The Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012

By John C.Z. Woinarski, Andrew A. Burbidge and Peter L. Harrison

The Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012 is the first review to assess the conservation status of all Australian mammals. It complements The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010 (Garnett et al. 2011, CSIRO Publishing), and although the number of Australian mammal taxa is marginally fewer than for birds, the proportion of endemic, extinct and threatened mammal taxa is far greater. These authoritative reviews represent an important foundation for understanding the current status, fate and future of the nature of Australia.

This book considers all species and subspecies of Australian mammals, including those of external territories and territorial seas. For all the mammal taxa (about 300 species and subspecies) considered Extinct, Threatened, Near Threatened or Data Deficient, the size and trend of their population is presented along with information on geographic range and trend, and relevant biological and ecological data. The book also presents the current conservation status of each taxon under Australian legislation, what additional information is needed for managers, and the required management actions. Recovery plans, where they exist, are evaluated.

The voluntary participation of more than 200 mammal experts has ensured that the conservation status and information are as accurate as possible, and allowed considerable unpublished data to be included. All accounts include maps based on the latest data from Australian state and territory agencies, from published scientific literature and other sources.

The Action Plan concludes that 29 Australian mammal species have become extinct and 63 species are threatened and require urgent conservation action. However, it also shows that, where guided by sound knowledge, management capability and resourcing, and longer-term commitment, there have been some notable conservation success stories, and the conservation status of some species has greatly improved over the past few decades.

The Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012 makes a major contribution to the conservation of a wonderful legacy that is a significant part of Australia’s heritage. For such a legacy to endure, our society must be more aware of and empathetic with our distinctively Australian environment, and particularly its marvellous mammal fauna; relevant information must be readily accessible; environmental policy and law must be based on sound evidence; those with responsibility for environmental management must be aware of what priority actions they should take; the urgency for action (and consequences of inaction) must be clear; and the opportunity for hope and success must be recognised. It is in this spirit that this account is offered.

Winner of a 2015 Whitley Awards Certificate of Commendation for Zoological Resource.

• Language: English
• Publisher: CSIRO PUBLISHING
• Release date: Jun 2, 2014
• ISBN: 9780643108752

John C.Z. Woinarski

John C. Z. Woinarski is a Professor of Conservation Biology at Charles Darwin University. He has been engaged in research, management and policy relating to Australian biodiversity for over 40 years. He was the author of A Bat's End (CSIRO Publishing, 2018), a co-author of Cats in Australia (CSIRO Publishing, 2019) and The Action Plan for Australian Lizards and Snakes 2017 (CSIRO Publishing, 2019), and co-editor of Recovering Australian Threatened Species (CSIRO Publishing, 2018).

Book preview

1.Introduction

THE AUSTRALIAN MAMMAL FAUNA AND ITS FATE

Mammals help to define and characterise Australia. Australia is the land of kangaroos, the Platypus and Koala, whose distinctiveness symbolises the uniqueness of our nation. It has long been this way. Even before the final rupture of the southern super-continent Gondwana, ~80 million years ago, the place was alive with the ancestors of today’s marsupials. Over millions of years, during which Australia became isolated and drifted northwards, that fauna radiated spectacularly. We have been left with the legacy of that extraordinary diversification, long-enduring species or species-groups whose history in Australia far exceeds our own.

But the legacy is dwindling. Many of the largest and most impressive of Australian mammals – the ‘megafauna’ – became extinct in the period between ~60 000 and 20 000 years ago, associated with the arrival in Australia of humans, and with periods of rapid climatic change. The losses have proven to be a continuing feature, to the extent that a recent review (Johnson 2006) has linked explicitly the megafauna losses to an ongoing pattern of decline and extinction. The erosion of that legacy is evident in Australia’s most monumental recent extinction, of the largest marsupial carnivore, the Thylacine Thylacinus cynocephalus, in the early decades of the 20th century. Indeed, the rate and extent of decline in the Australian mammal fauna has accelerated since European settlement, in 1788, and the recent loss of mammals in Australia far exceeds that of recent losses of the mammal fauna of other continents, or of other taxonomic groups within Australia. With the exception of some ghoulish fascination with the Thylacine, much of the recent and current loss of Australian mammals is unknown to the Australian public, in part because of a generally low level of knowledge about Australian mammals, and in part because much of the decline happens unobtrusively, in remote areas, and because of factors that do not operate conspicuously.

Koalas and kangaroos are well known and highly visible, and generally well liked. Beyond those species, public familiarity and interest wanes rapidly. Possums and flying-foxes may be reasonably widely known to a mostly urban population, but regarded by many as pests. Platypuses and echidnas may be appreciated as quirky components of our nature, but are rarely encountered by most of us. Amongst marine mammals, there is increasing interest in and concern for iconic whale species and coastal dolphins, and some public awareness of dugongs and seals. Wombats may rate some recognition, as relatively inoffensive oddities. But quolls, phascogales, dunnarts, dibblers, boodies, bettongs, pademelons, malas, mulgaras, kultarrs, kowaris, ningauis, monjons, dayangs and quendas remain little more than clever or hopeful scrabble words to most Australians. The impressive and highly varied complement of Australian endemic rodents is largely discounted as simply a superfluous variation on the unwelcome theme of rat, notwithstanding the beauty of such species as the Golden-backed Tree-rat Mesembriomys macrurus and Spinifex Hopping-mouse Notomys alexis or the chutzpah of the Black-footed Tree-rat Mesembriomys gouldii. And few Australians recognise that they share their homeland with ~80 different species of bats. There is little general familiarity and knowledge of the wonderful Australian mammal fauna, and hence little empathy for it, or concern about its loss.

In part, this is a reflection of the species themselves. In 1935, describing the mammal fauna of central Australia, but apposite more generally, the zoologist Hedley Finlayson wrote that ‘The mammals of the area are so obscure in their ways of life and, except for a few species, so strictly nocturnal, as to be almost spectral’ (Finlayson 1935b). This seeming invisibility or, at least, inconspicuousness, makes it difficult to attract a public profile. It also makes it difficult for all but the specialist to get to know these species: even for the specialist, the search for such knowledge can be challenging.

It was not always so. Numerous early accounts attest to the abundance of many native mammals. Often this abundance was unwelcomed, as some native mammals fed on vegetable gardens and crops, to the extent that bounties were paid for their destruction. For many decades after Europeans arrived, settlers and others added to their income by trapping mammals and selling their skins into the fur trade. Many mammals now rare and unfamiliar to most Australians were then (briefly) common and familiar components of the settled environment. Examples among the extinct and threatened species considered in the accounts here include the Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby Petrogale penicillata for which almost 100 000 skins were marketed by a single company in one year (1908) (Lunney et al. 1997); the Koala Phascolarctos cinereus for which more than 500 000 skins were collected in just 31 days in the last open season, in Queensland in 1927 (Jackson 2007); the now extinct subspecies of Brush-tailed Bettong from central and south-eastern Australia Bettongia penicillata penicillata for which in ~1900 ‘the dealers in Adelaide did a great trade in selling them by the dozen at about ninepence a head for coursing on Sunday afternoons’ (Wood Jones 1924). This disparity between the abundance of mammals at the time of European settlement and the present day was not a feature of closely-settled areas alone. In central Australia, Giles (1875) reported ‘countless swarms’ of the now-threatened Black-footed Rock-wallaby, whose population is now less than 10 000 individuals. In Arnhem Land, Dahl (1897) noted of the Pale Field-rat Rattus tunneyi ‘I have travelled through square miles of country where the ground was literally undermined by these rodents to such an extent that the hoofs of my horses at nearly every step would break through and sink deep down in the burrows’. On Christmas Island, the endemic but now extinct Maclear’s Rat Rattus macleari was reported to be ‘by far the commonest of the mammals found in the island; in every part I visited, it occurred in swarms. During the day nothing is to be seen of it, but soon after sunset numbers may be seen running about in all directions, and the whole forest is filled with its peculiar querulous squeaking and the noise of frequent fights’ (Andrews 1900). On remote islands of southern and subantarctic Australia, the multitude of seals and sea-lions were exploited and diminished, and many long-established colonies were extirpated. We see now only a faint shadow of the richness and abundance of the Australian mammal fauna that existed at the time of European settlement.

The Australian mammal fauna is very incompletely known. New species continue to be described. Recognising the fluidity of inventory of the Australian mammal fauna, we have included an explanatory account of the recognised species and subspecies in Chapter 2.

The now ‘spectral’ nature of many Australian mammal species renders it difficult to chart their status, or to notice when they disappear locally, regionally or nationally. For some species, there may be some population monitoring, but, even for these few species, such monitoring tends not to be coordinated nationally, nor reported publicly. This shortcoming is evident even for such relatively conspicuous and immobile species as the Koala, where the sparse number and inconsistency of population monitoring programs has severely constrained assessment of its conservation status (The Senate Environment and Communications References Committee 2011) and of prioritisation of management responses. The lack of information is far more acute for most other native mammal species. In the accompanying accounts in the main body of this book, we seek to provide estimates of the population size and trends for all considered taxa; in most cases there is low reliability in these estimates. We include this information in the hope that it can offer a foundation to build from, to develop a collated and comprehensive national monitoring program for threatened mammals (and other species), as is the case in many other countries (e.g. Battersby 2005).

Much of the Australian mammal fauna has been lost irretrievably since European settlement, and the losses are continuing, including the extinction of one endemic species (the Christmas Island Pipistrelle Pipistrellus murrayi) as recently as 2009 (and perhaps another species, the Bramble Cay Melomys Melomys rubicola, subsequently).

But this trend is not inevitable. For most declining species, there are solutions that can prevent extinction and lead to recovery, but passivity is generally not a component of those solutions. There have been some spectacular successes, which have led to at least local reversals. For Australian terrestrial mammals, most of these successes have involved translocations, predator-proof fencing or intensive and extensive management of predators (in almost all cases, the non-native European Red Fox Vulpes vulpes and the Cat Felis catus). For some Australian marine mammal species, the cessation of hunting and harvesting has led to some substantial population recovery. With suitable management, even highly threatened mammal species can recover and flourish. Our purpose here is to affirm the need for such management, and to provide some hope that, with such management, the ongoing survival of even the most threatened species can be achieved.

We do not claim to be pioneering this need. There are well established policies, legislation and practices that relate to biodiversity conservation, operating nationally and in all Australian States and Territories, and the charter of several non-government organisations focuses on biodiversity conservation. At the acute end of the conservation spectrum, threatened species represent that component of biodiversity that may need the most urgent protection and management. Under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Australian government maintains a list of threatened species, including many native mammals. Under comparable legislation, Australian States and Territories also maintain their own lists of threatened species. The composition of these lists varies appreciably, and they may be different again to the list maintained, including for Australian species, internationally (the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species). These disparities reflect the use of somewhat different eligibility criteria and conservation status categories, and different processes of listing, assessment and review, along with real differences in the status of shared species between different jurisdictions. In this document, we seek to provide a consistent and comprehensive application of internationally-recognised criteria to assess the conservation status of all Australian mammal species (and subspecies), and to indicate where and why this assessment may differ from those currently accorded the species.

Nationally, and in all Australian jurisdictions, some attempt is made to offer protection and management to listed threatened species. For many Australian species, this is done primarily through the development and implementation of recovery plans, a medium-term (typically 5 years) strategic framework that attempts to prioritise those research and management actions aimed at reversing declining trends. The recovery plans may have some substantial inconsistencies in format and approach, and many listed threatened species are currently not provided with recovery plans. A purpose of this document is to provide consistent management advice across all taxa assessed to be threatened, and to integrate this advice across taxa, to indicate the highest priority conservation management actions needed to safeguard the Australian mammal fauna. We do not aim to replace the more detailed advice already provided in recovery plans for those (minority of) threatened mammal taxa for which recovery plans now exist, and indeed where possible we recapitulate the main objectives or actions already available in those recovery plans.

AIMS OF THIS ACTION PLAN

It is our objective here to provide a comprehensive and consistent review of the status of all Australian mammals, to provide a benchmark from which changes in population and status can be measured, and to help guide management for their conservation. It is our purpose also to raise the profile of the diversity of Australian mammals, and to alert the Australian public to the conservation needs of this fauna.

This is the first comprehensive assessment focused on the conservation status of all Australian mammal species. It is modelled on, and complements, the recent Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010 (Garnett et al. 2011), the third such decadal-scale assessment of the conservation status of Australian birds. The bird action plans have been pivotal in the management of Australia’s threatened birds, and in charting trends in their status. We hope that this current document provides a similar foundation for the conservation of Australian mammals, and can provide a baseline for ongoing status assessments.

Although this is the first comprehensive assessment for Australian mammals, we acknowledge some important precedents for major components of that mammal fauna, most notably action plans for Australian rodents (Lee 1995), marsupials and monotremes (Kennedy 1992; Maxwell et al. 1996), cetaceans (Bannister et al. 1996), seals (Shaughnessy 1999), bats (Duncan et al. 1999) and macropods (Roache 2011). Those assessments provided much of the material for the establishment of lists of threatened mammal species in Australia, and helped stimulate interest and concern about the conservation plight of Australian mammals. However, the conservation outlook for many mammal species has changed (in many cases, deteriorated) appreciably over the relatively short period since those reviews, and many of those previous reviews were based on status eligibility criteria that differ from those now accepted.

Another important precedent for the current account is the ‘Global Mammal Assessment’ coordinated by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature); in Australia mostly in 2005 (Schipper et al. 2008) with the results being reflected in the 2012 Red List. That project assessed the conservation status of all of the world’s mammal species, according to IUCN Red List criteria, and included a thorough review of the status of all Australian mammal species. However, it did not result in a publication that focused on the Australian mammal fauna, nor a distillation of the major factors that threaten this fauna, nor of management priorities, and it did not assess subspecies. Furthermore, the Global Mammal Assessment has had little or no direct impact on the list of threatened species maintained under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Similar to the bird action plan, the aims of the Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012 are to:

•   provide a national overview of the conservation status of all mammals occurring in Australian territory (terrestrial and marine), with those status assessments determined by IUCN Red List categories and criteria (IUCN 2001);

•   identify those species most urgently requiring conservation management attention;

•   identify threats to the Australian mammal fauna and to recommend priority actions to ameliorate those threats;

•   assess trends in the status of the Australian mammal fauna, in a manner appropriate for State of the Environment and comparable reporting;

•   identify critical information gaps that most compromise status assessment and conservation responses; and

•   provide an evidence base to inform the listing of threatened mammals associated with relevant Australian national and state/territory legislation.

METHODS AND DEFINITIONS

Broadly, our approach was modelled on the procedures used for the bird action plan. We assembled a complete list of species and subspecies of Australian mammals, and assessed each taxon against the IUCN Red List Guidelines version 9.0 of September 2011 (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee 2011). For those taxa that were initially assessed as Extinct, threatened (Extinct in the Wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable), Data Deficient or Near Threatened, we drafted a conservation status account, which specifically included documentation of the fit of the taxon to the IUCN eligibility criteria. We also prepared accounts for taxa that we initially assessed as not threatened (or Near Threatened) if those taxa were currently listed as threatened, Data Deficient or Near Threatened by the IUCN, under the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), in the only Australian jurisdictions in which they occur, or in the previous relevant action plan.

These draft accounts, and the draft eligibility assessment, were then circulated for feedback to relevant experts representative of all Australian states and territories, and expertise across all broad groupings of Australian mammals. A total of >200 such experts were consulted, most of whom contributed reviews. Where experts provided information that indicated that accounts were required for additional taxa, we added such accounts, and circulated these for review. The revised accounts are presented here. Note that, as for the bird plan, we deliberately did not seek official responses from national or State/Territory government conservation agencies, although we note that many of the experts consulted work for government departments.

The accounts provided here do not represent all Australian mammal species and subspecies. Where there appeared to be no likelihood that a taxon met (or even nearly met) any criteria for threatened status, no account is provided. Such taxa comprise less than half of the Australian mammal fauna.

Geographic scope

The area covered in this assessment comprises Australia and its external territories (including Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Heard Island and the Australian Antarctic Territory) and marine waters including those of its exclusive economic zone.

Many mammal taxa are restricted (endemic) to this area, and our accounts for such taxa can be considered to represent status reviews for those taxa at global scale. However, for other species, the Australian range comprises only part of a broader global range. In some cases (such as for some cetaceans), this involves individuals moving between the Australian portion of their range and areas beyond the region that forms our primary focus. For taxa that are native but not endemic to Australia, our conservation assessment is informed by the relevant IUCN guidelines on regional evaluations (IUCN 2003); and we do not attempt to provide a global assessment of their conservation status.

Taxonomic scope

The taxonomy of Australian mammals remains imperfectly resolved. Many described taxa are no longer recognised. Some ‘new’ taxa have been identified in recent studies, but remain to be described and named. Some taxa (such as the state-based subspecies of Koalas) remain in the taxonomic lists, but would not stand scrutiny. Unsurprisingly, the taxonomic resolution is least good for small, cryptic, uncommon and ‘nondescript’ taxa, and those remote from major population centres. Awkwardly, the most recent authoritative taxonomic review of Australian mammals was in 1988 (Walton 1988), and much taxonomic sifting, particularly due to recent advances in genetic analysis, has occurred since.

Our taxonomic treatment of the Australian mammal fauna is described in Chapter 2.

Currently, at national level (and for some states), some entities are listed as threatened at taxonomic levels below that of subspecies (e.g. ‘populations’). Although there may be some conservation benefit deriving from such listings, we restrict our considerations here to species and subspecies.

Note that we use the word taxon (or, plural, taxa) when a meaning can relate to either species or subspecies (or any other taxonomic level, such as genus, family or order).

Common names

There is a perhaps surprising lack of consensus about the common names used for many Australian mammals. In part, this is because there is no established authority charged with such a coordinating role (a shortcoming even more evident and unhelpful for lack of national coordination for distributional data, monitoring, and taxonomy). The Australasian Bat Society has published a list of preferred common names (Armstrong and Reardon 2006), and there is increasing consensus in the names published in recent field guides and general accounts (e.g. Menkhorst 2001; Van Dyck and Strahan 2008). One trajectory has been to advocate the increased use of Aboriginal names for Australian species (e.g. Braithwaite et al. 1995; Abbott 2001a), but – with notable well entrenched exceptions such as Koala and kangaroo – this application has been favoured to date in only some states and by some individual mammalogists. Another trajectory has been to simply anglicise all or part of the scientific name, even where this results in such cumbersome and non-descriptive outcomes as, for example, Woolley’s False Antechinus or Woolley’s Pseudantechinus for Pseudantechinus woolleyae.

We have sought to use the most widely accepted and sensible common names wherever possible, and included additional names that have been applied and are in common use. Following the Bird Action Plan, we generally use geographic descriptors (in brackets) as part of the common name for those subspecies that otherwise do not have established common names.

Conservation status

There is now a well established consensus concerning the protocols for categorisation of the conservation status of plant and animal species. These are based on an assessment of the risk of extinction, and the timeframe in which that risk may be realised. Broadly, extinction risk is increased with smaller population size, smaller geographic range, and increased rate of decline. A series of thresholds based mostly on these parameters mark the segmentation of a gradient of increasing likelihood of extinction, with those segments labelled as Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT) and Least Concern (LC). The eligibility criteria for these categories have been continually refined by the IUCN, but have been stable since 2001, and the current criteria are presented in Table 1.1. These are the criteria that are used for the assignation of conservation status of Australian mammals in this account. Note that only one of the five criteria needs to be met for a taxon to qualify in a particular category, and that a taxon is assigned to the highest (that is, the most likely to become extinct) category for which it qualifies. In some cases, there is so little information available for a taxon that it cannot be assessed against any criterion. In such cases, that taxon can be assigned the code Data Deficient (DD); however, following IUCN Red List guidelines, this categorisation is used only in exceptional cases.

Table 1.1. Summary of the five criteria (A-E) used to evaluate the eligibility of a taxon to threatened species categories (from IUCN 2001).

Two modifications of these main status levels are considered in our treatment. Following IUCN protocol (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee 2011), the tag ‘Possibly Extinct’ can be added to the Critically Endangered status if there is reasonable doubt about whether or not the taxon remains extant.

In some cases, we qualify the assignment of Near Threatened status with a ‘Conservation Dependent’ tag. This signifies that the non-threatened status of the taxon is ‘dependent on ongoing conservation measures’ (IUCN 2001) and/or ‘is the focus of a specific conservation program the cessation of which would result in the species becoming vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered’ (EPBC Act s179(6)). The IUCN guidelines also allow for such qualification, noting:

‘A taxon may also qualify for the Near Threatened category if it is the focus of a continuing taxon-specific or habitat-specific conservation programme targeted towards the taxon in question, the cessation of which would result in the taxon qualifying for one of the threatened categories above within a period of five years. In these cases, the listing justification must explicitly state that the taxon is listed as NT because it is conservation-dependent.’ (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee 2011)

The IUCN criteria form the basis for threatened species categorisation in the listings adopted by most Australian states and territories, and broadly correspond to the criteria used for national listing associated with Australia’s primary environmental legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Table 1.2). However, there are some inconsistencies between the IUCN criteria and those regulated by the EPBC Act, and these may account for some discrepancies in status assignation. Where possible, we have attempted to identify and explain any such discrepancies between our current assessment of conservation status and those categorisations currently applied at Australian national level.

One feature of the Australian mammal fauna is the dominant trend for species’ decline in the relatively short period since European settlement (1788). Over this period (with some idiosyncratic lags and rates of decline depending upon the timing and spread of threatening factors associated with European settlement), very many species have declined across much to most of their pre-European range. However, a feature of most of the IUCN criteria relating to decline is that the decline must be considered only within a specified period. For IUCN criteria A and C, that period is 10 years or three generations (whichever is longer). [Given that the life history of most Australian terrestrial mammals is characterised by short life-spans and rapid maturity, the generation time for most species is short, and, hence, 10 years is often the default time period in which decline is measured.] This means that the IUCN criteria don’t really cater for or acknowledge the many mammal taxa that have suffered extensive declines since 1788 (and continue to decline),¹ unless these taxa are now reduced to residual populations that are extremely small or restricted in range, in which case they may qualify as threatened under criteria B or D.

The extensive, and ongoing, declines that characterise many Australian mammal species are typically due to pervasive threatening factors (especially predation by the introduced Red Fox and feral Cat) that are not closely related to land tenure. In some cases, the conservation solution lies with the fortuitous survival of those mammal species in areas (especially islands) not yet reached by those threats or in which those threats don’t operate (although several species have hung on in the south-west of Western Australia, the reason for this not being clear). In some cases, the conservation solution lies in more active measures, notably such as the translocation of subpopulations of the threatened taxon to areas in which the threat is absent or can be controlled (such as areas where fences can exclude introduced predators). Translocations have become a hallmark of the conservation of Australian terrestrial mammals; however, translocations have not been well catered for in the IUCN Red List criteria, and the guidelines are yet to catch up with those now undertaken, almost routinely in Australia (and New Zealand), in response to threats posed by introduced predators. We have included translocated subpopulations in our evaluations under guidelines developed in consultation with experts, with this approach and procedure explained in more detail in Chapter 3.

The assessment of species against IUCN criteria is based upon information mostly about that taxon’s population size, changes in that population size, distributional extent and changes in that distribution. For most Australian mammal species, such information is limited. The following sections describe some of the material used in our assessment.

DISTRIBUTIONAL DATABASE AND MAPPING

Currently, there is no comprehensive distributional database for Australian mammals (or for that of most other components of biota). The most substantial available such listing is the Atlas of Living Australia (http://www.ala.org.au/), but that remains incomplete. For our assessment, we compiled a distributional database for all Australian terrestrial mammal taxa from a series of sources: (i) a recent compilation of records for non-bat mammal species on the Australian mainland by Dr Alex Kutt (for an Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (ACEAS) project: see http://www.aceas.org.au); (ii) databases maintained by all State and Territory agencies and museums; (iii) some subfossil records from Dr Alexander Baynes; (iv) accounts from Aboriginal informants (e.g. Burbidge et al. 1988); and (v) recent records of microchiropteran bats from Cape York Peninsula (T. Reardon pers. comm.). Obviously erroneous records were deleted. This collated database (of 310 194 records) was developed and managed in Microsoft Access (subsequently imported to and managed in ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI, Redlands, California, USA) as a file geodatabase) by Damian Milne for this project, with fields relating to taxon, record date, location, source, and whether the record constituted a natural location or was a result of a translocation. It was used here to develop a map for every taxon, and to calculate area of occupancy and extent of occurrence. Nearly 70% of the records in this database post-date 1992, illustrating a continuously increasing knowledge base, but also marking the limited historical distributional information available for most species. In part to redress this deficiency, we also include mapping of the original bioregional extent for most species, based on interpretation of historical records, and previously derived by Burbidge et al. (2009).

For marine mammal species, we used the information on distribution and maps from publications cited in each account and additional records from colleagues to determine the distribution range in the Australian region and, where relevant, offshore territorial waters including Australian Antarctic Territory waters. For species where information is available to determine the primary distribution range, this is illustrated as a darker blue colour, with distribution range limits shown in paler blue.

INFORMATION BASE

Information about the status of Australian mammals is widely dispersed. Important source documents for our accounts included accounts in previous action plans, those available online in the IUCN Red List (http://www.iucnredlist.org/) and information associated with the listing of mammal taxa under Australian legislation. We also widely scoured the published scientific literature. But much of the most relevant information about the current status of Australian mammals is held in unpublished reports by (or databases of) State, Territory and non-government conservation agencies, in theses, and by consultants to mining companies and others. Much of this important grey literature is inconspicuous and/or difficult to access. Other important information is not yet so compiled, but is known by relevant experts. We attempted to access all relevant reports, and sought input from experts to all draft texts, and in almost all accounts we cite information from (unpublished) reports, papers submitted for publication but not yet published at the time of completing this book, and personal communications from experts.

TEMPLATE FOR ACCOUNTS FOR INDIVIDUAL TAXA

The bulk of this production comprises standardised accounts of the conservation status of individual mammal taxa. Such an account is provided for all 253 species and subspecies considered to be extinct, threatened, data deficient or near threatened. We also provide accounts for another 41 species and subspecies that we do not consider are in these categories, but are currently listed as threatened or near threatened by the IUCN or under Australian legislation, or in the only Australian State(s) or Territory (Territories) in which they occur, or in the previous relevant Action Plan, or that we consider were qualified as threatened either 10 or 20 years before our current assessment. In a few cases we have included an account (as ‘Not Evaluated’) for taxa that we do not recognise, or are considered to be vagrants, to explain such treatment. The account template that we use is based on that developed for the Bird Action Plan, but also introduces some additional fields. An explanation of the information presented is provided below. Note that parameters considered in this template relate to the Australian range only.

The template used for extinct taxa differs in some respects from that of non-extinct taxa, for obvious reasons. For extinct taxa, some fields, particularly those relating to current management, are deleted or modified, and additional information is provided for the date of the last specimen, and the estimated decade of extinction.

Common name

We mostly use geographic descriptors for subspecies names, except where alternative names are in common usage.

Scientific name

Where a taxon is not yet formally described, we have provided the reference supporting its separation.

Family

Families and the order in which they are listed generally follow Van Dyck and Strahan (2008).

Other common name(s)

We have provided alternative common names where these have been in recent use and, where possible, Aboriginal names or references that provide Aboriginal names. For rodents, we include the Australian name recommended by Braithwaite et al. (1995).

Conservation status

This provides a shorthand summary of the conservation status that we have assigned here to the taxon, and the IUCN criteria met (or the IUCN criteria approached in the case of Near Threatened taxa).

Justification

This provides a more expanded wording of the fit of the taxon to IUCN criteria.

Current eligibility against IUCN Red List criteria

This section tabulates the status of the taxon against each of the five IUCN criteria.

IUCN Red List assessment data

This section tabulates the conservation parameters of the taxon relevant to the IUCN criteria, along with a qualitative rating of the degree of confidence in the values assigned to those parameters. The key terms have meanings defined explicitly by IUCN (2001). These are:

Extent of occurrence (‘EOO’): Following IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee (2011) this was determined for terrestrial mammal taxa by calculating the area of an ‘a hull’, approximated in Pro 9.0 (Data East Soft, LLC, Novosibirsk, Russia) extension for ArcGIS with the Convex Hull tool and Detailed Hull option (based on Huff and Batsell 1977). The resulting polygon was clipped to a spatial dataset of the Australian coastline. Area was derived from the resulting polygon. To derive a consistent measure across species, we used the 20-year period 1993–2012 for inclusion of records considered in this calculation: this included locations of successful translocations. Note that this may over-estimate the current EOO for some rapidly-declining taxa. In some cases, the sparseness of the distributional database will result in some substantial under-estimates of the actual EOO. Where we consider this is the case, we have indicated so.

Trend in extent of occurrence: rated as decreasing, stable or increasing. Note that this relates to the time period relevant to the IUCN criteria (10 years or 3 generations (up to a maximum of 100 years), whichever is longer).

Area of occupancy (‘AOO’): This is a difficult parameter to assess for most Australian mammal taxa. We follow IUCN (2001) in calculating this by determining the number of 2 km × 2 km raster grid cells in which there are recent (post 1992) records, and then multiplying this tally by 4 to derive an areal estimate in km². Such an approach is obviously highly influenced by sampling effort across the taxon’s range, and in many cases will result in a significant under-estimate of the actual AOO. Where we consider this is the case, we have indicated so. Conversely, this approach may over-estimate AOO for some taxa that exhibit marked temporal variation in range (such as for the Plains Mouse Pseudomys australis), where AOO should reflect the area occupied at the time when the occupied area is minimal. It will also over-estimate the relevant AOO for some species that have specialised breeding habitat (colonial bats, breeding sites for seals), for which AOO should reflect the area of those specialised sites. It may also over-estimate AOO for highly restricted and habitat-specialist species (such as the Mountain Pygmy-possum Burramys parvus) for which only a small part of a 4 km² grid cell would contain suitable habitat. And, for taxa that have declined significantly since 1993, AOO may again be over-estimated. Where relevant, we have noted such over-estimates and, where possible, provided and justified a more realistic estimate of AOO.

Trend in area of occupancy: rated as decreasing, stable or increasing, with qualification as for trend in EOO above.

Number of mature individuals: an estimate of the number of reproductively mature individuals. Note that in most cases, the values given are not based on direct counts or estimated from calculations of density and area occupied: the relevant information is not available for most Australian mammal species. Given that many of these estimates have low reliability, they generally cannot be used to trigger eligibility under Criterion C.

Trend in number of mature individuals: rated as decreasing, stable or increasing over the time period relevant to the assessment (10 years or 3 generations).

Number of subpopulations: the number of reproductively isolated groups, where that separation results in little likelihood of genetic exchange (with such threshold defined by the IUCN as one successful exchange per generation). For most Australian mammal taxa there is limited information on population structuring, and hence our estimates often have low reliability. Largest subpopulation: (included only for taxa for which Criterion C may be relevant) the number of reproductively mature individuals present in the largest subpopulation.

Number of locations: following the IUCN guidelines, a location is defined as a distinct area in which a single threat could rapidly affect all individuals. This may comprise more than one subpopulation, or only part of a subpopulation.

Generation length: the average age of parents of newborn individuals in the population, in years. Unless otherwise indicated, the calculation of generation length is based on the sum of maximum longevity and age to reproductive maturity, divided by two. As with many other parameters, the relevant information is not available for most Australian mammal taxa, so our estimates often have low reliability.

Global population share: an estimate of the Australian population size divided by the global population size, expressed as a percentage. For endemic taxa, the figure will be 100%.

Note that for all of these parameters we also provide an estimate of the reliability of the value or rating given, as high, medium or low. These reliability ratings follow the definitions given in the Bird Action Plan (Garnett et al. 2011).

Note that the IUCN Red List guidelines provide explicit standards for data requirements used in assessments of eligibility for each of the five criteria. For example, for Criterion C (relating to small population size and decline) and Criterion D1 (very small population size), the population size estimate must be observed (based on counts of all known individuals) or estimated (based on justified numerical analysis); in relation to the extent of decline, Criterion C1 similarly allows for only observed and estimated assessment, whereas Criteria A and B allow also for inferred (information based on indirect evidence, such as the extent of habitat loss) and suspected (based on circumstantial evidence, so long as its relevance can be reasonably supported) decline, and Criterion C2 allows for observed, projected (as for estimated, but with trends extrapolated to the future) or inferred decline. In most cases here, where our estimate of particular parameters is considered to be of ‘low’ reliability, this precludes use of criteria requiring data standards that are observed or estimated. For Criterion D (very small population size), the guidelines emphasise the qualification in the criteria: that even where taxa have very small distributions, the Criterion should be invoked only when the population is prone to the effects of human activities or stochastic events within a very short time period (e.g. within one or two generations) in an uncertain future, and is thus capable of becoming Critically Endangered or even Extinct in a very short time period. The numerical thresholds for Criterion D in IUCN (2001) are given more by way of example and are not intended to be interpreted as strict thresholds.

Retrospective status 2002

This section provides a retrospective assessment of the conservation status to which the taxon would have been assigned 10 years before the current assessment, based on current information. It does not refer to any status assessment that was conducted in 2002 or the nationally listed status in 2002. We include this section to help measure trends in the overall status of Australian mammals.

Retrospective status 1992

This section provides a retrospective assessment of the conservation status to which the taxon would have been assigned 20 years before the current assessment, based on current information. It does not refer to any status assessment that was conducted in 1992. We include this section to help measure trends in the overall status of Australian mammals.

Previous Action Plan assessment

This section documents the conservation status assigned to the taxon in a previous action plan, along with the date of that assessment. In comparing the previous and current assessments, it is important to recognise that the eligibility criteria have changed since the previous categorisation. The relevant action plans are: monotremes and marsupials (Maxwell et al. 1996), bats (Duncan et al. 1999), rodents (Lee 1995), seals (Shaughnessy 1999) and cetaceans (Bannister et al. 1996). Earlier action plans used the IUCN Red List categories and criteria operating at the time; the criteria given are those of the earlier system.

IUCN status

This section documents the conservation status assigned to the taxon internationally in 2012 (and the criteria on which it was found eligible), based, in most cases, on the 2005 global mammal assessment (for which most reporting was in 2008). This assessment concerned species only (so generally does not relate to subspecies²), and incorporates the global range rather than being restricted to the Australian population of a species that is native but not endemic to Australia. The reasons for discrepancies between the status that we assign and that of the IUCN are also given, in a format that follows the template for change given in IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee (2011).

Note that the IUCN status may be subject to ongoing change, so readers seeking current IUCN status should consult the relevant website (http://www.iucnredlist.org/).

CITES status

For some species, particularly marine mammals, there is additional conservation protection offered through international treaties, notably the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Where this applies, this status is listed.

EPBC Act status

This section documents the conservation status assigned to the taxon under Australian national legislation (the EPBC Act), at December 2012. The listing date and EPBC Act criteria are provided where available. Under the EPBC Act a native species is eligible for listing in one of the critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable categories if it meets any of the criteria in Table 1.2. Nominations are assessed by the independent Commonwealth Threatened Species Scientific Committee, appointed by the Minister, which makes recommendations to the Minister responsible for the EPBC Act. Most mammals listed under the EPBC Act were transferred from the previous Endangered Species Protection Act 1992, the list of which in turn was derived from a national list adopted by the then Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. For these taxa, the listing date is given as July 2000, the date that the EPBC Act came into operation, and no listing criteria are available. Where possible and relevant, we provide some interpretation of any disparity in this status relative to the status assigned by us. Note that the EPBC Act does not provide for a Near Threatened or Data Deficient category.

The EPBC Act status is subject to ongoing change, so readers seeking current EPBC Act status should consult the relevant website (at http://www.environment.gov.au).

The EPBC Act also provides some additional conservation protection for cetacean species and for some migratory species, where these are listed under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention). Where species are listed under the EPBC Act as cetacean and/or migratory, this listing is noted.

Legal status in range States/Territories

This section documents the conservation status assigned to the taxon under Australian State and Territory legislation (or other process), at December 2012, for jurisdictions in which the species occurs or formerly occurred (‘Range states’). Note that the eligibility criteria (and status categories), and the process for listing and review, varies between these jurisdictions. These are summarised here.

New South Wales. Threatened animal species (except fish) are listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Species and populations can be listed as ‘Presumed extinct’, ‘Critically Endangered’, ‘Endangered’ ‘or ‘Vulnerable’. Listing is carried out by the New South Wales Scientific Committee, an independent committee appointed by the Minister for the Environment. The Committee’s determinations are not subject to Ministerial review. Taxa are assessed on their status within New South Wales.

Victoria. Threatened species are listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Assessments are carried out by the Scientific Advisory Committee, which is appointed by the Minister. Taxa are listed as ‘threatened’. Taxa are assessed on their status within Victoria. As well as the threatened species list, ‘Advisory Lists’ are maintained by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and are based on technical information and advice obtained from a range of experts. They are reviewed periodically, usually every one to two years. Where appropriate we include the status in the advisory list (in brackets) in addition to the status under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.

Queensland. Threatened species are listed under the Nature Conservation Act 1992. The Act categorises protected species – extinct in the wild, endangered, vulnerable, near threatened and least concern – based on trends in population size, health and distribution. Under the Act, endangered and vulnerable species are deemed to be ‘threatened species’. Taxa are assessed by the Departmental Species Technical Committee using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2001) based on status within Queensland.

Table 1.2. Overview of listing criteria used to assess whether a taxon should be listed as threatened under the EPBC Act. Note that additional guidelines provide broad quantitative calibrations for some of the terms used (e.g. ‘very low’).

South Australia. Threatened species are listed in Schedules under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Listing is recommended by Threatened Species Schedules Committee, within the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. Schedules 6, 7 and 8 of the Act are lists for ‘Endangered’, ‘Vulnerable’ or ‘Rare’. Extinct and Critically Endangered taxa are included in the Endangered schedule. Lists are based on status within South Australia.

Western Australia. Threatened species are listed pursuant to the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. Taxa are assessed by the Western Australian Threatened Species Scientific Committee, which is appointed by and advises the Minister for the Environment, with listings made by the Minister. The Act requires that taxa be listed as ‘rare or likely to become extinct’; however, the scientific committee assesses all threatened taxa using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2001) and allocates each threatened taxon to the appropriate Red List category and criteria, which the Minister endorses. Taxa are assessed on their status within the whole of Australia. In the conservation summaries we have shown the Ministerially-endorsed Red List category.

Tasmania. Threatened species are listed under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. The Scientific Advisory Committee, appointed by the Minister, is responsible for assessing taxa under publicly-available guidelines. Preliminary recommendations are advertised for public comment before being forwarded to the Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage for a final decision. Taxa can be listed as ‘Endangered (Presumed Extinct)’, ‘Endangered’, ‘Vulnerable’ or ‘Rare’. Criteria used for assessment are similar to those in the Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2001); however, ‘qualitative statements supported by expert opinion’ can also be used in the assessment process. Listing is based on status within Tasmania.

Northern Territory. Threatened species are listed pursuant to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000. Nominations are considered and reviews undertaken by an Expert Panel appointed by the Department of Land Resource Management. Draft assessments are made on status within the Northern Territory, and exhibited for public comment, before final approval from the Northern Territory Administrator. The entire list is reviewed at c. 5 year intervals. Taxa may be listed as ‘Extinct’, ‘Extinct in the wild’, ‘Critically Endangered’, ‘Endangered’, ‘Vulnerable’, ‘Near Threatened’, ‘Least Concern’ or ‘Data Deficient’. The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2001) are used to evaluate taxa.

Australian Capital Territory. Threatened species are listed pursuant to the Nature Conservation Act 1980. The Flora and Fauna Committee assesses taxa and advises the Minister concerning taxa that require listing. The Committee’s assessments are required to be made on nature conservation grounds only and in a regional context in accordance with specified, publicly-available criteria. Taxa may be listed as ‘Endangered’ or ‘Vulnerable’, based on their status with the ACT.

Note that State and Territory status are subject to ongoing change, so readers seeking current status should consult the relevant websites (which may themselves change), for Queensland (http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/), New South Wales (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/), Victoria (http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/), Tasmania (http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/), South Australia (http://www.environment.sa.gov.au), Western Australia (http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/), Northern Territory (http://lrm.nt.gov.au), and Australian Capital Territory (http://www.environment.act.gov.au).

Taxonomy

This section provides information on any taxonomic issues associated with the taxon. For subspecies, it includes information on the conservation status assigned in this review for other subspecies (occurring in Australia) and for the species as a whole. For species, it includes information on the conservation status assigned in this review to any subspecies occurring in Australia.

Fig. 1.1. Example of presentation of distributional maps for terrestrial mammal taxa (in this case Numbat Myrmecobius fasciatus). Red crosses indicate records before 1993; green dots records between 1993 and 2012, and blue squares represent sites of successful translocations. The map also includes outlines of bioregions, with dark shading indicating formerly-occupied bioregions with no recent records, with paler grey shading indicating severe decline in bioregion.

Following the bird action plan, this section also provides an assessment of the evolutionary distinctiveness (taxonomic uniqueness) of the taxon, classed as very high, high, medium or low, with that rating based on the number of genera in the family and the number of species in the genus. A value is provided for the global and Australian taxonomic distinctiveness, and also where appropriate, for the extant Australian taxonomic distinctiveness, noting that some genera have lost many of their species. An elaboration of the methodology used is provided in Appendix B.

Range

This section provides a description of the geographic distribution of the taxon, and is complemented by a map. For terrestrial mammals, the records shown on the maps (e.g. Fig. 1.1) are categorised as:

•   green dots: records from 1993 to 2012

•   red cross: record before 1993; data include subfossil records

•   blue square: successful translocation (see Chapter 3).

For most terrestrial species, maps also show Australia’s bioregions (see http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/nrs/science/bioregion-framework/ibra/index.html). The bioregions are shaded following Burbidge et al. (2009) to show:

•   dark shading: ‘extinct’ in bioregion (when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died);

•   medium shading: ‘severely declined’ in bioregion (extant within the bioregion but has declined by > 90% of former range within the region);

•   light shading: ‘declined’ in bioregion (a decline of 50–90% of its former range within the bioregion);

•   no shading (within known range): ‘persists’ in bioregion (persists in >50% of its former range within the bioregion (note that range equates to ‘extent of occurrence’, not ‘area of occupancy’(IUCN 2001)).

This shading has been added because Burbidge et al. (2009) included much unpublished historical and subfossil data that could not be included in the distributional database compiled here (for example, because of imprecision in early records or unpublished subfossil data).

Abundance

This section describes information on the abundance of the taxon, including where possible estimates of the population size, size of some subpopulations, estimates of density at selected sites, or other measures of relative abundance. Note that an estimate of the number of mature individuals is included in the tabulation of parameters relevant to the IUCN categorisation.

Monitoring

This section describes any known monitoring programs that provide information on trends in the status of the taxon, and where such monitoring information can be sourced. We recognise that there are relatively few monitoring programs established for most threatened Australian mammal taxa (or for other Australian threatened taxa). Unfortunately, most of the existing programs have limited statistical power, incorporate only a small proportion of the taxon’s range, do not incorporate explicit measurement of the efficacy of management responses, and/or do not report publicly on their results. These deficiencies, which are largely due to resource constraints, hamper conservation management, limit our ability to describe trends in Australia’s biodiversity, and render it difficult to describe successes and failures of management investments.

Ecology

This section provides a brief account of the ecology of the taxon, including where relevant information on aspects most relevant to conservation status and management, including habitat, diet and reproduction.

Threats

The bird action plan provided a written summary of known or presumed threats to listed birds. We have modified that approach to present a risk assessment based consideration of threats, whereby known or presumed threats are tabulated in priority order according to the assessed consequence of the threat to the taxon, and the extent of range over which the threat operates. The categories used for these risk parameters are described in Table 1.3, along with a brief definition.

These ratings are inevitably somewhat subjective, given that threats may be uncontrolled (indeed uncontrollable), partly controlled or completely controlled by management; that their impacts may vary over time, or work at different paces; that threats may (and often do) operate synergistically; and that the threatened taxon may develop adaptive or other responses that serve to reduce the impacts of the threat. They are provided here as a prioritisation guide for the direction of management intervention of any threatened taxon, and to help collate threat information consistently across taxa. Note that threats are mostly considered relevant to the time periods of the status evaluation (10 years or three generations).

These ratings are also annotated by a brief description of the evidence underlying our assessment (i.e. the likelihood of the threat operating). It is notable that the evidence base is meagre in many cases, reflecting lack of knowledge of the factor(s) responsible for the decline of many Australian mammal taxa.

In terms of the consideration of this risk assessment, there is another dimension relevant to management: the ability of managers to ameliorate or eliminate the threat. In some situations, addressing the threat that causes highest risk of extinction may not be the most efficient and cost-effective option for recovery. For example, for Northern Quolls Dasyurus hallucatus, poisoning by Cane Toads Rhinella marina is recognised as the most significant threat, but it may not be feasible to control these within a relevant timeframe or realistic budget. We don’t here address directly the likelihood of management effectiveness nor the costs associated with such management.

Note that we use a largely consistent set of terminology for threats. While this differs from the threat nomenclature and hierarchy used by IUCN (www.iucnredlist.org/ technical-documents/classification-schemes), linkage of the threats listed in this document to the IUCN scheme should be straightforward.

Recovery plans

This section provides information on whether or not the management (including necessary research) of the taxon has been coordinated through a national recovery plan, the extent to which that plan may have been implemented, and the extent to which such implementation may have benefited the conservation of the taxon. Information on State-based recovery plans is also presented.

Current management

This section provides a brief account of the extent of management directed towards the conservation of the taxon.

Conservation objectives

This section provides a small set of long-term objectives aimed at promoting the taxon’s persistence and recovery.

Information required

This section describes, in tabular form, those critical knowledge gaps that most impede current conservation management. The basic biology of many Australian mammals is poorly known; however, in this section we do not seek to provide a research agenda to fill all such gaps, but rather attempt to focus on those research areas that may contribute most effectively to enhanced conservation outcomes. In most cases, the same set of broad research themes is tabulated for each taxon, with specific actions then arranged in priority order. The entry ‘n/a’ is given for research themes that are not priorities for conservation management (in some cases, because previous research has adequately supplied the relevant information).

Management actions required

This section describes the most important management actions required to enhance the conservation status of the taxon. In most cases, this listing is based on the threat risk assessment matrix. In most cases, the same set of broad management themes is tabulated for each taxon, with specific actions then arranged in priority order (although note that some management themes (such as translocation) are omitted from marine mammal accounts, because they are consistently not relevant). The entry ‘n/a’ is given for management themes that are not priorities (in some cases, because these management actions have already been applied successfully).

Bibliography

Sources used to compile accounts are referenced at the end of the book.

Table 1.3. Risk assessment framework used to describe threatening factors for all Australian threatened mammals. Note that in some accounts intermediate categorisations are also used (e.g. ‘moderate-severe’ consequence).

Comments received from

Draft accounts were circulated to at least two potential referees. In this section, we list those experts who provided information and comment on those drafts. Note that such named referees will not necessarily have agreed with the conservation status ultimately assigned, although such disagreements represented a very small minority of cases.

CONSEQUENCES OF STATUS ASSIGNED HERE

The conservation status assigned here is that judged by us to be the best fit based on the current IUCN Red List criteria and the guidelines on their use, with that assessment incorporating substantial input from a large number of experts as acknowledged. In many cases, the status assigned here will be different from that currently assigned under national, State or Territory legislation. We recognise that there is no automatic process for the assessments provided here to alter national, State/Territory or international lists; however the Bird Action Plan provides a precedent. For that case, the statuses assigned formed the basis for a current overhaul of the list of threatened birds under Australian legislation and also for lists of at least some states and territories (notably Western Australia and the Northern Territory); and also, through the auspices of BirdLife International, to changes in the IUCN Red List. The detailed information compiled here should form a robust base for such changes, where appropriate, at all levels. For Australian endemic mammals, the information in this Action Plan will be used by the current Global Mammal Reassessment (globalmammal. org) and should lead to changes in the Red List. For Australian non-endemic mammals, our information will aid global reassessment of status.

For some taxa currently listed as threatened, our assessment is that such categorisation is no longer supportable: i.e. the taxon does not (now) fit the current IUCN Red List criteria to qualify as threatened. In a rational world, such taxa should be de-listed after consideration by the various relevant scientific committees and Ministers. However, in some cases (possibly such as for the Spectacled Flying-Fox Pteropus conspicillatus and Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae), the current listing provides some conservation management security, and de-listing may be judged to come with some considerable conservation costs. Although this is not directly within the ambit of this Plan, this problem has three possible responses: (i) the current listing as threatened is retained, although it is demonstrably invalid; (ii) the taxon’s Australian conservation status is changed from threatened to ‘conservation dependent’ (under the EPBC Act), which would provide for the maintenance of those conservation management actions and protective mechanisms; or (iii) the taxon is de-listed, but alternative conservation plans, policies, listings and management actions are developed.

____________________________

¹   The IUCN guidelines are explicit in their focus on species at risk of extinction rather than simply decline: ‘Criteria are designed to identify taxa that exhibit symptoms of endangerment, and not simply depletion or conservation priority’ (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee 2011)

²   One notable exception is for the Dingo Canis lupus dingo, for which a status assessment is included in the Red Book

2.A list of native Australian mammal species and subspecies

A.A. Burbidge, M.D.B. Eldridge, C. Groves, P.L. Harrison, S.M. Jackson, T.B. Reardon, M. Westerman and J.C.Z. Woinarski

INTRODUCTION

After more than 200 years of study, the taxonomy of Australian mammals remains far from firmly resolved. New species continue to be described; long-established names have been overhauled; and the robustness and comprehensiveness of taxonomic treatment varies appreciably between different groups. Even some previously stable taxa are being revised and seen in a new light as a result of recent advances in genetic techniques.

The most recent authoritative and comprehensive review of the taxonomy of Australian mammals was in 1988 (Walton 1988), and much has changed subsequently. To some extent the Australian Faunal Directory (Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) (2012) maintains a watching brief on such changes and attempts to maintain a regularly updated listing of valid taxa. The Mammal’s Planet on-line taxonomic database (http://www.planet-mammiferes.org/) and the Mammal Species of the World (Wilson and Reeder 2005) provide a useful complement, and global context, to Australian mammal taxonomy, though the internet version of the latter (http://www.vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/index.cfm) does not appear to be updated regularly.

For our purpose, we established a list of Australian mammal species and subspecies, based initially from that used by the ABRS. We have made some modifications to that list based on new information, commentary from relevant taxonomists, and with reference to a