THE
"TASMANIAN
INATURALI ST
Number 141
2019
F EE
M (fh yg
ll y Lo . uf 4 "f
[i MES MEN
E if ; i HN
VII
Published by the
Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
VOLUME 141 (2019) ISSN 0819-6826
"TASMANIAN
NATURALIST
TFNC
Contents
Impact of the Tasmanian 2018-19 summer fires on burrowing crayfish
Alastair Richardson ................... eese ettet treten tete tt tts tn sess ne 1
Post-fire excursion to Lonnavale, 6 weeks after bushfire 1n wet eucalypt forest
Richard Robinson & Annabel Carle... sss 9
Identity of Endoxyla woodmoths (Lepidoptera: Cossidae: Zeuzerinae) 1n
‘Tasmania with records of previously undocumented species from Bass Strait
Simon Fearn & David Maynard... sse 17
Notes on the ecology of the Tasmanian alpine cockroach Po/yzosteria sp.
Burmeister, 1838 (Blattodea: Polyzosteriinae) including parasitism by
Gordian worms (Nematomorpha: Gordioida)
Karen Richards & Chris P. Spencer... sse 27
Caladenia atrochila D.L.Jones (darkheart fingers) goes south
META E AI A A A A taf 35
Changes in Taroona bird species occurrences 1986-2019
Mick Brown & Peter Vaughan.................1 sese 41
The first record of the stout tinzeda Tinzeda albosignata
(Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1878) (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) in Tasmania
David Maynard & Simon Fearn ................. 7: seen 53
Investigation of a high elevation population of Hop/ogonus simsoni
Parry, 1875 (Coleoptera: Lucanidae) on Mt Potmena, Blue Tier, using
regurgitated bird pellets
Karen Richards & Chris P. Spencer... sse 61
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Ecological notes on Achthosus westwoodi (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)
from King Island and a successional relationship with Toxeutes arctuatus
(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Pinus radiata logs
Simon Fearn & David Maynard..." sse 73
Not all dead wood is the same — a selection error reveals an unusual
emergence of beetles from decaying celerytop pine logs
Marie Yee & David A. Ratkowsky.................. seen 83
New Tasmanian records for the little-known carabid beetle Notonomus sphodroides
(Carabidae: Pterostichinae)
Simon Fearn & David Maynard...................... sees 93
Between a dune and a watery place: the beetles and flies that call Tasmanta’s
sandy beaches home
A new larval host plant for Tragocerus spencii Hope, 1834
(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Tasmania
Karen Richards & Chris P. Spencer... esses 120
The Tasmanian Flora Network — Publicising changes to vascular flora and
threatened spectes lists 2018-2019
Nene Potts... nme A gro erg repete A d 125
Times have changed for field work in Tasmania
Robert Mesibov..uu....cccccccccececcssecceccessececcscsececcecsccsceecsevsceecsccacecsccateecsacacsecaccarsecacsacsecaceetsees 137
Highlights of pelagic birding from Eaglehawk Neck 2018/2019
ES AAA A to cc o oce ce C m EH EC the 145
Book Revise oiu Ld aeria mtr o aede me nnam ce bos a Rao o AM Race 157
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
The Editorial team is:
Mick Brown
Alastair Richardson
Stephen Harris
Deirdre Brown
Sabine Borgis
Views and opinions expressed in papers in the journal reflect those of the author(s)
and are not necessarily those of the Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc.
Unless otherwise stated, all images are by the authors.
Published annually by the Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc., GPO Box 68
Hobart, Tasmania 7001
5
Printed by Monotone Art Printers using 100 gsm Digital Satin paper.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Impact of the Tasmanian 2018-19 summer fires on
burrowing crayfish
Alastair Richardson
Bookend Trust & Biological Sciences,
School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania,
Private Bag 5, Hobart 7001
alastair.richardson@utas.edu.au
Fire is a natural factor in the ecology of
Tasmania, but as the climate changes
the biota may find it harder to adapt to
increasing fire frequency and intensity.
The 2018-19 summer was the second
hottest recorded in Tasmania. Perhaps
the most worrying phenomenon was
the passages of bands of dry lightning
storms that produced several hundred
strikes to ground across the island
without any significant rainfall. Dry
lightning has been rare in Tasmania
until recently (Styger et al. 2018). The
lightning strikes started over 50 fires,
many in very remote areas. Despite
efforts by the Tasmanian Fire and Parks
and Wildlife Services to quench the
fires at their start, several major blazes
developed.
‘Tasmania is home to at least 33 species
of freshwater crayfish, most of which
are endemic to the island. The diversity
of crayfish in ‘Tasmania and the south-
east Australian mainland is second
only to that in the south-east of North
America. Species in two of the endemic
genera, the so-called ‘rain crayfish’,
Ombrastacoides and Spinastacoides, are
typically found in the wet sedgelands
and heathlands in western Tasmania that
were extensively affected by the fires.
Very little is known about the effects of
fire on burrowing crayfish.
Three of the major fires burned in
south- west Tasmania, while the fourth
was in the southern part of the Central
Plateau at altitudes between 700 and
1100 m above sea level and outside the
range of burrowing crayfish. By early
March they had altogether burned over
1860 km? almost 3% of Tasmania's
land area. The south-west fires affected
the range and habitat of a number of
burrowing crayfish. Two other smaller
fires (Lynch Hil: 91 km; Brittons
Swamp: 24 km?) occurred within the
ranges of other burrowing crayfish
This
contribution records which crayfish
in the west and north-west.
species are likely to have been within the
burned areas and considers the impact
on their populations.
Fire boundary maps from the Tasmanian
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Fire Service (accessed 4/3/19) were
overlaid on distributional data for the
crayfish, sourced from the Tasmanian
Natural Values Atlas, plus some recent
records of my own (Figure 1).
The fire boundaries polygons were
used to clip minimum convex polygons
drawn around the point data for each
species. The minimum convex polygons
were modified in some cases where the
absence of crayfish was almost certain,
e.g, beyond coastlines, or above certain
altitudes, based on field observations.
Crayfish mostly confined to Type 1
burrows (i.e. in permanent surface
water, Horwitz & Richardson 1986)
were omitted on the grounds that the
fire would have had minimal direct
impact on them; in practice these were
the three Astacopsis species.
Table 1 lists the crayfish species
found within the fire boundaries, the
percentage of their range affected by the
fires, and the burrow types they inhabit.
The 13 species found in the fire areas
were from three genera: Ombrastacoides
(5), Exngaeus (5), and Spinastacoides spp. (3).
The affected areas of the Engaens species
were all under 10% of their total range,
apart perhaps from E. disjuncitcns, but as
its name suggests, its range 1s broken
up and poorly known. The species with
the greatest proportion of their range
affected were O. decemdentatus (49%) and
O. denisoni (46°). The latter is particularly
significant, given its small overall range
(33 km”. O. denisoni, although not
listed under State or Commonwealth
legislation, is classified as Critically
Endangered in the IUCN Red List and
is recognized as a “priority species” in
forestry planning in Tasmania.
The ranges of ‘Tasmanian crayfish
are quite well known, even in remote
areas, thanks to projects such as
the Lower Gordon River Scientific
Survey, surveys preceding the Henty-
Anthony hydro-electric scheme and
Plate 1. Buttongrass heathland near the foot of Mt Anne, in the range of Ombrastacoides
huonensis and Spinastacoides inermis. Left: four weeks after fire in January 2019;
right: about 10 years after fire.
'ynogJeH eijenboejA pue 3urog Áx»oy Mo1 uasM1aq SpJ022J JO »2e| aui 03 anp seyeuinseJjepun A[qeqoJg.,, ,.
'snaijounfsip *3 o uonnqiaasip 3oun(sip pue spJo2a4 pa1luul| AY} OF ANP ajqeljasun,,
'sjequieu» punoJ84epun ul J91e^ e»eyans Juos 1nq 'e|qe3 93eM aui 01 uwop SulupeaJ 10u pue J316M
Suipue1s u1IM pajenosse ¡ou SMOJINq :£ adÁ] “3/q81 J91eM eu 03 uwop Surpue1xe 1nq '1918M Sulpue3s uM pejeroosse 10u swoJung :z edA3
:«(qT) pue| uo awWoOs YUM Jo '(er) sajem 3uipuezs ui ||e 13yya sadues]ua moJ4Inq :T adÁ] :adÁ3 moJInq 41194} pue Sadly ay} Aq paypalje Sasued Way}
qI Z
QT ‘eT ‘Z
c
qI Z
€
c
ET
qr'er 'z
c
c
qr'er 'z
c
qr'er 'z
c
OPI
c
c
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
JdAL
MOY4na
€ 0
60
€'0
€'0
L'O
€'0
ATA
LUxx
9'Exx
BS Lex
Ov
981
TO
ST
0'0T
SOT
S'Gy
Q312VdlNI
35NV 96
SC
SC
SC
8c
€6
9c
TE
9cc
LOT
9TZ
TZZ
9ST
TT
vr
SLZ
86T
ST
(ZI)
JONVY
Q312VdlNI
6078
L6LcC
v688
€c08
O9CVT
t688
Svc
O06vS
L862
99/€
06vS
TZE
06vS
L862
COLT
EBST
EE
(ZWA)
JONVY
WLOL
sniojnaiund snapbuq
pupDua| snabbu3
4ossof snapbu3
snJaul031daJ sapio201spJquiQO
sni4Du43]sI2 snapbu3
4ossof snapbu3
sn2ijounfsip snapbu3
snu[pdiui]02 sapio2Djspuids
siuDisui sapio2D3spuidg
S11]s04IA24q Sapio2D1sSDAqUJ4Q
snujodiunb sapio2D3spuidg
SN}OJUIPWaIAp Sapio2D]SD4quuQO
snuu[pdiuioo2 sapio203spuidg
siuDisui sapio2D3spuidg
siuJaul sapio2Djspuidg
sisuauonu sapio2D1sDAqUuQO
Iuosiuap sapio2D3spDJquJQ
q3.12333V S3I23dS
Vc
T6
VEE
E9E
+099
(ZNJ)
Viuv
3ulJ
jo a3ejua9Jad ayy Bulmoys pays} ase aly yoea Aq papalje usiÁeJ2 9u | "eaJe JI9u1 ui "erueuise| ui Jauuns ETOZ Sui ui saJiy Jofeiw "T ayqeL
dINVMS SNOLLIH8
TIIH HONAT
A3TIVA S3HOOIN
d3JAIH TI39
SALITIALVS + GVO" XNVAAIY
3813
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
the Wilderness Ecosystems Baseline
Study. However, some areas remain
unrecorded, particularly between Low
Rocky Point and Macquarie Harbour;
this has probably led to the under-
estimate of crayfish ranges affected by
the Moores Valley fire. Reporting ranges
as minimum convex polygons may over-
ot under-estimate geographical ranges,
and they are likely to be least reliable
when the number of point records for
a spectes are small. This is especially true
for Exngaeus disjuncticus and E. lengana. And
of course, the geographical ranges will
always be greater than the actual area of
suitable habitat occupied by the species
within them; this will be particularly true
where the ranges include large areas of
eucalypt forest, since crayfish are mostly
confined to the edges of drainages and
wet areas within forests.
The wet heathlands and sedgelands
that are the typical habitats of most
Ombrastacoides and Spinastacoides species
are fire-prone and fire-adapted, with
a natural fire frequency that may be
as short as 25 years (Jackson 1968).
Within four weeks of
tussocks of button grass (Gymnoschoenus
these fires,
sphaerocephalus) vere showing 3-4 cm of
fresh growth beneath the burnt ends of
their leaves (Plate 1).
The fires were largely confined to
flammable lowland vegetation types
(Wood 2019), but some spread into the
alpine zone on the Central Plateau and
in the Denison Range in the south-west.
The latter area supports some crayfish,
but none are confined to the alpine zone.
Given that fire is naturally occurring
in their habitats we would not expect
these fires to have any severe effect on
the burrowing crayfish. Since the peat
soils in which they burrow are normally
saturated with water, they have a huge
thermal mass and the relatively rapid
passage of a fire hardly heats the soil at
all below a depth of a few centimetres
(personal observation). In their type 2
burrows, with access to the water table,
most crayfish are well insulated from
surface fires. The crayfish’s food source
(largely roots and the decaying leaves of
the sedges) is only temporarily affected.
I was able to assist 1n the collection of
O. huonensis from a site on the Scotts
Peak Road burned by the Rtveaux Road
fire about four weeks after the fire had
passed. The burrows all had free water
at the bottom and there were some
signs of digging activity since the fire.
These crayfish only occasionally leave
their burrows to forage for food on the
surface, but they must emerge to seek a
mate. The absence of vegetation cover
during the mating season in autumn
may expose them to a greater risk of
predation by quolls and birds.
Two of the Engaens species affected by
the fires, E. «asternarius and E. lengana,
construct type 3 burrows that often have
shallow tunnels extending laterally under
rainforest vegetation. These species
may be more vulnerable than those 1n
sedgelands, but fire 1n their habitat has
been much rarer, at least until recently.
If the next fires 1n sedgelands were likely
to be 20 years ot more away there would
be nothing to worry about. However,
repeated fires at shorter frequency can
reduce the depth of the peat (Pemberton
1988, di Folco & Kirkpatrick 2011), or
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
even start peat fires (which are difficult
to extinguish) if the peat is dry before
the fire. Where the peat cover is shallow
on hillsides this can severely reduce, or
eliminate, the crayfish.
A further threat to these crayfish is
the predicted long-term increase in
temperature and decrease in rainfall.
We suspect that crayfish in sedgelands
can survive without free water in their
burrows by remaining inactive in the
saturated atmosphere at the bottom of
the burrow, but we do not know exactly
how long they can survive 1n that way.
Climatic predictions for the south-
west of Tasmania (Grose et al. 2012)
suggest increased summer temperatures
rainfall, but
and decreased some
increase in winter rainfall. It remains
to be seen whether the small increase
in winter rainfall will compensate for
increased loss in summer and autumn,
but it seems likely that the ranges of
species towards the east will contract.
Ombrastacoides denisont (Plate 2) which
has a very small distribution at the
eastern edge of the genus' range, may
be particularly vulnerable, and although
it was not affected by the current
fires, O. dissifus has the most easterly
distribution of any Ombrastacoides species
and is also restricted to quite a small
range (c. 23 km?) in heathlands close to
the coast, south of Lune River.
If dry lightning storms of the kind we
saw 1n the 2018-19 summer become the
Plate 2. Ombrastacoides denisoni, a critically endangered species; over 402 of its range was
burned in the 2018-19 summer.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
new normal, increasing the frequency
of fires, and if the landscape of western
Tasmania becomes chronically drier,
our endemic “rain crayfish” are likely to
experience contraction in their ranges,
particularly those species at the eastern
edge of the genus’ range.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Gerhard Scholtz (Humboldt
University, Berlin) for inviting me to
assist in collecting crayfish, to the Parks
and Wildlife Service for facilitating
access to the Scotts Peak Road shortly
after the fires, and to Michael Driessen
for helpful comments.
References
di Folco, M.-B. & Kirkpatrick, J. B.
(2011). ‘Topographic
burning-induced loss of carbon from
variation in
organic soils in Tasmanian moorlands.
Catena 87, 216-225.
Grose, M., Harris, R. € Lee, G.
(2012). Future climate projections for
Tasmanian IBRA regions. A report
to the Verification
Group for the Tasmanian Forest
Independent
Agreement. IVG Forest Conservation
Report 6, 27pp.
Horwitz, P. H. J. & Richardson, A. M. M.
(1986). An ecological classification of
the burrows of Australian freshwater
crayfish. Australian Journal of Marine
and Freshwater Research 37, 237-242.
Jackson, W. D. (1968). Fire, air, water
and earth - an elemental ecology of
Tasmania. Proceedings of the Ecological
Society of Australia 3 9-16.
Pemberton, M. (1988) Soil erosion
between Birchs Inlet and Elliott
Bay, Southwestern “Tasmania. Papers
and Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Tasmania 122: 109-14.
Styger, J., Marsden-Smedley, J. and
Kirkpatrick, J.B. (2018).
in Lightning Fire Incidence in the
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage
Area, 1980—2016. Fzre 1 (38): 1-10.
Changes
Wood, S. (2019). The 2019 Tasmanian
Fares so far: what bas burned and where?
firecentre.org.au Accessed 26/07/19.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
E HER:
X Gell River
J A i vx Tul.
Figure 1. Tasmania, showing the major fires of the 2018-9 summer and polygons representing
the distributions of burrowing crayfish. Shades of green: Engaeus spp., shades of blue:
Ombrastacoides spp., shades of brown: Spinastacoides spp.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Post-fire excursion to Lonnavale, 6 weeks after
bushfire in wet eucalypt forest
Richard Robinson’ & Annabel Carle?
117 Woodhurst Road, Seven Mile Beach, Tas. 7170
richardrobinsonrmr@hotmail.com
280a East Derwent Highway, Lindisfarne, Tas. 7015
acarlego@gmail.com
Abstract
On 15-16 January 2019, lightning started about 70 fires in the southwest of
Tasmania. As a result, several wildfires burnt throughout the Huon Valley
for a period of about four weeks. On 10 March 2019, members of the
Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club and several members of the Huon Valley
community visited a wet Eucalyptus obliqua forest on a property in Lonnavale,
adjacent to the Huon River, which was burnt late January 2019. The purpose
of our excursion was to examine the burnt forest and record the presence of
organisms active within the recent post-fire environment, including macrofunet
which are amongst the first organisms to respond. Several species of post-fire
fungi were recorded including the stone-maker fungus, Lacocephalum tumulosum,
and the remains of hypogeal (underground) fungi excavated by mycophageous
(fungi-eating) mammals. In addition, a list of plants and 1nvertebrates found 1n
the area and their responses to the fire was also compiled.
Key Words: macrofungi, Eucalyptus obliqua, bushfire, fire ecology, Tasmania
Introduction
Fire has played a dominant role in the
evolution, developmentand maintenance
of most Australian ecosystems (Attiwill
1994). To maintain wet eucalypt forests,
the natural fire interval is thought to
be 100-200 years (Jackson 1999). Since
1850 at least 8—12 major wildfires have
impacted the south-west (see Hickey
et al. 1999 and refs within) but this
interval is predicted to become shorter
due to the advent of lower rainfall and
a changing climate (Fox-Hughes 2008).
Unlike the east coast and midlands,
wet forests in the west and south-west
were infrequently burnt by traditional
Aboriginal burning practices, unless
they occupied the periphery of more
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
frequently burnt sedge and button grass
(Jackson 1999; Gammage 2008). Land
management agencies regularly use
high intensity fire to aid regeneration
of eucalypt forest following harvesting
(Hickey and Wilkinson 1999; Forestry
Tasmania 2010)
prescribed
and low intensity
burning to achieve
community protection and biodiversity
conservation objectives (Tasmania
Fire Service 2019; Tasmania Parks and
Wildlife Service 2019).
Inthe short term, fire directly or indirectly
affects the majority of organisms
and their habitats, and the amount of
influence depends on fire intensity
(Burrows 2008). Plants respond quickly
by re-sprouting or direct seeding (Gill
1981). Several species of fungi respond
almost immediately by fruiting from
below ground structures or following
the first rains from soil-borne spores
that appear to survive the fire (Warcup
1990; Robinson 2001; Robinson et al.
2008). In eucalypt forests, both plants
and fungi have the ability to gradually
"
recover or recolonise by a process of
succession over a number of years
(Noble and Slatyer 1977; Robinson et
al. 2008; Robinson unpubl.). There is
also an important relationship between
fire, hypogeous (underground) fungi,
native mammals and plants (Claridge
1992; Lamont 1995; Johnson 1997).
Underground truffle-like fruit bodies
survive fire and provide food for
mammals (Claridge et al. 1996). These
truffle-like fungi are also important
mycorrhizal partners for plants. The
mammals consume the fruit bodies and
release the spores 1n their scats, which
in turn germinate and inoculate the
seedlings that develop post fire.
On 15-16 January 2019, lightning
started about 70 fires 1n the southwest
of ‘Tasmania. As a result, several
wildfires burnt throughout the Huon
Valley for a period of about four weeks.
In late January, a bush property situated
in wet sclerophyll forest dominated
by Eucalyptus obliqua adjacent to the
Huon river near Lonnavale was burnt
j le
Plate 1. The burnt site adjacent to the Huon River at Lonnavale. Photograph: Geoff Carle
10
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
(Plate 1). On 10 March 2019, members
of the ‘Tasmanian Field Naturalists
Club and several members of the
Huon Valley community visited the
property (Hird 2019). The purpose
of the excursion was to examine the
burnt forest and record the presence of
organisms active within the recent post-
fire environment, including macrofungi
which are generally amongst the first
organisms to respond, to record
evidence of regrowth or germination
for the trees and understorey which had
been growing in the area pre-fire and
to record any invertebrates surviving
post fire.
Field observations and
discussion
The immediate forest was dominated
by Emahptus obhqua along with E.
viminals and a shrubby understorey on
sandstone-based soils (Hird 2019). Prior
to the fires, the Judbury area had a dry
spring (<199mm rain) and early summer
(<66mm rain) followed by high mean
temperatures (26°C) in January (Bureau
of Meteorology 2019a).
The bushfires appeared to have been
quite patchy in the area and variable
in intensity as evidenced by several
killed trees, deep ash beds and baked
brick-coloured By 10 March
2019, approximately six weeks post
fire, 40.6 ml of rain had been recorded
in February in the area. (Bureau of
Meteorology 2019b). By that time
the majority of Excabjpíus
trees, showed signs of recovery as
soils.
obliqua
did many of the understorey plants.
E. obliqua trees were sprouting from
epicormic buds (Plate 2a). Seedlings
of E. obliqua and/or E. viminalis (Fig.
2b) were observed geminating in the
burnt leaf litter, as were seedlings of
Acacia verticillata and/or A. melanoxylon.
Leptospermum scoparium was regenerating
from its base (Plate 2c) and although
seed capsules on fire-killed plants were
opened, there was no evidence of
germinating seedlings. There were fire-
killed plants of Beafordia linearis, Melaleuca
squamea, lomatia tinctoria, Pomaderris
apetala, Pultenaea daphnoides, Pultenaea
juniperina and Exocarpos cupressiformis in
the understorey of the burnt forest and
live plants in unburnt patches. Several of
these, including B. Zuearzs and L. tinctoria
are capable of coppicing following
moderately 1ntense fire (Dickinson and
Kirkpatrick 1987), but there was no
sign of regeneration either by regrowth
ot by seedling germination for any of
these species at the time of our visit.
The burnt trunks of Dicksonia antarctica
were not showing any signs of recovery,
however, a number of other ferns and
some monocotyledons were observed
with green regrowth. The monocots
were Lomandra longifola, Gahnia sp.,
Lepidosperma sp., Dianella tasmanica and
Juncus sp., and the ferns Bkchnum nudum
(Plate 2d) and Prerrdium esculentum.
A number of post-fire or pyrophilous,
fungi were observed. Several specimens
of Laccocephalum tumulosum (Plate 2e)
were recorded. L. twmulsum 1s a wood
decay fungus that forms a large pseudo-
sclerotium in the soil next to or below
a log it has colonised. The sclerottum
is formed by fungal mycelium binding
11
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
di vi*- Jy
e 1» ^ Yr774
Plate 2. Flora, fungi and invertebrates observed in the burnt forest: (a) Eucalyptus obliqua basal
coppice, (b) Eucalyptus seedlings, (c) Leptospermum scoparium basal coppice, (d) Blechnum
nudum regrowth, (e) Laccocephalum tumulosum fruit body and sclerotium, (f) Neolentinus
dactyloides fruit body, (g) Mesophellia glauca truffle-like fruit bodies, (h) Amanita sp. fruit body
browsed by animals, (i) Pyronema omphalodes, (j) Yellow winged grasshopper (Gastrimargus
musicus), (k) Wingless grasshopper (Phaulacridium vittatum), (I) Pleasing fungus beetle (Thallis
compta), (m) winged Inchman (Myrmecia forficata), (n) Jotus sp. and (o) Nicodamus sp.
Photographs: Geoff Carle (f,g,ijj,l,m,n,o); Annabel Carle (a,c,d), Fiona Gumboots Walsh (b),
Genevieve Gates (e,k) and Richard Robinson (h)
12
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
After fire the
funeus develops large creamy white
soil particles together.
mushroom-like fruit bodies from the
sclerotium. The caps are characterised
by having a pored underside (not gills
like most mushrooms). Those we
observed were quite small, caps 8-10
cm in diameter and the sclerotium
about the size of a tennis ball. A second
species developing from a subterranean
sclerottum, Neolentinus dactyloides, was
also observed. N. dactyloides has a thick
root-like sclerottum and develops a
beige mushroom-like fruit body, 8—10
cm diameter, characterised by a velvety
cap surface and gills with serrated edges
(Plate 2f.
Digging by small mammals was evident
throughout the site. Adjacent to several
of the diggings we observed the hard
cases of truffle-like fungi left behind
after the contents had been consumed.
Several intact specimens of Mesophela
glauca were also found (Plate 2g).
Mesophelha spp. form mycorrhiza on the
roots of many native plants. Their fruits
have hard protective cases and develop
within the mineral soil which enables
them to survive even intense fire. The
heat from fire causes them to emit strong
aromas which allow them to be detected
by foraging animals. The specimens we
found had a variable but distinct aroma
(depending on an individual's odour
perception) of chewing gum, fresh tar
or bitter almonds.
An unidentified species of Amanita
observed with distinctive bite
marks (Plate 2h), suggesting it had been
Was
nibbled by a larger marsupial. Species
of Amanita ate generally toxic, to
humans at least. But, 1f conditions are
suitable, it is not unusual to see them
soon after fire, and they are often grazed
upon by macropods and other animals.
Fresh possum and wallaby scats were
observed.
The most common fungus observed
was Pyronema omphalodes (Plate 21), an
apricot to pink cup-like species that
grows on burnt soil and charcoal. It
generally fruits ez masse, the individual
cups coalescing to form a crust or skin-
like structure over the surface of its
substrate. Another thick white mycelial
mass was also recorded growing on
charcoal and the star-like casings of
Nothocastoreum sp. were observed on
bare soil.
In addition to the pyrophilous fungi,
several incidental sightings of species
growing on wood were recorded. ‘These
included Ascocoryne sarcoides, Trichoderma
sp. and Laetiporus portentosus (which was
dried out and had fallen from the upper
branches of a large tree).
A number of invertebrates were also
observed. Because of the patchy nature
of the fire their recovery is aided
by repopulation from neighbouring
unburnt areas (Baker et al. 2009). Both
adults and nymphs of Yellow winged
grasshoppers (Gastrimargus musicus)
(Plate 2) and Wingless grasshoppers
(Phaulacridium vittatum) (Plate 2k) were
active in both the burnt and unburnt
patches. Grasshoppers lay their eggs
below the soil surface and are capable
of rapid recovery following patchy or
low intensity fire (Branson and Vermeire
2007). Wingless grasshoppers forage on
native forbs (Australian Government
13
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Department of Agriculture 2012).
A Pleasing fungus beetle (Ihalzs compia)
(Fig. 21) was recorded on a L. tumulosum
fruit body and a Honeybrown beetle
(Ecnolagria grandis) was seen browsing
on dead (but in this case burnt) plant
and fungal matter, their typical forage.
A number of active Jack Jumper nests
were observed and flying Inchman ants
(Myrmeciinae: Myrmecia forficata) were
seen emerging from a burnt decaying
log where both winged (Plate 2m) and
unwinged ants were present. Nuptial
flights of Myrmecinae are generally
expected to occur in the summer to
autumn period (Daley 2007) so 1t doesn't
appearthatthe fire affected their life cycle.
One specimen of the Tasmanian land
snail Caryodes dufresnu and two spiders
were active amongst burnt leaf litter.
The spiders were identified as a black
and white jumping spider (Salticidae:
Jotus sp.) (Plate 2n) and as a red and
black spider (Nicodamidae: Nodamus
sp.) (Fig. 20). What was thought to be a
Metallic skink (Nzreoscincus metallicus) was
also sighted.
Conclusion
For many people, the aftermath of a
bushfire can be soul destroying. The
owner of the property we visited also
lost his home. One of the purposes of
the trip was to provide encouragement
to him that life was returning to his
block. Just six weeks post fire we
fungi
insects
observed plants regenerating,
animals and
foraging. Using these sightings and by
fruiting, and
observing the landscape, the group was
able to explain the processes of recovery
and succession following fire. Species
such as Lawovephalum tumulosum and
Pyronema omphalodes depend on fire to
stimulate fruiting, so won't be seen again
unless there is another fire. With time
the forest will regenerate to its former
glory and along the way will transition
through a richer diversity of organisms
than are supported at any one time
during that process.
Acknowledgements
On behalf of the TFNC, the authors
sincerely thank Dale ‘Hairy Mar Fullard
for the invitation to inspect his property,
and his generous hospitality. We wish
him well in the endeavour to rebuild his
property following the fires. Thanks also
to the attending TFNC members for
their enthusiasm on the day, especially
Don Hird for his contribution of details
regarding the site, and to Geoff Carle,
Fiona ‘Gumboots’ Walsh and Genevieve
Gates for contributing photographs.
Finally, thanks to M. Brown and D.
Ratkowsky for comments on the
draft manusctipt.
14
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
References
Atttwil, PM. (1994). Ecological
disturbance and the conservative
management of eucalypt forests in
Australia. Forest Ecology and Management
63: 301—346.
Australian Government Department
of Agriculture (2019). 15. Wingless
grasshopper: Phaulacridium
Accessed August 20, 2019.
vittatum.
Baker, S.C., Grove, S.J., Forster, L.,
Bonham, K.J. & Bashford, D.
(2009). of
ground-active beetles to alternative
Short-term responses
silvicultural systems in the Warra
Silvicultural Systems Trial, Tasmania,
Australia. Forest Ecology and Management
258: 444—459.
Branson, D.H. & Vermeire, L.T. (2007).
Grasshopper egg mortality mediated
by oviposition tactics and fire intensity.
Ecological Entomology 32: 128—134.
Bureau of Meteorology (2019a). Daily
(Grove)
Research Station. Accessed August
20, 2019.
Maximum Temperature
Bureau of Meteorology (2019b). Daily
Rainfall Judbury (Huon River).
Accessed August 20, 2019.
Burrows, N.D. (2008). Linking fire
ecology and fire management in south-
west Australian forest landscapes.
Forest Ecology and Management 255:
2394-2406.
15
Claridge, A.W. (1992). Is the relationship
among mycophagous
fungi and
dependent upon fire? Australian
Journal of Ecology 17: 223-225.
marsuptals,
mycorrhizal plants
Claridge, A.W. Castellano M.A. &
Trappe J.M. (1996). Fungi as a food
source for mammals in Australia. In:
Fungi of Austraha Volume 1B, pp. 239—
267. Australian Biological Resources
Study, Canberra.
Daley, E. (2007). Wings : an introduction
to lasmanias winged insects. Riffles,
‘Tasmania
Dickinson, K.J.M. & Kirkpatrick, J.B.
(1987). The short-term effects of
clearfelling and slash-burning on
the richness, diversity and relative
abundance of higher plant species
in two types of eucalypt forest on
dolerite in Tasmania. Australian Journal
of Botany 35: 601—616.
Forestry Tasmania (2010). Szeultural
systems for native eucalypt forests. Native
Forest Silviculture ‘Technical Bulletin
No. 5, Forestry Tasmania, Hobart.
Fox-Hughes, P. (2008). A fire danger
climatology for Tasmania. Australian
Meteorological Magazine 51: 109—120.
B. (2008).
under
Plain facts:
Aboriginal
management. Landscape Research 33(2):
241-254.
Gammage,
Tasmania
Gill, A.M. (1981). Adaptive responses
of Australian vascular plant species
to fires. In: Fare and the Australian
Biota. Eds. A.M Gill R.H. Groves &
LR. Noble. pp. 243—272. Australian
Academy of Science, Canberra.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Hickey, J.E. & Wilkinson, G.R. (1999).
The
implementation of
current
silvicultural
practices in native forests in Tasmania.
Australian Forestry 62(3): 245-254.
development and
Hickey, J.E., Su, W, Rowe, P, Brown,
M. & Edwards, L. (1999). Fire
history of the tall wet eucalypt forests
of the Warra ecological research site,
Tasmania. Australian Forestry 62(1):
66—71.
Hird, D. (2019). Lonnavale post-bushfire
excursion. Tasmanian Field Naturalists
Club Quarterly Bulletin 314: 4—5.
Jackson, W.D. (1999). The Tasmanian
legacy of man and fire. Papers and
Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Tasmania 133(1): 1-14.
Johnson, C.N. (1997). Fire and habitat
management for a mycophagous
marsupial, the ‘Tasmanian bettong
Bettongia gaimardi. Australian Journal of
Ecology 22: 101—105.
Lamont, B.B. (1995). Interdependence
of woody plants, higher fungi and
small marsupials in the context of fire.
CALM. Science Supplement 4: 151—158.
McMullan-Fisher, S.J.M., May, TW,
Robinson, R.M., Bell, T.L., Lebel, T.,
Catcheside, P. & York A. (2011). Fungi
and fire in Australian ecosystems:
a review of current knowledge,
management implications and future
directions. Australian Journal of Botany
59: 70-90.
Noble, LR. & Slatyer, R.O. (1977).
Post-fire succession of plants in
Mediterranean ^ ecosystems. In:
Proceedings of the Symposium on the
of Fire
and Fuel Management in Mediterranean
Ecosystems. pp. 27-36. Eds. H.A.
Mooney & C.E. Conrad. USDA
General ‘Technical
Environmental Consequences
Forest Service,
Report WO-3.
Robinson, R.M. (2001). Fruits of fire.
Landscope 16(4): 48-53.
Robinson, R.M., Mellican, A.E. &
Smith, RH. (2008). Epigeous
macrofungal succession in the first
five years following a wildfire 1n karri
(Eucalyptus diversicolor) regrowth
forest in Western Australia. Austral
Ecology 33: 807-820.
Tasmania Fire Service (2019). Fuel
Reduction Program. Accessed August
30, 2019.
Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service
(2019). Bushfire Management and
Planned Burns. Accessed August 30,
2019.
Warcup, J.H. (1990). Occurrence of
ectomycorrhizal saprophytic
discomycetes after a wild fire in a
eucalypt forest. Mycological Research 94:
1065—1069.
and
16
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Identity of Endoxyla woodmoths (Lepidoptera:
Cossidae: Zeuzerinae) in Tasmania with records
of previously undocumented species
from Bass Strait
Simon Fearn & David Maynard
Natural Sciences, Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery
PO Box 403, Launceston, Tasmania 7250
Simon.Fearn@launceston.tas.gov.au
David.Maynard@launceston.tas.gov.au
Introduction (ALA) 2019a, b) (Plate 1). They are easily
misidentified and confused both in the
Two large Acacia-feeding cossids, literature (e.g. Daley 2007) and in “citizen
commonly known as wattle goat moths,
Endoxyla lturatus and E. encalypti are
broadly sympatric in eastern Australia.
These two similar in
appearance, particularly the females
species are
science” photographic records (S. Fearn,
pers. Obs.). This confusion has led to
both of these species being incorrectly
reported from “Tasmania (Semmens et
al. 1992).
(Common 1990; Atlas of Living Australia
Plate 1. Female Endoxyla lituratus (QVM: 2019.12.1270.Wingspan 156 mm) from Longford
Tasmania (top) and E. encalypti (QVM: 2019.12.1269. Wingspan 186 mm) from Buderim, south-
east Queensland. Photograph: David Maynard.
17
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
In this paper we firstly clarify the identity
of the wattle goat moth in Tasmania
as the single taxon Exdoxyla lituratus,
and consider all records of E. emalypt
as misidentifications of E. Zrwratus.
Secondly we record E. secta and an
undescribed species of Endoxyla from
Tasmania for the first time.
Cossidae is a cosmopolitan moth family
comprising some 700 species in 95
genera (Schoorl 1990). Australia has a
rich woodmoth fauna especially in the
subfamily Zeuzerinae which has about
100 described, and many undescribed,
species (Common 1990; Zborowski &
Edwards, 2007; Marriott, pers. comm.).
Nearly all known species of Cossidae
live as larva in the stems and roots
of a wide variety of trees and shrubs
(Schoorl 1990). Larvae of the Australian
Zeuzerinae, and in particular the larger
species of Fndoxyla Herrich-Schaffer,
1854 bore singly in the main stems,
branches and roots of many species
of Excabptus and Acacia (Common
1990). In some regions of Australia the
relatively large (over 100 mm) larvae
of Endoxyla were an important food
source for Aboriginal people, and in
some atid zones may have contributed
a significant proportion of protein
and fat in human diets (Tindale 1953).
Endoxyla species are highly dimorphic
as adults with females being typically
much larger than males with relatively
massive abdomens. Several arid zone
species have entirely brachypterous
(reduced wing-size) females (Common
1990; Tindale 1953). Most are relatively
large moths and some of the larger
Endoxyla species are among the largest
insects on earth with female wingspans
greater than 240 mm and weights of up
to 30 g (Dodd 1916; Montieth 19912, b).
Females are highly fecund: a specimen
of E. encabyptí was found to contain
about 18 000 eges (Nielsen & Common
1991 as Xykutes encalypt). Eggs are
deposited in a glutinous secretion via
a long flexible ovipositor 1n concealed
sites like cracks and splits 1n bark.
Hatchling larvae appear to be dispersed
on the wind, ballooning on a strand of
silk, eventually alighting on a suitable
host tree by chance. The risks associated
with this type of ‘chance dispersal’
probably explain the large size and very
high fecundity of these species, since
mortality among the dispersing larvae
must be very high (Common 1990;
Harrison et al. 2010). For the majority
of species, their biology and host plants
are unknown (Common 1990). There
are a few species for which some details
of the life history are known (Tindale
1953; McInnes & Carne 1978; Monteith
1991a, b), but only a single species, E.
lituratus, 15 known 1n detail (Fearn 1985
as Xyleutes liturata). Much of the early
literature on Australian species includes
observations that are now largely of little
value because, due to name changes and
misidentifications, 1t 1s not possible to
determine which species were involved.
Endoxyla lituratus Donovan, 1805
This large and distinctive moth (Plates
1 & 2) is common and widespread
wherever larval host trees and shrubs
in the genus Acacia grow in ‘Tasmania
and its larger islands (Fearn 1985;
Fearn unpublished data). Similarly, it
18
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
is common and widespread in eastern
Australia,
Queensland to southern Victoria, and
mainland from north
west to southern South Australia and
Western Australia (Common 1990; ALA
2019a; P. Marriott pers. comm.).
Both sexes have prominent longitudinal
black markings down each side of the
thorax with a small break at two-thirds
the length posteriorly. This black border
encloses a dense blue-brown layer
of scales with a paler greyish central
stripe. No other large moth in Tasmania
displays these distinctive
patterns. Confusion can arise however
thoracic
when examining worn specimens that
have lost these distinctive markings.
Abdominal fluff is
coloured light grey to white bordering
alternatively
dark grey giving the abdomen a distinct
banded appearance (Plates 1 and 2).
These colours and patterns effectively
camouflage the moth when 1t 1s at rest
on tree trunks during daylight hours.
The female wing colour and pattern
is consistently more greyish with less
black speckling. In contrast the wings
of the male exhibit more extensive
darker speckling often on a paler
background (Plates 1 and 2). The degree
of this speckling 1s highly variable, as is
background colour, which ranges from
white to dark grey (Plate 2). Specimens
collected from coastal habitats and
islands appear to have a much paler
background colour and hence the
black speckling is strongly contrasted
(Plate 2). The paler background colour
of these specimens may be related to
dominant host plants in these habitats -
for instance Acacia sophorae with its light-
coloured trunks and stems.
Females of E. 4ituratus are the largest
insects in Tasmania. They can exceed
150 mm wingspan and weigh 10 g
(Fearn unpublished data); males are
smaller (up to 120 mm wingspan). The
sizes of both sexes in Tasmania are
Plate 2. Male Endoxyla lituratus. Top: Launceston (QVM:2019.12.1699), Left: Three Hummock
Island (QVM:2019.12.1700), Right: Longford (QVM:2019.12.1701), Bottom: dwarf specimen from
Three Hummock Island (QVM:2019.12.1702). Photograph: David Maynard.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
extremely variable (as for most species
in the genus). This has contributed to
the confusion in identifications. For
example, Daley (2007) differentiates
between a large wattle goat moth
(incorrectly identified as E. encalypío)
and a small wattle goat moth identified
as E. Āturatus, when actually dwarfed
specimens are common. This may relate
to the ability of larvae to complete
pupation at a fraction of maximal size
if some environmental variable kills its
host tree (Dodd 1916; Fearn 1985).
The ecology of this species in Tasmania
is outlined in Fearn (1985) and later
summarised in Common (1990). A range
of Acacia species are utilised as larval
hosts including black wattle (4. mearnsit),
silver wattle (A. dealbata), blackwood
(A. melanoxylon), narrow-leaved wattle
(A. mucronata), Cootamundra wattle
(A. batkyana) and Sydney golden wattle
(A. longifolia) (Fearn 1985). More
recently, Tasmanian specimens have
been collected from the coast wattle or
boobyalla (4. sophorae), prickly moses
CA. verticillata) and ornamental Snowy
River wattle (4. boormani) (S. Fearn,
pers. obs.).
Larvae bore singly in trunks, main
stems and, less commonly, major roots
exposed at the ground surface. The
larva constructs a 200-300 mm long
gallery into the heartwood, producing a
tough pupal cocoon composed of wood
scrapings and silk. This takes about
two years. The final instar is probably
Tasmania’s largest insect larva, with
some specimens exceeding 110 mm in
length and weighing up to 15 g (Elliott
& deLittle, undated). This larva is
the famous ‘wattle grub’ so popular
with trout anglers.
The larva feeds on the cambium tissue
around the entrance to the bore. In
preparation for emergence the larva
bores its way towards the bark, leaving
this thin layer in place. The last instar
larva retreats to its cocoon in August/
September and pupates in a head
upwards position. In late summer it
emerges; first the pupa wrigeles up the
bore using rows of stout spines and
pushes through the thin layer of bark
left over the emergence hole. The adult
emerges onto the trunk of the host tree
(Fearn 1985). The large and distinctive
empty pupal sheaths of this species are
often found protruding from wattle
trunks and in sheltered situations can
remain Zz situ months after the moth
has emerged.
Endoxyla encalypti Herrich-
Schaffer, 1854
This species is often confused with E.
lituratus, however this should not be the
case in Tasmania as E. encalypti does not
occur here. It is distributed in eastern
Australia from tropical Queensland
to Victoria (Common 1990; ALA
2019b; P. Marriott pers. comm.). This
is a much larger species than E. /uratas,
females can exceed 185 mm wingspan.
Its colours are darker, with a brown
background and denser and more
extensive black speckling (Plate 1). The
forewing of the male commonly has a
distinct speckle-free, whitish portion
near its centre. The male E. encalyptí and
E. Bturatus axe illustrated side by side in
20
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Common (1990). Notably, the details of
the thoracic blotch are very similar in
both species; however in E. encalypiz tt is
typically darker and less contrasted, with
the black edging having a blueish tinge,
especially in the males (Common 1990;
P. Marriott pers. comm.).
Recorded food plants of E. exahpu
include Acacia dealbata, A. melanoxylon
A. falciformis
(Simpson 1972). The larva bore singly
and hickory wattle,
in the lower trunk of the host tree
and bore downwards into a major
root where tunnels are excavated up
to a metre in length (Common 1990;
S. Fearn pers. obs.). The final instar larva
cuts a hole through the side of the root
and produces a silk and wood fibre-lined
passage upwards through the soil to just
below the surface. A cocoon 1s formed
within this passage. Pupation takes place
in this cocoon with the pupa protruding
from the ground at adult emergence
(Common 1990; S. Fearn pers. obs.).
The pupal exuviae of E. encahpti can
be confused with those of large swift
(Abantiades Herrich-Schäffer,
1855) which also emerge from a tunnel
in the ground (Daley 2007).
moths
It follows that the location of an
hole which
Endoxyla species created it. In general, an
emergence indicates
emergence hole above ground level and
in a tree trunk, stem, limb or exposed
root was made by E. hturatus, whereas an
emergence hole in the soil near the base
of a host tree was made by E. emalypt
(Dodd 1916; S. Fearn pers. obs.).
The only previous that
specifically discusses the larval habits
of E. encabyptí is that of Simpson
literature
(1972); however, from the descriptions
and photographs of the larval bores
examined it is apparent that both E.
lituratus and E. encalyptí were 1nvolved 1n
the study. Only the examples of larger
bores in the lower trunk of host trees
and extending into major lateral roots
are likely to represent E. encabypíz.
Endoxyla
previously incorrectly identified as E.
‘Tasmanian have — been
encalyptí, most commonly under the
synonyms of Zeuzera eucalypti (Littler
1904; Evans 1943) and Xyleutes durvilles
(Elliott & deLittle n.d.) as well as more
recently as E. encalypí? (Daley 2007).
To date the first author has not seen
any evidence of E. encabypti ín ‘Tasmania.
given Endoxyla
discoveries on Three Hummock and
King Islands (data presented in this
work) its presence cannot be ruled
However, recent
out on large Bass Strait islands where
sampling has been sporadic and brief.
Endoxyla secta TP Lucas, 1898
Endoxyla secta (Plate 3) has previously not
been recorded from ‘Tasmania; however
in January/February 2019, the authors
found it to be common at two sites on
King Island, western Bass Strait. Five
males were collected at a 250 W mercury
vapour lamp at Badger Box Creek on
the south-west coast of King Island
(GDA94 234612mE 5571783mN) on
29 January 2019 and a further five males
at Unlucky Bay on the central west coast
(GDA94 231579mE 5587672mN) on
2 February 2019. A larger number of
worn males were observed at both sites
but not collected. No females were seen.
21
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Plate 3. Male Endoxyla secta from King Island,
Tasmania. From top- QVM: 2019.12.1273, 1277,
and 1278. Photograph: David Maynard.
This is a medium-sized (50-70 mm
wingspan) species that occurs in eastern
Australia from north Queensland to
southern Victoria and west through
South Australia to southern Western
Australia (ALA 2019c; E. D. Edwards
pers. P. Marriott
comm.). It appears to be common
comm.; pers.
in some woodland/forest habitats in
south-eastern Victoria (P. Marriott,
pers. comm.).
The larval habits and food plants of E.
secta axe currently unknown. Both King
Island locations were characterised by
low dense coastal scrub dominated
by the coast wattle or boobyalla,
Acacia sophorae.
Endoxyla sp.
On 22 January 2017 the second author
collectedanunfamuliar Endoxylaata250W
mercury vapour lamp at Ranger Retreat
on Three Hummock Island (GDA94
320399mE 5525927mN) western Bass
Strait (Plate 4). It 1s a recognised but
undescribed species known from at
least 16 localities in central and southern
Victoria (P. Marriott, pers. comm.)
This specimen (QVM:2019:12:1271)
is the first documented from Three
Hummock Island. In the Australian
National Insect Collection (ANIC) there
are two males from the mainland of
Tasmania, one from Port Sorell and one
from the Hartz Mountains. Only males
are known from ‘Tasmania but there is
a female from Moe in Victoria. This
species is also known from the northern
Tablelands of NSW and is common in
the southern Tablelands of NSW (E.
D. Edwards pers. comm.) and has been
designated Endoxyla sp. ANIC 20 by
BOLDSystems (Barcode of Life Data)
based on molecular data. Nothing is
known of the ecology of this species
(P. Marriott, pers. comm.).
During preparation of this work, Dr
Catherine Byrne (Senor Curator of
Zoology, 'lasmanian Museum and
Art Gallery- TIMAG) brought to the
attention of the first author two
unusual male Erndoxy/a specimens in
the TMAG collection (Plates 5 and
6). The specimen in Plate 5 (IMAG
Registration No. F8248) was collected at
a mercury-vapour light at Mt Strezlecki,
Flinders Island, eastern Bass Strait in
March, 2014. The specimen in Plate 6
(IMAG Registration No. F29380) was
22
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Plate 4. Male of undescribed Endoxyla sp. from Three Hummock Island, western Bass Strait
(QVM: 2019:12:1271). Wingspan 56mm. Photograph: D. Maynard.
Plate 5. Male of undescribed Endoxyla sp. from Flinders Island (TMAG Reg. No. F8248).
Wingspan 60mm. Photograph: Diane Moyle (TMAG).
i
Plate 6. Male of undescribed Endoxyla sp. from Southport, Tasmania (TMAG Reg. No. F29380).
Wingspan 70mm. Photograph: Diane Moyle (TMAG).
23
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
taken in a bucket light trap set at
Southport Lagoon, south-east Tasmania
in February 2016.
After examining a series of specimens
available in ANIC, E. D. Edwards (pers.
comm.) suggests that the specimens in
Plates 4-6 appear to represent a single
widespread and variable species. Some
regional variants in Victoria appear to be
consistently paler, darker and/or larger
and confined to specific habitat types (P.
Marriott, pers. comm.) This widespread
moth may yet prove to be a complex of
closely related taxa and highlichts the
taxonomic difficulties currently involved
in this group.
Discussion
The insect fauna of North West Tasmania
and the Bass Strait islands is poorly
documented. Since 2015 QVMAG has
focussed collecting efforts in western
Tasmania, islands in the
Hunter Group, and King Island and has
documented a wide range of new (to
including
Tasmania) or poorly known species (e.g.
Maynard & Fearn 2018, 2019; Maynard et
al. 2019; Fearn & Maynard 2019a,b). Some
insects, including Endoxy/a, appear to be
restricted to the islands, and absent from
mainland ‘Tasmania. This may be linked
to the biogeographic history and a unique
climate of the islands (Maynard & Fearn
2018). It is possible that other Exndoxyla
species exist in Bass Strait and have avoided
detection due to low sampling effort.
The moth fauna of mainland ‘Tasmania is
better known than that of the Bass Strait
islands, and until recently E. Zizratuswas the
only member of the genus documented.
Molecular data indicates that Erndoxy/a
moths currently accepted as Zumus
occurring across eastern and southern
Australia may represent a complex of
species (P. Marriott, pers. comm.). It
appears that specimens from Sydney to
Queensland form one group, those from
Victoría and “Tasmania a second group
and those from Western Australia a third
group. Until this is resolved we suggest
that all large wattle goat moths in Tasmania
be referred to as Endoxyla hturatus. Clearly,
there is great scope for taxonomic and
studies to define species
boundaries and distributions in this group.
molecular
Finally, the early literature on Endoxyla
moths is difficult to interpret because
of misidentifications and name changes.
New
accurately labelled voucher specimens
collections of unworn and
are vital for future research in this group.
In particular, rearing these moths from
billets of identified host trees and shrubs
will be crucial in identifying species, their
distribution and biology. Ideally, examples
of host plants, split billets revealing bores
and the moths themselves should be cross-
referenced and deposited at appropriate
institutions. Once host trees and larval
bores can be reliably identified 1n the field,
larvae and pupae can be collected and
preserved. It 1s also 1mportant to retain
pupal exuviae and cross-reference or
stage these with reared moth specimens.
In the absence of adult moths, reliably
identified pupal exuviae can be used to
confirm a species” presence during field
surveys, where pupal sheaths can be
found protruding from emergence holes
sometimes for months after the moth
has eclosed.
24
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the QVMAG Friends for their
financial support of fieldwork to King
Island. Also, thanks to David Brewster
and Sally Jones for assistance with
transport and logistics while on King
Island, and to Ted Edwards (ANIC) and
the editors of The Tasmanian Naturalist
for reviewing this paper. Special thanks
to the crew of Sooty Petrel, Leslie and
Peter Wells,
for supporting field work on Three
and Dianne Maynard
Hummock and Hunter Islands. Sincere
thanks to all the curators who kindly
gave up their time to check collections
for specimens of Endoxy/la-Catherine
Byrne (IMAG), Jamie Davies and
Guy Westmore (Biosecurity lasmania,
Department of Primary Industries,
Water and Environment) and Ted
Edwards (ANIC). Sincere thanks also to
Peter Marriott for sharing his extensive
knowledge on these moths.
Invertebrates were collected on Three
Hummock and King Islands under
Department of Primary Industries,
Parks, Water and
Permit Authority Nos.
17100 and 18151.
Environment
FA 16141,
References
Atlas
Endoxyla hteratus (Donovan,
Accessed 21 May 2019.
of Living Australia (20192).
1505).
--- (2019b). Endoxyla encalypti Herrich-
Schaffer, 1854. Accessed 21 May 2019.
--- (2019c). Endoxyla secta T.P. Lucas,
1898. Accessed 21 May 2019.
Common, IFB. (1990). Moths of
Australia, Melbourne University Press,
Collingwood, Victoria.
Daley, E. (2007). Wings: An introduction
to Tasmania's winged insects, Riffles Pty.
Ltd., Buckland, Tasmania.
Dodd, E P. (1916). Notes on the great
Australian Cossidae in Oberthur, C.
(ed.), Etudes Lepidopterologie Comparee,
Fascicule. XI, 33-37.
Elhott, H.J. and deLittle, DW. (n.d.).
Insect pests of trees and timber in Tasmania.
Forestry Commission ‘Tasmania,
Hobart.
Evans, JW. (1943). Insect pests and their
control. Department of Agriculture,
Hobart.
Fearn, S. (1985). Life history and habits
of the wood moth Xykutes liturata
Don. (Lepidoptera: Cossidae) in
Tasmania, Australian Entomological
Magazine 12 no. 3-4: 63-68.
Fearn, S. & Maynard, D. (2019).
Ecological Achthosus
westwoodi (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae:
Ulomini) from King Island and a
successional relationship with Toxeutes
notes on
arctuatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae:
Prioninae) in Pinus radiata logs,
Tasmanian Naturalist, 141: in press.
Fearn, S. & Maynard, D. (2019). New
Tasmanian records for the little
known carab beetle Notonomus
(Leidera) sphodroides (Carabidae:
Ptersostichinae). Tasmanian Naturalist,
141: in press.
25
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Harrison, J.E., Kaiser, A. & VandenBrooks,
J.M. (2010). Atmospheric oxygen level
and the evolution of insect body
size. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B 277: 1937-1946. DOI: 10.1098/
rspb.2010.0001
Littler, KM. (1904). Note on Zeuzera
eucalypti. Entomologíst (London) 37: 114.
Maynard, D. & Fearn, S. (2018).
First Tasmanian Record in 80
years: Achthosus westwoodi Pascoe,
1863 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae:
Ulomini) from Three Hummock
Island, Western Bass Strait with
ecological notes. Tasmanian Naturalist
140:147-155.
Maynard, D. & Fearn, S. (2019). The first
record of the stout tinzeda T7nzeda
albosignata (Brunner von Wattenwyl,
1878) (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) in
Tasmania. Tasmanian Naturalist 141: in
press.
Maynard, D., Fearn, S. & de Keyzer, R.
(2019). Rediscovery of the endemic
Tasmanian stag beetle — LZssofes
crenatus (Scarabaeoidea: Lucanidae:
Lucaninae): collection history,
distribution and ecological notes.
Records of the Queen Victoria Museum and
Art Gallery, no. 119.
McInnes, R.S. & Carne, P.B. (1978),
Predation of cossid moth larvae
by yelow-tailed black
causing losses in plantations of
cockatoos
Eucalyptus grandis in north coastal
New South Wales. Australian Wildlife
Research 5: 101-21.
Monteith, G. (1991a). The life and times
of the gant wood moth. Wildlife
Australia Autumn 1991: 8-10.
Monteith, G. (1991b). Look who's
emerging: The birth of a giant
wood moth. Izd/fe Australia Winter
1991: 19.
Nielsen, E.S. £ Common, LEB. (1991).
(eds.) Moths and butterflies. In The
insects of Australia: A textbook for students
and research workers, vol. 2, Melbourne
University Press: 817-915.
Schoord, JW. (1990). A phylogenetic
study on Cossidae (Lepidoptera:
Ditrysia) based on external adult
morphology. Zoologische Verhandelingen,
263: 1-295.
Semmens, T.D., McQuillan, PB. &
Hayhurst, G. (1992). Catalogue of the
insects of Tasmania. Department of
Primary Industry, Tasmania, 104 pp.
Simpson, K.N.G. (1972). Feeding of the
yellow-tailed black cockatoo on cossid
moth larvae inhabiting Acacia species.
Victorian Naturalist, 89: 32-40.
Tindale, N.B. (1953), On some Australian
Cossidae including the moth of the
witjuti (witchety) grub. Transactions of
the Royal Society of South Australia 16:
56-65.
Zborowski, P. & Edwards, T. (2007).
A guide to Australian moths. CSIRO
Publishing, Collingwood.
26
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Notes on the ecology of the Tasmanian alpine
cockroach Polyzosteria sp. Burmeister, 1838
(Blattodea: Polyzosteriinae) including parasitism by
Gordian worms (Nematomorpha: Gordioida)
Karen Richards & Chris P. Spencer
141 Valley Road, Collinsvale 7012
spenric@gmail.com
1838
Australian genus of apterous, diurnal,
Pohzostera Burmeister, is an
basking cockroaches occupying alpine
and coastal heathands, as well as arid
habitats and eucalypt woodland in
all states except Queensland and the
Northern Territory (Rentz 2014). Though
not as brightly coloured as some of its
mainland counterparts, the Tasmanian
alpine cockroach (hereafter referred to as
Polyzosteria sp.) 1s nevertheless attractive.
As yet undescribed, it is thought to be
closely allied to the mainland species
the Victorian High
occurring in
Country, (Spencer & Richards 2012); a
description of the species is expected
(Shasta Henry
Plate 1. Polyzosteria sp. ootheca.
pers. comm.). This Tasmanian species
mates between August and December
and after 26 days the female produces
the first of as many as four oothecae
(Plate 1), which average 18 x 7 mm,
possess up to 30 serrations, are dark
brown in colour and shiny. Oothecae
are produced at approximately 8-day
intervals and are frequently shallowly
buried in sandy soil but may also be
dropped amongst foliage or concealed
beneath ground debris; some are
carried for several days, while others are
dropped immediately upon hardening.
Hatching occurs at around 60 days
27
Plate 2. Emerging Polyzosteria sp. nymphs.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
when up to 30 pale, flea-like nymphs
emerge en masse (Plate 2), although
often not all eges are successful. After
3 hours the darkened nymphs resemble
miniature adults, measuring 8 mm in
length. The first ecdysis usually occurs
after 33 days, but there 1s much variation
between individuals, some taking up to
two months to undergo the primary
moult. Juvenile Po/yzosteria sp. progress
through a minimum of 6 instars, with
most attaining adult proportions and
sexual maturity within one year. The life
expectancy is unknown but a captive-
bred male is currently in its fourth year.
Polyzosteria sp. is sexually dimorphic,
females being the larger (up to 35 x
20 mm). The most reliable character
differentiating males from females is the
shape of the last, 10" tergite, which in
males is dorsally flat, while in females
this segment has an obvious medial
peak into which the ootheca securely
fits (Plate 3). Both sexes possess paired
cerci on the abdominal apex, but a pair
of styles proximal to the cerci and a
small oblong brush-like structure on
the medial anterior margin of tergite 1
are features of the males (Plate 4a, b).
Usually concealed by the metanotum,
Plate 3. Female Polyzosteria sp. carrying
ootheca.
Plate 4b. 10% abdominal tergite, displaying
cerci and styles.
the latter structure becomes visible
when the animal arches its body; while
the purpose of the feature is not
confirmed, it has been assumed to be
an evaporation organ for hormone
(Mackerras 1965). When
alarmed both sexes exhibit a remarkable
secretions
defensive posture involving the eversion
of the bright orange anogenital region
28
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
(Plate 5), sometimes accompanied by the
discharge of a pungent fluid; however,
this posturing diminishes in captive
specimens as they become habituated to
human activity.
Cockroaches
to
have been reported
chemical
(pheromone), visual, and less frequently,
communicate through
acoustic means in order to attract
mates or signal disturbance (Roth &
Hartman 1967; Schal et al 1984; Rentz
2014, 2017). Rentz (2017) reported
that both P. mitchelli Angas, 1947 and
Mezazosteria patula Walker, 1868 emit
low scratching sounds by stridulation
when roughly handled, produced by
rubbing the thoracic segments, under
which there are a series of minute pegs,
against a transverse ridge on the upper
surface of the following segment. The
authors have occasionally detected faint
stridulations produced by Po/yzosteria sp.,
barely audible by ear; this is clearly heard
with the aid of a stethoscope placed
against the aquarium wall. The sound
produced by Po/yrosteria sp. 1s reminiscent
of rapidly scraping a fingernail along the
fine teeth of a comb, each stridulation
lasting 0.8-1 second and produced at
approx. 8-10 second intervals. Roth &
Hartman (1967) reported stridulation
by both sexes in multiple cockroach
species; however, the authors have
only positively identified stridulation
emitted by a female Po/yzosterza sp. at rest
and basking in sunlight. Microscopic
examination of the prothoracic and
mesothoracic segments of Po/yyostera
sp. identified stridulatory features similar
to those described by Rentz (2017) on
both sexes.
Polyzosteria sp. are energetic climbers
and spend much of their time basking
arboreally, both the wild and
captivity. Activity declines in the colder
months when the cockroaches seek
in
shelter beneath ground debris or logs,
becoming torpid and emerging only
on exceptionally warm days, when
they may drink and feed. While the
Plate 5. Full threat display of male Polyzosteria sp.
29
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Tasmanian Polyzosteria sp. may consume
food communally, individuals generally
show a tendency for a solitary existence.
Their natural diet is unknown, but
captive specimens consume a variety
of food items including dried apple,
banana, honey and goldfish food flakes;
they occasionally relish boiled chicken,
while water on the foliage and ground
debris is also regularly ingested. As
reported for other cockroach species,
the shed exuviae are usually eaten,
both as a means of recycling nutrients
and perhaps assisting in inflating the
gut of the recently emerged nymph
(Rentz 2014).
Over a period of four years the authors
have recorded two mass death events of
Polysosteria sp. along the shorelines in the
Lake Augusta area. The first observation
was in February 2016, when 28 dead
ot dying PoJyzosterra sp., including three
juveniles, were located along the water's
edge, dispersed sporadicaly over a
distance of 200 m. While most were
dead, seven live individuals, all displaying
defensive posturing, were found; these
were returned to the vegetation belt
some 30-40 m distant. Although many
were still fully articulated, the corpses
exhibited variable levels
suggesting an accumulation over time.
of decay,
The 2016 summer was particularly dry
and the lake level had greatly receded;
the weather conditions on the day were a
sunny 20°C. The event led us to speculate
that the animals may have been drawn to
the water to drink; however, substantial
rain had fallen two days previously, so
this scenario seemed unlikely, at least for
the living specimens. Therefore a second
visit to the site was undertaken in March
to determine whether further deaths had
occurred, but no additional Polyzosteria
were located.
The following summer we returned to
the shoreline to continue the quest for
stranded cockroaches, but extensive
searching on two occasions failed
to locate a single individual. What
we did find, however, were two live
Gordian worms in a rock pool on the
edge of the lake. These were collected
and later determined to be male and
female based on the shape of the
posterior end, which was bi-lobed in
the male but rounded on the female;
a useful character differentiating the
sexes of many Gordian worm species
(Schmidt-Rhaesa 2013). The discovery
of the Gordian worms led us to consider
the possibility that parasites could be
the cause of the Po/yzosteria sp. deaths,
as other cockroaches are known to be
hosts to these parasites; interestingly
though, no dead Poe/ysosfera sp. were
present. We had retained the previously
collected cockroach corpses, and upon
dissection, found the body cavities of
some to be completely empty and the
anal region ruptured, suggesting they
may have been parasitised.
In 2018 we conducted further surveys
of the site in search of deceased
and Gordian
however, failed to locate either species
cockroaches worms,
at the water’s edge, though many
Pohzosteria sp. were present in the
surrounding dunes and vegetation, but
the only other dead specimens found
were road-kill. We began to think that
the original observation might have
30
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
been an oddity and would never re-
occur; but persistence prevailed. Finally,
in February 2019, while a search of
the same strandline of Lake Augusta
again failed to locate Polyzosterra sp., an
expanded survey involving the shore
of Carter Lake turned up 13 dead and
3 living Polysosteria sp., all within a 120
m section along the northern end of the
lake; none were recorded away from the
lake. All individuals were removed to
Plate 6a. Polyzosteria sp. adult with parasite.
Extruded Gordian worm with host.
determine whether further specimens
would appear overnight.
At 2050 h a female Po/ysosteria sp.
trundled past our campsite heading for
the lake, 20 m distant, and at 0730 h the
following morning a further 4 dead and
2 ltve adult cockroaches were discovered
on the shoreline.
To test the parasite hypothesis, the
live animals were retained in a plastic
container with a little water and twigs
to cling to. The cockroaches were
observed over a period of five hours,
but no great changes, other than erratic
behaviour and apparent loss of faculties
(walking in circles, lack of co-ordination
and agitated antennation) in some were
recorded. The following morning a
fully extruded female Gordian worm,
470 mm 1n length, had emerged from
the anus of a now dead cockroach
(Plate 6a). Dissection of a second
Plate 6b. Dissected Polyzosteria sp. containing dead Gordian worm.
31
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
deceased individual revealed a dead
female Gordian worm inside (Plate 6b).
“Gordian worms” (Nematomopha:
Gordioida), commonly called horsehair
worms, belong to a large group
containing approximately 350 spp. The
oldest definite fossil remains come
from Dominican amber up to 45
m.y.o. containing two Gordian worms
and the cockroach host (Schmidt-
Rhaesa 2013). Gordioida have a four-
stage life cycle: egg, pre-parasitic larva,
parasitic juvenile developing within an
invertebrate host and free living aquatic
adult. The cylindrical adult worms are
unsegmented, yellow to dark brown
in colour, with a cuticle either smooth
ot ornamented by areoles. The adults
emerge from the hosts in summer, and
following successful mating, females
produce eggs many thousands at a
time in strings of mucus; neither sex
consumes food as adults and they die
shortly after breeding. Egg hatching 1s
temperature-regulated, taking from 13
to 30 days. The microscopic larvae need
to find a host within two weeks, but
some species are able to encyst near the
waters edge on vegetation or another
suitable surface and can survive up to
seven months (Schmidt-Rhaesa 2013).
Larvae or cysts are frequently eaten
by invertebrate hosts and occasionally
When
appropriate animal, the larva excysts,
vertebrates. eaten by an
boring through the host intestine and
into the body cavity where it absorbs
food directly through its body wall.
About three months after the host 1s
parasitised the adult gordtid has become
a tightly coiled mass within the host’s
body cavity. It has been suggested that
the host is impelled to seek out water,
but while tests conducted by Thomas
et al. (2002) clearly indicate infected
crickets were more likely to jump into
water than non-infected ones, there
was no evidence of long-distance water
detection behaviour. Rather, they suggest
that the erratic behaviour of the host is
likely to inadvertently bring the host near
water, after which ‘a behavioural change’
drives the host to enter water, where the
adult worm breaks out (often through
the anal region) to become free-living.
Gordian worms are known to parasitise
a wide variety of hosts, but specialise in
arthropods including, amongst others,
millipedes (Baker 1985), crickets and
beetles (Looney et al. 2012) and praying
mantids (Schmidt-Rhaesa & Ehrmann
2001). An exhaustive list of hosts, both
juvenile and adult, is given in Schmidt-
Rhaesa (2013). The present authors have
recorded hosts including animals that do
not normally go to water such as larval
Oxycanus dirempta Walker, 1865 (swift
moth), larval IL zssofes sp. Westwood, 1855
(stag beetle) and Ommatoiulus moreku
1860 (Portuguese millipede)
as well as hatching one from another
Lucas,
small Tasmanian cockroach, possibly
While the
observation of Gordian worms infesting
an Ectobtinae species.
‘cockroaches’ reported here is not new,
since Rentz (2014 has noted such
parasitism in a range of cockroaches, it is
the first positive record from Polyzosteria
sp. in Tasmania, as well as being the first
report of mass death events associated
with Gordian worm parasitism.
32
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
References
Baker, G.H. (1985). Parasites of the
muillipede Ommatoiulus moreltu (Lucas)
(Diplopoda: Julidae) in Portugal, and
their potential as a biological control
agent in Australia. Australian Journal of
Zoology 334: 23—32.
Looney, C., Hanelt, B. & Zack, R.S.
(2012). Newrecords of Nematomorph
parasites (Nematomorpha: Gordiida)
of ground beetles (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) and camel crickets
(Orthoptera: Rhaphidophoridae) in
Washington State. Journal of Parasitology
98: 554—559.
Mackerras, M.J. (1965). Australian
Blattidae (Blattodea) I General
remarks and revision of the genus
Pobyzosteria Burmeister. Australian
Journal of. Zoology 13: 841—882.
Rentz, D. (2014. A Guide to the
Cockroaches of Austraha. CSIRO
Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.
Rentz, D. (2017). Sound production in
an Australian cockroach, Megazosteria
patula (Walker) (Blattodea: Blattidae:
4231:
Polyzosteriinae). Zootaxa
567—568.
Roth, L.M. & Hartman, H.B. (1967).
Sound production and its evolutionary
significance in Blattaria. Annals of
the Entomological Society of America 60:
740-750.
Schal, C., Gautier, J.-Y. & Bell, WJ. (1984).
Behavioural ecology of cockroaches.
Brological Review 59: 209—254.
Schmidt-Rhaesa, A. (2013) (Ed).
Handbook of Zoology. Gastrotricha,
Cycloneuralia and Gnathifera. Volume 1:
Nematomorpha, Priapulida, Kinorhyncha,
Loricifera. Walter de Gruyter GmbH,
Berlin/Boston.
A. & Ehrmann,
Horsehair
parasites of
Schmit-Rhaesa,
R. (2001).
(Nematomorpha) as
praying mantids with discussion of
worms
their life cycle. Zoologischer Anzeiger
240: 167—179.
Spencer, C. P. & Richards, K. (2012).
On the Po/yzosterza trail — a cockroach
of the Tasmanian high country. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 134: 24-20.
Thomas, E, Schmidt-Rhaesa, A.,
Martin, G., Manu, C., Durand, P. €
Renaud, E (2002). Do hairworms
(Nematomorpha) manipulate the
water seeking behaviour of their
terrestrial hosts? Journal of Evolutionary
Biology 15: 356-361.
33
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
34
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Caladenia atrochila D.L.Jones (darkheart fingers)
goes south
Mark Wapstra
Environmental Consulting Options Tasmania,
28 Suncrest Avenue, Lenah Valley, Tasmania 7008
mark@ecotas.com.au
Abstract
A new location for Caladenia atrochila D.L.Jones is described, which extends
the geographic range of the species by 343 km. Hitherto only known from
the far northwest coast of ‘Tasmania, the species is now reported from a small
population on the Tasman Peninsula.
Introduction
Caladenia atrochila D.L.Jones
described in Jones (1998) as a suite of
newly recognised taxa in Caladenta R.Br.
Was
from ‘Tasmania. The species is most
easily differentiated from other species
of the small-flowered Caladenia by the
broad dark crimson bars on the labellum
and column, which coalesce to give the
flower a dark crimson centre (Jones
1998; Jones et al. 1999), hence darkheart
fingers (Wapstra et al. 2005; Wapstra et
al. 2010).
The species was only discovered and
collected in 1997 by Hans and Annie
Wapstra, Scrub
(location of type specimen), south of
Arthur River, on the State's north-west
coast and from nearby Black Bull Scrub
from Callaghans
35
and at the Rebecca Creek crossing. At
the time, the distribution and habitat
of the spectes was described as coastal
and near-coastal sites in Eucalyptus obliqua
(stringybark) woodland (sometimes
taller forest) with a heathy and scrubby
understorey dominated by Leptospermum
(teatree) species and Bauera rubioides
(bauera) 1n sandy loam and red clay loam
at elevations of approximately 50 m a.s.l.
Until recently, Caladenia atrochila was
thought to be restricted to a relatively
of the
coast (Figure 1) but in 2008, a range
short section north-west
extension (approximately 60 km) to
Three Hummock Island was made
(Figure 1). The present short note
reports on a more significant range
extension for the species.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
a
343 km
>
Figure 1. Distribution of Caladenia atrochila, with the 2008 range extension to Three
Hummock Island and the 2018 range extension to the Tasman Peninsula circled and
arrowed [source: Natural Values Atlas, 30 Jun. 2019]
Observation
As part of annual monitoring of the
response of threatened (and other)
vascular flora to different activities
associated with the Three Capes Track
on the lasman Peninsula, the author
heathland
subject to prescribed burns in the vicinity
examined woodland and
of Retakunna Hut. A small area north
of the hut zone (between the huts and
the helipad) was subject to a relatively
low intensity fire on 23 October 2015
(referred to as the Retakunna TNP4AP
planned burn and noted as an “edge burn
around hut). The area burnt supported
low eucalypt woodland dominated by
36
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Eucalyptus tenuramis (silver peppermint)
with some Emahptus obliqua over a
low shrubby/heathy understorey with
exposed dolente rock and shallow
sandy loam soils. Within this burnt
area, a small patch (c. 20+ individuals in
c. 5 m diameter area) of. Caladenia atrochila
was detected on 15 November 2018.
While the site is at a higher elevation
(c. 235 m a.sl) than most sites in the
northwest and on a different substrate
(i.e. dolerite), the habitat of this novel
site (Plate 1) is superficially very similar
to the previously understood habitat in
northwest Tasmania (Plate 2).
Discussion
Extension of geographic range
The detection of Caladenia atrochila
from the Tasman Peninsula represents
a range extension of 343 km, which is
considered significant in the context
of the hitherto understood range of
the species. Prior to the detection
of the species on Three Hummock
Island, it was known only from the
Arthur-Pieman Area,
with a linear extent of approximately
30 km (DPIPWE 2019). This 1s highly
suggestive of the likelihood of further
range extensions and/or range infillings.
In fact, Jones et al. (1999) suggested
that it ‘probably occurs elsewhere in
Conservation
western coastal areas’. The species may
be self-pollinatine (unconfirmed) and
the flowers only open for a few days
in October and November (Wapstra
2018),
often serendipitous event (‘right place,
right time’).
which makes detection an
There are several other Tasmanian
vascular plant species with a distribution
that is predominantly on the west coast
but with limited extensions to the
southeast. For example, Euchiton ltticola
is virtually restricted to the west and
south coast of Tasmania, but extends to
a single site at Dolomieu Point on the
Tasman Peninsula (Buchanan 1999),
Tasman Island and a single site (Deep
Glen Bay) on the eastern side of the
Forestier Peninsula. Similarly, Ranunculus
acaulis is virtually restricted to the west
and northwest coast (Menadue &
Crowden 1989) but just extends to the
south coast, as far east as New River
Lagoon/Prion Bay.
Superficially, much of the woodland
subject to prescribed burns around
Surveyors Hut (western fringes of
Tunah Plains) and Retakunna Hut
(northeastern extension of Ellarwey
Valley) on the Tasman Peninsula is
suitable for Caladenia atrochila. That it
has escaped detection in this part of the
state indicates that it may have localised
occurrences only and/or only flowers
in response to particular disturbance
It is notable that since the
prescribed burns in the aforementioned
events.
areas, other species of orchid previously
not reported (or only previously
reported)
Tasman Peninsula have also “appeared”
infrequently from the
including Burnettia cuneata (izard orchid),
Corunastylis pumila (green midge-orchid)
and Caladenia pusilla (tiny fingers), the
latter also a species with a predominantly
northwestern-northern Tasmanian
distribution (Jones et al. 1999).
37
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
ENS Y o E i> i E T MT Aa, "3 m
Plate 1. Habitat of Caladenia atrochila (insets) near Retakunna Hut, Three Capes Track,
Tasman National Park. Photograph: M. Wapstra, 15 Nov. 2018.
3 a EA ET A s SRS 1 EE ICI ee TS
Plate 2. Habitat of Caladenia atrochila (inset) at Black Bull Scrub, Arthur-Pieman
Conservation Area. Photograph: M. Wapstra, 30 Oct. 2008.
38
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Reservation status
Jones etal. (1999) indicated that Caladenza
atrochila was not represented 1n reserves,
although this perhaps downplayed
the fact that at that time, virtually all
known sites were from the Arthur-
Pieman Conservation Area. The range
extensions in 2008 and 2018 add the
Three Hummock Island State Reserve
and Tasman National Park, respectively,
to the list of reserves from which the
species has been recorded.
Conservation status
At the time of description, Jones (1998)
described the conservation status of
Caladenia atrochila as ‘poorly known and
easily overlooked; suggest 2K by the
criteria of Briges & Leigh (1996), which
indicated a species with a geographic
range of less than 100 km (“2”) that is
poorly known (“K”). The species has
never been, to my knowledge, considered
for listing on either the Tasmanian
Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 or the
Commonwealth Exvronment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Evidence is mounting that this endemic
spectes 1s highly localised and of overall
low population abundance. However,
there are limited threats to the species
identified, with it apparently responding
well to fire (e.g; 1n the Arthur-Pieman
area (Jones et al. 1999) and more recently
on the lasman Peninsula) and minor
disturbance (e.g. it grows along old
forest/woodland tracks). In addition, it
is well reserved. At present, there may be
insufficient evidence to recommend the
species for listing under the Tasmanian
Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
due to lack of firm information on
population demographics. A “watching
brief” on the species is considered
prudent. Longer-term monitoring of
known sites and extension surveys
aimed at elucidating its local distribution
is likely to yield the information required
to consider the criteria under the
Guidelines for E:hgtbihty for Listing under the
Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
(DPIW 2008).
Acknowledgements
Craig Broadfield and Stephen Harris
are thanked for critically reviewing the
manuscript. Ben Clark and Nick Clark
(Parks & Wildlife Service) also provided
comments on an earlier draft.
References
Buchanan, A.M. (1999). A new species
of Euchiton (Gnaphalicae: Asteraceae)
from southern Tasmania, Australia.
Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society
of Tasmania 133(1): 115-116.
DPIW (Department of Primary
Industries & Water) (2008). Guidelines
for EBgbukty for Lasting under the
Threatened ^ Species
Act 1995. Department of Primaty
Industries & Water, Hobart.
Protection
DPIPWE (Department of Primary
Parks, Water &
(2019). Natural
Observations Search.
xlsx
Industries,
Environment)
Values Atlas
(downloaded
30 June 2019).
worksheet
39
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Jones, D.L. (1998) A taxonomic review
of Caladenia R.Br. in Tasmania.
Australian Orchid Research 3: 16-60.
Jones, D., Wapstra, H., Tonelli, P. &
Harris, S. (1999). The Orchids of
Tasmania. The Miegunyah Press
at Melbourne University Press,
Carlton South.
Menadue, Y. & Crowden, R.K. (1989).
‘Tasmanian species of Ranunculus — a
new key. Papers and Proceedings of the
Royal Society of Tasmania 123: 87-96.
Wapstra, M. (2018). Flowering Times of
Tasmanian Orchids: A Practical Guide
for Field Botanists. Self-published by
the author (Fourth Edition, July 2018
version).
Wapstra, M., Wapstra, H. & Wapstra,
A. (2010). Tasmanian Plant Names
Unravelled. Fullers Publishing with the
Wapstra Family, Launceston.
Wapstra, H., Wapstra, A., Wapstra, M.
& Gilfedder, L. (2005). The Lzttle Book
of Common Names for Tasmanian Plants.
Department of Primary Industries,
Water and Environment, Tasmania.
40
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Changes in Taroona bird species occurrences
1986-2019
Mick Brown ' & Peter Vaughan?
mickjbrown1@outlook.com
pvshodan@gmail.com
Introduction
Taroona is a township in the north of
the Kingborough municipality and 1s
part of greater Hobart.
In 1988, the Taroona Historical Group
published a book about ‘Taroona’s
history from 1808 to 1986 (laroona
Historical Group 1988). The book
included a chapter on Natural History,
including an account of the fauna by
Hans and Jolanda Naarding (1988).
This article contained a list of birds and
their status in Taroona, rating the birds
as common, uncommon or rare, and
whether they were vagrant or known
to be breeding. We were interested to
observe whether there had been much
change in the number of species and
their status over the past three decades,
given the changes in status of birds
observed in “Tasmania more generally
over that period.
The suburb has
pockets of native vegetation across a
maintained many
range of habitat types, and also has many
long-established gardens
plants favoured by birds. The native
vegetation has been described by Brown
(1988) and includes coastal vegetation
and dry sclerophyll which is dominated
by Excabyptus pulchella on Jurassic dolerite
ridges and sunny aspects, and E.
cultivating
tenuiramis on Permian mudstones. E.
globulus predominates along the coast
and immediate hinterland, on back
slopes and in gullies of wet sclerophyll,
having secondary trees and/or shrubby
The drest
fire-affected ridges and slopes bear
broadleaf understoreys.
Allocasuarina verticillata low forest. There
has been some reduction in the total
amount of native vegetation within
laroona in the past 33 years. This is
predominantly due to new housing
although these
mainly occurred in adjacent areas, for
example around Bonnet Hill. If the bird
community composition 1s related to the
sub-divisions, have
composition and diversity of vegetation
then we would expect bird diversity to
broadly remain the same, unless other
factors ate operating.
41
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
We have an ongoing interest in the
birds to be seen in Taroona, and whilst
we have undertaken this study out of
personal interest, we feel it may be of
interest to other bird enthusiasts in the
suburb as well as more broadly.
Methods
We have used the list of birds in
Taroona from H&J Naarding (1988) as
the basis for comparison with today’s
avifauna in the same area. The updates
and amendments are drawn from our
own observations, and from personal
communications, together with reports
in the literature, the most recent eBird
list (eBird 2019), the Atlas of Living
Australia (ALA 2019) and reliable
records /photographs
media sites such as the ‘Tasmanian Bird
from social
Sightings and Photography Facebook
Group and the ‘Tasmanian Field
Naturalists Facebook Group.
Results and Discussion
Species composition
A composite list of the birds observed
in Taroona from all canvassed sources is
presented in Table 1. The species order
follows that used by DPIPWE (2019a),
with introduced species being listed
at the bottom of the table. The table
contains 107 species, 97 of which are
native Tasmanian birds and 10 of which
are introduced. H&J Naarding (1988) list
72 bird species as occurring in Taroona,
whilst the more recent e-Bird list which
includes birds from 2000 to 2018 has
76 species, or 77 if Mallard is included
(Table 1). There are 105 bird species
observed either from our own records
ot from those of other observers in the
past two yeats.
Species that have disappeared or
declined
H&J Naarding (1988) reports the
Spotted Quail-thrush (Plate 1) as being
common and breeding, but there are
no more recent records of this species.
It was quite commonly seen in the
forest verges above Atunga Street by
the Naardings (Hans Naarding pets.
comm.) in the 1980s. There are only
seven records for the Spotted Quail-
thrush in the greater Hobart area in the
ALA database, and they all predate the
1988 publication. It is now mainly found
in eastern lasmanian dry forests and
woodlands, for example near Buckland
and in the Douglas-Apsley and Freycinet
National Parks. The authors list the
Common Diving Petrel (Plate 2) as
being sometimes observed ‘skimming
close to the waves, fairly far out in the
river” when the water is very rough.
The only record of this species in the
Derwent River in the databases is from
1988. There are no more recent records
of this species from Taroona.
No other species appear to have
disappeared from laroona, but the
status of some other species has
changed markedly. The Swift Parrot
is dealt with below. The Horsfields
Bronze-cuckoo was recorded as
common and breeding, but now appears
to be rare. This is surprising, given the
abundance within Taroona of the host
species it parasitises, mainly Superb
Fatry-wrens and Thornbills. It may be
that its reported earlier abundance is due
42
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
— a
Plate 2. Common Diving-Petrel from Eagle Hawk Neck pelagic trip. Photograph Peter Vaughan.
43
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
to misidentification, as the 1988 report
does not record the Shining Bronze-
cuckoo, a species which has been
recorded many times since. The Flame
Robin is recorded in the 1988 report
as being a ‘common vagrant’, but while
there are plentiful records in adjacent
areas of Hobart and Kingborough,
there are few more recent records of
this species in Taroona.
Species that were not reported in 1988
There are a number of species not
reported in the 1988 report, but which
are now commonly observed 1n Taroona,
including three native Australian species
thought to be introduced. Rainbow
Lorikeets are a potentially invasive pest
DPIPWE (2019c). There is a large
established colony in Kingston which
has arisen from aviary escapes, and these
birds are spreading north to Taroona.
Galahs have self-introduced along the
north coast of Tasmania, but southern
populations may be aviary escapes.
They are now common and widespread
throughout Tasmania in urban and
peri-urban areas, including Taroona.
Populations of Long-Biled Corellas
are also thought to have been founded
originally from aviary escapes, and there
are active flocks in Lower Sandy Bay
and in Kingston. They are frequently
observed flying over Taroona. The
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo is a native
Tasmanian species. It was not recorded
in the 1988 account, but is now very
commonly seen and heard.
The Spotted Dove, a native of eastern
Asia, was not recorded previously, but is
now ubiquitous.
Some previously unrecorded waterfowl
species have been observed in habitats
such as dams occurring on private
land, which would not have been
accessible to the authors of the 1988
report. These include the Black Swan,
Mallard, Australasian Grebe, Hoary-
headed Grebe, Pacific Black Duck,
and Australian Wood Duck. The latter
species has also been observed as an
occasional vagrant on Hinsby and
Taroona beaches.
Plate 3. Painted Buttonquail at Taroona. Photograph Peter Vaughan
44
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
There are some species that are resident
and breeding in Taroona, but which
occur in low numbers or are highly
cryptic, and therefore easily missed.
These include the Brown Quail, Painted
Button-quail (Plate 3), ‘Tasmanian
Native Hen, Australian Owlet-nightjar,
Bassian Thrush, Lewins Rail (Plate 4)
and Pink Robtn.
Other more recent observations of
species absent from the earlier list are
of occasional vagrants, migrants, or
non-breeding residents of laroona.
These include Australian Pelican, White-
necked Heron, Wedge-tailed Eagle,
Great Cormorant, Pied Oystercatcher,
Sooty Oystercatcher, Blue-winged
Parrot, Pacific Swift, and White-throated
Needletail. There 1s a single record of
a Little Grassbird in Taroona from
2015, but this has not been confirmed
since. There 1s also a single sighting of
an Azure Kingfisher in the Creek near
Hinsby Beach (Vica Bayley pers. comm.).
Vagrants of this species have been
reported from several locations near to
laroona in recent times, including Snug
River to the south (Els Wakefield pers.
comm.) and from Wielangta to the north
(D. Gunson pers. comm.), therefore this
exciting record is hopefully a harbinger
of future sightings.
The absence of the Grey Currawong
from the early list is somewhat surprising,
since it is now common, and its calls are
heard throughout the suburb. The Noisy
Miner is found in large numbers in Sandy
Bay and Kingston, but is still relatively
rare in Taroona. The introduced Rock
Dove has been recorded since 1988,
but records are few and the species is
not common.
Species that have increased in
abundance
The Laughing Kookaburra was listed
as an uncommon vagrant in 1988 but
is now common and probably breeding
in laroona or its environs. The Little
Wattlebird,
uncommon and breeding, is
previously considered
now
one of the most ubiquitous birds in
suburban areas.
Plate 4. Lewin’s Rail at Taroona. Photograph Peter Vaughan
45
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Significant avifauna
Endemic species
11 of the 12 Tasmanian endemic species
occur in Taroona along with one of the
two breeding endemics, the Swift Parrot.
The Scrubtit 1s the only endemic species
not recorded 1n Taroona thus far.
Threatened species and their
status in Taroona
Seven species listed under threatened
species legislation occur in ‘Taroona.
The information given below about
their threatened status 1s from DPIPWE
(20193) and SPRAT (2019).
Forty-Spotted Pardalote (Plate 5):
This species is listed as Endangered
under both the Threatened Species Protection
Act 1995 and the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Tt 1s
thought to be an occasional vagrant 1n
Plate 5. Forty-spotted and Striated Pardalote
fighting over a nest hollow at Peter Murrell
Reserve. Photograph Mick Brown
Taroona, although there are reports of
colonies having been there 1n the past.
The following information on Forty-
spotted Pardalote residency 1s taken
from SPRAT (2019):
"Iwo small colontes of. Forty-spotted Pardalote
on the lower slopes and gulhes of Mount
Nelson at Taroona, have been difficult to
locate and monitor on a regular basis. When
the location was comprehensively surveyed
in 1995 it was found to have declined to
one colony containing just six birds or three
pairs (Bryant 1297). Ongoing interest by the
landowners has suggested that over time the
species may have become locally extinct on their
property but may still occur in the general area
(J. Paxton, pers. comm. in Bryant 2010).’
There have been occasional recent
sightings of vagrant birds in the past
few years.
Swift Parrot (Plate 6): The Swift Parrot
(Lathamus discolor) is listed as Endangered
under the Tasmanian Threatened Species
Protection Act 1995 and Endangered
on the Commonwealth's Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999. The birds regularly visit Taroona in
Spring-Summer to feed upon the flowers
of E globulus that bloom profusely most
years. Feed trees are widespread in
Taroona, and are especially common
along the foreshore and immediate
hinterland of the
beaches. It was recorded as breeding in
Taroona (H&J Naarding 1988), but there
are no recent breeding records. Bird
Hinsby-Taroona
numbers are known to have suffered a
severe reduction in nearby Mt Nelson
(Hingston 2019), and this seems also to
be the case in Taroona (Simon Grove
pers. comm.)
46
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Grey Goshawk (Plate 7): This species is
listed as Endangered under the Threatened
Species Protection Act 1995. There are
several birds seen regularly in Taroona,
and they may be breeding residents.
White-bellied Sea-eagle: Listed as
Vulnerable under the Threatened Species
Protection Act 1995, single individuals of
this species can often be observed flying
just offshore along the Alum Cliffs, and
along the beaches past laroona High
School to Cartwrights Point and looping
out across the Derwent to the Eastern
shore.
Wedge-tailed Eagle: The subspecies,
Aguila audax flayi, is i
Tasmania. It is the largest Australian
raptor and is listed as Endangered
endemic in
under both Commonwealth and State
Occasional birds can be
observed flying around Taroona.
legislation.
Masked Owl: Tasmania has an endemic
subspecies of this owl, Tyto novaehollandiae
castanops. Itis listed as Endangered under
the Tasmanian legislation and Vulnerable
by he Commonwealth legislation. This
species is occasionally seen in Taroona,
H&J Naarding (1988) thought that it
was possibly breeding here but there are
no known recent records of breeding.
White-throated Needletail: This
species is listed as Vulnerable under the
Commonwealth legislation. The species
1s an international migrant and has been
listed because of an apparent decline
in numbers between 1977-81 and
1998-2002. There ate no listed threats
at the species level, although individual
birds may be at risk from collision
with overhead power lines, windows
and lighthouses (SPRAT 2019). The
species may often be seen in ‘Taroona,
as elsewhere in Tasmania, ahead of
approaching storm clouds foraging
along the edges of low pressure systems
(SPRAT 2019).
Conclusions
The core composition of birds in
Taroona has remained fairly stable over
the past 33 years, but there are some
due to invasions/increases
changes
Plate 6. Swift Parrot at Taroona. Photograph Mick Brown
47
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
in introduced species. There are no
recent sightings of Spotted Quail-
thrush or Common Diving Petrel both
of which were recorded in 1986. The
decline in Taroona of two of our most
threatened species, the Forty-spotted
Pardalote and the Swift Parrot, reflects
the declines exhibited in the broader
Tasmanian landscape.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Vica Bayley, Simon Grove,
Mona Loofs-Samorzewski, Amanda
Thomson and Els Wakefield for
providing comments and/or additional
recent records of species and to Hans
Naarding for his recollections.
References
Atlas of living Australia
Birds — laroona.
August 2019.
(2019).
Accessed on-line,
Brown, M. J. (1988). Flora In: Taroona
1808 -1986 Farmlands to a garden suburb.
Taroona Historical Group, Taroona.
DPIPWE (20193. Threatened Spes and
Communities. Accessed ondine August 2019.
DPIPWE (2019b). Complete Last of
Tasmanian Birds. Accessed on-line
August 2019.
DPIPWE (Q019c). Invasive
Accessed on-line August 2019.
Species.
eBird (2019). Taroona. Accessed on-line
August 2019.
Andrew B.
demise?
years observing the Swift Parrot
Lathamus discolor in suburban Hobart,
Tasmania. Australian Field Ornithology
2019 97-108.
Hingston, (2019).
Documenting Sixteen
Naarding, H&J (1988). Fauna In: Taroona
1808 -1986 Farmlands to a garden suburb.
Taroona Historical Group, Taroona.
Natural Values Atlas (2019). Bzrds,
Taroona. Accessed on-line,
August 2019.
SPRAT (2019). Species Profile and
Threats Database. Accessed on-line
August 2019.
Taroona Historical Group (1988).
Taroona 1808 -1986 Farmlands to a
suburb. 'laroona Historical
Group, Taroona.
garden
Plate 7. Grey Goshawk at Taroona. Photograph Mick Brown
48
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Table 1: Birds observed in Taroona
** threatened species, b breeding, c common, e endemic, r rare, u uncom-
mon, v vagrant, y recorded. *Hans and Jolanda Naading.
Native Species
Australasian grebe
Hoary-headed Grebe
Little Penguin
Short-tailed Shearwater
Common Diving-petrel
Australasian Gannet
Australian Pelican
Black-faced Cormorant
Great Cormorant
Little Pied Cormorant
Little Black Cormorant
White-faced Heron
White-necked Heron
Beksa 0000 0|
E A
Australian Wood Duck
Comed spos (| (wb [y o
Brown Goshawk ub
[Sr Goshavk e [e [y o
Wie bale Serge [5 (m [y [y
Waie [9 | [y
BrownTaleon |
Swamp Harrier
“q
i
| /
n
TAT
l
i
<
Peregrine Falcon
Brown Quail
Painted Button-quail
Tasmanian Native Hen
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Table 1 continued
Temsa
Pelose 0|
Sooty Oystercatcher
Masked Lapwing
Kelp Gull
Silver Gull
Pacific Gull
Great Crested Tern
Common Bronzewing
Brush Bronzewing
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
Galah
Yellow-tailed Black
Cockatoo
Long-Billed Corella
Mtoe a
Samos Ay
eine Paros 00» [Y
Gen ola e e po 0»
:
Horsfields Bronze-cuckoo
Pallid Cuckoo y
Paabo =| — ipea —ás e
b? y
Morepork u
a
<x
<x
O Q
<
il
[
Masked Owl ** ub:
Australian Owlet-nightjar | |y
50
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Table 1 continued
White-throated Needletail ee >|
Tree Martin
Q
Welcome Swallow
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike
Bassian Thrush
Dusky Robin
Pink Robin
Flame Robin
Scarlet Robin
Oltve Whistler
Golden Whistler
Grey Shrike-thrush
Satin Flycatcher
Grey Fantail
Spotted Quail-thrush
Azure Kingfisher
Superb Fairy-wren
a Q o Q Q
Q
I
Q
il
‘Tasmanian Thornbill
Brown Thornbill
‘Tasmanian Scrubwren
Q Q
Eastern Spinebill
Little Wattlebird
Yellow Wattlebird
Yellow-throated
Honeyeater
Noisy Miner
alalgla
i ]
C
| 3
E
it
LA
ie
‘f=
n
|,
I
C
—
|
—
a
==
fd
EA
E
E
[
p
MEL
NEED
Lm:
Black-headed Honeyeater
51
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Table 1 continued
<
ke
Fseongtilednongenes Te Pet Ty qr
ve trola Bone > Wee [y ly 3
En a MPH Tid
Spotted Pardalote
E
[As lA E
a RA mad
[meses e a o MAA 1
[Remnent ooo — y e
pup wooded. ee >
m rm
Introduced Species
per
[HA
pre
eei
Emme"
| a
paia E 0 o
pos lA
EAS O fye
A
o AR
Mi
meis
E 15
=
LE
| a
nl
Hs
<
5
mn
52
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
The first record of the stout tinzeda Tinzeda
albosignata (Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1878)
(Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) in Tasmania
David Maynard & Simon Fearn
Natural Sciences, Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery,
PO Box 403, Launceston, Tasmania 7250
David.Maynard@launceston.tas.gov.au
Simon.Fearn@launceston.tas.gov.au
Introduction
The world katydid (Tettigontidae Krauss,
1902) fauna comprises more than 6000
described species (Rentz 2010). Australia
is home to at least 365 described species
in 97 genera (Atlas of Living Australia
(ALA) 2019a), however the total species
count may be as many as 1200 (ABRS
2019). Currently, six katydid species are
recorded from Tasmania, five of which
ate also found on mainland Australia.
katydids
everywhere from the mountains to the
Tasmanian occur almost
supralittoral zone, and are recorded
from the Bass Strait islands.
The mountain katydid, Acripega reticulata
(Guérin-Ménéville, 1838) is distributed
from Rockhampton, Queensland to
Tasmania. In Tasmania it has been
collected from the central plateau, Ben
Lomond and parts of eastern and south-
eastern Tasmania (ALA 2019b). It can be
found on the ground or feeding on low
shrubs. Both sexes of this large species
have a distinctive aposematic response
to predation, displaying high-contrast
53
abdominal patterms of red, blue and
black presumably indicating distasteful
properties (Rentz 2010, p. 172).
The Australian twig-mimicking
katydid, Zaprochilus australis (Brullé
1835), is distributed from Bundaberg,
Queensland to Victoria and west to
Hopetoun in Western Australia, and
also Tasmania. In Tasmania it has been
collected from coastal areas around the
state, including the Furneaux Islands
(ALA 2019c). This cryptic species is a
nectar feeder, and lives in native grasses,
shrubs and trees (Rentz 2010, p. 186).
The common garden katydid, Caedicia
simplex (Walker, 1869) has been collected
in low numbers across mainland
Australia and Tasmania. In Tasmania it
has been collected predominantly from
population centres but is likely to have a
wider distribution (ALA 2019d).
The woodland katydid, Coptaspis laterals
(Erichson, 1842) has only been collected
in Tasmania; all but one of the specimens
were collected on Flinders Island (ALA
2019e). The genus is known to live in
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
montane, coastal and heathland habitats,
and associates with Lomandra, eating the
seeds and flowers (Rentz 2010).
The small meadow katydid Conocephalus
(Anisoptera) bilineatus (Erichson, 1842)
is known from south-east Australia,
Tasmania and New Zealand (Rentz
2010, p.
registered specimen appears on the
ALA. It was found at Eaglehawk Neck
in south-east Tasmania (ALA 2019f).
Meadow katydids are a diverse group of
102), however only one
about 40 undescribed species that occur
in grassy habitats from the coast to the
high mountains, and from the deserts
and tropics (Rentz 2010, pp. 102-104).
In February 2019 five specimens of
the short-tailed Polichne (Polchne
parucaudata Stal, 1861) were collected
from Longford, northern Tasmania,
and added to the Museum's collection
(QVM.2019.12.0736-0740). This species
is distributed from north Queensland
to Victoria and prefers grassy habitats
(ALA 20191; Rentz 2010).
Another katydid, Conocephalus (Anisoptera)
semivittatus (Walker, 1869) has previously
been recorded in Tasmania (Semmens
et al. 1992) however no specimens
appear to be held in public collections.
Only 77 Tasmanian specimens of these
katydid species are held in Museum
collections (ALA 20199; QVMAG
database). In reality, this greatly
underrepresents the abundance and
distribution of these species, and the
species diversity in Tasmania. Here we
report the first Tasmanian record of the
katydid Tinzeda albosignata with notes on
its observed distribution and host plant.
Tinzedas
The genus Tinzeda includes seven
described and a further 12 undescribed
species, and is restricted to Australia,
living in montane and arid habitats
(Rentz 2010). They are diurnal and
ground-dwelling (Rentz 1996). Tinzedas
are sexually dimorphic and fully winged,
however only the male is capable of
flight. The most distinguishing feature
of the genus is that the pronotum has a
broad ventral margin sporting an ivory-
coloured stripe (Rentz 1996, 2010).
Other characteristics include the head
being narrower than the pronotum,
and antennae that are longer than the
slender, smooth and shiny body. The
dorsal surface of the pronotum extends
well beyond the posterior margin of the
pronotum sides to form a flat ‘disc’; the
front and sides are nearly straight. The
ovipositor is as long as the abdomen,
curves upwards and has minute
serrations along the top and bottom
edges. The legs are long and slender; the
femora are unarmed; the hind femora
are thickened from the base for half
their length. There are minute spines
on the tibia, and the front tibia is wider
than the others. The tegmen is narrow,
roundly pointed and shorter than the
hind wings (Walker 1869; Rentz 1996,
2010).
Little is known of the diet and breeding
of tinzedas. They belong to the subfamily
Phaneropterinae, which means they
are herbivorous, may have a preferred
host plant or plant association, and the
presence of serrations on the ovipositor
implies that eggs are deposited in plant
tissue. Nymphs often mimic other
54
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
insects and the adult looks nothing like
the nymph (Rentz 1996, 2010).
Species description
The stout tinzeda, Tinzeda albosignata
(Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1878) is a
large (30-40 mm body length) lime-
green katydid with a number of white
stripes on the pronotum and tegmen
(Plate 1). Diagnostic features include a
pronotum with strong and deep lateral
lobes and a ventral margin that is nearly
straight. The ovipositor curves upward
and narrows from the base, and the rear
half is minutely serrate. The ovipositor
extends beyond the length of the
tegmen. Both nymphs and adults are
vibrant green with a white stripe running
along the midline of the head, and the
length of the ventral lobe and midline
of the pronotum. In the adult, the
tegmen margin carries a white stripe that
is edged in brown. A cream-coloured
line runs along most of the length of
the subcostal and radius veins (Brunner
von Wattenwyl 1878; Rentz 1996, 2010)
(Plate 1).
The stout tinzeda has been considered
found 1n the
Kosciuszko Range, where it may be
a 1nontane species
found in long grasses during mid to late
summer (Rentz 1996, 2010). However
the species has been observed in the
Alpine National Park 1n eastern Victoria,
near Ballarat and Bendigo in central
south Victoria, and south of Mount
Gambier, South Australia (ALA 20193).
Nothing is recorded about its diet and
breeding. In fact there is a paucity of
specimens and observations of the
stout tinzeda which makes it difficult
to understand its life history. There
is one specimen of T. albosignata held
in Sweden (Lund University 2019),
Plate 1. An adult female stout tinzeda (Tinzeda albosignata).
55
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
and there are no preserved specimens
registered in Australian publicly owned
collections (however ^ unregistered
material may exist), and there are 10
human observations, centred on Victoria
(ALA 2019).
Field observations
Twelve male and 17 female T. a/boszenata
were collected by the authors from six
sites during entomological field work
on King Island in Western Bass Strait
between 30 January and 6 February
2019 (QVM.2019.12.0706-0734)
(Figure 1). The species appeared to
be common and widespread where
the sticky daisy-bush, Oana glutinosa
(Lindl.) Benth. was present. This coastal
plant is native to Victoria, Tasmania
and south-eastern Australia where it
Plate 2. A female Tinzeda albosignata on the host plant Olearia glutinosa.
grows in dune habitat. The mauve,
pink or white flowers occur 1n terminal
clusters during summer (ALA 2019h;
Royal Botanic Gardens of Victoria
2019; Agriculture Victoria 2019) and it
was on these flowers that 1. albostenata
was observed feeding (Plate 2). This
plant 1s widespread in coastal areas
and alongside vehicular tracks on King
Island (Plate 3) within coastal scrub on
alkaline sand (DPIPWE 2014).
The stout tinzeda was observed actively
feeding on O. glutinosa blossom. The
females walked from blossom to
blossom, while some males were seen to
take a short flight to reach new flowers
on the same bush. Adults were very
alert to disturbance and if disturbed or
frightened would run rapidly from the
flower into the protection of the shrub’s
4
56
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
interior. Only one male attempted to
escape by taking flight.
All female TT. albosignata were gravid,
containing ova at various stages of
development, from small yolk sacs to
fully formed eggs. In addition, well-
developed nymphs were observed with
adults on two occasions.
Discussion
Very little is known of the diversity
of ‘Tasmanian Orthoptera, and the
group is underrepresented in museum
collections. The addition of Tinzeda
albosignata highlights the need for
further study. Its presence on King
Island represents a 3.5% latitudinal
extension south (around 400 km) from
the Kosciuszko Range, the species”
recognised range (Rentz 1996, 2010),
Collection locations for the stout tinzeda (Tinzeda albosignata)
King Island, 30 Jan - 6 Feb 2019
City of
S” LAUNCESTON
Seale atAd : 1:300,000
Kilometer
Figure 1. Collection locations of Tinzeda
albosignata on King Island, 30 January to 6
February 2019.
Plate 3. The host plant Olearia glutinosa in dune country (left) and along a road verge (right).
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
and about 240 km south of the closest
human observation record (Lerderderg
State Park, Victoria) (ALA 2019k). Also,
its use of coastal scrub rather than the
previously recognised montane habitat
broadens its habitat preferences.
Al| specimens were gutted during
curation. The stomach and faecal
contents indicated the possibility that
pollen, flower heads and maybe the
foliage of O. glutinosa were consumed.
This needs further investigation. Other
orthopterids were observed feeding
on O. glutinosa, large numbers of the
grasshoppers Phaulacridium vittatum
(Sjöstedt, 1920) and Austroicetes sp.
(Uvarov, 1925) were disturbed while
feeeding on this shrub at a number of
sites.
The presence of females in varying
stages of reproduction and nymphs
alongside adults suggests that King
Island T. albosignata may display an
asynchronous life cycle with adults being
present for much of the year.
The discovery of T. albosignata on King
Island may lead to more records of the
stout tinzeda in coastal areas of Victoria,
other Bass Strait islands and possibly the
north coast of Tasmania.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the QVMAG Friends for
their financial support of this field work.
Also, thanks to David Brewster and Sally
Jones for assistance with transport and
logistics while on King Island, Kathryn
Pugh for producing the map, and to the
editors of The Tasmanian Naturalist for
reviewing this paper.
Invertebrates were collected under
Department of Primary Industries,
Parks, Water and Environment Permit
Authority No. FA 18151.
References
Australian Biological Resources
Study (2019). Tettigoniidae. Accessed
30 April 2019.
Agriculture Victoria (2019). Sticky daisy
bush. Accessed 8 May 2019.
Atlas of Living Australia (20192).
Tettigoniidae Tasmania preserved specimen.
Accessed 30 April 2019.
---- (2019b). Acripeza reticulata Tasmania
preserved specimen. Accessed 1 May 2019.
---- (2019c). Zaproclilus australis Tasmania
preserved specimen. Accessed 1 May 2019.
---- (2019d). Caedicia simplex Tasmania
preserved specimen. Accessed 1 May 2019.
---- (2019e). Coptaspis laterals Tasmania
preserved specimen. Accessed 1 May 2019.
---- (2019f). Conocephalus (Anisoptera)
bilineatus Tasmania preserved specimen.
Accessed 1 May 2019.
---- (20199). Tetfzgonudae Tasmania preserved
specimen. Accessed 1 May 2019.
58
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
--- (2019h). Okana glutinosa (Lindl) Benth.
Accessed 8 May 2019.
--- (20191). Polchne particauda (Stal, 1867).
Accessed 3 June 2019.
--- (2019). Tinzeda albosignata. Accessed
18 July 2019.
--- (2019k). Human observation Tinzeda
albosignata. Accessed 18 July 2019.
Brunner von Wattenwyl, K. (1878).
Monographie der Phaneropteriden. F.A.
Brockhaus, Wien.
DPIPWE (2014). "TASVEG © 3.0".
Accessed 3 June 2019.
Lund University (2019). Biological Museum
Tznzeda albosionata. Accessed 18 July.
Rentz, D.C. (1996). Grasshopper Country:
the abundant orthopteroid insects of
"Australia. University of. New South
Wales Press, Sydney.
Rentz, D.C. (2010). A guide to the katydids
of Australa. CSIRO Publishing,
Victoria.
Royal Botanic Gardens of Victoria
(2019). Okaria glutinosa (Lindl) Benth.
Accessed 8 May 2019.
Semmens, T.D., McQuillan, PB. &
Hayhurst, G. (1992). Catalogue of
the insects of Tasmania. Department of
Primary Industry, Tas. 104 pp.
Walker, F. (1869). Catalogue of the specimens
of Dermaptera Saltatoria and supplement
of the Blattane in the collection of the
British Museum part 2. Trustees of the
British Museum, London. Accessed 2
May 2019.
59
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
60
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Investigation of a high-elevation population
of Hoplogonus simsoni Parry, 1875 (Coleoptera:
Lucanidae) on Mt Poimena, Blue Tier, using
regurgitated bird pellets
Karen Richards’ & Chris P. Spencer?
1 Threatened Species Section, Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
2141 Valley Road, Collinsvale Tasmania 7012
karen.richards@dpipwe.tas.gov.au
Abstract
This study utilises an indirect source of data to investigate a high-elevation
population of Hoplogonus simsoni Parry, 1875 at Pormena, NE ‘Tasmania, an
area significantly impacted by anthropogenic disturbance from 1875 to the
1960s. Exoskeletal material found in regurgitated pellets of black currawongs
and forest ravens, as well as presence of intact beetles and larvae were
used to confirm the existence of a population of H. szzison on the slopes
of Mt Poimena, an area predicted to be unsuitable for the species in 2004.
Regenerating native vegetation leading to improved soil condition is considered
essential for the continuance and expansion of the beetle population at this
location.
Introduction
At elevations exceeding 800 m asl,
Mt Poimena, Handley Peak and Mt
Littlechild are the highest points on
the Blue Tier, north-east Tasmania.
These peaks can experience extremes
of weather, including occasional winter
snowfalls and lengthy dry periods,
interspersed with torrential rains. Until
the mid-1800s, the Tier was covered
with pristine rainforest and areas of tea
tree swamp. However, the discovery
61
of tin at Blue Tier in 1875 began the
transformation of the landscape and
it wasn’t long before the township of
Poimena was constructed. The Blue Tier
Hotel was soon erected at ‘upper junction?
(Poimena) and completed within a
year, and by 1879 Poimena was a well-
established mining township. However,
atits height there were only 13 buildings,
with most of the population preferring
to squat or camp (Jackman 1998). By
1883 there were sufficient numbers of
school-age children in the township to
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
warrant construction of the Poimena
school house, the structure eventually
completed in 1887 (Richardson 2013).
The township population fluctuated
with the ebb and flow of mining success
and market prices, but within 10 years of
establishment work was already scarce
and leases were being deserted and
left idle; only a few of the population,
comprising a small Chinese contingent
and the families of miners, remained.
Just 14 years after the original discovery
of tin on Blue Tier the township was a
deserted village, the houses being sold
and removed to more prosperous areas.
Some structures remained for a time and
the occasional new building was erected.
However, after being rented for a number
of years, in 1954 the main school house
building was sold and relocated to St
Helens, after which Poimena existed in
name only (Jackman 1998).
Alongside the establishment of the
town and the numerous mine workings
which drastically altered the landscape,
fire and agriculture played a prominent
role in transforming the vegetation on
the Tier. Potmena was threatened by
bushfires on several occasions between
1886 and 1908 (Richardson 2013). The
conversion of the landscape continued
with the advent of farming. While small
scale stock holdings are reported during
the height of the township, 1t was only
following the decline of mining activity
and the demise of the community that
large tracts of the Tier were cultivated
to support cattle and sheep grazing
on pastures of exotic grasses. By 1929
around 9000 acres of land were available
for grazing (Jackman 1998; Richardson
2013). In the early 1950s Mt Potmena
remained essentially clear of native
vegetation (Plate 1) and flocks of sheep
were still herded from Winnaleah to
the Poimena area for summer grazing.
Records of grazing on the Tier continued
into the late 1960s, after which the Tier
was all but deserted (Richardson 2013).
Recovery of the native vegetation
Plate 1. Mt Poimena from Poimena c. 1950. St Helens History Room.
62
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
has been slow, but while signs of
the recent history remain, the native
vegetation is returning with regrowth
now approaching 60 years of age
(Plate 2). This includes a combination
of subalpine heathland, highland Poa
grassland, Leptospermum forest and
some highland low rainforest and scrub
(Kitchener & Harris 2013). At 6 m,
the tallest vegetation on Mt Poimena is
Leptospermum lanigerum, although more
mature Nothofagus cunninghamii clothe the
lower slopes and gullies.
The identified as Blue Tier
supports populations of a number
area
of threatened fauna species, some
endemic to the immediate vicinity. One
such species, Hoplogonus simson: Party
1875, a threatened stag beetle listed
as vulnerable on both the Tasmanian
Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and
Commonwealth Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999,
is known to occupy the lower altitude
rainforest and wet eucalypt forests
surrounding the Blue Tier Regional
Reserve. The first detailed studies of
this species, undertaken by Meggs in the
1990s and 2000s, located H. simsoni from
only a handful of sites on top of the
Tier, although it was abundant at lower
elevations. The predictive habitat model
developed for the species identified the
forests above 400 m as unsuitable or, at
best marginal H. simson? habitat (Meggs
et al. 2003, 2004).
Few other H. stmsoni records existed for
Poimena prior to the current study, so it
is unclear whether the species was once
more widespread across the plateau, or
what, if any, impact there has been from
the past 100 years of anthropogenic
disturbance. What is known, however,
is that the species populates lower
elevation rainforest and eucalypt forest
communities (Megos et al. 2003, 2004),
some of which were once also prominent
on the Tier. Whilst conducting surveys
for another species at Poimena in 2018,
the authors' interest was aroused by the
Plate 2. Mt Poimena from Poimena, April 2019.
63
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
observation of a number of H. szzsom
remains in a large regurgitated bird pellet
located on a rock at our campsite. The
number and dimensions of the head
capsules contained within the pellet
was intriguing. We knew that ravens
and currawongs consume H. szzsom
(Spencer & Richards 2013) and are
capable of flying considerable distances,
but also that the beetles were rarely
recorded from on top of the Tier, so
an investigation of bird pellet contents
from the area was initiated.
Methods
This research arises from the authors’
interest in the presence of H. sémsoni
at this
opportunistic study, not intended as a
high elevation and is an
rigorous scientific investigation. The
study was centred on Mt Poimena
(41?11755.25"S 148°00°42.16”E), Blue
Tier in north-east Tasmania, at an
elevation between 750 and 816 m a.s.l.
Blue Tier is subject to high annual rainfall
nm
(1200 mm), occurring intermittently
as heavy downpours associated with
persistent low-pressure systems over the
Tasman Sea (Mesibov 1998).
The current vegetation on Mt Poimena
is regenerating rainforest, approximately
60 years old (Plate 2). The canopy cover
is patchy with the tallest vegetation
occurring in the gullies. Species present
include an overstorey of Phyllocladus
asplenufolus, Nothofagus
Monotoca glauca, Leptospermum lanigerum,
cunninghamii,
Tasmannia lanceolata and Telopea truncata,
and an understorey comprising Persoonta
gunnii, Ogothamnus hookeri, Coprosma nitida,
Coprosma quadrifida, Cyathodes glauca,
Leptecophylla juniperina, Epacris gunnii,
Pteridium esculentum, Lastreopsis acuminata,
Polystichum proliferum, Blechnum nudum,
Blechnum wattsi, Dicksonia antarctica,
Phymatosorus pustulatus, Juncus australis and
Gahnia grandis.
A single transect was selected for this
work. For ease of access, the 500 m
walking track which follows a constant
Plate 3. Bird pellet, Mt Poimena, containing Hoplogonus simsoni remains.
64
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
gradient from the car park to the summit
of Mt Poimena (elevation 750—816 1m)
was chosen. Searching for specimens of
H. szmsoni and the pellets of currawongs
and ravens was confined to the walking
track and adjacent accessible clear areas
within 5 m. The area was searched three
times; once per month between October
and late December 2018. Notes of the
locations of living and dead H. simson?
and number of pellets were taken, but
any pellets not containing Fl. szzsom
were not collected. Uncollected pellets
and dead H. stmsoni were relocated to
ensute they were not recounted on
subsequent surveys.
A series of larval pits spanning the
transect were excavated in December
2018 to determine whether the species
was breeding at the site. Larval pits
consisted of excavating an area 30 x
30 x 30 cm, located approximately
5 m from the track in areas conducive
to digging and where disturbance was
8
Number of beetles
A
S1
not visible from the walking track. Soil
structure across the transect varied from
brown granitic loam containing a high
percentage of organic matter to densely
compacted decomposing granite.
Results
Intact beetles
The abundance of live and intact
dead H. stmsoni occurring along the
transect varied among surveys; live
beetle numbers declined while numbers
of dead animals displayed no trend
(Figure 1). While no living H. simsoni
were present during the third visit, two
dead fully articulated specimens were
recorded, one female mid-transect and
one male on the summit of Mt Poimena.
Pellets
A total of 38 bird pellets containing
remains of H.
The number of pellets detected varied
over time but were most abundant in
simsoni was collected.
S2 53
Figure 1. Numbers of living (black columns) and intact dead (grey columns)
Hoplogonus simsoni per survey (S1-3: surveys 1-3).
65
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
November (Figure 2). Despite pellets
being present on all three occasions,
multiple black currawongs and forest
ravens were only observed at the site
in October, evidenced both visually
and audibly. Pellet contents revealed
the birds ingested a variety of food
items (Plates 3 & 4). While H. szzsom
formed the major component of the
invertebrate food content in most pellets,
additional identifiable prey included:
Arachnida (1 sp.), Carabidae (2 spp.),
Elateridae (Elatichrosis exarata Candeze,
1863, E. tnsulcatus Esichson, 1842, and
2 unidentified spp), Cerambycidae
(Dorcadida bilocularis White, 1846),
Chrysomelidae (Paropsisterna sp.
Motschulsky, 1860), Tenebrionidae
(Corpora deplanata Boisduval, 1835),
Curculionidae (1 sp.), Scarabaeidae
(Onthophagus austrais Guérin-Ménevill,
1836), Silphidae (Ptomaphila lachrymosa
Schreibers, 1802), Hemiptera (1 sp.),
Diplopoda (1 sp.), Mollusca (1 sp.)
Crustacea (Engaeus leptorhynchus Clark,
1939) and unidentifiable mouse-size
mammal remains were also recorded.
The vegetable matter identified was
principally Cyathodes spp. fruit; however,
Telopea truncata petals were also identified
in a number of pellets.
Hoplogonus simsoni head capsules were
used to establish
individuals present in a pellet. The
average numbers of H. simson: per pellet
the number of
per survey were 12.5, 7 and 10, October
— December respectively, while the
maximum number of H. szzsoni 1n any
pellet was 28 (17 male and 11 female),
found 1n October. Pellets containing
10 or more H. szzsom heads were more
numerous in October (58%), compared
with 26% in November; one of the three
pellets collected in December contained
21 H. szzsom head capsules while each
of the others contained only four.
The ratio of male to female H. szzsonm
Plate 4. Bird pellet, Mt Poimena, comprised of fruit, Telopea truncata petals and
invertebrate fragments.
66
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
consumed by the birds altered over
time, males comprising 73% of the
head capsules in the October samples,
43%
Given the small sample size (1=3)
reducing to in November.
of pellets recovered in December,
direct comparison with the first two
surveys is unreliable. A breakdown of
total male and female FH. szzsom head
capsules recorded in pellets per survey is
presented in Figure 2.
Elevational changes in pellet
contents and intact beetles
Despite the elevational range of the
transect, H. szzsom head capsules were
almost entirely recorded 1n pellets
found in the mid-elevation range
(760—785 m); above and below this range
some beetle fragments were recorded,
but the occurrence was low. In October,
more than 20 additional bird pellets
from the summit were investigated;
all were deposited on top of decaying
un
m
5
Y)
[e]
[e]
o
Uo
®©
D
c
+
O
i
o
2
E
3
=
logs or boulders, but none contained
coleopteran remains, rather, they
consisted almost entirely of Cyathodes
spp. fruit, while numerous HH. som
were found 1n pellets at lower elevation
on the same sampling occasion. During
the October and November surveys, no
living or dead H. szzsog were observed
at or near the summit, however, one
complete dead male was recorded there
in December. Log rolling near and on
the summit also failed to locate any H.
sumsoni adults or larvae; however one
adult female and two second instar
Léssotes rudis Lea, 1910 larvae were found
beneath woody debris in October; I.
rudi; and H. simsoni larvae are readily
distinguishable using external features
(Richards & Spencer 2014).
Major versus minor
The average dimensions of male and
female H. semsoni head capsules in
the pellets at Mt Poimena (from 375
my
un
o
Number of pellets
Figure 2. Total number of male (black column) and female (grey column) Hoplogonus
simsoni head capsules in pellets (line) collected on each survey (S1-3: Surveys 1-3).
67
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
E
E
<
+
2
s
"O
©
o
I
8 10
Head length (mm)
Figure 3a. Male Hoplogonus simsoni head capsule dimensions from Murdochs Road (black
diamond) and Mt Poimena (grey square).
E
E
<
+
2
=
“TD
oO
oO
X
Head length (mm)
Figure 3b. Female Hoplogonus simsoni head capsule dimensions from Murdochs Road (black
diamond) and Mt Poimena (grey square).
68
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
individuals, 7—209 male, ~=166 female)
were found to be smaller than those
recorded elsewhere within the range of
the species (male 8.1 x 6.4 mm, female
3.7 x 3.4 mm at Poimena; male 12.2 x 8.6
mm, female 4.5 x 4.6 mm at Murdochs
Road, (elevation 200—250 m a.s.1). No Mt
Poimena head capsules approached the
dimensions of large individuals found 1n
the optimal habitat for the species across
the Blue Tier region (taken from 1=1430
males, 1=213 females) (Figure 3). While
the largest head capsules recorded in
the Mt Potmena samples reached the
50" percentile of those from optimal
habitat, their numbers were few. Average
male and female head widths and head
lengths of the Mt Poimena specimens
were below the 20" percentile of the
optimal habitat data, although several
of the largest males (> 10 mm head
length) were broader than beetles from
the Murdochs Road population, but this
may just reflect the small sample size.
Hangay & De Keyzer (2017) introduced
a simple terminology differentiating
larger male lucanids as ‘majors’ and
smaller individuals as ‘minors’. Applying
this to the H. szzsogm recorded on Mt
Poimena, most might be assessed as
‘minors’ when compared with ‘majors’
from optimal habitat (Plate 5).
Larval pits
Pits were excavated at various elevations
along the transect to investigate larval
presence. Few larvae were recorded,
and these at only a handful of localities
within a narrow elevation band. Adult
exoskeletal remains were occasionally
exhumed while larval faecal pellets were
also encountered in pits where no larvae
were present. Larvae were recorded in
only two of the nine larval pits while
faecal material occurred in a further two
pits; all evidence of H. stmsoni in the pits
Plate 5. Hoplogonus simsoni: minor (upper) Poimena, major (lower) Murdochs Road.
69
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
was found in the mid-elevation range of
the transect, between 770—785 m a.s.l.
Larvae, faecal pellets and adult remains
were only encountered in pits with a
high percentage of organic material in
the soil and 45-50% fine granite gravel.
Discussion
Only two large scavenging bird species
were recorded on our visits, Strepera
julginosa Gould, 1837,
tasmanicus Mathews, 1912, the former
and Corvus
being more often encountered. Both
species are known to consume H. simson
(Spencer & Richards 2013) as well as
a range of other invertebrate species.
Bird pellets collected during this study
included many H. simson. Ravens and
currawongs are strong fliers, capable
of traveling considerable distances,
and while some of the pellets may be
from birds that had travelled from lower
altitudes, the dimensions of the H.
simsont remains in the pellets compared
with those from further afield strongly
suggest that the beetles were locally
sourced. While FH.
elevations
simsoni at lower
plasticity
in mandible shape and dimensions,
display greater
larger individuals, or ‘majors’, form
the majority of the population in these
locations, so it would be expected that
any bird foraging further afield would
likely produce pellets dominated by
the remains of ‘majors’. The presence
of T. truncata petals in pellets implies
nectar feeding by one or both species
and though unexpected by the authors
and infrequently recorded, Fitzsimons
(2019) observed nectarivory in corvid
species, and ingestion of both nectar
and flowers is reported by Barker &
Vestjens (1990) and Debus (1996).
The presence of live and intact dead
H. szmsoni along the transect, as well as
larvae in the soil, indicates that there
is a population of this species on Mt
Poimena. We speculate that despite the
extensive habitat modification, FT. szzzsom
has persisted 1n refuges of less accessible
or non-productive areas, perhaps in
over-burden accumulations or where
large logs and steeper ground denied
access to prospectors and leaseholders.
The soil-dwelling larvae of I. szzsom
were infrequently located; their presence
and density were patchy and restricted
to a narrow band of elevation. One
explanation for this might be that
soil compaction and reduction in the
organic component resulting from
extensive mining, burning and stock
grazing rendered much of the soil
habitat unsuitable to the
Furthermore, H. szzsomi larvae do not
spectes.
inhabit waterlogged ground (Richards
& Spencer in prep.), so the level, poorly
drained areas of the Poimena site
are unlikely to provide suitable larval
habitat, supporting our theory that the
beetle population has persisted on the
slopes at this location.
The variation in sex ratios observed at
Mt Potmena parallels the patterns of
peak activity of male and female beetles
reported from Murdochs Road, which
showed that while there was overlap,
males were more abundant earlier in the
active period (Spencer & Richards 2013).
The active period of adult I. semsoni
occurs between September and April
(Spencer & Richards 2013). The current
70
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
study identified declining numbers of
both remains in pellets and live adult H.
simsoni in December, suggesting that the
activity period of beetles at Mt Poimena
is shorter than that of the population
at lower elevations. This may be due to
a combination of increased elevation
and exposure. The presence of multiple
ravens and currawongs on the peak
appears to coincide with the availability
of the H. simsoni food resource, the lack
of regurgitated material and reduced
bird presence in December suggests
that the seasonal activity of these birds
may be linked to the period of greatest
beetle activity.
Recovery of the forest on Mt Potmena
depends on development of the soil.
After 60 years, the vegetation remains
stunted over much of the slope,
contributing little to the build-up of
soil organics and depth. But as the
revegetation continues, it is anticipated
that the condition of the habitat for H.
simsont larvae will improve, becoming
more suitable as it 1s augmented by
organic matter from decaying wood
and leaf litter. The population density
of the beetle at Poimena is low, but we
predict that with the improvement of
the substrate over time, the H. szzsom
population at this high elevation will
increase.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the St
Helens History Room for making
available relevant documentation and
particular thanks to Kym Matthews
for her enthusiastic assistance. Thanks
also to editor and reviewer for their
constructive suggestions which
improved the manuscript.
References
Barker, R.D. & Vestjens, W.J.M. (1990).
The Food of Australian Birds. 2 Passerines.
CSIRO, Melbourne.
Debus, S.J.S. (1996). Magpies,
Currawongs and Butcherbirds. In:
Finches, Bowerbirds and other Passerines of
"Australia. Fd. R. Strahan. The National
Photographic Index of Australian
Wildlife. Angus and Robertson,
Sydney.
Fitzsimons, J.A. (2019). Observations of
nectarivory in the Little Raven (Corvus
mellor and a review of nectarivory in
other Corvus species. The Wilson Journal
of Ornithology 131: 382-386.
Hangay, G. & De Keyzer, R. (2017). A
Guide to Stag Beetles of Australia. CSIRO
Publishing, Clayton South, Victoria.
Jackman, G. (1998). An Archaeological
Survey of the Blue Tier tin field. Vol
2, History and Archaeology. Forestry
‘Tasmania, Hobart.
71
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Kitchener, A. & Harris, S. (2013). Spencer, C. P. & Richards, K. (2013). Are
From Forest to Fyaeldmark: Descriptions invertebrate pedestrians threatened?
of Tasmania's Vegetation. Edition 2. Observations of Hoplogonus
Department of Primary Industries, simsoni from toad line transects in
Parks, Water and Environment, northeastern Tasmania. The Tasmanian
‘Tasmania. Naturalist 135: 28—40.
Meggs, J.M., Munks, S.A. & Corkrey, R.
(2003). The distribution and habitat
characteristics of a threatened lucanid
beetle, Hop/ogonus simsont, 11 north-east
Tasmania. Pacific Conservation Biology 9:
172-186.
Meggs, J. M., Munks, S. A., Corkrey, R.
& Richards, K. (2004). Development
and evaluation of predictive habitat
models to assist the conservation
planning of a threatened lucanid
beetle, Hop/ogonus simson, yn north-east
Tasmania. Biological Conservation 118:
501-511.
Mesibov, B. (1988). Tasmanian
Onychophora. Unpublished report to
the Department of Land, Parks and
Wildlife, Hobart.
Richards, K. & Spencer, C. P. (2014).
Descriptions and key to the larvae
of the Tasmanian endemic genus
Hoplogonus Parry (Coleoptera:
Lucanidae), and comparison with the
sympatric Lassotes rudis Lea. Zootaxa
3884: 347—359.
Richardson, G. (2013). Tin Mountain’
Forty South Publishing Pty Ltd,
Hobart, Tasmania.
72
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Ecological notes on Achthosus westwoodi
(Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) from King Island and
a successional relationship with Toxeutes arctuatus
(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Pinus radiata logs
Simon Fearn & David Maynard
Natural Sciences, Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery,
PO Box 403, Launceston, Tasmania 7250
Simon.Fearn@launceston.tas.gov.au
Introduction
Achthosus westwoodi Pascoe, 1863
(Plate 1) is a medium-sized (15-25 mm
body length)
beetle that occurs in eastern Australia
from the high tropics of Queensland
to southern Victoria, and in a wide
variety of climate and habitat types
(Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) 2019a;
Hawkeswood 2009). Both genders have
a distinctive prothorax that 1s slightly
saproxylic tenebrionid
broader than long and strongly excavated
anteriorly; this is particularly prominent
on the largest males. Achthosus westwoodi
is stout, nearly cylindrical in cross-
section, and has relatively small legs. The
distinctive prothorax may be used by
males to compete for access to females,
defend favoured oviposition sites from
rival males or both, as its shape allows
two opposing males to meet face to
face (one at 180? to the other), and
interlock within the narrow galleries in
rotten wood.
Adults and larvae of A. westwoodi live in
galleries inside decomposing branches
and logs of a wide range of native and
introduced trees and shrubs that are
lying on the substrate in sheltered or
moist situations (Hawkeswood 2009;
Maynard & Fearn 2018).
Recently the first Tasmanian record of
this species in 80 years was documented
from Three Hummock Island in western
Bass Strait (Maynard & Fearn 2018). All
previous records of A. westwoodi from
Tasmania were from King Island and
all specimens held in public institutions
were collected in or before 1938
(Maynard & Fearn 2018). Achthosus
westwoodi has never been documented
from the main island of ‘Tasmania and
this may be related to a distinct climate
envelope in western Bass Strait centred
on King Island (Maynard & Fearn 2018).
Between 29 January and 6 February 2019,
the authors conducted an entomological
survey on King Island with A. westwoodi
being a target species.
Achthosus westwoodi was found to be
locally abundant and widespread on
King Island utilising a wide range of
73
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Plate 1. Adult male Achthosus westwoodi (left) and female Toxeutes arcuatus.
decomposing timbers with a stem
diameter of 30 to 200 mm. In this work
we describe aspects of the ecology
of A. westwood on King Island with
particular reference to a previously
undocumented host tree species, the
Monterey pine, Pinus radiata D. Don,
and what appears to be an association
with the large longicorn beetle Toxwefes
arcuatus (Fabricius, 1787) (Plate 1).
Field observations
Over the nine days of fieldwork, 44 sites
across King Island were sampled for
insects and spiders. Achthosus westwoodi
was collected from decomposing timber
on the substrate at 10 sites (Figure 1)
that were all characterised as closed
forest habitats with a shaded and
humid understorey. Fifty specimens
74
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
A
N
€ Collection sites
Scale at A4 : 1:125,000
Collection locations forAchthosus westwoodi
King Island, 30 Jan - 6 Feb 2019
Kilometers
Figure 1. Collection locations for Achthosis westwoodi, King Island, 30 Jan-6 Feb 2019.
Dots show collection points.
were collected and lodged in the Queen
Victoria Museum and Art Gallery
(QVMAG) (QVM:2019:12:0656-
0705). Achthosus westwoodi were found
in three basic forest types: Melaleuca
(paperbark)
Acacia melanoxylon (blackwood) forest
and King Island Eucahptus globulus ssp.
ericifolia swamp forest,
(blue gum) forest as defined by Barnes
et al. (2002). Wherever A. westwoodi
was collected the fallen limbs or main
stem of Banksia marginata was the most
commonly colonised decomposing
timber. However, specimens were also
collected from the fallen stems of M.
ericifolia, A. melanoxylon and dogwood,
75
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Pomaderis apetala. Stem diameters
of infested timber ranged from
30 to 200 mm, with limb size and timber
species apparently less important than
state of decomposition. The authors
collected A. westwoodi most commonly
in B. marginata logs because this relatively
brittle species appeared to be more
prone to damage in high winds, either
shedding large limbs, being snapped off
low to the ground or entirely uprooted.
In addition, in swamp forest habitats
B. marginata appeared to have been
killed during successional changes after
M. ericifolia had shaded it out, as was the
situation on Three Hummock Island,
where high densities of A. westwoodi
were also associated with B. marginata
logs (Maynard & Fearn 2018).
On the north-eastern boundary of the
Pegarah Plantation near Poolta Creek,
A. westwoodi was found to be abundant
in decomposing Monterey pine Pinus
radiata logs (Plate 2). Entire specimens
of P. radiata between 150 and 350 mm
in diameter were commonly observed
lying on the substrate and appeared
to have died and later fallen in high
winds. The presence of A. westwoodi in
Plate 2. Adult A. westwoodi exposed in its gallery in stem of Pinus radiata. The tightly packed
frass throughout the log is from larvae of T. arcuatus.
76
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
individual logs was easily determined
by the presence of large quantities of
course frass spilling from logs onto the
ground (Plate 4). On closer inspection
it was evident that all frass piles had
originated from the large and distinctive
oval emergence holes of the cerambycid
Toxeutes arcuatus (Plates 3 & 4). While
breaking up logs in search of A. westwoodi,
larvae of T. arcuatus, representing a
range of instars, were found; four were
retained for the Museum’s collections
(QVM:2019:12:0648) (Plate 3).
Pinus radiata
Pinus radiata 1s native to north America
but grown extensively in mesic southern
Australia as a plantation softwood. Itis a
medium-sized tree that reaches heights
Plate 3. Late instar larva of T. arcuatus in Pinus
radiata. Note densely packed frass and wood
scrapings in larval galleries.
of 40—50 m, with a diameter of about
one metre. Tasmanian plantations are
largely concentrated in the north-west,
comprising around 71,500 ha, which
equates to 28% of ‘Tasmania’s total
plantations (Anon. 2019).
Plans to establish both native and
introduced tree plantations on King
Island began 1n 1923 (Elliott 2011). The
first plantings of P. radiata occured in
1939, followed by eucalypt plantation
trials at Pegarah 1n. 1941 (Elliott 2011;
S. White pers. comm. April 2019).
Pinus radiata plantations continue to be
harvested and regrown at this site 80 years
later. The area of plantation of. P. radiata
that we sampled (GDA 94:251703mE
5578472mN) was planted in 1970
(S. White pers. comm. April 2019).
Plate 4. Old emergence holes of T. arcuatus
in Pinus radiata log with frass spilling out
indicating the presence of A. westwoodi.
Note fresh T. arcuatus emergence hole in
foreground.
77
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
A variety of native insect defoliators
and bark/wood borers have adapted
to P radiata causing inconsequential
damage in healthy Australian plantations
(Moore 1962; Neumann 1979; Neumann
& Marks 1990). The most serious pests
ate those that have been introduced
from the Northern Hemisphere. Of
these, only the bark beetle, [ps grandicolhs
(Coleoptera: Curculionidae), in South
and Western Australia, and the wood
Sirex (Hymenoptera:
Siricidae), in Tasmania and Victoria have
wasp, noctilio
caused deaths in stressed plantations
(Neumann 1979; Neumann &
Marks 1990).
While a considerable body of research
exists on the saproxylic insect fauna
of Emmulpíus obligua logs in southern
Tasmania (see Yee ef al. 2006; Grove el
al. 2008), the authors are unaware of any
studies on the insect fauna of dead and
decomposing P. radiata logs in Australia.
Toxeutes arcuatus
This species is apparently endemic
to Tasmania (ALA 2019b), where it
is widespread and locally abundant.
The following life history notes have
been documented by the first author
over many years but have not been
previously published. It is a large,
somewhat flattened, femak positive sexual
size dimorphic species attaining lengths
of at least 53 mm (Plate 1). It vies with
the closely related banksia long horn,
Paroplites australis (Erichson, 1842), for
largest Tasmanian beetle, although the
latter is generally more robust with
heavier limbs
positive sexual dimorphism (S. Fearn,
and displaying male
1989, 2011, unpublished data).
Toxeutes arcuatus is most common in
higher rainfall areas of the state in
mixed forest where its primary larval
food source is dead eucalypt timber.
Dead standing timber, logs, stumps
and damaged living trees with exposed
heartwood can be utilised. Hundreds of
larvae can be collected from favoured
logs, and are often discovered by people
splitting eucalypt for firewood. It is less
common for non-eucalypt species to
be utilised by T. arcuatus, however B.
marginata and very large, wind-damaged
specimens of P. radiata have been found
bearing larvae.
The larval stage lasts several years during
which extensive galleries are bored in
the timber. When the final instar larvae
reaches 60-80 mm in length it makes an
oval-shaped pupal chamber with a short
escape tunnel that stops just short of the
outer surface of the log. The pupal stage
usually commences in October and lasts
3-4 months. Adults emerge on warm,
moonless nights in mid to late summer.
To emerge they must chew through a
short portion of log. The emergence
hole is a distinctive oval-shape measuring
15-25 mm wide (Plate 4). During the
relatively brief adult flight period, large
numbers can be collected nocturnally at
light traps or during the day sheltering
under loose bark on the trunks of
eucalypts.
Toxeutes arcuatus appears to be an
important species in the breakdown
of timber in Tasmanian forests. The
large emergence holes, pupal chambers
and extensive larval galleries allow
subsequent invasion of logs by a wide
78
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
range of invertebrates, particularly
other species of saproxylic coleoptera
(S. Fearn & D. Maynard unpublished
data). In addition, small vertebrates
(especially the Tasmanian tree skink,
metallic skink,
C. metalicus, brown tree frog, Lifona
Carinascincus pretiosus,
ewingi, and juvenile tiger snake, Notechis
scutatus) use old larval galleries as home
and winter torpor sites (Fearn 1993 and
unpublished data).
Toxeutes arcuatus have been previously
documented from King Island but
apparently not for many years (ALA
2019b). During our recent field work on
the island an adult female was collected
alive deep inside a rotting B. marginata log
near Mimi Lagoon (QVM:2019:12:0649)
and emergence holes were noted in
eucalypt logs at several forested locations.
This species has also been collected on
Three Hummock Island by the second
author (QVM:2019:12:0650, 0651).
Discussion
It appears from our field observations
that A. westwood was closely allied
to T. arcuatus in gaining access to P.
radiata logs. All cases of A. westwoodi
infestation that we found had been
initiated via T. arcuatus emergence holes.
The large amounts of frass associated
with A. westwoodi activity in logs
(Plate 4) appeared to be the result of
adult A. westwoodi utilising and scraping
out old T. arcuatus larval galleries, which
are normally tightly packed with frass
and wood scrapings created by the
larvae as they bore through the timber.
There was no obvious alternative access
for A. westwoodi other than these T.
arcuatus emergence holes. Most logs
were largely intact with bark still firmly
attached and characterised by a sound
‘outer shell of drier timber protecting
softer, more decomposed timber within
(Plates 3 & 4). Older P. radiata logs, in a
mote advanced state of decomposition,
could be pulled apart easily with bare
hands and appeared to be beyond the
stage where they were attractive to
either. T. areuatus or A. westwoodi. Other
saproxylic Tenebrionidae were common
in and under these older logs; Meneristes
australis, Adelium tenebroides and Seirotrana
elongata were present as were carnivorous
coleoptera (Carabidae) which may reflect
greater moisture content and predation
opportunities on larval forms of
saproxylic species. The most commonly
encountered carnivorous beetles were
(Lerradira)
Prosopogmus sp.
Notonomus and
chalybaeus
Elsewhere on King Island as well as on
Three Hummock Island (Maynard &
Fearn 2018), A. westwoodi appeared to
be able to access the interior of softer
decomposing timber such as Melaleuca
and Banksia through their own action. In
many Banksialogs utilised by A. westwoodi,
galleries were confined to slightly drier
less decomposed sections of stem that
were readily accessible via more moist
portions of stem closer to the trunk or
substrate that exhibited a substantially
further advanced level of decay.
It would appear that T. arcuatus and
A. westwoodi are important colonising
species for the breakdown of P. radiata
logs at Pegarah. Plantations of P. radiata
on the main island of Tasmania are
generally considered poor for collecting
79
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
native insects, including decomposing
P. radiata material on the substrate
(authors' obs). The authors have not
observed T. arcuatus infestation of
dead plantation P. radiata anywhere in
Tasmania proper. This may, in part, be
related to continuity of favoured core
eucalypt forest habitat and larval food
sources. Toxeutes arcuatus is a flighted
species that can readily disperse to core
habitat and favoured oviposition sites.
In contrast, native forest habitats on
King Island have been reduced by some
90% due to clearing and burning after
the Tasmanian government opened the
island to free settlers in 1888 (Barnes
et al. 2002). This may have forced
T. arcuatus to oviposit on dead specimens
of less favoured tree species. Suitable
host timber would be expected to be
highly variable temporally and spatially
so a certain level of host flexibility may
have been important for the survival of
T. arcuatus on King Island in the past
(Grove 2002). Achthosus westwoodi on
the other hand, appears to be more of
a saproxylic opportunist (Hawkeswood
2009; Maynard & Fearn 2018), taking
advantage of a readily accessible larval
food source provided through the
activities of T. arcuatus.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the QVMAG Friends for
their financial support of this fieldwork.
Also, thanks to David Brewster and
Sally Jones for assistance with transport
and logistics while on King Island, Scott
White at Sustainable Timber Tasmania
for information about Pinus radiata
plantations on King Island, Kathryn
Pugh for producing the map, and to
Alastair Richardson for reviewing
this paper.
Invertebrates were collected under
Department of Primary Industries,
Parks, Water and Environment Permit
Authority No. FA 18151.
References
Anonymous (2019). Radiata pine.
Accessed April 2019.
Atlas of Living Australia (20192).
Achthosus westwoodi Pascoe, 1563.
Accessed April 2019.
--- (2019b). Toxeutes arcuatus (Frabricins,
1787). Accessed April 2019.
Barnes, R.W., Duncan, F. & Todd, C.S.
(2002). The Native Vegetation of King
Island, Bass Strait. Nature Conservation
Report 02/6. Nature Conservation
Branch,
Resource Management
and Conservation, Department
of Primary Industries, Water and
Environment, Hobart.
Elliott, H. (2011). The early history of
plantation forestry on State-owned
land in Tasmania. Tasforests 19: 71-85.
80
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Fearn, S. (1989). Some observations
on the habits of Paroplies
austrais (Erichson) (Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae: Prioninae) and its
damaging effects on the food plant
Banksia marginata Cav. in Tasmania.
Australian Entomological Magazine 16(4):
81-84.
Fearn, S. (1993). The tiger snake Norechzs
scutatus (Serpentes: Elapidae) in
Tasmania. Herpetofauna 23(2): 17-29.
Fearn, S. (2011). Tasmania's largest
beetles. Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club
Bulletin 341: 7-8.
Grove, S.J. (2002). Saproxylic insect
ecology and the sustainable
management of forests. Annu. Rev.
Ecol. Syst. 33: 1-23.
Grove, S., Bashford, D. and Yee, M.
(2008). A long-term experimental
study of saproxylic beetle (Coleoptera)
succession in Tasmanian Eucalyptus
obliqua logs: findings from the first five
years. pp. 71-114 zz S. Fattorini (ed)
Insect ecology and conservation. Research
Signpost. Kerala. India.
(2009). Some
observations host timber
species, biology and habitat of
Achthosus 1863
(Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Ulomini)
of eastern Australia. Journal of the
Entomological Research Society 11(1): 1-4.
Hawkeswood, 1j.
on the
westwoodi Pascoe,
Maynard, D. and Fearn, S. (2018). First
Tasmanian record in 80 years: Achthosus
westwoodi Pascoe, 1863 (Coleoptera:
Tenebrionidae: Ulomini) from Three
Hummock Island, Western Bass Strait
with ecological notes. The Tasmanian
Naturalist 140: 147-155.
Moore, K.M. (1962). Insect attack on
Pinus spp. Research note No. 12. Forestry
Commission of New South Wales.
Division of Forest Management.
Neumann, EG. (1979). Insect pest
management in Australian radiata pine
plantations. Awstrahan Forestry 42(1):
30-38.
Neuman. E.G. and Marks, G.C. (1990).
Status and management of insect pests
and diseases in Victorian softwood
plantations. Australian Forestry 53(2)
131-144.
Yee, M., Grove, S.J., Richardson, A.M.M.
and Mohammed, C.L. (2006). Brown
rot in inner hardwood: why large logs
support characteristic saproxylic beetle
assemblages of conservation concern.
pp. 71-114 zz S. Grove, J. Hanula and
L. James (eds) Insect biodiversity and
dead wood: proceedings of a symposium
for the 22nd International Congress of
Entomology. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-93.
Asheville, NC: US. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, Southern
Research Station.
81
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
82
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Not all dead wood is the same - a selection error
reveals an unusual emergence of beetles from
decaying celerytop pine logs
Marie Yee*? & David A. Ratkowsky?
'Sustainable Timber Tasmania, Bathurst Street Hobart, Tas. 7000
?School of Natural Sciences & ?Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture,
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tas. 7001
marie.yee@sttas.com.au
d.ratkowsky@utas.edu.au
Abstract
An unexpected outcome of a study of beetle emergence from cut eucalypt
logs in Tasmania’s southern forests was that three of the 60 logs in the study
were later discovered to be celerytop pine rather than Eucalyptus obliqua. These
three logs turned out to be a relatively high species-rich dead wood habitat
type, with 43 species collected from 969 individual beetles. The diversity,
however, within celerytop pine logs was markedly lower than similar-sized
eucalypt logs of the same decay stage and occurring in the same forest type.
In particular, the weevil, Ancyttaha olkariae Lea, 1906 represented 82% of all
individuals collected from the celery top pine logs, and of the 44 species, 19
were represented as singletons and 11 as doubletons. While the emergence
pattern observed from decaying celerytop pine logs was found to be very
different and markedly lower in diversity to that observed from eucalypt logs,
this selection error does highlight that not all dead wood is the same, but they
all collectively contribute habitat for biodiversity.
Introduction and background
Serendipity is not a word that is
with
experimentation, where it 1s accepted
often X associated scientific
that good experimental design and
execution is an essential part of the
However,
that
result in unforeseen outcomes, with
protocol and procedure.
circumstances often intervene
83
potentially disastrous
for the experimenter. Sometimes even
consequences
the best of designs hit a snag for a
variety of reasons, but still produce a
propitious outcome. Such was the case
with one part of the PhD study of one
of the present authors (Yee 2005), which
involved cataloguing the beetle species
and contrasting the beetle assemblages
in small- vs. large-sized logs taken from
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
mature vs. regenerating study sites
within the tall wet Eucahptus obliqua
native forests in southern Tasmania.
The plan was to have 60 logs, i.e. felled
tree trunks not rooted 1n the ground, all
derived from E. obliqua trees. After the
initial sampling period, it was discovered
that three of the small-sized logs (one at
one site, and two at another site) taken
from regenerating forest, were not
derived from E. obZgua but were from
Phyllocladus asplenifolus, celerytop pine
(also sometimes written as Celery Top
Pine or celery-top pine). This shortfall
of small logs within regenerating forest
posed some problems in the writing up
and presentation of the results for a
scientific communication based on the
E. obliqua logs, which is to be published
elsewhere. But here 1s where serendipity
came into the picture. It turned out
that the results for the beetle fauna
in the celerytop pine logs exhibited
some interesting differences, as well as
showing some similarities, with those
of the beetle fauna in the eucalypt
logs. This communication is concerned
with the beetles that emerged from the
celerytop logs, and how they contrast
with the beetles that emerged from the
eucalypt logs.
Methods
Study area
The study was conducted at ten sites in
the tall wet lowland E. obliqua forests
in the Southern Ranges bioregion,
approximately 60 km south-west of
Hobart, Tasmania. The sites, all within
10 km of each other, were 1n the vicinity
of the Huon and Picton Rivers and fell
within the rectangle bounded by latitude
43? 05—43? 11' S and longitude 146?
39-146? 45' E. Five of the sites (M,
PO1, PO2, R, WR) were mature forest
that had not been logged for at least a
century. The other five sites (E, PR1,
PR2, S, W) were eatly- to middle-stage
regeneration after having been logged
using clearfell, burn and sow silviculture
during the previous 20—30 years. Within
each of the 10 sites, a 50 m x 50 m study
plot was established, located at least
50 m from the access road to minimise
likely edge effects.
Logs and traps
Three large logs (7100 cm diameter) and
three small logs (30-60 cm diameter)
were selected from the study plot at
each site. It was intended that saproxylic
beetles be sampled from all Emcalyptus
obliqua logs of an intermediate decay
stage (also known as decay stage 3) based
on the classifications of Lindenmayer
et al. (1999) and Meggs (1996). These
logs typically had no bark, were often
covered in moss, had soft sapwood and
had solid heartwood with some rot in
places. However, it was later found that,
of the 60 logs, three of the small logs,
all within regenerating sites, were logs
of celerytop pine. This selection error
was partly due to the logs being covered
in moss, with very few distinguishing
features. Thus, instead of having 15
eucalypt logs for each combination of
size and forest management history,
there were only 12 logs for the ‘regen/
small’ combination. To sample the
saproxylic beetles emerging from the
60 logs, each log was fitted with an
emergence trap like those described
84
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
by Bashford et al. (2001). Trap length
varied between 1.6—4.8 m and consisted
of strong netting (<1 mm fine mesh to
ensure trapping small beetles) encasing
the log (Figure 1a). Trap design was kept
simple so that traps could be assembled
by one person.
Netting material was attached to the
log using a staple gun and supported
above the log by 15 cm long modified
wooden stakes (Figure 1b). Similar to
Bashford et al. (2001), emerging beetles
were captured 1n any of two to three
collecting containers, one at the top to
catch those that move towards the light,
and one to two fixed containers at the
base of the trap to catch beetles whose
behaviour was to crawl off the log
a)
(Figure 1d). The top container consisted
of an empty PET 2-litre fruit juice bottle
connected to a piece of elbow piping,
which directed emergent insects from
the trap into the container (Figure 1c).
This top system was kept in place using
a support bracket constructed from
pre-cut and pre-drilled wooden stakes
held together by flexible wire. Diluted
ethylene glycol (60-70%) was used as
preserving fluid.
Visits
The emergence traps were sampled at
irregular 1ntervals between. November
2000 and May 2002. The focus for
sampling was late spring to mid-summer
and late autumn.
gauze-net material
| supporting
| bracket
Figure 1. Log emergence trap showing the a) overall design, b) wooden stakes
used to support material off log, c) top collecting container and support bracket,
and d) bottom collecting container.
85
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Diversity indices
For the calculation of a wide range
of diversity indices, some of which
measure species richness or combine
a measure of richness and evenness,
species abundance data for each trap
were pooled across the sampling period
of 19 months. All diversity indices
were carried out using the ecological
package PRIMER, version 6 (2006).
These comprised the following: S, total
number of species; N, total number of
individuals; d, Margalef species richness
(7(5-1)/log N); H, Shannon diversity
index (calculated using logarithms to the
base e); ”, Pielou’s evenness index (=H’/
log N); 1-2’, Simpson’s index; Hill no. N,,
(=exp(7)); Hill no. N,, (=1/ =P’, where
P. is the proportion of the total number
of individuals N that is accounted for
by the 1” species, 1=1,2,...,S). Interested
readers should consult Clarke & Gorley
(2006) for more information about these
diversity indices.
Results
The three celerytop logs harboured
a relatively high degree of saproxylic
beetle richness, with 44 species from
969 emerged individuals. ‘This compares
with 5585 records of 318 species that
emerged from 57 eucalypt logs (Yee
2005); 43 species were common to both
kinds of logs, with the one species that
was unique to celerytop having only a
sinele record. Considering that there
were only three celerytop logs, 1.e. one-
nineteenth the number of eucalypt
logs, this richness is considerable. In
addition, the celerytop logs were also
considerably rich at the family level,
with representatives of 23 families
having emerged from the three logs
(Table 1). However, despite the richness
at the family level, the abundance of
one particular spectes was very unevenly
distributed, with Ancyltalta oleariae (Lea,
1906) (Curculionidae) represented by
790 individuals, which is 82% of all
individuals. This unevenness is further
illustrated by the fact that of the 44
species, 19 are represented only as
singletons and 11 as doubletons (Table 1).
In addition to species richness, other
measures of beetle diversity reveal
differences between the beetle fauna
present in the celerytop logs and that
present in the eucalypt logs. As the
Plate 1. Photographs of Ancytallia oleariae (approximately 2 mm body length) courtesy
of Simon Grove and Jingyi Chen, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery.
86
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
celerytop logs were all of a small size
and derived from regenerating forest,
only the 12 eucalypt logs in the ‘regen/
small (RS) category were used for this
comparison. One striking result is the
closeness of each of the diversity indices
for celerytop log SSET1 and the average
of the corresponding diversity index for
the 12 eucalypt logs (Table 2). However,
the two celerytop logs from the W site
gave very different results, so that overall
the celerytop logs produced a greater
number of individuals, but with a lower
species richness and evenness, than the
eucalypt logs (Table 2).
Using the 14 most frequently recorded
beetle celerytop
pine logs (singletons and doubletons
species from the
excluded), differences in the number
of records for each of those species
are explored in Table 3. For a given
species, three differences in the species
abundances are shown, the difference
of the total beetle records between the
three celerytop logs and all 57 eucalypt
logs, between the average number of
records in the three celerytop logs and
the average number of records 1n all 57
eucalypt logs, and between the average
number of records in the three celerytop
logs and average number 1n the 12 small
eucalypt logs in regenerating forest (RS).
One species, the weevil Ancyfiaha okariae
(Figure 2), with a body length of 2 mm,
stands out as being exceptionally more
prevalent in the celerytop logs than in
the eucalypt logs. This species accounts
for almost 14% of the beetle emergence
records obtained overall in the 19 month
sampling period, or 82% of the beetle
emergence from celerytop pine logs.
The remaining 13 species in the table
had more or less similar abundance
between eucalypt logs and celerytop logs
when considering average abundance.
Discussion
This selection mistake of trapping
beetles emerging from three celerytop
pine logs provides a glimpse into
the ecology of saproxylic beetles in
‘Tasmania’s wet eucalypt forests and their
adaptation to dead wood arising from
different species, in this case dead wood
from Phyllocladus aspleniufolus, a softwood
podocarp versus dead wood from
Eucalyptus obliqua, a hardwood spectes.
In the Northern Hemisphere, where
saproxylic beetle fauna has been studied
more extensively, distinct assemblages
associated with softwoods, such as pines,
firs, spruces and larches, compared to
the broad-leaved hardwoods, such as
beech, birch, aspen, oak, hornbeam and
maple, have been well documented.
For example, in France, Brin et al. (2011)
used zn sítu emergence traps to examine
saproxylic beetle diversity in temperate
oak and pine forests. The hardwood
forest, with 227 saproxylic beetle species,
was richer than the softwood forest that
had 87 saproxylic beetle species, with
9% of the species common to both
forests. These results mirror those of
the present study, in that hardwood was
richer than softwood (in the present case
eucalypt vs. celerytop) and many species
present in hardwood were absent from
softwood. In southern Sweden, Jonsell
(2008) studied the species of saproxylic
beetles that inhabit hardwood (aspen,
birch, oak) and softwood (spruce) in
87
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Table 1. Species of saproxylic beetle present in the celerytop logs, listed in decreasing
order of abundance at family level. Within a family, species are listed in alphabetical
order by genus, if known.
Species (no. of records)
Curculionidae 862 Ancyttalia oleariae (190), Ancyttalia tarsalis (14), Decilaus
bryophilus (1), Decilaus lateralis (2), Decilaus nigronotatus
(38), Decilaus striatus (2), Exetratus YFIC sp 01 (1),
Exithius cariosus (3), Mandalotus muscivorus (4), Platypus
subgranosus (1), Roptoperus tasmaniensis (6
| _ Stchonotus piceus (12), Trechimorphus diemenensts (2)
Zopheridate 10 Enbypnon tuberculatum (10)
Clambus bornemisszai (4)
4
Corylophidae Holopsis YFIC sp 01 (2), Holopszs VFIC sp 04 (1),
Sericoderus YFIC sp 05 (1)
Heteronyx pilosellus (2), Telura vitticollis (2)
015 (1), within Aleocharinae TFIC sp 034 (1)
Xynotropis YFIC sp 01 (2)
Cortinicara REIKE sp nov 1 (2)
Cleridae
Elateridae
Leiodidae
A e
Nitidulidae reme Amlearcha elegantior (1)
Phalacridae Litochrus brunneus (1)
Binburrum ruficollis (1)
+
Pyrochroidae
three diameter classes (1-15 cm) and _ species, diameter class and decay class of
two decay stages of logging residues by the wood were important in determining
rearing them from 794 wood samples. saproxylic species specificity. In Nova
In total, 49 109 individuals were found, ^ Scotia, Canada, Kehler et al. (2004), using
belonging to 160 species. Host tree — window flight-intercept traps in 41 forest
88
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
stands in both hardwood and softwood,
caught over 17,000 individual beetles,
representing ca. 200 morphospecies
from 45 families. Hardwood stands
beetle than
stands. | Correspondence
had greater richness
softwood
analysis revealed distinct groupings of
_ species assemblages in softwood and
hardwood stands.
The
a selection
documentation as 1t highlights that there
are differences 1n. dead wood types in
albeit
worthy of
present study, having
error, is
lasmania's wet eucalypt forests, and
that a diversity of dead wood types
is important to maintain support and
promote its large diversity of native
saproxylic beetle fauna. While celerytop
pine logs were markedly lower in diversity
compared to that of eucalypt logs, their
substrate represented similar habitat
for a large number of species, albeit at
lower densities. While dead wood levels
in these forests are exceptionally high at
this point in Tasmania’s relatively young
history of industrial forestry, without
careful planning dead wood habitat levels
may dramatically reduce with ongoing
rotations. Such an outcome could result
in substantially lower volumes and
diversity of dead wood habitats in timber
production areas, in which case all types
of dead wood, including celerytop pine
logs, will be important in maintaining
Tasmania’s rich saproxylic beetle fauna.
Table 2. Diversity indices for saproxylic beetle emergence, celerytop logs compared
with eucalypt logs.
25.9
d [$i 344 | 2p | 39 | S89 —
GM I RU A MUNERE JN
3.37
11.08 1.75
0.46
0.51
5.40
0.784
0.851
11.61
N
[& | «B | 18 | 3 | $& | 8m —
89
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Table 3. Contrasts between the beetle fauna emerging from eucalypt logs (E. obliqua)
and celerytop logs (P. aspleniifolius) for the 14 most abundant species.
r-
L
cies a Ers CTay s Emay Eau Ersay Eatav
Amm (mue o a| o | as | on | aos | moe
oleariae
memes [mpm pm ur m me
nigronotatus
eme | 309 | 9 | o | 0 | oo | os |
globosus
Ancyttalia
A pe 14 105 / 1.8
Stichonotus
piceus
Enhypnon
tuberculatum
Roptoperus
tasmaniensis
Aulonothroscus
elongatus
Mandalotus
muscivorus
Orchesia
alphabetica
Sloaneana
tasmaniae
Clambus
bornemisszai
Cryptamorpha
TFIC sp 01
Exithius
cariosus
T
N
HH
>
R NJ
o
Cae e eje pa
efes [eje]
Em
IE
ees
7
w
*
Notes: CT = number of records in 3 celerytop logs; En. = number of records in 57
eucalypt logs; Ers = number of records in 12 small eucalypt logs in regenerating forest;
CTay = average no. of records in the celerytop logs; Ersav = average no. of records in the
small eucalypt logs taken from regenerating forest; Eara- average no. of records in all
eucalypt logs; CT-Ea.. = difference between CT and Ean; CTavErsav = difference between
CTav and Ersav; CTav-Eaav = difference between CTay and Eara.
90
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Acknowledgements
The first author (MY) would like to
the
provided assistance on field trips, who
acknowledge volunteers who
helped construct log emergence traps,
and who collected insect samples
from the forest. These many helpers
included Sue Baker, Yoav Bar-Ness, Paul
Harrington, Yuzuru Hyatake, Rob Taylor
and Gabriel Warren. We thank also
thank Simon Grove for his supervision
and encouragement throughout the
project, and for the photo of the ‘hairy
wee beastie’.
References
Bashford, R., Taylor, R., Driessen, M.,
Doran, N. & Richardson, A. (2001).
Research on invertebrate assemblages
at the Warra LTER Site. Tasforests 13:
109-118.
Brin, A., Bouget, C., Brustel, H. &
Jactel, H. (2011). of
downed woody debris does matter
Diameter
for saproxylic beetle assemblages in
temperate oak and pine forests. Journal
of Insect Conservation 15: 653—669.
Clarke, K. R. & Gotley, R. N. (2006).
PRIMER v6: User Manual/Tutorial
pp. 161-162. PRIMER-E Ltd,
Plymouth, England.
Jonsell, M. (2008). Saproxylic beetle
species in logging residues: which are
they and which residues do they use?
Norwegian Journal of Entomology 55:
109—122.
91
Kehler, D., Bondrup-Nielsen, S. &
Corkum, C. (2004). Beetle diversity
associated with forest structure
including deadwood in softwood and
hardwood stands in Nova Scotia.
Proceedings of the Nova Scotian Institute of
Science 42: 227-239.
Lindenmayer, D. B, Incol, R. D,
Cunningham, R. B. & Donnelly C.
F (1999). Attributes of logs on the
floor of Australian Mountain Ash
(Eucalyptus regnans) forests of different
ages. Forest Ecology and Management 123:
195-203.
Megos, J. M. (1996). Prt study of the effects
of modern logging practices on the decaying-
log habitat in wet eucalypt forest in South-
East Tasmania: report to the Tasmanian
REA Environment and Heritage Technical
Committee. Forestry Tasmania, Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia.
PRIMER (Plymouth Routines
Multivariate Ecological Research),
6 (2006), PRIMER-E Ltd,
Plymouth, England.
Yee, M. (2005). The ecology and habitat
requirements of saproxylic beetles native to
Tasmanian wet eucalypt forests: potential
impacts of commercial forestry practices.
PhD Thesis, University of Tasmania,
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
in
vers.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
92
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
New Tasmanian records for the little-known
carabid beetle Notonomus sphodroides
(Carabidae: Pterostichinae)
Simon Fearn & David Maynard
Natural Sciences, Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery
PO Box 403, Launceston, Tasmania 7250
Simon.Fearn@launceston.tas.gov.au
David. Maynard@launceston.tas.gov.au
Introduction
The ground beetles in the family
Carabidae represent an enormously
diverse and speciose group comprising
approximately 40 000 species 1n. 1500
genera, of which some 3000 described
species occur in Australia (Lawrence &
Slipinski 2013). For its size, Tasmania
has a remarkably rich carabid fauna
including many endemic species. At
present 219 of Carabidae
in 79 genera are known to occur in
lasmania (Atlas of Living Australia
(ALA) 2019a). Some of the largest and
most commonly observed Carabidae
species
in Australia are in the genus Notonomus
Chaudior, 1865. Currently there are
131 recognised species in mesic forest
habitats in eastern Australia from the
Wet Tropics of Queensland to southern
Tasmania as well as one species from
Western Australa (ALA 2019b, K.
Will, pers. comm.). An overview of
the taxonomic history and major works
on the genus in Australia is given in
Will (2015).
Five species of Notonomus are recognised
from Tasmania. Notonomus politulus
(Chaudoir, 1865) 1s a large (12-22* mm),
black species that is common in closed
sclerophyll and mixed forests in many
parts of western and central Tasmania. It
is most often found under decomposing
timber (ALA 2019c; S. Fearn & D.
Maynard unpublished data). It is also
recorded from mesic south-eastern New
South Wales (NSW) and Victoria (ALA
2019c) (Plate1).
Notonomus tubericauda (Bates, 1878) is
another large (10-18 mm), black species
that can be confused with N. pohtulus
although it is primarily distributed in
the eastern half of the state. The elytral
striae of IN. tubericauda are usually more
pronounced in both sexes, and the
females have distinctive tubercles on the
apex of the elytra (Plate 1). IN. tubericauda
can also be differentiated from IN. po/tulus
by the shape of the pronotum which is
typically less broad across the base than
the apex. (K. Will, pers. comm.). This
species is also recorded from mesic south-
eastern NSW and Victoria (ALA 20194).
93
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
North east TAS.
“Aina
4'30| apun
eN
‘ONV1SI ONIX
NOTtv0£9S 327I0/ZS
"Ajjna
0| Jepur)
EIN
4.
d
1583 ‘Sy səm YHON
Plate 1. Tasmanian Notonomus
Top L-R. N. politulus, N. tubericauda, Middle L-R. N. chalybaeus, N. philippi,
Bottom L-R. N. sphodroides from King Island, Brooks Creek western Tasmania and Three
Hummock Island. Photograph: D. Maynard.
94
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Notonomus chalybaeus (Dejean, 1828)
(Plate 1) is a large (13-18 mm), black
species with iridescent green, blue or
purple reflections on the elytra. The
striations on the elytra are nearly absent
making them appear smooth to the
naked eye (Plate 1). The iridescence
and smooth elytra differentiates N.
chalybaeus from other Notonomus species
in western Tasmania. T'his is a common
species inhabiting closed mixed forest
and rainforest in western Tasmania,
and at least as far east as Sisters Beach
on the north coast. It is also common
on the larger islands in western Bass
Strait including Haunter, Robbins,
Three Hummock and King Islands
(ALA 2019e; S. Fearn & D. Maynard
unpublished data). Mainland records
are from mesic southern Victoria (ALA
2019e). It is found under decomposing
|. COL-8591^7«.
Vet.
timber throughout its range.
Notonomus plilppi (Newman, 1842)
(Plate 1) is a large (14-17 mm), black
species with reflecting bronze elytra. The
elytra are nearly smooth (Moore 1983)
(Plate1). This is primarily a Victorian
species, where it is found in two distinct
areas: the Otway Ranges and forested
areas east of Melbourne (Horne
1992; ALA 2019f). Moore (1983) also
recorded it inhabiting open country
[grassland], an unusual habitat for the
genus. In Tasmania this species is only
known from Flinders and Deal Islands
in eastern Bass Strait (Sloane 1920; ALA
2019f) and for reasons that are unclear is
not listed in Semmens et al. (1992).
Notonomus sphodroides (Dejean, 1828)
(Plates 1-3) is a large (11-19 mm), black
species with reflecting blue and purple
Plate 2. Until recently, this King Island specimen of N. sphodroides from Museum Victoria was
the only voucher of the species from Tasmania. Photograph: K. Walker (MV).
95
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
dorsal surfaces, and striated elytra. Until
recently it was believed that this species
was primarily restricted to southern
Victoria (ALA 20199); however the
Australian National Insect Collection
(ANIC) holds specimens collected
from Mt Kosciusko, NSW (C. Lemman,
pers. comm.). The only known voucher
specimen collected outside of mainland
Australia is a single specimen collected
on King Island which is held in the
entomology collection of Museum
Victoria (ALA 20199). This species
cannot be confused with any other
Notonomus in western Tasmania due to
its iridescence and clear elytral striae
(Plates 1-3).
This paper describes the known
collection history of N. sphodroides
in Tasmania, records its presence on
mainland Tasmania for the first time
and an insular population in north-west
Bass Strait, and provides additional King
Island records along with habitat notes.
Collection History
Until May 2019, the only registered
Tasmanian specimen of N. sphodroides
was collected by James Kershaw
on King Island 113 years ago. The
specimen is held by Museums Victoria
(MV) (Plate 2) and there is no collection
date recorded, however using historical
records ít is likely to have been in mid-
December 1906. Kershaw (then Curator
of Zoology at the National Museum
of Victoria) was on King Island in
1906 searching for the bones of extinct
kangaroos (Anon 1906b; Lea 1907;
Pescott 1954). At the same time Arthur
M. Lea, the Tasmanian Government
Entomologist, was on King Island to allay
the fears of local farmers about locusts,
and to collect insect specimens of which
400 were obtained (Anon 1906a, 1906b,
1906c). Lea (1907) states that Kershaw
collected insects independently and
later forwarded all of them to Lea for
identification. It would appear that it
was in this sample from Kershaw that
Lea identifed N. sphodroides (ander the
synonym Notonomus accedens) (Lea, 1907).
At some further point in time, Lea has
returned a specimen (perhaps the only
one collected) to Kershaw, who lodged
it with Museum Victoria.
Kershaw visited King Island again
in December 1908 as part of an
Australasian Ornithological Union
expedition to the Bass Strait islands
(Anon 1908). However, on this occasion
he was on King Island for just one
day and focussed on bird watching
in the environs of Currie Harbour. It
is unlikely that the MV specimen of
N. sphodroides was collected on this trip.
For reasons that are not clear Sloane
(1920) does not list N. sphodroides from
Tasmania but it is most likely that he
was unaware of the specimen. Sloane's
first major work on the genus Notonomus
was in 1902 (Sloane, 1902) prior to the
collection of the Kershaw specimen. In
addition, Lea had most likely sent the
specimen back to Kershaw who had
subsequently died before Sloane's next
work that included the genus in 1913
(Sloane, 1913). It is possibly for all these
reasons that Moore et al. 1987 also omit
N. sphodroides from Tasmania.
In 1981 an unknown number of
specimens of N. sphodroides were
96
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
collected on King Island (Nunn 1984).
The whereabouts or continued existence
of these specimens is unknown. That
author now resides in New Zealand
and is known to have a large private
collection of Coleoptera (Park & Carlton
2015) but attempts to contact him were
unsuccessful.
Mainland Tasmanian specimens
The authors first became aware of N.
sphrodroides when three specimens were
collected in 2017 on Three Hummock
Island off the north-west coast of
Tasmania (QVM.2018.12.0342-44)
(Plates 1 & 4). In early 2018 these
specimens were noted to be clearly
different the named Notonomus
specimens held by the Queen Victoria
Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG).
In addition, at that time the collection
included a unit tray containing nine
to
specimens which, at some point in
the past had been misidentified as
N. chalybaeus. “These specimens were
identical the Three Hummock
Island specimens. Seven of the nine
to
misidentified specimens were collected
near Brooks Creek, Ordnance Point and
north to Gannet Point (ca. 4 km) on the
west coast of Tasmania in 1981. They
were collected as part of a biodiversity
survey funded by Earthwatch (see
Green 1984). These seven specimens
are registered as QVM.12.47241. The
remaining two misidentified specimens
were collected by R. H. Green at
Mages Mountain, north-west Tasmania
1982 (434027mE 5384184mN,
460 m alt.) (Fig. 1) and are registered as
QVM.12.47337.
in
97
Later in 2018 the first author located
a further two specimens from the
1981 Earthwatch survey preserved
(QVM.2019.12.1356-57).
At that time all these specimens were
in ethanol
flagged as Notonomus sp. and no further
investigations were conducted. As it
turns out, these 11 specimens represent
the first records of N. sphodroides from
mainland Tasmania.
A further
collected by the second author at two
eight specimens were
sites on Three Hummock Island on
28 December 2018 and 1 January 2019
(QVM.2019.12.1569-76) (Fig. 1).
King Island specimens
Between 29 January and 6 February 2019
the authors conducted an entomological
survey on King Island where a further
14 specimens were collected at three
sites(QV M.2019.12.1358-1371)
(Plate 4). To facilitate the registration of
the King Island material we contacted
Prof. Kipling Will, Essig
Museum of Entomology, University of
Assoc.
California, Berkeley for assistance with
Notonomus identifications. The beetle
was identified as N. sphodroides from
high-resolution imagery (Plate 3). Based
on this information the authors were
able to identify the Three Hummock
Island, Brooks
Mountain specimens.
Creek and Maggs
Other Museum holdings
lo our knowledge QVMAG holds
the only N. sphodrozdes from mainland
Tasmania, and QVMAG and MV hold
the only Bass Strait material. However
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Plate 3. Detail of female Notonomus sphodroides from Grassy River, King Island.
Reg. No. QVM: 2019.12.1362. Photograph: David Maynard.
it is possible that unidentified specimens
of Tasmanian-collected N. sphodroides are
held in other institutions. The Tasmanian
Museum and Art Gallery (IMAG) does
not have any specimens identified as N.
sphodroides (S. Grove, pers. comm.). It 1s
quite possible that ANIC has specimens
as they have a large number of
unidentified, non-databased Notonomus
from across Australia, including the
lasmanian region. Resources did not
allow ANIC staff to conduct a thorough
search in this substantial collection at
this time (C. Lemman, pers. comm.).
Discussion
It is remarkable that such a relatively
large and colourful beetle can go
virtually unrecognised in Tasmania for
decades. Invertebrate sampling in north-
west Tasmania by QVMAG in recent
years, particularly in the Hunter Group
and on King Island, has documented
many new or poorly known Tasmanian
98
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
species (e.g. Maynard & Fearn 2018,
2019; Maynard et al. 2019; Fearn &
Maynard 2019a, 2019b). The apparent
absence of some of these species
from the Tasmanian mainland may be
linked to its biogeographic history and
a unique climate envelope over Bass
Strait centred on King Island (Maynard
& Fearn 2018). Clearly, there is scope
for additional fieldwork and systematic
collection of voucher
throughout this region.
specimens
All the sites where the authors have
collected N. sphodroides are characterised
by shaded, damp and humid substrates
in closed forest. Micro-habitats have
been exclusively under decomposing
logs of a range of species where these
carnivorous beetles would find shelter
and small invertebrate prey. Notes on
the micro-environment at collection sites
were not recorded by R.H. Green for
either Brooks Creek or Mages Mountain
samples. Further fieldwork is needed to
define the distribution of NN. sphodroides
and its ecological niche on mainland
‘Tasmania. On King Island the collection
sites (Plate 4) were characterised as
blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon) forest
and Kine Island blue gum (Eucalyptus
globulus ssp.) forest as defined by Barnes
et al. (2002). In addition, these sites
were riparian, ie. in the vicinity of
creeks (Plate 4). Similarly, the Three
Hummock sites were characterised
by western wet scrub/Ewmalptus nitida
dry forest (DPIPWE 2014) with an
adjacent ephemeral stream creek and
subsurface moisture.
The preferred habitat of N. sphodroides
Maggs Mountain.
1982 ne y yy E
A TA ^
Figure 1. Collection locations for Notonomus sphodroides in north-west Tasmania. The number of
specimens collected at each location and sampling event (year) appear in brackets.
99
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
on King Island has changed dramatically
since 1888 when the island was opened
up to free settlers by the Tasmanian
Government (Barnes et al 2002). It
is highly likely that this species has
undergone a large-scale range reduction
on King Island since that time. Further
fieldwork is required to understand
the distribution of N. sphodroides on
King Island.
lo date JN. sphodroides appears to
be relatively uncommon on ‘Three
Hummock Island and appears to
be confined to sites with ephemeral
waterways, high soil moisture and fallen
timber. However, exploration of the
island has been quite limited and further
fieldwork targeting suitable habitats
may identify other populations. It is
very possible that N. sphodroides exists
on some of the other larger western
Bass Strait islands, particularly those
that are well vegetated with moist creek
gullies or drainage lines with closed
forest riparian vegetation. Collection
of voucher specimens from across
the species range will be important for
future taxonomic and molecular work
as K. Will (pers. comm.) suggests that
the current concept of 'sphodroides' will
probably turn out to be a complex
of species.
Atall sites on Three Hummock and King
Islands, N. sphodroides was sympatric with
N. chalybaeus with which 1t can be initially
confused under low light conditions
on the forest floor. Other Carabidae
collected at all N. sphodroides sites
under fallen timber were Prosopogmus
sp. (Pterostichinae) and Promecoderus sp.
(Broscinae).
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the QVMAG Friends for
their financial support of fieldwork
to King Island. Also, thanks to David
Brewster and Sally Jones for assistance
with transport and logistics while on
King Island and to the editors of The
Tasmanian Naturalist for reviewing this
paper. Special thanks to the crew of
Sooty Petrel, Leslie and Peter Wells, and
Dianne Maynard for supporting field
work on Three Hummock and Hunter
Islands. Sincere thanks to all the curators
who kindly gave up their time to check
collections for specimens of Notonomus
sphodroides: Simon Grove (TMAG), Jamie
Davies and Guy Westmore (Department
of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and
Environment), Dr Ken Walker (Museum
Victoria) and Cate Lemman (ANIC).
Sincere thanks also to Prof. Kipling
Will, Essig Museum of Entomology,
University of California, Berkeley for
assistance with Notonomus identifications
and reviewing the manuscript and Ross
Smith (QVMAG History Department)
for researching King Island field
trips of James Kershaw.
Invertebrates were collected under
Department of Primary Industries,
Parks, Water and Environment Permit
Authority Nos. FA 16141, 17100
and 18151.
*Note
Measurements ate based on specimens
held by the Queen Victoria Museum and
Art Gallery.
100
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
References
Atlas of Living Australia (2019a).
Carabidae Tasmania preserved specimen.
Accessed 7 June 2019.
--- (2019b). Notonomus (Lemadma)
Castelnau, 1867. Accessed 21 May 2019.
--- (2019c). Notonomus (letradira) poltulus.
Accessed 21 May 2019.
---(2019d). Notonomu (Leiradira)
tuberwauda Bates, 1878. Accessed 21
May 2019.
--- (20196). Notonomus (Letradira)
chalybaeus (Dejean, 1828). Accessed 21
May 2019.
a (20198).
(Leiradira) philippi (Newman,
1842). Accessed 21 May 2019.
Notonomus
--- (20199). Notonomus (Leiradira) sphodroides
(Dejean, 1828). Accessed 21 May 2019.
Anonymous. (1906a). Examiner
(Launceston). Thursday, 13
December, 1906. Page 3.
Anonymous. (1906b). Examiner
(Launceston). Monday, 17 December,
1906. Page 4.
Anonymous. (1906c). Examiner
(Launceston). Tuesday, 18 December,
1906. Page 7.
Anonymous. (1908). The North Western
Advocate and Emu Bay Times (Burnie).
Wednesday, 2 December 1908. Page 2.
Barnes, R. W, Duncan, E. & Todd, C.
S. (2002). The Native Vegetation of King
Island, Bass Strait. Nature Conservation
Report 02/6. Nature Conservation
Branch,
Resource Management
and Conservation, Department
of Primary Industries, Water and
Environment, Hobart.
DPIPWE (2014. TASVEG 3.0.
Accessed 11 June 2019.
Fearn, S. & Maynard, D. (2019a).
Ecological Achthosus
westwoodi (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)
notes on
from King Island and a successional
relationship with Toxeutes arctuatus
(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Pinus
radiata logs. The Tasmanian Naturalist
141: in press.
Fearn, S. & Maynard, D. (2019).
Identity of Endoxyla wood moths
(Lepidoptera: Cossidae: Zeuzerinae)
with
previously undocumented
from Bass Strait. The
Naturahst 141: in press.
in ‘Tasmania records of
species
Tasmanian
Green, R. H. (1984). Introduction.
Pp. 1-6 mm C. B. Tassell (Ed.). The
vegetation, fauna and archaeology
of Ordnance Point, north western
Tasmania. Records of the Queen Victoria
Museum Launceston. No. 84.
P A. (1992. Comparative
life histories of two species of
Notonomus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) 1n
Victoria, Australian Journal of Zoology
40 (2) 163-71.
Horne,
Lawrence, J. E. & Slipinski, A. (2013).
Australian Beetles. Volume 1. Morphology,
classification and keys. CSIRO Publishing,
Collingwood. Melbourne.
Lea, A. M. (1907). 'The Coleoptera of
King Island, Bass Strait. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of Victoria 20 (N.S.), Pt
II: 143-207.
101
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Maynard, D. & Fearn, S. (2018). First
Tasmanian Record in 80 years:
Achthosus 1863
(Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae: Ulomini)
from Three Island,
Western Bass Strait with ecological
notes. The Tasmanian Naturalist 140:
147-155.
westwood: Pascoe,
Hummock
Maynard, D. & Fearn, S. (2019). The first
record of the stout tinzeda Tinzeda
albosignata (Brunner von Wattenwyl,
1878) (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) in
Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist
141: in press
Maynard, D. Fearn, S. & De Keyzer, R.
(2019). Rediscovery of the endemic
Tasmanian stag beetle — Lzssofes
crenatus (Scarabaeoidea: Lucanidae:
Lucaninae): collection history,
distribution and ecological notes.
Records of the Queen Victoria Museum and
Art Gallery, no. 119.
Moore, B. P. (1983). A guide to the beetles
of South-Eastern Australia. Fascicle
5. Australian Entomological Press,
Greenwich, NSW.
Moore, B. P, Weir, T. A. & Pyke, J. E
(1987). Carabidae. pp. 23-320, in D. W.
Walton (exec. ed.) Zoological Catalogue
of Australia 4. Coleoptera: Archostemata,
Myxophaga, Adephaga. Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Canberra.
Nunn, J. (1984). New records of
Carabidae (Coleoptera)
King Island, Tasmania. Australian
Entomological Magazine 11(3): 43-44.
from
Park, J-S. & Carlton, C. E. (2015).
Pseudoexeirarthra, a new genus
from New Zealand (Coleoptera,
Staphylinidae, Pselaphinae), with
descriptions of seven new species.
ZooKeys 491: 95-118.
Pescott, R. T. M. (1954). Collections of
a century: the history of the first hundred
years of the National Museum of Victoria.
National Museum of Victoria.
Semmens, T. D., McQuillan, P. B. &
Hayhurst, G. (1992). Catalogue of the
insects of Tasmania. Department of
Primary Industry Tasmania.
Sloane, T. G. (1902). A revision of the
genus Notonomus (Family Carabidae;
sub-Family Feronini). Proceedings of the
Linnaean Society of NSW 271: 252-325.
Sloane, T. G. (1913). Revisional notes
on Australian Carabidae. Part iv. The
genus Notonomus. Proceedings of the
Linnaean Society of NSW 38: 404-449.
Sloane, T. G. (1920). The Carabidae of
Tasmania. Proceedings of the Linnaean
Society of NSW 45: 113-178.
Wil, K. (2015. A
phylogenetic analysis results in a
redefinition of the Genus Notonomus
Chaudoir (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
and descriptions of new species of
multigene
the subgenus Lezradira Castelnau,
Invertebrate Systematics 29, (4): 313-344.
102
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Between a dune and a watery place: the beetles
and flies that call Tasmania’s sandy beaches home
Simon Grove’ & Lynne Forster?
Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery Collections and Research
"Facility, 5 Winkleigh Place, Rosny, TAS 7018
Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania
*Life Sciences Building, Sandy Bay Campus
Private Bag 98,Hobart, TAS 7001
Our island state of Tasmania is blessed
with a long and intricate coastline.
Extending three thousand
kilometres, this winding ribbon at the
interface of land and sea encompasses
over
a wide spectrum of shore types, from
sheer cliffs exposed to the full force
of the Roaring Forties, to muddy
estuaries and tranquil lagoons. All are
harsh environments for most forms of
animal life — a sort of in-between world
neither fully marine nor fully terrestrial.
The regular tidal cycle of inundation
and exposure is but one aspect of the
environment to which shore-dwelling
animals and plants are subjected. Add
in the daily and seasonal influence of
our notoriously capricious weather, both
fair and foul, hot and cold, soaking and
desiccating, and it is clear that this is an
extremely demanding place to live.
On the face of it, sandy beaches
appear less hostile in comparison to
rocky shores. But appearances can
be deceptive: sand is a highly mobile
substrate, its grains effortlessly shifted
around by the currents when inundated,
and blown around in the wind when
exposed. Hardly surprising, then, that
sandy beaches are often viewed as
vast, apparently lifeless expanses of
glaring sand.
Yet for all these truisms, sandy beaches
have one thing in their favour: over time
(f not on a daily basis) they tend to be
depositional, as opposed to erosional,
in nature. In simple terms, the ocean 1s
the giver, while the land 1s the recetver.
So while these beaches are not benign,
they can be benevolent. Along the
strandline at the top of the beach, tides
can deposit drifts of wrack — seaweeds
and seagrasses uprooted by waves and
currents from more productive marine
habitats.
which the coastal waters are particularly
‘Tasmania sits at a latitude in
well suited to luxuriant growths of
seaweed. Chief among these are the
‘browns’ — giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera,
bull kelp Durrillea potatorum, strap-weed
Lessonia corrugata and various species of
Sargassum and Cystiphora — and so these
form the bulk of the seaweed washed
Dead fish, urchins,
ashore. crabs,
103
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
sea-stars and molluscs are also often
beached, joined at times by the corpses
of much bigger animals such as seabirds,
seals and whales. Dead insects, drowned
after mistakenly landing on the sea,
are also surprisingly common, and not
just in summer: the red-headed chafer
Adoryphorus couloni begins tts emergence
near the end of winter and at times there
can be drifts of tens of thousands of
these dead beetles along the strandline.
As the tidal cycle moves from neap to
spring (or king) tides, these gifts from
the ocean are nudged successively higher
and higher, eventually lying marooned
and exposed until the peak of the next
cycle (Plate 1).
Wrack is where things get especially
interesting on a sandy beach. Al
of this organic material represents a
concentrated source of potential food
for any animal capable of accessing it,
before those elemental forces of wind
Its a
tempting resource for both marine and
terrestrial animal life, yet it exists at
the limits of accessibility for each. In
essence, to be in the running, you have
and water whip it away again.
to be some sort of highly specialised
animal dedicated to making a go of it
here and only here in this transitional
habitat, despite the many vicissitudes of
life on the strandline. Many lineages of
arthropods have risen to the challenge.
On the marine side, at our latitude,
we have the isopods (sea-slaters) and
amphipods (beach-fleas and
hoppers), about which other authors
sand-
have written at length (e.g. Richardson et
al. 1991, 1997). On the terrestrial side,
we have insects from a range of orders,
and it is this realm that we consider in
this article.
Insects are among the most successful
of terrestrial organisms; yet as a group
they have singularly failed to penetrate
the marine environment, give or take
a few intertidal and surface-dwelling
forms. However, quite a few species
specialise in life among wrack, whether
exposed on the strandline or part-buried
further down the shore, in the intertidal
zone. These include scavengers and
detritivores feeding on the decomposing
wrack and on stranded dead animals, as
well as predators of these insects. Nearly
Plate 1. Wrack, and a dead fur-seal, on a sandy beach near Coles Bay, August 2019.
Photograph: Lynne Forster
104
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
all of these are either flies (Diptera) or
beetles (Coleoptera), and it is on these
two insect orders that we focus here.
Perhaps the most noticeable beach-
dwelling insects are the various wrack-
flies or kelp-flies. The term kelp-fly
is usually reserved for members of
the family Coelopidae - a small family
of squat, bristly flies that reaches
its maximum diversity in southern
Australia (McAlpine 1991). Local
species include Rhis whitky: (Plate 3a),
Gluma musgravet (Plate 3b), Gluma nitida
(Plate 3c), This canus (Plate 3d) and
Chaetocoelopa sydneyensis (Plate 6a). The
adults amass on and around rotting
seaweed or indeed any lumpy object on
the beach, giving them a bad rap when
they choose holidaymakers rather than
weed for their social gatherings. On the
plus side, coelopid larvae are among the
main consumers of rotting kelp, or at
least of the microbes that do the rotting
(Cullen et al., 1987); they sometimes
form writhing masses of maggots
among the putrefying gloop (Plate 2)
as they try to drink their way through
successive instars to pupation and
Plate 2. Larvae of wrack-flies amid
the gloop emanating from rotting
bull-kelp, Clifton Beach, August 2019.
Photograph: Lynne Forster
adulthood before the return of the king
tides. Runnels of gloop often extend all
the way down the shore to the sea. It has
been argued (Marshall 2012) that, since
living kelp-beds are the most productive
‘plant’? communities on the planet, whilst
hosting very few herbivores, the job of
returning that productivity to the ocean
falls largely to these maggots. And they
can do this at any time of year, perhaps
because in summer wrack partial burial
keeps it cool and moist; while in winter it
retains heat (relative to atr-temperature)
periodic
seawater. The presence in winter of
through inundation in
minute parasitoid Basahy wasps (family
Diapriidae) also suggests that kelp-flies
are actively breeding in this season, since
they parasitise the late-stage puparia of
kelp-flies.
Other prominent flies that get in on
the act of wrack-recycling belong to
the families Anthomyiidae (e.g. the
cosmopolitan Facelia tergina, Plate 6b)
and Sphaeroceridae (e.g. Thoracochaeta
spp., Plate 3e, 3f), as do smaller shore-
flies (family Ephydridae), dark-winged
fungus-enats (family Sciaridae), filth-
flies (family Carnidae), surf-flies (family
Canacidae) and tiny midges of both
biting (family Ceratopogonidae) and
non-biting (family Chironomidae)
varieties. The large, speckled-eyed
hoverfly Eristalinus aeneus (family
Syrphidae: Plate 3g) is a newcomer to our
beaches. Itis a relative of the ubiquitous
European dronefly and also probably
of European origin — though it is now
almost cosmopolitan. Like the dronefly,
its larvae are “rat-talled maggots”, the
name coming from the long spiracular
105
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
tube at the rear end. This tube serves as
the larva’s ‘snorkel’, enabling it to inhabit
the deoxygenated but still vaguely
freshwater zone that develops where
wrack has been deposited at the mouths
of small creeks periodically blocked by
sand.
All fly larvae feed on liquid food, but
some of them find this food 1n the most
unlikely of places, such as the dry sand
above the strandline. Chief among these
are the stiletto-flies (family Therevidae).
Though the adults scarcely feed (and
only on nectar or pollen), their elongate,
wiry larvae are predatory on other
sand-inhabiting invertebrates, such as
fly larvae and sand-hoppers. They can
wriggle their way rapidly through the
dry sand, piercing their prey with highly
sclerotised mouthparts and sucking
out their juices. The species most
often encountered as adults on sandy
beaches or on adjacent vegetation are
the pale-coloured Anabarhynchus pallidus
(Plate 6e) and the darker Anabarhynchus
maritimus (Plate 6f). Mating pairs are
often flushed if you're walking along
near the strandline; they usually remain
conjoined as they fly making them
relatively easy to spot. Members of two
further fly families share similar habits,
at least as larvae. Larvae of robberflies
(family Asilidae) are wiry predators with
similar tastes to the stiletto-flies, except
that they digest their prey extra-orally
before ingesting the liquefied tissues.
On sandy beaches, the usual robberfly 1s
Stichopogon maritima (Plate 6g) whose pale,
silvery coloration serves as excellent
camouflage against the bright sand. The
adults are also predaceous, pouncing
on kelp-flies and other flying insects,
encaging them between the stiff bristles
of their legs and then impaling them with
a needle-like ‘tongue’ before injecting
saliva that contains nerve-poisons, cell-
bursting toxins and protein-digesting
enzymes. More easy to spot (because
the females at least come looking for
you) are adults of the typical march-fly
(family Tabanidae) of sandy beaches,
Cystidomorpha vetusta (Plate 6h). They
are much paler than inland march-fly
species, presumably also for camouflage
against the sand. The females require a
blood meal before they are able to lay
eggs, and have rasping mouth-parts to
slice their way through mammalian skin.
The males feed on nectar or not at all.
March-fly larvae are active predators of
other soft-bodied invertebrates, usually
in damp earth, but presumably the
larvae of this species are more tolerant
of drier conditions.
If you look closely in the vicinity of the
most-seaward of the plants growing
above the strandline, you might spot
some strange little flies with dark
patches on their wings, running around
on the sand and waving their wings at
each other like semaphores. These are
flies in the genus Apotropina (family
Chloropidae), most often A. ornatipennis
(Plates 5a, 6d), and the signalling 1s
probably part of their mating ritual.
It is not clear how their larvae make
a living, but they are likely to be
scavengers or detritivores in putrefying
beach carrion or wrack, since this most
closely approximates the known habitat
of non-beach-specific species in this
cosmopolitan genus. A further rather
106
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
striking small fly, often seen perched
in mating pairs on beach vegetation,
is the metallic-hued Rhytdortahs averni
(family Platystomatidae: Plate 5b). Its
larval habits are unknown, but most
likely involve either rotting seaweed or
beached carrion.
Given their year-round activity, wrack-fly
larvae represent a potent, if patchy and
ephemeral, opportunity for would-be
predators. Birds such as oystercatchers,
hooded plovers and gulls are the most
obvious as they probe or turn over the
wrack, but there are also many predatory
insect species that specialise on eating
kelp-fly
recyclers. Among the flies, species of
Lispe (family Muscidae: Plate 6c) are
prominent. Tiny long-legged flies (family
Dolichopodidae) and scuttle-flies (family
Phoridae) are more numerous but go
larvae and other wrack-
largely unnoticed. A remarkably diverse
rove-beetle fauna (family Staphylinidae)
also partakes; member species have
shortened elytra (wing-cases) exposing a
long, soft and flexible abdomen. Their
striking difference in body-plan from
other beetles may be a clue to their
success in this habitat, since it allows
them agility when weaving between
decomposing fronds of kelp 1n pursuit
of prey. Itis common to see one of these
beach-dwelling rove-beetles curving its
abdomen upwards and forwards; this not
only allows the beetle to spray itself with
signalling pheromones but may also help
to trap a bubble of ait to aid buoyancy
and breathing during tidal inundation.
The species involved are mostly poorly
known taxonomically; we have illustrated
just some of these in Plate 4. Generally,
it is both the larvae and the adults that
are predatory; but the larvae are likely
to have more of an impact since they
do little else, whereas the adults tend
to be out and about seeking mates and
new patches of wrack. Indeed they can
often be seen flying low and fast over
the strandline, where they are easily
mistaken for flies. lhe larger species
of Cafius are early colonisers of freshly
stranded wrack on a receding tide; if you
turn it over you may see tunnels in the
moist sand patrolled by these voracious
beetles which devour sand-hoppers,
adult kelp-flies and, as the wrack decays,
their larvae. Later on the scene is the
much smaller lofarp/ia australs (Plate 4n),
a species that can be found in numbers
by searching through sand in the vicinity
of buried kelp that has been there long
enough to be colonised by a whole
community of arthropods, including the
tiny mites and sprinetails that probably
form their main prey. The glossy-black
and orange Akochara blackburm (Plate 42)
is a special form of predator: while the
adults are free-ranging, the larva is an
ectoparasitoid that gnaws through a fly's
protective pupatium — including that
of our featured kelp-fly G/uza musgravel
(Song et al. 2019), lodging itself between
the puparium and the pupa within and
feeding on the contents of the pupa,
ultimately killing it.
Besides the rove-beetles, there are many
other predatory beetles that call wrack
home. Minute Halacritus vidus (family
Histeridae: Plate 5e) probably prey on
mites and springtails. They are equipped
with expanded and spiny forelegs that
help them dig through the sand - an
107
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
unusual way of life for beetles in this
family. Equally tiny are two species in
the water-beetle family Hydrophilidae
that have adapted to life in the semi-
watery world of decaying wrack: the
elossy-black Ercycodes tasmanicus (Plate
5d) and the red-brown E. fossus (Plate
5c). While adults graze the surfaces of
seaweed, their predatory larvae have an
appetite for small invertebrates. Since
other members of their subfamily
(Sphaeridiinae) live in leaf-litter, perhaps
wrack represents the bridging habitat
that enabled the evolution of truly
terrestrial forms.
Two flightless weevils in the genus
Aphela, the tiny A. alarum (Plate 7c)
and the larger A. helopozdes (Plate 7d),
presumably hide by day in the sand,
despite showing little morphological
adaptation for digging. At night, they
patrol the strandline and even well down
into the intertidal zone when the tide is
out, sometimes in large numbers. They
are probably eating wrack although this
has not been demonstrated; their larvae
may also be wrack-feeders but this is
also unclear. Most of the other beetle
species of this habitat are thought to be
scavengers on more protein-rich fare such
as the remains of dead fish, urchins and
seabirds. These include several species
of darkling-beetle (Tenebrionidae) from
a range of distinct lineages. The largest
is the handsome, silver-haired Edyhus
canescens (Plate 7e). In our experience,
this species is more often encountered
dead than alive; perhaps this indicates
that it is most active in the autumn or
winter rather than spring or summer —
which might make sense, given that this
would coincide with the most bounteous
tides. Next down in terms of size is
Sphargeris physodes (Plate 7f). These are
most unusual-looking darkling-beetles:
in particular, they have stout, bristly
legs well-suited for digging in sand.
By day, they can occasionally be found
sheltering under driftwood or wrack; but
there must be many more dug into the
sand because by night they can be seen
in numbers, homing in on tasty corpses.
The smallest darkling-beetles on the
beach — and among the smallest in their
family — are species in the genera Hyows
and Cro (yes, the genus was named after
the research organisation). In Tasmania
we have come across the blackish
Hyocis bakewellr (Plate 7g) and the more
reddish Cszro variegata (Plate 5g). Unlike
their larger relatives, their morphology
shows few adaptations to digging, but
perhaps they are small enough relative
to sand-grains for this not to be an issue
for them. Like other species, they hide
away by day and come out at night —
even on cold nights. Again, the larvae
of most of these beetle species are likely
to also scavenge, but those of Edy/ws
canescens may feed on the roots of grasses
growing on nearby dunes.
Beach-dwelling beetles eventually die,
and their husks join those of drowned
insects washed up or blown onto the
strandline. Three further tiny beetle
species are thought to either take
advantage of this unusual food-source
or ate predators of the tiny mites
One is
Phycosecis Ittoralis (Plate 7h), a member
of a family (Phycosecidae), all of whose
few members specialise 1n this sort of
and crustaceans that do so.
108
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
lifestyle.
that can often be seen patrolling the
These are day-active beetles
sands high on the beach, 1n search of
likely food-items; sometimes a single
dead insect such as Edyhus will host
a dozen or more Phyosecs. Being
day-active, they are potentially both
competitors of, and food for, ants
scavenging in the same environment.
Though they can run rapidly over the
sand, they probably can’t outrun an ant
and it’s likely that the fringe of bristles
around the perimeter of the thorax and
abdomen serves to keep ants at bay while
the beetle hunkers down or burrows
into the sand. They may be found in
the presence of Lagnozda austrahs (family
Anthicidae: Plate 5f) whose nocturnal
counterparts are tiny beetles in the
genus Mecynotarsus, principally M. laz
(Plate 5h, 1). By torchlight, they too
can be seen running at speed over the
sand, in search of similar food-items.
The purpose of the strange forwards-
oriented and hair-fringed projection on
the front of the pronotum is unknown:
perhaps it affords the beetle’s head some
protection from competitors or would-
be predators when joining in the melee
feeding at a crowded corpse.
Ants have scarcely received a mention
in this discussion, yet their role may be
crucial in putting upper limits on where
these beetles and flies can live on the
shore. In most terrestrial ecosystems,
ants ate the dominant insect predators
and scavengers; but their need to nest
in relatively stable substrates limits their
access to some sandy beaches (those
backed by unstable dunes) other than
their most landward part. Meanwhile,
in marine systems, the amphipods and
isopods do much of the scavenging
(although less of the predation); but,
with the odd exception, the influence
of these crustacean species decreases
the further up the beach one travels
(Richardson etal. 1999). On shores closer
to the equator, there are predaceous and
scavenging crabs, particularly ghost-
crabs (family Ocypodidae) that patrol
sandy beaches at night; but these are
lacking at our latitude. It would appear
that this leaves a narrow zone around
the strandline, where the numbers of
crustaceans and ants are sufficiently
suppressed that there are opportunities
for beetles and flies to prevail. These
insects still need to have avoidance
mechanisms (such as burrowing) or
defence mechanisms (such as bristles
and hairs), but at least they are in with
a chance — and a remarkable range of
specialised species has clearly succeeded
in making this zone their home.
We started this article by noting that
sandy beaches are tough environments.
In some ways, they are rather like inland
sandy deserts — and there are faunal
connections too. Referring to these
similarities among the tenebrionid beetle
fauna, Matthews (2000) suggested that
the dry, low-nutrient, exposed physical
(‘edaphic
deserts’) were the ancestral home of many
environments of beaches
lineages now also found inland (‘climatic
deserts’). Many of the beach-dwelling
lineages are remarkably widespread
globally, and he hypothesised that they
could have their origins in a Jurassic
ancestral home around the ‘Tethys
Sea, with their current distributions
109
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
explained by both vicariance (1.e. the
movement of the continents) and
dispersal (e.g. from beaches to inland
deserts). In a Tasmanian context this
faunal
unusual given the Gondwanan origins
element is therefore rather
of many terrestrial species.
Despite Tasmania’s bounteous extent
of sandy beaches, relatively few are in
their natural state, and many will have
deteriorated significantly over the past
couple of decades with increased human
access and use. Removal of ‘unsightly’
(or smelly) wrack and carcasses takes
away the very resources that sustain this
specialised community of 1nsects. Even
trampling by people, dogs and horses
is likely to significantly impact upon
their habitat, and hence on the insects
themselves; as does compaction and
rutting caused by four-wheel drives and
other recreational vehicles (Schlacher
et al. 2008; Richardson et al. 1997).
Stabilisation of dunes, for instance
through the spread of invasive marram
grass and sea-spurge, may allow ants
access further down the beach than
would otherwise be the case, potentially
impinging on the specialised insect
fauna. Most of the insects mentioned
above were found by us on relatively
pristine beaches, either at Musselroe
in the far north-east of Tasmania (SG)
ot down the east coast to Bruny Island
in the south (LF). In the broader
‘Tasmanian context, while the west coast
remains poorly known, there have been
some qualitative or semi-quantitative
studies of beach-dwelling insects and
crustaceans covering a wider selection
of sandy beaches (McQuillan et al. 1998;
Richardson et al. 1999). Being twenty
years old now, these studies might serve
as useful benchmarks against which to
compare current species distributions,
although the taxonomic resolution of
some of the identifications was only at
family- or genus-level.
And then there 1s climate change and
sea-level rise. Mapping and modelling
reported by Sharples (2006) found about
a quarter of all Tasmania's sandy beaches
to be vulnerable to erosion in the coming
decades due to decreased replenishment
of sand brought on by changes in
storm-surge intensity and frequency.
Eroding beaches are by definition non-
depositional, at least on average, and
so don’t provide reliable habitat for the
fauna discussed above. Climate change
and overfishing of rock-lobsters are also
behind the southward spread of urchin
barrens and the loss of kelp-beds (Ling
& Keane 2018), which can greatly reduce
the amount of seaweed washed ashore;
and marine
heatwaves have almost eliminated the
forests of giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera)
that were once so prevalent around our
coasts (Johnson et al. 2011). With all
these looming issues, ours may be the
while warming waters
last generation to have the opportunity
to witness the wondrous array of wrack-
dependent insect life that still abounds
on our sandy beaches. There is plenty
more to discover — but time is not on
our side.
110
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Acknowledgements
We thank Jingyi Chen for taking most
of the high-resolution photomontages
of insect specimens using equipment at
TMAG. Beach-dwelling insects on Bruny
Island and at Musselroe were studied as
part of an ABRS BushBlitz (2016) and a
TMAG Expedition of Discovery (2018)
respectively. For enabling and funding
these expeditions, and our participation
thank the BushBlitz
program coordinators, the Friends of
the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery,
and Hydro ‘Tasmania (the operators of
the Musselroe Wind Farm).
also grateful to Kee-Jeong Ahn and In-
in them, we
We are
Seong Yoo for finessing our staphylinid
beetle identifications, and to ‘Tony Daly,
likewise, with regard to our Diptera
We also thank Alastair
Richardson for helpful comments on an
identifications.
earlier version of this paper.
References
Cullen, S.J., Young, A.M. & Day, T.H.
(1987). Dietary requirements of
seaweed flies (Coelopa frigida). Estuarine,
Coastal and Shef Science, 24, 701-710.
Johnson, C. R., Banks, S. C., Barrett, N.
S., Cazassus, F., Dunstan, P. K., Edgar,
G. J., Frusher, S. D., Gardner, C.,
Haddon, M., Helidoniotis, E, Hill, K.
L., Holbrook, N. J., Hoste, G. W., Last,
P. R., Ling, S. D., Melbourne- Thomas,
J., Miler, K., Pecl, G. T., Richardson,
A. J, Ridgway, K. R., Rintoul, S. R.,
Ritz, D. A., Ross, D. J., Sanderson, J.
C., Shepherd, S. A., Slotwinski, A.,
Swadling, K. M., & Taw, N. (2011).
Climate change cascades: shifts in
oceanography, species’ ranges and
subtidal marine community dynamics
Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
400: 17—32.
in eastern Tasmania.
Ling, SD. & Keane, JP. (2018).
Resurvey of the long-spined sea-urchin
rodgersit)
(Centrostephanus and
associated barren reef in Tasmania.
Institute for Marine and Antarctic
Studies University of
Tasmania, Hobart, 52 pages.
Marshall, A. (2012). Seaweed flies. Pages
54-55 In Marshall, A., FZes: £he natural
history and diversity of Diptera. Firefly
Books, Ontario, Canada, 618 pages.
(2000).
arid-zone
Report.
Matthews, E.
Australian
beetles. Invertebrate Taxonomy 14:
941—951.
Origins of
tenebrionid
111
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
McAlpine, D.K. (1991). Review of Sharples, C. (2006). Indicative Mapping
the Australian kelp flies (Diptera: of Tasmanian Coastal Vulnerability
Coelopidae). Systematic Entomology to Chmate Change and Sea-Level Rase:
16: 29-81. Explanatory Report (Second Edition).
Consultant Report to Department
of Primary Industries & Water,
Tasmania, 173 pages.
McQuillan, P. B., Michaels, K. & Blake,
G.M. (1998). The identity and distribution
of beetles (Coleoptera) associated with sandy
beaches and coastal sand dunes in Tasmania. Song, J.-H., Osborn, A., Elgueta, M.
Department of Geography and & Ahn, K-L. (2019). Phylogenetic
Environmental Studies, University of placement and redescription of
Tasmania, Hobart, 36 pages. Aleochara blackburnii Bernhauer &
Scheerpeltz, 1926 (Coleoptera:
Staphylinidae) from coastal Australia.
Austral Entomology 58: 76-84.
Richardson, A.M.M., Shepherd, C.J. &
Swain, R. (1999). The distribution of
the strandline fauna of sandy beaches
on the east coast of ‘Tasmania. Chapter
23 (pages 138-146) in The Other 99%:
The Conservation and Biodiversity of
Invertebrates. Royal Zoological Society
of New South Wales.
Richardson, A.M.M., Swain, R. &
Smith, S.J. (1991). Local distribution
of sand-hoppers and landhoppers
(Crustacea: Amphipoda: Talitridae) in
the coastal zone of western Tasmania.
Hydrobiologia 223: 127—140.
Richardson, A.M.M., Swain, R. & Wong,
V. (1997). Translittoral Talitridae
(Crustacea: Amphipoda) and the
need to preserve transitional habitat:
examples from Tasmanian saltmarshes
and other coastal sites. Mezorrs of. the
Museum of Victoria 56(2): 521-529.
Schlacher, T. A., Richardson, D.,
& McLean, 1. (2008). Impacts
of off-road vehicles (ORVs) on
macrobenthic assemblages on sandy
beaches. Environmental Management 41:
878—892.
12
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Plate 3. Wrack-associated flies. (a) Rhis whitleyi (Coelopidae) 7 mm; (b) Gluma musgravei
(Coelopidae) 5 mm; (c) Gluma nitida (Coelopidae) 4 mm; (d) This canus (Coelopidae) 3 mm; (e, f)
Thoracochaeta species (Sphaeroceridae) 2 mm; (g) Eristalinus aeneus (Syrphidae) 14 mm.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Plate 4. Wrack-associated rove-beetles (Staphylinidae). (a) Cafius australis 12 mm; (b) Cafius
pacificus 10 mm; (c) Cafius seriatus 8 mm; (d) Cafius cf catenatus 8 mm; (e) Cafius sabulosus 8
mm; (f) Cafius cf bryanti 5 mm; (g) Aleochara blackburni 4 mm; (h) Bledius aterrimus 3.5 mm;
(i) Teropalpus species 3.2 mm; (j) Teropalpus pictipes 3 mm; (k) Blediotrogus species 3 mm; (1)
Beldiotrogus species 3 mm; (m) lotarphia cf rufobrunnea 3 mm; (n) lotarphia australis 2.8 mm (o)
Leptusa species 2 mm.
114
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Plate 5. Sandy-beach flies and beetles. (a) Apotropina ornatipennis (Chloropidae) 4mm; (b)
Rhytidortalis averni (Platystomatidae) 6 mm; (c) Ercycodes fossus (Hydrophilidae) 2.5 mm; (d)
Ercycodes tasmanicus (Hydrophilidae) 3 mm; (e) Halacritus lividus (Histeridae) 3 mm; (f) Lagrioida
australis (Anthicidae) 4 mm; (g) Csiro variegata (Tenebrionidae) 4 mm; (h, i) Mecynotarsus leai
(Anthicidae) 4 mm.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Plate 6. Sandy-beach flies. (a) Chaetocoelopa sydneyensis (Coelopidae) 7 mm; (b) Fucellia
tergina (Anthomyiidae) 6 mm; (c) Lispe species (Muscidae) 8 mm); (d) Apotropina ornatipennis
(Chloropidae) 4 mm; (e) Anabarhynchus pallidus (Therevidae) 11 mm); (f) Anabarhynchus
maritimus (Therevidae) 10 mm; (g) Stichopogon maritima (Asilidae) 10 mm; (h) Cystidomorpha
vetusta (Tabanidae) 10 mm (all photographs by Simon Grove).
116
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
A
E Y
Plate 7. Sandy-beach beetles. (a) Cafius pacificus (Staphylinidae) 10 mm; (b) lotarphia australis
(Staphylinidae) 3 mm; (c) Aphela algarum (Curculionidae) 3 mm; (d) Aphela helopoides
(Curculionidae) 5 mm; (e) Edylius canescens (Tenebrionidae) 10 mm; (f) Sphargeris physodes
(Tenebrionidae) 7 mm; (g) Hyocis bakewelli (Tenebrionidae) 4 mm; (h) Phycosecis litoralis
(Phycosecidae) 3 mm (all photographs by Simon Grove).
117
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Appendix
A provisional and non-exhaustive list of Tasmanian
sandy-beach beetles and flies
Coleoptera (beetles)
Anthicidae
Lagrioida austrahs Champion, 1895
Mecynotarsus leai Pic, 1942
Curculionidae
Aphela algarum Pascoe, 1870
Aphela helopoides Pascoe, 1865
Cossoninae unplaced species
Histeridae
Halacritus lividus (Lea, 1925)
Hydrophilidae
Cercyodes kingensis (Blackburn, 1907)
Cercyon haemorrhoidahs (Fabricius, 1775)
Ercycodes fossus (Blackburn, 1888)
Eroycodes tasmanicus Hansen, 1990
Phycosecidae
Phycosecis letoralis Pascoe, 1875
Ptiliidae
Ptiliidae unplaced species
Staphylinidae
Aleochara blackburnii Bernhauer &
Scheerpeltz, 1926
Atheta spp
Bledrotrogus spp
Bledius aterrimus Fauvel, 1877
Cafius australis (Redtenbacher, 1868)
Cafius bryanti Cameron, 1943
Cafius catenatus Fauvel, 1877
Cafius pacificus (Erichson, 1840)
Cafius sabulosus Fauvel, 1877
Cafius velutinus Fauvel, 1877
Carpelimus punctatus Fauvel, 1877
Halobrecía sp
lotarphia australis Cameron, 1943
lotarphia rufobrunnea Lee & Ahn, 2016
Phacophallus | parumpunctatus (Gyllenhal,
1827)
Remus sericeus Holme, 1837
Teropalpus pictipes (Lea, 1910)
Teropalpus sp
Tenebrionidae
Caediomorpha heteromera (King, 1869)
Csiro mera (Blackburn, 1894)
Ecdyhus canescens Champion, 1894
FAlyocts bakewelli Pascoe, 1866
Scymena amphibia Pascoe, 1870
Sphargeris physodes Pascoe, 1860
118
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Diptera (flies)
Anthomyiidae
Fucella tergina (Zetterstedt, 1845)
Asilidae
Stichopogon maritima (Hardy, 1934)
Australimyzidae
Australimyza mcalpinei Brake & Mathis
2007
>
Canacidae
Canacidae unplaced sp
Ceratopogonidae
Culicoides sp
Dasyhelea sp
Leptoconops sp
Chloropidae
Apotropina ornatipþennis (Malloch, 1923)
Coelopidae
Amma blancheae McAlpine, 1991
Chaetocoelopa sydneyensis (Schiner, 1868)
Gluma musgravei McAlpine, 1991
Gluma nitida McAlpine, 1991
Rhis popeae McAlpine, 1991
Rhis whitlyt McAlpine, 1991
This canus McAlpine, 1991
Dolichopodidae
Dolichopodidae unplaced sp
Ephydridae
Atissa suturalis Cresson, 1929
Hecamede sp
Ptilomyia sp
Scatella nitidithorax Malloch, 1925
Scatella tasmaniae Mathis & Wirth, 1981
Scatella vittithorax Malloch, 1925
Muscidae
Lzspe cana (Walker, 1849)
Lispe collessi Pont, 2019
Lispe pygmoza Vikhrev & Pont, 2016
Sphaeroceridae
Thoracochaeta sp
Syrphidae
Eristalinus aeneus (Scopoli, 1763)
Tabanidae
Cydistomorpha vetusta (Walker, 1848)
Therevidae
Anabarhynchus nudifemoratus (Macquart,
1846)
Anabarhynchus pallidas White, 1916
Anabarhynchus maritimus Hardy, 1916
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
A new larval host plant for Tragocerus spencii Hope,
1834 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Tasmania
Karen Richards & Chris P. Spencer
141 Valley Road, Collinsvale, Tasmania 7012
spenric@gmail.com
Whilst investigating the use of Banksia
marginata saplings by the jewel beetle
Cyrioides imperialis Fabricius, 1801 near
Cleveland in June 2018 (Richards &
Spencer 2018), the authors observed
sizeable stem galls on a number of the
juvenile trees; these occurred between
Plate 1. Banksia marginata stem gall with
emergence hole of Tragocerus spencii.
Button diameter: 10 mm.
30 cm — 2 m above the ground (Plate 1).
Many galls displayed emergence holes
similar in size, but differing in shape, to
those formed by C. ¿mperialis (Plate 2).
Multiple emergence holes, varying in age,
were observed on some galls, suggesting
successional larval occupation; those
considered older showed dead wood
encircling the inner section of the hole
whereas the occupied ones displayed
fresh grazing scars. For the most part,
the saplings above the galls showed
no negative effects resulting from the
stem incursion (i.e. no dead trees were
recorded as a result of larval activity),
Plate 2.
imperialis in
Button diameter: 10 mm.
Emergence hole of Cyrioides
Banksia marginata stem.
120
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
although some trees did exhibit small
dead patches on the stem immediately
beneath the swelling.
The unaffected stem diameter at the
base of the galls ranged from 40 x 32
mm and 53 x 45 mm. Gall dimensions
significantly increased the stem girth
of the aforementioned, to 70 x 52 x 42
mm and 150 x 78 x 62 mm respectively;
indicating that the larval presence
induced abnormal stem growth,
approximately doubling the girth over the
gall length. Emergence hole dimensions
varied between 10 x 7 mm and 14 x 7
mm; the shape was consistently oval,
and the maximum dimension randomly
oriented. The location of emergence
appeared arbitrary, with exit holes
occurring both near the top and base of
galls; nor was there any evidence of an
orientational preference.
Several galls, with and
emergence holes, were collected in an
without
effort to rear out the occupants. These
were housed inside a plastic crate with
a substrate of moistened paper towel
and stored at constant temperature
(12°C). Upon close examination, some
emergence holes displayed evidence of
fresh phloem grazing around the inside
of the hole, suggesting the occupant was
still in residence. A gall possessing one
such emergence hole was split (Plate 3)
to reveal a coleopteran larva of 38 x 11
mm (Plate 4). The larva conformed to
the general description of Cerambycidae,
(elongate sub-cylindrical body, lacking
plates, three
pairs of short legs, dorsal and ventral
sclerotised thoracic
locomotory ampullae on abdominal
segments); but in this instance lacking
a process on the abdominal tergum 10,
as evidenced in some other cerambycid
larvae e.g. Uracanthus pallens Hope, 1841
(Duffy 1963; Richards & Spencer 2017).
After carefully reinstating the larva in
its chamber, the gall was repaired using
cable ties and wood frass paste to seal
the saw cut. Confirmation of identity
was established a few months later,
when a male Tragocerus spencii Hope, 1834
emerged. An additional two males and
a female emerged from other galls over
the subsequent week, including one from
a hole displaying fresh grazing scars, as
described above. Adult female T. spencii
are generally larger than males, but given
the variability in hole dimensions from
which the specimens emerged, it was
not possible to differentiate between
those formed by male or female beetles.
Plate 3. Opened Banksia marginata gall
showing larval tunnelling.
Following eclosion, one gall possessing
two emergence holes was dissected to
establish patterns of larval activity. The
two larval galleries within were spatially
separated with no connection, each
having a central bore linking the pupal
chamber to grazing areas in the sap-
wood; the older of the two exhibited
areas of dead wood with no fresh
grazing scars.
121
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Tragocerus Latreille, 1829 is an Australasian
cerambycid genus eight
described species, one from New
Guinea, the others from the Australian
east coast (with one species also recorded
from Western Australia) (Ślipiński &
Escalona 2016). Adult Tragocerus are
reported to be diurnal blossom feeders,
recorded from Axgophora, Eucalyptus,
Hakea, Leptospermum, Xanthorrhoea and
Melaleuca species (Ślipiński & Escalona
containing
¿e
w.
R |
I. £j wi IAÑ s
Plate 4. Tragocerus spencii larva.
2016). Tragocerus spenci (Plate 5) is the
only member of the genus recorded
in Tasmania (Semmens et al. 1992),
it also occurs in coastal SA, Vic and
NSW (Atlas of Living Australia 2019).
This species has previously been reared
from Eucalyptus ampyedalina (Bashford
1990) and an unidentified species of
Banksia (Wiliams 1985). The authors
have recorded adult T. spemz feeding
on Hakea sp., Leptospermum laevigatum,
L. scoparium, Eucalyptus obliqua and on
Coriandrum sativum (coriander) blossom.
Only one other author mentions the
feeding behaviour of the larvae. Williams
(1985), writing on larval host plants for
a number of buprestid and cerambycid
species, noted that “dead and dying
stems of young Banksia sp. were
girdled by adults and the larvae bored
downwards in these dying sections”;
however, neither Williams nor Bashford
made any reference to gall formation.
The larval activity we observed differs
substantially from that described by
Williams, and no stem girdlng by
adults was recorded. The current paper
provides the first confirmed record of T.
spencii larvae using B. marginata as a food
plant in Tasmania, as well as the resulting
formation of stem galls, which may host
successive generations of the species.
122
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Richards, K. & Spencer, C.P. (2018).
References
ALA (2019). Tragocerus spencit. Accessed
online August 2019.
Bashford, R. (1990). Tasmanian forest
insects and their host plants. Forestry
Commission, Tasmania.
Duffy, E.A.J. (1963). A monograph of the
immature stages of Australasian timber
beetles (Cerambycidae). Trustees of the
British Museum, London.
Richards, K. & Spencer, C.P. (2017).
New distribution and food plant
observations for several coleopteran
species in the Tasmanian Central
Highlands, summer 2017. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 139: 99—106.
Plate 5. Tragocerus spencii adult. Overall length: 32 mm.
Exploitation of
marginata by Cyrioides
(Fabricius 1801) (Coleoptera:
Buprestidae) in Tasmania. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 140: 27-32.
sapling Banksia
imperials
Semmens, T.D., McQuillan, PB. &
Hayhurst, G. (1992). Catalogue of the
Insects of Tasmania. Department of
Primary Industry, Hobart, Tasmania.
Slipifiski, A. & Escalona, H.E. (2016).
Australian longhorn beetles (Coleoptera:
Cerambycidae) Volume 2 Subfamily
Cerambycinae. CSIRO Publishing,
Canberra.
Wiliams, G. (1985). New larval
food plants for some Australian
Buprestidae Cerambycidae
(Coleoptera). Australan Entomological
Magazine 12: 41-46.
and
PL te
AE e De
123
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
124
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
The Tasmanian Flora Network - Publicising changes
to vascular flora and threatened species lists
2018-2019
Wendy Potts
Threatened Species Section,
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
wendy.potts@dpipwe.tas.gov.au
The Tasmanian Flora Network is an informal group of email recipients (approximately
210 at the time of publication) that is maintained by the Threatened Species Section
of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE).
Emails are sent to the group up to several times a year to inform members of news
pertaining to Tasmanian flora, with a focus on vascular and threatened flora. Changes
to threatened fauna listings are also provided. Members are encouraged to forward the
emails to colleagues and others that may be interested, and requests for additions to
or removal from the mailing list can be made by email to wendy.potts(@dpipwe.tas.gou.au
The following ts an amalgamation of emails sent in the year prior to mid-September 2019.
(1) Changes to Schedules of the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
(* = species listed on the Australian Government's Egrmronment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act))
The Threatened Species Protection Order 2019 was gazetted on 5 June 2019 with the
following schedule changes which have been made online in the Natural Values Atlas,
the DPIPWE webpages and Threatened Species link.:
Status changes
Flora
List Thelymitra inflata on Schedule 3.1 (endangered and extant)
List Thebmitra lucida om Schedule 3.1 (endangered and extant)
List Bosstaea heterophylla on Schedule 3.1 (endangered and extant)
Downlist Veronica notabils by omission from Schedule 3.2 (endangered and extinct),
and addition to Schedule 3.1 (endangered and extant)
Downlist Gratiola pubescens by omission from Schedule 4 (vulnerable), and addition
to Schedule 5 (rare).
125
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Delist Austrostipa scabra by omission from Schedule 5 (rare)
Delist Scleranthus brockiet by omission from Schedule 5 (rare)
Delist Thismia rodwayi by omission from Schedule 5 (rare).
Changes to family names of flora species have been updated in the schedules to be
consistent with the classificationused in the Tasmanian Herbarium’s 2018 Census of
Vascular Plants (see below).
Fauna
Downlist Castarina insulpta by omission from Schedule 3.1 (endangered and extant),
and addition to Schedule 4 (vulnerable).
Changes to scientific names, see Table 1, changes to common names, see Table 2.
(2) Changes under consideration to the threatened species
schedules of the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
Preliminary recommendations (public nominations)
(* = EPBC Acct listed species)
Retain *Conospermum hookeri as vulnerable (the nomination was to downlist to rare)
Delist Juncus amabilis from rare
Delist Ry#dosperma indutum from rare
SAC will be making final recommendations on the above nominations taking
comments received from the public (comment period now closed) at the next
meeting (scheduled for November 2019).
Please consider nominating species for listing or a change of status — by either
completing a nomination form available at
hitp:/ / dpipwve.tas,gouan/ conservation threatened-species-and-commmunities [ process-for kisting-threatenect-species
ot sending a draft Listing Statement to the Threatened Species Section.
(3) Amendments to the EPBC Act list of threatened species
and ecological communities
The Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Sussan Ley MP, has amended the list
of threatened species and ecological communities under the Exzironment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to include 34 species and three ecological
communities, transfer nine species between listing categories, remove six species
and retain two species in their current category. The amendments are published on
the Department’s Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT). Changes to the
Tasmanian listings are detailed below.
126
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Tasmanian EPBC Act listing changes
Birds
*Flirundapus caudacutus (White-throated Needletail) - ACT, Qld, NSW, Tas, Vic, SA,
Jervis Bay Territory. Listed as Vulnerable
Ecological communities
*Tasmanian Forests and Woodlands Dominated by Black Gum or Brookers Gum
(Eucalyptus ovata | E. brookeriana) —'Yas. Lasted as Critically Endangered.
(4) Updated list of Tasmanian threatened species
The updated list of Tasmanian threatened species is downloadable from
https:| | dpipwe.tas,gouan/ conservation/ threatened-species-and-communities/ lists-of-threatened-species/
jull-hst-of-threatened-spectes
(5) Range changes for threatened flora as a result of new observations
entered into DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas (NVA) since May 2018
(* = EPBC Act listed species; ? = questionable record)
Once again, thanks to all those providing species observations for entry into NVA.
Please keep sending them in, particularly for threatened species and those that may qualify
for listing. Please consider collating species observation data from any group field trips
as well as your personal observations. Essential fields include species name, eastings and
northines (GDA94), location accuracy in metres, observer name and date of observation
(preferably accurate to the day). A description of the location is also useful as a check. For
threatened species we also ask for notes on abundance (number of individuals and area
occupied), disturbance and threats at the site, with many other fields to choose from. You
can enter your observations directly into NVA (observation entry spreadsheets can be
downloaded from the NVA "Data Entry/Create Workbook" page) or you can send data
into DPIPWE (to Wendy Potts for threatened flora) preferably 1n spreadsheet format.
Phase also mote whether any records are from non-native occurrences. A special thank you to those
that have been entering records of non-threatened species as well as threatened species.
Many of the following changes were made from redeterminations and new records from
updates of the Tasmanian Herbartum’s database in May 2018 and August 2019 and as
well as imports of research grade records from 1Naturalist (with links to images held in
iNaturalist —so please let us know if you find any identification issues while browsine!).
We are currently in the process of entering vascular plant records from the Atlas of
Living Australia that are not represented in NVA and infilling fields from the Tasmanian
Herbarium specimen database that were not entered with early imports into NVA
though it 1s anticipated that these tasks will not be completed until early 2020 coinciding
with a renovation of the Natural Values Atlas.
127
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Extended range/significant infill
Acacia siculiformis (Waterhouse area)
*Caladenia caudata (historical: Rocky Cape?)
Callitriche umbonata (Weld River)
Calochilus campestris (Varkine but ID questionable and species may not occur in Tas)
Carex cephalotes (Mt Geryon -redet from C. capillacea, Ben Lomond)
Carex hypandra (Mt Field West)
Cynoglossum australe (Cape Portland)
Cyrtostyls robusta (Orford 1973 record)
Epaeris virgata (Kettering) (Boyer)
Epilobium willisi (Allwrights Lagoons)
Gratiola pubescens (North Esk River, South of Mount Scott, Dunorlan)
Gynatrix pulchella (North Esk River)
Hackeha latifolia (Roger River)
Hatlorags heterophylla (Mount Bethune)
Horea corrickiae (Historical: Fingal Rivulet)
Hydrorchis orbicularis (Bruny airstrip 1974 record)
Juncus prismatocarpus (South Bruny)
Luzula atrata (little Split Rock)
Myriophyllum integrifolum (Cape Portland)
Persicaria subsessilis (Basin Creek)
Pherosphaera hookeriana (Snowy North)
Phyllangium divergens (Powranna)
Planocarpa nitida (Skullbone Plains, MacKenzies Tier, Bellevue Tier)
Plantago glacialis (Ironstone Mtn)
Pomaderris intermedia (Cape Portland Road)
*Prasophyllum apoxychilum (Lonnavale)
Prerostyhs fakata (Lake St Clair 1841?)
Ranunculus jugosus (Vale of Belvoir)
Ranunculus pumilio var. pumilio (Cape Portland)
Ruppia tuberosa (Triabunna)
Viola cunninghamii (Waterfall Valley)
Xerochrysum bicolor (Maria Island)
Slight increase or infill
Acacia uncifolia
Aorostis diemenica
Asperula minima
Austrostipa scabra
Caesta calliantha
Caladenia congesta
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Calystegia septum
Calystegia soldanella
Carex capillacea
Comesperma defoliatum
Drosera glanduligera
Epacris curtisiae
Epacris moscaltana
Gratiola pubescens
Gynatrix pulchella
Horea corrickiae
Isoetes sp. Maxwell River
Lachnagrostis punicea subsp. filifolta
*Lepidium byssopifolium
Lepidosperma tortuosum
Lobeta prattoides
Lythrum sahcana (overrides historical record)
Milhgania johnstonit
Muehlenbeckia axillaris
Persicaria decipiens
Pherosphaera hookeriana
Phyllangium distyhs (overrides historical record)
Prerostyls atriola
Rbodanthe anthemoides
Scleranthus brockiei
Senecio squarrosus
Stenopetalum lineare
Stylidium beauglebole
Teucrium corymbosum
Triglochin menutissima
Uncinia elegans
Veronica novae-bollandiae
Viola curtisiae
Vittadinia gracilis
Vittadinia muelleri
*Xerochrysum palustre
Decreased range/infill
Carex capillacea (Mt Geryon)
Cotula vulgaris var. australasica (slight)
Lachnagrostis punicea subsp. punicea (slight)
Monotoca submutica var. autumnalis (slight)
Plantago glacialis (Cradle, Salisbury River, Mother Lords Plains, Mt Arthur)
129
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
*Prasophyllum castaneum (Picketts Plain, Huon Road)
*Prasophyllum pulhellum (southern records redetermined as P. apoxychilum or P.
Lruncatun)
Prasophyllum secutum (Robbins Island)
Xerochrysum bicolor (Maatsuyker Is., Mile Island/Green Island)
Historical sites rediscovered
Ruppia tuberosa (South Arm -redet of 1971 specimen)
Note that the specimen associated with a recent record of Cyathea cunninghan at
the Pieman River site has now been identified as Cyathea australis so that Cyathea
cunninghamii remains presumed locally extinct at the site.
(6) Updated notesheets or Listing Statements
As presented to SAC over the last year are available on the Natural Values Atlas,
Threatened Species Link and the DPIPWE website for the following species, though
they are still 1n the process of being updated to address comments from the SAC
and others:
Bosstaea heterophylla
*Eucalyptus morrisbyt
Thelymitra inflata
Thelymutra lucida
Thelymitra mucida
(7) New editions of the Tasmanian Herbarium's Census of the
Vascular Plants of Tasmania
From Miguel de Salis and Matthew Baker.
Available at https:/ / flora.tmay.tas.gor.an/ resources] census/
2018 edition
According to the Census, the Tasmanian flora contains 2727 vascular plants, of which
1921 (70%) are considered native and 806 (30%) have naturalised from elsewhere.
Among the native taxa, 532 (28%) are endemic to the State. Forty-seven of the
State's exotic taxa, are considered sparingly naturalised, and are known only from
a small number of populations. ‘Twenty-three native taxa are recognised as extinct,
whereas 8 naturalised taxa are considered to have either not persisted in Tasmania
ot have been eradicated. The sub-antarctic Macquarie Island, considered part of
Tasmania, supports 49 species of vascular plants, of which 42 are considered native
and 7 naturalised. For some basic statistics on the Tasmanian flora see Tables 1—3
in the Census.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Four new native species are recognised in the 2018 edition. The names of several
taxa have changed since the previous edition, including two species of Bzllardiera
now considered to be just synonyms of B. macrantha. Finally, several taxa have had
their status changed since the previous edition, including Veronica notabilis, which was
previously considered extinct but for which modern ‘Tasmanian collections have
recently been located. No taxa have been removed from this edition of the Census.
The classification system for flowering plants (Angiosperms) used in this Census has
been updated to follow APG IV (2016). In contrast, the classification system used
to arrange the botanical collections of the Tasmanian Herbarium and in the Flora
of Australia seres, which is published by the Australian Biological Resources Study
(ABRS), follows Cronquist (1981), and the Flora of Tasmania Onkne (Duretto 2009)
follows a previous version of the APG system (APG II, 2003).
Mark Wapstra has kindly provided an updated list of common names for the 2018
census species. The changes from the 2018 Census, including common names and
the updated family classifications, have now been made in the Natural Values Atlas.
The SAC have asked for information to be collated for the new species listed in the
2018 Census, Oxothamnus floribundus and Prasophyllum abblittorum, so that the species can
be considered for listing at the next meeting in November 2019.
2019 edition
The only change to listed species in this edition is for subspecific status to be
attributed to Cabystega sepium (naow Calystegia sepium subsp. sepium).
Other changes to native species in this edition:
Astroloma pinifolium = Stenanthera pinifolium
Viola sieberiana Spreng, sensu de Salas & Baker (2017) and earlier = zoa hederacea
subsp. hederacea (misapplied in Tasmania)
Isolepis alpina is now recognised as being endemic to Tasmania.
(8) Flowering Times of Tasmanian Orchids: A Practical Guide for
Field Botanists
Edition 4 -by Mark Wapstra July 2018 is now available at
https:/ [ dpipwe.tas.gov.au/ conservation/ publications-forms-and-permits/ publications /
flowering-tumes-of-tasmantan-orchids-a-practical-guide
131
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
(9) New Flora of Tasmania Online website
from Gintaras Kantvilas
The Flora is an ongoing project by TMAG’s Tasmanian Herbartum, aimed at
providing a modern account of Tasmania vascular plants. The Tasmanian Herbarium
contains the world’s largest collection of ‘Tasmanian plant specimens, from the early
European voyages of exploration in the late 18th century, to collections made today.
The Herbartum’s collection spans 250 years of research into Tasmania's remarkable
flora. The botanical information on the new site is largely the original work of the
Herbarium team, with some content contributed by authors from other institutions.
Having the Flora of Tasmania available online in this new format will allow the
Herbarium to update content as new research becomes available, providing up-
to-date taxonomic information on Tasmanian plants. The aim of the project is to
eventually describe all of the approximately 3 000 Tasmanian vascular plants. The
current focus of the FTO is on the Angiosperms (Flowering Plants—140 families),
especially the Dicotyledons (100 families). Priority has been given to families that
have seen significant taxonomic change since the publication of Winifred Curtis’
Students Flora of Tasmania.
Noteworthy changes to this edition of the Flora include:
* New front matter and branding
e Improved navigation
* Distribution maps based on specimen data in the Herbarium
New family treatments:
Burmanniaceae Nyctaginaceae
Proteaceae Ericaceae
Myrtaceae Phrymaceae
Polygalaceae Lentibulariaceae
Celastraceae Pittosporaceae
Thymelaeaceae
Major updates to:
Violaceae Droseraceae Menyanthaceae
Minor taxonomic updates to:
Amaranthaceae Nothofagaceae
Updated references and styling
The last 10 editions of the Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania are now
available on the website. In the near future you can expect to see:
132
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
New family treatments:
Boraginaceae Picrodendraceae
Major taxonomic updates:
Ericaceae Thymelaeaceae
The Tasmanian Herbarium will continue to update the site and add new content
as it becomes available. There are plans to add a news blog to the website. In the
meanwhile make sure to check regularly for updates. For more information and
enquiries, please contact the Herbarium at (03) 6165 5143 or
Fiora Tasmania@tmag. tas. gor.au.
Visit the new Flora of Tasmania Online at: bttps:/ / flora. tmag.tas. gouan
(10) A new wattle species for Tasmania
A population of Acacia acinacea Lindl. has been found at Killora on North Bruny. This
species occurs in SA, VIC, ACT and NSW but has never been recorded in Tasmania.
A. acinacea is an extremely variable species with several distinct forms recognised,
which may represent separate species. One of the key characteristics of the species
is the coiled or twisted legumes which were not present at the time of collection, and
further specimens are required to confirm the identification. It discovered by Joe
Quarmby (Tasmanian Land Conservancy) in an intact remnant of Eucahptus amygdalina
forest on sandstone with an understorey dominated by Xanthorrhoea australis. It is
growing near the coast above sandstone cliffs on consolidated red-brown sands. It
is a localised but well established population containing tens of thousands of plants.
There is no evidence to suggest that it is planted and is unlikely to have spread from
seed. Further surveys are required to determine whether additional populations exist
which will help determine its status.
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Table 1: Changes to scientific names*
Austrocynoglossum latifolium Hackelia latifolia (R.Br.) Dimon &
M.A.M.Renner
Brachyelottis brunonis Centropappus brunonis
Blechnum rupestre Blechnum spinulosum
Cystoseira trinodis Sirophysalis trinodis (Forsskal) Kützing
*Leucochrysum albicans var. *Leucochrysum albicans (DC) N.G.Walsh
tricolor subsp. tricolor
*Nematoceras dienemum *Corybas dienemus
*Nematoceras sulcatum *Corybas sulcatus (M.A.Clem. & D.L.Jones)
G.N.Backh.
Viola hederacea subsp. curtisiae (L.G.Adams) K.R.Thiele
Parmelina pallida Austroparmelina pallida | (Flix & Kantvilas) Kantvilas
& Divakar
Parmelina whinrayi Austroparmelina whinrayi | (Elix) Kantvilas & Divakar
Fauna |
*Discocharopa vigens *Ammontropa vigens (Legrand)
Helicarion rubscundas Attenborougharion (Dartnall and Kershaw)
rubicundus
*Mareinaster littoralis *Patiriella littoralis
Maselaoma weldi Miselaoma weldit (Tenison-Woods)
*Niveoscincus palfreymani *Carinascincus (Rawlinson)
palfreymani
Roblinella agneni Exquisitiropa agnemi (Legrand)
Tasmaphena lamproides Austrorhytida lamproides
*Thalassarche melanophrys *Thalassarche (Temminck)
melanophris
134
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Table 2: Changes to common names made in the schedules of
the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 in 2019.
Flora
tasmanian giant
Dryopoa dives giant mountaingrass mountaingrass
lance beardheath
erect marshflower
Thelymitra tmprocera coastal sun-orchid
Xerochrysum bicolor eastcoast everlasting
swamp everlasting
brown alga three-node seaweed
*Discocharopa vigens Ammonite Snail Ammonite Pinwheel
Snail
Seastar Derwent River Seastar
Leucopogon affinis
Liparophyllum exaltatum
*Xerochrysum palustre
Cystosetra trinodis
Fauna
*Mareinaster littoralis
Miselaoma weldi
Stanley Snail Stanley Pinhead Snail
Pasmaditía jungermanniae Snail (Cataract Gorge) Cataract Gorge
Pinhead Snail
Rob£nella agnemi Silky Snail Silky Pinhead Snail
Smilasterias tasmaniae Seastar Bruny Island Seastar
Tasmaphena lamproides Keeled Snail Keeled Carnivorous
Snail
* These have been updated in the Schedules to be consistent with the classification
used in the Tasmanian Herbartum’s 2018 census of vascular plants (see below).
135
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Times have changed for field work in Tasmania
Robert Mesibov
West Ulverstone, Tasmania 7315
robert.mesibov@gmail.com
Introduction
I started collecting invertebrates in
‘Tasmania in 1973 and retired from field
work this year (2019). Many of the active
field workers I've known over the past
46 years are long in the tooth, like me.
We're more likely to be reading books
about nature or watching nature videos
than exploring hard-to-access places in
the ‘Tasmanian bush.
We have our memories, though. Mine
have a distinct temporal bias. I remember
the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s as decades
in which specialists
fanned out across Tasmania, sometimes
and collectors
crossing paths in remarkably remote
places. Funding for field work was readily
available from government agencies,
Commonwealth and Tasmanian. Big,
multi-taxon collecting projects were
started every few years. Announcements
of ‘proposed developments’ were
greeted with horror by Green groups
and with guilty pleasure by field workers,
who anticipated contracts for baseline
studies in areas to be impacted.
My impression is that the bloom has
come off field work in Tasmania over
the past 20 years. Less of it seems to be
funded, and less seems to be done. But
is that true?
Some data and its limitations
It's hard to imagine what a direct measure
of ‘amount of field work in Tasmania’
would look like or how it could be
estimated. A possible proxy, though,
is the number of specimen records
in museums and herbaria, arranged
by specimen collection date. For this
article I gathered decade-by-decade
charts from the Atlas of Living Australia
(ALA) (Figs 1-5). Of the 11 charts, only
TMAG invertebrates (Fig. 1, bottom)
and Tasmanian
(Fig. 2, top) don't show a decline in the
21st century.
Herbarium plants
The charts show number of collections,
not number of records. It's possible that
field workers have been recording a wide
range of plants, fish, birds, spiders etc
in the 2010s at the same rate at which
137
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
those taxa were collected and deposited
30 years earlier, but have stopped
depositing voucher specimens. Instead,
they might be publishing records (e.g., in
Tasmanian Naturalist articles), submitting
occurrence data to the Tasmanian Natural
Values Atlas, or posting smartphone
images on citizen science or project
websites.
Another limitation is that the charts only
show the material so far registered by
the institutions represented, and shared
with ALA. It's possible that there's a
backlog of recently collected but not yet
registered material which would lift the
21st century totals.
The ALA charts, interestingly, also
reflect the efforts of particular
individuals. The QVMAG vertebrate
collections (Fig. 5) are largely built on
field work by the late Robert H. Green
in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The
21st-century TMAG invertebrate totals
(Fig. 1) are mainly the result of field
work by Forestry Tasmania personnel
(especially Dick Bashford), TMAG
curators Cathy Byrne and Simon Grove,
and Robert de Little.
Do we really need more
specimens?
It worries me that some of today's field
workers might not be collecting because
they believe that Tasmania's biota is well-
documented. As a taxonomist I find
that attitude incomprehensible. We're
nowhere near fimished documenting
Tasmania's biodiversity. The 2018
edition of A Census of the Vascular Plants
of Tasmania, including Macquarie Island
(de Salas and Baker 2018) lists four
new, endemic, higher plant species for
Tasmania. It was only three years ago,
furthermore, that the ‘widespread and
familiar’ ‘Tasmanian Mountain Shrimp
Anaspides tasmantae was shown to be a
group of at least six morphologically
distinct species (together with A.
spinulae) with a mosaic-like distribution
(Ahyong 2016).
A surprising recent find (surprising for
me) was a new millipede in the very well-
studied genus Lzssodesmus. It turned up 1n
pitfall traps set out by Mike Driessen in
the Lake Mackenzie area following the
2016 wildfire, but I had no luck finding
it in repeated searches at the pitfall site
and in its surrounds. The pale new
spectes I zssodesmus piscator appears to be
an inhabitant of the “‘mesovoid shallow
substratum’ (MSS), namely the spaces
between rocks on the Central Plateau
(Mesibov 2019). ‘Tasmania is rich in
caves, but it's even richer in periglacially
shattered rock, especially in dolerite
country in the east. What else is in the
dolerite MSS?
New species aside, there are good
reasons to keep collecting specimens of
known taxa for museums and herbaria.
Geographical ranges get extended this
way, sometimes showing that threatened
species aren't really threatened, just
undersampled, and new locality records
are valuable for conserving species and
habitats that are threatened. With more
will
have more material from a wider range
specimens, future taxonomists
of localities, allowing closer study of
variation. Continued collecting is also
a way to track trait changes: slow shifts
138
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
in appearance, habitat preferences and
seasonality.
The GenBank effect
Field work has changed in emphasis
over the past 20 years.
In 1989 a field biologist might be
funded to collect as many specimens
as possible from an unlogged area of
forest. The field work was area-intensive
and species-extenstve. Most of the
project money was spent on salary,
travel and accommodation. Specimen
processing costs were minimised 1n the
project, with the result that museums
typically paid the costs of curating any
deposited material. A permanent record
of the field work (what, where, when
and by whom) went into a museum or
herbartum database, and much of that
data is now freely available through
ALA. Each site visit generated several
points for species mapping.
In 2019 the biologist might collect as
many fresh samples as possible of a
particular Tasmanian taxon for DNA
sequencing, over the full range of that
taxon. The field work is area-extensive
and species-intensive. The bulk of the
non-salary budget goes to specimen
processing and DNA analysis, which
is still not cheap. A public record of
the field work is in GenBank or in the
Materials and Methods section of a
publication. The DNA hunter may or
may not deposit voucher specimens of
the target species or associated species
in a museum or herbarium. A site visit 1s
one point on a species map.
What next?
There were other kinds of field work in
1989 and there are other kinds today, and
I'm not arguing that the GenBank effect
is holding back biological discovery. I'm
also not arguing that the very limited
amount of money available each year for
field work in Tasmania should be more
evenly distributed between different
types of field projects.
My real fear is that field work in future
will be seen by funding sources (if it isn't
already) as scientists’ outdoor playtime,
and support will dry up. Museums and
herbaria will increasingly be asked by
administrators:
Why do you need any more specimens? We
need to cut costs!
Universities and government agencies
will be told:
You don't need to resample old monitoring
sites. We already know that the world's flora
and fauna are disappearing. We don't need
more bad news.
Developers will be told:
According to available records there's nothing
endangered in your proposal area, so just
follow the usual development guidelines to
minimise any impact on the environment.
The best argument I know for continued
field work in ‘Tasmania is the salvage
one. It was first clearly stated by the
Victorian zoologist W.B. Spencer almost
100 years ago, in an article entitled The
necessity for an immediate and co-ordinated
investigation into the land and fresh-water fauna
of Australia and Tasmania (Spencer 1921):
139
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
“the land and fresh-water fauna is
disappearing rapidly, and unless we now
make an organised. effort it will be too late
to study it effectually, and future generations
will wonder what manner of people we were
not to leave behind us some adequate record of
the marvellousl interesting forms of animal
Life which we had succeeded in exterminating...
(p. 121)
Tasmania's biota is still disappearing and
we know where: in places where humans
have appropriated land and water for
human uses, taking those resources
away from native plants and animals.
The aim of salvage in such areas 1s not
to stop the on-farm bush clearance, the
dam construction or enlargement, the
housing estate, industrial plant, mine
or ocean outfall, but simply to recover
some of this island's natural heritage
before it disappears, and put it into
museums and herbaria, and perhaps also
into gene banks.
Plenty of field work yet to be done in
Tasmania, and not in national parks
(Mesibov 2004).
References
Ahyong, S.L. (2016). The Tasmanian
Mountain Shrimps, Anaspides
Thomson, 1894 (Crustacea, Syncarida,
Anaspididae). Records of the Australian
Museum 68(7): 313-364.
de Salas, M.F. and Baker, M.L. (2018). A
Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania,
including Macquarie Island. Tasmanian
Herbarium, Tasmanian Museum and
Art Gallery, Hobart.
Mesibov, R. (2004). Spare a thought for
the losers. Australian Zoologist 32(4):
505-507.
Mesibov, R. (2019). A new and cryptic
species of Lussodesmus Chamberlin,
1920 (Diplopoda, Polydesmida,
Dalodesmidae) from Tasmania,
Australia. ZooKeys 846: 31-41.
Spencer, WB. (1921). The necessity
for an immediate and co-ordinated
into the land
fresh-water fauna of Australia and
Tasmania. The Victorian Naturalist
37(10): 120-122.
investigation and
140
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
TMAG - vertebrates
2600 |
1000
49767
40000
30000
20000
Figure 1. Atlas of Living Australia records as of 24 July 2019 from the Tasmanian Museum and
Art Gallery (TMAG) for specimen collections of vertebrates and invertebrates in Tasmania,
arranged by collecting decade.
Tasmanian Herbarium
niea 4 | Lodi 4 L L 4 L 4 + J z
Australian National Herbarium
pop
Figure 2. Atlas of Living Australia records as of 24 July 2019 from the Tasmanian Herbarium and
the Australian National Herbarium Gallery for plant specimen collections in Tasmania, arranged
by collecting decade.
141
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
QVMAG - invertebrates
D
v
S e $ ^ S ASS
ES SEESEESES ES
Figure 3. Atlas of Living Australia records as of 24 July 2019 from the Queen Victoria Museum
and Art Gallery (QVMAG) and the Australian National Insect Collection (ANIC) for invertebrate
(QVMAG) and arthropod (ANIC) collections in Tasmania, arranged by collecting decade. (Note
difference in time axes.)
CSIRO - Hobart - fish
1089
1000
B00—
&00
400
200
0—
|
LEF S S£ S P S S
ss jeg wg
QVMAG - fish
1100
1000
EEES Sus
LES S us
Figure 4. Atlas of Living Australia records as of 24 July 2019 from the Australian National Fish
Collection (CSIRO) and the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG) for fish collections
in Tasmania, arranged by collecting decade. (Note difference in time axes.)
142
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
QVMAG - mammals
ee SS
SOS... S S $ S
QVMAG - birds
2977
2000
1000
FS SS SF SOS. ES ES SS
SES EF SESE FSS
Figure 5. Atlas of Living Australia records as of 24 July 2019 from the Queen Victoria Museum and
Art Gallery (QVMAG) for mammal, herpetofauna and bird collections in Tasmania, arranged by
collecting decade. (Note differences in time axes.)
143
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
144
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Highlights of pelagic birding from
Eaglehawk Neck 2018/2019
Els Wakefield
12 Alt-Na-Craig Avenue, Mount Stuart, Tasmania 7000
elswakefieldtas@gmail.com
This is the eighth in a continuing series
of articles summarising the highlights of
pelagic sea birding off Tasmania’s coast
(eg Wakefield 2018).
From July 2018 to June 2019 there were
39 pelagic trips leaving from Pirates
Bay on the Tasman Peninsula on the
MV Pauktta skippered by John Males.
Deckhands included Michael Males,
Hugh Smith, Adam Mackintosh and
Craig Hansen. On 7% October 2018
there was also a trip led by Els Wakefield
on the MV Velcity, skippered by David
Wyatt with his son Albert as deckhand.
This trip left from Southport and went
to Pedra Branca, Eddystone Rock
and the edge of the continental shelf.
(Wakefield 2018).
On Sunday 1* July Paul Brooks
reported the highlights to be a Slender-
billed Prion (Pachyptila beicher), a Brown
Skua (Stercorarius antarcticus) and eight
Providence Petrel (P/erodroma solandri)
that he described as good numbers for
an Eaglehawk trip.
On the Saturday the 1* September in
extremely rough conditions, with 3 m
seas on top of a 3 m swell, wind gusts up
to 40 knots and rain squalls like showers
of icy needles, Paul's party were very
happy to have good sightings of two
Grey Petrel (Procellaria cinerea) and seven
White-headed Petrel (Pterodroma lesson).
The bird of the day was a very showy
white morph Southern Giant Petrel
(Macronectes giganteus), which hung about
the boat for some time, taking food off
the water and doing several laps of the
boat. There were also eight different
Southern Royal Albatross (Diomedia
epomorpha) reported.
On the Sunday 2" September the tail end
of the strong south-westerly airstream
was still passing by and high seas were
forecast. John Males did a sterling job
as skipper to get them through the
maelstrom and they were rewarded with
highlights of five Blue Petrel (Halobaena
caerulea), one Northern Royal Albatross
(Diomedia sanford), six White-headed
Petrel and three Grey Petrel.
145
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Rohan Clarke led the second bracket
of trips for the month on the weekend
of 15th and 16 September. The trip
on Saturday was shortened due to an
approaching front but highlights were
two Grey Petrel, three White-headed
Petrel, three Providence Petrel and
good views of a Soft-Plumaged Petrel
(Pterodroma mollis as it made a number
of passes close to the boat.
On Sunday 16' September the highlight
was an Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea)
that Rohan assessed to be about 15
months old given the dark marks on
the upper wing coverts. There were also
12 Southern and two Northern Royal
Albatross, which is an unusually large
number. There were great views of
Offshore Bottle-nosed Dolphins and
Long-finned Pilot Whales at the Shelf.
Rob Morris led two trips on 23 and 24
September. On the Saturday they saw
two Humpback Whales and an Orca.
The bird highlights were a Northern
Royal Albatross and two Blue Petrel.
The Sunday trip was shortened due to
bad weather.
On Monday, 17 September, Elaine
McDonald led a group of eight people
on a pelagic trp. Elaine wrote that
they had confused seas but they did
manage to see some orcas and two
Southern Royal Albatross which were
the highlights of the trip.
On 14 October Paul Brooks led a
pelagic trip for Inala Nature Tours. There
were many highlights despite bumpy, wet
conditions and one case of seasickness
that was immediately cured when the call
of “Light-mantled Albatross” (Phoebetria
fusca) went up. Other highlights included
two Northern Albatross, a Salvin's
Albatross (Thalassarche salini), a very
showy Blue Petrel that fed voraciously
in the slick and stayed with the boat for
a long period, five White-headed Petrel
and a brief view of a Mottled Petrel
(Pterodroma inexpectata) as it shot past
the stern — a first October record for
Eaglehawk pelagics.
On 24'' October Paul Brooks led
another Inala pelagic trip. The highlight
was an immature Northern Royal
Albatross.
Royals around the boat was missing
One of several Southern
its entire rear section, leaving a gaping
wound. The bird seemed to be flying
normally despite its injury which may
have been the result of an attack by a
predator but Paul felt 1t was unlikely that
it could have lived for much longer with
part of its digestive tract missing.
Paul Brooks guided a pelagic trip for
Inala on Saturday 17€ November. A
Humpback Whale put on a short show
for them outside Fortescue Bay in the
morning. The morning started out well
with a low north-westerly swell but over
the shelf a south-westerly 2 m swell
made the ride lumpy. Despite this they
had a few highlights including a brief
look at a Cook's Petrel (P/erodroza coo)
and a close approach of a Mottled Petrel
with a second bird remaining more
distant a little while later. A Parasitic
Jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus) stopped
their run back to port.
The Sunday 18th
November, Paul led another trip for
Inala Nature Tours which turned out to
be a good day for migrating Prerodroma
following day,
146
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
petrels, with a stream of birds heading
by from the north for most of their time
in deep water. These included totals of
12 Mottled Petrel, 49 Gould’s Petrel
(Pterodroma leucoptera) and five Cook’s
Petrel. Another highlight was a Northern
Royal Albatross. Paul commented that
although the swell dropped to 1 m, it
was still enough for birds to hide in as
most flew low in the light winds.
Karen Dick led a pelagic trip for Inala
Nature Tours on Wednesday 21°
November on which the highlights were
a Salvin’s Albatross, a Mottled Petrel, a
Gould’s Petrel and a Northern Royal
Albatross.
On Wednesday 28" November Matt
Wright led a pelagic trip that was part of
the first photographic tour of Tasmania
organised by Mark Holdsworth, Barry
Baker and Matt. I was one of a few
local birders also 1nvited to join the trip
to help with bird identification. Karen
Dick wrote an eBird report for the day.
Highlights were three Salvin’s Albatross
that sat around the boat for several hours
to give everyone great views. It is rare to
see more than one Salvin’s Albatross on
a Tasmanian pelagic. Other highlights
were a Northern Royal Albatross, eight
Mottled Petrel, three Cook’s Petrel, a
Westland Petrel (Procellaria westlandica)
that sat behind the boat and 46 Gould's
Petrel that flew by in a steady stream
heading south, allowing an accurate
count of the birds seen.
Another Inala Nature Tours trip, guided
by Paul Brooks on 2d December, had
four Cook’s Petrel, two White-headed
Petrel, a Gould's Petrel and a Soft-
plumaged Petrel plus three Northern
Royal Albatross and eight Southern
Royals, an unusually high number.
Paul noted that a White-chinned Petrel
(Procellaria aequinoctialis) was seen with an
injury to its posterior that was similar to
an injury suffered by a young Southern
Royal from the previous month. Paul
commented that there appeared to
be something biting the rear ends off
seabirds in the area.
Paul Brooks organised another pelagic
trip on 5% December. It started with
light winds that dropped out totally
by 11 am with resultant low numbers
and diversity. A Mottled Petrel was
the highlight.
good views of Bottlenose Dolphin
and Long-finned Pilot Whale, then two
Humpbacks on the way home.
However, there were
Jun Matsui organised a double pelagic
trip for Sunday 30 December and
Monday 31% December. Ryosuke Abe
posted a list on eBird for both days.
During the Sunday a Wedge-tailed
Shearwater (Ardenna pacificus) was the
major highlight although a Black-
bellied Storm-Petrel (Fregetta tropica), two
Providence Petrel, two White-headed
Petrel and a Cook’s Petrel were also
great sightings. The following day the
Gould’s and the Cook’s Petrels appeared
again and there was a spectacular first
Tasmanian sighting of a New Zealand
Storm-Petrel (Fregetta maoriana), that
was photographed by Koh Kawabe
as it was flying with a small flock of
Wilson's Storm-Petrel and White-faced
Storm-Petrel.
On oth January Paul Brooks led the
trip when a Wedge-tatled Shearwater
147
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
was observed just prior to reaching the
shelf break. This is still a very rare bird
in Tasmania, but there now have been
records off Eaglehawk every January
and February since 2016. Possibly the
same bird or a second one made one
close pass after we stopped to cast some
berley. There was also a Soft-plumaged
Petrel over 70 fathoms in the afternoon
although it was only seen by one
observer. In addition, there were large
numbers of jaeger with six Parasitic or
Arctic Jaeger positively identified and
three jaegers that could not be identified
with confidence due to distance and/or
brevity of sighting.
David Mitford organised two trips for
the weekend of 19% and 20" January. A
Soft-plumaged Petrel was the highlight
of the Saturday trip and calm, clear
weather allowed spectacular
photos of ten Grey-backed Storm Petrel
and 60 White-faced
Storm Petrel (Pelagodroma marina). On
some
(Garrodia nerezs)
Sunday there was a Salvin's Albatross
and similar photographs were taken of
the storm petrels with the highlight of
these being two Black-bellied Storm
Petrel. There were also two White-
headed Petrel, a Gould’s Petrel, a Cook’s
Petrel and five Fluttering Shearwater
(Puffinus gavia).
On the 26% and 27 January Rohan
Clarke organised another two trips
for lasmania. On the Saturday Rohan
reported 23 species of seabird beyond
the point at Pirates Bay as a little below
average for the species count. However,
the two Cook's Petrels were very nice as
were the large numbers of storm petrels
(50 Grey-backed, 180 White-faced and
14 Wilsor's (Oceanites oceanicus)) and the
30 showy Fluttering Shearwater. On
the Sunday there were 38 Grey-backed,
230 White-faced and 13 Wilson’s Storm
Petrel. Highlights were two Buller’s
Shearwater (Ardenna buller) and two
Wedge-tailed Shearwater. Rohan also
commented that five years ago this
species was a rarity off Tasmania but
has now been recorded in January and
February in each of the last four years
off Eaglehawk Neck.
Ramit Singal organised a pelagic trip for
some visiting friends on 2nd February
and local friends were invited to join
them. Mona Loofs-Samorzewski
compiled the Highlights
were two Soft-plumaged Petrel, two
Gould's Petrel and three Cook's Petrel.
Of interest also were 43 Fluttering
Shearwater and a total of 75 Greater
Crested Tern (Thalasseus bergi including
report.
13 that were heading back to shore,
carrying fish in their beaks. On this trip
there was a Porbeagle Shark that swam
slowly around the boat and near the
surface. It had an unusual rounded fin
but never came close enough for us to
get a good look at the body.
Sunday 3* February was another Inala
Nature Tours trip led by Paul Brooks
who reported good views of a Salvin’s
Albatross sitting for a while on the
water behind the boat. There was also
a Northern Royal Albatross, their
only great albatross for the day that
approached closely before wheeling
away. At 1200 hrs a vast haze of smoke
from bushfires in south-east Tasmania
started to creep past Tasman Island,
the precursor to a southerly change
148
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
which hit as they began the journey back
to port.
Iwas invited on board the pelagic trip on
Saturday 9% February that was part of
an annual birding tour around Tasmania
organised by Patricia Maher and led by
Philip Maher. Near Hippolyte Rock,
passengers were treated to a magnificent
White-bellied Sea Eagle (Hakaeetus
leucogaster) eating a kill atop a smaller
rock. As we stopped beyond the shelf,
Philip noted how many Silver Gulls
(Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae), Kelp
Gulls (Larus dominicanus), Crested Terns
and a few Pacific Gulls (Larus pacificus)
were feeding about the boat, something
he had not noted on many previous trips.
Exciting for those on board were some
Fluttering Shearwater and a good range
of albatross but the highlight for the day
was possibly a Soft-plumaged Petrel. I
photographed one of the 15 Antipodean
(NZ Wandering) Albatross (Dzomedia
antipodensis) which had a much worn,
copper-coloured band on its leg that
had obviously been there for a long time
making the number unreadable. After
sending my photo to Naomi Clarke,
who works for the ABBS (Australian
Bird and Bat Banding Scheme) at the
Biodiversity Conservation Division,
Department of the Environment and
Energy, she responded:
“The general consensus is that the
colour is some sort of naturally
developed coating to a metal ring that
has been on a bird for a long time.
Andy from BAS has seen a similar
band taken from a Wanderer at Bird
Island where that band removed was
(from) before the time of stainless
steel bands.
used in 1958 and there are some
Wanderers and Molly’s still around
with these old bands.”
These bands were first
Plate 1. Sperm whale breaching. Photograph: K. Dick
149
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Our bird may therefore have been
around 60 years old.
Karen Dick described the highlight for
the trip she led on Sunday 10™® February
as gripping views of a family group of
Sperm Whales, including full breach
and close approaches. Karen managed
a magnificent photo of the whale in
mid-air (Plate 1) but I only managed
the enormous splash as it fell back
into the water. This sighting trumped
an otherwise uneventful trip with mild
conditions and light north-westerlies for
most of the day.
In the absence of Paul Brooks I led the
pelagic trip for Saturday 294 March. It
was probably the warmest lasmanian
pelagic I have ever experienced with
record-breaking temperatures in the
very high thirties recorded around
Tasmania. The sea temperature at the
shelf was 18°C. Although we started
with a totally blue sky day, conditions
gradually became rougher making it
difficult to maintain our position so
the skipper headed back early. On
our return trip a mainlander casually
called “Brown Booby” (Swdz leucogaster),
not understanding that this was only
the second record for that species in
Tasmania. This was a juvenile bird with
pale underwings and a dark, mottled
belly that flew north behind the boat as
we headed to shore (Plate 2). l'asmanta's
first Brown Booby was recorded by
Jennifer Kakoschke on 2° April 2011
near Cape Hauy. Another highlight of
our trip was a Flesh-footed Shearwater
(Ardenna carneipes) that Rohan Clarke
positively identified from my photo,
writing: ‘ʻA reasonable rarity off
‘Tasmania but March/April is certainly
the right time of year based on peak
passage in Victoria:
The following day, Sunday 31d March,
Mona Loofs-Samorzewski was the
report compiler while Karen and I were
in charge. All on board were hoping to
catch a glimpse of the Brown Booby
that had been seen the previous day.
Plate 2. Brown booby
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Conditions were rough and choppy with
changeable winds and rainy, gloomy
skies
conditions. Diversity was low with only
making for difficult viewing
20 species seen and no great albatross.
The Brown Booby was not re-located
that day but there was a brief view of a
Soft-plumaged Petrel, the only highlight
of the day.
When my friend Joe Bates let me know
he was planning to visit Tasmania again,
I offered to organise a pelagic for him
on Saturday 23 March, recalling how
much he had enjoyed a pelagic when he
first visited Tasmania many years before.
offered
to take the notes. All on board were
Mona Loofs-Samorzewski
hoping the juvenile Brown Booby that
had first been sighted on 2nd March
might still be present so we asked our
skipper to follow the coastline as far
south as Fortescue Bay before heading
out towards the Hippolytes. Near the
entrance to Fortescue Bay we carefully
checked through a large feeding flock
of birds but although it was not among
the flock, as we continued towards the
Hippolytes, the booby flew towards
the Pauktta from the direction of Cape
Hauy, giving all on board good views.
As Mona wrote, “The second dose
of excitement for the day came at the
shelf break, when a stunning Little
Shearwater gave us reasonably close but
brief views. It was an overcast day with
a fresh wind and choppy conditions
for most of the day but despite this we
managed to see a brief glimpse of four
dolphins that were probably Risso’s.
Other highlights included two White-
headed Petrel, three Providence Petrel,
a Soft-plumaged Petrel and a Little
Shearwater (Puffinus elegans).
On Sun 7th April with Paul Brooks
unable to attend, Karen Dick was in
charge for the day and Mona Loofs-
Samorzewski wrote the report. Winds
up to 30 knots were forecast so the
skipper took an unusual route, heading
south-east before heading east when
north of the Hippolytes. Highlights
Northern Royal
Albatross, a steady stream of eight
Providence Petrel all heading south-
east, a Soft-plumaged Petrel and a Little
Shearwater that briefly landed on the
water offshore in the afternoon. The
skipper kept the boat chugging around
in circles 1n order to give us a smoother
included a single
ride until we headed back early to avoid
the front. On our return, we headed
west to the Hippolytes, then past them
towards Fortescue Bay before motoring
back along the coast but unfortunately
there was no sign of the Brown Booby.
Rohan Clarke described the weather
on Saturday 4'^ May as a good day for
rainbows with 20 to 50% cloud cover
and patches of bright sunlight. The
highlights of the day included five
Westland Petrel seen at once with a
conservatively estimated total of eight
as they were continuously in view for
four hours. This is the largest number
ever recorded in Tasmania as we usually
have no more than one or two around
the boat. Rohan and I were trying to
capture a photo of a Westland Petrel in
flight in front of a rainbow, not an easy
task with a sea building to three metre
swells. There was also a high count of
16 Providence Petrel flying from south
151
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
to north, which, as Rohan commented,
suggested there was a bit of a movement
of this species during the day. A Sunfish
was another highlight as 1t was almost
within touching distance of the boat and
totally visible 1n the clear water.
On Sunday 5'b May Rohan led
another trip but this time I was not
on board. Cloud cover of 100% and
quiet conditions made the trip less
interesting than the previous one with
the number of bird species down by
one-third of the previous day but the
Sunfish was still in the same location. A
band was read on a (Snowy) Wandering
Albatross (Diomedia exulans) that had
also been seen the previous day. The
bird was banded in South Africa but
investigations are still underway. A total
of 135 Sooty Shearwater (Puffinus griseus)
heading north was an exceptional one-
day count for anywhere in Australia.
Rohan suggested that some of these
were NZ birds on their way north after
a loop south or at least a loop across
the Tasman Sea. A total of 1050 Short-
tailed Shearwater (Puffinus tenuirostris)
with 50 counted at one time included
lots of fresh juveniles with silvery
underwings in the mix. Sixteen White-
fronted Tern (Sterna striata) was another
high count for Tasmania and a couple
of Soft-plumaged Petrels were also a
highlight.
For the weekend of 18" and 199^ May,
Paul Brooks organised two pelagics but
was unable to attend so Mona Loofs-
Samorzewski managed the trips and
compiled the reports. There were many
mainlanders on board and we were all
hoping to see the Westland Petrel and
other winter visitors. Luckily I was on
both trips as each one was exceptional.
Conditions on Saturday 18^ May were
quite pleasant but began fairly quietly
apart from some Common Diving Petrel
(Pelecanoides urinatrix) on the way to the
shelf. Then things changed dramatcally
in pelagic waters. Among the highlights,
and a lifer for some, were two Southern
They
arrived separately flying around the
Fulmar (PFulmarus glacialordes).
boat and landing on the water, allowing
clear photographs that later proved
they were two different birds. Other
highlights were the Westland Petrel that
all on board had hoped for, a Northern
Royal Albatross and a White-headed
Petrel but as Mona wrote in her report;
‘the bird of the day was the absolutely
stunning intermediate/dark morph
Soft-plumaged Petrel, not a commonly
seen bird!’
Sunday 19th May was forecast to have
even calmer conditions than the day
before so our hopes were not high
but as Mona wrote, “The first inkling
that the day might prove to be special
were the many sightings of Soft-
plumaged Petrels offshore, then the
excitement of a Sooty Albatross, which
whizzed past the boat briefly before
disappearing, just before the first berley
stop? This was followed by a second
Sooty Albatross and was topped off
by a Great Shearwater (Puffinus gravis)
which circled several times resulting in
good views and photographs (Plate 3).
There was a constant stream of prions
around the boat and because conditions
were calm, at least three Antarctic Prion
(Pachyptila desolata) were identified. There
152
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
was also a sighting of a rare dark-morph
Soft-plumaged Petrel (Plate 4) that was
a different bird from the intermediate/
dark morph Soft-plumaged Petrel from
the previous day, two Westland Petrel
and on our way back to shore, a Southern
Fulmar. This trip had an exceptional
total of 40 species for the day.
Due to the outstanding recent pelagics,
Richard Webber decided to book the
Pauletta for the first weekend of June and
it was filled almost instantly. I was able to
Plate 3. Great Shearwater
go on Saturday 1*, which began with big
seas and John Males was concerned that
the chop on top out at the shelf would
force us to withdraw but as the day
progressed, the swell and wind dropped
so that we were quite comfortable. It
turned out to be a cracker of a day which
included highlights and good views of
two Sooty Albatross, four Southern
Fulmar (one inshore and three pelagic),
four Providence Petrel that wheeled
about the boat, three White-headed
Plate 4: Dark morph Soft-plumaged Petrel
153
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Petrel flying in close, two Blue Petrel
making «numerous passes and some
great views of two Grey Petrel.
Sunday 2^d June was forecast to be rainy
and overcast but despite this, similar
birds were observed to those on the
previous day with a Great Shearwater
being the outstanding highlight for all
on board.
The final pelagic trips for the financial
year were of an unusual mid-week
double header that was organised in
response to the recent run of great
cold-water sightings and was led by
Karen Dick. The first trip went out on
Tuesday 18'® June. A Soft-plumaged
Petrel was the highlight of an otherwise
fairly disappointing trip that headed
back to shore early with two very seasick
passengers.
Appendix
On Wednesday 19H June, conditions
deteriorated even further. Although
an attempt was made to reach the
shelf, the skipper decided to turn back
at the Hippolytes as the seas became
dangerous.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Paul Brooks for his
assistance with this report.
Also thanks to the many trip leaders,
the deck-hands and to our exceptional
skipper, John Males who keeps us
all safe.
Reference
Wakefield, E. (2018). Highlights of
Pelagic Birding from Eaglehawk Neck
2017/2018. The Tasmanian Naturalist
140:174-182.
Bird Species list pelagic highlights 2018/2019 IOC taxonomy
Diomedeidae, Albatross
1. Wandering Albatross (Diomedia exulans)
2. Northern Royal Albatross (Dzozedia sanfordi)
3. Southern Royal Albatross (Diomedia epomophora)
4. Light-mantled Albatross (Phoebetria palpebrata)
5. Sooty Albatross (Phoebetria fusca)
6. Salvin's Albatross (Thalassarche salvin)
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Procellariidae, Petrels, Shearwaters
7. Southern Fulmar (Eumarus glacialoides)
8. Southern Giant Petrel (Macronectes giganteus)
9. Slender-billed Prion (Pachyptila belcheri)
10. Blue Petrel (Halobaena caerulea)
11. Antarctic Prion (Pachyptila desolata)
12. White-headed Petrel (Pterodroma lesson)
13. Providence Petrel (Pterodroma solandri)
14. Soft-plumaged Petrel (Pterodroma mollis)
15. Grey Petrel (Procellaria cinerea)
16. Mottled Petrel (Pterodroma inexpectata)
17. Gould's Petrel (Pterodroma leucoptera)
18. Cooks Petrel (Pterodroma cookii)
19. White-chinned Petrel (Pterodroma aequinoctialis)
20. Westland Petrel (Procellaria westlandica)
21. Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus)
22. Buller's Shearwater (Puffinus bulleri)
23. Sooty Shearwater (Puffinus griseus)
24. Short-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus tenuirostris)
25. Flesh-footed Shearwater (Puffinus carnetpes)
26. Great Shearwater (Puffinus gravis)
27. Fluttering Shearwater (Puffinus gavia)
28. Little Shearwater (Puffinus assimths)
Hydrobatidae, Storm Petrels
29. White-faced Storm-Petrel (Pelagodroma marina)
30. Grey-backed Storm-Petrel (Garrodia nereis)
31. Wilson’s Storm-Petrel (Oceanites oceanicus)
32. Black-bellied Storm-Petrel (Fregetta tropica)
33. New Zealand Storm-Petrel (Pregetía maoriana)
155
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Pelecanoididae, Diving Petrels
34. Common Diving Petrel (Pekcanoides urinatrix)
Sulidae, Gannets, Boobies
35. Brown Booby (Suda leucogaster)
Laridae, Gulls and Terns
36. Silver Gull (Chrozcocephalus novaehollandiae)
37. Pacific Gull (Larus pacificus)
38. Kelp Gull (Larus dominicanus)
39. Greater Crested Tern (Thalasseus bergii)
40. Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea)
41. White-fronted Tern (Sterna striata )
Stercorariidae, Skuas
42. Brown Skua (Stercorarius antarcticus)
43. Parasitic Jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus)
Accipitridae, Eagles
44. White-bellied Sea-Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster)
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Book reviews
Spiders of Tasmania
by John Douglas
Queen Victoria Museum and Art
Gallery (2019)
Paperback, 172 pages
ISBN: 9780975802694
Reviewed by Margaret Warren
68 Norma Street, Howrah, Tasmania 7018
It is now five years since John Douglas
published Webs, A Guide to the Spiders
of Tasmania and his detailed macro
photographs encouraged many amateur
naturalists and photographers to look
at spiders in a new light. The interest
in arachnids has been growing ever
since and to date there are over 6,000
members of the ‘Tasmanian Insect
and Spiders Facebook page. There are
still large numbers of spiders yet to be
described and identified and often come
to light via the Facebook page.
This new book will be a very welcome
addition to aid in the identification of
Tasmanian spiders and is a must have
for anyone with an interest in spiders.
The book features many excellent close-
up photographs, the majority of which
have been taken by John. Often there
are six photos to a page but they are of
sufficient size to give a good indication
of the spider’s colour and markings.
The Latin and common names ate given
for each species together with the body
length for both male and female and a
general note of their habitat. Also noted
is the spider’s toxicity, if known, and a
warning on which species should be
treated with caution.
The spiders in the book are divided
family groups, starting with
Mygalomorphs, the ancient primitive
into
spiders that include funnel-web
(Atracidae) and trapdoor spiders
(Hexathelidae). The detailed macro
photographs in this section are not for
the faint-hearted or arachnophobes.
In the next sectionare the Araneomorphs,
known as the modern spiders. Among
the families represented here are the
orb weavers (Araneidae) who make the
intricate webs we find in our gardens
and the many species of jumping
spiders (Salticidae) who watch us with
as much interest as we observe them.
Among the jumping spiders are the aptly
named peacock spiders (Maratus). ‘The
very colourful males perform elaborate
courtship dances by waving their legs
and abdomen. Some of these species
157
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
can be found in suburban gardens but
with a body length of 4-5 mm they are
not always easy to spot. Another family
that often goes unnoticed is that of the
wolf spiders (Lycosidae), which inhabit
lidded burrows.
mostly nocturnal but you may be lucky
These spiders are
to see a female wolf spider with a brood
of babies clinging to her back or even
a large male wandering in search of a
mate.
Also in the book is a photo and
description of the elusive water spider
(Pisauridae) Megadolomedes johndouglasi,
It is the
endearing face of this water spider that
named after John Douglas.
features on the cover of the book. On
the back cover of the book we see a
glimpse of John's face while a large
huntsman (Sparassidae) clings to his
camera lens.
Last but not least we find the Zodariidae
family, species of ant-eating spiders that
mimic the ants’ looks and movements,
even using ant pheromones to disguise
their presence around the nest.
In all the book lists forty species of
araneomorphs however as John points
out in his introduction, there are still
many more to be discovered.
Once a spider is tentatively identified
from the book the reader can then
go on to further research the species
There ts a wealth of
information online, including John’s
via the internet.
very informative Spiders of Tasmania
website that shows more photos of
each species, often including photos of
the genitalia which can be crucial for a
positive identification.
Through the publication of books like
Spiders of Tasmania it is to be hoped that
people will realise spiders have a place in
the world, even in our homes, and that
their first reaction will be curiosity rather
than reaching for the insect spray.
The Guide to Tasmanian
Wildlife
by Angus McNab
Forty South Publishing Pty Ltd (2018)
Paperback, 376 pages
ISBN: 987 0 6483631 5 6
Reviewed by Amanda Thomson,
holsum6@bigpond.com
THE GUIDE TO
TASMANIAN
WILDLIFE
Rc
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
This book is a must — a complete guide
on Tasmanian wildlife, all in one book!
Angus McNab is a freelance ecologist.
He has very cleverly included frogs,
skinks, mammals, marine mammals,
a huge section on birds, seabirds
and Macquarie Island all in this one
guide. Each section has a very good
Each
species 1s beautifully photographed, has
comprehensive introduction.
well defined descriptions, comparisons
with similar species, where to see or
find it and habitat information. Birds are
often pictured both perched and on the
wing, and many photos include juveniles
plus male and female.
Excellent sections on skinks and snakes,
frogs and marine mammals all quite
difficult to find elsewhere make this
book a fabulous reference guide. The
inclusion of bats and their calls ts another
unexpected bonus! Final sections give
bref coverage to Macquarie Island,
Vagrants and Visitors, and Endemics.
Overall, I love this book for its coverage
of wildlife, the beautiful photographs,
McNab’s ecological bent and his use of
scientific terms fully explained in the
Glossary. Do you know the meaning of
‘semelparous’? I didn’t!
I don’t know how or why we got along
without this....tdl now! Thank you
Angus McNab!
Bird Bonds: Sex, mate-choice
and cognition in Australian
native birds
by Gisela Kaplan
Pan Macmillan (2019)
Paperback, 354 pages.
Also available as an ebook.
Reviewed by Els Wakefield
elswakefieldtas@gmail.com
In her book Bird Bonds: Sex, mate-choice and
cognition in Australian native birds, Professor
Gisela Kaplan gives us a step-by-step
analysis of bird behaviour around the
world with particular emphasis on the
cooperative behaviour of our Australian
birds that she argues, leads them to have
longer life-spans and larger brains than
other birds.
159
The Tasmanian Naturalist 141 (2019)
Throughout her book, she compares
various behaviours and characteristics of
birds to those of other animals including
humans. Kaplan makes reference to her
own publications and observations as
a wildlife carer, to various historical
research by others and to contemporary
scientific papers in order to put a
compelling argument that 1s not only
interesting for birders but also for
anyone seeking a deeper understanding
of the vital importance of altruistic
behaviour for all forms of life.
In her discursive, easy-to-read style,
Kaplan clearly explains her hypotheses
and persuasively illustrates her
conclusions. Throughout the book, she
encourages speculation by the reader and
emphasises the need for more extensive
research, showing that contemporary
work is revealing new information that
will inspire us all to look deeper into the
birds and into ourselves.
160
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11