In addition, proponents and land managers should refer to the Recovery Plan (where available) or the Conservation Advice (where available) for recovery, mitigation and conservation information.
|EPBC Act Listing Status||Listed as Endangered|
|Recovery Plan Decision||
Recovery Plan required, this species had a recovery plan in force at the time the legislation provided for the Minister to decide whether or not to have a recovery plan (19/2/2007).
|Adopted/Made Recovery Plans||
Recovery Plan for the Pygmy Bluetongue Lizard Tiliqua adelaidensis (Duffy, A., L. Pound & T. How, 2012) [Recovery Plan].
|Policy Statements and Guidelines||
Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened reptiles. EPBC Act survey guidelines 6.6
(Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC), 2011m) [Admin Guideline].
Federal Register of
Declaration under s178, s181, and s183 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - List of threatened species, List of threatened ecological communities and List of threatening processes (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) [Legislative Instrument].
|State Listing Status||
|Non-statutory Listing Status||
|Scientific name||Tiliqua adelaidensis |
This is an indicative distribution map of the present distribution of the species based on best available knowledge. See map caveat for more information.
Scientific name: Tiliqua adelaidensis
Common name: Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard
Other names: Adelaide Blue-tongue Lizard
Conventionally accepted as Tiliqua adelaidensis (AFD 2010e).
The Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard is a grey, grey-brown or orange-brown reptile that grows to a total length of less than 20 cm. It has pale flanks, body, limbs and tail with scattered darker spots and blotches mixed with paler scales, a white/cream belly, scales with pale brown margins, and short limbs (Cogger 2000). On average, adult males have wider heads but are shorter than females (Hutchinson et al. 1994). The Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard is the smallest of the genus Tiliqua and, unlike the other members of the genus, it has a pink tongue (Duffy et al. 2012).
The Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard was rediscovered near Burra in South Australia in 1992, before which time the species was considered extinct. The species was only known from 20 historic museum specimens prior to its rediscovery. Currently it is known from 31 sites, in a range extending from Peterborough in the north, to Kapunda in the south and to the South Hummocks in the west (north of Port Wakefield) (Duffy et al. 2012). Sites include (Armstrong & Reid 1992; Armstrong et al. 1993; Duffy et al. 2012; Ehmann 1982):
- Dry Creek
- North Burra
The distribution of the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard is severely fragmented (Duffy et al. 2012).
Since 2005, annual counts have been undertaken within 1 ha monitoring plots at nine of the 31 known sites. However, the area of occupancy at each site, and the variation in habitat quality and lizard densities across these sites, remain unclear (Duffy et al. 2012).
The total population size of the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard is unknown. In 2000, a population estimate of around 5000 lizards was suggested based on ten sites. However, since 2000 a further 22 populations have been recorded. One population is believed to be extinct (Duffy et al. 2012). Population density is highly variable at the sites, and ranges from 15–200 individuals per hectare (Clarke 2000; Duffy et al. 2012).
The relative abundance of Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizards in European collections in the 19th century suggests that the species was formerly more common, and has undergone a marked decrease in distribution during the 20th century (Shea 1992 cited in Duffy et al. 2012).
Pre-1992 specimens of the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard were collected in chenopod and mallee scrublands with compacting or crusty sandy soils associated with hollow mallee lignotubers, low stump hollows, near surface limestone sheets, and large slab floaters. The species was thought to burrow into moisture pockets in limestone sheeting, under outcroppings and slabs, between mallee lignotubers and sheeting, and into insect hollowed lignotubers and trunks (Duffy et al. 2012; Ehmann 1982).
Post-1992 specimens of the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard have been found in a variety of habitats, ranging from highly degraded grasslands (dominated by exotic grasses) to grasslands with high native biodiversity. In addition, vegetation cover ranges from moderate to sparse or light (Pettigrew & Bull 2011 cited in Duffy et al. 2012). The lizard uses empty spider burrows of wolf (lycosid) and trapdoor (mygalomorph) spiders as refuges, basking sites and hunting ambush sites. Whilst Ehmann (1982) originally suggested the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard was adapted for digging, further studies have shown the species does not dig its own burrows nor adapt those it utilises to any great extent (Clarke 2000; Duffy et al. 2012).
The region in which Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizards occur has hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters, with mean annual rainfall ranging from 366 mm at Yongala, 446 mm at Burra, to 632 mm at Clare (Duffy et al. 2012; Milne & Bull 2000). The species is found in a variety of soil types, but are known to be more abundant in areas of free-draining grey-brown or red calcareous soils and lithosol soils (Duffy et al. 2012). The Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard are found in higher abundances on the lower slopes of hillsides (Duffy et al. 2012).
The species uses spider burrows approximately 20 mm in diameter within the spaces between tussocks in grasslands (or grassy woodlands). These burrows range in depth (from 10–75 cm), but are approximately 25 cm deep on average. Different sized burrows are favoured by adults (greater than 16 mm in diameter and with a depth of approximately 20 cm) and juveniles (smaller burrows often made by wolf spiders) (Clarke 2000; Milne et al. 2002). Aside from a slight bevelling of the burrow edges, caused by their movement, the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizards make no obvious external modifications to the holes (Duffy et al. 2012).
The lizards use the narrow, vertical spider burrows for shelter during the day, retreat sites for hiding, ambush sites for hunting passing prey, basking sites for thermoregulation, and birthing sites (Milne 1999 cited in Milne & Bull 2000). The Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard prefers deeper burrows when available. The species requires narrow diameters, often choosing holes that suit the width of the head to help avoid predation. A variety of burrow sizes would be required to support a population of different aged individuals (Duffy et al. 2012; Milne et al. 2002; Milne & Bull 2000; Souter et al. 2007).
The species does not favour any particular grassland type, having been recorded at sites dominated by native species including Spear Grasses (Austrostipa spp.), Wallaby Grass (Austrodanthonia spp.), Bluebush (Maireana spp.), Brush Wire-grass (Aristida behriana) and Iron-grasses (Lomandra spp.); and exotic vegetation including Thread Iris (Gynandriris setifolia), Onion Grass (Romulearosea spp.), Wild Oats (Avena barbata), Rats Tail Fescue (Vulpia myuros f. myuros) and Storks Bills (Erodium botrys and E. brachycarpum) (Hutchinson et al. 1994; Souter et al. 2007). The density of cover at ground and mid storey levels also varied at sites with ground cover varying from 62–74%, and shrubs cover varying from 5–30% (Duffy et al. 2012; Souter et al. 2007).
The Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard occurs in the Iron-grass Natural Temperate Grassland of South Australia ecological community, which is listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act (DSEWPaC 2012s).
The Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard is known to mate in spring, and, like other species of the genus, bear live young (Milne & Bull 2000). The males are more active than females in spring (October-November) most likely searching for mates (Duffy et al. 2012). Newly born young have been observed between January to late March, with the majority of births occurring in February. Young then disperse soon after birth (approximately 1–12 weeks) to find burrows of their own (Clarke 2000; Duffy et al. 2012; Milne & Bull 2000). Males can reproduce from approximately one year of age. Females are sexually mature between 1–2 years of age. Litter sizes range from one to four, and older females (longer than 10 cm) are known to produce larger litters. Juvenile mortality is high, with less than 10% of juveniles surviving until adulthood (Duffy et al. 2012).
In captivity, Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizards are known to live to at least 18 years of age (Hutchinson pers. comm. cited in Duffy et al. 2012).
The Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard is a generalist feeder. The spider burrows are used for both shelter and as vantage points from which to ambush passing invertebrate prey (Duffy et al. 2012; Ehmann 1982; Milne & Bull 2000).
The Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard is an omnivorous species that mainly feeds on medium-sized arthropods. In a study by Ehmann (1982), the stomach contents of four individuals contained mostly invertebrates, including ants, cockroaches, a beetle, a cricket, and a spider. One captive specimen had the tail of the skink Hemiergus in its gut.
Observations by Milne and colleagues (2003) have found that the species will consume flowers in the early part of spring. Analysis of scats (Fenner et al. 2007) suggests that, whilst the species is largely an opportunistic predator of mainly arthropod prey, vegetative material plays an important part of the diet as summer progresses. Seeds of Dianella and leaves and flowers of the introduced herb Medicago have been found in the scats. Generally, as summer progresses, more plant material is incorporated into the diet of the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard (Duffy et al. 2012; Fenner et al. 2007).
The Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard is a largely sedentary species, with most adults in a three year study by Milne (1999, cited in Milne & Bull 2000) moving no greater than 20 metres from their burrows (Milne 1999, cited in Milne & Bull 2000).
Habitat Loss, Disturbance and Fragmentation
All known populations of the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard occur on private land and may be threatened by agricultural disturbance or any changes that would permanently alter large areas of lizard habitat (Duffy et al. 2012; Milne 1999 cited in Milne & Bull 2000). Ploughing is a significant threat as it displaces lizards, destroys the spider burrows that are their main habitat requirement and breaks up the soil making any burrows that are subsequently created unstable and unsuitable for the lizards (Cogger et al. 1993; Duffy et al. 2012; Souter et al. 2007). Ripping is also a threat to the species, as any lizards or burrows in the path of ripping lines will be destroyed (Duffy et al. 2012).
Inappropriate grazing can also threaten the grassland habitat of the species, and crush spider burrows. This includes heavy grazing by hard-hoofed stock. However, removal of grazing may also threaten the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard due to increased weed invasion, and reductions in inter-tussock spaces (Duffy et al. 2012; Souter et al. 2007).
Urban and Industrial Development
Habitat modification for urban and industrial development is also a likely cause of this species' decline (Cogger et al. 1993). This includes the development of buildings, roads, wind farms (becoming increasingly common in the region) and telecommunications infrastructure. These activities may disturb native grassland or the lizards, or destroy their burrows directly (Duffy et al. 2012).
Fragmentation and Clearing
Many of the native vegetation types within the historical range of the species have been extensively cleared and fragmented. By 1995, native grasslands in South Australia had been reduced to around 0.3% of their original distribution (Hyde 1995 cited in Duffy et al. 2012). Soil which is either not deep enough or free-draining enough inhibits spiders from constructing suitable burrows, and therefore these areas lack habitat suitable for Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizards (Schofield 2006 cited in Duffy et al. 2012).
Smith and colleagues (2009) found restricted gene flow between sites containing the species. This resulted gene flow could be attributable to fragmentation of habitat, though there was also restricted gene flow within small sites in areas up to 30 m. This may indicate that the life history characteristics of the species are also important for the gene flow of the species. Maintaining continuous suitable habitat for the species will be important to avoid continued genetic differentiation between sites (Smith et al. 2009).
Weeds and Other Introduced Species
High and dense growth of weeds (particularly Wild Oats) may lead to decreased basking, hunting and mating opportunities. In addition, however, weed control activities may also threaten the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard if methods are high-disturbance or native species are affected (Duffy et al. 2012).
Ehmann (1982) suggests that predation by and competition with the introduced House Mouse (Mus musculus) may be involved in the lizard's decline, based on:
- The irregular occurrence of mouse plagues on the Adelaide Plain.
- The rareness of similar sized reptiles in grain growing areas where mice are common.
- Observations of a high incidence of tail stumps in the skink Ctenotus robustus due to chewing by mice.
Ehmann (1982) also suggests that some introduced species that could be prey for the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard should be considered as potential threats. The introduced Tenebrionid Beetle (Blaps polychestra), which has a posterior squirting chemical defence mechanism, is lethal to chickens and mice if eaten (Mathews 1975), and are now very common in the stony mallee areas of the Adelaide Plain (Ehmann 1982). A Pygmy Blue-tongue that took an offered small Blaps head first, exhibited salivation and eye watering after rejecting the bug quickly from its mouth. After 12 hours the lizard appeared fully recovered (Ehmann 1982).
Pesticide and Herbicide Spraying
The application of insecticides and other pesticides to control species (such as locust swarms) could affect the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard indirectly through loss of prey or perhaps directly through illness or death (as yet unknown). Direct application of pesticides to an area known to contain the species did not appear to cause any direct deaths (Clarke 2000), though both pesticides and herbicides have been attributed to fertility problems in some small vertebrates (Duffy et al. 2012).
Inappropriate Fire regimes
Fire was most likely a natural part of the grassland habitat of the species in the past. However, the increased fragmentation of Pygmy Blue-tongue habitat suggests a more significant impact if fires occur at inappropriate times (Duffy et al. 2012). Fires that occur in spring, when males are active, or in late summer and early autumn, when juveniles are dispersing, could be particularly detrimental (Duffy et al. 2012). Fenner and Bull (2007) found that whilst activity and body condition of Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizards decreased in an area burnt in late summer by a high intensity fire, female fecundity was not affected. Furthermore, it is suggested that fire could negatively impact the survivorship and dispersal of young during periods of increased nutritional stress in fragmented landscapes (Fenner & Bull 2007).
Changes to habitat structure
The planting of trees may alter the grassland nature of sites, and also provide predators with roosting and sheltering habitat, thereby increasing the predation risk to the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard (Duffy et al. 2012).
Climate change is a potential threat to the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard, its prey and habitat. While there is currently little knowledge of the effects of climatic conditions on Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizards, monitoring surveys recorded significantly lower fecundity, lower grass cover and more bare earth in 2007 and 2008 than in 2006 (Fenner pers. comm., Schofield pers. comm. cited in Duffy et al. 2012). These effects may be attributable to the prolonged drought in the region. Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizards could be particularly vulnerable to climate change due to the isolation and small extent of the remaining populations and suitable habitat. There would be very limited opportunities for dispersal or translocation if the current area of occupancy became unsuitable (Duffy et al. 2012).
There is a national recovery plan for the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard (Duffy et al. 2012). The overall objectives of this plan are as follows:
- Protect existing Pygmy Blue-tongue populations and habitat.
- Clarify distribution and abundance.
- Maintain, enhance and increase the area and quality of suitable habitat for Pygmy Blue-tongues at known populations.
- Monitor populations to evaluate the effectiveness of management and to detect trends which may require a management response.
- Fill critical knowledge gaps to help guide adaptive management and recovery of the species.
- Continue to engage the community and form partnership to promote the significance and improved management requirements of the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizards.
- Manage the recovery process through an effective recovery team.
More specifically, the ten-year targets associated with this plan include:
- To refine habitat predictors and indicators, and to search for Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizards in known potential habitat.
- To gain at least 75% of populations under formal protection or management agreements with landholders, and for the land to be actively managed for the conservation of Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizards.
- For land management practices at all known Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard sites to be sympathetic with Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard conservation requirements.
- For land management practices at all known Pygmy Blue-tongue sites to be sympathetic with Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard conservation requirements.
- To have determined the feasibility of reducing the fragmentation of populations, and increasing the area of occupancy.
The South Australian Herpetology Group received $5000, through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2003–04, for surveys by volunteers of 30 identified potential sites to verify the distribution of the species, and for inclusion of new records onto appropriate databases. This funding also assisted in raising awareness of the species amongst landholders, with identified new sites on their land, to prevent destructive activities such as ploughing and ripping for fodder plantings.
Milne & Bull (2000) suggest the use of artificial burrows to enhance existing populations and to encourage establishment of transplanted individuals to new population sites. Souter and colleagues (2004) investigated the addition of burrows to known Pygmy Blue-tongue habitat near Burra, South Australia and found that densities of the species increased significantly. They suggest that artificial burrow creation may benefit populations through lowering mortality of individuals whilst searching for cover, or by increasing recruitment success in an area (Souter et al. 2004). As many of the populations co-occur with sheep grazing, strategic grazing (rotational) has been suggested to maintain habitat quality (Clarke 2000).
Management documents for the Pygmy Blue-tongue Lizard can be found at the start of this profile.
The following table lists known and perceived threats to this species. Threats are based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) threat classification version 1.1.
|Threat Class||Threatening Species||References|
|Agriculture and Aquaculture:Agriculture and Aquaculture:Land clearing, habitat fragmentation and/or habitat degradation||Recovery Plan for the Pygmy Bluetongue Lizard (Tiliqua adelaidensis - 2000-2004 (Milne, T., M. Hutchinson and S. Clarke, 2000) [State Recovery Plan].|
|Agriculture and Aquaculture:Livestock Farming and Grazing:Grazing pressures and associated habitat changes||Recovery Plan for the Pygmy Bluetongue Lizard (Tiliqua adelaidensis - 2000-2004 (Milne, T., M. Hutchinson and S. Clarke, 2000) [State Recovery Plan].|
|Agriculture and Aquaculture:Livestock Farming and Grazing:Habitat loss and modification due to clearance of native vegetation and pasture improvements||Recovery Plan for the Pygmy Bluetongue Lizard (Tiliqua adelaidensis - 2000-2004 (Milne, T., M. Hutchinson and S. Clarke, 2000) [State Recovery Plan].|
|Ecosystem/Community Stresses:Indirect Ecosystem Effects:Loss and/or fragmentation of habitat and/or subpopulations|
|Ecosystem/Community Stresses:Indirect Ecosystem Effects:Restricted geographical distribution (area of occupancy and extent of occurrence)|
|Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species:Competition and/or habitat degradation by weeds|
|Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species:Grazing, competition and/or habitat degradation||Mus musculus (House Mouse)||The natural history and conservation status of the Adelaide Pygmy Bluetongue Lizard Tiliqua adelaidensis. Herpetofauna. 14 (1):61-76. (Ehmann, H.F.W., 1982) [Journal].|
|Natural System Modifications:Fire and Fire Suppression:Inappropriate and/or changed fire regimes (frequency, timing, intensity)|
|Residential and Commercial Development:Housing and Urban Areas:Habitat loss, modification and fragmentation due to urban development||The Action Plan for Australian Reptiles (Cogger, H.G., E.E. Cameron, R.A. Sadlier & P. Eggler, 1993) [Cwlth Action Plan].|
|Species Stresses:Indirect Species Effects:Low numbers of individuals|
Armstrong, G. & J. Reid (1992). The rediscovery of the Adelaide Pygmy Bluetongue Tiliqua adelaidensis (Peters, 1863). Herpetofauna. 22 (2):3-6.
Armstrong, G., J.R.W. Reid & M.N. Hutchinson (1993). Discovery of a population of the rare scincid lizard Tiliqua adelaidensis (Peters). Records of the South Australian Museum. 36:153-155.
Australian Faunal Directory (AFD) (2010e). Tiliqua adelaidensis. [Online]. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/taxa/Tiliqua_adelaidensis.
Clarke, S. (2000). Management of the Pygmy Bluetongue lizard (Tiliqua adelaidensis) on private grazing properties, Mid-North SA. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Cogger, H.G. (2000). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia - 6th edition. Sydney, NSW: Reed New Holland.
Cogger, H.G., E.E. Cameron, R.A. Sadlier & P. Eggler (1993). The Action Plan for Australian Reptiles. [Online]. Canberra, ACT: Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/action/reptiles/index.html.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2011m). Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened reptiles. EPBC Act survey guidelines 6.6 . [Online]. Canberra, ACT: DSEWPaC. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/threatened-reptiles.html.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2012s). Iron-grass Natural Temperate Grassland of South Australia. Species Profile and Threats Database. [Online]. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=37.
Duffy, A., L. Pound & T. How (2012). Recovery Plan for the Pygmy Bluetongue Lizard Tiliqua adelaidensis. [Online]. South Australia: Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/tiliqua-adelaidensis-2012.html.
Ehmann, H.F.W. (1982). The natural history and conservation status of the Adelaide Pygmy Bluetongue Lizard Tiliqua adelaidensis. Herpetofauna. 14 (1):61-76.
Fenner, A. & C.M. Bull (2007). Short-term impact of grassland fire on the endangered pygmy bluetongue lizard. Journal of Zoology. 272:444-450.
Fenner, A., M. Bull & M. Hutchinson (2007). Omnivorous diet of the endangered Pygmy Bluetongue Lizard, Tiliqua adelaidensis. Amphibia-Reptilia. 28:560-565.
Hutchinson, M.N., T. Milne & T. Croft (1994). Redescription and ecological notes on the Pygmy Bluetongue, Tiliqua adelaidensis (Squamata: Scincidae). Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia. 118(4):217-226.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2010). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. [Online]. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org.
Matthews, E.G. (1975). The Mediterranean beetle Blaps polychestra Forskal in South Australia (Tenebrionidae). South Australian Naturalist. 49 (3):35-39.
Milne, T. & C.M. Bull (2000). Burrow choice by individuals of different sizes in the endangered Pygmy Blue Tongue Lizard Tiliqua adelaidensis. Biological Conservation. 95:295-301.
Milne, T. & C.M. Bull & M.N. Hutchinson (2002). Characteristics of litters and juvenile dispersal in the endangered Australian skink, Tiliqua adelaidensis. Journal of Herpetology. 36:110-112.
Milne, T. & C.M. Bull & M.N. Hutchinson (2003). Use of burrows by the endangered pygmy blue-tongue lizard, Tiliqua adelaidensis (Scincidae). Wildlife Research. 30:523-528.
Smith, A.L., M.G. Gardner, A.L. Fenner & C.M. Bull (2009). Restricted gene flow in the endangered pygmy bluetongue lizard (Tiliqua adelaidensis) in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Wildlife Research. 36(6):466-478.
Souter, N.J., C.M. Bull & M.N. Hutchinson (2004). Adding burrows to enhance a population of the endangered pygmy blue tongue lizard, Tiliqua adelaidensis. Biological Conservation Vol. 116(3):403-408.
Souter, N.J., C.M. Bull, M.R. Lethbridge & M.N. Hutchinson (2007). Habitat requirements of the endangered pygmy bluetongue lizard, Tiliqua adelaidensis. Biological Conservation. 135(1):33-45.
This database is designed to provide statutory, biological and ecological information on species and ecological communities, migratory species, marine species, and species and species products subject to international trade and commercial use protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). It has been compiled from a range of sources including listing advice, recovery plans, published literature and individual experts. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken, by the Commonwealth for its accuracy, currency or completeness. The Commonwealth does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the information contained in this database. The information contained in this database does not necessarily represent the views of the Commonwealth. This database is not intended to be a complete source of information on the matters it deals with. Individuals and organisations should consider all the available information, including that available from other sources, in deciding whether there is a need to make a referral or apply for a permit or exemption under the EPBC Act.
Citation: Department of the Environment (2014). Tiliqua adelaidensis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:48:04 +1100.