Fauna Spotters logo

Mt Bruce Antichiropus Millipede (Antichiropus lucyae)

Antichiropus lucyae is a millipede known from the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Its appearance, habitat and ecology are poorly documented. DBCA Priority 1 is a priority category, not a listing under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016; it reflects that the species is poorly known and recorded from few locations. Check carefully for it before ground disturbance in potential survey areas.

Conservation status

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

Seasonal knowledge

Activity and breeding months for A. lucyae have not been documented. Use the row below only as a general planning prompt, not as a prediction of when the species will be active or detectable.

Breeding period: Not documented.

Activity period: Not documented.

Survey detectability by season: Not documented.

No seasonal pattern for Antichiropus lucyae has been established.

  • Survey planning: Species-specific seasonal information is not available. Plan surveys around site access and suitable survey conditions; this is a planning window only.

Identification: Appearance and size

Antichiropus lucyae is a millipede, but species-level identification features have not been documented.

Body colour, markings, shape and adult size have not been documented. General millipede appearance alone is not sufficient to identify this species.

  • Photograph the specimen, record the exact find location and seek identification from a suitably qualified specialist.

Identification: Similar species

A 2019 review describes 33 new Antichiropus species from the Pilbara, but diagnostic characters for A. lucyae and comparisons with those species are not available.

  • Treat field identification as provisional until a specialist has checked the diagnostic features.

Identification: Field signs

Species-specific tracks, droppings, shelters and other field signs have not been documented. No reliable sign-based method for confirming presence is known.

Distribution: Known range

A. lucyae is recorded from the Pilbara, but its detailed range is not established.

The WA priority list identifies the Pilbara region. Atlas of Living Australia records show three Western Australian records at one distinct 0.1-degree location, at latitude -22.5 and longitude 119. Records outside Western Australia were excluded as likely errors.

Distribution: Regional context

A review of Pilbara species includes A. lucyae among the Antichiropus species described from the Pilbara bioregion. No verified site name or precise species locality is available.

  • DBCA region flagged: Pilbara.

Habitat: Habitat information

Habitat preferences and site-level habitat records have not been documented.

Vegetation type, landform, soil, geology, moisture conditions and elevation have not been recorded for this species.

Habitat: Site assessment

Do not assume that any particular vegetation community or substrate is suitable or unsuitable. Record environmental conditions at observations and survey sites for later assessment.

Foraging habitat: Diet and foraging

The diet and foraging habitat of A. lucyae have not been documented.

Food items, feeding behaviour and foraging locations are unknown.

Foraging habitat: Field recording

If an individual is found feeding or near a possible food resource, document the observation. Treat it as a confirmed diet record only if a specialist verifies it.

Breeding habitat: Breeding information

Breeding season, breeding sites and reproductive biology have not been documented.

It is not known when A. lucyae breeds, where it lays eggs or how many young it produces.

Breeding habitat: Precaution

Do not schedule work on the assumption that any particular month is outside the breeding period. If individuals are found, minimise disturbance and seek ecological advice before proceeding.

Sheltering habitat: Shelter information

Shelter sites and hiding behaviour have not been documented for A. lucyae.

No burrow, refuge, litter layer, soil depth or other shelter type has been recorded for this species.

Sheltering habitat: Ground-level checks

As a general precaution when searching for terrestrial millipedes, check accessible ground-level material gently and replace it as found. This is general group-level practice, not a known shelter requirement of A. lucyae.

Threats: Known pressures

Specific threats to A. lucyae have not been identified.

Species-specific threats, population trends and impact assessments have not been reported.

Threats: Works-site risk

Ground disturbance could affect an individual if one is present, but the species' response to disturbance is unknown. Its Priority 1 status reflects poor knowledge and records from few locations.

Survey methodology: 1. Desktop assessment

No species-specific survey method or detectability information is known. Use a cautious, documented search approach and arrange specialist identification for any finds.

Check current DBCA priority fauna information and available records for the proposed works area. Records are sparse and do not provide a verified named locality, so do not assume the species is absent because no records are mapped.

Survey methodology: 2. Site inspection

As general practice for terrestrial millipedes, inspect ground-level material and accessible surface refuges carefully, avoiding unnecessary damage. The microhabitats used by this species are not known.

Survey methodology: 3. Record and verify

Photograph any candidate individual, record coordinates, date and site conditions, and retain the observation details for specialist review. Do not identify the species from a general millipede sighting alone.

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 work area

Because A. lucyae is poorly known and has few recorded locations, take a precautionary approach before clearing or other ground disturbance.

Confirm the approved disturbance footprint and check current fauna records and DBCA advice. Keep access, stockpiles and laydown areas within approved boundaries.

Before habitat disturbance: 2. Brief the crew

Tell the fauna spotter catcher and clearing crew that this is a Priority 1 species and that its identification features and habitat are not documented. Explain the stop-work and reporting process for a suspected find.

During habitat disturbance: 1. Inspect as work proceeds

Work carefully within the authorised footprint and respond promptly to any suspected millipede found during clearing.

Have the fauna spotter catcher check material as it is exposed and link observations to the precise work location. This is a general precaution, not a species-specific detection method.

During habitat disturbance: 2. Pause and protect

If a possible A. lucyae is found, pause work in the immediate area, prevent further disturbance and avoid handling it unless necessary for immediate protection and permitted under applicable procedures.

During habitat disturbance: 3. Seek identification

Photograph and document the find, then contact a qualified millipede specialist and follow project and regulatory requirements before work resumes in the affected area.

After habitat disturbance: 1. Report the event

Document outcomes and follow up suspected records so new information can inform later site decisions.

Record the date, coordinates, work activity, site conditions, photographs, identification outcome and any actions taken. Escalate confirmed or suspected records through the project reporting process and to the relevant authority as required.

After habitat disturbance: 2. Review controls

Review whether the work method or footprint needs adjustment. Do not infer that an area is unoccupied from a search with no detections, as detectability is unknown.

Rehabilitation actions: 1. Restore the footprint

Species-specific rehabilitation requirements are not known. Avoid making unverified assumptions about habitat needs.

Reinstate disturbed areas in accordance with the approved rehabilitation plan, using suitable local materials and methods specified for the site. Avoid introducing materials or organisms from elsewhere.

Rehabilitation actions: 2. Record outcomes

Document the rehabilitation works and any millipedes observed during follow-up. A. lucyae has no established recovery time, target habitat condition or monitoring period.

Sources