Chronicles of the Extinct Passenger Pigeon

Original perspectives about vast variety of birds in northern America convey have been an ongoing interest. The original diverse sources convey such unique details of species and their occurrence during past times. This is especially prominent for the long-gone Passenger Pigeon, with Martha, the last living representative, who died in September, 1914.

There is a multitude of accounts of many sorts of writing about the history of this bird. Despite extensive research in former decades, newly available and significant resources have become available for consideration and study. The great number of periodicals — especially newspapers — that are provided online can be searched for pertinent details. In some cases, there is a browse feature which is so essential for comparative purposes. All of the bits of news, especially when considering scattered reports associated with different sorts of bird, are important to any consideration of the history of the Passenger Pigeon.

Because of years of attention to source material that indicate the historic occurrence of one type of bird or another, online resources have been evaluated time and again for more than twenty years. Much of the known news was considered in particular during December 2013, when the local library, so essential for research purposes was closed for the holidays. Days of attention were given to bibliographic material as already denoted within a database of records. Boxes of photocopies were sorted to find one or another essential piece of paper that might contribute to the history of this one bird species.

It was soon obvious that there are two types of reports. There might be a sentence or two on a page of a newspaper, among the local news or as something of note reported by a community correspondent. Among the many published items, there were also significant stories or articles which represent more extensive coverage, and convey especially unique history, or perhaps something notably interesting.

In 2014, it has been a century since the demise of the Passenger Pigeon. To recognize this dubious anniversary, many of the known stories are presented here in their entirety, which along with earlier transcriptions, provide more than 200 examples of stories reported by country newspapers from 1732 to 1887.

These stories are significant indications of original details on dates of occurrence and particular sites. Some are filled with the lore of taking these birds. A few convey new mysteries associated with the history of these birds. Most important, each indicated details can be closely considered, perhaps mapped geographically and temporally, to convey a fact-based history of unique distinction.

Bibliographic details for each and every item provides a composite source records that might be the basis for further research efforts. There are undoubtedly other records beyond the 1200 already known as found by a tedious search of online newspaper resources, with an additional 1400 from history from other sources.

This evaluation of historic ornithology of northern America, is quite unique, and is the result of attention to details for an extended time. It has certainly been a process. It is also an example of how the bird history for northern America can be further considered. The entirety of records of many sorts have and will provide a better understanding of northern America birdlife during historic times. The same methodology can be extended to a worldwide basis.

Currently, there seems to be a myopic perspective of addressing one sliver here or there, perhaps based upon one species or a particular locality, and as issued by disparate sources. History of every species deserve equal consideration, and therein is the challenge. Details associated with specimens, journal articles, books, newspaper stories, personal narratives, etc. need to be combined into one readily-available online source, so that as additional sources become known, they can be appropriately added.

How grand it would be to understand in detail the history of one species or another. Or consider the historic distribution, with an option to evaluate the temporal aspects. Then add in the opportunity to realize birdlife of historic places. What a wonder it would be. It could lead to new contributions, new understanding, special collaborations all in association with a profoundly new realization of historic ornithology.

Who will be the first university professor who's area of expertise is the history of ornithology. If it would work out, I'd like to be among the students that signup for a class that is focused upon this subject. It is only a matter of time...

Researching Twelve Millennia of Historic Ornithology an Expansive Endeavour

More than a dozen years ago an interest in particulars for wild birds formerly known to occur hither and yon, spread from beyond what was given in a couple of books on the topic for a state in the middle of the Great Plains. The focus presented continued in an expansive manner, and it has taken a whole bunch of some more years to reach a point where results are beyond what any early expectations or realizations might have been.

When this particular endeavour - using the British spelling appropriate for a perspective requiring a continual look into international sources essential for original North American ornithology - into the first bird history of a continent evolved from a local to a national to a continental consideration in mid-1990s, there was no particular goal other than having a rough approximation of what might be learned with some particular attention to the recorded information. The focus did change on a regular basis, anyway. There were lapses in attention when the last thing to contend with would be to look at and process more historic references and comprehend what birds were recorded therein. But the condition of inattention disappeared, and during the last two years this initiative has been a primary endeavor with a direct, particular emphasis on discovering what could readily be found among the many special chronicles for birdly history.

There is a vast array which has been written, so there is a plethora of records from the original sources that have been discovered, read, reviewed, and then with particular emphasis on details, entered as electronic records, noting each of the associated minutia in a relational database with multiple tables needed to depict and record the distinct components for so many different species of birds. Particular attention has been given to what, when and where, with an essential, proper citation of reference.

This has not been an effort that could rely on what someone else may have interpreted and noted in a summary fashion. A condensed version was not enough. Consider the endless and ongoing history of ornithology and how it might be understood. Some details have been considered to the nth degree, while other more essential aspects may have been ignored.

There is not an authoritative and detailed list which cites the particulars of observations for the early and formative period of the continent's bird history. Each and every specific record had to be determined in an original manner.

The importance of the first English explorers on their ships is a part of the legacy. There isn't a viable list of species for the birds seen at the Jamaica Islands by Hans Sloane in the latter 1680s to review.

Once the perspective was: Why consider the Lewis and Clark material as the task would be a complete drudge of work and how many hours would be needed to determine the particular place and time of the bird notes for this expansive exploration across the Louisiana Purchase of the western U.S. in the early 1800s? The view evolved to something that led to so much time with a big stack of books and map volumes to process the authoritative information. Then it was double-checked and confirmed! Whew, the chore took more than 100 hours, but the result was another expansion of the temporal period being considered for this research into history ornithology for a particular area, which at least did not spread beyond the chosen continent.

A bunch of burgeoning material beyond the first years of 1800, meant more and seemingly more sources to consider - with a forlorn dismay that each one meant more time to consider - since each one required its particular review and understanding of what, where and when. Every source is distinct and uniquely important, though the value varied depending upon what the source did present about birds.

Notations by Prince Maximilian were not adequately conveyed by historians generations ago so each and every detail could be presented in a manner of finality. This bunch of bird records will require more time as the authoritative renditions have not all been published.

Audubon was among the preeminent recorders of ornithological history, and his records have been published here and there, with no known source to document what and where and when.

And there are so many more people to appreciate for their taking the time to write about the birds they saw somewhere.

The time frame for this endeavour burst into the early decades of the century, and continued to reach the 1850 period. Then there was the special consideration of the wonderful Arctic expeditions of the latter 1850s. Then more revealed by searches of what might be found on the web of information available online. The 1860s are important. The 1870s have details which expand any knowledge of what bird species occur on the continent. And the details continue with the profound and expansive reports and studies and individual efforts for the first years of 1880s.

While the ornithological record blossoms in so many ways, any attempt to go beyond the current time period, could be considered a means of mental torture. Bird journals were flourishing. Reports of observations were spreading with a broad and expansive coverage from an unknown number of places across the continent. So many people wrote about the birds with an unlimited vitality in a wide array of publications. Each one has its value and essential place that points to another distinctive presentation of someone's view which is now part of the historic ornithology.

Any task to integrate the sprawl of details could be an endless task, so those details are no aspect for this consideration of bird history for my endeavor.

This particular initiative has still reached a condition beyond any expectations. More than 1000 narrative sources - using a definition of particularly notable sources - have been evaluated for the information presented about the birds during a particular historic time. When this number reached 500 it was amazing and unexpected. When the data-table entries continued to increase, there was a profound realization that this was a distinct and unique focus that was meant to continue the positive results!

After some approximate multitude in hours of work, the information from so many sources has entered and edited, processed and integrated, into the consistent format of a relational database with its constricts that necessitate consistency.

Any artificial barrier to progress has disappeared and was inconsequential. There have been constricts, but eventually this effort continue to move ahead with an effort to adequately determine more ornithological history. Findings available in newly discovered resources with new records of occurrence just could not be ignored.

This is a vitally interesting endeavour into learning more about a grand diversity of memories of birds from a spectrum of places across the continent and its offshore regions. Any map can reveal the vast scene and places where the birds were known in different ways distinct to the proclivities of an observer.

The details are endless and in no manner can be presented in a bunch of brief words. Yet, there are obvious results that might be appreciated in a personal manner, and might mean something to others if they only knew the importance of history for the many distinct birds recognized as occurring in northern America.

The number of narrative sources considered as of the current mid-July 2009 is at 1005 for now, plus details from a few hundred other anthro-sources with faunal studies presenting species based on bone relicts or artifacts.

How many species are known from this array of details beyond being considered as bird history trivia. The number of species is based on a database where each species must be specifically identified, and which for the region being considered - now in mid-July - is 1645 species. Then add in other types of birdly items - artifacts, decoys, bird-motif garments, petroglyphs, etc. - mentioned by a vast community of contributors that took the time to write about birds where they were.

There certainly will be additional species recognized once a bunch of archaic scientific names can get resolved to a equivalent in modern taxonomy. Most challenging are the species from middle American and the islands in the north and east Caribbean Sea.

The number of particular locations which have had to be considered on an individual basis is now beyond 7500, and since this is one the most important details, it has been resolved to a particular county, state or province. This information is one of most vital important, and gives key details to know about the distribution of the species indicated in details of various sorts within any historic references. For real value, each of the sites does need to be geo-coded so it may be integrated with modern details of bird distribution and range.

The reference list totals more than 2274 at this time. Each citation conveys distinct records, of which there are now more than 88,500 in the database, and which can be individually considered and analyzed and presented in a variety of ways based on the information which was determined from the source matter.

Details reveal what birds were extant in America northward from Panama from the early 1880s back to circa 10,000 B.C., or basically ... this bunch of details is 12,000 years of historic ornithology. It certainly conveys so much to appreciate, yet the basic details would reveal so much more with continued emphasis on meta-data and geo-coding and analysis and hopefully a burgeoning understanding. The value is in the details, though the distinctive, artistic aspects provide so many unforgettable perspectives that should never be ignored.

Several lists or data extracts could easily be shown for the records - perhaps a list to show the number of records for each known species; or the number of records for a state or province; maybe the known records which indicate the former distribution for an extinct species such as the Carolina Parakeet or Passenger Pigeon - but these might be boring and changes do occur so quickly that any summaries would be out-of-date and not accurate. This information is dynamic and should be presented in a similar fashion.

Obviously the details of this endeavour present a record based on known observations by so many observers, and it has been an interesting and revealing privilege to be able to know and understand each effort and to present them in a modern manner. Each individual deserves recognition, and that would be one value of a list of sources. But not here and now.

The list of known sources includes more than 100 additional references which have been identified, but where each distinctive record has not yet been considered and analyzed for inclusion into an electronic database, which is essential for integrating each of the contributions which, when combined, are essential for any consideration or understanding of where birds historically occurred in North America.

With some further research, there will be more particulars to be added to the list of species known to historic ornithology for this region. There will be more localities with geographic records of importance from the past but integral to the future of birds.

This untimely project has been a costly endeavour in accurately determining what bird enthusiasts noted during historic times. Yet? Results are the key, and the challenge is to understand and compile a plethora of details on the history of North American ornithology ... something which, previously, has only been partially considered based on current findings!

Avian Nomenclature for North America Needs Certainty and Stability

An incessant and certainly endless change that causes constant and ongoing consternation to denote bird occurrence records for North American and elsewhere is an always changing nomenclature. Constant changes mean endless revisions in common names and taxonomic order.

It is questionable whether there is anyone's bird list which matches what is now supposedly the accepted nomenclature of the proper common name, listed in a nomenclature order that some self-appointed authorities convey as being correct.

It is now spring 2009, and more changes will need to be considered, again, based on published citations issued in recent and pending months.

One particular foreign species, for example, a starling, is now not the European Starling, but is rendered as the Common Starling, with the A.O.U. group now in synch with the I.O.C. group.

How many bird watchers on the continent have matching records? There has been some discussion about the abbreviated code for the species on an online forum, so there is some attention being given to the change, though when this discussion ends is not readily apparent. Who will update each of the historic designations, as it won't just happen without some apparent effort!

Which list is authoritative and should be a given attention for presenting a valid list of species for some place? Acceptable common names have been revised by groups of apparent authorities that obviously change names and taxonomy based on their understanding of bird characteristics. This view is valid but continually problematic, again and again.

The changes require constant and ongoing revisions that require changes again and again. Some dedicated few working for free and providing the amazingly valuable results online, document and present the historic record for ornithology for a particular expanse, whether worldwide or local, have to deal with these changes.

The views of an authoritative group recognized via a limited perspective, apparently, seem to be indifferent to what may be wrought onto others. What they present is what shall be accepted and used to be correct, without some consideration of the revisionary effort needed to make changes to fit their decisions.

The changes are incessant whatever the source. The self-designated authorities issue more changes in the manner how bird species are identified and listed. The species don't change, but their interpretation always does.

As changes in nomenclature have been unending for centuries, the revisions are based on some perspective of records during several millennium for North America.

Historic ornithologists that have actually spent so much time rectifying the changes in accepted bird names need stability in order to summarize and present a valid list of species in some accepted manner, rather than again and again making another change based on some groups view.

Changes cannot be easily ignored as nomenclature is based on something that is supposedly consistent for a period of time. Yet, it always changes every year, based on opinions that are based in some seemingly obtuse sense of reality. How many of the people that prefer to change common or scientific names have actually had to deal with the records of historic ornithology and the obscure terms presented by people that issued important notices of bird occurrence.

There are probably very few modern ornithologists that have a valid view of the submissions freely given by so many watchers that thought their sightings were important enough for then to write it down and send it on to some publication.

Records need to presented with validity, but since the continually endless, and ongoing changes can't be ignored because some people prefer to continually change nomenclature cannot present a list that provides stability for more than a year's time.

How outdated is the list of species for the multiple thousands of records for collected specimens at the Smithsonian Institution with its hundreds of thousands of carcasses? According to their presentation, the taxonomy is more than an decade out of date, as their bird names are based on information from the mid-1990s.

How can a valid list be presented with endless changes in taxonomic order and approved names?

When will the endless changes be finished and allow the common bird watcher and historic ornithologist to present a list of species of some sort that is not outdated?

Since bird nomenclature cannot be readily presented in an acceptable manner to allow easy edits for record keepers, perhaps the given strictures should just be ignored?

Will this mean chaos and uncertainty? Probably over the long term. Personally, a list presented using archaic terminology is just as accurate as anything using the most recent terms. And such a list has some special appreciation and proven value forged through time beyond one year after another.

Bone Studies Reveal Avifauna of North America in Past Millenniums

Relicts of bone from dead birds that have been carefully removed at different types of excavations provide subtle clues to identify the avifauna present during past millenniums in North America. This type of ornithological research is an interesting and intriguing investigation of fragile remnants of excavated bird skeletons, and a subsequent, detailed comparison to known bones to determine - if possible - the particular species.

Published finding present clues of the birds present at a particular locale at a place and time long before primitive peoples had any means of recording history, and hundreds to many thousands of years prior to the first written record of a bird on the continent.

Prehistoric Law's Diving-Goose. Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

A wide variety of published findings are available. Each scholarly article may provide details of only a few species, but combined results from the wide range of anthropology, ornithology, archeology and related sources do provide a set of occurrence records for a wonderfully representative variety of avifauna extant during eleven millennia. In this case, starting with ca. 12,000 years before the common era (B.C.E.) through two thousand years ago.

A list of known species was determined by extracting bird information from more than 500 published sources. Information was entered into a database, and included the given bird species name, and the particular locale including country, state or province if applicable and county if available. Chronology was determined from radio carbon dating for the site as given with the research findings. In some cases, when several date ranges were provided, an average was used to designate an approximate, but accurate time of occurrence. Also, in some instances, when avian remains occurred in different strata, distinct names for a particular set of records were designated to separate the species into a time frame with a greater degree of precision.

Ancient Avifauna

More than 1850 distinct records provide the details to document more about 305 recognized species for North America prior to 2000 years B.C.E. (also commonly referred to as Y.B.P., or Years Before Present). For the purposes of this comparison, the base year used is A.D. 2000.

The information given is the species in modern taxonomic sequence, the thousand year period of time before common era, and the number of records within each designated time period. If a record is included within a particular millennia, the site chronology was correlated within that period of a thousand years. For example, if a site was dated to approximately 7750 years B.C.E., it would be within the 7000 millennia period.

Notable are several currently extinct species which were a short time ago in the past - biologically speaking - were an integral part of the continental avifauna.

The value given indicates the number of records for the particular period.

List of Recorded Bird Species

Common Name	12000	11000	10000	9000	8000	7000	6000	5000	4000	3000	2000
Black-bellied Whistling-Duck	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Greater White-fronted Goose	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	-	2
Snow Goose	-	2	2	1	-	4	1	2	2	4	6
Ross's Goose	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	1
Brant	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	1
Canada Goose	2	2	3	3	-	6	1	8	6	7	6
Trumpeter Swan	-	-	2	-	-	1	-	2	1	3	2
Tundra Swan	-	-	1	1	-	-	1	3	3	1	4
Muscovy Duck	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Wood Duck	-	-	2	1	1	-	1	1	2	1	-
Gadwall	-	-	-	1	-	1	-	2	2	-	2
American Wigeon	2	-	1	1	-	1	-	1	3	-	3
American Black Duck	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	2	1	-
Mallard	3	3	5	2	-	2	1	7	5	4	6
Blue-winged Teal	2	-	2	1	-	2	1	1	3	-	2
Cinnamon Teal	-	-	-	1	-	1	-	3	1	-	1
Northern Shoveler	1	1	-	1	-	1	-	3	1	1	2
Northern Pintail	1	-	3	1	-	1	2	4	4	1	5
Green-winged Teal	3	1	4	2	2	4	-	3	3	1	5
Canvasback	1	-	1	1	-	-	-	3	5	2	2
Redhead	1	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	2	-	1
Ring-necked Duck	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	1	3	1	1
Greater Scaup	1	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	1	1	3
Lesser Scaup	1	-	2	2	-	-	-	3	4	3	1
Law's Diving-Goose	-	-	1	-	1	4	2	2	3	3	1
King Eider	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Common Eider	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Harlequin Duck	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Surf Scoter	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	4
White-winged Scoter	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	3
Black Scoter	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	1
Long-tailed Duck	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	1	1
Bufflehead	1	1	1	2	-	1	-	3	5	2	3
Common Goldeneye	-	1	-	1	-	1	-	1	-	-	2
Hooded Merganser	1	-	2	2	1	1	-	-	4	2	2
Common Merganser	1	-	-	1	-	1	-	3	1	3	4
Red-breasted Merganser	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	1	1	2
Ruddy Duck	2	-	1	1	-	2	1	3	7	2	3
Plain Chachalaca	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1
White-bellied Chachalaca	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Ring-necked Pheasant	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
Ruffed Grouse	3	2	3	3	1	2	1	6	-	1	3
Greater Sage-Grouse	3	2	4	2	-	4	-	4	-	4	-
Spruce Grouse	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Willow Ptarmigan	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Dusky Grouse	1	1	3	-	-	3	1	4	-	1	2
Sharp-tailed Grouse	3	1	4	-	-	1	-	3	-	2	-
Greater Prairie-Chicken	3	-	5	1	-	3	-	1	2	3	-
Lesser Prairie-Chicken	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Wild Turkey	3	2	10	3	4	2	3	10	11	10	20
Ocellated Turkey	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
Mountain Quail	-	-	2	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-
Scaled Quail	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Northern Bobwhite	3	-	4	2	2	1	1	1	3	3	1
Spotted Wood-Quail	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Ocellated Quail	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Red-throated Loon	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	-	3
Arctic Loon	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1
Pacific Loon	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	2
Common Loon	1	1	-	-	1	1	-	1	3	6	6
Least Grebe	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Pied-billed Grebe	3	-	-	1	-	1	-	3	10	7	2
Horned Grebe	1	-	1	2	1	1	1	2	2	3	4
Red-necked Grebe	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	2	1	2
Eared Grebe	-	-	1	1	-	5	-	5	2	4	2
Western Grebe	1	-	-	1	-	-	-	5	3	2	4
Black-footed Albatross	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	-
Short-tailed Albatross	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	1	2
Northern Fulmar	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	2	1
Bermuda Petrel	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Pink-footed Shearwater	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	-
Buller's Shearwater	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Sooty Shearwater	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	-	-	1
Short-tailed Shearwater	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	-
Manx Shearwater	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3
Audubon's Shearwater	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
Leach's Storm-Petrel	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	2
Ashy Storm-Petrel	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
Black Storm-Petrel	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Brown Booby	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Northern Gannet	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
American White Pelican	1	-	-	-	-	2	-	2	3	1	3
Brown Pelican	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	2	2
Brandt's Cormorant	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	3
Neotropic Cormorant	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Double-crested Cormorant	1	1	-	-	1	2	-	4	7	5	4
Pelagic Cormorant	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	2
Anhinga	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
American Bittern	1	-	1	-	-	1	-	1	1	2	2
Least Bittern	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Bare-throated Tiger-Heron	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Great Blue Heron	-	-	-	1	-	3	-	4	3	5	3
Great Egret	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	3	2	-
Snowy Egret	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	1	1
Little Blue Heron	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-
Green Heron	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	1	1
Black-crowned Night-Heron	-	-	1	-	-	2	-	-	2	2	1
Yellow-crowned Night-Heron	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1
White Ibis	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
White-faced Ibis	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Wood Stork	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Black Vulture	2	1	1	-	1	-	-	-	-	1	-
Turkey Vulture	3	1	-	2	1	-	-	4	3	3	3
California Condor	6	-	2	-	1	-	-	1	-	-	3
Osprey	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	-	1	2
Swallow-tailed Kite	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Mississippi Kite	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Bald Eagle	1	1	2	-	1	1	1	4	4	4	5
Northern Harrier	1	1	-	1	-	1	-	1	1	2	3
Sharp-shinned Hawk	3	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	2	1
Cooper's Hawk	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	1	-	1
Northern Goshawk	-	-	1	-	1	-	-	1	-	-	-
Common Black-Hawk	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Roadside Hawk	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Red-shouldered Hawk	2	-	2	-	2	1	-	1	2	1	1
Broad-winged Hawk	1	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Swainson's Hawk	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	3
Red-tailed Hawk	5	1	5	1	1	-	-	3	6	2	4
Ferruginous Hawk	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Rough-legged Hawk	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	4
Harpy Eagle	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Golden Eagle	6	1	1	2	-	1	-	7	2	3	2
Crested Caracara	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Bahama's Caracara	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
American Kestrel	6	2	2	2	1	1	2	4	2	-	7
Merlin	-	1	1	-	-	1	-	1	-	-	-
Aplomado Falcon	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Peregrine Falcon	1	-	1	-	-	1	-	1	1	-	-
Prairie Falcon	2	2	2	-	1	-	-	3	1	1	1
Yellow Rail	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Gray-breasted Crake	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Clapper Rail	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-
King Rail	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Virginia Rail	-	1	1	-	-	1	-	1	-	1	1
Sora	-	1	1	1	-	2	-	1	2	-	1
Purple Gallinule	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Common Moorhen	-	-	-	2	-	-	-	-	3	1	1
American Coot	3	1	3	2	1	4	-	7	11	5	4
Sandhill Crane	-	-	2	-	-	1	1	1	5	2	4
Whooping Crane	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Black-bellied Plover	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	1
Semipalmated Plover	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Killdeer	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Mountain Plover	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Black-necked Stilt	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1
American Avocet	2	-	1	1	-	2	-	1	1	-	1
Spotted Sandpiper	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1
Wandering Tattler	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Willet	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	1	2
Upland Sandpiper	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1
Whimbrel	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
Long-billed Curlew	1	-	2	1	-	2	-	-	1	-	1
Hudsonian Godwit	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Marbled Godwit	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	-
Ruddy Turnstone	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sanderling	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Least Sandpiper	1	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1
Short-billed Dowitcher	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Wilson's Snipe	2	-	-	1	1	-	-	2	1	-	2
American Woodcock	3	-	1	1	1	-	-	1	-	-	1
Red-necked Phalarope	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Red Phalarope	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Bonaparte's Gull	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1
Heermann's Gull	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	1	-
Mew Gull	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-
Ring-billed Gull	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-
California Gull	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	2	1	-	3
Herring Gull	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1
Western Gull	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	2
Glaucous-winged Gull	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-
Glaucous Gull	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-
Black-legged Kittiwake	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	3
Sooty Tern	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Caspian Tern	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	-	-	-
Black Tern	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Common Tern	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Arctic Tern	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-
Sandwich Tern	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Parasitic Jaeger	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-
Common Murre	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	1	5
Razorbill	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Great Auk	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-
Pigeon Guillemot	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1
Marbled Murrelet	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Xantus's Murrelet	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
Cassin's Auklet	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	1	1
Parakeet Auklet	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Least Auklet	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Rhinoceros Auklet	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	1	3
Tufted Puffin	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	-
Scaled Pigeon	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
White-crowned Pigeon	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
White-winged Dove	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Zenaida Dove	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Mourning Dove	3	-	1	2	-	2	-	-	2	1	2
Passenger Pigeon	4	-	4	3	4	2	2	4	5	5	4
Inca Dove	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Blue Ground-Dove	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
White-tipped Dove	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Key West Quail-Dove	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Bridled Quail-dove	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Ruddy Quail-Dove	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Orange-fronted Parakeet	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Military Macaw	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
White-fronted Parrot	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Cuban Parrot	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
Lesser Ground-Cuckoo	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Greater Roadrunner	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Groove-billed Ani	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Barn Owl	2	-	1	-	-	-	-	1	2	1	5
Western Screech-Owl	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1
Eastern Screech-Owl	1	1	1	2	1	1	-	2	1	1	-
Great Horned Owl	5	1	2	1	1	5	1	5	4	1	3
Snowy Owl	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	2
Northern Hawk Owl	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-
Northern Pygmy-Owl	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Elf Owl	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Burrowing Owl	-	1	-	-	-	1	-	1	-	-	4
Spotted Owl	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-
Barred Owl	2	-	1	1	2	-	-	2	1	2	1
Long-eared Owl	2	-	4	-	-	1	-	2	-	-	1
Short-eared Owl	3	1	2	1	-	2	-	2	-	1	2
Boreal Owl	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Northern Saw-whet Owl	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Common Nighthawk	1	-	-	1	1	1	-	-	-	-	-
Chuck-will's-widow	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Chimney Swift	1	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-
White-throated Swift	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Blue-crowned Motmot	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Ringed Kingfisher	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Belted Kingfisher	1	-	-	-	1	1	-	-	1	-	-
Emerald Toucanet	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Red-headed Woodpecker	1	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	-	-	1
Red-bellied Woodpecker	3	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	2	-	1
West Indian Woodpecker	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Downy Woodpecker	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-
Hairy Woodpecker	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White-headed Woodpecker	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-
Northern Flicker	4	3	3	1	1	4	-	6	4	2	4
Pileated Woodpecker	-	1	-	1	1	-	-	-	1	-	-
Ivory-billed Woodpecker	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Western Wood-Pewee	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Eastern Wood-Pewee	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cuban Pewee	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Eastern Phoebe	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Say's Phoebe	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sulphur-bellied Flycatcher	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Rose-throated Becard	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Northern Shrike	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Gray Jay	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steller's Jay	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Blue Jay	3	-	-	1	1	-	-	1	2	-	1
Florida Scrub-Jay	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pinyon Jay	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Clark's Nutcracker	2	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Black-billed Magpie	5	-	4	1	1	2	-	1	-	2	-
American Crow	1	-	4	1	3	-	1	3	2	-	4
Cuban Crow	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
Fish Crow	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	1
Common Raven	8	3	5	1	2	6	-	3	4	4	6
Horned Lark	2	1	1	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1
Cliff Swallow	1	-	1	-	2	-	-	-	-	-	1
Cave Swallow	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Carolina Chickadee	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Red-breasted Nuthatch	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Rock Wren	-	1	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Canyon Wren	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Western Bluebird	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Mountain Bluebird	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Townsend's Solitaire	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
American Robin	4	-	2	1	1	1	-	-	-	-	1
Red-legged Thrush	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Gray Catbird	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-
Northern Mockingbird	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Bahama Mockingbird	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Brown Thrasher	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Pearly-eyed Thrasher	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
European Starling	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Bohemian Waxwing	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Yellow-rumped Warbler	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Black-and-White Warbler	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-
Bahama Yellowthroat	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Scarlet Tanager	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Black-faced Grassquit	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Eastern Towhee	1	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Chipping Sparrow	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Vesper Sparrow	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Fox Sparrow	1	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3
Song Sparrow	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
White-throated Sparrow	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Northern Cardinal	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	-	-
Dickcissel	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Red-winged Blackbird	2	1	1	-	1	-	1	1	-	-	1
Eastern Meadowlark	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Western Meadowlark	-	-	1	-	-	4	-	-	-	-	3
Yellow-headed Blackbird	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1
Brewer's Blackbird	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Common Grackle	1	-	3	1	-	1	-	-	1	1	-
Great-tailed Grackle	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-
Brown-headed Cowbird	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	-
Pine Grosbeak	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Purple Finch	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
White-winged Crossbill	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
Pine Siskin	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

There are additional records for these expansive time periods which refer to generic species (i.e., goose, duck, hawk, gull, woodpecker, etc.) but these are not included in the list. Neither are bone remains identified to a group of birds such as unidentified waterfowl, or in some cases, simply as unidentified birds.

Grouping the records into distinct millennia shows how the analysis of species varies during a period of time. Larger species - thus larger bones - are better represented in the older periods, with smaller species occurring more often in the more recent periods since the bone remnants have not disintegrated.

There is a large amount of information which could be determined if the records were geo-mapped using the current geographic systems. This would be an extremely useful endeavor to determine species biogeography and to evaluate changes in distribution through time.

The largest number of records are from the United States:

Country - Number of Records

U.S.A. - 2254

Canada - 126

Mexico - 63

Bahama Islands - 49

Belize - 3

This table has a larger number of records since it includes all records and is not limited to those records particular to a valid species.

The number of records from the different states or provinces can also be derived:

State or Province - Country - Number of Records

California - U.S.A. - 406 Nevada - U.S.A. - 262 Utah - U.S.A. - 202 Alabama - U.S.A. - 201 Illinois - U.S.A. - 173 New Mexico - U.S.A. - 101 British Columbia - Canada - 84 Arizona - U.S.A. - 77 Washington - U.S.A. - 77 Tennessee - U.S.A. - 73 Texas - U.S.A. - 71 Idaho - U.S.A. - 69 Florida - U.S.A. - 62 Alaska - U.S.A. - 61 Chiapas - Mexico - 60 Missouri - U.S.A. - 55 Nebraska - U.S.A. - 55 Wisconsin - U.S.A. - 43 Virginia - U.S.A. - 40 Kansas - U.S.A. - 36 Ontario - Canada - 30 Pennsylvania - U.S.A. - 25 Ohio - U.S.A. - 25

New York - U.S.A. - 21 Minnesota - U.S.A. - 21 Michigan - U.S.A. - 20 Oregon - U.S.A. - 17 North Carolina - U.S.A. - 15 Colorado - U.S.A. - 9 South Dakota - U.S.A. - 9 New Hampshire - U.S.A. - 8 Montana - U.S.A. - 7 Northwest Territories - Canada - 7 South Carolina - U.S.A. - 4 Wyoming - U.S.A. - 4 Quebec - Canada - 3 Rhode Island - U.S.A. - 3 Alberta - Canada - 2 Maine - U.S.A. - 1 Mexico - Mexico - 1 Yucatan - Mexico - 1 Oaxaca - Mexico - 1 New Jersey - U.S.A. - 1

The total does not match other tallies since localities where the state or province is not known are not included (i.e., the Bahama Islands and Belize).

One factor which limits the list derived from bone studies is information given for Arizona locales. Many of the studies evaluated do not include site chronology, so the material cannot be attributed to a particular time period, so the records could not be included in the analysis.

It should also be noted that there are certainly additional sources that should be included in an analysis of ancient avifauna. Many of the citations are included in the literature cited for a reviewed source, but are obscure reports that are not generally available and could note be accessed, yet alone get decent consideration. There are valuable additions that would help increase the extent of the base data to evaluate, and help provide a broader view of species occurrence during a particular millennia of former time.

Disclaimer: This is a preliminary analysis subject to change that may occur as a result of further analysis and study, and if additional informational details become available. Further resources - which are not currently available - will also be needed to provide complete geo-coding for each locale that would allow accurate mapping. Currently, there is no foreseeable time when this can be done for the 31,800+ records available overall in the Ancient Avifauna database which includes a diverse bunch of records from excavation and narrative sources through the 1850s.