Comments on Four Pre-1853 Seabirds Reportedly Obtained Off
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
402 ShortCommunications andCommentaries [Auk,Vol. ! !0 The Auk !!0(2):402-404, !993 Comments on Four Pre-1853 SeabirdsReportedly Obtained off Monterey, California D^VID S. LEE North CarolinaState Museum of NaturalSciences, P.O. Box27647, Raleigh,North Carolina27611, USA In 1853, George N. Lawrence reported on three Stercorariuscatharractes (Linn) by Lawrence (!853b). specimensof marine birds that he acquiredfrom the The original tag bearsthat name, as well as Buphagus cabinetof N. Pike, Esq.(Lawrence 1853b). The birds, skua.TheAmerican Museum label listed the species all statedto have been from off Monterey, California, first as Megalestrisskua, then Catharactachilensis. were "Procellariacapensis" (Daption capense), "Puffinus In his evaluation of the taxonomic status of Ca- ? Procellariahasitata" ( a specimenof Procellaria tharactaspecimens in the North Pacific,Devillers (1977) cinerea),and "Stercorariuscatharractes" (a skuaspecimen made the following statementconcerning this spec- with an involved nomenclaturalhistory). The two imen: "The remaining California specimen,AMNH petrel recordsare quite extraordinaryand have been No. 46093,is probablyfoxed. It is difficultto identify, regarded as inadequatelysubstantiated (AOU !983). but there is no reason to think it is not a dark mac- The skua specimenhas been regarded by Devillets cormicki(wing chord 373, bill 53, tarsus62, W/T >- (1977) as Catharactamaccormicki, a migratory species 6.02,B/T 0.85).Its origin shouldbe considereddoubt- occurringwith regularity off the west coastof North ful asold specimenswere often labeledaccording to America. Herein, I assessthese records and one other port of entry. Thus at present no specimenrecord of Pike specimenindividually, and then collectively, C. chilensis for California exists." On the back of this with the hope of clarifying their origin. specimen'stag is written "possibly maccormickifide Procellariacinerea (Gray Petrel)is a circumpolarsub- Devillets" and "tarsus 77 mm lonnbergiG. E. Watson Antarctic speciesthat dispersesnorth of the Tropic 8 June 77." After reexamination of the specimen, I of Capricorn in cold-watercurrents of westernSouth concur with George Watsoh's unpublished identifi- America. The specimen (AMNH 45967) discussedby cation(based on tarsuslength and plumagecharacters Lawrence(1853b) is the only report of this petrel from matching thoseof other specimensof lonnbergiat the the Northern Hemisphere. The information on the AMNH). At my request,Dennis Paulsonreexamined labels attached to the specimenshows that Lawrence severalother skua specimens(WSM 43, 49) discussed was not certainof the specificidentification. The bird by Devilletsand agreedwith Devillets'opinion that was first properly identified as Procellariacinerea, at they were maccormicki. Lawrence's request, by Elliot Coues in 1864. The There is only one other specimen (AMNH 46018) feathers of the specimen are old, but not worn, and in the catalogof the American Museum creditedto there is no sign of molt. Pike. It is the type specimenof Sternapikei (Lawrence Pike's specimenof Daptioncapense (AMNH 45965) 1853a),later identified as S. macroura(=paradisaea). At is of the nominate race with feathersshowing little my request, Mary LeCroy and Richard Sloss,Amer- wear and no sign of molt. Northern Hemisphere rec- ican Museum of Natural History, examined the spec- ords of Cape Petrels are problematic,but not neces- imen and concludedthat it was indeed S. paradisaea sarily erroneous.Specimen records from Europehave and not S. vittata.The tern's locality, as for the three been consideredsuspect because they might repre- birds mentioned aboveis given by Lawrence(1853a) sent birds transported and later released by sailors as "near the coast of California, in the vicinity of (Cramp and Simmons1977). There is someconfusion Monterey."The bird is in nonbreedingplumage with concerninga record from Maine (Norton 1922),but no trace of juvenal feathers.The primariesare new an account of this specimen provided by Forbush exceptfor the outermostones on each wing, which (1929)substantiated the origin of the specimen.There are so worn and broken as to make the wing unmea- alsois a recentlypublished, second-hand sight record surable.The ninth primary on the left wing is about for this speciesfrom off North Carolina (Lee 1986). three-fourths grown. In this plumage and state of Loomis (1918) noted that Pike's specimen, from the molt, it is highly unlikely that this specimen was coastof California oppositeMonterey, representsthe obtainedin the Northern Hemisphere.Murphy (1936) most northerly occurrenceon record for the eastern reports an Arctic Tern in molt at latitude 68ø32'Sin side of the Pacific,and he provided a record for 16øN March 1904. Watson (1975) stated that Arctic Terns near Acapulco,Mexico. Subsequently, additional sight completethe regrowth of the outer primaries in Jan- records of these birds off California have all been uary and Februarywhile on their Antarcticwintering considered questionable or invalid (J. Dunn pets. grounds. comm.). On the basisof current knowledgeof seabirddis- The skua specimen (AMNH 46093) was listed as tributions, the occurrence of Procellaria cinerea in the April 1993] ShortCommunications andCommentaries 403 Northern Hemisphereseems highly unlikely. The oc- speciesfrom October to March (Watson 1975). The currenceof C. lonnbergias far north as California is Gray Petrel is believed to nest on MacquarieIsland highly improbable(there are few recordsnorth of the and, although this has not been confirmed (Watson Tropic of Capricorn),whereas that of Daptioncapense 1975),they do occuron the islandfrom Marchthrough cannot be ruled out but needs verification. When one July (Warham 1969). All three speciesalso nest on considersthat none of these specieshas suffered a Crozet and Kerguelen islands, and probably have a documenteddecline in the last centuryand that field similar nestingphenology there. Thus, all three spe- effort for understandingthe distribution of pelagic cieswould be expectedto occurat any of the three seabirdsoff California hasincreased greatly over the sites in the late Austral summer. This also is true of last few decades,the improbability (collectively and Sternaparadisaea. Except for possiblyCape Marigny individually) of these recordsbeing valid is magni- on KerguelenIsland, no placenames on any of these fied. The likelihood that Pike obtained three speci- islandsare likely to haveproduced a transcribederror mensof suchunlikely occurrenceall off Montereyis of "Monterey." remote. Sternaparadisaea is the only speciesin this Lawrence (1853a) in his dedication of Sternapikei groupof Pike'sspecimens that is documentedto occur noted that Nicolas Pike, Esq.,of Brooklyn,Long Is- off California, but the condition of molt almost as- land, had for someyears "devoted much time to the sures that it was not collected in the Northern Hemi- study of different branchesof our Natural History." sphere. Pike was assignedas the U.S. Consul at Port Louis, The reidentificationof the skua as C. lonnbergiand Mauritius Island, as of November 1872 (Pike 1873) the molt sequenceof the Sternaare important in that and collectedspecimens during his travels.Although they provide strong evidencethat as a group these I could not trace his travels in the Southern Hemi- specimens,clearly, were incorrectlylabeled as to site sphereprior to 1853,it would be reasonableto assume of origin. Fortunately,unlike manybird recordswith that he had traveled to the Indian Ocean, at least, questionableorigins, the origin of these specimens prior to being assigned to a post at Mauritius and, has a plausibleexplanation. From the original labels, thus, would have been in a position to obtain material it is clear that all were obtainedby Colonel Pike in from the Southern Hemisphere. the sametime period. The original labels, which con- Although two of the four speciesare unlikely to tain only the speciesname (for at least three of the occurin the North Pacificand the third is not fully specimens)are of the sametype of paper (a card stock documented from the North Pacific, neither Law- with a print pattern on the back and a red border) rence nor Pike knew the identification and, therefore, and have numbers (assumed to be collection field the significanceof three of the specimensat the time numbersof Pike) closein sequence(D. capense639; they were cataloged.This could easily have led to P. cinerea651; C. lonnbergi652). Thesecould represent miscommunicationconcerning the origin of the birds. a number assignedby Lawrence,but this is unlikely Becausethe original labelsfrom Pike'sspecimens are since Lawrence's collection would have attained a still with the birds,it seemsthat thesespecimens, like much higher numericalsequence by 1853.The three so many from private collections,had no attached skins I examinedseem to be preparedby the same data other than the namesof the species.In view of person(I did not examinethe Sterna)and, given many the aboveinformation I feel that it is best no longer aspectsof the technique used, this certainly is the to considerthese specimens' locality asmerely having casefor the skuaand Cape Petrel. been inadequatelysubstantiated, but to considerit as I suggestthat the specimensare from on or near erroneous. the Macquarie Islands southwestof New Zealand, or I thank A. Andors and M. LeCroy, as well as the Crozet or Kerguelen islands in the southern Indian various staff members of the American Museum of Ocean.These areas are the only siteswhere Procellaria Natural History