RECORDS OF THE CAROLINA PARAKEET IN OHIO1

DANIEL McKINLEY, Department of Biological Sciences, State University of New York at Albany, N.Y. 12222 Abstract. A review of ornithological and early travelers' reports of the Carolina parakeet (Conuropsis carolinensis) in Ohio shows some long-standing claims to be unconvincing. This applies to Audubon (Lake Erie at the mouth of the Maumee), Moselcy (near Sandusky), Langdon (a lone claim of breeding near Cincinnati). There appear to be reliable northerly reports for the species from Tuscarawas and Summit Counties westward to Miami County and southward to the middle and lower Ohio valley. Records for southeastern Ohio counties along the Ohio are scarce. A Cleve- land specimen (ca. 1863) can probably be ignored, while a late report of a flock at Columbus in 1862 probably warrants more confidence. OHIO J. SCI. 77(1): 3, 1977

Ohio holds a key place in the former Later Ohio ornithologists accepted the range of the Carolina parakeet (Conu- Audubon report without comment or ropsis carolinensis) in northeastern explanation (Wheaton 1882; Kirtland United States. The following account 1883; Jones 1903; Campbell 1968). Jared documents the distributional aspects of Potter Kirtland (1838), who lived at a the species in Ohio and has been derived time when he could have clarified mat- from a review of journals and diaries of ters, simply ignored it. Charles Elihu early travelers and settlers as well as the Slocum, a thorough student of the history relevant ornithological literature. of the Maumee basin, was not able to THE MAUMEE RIVER BASIN substantiate Audubon's report. Slocum AND THE NORTHWEST cited no record for the parakeet closer than that of Gerard T. Hopkins, in One reference to early distribution of reference to parakeets in the Miami the parakeet in Ohio has been so often valley. Slocum's presumably unpub- cited that it has acquired a validity that lished "check-lists of mammals, birds, defies its lack of substance. John James and fishes of the Maumee River Basin," Audubon (1831) indicated that some 25 promised in his book (1905), cannot now years before (presumably about 1805) be traced. parakeets were found at "the mouth of The contribution of Robert Ridgway the Manimee at its junction with Lake (1916) to the mystery, was not helpful. Erie." Wheaton legitimately construed His definite records included: "Ohio: Manimee as a variant spelling of Maumee South shore of Lake Erie (in 1807)"—a (1882) but neither Audubon, Wheaton date that I am unable to substantiate, nor anyone else has explained the nature even if the geographic information could of the record, nor whose it was. It cer- be sustained. I can only guess that this tainly was not Audubon's. Nor do any was an extrapolation from Audubon's writers previous to Audubon's time men- statement cited above. It is true that tion the Maumee River in connection 1807 was the year that young Audubon with parakeets. If Audubon had not (with Ferdinand Rozier) went down the specified its "junction with Lake Erie," Ohio River to Louisville to seek his for- I might have supposed it a mere slip of tune (Herrick 1968), but Louisville is a the pen derived from Alexander Wilson's long way from Lake Erie. (1811) placing the species "at the mouth of the Great and Little Miami." Another report warrants attention here, although the region is more properly '-Manuscript received July 28, 1976, and in northern Ohio than simply the Maumee revised form September 25, 1976 (#76-64). and Lake Erie. Edwin L. Moseley DANIEL McKINLEY Vol. 77 (1946, 1947) mentioned in a rather tan- in the (Western) Reserve." Read's pub- gential way that "when I was teaching lication date was, of course, no justifica- at Sandusky {Erie County) in the early tion for Lynds Jones (1903) to claim 1890's, I had a report of a Carolina parakeets for "Summit County up to Paroquet seen six miles south of that 1853." city." Sad to relate, the uncertain na- Summit and Portage counties are, as ture of the report (it would certainly the latter name especially implies, the have been the last word on the species northern border of the great Tuscarawas- in the wild in Ohio) becomes even more Muskingum basin. The basin is nearly troublesome upon closer look. Moseley enough isolated from the southern Mus- (1904) published a little note entitled kingum valley to warrant separate treat- "Notes from Sandusky, Ohio" in 1904. ment here. There are 2 valid reports of In that paper, it is plainly stated in the parakeet in the Tuscarawas basin. strictly contemporary terms and in the George Henry Loskiel (1794) writer and context of a one-page note, where the in- historian of Moravian missions, wrote formation is fully discussed: "Webster that a "few green Parrots (psittacus) are Ransom reports a parrot that frequented seen in the woods in summer, but are in his orchard, six miles south of Sandusky, greater numbers further to the south." in the summer of 1903. It resembled a It is not clear within this context whether Carolina Paroquet ..." Published bio- Loskiel meant northeastern Ohio alone. graphical material indicates that Mose- He had not traveled in the country he ley's teaching tenure encompassed both described. Loskiel got his information dates mentioned, so a closer look at his on parakeets from David Zeisberger, life is required. great Moravian leader and missionary, who had planned to write a natural his- THE TUSCARAWAS RIVER BASIN tory of the Moravian settlement of AND THE NORTHEAST Schonbrun (now New Philadelphia, Tus- The northeastern quarter of Ohio has carawas County) (Zeisberger 1910). produced few reports of parakeets. The August C. Mahr (1949), a devoted stu- many pioneer travel journals that I have dent of Zeisberger, judged that he dis- seen failed to furnish a reference to the tinguished between swamps (or bottoms) species along the shore of Lake Erie. and higher-lying lands forested with oak- It is noteworthy that Kirtland (1874) chestnut-tulip-hickory, and that Zeis- was unable to find a single specimen from berger definitely associated parakeets northern Ohio for the museum of the with the latter and only in summer. Cleveland Academy of Natural Science. Presumably by "further to the south" This presumably means that the speci- Loskiel meant the lower Muskingum men that had been in the Academy at River. least since 1860 (see John Kirkpatrick, That parakeets may not have been 1860) was not local in origin. There is, restricted entirely to the summer season however, an alleged Cleveland specimen is suggested by a second record for the (Acct. No. 113549, Univ. Mich. Mus. area. Christopher Gist, surveyor and Zool.), a study skin said to have been professional snooper in a land promotion collected in 1863. The former owner, scheme for Governor Dinwiddie of Vir- perhaps the collector, was John S. Collins. ginia, recorded in his diary for 14 April The skin may have been from an escaped 1751 the loss of "a Paroquete which I pet but it is a very dubious record. had got from the Indians, on the other The northern sector, strictly speaking, Side the Ohio (where there are a great has only one record, that of M. C. Read many)" (Mulkearn 1954). As nearly as (1853), who lived at Hudson, Summit I can guess, he acquired the parakeet County, and who wrote in a catalog of while with the Wyandotte Indians at the birds of northern Ohio, "A few years their village on the Tuscarawas River, ago a flock of these birds appeared in five miles east of Coshocton, Coshocton Tallmadge, Summit County, as I was County, where he had been from late informed by my friend Rev. Samuel November to early December 1750. Wright. Have myself never seen them This is a guess, for Gist had seen a good No. 1 THE CAROLINA PARAKEET IN OHIO part of the present state of Ohio during valley in the winter of 1772, before he his marathon trip (Johnston 1898). At saw the "last flock of parrots" as he went any rate, a winter date is indicated. to the northeastward in early February MUSKINGUM RIVER BASIN 1773. Jones wrote on 9 February 1773, AND OHIO VALLEY "As I passed a certain place called Great David Zeisberger's (1910) "further to Lick, I saw the last flock of parrots." (He the south" takes us into the extensive had been on the lower Scioto and the Muskingum River system that empties Ohio since late December and was then into the Ohio at Marietta. There seem on his way to Tuscarawas County.) to be no substantial reports of parakeets "These birds were in great abundance for the southeastern counties along the about Siota in winter, and in summer Ohio. 'tis probable they may be seen much That parakeets may not have been very further towards the north." I am fairly abundant on the lower Muskingum in confident his reference is to the vicinity the early days is suggested by a state- of Salt Creek in southwestern Hocking ment of Samuel P. Hildreth (1826), "The County (and a branch of the Scioto paroquet has been seen as far east, on the River). Gilbert Dodds (1947) equated Ohio, as the mouth of the little Hock- "Great Lick" with "Great Buffalo Lick" hocking, but is only a transitory visiter." at Buckeye Lake, northern Fairfield or The Little Hocking River (as the Hock- southern Licking County; if correct, the hocking is now called) is in southwestern record belongs in the Muskingum valley, Washington County, several miles west- as noted above. ward from Marietta, where Hildreth In late July 1808 Fortescue Cuming settled in early October 1804. (1810) observed, at the mouth of the There do appear to be reliable Mus- Scioto at the tavern of John Brown of kingum references to the parakeet. Mil- Portsmouth, "vast numbers of beautiful ton B. Trautman (1940), in his account of large, green paroquets, which our land- birds of Buckeye Lake, cited only records lord, squire Brown, informed us abound from Wheaton (1882). He mentioned all over the country. They keep in neither a dubious report by David Jones flocks, and when they alight on a tree, nor a later record, that was first reported they are not distinguishable from the by Oliver Davie (1898). The latter was foliage, from their colour." a specimen taken 9 October 1884, "shot As for winter, '' In descending the river by Mr. A. Lee Hoskinson, near Newark Ohio, by myself, in the month of Feb- (Licking County), and mounted by S. G. ruary (really early March), I met with Hamilton." The bird, probably a soli- the first flock of Parakeets at the mouth tary one, "was seen about the place for of the Little Sioto," wrote Alexander several days and was heard screaming all Wilson. That stream empties into the the night before it was killed." It is Ohio in Scioto County, a few miles east not impossible, Lynds Jones (1903) ob- of the mouth of the Scioto. Wilson was served, that this was an escaped cage- a keen and enthusiastic observer, so there bird. The specimen was in Hoskinson's can be little doubt that, at least for the possession in 1898, according to Davie. year of 1810, roughly the eastern half of It may later have become the property the southern border of Ohio was without of E. L. Moseley (1946), who mentioned parrots. Wilson (1811) was told, how- the record briefly. His bird collection, ever, "by an old and respectable in- now in the Ohio State University Mu- habitant of Marietta, that parakeets seum of Zoology, contains an adult were sometimes, tho rarely, seen there." mount without data (M. B. Trautman, As a matter of fact, the earliest report of letter 1960). parakeets wintering on the Ohio seems lost in the miasmas of undocumented THE SCIOTO RIVER BASIN AND pioneer times. Thomas Jefferson (1894) THE CENTRAL OHIO VALLEY claimed in his Notes on the State of Vir- There is internal evidence that the ginia (first published 1781) that "Per- Rev. David Jones (1865) had seen para- roquets even winter on the Sioto, in the keets with some regularity in the Ohio 39th degree of latitude." 6 DANIEL McKINLEY Vol. 77 The mouth of the Scioto seems to have next paper, however, referred to it as been a sort of "watershed" for parakeets. that "rare visitor," thus, by implication, There is an archeozoological record for putting the species back onto the Ohio Scioto County at the mouth of the river list. The reason for the change became (McKinley 1977). Morgan Neville, re- apparent in Wheaton's fully annotated porting on a trip from Pittsburgh to account of Ohio bird life published in Cincinnati, noted that Blennerhasset's 1882. He had obviously never seen the Island, 14 miles below the mouth of the bird himself (he was born about 1841); Muskingum, was not within "the region but William S. Sullivant, a well-informed of paroquets" (Hall 1829). That put a ornithologist and botanist who knew sort of literary seal upon the careful parakeets well, "informed me that in observations, already cited, prepared for July, 1862, a flock numbering from Caleb Atwater by S. P. Hildreth (1826). twenty-five to thirty made their ap- Audubon (1831) said that the parakeet pearance in the Capitol Square of this was "at the present day found very city (Columbus) and remained in the uncommonly higher than Cincinnati, and elm trees opposite his residence for a not really abundantly until you reach couple of hours" (Wheaton 1882; preface the mouth of the Ohio" (that is, southern date 1879). Illinois). Ridgway (1916), for some reason, Audubon's observations seem to have placed a question mark following this rec- coincided with those of Kirtland (1838) ord. Kirtland (1883) apparently never who wrote in the late 1830s that para- heard of it at all before his death in keets "do not usually extend their visits 1877; among his last published papers is further north than the Sciota." Kirt- the statement that "Not a solitary bird land (1883) noted later (he lived from of this species has perhaps been seen 1793 to 1877), that in the period follow- within the State during the last thirty ing 1810, the "parroquet was very com- years." Since it is possible that Sulli- mon in the Miami & Sciota valleys." vant's observation was not generally He had also noted in the margin of his known until Wheaton's definitive work copy of Nuttall's Manual of Ornithology: appeared, this ought not to be con- "A few were found at Portsmouth as strued as a contradiction of it. With late as 1830" (Christy 1936). this to guide him, a later ornithologist At almost the same time Kirtland was summed up the situation for middle publishing his initial observations, in the southern Ohio by saying "common resi- first state-wide list of Ohio birds, pioneer- dent till 1840, since then extinct" ing historian Caleb Atwater (1838) (Henninger 1902). I believe, however, noted, "A few years since paroquetts, in that Sullivant's record cannot be so large flocks lived in the woods, along the handily dismissed. Scioto river, upwards from its mouth, to where Columbus now stands. They are THE MIAMI RIVER SYSTEM AND still in the woods along the bottoms be- THE WESTERN OHIO VALLEY low Chillicothe . . ." (that is, Ross Kemsies and Randle (1953), in their County, on the lower Scioto). Atwater, account of birds of southwestern Ohio, an interested observer of nature, had lived state that the parakeet was "once very in Circleville, Pickaway County, since common during the spring and summer 1814. Just what year he meant, how- in this area." I doubt that there is ever, is not known, for he had been work- substantial evidence for their seasonal ing on his history since 1818 (Skardon qualification. One early pioneer remi- 1964). nisced that in the spring of 1792 "flocks The second general list of Ohio birds of parroquets were seen, decked in their was written by John Maynard Wheaton rich plumage of green and gold," as they (1861). In it, he did little more than sported among redbud and dogwood in have Kirtland say that the parakeet did bloom near the mouth of the Miami in not extend its migrations into Ohio any Hamilton County (Howe 1847); this longer. This eliminated the species as hardly denies the presence of parakeets an extant Ohio bird. Wheaton's (1875) in winter. No. 1 THE CAROLINA PARAKEET IN OHIO Having just descended the Ohio from Warren County (and therefore on the the Pittsburgh region, beginning 6 June Little Miami), Thomas Ashe reported 1796, the Frenchman Victor Collot parakeets. Ashe (1808) was verbose and (1924) "saw here, for the first time, often unreliable but there is no reason to several small paroquets of the green spe- doubt his veracity in this case: "During cies, with yellow necks." Collot was at the repast"—he had just made oppor- "Big Bend Station," barely within Ham- tunist's pie of a large snapping turtle— ilton County. The summer restriction "I was entertained by the chattering of placed upon the species by his hosts need a flock of paroquets, who had taken up not, of course, be taken seriously: Collot their abode in the trees around me." had expressed surprise at seeing them and After seeing his first parakeets at the that would have laid him open to elabo- mouth of the Scioto, as described above, rate homespun tales. Alexander Wilson (1811) later reported Gerard T. Hopkins, a Quaker mis- flocks "at the mouth of the Great and sionary from Baltimore, traveled to Fort Little Miami" in mid-March, probably Wayne in 1804, leaving his home city in an indication that they did not appear February. He began his horse-back trip in numbers (at least that year) until one across Ohio from Short Creek, Jefferson descended the Ohio to the vicinity of County. He was an exceptionally alert Cincinnati. Kirtland's (1883) comments and interested man and left one of Ohio's upon parakeets on the Miami are vague most valuable early travel accounts. (Christy 1936). It is unfortunate that Hopkins saw no parakeets either any- Daniel Drake (1810, 1815) did not where in the whole eastern and central leave more specific information on the part of Ohio or on the Miami until he status of parakeets about Cincinnati, for had ascended the latter stream to the he knew the region well from an early vicinity of present Piqua, Miami County, date. By about 1830 or before Audubon where on 26 March he noted: "Towards was writing that parakeets were not the close of this day, we saw an immense really plentiful as high up the Ohio as flock of birds alighting in the trees, dif- Cincinnati. He alleged they had been ferent in appearance from any we had commoner 25 years earlier (1831) but I seen. Our landlord informed us they am skeptical that they were very com- were parrots and that they were common mon there (most of the time). on the Great Miami." Hopkins (1862) Edwin James (1823), using notes went on to describe them, basing his de- written by naturalists of the Long expe- scription on one shot by the landlord, dition for 18 May 1819, wrote of the "to satisfy our curiosity." I gather that bottomlands just below Cincinnati that the landlord did not think of that flock "the fruit of the sycamore is the favourite as being the first to appear that spring. food of the paroquet, and large flocks of Slocum (1905) mentioned Hopkin's re- these gaily-plumed birds constantly en- port placing the observation at Dayton liven the gloomy forests of the Ohio." but I have little doubt that he was in- He published no detailed notes on where correct. (I was helped in reaching this they had been seen on the river in the decision by Leonard U. Hill, Miami party's descent. County historian.) In either case, of There are some vivid allusions to para- course, it is the most northerly of records keets in Timothy Flint's (1826) memories for the western quarter of Ohio—unless of the winter of 1815-1816 in Cincinnati. Audubon's Maumee mouth claim, as Cincinnati was a new sprung city, in already noted, can be validated. It must whose rich and abundant markets he be recalled, in this regard, that Audubon numbered among the things for sale also mentioned that the species had "cages of red-birds and parroquets"; formerly been found on "the heads of both species were no doubt local in origin. the Miami" (1831) but again without Flint left Cincinnati in March 1816, his substantiating his remark. Yankee mind much impressed by the There is another southwestern but "favorableness of nature and convinced somewhat inland record for the parakeet. of the greatness of the region's future." In August 1806, while at or near Lebanon, Yet he did not fail to look hard at what DANIEL McKINLEY Vol. 77 was happening to the primeval habitat two upper mandibles of the parakeet from where "flocks of parroquets are glittering a prehistoric site in Warren County among the trees, and grey squirrels are (Trautman and Trautman, 1968). skipping from branch to branch." Aside from Kirtland's vague notes, LITERATURE CITED the matter of parakeets in the Miami Ashe, T. 1808. Travels in America, per- formed in 1806. E. M. Blunt, London. 366 p. River region becomes obscure until resur- Atwater, C. 1838. A history of the state of. rected by Frank W. Langdon (1877). Ohio, natural and civil. Glezan & Shepard, While otherwise offering nothing new, he Cincinnati. 403 p. mentioned that parakeets had been seen Audubon, J. J. 1831. Ornithological biog- at Madisonville, near Cincinnati, Hamil- raphy, or An account of the habits of the birds of the United States of America. Vol. ton County, in 1837, 1838 and 1839. 1. Edinburgh. Pgs. xxiv, 512, 16. In a supplement to that list, Langdon Campbell, L. W. 1968. Birds of the Toledo (1878) identified his informant: "Mr. area. The Blade, Toledo. Pgs. viii, 330. Joseph Settle tells me that Paroquets Christy, B. H. 1936. Kirtland marginalia. Cardinal 4: 77-89. occurred in large numbers near Madi- Collot, G. H. V. 1924. A journey in North sonville, during the summer of 1837, '38 America, containing a survey of the counties and '39. Few were seen in 1840, and watered by the Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri, none after that year.'' He then went on: and other affluing rivers. O. Lange, Firenze. 3 vols. (First publ. in 1826.) "Mr. Dury notes, on the authority of Cuming, F. 1810. Sketches of a tour to the Giles Richards, Esq., their occurrence in western country, through the states of Ohio large numbers at Matson's Mills, near and Kentucky. Cramer, Spear & Eichbaum, Venice, Butler Co., Ohio; Mr. Richards Pittsburgh. 504 p. Davie, O. 1898. Nests and eggs of North pointing out the identical sycamore in American birds. 5th ed. Langdon Press, which they had nested many years ago." Columbus. Pgs. 509, 18, xxi. The latter statement requires some Dodds, G. 1947. The parroquet in Ohio. Ohio Conserv. Bull., January, Pg. 30. modification. Charles Dury himself Drake, D. 1810. Notices concerning Cin- never saw parakeets in Ohio (he was cinnati. Publ. by author, Cincinnati. 60 p. born in 1847) and had not heard of any 1815. Natural and statistical view, or near Cincinnati after 1840. Giles Rie- Pictures of Cincinnati and the Miami country. bands (not Richards) pointed out to Looker & Wallace, Cincinnati. Pgs. ix, 251. Flint, T. 1826. Recollections of the last ten Dury "a huge sycamore tree, having a years. Cummings, Hilliard & Co., Boston. large cavity on one side, about 60 ft. 395 p. from the ground. In this cavity he Hall, J., ed. 1829. The Western souvenir. said he had seen flocks of Paroquets fly (Parakeet reference not seen; it is in article "Mike Fink, the last boatman," by Morgan at dusk in the evening to roost for the Neville; quoted by Walter Havinghurst, in night." "Mr. Riebands thought the Land of the long horizons; Coward-McCann, birds nested in the cavities of sycamores N. Y., 1960. pp. 170-175. along the Miami" (Dury letter to U.S. Henninger, W. F. 1902. A preliminary list of Biological Survey, 1923). Aside from the birds of middle southern Ohio. Wilson the informant's name, Langdon was also Bull. (n.s. vol. 9) 14: 77-93. Herrick, F. H. 1968. Audubon, the natural- wrong in saying that he pointed out a ist, a history of his life and time. Dover, nesting tree. Neither point seems to N. Y. 2 vols. have changed the public record, an ex- Hicks, L. E. 1935. Distribution of the breed- ample of which is Hicks's (1935) state- ing birds of Ohio. Ohio Biol. Surv. Bull. ment that it was a breeding record for 32 (vol. vi, no. 3) (Ohio State Univ. Stud. 40, Ohio. There appears, in fact, to be no no. 5) pp.123-190. nesting record for the state. Hildreth, S. P. 1826. Facts relating to cer- tain parts of the state of Ohio. Am. J. Sci. Raymond W. Smith (1891) did not 10: 1-8; 152-162; 319-331. further document his assertion that the Hopkins, G. T. 1862. A mission to the parakeet had formerly been an abundant Indians, from the Indian Committee of summer resident in Warren County, Baltimore Meeting, to Fort Wayne in 1804. northeast of Cincinnati, "breeding within T. Elwood Zell, Philadelphia. 198 p. Howe, H. 1847. Historical collections of the memory of persons now living," but Ohio. Author, Cincinnati. 581 p. by then extinct for many years. There James, E. 1823. Account of an expedition is, however, an archeozoological record of from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, No. 1 THE CAROLINA PARAKEET IN OHIO

performed in the years 1819, 1820. Longman, Moseley, E. L. 1904. Notes from Sandusky, Hurst, Rees, Orme & Brown, London. 3 Ohio" Wilson Bull. 16: 112. vols. 1946. Variations in the bird popula- Jefferson, T. 1894. The writings of Thomas tion of Ohio and nearby states. Ohio |. Sci. Jefferson, cd. by Paul L. Ford. Vol. 3. 46: 308-322. Putnam's, New York. 1947. Variations in the bird popula- Johnston, ]. S. 1898. First explorations of tion of the north-central states due to cli- Kentucky. Filson Club Publ. No. 13. Pgs. matic and other changes. Auk 64: 15-35. xix, 222. Mulkearn, L., ed. 1954. George Mercer pa- Jones, D. 1805. A journal of two visits made pers relating to the Company of Virginia. to some nations of Indians on the west side Univ. Pittsburgh Press. Pgs. xxxviii, 731. of the River Ohio in the years 1772 & 1773. Read, M. C. 1853. Catalogue of the birds of Sabin Reprints, N. Y. Pgs. ix, 127. (First northern Ohio. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. publ. 1774.) Philadelphia 6: 395-402. Jones, L. 1903. The birds of Ohio; a revised Ridgway, R. 191(5. Birds of North and Mid- catalogue. Spec. Paper Ohio State Acad. dle America, pt. 7. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull, Sci. 0: 1-241. vol. 50, no. 7. Pgs. xiii, 543. Kemsies, E. and \V. Randle. 1953. Birds of Skardon, P. 1964. Caleb Atwater as his- southwestern Ohio. Privately publ. Pgs. torian. Ohio Hist. 73: 27-33, 58-59. xii, 74. Slocum, C. E. 1905. History of the Maumce Kirkpatrick, J. 18(50. Natural history of River basin. Pub. by Author, Defiance. birds of Ohio. No. LIU. Psittacidae. - Pgs. viii, 638, xx. The parrots. Ohio Farmer 9: 251. Smith, R. W. 1891. A list of the birds of War- Kirtland, J. P. 1838. Report on the zoology ren County, Ohio. J. Cincinnati Soe. Nat. of Ohio. 2d Ann. Rept. Geol. Surv. St. Hist. 14: 105-133. Ohio (\V. W. Mather, director). Pgs. 157- Trautman, M. B. 1940. The birds of Buckeye- 200. Lake, Ohio. Univ. Michigan Mus. Zool. 1874. Mounted birds from northern Misc. Publ. 44: 1-4(5(5. Ohio, in the Academy's museum. Proc. and M. A. Trautman. 1968. Annotated Cleveland Acad. Nat. Sci. 1845-59: 201-287. list of the birds of Ohio. Ohio J. Sci. 68: 1883. A letter from an old-time 257-332. ornithologist. Bull. Xuttall Orn. Club 8: Wheaton, J. M. 1861. Catalogue of the birds 126-127. of Ohio. Ohio St. Bd. Agric, 15th Ann. Langdon, F. W. 1877. A catalogue of the Rept. Pgs. 359-380. birds of the vicinity of Cincinnati, with 1875. The food of birds as related to notes. Naturalists' Agency, Salem. 2(5 p. agriculture. Ohio Agric. Rept. for 1874. 1878. Observations on Cincinnati Pgs. 561-578. (Also separate, 18 p.) birds. J. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist. 1: 110- 1882. Report on the birds of Ohio. Report of the Geological Survey of Ohio. 118. Vol. IV. Zoology and Botany. Part i. Loskiel, G. H. 1794. History of the mission Zoology, Pgs. 187-628. of the United Brethren among the Indians of Wilson, A. 1811. American ornithology; or, North America. Brethren's Society & John The natural history of the birds of the United States. Vol.3. Bradford & Inskeep, Stockdale, London. 3 parts in 1 vol. Philadelphia. 120 p.; plates 19-27. Mahr, A. C. 1949. A chapter of early Ohio Zeisberger, D. 1910. David Zeisberger's his- natural history. Ohio J. Sci. 49: 45-69. tory of the northern American Indiana.s Ed. McKinley, D. 1977. Review of the parakeet's A. B. Hulbert and W. N. Schwarze. Ohio Archaeol. Hist. Soc. Publ. 19: 1-189. prehistorical relationships. To be publ in; Cent. States Archaeol. J.