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.