Post by hi224 on Jul 6, 2020 14:21:30 GMT
Audubon’s Mystery Birds
John James Audubon’s Birds of America is a series of 435 illustrations done by Audubon himself of various birds in America, and published between 1827 and 1838 in Edinburgh and London. Many of these birds are still commonplace around America today, however Audubon included six birds that are now extinct - the Carolina parakeet, the Passenger Pidgeon, the Labrador Duck, the Great Auk, Pinnated Grouse, and the Eskimo curlew. He also is credited with discovering and documenting 25 new species of birds.
Despite Audubon’s incredible achievements, there are a few things he did get wrong. Some of the birds in Birds of America aren’t new species, but females or juveniles of another existing species. Most ornithologists believe that Selby’s flycatcher is actually a female Hooded Warbler, and that Washington’s Eagle is actually a juvenile Bald Eagle. (The last point is a matter of some confusion - u/lepophagus does a great job explaining it in their thread).
However, out of the 435 plates Audubon painted, there are at least five birds still unidentified: Townsend’s Finch, Carbonated Swamp Warbler, Cuvier’s Kinglet Small-headed Flycatcher, and the Blue Mountain Warbler. What, exactly, are these birds? Are they now-extinct songbirds that only exist in Audubon’s engraved plates? Perhaps they do still exist, but only in a small population in the vast American wilderness. Are they hybrid birds, or a rare mutation of an existing bird? Or did Audubon paint these birds from a faulty memory, or a poor preservation job?
Townsend’s Finch
audubonhouse.org/family-list/finches/finch/townsends-finch/
Also known as Townsend’s Bunting, Audubon painted this bird only from a specimen lent to him by Dr. Townsend, a fellow ornithologist, who collected it in 1833, outside of Philadelphia. The bird is described as a sparrow, with a conical bill, and a white throat with a gray chest. Unlike the other species, this specimen still exists in the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in DC, and was examined by Kenneth Parks of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, who concluded it was a Dickcissel that lacked the usual yellow plumage, due to an inability to store carotenoids, pigments which come from the bird’s diet, in its feathers. Other birds who gain their colors from carotenoids include flamingos and canaries.
In 2014, an image of a supposed Townsend’s Bunting was taken in Ontario, however, when examined, the experts concluded that it was also a strangely-plumed Dickcissel. This bird is interesting because it does pose the possibility of a DNA test that would confirm or deny its status as a Dickcissel, however none has been performed. So, did Audubon manage to find a rare mutated Dickcissel, or did he discover a new species or subspecies of finches, which have lasted unknown until 2014?
Carbonated Swamp Warbler
www.audubon.org/birds-of-america/carbonated-warbler
As many have joked, this bird gets its name not from being found in Coca-Cola flavored swamps, but from distinctive black streaks running down its back. He painted these birds from two juvenile male birds he had shot while in Henderson, Kentucky. The bird is described as very similar to the Blackpoll Warbler, however those birds are black and white, not yellow, as depicted in Audubon’s art. Blackpoll Warblers have been observed with yellow-tinted wings and backs, but not the full-body yellow as observed by Audubon. Perhaps his carbonated swamp warblers were nothing more then mutated Blackpoll Warblers, with a much more yellow hue.
The painting of the Carbonated Swamp Warbler could also contain clues to the bird’s identity. Many ornithologists have pointed out possible errors in the painting, such as a discrepancy between feather arrangements, stripes oriented incorrectly, and a general lack of detail to the images. This could perhaps be explained by Audubon misremembering a bird he was drawing from memory - the two specimens he has of the bird was lost. Furthermore, it is known that Audubon lost over 200 of his paintings to rats, and there is a chance that the original Carbonated Swamp Warbler was among them, and if that painting was published, it would have been identified as another bird. It is important to note that some of the errors in the painting could have been caused by the engraving and printing process, and not by Audubon’s faulty memory.
Nonetheless, some ornithologists have theorized that the Carbonated Swamp Warbler existed, and was a highly specialized wood warbler that died in the first clearing of the forests in the early 1800’s, like Kirtland’s Warbler. Did Audubon happen upon two oddly yellow Blackpoll Warblers? Did he paint another bird, but failed to reproduce the bird accurately after rats ate his original painting? Or did he manage to get two of the last specimens of a wood warbler species that went extinct as America moved into their Industrial Revolution?
Cuvier’s Kinglet
audubonhouse.org/family-list/warblers/kinglet/cuviers-kinglet/
Also known as Cuvier’s Regulus, this bird is very similar to the Ruby-crowned and Golden-crowned kinglets, a resemblance that even Audubon himself notes. However, this bird has a black forehead and a red cap, unlike the other two kinglet species, which have grey foreheads and different color caps. However, Cuvier’s Kinglet sports head stripes characteristic of other kinglets, which is what led Audubon to classify it as a kinglet. He described it as rare, saying he never saw another. Many ornithologists think that Audubon saw a Ruby-crowned Kinglet with an unusually red cap and dark forehead, or a melaninistic Golden-crowned Kinglet. Melanism is caused by excessive production of melanin, which results in darkening of the body tissues, which could explain the unusually dark coloring of the feathers found in Cuvier’s Kinglet.
However, in 1840, Audubon wrote to Spencer Fullerton Baird, a natural historian and the first curator of the Smithsonian, after hearing the other had shot an unusual variety of Ruby-crowned Kinglet, and requested it to be sent to him, believing it was a Cuvier’s Kinglet. While Baird never sent the bird, he believed in the existence of Cuvier’s Kinglet as a separate species after hearing from Audubon, describing it in 1858 in On the Birds of the Railroad Surveys. Did Audubon simply find a melanistic Ruby-crowned or Golden-crowned Kinglet, or did he discover another rare species of kinglet?
Small-Headed Flycatcher & Blue Mountain Warbler
www.audubon.org/birds-of-america/little-tyrant-flycatcher-small-headed-flycatcher-blue-mountain-warbler-bartrams
These next two birds were originally on the same plate, along with Bartram’s Vireo. While Bartram’s Vireo doesn’t exist today, this bird is not considered a mystery bird. It is identical in every way to the Red-Eyed Vireo, except that it forages on the ground, whereas Red-Eyed Vireos forage in trees. Because species can have a wide range of behavioral differences, and not even the keen-eyed Audubon noticed any physiological differences, there is little doubt that Bartram’s Vireo is simply a particularly brave Red-Eye Vireo.
Small-Headed Flycatcher
audubonhouse.org/family-list/flycatchers/flycatcher/small-headed-flycatcher/
This bird was first published in Alexander Wilson’s work, American Ornithology, published between 1808 and 1814. A groundbreaking ornithologist and artist in his own right, Wilson was Audubon’s main rival. Interestingly, Audubon claims to have actually discovered the Small-Headed Flycatcher before Wilson in the spring of 1808 (this predates Wilson’s publication of the bird), however he states that he hadn’t cared about ornithology at the time and paid it no mind. Wilson visited him in Louisville, Kentucky, and Audubon showed him this bird, which he then copied and placed in his work. This tale of plagiarism was published after Wilson’s death, and Wilson himself claimed to have shot the bird in an apple orchard in New Jersey.
The Small-Headed Flycatcher is a yellow-black flycatcher with distinctive yellow underbelly, and a black streaking on his back. Many ornithologists chalk the existence of the Small-Headed Flycatcher to a misunderstanding and rivalry between two of America’s greatest ornithologists, but is it possible that they could have simply found a species of Flycatcher that went extinct? Did Wilson actually plagiarize off of Audubon, or did Audubon simply seek to have a leg up on his rival and invent the story, perhaps plagiarizing the bird from Wilson?
Blue Mountain Warbler
audubonhouse.org/family-list/wood-warblers/wood-warbler/blue-mountain-warbler/
This bird likely also owes its existence to Alexander Wilson. Audubon notes significant frustration in tracking down a specimen of the bird, and he drew from a figure lent to him by the Council of the Zoological Society of London, which had supposedly come from California. Throughout his publishing, many had compared Audubon’s work to Wilson’s, and omitting a bird that Wilson has included would certainly raise some eyebrows among the early ornithological community. Perhaps Audubon copied the bird from Wilson after being unable to find one, not wanting to call into question the accuracy of his book by challenging Wilson.
The Blue Mountain Warbler is similar in appearance to the Small-Headed Flycatcher, however, the black streaking is restricted to a cap and backbone, and the bird has more white and light grey in its wings. So, did Wilson, and then Audubon happen upon a rare wood warbler species, which may have gone extinct shortly after? Did Wilson find the last of the Blue Mountain Warblers, which went extinct by the time that Audubon wanted to find them, forcing him to copy off of Wilson? Or was Wilson mistaken, and accidentally invented a bird, which Audubon then dutifully copied to protect his reputation?
Sources
www.audubon.org/news/john-james-audubon-crazy-wrong-or-neither
www.dvoc.org/CassiniaOnLine/Cassinia70/C70_22_24.pdf
kottke.org/17/03/john-james-audubons-five-mystery-birds
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birds_of_America
raunerlibrary.blogspot.com/2019/12/audubons-mysterious-aviary.html?m=1