Join our zoo community

long-beaked echidna.......from Australia?

Discussion in 'Wildlife & Nature Conservation' started by Chlidonias, 4 Jan 2013.

  1. Chlidonias

    Chlidonias Moderator Staff Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    23,441
    Location:
    New Zealand
    a couple of updates (from last year - I just happened to come across them while looking for something else; I can't find anything more recent to see any results). The second article has a cool photo of one of the long-beaked echidnas at Taronga.

    Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
    Scientists begin hunt for giant echidna in West Kimberley after research suggests it may not be extinct
     
  2. DDcorvus

    DDcorvus Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    18 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    1,303
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    It will be interesting to hear the DNA results and hopefully they show that the skin in the BNHM is distinct if not it might just be another mislabeled specimen :(.
     
  3. TeaLovingDave

    TeaLovingDave Moderator Staff Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    16 May 2010
    Posts:
    14,831
    Location:
    Wilds of Northumberland
    It need not be distinct, of course - the taxon which is believed to have been present 5000 years ago is the same as the extant taxon over in New Guinea in any case.
     
  4. DDcorvus

    DDcorvus Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    18 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    1,303
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    New Guinea and Australia have been separated long enough that both populations should be distinct. They still can be the same taxon but they should be separately identifiable the 2 populations have been separated too long and we are talking about a monotreme which would have found it challenging to move across Torres strait. Of course humans could have moved animals, which we have seen in with some marsupials and I know some biologists think that some of the vini species were introduced on other islands, but I think a mislabeling would be more likely.

    But I do hope the DNA research will show it is distinct from the population on New Guinea and I do hope a relict population will be found.
     
  5. TeaLovingDave

    TeaLovingDave Moderator Staff Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    16 May 2010
    Posts:
    14,831
    Location:
    Wilds of Northumberland
    The Torres strait only flooded 5000 BCE, so I doubt any genetic differences would be *that* pronounced - up until more or less the time the longbeaked echnidna was last recorded in Australia it formed part of a continous population with those on New Guinea.
     
    Kifaru Bwana likes this.
  6. DDcorvus

    DDcorvus Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    18 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    1,303
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    I m not sure why but I thought Torres stait got flooded 10.000 BCE, but going through the books that should contain the information I cannot find any date on it.
     
  7. Chlidonias

    Chlidonias Moderator Staff Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    23,441
    Location:
    New Zealand
    I had that thought this morning, that even if the genetics show it is a New Guinea animal that doesn't necessarily mean it is a mislabelled specimen. There are numerous island populations of cuscus in the New Guinea area which are almost certainly derived from pre-European introductions, as well as cassowaries and other species. The long-beaked echidnas are a popular food item in New Guinea and it is well-known that there was a sea-trade between southeast Asia and Australia before Europeans ever arrived. So it is possible the Australian specimen could have been an animal from an introduced population.
     
    Kifaru Bwana likes this.
  8. Hix

    Hix Wildlife Enthusiast and Lover of Islands 15+ year member Premium Member

    Joined:
    20 Oct 2008
    Posts:
    4,549
    Location:
    Sydney
    Considering the New Guinea environment is markedly different to the arid Australian habitat of the Kimberleys, I'd be very surprised if there weren't significant genetic changes from the New Guinea population. (Assuming it is a relict from a contiguous population prior to the Strait flooding).

    :p

    Hix
     
    animal_expert01 likes this.
  9. Chlidonias

    Chlidonias Moderator Staff Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    23,441
    Location:
    New Zealand
    looking into where this topic is at right now, I had a Google and found an article from April this year (2017) discussing how "later this year" dogs will be used to try and find long-beaked echidna droppings in the Kimberley. I guess the searches for droppings mentioned in the 2014 articles (at the top of this thread page) either never happened or none were found.

    Hunt on for extinct echidna after specimen found

     
    Kifaru Bwana likes this.
  10. Chlidonias

    Chlidonias Moderator Staff Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    23,441
    Location:
    New Zealand
    ...but I can't find anything on the comparative DNA testing which was supposed to be happening between the Kimberley specimen and New Guinea long-beaked echidnas.
     
  11. Surroundx

    Surroundx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    3 Oct 2010
    Posts:
    533
    Location:
    Two Rocks, West Australia
  12. Surroundx

    Surroundx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    3 Oct 2010
    Posts:
    533
    Location:
    Two Rocks, West Australia
    The funding period ended in July, so possibly/hopefully some literature to follow:

    The Australia & Pacific Science Foundation

    I've asked a friend who was going to inquire about updates several months ago. Haven't heard anything since from them, so I've sent an email asking for any further information, besides what's publicly available.
     
    Kifaru Bwana likes this.
  13. Chlidonias

    Chlidonias Moderator Staff Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    23,441
    Location:
    New Zealand
    yes I'd seen those links (they're amongst the first hits from Google), but nothing new there.
     
  14. animal_expert01

    animal_expert01 Well-Known Member 5+ year member

    Joined:
    13 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    918
    Location:
    QLD Australia
    Maybe instead of running around the Australian bush looking for an echidna which most likely isn't there, we should focus on saving the western long-becked echidna in its known natural range where it is critically endangered.
     
  15. Chlidonias

    Chlidonias Moderator Staff Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    23,441
    Location:
    New Zealand
    you can use that argument against anything though. Why put any effort into anything when there are other issues elsewhere? Studying the DNA of Australian long-beaked echidnas, or even searching for the animals themselves, isn't using money or efforts which would be used for "saving" Indonesian long-beaked echidnas. You're just assuming that scientists at the Adelaide Museum (for example) would "focus on saving the western long-becked echidna in its known natural range" if they weren't studying Australian ones, and that is not the case. And, even more importantly, it is possible for both things to happen. A handful of people studying Australian echidna DNA takes nothing at all away from conservation in Indonesia, because those people aren't involved in the conservation of Indonesian wildlife.
     
    Monty, Swampy and TeaLovingDave like this.
  16. Surroundx

    Surroundx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    3 Oct 2010
    Posts:
    533
    Location:
    Two Rocks, West Australia
    Did Zaglossus bruijnii occur in the Kimberley region of Western Australia?

    Abstract

    A 2012 paper reported the discovery of a specimen of Zaglossus bruijnii with a label attached that recorded that it had been collected at Mount Anderson, in the south-west Kimberley region of Western Australia, in 1901. Based on several lines of evidence, I argue that this distinctive long-beaked echidna is not and has not been part of the Kimberley region’s modern mammal fauna. The simplest and most plausible explanation is that the tag on the specimen came from another animal.

    Source: CSIRO PUBLISHING