More ancient than the dinosaurs

[Tronhard]

While I was down in the south of NZ, I had a rare opportunity to see and photograph a Tuatara. They are small, and shy away from humans, so to see one, let alone photograph one in the wild, is a rare privilege.
• The tuatara is native and unique to New Zealand
• It is the most ancient of all living reptiles. ...
• It is the sole survivor of the beak-heads which is a group of very ancient reptiles that evolved almost 200 Million years ago. Almost all died out in the great extinction around 65 million years ago.
• Tuatara can live up to 100 years.
• The male is much bigger than the female, this one is about 40cm (16in) long.
• They eat insects and grubs
• The Tuatara has a third eye at birth, high up on its brow. It loses the third eye when it reaches maturity. This is probably a protection device to allow the young to see birds, such as native hawks, that would have hunted them. Some of these raptors have become extinct.



If you look at the back of the Tuatara's tail you will notice a change in colour, that is most likely because it has lost a part of the tail and re-grown it. Sadly introduced predators are wreaking havoc with NZ's indigenous species - most of which had no previous predation, so they have no natural defence. Conservation organizations are spending millions trying to eradicate introduced animals like rats, cats, stoats and possums. Possums alone destroy 21,000 tonnes of vegetation PER DAY, competing with the native fauna and predating them.

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[george013]

And a good story.

George

[Dave Humphries]

Something I learnt today!

Good shooting and narrative.

[RandyRFJP]

Very nice captures. I hadn't heard of this reptile. Thanks, Trev, for posting the detailed information to go along with the great photos.

[rpcrowe]

Great coverage.. He's a neat looking fellow!

Speaking of introduced species causing havoc, Germany is apparently infested with raccoons. They are very hard to get rid of and their stool can cause respiratory problems in humans. Additionally, raccoons have been known to carry rabies...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-847847.html

[LePetomane]

Trev, handsome reptile. Thanks.

[bnnrcn]

Nice shots Trev, thanks for sharing

[IzzieK]

Always enjoyed your shots....this one looks like a Kiwi...

[Wavelength]

Great images and i feel lucky to know about them and see their images...

[JohnRostron]

Great pictures of a fascinating reptile.

John

[NorthernFocus]

An interesting looking creature, Trev, and well captured.

Regarding the associated description etc., I find it interesting nowadays at how definitive we have become about science. I recall when I was in school there was always a clear distinction between fact and hypothesis/theory which seems to have gone by the board. Discussion of hypothesis was always accompanied by verbiage like "it is believed that..." or "data suggests...". It seems that nowadays scientists have overcome the need for caution of being mistaken and state things definitively. Perhaps because society no longer differentiates fact versus publication the science community has simply followed along. After all it makes their job much easier. Though it poses an interesting conundrum for society which makes more and more decisions based on "science". The proverbial "Catch 22"

[JohnRostron]

Speaking as a (retired) scientist, I have to wonder as to what Dan's point is. When a scientist is presenting results to an audience of peers, then they may well use the phrases you mention. For well-established results (what we might call 'facts') they would probably omit this. Could you tell us which of Trev's assertions you are unhappy with?

John

[Tronhard]

An interesting looking creature, Trev, and well captured.

Regarding the associated description etc., I find it interesting nowadays at how definitive we have become about science. I recall when I was in school there was always a clear distinction between fact and hypothesis/theory which seems to have gone by the board. Discussion of hypothesis was always accompanied by verbiage like "it is believed that..." or "data suggests...". It seems that nowadays scientists have overcome the need for caution of being mistaken and state things definitively. Perhaps because society no longer differentiates fact versus publication the science community has simply followed along. After all it makes their job much easier. Though it poses an interesting conundrum for society which makes more and more decisions based on "science". The proverbial "Catch 22"

Hi Dan:

Thanks for you comments!

With regards to the descriptive stuff, I am not writing as a scientists, nor is this an academic paper where I would otherwise rigorously quote sources and use the terminology to which you refer. In an environment where there is discussion about "alternative facts", "false news" and such perhaps it is inevitable that people will question any statement that is made I guess.

Over here there is no real debate about what has been said... The bullet points about the Tuatara are pretty much beaten ground stuff, taken from well-established research and study of the animals' behaviours. If you are seeking academic rigour I invite you to view some of the prolific material published by the Dept. of Conservation, the NZ Forest and Bird Society, and of course the various universities across NZ and otherwise.

Perhaps you are looking at the role of introduced predators? They have become the bane of conservation organization and the comments I used come from numerous academic studies, taken in discrete areas that were isolated and studied before and after pest eradication, suggest both cause and effect of the impact of creatures we have brought over and our own impact.

The fact is that NZ had a very unique ecosystem that evolved and was protected by its physical isolation. NZ parted company from Australia during the era of the birds, it has only one indigenous mammal: a small bat. The birds that evolved in NZ during its isolation did so with relatively few predators, so many of them lost the ability to fly - for example the Kiwi, and the Kakapo, and the Moa, all ground-dwelling evolutionary adaptations of birds that previously flew. That was all very well until humans came along, with the establishment of Maori settlements around 1250-1300 CE. They brought their animals and pests with them, but most damaging of all they began hunting the native wildlife. One of they ways they did do was through burning of large swathes of forest, killing whole ecosystems and a lot more birds than they needed. This interventions resulted in, among others, the end of the Moa, and not long after the demise of the great NZ Eagle, probably the largest ever to live, that predated on the Moa.

This loss of habitat went into overdrive with the arrival of Europeans in the latter half of the 18th Century as they wrought further havoc on the ecosystem. They started clearing native forest and other ecosystems on an industrial scale for farms, forestry, and mining. They developed urban spaces, previously unknown to NZ, with resulting devastation to habitat through development and pollution.

Europeans impacted the new world through the rats, cats, pigs and dogs they brought, intentionally or not. Acclimatization societies sought to make NZ look like England, so they introduced British birds, and some idiot brought in gorse - which grows prolifically and costs farmers hundreds of millions a year to fight. The results of these incursions were catastrophic to the original ecosystem. Early diarists commented consistently on the deafening sounds of the dawn and sunset choruses, full of the melodic sounds of native birds. Sadly, for the most part, that sound is no longer there.

NZ is proud of it's ecological uniqueness, and at both governmental and social levels, New Zealanders are fighting to try to hold the line of animal extinctions. The Kakapo, the worlds largest and only ground-dwelling parrot, used to be prolific throughout NZ, but millions were killed off because they were easy targets for both humans and their introduced predators. Now there are about 150 left, from a low of about 60 and each one is precious, both in terms of conservation value and investment cost, because huge resources are applied to not let this bird die out. Similar efforts have kept the Takahe from extinction, but its population is barely 250. There are many other examples across both flora and fauna.

Thirty-five percent of the land area of NZ is conservation land, much of which is national parks, and they contribute strongly the New Zealanders' sense of identity, through both our "clean and green" image and our cultural association with "going bush". The development of the hut system is an expression of that commitment to our outdoors, as is the support from civil society towards maintaining and regenerating our natural habitat in the face of pressures from commercial and industrial influences.

So no, I am not providing academic rigour, but for those who live here it's something we have grown up with and is a part of our heritage and our reality.

[NorthernFocus]

...When a scientist is presenting results to an audience of peers, then they may well use the phrases you mention. For well-established results (what we might call 'facts') they would probably omit this...

This statement is demonstrative of my point. Society assigns the authorities who define "truth". But the science community itself continually makes new findings that disprove previously accepted "facts". Yet there is no rethinking of this process. A process which relies on emotional beings subject to the various pressures which influence decision making(not the least of which is human ego). Rather the opposite. There is ever increasing pressure/urgency to publish as quickly as possible. And little accountability if something is disproven years later. When the cycle is relatively short the process works well enough. At least within a single generation if one scientist is wrong often enough his/her credibility MAY be damaged depending on his/her level of influence. However with open ended topics(e.g.evolution, big bang, fossil fuels, etc.) based on extrapolation of relatively insignificant bits of data it is the height of arrogance to proclaim definitive conclusions.

Example of a fact: this rock is composed of elements x,y, z.

Example of a theory (regardless of how well accepted by a group of peers): this rock was cast up on this mountain top x million years ago when such and such an event occurred.

Relative to the post in question:

• The tuatara is native and unique to New Zealand
- factual though the term "native" is time dependent
• It is the most ancient of all living reptiles.
- theory
• It is the sole survivor of the beak-heads which is a group of very ancient reptiles that evolved almost 200 Million years ago. Almost all died out in the great extinction around 65 million years ago.
- theoretical at best
• Tuatara can live up to 100 years.
- measurable fact
• The male is much bigger than the female, this one is about 40cm (16in) long.
- measurable fact
• They eat insects and grubs
- demonstrable fact
• The Tuatara has a third eye at birth, high up on its brow. It loses the third eye when it reaches maturity. This is probably a protection device to allow the young to see birds, such as native hawks, that would have hunted them. Some of these raptors have become extinct.
- suppositional and well stated by inclusion of the word "probably"

[NorthernFocus]

...
With regards to the descriptive stuff, I am not writing as a scientists, nor is this an academic paper where I would otherwise rigorously quote sources and use the terminology to which you refer...

Sorry to get off track, Trev. I assumed you were simply quoting what's been studied/written about the critters solely with the intent of sharing with our little community. And I appreciate and enjoy your doing so. The definitive declarations of science are a pet peeve of mine. No reflection on you and no disrespect intended. Sorry to get us side tracked. I really do try to stick to photography on when commenting on here but sometimes I stray. So shoot me, I'm human

And yes, it is quite obvious to anyone who visits there and has a few brain cells rattling around in their head that you Kiwis are quite proud of and dedicated to your environment, heritage, etc. Though I'm afraid some things are a bit akin to trying to shove the proverbial genie back into the bottle.

[Ken MT]

Great to see such good photos of our threatened species. At least they can be photographed in decent light unlike kiwi which come out the dark.
I was recently lucky to go to Ulva Island which is a conservation island off Stewart Island. Since about 1980 all predators such as rats, feral cats, possums, and rats (Norway, ship and Māori) have been eradicated, and threatened bird species such as South Island saddleback, yellowhead (mohi), tui, bellbird, kaka, Stewart Island kiwi, kakariki, native pigeon etc have been reintroduced and are breeding up. In addition with the eradication of the rats, native trees are re-establishing as the seed source is no longer been eaten, and in time the forest will be as before humans came.
A place definitely worth going to.

[Tronhard]

Hi Ken:

I would love to have gone to Ulva Island, but the way we planned our trip there was no time to do so, and with both of us being somewhat dysfunctional we may well not have done the island trip the justice it deserves. That said we are planning to go back and do the Rakiura Track and a trip to Ulva Island at some stage - we both love the Lower 'Mainland' and Stewart (Rakiura) Island.

Great to see such good photos of our threatened species. At least they can be photographed in decent light unlike kiwi which come out the dark.
I was recently lucky to go to Ulva Island which is a conservation island off Stewart Island. Since about 1980 all predators such as rats, feral cats, possums, and rats (Norway, ship and Māori) have been eradicated, and threatened bird species such as South Island saddleback, yellowhead (mohi), tui, bellbird, kaka, Stewart Island kiwi, kakariki, native pigeon etc have been reintroduced and are breeding up. In addition with the eradication of the rats, native trees are re-establishing as the seed source is no longer been eaten, and in time the forest will be as before humans came.
A place definitely worth going to.

[Tronhard]

Hi Dan:

I was not offended, more perplexed that the material I found to provide context to the picture (and I a GREAT fan of context ) was itself likely to cause your critical attention. Most people are just happy to know a bit about these creatures and what makes them special. Like you seem to, I have a dislike of misinformation and 'alternative facts' that seem to proliferate through social media especially.

I am not academically qualified in this area, but after 3 degrees and being partner to a university professor, I like to go to an authoritative source for anything I present, so while I did not research the material from its academic roots, for the few statements I made I did predominantly use the NZ Government's Department of Conservation website (http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native...frogs/tuatara/), which is itself contributed to by a combination of government and academic sources that are highly regarded in the international community as a source of expertise on NZ's wildlife and conservation methods in particular. In fact the DoC is considered a world leader in managing endangered species (I got that from The US Parks Department, and the Canadian Parks Service with whom DOC has associations).

With regards to your critiques:
"• The tuatara is native and unique to New Zealand
- factual though the term "native" is time dependent
• It is the most ancient of all living reptiles.
- theory
• It is the sole survivor of the beak-heads which is a group of very ancient reptiles that evolved almost 200 Million years ago. Almost all died out in the great extinction around 65 million years ago.
- theoretical at best"

I would say this, I totally support academic rigor, but to challenge the validity of statements without presenting evidence to the contrary, or researching their source or veracity seems to me to itself not adhere to the scientific principal you seek to uphold. I did not give my sources because this was a simple piece to provide context to a picture, and I understand you seem to have seen more into it than that, but it might be a good idea to ask the question about sourcing and intent first before undermining the material offered.

Sorry to get off track, Trev. I assumed you were simply quoting what's been studied/written about the critters solely with the intent of sharing with our little community. And I appreciate and enjoy your doing so. The definitive declarations of science are a pet peeve of mine..

[NorthernFocus]

Trev, when someone holds out the olive branch it is really poor form to take it and hit them with it.

Great photos. Interesting commentary. My own comments were directed at the failings of humanity and had nothing to do with you personally. I'm running out of cheeks and branches here so can we move on ?