Fauna Spotters logo

Roy Hill Antichiropus Millipede (Antichiropus sloanae)

The Roy Hill Antichiropus millipede is a recently described Pilbara millipede whose appearance, ecology and exact distribution are poorly documented. It is listed as Priority 1 on the WA DBCA priority fauna list, a DBCA priority category rather than a listing under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. Works in the Pilbara should use careful surveys and precautionary ground-disturbance procedures.

Conservation status

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

Seasonal activity

Seasonal activity and survey detectability are not documented for this species. The row below is a precautionary planning window only, not a claim that activity is uniform or that surveys will detect the millipede throughout the year.

Month values indicate a general planning level only and are not species-specific activity ratings.

  • Precautionary survey and works planning: Planning window only. No species-specific seasonal activity or detectability data are available; use a careful survey before disturbance whenever works are planned.

Identification: Appearance and size

Species-level field identification details are limited. Confirm suspected records with an experienced millipede taxonomist where possible.

The species' colour and body markings have not been described. Do not use an assumed appearance or size to rule out a possible record.

It belongs to Antichiropus, a genus of keeled millipedes. A male gonopod feature helps distinguish Antichiropus from some related genera, but it is not a practical external field character.

Identification: Similar species

Many Antichiropus species occur in the Pilbara, and a taxonomic review described 33 new species from the region. No field key is available to distinguish A. sloanae from these species.

Treat an unconfirmed Antichiropus observation as requiring expert identification rather than assigning it to this species from appearance alone.

Identification: Field signs

No distinctive tracks, feeding marks or resting sites are known for this species.

As general millipede survey practice, check suitable ground-level material carefully and photograph or document any candidate animal before it is handled or moved.

Distribution: Known range

Known records place the species in the Pilbara, but do not establish its full range.

The WA priority list identifies the Pilbara region. Atlas of Living Australia records show five Western Australian records at two distinct 0.1-degree locations, between latitude -22.5 and -22.4 and longitude 119.8 and 120.

This small mapped record footprint does not necessarily represent the species' full distribution. A type locality is not named.

Distribution: Regional context

The species was described in a review of Antichiropus from the Pilbara bioregion. The WA list identifies the Pilbara region for this species.

The WA status is Priority 1, meaning poorly known and known from few locations, with none on conservation lands. No national listing is given.

Habitat: Available information

Species-specific habitat is not recorded. Assess each site without assuming the species is restricted to a particular landform or vegetation type.

Vegetation, substrate, landform, geology and moisture conditions at occupied sites have not been described.

Do not use the small number of mapped records alone to conclude that apparently different habitat is unsuitable.

Habitat: Site assessment

Record site features in the survey area, including ground cover, surface material, soil condition and recent disturbance. These are survey observations, not confirmed habitat requirements for this species.

Where suitable ground-level search material occurs, include it in a precautionary millipede search and record its location and condition in field notes.

Foraging habitat: Diet and feeding

The species' diet, feeding behaviour and foraging habitat have not been documented.

No food items, feeding signs or seasonal feeding patterns are known for A. sloanae.

Identify a site as feeding habitat for this species only when supported by a confirmed observation or further species-specific evidence.

Foraging habitat: Field recording

During a survey, note any observed feeding activity and the immediate substrate or material involved, without treating a single observation as a general dietary requirement.

Avoid removing or rearranging potential feeding material unless needed for an authorised search and it can be returned carefully.

Breeding habitat: Breeding information

Breeding sites and reproductive timing are poorly known.

No information is recorded on mating, eggs, juveniles, breeding season or breeding habitat for A. sloanae.

Do not infer a breeding period from records of other millipedes or other Antichiropus species.

Breeding habitat: Precaution

If eggs, juveniles or a possible aggregation are encountered, record the location and conditions and seek advice from the project ecologist before disturbing the area.

Do not collect or relocate suspected breeding material without the required approvals and an agreed handling protocol.

Sheltering habitat: Known information

The species' sheltering sites and refuge requirements have not been documented.

There is no established evidence that the species uses any particular rock, log, litter layer or soil feature.

Sheltering habitat: Search approach

As general millipede survey practice, inspect ground-level cover and loose surface material carefully where present and permitted. Return disturbed material to its original position.

Avoid deep excavation or destructive searching unless it is authorised, justified by the survey plan and supervised by a suitably experienced person.

Threats: Known pressures

No specific threats to A. sloanae have been identified. Its Priority 1 status reflects poor knowledge and few known locations.

The species has no documented threat assessment.

DBCA list details state that the species is known from few locations and that none are on conservation lands. These details indicate limited documented coverage, not a confirmed cause of decline.

Threats: Works-related risk

Ground disturbance can affect animals or ground-level material encountered during works. This is a general precaution for millipedes, not a documented species-specific impact pathway.

Use the site's approval conditions and fauna management plan to set the response to any confirmed or suspected record.

Survey methodology: 1. Desktop assessment

No validated survey method, detection rate or survey season is established for this species. Use a documented, precautionary search and make the limits of detection clear.

Check current DBCA information, project records and available occurrence data before fieldwork. Known records point to the Pilbara and a small number of mapped locations, but do not define all occupied habitat.

Have the survey lead identify suitable search areas from site observations rather than assuming that the mapped points describe the species' full range.

Survey methodology: 2. Ground search

As general practice for ground-dwelling millipedes, search suitable ground-level cover and surface material methodically, where present and safe to inspect. Use a gentle approach and return material carefully.

Record search effort, conditions, searched features, photographs and any animals found. Do not claim species absence solely from a brief or non-detection survey.

Survey methodology: 3. Identification and records

Photograph candidate animals with a scale and record precise coordinates, date, habitat observations and the identification basis. Avoid unnecessary handling.

Seek expert confirmation where the identification is uncertain. Any collection or sampling must follow permits, approvals and project protocols.

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. Set survey scope

Plan works on the basis that the species is poorly known and may not be detected by a limited survey.

Review the proposed disturbance footprint and schedule a ground search of areas that can be safely accessed before clearing. Record methods and limitations.

Ask the project ecologist to consider known Pilbara records and the site's observed ground features when setting the search area.

Before habitat disturbance: 2. Brief the crew

Explain how to recognise a possible millipede record, who to notify and how to pause work locally while the observation is assessed.

Set out approved search and handling limits, including the requirement to avoid moving animals or material beyond the work area unless authorised.

During habitat disturbance: 1. Check the work area

Use careful ground disturbance and a clear stop-work response for a suspected record.

Where practicable, have the fauna spotter catcher check the active work area and ground material exposed by clearing before further disturbance.

Keep checks proportionate to the approved method and do not create additional disturbance to search beyond the authorised footprint.

During habitat disturbance: 2. Respond to a find

If a possible A. sloanae or an unidentified Antichiropus is found, pause disturbance in the immediate area and notify the project ecologist or fauna lead.

Photograph and record the animal in place if safe. Do not handle, collect or relocate it unless this is authorised and directed under the approved fauna procedure.

After habitat disturbance: 1. Record and report

Document outcomes and use confirmed records to guide any further work.

Document the location, date, work activity, search effort, identification confidence and any response taken. Submit records through the project reporting process and applicable DBCA channels.

Retain photographs and identification notes so uncertain records can be reviewed by a specialist.

After habitat disturbance: 2. Review remaining works

Before resuming locally after a find, confirm the response with the project ecologist and check any approval conditions or fauna management commitments.

Review whether the observation changes survey or disturbance controls for nearby work areas. Do not assume that one record defines the full extent of occupancy.

Rehabilitation actions: 1. Restore disturbed ground

No species-specific rehabilitation requirements are established. Follow approved site plans without presenting unverified habitat features as species requirements.

Reinstate ground surfaces and any retained surface material in accordance with the site's approved rehabilitation plan.

Where material was temporarily moved during an authorised search, return it carefully to its original location and arrangement where practicable.

Rehabilitation actions: 2. Monitor and adapt

Record rehabilitation actions and any subsequent millipede observations using consistent methods and locations.

Use confirmed records and advice from a suitably qualified specialist to inform future site controls. No species-specific rehabilitation success measure is established.

Sources