DOCSLIB.ORG

A Probable Sighting of 23 Eskimo Curlews in Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Probable Sighting of 23 Eskimo Curlews in Texas RARE OCCURRENCE A probable sighting of 23 Eskimo Curlews in Texas An unusualnumber of birds at a site seldomvisited by ornithologists David R. Blankinshipand Kirke A. King WENTY-THREESHOREBIRDS believed The flock circled over the marsh and then P.M. CDT on May 7. Conditionswere to be Eskimo Curlews (Numenius split into two groupswith six to eight somewhathazy, but several flocks of borealis)were sighted at about5:00 P.M. birds heading west toward Morgan's Black-belliedPlovers were seenpassing CDT on May 7, 1981, on AtkinsonIsland Pointand the remaindercircling and then overheadduring this same time period in Galveston Bay, Chambers County, landingfar out in the marshwhere they and no alterationof color due to hght Texas(29039 ' N, 94o58' W). were no longer visible. The birds were quality was noted. While boatingabout 100 meters off the silent in the air and flew in an unor- The sightingwas carefully discussed east shore of Atkinson Island during a ganizedbut fairly tight flock until just with constantreference to field guides surveyof rookery islandsin Galveston beforedividing, whenthe flock formeda (Peterson1963, Robbinset al. 1966) and Bay, we stoppedto observea concentra- line. we concludedthat the birds could only tion of mixed shorebirdsfeeding in a In the air, the birds showed little con- have been Whimbrels or Eskimo Cur- large areaof mud flat and marshin the trastbetween upper and lower surfaces lews. Bill length can be deceiving,but lsland's interior. A small flock of shore- and no distinctivebody pattern. The ef- thelack of headstriping and the presence birds was standingon a grassyspit that fect wasof an almostuniformly brown to of cinnamonwing liningswould seemto separatedthe bay from the interior buff-colored bird. We were in definite eliminate the Whimbrel. We feel it IS marsh. We moved to within 50 meters of agreementthat the wing liningswere uni- probablethat the 23 birdsobserved were the birds and observed them with 10 x form cinnamon-buff in color, with no Eskimo Curlews. 50 and 7 x 50 binoculars for 15 to 30 discerniblepattern or contrast.Peterson From 1945 to 1968, there have been secondsbefore they flushed. (1980) showsthe undersidesof the flight ten reportedsightings of Eskimo Curlews Our initial reaction was that the birds feathers of the Eskimo Curlew to be on the Texas coast (Table 1). Seven of were too small and short-billed to be darkerthan the lining, but we were un- these ten observations were made on Gal- Long-billed Curlews (N. americanus) able to see this distinction in the field. A veston Island, about 30 miles from the and that they must be Whimbrels (N. flock of Black-belliedPlovers (Pluvialis locationof our sightingon AtkinsonIs- phaeopus).We then checkedfor the dis- squatarola)flying near the curlewsof- land.In pastyears, Eskimo Curlews have tlnctiveWhimbrel head pattern,but the feredan opportunity for sizecomparison. beenseen between March 22 and April onlypattern visible was a faint light stripe Althoughthe distancethat separatedthe 29. The late spring record for Eskimo abovethe eye. The slightlydecurved bills two flocksprecluded simultaneous view- Curlews in Texas is May 4 when three did not appearany longerthan those of ing, our impressionwas that the birds individuals were collected at Fort Stock- the Long-billed Dowitchers(Limnodro- were very similar in size. Another com- ton in 1860 (Oberholser 1974). Our mus scolopaceus)that were feeding on parativeimpression which cameto mind sightingon May 7, 1981, would be a late nearbymud flats. We estimatedthat the was that the birds resembled diminutive record,but not so late as to be implausl- billswere about1.5 to 1.75 timesas long Marbled Godwits (Limosafedoa) with ble. The number of individuals we ob- as the head. The birdsappeared slightly much shorter, decurved bills. served was far in excess of numbers larger than the nearbydowitchers. We alsoconsidered the possibilitythat reportedsince 1945. Althoughour obser- When the birds flushed, they circled the light from the loweringsun combined vations are inconsistent with recent rec- backover the bay, passingoverhead and with a hazeeffect was red enoughto ob- ords, they are in agreementwith the to the side once at a distance of less than scurethe head pattern and make the un- flocking behavior of Eskimo Curlews 50 metersand again at 60 to 80 meters. derpartsand wing liningsappear buff and Bent (1929) summarized reports of Both passesprovided an excellentview cinnamon-buff.This seemedunlikely as flocksranging from a few individualsto of the color of the belly and underwing. the sun was not really very low at 5:00 200 or 300 birds. 1066 AmericanBirds, November-December 1984 Table 1. EskimoCurlew sightingsin Texas,1945 to 1968. LITERATURE CITED Number Date of Birds Locationa ALDRICH, J. 1978. Eskimo Curlew. U.S Apr 29, 1945 2 GalvestonIsland Fishand Wildlife Service,unpublished re- Apr 27-29,1950 1 AransasN.W.R. port. 11 pp. Mar 22, Apr. 18 & 26, 1956 1 GalvestonIsland BENT, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North Mar 22-Apr.26, 1959 1 GalvestonIsland American shorebirds. Part II. U.S. Nat Apr 3-6, 1960 1 GalvestonIsland Mus. Bull. 146. Mar 31-Apr.3, 1961 1 GalvestonIsland EMANUEL, V. L. 1962. Texans rediscover Mar 24-Apr.15, 1962 2b GalvestonIsland the nearlyextinct Eskimo Curlew. Audu- Apr 11-12,1963 1 Rockport bon 64:162-164. Mar 29, 1964 2 GalvestonIsland IVERSEN, E. 1976. On the brink of extinc- Apr 30, 1968 1 Rockport tion. TexasParks and Wildlife 34:24-26 OBERHOLSER, H. C. 1974. The bird life of aDatafrom Emanuel(1962), Oberholser(1974), Iversen (1976), andAldrich (1978). Texas. Vol. I. Univ. Texas Press, Austin bVertftedby photographs(D. L. Bleitz). 530pp. PETERSON,R. T. 1963. A field guideto the The ornithologydepartment at Texas been bird-watchingon the Texas coast birdsof Texas.Houghton Mifflin, Boston 304pp. A & M University,the Houston Audubon since childhood. He is a research biolo- __. 1980. A field guideto the birdseast of Society,and several individual birders in gist and a memberof the Whooping the Rockies. HoughtonMifflin, Boston the Houston-Galveston area were noti- Crane (Grus americana)recovery team. 384pp. fied of the sighting,but unfortunately our Theco-author has been engaged in water- ROBBINS, C. S., B. BRUUN, and H. S observationwas not confirmedby other bird researchin Texas since 1968, and is ZIM. 1966. Birds of North America birders. Atkinson Island is made of a memberof the Brown Pelican (Pele- GoldenPress, New York. 340pp. dredgedsoil from the adjacentHouston canusoccidentalis) recovery team. Both ShipChannel and is rarelyvisited by pro- authorsare thoroughlyfamiliar with the fesslonalor amateur ornithologists.A Whimbrel,the bird mostlikely to be con- boat is needed for access to Atkinson Is- fused with the Eskimo Curlew. land The late date of our observation and --National AudubonSociety, the logistic difficultiesassociated with ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 721 Pine St., Rockport, accessto the areaprecluded confirmation TX 78382 (Blankinship) of our sighting. ETHANK Chandler S.Robbins and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Both authors are experiencedorni- Marshall A. Howe for reviewing Gulf CoastField Station, thologistsand both are especiallyactive the manuscript,and appreciationis ex- P.O. Box 2506, Victoria, in thearea of endangeredspecies and wa- pressedto ClementineGlenn for typing TX 77902 (King) terbird research. The senior author has the manuscript. REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE THE EIGHTH ANNUAL spring io BreedingBird Atlas, and we would flights are availableto atlas volunteers, close-upstudy (interception line) along like to invite birdersto help us collect and financial assistance with travel and the lower Rio Grande between Browns- data. Althoughassistance would be ap- living expensesmay be available. ville and Mission, Texas, will be held on preciatedanywhere in the province,we Juneand July are the key monthsfor Saturday, March 30, 1985. Anyone are in particularneed of volunteersinter- northern atlas work. Northern volunteers w•sh•ngto participatein this all-day estedin workingin remoteareas of north- shouldplan on devotingat leastone week countshould contact Mrs. GladysDono- em Ontario. Experience with northern to road-accessibleblocks and ten daysfor hue, P.O. Drawer 400, Penitas, TX speciesand wildernesssurvival skills are fly-in blocks. 78576 as early as possible.Phone 512- essential,and canoeing experience would For more information, pleasecontact 581-6545. be useful in most remainingblocks. Mike Cadman, FON Conservation Cen- Some northern areas are accessible via tre, 355 Lesmill Road, Don Mills, On- roadand canoe, while otherscan only be tario, Canada, M3B 2W8; telephone THIS IS THE LAST yearof the Ontar- reachedby plane. Free and reducedrate 416-449-2554. Volume38, Number6 1067 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TESTING a MODEL THAT PREDICTS FUTURE BIRD LIST TOTALS by Robert W. Ricci Introduction One of the More Enjoyable Features of Bird
    TESTING A MODEL THAT PREDICTS FUTURE BIRD LIST TOTALS by Robert W. Ricci Introduction One of the more enjoyable features of birding as a hobby is in keeping bird lists. Certainly getting into the habit of carefully recording our own personal birding experiences paves the way to a better understanding of the birds around us and prepares our minds for that chance encounter with a vagrant. In addition to our own field experiences, we advance our understanding of bird life through our reading and fraternization with other birders. One of the most useful ways we can communicate is by sharing our bird lists in Christmas Bird Counts (CBC), breeding bird surveys, and in the monthly compilation of field records as found, for example, in this journal. As important as our personal observation might be, however, it is only in the analysis of the cumulative experiences of many birders that trends emerge that can provide the substance to answer important questions such as the causes of vagrancy in birds (Veit 1989), changes in bird populations (Davis 1991), and bird migration patterns (Roberts 1995). Most birders, at one time or another, have speculated about what new avian milestones they will overtake in the future. For example, an article in this journal (Forster 1990) recorded the predictions of several birding gurus on which birds might be likely candidates as the next vagrants to add to the Massachusetts Avian Records Committee roster of 451 birds. Just as important as predictions of which birds might appear during your field activities are predictions of the total number of birds that you might expect to encounter.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential Breeding Range of Slender-Billed Curlew Numenius Tenuirostris Identified from Stable-Isotope Analysis
    Bird Conservation International (2016) 0 : 1 – 10 . © BirdLife International, 2016 doi:10.1017/S0959270916000551 The potential breeding range of Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris identified from stable-isotope analysis GRAEME M. BUCHANAN , ALEXANDER L. BOND , NICOLA J. CROCKFORD , JOHANNES KAMP , JAMES W. PEARCE-HIGGINS and GEOFF M. HILTON Summary The breeding areas of the Critically Endangered Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris are all but unknown, with the only well-substantiated breeding records being from the Omsk prov- ince, western Siberia. The identification of any remaining breeding population is of the highest priority for the conservation of any remnant population. If it is extinct, the reliable identification of former breeding sites may help determine the causes of the species’ decline, in order to learn wider conservation lessons. We used stable isotope values in feather samples from juvenile Slender-billed Curlews to identify potential breeding areas. Modelled precipitation δ 2 H data were compared to feather samples of surrogate species from within the potential breeding range, to produce a calibration equation. Application of this calibration to samples from 35 Slender-billed Curlew museum skins suggested they could have originated from the steppes of northern Kazakhstan and part of southern Russia between 48°N and 56°N. The core of this area was around 50°N, some way to the south of the confirmed nesting sites in the forest steppes. Surveys for the species might be better targeted at the Kazakh steppes, rather than around the historically recog- nised nest sites of southern Russia which might have been atypical for the species. We consider whether agricultural expansion in this area may have contributed to declines of the Slender-billed Curlew population.
    [Show full text]
  • SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does Not Include Alcidae
    SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does not include Alcidae CREATED BY AZA CHARADRIIFORMES TAXON ADVISORY GROUP IN ASSOCIATION WITH AZA ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Published by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in association with the AZA Animal Welfare Committee Formal Citation: AZA Charadriiformes Taxon Advisory Group. (2014). Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Original Completion Date: October 2013 Authors and Significant Contributors: Aimee Greenebaum: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Vice Chair, Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Alex Waier: Milwaukee County Zoo, USA Carol Hendrickson: Birmingham Zoo, USA Cindy Pinger: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Chair, Birmingham Zoo, USA CJ McCarty: Oregon Coast Aquarium, USA Heidi Cline: Alaska SeaLife Center, USA Jamie Ries: Central Park Zoo, USA Joe Barkowski: Sedgwick County Zoo, USA Kim Wanders: Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Mary Carlson: Charadriiformes Program Advisor, Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Perry: Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Crook-Martin: Buttonwood Park Zoo, USA Shana R. Lavin, Ph.D.,Wildlife Nutrition Fellow University of Florida, Dept. of Animal Sciences , Walt Disney World Animal Programs Dr. Stephanie McCain: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Veterinarian Advisor, DVM, Birmingham Zoo, USA Phil King: Assiniboine Park Zoo, Canada Reviewers: Dr. Mike Murray (Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA) John C. Anderson (Seattle Aquarium volunteer) Kristina Neuman (Point Blue Conservation Science) Sarah Saunders (Conservation Biology Graduate Program,University of Minnesota) AZA Staff Editors: Maya Seaman, MS, Animal Care Manual Editing Consultant Candice Dorsey, PhD, Director of Animal Programs Debborah Luke, PhD, Vice President, Conservation & Science Cover Photo Credits: Jeff Pribble Disclaimer: This manual presents a compilation of knowledge provided by recognized animal experts based on the current science, practice, and technology of animal management.
    [Show full text]
  • Mobbing Behaviour in the Shorebirds of North America
    -41- NORTHAMERICAN SECTION N--ø.8 Editor Dr. R.I.G. Morrison, Canadian Wildlife Service, 1725 Woodward Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. K1A OE7. (613)-998-4693. Western Region Editor Dr. J.P. Myers, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 2593 Life Sciences Building, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, U.S.A. (415)-642-2893. ANNOUNCEMENTS Colour-marking A number of colour-marking schemes will again be active in 1981 and observers are asked to be on the lookout for birds marked both this summer and in previous years. Details to be noted include species, date, place, colour of any dye and part of bird marked, and colour, number and position of colour-bands and metal band, including whether the bands were located on the 'upper' or 'lower' leg. Where the origin of the bird can be determined, a report may be sent directly to the bander as well as to the U.S. Banding Laboratory, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Laurel, Maryland 20811, U.S.A. The following are some of the schemes known to be operating in 1981 or in recent years - a fuller list is given in WSGBulletin No. 29, N.A. Section No. 6, p. 27. Please contact the Editor if you would like a colour-marking scheme advertised. 1. C.W.S. Studies in James Bay The large-scale shorebird banding program run by the Canadian Wildlife Service in James Bay, Canada, will be continued in 1981. Birds are marked with picric acid and yellow or light blue colour-bands. Full details of sightings should be sent to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Decline and Fall of the Eskimo Curlew, Or Why Did the Curlew Go
    The decline and fall of the Eskimo Curlew, or did the curlew go extaille? by Richard C. Banks 66Thereis no need to look for a probable bush (1912) and Swenk (1916) seems over- incause for the extermination of the whelming,and there can be little reasonable Eskimo Curlew -- the causeis painfully doubtthat overkill was an importantfactor in apparent.... The destructionof this bird was the demiseof the curlewand in the reductionof mainlydue to unrestrictedshooting, market populationsofother species. Yet, the dogmatic huntingand shipment, particularly during the statementsquoted above suggest that any other spring migration in the United States" (For- factors that may have been involved were bush 1912:427). ignored,and indeed these authors barely men- tionedand quickly discarded other postulated &&One neednot look far to find the cause causes.This paper.will analyzethe circum- •Jwhich led to its destruction.... No, stancesof thedecline of the curlew, attempt to therewas only one cause, slaughter by human placeknown mortality factors into perspective, beings, slaughter in Labrador and New and speculatethat other factors unknown to Englandin summerand fall, slaughterin Forbushand Swenkwere significant in that SouthAmerica in winterand slaughter,worst decline. of all, from Texasto Canadain the spring" (Bent 1929:127). LIFE HISTORY hewriting of the authorscited above, and What little waslearned about the biologyof similar conclusionsby Swenk(1916), have the EskimoCurlew before its populationwas led to generalacceptance of the conceptthat reducedvirtually to nil has been summarized excessiveshooting, particularly by market by Forbush (1912), Swenk(1916), Bent (1929), hunters, was the cause of the extationa of the and Greenway(1958). The speciesbred in the Eskimo Curlew, Numenius borealis, near the Arctic, mainly in the Mackenzie District of the end of the 19th century(Greenway 1958, Vin- Northwest Territories of Canada, but also cent 1966, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and westwardand eastwardfor unknown distances, Wildlife1973).
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of Ontario
    Birds of Ontario sandilands v2 hi_res.pdf 1 4/28/2010 10:31:32 AM Birds of Ontario: Habitat Requirements, Limiting Factors, and Status 1 Nonpasserines: Waterfowl through Cranes 2 Nonpasserines: Shorebirds through Woodpeckers 3 Passerines: Flycatchers through Waxwings 4 Passerines: Wood-warblers through Old World Sparrows sandilands v2 hi_res.pdf 2 4/28/2010 10:32:12 AM AL SANDILANDS Birds of Ontario Habitat Requirements, Limiting Factors, and Status NONPASSERINES: SHOREBIRDS THROUGH WOODPECKERS With illustrations by Ross James sandilands v2 hi_res.pdf 3 4/28/2010 10:32:12 AM © UBC Press 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior written permission of the publisher, or, in Canada, in the case of photocopying or other reprographic copying, a licence from Access Copyright, www.accesscopyright.ca. 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in Canada on acid-free paper Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Sandilands, A.P. (Allan P.) Birds of Ontario: habitat requirements, limiting factors, and status / Al Sandilands; with illustrations by Ross James. Includes bibliographical references and index. Incomplete contents: v. 1. Nonpasserines: waterfowl through cranes. – v. 2. Nonpasserines: shorebirds through woodpeckers. ISBN 978-0-7748-1066-1 (bound: v. 1) – ISBN 978-0-7748-1762-2 (bound: v. 2) 1. Birds – Habitat – Ontario. 2. Birds – Effect of habitat modification on – Ontario. 3. Bird populations – Ontario. I. Title. QL685.5.O5S35 2005 598’.09713 C2005-900826-1 E-book ISBNs: 978-0-7748-1764-6 (pdf); 978-0-7748-5943-1 (e-pub) UBC Press gratefully acknowledges the financial support for our publishing program of the Government of Canada (through the Canada Book Fund), the Canada Council for the Arts, and the British Columbia Arts Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Shorebird Identification 5 SHOREBIRD IDENTIFICATION Usually Over 20 Mm Except in Least, Semipalmated and Buff­ Breasted
    4 EBBA News February 1973 Shorebird Identification 5 SHOREBIRD IDENTIFICATION usually over 20 mm except in Least, Semipalmated and Buff­ breasted. Neck medium to long. 4 toes (except 3 in Sanderling) • BY CHANDLER S, ROBBINS* Back speckrea-or streaked in small species (indistinct markings on Spotted Sandpiper, and on Sanderling in winter). The superfamily of shorebirds is a heterogeneous group. Family Recurvirost ridae : Avocets, Stilts (7 species, 2 in Althou?h most members of this group are zeadily recognized as North Amer ica). Bi ll long, very slender; fegs very long and shoreb1rds, there are few distinctive characters that are pos­ slender, tarsus over 80 mm. 3 toes (stilt or 4 (avocet). sessed ~y all ~pecies. For example, nearly all shorebirds have long po1nted.w1ngs, but the woodcocks and lapwing have decided­ Family Phal aropodidae: Phalaropes (3 species, 3 in North ly rounded w1ngs. Most shorebirds have slender, soft bills, America). 4 toes , the front ones lobed, semipalmate. Female but the oystercatchers have heavy bills that are greatly com­ brighter colored than male. pres~ed l~ter~lly. The phalarope family has lobed toes, each spec1es w1th 1ts own particular type of lobe. The turnstones and most plovers have 3 toes, and most sandpipers have 4 toes Identifying Shorebirds to Species but one genus in each family does not conform to the general ' rule. The purpose of this paper is to assist banders in identi­ fying, to species, shorebirds that are in the hand. These pages The oystercatchers, avocets and stilts are so distinctive are not a substitute for a field guide or for manuals such as in all plumages that they will not be discussed in detail; Roberts, Forbush, Ridgway, or Coues.
    [Show full text]
  • 54971 GPNC Shorebirds
    A P ocket Guide to Great Plains Shorebirds Third Edition I I I By Suzanne Fellows & Bob Gress Funded by Westar Energy Green Team, The Nature Conservancy, and the Chickadee Checkoff Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center Table of Contents • Introduction • 2 • Identification Tips • 4 Plovers I Black-bellied Plover • 6 I American Golden-Plover • 8 I Snowy Plover • 10 I Semipalmated Plover • 12 I Piping Plover • 14 ©Bob Gress I Killdeer • 16 I Mountain Plover • 18 Stilts & Avocets I Black-necked Stilt • 19 I American Avocet • 20 Hudsonian Godwit Sandpipers I Spotted Sandpiper • 22 ©Bob Gress I Solitary Sandpiper • 24 I Greater Yellowlegs • 26 I Willet • 28 I Lesser Yellowlegs • 30 I Upland Sandpiper • 32 Black-necked Stilt I Whimbrel • 33 Cover Photo: I Long-billed Curlew • 34 Wilson‘s Phalarope I Hudsonian Godwit • 36 ©Bob Gress I Marbled Godwit • 38 I Ruddy Turnstone • 40 I Red Knot • 42 I Sanderling • 44 I Semipalmated Sandpiper • 46 I Western Sandpiper • 47 I Least Sandpiper • 48 I White-rumped Sandpiper • 49 I Baird’s Sandpiper • 50 ©Bob Gress I Pectoral Sandpiper • 51 I Dunlin • 52 I Stilt Sandpiper • 54 I Buff-breasted Sandpiper • 56 I Short-billed Dowitcher • 57 Western Sandpiper I Long-billed Dowitcher • 58 I Wilson’s Snipe • 60 I American Woodcock • 61 I Wilson’s Phalarope • 62 I Red-necked Phalarope • 64 I Red Phalarope • 65 • Rare Great Plains Shorebirds • 66 • Acknowledgements • 67 • Pocket Guides • 68 Supercilium Median crown Stripe eye Ring Nape Lores upper Mandible Postocular Stripe ear coverts Hind Neck Lower Mandible ©Dan Kilby 1 Introduction Shorebirds, such as plovers and sandpipers, are a captivating group of birds primarily adapted to live in open areas such as shorelines, wetlands and grasslands.
    [Show full text]
  • Eskimo Curlew and Whimbrel Collected in Newfoundland Labrador
    December 1948 Vol. 60, No. 4 GENERAL NOTES 241 Eskimo Curlew and Whimbrel collected in Newfoundland Labrador.- On August 29, 1932, Ernest Doane collected a female Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis) at Battle Harbour, Labrador, from a small flock of curlews scattered about the barrens eating berries. When Doane approached within “long gun-shot range,” all but two of the flock took wing. Having collected one of the remaining two, Doane realized that both were Eskimo Curlews. He was sure, however, that the other birds in the flock were Hudsonian Curlews (Numenius phaeopus hud- soniczls). Doane wrote me that the bird he collected was very fat-unlike Hud- sonian Curlews, which “never are.” It is noteworthy that Murphy (1933. Auk, 5O:lOl) reported a very convincing “probable recor,d” of four Eskimo Curlews seen on Montauk Point, Long Island, just two weeks later than Doane’s Labrador record. The last previously reported specimen of the Eskimo Curlew is apparently that taken April 17, 1915, near Norfolk, Nebraska (Swenk, 1916. Smiths. Rept. for 1915:338). At Red Bay (Straits of Belle Isle), Labrador, Doane collected a male Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus phaeopus) on May 14, 1932. Doane wrote that a single strange curlew had been reported to him about April 27 but he had discounted the report at first. Then others reported it, and finally Enos Yetman shot the bird for him on May 14. Doane recognized it as a Whimbrel and made special note of the fact that it was not unusually thin (as a stray might be expected to be) and that the testes were slightly enlarged.
    [Show full text]
  • Eskimo Curlew (Numenius Borealis) 5-Year Review
    Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office Fairbanks, Alaska August 31, 2011 I. GENERAL INFORMATION The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, changed in status from endangered to threatened, or changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information made available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process defined in the Act that includes public review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Eskimo Curlew (Numenius Borealis)
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis in Canada ENDANGERED 2009 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2009. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 32 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Previous report(s): COSEWIC. 2000. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 17 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm) Gratto-Trevor, C. 2000. Update COSEWIC status report on the Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1- 17 pp. Gollop, J.B., and C.E.P. Shier. 1978. COSEWIC status report on the Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 32 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge David A. Kirk and Jennie L. Pearce for writing the status report on the Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada, overseen and edited by Jon McCracken, Co-chair, COSEWIC Birds Species Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le Courlis esquimau (Numenius borealis) au Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • First Shorebird Science in the Western Hemisphere Meeting
    Shorebird Science in the Western Hemisphere Meeting 15 Shorebird Science in the Western Hemisphere Meeting, 27 February–2 March 2006, Boulder, Colorado, USA Introduction by Richard Lanctot Through their prodigious long-distance scheduled first in the meeting because we wanted participants migration, shorebirds provide biological to consider the possibility of forming a hemisphere-wide group linkages between countries where they throughout the meeting. stop to breed, stage, and winter. While On Tuesday morning we shifted hemispheres and heard from the benefits associated with sharing Phil Battley whose plenary To beg, borrow and steal: the art of information across countries and continents seem obvious, doing research on the East Asian–Australasian Flyway pro- efforts to connect researchers studying shorebirds in different vided an overview of how shorebird conservation and research parts of the Western Hemisphere have seldom taken place. Two is conducted in another, shorebird-rich corner of the world. He notable exceptions come to mind. The first was a meeting held described a system that consists of primarily volunteers and few in Quito, Ecuador, in conjunction with the IV Neotropical government or university research projects. Though short on Ornithology Congress in 1991. There, biologists shared their funds, biologists along the flyway have initiated extensive band- latest research in shorebird migration, ecology and conservation. ing programs and used species such as the Great Knot, Bar- This meeting also provided a rare opportunity for researchers to tailed Godwit, Spoon-billed Sandpiper and others to galvanize forge scientific partnerships, many of which continue through support and enthusiasm for shorebird conservation. today. On day three of the meeting we returned to the Western The exception was the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Hemisphere and South America in particular and heard from Reserve Network (WHSRN) Workshop held in Ottawa in 1995.
    [Show full text]