The Burramys Project: a conservationist's reach should exceed history's grasp, or what is the fossil record for?

A geometric morphometric analysis of variation in Australian frog ilia and taxonomic interpretations

Anurans including frogs and toads exhibit an ilium that is often regarded as taxonomically diagnostic. The ilium, one of the three paired bones that make up the pelvic girdle, has been important in the fossil record for identifying anuran morphotypes. Osteological collections for Australian frogs are rare in herpetological museums, and skeletonizing whole-bodied specimens requires destroying soft tissue morphology which is valuable to anuran specialists working on living species. Computed tomography scans provide the opportunity to study anuran osteology without the loss of soft tissues. Our study, based on microcomputed tomography scans of extant Australian frogs from the public repository Morphosource and from museum collections focuses on the morphological differences between Australian frogs at the familial and generic levels using geometric morphometrics to compare the diagnostic shape of the ilium. Principal component analysis (PCA) and canonical variate analysis (CVA) were conducted to assess differences in the ilium between supraspecific groups of Australian frogs. The canonical variates analysis accurately predicted group membership (i.e., the correct family) with up to 76.2% success for cross-validated predictions and 100% of original group predictions. While the sample was limited to familial and generic level analyses, our research shows that ilial morphology in Australian frogs is taxonomically informative. This research provides a guide for identifying Australian anurans, including fossils, as well as new information relevant to considerations about their phylogenetic relationships, and the potential use of the fossil record to enhance efforts to conserve threatened living frog species.

The Australian gulf snapping turtle Elseya lavarackorum (Testudines: Chelidae) revisited—Is the late Pleistocene fossil species extant?

Disagreement exists on the taxonomic identity of the extant populations of the Australian Elseya referred to in 1992 as the gulf Elseya (= Elseya sp. aff. dentata [Nicholson]). The extant form has since 1997 been considered conspecific with the late Pleistocene fossil Elseya lavarackorum (White and Archer, 1994). Recently it has been considered a new species, Elseya oneirosJoseph-Ouni et al., 2020, conspecific with another fossil found in the same site and stratum as Elseya lavarackorum. Here we re-examine the fossil material and reassess the characters used by previous authors in an attempt to decide the issue. We find that the anterior bridge suture with the carapace of the fossil Elseya lavarackorum is associated with extensive and prominent plastral elements, which has led to misinterpretation of characters associated with this structure. We furthermore show that interindividual variation in sulci patterns is so great as to render them of little taxonomic value. On the basis of (a) deviation of the anterior shape of the carapace from ovoid such that, in aged individuals, the most anterior point of the carapace occurs at marginal scutes M2 (a resultant nuchal bay occurs in such individuals); (b) the typical absence of a cervical scute; (c) no evidence of a medial constriction in the anterior bridge strut suture; and (d) absence of evidence of any other informative variation of taxonomic value; we conclude that the decision to consider the late Pleistocene (ca 23 kyr old) fossil and the extant Elseya sp. aff. dentata [Nicholson] as Elseya lavarackorum (White and Archer, 1994) as conspecific should stand.

Adaptive Heritage: Is This Creative Thinking or Abandoning Our Values?

Protected areas, such as natural World Heritage sites, RAMSAR wetlands and Biosphere Reserves, are ecosystems within landscapes. Each site meets certain criteria that allow it to qualify as a heritage or protected area. Both climate change and human influence (e.g., incursion, increased tourist visitation) are altering biophysical conditions at many such sites. As a result, conditions at many sites are falling outside the criteria for their original designation. The alternatives are to change the criteria, remove protection from the site, change site boundaries such that the larger or smaller landscape meets the criteria, or manage the existing landscape in some way that reduces the threat. This paper argues for adaptive heritage, an approach that explicitly recognizes changing conditions and societal value. We discuss the need to view heritage areas as parts of a larger landscape, and to take an adaptive approach to the management of that landscape. We offer five themes of adaptive heritage: (1) treat sites as living heritage, (2) employ innovative governance, (3) embrace transparency and accountability, (4) invest in monitoring and evaluation, and (5) manage adaptively. We offer the Australian Wet Tropics as an example where aspects of adaptive heritage currently are practiced, highlighting the tools being used. This paper offers guidance supporting decisions about natural heritage in the face of climate change and non-climatic pressures. Rather than delisting or lowering standards, we argue for adaptive approaches.