4.0 Article

A Terrestrial Vertebrate Palaeontological Reconnaissance of Lord Howe Island, Australia

期刊

PACIFIC SCIENCE
卷 75, 期 1, 页码 43-73

出版社

UNIV HAWAII PRESS
DOI: 10.2984/75.1.2

关键词

fossil; extinction; biogeography; white gallinule; Lord Howe pigeon; Lord Howe parakeet

资金

  1. Australian Museum Foundation
  2. Australian Research Council [DE200101222]
  3. Australian Research Council [DE200101222] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lord Howe Island, located 790 km northeast of Sydney, was one of the last islands discovered by humans in 1788. The island originally had a terrestrial avifauna with five endemic species and eight subspecies, but over-hunting and the accidental invasion of black rats led to the extinction of numerous species.
Lord Howe Island, situated 790 km northeast of Sydney in the Tasman Sea, was first encountered in February 1788, and one of the last islands discovered by humans. Apparently, Polynesians were unaware of the island. At the time of discovery, seabirds dominated the island, with a terrestrial avifauna comprising five endemic species and eight subspecies. The island was initially a whaling refurbishment station until establishment of a settlement in 1834, which resulted in the extinction of three endemic birds due to over-hunting. The accidental invasion of black rats in 1918 resulted in another wave of extinctions, with the loss of five passerines, followed by an endemic owl c. 1940. Museum skins represent all but one of these species, but almost no skeletal remains exist. Here, we present the results of a palaeontological survey that explored subfossil depositaries on Lord Howe Island, including analysis of hitherto unstudied Lord Howe bird subfossil collections held in Australian museums. Our discoveries include the first known skeletal elements of six extinct species, five recorded in context, and a particularly fossil-rich sand dune site on Lord Howe Island that contained hundreds of terrestrial bird subfossils.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据