The Pacific Golden-Plover (Pluvialis Fulva): Discovery of the Species

136 ShortCommunications andCommentaries [Auk,Vol. 110 The Auk 110(1):136-141, 1993 The Pacific Golden-Plover (Pluvialis œulva): Discovery of the Speciesand Other Historical Notes Osc• W. JOHNSON Departmentof Biology,Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA Knowledgeof a species'discovery and nomencla- shot "4 ploversexactly like our Englishgolden plo- tural chainalong with associatedpeople and events ver" (now Eurasian Golden-Plover, Pluvialisapricaria) adds significantly to our appreciationof it. For most on a small island off the northwestern coast of Java. birds, thesehistorical details are relatively obscure. In his journal AnimaliumJavanensia, an unpublished Tracingthe pastof the PacificGolden-Plover (Pluvialis work held by the British Museum(Natural History), fulva) toucheson the remarkable enduranceand ac- Solander comparedthe birds to P. apricaria,stating complishmentsof several 18th-centuryornitholo- "agreeswith the descriptionby Brissonand Linnaeus, gists,the perilsof not publishingpromptly, and the exceptbelly is white sprinkledwith a few blackspots work of an early systematistwho becamethe recog- [thesewere birds in prebasicmolt showing remnants nized authorityfor the specieswithout examining of breeding plumage]and perhapsthe spotson the any specimens.This plover has a relatively "distin- tail are morein the shapeof bars."Although Solander guished background" in that it was found and de- seemedaware of differencesbetween these specimens scribed by famous naturalists during Capt. James and P. apricaria,he evidently did not recognize that Cook's explorationsof the Pacific.These extraordi- this plover was a new species.Neither Solander's nary voyagesyielded a wealth of zoologicalinfor- notesnor the firstvoyage specimens (none are known mation,including majorfindings in the areasof bird to have reachedEngland) have any nomenclaturalor systematicsand distribution. Newly discoveredPa- type status. cificbirds figured prominently in the cyclopedicworks The first specimensof taxonomicsignificance were of the time (Latham 1781-1801, Pennant 1785, Gmelin collectedby JohannReinhold Forster,George Forster 1788-1789,Forster 1844); more recently,various dis- (Johann'sson), and AndersSparrman. This illustrious cussionshave emphasizedthe ornithologicalsignif- team of naturalists sailed aboard HMS Resolution dur- icance of Cook's expeditions (Stresemann 1949, 1950, ing Cook'ssecond voyage (1772-1775), an expedition 1975,Lysaght 1959, Wilson 1977, Medway 1979,1981). that involved enormoussweeps of the South Pacific Cook'sthree Pacificvoyages present a fascinatingar- and circumnavigation of Antarctica (for full account, ray of charactersand eventsthat are thoroughlyde- seeBeaglehole 1969). Collection of the type specimen tailed in the monumentalworks of Beaglehole(1962, can be fixed almost to the hour. The bird was collected 1967-1969). From these chronicles and other sources at Matavai Bay, Tahiti on the afternoon of 26 August I haveextracted an historicalperspective of the Pacific 1773 by J. R. Forster.Forster's log indicatesthat the Golden-Plover'sdiscovery, subsequent records and type was shot during the first few hours of 27 August, happenings, and the people involved. I include com- but this was basedon "ship's time," where the day mentswhere the originalfindings can be clarifiedby runs from noon to noon and begins 12 h before the currentknowledge of P. fulvabiology. With respect civil day. In relation to civil time, early on 27 August to geographic distribution of the species,most of is equivalentto the afternoonof 26 August.His jour- Cook'stravels were within the vast winter range of nal containsthe simple notation "shot a new Charad- the Pacific Golden-Plover in the Central and South rius" (Hoare 1982). From this specimen, Forster de- Pacific,and only the third voyagetouched the arctic scribedthe speciesCharadrius glaucopus. Although the breeding grounds.Recent studies of breeding birds descriptionapparently was written at the time of col- in western Alaska(Connors 1983, Connors et al. 1993) lection, the original accountremained unpublished show that P. fulva is a full speciesseparate from the for manyyears. It finally appearedwell after Forster's AmericanGolden-Plover (P. dominica).This separa- death (1798) in DescriptionesAnimalium (1844). tion has been widely accepted(see Johnsonet al. The Resolutiondeparted from Tahiti on 17 Septem- 1989),and is under considerationby the AOU. For ber 1773 and reachedTonga on 2 October. While en morecomplete information on the species(including route, J. R. Forsterrecorded several sightings of plo- taxonomy, migration, plumages, and behavior), see vers (Hoare 1982).On 26 Septemberhe wrote: "The Connors (1983), Connors et al. (1993), Johnson et al. birds have quite forsaken our Ship. However, one (1981, 1989), Johnsonand Johnson(1983), and John- Landbird, a kind of Sandpiper,such as was seen on son (1985). the 22 & 23d was in the Afternoon hovering about The first specimensever recorded were collected the Ship, & settled twice on it, being quite tired & by the naturalistsaccompanying Cook's first voyage spent:it flew afterwardsaway. It is of the same kind (1768-1771). JosephBanks wrote on 8 October 1770 of Ploveras we observedin Otahaitee(Charadrius glau- (see Beaglehole 1962) that he and Daniel Solander copus)."Based on the chronologyof migration, the January1993] ShortCommunications andCommentaries 137 plovers observedduring this period were probably scribedits legs as "blue" (P. fulva has grayish-black juveniles. Additional plovers were collectedat Tonga legs, but suchcoloration might well be consideredas on 4 October 1773, and at New Caledonia on 6 Sep- a shadeof blue by some observers).Presumably, La- tember 1774 (Hoare 1982). George Forster rendered tham usedthe samereference points when measuring paintings of the speciesat these two sites (Lysaght "vat. A" as he commented that it was "considerably 1959), but there is no known painting of the type less in size" when compared to the type. While it specimenfrom Tahiti. The fate of the type specimen appearsthat "vat. A" was too small to be P. fulva, this and the specimens collected subsequently is un- single measurementwould be inconclusivesince La- known. Most likely they were inadequately pre- tham's specimenmay have been poorly preserved servedand either did not survive the voyage or per- (possiblyit wasshrunken or otherwisedistorted) and ished shortly thereafter. not comparableto Forster'sfreshly collectedbird. Leg DescriptionesAnimalium was essentially complete color, however, is a lesssubjective criterion and "pale when the expedition returned to England in July 1775 yellow" is reasonablygood evidence that "vat. A" (Hoare 1982), but various postvoyagedisagreements was, in fact, not P. fulva. with the British Admiralty prevented its publication Perhaps"vat. A" was the single plover specimen (for discussionsof this troubled period in Forster's from Cook's third voyage,which appearsin the cat- life, see Stresemann 1975, Hoare 1976, 1982). Forster, alog of the Bankscollection (Medway 1979).Although frustratedin his effortsto publish, unfortunately lost records of this bird indicate that it was a Pacific Gold- much of the early recognitionthat was rightfully his. en-Plover, the identification may have been incorrect. Meanwhile, John Latham was writing the GeneralSyn- It appearsthat Banksgave various specimens to Lever opsisof Birds (1781-1801) and incorporated therein (Medway 1979); thus, the bird could have been in most of Forster'sfindings. Thus, Latham published Lever's possessionwhen Latham examined it. Ques- the first account of the Pacific Golden-Plover, which tions concerningthe exactidentity of "vat. A" and he referred to as the "Fulvous Plover" (GeneralSyn- whether it was the same or a different bird than the opsis,vol. 3, 1785). Since the type specimen was un- specimenin Banks'collection are unlikely ever to be available and there was no painting of it, Latham resolved. Almost all of the museum specimensfrom based his description of the type on information Cook's voyages eventually perished (victims of ne- "communicatedby Dr. Forster."As to what was"com- glect and crude procedures),and only a very few are municated," one finds great similarity between La- extant(Sharpe 1906,Medway 1981).Other plover skins tham's descriptionand Forster's(in DescriptionesAn- may have been collected on Cook's third expedition, imalium1844), suggesting that Forsterprovided Latham but only the questionablespecimen mentioned above accessto his original notes. The type specimenwas is known to have survived the voyage.Given such an individual wearing traces of breeding plumage: paucity of specimensand the fact that Latham used its breastand belly were "spottedwith black." Such only "vat. A" to supplementForster's description, it featbering is consistent with the date of collection is entirely possible that Latham never saw an actual and representsan adult bird in prebasicmolt. specimenof P. fulva. Forster'spersonal assistance in Latham'sproject ap- Neither Forster nor Latham emerged as the rec- pearsto have beenonly transitory(Hoare 1976).Much ognized authority for the species.Instead, the dis- of Forster'scollection had by then passedinto the tinction went to Johann Friedrich Gmelin by default. famousprivate museumsof JosephBanks and Ashton Forster lost out becausehis findings were not pub- Lever to which Latham had free access. Banks and lished promptly, Latham becauseof the format he Lever eventually held mostof the skinsand

Load more