Back to Invertebrata tables of contents

Gnammas and their freshwater fauna
Invertebrata 9, November 1997

The word 'gnamma' is of Aboriginal origin (Western Desert language) and refers to a rock hole commonly, but not necessarily, in granite and especially one capable of holding water. Gnammas are basically the product of chemical weathering by water. Although often used, the term 'gnamma-hole' is a tautology; the concept of 'hole' is already incorporated in 'gnamma'!

There are huge amounts of granite in Western Australia and in the winter of 1990 I sampled a large number of flooded gnammas in that State. The results of that work will be published later this year (Bayly 1997).

The study of freshwater organisms in gnammas in eastern Australia has been neglected but I recently made a humble start on Flinders Island, where I hope to keep several gnammas under observation during the next few years. In June this year I discovered a particularly fine example of a gnamma near Killiecrankie.

Dr Ian Bayly
114 Belgrave-Hallam Road
Belgrave South VIC 3160

Reference:

Bayly, I.A.E. 1997. Invertebrates of temporary waters in gnammas on granite outcrops in Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 80 (in press).

When a Paper Nautilus is not a nautilus
Invertebrata 9, November 1997

A work trip to Flinders Island last April resulted in a new display for the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. I went to the island, together with other members of the Tasmanian Marine Naturalists Association, for a short course on marine invertebrate zoology. How can one ever go to Flinders Island without getting caught up in the magic of the Paper Nautilus? Even before the alarmingly small plane left Launceston Airport I was captured by the logo of the shell on the plane's tail. Between lectures, field trips and updating TMAG's invertebrate displays, we relentlessly sought this incredible work of nature. Undaunted by the tracks of four-wheel-drive vehicles along the beaches (signs of ritualistic early-morning searches by well-established locals) we took to the vegetation above the sand line. Logic said wind would carry the fragile shells into the tangle of vegetation, and we were rewarded with several perfect specimens. Literally in the last minute before leaving another beach to catch the return plane we found a stranded female with eggs still inside her egg-case shell. It was either destined for the hungry gulls or TMAG. TMAG won.

On returning to the Museum, I planned to mount a small display on the Paper Nautilus and its connection with Flinders Island. However, the material for the display just grew and grew. It now encompasses all one wall of the corridor linking the main entrance and the Zoology Gallery.

The format has been designed by Jo Eberhard. A central panel of engaging computer graphics by Brent Davies revolves around some general information, the Greek myth of the argonauts and their warship Argo (of Jason and the Golden Fleece fame) and explanations of name confusions. Shells and preserved animals, graphics and even a calendar of historical drawings make up one section of the display. The colour photographs by Karen Gowlett-Holmes are outstanding.

An important section describes the connection with Flinders Island. Considerable help was given by several islanders on details of the island's trade in Paper Nautilus shells. Also included is a section on the Chambered or Pearly Nautilus shell, with many specimens and graphics. Although nautilus and argonaut animals are not closely related, the nautilus shell is similar in size and shape to the Paper Nautilus "shell". One of the aims of the display is to demonstrate that only nautilus animals have a true molluscan 3-layered shell, and that it is the argonaut egg-case which is known as the Paper Nautilus. The display will be up throughout the summer of 1997-98.

Liz Turner
Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery
GPO Box 1164M
Hobart TAS 7001

Back from the dead...
Invertebrata 9, November 1997

The Southern hairy red snail Austrochloritis victoriae (Cox, 1868) (Camaenidae) has been rediscovered on King Island. It can now be removed from the 'presumed to be extinct' listing within the schedules of Tasmania's Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. Its new status is yet to be decided.

This snail was first collected by Cox in southern Victoria where it still occurs. In 1887 it was found by R.M. Johnston at The Springs, Cape Wickham on King Island, Tasmania. It occurred through much of the northern end of King Island in areas such as Pennys Lagoon and what is now the Lavinia Nature Reserve. Although records from those times are unclear, it is probable the snail was last recorded from King Island about 1920, despite extensive later searching.

On December 14th 1996 the snail was rediscovered at Lavinia Nature Reserve by Kevin Bonham, a keen naturalist and Tasmanian snail expert. Kevin has been researching Tasmanian snails in his spare time and has done snail surveys for various government departments. This was his first visit to King Island to search for A. victoriae and other snails. Kevin was with a party of field naturalists who were surveying potoroos and frogs. He found the snails in an area considered the most likely spot for the species.

Austrochloritis victoriae is a land snail. It seems to occur in clusters amongst big piles of twigs or large logs. It lives in wet areas where there are tall tea-trees and Banksia scrub. The shells are reddish in colour, about 2 cm wide and appear hairy under a microscope. The snail itself is a grey colour and has a fairly short neck. It feeds on detritus and the snails seem to congregate where large bodies of detritus are present. A. victoriae is an extremely slow-moving snail and has been clocked at 50 cm per hour! It is hope the snail still occurs elsewhere in the northeast of King Island. Loss of suitable habitat has been responsible for the snail's decline.

[Adapted from the Department of Environment and Land Management website. -Ed.]

More information:

Bonham, K. 1997. Native land snails of King Island and the Hunter Group. The Tasmanian Naturalist 119: 10-22.

Smith, B.J. and Kershaw, R.C. 1981. Tasmanian Land and Freshwater Molluscs. Fauna of Tasmania Handbook No. 5. Hobart: Fauna of Tasmania Committee, University of Tasmania.

Back from the missing...
Invertebrata 9, November 1997

The wingless scorpionfly Apteropanorpa tasmanica belongs to its own family, the Apteropanorpidae. Apteropanorpa is only known from Tasmanian alpine shrubland and has been collected on only a handful of occasions.

Apteropanorpa was first collected in 1939 on Mt Wellington (near Hobart) and Mt Mawson (Mt Field National Park). Other specimens were subsequently recorded from Mt Rufus (by Jean Jackson) and the Great Lake region of the Central Plateau (by Peter McQuillan). Apteropanorpa had not been collected on Mt Wellington since the devastating bushfire in February 1967.

Peter McQuillan (University of Tasmania) and I recently conducted a survey of Apteropanorpa with the intention of mapping its distribution and extracting its DNA to assess relationships with other scorpionflies. So far the survey has revealed healthy Apteropanorpa populations on Mt Mawson and Mt Wellington and at Lake Augusta on the Central Plateau. Bob Mesibov also collected a specimen this winter, near Cradle Mountain. This small, flightless insect, which spends its adult life on snow or on small alpine shrubs, has a wider distribution than we realised. It also appears to have survived the severe bushfires on Mt Wellington three decades ago.

Discovering and describing the immature stages and finding out more about the distribution and adult ecology and biology would make a great student project.

Dr David Yeates
Department of Entomology
The University of Queensland
Brisbane QLD 4072

Rethinking the common name of Astacopsis gouldi
Invertebrata 9, November 1997

The Recovery Team for the threatened Tasmanian giant freshwater crayfish, Astacopsis gouldi, has in its Draft Recovery Plan followed a suggestion that the common name 'Lobster' be adopted during the recovery process. The argument, as I understand it, is that 'Lobster' has been a common name used for the species, particularly in northwest Tasmania, and that the term is appropriate because it generally refers to 'large crayfish with claws'. I would like to argue against the use of 'Lobster', and to offer an alternative name that I believe would more positively contribute to the recovery process.

First, perhaps, we should consider the appropriateness of 'Lobster', given the confusion surrounding a term used around the world for many exploited species. 'Lobster' translates from the Greek astacos, which provides the name for the Northern Hemisphere freshwater crayfish genus Astacus. The infraorder Astacidea also derives its name form this source, and includes the true marine lobsters, Nephropidae (which occur in deep waters around Australia and are seldom seen). In Tasmania, our freshwater endemic genus, Astacopsis, also pays homage to the Greek, and so there might be a superficial logic to the common name 'Lobster' being applied to the largest member of this genus.

However, the perversity of common names being what it is, 'Lobster' has come to refer to numerous large, marine, stalk-eyed decapods that are exploited around the world for their flesh. Just to confuse the issue a little more, the Southern Rock Lobster, which is the basis of an important local fishery, is referred to as 'Crayfish' in Tasmania - a most confusing name for the rest of the world (and immigrants to Tasmania like myself) to cope with. The fact that 'Crayfish' are exported under the name Rock Lobster brings me to an important point: the world is a small place these days, and local names are often inappropriate for communicating to a global audience.

The point also needs to be made that Rock Lobsters do not have claws, nor do Shovel-nosed Lobsters (called Bugs!), so 'Lobster' obviously is not restricted to large crayfish with claws, marine or otherwise.

The confusion regarding 'Lobster' as a name, however, is not nearly as worrying as the mental picture that much of the world sees at the mention of the word. 'Lobster' on millions of restaurant menus around the world refers to a succulent food rather than an animal. I submit that this is not the correct image upon which to base a recovery effort. 'Lobster' is a marketing term, like 'pork' or 'beef'. It refers to edible flesh rather than an animal. In Tasmania, the use of 'Lobster' as the common name for A. gouldi reinforces the image of this species as a food in the minds of recreational fishermen. This is an image that needs to be altered if the species is to gain respect and be allowed to pursue its natural destiny. I would like to argue that the altering of this image is perhaps best initiated by popularising a more suitable common name.

When I was younger I completed a psychology thesis on psycholinguistics. Even though one result of this effort was to help convince me that I didn't want to be a psychologist, I gained an insight into the power of words and of the names we give things. Some of the concepts of psycholinguistics have since gained considerable prominence in our society, and I suggest that you only have to examine how words are used these days to realise that they are great manipulators of thought. Consider, for example, the greater acceptability of 'integrated logging' over its equivalent, 'clearfelling', or consider the title 'Forest Protection Society' for a forest exploiter's lobby group. Note, too, how words like 'chairman' and 'mankind' immediately bring forth the whole agenda of gender equality and fairness.

When the Deloraine Field Naturalists Group (DFNG) first started working on the conservation of A. gouldi in the late 1980s, the membership decided we should only refer to it as 'Tasmanian Giant Freshwater Crayfish'. Over most of the past decade, 'Crayfish' has been the usual term in most media reports, in bulletins and media releases from the Threatened Species Network, and in references such as A Field Guide to Crustaceans of Australian Waters. Freshwater crayfish sites on the Internet also avoid 'Lobster' as the common name for A. gouldi. The groundwork for moving away from the use of 'Lobster' has already been laid, and in Tasmania many people (in addition to DFNG members) who admire this creature object strongly to 'Lobster', and will continue to work against its usage. If 'Lobster' is to be the name used in the recovery process, then more compelling arguments will need to be put forward to convince people who currently view this name as highly inappropriate.

It is perhaps important to reflect for a moment on the significance of the listing of a species as threatened. Once such a listing occurs, the eyes of the world are upon that species. It is thus important that a carefully chosen common name should have precedence over the various local names which might be confusing over send the wrong message. Unfortunately, common names have no scientific standing, and the notion of having official English common names has not gained wide acceptance, except recently in the case of birds. But there is no escaping the fact that common names are important for communicating with the vast majority of people, who do not use scientific names. A recovery team for a species needs to consider that they will be communicating with the wide range of people around the world who are concerned with the conservation and survival of species on this planet. To adopt a local name that is both inconsistent and suggestive of food does little justice to a species as spectacular as A. gouldi.

The use over the past decade of 'Tasmanian Giant Freshwater Crayfish' has been effective in drawing attention to the species, but it has also been a mouthful, and it is more a description than a name. The Tasmanian Aboriginal name for the animal, 'Tayatea', was probably in use for thousands of years, and has much to recommend it as a suitable replacement. First, it acknowledges the original inhabitants of this island, whose culture has never been adequately recognised in European Tasmania. Second, 'Tayatea' has a simple elegance as well as a romantic link to a past when the species was the dominant predator in our freshwater systems. This link reminds us what has been done to those habitats in a little over 100 years: stream pollution, clearing of native streamside vegetation, introduction of trout and overfishing of giant crayfish. Third, 'Tayatea' is conformable with well-known mainland names for Australian freshwater crayfish, such as Koonac, Marron, Yabby and Gilgy. Fourth, it signals a change in local attitude which will draw attention to the species, and attention is exactly what is needed for gaining media coverage during the recovery period. By challenging people to call this special creature something new (actually, something very old), we bring to the forefront the need to change our attitude towards native fauna.

In recent years, we have tried to come to terms with words that reflect exploitation within our own species. Critics of this process of recognising and changing our discriminatory terms have labeled it 'political correctness'. For some, especially those who have reason to resist change, 'political correctness' suggests sinister intentions and a political agenda. Nevertheless, the striving towards non-discriminatory usage reflects a need in our society to change attitudes and to institute more equitable practices. It is only logical that we should extend the concept of using names or terms as subtle levers for attitudinal change to include fellow species that we have shamefully exploited to the edge of existence. The answer to 'What's in a name?' may well be 'Dignity'! Let's view the recovery process for A. gouldi as an opportunity to recover dignity for this species as well. By adopting the common name 'Tayatea', used by the original Tasmanians, we could do much to promote the plight of A. gouldi, as well as contribute to the reconciliation process.

Jim Nelson
Deloraine Field Naturalists Group
RSD 496
Weegena TAS 7304

Back to Invertebrata tables of contents