VENT Nebraska: Day Six

greater prairie chicken videoAnother early morning and another prairie grouse species in display — this time greater prairie-chickens, 20 minutes straight north of Mullen. Unlike the whirligig antics of the sharp-tails, the booming of the prairie-chickens is a stately affair, but no less deadly serious to the performers.

greater prairie chicken, Nebraska, MarchThis lek was a bit on the small side last year, but today we counted no fewer than 32 males at one point, no doubt drawn in by the apparent presence of an early hen or two doing a little window shopping.

The eerie moaning was still echoing in our ears when we left the lek for breakfast. Eggs and hashbrowns sounded awfully good, but we wound up making one unscheduled stop for a big dark bird on a telephone pole.

ferruginous hawkFerruginous hawks are uncommon winterers and scarce breeders in the Nebraska Sandhills, and we don’t always get the lingering views this one granted us; we were even able to step out of the shuttle for photos, and the bird was still perched above the road when we left.

After breakfast — another good one at the Meadowlark Cafe — we bade farewell for the drive south to North Platte, interrupted by a quick stop to look at a couple of roadside pronghorn (much better views than the pair we’d had at a distance the day before).

cackling gooseThe pond at Cody Park gave us the expected close views of cackling geese, often standing or swimming right next to Canadas; there was also a lone trumpeter swan, and the usual congregation of ducks included scattered redheads, common goldeneye, and lesser scaup.

And then back to civilization — or at least to what passes for civilization in the form of interstate 80. We zipped along to Grand Island, checked in to our hotel, and had dinner before driving south to the Alda bridge for another fine evening with the cranes. The stiff breeze cleared the human crowds out pretty quickly, nd by the time we left there was nothing to hear but the roar of the flocks settling above and below the bridge. Just as it should be.

Share

VENT Nebraska: Day Five

Daylight saving time and Mullen’s position right on the eastern border of the Mountain Time Zone came together to let us sleep in — kind of. We were in the shuttle at 5:30 this morning and on our way to the lek of the sharp-tailed grouse, about 25 minutes east of Mullen (and back, I think, in Central Time).

sharp-tailed grouse portraitIt wasn’t long before the eastern sky brightened and we heard the first low hoots and cackles of the grouse. As the light rose, we saw eleven males dancing on the lek, stamping their furred feet and rattling their tail quills as the faced off in the grass.

sharp-tailed grouse stare-downThe birds can be a little lethargic this early in the season some years, but they were active, even frantic, the entire three hours we sat and watched.

sharp-tailed grouseThe show was absorbing, but we were still able to peel our eyes away to enjoy a distant Richardson’s merlin tearing her breakfast to bits on the ground below the next ridge.

Sharp-tailed GrouseThe birds took a break about 9:00, and we seized the opportunity to step back into the shuttle and ride to a well-deserved big breakfast in Mullen. And then, after a break at our motel, it was more birding for those who wanted to come along.

banded swansThere was still ice on some of the big Sandhills marshes to the west, but every patch of open water was nicely packed with waterfowl, especially common mergansers and redheads by the hundreds. Among the trumpeter swans already in command of their breeding marshes was the bird in the photo above, a male by behavior (and possibly by size), wearing a red neck collar that Jonathan’s photo showed to read “R27.” Eager to hear where and when this one was banded.

The Hyannis cemeter has been a minor hot spot of sorts the past couple of years, and it came through again this time when a Townsend solitaire popped out of a red cedar as we got out of the van.

Townsend solitaireAs birds of this species are wont to do, it disappeared into the needles for a few minutes, but then re-appeared atop a gravestone to give everyone outstanding leisurely views — and me this lousy photo.

The junco show was less satisfying. As we stood and waited, in vain, for the two or three we had flushed to come back out of the grass, though, another movement caught our eye on the ground beneath the trees.

common redpollCommon redpolls! I am almost never in Nebraska when they are, and it was a delight — I think for all of us — to watch this little band of seven feeding quietly just a few feet away. A great end to another bird-filled day.

Share

Up the Missouri

One hundred seventy-five years ago today, John James Audubon boarded a train in New York City and began an eight-month journey that would take him up the Missouri River as far as what is now the Montana state line. The party also included the painter Isaac Sprague, the taxidermist John G. Bell, and Audubon’s friend and frequent funder Edward Harris — each of whom lent his name to one of the bird species discovered (or, in Harris’s case, rediscovered) in the course of the trip.

Bell would return to New York after the journey, where he would operate the city’s most successful taxidermy shop and go down in history a second time as mentor to a young naturalist named Theodore Roosevelt.

After his return to Massachusetts, Sprague became one of the nineteenth century’s best and best-known botanical illustrators.

Harris, most famous as the great American champion of the Percheron, went back to his New Jersey farm. The only member of the expedition to keep up contact with the Audubons, Harris would no doubt have been of lasting help to the widowed Lucy, as he had long been to her husband, had he not died himself at the early age of sixty-three.

Early on, Audubon also invited his young protégé Spencer Baird to take part in the journey. Baird, who turned twenty in the winter of 1843, eventually declined, but Audubon remembered his young friend in naming another new sparrow, collected that summer in the grasslands around Fort Union. this would be the last new species Audubon would discover — though, of course, it was Harris and Bell who actually found and shot the first specimens.

William O. Ayres was another of Audubon’s young friends; like Baird, he would make significant contributions to American ichthyology. Six years older than Baird, Ayres was employed as a teacher in 1843; a dozen years later, he took his medical degree at Yale, and later served as curator of ichthyology at the California Academy of Sciences. It hardly matters that “his” woodpecker turned out to be a hybrid or backcross of the kind so abundant on the Great Plains.

The Harris sparrow, which Audubon’s party collected again and again as they moved up the eastern edge of Nebraska in May, had actually been named and described three years earlier, by Audubon’s colleague and correspondent Thomas Nuttall. There is an especially good story behind this mix-up, but this was not the only time that Audubon mistook a bird he found on the Missouri for new.

Looking back, it is not much of a surprise that Audubon should have been unaware that the blackbird he would name for Thomas Mayo Brewer was already known to science: the formal description had appeared in the Isis for 1829, and the more readily accessible reprint was still almost fifty years in the future. It would be even less reasonable to expect him to have recognized his “new” icterid in Fernandez’s cacalotototl.

Audubon’s failure to recognize the clay-colored sparrow, abundant all the way up the river that spring and at Fort Union all summer, had more complex reasons. Unaware that the “clay-colored” he had painted almost a decade earlier was in fact a Brewer sparrow, Audubon named what he thought was a new species for George Shattuck, his erstwhile companion on the trip to Labrador a dozen years earlier and subsequently a doctor in Boston. The confusion was cleared up not long thereafter, but the name “Shattuck” could still be encountered for this species into the early twentieth century.

Audubon really does not deserve to be accounted the discoverer of the sweet little LeConte sparrow, but two unfortunate circumstances — the early naming of the saltmarsh sparrow, and the explosion of the steamboat Assiniboine — would mean that neither John Latham (who published the first description in 1790) nor Maximilian zu Wied-Neuwied (who collected the bird in Nebraska in 1833) would have a valid claim to name the bird. Audubon kindly specifies that he has named the bird for the younger LeConte; if rightly I remember, the thrasher was named for his father.

And speaking of unfortunate circumstances.

If most birders know anything about Audubon’s Missouri River expedition, it is the story of the western meadowlark. In its most frequently encountered version, it goes something like this: Audubon was the first to notice that the song of the meadowlarks in the west was different from that of his hometown birds, and he named the new species neglecta to tweak Lewis and Clark for having overlooked it.

That’s how I learned it, but it’s not true. Meriwether Lewis knew full well that the meadowlarks of the Missouri Valley were different, and had he been able to publish his natural historical discoveries before descending into mental illness, Lewis would certainly be the author of the species’ name. What’s more, Audubon knew full well that Lewis had known full well, and even quotes him to that effect. The disapproval he expresses in the tendentious name neglecta is directed not at the Corps of Discovery but at those who had followed Lewis and Clark up the river in the decades since, none of whom, Audubon says, had “taken the least notice of” the bird; it’s no real stretch to read the name as in fact a gentle tribute to Lewis, who had committed suicide in 1809.

There is much more to say about the Missouri River expedition undertaken by Audubon and his friends and companions. I’ll be saying some of it in a series of lectures this jubilee year; but that is no reason that you too can’t rummage around in the documents that survive from those long-ago months on the river. You may well notice something no one else has.

 

Share

Parakeet Art

n9_w1150

Today marks the one hundredth anniversary of the death of Incas, the last known captive Carolina parakeet.

Incas was surely not the last of his species, as Noel Snyder has cogently pointed out. But when that bird fell from his perch in the Cincinnati zoo, it seems that interest in the parakeets died too. For whatever reason, this species’ decline never drew much attention, and its extinction was, apparently, deemed simply inevitable.

A century on, it doesn’t seem quite fair. The loss of the Americas’ northernmost psittacid should have been mourned then and should be more widely known now. Ask a hundred people on the street about the passenger pigeon or the ivory-billed woodpecker, and most of them will have some dim remembering of having heard the names. Not so with the parrot.

Like the Eskimo curlew, the Carolina parakeet is a birder’s bird even in extinction. And that makes it even more important that a few artists have used this species to confront the role of humans in the natural world.

The sculptor Laurel Roth’s “Biodiversity Reclamation Suits” is a great example.

Laurel Roth parakeet

Each of the dozen and a half objects that make up Roth’s punningly titled work is a wooden pigeon, draped in a crocheted “skin” representing a different rare or extinct bird. Much of the power of “Suits” lies in the apparent  incongruity between the bright, cheerful, craft-like colors and textures of the needlework (can I call crocheting “needlework”?) and the somber reality of what it depicts.

Roth herself has compared the yarn suits to “a soothing ‘cozy’ on environmental fears,” an act of covering “the feelings of helplessness and confused shame that come with learning about accelerated extinction rates caused by humans.” A defining character of art, of course, is that whatever it conceals is exactly what it means to draw attention to.

What the suits literally cover is the form of a feral pigeon, a bird high on everyone’s least-likely-to-disappear list. The artist explains that

visually recreating lost biodiversity by using the rarely appreciated but highly adaptable pigeon serves both to highlight the loss that we have already sustained [and to draw] attention to the fact that we often revile the animals most capable of living in a human made environment.

The question of what humans value and why is brought to a fine point by Roth’s use of contrasting materials. The pigeons, a species ignored by those who don’t “revile” them, are realistically sculptured in wood and mounted on walnut stands. The suits representing rare and extinct birds — desirable birds — are made of common yarn, stylized almost to the point of garishness; skillfully made, they would nevertheless look at home at any yard sale or church bazaar. Which are we supposed to value, which should we admire when we look at these objects?

The death of Incas was hardly noted at the time, with just the merest mention in the Cincinnati papers — and hardly a peep from the ornithological journals. This sad centennial will likely draw no more notice, but we are fortunate to have this artist to remind us.

Screen Shot 2018-02-08 at 2.30.46 PM

Share

Canada Jay: Why Not?

I’ll tell you why not.

Fauna boreali-americana
Fauna boreali-americana

Apparently there is a move afoot to recommend that the English name of Perisoreus canadensis be changed from the venerable “Gray Jay” to “Canada Jay.” It doesn’t really matter — names are just names, and English names have no taxonomic force in any event — but if the proposal is to be based on the information published in Ontario Birds a year ago, there are a couple of important corrections to be made before the AOS committee comes to a decision.

The essay in OB, “How the Canada Jay lost its name and why it matters,” is delightful and impressive, including an enormously helpful discussion of the debate leading up to the AOU’s adoption of English species names in the fifth edition of the Check-list. Unfortunately, this same essay begins with an assertion that is simply not true, namely, that “Canada Jay” was “the name [the AOU] had used for Perisoreus canadensis until 1910″ and the species’ “original official English name.”

A look at the pre-1910 editions of the Check-list, the first (1886) and the second (1895), reveals immediately that both used the English name “Canada Jay” to refer only to the nominate subspecies, not to the species as a whole. The typography and numbering in the first and the second editions serve poorly to distinguish species from subspecies, but the convention there in the case of polytypic species is to list the nominate subspecies first, without its redundant third element, and then to list the other subspecies as full trinomials. In no instance is any polytypic species assigned its own English name.

The rather illogical typographic system misled the author of the OB piece to claim, bizarrely, that the Check-list included “no nominate subspecies” of Perisoreus canadensis. In fact, the first entry, headed “Canada Jay,” refers only to the nominate subspecies, as the description of range makes plain:

Screen Shot 2018-02-03 at 2.12.39 PM

The graphic privilege given the nominate subspecies of polytypic species was, happily, abandoned beginning with the third edition of the Check-list, when all subspecies were assigned letters under a species-level header comprising only the scientific name. As in the previous editions, there are no English species names for polytypic species.

Screen Shot 2018-02-03 at 2.26.43 PM

The same system was used for the fourth edition of 1931. Only in 1957 was a Check-list published with English names for species rather than just for subspecies.

None of these circumstances would be especially interesting — but for the fact that the author of the note in OB continually describes “Canada Jay” as “the original official English name” of Perisoreus canadensis “abandoned in 1957” “through error” and deserving of “restoration.” A weak argument to begin with (there is no such thing as lex prioritatis in English names), it falls apart entirely with recognition that the AOU never used “Canada Jay” to refer to anything but a subspecies of Perisoreus canadensis.

To its great credit, the AOU (now AOS) committee has been notably reluctant to change the English names of North American birds; in fact, as many have observed over the years, it is precisely the English names that have remained relatively stable as taxonomic discoveries have forced changes, and sometimes outright replacements, in scientific names.

There is no cogent and positive reason for the AOU to replace “Gray Jay,” the “official” English species name of Perisoreus canadensis. The name is not misleading — it denotes, after all, a jay that is gray — and it threatens confusion with no extralimital species. It avoids the geographic confusion created by so many English bird names. And it has been universally in use for more than sixty years.

All this, of course, is a tempest in a maple-flavored teacup: nothing is going to change. But it raises a very important matter, and in this at least, I agree fully with the author of the OB essay.

There is no reason that birders should feel obligated to abide by the decisions of the AOS in the matter of English names. There is no reason, for that matter, that the AOS should waste its time making decisions about English names.

Scientific names have a scientific purpose: they are meant to indicate identity and relationship. English names, in contrast, are just for the convenience of those who can’t remember or pronounce such impossibly challenging labels as Junco or Vireo, and there is every reason to simply let them evolve as the community using them does. The notion that, as Dan Strickland writes, “the unelected foreign-dominated body” that is the AOS should direct its efforts to the legislation of English names is risible if you think about it.

So by all means, let’s call it the Canada jay, if that’s what pleases you and your birding friends. But let’s not do it because we believe, falsely, that that’s what the AOU always called it.

 

 

 

Share