Thursday, 12 March 2015

The rainforested areas of Australia and New Guinea are home to a little known, rarely seen and largely understudied creature, the tree-kangaroo.  Kangaroos are not the first creatures that spring to mind when contemplating tree-dwelling mammals.  Most people's idea of macropods is of large, bouncy animals soaring across red-soil plains, but tree kangaroos have very successfully made their living in the canopy.  Indeed, they represent a respectable 16 species and sub-species of about 73 species of macropods, nearly 22%.

Tree-kangaroos were first discovered in 1826, when Dutch scientists on a mission to collect natural history specimens landed at Lobo, on the NW coat of New Guinea and acquired 4 live specimens of an as yet unknown mammal, with the intention of shipping them back to Europe.  Unfortunately, particularly for the tree-kangaroos collected, misfortune intervened.  Malaria struck the ship and the scientists on board fell gravely ill.  The ship's officer immediately had the animals killed and turned into a nourishing dish to aid the invalids, based on a Dutch dish called hazenpeper, or peppered hare.  This interesting side note in scientific history is how tree-kangaroos acquired their scientific name of Dendrolagos, or tree-hare (Martin, 2005).

Figure 1Dendrolagus inustus, the grizzled tree-kangaroo.  This was the first species
of tree-kangaroo discovered by Western science.  It was also probably the
first to be eaten by Westerners.  Source: jumbhoanimal.blogspot.com


Australia possesses two of the 16 species of tree-kangaroo, Bennett's and Lumholtz's, restricted to the rainforests and vine thickets of far north Queensland.  The first discovery of this genus made in Australia was in 1872.  William Hann was commissioned by the Queensland government to explore the mineral potential of Cape York Peninsula.  Hann's Aboriginal guide, Jerry, had mentioned the existence of a tree-climbing kangaroo, a story which Hann scarcely believed.  Scratches on trees were found, however, followed by a complete skeleton.  This, the first hard evidence of tree-kangaroos in Australia, was collected by the party but subsequently lost (Martin, 2005).

Figure 2. Lithograph of Bennett's tree kangaroo by Joseph Smit, published in the
 Proceedings of the Zoological Sociey of London, 1894.  Source: Wikimedia Commons 


Tree-kangaroos are a cryptic animal, as anyone who has spent time looking for them will wearily tell you, and the latest discovery by Western science of a new species, D. mbaiso, known by locals as Dingiso, was made in 1992, in West Papua's Central Highlands, an amazing find for a relatively large mammal (Martin, 2005).   This little explored and largely inaccessible country may yet produce new species, an excitingly tantalising prospect.





                                    Table 1. Tree kangaroo taxonomy.  Adapted from Flannery et al. (1996)
Dendrolagus bennettianus

Bennett’s tree-kangaroo
Dendrolagus lumholtzi

Lumholtz’s tree-kangaroo
Dendrolagus inustus
D. i. inustus
Grizzled tree-kangaroo

D. i. finschi
Finsch's tree-kangaroo
Dendrolagus ursinus

Vogelkopt tree-kangaroo
Dendrolagus goodfellowi
D. g. goodfellowi
Goodfellow's tree-kangaroo

D. g. buergersi
Timboyok

D. g. pulcherrimus
Golden-mantled tree-kangaroo
Dendrolagus matchiei

Matschie's tree-kangaroo
Dendrolagus spadix

Loland tree-kangaroo
Dendrolagus dorianus
D. d. dorianus
Doria's tree-kangaroo

D. d. mayri
Wondiwoi tree-kangaroo

D. d. notatus
Ifola

D. d. stellarum
Seri's tree-kangaroo
Dendrolagus scottae

Tenkile
Dendrolagus mbaiso

Dingiso
References:

Flannery, T. F. et al. Tree Kangaroos. Port Melbourne, Vic.: Reed, 1996. Print.

Martin, R., and Simpson, S. Tree-Kangaroos Of Australia And New Guinea. Collingwood, VIC: CSIRO Pub., 2005. Print.


.


2 comments:

  1. Really interesting start on a very weird, but unique, mammal. I am a little curious as to why both Bennett’s and Lumholtz tree kangaroos were excluded from Flannery et al.’s (1996) taxonomy? I’m really fascinated to learn more about this group, as I know very little!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Tasmin,
    Thanks for the comment. The omission of the Australian species was simply an error on my part. I have rectified the table. Thanks for your vigilance!

    ReplyDelete