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

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
16 June 2014

A CHANCE rediscovery in London’s Natural History Museum has reversed thinking that the world’s largest egg-laying mammal, the Western long-beaked echidna, is extinct and led scientists to question whether it may be alive in Western Australia.

The skin and skull of an echid*na that lived in northwestern Australia was found by Smithsonian Natural History Museum curat*or Kristofer Helgen, who is normally based in Washington but was visiting London, among drawers of untagged specimens.

Dr Helgen’s rediscovery has sparked an Australian hunt for the monotreme, via collection and analysis of echidna droppings and DNA-matching from skins, to see if it survives in more remote parts of the Kimberley.

Until now, fossil evidence of the 10kg mammal, which grows to one metre long, was from Australia’s megafauna period, at least 10,000 years ago. Aboriginal rock art paintings of the animal, in Arnhem Land, are estimated to be 5000 years old.

But living-memory accounts from indigenous women in the region point to a larger echidna being hunted alongside the common short-beaked mammal two generations ago.

The London skull was initially thought to have been sourced from the highlands of western New Guinea, where the species is critically endangered.

South Australian Museum and University of Adelaide School of Earth and Environmental Sciences professor Stephen Donnellan said $50,000 in funding had been secured last month to analyse DNA captured from the skins of Kimberley and New Guinea specimens to determine their genetic relationship.

Australian Wildlife Conservancy scientists and West Australian Environment Department rangers were collecting the highly distinctive echidna scats from the West Kimberley region.

“If we don’t find (long-beaked echidna DNA) in the scats we collect, we still can’t say it’s not there,’’ he said. “However, if we do confirm its presence, then it becomes an important addition to our monotreme fauna.

“The DNA sequences of short- and long-beaked echidnas are like chalk and cheese. There’s at least 15 to 20 million years’ divergence.’’
Click to expand...

Scientists begin hunt for giant echidna in West Kimberley after research suggests it may not be extinct
16 June 2014

GIANT echidnas weighing 10kg and growing to a metre long could be roaming a remote area of Western Australia, scientists believe.

The western long-beaked echidna was thought to have been extinct in Australia for thousands of years.

But now researchers are on the hunt for the animal in the West Kimberley after Dr Kristofer Helgen discovered a specimen in the collections of the Natural History Museum in London and realised it was taken from the wild in Australia in 1901 — long after it was believed to have died out.

The finding has been supported by an account from a 90-year-old Aboriginal woman who in 2001 told one of Dr Helgen’s team how she had hunted the larger echidnas.

The researchers said they were “sufficiently convinced by the tags and information” on the London specimen “to regard it as evidence for the survival of the long-beaked echidna in the Kimberley region into the early twentieth century”.

And they added: “We hold out a small optimism that long-beaked echidnas might yet dig burrows and hunt invertebrates in at least one hidden corner of Australia’s north-west.”

Now staff from Australian Wildlife Conservancy and the West Australian Environment Department are collecting and testing echidna scat from West Kimberley to try to find DNA evidence of the animal, The Australian reports.

South Australian Museum and University of Adelaide School of Earth and Environmental Sciences professor Stephen Donnellan told the paper: “If we don’t find (long-beaked echidna DNA) in the scats we collect, we still can’t say it’s not there.”

The only place the western long-beaked echidna is known to exist is in New Guinea, where the small population is listed as critically endangered.

Further research will compare the DNA from the Australian remains and the New Guinea creatures to establish their genetic relationship.
Click to expand...
 
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 :(.
 
DDcorvus said:
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 :(.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TeaLovingDave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
DDcorvus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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

A chance discovery of an echidna skin and skull in London's Natural History Museum suggests an echidna species, thought to have become extinct in Australia around 10,000 years ago, may be still living in the remote Kimberley region.

Conventional understanding suggests Australia is home to just one species of echidna, which shares the unusual habit of being a mammal that lays an egg with its monotreme relative the platypus.

But the old skin found in the museum in London has been confirmed as being that of a much larger western long-beaked echidna, collected in the west Kimberley in 1901.

The sparsely-populated rugged Kimberley region, with a total area almost as big as Spain, is exactly the type of place where such an unusual animal could go unnoticed, even in the 21st century, according to Professor David Watson from Charles Sturt University.

"Nobody's actually had a good look," Dr Watson said.

"When this specimen was unearthed, collected at the turn of the last century, it got a lot of us thinking, 'Holy-moly that's remarkable. Could it still be there?'"

While finding a large mammal that was thought to be extinct in Australia may seem unlikely, the recent discovery of the once thought to be extinct night parrot in the Kimberley is one example Dr Watson points to.

"That sort of example is really inspiring, and the other one that springs to mind is the Wollemi pine, a great big rainforest tree on the doorstep of Australia's biggest city," he said.

"It's equally improbably and unlikely, and yet it's happened."

The power of poo
A search for the western long-beaked echidna is planned for later this year, and a specially-honed tool gives Dr Watson confidence he may find the animal that has been overlooked since 1901.

Three dogs are being trained to seek out echidna poo.

If the long-beaked echidna still exists in Australia, it is obviously hard to find.

But even elusive animals have to poo, and with DNA technology, a single poo could confirm the existence of Australia's second echidna species.

An added advantage for Dr Watson's echidna poo-seeking dogs is that the western long-beaked echidna still exists in parts of New Guinea, and one lives in captivity at Sydney's Taronga Zoo.

The long-beaked echidna droppings will be used to train the dogs to sniff out the poo of what is a very different kind of animal.

"It's a much bigger, more heavily built animal, it's completely nocturnal," Dr Watson said.

"It's furrier, it is spikey but the spines don't emerge from the fur as much so it looks woollier, it's got a much longer snout, and it is a rainforest specialist."

If signs of a new species of echidna for Australia are found, more specialised studies would follow to understand how these mysterious animals may have gone unnoticed for so long.

"Even where they live and where you can see them now in New Guinea, they're really poorly known," Dr Watson said.

"There's very few studies that have been done on them. There's a couple of zoos that have tried keeping them, but they are enigmas."
Click to expand...
 
...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.
 
yes I'd seen those links (they're amongst the first hits from Google), but nothing new there.
 
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.
 
animal_expert01 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top