Content uploaded by Ian Stringer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ian Stringer on Sep 02, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Dept of Conservation]
On: 01 September 2014, At: 18:57
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
New Zealand Entomologist
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnze20
Assessing the conservation status
of New Zealand's native terrestrial
invertebrates
I. A.N. Stringer
a
& R. A. Hitchmough
a
a
Department of Conservation , PO Box 10420, Wellington , 6143 ,
New Zealand
Published online: 21 Jun 2012.
To cite this article: I. A.N. Stringer & R. A. Hitchmough (2012) Assessing the conservation status
of New Zealand's native terrestrial invertebrates, New Zealand Entomologist, 35:2, 77-84, DOI:
10.1080/00779962.2012.686309
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00779962.2012.686309
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
New Zealand Entomologist
Vol. 35, No. 2, July 2012, 77–84
Assessing the conservation status of New Zealand’s native terrestrial
invertebrates
I. A. N. Stringer and R. A. Hitchmough
∗
Department of Conservation, PO Box 10420, Wellington 6143, New Zealand
∗
E-mail: rhitchmough@doc.govt.nz
The objectives of the New Zealand Threat Classification System (NZTCS) are summarised together
with the methods used to classify taxa as Threatened, At Risk, Data Deficient and Extinct.An
analysis is provided of the threat rankings of 3838 New Zealand terrestrial invertebrate taxa that were
assessed between 2009 and 2011. Overall, 193 taxa were Threatened with 106 Nationally Critical,
30 Nationally Endangered and 57 Nationally Vulnerable. A further 1055 invertebrates were At
Risk comprising 35 Declining, six Recovering, 102 Relict and 912 that were Naturally Uncom-
mon. Another 1208 were Data Deficient, seven were Extinct and 1175 were Not Threatened. The
remaining taxa examined were classified as either Introduced and Naturalised (190) or Vagrant (11).
Factors and attributes that affect the threat status of New Zealand terrestrial invertebrates are discussed.
Keywords: classification system, endangered, risk, threat status, threatened species
Introduction
The New Zealand Threat Classification System
(NZTCS) was developed to allow objective list-
ing of the conservation status (risk of extinction)
of any taxa with a wild population established
in New Zealand. The system was developed by
a working group (Molloy et al. 2002) led by
the New Zealand Department of Conservation
(DOC) with representatives from a broad range
of interest groups. Implementation of the system
to develop and periodically update published lists
is a national process led by DOC but involv-
ing experts and interest groups from many other
organisations.
Formal listing of threatened species for protec-
tion or prioritisation is a critical action in respon-
sible conservation (New & Sands 2003). Although
the NZTCS listing has no direct or automatic influ-
ence on the legal status or resourcing of work on
threatened species, it does provide vital informa-
tion for processes such as applying legal protection
to species via amendments to the Schedules to
the New Zealand Wildlife Act 1955. Although
threat status is only one of several criteria used
in prioritisation, classifying taxa according to the
risk of extinction allows prioritisation of work and
resources to those species that need them most.
The published lists also form a basis for national
outcome monitoring to measure the effects that
DOC and other agencies have by their manage-
ment of natural heritage. These are indicators that
are reported nationally and internationally (e.g.,
Convention on Biodiversity).
Four previous lists of the status of New Zealand
species including invertebrates have been pub-
lished (Table 1). The first two lists (Molloy & Davis
1992; Molloy et al. 1994) used an assessment sys-
tem intended to directly generate a list ranked by
management priority. Subsequently, Molloy et al.
(2002) developed the NZTCS, a system intended
to categorise taxa by the risk of extinction they
faced, to be a resource for prioritisation but not an
attempt at prioritisation directly. This system was
used for the last two previous lists (Hitchmough
2002; Hitchmough et al. 2007), then the criteria
used to classify threatened species were reviewed
and a revised manual was produced (Townsend
et al. 2008).
ISSN 0077-9962 print/ISSN 1179-3430 online
© 2012 The Entomological Society of New Zealand
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00779962.2012.686309
http://www.tandfonline.com
Downloaded by [Dept of Conservation] at 18:57 01 September 2014
78 I. A. N. Stringer and R. A. Hitchmough
Table 1. Numbers of Threatened terrestrial invertebrates listed by Molloy and Davis (1992), Molloy et al. (1994),
Hitchmough (2002) and Hitchmough et al. (2007).
Category 1992 1994 Category 2002 2007
Highest priority spp. 20 26
Nationally Critical 89 126
Second priority spp. 40 52
Nationally Endangered 87 103
Third priority spp. 21 20
Nationally Vulnerable 811
Serious Decline 16 14
Gradual Decline 33 40
Sparse 62 117
Range Restricted 361 542
Threatened, but few data 15 166
Data Deficient 368 1319
Not seen for some years 4 12
Extinct 410
Total 100 276 1028 2282
Changes were made to the criteria, new At
Risk categories were introduced and some of the
old categories became qualifiers but, overall, the
changes were not fundamental. The new crite-
ria were developed largely to account for rar-
ity and for the very restricted distributions that
many taxa have amongst the islands of the New
Zealand archipelago (de Lange & Norton 2008).
The NZTCS is intended to provide finer detail and
complement the Red Data listings of the Inter-
national Union for the Conservation of Nature,
which are designed to detect rarity and decline
at global and continental scales (IUCN 2010).
The main differences between the system used
here and Molloy et al. (2002) are: replacement of
the Chronically Threatened, Serious Decline
and Gradual Decline categories by the Declin-
ing category; the re-sorting of the uncommon but
non-declining categories formerly listed as Range
Restricted and Sparse into Relict and Natu-
rally Uncommon categories that separate taxa
according to whether the rarity is natural or human-
induced rather than by geographic pattern (Range
Restricted and Sparse are now available as qual-
ifiers in all categories); the introduction of the
new category Recovering; and the development
of a recovery pathway within Nationally Vul-
nerable. The criteria defining all threat categories
have also changed somewhat to ensure complete
coverage of all possible combinations of population
size and trend.
The three Threatened categories clearly form a
series of decreasing risk of extinction from Nation-
ally Critical to Nationally Vulnerable. The
At Risk categories carry a lower or longer-term
risk of extinction; however, no ranking of the cat-
egories within the At Risk umbrella is possible
because they represent different types rather than
different degrees of risk and, within each category,
a quite broad range of degrees of risk is included
(Townsend et al. 2008).
The revised manual (Townsend et al. 2008)
has been used to generate listings for a wide
range of taxonomic groups including vertebrates,
marine invertebrates, plants, bryophytes, and is
now applied to terrestrial invertebrates (Andrew
et al. 2012; Buckley et al. 2012; Leschen et al.
2012; Mahlfeld et al. 2012; Sirvid et al. 2012;
Stringer et al. 2012a; Stringer et al. 2012b; Trewick
et al. 2012; Ward et al. 2012; Yeates et al.
2012). Here we summarise the overall numbers
of terrestrial invertebrates that are now ranked
in each of the new categories and discuss the
changes that have occurred since the last published
list.
Methods
The current lists include both endemic and
non-endemic terrestrial invertebrate taxa found
in New Zealand and its offshore and outly-
ing islands including the Kermadec, Chatham,
Downloaded by [Dept of Conservation] at 18:57 01 September 2014
Conservation of New Zealand invertebrates 79
Snares, Antipodes, Bounty, Campbell and Auck-
land Island groups. Where a non-endemic taxon
is listed, only the New Zealand population(s) was
assessed. Usually, only taxa known to be of concern
were assessed but all known Nematoda, Araneae,
Orthoptera, Phthiraptera, spiders and acanthodrilid
and megascolicid earthworm taxa were assessed.
Both taxonomically determinate and indeter-
minate taxa were assessed. Taxonomically deter-
minate taxa are those that are legitimately and
effectively published according to the criteria of
the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
and generally accepted by relevant experts as dis-
tinct. Taxonomically indeterminate taxa are either
legitimately and effectively published but not gen-
erally accepted as distinct, or are entities yet to
be furnished with a formal name (Townsend et al.
2008). For brevity, we use the term taxa loosely to
include both species and indeterminate entities; the
latter were included because they were considered
so distinctive that they are likely to be described
as species. We take a precautionary approach by
including taxa that have not yet been described but
are considered by experts on current evidence as
likely to be new species. This ensures that they are
not ignored because they lack formal names so that
appropriate conservation management and research
can be directed towards them when necessary.
We incorporated information from the public
and a broader pool of experts not directly involved
in the listing process. Public submissions on the
threat status re-evaluation were invited via the DOC
website (http://www.doc.govt.nz/getting-involved
/consultations/closed/new-listing-of-threatened-
status-of-new-zealand-terrestrial-and-freshwater-
invertebrates/) on 26 May 2009. Submissions
closed on 30 September 2009 so this website is
no longer active. Such submissions were intended
to notify the expert panel members of the existence
of new information that they might otherwise not
have access to which would inform decisions; they
were not intended to be an avenue for lobbying or
voting on proposed changes.
Panels of experts (the authors of articles in this
issue) were created to undertake the re-evaluation.
The role of the expert panel members was to pro-
vide knowledge on their particular field of exper-
tise, to answer queries on listing decisions reached,
to consult with peers, to bring as much infor-
mation as possible to the meetings and to help
prepare the reports. Panels met between 17 Decem-
ber 2009 and 25 August 2011 and placed taxa
into threat categories based on the criteria provided
by Townsend et al. (2008) (see Supplementary
Appendix 1 (Introduction)). Panel meetings were
followed by subsequent telephone and email com-
munication. This process was guided by panel
knowledge, information from invertebrate collec-
tions (e.g., New Zealand Arthropod Collection),
submissions received, and recent publications relat-
ing to taxonomic and population status. Where
there was doubt in placing a given taxon into a
threat category, the provisional assessments of a
panel were referred to other relevant experts sub-
sequent to the panel meetings. The categories that
have not yet included invertebrates are Coloniser
and Migrant. Coloniser invertebrates certainly
exist, but none that fits these categories has yet been
proposed for NZTCS assessment.
Taxa were classified using both status and trend
criteria (see Townsend et al. 2008). Status criteria
(usually area of occupancy of the total population
or total number of populations; rarely estimates of
the total number of mature individuals or number of
mature individuals in the largest population) were
generally considered first followed by an evalu-
ation of the trend criteria (ongoing or predicted
population trend, due to existing threats, measured
usually by area of occupancy and rarely by esti-
mated population size). Change in status for a taxon
can result from one or more of three, non-mutually-
exclusive drivers: i) it has genuinely become more
or less threatened with extinction; ii) new knowl-
edge has allowed a more accurate assessment of its
true status; and iii) the revised categories and cri-
teria mean that the same information puts it into a
different category.
The main abbreviations used are: Threatened:
NC = Nationally Critical;NE= Nationally
Endangered;NV= Nationally Vulnerable.
At Risk:Dc= Declining;Rc= Recovering;
Rl = Relict;NU= Naturally Uncommon.
Other categories: DD = Data Deficient;NT=
Not Threatened; I&N = Introduced and
Naturalised;Vg= Vagrant;Ex= Extinct.
Townsend et al. (2008; see Supplementary
Appendix 1 (Introduction)) also provided a series
of qualifiers to enable additional information
on each taxon to be captured and consid-
ered. Most that applied to invertebrates are self
Downloaded by [Dept of Conservation] at 18:57 01 September 2014
80 I. A. N. Stringer and R. A. Hitchmough
evident: Conservation Dependent; Data Poor;
Extreme Fluctuations (of population size);
Island Endemic; One Location; and Sparse.
The Range Restricted qualifier applies to taxa
that are confined to specific substrates, habitats
or geographic areas of less than 1000 km
2
. The
assessment was made by summing the areas of
habitat occupied by all sub-populations, whether
natural or human induced. It is mutually exclu-
sive with the One Location qualifier. Other
terms used: New = taxa added in 2010; SD =
Serious Decline;GD= Gradual Decline;
Syn = synonym; NmD = nomen dubium; NP =
No Longer Present (includes incorrectly recorded
as present in New Zealand, not a valid species,
etc.). For full definitions of abbreviations and
terminology see Townsend et al. (2008).
Parasites were assessed using a slightly differ-
ent process. In most cases little information was
available on the incidences of infection but the
hosts of parasites are often listed, especially for
vertebrate hosts. The expert panels relied strongly
on their own knowledge and experience using
the precautionary principle detailed by Townsend
et al. (2008). In addition, host-specific parasites
were considered to have the same threat ranking
as their hosts unless there was information that
suggested they were even more threatened. Para-
sites with multiple hosts were given the ranking of
the least threatened host. The paucity of published
geographic location information for most parasite
species meant that the One Location qualifier was
largely not applied unless there was strong evidence
that this was likely to be true.
Results
The threat status of 3838 taxa was assessed
(Table 2). Taxa that were Data Deficient (31.5%)
comprised the largest proportion followed by Not
Threatened (30.6%) and Naturally Uncom-
mon taxa (23.8%). Relatively few were in the
other At Risk categories (3.7%) and few were
Threatened (5.0%). Only seven invertebrate
species (0.2% of those classified) were consid-
ered Extinct. Of the taxa classified as Threat-
ened, 54.9% were Nationally Critical followed
by 29.5% that were Nationally Vulnerable
and 15.5% were Nationally Endangered. Nat-
urally Uncommon taxa predominated (86.5%)
amongst the At Risk categories followed by
Relict (9.7%), Declining (3.3%) and Recovering
(0.6%) (Table 2).
Discussion
Threat assessments have now been made for
approximately 26% of the > 13,000 species and
subspecies of terrestrial invertebrates known to
occur in New Zealand (Gordon 2010). Indetermi-
nate taxa that have not yet been formally described
or are of uncertain identity comprise 12% (462
taxa) of all invertebrates so far assessed and, if
these are also included with species known to
occur in New Zealand, then threat rankings are
now available for about 29% of all terrestrial inver-
tebrates. Overall these comprise about 1.5% that
are Threatened, 8% that are At Risk (these com-
prise mostly Naturally Uncommon taxa, 7.2%)
and 9.2% that are Data Deficient. However, we
suggest that the proportion of invertebrates in all
of these categories is likely to increase as more
species continue to be discovered because these
are likely to be rarer than species that have already
been found.
We also note that this proportion includes a few
marine and/or freshwater species in the Araneae,
Coleoptera, Hemiptera and Lepidoptera. We have
also included all Nematoda known to occur in
New Zealand because they are not considered else-
where and we have included the Nematomorpha
amongst the list of known species for complete-
ness even though their threat rankings have yet to
be assessed. We have excluded most marine inver-
tebrates and those that are traditionally considered
to be aquatic such as Tardigrada, Ephemeroptera,
Odonata and Trichoptera even though many have
a terrestrial phase in their life cycles or, as in some
tardigrades, live in wet terrestrial situations. We
have also excluded all Powelliphanta land snails
because the genus is presently being revised and
their threat rankings will be published later.
Changes in threat status since 2007
Over a third (38.3%) of the invertebrate taxa con-
sidered for the present reassessment had not been
ranked previously by Hitchmough et al. (2007)
and a further 96 taxa ranked by Hitchmough et al.
(2007) have since been either synonymised with
other previously ranked taxa, are now considered to
Downloaded by [Dept of Conservation] at 18:57 01 September 2014
Conservation of New Zealand invertebrates 81
Table 2. Changes in the numbers of terrestrial invertebrate taxa in each threat category between 2007 (down)
(Hitchmough et al. 2007) and 2010 (across).
2010 Threatened At Risk Other
2007 NC NE NV Dc Rc Rl NU DD I&N Vg NT Ex Total Syn NmD NP
NC 56 3 7 1 1 3 21 3 95 18
NE 5 15 19 3 2 7 7 3 4 65 6
NV 1 3 1 5
SD 1 3 1 1 1 7 1
GD 1 9 9 2 6 1 1 29 1
Sp 4 2 7 7 56 4 28 108 2
RR 9 2 2 49 358 53 28 1 502 13 2
DD 3 2 2 5 129 856 3 282 1282 16 24 6
I&N 3 36 2 41 3
Vg 0
NT 3 2 10 5 1 204 225 1
Ex 3 1 4 8 2
New 32 2 12 9 2 24 345 259 150 10 624 2 1471 6
Total 106 30 57 35 6 102 911 1208 190 11 1175 7 3838 65 24 12
Note: See Methods for abbreviations.
be of dubious taxonomic status, or are now known
to be not present in New Zealand (Table 2). Of
the taxa previously listed by Hitchmough et al.
(2007), 47.8% remained unchanged, 8.2% were
ranked more threatened and 19.8% less threatened.
This accounts for 75.7% of the taxa; 3.9% of the
remaining taxa were synonyms, nomina dubia or
otherwise considered no longer present. The 20.4%
classified in the At Risk categories of Hitchmough
et al. (2007) were reassessed using different crite-
ria from the At Risk categories of Townsend et al.
(2008) and so they cannot be directly compared.
However, 189 of the 518 taxa previously classi-
fied as Range Restricted by Hitchmough et al.
(2007) that occur only on islands or island groups
are now all classified as Naturally Uncommon.
The latter represent 7.7% of all the taxa classified
by Hitchmough et al. (2007). When these are taken
into account the threat classifications of only 12.7%
of the taxa classified by Hitchmough et al. (2007)
changed their threat status because of changes
to the classification system. Most other changes
in status from Hitchmough et al. (2007) resulted
from careful reassessment that usually included
increased information about the distributions of the
taxa.
Only one reduction in threat classification level
was due to intensive conservation management; the
Mercury Islands tusked weta, Motuweta isolata.
This was previously classified as Nationally
Critical by Hitchmough et al. (2007) but is now
classified as Recovering (Trewick et al. 2012). The
successful management involved captive-rearing
and translocation to islands near the source island
from which introduced predatory mammals had
been eradicated (Stringer & Chappell 2008). Other
translocations of threatened invertebrates have also
been recently made for conservation purposes but
these have yet to affect any threat rankings (Sher-
ley et al. 2010; Watts et al. 2008; Table 3).
We note for completeness that conservation man-
agement has occurred involving Powelliphanta
augusta (Pulmonata: Rhytididae) which was clas-
sified as Nationally Critical by Hitchmough et
al. (2007) but it has not yet had its threat status
reassessed.
Of the 10 taxa classified as Extinct by
Hitchmough et al. (2007), six are still con-
sidered Extinct: Mecodema costellum “spelles”
(NZACMcostel01); Mecodema punctellum; Thot-
mus halli; Waitomophylax worthyi (Coleoptera);
Philopteroides xenicus and Rallicola pilgrimi
(Phthiraptera). Two taxa (Placostylus amba-
giosus “Herangi Hill” and Placostylus amba-
giosus “Kohuronaki” (Pulmonata)) have been
synonymised, one species (Leioproctus otautahi
(Hymenoptera)) is now known to be a Vagrant
(Donovan & Maynard 2010) and three taxa are
Downloaded by [Dept of Conservation] at 18:57 01 September 2014
82 I. A. N. Stringer and R. A. Hitchmough
Table 3. Translocations made of Threatened inver-
tebrates for conservation management purposes since
2005 (Sherley et al. 2010; Watts et al. 2008; T. Huggins,
unpublished data).
Years of Status Status
Taxon transfer 2007 2010
Coleoptera
Anagotus turbotti 2006 RR NU
Orthoptera
Deinacrida
carinata
2010 NE Rl
Deinacrida rugosa 2007, 2008,
2010
RR Rl
Hemideina ricta 2005 RR NU
Motuweta isolata 2007, 2008,
2011
NC Rc
Pulmonata
Amborhytida
tarangaensis
2006 NV NU
Theridiidae
Latrodectus katipo 2008 SD Dc
Note: See Methods for abbreviations.
now considered Data Deficient: Megacolabus
sculpturatus (Coleoptera); Charopidae sp. 104
(NMNZ M.127901); and Zelandiscus elevata (Pul-
monata).
Changes in threat ranking for many inverte-
brates are inevitable because assessing the threat
ranking of most of them involves much subjectivity
and precise data are usually lacking. Reliable esti-
mates of total population numbers exist for only a
few taxa which have been subjected to focused dis-
tributional surveys such as those made for katipo
spiders, Latrodectus katipo (Patrick 2002), the
Banks Peninsula tree weta, Hemideina ricta (B.
Brown & I. Townsend, unpublished data), or the
rhytitid snail Rhytidarex buddlei (Brook 2002).
Even fewer invertebrates have been regularly mon-
itored as has been done for the Cromwell chafer,
Prodontria lewisii (Ferreira & McKinlay 1999).
There have, however, been more generalised sur-
veys of invertebrates from specific areas or plant
species (e.g., Patrick 2000).
Some vertebrate parasites in groups such as
Phthiraptera and parasitic nematodes are excep-
tions because their threat ranking follows that of
their well-studied vertebrate hosts. However, most
vertebrate species also have only broadly estimated
population sizes. Population estimates, especially
when the species is very cryptic, are often very
subjective. A rare example, where we know the
minimum number of individuals present is afforded
by the land snail, Powelliphanta augusta, which
was originally thought to occur sparsely over about
8.5 ha at the top of Mt Augusta, Stockton Plateau,
Westport, but 6139 individuals were later found by
exhaustive searching after some of the habitat had
been destroyed by opencast coal mining (Walker
et al. 2008). We acknowledge that subjectivity
is always involved where an estimate of popula-
tion size is required in order to determine a threat
category for terrestrial invertebrates. However, in
most instances, area of occupancy was used as an
index of population size rather than any attempt
being made to estimate population size directly.
The criteria triggered for each listing record these
decisions.
Factors affecting the threat status of New
Zealand terrestrial invertebrates
Habitat loss, or modification, and introduced preda-
tors are widely recognised as the main threats
to the native fauna of New Zealand, and these
have largely influenced the threat status of inver-
tebrates. Less obvious threats were the attitudes
of the human colonists and specimen collectors,
but these have reduced today (Watts et al. 2012).
Large tracts of indigenous vegetation have been
replaced by urban areas and exotic vegetation,
particularly pasture and exotic production for-
est, and introduced weed species have invaded
most habitats (Watts et al. 2012). Introduced
vertebrates have modified the remaining native
vegetation to varying extents through trampling,
herbivory and dispersal of weed seeds (Gibb &
Flux 1973), while introduced predators, including
invertebrate predators and parasites, have directly
affected the populations of many native inverte-
brates. This is particularly so for rodents; the few
recorded instances of invertebrate extinction on
the New Zealand mainland occurred after rodent
invasion and involved flightless and large bod-
ied species with a ground active lifestyle (Gibbs
2010; Ramsay 1978). Many direct and indirect
deleterious effects have been recorded on native
New Zealand invertebrates by exotic invertebrates,
even though such changes usually go unnoticed
(Brockerhoff et al. 2010).
Downloaded by [Dept of Conservation] at 18:57 01 September 2014
Conservation of New Zealand invertebrates 83
The attributes of New Zealand’s terrestrial
invertebrates that are generally associated with
increased threat risk are large size, flightlessness,
ground dwelling and having reduced protective
defences such as slow escape responses, especially
freezing behaviour, or a lack of defensive secretions
(McGuinness 2001). These and other factors are
discussed in relation to some New Zealand inver-
tebrate groups by four of the papers in this issue
(Leschen et al. 2012; Mahlfeld et al. 2012; Stringer
et al. 2012b; Trewick et al. 2012). There is some
quantitative evidence that large size and flightless-
ness are associated with increased threat risk for
New Zealand Coleoptera, but there is little or no
such association with flightlessness amongst New
Zealand’s Threatened and At Risk Lepidoptera
(Leschen et al. 2012; Stringer et al. 2012b).
Conclusions
The publications in this issue have two primary
aims. First, to assist in the recovery of threatened
species and, second, to prevent their extinction
by identifying Threatened and At Risk taxa.
The main purpose is to warn conservation man-
agers so they can research the causes of decline
if necessary and organise appropriate conserva-
tion management. Taxonomy, robust identification
tools and reliable distributional data are fundamen-
tal to the assessment of threat status for terrestrial
invertebrates yet neither of the authors of this paper
are invertebrate taxonomists. Our roles in these
reassessments were to gather data from experts (the
authors of the following papers) and to ensure con-
sistency in applying the criteria between different
groups. We are grateful to the professional and
non-professional taxonomists who provided this
information, and especially that of the retired or
unpaid professional taxonomists and the knowl-
edgeable amateurs who comprised 56% of the
authors of the papers in this issue. The papers in this
issue clearly show that an enormous amount of sys-
tematic research is still required in order to provide
reliable information for future threat assessments.
References
Andrew IG, Macfarlane RP, Johns PM, Hitchmough RA,
Stringer IAN. 2012. The conservation status of New
Zealand Diptera. New Zealand Entomologist 35:
99–102.
Brook FJ. 2002. Conservation status of Rhytidarex bud-
dlei (Mollusca: Pulmonata: Rhytididae) on the
Three Kings Islands, northern New Zealand. Jour-
nal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 32:
555–569.
Brockerhoff EG, Barratt BIP, Beggs JR, Fagan LL, Kay
MK, Phillips CB, Vink CJ. 2010. Impacts of exotic
invertebrates on New Zealand’s indigenous species
and ecosystems. New Zealand Journal of Ecology
34: 158–174.
Buckley TR, Palma RL, Johns PM, Gleeson DM,
Heath ACG, Hitchmough RA, Stringer IAN.
2012. The conservation status of small or less
well known groups of New Zealand terres-
trial invertebrates. New Zealand Entomologist 35:
137–143.
de Lange PJ, Norton DA. 2008. Revisiting rarity: a
botanical perspective on the meanings of rarity
and the classification of New Zealand’s uncom-
mon plants. In: Ecosystems, Entomology and Plants
(ed R Lynch) pp. 145–160. The Royal Society of
New Zealand Miscellaneous Series 48. The Royal
Society of New Zealand, Wellington.
Donovan B, Maynard GV. 2010. The New Zealand native
bee Leioproctus (Leioproctus) otautahi Donovan
(Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Colletidae) is synony-
mous with Leioproctus (Leioproctus) launcesto-
nensis (Cockerell) from Australia. New Zealand
Entomologist 33: 17–18.
Ferreira SM, McKinlay B. 1999. Conservation Moni-
toring of the Cromwell Chafer Beetle (Prodontria
lewisii) Between 1986 and 1997. Science for Con-
servation No. 123. Department of Conservation,
Wellington. 34 p.
Gibb JA, Flux JEC. 1973. Mammals. In: The Natural
History of New Zealand (ed GR Williams) pp. 334–
371. A.H. & A.W. Reed, Wellington.
Gibbs G. 2010. Do New Zealand invertebrates reflect
dominance of birds in their evolutionary history?
New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34: 152–157.
Gordon DP. 2010. New Zealand Inventory of Bio-
diversity, Vol. 2. Canterbury University Press,
Christchurch. 528 p.
Hitchmough RA. 2002. New Zealand Threat Classi-
fication System Lists 2002. Threatened Species
Occasional Publication No. 23. Department of Con-
servation, Wellington. 210 p.
Hitchmough R, Bull L, Cromarty P. 2007. New Zealand
Threat Classification System Lists 2005. Depart-
ment of Conservation, Wellington. 194 p.
IUCN. 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.4. Retrieved October 27, 2010 from
http://www.iucnredlist.org
Leschen RAB, Marris JWM, Emberson RM, Nunn J,
Hitchmough RA, Stringer IAN. 2012. The con-
servation status of New Zealand Coleoptera. New
Zealand Entomologist 35: 91–98.
McGuinness CA. 2001. The Conservation Requirements
of New Zealand’s Nationally Threatened Inverte-
brates. Threatened Species Occasional Publication
Downloaded by [Dept of Conservation] at 18:57 01 September 2014
84 I. A. N. Stringer and R. A. Hitchmough
No. 20. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
657 p.
Mahlfeld K, Brook FJ, Roscoe DJ, Hitchmough RA,
Stringer IAN. 2012. The conservation status of
New Zealand terrestrial Gastropoda excluding
Powelliphanta. New Zealand Entomologist 35:
103–109.
Molloy J, Davis A. 1992. Setting Priorities for the Con-
servation of New Zealand’s Threatened Plants and
Animals. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
44 p.
Molloy J, Davis A, Tisdall C. 1994. Setting Priorities
for the Conservation of New Zealand’s Threat-
ened Plants and Animals. 2nd ed. Department of
Conservation, Wellington. 64 p.
Molloy J, Bell B, Clout MN, de Lange PJ, Gibbs GW,
Given DR, Norton DA, Smith N, Stephens RTT.
2002. Classifying Species According to the Threat
of Extinction: A System for New Zealand. Biodiver-
sity Recovery Unit, Department of Conservation,
Wellington. 26 p.
New TR, Sands DPA. 2003. The listing and de-listing of
invertebrate species for conservation in Australia.
Journal of Insect Conservation 7: 199–205.
Patrick BH. 2000. Lepidoptera of Small-leaved Divar-
icating Olearia in New Zealand and Their Con-
servation Priority. Science for Conservation No.
168. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
26 p.
Patrick B. 2002. Conservation Status of the New
Zealand Red Katipo Spider (Latrodectus katipo
Powell, 1871). Science for Conservation No.
194. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
33 p.
Ramsay GW. 1978. The effect of rodents on invertebrates.
In: The Ecology and Control of Rodents in New
Zealand Nature Reserves (eds PR Dingwall, IAE
Atkinson & C Hay) pp. 89–95. Department of Lands
and Survey Information Series, Wellington.
Sirvid PJ, Vink CJ, Wakelin MD, Fitzgerald BM, Hitch-
mough RA, Stringer IAN. 2012. The conservation
status of New Zealand Araneae. New Zealand
Entomologist 35: 85–90.
Sherley GH, Stringer IAN, Parrish GR. 2010. Summary
of Native Bat, Reptile, Amphibian and Terrestrial
Invertebrate Translocations in New Zealand. Sci-
ence for Conservation No. 303. Department of
Conservation, Wellington. 39 p.
Stringer IAN, Chappell R. 2008. Possible rescue from
extinction: transfer of a rare New Zealand tusked
weta to islands in the Mercury group. Journal of
Insect Conservation 12: 371–382.
Stringer IAN, Hitchmough RA, Larivière M-C, Eyles
AC, Teulon DAJ, Dale PJ, Henderson RC. 2012a.
The conservation status of New Zealand Hemiptera.
New Zealand Entomologist 35: 110–115.
Stringer IAN, Hitchmough RA, Dugdale JS, Edwards E,
Hoare RJB, Patrick BH. 2012b. The conservation
status of New Zealand Lepidoptera. New Zealand
Entomologist 35: 120–127.
Townsend AJ, de Lange PJ, Duffy CAJ, Miskelly CM,
Molloy J, Norton DA. 2008. New Zealand Threat
Classification System Manual. Department of Con-
servation, Wellington. 35 p.
Trewick SA, Morris SJ, Johns PM, Hitchmough RA,
Stringer IAN. 2012. The conservation status of New
Zealand Orthoptera. New Zealand Entomologist 35:
131–136.
Walker KJ, Trewick SA, Barker GM. 2008. Pow-
elliphanta augusta, a new species of land snail, with
a description of its former habitat, Stockton coal
plateau, New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society
of New Zealand 38: 163–186.
Ward DF, Early JW, Schnitzler F-R, Hitchmough RA,
Stringer IAN. 2012. The conservation status of New
Zealand Hymenoptera. New Zealand Entomologist
35: 116–119.
Watts C, Stringer I, Gibbs G. 2012. Insect conservation in
New Zealand: an historical perspective. In: Insect
Conservation: Past, Present and Prospects (ed TR
New) pp. 213–243. Springer, Berlin.
Watts CH, Stringer I, Sherley G, Gibbs G, Green C. 2008.
History of weta (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae)
translocations in New Zealand: lessons learned,
islands as sanctuaries and the future. Journal of
Insect Conservation 12: 359–370.
Yeates GW, Zhao ZQ, Hitchmough RA, Stringer
IAN. 2012. The conservation status of New
Zealand Nematoda. New Zealand Entomologist
35: 128–130.
Downloaded by [Dept of Conservation] at 18:57 01 September 2014
