APPLICATION FORM Containment

To obtain approval for new organisms in containment

Send to Environmental Protection Authority preferably by email ([email protected]) or alternatively by post (Private Bag 63002, Wellington 6140) Payment must accompany final application; see our fees and charges schedule for details.

Application Number

APP203043

Date

24 January 2017

www.epa.govt.nz 2

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Completing this application form

1. This form has been approved under section 40 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. It only covers importing, development (production, fermentation or regeneration) or field test of any new organism (including genetically modified organisms (GMOs)) in containment. If you wish to make an application for another type of approval or for another use (such as an emergency, special emergency or release), a different form will have to be used. All forms are available on our website. 2. If your application is for a project approval for low-risk GMOs, please use the Containment – GMO Project application form. Low risk genetic modification is defined in the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2003/0152/latest/DLM195215.html. 3. It is recommended that you contact an Advisor at the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as early in the application process as possible. An Advisor can assist you with any questions you have during the preparation of your application including providing advice on any consultation requirements. 4. Unless otherwise indicated, all sections of this form must be completed for the application to be formally received and assessed. If a section is not relevant to your application, please provide a comprehensive explanation why this does not apply. If you choose not to provide the specific information, you will need to apply for a waiver under section 59(3)(a)(ii) of the HSNO Act. This can be done by completing the section on the last page of this form. 5. Any extra material that does not fit in the application form must be clearly labelled, cross- referenced, and included with the application form when it is submitted. 6. Please add extra rows/tables where needed. 7. You must sign the final form (the EPA will accept electronically signed forms) and pay the application fee (including GST) unless you are already an approved EPA customer. To be recognised by the EPA as an “approved customer”, you must have submitted more than one application per month over the preceding six months, and have no history of delay in making payments, at the time of presenting an application. 8. Information about application fees is available on the EPA website. 9. All application communications from the EPA will be provided electronically, unless you specifically request otherwise.

December 2013 EPA0324 3

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Commercially sensitive information

10. Commercially sensitive information must be included in an appendix to this form and be identified as confidential. If you consider any information to be commercially sensitive, please show this in the relevant section of this form and cross reference to where that information is located in the confidential appendix. 11. Any information you supply to the EPA prior to formal lodgement of your application will not be publicly released. Following formal lodgement of your application any information in the body of this application form and any non-confidential appendices will become publicly available. 12. Once you have formally lodged your application with the EPA, any information you have supplied to the EPA about your application is subject to the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). If a request is made for the release of information that you consider to be confidential, your view will be considered in a manner consistent with the OIA and with section 57 of the HSNO Act. You may be required to provide further justification for your claim of confidentiality. Definitions

Restricting an organism or substance to a secure location or facility to prevent Containment escape. In respect to genetically modified organisms, this includes field testing and large scale fermentation

Any obligation or restrictions imposed on any new organism, or any person in relation to any new organism, by the HSNO Act or any other Act or any Controls regulations, rules, codes, or other documents made in accordance with the provisions of the HSNO Act or any other Act for the purposes of controlling the adverse effects of that organism on people or the environment

Any organism in which any of the genes or other genetic material:  Have been modified by in vitro techniques, or Genetically Modified  Are inherited or otherwise derived, through any number of replications, from Organism (GMO) any genes or other genetic material which has been modified by in vitro techniques

A new organism is an organism that is any of the following:  An organism belonging to a species that was not present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998;  An organism belonging to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar prescribed as a risk species, where that organism was not present in New Zealand at the time of promulgation of the relevant regulation;  An organism for which a containment approval has been given under the New Organism HSNO Act;  An organism for which a conditional release approval has been given under the HSNO Act;  A qualifying organism approved for release with controls under the HSNO Act;  A genetically modified organism;  An organism belonging to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar that has been eradicated from New Zealand;

December 2013 EPA0324 4

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

 An organism present in New Zealand before 29 July 1998 in contravention of the Act 1967 or the Plants Act 1970. This does not apply to the organism known as rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus, or rabbit calicivirus A new organism does not cease to be a new organism because:  It is subject to a conditional release approval; or  It is a qualifying organism approved for release with controls; or  It is an incidentally imported new organism

An individual or collaborative endeavour that is planned to achieve a particular Project aim or research goal

December 2013 EPA0324 5

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

1. Applicant details

1.1. Applicant

Company Name: (if applicable) University of Canterbury

Contact Name: Ximena Nelson

Job Title: Associate Professor

Physical Address: School of Biological Sciences, 20 Kirkwood Ave 8041, Christchurch

Postal Address (provide only if not the same as the physical): School of Biological Sciences, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch

Phone (office and/or mobile): 03-36492987 extn 4050, 02102853007 Fax: 03-3622590 Email: [email protected]

1.2. New Zealand agent or consultant (if applicable)

Company Name: (if applicable)

Contact Name:

Job Title:

Physical Address:

Postal Address (provide only if not the same as the physical):

Phone (office and/or mobile):

Fax:

Email:

December 2013 EPA0324 6

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

2. Information about the application

2.1. Type of containment activity Tick the box(es) that best describe your application

Application type Type of new organism

GMO Import into containment Non-GMO

Develop in containment i.e. regeneration, fermentation GMO or genetic modification Non-GMO

GMO Field test in containment Non-GMO

2.2. Brief application description

Approximately 30 words about what you are applying to do Import jumping (species in the family Salticidae) into an existing purpose- designed containment facility at the Univesity of Canterbury for research purposes.

2.3. Summary of application Provide a plain English, non-technical description of what you are applying to do and why you want to do it I run a purpose-designed spider containment facility at the University of Canterbury which has been in existence for over 40 years. This containment facility enables us to do world-class behavioural research on these animals. However, this group of animals has recently undergone a large amount of new systematics and taxonomic work, leading to the description of hundreds of new species, many of which are of exceptional importance for research on vision, cognition and decision-making, which is the area of expertise of my lab. Our existing list of approved species is thus now lacking several key species for this work and I would like to ensure that the list contains those species to maintain our ability to do this important research.

December 2013 EPA0324 7

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

2.4. Background and aims of application

This section is intended to put the new organism(s) in perspective of the wider activities that they will be used in. You may use more technical language but all technical words must be included in a glossary The research undertaking in the ‘spider lab’ at the University of Canterbury is exclusively concentrated on spiders in the family Salticidae, or jumping spiders. These spiders are world-renowned for their remarkable visual ability, rivalling that of primates (yet they typically measure less than 1 cm), and for behaviour that is also as complex as that of mammals, with evidence of ‘mental maps’ and forward- planning ability. This group of animals is thus a model to understand how animals can process information with very small brains and is of interest not only in the field of Biology but also, in wider terms, for the development of biorobotics.

The research undertaken in my lab is considered at the forefront of the work done world-wide on jumping spiders (see sample references appended below). This work leads New Zealand to be recognised as the world leader in terms of research on these animals which are the ‘smartest’ animals on the planet for their size - as a consequence jumping spiders are now intensively studied around the world.

Our research is in the area of behavioural ecology and neurophysiology of vision. We use behavioural and physiological techniques to investigate their visual ability and how this affects their remarkably complex behaviour. Specifically, we use a a combination of simple behavioural tests (e.g., prey choice experiments using ‘lures’ or dead insects mounted in a life-like posture or 3D animations of prey, to which they respond) and electrophysiology to make recordings from neurons in the visual pathway of the animals in response to stimuli (e.g., a flash of light, or a dot, or an object moving across their visual field).

December 2013 EPA0324 8

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

3. Information about the new organism(s)

3.1. Name of organism Identify the organism as fully as possible

Phylum Arthropoda Subphylum Class Arachnida Order Araneae Family Salticidae (jumping spiders, Blackwall 1841; see, http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/family/83/Salticidae)

I am applying for a permit to import spiders in the family Salticidae. This distinctive family of spiders (see below) has ongoing taxonomic and systematics work (Maddison 2015), with probably half of the species in the Southern hemisphere remaining undescribed. Thus, in applying for an approval to import species in this family, this avoids having to ammend the approval on an on-going basis as new species are described.

Non-GMOs - Provide a taxonomic description of the new organism(s).

GMOs – Provide a taxonomic description of the host organism(s) and describe the genetic modification.

Both -  Describe the biology and main features of the organism including if it has inseparable organisms.  Describe if the organism has affinities (e.g. close taxonomic relationships) with other organisms in New Zealand.  Could the organism form an undesirable self-sustaining population? If not, why not?  How easily could the new organism be recovered or eradicated if it established an undesirable self- sustaining population?

Biology and affinities The organisms applied for are all species of jumping spiders (Salticidae) and are non-GMOs. Salticidae are solitary animals in which females typically lay one batch of eggs (typically about 15-20, but varying in numbers from <10 to perhaps up to 60 or

December 2013 EPA0324 9

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment so in some species) within a silk nest after mating. After hatching (typically eggs take 3-4 weeks to hatch), spiderlings emerge from the eggsac within the nest ready to hunt within about three weeks. The lifespan of salticids is usually <1 y, of which over 75% of the time is in the juvenile (non-sexually mature) instars. Males and females use various signals in courtship, which include pheromones, vibrations, and especially visual signals. Jumping spiders, which typically measure between 1-8 mm, are the largest family of spiders world-wide (> 5,000 described species). These are not web-building spiders. Instead, they are solitary predators actively hunt their insect prey and are well-represented (although taxonomically poorly understood) in New Zealand (Vink 2015). Indeed, much of the work in the lab is comparative work comparing the behaviour and visual ability of the temperate New Zealand species with those from other habitats. Jumping spiders are a particularly interesting group of animals in which to investigate perceptual processes because of their exceptional cognitive attributes, including the ability to make detours while losing sight of the target, and other examples of forward planning. These feats are largely achieved as a result of their outstanding vision, with spatial acuity that is vastly superior to that of other animals of comparable size. The visual system is unique among spiders (these organisms are not inseparable from any other group of spiders; they are very different due to their visual system). Their visual system is distinct in being a modular system featuring highly specialized and anatomically distinct pairs of eyes: two pairs of forward-facing eyes, the anterior median (AM) and anterior lateral (AL) eyes, and the side-facing posterior median (PM, reduced in most species) and posterior lateral (PL) eyes. Following convention, the last three pairs of eyes are collectively referred to as ‘secondary eyes’. Together with the AM eyes (‘principal eyes’), the secondary eyes form an intricate modular visual system whose subsystems provide their bearer with the visual information needed. The AM eyes provide outstanding spatial acuity (as low as 0.04 degrees, or only one order of magnitude less than that of humans) and depth of field, but the high-acuity regions on the AM retinae are limited to fields of view of less than 1 degree and contain no more than a few hundred receptors. Jumping spiders bring the AM eyes to bear by orienting towards moving stimuli that are detected by the secondary eyes. It is the powerful combination of the minitaurasation that these eyes achieve and their outstanding ability that enables these animals to behave with a complexity unrivalled in animals of similar size.

Could the organism become an undesirable self-sustaining population? We have held and bred jumping spiders in quarantine for over 40 years, and none of the hundreds of species that we have held over this period have ever become established in this country, as there are no reports of them. Indeed, most species

December 2013 EPA0324 10

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment held in the spider lab could never become self-sustaining in New Zealand as they are tropical spiders and would not survive the winters in New Zealand. There are some species of temperate jumping spiders that theoretically could become self-sustaining in the unlikely event that a pregnant female escaped the containment facility. However, they typically lay few eggs and very few spiderlings survive their first two weeks of life, even in the lab. Coupled with the chance of surviving a year until sexual maturity and then, being solitary animals, finding a brother or sister with whom to mate, this chance is remote. Jumping spiders eat small insects (typically about half their body size, or up to about 4-6 mm) and act as pollinators, as they eat pollen and nectar. Given the low densities at which they ocurr naturally, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where these spiders, which are not aggressive and do not harm humans, or other mammals or birds, reptiles or amphibians, could be harmful.

Could it easily be eradicated? In the unlikely event that a spider or multiple spiders escape and form a self- sustaining population, the population is likely to be small and in a confined area. We have controls already in place in which we account for every individual spider, and its lab-bred progeny, from arrival through to destruction/death. Should a spider escape we would know immediately. Therefore, eradication may be possible, as these spiders live at low population densities and never reach high numbers in the wild.

3.2. Regulatory status of the organism

Is the organism that is the subject of this application also the subject of:

An innovative medicine application as defined in section 23A of the Medicines Act 1981?

Yes No

An innovative agricultural compound application as defined in Part 6 of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997?

Yes No

4. Information about the containment

4.1. For field tests: The nature and method of the field test

December 2013 EPA0324 11

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Describe the nature and method of the field test and the experimental procedures to be used Not applicable

4.2. Proposed containment of the new organism(s) (physical and operational) Describe how you propose to contain the new organism(s) after taking into account its ability to escape from containment (i.e. the possible pathways for escape) Salticids will be imported to NZ by air, with the required permits in place for each import. We import spiders from all over the world, but most commonly from and, until recently, () and Asia (Philippines). Juvenile or adult spiders will be packed using a triple level of containment. Our process is to individually cage spiders in screw-top vials. These vials are then placed within snap-lock plastic food storage containers which are then placed within a tied plastic bag. On arrival in New Zealand, and once cleared for importation, the unopened package/s will be transferred directly to the Spider Containment Facility where they are kept in cavity and bred in the lab.

We have an existing facility which is MPI-approved in accordance with MPI standard 154.02.08 – Transitional and Containment Facility for Invertbrates. The facility was purpose-built to contain spiders. The ‘Spider facility’ is contained internally within our building; this adds additional containment levels as there are two further internal spaces before a space with an external exit space it reached. The facility also has specific operational requirements to ensure an escape is extremely unlikely. Please see attached plans of the laboratory and building.

Containment in New Zealand is achieved by (i) identifying possible pathways for escape and then (ii) applying procedures to prevent escape via these pathways. These procedures have been developed into ‘best practice’ over the past 40 years. These procedures are detailed in the spider lab containment manual (attached).

On arrival in New Zealand, there are the following possible pathways for escape:

 During transport from the border to the containment facility.

 By accidental/ unobserved adult escape from the containment facility.

December 2013 EPA0324 12

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

 On contaminated laboratory equipment from the containment facility.

 By accidental/ unintentional or deliberate removal from the containment facility by human intervention.

 Following a natural disaster (e.g. earthquake) or accident (e.g. flooding or fire) that breaches the physical fabric of the containment facility.

These pathways will be mitigated as follows:

Escape of organisms during On arrival at Christchurch airport, the package/s transport to containment with spiders remains sealed until it arrives in the facilities designated containment facility, and so the spiders are contained within the triple layer detailed by IATA requirements. Border security agencies are instructed not to open the package. The package is collected by the lab manager and carried directly to the containment facility at the University of Canterbury. Any extraneous leaf material within the packages, which is needed to provide moisture for long-haul flights, will be disposed of as per protocol (microwave, freeze, autoclave; see below).

Accidental/unintentional Authorised persons permitted entry have received removal by authorised training in containment protocols to reduce the risk personal of escape. All project staff will be required to wear protective clothing in the containment facility which is to be removed before leaving. The levels of confinement as described above along with other measures such as sticky tape traps will further reduce the likelihood of escape via this pathway.

Deliberate removal by Security measures in place mitigate the risk of unauthorised personal unauthorised personel gaining access to the facility. This includes swipe cards only being issued to approved facility users.

Escape from contaminated Sterilisation of waste reduces the risk of organisms laboratory equipment and escaping. All waste generated in the secure rooms waste is triple-bagged, frozen, microwaved and autoclaved. The sinks are equipped with sink traps. The facility is kept in a clean and tidy condition with no unnecessary rubbish. Floors are mopped regularly and benches are regularly disinfected.

Escape due to a failure of There is inbuilt redundancy in the physical structure containment barriers of the containment design that reduces the risk of fracture during earthquakes. In the event of devastating fire, biohazard labelling in the facility

December 2013 EPA0324 13

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

will allow the spiders to be incinerated rather than risk their escape.

Once inside the containment facility, the spiders will be managed by implementing procedures detailed in the containment manual for the spider facility at the University of Canterbury (see attached file).

5. Māori engagement

Discuss any engagement or consultation with Māori undertaken and summarise the outcomes. Please refer to the EPA policy ‘Engaging with Māori for applications to the EPA’ on our website (www.epa.govt.nz) or contact the EPA for advice.

We have not consulted with Māori regarding this application.

6. Risks, costs and benefits

Provide information of the risks, costs and benefits of the new organism(s).

These are the positive and adverse effects referred to in the HSNO Act. It is easier to regard risks and costs as being adverse (or negative) and benefits as being positive. In considering risks, cost and benefits, it is important to look at both the likelihood of occurrence (probability) and the potential magnitude of the consequences, and to look at distribution effects (who bears the costs, benefits and risks).

Consider the adverse or positive effects in the context of this application on the environment (e.g. could the organism cause any significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat, cause any significant deterioration of natural habitats or cause significant adverse effect to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity, or is the organism likely to cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for or plant disease?), human health and safety, the relationship of Māori to the environment, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, society and the community, the market economy and New Zealand’s international obligations.

You must fully complete this section referencing supporting material. You will need to provide a description of where the information in the application has been sourced from, e.g. from in-house research, independent research, technical literature, community or other consultation, and provide that information with this application.

December 2013 EPA0324 14

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

As mentioned above (Section 3), the likelihood of these animals forming a population in the wild in New Zealand is close to nil, and I can think of no adverse impact of this happening. In areas were jumping spiders have been purposefully or accidently released (e.g., species in the USA, pers. obs. and Manolis et al. 2010), no harm has ever been reported from their presence (see Manolis 2010; no other reports despite a thorough literature search on the subject in Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar). Indeed, it seems likely that Helpis minitabunda, found in the North island of New Zealand, is originally from Australia (Zabka & Pollard 2002; Vink 2015), and no adverse effects of this species are known. There is no report, worldwide, on jumping spiders being disease-carriers to humans or any other animals (a search for ‘disease’ and ‘salticid’ or ‘jumping spider’ returns no results in Scopus, Web of Science and no relevant results in Google Scholar, apart from those described as beneficial, from our lab, in the following sentence). In fact, the only reports of them in this regard are positive, as they eat insects which tend to carry diseases (e.g., mosquitoes) and research from our lab has investigated a species that may be used for biocontrol of in Africa because it targets as prey the vector, mosquitoes (Jackson et al. 2005; Nelson and Jackson 2005; Jackson & Nelson 2012). No species of jumping spider is parasitic and I can not envision any way in which these spiders could cause harm to the community, society, the market economy, New Zealand’s international obligations, or have any adverse effect of the relationship of Māori to the environment, or on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. There is nothing in the literature about the adverse effects of jumping spider assemblages on plants, birds, or . Apart from their consideration in the biocontrol of Anopheles mosquitoes against malaria (Jackson et al. 2005; Nelson and Jackson 2005; Jackson & Nelson 2012), there is one report that jumping spiders have some use as biocontrol of phytophagous plant bugs attacking basil (Hoefler et al. 2006) and an anecdotal report of benefical effects against on cotton fleahoppers (Sterling et al. 1989). These species have very distinct species-specific courtship communication, using tactile, chemical (pheromones), vibratory, and visual cues (e.g., Jackson et al. 1990) and the likelihood of interbreeding with native New Zealand species is close to nil. I do not think it at all likely that these species would displace any native species shoud they manage to survive in the wild in New Zealand. This is because, as mentioned, they are very low density spiders and usually have quite specific microhabitats. For example, the two local species in Canterbury, planiceps and Marpissa marina, live exclusively in Phormium flax and under pebbles alongside waterways, respectively (pers. obs.; Jackson et al. 1990; Taylor & Jackson 1999). References: Hoefler CD, Chan A, Jakob EM 2006. The Potential of a Jumping Spider, Phidippus clarus, as a Biocontrol Agent. Journal of Economic Entomology 99:

December 2013 EPA0324 15

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

432-436. Jackson RR, Pollard SD, Macnab AM, Cooper KJ 1990. The complex communicatory behaviour of Marpissa marina, a New Zealand jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 17: 25-38. Jackson RR, Nelson XJ, Sune G 2005. A spider that feeds on blood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA) 102: 15155-15160. Jackson RR, Nelson XJ 2012. culicivora chooses blood-fed Anopheles mosquitoes but other East African jumping spiders do not. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 26: 233-235. Maddison WP. 2015. A phylogenetic classification of jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae). Joural of Arachnology 43: 231-292. Manolis T, Carmichael J. H.P. 2010. Discovery of a Mediterranean salticid, semilimbatus (Hahn 1927) introduced and established in California, USA. Pan-Pacific Entomologist 86: 131-134. Nelson XJ, Jackson RR, Sune G. 2005. Use of Anopheles-specific prey-capture behavior by the small juveniles of Evarcha culicivora, a -eating jumping spider. Journal of Arachnology 33: 541-548. Sterling WL, El-Zik KM, Wilson LT 1989. Biological control of pest populations. In: Integrated pest management systems and cotton production (eds. Sterling WL, El-Zik KM, and Wilson LT), Wiley & Sons. Taylor PW, Jackson RR 1999. Habitat-adapted communication in Trite planiceps, a New Zealand jumping spider (Araneae, Salticidae). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 26(2): 127-154. Vink CJ 2015. A Photographic Guide to the Spiders of New Zealand: New Holland Publishers (NZ) Ltd. Zabka M, Pollard SD 2002. A check-list of Salticidae (Arachnida: Araneae) of New Zealand. Records of the Canterbury Museum 16:73-82.

December 2013 EPA0324 16

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

7. Alternative methods and potential effects from the transfer of genetic elements This section is for developments of GMOs that take place outdoors and field tests of GMOs only

 Discuss if there are alternative methods of achieving the research objective.  Discuss whether there could be effects resulting from the transfer of genetic elements to other organisms in or around the site of the development or field test.

Not applicable.

8. Pathway determination and rapid assessment This section is for the imports of GMOs only

Under section 42B of the HSNO Act your application may be eligible for a rapid assessment. The pathway for your application will be determined after its formal receipt, based on the data provided in this application form. If you would like your application to be considered for rapid assessment (as per the criteria below), we require you to complete this section.

8.1. Discuss whether the GMO(s) to be imported fulfil the criteria

The criteria are:  The host organism(s) are Category 1 or 2 host organisms as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations  The genetic modifications are Category A or B modifications as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations and the modifications are not listed in the Schedule of these Regulations  The minimum containment of the GMO(s) will be as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations (PC1 or PC2 as per AS/NZS2243.3:2002)

Not applicable.

9. Other information

Add here any further information you wish to include in this application including if there are any ethical considerations that you are aware of in relation to your application.

No further information.

December 2013 EPA0324 17

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

10. Checklist This checklist is to be completed by the applicant

Application Comments/justifications

All sections of the application form completed Yes No or you have requested an information waiver (If No, please discuss with an under section 59 of the HSNO Act Advisor to enable your application to be further processed)

Confidential data as part of a separate, Yes No identified appendix

Supplementary optional information attached:

 Copies of additional references Yes No Also attacjed are contanement manuals and plans of the facility.

 Relevant correspondence Yes No

Administration

Are you an approved EPA customer? Yes No If Yes are you an: Applicant: Agent:

If you are not an approved customer, payment of fee will be by:  Direct credit made to the EPA bank Yes No account (preferred method of payment) Payment to follow Date of direct credit:

 Cheque for application fee enclosed Yes No Payment to follow

Electronic, signed copy of application e- Yes mailed to the EPA

December 2013 EPA0324 18

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Signature of applicant or person authorised to sign on behalf of applicant

I am making this application, or am authorised to sign on behalf of the applicant or applicant organisation.

I have completed this application to the best of my ability and, as far as I am aware, the information I have provided in this application form is correct.

Signature Date 24 Jan 2017

Request for information waiver under section 59 of the HSNO Act

I request for the Authority to waive any legislative information requirements (i.e. concerning the information that has been supplied in my application) that my application does not meet (tick if applicable).

Please list below which section(s) of this form are relevant to the information waiver request:

December 2013 EPA0324 19

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

Appendices and referenced material (if any) and glossary (if required)

Appendices (and relevant references to the application) have been attached as separate files on the email.

Selected references (since 2001) by applicant orginating from Spider Lab (in addition to >300 additional references published over the previous 40 years by members of the spider lab). Copies of most of these can be downloaded at: http://ximenanelson.weebly.com/publications--all.html

1. Nelson, X. J. Card, A. 2016. Locomotor mimicry in ant-like spiders. Behavioral Ecology In Press, doi: 10.1093/beheco/arv218. 2. Dolev, Y., Nelson, X. J. 2016. Biological relevance affects object recognition in jumping spiders. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 53, 42-53. doi:10.1080/03014223.2015.1070183 3. Dolev, Y., Nelson, X. J. 2014. Innate pattern recognition and categorization in a jumping spider. PLoS ONE 9, e97819. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097819. 4. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2014. Timid spider uses odor and visual cues to actively select protected nesting sites near ants. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 68, 773-780. doi:10.1007/s00265-014-1690-2 5. Nelson, X. J. 2014. Evolutionary implications of deception in mimicry and masquerade. Current Zoology 60, 6-15. 6. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2013. Hunger-driven response by a nectar-eating jumping spider to specific phytochemicals. Chemoecology 23, 149-153. 10.1007/s00049-013-0130- 5 7. Nelson, X. J., Pratt, A. J., Cheseto, X., Torto, B., Jackson, R. R. 2012. Mediation of a plant-spider association by specific volatile compounds. Journal of Chemical Ecology 38, 1081-1092. doi:10.1007/s10886-012-0175-x. 8. Zurek, D. B., Nelson, X. J. 2012. Hyperacute motion detection by the lateral eyes of jumping spider. Vision Research 66, 26-30. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2012.06.011 9. Nelson, X. J., Warui, C. M., Jackson, R. R. 2012. Widespread reliance on olfactory sex and species identification by Lyssomanine and Spartaeine jumping spiders. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 107, 664-677. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01965.x 10. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2012. How spiders practice aggressive and Batesian mimicry. Current Zoology 58, 620-629. 11. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2012. The discerning predator: decision rules underlying prey classification by a mosquito-eating jumping spider. Journal of Experimental Biology 215, 2255-2261. doi: 10.1242/jeb.069609. 12. Zurek, D. B., Nelson, X. J. 2012. Saccadic tracking of targets mediated by the anterior- lateral eyes of jumping spiders. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 198, 411-417. doi:10.1007/s00359-012-0719-0 13. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2012. The role of numerical competence in a specialized predatory strategy of an araneophagic spider. Animal Cognition 15, 699-710. doi:10.1007/s10071-012-0498-6 14. Jackson, R. R., Nelson, X. J. 2012. Attending to detail by communal spider-eating spiders. Animal Cognition 15, 461-471. doi:10.1007/s10071-012-0469-y 15. Jackson, R. R., Nelson, X. J. 2012. Specialized exploitation of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) by spiders (Araneae). Myrmecological News 17, 33-49.

December 2013 EPA0324 20

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

16. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2012. Fine tuning of vision-based prey-choice decisions by a predator that targets malaria vectors. Journal of Arachnology 40, 23-33. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1636/Hill-61.1. Featured in the blog for malaria professionals, ‘malariaworld’. 17. Nelson, X. J. 2012. A predator’s perspective of the accuracy of ant mimicry in spiders. Psyche Article ID 168549. doi:10.1155/2012/168549 18. Jackson, R. R., Nelson, X. J. 2012. Evarcha culicivora chooses blood-fed Anopheles mosquitoes but other East African jumping spiders do not. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 26, 233-235. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2915.2011.00986.x 19. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2011. Evidence that olfaction-based affinity for particular plant species is a special characteristic of Evarcha culicivora, a mosquito-specialist jumping spider. Journal of Arachnology 39, 378-383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000132. 20. Jackson, R. R., Nelson, X. J. 2011. Reliance on trial and error signal derivation by Portia africana, an araneophagic jumping spider from East Africa. Journal of Ethology 29, 301- 307. doi:10.1007/s10164-010-0258-5 21. Zurek, D. B., Taylor, A. J., Evans, C.S., Nelson, X. J. 2010. The role of the anterior lateral eyes in the vision-based behaviour of jumping spiders. Journal of Experimental Biology 213, 2372-2378. doi:10.1242/jeb.042382 22. Jackson, R. R., Salm, K., Nelson, X. J. 2010. Specialized predatory behaviour of two East African assassin bugs, Scipinnia repax and Nagusta sp. that prey on social jumping spiders. Journal of Insect Science 10, 82. doi:i1536-2442-10-82 23. Nelson, X. J. 2010. Polymorphism in an ant mimicking jumping spider. Journal of Arachnology 38, 139-141. Cover. doi:10.1636/Hi09-36.1 24. Nelson, X. J. 2010. Visual cues used by ant-like jumping spiders to distinguish conspecifics from their models. Journal of Arachnology 38, 27-34. doi:10.1636/Hi09-35.1 25. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2009. Aggressive use of Batesian mimicry by an ant-like jumping spider. Biology Letters 5, 755-757. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0355 26. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2009. Prey classification by an araneophagic ant-like jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). Journal of Zoology 279, 173-179. doi:10.1111/j.1469- 7998.2009.00602.x 27. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2009. Collective Batesian mimicry of ant groups by aggregating spiders. Animal Behaviour 78, 123-129. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.04.005 28. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2009. The influence of ants on the mating strategy of a myrmecophilic jumping spider (Araneae, Salticidae). Journal of Natural History 43, 713- 735. doi:10.1080/00222930802610469 29. Jackson, R. R., Nelson, X. J., Salm, K. 2008. The natural history of Myrmarachne melanotarsa, a social ant-mimicking jumping spider. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 35, 225-235. doi:0301-4223/08/3503-0225 30. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2008. Anti-predator crèches and aggregations of ant- mimicking jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 94, 475-481. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01006.x 31. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2007. Complex display behaviour during the intraspecific interactions of myrmecomorphic jumping spiders (Araneae, Salticidae). Journal of Natural History 41, 1659-1678. doi:10.1080/00222930701450504 32. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2007. Vision-based ability of an ant-mimicking jumping spider to discriminate between models, conspecific individuals and prey. Insectes Sociaux 54, 1-4. doi:10.1007/s00040-006-0901-x 33. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2006. A predator from East Africa that chooses malaria vectors as preferred prey. PLoS ONE 1(1): e132. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000132 34. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2006. Vision-based innate aversion to ants and ant-mimics. Behavioral Ecology 17, 676-681. doi:10.1093/beheco/ark017 35. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R., Li, D. 2006. Conditional use of honest signalling by a Batesian mimic. Behavioral Ecology 17, 575-580. doi:10.1093/beheco/arj068

December 2013 EPA0324 21

Application Form Approval for new organism in containment

36. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R., Li, D., Edwards, G. B., Barrion, A. T. 2006. Innate aversion to ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and ant mimics: experimental findings from mantises (Mantodea). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 88, 23-32. 10.1111/j. doi:1095- 8312.2006.00598.x 37. Nelson, X. J., Li, D., Jackson, R. R. 2006. Out of the frying pan and into the fire: a novel trade-off for Batesian mimics. Ethology 112, 270-277. doi:10.1111/j.1439- 0310.2006.01155.x 38. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2006. Compound mimicry and trading predators by the males of sexually dimorphic Batesian mimics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 273, 367-372. Cover. doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3340 39. Jackson, R. R., Nelson, X. J., Sune, G. 2005. A spider that feeds on vertebrate blood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA) 102, 15155-15160. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507398102 40. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R. 2005. Use of Anopheles-specific prey-capture behavior by the small juveniles of Evarcha culicivora, a mosquito-eating jumping spider. Journal of Arachnology 33, 541-548. doi:10.1636/05-3.1 41. Nelson, X. J., Jackson, R. R., Edwards, G. B., Barrion, A. T. 2005. Living with the enemy: jumping spiders that mimic weaver ants. Journal of Arachnology 33, 813-819. doi:10.1636/S04-12.1 42. Jackson, R. R., Nelson, X. J., Pollard, S. D., Edwards, G. B., Barrion, A. T. 2004. Predation by ants on jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) in the Philippines. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 31, 45-46. doi:0301-4223/04/3101-0045 43. Jackson, R. R., Pollard, S. D., Nelson, X. J., Edwards, G. B., Barrion, A. T. 2001. Jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) that feed on nectar. Journal of Zoology 255, 25-29. doi:10.1017/S095283690100108X

December 2013 EPA0324