Harry Butler's Archived Diary Notes

When Harry Butler was contracted to collect Western Australian mammals for the AMNH and the WAM from 1963 to 1966, he meticulously recorded in his field notebooks collection details for all mammalian specimens including locality, date, size, mass, and field label numbers. In addition to his contract to collect mammals he also collected reptiles, frogs, birds, and fish for the WAM but did not record details of them in the field notebooks, probably because collecting them was not part of his official mission. However, he also kept (personal) diaries during his collection trips with entries under the headings “Weather”, “Traps”, “Collecting” (mammals only), “Preparation” (mammals only), and “General”. Beside various observations under the “General” heading, Butler also mentioned some, but obviously not all, reptiles he collected but without providing details such as size, mass, field label numbers, etc. These notes provide some indication of when and where he collected some of the Kimberley turtles, which includes the holotype of C. kuchlingi.

Butler first mentions a Kimberley long neck turtle, Chelodina walloyarrina, (or any turtle) in a diary entry at his field camp at Parry Creek on 21 July 1965 (Fig. 1). Although he does not specify how he caught the turtle, on 19 July 1965 a diary entry states “caught 4 barramundi on set lines in billabong” and on 22 July an entry reads “. . . someone or something took one of my set lines. . .”. It is, therefore, clear that Butler had deployed set lines in a billabong near his camp at the time he collected this long neck turtle and an Emydura australis, and it is likely that he caught them on those lines. Butler also specifies that the long neck turtle was “similar in general appearance to C. oblonga of the S.W. but with rounder + deeper shell. . .”. A rounded shell is also one of the diagnostic characters in Cann's (1997) description of C. kuchlingi. Butler further states, “I will send it to Perth to Dr Storr so he can examine it fresh + alive” (Fig. 1). Glen Storr was then WAM's curator of reptiles who later obviously transferred to doctoral student Andrew Burbidge of UWA a live Chelodina (now the holotype of C. kuchlingi) and a live Emydura collected by Harry Butler.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Butler further records in his diary on 27 July 1965 that, “old aboriginal pensioners about 4 miles away” (Garanjie [Karanjee] people) informed him of the following names for animals: “. . . Chelodina Rhingulli Emydura Deegee. . .”. In a summary of the Parry Creek collecting area entered into his diary on 3 August 1965, Butler states, “The Chelodina resembles C. oblonga but is not and is possibly an undescribed species.” From Butler's diary entries it is clear that he personally collected at least one C. kuchlingi at Parry Creek, recognized it as an undescribed species, and sent it to Perth alive for further study, although according to his diary entries he collected it on 21 July 1965 and not on 3 August 1965, the date listed in the WAM database for R281116.

Butler was based at the Parry Creek field camp from 19 July to 3 August 1965. His next collection site and camp was Ninbing, after which he returned to Parry Creek on 15 August 1965 before returning to Perth. From his diary entries it is clear that he also employed an assistant, at least at Parry Creek (see Fig. 1), although he nowhere specified the duties of the assistant (e.g., if collecting animals including turtles was also one of his duties) or how long he was employed. For example, two E. australis, WAM R28118 and WAM R29412, are recorded in the WAM database as collected by Butler at Parry Creek on 20 July 1965, although in his diary Butler mentioned only one E. australis he personally collected there on 21 July 1965. Interestingly, 1 of those 2 Emydura (WAM R29412) was purportedly the one also handed over alive to Burbidge for his studies together with the C. kuchlingi holotype (Burbidge 1967). There are inconsistencies between Butler's diary notes and the records in the WAM database: obviously Butler did not mention all collected turtles in his diaries, perhaps not those collected by his assistant or other persons. Thus, as definitely is the case for Emydura, more Chelodina specimens than referred to in Butler's diary may originate from Parry Creek.

After collecting in the southern part of Western Australia September to November 1965, Butler returned to the Kimberley, flying to Kalumburu on 4 December 1965, where he stayed until 1 February 1966 when he flew back to Perth. The only turtles Butler mentioned in his diaries during his stay at Kalumburu are the following entries: on 1 January 1966 when he received materials on an airplane from Perth and sent specimens back to Perth, “also on the shipment were most skins to date, 2 Elseya dentata (?) + 2 Liasis fuscus alive and a drum. . .”. Because the specimen accession registration of the C. kuchlingi holotype states the collection date as “x-xii-1965 – i-i-1966”, meaning between 10 December 1965 and 1 January 1966, the latter date being when Butler sent specimens to Perth, it appears unusual that Butler did not record any Chelodina in his diary despite meticulously recording 2 Elseya dentata and other reptiles. Also, on 27 January 1966 Butler noted in his diary, “I have on hand alive now for Perth: . . . also 3 Liasis 2 Elseya 2 Chlamydosaurus 3 Tiliqua.” It is possible that most of these 4 Elseya (and other specimens arriving in Perth alive) were transferred to Perth Zoo because only 1 Elseya collected by Butler at Kalumburu ended up being recorded in the WAM inventory (WAM R28119).

During fieldwork, a mangrove spike penetrated Butler's left boot and foot on 7 January 1966, causing an inflammation accompanied by high fever. This seriously hampered his ability to continue to do the actual fieldwork himself and after his return to Perth, Butler had to spend February 1966 in a hospital. Thus, he wrote the summary for Kalumburu only retrospectively on 1–4 March 1966 and mentioned under reptiles “Chelodonia (sic) 3 species possibly 4 Chelodina, Elseya, Emydura (2)” (Fig. 2). Although this entry suggests that Butler did collect or receive turtles of those genera at Kalumburu, it is unusual that he did not list in his daily diaries any Chelodina as being sent to Perth alive, although he specifically listed a total of 4 Elseya as sent alive. Another interpretation is that, in his summary (Fig. 2), Butler referred to all turtles he had collected in the Kimberley in 1965–1966; not only those from Kalumburu as the heading suggests but also those from Parry Creek.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Andrew Burbidge's Notes and Recollections

Andrew Burbidge (pers. comm., January 2018) provided the following information regarding the Kimberley turtles he handled during his doctoral research: “My recollection is that Harry Butler did give me, possibly via Bert Main, some Kimberley tortoises for my chelid phylogeny research. . . . In one of my UWA ‘shorthand books’ I have: Kimberley tortoises, Kalumburu. (R28117 apparently added later). Chelodina sp. nov. radiating lines on scutes. [On the same page:] Emydura maquarii ? claws 5/4. top of head smooth, shell ∼ 9 inches long. [Next page:] labelled Elseya dentata (R28119 apparently added later), . . . [next page:] labelled E. australis, 5/4, nuchal present, no barbels, small tubercules, Parry Creek, tail shortish, no d row of scales. . . . This suggests these animals all arrived at roughly the same time, but I can't be sure. There are no dates on these pages. Next page with date is 20/10/66, date before the above records in this notebook is 8/2/66.”

It is evident that Burbidge received live turtles from Butler's collections at Parry Creek and Kalumburu sometime between 8 February and 20 October 1966 including turtle(s) from Parry Creek (Emydura) and turtle(s) from Kalumburu (Elseya) which are traceable in Butler's diary entries. Burbidge received them probably all at the same time, those from Parry Creek at some stage 7–13 mo and those from Kalumburu 1 wk to 9 mo after their collection. Those were 1 live Elseya, 2 live Emydura, and 1 live Chelodina, the later holotype of C. kuchlingi.

Burbidge (1967) used the specimen that later became the holotype of C. kuchlingi for serum immunoelectrophoresis. In his list of specimens used for immunoelectrophoresis, Burbidge (1967, p. 133) refers to the Kimberley specimens as follows:

“8. Emydura australis Kalumburu, northern W.A. (same as W.A. Museum R28117)

14. Chelodina ?rugosa Kalumburu, northern W.A. (same as W.A. Museum R28118).”

It is noteworthy that the E. australis specimen is listed as originating from Kalumburu, although in his ‘shorthand books' the note gives Parry Creek as the collection locality. At the time Burbidge wrote his doctoral thesis, the Kimberley turtle specimens he studied had not yet been assigned museum numbers. Thus he identified the C. kuchlingi specimen only as “same as W.A. Museum R28118”. However, this actually is the number of an Emydura specimen from Parry Creek (see above). Burbidge (1967) also attributed the number WAM R28117 (a C. kuchlingi from Kalumburu) incorrectly to “8. Emydura australis Kalumburu, northern WA (same as WA Museum R28117)”—he obviously mixed up those 2 museum numbers. Burbidge (pers. comm., January 2018) stated, “I can't account for the difference between the R numbers.” This leaves the question open: was this a mix-up regarding the species in question, or regarding the collection localities and dates? No Elseya from the Kimberley is listed under specimens used for immunoelectrophoresis (Burbidge, 1967, p. 133), only 1 from the North Johnston River in Queensland, although his UWA ‘shorthand books' refer to 1 from the Kimberley “(R28119 apparently added later)”, but without locality specification. Thus, there are inconsistencies of specimens and collection localities between Burbidge's original UWA ‘shorthand books’ from 1966 and those listed in his doctoral thesis (Burbidge 1967).

Later, when Burbidge et al. (1974, pp. 393–394) published the phylogenetic results, they provided the by-then assigned factual museum number for the Kimberley specimens with the following locality designations: “8) Em. australis Parry's Creek, near Wyndham West. Aust. WAM (Western Australian Museum) R29412” and “14) C. ?rugosa Kalumburu, West. Aust. W.A.M. R 29411.” There is again an inconsistency between the locality designation “Kalumburu” for the E. australis specimen in Burbidge (1967) and for the same specimen “Parry's Creek, near Wyndham West. Aust.” in Burbidge et al. (1974).

WAM Accession Registrations of Butler's Kimberley Turtles from 1965 to 1966

The date of accession of 4 of the 6 turtle specimens from Parry Creek and from Kalumburu (R28116–R28119) is 9 November 1966, over 9 and 14 mo after they were sent to Perth in August 1965 and February 1966. This fact, plus the various inconsistencies of the records discussed above, suggests mix-ups of collection localities and dates could easily have happened, in particular if Butler's diary entries, including his summary of Kalumburu, were used as guidance to assign collection localities and dates to specimens. The only other accession date is that for the Chelodina (R29411) and Emydura (R29412) specimens studied by Andrew Burbidge: 30 August 1967. According to Butler's notebooks, it appears he took or sent all turtles to Perth alive. Unfortunately, it can no longer be resolved retrospectively for how long and where the various turtles were kept alive prior to their transfer to UWA or prior to their fixation as museum specimens. Based on its macerated condition, at least one, the C. kuchlingi specimen R28117, obviously was dead for a while prior to fixation.

Type Locality

How reliable is the collection locality Kalumburu (Burbidge 1967; Burbidge et al. 1974; Cann 1997, 1998; Cann and Sadlier 2017) for the holotype of C. kuchlingi? In 2000, well over 3 decades after the C. kuchlingi holotype had been acquisitioned by the WAM, a telephone conversation was conducted with Harry Butler regarding the collection history of the C. kuchlingi holotype (S. Thomson, pers. comm., December 2017). Georges and Thomson's (2006, p. 299) interpretation of this telephone conversation was, “Chelodina kuchlingi was described from a single specimen of uncertain origin. It was held for a substantial period in captivity.” Fifteen years later interpretations of Thomson's recollection of this telephone conversation became even more detailed: “The holotype was given to H. Butler by another person who collected and held it in captivity for an unknown length of time before it was given to the University of Western Australia, where it was held for a short period before donation to WAM (S. Thomson, pers. comm.)” (Ellis and Georges 2015, pp. 54–55). Scott Thomson (pers. comm., December 2017) clarified: “I did speak to Harry Butler about the holotype back in 2000, he did not have much recollection of it except that he obtained it in Kalumburu; however he said it was already in captivity when he got it, and did not collect it from the wild himself.”

Despite the originally reported collection locality Kalumburu (Burbidge 1967; Burbidge et al. 1974; Cann 1997, 1998; Cann and Sadlier 2017), and despite various interpretations of purported recollections of Harry Butler during a telephone interview (Georges and Thomson 2006, 2010; Ellis and Georges 2015), the historic facts and snippets presented above suggest that mix-ups of collection localities and dates occurred between the field collection of Harry Butler's Kimberley turtles in 1965–1966 and their accession in the WAM 9–24 mo later, including a mix-up of the collection locality of the C. kuchlingi holotype. The collection locality and collection date of the holotype (WAM R29411) was only registered in WAM at its accession over 2 yrs after its collection in the field. Entries in the original field diaries of the collector, in notebooks of then doctoral student Andrew Burbidge, and in the specimen list of his doctoral thesis (Burbidge 1967, p. 133) show that several mix-ups of collection localities and dates occurred between the field collection of Harry Butler's Kimberley turtles in 1965–1966 and their accession in the WAM 9–24 mo later, including a mix-up of the collection locality of the C. kuchlingi holotype. Very likely it was not collected by Harry Butler in Kalumburu (Cann 1997) and was not, “given to H. Butler by another person who collected and held it in captivity for an unknown length of time” (Ellis and Georges 2015, p. 54): Harry Butler's notes in his field diaries demonstrate unambiguously that he personally caught at least 1 C. kuchlingi at Parry Creek in the lower Ord River flood plain, recognized it as a then-undescribed species (Fig. 1) and sent it alive to Perth for further study.

The confusion regarding the collection locality of the C. kuchlingi holotype appears to be based on Butler's summary of Kalumburu (Fig. 2), written in his diary after spending over a month in the hospital following his collection trip to Kalumburu, where he evidently referred to all turtles he collected in the Kimberley in 1965–1966, including those from Parry Creek collected over half a year earlier, and not only to those he received in Kalumburu. This notion is supported by the fact that no Emydura from his trip to Kalumburu is registered in the WAM, even though he lists in his Kalumburu summary 2 species of Emydura. The only turtles Butler mentioned in his diaries as having been sent to Perth alive from Kalumburu were 4 Elseya, as opposed to the Parry Creek site where he specifically mentioned Chelodina and Emydura as sent alive to Perth to Dr. Storr at the WAM. Seven to 14 mo later, 1 live Chelodina and 1 live Emydura were handed over to UWA/Andrew Burbidge, together with 1 Elseya mentioned in Butler's diary as being sent to Perth alive from Kalumburu.

Given that Butler was in Kalumburu during the 1965–1966 wet season, preoccupied with collecting mammals, gravely ill for about half the time, and providing no indication in his diaries that he collected any turtles there himself, it is likely that he received all 4 Elseya specimens mentioned in his diaries from aboriginal helpers. Although this can no longer be ascertained, it is possible that Butler consulted his Kalumburu summary (Fig. 2) during his phone conversation with Scott Thomson to support his recollections as to which species or specimens originated from Kalumburu. As outlined above, Butler also included the turtles he collected months earlier at Parry Creek (Fig. 1) in his Kalumburu summary (Fig. 2). The mix-up of collection localities is most likely based on Butler overlooking this fact at later occasions, e.g., during the phone conversation with Scott Thomson. This Kalumburu summary (Fig. 2) could also have been used as a reference to assign collection localities to specimens handed over to Andrew Burbidge at an unknown time up to 8½ mo after Butler's return to Perth from Kalumburu as well as during specimen acquisition in the WAM over 9–14 mo after they were sent to Perth.

Further support of the notion that the holotype of C. kuchlingi WAM R29411 and the specimen WAM R28117 belong to the same taxon are unlikely to originate from Kalumburu is provided by later turtle collections and surveys in the Kalumburu area: in Appendix B, Specimens Examined, Thomson et al. (2000) list 7 “Chelodina sp. (Kimberley)” (now C. walloyarrina) as collected by John M. Legler in the Kalumburu area in 1974. Legler did not collect any other taxon or form of Chelodina in this area. From 24 June 1998 to 1 July 1998, I also collected turtles in the Kalumburu area together with John Cann by trapping and snorkeling, including in the lower Carson River and King Edward River and its lagoon at Kalumburu (see photos in Cann and Sadlier 2017, pp. 96, 132, 351). A total of 62 E. australis/victoriae, 13 E. dentata, and 11 C. walloyarrina were caught, but no C. kuchlingi (G.K., unpubl. data, July 1998). Although it is a priori impossible to prove the nonexistence of a species at any locality, those collections/surveys are at least an indication that C. kuchlingi, should it exist there, is evidently much rarer than C. walloyarrina. It would be surprising that Butler could collect 2 C. kuchlingi at Kalumburu in 1966 but not deposit any C. walloyarrina in the WAM. The King Edward/Carson Rivers enter the Timor Sea at Kalumburu more or less directly from the sandstone plateau, basically without floodplain formation. For this reason the sandstone plateau species C. walloyarrina can be found down to coastal areas (G.K., unpubl. data, July 1998). Like its sister species C. rugosa, C. kuchlingi may well prefer wide coastal floodplains.

Supporting the conclusion that the holotype of C. kuchlingi WAM R29411 and the specimen WAM R28117 originated from Butler's Parry Creek collection site and not Kalumburu is also specimen WAM R177909 (originally UU 14389) collected by John M. Legler at “Crocodile Hole, Parry Creek, 9 mi S, 10 mile E Wyndham” in 1974; it conforms to the morphology of C. kuchlingi and is the only C. kuchlingi specimen known that was photographed alive (Fig. 3). There are 4 specimens in the WAM attributable to C. kuchlingi (Table 2), 2 with Parry Creek as the collection locality. I suggest that WAM R29411 and WAM R28117 were also collected at Parry Creek (see reasoning above). To correct the erroneous, originally stated type locality Kalumburu for C. kuchlingi, following ICZN Recommendation 76A.2, I herewith formally clarify Parry Creek, lower Ord River floodplain, Kimberley, Western Australia, as type locality of Chelodina kuchlingi Cann 1997.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Table 2 Specimens of C. kuchlingi in the WAM collected at Parry Creek (lower Ord river floodplain).

View Fullscreen

According to portrait photographs of live specimens in the scientific estate of the late John M. Legler, the second specimen from Parry Creek (UU 14390, now skeletonized) with similar collection data as WAM R177909 represents a C. walloyarrina. The only other Chelodina species from Parry Creek represented in the WAM collection is WAM R164185, also a C. walloyarrina, collected in 2006.

Review of the History of Recognition of C. kuchlingi

Burbidge (1967) and Burbidge et al. (1974) used the later holotype of C. kuchlingi for serum immunoelectrophoresis and compared it with other turtles from Australia and New Guinea, including C. rugosa from Darwin, Northern Territory. The then undescribed species was referred to as “C. ?rugosa Kalumburu” because data analyses demonstrated its closer relationship to C. rugosa than either of these taxa has to C. expansa, C. oblonga/colliei, C. longicollis, C. canni (then novaeguineae), and C. steindachneri (Burbidge 1967; Burbidge et al. 1974). Burbidge (1967, p. 138) discussed the results in regard to Chelodina from Northern Australia as follows: “The results within the genus Chelodina are somewhat confusing. The strongest group is that of the two northern tortoises, C. rugosa from Darwin and C. ?rugosa from Kalumburu.” And further: “the Kalumburu specimens differ from the typical C. rugosa chiefly by having radiating markings on each scute instead of the usual longitudinal wavy grooves.”

Cann's (1997) description of C. kuchlingi meets all requirements of a circumscription and is valid under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), although it did not reference the earlier analysis of Burbidge et al. (1974) as additional justification for its species status. The link between the two studies was only published by Cann and Sadlier (2017), who also present photographs of two additional C. kuchlingi specimens in the WAM. These two additional specimens show a similar morphology to the holotype of C. kuchlingi, and both were collected by Harry Butler in 1965–1966 during the same collection assignment as the holotype of C. kuchlingi.

Based on a preliminary morphological analysis, Georges and Thomson (2006) expressed doubts about the separate identity of C. kuchlingi from C. rugosa but listed C. kuchlingi as a valid species. Although a questionable origin of a type specimen in itself has no bearing on a taxon's validity, Georges and Thomson (2010, p. 18) listed C. kuchlingi as junior synonym of C. rugosa, stating: “Chelodina kuchlingi Cann, 1997c was described from a single specimen of uncertain origin with a long history of captivity and so is treated as a junior synonym of C. rugosa (Georges and Thomson 2006)”—the last statement obviously in error. This synonymy was adopted in some other articles and accounts (TTWG 2010, 2012; Kennett et al. 2014; Ellis and Georges 2015; ASH 2016), with Ellis and Georges (2015, p. 55) stating, “the species morphology is consistent with C. oblonga” (now rugosa). This argument could be taxonomically relevant for synonymizing C. kuchlingi under C. rugosa, but neither data nor any other evidence supporting this opinion were ever published. Scott Thomson clarified his preliminary morphological analysis (mentioned in Georges and Thomson 2006) by stressing it was done as part of the description of Chelodina burrungandjii (Thomson et al. 2000) to ensure that the name did not apply to the newly described species. In his statistical analyses, the C. kuchlingi holotype clustered with the Northern Territory forms of C. rugosa, and this cluster was highly differentiated from C. burrungandjii. However, “this analysis should not be seen as indicating that C. kuchlingi is synonymous with C. rugosa” (S. Thomson, pers. comm., February 2019). It is, thus, unclear why the validity of the taxon Chelodina kuchlingi Cann 1997 has frequently been disputed without ever being refuted by any analysis (Georges and Thomson 2010; TTWG 2010, 2012; Kennett et al. 2014; Ellis and Georges 2015; ASH 2016).

Kehlmaier et al. (2019) recently demonstrated that the mitogenome of the holotype of C. kuchlingi differs by 3.78% from Northern Territory C. rugosa (Finnis River) and by 5.72%–10.37% from other Chelodina species, corroborating with modern DNA technology the respective phylogenetic results of Burbidge et al. (1974) and validating its status as separate species from C. rugosa.

Taxonomic Recognition and Conservation

A species has to be recognized as valid to be of conservation concern to government authorities. In addition to the various listings of C. kuchlingi in synonymies of C. rugosa (see above), the rejection of C. kuchlingi by Australian and Western Australian authorities was further advanced by Kennett et al. (2014), probably based on their synonymy, stating regarding haplotypes of 867 base pairs from the mitochondrial ND4 and control region for C. rugosa “. . . the second lineage is comprised of haplotypes from the Northern Territory and northeastern Western Australia (Alacs 2008)” (Kennett et al. 2014, p. 077.4). However, Alacs (2008) had never studied or analyzed any samples of C. rugosa or C. kuchlingi from northeastern Western Australia or from the western Northern Territory. When Alacs (2008) identified 2 major haplotype lineages of C. oblonga consisting of 1) Northern Territory and 2) New Guinea and northern Queensland, her westernmost genetic samples of C. oblonga came from the Finnis River about 600 km to the northeast in the Northern Territory near Darwin (Alacs 2008, fig. 6.1).

Thus, C. kuchlingi has not only been arbitrarily synonymized under the common and widespread C. rugosa (Georges and Thomson 2006; TTWG 2010, 2012; Ellis and Georges 2015; ASH 2016) but without evidence has even been considered to represent a widespread haplotype lineage of it (Kennett et al. 2014). The publication of this unsupported novelty (Kennett et al. 2014) and the lack of a respective corrective note in its publication outlet the “Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises” effectively absolved the Australian and Western Australian government authorities from any responsibility to consider the fate of the rare, locally endemic C. kuchlingi in environmental impact assessments of their massive, still ongoing, development schemes in the northeastern Kimberley.

In rarely sampled and poorly known reptile groups, it is better to describe new species based on limited samples and make the presence of the species known to other biologists than to wait for extensive sampling and genetic analysis that may never be possible (Hillis 2019). Unfortunately, this principle was violated regarding recognition of C. kuchlingi as a valid species by the international turtle conservation community and, as a consequence, in the official list of recognized species for Australian government authorities (ASH 2016). Although some recent publications (TTWG 2014, 2017; Cann and Sadlier 2017; Vetter 2018) recognize C. kuchlingi as a valid taxon, TTWG (2017) regards it as a “purported” taxon with the authors uncertain if it is indeed valid and recognizable, reporting its status as “Not Evaluated” in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List and the IUCN Draft Red List. Only since April 2019, after re-validation of C. kuchlingi by Kehlmaier et al. (2019), is the species included in the WAM “Checklist of the Reptiles of Western Australia” with its conservation status column left blank (WAM 2019) and listed as Data Deficient in the most recent IUCN Draft Red List assessment (Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group [TFTSG], unpubl. data, 2019).

Conservation Outlook

No Western Australian specimens of C. rugosa (sensu stricto) are represented in the WAM. This species has been recorded in the Victoria River just to the east in the Northern Territory (Alacs 2008; Georges and Thomson 2010). Kennett et al. (2014) mention for the first time C. rugosa as occurring in Western Australia, probably based on the occurrence of C. kuchlingi in Western Australia and on treating C. kuchlingi as junior synonym of C. rugosa. John Cann first documented C. rugose–like specimens in Western Australia photographically in 2007, from Parry Creek (Cann and Sadlier 2017, pp. 59, 95, as “Chelodina oblonga ??”). Data of these unvouchered long neck turtles, which were handled and released at Parry Creek, are presented in Table 3. It is intriguing that all 4 known specimens of C. kuchlingi were collected over 45 yrs ago at Parry Creek in the lower Ord River floodplain, but that all long neck turtles collected in this area during the 21st Century were either C. walloyarrina or C. rugose–like (Table 3) and that turtles with the morphology of C. kuchlingi were no longer recorded, even though John Cann trapped and surveyed turtles at Parry Creek and adjacent areas in 2007 specifically to search for C. kuchlingi (see Cann and Sadlier 2017).

Table 3 Records of long neck turtle species other than C. kuchlingi from the Parry Creek area (lower Ord river floodplain).

View Fullscreen

The Parry Lagoon Nature Reserve was created in the lower Ord River floodplain in 1971 (originally listed as “Palm Springs”) with the purpose of “conservation of flora and fauna”. Thus it would seem that the new type locality designated for C. kuchlingi herein was and is well preserved. In 1960 construction commenced for the Ord River Diversion Dam, which was officially opened in July 1963. It holds back Lake Kununurra, which gravity-feeds the Ord River Irrigation Area in the floodplain via an open channel system. Work started on the main Ord River Dam in 1969, which was completed in 1972 and holds back Lake Argyle, Australia's largest dam reservoir covering an area of 741 km², ensuring the year-round supply of irrigation water. The irrigation area now extends close to the Western Australia–Northern Territory border and not only changed the hydrology of the lower Ord River floodplain but also its connectivity via an open channel system to the Victoria River catchment in the Northern Territory.

Tribute to Peter C.H. Pritchard

I dedicate this article to the late Dr Peter C.H. Pritchard. His Encyclopedia of Turtles was my turtle bible during the 1980s. Between 1987 and 1989, as Co-chair of the IUCN-TFTSG and Editor of its newsletter, Peter had regularly given me the opportunity to report in the TFTSG newsletter on my Pseudemydura umbrina rescue operation in Western Australia. This helped me in establishing the recovery program for, then, the world's most critically endangered turtle, a program still going strongly today. Eventually we met at the World Congress of Herpetology in Canterbury in 1989. Later in 1989, I was able to capitalize further on Peter's expertise in turtle biology and conservation for my work in Western Australia and Madagascar when he was a guest in my house during the IUCN General Assembly in Perth. Since then, whenever I went to Florida, I profited from exchanging ideas and stories with Peter as a guest in Peter and Sibille's house or at the Chelonian Research Institute.

Peter C H. Pritchard has a long history of advocating the significance of turtle specimens, field notes, and written records stored in museums for biological research and conservation, culminating in establishing his own Chelonian Research Institute. I hope this article dedicated to the big man of the world's turtles honours his spirit: “. . . [biodiversity] is simply the sum total of the species alive in the world today. And in order to conserve this biodiversity, it must be examined, broken down into discrete units, known, studied, and calibrated, and the places where biodiversity is in greatest need to be protected at all cost. Yet the execution of this task—surely the most important work in the world today—takes us right back to old fashioned systematics and its equally distinguished partners, ecology and zoogeography” (Pritchard, P.C.H., Tales from the Thébaïde, 2007, p. 282).