NS THEROVAL 7 SOGIETV OF = DUASMANIA, THE ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE Papers and Proceedings of The Royal Society of Tasmania _ Volume 155(2)_ oe Nye at Ss a is TPE ROVAL we SOCIETY OF ' TASMANIA THE ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE Papers and Proceedings of The Royal Society of Tasmania Edited by Dr Sally Bryant and published by the Society Volume 155(2) December 2021 The Royal Society of Tasmania acknowledges, with deep respect, the traditional owners of this land, and the ongoing custodianship of the Aboriginal people of Tasmania. The Society pays respect to Elders past and present. We acknowledge that Tasmanian Aboriginal Peoples have survived severe and unjust impacts resulting from invasion and dispossession of their Country. As an institution dedicated to the advancement of knowledge, the Royal Society of Tasmania recognises Aboriginal cultural knowledge and practices and seeks to respect and honour these traditions and the deep understanding they represent. Published by The Royal Society of Tasmania GPO Box 1166 Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 7000 www.tfst.org.au 15 December 2021 ISSN 0080-4703 Cover photograph: Its pretty important you know, the land, it doesn't matter how small, its something ... just a little sacred site... thats Wybalenna. There was a massacre there, sad things there but we try not to go over that. Where the bad was, we can always make it good”. 1995 Words of Aboriginal Elder Ida Amelia (Aunty Ida) West AM in the ‘Aunty Ida West Healing Garden’ at the Wybalenna Chapel, Flinders Island. (Photo: Sally Bryant) Print Tasmania Copy editor Caroline Mordaunt Typesetting by June Pongratz PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF TASMANIA VOLUME 155(2) Contents ‘Apolopy;tomlasmanianyAbotpinallpeo plee20.2 le. seme Menerseemae teas teen een tscar sete ssercstcemeecenneecostereserrssse-ses Rimmer, Z. & Taylor, R. The Report to inform an Apology to the Tasmanian Tanne Community bythesRoyallsocictyzotsl asin an lalemewecs semana ster c testn cca rr srt steeenersr sees irentsccsrersersccscstssc cscs fs Roe;/M2aVan) Diemen’sitandiandithe/ Great Exhibitioniofil 85: 1e ms fee. soos cc ertt eters ees tee ere is sci eset seees sce tas Sorensen, E.R. & Kirkpatrick, J.B. Vegetation change in an urban grassy woodland since the early nineteenth CONTULY cece cece cece cence cence eee n ene n ene n cence cence tence een e ence cent ence sees seen eee e eens teen eee ee seen ene ee te cee ee eaeee Baillie, P. S. Warren Carey: New Guinea oil explorer (1934-1942) Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery's Expedition of Discovery I] — The flora and fauna of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania Ratcliff, E. Sheltering knowledge: residences of the Royal Society of Tasmania and its precursors, 1838 to 2021 Husband, M. & Kirkpatrick, J.B. Effects of garden type and distance from bush on adventive trees in domestic gardens Corbett, K.D. The geology and glacial history of the Walls of Jerusalem, Central Tasmania — a preliminary study ... Kile, G.A. & Hall, M.E. Sporulating mycelium of Davidsoniella australis on the bark of Nothofagus cunninghamii, and role as inoculum for new infections Henry, S.C. What's in a name? Polyzosteria yingina; the Golden Sun Cockroach ...........:0ccseceseeeeeeee eee eeeeeeees Baker, M.L., de Salas, M.E., Grove, S., Cave, L., Moore, K., Byrne, C., Lee, E. & Kantvilas, G. Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery’s Expedition of Discovery III — The flora and fauna of the Spring Bay Mill area AttemallonpinistOLygoHinaustiial | Useueeeeeee tere Satie obese teste rerss.scsestelcessrus..sseesertoete=. =: Ww UNIVERSITY of Tasmania TASMANIA Explore the possibilities Baker, M.L., Grove, S., de Salas, M.E, Byrne, C., Cave, L., Bonham, K., Moore, K., Cook, L. & Kantvilas, G. Publication of this volume was generously supported by the Government of Tasmania and the University of Tasmania. THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF TASMANIA Elected Office Bearers, Council Members and Ex Officio Council Members to March 2022 Patron Her Excellency the Honourable Barbara Baker AC, Governor of Tasmania President Mrs Mary Koolhof Vice President Professor Jocelyn McPhie Honorary Secretary Mrs Marley Large Honorary Treasurer Mr David Wilson Councillors Professor Ross Large AO Dr Robert Johnson Ms Chel Bardell Assoc. Professor Julie Rimes Dr John Thorne AM Mrs Roxanne Steenbergen Dr Anita Hansen Ms Shasta Henry Mr Peter Manchester Representatives of the Northern Branch Dr Eric Ratcliff OAM Mr Neil MacKinnon Co-opted Council Member 2021 Dr Adele Wilson Honorary Editor Dr Sally Bryant Honorary Librarian Ms Juliet Beale Honorary Solicitor Mr James Crotty Representative of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery Dr David Sudmalis (Acting Director) The Royal Society of Tasmania APOLOGY TO TASMANIAN ABORIGINAL PEOPLE 2021 On Monday, 15 February 2021, the Royal Society of Tasmania (RST) and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG) delivered paired Apologies to the Aboriginal people of Tasmania. The event was held in the Courtyard of TMAG, Hobart, and attended in person by about one hundred invited guests including members of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, members of the Council of the RST and members of the Board of Trustees of TMAG. A large number of invited guests also witnessed the event by livestream. It was also the first time the Aboriginal flag had been flown at Customs House to commemorate the significance of this event. The delivery of RST’s Apology was the culmination of efforts that began in earnest at the end of 2019 when a first draft of the Apology was considered by RST Council. Co- Chairs of the Aboriginal Engagement Committee (AEC), Professor Greg Lehman and Professor Matt King, sought ~ feedback on the draft Apology from the Aboriginal Advisory Council of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery and the Aboriginal Reference Group of the Queen Victoria Museum Apology to | Tasmanian | Aboriginal © People Professor Matt King, Chair of the RST Aboriginal Engagement Committee, welcoming attendees. Photograph courtesy of Simon Cuthbert. and Art Gallery as well as the Council of the RST. The draft Apology was revised many times by members of the AEC until the final version crystallised in January 2021, a few weeks before the Apology was delivered. TMAG was engaged in framing its Apology to Tasmanian Aboriginal people more-or-less at the same time, so the two organisations agreed to deliver paired apologies. A Joint Working Group comprising representatives from TMAG and RST was established in August 2020 and met almost weekly to put in place the plans required for the event. On the day of delivery, the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions regulated the number of people who could attend in person, with all others being accommodated via livestream. The event began with Professor Matt King, Chair of the RST Aboriginal Engagement Committee, and Janet Carding, Director of TMAG, welcoming guests, presenting the Acknowledgment of Country on behalf of each of the two organisations and introducing the speakers. No media or government officials were invited, however, the Governor of Tasmania, Her Excellency the Honourable Professor Kate Warner AC, attended in her capacity as Patron of the RST and TMAG and was the first invited speaker. For both the RST and TMAG, offering’ an Apology was a means of publicly acknowledging past actions and practices that have caused immense hurt and suffering to Tasmanian Aboriginal people. The Apologies signify the commitment of the two organisations to building strong and respectful relationships with Tasmanian Aboriginal people now and in the future. | Apology to | Tasmanian | Aboriginal RST President, Mrs Mary Koolhof, delivering RST’s Apology. _ Photograph courtesy of Jillian Mundy. The RST and TMAG Apologies were paired in recog- nition of the shared history of the two organisations. That shared history began with the formation of the RST in 1843 and was explained in the Preamble presented by Her Excellency. The second speaker was the President of RST, Mrs Mary Koolhof, who delivered RST’s Apology to Tasmanian Aboriginal people. The Apology identified past negative practices including mistreatment and exhumation of Aboriginal ancestral remains and promised the beginning of a new era in the Society's relationship with Aboriginal people. The Chair of the Board of Trustees of TMAG, Ms Brett Torossi, delivered TMAG’s Apology to Tasmanian Aboriginal people. This Apology recognised the long history of profoundly hurtful practices including removal of cultural artifacts, and a commitment to re-dress past wrongs. Director of TMAG, Ms Janet Carding (left) and Chair of TMAG Board of Trustees, Ms Brett Torossi, following the delivery of the TMAG Apology. Photograph courtesy of David Reilly. i Mr Rodney Gibbins, the first Chair of [MAG’s Aboriginal Advisory Council, and Mr Michael Mansell, Chair of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania, responded on behalf of Tasmanian Aboriginal people. Rodney Gibbins began by mentioning some of the actions central to the discrimination and ill-treatment suffered by Tasmanian Aboriginal people following invasion, including the atrocities involving Aboriginal ancestral remains. He went on to explain that despite the obstacles, Tasmanian Aboriginal people have successfully campaigned for recognition, acceptance and autonomy. Attitudes and actions have gradually changed, including advances such as the recognition of land rights (1995) and the Apology to the ‘stolen generation’ (2004). He described the delivery of the Apologies as a significant step towards equality, justice and recognition of Tasmanian Aboriginal people and welcomed the opportunity to work in partnership with RST and TMAG. Mr Michael Mansell brought to life the significance of the Preminghana petroglyphs in the lives of the Tasmanian Aboriginal people who created them. He regards the recent agreement reached with TMAG for the return of the petroglyphs as evidence of a new willingness to take responsibility for and acknowledge past mistakes, not just the modern mistakes but those made by all previous generations. Michael drew attention to the photographs of some Tasmanian Aboriginal ‘Old People’ on display, explaining that although the Apologies are being offered to the current generation, we must include the ‘Old People’ who suffered grievously. In his final words, Michael spoke for the ‘Old People’: “I stand here before you, on behalf of all those people, and readily accept with pride, the Apology that was given in the spirit in which it was stated”. In the audience, left to right foreground, Chair of TMAG Board of Trustees, Ms Brett Torossi, Ms Nala Mansell, Mr Rodney Gibbins and Mr Michael Mansell. In the background are members of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community holding historical photographs of Tasmanian Aboriginal people. Rodney Gibbins and Michael Mansell responded to the Apologies on behalf of Tasmanian Aboriginal people. Photograph courtesy of Jillian Mundy. 4 Mr Michael Mansell delivering his reply flanked by historical photographs held by members of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. Photograph courtesy of Sally Bryant. The formalities closed with a smoking ceremony, presided over by Jamie Graham-Blair and Auntie Wendal Pitchford. All attendees had the opportunity to be marked by ochre as a sign of belonging, and to be enveloped by the healing and cleansing smoke of the peppermint gum. Indigenous and traditional foods were then shared by all. Apology to Tasmanian Aboriginal people 3 The Apology event can be viewed on https://youtube/ ZRVwcS6DQW8 and a framed copy of the RST Apology is on display in the RST Lecture Room, TMAG. Permission has been given by the five key speakers for the transcripts of their speeches to follow this article. Professor Jocelyn McPhie RST Vice President 2021 During the smoking ceremony, Auntie Wendal Pitchford applying ochre to Her Excellency, the Honourable Professor Kate Warner AC, and Mr Richard Warner AM looking on. Photograph courtesy of Jillian Mundy. Preamble THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF TASMANIA AND TASMANIAN MUSEUM AND ART GALLERY APOLOGY TO TASMANIAN ABORIGINAL PEOPLE delivered by Her Excellency Professor the Honourable Kate Warner AC, Governor of Tasmania Thank you for inviting me to deliver a Preamble to the Apologies from the Royal Society of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. There is important symbolism, | think, in the invitation to the Governor to perform this role today given the long association of this position with both organisations. Lieutenant Governors and then, after self-government, Governors have always been the Royal Society’s President and more recently Patron. And from the earliest days the Governor has had a close relationship with the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. For these reasons the island’s Vice-Regal representative has been at least complicit in the Society’s and the Museum’s omissions and misdeeds and their consequences. I will briefly explain the historical ties which makes it appropriate to pair these two Apologies. The Royal Society of Tasmania (then of Van Diemen’s Land) was founded in 1843 by Lieutenant Governor Sir John Eardley Wilmot with the aim of increasing knowledge, in particular knowledge about the island, and promoting research. For much of its history, the Governor, as President, attended and chaired its meetings. From the earliest days, the Society began building up collections of art and natural history specimens including Aboriginal artefacts and ancestral remains, all of which were housed in the Royal Society’s Museum, the foundation stone of which was laid by Governor Sir Henry Fox Young in 1861. In 1885 the Society relinquished the building and most of the collections to the people of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Museum was born, to become known as the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery after it opened a gallery wing four years later. Until 2017 the trustees of the Museum were required to present an annual report of the proceedings and progress of the Institution to the Governor and these reports included acquisitions. The two organisations, while maintaining connections and some common membership of governing bodies — indeed the Museum’s first Curator after it was transferred from the Royal Society was also the Secretary of the Royal Society, positions he held until 1907 — have had separate Acts of Parliament and separate boards of governance since 1885. The Royal Society is still based at TMAG, with an entrance in Davey Street. It is important to note that these Apologies are not simply an apology for past actions, important as truth-telling is to acknowledge the devaluing of a culture that dates back at least 40,000 years, the acts of desecration and disrespect in relation to ancestral remains and cultural artefacts and the assertions of extinction and denial of survival of the Aboriginal people of lutruwita Tasmania. These Apologies also look to the future with undertakings to change the narrative, to play an important role in communicating the cultural and spiritual significance of Country in the lives of our First Peoples of lutruwita/ Tasmania and in fostering the continuity of their culture; to make the respective institutions inclusive, respectful, equitable and welcoming to Tasmanian Aboriginal people and the Apologies embrace a commitment to playing a part in redressing the inequalities experienced by our First Peoples that the two organisations have contributed to. And finally, as both organisations acknowledge, these Apologies are not given in the expectation of acceptance or receiving anything in return from the Tasmanian Aboriginal people. But they are intended to signal a commitment to a different and better future. Apology to Tasmanian Aboriginal people 5 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF TASMANIA APOLOGY TO TASMANIAN ABORIGINAL PEOPLE delivered by Mary Koolhof, President of The Royal Society of Tasmania Today the Royal Society of Tasmania apologises un- reservedly to the Aboriginal people oflutruwita (Tasmania). This apology is long overdue. The Royal Society of Tasmania recognises that it has been responsible for negative impacts on Tasmanian Aboriginal people in the past, and that these impacts contribute to the disadvantage, injustice and intergenerational trauma suffered today. The Council of the Royal Society of Tasmania, on behalf of its membership, offers this sincere and formal apology to the Aboriginal people of lutruwita (Tasmania). We acknowledge that: The Society acted to exhume and to purchase the ancestral remains of Tasmanian Aboriginal people for scientific study. In some cases these remains were sent to collecting institutions outside of Tasmania. Exhumation and mistreatment of ancestral remains occurred with a lack of regard for their deep cultural and spiritual significance. In at least one case, exhumation was against the expressed wish of the individual concerned. ‘These remains were held by the Society in the Royal Society Museum without care or respect, and without discussion or permission from Aboriginal community members. For this, we are sorry. Research and interpretation of ‘Tasmanian Aboriginal material culture, language and cultural knowledge were undertaken without consultation or due respect. For this, we are sorry. While sometimes advocating for the recognition of the importance of Tasmanian Aboriginal culture, the Society at times failed to challenge prevailing attitudes that denied recognition and respect for Tasmanian Aboriginal people. Past practices of collection, description and representation of Tasmanian Aboriginal people and their material culture by the Society contributed to beliefs that continue to be misleading and destructive. For this, we are sorry. The Society failed to respond to a past request to support a proposal for a treaty with Tasmanian Aboriginal people. Actions of some members of the Society, who were also leaders in the Tasmanian community, legitimised and facilitated the mistreatment of Tasmanian Aboriginal people and their material culture. Some members of the Society actively opposed requests for the return of ancestral remains to Aboriginal people. For all this, we are sorry. We are unreservedly sorry. Now we look to the future. The Royal Society of Tasmania understands that this apology must influence all aspects of its undertakings in seeking the advancement of knowledge. We intend to to work co-operatively and respectfully with Tasmanian Aboriginal people on meaningful and lasting initiatives. We will work to respect the values and perspectives of Tasmanian Aboriginal people, and understand and acknowledge protocols and processes determined by Aboriginal people. We will seek a truthful and full account of the actions of the Society and its members that fully recognises impacts on Aboriginal people for which we take responsibility. We will promote ethical research-related scholarly activities in consultation with, and of benefit to Tasmanian Aboriginal people. We will support Tasmanian Aboriginal people in seeking the repatriation of their ancestral remains and material culture. Finally, we hope that the delivery of this apology today will mark the beginning of a new era, and a relationship that recognises the histories, cultures, knowledge and aspirations of Tasmanian Aboriginal people as fundamental to the future of Tasmanian society. Resolution of the Council of the Royal Society of Tasmania 22 September 2020 Mary Koolhof, President 15 February 2021 TASMANIAN MUSEUM AND ART GALLERY APOLOGY TO TASMANIAN ABORIGINAL PEOPLE delivered by Brett Torossi Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery We are here today on the lands of Tasmanian Aboriginal people, the traditional owners and custodians of the land and waterways of /utruwita (Tasmania). We wish to pay our deepest respects to Tasmanian Aboriginal people, and Elders past and present. The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery sits on the land of the Muwinina and Mumirimina people, who once lived in the Hobart region. We wish to pay our respects to all of these people, and acknowledge their sovereignties in land and sea, never ceded. ' To belong to a place for tens of thousands of years is something non-Aboriginal Tasmanians are only beginning to comprehend. We acknowledge the beauty of this land and the way the river upon which we live, and kunanyi that watches over us here in Hobart, have shaped our lives and the lives of all who have come before us. We see that belonging lives at the heart of responsibility and connection. Today we find the courage to take responsibility for the past. Today we own our actions and culture that have caused such pain to Aboriginal Tasmanians. This is a moment long overdue. Today is therefore a day of enormous importance and gravity. Today we, the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, apologise to Tasmanian Aboriginal people for nearly 200 years of practices that we acknowledge were morally wrong. For many years Tasmanian Aboriginal people have called for the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery to tell the truth about its part in a difficult and traumatic past. We cannot move forward together without truth telling, without addressing the past, and the previous museum practices that have caused profound suffering for Aboriginal people and their community. On behalf of the whole organisation, the Board wants to acknowledge openly, permanently record, and apologise for the institution’s actions and declare that such behaviour will never happen again. The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, its precursor the Royal Society Museum and people in a variety of roles associated with these institutions, were part of, and sometimes were deeply implicated in, acts which were heedless of, or knowingly contrary to, the wishes and cultural practices of Tasmanian Aboriginal people. These injustices, and the consequences for Tasmanian Aboriginal people must be owned and acknowledged not simply as facts of history but with our hearts and our minds. Beginning in 1803, the violence of European invasion and colonisation began a process of loss and dispossession for Tasmanian Aboriginal people across /utruwita. During this time, from the very beginnings of colonisation, the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, and its former entity The Royal Society Museum, participated in practices, including the digging up and removal, the collection, and the trade of, ancestral remains of Tasmanian Aboriginal people (or respectfully, the Old People.) This was done largely in the name of racial sciences — practices of ethnography and anthropology which were racist, discriminatory, and have long been entirely discredited. These practices showed profound disrespect for Aboriginal people, their families and communities, and their vital spiritual and cultural practices. The remains of Aboriginal people were exploited as artefacts and objects of research, their burial sites were violated, and the importance of Aboriginal spiritual beliefs and cultural heritage were ignored, trivialised and dismissed. There is ample, undisputed evidence of this. Aboriginal people have known this. Members of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, its former directors, and staff have known this. The evidence is in the minutes of the institution itself, in reports, in letters, diaries, and in newspapers — it is on the public record. But it has also been hidden and forgotten, and too often denied. We know Tasmanian Aboriginal people do not forget that this is what has occurred. It is well documented that staff, and those associated with the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, solicited and paid for the removal of Tasmanian Aboriginal ancestral remains for collection and trade, and used ancestral remains and material culture in museum and scientific exchanges across the nation and around the globe. It is beyond dispute that the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery disrespected the remains of Tiukanini. It created public displays and interpretation of her remains. Her wish to be buried in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel, so her body could not be cut up, was disregarded. If we imagine such a practise being enacted on our own grandmother, if we imagine the burial sites of our loved ones being dug up, and their bones being traded and used for scientific research, or put on show in museums and galleries across the world, we begin to understand the appalling hurt our predecessors caused the Aboriginal people. There was also resistance to the repatriation of Tasmanian Aboriginal ancestral remains back to /wtruwita so that the Old People might rest again in the earth of their homeland. It is amply clear that the Board of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery did not fully respect the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community's wishes to actively engage and find appropriate ways to repatriate the remains of loved ones. There was a lack of active engagement to enable community requests, and legal codes and bureaucracy were too often used as a shield and an excuse. Ancient cultural artefacts of spiritual and ceremonial value were removed without consultation with Tasmanian Aboriginal people. The removal of the Preminghana petroglyphs from the West Coast in the 1960s is a key example of such past practices. The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery created inappropriate displays and exhibitions concerning Tasmanian Aboriginal people, and promulgated false ideas of ‘extinction’; that is, that there were no Aborigines in Tasmania after Tiukanini. For much of its history, the institution did not recognise or respect the deep, continuing knowledge of Tasmanian Aboriginal people, and did not ask them to be the curators of their cultural material held in the collections, or to tell their stories. We acknowledge that all of these actions have been damaging to Tasmanian Aboriginal people and to the Community. We acknowledge and own the pain we have caused. Asa museum in the European tradition, we also traded in the remains of the ancestors of other nations, and brought them to this Country. We acknowledge the insensitivity and disrespect shown by these practices to Tasmanian Aboriginal people and to the peoples of other cultures and lands. It is heartbreaking to consider the trauma inflicted on Aboriginal people by all these practices, trauma that echoes down through time, and cannot begin to be healed without full and fearless recognition. For all of these actions and for-your pain, suffering and ongoing trauma, we, the Board of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, are truly and completely sorry. Although words can never erase the actions of the past, they have a permanence and potency. We know we have caused heartbreak, and we acknowledge this honestly. We understand that some Tasmanian Aboriginal people may not wish to accept our apology; indeed some may reject it. We want to build trust with you — without ever forgetting the past. We want to find a future way of being together that is open-minded and whole-hearted. We understand that this may be hard, and difficult emotional business for Tasmanian Aboriginal people, and it requires trust where there has been none. : We offer and hope that this apology will be received in the spirit that it is given. We give it unreservedly without asking for anything. We know-and mourn that it is so belated. The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery commits to changing our practices. We commit to creating a shared and consultative vision — based on respect and good faith — to tell the rich, varied and difficult story of this island. While new ways of working do not make up for the past, we want this to be the beginning of a new relationship. We want the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery to be a safe place for Tasmanian Aboriginal people in the future. The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery has supported repatriation programs over the last thirty years and, through knowledge shared by Aboriginal people, we have learned Apology to Tasmanian Aboriginal people 7 to better respect Tasmanian ancestral remains, and secret- sacred heritage materials. Through participation in the creation and development of the Aboriginal Advisory Council, Aboriginal people have engaged with us and have helped guide the organisation. We wish to acknowledge the bravery and trust of the earliest members of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Advisory Council who paved the way for a new direction, giving us a keen awareness of what could be possible for the future. Tasmanian Aboriginal people have been appointed to roles within the museum, which has helped to improve truth telling and respectful treatment, display and interpretation of cultural heritage. Since 2003,. learning and exchange have deepened. Through Aboriginal-led exhibitions and projects, such as ningina tunapri and, later, parrawa, tayenebe and kanalaritja, we have taken positive steps and have jointly fostered and supported new and more respectful ways of working. ‘These positive steps do not in any way offset, or make-up for, the injustices and practices of the past. We have made the decision to repatriate the Preminghana petroglyphs, and we will continue to work with the Community to complete that process. We have committed to working alongside museums and galleries around Australia to enhance engagement with all First Peoples by implementing the Australian Museums and Galleries Association Indigenous Roadmap. We want today, and every day forward, to do better. Through speaking the truth, we wish to make visible and real the past that haunts this institution so that a new way of seeing and living in community together is possible. On 29. May 2017, over three years ago, the Uluru Statement from the Heart was delivered by the First Nations National Constitutional Convention to the Australian people. The Aboriginal writers of the statement placed matters of history and truth telling, of Aboriginal sovereignty and power, at the very forefront of agreement making. All over this nation, and on this island of lutruwita, Aboriginal people have called for truth telling about the difficult past and its ongoing damaging legacies that continue today. We commit to a different future working with you to ensure we: ¢ Recognise the right to self-determination of all First Peoples ¢ Recognise that the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery is the custodian of art and cultural material that are owned and stewarded in perpetuity by First Peoples around the world ¢ Recognise that the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery is the custodian of contemporary art and cultural materials purchased from First Peoples around the world ¢ Acknowledge Country at all Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery sites and online, and ensure Tasmanian Aboriginal Community presence is always and obviously manifest *. Listen deeply to, and learn with, Tasmanian Aboriginal people, respecting the cultural knowledge and spiritual values of the Aboriginal Community Work as a facilitator with the Aboriginal Community in Tasmania on projects and initiatives that tell First Peoples’ stories Work in partnership with the Community in all our work, and using our exhibitions, programs, research capacity and the resources of the State Collection to tell the truth about Tasmania's history of colonisation and the contemporary resilience of Tasmanian Aboriginal people Ensure cultural safety for First Peoples staff, volunteers and visitors by improving cultural competence of the Board, staff and volunteers _ Review and revise Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery policies so they are culturally appropriate, and implement new protocols for how First Peoples are welcomed and included Work to share access to First Peoples material(s) held at the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery with communities across Australia and overseas, and support repatriation when return is requested Take a leadership role, as the State museum and gallery, in encouraging the adoption of culturally appropriate policies and practices by museums and galleries across Tasmania and Australia Embed these practices in the governance and leadership of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery ¢ Never forget our shared past or the long history of Tasmanian Aboriginal people and /utruwita (Tasmania). In conclusion, in the year of 2021, the Board of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery on behalf of the whole organisation, wants to openly and whole heartedly acknowledge, permanently record, and deeply apologise for the institution’s past actions relating to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people. This Apology will be displayed, here and online, as a permanent record to reinforce this commitment. In offering these words today, we take full responsibility for all that has kept us apart. I am sorry. We are sorry. We seek a new way of cultivating engagement, enriching understanding, and warmly embracing respectful partnership with Tasmanian Aboriginal people. We commit, now and always, to a future that defends, sustains and illuminates Tasmanian Aboriginal culture here at the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery and throughout Tasmanian life. We mark this occasion, and the enduring nature of our apology and our commitment, with this public statement and hope that today marks a more honest way of being with the past and a new sense of responsibility and belonging to this beautiful island for all who call it home. Thank you everyone for your attendance on this important occasion. Apology to Tasmanian Aboriginal people 9 REPLY TO THE APOLOGY TO THE ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY BY THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF TASMANIA AND THE TASMANIAN MUSEUM AND ART GALLERY delivered by Mr Rodney Gibbins Good afternoon everyone. I would like to acknowledge all members of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community who are here today, and to pay respect to all our old people who have passed before us. Let’s not forget that this day is as much about them as it is us. This is a momentous day for the Aboriginal community of Tasmania — Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery and the Royal Society of Tasmania. As we have heard today the TMAG and the Royal Society have offered apologies to the Aboriginal community for past actions that have shown no regard for our culture and spirituality and which in turn contributed to our disadvantage and trauma. I believe it is up to all of us to consider these apologies with open minds and hearts. Over the years, the Tasmanian Aboriginal community has had its issues not only with TMAG but with various Tasmanian Governments and their broader institutions. There was a reluctance on the part of Government and its institutions to rethink and remake old ill-informed attitudes towards the Aboriginal community. These views have profoundly contributed to the continued disadvantage of the Aboriginal community and have impacted on our rights, aspirations and identity. These actions and attitudes are long standing. For example, the return of the remains of Truganini who died in 1876. Her wish to be buried beyond the mountains were ignored. Truganini’s greatest fear was to suffer the same fate as William Lanne. Upon his death in 1869, his remains were fought over and then mutilated by William Crowther of the Royal College of Surgeons and George Stockell a member of the Royal Society of Tasmania. Truganini was buried in the grounds of the former Female Factory in South Hobart only to be dug up two years later, by members of the Royal Society and have her skeleton placed on display at the TMAG for over 40 years. Even though the Aboriginal community campaigned to have her returned it was the Government who decided the timing of her return. It decided she would be cremated at Cornelian Bay on the 100th anniversary of her death. There were no members of the Aboriginal community present. Her ashes were then scattered in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel by the small number of Aborigines present. Again, there was the reluctance of the museum and Government to hand over the Aboriginal human remains removed from Putalina (Oyster Cove) — the so-called Crowther collection — to the Aboriginal community. That was combined with the hesitation of the TMAG to change the old diorama which was a 3D representation ofa family group at camp in front of a stolen petroglyph from Preminghana. A display that was naive and inappropriate and didn’t recognise continued Aboriginal Sovereignty over this land. This persisted from the 1960s to the late 1990s At that same time changes were happening in the Aboriginal community. There was a growing political and social movement within the Aboriginal community that demanded recognition, acceptance and autonomy. The community built its political knowledge and skills. After launching effective campaigns, using the media and influencing public opinion the views and attitudes of Government and its institutions along with those of the broader community began to change. This has been one of our greatest achievements. Our political skills and ability to influence attitudinal change have had significant outcomes. In 1985 this led to the Crowther collection of Aboriginal remains consisting of 33 skulls and three skeletons being released to the Aboriginal community under its terms and control. This led to one of the largest gathering of Aborigines at Putalina to welcome our old people home with our own spiritual and ceremonial practices that set their spirits free at last. The winds of change were also influencing TMAG. There were new people with new ideas. Pat Sabine, a former director of the TMAG during the 1990s, bought with her a genuine concern about how Aborigines were portrayed and represented in the museum. She consistently advocated for the development of a more contemporary and honest portrayal of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. Through her persistence, a trainee Tasmanian Aboriginal curator position was created. Tony Brown was selected to take up that position and, after successfully completing a degree at the University of Tasmania, became the museum's first full-time Aboriginal Curator of Indigenous Cultures in 1997. Perhaps, for the first time TMAG began to support and learn about reconciliation, and truth telling about Aboriginal experiences past and present. It deepened and made a more genuine partnership with the Aboriginal community. These changes progressed under the leadership of Bill Bleathman, which saw Zoe Rimmer successfully complete a degree at the University of Tasmania. Zoe is now TMAG’s Senior Indigenous Cultures Curator after the retirement of Tony. During this time a new display was being developed, the much visited and applauded Aboriginal gallery, Ningenneh Tunapry. It offered for the first time a comprehensive account of Aboriginal history with a vast array of Aboriginal Cultural expression. The Gallery was shaped by the 10 Aboriginal community — and reflects the thoughts and aspirations of that community. Community consultations were undertaken around the State to ensure relevant and critical issues of interest to the Aboriginal community were included. Ningenneh Tunapry, means to “Give Knowledge and Understanding”. The guiding principle of the project is to provide learning experience. One aim is to prompt non-Aborigines to rethink their attitudes, their actions and their impacts on the Aboriginal community. Another exhibition was developed to complement Ningenneh Tunapry. This was the Parrawar Parrawar exhibition about the conflict between Tasmanian Aborigines and the Colonial invaders. I believe one of the first of these types of exhibitions to be developed anywhere in Australia. It was a difficult story to tell one of violence and dispossession. It gave visitors an experience of conflict, particularly from the Aboriginal perspective, which has been rarely told. It was an explicit story of invasion characterised by conflict over the use and control of land and its resources. It has been our experience in Tasmania that it has been a personal commitment by political and bureaucratic leaders that has delivered crucial advances in Aboriginal Affairs. I acknowledge the leadership of former Premier Ray Groom (on a personal note one of the most honourable men I’ve known) who in the mid 90s introduced land rights legislation to Parliament. He consulted exhaustively across the State and when the Legislation was presented to Parliament it faced no opposition at all. The Jim Bacon and Paul Lennon Labor Governments were equally effective in broad consultations that led to the hand back of Wybalenna, Cape Barren, and the Parliamentary apology to the Stolen generation. Today the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery should be complimented for steady progress it has made in its outlook and support for the Aboriginal Community's aspirations leading up to today’s apology. The representation of Aboriginal people is now characterised by respect and engagement with the Community. Today’s apology is not only an acknowledgement of past wrongs but a pledge to equal and respectful partnerships in the future. Of course, there is always room for further improvements. And we must closely guard these advances that we have fought so hard to achieve within TMAG, and within our political process and across the State. The winds of change have a habit of retreating. I fear that since Will Hodgeman’s 2016 ill-informed Australia day speech the current Liberal Government is eroding the advances made by the Aboriginal community. It is eating away at Aboriginal influence and knowledge by limiting the number of consultations with Aborigines and some non-Aborigines to a select few severely reducing broad Aboriginal Community consultations. This is more about meeting the personal desires and ambitions of the few rather than meeting with the broad Aboriginal community and understanding their needs and aspirations. The cost of these actions are being paid for by the rest of the Aboriginal community through living with inequitable, and even discriminatory decisions being made by the Tasmanian Government. These actions fly in the face of the advances made by previous governments and their institutions, such as TMAG, over the past years in developing a strong consultative relationship with the Aboriginal community. Today I recognise the humility shown by the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery and the Royal Society of Tasmania to offer their apologies. I thank them for their promise of a strong consultative relationship with the Aboriginal community into the future. Our story — the story of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community — has been one of struggle and denial. Despite the many obstacles’ put in front of us we have survived and prospered. We will continue our quest for equality, justice and recognition. Today marks a significant step in that quest. Thank you. Apology to Tasmanian Aboriginal people 11 REPLY TO THE APOLOGY TO THE ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY BY THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF TASMANIA AND THE TASMANIAN MUSEUM AND ART GALLERY delivered by Mr Michael Mansell ‘The speakers I am to follow delivered four very powerful speeches. [Michael then acknowledges the protocol for addressing the Governor Kate Warner]. Of course, the catalyst for this event was the request by the Aboriginal community for the return the petroglyphs to the place from which they were taken, and agreement by TMAG to hand the petroglyphs over. Over the years there has been much ignorance about what the petroglyphs mean. Most people ponder what exactly each design means. But it doesn’t take much to work out that a people who lived for thousands and thousands of years on this earth, would note down, like every society in the world, the things that were important to the lifestyle and the events that took place in their lives. The _ significant events that they saw, whether they were in the sky, whether they were in a corroboree, whether they were of a great warrior whose name was no longer allowed to be used for so many generations, and that warrior’s name was an emblem of an animal, all those things are in the rock carvings. When there was some significant corroboree event from a visiting tribal group or from a great distance where gifts were exchanged, and relationships made or cemented, are all in the rock carvings. And so when people say ‘well we don’t know what they mean’, we might not know exactly what each circle or what each line means, but we know the overall context for the markings honoring many thousands of years. ‘The water rose, the scientists tell us, 6000 years ago. That being so, many records of ancient events are now underwater on the west coast and probably elsewhere. What we are seeing in 2021, is just the little bits that remain unconcealed. It is important to acknowledge those people who, over generations and generations over thousands of years, carved into rock, events that they had seen or heard about and wanted to leave there for prosperity. For whom were these records meant to be left to? Those records were not intended to be cut away and taken away to white people's museums. The people who carved them had never seen white people. They could not have known that their sacred works would be taken away. It is absolutely significant that the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, without any hesitation said ‘okay’ you want them back in their rightful place — we'll give them back. No prompting, no coercion, done in the best of faith. An important gesture on the part of the Museum to do it so quickly. Many representatives of institutions apologise for actions their forebears did and leave it at that. And you can understand that. “We didn’t take the land, we didn’t cut up the people when they were dead, we're sorry about that, but you know we're sorry really about these things that we've done in more recent times”. But what I heard in those speeches was from Mary — ownership, of all the things that that the Royal Society did. From Brett — responsibility for all of the things, not just in recent times, that TMAG have been involved in. The succinct summary by the Governor Kate Warner — pulled it together, about the impact of things done on Aboriginal people, not just on Aboriginal people but also how those things diminished white society too. We heard about the attitudes and behavior of a society who were invaded, exiled to the Bass Strait islands and their descendants sidelined without rights or remedies. So, I think it is important for we Aborigines to acknowledge that the institutions did not shy from the activities of their predecessors — they acknowledged the issues that we have complained about over the years. They have acknowledged the wrong of those activities and they have taken responsibility, not only for acknowledging and identifying them, but saying “we have to do it better” — and that’s an important part of any apology. When we look at even more recent time in the 1900s, ’m still amazed at when Truganina’ remains were displayed in this Museum, why some of the people — not a single soul thought to talk to the people who were directly affected. The Museum in those days — in the 1930s — could not have said “we don’t know any Aborigines in Tasmania’, because they had the recording of Fanny Cochrane Smith here in the Museum itself. When, in 1949, the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery in Launceston took its first collection of the petroglyphs from Preminghana, they must have known that Aboriginal people had been ‘forced’ from the islands under the Tasmanian Government's assimilation program, and dumped mostly in the slum housing in Invermay, which was just five minutes’ walk from the QV Museum. How blind can people be? Still, no one bothered to consult those Aboriginal people so nearby! So it brings us to the question of ‘if the Apology is coming from the institutions, not just in this current generation, not just on behalf of this Board, not just on behalf of the staff, not just on behalf of the leadership now, but they own — embrace — and take responsibility — for all of the mistakes that have been made by those institutions, way back until the time they established themselves here in Tasmania, To whom then is the apology addressed from TMAG, the Royal Society and the Governor on behalf of Tasmanian society? It cannot be to me, or any other individual. If the mistakes of generations gone are acknowledged and an apology given, then those apologies 12 are addressed to those people at Wybalenna whose images we see on the banner [Michael points to a banner held up by Aboriginal people]. They were the ones who lived with Truganina and William Lanny. They were the ones who grew up with them, who knew them. The next generation on the other banner over there [Michael points to another banner near Sarah Maynard] Lucy Beaton, Nancy Mansell, Jack Maynard, Philip Thomas in front and Harry Beaton on the end. They wrote the 1883 petition to the local newspaper in Launceston: We are under no obligation to the Government. Whatever land they have reserved for our use, is a token of their honesty. In as much as it has been given in lieu of that grand island Tasmania, which they have taken from our ancestors. They knew about morals, about right and wrong. Unsurprisingly, at the bottom of the letter the newspaper saw fit to add “we do not identify ourselves with the opinions of the correspondents”. So, how’s that! In 1911, Gov. Warner's predecessor visited Cape Barren as a forerunner to the Cape Barren Island Reserve Act 1912. Aboriginal people thought they were getting legislated land rights. They believed they were getting the whole of Cape Barren, the mutton bird islands and other islands, as a sanctuary against assimilation enforcement. In 1911, Aboriginal people from all around the islands came to Cape Barren to meet the Governor believing he would be giving Cape Barren to Aboriginal people. They were deceived. Out of the intended land rights for Aboriginal people, they were given blocks of land that they had to fence, and they had to behave like white people, otherwise they would lose any plots of land. Any Aboriginal woman who married a white man was not allowed to stay on the reserve. Some Aboriginal people, closely related to Aborigines on Cape Barren, were kicked off the island after dark, and were not allowed to stay with their people. So, I say the apology is also directed to them. Ray Groom took responsibility for dispossession in the 1990s by beginning the process of land return. Mr Groom’s gesture was to those people in the past but also to us, the contemporary Aboriginal people. It was an important act of recognition. Those who have delivered the apologies today on behalf of their institutions also have made an important acknowledgement of the hurt to we Aborigines of today. In return, I stand here before you and say “on behalf of all of those Aboriginal generations I have mentioned, we readily accept, with pride, the apologies given, in the spirit within which it was stated”. Thank you. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 155(2), 2021 13 THE REPORT TO INFORM AN APOLOGY TO THE TASMANIAN ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY BY THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF TASMANIA by Zoe Rimmer and Rebe Taylor Rimmer, Z. & Taylor, R. 2021 (15:xii) The Report to inform an Apology to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community by the Royal Society of Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 155(2): 13-20. ISSN 0080-4703. College of Arts, Law and Education, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 132, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia. (ZR and RT*). *Author for correspondence. Email: rebe.taylor@utas.edu.au CULTURAL WARNING ‘This paper contains information regarding Aboriginal Ancestral remains that may cause sadness, anger and distress to some people. This information is being shared in the spirit of truth-telling and with the understanding that with knowledge comes obligations. We ask that you treat the information in this paper with dignity and respect to Aboriginal Community members and their wishes about how these stories should be shared. In 2017, the Royal Society of Tasmania (the Society) commissioned a report to inform an apology to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community. Pakana woman and museum curator Zoe Rimmer and British-born historian Rebe Taylor co-researched and wrote the Report by early 2018. The Report detailed mistreatment of Tasmanian Aboriginal Ancestral remains and mistreatment and misrepresentation of Tasmanian Aboriginal culture and people. The Society presented its Apology in February 2021 at an event at the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG). The Society’s Apology was preceded by a Preamble by Tasmania’s Governor and was followed by a ‘paired’ Apology by TMAG. This paper includes all the findings and recommendations included in the original report and differs only in its formatting, style, and some very minor editing. Key Words: Tasmanian Aboriginal Community, Apology, Royal Society of Tasmania, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. BACKGROUND In 2017, the Royal Society of Tasmania commissioned historian Rebe Taylor to write a report to inform a planned Apology to the Tasmanian Aboriginal (Pakana) Community. Due to Zoe Rimmer’s comprehensive knowledge of the history and records pertaining to the removals and repatriations of Tasmanian Aboriginal cultural artefacts and Ancestral remains, the Society agreed that the Report be co-authored by Rimmer and Taylor. Rimmer and Taylor began by considering the Report’s potential scope. They observed that historians Stefan Petrow (1997), Tom Wise (2003), Helen MacDonald (2005), Tom Lawson (2014) and Paul Turnbull (2017) had detailed variously the theft, mistreatment and trade of Tasmanian Aboriginal Ancestral remains by Society members (and others) in the nineteenth century. Less examined, however, was the continued removal of Ancestral remains from Country during the twentieth century and the resistance to demands by the Aboriginal Community to repatriate Ancestors made from the 1970s (references in the below report). The authors also noted that there had been less historical research on the theft and mistreatment of Tasmanian Aboriginal material culture relative to that of Ancestral remains through both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Report was intended as an overview. The authors recognise that there exists more historical detail than can be included in a relatively short report. The below reproduction of our Report includes all the findings and recommendations included in its original form and differs only in its formatting, style, and very minor editing (except for point three below, that has been reworked to explain the governance relationship between TMAG and the Society). ‘The Report opens with six key points that preface and direct its findings followed by two main parts: the ‘Mistreatment of Tasmanian Aboriginal Ancestral remains’ and the ‘Mistreatment of Tasmanian Aboriginal material artefacts’. A short closing statement considers the misrepresentations of Tasmanian Aboriginal people and culture. THE REPORT TO INFORM AN APOLOGY TO THE TASMANIAN ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY BY THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF TASMANIA BY ZOE RIMMER AND REBE TAYLOR, 2018 Six key points preface and direct the findings of this Report. First: From its inception in 1843, the Royal Society's members have included leaders in Tasmanian politics, law, education, church, and industry since its formation (Wise 2003). The members’ social standing has legitimated and facilitated the mistreatment of Tasmanian Aboriginal people and material culture from the mid nineteenth century. An apology by the Society should acknowledge its failure to lead their community with honourable and decent conduct. Second: The Society’s mistreatment of Tasmanian Aboriginal bodies and material culture followed the forced dispossession of Aboriginal lands and removal of Aboriginal children, Ancestral remains and cultural objects. An apology by the Society should recognise that their mistreatment of 14 Zoe Rimmer and Rebe Taylor Tasmanian Aboriginal bodies and material culture was part of the wider history of invasion and colonisation. Third: The Royal Society Museum was established in 1846 by the Society. In 1885, the Society vested its collections, including Aboriginal Ancestral remains and cultural objects, in the new and public Tasmanian Museum (shortly thereafter the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery) by an Act of Parliament (An Act to incorporate and endow the Tasmanian Museum and Botanical Gardens No. 34 1885, Tasmania). While formally separated by law, the Society and TMAG, remained ‘united in aims and services’ (Somerville 1944). The TMAG Board maintained a majority of Society Councillors through most of the twentieth century. Until 1993, the TMAG Director was also Secretary of the Society. In 2021, in accordance with the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery Act 2017, the TMAG Board is appointed by the responsible State Government Minister who is ‘to consult and seek nominations from the Royal Society of Tasmania’. The TMAG Director holds ex-officio membership of the Society's Council. The Society is located at TMAG and the two institutions continue occasionally to collaborate. However, the Society remains a non-government member- based organisation while TMAG reports to the Tasmanian State Government’s Department of State Growth. In relation to Tasmanian Aboriginal Ancestral remains and cultural artefacts, the majority of acquisitions and the most serious mistreatments occurred when those collections were either managed by the Society Museum or by TMAG during the time the TMAG Board was dominated in numbers by Society members and the TMAG Director also held the role of Society Secretary. In the eyes of the Tasmanian public, including the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community, there has been no clear distinction between the Society and Museum. An apology by the Society to Tasmanian Aborigines should incorporate TMAG. The authors therefore direct the following three points to the Society and to TMAG. Fourth: Tasmanian Aboriginal human remains are people — or rather, in the eyes of Aboriginal Community members, Ancestors. They are not specimens. The desecration of burials and removal of Ancestral remains from Country by the Society and TMAG has caused continuing trauma for the Aboriginal Community. They have had to fight for and then manage the return of their Ancestors largely without support, while mourning their desecration. An apology by the Society to Tasmanian Aborigines should recognise that the deep hurt of mistreating Ancestral remains is ongoing. Fifth: The collection, curation and display of Tasmanian Aboriginal people and culture by the Society and TMAG created and perpetuated many of the prevailing stereotypes and myths that continue to be destructive to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community. An apology by the Society to Tasmanian Aboriginal people should recognise that the deep hurt caused by misrepresenting Aboriginal culture and people is ongoing. Sixth: The apology by the Society for the mistreatment of Ancestral remains (among other actions) comes thirty years after their return. Although receiving funding to resource an active repatriation program since 2001, TMAG has also never delivered a formal apology or act of restitution for its past treatment of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community. An apology by the Society to Tasmanian Aborigines should recognise that it is belated. PART ONE: MISTREATMENT OF TASMANIAN ABORIGINAL ANCESTRAL REMAINS The acquisition and trade of Tasmanian Aboriginal Ancestral remains by the Royal Society of Tasmania is almost as old as the society itself, with the first recorded acquisition in 1848 by Joseph Milligan. As Royal Society Secretary from 1851— 59, Milligan became the most active donor of Tasmanian. Aboriginal Ancestral remains to British anatomical collections in the nineteenth century (Wise 2003, Turnbull 2017, p. 93; IS File 10891, TMAG: ‘Specimens donated to Royal Society of Tasmanian Museum 1848-1886’). Through the remainder of the nineteenth century and most of the twentieth century, members of the Royal Society (and from 1885 TMAG) continued to receive donations of Ancestral remains; send them to institutions and collectors; and actively remove remains from gravesites. The last noted removal and acquisition in the TMAG Trustees’ Minutes was in 1970 by Colin Wendell-Smith (3 Sept, 1 Oct and 5 Nov 1970). William Lanne The mutilation of William Lanne was one of the most notorious and atrocious acts of mistreatment ofa Tasmanian Aboriginal person by members of the Royal Society. In 1869, Society Councillor Morton Allport successfully sought permission from Tasmania's Premier, Richard Dry, to secure the skeleton of the recently deceased William Lanne, whom it was wrongly believed was the ‘last’ Tasmanian Aboriginal man. Before the Society gained possession of Lanne’s skeleton, hospital surgeon William Crowther and his son, Bingham Crowther, removed Lanne’s skull while he lay in the Hobart hospital morgue. After discovering this, Royal Society member and hospital surgeon George Stokell, in agreement with Allport, with the Society's Secretary, James Agnew, and with Royal Society Councillor John Graves, sawed off Lanne’s hands and feet and took them to their museum before he was buried (Petrow 1997, MacDonald 2005, pp. 136-182). Historian Paul Turnbull (2017, pp. 143-148) is confident that it was Royal Society members who then robbed Lanne’s grave and took his body to the Royal Society’s Museum storerooms where Stokell cut out the remainder of Lanne’s skeleton. Despite the public outrage and official inquiry that followed, Allport tried to find Lanne’s missing skull. He offered cash to Bingham Crowther and a complete Tasmanian Aboriginal skeleton to the Royal College of Surgeons, London, as an exchange. Allport also secretly exhumed skeletons from the cemeteries at Oyster Cove and Flinders Island and in the early 1870s sent them to the Royal College and to private collector, Joseph Barnard Davis (Turnbull 2017, pp. 146-148). The Report to inform an Apology to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community by the Royal Society of Tasmania 15 Trukanini The exhumation, display and keeping of Trukanini’s remains by the Society and TMAG from 1878-1975 went against the express requests of Trukanini, the Anglican Diocese in Tasmania and the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community, as recorded in newspapers: ‘Her Last Wish’; 22 Feb 1932, Examiner, ‘Story of Truganini The Ghost of a Broken Promise’, The Age, 20 Dec 1947; ‘Dying Wish’; Mercury, 27 Apr 1949; “Truganini to get dying wish’, Advocate 12 June 1953; ‘Reburial Wanted’; Canberra Times, 29 March 1974; ‘Boffins hang onto Truganini’, Nation Review 7-13 June 1974; “Truganini’s Bones Row, Aboriginals are angry’, 1 Feb 1976; Mercury). Trukanini was wrongly thought to be the ‘last’ ‘full blood’ member of the Tasmanian Aboriginal ‘race’, and for this reason there was intense interest in securing her body long before she died. Knowing this, Trukanini asked the Reverend Henry Atkinson to ensure she was buried at sea. But her death, on 8 May 1876, was attended by Royal Society member, Parliamentarian, and medical doctor Henry Butler who, with another medical doctor, moved her body to the Hobart hospital. The following day the Society formally requested Trukanini’s body for their museum. Trukanini was instead given a Christian burial at the Cascade Female Factory, but it is likely her exhumation was always intended. The Society's second formal request to the Colonial Secretary to secure her body in July 1876 was refused because it was ‘premature’; the third, in 1878, was granted (Ryan 1974; references letters 9 May and 12 July 1876 and 4 Dec 1878 in TSA. CSD 10/31/488. Copies also held in TMAG RICP RST Folder RSA/B/1 RSA/B/166). Historian Lyndall Ryan (1974) notes it is pertinent that many Tasmanian Parliamentarians were also Society members. Ten years later, Trukanini’s skeleton was placed on temporary display in the Melbourne Exhibition Building. This was contrary to the initial conditions under which her remains were entrusted by Parliament to the Royal Society: that her ‘skeleton shall not be exposed to public view (in Ryan 1974). Trukanini’s skeleton returned to Melbourne in 1904, where it was articulated and casts of it made in preparation for its display in TMAG. She was exhibited in Hobart until 1947, when the son of Henry Atkinson, the Archdeacon Henry Brune Atkinson, began a public campaign to honour his father’s broken promise. Consequently, TMAG placed Trukanini’s remains in storage, but did not heed Atkinson's requests for a proper burial, even when they were taken up by Bishop Cranswick in 1953. The Royal Society Council agreed ‘it was inadvisable that the skeleton should be lost to science’ (TMAG folder, ‘RICP — RST Archives’, 10 Sept 1953). The Museum Trustees, and the Royal Society members, successfully sought the support of the wider scientific community to defend the keeping of Trukanini’s remains. The Trustees ensured these letters were passed on to Tasmania’s Chief Secretary who attended a special meeting of the Trustees. It was agreed to create a new “Tasmanian Aboriginal Room at TMAG’ with specially constructed ‘memorials’ to house ‘skeletal remains’ including those of Trukanini (Trustees’ Minutes, 30 July, 3 Sept, 5 Nov, 1 Oct 1953). Nearly ten years later, Royal Society member Dr W.L. Crowther reminded the Trustees of their unfulfilled commitment to create this ‘semi-mausoleum’ (Trustees’ Minutes, 12 April 1962). From March 1970, the TMAG Trustees received requests to relinquish Trukanini’s remains, including from Aboriginal Jaw student, Harry Penrith. The Trustees responded that they had ‘no power to carry out this request, but they once again sought the support of the wider scientific community which uniformly agreed that ‘under no circumstances should Trukanini’s skeleton be destroyed’. The Trustees forwarded these letters, along with related acquisition records, to the Government. The Chief Secretary upheld the Trustees’ wishes and reiterated the earlier promise of a memorial to house Ancestral remains (Trustees’ Minutes, 12 April 1962). Months later, Tasmanian Aboriginal skeletal remains were found in sand dunes at Trial and Granville harbours on Tasmania's west coast. The bones were placed in TMAG’s collections, and with University of Tasmania’s Professor of Anatomy, Colin Wendell-Smith, further excavations were carried out (Trustees’ Minutes, 3 Sept, 1 Oct and 5 Nov 1970). A letter from the University archivist Margaret Littlejohn to Mrs E.F. Cotton of Kelvedon dated 6 August 1971 confirmed that Wendell-Smith held historical collections of Tasmanian Aboriginal remains, including that of a baby (TMAG folder: ‘RICP — Roy. Soc. Of ‘Tas. Archives’). Wendell-Smith also supervised a medical student to carry out the only detailed and specific study of Trukanini’s skeleton for an Honours thesis, submitted around 1973 (Meumann c.1973). In 1974, the National Aboriginal Congress requested that Trukanini’s skeleton be placed in its custody. TMAGs’ Trustees were advised by a solicitor that Trukanini’s remains could only be divested by an Act of Parliament. The Tasmanian Museum Act 1950 was amended in February 1975. Trukanini’s remains were then placed in the vaults of the Reserve Bank in Hobart until 8 May 1976. On that day Tasmanian Aboriginal Community members cremated Trukanini and scattered her ashes in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel. The Crowther Collection The Crowther Collection was one of the largest single collections of Tasmanian Aboriginal Ancestral remains formed by an individual. It was formed illegally from the early twentieth century by a leading member of the Royal Society of Tasmania. The TMAG Trustees resisted returning the collection to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community despite repeated requests. The Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (later Corporation (TAC)) began formally campaigning for repatriation in the 1970s and in the early 1980s took legal action against the TMAG. Although unsuccessful, this action and Community protests brought national and international attention to the Tasmanian Government (TAC 1997). Sir William Edward Lodewyk Crowther (1887-1981) was a medical doctor; a member of the Royal Society of 16 Zoe Rimmer and Rebe Taylor Tasmania from 1911 (a Councillor from 1919-1958); a recipient of the Royal Society medal in 1940; elected a life member in 1962; anda Trustee of (MAG from 1919-1973 (von Oppeln 2007). Crowther was knighted in 1955. At his death in 1981, the TMAG Trustees stood in honour for a minute’s silence (Trustees’ Minutes, 3 June 1981). Sir William was also the grandson of Dr William Crowther, who cut out William Lanne’s skull in 1869, and the son of Edward Crowther, who owned land near Oyster Cove, close to the former Aboriginal Station. Sir William grew up hearing stories about ‘the natives’ and seeing ‘several of their crania in the back surgery at [his] home’ (Crowther 1949). In 1907, Crowther’s University of _Melbourne anatomy lecturer, Professor R.J.A Berry, urged his students to collect Aboriginal crania, especially those from Tasmania. As a result, in 1908, Crowther with Dr W. Robertson exhumed the remains of twelve Tasmanian Aborigines who were buried at the Oyster Cove cemetery in the 1840s—1860s (Turnbull 2017, p-. 253). Crowther (1949) considered that the long bones were too soft to be of ‘anatomical value’ and packed them in two large crates (TMAG IS File 10891). The crania were in better condition. Two contained their cerebrum (brain) and were acquired by the University of Melbourne. Crowther (1949) described them as being so ‘dried and shrunken .. as to resemble a small, shrivelled apple’. In 1982, the Tasmanian Solicitor-General’s Department found that this exhumation had been illegal (‘Draft Briefing notes for Premier for a meeting with TAC representatives, 1982, TMAG IS File 10891). From 1919, Crowther continued to collect Tasmanian Aboriginal Ancestral remains from across Tasmania, often while he was removing Aboriginal stone artefacts with other locals including Robert W. Legge and R.H. Pulleine (Evans 2011). Most of the Ancestral remains removed were from Tasmania's northwest and from Eaglehawk Neck. They included both prehistoric and more recent burials, including an infant. Many of the skulls ‘in better preservation’ were acquired by institutions and collectors. By 1961, Crowther had housed his collection of three skeletons and thirty- four skulls in TMAG, and he formally presented them in 1963. Crowther (1949) studied and published on the collection and facilitated and urged such study by others. From 1981, members of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community sought the return of the Crowther Collection. The TMAG Trustees offered to ‘share’ the responsibility of the collection with the Aboriginal Community but would not hand the remains over to them. They sought advice to defend this position legally and, with TMAG’s staff anthropologist sought and received letters of support from leading scientists and scientific associations (correspondence 1982-1984, TMAG IS File 10892). Other collections of Tasmanian Aboriginal Ancestral remains By the early 1980s TMAG was aware that it held about 100 Tasmanian Aboriginal crania or fragments of crania, three of which were from named individuals: Augustus, Caroline and Waubedabar (Waubedema or Waubedimia). This number included the Crowther Collection, but mostly comprised of other acquisitions. Numerous acquisitions had been made to the Royal Society of Tasmania from 1848 to 1886, and to TMAG from 1886 to the late 1970s. Members of the Society actively collected Ancestral remains and published their findings in their Papers and Proceedings until the late 1970s. The TMAG Trustees also instigated the removal of Ancestral remains and accepted donations from the late nineteenth century to the 1970s. The following examples demonstrate TMAG’s active effort to obtain Ancestral remains from the late nineteenth to late twentieth centuries: The Bishop of Tasmania had on a visit to [Vansittart?] Island, formerly Gun Carriage Island, came across graves of seventeen Tasmanian Aborigines. The TMAG Curator was authorised to make necessary arrangements to secure the skulls and skeletons. (Trustees’ Minutes, 19 Sept 1899) TMAG Director reported that ‘he was hopeful of obtaining another Tas. Aboriginal skull for the Museum collection’ and it was ‘resolved that the Director be empowered to incur reasonable expenditure in order to secure same’. (Trustees’ Minutes 30 Oct 1924) See the example of Wendell-Smith’s removal of Ancestral remains in 1970 mentioned previously. In a landmark paper presented on behalf of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community to the Australian Archaeology Association conference held in Hobart in 1983, Rosalind Langford (1983) claimed that TMAG and its staff had deceived the Aboriginal Community in 1976 by ‘concealing the fact that they held the remains of Aborigines other than those of Truganinni [Trukanini]’. From 1982, the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community formally sought the return of ‘all’ the Tasmanian Ancestral remains held in TMAG. The TMAG Trustees remained determined that they should retain their collections, except for one Trustee. The Minutes of the Trustees’ meeting held on 6 October 1982 record that one Trustee moved ‘that all Tasmanian Aboriginal skeletal remains in TMAG be handed over to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people for appropriate disposal’. The motion ‘lapsed for want of a seconder’. The Minutes of the Trustees of 2 February 1983 stated: ‘It has been made abundantly clear on earlier occasions by the Trustees that they did not favour the removal [return] of the skeletal material.’ The Tasmanian Aboriginal Community took legal action and carried out public protest and demonstration. In 1984, the TMAG (Aboriginal Remains) Act authorised the return of Tasmanian Aboriginal Ancestral remains to the Community. On 13 August 1984, TMAG staff wrote to the Trustees ‘strongly protesting’ the government's decision and continued to seek the support of the wider scientific community (Trustees’ Minutes 5 Sept 1984). In 1985, the Crowther Collection and the remains of the three named Aboriginal people were returned to the The Report to inform an Apology to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community by the Royal Society of Tasmania 17 Tasmanian Aboriginal Community. The remainder of the collections known to be Tasmanian Aboriginal Ancestral remains were returned in 1988. Over many years several external researchers were encouraged and given access to the Ancestral remains collection (Berry & Robertson 1909, Crowther & Lord 1920, Crowther 1921, Abbie 1964). Researchers applied their own theories to the cataloguing and the physical | storage of the Ancestral remains. The results of this intervention included separating the skeletal remains of a person and wrongly boxing remains belonging to different individuals together. Such poor curatorial practices have made recent provenance research to aid repatriation efforts nearly impossible. Due to this poor record keeping and questionable research practices as well as substandard storage and mismanaged repatriation processes of the past, in 2018, TMAG continues to hold a collection of poorly provenanced and unprovenanced Ancestral remains. Some of these remains include Ancestors from Indigenous Communities outside Tasmania. As Franchesca Cubillo (2010, pp. 30-36) notes, keeping other peoples’ Ancestors trapped in collections weighs heavily on traditional owners working in those institutions. Currently the repatriation of other Indigenous peoples’ Ancestral remains outside of Australia is unfunded and not covered by the Australian Government’ Indigenous Repatriation Policy. Return of Ancestral remains Aboriginal people have lived on lutruwita, the Country now known as Tasmania, for more than 40 000 years. Aboriginal spiritual beliefs are that they ‘have been here forever’ and the connection to Country, Ancestors and kin are inalienable. As such, it is imperative that Ancestors are acknowledged, respected, and given the appropriate ceremony in death. Many Aboriginal people feel a profound responsibility to return Ancestors to Country. This is critical for honouring the Ancestors’ dignity and to allow their spirit to finally rest, as well as allowing the Aboriginal Community today to mourn and heal. The Tasmanian Aboriginal Community have had to fight for recognition and for the return of their Ancestors through political and legal battles. As Cubillo (2010, p. 25) writes: ‘Indigenous communities were not responsible for the problems associated with repatriation, and yet they have to carry the cultural, spiritual and financial burdens.’ The struggle to return known people and the knowledge that many more ‘unprovenanced’ remains may never return causes ongoing distress to Aboriginal people who are responsible for their Ancestors’ safe return home. The disrespect with which Ancestral remains have been collected, traded, stored and researched often means that little is known about the Ancestors who are returned to Community. This lack of knowledge adds further stress and complexity to the decisions regarding proper ceremony, burial practice and reburial place. The wounds caused by the desecration of burials, and the collection of Ancestral remains, are not historical; they are ongoing. Collectors placed a high value on the remains of Tasmanian Aboriginal people in particular. The Society and TMAG played a major role in the ‘scientific trade’ of Tasmanian Aboriginal Ancestral remains and received the Ancestral remains of other Indigenous peoples in exchange for Tasmanian Aboriginal remains as well as collegial recognition. Ros Langford outlined this issue poignantly in 1983 (p. 2): Science, including the science of archaeology, determined that Truganinni was the last of our people. It did so by using scientific principles based upon European values. the effect of this scientific fact has been incalculable to the 4000 Tasmanian Aboriginals who reside in Tasmania ... Science got what it wanted — some bones to parade through Europe enhancing the reputation of white colonials, leaving us with the struggle lasting 100 years to defeat that view. And science did not assist us in that fight. But what has changed? It was the Aboriginal people who fought for the return of the grave-robbed skeletons known as the Crowther Collection. There was no agitation from within your discipline for their proper burial or cremation. Instead, there was opposition and obstruction to our demand for the return of the dead... The return of Ancestral remains from TMAG to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community in the 1980s was inadequately managed. The research into the history of the collections in the 1980s was carried out in large part by TMAG’s staff anthropologist who objected to their return (as noted above). More extensive and comprehensive research into the related records was not undertaken until 2002 when TMAG began receiving funding under the Australian Government’s ‘Return of Indigenous Cultural Property’ project (in 2018 the Indigenous Repatriation Program, IRP). In the 1980s, there were neither sufficient related records and information given to the Aboriginal Community, nor adequate support given for the management of returned Ancestral remains, or for the ongoing trauma caused by their removal and return. An important instance of this mismanagement was the return of Waubedabar (Waubedema or Waubedimia) who was returned in 1985 and her remains cremated, only for it to be discovered in 2005 that half of her skeleton was still held in TMAG’s zoological collections. Waubedabar’s handing back, and cremation had to be done again in 2007, and the trauma and grief was experienced by the Community once more. 18 Zoe Rimmer and Rebe Taylor PART TWO: MISTREATMENT AND MISREPRESENTATION OF TASMANIAN ABORIGINAL CULTURE AND PEOPLE Removal of petroglyphs In 1961, TMAG instigated the removal of rock engravings from Preminghana, or Mt Cameron West, on Tasmania’s northwest coast. Tasmanian Aboriginal Community members and archaeologists regard this ‘removal’ as having been destructive to some of the most important petroglyphs (huge rock engravings) in the world and of a site of deep - cultural significance (TAC 2015, Tiagarra 2018). Then-Tasmanian Museum Director, Dr William Bryden, stated that TMAG should remove the Aboriginal stone carvings because they were ‘being destroyed by erosion’. Permission to access the area was granted by the Van Diemen’s Land Company manager, and a tractor, trailer and labourers were hired and paid for by TMAG. The Director and Mr R. Roth excavated Aboriginal middens in the region during the removal (Meston 1931, Trustees’ Minutes 2 Feb and 5 Oct 1961). The removal broke the carvings; one larger petroglyph was pieced together and mounted using concrete in the Tasmanian Museum and was on display by mid-1962 until 2005 (Trustees’ Minutes 7 June 1962). Archaeologist Rhys Jones told fellow archaeologist and interviewer Mike Smith that when Australia’s leading archaeologist, John Mulvaney, visited Tasmania’ northwest coast in the 1960s, he was ‘absolutely shocked’ by what he saw: ‘they had sawn off the face of the carvings’ and there ‘were bits of carvings lying all around, all broken’. Moreover, Mulvaney understood that the reason TMAG had removed the petroglyphs was ‘because Launceston [QVMAG] already had one... and there was a great rivalry’ (Jones & Smith 1997). Removal of Tasmanian Aboriginal stone artefacts From the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries, collectors have removed tens of thousands of Tasmanian Aboriginal stone tools from sites across the island, including middens, quarries, and campsites. This has left a deficit of important cultural material and erased part of the record of earlier land use, occupation, and cultural practice for today’s Tasmanian Aboriginal people. Some of these prodigious collectors were members of the Royal Society, including Sir William Crowther, Fritz Noetling and Robert Legge. These men’ formed large personal collections of stone tools from across Tasmania from the early twentieth century and deposited them in museums locally and overseas. Stone tools make up the largest part of the overseas Tasmanian Aboriginal collections. These collectors. influenced leading scholars in Europe and beyond through their correspondence and publications in which they advanced the idea that Tasmanian Aborigines represented the earliest, or most primitive stage of human cultural evolution: the Old Stone Age or Palaeolithic (Noetling 1907, Crowther 1949, Taylor 2017, p. 24, p. 64). The correspondence of Henry Ling Roth and James Backhouse Walker Henry Ling Roth’s The Aborigines of Tasmania (1890) was the first anthropological account of the subject, and its second edition (1899) remained the most influential book on Tasmanian Aborigines until the late twentieth century. This book advanced and perpetuated the idea that Tasmanian Aborigines were ‘extinct’ and one of the most primitive ‘races on Earth. Roth was inspired to rework his first edition after reading a claim in Nature magazine that Fanny Smith (or Fanny ‘Cochrane’ Smith) was a ‘full blood’ Aboriginal, not a ‘half caste’ as he had been led to believe (Roth 1889). Roth wrote to the Society to determine the veracity of his claim. Over the next ten years, a Royal Society Councillor James Backhouse Walker carried out research into Fanny Smith on Roth’s behalf to determine this and other questions. Taylor (2016, 2017, pp. 91-105) gives an account of this correspondence and details its holdings in the University of Tasmania and the Manchester Museum. Walker was assisted by Hobart photographer J.W. Beattie, who was elected as a Fellow of the Society in 1890 and who helped establish the historical and geographical section of the Society in 1899 (Roe 1979). The research and the conclusions drawn by Walker (and consequently by Roth) influenced how people understood Tasmanian Aboriginal people and their culture for most of the twentieth century. It was deeply insensitive and disrespectful to Fanny Smith, her family and to the wider Tasmanian Aboriginal Community. The research carried out for Roth, undertaken or organised by Walker included photographing Fanny Smith at her home in order to determine her ‘racial status’; obtaining a sample of her hair; removing family photographs from the Smith family (and not returning them); and asking her friends about her ‘mental’ and ‘physical details’ including her ancestry and the shape of her teeth. Walker, with other members of the Society recorded Fanny Smith singing in language in 1898, but they agreed that she did not have any other Aboriginal cultural information that was ‘valuable’ because she was, in their opinion, ‘manifestly a half-caste’ (Taylor 2017, p. 95). Other research carried out by Walker for Roth included: * attempting repeatedly to obtain six Tasmanian Aboriginal skulls kept by Edward Cotton of Kelvedon (Bishop Montgomery also tried); * organising the study of nineteen Aboriginal skulls housed in TMAG in Hobart; * trying to extract a piece of hair for study from an ochred lock that once belonged to Wurati (Worreddy) or Manalakina (Mannalargenna); * sending Roth a piece of hair belonging to Trukanini; * sending Roth a shell necklace, but then claiming it was not ‘genuine’ as it was made by a ‘half-caste’ Islander (whom Walker stated ‘are not Aborigines’); The Report to inform an Apology to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community by the Royal Society of Tasmania 19 * compiling language lists, memories and other accounts from settlers that Walker regarded having more authority than the ‘half-caste’ Islanders, or Fanny Smith and her family. CONCLUDING REMARKS: MISREPRESENTATIONS OF TASMANIAN ABORIGINAL PEOPLE AND CULTURE As institutions of knowledge, expertise and authority, the Royal Society of Tasmania with the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery helped construct and perpetuate myths through an ongoing process of colonisation. For many years, the Society (and from 1885 TMAG) have labelled, measured, categorised, and degraded Tasmanian Aboriginal people to suit European ideologies and racial theories. For 140 years, the collection and curation of Tasmanian Aboriginal people and culture by TMAG was heavily informed by the ideas of ‘primitivism’ and ‘extinction’, that were used, as Langford (1983) puts it: to ‘soften the guilt of invasion and the destruction of a society’ (Burk 2015). ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors thank the Report’s expert readers: Gaye Sculthorpe, Paul Turnbull, Maggie Walter and TMAG’s Tasmanian Aboriginal Advisory Council. We acknowledge that Zoe Rimmer’s time to research and co-write the report was kindly provided by TMAG. The authors acknowledge that the Royal Society of Tasmania commissioned the Report and granted permission to have it published. REFERENCES Abbie, A. 1964: A Survey of the Tasmanian Aboriginal collection in the Tasmanian Museum, Anatomy Department, University of Tasmania, with an introduction by W.E.L.H. Crowther. Berry, R.J.A. & Robertson, A.W.D. 1909: Preliminary communication on fifty-three Tasmanian Crania, forty-two of which are now recorded for the first time. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 22(1): 47-58. Burk, C. 2015: This Exhibition is About Now: Tasmanian Aboriginality at the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. Museum Anthropology 38(2): 149-162. Crowther, W.E.L.H. 1921: Description of two Tasmanian Aboriginal Crania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania: 168-172. Crowther, W.E.L.H. 1949: On the Formation and Disposal of a Collection. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania: 83-92. : Crowther, W.E.L.H & Lord, C. 1920: A descriptive catalogue of the osteological specimens relating to the Tasmanian Aborigines contained in the Tasmanian Museum. Japers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania: 137-152. Cubillo, FE. 2010: Repatriating Our Ancestors: Who Will Speak for the Dead? In Turnbull, P and Pickering, M (eds): The Long Way Home. The Meaning and Value of Repatriation. New York and Oxford, Berghan Books in association with the National Museum of Australia Press: 30-36. Evans, C. 2011: “A Funny Old Hobby”: Sir William Crowther’s Collection of Aboriginal Remains. Kanunnah 4: 1-25. Jones, R. & Smith, M. 1997: Rhys Jones interviewed by Mike Smith, sound recording, and transcript. ORAL TRC 2677 (transcript), National Library of Australia, Bib ID: 628228, TRC 2677. Langford, R. 1983: Our Heritage — Your Playground. Australian Archaeology 16: 1-6. Lawson, T. 2014: The Last Man: A British Genocide in Tasmania. London, I. B. Taurus: 263 pp. MacDonald, H. 2005: Human Remains: Episodes in Human Dissection. Melbourne, Melbourne University Press: 220 PP. Meston, A.L. 1931: Aboriginal rock-carvings on the north-west coast of Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania: 12-19. Meumann, EO. c.1973: An Anthroscopic and Anthropometric Study of the Skeleton of a Full-Blood Female Tasmanian Aborigine (Trukanini). Unpublished Honours Thesis, Department of Anatomy, University of Tasmania, Hobart. Noetling, F. 1907: Notes on the Tasmanian Amorpholithes. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania: 1-37. Petrow, S. 1997: The Last Man: The Mutilation of William Lanne in 1869 and its Aftermath. Australian Cultural History 16: 18-44. Roe, M. 1979: Beattie, John Watt (1859-1930). Australian . Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, https://adb.anu.edu.au/ biography/beattie-john-watt-5 171/text8687, published first in hardcopy 1979 (accessed 14 July 2021). Roth, H.L. 1889: A Surviving Tasmanian Aborigine. Nature 41/5: December. Roth, H.L. 1890: The Aborigines of Tasmania. London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Truber & Co: 224 pp. Roth, H.L. 1899: The Aborigines of Tasmania. Halifax, E King & Sons: 228 pp. : Ryan, L. 1974: Report to the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies on Truganini. In Mollison, B.C. and Everitt, C.: A Chronology of events affecting Tasmanian Aboriginal people since contact by whites c. 1772-1976. Copy accessed is held in the TMAG folder created 2008: ‘RICP [Return of Indigenous Cultural Property] — Roy. Soc. Of Tas. Archives’. Somerville, J. 1944: The Royal Society of Tasmania, 1843-1943. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania: 199-222. Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre Inc. (TAC) 1997: Free Exchange or Captive Culture? The Tasmanian Aboriginal Perspective on Museums and Repatriation. Paper delivered at the Museums Association Seminar: Museums and Repatriation, London, 4 November 1997. Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre Inc. (TAC) 2015: Preminghana Healthy Country Plan 2015, http://tacinc.com.au/ wp-content/uploads/2015/07/20150529_Preminghana- Healthy-Country-Plan-_-Final.pdf. (accessed 1 September 2021) Taylor, R. 2016: The First Stone and the Last Tasmanian: the colonial correspondence of Edward Burnett Tylor and Henry Ling Roth. In Robert K. and Helen G. (eds.): Before the Field: Social Anthropology in the colonial period. Special edition, Oceania 86(3): November: DOI 10.1002/ocea.5145 Taylor, R. 2017: Into the Heart of Tasmania: A Search for Human Antiquity. Melbourne, Melbourne University Press: 270 pp. Tiagarra 2018: The petroglyph debate. https://tiagarra.weebly.com/ petroglyphs.html, (accessed 28 March 2018). Turnbull, P. 2017: Science, Museums and Collecting the Indigenous Dead in Colonial Australia. Palgrave Studies in Pacific History, Palgrave Macmillan, Switzerland: 428 pp. von Oppeln, C.A. 2007: Crowther, Sir William Edward Lodewyk Hamilton (1887-1981). Australian Dictionary 20 of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/ crowther-sir-william-edward-lodewyk-hamilton-12374/ text22237, published first in hardcopy 2007 (accessed 27 March 2018). Wise, T. 2003: The Royal Society and the Tasmanian Aborigines in the nineteenth century. Unpublished Honours thesis, School of History and Classics, University of Tasmania, Hobart. (accepted 3 November 2021) Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 155(2), 2021 21 VAN DIEMEN’S LAND AND THE GREAT EXHIBITION OF 1851 by Michael Roe (with six plates) Roe, M. 2021 (15:xii): Van Diemen’s Land and the Great Exhibition of 1851. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 155(2): 21-36. ISSN: 0080-4703. 119/319 Macquarie Street, Tasmania 7004, Australia. Email: owenmichaelroe@gmail.com Imperial authorities questioned whether so distant Van Diemen’s Land could participate in the “Great Exhibition to be held at London’s Crystal Palace in 1851, but as it transpired, the locals made a notable showing. Aspiring to display the positives of ‘his’ colony, Lieutenant-Governor Sir William Denison was the driving force behind this participation, with Joseph Milligan his chief aide and members of the local Royal Society notably assisting. The range and types of exhibits were remarkable and fascinating. Contributions came from various local quarters, one of interest being an ex-convict with whom Denison had some political liaison, whereas, conversely, Denison’s critics tended to abstain from involvement. Women played a role in contributing exhibition pieces, as did Aboriginal Tasmanians — Milligan no doubt crucial in orchestrating this. Denison was especially concerned to display Tasmanian timber, and other primary produce, but the thrust of the Exhibition was to celebrate human skills, and the contributions of manufactured goods and superior hand-crafted items conformed to that pattern. The world saw exhibits bespeaking an active, achieving society, and although the Vandiemonian contribution won modest notice in the British press, locals gained a share of the many awards granted to exhibitors. Not that the whole story was triumphant — some jealousies resulted and its difficulties and tensions also told of time and place. Key Words: Van Diemen’s Land, Great Exhibition 1851, Sir William Denison, Vandiemonian, Tasmaniana. INTRODUCTION On 12 April 1850 Britain’s Secretary of State for the Colonies, Earl Grey, signed a despatch to Lieutenant-Governor Sir William Denison that enclosed a prospectus of the Great Exhibition to be held in London a year hence, under the active patronage of Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort and supervised by distinguished Commissioners (TA GO 1/1/77, Inward Dispatch, 12 April 1850). Grey told Denison his hope was that Britain’s colonies would have their part in this undertaking but remarked that the vast distance between Van Diemen’s Land and the London metropolis might force an exception in this instance. The cited deadline for submissions was 1 March 1851. Instead, Denison, evera man of determined and self-righteous action, seized the chance to tell the world of his domain’s resource, and, as it transpired, he largely succeeded in conquering the tyranny of distance. As an engineer by training, and of a family active in Britain’s industrial boom, Denison fitted the Exhibition task. Among his pertinent activities since taking office in 1847 was to energise the Royal Society of Van Diemen’s Land, achieving its fusion with the older “Tasmanian Society’, and appointing Joseph Milligan as salaried Secretary (conjoint with his Superintendence of the Aboriginal station at Oyster Cover). Milligan and the Society were to be the Governor's instruments in the Exhibition project. Denison had anticipated Grey’s approach, prompting Royal Society discussion on 4 and 18 July 1850 of a possible Tasmanian display at the Exhibition (RST Council Meeting Minutes 4 & 18 July 1850, RSA/A2). Grey’s despatch arrived in early August, and on the 15th Denison reported its content at a further Society meeting. “His Excellency mentioned oils of the Black and Sperm Whales, or the finest samples of wheat — of wool, of furs, of timber useful and ornamental; of our coals and also of such manufactures as we possess.’ (ibid.). There was now appointed a ‘general’ committee to oversee the task, but immediate action lay with a sub- committee comprising Denison, Milligan, Robert Officer, W.S. Sharland and Hugh Hull. Within days it met and prepared a statement as to the materials that might be offered. The statement was endorsed by the ‘general’ committee on the 24th, which now further determined to ask approval from the Legislative Council for expenditure up to £250, and to ask Charles McLachlan, an important figure in local business and politics at the time, to be its London agent. Both moves won acquiescence. Invitations then went to some fifty individuals inviting them to join further committees that would vet submissions, and such committees were duly formed (Hobart Town Gazette 3 September 1850, p. 702). Another initiative was to establish an action group in Launceston, with Joseph Milligan’s brother Alexander appointed the leader. An interesting member was R.C. Gunn, erstwhile authority of the Tasmanian Society and important in its merger with the Royal Society of Van Diemen’s Land. Gunn now managed properties of the late Robert Lawrence, whose daughter and widow had both married into the Milligan family. Also serving on the northern committee were Presbyterian leader R.K. Ewing, Anglican counterpart R.R. Davies, naturalist-surgeon James Grant, and Charles and Andrew Henty. All were Royal Society members (Launceston Examiner 2 July 1850, p. 4). 22 Michael Roe A despatch from Denison to Grey dated 26 August acknowledged the latter’s April communiqué and told of pertinent events, back to July (TA CO 280/62). It affirmed that the colony would meet its quota of available space (1200 super feet, half for corridors and half for items), but accepted possible difficulty in meeting the 1 March deadline. Could Grey seek lenience for this distant place? The Hobart Town Gazette of 3 September published this ‘statement’ from the Society, calling for submissions, stressing how brief was the time in which to act, and setting a context: The committee desire to impress upon the Landowners, Merchants, Tradesmen, and Inhabitants generally of this Island, that it is of last importance than no inferior or second-rate sample of our staple products, such as wheat and wool, should be exhibited where they will stand in juxtaposition and have to bear comparison with the finest commodities of a similar description from the most favoured regions of the world: and that it is quite as essential, in order to secure a just appreciation of the importance and value of our ornamental timbers and other raw material the produce of the Island, that the best crafismanship which the Colony is possessed of should be bestowed upon them,—bearing in mind that here also comparison must be sustained with the finest materials, and the highest efforts of the best workmen of the world at the present time. Confident that Tasmanian wheat, wool, and timbers, whether for ship-building or ornamental purposes, need not shrink in comparison for a prize in the eyes of the civilised world, and solicitous that no advantage which the Colony possesses should from apathy or inadvertence be thrown away, the Committee repeats that they are most anxious to have it in their power to forward for exposition the finest samples which the Island affords; and they earnestly therefore, entreat persons possessed of first-rate qualities to forward samples without delay, Great Britain, confident in the vast and varied resources of an empire on which the sun never sets, and in the possession of machinery, engineering shill and artisanship all but omnipotent, has challenged the world to competition. Let us not think that we bring a feeble and inefficient contingent to the aid of our mighty Fatherland. We have corn, wool, and oil, for mans necessities and his comfort — we have coal and iron to give him power and command —we have timber (not to be surpassed in the world) for ship-building and for ornamental purposes; at once elements of national strength, and a guarantee for advancement in commerce, civilisation, and refinement. (Hobart Town Gazette 3 September 1850, p. 701) These Churchillian words probably came from Denison’s hand, with the committees assisting. Denison authorised that the government printer issue 500 copies of this statement for general distribution (TA CSO 24/1/173/5010). Joseph Milligan and the committees now set to garnering exhibits. Presumably government officers joined the task but there is little information as to how the process proceeded. What inducements were held out to prospective exhibitors? How stringent were the committees in vetting items? While no answers can be given, a little more is known of the northern committee than the southern ones, as it reported to the Royal Society in Hobart in mid-September of ‘doing all in their power [but] they were not sanguine that they will be able to affect a great deal’ (RST Council Meeting Minutes 18 September 1850, RSA/A2). Yet this committee did advertise in the press, as it seems no southern group did. One important decision of the committee-in-chief was to send exhibits by the Derwent, at £5 per ton (excepting £3 for ‘long timber). Papers received from the Colonial Office in mid- November might have added to the committees’ burden. The London elite spelled out exhibitors’ responsibility for packaging their wares and post-Exhibition disposal. As against this, Customs duties would not be exacted. Bronze medal prizes would be awarded, with honourable mentions following. Multiple juries would determine award winners, and all this was outlined in the Hobart Town Gazette (26 November 1850, pp. 1023-1026). Local politics Local politics had some bearing on future developments. In the background lay the passage in Britain (August 1850) of the Australian Colonies Government Act; this was to come into force a year hence and thereby the local Legislative Council would expand, with a majority of elected members (Townsley 1977). Vandiemonian support for such reform came largely from elites, anxious to secure further power over their domain; backing came also from the press, especially the Hobart Town Courier. Overall, these forces sought the end of convict transportation to Tasmania, so Denison and Earl Grey, who strongly supported transportation, became the targets of their attack. The Grey—Denison sponsorship of the Exhibition perhaps tainted it among these opponents of the Governor and deterred them from participating. While that claim must be hesitant, there can be no doubt that Denison saw the Exhibition as offering scope to display what his governance had achieved. The story has a further side. While one must hesitate in proposing that colonial elites resiled from supporting the Exhibition, a corollary has more force: the roll of local exhibiters clinches that the project won favour from a ‘rising middle class’ such as has been the dynamic of change in many a society. In turn, Van Diemen’s Land’s history ensured that ex-convicts were prominent among mobile types. This makes all the more interesting (whether as cause, effect, or mere coincidence) a current surge of politics from that quarter: early in October 1850 was founded the “Tasmanian Union’, strong in support of Denison and still stronger in antipathy to anti-transportationists, seen as determined to impose monstrous stigma on all ex-convicts (Roe 2016). Feeling was mutual: ‘they return, like dogs to their vomit, and seek to play off Sir William Denison as the friend of the prisoner, said Zhe Courier of Union leadership (Zhe Courier 9 November 1850, p. 2). Meanwhile, Milligan and the committees persevered. Proposed exhibits were gathered in Hobart and some final vetting then applied. The Advertiser, alone among established journals in supporting Denison, noticed in mid-November that items were now on display and for three days before exhibits went aboard the Derwent, they stood in the ballroom of Government House. Everyone — but especially ‘operatives’ — were invited to see them; — responders approached 2000 (The Britannia And Trades Advocate 21 November 1850, p. 2; The Cornwall Chronicle 28 November 1850, p. 847). A Denison despatch joined the cargo, repeating earlier doubts as to meeting the 1 March deadline, and again seeking Grey’s support for lenience ‘in favour of a Colony at so great a distance, the Inhabitants of which have exerted themselves so strenuously’ (Denison & Denison 2004, p. 139, p. 148). Denison remarked that the exhibits included several from government institutions, convict stations and the Orphan School, and asked that should any money arise from post-Exhibition sale of the school’s offerings, that it goes to the children. The colony’s splendid timbers, continued Denison, well might come before Admiralty’s notice. Also, aboard Derwent was an overview of the exhibits and their proposed arrangement, provided by Milligan as the author. Meanwhile, Lady Denison told her mother that ‘we really muster a very respectable assortment’ of items, and likewise invoked the Exhibition as she wrote to a British friend in March 1851, encouraging the recipient to pressure her influential husband to boost Tasmanian timber. Derwent sailed in mid-December 1850 and arrived in London on 31 March 1851, stretching the deadline by a mere 30 days. McLachlan helped in getting exhibits to display, but evidently more active was Edward Barnard, the ‘Colonial Agent —a shadowy but important office. Onerous enough, the couple’s task was minuscule compared to the overall preparations needed for the Exhibition’s debut in Hyde Park’s Crystal Palace on 1 May. The official Catalogue (Catalogue 1851) became ready just a day before and its big volumes pulsed with descriptive detail, further supported by a decorative poster advertised in the I//ustrated London News on 24 May (pl. 1). Robert Ellis (British Museum Librarian and editor-in-chief) noted apropos Tasmania *,..some interesting and attractive articles of furniture, ... a few specimens of textile manufacture, ... a remarkable number of specimens of fur, ... woods applicable for every purpose of art or use’ (Routledge 1851, p. 992). ‘Huron’ [sic] pine received special praise, that solecism often repeated; “Tasmania and “Van Diemen’s Land’ were used randomly (as in this paper). While Van Diemen’s Land’s independence was perhaps overly stated as a country among Britain's possessions in Australasia, its extensive contribution of objects was correctly noted (pl. 2). A full list of local exhibits is contained in the Catalogue, with many columns detailing their use or collection, drawing from Milligan’s personal account (Catalogue 1851, Vol. 2, pp. 992-1000). They must be read with care as obviously Milligan presented the items in the best possible light. Some exhibitors remain mysterious; such entries as those for Denison, the Milligans, Van Diemen’s Land and the Great Exhibition of 1851 23 McLachlan and more modest others indicate the channel of collection rather than the creator of the item. The Catalogue included at least one entry — having Denison’s particular esteem — that never made the Exhibition. This was a mighty Blue Gum Eucalyptus globulus plank cut at Long Bay in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel and hailing from the Huon yard of eminent shipwright John Watson (pl. 3). Its size proved overwhelming. The enormous plank at its original size (length 146 ft, breadth 20 in., depth 6 in.) was too much for the Derwent and had to be transported by another vessel (Zhe Courier 15 January 1851, p. 2; Outward despatch, 23 January 1851, TA CO 280/73. The Australasia which left Hobart in late January 1851 carried a document revising the entry lists originally sent by the Derwent; this account presumably told of the plank’s trouble, but it arrived too late to be corrected in the Catalogue. The plank was last reported at Manchester, on the way hailed by the London Times as ‘supposed to be the longest ... in the world’ (Zhe Courier 17 November 1852, p. 2). Presumably, items damaged in transit which included some honey, hops and wheat/flour, also made the Catalogue but not the ‘Palace’. CATALOGUE OF EXHIBITORS AND EXHIBITS Withal, the Catalogue offers an insight into the fascinating and rich diversity of Tasmaniana (https://catalog.hathitrust. org/Record/001511518, 177-182), presented here under exhibitors’ names with its associated detail: “ABBOTT, John: ‘iron-sand, a fine emery-like substance which occurs in thin layers on the sea-shores of Long Bay in D’Entrecasteaux Channel’. ADCOCK, Mrs. Mary, Hobart: two canisters of preserved meat. AKERS, C.S. (Royal Engineers) Lieutenant C.S.: N[orfolk] I[sland] pine. ANDERSON (? possibly ARMSTRONG), Hobart: set of ladies’ tortoiseshell combs. BARNARD, James, Hobart: swansdown skins. BICHENO, J.E.: alum, found near Bridgewater; limestone from the Western Marshes ‘at a place noted for extensive caverns, and from Mount ‘Wellington foothills. BLACKBURN, J., and THOMSON, J.: model of Bridgewater bridge, ‘constructed of Huon pine ... on the scale of an inch to a foot ... erected by the exhibitors from their own design ... constructed by W. Armstrong, under the direction of W.P. Kay ... the length of the bridge is 960 flee]t., the breadth of the roadway is 24 ft., and it is raised upon piles, the number of which is 363; the piles measure from 65 to 90 ft. each in length, and are driven through mud and soft clay ... The whole length of the bridge and causeway is 3,3312 ft. The work was begun in 1833 by Colonel, now the Right Hon Sir George Arthur, and completed in 1849 under the Government of his Excellency Sir W.T. Denison, at an entire cost of upwards of £50,000. The navigation 24 Michael Roe ’ a Lk EXGRAVED BY J. WILLIAMSOX, THE MEULDING DAAWR BY J, 1. WILLIAME; THE BORDER RY ¢ THOMAS, FROM APRAICK BY WILLIAM SANYEY, TEE WE GIVEN WITH THE “ILLUSTRATED LONDON NEWS,” MAY 26, 86H. . PLATE 1 — The beautifully illustrated London Great Exhibition poster, which appeared in the Illustrated London News in May 1851. (Special & Rare Collections, Morris Miller Library, UTAS) Van Diemen’s Land and the Great Exhibition of 1851 25 We Vv. BRITISH POSSESSIGAS {N AUSTRALASIA. SIDS EASTERN ARCHIPELAGO.—AUSTRALIA. VAN DIEMEN’S LAND.—NEW ZEALAND. THe countries represented under this head, and above enumerated, have sent interesting collections of native produce of ditterent kinds, Of these, the collection from Van Diemen’s Land is the most extensive, com- prising objects sent by a considerable number of exhibitors, In each instance, however, the attempt lad been made to send for exhibition such articles as represented best the peculiar products of the country exhibiting. Many of the objects are of great importance tu the merchant secking a new source for known materials.—R. E. PLATE 2 — Repute of Van Diemen’s Land in the British Colonies (Catalogue 1851, Vol 2, p. 988). Wartsox, Joun, Hobart Torn, 346 Plank of blue gum (Fucalyplus globulus) 5 length, 146 ft., breadth, 20 in., depth, 6 in. [The various species of Eucalyptus attain generally a yreat size both in girth and length in sheltered situations, where the forest is thick, where there is no grass, and where injury las never or very rarely been sustained froin bush-fires. Blue gum has been measured upwards of 90 feet round near Tolosa, on the northern aspect of Mount Wellington range, and on the southern side, according. to the Rey. T. J. Ewing, one of the species has been measured 102 ft. at 3 or 4 ft. from the ground. Another Eucalyptus, called stringy bark, exists near the Cam River, on the north coast, measuring 64 ft. of solid timber at -£ ft. from the ground; the tree, having some- what the form of a four-sided colunmin with its angles bevelled, is 200 ft. to the first limb, where it is estimated to be more than 4 ft. in diameter, giving the enormous cubie measurement in the trunk alone of more than 1,000 tons of timber. ] PLATE 3 —- Information about the ‘big plank’ as recorded in the exhibition catalogue. The plank was not subsequently displayed at the exhibition due to difficulties in transport (Catalogue 1851, Vol 2, p. 999). 26 Michael Roe of the river has been secured by the construction of a moveable platform, or rolling bridge ... The longitudinal beams upon which rests the platform or roadway of the moveable or rolling portion of the bridge, are shod with iron, and travel upon large flanged wheels, fixed upon a pier intended for the purpose, and the mode of moving this rolling part is by powerful crab-winches, working on toothed rails fixed on the framing of the bridge, worked by men standing on the moving part and moving with it. The lateral platforms are also moved in and out by crab winches fixed on the framing below.’ -[Thomson also exhibited a ‘coloured, sectional elevation’ of the mighty work.] BONNEY, Joseph, Perth; Tasmanian birds, in case; manna, ‘an exudation from the white gum-tree ... its properties are similar too, but less powerful than those of the manna of the druggist’. BOYD, James: Marble from Maria Island cut and dressed as paperweights. - BROCK, Henry, Hobart: ‘common seamen’s biscuits’; ship biscuits. BROWN, John, Launceston; blackwood sideboard; top of star loo table in Huon pine and blackwood; lady's table of muskwood. BROWN, Fielding, Hobart: candlestick in NI ironwood, the tops from root of NI pine. BROWN & COMPANY, Hobart: white wheat, casks in Huon pine and blackwood, with wattle hoops; oil of black whale, sperm whale, and black fish. BROWNRIGG, Francis, Reverend: muskwood. BURGESS, Mrs. Emma, Hobart: ‘worsted work, representing a branch from a blue gum tree in flower, with four birds of Tasmania perched on the twigs. The birds are a redbreast, a small honey-sucker, a pardalote, and the blue-headed wren. The frames of this and the next are of the timber of the myrtle-tree of Van Diemen’s Land, made by Mr. Pearson [Pierson], of Hobart Town; ‘worsted work, representing a group of indigenous flowers of Tasmania. In the centre is a waratah; immediately over it is a head of the grass-tree of Mount Wellington, in flower, then in order come Acacia vercillata, Billiardiera longiflora, Acacaia armata (an exotic), Richea Sp., Acacia mollissima, Acacia verniciflua, Casuarina quadrivalvis, Pomaderris, Boronia variabilis, Tetratheca sp.. Solanum laciniatum BUTTON, Thomas, Launceston: dressed kangaroo skin; parchment. BUTTON, William, Launceston: samples of glue; solution of mimosa bark (noted for its tanning efficacy); dressed kangaroo skin. 5 CHAMPION, William, Hobart: ‘round turnover table [of muskwood] with brass work and springs of Tasmanian manufacture.’ [See also Hamilton and Moses, below.] CLAYTON, Henry, Norfolk Plains: flour, cask in wattle. CLEBURNE, Richard., Hobart: soap. COX, Francis: Tasmanian insects, in case. DAVIES, Archdeacon R:R.: rug of black opossum skins; ditto, brush-kangaroo. DEANE, DRAY, & DEANE: wheat. [This was a London firm specialising in agricultural machinery, seemingly agents for McPherson & Francis (see below).] DENISON: Blue gum log; stringy bark; blackwood; sassafras; myrtle; tobacco leaf (NI]); arrow-root (NI); maize (NI); cayenne pepper (NI); wheats — Farmer's friend, white velvet; James's Essex; golden drop, white Kent, mother of plenty, velvet, white Lammas (all ND); Chidham wheat; muskwood; myrtle; cedar or pencil pine; celery-topped pine; dripstone (NI); rosewood; roll of tweed (‘manufactured by the inhabitants of Cascades’ establishment’); loo-top table, dogwood; ‘pedestals for the same’; sofa-table top, chess board inlaid; rug of various furs — brush kangaroo/wallaby; forest kangaroo; black opossum; native cat (eastern quoll); tiger-cat (spotted-tail quoll); six tanned platypus skins; section of honey suckle tree; ditto, she-oak; NI maple; blue gum sections; limestone (Maria Island); calcareous grit (NI); blood juice, derived from a tree (NI); walking stick made from whale bone; coffee (NI); potash from blackwood, wattle, oak, peppermint; blue gum; red ochre from jasperous iron ore; yellow ochre; marl; white oak; pine; iron-wood (NI). DE LITTLE, Robert, Launceston: galena from the Tamar; iron ore from York River. DIXON, James, Isis: flax (‘this exhibitor ... is endeavouring to establish the cultivation of the flax in Tasmania’); box of dried apples (‘generally, more fruits are dried in the northern than the southern side of Van Diemen’s Land’). DOUGLAS RIVER COAL COMPANY: two bushels of coal. . DOWLING, Henry: Tasmanian Calendar (Woods ... Kalendar], 1848, °49, and ’50. DUNN, Hobart: Mylitta Australis, native bread from the Snug Estate, North West Bay. “The native bread of Tasmania, which grows underground, like the truffle of England, and, like it, has a peculiar smell. It is edible. Having formed in a half-roasted state, portion of the diet of aborigines, and has been successfully tried in soup and in puddings. This specimen is unusually large, having weighed 14% lbs in 1846, at present it weighs 10% lbs’. FENTON, Mrs. Elizabeth: honey. FLEGG, Charles, Hobart: Wellington boots of kangaroo skin. FOWLER, W., Maria Island: dogwood; muskwood; [s]he-oak; ironwood. FRASER, Andrew, Hobart: pair of carriage wheels, made of blackwood and blue gum. FREEMAN, Edward, Reverend, Brown’s River: veneers of Tasmanian oak, [s]he-oak, cherry tree, and honeysuckle tree; myrtle tree knot. GRANT, James, Fingal (of Tullochgorum): three ram fleeces, weighing up to 4 lbs. GUNN, William, Launceston: mutton-bird feathers (‘much used for pillows, bolsters, and mattresses’); with Alexander MILLIGAN: mutton-bird oil (‘said to possess value as a liniment in rheumatism, and it burns with a clear bright light. The sooty petrel frequents certain low sandy islands in Bass’s Straits in vast numbers during the summer, burrowing to lay its solitary egg, and literally undermining the ground.’) HADDON, Captain W.C., Royal Engineers: muskwood. HAMILTON, William, Hobart: ‘hall chair of blackwood with a raised shield cut on the back, kangaroo and emu _. for supporters, surmounted by a rose, with thistle on one side and shamrock on the other;’ ‘small round table of Huon pine with chess-board in the centre.’ [Almost ‘ certainly the maker of item under ‘Champion’ above, see Watson 1993, Lake 2009.] HART, Charles(?), Hobart: glue; neats’ feet oil; oil from sheep trotters. HAYNES, John, Hobart confectioner: various pickles — red cabbage, walnut, cauliflower, onions, ‘mixed’, tomato sauce. HOOD, R.V., Hobart: silver wattle; muskwood; blackwood; Huon pine; myrtle; ‘huron [sic] pine picture frame, with gilt moulding; the gold leaf made by Mr. Hood;’ myrtlewood picture frame; ‘gold leaf, manufactured from Californian gold; gold-beaters’ skin.’ [See also, Royal Society, below.] HULL, Hugh, Hobart: ‘Half section of the trunk of the Tolosa tree (Pittiiscorum bicolar). This is the wood of which the aborigines made their waddies or clubs.’ [See also J. Milligan, below.] INCE, W.H., London: ‘A list of Australian birds, belonging to the late John Matthew Robert Ince, Esq., commander of H.M.S. “Pilot,” and collected during the surveying service of H.M.S. “Fly”. [There followed a 43-strong listing. “These specimens illustrate the ornithology of Van Diemen’s Land as well as that of the Great Main of New Holland, said the Catalogue, and expert advice (D. Abbott, pers. comm.) suggests that but few items were of Tasmanian provenance. Ince died soon after his Tasmanian sojourn, his father evidently instigating the exhibit]. JENNINGS, T.D., Hobart: Huon pine churn. KEMP, George: cornelian, from the shore ‘opposite Hobart’. KERMODE, R.Q., Mona Vale: fine wool. LIPSCOMBE, Frederick, Hobart: white Lammas wheat; dressed flax; ham (‘cured by Mr. Marshall’); Huon pine table. LOWES, T:Y., Hobart: Mylitta Australis [native bread], obtained at Glenorchy seventeen years ago; shark oil. LUMSDEN, Andrew, Hobart: loo table-top, Huon pine, and pedestal. McLACHLAN, Charles: specimen of ‘silicised’ [silicified] wood. “This magnificent tree was discovered on the estate of Richard Barker, Esq. of Macquarie Plains; ... it was 12 ft. high, and imbedded in lava, and distinctly surrounded by two flows of scoria, which at some distant day had brought out the juices of the tree to its surface, and because by a combination of silex [silica], completely vitrified, and surrounded the tree with a glossy surface, the interior of the tree producing opal wood. On a minute examination of the wood by Dr. [Joseph Dalton] Hooker, when here in the “Erebus,” it has been discovered to be a species of tree not growing in the neighbourhood, and appears to be of Van Diemen’ Land and the Great Exhibition of 1851 27 the pine or coniferous species. It is conjectured it was originally thrown up by an eruption of a volcano to a considerable height and came down with its heavy end first upon a bed of sand and had there remained for ages. In describing the tree he says: — “The manner in which the outer layers of wood, when exposed by the removal of the bark, separate into the ultimate fibres of which it is composed, forming an amianthus-like mass on the ventricle of the stump in one place, and covering the ground with a white powder commonly called native pounce, is very curious.” It is 10 ft. high, and when first discovered 3 ft. 6 ins. diameter, and has been excavated at very considerable expense and labour and was in a perfectly perpendicular position on the point of a ridge of rocks.” McKENZIE, Mrs. Flora, Bothwell: knitted gloves and lady’s cape of opossum fur. McNAUGHTAN, Alexander, Hobart: velvet wheat, white wheat; ‘superfine flour’; muskwood; writing desk and dressing case, both made of muskwood, inlaid with blackwood, she-oak, and myrtle. McPHERSON & FRANCIS, Hobart: wheat sample, ‘weighing 65% lbs. per imperial bushel’. [John McPherson and James Francis ran a provedore business; Francis seems the likely grower.] MARRIOTT, Archdeacon E.A.: muskwood picture frame; walking-stick of Tasmania oak. MARSHALL, George, Pittwater: wheat and oats. MARSHALL, Hobart: whip and whip-thongs. MILLIGAN, Alexander: ‘biscuit, manufactured of Tasmanian flour.’ [See also ‘Gunn’, above.] MILLIGAN, Joseph: Sassafras bark (‘used medicinally as a bitter and a stomachic’); hones for edged tools; resin of the grass-tree (‘highly inflammable, yielding, on combustion, a clear white flame and rich fragrant odour, ... said to be used in churches in place of frankincense; it dyes calico a nankin colour, and may become the basis of a varnish ... very abundant in Flinders Island and neighbouring islands’); cross section of trunk of ironwood Lignum vitae (‘the density and hardness of this wood is such as to have led to its application in making sheaves for ships’ blocks’); carpenter’s bench-screw; three pairs of shoe-lasts; ‘necklaces of shells, as worn by the aborigines of Tasmania (The shell composing these necklaces seems to be closely related to the Phasianella. It is very abundant in the various bays and sinuosities of the island. It possesses a nacreous brilliant lustre, which is disclosed by removal of the cuticle, and this the aborigines’ effect by soaking in vinegar, and using friction. Various tints, black, blue, and green, are afterwards given by boiling with tea, charcoal, &c.)’; all three volumes of the Zasmanian Journal |of Natural History]; snuff box, ironwood; ditto, muskwood; ditto, Huon pine; ditto (‘globular’), from tooth of a sperm whale; ladies’ thread-holder, turned; ladies’ puff-box, turned; goblet, turned; ‘section of Richea pandanifolia, obtained Macquarie Harbour ... sliced, bevelled, and French-polished, to show the pith, medullary, rays and beautiful markings ... grows like a palm and attains 28 Michael Roe the height of thirty to forty feet;’, Macquarie Harbour pinkwood (‘attains an elevation of from 100 to 150 feet, ... chiefly on the western side of the island... fine-grained and very hard, ... used for making sheaves’ for ships’ blocks’); Huon pine butter-churn; ‘seven baskets made by the aborigines of Tasmania; four models of Aboriginal canoes made of the bark of Melalueca squarrosa which the natives used to cross to Brune Island,’ ‘model of a water-pitcher, made by the aborigines ... of the broad- leaved kelp, and is large enough to hold a quart or two of water. The only other vessel possessed by the aborigines for carrying a supply of water was a sea-shell, a large cymba, occasionally cast upon the northern shore of Van Diemen’s Land, which contained about a quart’. With Hugh HULL: kino from various eucalypts, ‘said to be equal, as a medicinal agent, to the kino from the East Indies.’ MOSES, Samuel, Hobart: ‘jaw of a sperm whale, with forty-eight teeth; whalebone, ‘an important export.’ MOSES, CHAMPION & Co: eight sperm whale teeth. MURRAY, William, Hobart: box of starch (‘there are now several starch manufactories in Hobart Town.’); box of Huon pine; mould candles. OAKDEN, Philip, Launceston: two Leicester fleeces (‘the produce of sheep imported from the best flocks in England in 1837, is exhibited to show the improvement in the softness and silky appearance of the fleece, which is attributed to the climate.) PATTERSON, Hobart: malt, cask in wattle. PECK, George: cribbage boards, veneered and inlaid. PEARSON, Leonard, Hobart: pier table of polished blackwood. [See also Burgess, above.] ; QUEEN’S ORPHAN SCHOOLS: woollen gloves; woollen socks and stockings; knitted shawl. QUINN, M., Hobart: polished blue gum; maple veneer. REES (REEVES?): ‘wattle-bark, chopped, as it is prepared for the tan-pits’. REEVES, I.G., Hobart: various leather samples including skins of kangaroo and calf; leather racks in horse (‘cordovan’) hide; ‘skin-wool’. [See also Royal Society, below:] REGAN, John, Hobart: Nine dressed kangaroo skins, tanned with wattle bark. RICHARDSON BROTHERS & CO, London: two wool specimens. ROBINSON, Charles, Westbury: gun-stock of polished blackwood. ROLWEGAN, George, Hobart: ‘Book printed and published in Van Diemen’s Land, bound in colonial calf, gilt and letter with gold leaf manufactured in Hobart Town from Californian gold.” [This evidently was the first volume of the Royal Society’s Papers, further noticed below.] ROUT, William, Hobart: cheese; honey; linen; leather portmanteau; rope lines; four brushes. ‘Tanned skins with the hair on of the Thylacinus cynocephalus.’ “The thylacine is peculiar to Van Diemen’s Land, and as its ravages amongst the flocks of the settlers are as destructive as those of the wolf in other countries, it is hunted down with great perseverance, and will probably be the first of existing quadrupeds which will be extirpated.’ ‘Six tanned skins of the Ornithorhynchus paradoxus. The platypus of the colonists.’ ‘Combines with the hair and fur of a mammalian quadruped, the webbed feet and the beak of a duck, while the male has spurs on its legs like a cock. In its internal anatomy ... offers many resemblances to both birds and reptiles and forms the nearest link in the mammalian series to the oviparous classes;’ horsehair; honey; beeswax; ‘in no country, it is supposed do bees thrive better than in Van Diemen’s Land ... now become naturalized in the forests, and many of the hollow trees are filled with the produce’. (COUNCIL OF) ROYAL SOCIETY OF VAN DIEMEN’S LAND: Volume One of its Papers and Proceedings. ‘Printed by Messrs. Best, and bound by Mr. Rolwegan, Collins Street, Hobart Town. The lithographs by Mr. Thomas Brown[e], Macquarie Street ... Bound in colonial calf skin, tanned and dressed by Mr. Reeves. Gilt and lettered with gold leaf, manufactured from Californian gold, by Mr. Hood, Collins Street, Hobart Town.’ SCREEN, William, Hobart, ex-mariner publican: walking- stick, of whale bone, ‘with round head and cut to resemble a man-rope knot’. SHARLAND, Mrs. Frances, George Town: ‘pressed algae, collected by the exhibitor’. SHARLAND, W-S. [as agent of female kin?]: ‘carriage-rug made of skins of the black opossum, lined with skins of the native cat;’ ‘thread lace, made by a girl eleven years of age.’ SLY, James, Hobart: pair of dress boots, in kangaroo skin and bullock hide. SMITH, C.T:: hops; fine wool; cheese. SMITH, Philip, Ross: wool. SMITH, Naval Lieutenant: jams — raspberry and currant, green gooseberry, red gooseberry, quince; Epsom salts; wattle-tree gum from near Mount Dromedary (‘equal to the gum-arabic of the shops). STRACHAN, Richard, Bonnington: two boxes of salt. STRUTT, William, Hobart: Marble from Maria Island, partially dressed. SYMONDS, E., Hobart: corn, barley, willow rods, ‘fire- screen for chair back,’ of willow, locally grown, dressed and dyed; bottle basket; fishing basket; double-handed baskets; book basket; knife basket; child’s basket; key basket, open basket, long basket, straw (from NI) hat; sieve hoop of Huon pine. TIBBS, Charles: Hobart: crockery from Hobart’s Domain clay. TOOTH, Edwin, Bagdad: malt; lambs’ wool gloves. VALENTINE, William., Campbell Town: “Three pieces of Huron [sic] pine, bored in the solid piece, with stops &c. (Two of these are bored in solid pine and are found to yield a softer and more mellow tone than those made of wood not so hard in the grain. It is considered that the tube, being free from joints and glue, and made of very durable wood, when properly seasoned, will be little influenced by atmospheric changes. The small pipe has a stopper, which being removed, an octave above will be produced. The stopped pipe is regarded as a novelty; it gives a very soft note, well adapted for the treble half of the stop-dispance [diapason] of a chamber-organ. The third is exhibited to show how an open pipe of the usual construction may be tuned by means of a stopper, without injury to its use.)’. VON STIEGLITZ, Mrs. Anne, Break O’ Day: lady’s cape of possum fur. WALKER, Abraham, Norfolk Plains: plumbago (black — lead); ‘found ... in a shaft where lodes of lead and copper are expected to be realised’. WALKER, John, Hobart: pearl barley; fine flour; white wheat; casks by a Hobart cooper named Johnson. WARD, Charles, Hobart: ‘Bushman’s ankle-boots, of colonial material; shoe-blacking. WATCHORN, William, Hobart: tallow (‘The exhibitor claims to have been the first to export tallow to England from the colony;’ see below). WATSON, John, Hobart: plank of blue gum, 146 feet by twenty inches by six inches. “Ihe various species of Eucalyptus attain generally a great size in girth and length in sheltered situations ... Blue gum has been measured upwards of 90 feet round near Tolosa, on the northern aspects of Mount Wellington range, and on the southern side ... 102 ft. at 3 or 4 ft. from the ground. Another Eucalyptus, called stringy bark, exists near the Cam River, on the north coast, measuring 64 ft. of solid timber at 4 ft. from the ground; the tree, having somewhat the form of a four-sided column with its angles bevelled, is 200 ft. to the first limb, where it is estimated to be more than 4 ft. in diameter, giving the enormous cubic measurement in the trunk alone of more than 1,000 tons of timber.’) WHITESIDES, James, Hobart: polished blackwood; myrtlewood; muskwood (Lake 2009). WISEMAN, John, Hobart: whip, ‘thong of colonial leather, and the stick a young sassafras of Tasmania; ‘two ladies’ riding whips of whalebone, tipped with silver by Mr. [Charles] Jones; whip for stock-hunting; stock-hunter’s saddle; stock-hunter’s breastplate. NOTABLE ITEMS In the gaze of eternity, premier position must go to an item that scarcely met criteria for exhibition — the ‘silicised wood’ appearing under Charles McLachlan’s name (pl. 4). The renowned J.D. Hooker was in Hobart as a member of the Erebus Antarctic venture in 1841, and this wood came to be discussed between him and Charles Darwin (Darwin 1845). McLachlan might have gone to pains to secure it for the Exhibition but exactly when the item was removed to London is unclear. It transpired that ancient Vandiemonian timber won display, as did various specimens of the colony's latter- day timber. They received approval, notwithstanding the absence of John Watson’s mighty plank. Perhaps yet more attractive were the items of art/craft in wood. William Hamilton is famed as a maker of fine furniture and the Catalogue’s notice of his exhibited chair told of its splendid Van Diemen’s Land and the Great Exhibition of 1851 29 conflation of imperial and local symbols. This style was to be adopted as its (continuing) insignia by the first Hobart municipal council — as explained below, a pro- Denison group, upheld by the ex-convict interest and - its sympathisers. Hamilton was a free migrant, but that he allied with the municipal council’s backers is further hinted by another work of his being exhibited by its owner, William Champion — very much a Tasmanian Union man, ex-convict and publican. The liquor interest was strong behind the Union, Champion's pub notable too for being a centre of local trade unionism, a modest but interesting element in the social mix. Another free-migrant furniture-maker to exhibit was Andrew Lumsden. Britain’s ‘Antiques Road Show’ television program reported that the table he exhibited in 1851 went spurned for decades, but that after its television appearance on the program it returned to Australia and was valued at up to £150 000 (Tassell & Morris-Nunn 1984, pp. 109-110; Crouch 1994). A similar Lumsden table brought some £30 in early 1960s Hobart and and fetched a thousand times that in 2011 (author’s knowledge). One Launceston furniture-maker to exhibit was the talented John Brown, who in 1849 had proposed that his fellow-craftsmen should exhibit their wares in Britain. Of other exhibits in wood the most intriguing is William Valentine’s ‘Huron’ pine organ-work. Two ‘gentry’ ladies of local birth and Denisonian affinity presented items celebrating nature. The appeal of Emma Burgess’s tapestry was embellished by a frame from another skilled wood craftsman, Leonard Pearson. Emma was born in 1827, daughter of James Ross, once the teacher of George Arthur’s children and a commanding journalist of the colony’s earlier days; her husband, Murray, was the son of a senior bureaucrat and himself able in like service. Frances (Schaw) Sharland was the daughter of an old-Eton soldier turned Arthurian administrator, and wife of W.S. Sharland, Legislative Councillor allied to the Governor. Her algae won ‘unbounded admiration’ from British savants. The Sharlands’ daughter Julia (born 1837) was the likely eleven-year-old thread-lacer, and if so, then she was another native-born exhibitor. Anne von Stieglitz, Elisabeth Fenton and Flora McKenzie ranked among ‘gentry’, but were of overseas birth. The girls from the Orphan School who contributed their handicrafts added to the story of femininity (and presumably native birth). Other pertinent women were inmates of the Cascades ‘women’s prison’ whose tweed appeared under Denison’s name — the sole obvious convict contribution, although that was not spelt out. The preserved meats of Mrs Adcock, illiterate spouse of a Hobart ‘pork butcher’, might seem a mundane offering, yet a London journalist saw them as promising Australia’s capacity to boost the livelihood of British workers, and her produce won further praise (Zhe Courier 4 February 1852, p. 4). For posterity, much more important were items entered by Joseph Milligan, as Superintendent of the Aboriginal station at Oyster Cove. Aboriginal women surely had the greater part in making the baskets, shell necklaces and kelp water-pail (pl. 5), but like the 30 Michael Roe Orphanage girls and Cascades women (and the putative Sharland daughter too), they were all anonymous. Leatherware’s chief protagonist was I.G. Reeves, who claimed in May 1851 that the product had garnered £30 000 in exports through the past year. A free migrant, Reeves was ultra-active in pro-Denison politics; the speech exalting leather (and also citing the Exhibition as an ‘imperishable monument of the industrial arts’) belonged to that story. Reeves further appeared in the Catalogue for his calf-skin binding of the Royal Society Papers. After leaving the island he won election to Victoria’s Legislative Assembly. PRAISE FOR THE COLONY That Tasmania's effort achieved Denison’s purpose has been this paper’s theme, and various commentators spoke to appropriate effect. Prime among them was Secretary of State Earl Grey. Speaking in the House of Lords, on 9 May 1851, Grey said of the island, ‘considering its population it made a better show than any other colony that we possessed’ (House of Lords Historical Hansard 9 May 1851; Denison & Denison 2004, p. 161). Lady Denison remarked on being ‘mightily pleased at this, partly because I am very anxious for the honour and credit of this colony, but chiefly because I think it is in great measure due to William that we have succeeded so well’. Less partial opinion yet echoed Grey's approval. Overall, the Empire did not rally all that strongly to the Exhibition, succumbing to such difficulties as the Earl himself had seen likely to disbar Van Diemen’s Land (Hollingshead 1862, Auerbach & Hoffenberg 2008). Sheer bulk showed the island’s effort — thence came 80 ‘packages’ to London as against, for example, 12 from New South Wales, and 29 from South Australia. Occupation of space in the Crystal Palace echoed these statistics, and the story went beyond numbers. A Sydney Morning Herald correspondent from London told that ‘We must give our sister Tasmania the pas, whether as regards the number of her contributors or the ability and care with which the descriptive part has been McLactitay, —. 348 Specimens of silicized woud from Van Diemen's Land, (This magnificent tree was discovered on the estate of Richard Barker, E=q., of Macquarie Plains, Van: Diemen's Land, 32 miles from the City of Hobart Town, in the district of New Norfolk; it was 12 ft. hivh, and invbedded in lava, and distinctly surrounded by two flows of scoria, which at some distant day had brought out the juices of the tree to its surface, and became by a combination of silex, completely vitrified, and surrounded the tree with a glossy surface, the interior of the tree producing opal woud. On a minute examination of the wood by Dr. Hooker, when here in the “ Erebus,” it las been dix covered to be a species of tree not growing in the neighbourhood, and appears to be of the pine or coni- ferous species. It is conjectured it was orisinally thrown up by an eruption of a voleano to a considerable height, and came down with its heavy end first upona bed of sand, and hac there remained for ages, In deserihing the tree he says :—“ The manner in which the outer Tay ers of wo nd, when exposed by the removal of the bark, separate into the ultimate fibres of which it is composed, forming an amianthus-like mass on the ventricle of the stump in one place, and covering the ground with a white powder commonly called native pounce, is very curivus.” It is 10 tt. high, and when first discovered, 3 ft. 6 ins. diameter, and has been excavated at very considerable expense nnd labour, und was in a perfectly perpendicular position on the point of a ridge of rocks. ] PLATE 4 a The exhibits of silicised (petrified) wood attracted much attention; the magnificent specimens were Originally collected from Macquarie Plains near New Norfolk (Catalogue 1851, Vol 2, p. 999). executed.’ London’s Morning Herald made a like colonial comparison and judged that “Van Diemen’s Land has a much larger and more varied display and has already made considerable advances in native manufactures’. Another London voice declared that “Van Diemen’s Land sends by far the most complete and valuable collection from the Australian colonies, while The Illustrated London News affirmed that “Van Diemen’s Land makes a gay display of fancy woods and possum skins’. A further commentator praised the colony’s advance in ‘native manufactures’, somewhat surprised that ‘worsted work should be sent to the Exhibition from the antipodes’. Scientific luminaries applauded Milligan’s work as presenting ‘the most clearly arranged and the most explanatory of all the catalogues’, while a popular Guide to the Great Exhibition affirmed that the Vandiemonian display: ... is most satisfactorily abundant in its ocular evidences of civilization. Their cloths, preserved meats (beef-steak to wit! [Mrs Adcock’ second hit]), enamelled hides and excellent furniture, almost equalling our own for make and taste of execution, are triumphant proof of the progress of knowledge and industry over brute force and self-contented un-intellectuality. (Routledge & Co 1851, pp. 121-122) Appropriate to all this was John Tallis’s inclusion of a stunning map of Tasmania in the newly published //ustrated Atlas and Modern History of the World, celebrating the Exhibition (Tallis & Martin 1851, p. 59). Van Diemen’ Land and the Great Exhibition of 1851 31 ABORIGINAL CONCERNS At least one British voice was different, protesting the fate of the island’s ‘now extinct Aborigines’: In our forty years possession of that settlement we have utterly destroyed them, by as atrocious a series of oppressions as ever were perpetrated by the unscrupulous strong upon the defenceless feeble. Yer these poor people had tastes and industry too. Their bread appears to be worth reviving as a new truffle for soup by the gourmands of Hobart Town. The specimen of the root exhibited weighs 14lb. They obtained a brilliant shell necklace by soaking and rubbing off the cuticle, and gaining various tints by hot decoctions of herbs. They procured paint by burning iron ore and reducing it to powder by grindstones. They converted sea-shells and sea-weeds into convenient water-vessels; they wove baskets and they constructed boats with safe catamarans. All these things are exhibited. Surely, then, the men whom their greedy supplanters admit to have done this, and whom the least possible pains ever bestowed upon them proved to be capable of much more, ought not to have been hunted down, as we know they were, and then almost inveigled to be shut up in an island too small for even the few remaining. (The Courier 3 September 1851, p. 3, quoting from The Illustrated London News 24 May 1851) This remarkable piece appeared in The Illustrated London News, and duly in Hobart’s The Courier — without comment, a loud silence. PLATE 5 — Model canoe and kelp water-pitcher made by Tasmanian Aborigines and sent by J. Milligan to the Great Exhibition. Associated information provided with the images. A. Model canoe, or catamaran, made from Melaleuca squarossa [tea-tree] and Leptospermum [paper bark] bark. Made from bundles of bark, tied together with plant fibres. Both tips are broken with one tip detached. Height 26.40 cm, width 16.50 cm, depth: 78.20 cm. The model was exhibited at the 1851 Great Exhibition at the Crystal Palace, London: catalogue number 282. B. Water vessel made of Bull Kelp (Durvillaea potatorum) consisting of a single piece of dark brown coloured kelp. Sides are gathered together, and wooden sticks passed through the folds, preserving its shape. Handle is of twisted fibre, knotted together near the centre. British Museum Asset number 1613713295, image released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license. 32 Michael Roe MEDALS AND AWARDS The honours-awarding juries ignored such tragedy and awarded medals and certificates (Report of the Commissioners 1852). The Exhibition Medal was reported to be one of the most magnificent ever produced by the celebrated firm of Allen and Moore from Birmingham (Hobarton Guardian 22 October 1851, p. 3), (pl. 6). A consolidated list of locals appeared in The Courier (14 May 1853, p. 3), although some ambiguities remain (Royal Society of Tasmania 1854, pp. 490-492). Probably Tasmania's overall record was barely above average—yet that sufficed. Denison and Milligan both received ‘Prize Medals’ for their services, and further ones for their contribution: minerals and rocks specified in the former instance and ‘raw materials’ in the latter (doubtless referring primarily to timber, but ‘his’ Norfolk Island pepper also scored at this level). Further prize medallists were Boyd, Brownrigg, Douglas River Coal Company, Dowling, Fowler, Hadden, Hood, McNaughtan, McPherson & Francis, Alexander Milligan (as agent for W.B. Dean—see below) and Whitesides. Honourable Mentions went to Akers, Boyd, Brown & Company, W. Button, Denison (for Norfolk Island’s arrowroot and blood-juice), Dixon, Euston, Freeman, Grant, Hull (woods), Lipscombe (for both his own flax and Marshall’s ham exhibited by him), J. Milligan (for unspecified ‘produce’), Moses, Murray, Quinn, Rolwegan, Rout, Smith (the Naval man, for his gum), Tooth (for his malt) and J. Walker. Then came ‘Exhibitor’s Medals’ which were bestowed upon Adcock, Armstrong, Barnard, Bicheno, Brown, T. Button, Champion, Cleburne, Fraser, Dixon, Gunn, Hamilton, Hood, Hull, Kermode, Lowes, McKenzie, G. Marshall, Moses, Murray, Patterson, Pearson, Marriott, Peck, Reeves, Robinson, C.T. Smith, P. Smith, Strutt, W.S. Sharland, Symonds, Thomson, Tibbs, Valentine, A. Walker, J. Walker, Ward, Wiseman. Virtually all the rest got a certificate. One went even to non-exhibitor John Watson while the Bridgewater model was ignored. Further lessening confidence in the judges is their placing in the lowest category such people as Lumsden, Frances Sharland and George Rolwegan. ‘The jurors’ commentary rarely went beyond the obvious (major citations included minerals generally and Douglas River coal especially; wheat, flour and biscuit; flax and apples; pickles, sauces, resin and gums; Norfolk Island products including ‘blood juice’ as dye-stuff, honey; woods generally, walking sticks and snuff boxes). One near exception lay in praising Denison and others for a ‘very remarkable and interesting collection of the woods of Van Diemen’s Land’. Specifically praised was the blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon) — ‘the beauty of this fine wood is admirably shown in some of the articles of furniture, in which its dark hue is well contrasted with the equally beautiful light wood of the Huon pine’. The variety of materials used for snuff-boxes provoked comment, with a side-remark that whale-teeth were also used for ‘stick-heads and similar purposes’. Applause for Norfolk Island’s produce extended to its coffee, ‘a most desirable novelty’. It went thus for McPherson & Francis’s wheat and Dean's biscuit, the latter’s excellence contrasted with poor British stuff recently being supplied to naval ships and convict transports. (Before migrating, Dean had made biscuit at the Royal Arsenal, Deptford.) A further reference cited ‘good, dried apples grown in the colony’ obviously Dixon’s; pickles and sauces, obviously Haynes’s, also were commended. While gaining no award, Ince’s ornithology was cited as an exemplar of ‘cultivation of science by the officers of the British Navy’. Another verdict honoured nutriment of the mind (Report of the Commissioners 1852, p. 407, complemented at p. 426 (Rolwegan’s bookbinding) and p. 452). “The jury have examined, with real interest, several works printed in Van Diemen’s Land, at Hobart Town, several of them by Henry Dowling, such as the Tasmanian Journal [of Natural Science], went a soliloquy; ‘Print is a gift almost as necessary to man as speech, for the manifestation of his thoughts’. An almost-explicit message went that the distant colony had recognised such profundity, whereas overall like work made a poor showing at the Exhibition. In mistaking Dowling’s home-place, the jurors failed to recognise this major contribution from Launceston. Their compliment presumably embraced the Royal Society's first Papers, printed by Dowling and melding skills of ‘Daguerreotype and Lithographic Artist’ Thomas Browne, the similarly expert R.V. Hood, and bookbinder Rolwegan (its putative exhibitor), not to mention learned authors. All were heroes of Vandiemonian culture. AFTERMATH After its amazing success, the London Exhibition closed on 15 October 1851 and Tasmanian exhibits (like all others) had to be deployed. Queen Victoria accepted the Royal Society's Papers (see Examiner 31 March 1852; receipt of thanks from British Museum and Linnaean Society at Royal Society meetings, February and July 1852; Examiner 22 May 1852 (Geological Society), Examiner 31 March 1852 (proposed ‘National Museum’); Report of the Commissioners 1852, pp. 165-171 has material relating to a proposed “Trade Collection’, seemingly the founding idea behind the Sydenham project; an extensive list of promised items from Tasmania appears). Minerals went to the Geological Society of London, other items to the Linnaean Society, the British Museum, and the display that continued in the Crystal Palace when re-located (until 1936) to suburban Sydenham. Today the British Museum holds at least the ‘silicised wood’ and most of the Aboriginal artefacts. ‘To see those [objects] that were made by people during colonial times raises our spirits and warms our being, Patsy Cameron said of the latter when they toured Australia in 2014 (https://www. nma.gov.au/exhibitions/encounters). After the exhibition on their return, the shell necklaces were included in an ‘Indigenous Australia’ exhibition at the British Museum. Charles McLachlan probably was happy to deal with Prestigious disposals, but rank-and-file items proved burdensome (TA CSO 24/1/173/5010). Exhibitors had been asked in advance whether they wanted their goods to be sold or to name recipients in Britain. Sales were Van Diemen’s Land and the Great Exhibition of 1851 33 PLATE 6 — The Bronze Exhibitor Medal awarded to many exhibitors. Medal held at the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (size 44 mm diameter, Accession number 1469). (Image from https://shapingtasmania.tmag.tas.gov.au/object.aspx?ID=80) negligible, save that one table (almost certainly Lumsden’s) brought £5. Denison’s hopes for benefit to orphan children doubtless withered. McLachlan wrote in November that he had been sending off remittances ‘down to the pair of boots for “Elizabeth Brown at the Shoulder of Mutton, opposite St Andrew’s Church, Ipswich, England”’. All this had incurred some £100 debt. He had distributed copies of Milligan’s Catalogue data to various parties ‘interested in the welfare of the colony and concluded (in telling words) that Canada stood first in the list and Van Diemen’s Land second, in the productions from the British Colonies, but both had a political object in view, the former to induce Emigrants to go to that Colony, the latter to show what a Convict Colony can do ... I have now closed the (to me) very troublesome matter, in which there has been a great deal of work with but little thanks from any quarter. (McLachlan, TA CSO 24/1/173/5010) Thanks, however, did come fromi the Royal Society of, Tasmania, and expenses were met. Another sour note in McLachlan’s letter told that award of prizes had caused such ill-feeling as to make the Commissioners regret having so embarked. If the judges’ grading of Tasmaniana was indicative, critics had reason for complaint. As the Exhibition proceeded in London, it kept a place in Vandiemonian affairs. At a massive anti-transportation meeting in July 1851 John West deplored that at the Crystal Palace there ‘would be concentrated the productions of the labour of free men in [all] the quarters of the globe, except a few contributions from Van Diemen’s Land’ (The Courier 16 July 1851, pp. 1-3, 1 October 1851, p. 2 (‘rhetoric’); Tasmanian Colonist 20 November 1851, p. 1 (Watchorn)). Whereas Lady Denison enthused at Earl Grey’s applause for local effort, The Courier disparaged it: ‘to such paltry shifts of rhetoric are our rulers driven to find a defence of their policy’. The paper to give most regard to the Exhibition was a newcomer, the Hobarton Guardian, owned by John Davies as he became a hero among erstwhile convicts. October 1851 saw the anti-Denisonians victorious at the first polls for a part-elective Legislative Council. (An unsuccessful candidate was William Watchorn, whose tallow appeared at the Exhibition. A campaign lithograph presented Watchorn as ‘Old Greasy’. Ata campaign meeting Watchorn ‘asked if his name was to be vilified and abused for sending to the Great Exhibition the fat of the land’. Here he was interrupted by tremendous peals of laughter’). The new legislature soon heard criticism of the Royal Society for being ‘exclusive’, the Society’s link with Denison probably feeding this animus. Yet 1852 added to the Exhibition’s honour. Early February heard news of awards to locals of ‘prize medals’ (Zhe Courier 15 September 1852, p.3, and 17 November 1852, p. 2). Public lectures applauded the Exhibition as evidence of a ‘growing spirit of universal philanthropy and benevolence’ and ‘progress of civilization, refinement, and social happiness.’ In September the actual medals arrived, honoured at a Royal Society meeting for ‘beauty, ... elegance, ... high finish’. Local talk, perhaps well-founded, now declared W.B. Dean’s biscuit and McPherson & Francis’s wheat to have ranked superior above all Exhibition competitors. Political action went in step. September—October 1852 saw the organising of a massive petition that told the Colonial Office of support for Denison. Now, too, Victoria’s legislature passed an Act forbidding entry thither of conditionally pardoned ex-convicts (Petrow 2012). Hobart’s pro-Denisonians responded with furious and justified vehemence. One mighty protest saw the Governor and his lady attend, to massive cheers. “The arrangements ... were looked upon by our colonists much in the same light as the people of England viewed the Great Exhibition,’ one 34 Michael Roe organiser said, nicely linking that event with local politics (Hobarton Guardian 18 December 1852, pp. 2-3). The protest belonged to a campaign by pro-Denison, anti- transportation candidates for the first election of municipal councils in Hobart and Launceston. On 2 January this party triumphed in the capital. Although news might have percolated earlier, not until May 1853 did there come the remaining medals and certificates, together with (for every exhibitor) books of jurors’ reports (Report of the Commissioners 1852, The Courier 14 May 1853, pp. 2-3, Denison & Denison 2004, p- 213). The generally distributed item was a compacted First Report of the Commissioners 1852 published by Clowes and Sons, London. Presentation sets comprised a four- volume version of the Catalogue, four of Reports of the Juries, plus First Report of the Commissioners (The Courier 17 December 1853, p. 2). In September, Lady Denison wrote of yet further bounty: ‘a most beautiful illustrated catalogue and history of the great Exhibition, in eight or nine immense volumes splendidly bound ... we have had so much amusement in looking over these beautiful books before transferring them to the public library.’ (Denison & Denison 2004, p. 213). The items remain phenomenal — enormous, and luxuriant in gilt, plush, leather, and illustration. The series was displayed at a Royal Society meeting in December 1853, together with a case holding samples of the various award medals. Three of the giant books remain in the State Library of Tasmania and the medal case remains at TMAG. Against these positives there stood a story illustrating the tensions that Charles McLachlan had told to follow from prize awards. As already shown, the fine Exhibition biscuit made by Launceston baker-businessman W.B. Dean was submitted under the name of Alexander Milligan, Secretary of the northern committee. When prize medals arrived in September 1852 one was designated for Milligan. He might have thought he had earned it, but Dean demanded what indeed was /is award, threatening physical force and legal action. Milligan soon forwarded the medal, with apology. Dean continued angry and the issue revived in mid-1853 after the arrival of those further rewards. Milligan again kept what Dean saw as due to himself, and resiled only after more lawyer-talk. All this Milligan told to the Launceston Examiner, which had broached the issue in terms sympathetic to Dean (Launceston Examiner 28 June 1853, p.5, 2 July 1853, p. 672). The alliance between Denison and commoners lasted throughout his term. Its later stages saw the ‘Oddfellows’ Friendly Society become important in bonding such Hobart people as had earlier joined the Tasmanian Union and voted the winning municipal ticket. Current Oddfellows’ head was Charles Jones, ex-convict, skilled silversmith, publican and contributor — via Wiseman’s whips — to the Exhibition (O’Driscoll 1987). While already patron of the Oddfellows, Denison was inducted as a member just before leaving the island in January 1855 to become Governor of New South Wales and Governor-General of the Australian colonies, the Exhibition chapter perhaps helping to win him such promotion. Venue for the Oddfellows’ induction was Government House, with Jones officiating: so strange Van Diemen’s Land could be! Oddfellows dominated the continuing farewells to the Governor and surely gave much of a £2000 testimonial now presented to him. The money duly funded what Denison described as ‘a very magnificent silver centre-piece embodying in addition to the old stereotyped forms, groups characteristic of the employment of the people or of the nature of the productions of the country’ (meaning Tasmania). Whaler, shepherd, sawyer, splitter, ploughman, kangaroo, emu, platypus, ‘sassafras and other native shrubs’ — all were there. The motifs were chosen by Denison, their resonance with the Exhibition quite likely deliberate. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sincere appreciation is extended to Professor Stefan Petrow for critiquing the manuscript and to Ms Heather Excell and Ms Wendy Rimer, Special & Rare Collections UTAS, for provision of plate 1 and sourcing some references. The Royal Society of Tasmania records are held at Special & Rare Collections, Library and Cultural Collections, University of Tasmania. Tasmanian Archives (TA) records are held by Libraries Tasmania. REFERENCES Auerbach, J.A. & Hoffenberg, P.H. (eds) 2008: Britain, the Empire, and the World at the Great Exhibition of 1851. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot: 238 pp. Catalogue 1851: Official descriptive and illustrated catalogue of the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations, 1851. Four Volumes. Spicer Brothers, London: 3268 pp. (Available at: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32 044021206354 &view=lup&seq=7 &skin=2021) Crouch, C. 1994: James Lumsden, master cabinetmaker and the 1851 Great Exhibition. Australiana 16(3): 64-67. Darwin, C.R. 1845: Letter from Darwin, C.R. to Hooker, J.D. 7 January 1845. (Available at: hteps://www.darwinproject. ac.uk/letter/DCP-LET T-814.xml) Denison, W.T. & Denison, C. 2004: (Davis, R. & Petrow, S., eds) Varieties of Vice Regal Life (Van Diemens Land Section). Tasmanian Historical Research Association, Hobart: 298 pp. Hollingshead, J. 1862: A Concise History of the International Exhibition of 1851. Her Majesty's Commissioners, London: 184 pp. Lake, R. 2009: Tasmania furniture history sources. Australiana 31(4): 29-32. O’Driscoll, B.Y. 1987: Charles Jones, convict silversmith of Van Diemen’s Land. Australiana 9(1): 19-24. Petrow, S. 2012: Convict-phobia: Combating Vandiemonian convicts in 1850s and 1860s Victoria. Journal of Australian Colonial History 14: 260-71. Report of the Commissioners 1852: Reports by the Juries on the subjects in the thirty classes into which the exhibition was divided. Spicer Brothers, wholesale stationers; W. Clowes and Sons, contractors to the Royal Commission, Blackfriars, London: 1024 pp. (Available at: https://archive.org/details/ reportsbyjurieso00grea) Roe, M. 2016: The establishment of local self-government in Hobart and Launceston. Tasmanian Historical Research Association Papers 63: 24-50. Routledge, G. & Co. 1851: A Guide to the Great Exhibition. Soho Square, London: 231 pp. (Available at: https:// openlibrary.org/books/OL25462793M/A_Guide_to_the_ Great_Exhibition) Royal Society of Tasmania 1854: Proceedings of the monthly meetings of The Royal Society for January to December 1853. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Van Diemen’ Land and the Great Exhibition of 1851 35 2(3): pp. 479-524. (Available at: https://eprints.utas.edu. au/20034/1/proceedings-RST-1853.pdf) Tallis, J. & Martin, R. M. 1851: Tallis’ illustrated atlas and modern history of the world: geographical, political, commercial & statistical. J. Tallis 8 Co, London: 85 plates, 168 pp. (Available at: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-230862577) _ Tassell, C. & Morris-Nunn, M. 1984: Launceston’s Industrial Heritage. Australian Heritage Commission & Launceston Museum & Art Gallery, Launceston, 2 Vols: 506 pp. Townsley, W.A. 1977: The Struggle for Self Government in Tasmania, 2nd edition. Government Printer, Hobart: 173 pp. Watson, A. 1993: A champion table. Australiana 15(4): 98-101. (accepted 8 July 2021) Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society. of Tasmania, Volume 155(2), 2021 37 VEGETATION CHANGE IN AN URBAN GRASSY WOODLAND SINCE THE EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY by Ellen R. Sorensen and Jamie B. Kirkpatrick (with two text-figures, one table, eighteen plates and three appendices) Sorensen, E.R. & Kirkpatrick, J.B. 2021 (15:xii). Vegetation change in an urban grassy woodland since the early nineteenth century. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Iasmania 155(2): 37-54. ISSN 0080-4703. School of Geography, Planning, and Spatial Sciences, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 78, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia. (ES and JK*). *Author for correspondence. Email: j.kirkpatrick@utas.edu.au Our understanding of the history of vegetation change after the British invasion of Tasmania is limited. The Queens Domain in Hobart is an area of remnant grassy woodland that provides the opportunity to document such vegetation change and its causes using historical images and reports. Tree removal, stock grazing, and the consequent reduction in the incidence of fire appear to have resulted in a decline in tree cover after European settlement, reaching a nadir during 1861-1880. Paint- ings and photographs indicated a sharp increase in tree cover between 1921 and 1941, associated with the banning of stock grazing. This increase appears to have been encouraged, rather than hindered, by the increasing frequency of low-intensity fire resulting from a reduction in grazing pressure. Key Words: artwork, Queens Domain, grassy woodland, stock grazing, burning, Tasmania, vegetation reconstruction, disturbance regime. INTRODUCTION ‘The vegetation created through management by Indigenous peoples has been much modified since the British invasion of ‘Tasmania (Kirkpatrick 1994, Fletcher etal. 2020). Clearance of land for agriculture has been the major impact. Among the ecosystems most suited to agricultural pursuits have been the temperate grasslands and grassy woodlands, the remnants of which are among the most modified ecosystems in Australia (Kirkpatrick et al. 1995). The Queens Domain (the “Domain”) is a remnant of grassy woodland in inner-city Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Since the 1960s there has been a well-documented transition from Eucalyptus viminalis grassy woodland to E. viminalis- Allocasuarina verticillata woodland/forest or A. verticillata open/closed forest over much of the Domain (Kirkpatrick 1986, 2004, Kirkpatrick et al. 2007). The woody thickening documented for the Domain since the 1960s has also occurred on coastal sand dunes (Hayes & Kirkpatrick 2012, Guy & Kirkpatrick 2018), in coastal heath (Bargmann & Kirkpatrick 2015) and in grasslands and grassy woodlands elsewhere in Tasmania (Kirkpatrick er al. 2007, Romanin er al. 2016). The openness of woodland and forest vegetation in the mid-twentieth century has been postulated to be the result ofa combination of burning and heavy grazing, with the removal or reduction of either or both disturbances allowing woody thickening to occur (Kirkpatrick er al. 2007). Grazing following burning promotes lawn grassland (Leonard et al. 2010) and may eliminate or reduce woody regrowth (Roberts et al. 2011, Hazeldine & Kirkpatrick 2015). The vegetation changes on the Domain that occurred between European settlement in 1803 and the 1960s have not been systematically documented. In fact, there is a dearth of centuries-scale documentation of changes to the ecosystem post-colonisation in Australia, with a tendency to instead compare the present vegetation to a pre-European baseline (Lunt 2002). While these comparisons are useful for understanding changes to vegetation patterns, they can overlook the fact that present patterns are a result of past actions (Lunt 2002). Grasslands and grassy woodlands in Australia have been particularly subjected to changes to disturbance regimes post-colonisation due to the ease with which they could be used for agriculture. They are therefore well-represented within the literature on pre-invasion vegetation (e.g., Fensham 1989, Lunt 2002). Common sources for historical vegetation recon- struction include government records, maps, surveyors’ reports, management plans, aerial photographs and anecdotal communication. The accuracy of the vegetation reconstruction is dependent on the quality of the sources (Shea et al. 2014, Yang er al. 2014, Sevara et al. 2018, Beller et al, 2020). The Queens Domain has a wealth of written and photographic historical material from which to extract information about vegetation change, land use change, management regimes and ecological processes that have occurred over the past two centuries. This paper builds on the general historical observations of Terry (1999), Sheridan (2002) and Cahalan (2016) to establish the history of structural change in the vegetation of the Domain by comparing the historic vegetation with the current state, and an analysis of temporal changes in tree cover, based on artworks and photographs (app. 1). We relate these observed changes to variation in disturbance regimes deduced from printed information. The purpose of this work is to bridge the gap in knowledge of disturbance regimes and their impacts on native vegetation from the time of British invasion to the decade-scale analyses of vegetation change undertaken by Kirkpatrick (1986, 2004). 38 Ellen R. Sorensen and Jamie B. Kirkpatrick FIG. 1 — The Queens Domain, Hobart. 526487 E 5254165 N, GDA2020/MGAS5. (Source: LIST map) History The area has been known variously as the Government Domain, the Queens Domain and the Government Paddock (Cahalan 2016). The term “domain” refers to the grounds associated with the residence of the Governor (Terry 1999). The area was chosen as the location of Government House in 1811 by Governor Lachlan Macquarie (Terry 1999). However, the people of Hobart considered the area to be a “common” and responded angrily to the Government’s attempts to exclude them and to the “alienation” of the area for various industries, such as slaughter-yards and quarries (Cahalan 2016). Calls for the Domain to be made “inalienable” began as early as 1836 (The Hobart Town Courier 23 Sept. 1836, p. 4; app..2.1). The Domain would eventually be made inalienable through the Queen’ Domain and Launceston Swamp Bill 1858, the same year that the construction of Government House was finished (Terry 1999). However, parts of the Domain were still developed, and by the twentieth century the Domain would house several quarries, the shipyards, two cricket grounds, the Beaumaris Zoo, the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens, a railway and the University of Tasmania (Terry 1999). The Queens Domain Improvement Committee was formed in 1875. It consisted of members of the Royal Society of Tasmania with an interest in the management of the Domain, many of whom were influenced by the English park-like ideal of landscape design (Terry 1999). This committee was given legal power through the Queens Domain Committee Act 1889, reporting to the Minister for Lands and Works (The Mercury 25 Sept. 1889, p. 3; app. 2.2). In 1917, management of the Domain was transferred to the Hobart City Council, where it remains today (Inspiring Place 2013). METHODS Study area The Queens Domain is an urban park located in Hobart, Tasmania (42°52'07.74" § 147°19'49.31" E, fig. 1), with a maximum elevation of 90 m. The underlying geology is predominately Jurassic dolerite, on which dermosols form, with some Tertiary lacustrine sediments along the foreshore (Kirkpatrick 2004). The current area of the Domain is approximately 230 ha (Inspiring Place 2013). The boundary of the Domain has changed throughout the centuries (pl. 1) and once encompassed approximately 260 ha (Sheridan Vegetation change in an urban grassy woodland since the early nineteenth century PLATE 1 — Close up of the Queens Domain taken from Plan of Hobart and its vicinity — Battery Point & Domain Point are copied from Mr Scott’s survey the remainder by W. S. Sharland, 1827. Digitised image from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/AF394- 1-4. . 2002), with much of the loss resulting from clearance for roads and other uses. Some locations discussed in this paper therefore may no longer fall within the boundaries of the present Domain, which currently includes the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens, Government House, its grounds and the Cenotaph as well as the bush and sport grounds, but not the Brooker Highway or the University of Tasmania campus buildings. In this work, we have primarily investigated any parts of the Domain that at any time were’ covered with predominantly native vegetation. The Domain is bordered by the Derwent River to the east and ringed by the Brooker Highway which provides access to the city suburbs and greater Hobart area. The most dominant plant communities according to TASVEG 4.0 are Eucalyptus viminalis grassy forest and woodland (DVG), Allocasuarina verticillata forest (NAV), Eucalyptus pulchella forest and woodland (DPU), Eucalyptus globulus dry forest and woodland (DGL), and lowland Themeda triandra grassland (GTL) (DPIPWE 2020). Data collection and analysis Historical images and written records referring to the Domain were accessed using Trove and Libraries Tasmania (https://trove.nla.gov.au, https:// libraries.tas.gov.au, accessed June—October 2020). The plates used to estimate changes in vegetation cover over time are provided in appendix 1. A list of all newspaper sources including article title describing existing vegetation and changes in management on the Domain are provided in appendix 2. Appendix 3 contains a list of all the historic images used in the comparative analysis of changes in vegetation over time. These images were organised into a geographic region based on the area depicted in the image, or where the image was taken, these categories being Domain West, Domain East, Domain North, Domain South, Entire Domain (comprising paintings where all or a large part of the Domain could be seen, as well as aerial photographs), Foreshore, and additional Categories for Government House and Botanical Gardens. While the landscapes of the Botanical Gardens, Government House and other human infrastructure are an important part of the history of the Queens Domain and make up a substantial portion of the photographic record, images of these locations were only included in subsequent analyses insofar as they depicted the native vegetation. The outline tree cover visible in images was estimated to the nearest ten percent, Where there was sufficient clarity in the images, a determination of vegetation community was made. The images were divided 40 Ellen R. Sorensen and Jamie B. Kirkpatrick into time periods, mostly of 20-year intervals. The mean cover of trees was compared between these time periods using one-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s test in the statistical computer program Minitab (Version 16). Images with insufficient tree cover information or inexact dates were excluded from analysis. The total number of images included in the analysis was 92. The images were analysed to establish whether there were sufficient geographic features or landmarks present to determine an approximate location for repeat photographs. Google Earth Terrain View was used to gain the approximate GPS locations from which the original images were taken. Six sites were then chosen for rephotographing based on our confidence in the image location, and the evenness of their distribution across the Domain. Two images were taken from the western side, two from the eastern side, and one each in the north and south. On the ground, the approximate locations were then cross-referenced with the historical images. The dominant plant species and vegetation structure were recorded. ; RESULTS Five of the six rephotographed locations showed an increase in density compared to its historic state, with one location being the same (table 1). The nineteenth-century understoreys were largely dominated by grasses with few or no understorey shrubs. In the late twentieth century there was a transition from open grassy woodland to shrubby E£. globulus-E. pulchella forest and woodland in the west, from open grassy woodland to A. verticillata forest on the.east, and from open grassy woodland to E. viminalis-E. globulus grassy forest and woodland in the south. In the northern section, the vegetation changed much less than elsewhere. There was significant differentiation in tree cover between time periods (ANOVA, F = BY rp (P= (ON) Between 1841 and 1901 the mean cover for all periods was significantly less than that for the 1991-2020 mean. The period of lowest tree cover occurred from 1861 to 1880 (fig. 2). Tree cover was highly variable within periods in the nineteenth century, with a gradual decrease in mean cover until 1861-1880 (fig. 2). Mean cover was then low until 1901-1920, then increased dramatically in the next two periods (fig. 2). The last two periods had high levels of mean cover and low variability (fig. 2). Pre-colonial and early colonial era ~ Reconstructing the landscape of the Domain prior to European occupation is challenging as there are no depictions or descriptions of its vegetation prior to British invasion. The Domain was occupied by the muwinina Aboriginal people, with records of shell middens on the eastern shoreline indicating that the site was used for at least 5000 years prior to colonisation (Kerrison & Binns 1984). The vegetation structure at the time of colonisation was likely to have been woodland or grassy woodland which is likely to have been maintained by patch burning by the muwinina people and grazing by native herbivores (Kirkpatrick 2004). The native — tree composition is likely to have been similar to that of today, A general picture of the vegetation surrounding the Sullivans Cove colony can be gained from James Backhouse Walker who, working from the diaries and letters of the early colonisers, described the area around the settlement as consisting of “... dense tangles of tea-tree scrub .., with ... huge gum trees, ... and ... slopes covered with trees” (Walker 1889, p. 226). The area of the creek which formed the Domain’s southwestern border was described as a “swampy flat” with the beach running round the “wooded slope” to what is now Macquarie Point (Walker 1889, p. 226). Later sources refer to the Domain being “wooded down to the very beach” in the early years post~ colonisation (app. 2.3). The View of Sullivans Cove (possibly by George William Evans 1804, pl. 2) depicts the initial camp in the Sullivans Cove settlement, with trees shown in the foreground on the southwestern shoreline of what would become the Domain. In the early years after colonisation the Domain is described as being “in a state approaching nature” and “well-wooded with natural trees” (app. 2.4) as well as “park-like lands [...] which never carried timber and scrub very thickly” (app. 2.5). Land clearance occurred shortly after colonisation, with four allotments totalling over 20 ha granted on the southern foreshore area between 1804 and 1805. Early clearing can be seen in a rough sketch made by Deputy-Surveyor G.P. Harris entitled Hobart ca. 1805 (pl. 3). No further allotments were granted after the Domain was claimed for the Government in 1818 (Terry 1999). Tree removal has been a major disturbance throughout the European use of the Domain, occurring “as soon as the tents were pitched” after the arrival of the early colonists (Walker 1889). Individual settlers were permitted to remove trees on the Domain for firewood and other uses until 1816 (app. 2.6). The practice continued illegally in subsequent decades to such an extent that it was feared the Domain Tree cover (%) ) SS Ss DS AWS Dp p= of ¥ RY Re CP ky ok oy c xy Y ” Re iV Or FIG. 2 — Change in tree cover depicted on images between periods. The line connects the means for periods. Each dot represents an individual image. Vegetation change in an urban grassy woodland since the early nineteenth century 41 TABLE 1 — Comparison of vegetation between historic images and 2020 Title of image Year Location Vegetation Tree 2020 Vegetation 2020 (appendix and plate cover tree reference) estimate cover View from the 1826-— North Open grassy 60% Open grassy woodland, tallest 60% Domain looking N.W 1853 woodland. Eucalyptus layer dominated by E. viminalis with across New Town sp., in tree layer, scattered E. globulus.Understorey Bay, Bellevue in height estimate consists of juvenile eucalypts, foreground (app. 1, between 8-15m. Allocasuarina verticillata, Exocarpos pl. 7) Allocasuarina cupressiformis, Acacia mearnsii, both verticillata seen in adult & juvenile. understorey and in Range of native grasses (Themeda * background. Some triandra, Poa spp.) in understorey. tussocks can be seen. Government House, 1866 South Open grassy woodland 30% E. viminalis- E. globulus forest and 50% Hobart Town, and the land with scattered woodland. Understorey of Bursaria, River Derwent from Eucalyptus sp., in tree Allocasuarina verticillata, Acacia the Domain (app. 1, later. Range of heights melanoxylon, and Acacia mearnsii. pl. 9) to >12 m. Understorey Various native grasses including grass-dominant with Themeda triandra, Poa spp., Lomandra small shrubs. longifolia. Large amount of fallen branches, bark, leaf litter. Comelian Bay, ~1890 East Open grassy woodland 10% Allocasuarina verticillata forest with 60% Hobart (app. 1, pl. with tussocks and scattered E. viminalis. Understorey 11) scattered Eucalyptus consists of Bursaria spinosa spp. Allocasuarina and Acacia mearnsii. Grasses verticillata and include Themeda triandra., Poa Bursaria spinosa in spp., Lomandra longifoilia. Many understorey. Allocasuarina verticillata seedlings. Lots of litter from Allocasuarina. verticillata. View of Hobart from ~1900 West Tree layer of 10% Shrubby Eucalyptus pulchella/globulus 70% the Domain showing : Eucalyptus viminalis forest. Very dense understorey, Campbell Street and E. pulchella, tall Dodonea viscosa dominant with and the Park Street and large in diameter. Bursaria spinosa. Grass layer is dense, intersection (app. 1, Grassy understorey, with large tussocks of Lomandra pl. 13) no shrubs or small longifolia. Thick layer of leaf litter. trees. North Hobart - View 1910 West Tree layer consists 10% Shrubby Eucalyptus globulus 70% from Domain of sparse, juvenile E. forest, very dense understorey with c 1910s (app. 1, pl. globulus. Understorey Dodonea viscosa dominant as well 15) grass-dominant with as Acacia dealbata, Acacia mearnsii, various species of Allocasuarina verticillata, Bursaria native grasses spinosa, Exocarpos cupressiformis. Lower strata consisting of range of native grasses including Lomandra longifolia., Poa, etc. Lots of leaf litter, fallen branches, etc. View of the Eastern 1920 East Canopy layer eucalypt- 40% Allocasuarina verticillata forest with 70% Shore from the : Domain Road (app. 1, pl. 17) dominate, understorey of younger eucalypts and Bursaria. Understorey open, grass layer not seen scattered eucalypts, Bursaria spinosa also present in understorey. NN would become bare (apps 2.7, 2.8). Between 1810 and 1850, landscape paintings show most of the Domain as being wooded across the hill, although the density of tree cover varies somewhat with artistic interpretation. Clearing was concentrated in the southern section, particularly near the shoreline, as indicated by images taken from within the Domain. The southern section of the Domain is depicted as an open grassy woodland with tall eucalypts with few or no understorey shrubs in images from the early decades after colonisation, such as T:E. Chapman's In Paddock (1836) and Taken in the Paddock, Hobart Town, V.D.L. (1837, pl. 4) (apps 3.16, 3.17). The openness of the understorey of this lowland area of the Domain is likely to have been similar to its pre-colonial state, as this area would probably have been favoured by the muwinina people for hunting (Kirkpatrick 2004); however, indicators of European modification such as stumps (Ryan 2009) are present in many images from this time. 42. Ellen R. Sorensen and Jamie B. Kirkpatrick PLATE 2 — View of Sullivan's Cove. Inscribed by Lt. John Bowen, although variously attributed to George William Evans and G.P. Harris, 1804. Trees in right-side foreground are on the southwestern shoreline of the Domain. Digitised item from the State Library of New South Wales, https://search.sl.nsw. gov.au/permalink/f/1 cvjue2/ ADLIB110326130 fo Pe . S. Covers ra ¢ 2 uggaty » nd “a > . “. CAnpences popes 6. Prez hae Phe a , SuancengOviythe. A, Gane ? Kevse 7. Wore Zaks : , PLATE 3 — Hobart Town ca. 1805, G.P. Harris, 1805. The southern shoreline of the Domain can be seen on the far- right side, inscribed with the number 10. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov. au/nla.obj-135224422 Stock grazing replaced burning and grazing by marsupials as the major disturbance controlling the understorey, keeping down the length of the grass and impeding shrub and tree establishment. Cattle grazing was banned along with tree removal in 1816 (app. 2.6). However, stock and stockkeepers continued to “trespass” onto the Domain for decades, resulting in the Domain being fenced and constables being stationed for the purpose of impounding stock (apps 2.9, 2.10). In the 1820s, illegal grazing was so rampant that accusations were made that the Domain fence was intentionally kept in a state of disrepair so that profit could be made from impounding the trespassing stock (app. 2.11). The issuing of grazing licenses in the 1840s (app. 2.12) did not appear to have any impact on reducing stock numbers, with the Domain described as being “overrun with wild bullocks and flocks of sheep” (app. 2.13). 1850s—1900 Grazing appeared to occur throughout the Domain. Hobart Town from the Domain by Knud Bull (app. 3.26) depicts a shepherd and a flock of sheep at the northern end of the Domain, while View of Rossbank Observatory, 1854 (app. 3.27), by the same artist, shows a similar scene near the southern shoreline of the Domain. These clearly indicate the differences in vegetation between these two sections of the Domain in this period. The vegetation in the first image appears dense, forest-like, and “well-wooded”, while in the second image, the area is open and grassy, with stumps and logs indicative of tree clearance (Ryan 2009). Newspapers at this time refer to both the threat to humans and the impact on young trees occurring as a result of the high stock levels on the Domain (apps 2.14, 2.15). Vegetation change in an urban grassy woodland since the early nineteenth century 43 PLATE 4 — Taken in the Paddock, Hobart Town, V.D.L. 1837, T.E. Chapman. No longer available online. Stump can be seen in the right foreground. By the mid- to late-nineteenth century, there are abundant references to the decline of the vegetation on the Domain. Charles E. Walch, well-known bookseller, preacher, and future Chairman of the Queens Domain Committee, wrote a lengthy Letter to the Editor in 1874 decrying the “halfa century of utter neglect” and the “[defacing of] its natural beauties” to clear land for the various buildings, quarries, slaughter-yards, and fences on the Domain, as well as for the “extensive” grounds of Government House (app. 2.3). Over a period of years Walch observed the loss of trees across the Domain “partly from rapid natural decay, and partly by man’s destroying hand”, noting that the western slope of the Domain in particular was “quite bare, while many of the trees still standing are in the last stages of. decay” (app. 2.3). Another source noted that the western slope of the Domain, known to be well-wooded in the 1850s, was almost bare by the 1860s due to the regular system of depredation of illegal tree removal that occurred due to the lack of police supervision (app. 2.8). The Superintendent of the Royal Society Gardens, Francis Abbott, in a paper read to the Royal Society of Tasmania in 1875, spoke of the need for the “improvement” of the Domain, and drew attention to the causes for the “stunted appearance” of the trees on the Domain: In the first place, there can be no doubt that between 20 and 30 years ago, many of the largest gum trees were cut down [...] during the whole of this time the surface has been depastured by sheep and cattle, which has had the combined effect of consolidating the surface, PLATE 5 — River Derwent, from the Queen’s Domain, Hobart, Elite Studio, 1884. A similar view of the Derwent River can be seen in plate 4. Digitised item from Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts, Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office, https:// stors.tas.gov.au/ILS/SD_ILS-634418 and preventing any seedling trees from springing up to supply the place of those removed. The wattles again present a most unsightly and stunted appearance, and [...] are evidently hastening to decay [...] partly due to the cause just mentioned, and partly to the fact that the lower branches have generally been browsed off when the trees were young. Again, the depasturing of cattle has not only consolidated the surface, but it has kept the grass close grazed, which may be considered as removing natures mulching, the effect of which is that the rains, instead of soaking into the ground, rush precipitately to the water-courses [...] and what little does enter the soil is quickly dried up by the sun and wind. (Abbott 1875, p. 33) Former Surveyor-General J.E. Calder described the “many unsightly trees that disfigure the surface [...] and give one the very poorest idea of Tasmania’s forest lands” (app. 2.16). Notably, Calder asserts that the Domain, previously being “ancient forest [...] in vigorous growth” began to decline after the “slaughter of the forest trees” was permitted to form what would become the Royal Society Gardens, as well as the ending of police patrols of the Domain’s borders for stock impounding (app. 2.16). It is evident from these descriptions that the Domain was suffering from both a decline in the quantity of trees and in the health of the remaining trees; however, most of the decline was concentrated in the Domain’s southern area. Abbott notes that the “upper portions” of the Domain have “sufficient” “natural arboreal vegetation’, consisting of E. viminalis and E. amygdalina, as well as several trees of “blue gum, native cherry, she-oak, native box, and banksia” (Abbott 1882). This is one of the very few references to understorey vegetation on the Domain, other than to the “twisted” wattles growing on the eastern shore near Government House (app. 2.17) and reports of Acacia mearnsii springing up after fires (app. 2.18). Photographs from this time demonstrate the sparse distribution of eucalypts and lack of understorey (pl. 5). 44 Ellen R. Sorensen and Jamie B. Kirkpatrick Mounting public pressure resulted in management changes on the Domain. Cattle grazing was banned in 1881, although sheep grazing was permitted to continue (app. 2.19). This was praised as a “step in the right direction”, although concerns were raised that sheep would be insufficient for managing the length of the grass (Crouch 1881). The 1890s saw the formalisation of the Queens Domain Committee, whose notable works in this period include the intentional thinning of the Domain’s remaining eucalypts, to maintain a “park-like” appearance (app. 2.20), the planting of the pinetum near the Botanical Gardens, where a “few standing gum trees” would be allowed to remain (app. 2.21), the lopping of over _a hundred unhealthy eucalypts (app. 2.18), the levelling and replanting of the quarry opposite Government House (app. 2.22), the planting of (non-native) eucalypts on the eastern slope of the Domain between Government House and Cornelian Bay (app. 2.23) and the development or expansion of roads (apps 2.24, 2.25, 2.26). 1900s—1950s Two decades of cattle exclusion had caused the grasses on the Domain to become a fire hazard; in 1905, the Queens Domain Committee debated the benefits of the reintroduction of cattle on fuel loads versus the potential damage to the new plantations that dotted the Domain (app. 2.27). Cattle would eventually be reintroduced on an ad-hoc basis to control the grass, although they quickly became abundant, roving in droves of “up to 20” and causing damage to young trees planted along the roads (apps 2.28, 2.29). Dry weather and lack of water in the early 1910s caused the death of several plantings, and accidental fires had caused “grave losses” to young trees, while “larger gums have become so weakened by fires around their roots that it now becomes imperative an earnest effort made to re-clothe at once the more frequented parts of the Domain with young eucalypts” (app. 2.29). Planned burns were undertaken to remove the grass fuel load and protect the plantations from further damage from bushfires (app. 2.28). PLATE 6 — Photograph - Hobart - Domain - Soldiers pM! - tree plantations, 1914-1918. Digitised item rom Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/N =1- 48J2K$init=NS869-1-48 2 aa In 1917, funding concerns, as well as a lack of partici- pation from committee members, prompted the Queens Domain Committee to recommend management of the Domain be taken over by the Hobart City Council, which subsequently happened (app. 2.30). This change in management led to a “speedy improvement” in the Domain’s “park-like aspect” (app. 2.31). One of the major planting regimes in the early twentieth century was the Soldiers Avenue, a double-lined avenue of Cedrus deodara extending from the southern to the northern section of the Domain Hill established after the First World War (app. 2.32, pl. 6). The scattered distribution and poor condition of £. viminalis on the southern slope of the Domiain surrounding the juvenile Cedrus behind protective guards can be seen in plate 6. Many of the introduced trees, being unsuited to the soils of the Domain, died shortly after being planted (app. 2.33) and work was required to improve the view of the avenue (app. 2.34). Beginning in 1920 and continuing until the mid- twentieth century there was an organised effort to “reclothe” many of the bare areas of the Domain with native trees (apps 2.35, 2.36) with most of these plantings occurring on the western slope of the Domain from behind the Hobart High School grounds to the northwestern section (apps 2.37, 2.38). The eastern section of the Domain was said to be “well clothed with indigenous trees” but on the shallower soils of the western slope, “trees were not so abundant and healthy” and were therefore in need of restoration (app. 2.39). Over a thousand trees, including Australian natives such as A. mearnsii, A. verticillata, E. globulus and A. pycnantha (not native to Tasmania) as well as exotics including ashes, silver birches and conifers (apps 2.40, 41): were planted in this section of the Domain over the decades, as well as around the cricket ground (app. 2.36) and the former zoo site (app. 2.42). Wattles were planted yearly as a part of the Tasmanian Wattle League's annual Wattle Day events (app. 2.41). Many mature trees, said to be either dead or suffering from dry rot, were removed from the northwestern section of the Domain in the early 1930s, with many of the trees remaining being lopped (app. 2.43). This area was described as a “forest of gaunt skeletons” (app. 2.44) after the removal, but a year later it was described as “refreshingly green” due to the “rejuvenation” of the trees as a result of pruning (app. 2.45). The sanctioned removal of trees, the illegal removal of trees by vandals and the “withering away” of many of the juvenile trees (app. 2.46) resulted in parts of the western section of the Domain being described as “denuded” and “flea bitten” (app. 2.47). One Letter to the Editor attributed the continued poor state of the Domain’s vegetation to the fact that “[owing] to the destruction of the original forests [...] the Domain is no longer an ideal environment for eucalypts” (app. 2.48). The lack of an understorey to provide nutrients, combined with the constant assault on the vegetation from strong winds, and the “poor, stony soil” meant that no tree planted could be expected to survive “more than a few years” (app. 2.48). Still, the replanting Vegetation change in an urban grassy woodland since the early nineteenth century 45 of bare patches with native vegetation continued until the 1950s on the western section of the Domain as well as on the apex of the hill (app. 2.49). The grazing of cattle ceased indefinitely in the 1920s, and the extreme length and dryness of the grass led to an increase in grass fires on the Domain (apps 2.50, 2.51, Kirkpatrick 2004). There are numerous references to fires on the Domain throughout the twentieth century, some being small and easily contained, some burning up to 20 acres of grass and causing significant damage to trees (app. 2.53). Major fires occurred in 1952 on both the western and eastern sides of the Domain where more than 15 acres of grass was burned (apps 2.53, 2.54) and again in 1953 when 91 fires burned in Hobart within a period of three weeks, most of these occurring on the Domain (app. 2.55). The destructiveness of this fire season led to half of the grass area of the Domain being burned off (app. 2.56) and the introduction of mowing and cutting to control the grass (app. 2.56). DISCUSSION The results from the comparison of historic images with the modern vegetation indicate an increase in tree cover, which is in line with the pattern of woody thickening observed on the Domain since 1974 (Kirkpatrick 2004). The major change to disturbance regimes on the Domain after colonisation was the replacement of Aboriginal fire regimes with high-intensity stock grazing. This was extremely common in grasslands and grassy woodlands post-colonisation (Fensham 1989, Lunt 1998b, Franco & Morgan 2007). The encroachment of shrubs into grasslands and grassy woodlands after the removal of grazing as a disturbance regime is also common (Lunt 2002). The encroachment of A. verticillata into eucalypt forest and woodland observed by Kirkpatrick (2004) probably began after the severe fire seasons of the early 1950s, as the transition from eucalypt grassland to Allocasuarina forest occurs in the absence of disturbance or after low-level fires (Lunt 1998a, Lunt 1998b). The grassy woodland structure of the Domain was maintained by the introduction of grazing after the removal of Aboriginal fire regimes; however, the increase in stock levels with the introduction of grazing licenses, in conjunction with the removal of trees for land clearance, firewood, shipbuilding and other purposes, was suggested to have resulted in soil compaction, exposure to increased wind, soil drying, and soil water repellence which contributed to tree dieback (Bailey 2012). High grazing levels would have also contributed to the lack of recruitment of eucalypt seedlings, both for natural regeneration and those planted by the Queens Domain Committee in the late nineteenth century (Lunt 1991, Zacharek 1997). Grazing also probably impeded the growth of A. verticillata seedlings. Given the current abundance of this species on the Domain (Kirkpatrick 2004), it is notable that there are relatively few mentions of A. verticillata in the historic record. Abbott (1882) states that there were “a few trees” of A. verticillata in the northern section of the Domain, which is logical considering the comparative lack of disturbance that occurred in this area. “She-oaks” were also amongst the species planted in the early twentieth century on the western slopes of the Domain. Low-intensity sheep grazing was found to reduce the regeneration of A. verticillata seedlings on Kangaroo Island (Pepper 1997). It is likely that the reduced grazing pressure following the removal _ of cattle from the Domain in 1881, provided sufficient disturbance to prevent the establishment of A. verticillata in much of the Domain until the 1950s. Some species on the * Domain, such as 7’ triandra, may also have benefited from the cessation of grazing (Kirkpatrick 1986, Zacharek 1997). Grasses were noted to increase in abundance following the removal of cattle, although no species was specified. It is evident that the exclusion of cattle and the increase in fuel loads, in combination with warm and dry weather in the early twentieth century, resulted in increased fire frequency (Leonard et al. 2010). In a long-term study of vegetation dynamics in a coastal grassy woodland, with similar patterns of disturbance regimes change to the Domain, Lunt (1998a) observed that the two phases of European management were marked by a lack of understanding of the impact of the previous management decisions on the present vegetation. This was not the case in the second phase of European land management on the Domain. The members of the Queens Domain Committee, many of whom were members of the Royal Society possessing extensive botanical knowledge, were well aware of the causes of the decline in vegetation on the Domain, as evidenced by the letters read by Abbott in 1875 and 1882. However, this understanding did not appear to have a corresponding influence on the success of “improvement” works on the Domain. Many of the Committee's strategies were informed by colonial ideals that valued an English park-like landscape and European deciduous species (Lum 2018) over the “rugged wilderness” of the Tasmanian bush (Hobart Town Daily Mercury 22 May 1860, p. 2, app. 2.57). This perspective needs to be considered when analysing historical descriptions of the Domain, particularly the use of terms such as “improvement”, a word rooted in the philosophy espoused by Lancelot “Capability” Brown and other nineteenth- century European landscape architects (Lum 2018). Limitations Landscape paintings have considerable value for establishing the vegetation structure and composition of historic landscapes (Ryan 2009): however, considering the subjectivity of landscape paintings is essential when using them as sources for reconstruction (Fensham 1989, Farag-Miller etal. 2013). Australian landscape artists were often not concerned with creating an accurate representation of vegetation, but more with conveying an image of the Australian landscape that would be appealing to prospective settlers (Romanin et al. 2016). Images of the Tasmanian landscape painted by John Glover, for example, were captivating toan English audience due to their ability to convey the exotic vegetation while at once evoking the atmosphere of an English park (Lum 2018). Ryan (2009) notes the accuracy of early colonial 46 Ellen R. Sorensen and Jamie B. Kirkpatrick artists in depicting vegetation structure. It is possible to identify eucalypts, tussocks, and understorey shrubs in many paintings of the Domain even if the artwork is stylised. Due to the quantity of images depicting the Domain, it was also possible to cross-reference several of the landscape paintings from the mid-nineteenth century with photographs from the same era to establish accuracy. Written historical material can be used to support the image record (Ryan 2009). Some assumptions must be made however when assessing the language used by early colonial writers to describe vegetation. Early colonial surveyors described the grassland and grassy woodland vegetation of the Midlands as “thinly timbered”, “moderately wooded” and “interspersed with wood” (Fensham 1989), while the Domain was described as “well-wooded” without thick timber. Lunt (1998a) notes the subjectivity of terms such as “thickly timbered”, noting that they can only be interpreted in comparison with the surrounding landscape. “Well- wooded” could be interpreted to mean densely wooded (although Fensham (1989) notes that “forested” would be the more commonly used phrase), or that the wood itself was in good condition. While objective records such as surveyors’ field notes and maps are often used for historic reconstruction (Bickford & Mackey 2004), there are few of these sources available for the Domain. As the Domain has been an important place for the people of Hobart since before colonisation, it has the benefit of a wealth of informal historical records relating to its land use, particularly in the newspaper record. While this record is invaluable in reconstructing the patterns of land use, it is also essential to acknowledge the subjectivity of opinion. For example, one article from the Mercury in 1883 dismisses improvement works on the Domain by saying that only “here and there a chair erected, and a tree planted and guarded, give evidence they are doing something”, while another from the Daily Telegraph in the same year commends the “highly successful” management for “here and there” planting shrubs and constructing “convenient and substantial seats” (app. 2.58, 2.59). Despite these limitations, the present study has benefited from the abundance of references and the descriptive language about the vegetation that would not necessarily be found in surveyors’ journals. Phrases such as the “slaughter of forest trees” and “forest[s] of gaunt skeletons” demonstrate both the severity with which the Domain was perceived to be in decline, as well as how much the people of Hobart cared about the state of the “people’s park” (Cahalan 2016). CONCLUSION This study has documented the changes to disturbance regimes that have occurred in the Queens Domain following the British invasion and European settlement. The Domain has had periods of high and low tree cover caused by the introduction and exclusion of disturbances. Indigenous fire regimes and grazing from native herbivores were replaced by grazing from cattle maintaining the open grassy woodland structure of the Domain, but also impeding the growth of new trees. Tree removal and land clearing resulted in the reduction of tree cover on the Domain. The cessation of these processes has contributed to the woody thickening of the Domain that has occurred since the mid-twentieth century. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Jan Jenkinson for his help in the field and his unwavering support. We also thank Drs Jayne Balmer and Mick Brown for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper. REFERENCES Abbott, F. 1875: Letter read to the Royal Society, 8 June 1875. Papers and Proceedings and Report of the Royal Society of Tasmania 1: 32-34. Abbott, EF 1882. Letter read to the Domain Improvement Committee, 22 Nov 1882. Printed for the Parliament of Tasmania for the Minister of Lands and Works, 20 Sept.1887. (hetps://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/tpl/ PP Web/1887/1887pp120.pdf) Bailey, T.G. 2012: Eucalypt regeneration and ecological restoration of remnant woodlands in Tasmania, Australia. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart. Bargmann, T. & Kirkpatrick, J.B. 2015: Transition from heathland to scrub in south-eastern Tasmania: extent of change since the 1970s, floristic depletion and management implications. Biodiversity Conservation 24: 213-228. Beller, E.E., McClenachan, L., Zavaleat, E.S. & Larsen, L.G. 2020: Past forward: recommendations from. historical ecology for ecosystem management. Global Ecology and Conservation 21: 1-14. Bickford, S. & Mackey, B. 2004: Reconstructing pre-impact vegetation cover in modified landscapes using environmental modelling, historical surveys and remnant vegetation data: a case study in the Fleurieu Peninsula, South Australia. Journal of Biogeography 31: 787-805. Cahalan, S. 2016: The Queen’s Domain and the People’s Temper: Contest for Public Natural Space in Urban Landscapes. Unpublished Hons thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart. Crouch, E.J. 1881: The Improvement of the Queens Domain. Papers & Proceedings and Report of the Royal Society of Tasmania: 33-36. y DPIPWE 2020: TASVEG 4.0. Released July 2020. Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and Mapping Program, Natural and Cultural Heritage Division, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. http://www. dpipwe.tas.gov.au/tasveg c Spears M., Miller, K. & Kirkpatrick, J. 2013: Determining the accuracy of historical landscape paintings. 7 Research 51: 49-58. oe Eg Fensham, R.J. 1989: The Pre-European vegetation of the Midlands, Tasmania: a floristic and historical study. Journal of Biogeography 16: 29-45. 5 Fletcher, M.S., Hall, T. & Alexandra, A.N. 2020: The loss of an indigenous constructed landscape following British invasion of Australia: an insight into the deep human imprint on the Australian landscape. Ambio 50: 138-149. Franco, J.A. & Morgan, J.W. 2007: Using historical records, aerial photography and dendroecological methods to determine vegetation changes in a grassy woodland since European settlement. Australian Journal of Botany 55: 1-9. Guy, T. & Kirkpatrick, J.B. 2018: Vegetation change on an urban coastal dune system. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 152: 1-8. ; Vegetation change in an urban grassy woodland since the early nineteenth century 47 Hayes, M. & Kirkpatrick, J.B. 2012: Influence of Ammophila arenaria on half a century of vegetation change in eastern Tasmanian sand dune systems. Australian Journal of Botany 60: 450-460. Hazeldine, A. & Kirkpatrick, J.B. 2015: Practical and theoretical implications of a browsing cascade in Tasmanian forest and woodland. Australian Journal of Botany 63: 135-143. Inspiring Place. 2013: Queens Domain Master Plan 2013-2033. Hobart City Council, Hobart: 99 pp. (https://www. hobartcity.com.au/files/assets/public/parks-gardens-and- sportsgrounds/queens-domain-master-plan.pdf) Kerrison, A.R. & Binns, M.A. 1984: A midden excavation — Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens, Hobart. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 118: 53-63. Kirkpatrick, J.B. 1986: The viability of bush in cities — ten years of change in an urban grassy woodland. Australian Journal of Botany 34: 691-708. Kirkpatrick, J. 1994: A Continent Transformed: Human Impact on the Natural Vegetation of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne: 133 pp. Kirkpatrick, J.B. 2004: Vegetation change in an urban grassy woodland 1974-2000. Australian Journal of Botany. 52: 597-608. Kirkpatrick, J.B., McDougall, K. & Hyde, M. 1995: Australia’s Most Threatened Ecosystem — the Southeastern Lowland Native Grasslands. Surrey-Beatty/WWFA, Sydney: 116 pp. Kirkpatrick, J.B., Wilson, D., Meiss, A., Mollon, A. & Bridle, K.L. 2007. Trees on the run. /7 Kirkpatrick, J.B. & Bridle, K.L. (eds): People, Sheep and Nature Conservation: the Tasmanian Experience. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood: 125-138. Leonard, S., Kirkpatrick, J. & Marsden-Smedley, J. 2010: Variation in the effects of vertebrate grazing on fire potential between grassland structural types. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 876-883. Lum, J. 2018: Fire-stick picturesque: landscape art and early colonial Tasmania. British Art Studies 10: 21-55. Lunt I. 1991: Management of remnant lowland grasslands and grassy woodlands for nature conservation: a review. Victorian Naturalist 108, 56-G6. Lunt, I. 1998a: Two hundred years of land use and vegetation change in a remnant coastal woodland in Southern Australia. Australian Journal of Botany 46: 629-647. Lunt, I. 1998b: Allocasuarina (Casuarinaceae) invasion of an unburnt coastal woodland at Ocean Grove, Victoria: structural changes 1971-1996. Australian Journal of Botany 46: 649-656. Lunt, I. 2002: Grazed, burnt and cleared: how ecologists have studied century-scale vegetation changes in Australia. Australian Journal of Botany 50: 391-407. Pepper, J.W. 1997: A Survey of the South Australian Glossy Black- cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus) and its - habitat. Wildlife Research 24: 209-223. Roberts, C, Kirkpatrick, J.B. & McQuillan, PB. 2011: Tasmanian lentic wetland lawns are maintained by grazing rather than inundation. Austral Ecology 36: 303-309. Romanin, L.M., Hopf, E., Harbele, S.G. & Bowman, D.M.J.S. 2016: Fire regime and vegetation change in the transition rom eel to European land management in a asmanian eucalypt savanna. rali ee yp Australian Journal of Botany Ryan, M.F. 2009: Does early Colonial art provide an accurate guide to the nature and structure of the pre-European forests and woodlands of South-Eastern Australia? A study focusing on Victoria and Tasmania. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Australian National University, Canberra: 167 pp. Sevara, C., Verhoeven, GJ-.J., Doneus, M. & Draganits, E. 2018: Surfaces from the visual past: recovering high-resolution terrain data from historic aerial imagery for multitemporal sey Journal of Archaeological Method & Theory 25: Shea, M.E., Schulte, L.A. & Palik, B. 2014: Reconstructing vegetation past: pre-Euro-American vegetation for the ree ass area, USA. Ecological Restoration 32: Sheridan, G. 2002: Historical Landscape of Queens Domain, Hobart. Hobart City Council, Hobart: 191 pp. Terry, I. 1999: The People’s Park: Historical Overview of the Queens Domain, Hobart. Hobart City Council, Hobart: 121 pp. Walker, eat ee ‘The sunding of Hobart by Lieutenant-Governor ollins. Papers an j i oma aes A ae eaas of the Royal Society of Yang; Y., Zhang, S., Yang, J., Chang, L., Bu, K. & Xing, X. 2014: te aes acon reconstruction methods of land use/ and cover. Journal of Geographic Sciences 24: 746-766. Zacharek, A.R. 1997: Manone a restoration of native grassy woodland in the Midlands of Tasmania. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart. (accepted 28 August 2021) 48 Ellen R. Sorensen and Jamie B. Kirkpatrick APPENDIX 1: COMPARISON IMAGES PLATE 7 — View from the Domain looking N.W across New Town Bay, Bellevue in foreground, George Thomas William Blamey, 1826-1853. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/144582954 PLATE 9 — Government House, Hobart Town, and the River Derwent from the Domain 1866, Samuel Gill. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-135682499 PLATE 8 — Location of View from the Domain looking N.W across New Town Bay, Bellevue in foreground rephotographed in 2020. PLATE 10 — Location of Government House, Hobart Town, and the River Derwent from the Domain rephotographed in 2020. PLATE 11 — Cornelian Bay, Hobart 1890, A. Mather & Co. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/ AUTAS0016125396028$init=AUTAS001612539602 PLATE 12 — Location of Cornelian Bay, Hobart rephotographed in 2020. Vegetation change in an urban grassy woodland since the early nineteenth century 49 PLATE 14 — Location of View of Hobart from the Domain showing Campbell Street and the Park Street intersection PLATE 13 — View of Hobart from the Domain showing Campbell — tephotographed 2020. Street and the Park Street intersection 1900, photographer unknown. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors. tas.gov.au/Al/PH30-1-9578 =] PLATE 16 — Location of North Hobart — Vie i = w from D PLATE 15 — North Hobart — View from Domain 1910, James rephotographed 2020. AES: Chandler. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors. tas.gov.au/Al/NS869-1-440 View pemdiboniaie DRIVE Wee br eas { ™ pik PLATE 18 — View of the Eastern Shore from the Domain Road ee aes = . rephotographed 2020. PLATE 17 — View of the Eastern Shore.from the Domain Road 1920, T. Crawford. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/Al/NS1013-1-515 50 Ellen R. Sorensen and Jamie B. Kirkpatrick 10 11. id, 13. 14. 5}. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. APPENDIX 2: NEWSPAPER REFERENCES (accessed 13 October 2020) . The Hobart Town Courier 1836: The Government Domain. 23 Sep, p. 4. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article4174943 . The Mercury 1889: Parliament Of Tasmania. 25 Sep, p. 3. Digitised item from National Library of Tasmania, hetp:// nla.goy.au/nla.news-article9220421 . The Mercury 1874: Our National Park. Mon 11 May, p. 3. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8929852 . The Mercury 1913: The Queen’s Domain. A Question of Control. Improvement Committee Seeks Power. 7 Mar, p. 47. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article10276977 . The Mercury 1922: Assessment Of Pastoral Properties. 10 October, p. 7. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article23642691 _ The Hobart Town Gazette and Southern Reporter 1816: Government And General Orders. 17 Aug, p. 1. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article65 1435 . The Hobart Town Gazette 1826: Public Notice. 29 Jul, p. 1. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8791385 . The Mercury 1863: The Domain. 16 Oct, p. 2. Digitised item from National Library of Australian, http://nla.gov.au/nla. news-article8821553 . The Hobart Town Gazette and Southern Reporter 1819: Government Public Notices. 9 Jan, p. 1. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla. news-article655357 . The Hobart Town Gazette and Southern Reporter 1819: Govt. Public Notices. 3 Jul, p. 1. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news- article656399 Colonial Times and Tasmanian Advertiser 1825: To The Editor Of The Colonial Times. 14 Oct, p. 3. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov. au/nla.news-article2446316 The Courier 1847: Public Works’ Department. 2 Oct, p. 2. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, hetp:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2970820 Launceston Advertiser 1844: Hobart Town. 23 May, p. 2. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, hetp:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article84770704 Colonial Times 1850: Domestic Intelligence. 18 Jun, p. 3. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, hetp:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8767368 The Mercury 1861: Bothwell Road Trust. 26 Jan, p. 3. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article8795933 The Mercury 1880: Domain Improvement. 12 Noy, p. 3. Digitised item from National Library of Tasmania, hetp:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article899008 1 The Mercury 1887: The Queen’s Domain. 26 Mar, p. 1. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article9 132422 The Mercury 1891: Queen’s Domain. 24 Apr, p. 3. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-articlel12717437 The Mercury 1881. Queen’s Domain. 2 Feb, p. 2. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article8993100 The Mercury 1891: Queen’s Domain Committee. 18 Feb, p. 1. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, hetp:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1 2713609 21. 2), 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. ail. 3b. ahh. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. The Colonist 1890: Tasmanian News. 24 May 1890, p. 20. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article200363553 Tasmanian News 1892: Queens Domain Committee. 15 Nov. p. 2. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-page20138167 The Mercury 1894: Queens Domain Committee. 10 October, p. 4. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article9338262 The Mercury 1895: Epitome Of News. 15 Jan, p 2. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article9330573 Tasmanian News 1894: Queens Domain Committee. 12 Sep, p. 2. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-page20120735 The Mercury 1896: The Queens Domain Drives. 4 Jul, p. 1. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article9377006 The Mercury 1905: Queens Domain Committee. 12 Sep, p. 5. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, hetp:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1 2318065 Daily Post 1917: Grass In The Domain. 29 Jan, p. 4. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article191165314 Daily Post 1915: Queens Domain. 13 Feb, p. 7. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.goy, au/nla.news-article189580609 Daily Post 1917: Queens Domain Committee. 9 Jun, p. 5. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article191185624 The Mercury 1919: Hobart City Council. 24 Dec, p. 8. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1 2397666 The Mercury 1919: Soldiers’ Avenue. 17 Feb, p. 2. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article12393697 The Mercury 1922: Passing Notes. 19 Aug, p. 10. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article23527667 . The Mercury 1933: Returned Soldiers. 21 Jun, p. 2. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article24865446 The Mercury 1936: Wattle League. 27 Jul, p. 3. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla. news-article25213744 The Mercury 1937: Reclothing Domain. 23 Jul, p. 3. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article25415146 Examiner 1931: From The Capital. 1 Jul, p. 8. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla. news-article53928079 The Mercury 1931: Tree Planting, Queen’s Domain. 25 Aug, p. 10. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.goy.au/nla.news-article29921850 The Mercury 1944: Efforts To Beautify Domain. 23 Noy, p. 16. Digitised item from National Library Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article26037444 The Mercury 1934: Hobart City Council. 11 Sep, p. 8. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article24962926 The Mercury 1948: 80 Trees Planted On Domain. 18 Aug, p. 6. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article27773752 The Mercury 1943: City Schoolchildren Plant Trees In Domain. 8 Jul, p. 7. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article25991628 Vegetation change in an urban grassy woodland since the early nineteenth century 51 Appendix 2 cont. 43, 44, 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. ple The Mercury 1932: Trees On Domain. 28 Jun, p. 6. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article29961217 The Mercury 1932: Letters. 7 Nov, p. 6. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news- article247 12828 The Mercury 1933: Arboreal Rejuvenation. 9 Mar, p. 6. Digitised item from National Library. of Australia, available http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article24700291 The Mercury 1932: Progress Associations. 21 Jan, p. 11. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article29940679 The Mercury 1934: Day By Day. 13 Sep, p. 8. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla. news-article24963610 The Mercury 1932: Domain Gum Trees. 1 Jul, p. 6. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article24704827 The Mercury 1954: To Plant Trees On Domain. 24 Jul, p. 7. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article27223010 The Mercury 1940: Letters To The Editor. 9 Jan 1940, p. 2. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.goy.au/nla.news-article25779509 The Mercury 1953: Domain Grass. 2 Nov, p. 4. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla. news-article27 185423 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. The Mercury 1940: Several Houses Threatened. 12 Mar, p. 2. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article25781731 The Mercury 1952: Quelled Domain Fire. 25 Feb, pao: Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article27081669 The Mercury 1952: Fire Brigade Kept Busy. 14 Apr, p. 5. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article27077980 The Mercury 1953: Move To Prevent Fire Danger On Queen's Domain. 18 Feb, p. 6. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article27 148351 The Mercury 1953: Firemen Burn Off Grass. 20 Feb, PS Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http:// nla.gov.au/nla.news-article27 147621 The Hobart Town Daily Mercury 1860: The Mercury. 22 May, p. 2. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article19469133 The Mercury 1883: Friday Morning. 19 Jan, p. 2. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article9022186 59. Daily Telegraph 1883: Our Hobart Letter. 6 Sep, p. 3. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.news-article1 49423842 52 Ellen R. Sorensen and Jamie B. Kirkpatrick APPENDIX 3: IMAGE REFERENCES (accessed 14 October 2020 unless otherwise specified) Hobart Town ca. 1805, G.P. Harris. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-135224422 Sketch of Hobart Town 1817, Lt. C. Jeffreys. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/PH30-1- 2653 Hobart Town, Van Dieman’s Land from Mount Nelson 1820, Joseph Lycett. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, http://nla. gov.au/nla.obj-134642888 South West View of Hobart Town, Van Diemen’s Land 1820, George William Evans. Digitised item from State Library of New South Wales, http://digital.sl.nsw. gov.au/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?embe dded=true&Xtoolbar=false&dps_pid=IE3238855&_ ga=2.14471039.978739024.1602748466- 1941299773.1597127201 Hobart Town, Van Dieman’s Land 1820, Joseph Lycett. https://stors. tas.gov.au/ 144585098 Copy of Drawing ‘Hobart Town Looking South West from Domain’ 1822, J.W. Beattie. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/NS2511-1-308 North east view of Hobart Town, Van Dieman’s Land 1823, Joseph Lycett. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, https://stors.tas.gov.au/ILS/SD_ILS-700846 View of Hobart from the Top of Mt Nelson with Hobart Town in the Distance 1825, Joseph Lycett. Digitised item from State Library Victoria, http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/129734 Hobart from a sketch 1827, E.R. Pretyman collection. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/ NS1013-1-1547 Hobart Town, Van Diemen’s Land 1828, G.W. Evans/R.G. Reeve. Digitised item from National Libraries of Tasmania, hetp:// nla.gov.au/nla.obj-135297750 Panorama of Hobart 1828, Augustus Earle. Digitised item from State Library of New South Wales, https://search.sl.nsw. gov.au/permalink/f/1cvjue2/ADLIB1 10328958 Painting of Hobart from Upper Murray Street 1830, J.W. Beattie collection. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https:// stors.tas.gov.au/PH30-1-629J2K $init=PH30-1-629 Beattie sketch of Hobart from Battery Point 1830, J.W. Beattie collection. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https:// stors.tas.gov.au/AI/PH30-1-630 Hobart town, taken from the garden where I lived 1832, John Glover. Digitised item from State Library of New South Wales, https://search.sl.nsw.gov.au/permalink/f/1cvjue2/ ADLIB110314722 Hobart Town as seen from the top of Mount Nelson 1836, Benjamin Duterrau. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, hetp://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-135290119 In Paddock, Hobarton, V.D.L. 1836, TE. Chapman. No longer available online. Taken in the Paddock, Hobart Town, V.D.L. 1837, T.E. Chapman. No longer available online. Rade D'Hobart Town (Ie Van-Diemen) dessine par le Breton 1841, Eugene Circeri. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/ILS/SD_ILS-174369 Hobart Town ec. from Mount Nelson 1844, J.S. Prout. Digitised item from National Gallery of Victoria, https://www.ngy. vic.gov.au/explore/collection/work/28582/ Hobart Town from the government paddock 1844, J.S. Prout. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://librariestas. ent.sirsidynix.net.au/client/en_AU/library/search/ detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ILS$002f0$002fSD_ ILS:606097/one?qu=hobart+town+from+government+pad dock+%5Bpicture%5D+j+s+prout Hobart Town from the Domain 1844, James William Mansfield. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas. gov.au/ILS/SD_ILS-606597 HMS Anson (Female Convict Hulk), Off Queens Domain 1844-1850. Unknown artist. No longer available online. Hobart Town and the Derwent River, Van Diemens Land, from a sketch by Capt. Hext, 4th, The Kings Own Regiment 1845, Charles Hutchins. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/ILS/SD_ILS-97377 City of Hobarton from Knocklofty 1850, Frederick Strange. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/ nla.obj-135299575 Hobart Town Regatta 1852, Ludwig Becker. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/ILS/SD_ILS- 155438 View of Rossbank Observatory 1854, Knud Bull. Digitised item from State Library of New South Wales, hetp:// digital.sl.nsw.gov.au/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?e mbedded=true&toolbar=false&dps_pid=IE91937408&_ ga=2.106792011.978739024.1602748466- 1941299773.1597127201 Hobart Town from the Domain 1854-1956, Knud Bull. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov. au/144584778 View of Part of Hobart Town from the windmill 1855, J.B. Henderson. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, hetp:// nla.gov.au/nla.obj-135174519 Government House, Hobart from railway track 1859, no author. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas. gov.au/AI/LPIC147-3-154 Government House, Hobart 1859, J Walch. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/LPIC147- 3-174 Government House looking southeast 1860-1870, Morton Allport library. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https:// stors.tas.gov.au/ILS/SD_ILS-629778 Patent Slip, Queens Domain 1865, W.L. Crowther library. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/ILS/ SD_ILS-158083 Government House, Hobart Town, and the River Derwent from the Domain 1866, Samuel Gill. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-135682499 Government House, Hobartown, Tasmania, Monday 22 June 1868, Stanley Leighton. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-138907943 Regatta at Hobart Town, Tasmania, in honour of the visit of ‘H.R.H’ Duke of Edinburgh, and Hobart Town, the Capital of Tasmania 1868, Illustrated London News. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/ILS/ SD_ILS-735049 Government House, Hobarton, Tasmania 1869, George Penkivil Slade. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-138988325 The Derwent Near Government House 1870, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas. gov.au/AI/PH1-1-25 Hobart Town 1879, A.C. Cooke. Digitised item from Libraries - Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/ILS/SD_ILS-94421 Domain Slip, showing shoreline looking south 1880, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas. gov.au/AI/PH30-1-883 View of the Domain taken from jetty looking towards Government House 1880, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries ‘Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov-au/AI/PH30-1-2991 View of the Hobart Domain showing trees, Government House and shipyards 1880, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/Al/PH30-1- 3655 Vegetation change in an urban grassy woodland since the early nineteenth century 53 Appendix 3 cont. Domain slipyard, Hobart 1884, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/ PH30-1-6862 River Derwent, from the Queen's Domain, Hobart 1884, Morton Allport library. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/ILS/SD_ILS-634418 Whaling brig Velocity’ on Domain Slips 1890, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas. gov.au/AI/PH30-1-5709 View from Beauty Bay to Beltana Point - Hobart Domain in Background 1890, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/PH30-1- 6854 Cornelian Bay, Hobart 1890, A. Mather & Co. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AUTAS00161 25396028$init=AUTAS001612539602 Cornelian Bay, Hobart 1890, H.H. Baily. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/ PH30-1-7552 View of Cornelian Bay showing beach, cemetery and parts of Risdon (the present location of the Electrolytic Zinc Works) 1910, H.H.Baily. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https:// stors.tas.gov.au/AI/PH30-1-2643 A view of Hobart, Domain and Eastern shore taken from West Hobart 1900, E.R. Pretyman collection. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/ NS1013-1-729 Panoramic view from North Hobart showing Holy Trinity, Elizabeth Street, Patrick Street, the Domain, within the view are the exhibition buildings 1895, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/ PH30-1-2061 View of Hobart wharves, taken from the Domain 1895, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors. tas.gov.au/AI/PH30-1-1475 - View of Government House, Hobart from the Domain 1900, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors. tas.gov.au/AI/PH30-1-97 Hobart from the Domain, above Campbell Street showing Holy Trinity and burial ground 1900, E.R. Pretyman Collection. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas. gov.au/AI/NS1013-1-768 View of Hobart from the Domain showing Campbell Street and the Park Street intersection 1900, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/ PH30-1-9578 View overlooking the intersection of Elizabeth and Warwick Streets, showing Holy Trinity, Burial Ground and view of Domain and River Derwent 1900, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/PH30-1- 2514J2K$init=PH30-1-2514 Letitia and Park St from the Domain - looking North West up to Mt Stuart and North Hobart 1900, Cecil Percy Ray. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/ NS392-1-737 : Hobart - Domain - Government House in Distance 1900, O’May Family. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https:// stors.tas.gov.au/AI/NS$2511-1-360 Glass lantern slide - Hobart - Domain - Lower Domain Road 1900, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/PH40-1-1845 Gunners Quoin from the Domain 1901, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/ PH30-1-9434 Coloured postcard view of Government House, on the Hobart Domain — Government House and Derwent River, on the Hobart Domain 1905, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/PH30-1-2752 New Town from Domain 1910, J.W. Beattie. Digitised item from as ‘Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/NS4077- North Hobart - View from Domain 1910, James Chandler. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, hetps://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/ NS869-1-440 Hobart - Domain - Soldiers Memorial - tree plantations 1918, James Chandler. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https:// stors.tas.gov.au/AI/NS869-1-48 View of the Eastern Shore from the Domain Road 1920, T. Crawford. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https://stors.tas. gov.au/AI/NS1013-1-515 Aerial view of buildings and a warship at a distance on the River Derwent during the Royal tour by Edward, Prince of Wales, eee ears rN H. Baily. Digitised item from ational Library of Australi : j Ree ry stralia, http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj- Government ene 1922, Herbert John King. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmani i Sea ia, hteps://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/ Government ie eae (2) 1922, Herbert John King. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmani : Rene ia, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/ Aerial view of Hobart from a Matthews Aviation amphibious aeroplane, Tasmania 1930, George Matthews. Digitised item from National Library of Australia, http://nla.gov. au/nla.obj-151696129 Hobart — Electrolytic Zinc Company and view towards Cornelian Bay 1930, J.J.N. Barnett. Digitised item from Libraries ‘Tasmania, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/NS3305-1-8 Hobart aerial view taken with an E9 camera 1946, Peter Volkert Payens. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https:// stors.tas.gov.au/AI/NS1714-1-38 Hobart, Apa tae ie Derwent 1955, unknown artist. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmani : eae nia, https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/ Aerial view of River Derwent 1960, Southern Metropolitan Master Planning Authority. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/AA116-1-130 Aerial view of the Northern Suburbs and Hobart 1962, unknown artists. Digitised item from Libraries Tasmania, https:// stors.tas.gov.au/AI/PH30-1-3488 Aerial photograph 1969, J. Kirkpatrick, private collection. Aerial photograph 1996, J. Kirkpatrick, private collection. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 155(2), 2021 55 S. WARREN CAREY: NEW GUINEA OIL EXPLORER (1934-1942) by Peter Baillie (with one text-figure, eight plates and one table) Baillie, P. 2021 (15:xii): S. Warren Carey: New Guinea oil explorer (1934-1942). Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 155(2): 55-68. ISSN: 0080-4703. University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia. Email: peter. baillie@uwa.edu.au : ; Samuel Warren Carey (1911-2002), Professor of Geology at the University of Tasmania from 1946 until 1976, was recognised internationally as a controversial extrovert in global tectonics. He joined Oil Search Ltd, and then the Australasian Petroleum Company working as a field geologist in New Guinea from 1934 until 1942. Carey and his colleagues carried out a heroic campaign of geology-based field exploration under the most difficult of conditions. Although their work did not find commercial hydrocarbons it paved the way for PNG’s current hydrocarbon industry. While his post-World War Two work is well documented through his publications and the reminiscences of those who worked with and were taught by him, his pioneering work as an explorer in the inhospitable environment of New Guinea before he took up his post in Tee fis less well known and the subject of this paper. Key Words: S. Warren Carey, pre-WW2, geology, exploration, New Guinea, Oil Search Ltd, Australasian Petroleum Company. INTRODUCTION S. Warren Carey (1911-2002), Professor of Geology at the University of Tasmania from 1946 until his retirement in 1976, was internationally acknowledged as a controversial extrovert in global tectonics who vigorously expounded and defended his belief in Earth expansion (Quilty & Banks 2003). An early believer of continental drift, many of his ideas were developed and matured as a result of fieldwork carried out in the (then) Territory of New Guinea and the Mandated Territory of Papua in the decade preceding World War Two (WW/2). He was a geologist with Oil Search Ltd from 1934 to 1938 and subsequently a senior geologist with the Australian Petroleum Company (APC) from 1938 until the intervention of war in 1942. A photo of Carey, taken in New Guinea around 1936 is shown in plate 1. While his post-WW2 work is well documented through his publications and the reminiscences of those who worked with and were taught by him, his pioneering work as an explorer in the inhospitable environment of: New Guinea is less well known. The purpose of this paper is to detail Carey’s New Guinea work to better understand both its influence on his own thinking and in the context of New Guinea geology. Many of the pre-W/W2 geographic names used by Carey and his colleagues are no longer in use and their modern names have been adopted in this paper. The Imperial system of measures is sometimes retained as it was the system in use at the times under discussion. NEW GUINEA PERSPECTIVE ‘The geography of the large bird-shaped island of New Guinea (see fig. 1) is diverse and dominated by rugged mountains rainforests and river systems. A spine of mountains, the Ne Guinea Highlands, runs the length of the island, rises to over 4000 m with glaciers present in the highest areas (Lorenz National Park in the Indonesian Province of West Papua). Since the seventeenth century, the western part of the island had been part of the Dutch East Indies while after World War One (WW/1) the eastern part comprised the northern PLATE 1 — S.W. Carey about 25 years of age; New Guinea circa 1936. The photo, without attribution, is from Carey’s 1936 thesis. The identification was confirmed by his daughter Robyn to the late Max Banks. 56 Peter Baillie E ‘ec S Torres Strait - 10°00"S| se > 144°00°E 142°00'Ef 146°00'E Coral 148°0'0°E FIGURE 1 — Locality map of eastern New Guinea; red star near Sepik River approximate position of the Maimai Dome; yellow star south of Puari River approximate position of the Puri Anticline. Approximate position of Plate 7 indicated by red rectangle. Inset from Google Earth showing whole island of New Guinea. Mandated Territory of New Guinea (prior to WWI1 a German colony; mandated to the British Government, on behalf of Australia, by the League of Nations in 1920) and the Territory of Papua (ceded from the British to Australia in 1906 (plate 2). The territories were united in 1949 becoming self-governing in 1975 as the sovereign nation of Papua New Guinea (PNG). Although all the climatic regions of New Guinea are basically tropical, climate is variable. In general, eastern New Guinea has a wet, warm-to-hot humid climate with two seasons governed by prevailing wind direction: ¢ a drier season from May to October with northwesterly winds * a wet season from November to April when over five metres of rain might fall. All early exploration was hampered by the mountainous terrain, dense (often impenetrable) vegetation and rugged topography (broad valleys bounded by steep jungle-clad mountains characterise the Central, Western and some of the Southern Highlands). Early surveys were conducted in areas that were unexplored, unmapped and populated by people who had never been in contact with the outside world and were often at war with their neighbours (e.g., Wade 1927, Rickwood 1990, 1992). Survey parties faced problems caused by isolation, the prevalence of tropical diseases such as malaria, dysentery and scrub typhus (quinine was the only treatment for malaria and there was virtually no cure for dysentery or scrub typhus), the hostile climate with its annual periods of high rainfall (and consequent high flow in the rivers), thunderstorms and cyclones, and the discomforts due to a bewildering assortment of insects, leeches and other unpleasant creatures. Persons who undertook such work required exceptional physical and mental qualities. EXPLORATION SUMMARY TO WW2 Little effort was made to understand the geology of New Guinea until the end of the nineteenth century—unsurprising given the logistical difficulties. Joseph Beete Jukes (after whom Mt Jukes in the West Coast Range of Tasmania is named), naturalist and geologist on the surveying expeditions to New Guinea of HMS Fy said: I know of no part of the world, the exploration of which is so flattering to the imagination, so likely to be S. Warren Carey: New Guinea oil explorer 57 PLATE 2 — 1924 Map by E.R. Stanley of Eastern New Guinea showing post-WW1 district boundaries; Mandated Territory of New Guinea (green), Territory of Papua (pink), Dutch New Guinea (now Indonesia) (yellow); accessed from https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj- 199275027 2/view. Territories of New Guinea and Papua now the sovereign nation of Papua New Guinea (PNG). fruitful in interesting results, whether to the naturalist, the ethnologist, or the geographer, and altogether so well calculated to gratify the enlightened curiosity of an adventurous explorer, as the interior of New Guinea. (Jukes 1847, vol. 1 p. 291) Limited geological and palaeontological work was carried out in German New Guinea prior to WW1. In Papua, the first recorded geological observations were made around Port Moresby by Sir William MacGregor in 1893 who. ascended the Purari River (fig. 1) by launch, collected some Cretaceous belemnites and noted the occurrence of coal which subsequently became the target for limited exploration (Carey 1941). Oil exploration commenced in 1911 when gold prospectors reported an oil seep (‘kerosene ona small creek’) in the Vailala River (fig. 1). Local inhabitants of the district had long known of the small mud volcanoes and bubbling pools, but since they regarded them as being due to the agencies of evil spirits, they not only avoided the localities but were loath to give any information concerning them (Wade 1927, Pratt 2000). Evan R. Stanley was appointed the first Government Geologist for Papua in April 1912 and visited gas seepages near the Purari River (fig. 1) in May 1912. He commenced systematic surveys of the interior, examined many parts of the country east of the Purari River, produced a sketch map in 1913 at one inch to the mile (1:63,360) showing the location of many seeps he had visited, and published the first geological map of Papua in 1924 (Rickwood 1990, https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-2057713415/view). Exploration (including drilling and geological mapping) in Papua prior to WW1 was carried out by the Australian Commonwealth Government under the direction of Dr Arthur Wade. In 1918 a limited agreement was made with the British Government to share the expenses of further work, and the Anglo-Persian Company (which eventually became British Petroleum BP) was put in control of the combined effort, the results of which were published in 1928. Exploration was undertaken by private companies from July 1923 onwards with limited geological and geophysical reconnaissance surveys by several groups. In 58 Peter Baillie a report in the Sydney Morning Herald 25 April 1931 (p. 10), pre-eminent Australian geologist Professor Sir T.W. Edgeworth David (Professor Carey had a large photo of his former teacher and mentor Edgeworth David in his office at the University of Tasmania) noted the difficulties and high cost of exploration in New Guinea and thought that geophysical methods would be required together with ‘careful’ geological survey over a period of ‘some years’ to find payable oil fields. Largely because of the reports by Anglo-Persian, Oil Search Limited was incorporated in Port Moresby on 17 January 1929 having previously carried out exploration in Queensland. Shortly after its incorporation, the company acquired Oriomo Oil Company, which had drilled 16 shallow wells in Papua between 1927 and 1928 (Rickwood 1990, www.oilsearch.com). The company showed tremendous resilience, faith and patience — it received its first production revenues in 1992, 63 years after its incorporation (https://www.oilsearch.com/who- we-are/history). The company acquired additional permit areas (Papua Permits 5 and 7) and expanded its geological staff through the 1930s. It continued to do extensive fieldwork, with Carey arriving in 1934; other Oil Search Ltd team members included E. Edwards, H.A.J. Fryer, J. McKinnon, J.N. Montgomery, J.C. Pratt and G.A.V. Stanley (McCarthy 1963, Rickwood 1992). McCarthy (1963, p.150) said of Montgomery: The field manager and leader of all the field parties was a distinguished, hard-working geologist named Montgomery, one of the most vigorous men, physically and mentally, that I have met despite his size of no more than five feet. He was a first-class oil man and demanded that his staff should be of equal calibre. In 1936 the conditions under which prospecting for petroleum could be done in Papua and New Guinea were made more liberal and as a result, exploration activities greatly increased (Nye & Fisher 1954). In 1938 further ordinances were passed promulgating a modern petroleum code similar to those of Great Britain and New Zealand (Rickwood 1990). Permits held by Oil Search, Stanvac (Standard Vacuum New Jersey, a joint venture of Standard of New Jersey and Socony-Vacuum in the Far East, now ExxonMobil) and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (now BP) were pooled in 1938 and operated by the Australasian Petroleum Company (APC); Oil Search Ltd staff were seconded to APC (Rickwood 1990, Pratt 2000). In 1938 the first major aerial photographic survey was carried out, primarily to elucidate the broad geologic features. In this area of high rainfall and low cloud there was an average of only 18 minutes of effective flying time per day (Rickwood 1992). Topographic maps at scales of 1:40,000, 1:100,000 and 1:250,000 were produced over an area of 28,000 square miles (72,000 km?). The new maps had a dramatic effect on the progress of mapping in the field, and subsequent surveys carried out, including those by Carey of the Purari and Vailala area of Papua, are classic references and facilitated progress in geological understanding (Rickwood 1992). In 1939 a palaeontological laboratory was set up in Port Moresby under the direction of Dr Martin E Glaessner, who had come from Anglo-Persian. Glaessner’s work made possible the zonation of the Cenozoic and correlation of Papuan stratigraphy with the Dutch East Indies (Rickwood 1992). As a result of its investigations the Australasian Petroleum Company selected its first site for a deep test at Kariava on the Vailala River (fig. 1): an anticline had been identified from air photographs and confirmed by field geology (Rickwood 1990). Drilling operations were suspended on 10 January 1942, because of the Japanese offensive in New Guinea, when the well had reached a depth of 5117 feet. Drilling was resumed in March 1946, and the well was finally abandoned in April 1948 at a depth of 12,621 feet (3847 m). Some small gas shows were recorded, but the results were generally disappointing (Nye & Fisher 1954). Due to the Japanese offensive, exploration largely ceased in January 1942 and remaining APC staff were evacuated to Australia. FIELDWORK METHODS AND OBSERVATIONS Transport by water was essential in New Guinea where there were no roads and before air transport became readily available. Coastal steamers provided initial transport around the coast and then smaller vessels were used in rivers until such time as walking became the only means by which the work could be carried out. Oil Search Ltd developed a methodology based on systematic surveying and field geology rather than early drilling. The work involved: * reconnaissance and follow-up more detailed mapping as required * palaeontological studies to control the stratigraphy; local and regional correlation of stratigraphic sections; structural geology to define potentially prospective structures and regional tectonics * petroleum indicators with search carried out in the field and previous reports. Field parties usually comprised one or two geologists and a surveyor with support from local people, and was carried out largely by plane-table traversing with telescopic alidades and stadia rods of river and stream sections. In smaller creeks, navigation by prismatic compass might be utilised and sometimes stakes were set at 100-foot intervals. Carey himself provided some wonderful insights into his modus operandi in reminisences published half a century later (Carey 1990) and illustrated by the following quotes: No base maps. Mapping by chain and (prismatic) compass and plane table traversing with telescopic alidade distances being measured by stadia. To go to a place a hundred kilometres away, I walked. Leaving base camp, I would not expect to see another white man for several weeks, only neolithic natives [sic], many of whom had not seen a white man before. The only fresh meat was that which I shot. I kept a working yeast bottle to leaven my bread. Mail reached base camp every six weeks. (Away from base camp) no radio communication or news broadcasts. Hydrocarbon occurrences noted: oil and gas seeps, rocks with ‘kerosene smell. Crocodiles — I fired my Webley forty-five at it, but it did not even budge... Montgomery fired his Winchester... that night they had a great feast of fresh crocodile. The author recalls Professor Carey (on more than one occasion) regaling all with tales of using the filament from a spider’s web as crosshairs in his theodolite. River access Most traverses were on rivers transverse to major structures: a collage of photographs taken by Carey around 1936, illustrating aspects of this work, is shown as plate 3. The larger rivers were accessible for some distance by small coastal vessels. The Oil Search Ltd parties often made use of the Orion, an auxiliary yawl of 19 tons. The other main form of river transport was motor canoes — simple dugouts made on the spot and usually less than 50 feet long. The canoes were generally utilised in pairs, one with the alidade and plane table, the other as the surveyor’s scale either carried vertically or painted horizontally on the vessel (plate 3B, S. Warren Carey: New Guinea oil explorer 59 E); sometimes one was used as a simple outrigger, at other times a deck was lashed between two canoes. Motor power was provided by outboard motors of 4 to 22 horsepower. Carey noted that: ‘if travelling at night passengers can sleep comfortably on stretchers and a table can be set up for meals and a galley fire built on a clay pan’ (Carey 1941, Appendix 1, p. 4). Beyond the limits where motor canoes could access, light paddle canoes were used (plate 3B). Aerial reconnaissance Observation flights were initiated by APC as a recon- naissance tool in 1937. Carey undertook aerial studies of the morphology of the Owen Stanley Range and the Yodda Valley in October 1937 and examined large areas of the Gulf of Papua in April 1938. In May 1938 he flew from Port Moresby to Salamua (then a small town situated on the northeastern coast, built on a minor isthmus between the coast with mountains on the inland side and a headland; the closest city is Lae) via Yodda and Chirima Valleys on the north side of the Owen Stanley Range and returned via Wau, Mt Lawson and Mt Yule on the south side of the Range. He also made a return flight along the length of New Britain. Carey carried out aerial photographic mapping and reconnaissance of the Central Highlands from 14 February PLATE 3 — Life in the field, New Guinea circa 1936. The photos are scanned and enhanced from Carey’s thesis. A. Geologist’s camp on the lower Purari River; Orion moored next to camp. B. Hauling geological survey transport canoes in the Averi River, Gulf of Papua. C. Lunch stop, delta country, Gulf of Papua; K. McKinnon on the left, Carey on the right. B. Fly camp, delta country, Gulf of Papua (J.N. Montgomery nearest to camera). E. K. McKinnon improvising stadia rods from bamboo. 60 Peter Baillie to 9 March 1939. The work was undertaken while travelling as a passenger in a Ford Trimotor on its flights across the mountains between Wau (fig. 1) and its survey assignment in Papua. K. Washington Gray (én litt., 17 October 1939) noted increasing interest in the Central Highlands at that time and that Carey’s tasks included having to “trace the extension of the great sequence of Mesozoic sediments then discovered” and “obtain a preliminary conception [sic] of the geology of the central highlands”. An example photograph is included as plate 4. The practical difficulties of aerial observation and recording over hostile terrain in various weather conditions (in poor weather the geologist took the co-pilot’s seat and became navigator and observer for a reconnaissance flight) can hardly be comprehended to the modern geologist, but Carey undertook the task with his customary zeal and meticulous planning. In an appendix to his report (Carey 1939) he provides an account of the methodology and details the necessary equipment: * suitable clothing for working at altitude * amber glasses for eliminating haze ¢ binoculars * camera (preferably operated by another person) * prepared map (including all known topographical information, radial course lines, magnetic bearings, approximate flying times) ¢ scribbling map at same scale * spring bows set to 5 minutes flying on base map; * protractor scale : * prepared notebook (ruled with longitudinal medial line marked off in minutes on the scale of one inch to the minute of flying time). CAREY IN NEW GUINEA Carey’s work in New Guinea is conveniently divided into two phases, separated by a period of six months’ leave he took in the second half of 1938 to return to Sydney to write the thesis for which he was awarded a Doctor of Science from the University of Sydney. PLATE 4 — Example photograph of Carey’s aerial reconnaissance undertaken for APC. The original caption reads “Bulolo Valley at Bulolo, looking southeast. Bulolo Gold Dredging Company’s main camp (A) middle right; Wau-Bulwa road (B) in centre; Bulolo aerodrome (C) flanking road; dredge tailings (D) flanking the Bulolo River. The valley becomes constricted in the distance (E) owing to a cross upwarp of hard porphyry and phyllite, but beyond the constriction widens again to Wau near (F). The low grassy hills (G) belong to the Otibanda Series; the wooded hills are Kaindi Series, with intrusions of granites and porphyries. (APC Photo).” | Phase 1: 1934-1938 Carey commenced work in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea in 1934, arriving in Boram (5 km from modern-day Wewak; fig. 1) via Port Moresby and Rabaul (at the eastern end of New Britain) and subsequently worked over much of both New Guinea and Papua. His work included geological mapping, report writing and review, and administrative duties. In the field, he also prepared material for micro-fossil identification and assisted in identification and classification. He also made thin sections for petrographic studies. He then spent several months examining the stratigraphy and structure of the Neogene succession of the Sepik Valley (fig. 1). It was at this time that the widespread occurrence of faulting was recognised in the Neogene folds. In June and July 1935, he worked in the Prince Alexander Mountains (fig. 1) on the northern coast of New Guinea and made a south-to-north section. In September 1936 he undertook a scout reconnaissance section across the Torricelli Mountains and recognised that most of the structures were related to shearing stresses. He then spent several months mapping in the Sepik Valley region where he first demonstrated the existence of an unconformity between the Oligocene to Lower Miocene Aitape Series and the Neogene Finsch Coast Series. Carey subsequently recognised three main biostratigraphic groups, separated by unconformities, in the Tertiary succession of New Guinea (table 1). Shortly before noon on 20 September 1935, Carey was working in the Wapi district in the Senu River, south of the Torricelli Mountains (fig. 1), when his party was struck by one of the largest recorded earthquakes in New Guinea's history (magnitude 7.9). Carey (1935, p. 8) vividly described how his terrified workers: . were first thrown to the ground, and picked themselves up, only to be thrown again and again. I fell on my knees and supported myself against a stout bamboo thicket and concentrated my attention on hanging on and watching the falling timber. I was shaken so violently that it was not easy to tell which trees were falling. Waves developed on the river and broke on the shore like surf: The traverse station I - had just vacated was buried under a crumbling cliff: A second earthquake followed about 30 minutes later, severe, but less intense than the first. Aftershocks continued for the next full day and continued with lesser intensity for the next two months (Carey 1990).° Understandably, Carey’s workers were terrified by the earthquake and its aftershocks. They packed his gear into boxes and prepared to move out. He: . chided them soundly for their cowardice, and set all hands to work putting the camp in order ... I explained to them, as clearly as pidgin-English would allow, just what an earthquake was—pointing out its wide extent and showing them the futility of trying to run away from it. (Carey 1935, p. 9) The earthquake was also experienced by a party led by Montgomery conducting an exploratory reconnaissance S. Warren Carey: New Guinea oil explorer 61 TABLE 1 — Carey’s identification of the main biostratigraphic groups, separated by unconformities, in the Tertiary succession of New Guinea (letters refer to the Indonesian Tertiary Letter-classification). Age Unit Key Indonesian Foraminifera Stage Latest Finsch Coast g Pliocene — Series Miocene Oligocene— Aitape Series Lepidocyclina d-e-f Early Late Miocene Paleogene Port Moresby Nummulites- a-b Series Discocyclina on the lower Sepik River (fig. 1). Montgomery and his surveyor H.D. Eve described ‘a sudden hush, followed by a loud rushing sound and almost instantly the ground was rocking with an undulatory motion of such rapidity and intensity that it was impossible to remain upright without support. Some days later: . as the party proceeded towards the Torricelli Mountains, fallen houses, ruptured ridges, and landslides became increasingly frequent ... the southern slopes of the main portion of the Torricelli Mountains, which previously had been densely forested, showed great stretches bared to bedrock and steep slopes replaced by cliffs. (Carey 1935, p. 13) At various times during 1935-1936, Carey worked with Montgomery, Edwards and Fryer to map the Maimai Dome (Montgomery & Carey 1936, fig. 1), which was seen as a potential hydrocarbon-bearing structure — a postulated Aitape Series buried hill beneath an anticline 5.5 x 1 miles in areal extent with a vertical closure of 1400 feet. The structure is about 64 km from the nearest coastal harbour at Aitape and access was difficult, the best being 56 km northwards from the Sepik River over swamp, forested plains and hilly country. It was noted that villages were comparatively small, and the area was situated between Mikili and Maimai, two mutually hostile clans. The work was carried out in several phases: * reconnaissance by Montgomery in October 1935 detected the structure * reconnaissance mapping by Carey, Edwards and Fryer * mapping by Edwards and Fryer at three inches to the mile (‘the former standard’) ¢ further work requiring mapping by Carey and Edwards * follow-up (“to gather up loose ends and cover some blanks”) by Edwards and Fryer-in May 1936. The absence of seeps over the structure was seen as a negative and boring was recommended to determine if the structure contained petroleum in commercial quantities; further regional reconnaissance surveying and geological studies to determine the presence of hydrocarbons was also recommended (Montgomery & Carey 1936). The author has found no evidence that the structure was ever drilled. In 1936, Edwards and Carey (1936) described the lithotypes present in the Aitape and Finsch Coast Series throughout the Sepik Basin (‘Geosyncline’). The Aitape 62. Peter Baillie Series comprised limestone, sand silt and mudstone with conglomerate and volcanics; a key fossil for recognition was Lepidocyclina. The authors noted the presence of great thicknesses of silty rhythmite, which they regarded as the result of the annual monsoon cycle. The Finsch Coast Series comprised limestone, mudstone, sandstone and siltstone and had a characteristic physiographic expression; six stages were recognised, with Globigerina the key fossil. During this period, Carey also made quick visits to islands off the north coast of New Guinea. Each has a volcanic origin, with Manam (fig. 1) being very active (Carey 1938b). Carey took leave in Sydney during July and August 1936 and returned to New Guinea, commencing work in the Gulf of Papua (Territory of Papua) continuing structural mapping and resulting in the subdivision of the Neogene. In May 1937, he traced the edge of the Australian foreland (N-NW major monocline downthrown to the east, with significant Neogene thickening to the east) north and northwest from Kikori (fig. 1). From July 1937 to January 1938 the regional survey was extended from the Purari River to the Akaifu River (north of the Owen Stanley Range), including a reconnaissance expedition along the border of Papua and the Mandated Territory between the Vailala and Tauri rivers in November and December 1937 and down the Tauri River to the coast. Carey described this as uninhabited country (or) no-mans-land between mutually hostile clans’ and noted that ‘we knew we were being watched, all armed with bows and arrows’. In crossing the Pururi, Carey found a potentially large structure and a series of thick-bedded limestone. During 1937 and 1938 Carey worked in the eastern Gulf region. In October 1937 he searched for gas seeps in the vicinity of the present town of Kerema (fig. 1), where seeps had previously been reported by Woolnough (1934). In early 1938 he carried out reconnaissance mapping down the western Tauri Valley from the border of the Mandated Territory to the coast at Kukipi (fig. 1); he also carried out mapping in the Murumie and Matupu rivers. He subsequently undertook a coastal traverse from Kukii to Yule Island and in May 1938 reviewed Gulf Coast structures between Popo and Yule Island (fig. 1). Before the Oil Search Ltd Papua permits were transferred to the Australasian Petroleum Company, Carey compiled a major report on permits 5 and 7 (Carey 1938a). The report comprised detailed sections on physiography, stratigraphy (subdivided into Upper Neogene, Lower Neogene and Paleogene Series), analysis of the Tertiary succession in the Gulf of Papua, a review of Tertiary micro-faunas in the Gulf of Papua, structural correlation of the Tertiary of New Guinea, structural conditions in the Gulf of Papua and a section on petroleum which included an inventory of all known petroleum indications. Arthur Wade said of the report (én Jit. 11 Aug 1939, unpublished): ‘In spite of Mr Carey’s tendency to be a little dogmatic at times, his report is a valuable contribution to the knowledge of the Geology of New Guinea.’ A break from fieldwork: doctoral thesis 1938 Carey took six months’ leave from June to December 1938, during which time he returned to Sydney and completed and submitted a thesis (Carey 1938b) entitled ‘Tectonic Evolution of New Guinea and Melanesia for which he was awarded a Doctor of Science degree from the University of Sydney in 1939. In the thesis, Carey noted that it was the ‘reading and reflection’ stimulated by his early fieldwork for Oil Search Ltd in which many of his tectonic ideas were developed. The thesis is in two parts: the first dealt with the morphology, stratigraphy and structure of New Guinea; the second with the nature, origin and evolution of the ‘island fringe of Australia’. In dealing with structure, Carey noted that almost every anticline bears the stamp of rotational stress either in the configuration of its axis, its relation to its neighbours, or its association of compression and cognate tension. Almost every thrust tells the same story, either by its place in the fault pattern, by its attitude, by the trend of the slickensides, or its association with a complementary thrust tend. The mountain orogens bear similar testimony, both in their internal architecture and their external trend. He recognised: * master faults running for hundreds of miles though the country, terminating all other structures; ; * strata on either of the faults appear to have been folded and faulted independently * structures between the master shears are always oblique. Carey postulated that the regional folding and rotation resulted from ‘great master shears’ and that the whole New Guinea region bears the stamp of a ‘colossal shear system’, which he termed the Melanesian Shear System; furthermore, the stresses responsible were continental in scale: ‘New Guinea has been sheared westwards under a colossal shear system, on a scale grander than has yet been demonstrated anywhere else on the globe’ (Carey 1938b, p. 62). In the second part of the thesis, he extended his hypothesis outside of his field area into the Indonesian Archipelago and beyond. At this time, Carey clearly believed in the large- scale horizontal movement of continents (Carey 1938b): * He figured Du Toit’s (1937) reconstruction of Gondwanaland (Carey 1938b, figs. 30, 31) and said of him: “developing the great new highway of thought blazed by Wegener, has prepared a masterly synthesis of the Gondwana continents for the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic eras” (Carey 1938b, p. 81). ¢ He quoted Professor Arthur Holmes (Holmes 1928) making ‘an important contribution from the theoretical side and discussed sub-crustal convection movements arising from differential radio-active heating as a mechanism of orogenesis’ and that Holmes’ theory of sub-crustal convection movement satisfactorily accounts for the tectonic facts of Melanesia (Carey 1938b, p. 88). ° He also quoted Andrews (1938): “Wegner by this imaginative excursion, was led to infer the impermanence of position of the major structures of the Earth, such as the continents and oceans’ (Carey 1938b, p. 93). To explain the palaeogeography of Melanesia, Carey postulated either large continental areas had foundered to oceanic depths or that continental material had moved great horizontal distances. He favoured horizontal displacement as there was no direct evidence of foundering and a growding body of evidence that island blocks had been displaced horizontally. He concluded that continents may be disrupted or torn apart, but they may not be foundered to a great depth. Carey noted that his thesis commenced with seemingly routine parochial survey in New Guinea and finished with a philosophy of the Pacific: ‘All real scientific progress, and all initiation of new trends in thought are based on bold, but intuitively guided imagination’ (Carey 1938b, p. 100). Phase II: 1939-1942 On his return to New Guinea, Carey commenced work in the Gulf of Papua studying the Neogene succession S. Warren Carey: New Guinea oil explorer 63 and undertaking structural mapping. For the first time, air photographs were available and brought an enormous advance, as it was now possible to extrapolate between creeks. For the remainder of his time in New Guinea, Carey was involved in the Purari region of Papua (Carey 1941, 1942, fig. 1). Between 1939 and 1940 he led investigations of the Lower Purari and Vailala rivers (Carey 1941) — primary tasks were mapping (four inches to the mile, plate 5), the search for direct evidence of petroleum and study of the Neogene succession. Three main surveys were conducted: ° Middle Purari Survey, 10 April to 21 July 1939 * Trans Purari Survey, 13 September to 29 December 1939 * Hathos Gorge Excursion, 5 March to 3 April 1940. Carey (1941, Appendix 2) noted potential problems with and between local clans in the Lower Purari area, no doubt reassured by ‘three police officers, each with a Lee Enfield 303 rifle...two boys [sic] each with a shotgun [and] myself with rifle and revolver’ (Carey 1990, p. 21). PLATE 5 — Detail of map of Vailala River area (Carey 1942; figure 12) illustrating detail of work undertaken. Information includes topographic information, stratigraphy, bedding dip and strike, sample points (numbers in circles), petroleum manifestations. Original map published at four inches to the mile. 64 Peter Baillie The presence of ‘most favourable’ structural traps in the Purari region was recorded and Carey concluded that ‘field evidence gives much more promise to lower part of the Upper Miocene’. He further noted that the Puri Limestone was a possible source rock succession, describing it as ‘lithologically organic’. He also speculated on the presence of Paleogene source rocks. In his report on the Puri Anticline (fig. 1; Carey 1940) it was noted that the structural feature was 22 x 4 miles in extent and within a belt of ‘known manifestations of petroleum’. Five lithological subdivisions were recognised (Puri Limestone, Orbulina Marl, Toa Mudstone, Ena arenaceous group and Rapids Sandstone). He noted that a seismic (refraction) program was already underway. Carey's structural sections of the Puri Antlicline are shown as plate 6 — note the simple structure and lack of reverse faulting, although it can be inferred in Section CC. Plate 7 is the compilation map produced by Carey of the Oil Search Ltd work in the Gulf country through the Owen Stanley Range to the Markham River area on the north coast. CAREY’S CONTRIBUTIONS Carey and his colleagues carried out a heroic campaign of geology-based field exploration under the most difficult of conditions. Although their work did not find commercial hydrocarbons (drilling of the first well commenced in 1942, was suspended because of the Japanese invasion and was completed — as a dry well — after the war), it paved the way for PNG’s current hydrocarbon industry. The work became the classic reference for the areas and made enormous progress in geological understanding (Rickwood 1990). Rickwood also stated that ‘the immediate advances in geological mapping and in geological thinking which followed the first photogeological work were probably the greatest single step ever made in understanding the geology of Papua New Guinea’ (Rickwood, 1990, p. 6). It also paved the way for 1:250,000 scale mapping of all of PNG by the Australian Bureau of Mineral Resources 1950-1979 and this benefited both the petroleum and minerals sectors. Largely driven by the presence of numerous oil and gas seeps which were first recorded as early as 1911, the Oil Search/APC exploration campaign was almost entirely directed towards Neogene rocks, with Paleogene and Mesozoic successions being regarded as non-prospective. Conventional thinking at the time was that the hydrocarbons in the seeps were sourced from carbonaceous rocks of Tertiary age (e.g., Woolnough 1934). Carey (1936, p. 1) commented on a reported seep in the Ramu Valley some 35 miles southwest of Nubia (fig. 1). He met the gentleman who reported it and noted: ‘I gathered what particulars I could without displaying much interest’. He also noted there were no maps and thought that an exploratory trip would take one to two weeks. Unfortunately, they were looking in the wrong place: it is now known that most of the hydrocarbons in the Papuan Basin (with the notable exception of the twenty- first-century giant Elk-Antelope discovery) are sourced from Late Jurassic mudstones, reservoired within Early Cretaceous (Berriasian) sandstones and sealed by Mesozoic age (Berriasian—Turonian) clastic successions (Davies et al. 1996, Hill & Hall 2003, Karwagle 2007). Carey (and his co-workers) understood the difference between bio- and lithostratigraphy and time and time-rock units, and used fossil determinations to help subdivide the Neogene stratigraphic units (in this context, the work of Dr Martin Glaessner was critical). The work was published by the Australian Petroleum Company (1961) where five Papuan Stages were defined: the Kereruan (Late Oligocene to earliest Miocene) characterised by shallow-water ‘larger’ foraminifera known from the Indonesian Te Letter stage; the Taurian (mid Early to mid Middle Miocene) characterised by shallow-water ‘larger’ foraminifera known from the Tfl-2 Letter Stage; the Ivorian (late Middle to early Late Miocene) characterised by shallow water ‘larger’ foraminifera known from the Indonesian Tf3 Letter stage; the Kikorian equivalent to both the Taurian and the Ivorian; and the Muruan (Late Miocene) characterised by ‘smaller’ foraminifera including planktonic species of deep-water deposits. By 1961 the Australian Petroleum Company had discontinued use of these local stages in favour of applying European chronographic nomenclature to the Papuan successions and significant advances in global foraminiferal biostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy of the latter part of the twentieth century made the Papuan Stage names superfluous (Haig & Perembo 1990). He recognised tectonic control over New Guinea geomorphology and named the Sepik Geosyncline (Basin) to encompass the conspicuous strike valleys north of the cordillera (pl. 8). This structural and physiographic feature traverses the length of New Guinea — from Huon Gulf responsible for the valleys of the Markham, Ramu and Sepik rivers, the Iddenberg, Wouffaer and Wapenga rivers in western New Guinea, and then emerging into Cenderawasih Bay (the prominent triangular-shaped bay east of the Birds Head at the western end of the island of New Guinea, see inset fig. 1; termed “Geelvink Bay” by Carey). He described the Central Highlands as a geanticlinal complex, between the Sepik-Ramu-Markham depression on the north and the Papuan -Geosyncline to the south, modified by several powerful fault systems together with several distinct nuclei or uplift areas around which younger sediments have been faulted and folded (Carey .1939). Carey, influenced by the pioneering work of Alfred Wegener, was an early believer in the concept of continental drift as evident in his thesis. He was aware of the massive tectonic movements responsible for the creation of New Guinea and noted that the cordillera system had raised Neogene marine beds to an altitude of 16 000 feet (4900 m) and 55 miles (88 km) from its front. Carey’s inventive tectonic synthesis resulted not only in the Melanesian Shear but led to the globe encircling Tethyan Shear and Carey's “new global tectonics”, arguably the basis of current plate tectonics. * The relevance of this heroic work was not long-lasting. Carey himself described the work as being carried out: S. Warren Carey: New Guinea oil explorer 65 t * rf ™ TO ACCOMPANY “REPORT ON THE GEOLOGY OF THE PURARI RIVER REGION ” BY S.W.CAREY, D.SC. Hf i AUSTRALASIAN: PETROLEUM CO. PTY. LTD. : ate Bs Saree eae STRUCTURAL SECTIONS — oe 3 695, _ = OF THE — yS: PURI ANTICLINE “Scat 1?40000 ee Dry Rog No. PLATE 6 — Interpreted pence gee | Ree aera Cake oe, Se structural sections, Puri ee ta : — RTA Ea Aaa Saye eS Anticline (from Carey 1940). illie 66 Peter Ba “| ‘By uo a]Buejoas pau Aq payeoipul uo!}e90| ‘uolBas JOARY Wey , FHL 40 LU¥d 40 dVW 3ONVSSIVNNOD3Y > Seen 48 5 if “SONVIHSIH) IWHLN3SD vadvda yley-spue|yBiH JeUed-endeg Jo JIND Jo (BBESL Kase ‘|| a}e|q) dew jeoiBojoeb uone|idwod — 2 3lW1d PLATE 8 — Interpreted morphological features of New Guinea (Carey 1938a and also included in his thesis as plate 1). S. Warren Carey: New Guinea oil explorer 67 . at the end of the puttee and paddle period of field geology in New Guinea ... at a time when the strand line was the boundary of the vast region of total ignorance ... and being out of date within a very few years. (letter to Peter Purcell, 31 October 1969) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges help and advice received from the late Dr Max Banks and John Davidson in Hobart, Ian Longley formerly of Oil Search Ltd in Sydney, and Michael McWalter in PNG. Peter Purcell in Perth provided advice, material and encouragement over a period of several years: he also critically read the manuscript and helped with some photographs. The manuscript was considerably improved following critical reading by Dr David Haig, Perth, and Tasmanian referees Dr Eric Colhoun and John Davidson. REFERENCES Andrews, E.C. 1938: Presidential Address. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 63: i-xl. Australian Petroleum Company 1961: The geological results of petroleum exploration in Western Papua. Journal of the Geological Society of Australia 8(1): 1-133. Carey, S.W. 1935: Part I. Preliminary notes on the recent earthquake in New Guinea, Australian Geographer 2(8): 8-15. DOI: 10.1080/00049183508702151 Carey, S.W. 1936: Report on the alleged oil seepage in the Lower Ramu Valley. Oil Search Report (unpublished). Carey, S.W. 1938a: Geology of Petroleum Exploration Permits 5-7 Papua. Review of Results Available to 30% September 1938. Oil Search Report (unpublished). Carey, S.W. 1938b: Tectonic Evolution of New Guinea and Melanesia. PhD Doctoral Thesis, University of Sydney. Carey, S.W. 1939: Report on an aerial reconnaissance over part of the Central Highlands of New Guinea. Australia Petroleum Company Pty Ltd Report (unpublished). Carey, S.W. 1940: Interim Report on the Puri Anticline. Australia Petroleum Company Pty Ltd Report (unpublished). Carey, S.W. 1941: Report on the Geology of the Purari River Region Permits Papua. Australia Petroleum Company Pty Ltd Report (unpublished). Carey, S.W. 1942: Report on the Geology of the Area between the Lower Purari and Vialala Rivers Permit No. 5 Papua. Australia Petroleum Company Pty Ltd Report (unpublished). Carey, S.W. 1990: Fifty years of oil search. Jv Carman, G.J. and Z. (eds): Petroleum Exploration in Papua New Guinea: Proceedings of First PNG Petroleum Convention, Port Moresby, 12-14 February 1990: 17-26. Davies, H.L., Winn, R.D. & KenGemar, P. 1996: Evolution of the Papuan Basin —a View from the Orogen. Jn Buchanan, PG., Grainge, A.M. & Thornton, R.C.N. (eds): Papua New Guinea’ Petroleum Industry in the 21* Century: Proceedings of Fourth PNG Petroleum Convention, Port Moresby, 9-11» September 1996: 53-62. Du Toit, A.L. 1937: Our Wandering Continents. Oliver and Boyd, London. 366 pp. Edwards, A.K.M. & Carey, S.W. 1936: Lithology of Aitape and Finsch Coast Series throughout the Sepik Geosyncline. Oil Search Report (unpublished). ; Haig, D.W. & Perembo, R.C.B. 1990: Foraminifera as Neogene Stratigraphic Guides for Papua New Guinea. Jn Carman, GJ. and Z. (eds): Petroleum Exploration in Papua New 68 Peter Baillie Guinea: Proceedings of First PNG Petroleum Convention, Port Moresby, 12-14” February 1990: 381-395. Hill, K.C. & Hall, R. 2003: Mesozoic-Cenozoic evolution of Australia’s New Guinea margin in a west Pacific context. Geological Society of Australia Special Publication 22 and Geological Society of America Special Paper 372: 265-290. Holmes, A. 1928: Radioactivity and earth movements. Transactions Geological Society of Glasgow 18(III): 1928-31. Jukes, J.B. 1847: Narrative of the Surveying Voyage of HMS Fly, Commanded by Captain FP Blackwood, RN in Torres Strait, New Guinea, and Other Islands of the Eastern Archipelago, During the Years 1842-1846. 2 vols, T. & W. Boone, London. Karwagle, S.A. 2007: Petroleum Resources of Papua New Guinea. Resource Geology 57(3): 347-350. doi: 10.1111/j.1751- 3928.2007.00028.x McCarthy J.K. 1963: Patrol into Yesterday: My New Guinea Years. FE. W. Cheshire Publishing Pry Ltd, Melbourne, Canberra and Marrickville: 252 pp. Montgomery, J.N. & Carey, S.W. 1936: Report on results of geological reconnaissance mapping in Palei and adjacent districts, with special reference to the Maimai Dome. Australia Petroleum Company Report (unpublished). Nye, P.B. & Fisher, N.H. 1954: The mineral deposits and mining industry of Papua-New Guinea. Bureau of Mineral Resources. Geology and Geophysics Report No. 9: 35 pp. Pratt, EC. 2000: Surveyors and the search for oil; PNG 1911-1942. In: Buchanan, PG. (ed.): Petroleum Exploration, Development and Production in Papua New Guinea: Proceedings of Third PNG Petroleum Convention, Port Moresby, 29-31" May 2000: 43-63. Quilty, PG. & Banks, M.R. 2003: Samuel Warren Carey, 1911-2002. Historical Records of Australian Science 14(3): 313-335. DOI: 10.1071/HR03005 Rickwood, EK. 1990: Towards Development — The Long History of Petroleum Exploration in Papua New Guinea. /n Carman, GJ. & Z. (eds): Petroleum Exploration in Papua New Guinea: Proceedings of First PNG Petroleum Convention, Port Moresby, 12-14 February 1990: 1-13. Rickwood, F. 1992: The Kibutu Discovery. SBN 0-641246X. Book Generation Pty Ltd, Glenroy Victoria: 172 pp. Wade, A. 1927: The search for oil in New Guinea. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 11: 157-174. Woolnough, W.G. 1934: Natural gas in Australia and New Guinea. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 18(2): 226-242. (accepted 29 June 2021) Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 155(2), 2021 69 TASMANIAN MUSEUM AND ART GALLERY’S EXPEDITION OF DISCOVERY II — THE FLORA AND FAUNA OF MUSSELROE WIND FARM, CAPE PORTLAND, NORTHEAST TASMANIA by Matthew Baker, Simon Grove, Miguel de Salas, Catherine Byrne, Lynette Cave, Kevin Bonham, Kirrily Moore, Laurie Cook and Gintaras Kantvilas (with one text-figure, nine plates, two tables and one appendix) Baker, M.L., Grove, S., de Salas, M.E, Byrne, C., Cave, L., Bonham, K., Moore, K., Cook, L. & Kantvilas, G. 2021 (15:xii). Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery's Expedition of Discovery II — The Flora and Fauna of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 2021(2): 69-96. ISSN 0080-4703. Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, GPO Box 1164, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia (MLB*, SG, MES, CB, LC, KB, KM, LC, GK). *Author for correspondence. Email: matthew. baker@tmag.tas.gov.au Flora and fauna surveys were conducted at the Musselroe Wind Farm property in 2018 and 2019 as part of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery’s ongoing research, collection-building and nature-discovery program. The property was found to have significant ecological and nature conservation values and this survey program increases the number of vouchered taxa known for the area to 1336 primarily from the targeted groups of vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, butterflies, moths, beetles, freshwater invertebrates, snails and slugs. Many threatened taxa were recorded and several of the taxa, chiefly lichens and invertebrates, are new to science or new records for Tasmania. This survey significantly expands our knowledge of the flora and fauna of the Cape Portland area and serves as a baseline for a property with a mix of farming and environmental conservation management. Key Words: Species discovery, biodiversity, multidisciplinary survey, Cape Portland, wind farm, threatened species. INTRODUCTION The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery's (TMAG) expedition to the Musselroe Wind Farm was the second in a series of multidisciplinary biological surveys conducted by the museum under the banner of its Expeditions of Discovery. The aims and rationale for the surveys, as discussed by Baker et al. (2019), are to: build TMAG’s collections of flora and fauna from under- and poorly sampled parts of Tasmania; document the species of plants and animals ° present; discover new or hitherto overlooked species; and, highlight the role that baseline species-discovery research plays in understanding and managing Tasmania's biota. The first expedition, conducted at the Wind Song property at _ Little Swanportin 2017, recorded 885 taxa, including several new to science or new records for Tasmania (McCarthy & Kantvilas 2018, Baker er al. 2019, Elix et al. 2019, Elix & Kantvilas 2020). The Musselroe Wind Farm was chosen as it contains a diverse range of habitats, it has a limited number of vouchered collections held in museums and _ herbaria, and the project had the enthusiastic support of the land managers, Woolnorth Wind Farm Holding Pty Ltd. The. survey focused on vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, butterflies, moths, beetles, freshwater invertebrates, snails and slugs, with other taxonomic groups recorded opportunistically. Here we present an inventory and discussion of the plants, lichens and animals identified and offer an insight into a biodiverse corner of Tasmania. These results serve as a benchmark for future studies in other parts of Tasmania and to guide natural resource management on the property. MATERIALS AND METHODS The property The Musselroe Wind Farm is situated in Tasmania’s far northeast (fig. 1), approximately 20 km north of Gladstone. It is a mixed-use enterprise, managed primarily to produce renewable energy via 56 wind turbines, and with a secondary use of cattle grazing. The property covers about 5500 haand is bordered by approximately 30 km of reserved coastline. A large proportion has been cleared for grazing and converted into improved pasture, and this area is also the footprint for most of the wind farm. The Cape Portland Wildlife Sanctuary (CPWS) (844 ha), a private reserve managed by the Musselroe Wind Farm, is located on the western side of the property. The location of the property relative to adjacent reserved areas is shown in figure 1. ‘The property has a diverse range of natural wetlands, six of which are listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands for supporting native plant or animal taxa or communities considered threatened at the national level (Environment Australia 2001). The survey area is dominated by low rounded hills formed from Jurassic dolerite interspersed with poorly drained flats of Quaternary sands of aeolian, marine and lacustrine origin (Jennings & Sutherland 1969). There are scattered Cenozoic basalt flows in the 70 M. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas Cape Portland Cape Portland Conservation Area Petal Point Boobyalla Conservation Area @ Main Collecting Location © Water Body and Watercourse B Conservation Area i Private Conservation Area Musselroe Wind Farm Little Musselroe Bay Musselroe Bay Conservation Area Little Musselroe River FIGURE 1 — Location of Musselroe Wind Farm: showing main collecting locations and reserve boundaries. 1: Tregaron Lagoons; 2 The Salties; 3: The Bullseye; 4: The Prairie; 5: Xanthorrhoea Ridge; 6: Abalone Rocks. western half, as well as small exposures of the Cape Portland Complex, a Cretaceous intrusive porphyry, mostly west of Cape Portland Road. A small outcrop of Triassic sandstone is exposed just west of the original homestead. The easternmost extremity of the property is underlain by Devonian granite (McClenaghan 2005), which is exposed at the coast. The climate of northeastern Tasmania corresponds to the K6ppen classification of Cfb (temperate, warm summer, without dry season (Peel et al. 2007)). The nearest Tasmanian mainland weather station to Cape Portland is at larapuna/ Eddystone Point, where average temperatures fluctuate from 6.9-13°C in winter to 13.9-21.1°C in summer. Modelling by LandTasmania, following methods prescribed in Webb et al. (2015), suggests average minimum temperatures of 4.5-6.5°C for July and 12.1-12.9°C for January, with average maximum temperatures of 13.1—-13.5°C in July and 21.5—22.5°C in January (LIST 2020). Rainfall has a distinct peak during the winter months and is lowest during January and February, with an annual average of 754 mm (BOM 2020). Although there is a closer weather station at nearby Swan Island, its temperatures are strongly influenced by its small island location, and less likely to accurately reflect those at the study site. Most of the Cape Portland property is farmland or land previously cleared for agriculture and now managed for conservation. The western two-thirds of the property (west of the Little Musselroe River) is improved pasture actively managed for cattle grazing. In comparison, the eastern third of the property consists of a mosaic of unimproved pasture, formerly managed for grazing but now managed for conservation as it supports areas of native vegetation. Significant areas of native Poa grassland occur in the area north of Tregaron Lagoons, between Charmouth Hill and Cape Portland. Native saline-tolerant vegetation is widespread in the Tregaron Lagoons area, along the northern coastal fringe south of Lanoma Point and along the shores * of the Little Musselroe estuary. A large area of coastal heathland containing a significant proportion of shrub and scrubland with a closed canopy occupies the eastern third of the property, in a triangle bounded approximately by the coast to the northeast, the Little Musselroe River and estuary to the west, and the southern boundary. Small but significant areas of Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest occur along the course of the Little Musselroe River and at Iregaron Lagoons, while patches of Allocasuarina verticillata forest occupy higher well-drained ground along dune tops and ridges. Over a period of about five years to 2018, substantial infestations of the declared weed species Gorse Ulex europaeus and African Boxthorn Lycium ferocissimum were controlled using Australian Government funding through NRM North. The works were undertaken in areas of high-priority native vegetation where livestock have been excluded. These sites continue to be managed for conservation. The farmland areas are maintained according to a weed management plan with weed infestations of Gorse, Horehound Marrubium vulgare and various species of thistle managed to minimise their spread into high conservation areas. . The area has been visited by biologists numerous times, particularly to undertake surveys prior to the establishment of the wind farm. Whilst extensive in their coverage, the results of those studies are not publicly available and have generated relatively few herbarium/museum voucher specimens which add value to data included in platforms such as the Australasian Virtual Herbarium AVH or Atlas of Living Australia ALA. Prior to this survey only 220 vascular plant taxa and about 165 animal taxa were formally listed for the area (ALA 2020, AVH 2020). Expertise and timing ‘The survey involved four botanists and four zoologists from TMAG staff, as well as two honorary zoologist researchers. The property was surveyed during 5—9 November 2018, with follow-up invertebrate sampling and trap-sample The Flora and Fauna of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania 71 collection on 16 December 2018 and 16 January 2019, and additional flora, lichen and invertebrate sampling from 9-11 September 2019. Sampling methods Sampling was based on a strategic selection of survey sites ~ that represented the major vegetation types and was confined mostly to de-stocked and regenerating areas (fig. 1). The major survey sites were allocated a local name for ease of identification (table 1) and each site was surveyed in detail to cover relevant habitats for target taxa. Specimens of vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens were collected and lodged in the Tasmanian Herbarium, with limited duplicates distributed to other herbaria nationally and internationally under TMAG’s formal specimen exchange program. Several vascular plant taxa were recorded only by observation due to sampling difficulties (e.g., tall eucalypt trees) or lack of fertile material. All possible substrata for lichen and bryophytes, including rocks, soil, bark, wood and charcoal, were examined. Moths were collected mainly by ultraviolet light-traps. White sheets and bucket traps were used, but some were also collected from malaise traps set for general insect sampling. Beetles, other insects and other arthropods were sampled through a mix of direct observation, hand collection, including the use of hand nets and a beating tray, and- trapping using malaise traps and yellow pan traps. These taxonomic groups were also collected from light-traps set for sampling moths. Molluscs were recorded through hand- searching and collection. Other invertebrates and vertebrates were recorded incidentally. Specimens were lodged in the TMAG Zoology collections, with some mollusc specimens retained by specialists until identifications were completed. Information from all survey material curated and accessioned into the TMAG collection will be made available on the Australasian Virtual Herbarium and/or the Adlas of Living Australia. Specimen identification Specimens were identified utilising standard equipment and techniques, with comparison to TMAG’s reference collections when necessary. Lichens were identified in the TABLE 1 — Main collecting sites at Musselroe Wind Farm Site Latitude Longitude Tregaron Lagoons 40°46'19"S_ —_ 147°58'24"N The Salties, Cape Portland 40°44’43"S = 147°56’35"N The Bullseye, Little Musselroe 40°48'12"S 448°03'28"N River The Prairie 40°48'31"S_ — 148°06'21"N Xanthorrhoea Ridge 40°46'19"S_ — 148°00’58”N Abalone Rocks 40°47'14"S_ — 148°06’01”N laboratory using low-power and high-power microscopy of hand-cut sections of the thallus (vegetative tissue) and apothecia (reproductive structures), mounted in water, 10% KOH, 50% HNO,, lactophenol cotton blue, ammoniacal erythrosin and Lugol’s iodine. Routine chemical analyses using thin-layer chromatography followed standard methods (Orange et al. 2010). Some moth specimens were identified using the reference collections of the Australian National Insect Collection (ANIC) (CSIRO, Canberra) and the Biosecurity Tasmania Insect Collection at the New Town Research Laboratories of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. Nomenclature and distribution Vascular plant nomenclature follows de Salas and Baker (2021) and common names follow Wapstra et al. (2005). Nomenclature for mosses and liverworts is in accordance with the Australian Moss Name Index (ABRS 2018a), the Checklist of Australian Liverworts and Hornworts (McCarthy 2006) and Tropicos (Tropicos.org. 2018). Lichen nomenclature mainly follows McCarthy (2020). Nomenclature for land snails follows Stanisic et al. (2017). For all other vertebrate and invertebrate taxa identified to species, nomenclature follows the Australian Faunal Directory (ABRS 2018b). Undescribed, partially identified or new species of insect are annotated with a unique epithet based on the registration number of an exemplar specimen from the TMAG collections, such as ‘“Euryglossa sp. TMAG_F96120’. In cases where specimens can be associated with previously collected material, existing epithets are adopted. Insect specimens that could only be identified to a higher taxonomic rank than species are annotated with ‘unplaced’. Moth distributions and rarity were determined, in part, by referring to specimens in ANIC. RESULTS Diversity A total of 1417 taxa was recorded (table 2). This comprises 244 vascular plants, plus a further 119 collected in the past but not recorded in this survey (appendix 1.1); 33 mosses and seven liverworts (appendix 1.2); 206 lichens (appendix 1.3); and 735 invertebrates (714 insects, 5 spiders, 4 crustaceans and 12 gastropod molluscs) (appendix 1.4). In addition, five species of reptile, six species of mammal and 62 species of bird were observed or their presence detected (appendix 1.5). Vegetation types observed were: largely consistent with TASVEG 4.0 mapping (DPIPWE 2020). Smaller-scale unmapped features of interest include a dune, vegetated with an almost-perfect monoculture of Southern Grasstree Xanthorrhoea australis at Xanthorrhoea Ridge, and unmapped areas of Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest along the western margin of the Musselroe Bay estuary. Skeletal sandy soils on granitic outcrops at the far eastern end of the property supported a heathland community distinct from other heathland areas. For vascular plants, the most species- 72 M. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas diverse sites were The Salties (57 taxa) (pl. 1), The Bullseye (40 taxa) (pl. 2) and Abalone Rocks (31 taxa) (pl. 3), with the main families represented being the Asteraceae (35 taxa), Poaceae (32 taxa), Fabaceae (29 taxa) and Cyperaceae (25 taxa). A low-rainfall bryophyte flora is dominated by mosses over liverworts, with the best-represented families being the Pottiaceae (9 species) and Bryaceae (5 species), both adapted to dry conditions. The most species-diverse sites for bryophytes are The Salties, with all 15 taxa recorded growing on soil and Abalone Rocks, where four epiphytes were found in dense shrubbery behind the beach and nine on rocks or soil. The property supports a diverse array of lowland, coastal, low-rainfall lichens, including many novelties (see below). The richest habitats for lichens are coastal rocks, with granite and dolerite supporting subtly different species assemblages; dry woodlands dominated by Allocasuarina verticillata, where lichens colonise wood, bark, rocks and consolidated soil; isolated large granite outcrops in scrubby heathland; and Melaleuca ericifolia-dominated swampy woodland, where the papery bark of the oldest trees supports a highly specialised suite of epiphytes (see below). Artificial habitats, including fence posts, treated pine rails and mortar, are also well-colonised. The sites with the highest diversity in insect taxa lie in the eastern heathlands at The Prairie (181 taxa) (pl. 4); the Tregaron Lagoons environs (172 taxa) (pl. 5); and the landward portion of the Cape Portland headland beyond the enclosed paddocks (141 taxa). The most taxon-rich insect groups were the beetles (with 265 taxa), flies (147 taxa) then moths (136 taxa). A high diversity of moths was found in The Bullseye lagoon area, including several rare species and new records (see below). A number of characteristic or noteworthy invertebrates found during this survey are illustrated in plate 6 and plate 7. Novelties Flora Botanical novelties were limited to the lichens and mosses. Twenty lichen taxa were recorded for Tasmania for the first time and are reported elsewhere (Kantvilas er al. 2020). These include: Lecanora strobilina and Ramonia absconsa, first records for the Southern Hemisphere, with the latter previously known only from the type collection from South Carolina; Arthothelium endoaurantiacum, Collema crispum and Gyalecta pellucida, first records for Australia; and Austroparmelina corrugativa, Amandinea conranensis, Bacidia laurocerasi, Buellia extenuatella, Catinaria atropurpurea, Diploschistes euganeus, D. gyrophoricus, Endocarpon crassisporum, Lecanora pseudogangaleoides subsp. pseudogangaleoides, Opegrapha niveoatra, O. spodopolia, PLATE 1 — Succuient saline herbfield at The Salties (Cape Portland), dominated by Sarcocornia blackiana and S. quinqueflora. PLATE 2 — The Bullseye, a freshwater lagoon flanked by Melaleuca ericifolia on the Little Musselroe River. The Flora and Fauna of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania 73 O. varia, Physcia austrostellaris, Trapelia concentrica and Xanthoparmelia xerica, all known previously from mainland Australia, with the last-mentioned otherwise known only from its type collection from South Australia. Whilst some of these novelties were recorded only during the survey, most were found to bealready represented by unidentified existing herbarium specimens from other Tasmanian localities. PLATE 3 — Granite outcrops on the east coast of the property. These support a rich lichen flora with the reddish Caloplaca gallowayi often dominant. Taxonomic work will continue on some as yet unidentified collections. The unidentified species of Ramboldia and Trapelia may well be new to science. Several mosses represent significant range extensions in Tasmania, including Brachymenium preissianum, recorded from exposed lime mortar at the ruins of an old homestead at Home Beach within the CPWS, and previously known PLATE 4 — Coastal heathland at The Prairie. The sparsely vegetated area in the foreground provides habitat for the threatened plant species Stylidium beaugleholei. PLATE 5 — Lagoon habitat of the aquatic plant species Myriophyllum muelleri and Stuckenia pectinata in the southern part of the Tregaron Lagoons. 74 M. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas only from Hobart, and Campylium polygamum, previously reported only from Chimney Pot Hill (near Hobart) and Lake St Clair, and found on boggy ground at The Bullseye. The Australian endemic moss, Archidium stellatum, a species of dry areas, and previously reported for South Australia and Victoria, is a new record for Tasmania, recorded TABLE 2 — Overview of taxa recorded from Musselroe Wind Farm and surrounding coastal reserves Group et Introduced axa species Vascular Plants 363 65 Dicotyledons 238 43 Magnoliids 3 Gymnosperms 0 Monocotyledons 116 22 Pteridophytes 6 Bryophytes 40 1 Liverworts 7 Mosses 33 1 Lichens 206 Invertebrates — Lepidoptera 137 1 Invertebrates — Coleoptera 251 6 Invertebrates — Other Insects 326 1 Archaeognatha 1 Blattodea 4 Dermaptera Diptera 133 Hemiptera 73 Hymenoptera 89 1 Mantodea 2 Mecoptera 1 Neuroptera 4 Odonata 1 Orthoptera 15 Invertebrates — Other Arthropods 9 Araneae 5 Amphipoda 2 Decapoda 1 Isopoda 1 Invertebrates — Gastropoda 12 4 Vertebrates 73 6 Birds 62 5 Mammals 6 1 Reptiles s 0 Total 1417 84 from exposed soil in windswept tussock sedgeland with outcropping dolerite at The Salties near Cape Portland. Fauna Many invertebrate specimens remain unidentified or only partially identified (e.g., to family or genus level) and upon further research may well prove to be undescribed species or species newly recorded from Tasmania: these species are annotated with a ‘+’ in appendix 1.4. Seven taxa are new to science: the fly Axinia sp. TMAG_F5984 and the beetle Idiophyes sp. TMAG_F98611 (both from the Tregaron Lagoons area); the moths Limmnaecia sp. YMAG_F107740 (found at The Prairie) (pl. 7D), Batrachedra sp. TMAG_ F99720, Edosa sp. TMAG_F99719 and Peraglyphis sp. TMAG_F99734 (all from The Bullseye lagoon area); and the snail Scelidoropa sp. ‘Little Musselroe’ (also from The Bullseye lagoon area). Four species were previously known only from the Australian mainland and are newly recorded for Tasmania: the beetle Liparochrus (not yet assigned to species) (Cape Portland headland trackway and Little Musselroe River crossing), and the moths Scythrophanes stenoptera (The Bullseye lagoon area), Thallarcha phalarota (Xanthorrhoea Ridge), and Taxeotis intermixtaria (eastern heathlands). Significant rediscoveries in a Tasmanian context include the fly Acridophagus paganus (pl. 7B; found in the eastern heathlands and on Xanthorrhoea Ridge) and the moths Eutorna intonsa (found at the Little Musselroe River crossing), Araeostoma ANIC sp. 01 (Cape Portland trackway and eastern heathlands), Philenorasp. TMAG_F108002 (The Bullseye lagoon area), Paramsacta marginata (The Prairieand Little Musselroe River crossing) (pl. 7C), Barea atmophora and B. exarcha (both The Bullseye lagoon area), and Bida radiosella (eastern heathlands). Two further significant rediscoveries are also threatened species and are discussed further below. Threatened species Flora The Musselroe Wind Farm is known for supporting populations of threatened species, some of which, for example Thelymitra antennifera, have been monitored by the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment. In the present survey 12 vascular plant species listed as rare and two species listed as vulnerable under Tasmania's Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 were recorded (appendix 1.1). Scarlet Sundew Drosera glanduligera (rare) isa new record for the area and was found growing in the southeasternmost corner of the property on poorly drained, moss-covered granite rock plates in shrubby heathland (pl. 8A) and in open heathland at Xanthorrhoea Ridge. Neither population is within reserves on the property. The parasitic herb Golden Dodder Cuscuta tasmanica (rare) was observed as large populations at two wetlands within the CPWS (pl. 8B), parasitising a range of species including Running Marshflower Ornduffia reniformis, Creeping Buttons Leptinella reptans and Prickfoot Eryngium vesiculosum. Roundleaf Wilsonia Wilonia rotundifolia (rare) (pl. 8C) was recorded at Tregaron Lagoons as a common component of The Flora and Fauna of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania 75 PLATE 6 — A. The Darkling-beetle Hyocis bakewelli. B. The Belid Weevil Stenobelus tibialis on coastal Juncus kraussii. C. Salt-lake Slater Haloniscus searlei, a scyphacid isopod of saline lagoons listed as Endangered in Tasmania (photographed specimen is from Tunbridge Lagoon). D. The largely dune-dwelling Peacock-spider Maratus tasmanicus. PLATE 7 —A. Male Variable Cutworm Agrotis porphyricollis. B. Mythicomyiine bee-fly Acridophagus paganicus. C. Male Paramsacta marginata. D. Limnaecia sp. TMAG_F107740. 76 M. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas PLATE 8 -Threatened flora recorded from Musselroe Wind Farm. A. Scarlet Sundew Drosera glanduligera. B. Golden Dodder Cuscuta tasmanica. C. Roundleaf Wilsonia Wilsonia rotundifolia. D. Silky Wilsonia Wilsonia humilis. PLATE 9 — Introduced species recorded from Musselroe Wind Farm. A. Annual Beardgrass Polypogon monspeliensis. B. Prickly Sowthistle Sonchus asper. C. Water Buttons Cotula coronopifolia. D. Coast Barbgrass Parapholis incurva. The Flora and Fauna of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania 77 the dry lagoon margin flora, and outside of the CPWS at a dried-up wetland south of Lanoma Point. Silky Wilsonia Wilsonia humilis (rare) was recorded at The Salties, within the CPWS, but restricted to a few small patches amongst dolerite rocks on the margin of the saltmarsh (pl. 8D). Juniper Wattle Acacia ulicifolia (rare) was recorded approximately 1 km east of the Little Musselroe River, close to the southern boundary of the property. Slender Velvetbush Lasiopetalum baueri (rare) grew as heavily wind-pruned shrubs at the rocky margin of the saltlake at The Salties. Helicopter Bush Spyridium vexilliferum var. vexilliferum (rare) was recorded at Xanthorrhoea Ridge. A small but locally common population of Sand Grasstree Xanthorrhoea arenaria, listed as vulnerable on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, was found south of the Little Musselroe estuary. This appears to be the first record of the species from the Musselroe Wind Farm property. Shining Dogwood Pomaderris paniculosa subsp. paralia (rare) was recorded from The Salties and at The Prairie. Two threatened species of the aquatic genus Myriophyllum were recorded. Tiny Watermilfoil Myriophyllum integrifolium, a first record for the area and listed as vulnerable, was found adjacent to Xanthorrhoea Ridge. Hooded Watermilfoil Myriophyllum muelleri, listed as rare, was recorded in the southern part of the Tregaron Lagoons (pl. 5), with locally abundant Fennel Pondweed Stuckenia pectinata. The tiny ephemeral triggerplant, Blushing Triggerplant Stylidium beaugleholei (rare) was recorded at The Prairie where it is locally abundant (pl. 4). Tiny Arrowgrass Triglochin minutissima (rare) was recorded occasionally in soil accumulated in damp crevices amongst granite rocks on the coast of Great Musselroe Bay. Sixteen further species of threatened vascular flora have been previously recorded from the area (ALA 2020) but were not observed during this survey (appendix 1.1). No listed threatened species of bryophytes and lichens were recorded, although many non-vascular plants are considered uncommon and may well qualify for listing. For example, lichens include the naturally rare Tasmanian endemics Bactropsora paludicola, Eugeniella farinosa (only the second record) and Porina meridionalis, and the equally rare (in Tasmania) Caloplaca pulcherrima, Ocellomma rediuntum, Ramonia absconsa and Gyalecta pellucida, all restricted to Melaleuca ericifolia-dominated swamps, which are themselves a vegetation type of very high conservation value, especially for cryptogams. Other uncommon, noteworthy species recorded included Arthothelium endoauranticaum (from coastal scrub), Endocarpon crassisporum (from coastal grassland), and Xanthoparmelia xerica and the endemic Lepra dactylinella (from granite outcrops in heathland). Fauna A single adult male of the Schayer’s Grasshopper Schayera baiulus (Driessen et al. 2020), listed as endangered on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, was collected (9 November 2018) from the dunes behind Lemons Beach. Its identification is provisional, because no other specimens of an adult male of this species are known from collections. The species was last recorded in 1988, when single specimens were found at Rushy Lagoon in the northeast, and Woolnorth in the northwest (Key 1991). Prior to that it was only known from the specimens associated with its original description (Erichson 1842, Key 1990). Saline lagoons on the Cape Portland headland and towards the northern coastline hosted the salt-lake slater Haloniscus searlei. This isopod, an aquatic member of an otherwise terrestrial lineage, is associated with inland saline lagoons across southern Australia but is very rare in Tasmania, where it is listed as endangered and only known from two inland saline lagoons in the Midlands (Threatened Species Section 2021). Its presence in near- coastal lagoons at Cape Portland/Musselroe Bay is surprising and significantly enhances our understanding of the habitat requirements of this species. Four threatened bird species and one threatened mammal species were observed. Hooded Plover Thinornis cucullatus (nationally vulnerable) were seen on all visited stretches of sandy shore, as well as on exposed windblown sand in the vicinity of the saltpans inland from the northern coastline. Fairy Tern Sternula nereis (vulnerable) were observed feeding just offshore along the northern coastline. Wedge-tailed Eagle Aquila audax fleayi (endangered) and White-Bellied Sea-eagle Haliacetus leucogaster (vulnerable) were observed at various places on the property but no nests of either species were located. Tasmanian Devil Sarcophilus harvisii (endangered) scats were observed along many of the tracks _ walked and are known to occur in the general area. Exotic and pest species Forty-nine species of introduced vascular plants were recorded (appendix 1.1). Commonagricultural weeds include Winged Slender Thistle Carduus tenuiflorus, Variegated Thistle Silybum marianum, Capeweed Arctotheca calendula, Horehound Marrubium vulgare, Great Brome Bromus diandrus and Sweet Vernalgrass Anthoxanthum odoratum. Two shrubs that have become dominant components in parts of the landscape are Gorse Ulex europaeus and African Boxthorn Lycium ferocissimum. At the ruins of the old homestead at Home Beach, several species of garden origin have become naturalised including Century Plant Agave americana, Bearded Iris Iris x germanica and Caper Spurge Euphorbia lathyris. Vhis area also hosted many species of introduced grasses and herbs. Common introduced species in wetland habitats include: Annual Beardgrass Polypogon monspeliensis (pl. 9A), Prickly Sowthistle Sonchus asper (pl. 9B), Water Buttons Cotula coronopifolia(p|.9C), Buckshorn Plantain Plantago coronopus and Coast Barbgrass Parapholis incurva (pl. 9D). Drier coastal habitats included: Sweet Melilot Melilotus indicus, Winged Slender Thistle, African Boxthorn, Gorse, Scarlet Pimpernel Lysimachia arvensis and Fourleaf Allseed Polycarpon tetraphyllum. Coastal beach and foreshore supported Searocket Cakile maritima, Marram Grass Ammophila arenaria, African Boxthorn, Sea Spurge Euphorbia paralias and Buckshorn Plantain. Largely weed- free areas include the main eastern part of the property east of the Little Musselroe River (The Prairie) and other areas 78 M. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas of intact heathland. Four species, Winged Slender Thistle, African Boxthorn, Gorse and Horehound are declared weeds under the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999. The invasive South African Weed Orchid Disa bracteata Sw., a significant weed on mainland Australia but in the early stages of invasion in Tasmania, was recorded in the area in 2013 (Wapstra et al. 2020), but not seen during this survey. Sixteen further species of introduced flora were previously recorded from the area (ALA 2020) but not observed during this survey (appendix 1.1). Only one species of introduced moss, Eurhynchium praelongum, was found growing in a disturbed site at Xanthorrhoea Ridge. Remarkably few introduced insect species were collected (appendix 1.4). The list comprises Honeybee Apis mellifera, Eleven-spotted Ladybird Coccinella undecimpunctata, Sea- rocket Flea-beetle Psylliodes marcida and the cow-dung- feeding Dor-beetle Geotrupes spiniger and Aphodius lividus, all of European origin; the first two are now widespread across the state; the third is a new record for Tasmania and Australia but has since been discovered at several other localities on the Tasmanian north and east coast in association with its non-native foodplant Cakile species; while the fourth and fifth are found primarily in the east and northeast. Two more beetle species, Attagenus pellio and Necrobia rufipes, both associated with carrion, are cosmopolitan although it is possible that in Australia and Tasmania they represent early European introductions (the former is associated with pelts and the latter with cured meats). Both are rarely recorded in Tasmania. Four introduced gastropods, all widespread species of European origin, were found (appendix 1.4): Small Pointed Snail Prietocella barbara, Garden Snail Cornu aspersum, Hedgehog Slug Arion intermedius and Striped Field-slug Lehmannia nyctelia. A fifth European species, Garlic Snail Oxychilus alliarius, was found at Little Musselroe and is highly likely to occur on the property. Nine native moth species considered to be agricultural pests were collected. Most were noctuid moths: Bogong Moth Agrotis infusa, Brown Cutworm Agrotis munda, Variable Cutworm Agrotis porphyricollis (pl. 7A), Sugarcane Stem Borer Bathytricha truncata, Native Budworm Helicoverpa punctigera and Southern Armyworm Persectania ewinggi. {wo pest moth species from other families were the Small Tabby Etiella behrii, a pyralid which feeds on legumes, and the tortricid Acropolitis rudisana, which can be a pest on grapes. The only introduced lepidopteran recorded was the Cabbage White Butterfly Pieris rapae, another known pest species. DISCUSSION Although a significant proportion of the Cape Portland property has been converted to improved pasture for cattle grazing, it retains pockets of high-quality undisturbed native habitat, such as The Salties, The Prairie and Xanthorrhoea Ridge (table 1). Open treeless areas show evidence of intense grazing pressure from the high density of macropods and Wombats & Vombatus ursinus, particularly along the eastern side of the property, with grasses closely cropped to ground level. A significant proportion of open ground in the eastern heathlands is dominated by less-than-palatable spiny shrubs, including Prickly Moses Acacia verticillata and Ploughshare Wattle A. gunnii, as well as tougher sedges (especially Gahnia species) and Sagg Lomandra longifolia. In contrast, more palatable seasonal herbs were conspicuously rare or absent. The greatest diversity of insects was found in the eastern heathlands, including many habitat specialists. The seasonal moth fauna was largely typical of that which can be found during spring in coastal heathlands, and in vegetation dominated by Allocasuarina, Acacia and native and introduced grasses, apart from the notable absence of eucalypt feeders due to the almost total absence of Eucalyptus on the property. This collection included around 13% of the Lepidoptera in Tasmania. No Tasmanian endemic species were recorded, probably because vegetation types were typical of the more general southern Australian autochthonous flora. The eastern heathlands proved to be the most diverse site for Lepidoptera, with almost 60 taxa recorded. The fauna here was dominated by geometrid species that feed on Acacia, Kunzea, Allocasuarina, Leptospermum and low-growing shrubs such as Epacris. The noctuid fauna was also relatively diverse with 15 species; those with the highest abundance were grass-feeders such as the Variable Cutworm and agricultural pests such as Bogong Moth and Southern Armyworm. The area surrounding the saline lagoons around The Salties and extending inland as far as the paddock fences is species-rich for plants and animals, perhaps due to the diverse mosaic of habitat types present in a relatively small area, including coastal grassland, saline and freshwater shallow lagoons, rocky marsupial lawn, rocky headland and foreshore, dunes, and seasonally wet grassland and heathland. In addition to The Salties, a pocket of high species richness in and around a shallow but permanent freshwater habitat supported Melaleuca ericifolia closed forest and regenerating grassland and heathland known as The Bullseye. Permanent bodies of fresh (rather than brackish or saline) water are generally rare on the property, and mostly associated with the course of the Little Musselroe River and areas of low elevation to the east. Given the history of the Cape Portland property and its current land use, the relatively high number (65 taxa) of naturalised, exotic vascular plants is not surprising. Large tracts of the property consist of improved pasture and, consequently, contain many species of agricultural weeds. Most of these taxa are annual and perennial herbs and grasses, and were recorded in pastures, along roadsides and fence lines within the property and around areas of habitation. Many of the species of introduced plants are likely to have originated from past agricultural activities and the relatively high number of lepidopteran pests is likely a result of the modified agricultural environment prevalent in the area. Recent efforts to control invasive exotic plants have had a positive effect, with control of African Boxthorn being particularly successful. Many of the introduced plants recorded during the survey can The Flora and iReuape of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania 79 form widespread and intractable populations, including species such as Annual Beardgrass, Prickly Sowthistle, Water Buttons, Buckshorn Plantain and Coast Barbgrass. Small-scale infestations of Century Plant, Bearded Iris and Caper Spurge have most likely persisted at the site of the old homestead at the northern end of Home Beach since it was inhabited and have spread to a small extent to the immediate surrounding area. Previous surveys of the property have recorded 16 species of threatened flora that were not identified during this survey. This could be at least partly due to this survey not coinciding with the flowering time of these species (particularly orchids), or the species having been recorded from areas or habitats not sampled in this survey. The property has outstanding ecological and nature conservation values, although these are not evenly distributed: areas of enclosed pasture tend to have little value whereas the established reserves within the property have the highest. Notably, several threatened species occur outside of reserves. The property contains large areas of vegetation that is highly susceptible to Phytophthora cinnamomi root rot, particularly high-density populations of Southern Grasstree Xanthorrhoea australis, small populations of Sand Grasstree X. arenaria, and large areas of damp heathland. The mosaic of heathland and scrub northeast of The Prairie has developed at least partly as a response to fire history, and future fire management will play a role on the proportions of these two habitat types. Threatened beach-nesting shorebirds such as Fairy Tern, Hooded Plover and Sooty Oystercatcher Haematopus fuliginosus are very sensitive to disturbance from humans, dogs, trail-bikes and four-wheel-drives; the relative lack of such disturbance at Musselroe (other than at Lemons Beach) affords them an increasingly rare degree of protection. These same environments are also well-known foraging refugia for a large number of international migratory waders, including summer and winter visitors such as Double-banded Plover Charadrius bicinctus that are declining globally. The high density of native grazing marsupials has had a significant impact in shaping the habitats and species richness of the property. For instance, high species richness among threatened species is concentrated particularly in the non-wooded but still naturally vegetated parts of the surveyed area, including marsupial lawns and the edges of lagoons and runnels, and this may be due at least partly to grazing pressure that keeps shading by perennial shrubs to a minimum. However, areas of the property east of the Little Musselroe River exhibit extremely high grazing pressure (from native marsupials), and a reduced diversity of herbaceous plants. In conclusion, the Cape Portland property hosts a number of vascular plant, animal and lichen species that, while common or at least present on mainland Australia, in Tasmania are restricted to the northeasternmost corner of the island. Despite its long history of management for grazing, the property retains significant natural values, including high-quality patches of unusual vegetation (e.g., the almost pure stand of Southern Grasstree at Xanthorrhoea Ridge), and a high proportion of threatened plant and animal species. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery’s 2018 Expedition of Discovery would not have been possible without the generous support of Woolnorth Wind Farm Holding Pty Ltd and The Friends of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery Incorporated. We thank the staff of the wind farm, in particular Robert Barbour and Tony Saunders, for their welcoming and helpful approach and for arranging site access and accommodation, and Aunty Patsy Cameron is thanked for her Welcome to Country and for sharing her insights regarding the Story of the area. We also thank Greg Stewart for his companionship and for sharing his knowledge of the landscape and diverse habitats that occur on the property and Eric Cave who kept the team well-fed and watered during the survey. Thanks, must also go to our colleagues at TMAG, especially Kim Hill, Dalia Howe and Maria MacDermottand the many volunteers, for their work behind the scenes and for the preparation and databasing of specimens. Dr N. Evenhuis (Hawaii) is thanked for identifying specimens of Acridophagus paganicus. Drs Brian Coppins, Jack Elix and Patrick McCarthy assisted with selected lichen identifications. Specimens were collected under the following permits issued by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks Water and Environment: TEL _ 18181, TFL19127, FA 17360 and FA 18279. REFERENCES ABRS 2018a: Australian Moss Name Index (AusMoss), Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra. https://moss. biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/AusMoss (accessed 21 August 2018). ABRS 2018b: Australian Faunal Directory. Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra. https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/ mainchecklist (accessed 15 December 2018). ALA (Atlas of Living Australia) 2020: Occurrence records, https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q=cl 1048%3AFurneaux&qualityProfile=ALA&fq=insti tution_uid%3A%22in25%22&fq=(data_resource_ uid%3A%22d1347%22%20OR%20data_resource_ uid%3A%22dr1840%22) (accessed 18 August 2020). AVH (The Australasian Virtual Herbarium) 2020: Occurrence records, https// https://avh.ala.org.au/occurrences/ : search?q=cll048%3AFurneaux&qc=data_hub_ uid%3Adh9 &fg=collection_uid%3A%22c060%22#tab_ recordsView (accessed 18 August 2020). Baker, M.L., Grove, S., de Salas, M.E, Byrne, C., Cave, L., Bonham, K., Moore, K. & Kantvilas, G. 2019: Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery’s Expedition of Discovery I — The flora and fauna of Wind Song, Little Swanport, Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 153: 5-30. BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) 2020: Climate statistics for Australian locations: Orford (Aubin Court). http://www.bom.gov.au/ climate/averages/tables/cw_092045.shtml (accessed 27 April 2020). : 80 M. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas de Salas, M.F. & Baker, M.L. 2021:.A Census of the Vascular Plants of Tasmania & Index to the Student's Flora of Tasmania and Flora of Tasmania Online. Tasmanian Herbarium, TMAG, Hobart. http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au (accessed 12 May 2021). DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment) 2020: ZASVEG 4.0, Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and Mapping Program. Released July 2020 (accessed 18 August 2020). Driessen, M.M, Grove, S.J. & Su, Y.N. 2020: Probable adult male Schayer’s grasshopper Schayera baiulus (Erichson, 1842) (Orthoptera: Acrididae: Catantopinae) found in north- eastern Tasmania. Australian Entomologist 47 (3): 155-161. Elix, J.A. & Kantvilas, G. 2020: Three new species and a new record of buellioid lichens (Caliciaceae, Ascomycota) from Tasmania. Australasian Lichenology 87: 2025. Elix, J.A., Kantvilas, G. & McCarthy, P.M. 2019: Two new species of Rinodina (Physciaceae, Ascomycota) from southern Australia. Australasian Lichenology 84: 1015. Environment Australia 2001: A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, Third Edition. Environment Australia, Canberra: 137 pp. Erichson, W.F. 1842: Beitrag zur Insecten-fauna von Vandiemensland, mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der geographischen Verbreitung der Insecten. Archiv ftir Naturegeschichte 8: 83-287. Jennings, D.J. & Sutherland, EL. (1969) Geology of the Cape Portland Area. Technical Report, Department of Mines (Tasmania) 13: 45-82. Kantvilas, G., Coppins, B.J., McCarthy, P.M. & Elix, J.A. 2020: New records of lichens from Tasmania, principally from the 2018 TMAG Expedition of Discovery to Musselroe Bay. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 154: 1-8. Key, K.H.L. 1990: On the identity of Erichson’s species Calliptamus baiulus (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Invertebrate Taxonomy 3: 519-522. Key, K.H.L. 1991. Rediscovery of the Tasmanian grasshopper Schayera baiulus (Orthoptera: Acrididae) in the field. Australian Journal of Zoology 39: 655-660. LIST (2020) Land Information Systems Tasmania. https://www... thelist.tas.gov.au/app/content/home/ (accessed 27 April 2020). McCarthy, PM. 2006: Checklist of Australian Liverworts and Hornworts. Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra. http://www.anbg.gov.au/abrs/liverwortlist/liverworts_a_z. huml (accessed 27 August 2020). McCarthy, P.M. 2020: Checklist of the Lichens of Australia and its Island Territories. Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra. http://www.anbg.gov.au/abrs/lichenlist/ introduction.html (accessed 1 March 2020). McCarthy, P.M. & Kantvilas, G. 2018: Anisomeridium disjunctum (Monoblastiaceae), a new lichen species from Tasmania, with a key to the genus in Australia. Australasian Lichenology 83: 54-60. McClenaghan, M.P. (compiler) 2005. Digital Geological Atlas 1:25 000 Scale Series. Sheet 5848 Lyme Regis. Mineral Resources Tasmania. Orange, A., James, PW. & White, FJ. 2010: Microchemical Methods for the Identification of Lichens. British Lichen Society, London: 101 pp. Peel, M.C., Finlayson, B.L. & McMahon, T.A. 2007: Updated world map of the Képpen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology & Earth Systems Sciences 11: 1633-1644. Stanisic, J., Shea, M., Potter, D.G. & Flannery, T. 2017: Australian land snails. Volume 2, A field guide to eastern Australian species. Bioculture Press for the Australian Museum: 594 pp. Threatened Species Section (2021). Haloniscus searlei (Salt Lake Slater): Species Management Profile for Tasmania’s ‘Threatened Species Link. https://www.threatenedspecieslink. tas.gov.au/Pages/Salt-Lake-Slater.aspx (accessed 5 July 2021). Tropicos.org. 2018: Botanical Information System at the Missouri Botanical Garden. (Missouri Botanical Garden, Saint Louis). http://www.tropicos.org (accessed 21 August 2018). Wapstra, M., Baker, M.L. & Daniels, G.D. 2020: Collecting history and distribution of the potentially invasive Disa bracteata (South African orchid) in Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 154: 51-60. Wapstra, H., Wapstra, A., Wapstra, M. & Gilfedder, L. 2005: The Little Book of Common Names for Tasmanian Plants. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. Webb, M., Hall, A., Kidd, D. & Minasny, B. 2015: Local-scale spatial modelling for interpolating climatic temperature variables to predict agricultural plant suitability. Theoretical & Applied Climatology 124: 1145-1165. (accepted 6 July 2021) The Flora and Fauna of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania 81 APPENDIX 1 Flora and fauna of the Musselroe Wind Farm Taxa marked with * were observed during the survey but not collected; # were taxa recorded prior to the survey but not recorded during the survey; - were recorded prior to the survey and during the survey; i are introduced taxa in Tasmania; r, x, e and y are considered rare, extinct, endangered and vulnerable under Tasmania's Threatened Species Protection Act 1995; + are new records for Tasmania; ? are taxa that have an uncertain status, i-e., uncertain whether they are introduced to Tasmania or native. Appendix 1.1: Vascular Plants of Musselroe Wind Farm EUDICOTS Aizoaceae * Carpobrotus rossii (Haw.) Schwantes *# Disphyma crassifolium (L.) L.Bolus subsp. clavellatum (Haw.) Chinnock - Tetragonia implexicoma (Miq.) Hook.f. Amaranthaceae - Hemichroa pentandra R.Br. - Rhagodia candolleana Mogq. subsp. candolleana Apiaceae - Apium prostratum Labill. ex Vent. subsp. prostratum var. filiforme (A.Rich.) Kirk Apium prostratum Labill. ex Vent. subsp. prostratum var. prostratum # Daucus glochidiatus (Labill.) Fisch., C.A.Mey. & Ave- Lall. Eryngium vesiculosum Labill. Xanthosia tasmanica Domin Apocynaceae # Alyxia buxifolia R.Br. Araliaceae # Hydrocotyle callicarpa Bunge Hydrocotyle capillaris F.Muell. ex Klatt # Hydrocotyle foveolata H.Eichler # Hydrocotyle muscosa R.Br. ex A.Rich. Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides Lam. Asteraceae Actites megalocarpus (Hook.f.) Lander - Angianthus preissianus (Steetz) Benth. i- Arctotheca calendula (L.) K.Lewin Brachyscome aculeata (Labill.) Less. # Brachyscome graminea (Labill.) F. Muell. - Brachyscome parvula Hook.f.” t# Calocephalus lacteus Less. i Carduus tenuiflorus Curtis Cassinia aculeata (Labill.) R.Br. subsp. aculeata e# Cassinia rugata N.G.Walsh - Chrysocephalum apiculatum (Labill.) Steetz fttas apiculatum - Coronidium scorpioides (Labill.) Paul G.Wilson # Cotula australis (Sieber ex Spreng.) Hook.f. i- Cotula coronopifolia L. 1# Cotula vulgaris var. australasica J.H.Willis # Craspedia glauca (Labill.) Spreng. # Craspedia rosulata Rozefelds & A.M.Buchanan # Cymbonotus preissianus Steetz # Gnaphalium indutum Hook.f. subsp. indutum i# Hypochaeris glabra L. Hypochaeris radicata L. Lagenophora stipitata (Labill.) Druce Leptinella longipes Hook.f. Leptinella reptans (Benth.) D.G.Lloyd & C.J. Webb Leptorhynchos squamatus (Labill.) Less. subsp. squamatus Leucophyta brownii Cass. Millotia tenuifolia Cass. var. tenuifolia Olearia lepidophylla (Pers.) Benth. Ozothamnus turbinatus DC. Senecio glomeratus Desf. ex Poir. t# Siloxerus multiflorus (Nees) P.S.Short i Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. i Sonchus asper (L.) Hill i- Sonchus oleraceus L. i Véellereophyton dealbatum (Thunb.) Hilliard & B.L.Burtt Boraginaceae # Cynoglossum australe R.Br. Hackelia suaveolens (R.Br.) Dimon & M.A.M.Renner Brassicaceae i Brassica tournefortii Gouan i- Cakile maritima Scop. subsp. maritima i Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. Campanulaceae Lobelia anceps L.f. - Lobelia irrigua R.Br. Lobelia pedunculata R.Br. # Wahlenbergia gracilenta Lothian Wahlenbergia gymnoclada Lothian Caryophyllaceae i- Cerastium glomeratum Thuill. i# Cerastium semidecandrum L. . Colobanthus apetalus (Labill.) Druce var. apetalus i Polycarpon tetraphyllum (L.) L. i# Sagina maritima Don i# Silene nocturna L. - Spergularia tasmanica (Kindb. \1 L.G.Adams Stellaria angustifolia Hook. subsp. tenella (Benth.) C.H.Mill. & J.G. West Stellaria pallida (Dumort.) Crép. Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina littoralis (Salisb.) L.A.S.Johnson - Allocasuarina monilifera (L.A.S.Johnson) L.A.S.Johnson Allocasuarina paludosa (Sieber ex Spreng.) L.A.S.Johnson Allocasuarina verticillata (Lam.) L.A.S.Johnson Celastraceae Stackhousia monogyna Labill. Chenopodiaceae * Sarcocornia blackiana (Ulbr.) A.J.Scott hee i + i] + 82 M. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas *# Sarcocornia quinqueflora (Bunge ex Ung.-Sternb.) A.J.Scott # Suaeda australis (R.Br.) Mog. # Suaeda maritima (L.) Dumort subsp. maritima # Tecticornia arbuscula (R.Br.) K.A.Sheph. & Paul G. Wilson Convolvulaceae t# Calystegia soldanella (L.) Roem. & Schult. - Convolvulus angustissimus R.Br. subsp. angustissimus r Cuscuta tasmanica Engelm. - Dichondra repens J.R.Forst. & G.Forst. Wilsonia backhousei Hook.f. t- Wikonia humilis R.Br. t Wilsonia rotundifolia Hook. Crassulaceae Crassula decumbens Thunb. var. decumbens Crassula sieberiana (Schult. & Schult.f.) Druce Dilleniaceae Hibbertia hirticalyx Toelken Hibbertia prostrata Hook. Hibbertia sericea (R.Br. ex DC.) Benth. var. sericea Droseraceae - Drosera auriculata Backh. ex Planch. t Drosera glanduligera Lehm. # Drosera hookeri R.P.Gibson, B.J.Conn & Conran Drosera macrantha Endl. subsp. planchonii (Hook.f. ex Planch.) N.G.Marchant - Drosera peltata Thunb. Elaeocarpaceae Tetratheca pilosa Labill. subsp. pilosa Ericaceae # Epacris impressa Labill. # Epacris lanuginosa Labill. # Leucopogon collinus (Labill.) R.Br. - Leucopogon parviflorus (Andrews) Lindl. - Leucopogon virgatus (Labill.) R.Br. var. virgatus - Monotoca elliptica (Sm.) R.Br. Styphelia adscendens R.Br. - Styphelia ericoides Sm. # Styphelia humifusa (Cav.) Pers. Euphorbiaceae - Amperea xiphoclada (Sieber ex Spreng.) Druce var. xiphoclada i Euphorbia lathyris L. i Euphorbia paralias L. i Euphorbia peplus L. Fabaceae - Acacia gunnii Benth. Acacia longifolia (Andrews) Willd. subsp. sophorae (Labill.) Court Acacia melanoxylon R.Br. Acacia myrtifolia (Sm.) Willd. Acacia suaveolens (Sm.) Willd. - Acacia terminalis (Salisb.) J.EMacbr. t Acacia ulicifolia (Salisb.) Court - Acacia verticillata (LHér.) Willd. subsp. ovoidea (Benth.) Court - Acacia verticillata (LHér.) Willd. subsp. verticillata - Aotus ericoides (Vent.) G.Don - Bossiaea cinerea R.Br. - Bossiaea prostrata R.Br. Dillwynia sericea A.Cunn. v# Glycine latrobeana (Meisn.) Benth. Hovea heterophylla A.Cunn. ex Hook.f. # Kennedia prostrata i- Melilotus indicus (L.) All. - Platylobium triangulare R.Br. # Pultenaea dentata Labill. # Pultenaea stricta Sims # Pultenaea tenuifolia R.Br. & Sims i*# Trifolium campestre Schreb. i Trifolium dubium Sibth. i- Trifolium repens L. i# Trifolium resupinatum L. i- Trifolium subterraneum L. i Trifolium tomentosum L. i Ulex europaeus L. i- Vicia sativa L. subsp. nigra (L.) Ehrh. Gentianaceae i- Centaurium erythraea Rafn Cicendia filiformis (L.) Delarbre t# Schenkia australis (R.Br.) G.Mans. - Sebaea albidiflora F.Muell. # Sebaea ovata (Labill.) R.Br. i# Erodium botrys (Cav.) Bertol. i#t Erodium cicutarium (L.) LHeér. ex Aiton # Geranium brevicaule Hook. i# Geranium molle L. # Geranium retrorsum LHer. ex DC. Geranium solanderi Carolin Goodeniaceae Goodenia humilis R.Br. - Goodenia lanata R.Br. Haloragaceae Gonocarpus micranthus Thunb. subsp. micranthus v Myriophyllum integrifolium (Hook.f.) Hook.f. t- Myriophyllum muelleri Sond. Myriophyllum simulans Orchard Myriophyllum variifolium Hook.f. Hypericaceae Hypericum gramineum G.Forst. Lamiaceae i Marrubium vulgare L. Linaceae . Linum marginale A.Cunn. Loganiaceae _ Mitrasacme pilosa Labill. var. stuartii Hook.f. Lythraceae Lythrum hyssopifolia L. Malvaceae t- Lasiopetalum baueri Steetz - Lawrencia spicata Hook. Menyanthaceae Ornduffia reniformis (R.Br.) Tippery & Les Myrsinaceae i Lysimachia arvensis (L.) U.Manns.& Anderb. Myrtaceae Calytrix tetragona Labill. The Flora and Fauna of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania Eucalyptus nitida Hook.f. Eucalyptus pauciflora Sieber ex Spreng. subsp. pauciflora # Euryomyrtus parviflora Miq. - Kunzea ambigua (Sm.) Druce - Leptospermum laevigatum (Gaertn.) F.Muell. Leptospermum scoparium J.R.Forst. & G.Forst. - Melaleuca ericifolia Sm. # Melaleuca squarrosa Donn ex Sm. Orobanchaceae i# Parentucellia latifolia (L.) Caruel Oxalidaceae Oxalis radicosa A.Rich. # Oxalis rubens Haw. i# Oxalis corniculata L. subsp. corniculata Phrymaceae - Thyridia repens (R.Br.) W.R.Barker & Beardsley Phyllanthaceae - Poranthera microphylla Brongn. Pittosporaceae Billardiera mutabilis Salisb. - Bursaria spinosa Cav. subsp. spinosa Plantaginaceae - Callitriche stagnalis Scop. # Gratiola nana Benth. - Plantago bellidioides Decne. i- Plantago coronopus L. subsp. coronopus # Plantago hispida R.Br. # Plantago varia R.Br. Veronica gracilis R.Br. Polygalaceae - Comesperma volubile Labill. Polygonaceae i- Acetosella vulgaris Fourr. - Muehlenbeckia adpressa (Labill.) Meisn. # Rumex brownii Campd. Portulacaceae Calandrinia calyptrata Hook.f. r# Calandrinia granulifera Benth. - Montia australasica (Hook.f.) Pax & K. Hoffm. Primulaceae Lysimachia arvensis (L.) U.Manns & Atl, Proteaceae - Banksia marginata Cav. Hakea teretifolia (Salisb.) Britten subsp. hirsuta (Endl.) R.M.Barker Lomatia tinctoria (Labill.) R.Br. Ranunculaceae - Clematis microphylla DC. Ranunculus amphitrichus Colenso Ranunculus sessiliflorus R.Br. ex DC. var. sessiliflorus Ranunculus trichophyllus Chaix Rhamnaceae - Pomaderris apetala Labill. subsp. apetala Pomaderris apetala Labill. subsp. maritima N.G.Walsh & Coates Pomaderris elliptica Labill. var. diemenica N.G. Walsh & Coates # Pomaderris oraria FMuell. ex Reissek subsp. oraria t- Pomaderris paniculosa F.Muell. ex Reissek subsp. paralia N.G.Walsh Pomaderris pilifera N.A.Wakef. subsp. pilifera *# Pomaderris racemosa Hook. t- Spyridium vexilliferum (Hook.) Reissek var. vexilliferum Rosaceae # Acaena echinata Nees - Acaena novae-zelandiae Kirk *# Acaena pallida (Kirk) Allan Rubiaceae # Asperula conferta Hook.f. # Galium australe DC. i Galium murale (L.) All. i Sherardia arvensis L. Rutaceae Boronia parviflora Sm. Correa alba Andrews var. alba Santalaceae Leptomeria drupacea (Labill.) Druce Scrophulariaceae - Myoporum insulare R.Br. Solanaceae i- Lycium ferocissimum Miers Solanum laciniatum Aiton Stylidiaceae t Stylidium beaugleholei }.H.Willis # Stylidium graminifolium Sw. r# Stylidium perpusillum Hook.f. Theophrastaceae Samolus repens (J.R.Forst. & G.Forst.) Pers. var. repens Thymelaeaceae - Pimelea glauca R.Br. - Pimelea humilis R.Br. Pimelea linifolia Sm. - Pimelea serpyllifolia R.Br. subsp. ser, pylli is Urticaceae Urtica incisa Poir. Violaceae Viola cleistogamoides (L.G.Adams) Seppelt - Viola hederacea Labill. subsp. hederacea MAGNOLIIDS Lauraceae 83 - Cassytha glabella R.Br. f. dispar (Schitdl.) J.Z.Weber # Cassytha pedicellosa J.Z.Weber Cassytha pubescens R.Br. MONOCOTS Asparagaceae i* Agave americana L. # Arthropodium minus R.Br. # Arthropodium pendulum DC. Chamaescilla corymbosa (R. Br.) EMuell. ex \iath, var. corymbosa Lomandra longifolia Labill. Thysanotus patersonii R.Br. + 3 84 M. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas Asphodelaceae # Bulbine bulbosa (R.Br.) Haw. # Bulbine glauca (Raf.) E.M.Watson Bulbine semibarbata (R.Br.) Haw. Centrolepidaceae - Centrolepis aristata (R.Br.) Roem. & Schult. - Centrolepis polygyna (R.Br.) Hieron. - Centrolepis strigosa (R.Br.) Poir. subsp. strigosa Colchicaceae Burchardia umbellata R.Br. # Wurmbea dioica (R.Br.) RMuell. subsp. dioica Cyperaceae Baumea juncea (R.Br.) Palla Carex appressa R.Br. - Carex breviculmis R.Br. - Eleocharis acuta R.Br. Eleocharis sphacelata R.Br. # Ficinia nodosa (Rottb.) Goetgh., Muasya & D.A.Simpson Gahnia filum (Labill.) EMuell. - Gahnia trifida Labill. # Isolepis cernua (Vahl) Roem. & Schult. Isolepis hookeriana Boeckeler 2i Isolepis levynsiana Muasya & D.A.Simpson - Isolepis marginata (Thunb.) A.Dietr. Isolepis platycarpa (S.T.Blake) Sojak # Isolepis setacea (L.) R.Br. # Isolepis subtilissima Boeckeler - Lepidosperma concavum R.Br. # Lepidosperma ensiforme (Rodway) D.I.Morris # Lepidosperma gladiatum Labill. Lepidosperma inops F.Muell. ex Rodway # Lepidosperma laterale R.Br. Schoenoplectus pungens (Vahl) Palla # Schoenus apogon Roem. & Schult. # Schoenus lepidosperma (F.Muell.) K.L.Wilson subsp. lepidosperma - Schoenus nitens (R.Br.) Poir. Schoenus tesquorum J.M.Black Hemerocallidaceae # Dianella brevicaulis (Ostenf.) G.W.Carr & P.EHorsfall Dianella revoluta R.Br. var. revoluta Hypoxidaceae # Pauridia glabella (R.Br.) Snijman & Kocyan var. glabella # Pauridia vaginata (Schltdl.) Snijman & Kocyan var. vaginata Iridaceae - Diplarrena moraea Labill. i- Tris germanica L. # Patersonia fragilis (Labill.) Asch. & Graebn. Juncaceae i Juncus bufonius L. # Juncus capitatus Weigel *# Juncus kraussii Hochst. subsp. australiensis (Buchenau) Snogerup Juncus sarophorus L.A.S.Johnson # Luzula densiflora (H.Nordensk.) Edgar # Luzula meridionalis H.Nordensk. Juncaginaceae # Cycnogeton alcockiae (Aston) Mering & Kadereit Cycnogeton procerum (R.Br.) Buchenau t- Triglochin minutissima F.Muell. # Triglochin nana F.Muell. - Triglochin striata Ruiz & Pav. Orchidaceae # Caladenia latifolia R.Br. v# Caladenia patersonii R.Br. # Cpyrtostylis reniformis R.Br. t# Cyrtostylis robusta D.L.Jones & M.A.Clem. # Diuris chryseopsis D.L.Jones # Diuris orientis D.L.Jones x# Diuris palustris Lindl. Diuris sulphurea R.Br. # Glossodia major R.Br. Microtis arenaria Lindl. # Pterostylis curta R.Br. r# Prerostylis sanguinea D.L.Jones & M.A.Clem. # Pterostylis tasmanica D.L Jones v# Pterostylis ziegeleri D.L.Jones x# Thelymitra antennifera (Lindl.) Hook.f. # ‘Thelymitra exigua Jeanes Poaceae i* Agrostis capillaris L. var. capillaris i Aira caryophyllea L. subsp. caryophyllea i Aira elegantissima Schur i Aira praecox L. i* Ammophila arenaria (L.) Link subsp. arenaria i Anthoxanthum odoratum L. - Austrostipa flavescens (Labill.) S.W.L.Jacobs & J.Everett Austrostipa stipoides (Hook.f.) S.W.L.Jacobs & J.Everett i Bromus diandrus Roth i Bromus hordeaceus L. i Cynosurus echinatus L. - Distichlis distichophylla (Labill.) Fassett i Holcus lanatus L. 1# Lachnagrostis robusta (Vickery) S.W.L.Jacobs i- Lagurus ovatus L. i- Parapholis incurva (L.) C.E.Hubb. - Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. i# Poa annua L. Poa poiformis (Labill. Dice var. poiformis Poa rodwayi Vickery i# Polypogon maritimus?? var. subspatheaceus (Req.) Parl. i Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. Puccinellia stricta (Hook.f.) C.H.Blom Rytidosperma caespitosum (Gaudich.) Connor & Edgar Rytidosperma setaceum (R.Br.) Connor & Edgar - Rytidosperma tenuius (Steud.) A.Hansen & Sunding - Themeda triandra Forssk. i# Thinopyrum junceiforme (A.Léve & D.Léve) A.Love i Vulpia bromoides (L.) Gray i# Vulpia myuros (L.) C.C.Gmel. f. myuros i# Vulpia myuros f. megalura (Nutt.) Stace & R.Cotton The Flora and inn of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania 85 - Zoysia macrantha Desv. subsp. walshii Night. Potamogetonaceae # Lepilaena cylindrocarpa (Korn. ex Miill.Stuttg) Benth. Potamogeton cheesemanii A.Benn. r Stuckenia pectinata (L.) Borner Restionaceae # Apodasmia brownii (Hook.f) B.G.Briggs & L.A.S.Johnson Empodisma minus (Hook.f.) L.A.S.Johnson & D.ECutler # Hypolaena fastigiata R.Br. - Leptocarpus tenax (Labill.) R.Br. Ruppiaceae - Ruppia polycarpa R.Mason Xanthorrhoeaceae vy Xanthorrhoea arenaria D.J.Bedford Xanthorrhoea australis R.Br. Zosteraceae # Zostera muelleri Irmisch ex Asch. subsp. muelleri PTERIDOPHYTES Adiantaceae - Adiantum aethiopicum L. Dennstaedtiaceae Pteridium esculentum (G.Forst.) Cockayne subsp. esculentum Dicksoniaceae Dicksonia antarctica Labill. Lindsaeaceae Lindsaea linearis Sw. Ophioglossaceae # Ophioglossum lusitanicum L. Selaginellaceae # Selaginella gracillima (Kunze) Spring ex Salomon Appendix 1.2: Bryophytes of Musselroe Wind Farm MOSSES Amblystegiaceae Campylium polygamum (Schimp.) C.E.O encen Archidiaceae Archidium stellatum 1.G.Stone Brachytheciaceae Eurhynchium praelongum (Hedw.) Bruch & Schimp. Rhynchostegium tenuifolium (Hedw.) Reichardt Bryaceae i Brachymenium preissianum (Hampe) A.Jaeger Bryum dichotomum Hedw. Bryum sp. Orthodontium lineare Schwigr. Rosulabryum capillare (Hedw.) J.R.Spence Rosulabryum subtomentosum (Hampe) J.R.Spence Dicranaceae Campylopus bicolor (Miill.Hal.) Wilson Campylopus introflexus (Hedw.) Brid. Ditrichaceae Ceratodon purpureus (Hedw.) Brid. Grimmiaceae Grimmia pulvinata (Hedw.) Hook.f. 8 Wilson var. africana (Hedw.) Hook.f. & Wilson Hypnaceae Hypnum cupressiforme Hedw. Lembophyllaceae Lembophyllum clandestinum (Hook.f. 8& Wilson) Lindb. ex Paris Weymouthia cochlearifolia (Schwagr.) Dixon Orthotrichaceae Macrocoma tenuis (Hook. & Grev.) Vitt subsp. tenuis Zygodon minutus Miill.Hal. & Hampe Polytrichaceae Polytrichum juniperinum Hedw. Pottiaceae Barbula calycina Schwiagr. Barbula crinita Schultz Didymodon torquatus (Taylor) Catches. Syntrichia antarctica (Hampe) R.H.Zander Syntrichia papillosa (Wilson) Jur. Tortella sp. Tortula muralis Hedw. Triquetrella papillata (Hook.f. & Wilson) Broth. Weissia sp. Racopilaceae Racopilum cuspidigerum (Schwagr.) Angstr. var. convolutaceum (Miill.Hal.) Zanten & Dijkstra Sematophyllaceae Sematophyllum homomallum (Hampe) Broth. Thuidiaceae Thuidiopsis furfurosa (Hook.f. & Wilson) M.Fleisch. Thuidiopsis sparsa (Hook.f. & Wilson) Broth. LIVERWORTS Acrobolbaceae Lethocolea pansa (Taylor) G.A.M.Scott & K.G.Beckm. Aytoniaceae Asterella drummondii (Hook.f. & eye) R.M.Schust. ex D.G.Long Frullaniaceae Frullania falciloba Vaylor ex Lehm. Geocalycaceae Chiloscyphus semiteres (Lehm.) Lehm. & Lindenb. Lejeuneaceae Siphonolejeunea nudipes (Hook.f. & Taylor) Herzog Marchantiaceae Marchantia berteroana \ehm. & Lindenb. Metzgeriaceae Metzgeria furcata (L.) Dumort 86 M. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas + Appendix 1.3: Lichens of Musselroe Wind Farm Amandinea australasica Blaha, H.Mayrhofer & Elix Amandinea coniops (Wahlenb.) M.Choisy ex Scheid. & H.Mayrhofer Amandinea conranensis Elix & P.M.McCarthy Amandinea decedens (Ny\.) Blaha & H.Mayrhofer Amandinea punctata (Hoffm.) Coppins & Scheid. Anisomeridium disjunctum P.M.McCarthy & Kantvilas Anisomeridium polypori (Ellis & Everh.) M.E.Barr Arthothelium endoaurantiacum Makhija & Patw. Arthothelium ampliatum (C.Knight & Mitt.) Mill. Arg. Webeneie conlabrosa (Hale) A.Crespo, Divakar & Elix Austroparmelina corrugativa (Kurok. & Filson) Elix & Kantvilas Austroparmelina pseudorelicina (Jatta) A.Crespo, Divakar & Elix Bacidia laurocerasi (Delise ex Duby) Zahlbr. Bacidia septosior (Nyl.) Zahlbr. Bacidia stenospora C.Knight Bacidia wellingtonii (Stirt.) D.J.Galloway Bactrospora paludicola Kantvilas Buellia aeruginosa A.Nordin, Owe-Larsson & Elix Buellia amandineaeformis Elix & Kantvilas Buellia dissa (Stirt.) Zahblbr. Buellia extenuatella Elix & Kantvilas Buellia halonioides Elix Buellia homophylia (C.Knight) Zahlbr. Buellia schaereri De Not. Buellia stellulata (Taylor) Mudd var. stellulata Buellia stellulata (Taylor) Mudd var. tasmanica Elix & Kantvilas Buellia suttonensis Elix & A.Knight Caloplaca bartlettii S.Y.Kondr. & Karnefelt Caloplaca beaugleholei S.Y.Kondr. & Karnefelt Caloplaca bermaguiana S.Y.Kondr. & Karnefelt Caloplaca cf. chrysodeta (Vain. ex Rasinen) Dombr. Caloplaca cinnabarina (Ach.) Zahlbr. Caloplaca cranfieldii S.Y.Kondr. & Karnefelt Caloplaca eos S.Y.Kondr. & Karnefelt Caloplaca ferdinandmuelleri S.Y.Kondr. & Karnefelt Caloplaca gallowayi S.Y.Kondr., Karnefelt & Filson Caloplaca holocarpa (Hoftm.) A.E.Wade aggr. Caloplaca cf. irrubescens (Nyl.) Zahlbr. Caloplaca jackelixii S.Y.Kondr., Karnefelt & A.Thell Caloplaca kilcundaensis S.Y.Kondr. & Karnefelt Caloplaca lateritia (Yaylor) Zahlbr. Caloplaca maccarthyi S.Y.Kondr., Karnefelt & Elix Caloplaca pulcherrima (Miill.Arg.) S.Y.Kondr. & Karnefelt Caloplaca sublobulata (Nyl.) Zahlbr. Caloplaca tomareeana S.Y.Kondr. & Karnefelt Candelariella vitellina (Hoftm.) Miill-Arg. Candelariella xanthostigmoides (Miill.Arg.) R.W.Rogers Catillaria austrolittoralis Kantvilas & van den Boom Catinaria atropurpurea (Schaer.) Vezda & Poelt Chrysothrix xanthina (Vain.) Kalb Cladia aggregata (Sw.) Nyl. Cladia inflata (F.Wilson) D.J.Galloway Cladia retipora (Labill.) Nyl. Cladia sullivanii (Mill.Arg.) W.Martin Cladonia capitellata (Hook.f. & Taylor) C.Bab. var. squamatica A.W.Archer Cladonia humilis (With.) J.R.Laundon var. humilis Cladonia krempelhuberi (Vain.) Zahlbr. Cladonia merochlorophaea Asahina Cladonia neozelandica Vain. var. striata (A.W.Archer) Kantvilas Cladonia ochrochlora Florke Cladonia praetermissa A.W.Archer var. praetermissa Cliostomum griffithii (Sm.) Coppins Coenogonium luteum (Dicks.) Kalb & Liicking Collema crispum (Huds.) Weber ex KH. Wigg. Collema glaucophthalmum Ny). var. glaucophthalmum Collema glaucophthalmum Ny). var. implicatum (Ny].) Degel. Diploicia canescens (Dicks.) A.Massal. subsp. canescens + Diploschistes euganeus (A.Massal.) J.Steiner + Diploschistes gyrophoricus Lumbsch & Elix + Endocarpon crassisporum P.M.McCarthy & Filson + Eugeniella farinosa P.M.McCarthy & Elix Flavoparmelia haysomii (C.W.Dodge) Hale Flavoparmelia rutidota (Hook.f. & Taylor) Hale Flavoparmelia soredians (Nyl.) Hale Gyalecta pellucida (Coppins & Malcolm) Baloch & Licking Halecania subsquamosa (Miill.Arg.) van den Boom & H.Mayrhofer Halegrapha mucronata (Stirt.) Liicking Hertelidea pseudobotryosa R.C.Harris, Ladd & Printzen Heterodea muelleri (Hampe) Nyl. Heterodermia obscurata (Nyl.) Trevis. Heterodermia tremulans (Mill.Arg.) W.L.Culb. Hyperphyscia adglutinata(Flérke) H.Mayrhofer & Poelt Hypotrachyna revoluta (Flérke) Hale Japewiella pruinosula (Miill.Arg.) Kantvilas Lecanora casuarinophila- Lumbsch Lecanora dispersa (Pers.) Sommerf. Lecanora aff. farinacea Fée Lecanora farinacea Fée Lecanora flavopallida Stitt. Lecanora galactiniza Nyl. Lecanora mobergiana Lumbsch & Elix Lecanora pseudogangaleoides Lumbsch subsp. pseudogangaleoides Lecanora saligna (Schrad.) Zahlbr. Lecanora strobilina (Spreng.) Kieff. Lecanora subcoarctata (C.Knight) Hertel Lecanora subtecta (Stirt.) Kantvilas & LaGreca Lecanora symmicta (Ach.) Ach. Lecanora wilsonii Miill.Arg. subsp. wilsonii The Flora and iepipn of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania 87 Lecidella granulosula (Nyl.) Knoph & Leuckert var. granulosula Lecidella leptolomoides (Miill.Arg.) Elix Lecidella sublapicida (C.Knight) Hertel Lecidella xylogena (Miill.Arg.) Kantvilas & Elix Leimonis erratica (Kérb.) R.C.Harris & Lendemer Lepra dactylinella (Kantvilas & Elix) A.W.Archer & Elix Leptogium crispatellum Nyl. Lichina intermedia (C.Bab.) M.Schultz Maronea constans (Nyl.) Hepp Megalaria laureri (Hepp ex Th.Fr.) Hafellner Megalaria melaloma (C.Knight) Kantvilas Megalaria melanotropa (Nyl.) D.J.Galloway Menegazzia caesiopruinosa PJames Menegazzia subpertusa PJames & D.J.Galloway Micarea almbornii Coppins Micarea byssacea (Th.Fr.) Czarnota, Guzow-Krzem. & Coppins Micarea melaenida (Nyl.) Coppins Monerolechia badia (Fr.) Kalb Notoparmelia signifera (Nyl.) A.Crespo, Ferencova & Divakar Ocellomma rediuntum (Hasse) Kantvilas 8& Gueidan Ochrolechia africana Vain. Ochrolechia apiculata Verseghy Ochrolechia gyrophorica (A.W.Archer) A.W.Archer & Lumbsch Opegrapha sp. (GK 285/18; HO 595582) Opegrapha atra Pers. Opegrapha niveoatra (Borrer) J.R.Laundon Opegrapha spodopolia Ny. Opegrapha varia Pers. Pannaria elixii PM Jorg. & D.J.Galloway Paraporpidia aff. glauca (Taylor) Rambold Paraporpidia leptocarpa (C.Bab. & Mitt.) Rambold & Hertel Parmotrema neopustulatum Kurok. Parmotrema ochrocrinitum Elix & J.Johnst. Parmotrema perlatum (Huds.) M.Choisy Parmotrema reticulatum (Taylor) M.Choisy Pertusaria crassilabra Mill.Arg. Pertusaria lophocarpa Korb. Pertusaria pertractata Stirt. Physcia albata (F.Wilson) Hale Physcia austrocaesia Elix Physcia austrostellaris Elix Physcia neonubila Elix Physcia poncinsii Hue Placidium squamulosum (Ach:) Breuss Porina corrugata Mill.Arg. Porina elegantula Mill.Arg. Porina meridionalis P.M.McCarthy Porina rhaphidiophora (Nyl.) Miill.Arg. Porina subargillacea Miill.Arg. Porpidia crustulata (Ach.) Hertel & Knoph Punctelia borreri (Sm.) Krog Punctelia pseudocoralloidea (Gyeln.) Elix & Kantvilas Ramalina caespitella G.N.Stevens Ramalina canariensis J.Steiner Ramalina celastri (Spreng.) Krog & Swinscow Ramalina fissa (Mill.Arg.) Vain. Ramalina inflata (Hook.f. & Taylor) Hook.f. & Taylor Ramboldia sp. (GK 242/19) Ramboldia blastidiata Kantvilas & Elix Ramboldia laeta (Stirt.) Kalb, Lumbsch & Elix Ramboldia petraeoides (Nyl. ex C.Bab. & Mitt.) Kantvilas & Elix Ramboldia stuartii (Hampe) Kantvilas & Elix Ramonia absconsa (Tuck.) Vezda Rhizocarpon geographicum (L.) DC. Rhizocarpon reductum Th.Fr. Rinodina asperata (Shirley) Kantvilas Rinodina australiensis Miill.Arg. Rinodina blastidiata Matzer & H.Mayrhofer Rinodina oleae Bagl. Rinodinella fertilis (Kérb.) Elix var. fertilis Schismatomma occultum (C.Knight & Mitt.) Zahlbr. Teloschistes chrysophthalmus (L.) Th.Er. Teloschistes spinosus (Hook.f. & Taylor) J.S.Murray Teloschistes velifer F.Wilson Tephromela alectoronica Kalb Tephromela atra (Huds.) Hafellner Thelenella tasmanica H.Mayrhofer & P.M.McCarthy Toninia aromatica (Sm.) A.Massal. Trapelia sp. (GK 226/19) Trapelia concentrica Elix & P.M.McCarthy Tylothallia verrucosa (Miill.Arg.) Kantvilas Usnea cornuta Korb. Usnea rubrotincta Stirt. Usnea torulosa (Miill.Arg.) Zahlbr. Verrucaria muralis Ach. Xanthoparmelia australasica D.J.Galloway Xanthoparmelia bungendorensis (Elix) Elix & J.Johnst. Xanthoparmelia conranensis (Elix) Elix Xanthoparmelia digitiformis (Elix & PM.Armstr.) Filson Xanthoparmelia elixii Filson Xanthoparmelia filsonii Elix & J Nennes Xanthoparmelia flavescentireagens (Gyeln.) D.J.Galloway Xanthoparmelia microcephala Elix & Kantvilas Xanthoparmelia microphyllizans Elix Xanthoparmelia mougeotina (Nyl.) D.J.Galloway Xanthoparmelia neotinctina (Elix) Elix 8 J.Johnst. Xanthoparmelia streimannii (Elix & P.M.Armstr.) Elix & J.Johnst. Xanthoparmelia subprolixa (Nyl. ex Kremp.) O.Blanco et al. Xanthoparmelia tasmanica (Hook.f. & Taylor) Hale Xanthoparmelia verisidiosa (Essl.) O.Blanco et al. Xanthoparmelia xanthomelaena (Miill-Arg.) Hale Xanthoparmelia xerica (Elix) Elix Xanthoria sp. (GK 394/18) Xanthoria angustata S.Y.Kondr. & Karnefelt Xanthoria coomae S.Y.Kondr. & Karnefelt Xanthoria elixii S.Y.Kondr. & Karnefelt Xanthoria ligulata (Kérb.) PJames 88 MM. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas Appendix 1.4: Invertebrate taxa of Musselroe Wind Farm ARTHROPODS ARCHAEOGNATHA Meinertellidae Machiloides hickmani Womersley, 1939 BLATTODEA Blaberidae Calolampra irrorata (Fabricius, 1775) Blattidae + Blattidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95715 Drymaplaneta cf. communis Tepper, 1893 Platyzosteria biglumis (Saussure, 1864) COLEOPTERA Anamorphidae + Idiophyes sp. TMAG_F98611 Anthicidae Anthicidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95636 Anthicidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98784 Anthicidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98926 Lagrioida australis Champion, 1895 Mecynotarsus leai Pic, 1942 Trichananca victoriensis Blackburn, 1891 Anthribidae Anthribidae unplaced TFIC sp. 04 Araecerus palmaris (Pascoe, 1882) Belidae Pachyura australis Hope, 1834 Rhinotia bidentata (Donovan, 1805) Stenobelus tibialis (Blackburn, 1893) Buprestidae Germarica lilliputana (Thomson, 1879) Melobasis innocua Thomson, 1879 Melobasis nervosa (Boisduval, 1835) Cantharidae Chauliognathus lugubris (Fabricius, 1801) Chauliognathus tricolor (Castelnau, 1840) Heteromastix unplaced Carabidae Amblytelus brevis Blackburn, 1892 Bembidion proprium Blackburn, 1888 Carabidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95840 Carabidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F97712 Carabidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F1148372 Clivina vagans Putzeys, 1866 Clivina vittata Sloane, 1896 Demetrida sp. TMAG_F98712 Hypharpax peronii (Castelnau, 1867) Loxandrus sp. YMAG_F95857 Notonomus politulus (Chaudoir, 1865) Philophlaeus simsoni Sloane, 1920 Prosopogmus chalybeipennis (Chaudoir, 1843) Pseudoceneus sollicitus (Erichson, 1842) Sarothrocrepis integra Baehr, 2018 Scaraphites rotundipennis (Dejean, 1825) Scopodes sp. TMAG_F96081 Cerambycidae Ancita crocogaster (Boisduval, 1835) Ancita marginicollis (Boisduval, 1835) Bethelium diversicorne (White, 1846) Callidiopini unplaced sp. TMAG_F100860 Callidiopini unplaced sp. TMAG_F33390 Cerambycinae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96396 Enchoptera apicalis Saunders, 1850 Hesthesis cingulatus (Kirby, 1818) Neissa inconspicua Pascoe, 1866 Nenenia sp. TMAG_F98558 Stenoderus suturalis (Olivier, 1795) Uracanthus sp. TMAG_F95575 Chrysomelidae Agetinus subcostata (Chapuis, 1874) Aporocera viridipennis (Saunders, 1842) Arsipoda sp. TMAG_F98512 Chaetocnema sp. TMAG_F95720 Ditropidus unplaced Eurispa albipennis (Germar, 1848) Geloptera jugularis (Erichson, 1842) Geloptera sp. TMAG_F41254 Monolepta unplaced Paropsis charybdis Stal, 1860 Paropsis porosa Exichson, 1842 Paropsisterna nobilitata (Erichson, 1842) Paropsisterna obliterata (Erichson, 1842) Peltoschema unplaced +i Psylliodes marcida (Iliger, 1807) Cleridae Blackburniella intricata (Blackburn, 1891) Eleale simplex (Newman, 1840) Eunatalis porcata (Fabricius, 1787) Lemidia cicatricosa Lea, 1907 Lemidia sp. TMAG_F98680 Lemidia subaenea Gorham, 1877 Necrobia rufipes (DeGeer, 1775) Neoscrobiger sp. TMAG_F95985 “vu i * Coccinellidae Cleobora mellyi (Mulsant, 1850) Coccinella transversalis Fabricius, 1781 i Coccinella undecimpunctata Linnaeus, 1758 Coccinellidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98853 Coccinellidae unplaced TFIC sp. 22 Harmonia conformis (Boisduval, 1835) Micraspis frenata (Erichson, 1842) Rhyzobius hirtellus Crotch, 1874 Rhyzobius sp. TMAG_F98708 Rhyzobius pelion Tomaszewska, 2010 Rhyzobius TFIC sp. 05 Rhyzobius TFIC sp. 15 Rhyzobius TFIC sp. 35 Rhyzobius ventralis (Erichson, 1842) Corylophidae Holopsis unplaced Sericoderus TFIC sp. 05 Curculionidae Aades cultratus (Fabricius, 1775) Aoplocnemis unplaced Aphela algarum Pascoe, 1870 Aphela helopoides Pascoe, 1865 The Flora and Fauna of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania Cnestus pseudosolidus (Schedl, 1936) Cryptorhynchini unplaced sp. TMAG_F95457 Cryptorhynchini unplaced sp. TMAG_F95499 Curculionidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F58817 Curculionidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95604 Curculionidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96050 Curculionidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98766 Curculionidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98811 Epamoebus ziczac Lea, 1909 Ethemaia sellata Pascoe, 1865 Gerynassa picticornis Blackburn, 1893 Gonipterus unplaced Haplonyx casuarinae (Lea, 1909) Leptopiini unplaced sp. TMAG_F41329 Leptopiini unplaced sp. TMAG_F95510 Leptopiini unplaced sp. TMAG_F95890 Leptopiini unplaced sp. TMAG_F96210 Leptopiini unplaced sp. TMAG_F98700 Leptopius duponti (Boisduval, 1835) Mandalotus TFIC sp. 14 Melanterius acaciae Lea, 1899 Merimnetes oblongus (Blanchard, 1853) Meriphus sp. TMAG_F96628 Neolaemosaccus narinus (Pascoe, 1872) Neolaemosaccus sp. YMAG_F96154 Orthorhinus klugii Boheman, 1835 Orthorhinus TFIC sp. 02 Pelororhinus margaritaceus Erichson, 1842 Pelororhinus TFIC sp. 01 Pentamimus australis (Erichson, 1842) Pseudotimareta subterranea (Lea, 1908) Rhamphus acaciae Lea, 1895 Sclerorinus bubalus (Olivier, 1807) Scotasmus litoralis (Lea, 1911) Storeus albosignatus (Blackburn, 1890) Storeus sp. TMAG_F98972 Tychiini unplaced TFIC sp. 18 Dermestidae i?+ Attagenus pellio (Linnaeus, 1758) Trogoderma TFIC sp. 01 Dytiscidae Antiporus sp. TMAG_F97815 Chostonectes unplaced Exocelina australiae (Clark, 1863) Lancetes lanceolatus (Clark, 1863) Limbodessus gemellus (Clark, 1862) Megaporus unplaced Necterosoma penicillatum (Clark, 1862) Onychohydrus scutellaris (Germar, 1848) Platynectes unplaced Rhantus suturalis (Macleay, 1825) Sternopriscus tasmanicus Sharp, 1882 Sternopriscus sp. TMAG_F97431 Elateridae Agrypnus impressicollis (Elston, 1924) Agrypnus pictipennis (Candéze, 1857) Agrypnus TFIC sp. 01 Conoderus erubescens (Candéze, 1859) ° Conoderus fabrilis (Erichson, 1842) Conoderus TFIC sp. 03 Conoderus TFIC sp. 11 Conoderus TFIC sp. 12 Elateridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95495 Elateridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98582 Elateridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98981 Elateridae unplaced TFIC sp. 10 Elateridae unplaced TFIC sp. 32 Enischnelater specularis (Candéze, 1889) Paracardiophorus sp. YMAG_F95158 Paracardiophorus sp. TMAG_F95439 Geotrupidae i Geotrupes spiniger Marsham, 1802 Histeridae Saprinus laetus Erichson, 1834 Teretrius sorellensis Blackburn, 1903 Hybosoridae + Liparochrus sp. TMAG_F95801 Hydraenidae + Gymnochthebius sp. TMAG_F96374 Hydrophilidae Berosus unplaced Cercyon sp. TMAG_F96383 Enochrus sp. TMAG_F94420 Flydrophilus latipalpus Castelnau, 1840 Limnoxenus zealandicus (Broun, 1880) Paracymus unplaced Hygrobiidae Hygrobia australasiae (Clark, 1862) Latridiidae Cortinicara TFIC sp. 02 Leiodidae Choleva TFIC sp. 01 Eublackburniella sp. TMAG_F41310 Leiodidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41346 Zeadolopus unplaced Lucanidae Syndesus cornutus (Fabricius, 1801) Lycidae Xylobanus simplicicornis (Lea, 1909) Meloidae Palaestra cyanipennis (Pascoe, 1860) Melyridae Dicranolaius cinctus (Redtenbacher, 1867) Hypattalus exilis Lea, 1909 Melyridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98714 Melyridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98715 Mordellidae Glipostenoda TFIC sp. 09 Mordella promiscua Erichson, 1842 Mordellidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98627 Nitidulidae Epuraea meyricki (Blackburn, 1891) . Phalacridae Austroporus melas (Lea, 1932) Phalacridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F44443 Phycosecidae Phycosecis litoralis Pascoe, 1875 89 90 M. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas Ptinidae Deltocryptus sp. TMAG_F98780 Ptinidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98630 Ptinidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98874 Ptinus exulans Erichson, 1842 Rhipiceridae Rhipicera femorata Kirby, 1818 Salpingidae Orphanotrophium TFIC sp. 01 Scarabaeidae Adoryphorus coulonii (Burmeister, 1847) i Aphodius lividus (Olivier, 1789) Aplopsis evexa (Britton, 1957) Atenius brouni (Sharp, 1876) Automolius depressus (Blanchard, 1850) Cheiroplatys latipes (Guérin-Méneville, 1831) Diphucephala colaspidoides (Gyllenhal, 1817) Diphucephala smaragdula Boisduval, 1835 Heteronyx cervina (Boisduval, 1835) Heteronyx pilosellus Blanchard, 1850 Heteronyx tasmanicus Blackburn, 1909 Liparetrus discipennis Guérin-Méneville, 1831 Liparetrus sericeus Macleay, 1871 Melolonthinae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95945 Melolonthinae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98770 Onthophagus filiginosus Erichson, 1842 Onthophagus posticus Exichson, 1842 Onthophagus pronus Erichson, 1842 Onthophagus sp. TMAG_F97557 Phyllotocus macleayi Fischer, 1823 Phyllotocus rufipennis (Boisduval, 1835) Sericesthis nigrolineata Boisduval, 1835 Scirtidae Spilotocyphon spilotus (Blackburn, 1892) Scraptiidae Scraptia laticollis Champion, 1895 Silphidae Ptomaphila lacrymosa (Schreibers, 1802) Staphylinidae Aleochara blackburni Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926 Aleocharinae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41202 Bledius aterrimus Fauvel, 1877 Cafius australis (L. Redtenbacher, 1868) Cafius sabulosus Fauvel, 1877 Cafius seriatus Fauvel, 1877 Creophilus erythrocephalus (Fabricius, 1775) Paederus cruenticollis Germar, 1848 Quedius sp. TMAG_F98639 Staphylininae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96390 Tenebrionidae Adelium brevicorne Blessig, 1861 Adelium tenebroides Erichson, 1842 Atoichus bicolor (Blackburn, 1893) Bassianus colydioides (Erichson, 1842) Ecnolagria rufescens (Boisduval, 1835) Edylius canescens Champion, 1894 Hyocis bakewelli Pascoe, 1866 Tsopteron aversum (Pascoe, 1869) Isopteron triviale (Erichson, 1842) Meneristes australis (Boisduval, 1835) Nocar depressiusculus (Macleay, 1872) Pachycoelia sulcicollis Boisduval, 1835 Pemanoa tasmanica (Carter, 1915) Pterohelaeus peltatus (Erichson, 1842) Saragus costatus (Solier, 1848) Sphargeris physodes Pascoe, 1860 Tenebrionidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95884 Tetragonomenes ruficornis (Champion, 1894) Titaena columbina Erichson, 1842 Throscidae + Throscidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98854 Trogidae Omorgus australasiae (Erichson, 1842) Trogossitidae Leperina decorata (Erichson, 1842) DERMAPTERA Anisolabididae Euborellia brunneri (Dohrn, 1864) Gonolabis unplaced Labiduridae Labidura riparia (Pallas, 1773) DIPTERA Acroceridae + Ogcodes sp. TMAG_F95695 Asilidae Bathypogon nigrinus Ricardo, 1912 Cerdistus caliginosus (White, 1914) Cerdistus flavicinctus (White, 1914) Cerdistus vittipes (Macquart, 1847) Leptogaster sp. TMAG_F98958 Neoaratus hercules (Wiedemann, 1828) Neoscleropogon unplaced Australimyzidae Australimyza mcalpinei Brake & Mathis, 2007 Bibionidae Dilophus unplaced Bombyliidae Acridophagus paganicus (White, 1916) Aleucosia atherix (Newman, 1841) Aleucosia calophthalma (Thomson, 1869) Comptosia ocellata (Newman, 1841) Exechohypopion nigricostatum (Macquart, 1850) Exechohypopion velox (White, 1916) Meomyia fasciculata (Macquart, 1840) Villa fuscicostata (Macquart, 1846) Calliphoridae _ Calliphora hilli Patton, 1925 Calliphora stygia (Fabricius, 1782) Calliphoridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F97634 Calliphorinae unplaced sp. TMAG_F99027 Onesia sp. TMAG_F98547 Canacidae Canacidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41340 Canacidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41341 Chamaemyiidae Chamaemyiidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96118 Chironomidae Chironomidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41374 The Flora and Fauna of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania Chironomidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95551 Chironomidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96041 Chironomidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96042 Chloropidae Apotropina ornatipennis (Malloch, 1923) Chloropidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96424 Chloropidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98232 Pemphigonotus sp. TMAG_F97691 Coelopidae Amma blancheae McAlpine, 1991 Chaetocoelopa sydneyensis (Schiner, 1868) Gluma musgravei McAlpine, 1991 Gluma nitida McAlpine, 1991 Rhis whitleyi McAlpine, 1991 Dolichopodidae Dolichopodidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41283 Dolichopodidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41365 Dolichopodidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F115776 Dolichopodidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F97581 Heteropsilopus cingulipes (Walker, 1835) Hydrophorinae unplaced sp. TMAG_F57575 Sciapodinae unplaced sp. TMAG_F97453 Empididae Empididae unplaced sp. TMAG_F40378 Empididae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41210 Empididae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41274 Empididae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41359 Empididae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41360 Ephydridae Ephydrella unplaced + Ephydridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95706 Ephydridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98245 Hydrellia tritici Coquillett, 1903 Scatella sp. TMAG_F59706 Heteromyzidae Diplogeomyza wirthi McAlpine, 1967 Hybotidae Hybotidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96039 Lauxaniidae Lauxaniidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41248 Lauxaniidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96423 Paranomina unicolor Hendel, 1907 Sapromyza mallochiana Evenhuis & Okadome, 1989 Limoniidae Gynoplistia sp. TMAG_F95911 Limoniidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96199 Lonchaeidae Lonchaeidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F6351 Muscidae Coenosia sp. TMAG_F47332° Helina sp. TMAG_F12791 Lispe cana (Walker, 1849) Muscidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41290 Muscidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41370 Muscidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F99028 Mycetophilidae Mycetophilidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41206 Nemestrinidae Trichophthalma punctata (Macquart, 1846) Piophilidae Piophilidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41358 Platystomatidae Duomyia decora (Macquart, 1846) Lamprogaster laeta (Macquart, 1835) Rivellia unplaced Pyrgotidae Cardiacera cf. anthonyi (Paramonov, 1958) Cardiacera sp. TMAG_F95804 Rhinophoridae + Axinia unplaced sp. TMAG_F5984 Sarcophagidae Oxysarcodexia varia (Walker, 1836) Protomiltogramma laticeps Malloch, 1930 Sarcophaga sp. TMAG_F72915 Sarcophaginae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96711 Sciaridae Sciaridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41293 Sciaridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96040 Sepsidae Parapalaeosepsis plebeia (De Meijere, 1906) Simuliidae Simuliidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41364 Sphaeroceridae Thoracochaeta unplaced Stratiomyidae Inopus rubriceps (Macquart, 1847) Octarthria brunnipennis (Puller, 1934) Odontomyia sp. TMAG_F96259 Syrphidae Eumerus argyrogaster Ferguson, 1926 Eumerus latipes Macquart, 1846 Melangyna viridiceps (Macquart, 1847) Orthoprosopa grisea (Walker, 1835) Psilota coerulea Macquart, 1846 Psilota femoralis Schiner, 1868 Simosyrphus grandicornis (Macquart, 1842) Xanthandrus agrolas (Walker, 1849) Tabanidae Dasybasis gentilis (Erichson, 1842) Dasybasis neocirrus (Ricardo, 1917) Dasybasis neolatifrons (Ferguson & Hill, 1922) Dasybasis sp. TMAG_F46925 Dasybasis sp. TMAG_F96260 Mackerrasus microdonta (Macquart, 1847) Scaptia auriflua (Donovan, 1805) Tachinidae Chaetophthalmus similis (Walker, 1853) Microtropesa nigricornis Macquart, 1851 Polychaeta sp. TMAG_F95700 Rutilia sp. TMAG_F96000 Rutilia sp. TMAG_F97587 Rutilia sp. TMAG_F97588 Rutilia sp. TMAG_F97671 Rutilia vivipara (Fabricius, 1805) Tachinidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95526 Tachinidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96034 Tachinidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96355 Tachinidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98551 91 92 MM. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas Tachinidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98553 Tachinidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98650 Tachinidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98761 Tritaxys heterocera (Macquart, 1846) Tephritidae Austrotephritis bushi (Hardy & Drew, 1996) Sphenella ruficeps (Macquart, 1851) Trupanea prolata Hardy & Drew, 1996 Therevidae Acraspisa sp. TMAG_F95917 Acupalpa sp. TMAG_F96343 Anabarhynchus fuscoapicatus Lyneborg, 2001 Anabarhynchus maritimus Hardy, 1916 Bonjeania segnis (White, 1916) Ectinorhynchus sp. TMAG_F47017 Evansomyia sp. TMAG_F41156 HEMIPTERA Acanthosomatidae Acanthosomatidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F57832 Duadicus pallidus Dallas, 1851 Elasmostethus sp. TMAG_F98349 Eupolemus sp. TMAG_F96017 Eupolemus sp. TMAG_F96098 Hiarchas sp. TMAG_F95667 Stauralia chloracantha Dallas, 1851 Achilidae Argeleusa sp. TMAG_F57755 Alydidae Mutusca brevicornis (Dallas, 1852) Aradidae Prosympiestus sp. TMAG_F98259 Callipappidae Callipappus unplaced Cercopidae Bathyllus albicinctus (Erichson, 1842) Cicadellidae Cicadellidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95683 Cicadidae Diemeniana euronotiana (Kirkaldy, 1909) Gelidea torrida (Erichson, 1842) Coreidae Agriopocoris unplaced Gelonus tasmanicus (Le Guillou, 1841) Corixidae Diaprepocoris barycephala Kirkaldy, 1897 Sigara australis (Fieber, 1851) Sigara neboissi Lansbury, 1970 Cydnidae Adrisa atra (Dallas, 1851) Adrisa sp. TMAG_F98735 Cydnidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96412 Macroscytus sp. TMAG_F6477 Enicocephalidae Oncylocotis tasmanicus (Westwood, 1837) Flatidae Siphanta cf. hebes (Walker, 1851) Siphanta tasmanica Fletcher, 1985 Gelastocoridae Nerthra sp. TMAG_F97681 Membracidae Acanthuchus trispinifer (Fairmaire, 1846) Ceraon tasmaniae (Fairmaire, 1846) Micronectidae Micronecta annae Kirkaldy, 1905 Micronecta robusta Hale, 1922 Miridae Miridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41263 Miridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41342 Miridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F57255 Miridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95673 Miridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95825 Miridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96013 Miridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96014 Miridae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96106 Pseudopantilius australis (Walker, 1873) Notonectidae Anisops deanei Brooks, 1951 Enithares woodwardi Lansbury, 1968 Ochteridae Ochterus unplaced Pentatomidae Anaxilaus vesiculosus (Herrich-Schaffer, 1840) Buthumka sp. YMAG_F59527 Cuspicona stenuella Walker, 1868 Diaphyta rosea Bergroth, 1912 Dictyotus caenosus (Westwood, 1837) Eribotes hobartensis Distant, 1910 Mycoolona atricornis (Westwood, 1837) Ocirrhoe unimaculata (Westwood, 1837) Oechalia schellenbergii (Guérin, 1831) Omyta centrolineata (Westwood, 1837) Oncocoris geniculatus (Dallas, 1851) Pentatomidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F46979 Platycoris sp. TMAG_F95442 Piesmatidae Mcateella sp. TMAG_F47683 Psyllidae Psyllidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F103116 Psyllidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41260 Psyllidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F41261 Pyrrhocoridae Dindymus versicolor (Herrich-Schiaffer, 1853) Reduviidae Coranus trabeatus Horvath, 1902 Gminatus australis (Erichson, 1842) Nyllius asperatus Stal, 1859 _ Peirates fuliginosus (Erichson, 1842) Reduviidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96314 Reduviidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96443 Rhyparochromidae Brentiscerus putoni (White, 1878) Plinthisus woodwardi Slater & Sweet, 1977 Rhyparochromidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95961 Rhyparochromidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98732 Rhyparochromidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98787 The Flora and ini of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania HYMENOPTERA Apidae i Apis mellifera Linnaeus, 1758 Exoneura unplaced Bethylidae Bethylidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96401 Braconidae Braconidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95810 Braconinae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95643 Braconinae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95828 Chalcididae Chalcididae unplaced sp. TMAG_F97622 Chalcididae unplaced sp. TMAG_F97623 Chrysididae Chrysididae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98977 Dryinidae © Dryinidae unplaced Colletidae Callomelitta sp. TMAG_F3998 Euhesma maculifera (Michener, 1965) Euryglossa sp. TMAG_F96120 Leioproctus sp. TMAG_F3995 Leioproctus sp. TMAG_F95642 Leioproctus sp. YMAG_F97230 Pachyprosopis sp. TMAG_F96175 Perilampus sp. TMAG_F96179 Crabronidae Podagritus sp. TMAG_F13427 Podagritus sp. TMAG_F95864 Tachysphex unplaced Eucharitidae Eucharitidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F99017 Evaniidae Acanthinevania sp. YMAG_F100787 Formicidae Amblyopone australis Erichson, 1842 Anonychomyrma biconvexa (Santschi, 1928) Camponotus claripes Mayr, 1876 Camponotus consobrinus (Erichson, 1842) Camponotus gasseri (Forel, 1894) Camponotus hartogi Forel, 1902 Camponotus sp. TMAG_F96335 Camponotus terebrans (Lowne, 1865) Formicidae unplaced sp. ‘TMAG_F98752 Iridomyrmex sp. TMAG_F101247 Myrmecia forficata (Fabricius, 1787) Myrmecia pilosula Smith, 1858 Ochetellus sp. TMAG_F98800 Pheidole unplaced Polyrhachis patiens Santschi, 1920 Polyrhachis sp. TMAG_F7097 Polyrhachis sp. TMAG_F95827 Rhytidoponera tasmaniensis Emery, 1898 Gasteruptiidae Gasteruptiidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96406 Halictidae Halictidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F4052 Halictidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98518 Lasioglossum sp. TMAG_F4140 Ichneumonidae Ceratomansa unplaced Dusona sp. TMAG_F98948 Echthromorpha intricatoria (Fabricius, 1804) Eriostethus unplaced Habronyx sp. TMAG_F96407 Heteropelma sp. TMAG_F63139 Ichneumonidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F32289 Ichneumonidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95586 Ichneumonidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95829 Ichneumonidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95868 Ichneumonidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98739 Ichneumonidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98944 Ichneumonidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F99011 Labena sp. TMAG_F72904 Netelia unplaced Ophioninae unplaced sp. TMAG_F31846 Stenarella victoriae (Cameron, 1912) Mutillidae Odontomyrme cordatiformis Lelej, 1983 Pompilidae Ageniellini unplaced Cryptocheilus australis (Guérin-Méneville, 1838) Pompilidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F59520 Pompilidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F97700 Pompilidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98802 Pompilidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98834 Pompilidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F98838 Pompilidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F99012 Pompilidae unplaced sp. TMAG_F99014 Psoropempula sp. TMAG_F57286 Sphictostethus sp. TMAG_F98745 Turneromyia unplaced Sphecidae Podalonia tydei (Le Guillou, 1841) Prionyx unplaced Tiphiidae Catocheilus apterus (Olivier, 1811) Diamma bicolor Westwood, 1835 Lophocheilus villosus Guérin-Méneville, 1842 Neozeleboria carinicollis Varner, 1915 Neozeleboria volatilis (Smith, 1859) Rhagigaster scalae (Dalla Torre, 1897) Thynninae unplaced sp. TMAG_F95644 Thynninae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96172 Thynninae unplaced sp. TMAG_F96405 Thynninae unplaced sp. TMAG_F97084 Thynnoides mesopleuralis Turner, 1912 Vespidae Paralastor unplaced LEPIDOPTERA Anthelidae Anthela acuta (Walker, 1855) Anthela nicothoe (Boisduval, 1832) Anthela ocellata (Walker, 1855) Munychryiinae unplaced Batrachedridae + Batrachedra sp. TMAG_F99720 . 93 94 M. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas Cosmopterigidae + Limnaecia sp. TMAG_F107740 Cossidae Endoxyla lituratus (Donovan, 1805) Crambidae Crambidae unplaced Crambinae unplaced Eudonia cleodoralis (Walker, 1859) Metasia capnochroa (Meyrick, 1884) Ptochostola microphaeellus (Walker, 1866) Pyraustinae unplaced Tipanaea patulella Walker, 1863 Uresiphita ornithopteralis (Guenée, 1857) Depressariidae Eutorna intonsa Meyrick, 1906 Elachistidae Chrysoclista unplaced Elachistinae unplaced Erebidae Acyphas semiochrea (Herrich-Schiffer, 1855) Erebidae unplaced Halone sejuncta (R. Felder & Rogenhofer, 1875) Palaeosia unplaced Paramsacta marginata (Donovan, 1805) Philenora sp. TMAG_F108002 Praxis edwardsii Guenée, 1852 Scoliacma unplaced Spilosoma canescens (Butler, 1875) + Thallarcha phalarota Meyrick, 1886 Geometridae Anachloris uncinata (Guenée, 1857) Antasia flavicapitata (Guenée, 1857) Capusa senilis Walker, 1857 Chloroclystis filata (Guenée, 1858) Chlorocoma assimilis (Lucas, 1888) Chlorocoma externa (Walker, 1861) Chrysolarentia insulsata (Guenée, 1858) Chrysolarentia mecynata (Guenée, 1857) Chrysolarentia ptochopis (Turner, 1907) Crypsiphona tasmanica Ounap & Viidalepp, 2009 Dichromodes ainaria Guenée, 1857 Dichromodes confluaria (Guenée, 1857) Dichromodes consignata (Walker, 1861) Dichromodes euscia Meyrick, 1890 Dichromodes longidens Prout, 1910 Dichromodes stilbiata (Guenée, 1857) Dichromodes unplaced Dinophalus serpentaria (Guenée, 1864) Eccymatoge callizona (Lower, 1894) Epyaxa agelasta (Turner, 1904) Epyaxa subidaria (Guenée, 1857) Gastrina cristaria Guenée, 1857 Hydriomenini unplaced severata (Guenée, 1857) Idiodes apicata Guenée, 1857 Lithinini unplaced goniota Melanodes anthracitaria Guenée, 1857 Microdes villosata Guenée, 1857 Nisista serrata (Walker, 1857) Oenochroma unplaced Ocenochroma vinaria Guenée, 1857 Pasiphilodes testulata (Guenée, 1857) Phrissogonus laticostata (Walker, 1862) Psilosticha mactaria (Guenée, 1857) Rhynchopsota delogramma Lower, 1903 Scioglyptis unplaced Scopula optivata (Walker, 1861) Scopula perlata (Walker, 1861) Syneora mundifera (Walker, 1860) + Taxeotis intermixtaria (Walker, 1861) Gracillariidae Polysoma eumetalla (Meyrick, 1880) Heliozelidae Heliozela unplaced Heliozelidae unplaced Hesperiidae Ocybadistes walkeri Heron, 1894 Lasiocampidae Pararguda nasuta (Lewin, 1805) Limacodidae Doratifera pinguis (Walker, 1855) Lycaenidae Theclinesthes serpentatus (Herrich-Schaffer, 1869) Noctuidae Agrotis infusa (Boisduval, 1832) Agrotis munda Walker, 1857 Agrotis porphyricollis Guenée, 1852 Bathytricha truncata (Walker, 1856) Dasygaster pammacha Guenée, 1852 Ectopatria “DPILMbrownshortpecten” Ectopatria unplaced Hadenini unplaced species inquirenda exarans Lucas, 1894 : Hadenini unplaced species inquirenda ligniplena Walker, 1857 Helicoverpa punctigera (Wallengren, 1860) Noctuidae unplaced Persectania ewingii (Westwood, 1839) Proteuxoa bistrigula (Walker, 1857) Proteuxoa melanographa (Turner, 1908) Proteuxoa sp. nr flexirena (Walker, 1865) Nolidae Nola ANIC sp. 03 Nolidae unplaced Notodontidae . Epicoma melanospila (Wallengren, 1860) Psalidostetha banksiae (Lewin, 1805) + Scythrophanes stenoptera Turner, 1926 Nymphalidae Heteronympha merope (Fabricius, 1775) Vanessa kershawi (McCoy, 1868) Vanessa itea (Fabricius, 1775) Oecophoridae Araeostoma ANIC sp. 01 Barea atmophora Varner, 1916 Barea exarcha (Meyrick, 1883) Barea unplaced Bida radiosella (Walker, 1863) Oecophoridae unplaced The Flora and Fauna of Musselroe Wind Farm, Cape Portland, Northeast Tasmania Oxythecta hieroglyphica Meyrick, + Philobota olympias Meyrick, 1889 Philobota sp. TMAG_F058300 Wingia group unplaced Pieridae *i Pieris rapae (Linnaeus, 1758) Plutellidae Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus, 1758) Psychidae Psychidae unplaced Pyralidae Etiella behrii (Zeller, 1848) Faveria tritalis (Walker, 1863) Meyriccia latro (Zeller, 1873) Phycitinae unplaced Stericta marmorea (Warren, 1891) Pyraloidea Pyraloidea unplaced Saturniidae Opodiphthera helena (White, 1843) Scythrididae Scythris rhabducha Meyrick, 1897 Sphingidae Hippotion scrofa (Boisduval, 1832) Tineidae + Edosa sp. TMAG_F99719 Monopis icterogastra (Zeller, 1852) Tortricidae Acropolitis ptychosema Turner, 1927 Acropolitis rudisana (Walker, 1863) Cochylis cf ANIC sp. 01 Epiphyas epichorda (Meyrick, 1910) Eucosmini unplaced Euphona ammochroa (Lower, 1893) Holocola unplaced Meritastis ANIC sp. 02 Olethreutinae unplaced + Peraglyphis sp. TMAG_F99734 Strepsicrates ejectana (Walker, 1863) Subfurcatana unplaced Syllomatia unplaced Symphygas nephaula (Meyrick, 1910) Tortricidae Tortricidae unplaced Xyloryctidae Xyloryctidae unplaced MANTODEA Mantidae Orthodera ministralis (Fabricius, 1775) Tenodera australasiae (Leach, 1814) MECOPTERA Bittacidae Harpobittacus australis (Klug, 1838) NEUROPTERA Chrysopidae Apertochrysa edwardsi (Banks, 1940) Chrysopidae + Mallada signatus (Schneider, 1851) Hemerobiidae Micromus tasmaniae (Walker, 1860) Mantispidae Campion australasiae (Guérin-Méneville, 1844) ODONATA Lestidae Austrolestes analis (Rambur, 1842) ORTHOPTERA Acrididae + Austroicetes frater (Brancsik, 1897) Austroicetes vulgaris (Sjéstedt, 1931) Cirphula pyrrhocnemis (Stal, 1861) Gastrimargus musicus (Fabricius, 1775) Goniaea australasiae (Leach, 1814) Macrotona australis (Walker, 1870) e+ Schayera baiulus (Erichson, 1842) + Schizobothrus flavovittatus Sjstedt, 1921 + Urnisa rugosa de Saussure, 1884 Gryllidae + Lepidogryllus parvulus (Walker, 1869) Morabidae + Vandiemenella viatica (Erichson, 1842) Tetrigidae _ Paratettix argillaceus (Erichson, 1842) Tettigoniidae Conocephalus bilineatus (Erichson, 1842) Zaprochilus australis (Brullé, 1835) Trigonidiidae + Bobilla bakali Otte & Alexander, 1983 OTHER ARTHROPODS ARANEAE (SPIDERS) Araneidae Argiope keyserlingi Karsch, 1878 Austracantha minax (Thorell, 1859) Lycosidae Tetralycosa oraria (L. Koch, 1876) Salticidae Maratus tasmanicus Otto & Hill, 2013 . Sparassidae Neosparassus diana (L. Koch, 1875) CRUSTACEA - AMPHIPODA Chiltoniidae ; Austrochiltonia australis (Sayce, 1901) Austrochiltonia subtenuis (Sayce, 1902) CRUSTACEA - DECAPODA Parastacidae Engaeus unplaced CRUSTACEA - ISOPODA Scyphacidae e+ Haloniscus searlei Chilton, 1920 GASTROPODA Arionidae *i Arion intermedius Normand, 1852 Charopidae Scelidoropa officeri (Legrand, 1871) + Scelidoropa sp. “Little Musselroe” Scelidoropa sp. “Pioneer” 95 96 M. Baker, S. Grove, M. de Salas, C. Byrne, L. Cave, K. Bonham, K. Moore, L. Cook and G. Kantvilas Helicidae *i Cornu aspersum (Muller, 1774) Hygromiidae *i Prietocella barbara (Linneaus, 1758) Imacidae *{ Lehmannia nyctelia (Bourguignat, 1861) Punctidae Paralaoma hobarti (Cox, 1868) Laomavix collisi (Brazier, 1877) Magilaoma sp. “Tasmania” Succineidae Austrosuccinea australis (Férussac, 1821) Tomichiidae Coxiella straita (Reeve, 1842) Appendix 1.5: Vertebrate taxa of Musselroe Wind Farm REPTILES * Tiliqua nigrolutea (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) * Cyclodomorphus casuarinae (Duméril and Bibron, 1839) * Rankinia diemensis Gray, 1841 * Austrelaps superbus (Giinther, 1858) * Notechis scutatus Peters, 1861 MAMMALS * Macropus rufogriseus (Desmarest, 1817) * Macropus giganteus Shaw, 1790 * Thylogale billardierii (Desmarest, 1822) * Vombatus ursinus (Shaw, 1800) *e Sarcophilus harrisii (Boitard, 1841) *{ Oryctolagus cuniculus (Linnaeus, 1758) BIRDS * Acanthiza chrysorrhoa (Quoy & Gaimard, 1830) * Acanthiza pusilla (Shaw, 1790) * Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris (Latham, 1801) *i Alauda arvensis Linnaeus, 1758 * Anas castanea (Eyton, 1838) * Anas superciliosa Gmelin, 1789 * Anthochaera chrysoptera (Latham, 1801) * Anthochaera paradoxa (Daudin, 1800) * Anthus australis (Gmelin, 1789) *e Aquila audax fleayi Condon & Amadon, 1954 * Arenaria interpres (Linnaeus, 1758) * Artamus cyanopterus (Latham, 1801) * Cacomantis flabelliformis Latham, 1801 * Cacomantis pallidus (Latham, 1801) * Calidris ruficollis (Pallas, 1776) * Calyptorhynchus funereus (Shaw, 1794) *i Carduelis carduelis (Linnaeus, 1758) * Cereopsis novaehollandiae Latham, 1801 * Charadrius ruficapillus Temminck, 1822 * Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae (Stephens, 1826) * Chrysococcyx basalis (Horsfield, 1821) * Chrysococcyx lucidus (Gmelin, 1788) * Circus approximans Peale, 1848 * Colluricincla harmonica (Latham, 1801) * Coracina novaehollandiae Gmelin, 1789 * Corvus tasmanicus Mathews, 1912 Coturnix ypsilophora Bosc, 1792 Cracticus torquatus (Latham, 1801) * Cygnus atratus (Latham, 1790) *{ Dacelo novaeguineae (Hermann, 1783) * Egretta novaehollandiae (Latham, 1790) * Epthianura albifrons (Jardine & Selby, 1828) * Falco berigora Vigors & Horsfield, 1827 * Fulica atra Linnaeus, 1758 * Gymnorhina tibicen (Latham, 1801) Haematopus fuliginosus Gould, 1845 Haematopus longirostris Vieillot, 1817 v Haliaeetus leucogaster Gmelin, 1788 Hirundo neoxena (Gould, 1842) Fydroprogne caspia (Pallas, 1770) Larus pacificus Latham, 1801 Maturus cyaneus (Ellis, 1782) * Pachycephala pectoralis (Latham, 1801) Pelecanus conspicillatus Temminck, 1824 * Petroica boodang (Lesson 1838) * Phalacrocorax carbo (Linnaeus, 1758) * Phylidonyris novaehollandiae (Latham, 1790) * Rhipidura albiscapa Gould, 1840 Sericornis humilis Gould, 1838 Stagonopleura bella (Latham, 1801) Strepera fuliginosa (Gould, 1837) Strepera versicolor (Latham, 1801) “i Sturnus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758 * Tadorna tadornoides (Jardine & Selby, 1828) * * * *y Sternula nereis (Gould, 1843) OK * Thalasseus bergii (Lichtenstein, 1823) v Thinornis cucullatus (Vieillot, 1818) Tribonyx mortierii du Bus de Gisignies, 1840 *i Turdus merula Linnaeus, 1758 * Vanellus miles (Boddaert, 1783) * Vanellus tricolor (Vieillot, 1818) * Zosterops lateralis (Latham, 1801) Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 155(2), 2021 97 SHELTERING KNOWLEDGE: RESIDENCES OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF TASMANIA AND ITS PRECURSORS, 1838 TO 2021 by Eric Ratcliff (with eleven plates) Ratcliff, E. 2021(15:xii): Sheltering knowledge: residences of the Royal Society of Tasmania and its precursors, 1838 to 2021. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 155(2): 97-110. ISSN 0080-4703. Albion House, 153 & 155 George Street, Launceston, Tasmania 7250, Australia. Email: eric.ratcliff.albion@gmail.com The Royal Society of Tasmania and its precursors have met and stored their collections in at least eight different buildings in Hobart and several in Launceston since Sir John and Lady Franklin started a scientific society in 1838. Those built for the specific purpose of housing collections initiated by the societies remain as important components of the built heritage of Tasmania. The choices of style and architect made by the Royal Society for its Tasmanian Museum contributed directly to, and through influence on, the character of the historic city centre of Hobart. Key Words: museums, libraries, botanical gardens, colonial architecture, Royal Society of Tasmania. INTRODUCTION The Royal Society of Tasmania (RST) founded in 1843 under the Lieutenant-Governor, Sir John Eardley-Wilmot, and gaining the royal prefix the following year when Queen Victoria agreed to become its Patron, inherited the aims and objects of several earlier associations as well as part of their collections. The Society and its precursors have met and stored their collections and libraries in at least eight different places in Hobart and four in Launceston during the past 180 years, and these buildings have contributed both directly and by influence to the built heritage of Tasmania. This paper provides a brief account of the principal sites occupied by a succession of associations dedicated to the advancement of knowledge in Tasmania. LADY FRANKLIN’S TASMANIAN MUSEUM In 1838, Lady Franklin wrote to her sister in London from Government House in Hobart Town: “We are about forming a small private scientific society to meet here once a fortnight, & to have a museum’ (Franklin 1838, pp. 223-225). A meeting of the society in August 1840 resolved that ‘specimens illustrative of every paper read and published should be deposited in the museum, and that duplicate specimens should be sent to England’. At first, it was probably convenient to store the specimens at Government House, but it was soon realised that the safe keeping of a growing collection would require a custodian and dedicated spaces for their storage and display. Lady Franklin had acquired a block of bushland in the foothills of Mount Wellington that she intended to keep for its natural flora and fauna. With the aid of a symposium of members of the scientific society and some classical dictionaries, she named her property Ancanthe, understood to mean Vale of flowers’ (Franklin 1838, pp. 223-225). Whenever she visited it, she would pass the scene described by her stepdaughter, Eleanor Franklin: ‘a wooden cottage with some pillars in front, which is a very pretty object from the road, having the Mountains in the background’ (Franklin 1842, p. 196). In 1838, Lady Franklin ‘out of her private income’ purchased the ten-acre block that included the cottage and asked the botanist Ronald Campbell Gunn to establish there ‘a Collection of our indigenous Plants —a thing most urgently wanted’ (Gunn letter to Sir William Hooker 15 February 1838 in Burns & Skemp 1961, p- 71). Lady Franklin decided that as the government under her husband, Sir John Franklin, was not in a position to provide a museum, she would build her own there. The choice of a Grecian design appears to have had multiple origins. It may be that a feature of the cottage, probably the one shown near the museum in both John Skinner Prout’s and Loetitia Casey’s wash drawings of about 1843, contributed a suggestion towards the style of the museum (Casey 1843, Prout 1844). The property had been given a Greek name, and the proposed museum was also spoken of as a glyptothek. Strictly, that word embodies the combining form denoting carving or engraving on gemstones, so its original meaning was closer to a jewel- box than a building, but by extension, it came to mean a repository for carvings, a keeping place for sculptures (Webster's Dictionary 1948: glyptotheca). As part of Lady Franklin’s plan to uplift the cultural life of the colony, it was intended that the museum should contain not only specimens from the natural world, but also works of art, including a selection of casts from the ‘Elgin Marbles’. There is no evidence that the casts ever arrived in this colony, although the University of Sydney did acquire some at an early time in-its history. The phase of Neoclassicism in England now known as the Greek Revival was at its height when young Jane 98 Eric Ratcliff Griffin became involved in the cultural life of London. The building of the British Museum designed by Sir Robert Smirke, a chef doeuvre of Grecian style, had begun in 1825, and she would have been very much aware of the Elgin Marbles and probably went to see them either in Lord Elgin’s shed, where they had been made accessible to artists and cognoscenti at least since 1811, or, after they had been purchased for the nation at one of their subsequent locations, before her departure for Van Diemen’s Land as Lady Franklin in 1837. She had a lively interest in architecture, and, judging from a shopping list of books she sought from her sister in London in 1840, her tastes embraced the smorgasbord of fashions available in the stylistic period now known as the Regency (Franklin 1840). The Franklins showed no particular preference for one style over another; Sir John’s projected secondary college at New Norfolk was intended to be Grecian, but the new Government House was begun in 1842 to a Tudor Gothic design devised by the former convict architect, James Blackburn (Blackburn 1840). It seems clear, however, that Lady Franklin wanted a Neoclassical museum, for in 1841 she wrote to her sister asking her to obtain a design from Sir Francis Chantrey (Franklin 1841), the celebrated portrait sculptor whose habit was to render his sitters in Roman garb. Anything he recommended was going to be either Grecian or Roman. It is not known whether the requested design was sent, or whether Lady Franklin was forced to rely entirely on the architectural resources of the colony, which were not inconsiderable. John Lee Archer had been retrenched from the position of Colonial Architect and Engineer by Sir John in 1838, and her nephew, William Porden Kay, did not arrive to take up a recreated position until 1843, but the government drawing office was still manned, mostly by former convicts. Pre-eminent among these was James Blackburn, and it was to him that she turned to build her museum, although, despite his proven abilities, she ” strongly disapproved of him socially. She found fault with him at least once in the course of the work; she noticed that the pediment was leaning a little, and he is reported to have vowed that she must have climbed on to the roof to discover the error (Woodward 1951). A simple tempietto design to be realised in sandstone was well within Blackburn’s capabilities, without assistance from an imported pattern. He was a trained architect and engineer from London who had been convicted of forgery in 1833 and transported for life. In May 1841 he gained a free pardon for his expert services in the Department of Roads and Bridges and the later Department of Public Works. At the time of Lady Franklin’s commission, he was nearing the end of his time in government employ and engaged in adding a manneristic Doric porte-cochére to the Treasury building in Murray Street. However, the design for that was publicly criticised as being excessive, so it was reduced to a porch (The Courier 4 March 1842, p. 3). The late Geoffrey Stilwell speculated that the extra columns thus made redundant may have been used at Ancanthe (Stilwell 1971), but that is unlikely to be the case as they were entirely different in dimensions. The building, comparable in scale to the smaller garden temples built in England since the mid-eighteenth century, is in the form of a prostyle temple, with a portico with four fully detailed Doric columns supporting a simplified entablature and a plain triangular pediment without acroteria (pl. 1). Behind this, the side walls are without windows, but articulated with attenuated antae, piers of Grecian derivation designed to harmonise with columns, but not to imitate them. The interior consists of a gallery, illuminated by skylights, and two small back rooms behind a chimney with an elegant black marble chimney-piece. In his endeavour to give the building the external appearance of a Greek temple, Blackburn created some problems. The pitch of the roof is at an angle of 17°, considerably steeper than that of ancient Greek temples, but about half as steep as the average colonial roof, and impracticably shallow for effective weatherproofing from the covering of split shingles that it originally wore, a problem further exacerbated by the necessary skylights. Consequently, the original ceiling inside has had to be replaced. The chimney-stack was built as low as possible so that it would not be visible from the front, and the fireplace is likely to have smoked profusely. The frontal columns lack entasis, the slight bulge along the length of the shafts introduced to avoid the optical illusion of concavity, but otherwise they are archaeologically correct in detail, proportion and spacing. The entablature is properly divided into lintel and frieze, but there is no decorative apparatus of triglyphs alternating with metopes in the latter, nor guttae above the former. The most evident non-Grecian feature is the articulation of the walls; in an ancient Greek prostyle temple, antae appear only ahead of the side walls, under the portico, but centuries of Georgian design founded on Roman and Renaissance precedent had made architects incapable of providing a plain ashlar-faced wall without dividing or decorating it in some way. The building of the Tasmanian museum was well under way by March 1842 and it opened in October of the following year a few weeks before the Franklins left the colony (Boyes 1843, Craig 1961). With their departure impending, they were not confident of the survival of the Tasmanian Society, as their scientific society was now called, so Lady Franklin deeded the Ancanthe estate to five trustees: Bishop ER. Nixon (the first bishop of Tasmania), J.E. Bicheno (the Colonial Secretary), Reverend T-J. Ewing, Reverend J.P. Gell, and the botanist, Ronald Campbell Gunn (Burns & Skemp 1961, p. 72). Hence, the property came into the hands of the Church of England, and in view of its educational intention, was entrusted to Christ College in its first foundation. When the College closed at the end of 1856, the property entered a period of neglect. Some of the collections had been acquired by the RST, and in 1853 the glass cases made to display them were purchased from the trustees of Christ College to use in its new Tasmanian Museum. Some eventually found their way to Launceston, where at least one may still be in use (Piesse 1913, p. 153). : Apart from the architect’s drawings, which no longer seem to exist, the earliest image of the museum is probably the etching by Thomas Bock on the souvenir card for the Residences of the Royal Society of Tasmania and its precursors, 1838 to 2021 99 PLATE 1 — Lady Franklin’s Tasmanian Museum, Kangaroo Valley, Hobart, circa 1910 in the form of a prostyle temple, with a portico with four fully detailed Doric columns supporting a simplified entablature and a plain triangular pediment without acroteria. Photo ID: 144585718. Hobart Lenah Valley: collection of postcards by W.J. Little. Libraries Tasmania’s Online collection, https://stors.tas.gov. au/AUTAS0016125397091 laying of its foundation stone on 16 March 1842 (pl. 2). A letter from Lady Franklin to Captain Ross dated 3 April 1843 made it clear that the card was to be given ‘to all present’ at the laying of the stone, so it does not appear to be a ticket of admission for the opening day as sometimes stated (Owen 1978). In the same letter, Lady Franklin states that ‘I have since had it engraved’, but that subsequent image has not been located. The etching is accurate in detail, but slightly increased in vertical scale, and there are three steps forming the crepidoma at the front, and not the six that are still there. The engraving must have been derived from Blackburn's elevation drawing, as it pre-dates the laying of the stone. . If Sir John Franklin’s daughter had found the setting picturesque before the museum was built, other artists found it even more so after the little temple appeared in its rough bushland setting. Loetitia Casey made a watercolour drawing of it possibly soon after its completion, from a viewpoint similar to that used by John Skinner Prout in 1844 (Casey 1843, Prout 1844). The two images show the land cleared in front of the building, but no trace of a garden. The Franklins had left Van Diemen’s Land in 1843, with the botanist Ronald Campbell Gunn acting as agent for Lady Franklin who continued to own a number of colonial properties other than Ancanthe, some at least until 1864 (Burns & Skemp 1961, p. 98). Both images follow the Picturesque fashion of framing the scene with foreground vegetation, and both show the earlier cottage on Lower Ancanthe with its four veranda columns on the front. Casey's drawing is less competent but more atmospheric, Prout’s more detailed and accurate, and although they appear so similar, even to a fallen tree-trunk spanning the stream in the foreground, one does not appear to be a copy of the other. In both pictures, the museum looks lenely; its presiding genius had departed. The little temple lost in the bush attracted the attention of many artists in the ensuing century, even before it was leased to the Art Society of Tasmania in 1948. Either before her move to England in 1888 or after her return in 1922, Lily Allport produced a more lateral view, unusually revealing the long, low chimney stack towards the back in her gardenesque image (Allport undated). - From its simple form, and its multiple associations with Ancient Greece and with the garden temples of ‘Augustan’ England, the museum was an object in its own right, a focus of the Picturesque. It is difficult to imagine its successors giving rise to so many images. ‘The building was used for a time as a farm building, at one stage an apple-shed, at another attached to a slaughterhouse. An old photograph shows the building intact, but with a wooden skillion annexed (pl. 3). During its years of eclipse, it was idealised in a famous drawing by the Sydney architect and artist, William Hardy Wilson, reproduced in his Old Colonial Architecture in New South Wales and Tasmania (Hardy Wilson 1924). His romantic rendering donated a pair of urns under the portico and a selection of antique ruins in the foreground, and corrected the architecture by giving the columns the subtle entasis that they lack, but otherwise it is an accurate image. The tiny, remote, neglected, antipodean building is presented as a chef-d ouvre of Neoclassicism of a variety at that time yet to be recognised as ‘Greek Revival’. : 100 Eric Ratcliff PLATE 2 — Card with engraving by Thomas Bock, given to guests at the laying of the foundation stone of Lady Franklin’s Tasmanian Museum on 16 March 1842. (Image from Franklin, Jane 1843, Letter from Lady Franklin to George Washington Walker 25th Oct. 1843 and card with engraving of Ancanthe by Thomas Bock. University of Tasmania Library Special and Rare Materials Collection, Australia. Open Access Repository, W9/A1/11 An Act of Parliament in 1926 awarded the property to the Hobart City Council and it was later named Ancanthe Park. The museum has been leased to the Art Society of Tasmania since 1948 and continues to serve at least one of its historic purposes. It can be argued that, at Azcanthe, Lady Franklin planted seeds that grew into two important institutions that owe their fruition to the Royal Society of Tasmania: the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery and the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens. In the latter case, her contribution was in the preservation of native flora rather than the exotics that at that time were being acclimatised in the government garden. HORTICULTURAL INTERLUDE Lady Franklin’s botanical garden at Ancanthe did not long outlast her departure, but there was already a government garden near Pavilion Point on the shoreline of the Government Domain, originally set aside for the purpose by Lieutenant-Governor William Sorell in 1818 and developed from 1827 on the orders of his successor, George Arthur. The Governor thought that the climate might require a garden wall heated by flues for the cultivation of fruit as in England; the result, now known as the Arthur Wall, and the Gothick-styled cottage orné for the Superintendent of the government garden were both built in 1829 (Hurburgh 1986) (pl. 4A). In 1843, as an economy measure, Lieutenant-Governor Eardley-Wilmot proposed placing the garden under the management of a newly created Botanical and Horticultural Society of Van Diemen’s Land, supported by a diminished government subsidy. This took effect on the first day of 1844, and in September of that year, the » Governor announced that the Queen had consented to be Patron; the name of the custodial body became “The Royal Society of Van Diemen’s Land for Horticulture, Botany and the Advancement of Science’ (Piesse 1913, Hurburgh 1986, p. 17). Four years later, under Sir William Denison, the Tasmanian Society begun by the Franklins was amalgamated with the more recent foundation, and in 1911 an Act of Parliament formalised the name of the body to be The Royal Society of Tasmania (Royal Society Act 1911, https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/whole/ html/inforce/2017-10-16/act-1911-047). FROM THE BOTANICAL GARDENS TO HARRINGTON STREET In his attempt to unravel the machinations surrounding the formation of the RST, its early historian, E.L. Piesse, asserted that the Botanical Gardens placed in its care by Sir Eardley Eardley-Wilmot ‘absorbed all the energy of the Society’ for its first four years, and implied that its meetings were held in the Superintendent's Cottage (Piesse 1913, p. 7 and plate XIV). Residences of the Royal Society of Tasmania and its precursors, 1838 to 2021 101 10 Lady Vranklin’s Aven tlies ‘the glory of ihe time before’ (see p. 146). 4S ee ee Reproduced by courtesy of the Tasmanian State Library. PLATE 3 —An undated image by an unidentified photographer of Lady Franklin’s Museum as a farm building, c. 1900. Photo: Libraries Tasmania collection In 1845, the RST commissioned the building of another cottage within the Gardens to house their Secretary; it consisted of two rooms and a kitchen (Royal Society Tasmania 1845). This first building for the RST was designed by the Colonial Architect, William Porden Kay, and was given some style in recognition of its prominent position in a garden intended to be ornamental as well as scientific. It cost £126 to build; the Lieutenant-Governor agreed to supply the stone from the government quarry free- of-charge but required the RST to make good any damage to the road resulting from the carting of it (Hurburgh 1986, pp. 21-23). Recently restored, the building still stands near the end of the Arthur Wall and the main entrance gates. The annual report presented in February 1846 contained a proposal to fit out the cottage as a ‘museum and reading room’, but this was not proceeded with (Piesse 1913, p. 145). A photograph of the unaltered cottage shows it was obviously too small for such a conversion without very substantial additions (pl. 4B). From about the time when the activities of the earlier Tasmanian Society faded from view, the RST began to meet and house its collections in rooms pertaining to the Legislative Council at Parliament House. The building had been designed in 1835 in the office of the Colonial Architect, John Lee Archer, as a new Custom House (Tasmanian Archives CSO/804/17189). The design is attributed to Archer, because he was in charge and signed the plans, but a parliamentary history identifies an. elusive assistant named McNeilly (Smith 1962, McKay & Pickup 1973). The Customs Department was to occupy the centrepiece and the south wing, and the north wing towards Murray Street was intended for other government offices, principally that of the Colonial Architect and Engineer, who was to be provided with drawing offices and an ‘architectural library and model room’ (Tasmanian Archives CSO/804/ 17189). Archer was retrenched and his position for the time being abolished in 1838, before the completion of the building. In 1840, the Legislative Council took up residence in the Long Room of the Custom House, the beginning of its history as the Tasmanian Parliament House. The room used by the RST from 1848 to 1852 was the ‘large committee room of the Legislative Council’, probably the one that had been Archer’s intended library and model room (Piesse 1913, p. 153). The need of both Parliament and the RST for more space led to a search for new premises, and from 1852 the RST leased a mansion at No. 167 Macquarie Street. This was one of a handsome pair of sandstone-faced houses occupying the south-western corner of the intersection of Macquarie and Harrington Streets (Piesse 1913, p. 155). They had been designed in 1847 by Alexander Dawson, an architect employed in the Public Works Department, and their early Victorian style, advanced for its time and unique in the colony, probably reflected his experience in Glasgow, Scotland. His other notable buildings in Tasmania include the former Hobart Town High School, now Domain House of the University of Tasmania, the monumental column of the 99th Regiment in: Anglesea 102 Eric Ratcliff A PLATE 4 — A. The Regency Gothick cottage built for the Superintendent of the Government Garden in 1829 (Plate XIV from Piesse 1913). B. The first building commissioned by the Royal Society of Tasmania, a cottage in the Botanical Gardens built in 1845, designed by the Colonial Architect, William Porden Kay with windows in a Williamane Italianate style. It was restored in 1998 and is now called the Friends’ Cottage. Residences of the Royal Society of Tasmania and its precursors, 1838 to 2021 103 Barracks, Mayfield in Stoke Street, New Town, Cananore in Davey Street, almost certainly Cawarra on Risdon Road, and the former St Mary’s Hospital at the corner of Davey Street and Salamanca Place. He was to become Colonial Architect in New South Wales, where he designed inter alia the Supreme Court Registry and the Observatory in Sydney. The two houses had been built for the Battery Point shipbuilder George Watson, and the corner house (No. 167 Macquarie Street, but with an imposing entrance on Harrington Street, and later named Conara) (pl. 5) had been specifically designed for the residence and school of the owner's son-in-law, Philip Canaway, who opened his ‘Tasmanian Academy’ there in 1848 (The Courier 12 Feb. 1848, p. 2). The adjoining house on Macquarie Street (No. 169, later named Lalla Rookh) was where Trukanini (Truganini) lived for nearly two years in the care of the Dandridges, and where she died in 1876. The name of the house was that of the eponymous heroine of Thomas Moore’s long poem published in 1817, and had been one of the nicknames, intended to be complimentary, imposed on Trukanini during her lifetime. Mr Canaway’s schoolroom was described in the Hobart Town Courier as ‘the handsomest room in town’, but his Academy was short-lived (Zhe Courier 29 March 1848, p. 2). The RST occupied the house less than four years later, and in 1853, purchased from the trustees of Christ College the glass cases and other fittings from Lady Franklin’s Museum (Piesse 1913, p. 156). When these had been installed in _ the handsomest room in town, the Society's museum was opened to the public for the first time (Piesse 1913, p. 156). There, the museum was visited by Captain Butler Stoney, paymaster of the 99th Regiment of Foot, stationed at Anglesea Barracks, who informed his British readers that it was ‘much too small for its increasing collections in natural history and the liberal donations of curiosities which it is constantly receiving’, but he regarded it as ‘well worthy of a visit from the stranger’ (Stoney 1856, pp. 108-109). Now that their museum was open freely to the public, the RST felt justified in seeking assistance from the Colonial Government to enable it to house its collections, library and its meetings in permanent quarters designed for the purpose. The Tasmanian Government offered to grant the open space of Fitzroy Crescent for a museum and a projected zoo, but nothing eventuated. Other sites were considered, including part of the old gaol site in Murray Street where the Hobart Savings Bank, the first Masonic Hall, and the Derwent and Tamar insurance office were later built, then part of the former Government House grounds, now occupied by the Town Hall, an extension of Elizabeth Street, and Franklin Square. Finally, in 1860, the opposite corner of Macquarie and Argyle streets was given to the RST, and planning soon began on a new Tasmanian Museum, library and meeting room (Piesse 1913, p- 156). Regrettably, town mansions that did not stand in their own grounds fell out of fashion, and although long used for professional rooms, Conara and Lalla Rookh fell on relatively hard times. Despite their architectural importance, prominence and great historical interest, and protests from PLATE 5 — Watercolour by an unknown artist [possibly the architect] of two town houses in Macquarie Street designed by Alexander Dawson and built in 1847. The brown-coloured opening in the painting was an archway giving access to the tradesmen’s entrances to both houses. The Society occupied the house on the corner of Harrington Street with an entrance on both facades, later known as Conara. Painting donated by Dora Hookey, RST artwork collection 104 Eric Ratcliff the National Trust, Zhe Mercury and opposition within the Hobart City Council, they were demolished in 1965 to give place to one of the least attractive architectural products of that decade, the Four Seasons Hotel, later the Macquarie Motor Inn (Young 1998). Perhaps in the emotional climate of the time, a darker history was against them. THE TASMANIAN MUSEUM AND ART GALLERY Having been granted a prominentsite for their new building, the RST decided in 1860 to holdan architectural competition for its design. As was usual in the nineteenth century, the entries for the competition were required to be anonymous, although we might wonder how incognito the entrants could have been in the small pool of the Tasmanian and indeed the Australasian architectural profession, even with the addition of enthusiastic amateurs. The premium offered for the winning entry was £30. The successful entrant signed himself as ‘Nimrod’, and the biblically literate members of the judging panel would have had no difficulty in unmasking the young Henry Hunter. His entry was in a style described as Italian Renaissance and provided for a two-storey building containing four galleries one above another in each of two wings, a library, a meeting room and offices (pl. 6). The design allowed for the building of two galleries in a first stage, the others to be added when possible. The RST called for tenders to build the first stage, and eight were received (Ward 2006, p. 42). On 6 August 1861, James Agnew, Morton Allport, Alfred Kennerley, Thomas Giblin, Archdeacon Davies and Dr Edward Bedford on behalf of the RST signed a contract with Seabrook and Son to construct the building for £3772 (Piesse 1913, p. 160, Ward 2006) A building fund attracted 141 subscribers, and the government contributed a substantial sum. Knowledgeable sources are at variance about the proportions of the contributions from the members and the government. Ward states that the government provided one third (Ward 2006, p. 44), while Piesse states that the government ‘added £3,000’ towards a total cost of ‘about £4,800’ (Piesse 1913, p. 160). A small additional contract was negotiated to provide six fitted display cases for £35 each and four ‘flat’ display cases for £11 each (Ward 2006, p. 44). The RST first met in the building on 29 January 1863 (Piesse 1913, p. 160), but its opening to the public awaited rearrangement of the collections. The palazzo-styled building addresses the corner handsomely with three bays on each facade, harmonious but not identical; the plainer side-lighted galleries of seven bays parallel to Macquarie Street are recessed from the street. The public facades are faced with sandstone of two colours; the paler quoins, arches, cornices, parapets and false porch are of stone from Mornington Hill above Bellerive, and the yellower stone of the main wall surfaces came from the Waterworks quarries. ‘The entrance on Argyle Street was placed in a break front that clearly showed the intention to extend the building on aau=8 aus " ‘ ia PLATE 6 — Henry Hunter, ‘Front in Argyle Street’, detail from ‘Portion of Royal Society’s intended Museum to be built at the corner of Macquarie and Argyle streets’, ink, wash and pencil on paper. Note the false perspective created by placing pilasters behind the engaged columns and paralleling the entablature of the false porch. Image: Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery R1993.3.912 : a Residences of the Royal Society of Tasmania and its precursors, 1838 to 2021 105 that side, and the end wall where the addition would have to be made was politely finished and detailed in render in the expectation that there would be a long wait (pl. 7). The style chosen for the building has been held to have had a direct influence on that of the Hobart Town Hall. Peter Bolger asserted that the influence was in the opposite direction (Bolger 1973), but Barrie Shelton’s dating of the respective drawings by Hunter makes the priority clear (Shelton et al. 1982). The Municipal Council had announced a competition for the design in 1861, and the winning entrant was Henry Bastow whose design, now lost, is believed to have been in a Gothic style, with an Italianate design by Frederick Thomas placed second. Henry Hunter, strongly under the influence of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hobart, Robert Willson and the Bishop’s friend Augustus Pugin, and currently supervising the building of a very Puginian Church of England (All Saints in South Hobart), had entered a project in a Gothic style. According to Barry Shelton, the press and the Aldermen found a Gothic style unacceptable (Shelton 1982). Peter Freeman has discovered that the Council had a mysterious change of mind (Freeman 2016) and this may be explained by the government requiring that as a condition of the grant of land, the style must be compatible with that of the Supreme Court building, then under construction in Macquarie Street to a polite Franco-Italianate design attributed to William Porden Kay, with Frederick Thomas supervising. Whatever the reason for the decision, the museum under construction across the street provided an excellent sample, so in 1862 Hunter was commissioned to provide a design in a similar style. Hunter gave the RST an elegant box, a receptacle, a keeping place with allusions to Renaissance and Enlightenment and not to medieval obscurantism. The RST choice may have contributed to preventing the gothicisation of an important part of the city. If that had eventuated, it might not have weathered the changes of taste that came with the twentieth century as well as did Hunter's palazzo Italianate. In December 1885, an Act of the Tasmanian Parliament provided that the Society’s Museum and Botanical Gardens should be vested in a Board of Trustees, and ‘endowed out of the Public Funds’, and that: : in consideration of the services provided by the Society in the promotion of science and in the formation, management, and guardianship of the Museum [...], the Society shall have exclusive possession of the Library Room of the Museum, or other sufficient or convenient rooms therein, for the safe custody of their library books and other effects, and for their meetings and for all other purposes connected with the Society. (Parliament 1885, clause 4, p. 198) ‘The Act enabled the realisation of Henry Hunter's plans for additions on the Argyle Street side, to provide two more galleries and a basement for storage. The new wing was begun in 1886 under a government contract with the builder William Cheverton with Hunter supervising, but the architect moved to Brisbane in the following year. The contract price was £2550 and the building was completed in 1889, with a facade resembling that on the Macquarie Street galleries (Hunter 1886). Interestingly, although PLATE 7 — Dr James Agnew laying the foundation stone for the new wing on Argyle Street, 23 December 1886, anonymous photographer, albumen print. Note the rendered detail of the temporary end wall of the original building. Photo: Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery Q1073 106 Eric Ratcliff Hunter was working in a style that usually demanded symmetry on the main front, his Gothic experience enable him to compose his Italianate elevations asymmetrically but harmoniously, and few now notice the differences in length and detail on either side of the original entrance. In 1901, an addition to the end of the Macquarie Street wing, designed by Orlando Baker in the Public Works drawing office, included a top-lit gallery on the upper floor and another gallery on the lower floor that from 1930 became the library and meeting room for the RST. There, the library remained until placed in the care of the University, and there the RST met until it moved into part of the former Custom House on Davey Street opposite the docks, designed by Orlando Baker in 1899 (copies of the drawings held in the National Archives of Australia are displayed within the building, pl.8). That building had been commissioned by the Tasmanian Government on the verge of Federation, and brought forth on a grand scale in the justified expectation that the new Commonwealth would pick up the tab when it was completed in the new century. The building became largely redundant in the late twentieth century, and in 2004 the State Government acquired it from the Commonwealth and annexed it to the Museum and Art Gallery. So, the RST that had firmly established itself while a tenant in one Custom House, continues to thrive in another, although its quarters, convenient as they are, can no longer be regarded as ‘sufficient’ as promised in the 1885 Act. In 1969, the RST library was moved to the Morris Miller Library in the University of Tasmania at Sandy Bay, designed by John Scarborough of Melbourne and built in 1968 as part of a complex of buildings that are architecturally undistinguished. BEYOND THE CAPITAL A Northern Branch of the RST was formed in 1853 and met first at the Launceston Public Buildings and then at the Launceston Mechanics’ Institute (Ross 2021, pl. 9), both designed by William Henry Clayton, a Tasmanian who became the sole Colonial Architect of New Zealand. ‘The start of a museum collection was first stored at these successive venues, and first displayed at the latter (Petrow 1998) (pl. 10). The Branch had lapsed by 1878 but was decisively re-founded in 1921. Its meetings took place in the ‘classroom’ of the Launceston Public Library, the former Mechanics’ Institute, then in the hands of the Launceston City Council. The classroom was within the library annexe added in 1907 to Clayton's original Mechanics’ Institute building on the corner of St John and Paterson streets. The site of those buildings is now occupied by the part of the Civic Square between St John Street and the Launceston Library. In 1883, the Mayor of Launceston, Alderman Samuel Sutton, called a public meeting to consider his proposal for an ‘industrial exhibition’ to be held in Launceston. A grant-in-aid was sought, but Parliament refused it by a narrow majority. In 1885, the Municipal Council in Launceston held a plebiscite, as a result of which £4500 was set aside for the building of a permanent public hall as part of the exhibition project (Smith 1893). A renewed request to the government was refused, but in 1886, when the State Government had recently taken over the Tasmanian Museum from the RST and commissioned a new gallery for it, the government offered a consolation prize to Launceston: £5000 to build a museum and art gallery. That offer was taken up with alacrity, and an architectural competition for the design was judged in 1887. The winner was a seventeen-year-old local lad, John Duncan, and his building was opened in 1891. The building _is floridly Victorian, with features plagiarised from earlier Launceston buildings, and still forms part of the Queen PLATE 8 — The former Custom House, Hobart, designed by Orlando Baker and built in 1899-1900, is now part of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery and includes the current premises of the Royal Society of Tasmania, occupying the corner office and meeting room on the ground floor at right on Davey Street. Photo: Lynden Leppard ‘ Residences of the Royal Society of Tasmania and its precursors, 1838 to 2021 107 PLATE 9 — The Launceston Mechanics’ Institute, in Cameron Street, circa 1867. Photo: William Cawston, Archives Office of Tasmania, Libraries Tasmania’s Online collection, https://stors.tas.gov.au/PH30-1-5 LAUNCESTON MUSEU MM’, PLATE 10 — WH. Carpenter, Launceston Museum, c. 1887, pen and ink and watercolour on paper. The drawing shows the original collection in the then new annexe to the Launceston Mechanics’ Institute, and glass cases purchased from the Royal Society; some of them had been in Lady Franklin’s Museum. Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Launceston 108 Eric Ratcliff Victoria Art Gallery at Royal Park. Duncan’s design for the Albert Hall, built in 1890 for what became the Tasmanian International Exhibition of the following years, had been awarded a premium in the competition for that building, and his name appears on the foundation stone, although at least two other architects were involved in the final design. As the hall usurped the site of the venerable Launceston Horticultural Society’s pavilion, that Society was give a permanent right to occupy part of it after the Exhibition closed. The hall was named after Albert, Queen Victoria's Prince Consort, begetter of the Great Exhibition of 1851 in London, so the Launceston Museum and Art Galley was named after the Queen. As ‘Victoria Museum’ invited confusion with institutions in the successful daughter colony across Bass Strait, it was soon renamed the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (pl. 11). After his two early successes, John Duncan was lost to architecture, entering the world of business through a family firm; he died while General Manager of the Launceston Bank for Savings in 1936 (Ratcliff 2017). The collections of the former RST Northern Branch, held by the Mechanics’ Institute, came into the hands of the Launceston Municipal Council, and formed the nucleus of the collections of the new Museum and Art Gallery. In 1910, a building for the Launceston Technical College was added in matching style to the original Museum and Art Gallery with the clear intention that it would eventually be occupied by that institution, as indeed it was from 1927 (Proverbs 1988, pp. 30-32). There was a large room on the ground floor with its own outside entrance, and that became the venue for meetings of the Northern Branch, as well as housing the libraries of the Museum and the Branch itself. A purpose-built lecture hall was later added at Royal Park, again with a separate entrance so that it could be used when the Museum was closed; although well-appointed, heavy rain on its roof could render a speaker’s words inaudible. New meeting spaces were provided at the Inveresk campus of the Museum and Art Gallery, created within the former Launceston Railway Workshops complex and opened in 2001. A succession of curators and directors who served as secretaries to the Northern Branch had welded the association between the Society and the Museum, which is a proud protectorate of the Launceston City Council. The formal link with the City and the institution continues. CONCLUSION In the brief but instructive evolution of British architecture in Van Diemen’s Land and Tasmania, some of the buildings discussed in this paper represent particularly interesting transitions in taste and fashion. Lady Franklin’s museum is a rare antipodean representative of what James Stevens Curl prefers to call the “Doric Revival’, as it differentiates so clearly from other varieties of Neoclassicism (Curl 1993, pp. 74-76). The Royal Society of Tasmania's first foray into building, within the Botanical Gardens, appears to have been in an indeterminate Regency style that partook of both the | Gothick and the Georgian style. The building that became Parliament House confounds Georgian with Doric Revival. The Macquarie Street mansion that housed the Society's first public museum was in an advanced transitional style peculiar to Glasgow, built at a time when most colonial buildings were still Regency descendants of the Georgian hegemony. The Tasmanian Museum is a chaste herald of the Victorian Italianate that came to dominate architecture throughout Australia. The Victoria Museum in Launceston represented its more florid High Victorian development, and the former Custom House in Hobart, where the Royal Society of Tasmania currently meets, its Edwardian death-throes. The Lady Franklin museum is recognised as one of the most important representatives of its style in Australasia, while the Secretary's Cottage still stands in Tasmania's Royal Botanical Gardens, its origin apparently forgotten. The Royal Society’s Tasmanian Museum influenced the development of the civic precinct in which it stands and set a standard for the further housing of the major public institution that occupies it today. The choice of site has led to the inclusion of buildings that date from the earliest decades of British settlement to the late twentieth century, and has ensured the preservation and use of a number of historic structures despite the restrictions this imposes on its future growth. The anticipated electoral effect of the transfer of its ownership to the State converged with the need to house a collection that had its origin in that of a former branch of the Society, and resulted in the foundation of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art gallery in Launceston. REFERENCES. Allport, C. L. undated: Lady Franklin's Museum, (either 1860-1888, or after 1922), watercolour on card, 22 x 29 cm. by Curzona (‘Lily’) Allport 1860-1949 (Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts, State Library of Tasmania, Hobart). ‘Blackburn, J. 1840: Drawings for a new Government House, tabled in the Legislative Council, 15 August 1840. [TA 290/31]. Bolger, P. 1973: Hobart Town, Canberra, Australian National University Press, pl. 10 (anonymous photograph, undated, State Library collection). Boyes, G.T.W. 1843: Diary, 26 October 1843. (Royal Society of Tasmania collection, University of Tasmania, RS 25/2(7)). Burns, TE. & Skemp, J.R 1961: Van Diemen’ Land Correspondents: Letters from R. C. Gunn, R. W. Lawrence, Jorgen Jorgenson, Sir John Franklin and others to Sir William Hooker, 1827-1849. Queen Victoria Museum, Launceston: 142 pp. Casey, L. 1843: Ancanthe Museum, Lenah Valley, c. 1843, sepia and blue wash on paper, scraped highlights, 19.02 x 15.05 cm. by Loetitia Casey c. 1819-1863 (Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery, Launceston). Craig, C.C. 1961: The Engravers of Van Diemen’s Land, Launceston. Tasmanian Historical Research Association: 172 pp. (11 pp. citing Lady Franklin’s diary 11 March 1842). Curl, J.S. 1993: Georgian Architecture. David & Charles Publishers, Newton Abbott, UK: 224 pp. Franklin, E. 1842: Eleanor Franklin to Captain James Clark Ross, 7 April 1842. In Owen, R., The Fate of Franklin. Melbourne, Hutchinson 1978: 196 pp. Franklin, J. 1838: Jane Franklin to Mary Simpkinson, quoted in Woodward, EJ. 1951: Portrait of Jane: A life of Lady Franklin, London, Hodder & Stoughton: 223-225. Franklin, J. 1840: Jane Franklin to Mary Simpkinson, 4 September 1840. Mackaness, G. (ed): Some Private Correspondence of Residences of the Royal Society of Tasmania and its precursors, 1838 to 2021 109 ie 4 e We od “4 POT ANT RY 9p 9.9. 90 Ah 999 99a Wha tac Areneeceenessee fteeeaeean | | (iin ied | Hind 0 (ga! CUM 1 | PREP EE voi fus PLATE 11 - The Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Wellington Street Launceston, as it was circa 1897 (copies of the drawings held in the National Archives of Australia are displayed within the building, pl.8). Photo: Libraries Tasmania’s Online collection, https://stors. tas.gov.au/ LPIC22-1-53 Sir John and Lady Jane Franklin (Tasmania 1837-1845). Part I, Sydney 1977: 102 pp. Franklin, J. 1841: Jane Franklin to Mary Simpkinson, 21 February 1841. In Hudspeth, W.H. 1949: Souvenir, Lady Franklin Museum, Hobart. Art Society of Tasmania, Hobart: n.p. Freeman, P. 2016: Municipal Magnificence: The Hobart Town Hall 1866-2016. Hobart City Council, Hobart: 48 pp. Hardy Wilson, W. 1924: Old Colonial Architecture in New South Wales and Tasmania. National Trust of Australia NSW, Sydney, plate XXIV. Hunter, H. 1886: Rough Sketch, Museum and Temporary Art.Gallery, Argyle Street. (TMAG R1993.3.905) Hurburgh, M. 1986: The Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens 1818-1986: A history in stone, soil and superintendents. Shearwater Press, Hobart: 88 pp. McKay, P.T. & Pickup, E. 1973: The Parliament of Tasmania 1856-1973, Hobart, by authority: B. G. Murphy, Clerk of the House of Assembly: 9 pp. Owen, R. 1978: The Fate of Franklin. Hutchinson, London: 197 pp. Parliament of Tasmania 1885: An Act to incorporate and endow the Tasmanian Museum and Botanical Gardens (49 VIC, No 34). (Access: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/ num_act/aatiaettmabg49vn34664/) Petrow, S. 1998: Going to the Mechanics: A history of the Launceston Mechanics’ Institute 1842-1914. Historical Survey of Northern Tasmania, Launceston: 216 pp. Piesse, E.L. 1913: The foundation and early work of the society; with some account of earlier institutions and societies in Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania: 117-174. Prout, J.S. 1844: Ancanthe (Lady Franklin’s Museum Nr Hobarton VDL), 1844, pencil, watercolour and Chinese white on paper, 26.3 x 18.2 cm., by John Skinner Prout 1805-1876. (Royal Society of Tasmania collection, the gift of the Scott Polar Institute, Cambridge, held at Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart). Proverbs, B. 1988: From the Beginning: A history uf the Launceston Technical College 1888-1988. Launceston College of TAFE: 48 pp. Ratcliff, E. 2017: ‘Victoria, Albert and the Likely Lad’ in QV Magazine Edition 3. Queen Victoria Museum & Art Gallery, Launceston: 39 pp. : Ross, L. 2021: Resurrection: the creation history of the Royal Society of Tasmania's Northern Branch. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 155(1): 1-7. Royal Society of Tasmania 1845: First Annual Report, May 1845. Cited in Piesse 1913: 145, Shelton, B., Cripps, P. & Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery 1982: Henry Hunter, architect, Hobart Town. Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery, Hobart: 16 pp. Smith, R.S. 1962: John Lee Archer: Tasmanian architect and engineer, Launceston. Tasmanian Historical Research Association: 24 pp. Smith, R.W. 1893: Official Record of the Tasmanian International Exhibition, held at Launceston 1891-92. Launceston Examiner: 15 pp. Stilwell, G.T. 1971; Administrative Complex, Hobart. In Australian Council of National Trusts.1971: Historic Public Buildings of Australia. Cassell Australia: 36 pp. Stoney, H.B. 1856: A Residence in Tasmania: With a descriptive