PS: RE: Fossil Burrowing Bettong burrows
john...@ozemail.com.au
PS: Just reversing the meaning.
I'd written " it seems they very communal towards the end".
I accidentally left out the vital "not".
I really meant the opposite .. that
" it seems they WERE NOTE very communal towards the end".
Sorry, John
----- Original Message -----From:john...@ozemail.com.auTo:oza...@googlegroups.comSent:Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:03:58 +0800Subject:{OzArch} RE: Fossil Burrowing Bettong burrows
Hello,
Continuing off megafaunal and on bettongs ... nice little critters and Steve asked "Did Bettongs typically have big communal burrows like rabbits? "
My apology if Jeannette of someone has already answered that and I've overlooked the answer as I'm in arrears looking at all.
I note from what was written on the last of the (mainland) bettongs in Aus ---- as Jeannette has already kindly scanned and sent to us ---- that it seems they very communal towards the end .. and were down to single pairs living in rabbit holes.
They no doubt would/could have been a whole lot more communal if they hadn't been dying out?
What was recorded of them in their latter times would make one wonder "bettongs mounds or rabbit mound" !?
Would, post the coming of the Europeans and Mr and Mrs Bunny, many "bettong" mounds be better termed rabbit mounds !? - viz.
Before the bettong died out in mainland Australia, it was written, from South Australia: "Rabbits are so universally spread over the country that there probably does not exist to day a Bettongia colony living in its own burrows. It has thrown in its lot with the rabbit, and although it appears to have its own apartments in the complicated system of the large warrens, it is merely a tenant, forming a part of a community in a manner which is rather remarkable when its exceedingly pugnacious character is considered. Nevertheless, though it lives in apparent harmony with the rabbits, and avails itself of the shelter of their burrows, it is suffering for the partnership. The remnant of the bettong rat kangaroos (Tungoos) is living in an environment in which there is a severe competition for succulent food. In good seasons there is enough juicy herbage for cattle and rabbits as well as Rat Kangaroos but in bad seasons the rabbits and the marsupials perish in large numbers. Such losses among the rabbits are soon made good, but with the marsupials this is not the case, and probably the end of the Tungoo is not far off. When times are bad, and when the cattle and rabbits have eaten all the herbage of the sand hills, the Tungoos become extremely bold, and will enter a homestead in their search for anything to eat. They will come into a room and boldly face a cat in order to obtain some potato peelings; they will scramble over a paling fence four or five feet high in order to get at the vegetable garden. They are bold and enterprising little animals which have made, and are making, a brave struggle against what seems an almost inevitable extermination. In the more cultivated districts of the South, where food is in plenty, the wholesale scattering of poisoned pollard has led to their complete extinction. The poison cart has done its deadly work on the slowly breeding Tungoo, although the rapidly-breeding Rabbit has survived the ordeal. In the North they are steadily being pressed out of existence by the competition for food ....... Nor must we forget that the remnant which still struggles on in the North is now exposed to the ravages of the fox ...... Tungoos are strictly nocturnal, and although they are gregarious in the sense that more than a single pair may inhabit a large warren, they do not live at the present time in what could be termed communities. Although the examination of their tracks on a sandhil1 might lead one to suppose that a very large number of animals inhabited the district, it will usually be found that the multiplicity of tracks is the product of, maybe, no more than a single pair" ( "The Mammals of South Australia", by Frederic Wood-Jones, 1923-25 ).
The main thing universally agreed on bettongs seems to be that they are cute (except males bite or hiss)?
Females may mate again on the day after birth and any fertilised egg remains in arrested gestation until weaning of the pouch young (Photo via Heirisson Prong threatened species project). The males and females differ considerably in disposition, the males being wild and pugnacious, the females considerably more docile. A female may, as a rule, be readily handled; but a male will bite and scratch with some severity if an attempt be made to pick him up.
( https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/b-bettong-Image1.gif ; https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/bettong-juvenile.jpg )
Noble called (at least for a time) his research on possible mallee fowl mounds his "CDK research" (meaning Chief Doesn't Know).
Did he ever get converted to the idea that his more regular/circular form (which is suspected megapodes made) could also have been bettong-made?
I think the Broken Hill geos thought 'their' mounds were just too big for bettongs to have made (?) ... e.g.:
Photograph by Kingsley Mills of an enigmatic mound in NW NSW, in the Kayrunnera 1:100K sheet area.
(Plate 33 in the Notes for the Nuchea 1:100K sheet geological map, by Peter Buckley)
( https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/koonenberry-mound.jpg )
....... or especially too tall? What is maximum height for accepted bettong mounds, please?
I have now lost track of Peter Buckley to see what he still thinks (someone might know where he now is?):
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/peter-buckley-1.jpg
Extracts from Peter Buckley's 1:100K Nucea map sheet note, bearing on the 'enigmatic' mounds, are given below.
Today the mallee fowl is unfortunately declining across Australian under environmental competition with man and introduced animals. It is classified as rare and threatened with extinction in Western Australia, Nationally it is regarded as vulnerable. From a presumably once vast range the species continues to contract into fragmented pockets. This is endangering it in NSW. Other megapodes species occupy jungle or densely vegetated land. It is therefore speculated that "ancient mallee fowl" probably once constructed their mounds in denser vegetation. If so, might the bird once have constructed a bigger incubation gathering of leaf litter, and a bigger mound to go over it? Because of greater abundance of leaf litter? There is no real reason to think so, seeing that the species adequately controls incubation temperature with current nest/mound dimensions. Yet, if it did once build bigger structures then the presumed ancient mounds migth still related to mallee fowls without having to resort to other extinct bird genera? Such has been considered but no strong view emerged and instead Peter Buckley opted instead for having a strong preference for extinct bigger (megafaunal) birds. Nevertheless, it is noted that in Western Australia there have also be "megamounds" reported, up to 15m in diameter. Unfortunately little seems to have been written about these so called "megamounds", other than that they have been termed that by persons familiar with modern mallee fowl mounds. Were they single one or two season mounds, just larger than usual? Or might there have been different habits if population was once denser and more stable - perhaps with different bird pairs reworking the same mounded accumulations over a long time, gradually increasing the overall size of the accumulations that had been the cumulative work of many birds?’
Over a number of years, three geologists from the NSW Geological Survey who worked in western NSW, and one Cobar-based geologist from the exploration industry knew of these mounds and related to each other that they'd seen hundreds. None actually went to see what any of the others were seeing, however. Nonetheles, by shared description they all thought that they were referring to the same thing. Of those one (the private industry one) early formed a bird-source their. One of the Geo Survey geologists had initially no idea what formed the sandy mounds, another initially was suspecting an Aboriginal origin, and the third (Peter Buckley) formed a big bird theory (independently of knowning that the Cobar geologist had come up with that idea earlier). Impressed by Buckley's theory, the other two Survey geologists veered towards that too. It should be noted that the three Geological Survey geologists were all pre-occupied with other matters (mineral resources or older geology than Recent sand mounds) and except for Peter Buckley little paused to closely examine, map, or even measure the sandy mounds. The private industry geologist is understood to have done more, including some excavation, but details have not yet been made know. The only published data so far known of for northern NSW mounds is that by Peter Buckley within geological map sheet notes.
Life-sized Elephant bird reconstruction; with Peter Buckley, who has been a principal advocate in NSW of a 'big bird' approach to understanding the myriad mystery soil mounds of western NSW and adjacent States. (Photographed: Jan 2010 at Australian Maritime Museum in Sydney, this model being on loan from the American Museum of Natural History.)
( https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/elephant-bird-P1150958-2.jpg )
EXTRACTS FROM NUCHEA NOTES
[ NB: These extracts refer to 2003, and. Dr Mills, pers comm. 2008, later changed his mind on thinking that the Nuchea sheet mounds are man-made. ]
Enigmatic Landforms
Throughout the parts of the Nuchea sheet underlain by pre-Mesozoic basement, a prominent feature of the landscape is the presence of mounds composed of locally gathered small stones that rarely exceed 5 cm in diameter. The typical mound is "hemispherical" and about 20 m in diameter and 1 m high (about 350 tonnes) although some individual mounds range from 10 to 30 m in diameter and up to 2 m in height (Plate 33). Occasional elongate mounds to 40 m by 20 m, are usually 2 m high. Annular rings about 30 m in diameter with an opening gap, composed of the same material, also occur. It is apparent that many of these features are of some antiquity as there are a few that are cemented with travertine limestone and one on the Yancannia sheet that is overlain by a vegetated east-west sand dune (Mills pers com).
The mounds' mode of formation may seem to be a trivial side issue, but under a regime of increasing pressures on land use, such as grazing and mineral exploration, determining the nature of the mounds may prove to be an important task. Already, many of the larger mineral exploration companies conduct archaeological drill site clearances as a routine part of the exploration cycle. The only way to determine the mode of formation of this enigmatic landform is to gain more information, for example their distribution and morphology need to be documented and consideration given to an investigative excavation. Thermoluminescent or radio carbon dating of the mounds may help to elucidate the matter.
While arguments have been advanced that these mounds could be the result of the activities of some pre-historic animal, or be the remnants of an extensive plateau cover of outwash conglomerate, Mills (pers comm 2001) believes their morphology, siting and composition suggests that they are anthropogenic. Possible correlatives exist overseas, as many societies have constructed burial mounds, such as the Indian burial mounds of Wisconsin and the serpent effigy mounds of Peebles, Ohio.
~~~~~~~~~
Hey - what's this? Confronted by the craters of the mallee fowl.
( https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/mallee-fowl-crater.jpg , https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5737284/bird-mound.jpg )
The name of the "private enterprise" geologist who apparently mapped hundreds of the mounds in SW Qld, NW NSW, and SA .. and was bird-minded on them .... will come back to me any moment.
He'd be retired now so if anyone were interested they could try and team up with him to get the mapped areas published?
Cheers, John
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to oza...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ozarch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
