Fauna Spotters logo

Linnaeus' Pseudoscorpion (Mesa A) (Ideoblothrus linnaei)

Linnaeus' pseudoscorpion is a tiny, eyeless subterranean pseudoscorpion known from Mesa A in the Pilbara. Its known range is very restricted, and development work in suitable subterranean habitat should be planned cautiously.

Conservation status

Western Australia, WA Threatened and Priority Fauna List: Priority 1.

Seasonal planning

Seasonal activity and breeding information are not known. Plan survey and works timing with a subterranean-fauna specialist rather than assuming a seasonal period of low risk.

Seasonality: No species-specific seasonal pattern is known.

The row is a general planning prompt, not evidence of seasonal activity or breeding.

  • Survey and works planning: Planning window only. No species-specific seasonal activity is known; set timing and survey conditions with a specialist.

Identification: Appearance and size

Identification details are limited. Confirm records through a qualified specialist rather than relying on a field impression alone.

The species is a pseudoscorpion in the family Syarinidae. The reported holotype male is 1.16 mm long.

The carapace and pedipalps are pale reddish-brown, with a pale tan abdomen and legs. Eyes are absent.

Identification: Similar species

Other Ideoblothrus species and unnamed Ideoblothrus forms are recorded from Mesa A. The distinction between I. linnaei and the form called Ideoblothrus ‘MesaA’ is unclear in some identifications.

Identification: Field signs

No species-specific surface signs or reliable visual field signs are known. A lack of surface observations does not mean the species is absent.

Distribution: Known range

The recorded range is very restricted, with the named locality in the Pilbara.

The species is reported from Mesa A, approximately 50 km west of Pannawonica. Mesa A is the type locality.

Atlas of Living Australia records show one Western Australian record at one distinct 0.1-degree location. This limited record base does not establish the full range.

Distribution: WA regions and status

The DBCA list identifies the Pilbara as the WA region for this species.

Distribution: Records and uncertainty

Research on the Robe Valley mesas notes uncertainty in distinguishing I. linnaei from Ideoblothrus ‘MesaA’. Some specimens identified as ‘MesaA’ appear genetically to be I. linnaei, but the relationship remains unresolved.

Habitat: Recorded setting

The species has been recorded in subterranean fauna surveys at Mesa A; its detailed habitat requirements are not known.

The species is hypogean, meaning subterranean, and is listed among troglofauna collected from Mesa A.

Habitat: Habitat limits

The precise geological, moisture, temperature and substrate conditions it uses have not been documented. Do not assume that all nearby ground or mesa habitat is suitable, or that unrecorded areas are unoccupied.

Foraging habitat: Feeding

The species is a terrestrial predator, but its feeding locations and prey are not documented.

The species is a hypogean terrestrial predator. Its prey and feeding behaviour have not been documented.

Foraging habitat: Foraging areas

Specific foraging habitat, movement range and foraging behaviour are not known. Treat the subterranean environment associated with a confirmed record as potentially relevant until assessed by a specialist.

Breeding habitat: Reproductive information

Reproduction and breeding habitat are poorly known.

Breeding season, mating behaviour, egg production and development have not been documented.

Breeding habitat: Precaution

Do not assign a seasonal breeding window or infer that disturbance is safer at a particular time of year.

Sheltering habitat: Known shelter context

The species is subterranean, but particular refuges and shelter structures are not known.

The species is hypogean and has been recorded in troglofauna surveys. A specific shelter type or depth has not been identified.

Sheltering habitat: Unknown details

Use specialist assessment to determine which parts of a proposed work area may provide subterranean habitat. Surface inspection alone cannot identify all occupied areas.

Threats: Known conservation context

The species has a restricted known occurrence, but specific pressures affecting it have not been identified.

The species is poorly known and known from few locations. No known locations are on conservation lands.

Threats: Potential work impacts

Species-specific threats have not been documented. As a precaution, assess whether ground disturbance could affect subterranean habitat at or near a confirmed record, and seek advice from the relevant specialist and regulator.

Survey methodology: 1. Review existing records

This subterranean species has a very limited record base, so survey design should be developed by appropriately experienced subterranean-fauna specialists.

Check current DBCA information, survey reports, and available museum or project records for Mesa A and the proposed work area. Resolve possible confusion between I. linnaei and Ideoblothrus ‘MesaA’ with a taxonomic specialist.

Survey methodology: 2. Plan targeted survey

Use a specialist-designed troglofauna survey suited to the local geology and project footprint. Previous regional assessments include records from drill-hole surveys, but the appropriate method and effort for a new site should be set by the survey specialist.

Survey methodology: 3. Handle and verify records

Have any suspected specimens identified by a qualified pseudoscorpion taxonomist. Preserve and document specimens using the approved survey protocol, and retain location and sample metadata for review.

Survey methodology: 4. Interpret non-detections

A non-detection does not by itself demonstrate absence. Species-specific detectability and survey-effort thresholds are not known.

Vegetation associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific vegetation association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Ecosystem associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific ecosystem association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Soil and substrate associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific soil association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Water and wetland associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific water association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Fauna records and mapped habitat: Not yet analysed

Record locations can be overlaid with mapping, but record frequency alone does not measure habitat preference. No species is excluded from desktop assessments by this analysis.

No quality-controlled record-to-map analysis has been completed for this species. The existing generalised distribution dots and indicative range polygons have not been treated as precise occurrence coordinates.

A defensible run needs dated, independently attributable records, coordinate uncertainty, duplicate and captive-record checks, layer versions and regional scope. Preference and absence require additional survey-effort and detection evidence.

Habitat limitations and contrary evidence: No supported exclusion recorded

Not recorded is not the same as cannot occur. Low suitability, resident habitat, breeding habitat and occasional movement are different conclusions.

This library has not established a vegetation, ecosystem or soil-type exclusion for this species. This does not mean all habitat is suitable; the evidence needed to justify an exclusion has not been assembled.

Habitat limitations and contrary evidence: Before using a negative association

  • Confirm the taxon, geographic region, life stage and habitat function covered by the evidence.
  • Check survey methods, season, repeated effort and detectability before interpreting non-detection.
  • Investigate credible contradictory records and microhabitats absent from broad mapping.
  • Do not convert a missing map class, low record count or failed data request into species absence.

Before habitat disturbance: 1. Confirm the footprint

Plan works around the limited known distribution and uncertainty in species identification and habitat boundaries.

Overlay the proposed disturbance area with known Mesa A records, previous survey coverage, and any mapped subterranean habitat. Obtain specialist advice where records or habitat boundaries are uncertain.

Before habitat disturbance: 2. Set controls

Before clearing, brief the crew on the species, its Priority 1 status, the approved work limits, and the procedure for unexpected subterranean-fauna records.

Keep vehicles, stockpiles, and ground disturbance within authorised areas. Do not assume a site is clear because no animals are visible at the surface.

During habitat disturbance: 1. Stay within approved limits

Follow the approved work controls and pause for expert advice if relevant fauna or unexpected subterranean habitat is encountered.

Keep clearing and excavation within the marked footprint. Avoid unnecessary disturbance beyond the approved boundary, particularly where the relationship to known subterranean habitat has not been assessed.

During habitat disturbance: 2. Respond to finds

If a possible pseudoscorpion or unexpected subterranean feature is found, stop work in the immediate area where safe to do so, protect the find from further disturbance, and contact the project ecologist or fauna specialist.

Do not handle or relocate suspected specimens unless this is authorised and directed by a suitably qualified person.

During habitat disturbance: 3. Record the event

Record the location, conditions, photographs where appropriate, and the work activity underway. Follow project and regulatory reporting requirements.

After habitat disturbance: 1. Review compliance

After works, maintain records and check that agreed controls have been followed.

Check clearing records and site inspections against approved work limits and fauna-management requirements. Report any unauthorised disturbance or fauna find through the project process.

After habitat disturbance: 2. Retain survey information

Keep survey results, specimen determinations, and work records accessible to the project ecologist and relevant authorities. Update the site record if a taxonomic review changes an identification.

Rehabilitation actions: 1. Restore disturbed areas

Species-specific rehabilitation requirements are not known; preventing avoidable disturbance is the primary practical precaution.

Where rehabilitation is required, follow the approved site plan and avoid introducing materials or undertaking additional ground disturbance outside the authorised area.

Rehabilitation actions: 2. Verify outcomes

Document the rehabilitation footprint and completion status. Whether rehabilitation can recreate habitat for this species is not known, so do not treat restoration as a substitute for avoiding impacts to known or potential subterranean habitat.

Sources