc species (c.20% of Tasmania's total land mollusc fauna) are now confirmed as having been introduced into Tasmania since European settlement, excluding successful apprehensions in quarantine. Only two of these introductions ( Eobania vermiculata (Muller 1774) and Helix aperta Bom 1780) have apparently failed to survive. POSTSCRIPT After this paper was submitted, V. pellucida was also found in Launceston and is likely to be widespread there. Several dead specimens were collected alongthe north side of Cataract Gorge within the first 200m of the track from the West Tamar Highway end on 6 Sept 02, and one live specimen (pictured) was collected along the creekside above the rock fissure in Punchbowl Reserve on 7 Sept 02. 34 The Tasmanian Naturalist ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Peter McQuillan for photographing and donating specimens, and Jozef Grego (Slovakia) for comments and European specimens. REFERENCES Ellis, A.E. (1969) British Snails. A Guide to the Non-Marine Gastropods of Great Britain and Ireland. (Oxford University Press, London). 298 pp. Forsyth, R.G. (1999) Terrestrial Gastropods of the Columbia Basin, British Columbia http://livinglandscapes.bc.ca/molluscs The Tasmanian Naturalist (2002) 124:35-37 35 INCREASED INCIDENCE OF ENDOPHYTE {NEOTYPHODIUM LOLII) INFECTED PERENNIAL RYEGRASS OBSERVED IN TASMANIAN PASTURES P.L.Guy A and B.A. Rowe Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Tasmania, 13 St Johns Ave,NewTown, 7008, Australia. A Present address: Botany Department, University of Otago, Box 56 Dunedin, New Zealand. Corresponding author: P.L. Guy (Email paul@planta.otago.ac.nz') Many toxins are produced when the fungal endophyte Neotyphodium lolii infects perennial ryegrass. One group, whose predominant activity has been attributed to the compound peramine, acts as anti-feedants for some chewing insects while lolitrem B and related compounds cause perennial ryegrass staggers syndrome in grazing animals. The presence of N. lolii in ryegrass also enhances growth, persistence, tolerance to drought stress and resistance to pasture-weed invasion (Siegel etal. 1987). Perennial ryegrass staggers occurs during the summer and autumn and is associated with warm ambient temperatures and close grazing of swards. The concentrations of lolitrem and other alkaloids which affect animal health and plant survival are influenced by environmental conditions and the genotype of both the host and the endophyte (Siegel et al. 1987, Reed et al. 2000). Guy (1992) showed that Tasmanian pastures with a history of ryegrass staggers had high incidences (79-94%) of N. lolii and were at least 4 years old. This study recorded the incidence of N. lolii in newly sown perennial ryegrass pastures over a three year period at 4 sites in Tasmania. Pastures were sown at Cambridge, Hamilton, Kempton (September 1988) and Ross (May 1989) in Tasmania. They were direct drilled with the same seedline of Lolium perenne cv. Victorian into unimproved pasture (mainly Agrostis, Hordeum and Vulpia spp.: Lolium spp. were rare) which had been killed with glyphosate herbicide. 36 The Tasmanian Naturalist Tillers were sampled at random every 2-6 months (90 tillers / site / sampling) from Cambridge, Hamilton, Kempton and three times from Ross (Figure 1). Whole tillers were inspected for insect damage and prepared for ELISA (Guy 1992). Insect damage to the tillers or the pastures as a whole during this study was negligible (P.B. McQuillan, pers. comm. 1989-91). There was little change in incidence in the Hamilton and Kempton pastures during the first 18 months. However duringthe unseasonally dry period: spring 1989 - autumn 1990 (Hennessy et al. 1999), the incidence of N. lolii increased steadily to around 80%. Incidence in the newly sown Ross pasture started increasing during the same period suggesting that this was a seasonal effect rather than a function of pasture age. Even though there was between-site variation in aspect, altitude, and soil type there was little between-site variation in the incidence of N. lolii at each sampling. The one exception was observed at the Cambridge site during the Sept 1989 sampling when incidence increased markedly (x 2 = 11.767, P < 0.01). This pasture wasgrowing on unconsolidated marine sediments which dried very rapidly after rain. During the final 6 months of the study (spring 1990 - autumn 1991) N. lolii incidence increased in the pastures to around 90% (Fig. 1). Francis and Baird (1989) also observed a sharp rise in N. lolii incidence, from 3% to 67 and 83%, in two ryegrass pastures within 3 years in New Zealand. They attributed this directly to an increased competitive ability of endophyte-infected seedlings and discounted infected ryegrass' ability to resist insect attack as not significant during their trial. This study has shown that incidence of N. lolii in Tasmanian ryegrass pastures can rise to potentially hazardous levels in 6 -18 months after sowing in the absense of conspicuous insect damage. The increase coincided with unusually dry conditions and may be related to endophyte infected ryegrass' ability to withstand drought stress. This rapid increase highlights the need for good pasture management of younger as well as older pastures to reduce the risk of ryegrass staggers. REFERENCES Francis, S.M. and Baird, D.B. (1989) Increase in the proportion of endophyte- infected perennial ryegrass plants in overdrilled pastures. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 32: 437-440. Endophytes in Ryegrass 37 Guy, P.L. (1992) Incidence of Acremonium lolii and lack of correlation with barley yellow dwarf viruses in Tasmanian perennial ryegrass pastures. Plant Pathology 41: 29-34. Hennessy, K.J., Suppiah, R., and Page, C.M. (1999) Australian rainfall 1910- 1995. Australian Meterological Magazine 48: 1-13. Reed, K.F.M., Leonforte, A., Cunningham, P.J., Walsh, J.R., Allen, D.I., Johnstone, G.R., and Kearney, G. (2000) Incidence of ryegrass endophyte (Neotyphodium lolii) and diversity of associated alkaloid concentrations among naturalised populations of perennial ryegrass (folium perenne). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 51: 569-578. Siegel, M.R., Latch, G.C.M., and Johnson, M.C. (1987) Fungal endophytes of grasses. Annual Review of Phytopathology 25: 293-315. 1988 1989 1990 1991 Sampling date Figure 1. Increase in the incidence of Neotyphodium lolii in perennial ryegrass (cv. Victorian) pastures. The Tasmanian Naturalist (2002) 124:38-48 SMALL MAMMAL HABITAT USE IN BUTTONGRASS MOORLANDS, TYNDALL RANGE, WESTERN TASMANIA Michael Driessen 1 , Katie Pigott 2 and Terry Reid 2 'Nature Conservation Branch, 2 Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, GPO Box 44 Hobart, Tasmania 7001. Abstract. Weconducted asmall mammal trapping survey, using210 aluminium collapsible traps and 30 cage traps, over four nights in three buttongrass moorland sites below the Tyndall Range. We trapped 32 Rattus lutreolus, 19 Antechinus minimus and 4 Isoodon obesulus. We found that small mammals occurred in some buttongrass moorland communities to a greater extent than others and that they were differentiating between buttongrass moorland communities at a level that is lower than the com mun ities described by Jarman et al. (1988). Capture rates of small mammals were greatest in areas where there was a dense, tall (0.75m) ground cover (Pure Buttongrass) and often with a sparse overstorey (0.75-2m) (tall Layered Blanket Moor and Wet Copse). INTRODUCTION Buttongrass moorland covers more than one million hectares of Tasmania, mainly in the western part of the State (Jarman et al. 1988). It provides habitat for several small mammals, primarily the swamp rat, Rattus lutreolus, the broad¬ toothed mouse, Mastacomys fuscus and the swamp antechinus, Antechinus minimus. The southern brown bandicoot, Isoodon obesulus, the long-tailed mouse, Pseudomys higginsi and eastern pygmy possum, Cercartetus nanus, have been trapped in moorland but these instances are rare and, for the latter two species, usually in locations adjacent to their more typical habitat. Buttongrass moorland is a highly variable vegetation type with over 25 communities described and additional ones are likely to be delimited as the vegetation is further investigated (Jarman etal. 1988). There is growingevidence that small mammals use some buttongrass moorland communities to a greater Small mammals in buttongrass 39 degree than others (Taylor etal. 1985; Driessen and Comfort 1991; Slater 1992; Driessen 1998). Information on habitat use is important for management of small mammals, particularly in relation to fire management. Buttongrass moorland is regularly subjected to fuel reduction burns to prevent fires spreading into fire sensitive vegetation and to protect human life and property. There have been proposals to significantly increase the area of burning in buttongrass moorlands, not only to increase the level of protection of fire sensitive assets but also to manage for biodiversity in buttongrass moorlands (Marsden-Smedley andKirkpatrick2000). However, there is very little information on the effects of fire on fauna biodiversity. M.fuscus is one species thought to be at risk from regular firing of buttongrass moorland. In the past the species was trapped only in old growth (> 15 years since fire) moorland but, more recently, controlled experiments have shown that it may return three years post-fire in some habitats (Driessen 1999). The conservation status ofthis species is currently unknown but possibly secure because buttongrass moorland, its primary habitat, is widespread and largely within reserved land. The original aims of this study were: (1) to identify sites for a study into the impacts offireonsmallmammalsto complementtheworkofDriessen(1999),(2) to find new locations where the broad-toothed mouse occurs, and (3) to assess the habitat requirements of small mammals in buttongrass moorlands. However, few captures of small mammals during the study meant that only aim (3) was adequately achieved. STUDY AREA This study was conducted in buttongrass moorlands below Mt Tyndall, 20 km north of Queenstown. Moorlands in this area are accessible by vehicle and are subject to fuel reduction bums to control illegal fires that might escape into fire sensitive vegetation on the Tyndall Range. Three areas of moorland were surveyed,Newton Creek(382300E5359950N±25m), Upper Langdon(380900E 5355850N ± 25 m) and West Langdon (379150E5352950N ± 25 m). All sites occur at approximately 500 m above sea level. Taylor et al. (1985) conducted an inventory of mammals in the area. They recorded 19 native species including the following small mammals in buttongrass moorland; R. lu(reolus,A. minimus, P. higginsi and /. obesulus. 40 The Tasmanian Naturalist Newton Creek This site sloped gradually away from the Anthony Highway south-east to Newton Creek. Adjacent to the highway the vegetation consisted of 2 m tall scrub dominated by Leptospermum nitidum and Melaleuca squamea over a dense cover of Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus, Empodisma minor and Lepyrodia tasmanica. There was a small dry copse with a sparse overstorey of Eucalyptus nitida over a dense scrub layer of Leptospermum nitidum, Melaleuca squamea. Acacia mucronata with some Gahnia grandis. About 20 m from the highway, the shrub layer became lower and then graded into buttongrass moorland with a height of less than one metre. Large areas of buttongrass moorlands occurred to the east and southeast of the survey area (> 100 ha). A small creek flowed under the Anthony Highway, through the survey area and into Newton Creek. The low buttongrass moorland was last burnt in 1987, it is not known when the taller vegetation near the highway was last burnt. The following buttongrass communities, described by Jarman et al. (1988) were present at Newton Creek; Layered Blanket Moor, Standard Peat, Pure B uttongrass and Dry Copse. We subd ivided Layered B lanket Moor into three sub- communities based on vegetation height and dominant plant species. Cover and height for plant species in each community at Newton Creek are given in Table 1 . Upper Langdon This site was located in a 40 ha buttongrass moorland plain surrounded by dense tea tree scrub, rainforest and mixed forest. The moorland was connected to a larger band of moorland that paralleled the Tyndall Range. A small creek flowed into the middle of the survey area and then dispersed. A second creek passed through the southeastern comer of the survey area. The buttongrass moorland communities were less than 1.5 m in height although there were a few patches near to scrub that had taller shrubs. The survey area was last burnt in 1985. The following buttongrass communities, described by Jarman et al. (1988) were present at Upper Langdon; Layered Blanket Moor, Standard Peat, Pure Buttongrass and Southwestern Sedgey. We subdivided Layered Blanket Moor into three sub-communities based on vegetation height and dominant plant species. Cover and height for plant species in each community at Upper Langdon are given in Table 2. Small mammals in buttongrass 41 Table 1. Cover (C, %) and Height (Ht, cm) of Vegetation at Newton Creek. LBM = Layered Blanket Moor, Gs = Gymnoshoenus sphaerocephalus, Em = Empodisma minus, Lta = Lepyrodia tasmanica, p = present. Taxon Low LBM Gs/Em/Lta Ht C Medium LBM Gs Ht C G. sphaerocephalus 50 30 60 45 E. minus/L tasmanica 30 25 30 5 Lepidosperma filiforme 30 5 Gahnia grandis 100 P Eurychorda complanata 30 P Baloskion telraphyllum Leptocarpus tenax 30 15 30 P Ehrharta tasmanica Poaceae Astelia alpina Diplarrena latifoiia 30 P 30 P Eucalyptus nitida Melaleuca squamea 75 5 Melaleuca squarrosa Leptospermum nitidum 75 15 120 35 Leptospermum scoparia 75 P Sprengelia incamata 75 P 120 20 Epachs lanuginosa 20 P Bauera rubioides 40 P Banksia marginata 70 P Acacia mucronata 180 P Pultenaea juniperina 40 P 30 P Gleichenia sp Lycopodiella sp 10 P Coral lichen 30 P Sphagnum Tall Pure Standard Dry LBM Buttongrass Peat Copse Em/Lta/Gs Ht C Ht C Ht C Ht C 50 20 50 80 30 55 40 5 30 30 30 5 20 10 40 5 40 P 150 10 100 P 150 5 100 P 30 P 40 P 30 P 10 P 20 P 20 P 20 P 40 P 50 P 30 P 30 P 20 P 500 15 200 20 100 P 350 25 120 P 200 20 150 5 40 25 350 25 200 P 350 P 60 P 60 P 40 5 30 P 60 5 20 P 40 P 60 P 150 P 350 10 50 P 60 P 100 P 20 P 20 P 30 P P Bare rocky ground_P West Langdon This site consisted of a square pocket of buttongrass moorland that was surrounded on three sides by dense tea tree scrub grading into Eucalyptus nitida forest. On the fourth side it became part of a larger (>100 ha) area of buttongrass moorland. The site was relatively flat and vegetation height was mostly less than 1 m tall. A small creek flowed through one half of the survey area and the banks of the creek comprised dense Melaleuca scrub over Bauera rubioides, Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus and Gahnia grandis. It is not known when the site was last burnt. The following buttongrass communities, described by Jarman et al. (1988) were present at West Langdon; Pure Buttongrass, Southwestern Sedgey, Wet Standard and Wet Copse. Cover and height for plant species in each community at West Langdon are given in Table 3. 42 The Tasmanian Naturalist METHODS At Upper Langdon, 100 collapsible aluminium traps (10 by 10 by 33 cm, Elliott Scientific Equipment) were set in a 2.25 ha square grid. Ten cage traps (25 by 25 by 56 cm, Mascot Wireworks) were placed 15 m apart in a line down the middle of the grid, adjacent to a small creek. Traps were set for four nights commencing on 30/10/2001. At Newton Creek 40 Elliott traps were set in a 0.61 ha grid with the long side parallel with the Anthony Road. A line of 10 cage traps were placed 20m from the Anthony Road and parallel to it with a spacing of 15 m. At West Langdon 70 Elliott traps were set in a 1.22 ha grid. An irregular line of 10 traps was placed 10 m apart adjacent to a creek that flowed through the grid. At both Newton Creek and West Langdon, traps were set for three nights commencing on 31/10/2001. Elliott traps were baited with peanut butter and rolled oats and cage traps were baited with peanut butter sandwiches. All traps contained dacron to insulate animals from the cold. Cage traps were wrapped in plastic and Elliott traps were placed under vegetation to keep out rain. Traps were checked each morning and animals were released at point of capture. All animals were weighed (using Salter spring balances, 100 g, 200 g and 2000 g depending upon animal size). Head and pes length were measured using vernier calipers. Sex and reproductive condition were recorded. Each animal was tagged in the ear using a stainless steel fingerlingtag. Table 2. Cover (C, %) and Height (Ht, cm) of Vegetation at Upper Langdon. LBM = Layered Blanket Moor, Gs = Gymnoshoenus sphaerocephalus, Em = Empodisma minus, Lta = Lepyrodia tasmanica, Lte = Leptocarpus tenax, p= present. Species G. sphaerocephalus E. minus/L. tasmanica Lepidosperma fiJiforme Eurychorda complanata Baloskion tetraphyllum Leptocarpus tenax Ehrharta tasmanica Poaceae Astelia alpina Diplarrena latifoiia Low Low LBM LBM Gs Lte/Gs/Em/Lta Ht C Ht C 50 50 40 20 50 10 40 20 5 P 50 p 40 25 10 p Tall Pure LBM Buttongrass Gs Ht C Ht C 100 55 75 80 20 p 30 5 30 100 p 40 p 20 p 20 p 20 p 20 p 40 p Standard South- Peat western Ht C Sedgey Ht C 35 35 30 20 35 25 30 30 p 40 5 40 p 35 5 30 30 20 10 15 5 20 p 20 p 35 5 Melaleuca squamea Leptospermum nitidum Sprengelia incamata Epacris lanuginosa Bauera rubioides 50 10 40 10 100 10 100 15 60 15 75 5 50 p 30 p 1800 40 100 p 150 p 100 p 100 5 1500 5 75 5 80 5 30 5 80 p 40 p 75 15 40 5 Small mammals in buttongrass 43 Table 3. Cover (C, %) and Height (Ht, cm) of Vegetation at West Langdon. p = present Species Pure Buttongrass Ht C Southwestern Sedgey Ht C Wet Copse Ht C Wet Standard Ht C G. sphaerocephalus 50 80 30 30 50 10 30 10 E. minor/L. tasmanica 30 10 30 5 100 5 30 30 Gahnia grandis 150 15 Eurychorda complanata 30 P Baloskion tetraphyllum 100 P 150 10 Leptocarpus tenax 40 30 30 15 Ehrharta tasmanica 20 10 30 P Astelia alpina 20 P Diplarrena latifolia 30 P P 30 P Eucalyptus nitida P Melaleuca squamea 75 5 50 5 200 20 75 20 Melaleuca squarrosa 200 P Sprengelia incamata 75 5 50 15 60 5 Epacris lanuginosa 80 P 150 5 Bauera mbioides 20 P 20 P 150 25 50 30 Boronia sp 30 P 40 10 Gleichenia sp 10 P sphagnum P RESULTS We caught three mammal species during the survey (Table 4). R. lutreolus was the most commonly caught animal (32 captures) followed by A. minimus (19 captures) and I. obesulus (4 captures). The swamp rat was caught at all three sites, whereas the swamp antechinus was caught only at Upper Langdon and Newton Creek, and the southern brown bandicoot was caught only at Upper Langdon. R. lutreolus was caught in all buttongrass moorland communities, as defined by Jarman et al. (1988) except Southwestern Sedgey, Wet Standard and Dry Copse. Captures rates in Layered Blanket Moor, Standard Peat and Pure Buttongrass were variable both within and between sites. R. lutreolus was trapped in pure buttongrass at Upper Langdon and West Langdon (although all captures at this site were immediately adjacent to Wet Copse) but not at Newton Creek. Capture rates were highest in Layered Blanket Moor but only where there was tall Melaleuca squamea and Leptospermum nitidum over dense Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus, Empodisma minus and Lepyrodia tasmanica. In all other layered blanket moor sub-communities R. lutreolus was 44 The Tasmanian Naturalist Table 4. Number of animals trapped In each vegetation type at each site, n = total number of captures, % = total number of captures expressed as a percentage of total trap nights except Isoodon obesulus where captures are expressed a percentage of total number of cage trap nights only. Traps were set for 3 nights at Newton Creek and West Langdon and 4 nights at Upper Langdon. Superscript values indicate number of Rattus lutreolus caught in cage traps. LBM = Layered Blanket Moor, Gs = Gymnoschoenus sphaerocaphalus, Em = Empodisma minus, Lta = Lepyrodia tasmanica, Lte = Leptocarpus tenax. Vegetation Type No. of Elliot Traps No. Of Cage Traps Total Trap Nights Rattus lutreolus n % Antechinus minimus n % Isoodon obesulus n % Newton Creek Low LBM (Gs/Em/Lta) 10 0 30 0 0.0 1 3.3 - - Medium LBM (Gs) 4 0 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 ■ Tall LBM (Em/Lta/Gs). 14 9 69 6 3 5.8 5 7.2 0 0.0 Pure Buttongrass 6 0 18 0 0.0 1 5.6 ■ - Standard Peat 5 1 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 40 10 150 6 3 4.0 7 4.7 0 0.0 Upper Langdon Low LBM (Gs) 6 0 24 0 0.0 0 0.0 ■ ” Low LBM (Lte/Gs/Em/Lta) 15 0 60 3 5.0 1 1.7 - - Tall LBM (Gs) 5 1 24 4 16.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 Pure Buttongrass 23 5 112 7 6.3 5 4.5 0 0.0 Standard Peat 32 1 132 5 3.8 4 3.0 0 0.0 Southwestern Sedgey 19 3 88 0 0.0 2 2.3 4 4.5 Total 100 4 440 19 4.3 12 2.7 4 4.0 West Langdon Pure Buttongrass 38 5 129 2 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 Southwestern Sedgey 19 0 57 0 0.0 0 0.0 - - Wet Copse 10 5 45 5 2 11.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 Wet Standard 3 0 9 0 0.0 0 0.0 - - Total 70 10 240 7 2 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total all sites 210 30 830 32 5 3.9 19 2.3 4 10.0 either absent or caught in low numbers. At Newton Creek R. lutreolus was trapped only in one vegetation type, tall Layered Blanket Moor, which formed a distinct band parallel to the highway. The sex and age for R. lutreolus at all sites were eight adult females, four adult males, two juvenile females and two juvenile males. Only adult females were trapped at West Langdon. All juveniles and only one adult female were trapped at Newton Creek. There was no clear pattern of A. minimus captures in the buttongrass moorland communities surveyed. It was trapped in small numbers in several moorland communities at Newton Creek and Upper Langdon, but was absent from West Small mammals in buttongrass 45 Langdon. At Newton Creek A. minimus was captured most frequently in tall Layered Blanket Moor but absent from this community at Upper Langdon. At Upper Langdon most captures were in Pure Buttongrass, Standard Peat and Southwestern Sedgey. All nine A. minimus were adult females and 5 of these had pouch young (litter sizes were 3, 5, 5,6, 6, average = 5). I. obesulus were trapped only at Upper Langdon and all captures occurred adjacent to a small creek in pure buttongrass. One adult male and one juvenile female were trapped. DISCUSSION The results of this trapping survey support previous observations (Driessen and Comfort 1991; Slater 1992; Driessen 1998) that not all buttongrass moorland communities are suitable habitat for small mammals and that some communities are used to a greater extent than others. Further, we found that small mammals are differentiating between buttongrass moorland communities at a level that is lower than the communities described by Jarman et al. (1998). For example, at the sites surveyed Layered Blanket Moor varied in terms of the overall height of the vegetation and in terms of dominant species in the ground layer and overstorey. Jarman et al. (1988) recognised thatthere was variability withintheir communities and that further communities may be delimited with further investigation. Capture rates of small mammals in buttongrass moorlands in the present study were similarto previous surveys (Table 5) although we did not trap •M/wscm.?. The lack of M. fuscus captures was disappointing as each of the sites had evidence indicating their presence. Their characteristic green scats, which go white when dry, were present at all sites particularly along creek banks. M. fuscus typically have low capture rates (Driessen 1998; Table 5) but given the amount of trapping effort it was reasonable to expect one or two captures. Further trapping of these areas should confirm their presence. Rattus lutreolus R. lutreolus was the most frequently caught animal during the present survey and this is typical of most small mammal trapping surveys in buttongrass moorlands (Table 5). In all likelihood, this reflects the abundance of this species in this habitat, but also its willingness to enter traps. 46 The Tasmanian Naturalist We found that R. lutreolus was most common in buttongrass moorland communities that had a dense, tall (0.75 m) ground cover (Pure Buttongrass) and often with a sparse overstorey (0.75-2 m) (tall Layered Blanket Moor and Wet Copse), Similar results have been found in previous studies (Taylor etal. 1985; Driessen and Comfort 1991; Slater 1992; Taylor and Comfort 1993; Driessen 1998). We found that these habitats were often adjacent to creeks, as did Slater (1992), presumably because of the better drainage. These habitats are used probably because they provide dry nesting sites that are well protected from predators. This is supported by the observation that al 1 captures of females at West Langdon and half of female captures at Upper Langdon were adjacent to the creeks. The results for Newton Creek are less clear as there were only a few captures and these were mostly juveniles. Antechinus minimus We found no clear pattern of habitat use by A. minimus in the buttongrass moorland communities surveyed. In general the species appeared to prefer the same communities as R. lutreolus with the exception of its absence from tall Layered Blanket Moor at Upper Langdon. The absence A minimus from West Langdon was unusual and not easily explained. It may be related to habitat as, with the exception of south western sedgey which does not appear to be suitable habitat, the communities present at West Langdon were mostly different from the two other sites. Although pure buttongrass was present at all three sites, it was a different from that at West Langdon, being much lower in height and forming a dense mat over the ground. Only near the wet copse vegetation was the pure buttongrass similar to other sites. Only adult female A minimus were trapped during the survey and over half of these had young. This is consistent with adult males dying immediately after breeding. Isoodon obesulus I. obesulus occurs primarily in dry sclerophyll forest, scrub and heathland communities throughout Tasmania (Hocking 1990) and has been reported in buttongrass moorlands on only two previous occasions (Table 5). Hocking and Guiler (1983) and Taylor et al. (1985) each caught two I. obesulus in the Gordon Small mammals in buttongrass 47 Table 5 Comparison of capture rates (total captures per 100 trap nights) of small mammals In buttongrass moorlands in previous surveys. Capture rates for I. obseulus are for cage traps, all other capture rates are for Elliott traps.indicates cage traps were not used in survey. Survey Location Rattus lutreolus Antechinus Mastacomys minimus fuscus isoodon obesulus Taylor et al. (1985) Upper Henty 5.9 0.1 0.0 4.0 Driessen & Comfort (1991) McPartlan Pass 5.1 1.7 0.4 - Slater (1992) Norfolk Range 1.9 1.9 0.6 0.0 Driessen (1998) Pelion Plains 5.0 0.0 0.5 - Driessen (1999) Lake St Clair 2.7 2.0 1.1 0.0 Present study Tyndall Range 4.4 2.6 0.0 4.0 River and Upper Henty regions respectively. In both surveys I. obesulus was caught in closed moorland (moorland with shrubs greater than 1.3 m in height) which led Taylor et al. (1985) to suggest the species may prefer this habitat to open moorland (shrubs less than 1.3 m in height or absent). In the present study, all four I. obesulus were trapped in open moorland. Their presence on the trapping grid at Upper Langdon was restricted to a narrow band of open moorland adjacent to a small creek. Based on the low number of captures in buttongrass moorlands it seems likely that this species uses this habitat as part of a wider range of habitat use. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the following people for their assistance with the trapping program Sandra Barwick, Tomoko Chida, Chris Konkes and Helen Otley. We also thank Jayne Balmer for her advice on vegetation. This survey was approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment. Funding was provided by the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area fauna program, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment. 48 The Tasmanian Naturalist REFERENCES Driessen, M. M. (1998) Survey for the broad-toothed mouse, Mastacomys fuscus. In Wilderness Ecosystems Baseline Studies (WEBS): Pelion Plains- Mt Ossa. Eds M. M. Driessen, M. D. Comfort, J. Jackson, A. M. M. Richardson and P. B. McQuillan. Pp 163-174. Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service Wildlife Report 98/2. Driessen, M. M. (1999) Effects of fire on the broad-toothed mouse, Mastacomys fuscus, and other small mammals in buttongrass moorlands of western Tasmania - preliminary findings. In Bushfire99. Pp 119-126. Proceedings of the Australian Bushfire Conference, Albury Australia 7-9 July 1999. Driessen, M. M. and Comfort, M. D. (1991) Small mammal trapping in sedgeland at McPartlan Pass: a new location for Mastacomys fuscus. The Tasmanian Naturalist 107: 1-5. Hocking, G. J. (1990) Status of bandicoots in Tasmania. In Bandicoots and Bilbies. Eds J. H. Seebeck, P. R. Brown, R. I. Wallis and C. M. Kemper. Pp 61-66. (Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney). Hocking, G. J. and Guiler, E. R. (1983) The mammals of the lower Gordon River region, South-West Tasmania. Australian Wildlife Research 10: 1-23. Jarman, S. J., Kantvilas, G. and Brown, M. J. (1988) Buttongrass Moorland in Tasmania. Research Report No. 2. (Tasmanian Forest Research Council Inc. Hobart). Marsden-Smedley, J. B. and Kirkpatrick, J. B. (2000) Fire management in Tasmania's wilderness world heritage area: ecosystem restoration using Indigenous-style fire regimes. Ecological Management and Restoration 1(3): 195-203. Slater, J. (1992) Vertebrates. In. Forgotten Wilderness: North West Tasmania. Ed D. N. Harries. Pp 251-289. (Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc., Hobart). Taylor, R. J., Bryant, S. L., Pemberton, D. & Norton, T. W. (1985) Mammals of the Upper Henty River Region, Western Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 119: 7-14. Taylor, R. J. and Comfort M. D. (1993) Small terrestrial mammals and bats of Melaleuca and Claytons, Southwestern Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 127: 33-37. The Tasmanian Naturalist (2002) 124:49-55 49 PARASITISM OF SCORPIONS BY MITES Owen D. Seeman' and Abraham L. Miller 2 1 Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, 13 St Johns Ave, New Town, Tas. 7008 e-mai 1: Owen.Seeman@dpiwe.tas.gov.au 2 Department of Zoology, University ofTasmania, Sandy Bay, Tas. 7001 Abstract. Mites were found on the Tasmanian scorpion Cercophonius squama from December to March 2001-02. Mites were most abundant during late summer, and 100% mite-infestation of scorpions was observed in late February. Two species of mites were collected from the scorpions. One was identified as the parasitic larvae of Leptus charon (Erythraeidae), the other as the phoretic nymphs of an unidentified species of Acaridae. The occurrence of Leptus on scorpions is, to our knowledge, the first record of parasitism of scorpions by mites in Tasmania. INTRODUCTION Scorpions are among the best-known invertebrates, invoking fear in those that loathe them but fascination in others. In Tasmania, the native Cercophonius squama is our only species of scorpion (Figure 1), although sometimes this species has been confused with the similar species Cercophonius michaelseni which occurs in Western Australia (Miller 2002). However, what Tasmania lacks in diversity, we seem to make up fotin abundance, as scorpions are commonly found in and around buildings in most northern and eastern areas of the state. These scorpions can sting, but pain from the venom's effects usually lasts only a short while, and we are unaware of any serious reactions to the venom of C. squama (McGowan and Pielage 1996). When removinga scorpion from a household, an observant person may notice small (1 -2 mm) bright-red blobs attached to the scorpion's body. Lookingcloser, one may also notice that these blobs have three pairs of legs and appear to be covered in hairs. These tiny creatures are the larvae of mites, an extraordinarily diverse group of organisms found in every imaginable habitat. We are unaware 50 The Tasmanian Naturalist of any T asmanian records of mites associated with scorpions. Therefore, our goal was to identity these mites and provide some observations on their seasonal abundance. Information on their unusual life-histories is also provided. Figure 1 . The common Tasmanian scorpion Cercophonius squama. Body length from tip of stinger to front of head is about 25 mm. MATERIALS AND METHODS Scorpions were captured in Hobart by ALM and returned to the laboratory for further observation. The number of mites per scorpion was counted and a general summary is presented here. Representatives of these mites were collected and placed into tubes of70-80% ethanol. Mites were prepared for slide mounting by clearing them in Kono's fluid and mounting them, on glass slides, in Hoyer's medium (Krantz 1978). Mites were viewed with the aid of a phase-contrast microscope (magnification x 5 to x 1200), and identified with the aid of several unpublished keys and Krantz (1978). The Erythraeidae were identified to species with the aid of Southcott (1961,1991,1993, Mites on scorpions 51 1999) and a spreadsheet designed to allow simultaneous comparisons of all Leptus species in Australia(Seeman, unpublished). Copies ofthis Excel® spreadsheet are available from the senior author, via e-mail, at no charge. This spreadsheet also includes a description of each of Southcott's codes given inTable 1. Eachofthese codes refers to a specific characteristic of the mite: for example, AW is the width in micrometres of the mite's prodorsal shield. For more information, consult Southcott (1961) for an explanation of the characters used. RESULTS Two species of mite were associated with Tasmanian scorpions. A bright-red species was the larva of Leptus charon Southcott (Erythraeidae). The measurements of our specimens (n = 7 measured) are within 10% of all measurements for L. charon (Table 1). A second species of mite was also detected: a tiny, brown mite (0.4 mm) proved to be the phoretic deutonymphs of an unknown species of Acaridae. Collections of scorpions began in early spring, and the first incidence of L. charon on scorpions occurred on 18 Dec 2001, with one mite on each of two scorpions of a total of 12 collected. However, by January 80% of scorpions had mites, and by February 100% of scorpions were parasitised by L. charon. The incidence of mites then dropped off rapidly, and by the end of March only 15% of scorpions had mites, and by April mites were once again absent. The average number of mites (both L. charon and Acaridae) per scorpion was 10, and the range was 1 to 35 mites per scorpion. Mites were frequently found on the pectinal teeth (comb-like structures behind the fourth pair of legs), but they did occur all over the scorpion's body. Scorpions did not attempt to groom mites off their body, even though scorpions with many mites appeared to have poor body condition. DISCUSSION Parasitism of scorpions seems to be uncommon. A search of recent literature (1984 - present) revealed only one species of nematode (Poinar and Stockwell 1988) and several species of Leptus (Southcott 1999). We are aware of only one other species of mite on scorpions: larvae of Leptus pyrenaeus Andre parasitise scorpions in Europe (Andre 1953). We have also compared L. charon to L. pyrenaeus and determined them to be different. 52 The Tasmanian Naturalist Table 1. Comparison of Leptus charon described by Southcott (1991, 1993) with Leptus charon collected from the Tasmanian scorpion Cercophonius squama (n = 7) measured. All measurements for Tasmanian L. charon are within the range of other L. charon , except for those marked with a *, which are within 10% of the known range. Abbreviations as of Southcott (1961). Southcott’s Code Range in pm Range in pm Southcott's Code Range in pm Range in pm L. charon Scorpion L. charon L. charon Scorpion L. charon AW 86-98 84-90 TilL/Cell 1.28-1.46 1.30-1.39 PW 99-113 95-106 Gel! I 107-119 98-106* SBa 11-15 14-16 HI 11 187-207 164-172* SBp 12-16 10-15 TaIII(L) 110-145 112-126 ASBa 25-32 20-24* Tall 1(H) 20-27 21-26 1SD 51-62 54-66 TiUI/Gelll 1.70-1.82 1.63-1.72 L 84-107 80-93 AW/ISD 1.46-1.66 1.34-1.67 W 100-125 105-114 ISD/A-P 2.95-4.64 3.35-4.56 A-P 11-20 14-16 AW/A-P 4.89-7.36 5.53-6.18 AL 52-66 53-63 StI 30-43 39-50 PL 61-69 61-68 SHI 30-45 38-46 ASE 34-55 44-46 Cal 73-85 76-83 PSE 60-86 83-94 rcxii 20-36 26-30 DS 45-60 46-56 Call! 26-60 41-45 Gel 110-127 104-112 Til/AW 1.74-1.91 "l. 57-1.71* Til 147-182 132-148 Til I I/AW 2.02-2.22 1.91-2.00* Tal(L) 118-145 120-130 AW/AL 1.42-1.78 1.33-1.70 Tal(H) 22-29 22-26 TiIII/TiI 1.14-1.27 1.16-1.24 TH/Gel 1.31-1.49 1.27-1.36 Till/PW 1.21-1.41 1.13-1.24 Gel! 94-102 88-92* LAV 0.78-0.93 0.70-0.86 Till 123-145 118-125 PW/AW 1.07-1.22 1.13-1.19 TaII(L) 100-125 104-117 AL/PL 0.83-0.87 0.85-0.93 Tall(H) 20-31 22-23 R. V. Southcott was an Australian acarologist who published extensively on the Erythraeidae, and his final work (Southcott 1999, published posthumously) provides the most extensive work on Austral \anLeptus. In his final paper, he dealt with Leptus associated with arachnids, where he reports ten Leptus spp. from scorpions. Of these, only L. charon was reported from C. squama: in this case, from a single Victorian scorpion. L. charon was also found on various spiders, including a Delena cancerides from Tasmania. Therefore, we were not surprised to find that the common Leptus on Tasmanian scorpions is L. charon. Mites on scorpions 53 The life history of L. charon is bizarre, but one it shares with several thousand members of the Parasitengona, a diverse assemblage of aquatic and terrestrial mites (Walter and Proctor 1999, pp. 43-44). The primitive life history of a mite involves an egg, prelarva, larva, protonymph, deutonymph, tritony mph and adult. However, this life history is variously modified in every possible way: for example, many species skip the prelarval stage, and a few mites give birth to adults! Forthe family Erythraeidae, includinglep/us, life begins as an egg, from which a tiny six-legged prelarva emerges. The prelarva then moults into a six-legged red or orange larva and begins searching for a suitable host, which may be any animal greater than about 3 mm in size. ForZ. charon, this may be a scorpion (this study), but this species has also been recorded from a fly in Canberra (Southcott 1991), beetles and moths in New South Wales and South Australia (Southcott 1993), and spiders in South Australia (Southcott 1999). Lack of specificity in Leptus is common: for example, the European species L. ignotus is known from nine orders of insects and arachnids (Wendt etal. 1992). Thetiny larva embeds its mouthparts into its host's soft cuticle and begins to slowly suck out its internal juices, gradual ly swelling in size. A fully swollen larva looks somewhat like a hairy, red, miniature football. When the tiny mite has had its fill, it drops off its host and enters a resting stage that is called a calyptostase. This resting stage is the protonymph, and after completion of this stage a deutonymph will emerge. The deutonymph is a free- living predator that usually runs about in leaf litter searching for eggs and small invertebrates to eat. Being free-living, it looks nothing like the larva. Nymphs of Leptus are cream-yellow or red mites with numerous stout black hairs (looking quite like beard-stubble); they also tend to have patches of white hairs, giving them an attractive spotted or patterned appearance. After feeding, the deutonymph then enters asecond calyptostase (the tritonymph) before emerginginto the adult life stage. The free-livingadultmites are usually largeforamite(about3 mm long) and look like large versions of the deutonymph. The completely separate habit of the parasitic larva and free-living adults has made the taxonomy of these species extremely difficult. Species are named from larvae collected from animals, but are also named from the free-living adults. Consequently, some species are known only from larvae, others only from adults, and in some cases different names are given to the larvae and adults of the same species. In the case of L. charon, the adults of this species have never been described (Southcott 1999). However, their sheer abundance as larvae on 54 The Tasmanian Naturalist scorpions indicates that the adult life stage must be living in the backyards of almost every Tasmanian resident. Findingthe adult of this mite will require collection, careful rearing oiLeptus adults, and harvesting of larvae as they hatch from eggs. However, the world is one filled with myriad unknown mites, and it will probably be many years until the adults are matched with their young. The other tiny mite captured on scorpions belonged to the family Acaridae. This mite is vastly different from Leptus , and their life history is similarly bizarre. These mites begin as eggs, but the larvae, protonymphs, tritonymphs and adults are free-living. These mites feed on fungi or decaying plant or animal matter. However, if conditions are poor, something switches on within the mite, and they add the deutonymph life-stage. This deutonymph is no ordinary mite: it can walk, but it cannot feed. The mouthparts almost disappear, and the anus is replaced by a plate of suckers that the mite uses to attach to anything passing its way (Krantz 1978, pp. 371 -379; Walter and Proctor 1999, pp. 36-42). This act of using another animal for transport is called phoresy, and it is an important means of dispersal for thousands of species of mite. A lthough we do not know what species of Acaridae was attached to the Tasmanian scorpions, we do know that they are on them for a ride only. Only detailed study could tell us if they are specific to scorpions and, like Leptus , it will probably be many lifetimes before this particular mite-mystery is solved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Chris Palmer for sending us a copy of Andre's paper, Catherine O'Brien for the scorpion to photograph, Helen Nahrung for improving the manuscript, and Sue Baker and Marie Yee for helping to get the mites. REFERENCES Andre, M. (1953) Une espece nouvelle de Leptus (Acarien) parasite de scorpions. Bull Mus. Nat. Hist. Nat. Paris (2) 25: 150-154. Krantz, G.W. (1978) A manual of acarology . (Oregon State University, Covallis). McGowan, L. and Pielage, P. (1996) Common venomous animals in Tasmania A guide to their identification, habitat, venom effects and first aid. (Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery: Launceston, Tasmania). Mites on scorpions 55 Miller, A.L. (2002) Cryptically beautiful: surprising observations ofthe scorpion Cercophonius squama. Invertebrata, summer edition. WWW address: http ://www. qvmag.tas. gov.au/zoology/I nvertebrata/1 nvertebrata.htm 1 Poinar, G.O. Jr. and Stockwell, S.A. (1988) A new record of a nematode parasite (Mermithidae) of a scorpion. Revue de Nematologie 11: 361-364. Southcott, R. W. (1961) Studies on the systematics and biology ofthe Eiythraeoidea (Acarina), with a critical revision of the genera and subfamilies. Aust. J. Zool. 9:367-610. Southcott, R.W. (1991) Descriptions of larval Leptus (Acarina: Erythraeidae) ectoparasitic on Australian Diptera, and two earlier described Australian larvae. Invert. Tax. 5: 717-63. Southcott, R.W. (1993) Larvae of Leptus (Acarina: Erythraeidae) ectoparasitic on higher insects of Australia and New Guinea. Invert. Tax. 7: 1473-550. Southcott, R.W. (1999) Larvae of Leptus (Acarina: Erythraeidae), free-living or ectoparasitic on arachnids and lower insects of Australia and Papua New Guinea, with descriptions of reared post-larval instars. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 127:113-276. Walter, D.E. and Proctor, H.C. (1999) Mites Evolution, ecology and behaviour. (University of New South Wales Press, Sydney). Wendt, F.E., Olomski, R., Leimann, J., and Wohltmann, A. (1992) Parasitism, life cycle and phenology of Leptus trimaculatus (Hermann, 1804) (Acari: Parasitengonae: Erythraeidae) includingadescription ofthe larva. Acarologia 33:55-67. The Tasmanian Naturalist (2002) 124:56-64 BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MAINLAND AND TASMANIAN CHRYSOPHTHARTA AGRICOLA, A EUCALYPTUS LEAF BEETLE Helen F. Nahrung CRC for Sustainable Production Forestry, GPO Box 252-12, Hobart, Tasmania 7001; and School of Agricultural Science, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-54, Hobart, Tasmania7001. Abstract. Chrysophtharta agricola collected from Tasmania and mainland Australia in December2000 and Januaiy 2001, respectively, were compared for adult length, egg and larval batch size, and egg, larval and adult parasitism. Beetles originating from both regions were crossed and their offspring were reared to adulthood and assessed for fertility to confirm that collections were conspecific. 100 years of collection data from several state collections were collated to observe the frequency of collection across seasons, and relate this to the species' differing voltinism in each region. Overall, the size of beetles, egg batches, larval batches and rate of larval parasitism did not differ significantly between regions. Larval parasitoids collected from Tasmania were the tachinid flies Paropsivora sp. and an undescribed tachinid species, and the braconid wasp Eadya paropsidis. The tachinid flies were also collected parasitising C. agricola larvae from mainland Australia. Eggparasitism rates differed significantly between mainland Australia and Tasmania: the pteromalid species Enoggera nassaui and Neopolycystus sp. developed from C. agricola eggs. Adult beetles were infected by the mites Leptus sp. and an undescribed genus of podapolipid mites in Tasmania, and by Chyzeria sp. in mainland Australia. Collection data revealed that the frequency of collection of adult C. agricola was similar between regions in spring and summer, but that beetles were collected more frequently in autumn in mainland Australia than in Tasmania. Mainland and Tasmanian leaf beetles 57 INTRODUCTION Chrysophtharta agricola (Chapuis) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) is an endemic pest of commercial eucalypt plantations in Tasmania (de Little 1989; Ramsden and Elek 1998) and Victoria (Elliott et al. 1998; Collett 2001). Its geographic distribution extends from the eastern NSW-Qld border to southern Tasmania, and it is oligophagous, with a host range of more than 20 Eucalyptus species from two sub-genera. In Tasmania, C. agricola usually has only one generation each year (Ramsden and Elek 1998), while in Victoria the species undergoes two generations (Naumann 1991; Collett 2001). Specimens of C. agricola were collected from mainland Australia and Tasmania for a study using allozyme electrophoresis, one of the objectives of which was to determine whether genetic differences occur between Tasmanian and mainland Australian populations. These specimens also provided the opportunity to compare additional parameters between populations, the results of which are presented here. Additionally, an attempt was made to correlate data from collection records from mainland Australia and Tasmania with the recorded number of generations C. agricola undergoes in a year in each region. MATERIALS AND METHODS Chrysophtharta agricola were collected from four sites in mainland Australia (Picadiliy Circus (PIC), E. dalrympleana, Jindabyne (JIN) E. dalrympleana, Mt Buller (BUL) E. viminalis, and Marysville (MAR) E. viminalis ) and Tasmania (Florentine Valley (FLO) E. nitens, Frankford (FRA) E. nitens, Geeveston (GEE) E. globulus and Scottsdale (SCO) E. globulus ) in December-January 2000-2001 (Fig. 1). Specimens were collected as eggs, larvae and adults. Egg and larval batches were collected into separate vials or plastic bags and transported in a cooled esky to‘the laboratory. The number of eggs or larvae in each batch was counted, and each egg/larval batch was placed into a separate plastic petri dish, and egg batches were monitored for the emergence of beetle larvae or parasitoid wasps. The number of egg batches from which parasitoids emerged was recorded. Field-collected larvae were fed fresh juvenile E. nitens foliage and petri dishes were cleaned and foliage added or replaced twice each week until parasitoid fly or wasp pupal cases or beetle pupae developed. For larval batch size and larval parasitism rates, batch sizes of <6 and >20 were excluded from analysis to standardise the composition of instars. That is because larger batch sizes usually represented early instars that had not been exposed to 58 The Tasmanian Naturalist parasitoids for as long as older larvae, and smaller batch sizes usually represented final instars (author’s unpubl. data). Thus, batches used for analysis comprised mostly second and third instars. The number of parasitised larvae in each batch was determined, and the average intra-batch parasitism rate for each site was calculated. Figure 1. Map showing the localities from which Chrysophtharta agricola were collected for this study. Scale bar represents approximately 80 km. Mainland and Tasmanian leaf beetles 59 Field-collected beetles were sexed based on tarsal differences (Baly 1862), and their maximum body length was measured using a digital calliper (± 0.1 mm). Adults exhibited a striking colour difference between mainland Australia and Tasmania. One male beetle collected from mainland Australia was mated with a previously unmated female from Tasmania, and one male beetle collected from Tasmania was mated with a virgin female beetle from mainland Australia. The offspring of these crosses were reared, mated, and their offspring was reared to confirm that beetles from each region were the same species. Collection records for adult C. agricola were collated to try to determine a relationship between the number of specimens collected with the number of generations between mainland Australia and Tasmania. Collection details were sourced from the Australian National Insect Collection (ANIC), the Victorian Museum, NSW State Forests, NSW Agriculture, the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment, de Little (1979) and G. Maywald (QueenslandDepartmentofPrimaryIndusties,Indooroopilly)(pers.comm). The proportion of collection records from spring, summer and autumn was compared between regions. Only collection dates, and not actual beetle numbers were used for the comparison because collections on each date were made by the same person. For example, if 3 beetles were collected on 14 January, and 1 on 4 February, this was scored as two records for summer. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In mainland Australiaand Tasmania, egg batches were parasitised by Enoggera nassaui Girault (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), and one eggbatch from Marysville contained Neopolysystus (identified by B.D. Murphy, Forest Research Institute, New Zealand). Parasitoids that developed in C. agricola larvae from mainland Australiaand Tasmania were the tachinid fly Paropsivora sp. and an unidentified tachinid species from an undescribed genus (identified by A.D. Rice, CRC for Sustainable Production Forestry). The braconid wasp Eadya paropsidis Huddleston & Short emerged from larvae collected only in Tasmania (Table 2). An undescribed species of podapolipid mite was found infecting beetles from Frankford, while Leptus sp. (Erythraeidae) were found infecting beetles from the Florentine Valley and Frankford. Beetles from mainland Australia were infected only with a mite species from the family Chyzeriidae, probably Chyzeria sp. (all mites identified by O.D. Seeman, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Tasmania). The podapolipid mite data support the results of an 60 The Tasmanian Naturalist Table 1. Mean ± s.e. field-collected egg and larval batch sizes and parasitism rates, and male and female sizes for Chrysophtharta agricola collected from four sites in mainland Australia and Tasmania. Egg parasitism rates are the percentage of parasitised batches per site. Different letters within columns denote significant differences between means at P < 0.05 (ANOVA for individual sites, t-test for regions; lower case letters refer to differences between sites, upper case letters refer to differences between regions (mainland Australia and Tasmania). N.d. = no data. Site Egg batch size Egg parasitism Larval batch size Larval parasitism Male size (mm) Female size (mm) Picadilly Circus 28.2 ± 5.9 (14-39) * = 9 55% a 11.6 ± 1 (6-20) * = 17 22.3 ± 5 % (0-47) ac 8.1 ±0.1 (7.4 - 8.9) * = 14 8.9 ± 0.2 (8.1-9.5) «= 12 Jindabyne 26.9 ±2.1 (14-39) « = 18 50% a 13.2 ±0.9 (6-20) * = 20 32.5 ±4.8 % (0-67) be 8.5 *= 1 9.2 ±0.1 (8.7 - 9.5) n = 6 Mt Buller 29.1 ±5.5 (18-57) * = 7 0 b 8.4 ± 0.7 (6-12) * = 8 34.6 ± 7.4 % (0-57) be 7.8 ± 0.2 (6.4-8.7) * = 9 8.6 ± 0.2 (7.7-9.3) n = 12 Marysville 36.6 ±3.5 (21-54) n-6 33% a n.d. n.d. 8.6 ± 0.2 (8.4-9) * = 4 8.9 ± 0.2 (8.1-9.5) * = 6 Mainland overall 30.3 ± 1.7 34.5 % A 11.8 ±0.6 29.0 ±3.1 % 8.1 ± 0.1 8.8 ± 0.1 Florentine Valley 32.6 ±1.4 (17-60) * = 54 0 b 11.4 ± 1.1* (3-24) * = 20 n.d. 8.2 ±0.1 (6.7-9.2) * = 65 8.9 ±0.1 (7.2-9.9) n = 97 Frankford 29.9 ±1.2 (13-67) * = 60 1.6% b n.d. n.d. 8.1 ±0.1 (7.5-9.3) * = 44 8.8 ± 0.2 (7.9-10.1) n =60 Geevcston n.d. n.d. 12.7 ± 1.2 (6-20) * = 18 10 ±4.5% (0-66) a n.d. n.d Scottsdale n.d n.d. 11.6 ± 0.9 (6-17) « = 19 33.9 ± 4.8 % (6.7-71) b n.d n.d Tasmania overall 31.1 ± 0.9 0.8 % B 12.2 ±0.7 23.2 ±3.7% 8.2 ± 0.07 8.8 ± 0.1 ’ data troni Anthony Rice, CRC-SPF Mainland and Tasmanian leaf beetles 61 Table 2. Larval parasitoid complex of Chrysophtharta agricola at seven sites in mainland Australia and Tasmania from larval batches collected between 19 December 2000 and 14 January 2001. + = species present, - = species absent. site Tachinid sp 1 Paropsivora sp Eadya paropsidis Picadilly Circus + + - Jindabyne + + - Mt Buller + + - Florentine Valley + - + Frankford + - + Geeveston + - + Scottsdale + + + allozyme electrophoresis study that examined geographic variation between populations separated by at least 20 km, and suggested that gene flow between C. agricola populations is limited (Nahrung and Aliena, unpublished). Podapolipid mites spend their entire lifecycle on their host, and are only transmitted during copulation. Therefore, if beetle populations were mixing equally amongst each other, we would expect mites to be more evenly distributed throughout the sampled beetle populations. There was a significant difference in egg parasitism rates between mainland Australia and Tasmania (Nahrung and Murphy 2002). Overall, egg batch size, larval batch size, larval parasitism rates and male and female beetle lengths did not differ between mainland Australia and Tasmania (t-tests, P < 0.05). However, there were some differences in larval parasitism rates between sites (ANOVA, F 4 77 = 5.6, P = 0.00lXTable 1). Adult C. agricola collected in mainland Australiaand Tasmania also differed their elytral colouration: beetles from Tasmania were green-brown, while beetles from mainland Australia were yellow-green. Black morph beetles are found in Tasmania and mainland Australia (Nahrung and Allen b, in press), and one black female beetle was reared from a larval batch collected at Jindabyne. Adult beetles collected from mainland Australia and Tasmania mated readily with beetles of opposite origin, and produced viable, fertile offspring, providing further evidence confirming that they were the same species. The elytral colouration of mainland x Tasmanian progeny was more similar to the brown of Tasmanian beetles, 62 The Tasmanian Naturalist although yellow colouration was apparent in some specimens. Pure lines of Tasmanian and mainland beetles maintained the elytral colouration of their origin, although teneral beetles of either origin were indistinguishable from each other (dark grey with red elytral margins). Within regions, C. agricola collected from Mt Buller contained no egg parasitoids. Data for sites within Tasmania are less comparable because of missing values, butGeeveston exhibited asignificantly lower larval parasitism rate than Scottsdale. One hundred and nineteen independent C. agricola collection records from Tasmania and 623 from mainland Australia contained sufficient information to use in determiningtemporal collection frequency. Collection records dated from 1900 to 1999. Beetles were collected more frequently in autumn from mainland Australia than from Tasmania (Figure 2). This suggests that beetles begin overwintering later in mainland Australiathan in Tasmania, or that there is indeed asecond generation, orthat adults in mainland Australiaare longer-lived than their Tasmanian counterparts. However, conclusions drawn from data such as these can be misleading: differences in collection frequencies may simply reflect a greater collection effort at one time of year over another. Figure 2. Chrysophtharta agricola adult beetle collection frequency for spring, summer and autumn in Tasmania (A) and mainland Australia (B). Mainland and Tasmanian leaf beetles 63 Generally, C. agricola originating from Tasmania and mainland Australia shared a number of biological characteristics. Egg and larval batch sizes were similar between regions, as were adult beetle lengths and larval parasitism rates. Regional differences included egg parasitism rates and the elytral colouration of mature beetles. While two species of egg parasitoid were associated with C. agricola eggs in mainland Australia, only E. nassaui was recorded from Tasmanian C. agricola. Larval parasitism by Ea. paropsides was not detected from mainland Australia in this study, but the parasitoid has previously been recorded from the ACT from Paropsis atomaria Olivier (Tanton & Epila 1984). The erythraeid mite species Leptus and the undescribed species of podapolipid mite was recovered only from Tasmania, while chyzerid mites were only found in association with C. agricola in mainland Australia. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to Martin Steinbauer, Owen Seeman, Nick Collett and Luke Rapley who assisted with collecting beetles. The mainland collecting trip was supported by the Maxwell Ralph Jacobs Fund. I thank Tom Weir, Gunther May wald, Peter Gillespie, Debbie Kent and Ken Walker for supplying collection record details. Owen Seeman and Geoff Allen provided comments on a draft version. Thanks to Anthony Rice, Brendan Murphy and Owen Seeman for identifyingparasitoids and parasites. I was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award and the CRC for Sustainable Production Forestry. REFERENCES Collett, N. (2001) Insect pests ofyoungeucalyptplantations. Heidelberg, Department of Natural Resources and Environment: 6. de Little, D. W. (1989) Paropsine chrysomelid attack on plantations of Eucalyptus nitens in Tasmania. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 19: 223-227. Elliott, H. J., Ohmart, C. P. and Wylie, F. R. (1998) Leaf beetles. In Elliott, H. J., Ohmart, C. P. and Wylie, F. R. (eds) Insect Pests of Australian Forests: ecology and management Melbourne, Inkata Press: 66-72. Nahrung, H. F. and Murphy, B. D. (2002) Differences in egg parasitism of Chrysophtharta agricola (Chapuis) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) by Enoggera nassaui Girault (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) in relation to host and parasitoid origin. Australian Journal of Entomology 41: 267-271. 64 The Tasmanian Naturalist Nahrung, H. F. and Allen, G. R. a (unpublished) Geographical variation, population structure and gene flow between populations of Chrysophtharta agricola, a pest of Australian eucalypt plantations. Nahrung, H. F. and Allen, G. R. b (in press) Maintenance of colour polymorphism in the leaf beetle Chrysophtharta agricola (Chapuis) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Paropsini). Journal of Natural History. Neumann, F. G. (1993) Insect pest problems of eucalypt plantations in Australia 3. Victoria. Australian Forestry 56: 370-374. Ramsden, N. and Elek, J. (1998) Life cycle and development rates of the leaf beetle Chrysophtharta agricola (Chaupis) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on Eucalyptus nitens at two temperature regimens. Australian Journal of Entomologyil: 238-242. The Tasmanian Naturalist (2002) 124:65-69 65 OPPORTUNISTIC COUNTS OF HOODED PLOVERS ON TASMANIAN BEACHES Michael Weston Birds Australia, 415 Riversdale Road, Hawthorn East, Victoria, 3123 It has been suggested that Tasmania holds large numbers of the Vulnerable Hooded Plover Thinornis rubricollis (Garnett and Crowley 2000). Counts or population estimates of this species in Tasmania include Antos (in press), Bryant (2002), Collier and Collier (1995), Cooper (1994, 1997), Holdsworth and Park (1993), Moore (1994), Newman (1982,1986), Newman and Patterson (1984), Schulz( 1990,1993a,b), Schulzand Kristensen (1993,1994), Schulzand Menkhorst (1984) and Woehlerand Park (1997). However, count data from the state are not complete, with many areas hitherto uncounted. Additionally, there are seasonal variations in the number of Hooded Plovers counted along coasts (Heislers and Weston 1993), meaning that additional counts may serve to document some of these variations. 1 counted a handful of beaches (totalling 44.6 km) on a "non- birding" holiday to Tasmaniaduring the 2000/2001 breeding season. 1 recorded whether information (e.g., brochures, signs) on the species was available at each beach. I also collated some information on counts made by other visitors to the State (I. Hance in lift., A. Silcocks and J. Starks pers. comms). Opportunistic counts can nevercompare with the utility ofmajorsurveys(e.g., Holdsworth and Park 1993, Schulz 1993a, Bryant 2002) or regular counts (e.g.. Cooper 1997). Opportunistic counts tend not to be published in the mainstream ornithological literature, but they may provide useful site-specific information for land managers, provide some baseline information for future comparison or aid planning for more thorough counts. Many opportunistic reports of Hooded Plovers suffer from not adequately describing how much of a beach or a section of coastline was actually searched. Thus, I have presented the distance covered in each instance. I merely offer the results in the hope that they may be useful to locals or in the future (Tables 1 and 2). Birds were located on all coasts. The ratio of adults to nests (0.08) was the same as the ratio of adults to broods. Of the 25 beaches I visited, 12% had information signs and 4% had brochures available on the species; 16% of beaches visited had some kind of information available. I also checked all 66 The Tasmanian Naturalist birds for leg bands, and the only bands I detected were at Orford Spit and these birds were probably locally banded (P. Park pers. comm.) . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to the ever patient D.P. Hart and to P. Park for her excellent work on Hooded Plovers in Tasmania. Thanks also to I. Hance, O. Seeman, A. Silcocks and J. Starks. REFERENCES Antos, M. (in press) Distribution and density of the Hooded Plover Thinronis rubricollis along a remote coastline in north west Tasmania. Victorian Naturalist. Bryant, S. (2002) Conservation Assessment of Beach Nesting and Migratory Shorebirds in Tasmania. (Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart). Collier, S. and Collier, P. (1995) A survey of Hooded Plovers Thinornis rubricollis on Cape Barren Island. Tasmanian Naturalist 117: 28-31. Cooper, R. (1994) Hooded Plover - a measure of breeding success in north east Tasmania. Tasmanian Bird Report 22: 12-13. Cooper, R. (1997) Hooded Plover Thinornis rubricollis : winter flocks and breeding success in north-east Tasmania, Australia. Stilt 30: 23-25. Garnett, S.T. and Crowley, G. (2000) The Action Plan for Australian Birds. (Environment Australia, Canberra). Heislers, D. and Weston, M. A. (1993) An examination of the efficacy of counting Hooded Plovers in autumn in eastern Victoria, Australia. Stilt 23: 20-22. Holdsworth, M. and Park, P. (1993) 1992 survey of the Hooded Plover in Tasmania. Stilt 22: 37-40. Moore, E. (1994) Hooded Plover on Cape Barren Island, Tasmania. Stilt 24:24- 25. Newman, O.M.G., and Patterson, R.M. (1984) A population survey of the Hooded Plover in Tasmania, October 1982. Occasional Stint 3: 1-6. Counts of hooded plovers 67 Newman, O.M.G. (1982) Hooded Plover: is Tasmania the real stronghold? Stilt 3: 8-9. Newman, O.M.G. (1986) Hooded Plover breeding at Mortimer Bay. Occasional Stint 4: 18. Schulz, M. (1990) Notes on the waders of Flinders and King Islands, Bass Strait. Stilt 17: 40-44. Schulz, M. (1993a) A survey of the Hooded Plover on the north-west Tasmanian coastline, from Macquarie Harbour to Bluff Point. Stilt 22:40-43. Schulz, M. (1993b) A survey of shorebirds of western Tasmanian, part one, Macquarie Harbour to Bluff Point. Stilt 22: 40-43. Schulz, M. and Kristensen, K. (1993) A survey of shorebirds of western Tasmania, part two, North Head, Port Davey Entrance to Cape Sorell. Stilt 23: 26-29. Schulz, M. and Kristensen, K. (1994) Notes on selected bird species on the south¬ western coast of Tasmania, between Port Davey and Cape Sorell. Aust. Bird Watcher 15: 265-272. Schulz, M. and Menkhorst, P. (1984) A survey of the waders of south-west Tasmania. Stilt 5: 21-24. Woehler, E.J. and Park, P. (1997) Interim Report on the Status of Hooded Plovers Thinornis rubricollis in Tasmania. (Birds Tasmania, Hobart). Table 1. Opportunistic counts carried out by the author in Tasmania, and the availability of information on Hooded Plovers at each site. A - Adult, JUV - juveniles and CH - Chick (flightless young). Counts are in chronological order. _________ 68 The Tasmanian Naturalist 2 * 1 Ji £S It fi-JL M gj li = ~ 2L& I li 11 Counts of hooded plovers 69 1 o jd c a c £ o .s H cS JS 60 g 9 S? r»% Ur cLln The Tasmanian Naturalist (2002) 124:70-76 THE SPIDER FAUNA UTILISING EUCALYPTUS OBLIQUA AT THE WARRA LTERSITE IN SOUTHERN TASMANIA Dick Bashford' and Lisa J. Boutin 2 1 F orestry Tasmania, GPO Box 207, Hobart, 7001 dick.bashford@forestrvtas.com.au 2 Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Wellington Street, Launceston, 7025 lisaiovb@vahoo.com INTRODUCTION The Warra Long Term Ecological Research (LTER)site in southern Tasmania (146°40'E, 43°04'S) provides the opportunity to conduct ecological work on a wide range of arthropods both at the ordinal and species level. One result is the development of a catalogue of the insects and associated arthropods of Warra. In this paper we record the species of spiders utilising habitat niches on the dominant eucalypt at the site, Eucalyptus obliqua L'Herit. A total of 74 species in 22 families are recorded. METHODS Sampling different parts of a tree requires different sampling techniques to be employed. In this study we used canopy fogging, trunk spraying, caged log sections, hand collection and beatingof foliage. Details ofthe collection techniques used are described in Bashford et al. (2001). We sampled four mature £. obliqua trees at the mid-upper canopy level (35- 40 m) and the lower to mid canopy level (20-30 m). Sampling was conducted in October 2001 and February 2002. The lower trunks of ten E. obliqua trees of a range of diameter sizes were sprayed with aerosol synthetic pyrethrin insecticide to a height of 2.5 metres. Invertebrates were collected using aspirators and forceps from orange plastic sheets sealed to the base of each tree. Spiders emerging from cages placed on six old growth and six regrowth E. obliqua trees were collected over a one-year period. Only emergence from cages which were placed on the logs as soon as the trees were felled were used to obtain records of spiders utilising bark. Spiders utilising E. obliqua 71 In February 2002, ten 6 year old E. obliqua regeneration trees were fogged from the ground and the catch collected from plastic sheeting placed under the trees. One of us (LJB) sampled adjacent same age regeneration by beating and hand collecting in September 2001. RESULTS Table 1 lists the species of adult spiders collected from different habitat niches on E. obliqua at Warra. As expected the caged logs, which were sampled monthly over a one-year period, provided the richest source of species. Many of these were duplicated in other sampling on different parts of the tree. This indicates the use of the tree trunk as a 'highway' linking all parts of the tree with the ground. The bark ribbons provided spider species not collected elsewhere but since these were collected from the base of the tree may represent sheltering litter species. Only six adult species were collected as listed but many juvenile and immature specimens were also collected which could not be identified. Similar numbers of species were collected from upper canopy (14), lower canopy (12), and regeneration (20). Only 3 species were common to all three samples. Table 2 shows the relationship between spiders and other arthropod orders associated with the E. obliqua habitat. Spiders constitute a consistent proportion of the invertebrates present on E. obliqua. Spiders are evenly distributed on the foliage and branches throughout the canopy. The highest assemblage was on the young regeneration trees but this comprised mostly of juvenile and immature individuals, which could not be identified to species. The young dense regeneration seems to be a 'nursery' area for many arboreal spider species. One study (Heterick et al. 2001) records, at the species level, the spiders on several Western Australian eucalypts. Sampling for canopy and bark invertebrates were conducted seasonally over a one-year period at a range of sites. The number of spider species found on each of those eucalypts was similar but markedly different from our results on E. obliqua due to the difference in sampling frequency. However the number of spider species caught on bark was similar when sampling was conducted over a one-year period. The bark species for jarrah, marri, paperbark wandoo and wandoo were 23,25,32 and 37 respectively compared to 34 species from fogged E. obliqua bark. 72 The Tasmanian Naturalist COMMENTS In 1948, Musgrave stated that only 100 species of spiders were recorded from Tasmania. In 1987, Raven in a list compiled from the Queensland Museum database, recorded 180 species from Tasmania. It has been estimated that only 30% of Australian spider species have been described (Davies 1985). It can be interpreted that there may be up to 600 species in Tasmania. However Tasmania has been well serviced by arachnologists over the years, for example, Hickman in the late 1920's, produced a series of descriptive papers "Studies in Tasmanian Spiders" describing 87 species. (Hickman 1926). InrecenttimesTracy Churchill's sampling of coastal heathland in northeast Tasmania (1993) and Raven and Gallon's (1987) examination of the spider fauna of the South West World Heritage areas have continued to increase the knowledge of the Tasmanian spider fauna. Local studies at specific sites have helped expand the distribution records of some species (Bashford 1992). There have been a number of studies looking at the diversity of invertebrates on eucalypts at an ordinal level. (Recher et al. 1996: Majer et al. 2000). In this project we have taken a species level approach which enables ecological data to be obtained. Future analysis will determine which spider species are either dependant on part of the tree structure as a habitat or reliant on specific prey species which themselves are dependent on the tree structure. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Ourthanksto AndrewMuirhead(ForestryTasmania)fortechnical assistance with the canopy fogging at Warra. Dr Robert Raven (Queensland Museum) helped considerably with identifications and methodology advice. REFERENCES Bashford (1992) Some cursorial spiders present in two forest types in Tasmania. Tasmanian Naturalist. January: 5-8. Bashford, R., Taylor, R., Driessen, M., Doran, N., and Richardson, A. (2001) Research on invertebrate assemblages at the Warra LTER Site. Tasforests 13(1): 109-118. Churchill, T.B. (1993) Effects of sampling method oncompositionofaTasmanian coastal heathland spider assemblage. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 33(2): 475-481. Spiders utilising E . obliqua 73 Davies, V. Todd (1985) Arachnida: Araneomorphae (in part), (including the Lycosidae by R. J. McKay). In Walton, D.W. (Ed.). Zoological Catalogue of Australia: 49-125. (Australian GovemmentPublishing Service, Canberra). Heterick, B.E., Majer, J.D., Recher, H.F and Postle, A.C. (2001) A checklist of canopy, bark, soil and litter faunaofthe DarlingPlateau and adjacent woodland near Perth, Western Australia, with reference to the conservation of forest and woodland fauna. School of Environmental Biology Bulletin No. 21. Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia. Pgs 1-35. Hickman, V.V. (1926) Studies in Tasmanian Spiders. Part 1. Proc. Roy. Soc. of Tas. 52-86. Majer, J.D., Recher, H.F. and Ganesh, S. (2000) Diversity patterns of eucalypt canopy arthropods in eastern and western Australia. Ecological Entomology 25:295-306. Musgrave, A. (1948) A catalogue of the Spiders of Tasmania. Rec. Queen Viet. Mus.ll(2):75-9l. Raven, R. J. and Gallon, J.A. (1987) The Spider Fauna of Tasmania's World Heritage Area. Tasmanian department of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage (unpubl. Report). Recher, H.F., Majer, J.D., and Ganesh, S. (1996) Seasonality of canopy invertebrate communities in eucalypt forests of eastern and western Australia .Australian Journal of Ecology 21: 64-80. 74 The Tasmanian Naturalist Table 1 . Species of spiders collected from Eucalyptus obliqua at Warra LTER site. Family Ganus SpfClM Sax Uppar Lowar Bark 'Bark Caaad | Rogen Ragan - 1 c ■ . ’ M X X THERIDIIDAE T?_ _. MF X THERIDIIDAE rra... M X THERIDHOAE 1T4. F ~ X THERIOHOAE ITS... MF X THERIDIIDAE jT6 MF X THERIDIIDAE It®. F X theridiidae |T®. F X thomisioae \Diao* inomata MF X THOMISIDAE [DiMO MF X X X X THOMISIOAE I Sktymella 1mm . _.j. . X X k.-. THOMISIDAE \$tophanopis csnwooffei MF X I* 76 The Tasmanian Naturalist Table 2. The number of spider individuals collected compared to some other invertebrates collected from Eucalyptus obliqua at Warra LTER site. Site Date co H 3 □ < a: LD \— Q. o LU o o o o co i 2 UJ CL 9= m Q X < Q O 2 cc o LL $ 2 LU UJ h- CL CL O O 2 2 LU UJ >- >- X X UJ > 00 Q. ^ g UJ Q tr w o ° o Q 9 3 Q_ UJ UJ co J Q. upper canopy Oct-01 30 27 14 93 58 48 192 29 35 10 0 lower canopy Oct-01 41 27 29 378 101 136 331 129 58 18 0 upper canopy Feb-02 9 24 9 15 12 48 63 9 15 0 0 lower canopy Feb-02 3 29 10 31 44 58 50 1 28 3 1 bark fogging Apr-02 8 39 223 328 6 104 23 5 86 4 73 Regen fogging Mar-02 13 46 0 53 13 86 286 1 23 6 0 Total 104 192 285 898 234 480 945 174 245 41 74 77 BOOK REVIEW Snakes and Lizards of Tasmania. Fauna of Tasmania Handbook No. 9. By Mark Hutchinson, Roy Swain and Michael Driessen Published by the Nature Conservation Branch (DPIWE) and University of Tasmania Reviewed by Sue Baker "Snakes and 1 izards of Tasmania" is a great field guide to the identification of Tasmania's 3 species of snake and 18 species of lizard. For each species there is an excellent colour photograph, a distribution map and written description of identification features, distribution and interestingdetailsofits natural history. The book lends itself well to flickingthrough photos for makingan identification, and also contains scientific keys. The keys are a little difficult forthe non-biologist to use, but many of the couplets have helpful diagrams which explain the text. However, several enthusiastic non-biologist colleagues did have some difficulty with terms such as "vent", "dorsal", "lateral", and "tubercles", which are not defined in the glossary. Some prior knowledge in biological nomenclature is therefore recommended. Nevertheless, the book is of broad appeal, being loved not only by myself as a biologist, but also by a group consisting of an engineer, excavator operator and an asbestos removalist. The book is made more interesting by descriptions about the biology, how to catch lizards by "fishing" with a mealworm, as well as useful things like how to treat snakebite and a bibliography of further reading. The book is available at most Tasmanian bookstores, and is an essential item for any keen naturalist. 78 The Tasmanian Naturalist Warrugang Monochromatic arms Body wrapped in Federation colours, suspended in an invisible vortex - greying when crepuscular Signs of a more sinister agenda Wary passers-by hurry home at sun's finale as itbeginstothaw Hurriedly continuing its nocturnal dance - aconvulsing, anastomosing silhouette Almost free so close Butnottonight it must give up as aurora freezes the pathetic frame once more Chris Palmer 79 80 The Tasmanian Naturalist ADVICE TO CONTRIBUTORS The Tasmanian Naturalist publishes articles on all aspects of natural history and the conservation, management and sustainable use of natural resources. These can be either in a formal or informal style. Articles need not be written in a traditional scientific format unless appropriate. A wide range of types of articles is accepted. Examples include observations of interesting or unusual animal behaviour, flora or fauna surveys, aspects of the biology and/or ecology of plants and animals, critical reviews of management plans and overviews on contemporary issues relating to natural history. Reviews of publications on Australian natural history are included. Unsolicited reviews are welcome as are suggestions for books to be considered for review. Submission of Manuscripts Manuscripts should be sent to Owen Seeman, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, 13 St Johns Ave, New Town, 7008. Formal articles should follow the style of similar articles in recent issues. Informal articles need not fit any particular format. An abstract need only be included with longer articles. References cited in the text should be listed at the end of the paper in the following format: Ratkowsky, A.V. and Ratkowsky, D.A. (1976) The birds of the Mt. Wellington Range, Tasmania. Emu 77: 19-22. Watts, D. (1993) Tasmanian Mammals. A Field Guide. (Peregrine Press, Kettering). Ponder, W.F. (1993) Endemism in invertebrates in streams and rivers as demonstrated by hydrobiid snails. In Tasmanian Wilderness: World Heritage Values. Eds. S. Smith and M. Banks. (Royal Society of Tasmania, Hobart). Bryant, S.L. (1991) The Ground Parrot Pezoporous wallicus in Tasmania: Distribution, Density and Conservation Status. Scientific Report 1/91. Department of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage, Hobart. A good quality original of graphs, illustrations or maps should be provided. These can also be provided on computer disk in JPG or TIFF format. Formal articles are normally sent to an independent referee for comment. This is undertaken to try to ensure accuracy of information and to improve the quality of presentation. It should not be seen by prospective authors as a venue for their work to be critised but rather as a service to help them improve their manuscripts. The editor is willingto assist any prospective authors who have little experience in writing articles. After an article is accepted for publication, authors will be asked to provide a copy on computer disk, if possible. Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club G.P.O. Box 68, Hobart, Tas. 7001 Founded 1904 OBJECTIVES The Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club aims to encourage the study of all aspects of natural history and to advocate the conservation of our natural heritage. The club is comprised of both amateur and professionals who share a common interest in the natural world. ACTIVITIES Members meet on the first Thursday of each month in the B iological Sciences Building at the University of Tasmania at Sandy Bay. These meetings include a guest speaker who provides an illustrated talk. This is followed by an excursion on the next weekend to a suitable site to allow field observations of the subject of that week’s talk. A mammal survey group also undertakes trapping and recording of native mammals in local areas. 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 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. The Tasmanian Naturalist is distributed free to all members, the club’s library is available for use and a quarterly bulletin is issued with informationcoveringforthcomingactivities. Enquiries regardingmembership should be sent to The Secretary at the above address, by phoning Genevieve Gates on (03) 62278638 or by visiting our web site at www.tased.edu.au/tasonline/ tasfield/tasfield.htm. Membership Rates Subscription Rates for Adults $25 The Tasmanian Nature Families $30 Individuals $15 Concession $20 Libraries $20 Junior $20 Overseas $25 .S* /I £*)