Early History of the Great Gray Owl in the New and Old Heimo Mikkola and Alan Sieradzki

Figure 1. Anders Sparrman’s illustration (circa 1789) of the Old World subspecies of the Great Gray Owl ( Strix nebulosa lapponica ).

26 Ontario April 2012 THINK OF THE TAXONOMIC HISTORY Northern Hawk Owl ( Surnia ulula ), of Holarctic birds and one would be ex - Snowy Owl ( Bubo scandiacus ), Eurasian cused in automatically thinking of the Eagle Owl ( Bubo bubo ), Common Scops work of renowned 18th and 19th cen - Owl ( Otus scops ), ( Strix tury European naturalists, such as Carl aluco ), Eurasian Pygmy Owl ( Glaucid - von Linné (Linnaeus), Carl Peter Thun - ium passerinum ), Boreal [Tengmalm’s] berg or Per Gustaf Lindroth. Yet very Owl ( Aegolius funereus ) and Long-eared few people realize that one of the most Owl ( Asio otus ) by 1758. iconic of all Holarctic species, the Great The population of the Great Gray Gray Owl ( Strix nebulosa ), was originally Owl being historically much greater in described and named from a specimen than in must, collected in Ontario and that the very therefore, also be viewed as a major fac - first published record of a Great Gray tor in the explanation as to why Strix Owl nest anywhere in the world was nebulosa nebulosa was first described by that of a nest also discovered in Canada. (1772) from a The Great Gray Owl is one of the specimen collected by Andrew Graham, few owls living right across the globe in the factor at Severn River, at Fort Severn, the Holarctic forest belt. The average Ontario, Canada and that the first Great population in Europe (including Russia Gray Owl nest to be recorded anywhere east to the Ural Mountains) is estimated in the world was discovered by Dr. John to be only 4,400 pairs (Mebs and Scher - Richardson at Great Bear Lake in the zinger 2008). It is clear that the North North west Territories, Canada, on 23 American population far exceeds that of May 1826 (Swainson and Richardson Europe with an estimated population of 1832:77-78). The Great Gray Owl was 20,000 – 70,000 breeding pairs (Dun - also later described from the Hudson can 1997). Strait region of Canada as Strix cinerea In 1966, when we started the Great by Johann Friedrich Gmelin (1788) but Gray Owl studies in the University of is now treated as a synonym. Oulu, Finland, this owl was believed to In the Old World, Strix nebulosa be one of the rarest owls in the world lapponica was officially first described by and definitely the rarest in Europe (Mebs (1798) from Swe - 1966). The rarity of the Great Gray Owl den in Konglica Svenska Vetenskaps- in the Old World was obviously a major Akademiens nya Handlinger, Stock contributing factor as to why the famous holm, twenty-six years after Forster’s Swedish taxonomist Carl von Linné (1772) published description of the failed to describe it from Northern Eu - nom inate Strix nebulosa nebulosa . While rope while being able to describe the it seems that Carl von Linné did not

Volume 30 Number 1 27 know of the Great Gray Owl, one of 1832 and in November 1833 (Stefans - his students, Anders Sparrman, at - son 1997). In the latter mentioned tempted to describe Strix lapponica newspaper story, it was reported that when working with skins in the Swedish Great Gray Owls had been shot in that Museum Carlsonianum in the years area some 20-30 years earlier, maybe as 1786 – 1789 but, for some unknown early as 1812. reason, did not complete the work. In Finland, the first recorded obser - Sparrman was the first to use the name vations, in spring and early autumn Strix lapponica and painted a large owl (which could indicate breeding), are with concentric circles in the facial disc from Espoo (near Helsinki) in August and a distinct black moustache, for 1846 and from Kirkkonummi (also which the model must surely have been near Helsinki) in April 1858 (Collin a Great Gray Owl (Figure 1). The spec - 1886). The famous English egg collec - imen that Sparrman worked from cer - tor, John Wolley, collected eggs from tainly must have been collected before Lapland in the years 1856 –1862 from 1789, ten years earlier than Thunberg’s many Great Gray Owl nests (Von published description. Haart man et al . 1967). John Latham (1790) published the In the Berlin Museum of Natural description of a Great Gray Owl from History, the first Great Gray Owl spec - the mountains of eastern Siberia and imen was collected just when breeding named it Strix barbata (obviously the could have started in March 1832 from origin of the German name for the Schnek ken, Krs. Niederung, (now in Great Gray Owl: Der Bartkauz). Pub - northern Poland). This Polish nest was lished eight years earlier than Thun - discovered only six years after the first berg’s des crip tion, the European race Canadian nest was reported. of the Great Gray Owl should perhaps While the population of Great Gray be Strix nebulosa barbata . However , Owl has likely always been many times thanks to the com p licated rules of tax - greater in North America than it has in onomy and Anders Sparrman’s unpub - Europe, one cannot take anything away lished work and earlier use of the name from the outstanding work of Mr. An - lapponica , Latham’s barbata has given drew Graham and Dr. John Richardson, way to Thunberg’s lapponica and is whose overall importance in Canadian treated as a synonym. ornithological history has been ad - The first published record of a nest mirably detailed by Houston et al of a Great Gray Owl from was (2003). The fact remains that the orig - from Luleå, North Sweden in 1843 inal description and naming of the (Löwen hjelm 1844), but some autumn Great Gray Owl and the very first observations were reported from further record of a Great Gray Owl nest belongs south in Södermanland in September to Canada.

28 Ontario Birds April 2012 Acknowledgements Swainson, W. and J. Richardson. 1832. The The authors would like to thank C. Stuart first North American nest of Strix nebulosa. Houston for his encouragement and helpful Fauna Boreali-Americana, or, the zoology of suggestions with the manuscript. The scan of the northern parts of British America. Part 2, the painting by Anders Sparrman was sup- Birds. John Murray, London, 524 pp. plied courtesy of Ove Stefansson. Thunberg, C.P. 1798. Underrättelse om någre Svenske Foglar. KVA handlingar Literature Cited 19:177-188 (In Swedish). Collin, O. 1886. Suomessa tavattavien Von Hartman, L., O. Hildén, P. Linkola, pöllöjen pesimissuhteista (Breeding relation- P. Suomalainen and R. Tenovuo. 1967. ships of Finnish Owls). Hämeen Sanomat, Pohjolan Linnut Värikuvin (Nordic Birds in Hämeenlinna (In Finnish). Colour). Otava, Helsinki (In Finnish). Duncan, J.R. 1997. Great Gray Owls (Strix nebulosa nebulosa) and Forest Management Heimo Mikkola, Tervasaarentie 88, in North America: A Review and Recommen- FIN-58360 Säimen, Finland dations. Journal of Raptor Research 31(2):160 E-mail: [email protected] -166. Forster, J.R. 1772. An account of the birds Alan Sieradzki, 56 Coniston Avenue, sent from Hudson’s Bay: with observations Fleetwood, Lancashire FY7 7LE, relative to their natural history and Latin United Kingdom descriptions of some of the most uncommon. E-mail: [email protected] Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 62:382-434. Gmelin, J.F. 1788. Strix cinerea. , pt 1:291 Houston, S., T. Ball and M. Houston. 2003. Eighteenth-Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Mon- 53 WildwoodWildwood AAve.,ve., Oak RidgRidges,ees, ONON,, L4E 3B5 treal. 333 + xxiii pp. Toll-Free:Toll-Free: 1.877.401.877.404.342404.3424 Latham, J. 1790. Strix barbata. Index SpecialistsSpecialists in GlobalGlobbal BirdBird Ornithologicus 1:62. WWatchingatching and NatureNature EcotoursEcotours Löwenhjelm, C.G. 1844. Anteckningar i Zoologi under en resa i Norrland och Luleå tĞĞKīKīĞĞƌ͗ƌ͗ Lappmark sommaren 1843. KVA handlingar භ BirBirdingding and WildlifeWildlife DaDayay TTripsrips 1843, s. 385-411 (In Swedish). භ Global BirBirdingding and WildlifWildlifedlife TTourToursours Mebs, T. 1966. Eulen und Käuze. Kosmos- භ WildlifWildlifee PhotPhotographyography aand Art TourTToursours Naturführer, Stuttgart (In German). 134 pp. භ CusCustomtom GrGroupoup or Individualvidual TToursours Mebs, T. and W. Scherzinger. 2008. Die www.naturatourssinc.com Eulen European. 2nd Edition, Kosmos, Stuttgart (In German). 398 pp. [email protected] Stefansson, O. 1997. Vagabond of the North - TourismTourism Promoting ConservationConseCoonservation ern Forest Lappugglan (Strix nebulosa lappon- ica). Ord and Visor, Skellefteå (In Swedish). License Number:Number: 50018444500184444

Volume 30 Number 1 29 eBird: a proposed provincial standard for regional recordkeeping Mike V.A. Burrell

SPANNING FROM the Carolinian compiled thousands, if not millions, of forests and tall grass prairie remnants bird records, often into monumental in the south, through the vast boreal works that are invaluable to the study forest and to the Arctic tundra along of bird distribution in Ontario (Curry Hudson Bay, Ontario is a vast province 2006, Black and Roy 2010, Tozer of many habitats. Millions of migrants 2012). are concentrated along our thousands Currently, the rarest of the rare are of kilometres of Great Lakes coastline published in North American Birds or and literally tens of millions of birds Ontario Birds — but the majority of raise their young in our province every species are either not documented, left year (Cadman et al. 2007). We are also in a notebook to gather dust, or per - lucky to have a rich history of ornithol - haps, entered into one of our regional ogists documenting many aspects of records databases. These databases, Ontario’s avifauna for over a hundred while all quite functional, are as varied years (McNicholl and Cranmer-Byng as Ontario’s birdlife. Some may be vet - 1994). Indeed, our understanding of ted by a single compiler, while others the patterns of bird distribution and oc - in more populated areas may be vetted currence have benefitted greatly from and maintained by a committee of the hundreds of birders who have sorts. What happens when these roles painstakingly documented both the change hands may be a period of diffi - rare and the routine. We have bene - cult transition as the new reviewers fited greatly from a few dedicated may favour a different system of record - record keepers, who have meticulously ing and/or vetting records.

30 Ontario Birds April 2012 I would like to propose a provincial What is eBird? standard for incorporating regional It is an online database project initially started record-keeping into a province-wide by the National Audubon Society and Cornell network. The vessel for this feat is the Lab of Ornithology in 2002. Bird Studies popular online bird database project Canada entered into a formal partnership to known as eBird (www.ebird.ca). Until create the Canadian eBird portal in 2006. the last couple of years, the growth of eBird is now world-wide, although use is still eBird has been concentrated largely in most evident in North America. It was initially the United States, where promotion designed as a way to collect the millions of and adoption by state birding organi - bird observations that are being documented zations has been fairly high. In Ontario, by bird watchers and use these data in the we have just recently seen exponential conservation of birds. Since its initial days, it growth in eBird users and the trend has grown tremendously, thanks largely to the promises to continue as more birders products (bar graphs, mapping tools, etc.) that come “onboard” (Figure 1 and 2). In serve the very birders who are contributing addition to tremendous growth in in - data to the project (Wood et al. 2011). While dividuals using eBird, several organiza - it is still early, the data collected by eBird are tions have begun keeping records with influencing state, provincial and even federal eBird as it presents an easy, free system and continental bird conservation decisions for recording bird observations. Some (e.g . North American Bird Conservation Initia - of these organizations are the very same ones that we have traditionally been re - tive, U.S. Committee 2011). Some impressive lied upon to keep regional records, such animated occurrence maps are already being as the Kit chener-Waterloo Field Natu - produced. ralists Club (KWFN), King ston Field (see: http://ebird.org/content/ebird/ Naturalists Club (KFN), Toronto Or - about/occurrence-maps/occurrence-maps ). nithological Club (TOC), Long Point Bird Observatory (LPBO), and North - umberland Bird Records, to name a importantly a species list with a date few. Some of these organizations and location. The species list submitted (KWFN, KFN and LPBO) have al - can include counts or presence/absence ready adopted the method (to varying data for each species and can include extents) I am suggesting here for gath - as many species as the user wishes (i.e. ering and keeping bird records. they don’t have to include every species they saw, although they are encouraged How does it work? to do so). While this basic information eBird works by collecting daily check - may seem trivial to the average birder, lists from users. Each checklist contains multiplied by the one hundred check - several pieces of information, most lists submitted pe r day i n Ontari o in

Volume 30 Number 1 31 500,000 450,000 • 400,000

350,000 s n o i 300,000 t a v r • e 250,000 s b o

d 200,000 r i B

e • 150,000 o i r a t

n 100,000 O • • 50,000 • • • • 0 • 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Figure 1: Number of bird records for Ontario by year, 2002-2011

1,200

1,000 • s r e s u 800 d r • i B e o i r 600 a t n

O • f o

s 400 r e • b • m u

N • 200 • • • • 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Figure 2: Users submitting at least one checklist to eBird in Ontario, 2002-2011

32 Ontario Birds April 2012 2011 these dat a shed a light on the The lists and fun keep me coming occurrence patterns of Ontario’s birds back, but some of the real powers of the rather quickly. Birding is often a social eBird outputs are the bar charts (think event and so is eBird. eBird has made it seasonal checklists on steroids) and map - easy for users to submit a checklist and ping features that make bird-finding a then share that checklist with the other cinch. Combine these tools with smart birders that accompanied them with one phone technology, and you can be click, bringing the records into both guided right to that much-needed tick users’ eBird accounts, but more impor - on your next birding trip in California. tantly, flagging the two identical check - eBird is also in the process of expanding lists as duplicates so that they aren’t both its email alert system. Currently, I receive used for data analyses. Any users who an email alert any time someone reports share a checklist can make changes to a rare species or a species in Waterloo the checklist, since, as we all know, you Region that I haven’t observed yet. Those never see as much as your birding part - email alerts can be customized to geo - ner! This is also an easy way for graphic area. Needless to say, the rewards clubs/groups to keep records, with each of becoming an eBird user are much member "sharing" their checklists with greater than simply becoming better at the group's central account. keeping your own personal records. As mentioned previously, the recent eBird data is submitted online, so a success and growth in eBird has been user needs access to the internet to par - largely thanks to the output tools which ticipate. This allows you to enter or ex - allow birders to naturally express their plore your sightings anywhere with a competitive sides. You can instantly see computer and internet access. It also where you rank next to other users with means that your data are more secure year and all time lists at every level from than if they were kept on your home or American Birding Association area down work computer, since they are being to the sub-provincial jurisdictions (coun - stored and backed-up constantly on se - ties, regional municipalities and districts). cure servers. Any user who wishes can Keeping your own lists is even more download their full dataset at any time. diverse, with life and year lists for any Some people may think the internet re - location a click away — all kept auto - quirement poses a problem, but you can matically when you submit your records. always save your sightings to be entered At first, this is a deterrent for some peo - later, or store your sightings temporarily ple to start using eBird, since they feel in a spreadsheet (this is made very easy like they would have to start their lists with some tools that have been devel - from scratch, but eBird allows you to oped — see: http://ebird.org/content/ upload your existing lists in a few short ebird/ news/ new -ms-excel-tool- to- steps. simplify-data- upload) or with ano ther

Volume 30 Number 1 33 bird records program and later uploaded sits in a review environment awaiting an to eBird by interface. Currently, you can eBird reviewer's evaluation of the record. upload large datasets from a spreadsheet During this process, the reviewer can ask or from several bird records programs, the user who submitted the record to such as (see: http://ebird.org/con - provide more details (eBird now allows tent/ ebird/about/using-the-ebird-data- users to include links to photos in their import-tool ). This means that no matter checklists) before they make a decision the digital format, data can be relatively about the record. For most records, it is easily formatted for mass upload to eBird. simply a matter of checking the species comments which the user may have al - How does the vetting process work? ready optionally included. Every decision Many of the concerns with eBird in the about a particular record made by a re - past have focused on data quality. eBird viewer requires the reviewer to give a rea - has come a long way in this regard as son for the decision they changed the well, at least partially thanks to increased record to valid or not valid and leaves usage and interest. The eBird vetting pro - space for the reviewer to type out their tocol is simple, yet effective. Essentially, notes explaining the decision. All of this each county (or equivalent) in the information is saved, along with a time - province has its own filter. Each filter stamp, so that future researchers or re - has a maximum number of individuals viewers can see why a decision was made. per month and per species that is “al - If the record is validated by the reviewer, lowed”. If the number exceeds the limit it enters the public database and can be set on the filter, the user is asked to con - seen by anyone exploring the eBird data - firm that it was not a mistake, and then base. If not, the user will always retain the record becomes marked as not valid the record in their personal database (un - and does not immediately enter the pub - less they choose to delete it). At any time, lic database (but appears instantly in the if a reviewer or eBird user notices a ques - user’s account and is used for calculating tionable record, they are encouraged to their list totals). The flagged record then contact the appropriate reviewer.

Filters and reviewers A network of very competent regional reviewers is already in place for much of Ontario. Where possible, existing bird records committees have been asked to designate individuals to be responsible for this role. At any time in the future, these roles can be passed along to new people. The filters for each Ontario county (or equivalent) were painstakingly prepared by in - corporating much of the work done previously by local compilers in the form of published books and seasonal checklists. The filters can be edited “on the fly” by regional reviewers and are meant to be evolving.

34 Ontario Birds April 2012 What would a regional records keeping organization look like under eBird? I propose that organizations create a group eBird account (such as has been done by the organizations that I have already listed). This allows legacy data to be uploaded to eBird, and in the future, regular contributors can share their eBird checklists with this group account so all of the details associated with a record can be downloaded easily and viewed by account administrators. For any observers that do not have an eBird account, the current record- keeper(s) can enter their sightings with the group account. This could be done one sighting at a time or via regular mass uploads from a spreadsheet. The regional reviewers would ideally be the same people or group that traditionally keeps these records and/or votes on records. In the future, this could become an option for record submission to the Ontario Bird Records Committee (OBRC), as some state records committees have already begun.

What would the benefits be? 8. Automatic taxonomic updates While the system I am proposing would 9. Uncovering of bird records from certainly need to have the “kinks” worked people who wouldn’t normally out, it offers many benefits. It has already report to traditional sources (several been implemented successfully in some examples of OBRC Review List areas, despite the number of birders using species have already occurred) eBird still growing rapidly in Ontario. 10. Streamlined data collection for Some of the benefits include: regional bird reports ( e.g. North 1. Standardized approach province- American Birds) wide. 2. Data would be available to every - Acknowledgements one, including visiting birders I would like to thank the thousands of peo - 3. Gaps filled in where historically ple who have submitted bird records to no one has kept detailed records eBird, the eBird teams at Cornell and Bird 4. Easy transitions from one record Studies Can ada for making an incredible keeper to the next product, and my wife for putting up with my 5. Easy to contribute records (do not newest obsession. Of course, I’d also like to “need to know the right person”) thank the hundreds of birders who have bought in to eBird and encourage others to 6. Documentation of regional do the same. And finally, thanks to all of avifauna to a greater detail than those existing and past birders who have kept previously possible the detailed notes to put together regional 7. Ability to document range shifts a nd books and checklists that inspire and teach changes in abundance of common us about the birds of Ontario. species not traditionally tracked by regional bird records-keepers

Volume 30 Number 1 35 Literature Cited North American Bird Conservation Initia - Black, J.E. and K.J. Roy (Eds.). 2010. tive , U.S. Committee. 2011. The State of the Niagara Birds: a compendium of articles and Birds 2011 Report on Public Lands and Wa - species accounts of the birds of the Niagara ters. U.S. Department of Interior: Washing - Region in Ontario. Brock University printing ton, DC. 48 pp. and digital services, Ontario, 703 pp. Tozer, R. 2012 (in prep.). Birds of Algonquin Cadman, M.D. , D.A. Sutherland , G.G. Park. The Friends of Algonquin Park, Beck, D. Lepage and A.R. Couturier (Eds.). Whitney, Ontario. 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Wood, C., B . Sullivan, M . Iliff , D. Fink and 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environ - S. Kelling . 2011. eBird: Engaging Birders in ment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Science and Conservation. PLoS Biol 9(12): Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and e1001220. doi:10.1371/journal. pbio. Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 pp. 1001220 Curry, R (Ed.). 2006. Birds of Hamilton and Available online at: http://www.plosbiology. surrounding areas: including all or parts of org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio. , Halton, Haldimand, Niagara, Norfolk, 1001220 Peel, Waterloo and Wellington. Hamilton Naturalists’ Club, Hamilton, xx + 647 pp. Mike Burrell , Natural Heritage Information McNicholl, M.K . and J.L. Cranmer-Byng Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural (Eds.). 1994. Ornithology in Ontario. Resources, 300 Water St., Peterborough, Special publication number 1, Ontario Field Ontario K9J 8M5 Ornithologists. Hawk Owl publishing, E-mail: [email protected] Whitby, xix + 400 pp. Spring migration of s int o Ontario: an eBird analysis D.V. Chip Weseloh and Tyler Hoar

Introduction and McCrimmon et al. (2011) gave In spring, Great Egrets ( Ardea alba , spring dates by which egrets reached henceforth egrets) are known to arrive certain northerly migration points, e.g. in Ontario in late March and early April 20 March in Ohio. So, although there (Speirs 1985, Curry 2006, Weir 2008, is good information on the timing of Black and Roy 2010). Both Bent (1926) the egrets’ arriva l in or near Ontario,

36 Ontario Birds April 2012