Multipedal Creatures cannot count

The other day I was cleaning out some timber which was left over form my house building project (the original project was to re-build the house after it was moved in to Robertson from Sydney).

Anyway, I foolishly just threw some bits of good "3x2" hardwood (which had been used to reinforce the house during the original move) under the house. I figured that as they would be dry under the house, everything would be OK. Of course, "dry" is a relative term in Robertson, and anything in contact with the soil here will not be completely dry, ever. That means potential mould, potential insect attack, potential disaster.

Local wisdom has it that termites do not like Robertson's rich red basalt, so they are not a threat (supposedly). But why take the risk? Plus, in the Post- Marysville-Kinglake Fires era, it is obvious that an open-sided, under-house area (the house is built up at the deep end on brick piers) is a potential fire hazard. One should not discount the fact that I have local rainforest on the south-west of the house. It is not Eucalypt Forest. Local rainforest is established, historically, to be far less likely to burn (than Eucalypt forest), and if it does burn, it tends to burn slowly, not "explode".

All that aside, I have decided to clear out the under-floor area completely.

***** ***** *****

I made a start by pulling out the rubbishy bits of timber and spare "weatherboards" which I no longer need as spares, in view of the fact that I am replacing the timber boards with Hardiplank (in a profile matching the original Weatherboards, to suit the styling of the era of the original house).

Then it came to pulling out some really long boards of hardwood (those 3x2s I mentioned). I had used these long boards to strap down the tarpaulin which the removalist had supplied. He had made a supposed attempt to weather-proof the house after he had moved it here. His tarpaulins were really cheap and nasty and could not withstand the wind (firstly) and then the rain of that season. We had 12 inches of rain in February and 15 inches in May, that year. It nearly destroyed my little house before I could get the roof rebuilt. Fortunately, I got the roof re-built - properly, eventually, and then replaced much of the damaged interior plaster. Not a drop of moisture has entered the house since the newly rebuilt roof was completed.

***** ***** *****

What has all this got to do with nearly microscopic creatures?

Well, while I was under the house, pulling out the timber I noticed some signs of insect damage to the timber. Alarm bells rang in my mind. Were these Termites?

I quickly called my brother Brendan, (who is the builder doing most of the reconstruction work on the re-cladding project) and we examined these insects microscopically (courtesy of the camera's excellent new 105mm "Micro" lens). I could see immediately that they (whatever they were) had lots of legs. Termites have 6 legs (only), as they are classic "insects". So that was ruled out. But what were these little white creatures?

A "gorgeous Symphyla" according to Bob Mesibov.
I agree, now that I know it and its friends are not going to eat my house.
Click to see the full details of this tiny creature, and its very fine antennae.

Fortunately, last year I had met Australia's leading Millipede expert (or should that be Australia's "sole" Millipede expert?) - Bob Mesibov of Tasmania.

I sent Bob a message yesterday, with a photo and a query.

From several websites he runs, on behalf of the Tasmanian University, I had already worked out that my little creatures were likely to be a class of tiny "multipedes" known as Symphyla.

I knew it wasn't a Millipede (single legs, not paired) but when I went searching for Centipedes I found Bob's page on Tasmanian Multipedes, http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/zoology/multipedes/mulid.html

which led me to this statement:

• Symphyla have unbranched antennae, 12 pairs of legs and 2 tail-like appendages (cerci) at the rear end (below centre). Centipedes have at least 15 pairs of legs as adults. Some juvenile centipedes have fewer than 15 pairs of legs, but these juveniles can be distinguished from Pauropoda because the antennae are unbranched, and from Symphyla because the rear end lacks cerci.

I then found his page on Tasmanian Symphyla, which tells me:

• "Symphyla are small, blind, fast-running multipedes which can be very abundant in soil and forest litter. They are generally white, but dark-coloured gut contents can often be seen through the body wall. Not much is known about the biology of Australian native Symphyla. They occur in a wide range of macrohabitats and are believed to feed on soil microbes, both 'free' and attached to decaying wood and vegetation."
• http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/zoology/multipedes/tassymph/symintro.html

Bob kindly sent me the following reply, late last night.

Hi, Denis.

Gorgeous Symphyla, great picture, not a threat to anyone's house!

Cheers,
Bob
--
Dr Robert Mesibov
Honorary Research Associate
Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
School of Zoology, University of Tasmania

***** ***** *****

According to the texts, Symphyla generally have 12 pairs of legs, and unlike millipedes, they have a single pair of legs per body segment (Millipedes have legs in double pairs). That makes these creatures closer to tiny Centipedes, but Centipedes tend to have more legs (except in their immature stages).

And what is my point?

Well, several days ago my Blogging colleague, Martin, objected to the idea of re-classifying Fungi as their own separate Kingdom of creatures (separate from Plants). Fair enough, I grew up with the notion of certainty involved in the classic 3 classifications of Nature: Animal, Vegetable and Mineral. So I can sympathise with Martin in his loss of certainty.

I feel similarly disturbed by the idea that there are creatures out there - tiny creatures which we hardly even notice - which might have 11 or 12 pairs of legs, or that their larval stages might have fewer than the standard number.

What's wrong with these creatures? Haven't they read their own "Manual", which would tell them the proper number of legs for them to have?

We all know that "animals" (quadrupeds) have 4 legs (except in Humans, our "front legs" have become known as "arms", but we do have 4 limbs). Insects have 6 legs, Spiders have 8 (as do Octopuses), and Squid have 10 legs). These creatures known as Symphyla, supposedly have 12 pairs of legs, Centipedes might have up to 15 pairs (not 50 pairs despite their name) and Millipedes.... well, who knows? They do have "two pairs of legs on most posterior body segments". It seems the number of "body segments" might vary, depending upon their level of maturity.

Anyway, I find the casual attitude of many creatures to the number of legs they have quite disturbing. I just learnt that Mites have 8 legs, and so earn a place in the order Arachnida (Spiders and their allies). That's fine, but in their nymph stages of some species may have 6 legs, not 8. There's that casual attitude to Natural Design again. Can't these creatures count?

So, my little Symphyla appears to have 11 pairs of legs (not 12 that I can see). But I would have to say that it has a very handsome set of antennae, which were being waved around very actively.

The fact that this little creature was so active, and so small (I estimated it to be 3mm body and 2mm antennae) meant that it was a challenge to get a decent photograph. I was operating on the maximum close-up range of my "Macro Lens", and as I have to use the optical view finder, (not a digital preview screen), that means I have to get my head in there, and hold both my head and the camera steady (to within a few millimetres) or else the tiny creature goes out of focus. And while I am struggling to get it in focus, it runs under a piece of dirt - and I start all over again.

Its hard work taking clear photos of such tiny creatures. And it does not help the amateur naturalist, when he gets a clear photo (eventually) and looks up the appropriate references, to discover that the creatures themselves cannot count the correct number of legs on which to walk about - in the dirt and detritus which they so love.

But it is a cute Symphyla, as multipedes go!
I hope you agree with me.