Archive for Famous Birders
I love a good appendix.
Lest you think I’m starting an especially ghoulish Halloween especially early, let me hasten to explain:
One of the best parts of Burtt and Davis’s Alexander Wilson is the two-page
list of books available to Alexander Wilson relating to zoology, especially ornithology, in the libraries of the American Philosophical Society, Library Company of Philadelphia, and William Bartram,
a hugely informative catalogue followed by tables indicating how often Wilson cited each. These few precious pages answer lots of questions — and raise even more that we might not even have thought to ask. And they give us a good sense of just how sloppy a bibliographer Wilson could occasionally be.
In the third volume of the American Ornithology, Wilson announces the discovery of a bird he named Sylvia magnolia, the black and yellow warbler.
He had collected two himself, and notes that Charles Willson Peale had earlier encountered “this elegant species” in the Philadelphia area.
With the pride of an immigrant, Wilson reminds his reader that
No notice has ever been taken of this bird by any European naturalist whose works I have examined.
In 1758, eight years before Wilson’s birth, George Edwards presented a fine plate (better than Wilson’s) and a thorough description of the “yellow-rumped fly-catcher,” a bird he had received “preserved dry” from none other than a very young William Bartram, the very man who would nearly half a century later become Wilson’s patron and encourager. To Bartram goes the honor of discovery.
Mathurin Brisson introduced the bird to continental readers in 1760, citing and largely translating Edwards’s text in the third volume of the Ornithologie. Buffon referred to both Edwards and Brisson for this species, taking the opportunity to gently reproach the Englishman for calling it a moucherolle – a flycatcher — rather than a warbler. John Latham listed the species in his Synopsis in 1783. Two years later, Thomas Pennant included a description of the species in the Arctic Zoology. In 1788, Wilson’s “new” warbler entered the Linnaean canon when it was listed in Gmelin‘s edition of the Systema. Latham used Gmelin’s name, maculosa, in his Index of 1790, published four years before Wilson arrived in America.
I’ve piled up all those names and dates and references to make my point even more, ahem, pointed.
According to Burtt and Davis, Wilson in the American Ornithology cites Edwards 55 times, William Bartram 62 times, Brisson 82 times, Buffon 151 times, and Latham 173 times. He refers to Gmelin only once — and to Gmelin’s English translator, Turton, 64 times.
But not once, in the course of consulting these standard works a minimum of 588 times, did Wilson come across Edwards’s yellow-rump.
Why not? He just plain overlooked it, obviously. But little lapses like this only make their scarcity the more impressive in Wilson’s monumental work.
If you made it to the end of that heap of names and dates a couple of paragraphs up, you will be wondering what ever happened to Dendroica maculosa. To Wilson’s great and good posthumous fortune, Gmelin’s name Motacilla maculosa turned out to have already been used in 1783 by Boddaert to name the Karoo prinia. Wilson’s name, published in 1811, was the next available.
It’s October now, and they’re everywhere here in northern New Jersey, woods and thickets and messy backyards full of their homely little tock notes.
Yellow-rumped warblers are so abundant and so familiar that we can forget that they had to be “discovered” for European science. But it should be easy enough to find out who deserves credit for shooting and describing the first one.
This is a Creeper, and seems to be of the Tit-kind. The most distinguish’d Part of this Bird is its Rump, which is yellow. All the Rest of the Feathers are brown, having a faint Tincture of Green. It runs about the Bodies of Trees, and feeds on Insects, which it pecks from the Crevises of the Bark. The Hen differs little from the Cock in the Colour of its Feathers.
None too informative, is it? Fortunately, Catesby’s plate should clear things up.
Or so one might think.
Recently, most ornithologists have been content to identify Catesby’s yellow-rump with our yellow-rump, the bird now known as Setophaga coronata; it’s as good a guess as any, though I often wonder whether we might not be looking at, and Catesby describing, one of those so dull Cape May warblers one runs into this time of year.
What we do know is that Linnaeus, who named so many organisms in reliance on Catesby’s Natural History, did not believe that Catesby had depicted coronata, which the Archiater described instead from a handsome and well-detailed plate by George Edwards (whose Motacilla corona aurea was, of course, the inspiration for the Linnaean name).
Edwards, too, another of Catesby’s closest readers, failed to recognize in the old “yellow-rump” the warbler he, Edwards, was describing; indeed, he says in 1760, 28 years after the first publication of the Catesbeian plate, that
these birds, I think, may safely be pronounced non-descripts,
that is, members of a species not yet formally described to science.
What do you think? Is Mark Catesby’s “yellow-rump” a yellow-rump?
George N. Lawrence, born on this date in the long-ago year of 1806, was still a familiar figure at the American Museum four score years later, at the beginning of Frank Chapman’s career as an ornithologist.
Chapman would later report in his Autobiography that the
kindly-faced gentleman … came at times to compare some recently received birdskin, and, doubtless, also for the pleasure of being with the specimens it had taken him nearly a lifetime to acquire,
specimens he had sold to the museum.
One day, Lawrence showed up with an unfamiliar hummingbird from Colombia, and Chapman, “with characteristic excess of enthusiasm over discretion,” determined that it was an entirely new species, one that he, with the older ornithologist’s blessing, formally described in the pages of the Bulletin in July 1889, under the name Amazilia aeneobrunnea:
This new species is so remarkably distinct as to scarcely require comparison with any other member of the genus.
But there was a catch, as Chapman reported in October of that year:
Since publishing [the] description of Amazilia aeneobrunnea … I happened to handle a Bogota example of Chrysolampis mosquitus…. A re-examination of the type of aeneobrunnea showed that the body [belonged] to this species [namely, Chrysolampis mosquitus], while the head and neck were those of Chlorostilbon haberlini.
Chapman had been fooled by a fake, “one of those taxidermal deceptions which not infrequently puzzle and sometimes, as in the present case, completely deceived unsuspecting ornithologists.” At least, he added wryly, he could have “the peculiar pleasure of placing the body” of the hummingbird “in one genus and the head in another.”
Before his retraction was published, Chapman had a chance to show the specimen to Daniel Giraud Elliot, the author of an important monograph on the hummingbirds. Chapman writes that
barely had he glanced at it when, looking at me over the tops of his glasses, he said, “See here, my boy, there’s something wrong,”
whereupon Chapman showed Elliot — possessor of “a boyish heart” and a “love of birds and fun” — the manuscript of his palinode.
What Lawrence had to say about it all I know not.
What would any of us do without the Biodiversity Heritage Library? Those millions of scanned pages answer questions we might not even have dared ask twenty years ago, and I can’t count the hours of sloggery and the gallons of gasoline they’ve saved me.
Every once in a great while, though, one runs across a scanning error: a pudgy thumb across the text, a blurry page, even — on the rarest of occasions — a missing leaf. Sometimes what is not here truly was not there: not every old book has come down to us intact. But most of the time the pages were simply flipped too fast and something was missed.
Happily, it’s easy to report problems like that, and the response from members of the BHL staff is always prompt and helpful. And sometimes, in the meantime you can help yourself.
Lately I’ve become interested in the history of the toucans, a group second only to the hummingbirds in their power to conjure up the exotic for European naturalists and collectors.
My favorite is the curl-crested aracari, a bizarre little toucan first collected in (apparently) Peru not even 200 years ago. Oddly, this weird but appealing species did not accumulate much of a pictorial record in the years after its discovery. Obviously, it is found in John Gould’s Monograph:
and in the German translation by the Sturms of Gould’s second edition:
Pickin’s are otherwise slender from those early days, and so I was excited to run across a reference to another example, a painting published in the Magasin de zoologie in 1836.
And of course the BHL includes the Magasin.
But somebody at the Museum of Comparative Zoology nodded at the scanner, and the digital book goes from Plate 61 — a handsome magpie shrike — to Plate 63 — a great shrike-tyrant. The aracari was Plate 62.
Frustrating. But then again….
The plates in this volume of the Magasin bleed noticeably through the paper, leaving the ghost of a mirror image on each otherwise blank verso page. This one does, too: our Plate 62 may be missing digitally, but it was clearly present physically.
A little primitive photo editing:
Pretty it ain’t, but it’s good enough to answer the questions I had wanted to pose of the image. First, the nomenclature used is that of Gould’s first edition, in which the bird is called Pteroglossus ulocomus. And second, more importantly, the image is not based on Gould’s, but is an original (if not overly imaginative) composition.
The explanatory text accompanying the plate is preserved on line. We learn there that this specimen, “the first of this pretty species” to be brought to France, and “perhaps to Europe,” was brought back by the surgeon of La Favorite from that ship’s circumnavigation of the world under the command of Captain Laplace.
Aha. I knew that the ornithological volume from that voyage had appeared in 1839, after long delays; but was it illustrated?
Back to BHL. And BHL comes through.
Our little toucan, the “aracari à crête bouclée,” is the very first species treated in the report, in an account taken verbatim from that published in the Magasin in 1836. And it is depicted, happy wonder, on Plate 10, engraved after a painting by Edouard Traviès.
Here it is, in all its ramphastid glory.
It was the long way around, but well worth it. And can you imagine how long it would have taken us if we’d had to go to the library — the old-fashioned kind, I mean?
Whenever we’re invited to a wedding out of town, the second thing we check is the bridal registry.
And the first?
Do you have to ask?
Nowadays we just pull a field guide off the shelf or call up an eBird map or two—luxuries that were not available to Auguste von Leuchtenberg when, in August 1829, he left Munich to escort his younger sister Amélie to a wedding in Rio de Janeiro. The wedding was hers: the seventeen-year-old princess had been married by proxy three months earlier to Dom Pedro I and was now the empress of Brazil.
Auguste—at that time still just the duke of Leuchtenberg and prince of Eichstätt, but the future prince consort of Portugal—spent much of his time in Brazil birding. Who wouldn’t?
In April 1831, Johann Georg Wagler reported on some of the natural history specimens Auguste had brought back from his journey. Wagler was greatly impressed by the duke’s haul of insects:
The insect collection is remarkably rich, and the dazzling beauty of certain of them exceeds any splendor that the entomologist’s eye has ever beheld in the world of these wondrous little creatures. Brazil has not entrusted its gold and gemstones to the depths of the earth alone: No, it has also lavishly adorned its insects with it, and radiant with such glitter, or clad in the deepest purple or in the purest most ethereal blue, they may remind the traveler of that great menagerie described in the most ancient of all books or of the enchanted gardens of the Hesperides.
Among the many noteworthy mammals brought back to Eichstätt were two howler monkeys and a vampire bat with a wingspan approaching two feet, that last captured by the duke himself “in his bedroom, where, harpy-like, it was fluttering about him eerily.” The party even brought a few mammals back alive, including agoutis, white-lipped peccaries, and “an extremely sweet and confiding” golden marmoset, which Auguste installed in a greenhouse for the northern winter.
If Wagler’s account of the Brazilian insects is a bit florid, he waxes ecstatic about the birds of South America.
No other continent can match the feathered wildlife of Brazil in its—I might almost say—extravagantly magnificent colors…. Shall I remind you of the great throng of hummingbirds, those pygmies among birds, which incline the blazing fires of their heads and their glowing throats toward the calyces of luxuriantly blooming flowers, as if to singe with their flame any blossom that would dare compete with them for the golden apple? Shall I recall to you the toucans with their saffron-colored throats, birds of blood red, azure, and hyacinthine blue?
Wagler found much that he thought was new among the specimens Auguste had returned with. On the duke’s suggestion, he went on to name three of the hummingbirds for members of the noble family: Trochilus Amalia for the newly minted empress, Trochilus Theodolinda for August and Amélie’s sister the countess of Württemberg, Trochilus Maximiliani for their thirteen-year-old brother.
None of those names stuck, of course. Wagler would seem to have figured out—if he didn’t already know— that the skins from Brazil represented species already known and named, and he never proceeded to publish formal descriptions for any of his “new” hummingbirds, some of which may today be in the collections of the Gabrieli Gymnasium in Eichstätt. None of them can be identified with a currently recognized species, making Wagler’s well-intentioned names nomina nuda (or “nomen nudums,” as I recently heard said).
Still, it was a nice thought, and the ducal family must have been grateful.